Rašomosios kalbos samprata A. Savickio vertime „S. Tamosziaus à Kempis“

XXXVII (1997) PROBLEMS OF LEXICOGRAFY AND LEXICOLOGY Rasa KALINAUSKAITĖ WRITTEN LANGUAGES SAMPRATA A. SAVICKIO VERTIME “S. TAMOSZIAUS a KEMPIS’ For publishers of Lithuanian writings in the early 19th century, the philological problem of the written language coincided with thinking about the model of the emerging Lithuanian culture. By proposing his variant of written language, the writer also answered the question of what is and should be the community of Lithuanian readers to whom he is addressing. At the beginning of the formation of the nation, philological determination meant responsibility for a certain cultural project. The position of the publisher of religious writings was special in this respect. He was a prominent figure in the 18th-century English language movement. The linguistic habits developed by this tradition made the experience of the written word the most important – often perceived as sacred, priority – for the new Lithuanian readership community forming in Greater Lithuania. Even such a philologically sensitive person as J.A. Pabrėža did not dare or perhaps did not see the need to radically change this tradition, i.e. he did not perceive it as a competing model for his vision of language (Subačius 1996: 33-35). On the other hand, the reform of the language of ecclesiastical writings initiated by Bishop J.A. Giedraitis testifies that, adapted to the new needs of the emerging culture, this language could acquire the importance of a cultural project and participate in the philological disputes of the 19th century (Prašmantaitė 1994). The attempt to give the ecclesiastical language the status of a vibrant cultural project is the context in which, after a closer reading of A. Savicki’s 1828 translation “S. Tamosziaus a Kempis”, we can evaluate his chosen solution of the philological problem. There is little reliable information about the life of A. Savicki. It is believed that he was born about 1782 in Kretinga county (Biržiška 1963: 385). After graduating from the seminary in Varniai, he was ordained a priest in about 1819 and worked as a vicar in various places of Žemaitija until his death in 1836. The translation “S. Tamosziaus i Kempis” finished, being the vicar of Tirkšliai, from which he left about 1826. In 1827, while he was a vicar in Gargždai, he translated “Katbas dusziu su Diewu iszimtas isz knigu Swenta Augustyna”, published in 1829. In 1835, a manuscript of translations of tales and original poetry, prepared for printing but not published, has survived. There are no detailed studies of A. Savicki’s language, and published evaluations of it are contradictory. In Z. Zinkevičius’ “History of the Lithuanian language” volume IV it is written that “the basis of A. Savicki’s works is the Žemaičių dialektas”, although “there are also many 247 traditional elements” (Zinkevičius 1990: 126). In J. Palionis’ “History of Lithuanian Literary Language” A. Savickis is listed among the authors who wrote more or less in accordance with the Žemaičių dialect (Palionis 1979: 188). However, more specifically speaking about A. Savickis, it is stated that he wrote “not in Žemaičių, but in traditional church koinė” (Palionis 1979: 192). Thus, a closer look at A. Savickis’s language should clarify this relationship between the Žemaičių dialektas and the ecclesiastical tradition, the author’s conscious linguistic dispositions. On the other hand, if formulating this relationship would show that the Žemaitijos elements are not a conscious orientation to some theoretical model (for example, to the Žemaitijos dialect of written language), but simply a creature of the text’s philological inconsistency, perhaps they would say something about the author’s native dialect. Attempting to reconstruct A. Savicki’s approach to language in the translation “S. Tamosziaus a Kempis”, it is necessary to start with him as a translator’s engagement in the postphrase “Katba pry skaitytojaus”. The preface highlights two main points of the translator. First of all, A. Savicki was concerned to translate the religious text accurately, without deviating from the original. For this reason, the language asceticism