Naujų darbų apžvalga

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLV (2001), 207–219 SURVEY OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS Survey of Recent Publications LITHUANIA The year 2000 remained marked in memory by the approaching turn of the millennium, the economic stagnation that had gripped the country (and consequently a shortage of funds), and a crisis in the organization and administration of science. Nevertheless, even in these unfavorable years for scholarship, quite a few works on linguistics were published in Lithuania. It seems more convenient to review them by provisionally dividing them into three groups: new research, scholarly editions of old writings, and publications of the legacy of Lithuanian linguistics. Monographs Few new monographic studies appeared in 2000, and this probably reflects the current state of Lithuanian linguistics. The most substantial study in this field, in my view, is Saulius Ambrazas’s monograph The Development of Noun Formation II. Nominal Derivatives in the Lithuanian Language. (Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2000, 352 pp.). In this book, the author consistently continues the historical research into Lithuanian word formation that he has pursued for nearly two decades. In 1993, this research was summarized in the first volume of the monograph, which examined Lithuanian verbal derivatives. In the introduction at the beginning of that volume, the author discussed the principal concepts of word formation and the principles of historical word formation in Lithuanian. These principles are also followed in this second volume, devoted to the study of nominal derivatives. The monograph deserves, and will undoubtedly receive, more than one thorough review by linguists; I will therefore confine myself to a few more general remarks noted in the margin as I leafed through it. The author distinguishes seven categories of nouns derived from nominals: names of properties, bearers of properties, collectives, places, female persons and animals, male persons and animals, and diminutives. This classification of derivational categories differs somewhat from that given in the introduction to the aforementioned first volume (cf. I, 10): there, names distinguished by gender are grouped into a single category, while separate categories are provided for names of persons by place of residence and names of children by their parents. It is entirely understandable that the author’s opinion on this matter may have changed over eight years of work, but these changes were left unexplained, and the new classification is unsupported. After a short preface, the book examines each derivational category separately. There is no single approach: the discussion begins with the principal derivational types and then moves on to others, or the material is presented chronologically. However, the center of each category is generally brought into clear focus, and the principal, most productive types in each category are distinguished quite clearly. The development of noun formation is examined thoroughly by the author, on the basis of abundant data from dialects and the most important old Lithuanian writings. In discussing the principal types of property-name formation, the author unnecessarily distinguishes (§ 3) the types based on the XVI–XVII 208 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS writings (M. Daukša’s Postil, S. B. Chylinski’s New Testament, M. Petkevičius’s catechism). The aforementioned authors of the middle variant of the written language wrote in a language based on the subdialects of the Western Aukštaitian dialect (today’s Šiauliai variety). Later (e.g., in references on pp. 18, 21, etc.), they are identified as such by the author of the monograph. To sum up, productive Lithuanian derivatives with -ysta, -ystė, which, according to the author, are also abundant in the Western Aukštaitian dialect in the 16th–17th centuries but almost absent from Latvian, while a single derivative is found in Prussian cristionisto E 794, lead to the conclusion: “All this allows us to seek the center of this innovation in the western dialects of the Baltic languages” (p. 200). But the Western Aukštaitian dialect is a dialect of Lithuanian, an Eastern Baltic language, so this conclusion seems insufficiently substantiated or imprecisely formulated (see also p. 20). Regarding diminutives with the suffixes -ikas, -ikė, it is stated that they are “apparently most characteristic of the western Baltic language dialects, which have long been influenced by Slavic languages” (p. 89). This conclusion is better substantiated than the previous one, since in Prussian-language texts derivatives with *-iko predominate among all diminutives, whereas such diminutives are rare in Latvian (p. 88). Apart from Prussian, they are fairly common in some Samogitian and Western Aukštaitian dialects. Thus, these dialects are regarded as western Baltic language dialects, like Prussian. The substrate of the Curonians, Skalvians, and Nadruvians is probably meant here, but the author nowhere mentions this. According to the author, the nominal category of place-name formation “is entirely new, having developed on Lithuanian soil” (p. 63; similarly p. 207). This view is supported by the principal suffixes of this category, -idė/-ydė, -udė; -inis, -inė. However, suffixes assigned to the periphery of this derivational category are also used to form place names in Latvian: cf. laukums, klājums; maiznīca, viesnīca; augstiene, priediene, perhaps even bagažnieks, and so on. The author says nothing about how these Latvian derivational types relate to their Lithuanian counterparts. Is this perhaps the result of parallel development, or does it point to the origins of a shared derivational category? The book includes a fairly extensive summary in German (pp. 326–345), making it accessible not only to Balticists but also to Indo-European linguists more generally. The indexes of Lithuanian derivational affixes (pp. 235–240) and Lithuanian words (including words discussed in both volumes of the monograph, pp. 241–325) will be of great help to all who consult it. The book concludes with a list of corrections to errors noted in the first part of the monograph (1993)—unfortunately, a fairly long list. This monograph is truly a valuable work of Baltic linguistics. A new book by Zigmas Zinkevičius, Lietuvių poteriai (Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2000, 272 pp.), has also been published as a study in linguistics. It is based on the author’s earlier work and that of other linguists and historians. The subject is interesting and little studied; analysis of short prayer texts reveals an overall picture of the development of the Lithuanian language. The book is written in a lively, emotive style, at times adopting a journalistic tone. Almost a quarter of it is