HE HIMSELF STUDIED LITHUANIAN DIALECTS AND ENCOURAGED OTHERS

(On the 130th anniversary of J. Rozwadowski’s birth)

At the end of 1997 (December 7), it will be 130 years since the birth of one of the most distinguished Polish linguists specializing in Lithuanian, Jan Rozwadowski. His scholarly interests ranged widely: a great connoisseur of classical languages, a distinguished Indo-Europeanist, Slavicist, and Lithuanian scholar, he wrote his works in Polish, Latin, French, and German. He devoted almost his entire scholarly career to Lithuanian studies. One of his largest works on Lithuanian has recently appeared in print: “The Lithuanian Dialect of the Zietela Area in the Novogrudok Region (Navahrudak)”¹.

J. Rozwadowski was born in 1867 in Czarna (between Tarnów and Dębica), into a family of engineers. From 1885 to 1889, he studied classical philology at the University of Kraków. From 1891 to 1894, he pursued further studies in Leipzig, where he attended lectures by A. Leskien, E. Sievers, and E. Windisch, and attended K. Brugmann’s seminars. After returning in 1895, he taught at the same Kraków gymnasium from which he had graduated. After defending his habilitation thesis in 1897, he was appointed assistant professor at the University of Kraków, becoming a professor in 1900.

J. Rozwadowski worked in Kraków until the end of his life. Twice (1912–1913 and 1915–1916), he was elected rector of the University of Kraków. From 1903 he was a member of the Polish Academy of Sciences, serving as its vice-president from 1920 and president from 1925 to 1929. In addition, he was an honorary member of the national academies of many European countries and of various societies, including the Lithuanian Scientific Society. He died on March 13, 1935.

J. Rozwadowski became interested in the Lithuanian language during his studies. He also learned to speak Lithuanian very well. The archive of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Kraków preserves numerous excerpts and summaries, written in small, clear handwriting (similar to K. Būga’s), from various Lithuanian written monuments, mostly old ones. This alone shows that J. Rozwadowski studied the Lithuanian language seriously. In 1895, having found in a library a 1737 edition of the anonymous grammar “Universitas linguarum Litvaniae” (“The Totality of the Lithuanian Languages”) and recognizing its importance for Lithuanian accentology, he republished it in Kraków in 1896. In the same year, he published an extensive study in German and Polish on the accentuation system used in this grammar, comparing it in detail with F. Kuršaitis’s accentuation system.

Recognizing the great importance of Lithuanian dialects for linguistics, J. Rozwadowski was one of the leading initiators of research into the rapidly disappearing southeastern fringe of the Lithuanian-speaking area. His first concern was to determine where Lithuanian was still spoken. To this end, using data collected by A. Plater in 1890 concerning

¹ Jan Rozwadowski. The Lithuanian dialect of the Zdziecioł area in the Novogrudok region. A posthumous work. / Edited by Adam Gregorski. Consultation by Jan Safarewicz, Kraków: 1995, 181. Polish Academy of Sciences – Kraków Branch. Works of the Linguistics Commission, No. 59.

242

To document the vitality of the Lithuanian language in Vilnius Governorate, he also compiled and published in 1904 a map entitled “Map of the Lithuanian Language in Vilnius Governorate” (“Mapa języka litewskiego w gubernii Wileńskiej”). It seems likely that as early as 1898 J. Rozwadowski, under the pseudonym Anonimo and having processed data collected by A. Plater, published the work “The Area of the Lithuanian Language in Vilnius Governorate” (“Obszar języka litewskiego w gubernii Wileńskiej”). Because relations between Lithuanians and Poles had become strained at the time (more precisely, between Lithuanians who had not become Polonized and those who had), he did not risk publishing it under his own name, as he did not want to become embroiled in politics. Soon afterward (in 1914), he compiled a map of the entire spread of the Lithuanian language in Lithuania Minor and Greater Lithuania, entitled “Map of the Lithuanian Language” (“Mapa języka litewskiego”).

