Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos ir tarmių santykis XVIII a. Rytų Prūsijoje

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVIII (1997) Mr. Jonas PALIONIS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LITHUANIAN WRITTEN LANGUAGE AND DIALECT IN EAST PRUSSIA IN THE 18TH CENTURY l1.Introductory remarks. The relationship between written language and dialects is one of the most important, fundamental problems of the history of written language of any period. After all, on the basis of which dialect or dialects the written language is formed and developed, a lot depends on both its structure and its development in a certain historical period. From the linguistic analysis of the earlier, the oldest period of the Lithuanian written language it is known), that until the 17th century this relationship was quite complicated. In the Prussian branch of the Lithuanian written language, at first there was no strict adherence to any particular dialect, but later (starting with the hymn of John Reza in 1625) the Prussian West Highland dialect took hold, which was finally established in the grammars of D. Klein. After the appearance of these grammars, the authors of Lithuanian writings in the 18th century who wrote in East Prussia (hereinafter referred to as “East Prussia”) generally did not deviate from the high-class Western path. A slightly different relationship between Lithuanian written language and dialects was observed in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (hereinafter — GDL) until the age under consideration. There were two branches of the written language: the Middle Eastern and the Eastern (more precisely, the Dzūkian and the Eastern). The latter had older traditions, but in the 18th century the correlating Mediterranean branch gained stronger positions. These stronger positions probably determined the fact that in the first half of this century the eastern-Dzukian dialect was displaced by the Middle Eastern dialect, and in the second half of this century the Žemaičių dialect began to work steadily and strongly, especially in phonological and morphological terms. Medieval genders were established in the anonymous grammar “Universitas Linguarum Litvaniae” published in 1737, while Žemaičių genders had not yet received grammatical codification in that century. Furthermore, based on current data of Lithuanian dialectology and dialectography and comparative analysis of the language of 18th-century writings, the language of the most prominent authors of this century will be examined in more detail with regard to its dialectal basis. The examination will mainly be limited to the phonological and morphological domains, because they reflect the differences between dialects most clearly. ! Palionis J. Lithuanian literary language in the 16th and 17th centuries, Vilnius: Mintis, 1967, 51-91. 38 $2. Danieliaus Klein's Grammar. Nors XVIII a. RP authors of Lithuanian writings, as mentioned ($ 1.), went D. In accordance with the guidelines outlined in t. y. Klein’s grammar, it relied on the basis of the Prussian West Highland dialect, but from the point of view of the history of the Lithuanian written language it is important to determine the extent to which this basis was used at that time. Ar only the basic features of this dialect, fixed in grammar, were observed, D. Kleino narrow ar dialectisms ir were not avoided? If narrow dialectisms have not been avoided, then in what similarities are we mainly jų as they were treated by ir the writers of that time? These are the į questions ir that will be attempted to answer further by examining the available data. As is known, the Prussian West Highlands (as in the ir western Highlands in general) the dialect was not homogeneous. Ji was divided into three į councils (northern, southern), each of which still had its ir own šnekti, šnekteliai?*. Having in mind the fact that D. Klein was born iš Tilžė, which belonged to the territory of the western Highland Norsemen, could be expected to find in its jo grammar a number of characteristic features of the Tilžė dialect: [uo] ir [o], [ie] ir [ė] squeezing, shortening of unmoved limbs, [a] exhaustive, solid-onset diphthong [Ai], [au], [chi] cases of consonantization. However, this is not the case: D. Klein chose not the dialect of his native land, but the dialect that seemed to him to be “the best of all” for the purpose of establishing the laws and rules of Lithuanian grammar, namely the Kaunas dialect: “Hanc Caunenfium Dialectum fegvimur in Ducatu Prufiae, utpote omnium optimam et commodipBimam” (GL XVI). Therefore, in D. Klein’s grammar, the normative genders were presented not for the northern dialects of the Prussian West Highlands, but for the southern dialects, close to the dialect of the Kaunas region, cf. : (a) n. pl. f. dizbes GL 146, imper. 2 sg. Duk t. p. 61, n. sg. Mr. Piemū..., praes. 1 p.g. I'm running GL 83, past. 3 /edėjo t. p. 5, inf. fėti Comp. 5..., b) roasted. 3 buwo GL 146, g. sg. /awo, tawo t. p. 147, praes. 3 f/ako t. p. 112, finno t. p. 115.., ¢) n. sg. m. goods Comp. 107, grajumas GL 66, judas, yukas etc. p. 8, d) dūdamas- //dūdams etc. p. 119, regėdamas/| regėdams etc. p. 110... (e) n.o.s. m. diktas GL 2, Aukštas t. p. 24, inf. /čifti Comp. 55, con). jEy t. p-35... By comparing the genders of kleiniSkas phonetics and morphology with those of the corresponding 18th-century RP scripts, it is clear that the latter were far from always following the Southern norms codified in Klein’s grammar. This is particularly true of Samuel Bitner’s New Testament of 1701, which, due to the deliberate desire of its authors to please the readers of both the Polish and the Lithuanian Kingdoms, contains more dialect mixtures than other writings of that time in the region. $3. The testament of S. Bitner. S. Bitneris (about 1632-1710), as his name suggests, was not *Salys A. Raštai 4. Vilnius: Lithuanian Catholic Academy of Sciences, 1992, pp. 126. 39 lietuvis. He learned Lithuanian while serving as a Reformed (Calvinist) priest in Biržai, Kėdainiai and elsewhere. ir Since the earlier (XVI-XVII c.) The Lithuanian Calvinist publications were based on the middle Highland dialect (mostly spoken in the Kėdainiai area)", so he followed the ir main features of iš this dialect when translating the Greek original testament. It shows, on the iš one hand, often written before 7 [e], [ė] vowels, o iš second — regularly used genders in folk syllables su [am], [an], [em], [en] nosiniais ir [a], [ę]: praet. a) 3 Baukiejo Pov. 1. Tim. 5, 10, iBteide Ap. d. 4,23, g. pl. fantou Ap. d. 27, 44, n. s.g. Feta No, no, no, no. 1. 