Kreipiniai Jono Jablonskio laiškuose

LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICAL QUESTIONS XXXVII (1997) PROBLEMS OF LEXICOGRAFY AND LEXICOLOGY Giedrė ČEPAITIENĖ REFERENCES IN THE LETTERS OF JONAS JABLONSKIS At present, 424 letters of John Jablonski have been published under the care of Professor Arnoldas Piročkinas (Jablonskis 1985; Jablonskis 1991). Most of these letters were written in Lithuanian (353), some in Russian (70) and one in Polish. The content of Jablonski's letters is usually objective, and therefore there is little personality or emotion in them. In this sense, the letters to his son Constantine, some of the letters to Casimir Jokant and one more differ somewhat. In his letters, J. Jablonskis usually uses addresses only at the beginning of the letter or does not use them at all. According to the purposes of writing, letters without addresses are divided into two categories: 1) letters intended to discuss issues of the language of interest, the publication of books or the activities of public organizations (see Jablonskis 1985: 47, 94, 324-352 and others); 2) addressed to the heads of various institutions. The latter letters usually begin with the name of the addressee, e.g. Prof. M. Biržiška, to the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities; Minister of Education K. Jokantui; Humanitary Faculty Dean Prof. V.Krėvė-Mickevič. This is also the case in some of the letters addressed to Juozas Tumas. They also often begin with the name of the addressee’s class (Kn. J. Tumui), and then either use an address or write without an address at all. Of course, one letter after another without an address is different and does not fit into the above mentioned groups. In addition to the above mentioned, there are also some other types of abbreviations, such as: Abbreviations of the Latin abbreviations: 637–638. In J. Jablonski’s letters, the tendency to use addresses is somewhat different. In this case, the various nominative adjectives are used much more frequently to describe the address without the indicative words. Most commonly used is the adjective gerbramasis (respected, honored). This was J. Jablonski’s behaviour for almost all the years of correspondence (1904—1926), and he addressed almost all of his correspondents in this way. It should be noted that only a few people were not addressed in this way in the surviving letters — the writer Jonas Biliūnas, Peter Leon, Pavel Višinskis and his son Konstantinas. This is not the case in the remaining letters to Vincas Kudirka. The above-mentioned persons were addressed by J. Jablonski with warmer words, which would suggest that these people were not only connected by business relations. At the beginning of the correspondence, the form respectbiamasai was used a couple of times. This form is described by J. Jablonski in his grammar. In the grammar of 1901, explaining the structure of nominative adjectives (here they are called doubles), it is stated that they “are made up of a solid adjective and the affirmative part of the noun he or or’ in the noun verb, but such examples are not given in the adjacent verb paradigms (Jablonskis 1957: 84-85). The same is said in the grammar of 1922 (Jablonski 1957: 211). As the letters show, J. Jablonski himself no longer used this form. Sometimes the letters begin with a dear. In Jablonski’s early 256 correspondence this address is extremely rare — it is used only once in a letter addressed to P. Vishinsky (end of November 1904). Again this appeal is found in the letters of 1924-1927. It was used once in letters to Juozas Balčikonis (11 June 1924), Kazimieras Jokanta (7 May 1925) and Merkelis Račkauskas po 1905 m. (16 June 1927), and a couple of times to Zigmas Kuzmickis (6 August 1927; 16 December 1927). On one occasion, when writing to Gabrielė Petkevičaitė- -Bitė on her retirement day, J. Jablonskis addresses her with two adjectives: Dear, respected (10/18/1924). It is also used as an adjective to refer to loved ones (my/imaisis). This address was used by J. Jablonskis in his correspondence with his son Konstantinas, in letters to Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas, the Lithuanian Scientific Society and Stasys Dabušis. The last letter has not survived, only its transcript is known. The simple (not nominative) form of the adjective mylimas is recorded in it and, according to A. Pirochkin, is attributable to a not very literate transliterator (Jablonskis 1985: 101). A couple of extended adjectives have been used. They are extended by the adjective my. In the only known letter to J. Biliūnas, he writes Mano mylimasis (26.01.1905), while the address my dear is used in letters to Professor Eduardas Volteris (06.03.1926) and Z. Kuzmickis (06.03.1926). It is generally said that adjective pronouns denote dependency relationships, and the pronoun is thought to indicate the belonging of the object to the speaker (LKG I: 673; DLKG: 261). It seems that this description is not quite appropriate in this case. The combination my dear could be seen synchronously as the nominalization of saying fu you are dear to me. In Indo-European languages, this noble/utility change is common (Fillmor 1981: 460). According to