P. Skardžiaus kirčiavimo variantai

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVIII (1997) Arvydas VIDŽIŪNAS P CINCH SCREECHING OPTIONS About P. Skardžių, a spelling normizer, is usually judged ir about his jo merits when he opens perhaps the most important work in this field, the clearest ir and most systematic description of the spelling norms of the pre-war common Lithuanian language — The standards provided in this textbook had no fluctuatio1936). ns. be The author's aim was to show the general public, as a certain form, individual words ir jų group pronunciation in the common language, no problematic interpretations were taken, so the ir common language pronunciation system is presented here in its ideal form, without exceptions and variants. Not all linguists agreed with such a strict provision. In the opinion of Mr. Jonikis, the inequalities in pronunciation need to be eliminated by combining the new words with the pronunciation of the larger group of words. “Or in such and similar fluctuating circumstances it would be necessary to give the allowable and permissible (tolerant) sex. The use could then choose, because in this way, on the one hand, we would be closer to the desired norm, on the other hand, a strict grouping of language facts is again not possible” (Jonikas 1936: 440). Similar opinions about the codification of spelling could have been Skardžius himself. His extensive work in this field shows that he was not a strong advocate of strict, non-variational spelling norms, and that the norms he proposed have changed considerably. The recommendations of the aforementioned spelling textbook reflect only the position of Skardžius at that time — in the mid-thirties — and rather not so much his own as the collective position of spelling norm-setters. That collective agreements have indeed determined the nature of the norms offered by Skardzis and their changes is clearly seen from the variants of pronunciation found in the linguist’s works. The spelling norms established or maintained by Skardzis were never very strict, but were characterized by a certain liberality. This is evidenced by the relatively abundant variants of its pronunciation, especially in works published abroad in the late 1920s — the first years of its standardization — and after the war. Even when it was difficult to present a double pronunciation (for example, when spelling school chrestomatias), Skardžius tried to do it somehow. In his first standard work on pronunciation, Skardžius allows quite a lot of variants of pronunciation. Especially interesting are the data of his first spelled chrestomaty (Kamantauskas, Skardžius 1929), which show how Skardžius understood spelling norms in the first years of his activity. They are the starting point for the further standardization of the pronunciation, and therefore all words or their forms that are variantly pronounced in that chrestomaty will be presented below. "Some words, pronounced differently, but also used", Skardžius notes in the footnotes)', thus clearly distinguishing the main secondary variants of pronunciation. Usually, those footnotes give one subvariant, but there are two: fernis fernis, -čio, ferrtys, ferčio 11 ir ir po /| (p. 8); here|| here, here (p. 187). Sometimes it is indicated which dialects this permissible variant is typical of: gyvulius // "Western Upland ir Animals" (p. 260); Zmogus // „Western uppercases say man, -aus ir in places“ (p. 23); Jews // "Western Upper-clair ss Jew, zZydf* (p. 182); in the moon (in S. Daukanto text) //“Usually the Samogitians say moon” (p. 100); Mountains (in A. Baranausko text) //„Ryt. mountains- ’; tartum (in A. Baranausko text) //„ryt. ir farturū” (p. 162). This expression of dialect dependence, which immediately puts the so-called pronunciation variants outside the scope of the common language, is probably related to the desire to show the authentic pronunciation of the dialect from which the authors of the texts to be pronounced originated or which they wrote. However, this way of evaluating and presenting options is quite rare, here are listed all its cases. Codified and variant pronunciation of one form of another without