Iš J. Balčikonio akcentologijos

STUDIES OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE CONVENTION LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS, XXVI (1987) J. Balčikonis was interested in accentology, as he was mainly interested in other fields of linguistics, as a practitioner — a passionate promoter of language culture, a peculiar lexicographer. In 1919—1924, while teaching Lithuanian language at the Panevėžys Teachers’ Seminary, he introduced future teachers to the basics of accentology and introduced the skills of proper pronunciation. In an open letter published in 1927 to the Minister of Education (I 75)! lamented the poor theatrical language, and mentioned several spelling errors (material, taught). From 1929 to 1934, in lectures on Kaunas radio, he corrected the most famous lexical, word-making and spelling errors. Since 1935 J. Balčikonis was; Member of the Lithuanian Language Society's Dialect and Pronunciation Section Commission. He also corrected spelling errors later, on various occasions: in articles, reviews, while working as a teacher. Having become the editor of the Lithuanian Language Dictionary, he made great efforts to supplement the dictionary with authentic words from various parts of Lithuania. In several articles, he urges the general public to collect the treasures of the living language, asks to send comments on their pronunciation, meaning. J. Balčikonis is considered the greatest and perhaps the most consistent successor of J. Jablonski’s tradition. He relied on Jablonski, raising his authority not only by correcting language errors, but also by reading Lithuanian language courses for future teachers. This is very clearly seen from Balčikonis’ lectures published in the 2nd volume of the “Collected Writings”, where a little space is also given to the subjects of dialect. Accent is defined as “the raising of the voice on any syllable” (II 5); plg. The definition given by J. Jablonski in his grammar in 1922: “the raising of the voice when pronouncing a word is its accent” (RR I 189). In the lectures given after the Great Patriotic War, “the consonant of a word is not called the elevation of the voice, but the stronger pronunciation (of the beginning or end of a vowel or diphthong)” (II 294). J. Balčikonis, like J. Jablonskis, does not yet use the term precautionary — the precautionary is also called a slash, but in general the concepts of slash precautionary are distinguished: the left slash indicates the shortness of the syllable, the right slash the length of the firm-started syllable, the left slash the length of the firm-end syllable. Following ir — — J. Jablonski's 1901 m. grammar, in a summary of lectures at Panevėžys Teachers' Seminary tų i, # + Rakūt is marked ’, later, as ir J. Jablonski in 1922 m. grammar, moves to F. Curonian traditions — begin to use gravy. The ir function of the semaning conjunction is mentioned (by the way, all examples with the contraction of the prepositions): dusta —wound, mėrkti merkti — ir t. t. (II 8). * In parentheses: J. Balčikonio "Collected Writings"" (V., 1978, 1982) volume ir page. When it comes to J. Jablonski, abbreviation used RR, marking jo 2nd ed., pp. 122, with an (V. , 1957, 1959), 19 The term "paradigm" was used by J. Balčikonis for the meaning of pronunciation. By the way, until the end of his life, the linguist did not support the current division of dialects, which came into force after K. Buga’s study in the first notebook of LKZ. He, as did J. Jablonskis until 1925, followed the Kuršaitis-Jauniaus scheme, claiming that it was more suitable for the language of today (I 387—388). Although, as already mentioned, J. Balčikonis followed Jablonskis (more on his grammar of 1922), the aforementioned lecture summary also contains some, albeit minor, differences in pronunciation. Especially this applies to the noun, nominative adjectives, participants of the active kind. For example, J. Balčikonis provides variants of pronouns he, she, that, that, this, that vns. inagininko jud (juo), ja (jd) and others, dgs. of the finalis them (them), them (them) etc. ; like and others p.n.s. the beneficiary to such, such and such. In the 1922 grammar of J. Jablonski, the first forms are presented, but it is noted that in some places they are pronounced differently, and vns. the noun sokai is conjugated twice (tokiaiir tokiai; 1901 grammar). Vns of nominative adjectives. J. Balčikonis pronounces the noun in the first syllable (jaunajam, didžiajam), while the more characteristic pronunciation jaundjam (jaundmjam), given already after the war, is treated as a variant (II 34). J. Jablonskis always spelled the penultimate syllable: didZidmjam (1901 grammar, RR I 84), didZidjam (1922 grammar, RR I 211). J. Balčikonis spelled the present tense participants of the active type in 3a. excerpt from the 1st ed. nominative nmėšanti,- and 1 a. p., except for the senior genitive vns. the beneficiary of the interference. J. Jablonskis is also pronounced similarly, with the exception of —vns. deputy, having