Lietuvių kalbos leksikos gryninimo tradicija ir dabarties tendencijos

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XLII (2000) Loreta VAICEKAUSKIENĖ Lithuanian Language Institute, Vilnius LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES LEXICON CLEARANCE TRADITION IR DABARTIES TRENDS This article intends to examine the legacy of the first and ir later lexical normers, the lexical purification efforts and jų the attitude to foreign words. The ir objective of į the historical review is to show that — In Lithuania, debtors have a peculiar old history of ir standardization, which is linked to the current issues of su language. Looking at the past, one aspect of debt į standardization first emerges – the deliberate substitution of Lithuanian words. The — first authors jų of Lithuanian writings, translators, without any norming theories, relying, apparently, only on intuition, began to purify the lexicon with newly created words of the living language, consciously choosing a more difficult path than recklessly ar accepting every foreign word. t. y. It is difficult to identify exactly the author ne of the novel, it is ar always clear, the word appeared as a substitute ar for a loan, was created in need of a name for some new concept. Although researchers of ancient literature often have to rely on conjectures, the XV I— XVII lexical a. purifier most consensually consider K. Sirvydas. Sirvydas has changed even international words, for example, philosophy into protolove, — pedagogy into childminder, theatre into — magic, melancholy — into delusion, fantasy into — sign-maker, veterinary into — horse-man, architecture into — housekeeping. — (Sabaliauskas 1994: 181-182; Pakalka 1979: 65-66; Palionis 1995: 82). Like ir other authors, ne all Sirvydo novels survived because the Lithuanian language In the late a. 19th century, it was not widely used in scientific matters or in public life. However, his dictionary was extremely popular (five editions were published in a century, from 1620 to 1713), and with each new edition there were more and more borrowed substitutes, for example: tavoras — goods, pekla — hell, slūžiju — service (Pakalka 1979: 72). The dictionary was used by many others —lexicographers, translators, writers, who helped spread the words used today: pronunciation, quality, camel, thinker, cotton, pronoun, offense, printing press, scale, rule, market, kitchen (Balašaitis 1984: 59). The non-implemented innovations should not be surprising, later we will see that this was not avoided by any, even the most talented creator. Although all scholars of ancient writing emphasize that the situation of the Lithuanian language changed in the 18th century, the work of its promotion was basically uninterrupted and continued in Lesser Lithuania (it is only a pity that until the 19th century almost no contacts were maintained with Greater Lithuania). M. Merlin, the priest of Gumbinė, raised the idea of language reform and made a specific project for its purification and standardization. In 1706 he published Principium primarium in lingua Lithvanica. His main principles were to speak in the pure language of the people, because Lithuanians do not understand foreign words; borrowed words are best replaced with equivalents found in dialects, only in the absence of these introduce new ones; need to give up even established adulteries 200 su ir (Palionis 1995: 125). Merlin’s booklet found supporttų ers: Schulcas, Ruigys J. and P. others ir followed the same principles. For example, in Ruigi's dictionary “Lithuanian-German and German-Lithuanian Lexicon" (1747) a note added to many Slavisms e Polon, e pol., e.g.: arielka, klapčius, gadynė, iškada, nedėlė, pėtnyčia, šliūbas, žyvatas. By the way, Germanisms, apparently, were so common that jų there is no reference to them, jų although the dictionary is full of them, e.g.: kliucis, plecius, stuba, špykėrė, šiupelė (At the very 1984: 65). To end of the century, the principle of language purity was raised again in the discussion between K. Milkas and G. Ostermejer, who prepared separate hymnals and wanted to defeat each other. Both of them raised the purity of ir language clarity (negatively evaluated unclear novelties), emphasized the harm of literal translation. Although the Lithuanian language had to wait for a long time for a more scientific research work on borrowed words, the tendency to avoid foreign words was clearly formulated. Essentially the same language teachers are transferrmo ed į In his study a. “Philological critical remarks on the Lithuanian Bible” (1816-1824), written in German, L. Rėza states that he strived for the purity, regularity and clarity of language, demanding that his writings be based on the spoken language of the people, written in a figurative manner and without the use of barbarisms (Zinkevičius 