1,9, unsigned I Pov. 1. rym. 7, 3, /aufe Jon. Apr. 6, 12, g. pl. dfacto t. p. 21,17 ...,b) inf. /famdit Mat. 20, 1, n. s.g. wam3jdis I Pov. 1. cor. 14, 7, Preep. ant Mat. 7, 26, n. s.g. pafbite Mork. 16, 16, a. s.g. f. camping Mat. 27, 48, imper. 2 s.g. peryenk Mat. 5, 27 ..., ¢) a. s.g. gaff Mat. 13, 20, miefta Ap. d. 21, 5, Didyme t. p. 10, 11, Tulip Mork. 9, 14... However, we must not forget that S. Jonas Božimovskis Jr. (who lived in Kėdainiai and elsewhere in Vilnius) also assisted Bitner in the translation ir work® ir Friedrich Suster (The RP priest who worked in Budziejowice)- ". These collaborabe tors, doubts, have also left their mark on the language of translation, especially the latter. Václav Biržiška writes that "the greater part of the translation was done by Bitner himself, with the help of Jon Bozimovskis the younger and P. Z. Šusteri adapting it for Lesser Lithuania". As to how much and how J. BoZimowski contributed to the translation and editing of the New Testament in 1701, nothing specific can be said. But about the linguistic editing of F. Suster, whom L. Rėza called “revizorium” (Revizor)*, one can judge something from his own Lithuanian preface attached to the translation. Here he wrote: "And since the Lithuanians of Great Lithuania do not mark things in such 36jeis iBkalba /which the Lithuanians in Royal Prussia in my opinion do not use /then we made a fkijru /and the words of the Lithuanians in Royal Prussia were written in such 3ijmes () as on the pawčikflo: The Lithuanians of Great Lithuania fako: Giria [tow ore; but the Lietuwnikai of Royal Prussia speak: Pufčia stow laukė''”. From this quotation it becomes clear that F. Schuster, in order to make the translation language more accessible to the people of the Republic of Poland, has added to certain translation words in brackets more usual for this region equivalents, e.g.: g. sg. alijwos (oil) Luk. 10, 34,part. cont. behaving (behaving) Mork. 9, 46, pres. 3 3Biržiška V. Aleksandrynas 1, Chicago: USA LB Cultural Foundation, 1960, 356. *Palionis J. Ibid., 71-79. "Biržiška V. Ibid., 1, 357. Biržiška V. A/eksandrynas 2, Chicago; United States Library of Congress, 1963, pp. 15. "Ibid., 1, 357. 8 R hesa L. History of the Lithuanian Bible, Kėnigsberg, 1816, 30. The New Testament in Lithuanian. New Testament Lietuwifkas..., Karalauczuje, 1701, pratarme. 40 iBdergia (does a dirty thing) Mat. 15, 11, rocking through the streets Mork. 27, 39, nutranke jam (saw it) etc. 27, 44, g. s.g. pitwo (GROANS) Pov. 1. Tim. 5, 13, fafparos (corner stone) Mork. 12, 10. These iš examples alone show that Schuster was FE not limited to lexical equivalents: sometimes, together with the attribution of su individual words, he was forced to change the syntactic construction, to write a ir synonym instead of a be single word. (RP more characteristic) word combination. There is also reason to believe that in adapting the translation language to the Prussian usage, Šuster may have changed some E genders in phonology and ir morphology, even though in many cases the spelling of the will was adapted to the Prussian usage. ir 1701 m. However, it is impossible to ir determine how many changes he could have made in these consonants, o and at the same time contribute ir to the appearance of a certain variety of phonological and morphological genders in the testament language, without the manuscript. One can only state the existence of such diversity by hypotheticir ally considering the reasons for its appearance. $4. Phonological and morphological variation of genders in Bitner's testament. The following facts show the variation of phonological and morphological genders in the 1701 testament: a) occasional alternation of [uo] and [0], especially in the roots and stems of words, cf. past. 3 /aidūjo Ap. d. 8, 2, adv. Namūp Mork. 5, 19, Pres. 3 putūja t. p. 9, 18, Luk. 19, 29, a. pl. weeping Mork. 5, 38... and praes. 3 white Jon. 4, 35, part. cont. ; Matthew 25, 14, d. sg. Mr. FoBam Mork. 9, 43, n. sg. many Mat. 28, 16...; b) comparatively even rarer alternation of [ie] and [¢]: a. sg. Luke 14, 35 || i. sg. m. méBfu t. p. 13, 8, d. pl. f. padangiems t. p. 17, 24 || giminems Mat c) relatively rare alternation of [0] and [a] in the un-accent words: praet. 3 long Ap. d. 19, 20, buwo Mork. 6, 44, pres. 3 kfaufo Luk. 8, 8..." and: praes. 3 See Matthew 26:23, chapter 22, p. 40, and Fina Mork. 13, 32...; d) frequent alternation of abbreviated genders (with dropped short endings -¢, -7) and corresponding unabbreviated ones, cf.: in. s.g. "F. antros' dienos" (in Lithuanian). 11, 12 wiffoj' Bfowej' Luk. 12, 27... and: in the wilderness Matt. 3, 1, in the woods p. 4, 21; Imper. 2. read Matthew 10:8, go to p. 10:6... and look at p. 10:7, go to p. 10:8...; inf. dūt p. 10, 34, rugot (bart) p. 11, 20... and elgetduti (ubagauti) 24, 14 ...; Luke. 16, 3, tuf/kenti Ap. d. 12, 16; e) occasional alternation of sexes with and without the,,moving® [a]: n. sg. m. wienas Mat. 20, 21 || ne wiens p. 10, 29, katbédamas p. 26, 42, mokjdamas p. 26, 55, norėdamas p. 1, 19 || kalbédams Mat. 26, 48, Luk. 9; 38; 22, 9... 10 Preteritum is regularly written -o. 41 These (and other) phonological and morphological gender variation can be explained in many ways. In particular, the already mentioned desire to reconcile two (which are based on different dialectal bases) branches of written language. In addition, there may be a combination of morphological ir and phonological differences. Secondly, a certain proportion of such affinities might have been inherited from iš earlier writings (as mentioned, there jų have been ir D. Klein's Grammar). Finally, thirdly, some similarities may have arisen due to the ir individual attitude of ar the translators editors, a į certain gender, the fault of the printing press, etc. ir reasons. But, in general, 1701 m. testament language in terms of dialectal basis did not differ much from 18th-centua. ry Prussian written language. This was only due to ne the closeness ir of the Midwest Highland dialects, but to a ir conscious effort to harmonize these dialects. $5. Return to Kleenetic Norms 1727m. Wills. Of course, even closer to the earlier Prussian written language tradition, from J. Reza times based solely on Prussian West Highland dialects, were Jono Quantity (Quandt, 1686-1772) initiative prepared 1727 m. The New Testament. It abandoned the idea of harmonizing dialects and returned to the Kleenian norms, because the 1701 edition did not please the Lithuanians of the Republic of Lithuania in terms of language and was called "Kėdainiai"!". The 1727 edition was initially prepared by Reinholdas Rozenbergas of Tilžė and Kristopas Rebentišas of Gumbinė, and after their death (1724) by Hiobas Naunynas of Ragainė and Pilypas Ruigys of Valtarkiemis." All of them, except for the latter, were not Lithuanians, but apparently they were well versed in Lithuanian, if they had been assigned such a job. Of all of them, Pil was the one who spoke Lithuanian best. Ruigys, whose mother tongue was Lithuanian and who is believed to have contributed most to the editing of the 1727 edition." As early as 1930 Vac. Biržiška has noted that these people only corrected the translation of 1701, mainly trying to bring the latter closer to the German translation, and for this purpose made some use of the manuscript of J. Bretkūnas and the psalmbook of J. Rēza of 1625’. In fact, the comparison of these two editions of the New Testament supports V. Biržiška's assertion that the editors of the 1727 edition did not re-translate, but only corrected Bitner's translation. In both editions, there are many texts that are completely identical, although with some differences. U Rhesa L. Geschichte der littauischen Bibel, 28. 