Akademinei dabartinės latvių literatūrinės kalbos gramatikai pasirodžius

lensteine (Bielenstein) ir another to Latvian grammar of the time'. The situation has changed in recent decades. 1922 m. in the history of Latvian grammar emerges such a peak that we ne are still soon to reach, as January Endzelyno ‘Latvian Grammatik“, 1938 m. is to published the author’s own,,Latvian un language spelling forms“. 1951 m. maximum J. Having published su Endzelyno grammar with additions in Latvian, the Latvians have now ir received the first volume® of the academic grammar of the current literary language. | The appearance of this — volume is several years Latvian TSR Academies of Sciences The result ir of the hard work of the Grammar Sector of the Institute of Language and Literature. Authors of the activity: A. Ahero, A. Bergmane, A. Blinkena, R. Grabis, M. Lepika, R. Melbikse, A. Mikelsone, T. Puoryte, M. Saule-Sleine. The editorial board: A. Bergmanė, R. Grabis, Lepika, M. Sokolas E. (editor). The greatest burden in writing this grammar fell on the deserving Latvian For a cultural figure of the TSR R. Grabiui, who wrote only individual ne chapters, edited but led the entire process of ir preparing the grammar. The manuscript of the grammar was completed already 1956 m. Tų in the autumn of this year there was a discussion of this manuscript, be Latvian TSR Scientific Academies In addition ir to the staff of the Institute of Language and Literature, lecturers, teachers, journalists ir and other representatives of society participated. Some Lithuanian and Estonian ar linguists participated directly and indirectly in ir the discussion of the manuscript. In the discussion of the grammar manuscript, a number of controversial questions and unresolved problems were raised. Among other things, the question of the Latvian spelling reform was raised ir very sharply. Writing reform, difficult editing work some other obstacles ir somewhat delayed the graThis is the first time that a grammar of the current Latvian literary language has been published in such a volume. It is the ne first of its kind in Latvian, but in the Baltic languages ir in general. The notion of contemporary language in this grammar includes not ne only the literary language of Latvia of the last decades, but the whole period of literary language development from the In the last decades of the 19th century (when examining the manuscript of the grammar, some, e.g., prof. J. Loja, suggested to šį begin the period of the mid-nineteenth century) to our days. The grammar is based on extremely rich factual linguistic material from the — works of the best Latvian writers, starting with the brothers R. ir M. Kaudzyčiais, Apsyšu Jekabu, Rudolfu Blaumanis ir to the masters of Soviet Latvian literature. It is used in folklore, ir scientific prose, periodicals. Since grammar is normative in nature, dialectal phenomena are touched little, usually only in those cases when they are directly related to individual dialects. su 1 For the characteristics of Latvian grammar, see plg. R. Grūbis, Pūrskats par 17. gadsimta latviešu valodas gramatikām. — Institute un of Language and Literature 5, 205 — — 266, Rigu, 1955; R. Grisle, 17. centuries of kū grammar as a source of the history of — the Latvian un language, Valodas literatūras institūta Raksti, 7, 245—255, Rigu, 1958; R. Grisle, Réhehiezen- 's grammar un versus the to verified Einhorn's article. — A collection of writings, a tribute to academic professor dr. Janim Andzelinam vipa dzives 85 un 65 to commemorate the years of work, 479 —526, Rigā, J. 1959; Endzelins, Grammar of the Latvian 22—23, language, Riga, 1951; J. Endzelins, Introduction to White Philosophy, 67 —68, Rigd, 1945; A. Bielenstein, The Latvian Language, 1, 20 —28, Berlin, 1863; J. Niedre, Latviešu literatūra, 1, 76—78, Riga, 1952. 2 Grammar, phonetics and morphology of modern 1, Latvian un literdirds, Latvian PSR Zindtgu Academician Rigveda, the literary 1959, 830 psl. 326 language of the Vedic world. A rather difficult task for the authors of grammar was the historical treatment of phenomena. It is hardly possible to write a comprehensive grammar of the present Latvian language without any elements of historicism. The authors of this grammar did not avoid historicism either. Historicism, however, is not a kind of dissonance to the phenomena of contemporary language, but, on the contrary, helps to better understand these phenomena. With this historicism are inextricably connected elements of Lithuanian language, which help to shed light on individual facts of Latvian language. On this occasion, it should be noted that elements of the Lithuanian language, the issues of the relationship between Latvian and Lithuanian languages are found in many of the earlier Latvian grammar, and some of the earlier Latvian grammar authors’ reasonings about the relationship between Lithuanian and Latvian languages are extremely interesting. ir be ir jų Here we go. In the 18th century, Gotthard Friedrich Stender wrote in his grammar: ,,The Latvian Language is a Sister of the Lithuanian. I am not referring merely to the Similarity of their Designation by Lithuania, as the Litthauer ihr Name the country, and Latwi, as the Latvians call, quite similar, but mainly on the Matching