Already a professor at the University of Kraków, J. Rozwadowski visited the Zietela area, where in 1901 and 1903 he recorded a substantial collection of dialect texts. He also studied other Lithuanian dialects. Among his manuscripts in the Kraków archive is a collection of texts (fairy tales and narratives) recorded in the Sudargas area of Šakiai district (undated). These texts, transcribed by someone other than Rozwadowski, were reproduced and used as a teaching aid. J. Rozwadowski taught Lithuanian at the University of Kraków for many years.

J. Rozwadowski’s scholarly interests were very broad. He also studied issues concerning Greek, Latin, Slavic, Celtic, and Romani languages. In many of his works he drew on evidence from Lithuanian. Notable works include “Word Formation and Word Meaning” (Heidelberg, 1904), an article dedicated to K. Jaunius on the word skutulė, published in the Lithuanian journal “Draugija” (No. 16, 1908), “Historical Phonetics of the Polish Language” (Kraków, 1915 and 1923), and an interesting article on lexical relations between Slavic and Iranian (1915). In the same year (1915), he published a general survey entitled “The Baltic Languages” in volume 3 of the Polish Encyclopedia. After J. Rozwadowski’s death, the important work “A Study of Slavic Water Names” (1948) was published through the efforts of T. Lehr-Słaviński and J. Safarewicz. At J. Rozwadowski’s initiative, the Polish Slavicist journal “Slavonic Yearbook” (“Rocznik slawistyczny”) was founded in Kraków in 1908. Together with K. Nitsch, he founded one of the most popular journals in Polish studies, “The Polish Language” (“Język polski”), in 1913.

Even after attaining high positions and becoming occupied with various duties, J. Rozwadowski remained interested in Lithuanian and concerned especially for the dialects and their fate in the southeastern borderlands occupied by Poland. He sought to organize an extensive study of those dialects. To this end, he commissioned the collection of the latest information on the use of Lithuanian in what was then known as the Vilnius Region. From 1928 to 1933, O. Chomiński compiled the “Map of the Spread of the Lithuanian Language in the Republic of Poland” (“Mapa obszaru językowego litewskiego w Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej”), of which only a few copies have survived. The most important sources for that map and fragments of the unfinished commentary are in J. Rozwadowski’s archive (they should be published).

At J. Rozwadowski’s initiative, in 1926 the most distinguished Polish linguists were convened—

243

(J. Baudouin de Courtenay, V. Porzeziński, K. Nitsch, J. Otrębski)—and it was decided to describe various Lithuanian dialects then spoken in Poland. Rozwadowski himself apparently intended to prepare for publication a description of the Zietela dialect, together with texts. V. Porzeziński began studying Lazūnai, while J. Otrębski took up the Tverečius vernacular. Of them, however, only J. Otrębski lived long enough to publish a description, “The Eastern Lithuanian Tverečius Dialect” (“Wschodniolitewskie narzecze twereckie”, 1934).

J. Rozwadowski’s work “The Lithuanian Dialect of the Zietela Area in the Navahrudak Region” was published more than 60 years after the author’s death. The fate of V. Porzeziński’s manuscripts is still unknown.

J. Rozwadowski was the second linguist to take an interest in the Zietela vernacular. Before 1901, only E. Volter had visited the area (in 1886 and 1888). The third, K. Būga, studied the Zietela vernacular in the summer of 1906.