devoted to historical matters, which are not addressed in this review. The book is interesting and useful, and its central idea—that German influenced our oldest prayers—is convincing. Nevertheless, repetitions weary the reader, and some claims are insufficiently substantiated. In discussing the Lithuanian language in the 13th–15th centuries, the author relies in many cases on data from linguistic experiments. Sometimes this is the author’s only argument. Such an experiment, however, though interesting and possible as a kind of scientific game, has no evidentiary force; its results are probably little more reliable than the fables written in the mid-19th century by A. Schleicher, reconstr- NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA 209 data from the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language. The text obtained through this kind of reconstruction cannot be considered the original form of the Lithuanian prayers and dated to the 13th–14th centuries or later, nor placed in the “Chronological Table of Changes in the Text of the Prayers” (pp. 200–226). The chapter “Christianization of Lithuania and the Prayers” examines changes in the language of the prayers brought about by Polish before they were recorded in writing. Since this chapter contains no references, it is unclear what the author bases his claim on that the translations under discussion arose before the first manuscript records or books. All the more so because later in the book nearly all the same cases are discussed in the analysis of the language of later sources. The influence of the originals on translated Lithuanian texts has not always been taken sufficiently into account. For example, the construction without a conjunction in Vaišnoras’s Žemčiūgos teologiškos žegnonėje 115b₁₈ is considered an archaism (p. 138), yet there is no conjunction at this point in the Latin original either. Having examined the language of Mažvydas’s prayers, Z. Zinkevičius draws, among others, the following conclusions: “Mažvydas included in his catechism the [version of the Creed] that he himself knew, most likely learned from his mother, and adapted it somewhat to Sekliucijanas’s text” (p. 128); “it is in no way possible to claim that Mažvydas translated the Creed from Sekliucijanas’s catechism” (p. 127). The author supports his claims by citing discrepancies between Mažvydas’s and Sekliucijanas’s catechisms. Chr. Stang, the eminent researcher of the language of Mažvydas’s writings, compared Mažvydas’s text with its possible originals in his study Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas, published in Oslo in 1929, and reached the following conclusion: “Mžv. da die litauische Tradition berücksichtigt hat, wo er es, ohne von seinen Vorlagen (Seklucjan 1545 und Malecki) abzuweichen, tun konnte” (p. 16). In his study, Stang established that in certain cases when Mažvydas diverges from Sekliucijanas, he drew on Malecki’s catechism. These cases account for at least half of the examples cited by Z. Zinkevičius (pp. 127 and 128), and thus the conclusions quoted above are not sufficiently substantiated. The sources of the texts quoted in the chapter “Prayers in the 18th–19th Centuries in Lithuania Minor and Beyond the Ethnic Lands” are not identified. Errors have also crept into the quotations from the originals. For example, in transcribing the prayers from Daukša’s catechism “with their original spelling” (p. 98), the word mûłłų is written with a single ł; the word Szwiętoĩ has no diacritic over the o; ſédi is written as ſėdi; the word Szwiętą is written with a lowercase letter; and the word ſwiętą has lost the diacritic after ę; several other spellings are also debatable. A few errors have likewise been made in the examples from Simono Vaišnoro’s Žemčiūgos teologiškos (p. 138): chrikſcʒonilchkoië is printed where Chrikſcʒonilchkaië should appear; moreover, the locations of examples are given inaccurately in several places. Data from old writings are presented in the book in several different ways: in some cases as written in the original, in others transcribed into modern spelling, and in still others restored to contemporary standard language. It is by no means always clear which mode of presentation the author has chosen in a given case. The book includes summaries in German, Polish, and Russian. Sources are listed intermixed with the literature. The bibliography is selective: for example, it omits the aforementioned study by Ch. Stang, devoted specifically to the language of Mažvydas’s catechism. The indexes provided make the book easier to use: “Words, Forms, and Phrases” (pp. 254–262) and “Surnames (Personal Names)” (pp. 263–267). Vido Kavaliausko monograph Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos priesaginių veiksmažodžių kirčiavimas (Vilnius: Algarvė, 2000, 232 pp.) is based on a doctoral dissertation defended recently. This is stated by the author himself in the preface (p. 8), and is particularly evident from the introduction (pp. 9–18), which retains the structure required of dissertations: the subject and aim of the work, its relevance and novelty, and so on. Even the theoretical and practical significance of the work is set out according to these requirements (p. 18). It certainly would have been possible to make the whole thing shorter and more elegant. 210 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS It would have been possible to make it shorter and more elegant. In any case, preparing a dissertation for publication so quickly and publishing it is certainly commendable and a model to follow. The book examines the accentuation of verbs formed with the nine most frequent suffixes (-uoti, -inti, -(i)oti, -ėti, -auti, -telėti, -inėti, -enti and -yti). The accentuation of derivatives formed with each suffix is explained in terms of their derivation and morphophonological, grammatical, and semantic features, with attention also given to the accentual properties of the suffixes and other factors. The factual material is taken from the third edition (1993) of the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno. In individual cases, the author also consulted two earlier editions of this dictionary and other normative works on Lithuanian accentuation, as well as the multi-volume Lietuvių kalbos žodynu. The data were checked using the Atgaliniu dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynu. The book is divided into nine parts according to the verb suffixes examined. The order of the suffixes is determined by their productivity. This order is not convenient: the accentuation of derivatives formed with the structurally similar suffixes -ėti, -telėti and -inėti would have been better discussed consecutively. Each part of the book, and often the smaller sections and subsections as well, begins with an overview of previous research, resulting in unnecessary