transferring that form to another pronunciation model: naud. jar//jai (p. 21); viet. kalné //kalne (p. 12); negardū || negardu (p. 35). Pagal kalbos dalis kirčiavimo variantų aptariamoje chrestomatijoje dar yra tokių: daiktavardžiai: kilm. as/os //aslos (p. 31); kilm. aušros //aušros (p. 196); oar || oar (p. 279); letter || letter (p. 194); fairy || fairy (p. 33); kilm. fairies, fairies || fairies, fairies (p. 32); 344); port // “There is a pair, -0s, a pair and a pair” (p. 55); from the beginning || from the beginning (p. 39); ūrvas // caves (p. 282); vilties || viltiés; rope, with ropes || rope, with ropes (p. 38); aušrinę || aušrinę (p. 20); dargana || dargana, -0s, darganą (p. 337); detonators // detonators (p. 213); || store (p. 35); mokdlas || mokolas (p. 341); interest || interest (p. 97); three weeks || weeks (p. 40); tėkeliui |/tekėliui (p. 311); vifšininku //superintendent (p. 131); with amber || amber (p. 109); kilm. nedélios (in the language text) //nedėlios (p. 18); adjectives: /ygrais//lygiais (p. 12); pėsti || pėsti (p. 38); last year || last year (p. 251); in. artima //aftimas (p. 146); numerals for hundreds //hundreds (p. 6); pronouns: vard. which //which, -ies, which (p. 26); ward. tokia //such, -ios, such (p. 23); verbs: dekavoti /I dėkavoti (p. 337); ilsis //ilsis (p. 225); will destroy || “To destroy and destroy” (p. 57); carved || carved (p. 33); approached || approached (p. 117); putty // putty (p. 144); adverbs: gardžiai//gardžiai (p. 35); sweet || sweet (p. 230); long //long (p. 28); expensive || expensive (p. 69); ten //tėn (tė) (p. 10); particle at least //running (p. 232). As can be seen, Skardžius has not avoided variants, in many cases he decides not to rush the natural development of the general spoken language. Of course, from one! In the footnotes, the second form is usually written and. In this article it is written after two vertical dashes. 12 the second half of the 20th century, the dialect of the common language base, by the way, also characterized by ir fluctuating pronunciation of (plg. Kamantauskas, Skardžius 1929: VIII), the previous tradition of norming this dialect, thus not crystallizing non-variant norms, Jablonski's ir authority, on the other hand, often wider use of the remaining J. dialects. iš — It is interesting that the secondary, permissible variants are ir considered words and forms of such pronunciation, from which they have been separated as software ir In the "Preface" of that chrestomacy defining the regulations for the spelling of the can (p. IX): kalne, jai, paddle, cave, man, -aus, amber, hundred, -ai, koks, -ia. In practice, however, it was more liberal. Ir later in articles, reviews on ir other occasions the linguist does not do without variant pronunciation. In „Kalboje“ (1 1930: 48) it is taught to pronounce vyZa, kilm. twine // twine; Ibid. (1 1930: 55) it is advisable to pronounce vargdiēnė, vargdiēnis or vargdiené, vargdeinis. The 1931 edition of the 1932 edition of Hermann, Skardžius 1931. Here there is still doubt about the prefix -aite, which is pronounced inconsistently: savžitės, tarnaitė (p. 26), but giraitę (p. 121), kepuraitę (p. 64), although recently (Kalba 1 1930: 55) he himself was warned that it is not worth confusing, not orlaitė, lietuvaite and mergaitė, saulaitė, but equally — orlaitė or našlaitė. In this conversation book the Vedic pronunciation of the suffix -1ena has not been completely aligned: pork, kurkiena, kiškiejus are usually pronounced as amaty (p. 102) i and amaty (p. 140). Pronunciation options? also have these words: čerpėmis //čerpėmis (p. 117); in the store || in the store (p. 60); |/stores (p. 138); wash-room (p. 120), kilm. 119), spaustuvėje || spaustuvėje (p. 107); traukinį //train (p. 15); ward. mountainous || mountainous, although only mountainous (p. 128); red || reddish (p. 122); First. long //long (p. 8); sweet || sweet (p. 10). A few more words that can be pronounced alternatively (Skardžius 1933): next to apžiūra, it is suggested to pronounce apžiūra, which is used in Vilkaviskis, Sintautai, Seredžius, Jurbarkas, Šiauliai, Kamajai, etc. ; next to apusé, epuché is still spellable and is widely used in living