Paminklas tėvų kalbai

editors. The book also includes a photocopy of P. Berents’s article “Pirmās latviešu valodas mācības sastādītājs,” published in the journal “Izglītības ministrijas mēnešraksts” in 1930. In fact, this is the most comprehensive biography of J. G. Rehehusen to date, although it is not known where or when he was born, where he studied, or when he died. It is known that around 1628 he was ordained as an Evangelical Lutheran pastor in Courland. It is conjectured that through his wife he may have been related to the Latvian lexicographer Johan Langij. This article has also been translated into English. Along with the English translation, the book also publishes a facsimile of A. Bielenstein’s article in German, from the 1901 edition of J. G. Rehehusen’s grammar. Thus, this book, prepared so meticulously by an Australian linguist, is in a sense an encyclopedia of the first Latvian grammar: it gathers in one place material hitherto scattered across various publications, provides a thorough analysis of the grammar’s text, and its English translations will greatly facilitate access to this material for a wider circle of researchers interested in Latvian culture and the history of Latvian linguistics. T. G. Fennell’s second book, “Seventeenth Century Latvian Grammatical Fragments,” is compiled on a similar principle. It publishes two important seventeenth-century documents related to Latvian grammar—the so-called “Einhorn synopsis” (“Declinationum Letticarum ex D. Einhornij contrà Rehehusium tractatu Synopsis brevis”) and the “Biuchner fragments.” Alongside the facsimile text, English translation, and extensive commentary, editions of A. Bielenstein’s, A. Augstkalns’s, and J. Zēvers’s “Einhorn synopsis” are also published here. The “Biuchner fragments” are published mainly on the basis of L. Arbuzovs’s edition (“17.g.s. latviešu gramatika bij. Kurzemes hercogu bibliotēkā Pēterpilī”. — Filologu biedrības raksti, 1925, 5, p. 106—125). Along with English translations, the volume also includes A. Augstkalns’s article “Veclatviešu rakstu apskats” (Rakstu krājums, 1930, 20, p. 109—110), excerpts from J. Zēvers’s article “Veci latviešu valodas pieminekļi rokrakstos” (Izglītības ministrijas mēnešraksts, 1937, 5, p. 619—621), and K. Dravinis’s article “Latviešu gramatikas materiāli Mārtiņa Bichnera albumā” (In honorem Endzelini, Chicago, 1960, p. 107—113). The third book is devoted to Georg Dresel’s (Dreszell) grammar, “Gantz kurtze Anleitung zur Lettischen Sprache,” published in Riga in 1685. It presents a facsimile of the grammar text, an English translation, very extensive commentary (pp. 147—421), and an index of Latvian words. It is very pleasing that funding is available in Australia (The Australian Research Grants Committee) to publish works of this kind; but, of course, most important is that a person capable of preparing such works is active there. Algirdas Sabaliauskas A MONUMENT TO THE LANGUAGE OF ONE’S PARENTS Unexpected turns of fate. Sometimes what seems already lost forever unexpectedly comes back to life, and for a moment shines in all its radiance, ready to rise anew for 189 life in our hearts and memory. The dialects of the depopulated Klaipėda Region, never properly documented and scarcely studied scientifically, had all but faded away. All that remained were traces distorted by Germanization and a handful of people who knew the language of this region. The land of the Lietuvininks, where for many centuries the ancient Curonians, Samogitians, and Western Aukštaitians (and perhaps other Western Baltic tribes as well) lived side by side, seemed unlikely ever to welcome its own Klein, Ruigys, or Schleicher with Kurschat, or Gerullis with Stang, or other distinguished linguists who so beautifully memorialized the southern part of Lithuania Minor, which had suffered an even more painful fate. And suddenly, what had seemed irretrievable in Lithuania begins to return from abroad... In 1990, Jonas Užpurvis’s book ”Three Linguistic Studies” (”Drei sprachwissenschaftliche Studien”) appeared in Chicago, published with great difficulty by the publishers and supporters of the Lithuania Minor Foundation. Gradually, one copy of the ”Studies” after another began making its way to Lithuania. Here, the work attracted great interest, and its author, previously little known as an émigré philologist, became a significant Balticist, occupying an important place in Lithuanian linguistics. It is highly symbolic that the book was first presented to us by another scholar