J. Balčikonio nustatyti „Lietuvių kalbos žodyno“ svarbiausi principai

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVII (1997) LEKSIKOGRAFIJOS IR LEKSIKOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS Vytautas VITKAUSKAS THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES OF THE “DICTIONARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE” ESTABLISHED BY J. BALČIKONIS The linguist J. Balčikonis came to edit and lead the great “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” not by chance. His interest in the spoken Lithuanian language and the people’s artistic creativity had already taken hold of him as a student, beginning with his work in the Lithuanian studies circle at St Petersburg University, when he went to the Kėdainiai area to collect folklore and language data. Although he regarded pedagogy as his most important work, J. Balčikonis was interested in dictionaries throughout his life. Let us recall his letters urging K. Būga to devote himself to preparing the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (Balčikonis II 256–257), and even his remarkable resourcefulness in reaching an agreement with financiers to allocate special funds to remunerate the dictionary work (Balčikonis, ibid.). After K. Būga’s death, work on the LKŽ came to a halt. Following lengthy disputes and discussions, a new editorial board was formed in 1930, headed by J. Balčikonis, who had been recalled from the Panevėžys Teachers’ Seminary, where he was director and was mourned by almost the entire town. The new editor came to edit the dictionary with a certain set of ideas. Having familiarized himself with the card index left by K. Būga, he set out to: 1. transcribe all known old writings; 2. record as comprehensively as possible the vocabulary of the living language—as he called the dialects and local speech varieties. These were the LKŽ’s most important principles, from which others also developed: presenting the history of each word and indicating the geographical distribution of all lexical units. Given the philological training of our intelligentsia at the time, it was decided to transcribe all dialect examples using equivalents in the standard language, or, as the Professor put it, the written language (cf. LKŽ I₁ p. VI; Balčikonis I 179). All these features made the LKŽ an important work of Lithuanian philology, since researchers particularly needed histories of Lithuanian words and the dialect vocabulary, especially its geographical distribution. The government of the Republic of Lithuania at the time understood this too, allocating the LKŽ as much funding as was then needed to transcribe all printed literature (1547–1930) and known manuscripts, and to record dialect vocabulary throughout the Lithuanian-speaking area—that is, in the Republic of Lithuania, the Vilnius region occupied by Poland, Lithuanian villages in Latvia, East Prussia, and so on. As the Professor recounted in lectures on a special lexicology course in 1953–1954, the LKŽ editorial office selected staff from different parts of Lithuania who knew their own dialect well, and approached many teachers personally in almost every district so that lexical data would be collected evenly. Those who became especially actively involved in this work included 5 Students of Kaunas (later Vytautas Magnus) University, whom the Professor himself taught to write down words during lectures (they are mentioned in the preface to LKŽ I, pp. IV–V; the entire history of collecting material for the LKŽ up to 1941 is also described there, although almost nothing changed later—the lexicon of the dialects was always given much attention). Lithuanian dialectologists also worked, contributing about a million slips to the LKŽ card file. 1. J. Balčikonis took care to present in detail in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” the history of every word and its geography as precisely as possible. The principle was this: “Words from the l i v i n g [emphasis V.V.] language and written language are included in the dictionary, whether they are of Lithuanian origin or barbarisms, provided that these barbarisms entered our language some time ago and are known somewhat widely” (LKŽ I1 p. V; Balčikonis I 178). The dictionary’s editor had clearly sensed the interest of Indo-European scholars and other researchers in inherited vocabulary, and therefore devoted the greatest attention to it (Vitkauskas 1987: 13–18). Compare also the note: “So-called international words (known only from written sources) are not included in the dictionary” (LKŽ I1 p. V). The tradition of carefully presenting vocabulary inherited from the living language and old written sources continued through all the volumes published and in preparation. From the third volume of the LKŽ onward, after 1952, following various discussions (Larin 1957: 119–144), the number of those so-called international words increased; they