repetition (cf. pp. 47–49 and 51). The concision of these overviews and the many references can make them confusing (cf. pp. 26–28). The parts of the book have conclusions, which are in turn summarized in the final conclusions (pp. 212–220); there the research findings are grouped according to the accentual properties of the suffixes. The book concludes with a summary in French (pp. 221–223) and a list of cited literature (pp. 224–230). The author’s frequent remarks on questions of accentuation norms give rise to some reservations. They are not supported by specialized studies: the book examines the accentuation of verbs in contemporary standard language on the basis of data from normative works (often comparing these with data from other normative or theoretical works), rather than actual usage. Thus, in many cases, the norm given in the third edition of the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno is proposed for revision chiefly on the basis of an analysis of the dictionary’s own data. Is this not a vicious circle? This approach makes the determining factor not facts of actual language use or the dialectal basis of the norm, but general principles of consistency and systematicity. Another point should also be noted: not everything included in the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne represents facts of the standard language: it also contains dialectal forms and archaisms. In the book, all the data in this dictionary are generally analyzed as equivalent and belonging to a single system: “Here <…> the accentuation of all suffixal verbs listed in the ‘Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas’ (1993) is examined” (p. 8). The conclusions drawn may therefore be inaccurate. For example (pp. 24–25), the accentuation of two verbs with the suffix -uoti – gruoduoti and varpučiuoti is examined. They are exceptions to the general rule that deverbal derivatives formed from nouns with this suffix are stressed on the suffix. However, both of these verbs are dialectal forms (as the author himself notes), and therefore they should not be analyzed on the same footing as other corresponding derivatives or included in general statistical calculations. The author has an unusual understanding of the comparative method: it is supposedly the comparison of facts reported in scholarly literature, the juxtaposition of dialectal accentuation variants and standard-language norms, and so on (p. 18). The book contains extensive statistics, presented quite skillfully in tables and colored diagrams. The language is fluent and correct. Only a handful of proofreading errors were noticed: in the sentence “DŽ₃ fiksavęs daugelio veiksmažodžių kirčiavimo gretybių” (p. 31), daugelio should be daugelį, or gretybių should be gretybes; the sentence “Tai apsunkina aiškinantis tokių veiksmažodžių priesaginio kirčiavimo priežastis” (p. 76) is unclear—perhaps something has been omitted here? NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA 211 As one of the young scholar’s first works, the book makes a good impression and gives reason to expect further thorough and meticulous studies of Lithuanian accentuation. Aldona Paulauskienė. Lietuvių kalbos kultūra (Kaunas: Technologija, 2000, 256 p.). Autorė pratarmėje rašo, kad ši knyga „leidžiama ne kaip įprastas vadovėlis, o kaip populiariai parašyta monografija“ (p. 7) ir „gali būti vadinama ir originaliu socialinės lingvistikos darbu“ (p. 8). Vis dėlto knyga visų pirma skiriama studentams (p. 7), todėl šioje apžvalgoje plačiau neaptariama. Editions of Old Lithuanian Texts Even during difficult times, the publication of old Lithuanian writings continued, albeit not without interruptions. The organizer of this work was Vytautas Ambrazas; his name is also mentioned in the prefaces to both editions published in 2000. The first to appear was the book prepared by Guido Michelini, The Writings of Martynas Mažvydas and Their Sources (Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2000, 731[1] pp.). The book’s title pages are misleading: it is not an authorial work, such as a monograph on Mažvydas’s writings and their sources; rather, it prints facsimiles of Mažvydas’s works alongside their originals. Michelini is the book’s compiler or editor, and the introductory article (pp. 8–18), textual notes, the list of Mažvydas’s texts arranged by their opening lines (pp. 715–725), the list of sources used (pp. 726–729), and the selected bibliography (pp. 729–730) are his work. The book contains all of Mažvydas’s works: the catechism (pp. 61–139), reprinted from the copy held by the University of Toruń; Giesme S. Ambraßejaus (pp. 141–153), reprinted from the copy held by the Kórnik Library; Forma Chriksitima (pp. 155–196), reprinted from the copy held by the University of Toruń; Paraphrasis (pp. 197–210), reprinted from the copy held by Uppsala University; and Gesmes Chriksčioniskas (pp. 211–654), reprinted from J. Gerulis’s 1923 book Mosvid. Die ältesten litauischen Sprachdenkmäler bis zum Jahre 1570 (Heidelberg: Winter). In addition, photocopies of Mažvydas’s letters from the Berlin archive are included at the end of the volume (pp. 655–693). For the first time, the book presents the sources alongside all the Lithuanian texts. In selecting them, the compiler drew on earlier studies by Chr. Stang, P. U. Dini, D. Pociūtė, and J. Trilupaitienė, checking and refining them where necessary. Research into the melodies of Mažvydas’s hymnbook and the identification of the sources of the hymn melodies are largely Michelini’s achievement. Since the University of Toruń copy of Mažvydas’s catechism was recently published in facsimile and is still readily accessible to everyone, it would have been more appropriate for this edition to publish another copy, the Vilnius one, whose 1974 publication is of inferior quality. The book’s introduction, in Lithuanian, German (pp. 19–31; translated by Saskia Drude), and English (pp. 32–43; translated by Jonas Steponaitis), devotes most of its attention to Mažvydas’s hymnbook. It discusses its contents and structure, examines the problem of its editor, identifies the sources of the texts, and traces the origins of the hymn melodies. The text is written in a rather convoluted manner, with some repetition. It summarizes articles published by the author in scholarly periodicals in 1997–1999, while also presenting new claims and conclusions. The introduction briefly discusses and critically assesses the work of earlier scholars of Mažvydas’s legacy. Jono Palionis’s thorough study, “The Spelling of Martynas Mažvydas” (pp. 44–60), written specifically for this edition, enhances the book’s value and lays the foundations for further research into the language of Mažvydas’s writings. The facsimiles of Mažvydas’s works in the book are reproduced from photographs by the Baltos lankos publishing house, used in its 1993 book Martynas Mažvydas. Katekizmas ir kiti raštai. 