A. Rosinas, constructions with possessive adjectives and nouns can be regarded as periphrases of each other (Rosinas 1988: 22). Similar statements have been called by J. Jablonskis as the utlizer of what happens to whom and what is to whom and emphasized that they are used “not only to mark the events of the object, but also to express its various states” (Jablonskis 1957: 600). Apparently, the aforementioned addresses could also be treated as indicating a state. Of course, this is not determined by the pronoun, but by the adjective, which is the basis of these addresses. There are extended noun addressiy. They are expanded by adjectives, e.g. : Dear Friend (letter to V. Kudirka, 14.04.1883), Dear Friend (to P. Višinskis, 11.04.1903), Dear Friends (to the Teachers' Congress, 03.11.1928), Dear Countryman (to unknown addressee, 14.11.1898), Dear Countrywoman (to M. Zauniūte, 09.12.1904). It should be noted that in these combinations J. Jablonskis uses both the ordinary and the noun form of the adjective. In the 1922 grammar examples we also find sentences with both the simple and the noun form of the adjective: Ko verki, sesele jaunoji? What a sad sister, white lily (Jablons257 small 1957: 408). Of course, the given examples are not entirely adequate: in the first sentence we have a noun address extended by the me nominative form of an adjective, in the second the address is extended by the prefix of the ordinary form of the adjective used in it. Speaking about this type of addressing, Antanė — Kučinskaitė refers only to the nominative forms ir of adjectives (Kučinskaitė 1985: 62). Only once does J. Jablonskis address an unknown addressee in the usual form of spoken language Sveikas gyvas (11 August 1926). A. Kučinskaitė considers such letter addresses familiar (Kučinskaitė 1985: 72). Thus, such an address by J. Jablonski would seem to suggest that the recipient of the letter must have been a relatively close acquaintance of J. Jablonski, all the more so since such an address is the only one in the relatively abundant correspondence of the linguist. The letters of J. Jablonski are not characterized by the use of noun pronouns alone. Usually the word bro/au is used here. Once, using this address along with his name, J. Jablonskis addressed V. Kudirkas: Vincuti Brolau (15 July 1883). Thus, the addressee is named extremely warmly, like the dearest Zmogus, although the text of the letter itself is not lacking in various reproaches. Apparently, the warm words of the address tried to show their closeness to the former high school friend. Unfortunately, subsequent letters to V. Kudirka are unknown to us. No other person is addressed by name in J. Jablonski’s Lithuanian letters, only one postcard, addressed to J. Balčikonis, mentions the addressee’s name, but here the greeting is in Latin: Josepho et consortibus Joanne cum consortibus salutem dicit (1915 09 24). Bro/au is particularly frequent in letters to Juozas Balčikonis (16 times), Kazimieras Jokanta (12 times), Merkelis Račkauskas (7 times), Kazimieras Būga (4 times), Petras Leonas (3 times). Other correspondents were addressed in the same way on several occasions: Jonas Basanavičius, Antanas Smetona, Jurgis Šlapelis, Povilas Višinskis. According to the frequency of use of these addresses, the relationship between the correspondents can be judged only partially, because not all of J. Jablonski- ’s letters have survived. Moreover, such a comparison requires an analysis of the mutual correspondence. It should be noted that most of the letters with the address bro/au were written in 1909-1913 from Brest, Grodno and Velizy. Do not these adverbs show the anxiety of a certain father of language, living and working far from Lithuania, for some time even without a family, when “he went out in the true sense of the word to earn money, like to America” (Piročkinas 1978: 56)? The use of references is particularly interesting in J. Jablonski- 's letters to K. Jokant. Although he was a pupil of J. Jablonski at the Mintauja Gymnasium (Jablonskis 1985: 416), these people were linked not only by a teacher-- pupil relationship, but by much closer ties. As mentioned above, in letters from Brest to K. Jokanta, he was often addressed as bro/au, once as bro/irukai (1909 10 29). The content of these letters is also exceptional: J. Jablonskis constantly considers the possibility of K. Jokant's marriage with a foreigner and tries to advise him. In one letter (November-December 1909), as if seeking persuasion, J. Jablonskis begins to polemise with imaginary interlocutors, conveying their possible reactions, at the same time using addresses: I would only help 258 If I were a aš young man today, living in a country that is very difficult to live in, and if I fell in love with a virgin of that country who cares about the ir affairs of her people, believe me, be — — aš her take care of the affairs of her country I would do everythiir ng to make my children good working people of that nation (there would be no talk of languagenė ). That my own countrymen may say to me, while I am doing this: “ Parsidavélr", aš but if I squeezed them į I could boldly ir say: "Hermaphrodites I do not want to raise [...]”