KALBA

JONAS KLIMAVIČIUS

JONAS JABLONSKIS AND THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE

KEYWORDS: Jablonskis, jablonskiana, language, nation, national language, national function of language.

1. THE PATHS, BYWAYS, AND DEAD ENDS OF JABLONSKIANA

Jonas Jablonskis (1860 12 30–1930 02 23) was a linguist and scholar, a pedagogue, a secondary-school teacher and university professor, a public educator, a fighter for Lithuanian identity and independence, a translator, and an editor. A pioneer in many fields, he laid the foundations of more than one discipline and became an authority. An unyielding seeker and fighter for truth—in science and in life alike. While still alive, he was (so) named the father of the (written) language; in reality, he both laid the foundations and built the walls of the modern standard Lithuanian language. Jablonskiana began during his lifetime. Arnoldas Piročkinas (2010: 1) mentions about 500 entries. His 60th birthday was marked by Juozas Balčikonis’s article Jablonskis ir mūsų šių dienų kalba. J. Jablonskis is assessed here as “a great language researcher” and “a language teacher” (Balčikonis 1919–1920^*: 155), but the lack of results is noted: “In schools, as in other public institutions and in the press at the time, the same corrupted language reigns—a sort of jargon, very far removed from living speech” (Balčikonis 1919–1920: 156). An article published immediately after his death explains the significance of J. Jablonskis’s constant concern for the language of newspapers: “its irregularities may infect the whole nation and corrupt its language” (Balčikonis 1930: 167). The general assessment is repeated here: “Jablonskis was not only a great teacher, but also a great

^*For the chronology of the subject, the literature references give the year of first publication and the reprint page numbers.

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

9

mokslininkas“ (Balčikonis 1930: 168). Po metų apibūdinamas: „brangus ir kaip visuomenės žmogus ir kaip mokslininkas“ (Balčikonis 1931: 170).

His death, despite his frail body, as a worker still active, came unexpectedly and was understood as a genuine loss to scholarship. Yet his multifaceted activity—scholarly, pedagogical, cultural, and public—was already clearly understood as a legacy of the utmost value.

J. Jablonskis’s “long-imagined and long-dreamed-of” language organ—the standard-language journal Kalba—published in its first issue, vol. I, no. 1, an article by Rygiškių Jonas, Laikraštinės kalbos dalykai (31–36), and in the same issue announced, in the name of its editor Pranas Skardžius, the death of “this great man of language.” That same year, no. 2 appeared, dedicated to “A. A. Jonui Jablonskiui, bendrinės kalbos kūrėjui ir ilgamečiui (= ~iam) jos tobulintojui”. More than half of it was devoted to J. Jablonskis himself: an overview article by Aleksandras Merkelis; Atsiminimų bruožai by President of the Republic Antanas Smetona; memoirs by Pranas Mašiotas, Petras Avižonis, Motiejus Pečiulionis, and Viktoras Vaičiūnas; notes by Juozas Bagdonas and Zigmas Kuzmickis; and finally, the brief but substantive Jablonskio kalbos tyrimo charakteristikos bruožas by Petras Jonikas—the “explanation” of an error “from the facts of our language (its laws)” (Jonikas 1930: 63). That clarification in parentheses does credit to the young linguist: he had nevertheless grasped not some primitive method of analogy, but the essential principle of the system (its laws). Yet those parentheses also betray uncertainty, while understanding language research as the explanation of error (and only that?!) is unjustifiably and fatally narrow. However, a concise piece, signed—perhaps with his own initials—P. J., Darbu pagerbkime didįjį kalbininką!, is significant in several respects. First, it emphasizes that J. Jablonskis “worked for the cultural advancement of the whole nation, organized a particular sphere of that culture, and fostered it. He raised and nurtured the forces by which the nation grows” (J. P. 1930: 64). And the nation is reminded of the words spoken in J. Jablonskis’s final days by the man who “embodied the spirit of work”: “there is no future for a nation that does not know how to work” (J. P. 1930: 65). The vital significance of improving and cultivating language (or, in modern terms, language culture) is then shown: “Language is a great force in cultural life, without which the rise and progress of a nation are impossible” (J. P. 1930: 65). And, as J. Jablonskis himself believed, the newspaper stands on the front line of this work and struggle: “After all, the newspaper’s influence on its readers is greatest. Young people learn phraseology, style, and language from it. All this, through constant reading, is hammered into a person’s head by the newspaper” (J. P. 1930: 65). The piece concludes with the words of a bitterly regretful footnote: “I had submitted this article to the editorial office of a daily newspaper for publication. <...> replied that the article w a s n o t t i m e l y; <...>” (J. P. 1930: 65). Indeed, ten years later, in Gimtojoje kalboje (!), P. Jonikas discusses J. Jablonskis’s method of analogy,

