Slavizmai Lizijaus ir Engelio katekizmuose: gretinamoji analizė

LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICAL QUESTIONS, XXX (1993) PERIFERICAL LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE DICTIONAIRES Pietro U. DINI SLAVISMS IN THE CATECHISMS OF LYSIUS AND ANGELIUS: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 0. This presentation is another attempt to emphasize the importance and relevance of the study of ancient writings for Lithuanian studies. At the same time, this could be no less important and relevant to the topic of this conference. The texts, which are examined here from the point of view of Slavic borrowed words, came to us from Lesser Lithuania in the early 18th century, when the struggle against Germanization of this region was still going on. These are the catechisms of Lyssius and Engel, both translated from German, which are well-known to scholars and bibliographers. It is known that Henrikas Johanas Lizijus (H. J. Lysius, 1670-1731), school inspector in East Prussia in the second decade of the eighteenth century (1718-1719) and organizer of the accelerated Germanization project in Lithuanian-inhabited areas, prepared a manuscript, 1719 m. t. y. "Kleiner Katechismus", Lithuanian version. It is also known that particularly hostile to the jo ir jo intentions was Gabrielius English (G. Engel, 1685-1761). Jis 1721 m. became the new inspector ir 1722 m. gave to the press Small The Catchment of D.[actor] Merton ir Luther in Lithuanian and German (...) iš new In Tilžė he throws the 1722 transported. The linguistic characteristics of these ir works, as well as their real relationships, have not yet been investigated. Especially about the relationship of the texts, different opinions can be detected, but they are always presented with appropriate evidence of a comparative nature: V. be Biržiška in the second volume of "Aleksandryno" (1963, 7) wrote that English "significantly corrected", in the o "Lithuanian Small Soviet Encyclopedia"(2, it is stated that 467) Engel printed the Catechism "with minor changes". Ir extremely surprising that it was possible to state this way, because The Manuscript of Lysis po World War II disappeared, only ir two years ago the author of these cilutes had the luck to discover jį University Library of Krakow. I will perhaps come back to many aspects of this issue on another occasion. In my report, I will content myself with a few textological remarks that may be relevant in order to describe in general terms the similarity of these works. Although I will only give some evidence here, I think it will be enough to prove that one or another of the previously mentioned ir opinions ir does not correspond to the textual material. | Zr. Aut. For The Berlin manuscript of Lysi's "Little Catechism" // Baltistica, 1989. T. 25. 33 1. Engelium The Catechism is considerably greater than the Lizzy. In the first — 72 pages printed in columns in German ir Lithuanian, more pages ir of 15 Lithuanian text only; Meanwhile There are only pages in the manuscript of Lysis. 55 | Be that, even a superficial comparative analysis of the texts would be enough to show that The catechisms are very different. More precisely, Engel's Catechism consists of iš The text of the Catechism ir of Lysycius with new parts prepared by Engel; those new parts somewhere inserted į the text of the Catechism 0 of Lysias, in some places presented separately, before ir po own The Lycian Catechism. 2. When discussing Slavisms in the aforementioned Catechisms, the most interesting thing this time would be to compare Lysius' original with the repetition of the su to text itself in Engel's "translated" text. Lizijaus ir Both are rich in Slavisms. The work of Lysias is about jų 160, o Engelium — ne less. Based on the comparative analysis in the text below, several cases are discussed ir where The views of the authors of the catechisms į differ. In re-editing the Lysias manuscript, Engel only inserted new parts of the text, ne but tried to standardize the spelling, correcting individual forms in places. Regarding ir Slavisms, it should be noted that in Engel’s Catechism there is a fairly consistent spelling of Slavic-origin forms of the verb šlūžyti with /š/ at the beginning of the form (22, 3 Blugiti, 22, 24 Blujiciau, 49, 1 zaBlujijes etc.) instead of /s/ as everywhere in Lysius’ manuscript: 13 Slugiti, 16, 8 Služičiau, 31 3 uj/luzijęs; the exception here is form 36, 19 Bfuzma). An example of a correction is the form fastninkauti (39, 14 Pastnjkaut’), with which Engel replaces Lysijus’ handwritten text variant fastninkauti (29, 2 Pi/njkdut’). However, Engel is characterized by a method of re-editing – substitution. Substitution can be done directly or indirectly, in other words, the borrowed word is replaced by another single word or paraphrase. First of all, let’s discuss those cases where the loanword of direct substitution would simply be replaced by a separate Lithuanian word. For example, where Lysius uses the rare borrowed word valė of controversial Slavic origin (38, 15), the corresponding place in Engel’s edition presents the Lithuanian form valdžia (60, 8). Interestingly, although these words differ from a semantic point of view, they change in the same context. So Lizius says: The Dubia should be handed over to the Male Wal on her turn. Meanwhile, Engel presents the following variant: Sock DuBia must be increased to WyrauJybei Wald3ia on her turrinc; ei. 2 About this Zr. Aut. O slavizmach u Lysiusa (BJ, Ms. Slav. Quart. 4) II Reports from the meetings of the scientific commissions of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Krakow ir Aut. Lexical Slavisms and Germanisms in the Lithuanian Catechism of Lysius of 1719 /Annals of the Faculty of Letters of the University of Basilicata, 1989. 