J. Balčikonis apie stilių

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES SANDAROS STUDIES LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS, XXVI (1987) JUOZAS PICKLING J. BALČIKONIS ABOUT STYLES Professor Juozas Balčikonis together su with his teacher ir collaborator Ion Jablonskiu, it seems, could say: I do not į interfere with style, I care about the correctness of language. Iš that's ne exactly how it is. It is true that we find some direct ideas about style in the professor- ’s legacy, but a considerable part of the correctiojo ns are something ne else than stylistics. O ka ir talk about the path that tą has been taken, finding jo the best stylistic option in translation, jo editing. After all, there is a sentence that we read “A Thousand ir and One Nights”, Grimm, Hauf, Andersen, Per ar J. Swift The final version of Ž. Gulliver’s Travels, in the translations of Verne’s fictional iš works, was selected from a number of possible versions: ar maybe three, maybe five, ir maybe even seven. ką ir Let's say, speaking about the relationship of thinking with such features ir jo of language as su clarity, comprehensibility. In the article “Why you need to know your language well”, we read: “No other thing has learned to think as logically as language, because be language is not thought. Only through the clarity of speech do we attain the clarity of thought." Here, o ir still somewhere else obstructed, although not ir named by specific names, other features of the style: vitality, suggestiveness. O here in the memoirs of J. Jablonski emphasizes: if you speak where the word serves an aesthetic purpose, do not forget the nuances of the word’s connotation characteristics, feel the color of the word. iš — jo Cited J. Jablonski's reproach to those who ignore this: „how would he, the user of language, look at the work of a painter, whose work į shows that the painter iš does not care about the meaning of to colors in painting, about ir the tapestry material, gender (form)?’? But most frankly about the style of the professor, as ir J. Jablonski, speaks in controversy with su writers. We read the answer B. Strengths: “Writers are mistaken in thinking that only they He knows what style is. In their attempt to explain the greatest errors of language by the peculiarities of style, they only show that they ir have little understanding of style. The first requirement of good style is the correctness of — language. Where the language is incorrect, it is dead, ji where it is o dead, it is not fluent, so how can there be a good style. Style is inseparable from language. The style can be different, but it cannot go beyond the framework set for it by the language." iš 1 Balčikonis J. Selected Writings. — V., 1978, t. 1, p. 106. 2 Balčikonis J. Memories of J. Jablonski. — Linguistics, 1962, t. 5, p. 61. 2 Balčikonis J. Reply to Mr. Baliui Sroug. — Kn. : Selected Writings. V., 1978, t. 1, p. 57. 24 For there are authors who create styles by deviating from the universally accepted vocabulary and grammar norms, by their insolent and ir unjustified breaking, justified only by the universal “freedom of poetry”. There ir have been such hints ir B. Sruogos polemice in — the article "On Linguists ir Writers" (Lie-tuva, Here's the 1927). professor's J. In the words of Balčikonis, "their (i.e. writers) greatest mistakes" we tend to support "peculiarities of style". After some time B. Sruoga writes an article “The Writer and Grammar”, in which, among other statements, we find: “If a grammar, well, let it be a linguist, is a specialist of the lavender, then it is just a prelude to establishing the necessary laws of life support, the laws of saving the living ir organism jo from danger! *“A linguist is an anatomist who dissects corpses, does a not very pleasant job, but does a great deal of good to mankind: he learns how to sustain life. In this case, B. Sruoga has in mind the life of language. I would think that this article is, albeit indirectly, a sincere response to the thing that J. Jablonskis and J. Balčikonis reminded writers of: respect the laws of language development, its regularity. And first of all, I think, it is probably an apology by Mr Balchikoni, who was harassed in the article