Kas yra bendrinės kalbos leksika? Sampratos, nuomonės ir prietarai. Žodyno praktika ir teorija. Vartojimo reikmės ir problemos

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVII (1997) LEXICOGRAFIES IR LEXICOLOGY PROBLEMS Jonas What is the vocabulary of the common language? Concepts, opinions and prejudices. Vocabulary practice and theory. This is only an encouragement and a humble attempt to answer this question, especially its reverse side — what certainly is not, what could not be and probably will not be the vocabulary of common language. The answer is sought by exploring the principles and manifestos of the creation and development of the common language of this century, especially by trying to dispel superficial opinions and prejudices, by confronting the theory and practice of the "Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language", reviews (and the same reviewer), the needs and problems of the use of the common language. The question of what is or could be the vocabulary of the common language was raised by John Jablonski in his first normative grammar in 1901. The answers — theoretical and practical — changed, developed and varied over almost a century, never being completely clear, and there were even very erroneous opinions, unjustifiably optimistic. There are different concepts now, too, but perhaps we are at the end of the tunnel. 1) From the late and difficult formation of the vocabulary of the common language in the unfavorable historical conditions, the nation’s concentration, the state’s restoration, cultural life and education; from the uneven, sometimes contradictory development of the vocabulary of the common language, which marked certain stages in the history of the nation, and the stages, even the stages of the language itself, were named with different and certainly non-uniform terms — written, common, literary and again common; named with different constitutional statuses — state language, obscured and corrupted by the Russian language of the occupiers, now again state language; from the very nature of the lexicon—it is several times more mobile, more hot, more open to dialects and borrowings than grammar, especially during the period of the very rapid growth of the embryos and initial stages of the common language; from our small, but multi-dialectal (many dialects, huge differences) and bilingual (through dialects and directly through common language) people — interdialectal and interlingual, dialect and common language collisions, so clear to Ferdinand de Saussure (Saussure 1977: 60, 231), are overlooked or stubbornly ignored by some of our linguists: dialects are allegedly only rich, as and when the rich wants, almost automatically —regardlessly boldly formulated: the vocabulary system is free, lexical from dialects is easily incorporated into common language. 2) From the lexicographical results of the development of the vocabulary of the common language and its stages — from their reflection and consolidation as a support for the next stage or from the failure or delay (maybe even fatal) to do so. After all, having already reached the stage of the common (not even written) state language, we did not have its dictionary (in general, no more suitable for society, even bilingual only one another), enshrining its norms, satisfying its needs. Dictionaries and dictionaries nation could not? Unfortunately, yes, because there were new, qualitatively different requirements — common language vocabulary. His business was understood, there were plans and preparations (a separate 20 topic). There were also subjective unfavorable circumstances —K. The early loss of Bogdan Bogdanovich Bogdanov, the workload of J. Jablonski not according to his age and health, the lack of new forces, the weakness of lexicographic institutions, youth. Objectively, the theory of common language was derived from grammar, and synchronic linguistics was narrower and less valued than historical linguistics. Only in 1954, the “Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language” was published, a dictionary of the contemporary language, not of the common language: the difference here is not only formal, but also factual. Is it not characteristic and even fatal for the common language that before — in 1951 — the "International Dictionary of Words" was published — translational, non-normative, without a mark etc. (invalid), which is used, although still inconsistently, insufficiently, only in the "International Dictionary of Words" of 1985? A large non-normative “International Dictionary of Words” was published in 1936, and smaller ones were published even earlier. Is this not one of the reasons why the common language is so overwhelmed with international words, that in many areas they have been pushing Lithuanian words out on a wide front for several decades? Now about everything in a row in more detail. 