Pirmosios lietuviškos knygos tarmė

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, I LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA DIALECT OF THE FIRST LITHUANIAN BOOK J. SENKUS I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 1. Current hypotheses and studies of the dialect of Mažvydas’s Catechism It has long been recognized that the linguistic basis of the Catechism1 is the Samogitian dialect. A. Schleicher (see [1] XI) assigned the Catechism to the Klaipėda dialect (cf. [2] 45). This theory was accepted and acknowledged for a long time. In 1922, the editor of the edition of Mažvydas’s writings rejected this theory, saying: “in fact, for the time being, we can only conclude this much about his dialect: that it is Samogitian. We are not yet able to define its boundaries more precisely” ([1] XI). K. Būga ([3] LVII and 6) considers the dialect of the Catechism and its translator, Mažvydas, to be the northwestern Samogitian dialect. But neither one nor the other substantiates his claims more clearly or extensively, nor undertakes to justify or prove them. Nor do other Lithuanian linguists do or undertake to do so. For example, A. Salys, noting that some Samogitians preserve the diphthongs am, an, em, en intact, merely remarks that “Mažvydas, too, writes an, am and en, em, and has therefore preserved them intact. But he is probably also from the southern corner of Samogitia by origin” ([4] 15). This is addressed by the Norwegian scholar Ch. Stang in his work “Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas.” Having examined the language of the Catechism, Ch. Stang, although not entirely convincingly refuting A. Schleicher’s arguments, arrives at the following conclusions (see [5] § 340): 1. Mažvydas was a Samogitian from Lithuania Major. 2. The entire linguistic basis of his work is the northwestern or central Samogitian dialect. 3. The dialect of the Catechism is not purely Samogitian, but Samogitian with Highland Lithuanian elements. Nevertheless, Mažvydas’s language is not a jumbled mixture of Samogitian and Highland Lithuanian dialects, but a Samogitian dialect modified only by Highland Lithuanian features. Thus, alongside the normal (Samogitian) forms, Highland Lithuanian features also occur. 2. Changes in the Lithuanian language and the extent of the Samogitian dialect According to data from the historical grammar of Lithuanian, the ancient Lithuanians still pronounced and declined the word medį approximately 500 years ago as follows: *medjai, *medjuon, *medjamus, *medjuons, *medjais, *medjuonsen. So too did 1 This refers to M. Mažvydas’s translation, Catechismusa prasty szadei...., Karaliavczvi, 1547. 67 declined jautì and other words. From the examples we see that in ancient Lithuanian declension and pronunciation, the sound sequences dž, tj were used in place of modern dž, č. Later, in forms where an ancient short a, or one that had already shortened by that time, followed these tj, dj (except in the diphthong au), it began to be pronounced as e in northwestern Lithuania; j, which arose before e, was required by the law of historical Lithuanian phonetics to disappear (see [6] § 88 and [5] § 28); thus tja, dja > tje, dje > te, de. In this way, in place of ancient Lithuanian *medjai, *medjamus, *medjais, people here began to say: medei, medem(u)s, medeis. The part of northwestern Lithuania that began speaking this way had long been called Samogitia, while the southeastern part was called Aukštaitija. This sound change, which shaped Lithuanian into the Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects, is today called by Stang (see [5] § 28) the “Samogitian sound law.” It arose in the 15th century. In 14th-century documents and chronicles we find place names (see [7] 23 ff.) written with t, d, for example: Gederaiten (Giedraičiai), Wandeiagel (Vandžiogala). The very names Aukštaičių ir Žemaičių are likewise written with t in those sources. Documents from the late 14th century already contain place names written this way: Saltzeniken, Salsemiken (Šalčininkai), Salse (Šalčia—the name of a stream south of Vilnius), Anse (Ančia—the Black and White [rivers], tributaries of the Nemunas). But the Samogitian Ančia is recorded in the same sources and at the same time as Ante. Thus, it follows that the Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects arose in the late 14th or early 15th century—just before the printing of the first book in the Lithuanian language. In earlier times, the area of the Samogitian language (dialect) was larger than it is today: the historical boundary between Samogitian and Aukštaitian ran along the Nevėžis. Today, the quadrangle of northwestern Lithuanian SSR between Darbenai, Vegeriai, Raseiniai and Žemaičių Naumiestis is considered Samogitian. By the Samogitian sound law, the triangle between Šilutė, Sartininkai and Labguva is also considered Samogitian—and here, too, people say mėdei, jáutei… Moreover, the plural locative is also pronounced in Samogitian here—lauku’s ~ laukuse (‘in the fields’)—and i, u > ė, o (except in the fishermen’s dialect), but the singular dative is pronounced in the Aukštaitian manner—vi’roj, sū’noj ~ vyrui, sūnui (‘to the man, to the son’). Thus, this is a transitional Samogitian-Aukštaitian dialect. 3. Development and main features of the Samogitian dialect The boundary of the Samogitian sound law (t, d: č, dž) and of the differing pronunciations of the diphthongs ie, uo almost coincides, except for the triangle mentioned above. Today, the differing pronunciations of ie, uo not only allow us to distinguish Samogitians from Aukštaitians, but also to divide Samogitians into three subdialects—whereas in Aukštaitian, the diphthongs uo, ie had already existed by that time, in Samogitian they were pronounced in three different ways: Aukštaitian uo: Samogitian 1. ọˑ — dọˑna 2. uˑ — duˑna 3. ọu — dọuna ~ duona Aukštaitian ie: Samogitian 1. ẹˑ — pẹˑns 2. iˑ — piˑns 3. ẹi — pẹins ~ pienas 68 According to this different pronunciation of duona (“bread”), the three Samogitian subdialects are called donininkai, dūnininkai, and dounininkai; and after the principal towns associated with them—Klaipėda, Raseiniai, and Telšiai—we can call them Klaipėda, Raseiniai, and Telšiai speakers. An oblique line Upyna—Tverai—Judrėnai separates the Telšiai speakers from the Raseiniai speakers. The Klaipėda speakers