1990: 286). In Greater Lithuania, thanks to the efforts of the famous bishop of Žemaitija J. A. Giedraitis, in the edition of the New Testament (1816) a number of borrowed words (mainly polonisms that were widespread at the time) were replaced with Lithuanian words: čėsas —laiku, zokonas —įstatymu, sūdas —indu, etc. One of the most prominent purifiers of the 19th century lexicon is probably S. Daukantas, who created even more novelties than Sirvydas. According to G. Subačius, Daukanto three-volume dictionary of Polish-Lithuanian languages contains about 3800 new words (Subačius 1987: 152-154), including, of course, borrowed substitutes. This Daukantas replaced dziegorius with clock, created such grammatical terms as adjective, noun (Palionis 1995: 179). In changing foreign words, Daukantas used dialect data, used Sirvydas’s new words, made semantic values (locality, cf. cross, cf. glory cross; translate and some of its grammatical terms: parts of speech (partes orationis), degree (gradus), language science (Sprachlehre). Although a large part of Daukanto’s novelties have not been widely disseminated, this does not diminish the significance of his widespread approach to language — the very idea of taking care of language, the opposition of foreign and own words, the efforts to find substitutes, the principle of language purification. In spite of the efforts of the authors mentioned above, in the late 19th — early 20th centuries the Lithuanian language was still full of Slavic words. Aušra began to fight against unnecessary debtors: its enthusiastic collaborators, especially M. Akelaitis, A. Vištelis, J. Miliauskas-- Miglovara, made new things themselves, spreading the creations of others. To make it clearer, a new word or a foreign word more familiar to readers was used next to one another, one of them being presented in parentheses, e.g.: byla (prova), dirbtuvė (pabrika), kariauna (vaiskas), bravoras (degtuvė) (Palionis 201 1995: 312). Aušrininkai provided equivalents to ir international words, e.g.: apšvietumas „civilization”, senraštvietė „archive”, rašliava literatura”, juokasžodis „comedy”, šviesūnas „philosopher”, pradeivis „initiator”, oramieris „barometer”, šiltamieris,,thermometeras”, savininkas „egoistas”, pirmokas „atom”, vilkalbis „philologist”, meilraštis „lyrika”, pamėklė „irony” (Palionis 1995: 252—253). Because the Aušrininkai lacked linguistic preparation, there was a lot of confusion in the newspaper, for example, sometimes the etymology of words was misunderstood and some foreign words were considered Lithuanian words. Today, the significance of “Aušra” for the history of the standardization of debts can be assessed in various ways, but it is necessary to take into account the historical context of the time and the situation of the Lithuanian language, the need to raise Lithuanian national self-consciousness. When the time came to deal with language issues more specifically and clearly, the voice of Varpas, and later of Jonas Jablonskis, could already be heard in the language purification soil prepared by the collaborators of Aušra. Although more moderate than the Dawnists, the bellmen did not avoid extremes, changing international words, such as: alias "pseudonym", saunorosty "egoism", zinpaišys "correspondent", the latter "conservative", antnosiai "akulioriai", virtuvas "samavoras". In order to make it easier for the reader to understand, Varpas, like Aušra, sometimes presented the usual borrowed or new word in parentheses, e.g. teismas (sūdas), žingūnė (pačta), učitelis (mokytojas). However, the most important thing to mention in connection with Varpa is the linguistic activity of Jonas Jablonskis. Jablonski did not leave any formulated principles of lexical purification, but from his articles on language one can get a fairly clear picture of his attitude to borrowings. Jablonski did not consider foreign words to be clearly foreign to the common language, but when considering their fate, he took into account when they appeared in the language, what meanings they used in dialects, whether they were known, and whether there was anything to replace them. In those cases where the foreign word did not violate the Lithuanian lexical system, when it was supported by the motives of encroachment, spread and other reasons, it was not changed. Thus, Jablonskis corrected only, in his opinion, unquestionable barbarisms, e.g.: abrozdas, anūkas, apieka, biskelis, bujoti, čėsas, darmai, kytras, kukorka, liekarsta, macnas, navatnas, padlagas, pečius, ponas, smertis, sosiedas, šmotas, šposas, veselija, viedras, viera, zabova, zerkolas and others (Piročkinas 1977: 102-105; Palionis 1959: 19). Unlike earlier purists, Jablonski did not avoid international words, for reasons of clarity he limited their use only stylistically — not in scientific literature; replaced