Languages... Beyde Languages, both the Latvian as the Lithuanian, are Votes from the Slavonic”®- O Christoph Harder, adding G. F. Stender's grammar, even more interesting “explains” šį the question: ,,After this Hypothesis lieble now also well erklūren, as the Lithuanian Language one Sister of the Latvian seyn can. Just like the Letten originally a Russian tribe were, so were those Littauer an powlnisches Volk. Even now, the Russian and Polish language very related: probably those in Times even more. Assuming now that there is some Tribe of the Teutschen Volks here as colony niederliel, so is es ja a small, even further to assume, dal these Colony not only the Ufer der Baltic wo Sea, the Latvians live, remained, but also deeper into the Land den zu Littauern gone sey. Wo they then their language mixed with the Russian, the Latvian emerged da language; but wo when they mixed them with the Polish one, the Lithuanian one arose”“*. da A. Bylenstein, who gave an overview of Latvian grammar in his grammar, points out as a shortcoming of these grammar that the authors did jų not compare the facts of Latvian language with the facts of su Lithuanian ir Slavic languages (,,...the fertile Comparison with the Lithuanian and Slavic usually completely undermined“*- ). Pacio A. Bylenstein- 's grammar, of course, cannot accept this bo 3 Latvian grammar, written by Gotthard Friedrich Stender..., Double bed 2nd edition... 9—10, Mitau, 1783. (Latvian is the sister language of Lithuanian. Aš I rely only ne on the similarity of the name, that Litva, as Lithuanians call their country, and Latvi, as Latvians ir call themselves, sound quite similar, but the most important thing is that the two languages... Both languages, both Both Estonian ir and Lithuanian are descendants of Slavic languages.) t Notes and notes Zusūzze zu of the Latvian Grammar of the Herrn Propst Stender, von Christoph Harder, Second and Multiple Ausgabe, 10—11, Mitau, 1809. (How can Lithuanian be the sister language of Latvian, according to this hypothesis, can be explained ir as follows. Just as the iš Latvians were originally of Russian origin, so the Lithuanians were a Polish nation. Even now, ir Russian and Polish are ir very closely related: in those days they were probably even closer. Assuming that some origin of the German nation settled here as a colony, it is easy to assume that the colony ši remained only ne On the Baltic Sea coast, where Latvians live, but deeper the Lithuanian ir land į advanced. Where they mixed their language su with Russian, there appeared Latvian, where o Polish su there — appeared Lithuanian.) 5 A. Bielenstein, The Latvian Language, 1, 28, Berlin, 1863. 327 On page 44, when speaking about the use of the narrow e, č, the wording is not entirely accurate: „+, vedu (no senūka vežu), metu (no sendka mešu) u. c.“ The reader can understand that lat. vedu < vefu, i.e., du < Zu, etc. On page 106, when examining nouns with the suffix -emis, the word kermenis is also mentioned, explaining that it is a loan from the ancient Prussian language (kermens). The reader, who is not familiar with the history of the Latvian language, may think that the Latvians received this word from the Prussians, while it was introduced into the Latvian language by Atis Kronvalds (1837— several centuries after the extinction of the Prussian language. On page 424 it is stated that the word (basic word) from which the adjective pilns originated has disappeared, and on page 155 it is written: „funtuvis (blakus verbam pilt or nozimi „klūt pilnam“)“. 1875), po Therefore, the connection between ir the words full and pilt is not clear. In Lithuanian, all should be spelled all, not all (p. 531), and in ancient Lithuanian, vissa (p. 531) should be spelled wissa. It is necessary to write visi} geridusias, visij—geridusias ne psl. ). (465 In the opinion of J. Endzelynas®, the Latin jd-, which is used to form the necessary noun (vajadzibas expression), is probably (for now!) the old general form of the genitive and ablative of the pronoun jo-kaminio, and not of the genitive and dative, as indicated in grammar p. ). (615 On page 704, perhaps too boldly, it is stated that the adverb yesterday originated from the singular locative®. It is also unclear why several editions are cited in the text of some literary monuments, for example: Kaudz. 1 —Mžčrnieku laiki, Riga, 1913; Kaudz. 2 —Mžčrnieku laiki, Rigd, 1949; Kaudz. 3 —Mérnieku laiki, Rigd, 1954 or V. L. 3 —Zvejnieka déls, Riga, 1947; V. L. 12 —Zvejnicka déls, Riga, 1956, etc. Still, one edition should be the most authentic and should be cited. Latvian language specialists, who have received the new grammar with great interest, will undoubtedly examine it carefully, point out the good sides, point out the shortcomings, find inaccuracies, but already jį now it can be said that the aforementioned work is a very significant page in the history of Latvian grammar, and the modest authors of this grammar, who signed only petitu and not on the title page, deserve a very positive appreciation. 8 J. Endzelins, Grammar of the Latvian language, 886, Riga, 1951. * E.g., K. Būga, Selected Writings, compiled by Z. Zinkevičius, 2, 183, Vilnius, 1959; K. Ulvydas, Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics, 2, 82, Vilnius, 1959,