were often incidental and quite recent, used by specialists in individual fields: gazogeneratorius LKŽ III 191, generalitėtas LKŽ III 234, geometras, -ė LKŽ III 240, glauberitas LKŽ III 397, gondoljeras LKŽ III 482, grafologas, -ė LKŽ III 497, granatinis, -ė LKŽ III 515 (granatiniai obuoliai), granitėti LKŽ III 519, gravitacija LKŽ III 535, harpūnas LKŽ III 787, hektogramas LKŽ III 787, heroldas LKŽ III 788, hipok r izija LKŽ III 790, hū musas LKŽ III 791, ibis LKŽ IV 6, iksija LKŽ IV 34, induktyvūs, -i LKŽ IV 108, insinuóti LKŽ IV 120, intensifikúoti LKŽ IV 124, jodotòrmas LKŽ IV 351, kablogramà LKŽ V 25, kandeljãbras LKŽ V 201, kanoniẽrė LKŽ V 218, kaolìnas LKŽ V 225, and so on. There are somewhat fewer terms from specialized sciences in the later volumes, but in the absence of firmer principles there are many rare lexical items, often found only in the offices of multilingual scholars and lacking signs of inheritance. This is, undoubtedly, the principle of dictionaries of the standard language and of terminological dictionaries, instilled in the LKŽ’s authors during the vigorous lexicographic debates of 1950–1952. 2. J. Balčikonis’s principles for a historical scholarly dictionary were also applied to determining the order of word meanings. This has already been discussed specifically (Vitkauskas 1995: 349–354), showing that after those discussions of lexicographic issues in 1952, and especially after B. Larin’s opposition to the historical type of dictionary (Larin 1957: 143), principles used in dictionaries of the standard (contemporary) language were also applied to determine the order of meanings. These new principles have become so ingrained among many LKŽ staff members that even after theories obviously unsuitable for a historical dictionary, they still at times adhere to the methods of another type of dictionary; consequently, not only does bernas have “young man” as its first meaning and “child” afterward, but valanda is defined first as 60 minutes and only afterward as “an indefinite period of time.” 6 The meanings of the word trašą are likewise arranged nonhistorically. The first meaning given is “materials used for fertilizing” (i.e., mineral, factory-made fertilizers), followed by mešlas, manure that has existed and been used specifically since time immemorial, and then išmatos, excrement (LKŽ XVI 582–583); compare also the derived word trąšinis, -ė, with the same modern-day sequence of meanings characteristic of a dictionary of the standard language (LKŽ XVI 584). The verb tiekti (LKŽ XVI 178) is presented semantically in a similar way. Its meanings are listed as follows: 1. supply with something, give, provide.... working steam is supplied to the turbine. The quartermaster’s department supplies clothing and other things to the army. 2. prepare, make, do, mend. Went to gather leaves for the pigs. They used to make tools from wood. 3. mend, sew. Ana made clothes for herself for the winter. Mama makes me a fur coat. 4. prepare (a dowry), accumulate, gather: I prepared a dowry for my daughter. 5. prepare meals, a feast; cook, make, mend. The old woman prepared supper. To prepare slop, and so on. Undoubtedly, the oldest meaning would be the second one, prepare, mend (food); logically, the next would be prepare food, the third—mend, sew, and the fourth—make (a dowry), followed by sentences describing events of recent or more recent times, with words such as... working steam is supplied to the turbine. The quartermaster’s department supplies clothing to the army, and so on. For reasons of logic and history, the sequences of meanings of tempti, tęsti and other verbs also needed to be arranged and established (e.g., tempti 1. make longer by pulling. 2. make by drawing out: To draw out wire... 3. seize and pull something that is resisting, holding fast... 4. drag, put on, pull on... 5. pull something laboriously along the ground... (LKŽ XVI 10–11), and so on. One wonders whether the original meaning in antiquity was “make longer by pulling,” whether the third meaning is actually the first, or whether the second might have been older than the meaning in fifth place, which denotes pulling something laboriously along the ground, and so on. These are very subtle matters, little discussed or addressed. (And why did the author of these lines, one of the editors of those volumes, not correct such things? You know, it is always difficult to repair wheels while they are rolling: you correct one meaning, but who will align the meanings and connections of all the derived words, and how?!) 3. Professor J. Balčikonis sought to make the LKŽ a root-based dictionary of individual words, not a nest-based dictionary. The exceptions were derivatives with the suffixes - ininkas and -inykas, and adverbs formed from adjectives with the endings -(i)ai, -yn) (baltas – baltai, baltýn, drąsus – drąsiai, drąsýn, and so on). An effort was made to list prefixed nominal