Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais „el“, „er“, „eu“ dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas SKOLINIŲ SU AUKŠČIAIS DIFONDOIS el, er, eu PRESENTNESS STATUS OF CODIFICATION AND POSSIBLE MODIFICATION KEY WORDS: pronunciation, common language, codification of norms, language planning. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS The Institute of Lithuanian Language is preparing a new normative General Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, which will replace the six decades old, but rarely updated Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (hereinafter – DŽ). The Institute is constantly considering how to present the varied norms of spelling, pronunciation, lexicon and grammar (see Liutkevičienė 2015 for more details). Although since 2014 the General Lithuanian Language Dictionary (hereinafter – GLD) has been published online with the texts of individual letters considered by the State Lithuanian Language Commission (hereinafter – SLKLC), one issue of systematic codification of pronunciation 1 has not yet been finally decided. Discussions about the specificity of the short vowel e of borrowed words and the preludes of the pronounced double el, er, eu of such words have lasted for decades. 2 The BZ is the starting point where this debate will either continue to leave the codification of debts with pronounced el, er, eu in an uncertain state, or finally allow to take a step towards a clear solution. The article is limited to the study of the state of codification of spoken words, which is taking place at the beginning of the 21st century. The main focus is on the codification itself, because it is an interesting and quite exceptional case, involving not specific words, but a large group of common language borrowings, and the inconsistency and twists of the codification over time have created a problem that has to be solved to date. 3 Based on more than ten years of ongoing deliberations on the codification of borrowed words with pronounced diphthongs el, er, eu, the article raises theoretical and practical general questions. 1 For circumstances that have changed during the preparation of this article, see footnote 32. 2 For more information about the place of spoken phenomenon in the Lithuanian sound system and the history of codification, see Pupkis 2016. 3 For the sake of objectivity, it should be said that the author of the article does not belong to the Council and sprendimais, VLKK priimtais iki 2012 m., niekaip nėra susijusi, o būdama 2012–2017 m. kadencijos VLKK nare, Spelling Subcommittee of this Commission, only participated in two of its meetings in 2015–2016. Rita Miliūnaitė. The current state of codification of borrowed words with pronounced diphthongs el, er, eu BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 lietuvių kalbos kodifikacijos problemos (variantų statusas, kodifikacijos principų ir kriterijų and possible changes | 2 application, codification techniques, etc.) and their solutions can be applied to the language planning and codification changes of other phenomena. Thus, although the problem of the pronunciation of borrowed words with diphthongs el, er, eu is far from new, the article takes a new look at it, covering various aspects of the theory and practice of codification. Until now, when discussing this problem of pronunciation, it was mainly about international – dažniau tik bendrinius žodžius (pvz., konservai, selteris, terapeutas, -ė) arba ir iš klasikinių kalbų borrowed real names (e.g., Hermes, Zeus). There are also more words that are not included in the concept of international words: these are both foreign personal names – adapted, read-adapted forms (e.g., Vernas, Zelma) and place names (e.g., Jersey, Kelnas Kerčė), and new borrowings (as well as those that are just beginning to function in Lithuanian and have not yet been codified) – they also need to be pronounced in oral language, and sometimes in writing. Therefore, the object of the article is to systematically cover all groups of borrowed words with pronounced diphthongs el, er, eu. 4 Thus, the aim of the article is to examine the state of codification of borrowed words with pronounced diphthongs el, er, eu that developed at the beginning of the 21st century and to describe possible solutions of this codification change. The tasks are as follows: 1) discuss the criterion of usage and its reliability in the codification of spoken phenomenon; 2) to examine the data and proposals of the VLKK pronunciation recommendations for 2003–2014 on the pronunciation of spoken diphthongs, to reveal their essence and direction; 3) to examine the problem of codification of borrowed words with pronounced diphthongs el, er, eu based on codification theory (strategic directions of codification, competitive relationships of variants, principles and criteria of codification, codification technique); 4) to evaluate possible solutions of the change of the speech phenomenon codification and their consequences. In the study, comparative and analytical descriptive methods were mainly used. 4 Because the borrowed diphthongs en, em and the rare diphthong ei (cf. Jenny, Blake will find; is the Icelandic currency. one hundredth of a krone’; einšte nis ‘1. the radioactive synthetic chemical element Es <...>; 2. E, šviesos energijos vienetas <...>“, TŽŽ 2013) kodifikacijos problemų nekelia, nes kodifikuoti kaip nevariantiški non-systematic (tvirtagiliai), they are not further discussed in the article. Rita Miliūnaitė. Current status of codification and possible changes of borrowed words with accentuated diphthongs el, er, eu | 3 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 1. MAIN CLASSIFICATION OF DEBTIVE WITH IMPRESSED DIVOICE EL, ER, EU THE QUESTION OF CODIFICATION 1.1. Vartosenos tyrimo keblumai In the description of the general system of vowels, diphthongs and diphthongs in the Lithuanian language (DLKG 2005: 21), presented in the Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (hereinafter – DLKG), it is stated: <...> in new borrowings (internationalizations), sometimes also in nouns, the sounds <ẹ, ɔ> occur, e.g.: m< >tras ‖ m/è/tras, sp< >ros. Because of its low frequency (used only in foreign-origin words) [ɔ] should be considered a peripheral phoneme, while the vowel [ẹ], pronounced only by some representatives of the common language [emphasis my. – R. M.], is fakultatyvusis fonologinis elementas (vad. „dviveidė“ fonema). considered to be a peripheral phoneme. Vytautas Vitkauskas writes similarly in the introduction to the Lithuanian Pronunciation Dictionary (hereinafter – LKTŽ) (although in the dictionary itself he formally maintains the pronunciation of the firm-origin el, er; LKTŽ 2001: 6): Some of our phonetic specialists claim that the phoneme e exists (pɔè-tas, evɔl’ùc’ije, etc.). This phoneme is an unrealistic fact of the language, very rarely used by anyone. In fact, it does not distinguish between the meanings and forms of words (to teach the whole nation another new sound with a weak distinctive function is considered by the dictionary compiler as meaningless; this sound can be replaced everywhere by the Lithuanian short e, and the Lithuanian phonetic system will not be broken down at all). [Emphasis is mine everywhere. — R. M.]. It is important to recognize that the spoken voice is spoken by a rare common language user. There is no detailed description of the castle in the DLKG, nor can it be found in other sources. This is not surprising, because it is very difficult to talk about studies of the use of borrowed words with the vowel e: there are no reliable criteria for determining the quantity and quality of the pronounced short sound, and especially in diphthongs – what prefix is pronounced. Experimental and instrumental studies in this case can not help much, because statistical informants speaking common language, not specifically learned to pronounce this sound, do not distinguish it from hearing (Jaroslavienė 2015): <...> during the study it became clear that informants do not imagine the short [ ] (the “two-faced” phoneme / / variant, or otherwise – allophone) as a separate, i.e. isolatedly pronounced, and tend to identify it with the simple [e] (phoneme /e/ variant), therefore isolatedly without any context [ ] was not pronounced for the study [footnote 9 copied]. It is believed that the non-ascending (medium) vowel [ ] has not been able to establish itself in the system of common language because of its peculiar use (moreover, its purpose is not distinctive), relatively low frequency (facultativity) and the fact that it is written with the same letter as the lower ascending short [e] <...