10

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

Yet surely this applies—and not universally, either!—only to corrections and the creation of neologisms, not to grammar; and here he rightly observes: “His greatest achievement was the creation of Lithuanian syntax (emphasis mine – J. K.) <...>” (Jonikas 1940: 19). Though not entirely clear, his scholarship is nonetheless significant, as is his more specific theory of spelling (Jonikas 1940: 18).

There is no doubt that P. Jonikas, a representative of the younger generation, sought to provide more concrete and detailed assessments (although they lacked consistency) than J. Balčikonis.

In his much more extensive commemoration of the death anniversary in the journal Archivum Philologiam, P. Skardžius begins his assessment with labels: “Jaunius and Būga were universalists, whereas J-skis was an eclectic” (Skardžius 1931: 325). This is unheard of in the history of linguistics. The near-contemporary TŽŽ 1936 defines eklektikas as—1. “a philosopher who does not adhere to a single system, <...>” (eklektizmas – also only philos.); 2. “an unoriginal artist, poet, or publicist without creative foundations of his own”; eklektiškas means “assembled, selected, drawn from various systems.” What P. Skardžius specifically calls eclectic is utterly astonishing: “J. J-skis expressed his eclectic view as follows as early as 1901: ‘He (that is, the compiler of a Lithuanian-language textbook) must base all his learning on the laws of the people’s language, – – – (...)’” (Skardžius 1931: 325). What, and from whom, was assembled and pieced together in J. Jablonskis’s theory of the standard language, and what was not his own? Elsewhere P. Skardžius himself calls it “a clear program for the standard language”; after listing J. Jablonskis’s grammatical works (and several others), he says that they “formed the foundation of the standard language” (Skardžius 1931: 329). Having declared that “he investigated nothing using the historical-comparative method” (Skardžius 1931: 329–330), he does not say why that method would have been needed for a grammar of the standard language, let alone for a theory of the standard language. Yet another somersault: “J. Jablonskis’s work <...> nevertheless has considerable significance for the general science of language” (Skardžius 1931: 331). It could hardly be more contradictory...

J. Balčikonis, J. Jablonskis’s most devoted student and companion—especially during the final five-year period—and the most consistent implementer of his conception (whatever he may have done or thought differently, he did so without public statements, let alone criticism), quite quickly prepared and edited a five-volume edition of Jablonskio raštų: 1 – Visuomenės straipsniai (1932), 2 – Švietimo reikalai (1933), 3 – Rašybos dalykai (1934), 4 and 5 – Kalbos dalykai (1935 and 1936). These were articles published over 47 years under his surname, various pseudonyms and pen names, and even without a name, gathered from various newspapers, as well as prefaces to grammars and reading books, and unpublished textbook reviews. The editor’s Prakalba ends with a confident hope: “Therefore Jablonskis’s significance for our nation will not diminish, but will continually grow through his writings” (Balčikonis 1932a: X).