J. Rozwadowski was probably encouraged to study the Zietela vernacular by the renowned Polish ethnographer and local historian Michał Fedorowski (1853–1923). While working as an agronomist and managing estates around Ašmena, Gardinas, Lyda, Naugardukas, Slanimas, Sluckas, Valkaviskas, and elsewhere, Fedorowski transcribed Belarusian folklore, customs, and spells in dialect, studied flora and fauna, collected old books, various documents, manuscripts, and works of art, excavated burial mounds, and more. He maintained ties with many Polish scholars and artists. His legacy includes the impressive eight-volume work “Lud białoruski” (“The Belarusian People”). Fedorowski was influenced above all by such figures in Polish culture as O. Kolberg, Z. Gloger, and J. Karłowicz. Many prominent figures in Polish culture visited his estate at Podolė (near Zietela), where these treasures had been assembled. At that time, the remarkable storyteller Regina Dargevičiūtė (1876–1958), from Zasečiai, was working in Podolė. Fedorowski himself tried to learn Lithuanian from her. Perhaps it was this Lithuanian woman who encouraged M. Fedorowski to invite to Podolė for a visit the celebrated scholar of Lithuanian, J. Rozwadowski, who later (in 1904) wrote: “I devoted my stay in Podolė (in 1901) to studying the dying Lithuanian vernacular in the Zietela (Diatlovo) area.”

The author of this article happened to meet Regina Dargevičiūtė, who was nursing a small child in Zietela, one autumn evening in 1957. Regina was slight of build and, despite her advanced age, quite upright, rather tall, and youthful in her alertness. She spoke temperamentally, somewhat excitedly, and rapidly, often struggling to find words (she had not spoken Lithuanian for a long time). It seemed that in the brief time available she wanted to recount her whole life. Apparently, the brightest period for her had been the eight years she spent in service “with Mr. Federauskas,” who for two years allowed Regina to study the intricacies of cooking, housekeeping, and good manners. No wonder Regina proudly said that she had taught Lithuanian to her employer, Federauskas, and to the “professor from Kraków” (she could not remember J. Rozwadowski’s surname). I spoke with Regina on a couple more occasions later. It is a pity that at the time I knew so little about the people she mentioned. By the time I found out more, Regina was no longer among the living.

By the time J. Rozwadowski’s texts of the Zietela vernacular were published, more than—

244

not an entire century. The publication of this work earlier was probably hindered by the rather complex, unconventional transcription of the texts. Apparently, this obstacle was overcome neither by the author himself nor by subsequent editors until computer technology became available. He himself did not dare simplify the transcription, while others were deterred by J. Rozwadowski’s considerable authority. After his death, J. Rozwadowski’s archive was taken over by the Polish linguist K. Nitsch. In 1945, he handed the texts over to Jan Safarewicz (1904–1992), a linguist and Balticist at the former Vilnius Stephen Báthory University who had moved to Poland. Safarewicz enlisted the help of Adam Gregorski (1906–1993), a specialist in classical languages and a former student of J. Rozwadowski. Thanks to this linguist’s dedication, the Zietela texts were prepared for publication as early as 1956. However, because of the transcription, particularly the unconventional marking of stress, no one undertook to publish the work that had been prepared. Eventually, the work began to be typeset using a computer. After A. Gregorski’s death, the work being printed was edited and revised by the Kraków linguist Prof. Leszek Bednarczuk. Another Polish Balticist and excellent specialist in Lithuanian, Prof. Wojciech Smoczyński, also contributed advice.

J. Rozwadowski’s book “Litewska gwara okolic Zdziecioła na Nowogródczyźnie” consists of: a foreword by J. Safarewicz, an introduction by A. Gregorski, facsimiles of texts in the Zietela dialect recorded by J. Rozwadowski (79 pages) and their transliteration (the manuscript was transliterated by A. Gregorski), J. Rozwadowski’s “Material for a Description of the Zasečiai (Village) Dialect,” A. Gregorski’s “Notes on the Language of the Dialect,” a Lithuanian-Polish glossary compiled by him, and a concluding word by L. Bednarczuk—Post scriptum. At the end are a short bibliography of research on the Zietela dialect, a list of abbreviations, and a summary in French.