occupy the coastal area from Kretinga to Šilutė. It is supposed that the Klaipėda speakers’ e°, o° (de'na, do'na) are the old pronunciation sounds of all Lithuanians, from which the Aukštaitian ie, uo and the Samogitian forms of the dūnininkai and dounininkai later arose (cf. the Latin vernacular form novo, Italian nuovo, French nouveau). It is therefore thought that “Jaunius, apparently on phonetic grounds alone, maintained that the Klaipėda speakers’ de'na and do'na were the proto-forms of other Samogitian forms: deina, di'na and douma, du'na. In fact, place names preserved in sixteenth-century Ruthenian documents of our state show that at that time the Samogitians must still have pronounced e, o. Among the place names belonging to the dounininkai area I have been unable to find any traces of ei, ou. The documents usually write e, o, and in the dūnininkai area occasionally u, y. This shows that the change e°, o° > i°, u° had already begun here” ([7] 26). In conclusion, we could briefly illustrate this presumed sound change as follows. Old Lithuanian ē, ō > → Aukštaitian ie, uo → Samogitian e°, o° → Klaipėda e°, o° → Raseiniai i°, u° → Telšiai ei, ou According to the place-name forms in old documents, it follows that the Samogitians’ three present-day subdialects emerged between the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth—after 1547, after Mažvydas. II. DIALECTAL FEATURES OF MAŽVYDAS’S CATECHISM 1. Phonetics a) Vowels and diphthongs ė The narrow ė (derived from *ē) is pronounced ie by the Samogitians (except in some places around Priekulė) and, formerly, in places in East Prussia (e.g., around Tilžė and elsewhere). For example, Telšiai Samogitian: t’ėlęs ~ “father,” tepied,āms ~ “while sitting” ([8] 11); Raseiniai Samogitian: t’ėlęs ~ “father” ([8] 17), tupiedams ([9] 88); fishermen: tieps ~ “father” ([10] 61), tupiedams ([10] 62). (For the same kind of change in other languages, cf. the Latin vernacular form cēlo, Italian cielo, French ciel). It is difficult to say exactly when this change began in Lithuanian. In the Catechism, in place of the ė of present-day standard language, e is generally written, and sometimes ie. After k, g, ie is always written, but here i may be a sign of palatalization. The diphthong ie is written instead of ė in the following examples from the Catechism (see [1] and cf. [5] § 26): 1) in the middle of a word: cziesa (44, 2°; 54, 17; 69, 2), cziesi (57, 24), drebieghimu (36, 18/19), kieliese (21, 16), miliekiet (33, 11), milieia (33, 12), 2 The first number indicates the page of the Catechism, the second the line. 69 milieti (33, 19), niekakiui (35, 7), riedik (59, 1), sątiewąnems (33, 7/8), stawieti (12, 2), Tiewa (24, 11; 41, 2; 59, 8), Tiewai (35, 11), Tiewe (45, 2 and 6; 48, 19; 54, 2), Tiews (65, 13), Tiewu (35, 8; 45, 15), turieti (37, 2), turietu (37, 21); 2) in the secondary word ending: miliek (38, 21; 58, 7), naktie (78, 5) ~ naktė(je), padiek (66, 24), pawizdiek (79, 5), rustibien (35, 11), szirdė (34, 20) ~ širdė(je), traiczie (45, 16), turiet (59, 6). That only softness is marked here would be difficult to believe—the sound corresponding to ą is much more frequent here than the old short ė (*ė). It is likewise difficult to say how the old ē (long) was pronounced here. The more frequent spelling e rather than ie may also not be an entirely reliable phonetic indication. The present-day Samogitian pronunciation ie (with an i that is not quite distinct), corresponding to the Aukštaitian ē—dėt ~ dėl, tóp ied,á’ms ~ tupėdamas ([8] 15)—allows us to infer, at least in part, that the Catechism’s authors also spoke and pronounced it this way. o Instead of ūk o, the Catechism writes a, and less often o. We can only guess how it was pronounced. Today the eastern Aukštaitians pronounce ā, and in some places ā (ā with an admixture and coloring of o, as well as pure ā). Among the western Aukštaitians, too, where o is pronounced today, ā was used in ancient times, and later å was pronounced. Today, besides the easterners, å is also found in some Klaipėda Samogitian dialects, for example: rāpe ~ ropė. In addition, in the Klaipėda region closer to Priekulė, o is still used today; all the other Samogitians have uo or uo in the middle of a word in place of the old ā and the o of the written language: muōtīnas ([8] 11) ~ motinos, muót, í’nas ([8] 17), nuórᵒ ([8] 10) ~ noru, nuórᵒ ([8] 17) ~ noru (noriu). The sequence of changes is as follows: ā > å > ō > uo. The fishermen of East Prussia diphthongize differently—they turn it into oᵤ (with an indistinct u after o): šóuku ~ šoku, póunai ~ ponai ([10] 12). At the time our first book was published, the second stage of the change was apparently present in the Lithuanian language, more precisely in the dialect of the Catechism’s author, since alongside words most often written with a (e.g., bralėi (8, 4), szadei (17, 2), szmaniu (17, 3) ~ žmonių, paczias (8, 2) ~ pačios), quite a few occur with o as well. No spellings with uo occur at all; apparently it emerged in Samogitia much later. The spelling o occurs only in the examples given below (see [1] and cf. [5] § 22). 1) In the middle of a word: altoriaus (28, 10), bilodams (26, 7), dony (32, 18, twice), klausitoius (36, 16), malonei (54, 10), malones (58, 12), mokik (67, 1), mokslas (13, 1), nota, notas (68, 2 and 4; 72, 4), Ponas (30, 19), raschose (13, 14), roda (10, 11), Rosza (73, 7) ~ rožė, skaitose (13, 14), schlowinni (58, 24), szodzia (30, 17). 