derivatives separately, so that users of the LKŽ would not have to search through nests under other prefixes and so that forms that might not even exist would not be created. For example, derivatives with the prefixes aż-, ažū-, ažuo-: ażāčia, ażmiršuonis, ažūbalis, ažūdanga, ažūomārša, ažūožodis, ażvačiā and many others (LKŽ I 432–440). They were omitted from the second edition of LKŽ volume I—moved to vol. XVII together with už-, užuo-, žu- (Dzūkian). As the grouping of derivatives with the prefixes nuo- (and nū- in Žemaitian), prie- (and pry- in Žemaitian), pér- (and pár-) into a single nest shows, derivatives that do not exist in the language at all have also been invented, for example: nuoakiai, found only in nūakiai J (Žemaitian)—LKŽ VIII 904; nūauga, found only in the Žemaitian nūaugos—LKŽ VIII 904; nūobengos from the Žemaitian nūbengos—LKŽ VIII 906; nuodraikulėtas from the form nūdraulikėlėto found among Žemaitians—LKŽ VIII 917; nuogastvus, –i from the Žemaitian nūgastvus—LKŽ VIII 924; nūogybai from the Žemaitian nūgybos—LKŽ VIII 924 (since readers had not been accustomed to using dialectal forms and to more precise transposition, it was necessary to read in “Lituanistica” that 7 nūgyba is a derivative with the suffix -ýba!) and so on. The Aukštaitian material includes prýaltoris, prýangė, prýaukštis, prýdaržė, prýdėlis, prýduris, prýkalbė, prýklėtis, prýlapis, prýmoterė, prýpuola, prýstubė and others (LKŽ X 607–762); the same was done with derivatives in prýš- from Aukštaitian dialects and written sources: prýš, prýšakinė, prýšakýs, prýšgalis, prýširdis, prýšatyti, prýššventė (LKŽ X 763–765), but only dialectal prýbezdas found its way into the non-existent príebezdo entry, dialectal prýblanda is in the príeblandų (!) entry, prýbrekšmiais “at dusk” → príebrekšmiais, prýdevinis → príedevinis, prýėdis “eating one’s fill” → príėdis, prygerà “a tip” → priegerà, prýgrindas “front porch” → príegrindas, prýkaboklis “a hook” → príekaboklis, prýlyptis → príeliptis, príepapis → prýpapis, prýveiza → príeveiza and so on (LKŽ X 623–727). The same is true of derivatives with už- in volume XVII. It is unclear how J. Balčikonis would have proceeded, but the treatment of až-, ažu-, ažuo- and other prefixed derivatives (ant-, anč-, į-, in-) in LKŽ volumes I–II and III–IV shows a tendency quite opposite to that of current or recent editors. However, questions about the reliability of facts and the problem of finding a word are very important in lexicography. (We all remember how the compilers of the 17-volume “Slovar’ sovremennogo literaturnogo russkogo jazyka” published the first volumes arranged in nests, while from the third volume onward every word, even an adverb, was presented separately.) Derivatives of the dialectal prefixes anč- and ant- were also presented separately: ančėžys and antėžys, ančgrauža and antgrauža, ančkala and antkala, ančkrytīs and antkrytýs, ančkelis and antkelis, ančriūgótas and antrūgótas and so on (LKŽ I₁ 107–142). There was some hesitation about how to present derivatives with į- and in-. For example, the following are listed separately: įavùs and inavùs, įgerklis and in gerklis, įgerklỹs and ingerklỹs, įkapiai and inkapiai, įkalas and in kalas, įkaitas and in k altas, įkalba and in kalba and so on. No new entries were created for dialectal forms: įngeidžiai, įngeida, įngirk lis, įgražtis, įnkalas, įnklodalas, įnkrauvs, –i, įnlopšė, įnlūpis, insagtė, įnisiauris, įnšla jus and so on. The following nouns and adjectives were also presented in separate nests: ák tainis and aktainỹs, antakis and antakỹs, antežis and antežỹs, antvalnis and antvalnỹs, ápdrungis and apdrungỹs, áp girtis and apgirtys, arkliáganis and arkliaganỹs, atádrekis and atadrėkỹs, átsilsis and atsilsýs, austin is and austinỹs, baltujis and baltujỹs, barnis and barnỹs, brólis and brolýs, dūrys and dūrės, dūrklis and durkỹs, dūris and dūrỹs, édmenys masculine and édmens feminine, and many others. At present, nominal stems ending in -is and -ys with the stem vowel ia- are presented in one nest (except when their meanings differ; for example, dūris and dūrỹs are listed separately because dūrỹs has only one meaning, corresponding to the fifth meaning of the form dūris (LKŽ II₂ 902). Sometimes—as in the case of édmenys and éd mens—the separate listing was likely determined by a difference in grammatical gender. The aforementioned nominal stems in in- ending in -is, -ys were apparently placed in one nest because the accentual paradigm cannot be determined from many of their inflected forms (as with the differentiation of the pronoun tùs, tó ‘that’ in the Dzūkian dialect, which is therefore grouped in one nest with tas, ta). Of course, this creates a certain inconvenience for users of LKŽ. 8 to look for the appropriate variant of a word (the editorial team in J. Balčikonis’s time tried to determine this more precisely). 