The texts cover a variety of subjects: songs, translations of poems or romances, folktales, legends, anecdotes, laments, and accounts of certain customs or adventures. At the end is a fine collection of proverbs and sayings. Probably the largest number of texts (cf. pp. 12–34) were recorded from Regina Dargevičiūtė of Zasečiai. J. Rozwadowski marked them with the letter R. Other texts were recorded from Mikalojus Tilvikis of Pagiriai, Jonas and Vincentas Dicevičius, and Kiprijona Bagdelytė, who lived in Teteikiai. However, more precise source information is lacking.

The Zietela dialect texts recorded by J. Rozwadowski have remained authentic, that is, as the linguist heard and was able to write them down at the time (they were not subsequently edited, corrected, or standardized). When recording stories or songs, he could rely only on his own knowledge. There was no established orthography for Lithuanian at the time, just as there was no uniform tradition of transcription or stress marking. From today’s perspective, we could fault him for various inconsistencies in transcription, stress marking, and the notation of vowel quality and quantity, among other things. For example, he wrote the vowel ė in as many as four different ways: as e (b’élg ‘run!’, s’ėdo, zm’ėji), ė (jém’ė, nùm’irė, us’s’inorėi), è (m’ėgo, s’ėd’ei, šėnavoti ‘to respect, protect’), or (pon’, sùkn’, pràmulk’ ‘swallowed’). He did not mark the length of stressed long vowels separately; their length is indicated by the accent mark. A macron over the letter marked only the length of unstressed vowels. Following the example of Polish, he consistently wrote hard or hardened l as ł (bróhuks, gulėj, fái-

245

dō), while soft l was written in various ways. He usually marked consonant softness with a minute sign above the letter (apšišākė, bōčīs, mañē), and less often with a mark above and to the right of the letter (b'en'el'ū, m'erg'ātė, vād'ē). For reasons unknown, the second element of the consonant clusters kv, sv, tv and sometimes of the circumflex diphthong au is written as f, for example: k'etvirtōs ~ ketvirtōs, nakfōt ~ nakvōt, sfet'imām ~ svetimām, dangōfs ~ dangaũs. Following the example of Slavic languages, the negative particle ne is usually written separately from verbs: n'e būs, n'e pasak'ei, n'e turi ~ nēturi, less often n'ēvedei, n'ērink.

J. Rozwadowski distinguished the accents relatively well. However, his efforts to indicate the various nuances of pronunciation among the mixed-language speakers of Zietela resulted in considerable inconsistency as well. At times, the accents seem to have been confused, for example: b'eg'in'ēdam'i, būs'i, iškūfė, l'iep'e m'ielitkas, n'ieko, nutēk'ā, pōnas, slūžīt ‘to serve’, tavōrišas ‘friend’, vīras alongside būča, išb'eg'in'ėjau, l'iep'e, m'ielitkas, n'ēks, pōna, slūžina, tavōrišo. Possibly this variation arose from the emphasis placed on particular words in a sentence, the pace of speech, dictation of the text, and so on.

The recorder distinguished three vowel lengths: long, short, and half-long. Short vowels that were not lengthened are usually marked with a double grave accent, for example: ajš’i, ajšū, anà ‘she’, būs, dūrės, dūris, g'erēst ‘better’, mōmā, mo-mūt'ė, pašouk'ė, sūrū, v'īsa. A single grave accent is most often used for stressed (dephonologized) a, e that have not been sufficiently lengthened, for example: ānas ‘he’, àn'is ‘they’, gràž'ā ~ gràžiā, pō krūm'ālu, lāk'e ~ lēkia, p'irk'āfēn, stālō, užrāk'ē ‘locked’, alongside hānas, kōjātēm'i, pasāk'ēt, us'irāk'ē. Sometimes this accent marks sporadically lengthened i, u, which are otherwise always short (b'īt ‘was’, bōč'ūlō, gùli), and even long vowels (athēlē ~ atlēkė, iā ~ iā, jēm'ē ~ ēme, ji ~ ī, namōp, sūrī ~ sūri). Šlūbō occurs alongside jā, namōp, sūris, and so on. Because of the dephonologization of accents, the first element of a diphthong or mixed diphthong that would normally have a circumflex by nature is sometimes stressed, for example: āj ‘goes, to go’, inlīndo ~ inlīdo, īmtū ~ īmtu, p'irkō ~ pirkō, and also ktāus ~ klāus, m'élzas'i ~ meldžiasi, paklāus'ē ~ paklausė, pam'iršō ~ pamiršo, šūnt'ē ~ šu in tė, v'ērk'ē ~ verkė, and so on.