language as dpuse, épuse, next to galvana —galvana, and next to garbana —garbana; next to dievop, finally it is advised „to write and dievop, not dievop, or both of those genders together — dievop and dievop“ (p. 162). It can be concluded that the linguist tolerated enough pronunciation variants in the normative dictionary, provided that they were widely used in dialects. Interesting further consideration of the pronunciation of darganas. As already seen, in the chrestomaty of 1929, Skardžiaus gave dargana //dargana, -0s, darganą. A little later (Kalba 1 1930: 48) both these variants are also allowed, but next (Kalba 1 1930: 52) it is already clarified: „I have talked with R. Jonu himself about /avon, darganos, noriai, etc., and both of us, having well clarified everything, agreed that only /avonas, 2 is to be said. 13 dargana, no longer willingly...’. Later, the linguist's opinion changes: "Dargana is pronounced Curonian ir Samogitian; Dig. Lietuvos vak. upper tats say dargana, -0s, dirganą Naum., Sint., Ser. ir kt ; yes, it seems to me, first it had to ir be spelled” (Skardžius 1933: 62). Therefore, there is a risk of Kuršaičio, rejecting agreements su In the ir į first place, Jablonski takes the South-West Highland variant. The problem of the relationship ir between the pronunciation norms of the general spoken language of this dialect pronunciation was perhaps the most difficult to overcome for the pronunciation normists of the late 1920s — and early 1930s. The most important aspect of the development of the general pronunciation norms of the language is the tendency to ir standardize pronunciation. Initially, however, iš there were attempts to curb these tendencies. Ir For Skardžius, in the first jo years of the spelling norming activity, probably the most reliable argument was the data of the south-western Highlands (plg. Vidžiūnas 1990: 91-93). One way to iš cope with the su difficult tasks of spelling standardization were ir spelling variants. They helped to harmonize the common language of the base tarmę su in other dialects, allowed to take into account the spread criteria; they did not į allow the gap between the codification rules and the use of the common spoken language itself, which at that time had not yet firmly established accentuation characteristics of dialects. In ir the middle of the 1930s, the most important axiom of the necessity of variants to maintain the so-called flexible stability of general language norms, using variants to go to ir new types of new quality recommendations, had not yet been theoretically formulated by Lithuanian language culture science. The variants of pronunciation were necessary to legalize the authentic pronunciation of individual words and their groups in the common language, which is widespread in - dialects and does not overlap with the already established Western pronunciation system of the common language, in other words, to moderately harmonize the variety of dialect ir pronunciation in the strict rules governing the norms of the consolidating common spoken language. su Nevertheless, 1934 m. in the Skardze accent Z. In Kuzmickis' chrestomaty (Kuzmickis, Skardžius 1934) the translation is already without any variants of pronunciation. Such a metamorphosis of the linguist's views cannot be considered unmotivated inconsistency. Around the middle of the 1920s, spelling began to be standardized by the united forces of specialists in this field, and there was a clear understanding of the need for mutually non-contradictory recommendations and stable standards. Skardžius honourably adhered to the resolutions discussed and adopted with his colleagues. From Skardžius’ own words it is clear that in 1934 he, A. Salis and J. Balčikonis had jointly discussed the issues of common pronunciation, discussed the basis for its standardization and, for the sake of stability, committed themselves to observing those agreements, “so that the public, especially students (...), could no longer say that J. Balčikonis pronounces in one way, and A. Salys and Skardžius in another” (GK 1936: 133). It is possible that the linguists also considered all kinds of dialect duplicity, varying forms and decided to abandon many of the pronunciation variants allowed until then. The first book, pronounced based on the results of those agreements, was the spoken Kuzmicki chrestomatia. 