is characteristic of the way of the translator of religious writings, which degrades the unnecessary luxury of language like sinful flesh: “... the skinny gieray knows that teysibe, jogiey not with a convenient word ignores God, but by fulfillment of the submitted learns to follow Christ the Lord”; “...the great thing, if even the smallest part of it was not covered by the paweykstu, and thought of S. Rasztinika” (S.Tamosziaus a Kempis 1828: III). Language should be only a modest intermediary, conveying to the recipient the idea of the original and not requiring special attention to itself. It can be said that the linguistic interest of A. Savicki is only secondary, applied, supplementing the duties of a priest. In addition to the holy respect for the recipient, he was concerned that the religious thought would be accessible to the recipient: “Teypogi užtaykiau buda Žemaytiszkos katbos kaypo dabar ira arakama, tykiu jogiey newienam nebus pryszyngi ir ne suprantamas žodey iszguldimi tos knigielis padieti” (S.Tamosziaus a Kempis 1828: III). The purpose of religious education motivates the criterion of usage: the translation must correspond to the language habits of the reader. However, the criterion of the use of a living language, which determines Savicki’s declared choice of the Žemaičių dialektas, would restrict the desire to spread the religious message as widely as possible. Whether this collision arose for A. Savicki, how he understood the usage on which he relied, and the “Žemaitiška kalba”, should be made clear from the language of the translation itself. Gender in spelling and phonetics 1. The spelling of the diphthong ze varies throughout the text. In Upper Livonian se is written in more frequent words, where the Low Livonian would have caught the author's eye: apszwies 206 —apšvies, apszwiestays 1 —apšviestais, diena I ~ diena, szwiesibe 6, 206 ~ šviesybę, wiena 6 —vieno, wietas 15 ~ vietas. However, there are also some low-level words that reveal the authors to be southern Žemaites mud miners: apszwit 206 —apšviečia, 1szka 203 ~ ieško, iszkoma 10 —ieškoma, iszkoti 2, 10, 207 —ieškoti, palikta 11, 12 ~ palikta (palieka), paliktame 16 ~ paliktame (paliekame). The fact that the Žemaitijos infiltrated the text by accident is also evidenced by the fact that when writing wiena 6 ~ one, A. Savickis leaves the same root wynokiey 6 —uniformly. 248 2. Even more clearly the tendency to exaltation is revealed by the spelling uo. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90. The hyperaukštaitiškas forms isidodame 5 —išsiduodame, neatsidos 15 ~ neatsiduos, vysotinius 5 —universotinius, if there is no proofreading error, show that the author here perceived uo as o, which the Žemaičiai diftongize. In this case, the Upper Lithuanian uo was first restored, then this uo was identified with the Lower Lithuanian one and turned back into the Upper Lithuanian dialect. 3. The tendency to elevate can be explained by the most striking feature of A. Savicki’s language — u is written instead of the high-Tibetan uand u. a) In the prefix nu-, which is pronounced nu—, nu—(stressed u!) in the speech: nenuotrotis 13~ nenutrotysi, nuoeja I~ nuėjo, nuoeytu 17—nueitų, nuofudima 12~ nuliūdimą, nuoramintu 200~ nuramintu, nuopelniti11, 17~ nupelnyti, nuopelnitu 9~ nupelnytuy, nuopuolima 201~ nukritimo, nuowargintas 21~ nuvargintas, nuowedi I~ nuvedė, nuoZemina 13~ nužemina, nuoZeminimas 7~ nužeminimas, nuozutuomem 19~ nuzitumem. b) In the root or in the final part of the word with the long [z+] —(deeninky does not distinguish where r is ancient, where 1 < uo): apdumoja 7—apdimoja, duoksau21~ diksaulja], duomoti 5—dūmoti, ruogoja 15~ rūgoja, szwetuoju 1~ “Sventyjy”, although in the long [1] root A. Savickis more often writes u: buday 17~ būdai, butinay 11, 12, 21~ bitinai, kudikeles 206~ dūliams; kuna 21~ body, nuofudima 12~ sorrow, sunau 203~ son, Zuna 10~ death. The author intuitively sensed the difference between dinininky [1] (corresponding to the Altay uo) and Altay [1], but jZvalgiau could not distinguish the genders of the language and often hesitated about the spelling. He wrote: buosr4—be, muosu 18—our, ruopesnis 1—more careful, zaruostynyma 9~uzrustinimo, identifying