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

11

The Trumpas gyvenimo aprašymas (XI–XXVIII), signed by J. B., concludes with the briefest description of the man: “All the children made their way in life. He left no wealth” (Balčikonis 1932b: XXVIII). At the end of the five-volume edition are an index of the examples cited (249–258) and a list of language errors corrected by J. Jablonskis (259–280).

There was also an attempt to add a kind of superstructure. As the author himself, P. Skardžius, states, it was on the basis of these five volumes that, in 1937, his own edited journal Archivum Philologicum published the article J. Jablonskis ir dabartinė lietuvių bendrinė kalba, which, though a survey, was also an analytical and evaluative study. As the title indicates, the subject is not only J. Jablonskis’s linguistic legacy but also its current, living part—its inheritance; hence, an overall assessment. In that assessment, however, the salt of criticism is somewhat overdone, and the emphases are sometimes illogically reversed: “the path he followed is not only to be corrected, but also to be continued” (Skardžius 1937: 246). The duality or contradiction of the premises and, naturally, the conclusions is expressed in the general conception itself: the article begins with Eduard Hermann’s account of the significance of the Lithuanian standard language for general linguistics—referring to his 1929 study Die litauische Gemeinschaftssprache als Problem der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft (Skardžius 1937: 245). One naturally expects a developed deductive argument, but... he fails to understand the principles of the theorist of the living foundation of the Lithuanian standard language (first and foremost!), not to mention his grammars, especially his syntax, and the vitality and coherence of the whole work as a necessity (“a sound, not patched-together entity, like a single dialect of the language (...)” III 109) (Skardžius 1937: 248), as a theory of standard languages (plural!) and its consistent implementation—not of a single model. Another strange contradiction: “J. Jablonskis appeared at the right time, the first educated linguist”; moreover, “having properly familiarized himself with the structure of the written languages of other neighboring nations and the work of improving them,” he rejects “a deductive, a priori view of the written language” and adopts “an inductive, a posteriori view” (Skardžius 1937: 250). Starting from the unregulated mire of the most esteemed native language of the dawn movement (with all its barbarisms and its many most unsuccessful neologisms!), he undertakes, guided by scholarship—that is, theory—to create (one hesitates to say “continue”) a living, coherent, pure standard language; and suddenly: “J. Jablonskis, though a classical philologist, in ordinary life (? – J. K.) did not linguistically investigate a single problem” (Skardžius 1937: 266). Is it not clear, then, that for P. Skardžius linguistics is merely the description of internal structure?.. But grammars are descriptions of structure! The clearest sign of narrowness and lamentable contradictions: “having determined the entire subsequent fate of the Lithuanian standard language” (Skardžius 1937: 267)—not a scholar...

In an article written for the tenth anniversary, P. Skardžius once again juggles labels, as though they could determine everything by themselves: “a classical philologist, not

12

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

a pure linguist,” “he followed the path not of an abstract scholar, but of a practical man of real life” (Skardžius 1940: 303), but... he began to ground matters of language usage in “<...> concrete linguistic data and the linguistic laws derived from those data,” and was “deserving of merit also <...> in the pure science of our language itself” (Skardžius 1940: 305).

Such was the foundation of Jablonskis studies in the period of the First Republic of Lithuania (and not only Lithuania, but the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth).

The first Soviet period, the wartime German occupation, and the first Stalinist decade of the second Soviet period were a blank—fortunately, he was not branded some kind of reactionary or bourgeois nationalist. In a commemorative article in America, while reiterating his assessments by label, P. Skardžius also offered one newer observation: “in seeking correctness and clarity, he first looked for words or expressions that were universal (emphasis mine – J. K.), that is, used and understood by the majority, for the standard language” (Skardžius 1950: 375).