mentioned. The style is obstructed in not one other article, review by J. Balčikonis. Let’s say, “A few remarks on the language of V. Mykolaitis-Putin’s novel “In the shadow of altars” (1935). E.g.: „When for our sake (= for our sake), you could take a holiday even for the whole winter”; „He sensed that the acquaintance took place at the wish of the baroness (= baroness’s wish)“; After all, this way is closer to the spoken language, that way — more booklike. The author of the novel uses secondary sentences without the main ones: "Because I will remember that anyway." But it is the additional construction that is stylized here. Therefore, the reviewer is hardly right in demanding that the construction be more normal. Another example from other articles and reviews: —„Please (= please) come in,“ said Rimuck; „They aim (= want, care) to raise the harvest“; „praemium ad libris (= praise for books)“. True, Prof. J. Balčikonis, a possible thing, corrects the above-mentioned things more as irregularities, but, from our point of view, they would fit the style — the correction is usually closer to colloquial language or at least not so booklike and still stylistically better in other ways. Especially this is true in cases where several correspondances are given. For example, in the review “Translations of Gogol’s writings into Lithuanian language” the phrase “beautiful bobinka” should be replaced by “beautiful girl”, and if not, then by “beautiful merguže” or even “beautiful frog”. Or the phrase "prepared... for the harvest" in V. Mykolaitis-Putinas's "Sukilėliai" should be changed to "thought about the harvest- ", "prepared to mow", "prepared for the meadows". However, on the contrary, there are cases where correction and what to offer is not taken, but only reprimanded. This is where the more special things of style are hindered. Here, at the end of “Dubious things about V. Mykolaitis-Putin’s “Insurgents” speech”, it is added: “In places the author somehow inanimately expresses his thoughts”. What is meant? "Interestingly listened to the whole reading." After all, it is not really a very successful, artificial combination of words! The image of the metaphor of “sleeping” is not particularly convincing: “The whole farm was in painful calm”; „Bagynų rūmai 4 Sruoga B. Writings. —V., 1957, t. 6, p. 333. 25 remain in the garbage like some abandoned bear’s lair”, Can the palace remain in the garbage?.. In addition, we are used to seeing this metaphor used to describe something positively, to respond warmly to something, e.g.: “When the son will have bread, the mother will be able to lie down with him” (Surviliškis- ). "Par man glūdėjo da ana daina" (Daugėliškis). "Revolutionary power lies in the union of people and soldiers." And in general, the reviewer is mostly bothered by the verb ruošti(s), which is used in a not very stylish way and eats up many other verbs —taisyti(s), virti, gaminti, daryti, rengti, kelti, rašyti, etc., cf.: „liepė ruošti (= taisyti) svečiui nakvynę“; „mother and Gene prepared breakfast (= fixed, cooked, made)“; “prepare the wedding (= make, gather, raise)”; „the real manifest is already being prepared (= written?)“, the already mentioned „was preparing... for the harvest“. In comments on J. Baltušis’s “Sold Summers” (I) language: “everything is ready (= corrected, arranged)”; „prepared lessons (= learned)?“; „the exhibition in Kaunas is being prepared (= repaired, done)“; „What are you doing (= doing, packing) outside the door?“; “Mendelis is driving! From the forms, the most stylistic sin is committed in both of the aforementioned works by using, according to the professor, “the first person of the present tense, not familiar to any of our dialects, I ask, and the adverb I ask should be used instead. “Please sit down.” "I apologize for my stupidity®;- ,,... and now I ask you to come in..." "And so throughout the book," the reviewer laments. In the same commentary on J. Baltušis’s “Saldētas vasaras” speech, we find the correction: “Please, Mr. Inspector; “ “That’s what I ask of him.” This form is also considered irregular by the professor. We, stylists, would think that we should reproach the authors for not taking advantage of the possible stylistic nuances