foreign words with new ones or with words from dialects and old writings (followed the principle that by changing or limiting the meaning, old words can be adapted to mean new concepts- ); here are some of the popular words he introduced: buddy, floor, cunning, cork, stairs, death, bench, master, order, medicine, dead man). Jablonski paid particular attention to the correctness of the construction of constructive words (he valued a borrowed word more than a poorly constructed one), as evidenced by the 202 many of his reworked or rejected constructs. “Jablonski was a true master of word creation, some of his new creations were later found in dialects” (Salys 1983: 168). Iš truthless There are few words of Jablonski, e.g.: conjunct „synonym“, moneybox „treasure“, adjective „original“ (Palionis 1959: 25). Jablonski- — ’s legacy as a — language practitioner is supplemented by The Contribution of Booga. The real strangerships ir Buga eliminated iš common language, but collected them for the dictionary as a historian of language culture, to ir whom all words are equal, realizing that „there is no language in the world whose dictionary does not contain words of foreign origin“ (Būga 1922: IV). Standardization of prostitution, provision of substitutes It is based on the principles of functional purposefulness of ir historical analysis and actual usage. He instructed to take into account the į context of the use of foreignness, forbade “innovating” the texts of ancient writers: “In certain circumstances we only ne can, but must, use the clear ir foreignness of the vocabulary. [...] Donelaitis must remain with his su sopagais glūpu, ir Baranauskas o with his — su šiškami, iščinto kapčiumi” ir (Būga 1959: 37). Languages ‘susinimu’ ir ‘darkymu’ It was called the "Criminal Novels" by Bogusław Bóga. Having proved that the word changed by the language purifiers is not a loanword, Būga defended such words as skriauda, sarmata, krėslas, kūdikis, labas, marios, prašyti, vilna and others. ją — — The words, the representatives of pronounced foreign words, which have not yet taken root in the spoken language, do not make the language alive, smooth” (Zinkevičius, Kabelka 1958: 99). Furthermore, Būga was outraged by the new words when they were used to change the names of non-existent concepts in Lithuanian. It seemed to many that Būga would undermine the work of “literalization” of the Lithuanian language, but he did not oppose the provision of substitutes in general, only did not want everything to be changed without rethinking, 0 put particularly strict requirements on newcomers. In the first decades of the 20th century, the work on language standardization began to settle down, becoming more and more systematic, no longer limited to words introduced by individual enthusiasts. On the proposal of Mr Jablonskis 1921 m. was formed the Terminology Commission, in o the same year and subcommission for the preparation of terms. In addition to Jablonskis, it included K. Būga, A. Vireliūnas, A. Dambrauskas, P. Dovydaitis, P. Mašiotas, A. Varnas and others, but its activities, which were inclined towards radical purism — the constant forging of new words — quickly outraged some members. After Jablonski’s refusal to cooperate and withdrawal, and after the death of Buga, the commission went to even greater extremes: they tried to change such old and established words as electricity, theatre, director, energy. We can mention several new creations of active creator S. Dabušis: buitpieša “biography”, sunflower “orange”, big tree “genius”, fountain “spring” and others. The commission was dismissed shortly after causing dissatisfaction, and a new one was established in 1925. J. Jablonskis was appointed its chairman, J. Balčikonis, A. Salys, P. Skardžius were involved in the work. The new commission considered terms in surgery, veterinary medicine, artillery, land reclamation, land management and many other fields, returned international terms instead of new ones. 203 Important was Jablonski introduced the principle: terms, not being in the jų spoken language, should be created by specialists, o linguists only evaluate them from the point of view of the ir correctness of the living language. Here are some of the new features of the old commission rejected by Jablonski: agna “energy”, rejoiced “triumph”, fleshly “organ”, written nė "literature", employed "culture", "obituary", meaningful "symbol". Incensed, Jablonski wrote: “We will have new work until we get used to using them properly, and when we are used to 0 them we will have to learn new iš things again after finding where to put our thrown current words” (Jablonskis 1935: 307-308). 