Indeks – słownik do „Daukšos Postilė“. Opracował Czesław Kudzinowski. Tom I (A–N). VI+543 p. Tom II (O–Ž), 527 p. Poznań, 1977

In the districts (Zarasai, Ignalina, Švenčionys, etc.), where a large number of Russians and people of other nationalities have lived for a long time, two trends can be seen: 1) the formation of socially active Lithuanian-Russian bilingualism and 2) a relatively small social demand for active Russian-- Lithuanian bilingualism. These trends are due to the fact that in the nationally mixed districts the Russian language functions extensively as a means of communication between nations. Lithuanian language is taught to Russians who have lived in the republic for a longer period of time and who need it in their work and activities. Lithuanian language is particularly needed by Russians — the inhabitants of the countryside. The knowledge of Lithuanian language among the Russian nationality population in the republic is inversely proportional to the density of Russian population. In regions where the Russian population is large, Lithuanian language proficiency is low. For example, according to the 1970 census, in Zarasai district the Russian population is 20.39%, but the Lithuanian language is spoken by only 41.194. Meanwhile, in the Šiauliai district, where the total population of Russian ethnicity is only 3.19, 719% of the people of Russian ethnicity speak Lithuanian. There is a certain pattern in the determination of the mother tongue of bilinguals. If one language is spoken in the family, the informants of all nationalities (Lithuanian, Russian, Polish, etc.) consider the language of their nationality as their mother tongue, while the mother tongue of informants from mixed families often does not coincide with their nationality language. V. Michalchenko rightly distinguishes the command of a second language from its functioning in various spheres of life. The younger and middle generations of the people of the republic were educated in Russian language schools, so it is possible to assume that most Lithuanians are more or less fluent in Russian. But a completely different situation is with its functioning. Lithuanian-Russian bilingualism is socially active only under certain ethnic conditions (a large percentage of Russian and other nationalities). Russian language is used here as a means of communication between different nationalities; in addition, it is read special literature, it functions in the spheres of radio, television, press. Socially active Lithuanian-Russian bilingualism is typical of the industrial centers of the republic and some districts (Šalčininkai, Vilnius, Švenčionys, etc.). The rest of the population of the republic speaks Russian less well, so the functioning of the Russian language here is more passive, the learning of live communication in school may not be supported, so in such cases we can only talk about bilingualism very conditionally. Simas "King of the Rings: The Return of the King" (PDF). Developed by Czeslaw Kudzinowski. Volume I (A — N), VI +543 p. Volume II (O — Ž), 527 p. Poznan, 1977. Mikalojus Daukša’s postilla from 1599 is one of the most important monuments of ancient Lithuanian writing. Because of the correctness of the language, the richness of the vocabulary and especially the accentuation, the data of this book are widely used by linguists not only in Lithuanian studies, but also in Indo-European studies in general. Now the Polish linguist Czesław Kudziński has made these data more accessible to scholars: he has published a large, two-volume (even 1076 pages!) index-dictionary, which records all the words of the Daukša postila and their forms. Professor Czesław Kudziński of the University of Poznań—a well-known Polish Baltist. He graduated from Vilnius University in 1935, where he studied comparative Indo-European linguistics. In 1935—1937 he specialized in Finnish-Ugric linguistics in Helsinki, and in 1937—1939 in Budapest, where he defended his PhD dissertation on the Finnish sound system. While living and studying in Vilnius, he learned Lithuanian and became involved in the study of various problems of Baltic linguistics. In 1958, he and other Polish linguists published the text of the New Testament based on the manuscript of S. Chilinski’s translation of the Bible, which is kept in the British Museum in London. He has prepared for publication the 53rd volume of the writings of the Polish ethnographer and folklorist O. Kolberg 188 (1966) "Lithuania". He published articles on Slavic borrowings in Lithuanian, on baltisms in his native Polish dialect (he was born in 1908 in Vodziłowka, Białystok Voivodeship) and wrote on other issues of Baltic and Lithuanian studies. Č. Kudzinovskis has considerable experience in compiling indexes and dictionaries. He is generally the pioneer of Lithuanian works of this kind. In 1964 he published the Index of the New Testament by S. Chilinski!, which was positively evaluated in our linguistic press*. The index now being reviewed is incomparably