offered by the synonymous forms please, I would like to ask, we would like to ask, which make the interlocutor feel too formal and cold. ir į The entire paragraph in the “Insurgents” review is devoted to correcting the syntactic — jų constructs of the participant. Here it is: “Land can only be redeemed by agreement su with the ir lord and with his consent; Skrodskis, when the peasants refused (= because of the peasants’ refusal), pulled the waistcoat; punishment will execute manor house Rubik's Cube, with the help of dragons (= helped by dragons; with the help of dragons); When the rebels refused to hand over their leader to the authorities (= to the rebels who refused to hand over their leader to the authorities)... the army fired." Some interpretations be have been corrected here, so it is difficult to say, those constructions ar were considered irregular, dead, maybe, well, such, such. ar ar ko ir ir Now we would consider them correctable — because they are too bookish, have a newspaper sound, except perhaps only before the last case, which is incorrect. — A few more examples, which I would consider stylistically corrected, because they are somehow artistically unconvinciar ng, artificially quite accurate: ir ne "And now he (clock) tirelessly slowed, (= be constantly) ticked; Warsaw cost cost) a lot of (= money; still the next day the next day) twenty men... (= must stand a į manor. (J. Baltušio: (the bee) climbed down to the next) ring.) (= Ta knowledgbe e, doubtless, would (= adversely jo affect damaged) health; The day was supposed to be springy, joyful, funny); (= What a huge big, (= terrible..- .) made an impression; Expose all the inappropriateness of (= behavior unbelievable); "Broken bread, broken ir hearts, (= broken hearts". 26 This list could be extended with comments on J. Baltušis- ’s speech “Sold Summers” (I). their In a word, there are also those that are more a matter of style than of regularity. Was the reviewer right everywhere? In one other case, maybe not! Let's start with: a very elementary example. Let’s say, already scolding V. Mykolaitis-- Putin for “havolių”, used instead of “karvio”: “—Kavoliau (= blacksmith- ), here’s a faded and missing ring of a smith’s knife”. In the Surviliškis area, people usually say "blacksmith". The word is corrected in "Sold Summers": "I will not be a blacksmith- ". But here writers are stylizing. After all, the language of the Rebels is the language that was spoken in Survi-lisk a hundred years ago, and maybe then there was a hammer instead of a blacksmith. No, I do not condemn this barbarism. Suffice it to remind you that you cannot transfer everything that has been in human language into a fictional work without selection. Only here it is no longer enough to look at the regularity — it is necessary to take into account the purposefulness of the word's use. Therefore, such corrections should not fall into the same category as, say, irregular subordinates or locals. After all, it is a manifestation of the writer’s artistic idea. And there is absolutely no support for changing words that are an old traditional deposit and are used universally: the eagle — guzu, the rebels — rebels, the monkey — malpa, and so on. A much more problematic thing is the metaphorically used words by the writers. In the article “That thing about the language of “Sold Summers- ”” the “sun-drunk mosquito” singing in the shade of the raspberry grove is replaced by a zizzling, chirping mosquito, and the doves..., sitting dead to themselves — by a tuping one. The author of these images, as we remember, is not inclined to give up anything." And here he deserves the decisive word. It was meant to be figurative! The tail sings, the dove sits without comparing man. And here it is difficult to disagree with a writer who uses such a trope. Equally, it is hardly appropriate to defend him by calling the clouds lead clouds, not black, dark, but snow-crawling, not lying, falling. A number of things close to style and advice on how to say better, we find in the article "Need to improve the language of the press". They are as follows: “This year, before the beginning of the stable period (= before the animals were locked in the barns), the collective heads