Dėl S. Daukanto lenkų–lietuvių kalbų žodynų genezės

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES SANDAROS INVESTIGATIONS LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS, XXVI (1987) GIEDRIUS SUBAČIUS ON S. GENESIS OF DAUKANTO’S POLAND—LITHUANIAN DICTIONAries S. The lexicographic activity of Daukanto is little studied. Jo dictionaries ir vocabulary me- -dZiaga characteristic has provided J. Care!, Here will be attempted a little pla- «to review S. The history — of the Polish-Lithuanian dictionaries. 1850 m. returned į Having ir settled in Lithuania Varniuose pas M. The feathers of a historian S. Daukantas rarely took (his last work of history "The Tale- ‘Jima about works of the Lithuanian nation in antiquity’ he had noted 1850 m. data). This was primarily due to the fact that he no longer had access to the historical sources he used in St. Petersburg. On the other hand, giving up a historian to ir work as a lexicographer S. Daukantas was encouraged by the Lithuanian į environment, su where he came face-to-- face with jo Lithuanian cultural life and saw the problems. In the 19th century, with the increasing number of Lithuanian intelligentsia, the lack of various Lithuanian dictionaries became more and more painful. There was a lack of — Polish-Lithuanian dictionary. The Polish language then was A means of communication for Lithuanian o intelligentsia, the only to printed Polish-Lithuanian — dictionary was K. Sirvydo Dictionary of the Trium Linguarum, last published only 1713 m. It has become a bibliographical rarity, difficult to access for ir practical purposes. All this encouraged S. He was also responsible for writing the Polish-Lithuanian — dictionary. — Even in his youth, while studying in Vilnius, S. Daukantas wrote a dictionary of Polish-Lithuani- — an languages.” Iš years printed on paper J. Groop found that this is one of the first iš Daukanto works, finished writing po 1820 m. J. Kruop says that “probably after starting his literary activity, S. Daukantas felt a lack of — Polish-Lithuanian vocabulary ir 'self determinjį ed to prepare,' The small dictionary ne survived in its entirety, about only the tenth twelfth part. The Polish register of this dictionary is based on the trilingual J. Lithuanian Polish Latin — French — Dictionary (Stownik polsko tacinsko francuzki — zasadach — stownikėw na Knapskiego, Danneta i Troca injected i multiplied by X. Litwifiski. — Warsaw, Vilnius, 1815, t. 1—2.). This is clearly shown by the overlapping registers of Polish words, the commonality of the forms presented, individual word combinations or even sentences, etc. * Kruopas J. S. Lexicographical Works. — Kn. : The Journal of Linguistics, 1961, 4, pp. 301—316. * Glossary be of headings (protected) LKLI manuscript, cipher SD 13); jį we will call it the small one, to distinguish it from the other large — Polish-Lithuanian dictionary (he also headings, code be SD 12), Daukanto written already po 1850 m. (for jį more information, see section 4.4). 8 Kruopas J. Min str., p. 302. 151 J. Litvinsky's dictionary was started to be printed in Vilnius ir po after the author's death. completed in Warsaw. S. Daukantas was already alive at that time In Vilnius ir could šį tą Know about tą the vocabulary. We calculated that J. The Lithuanian dictionary contains about 24 850 title Polish words. Overall J. The vocabulary of Lithuanian is quite simple, with little grammatical information. The dictionary often presents a combination of words in individual articles, sometimes even entire phrases. All this shows J. Lithuanian dictionary prepared for educational purposes. Publishers hint at it ir jo — Zavadskis ir Venckis. In the preface they write that J. Litvinskis "in this work has done a great service especially to school youth". Iš J. Lithuanian dictionary S. Daukantas wrote down many of the words, but ne all of them. It is estimated that in the remaining part of the text missed about 7,5% J. Litvinskio ZodZiy®. He avoided writing down dictionary articles of a clearly educational nature. For example, he omitted the compounds represented by individual words Dat sie im Running las dorwač; The old one again took, but the two did not give; Thunderstorms; I'm Za not wearing anything. ir Sometimes, they did not ir write off the individual articles of to the