212 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS In the new edition, these photographs are somewhat reduced, making finer or damaged writing (for example, in the catechism and the Hymn S. Ambraziejaus) difficult to read. The facsimiles of the title pages, by contrast, are enlarged in the edition, thereby also departing from the original. The editor presents the originals of the translations in modern Latin letters, while in other cases their spelling is modernized. Errors have not been avoided in transcribing the originals (at least the Polish ones). For example, in the book Druki mazurskie XVI w., prepared by S. Rospond from the 1948 reprint, errors occur in the transcription of J. Seklucian’s 1545 catechism: zlonkov was printed as zlonkov (p. 77); there is no full stop after the word Cwartha (p. 78); Siodmy should be Syodmy (p. 79); Dziewiąt. should be Dziewiąte. (p. 80); Arabic numeral 1. should be j. (p. 81); the reverse slash \ between the words wszechmogącego and stworzyciela has been omitted (ibid.); Trzecy should be Trzeczy (ibid.); Syodmi. should be Syodmy. (p. 82); Wierzę – wierzę (ibid., twice); the numbering of the stanzas of the prayer Oicže nasz has been misplaced, and two reverse slashes are omitted in its third stanza (p. 83); the same slash has been omitted between the words bożego and pod (p. 85); the paragraph beginning with the words To jest \ o ciele should have begun on a new line (ibid.); no space has been left after the word Christusa (ibid.); novy should be nowy (p. 87); bysciekol iek should be bysciekolwiek (p. 89); Nieczyn should be Nieczyn (p. 101). These errors call into question the accuracy of the transcriptions of the other originals presented—Latin and German as well. In cases where the editor had access to the originals or facsimiles of Mažvydas’s texts, photographic reproduction would only have increased the texts’ reliability and the book’s value. For example, why not take the opportunity to print a high-quality facsimile of J. Seklucian’s catechism, recently discovered in the Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (incidentally, it is the same copy whose photocopies S. Rospond published in 1948)? In the notes accompanying the photocopies, the editor corrects printing errors and explains difficult-to-read passages in the texts (cf. p. 68). There are not many such notes. On reviewing the notes to Mažvydas’s catechism, some of the corrections and restorations raised doubts. In some notes, alongside a corrected or explained word, other forms of it are added in parentheses: kragis in MK 184 is corrected to kraugis, with (= kraughis) added alongside (p. 78); similarly, the difficult-to-read instance in MK 2510–11 is explained as schwentagi, with (= schwentaghi) added alongside (p. 85); flad in MK 2118 is corrected to siad, with (= sėdi) added alongside (p. 81); fauweta in MK 3014 is explained as sau weta and (= wieta) is added (p. 90); ij ftai tima in MK 3122–23 is corrected to ijstatitima, with (= ijstatitima) added alongside (p. 91). What do the forms in parentheses mean? Are they perhaps corrections to the corrections? In a study published in this book, Palionis established that in Mažvydas j/j was not only represented in seven different ways, but also that “the distribution of the graphemes and grapheme combinations (digraphs) representing it was not uniform in the individual publications” (p. 49). Moreover, it is stated there that “in MK, j was more often represented by the graphemes j, g and the digraph ij.” Therefore the corrections schwentagi = schwentaghi and kraugis = kraughis are unfounded. The correction of weta to wieta is also doubtful: the letter e “often also represented the diphthong [ie], especially in MK” (p. 46). The correction siad = sėdi is even less justified, since the phoneme /ė/ “is not represented graphically in Mažvydas’s earliest writings (MK, GA)” (p. 46). In the notes under discussion, Mažvydas’s digraph ij is also transcribed as ij: for example, the instance in MK 283–4 is transcribed as presiprawijges (p. 88), rather than presiprawyges. Yet in the transcription of the Polish source printed alongside its photocopy, exactly the same digraph ij (from the same printing house) is consistently rendered with the letter y (cf., for example, the transcriptions of the words Ktorzij, thijm, godnij, etc., on the same page). There are also errors in the editor’s notes: glauſti in MK 106 is incorrectly corrected to klausyti (with y); regarding the instance in MK 2513, it is incorrectly stated that “the accent mark is missing after testament” (it should be: after NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA 213 testamen) (p. 85); žadžius in MK 288 is incorrectly corrected to žodžius tus (with o instead of a) (p. 88); Schwetąje in MK 454 is incorrectly corrected to Schwetąje (with a instead of ą) (p. 105). In explaining the relationship between the reprinted texts and their originals, the variety of labels under the photographs is unjustified; cf.: literal translation, essentially literal translation, mostly literal translation, almost literal translation, not entirely literal translation; freely translated, freer translation, fairly free translation, partly free translation, adapted translation; free adaptation, free translation adaptation. Do they all indicate different relationships between the translation and its sources? At the end of the book is a list of Mažvydas’s texts arranged by their opening lines. It differs from Dainora Pociūtė’s similar list, “List of Prussian Lithuanian Church Hymns of the 16th–17th Centuries” (see Pociūtė, D. 1995: XVI–XVII a. protestantų bažnytinės giesmės, Vilnius: Pradai, 147–178), in that it includes sections of the Mass psalmody, which Pociūtė does not consider independent hymns; in addition, it briefly describes the relationship between each hymn’s original and translation. Incidentally, these descriptions do not fully correspond to the respective notes accompanying the facsimiles. The book was published with funds from the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language under the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania (designer Alfonsas Žvilius). It is indeed a valuable publication in Baltic studies. It replaces the edition Martynas Mažvydas. Katekizmas ir kiti raštai (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1993), but does not supersede the 1974 edition Martynas Mažvydas. Pirmoji lietuviška knyga (Vilnius: Vaga). The book prepared by J. Gerulis, Mažvydas. Seniausieji lietuvių kalbos paminklai iki 1570 metams (Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidinys, 1922), and its 1923 Heidelberg edition retain, at least until the copies of Gesmes Chriks<em>cz</em>oniskas preserved in Königsberg are found, the value of a primary source. Mik alojaus Daukšos 1599 