12 Ibid., 33. 5 Biržiška V. Aleksandrynas?2,- 2l. Biržiška V. The history of Lithuanian books, Kaunas: Spaudos fondas, 70. 1929-1930, Biržiška V. The history of ancient writings 1, Chicago, 1953, 151. 42 language differences are also abundant. Without going į into a more tų detailed analysis of the differences, here will be brought to the fore only those, which reflect the dialectal basis of the corrections, the authors’ efforts to 1727 m. 1701 m. the sex of the authorisation. In the field of phonetics, perhaps the most striking example of such efforts is the su [t] before [e], [ė] replacement with Western hard consonants, cf.: part be to cont. for gnawers BT Mat. 27, 3 ir Praet. 3 Gailea KNT p., t. adv. Kofay BT Jon. 9, 5 ir Koley CST p., up t. to Biofay BT Jon. 5, 17 ir ikBioley KNT t.p., praet. 3 pipes BT Jon. 11, 32ir piile KNT p., pl. t. G. turkfeli BT Luke. 2, 24 ir Kurklelū KNT t.p. In general, 7 1727 m. graphema in the edition is a rare phenomenon, indicating the editors of this edition want to distance themselves from Bitner's Testament ne only phonetics, but ir graphics (sometimes ne occurring) /could have occurred due to the fault of the sižiūrėjimo ar press, e.g. Karalyfte KNT Jon. 3, 5). Another, also easily noticeable phonetic change in the nature of the sexes — su “on the move” [a] abbreviation, e.g. sg. n. m. gywas BT Jon. 4, 51 > gyw's KNT p., t. part. cont. while teaching BT Mat. 26, 55 > mokidam's KNT p., t. sg. n. m. famdnik Jon. 10, 13 > Samdinink's KNT p., t. fwietas BT Jon. 3, 17 > Swiet's KNT t. p., wienas BT Jon. 6, 71 > Wien's KNT et al.... As we can see, the release of the "moving" [a] in the 1727 testament is regularly graphically marked with an apostrophe, which was used particularly often for the same purpose already in the 1685 hymn of J. Rikovius. Whether the pronunciation of the so-called “striukiškiai” RP dialects was taken into account in all such changes, or whether it was based more on the earlier tradition of this region’s clans, is now difficult to say. In the field of morphology, Westernization efforts can be seen in the replacement of the -cia forms of the 1st person singular with -c7au forms (cf. gėrčia BT Mat. 26, 53 > gėrčiau KNT etc., iBpildicia BT Jon. 4, 34 > iBfildiciau KNT t. p., troBcia BT Jon. 4,15 > I would like to CNT etc.... However, regarding such a change, it should be added that it is not an indisputable indicator of Westernization. First of all, because the forms with -cia were used in the 16th-17th centuries not only by the authors of the medieval branch (Kėdainiai- ), but also by the authors of the Polish Romance (alongside -io and the relatively rarer forms with -dfau). In Klein's grammar paradigms they were even raised to the first place (regécia || regēčiau GL 109, šinnočia || čiau etc. 115...). Hypothetically distinguishing -cia > -crau from cases of westernization, we have in mind that forms with -c7au were used especially regularly in the writings of authors from the western Highlands of southern Prussia (,,baltsermegiai““) (e.g., in the writings of K. Donelaitis only with -cia > -crau). - Here. In the syntactic domain, an example of Westernization may be the fairly regular substitution of the iliativ with the prepositional "in+end" construction, e.g.: kuriofna tiktay namūjfna BT Luk. 9,4 > where to what Nammus KNT etc., karoblin Bt Luk. 17, 27 > to Akrutas KNT t. p., rankofna BT Jon. 3, 35 > in Rankas KNT etc. D. Klein’s GL iliative and the “in + finalis” construction were described as having a certain proximity and the iliative was even given preference as a more “elegant” means of expression!- ”. 43 However, this preference in grammar is not specifically justified. It is possible that here a considerable weight was given to stylistic approach: D. For Klein, a famous translator and creator of religious hymns of the time, the iliativ could only seem to be a shorter but more sounding means of ne expressing direction. ir To believe that the preference for the iliac was determined by the greater jo prevalence of western RP highlanders (especially southern) dialect, there is no solid basis: this contradicts, moreover, already from be At the end of a. the 17th century, there is a „į + continuous tendency of the construction RP „galininkas“ to become universally accepted in writings (this construction prevailed ir K. "Donald's Letters". Perhaps the easiest way to identify cases of westernization in the lexical 1701 m. in the text of the will in the curved vaults, as mentioned, was recorded a number of Western (more precisely, more typical of the Prussian written language) words, most of which were transferred from the ir į 1727 m. "Kėdainiai" equivalents. Examples of lexical westernization in this edition include the following (exposed) words, like butterflies [a. sg f. 14: i. sg. m. Druggiu KNT n.p. ], pūsčia [in. sg. f. girioje (puBčzoje) BT Mat. 3, 1: PuBčioje KNT t. p.], readable [g. sg. f. litres (Heated) BT II Pov. 1. cor. 3, 6: n. s.g. f. Scanner KNT p.], t. complainant [a. pl. Cluniac (fkunes) BT Luk. 12, 18: Skunes CNT p. ], beggars [inf. beggars (beggars) BT Luke 16, 3: beggars KNT etc.], gates [broma (gates) BT Matthew 7, 13: Wartai KNT p.] t. ir kt However, the westernization of the lexicon was not limited to the mere transfer of the Zodziy in brackets to the 1727 edition: a number of words otherwise not common to the western Highlanders were replaced by words more common to the representatives of this dialect, and especially more common in the Prussian written language of the time. In 1701, for example, Gerd Mork was used in the will. 13, 7 was replaced in the 1727 edition by the exclamation, Dr. Luc. 5, 31 —in likoriy, idant Jon. 11, 57 —1 jéib, iskala "school" Acts 6, 9 —i Sile, support Mark. 2, 21 —| old, vezdeti Acts 3, 5—4to look, Zuklovanie Luke. 5, 4 —| walking. Therefore, cases of Westernization are observed in all parts of the New Testament of 1727. And this shows the efforts of the authors of this testament to make its language more understandable to the reader of RP, closer to the previous Kleenic tradition. Some deviations from this tradition can be explained by the individual views of the editors on individual linguistic phenomena, as well as by their desire to respect the changes in the usage of the Lithuanian written language in the post-Klaipėda period. In the 1727 testament there are also frequent cases of [0] and [uo], [ė] and [ie] being broken, cf. : a) inf. diwanoti II Petr. 1, 1, 4, you're Jon. 21.3ir/ingots Pov 16 See. The First Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1957, 257. 