The continuing scholarly publication Literatūra ir kalba, begun in 1956 by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature (the order of the subjects differs from that in the Institute’s name!...), opens with an article by its director, Kostas Korsakas: Du įžymieji lietuvių kalbininkai. Keletas atsiminimų apie J. Jablonskį—J. Balčikonis’s tribute to the Teacher. Its first section is Jablonskis visuomenės žmogus! Its last is Jablonskio paleistų žodžių gausumas, but it shows only a tiny part of that abundance. Bronė Vosylýtė’s extensive article J. Jablonskio vaidmuo lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos istorijoje is ambitious in scope and appropriately academic in scale, though it does not cover everything and offers few generalizations. Zigmas Žemaitis’s memoirs are substantial and matter-of-fact.

This is, as it were, an introduction to an important stage in Jablonskis studies: the Rinktinius raštus of J. Jablonskis, edited by Jonas Palionis (vol. 1, 1957; vol. 2, 1959). The Pratarmėje, signed by the Department of Lithuanian Language at Vilnius University, notes that “J. Jablonskis’s linguistic legacy is of great significance for the history of the Lithuanian language and literature and, more broadly, the culture of the Lithuanian nation” (JablRR I 1957: 5). Volume I consists of “J. Jablonskis’s Lithuanian-language textbooks that are more important from the point of view of scholarship and practice” (5), although, in the strict pedagogical sense, even the 1922 Rygiškių Jonas Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Etimologija—though intended (by the author or the publisher?) for “secondary educational institutions”—was, as the author expected, to be used “first and foremost by language teachers”; he adds: “Do not ask me for a methodology of language teaching” (JablRR I 1957: 183). Volume I opens with J. Palionis’s study J. Jablonskis ir jo lietuvių kalbos vadovėliai (Palionis 1957: 7–56). The scholarship and scholarly significance of those “textbooks” are stated explicitly: “The 1901 ‘Lietuviškos kalbos gramatika’ is of great significance

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

13

because it was the first work in Lithuanian linguistics to shed proper light on the relationship between the literary language and dialects (here and elsewhere in quotations, the italics are mine – J. K.), <...>,” “...a program for the literary language and its normalization that even today requires no substantial corrections” (Palionis 1957: 23). J. Jablonskis’s work on syntax and its originality are particularly emphasized: “Through apt examples selected from the living language of the people, folklore, and the works of prominent writers, the systematization of those examples, the derivation of the rules of Lithuanian syntax, and the establishment of many good new terms, Jablonskis made a fine beginning in the study of Lithuanian syntax, which until then had been almost entirely neglected; moreover, he contributed significantly to establishing and implementing the norms of Lithuanian literary syntax and to freeing it from unnecessary borrowed constructions” (Palionis 1957: 49). Volume II opens with J. Palionis’s survey article, which is also evaluative, J. Jablonskis’s linguistic corrections (Palionis 1959: 5–54). At first, J. Jablonskis “differed hardly at all in the language of his writings,” but later “emerged as a great specialist in the Lithuanian language, as a great authority” (Palionis 1959: 47, 49), with a “method and theoretical foundations” for his corrections—“to rely on the ‘general laws of human language’ derived from numerous examples” (Palionis 1959: 52, 50). At the end of the volume are J. Palionis’s 83 Notes (519–532) and an index of language points corrected (533–553).

A paper read by Kazys Ulvydas at a scholarly conference organized by the Academy of Sciences’ Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature on December 24, 1960, was published in abridged form in volume IV (1961) of Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics under the title J. Jablonskis—Nurturer of the Lithuanian Literary Language (5–15, with an extensive Russian summary on 15–18). At the outset it is said that he “was often called the father of the Lithuanian literary language, its greatest nurturer” (Ulvydo 1961: 5), but later he is described as “a nurturer and even its father, as he was sometimes called” (Ulvydo 1961: 10). Amid the rather abundant interspersing of positive and superlative assessments, a clearer definition is somewhat lacking: the discussion concerns “contributions to Lithuanian language culture and Lithuanian linguistics” (5), articles “on various issues of language culture, linguistics, and social life” (8), J. Jablonskis’s “work in nurturing the Lithuanian literary language and Lithuanian linguistics” (9), and “creative activity <...>” devoted “to revitalizing and nurturing the Lithuanian literary language and advancing Lithuanian linguistics” (5); as well as a “linguist excellently prepared in theory” (10), whose grammars “have retained to this day, if not always practical, then at least theoretical and historical value” (11), although the most important work—Lithuanian Syntax—is described as “extraordinarily signifi-