sounds of different origin. There are also biti 5—be, butu 9,19—be, musų 1, 18, 19~mys, nebuk 14~nebuk, rupestingi 206—caring, rupinas 21~rupinas. c) Instead of the short u of the aukstaitiSk, which the Žemaičiai translate as [0] (varniSki have [9], the raseiniškiai [uz] “pronounce more broadly than in literary language, but do not translate with other sounds, although in places it is very close to 0" —(Zinkevičius 1966: 66) a) in a sequence of pronunciation: matituomey 5—matytumei, mokietuomey 2—mokėtumei, skaytituomey IV —-skaitytumei, stotuomemos 19~stotumemos, turétuomey 10, 13~turétumei; b) in verbs with -umas A. Savickis again hesitates: dauguma 6~daugumo, gražuoma 13~grazumo, patoguoma 13~patogumo, sunkuoma 6, 11~sunkio, bet ramumas 20~ramumas. In order to avoid the [z+] sound, A. Savickis generalized the writing of uo even for those positions where the Samogitians pronounce not the long [u'], but the tense short vowel u. However, where the morphological criterion is no longer suitable for the formation of its law, 249 Savickis, being a non-philologist, is ir confused and mistaken. 4. Like most of his to contemporaries, A. Savickis distinguishes between [e] ir [i-]. Quite consistently [e] marks amZynu y. 207—eternal, great 19—big, think 208~mislyk, pyktay 20~bad, I mean III~I believe, it's a trap 202—for sure, wys 6—vis, aukštios įvairios, Zemaytyszkos1I1~zemaiti§kos. 205~ Although there is ir an auscultative glorinum I1~garbinu, the communicative forms are also written —#, [i-] denoting i; darite 16~do, giwenima 1~living, ira 16, 18, 19—is, ask 6—listen, knigielis IV —knygelės, nikstanczius 18—dying, make 6~make. But there is also a misunderstanding here: apraszyti11~to describe, neprysakal~not to say, ty/6,8~silent. 5. Savicki's spelling also reflects the Žemaitian diphthongation of the vowel e [ie]: apturieja l1~apturéjo, bieda 9, 206~ bėda, biegi 204~bégi, diel 204~dé€l, garbie 8, 203, 204 ~garbe, greda 12~géda, gieribe 203 ~gérybe, girdietus 9~girdétus, mokieti T~mokéti, niera 6, 7(2x), 206~néra, parkratinieti 18~perkratinéti, furieti 200~turéti. However, a number of examples indicate a tendency towards the tradition of high-Slavic spelling: de/(III(2x), 19, 204(3x), 205—for, galeja 18—could, galetuomem 18—could, /etays 14-—-slow, mileti 205(2x)~myleti, pargaleti 7—to conquer, te 7~these (only). Examples after / may also show adaptation to Polish tradition. 6. The vowel 0 is consistently noted in the highland dialect: mafonis 17—malonės, moksfas 207~science, noreme 11~we want, appear 207~I appear, roda 10~show, sztowie 203—glory, Zynoti11~to know, Zmogus7, 21 ~man. Only occasionally there is a Žemaitian diphthong: kuo 11~ko. That A. Savickis had chosen to mark the high-Tibetan o, shows the writing of o instead of the bivowel uo: neatsidos 15~neatsiduos, rsrdodame 5-—išsiduodame, vysotinius 5—visotinius. 7.Highland dialect diphthongs or, ze, which the Žemaites more often monophonize, are reconstructed in a decent way: butynay 21~biitinai, dayktas 20—daiktas, daktaray 6~daktarai, eyti 20~eiti, iszmanay 4~iSmanai, pakarney 11~pakarniai, paweyksfay I1~paveikslai. In some places it is written according to the Žemaičių pronunciation: dydesne 4~didesniai, nobazna III, 1~nuobaznai, uwozZnia IIl~uvozniai (next to uwozney 11~uvozniai). 8. mixed diphthongs [an], [am] in Aukštaičiai are marked an, am: amZius 10~amzius, apfankis 206~aplankes, dangaus 206~dangaus, eynantem 12~einanciam, giwenanczios 204~gyvenancios, fankiey 10, 13, 20~tankiai. The diphthong en is represented by en or ¢ (in the root svent-): giwenk 208~živk, kent 21 (2x)~keep 207~keep, keep 207~keep, keep 207~keep, keep 207~keep; szwentabliway 4~S$ventablyvai, sswetu 2—sventu, szwetuoju 1~Sventyju. The diphthong in is written yn, as if it were with a broadened e in Žemaičių: pryszyngus 20—contrary, acquaintances 20~knowing, knowing 206, 207~knowing, acquaintance 14~knowing, pryszyngus 20~at, pryszynties 15~at. However, we tend to write with the narrow r diewobayminga 12~god-fearing, worship 13~worship, 7szminti 13~iSmintim, nuoramintu 204~nuramintu, despise 205 ~ to dismiss. Prasprista u/su paplatéjusiu žemaičių [0]: fego/12~tegul. 