R. Eckert. „Baltistische Studien“

The use of material from Lithuanian dialects, ancient scripts, Latvian, Prussian, as well as other Indo-European, especially Slavic, languages, the reliance on statistical data allowed the author to say a new, highly argumented word about the formation of the current Lithuanian pronunciation system, the development of the origin of many grammatical forms. ir J. The ko Kazlausknyga is important ne not only for Lithuanian linguistics, but also for Baltic studies, Indo-European ir studies in general and general linguistics. K. Carrot R. Eckert, Baltic states Studies, Berlin, Germany 1971, 102 p. Professor Rainer Eckert of the University of Leipzig is for the linguists of our republic “own man”: we often meet him at various su conferences, meetings, often read interesting articles published both in jo German Democratic Republic, both In the publications of the Soviet Union (first of all, of course, our republic), ir as well as other countries, jo we find the name from time to time in information about The activities of GDR Baltists, translations of Lithuanian į fiction into German, ir etc. Recent Leipzig Saxon The Academy of Sciences has published a collection of articles by this linguist, ga entitled,,Baltische Studien“, as a separate book in its report series. The publication of such a book is a joyous — event, if only because it is the first A book published by the GDR devoted to purely Baltic problems. Ji is like a distant echo of the beautiful tų traditions of Leipzig University in ir general German Baltic studies, which were established by famous German scholars in the last century. The pioneer of these traditions, August Schleicher, is honoured in a specially written In the preface of the GDR Slavist Rudolf Fischer, which, among other things, reminds be us that interest in Baltic languages has recently increased again. ; RememberiA. ng Schleicher, one can note the pleasant fact that in the last few years about the German linguist šį — “the hero of the conversatijį on”, as some da called Fridrich Kuršaitis, published a lot of interesting works (J. Dycės (Dietze), R. Fischer ir kt. )?. R. Ekert's book also begins with an article about Schleicher A. ‘Zu August Schleichers ‘Lithuanian Grammatik'" (p. 9—20). The author of the article accurately characterizes Schleicher’s famous grammar, presents the interesting history of the book’s creation, reminds of its importance for the history of Lithuanian language research and the development of our literary language. ir t. t. Of course, the weak ir points of A. Schleicher’s work are mentioned, for which the author was mainly to blame, but the level of ne linguistics of that time. Maybe just one R. Ekert's reproach A. to Schleicher a little too much ‘strict’. The author of the article reminds many Baltists, who have already become,,,winir ged®, of Schleicher's A. saying that the Latvian language ,.eine in Loud and Grammar jūngere language (is), which Lithuanian about verhilt like that Italian to Latin" (plg. p. 13). Teisus R. Ekert, stating that at the time latviy language was not yet sufficiently studied, that only J. Endzelyno works have filled this gap. However, even ir po J. Endze- * The Americans have reprinted, perhaps a bit, one of the most interesting A. articles about Schleicher as ir a human scientist, written more than a century ago by his famous jo pupil Johann Schmidt, cf. Portraits of Linguists, A Biographical Source Book for the History of Western Linguistics, edited 1746—1963, by Thomas A. Sebeok, I, Bloomington and London, 1967, p. 374-395. 16* 243 1999. The illustrative phrase of A. Schleicher, which, in our view, has not lost its relevance in terms of phonetics and morphology of Lithuanian and Latvian languages. It is true that R. Ekert, who has been intensively studying the problems of heteroclysis in Indo-European languages, especially Baltic and Slavic languages, for several years, tends to find more traces of heteroclysis in Latvian than in Lithuanian. However, some of Eckert's examples seem quite suspicious. For example, next to lit. sdulė, lat. safile, anth. pr. saule, he indicates lat. sauls (this form, in his opinion, would be a remnant of /trunk). There is obviously too much reliance on the facts of the dictionary. For example, the Latin word sauls is recorded once in J. Endzelynas and E. Hauzenberga's supplements to K. Muulenbach's dictionary. It is based on a novel by L. L. Tolstoy. One of the most characteristic features of this dialect's morphology is the tendency of -ė-stem nouns to turn into -ikamienas. In this dialect instead of apse, upe we find apss, ups, etc. * In a similar way, it seems, alongside the Latin zeme, Lithuanian žemė, ancient Greek semmé (‘in the earth’) came the Latin zems. Of course, such facts cannot show any archaic features in the morphology of the Latvian language. A completely different thing is the vocabulary of the Latvian language, which has actually preserved a lot of the facts of the pale ancient times that have disappeared in the Lithuanian language. The author of the article may not have chosen the example of the vowel change i: e: a: o given by A. Sleicher (p. 15) quite successfully, since Lithuanian mérai is not a native word, but a loan from Slavic languages. When listing