larger (about 6 times larger) and differs from the previous one in that it also indicates the meaning of the words included in the index. The author of the index was interested in Daukšos postcards as early as 1947, when the 350th anniversary of J. Vujek was celebrated in Poland. At the suggestion of Prof. J. Otrembski, Č. Kudzinovskis had planned to publish the Polish edition of J. Vujek’s Postilla from 1596, from which M. Daukša translated, for the purpose of new research. Although such a permit did not appear, the work put into it did not go in vain. Having J. Vujek’s texts at his disposal, Č. Kudzinovskis was able to compile not a simple index of Daukšos postila, but an index-dictionary (with the indication of the meaning of the words). This greatly increased the value of the publication. The compiler did a giant job: he carefully recorded all the words used in Daukša’s postilla; by comparing with J. Vujek’s original, determined the meanings of those words; provided all the forms used for each word. It is Ch. Kudzinovsky’s life’s work, a kind of linguistic encyclopedia of Daukša postilla, which will become the favorite book of every Baltist. This work will be used not only by lexical researchers, but also by other specialists. It will be very useful for morphological studies (all word forms are arranged- !), historical phonetic studies (cf. *4 for turning o to study significant Daukša data kopyčia< 1. kapica, mandotas < 1. mandat, vowel jpressings in words cimentorius “1.cmyntarz’, elemožina “1. jalmuzna- ’), historical dialectology (cf. /ytelius "lietutis', pabanga "pabaiga- ") and the history of the Lithuanian language in general (cf. words pekus, penukšlas, velinas, siela “saziné’, sokoras “cukrus’ and others). Kudzinovsky’s work shows the extraordinary vocabulary of Daukša’s crib: the index-dictionary has almost twice as many pages as Daukša’s crib itself. Although Daukša, like many other translators of the time, adhered to the principle of literal translation, he consciously tried to diversify his translation language, to make it more verbal. There were good reasons for this. In order to accommodate the clergymen who had little or no knowledge of Lithuanian at the time, he made extensive use of lexical parallelisms: he presented a borrowed and a Lithuanian word in pairs. Many parallelisms arose from Daukša’s desire to please representatives of different dialects, to be correctly understood by them. However, it should be emphasized that only a part of the so-called parallelisms are words of absolutely the same meaning, without any stylistic nuances or differences in meaning. For example, in addition to such as fisherman || žuklijas, cure || stray we find a lot of such as Sapelis || straudelis, horse || horse || kuinas and so on. Often, for one word in the original, Daukša gives several Lithuanian equivalents with different stylistic nuances. For example, the poor is called the homeless, tired, tired, tired, tired, tired, tired, tired, tired, tired, tired, tired. Thus, Daukša was not satisfied with the colourless, overly generalised words of the original, but sought more precise Lithuanian equivalents that better described the subject. Unfortunately, the compiler of the index-dictionary did not understand and properly appreciate Daukša’s efforts. This can be seen even from the introduction saying that Daukša often uses synonyms “without apparent need”. Instead of the definitions of the meaning of the word, the Polish equivalents of Vujek presented in the index-dictionary, of course, cannot convey all the nuances of the meaning, often there is no * Biblia litewska Chylinskiego at all. The New Testament. Tom III —indeks. Published by Czestaw 1964, Kudzinowski. Poznan, VIII+169 p. ' 2 Zr. V. Zulio review: Baltistica, t. I (1), p. 88—91. 189 adequate for Daukšos words, because of jų the difference in both form (e.g., tulkas — wielu), both in meaning (e.g., now shining). — Nevertheless, the presentation of the original Polish equivalents should be viewed very positively: Č. Kudzinovsky thus did a great service to the researchers, since the original is practically unavailable to many. In linguistic literature, doubts have been raised already several decades ago, Daukša himself translated the whole ar postilla*, The basis for such doubts was the existing forms and words of different dialects, their uneven pronunciation. Č. Kudzinovskis also tends to support this opinion, citing the following arguments: 1) only from p. 512 the vowel e is represented by the letters ia; 2) because it is used only on pp. 175-254, and not on pp. 199-2532; 3) we find ė only at the beginning of the book; from p. 495 — sporadically; 4) v only occurs at the beginning of chapters; 5) Sunday only until p. 69, later — Wieszpatis. However, these arguments, as well as similar ones raised earlier, are not convincing. There may also be language differences of this kind in the work of one person. The variation of writing, the alternation of individual subjects is