Keletas pastabų apie pažiūras į seniausių lietuvių kalbos paminklų leidimą

NOTES | 189 gemine = Akmena (v. š. Akmina [= stone —inserted by me, V ¥/]) —a river flowing through Kretinga, the lower part of which the Germans call Dange“. Does this not show that K. Būga did not convincingly clarify the name of Dane and the existence of the object? LITERATŪRA BUGA, K. 1961: Selected Writings 3. Compiled by Z. Zinkevičius, Vilnius: ir State publishing house of political and scientific literature. FENzLAW, W. 1936: The German forms of the Lithuanian place and person names of the Memel region, Halle. K = F. Kurszar, Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, Halle, 1883. VITKAUSKAS, V. 1997: Kylé —naujybé. Kalbotyra 44, 109-111. VITKAUSKAS, V. 2001: Morphological expressions of Lithuanian dialects, Vilnius: Zara. Vytautas Vitkauskas Received 2002 06 24 Lithuanian Language Institute Antakalnis g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lithuania A FEW NOTES ABOUT THE PAZIURAS TO THE OLdest LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE MONUMENT LICENSE ‘Acta Linguistics Lituanica’ In the 45th volume published A. Yuzhenqiu New work review discusses published book 2000 m. Writings of Martin Mažvydas ir jy sources (zr. p. 211-213). Unfortunately, that review is full of mistakes and misunderstanir dings. In order for the faithful reader not to be misled by the strange reasoning of Judžentis, it is necessary to explain at least something. Iš It is clear from Yudženčio writing that he lacks the minimum knowledge to that must be possessed by students who are already writing a master's thesis in general linguistics: it is not clear to him that the subjects of alphabetic spelling, as Saussure perfectly laid out at — the beginning, must be distinguishXX a. ed from — linguistic analysis, because they are merely a conventional way of representing the expression of linguistic signs: sign spelling expression — — — — value It is also not clear to Judžentis that the most important thing when examining translations is the relationship between the linguistic signs of the source translation, ir which is determined on the basis of meaning: — — signs — — meaning — — signs — — spelling 190 | REMARKS The reviewer’s unrepentant attitude is evident even in the following examples: a) Judžentis writes that Jono Palionio study of Martynas Mažvydas’s spelling “lays the foundations for further research into the language of Mažvydas’s writings” (p. 211), although the most important areas of further research into Mažvydas’s language are not spelling and phonology (which has been quite well studied), but lexicon, syntax and semantics, for the examination of which comparison with sources is most necessary; b) Judžentis announces that my publication “does not replace the 1974 publication Martynas Mažvydas. The First Lithuanian Book (Vilnius: Vaga)" (p. 213). This is a real misunderstanding, because the author did not have and could not have such a goal. If the reviewer had at least superficially compared the two books, he would have noticed that they complement each other: in my publication, alongside the photographed Lithuanian text, linguistic and musical sources are presented, which the authors of the 1974 book did not have and did not provide, in turn delving deeper into the spelling and presenting its transcription together with the photographed Lithuanian text. For those who want to delve into lexical, syntactic and semantic issues, the publication Martynas Mažvydas. The first Lithuanian book will not be enough, because you will need to have sources at hand. If Judžentis had read more carefully the introductory article of my book and had familiarized himself with “the works published by the author in scientific periodicals in 1997-1999” (p. 211), he would have easily noticed that the publication focused mainly on the large hymnal Gesmes Chriksczoniskas, which has so far been little studied: after thoroughly exploring the sources of this collection, only at the end of the work I came to the smaller publications related to Mažvydas’ name, especially taking into account the hymns and their melodies. The connections of the didactic part of the Catechism of 1547 with the sources have been extensively investigated by Ch. Stangas in his well-known 1929 monograph Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas, so that part was the least interesting to me. Meanwhile, Judžentis speaks only about that didactic part, essentially distancing himself from Gesmių Chriksczoniskų. It is even more strange that he did not review the whole part of the Catechism, but only the pages translated from Polish. For the long chapter Uredai ukiniku is translated from Latin, which one must know to say anything about it. After pointing out a few minor proofreading errors in the short excerpt of the Polish source that I transcribed, the reviewer draws the following summary conclusion about the whole work: “These errors also call into question the accuracy of the transcription of the other originals — Latin and German” (p. 212). Only a person who does not know and has not worked on philological work can draw such conclusions based on empty conjectures, without even trying to check the presentation of the German and Latin texts. Or perhaps it lacked not only Latin, but also the 16th-century German language. Incorrect is also Judžentis’s statement that “in the notes after the photocopies the editor corrects the printing errors” (p. 212). Everywhere in the work it is written sk. (i.e. read), not edit. This was intended to emphasize that the photographic text is the basis that must be followed without any changes: these notes are not intended to correct the Lithuanian text, but only to help the reader “reproduce” the structure of the linguistic text hidden under the 16th-century letters. It should be clear to every sensible reader (but probably not to the reviewer) that the forms in brackets, such as (= kraughis- ), (= schwentąghi) are not corrections, but only other (more difficult for Mažvydas) spelling variants, which are presented so that the reader can recognize the linguistic forms more easily. Again, we come back to the same thing: not well understanding the relationship between spelling and language, Judžentis thinks that other linguists are on his level. The inconsistencies of Mažvydas' spelling are well known, and correcting them is certainly unnecessary. The review states: “In those cases where the originals of Mažvydo