1926 m. After Jablonski refused to be the chairman, the Ministry of Education disbanded the commission, entrusting its work to Kaunas University, where 1927 m. another commission was formed. Į ją entered P. Avižonis, S. Šalkauskis ir J. Balčikonis. However, the new commission never began its work. Only in 1933, when the journal „Gimtoji kalba“ began to be published, after a long break, the discussion of terms was resumed, and in 1935 a permanent Terminology Section was formed at the Lithuanian Language Society (chairman P. Skardžius, members: J. Balčikonis, J. M. Laurinaitis, A. Salys, S. Šalkauskis, A. Vaičiulaitis), whose resolutions, although they did not have legal force, greatly contributed to the creation and codification of terms. Before the war, a great deal of work was done on the standardization of terms: the Lithuanian Dictionary of Botany, S. Šalkauskas’s General Terminology of Philosophy were published, and a number of sports, theatre and scientific terms were discussed. It is possible to mention the sports terms used in the press in 1936: penalty (instead of penalty), goal (instead of goal), corner (instead of corner), half (instead of half), foul (instead of foul), midfielder (instead of halfback), goalkeeper (instead of goalkeeper), etc. (Piročkinas 1978: 174—178; Palionis 1995: 283; Sabaliauskas 1994: 295; Piročkinas 1986: 55; Keinys 1967: 27—28; 1938 (1938). In 1936, the collaborators of the “Native Language” adopted the following norming provisions: not to introduce easily substitutable foreign words into the common language (i.e., to leave them outside the norm); try to make the language as pure as possible, to leave only as many borrowings as are inevitable (here is the principle of norming, the extent of borrowing — take only what cannot be changed!- ); not to avoid international foreign words, but instead of some more common ones to recommend using properly formed own words (equivalents). The issue of debts was one of the most important for this magazine. It was necessary to determine which foreign words should be used and which should be replaced with our own. This could only be done after studying all foreign words used in Lithuanian. In this field, Būga had already done a great deal, and his work was continued by Skardžius, a supporter of moderate purification, who proposed “going the middle way” and replacing borrowed words after careful consideration and finding substitutes of regular construction that did not differ from living language (Skardžius 1997: 79-84). Many foreign words were successfully replaced by Lithuanian words in the pre-war “Native Language”, without which we could not imagine our dictionary today: abzacq —paragraph, arkūšą —sheet, lapu, konvertq —envelope, etc. (Jurkynas 1938: 82-83). 204 Balčikonis was also a great supporter of living language words. “When making a term, we must first look at the living language to see if we can find a suitable word there,” he wrote. —The dictionary of the living language can provide many substitutes for barbarisms… When choosing words with more devotion, one can catch beautiful terms from the folk language” (Balčikonis 1978: 164-165, 195). He was particularly cautious about new words, following Bug: he preferred to use a foreign word, especially if it was widely used in popular language, for example: aptieka, aficierius, materijolas, vakacijos. In 1937, the review of the edition of the newspaper "Gimtoji kalba" wrote: "We are not so extreme: international foreign words, which are difficult to replace with quite suitable Lithuanian words, are not strictly avoided, since we clearly know that a great extreme will not yield any fruits here. But, where possible, we ourselves use and advise others to use more Lithuanian words, e.g.: vaidmuo, nesąmonė, pradininkas, lingynės, gaubtas, paplūdimis, etc. instead of rolė, absurdas, iniciatorius, lisorai, abažūras, pliažas” (GK 1937: 119). This is why the tendency toward extreme purism was not characteristic of all language purifiers. After the war, the criterion of purity continued to be observed in lexical standardization. They were trying to avoid only one language borrowings, and they continued to look for substitutes (special publications to change foreign words and introduce new ones). International words were allowed, although, of course, Lithuanian equivalents were also proposed. Skardžius, who had moved from Lithuania to the United States, continued his language purification activities. He wrote several articles and reviews on the subject of borrowed words and their substitutions, and in 1973 he published a dictionary “Lithuanian equivalents of international words”, mainly for language practice, to popularize substitutions (especially less used ones). The dictionary contains 900 international words and 1200 equivalents (Skardzius 1998: 427-507). It is difficult to look at the current language changes from the outside, because the use of borrowed words takes time to settle. It is not yet clear