the tradition of German-Lithuanian textbooks started by A. Schleicher, one should probably also mention A. Seno’s Kleine litauische Sprachlehre, published in Heidelberg in 1929. The extensive article,,Slawismen mit i-Stamm im Litauischen“ (p. 21-55) presents an extremely careful morphological and derivative analysis of i-stem Slavisms in Lithuanian. Here, perhaps only in one other place, the notes Lit. (= Lithuanian language), Lit. dial. (=dialectal), Alit. (=antique, old writings). In this case, it would have been better to use both Slavisms with the note Lit. and Slavisms with the note Lit. dial. present as a single group. In addition, lit. kūtis, lat. kūts are Germanisms? Is it not more possible that this word came into Lithuanian from Latvian, and that Latin kiits, as a Baltic word, could be tried to be linked to the corresponding words in Slavic languages? Of course, it is also impossible to say this categorically. In the article,,Altpreussisch brendekermnen und seine Teilentsprechungen im Slawischen“ (p. 56—59) the second component of this Old Prussian word is presented with semantic parallels in Slavic languages (cf. Old Slavic črėvo „womb“, Slovenian črevata „dung“ etc.). It is interesting that, as the author of the article notes in the relevant footnote, F. Neselman had already tried to explain the origin of the Prussian word in a similar way. However, in later Prussian studies this interpretation was not sufficiently taken into account.' Especially interesting is the last article of the book, “Zur Heteroklisie im Baltischen und Slawischen” (p. 60—74), in which the author seems to be fighting against the skeptics of the theory of heteroclisy, finding new interesting facts of heteroclisy in the Baltic Slavic languages. * L. Latkovsks, A beautiful dictionary,,,Philologists Society articles“, XV, Riga, 1935, p. 37. 3 L. Latkovsks, ibid., p. 38; cf. p. p. M. Rudzite, Latviešu dialektoloģija, Riga, 1964, p. 337—2339. ir ' 244 At the end of the book is a wide 1948 — 1968 m. German Democratic Baltic literature bibliography published in the Republic, as well as published by scholars of this country in the press of other countries, which records positions devoted to various 249 problems of Baltic linguistics, Lithuanian-Latvian literature, folklore, Baltic ir history. More 52 bibliographical positions concern the Lusatian (Sorbian) i ir Lithuanian cultural relations. This extensive bibliography together su with the professor R. Ekertu prepared by another sincere friend of ours, active promoter of Lithuanian culture Doctor of the GDR Frido Wild. As the authors of the bibliography themselves point out, it be would be extremely iš difficult to compile a completely perfect bibliography at once, so they ask their readers ir for help to complete it. In response į šį to the request, we will point out a couple of things that probably should have been included tų in this į bibliography, namely: Ambr. Jonynas, Der Battle of the Fronbauern against the Manor im Mirror of Lithuanian Mérchen, Schwanke and Schwankmūžrchen, "German Yearbook fiir Volkskunde", Bd. VII, Berlin, Germany 1961, p. 205—214. ~ K. Korsakas, Report on the Folklore research in Lithuania, “German Yearbook fiir Volkskunde", Bd. VI, T. 2, Berlin, 1960, p. 451 — 453. A couple of proofreading tricks: K. Mühlenbach ir J. The English translation was published 1923—1932 in 1999. o J. Otrembski- 's Lithuanian Grammar, Volume Three — 1956 m. (this volume was released earlier už other volumes). I wish that this professor's R. Ekert’s work would be ne only a beautiful echo of German Baltic traditions, but new ir significant German Democratic The beginning of Baltic studies in the Republic. R. Ekert šį dedicates his work to a Russian linguist, a former friend — from school days V. M. Ilič-Svityčius, thus reminding us once again that Baltic studies were hurt by the ir tragic death of this scientist. A. Sabaliauskas JlinrsicTeiunas reorpadis i rpynoyka Geaapyckix rasopak, Minck, [Izoglosy 1968 interpretation], p.; 318 Jlinrsicteiunas reorpadis i rpynoy ka Geaapyckix rasopak, Minck, 1969 [80 linguistic Zemélapiy]* Belarusian linguistic geography has advanced far in its i ambitions ir and in its valuable production, far outstripping other Soviet Union republics working on similar dialect research. A major scientific achievement in this field was the first monumental published ir 1963 m. "Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language" (JlsisiJiekraJiariunbi aTJiac 6eaapycKali MOBH), whose maps 338 (most in colour) jų reflects the most ir jų characteristic features of the phonetic morphology of Belarusian dialects, syntactic ir construction, dialectal and lexical diversity and prevalence of individual ir phraseologisms. Based on this latlas, Belarusian dialectolo- — * Eudarė authors collective: Corresponding member MA of the USSR R. Avanesovas, Philol. m. cand. A. Arašonkava, Philol. m. Dr. M. Birla, Philol. m. Dr. N. Vaitovich, Philol. m. Dr. A. Grucas, j. m. b. I. Kavalchuk, Philol. m. cand. A. "Krivickis, BTSR member-correspondeMA nt phil. m. Dr. J. Mackevič, Philol. m. cand. J. Ramanovič, j. m. b. A. Hat. Edited by CorrespondiMA ng member of the USSR R. Avanesov, Academician MA of the BTSR K. Astrakhovičius (Krapiva), philosopher. m. Dr. J. Mackevitch. 245