1. " If in the written dialect there is a word missing which is known only from other dialects, the writer must use that word, however he finds it; <...>; Of course, when he uses a word that will be understood almost everywhere differently, he must, as far as possible, accommodate the reader and always take care that it is understood by the majority” (Jablonskis 1901:60; here and elsewhere in the quotations the extensions are mine —J.K.). An insightful app! Although not everything is clear to us: does the writer have to know that his word may be understood differently? I guess so. Jablonski does not even talk about what will happen if the word is completely unknown: for him, the fact that otherwise it will be misunderstood is much more important. The practice showed Jablonski's foresight. Who has ever studied how this program worked, how it was adhered to by writers, including Jablonski as an author, translator (a separate language — as a dictionary)? Research has been done, but there are gaps, there is definitely no synthesis — there is joy that what has succeeded, but there is a great lack of antithesis — what and why d € 1 failed. Obsessive endless regrets that what did not work or does not work, without thinking — why. How much regretted, lamented for the words tillas, tamsta; ventilated; - Oh, yeah! But here it is exactly the same as in the songs of the Ziemiy region, where the word srauras vėjas has become srauras vėjas (Vitkauskas 1975: 64), as well as sinceras, siūrus, šūrus, sraujas (although in LKŽ XIII it is explained: 2. “smarkus”), sveras vėjas, only here the word (with songs) has come from the dialect into the dialect, there — into the common language. And the obstacle behind the same stump is "incomprehensible — differently understood- ", therefore distorted, only in dialect word, and in common language — meaning. The north of words, the narrow land of Ziemeliai has not borrowed, because it has its own, 21 mo He doesn't even understand. Only now it seems that the eyes start to shine, that the common language ZūJas, tamsta, vedinas, both were not blatantly necessary. But in the course of ką correction, it is iš taught, those words really mean. O there is ir another, perhaps more true lesson: do not have a to word in your dialect, do not laugh if you do not know well, — do not laugh at dialect people! “Lithuania, appears, just a bag (small), o what house, it speaks" (Krūonis, LKŽ XI 793). Dialects, schnekt — richness, people are — loving, vocabula- — ry rich. But if trouble for the mind (among the low-minded), behold, woe is to the wealth of words. ir Sometimes interdental (or broader, even universal) collisions of meanings are noticed, consciously explained, e.g.: —John, my father fell from the roof. "Are you okay?" — Healthy is healthy, but not alive Klp (LKŽ VII 498). O of the word aplamasmeaning “superficial; reckless, Zioplas’ DZ, just joked meaning 1. ‘general, all’ DZ. DZ, It is time to talk seriously about the surplus of language wealth, which is often a surplus that stagnate in common language. Sometimes one word dialectic squeaks in common language cut like cats in a bag. Here is a decent DZ, 1.” <...> moral" and 2. “appropriate, good”: a proper meal dianetriksta. I'm not in good health. Not against the doer among the bullies. I honestly don't know; and dorah 2. “faith, kindness": There will be no kindness tomorrow (the weather will not improve). I wonder if it will be good with the sick person (or he will heal). Go to the right (grease). In dialects, doras (and dora sub.) are thus widely used by the Žemaičiai, part of the (north-eastern) Altajai, even so: Nebėr doro nei už tvoros Pn. My pigs do not go doron, and quite Ut. Firewood can not be brought in properlyPc. However, the meaning of “moral” decency has disappeared in the languages (Sb, Sim, Dks; JR28, S. Dauk, M. Valanč; decency — SD, Grk, Uzv), displaced by barbarisms (Š)čyras, cystas,cnatlyvas, zgadnas, cekavas, and deceitful—and šelmis, laidokas (ledokas), whore, in