what will become a true language phenomenon, and what will remain a one-day witness of the era. However, we have to define our attitude to foreign words now — whether we will follow the centuries-old, perhaps consciously formed, tradition of purifying language passed down from one generation to another, or whether we will continue to look for substitutes. If we do, how and what? What conclusions can be drawn from the history of debt ratings? Past experience has shown that not every proposed innovation is adopted, but only a small part of them. It is also obvious that dilettantistic extreme purism and violence have not given and will not give good results, especially in a democratic society, which Lithuania seems to want to be. However, it is worthwhile to look for equivalents, to create substitutes for new foreign words (using our language-- making models) and to introduce them (only, of course, gradually, by strictly prohibiting them in a number of steps): after all, the influence of the enlightened people of earlier times was not limited only to the time of their life — the introduced Zodzis, the attitude to language, the example of its cultivation and purification did not disappear. 205 In order to perform the standardization work professionally, it is first necessary to investigate the current debts, (and how much) iš jų to admit į language for o which substitutes could be provided. Here, the prevalence or statistical criterion is to be remembered: a certain amount of borrowings in a language is inevitable, but the quantitative structure of the language must not be violated. In the case of foreign words, the criterion of purposefulness is important: it is ir not appropriate to use a foreign word if there are Lithuanian substitutes. However, purposefulness is inseparable from functional diffusion: one way is to evaluate public language, another is to evaluate the foreignness of everyday spoken language, and the third is to — evaluate use for stylistic reasons in fictional language. The — jų use of international words with clear equivalents should also be functionally restricted. By the way, the concept of the international word should probably be reviewed. Ką to be considered a true international word, for which traditionally only an equivalent is proposed, if the English language affects many ir modern languages, the same loanword spreads lightning fast in all of them? Ar We'll borrow them all? (Jablonski first left the words of classical origin as international, and now it seems that this principle is also being followed.) Having defined the relationship between the conscious norming of ir the spontaneous language development, the traditional criterion of language purity, which ir has become active today, should continue to be applied, of course in su combination with others. One loan iš spreading sources — translations (it is known that in translations the percentage of borrowed words is always higher). This is not new, but today it is worth noting the particularly flourishing į craft of translation and the (and written, ir spoken) influence on our language. How should sensible translators of today, who do not want to use foreign words, behave? Linguists often have no time to cover everything and cannot ir provide all substitutions quickly. Ar translator to create a novel and wait for readers' ir reaction? O maybe like Jablonski to put a dictionary for the reader at the end of the book? Furthermore, even if the necessary substitute is already offered by linguists, it does not mean that it is also well known to the public as a whole, as the substitutable foreignness has often managed to take hold. Is such substitution compatible with the criterion of clarity? On the other hand, it is not necessary to be afraid of foreignness and substitution of the very substitute variants. Our language is capable of choosing the most suitable, it has chosen the capital from the royal city, the primary city, the chief city, ar the capital, the capital castle, the capital castle, — the capital town, the capital town, the capital, selectively rejected the mirrors, the face glasses, the viewer, the binoculars, the viewer, the glasses, the nose glasses, the eyeglasses and chose the glasses. It is important to decide how to involve the public in the replacement work, how to harmonize the novelties presented in different sources by different authors, to distribute and implement them faster. The relationship between spoken and written language is no longer the same today, the difference between them is fading. The concern of linguists about the influx of new borrowings was probably caused by their sudden spread in the public written language (a thing unheard of so far!). The attention of language normists has always been focused mainly on the written language, and Jablonski did not study the general spoken language. And the strangeness is the hardest to remove from the spoken language. The introduction of substitutes is also inseparable from this problem: it is one thing when the foreignness is replaced by an editor-stylist, another when it is consciously rejected by the user himself. 