Svarbus įnašas į baltų kalbotyrą

BEANL POR PAK RE OS LAU RIALS IU ROY BTA) IEE. TN VIO-S TS RO’M OK SL Ų "A K A D E M TT A IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION OF THE REVIEW Į BALTIC KALBOTYRĄ Chr. S. Stang, comparative Grammar of the Baltic Languages, Oslo — Bergen — Tromso, 1966, 485 p. The famous Norwegian linguist professor Chr. The name of Stangas į entered the bibliography of Lithuanian linguistics almost forty years ago. It is interesting that his first significant Lithuanian work this linguist began with the study of the first Lithuanian book when he was — years old, he 29 published a monograph on 1547 m. published book „Catechismvsa prasty szadei““ its ir author M. Little. Po several years Chr. The rod together su J. Good described one Eastern He published a study on the Slavic-Baltic o verb?, studied „ the Belarusian language used in the writings of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and ir studied the problem of the oldest relations of the Baltic Slavic languages. į ir The greatest and, without be doubt, the most significant Chr. Stango’s work is a work of jo recent years Comparative Grammar of the Baltic Languages. The great significance of this work for Baltic studies and ir Indo-European studies in general becomes particularly obvious when one ir remembers that until now the only comparative grammar of the Baltic languages was that of the Latvian linguist J. Endzelyno A relatively small book published based on lectures given at Riga University “Baltic sounds in form”**. ir So Chr. The appearance of Stango’s grammar is an important event in linguistics both from a theoretical and practical ir point of view—for many philologists interested in the history of the Baltic languages, the grammar will ir jų now be an ši indispensable textbook. “In the introduction to the Comparative Grammar of Baltic Languages** (p. 1—21) Chr. Stange briefly characterizes the Baltic languages, indicates the relationship with jų Slavic languages. su The phonetics of the Baltic — Lithuanian and Latvian ir ancient Prussian — languages are very extensively discussed (p. 22—174), 0 iš morphology — word caityba (p. 175—482). Syntax issues of word ir formation are not specifically touched in the work. Explaining the history and development of phonetic morphological phenomena of ir Baltic languages, the author compares them with the corresponding facts of other Indo-European su languages, especially Slavic. In the phonetic section, he often works with Baltic borrowed words from the Baltic Finnish languages. But the book, of course, mainly presents the actual Baltic languages * Chr. S. Rod, Die Language of Lithuanian Catechism of Mažvydas, Oslo, Norway 1929. * J. Gerullis ir Chr. Stang'as, Lithuanian fisherman's dialect in Prūsuose, Kaunas, 1933, * Chr. S. Stang, The Slavic and Baltic Verbum, Oslo, Norway 1942. * J. Endzelins, Baltu valodas skanas un formas, Rigi, 1948 (Lithuanian translation: J. Endzelynas, Baltų kalbų garsai formos, Vilnius, 2002, ir 120 pp. Materials 1957). 191 collected from ancient written and various current sources. Especially often the author relies on Lithuanian language data and Lithuanian linguists’ works. Not only the works of A. Baranauskas, K. Jaunius, K. Būga, J. Jablonskis and other linguists are well known to him, but also the recent work of Lithuanian linguists —Chr. Stangas cites the works of more than twenty Soviet Lithuanian linguists. In both the phonetic and morphological sections we find many new statements. It is true that not all of them can be agreed with at once, but many of them, due to their originality, will undoubtedly attract the attention of other linguists, forcing them to look at individual issues of the history of the Baltic languages in a new way. Let us say that there is still no unanimous opinion on the emergence of the Lithuanian š from the s after the vowels I, ū. Stangas argues that the presence of the consonant š in the words maišas, rieš(ut Jas, aušra, rišti and s in the words musé, lysė, klausiu is not only a phonetic, but also a dialectic-geographic problem (p. 96 et seq.). He also believes that in old Lithuanian writings (especially by authors from the western part of Lithuania: Mažvydas, Vilentas, Bretkūnas, Daukša, etc.) the s(ss) often occurring before consonants instead of § (e.g.: schestas „sixth“, aukstas „high“, ischreiske „expressed“, penukslas „penukšlas- “) is not purely a matter of orthography, but also reflects the pronunciation of the words in the different cases mentioned. š (p. 99—100). Many Lithuanian language researchers were and are still interested