2) In the secondary (later-developed) ending: baszniczio (11, 6) ~ bažnyčio(je), iog (9, 9) ~ jogei, losko (63, 3), makitos (16, 17), saugok (57, 5), walio (12, 12), zwenok (31, 3). In all (according to Stangas’s count), there are 25 occurrences with o alongside 610 occurrences with a, i.e. nearly 4%. Stangas considers this small percentage to be merely a sporadic element occurring by chance from the Aukštaitians (probably the western Aukštaitians—J. S.) 70 dialects. Or another conjecture is also possible: in the author’s (Samogitian) dialect of the Catechism, the ancient ā was pronounced å at that time; since pronunciation fluctuated, it is clear that occasional variation and inconsistency could also occur in writing. Here we should also mention and include the primary absolute unstressed ending and the syllable of the stressed ending in which s follows ã (with the circumflex accent; ã with the acute accent had already been shortened according to F. de Saussure—Fortunatov’s law); e.g.: szadėia (51, 17), szito (8, 6), dėl tawa (53, 25), nog amsžinas (55, 11), išz Marias mergas (21, 10), tos (9, 21). The picture is clearly different in the absolute stressed ending. According to Stang, of the 115 such endings in the Catechism, 40 are written with o instead of ã (long a with the circumflex accent), i.e. 34.80%. E.g.: Bo ant to (11, 20), taipo, kaipo (24, 7), ano (25, 17); ant ta (44, 1), ia (48, 2, 9), kaipa (54, 2). In the first part of the Catechism, o is more frequent; in the second, a. Here we have pronouns or particles; in such cases there is generally the least influence from other dialects (and the fewest spelling errors), so here, one may suppose, pronunciation fluctuated distinctly—the pronunciation of a true intermediate sound between a and o. From all this we may conclude that alongside ancient ã, o also occurs in the Catechism. This is due less to the influence of another dialect or spelling errors than to the author’s own dialect. This dialectal feature began in Samogitia 400 years ago, and traces of it still remain in the Klaipėda region. The old ã and the transitional stage å still persist in today’s eastern dialects. It should also be added that the present-day Samogitian uo is entirely absent from the Catechism; consequently, it arose later in Samogitia (from o). e, u In today’s Samogitian dialects, unstressed short e in the middle of a word is pronounced narrowly, e.g., in the dounininkai dialect: pėimėni ~ piemenį, oudėga ~ uodega. It remains unclear how it was pronounced at the time the Catechism appeared and in its author’s dialect. In the Catechism, unstressed e in the middle of a word and in secondary endings is always written e: neprietelius (52, 13; 58, 7), senigi (37, 13), atmen (10, 26). Whether this e in the Catechism reflects an Aukštaitian feature, or whether e in Samogitian later narrowed, is difficult to say. In some parts of Samogitia today, ancient short Lithuanian i is pronounced openly—as e: kėts, pėrms ~ kitas pirmas. We cannot determine from the Catechism how it was pronounced 400 years ago. Owing to a spelling error, it is sometimes not distinguished from y. In many places, short i alternates with e in the Catechism, e.g.: preimtumbet (39, 15), miletumbetese (32, 22). This would nevertheless suggest some phonetic connection here with present-day Samogitian pronunciation. In some parts of Samogitia, Aukštaitian short u is pronounced ọ: bộva ~ buvo, bu·tộmet ~ būtumėte. We find no trace of this change in the Catechism—either it had not yet occurred in Samogitia at that time, or it simply was not marked; the forms are written: apturim (53, 20), žmagus (17, 8). 71 ie Instead of the Aukštaitian ie, the Catechism usually writes e: ischletas (27, 3), letu-wynika (11, 26), wzenas (10, 1). It is unclear how it was actually pronounced. It is also often written with ie and i. The spelling ie is, of course, Aukštaitian. But here we must also distinguish words pronounced with ie by both Aukštaitians and Samogitians. These too are written with ie in the Catechism (cf. [5] 53). They include: 1. Slavic loanwords (wiera), 2. words with nie- (niekakiu 35, 7), and 3. dievas. In these cases they are often also written with e: dewas (9, 25), Dewa (8, 18), greschnas (49, 3), greku (58, 11). Sometimes an Aukštaitian feature also occurs in the Catechism where e is usually written. There are about 65 clear Aukštaitian features of this type (ie). Taken as a whole, that is not many. Thus, these features do not support the view that the author and translator of the Catechism was an Aukštaitian. On the contrary, even where ie is not used, we find several typical Samogitian features. The form prisch corresponds to the Samogitian priš; Aukštaitian has prieš. Prisch is used 14 times, while priesch occurs only once. The Aukštaitian mielas is written milas in the Catechism, corresponding to Samogitian mi·ls. The dative plural form -im(u)s of Samogitian adjectives and pronouns occurs 21 times, alongside five Aukštaitian forms in -iem(u)s, -em(u)s. Examples: Artimims (52, 3), darantimus (32, 2), gailintims (65, 12), Liantinnims (62, 10), sweikims (77, 3), tims (28, 1), wiresnims (32, 12). This is a purely Samogitian dative plural form—it is used nowhere outside Samogitian. The spellings temus (20, 14), tiemus (25, 4), as mentioned, are Aukštaitian features. But they are not as frequent as diena (9, 5; 12, 13; 19, 2, etc.), which, apparently as an everyday word, spreads more readily with foreign phonetics. Nearly all the other Aukštaitian features are isolated. The masculine plural nominative of pronominal adjectives in -igi (= -iji) can be explained only on the basis of the Samogitian dialect: the older Samogitian e before j is assimilated and becomes i: wysagalintigi (21, 3), senigi (37, 13). It is sometimes also written with e: schitegi (28, 5). Silvarta is likewise a Samogitian form. Thus, the use of i in all these forms, corresponding to Aukštaitian ie, is an important Samogitian feature of the Catechism. No Aukštaitian dialect has i in these cases. uo Instead of Aukštaitian uo, the Catechism usually writes o, except in cases where there is the ū sound common to all Samogitians. But it is likewise unclear how it (o) was pronounced. For example: Dona (23, 11), doty (9, 21), ischdotas (26, 4), schwentosius (20, 19), wando (24, 5). Aukštaitian uo is not found here at all. But, as already noted, in this case one should not expect to find the phonetics of the Dūnininkai or Dounininkai dialects. Limiting the use of uo and comparing it with Aukštaitian forms, we will also find here several features typical of all Samogitians. The locative plural of a-stem nouns in -usu is Samogitian (the modern form in all Samogitian dialects is -ūse, -ūs(e)): hukiusu (8, 15), Metusu (79, 22), wargusu (54, 22), etc.; the exception is the Aukštaitian feature Visosu daiktosu (8, 21). The masculine accusative plural in -usius is also Samogitian: schaukien-cziusius (50, 10), and occurs alongside only five examples in -osius (Aukštaitian -uosius). 