. When my own daughter grows up and marries somewhere beyond Latvia, in the land of Latvians, I will say to her: “Your children, child, can only be good Latvians, take care of that. ir [...]” [...] In your last two letters, it seems to me, ‘patriotizma’. If I thought so, I could boldly proclaim: “Take, men, the girls who suit you in their culture and upbringing, the people here are nothing, live not in Pilviškiai, not in Kupiškis, but there where you invent a higher, better suited culture for you...” It should be noted that, as if quoting the spoken language, J. Jablonskis chooses noun addresses, which are not frequent in his letters. It should be noted that the daughter is referred to here as child, although in J. Jablonski’s native dialect the word vaikas, when describing kinship, usually means son. By the way, this letter is the only one in which the addressee is addressed not only at the beginning of the letter, but also in its final part: “Brother! I can't finger myself [...]". Later letters to Jokant were written in 1925, when he was Minister of Education. The tone of most of Jablonski’s letters is somewhat different now. There are also different types of choice. Almost all letters begin officially, stating the addressee's position: Ministry of Education: Minister. J. Jokantui; Minister of Education K. Jokantui; K. Jokantui, Ministry of Education, After this designation, sometimes a respectful address is used, and sometimes the essence of the matter begins to be taught without an address at all. However, in a couple of letters to the Minister, we find some exceptions. In one of them, explaining the matters of the formation of the Terminology Commission, the addressee is not mentioned at all and addressed in Latin: Sa/ve, Carissime (16 March 1925), and in the other, describing J. Jablonski’s summer plans, the addressee is called Brangusis (7 May 1925). This would allow us to say that, although J. Jablonskis usually respected some subordination in his letters, he nevertheless allowed himself not only to show respect but also feelings. Other noun addresses are rare in Jablonski's letters. From 1906 to 1917, in his correspondence with his son Konstantin, he usually used the address kidli (only once the son is addressed as a beloved). In letters written from Pskov to J. Šaulis the address fautrieti is used a couple of times (1903 01 26; 1903 02 01). Once in a letter to J. Balčikonis we find the address Pi/reti (1926 12 29). In our day, it is a clerical, usually associated with law enforcement agencies, official address. According to A. Kučinskaitė, it is suitable only for law enforcement officers (Kučinskaitė 1985: 64). Knowing that J. Jablonskis and J. Balčikonis had an extremely close and friendly relationship, such an appeal seems strange. But its essence is revealed by the content of the letter. In this letter J. Jablonskis invites J. Balčikonis to collaborate in the daily newspaper “Lietuvis”. Thus, the choice of the address pi/reti was probably determined not by the correspondents’ mutual relationships, but by a broader context — the activity to be encouraged, or perhaps the name of the newspaper. Other Russian letters. These letters are usually addressed to various scientists and officials. Of all the letters written in Russian, 4 are addressed to J. Balčikonis. Only one of them begins with the address Dorogoi Kollega, the equivalent of which, dear colleague, has not been found in Lithuanian letters. In other letters written in Russian, this address is also no longer used. They are addressed according to the usual Russian usage traditions: the name of the person, surname, often accompanied by various epithets. When addressing persons in high positions, J. Jablonskis chooses extremely elaborate addresses. The letters addressed to A. Bychkov, President of the Russian Language and Literature Department of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, begin: Vase Vysokoprevoschoditelstvo, Mylostivij Gosudar, Afanasij Fiodorovič (09.05.1897: 21.03.1899). The rector of the Moscow University G. Ivanov is written: Vase Prevoschoditelstvo Monogouvažajemij Aleksej Aleksandrovič (1888 03 09). In the same style J. Jablonski addressed his professor N. Tikhonravov: Vase Prevoschoditelstvo Nikolaj 259 Savvich (1888 10 04). The letter to the writer V. Korolenko begins with the address Agyl/ostivij Gosudar, without specifying the addressee’s name and surname. Other addressees, usually colleagues, are addressed in a less elaborate manner, but the name and surname are always accompanied by respectful adjectives mnogouvažajemij or dobreišij. They are used alternately in letters to V. Lamanski (see letters 06 04 1896 and 02 03 1901). A. Šachmatov, with whom J. Jablonskis had a long-standing cooperation concerning the fate of the Yushka dictionary, is addressed several times: Mnogouvazajemij Aleksej Aleksandrovic (11 January 1897; 1 April 1897; February 1901; 14 September 1901 and others); Dobreisyy Aleksandr Aleksandrovic (10 December 1900; 18 April 1901; December 1901; 7 January 1902 and others); GlubokouvazZaemij Aleksey Aleksandrovich (1914 09 20). It should be noted that the last address was used by J. Jablonski not when writing on linguistic issues, but when asking for help