44 1. effect. 4, 14; g. s.g. m. Giido ‘godumo’ Pov. l. rym. 1, 29 ir a. pl. m. LoBus ‘loošus’ Mat. 15, 30; in. pl. wiffu/e Daiktofe 1 Pov. 1. tes. 5, 18 ir wiffiife Wietiifa I Pov. . Tim. 2, 8 ...; b) n. s.g. m. Snégas Jon. Apr. 1, 14 ir g. s.g. f. Giedos Jud. 1. 1,22; a. pl. f. Jawhem ‘ražienas’ I Pov. 1. cor. 3, 12 ir n. pl. m. Yes/No Jon. 4, 35 ... Such misunderbe standings, doubts, are already a direct reflection of the schneck of the Prussian Highlanders. $6. 1735 m. ‘New "The Language of the Testament". From 1727 m. permission little differs ir 1735 m. ‘New "Testimony". This is ir understandable: the latter was prepared H. Naunynas ir Pil. Ruigys, who mainly contributvo ed to the 1727 m. authorization editing. The differences between these two editions are usually limited to phonetic spelling, ir although there are occasional changes in morphology, syntax, and ir lexicon. For example, common nouns are more often written in capital letters, there 1727 m. are more me alligatives, adjectives, which 1735 m. often replaced by prepositional constructions, more older sentence models. $7. The "pure" dialect in the Bible. 1735 m. 1735 m. was issued ir Old Testament translation, which together su ‘The new Testamentu" encompassed the whole Bible ),,Bible, or efti Wiffas S3wentas RafBtas Sene ir New "Tėeftamento...") How to see iš German Jono Quantum talks, added to this first edition of the whole Bible, be H. Naunyno ir Phil. Ruigio, the Old Testament still translated Christopher Stimer, Abraham Lüneburg and Fabijonas Kalau, Adam Pilgrim and Kristopas Šperberis ir du Adamui Šimelpenigiai (senior ir junior), o supervised all translation work Jonas Berentas ir Petras Milkus (she skimmed ir the proofreading). The translation manuscript prepared by such a large group of people could not be completely uniform in terms of language, especially since the translators had come from different, iš dialectically more or less different ar places (e.g., H. Naunynas was born in RagainėjP. e, Milkus — In Tilžė, K. Štimeris In — Įsrutis, A. Liuneburgas — He worked for a long time in the agricultural sector.) However, there is no significant difference in language between the individual parts of the Old Testament, nor between the Old and New Testament, in the 1735 edition. This was undoubtedly largely due to the efforts of the editors of this edition, especially the editors (especially the intrusive J. Berent) to adhere to the earlier — Kleinic tradition, from which S. Bitner’s will had deviated, and to standardize the language of the edition on the basis of that tradition. The fact that the editors of the 1735 edition did not ignore the earlier (not only Kleian, but also pre-Klein) tradition can be inferred both from the aforementioned J. Quanto's talk, in which he writes about J. Bretkūno and S. Chilinskio Bible translations- "Biržiška V. A/eksandrynas 2, 10 et al. 45 timus, both especially iš jo 1730. I. 3 reporting RP to the authorities on the progress of the new authorisation. That notification stated that the new authorisation was ir J. Bretkūno Bible Translation (from the jo former inherited wind names), but many benefits iš to no. Not due to the fact that J. Bretkūnas based his translation on In the Labguva dialect, which „pure“ Įsruties, Ragainės ir For the Lithuanians of Tilžės counties it was incomprehensiir ble, ir unacceptable: ‘They [i.e. J. Bretkūnas translation, — J. P.) but is after the Labiauschen Dialect, so with the Curonian language is connected, written; therein are purified ones Littauern ir der Insterburg-Ragnit and Tilsit offices, which are the most extensive, can neither be understood nor accepted and requires a continuous improvement word by word. "'** §8. The tendency of Southernization in the 1755 edition of the Bible, in the translations of A. Pilgrim, K. Lovynas, V. Régés. The new edition of the whole Bible, prepared by Adam Schimmelpenninck the Younger (1699-1763) and printed in 1755, is not fundamentally different from the 1735 edition in terms of dialectal basis. This is understandable: this edition was actually only a slightly edited version of the one. However, there is still a tendency to make the language more rich in editing. For example, in the 1735 edition the non-African genders are replaced by African ones (cf.: adv. ap/tey B' I Mos. 3,10 > apBczey B)*; part. act. n.d. f. pagimdufi t. p. > pagimd3uJfi; pamatufi t. p. > pamacjufi; praes. 4, 4th edn. 14, 26 uffigeids- ’), the present tense 3rd person gender of the verbs “striukiški” —,,nestriukiSkomis* (cf.: banda B' Job. 4,2 bando B? barfta Ps 15,7 barfto; klaufa Mark. 4,9 klaufo; walga etc. p. 14, 18 walgo). The tendency toward internationalization may also be indicated by the change in some of the 1735 edition of Zodziy (e.g. adv. apfukar Sal. pam. 9, 14 > around, iBkiey Jon. 11, 14 > aiBkiey, fut. 1 sg. pabengfu Rut. 3, 2 > pabaigfu, g. sg. m. pakalo Iz. 30, 6 > back, g. pl. pawer/fmi Job. 8, 2 > Baltinni). Judging from the localization of these words in the Great Lithuanian Language Dictionary (LKZ), as well as from the writings of K. Donelaitis (DR), the substitutions of the 1755 edition must have been more characteristic of the Western Highland Southern dialects. Western southern genders are also predominant in the interpretations of J. Hübner's biblical stories translated by Adam Pilgrim, a priest of Įsrutis, "J6/kir/tyti [...] Nuffidawimai JB Séno bey Naujo Teftamento.. (1742). In most cases, the full endings are used, except for the noun -as, which is often abbreviated in the apostrophic way typical of the Prussian script: n. sg. Adom's 15, 20, Pon's Diew's 57,5, wert's Daikt's III, 15, wiens nelab's 15, 21... (although there are also: Diewas 77, 2, Welinas 12,18, Wyras 48, 18...). BFalkenhahn V. Der Ubersetzer der litauischen Bibel Johannes Bretke und seine "Helfer, Königsberg und Berlin: Ost-Europa-Verlag, 1941, 238. 