only 1 a. p. (in the turning, turning). J. Balčikonis pronounces the number one hundred with the second accent, Jablonskis — with the fourth (p. 2 a. only as a variant). J. Balčikonis has also written several articles specifically for spelling. In one of them, published in 1938, he argues that the form per cent, rather than per centum, is appropriate for common language; in another, written in 1960 and printed in the “Collected Writings” from the manuscript (I 354—357), he discusses the pronunciation of prepositional (in Balchikoni- ’s term — prepositioned) verbs. Having noted that “the present tense differs from the past tense because of the prepositioning of the accent” (I 355), the author tries to distinguish only the present tense phonomorphological classes of verbs that preposition the accent from those that do not. It would probably be more prospective to look for similarities and differences between the pronunciation of the two forms of the time, which J. Balčikonis would probably have done (it is clear that the article is incomplete), but the facts presented in it are valuable in themselves. In addition, the article already uses the term 'pre-term'. The greatest and undoubtedly most valuable work of the scholar on accentology is the article "Adjectives with suffix -inis and their pronunciation", written in 1951 (I 201—207). Here J. Balčikonis, based on the abundant facts of various dialects (“living language”), formulates a very simple rule, which is basically observed even now*: “pronounce the suffix, if [adjectives. —B. S.] are made from the ending accent Zodžių, pronounce the root (trunk) —if from the root (trunk) accent words” (I 205). According to the same rule, nouns with the suffix -nik are pronounced. Article 2? Abbreviation a.p. = accent paradigm. 3 Plg, Laigonaite A. Lithuanian language accentuation. —V., 1978, p. 58. 20 we will find the correct observation that the Žemaites, ir closer to them than the western Highlanders, enjoy ta generalizing the accent in the suffix, o deviations from the rule of one word to another, fluctuations are not lacking in any dialect, even the person himself can be pronounced in two ways. But to the most original thing that can be developed into more serious theoretical generalizations is J. Balčikonis' observation that adverbs -ic adjective, unknown to the living language, incorrect pronunciation is not felt by us, if it is a creature of o the living language, then unusual pronunciation immediately falls to the eye į (I 206). J. Balčikonis apparently felt that new words always tend to follow established rules of ne pronunciation. Observations of dialects show this. Ir in general, according to which accentuation paradigm a particular word is pronounced, ir depends on the ar For the consumer there is usual, ar "own", unusual, "foreign". This brings us to pragmatic issues that could be discussed separately (see section 4.4). "Our Languag1985, e", No. 6, p. 9). A few words should be said about other ir more interesting observations of Balčikonis. He was perhaps the first to point out that the į root pronunciation singularia tantum, used in figurative plural, passes the terminal pronunciatiį on; e.g., dux, but book in gold su (I 275, 286). All Balchikonio, similar to ir Jablonski's credo of Lithuanianist activity was to rely on the facts of living language. For example, 1928 in 1999, when reviewing V. Kamantauskas' "Brief Study of Lithuanian Dialect" (In the case of 1928), the first-person singular, the first person plural is always the first person singular, and the second person plural is — always the second person singular.) (I 100), — ką Nevertheless, ir su dialect facts the linguist was rather cautious: “it is always possible to rely solely on what is now in dialects; ne we find a lot there made" ką (I 95). Therefoir re, we have to separate the wheat from the wheat. This is often helped by the principle of analogy, which J. Balčikonis relies, for example, in the same year when 1928 criticizing S. Dabušį, which gave the form lietuvis lietuvį to — the common language (this pronunciation is familiar to the southern highlanders ir their neighbors): if near Raguva, Seduva (you can also add ir Linkuva et al.) we have raguvis, šedūvis (and the slant...), it's next Lithuania should be a Lithuanian (I 95). This is the basis for the adjective ir lietuviškas. The adjectives of this suffix, as the scholar further states, retain the prefix of the root of the base word ir (brother — brotherly, sister sisterly, — cattle cattle — ir t. t.). Or elsewhere it is assumed that sometimes a consonant can be equalized by ne the pronunciation of other words of similar meaning su (I 206). However, ir the application of analogy is ne far from always producing the expected results. For example, it can be proved equally successfully that we need to spell ir percentage percent, pg. two-pronounced identical structure borrowed words bravoras ir tavoras, sliesorius ir totdrius, ubagas ir nabagas. In the 1990s, 1938 although the term was used in a broader sense, the term was used to J. refer to a variety of traditionally — defined gender roles. (I 161—162). However, in this case, it would have been appropriate to recognize the proximity of the | percentage prophytes, cf. adventas |adveiitas, tdlentas [talefitas ir etc. On the other hand, as can be seen from iš preliminary observations of the current spoken common language, some of the three-syllable borrowings tend to generalize the accent in the first — syllable, thus J. Balčikonis' proposal turns out to be viable. 