72 Girtukle (29, 14), girtukles (30, 5) are comparable with Daukantas and Valančius’s girtūklis, the Dounininkai gęrtūklis ~ girtūklis (girtuoklis), and the Dūnininkai girtūklis ~ girtūklis (cf. [9] § 74, 12). ai, ei In Samogitia and East Prussia, these diphthongs tend to be monophthongized: mamāˑtė ([8] 17) ~ mamaite, āˑtė ([8] 15) ~ eiti. However, the diphthongs are written throughout the Catechism. The occurrences papekti (67, 12), neaplestumbi (79, 14) should be regarded as typographical errors (cf. [5] § 35). It is assumed that this monophthongization began to appear in Lithuanian dialects in later times. b) The Samogitian sound law This law also needs to be discussed here in greater detail. Based on the dūnininkai dialect, the operation of this law may be described as follows: before the literary language’s word-final ia, iai (from ancient ā, āi after a palatalized consonant), iams, the Samogitian dialect has no affricates, except in nouns of the fourth declension (iu- stem): gaidē̇ ~ gaidžiai, jāu̇tė ~ jaučiai, gaidē̇ms ~ gaidžiams, grȧu̇.dė ~ graudžiai, āˑud, kęˑnt... (see [9] § 55); but rāˑtšių ~ rāčius, rāˑtšēˑ ~ račiai... ([9] § 91). The law is explained at greater length in the monograph “The Dialect of Lithuanian Fishermen in Prussia,” in terms of how far its operation is manifest there (in the Curonian Lagoon coastal area—between points somewhat south of Rusnė and Labguva) (see [10] 19 ff.): before the literary language’s ia, iai, d, t are retained: mėˑld ~ meldžia, kęˑnt ~ kenčia, žōˑudemus ~ žōdžiams, trēts ~ trēčias, jautēˑms ~ jaučiams, širdēi ~ širdžiai, grȧu̇.dei ~ graudžiai, gaidēi ~ gaidžiai, βōˑkietei ~ žōbėdžiai, sū jautēis ~ sū jaučiāš; conversely, before the literary language’s ią, iau, io, iu (iū), ių and before ia, which has shortened from an ancient long vowel, the affricates dž, tš are pronounced: sal.džē ~ saldžia, βaˑl.džē ~ valdžia, plāˑtše ~ plačia, māˑr.tše ~ marčia, gul.džā.u ~ guldžiau, saldžā.us ~ saldžiaus, matša.u ~ mačiau, saldžōˑus ~ saldžios, mēˑdžē ~ medžio, daˑn.gtsē ~ dangčio, kartšōˑus ~ karčios, gai.džū ~ gaidžiu, girdžū ~ girdžiu, kentšū ~ kenčiu, šir.džū ~ šir.džiu, βaˑltšū ~ valčių, βaldžē ~ valdžia (<*valdįā), deltšē ~ delčia (<*deltįā), sū širdžē ~ sū širdžia (<*širdįā), sū naktšē ~ sū nakčia (<*naktįā), didžēs ~ didžias (<*didįās), kartšēs ~ karčias (<*kartįās). (See [3] 1, LIX ff. and cf. [5] § 28.) According to this Samogitian sound law, the language and dialect of the 1547 Catechism are clearly Samogitian. The law is consistently preserved, with only a few Aukštaitian exceptions. For example: kientenczius (61, 4) ~ kenčiančius, pateme (30, 15) ~ pačiame, tretes (21, 8) ~ trečias, geidenczius (50, 11; 59, 3) ~ geidžiančius, schirde (43, 4) ~ širdžia, szadei (on the cover) ~ žodžiai, but: szadzia (12, 13) ~ žodžio, treczia (17, 15) ~ trečia, didziap (10, 7) ~ didžiop..., because at the time the Samogitian law arose, the ancient Lithuanian long a (ā) was still present here. The following also belongs to the same (Samogitian) law, namely after 73 palatalized consonants a > e. In this respect, too, the law is preserved. For example: didesneme (28, 15) ~ didesniame, tiesausesis (25, 22) ~ tiesiausiasis. There are only a few Aukštaitian exceptions to the Samogitian law, namely: gieidža (29, 9) ~ geidžia, treczas (19, 1) ~ trečias, patvaraianczias (30, 9, 10) ~ patvaro-jančios, krauias (76, 5) ~ kraujas, nenauias (29, 20) ~ nenaujas, walia (36, 22) ~ valia (singular instrumental). (See [5] § 28.) Having surveyed all the sounds, we shall see that, just as many individual sounds—not to mention the Samogitian sound law—and likewise the entire sound system are or may be Samogitian, together presenting a clear picture of a Samogitian sound system. Alongside these, there are quite a number of Aukštaitian features. For now, we shall be content with the most characteristic and important instances. Moreover, the word-medial position is generally considered here; the word ending is touched on only where it was virtually unavoidable (for example, when discussing o). c) Shortening of endings In dialects, phonetic changes in the beginning or middle of a word and in its ending are often different. Having reviewed the more important features of sounds in the middle of words in the Catechism, let us take a separate look at the endings. Today, word endings have changed most in northern and, in part, western Lithuania: short vowels almost always disappear, long vowels become short, and diphthongs become monophthongs. What happens to word endings in the Catechism? a The short, unstressed a of an absolute ending disappears: atmen (10, 26), dirb (31, 10), gier (12, 14) ~ gera, piln (53, 12) ~ pilna. This agrees with the present-day Samogitian pronunciation. The dropping of e (e < *jā), which arose according to the Samogitian sound law, also agrees with Samogitian pronunciation: gieid (29, 10) ~ geidžia, neapkient (20, 13) ~ neapkenčia; even an entire syllable is dropped (-je < *-jā): karaliau (63, 5) ~ karaliauja. Final a before s—that is, not at the very end of the word—often remains; according to Stang’s count, a is retained here about 160 times and lost 38 times. Examples of its loss are: deschuns (47, 11), gals (39, 16), ischganims (56, 22), Pans (44, 2), pilns (65, 10), stals (77, 7), welns (53, 10; 78, 9), and so on. This pronunciation is closest to that of the Samogitians and some Lithuanians in northern Lithuanian SSR and East Prussia. i In the 3rd person of first-conjugation verbs, final i in the Catechism almost always disappears: gal, mil, nar, tik, tur. In verbs with consonantal conjugation, final i sometimes disappears and sometimes does not, e.g.: est (28, 3; 30, 15, etc.), dost (71, 18), giest (63, 16, etc.), esti (17, 8, etc.), dosti (25, 4, etc.), serkti (70, 3). Thus, in the Catechism, final i has not yet disappeared completely in these cases, as it has already done in present-day Samogitia. A similar thing 74 we will observe this with į and in other instances as well. It should also be noted that in the imperative mood, and in some other contexts, į is generally retained in the Ten Commandments (that is, not in everyday speech)—ne tureki, Ne gimki, Ne užsmuschki, ne waky… It should also be noted that the į retained in the Catechism is of diverse origin and is pronounced differently in present-day dialects, while in the Catechism it alternates mostly with e: for example, singular locative: dąngugį (48, 1) and dąnguie (74, 22), dienagį (79, 23), izsguldimį (25, 7), stany (18, 8)…; galwoie (33, 10), kune (79, 10), szemeie (23, 10)… Apparently, pronunciation varied here between į and e, as