46 Since the prayer books, as mentioned, were published together with hymns, and also prepared for printing usually by the same authors, they could not differ more from the latter in their dialectal basis. Some differences in the language of the tribes (e.g., more frequent cases of abbreviation of the extremities) may have been due to poetic needs. But this requires special investigations, which we will not go into here. In terms of genre, prayer books are also closely related to agendas, i.e. books of prayers and descriptions of church rites. Perhaps the first book of this kind published in RP —John Berents,- ,Dawadnas Pamokinnimas kaipo wiffi Lietawuje [...] Priests as God's Servants must behave [...] in Karalduczuje Mete MDCCXXX*. Since Berentas was a resident of Įsrutis (he was born and served as a priest for a long time in Įsrutis), he could not move further away from the dialect of his native region in his writings, even though since the time of D. Klein it had been established in the written tradition of the Republic of Lithuania. Therefore, in his,,Dawadne Pamokinnime...“, like in the biblical and hymnal texts, he more adhered to the dialectal basis of the western Highland Southerners (he used the gender with the unabbreviated endings -(r)o, -(7)os, -€, -ės of the nouns, sometimes with the “moving” stem vowel at the ending -as). However, probably because the area of Įsrutis belonged to the so-called „jakučių“ („jackets“) community, Berentas did not avoid shortening the endings in his agenda: he would leave out the „moving“ [a] (budam’s 2, 16, gyw’s 11, 36, Kuaing’s „priest“ 2, 23, Pon’s 11,16, Salmon’s „Salimanonas“ 12, 17... //Klebonas 9,20, Powilas 11,6, Ponas Diewas 11, 27...), he would drop the -e vnsk of nouns. inesyve (Bédojy' 2, 2, JBmintij' 31,8, Laiwėlij' 3,25, Maloney' 31,9, tykoj' Petnycioj' 38, 2... /| Danguje 4,12, Pakajuje 3,26, odie 11, 9...), dropped -e, -7 verbs endnote (inf. Ziept' 10,12 //talk 10, 13, praes. 3 nor 13,4, pen' "penny" 11, 16, fed' "sit" 516 //get 12, 18, finds etc., imper. 2 pl. imkit 7,7, walgikit 7,8... //grow 14,22, dekawokite 6, 26...). It should also be noted that in the agenda there are also cases of [uo]/[o], [ie]/[€] conjugation, cf.: in. pl. primidfa Knygofa 10, 20, wiffufa S3aliffa 21, 31, adv. never 39.5 //never 27.11, d. pl. Bednems 8, 12, inf. pakwefti 9, 11… This is already a characteristic feature of the Tilzéns, reflected in some other RP writings of that time. The dialectal basis of the Agenda of Gottfried Ostermeier (1775), which appeared almost half a century later, is not fundamentally different from that of Berent’s Agenda. In his 1791 grammar, he wrote that the purest Lithuanian dialects were considered to be the relatively closely related Ragnitsche, Įstrutie and Gumbinische dialects (,,Der Ragnitsche, Jnsterburgische und Gumbinische Dialect stimmt ziemlich, und wird fiir den reinsten gehalten- “, p. 130). And indeed, in his 1775 “Agenda- ”, the western southern genders with the endings -(/)o, -(1)OS;, -6, -€s; predominate. -ys (g.sg. Adomo3,18, amžino 4,6, mano 43,3, tawo 2,16, fawo 3,2, Mėd3šio 34.10, great 6.10, great 51.19...; n.d. Garbe 8.6, Giefme 74, 12, g. sg. Honor 3,10, Love 4, 20...; n.p. Aufys 61,11, S3irdys 39, 9...) with the “moving” [a] (n. sg. eternal 42,14, provision 2,26, birding 15,26, beneath 10, 8, bit 20,3 (betir kitts 32,2), prayed 42,11, honored 4,2...), with prefix -+ (imper. 2 sg. Apripik 58, 4, renew 68, 15, refresh 67,9, 53 Padrutik 17, 4, platik 58, 8, cond. 3 ftiprite 28, 7..., but also: imper. 2 s.g. [tipprink 29, 21, cond. 3 padruttintu 7, 13-14, garbint 25,4 [type 5, 10...) and others. Where ne where In the "Agenda" ir there is a. gender sg. m. waddote 1,7, n. s.g. m. Pralet 30,9, a. s.g. f. Weta ‘place’ 32, 22, a. pl. m. Zedus “Rings” 31, 22, Praet. 2 s.g. leper 50, 12, a. s.g. m. rg 60, 11; 66, 23, which can be associatsu ed with tilzény speech, if they are not a reflection of the author's pronunciation or mere printing errors. It is a pity that we do not have the surviving 1781 Ostermeyer hymn, which would make it easier to determine the causes of such genders. $11. The prevalence of mundane norms in catechisms. In the 18th century, not only biblical texts, hymnals and prayer books were often published, but also catechisms (both as separate books at the beginning of the century and as an addition to prayer books in the middle and second half of the century). Interestingly, yet In the 17th century here, apparently, with the multi-ethnic composition of the inhabitants of that region in mind, a catechism in four languages — German, Latin, Polish, Lithuanian — was published: “D. Martini Lutheri Catechismus minor, Germanico-- Polonico-Lithvanico-Latinus" (with the order of languages given before this title). The bibliographers mention the editions of this anonymous catechism in 1670, 1683, 1696, 1700, 1709, 1720 and 1751 (the date of the last appearance is doubtful)? **. Comparing the 1709 and 1720 manuscripts in the Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences microfilms, it can be immediately seen that they are neither content nor language (except for some spelling minors) is not different, so the latter is a reprint of the former. The Lithuanian translation of these two editions is often closer to the Polish, so there is reason to believe that the translator followed the latter more closely, cf. : 1709 edition (1720 in square brackets) Vokiškasis Lotyniškasis Lenkiškasis Lietuviškasis text text text text 1. Unfer daily Panemnostrūguo-- Bread nal powBed-- Dūną mufu die- "Brodt gib uns heutidianum da nobis ni day nam jišia". No, no, no, no, no, no. te. [p.20, 9-11] hour. [p.20, 8-11] [p.21, 8-10] [p.21, 10-12] [Ding mud dieniBka dik mum’s, ib.] 24 For further details, cf. LTB 1, 228-229; “Additions” to this volume, 1990, 44. 54 2. Du Jolt none Not available Deos Don't have others Don't have kittu andere Getter haaliėnos coram me. Gods according to me Diewu pagal maben next to me. [p.30,. 13-15] [p.31, nę. 14-16] [p.31, [p.30, 13-14] [Don't-hav13-15] e-kitto God according to me, ib.] Vokiškasis Lotyniškasis Lenkiškasis Lietuviškasis text text text text 3. Du Jolt nicht Non loquéris con-Nie mow falBywego Ne-luddik ne-teifalfch ZeugniB retra proximum tušwiadectwa prieciw [ausluddimo prieB den wider deinen um falfum teftimo-Blisniemu twemu. nearby taw. [p.39, ninth. [p.38, nium [p.38, 21-23] [p.39, 26-29] 23-25] 20-23] [Non-luddik non-type of ludding near tawa, ib.] The genders of the Lithuanian part of the Catechism in four languages (1709 and 1720) are, in general, Western- -Southern, coinciding in many cases with those codified in D. Klein’s grammar, namely: a) with the unabbreviated -(f)0, -6, -os, -ės endings (past 3 time K 45,18, g. sg. Diewo 7,5, lobjo'75, 12, mano 27,10, fawo 57,17//Jawa 27,3..., n.sg. NaBle 129, 11, g. sg. eternal gywatos 83,19, TewiBkas DeiwiBkas gerybes 51, 11-12...), b) with the unreleased „moving“ [a] (n. sg. DeBimtas 11,7, Diewas 11,16, gywas 9,8-9, gywenimas 99,3, kunas and kraujias 87, 8-9...), c) with the unabbreviated endings of the imperative clause (2 pl. Go 23,13, Take and drink 27,18—-19, teach 23, 14-15, walgikite 27, 5...), d) with the often unabbreviated vnsk. and dgsk. inessive endings (in m. sg. dūnoje 87,11, maldoje 69, 2, naktijė 25,13, Bloweje 35, 28, teifybeje 85, 9..., but also: Danguj 63,11, wienoj' tikroj wieroj' 59 6-7...)