for his gifted student. In letters to other recipients, the adjective mnogouvažajemij is usually used. A special mention should be made of J. Jablonski’s addresses used in his letters to Professor Eduardas Volteris. Of the 4 published letters addressed to this person, 3 are written in Russian and one in Lithuanian. In all his letters written in Russian, Jablonski addresses himself as Mnogouvažajemij Eduard Aleksandrovich (December 1894 — January 1895; 02 06 1885; 02 15 1905), as he does to many of his colleagues. The letter written in Lithuanian has a much warmer address — Mano brangusis (19 March 1926). Maybe it indicates a friendship that has arisen over many years of communication, maybe it was chosen to adapt to the occasion of writing the letter (E. Voltaire is congratulated “at the age of 70TM), or maybe it reflects the style requirements of Lithuanian and Russian languages? So far there is too little material to answer this question exactly, but probably the different approach was determined by all three factors. As already mentioned, of all the published letters, only one was written in Polish. Jis 260 dedicated to the Polish linguist and folklorist J. Karlovič. The message of this letter is particularly refined: Dear i Faskawy Lord! - Oh, my God! Jono An analysis of Jablonski's addresses shows that several jų factors influenced his choice. It can be said that J. Jablonski respected the traditions of each language (this is evidenced by his letters in Russian and Polish). The Lithuanian language did not yet have a tradition of writing letters, so J. Jablonskis was just creating it with his letters. By comparing the addresses of the letters written in different languages, we see that J. Jablonskis did not apply the principle of mechanical translation, but created a peculiar, corresponding to the Lithuanian manner of epistolary communication. His Lithuanian letters are simpler, closer to the spoken language than to the high style. It seems that J. Jablonski took into account the social position of the addressee when choosing addresses. Most of Jablonski's letters are addressed in nominative forms of adjectives, and the noun pronoun is much more rare. LITERATURE DLKG -Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslas,1994. Jablonskis J. 1957: Selected Writings 1, Vilnius: State Political and Scientific Literature Publishers. Jablonskis J. 1985: Letters of John Jablonskis, Vilnius: Mokslas. Jablonskis J. 1991: Articles and Letters, Vilnius: Mokslas. Fillmore C. 1981: The Fall. —Novoye v zarubezhnoj lingvistike 10, Lingvisticheskaya semantika, Moscow. Kučinskaitė A. 1985: Lithuanian language etiquette, Vilnius: Mokslas. LKG I -Lithuanian Grammar 1, Vilnius: Mintis, 1965. LKG III —Lithuanian Grammar 3, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976. Piročkinas A. 1978; J. Jablonskis —general language promoter, Vilnius: Mokslas. Rosinas A. 1988: Pronouns in Baltic languages, Vilnius: Mokslas. WORDS OF ADDRESS IN J. JABLONSKIS' LETTERS Summary The majority J. Jablonskis' letters are written in Lithuanian (373), part of them are written in Russian (50) and only one in Polish. In the Lithuanian letters the adress is usually some form of adjective. The form Gerbiamasis is used very often. Sometimes we come across brangusis and very seldom mylimasis. There are extended address forms consisting of adjectives and nouns: mano mylimasis, mano brangusis, mylimas drauge, brangus drauge. Only once J. Jablonskis uses the colloquial form Sveikas gyvas! The person whom he addresses is not known to us. The address consisting of a vocative noun is not typical of these letters. The form brolau apears rather only frequently and Varkeli is used to address his son Konstantinas. J. Jablonskis addresses V. Kudirka with very worm words: Vincuti Brolau. There are no more personal names in the letters written in Lithuanian. The addresses in the letters written in Russian are quite different. We come across number epithets used together with names and patronymics: 261 of Vase The High Protectorate Athanasius Fyodor, the Merciful Gosudar Gavril Afanasjevi¢, Vase Prevospoditeljstvo Alexei Aleksandrovs, Mnogouvazajemij Alexei Aleksandrovic. Professor E. Volter is addressed with the words Mnogouvazajemy Eduard Aleksandrovic in the Russian letters, and with the words My dear the in Lithuanian letters. The addresses in the letters written in Polish to the famous linguist J. Karlovich are very refined: Dear i Faskawy Lord! - Oh, my God! It could said be that J. Jablonskis considered the etiquette of the letters written in the Lithuanian language more simple, closer the to colloquial speech which does not demand higher style. a That why is close people and those having many things common in with J. Jablonskis are usually addressed warmly-brolau, other cases in adjectives axpressing respect are used. The same person can addressed be different in ways depending whether on J. Jablonskis writes to him as to samebody higher in office or to a person sharing common ideas. His letters evidence that J. Jablonskis paid great attention the to position the person was he writing occupied, to well as to as their personal relationship, choosing the language accordingly. 262