it does in present-day Samogitian and other dialects, e.g., among the Raseiniai Samogitians påtēm,ę i.sėdėgem,ę ([8] 19) ~ in the very act of kindling. Almost the same can be said of the reflexive particle -si. In the non-final position, its vowel is pronounced openly (-se-) by some present-day Samogitians; in word-final position it has likewise become open, is barely audible, or has disappeared altogether: šokū'rọše ~ having created ([8] 19). In the Catechism, word endings most often have -se, though -si also occurs: kieliese (21, 16), makinase (30, 23), raschose (13, 4), skaitose (13, 14)…; dabaiesy (34, 15), stebisi (72, 7). In the Dzukija region and East Prussia, e (-se) is clear here. This suggests that the Catechism’s e (-se) may be not so much a dialectal feature as an archaism. ė Today, the unstressed final -ė in Samogitian, Western Northern Aukštaitian, and East Prussian dialects becomes -i or is shortened: dã·vi ([8] 18) ~ gave, pamã·te ([8] 11) ~ saw. In the Catechism, e is generally written here (as a shortened form): padare (9, 26), milaschirdigiste (20, 14). For ė in a secondary word ending, see above. The final o has also already been discussed. Without undertaking a separate explanation of the other final sounds, it is necessary to mention here at least the shortening of the locative forms. -je Today, locative forms are shortened and altered in most dialects. The same is true of the Catechism. For example: baszniczio (11, 6), diena (55, 10), wailo (12, 12), walia (67, 4), malane (47, 15), karaliste (63, 6), szeme (51, 8), dąngui (28, 22, and elsewhere), Karaliaučiu. These features of shortened endings are also found today in Samogitian, Western Northern Aukštaitian, and other dialects. 2. Morphology In morphology, the same picture emerges as in phonetics, although here the Aukštaitian element is more pronounced. Without undertaking here to examine all grammatical categories (some have already been touched on in the discussion of phonetics), we will take only examples of ia- and i-stem nouns and the pronoun tas ‘that’ (see Table 1). Declining them, we compare them with the declensions of Salantai (donininkai) and Pagramantis (dūnininkai). Alongside the forms from Pagramantis, which everywhere retain phonetic spelling, literary-language equivalents are given. 75 Table 1 Catechism 1 | Salantai 2 | Pagramantis 3 | Catechism 1 | Salantai 2 | Pagramantis 3 Nom. | szadīs, krātus | jāutis krātus | blēs~vēs<veias | dalīs | akēs | sirātis Gen. | szadžia | krātujā | blēde~vējo | matkes, nak~tis, ognis | akēs, ognis | sirātis~sirdies Dat. | jauczinū | krātujū | blējū~vējo | szirdij, iš mūnzei | akēi | szirdē~sirdžiai (sirdėj) Acc. | szadī, krāngī | jāutis, krāngī | blējin~vēji | ogni | ari | sirādī Instr. | szadīzū | krāngū | blējū~vēju | szirai, -e | akē | sirādū, m. Loc. | szadēgi, krāngē | jāutē, vējē | blēgē~vēję | mateie, nakie | akē | sirādē~sirdie Voc. | smēti | bāldonai | (blēi~vēii) | vescėpate | — | (sirdis) Nom. | szadēi | krāngīe | blēiē~vēja | dalīs | akīs | sirādīs~sirdys Gen. | szadīzū | krāngū | blēiū~vēju | akēu | akēu | sirādēu Dat. | szadēnis | krāngēnis | blēiams~vēiams | akēnis | sesērinis | sirādī~mis Acc. | szadītis | krāngītis | blēius~vēius | sēmeppatis | akēs | sirādīs Instr. | szadēns | krāngēns | blēiīs~vējas | akēnis | sesērinis | sirādē~m~sirdimis Loc. | lukštasu | krāngīas | blēiīs~vēju | — | sēseržes | sirādē Catechism 1 | Salantai 2 | Pagramantis 3 Nom. | tas (aī) | tas | tas Gen. | to, ta | tito~tō | tūo~tō Dat. | tam | tam | tā~m Acc. | tā | to~n~tai | — Instr. | tu | toi~tuon | tū~tuo, tū~m., tumī, tū~m~tuom Loc. | tame, visamy | tame | — Voc. | — | — | — Nom. | te | tēi | tiė Gen. | tu | tum | tū Dat. | tims, t(2)em(u)s | tins | ti~m~tims Acc. | tis | tis | tis~tus Instr. | tais | tais | — Loc. | — | tūž | tū?s 76 equivalents in the orthography of the literary language. The examples in the first two columns are taken from Ch. Stang’s study (see [8] 163), while those in the third were collected from P. Jonikas’s dialect description (see [9]). We see that some of the case forms in the Catechism examples agree more closely with those of Pagramantis, while others agree with the forms of Salantai; there are also shared Samogitian features, e.g., tims, tus. In addition, there are clear discrepancies—these are Aukštaitian forms, e.g., jauczui, nakties, and more archaic Samogitian forms, e.g., the singular instrumental form tu, which is attested by Daukantas. The form ischmintiei is found in the Klaipėda region and around Kelmė. Its currency among the Dounininkai as well is shown by Salantai akėi. This is a newer form. The old dative form is szirdij (with an -i or -ij ending). i-stem singular genitive forms are threefold: the Aukštaitian -ies (nakties), more frequently -es; this is usually the case with words stressed on the ending; words stressed on the stem generally have -is: ugnis (around ugnies... for stem stress see [11] § 66), but this ending is hardly Samogitian. Cf. [5] § 331. The plural locative form hukiusu (= ūkiusu) is a common, typical Samogitian feature, as is tims, tus. It differs from the modern Samogitian form only in that it still has the old ending u. Cf. also Dūnininkai βai kū's ~ vaikūse, gerū's ~ gerūse, Dounininkai gerū's ([9] § 81 and 103), and the East Prussian fishermen (between Rusnė and Labguva) girtū:klis ~ girtūklis, βi:tū:klis ([10] 25). The Catechism singular locative forms szadegi, kraugeie are ė-stem forms, as is, for example, žemėje; the same applies to nakteie, naktie (the syllable -je has been dropped) ~ naktėje. The same stem occurs in the Salantai and Pagramantis examples: jáutie, βiejie ~ jautėje, vėjėje, ākie ~ akėje, ʒirdie ~ širdėje. Thus here the ia- and i- stems have shifted to the ė- stem. This shift also occurs in other stems. This is so in the Catechism, apparently throughout Samogitia, and partly in the dialect of the East Prussian fishermen as well. (Cf. [9] §§ 79, 83, 87 and [10] 31.) The other cases are to be explained either by the shortening of endings, by general phonetic features of the Samogitian dialect, or by the fact that, at the time the Catechism was published, the Samogitians did not yet have some of the features, both phonetic and morphological, found today. In addition, as already mentioned, a considerable portion consists of Aukštaitian features. 