metų Postilė ir jos šaltiniai. The edition was prepared by Jonas Palionis (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2000, 1331[5] pp.). The publication opens with prefaces in Lithuanian (pp. 7–8) and German (pp. 9–10), followed by a list of abbreviations (pp. 11–12) and an introductory article, “The 1599 Postilė and Its Editions” (pp. 13–22). These are followed by “Textological Commentary” (pp. 23–35). The parallel facsimile text of the translation and its original begins on page 36. The joy prompted by the publication of a new scholarly edition of Daukša’s Postilė is quickly overshadowed by dismay at its poor print quality. The present edition of the Postilė is based on the copy belonging to Otonas Praniauskas, held at the Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania. When the Postilė was published in 1926, this copy served as a supplementary one: only some leaves and the final page of “Errors” were re-photographed from it. Thus, the two editions are based on different copies of the translation. In Palionis’s view, the copy of Simonas Stanevičius is the best-preserved and most complete in Lithuania (cf. p. 1), so it is reasonable to ask why this copy was not used as the basis for the new edition—might the printing quality have been better? We can only speculate that this was prevented by the underlining and corrections Simonas Stanevičius left in this book (p. 7). A comparison of the new edition with the 1926 edition (Daukšos Postilė. Fotografuotinis leidimas, Kaunas: Lietuvos universiteto leidinys) shows that their quality is, at best, equivalent (although they are separated by three quarters of a century!). This is especially evident when comparing pages 279–280 and 620–621, which in both editions are reprinted from the same original: of the four pages, only the first seems to be better printed in the new edition; the other three are clearer in the 1926 book. Let us compare a few more passages from the two editions: in the phrase už tą didį susimilimą io 549, all the nasal letters are visible in the earlier edition, whereas in the new one only the word didį has them; in the new edition the diacritic over the letter e is entirely invisible in the word bedrinikais6₁₆; in the word kantrumas9₂₇ the first letter, k, is completely illegible, and so on. 214 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS Daukša most likely translated the Postil from the second edition of Wujek’s Mažosios katalikų postilės, and finally edited the translation on the basis of its third edition—this conclusion is grounded in a comparison of the works’ structure and content and of discrepancies between the texts (pp. 17–20). On this basis, the book reprints alongside the translation, by photocopying, the Polish text of the Postil’s third edition, taken from a microfilm procured for the Institute of the Lithuanian Language from the Jagiellonian University Library in Kraków by Wojciech Smoczyński. Unfortunately, the Polish original in this edition is of poor quality and entirely illegible in many places (see, for example, pp. 133 (43) and 293 (131): the letters are “blurred,” without their central strokes, and the diacritical marks are indistinct). It is wholly incomprehensible why the original copies held at the Vilnius University Library were not used for this edition (I thank Jurgis Pakeris for pointing them out): the good-quality, albeit somewhat defective, second edition from Jurgis Lebedys’s collection, held in the Lituanistics Reading Room (shelfmark 25 SK-15); the third edition, currently being restored and therefore perhaps disbound and convenient to photograph (shelfmark II 5343); and the recently restored fourth edition, held in the Rare Books Department (shelfmark II 1658). They would have made the editor’s and publisher’s work easier, and the quality of the reproduction would probably have been incomparably better. The editor presents the Polish original divided into pages to match the Lithuanian text. Given the differences in the grammatical structure and vocabulary of the two languages, as well as the freer nature of the translation, such divisions can only be approximate. In some cases they are questionable; for example, at the junction of pages 245 and 246, the demonstrative pronoun (most likely to) disappears. Would it not have been simpler to leave the lines undivided, printing the entire last line at the end of the page and repeating it at the beginning of the next? At the end of the introductory essay, Palionis raises the question of the Postil’s translator. This conclusion of his merits attention: “when reading the DP text and comparing it with the original, one can see that some of its passages in fact differ considerably in certain linguistic features” (p. 21). In the section “Textual Commentary,” the editor identifies the more significant differences between Daukša’s translation and the three editions of the original: passages omitted or added by the translator, and inaccuracies in the translation. These differences are listed consecutively according to their location in the text, without classification. Some are important for identifying the translation’s source (its edition), while others merely reflect the translator’s technique (cf. notes 12, 40, 54, 72, 76, 92, and several others). The “Errata” section (pp. 1304–1331) contains “the more obvious errors made by the translator or in printing.” In compiling the list of corrections, Palionis relied, as he himself states, on Eduard Volter’s corrections. Some of these were omitted; conversely, Volter’s list was supplemented with corrections to errors on the otherwise missing pages 457–630. The list corrects not only errors in the facsimile of the translation in this edition, but also errors in the 1926 edition (these are marked with asterisks). The corrections made by Daukša himself in “Paklydimus teip pataisik” have not been included. Nor have they been reproduced photographically, so they are entirely absent from the new edition: once again, the reader must turn to the 1926 edition, where the list in question occupies five pages. Incidentally, that list also contains interesting dialectological observations. The list of abbreviations (p. 11) is marred by errors: the explanations of the abbreviations adj. and conj. do not match. One cannot but agree with the editor’s view that the language of the translation still requires thorough and comprehensive study. Scholarly editions of translations provide precisely the foundation for such research. Unfortunately, the edition under review does not live up to the hopes invested in it. Critical editions of old writings are used for decades, and should therefore be prepared with exceptional care and diligence. At the book’s presentation, both the editor and the publisher’s representatives complained of the shortage of time and funds allocated to the edition by the