250 9. Writing doubles at the root of words instead of bk. g, į reflects the nasal pronunciation of sounds preserved in the dialect. The nasal remaining in the root is [4]: ishyganstame 19—we are ne afraid, fromsigansk 203~neusisigask, spanstus 200—traps. Formose iszpaZynsta 21~ispazjsta, paZynsta 3, 6, 16, 21—knows. Although maintained nasal [/], but is crash ir 203~I'm gonna crash. This nasalized pronunciation was retained by many of the ir southern part of the northern Samogitians (another part of the northern and western Samogitians denasalized the nasal vowels in the root (Zinkevičius 1966: 75-79). Due to the inconsistency of spelling it is difficult to decide where the nasal letter Savickis marked the nasal pronunciation, and wherever he wrote automatically, he was influenced by the tradition of church writings. In the verb svent-Savickis used the nasal character to denote a diphthong (this could indirectly indicate the preservation of the nasal [g] pronunciation in the root —in this root [¢] ($ves-) alternates with the folk-language en). Next to the nominative of the present tense of the active kind nuosižeminans 3~nusizemings is written iszsiauksztinąs 3~1ssiaukštinąs, nemokas 208—nemokąaąs —t.y. here the letter 4 may indicate nasal pronunciation. In addition to the nominative plural of the past tense of the active kind (in this position the Žemaites retain 11—(cf. Zinkevičius 1966: 77) mokiusins 8~mokiusys is also in the end of 20—galėję, prydawę 20~pridave, skaytę 8—skaitę —i.e. and nasal pronunciation can be marked here. However, g, ¢ is also traditionally written in positions where nasal pronunciation does not mean anything. Zinkevičius 1966: 76) is written dayktą 17~daikta, mafone 202, 204—malonę, sumnenę 206—sumnenę, szfowe 9—šlove (greta daleli 9—dalę, didibe 207—didybę, karaliste 2—królestwo, sargibe 9~sargybe, teysibe III, 207~teisybe). It is likely that the tradition of writing also influenced the spelling of the jvardziy accusative: manę 4, 201 ~mane, sawe 3(2x), 5, 6(2x), 7, 13, 209—save. Here the nasal letters do not indicate nasalized pronunciation — this is pronounced only in the western and eastern Highland dialects as muni, tavi, savi. 1966: 298–299. The pronoun genitive is written manies 203~manes, sawies 3, 7, 17~saves, tawies 203~taves. These examples show that A. Savicki is inclined to follow the tradition of the church writings, and forms with the iSlaikytu n may have been unconsciously emerged. Morphology 1. The text often reflects the Žemaičių reduction of extremities: farnau 3, 17, 21 ~serve, fefur 1—have, užwed 16~use. However, A. Savickis tries to reconstruct the third-person ending of the present tense: abgauna 5—apgauna, atweda 17~atveda, eyna 1~eina, ira I(2x), III, IV, 1, 2, 3...~yra, trokszta I11~troksta. There are also some kind of transposed forms: £ikra 9 “believes”. Savickis writes the nominative singular of the root a of nouns in the Upper Lithuanian: amžynas 5—eternal, dayktas 20—thing, Diewas 19—God, teysingas 6-—righteous. It tends to keep the movable a in verb forms such as eydam 3~eidamas, fszguldidamas 111~iSguldydamas, uwožodamas I1~uvozodamas. 207~apleizdamas, regiedams 203~regédamas. 251 2. The unpronounced third-person ending is written as: buwa 8, 10~was, iszmana 6-—-ishmano, mata 5~mata and the first person present tense plural: bowijamas 18~bovijamés, storojemos 5(2x), 208—storojamės, fureme 10~turime. 3. Frequent forms of imperative and imperative pronouns in Samogitian: ati/sieczio 201~atilséCiau, mokieczio 3, 201~mokéciau, norieczio 16~would, mokietuomey 2~mokétumei, furietuomey 10~turétumei, sforokies I~storokis. 4. Both the tendency to exaltation and Savicki’s inconsistency are shown by the writing of noun verbs, especially the noun and the local noun. Savickis writes the masculine singular noun in the Upper Polish: Drewuy IV, 2, 3, 10, 19, 205— Dievui, darbuy 209—darbui, giwenimuy 209~gyvenimui, Zmoguy 14—žmogui. In addition to the local forms of the Upper Lithuanian —amžynoi 6—eternal, knigelei I--booklet, mažiausioy I11~ smallest, Wylniuje (title page)—Vilnius —there are also Zemaitiškų: fosko 201—l1osko[je], pradzio 16~pradzio[je], Zyrkszluse (title page) —Tirkšliuose, Zodziuse 9— words. More frequently, there are Žemaičių other funny forms, for example, kilmininko: foskas 2~loskos, malonis 2—malonės, wales7,10-—valios. But it is written Bažniczios1--Church, pariszkadas 18 ~pariškadas. 