promised not to repeat similar mistakes”; ‘None of the combines is used for threshing (= not used for threshing)’; "Cold autumn (= autumn, fall) rain is falling". After all, in all cases, the idea of asking is not being expressed in such a fashionable way —without those constructive periods used where necessary and where not necessary, without the circumstance of the purpose expressed by the construct of the verb noun, without the conjugation mark expressed by the derived adjective, where the living language advises: use the genitive of the inconjugated mark. A few more examples: “The leaders must (= have) send (= send) their harvesters to the collective farm”; Rapidly developing (= rising, expanding) pig farm’; „Barkūnas bee very willingly visited (= From barkūno bee very much carried)“; “The racing of the kolkhoz workers will expand even more, bringing (= and will bring) new victories to agriculture”; “Organizes the masses of kolkhoz (= workers) for the implementation of the decisions of the council (= session); ‘Beispiel- ® Baltušis J. About creative work. — Kn. : Writings. V., 1959, t. 3, p. 71—72. 27 siai reflects (= depicts, highlights, illuminates...) the current situation in our literary criticism“; "The freedom-loving (= freedom-loving, free) people of Egypt stand united in the struggle"; “There can be no question that Egypt is ready to throw (= attack) America into its arms”; „Women are preparing (= cleaning the house)“; “Transferred the land to the labor peasantry (= peasants); „There is deep (= great, complete) silence“; „Talks with the masters of high (= large, abundant) harvests“. Living language advises so — this is how we could describe the motives and foundation of Prof. J. Balčikonis’s corrections, his conception of where it is appropriate to look for support for good style. Lively or not, this is the question that must be asked. There are many aphorisms about good style. According to some, the dominant of this goodness is clarity, according to others — accuracy, to thirds — conciseness, yet to others — obviousness, sonority, etc. For Professor J. Balčikoni the beginning of the beginnings of everything and the measure — liveliness: “Whatever contradicts the spirit of a living language cannot be good”*, he says. Of course, other features of the style are not excluded. For example, the aforementioned clarity: “Only thoughts expressed in clear and lively language reach the hearts of the listeners and take deep roots there, and what is given in barely digestible language goes over the surface without hindering the human soul and disappears like a soap bubble in the air”. And so, i.e. lively and easy will be, if we follow as close as possible to the spoken language. Therefore, it is better not even the wife, but herself, not the wife, but the wife, not the cloud, but the clouds, etc. Here, in the living language of people, the inexhaustible sources of means of expression overflowing with life generously nourish the sentence, the lexicon, the syntax of the professor—the translator of tales and travel descriptions: “Before the eyes of the queen the broadest sea overflowed in all its beauty”—this example, which we find in dozens on the pages of translations and which shows where the translator asks for advice when taking a word, a combination of words, a form, a syntactic construction. Here, in the sources of spoken language, he finds an even more rare but very necessary word, which we were not able to use, because we perhaps did not even suspect its existence. For example, the verb to hold on: „The host was a funny guy, with his stories he could keep the guest on until midnight“; verb to say goodbye: "The young man greeted him with a nod of his head, and said..." Similar examples can be listed, but the search for the best word in Professor J. Balčikonis’ translations of fairy tales is not the subject of this article. Here I would like to add a few stylistic corrections, not included in the number of publications, because they were written by hand (in pencil) between some lines of the already printed book, before giving this proofreading to the reader. It is either the translator's own mistake, something that has been missed while translating or reviewing the translation, or it has been restored, changed by the editor. ką So In "A ir Thousand and One Nights" tales: "Marjana did not forget what Ali-Baba had ordered. First she picked up his clothes and gave them to one of the slaves who had not yet laid down (=... slave, who had not yet laid down®). 