in the singular noun ending -ai (e.g., vaikai „child“) of the Debeikių schnekta a(6d) root of the Eastern Highlands. On its origin there are different opinions. Chr. Stangas puts forward a new idea: since the unpronounced diphthong wo becomes a in the aforementioned speech, the singular noun ending -ai he considers to have originated from the old Lithuanian-Latvian triftongic ending of this vowel *-uoi (p. 70). However, the ending -ai, whose first syllable is actually somewhat reduced (= a), according to the phonetic laws of the schnekt may also have come from -ui, cf. the plural noun of this schnekt vi'rai, „vyrai“ and the singular noun vi'rai „man“, the singular pronoun fufgai< turguj(e- )“. Chr. Stangas also disagrees with the prevailing opinion that the Lithuanian plural locative forms with -uose are made from the plural final forms and the postposition *en. This is not true, as the forms with -uosu have already existed before. In addition to the above mentioned forms, there are also the plural forms of the singular locus and the plural locus with -uose. The element wo of the older plural locative forms with -uosu is taken from the plural iliative forms with -uosna (p. 186—187). One more critical remark can be made regarding the authenticity of the individual Lithuanian language data presented in the thesis, their interpretation and localization. For example, next to the singular genitive ending -aus (sinaiis) of the root u, it is indicated (p. 214) and the ending -ūs (sons), which can be found in the description of the Buivydžiai šnektas published by the French linguist R. Gotjo“. However, dialectological studies of recent years have not confirmed the ending -ūs in either Buivydžiai or other Lithuanian dialects. It is probably that R. Gotjo has written it inaccurately instead of the vaguely pronounced ending -aus’ in the Buivydžiai dialect. 5 See. Z. Zinkevičius, Lithuanian dialectology, Vilnius, 1966, p. 95—96. * R. Gauthiot, Le parler de Buividze, Paris, 1903, § 44.? See. Zinkevičius, op. cit., p. 92. 192 Based on the map of Lithuanian dialects compiled by A. Salis?, the author of the grammar does not indicate the distribution of certain dialectal phenomena quite accurately. For example, among other inhabited places, where instead of the pronounced non-vowels a, e are pronounced o (2), é(¢), Alanta, Giedraičiai are also mentioned (p. 25). In fact, the a, lines mentioned in these places remain unchanged. Also remain intact are the strong initial diphthongs am, an, em, en in the area of Smilgiai (grammar indicates that they turn om, em, p. 85 —86). The singular noun form zmudgyn (correction error instead of Zmuégyn- ), quoted from K. Būga’s writings, is marked Kvėdarna (p. 85). In fact, K. Būga indicates that the singular beneficiary of Varniai Žemaičiai žmudgyn corresponds to the ka Kvėdarna žmuegū, Alsėdžiai, Rietavo, Salantų Zmudgou®. Since in the work after the tilde sign (~) is usually given the dialectal form transposed into literary language, the Žemaičių singular noun forms gallou 140, lėngėu 169, ark ’pu, vakéu 170 should be transposed not galui, langui, drkliui, vaikui, but gūluo, ldnguo, drkliuo, vaikuo. In individual cases, without a more important reason or appropriate note, dialect forms are used instead of literary Lithuanian, e.g.: opsris 9 (literary language = opsris); born 7 (=born), swan 8 (=gulbé), kidney 109, 112 (=kidney), letter 8, 63 (=disc), fly 97 (=ours). The reader can sometimes be a bit confusing ir iš non-uniform transcription of various dialectological examples taken in the work (examples are usually given in the transcription of the source). There are obvious ir proofreading errors that could not be mentioned. However, some of them can nė confuse those who are less familiar with the individual Baltic languages, so we will list the more important ones: dzuole 298 (=dZuole), goddess 3 ( = god), head 141 (= head), cramps 192 (=krastélin), kriduse 204 (=crib), messed up 61 (=bleed), float 110, 360 (=fibre), says 169 (=says), beast, 193 ( = beast, beast, beast 91 (=the beast). Correctair ble forms of some real names, such as place names: Alantu 25 (= Alanta), Anyksčiai 181 (= Anykščiai), Dieveniskis 478, Dieveniškis 479 (= Dieveniškės), Dubiniai 104 (= Dubingiai- ), Gervéciai 70 (= Gervėčiai), Mosedis 207 (= Mosėdis), Musininkai 86 (= Musninkai), Oniškis 99 (= Onuškis), Pagarai 86 ( = Pagriai), Pagramančių 160 (= Pagramančio), Panevėžys 85, 86, 125 (= Panevėžys), Pasilé 227 (= Pašilė), Svedasai 207, 302 (= Svėdasai- ), Svėkšna 471 (= Švėkšna), Svenčionėliai 188 (= Švenčionėliai), Svenčionys 433 (= Švenčionys), Sirvintai 