>, as well as for other reasons. No other letter denotes two short vowels of different quality <...>. Rita Miliūnaitė. 4 In fact, the difference between the Lithuanian [e] and the international [ẹ] from hearing is BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 so small that there is a considerable basis for the subjectivity of the experimenters: to hear what you 5 believe or are used to hearing, to record the functioning of the international [ẹ], you need to hear and perceive its otherness, i.e. the difference from the usual Lithuanian [e], as well as to be able to pronounce remdamasis savo susidaryta bendrinės kalbos tarties etalono samprata. Kitaip tariant, norint this sound, and for the simpler ones, you need to know how to pronounce it. The readers of the article could themselves carry out a small experiment: listen to the standard of common pronunciation – the recording specialiai nemokytiems kalbos vartotojams to padaryti nepavyksta. of Antanas Pakerio and Aldonas Pupkio teaching aid Lietuvių kalbos bendrinė tartis (Pakerys, Pupkis 2004 [1968]) published in 1968 and republished in 2004 – and decide what sound they hear in the words èstas, gèstas, Mèksika, Brèstas, nègras (p. 14), as well as komitètas, on the page about the international [e] it says: kilomètras, termomètras ir kt. (p. 51) 6 . Beje, tame pačiame šios plokštelės tekstų knygutės 14-ame The vowel e of international words is always short and pronounced similarly to the short e of Lithuanian words. In this sentence read by actor Juozas Jaruševičius, both e are pronounced exactly the same – even the ears of a few Lithuanians failed to catch any difference, so what kind of discernible “similarity” can we talk about? A whole generation of Lithuanian scholars, journalists and actors have learned and are still learning the common pronunciation of this booklet, and it would be hard to believe that anyone has learned from it to pronounce the international e differently from the short e in Lithuanian words (e.g.: tèstų – vèstų, Mèksika – mègzti). And to pronounce the double-vowels el, er, eu – he paprastiems kalbos vartotojams kalbos praktikoje (šnekos sraute) neegzistuoja (t. y. nėra sąmoningai suvokiama) skirtis skolinys–lietuviškas žodis. couldn’t learn at all. Can surveys of language users help usage studies? If the informant is asked to identify and mark the preposition of the international words el, er, for a non-linguist this is a difficult task, especially in such a delicate case. If a question is asked to indicate the place of the jumping accent in some phrases, the results can also not be reliable if it is not examined at the same time whether the informant does not have a tendency to divert the accent. This was revealed by Rimos 7 5 In the article, the short borrowed vowel e is noted as in the DLKG: [ẹ]. 6 According to one of the authors of this methodical tool, Aldonas Pupkis, both authors (having different opinions about the borrowed vowel e) agreed not to provide examples of pronunciation of international words with the diphthongs el, er, eu in this work. 7 It should be noted that even in dialects where the accent is not removed from the ending, the accent is sometimes removed in the verbs of newer borrowed words. For example, even in the present-day West Highland Kaunas dialect, there are isolated cases: kapr zus, ispãnus, Lorèta (V, Į) and so on. Rita Miliūnaitė. The current state of codification and possible change of borrowed words with pronounced BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 diphthongs el, er, eu | 5 Bakšienės tyrimai. If Lithuanians, for example, students, were interviewed, they 8 would have come to terms with what they want to get out of them. Thus, it can be admitted that at the kirčiavimo kursą, beveik neabejotina, kad jie tartų ir girdėtų tai, ko buvo mokyti, t. y. taikytųsi moment one or another treatment of the double-sided el, er prepositions in loanwords is quite subjective, based on conviction (belief in one position), which is largely determined by authorities of different views on this issue, and sometimes perhaps ir turimas tarminis, skirtingas nei bendrinės kalbos fonetinės sistemos, pamatas 9 . Even if instrumental studies were carried out, their reliability would also remain open, simply because such studies can only cover a very small number of informants due to the complexity of data processing. According to what criteria to select informants for such a study would be an even more difficult task, especially bearing in mind the fact that the common dialect for the youth of the common Lithuanian language itself for the majority of Lithuanians, having a greater or lesser basis of some regional dialect (not even excluding the very western Kaunas Highlanders), is not innate, but learned. Thus, the usage (empirical) criterion, which is important for codification in general, is not entirely reliable in this case. However, the most important question concerning usage as a criterion for codification can be answered: the real change in usage has not occurred in half a century and the established norm of the short international [ẹ], together with the short firm-initial doubles el, er, eu, has not been realized by users and has not become a real (in other words, firmly used in at least two-thirds of cases) norm that would clearly differ from the firm-initial doubles of these doubles. In such circumstances, the importance of codification increases: it becomes either a factor in maintaining and stabilizing real norms, or a brake on their natural development. 1.2. Conflict between current use and codified versions Based on the aforementioned statement of DLKG (2005: 21) that the vowel [ẹ] is pronounced only by a part of the common language users, it is concluded that in the pronounced syllables of the same words (e.g., poetas, chemija, elfas, herbas, kempingas, centas, pleurą) some language users pronounce [ẹ], others – [e]. This means that in general language usage (at the level of the whole general dialect) the vowel e in pronounced syllables of borrowed words (also in pronounced diphthongs el, er, eu) should have two pronunciation variants: 1) 8 The results of the study are summarized in the report: R i m a B a k š i n ė. Pronunciation of international words with diphthongs el, er in the Kaunas dialect of western Altai people. Seminar “Pronunciation tendencies of middle-generation intelligents and their relationship with common language norms”. Vilnius University, 2016 03 30. 9 The pronunciation of the short accented e of newer borrowed words in Lithuanian dialects is not the subject of this article, therefore it is only noteworthy that, unlike the basic dialect of common Lithuanian language – western Kaunas Highland dialect, other dialects often do not identify this sound with the short e of Lithuanian words and pronounce different sounds adapted to their phonetic systems. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 6 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 tariamą kaip lietuviškuose žodžiuose (plg. gudrèsnis, tèktų , žiaũrų); 2) pronounced differently than in Lithuanian words. As the history of international [ẹ] standardization shows, the pairs of vowels [e]: [ẹ] and mixed diphthongs [el]: [ẹl], [er]: [ẹr], as well as diphthongs [eu]: [ẹu] can be seen as a variation of the own and borrowed element, which creates variants in the pronunciation and pronunciation of the borrowed words. This is where the main question of codification arises: what is the normative value and relation of these variants in the common language? By the way, the codification of the international [ẹ] was still called “the greatest problem not only in phonetics, but perhaps in the whole work of codification of the common language” (Pupkis 2005: 240) a decade ago. So let’s look at the current state of codification of borrowed words with el, er, eu accents. 2. MAIN SOURCES OF CONTEMPORARY PRONUNCIATION CODIFICATION In order to understand how the codification of the pronunciation of other spoken debts with el, er, eu at the beginning of the 21st century has evolved, we need to keep in mind the broader context of the current codification of pronunciation and its strategy. The stages of codification of the pronunciation of the current Lithuanian language depend mainly on the publication of normative dictionaries (primarily DŽ). In the 20th century, the actual state of spelling codification was recorded by DŽ4e. Until this publication, throughout the second half of the 20th century, the codification of the pronunciation of borrowed words with el, er, eu varied considerably, starting with a substantial change from the 1951 TŽZ (see table 1). The DŽ4e, together with the TŽZ 2001, was the most important starting point of the codification change 10 that began at the beginning of the 21st century. In subsequent editions of the Dictionary, the increase in frequency of which was mainly due not to the updating of the content, but to the changing needs of the public and the transition to electronic form, there were no significant changes in spelling codification until the 7th edition. In 2003, the VLKK recommendations on pronunciation were added to this variety of pronunciation, and according to them, the General (2012) tas rekomendacijas perėmė, kiek leido beveik nepapildyta paties žodyno apimtis (šio Pronunciation Guide of the Lithuanian Language (BLKŽ 2007) was prepared and discussed by the VLKK. At the end of the 1970s, about 200 new loanwords were added.) 