34 Let us now examine paraphrase, a means of indirect substitution, where Engel indirectly replaces the borrowed word with an explanatory paraphrase. For example, in the title of the chapter of the Catechism, Lysy, who was very fond of the church style, uses the word koznadzieja (from the Polish word kaznodzieja), which has been translated from Polish into Lithuanian. Contexts- —the same; Lysius says: To the Bishops, Clergymen and Priests (37, 1), and in the corresponding place of Engel’s edition there is a paraphrase: To the Bishops, Clergymen and Priests (58, 2). It is interesting that, in order to avoid the word of Slavic origin, Engelis uses another Slavism (i.e. the Lithuanian church from the Old Russian word božnica)! 3. Here it is worth to stop at the controversial loanword (also found in the Catechism of Lysias) —parendininkai, a very rare plural form in Lithuanian, which occurs only in texts written in Lithuania Minor. confess" with the suffix *-iniko-, related to the form parefidas (masc. gen.) /parefida (f. gen.) "communion". Next there are also forms to parade "zubereiten; prepare", parédnas, parédningas "ordentlich, thouchtig; tidy", tidy, tidy "Ordnung; procedure". The fact that they are of Belarusian origin is shown by the Lithuanian -ė corresponding to the Belarusian -ja-, cf. the verb rjadit’-sja- %. In order to explain the relationship between the nasal and non-nasal forms, it can be assumed that the Belarusian form has been partly bent in terms of phonetics and has acquired a new semantic meaning. Something similar is, as Otrebski® observed, with the nasal form *pa-refiji¢ of the Tverets dialect (from the form rašipareūijija "roz-popravilit sie"), which is semantically related to the non-verbal verb parėdyti "zubereiten, zuberichten; prepared". Here we probably have to mean "the preparation of the heart of a believer" before communion; thus, we have the meaning of "beichten;. confess". But let's go back to Lysias. In his Catechism, we find the following sentence: About the Tormentation of Parendininkū (57, 13), and for Engel the same sentence sounds as follows: Tormentation at the Table of God /einančiump' (86, 1). Thus, the Lithuanian plural form parendininkai is replaced by a paraphrase —prie Dievo stalo einantys [Zmonés] — probably because it is not considered to be understandable to everyone. 4. It is also worth noting that Engel treats Slavisms in two ways. Here he keeps the form used by Lysieus, here he changes it. A good example is this sentence from Lysias: Kagi tu uj/luijes effi Greeks 3 LKŽ IX 417; P. Skardžius does not mention him, see. : Skardžius P. The Slavic Lehnwėrter in the Old Lithuanian //Tauta ir žodis, 1931. T. 7. P. 1-252. 47: Būga K. Lithuanian-British relations and their age/time. f. l. Phil. 1, 1925=RR T. 3. V., 1963. P. 749-778. S Žr. Otrębski J. East Lithuanian Tver fiancees. Czgs¢ III. The Polish Academy of Sciences. Kraków, 1932. 35 Java? (31, 3), which Engel reproduces in one place of his authorization without changing (49, 1), and elsewhere changes as follows: What gained eli Jawo Grekais nū Diewo? (42, 25). The Slavic verbum compositum zaslūžyti (compare with ancient Polish zastuzyč) Engel presents as a Lithuanian predicative compound "būti pelnęs'. There is no shortage of opposite cases, although they are fewer. For example, the Lithuanian form (ne-)tikėti presented by Lizijaus Engelis replaces with the Slavic verb (ne-) virinti in the same context. For example, Lizius says: O kur’s Bittiems jodjems netik“, or abbejoj', that worthless (39, 26), o Angel: O Which one Bees jod them newierij' or doubt' that worthless (39, 26). 5. So, what is the value-rendering approach to the use of slavizmy? į Or more precisely: ar can we talk about a deliberate treatment of debtors? Attention should be paid to at least į du things. The abundance of ecclesiastical Slavisms in ancient Lithuanian writing was determined by the significant influence of Belarusian Polish languages ir on the developing Christian terminology of Lithuanian. On the other hand, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, there was a controversy in Lithuania Minor about which language should be spoken by the people. su (loguendum cum vulgo), then The most important concern of Lysiejus’s correctors was to avoid as many German borrowings iš as possible. Slavisms, in o the view of jų Lysiejus, were not very foreign or not at all, since they had long been established in the Lithuanian language. However, it is interesting to note that the new In the parts of the text prepared by Engel there are fewer Slavisms than in the repetition of the Catechism of Lysy, although ir there is no lack of contradictions. Overall There is a tendency in Engel’s work to use less foreign forms. So the question is: ar shouldn't we look į Engel as a fairly į determined defender of language? Anyway, ar this time there are not enough data to firmly support such an assumption, because, as the examples show, it is often extremely difficult or simply impossible to determine where natural stylistic selection ends, where conscious 0 "language policy" activity begins. SLAVIC BORN WORDS IN Catechisms VON LYSIUS AND VON ENGEL : COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Summary After the Comparing the Handwriting of the Catechism of H. J. Lysius, dated 1719, with the im Years of 1722 Printed Catechism of G. Angel was found that es the Catechism of Angel much greater is: er consider the Text of the Catechism of Lysius and the of Angel written For you. Angel also corrected the Text by Lysius. Die von Lysius used Slavic borrowed words often improved er genuine Lithuanian zu Wortern, z. B.: stumbling: earning "to earn, to win". But there are also some Improvements of the mutual Type before (z. B. not believe: not believe ‘unglauben’). AuBerdem gives es in den von Angel written Share less Slavic Borrowing words as in dem vom Lysius reprinted Text. 36