206 ar o — O here again we are faced with su the conscious attitude of mu ir the whole į society to the mother tongue, inseparable from the prestige of ir the mother tongue of the linguist authority. Thanks to all the aforementioned language purifiers, it seems that we have only a few percent of borrowed words in today’s common language, and pure language can be associated with the prestige of the nation. But today the norming of adultery must depend on individual ne (even ir authoritative) individuals, o from the cooperation of the society that supports them. This article deliberately emphasizes the prestige of the mother tongue žo ir Purification is no longer — self-evident to society in the era of ji cosmopolitanism, which sometimes leads to contradictions to between linguists and language users: the first talk about how to ir change foreign words, the second about why to change them in general. We have the theoretical basis for the ir regulation of alienation, a centuries-old o tradition, but — let’s not forget the less important internal regulations, let’s remember and remind others that a lot can be done if you want. ne ir Received 15/12/1998 LITERATŪRA Balašaitis A. 1984: Žodžiai ir žodynai, Vilnius: Mokslas. Balčikonis J. 1978: Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius: Mokslas. Būga K. 1922: Kalba ir senovė 1, Kaunas. Būga K. 1959: Del Vaižganto „Pragiedrulių“ kalbos kritikos. — Raštai 2, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 37—77. GK — Gimtoji kalba 11, 1937. Jablonskis J. 1935: Raštai 4, Kaunas. Jurkynas M. 1938: Iš raštinės terminų ir kirčiavimo. — Gimtoji kalba 6, 82—84. Keinys S. 1967: Lietuvių terminologijos apžvalga. — Kalbotyra 18. Kusa J. 1938: Sporto kalbos reikalu. — Gimtoji kalba 7, 97-99. Pakalka K. 1979: K. Širvydo „Dictionarum trium linguarum“. — Pirmasis lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. Palionis J. 1959: J. Jablonskio kalbiniai taisymai. — Jablonskis J. Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 5—54. Palionis J. 1995: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Piročkinas A. 1977: Prie bendrinės kalbos ištakų, Vilnius: Mokslas. Piročkinas A. 1978: J. Jablonskis — bendrinės kalbos puoselėtojas, Vilnius: Mokslas. Piročkinas A. 1986: J. Jablonskio kalbos taisymai, Kaunas: Šviesa. Sabaliauskas A. 1994: Iš kur jie? Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Salys A. 1983: Raštai 1, Roma. Skardžius RP. 1997: Bendrinė kalba ir jos vartojimas. — Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 30-85. Skardžius P. 1997a: Kalbos mokslas ir purizmas. — Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 519-523. 207 Skardžius P. 1998: Lithuanian equivalents of international words. — Selected Writings 3, Vilnius: Institute for ir the Publication of Scientific 427-509. Encyclopedias, Subačius G. 1987: For The Polish-Lithuanian Dictionary. — Journal of Linguistics, 26, 151-157. Zinkevičius Z. 1990: History of the Lithuanian language 4, Vilnius: Science. Zinkevičius Z., Handbag J. 1958: Kazimieras Booga. - Būga K. Widgets 1, Vilnius: Publicationė ns of the ir National Library of Science. TRADITION OF PURIFICATION OF LITHUANIAN LEXIS AND TENDENCIES TODAY Summary In Lithuania, borrowings have a special and long tradition of normalisation, and it could be employed language politics nowadays. The first the authors and in translators of Lithuanian literature consciously tried either to coin Lithuanian words or to find some eguivalents in spoken language. Not all of those home-made words have been adopted in our language, however, we still have a remarkable amount of them, and they have survived through the ages and now are widely used. In the fifth decade principles of normalisation of borrowings were formulated. Linguists made efforts to maintain the purity of the Lithuanian language, to try to replace as many loan-words as possible except for the international words, though they also could have eguivalents. Today language politicians carry on the work of their predecessors —a certain amount of old loan-words has been accepted, but newcomers tend to be replaced. Some research has still to be done in this field. We have to find out which of these new loans should be replaced. More attention should be paid to spoken language, in which the home-made words are not always acceptable. The problem is related to the language attitudes and its prestige in general —a field which linguists should promote and remind our society of since it has a tradition of one hundred years. 208