%. However, on the other hand, already deviating from the norms presented in D. Klein’s paradigms, the four-language catechism often uses present tense genders with lost endings: 3 a. gauBin „gausina“ 67, 2, gywen 129, 16, Jlauš „Jaučia“ 67, 2, myl 13,14, mokin 63, 12; 113, 14, perwerc3 117, 23-24...; 1 pl. atleidiam 71, 5, gywenam 65,9, tikkim 65, 8… The four-language catechism, apparently, did not satisfy the needs of the ecclesiastical seniority of the Republic of Lithuania, so thought was given to preparing a new, bilingual (German-- Lithuanian) catechism. Especially one that would be standard for the Lithuanian society of that region. The preparation of this catechism was undertaken by H. Lyzijus, who had been for some time the Inspector of Schools and Churches of the Republic of Poland. * Since the edition of 1720 coincides with the edition of 1709 and the page numbering, only the page and line of the latter are indicated here. 55 Duties of the Director **. However, the jo collectively prepared manuscript of the 1719 m. translation was not printed, 0 1722 m. appeared G. This manuscript was edited by Engelis. G. Engel's adjusted ‘In the small There are many differences in both the text and the language. Some parts of the text have been released, elsewhere expanded, — there is be plenty of ir (a) phonetic, (b) lexical, and (c) syntax corrections, e.g. praes.3 a) fdko LK 12, 8 ir /aka EK 6, 8; praes. 1 s.g. ¢/mi LK 12.9ir ¢/mi EK 6,9; praes. 3 patenk’ LK 36,5 ir Patenka EK 56, 12; a. s.g. f. The Gospel LK 37,13 ir Wangelyd EK 58,27, imper. 1 pl. Klaufykim' LK 54,18 ir Klaufykem’ EK 83, 13...,b) back cover Piktenybe LK 12, 11 ir atfankas Griekus EK 6, 13— 14; AB bednas grieBBnas man LK 29,11 ir AB bednas wargingas 3mogus EK 40, 4; adv. kodel LK 33,1 ir kam EK 51, 3..;; ¢) ... Bittoje There was a Bdūta last night. LK 27,12-13 ir ... Bitoje Overnight fuel should have been iBditas EK 11, 5-7; I'm sorry, but I can't find the wi-fi. |...) LK 30, 7-8 ir Other Errors | when creating wifi The |...) Christians are back there. EK 48, 1-6; Light three God's watch? LK 30,13 ir Ar three are Diewai? EK 48, 16... As can be seen from the iš examples already presented G. here, Engel has slightly corrected ir The manuscript of Lysias ba (in some places not duplicating consonants, especially r, be to, changing the punctuation marks, etc.). However, more pronounced dialectal differences from the LK and four-language catechism (except for one other northern sex) not seen. EK Second G. The Engel's edition of the Catechism is believed® to have appeared about It is difficult to say if it differed from the first one, because it has not been found yet. But the third, the 1730 m. edition is preserved in it, ir compared to the su first, there are various differences, cf. : Kldufimai Luteraus For the first time on Gero [udawaditi | fu Atfakimais EK 42,6-10ir Kldufimai Luther's | to those who go to the Table of God | fu jū Atfakimais MLK 43,9-12; Ar nufimanaifi ir Finaifi The Greek éphas? 42,11-13ir Is it only the Greeks? MLK 43, 13. This may indicate that the 1730 edition was not prepared by G. Engelis, but by someone else; There are also some textual differences (e.g., at the end, after the catechism and the chapters “NaBlēms” and “Wiffiems iB weno”, some psalms of David are inserted, which are not in the 1722 edition). However, there are no significant differences between the editions of 1722 and 1730 in terms of the dialectal basis. Bibliographies mention editions of the Little Katgism in 1750, 1751, 1780, but they are known only from written sources, so nothing can be said about their dialectal basis and language in general. Others are catechisms, published as supplements to prayer books. According to G. Ostermeier**, the first such "7 LTB 1, 96. BOstermeyer G. First Lithuanian Song History, Konigsberg, 1793, 144. 2% See more about it here. Heinrich Johann Lysius. Little Catechism... (prepared by Pietro U. Dini), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993, 8-11. 56 Appendix printed 1740 m. friend su J. Berento maldaknyge. Iš 1744, 1748 ir 1753 m. comparisons of such catechisms show jų that the dialectal basis is the same as ir tų prayer books to which they were attached. This is ir understandable: catechisms were translated by the same people who prepared prayer books for printing. ir Both on the dialectal basis and in general on the language, it is worth mentioning Jono Jaskowd, a Jesuit preacher who worked Tilžėje ir in Karaliaučius, 1770 m. Released ,,KrikBéioniBkas Catholic Church "Catechism". Since the author of this catechism, presumably, had come from iš Palanga district, o studied Kražiuose- ?, so it would be possible to expect in the jo writings a larger or ar smaller layer of the lower classes. But this is not the case: apparently, in order to grab į Catholicism Tilžės krašto ir Karaliaučius Lithuanians, he had to adapt to the norms of written RP language, based on the Prussian West Highland dialect codified ir D. Klein's Grammar. Ir iš in fact, Joskaud’s catechism is dominated by Western phonetic and morphological genders, characteristic of many other 18th a. edition, ed. : a) g. s.g. Am3ino gywénimo 13,11, kraujo 40,16, liešuwjo 56,26, dūnos 56,4, funkos Iliggos 58, 12, praes.3 daro 51,15, [ako 4,3, praet. 3 was 7.8, suffered 6, 22, went 7.4...,b) n. sg. meilė 21,2, Moteryfté 35,24, taku 15, 25, praet. 3 took 42.15, made 19.10, g. sg. Gentyf/tės 41,9, Kumyjftės 41,10, matonés 16, 12, šėmės 9, 21...,c) n. sg. Greek 37.7, PraBimas 15.9, Wiener Ding 5.18, part. cont. atfiminantis 13,9, budamas 10, 10, mirdamas 49, 5..., d) in. s.g. in the second puffé 19,19, in the first regimo 59,2, in the second regimo 41,25, in the heaven 9,11,in. pl. kurrife daiktūfe 14,5, RaBtūfe 119, Tēf/tamentūfe 3,9..,€) praes.3 atléidsia 63,13, reikia 43,2, werkia 83, 4, cond. 1 p.g. I would be 53, 10, etc. However, on the other hand, in some features, especially in the “striking” abbreviation of the extremities, Joskaudas’s catechism connects with the dialects of the Prussian West Highland Norsemen, cf. the often rejected “moving” [a]: n. sg. gers 49,4//geras 13, 13, nieks 40, 25, Pirms 15,9, wiens 4,4, vyrs 41, 3, part. cont. /iepdams 70, 2, werkdams 71, 25... and a fairly frequent use of the endings -a, -e, -/ in the present tense: 7mm 3 5, 7, nenufimin,nenusimena‘ 13, 8, wadinn 36, 19, praBom 15,13, negal 12, 12... How much influence his native Žemaičių dialect, how much Tilžėnų spoken language, how much the earlier Prussian written tradition could have had here, is now, of course, difficult to say. We can only add that such cases of abbreviation occur in his booklet published in 1770, “Praftas Pamokl|tas...”, which can also be called a catechism in part, because it explains various catechetical matters in the form of questions and answers, only prayers are added, cf.: n. sg. Wiens 3, 12, neutr. wiff 5, 2, praes. 