21 When talking about the deflection and elevation of accents in J. dialects, Balčikonis was sometimes wrong. Here it is. 1928 m. variants occasion, ode, kind of time incorrecsu tly passed crossword end į (I 95). He even tries to formulate a kind of law: dialects that have retained the accent at the end “have a tendency to raise the accent at the end of every word that comes iš elsewhere for an unknown reason”. į (I 95), e.g. rain —lietuvis. Such mistakes are not surprising: tų the retraction resp. confusion of su pronunciation differences occurs ir even in our time*. O about variants of the lietuvjs type it is said only that the form of the final incidence here is probably related to semantic reasons: the singular final su incidence can be generalized to the group form lietuviai, cf. iš Latvians, Poles, Germans ir t. t* Or another example: mentioned V. The review of Kamantauskas's book states that (I 100) "the increased syllable sometimes draws the slash away from the į root (heart, heart), o sometimes from the end pushes į the beginning (finger, knife)“. Although it should be said briefly ir about the actual lexicon, the standardization of which J. Balčikonis paid a lot of attention. Ne in one article, a review, fighting už authentic forms of place names, he indicated the correct pronunciatiir jų on, e.g. : Seedlings 2, Galšia 4, Black 3 (no Ioda 1), Maišiagala 1, Širvintos 3*, Vilnia 1. Ne all titles J. Balčikonis had checked himself, relied on informants, unfortunately, ir always competent, so ne some corrections in recent onomastics works have been jo abandoned, for example, such forms as Bilsas 1, Griėžupė, Lčitė, Tauragnas, etc. ir (I 340, 372). I would like to point out another valuable observation of Balčikonis of a more general nature (I 372): to mark singular a-stem short circumflex root hydronyms ir (Būktas, Klana, Bradas, ir etc.) accent is — 2 ar 4 — not correct". However, as recently pointed out V. Vitkauskas®, in dialects where the ilative is used, the pronunciation of such toponyms can be determined. 1965 metals In the article ir published in „Science in Technology“ "What must be done immediately for our language science" Balčikonis, be among other things, wrote: „It would be very useful to write phonetically entire dialect texts... songs, tales, other ir folklore should also be spelled“ (I 379). To this work the professor himself has ir contributed beautifully, showing an example: he records the folk singers 1953—1954 m. J. Jurkonienė transcribed all the songs she learned, spelled them and prepared a publication, which ir was published after her death („Druskininkų dainos“, V., By the way, the words po here are pronounced according to the melody, as they 1972). are used in colloquial language. Writing as many ne authentic dialect texts as possible o is very relevant today, ir — 4 See. Zinkevičius Z. The Disappearanir ce of the Paradox. — Linguistics, 1979, t. 30(1), p. 90-93. 5 For more details see. Stundžia B. The significance of plural personal nouns ir jų oikonimes for the reconstruction of conjugation and pronunciation systems. — Kn. : Lithuanian Onomastics Studies (Lithuanian Linguistics Issues). V., 1981, t. 21, p. 192—193,. 6 The authentic forms of these hydronyms are Bilsas, Griežūpė, Leitė, Taūragnas, žr. Vanagas A. Etymological dictionary of Lithuanian hydronyms. — V., 1981. 7 So it was done ‘Lietuvos "River Lakes of ir the USSR". (V., which 1963), J. Balčikonis reviewed (I 371-373). ¢ See. Our Languag1985, e, No. 5, p. 40-41. 22 tai išryškėjo ir J. Balčikonio 100-osioms gimimo metinėms skirtoje konferencijoje skaitytuose pranešimuose, diskusijose, Apibendrinant galima teigti, kad, tirdamas normindamas kirčiavimo dalykus, Balčikonis ir vadovavosi J. a) iš J. Jablonskiir 's other traditions inherited the principle of the priority of the “living b) language”; strictly distinguished authentic dialectal facts from newly emerging c) phenomena; quite successfully applied the principle of analogy. Some subtle J. Balčikonis’ observations about the relationship of accent paradigms su with semantics and pragmatic differences can be successfully developed further. H3 AKLEIJTOJIOTHH 10. BAJIbū4HKOHHCA Pe3t1oMe IIpH ncceJiejįjOBAHHH AKIEHTOJOrMYECKHX IIDpOOJIEM, Kak H B HOpMAJIH3ATODpCKON REMOTE CONTROL HocTH, IO. BanbunkoHnc MCXOMMIT M3 IPHOPHTETA XHKHBOTO S3bIKA, CTporo pa3zensyi HMCKOHHBIE ©$aKTe TOBOPOB H HOBOOGPA30BaHMsA, YMEJIO IPAMEHSUT IPHHIAIT AHANOrHH. B ero pabortax 06palleHO BHHMAHHe HA HEKOTOpbIE TOHKHWE BOIIPOCHI AKIIEHTYAIMMH,