addition, the semantic part of the word decent is taken over by innocent, chaste, pure, pure, of the word deceitful — fornicated, depraved. Therefore, the meaning in dialects does not cut. Isn’t this something to be seen, ar something to be discerned? Similarly, we should consider the words bad DZ, 3. tarm. “lean, meager", tarm. “weak (about the sick)" (DZ, DZ, not pronounced); nausea 2. “versti mi on 3. prk. “empty, no results”; get 2. “have, had to":You get to go to the forest. Got a doctor called, caught “to start, to crush”: Everyone caught running [but they were also caught]. Doesn’t it tell us anything that Žemaitė herself has written: Perfave I got (I had to) carry so far myself? This is a large subject, but it is already possible to conclude that Jablonski’s injunction was not followed quite consistently. If these words are not understood differently today, then at least they are not entirely, not easily, not understood by everyone, confusing, disturbing; or people do not understand why they are used: why nothing good and not nothing good, why bad and not skinny, why nauseating and not sleikstu, why futile and not empty work, why got to run and not had to run, why caught running and not started, soko begti. Those dialectal accents have become more frequent in the writings, people ask: why? or is it just as it is? Look, somebody will come and correct nothing good, nothing decent… Of course, those dialectal réik§més have put one foot into common language, but there are mostly books in it. This has not 22 yet been discussed, not even touched on, so it will certainly seem paradoxical to many that dialect in common language becomes a fact of book style. But in reality, the status of consumption is changing fundamentally. In a general language dictionary, the word £book, rather than farm, would be better suited and more accurately oriented to the user (especially the non-farmer). And we should not hastily, without consideration multiply such meanings —if in dialects where there is a used tractor, then this is only a dialect, and in common language — I'm (pa) ridden. In the dictionary of common language, only ethnonyms such as: marška ethnogr. 1. “cloth for carrying fodder, wood chips or other bulk materials; the quantity it carries", 2. d., r. ‘mat’, 3. ryt., dz. ‘bedspread’, 4. d., r. ‘woven underlayment’, 5. ryt., dz. ‘staltiese’, 6. zem. “hand towel", 7. vak. ‘small, two-pull net, without mouthpiece, two-tailed’; squad 1. “flying women head, shoulders gaubtis”, 2. zem. “skuduras (e.g. bad), skarmalas”, 3. zem. “vystyklas”, 4. kuop. Jam. “fibre”: Siemet linen good scarf, skewer 1. “nesiojama skara” [here even in the translation a note is needed —nesiojamal], 2. amt. “auduklo skiautė, skuduras (ppr. prastas), mazgotė, paSluoste” (skaréle “smaller scarf for the head, neck to wrap”, skepetdite “skarele”, o skepetélé 1. “skarelé”, 2. dialect “auduklo skiautė; nosinė"); apartment 1. “a part of a house consisting of one or more rooms and a kitchen", 2. tarm. “residential house, find, buy", 3. žem. ‘any building, shed’; spršgilas 1. ethnogr. “a tool for plowing grain —a blade tied to the stalk", 2. ryt. ‘the blade of the tool', 3.<...>; spragilinė 1. d. “spragilo kotas", 2. ryt. ‘spragilo buožė’; raging 1. am “spragilo kotas”, 2. žem. see. Vystyklas, That's right, DZ, But i and "Lithuanian common language dictionary", at least until common language becomes stronger, its vocabulary settles, could still have some dialectal marks. In addition to ethnonyms, perhaps we should not avoid the most prominent chrestomatical examples: skuja 1. "Pine or Spruce Needle", 2. tarm. “pine branch”, 3. tarm. “cankorėžis- “" [DZ, 2. see kankorėžis], 4. am. “fish scale” [DŽ, 3. see sklynas, sriegas (Zuvies)] DZ, [and DŽ, —without dialectal notes]; grab 1. floor "Sonkaulis", 2. Jam. "Hose" in GD, [GD and GD, 1. "Sonkaulis", 2. zem. ‘Zarna’; but is rob a common language word? ); sėti 3. dialektas ‘planting (potatoes)’ DZ, [in principle the same as DŽ,; DZ); 3. tarm. ‘angry, sudden’ DZ, [DŽ,, DŽ,-—ryt.]; fun 5. žem. ‘sunkus’ [and DZ; DZ, —6.]. And for the unarmed user of the common language, apart from some practical benefit, it would be a reminder that the common language was not born out of stone... 