texts or their facsimile were available to the author, their photographic presentation would only have increased the reliability of the texts and the value of the book” (p. 212). From this statement it is clear that the inexperienced reviewer does not know that, in order to REMARKS |191 In order to speed up the presentation of texts and their sources, the latter must be arranged according to the former, and this can best be done by rewriting the sources. In addition, this method allows to present to the reader “heavy” pages, often easier to read than facsimile books of the 16th century. Incorrect is Judženčio statement about the sources of the publication: "When choosing them, the compiler relied on the earlier Chr. Stango, P. U. Dinio, D. Pociūtės, J. Trilupaitienės studies, checked and corrected them if necessary” (p. 211). This statement applies only to a small part of the publication — the Catechism of 1547, because Stangas indeed identified and presented the sources of all linguistic texts, and Trilupaitienė analyzed the melodies of the Catechism hymns. However, this cannot be said about the source of the work Giesme S. Ambrafšeiaus, which Dini presented in his study based on the Latin version of the hymn published in a church book of the 20th century. Meanwhile, my publication contains the Renaissance text of the main source of the hymn Te Deum laudamus according to the book of Mažvydas’ time; Furthermore, a long melody used by Mažvydas, from which Dini dissociated himself, has also been identified, reprinted from the Czech hymnal Piesnie Chwal Božskych of 1541. I first presented the Polish source of this hymn based on the Seklucjan hymn Pieśni duchowne a nabožne published in 1547 in Kraków, based on a reprint by T. Wierzbowski in 1897, since the only surviving copy until the 20th century was lost at the end of the Second World War. After examining the printed text on pp. 90-91, I found that there are two hymns to be distinguished and that the lines Ant Diewa dangun Pegima tayp perwersket, gedodami ieyb grafSey susandaru wissi gedotumbit is not the fourth stanza of the hymn (as Dini claimed), but only the introductory commentary of the second hymn. The above-mentioned statement of Judžentis at least applies to the huge work Gesmes Chriksczoniskas, which occupies almost three quarters of all Mažvydas' writings. The musicologist Trilupaitienė did not touch the melodies of Gesmių Chriksczonis in her works published before 2000: my publication identifies and presents for the first time the sources of dozens of hymnal melodies. Speaking about the attitude of the literary scholar D. Pociūte to the sources of the Chriksczonian hymns, Judžentis was not even able to understand the author’s formulation “except for... parts of the Mass psalmody.- ... Translations of the Old Testament psalms are not included here, because they are a separate group of texts” (XVI-XVII a. protestantų bažnytinės giesmės, p. 147). He writes: "The list of Mažvydo texts according to the first lines differs from a similar list compiled by Dainora Pociūte... in that it contains parts of the Mass psalmody- ". So where have the numerous and important translations of the Old Testament psalms gone? Moreover, Judžentis did not notice that Pociūtė distanced herself from dozens of prayers in Gesmės Chriksczoniskos that were not related to the theme of her monograph. If Judžentis had been more familiar with D. Pociūte’s monograph, he would have noticed that in identifying the German and Latin sources of Gesmių Chriksczoniskų she relied on two works published in Germany in the 19th century: Ph. Wackernagelio antologija The German church song from the longest period to the beginning of the 17th century. and E. Koch’s study Geschichte des Kirchenlieds und Kirchengesangs der christlichen, insbesondere der deutschen evangelischen Kirche (the latter often only gives the beginning of the hymns, so in many cases Pociūtė’s references to Koch’s study do not allow to find the full source). Moreover, Pociūtė did not establish her connections with Seklucijan’s works on the basis of the hymns Piešni duchowne a nabožne and Piesni Chrzešcianskie, dawnieisse y nowe, but on the basis of Warmiński’s monograph A. Samuel i Jan Seklucyan, which only contains the beginning of the hymns. In preparing my publication, I went a different way: after finding and ir researching several dozen books from Mažvydas’ time quoted in my bibliography, I transcribed the texts and melodies from them. This allowed ne only to rely on primary sources, but for ir the first time to establish that the majority of the Chrysczonian sources of the Gesms were taken from a few specific 16th-century books (Luther’s Clergy Lieder, Lossiaus Psalmodia, Bohemian brothers' hymn Ein New Geseng book- 192 | NOTES len and Luther's Psalms). The longest and biggest stage of my work was the search for 16th-century books ir Identification of the sources of Mažvydo hymn, because Gesmes Chrysczonis is a complex set. Only without having any sense about the search for the sources of ancient writings ir Judžentis could have written that "the book is not an author's work ... Michelinis is the author of the book, the drafter, the ar editor." ir (p. 211). After all, it was only after ir finding and examining the sources that it was possible to set out what, in the words of Judžentis, belongs to my feathers, but this was, apparently, ir difficult for him to understand, because he had to complain that "written rather confusing" (p. 211). The statement “Unreasonable variety of photographic signatures su interferes with the explanation of the relation of the reprinted po texts to the originals” (p. 213) clearly shows that Judžentis lacks elementary philological education: otherwise it would have been clear to him that the connection of each individual specific work with the sources is peculiar, has its own su “individuality”, which can be described in different ways; three decades ago a linguist G. Lakoff has written a great article about this Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic fuzzy of concepts (‘Journal of Philos. Logic" 2 [1973], p. 458-508), which I would advise JudZenciu to get acquainted with. In general, before evaluating the research and ir jų publications of ancient language monuments, we should at least try to understand their nature, content and problems. Guido Michelini Received 2002 07 03 University of Parma Viale S. Michele 9/A, I-43100 Parma, Italy Show on map [email protected]