10 The 2001 CZZ (and the electronic INTERLEKSIS based on it) and the 2013 CZZ published at the beginning of the 21st century are not normative in the strict sense of codification (the norms they provide are not imperative for users of common language), but are oriented towards normative language and were based on the basic norms of Czech daugiau skolintos leksikos, nei aprėpė DŽ, su išlygomis jie taip pat gali būti laikomi šių žodžių kirčiavimo pronunciation. Since these TSIs are composed of sources of codification. Rita Miliūnaitė. Current status of codification and possible change of borrowed words with pronounced BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 1 LENTELĖ. Skolinių su dvigarsiais el, er, eu kodifikacijos įvairovė 1948–2001 m. 11 diphthongs el, er, eu | 7 Source belgas, -ė herbas koncertas persas, -ė terminas terminis, termosas pe sai, -as, TŽŽ be gai hèrbas koncèrtas pèrsai te minas tèrminis, -ė tèrmosas (belgian) ė -ė (2) 1. LKRŽ 1948 (1) be gas, -ė (2) he bas (2) konce tas (2) pérsas, -ė 1951 1954 te minas (1) – te mosas (1) 2. TŽŽ -e (2) (1) – hèrbas koncèrtas – tèrminas term nis, -ė tèrmosas 3. DŽ1 (1) -e (1) mines be (1) (1) 1969 herbs 1985 -e (2) concerts gai, -as, in the persai, -as, – thermal 4. TŽŽ – hèrbas koncèrtas – te minas tèrminis, -ė tèrmosas 5. DŽ2 1972 -ė (2) minas13 (1) (1) -ė hèrbas (1) (3b, 1) koncèrtas (1) (1) be gai, -as, te minas pèrsai, tèrminis, -ė -as, TŽŽ te mosas te 6. –12 hèrbas koncèrtas – tèrminis, -ė tèrmosas 7. DŽ3 be 1993 (1) (1) gai, -as, -ė (2) -ė hèrbas (1, 3b) (1) koncèrt- (1) as pèrsai, (1), DŽ4 be pe sai, -as, -as, te minas tèrminis, -ė te mosas 8. gai, -as, 2000 (1) (1) hèrbas -ė (2) -ė (1), Pronunciation of actual words is provided in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia koncèrt- (1, 3b) (1) as pèrsai, (1) -as, te and the five-volume dictionary Pasaulio vietovardžiai (hereinafter – PV) and its online (so far Persian minas tèrminis, -ė te mosas 9. 2001 two-volume) version (PV). These sources generally, albeit with minor exceptions (e.g., Be gija), follow the strong-onset el, er, eu pronunciation (e.g., Albèrta, Patèrna, Pèrsia, Kèlnas, Èura). 14 11 In the table, accents are only listed where they are given in the sources. 12 Šiame žodyne yra žodis belgà „1926–46 Belgijos piniginis vienetas“; vardininko kirčiavimas galūnėje rodo, that the strong root preposition is recognized. 13 Šiame žodyne greta tvirtagalio termino – tos pačios kilmės tikrinis žodis Tèrminas „romėnų ribų (valstybės, the god of fields) and their signs’; in the earlier edition – TŽZ 1969 it is presented as the third meaning of a common word pronounced strongly. 14 There is no online version of this place name. Rita Miliūnaitė. Current status of codification and possible changes of borrowed words with accentuated diphthongs el, er, eu | 8 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 3. STAGE IN THE PRONUNCIATION CODE — VLKK PRONUNCIATION RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 2003 3.1. Principle of pronunciation recommendations – standardising through variants Since 2003, a new stage of codification of the pronunciation of the current Lithuanian language has begun, which is primarily directly related not to the publication of normative dictionaries, but to the preparatory work for such publication. In preparation for the publication of the Common Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, which is to be approved as the main normative source of the vocabulary and its pronunciation, the VLKK has begun reviewing the pronunciation norms and making recommendations for the change of codification. These recommendations are necessary in order to allow a smoother, smoother transition from the DG4e codification (which in some cases already did not correspond to the usage trends) to a new one that reflects the real usage norms. As stated in the introductory part of the recommendations, the “traditions of pronunciation norms of the common Lithuanian language and the tendencies of the spoken language” are taken into account. (Recommendation K-3 et al.). When the first recommendation was published on 29 May 2003, Antanas Pakerys, then Chairman of the VLKK Subcommittee on Council and Spelling, wrote in his commentary on the work that had been started (Pakerys 2003): Sometimes we may not even suspect that the spoken language is already far removed from the codified pronunciation norm of some words. <...> There are several hundred such words in the common Lithuanian language, the pronunciation of which has fluctuated and is not yet completely established. <...> Meetings usually discuss several times as many words. <...> only those words, for which the correction of the pronunciation norm is agreed, are included in the recommendations of the Language Commission. Furthermore, it is constantly compared with the latest edition of the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language” (DŽ4). Pronunciation variants are offered to the public, which in atvirkščiai – udra 1, audrà 4); gadras 2, 4 (DŽ4 – tik gadras 2); smėlis 2 (DŽ4 – smėlis 2 ir smėls 4) ir pan. one way or another differ from the standard fixed in the aforementioned dictionary, cf.: audrà 4, ūudra 1 (DŽ4 After žodžių, turinčių trumpąjį e dvigarsiuose, kirčiavimo problema, – pirmiausia prireikus spręsti, kaip reviewing the varying pronunciation standards, immediately encountered and borrowed will be pronounced word euro. 3.2. Euro kirčiavimo precedentas In 2003, in preparation for Lithuania’s accession to the European Union in 2004, the first VLKK pronunciation recommendation was specifically devoted to the word euro. 15 15 It reads: “The name of the currency ‘euro’ shall be pronounced according to the second pronunciation – ‘eura 2’.” (Recommendation K-1). Rita Miliūnaitė. The current state of codification of borrowed words with pronounced diphthongs el, er, eu BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 and possible changes | 9 Euro was already included in Vytautas Vitkauskas’ Lithuanian Pronunciation Dictionary (LKTŽ 2001) and the International Dictionary of Words (TŽŽ 2001) – in both sources it is pronounced according to the first pronunciation (èuras). The supporting spelling guide DŽ4 did not include euro at the time (it appeared only in DŽ5e). In the recommendation of 29 May 2003 of the WLCC, only one of the two (the strong and the weak) possible in theory in this case was chosen – the strong pronunciation of the diphthong euro, although such a variant of the pronunciation of euro had not been codified until then. This decision was important for consumers, because the (non-) jumping of the strike depends on the pre-emption. If this syllable eu had been codified with a firm initial prefix èuras (variant éuras would not have had any support. Bonifacas Stundžia explained the VLKK’s choice to pronounce the word eurayas vartosenoje), ypač dažnai vartojamas vienaskaitos įnagininkas ir daugiskaitos galininkas daliai vartotojų, neištariančių tvirtapradžio èu, skambėtų kaip su atitrauktiniu kirčiu: eũru, eũrus. firmly in the comments to the recommendation as follows (Stundžia 2003): The most important reason for such a decision is the actual usage, in other words – people pronounce it this way. In addition, a number of other currency names are pronounced according to the second pronunciation, for example: l tas (e.g. litù, litùs), lãtas (e.g. latù, latùs), zlòtas (e.g. zlotù, zlotùs), rùblis (e.g. rubliù, rubliùs), svãras (e.g. svarù, svarùs). Therefore, the strong criteria for codification were two, and their choice was determined by the principle of purposefulness. The first criterion is the actual use, since it was noted that the previously codified version “with an emphasis but a short pronunciation of the first diphthong accent” did not correspond to the actual use: “Because only trained people can pronounce it like this, it was decided not to codify it.” (2003). The second criterion is systemicity (pronunciation tendencies of the microsystem, i.e. of