14 ir Su it, you can say, begins a new The most important feature of this stage is that the standards of pronunciation are supported by both personal opinions and recommendations adopted by the most authoritative linguists. ne ir This provision is explicitly complied with ir "Pronunciation of the Lithuanian language". Invariant jo norms determined by another collegial assembly of general colloquial language norms — "Theater Language Commissi- — on Recommendations, pg. : „on the uniformity of the pronunciation, especially for the two genders, was finally agreed only in that commission (Teatro kalbos — A. V/)’ (GK 1936: 132). Su Kuzmickio chrestomatija iš The duplicity of pronunciation in the texts pronounced by Skardzis and in ir the reviews almost completely disappeared, and for the rest of the pre-war period, essentially non-variant pronunciation norms were iš provided. The be textbook "Pronunciation of the Common Lithuanian Language" already mentioned (Coffins 1936), also some other publications (Šalkauskis, Skardžius 1938). Some sporadic proximity does not break the general principle. Jų observed just a few: ‘piding (or rotting)’ (Carcases 1936: 266), ‘smoking (or rotting)’ (GK 1939: 77); vylyčia, -ycios // vylyčia, -ios (Carcases 1939: 266; GK 1939: 77); "lamb ar lamb, -0s, lamb" (Carcases 1939: 266) — so proposed in opposition to the J. irregularities of the pronunciation of Ulapelis: horsemeat, lambmeat, but pork, -iénos, mediena, -iėnos and chicken, -0s, -iena, goose, -0s, -ieną, etc. ; būklė, -ės, būklę //state (KP 1939: 28); Skardžius has proposed to use the word palikuonis //palikuonis instead of ascendant and has indicated that the second variant is taken from M. Daukša (Skardžius 1939: 268). The majority of these cases cannot be considered as true variants of pronunciation, because Skardzei is mainly proposed not to be pronounced in two ways, but to choose one of the two permitted alternatives to the common language. See also J. Talmantas’ reproach for the double pronunciation pakalnėje and pakalnėje and the remark that in the school textbook it is necessary to pronounce,,- pakalné (and pakalnė) (GK 1936: 101). Here, no doubt, the difference in meaning is in mind: pakal/nė ‘place near the mountain’, pakalné ‘place further from the mountain, plain’ (Skardzius 1936: 66; see also Skardžius 1935: 110-111). In a word, the various reviews and articles of this period show a strict and uncompromising attitude. It is true that Skardžius has not done any major work on the standardization of pronunciation after the publication of the pronounced Šalkauskas philosophy terms in 1938, but in some places, e.g. in „Kalbos patarėjas“ (KP 1939), it was certainly a grateful opportunity to publish more pronunciation similarities. Skardzio’s major normative work is the section on pronunciation and the extensive pronunciation dictionary in the “Lietuvių kalbos vadovėlis” prepared by him, S. Barzdukas and J. M. Laurinaitis, published in Germany in 1950 (Skardžius et al. 1950). There are 128 to 156 pages dedicated to accents and prepositions, and the dictionary covers almost 450 pages. In this manual the pronunciation system is described as usual without fluctuations, but in the dictionary there are again a number of pronunciation variants. Such a step is justified in the introduction: the author, based on the living language, says that he tried as much as he could to level and uniform the pronunciation, but “Where is equally one way and equally another way?” 15 otherwise pronounced ir cannot be decided on one type of pronunciation, there is left two-fold and sometimes even three-fold pronunciation“ (Skardžius et al. 1950: 28). The example of a storm is given: although in the 1930s the “acting language commission” had decided to use the word “storm”, here “both genders — storm and storm — are given impetus”, because the strong word was not wanted to be used. In total, there are at least 185 pronunciation variants. There are quite a lot of adverbial verbs