2. “It is commonly said that only great writers have created written language, cultured it, embellished it. There is a lot of truth in that. But the pace of life nowadays does not wait for the slow, though good, influence of a writer. We need language culture from abroad, a conscious culture," —says the first manifest of "Native Language" (GK 1933 1) "Beginning Work": "The term "ka/ba culture" is not accidental here, although it is not explained. The fact is noted, mentioned, but not discussed and evaluated in more detail. Having clearly seen the roots of this term in the neighbouring nations, it would be useful to link it with Saussure's already mentioned collision of common language as a product of culture and dialects as the sphere of nature (Saussure 1977: 60). “Mother tongue” therefore emphasizes the unsatisfactory correction of errors: “We do not have enough correctors of the grave language, but we need to teach the society itself the language” (GK 1933 1). Therefore, the manifest talks more about the development of cultural language: “We look at language sociologically. Language, like other phenomena of common life, is subject to the same social laws. Therefore, the folk language is not an absolute measure of language culture for us; from it, in our opinion, we can only develop a cultural language. Thus, “Mother Tongue” will not only be concerned with the humanity of the common language, but also with its cultural progress. Sometimes the sexuality [i.e. the abundance of forms; not sexuality...] of the language [i.e. performed] and the verbality (general names!) we do not value” (GK 1933 2). Gandrohistory in common language is not without ambition and with difficult problems of purity. An example without any shadows —the matter of codification of s kolinis grybas to the surplus property by distinguishing hereditary karblys and budis (an inventive attempt to save the word budis for the common language with a more special meaning “some leaf-bodied fungus” DZ; dialectal basis is not sufficient —at least a slightly broader usage of the common language is also needed). "Perhaps it would be appropriate to give at least one example of cultural language development. One of the more striking examples, when a word of the folk language is not usually transferred into the system of common language, 0 is created from it the necessary unit of expression, would be this: “But, you will find who will say: kamsa does not exactly correspond 23 to the concept of being. One can ask: and first spoke about the chairperson of the bar or manor house and the chief of the shepherds. He says that the people of Panevėžys even smiled through their mustache when they were appointed the first district chief. There is nothing to be afraid of the alleged inaccuracy. The word, once used, automatically agrees” (A.S. —GK 1938 26-27). Here we can only add: first, the meaning of the president in dialects is much more —2. “<...>, priežiūras”, 3. ‘<...>, primary’, 4.<...>; barvedys”, 5. ‘the head of the herd’ || ‘the head’, 6. “what the best, first brew” || “first issue, better beer" LKŽ X; secondly, chairman and boss were used in a smaller part of Lithuania, so not everyone had the opportunity to smile; thirdly, in common language there is no conflict of meanings, because they Here are unambiguous (DZ, president?. and 3. are dialects). The successfully started period of common language culture was interrupted by occupation and genocide. 3. 1953 03 18 given to collect DZ, —Stalin no longer in the Kremlin, but maybe not yet in the Mausoleum. Signed for the press 1954 05 13. On 30 January 1990 St. Cain marked his "Preface" to the DZ, (I finished my approximately 3-year work in 1988 before my vacation). However, on 19 May 1992, 17 June 1992 and 22 June 1992, final meetings were held on some semantic words (the semantics of which is important pragmatics). Let’s take advantage of the permission of Professor Edvardas Gudavičius to raise the question “what 24 would be, if it were". Let's say that this DŽ chronicle could be started at least in 1933 (the earlier ones might be too confusing). Perhaps such a DZ of 1933 would have suffered the fate of the LKZ I and II, but it would have already been a fact and a myth in the dictionary of common language — a pretext for speaking both well and badly (destis kam). So much for the pragmatism of the DŽ chronicle. The lexicographical situation in 1954 was as follows: only two volumes of the large LKŽ were published, although they were removed from the philological horizon of the public; From the special lexicography after the war was only published in 1949 A. Novodvorskis "Technical Dictionary", and the dictionaries of pre-war terms were only in the library of the LKŽ editorial staff. DZ, had no s avo kartoteka, prepared from the great dictionary kartoteka —the feat of the organizers Heraklio, but also a fundamental shortcoming of the preparation, not removed until now. DŽ, Introduction $1 (section “Purpose and scope of the dictionary”) declares: “<...