word itself, e.g. sig quacking (although there is czoigam sie), częściami (although there is część). Some words, apparently, did not S. seem very necessary to ir Daukant, he omitted them, e.g.: domek, domyczko (although dom wrote off), domysiny (yra domyślnie), admission (and I admit), physiognomy (yra fizyonom), buckled (there are taxes), gestwa (it's broken) ir t. t. There are words that are difficult to explain, such as gfuchy, godzina, gotowy, although the Vedic jų texts are given. S. Daukantas was not satisfied with J. In Litvinsky's words. Here, between D the letter words in small letters he wrote some that are not J. In the Lithuanian dictionary (one ir between G letters), e.g. : dalowid, danny, dawacz, decydowač, dedukcya, deficit, delegate, delicate, gotysz kt. ir (total 38). Only these additions are very minor compared to the su remaining text (Existing 2244 articles). Daukantas, as ir Litvinsky would probably have dedicated his small dictionary to the youth of science. But that dictionary would have been useful to an intelligent person ir interested in Lithuanian language and learning it. ar Unfortunately, the work was not completely completed (one other Polish word has no Lithuanian equivalent). It can be assumed that the departed iš Lietuvos S. He was concerned about other ir things, he šį dropped the work. Another — great Polish-Li- — thuanian dictionary Daukantas wrote after he returned iš St. Petersburg ir resident Varniuose pas M. Cleaning. About jį J. Sloop is mentioned 1883 m. In “Aušra” saying that Valančius Daukantui „put on his shoulders the burden of writing a Polish-Zemaitic dictionary- “. Sloop also says that “Daukantas had to re-write a French-Polish dictionary for the bishop”*. The last remark do seems strange (even ir knowing that Šliūpas is biased S. Daukanto ir M. "Valančiaus nesutarimai". Who gi could have encouraged S. To rewrite a dictionary like that? ApparentlJ; y, Schlüpf is inaccurate here. It was found that S. Daukantas wrote down for his great dictionary S. Ropelevski Polish — French Dictionary Polish 4 Based on this, it can be estimated that the small dictionary had about 23 000 words (J. Groop managed to be 24 000). 5 Sloops J. Selected Writings. — V., 1977, p. 178. 152 register (Słownik polsko—francuzki. — Berlin, 1843—1847, book cover I— VIII, s.%). 3412 So this is, ka J. Slip of time Polish —franciizy dictionary rewriting, probably not a separate work, just writing out Polish words for the same o "Polish Samogitian" dictionary. Kad S. Daukantas used S. Ropelevski- 's work, clearly shows the whole structure of the great dictionary (especially common reference ob. = obey “see”), almost identical illustrative examples, the same more special headline articles (e.g. article w Lewo, na Lewo presented L in spelling, article w Krotce — K syllable; sometimes the heading ne goes in o the present tense, e.g., Kradnę ob. krašč ir many others), various errors (e.g., word Ejaculator S. Daukanto placed between B the letters — of the words instead of the word Buchaé he without looking over wrote off the synonym given next to it; in the same way between letters words instead of C Comforter appeared Comforter). No Polish words that were not in Ropelevski's dictionary were found in Daukanto's S. manuscript. To the press of the time welcomed S. The Roebuck Dictionary. Przegląd Poznański wrote that he is “incomparably better už than all our dictionaries published so far, equals foreign books of this kind”.” ir The value of this dictionary implies ir jo popularity by — The late a. 19th were released probably original 7 ir 2 plagiarized editions. S. Ropelevski- 's dictionary is quite scientific, although ir “composed in haste”*, each word is described grammatically, often several forms are given, often a word is illustrated with one, several, sometimes dozens of examples, stylistic references are given. ir S. The scientific community has made little use of it. The words in his dictionary have no grammatical characteristics at all (although occasionally one another gets them, e.g.: Dlužen, żnia; I, conj. i, bej; Ją, acc. sing. fem. je; Ksobie, contract. ku sobie; Kwita, indecl). The structure of S. Daukanto's dictionary is much simpler. Polish words are not distinguished from Lithuanian ones in any special way. Write one few Polish, ar