4. For J. Balčikonis, the most important material for the LKŽ came from living speech (from inherited dialects). The first volumes stood out in particular for their abundance of dialect words and sentences, and for giving them precedence. A note in the third volume indicates a certain shift in response to the opposing views expressed in discussions in 1947 (Žinynas 1949 a: 298–299), at the 1952 conference, and in the press (Larin 1957: 142–144). It was therefore decided that a dictionary entry should be written as follows: “Illustrative sentences and expressions, insofar as the factual material available allows, are presented in this order: a) sentences and expressions from Soviet literature and the press, related to the realities of our socialist life today; b) more characteristic sayings of the people’s spoken language; c) illustrative examples from folklore; d) sentences and expressions from old Lithuanian writings” (LKŽ III p. III, this was also repeated in LKŽ I2 p. V). The politicization of the LKŽ during the socialist period was unavoidable. This is especially evident in LKŽ volumes IV and V. Nevertheless, the heavy emphasis on politicized writings, often from henchmen (A. Guzevičius*, Kapsukas, and others), did not diminish the dictionary’s value very much, since inherited lexicon predominated and was needed by the world of science and culture. As time went on, the teachings of the compilers of the third volume’s instructions—J. Kruopas, A. Kučinskaitė, and B. Larin (Larin 1957: 143)—gradually weakened. They have now receded into the background. Thus, the LKŽ has preserved the most important scholarly principles for the LKŽ envisaged by J. Balčikonis; the differences are only in the details (the presentation of prefixed verbs and verbal nouns, especially formations with dialectal prefixes and suffixes, and a few other things). As dialects are irreversibly leveled, this most comprehensive collection of Lithuanian vocabulary will always be important to researchers of our language. LITERATŪRA B a l č i k o n i s J. I–II: Rinktiniai raštai, 1, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1978; 2, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982. L a r i n B. A. 1957: Kratkij istoričeskij obraz litovskoj leksikografii. – Leksigrafičeskij sbornik 11, 119–144. LKŽ I1–II1 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1, Vilnius, 1941; 2, Kaunas: Valstybinė enciklopedijų, žodynų ir mokslo literatūros leidykla, 1947. LKŽ I2–II2 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–2, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968–1969. LKŽ III–XVI – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 3–6, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1962; 7–9: Mintis, 1966, 1970, 1973; 10–15: Mokslas, 1976, 1978, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1991; 16: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1995. V i t k a u s k a s V. 1995: Žodžio istorijos klausimai akademiniame “Lietuvių kalbos žodyne”. – Lietuvių katalikų Mokslo akademijos suvažiavimo darbai 15, 349–354. * Kiek žinoma, jo romanų kalbą yra tvarkęs didelis gyvosios kalbos mokovas D. Urbas, tuo gal išvengęs represijų (iš pašnekesio su juo 1988.04.24). 9 Vitkauskas V. 1987: J.Balčikonio pažiūros į paveldėtąją leksiką. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, 26, 13–18. Žinynas 1949: Didžiojo ir bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynų redagavimo ir išleidimo apsvarstymas. – Lietuvių Mokslų Akademijos Žinynas 5, 301–305. Žinynas 1949 a: Didžiojo “Lietuvių kalbos žodyno” II-ojo tomo apsvarstymas LTSR MA. – Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos Žinynas 5 298–299. THE MAIN PRINCIPLES OF “LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ŽODYNAS” (THE DICTIONARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE) ESTABLISHED BY J. BALČIKONIS Summary The linguist Juozas Balčikonis prepared “Lietuvių kalbos žodynas” as a more concise Thesaurus. 1. The dictionary was to be a historical dictionary: its corpus was to contain all the words from written records and the live language (J. Balčikonis’ term for dialects). 2. The meanings of the words were to be arranged historically, according to their formation (a historical dictionary principle). 3. “Lietuvių kalbos žodynas” was to be a dictionary of separate words, forms and derivatives - not a dictionary of word families, the latter being rather inconvenient for its users when they have to find a language fact in it. 4. The most important for the editor were the dialectal data, which were abundant in the dictionary. From 1948-1952 ideological deviations from J. Balčikonis’ principles were observed (the principles of the historicity of meanings, the priority of dialectal material were ignored, many short-lived international words found their way into the corpus). With the wave of politicised criticism having abated, the main principles established by J. Balčikonis are being gradually reinstated. 10