3. Word Formation We have already observed from morphology that, especially in the singular locative in the Catechism, as throughout Samogitia, the stem differs from that of the present literary language. Similar differences in stems would, of course, be found in all the cases. Instead of the now established u- stem of adjectives, an older a- stem common to all Lithuanians is found: biauras, singular genitive biauraia (41, 4), ramas, plural nominative ramij (37, 13) ~ ramūs, stiprij (37, 14) ~ stiprūs. In Samogitia, more than elsewhere, the suffix -ima-: karštimas (karštas viralas — Vieksniai), plonimas (temple — Endriejavas, Kvėdarna, Salantai), is favored in adjective-derived nouns. With this suffix, the only word we have from the Catechism is biaurimas (53, 4) (biaurumas, sin)—it is not known from anywhere else. skaitlius (31, 4) also stands out in its formation; it is now or was formerly known chiefly in Samogitia and East Prussia. Cf. [12] § 106. Particularly characteristic of the Catechism is the suffix -auyima-: kiersch­taugimas (35, 15; 36, 9) ~ kerštauji- 77 mas, paliauginimas (47, 9) ~ paliaujimas, kariaugimas (55, 3). We encounter derivatives of this type in Bretkūnas’s writings as well (see [13] 2, 129 and [14] Joshua IV 13), and nowhere else; it is therefore difficult to say whether these were products of written or spoken language. (Cf. [12] §§ 126, 210.) We know that the Samogitians, as they do now, especially favored pronominal adjectives in earlier times. They are abundant in the Catechism as well. Here are a few examples cited from just one page, p. 25: piktai welna (2), milasjis die was (7), schwentągi kuna (11), teisusis kunas (16), teisjausesis liudimas (22). Both suffixes -ininka- and -inyka- are widely known in the spoken language. The first is used mainly by Samogitians, the western Aukštaitians bordering Samogitia, and the East Prussian dialects; the second, by the eastern and central Aukštaitians and the southwestern Aukštaitians (around Prienai, Kapsukas, and Vilkaviškis). It was more widely known in the past. It occurs in the writings of the old East Prussian writers Bretkūnas, Vilentas, Vaišnora, and others (see [12] § 92). It is found in Valančius and Daukantas. This suffix, -inyka-, not -ininka-, also occurs in the Catechism: Letuwininkump (8, 2), neteisininku (29, 1 and 4 from the bottom), hwkiniku (33, 1), Letuwinikus (39, 6). Instead of the suffix -aitė, the Catechism has -eitė, as in tarneitė: plural nominative tarneies (36, 13), singular dative tarneitei (57, 12). It is also found in Bretkūnas’s writings. Among the Samogitians, the imperative mood has shifted to the -ia- stem: for example, in Pagramantis e.i.kâm ~ eîkiame, e.i.kât ~ eîkiate (see [9] § 149). The forms in the Catechism may also be compared here: garobkiem (48, 14), imkiet (8, 4; 29, 8), giwenkiet (9, 14), permanikiet (11, 7), makikiet (24, 10), and so on. Here i after k is a palatalization marker; e may occur instead of a if it does not come from i. (Cf. [5] § 31.) Among the Aukštaitian forms, the suffix -ana is noteworthy: daruona (47, 3 and 10), instead of the Samogitian -ena: dovena, dovenoti. 4. Vocabulary Like word formation, the vocabulary itself offers little that is particularly useful for identifying and distinguishing the dialect of the Catechism. The book’s content is unfavorable in this respect, as it is expressed using very general lexical means, which recur frequently in the writings of other authors dealing with the same or similar subject matter. Even a more characteristic word such as daugsinti ~ dauksink (50, 2) is found in the writings of Bretkūnas, Daukša ([15] 106), and Donelaitis. Or the conjunction betaig (52, 9), betaigi (37, 7), now antiquated and archaic, occurs in Bretkūnas ([14] 2, 104), Vilentas ([16] 15), Daukša ([15] 37 and 598), and other old writings. Nevertheless, we would find one or two words whose form or meaning is native to the Samogitians: druktybė (53, 5) ~ drūktybę (“strength”) should be compared with the Samogitian drūkst, ans, meaning “he,” and weizdedauau (11, 4) (“I used to watch”) should likewise be attributed to the Samogitians. Also worth mentioning here are didžiaus (31, 9), meaning “especially,” and weikiaus (10, 6) (“rather, sooner”). Among the more characteristic Aukštaitian forms, the following are noteworthy: trėkti—netrėkiet (16, 22) (“do not destroy,” now known only among the Dzūkians), vėzu (33, 13) ~ ūžu (“for”), the prefix ata-: attadokiet (32, 17), and others. Of course, some such features may also be archaisms. 78 III. SOME CONCLUSIONS 1. The Localization of Mažvydas’s Catechism in the Samogitian Dialect Having established that the dialectal basis of the Catechism’s language is the Samogitian dialect, it remains to establish which particular Samogitian locality and subdialect it most closely resembles. This is a more difficult matter. To be sure, Ch. Stang, as mentioned at the outset, concludes on the basis of his careful scholarly research that the northwestern Samogitian dialect element is most prominent in the Catechism. According to Ch. Stang, if in Mažvydas’s time the dialect boundary between the dūnininkai and dounininkai was already the same as it is today, then Mažvydas must have come from an area west of the line Švėkšna—Kvėdarna—Varniai—Raudėnai (cf. [5] p. 168). Thus, Mažvydas was not a dūnininkas. Further (§ 335), Ch. Stang attempts to refute A. Schleicher’s arguments assigning Mažvydas to the Klaipėda region. Thus, Mažvydas was not a donininkas. In keeping especially with Ch. Stang, Mažvydas therefore remains to be assigned to the dounininkai, that is, the northwestern Samogitians. Although it is not stated explicitly, some of the phonetic data from the language discussed by Ch. Stang (cf. [5] p. 169) suggest that he is disinclined to place Mažvydas in the far northwestern corner. Finally (§ 337), Stang says that he would not venture to localize it any more precisely. Without undertaking to check all of the material Ch. Stang uses thoroughly, or to supplement it sufficiently where it is lacking and draw our own conclusions on that basis, we must accept almost all his claims in general terms. Ch. Stang has contributed to Lithuanian studies in more ways than this one investigation. His contribution to the description of the “Dialect of Lithuanian Fishermen in Prussia” deserves particular mention here. It is truly remarkable that a foreigner—a