o po comma one ar several Lithuanian. Therefore, it is sometimes even difficult to distinguish from the form whether a word is Lithuanian or Polish (for example, such dictionary articles as Apteka, Aptieka; Nagietek, ob. nogietek, nagatka; Piramida, pyramida, ob. ostroslup and so on can be understood ambiguously). Of the 120 abbreviations in S. Ropelevski’s dictionary, S. Daukantas systematically uses only one: ob. It is very common, used several times on almost every page. S. Daukantas himself does not create new ones, but uses ob. sometimes inconsistent (e.g., before amalia, grędzidlo, niedožierca, etc., references are made to the words emalia, grazel, niedozor, but the latter are not in the dictionary — they were omitted when transcribing the Polish register- ). Of course, this is just a mistake that would have been corrected by preparing a dictionary for the press. Of the many illustrative examples in Ropelevski’s dictionary, S. Daukantas chose only one. In the third and second volumes they are very rare, perhaps a little more only in the first- * The author (Stanistaw Ropelewski) is known only from the work: Estreicher K. Bibliografia polska XIX stęlecia. —Krakow, 1878, t. 4, p. 88. " Poznański. —1848, t. 6, p. 230. 8 Ibid., p. 230. 153 Mom. D letters in articles examples perhaps mostly in — 135 (124 dictionary articles). D letter of iš all are words, 2286 so only 5,4 % su illustrative examples. When giving illustrative examples, S. Daukantas usually leaves them unchanged, only shortening one another. From S. Ropelevski's examples Byč posądzonym, podejrzanym deizm; o I was told mu by somebody z his friend that it o happened; co He was comforted with children S. Daukantas made By¢ accused of deism; I brought it to him by someone; He had children. In particularly rare cases S, Daukantas slightly rework examples, for example, from Zdecydowany jestem wszystkiego sig chwyci¢ and Decydowaé o wszystkiem he makes one —zdecydowalem sie na wszystko. Sometimes gives savy, very simple illustrations, e.g. : ir The tar is; i courtyard in front of the stables. S. Daukantos moved his i dictionary all ne S. Ropelevski's Polish words. There are no localities, e.g. : Geneva, Genoa, Moldavia, Kaffa „village Taurydzie”, Kair (although added Afryka, Chwalenskie morze, Dania, Francya, Galilea, Galicya, Niemen, Paryž). He also omitted many personal names (e.g.: Adam, Daszko, Elżusia, Jagiello, Julian, Kaifasz, Kain, etc.; although he spelled Judasz, Junona, Neptun, Pawel, Pythagoras, etc.), some names of biology systematics (e. g. : agaryk "mushroom sponge", albatross, alka ‘pingvinas’, ara ‘such a long-tailed parrot’, dafnia, kablion ‘cod’, kaczyniec ‘chicken’, etc.). S. Daukantas did not include certain international words ir (e.g.: alkohol, analyzowacz, archeologia, aritmetyka, automat, elektrometr, ewakuacya, kadr and others). He omitted some feminine occupational titles, e.g. aspirantka, vo autorka, kadzicielka, kalkulatorka, although he provided the corresponding masculine titles. S. In Ropelevski- 's dictionary, many derivatives are presented as separate dictionary articles. S. The second part jų (sometimir ne es derivatives) has — missed, apparently, those who seemed ne to him so necessary. Antai jo įtraukti atom, ellipse, kacermistrz, kacerny, chains, but praleista atomiczny, elliptically, eliptyczny, eliptycznošč, heresy, kacerz, kacerowač, chains etc. ir In the Polish language, there is no suffix -a. However, not all articles in his dictionary are like those of S. Ropelevski. For S. Daukantas sometimes raised a word in a separate article, which S. Ropelevski gave it together su with another close word. For example, S. Ropelevskis used the words danny and datliwy in one article, o S. Daukantas datliwy raised a separate heading word. Expulsed S. He also added the words abrewiacya abrewiator, expens ir expensowač, kalamajka ir kalamajkowy and ir others. However, there are very few such independent reforms by S. Daukantas. It is estimated that the dictionary of S. Ropelevski contains about 65,000 Polish title words. The volume of Polish words in S. Daukanto dictionary has been calculated by J. Careful — 56 567 words. So it can be said that by re-writing S. Daukan- * This number is based on the average word count per page, calculated by counting about one-third of the iš words taken from different places in the dictionary. 