with double pronunciation, e.g.: amséti //amsėti; whitish //whiteish; disgusting // disgusting; jodinti //jodinti and others. (24 words). Varianty is enriched by the fact that almost all derived suffixes -imas abstractly according to the base words are also pronounced twice: amséjimas //amsėjimas; bleaching //bleaching; disgusting // disgusting; iodization //iodization, etc. Among the more problematicly pronounced adverbial nouns are: daržininkas 1 //daržininkas 2; kasininkas 2 //kasininkas 1; mėsiniūkas 2 //mėsininkas 1; pulkininkas 2 //polkininkas 1; veislininkas 1 //veislininkas 2 (: veislė 2 //veislé 4); giltinė 3* //giltiné 1; liepinė 32 //liepiné 2 ‘lime vessel, small barrel'; burning 2 //burning 3°; gčrimas 1 //drink 2 ‘géralas’; scraping 1 // scraping 2 “scraping place’; Shooting 1 // shooting 2; milling 3* // milling 1; sowing 3* // sowing 2; little 2 // little 2; sowing 1 // sowing 1(: sowing 1); asarotas1 //ašarotas(: tear 1) and so on. Some more interesting two-syllabic nouns: bifžė 2 //biržė 1 //biržė 4; liežuvas 4 //liežuvas 3; aidas3 //aidas 4; asla 4 //2; audra 4 //audra 1; pluta 2//4; pradžia 2 /| 4; krepšys 4 //krėpšis 2; laūmė?2 //laumė 4; mentė 2 //mentė 4; meska 4 //2: skroblas 3 //skroblas 4; sodžius 2 //sodžiūs 4; svirtis 1 //svirtis 4; vaps(v)a 2 /] 4; balkšvas, -a 4 //balkšvas, -a 3; širmas, -a 3 //širmas, -a 4 and others. Also prefixes alidi /aliai; individually // individually; unanimously //unanimously etc. Even taking into account the fact that the dictionary is of considerable volume, it will have to be stated that there are sufficiently many variantly pronounced words in it; Skardžius understood the pronunciation norms of the common Lithuanian language quite broadly and democratically. This is also confirmed by the data of the manuscript of Skardžius’ “Lithuanian Writing Dictionary” (about 1974) (Skardžius 1974). The linguist says that he pronounces the title words here as they are more often pronounced in dialects or as they tend to be pronounced in common language, and adds: "I present in my dictionary a number of neighboring genders, which are justified by the language of people, e.g.: paista, -05 2 and paista, - Os 4, atkalnė and atkalnė 1, brolénas and brolėnas 1, kliūtis, -ies 1 and kliūtis, -iés 4, mélynuoti and blulynūoti, pagieža 1 and pagieža, -Os 3°, rdinas and rainas, etc. In addition to the older ones, I also note the newer, now more widely established (cf. the author — A. V.) genders in common language, e.g., storm and storm, -0s 4, storming and storming, occasion and occasion, -0s 4, slave, -0 3 and slave, -0 4, Zdisti and Play, etc.” (Skardžius 1974: 13 d). Such a provision is maintained in the dictionary altogether. There are over 430 accentuated variants: verbs — about 70, two-syllable nouns (and derivatives of two-syllable consonant suffixes) — over 90, vowel suffixes — over 90, adverbial adjectives — about 25, punctual 25, prepositions and derivatives of prepositional endings — about 100. ir 16 — 40 ir t.t. The dictionary ir contains proper nouns, some of which — about 35 — also pronounced variantly, e.g. upv. Atmata, -Os 3? // Atmata, -0s asv. 1; Augustas 1 // Augūstas? 2; ežv. Galadusys, -10 3b / VV.AA., vv. 1; Girkalnis 1 // Girkalnis 1; asv. Lengvinas 1 // Lengvinas 2; Marijampolė 1 // Marijampolė 2; Nėringa 1 // Neringa 3“, Rūmšiškės 1 // Rumšiškės 1; Vilijampolė || Vilijampolė 2; Vižainis 1 // Vizainis 3°, Ukraine 2 //Ukraine 1 and others. It is not possible to present all the pronunciation variants codified in this dictionary in this article. It is more appropriate to try to highlight the motives that lead the linguist to pronounce variantly. It can be said that pronunciation similarities are allowed by the author: in order to harmonize the pronunciation tendencies of a) different dialects that do not contradict the common language system, cf.: aūkš/ė 2 // tuxedo 4; exchange 2 // Birzé 4; ruffles 1 / / 2; suddenly returned 2 // returned 4; iéSmas 2 //4; swallow 4 // swallow 2; rust1 //3; sédzia 1 //sitting 2; scroll 2 // scroll 3; lever 1 // lever 4; plaster 1 // Turtles 4: bunny 2 //bunny 1; rabbit 4 //rabbit 2; amber 3? //amber 2; bucket 2 // bucket 3? ; stitch 