of Lithuania Minor, also from the Klaipėda Region, the linguist Prof. V. Peteraitis, who contributed greatly to the compilation and publication of the ”Studies.” He donated the book to Klaipėda University, speaking with the greatest respect both of the work and of its author. Jonas Užpurvis was born on December 12, 1891, in Šilutė County. In 1911 he graduated from a teachers’ seminary; later, he served as a soldier in the German army during the First World War. After the war, he studied classical philology at Vytautas Magnus University and taught in primary schools and gymnasiums. From 1941 until it was closed, he taught German at Vilnius University. In 1949, he and his family were exiled to the forests of Krasnoyarsk for thirteen years. After returning from exile, he lived for a time in Saugai and Šilutė, and in 1967 left for West Germany. In the winter of 1991, J. Užpurvis celebrated his hundredth birthday. The centenary did not go unnoticed in Lithuania either—it was marked by various events and a fine conference in Kaunas organized by the Lietuvininkai Community, where the many-sided work of this talented and industrious man was discussed. Buffeted by life and often lacking even suitable conditions, J. Užpurvis devoted his entire life to scholarship. He was interested not only in the history and language of Lithuania Minor, but also in the works of classical authors, Italian and Spanish literature, and the Greek translation of the New Testament. J. Užpurvis was not only a scholar but also an eminent educator, whom his former pupils remember to this day with affection and gratitude. Seeking to make his ideas accessible to as broad a readership as possible, J. Užpurvis wrote mostly in German. Today, his work on Lithuanian studies is of greatest interest to us, revealing these main areas: the history and linguistics of Lithuania Minor, comparative Baltic studies, toponymy, and dialectology. Lacking specialized training in Lithuanian studies and being removed from the rapid development of Lithuanian linguistics, J. Užpurvis’s contributions varied in breadth and professionalism across these fields. Nevertheless, his linguistic talent, independent and original thinking, broad general erudition, scholarly diligence, and sense of responsibility are beyond doubt. Particularly valuable is that the author of the ”Studies” knows his native Saugai dialect exceptionally well—a dialect that decades of Soviet life had nearly erased irreversibly not only from everyday life but also from historical memory. The book under discussion consists of three parts (264 pp.). The first part of the ”Studies”—”The Saugai Dialect” (”Die Saugener litauischen Mundart”)—is devoted to the native 190 for dialect research. In the second part, “The origin of the river and the German name of the city, Memel” (“Memel Strom — und Stadtbezeichnung”), the origins of the names of the Nemunas and Klaipėda are explained against a broad historical panorama: the discussion draws on ancient written sources and delves into the past of the Baltic tribes. The third part—“The development of Donelaitis’s ‘The Seasons’” (“Zur Entstehung von Donelaitis Werk ‘Keturi metų laikai’ ”)—is a study of the genesis of this work. All three parts of the “Studies” reveal J. Užpurvis’s views and knowledge, the material he possessed and used, and his scholarly conclusions. The following will attempt to briefly survey what their author has accomplished in various fields of scholarship. HISTORY. Views on the history of Lithuania, and especially of Lithuania Minor, concern a field where scholarship is closely linked to politics and even to national mentality. The claims of individual states to the Klaipėda Region and the Kaliningrad Region usually stem from two important factors and depend on two fundamental questions. Answers to these questions are also presented in J. Užpurvis’s “Studies.” The first is this: were Sūduva, Skalva (Šalavija), and the entire coastal region (the environs of Klaipėda) wilderness (Wildnis), or lands inhabited since ancient times, with an unbroken continuity of settlement? Having examined numerous chronicles and annals from antiquity, as well as Vytautas’s letters, the author of “Studies” adopts the latter view. If these lands are considered to have been inhabited since ancient times, it must be established who—that is, which peoples—lived there. Having carefully analyzed many place names in the region and drawing on historical material, J. Užpurvis concludes that these lands were Lithuanian. COMPARATIVE