semantically related names – words naming currencies). In this case, the tradition of codification was the weak (i.e., not affecting the value of the new – hard-tailed variant) criterion of codification, since the previous euro with a hard-tailed two-vowel codification is rejected altogether and undertakes a codification leap. It seems that it was unnecessary to legalize two variants of pronunciation of such a commonly used word. In DZ5e (2003) and DZ6e (2006) there were two more variants: eura (2), èura (1), of which the solid-pointed was preferred. Since DZ7 (2012), in accordance with the recommendation of the ICRC, only the stern is left euro kirčiavimas. Rita Miliūnaitė. The current state of codification of borrowed words with pronounced diphthongs el, er, eu BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Tad kalbos vartotojams perprasti sistemą ir be žodyno mokėti kirčiuoti šiuos skolinius taip, kaip and possible changes | 16 they are codified, practically impossible. Recommendations somewhat corrected the situation, because recognized strong variants of at least more common words allow users to choose one more acceptable. The study of the recommendations revealed three things: legalization according to the 1) gana nuoseklų kirčiavimo kodifikacijos suvariantinimą, t. y. tvirtagalių variantų tendencies of actual usage where until then only firmly established variants had been codified; 2) the general inconsistency of codification where only the fixed-end versions have been codified or where the fixed-ends were first; 3) although based on the frequency of word use, but systematically viewed as an irrational way to solve the problem of el, er, eu pronunciation, by codifying only the pronunciation of some words by lists, since a number of less frequently used common words, not to mention the real ones, were left outside the limits of the codification variantity. During this time, two more editions of the DŽ appeared: DŽ7 (2012, paper) and its online version DŽ7i (2015) in the Lithuanian Language Digital Resources (www.lkiis.lt) system. These editions took into account the recommendations of the WKK until 2012, so that the words that were included in the recommendations were accompanied by strong initials. Thus, the tendency of borrowed words with accentuated diphthongs el, er, eu to become strong-vowels was legitimized not only in the primary (recommendation) but also in the lexical codification stage. However, the non-systematic codification of borrowed words with pronounced diphthongs el, er, eu has become even more pronounced in the whole dictionary: in some places it has acquired variant character, while in others (i.e., those words that are not in the recommendations) it has remained mainly a strong initial pronunciation. Thus, at the beginning of 2016, it can be said that in the codification of the pronunciation of borrowed words with diphthongs el, er, eu, two systems intersect, and in common language the pronunciation of these words is unbalanced. This creates problems for users of common language – both spoken and written (when translating dictionaries, guidebooks, encyclopedias, textbooks, etc.). In 2014–2016, the VLKK Dictionary Subcommittee discussed and published in parts on the Internet (http://bkz.lki.lt) the new normative BZ, which must record the actual current state of general, i.e. normative, pronunciation of Lithuanian language. In the discussions of the dictionary, the problem of speech immediately emerged – what to do with borrowed words with the pronunciations el, er, eu, but which did not enter the dictionary. VLKK spelling guidelines? The initial codification did not seem to have touched them. With this in mind, these issues have been raised again in the WCCC Council and Spelling Subcommittee since the end of 2015. At the hearing on 21 October 2015, Bonifacas 21 Stundžia mentioned a possible systemic change in codification: 21 Minutes of the meeting of the VLKK Council and Spelling Subcommittee 21.10.2015 No. EP-62. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 17 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 2008 m. po diskusijų pakomisė priėmė kompromisinį sprendimą: nutarta greta dažniau vartojamų, t. y. labiau prie of international words adapted to the Lithuanian language system, e.g., terapèutas, -ė 1, to provide a strong ending – terapeũtas, -ė 2. (Frequency verified in VDU 100 million words textbook) According to the established tendencies, it is already possible to replace the variants by places or perhaps make a systematic change – declare the strong-end pronunciation as normative, and the strong-end to be tolerated from tradition. Are there sufficient arguments to take this step of codification, establishing the strong pronunciation as the basic norm? In general, three things are important for the codification of the common language: the characteristics of the structure of the common language, its functions, and its linguistic provisions (Garvin 1993: 37–54). When preparing for a codification change, it is advisable to answer the following questions directly related to these matters: (see Miliūnaitė 2007: 7–23): 1) is there a real change in the competitive relationships of options over a certain period of time? 2) are there prerequisites to change the fixed degree of evaluation of variants of codification? 3) is the three-fold use different at the time of the codification review? 4) Is the time ripe to change the codification? 5) can a positive reaction from consumers to the amendment of the codification be expected? 6) has there been a plan to familiarise the common language users with the forthcoming codification amendment? Further in the article and attempts to answer these questions. 5. CURRENT POSSIBILITY OF CHANGING THE CODIFICATION OF DEBITORS WITH EL, ER, EU THE THEORY OF CODIFICATION 5.1. Choice of strategic codification directions As can be seen from the previous parts of the article, the short vowel e of borrowed words is not a problem of the codification of individual words, but of the whole common Lithuanian phonological level. When codifying both the basics of individual language subdomains and the more systematically taken specific phenomena of those subdomains, it is first decided what is kodifikacijos kaitos laikotarpis, kokių tikslų per jį ketinama pasiekti ir kokiomis strateginėmis covered and how far into the future the projected codification directions will be guided. The most common reference points are:  increase or decrease variantity,  purify common language or tolerate the proliferation of borrowed phenomena,  tighten or liberalize the norms of common language. Rita Miliūnaitė. The current state of codification of borrowed words with pronounced diphthongs el, er, eu BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 and possible changes | 18 The choice of the strategic directions of codification depends mainly on the state of development of the general language (its specific sub-level) and on the type of language policy chosen by kalbos raidos tarpsniu. Kiek galima suprasti iš VLKK kirčiavimo rekomendacijų komentarų, svarbiausias tų the authors. However, they do not talk about the sequence of the steps of the codification change in time and the predicted result at least at an approximate moment of the development of the common language. So the question remains – what strategic directions of codification should be chosen when it comes to the pronunciation of borrowed words with el, er, eu? 5.1.1. Variability. The history of the standardization of the common Lithuanian language, especially in its first years, by selecting from the varying dialects or foreign gyvavimo dešimtmečiais, rodo įvairių kalbos lygmenų kodifikacijos kryptį mažinti variantų, phenomena those that would fit the system of the common language. After this system was established and the common language began to function independently, until the end of the 20th century, moderate variantity of all dialects (except at least the area of writing) was maintained, understood as a necessary condition for language change. At the beginning of the 21st century, with the systematic review of the codification of the common language (for example, the lexical and grammatical recommendations published in the “Language Advice” series), the codified norms began to become more liberal and varied, more responsive to the changes of the increasingly dynamic usage. The revision of the codification of pronunciation, especially of the main normative dictionary, which was significantly delayed and lagged behind the usage tendencies, was no exception. However, the proliferation of variants requires moderation, because an excessively varied and hot norm is incompatible with the very nature