Tarmiškos tautosakos transkribavimo principai

KAZIMIERAS GARŠVA PRINCIPLES OF TRANSCRIPTION OF LITHUANIAN NATIONAL TRADITIONS J. Balčikonis has done considerable work since 1907, writing down folklore in dialect, translating it from other languages into Lithuanian and printing it. His statement that “collecting the people’s voices [...] requires great dedication and payment is also relevant today. If someone has collected them, but has written them down badly or not arranged them, then their value is small.” | When organizing the folklore collection of O. Bluzmienės (originating from Pasvalio district, Talačkonių k.), written in the northern Panevėžys dialect, I had to convince myself that there are no universally accepted principles of transcription of Lithuanian dialectal folklore, and that the existing ones can be improved. People of different backgrounds and inclinations collect folk works, and the best way of writing is sometimes difficult to choose even for a linguist. As early as 1969, K. Aleksynas, the language editor of folklore publications, wrote that “many problems arise when publishing folklore texts to the public, […] the matter is becoming more and more mature to consider these questions more broadly and seriously”*. When writing and printing folklore, three phonetic problems arise: 1) how to write the work — in dialect or common language, 2) how many dialect features to reflect — all or only part of them, and 3) what signs to use to mark dialect sounds. The statement of the instructions of the “Instructions for Folklore Collectors” that “nothing in the folklore material can be arbitrarily changed or corrected” was completely matched by another timid statement of the same publication: “when the local dialect is well learned, it is desirable to write folklore texts in dialect”*, It would appear that a person who does not know the dialect visited (such as the majority of the collectors) who does not want to bother with special signs can translate everything into common language at will. ar ne to (o — ir su vo į Due to a proofreading error, a similarly formulated statement even slipped into the official instruction*, although it is well known that changing the dialect often destroys even the natural sound of the song?. Write, for example, chicken instead of inside "vištos" is the same as instead of pamirédyk me parédyk. — Only the first distortion belongs to the phonetic level, the o second to — morphology. Later 1 Balčikonis J. Selected Writings. — V., 1978, t. 1, p. 83. 2 Aleksynas K. Another issue of textology of folk tales. — Kn. : People's Creation. V., 1969, p. 250. 2 Instructions for collectors of folklore. — V., 1958, p. 6. 4 Ibid., II. p. 5 Aleksynas K. Recording of folklore works. — Kn. : How to collect folk language data (Methodical advice). V., 1973, p. 10. ¢ Lithuanian Folk Songs. In the instructi- — ons for 1980, t. 1, p. 7. 108 the collection of children’s songs, folktales, etc., the linguistic requirements were formulated more precisely, but also not sufficiently strictly in terms of the inexperienced electors („The value of the text will be greater if it is written, retaining at least those dialectal features that can be expressed in the characters of the common language- “)*. In other popular publications, in our opinion, at least the songs should be presented in dialect (when the dialect differs significantly from the common language, the narrative, sometimes even the small folklore can be published in common language, changing only the regular changes of sounds). Scientific publications should be prepared in dialect. Our ethnographic ensembles show that dialect phonetics is one of the most important characteristics of folklore and does not make the perception of the work much more difficult. The accurately recorded folklore is a valuable source for linguists. There are two cases of deviating from the authentic folklore sound: when comparing with the common language, without marking an additional sign and, much more often, marking the same sign differently. Deviations of both types occur consciously and unconsciously. For example, for the sake of simplicity, folk tales do not indicate vowel elongation, but it is easy to foresee. Authors who omit certain phonetic features (such as the adjective j') explain that they are non-essential and that this is the norm of common language. However, the text is not read from the general language, but from some dialect, and the consonant j is not added in all speeches. It is not easy to decide on the essential and non-essential characteristics of the schnekta, therefore the same adjective j is marked in some books (published in the same year), in others — not marked?. In traditional Lithuanian songs, the j is often not only added before the vowels of the front row, but also inserted between two vowels of the front or back row, e.g. pajduga „paaugo“. For those who want to learn to sing the song exactly or study the remains of the notation, this phenomenon will be important. It is less criminal to phonetically, not to mention consonant hammering or muffling, as well as their omission in samples, the expansion of the vowel e before the hard consonant. In these positions, the characteristics of the sounds are usually predictable. Silent consonants (in the prefix exir t. t.) not slaughtered before the slaughter are very rare. It is a little more exaggerated (without proper investigation) the statement that at the junction of the elements of a prepositional or compound word, as well as when confronting a proclitic with ar an enclitic as su an independent iš word, only one of two ar identical similar consonants is pronounced. 