BALTISTICS. Continuing and substantially supplementing with new material and original observations the work begun by the great Baltic scholars K. Būga and J. Endzelīns and their followers, J. Užpurvis has also offered his own views on the history of the Baltic tribes. In “Studies,” he repeatedly seeks to clarify the historical relations among the Prussians, Samogitians, and Klaipėda residents, and looks for a Curonian substrate in the coastal dialects. Offering interesting lexical and phonetic parallels, the author of “Studies” finds commonalities between the Klaipėda dialect and the Prussian language, and notes the relations between Prussian and Samogitian dialects. Traces of the Curonian language are discerned in the accentuation system of the Saugai dialect (the most prominent features are retraction of the stress and the associated shortening of word endings). It is regrettable that this question has not been studied more broadly, that no attempt has been made to locate the historical boundary between the Samogitians and Curonians, and that their linguistic relations have not been discussed. The toponymic and linguistic material collected by the author and presented in the publication allows much broader conclusions to be drawn on this and other questions than those found in “Studies,” and is therefore of inestimable value to later researchers. TOPONYMICS AND ANTHROPONYMICS. J. Užpurvis adds new ideas and facts to the study of Lithuanian place names and personal names, and offers his views on the names of certain important rivers and cities that continue to prompt debate in the scholarly world. In every instance, the author of “Studies” remembers that he is a historian, devoting particular attention to the history of a place name’s emergence and its etymology. The entire second part of the publication is devoted to these questions. It surveys all the river names of the Klaipėda Region and presents their 191 a detailed map. Older forms of river names recorded in German sources are compared with the names used in the author’s time. Most of the discussion concerns the name of the Nemunas, which is considered ancient; all the other variants of the river’s name mentioned in various sources are catalogued, and the way the distorted German form Memel came about is clearly demonstrated. Of the place names, the name Klaipėda receives the most analysis. Its antiquity is attested by the form Klawppeda recorded in Vytautas’s letter. Among the more interesting etymologies, the explanations of the names Dercekļi and Nemirseta are worth mentioning. As the old spelling Darzeppeln shows, the word Dercekliai derives from derva and cept, “to bake” (i.e. a place where tar is boiled), while Nemirseta (Nimersatt) is explained as “a place of discord and unrest” (“Ort des Unfriedens”). Both place names clearly show traces of the Curonian language. Dialectal forms of place names and personal names, and their comparison with older forms recorded in historical sources, enable J. Užpurvis to offer valuable observations on the development of stress patterns and the structure of compound words in the Saugos dialect; cf. Mėžgalė and Mischkogallen. DIALEKTOLOGIJA. The description of the native Saugos dialect is the most valuable part of “Studies,” filling a major gap in Lithuanian dialectology. The collected authentic material provides data on every area of language and makes it possible to formulate the most interesting hypotheses and conclusions. Although J. Užpurvis had no specialist training in dialectology, he has not described and investigated all the dialect’s features in equal detail. Moreover, facts about one’s native dialect can sometimes seem so familiar that it may simply not occur to one that they raise new problems or help answer old questions. All the more pleasing, then, are the author’s astute observations and generalizations, especially when a researcher from elsewhere would not even suspect that a particular phenomenon—particularly a phonetic one—occurs in the dialect. The description of the dialect consists of three parts: the first is a kind of brief grammar (“Grundzüge der Saugener litauischen Mundart”), the second comprises illustrative texts (“Beispiele der Saugener Mundart aus verschiedenen Lebenslagen”), and the third is a short glossary (“Ihr Klangcharakter auf Tonband”). The introductory part of the description discusses the transcription symbols. Rendering the dialect’s sounds in a special orthography was probably the greatest challenge in publishing and editing this