10 The grain J. Min. p., p. 305. 154 that spent about a thousand, 8,5 or 13 9, S. Ropelevski- 's dictionary words. When comparing the different parts of the dictionary, it is clear that they skipped differently. From the very beginning, he would write fewer words (e.g., A letters missing 46,7 %, B — 24,1 94), o later so ne scrupulously chose (e.g., C syllable missing 16,8 94, D — 13,8 %, F—-16.5%, G—8.1% H-143%, LJ—11 94, N-4.1 95, 0-39%, ZZ22Z28,2 %). It may be assumed that over time S. Daukantas ended up narrowing his vocabulary too much and began to miss less and less. It also becomes clear that the Polish register is much fuller of those letters in which little Lithuanian equivalents have been left (N, O, etc.). Another trend is to reduce the number of international words, especially in letters where jų (4, F, H). The text of many letters is written in a similar way: the Polish register of S. Ropelevski dictionary has been copied and Lithuanian equivalents have been added to some words. But the texts of the letters N, O, S, T, U are written differently. In the case of the letters O and S, and in the case of the letters T and U, there is only the Polish register (with very rare Lithuanian equivalents). In order to speed up the work, S. Daukantas will have decided to add the Lithuanian equivalents later, having already made the Polish register (but only added the letter N to the words). It should be noted that, writing only it, Daukantas distanced himself from illustrative examples—- he simply did not leave any room for them. S. Daukantas edited his dictionary little. In the first and third volumes, only one other Polish word is accompanied by a later Lithuanian word, which can be determined by the ink colour. Only the second volume, more precisely, the material of the letter N of this volume, has been seriously edited. It is clear that many Lithuanian words were written later, in different ink. But S. Daukantas did not just take notes of the words: while editing he checked the text with S. Ropelevskis’ dictionary (this is shown at p. 88 of the 2nd volume. and 99 attached sheets with 12 and 14 vocabulary articles; if S. Daukantas had not compared the texts, he would not have been able to notice that he missed one section of S. Ropelevskis’ dictionary on both occasions- ). The author had started editing the dictionary, but did not finish it. S. Daukantas wrote the dictionary on large 35.5 x 21.6 cm sheets of paper. He did not mark the pages, only numbered the arch with a pencil (I and II volumes — 31 arch each, III volume — 36). The arches are usually composed of 6 double sheets, sometimes sewn into 2 semicircles of 3 double sheets, and sometimes in a single arc. There are several facts that suggest that S. Daukantas wrote the dictionary in such already bound bows. In particular, this would show unnumbered pages. Secondly, the ink stains in volume 2 also show this. At the beginning of the 4th arc, S. Daukantas had ink spilled on the text of the letter N. The filled dictionary article Nazajutrz, rano meta and next to it re-written in the same ink as the other edited words indicate that the accident occurred during the editing of the manuscript. Not only the 4th, but also the other arcs (5, 6, 7, 8, 10) were dirty. However, the ink only entered the first and last pages of the arch, and did not touch the inner pages. This means that the text under editing was already folded into bows, but had not yet been bound into books (the latter statement is supported by some words in the edited manuscript that would have been difficult to put into a bound book). In addition, the stamps on the dictionary paper show that the paper had to be folded (or sewn) into bows for a long time before it was bound into books. For the stamp of the paper factory is imprinted on the paper, 155 i.e. raised, and in the first leaves of each arc it is much more pronounced than in the following ones. All this clearly shows that S. Daukantas wrote the dictionary not on loose sheets and not on clean paper already bound into books, but on bows bound from 12 sheets. This fact can help us to clarify the date of the writing of the great dictionary of S. Daukantas. M. Akelaitis 1856. In a letter to M. Valančius dated 15/27 