3 aptur 18,13, gal 8,25, gird 11, 19, mirSt 11,22 //mirBta 11, 26 (more often), ne futtar 10, 15, perm. te laupfin 9 More about his life zr. 2nd ed., Alexandria, 1542. 57 23, 17. Į subsequent editions of this booklet (1772, 1797 m.) many of such truncated sexes have also been transferred. But in the most extensive 1797 m. edition, the abbreviated gender endings are often marked with an apostrophe, e.g.: neutr. a. w/ff PrPTM5, 2ir wiff’ PrP’ 9, 12, praes. 3 mirBt PrP’ 11, 22, mirBt PrP"*16, 6 ir mirBt’ PrP 22,18, g. s.g. f. women PrP’ 17,17 ir moter’s PrP’ 39, 12. Be of this, it is noteworthy that some of the earlier editions shortened the sexes 1797 m. replaced in the authorisation by the full abbreviation, cf. n. sg. m. Rajum PrP’ 53, 21 ir Rajzumas PrP’ 105, 7, in. s.g. m. Dang[u]j PrP"*,21,12ir Danguje PrP’ 37, 8, praes. 3 yr PrP27,6is present PIP’ §, 25. Overall 1779 m. ,,Just Pamokfto...” edition is only substantially ne supplemented (inserted new versed maldeliy, extended questiony-atsakymy part, etc.), but significantly re-edited with regard to the spelling of the language ir ir (in some places polonisms have been replaced by Lithuanian equivalents, the use of ygreku ilgasi [i] is more regular than in previous editions, etc.). Compared with some other late 18th-century Polish religious writings (e.g. the translated books of Vilhelmas Rėgė) Joskaudo ,,Just Pamokjto...“, as ir jo ,,,,KriBcioniko Catholic Church Kateki3mo", the language is quite pure. This seems to have noticed ir S. Daukantas, who in a letter to M. Valančius dated 5 April 1846 wrote that Fr. Barauskas had found in the library of St. Petersburg a Jesuit Lithuanian Catechism, printed in Karaliaučius in 1770, whose language is said to be the purest („język naiczytszy Litewski- )®. Of course, to say that Joscaud- ’s language is the “purest” would not be accurate today (it also contains borrowings typical of the period, such as asaba, pekla, sūdyti, viera, etc.), but it is in fact purer, especially in terms of syntax, than the language of many other translators of religious writings of that period. ar $12. Christianity's Origins of Christianity. The southern part of the territory is a part of the Donetsk Oblast. This was mainly due to the writer’s place of birth and work: as is known, he was born in the village of Lazdynėliai, near Gumbinė, and worked most of his life in Tolminkiemis, thus within the borders of the western Altay Southern dialect (so-called Baltsermėgių). In addition, the earlier written tradition, especially the Bible language of 1755, which the editors brought closer to the southern dialects, may have played a significant role. The southern basis of the language of Donelaičio writings is shown by: a) the regularity of the genders with uninterjected endings -(/)0, -(i)os;, -€, -ės; Use of -ys and -ūs (e.g.: praet. 3 bėgo DRr 23, 23, buwo t.p.3,11; aude t.p. 3,23, lope t.p. 4,18, g. sg. diddelio Pulko t. p. 3,27, fzalto Pajfzalio t. p. 3,13, n. pl. Kdfos also 30 See. Letters of Daukanto /published by A. Janulaitis. —Mūsų senovė 1, kn. 4/5, Kaunas, 1922, 787. In the printed text of the oral letter there is an intruding error: instead of 1770 printed 1740 Vac. According to Biržiška, there was no such error in Daukanto letter, see his A/eksandryną 2, 155. 58 The Hat's t. p. 23, 10, Painful ... Trouble DR 258, 12, Eyes DRr 26, 10, Wagys t. p. 30,29, fatty t. p. 36,41, /canes t. p. 16, 38); b) quite lawful, although ir ne be exceptions, gender su prepositions -£, -ėim, en) (< pronunciation (e. g. : inf. augyt DRr 26, 35, budjt t. p. 41,11, pafirupjt t. p. 15, 40, emper. 2 s.g. atfimyk t. p. 9,33, 2 pl. Skubjkimes t. p. 12, 31, part. cont. n. s.g. nufimjdams t. p. 15, 19, n. pl. refreshit. p. 3, 5..., ng but also: inf. circle t. p. 30, 41, pafikdkint t. p. 6, 21,cond.3 nugabéntu t. p. 14, 38); c) sex su iSlaikytu limbs -(7)a verbs are. time in 3 the person (e. g. : buddina DRr 5, 4, clean t. p. 5,2, nedryfta t. p. 30,18, nufidide t. p. 5,36, /kalbja t. p. 9, 25, werpja p. 35, 36..., but also: pa/ilink/- min p. 9,1, prifiartin’ p. 28, 9, Bweplén’- ). The genders with the so-called “moving” [a] in K. Donelaitis’ writings should also be regarded as southern: n. sg. m. Gandras DRr 4, 3, grybas et al. p. 35,18, linkfmas et al. p. 4,3, Stalas et al. p. 39,24, Weikalas et al. p. 22, 28... However, in his verse works, genders with the short vowel released are used much more often (mainly because of the requirements of hexametry) (the release is often marked with an apostrophe: kitt’s DRr 3, 36, Snieg's et al. p. 4, 17...). Of course, it is not possible to assume that the frequent release of the mobile [a], kurių kitų galūnių trumpinimas (pvz.: trumpojo -a numetimas veiksmažodžių as and when we are. time in 3rd person, short -/drop in verbs in common or būsim. time in 3 person, etc.) In the writings of Donelaitis, he is concerned only with the poetic needs of his works. The influence of the neighbouring jacket schneck and the earlier written tradition may have been reflected here (e.g., in the biblia texts of 1735 and 1755 there are also numerous genders with abbreviated and apostrophed endings: n. sg. m. nakwin's I Moz. 24, 54, Nelab’s Sal. Pam. 16, 29, pien's 11 Moz. 3, 17, Tėw's wien's Jon. 10, 30..., praes 3 min' Jon. 13, 18, agreed Acts 15, 15..., inf. 20, 12..., in, sg. f. dwilinkoj' 1 Moz. 25, 9, trēc30j' II Mos. 19, 1...). $13. Dialectal characteristics of Kanceliariniy writings: In general, Western Southern is also the dialectal basis of the 18th-century Polish-Lithuanian writings of the Kanceliariniy style. But they, like other styles of written language of that region, have more or less the characteristics of the dialect of the western highlanders („striukių“). In addition to the fairly frequent “moving” release of [a], almost all the Prussian government orders contained both [0] —[uo], [ė] —[ie] slams, and cases of unpronounced short endings -a, -e, -7 of verbs, cf. : a) inf. card PVG 77, 7//refer to p. 110, 3 and wajoti p. 314, 16; wartoti p. 97, 8 and preceding. 