4, Širvintas 170 (= Širvintos), Veivirženai 194 (= Veiviržėnai), Vendžiogala 170 (= Vandžiogala); The following personal names were found: Algimant 4 (= Algimantas), Daukža 231 (= Daukša), Grynaveckis 139 (=Grinaveckis), Mikolauskaitė 168, 169, 478 (= Mikalauskaitė), Otrebski 207, 212 (= Otrebski- ), Illoamueune 5 (= Toemusuns). In addition, the Lithuanian equivalent of the 14th-century Russian form Munuzaunas should be Minigaila, not Minigailas 6, cf. "Illuminati" 5. Also, the Prussian personal name Minnegayle has a more accurate Lithuanian equivalent Min(i)gaila, not Mangaila 4. One after another minor į inaccuracies that ir have remained in the grammar for various reasons do nė not diminish the scientific significance of this ir extremely carefully methodically carried out, long-term study work of the author. * Archivum Philologicum, 4, Kaunas, Lithuania 1933, ?* See. K. Bouga, Selected Writings, III, Vilnius, 1961, p. 376. 13. Relations between Baltic and Slavic languages 193 In the preface of the grammar, the modest words of the founder of Lithuanian writing, M. Mažvydas, are addressed to the reader:,,- mana darba usz gier prymkiet- “. There is no doubt that this wish of the famous Norwegian scholar and Baltist will come true. From every page of the book the reader feels with great gratitude to the author that,,Comparative Grammar of Baltic Languages“ is a significant and capital contribution to contemporary Baltic and Indo-European studies. ; K. Morkūnas NAUJA LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GRAMATIKA A. Senn, Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, Bd. I: Grammatik, Heidelberg, 1966. For a long time, generations of foreign linguists studied Lithuanian from the textbook prepared by A. Leskynas, consisting of chrestomacy, short grammar and Zodyn. Almost fifty years have passed since its appearance (1919). During this time not only the spelling of the Lithuanian language changed considerably, but also the use of some forms, fictional and scientific literature grew incomparably, and many phonetic, morphological and syntactic issues were thoroughly studied. The preparation of a new, comprehensive Lithuanian language manual became necessary. This work was undertaken by the Swiss linguist A. Zen (Senn). In 1957 he published the second part of the “Lietuviy kalbos vadovėlis- ”, which consists of texts selected and translated from the works of various Lithuanian writers with commentaries and a Lithuanian-German-English dictionary. In 1966, the first and most important part of this textbook appeared – the Lithuanian language grammar. This is a huge A 495-page work that describes in detail the phonetics, morphology and use of many grammatical forms of the contemporary Lithuanian language. The author of this grammar, Professor A. Zenas of the University of Pennsylvania, is well known to Lithuanian linguists. It is one of the five volumes of the recently completed “Dictionary of Lithuanian Written Language” in Heidelberg? and the only one who has been working on this dictionary since the beginning of its publication. He has been interested in Lithuanian for a long time, has lived in Lithuania, taught phonetics and other subjects of linguistics at Kaunas University. In 1929, he wrote,,Trumpa lietuvių kalbos va dovelį“* for foreigners wishing to learn Lithuanian. The relations with Lithuania were not broken by Zenas afterwards. He has written many articles and other works on Lithuanian studies, Baltic studies and comparative linguistics in general, and recently he has been actively involved in solving the problem of the oldest relations between the Balts, Slavs and Germans. His new work summarizes the results of many years of Lithuanian studies. y | Grammar consists of ten parts. The very first — introductory — part is extensive and rich in content, in which, after a brief overview of the history of the Lithuanian nation, the place of the Lithuanian language among the Baltic languages and its relations with other related languages are discussed. Here the author briefly presents his concept on the question of the oldest relations of the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages. It is believed that at the end of the Indo-European period, the Balts. Slavic and Germanic ancestors in close contact with each other, appeared'- A. Senn, Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, II, Heidelberg, 1957. * M. Niedermann, A. Senn, F. Brender, A. Salys, Dictionary of Lithuanian Written Language, Lithuanian-German, I—V, Heidelberg, 1934—1967. * A. Senn, Little Lithuanian Linguistics, Heidelberg, 1929. 194