6 Balčikonis J. Selected Writings. — V., 1978, t. 1, p. 106. 7 Idem, p. 106. 28 Not which... construction —not of the indicative subjunctive sentence, but of the participle... not yet laid down, because the first one would not give exactly the same information, besides, it is used somewhat booklike here. Secondly, a negation is needed not for the verb to be, but for the verb to lie down. And in general, perhaps it will not be out of the way to mention J. Balčikonis about those hypotactic constructions of the indicative sub-sentence, now, we would say, so aggressively expressed in many places, overlooked, apparently, suspecting this not always agreeing with the “spirit of living language- ”. On that occasion — another example. Both the Brothers Grimm and Andersen tend to start a story with a sentence with a "who" construction. "Once upon a time there was a woman who wanted a very small child..." ; “There was once a tailor who had three sons and only one goat”; "With the fine hinds she grabbed the high-quality nettles, which were like fire." The translator begins such a tale: "Once upon a time there lived a woman, she very much wanted to have a small child..." ; Once upon a time there lived a tailor who had three sons and only one goat. “She began to crush the nettles with her beautiful hands, and they burned her like fire.” Subordinate sentence herethe present tense is replaced by a participle construction, a simple part of the sentence, but particularly prone to speak to the reader "that, that"... construction. Let’s also compare the ending of the Grimm brothers’ fairy tale “Bremen city musicians”: Ach, in dem Haus sitzt eine schreckliche Hexe, die hat mich ihren langen Fingern mir das Gesicht zerkratzt; and before the tower there is a man with a knife, who pierced me in the leg; and in the yard lies a black monster, which has thrown at me with a wooden curl; and up on the roof, there sits, the Judge, who cried, 'Bring me the "Schelm here". There is a terrible witch at home, she grabbed me with her claws and scratched my face; and there is a man standing at the door with a knife; he has cut through my thigh; in the yard lies a black scarecrow, the one I got with a rod, which I couldn't stop; and the judge is sitting on the roof, and he commanded that I should be seized and brought to him. But let’s return to the thread of thought left behind – to the Arab tales: “Ali-Baba followed Marjan (= with Marjan)”. Apparently, the aspect of a friend must be brought to the fore: it is not the same to track what and to track with whom. „In the night the terrible snake whispered, began to crawl from all sides around my fire, but through (= through) branches and sharp spikes could not reach me“. For? Why? Because it is not necessary to describe what could not be passed through, but what could not be reached through. „We were terribly tired (= exhausted), we couldn’t pull our legs, we sat down and fell asleep hard“; exhausted, not tired; to exhaust was too little. „The fisherman saw many fish swimming (= swimming) under the water...“ ; swimming, because it is necessary to describe the action when it was repeated. “The fisherman led the way. Soon they reached that (= such) mountain- ...“ ; This is because before it was: "Sultan called the fisherman and asked where he caught the fish, sat with all his court men on horses and ordered to ride to that place." That mountain- —incorre29 ct information; It is necessary to say:... came to some unknown mountain, one mountain. "—I am horrified at the thought of the misfortune that would befall your greatness (= power) if the fairy, in her vengeance, ignited in the prince the evil desire to overthrow you from the throne..." ; Not greatness, but galesa... greatness, apparently, has no tradition of use in human language. "I will give my daughter to your son, if he sends me forty golden trays full of precious stones like the ones you have brought. Forty black (= black) slaves must bring those stones, each of whom must marry a white (= white) slave...