> in addition to written language, widely used and spoken language vocabulary and phraseology. The vocabulary <...> must help to master the literary language, <...> “. $3: “In accordance with the practical, normative nature of the Dictionary, this Zodyna includes: 1) words of political, fictional and scientific literature, if they are not too special and if they are not words of rare, individual use, 2) words of folk language and various languages, more widely found in literature or necessary to express some concepts, e.g. buklus, skubrus, namiegas [in the text of the Dictionary: skubrūs see skubus, and DZ, and DZ, indicate that the meanings differ!]. §4: “The Zodyna does not include: 1) narrowly used and little necessary to literary language dialect words, e.g. Sutrus “karStas” [although sutra inserted, sutnus inserted], klūkti “very lost” [although in the text of the Dictionary... there is: k/ūkti žem. 1. “fishing under the ice, fishing the fish”, 2. “very requesting, boning” (in fact these are not 2 meanings, but homonyms!)- ]. Thus, the principle of dialects is — better more, let them claim to be a common language, let them compete among themselves, pass the exam — which are “necessary- ”, which are “only a little needed”. And “rare, individually used words”, apparently, are not such in dialects, but only in writings. The influence of the large dictionary is obvious. DŽ, not fixing the usage of the common language, but creating it, providing it with dialect words even with reserve, excess. The first DZ, reviewers also €jo DZ, way. He tried to go even further: “It seems to us that the explanatory dictionary should also include rarer dialectisms, if they are found in the works of the classics of fiction. Meanwhile, the reader will not find in the Dictionary the words /uinas, pyle, repukas... (Donelaitis), nei (iS) drežėti, snopis... (Žemaitė), nei atvalka, kraiguoti, (nu)piepti, šušėti... (P.Cvirka), nei ydas, pakinys, panuovalis, tunkčiai... (A.Vienuolis), nei plaitytis, priebega, slambyti, Žiubis... (1.Simonaityte), nei many other folk language words found in the works of famous Lithuanian writers” (Grinaveckis 1955: 3). In fact, somewhere those words the reader of classics and famous writers must find. But in a common language dictionary, if they are not common language words? Is it appropriate to include the words of Donelaitis and Žemaitė in the dictionary of the present language? Academic, school, and mass publishing of classical writings, which quickly gained ground, found a good way out — dictionaries, which are equally suitable for dialects, old words, new words, and foreign words. However, even after several years of DZ, (later and DZ, the editor considers: “Only those [dialectal words] can be given, which are more widely used in fiction and colloquial language or for which there are no other substitutes in literary language" (Kroopas 1968: 3). What does "widely used in fiction" mean? At least two writers —/uinas “without horns, bauzas”, pylė “ant”, tunciai 25 ir ir “bandages for legs to wrap around”, s/ambyti “walking without work, trainiotis” —“there is a reason to put”, and one writer’s bunch “vepla, išsižiojėlis”" (Žemaitė- ), pakinys “papievis, pabalys” (A.Vienuolis), Ziubis “laimikis” (I.Simonaityte) —“it would be too much overloading of him [i.e. Zodynas]- ". And this position is described as a conclusion: “dialecticisms should be added to the LZ [i.e., the dictionary of literary language] in a limited way”! It depends on the general concept of word selection, which is determined not only by the general use of language, but also by the ideal: “The literary language, in reality, is the ideal of a common language for society, culture, science and other matters. <...