1 //stitch 3? ; rooftop 1 // rooftop 3*; wifšininkas 1 //superintendent 1; atbraila 3? //atbraila 1; atkaja 3? //reverse 1; return 3? //release 1; cut cut break 3? / 1; 3? // spreads 1; the fringes, -a 3 // stripes, -a 4; raišas, -a3 // raišas, -a 4; rainas, -a 3 //rainas, -a 4; šilmas, -a 3 //širmas, -a 4; vilgsnas, -a 3 // vilgsnas, -a 4; aidéti, aidi /didi; narnéti, narna //nafn; murméti, murma // muima; slégti // to press; sopti //sopti; Zvangéti, Zzvanga //zvanga and so on. ; (b) in order to present the old, the traditional and the new version already in force or not in force; The latter is usually written in the second place, e.g.: črdvė 1 //erdvė4; gaida 1 //gaida 4; vaistas 1 //vaistas 4; vérgas 3 //vergas 4; žaislas 3 //žaislas 4; deguonis 3? //degon; predator 3* //predator? ; descendant 3* //descendant 2: culprit 2 //culprit 1; debtor 2 //debtor 1; steward 2 //steward 1; stewardess //stewardess 1; assaulted //assaulted 1; assaulted //assaulted 1; doubled //doubled 1; sunny //sunny 1; warping //warping 1; reddish //reddish; samanoti //samanėoti, vasaroti //vasaroti, Žaisti // play and so on It can be seen that in the latest works on the standardization of pronunciation Skardžiaus tried to take more into account the development trends of the general pronunciation system of the language —to combine not only different geographical, but also differently old variants of pronunciation; c) trying to compare and unify the pronunciation of some accentuated microsystems, e.g.: dūrtuvas 1 //durtuvas 2; šautuvas 1 //šautuvavas 2; grūstuvė 3* // grūstuvė 2; keptuvė 3? //cooker 2; sink 3° //cooker 2; shovel 3° //shovel 2; sieve 3? //seating 2; ringing 1 //ringing 2; floating 1 //deprivation 2; deficiency 1 //deficiencies 2, etc. ; d) in order to maintain the accentuation relationship between the base and the derivative word, e.g.: krautuvininkas 1 //krautuvininkas 1 (: krautuvė 1 //krautave 2); tinsmith 1 //tinsmith 2 (: tin 1 //tin 4); statement 3° //3* (: statement //téigtr); slave slave slave 17 // 1 (: 3 // vergas 4) ir kt ; trying e) to reconcile du prepositions -znis adjective pronunciation models — traditional, based on the pronunciation of the ir base words, the new, decisive suffix of the inclination to pronounce, characteristic of the western Highlands and the Lowlands, the common language especially proposed by Skardžiaus in the 1930s and later (cf. Skardžius 1936: 26; Skardžius ir et al. 1950: 142), e.g.: apliukinis 1 // aplinkinis 2; humanitarinis 1 //humanitarinis 2; kojnis 1 //kojinis 2; Siemétinis 1 //šimetinis 2; visiomeninis 1 // social etc. ; 2 ir (f) aligning its recommendations with the LRTAP 1972. There is no doubt that this has been done. One argument—the many manuscript corrections, after which the norms given by Skard become, it may be said, identical DLKŽ 1972 codified, cf. the following corrections, showing the harmonization with the codification work published in Lithuania: griežėlė 32 — fixed į (hereinafter referred to as =) 3% black-spotted, -ė 1 = Jjuodmaigis, -€ 2; ordinary 2 =ordinary 1; lecturer 2 = lecturer 1; pavėsinė 1 = pavėsinė 2 and so on. One way of correcting this is by adding the variant provided by DLKŽ 1972, usually as a secondary: kalté 4 = kalté 4 //kaltė 2; 6dal = 0da1//oda4; progal = proga1//proga4; rūožas1 = rūožas1 //3; kuitena1 = kuitena//kūitena1; raugalas 3* //raugalas3* //raugalas 3°; spjaudalas3a = spjaudalas3* //spjaūdalas3? ; florist2 = florist1 //florist2; ladders, -iū 3* = ladders 1 //3% hatmaker 2 = hatmaker 1 //hatmaker 2; wife-in-law = wife-in-law 1; pharmacy 1, pharmacist 1 (: medicine 1) =vdistiné //pharmacy 1, pharmacist //pharmacist] (: medicine 1 //medicine 4) etc. Another group of interesting corrections —alignment of the order of presentation of variants to the DLKZ 1972, e.g.: audra 1//audra 4 = audra 4 //audra 1; gléivés 1 // gleivés 4 = gleivés4 //gléives 1; gurguolé 1 //gurgudlé 2 =gurguole? //goose 1; tint 1 //tint 2 = tint 2 //tint 1 and so on. Such and similar corrections are quite numerous, and almost always they aim to align with the spelling norms codified in the DLKZ 1972 or at least to approach them. The fact that Skardžius has harmonized