characteristic of other books of the time, including those prepared by one person. On the front page of the postcard, Daukša is listed as the translator. In both dialects (Latin and Polish) he calls the translation his own work. No other translators or collaborators are mentioned anywhere and hardly could have been at that time. And the inconsistencies and contradictions of the language can in many cases be explained by Daukša’s desire to please a wider circle of readers – both the Highlanders and the Zemgales*. The principles of the index-dictionary are well thought out by Kudzinovsky. The editor tried to arrange the publication in such a way that the reader would be more comfortable to use it. The structure of the publication is simple: after the title ir word in capital letters, without any punctuation, its meaning is indicated, more precisely, J. Vujek’s Polish equivalent; below, also without any punctuation marks, in a certain order are written the forms of that word used by Daukša and the digits indicating their metric. Everything is obvious and clear. The compiler did not cover the text with abbreviations, commas and other signs, as required by the standards. In a publication of this kind, all this would be unnecessary, complicate the use and significantly increase the volume of the book. The form of the heading word is presented by the composer carefully and even too carefully. If Daukša used only the plural forms of a word, the plural noun is usually (but not always) given, e.g. bromos, ponios. If there are only female examples, the feminine noun is often given, e.g. burnotina, darbinga, prieteliškos. Sometimes the feminine form goes in a separate article, sometimes both are put together in one article, for example, bursinykė next to bursinykas, but draugetarnis, -ė (= draugiatarnis, -ė). Even Lithuanian adjectives are replaced by title words (e.g., snake "wężowski', Zamora "zamorski'), and sometimes the jvardZiuotiné form of adjectives is used instead of the corresponding ordinary form (e.g., rodnasis). It is also used in the forms of stirring, stirring up, stirring down, stirring up and stirring down. It seems that everywhere here the compiler has overdone himself. The above forms would be sufficient to distinguish only in the group of grammatical forms. As in S. Chilinski’s index of the New Testament, the compiler artificially brought the title words closer to the present common language. In doing so, he disregarded not only the phonetic, but also the morphological features of the Daukša language. For example, he replaced the prefix ata with the present ati-, so instead of Daukša's ataduoti, atadengti title word he raised adati, atidengti. Instead of the prepositional variants ing, in raised the present into (although 3 See. K. Collective Writings. V., 1961, t. III, p. 331; Gerullis J. Ancient Lithuanian Readings. K., 1927, p. 124; Gerullis G. Baltica. —AfSIPh, t. XXXIX,Ip. 52; Tang] E. The accusative and nominative with participation in Old Lithuanian. Weimar, 1928, p. 21. 4 See also Skardžius P. Daukša was the first creator of a common language in Greater Lithuania. —APh, vol. IV, p. 7—19; Lebedys J. Mikalojus Daukša. V., 1963, p. 231 et seq. 190 Many did not use it at all), instead of the second remains, the third remains, etc. ir — twelfth, thirteenth, instead of six tens, three tens sixty ir t. t. — (sic!), thirty. The compiler often ignored į The connecting vowel of many compound words (e.g., vykėlė vienširdžiai instead of vienširdžiai), the place of the prepositional verbs' return particle (e.g. engaged, engaged instead of engaged, engaged), ancient fuller sexes (e.g., instead of velinas, visokias we find velnias, raznos), the word belonging to another paradigm (e.g., the age of the dam replaced by the current age). Here are more varied examples of substitution (first pair member — The second heading word of the index): vienarokas—>vie- — neriokas (sic!), žvaizdė->žvaigždė, (ne)seniai—(ne)senai, gandžiaus->gandžiau, istorija->istorija, byskupas—bishop, biedna—bédna, lilija->lelija, pardosté—parduosté, penukšlas->peniukšlas. Plg. real names (they are at the end of the publication) The Greeks... Greeks, Krokavas—Krokuva, Poznania—Poznané. But this is done consistene ntly everywhere. For example, instead of a general language suffix -owner usually left Daukšos -infection (and did well), but we find farming, local farming ir (su -inink-; Daukša has only -inyk-). Next to the devil raised velinuva, next to kaznadeja (instead of Daukšos -ieja) — koznadieja (as Daukšos), near pražiosti (instead of -Zosti) — žosmė (as (Dutch). But plg. Macedonians “Macedonians’, Rome ‘Rome’ near Greece (Many are only Greece). All substitutes listed here Daukša wasn't driving. This is a jo foreign form of language. This way of presenting forms in the index is convenient for linguists who are not familiar with su Those who speak or who seek to ar another word (lexicographers, lexicologists), but it is not suitable for Daukšos language researchers, because