>. Both in spoken-dialectal, fictional, scientific, journalistic and other language we encounter such words, which may not belong to the common usage, literary language, but which form a significant and important part of the vocabulary composition of the language, which must be more or less reflected in the LŽ (not only in the large “Lietuvių kalbos Zodynas- ”)” (Kroopas 1968: 3). This includes "part of the words that have passed into passive reserve- ", and frequent dialects of the scripts. The dictionary is oriented to the pragmatic needs of the dictionary user: “The lexical system of the language is very broad, complex and strictly undefined, so the dictionary of literary language must take this into account. Only by doing so will it be possible, as far as the volume of the DŽ allows, to reflect the lexical system of the Lithuanian language of the present period, which includes as a basis the lexicon of the literary language" (Kroopas 1968: 3). Thus, the vocabulary of the common language is understood here as the germ in the womb of the entire lexical system of the language — independent, growing, unseparated. However, the matter of the separation of the lexicon of the common language and the separation of dialectal language is becoming more and more clear: “Journalists, editors, translators are waiting for a large, comprehensive dictionary of thesauruses of the common Lithuanian language. I want to emphasize the word common, because the short dictionary of A. Lyberis, published ten years ago, even if small, provides a considerable dialect alongside the words of literary language. It would be difficult today to introduce spaga, Žaga, stiča, geinyti, klūkti and similar synonyms into common language” (Kirvaitis 1971: 67). Of course, we should not talk about the difficulty of their implementation, but rather consider whether they are necessary for the common language, whether they would find at least some niche here. Other years of the life of the language and the nation —other and lexicographic pages: LKŽ 8 volumes (VIII — 1970), according to the alphabet —up to the letter O inclusive, then it looked like half of the dictionary (now LKŽ XVII ends with the word va/gus). DZ, Ivado leaves structure similar to DZ, only examples other, you are many. However, in the text of the Dictionary half of the examples look quite different: instead of ryt. —zem., instead of dz. — ride! Instead 26 of the DZ, the DZ of the section “The purpose and scope of the dictionary” says only “The scope of the dictionary” [as does the DZ], but already in the second sentence it says the purpose: “<...> the purpose is to present the words of the present Lithuanian literary language- ”. §2: “Because the Dictionary is practical, normative, it contains words of the following categories: <...>; 2) more frequently used [DZ, —more widely used] in fictional literature, journalism, press and elsewhere folk spoken language [DZ, only —folk] and dialect words [DŽ, —an effort is made to present <...> more common dialect words], e.g.: Žemaičių dialektas —atvariai “vadelés” [in Zodyno text —atvarsliai, this example likes and DŽ, Introduction], buklūs“ gudrus" [in text —without any dialectal reference explained “ ‘gabus, gudrus; klasting- ”, DZ, = “clever, cunning”, DZ, —1. “gabus, clever, understanding; klasting, 2. dialect.’ ‘quickly tired, sick; weak, €kstus”; LKZ 1, these are homonyms — 1buk/us (SD, DP, MP, Mz, Vin, KN, B, RB; M.Valanc; Skr, Btg; also bukla BsP; buklingas PK, K, P, buklystė R, Sch) and 2buk/lūs1. “who fears winter, cold, eyes; silpnas, lepus, ékstus” Prl, Vrn, ZIn, Dsm —LKZ I, Sita meaning redivided into in two, and from 2. “kur uzsikerta kalbėdamas" made homonym 3bukliai), siltis “to strive” [in the text —287ltis, -1asi, Sylési “to strive, pa without dialectal mark; DŽ, > zem.], žarūbas “corner, well” [in the text —1. “corner, well”, 2. “well” without dialectal mark; so also DZ]; eastern Highlanders —kūtė “shed” [in the text — kūtė see barn; so also in DZ; the word is used in northern and eastern žem.], fausoti “to respect; save" [in the text —1. “guard, 4 ek 2. “save” without dialectal certificates; DZ, -1. “to spend sparingly, to save”, “to guard, to protect- "), verdéne “source” ltekstė= r. ‘spring, springing source’; this example remained in DZ, in the Introduction —verdenė “source, and in the text —ryt. see source 1], vilgsnas ‘wet’ [in text 3 vilgsnas, vilešnas žem. ‘slightly wet, wet’; DŽ, —ik žem. ‘slightly wet, dry’]; Western Highlands —blister “to take” [in text —1. “to take, to nick”, 2. zem. “to wear, to hurt, to break”; meaning “to take, to nick” from why LKZ1, according to data, used in KzR, more in eastern —Ktk, Kit, Lkm, Svn¢, Dglš, DKGt, as well as SD], dagoti “to clean the harvest” [in text —"to take, to nick the harvest" without dialectal mark; DZ, ——and