of the common language. The variability must be sufficient to reflect the tendencies of the varying usage and to allow the language to change, but not to be excessive and not to impede the common language from performing its functions. The increase of the number of variants of borrowed words codified with el, er, eu (i.e., the legalization of fixed-end variants) is precisely related to the tendency of usage and is a means of changing the codification, and after changing it, i.e., after moving to the main fixed-end norm and establishing usage, it should naturally be reduced, leaving one variant. However, this process takes time. 5.1.2. Relationship of borrowed elements with the Lithuanian language system. Throughout the history of the standardization of the common Lithuanian language, efforts have been made to adhere to the principle of moderate purity, renouncing a strict purist position, but allowing borrowed elements to be introduced carefully – purposefully and simply where they are functionally justified and cannot be replaced by their own elements. The case of the pronunciation and nuosaikaus gryninimo krypčiai: skolinti elementai lietuvių kalboje nėra tikslingi, nes juos visiškai pronunciation of the borrowed short [ẹ] and the double el, er, eu should obey this general rule. As shown by the international [ẹ] codification Rita Miliūnaitė. The current state of codification and possible change of borrowed with pronounced BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 diphthongs el, er, eu | 19 history, this element was introduced into the common language artificially and throughout its history of codification remained not only little functional, but also detrimental to the common language pronunciation system, promoting nedėsningą kirčio atitraukimą. 5.1.3. The binding nature of common language norms. With the liberalization of society at the beginning of the 21st century, the policy of general Lithuanian language standardization becomes softer. From strict requirements to recommendations and more functional variants are allowed in the hope that conscious language users will be able to choose the most appropriate language expression themselves. The codification of the pronunciation of borrowed words with el, er, eu tiek, kiek vartotojams pereinamuoju kodifikacijos laikotarpiu sudaroma galimybė rinktis iš kelių also corresponds to this liberal direction of variants. 5.2. Application of codification principles and criteria The common Lithuanian language and its varied use are regulated by determining the normative value of language phenomena according to universally accepted (and approved by the protocol decision of the VLKK) codification principles and criteria (cf. Girdenis, Pupkis 1996: 1–5; Principai 1997: 1–3; Pupkis 2005: 157 etc.). The most important norming principles (i.e. general provisions) are the following:  Flexible permanence (to maintain the continuity of the common language system and create conditions for the development of the common language (see also Garvin 1993: 43); norm not jumpingly, but through variants);  systemic (to take into account the internal laws of language – language phenomena 22 are not regulated individually, but in the whole context of the language system, its subsystems, norms and usage);  purposefulness (to select the strongest criteria of codification for a specific case and, taking into account the functions of language in society, the most functional means of expression according to the needs of users). Having chosen the strategic directions of the codification of borrowed words with diphthongs el, er, eu and based on these principles, it remains to see how the criteria of codification interact in this case and which of them determine the result of codification. The normative value of specific language phenomena, roughly speaking, consists of parts of the value, determined separately according to each criterion relevant to the phenomenon. These criteria are not applied in the same way to different language sub-levels, depending on the specifics of each sub-level: criteria are arranged differently according to hierarchy (for example, unequal weight of the purity criterion in different sub-levels); of the norm, 22 Systematics in codification is perceived both as a general principle and as a specific phenomenon of language vertinimo kriterijus (Pupkis 2005: 170). Kriterijų lygmeniu sistemiškumas dažnai eina greta su taisyklingumu. Rita Miliūnaitė. The current state of codification and possible change of borrowed words with pronounced BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 diphthongs el, er, eu | 20 The norm of other words (e.g. spelling) varies minimally, etc. The weight of the various criteria in the codification of the pronunciation and pronunciation variants is also not exactly equal. principą atsižvelgtina į garsinio bendrinės lietuvių kalbos lygmens ypatumus (Pupkis 2005: 169): In particular, the strength and clarity of the systemic connections are distinguished by the systems of phonology and morphology. They are said to be closed systems, which do not add new elements during the years of maturity of the common language, i.e. do not produce new words and do not borrow from other systems. The sound system of the Western Altay Kaunas dialect, which forms the common language sounds sistemos pagrindą, tarptautinio [ẹ] neturi 23 . Skolintuose žodžiuose tariamas toks pat trumpasis [e], as in words of Lithuanian origin. This makes it possible to consider the international [ẹ], together with the strong-ending diphthongs el, er, eu, as non-systematic in common language. In this case, to legitimize a 24 non-systematic element in common language, strong arguments are needed to justify its usefulness. Also, the criterion of systematicity requires to talk about these phenomena not in terms of specific groups of words (verbs) according to which pronunciation recommendations are prepared, but at a higher level, because these phenomena include all parts of speech, general and specific words, and do not depend on the specific word structure. Thus, codification decisions must be of a higher systemic level. a) distinctiveness and economy: some users of common language do not recognize phonemes functioning in certain positions Pagalbiniai šiuo atveju aktualūs kodifikacijos kriterijai, valdomi tikslingumo principo, yra tokie: (borrowed words) as separate, especially in the flow of speech there is no need to recognize and somehow distinguish the categories of borrowed words themselves, so in this respect the presence of the international [ẹ] in common language is not appropriate – superfluous; b) prevalence and frequency of use: due to the lack of studies and their complexity, these criteria are difficult to apply, but even the strongly rooted pronunciation of el, er, eu is not naturally occurring in the usage, but artificially introduced, so it can only be spoken of its acquisition or non-acquisition; el, er, eu accentuation in more frequently used borrowings and adaptation to the pronunciation of Lithuanian words with el, er indicates a clear usage 25 tendency – the accentuated variant, as distinct from 23 Since the system of the common Lithuanian language, including its phonology, is essentially based on a single dialect (although this is quite rare in terms of the origin of common languages, cf. Deumert 2004: 3), it is appropriate to preserve the integrity of such a closed layer as phonetic. (It should be noted that the natural development of the phonological system of the common language has acquired some new characteristics that do not coincide with the phonological system of the basic dialect, but codification lags behind in this respect; plg. 2009: 44–45. It is obvious that other, less closed consonants of the common language are all the less identical with the basic dialect system: the common language is already developing independently. 24 More aspects of the systematic criterion, including analogous borrowed with diphthongs em, en, as well as ol, or kirčiavimą, žr. Pupkis 2016. 