it over-levels Daukšos language characteristics. They are only included within the articles. The compiler made it very clear In addition to the variation of the language, the title word ir of the existing several iš adjacent variants was only one which, usually closer to the norm of the common language, for example, from dubleto or || alba was only or, from but || beti || bat —only but, from persona || persuna (persūna?) —only persona, from šėtonas || šatonas || satonas —only satan, from žmogus || žmuo —only man. In one article shaken omnipotent and omnipotent (to omnipotent). Longer variants are not distinguished from shorter variants, e.g. (in parentheses is the highlighted heading): to || ik (to), he he he || (his), law|| law (jog), little || little || little || little (low) than || (negative), || because it does not (not), net net || (net), nug nugi || (nug), by ends || (pagal), pats || pats || patssai || patisaig (pats), pent || pen (pent), tada || tada (tada), tarp || tarpu (tarp), tas || tasai || tasjau (that), somehow || somehow (in the same || way), Lord Lord (Lord). Longer variants of the particle g(i), e.g. su drinag, are usually not put separately (drin only), jukaig (soft), canned (kana), kodrinag (kodrin), norintig (norint), nuog, nug, nog (new), add (and pri, written next to Daukša's completely unused variant prie), teipag, teipagu, teipajag, teipajau, teipåo, teipog, teipogu, etc. ir (all listed under "Into the Unknown" (feat. But jeig, kadaig, kaipog are used separately next to if, kada, kaipo. But plg. shaking of real name variants (usually raised as more reminiscent of the Polish equivalent, it is indicated in parentheses): Abraham || Abromas (Abrahomas), Barnabas || Barnabas (Barnaba), Christus || Christus (Christus), Eva || Jeva (Eva), Isidorius || Isodoras (Isidoras) — Stranger), Jobas || Jopas (Job), Jacob || Jakobas (James), Judas || Judas (Moving), Saulas || Saulius (Sun), net Vengrai || Hungarians! Understandable thing, in individual cases the contractor would have been difficult to determine The form of the word used, e.g., loc. iš pl. Synoses to 915, reconstruct the denominator of the Chinese name (Sina, Sinos?). But to such reconstructions could be added a question mark. To forms that are very different from the current ones, it was possible to add links to the current ones. The references were useful to highlight į neighboring variants. It must be said that the author ir avoids references at all, they are quite rare. By using references more widely, it was possible to satisfy not only the needs of 191 lexicographers, but also those of Daukšos language researchers. A more detailed description of the structure ir of the index-dictionary would be very useful to facilitate the reader’s use of the publication. At least the most important principles of index-dictionary compilation should be justified. Perhaps then at least some of the criticisms made here would fall away. A few more remarks on the individual The treatment of many forms of language. The compiler uses heading words, e.g., heaven, day, earth, hell, middle®, top, etc. ir It should be written heaven, day, earth, hell, middle, above... This shows both the origin of the forms (plg. similar action substantive form in local language loc. s.g. m. white "white"), as well as ir The Letter. Ne everywhere managed to separate the adverb -ing from -mas, plg. tearing apart next to confusion, confusion. Instead of izlepęs, juodkunigai, pasigemti, paspalytas, prisiegti, trekšti, žekas, žiegorius, Laurinas, Mednikai, Pilipas, Salamonas should be išlepęs (plg. dialect of Daukšos raSyma sg. g. iszldpusio 167.3), juodaknygiai (!), pasimégti, paspalitas, prisiekti, trėkšti, žėkas, ziegorius, Laurynas, Mednykai, Pilypas, Saliamonas. There is one ir other typographical error, e.g., instead of the heading words apspaustyti, binges, žodis, išsiųsti, kalinejis, parsiunti, pebausti, peleda, prizopostyjmas, susesti, sutarti, suželusi, takotojas, Syrian must be apcircumcised, binges, įsakymas, išsiųsti, kalnėjis, parsiysti, perbausti, olėda, prizopostyjimas, susėsti, sutarti, suerzinta, tykotojas, Syrian. In practice, it is very difficult to avoid certain shortcomings and inaccuracies in this type of work. But this ne determines the value of the publication. Most importantly, that Č. Thanks to Kudzinovsky, researchers will now have registered all Plenty of crib words, all forms, so that jų researchers in the future will no longer have to search the whole crib po to ar another word, separate form. jo Č. Kudzinovsky has done a really great and very ir necessary job. Už that we should all be grateful to him. It is an impressive publication, an example for all of us, encouraging to undertake the work of compiling other indexes-dictionaries of Lithuanian language monuments. Zigmas Zinkevičius 5 Beside f. naktijeja (with -ij-) The Daukša dialect could have had -ij-, rather than -yj-, cf. dial. loc. sg. naktij ‘at night’. However, the compiler had to use the same kind of forms. 192