also without dialectal mark; used by Lithuanians], Saras “paSaras’ "Forcible Yak. edge, more west dz; DZ, —none]; dzūkų —dyréti “to watch" [in the text —Ryt. 1. “to watch, waiting for something, looking for something; smaksoti”, 2. “to lie, to dwell, to be without work"; DZ, —also, but snak.; in fact is Ryt.], drengti nd [in the text —“Slapdraba lyti, snegti, darganoti” without a mark of dialect; so is DZ; in fact used dz. and a little vac., but entered the common language- ], dudénti fl. always” [text —4. dz. “to speak, to talk”; This example likes and DZ, Introduction), which “Zlibas” [in the text — i.e. “blind, sluggish, squeaky, squeaky”; Ž, J pron. “blind, unperceiving”; outside of dz. area little comes out — reaches Klvr] and others.” The first DŽ, the reviewers, enthusiastically welcomed the excessive wealth of the common language: “By legalizing dialects, the lexicon of the literary language is enriched. <...>. <...>. The dictionary includes a huge selection of words from dialects and popular spoken language, after carefully listening 27 to the everyday use of literary language. In this sense, the dictionary correctly solves perhaps the most complex practical problem of language in our time - the interaction of literary language and dialects" (Grinaveckienė 1973: 5). In fact, it is not clear how the normative vocabulary can deal with this interaction—it can only consolidate the results of this development. Speaking specifically about this topic, the reviewer makes some correct remarks: “<...> some dialectisms or colloquial words will have been used without much need”, but she looks at this matter more from the point of mo view of stylistics and vocabulary. “The most important source of enrichment of the Dictionary is, without doubt, the living folk language, its dialects. All that is best in the folk language flows into the literary language and enriches it with new words, sayings, new means of expression" (Lyberis 1973: 4). After naming examples, some of which are truly only “sources” and not facts of common language —art “destroying, disturbing”, aipti “loping, picking, breaking- ”, apymauda “unnecessary thing, obstacle- ”, aptvarus “fenced from all sides”, hope is again expressed: “Perhaps not all of these and other words of popular or dialectal language presented in the Dictionary have already entered into literary language, but they may be useful as a source of language enrichment” (Lyberis 1973: 4). A cooler tone is heard: “It seems that in the dictionary of the present language it is possible to add less outdated and rare dialect words, such as: blenkti, brotis, dulsus, gabužas, gybti, grasmė, grikas, gūdnas, gvoja, iesmeė, kauras, kerslas, kivinklis, kliesnas (= klientas?- ), kupurna and so on. " (1973: 2). Jonas Paulauskas counted about 2000 DŽ, dialects —"396 with above all words" (Paulauskas 1974: 42). He lists DZ, ’ dialects, which DZ, “dialects have no certificates“ (Paulauskas 1974: 42) and, on the contrary, which DZ, no longer exists at all. “There are more such dialectal words, which were not all included in the first edition, for example, those that only begin with the letter d. deinauti, dygmuo, dykoji, dylatė, dilikas, dosai, dremžti, drepinti, dreZeti, driunyti, dūbla, dúkiniuoti, duogas, dvakinti, dveluotr’ (Paulauskas 1974: 43). J. Paulauskas is looking for a basis for considering dialects as common language words: “Many words with dialectal notes could be considered as literary language words because of their specific meanings: they represent concepts for which there are no other suitable literary language words, e.g.: amalas “lightning without thunder” [r.], čižas “oaks sticking to the flax fiber” [r.], guogis “uninvited guest at a wedding” [r.], goza “row of breaking sea waves” [1. zem., 2. gegr.], rytagonė “grazing of animals from sunrise to breakfast” [r., dz.], samplėšinis “linen twisted cloth” [r., dz.]. ], paraižos “the wear of the moon, the beginning of the deltas” [bot.], rūgpienis “sour milk” [vak.], vientulys “who lives alone, separated, a lonely man” [ryt.]” (Paulauskas 1974: 43). Here only goZa —a dialect, by the way, already DZ, established as a scientific term: 2. gegr. “the breaking (scratching) of the sea waves on the shallow or coast", and sour milk —a dialect of transparent form, DZ “already acquired the status of a common language word, which is only now confirmed by the use. DZ, 2amalas already has it, but maybe not because there is no 28