X. he already mentions S. Daukanto dictionary: “How happy I would be if those foliants (folijaly... do stownika polsko—żmudskiego) of S. Daukanto’s Polish—Žemaičių dictionary came into my hands!” * The fact that M. Akelaitis already writes about the individual foliants of the dictionary means that at that time (end of 1856) S. Daukantas had already bound the dictionary. And since, as we have seen, the dictionary was written and edited in three volumes before it was sewn, it should have been finished by the end of 1856 (of course, it could have happened that S. Daukantas added or corrected one more word later). This date also coincides with changes in S. Daukanto biography — in 1855 he leaves Varna, leaves M. Valantis and takes refuge in Svirlaukis (Latvia) with the doctor Petras Smuglevičius. From then on, S. Daukantas’ life began to turn to the Baston period, and during the remaining eight years of his life he did not return to the dictionary. The decisive factor here may have been that he got angry with M. Valančius and probably gave up hope of ever printing this dictionary. Thus, it can be assumed that S. Daukantas wrote his great Polish-Lithuanian dictionary between 1850 and the end of 1856 (it is known that the dictionary paper was made 1960's'®). V. a. Merkys, writing Daukanto biography, somewhat inaccurately assessed his lexicographical activity. The biographer recounts S. Daukanto letter to Narbutas in 1842, where S. Daukantas says that he began to study the language itself. V. Merkys mentions the Polish-Lithuanian dictionary (the small one) written by S. Daukantas in his youth and concludes: “It seems that S. Daukantas will have returned to the further preparation of the latter dictionary when he wrote the aforementioned letters to Narbutas. The manuscripts of the Lithuanian Language and Literature Institute library contain three huge foliants of this dictionary”*. It seems that V. Merkys considers the two dictionaries of S. Daukanto as the same work (the second as a continuation of the first). He writes that “Daukanitas, who had started preparing this dictionary at Vilnius University, supplemented and corrected it until his death”! *, This conclusion cannot be accepted. The two manuscripts of S. Daukanto Polish—Lithuanian dictionaries are completely different works. The first one he wrote in his youth, as a student and living in Vilnius, the second — when he was about 60 years old, in Varniai. The first was written using a simpler, more educational dictionary, and the second was based on a solid publication of the time, which did not fall short of world standards. It has not been noted that, when writing his great dictionary, S. Daukantas took material from his youth work. "11th Annual A.M. Akelaitis Letters". —Tauta ir žodis, 1925, vol. 3, p. 296. 12 Krnennuros C. A. durarpanu H nreMrresm Ha GyMare pyccKoro H HHOCTDpaHHOTO ItpOH3BoucrBa XVII—XX BB. —M., 1959, c. 100. The same is confirmed by the manuscript of the USSR MA library, which is now stored in the dictionary manuscript. J. Kruop’s claim (Kroopas J. Min. str., p. 305) that this paper was produced precisely in 1850 is not justified. 13 Merkys V. Simonas Daukantas. — V., 1972, p. 203. 4 There, to explore p. 204. 156 si the language” S, He was hardly concerned with ar writing a dictionary, but was probably interested in — comparing languages and etymology. ar (Dar plg. the conclusion made by J. Careful, after looking S. Daukanto vocabulary: "You can see that at the time [per 1845 month] S. Daukantas was concerned about the affinity of Lithuanian su words with words of ancient languages.”5,) TEHE3HC MNOJIbCKO-JIMTOBCKHUX CJIOBAPEH C. JAYKAHTACA Pe31oMe B crarbe ĮaercA KpaTKHĒŪ HCTOpHYeCKHii 0630p JIBYX IIOJILCKO-JIKTOBCKHX CJIOBapeit C. HayKaHTaca, M3BECTHOr- 'S INSTALLATION JIMTOBCKOM CURRENCY IIEDpBON I'm sorry, H I'm sorry. XIX B. VcTAHOBJICHb HCTOYHHWKH ITOJIbCKHX DErHCTPOB OOOHMX CJIOBAapelt, YTO IIOMOIMIO YTOYHHTb HX COOTHOmIeHHMe. BhisBiieno, 4T0 BTODpOHK IKOJIbCKO-JIIHTOBCKHĖ CJIOBapb (1850 — romen r.) 1856 He SBASAETCH I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. (oxono r.), 1820 mpeacrasnser a COOOH caMOCTOSTENBHYIO Jack Korpaduiecki's boobies. KpoMe Toro, BhisBISieTCS METHODHa S, APPARATUS KOTOpOro GBUIH COCTABJIEHbI JAHHBIE CJIOBapH. 1% Kruopas J. Min. str., p. 312.