Norwegian—has given us successful studies of Lithuanian dialects. This encourages us to regard with confidence his study of the language of Mažvydas’s Catechism, in which the question of dialect is also discussed, albeit not entirely comprehensively. The well-known Lithuanianist Professor E. Frenkelis, writing very positively about that study, says: “As for the dialect of Mažvydas, which Stang investigates in the following part of his book, we can agree with this scholar’s view that the writer uses one of the northwestern Samogitian dialects. For the present, however, we cannot determine precisely which one. The only certainty is that Mažvydas was not born in the Klaipėda region. The fact alone that he did not know German rules out looking for Mažvydas’s homeland in Lithuania Minor. Ch. Stang believes that the eastern boundary of Mažvydas’s dialect is formed by a line running from Švėkšna through Kvėdarna and Varniai to Raudėnai. Mažvydas does not write in pure Samogitian; he also uses certain features of the Aukštaitian dialects. This is unsurprising: after all, Mažvydas is Vilentas’s cousin—that is, a Highlander. Mažvydas generally expresses ecclesiastical matters according to the rules of the Aukštaitian dialect. Stang carefully learned the modern Samogitian dialects. He visited Lithuania several times, especially the Samogitian region. When in doubt about the form of Samogitian words, he consulted scholars living in that region, whose advice he used to examine Mažvydas’s dialect and determine its location as precisely as possible, although he does not conceal that the boundaries of Mažvydas’s dialect and those of present-day dialects do not coincide in every case” ([17] 141). 79 To show that Ch. Stang’s localization is well founded and not made up, we shall mention at least one or two more linguistic data points (some have already been discussed). The alternation in the singular locative e (derived from *en) with i (Galwagi 24, 9: galwaie 33, 10) suggests that the Catechism’s dialect pronounced either a close e or an open i. The pronunciation of the central Samogitians is closest to this; that of the southernmost is the most distant, while the northern pronunciation is unclear owing to the shortening of endings. For example, speakers in Pagramantis say: patšėmė dugnė ([9] 88) ~ “at the very bottom”; speakers in Švėkšna say pâtėm,ė i:sėdėgem,ė ([8] 19) ~ “at the bottom, we sat down”; speakers in Telšiai say pâtėm,ė dōgn,ė ([8] 11). The same occurs in the singular instrumental and in other similar cases. If the distribution of the forms davė: devė had been the same in the sixteenth century as it is today, Mažvydas could have come neither from the southeastern Samogitian corner nor from the coastal area west of the Veiviržėnai—Kartena—Salantai—Mosėdis boundary. (Cf. [5] 168.) The older form is said to be davė, but Mažvydas already has devė: deve (11, 10; 26, 6), izadzewe (33, 13). Today devė is used throughout central Samogitia, and is also reported around Biržai and by the fishermen of East Prussia. Present-day linguistic data also show that Mažvydas did not come from the coastal region—that is, not from the Klaipėda region—since today the coastal Samogitians (Plungė, Salantai, Skuodas, Kretinga, Klaipėda) have no affricates at all at stem endings. For example, the coastal Samogitians, who tend to avoid affricates, say būtio, matiau, vediau ~ “I would be, I saw, I led,” whereas we do not find such forms in the Catechism. Is it perhaps because Mažvydas studied and published the Catechism in Königsberg that he came to be called and regarded as a Prussian Lithuanian and the first writer of Lithuania Minor? For example, cf. the following statement: “the first writers of Lithuania Minor (Mažvydas, Vilentas, Bretkūnas …)” ([18] 14). It is probably for this reason that there is a tendency to identify the language and dialect of the Catechism itself with this area, especially since A. Schleicher also assigns Mažvydas’s Catechism to the Klaipėda dialect, apparently without defining the geographical area more precisely. Thus, all the linguistic data cited indicate, at most, that the Catechism’s dialect is closest to the present-day northwestern (excluding the farthest corner) and central Samogitian dialects. We seem to have no linguistic or dialectal evidence that clearly contradicts deriving its author and translator from that region. 2. The element of the Aukštaitian dialect in Mažvydas’s Catechism We have already mentioned on separate occasions some of the Aukštaitian features found in the Catechism. All that remains here is to highlight or repeat a few things in one place. When we consider the Samogitian sound law, we find only six Aukštaitian features in all, e.g.: gieidza (29, 9), treczas (19, 1)… (see this article, II, 1, b). We also find quite a number of Aukštaitian features where the diphthong ie is used. Here, however, these features are of two kinds. Some, which may be called common features, are pronounced identically by Aukštaitians and Samogitians; these include the words: a) dievas, 80 b) in no (in negation not), c) Slavic loanwords, e.g., beast. Others occur in various isolated instances. The most frequent Aukštaitian form here is day, apparently as the most popular and everyday word; among the rarer examples, or those occurring only once, we find various forms: remains (22, 11 and 13), bid (56, 13 and 21), wild boar (39, 19), beech (47, 6), food (73, 8), we go (25, 4), judgment (34, 20), winter (54, 17), besides (55, 12). The Aukštaitian diphthong uo could not be found in the Catechism at all. Only those forms can be considered Aukštaitian features in which ū, used by all Samogitians (and usually written u by Mažvydas), is written as o in the Catechism; examples are only: Visosu daiktosu (8, 21), schwen-tosius (20, 19). For the pronoun man a, Samogitians say o, u instead. That this phenomenon is old in Lithuanian is indicated by an example from a 1572 document: kaip mon dewas padieck ([19] 39, 16). The Catechism writes a here—as do many Aukštaitians. Where Samogitians have duovena, duovina (~ dovena), the Catechism writes dawana (47, 3) ~ dovana; likewise dawanati (10, 4) ~ dovanoti. We could find still more Aukštaitian features of these or other kinds. Lexical or morphological matters are particularly noticeable to everyone (e.g., the dative of the a-a- stem—jauczui (31, 11)). It should also be noted, however, that because of the subject matter the vocabulary is so general and limited that it would be rash to draw any conclusions from it. It hardly needs to be demonstrated that the eastern Aukštaitian or Dzūkian element is absent here. Such forms as attadokiet (32, 17), which do occur, are probably archaisms—they are also found in other old texts from non-eastern dialects, for example Petkevičius’s ataduome ([20] 32). The shortening of unstressed long final vowels accords with the pronunciation of the northern western Aukštaitians. In general, we can say that the Aukštaitian features derive from the speech of the western Aukštaitians. Knowing nothing certain about the causes of this marked element of the Aukštaitian dialect, we can only speculate. Among them, the following may be mentioned: 1) kinship and cooperation with the Aukštaitian Vilentas; 2) other Aukštaitian helpers and collaborators; 3) Mažvydas and his collaborators’ joint studies and the publication of the Catechism in Königsberg; 4) religious matters communicated orally may already have been generalized in one way or another and adapted to other dialects; one may suppose that the aim of generalization and adaptation was not foreign to the author of the Catechism either, especially since he also addresses “milosius bralius ir seseris Letuwinikus ir szemaiczius” (39,6). LITERATŪRA 1. Mažvydas, Seniausieji lietuvių kalbos paminklai iki 1570 metams, Spaudai parūpino dr. Jurgis Gerullis, Kaunas, 1922. 2. F. Specht, Šyrvids Punktai sakimu, Göttingen, 1929. 3. K. Būga, Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, 1, Kaunas, 1924. 4. A. Salys, Lietuvių kalbos tarmės (rankraščio teisėmis, stud. J. Laboko užrašai), Kaunas, 1935. 6. Kalbotyros klausimai 81 5. Ch. S. Stang, Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas, Oslo, 1929. 6. J. Endzelin, Lettische Grammatik, Riga, 1922. 7. A. Salys, Archivum Philologicum, Nr. 4, 21–34, Kaunas (1933). 8. G. Gerullis, Litauische Dialektstudien, Leipzig, 1930. 9. P. Jonikas, Pagramančio tarmė, Kaunas, 1939. 10. J. Gerullis, Ch. Stangas, Lietuvių žvejų tarmė Prūsuose, Kaunas, 1933. 11. P. Skardžius, Daukšos akcentologija, Kaunas, 1935. 12. P. Skardžius, Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius, 1941. 13. Postilla, tatai esti, Trumpas ir Prastas Iszguldimas, Euangeliv... Per Jana Bretkuna, 1—2, Karaliaucziuie 1591. Vilniaus Valstybinio V. Kapsuko v. universiteto Mokslinė biblioteka, LR 1621—1622. 14. Biblia, tatai esti Wissas Schwentas Rasztas Lietuwiszkai perguldytas per Janą Bretkuna... (1590, rankraštis). 15. Postilla Catholica... Per Kúniga Mikaloiv Davkszą... perguldita... Wilniui... 1599. 16. Enchiridion, Catechismas maszas... pergulditas... per Baltramieju Wilenthą... Ischspaustas Karalaucziui MDLXXIX. 17. E. Fraenkelis, Archivum Philologicum, Nr. 2, 140–143, Kaunas (1931). 18. P. Skardžius, Archivum Philologicum, Nr. 4, 7–20, Kaunas (1933). 19. J. Gerullis, Senieji lietuvių skaitymai, Kaunas, 1927. 20. Polski z Litewskim Katekizm... Nakładem... Malchera Pietkiewicza,... w Wilnie... 1598. ГОВОР ПЕРВОЙ ЛИТОВСКОЙ КНИГИ Ю. Ю. СЕНКУС Резюме В статье указывается, какой говор литовского языка принят за основу в переведенной М. Мажвидасом и в 1547 году изданной первой литовской книге „Catechizmysa prasty szadei“ (в статье сокращенно называемой „Katekizmas“—„Катехизис“). В вводной части статьи приводятся имеющиеся предположения и проведенные исследования по данному вопросу, который лучше всех решался X. Стангом в его труде „Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas“. Этому труду в статье и уделяется большое внимание. Станг приходит к следующим выводам: по происхождению Мажвидас был не из Восточной Пруссии; основа языка в „Катехизисе“ — северный или средне-жемайтский говор; говор „Катехизиса“ не чисто жемайтский, а с примесью аукштайтского. Далее, в статье коротко описываются некоторые изменения, происшедшие в литовском языке, территория жемайтского говора и его основные особенности, что является обязательным при решении избранного вопроса. Во второй, основной, части статьи („Говоровые особенности Мажвидас-ского Катехизиса“) дается обзор фонетики, морфологии, словообразования и лексики первой литовской книги и указывается сходство ее языка с со- 82 временным жемайтским говором. Указывается, например, что вместо имеющегося в современном литовском литературном языке е в Катехизисе пишется и е, и ie (tiews, milieti); вместо tiems, tuos — tims, tus, вместо žodyje—szadegi (žadėje). Указывается, что в „Катехизисе“ чаще всего встречающийся a, вместо имеющегося в литовском литературном языке o, как, например, в словах bralei, szadei (broliai, žodžiai), характеризуется как древнебалтийское явление. Тот факт, то в основу „Катехизиса“ положен жемайтский говор, подтверждается так называемым жемайтским звуковым законом. Суть этого закона заключается в том, что перед окончаниями слов литовского литературного языка -ia, -iai (происшедшими из -ā, -āi, после мягкого согласного), -iams жемайтский говор, за исключением имен существительных IV-го склонения (iu- основы) и имен прилагательных, напр., račius, račiai, не имеет аффрикат (č, dž), напр., kent, gaide (в литературном языке kenčia, gaidžiai). Этот жемайтский звуковой закон подтверждает, что говор „Катехизиса“ 1547 года является жемайтским. В „Катехизисе“ этот закон, за исключением нескольких аукштайтских языковых особенностей, сохраняется совершенно последовательно. В третьей — последней части статьи („Некоторые выводы“), придерживаясь мнения X. Станга, автор пытается локализировать язык „Катехизиса“ в жемайтском говоре. Хотя и нельзя ясно доказать, однако предполагается вывод, что в „Катехизисе“ яснее всего выступает северо-западный или среднежемайтский говоровый элемент (ср. в „Катехизисе“ чередование e с i в местном падеже: galwaie, dienagi). Встречающиеся в „Катехизисе“ особенности аукштайтского говора (аукштайтский говоровый элемент) являются общими для всех аукштайтов или только для западных аукштайтов. Причины возникновения в „Катехизисе“ аукштайтских говоровых элементов могли быть следующие: родство и сотрудничество Мажвидаса с аукштайтом Виленгасом; другие его сотрудники и помощники аукштайты; издание Мажвидасом и другими его сотрудниками коллективной студии и „Катехизиса“ в Кенигсберге и, в конце концов, попытка приспособить свой письменный язык к другим говорам.