1985 m. questioning 36 V course lituanists, only isigafido, usnigo said only 17 (47%). In the language of the old people, less affected by writing, such pronunciation is more common, ar but hardly ever sought 100%. That adjacent similar consonants can survive, has written yet A. Salys, this is mentioned in the academic "Lithuanian grammar!". In ir schnecks that completely abbreviate the prefix instead of not introducing the prefix ant- (e.g. panevėiir jo * "Advisory for Folklore Collectors (Methodical Instructions)". — V., 1974, p. 5; 1940 m. J. Bali published "Tautosakos elector's guide" (K., p. 61—76) simple even scientific phonetic ir spelling is extensively discussed. 8 LandscapS. es of the Earth. — V., 1983, p. 9. 9 Lithuanian Folk Songs. Wedding songs. — V., 1983, t. 2, p. 9; The falcon is chirping. "V., 1983, p. 8. 10 Grammar of the Lithuanian language. — V., 1965, t. 1, p. 116. 109 ziškių), there are pairs i§éka „jumped in“ —iš.6ėka „jumped out“ (the prefix š in the second word is slightly longer) and especially —isiūk „cut in“ —išsiūk „cut out“. In the latter case (when consonants of different qualities go next to each other), when pronounced clearly and in order to distinguish the meaning, the consonant š can be retained entirely (or assimilated into s) by some eastern Highlanders (Širvintiškiai), southern Dziukai'*. By marking only two or one consonant everywhere, real facts are levelled and linguistics loses necessary data. In addition, folklorists usually mark the omission of consonants at the junction of two words (cf. an tėvelio dvaro, etc.)**, without consistently marking the same thing inside the word. It would be good to also mark the e-spread before hard consonants. Otherwise, in order to reconstruct the authentic pronunciation, the reader has to think about the dialect of the word and the position of the vowel e. In the northern Panevėžys dialect, the vowel i also expands to g in the same accented position (before the hard consonant) (cf. /ép’,lipi“ —I'ėp „lipū“), so when indicating the expansion of the vowel i, it is necessary to indicate the expansion of the e as well. From a linguistic point of view, the perfectly prepared folklore of northern Panevėžys has not yet been published in mass circulation, neither in common language nor in dialect (similarly, apparently, there are other more complex dialects). Printed: "Oh, you dog dogs, why did you eat all the bundles! ?“ (in dialect O you šun's“ šun's“, kam suėdet vioss bundials, and in common language not everything is restored); our fields nearby (= nearby), such a day (= such a day), at me (= me), she (= jin), over (= par) and so on.8 | That it is possible to record a more authentic, fuller version of the folktale on a tape recorder and decipher it, can be seen by comparing two versions of O. Bluzmienė’s song4. 1 2 "Granny's Out, Grandpa's Out", "Isgarglino, Ižgarglina, Užmoše žverblalio, Užmoše žverbrlali, j2 Užpluncino. Zaploncina. Pripešė plunksnelių Pripešė pluksneliu Dvi bačketi, Dvė bačkiales, Prisūdė mėsetės Prisūde mésiales | Dvi rėčketi. Two squeakers. The 1992 single "I'm Gonna Be Your Man" was released as a single, followed by "I'm Gonna Be Your Man 2" and "I'm Gonna Be Your Man 3". Swallow it all. 1 K. Morkūnas, J. Karaciejus information. 12 Lithuanian Folk Songs, vol. 2, pp. 74, 170, 174, 198—202, etc. ; The hawk is flying, Mr. 173, 180, 194, 205, etc. 18 Bluzmienė O. About markets and people. - Kn. : Folklore, vol. 1, p. 201—203. 14 The first was recorded in 1965 (Lietuvių liaudies dainynas, vol. 1, pp. 270—271), the second in 1984 (K. Kalibatas) and 1985 (K. Garšva). 110 I've got a mouth, I've got a mouth, I've got a mouth, I've got a mouth, I've got a mouth, I've got a mouth, I've got a ba mouth. Prisprogdina. Some qualified folklorists may think that the specifics of the dialect show that it is enough to keep one other dialectally pronounced ti word in the work. This text is somewhat more useful from a linguistic point of view už than the one written in common language, but it is misleading because of the schnekt.’, In justifying typographical errors in the writing ir of dialect folklore, folklorists often exaggerate the influence of common language on dialects. Iš the common language has not had any greater effect on the language of many old people. But when a more suitable general consonant is more ir understandable to the recorder, one ne speaker begins to adapt as much as possible to the a “trained” recorder. O should be the opposite. Iš once a man should be warned to speak as he is used to not paint anything. ir But when in songs, occasional stories common ir language forms are mixed naturally, change, as emphasized by folklorists, should not jų (J. "Balčikonis dainų tekstus dzikindaves!"