25 Naturally occurring phenomena in usage usually go through several stages of development before they become widespread and can be codified (see Aitchison 2013), and the pronouncement of borrowed words with el, er, eu strong-on has been codified despite this. Rita Miliūnaitė. The current state of codification of borrowed words with pronounced diphthongs el, er, eu BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 and possible change | 21 of the Lithuanian consonant, and thus its non-acquisition during the long period of functioning of the common Lithuanian language (which covers three generations of users); c) norming tradition and authority criteria: the history of the codification of borrowed with diphthongs el, er, eu shows that there are sufficient authoritative opinions, which with detailed arguments justify the change of codification to the consolidation of international el, er, eu; the arguments of the opposing authorities are more related to the technical and practical aspects of codification and the desire to keep the codification itself as stable as possible; (d) consumers’ language preferences: they have been little studied, but opinions expressed on various occasions suggest that these preferences vary; Two general groups of language users can be distinguished: norm-spreaders (teachers, language editors, media workers, actors, etc.; their opinions are shaped by the existing codification and influenced by the existing habits, and those two things 26 do not always coincide in this case) and ordinary language users (their attitude to the codification of this phenomenon, as mentioned, is fairly neutral and the pronunciation of the words in question in the spoken aspect is not perceived as a problem). 6. CODING CHANGE PLANNING 6.1. Codification change planning stages When it comes to the change of codification, it is appropriate to refer to the language planning methodology according to four distinct stages of language planning (cf. Christian 1994: 33–34): 1) the problem is identified (the linguistic situation is clarified, why the change of codification is necessary); 2) a plan of codification changes is prepared and implemented: (a) collecting data on the current situation; (b) set out the objectives and targets of the plan, the means to achieve them and the possible results; (c) a phenomenon that is implemented in a sequential manner; 3) the effectiveness of the plan is assessed, i.e. the implementation of the plan is monitored and, if necessary, the plan is adjusted; 4) feedback from language users is maintained. 26 For the different relationships of different groups of language users to language norms and their role in their dissemination, see further below. Takahashi 2004: 173–174. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 22 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Skolinių su el, er, eu kirčiavimo kodifikacijos pokyčio į tvirtagalį kirčiavimą plane (jo detalės reflected in the minutes of the WCAG Council and the WCAG Spelling Subcommission, the WCAG Spelling Recommendations and their commentaries discussed) is now reached and halfway to point 2(c). It remains to perform the final action of this point – to equalize the spelling system. Although, as already noted, the aforementioned documents do not speak directly about the expected final time of the change, but the beginning of the partial publication of the BZ, for which the drafting of the spelling recommendations was initiated, is the real soil in which this codification change is most appropriate, since subsequent editions of this dictionary are unlikely to be received by the public with the same attention as is expected now, and their impact on usage will be weaker. If we evaluate in a similar way the “plan” of the previous – more than half-century-long – codification stage to introduce the borrowed short vowel [ẹ] into Lithuanian usage, we could say that the evaluation of the effectiveness of that plan, according to the third point, showed that it was not justified. 6.2. Possible solutions An important step was taken at the VLCC Council and Pronunciation meeting on 21 October 2015, when it was agreed that the codification change should cover the whole system, not just individual lists of words. There is only disagreement about the intensity and timing of the change. In the minutes of this meeting it is written: The decision in principle on el, er, eu in international words was not adopted. It is intended to ask the opinion of the Language Commission, whether it is worth recognizing the strong-pronounced variant as a proximity of all (not only more commonly used) international words, or whether the strong-pronounced pronunciation can be proclaimed as the basic pronunciation norm in general (without deleting the strong-pronounced as a proximity) and this norm can be enshrined in the “Common Lithuanian Language Dictionary”. Thus, in the first case, it is proposed to show the tendency of all strongly-pronunciated borrowed words with diphthongs el, er, eu to become strong, thus legitimizing the universal variantity of this subsystem. In this case, those who focus on the first option as the main one will continue to strike firmly. For those words, which are already codified only in the double-end variant, it would probably remain a double-end (without gas, -ė, eũras, pe las, etc.), so for the more careful users after the old codification change stops halfway, its tektų tokius žodžius įsiminti. Kodifikacijos nuoseklumui šis atvejis nieko neduoda. Taigi planning remains vague. Is it worth waiting another 10-20 years, until all words “adapt” (and the rarer ones “do not adapt”) to the Lithuanian pronunciation system, and only then it would be possible to make the strong-ended variant the main one? In the second case, it is proposed to level the system now: Rita Miliūnaitė. The current state of codification of borrowed words with pronounced diphthongs el, er, eu BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 and possible changes | 23 1) all borrowed words with diphthongs el, er, eu would be pronounced in the first variant in the strong-pronounced way, So in the second case users would not have to guess: in the 2) tų žodžių, kurių iki tol buvo kodifikuotas tvirtapradis variantas (vienintelis arba pirmas greta antro tvirtagalio), tas tvirtapradis variantas būtų paliktas kaip antrasis. strong-pronounced way, the basic rule would always be maintained – this is also the tendency of usage – and if someone is used to pronounce in the strong-pronounced way, it would also not be considered a mistake. This case has been called revolutionary by the ICRC Subcommittee on Council and Pronunciation, although there is no revolution here, if we are not talking about individual words, but about the whole system of pronunciation of borrowed words with el, er, eu. As was evident from the spelling recommendations preparing the ground nuo 2003 m. ir jų komentarų, gana nuosekliai per variantus einama į tvirtagalį kirčiavimą, for just such a change in codification. Thus, as a natural consequence, the pronunciation of the euro was codified in 2003, as has been mentioned, and this was fully justified. The principle of systematicity, which is to be implemented – to apply a rigid pronunciation to all borrowed words with pronounced diphthongs el, er, eu – should not be called a revolution. This is determined by the very nature of the phenomenon in question. The Codification Revolution in the 1951 CJZ was carried out without any debate. Now it is actually necessary to correct its consequences and return to the norm fixed in the 1948 Lithuanian language spelling dictionary, only, of course, on a new level, including many new borrowed words, as well as providing purposeful secondary strong-on variants for some time. 7. ENCODING TECHNIQUES 7.1. Codification change actions Based on the use criterion, the value share of variants is usually determined by the nature of their competition: a) the beginning of competition, b) increasing competition, c) strong competition, d) weakening competition, e) the end of competition (see Miliūnaitė 2006: 14). Since the phenomenon in question, as mentioned, did not arise naturally, but as a result of artificial codification, and in addition, it is difficult to record it in living usage, it is more appropriate to talk not about the competition of norm variants in real usage, but about its projection in codification. Thus, the change in codification depends more on the technique of codification than on the relationship between competing variants. The essence of the change in the codification itself is to systematically move to the strong-end pronunciation, purposefully leaving the strong-start pronunciation as a secondary variant for a while as a remnant of the previous codification. Rita Miliūnaitė. The current state of codification and possible changes of borrowed words with pronounced BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 diphthongs el, er, eu | 24 In the case of changing the codification, the following actions are theoretically possible: a) the codified variants of the norms are replaced, c) one of the variants of the norm is removed, d) b) įteisinamas naujas normos variantas, the obsolete norm is removed, Since the codification of the spoken phenomenon was inconsistent, all five actions would be necessary for its equalizing change, with regard to individual words (see table 5). TABLE 5. e) įteisinamas anksčiau neigiamai kodifikuotas (nelaikytas norma) reiškinys. Actions of the compensatory codification change with the pronunciation variants of borrowed words with the diphthongs el, er, eu (a – consonant, b – consonant) Current codification būvis (according to the recommendations of the IWCC or, in the absence thereof, the TSI 2001) VLKK Subcommittees on pronunciation and spelling 2016) 2016: The 2016 1 atvejis 2 atvejis a (dèrbis, 1. hermenèutika) a || b (dèrbis || d bis; b || a (d hermeneutics || A-League Draft bis || dèrbis; hermeneutics || (A-League) 2016: The 2. 