5. the prepositions about, through, to, before in the translation are Žemaičių: Apey 1, 2, 3(2x), 14, 18; par 11, par paniekinima 2~ per paniekinimą, parskaytima [I~perskaitymo; pry Diewa 11, 18, 203~ to God, pry skaytitojaus I--to the reader; shower 19, shower God 3~ before God. Lexicon 1. The vocabulary of the translation is oriented to the tradition and usage of the ecclesiastical language. The author is not disturbed by the foreign words that have become the norm in the church writings: cziesas 17, czystas 6, misle 5, mizerna 6, pakajaus 204, pakuta 19, proces 19, sumneni 3, etc. The pronouns ans (anam 12, ano 204, anus 17(2x), 18) and aukstaitiSkas jis (Jo 2, Jem 2, jisai 7) are used for the pronoun. The reader, to whom the linguistic habits are applied — both Žemaitija and Aukštadvaris, and the usage that is observed — ecclesiastical. The analysis of spelling, phonetics, morphology and lexicon shows that the Žemaitijos gender in A. Savicki’s text was not determined by a conscious decision, but by the spontaneity of the author’s linguistic habits. Since the Žemaitijos genders do not represent an abstract model of written language, i.e. the choice and combination of forms, it can be said that they are introduced Žemaitijos dialects and attempted to discuss this dialect. 1. The Dūnininkai dialect is evidenced by the 7 that is pronounced instead of the High Germanic 7e (see Spelling and Phonetics Gender, 1). 2. An important argument in establishing the identity of A. Savicki’s native dialect is the hyper-Ukraina uo instead of the Ukrainian u-ir u (see Gender in Writing and Phonetics, 3). Only the author could be so mistaken. 3, The plural nominative ending of the participle of the present tense252 je Savickio rašo ¢: galeje 20—galėję, prydawę 20—adding, skyting 8~number. But in sangrazinéje form mokiusins 8~mokiusjs retained m. Si form reflects the unchanged ¢ pronunciation in this position [en] ar [en] piety in Žemaičių dialektas. Meanwhile, in the Kretingiskiy dialect area pronounced reduced [e] (Zr. Zinkevičius 1966: Žem. No. 50). 4. The ir African-Americans in the United States were also known as African-Americans in the United States at that time. There are several other forms of the stem, particularly typical of mud-dwellers: kalcze 12—guilty, už kalczias 12~on the dryer. A closer examination does not show that the author perceived Africanity as an important distinctive feature of the Highlands and the Lowlands inherited from the dialect and tried to combine it with the general tendency of the text to exalt. Rebuilding the noun paradigm, we see an inconsistent system: sng. Name. — Gen. size 16~ big, non-compliant 11~ non-compliant, compliant 3~prizodzio, smercze 21, 204~smercio, Zodzia 6~Zzodzio, Zodze 206— žodžio That. kafbantem 9~kalbanéiam, nuosiZzeminantem 13~nusiZzeminanciam, žodziui 9, 209~zodziui Acc. — 202~antskryCiu Loc. — pl. Name. Zžodey III, 1, 2~Words Gen. nepryderancziu11~neprideranéiy, weyzancziu 14 ~veizanciy, Zodziu 1, 4, III, 11, 206, 207~ZodZiy That. Zemaytems 11~Zemaiiams, Zodems 9, 11~zodZiams Acc. dydzius 8, 14~didzius, iszkadyienczius 5~iSkadijancius, nikstanczius 18~nykstanczius, fusczius 8~tuscius, Zodzius 2, 205— words In. size 8, 13~big, Words 206~Words Loc. 9~Zodziuse in Zodziuose. In the presented paradigm, the "African law" is maintained: Africans do not have plural nominative, dative and instrumental. African-Americans are excluded. This is a distinctive feature of the eastern part of the Žemaites area and the “middle” Žemaites, who have a genetive without an afrikata (cf. Zinkevičius 1966: 142). Thus, the Afrikaans system coincides with the pronunciation in the present part of the Žemaičių area and is another argument confirming the assumption that A. Savicki’s native dialect was the mud dialect. Summarizing briefly the characteristics of the translation language, several conclusions can be drawn. “S. Tamosziaus a Kempis” shows Savicki’s conscious orientation towards the tradition of ecclesiastical writings. Therefore, the interpretation of the two provisions expressed in the preamble