Ministry of Culture—perhaps one hundred thousand litas. Nevertheless, it seems that what this sector of our publishing industry lacks most is a simple sense of responsibility. NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA | 215 Selected Writings Over the years under review, quite a number of scholarly editions of our linguistic heritage were published. They seem to have made up for the shortage of new major studies. These are Academician Kazio Ulvydas’s selected Adverbs of the Lithuanian Language (compiled by Elena Valiulytė, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2000, XXXIII+463[1] pp.) and Jono Kazlausko Selected Writings (I. Historical Grammar of the Lithuanian Language. Photographic edition. Prepared for publication by Albertas Rosinas, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2000, XXIV+414[2] pp.; II. Articles, Reviews, Language Culture… Compiled and prepared for publication by Albertas Rosinas, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2000, 324 pp.). These editions offer a useful basis for discussing some general issues involved in compiling and editing publications of this kind; accordingly, both will be reviewed in turn, by topic. The principles governing the compilation of the works under discussion differ. Jono Kazlauskas’s volume includes virtually all of his scholarly works and works of scholarly value, whereas Kazio Ulvydas’s contains articles and studies on adverbs and adverbialization. The thematic approach chosen for the latter volume justifies, for example, reprinting an entire chapter from volume II of the academic Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, as well as the recently published study “Uninflected Parts of Speech in the Earliest Grammars of the Lithuanian Language.” This is by no means the whole of Ulvydas’s scholarly legacy. A separate book, as it were a continuation of this one, could be made up of his numerous articles on matters of language culture. What the two editions have in common is that neither includes new works published from manuscripts. As is fitting, both books open with introductory essays reviewing the lives and works of the classics of our linguistics. The introductions were written by their students, themselves now renowned linguists and authorities in their respective fields: for Ulvydas’s book, Vytautas Ambrazas and Elena Valiulytė; for Kazlauskas’s, Aleksas Girdenis and Albertas Rosinas. The introductory essays do not settle for a simple overview of Ulvydas’s or Kazlauskas’s work, but also reveal the theoretical foundations of their scholarship and their research methods, and offer brief yet incisive assessments of their works. For instance, of the Grammar of the Lithuanian Language edited by Ulvydas, it is said: “it is not a theory describing grammatical structure, but rather the systematic analysis of the diversity of grammatical phenomena that makes this work a solid foundation both for language standardization and for further research” (p. XXVI). Such assessments, offered in both books by scholars whose standing has been recognized over time, are intrinsically interesting and valuable, illuminating the subsequent development of our linguistics. The introductory essays in the editions under review also differ in significant ways, reflecting their authors’ perspectives. The account of Ulvydas’s life goes beyond facts and dates, seeking to reveal the personality of the eminent linguist; he is remembered as a teacher and colleague, and as a cultural and public figure (see especially pp. XXIV–XXV). This approach is also reflected in the photographs (pp. XII–XXIII), which show Ulvydas with his scholarly friends and colleagues, with his family and students, at his desk and at leisure. By contrast, Kazlauskas’s book says virtually nothing about the deceased scholar’s private life, manner of relating to others, or character traits—the authors of the essay clearly regard these matters as distinct from his scholarly and public life and have consciously set them aside. I greatly missed photographs of Kazlauskas at the university, with students, at weekends… The lovely family photographs and portraits on title pages are overshadowed by photocopies of certificates and diplomas (as many as seven!), as well as images of monuments and memorial plaques. The compilers followed similar principles in editing the reprinted texts. In Ulvydas’s selected works, the texts are reprinted from scans (the book’s text was prepared for publication by the publishing house of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language); “observed typographical errors or obvious slips have been corrected, as well as 216 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS a few editorial details. Only a handful of spelling conventions were standardized in light of the changes presented in “Lithuanian Spelling and Punctuation (1992),” as stated in the preface (p. V). Kazlauskas’s monograph Historical Grammar of the Lithuanian Language was reproduced photographically in the first volume of the collected works, so the editor’s hand is not apparent in the reprint. The second volume contains articles, reviews, and journalistic writings newly typeset and edited by the editor: as the preface states (II, p. 5), “a few observed typographical errors and the names of authors mentioned in the texts were corrected here and there.” The editorial principles specified by the compilers of the books raise no major doubts. Were they followed consistently? To answer this question, I read more closely and compared with the originals several articles from each volume. From Ulvydas’s book I selected “On the Adverbialization of the Singular Accusative in Contemporary Lithuanian” (pp. 203–214) and “Features of the Semantics of Adverbs Originating from the Plural Instrumental” (pp. 253–267); from Kazlauskas’s, the articles “On the Etymology of the Name of the Curonians” (pp. 148–152), “Possibilities and Limits in Establishing the Relative Chronology of Changes in the Baltic Languages” (pp. 174–178), “О месте возвратной морфемы и ее ударении в литовском языке” (pp. 127–133), and reviews of the following works: Chr. S. Stang. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen (pp. 246–261); I. Duridanov, Thrakisch-Dakische Studien (pp. 289–291); Baltų ir slavų kalbų ryšiai (pp. 291–294). It should be said at once that few errors were left in the latter book, in which complex texts were newly typeset. Nevertheless, there are some errors and other questionable matters in both publications. Among the spelling matters, Valiulytė consistently writes to cut and its derivatives with j in place of į in the root (p. 207, 262, and elsewhere); anyway is written as two words, any way (pp. 207, 208, 212, 255, 256, and elsewhere); once in a while is written once in a while (p. 264). The spelling error omitted >omitted was corrected (p. 265); the example by touch is printed in italics (p. 260). Nevertheless, a few things remain uncorrected: instead of with the compound's verbal attention, it should be with the compound's verbal component (p. 265); instead of in the durable ones – in the fence-side ones (p. 263); the example with rascals should be printed in italics (p. 265). In the example with eagerness (p. 261), the diacritic remains in the wrong place. Kazlauskas's book corrects the spelling of the Russian words суффиксальная (p. 129) and распространения (p. 130). In the reviewed texts, and probably throughout the volume, Rosinas left the word to cut, written according to the earlier spelling (pp. 149, 150, 294), as well as its derivatives and place names with the corresponding root; perhaps everywhere (pp. 251, 256, 260) was left written as two words; forms of the adjective archaic were left without j (pp. 252, 256, 257, 258, and elsewhere); too much is written as one word (p. 292). As regards punctuation, in the book Lithuanian Adverbs the comma was consistently removed before and after comparative expressions with the conjunctions kaip, negu (‘as, than’) (pp. 204, 208, 209, 212, 254, 255, and elsewhere), as well as in enumerations and expressions introducing examples with kaip (‘such as’) (pp. 208, 209, 213, 254, 265, 266, and elsewhere). However, the same kind of expression was left set off by commas (p. 265): be tokių <…> lyčių, kaip akim aktais <…> (‘without such … genders as …’). Under the new punctuation rules, no comma is needed between the conjunction and the parenthetical expression priešingai (‘on the contrary’) in the sentence <…> laiko prieveiksmiai <…> linksnio reikšmės nė kiek nesustiprina, o, priešingai, ją dar nustelbia <…> (p. 208); nor is the expression apskritai paėmus (‘generally speaking’) parenthetical or to be set off in the sentence Panagrinėję įnagininko linksnio, apskritai paėmus, ir atskirų jo rūšių santykį su prieveiksmiais <…> (p. 266). Some punctuation in Kazlauskas’s writings was also corrected: quotation marks were added after the title “Literatūra ir kalba” (p. 249); missing commas were inserted at the end of a subordinate clause after the word lie kana (p. 128) and between coordinate sentence elements after esti (12 k.) (p. 260). The following punctuation cases remain uncorrected in the Kazlauskas texts examined: the word matyt (‘apparently’) was left set off on both sides, although in the sentence it functions as a predicate, not as a parenthetical expression (p. 253); on that same NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA 217 page, the parenthetical expression priešingai (‘on the contrary’) was left unmarked; an unnecessary comma appears after the phrase dėl lingvistinės analizės netobulumo (‘because of the shortcomings of linguistic analysis’) (p. 289), after the word būtent (‘namely’) (p. 293), before the comparative expression negu J. Pokornas (‘than J. Pokorny’) (p. 294), and before the adverbial participial construction remiantis tuo metodu (‘based on that method’) (p. 178). Several other questionable points of usage also remain uncorrected in this book: according to current language norms, the accusative after a negative verb should be replaced with the genitive (cf. neturi ką nors bendra, p. 151); in the expression Kaip nežiūrėtum (‘however you look at it’) (p. 258), the verb prefix should be changed; the construction prieita įdomių reikšmingų išvadų (‘interesting, significant conclusions were reached’) should be corrected (p. 293). A problem common to many similar publications is the editing of references and quotations. Reprinted works may contain errors made by their authors when citing or merely referring to other publications. I would argue that these should be corrected, if not in the text, then at least in notes, since otherwise they will continue to mislead scholars using the reprinted works. Who, if not the editor, should undertake this difficult but important task? Unfortunately, both books under discussion contain numerous errors precisely in these respects. In Ulvydas’s book, the following were left uncorrected: skanas instead of skanās (p. 210, note 16, and p. 274, note 7); Litauisches instead of Litauisches (p. 210, note 15); Delbruck instead of Delbrück (p. 263, note 6). In a quotation from Būga’s work, vakar should be *vakar (p. 210); moreover, the reference to Vinogradov’s work on p. 207 retains an incorrect page reference: 308–381 should be 380–381. Nowadays, lack of characters can no longer excuse errors in quotations from originals; unfortunately, in the example taken from Endzelīns, the circumflex ^ is missing above i in šuorit (p. 208); in the quotation from Rygiškių Jonas (p. 209), two accent marks were not restored (and three omitted words were not marked); there are especially many discrepancies in Ulvydas’s quoted examples of Donelaitis (from Fraenkel’s book) (p. 214): not only are the diacritics missing, but the original spelling has also been changed; Otrębski’s work is similarly quoted only approximately (p. 204): seven words contain seven discrepancies from the original. Ulvydas’s footnotes are not presented consistently: in the notes to the same article by Šapira (pp. 204 and 205), the journal volume number is given in Roman numerals in one instance and Arabic numerals in the other, and in the latter note no space follows the abbreviated number. References in Kazlauskas’s book were also corrected to some extent: for example, Stavski was corrected to Stawski (p. 148). Nevertheless, inaccuracies remain in references, both in the text and in the footnotes: Vien instead of Wien; Kraków instead of Kraków; werden instead of werden (p. 148); wie ir Bedeutungverwandtschaft was left uncorrected as wie ir Bedeutungverwandtschaft (p. 149); the abbreviation Lit. et Vb. (p. 150) was not corrected to Lit. et. Wb.; the misspelled surname Toivoven was not corrected to Toivonen (p. 248); page references were not checked: on p. 291, 7–99 should be 7–100; on p. 293, (p. 96 ff.) should be (p. 90 ff.). Several more substantial reference errors also remain in this book: Kazlauskas’s review contains a garbled statement that “the ending -as of the acc. pl. of ā-stems is derived by Ch. Stang from *-ās” (p. 256). In fact, on the cited page Stang derives the corresponding ending from *-āns; that this is an error is also clear from Kazlauskas’s own subsequent argument. On p. 252, in the phrase “the phonologization of the new sound ē- (> ei),” the altered direction of the diacritic misleads the reader: it was ē- (< ei) (p. 252). In Kazlauskas’s reviews, the editor arranged the page references in ascending order (e.g., p. 256). Could the author’s ordering have been intentional? How should an editor handle inaccuracies in examples or in their presentation in reprinted works? Checking the examples is a difficult task, often impossible to carry