work. A simplified spelling system was chosen, but even that did not entirely eliminate all the difficulties. For instance, marking hard and soft consonants with dots above or below the consonant (vâlg “eats” and vâlę “ate”) is not very convenient, since a dot may, as it were, “land” in the wrong place or disappear altogether. There are not enough symbols to represent different types of vowels: graphically, not only are o, corresponding to standard-language o and uo (which are probably not distinguished phonetically in the dialect), indistinguishable, but so is o derived from the widespread u, for example, rops sopòv “the turnips rotted.” The same applies to ė and e, which correspond to the standard-language notation ė, ie and e, i. One could make further criticisms of this kind, but here again one must remember the difficulties involved in publishing the work. Anyone wishing to check the pronunciation of a particular sound can do so by listening to the texts recorded on tape, in which the author’s own voice can be heard. “Grundzüge” consists of four chapters devoted to surveying various areas of language. The first chapter defines the boundaries of the dialect (a fairly detailed 192 map of the Saugos area is included). It sketches the dialect’s position and relationship to neighboring dialects, as well as its historical connections with languages that have had some influence on it. The most distinctive feature of the dialect is considered to be retraction of stress, which is associated with the Curonian, Latvian, and Finnic languages. Especially valuable for dialectology are the observations, made in the introduction and sometimes in the dialect description itself, on the relationship between the Saugos dialect and other Klaipėda-area dialects (it is a pity there are so few of these observations!). It is well known that various dialects existed in the Klaipėda region, a fact also remembered by the region’s older inhabitants. However, as is usually the case, their observations tend to highlight isolated details, most often differences in the use of certain words or expressions. Only a linguist can identify systematic differences, and J. Užpurvis was precisely such a linguist. It would be very good if these comparative studies of the western dialects were continued. The second chapter is the largest—the chapter on p h o n e t i c s (Lautwandel). It describes various features of the dialect’s sound system and stress. Stress. Much attention is paid to accent distinctions, which the author distinguishes very well and tries to mark carefully; cf. áukšt·s “áukštas (adjective),” áukšt·s “áukštas (noun),” and áukšt “áukštis.” As already noted, retraction of stress is considered a prominent feature of the dialect, arising under the influence of other languages. A close examination of the examples given reveals that stress is retracted in the Saugos dialect in a quite different way from that in the Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects with which we are already familiar. Here, it seems, one cannot speak of retraction that is universal or even conditional in phonetic origin; compare long-stem words with unretracted stress: kąntù “I endure,” šviesì “bright (fem.),” galvà, lėktù “I fly,” and so on. Apparently, the peculiarities of stress are related not to phonetic, but to morphological or lexical factors. Stress on the first syllable of place names or surnames is particularly characteristic of this region: Vìlkyte, Kùkoratė, Jódats, Jókumats, and so on. Numerals have retracted stress (e.g. pẽnk, šẽš, sẽptin); so do certain nouns of particular structures (especially those ending in -ys — árkels “horse,” kàbils “hook,” gáidis “rooster,” tìngins “trifle”; less often, those ending in -a — kàrčem, žãgat). Variable stress is characteristic of certain verb forms (e.g. in the second person singular present, the stem is stressed—mėgì~mėgi “you sleep,” lėkti~liẽkti “you remain”—but in the first person singular the ending is stressed: mėgtù, lėktù). Word-final shortening. The Saugos dialect differs from the northern and southern Samogitian dialects in that all unstressed endings are shortened—not only short ones, but long ones as well: žãms “low,” žõiks, vókys, árkils “horse,” snargalìn “snarglinė (a kind of tavern),” žẽm “winter,” krẽt “fell.” Only diphthongs remain intact. “Studies” devotes considerable attention to word-final phenomena, describing in particular detail cases where consonant clusters that are difficult to pronounce form as a result of shortened endings. A vowel is usually inserted to break up the cluster (a similar phenomenon is found in Northern Aukštaitian dialects), e.g. dòygans “bottom,” lėpsan “flame,” didẽsens “larger.” Unfortunately, it is impossible today to determine the geographical limits of this shortening. Establishing them could help explain the causes of this reduction. Could it be a Curonian substrate, or that of a related Baltic tribe? Or perhaps German influence? 