to the translation must be somewhat clarified. Although A. Savickis claims to have preserved “the way of Žemaitija language”, in fact he deliberately bases his 253 writing on the dialect of Vysočina. The genders of the Žemaičių dialect appear more often in the text, spontaneously penetrating the author’s linguistic habits. The same can be said about the priority of the use (“as it is now spoken of”). Savickis does not rely on the spoken language of Žemaitija, but on the tradition of ecclesiastical writings. Live uses of the form have been sporadically discovered. Having in mind the orientation towards the Altay dialect, it is possible to specify that part of the tradition of church writings to which A. Savicki’s translation is closely related. These are probably texts from Bishop Giedraitis’ environment, where he tried not to deviate from the 18th century tradition. A well-known poem with which A. Savickis wanted to impress his boss Giedraitis (Palionis 1979: 193). However, the language of Giedraitis’ writings represented a certain consciously chosen cultural project (the parallel Polish text was abandoned, attempts were made to purify the lexicon (Zinkevičius 1990: 112; Prašmantaitė 1994). The author of “Tamošius a Kempis” only joined this project, thinking about language not as a representative of the emerging culture, but as a transmitter of religious intentions. Recalling a certain timeline, the norms of which were imposed on the publishers of religious writings in the 19th century by the authority of the church tradition, the idea arises that A. Savicki’s philological passivity may have been determined by the religious nature of the translation. After all, Savickis was also an author of poems and translations of fairy tales. A study of the language and poetry of secular writings could answer the question of whether Savicki’s linguistic thinking was constrained by religious themes. Many authors suppose that A. Savickis was born in Kretinga county (although the area of that county in the 18th century is unknown; according to people’s stories, Švėkšna, Judrėnai and other places where the mud language was spoken belonged to Kretinga). Some genders of the Samogitian dialect, spontaneously emerged through the censorship of Savicki’s conscious linguistic attitudes, allow us to clarify the identity of the native dialect. Dūniniški aukštaičių 7e counterparts, hyperaukštaitiškas form with uo, the Africanate system and the preserved 17 in the nominative plural of the active species participants testify to the author being a Žemaičių mudininkas. This is another mystery revealed in the otherwise enigmatic biography of A. Savickis. LITTERACY Biržiška V. 1963: A/eksandrynas. 18th-19th centuries, Chicago, 497. Palionis J. 1979: History of Lithuanian Literary Language, 320. Prašmantaitė A. 1994: Žemaičių vyskupas J.A. Giedraitis —New Testament translator. —Lithuanian Literature 3, Nineteenth Century, Vilnius: Pradai, 172—340. 1996: Ambroise Paré. —Studies of the History of Lithuanian Revival 8, Person: Between Nation and State, Vilnius. Tamosziaus a Kempis, 1828: Tamosziaus a Kempis Apey sekima Chrystusa Pona knigas kietures... ysz latiniszkos ant žemaytyszkos kalbas... yszgulditas par kuniga Antona Sawicki Tyrszkluse (Vilnius). Zinkevičius Z. 1966: Lithuanian dialectology, Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinkevičius Z. 1990: History of Lithuanian Language 4, Lithuanian Language XVIII-XIX a., Vilnius: Science. 254 COMPREHENSION OF WRITTEN LANGUAGE IN THE TRANSLATION OF ‘S, TAMOSZIAUS a KEMPIS’ BY ANTANAS SAVICKIS Summary The language of “S. Tamosziaus a Kempis" shows an orientation of the author Antanas Savickis toward the tradition of religious writings of the 18th century which means that he deliberately made efforts to write in A high-aitish dialect. On the other hand, there are many spontaneous phonetic, morphological, lexical forms of Samogitian dialect in Savickis' text which prove he was a Samogitian. So far specialists have assumed that Savickis was born in the Kretinga district (Samogitian dialect), but the analysis of his language allows to maintain his native dialect was that of South Samogitia district (Samogitian-dūnininkai subdialect). 255