out. Nevertheless, I would argue that obvious errors should be corrected in these cases too (at least in notes). For instance, the following examples in Ulvydas’s work were left unexplained (most likely the explanations dropped out during typesetting): padaržinsaliais (no comma was even inserted after it, before the next example; p. 264), suskydaïs (there is likewise no comma after it; p. 265). Doubt is raised by the author’s presentation of didkūliais side by side as though they were different examples 218 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS and dūtkūliais (the meaning of both is the same; p. 259); the same forms with the same meaning are given there as well, strimgalviais and strimgalviais (without accent marks); the form kìtandie is repeated twice in the same line (p. 211). The reconstructed forms anañde, anañdei, anañdiej ir anañdėj, given side by side (p. 211), are questionable. One more small comment. Since the articles in Ulvydas’s book were taken from different publications and written at different times, the ways in which examples are presented and their meanings indicated vary throughout (different quotation marks are used, and so on). The book would be more cohesive, and more convenient for readers, if these and similar details were standardized in the reprint. The problem of editing terminology in scholarly editions of an author’s legacy merits separate discussion. In this respect, the editors of the books under review have taken different approaches. Rosinas, albeit inconsistently, modernizes some of Kazlauskas’s terms: circumflektinė priegaidė is replaced by “circumflex accent” (p. 255, 256, and elsewhere), and izoglosių by “isoglosses” (p. 290). However, prosodija (p. 246) and kardinalinis kirčio pobūdžio pakitimas (p. 178) are retained. Valiulytė has retained all of Ulvydas’s terms, although some of them seem less than satisfactory today; compare: individualiniai dariniai (p. 266), formalines reikšmes silpnėjimą (p. 205), formalinius ypatumai (p. 208), predikatyvinė prieveiksmių vartosena, predikatyviškai vartojamų <...> prieveiksmių (p. 256), predikatyviniai junginiai (p. 265), bendratinė kalba (p. 253). I would consider the latter approach more acceptable. The terminology used and its system reflect the development of linguistics and language culture, the author’s views, their identification with one linguistic school or another, the origins of their theoretical views, and so forth. When necessary, the editor can explain outdated terms in notes and provide their modern equivalents. The reissues under review also contain a few new errors not found in earlier editions—a highly undesirable but difficult-to-avoid occurrence: in Ulvydas’s book, the faint n in the word drusčin has become an n: druscin (p. 208); where the original had Rygiškių, it now reads Rygrškių (p. 253, footnote 1). On page 292 of Kazlauskas’s book, at the end of a sentence, a semicolon has been used after the word “result” instead of the original period; Daukša’s postil’s words, correctly quoted as kelės, kėlės ir kėles (with a hard l), have been incorrectly transcribed in the collection with l (p. 130); and a participle has been needlessly replaced by the finite form turi (p. 252, footnote 19). When reprinting texts, it would be desirable for editors also to provide the publication details of later editions (if any) of works cited or mentioned in them. For example, in cases where Kazlauskas refers to works he had submitted for publication but which appeared only later, editorial notes giving their exact publication details—or at least a reference to the relevant passage in the book under review—would have been useful. The editors of the works under review have dealt differently with abstracts in foreign languages: Rosinas retained them, whereas Valiulytė did not. I believe that abstracts make these works more accessible to readers abroad; moreover, they generally bring out the most important ideas and new contributions of the works, so I support the first approach—the abstracts should be retained. Indexes—subject indexes or at least word indexes—are highly desirable in scholarly editions of linguistic legacy. In this respect, Ulvydas’s book has the advantage: it includes an index of the adverbs discussed or mentioned in the book, the preparation of which took a great deal of time (pp. 388–429; Elena Valiulytė compiled it with the assistance of the typesetter Živilė Mockevičiūtė). The book also contains a general list of source abbreviations prepared by the editor (pp. 361–375), and a bibliography of Ulvydas’s work covering the period from 1931 to 2000 (pp. 376–387; compiled by Irena Andriukaitienė). In Rosinas’s view, Kazlauskas’s bibliography, “showing the entirety of the works he published (alone or with others), edited, and compiled” (II, p. 6), should be prepared later. I believe such a bibliography could certainly have been printed in the book under review. All the more so since much of the preparatory work has already been done: a bibliography prepared by Vincas Urbutis NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA 219 “Bibliography of J. Kazlauskas’s Published Works” (Baltistica VII (1), 1971, 11–16), and the corresponding volumes of the bibliographic indexes of Lietuvių kalbotyros have been published. On the basis of these two books, published in 2000, only some aspects of the scholarly publication of linguistic legacy have been discussed. Compiling and editing such works is arduous, time-consuming, and demanding of expertise, but also worthwhile. A new development in Lithuanian linguistics is the collected works of Aleksas Girdenis, Kalbotyros darbai (I: 1962–1974, 420 pp.; II: 1975–1987, 416 pp., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2000). The volume reprints articles, reviews, linguistic notes, and even dialogues previously published by a professor who is still actively engaged in scholarly and pedagogical work. Nearly all the articles and reviews appeared in the prestigious journals Kalbotyra and Baltistica, which are still readily available today. The initiator and editor-in-chief of the publication is Danguolė Mikulėnienė. She is also chair of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, which supported the book’s publication. The author himself compiled the collected works. As the preface states, the volume “includes nearly all the linguistic works written over approximately forty years of scholarly activity” (I, p. 11). The texts have not been reworked; minor commentary has been avoided; only a few passages have been corrected, and brief notes or references to later works have been added only where necessary. Three volumes of the collected works are planned. Since the third volume, covering the period 1988–2000, could not yet have appeared in 2000, there will be further opportunities to write about this publication. Artūras Judžentis