“ ; Why use the nominative forms of the signs of slavery in addition to the precious stones? After all, it is only necessary to describe the characteristics: there is no need for distinction or emphasis. "At this time Aladdin recovered from his fear and said: "What do I have to do?" Please say (= say)?”; The abbreviated form is used, because it is more typical of spoken language, and leaving the full saći form would repeat -ti: praviti —reći —and it would be like a monophonic orchestration. Next — another string of corrections without any explanations: "What do you say, my queen," said the prince, "is this Skaibar your brother- ?" And he said to me, "I will love you, my son, and I will love you, my son, and I will love you, my son, and I will love you, my son, and I will love you, my son, and I will love you, my son, and I will love you, my son, and I will love you, my son, and I will love you, my son, and I will love you, my son, and I will love you." —We will both be rich all our lives.” “And they clothed him with royal garments, and set him upon a throne, and swore him their faithfulness.” "The place where the bird brought me was surrounded on all sides by mountains supporting the clouds..." (Example: K. Donelaičio: "Gervins, ik nebesių juodų dyvinai kopinėdams...") "As I walked I thought of diamonds under my feet and neither thought of lifting up at least one of them (= of them)." I will end this brief review of Professor J. Balčikonis’s thoughts on style and the line drawn in that bar of activity with one of J. Jablonski- ’s teachings: “We must teach not so much grammar terms as the living things of language” (J. P.). In fact, J. Balčikonis wrote neither a textbook of grammar, stylistics, nor translation, but from the tribune of a lecturer, and through reviews, translations and other activities, he taught “the subjects of the living language” all the time. Among these, a rather significant place belongs to style. 30 10. BAJIbYHKOHHC O CTHJIE Pe31oMe Ilpodeccop FOo3ac BajibunroHuc He OCTABHJI HAM CICIMAJILHELIX HCCJIIEeJIJOBAHHHŪ IMO JIHTOBCKOH CTHJIKCTHKE, TEM He MEHEE K CTHJIIO H CBS3aHHBIM C HAM BOIIpOCAaM OH OOpaINaJICA BO MHOIHX cBOHx paGorax. Hax6ojiee sicHO H IIOJIHO CBOIO TOUKY 3pEHHS Ha CTHJIb OH H3JIOXHJI B IIOJIEMHKE € JIMKTOBCKHM IikcaTejieM Bb. Cpyoroii (1927). B xauecrBe riiaBHO#N IpelNIOCbIIKH XODONIETO CTHJIA HM B IIEDBYIO OSPpLeIIb Bb]IBHTAIOTCS TDAMMATHYeCKASI, CJIOBOOOpa3OBATEJILHAS IpaBHJI5LHOCTb peur H cOOJIOJIeHHe 3aKOHOMEPHOCTEH pa3BHTHS s3bIKA. Cthjil he otijhm ot s3bika. [ToaTomy 6e3 npaBHJIbHOH pet*H HeMbICJIAM H XODONNIHĖ CTHJIb, KOTODEIN IPH BCEM MHOIr00Gpa3HH CBOHX dopM H TPOSIBIICHA He MOXKET BHIXOIHTH 3a pAMKH, YCTAHOBJIEHHbIC CHCTeMONH s35IKa. Hapsany C 3THM B S5135IKOBeJEMECKOM HaciIejmu IO. 3aMe4aHMs O BAaXHOCTH fi3LIKOBOTO 4YTbA UI BOCHDHSTHS CTHIMCTHYSCKOM OKDpAaCKH H OTTEHKOB CJIOBA, HIOAHCOB ero CeMAHTHKH. CyIIECTBEHHBIMA Ka4ecTBAMH CTHJIS, 0 MHEeHHIO Itpod'eccopa, SBISIOTCH JIOTHY-- HOCTb HM3JIOXCHHSA, SCHOCTb Bbipaxenns. OO 3ToM rosopurcs B crathe „IlotueMy Hano XODpONO 3HATb CBOH si3bIK“. VI3 Bcex TpeGoBaHHū, HDeĮ[rbsBIISIEMbIX FO. BaribuukoHHcCOM K XODONEMY CTHJIIO, Ha NepBEIK IUIAH erO B YYCHWH BBIABHIAETCH TpeOOBaHHe yMETh BHIDAKATHCS XHBO, HOO ‘HEXAGONAL He MOxeT GrITh XOpoInM“, Karas petub cCuHTaeTCSA KUBO H KaKast HEXHBOM, — 00 3TOM HAHOOJIEC OTHO MBI Y3HAŠM M3 difference lostH3HH Ha JIMTepaTypHbIE TYPEOH3BEJIEHHS JIUTOBCKHX IMCaTENici H JIATOBCKHME IEPEBOJIbI HpOMH3NO MHDOBOKH JTHTEPATYPHI, a TAKXE H3 NIDpaPpJIEHHLIX HM JIATOBCKHX TEKCTOB APYIHX cTHIeH (OcoOemHo mepmommyeckoif revarn). I“ OBODpHTb XOPOIIHM CTH= JIEM — 3TO 3HA4WT, coryiacHO FO. BajibunKOHHCY, JIEDXATECHA IO BO3MOXKHOCTH Okay. K JKHBOR HApO/IHOM peun, YIHTECS Y Hey, CJIe/[OBATb ee yumm obpasnaM. Login TIDHHIMIIA TINATEJILHO: NpHJIEpXHBAJICHA CAM Ipodeccop Sister. B OPHTHHANBHEIX CBOMX paboTax, Yes H B IIepeBOJIaX CKa30K (‘Tricgua Hi ojmma HOWL", Gparss I'pumm, X. Arnepcen, III. Ileppo) H XYJ10xecCTBEHHLIX IDOH3BEJeHHH JpyruxX xaHpoB. Item MHOIMOH4HCIJICHHbICE IepeBOJILI IPEJCTABJISIOT COGOH - I'm sorry. XNIKOJIY HE TOJIBKO IIDaBHJILHOŽ H JXHBOH peuK, HO H XODOILUEro CTHIIA.