®). The worst is when the dialect is deliberately adapted to the sounds of other speakers. In the Lithuanian Folk Songbook, the vowel e of the Panevėžys ending, originating from 4, is marked ia, although this distorts the dialect (in the open ending the vowel e is only closed) and instead of one required letter two are written. If you don't want to write the dialectal ending -e, how much better would it be to Mark the common language ending -o —then you wouldn't create unnecessary forms and confuse the reader. In editing the language of the publication, the ending of many eastern Altai (Širvintos, Anykščiai, Utena, Vilnius) is generalized. But in the sentences Oi tu moteriške, Ar nematei kiškia?, Dave suria*® the vowels of the e end are completely the same, but written differently (e and ia). It is not necessary to mark abbreviated unpronounced vowels with nasal letters or long vowels. Sometimes the vowel o is written u, € —į, stir, etc., e.g.: botagų, kuoky, tų liepeli®®, linet (= lidne) and so on. In the words with Panevėžys endings, vaikas "children" and vaikė "child" cannot be marked equally (with the vowel ė). Sign! it is impossible to translate, because the vowel is also after other consonants. It would be better to represent the sound € not with the sign é, but with the usual and understandable €. Folklorists could use the simplified transcription of linguists, where the new letters would only be €, sr, length (e.g., d', a.), softness (/*) signs. The clearest is when the text is written without exception as it is heard —as it is spoken in a clear style (without omitting only the identical consonants of the adjacent words, 15 As early as 1976, in Literatūra ir menas we proposed not to write the folklore of northern Lithuania in half Dzūkiška, but this appeal remained without greater echo. When publishing folklore books, linguists are invited to advise, but ne į all comments jų shall be taken into account. 18 Ambrasas-Sasnava K. Monument To the ir Druskininkai professor. — Language Culture, 1985, ed. 48, p. 64. 17 Lithuanian Folk Songbook, t. 1, p. 251, 508 ir t.t. 18 There, for p. 109, 234, 235, 607. 111 example, the child said). In scientific publications, at least with a linguistic profile, it is ir advisable not to reconstruct omitted muffled or ir suffocated consonants. Such spelling was already used, publishing folklore A.. Baranausko (1922), „Tautos ir žodžio“ (1923, 1924), "Lithuanian language dialects (chrestomatija)“ (1970) publications, „Joniškėlio apylinkių šnektos tekstuose“ (1982). In Druskininkų dainos (1972), J. Balčikonis probably unnecessarily abandoned the principle of phonological writing in many places. Short limbs were not replaced by nasal ones, narrow e —open ig and S. Daukanto (1846), foreigners A. Sleicher (1857), A. Leskin and K. Brugman (1882), A. Becenberger (1882), A. Niemis and A. Sabaliauskas (1912) and other folklore publications??. This article discusses the final form of printed folklore works, without delving into how much it was determined by the writer, publisher and other complex circumstances of text preparation. Poorly written and only handwritten texts, of course, are usually no longer possible to edit properly, but tape recordings should be more accurate. Just as no one can replace a folklorist in classifying folk tales, preparing competent explanations, or a musicologist in encoding the melody of a song, so a dialectologist can and should say the final word about the language of a text. MPHHUHUMNB TPAHCKPHINILUHH JIMAJIEKTHOTO ¢O0JIbKJIOPA PesomMme IO. bamsuukonnc ¢ 1907 r. 3amaceiBan Ha pasHBIX JMAJIEKTAX (OMBKIOP, MEPEBOMMI ero C JAPYTHX S3bIKOB Ha JIHTOBCKHĖ H myGmmxosan (,Ilecam [pyckummukaiiTM m3rambr B 1972 1. Ilpxu 3armchiBaHHH H ITOATOTOBKE K MeYaTH (DOJILKJIODHELIX COYHHEHHŪĖ BO3HMKAIOT TPH BHna doHerHyecKHx npobnem: 1) Kak COYMHEHME BarmMCATb —Ha IpejiCTABJIEHHOM IHAJICKTe HJIKH HA JiaTEpaTypHOM 53bIKe, 2) KaK OTpasuTh OCOOEHHOCTH JAHHOTO AHAJIEKTa —MOJHOCTBIO HJIH YacTHYHO, H 3) KAKHMH 3rd SECTION O0O3HAYATH OHAJIEKTHHIE 3BYKH, B w3jammax HayyHoro mpodmiist Herecoo6pasHO OTpa3HTb BCE OCHOBHBIE OCOGEHHOCTH JIAAJIEKTa: He PeCTaBpUPOBATH HEIIpOH3HOCHMEIX, a TAKKE O3BOHYCHHBIX HJIH OTIYIIEHHBIX COriacHBIX, 0003HAYaTh pacUmMpEHHbIE INACHBIE I, U, e, (=, 0, @) m T. n. HenomycTHMBI HEMOC/IeI0BaTENbHOE OTpaxeHHe H H3BpalnIEeHHe (GoHeTHIECKMX OCOOEHHOCTel: HarmcCcaHHe ia BMECTO € H T. JI, OrnpaBjiaHbi JAIL Te JIEMEHTbI APYIHX ĮIMAJIEKTOB H JIATEpaTYypHOTO S3bIKa, KOTODBIE B CHJIY OIIDpeJIeJIEHHbIX IDpHYKHH IIDOH3HOCATCH CAMHM HHPOPMAHTOM; HE CJIe/[OBAJIO Oki 0603HaAYaTHL COKpaunreHHbIe Oe3yjjapHbIe TJIACHLIE HOCOBLIMH OYKBAMH HJIH JOJTHMH IJIACHBIMH, BMECTO O IMCATb 4, BMECTO € — į, bl, Ė HH T. HIM. 19 Cited by: Aleksynas K. Linguistic stylistic features of Lithuanian folk songs. - Kn. : Literature and language. V., 1971, vol. 11, pp. 32-281. 20 I am grateful to K. Aleksynas and B. Stundžiene for their valuable comments. 112 SS