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 2016: The 2016 A-League Draft (A-League) 3. b (without gas, -ė, (?) speltà, eurayas) b (without gas, -ė, speltà, 4. (te mosas || thermos) b || a (te mosas || b (te thermos) mosas) 5. new words a (?) eurayas) (delphi) b || a b (of fis) Table 5 shows that the results of the proposed codification change are clearly different in the first and second cases: the first step does not improve the status of codification, the second creates a clear system. In terms of planning the change of codification, the question of how to deal with new words entering into the Lithuanian language must not be lost sight of. Although some of them eventually develop lietuviškų atitikmenų, bet tada, kai pradedami vartoti, jie kaip nors turi būti kirčiuojami. Tokių Rita Miliūnaitė. Borrowings with pronounced diphthongs el, er, eu current state of codification and possible BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 change | 25 new words come into the Lithuanian language every day, for example: derbiai („classic openly vyriški bateliai“, internas, -ė „esantis internatūroje, t. y. podiplominę praktiką atliekantis bandaged doctor“, selfis „self-portrait photo, usually taken with a smartphone and placed on the 27 į socialinius tinklus“, dalbergija 28 „pupinių šeimos medis“ ir kt. (žr. ND). Based on the logic of pronunciation of “not yet adapted” borrowed words, according to the first case, it would first be necessary to legalize the firm-origin variant and wait for a longer or shorter period of its adaptation to the Lithuanian pronunciation system, and only then, if it turns tvirtagalio varianto. Akivaizdu, kad tokiu atveju ir toliau neišvengtume nesistemiško visų skolinių out to be common, move step by step to pronunciation with el, er, eu. 7.2. Relationships between variants and status after a possible codification change According to the system of four most important degrees of evaluation established in the general Lithuanian language codification, the variants of the norms can be equivalent (a | b) or one main (practically predominant), another secondary (a || b). Theoretically, the relationships between the variants of norms indicate their state of competition and development tendencies in real usage at the time of codification: strong competition of variants or greater prospectiveness of one of them (in the sociolinguistic aspect – and prestige). Provided that codification remains close to usage and is adjusted as necessary, such a system of ratings allows for flexibility in responding to changes in normos variantų santykių raiška reikalinga tiek kodifikacijos kaitai per variantus fiksuoti, tiek kalbos vartotojams orientuotis dėl kalbos polinkių. usage. In the practice of General Linguistics, the status of variants must be discussed in two dimensions: 1) the sources of codification, 2) the users of the language. The lexicographic works (mostly dictionaries) are important for the codification of pronunciation. In the practice of lexicography, the title word, along with its pronunciation, spelling, and grammatical form, is usually considered the main variant, and the other variant next to it – equivalent or secondary (depending on the decision of the editors of the specific source). Thus, the position of the main (first) variant is particularly important for the practice of codification, because in general any 27 Although the Lithuanian equivalent of this English word asmenukė was quickly found, in usage it may be necessary to pronounce and concatenate it as well (see: With selfie came the related words „selfintis“, „selfimanas“). The location of the kill depends on the chosen preemption. 28 Dalbergija has been recorded with 21 entries (with species certificates) in the Lithuanian Republic Terms Bank (LRTB) from different sources approved by VLKK (searched only for denominator, accessed 2016 04 21). This term is used here ambiguously: dalbèrgija (18 times: in the VLKK recommendations “On some wood names”, 2003; “On Lithuanian names of woody, fibrous, resinous, tanned and other plants used for technical purposes”, 2008; “On Lithuanian names of poisonous plants (A-J)”, 2016, etc.) and dalbe gija (5 times: in the Explanatory Terms Code, medienos terminų žodyne, 2014). Nors šiuo atveju toks įvairavimas nelemia kirčio vietos, bet labai abejotina, ar 2003; “On Lithuanian names of woody, fibrous, resinous, tanned and other plants used for technical purposes”, 2008; “On Lithuanian names of poisonous plants (A-J)”, 2016, etc.). RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 32 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 DLKG 2005: Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian Language. Red. Vytautas Ambrazas. 4th revised edition, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. 1954: Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language. Atsak. red. Jonas Kruopas. 1-as clue. Vilnius: DŽ2 1972: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language. Atsak. red. Jonas Kruopas. 2nd clue. Vilnius: A thought. 1993: Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language. Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. 3-axis clue. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. 2000: Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language. Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. 4-axis clue. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. 2002: Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language. 4th (electronic) ed. Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. DŽ5e 2003: Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language (electronic). Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. 5-as hint. – Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. 2006. pp. 116. "Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language". Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. Note 6. – Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. 2011. pp. 11. "Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language". Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. Online access: http://dz.lki.lt/ DŽ7 2012: Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language. Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. 7th floor. and supplement. I'm sorry. Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. 2015. pp. 11. "Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language". Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. 7th floor. and supplement. I'm sorry. Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. Internet access: http://lkiis.lki.lt. 1948: Dictionary of the English Language. Red. K. Gasparavičius, N. Grigas, J. Lazauskas, K. Ulvydas, A. Žirgulys. State publishing house of encyclopedias, dictionaries and scientific literature. 2001. "Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language". 2 leid. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. LKŽe – Lithuanian language dictionary, electronic version. Editors: Gertrūda Naktinienė (m. ed.), Jonas Paulauskas, Ritutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 2005. – Updated version, 2008. Online access: www.lkz.lt LRTB: Lithuanian Terms Bank. Online access: http://terminai.vlkk.lt ND: Lithuanian language new words database. Continuous online guide since 2011 Sud. Rita Miliūnaitė. Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. Internet access: http://naujazodziai.lki.lt (Accessed 2016-04-20). RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 33 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Protokolinis nutarimas PN-8: Protokolinis nutarimas „Dėl Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos Recommendation No. R-4 of 20 December 2007 “On the amendment of the general requirements for the preparation of terminology dictionaries”, 3 December 2015. Accessed online: http://vlkk.lt/vlkknutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-valstybines-lietuviu-kalbos-komisijos-2007-mgruodzio-20-d-rekomendacijos-nr-r-4-del-terminu-zodynu-rengimo-bendrujureikalavimu-pakeitimo (accessed 2016 04 21); New version of the General requirements for the preparation of glossaries. Access on the Internet: http://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausiostemos/terminija/terminu-zodynu-rengimo-bendraeji-reikalavimai (accessed 2016 04 21). PV: World Placenames. Europe, 2006; America, 2008; Africa. Antarctica. Australia. Oceania, 2010; Asia (Afghanistan–United Arab Emirates), 2012; Asia (Cambodia–Vietnam), 2014. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. Online database. Vilnius: Science and Encyclopedias Publishing Center, VLKK. Retrieved 2015-04-25. http://world-names.vlkk.lt/ Recommendation K-1: Recommendation on the pronunciation of the name of the currency ‘euro’ of 29 May 2003 (No K-1). Accessed: http://vlkk.lt/aktualiausios-temos/tartis-irkirciavimas/1-del-euro (accessed 2016 04 07). Recommendation K-3: Recommendation “On the pronunciation of certain double-syllabic nouns of foreign origin”, 26 June 2003, No. K-3. Accessed online: http://vlkk.lt/vlkknutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-kai-kuriu-dviskiemeniu-svetimos-kilmes-- naiktavardziu-kirciavimo (accessed 2016 04 12). Recommendation K-3.1: Protocol Resolution “On the Supplementation of Recommendation No. K-3 of 26 June 2003 “On the Pronunciation of Certain Bi-syllabic Nouns of Foreign Origin”, No. PN-7 of 2 October 2008 (k-3.1). Access on the Internet: http://vlkk.lt/vlkknutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-2003-m-birzelio-26-d-rekomendacijos-nr-k-3del-kai-kuriu-dviskiemeniu-svetimos-kilmes-nuimtavardziu-spelciavimo-papildymo (žiūrėta 2016 04 13). Recommendation K-4: Recommendation “On the pronunciation of certain polysyllabic nouns of foreign origin”, 26 October 2003, No. 5 (K-4). Accessed online: http://vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-kai-kuriu-daugiaskiemeniusvetimos-kilmes-nuiktavardziu-kirciavimo (accessed 2016 04 13). Recommendation K-4.1: Protocol Resolution “Regarding Recommendation No. 5 of 2 October 2003 (K-4) „Dėl kai kurių daugiaskiemenių svetimos kilmės daiktavardžių kirčiavimo“ supplementation”, No PN-8 (k-4.1) of 2 October 2008. Access on the Internet: http://vlkk.lt/vlkknutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-2003-m-spalio-2-d-rekomendacijos-- RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 34 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 nr-5-k-4-delkai-kai-daugiaskiemeniu-svetimos-kilmes-nuiktavardziu-spelciavimo-papildymo (viewed on 2009-05-28) 2016 04 13). Recommendation K-11: Recommendation “On the pronunciation of certain adverbial adjectives”, 28 October 2004, No. 12 (K-11). Access on the Internet: http://vlkk.lt/vlkknutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-kai-kurių-prieveiksmiu-adverbiu-pildymo (žiūrėta 2016 04 13). Recommendation K-11.1: Protocol Resolution “On the Supplementation of Recommendation No. 12 (K-11) “On the Pronunciation of Certain Adverbial Adjectives” of 28 October 2004”, No. PN-9 (k-11.1) of 2 October 2008. Accessed online: http://vlkk.lt/vlkknutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-2004-m-spalio-28-d-rekomendacijos-- nr-12-k-11-del-kai-kuriu-prieveiksmiu-adverbiu-spelciavimo-papildymo (accessed 2016 04 13). Recommendation K-16.1: Protocol Resolution “On the Supplementation of Recommendation No. R-12 (K-16) “On the Pronunciation of Certain Adverbs” of 10 November 2005”, No. PN-10 (k-16.1) of 2 October 2008. Accessed online: http://vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniainutarimai/del-2005-m-lapkričio-10-d-rekomendacijos-nr-r-12-k-16-del-kai-kuriuprieveikimo-kircimo-papildymo (accessed 2016 04 13). Recommendation K-16.2: Protocol Resolution “On the Amendment and Supplementation of Recommendation No. R-12 (k-16) “On the Pronunciation of Certain Adverbs” of the State Lithuanian Language Commission of 10 November 2005”, No. PN-4 (k-16.2) of 9 October 2014. Accessed online: http://vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-valstybines-lietuviukalbos-komisijos-2005-m-lapkricio-10-d-rekomendacijos-nr-r-12-k-16-del-kai-kuriuprieveikumo-spelciavimo-- pakeitimo-ir-papildymo (accessed 2016 04 17). Recommendation K-20: Protocol Resolution “On the Use of Pronunciation Variants”, December 9, 2010, No. PN-9 (k-20). Access on the Internet: http://www.vlkk.lt/vlkknutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-kirciavimo-variantu-vartojimo (viewed 2016 04 17). 1951: International Dictionary of Languages. Red. Ch. Lemchenas. Vilnius: State Political and Scientific Literature Publishers. TŽŽ 1969: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Red. Ch. Lemchenas. Vilnius: Mintis. 1985: The World's Languages. Ats. red. V. Kvietkauskas. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. TŽŽ 2001: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Ats. red. Algimantas Kinderys. Vilnius: Alma littera. TŽŽ 2013: Dictionary of International Words. Red. The Holy Week. Vilnius: Alma littera. Rita Miliūnaitė. The current state of codification and possible change of borrowed words with accentuated diphthongs el, er, eu | 35 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LITERATŪRA A i tch ison J . 2013: Language Change: Progress or Decay? 4th edition. Cambridge University Press. Chr i s t ia n D . 1994: Kalbų planavimas kalbotyros požiūriu. – Sociolingvistika ir kalbos kultūra. Sud. L. Grumadienė, R. Marcinkevičienė. Vilnius: Gimtoji kalba, 29–40. D eu m e rt A. 2004: Language Standardization and Language Change. The dynamics of Cape Dutch. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam / Philadelphia. G a rvi n P. 1993: A conceptual framework for the study of language standardization. – International Journal of the Sociology of Language 100/101, 37–54. Prieiga internete: http://ukonline-web.uni-koeln.de/remarks/d5134/rm2180577.pdf (žiūrėta 2016 04 07). G i rde n is A., Pu p ki s A. 1996: Kalbos norminimo principai. – Gimtoji kalba 8, 1–5. Jaro s l a vi enė J . 2015: Lietuvių kalbos trumpųjų ir ilgųjų balsių kiekybės ir kokybės etalonai. – Bendrinė kalba 88. Prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/Html/88/Jaroslaviene_BK_88_straipsnis.pdf L i utk e vi č ienė D . 2015: Bendrinės kalbos normų pateikimas Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne. – Bendrinė kalba 88. Prieiga internete: www.bendrinekalba.lt/Straipsniai/88/Liutkeviciene_BK_88_straipsnis.pdf M i li ū nait ė R. 2003: Kalbos reiškinių vertinimo laipsniai. – Acta linguistica Lithuanica 48, 97–104. M i li ū nait ė R . 2006: Kodifikacijos ir vartosenos santykių modelis. – Kalbos kultūra 79, 9– 28. M i li ū nait ė R . 2007: Kodifikuotų normų keitimas: už ir prieš. – Kalbos kultūra 80, 7–23. M i li ū nait ė R . 2009: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos vartosenos variantai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. P a ke r ys A . 2003: Komentaras dėl kirčiavimo rekomendacijų (2003 07 09). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/naujienos/kitos-naujienos/komentaras-del-kirciavimo-rekomendaciju (žiūrėta 2016 04 12). P a ke r ys A ., Pu p k is A. 2004 [1968]: Lietuvių kalbos bendrinė tartis. 2-as papild. ir patais. leidimas [su kompaktine plokštele]. Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis. Principai 1997: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos tvarkybos principai, kodifikacijos kriterijai ir jų taikymas. – Gimtoji kalba 4, 1–3. P u pk i s A . 2005: Kalbos kultūros studijos. Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis. P u pk i s A . 2016: Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo. – Bendrinė kalba 89. Prieiga internete: www.bendrinekalba.lt/Straipsniai/89/Pupkis_BK_89_straipsnis.pdf RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 36 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Stu n d žia B . 2003: Komentaras dėl „euro“ kirčiavimo (2003 07 09). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/naujienos/kitos-naujienos/komentaras-del-euro-kirciavimo (žiūrėta 2016 04 07). Stu n d žia B . 2008: Dėl svetimžodžių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu priegaidės (2008 12 05). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/naujienos/pakomisiu-naujienos/delsvetimzodziu-su-kirciuotais-dvigarsiais-el-er-eu-priegaides (žiūrėta 2016 04 07). Stu n d žia B. 2013: Kirčiavimo norminamąjį darbą tęsiant (2013 12 23). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/naujienos/kitos-naujienos/bonifacas-stundzia-kirciavimo-norminamajidarba-tesiant (žiūrėta 2016 04 20). T ak a h as hi H . 2004: Language norms. – Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society. Ed. Ammon U., Dittmar N., Mattheier K. J., Trudgill P. 2nd ed., V. 1. Walter de Gruyter, 172–179. Įteikta 2016 05 03 Adopted 2016 07 05 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]