3 wartūjo t. p. 97,16; n. sg. m. kiem’s t. p. 198, 28, in. pl. Kiemūj/e t. p. 175, 9 and in. s.g. Kėme t. p. 109, 28, g. pl. Kemi t. p. 101, 22; d. p. m. efantiems t. p. 299,17ir minnétéms t. p. 236, 2; wiffems piktiems t. p. 73, 8...; b)neutral. ger t. p. 105, 3, menk t. p. 253,16 wiff’ t. p. 262, 3, praes.3 apfed t.p. 222.15, yr t.p. 194,21, pabėgt.p- .110, 7, pawag t.p. 153, 16 reik praes. 59 t. p. 60, 32...; 1 pl. darom t. p. 109, 10, dūdam t.p. 109, 9, norim t. p. 324, 5, Fadam t. p. 109, 22; Praet. 1 pl. I gave it to you. t. p. 152,21, jeBkojom' t. p. 152,19, iBtyrém' t. p. 149,5; fucked. 1 pl. gurē/im t. p. 233, 18, in. s.g. fourteen days t. p. 66, 19, lenkiBkoj In the language t. p. 321,26, tam' patim' Angle t. p. 141, 20-21, wienam’ t. p. 250, 21, inf. but’ t. p. 158, 21, darryt t. p. 101, 3, fėt' t. p. 272,1, praes. 3 gal t.p. 70, 13, yellow t.p. 237,19, nér t.p. 97,9, tur t. p. 113, 4... However, in many Prussian government kanceliariniy letters both uo and o/ é/ fe both the shaking and the shortening of the limbs were irregular, often only sporadic, of be the strong-started diphthongs characteristic of the northern [4i], [au], [éi] monophonic cases are not observed in this style. $14. Concluding remarks. The relationship of dialects of the Lithuanian written language in ir general XVIII a. RP, it is possible to answer the ir į questions raised at the beginning of this chapter. The analysis of the written language usage shows that in the spoken period many authors followed the main features of the Prussian West Highland dialect, codified in the D. Klein's Grammar. An exception in this respect is made for: S. Bitner's 1701 m. Testament, which attempted to artificially harmonize two branches of the written language based on somewhat different dialectal bases (Prussian Medieval). ir However, such an artificial combination was not viable: it did not gain wider RP acceptance, and soon there was a return to the ir previous, Kleeian, tradition. Although that return is vividly reflected so much 1727, 1735 ir 1755 m. Bible editions, however, cannot be claimed that they were consistently adhered to D. "Klein's Grammar Codes Kaunas Dialect Rules". This is especially true of 1727 m. The New Testament, in which the genders are presented in su a manner typical of rų the Prussian West-Highland Nordic dialects [0] ir [uo], [ė] ir [ie] squealing, ne rarely transferir į 1735, 1755 m. ring permissions. Bet K. In Donelaičio fictional works such genders were not noticed, although in a jo brochure about the benefits of separation (in printed year) 1769 slightly occurs. Esama jų ir In the Prussian government chancellery writings, probably written by iš people of RP different dialects. Thus, in the 18th-century Prussian Lithuanian written language (especially in phonological and morphological terms) the Kleenian ir norms were not strictly observed, and sometimes certain dialectisms were not avoided, against which Mykolas Merlinas had raised his voice at the beginning of this century*'. However, narrower phonological and morphological dialectisms, characteristic only of one dialect (e.g., Labguva) and less common in the Prussian West Highland dialect, were avoided. 3 Maciūnas V. Maz The Reform Project of the Lithuanian Church Language in the Early 18th Century. — Archivum philologicum 6, Kaunas, 1937, 80. 60 Ap. d. B? BG BT Comp. DR DRr GG? MLK Mork. Moz. Peter. 1. Pov. 1. Effect — Pov. I. Rhyme. — Pov. 1st test. — Pov. 1 Tim. Prp"? Prp? ? Prp"? Ps. PVG RG RM RS Ruth. Sal. Pam. Sal. exp. SG Sigy? SiG’® A. ABBREVIATIONS Acts of the Apostles (Bible) The Bible, that's it Wissas Szwentas Rasztas ... 1735 The Bible, that's it Wissas Szwentas Rasztas ...1755 J. Berento Isz re-written improved ir Giesmu Books ... 1747 S. Bitnerium New Will ... 1701 D. Kleino Compendium Lituanico-Germanicum ... 1747 K. The Writings of Donelaitis ... 1977 K. Manuscripts of Donelaitis ... 1955 G. Engelium Small Katgismas ... 1722 E. Glacier Other new Giesmes ...1748 D. Kleino Grammatica Litvanica ...1653 The Book of Isaiah (Bible) The Book of Job (Bible) Gospel of John (Bible) Revelation of John (Bible) D. Martini Lutherans Catechism minor ... 1709 J. Ouandto New The testament...1727 H. J. Lysias Small 1719 - Catch me if you can Lietuvos TSR Bibliography Gospel of Luke (Bible) Gospel of Matthew (Bible) Little Catchment by D. Mertin Luther...1730 Gospel of Mark (Bible) The Books of Moses (Bible) Epistle of Peter (Bible) Paul's Letter to the Ephesians (Bible) Paul's Letter to the Romans (Bible) Paul's Letter to the Thessalonians (Bible) Paul's Letter to Timothy (Bible) J. Joskaudo Bad The sermon...1770 J. Joskaudo's Poor Sermon...1772 J. Joskaudo's Poor Sermon...1779 Psalms of David (Bible) 1960 - The Prussian Government's Gromades J. Rikovijus' New... Hymn Book... 1685 V. Rėgė's Science of Instruction... 1788 V. Rėgė's Reading Books... 1788 Ruth's books (Bible) Solomon the Preacher (Bible) Solomon- 's Wisdom (Bible) F. Suster's 1705 hymnal A. Šimelpenigio Jsz newly painted and improved Giesmju Book... 1755 Šimelpenigio Jsz newly reprinted and improved Giesmjū Book... 1776 šiG? ! A. Šimelpenigio Jsz newly painted and improved Giesmju Knygos... 1791 61 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DER LITHUANIAN WRITTEN LANGUAGE AND DAY MUNDARTEN IN OSTPREUBEN IM 18. 20th Century Summary of the Im present Article is on Reason for an in-depth phonetic, morphological, to Part also syntactic and lexicological Analysis of Documents from the Language monuments of the 18. of the 20th century (from biblical texts, hymnals, prayer books, catechisms as well as Works by K. Donelaitis and office-language Urkunden) die The oral basis of the Lithuanian written language in East Prussia. This research has shown that the majority of the authors of the time adhered to the South-West Upper Lithuanian dialect, the characteristics of which were codified in the grammar of Daniel Klein. An exception is the “Neue Testament” by Samuel Bitner (1701), in which there is an attempt to combine the Prussian and Lithuanian branches of the written language. But such a connection had no prospects: in East Prussia one returned very soon to the Kleinischer Tradition zuriick. The Kleinian tradition was preserved in the edition of the,,New Testament” in 1727 as well as in the editions of the whole Bible in 1735 and 1755. In these editions, however, the norms of D. Klein’s grammar are not applied consistently: they also contain some characteristic features of the North-West Upper Lithuanian dialect (the mixing of /0/ and /uol, /é/ and /ie/, etc.). They also appear sporadically in the documents in the chancellery language of the time. In the fictional works of K. Donelaitis, however, such North-West High Lithuanian elements are lacking. 62