J. Rozwadowski never marked sonorant consonants in the second element with a circumflex. Instead, he usually stressed the short first element with a double grave accent, for example: dabārg'i, dānt'i, d'iržas, m'ērgā, pav'ērktū, rask'īrs, šēn, š'īlt'ī, tēn. Sometimes even circumflex pure diphthongs are written in different ways: aīs, aīj'im, sakōū, but labāi, vāikō, and so on. Somewhat unusual in appearance are the circumflex-stressed diphthongs of recent origin ēj, ōj, formed when third-person singular past-tense forms of verbs with the suffixes -ējo, -ojo were shortened (by dropping the ending o), for example: gut'ēi, m'iegōi, n'ēžinōi ‘did not know’, norēi, stōi alongside gutēi, nuorēi, stōi. Perhaps in this way J. Rozwadowski was trying to indicate the pronunciation or dominance of the semivowel į.

Despite the combinations of signs mentioned here and the many other types used to represent the features of the declining Zietela dialect, J. Rozwadowski’s transcription, unfamiliar to us, has a sound basis. It offers a clear view of the disintegration of the phonetic system of the Zietela dialect.

246

Probably owing to the informants’ limitations (their imperfect command of Lithuanian), the texts contain mismatches between parts of speech, for example: pas'ūvo sūn'ālū advōbn'in'es (=advobninius ‘silk’) maršk'inukùs (p. 5), v'is'i (all) p'irk'ātes použrak'in'ėtōs (p. 38), bōba ch'itrast'e (=chy tresnė ‘cleverer’) kad (=kap) čertas (p. 74); dakt (=to cover) kālin'us, alė žodīs šitas, geras(t) kap kalin'ėj (p. 74); kap b'ėdos nėrā, tai asmōkus (=asmokų ‘money’) n'ėrā (p. 76).

Many speakers of the Zietela dialect were bilingual or multilingual. Quite a few had grown up in mixed families, while others no longer spoke Lithuanian at home even as adults. According to K. Būga, even people raised in purely Lithuanian-speaking families spoke Belarusian better than Lithuanian because of their limited Lithuanian. One of J. Rozwadowski’s principal informants, Regina Dargevičiūtė, had been orphaned early and spent her whole life working in the homes of Slavic-speaking people. Thus, the informants’ speech was not without its shortcomings. J. Rozwadowski’s variable transcription is therefore the result of his efforts to reconcile his own inquiries with people’s pronunciation and the practicalities of recording it.

The greatest merit of the texts is that the recorder did not take the easiest route of standardizing them. Another matter is that the linguist did not always manage to mark vowel pitch accent, quantity, consonant softness, and other features, but such instances are not very frequent. The surviving authentic transcriptions of J. Rozwadowski’s Zietela texts may astonish many a linguist with the orderly yet complex transcription he was able to produce on the spot when recording a coherent text in a foreign language. The occasional error or inconsistency should not detract from J. Rozwadowski’s reputation as a renowned scholar of Lithuanian.