193 Vocalism. One of the most striking features of the Saugos dialect is that the standard language diphthongs ie, uo correspond in the dialect to the long vowels ė, o: kėms “kie-mas,” pėmõ “piemuo.” In “Studijose” this is called a change (“uo becomes long o,” “ie develops into... y or... ė”). On this point, J. Užpurvis adheres to the traditional view. However, other opinions are possible regarding the historical relationship between ie: ė and uo: o. Still less can one agree that in the forms apý, pryš, py “prie,” anýms, baltýms, vókytė the long y is phonetically derived from ie. The Saugos dialect is linked with other western dialects by the change of the diphthongs ai, ei into the long monophthongs ā, ē: lāks “laikas,” vỹrā “vyrai,” aukštā “aukštai,” vãdas “veidas,” arklē “arkliai,” kárvē “karvei,” dė́je “dejal,” matė “matei”... “Studijose” also discusses the widening of u and i (> o, e). As is known, such widening is characteristic of all western Baltic languages. It is regrettable that the author not only fails to discuss the length of the widened vowels o and e (that they differed from long o and e of other origins can sometimes be inferred from the corresponding accent marks), but also makes no mention at all of the connection between this widening and vowel harmony. “Studijose” repeatedly discusses the different pronunciation of e depending on the following syllable (e.g., n’ãš “nešu,” nèš “neši”). It is therefore strange that the author paid no attention at all to the fact that u and i do not widen in all cases. When followed by a palatalized consonant, these vowels seem to remain unchanged—at least, this can be inferred from the examples (cf. mòd “mudu” and mùd “mudvi”). The material presented in “Studijose” reveals another striking feature of the dialect: stressed a and e (rãts “ratas,” žẽms “žemas,” n’ãs “neša,” mạd “medų”) do not lengthen. Consonantism. In the dialect, the opposition between hard and soft consonants plays a very important role. As endings have been shortened, various forms are distinguished by this feature, especially verb forms: tenses (bãig “finishes” and bãig “finished”), persons (bláun “I cry, he/she cries” and blạun “you cry”, gérs “I will drink, you will drink” and gárs “he/she will drink”). In this case, marking diacritics takes on particular importance. Unfortunately, the publication is not very precise in this respect. As is known, the speech of the people of the Klaipėda region has certain features that arose under the influence of German—consonant aspiration, the softness of l, and so on. It may be that only an outsider’s ear can detect such things, while the speakers of the dialect themselves simply do not notice them. Apparently, that is why these phenomena are not mentioned in the “Studies” either. The third section of “Grundzüge” is devoted to m o r p h o l o g y—questions concerning the formation and inflection of dialect forms (Formenlehre). It presents several declensional paradigms for nouns and conjugational paradigms for verbs, accompanied by fairly brief comments. The data in the morphology section are supplemented by examples from other sections, from which one can form some idea of the system of forms in the Saugos dialect. In many cases, the dialect forms are close to Samogitian ones; parallels can also be sought with Curonian or even Prussian. The more salient features of the dialect’s morphology are as follows: a) the shift of many i-stem nouns into the ė stem: akẽ “eye”, ausẽ “ear”, žãsė (cf. Prussian sansy, which is to be interpreted as zansi or zansē), but naktis, degsnis “heat”; b) instead of the standard-language singular dative ending -ui, the ending is -o (~uo), while instead of the plural dative -iems, the ending is -yms, e.g., bárnõ “chil- 194 dren”, mèdžo “to the tree” (cf. the adverb of the same origin pakelõ “on the way”), anýms “to them”, veñỹms “to the ones”; c) the forms tevės, tėve, etc. of the pronoun tu (with root e) are probably Curonian; cf. Latvian tevis, tevi. The same applies to the prepositions apỹ, prỹš, and especially pỹ “near” (cf. Latvian pie “near”); d) the