his spelling recommendations with DLKŽ 1972 is also shown by the abundance of overlapping variants. In total, there are over 140 of them, arranged in the same order or vice versa. Probably DLKŽ 1972, adding a lot of spelling similarities, encouraged Skardžių to follow the same path. An important non-linguistic motive, which led to the rather liberal pronunciation norms of the “Written Lithuanian Language Dictionary”, will have been the relatively lenient look of the linguist at the use of Lithuanian language outside Lithuania: “When the fate of the whole Lithuanian language abroad is at stake, any stricter standardization directives on pronunciation would hardly achieve their goal” (Skardžius 1968: 8). In the confusion of the discussed linguistic and non-linguistic factors, Skardžys’s position emerged, set out in perhaps his last work — still unprinted and therefore very rarely mentioned work on the codification of the general spoken language — “Lithuanian Literary Dictionary”. All Skardzios’s normative activity on pronunciation shows that it was clear to him that the pronunciation system of the common language must be independent and more in line with its own laws. 18 ir However, he never tried to separate the tendency of common pronunciation from the living language by artificial rules, and by regulating dialects in common language as much as possible, he sought to reflect the variety of dialect pronunciation that ir has a significant influence on common use, and the new trends that later formed in common language itself. ti o ir Although the same one another accent microsystems (e.g., suffixes -inis adjectives) development and standardizair tion had tried to accelerate, but generally jo the codified rules of orthography did not precede the development of the language itself. In contrast to the slowly evolving and slowly decreasing ir number of people who speak the language, there is a steady increase in the be number of su people who speak it. ir į du variants, a greater uniformity of the universal norms of the general spoken language was hard to expect. In such a context, however, the linguist’s efforts to create one common spoken language for all Lithuanians are striking. This path was encouraged and almost all of his spelling normative activities are characterized by the support of spelling variants. The linguist looked at them not as — elements that undermined the stability of norms, not as ballast of the ir common language, but as a su necessary condition for the pronunciation of the common ir language, which was supplemented by various dialects and influenced by various internal tendencies. LITERATURE DLKŽ 1972: Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mintis, 1972. GK: Native language, Kaunas 1933 — 1941. Hermanas Skardžius 1931: Lithuanian — German conversation booklet / Compiled by Eduardas Hermannas. Kirčiavo Pr. Coffins. Kaunas: Sakalas. 1936: The Language and the Pronunciation of Our Common Language. [Rec.] Pr. Coffins. Pronunciation of the common Lithuanian language. —National School 18, 439-440. Language - Language. Journal of General Linguistics 1-3, 1930. Kamantauskas Skardžius 1929: —Lithuanian literature chrestomaty translated for higher school / Compiled by Vikt. Kamantauskas. Kirčiavo Pr. Coffins. Kaunas: Sakalas. KP 1939: Language advisor | Prepared by L. Dambrauskas. Edited by A. Salys and Pr. Coffins. Kaunas: Light. Kuzmickis Skardžius 1934: Kuzmickis Z. Lithuanian Readings for Secondary and Higher Schools. With illustrations and pronounced texts /Translated by Dr. Pr. Coffins. Kaunas: Sakalas. Skardžius P r. 1933: [Rec.] Dictionary of Lithuanian Written Language. Lithuanian-German/ Edited by Max Niedermann, Alfred Senn, Franz Brender. Bd. 1: A-K. Heidelberg, 1932 —Archivum philologicum, Kaunas, 156-164. 1935: The Aspects of Aesthetics, 1935: The Aspects of Aesthetics, 1935: The Aspects of Aesthetics, 1935. 1936: The Pronunciation of the Common Lithuanian Language, Kaunas: Šviesa. Skardžius P r. 1939: [Rec.] Dr. Jurgis Šlapelis. Polish-Lithuanian Dictionary. Philosophical Transactions 8. Kaunas, 865-268. Skardžius Pr. 1968: Lithuanian Pronunciation, Chicago: Lithuanian Foundation. 19