The manuscript of the Zietela dialect texts recorded by J. Rozwadowski has been deciphered with relative care. As in any complex work, there are also here errors in transcription and minor mistakes. Stress is often omitted, for example: k'āik'e = k'āik'e (p. 1), m'ergā = m'ėrgā (p. 24), žantō = žantō (p. 50); sometimes stress is misplaced: g'ītā = g'ītā (p. 6), namōp = namōp (p. 9), nor'ēs = nor'ēs (p. 58); consonant softness is not marked: kūmėt = kūm'ėt (p. 4), mo'mūtā = mo'mūt'ā (p. 6), važ'āugi = važ'āug'i (p. 8); vowel length (quantity) is not marked: m'ėrga = m'ėrga (p. 4), sūn'alīs = sūn'alis (p. 7), tok'ė = tōk'ė (p. 8). Letters are sometimes omitted, for example: jūk'es'i = jū'k'es'i (p. 2), jū = jū° (p. 10), do = dor (<do and, p. 14); words are transposed: Potām kab an'es jėm'ė kūlt'is = Potām kab jėm'ė an'ės kūlt'is (p. 52), and so on.

The bibliography section omits K. Būga’s works on the Zietela dialect; the same work by E. Volteris is listed twice after its title has been split. Broch’s article “Zum Litauischen südlich von Wilna” describes only the speech of Asava and Žirmūnai parishes in Lida District; he did not visit the Zietela area.

These and other inaccuracies do not diminish the value of the publication. The Zietela dialect texts once recorded by J. Rozwadowski and published now are of immense importance. At the time these texts were recorded, people of several generations still spoke Lithuanian in the Zietela area: grandparents, parents, and children. The number of people who knew and understood Lithuanian still approached a thousand—

247

most of them in the village of Zasečiai, with fewer in Pagiriai, Narčiai, Strela, Teteikiai, and elsewhere. It is not known how much more material the Polish linguists will find for publication in the archive of J. Rozwadowski’s legacy, but the publication “The Lithuanian Dialect of the Zietela Area in the Novogrudok Region” will remain one of J. Rozwadowski’s most valuable works on Lithuanian, enriching Lithuanian dialectology. For this, we offer our deepest thanks to all the Polish linguists who helped prepare this work for publication.

Aloyz as Vidugiris

SIGNIFICANT WORKS FOR THE CENTENARY OF AN EMINENT LINGUIST

Twentieth-century European linguistics is inextricably associated with the name of the Polish linguist Jerzy Kuryłowicz. Drawing on the methods of structural analysis, this exceptionally broad-minded scholar opened up new perspectives in comparative and general linguistics, and put his innovative ideas into practice in numerous monographs and other works, whose subject matter encompasses not only Indo-European languages but also languages of other families (especially Semitic). The vitality of his ideas and the traditions he established today is clearly demonstrated by two substantial collections of articles compiled by Wojciech Smoczyński and published on the occasion of the centenary of Kuryłowicz’s birth. One of these collections, devoted to Baltic and Slavic studies, appeared as the fourth volume of the international journal “Linguistica Baltica,” well known to our linguists (Kuryłowicz Memorial Volume Part Two, Kraków, 1995, 333 p.). The other, larger collection is devoted to general and methodological questions in linguistics and to the development of various languages (mostly Indo-European) (Kuryłowicz Memorial Volume Part One. Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia Vol. II, Kraków,1995, 593 p.). We would like to discuss that collection briefly here. The works published in it show how Kuryłowicz’s ideas continue to be developed and are reflected in contemporary research into the development of various languages.

Kuryłowicz’s works are especially important for Lithuanian historical linguistics for their methodological and theoretical principles. Of the many articles published in the collection, I would like to draw attention here to those whose subject matter could encourage our linguists to reflect on and investigate more closely the development of corresponding phenomena in Lithuanian and other Baltic languages.

The eminent linguist’s biography, scholarly works, and their methodological postulates are discussed in the collection’s introductory article by its compiler and editor, Smoczyński (“Jerzy Kuryłowicz 1895–1978. On the hundredth anniversary of his birth”, XI–XXIV). Applying a functional approach to language in the comparative grammar of Indo-European languages, Kuryłowicz studied primarily not individual elements of language but their mutual relations and the genealogy of their systems, defining the relations between linguistic units in terms of their oppositions, cases of neutralization, and hierarchy.

248