dialect uses Samogitian-type athematic forms (mėgtų, lektų, atų “I go”), as well as present-tense forms with an na-stem: páun, šáun, rỹn, grìun). LEXICOGRAPHY. J. Užpurvis’s considerable contributions as a lexicologist must be acknowledged. Lexical material appears in various parts of the dialect description. The fourth section of “Grundzüge” consists of a short list of place names and personal names, together with a brief glossary of some more distinctive dialect words. Native words are distinguished from loanwords (although the author does not always succeed in doing so), and the vocabulary of individual dialects of the Klaipėda region is compared. The dictionary (Wörterverzeichnis) included in the third part of the dialect description is of particular value; it contains about 600 dialect words. The words are recorded in dialect transcription, and their meanings are explained in German and Lithuanian. It is regrettable that for nouns, generally only the singular nominative is given; for adjectives, the masculine nominative form; and for verbs, the infinitive. As a result, we cannot get a complete picture of the declensional, conjugational, and accentual paradigms. More interesting dialect words include: dagà “harvest, reaping”, degsnis “heat”, mãuk “maukė (a calf-covering for the lower leg)”, õst “wharves, moustaches”, snarglìn “snarglinė (a snack bar where people drink heavily)”, strė̃gts “striegtis (to force one’s way, squeeze through)”, žveždars “žvizdras (gravel)”. The dictionary is greatly enlivened by the added idioms, for example, gaida pàrdev “sold it to the rooster (=padėge)”, pùts nàgs apynėms “the very nail for the hops (=what they need in order to grow)”. Jonas Užpurvis repeatedly emphasizes that the church had a major influence on the dialects of the Klaipėda region. Some old forms have been preserved through it (and, apparently, sometimes newly introduced—A.K.). Among these, the first to mention are athematic first-person forms with the ending -mi (bėgmi, esmi), and verbs with an inserted enclitic (pamistiprink “strengthen me”, nemiduok “do not give me”). The inessive forms used adverbially, dengunžengems, žemenkrist, also seem very exotic, especially when used in a dialect which, under the influence of German, has lost even the ordinary inessive (replaced by the accusative with the preposition į ‘into’). The author of the “Studies” is deeply concerned about the fate of his homeland and its culture. He emphasizes his compatriots’ long-standing efforts to preserve their language and customs. The second part of the dialect description—the Saugos dialect texts (“Beispiele der Saugener Mundart aus verschiedenen Lebenslagen”)—is invaluable not only to linguists but also to historians, folklorists, and ethnographers. A German translation of the texts is provided alongside them. This part of the “Studies” comprises about 80 pages printed in small type. Its value is further enhanced by the fact that the texts are presented not only on paper: a tape recording is also included, on which we can hear J. Užpurvis’s own voice. The texts selected are very interesting and valuable, covering many aspects of life. They include both amusing stories and serious accounts, from which we can form a vivid picture of the author’s homeland. The language is pure, 195 beautiful, vivid, and in some miraculous way spared the profusion of Germanisms that usually overshadow the Klaipėda dialect. Jonas Užpurvis’s literary abilities are beyond doubt. The final text in particular is written with great sensitivity; it depicts birds as if symbolizing the fate of the people of this region. After these bright childhood memories—with cheerful, tailcoated swallows diving and darting along a sandy road, and proud storks, eleven of which he once counted on his own roof—the author asks sadly: Where are we, where are they? We have been scattered across the whole world, while they—since I saw them in 1945, when the Russians burned their straw—still nest on my farm; storks from those remembered days, greatly envied, settle low in the meadows, then at night take to the sky, shunning death; but I saw them hanging in the ditch. It is a pity the stork population is dwindling; but who is to blame? As this article was being completed, sad news arrived: the author of “Studijos,” Jonas Užpurvis, had died (1992 09 12). And so many questions still unanswered, so many riddles unsolved! Only his works remain—a monument to his great love for his Homeland, to which he never returned... Audronė Kaukienė 196