14

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

cant work of grammar” (7), and its author as an “unrivaled syntactician,” a “theoretical syntactician” (11). The view that “detailed monographic studies were needed” (5) was expressed 16 years late, and the work itself would not appear for another 16 years.

Though belated, volume V (1962) of the higher education research publication Linguistics marked the centenary of J. Jablonskis in a significant way. The Preface by the Vilnius University Department of Lithuanian Language states that J. Jablonskis “announced methods for cultivating the language and revealed its sources” (5), but then, in a concession to the prevailing line, it softens the claim by saying that his criterion for cultivating and enriching the language—“the language of the people, unspoiled by negative foreign influences”—was the only correct one in his time, though perhaps now too narrow (5). Besides J. Palionis’s leading article J. Jablonskis and Our Contemporary Literary Language (7–12), J. Jablonskis is presented at length as a translator and translation specialist (Dominykas Urbas), a nurturer and evaluator of children’s literature (Vincas Auryla), and a prominent educator (Magdalena Karčiauskienė). Aldonas Pupkis discusses his manuscript legacy. Memoirs are contributed by Juozas Balčikonis (new ones), Merkelis Račkauskas, Bronius Pranskus-Žalionis, Zigmas Kuzmickis, Marcelinas Šikšnys, Napalys Grigas, Juozas Lazauskas, and Juozas Senkus. Jonas Palionis publishes a dozen or so letters. M. Lukauskaitė’s bibliography of Jablonskis publications from the Soviet period includes 48 entries (including VPI’s Soviet Student and Telšiai’s Dawn of Communism), 7 of them by J. Palionis and 3 diploma theses.

When Language Culture began publication in 1961, its first issue gave no attention to J. Jablonskis; however, Lenin was mentioned as many as four times in K. Ulvydas’s editorial, Tasks in the Cultivation of Language Culture, and was the only person named.

The stage that had stretched from initial insights through various later surveys—scholarly and academic, as well as serious commemorative assessments—now came to an end with fairly clear signposts.

In 1970 Arnoldas Piročkinas embarked on his Jablonskis studies on a broad scale. He was the main speaker at a theoretical seminar organized on September 22–23, 1969, by the council of the Lithuanian Language Section of the Vilnius City branch of the Society for the Protection of Monuments and Local Lore; the topic was The Foundations and Principles of J. Jablonskis’s Language Standardization, which concluded: “in creating and shaping the Lithuanian national literary language, he directed its development toward a theoretically and practically grounded system” (Piročkinas 1970: 11). He then undertook systematic research. First, in 1970, came a teaching aid for students of Lithuanian studies, J. Jablonskis Seminar (beginning with a detailed chronology of facts from J. Jablonskis’s life, 6–40), and, aimed mainly at teachers, the booklets Jonas Jablonskis’s Lexical Corrections (1970) and Jonas Jablonskis’s Grammatical Corrections

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

15

(1976). He then moved on to the scale of a two-volume monograph: At the Origins of the Standard Language: The Life and Work of J. Jablonskis, 1860–1904 (1977), and J. Jablonskis—Cultivator of the Standard Language, 1904–1930 (1978). J. Palionis’s extended review is noteworthy (Baltistica XV (2), 1979, 159–163), frequently using evaluative terms such as first, innovative, comprehensive, summarized, and synthesized, but, of course, also problematic, contradictory, and disputed. Stasys Keinys added and highlighted further points from both sides in his review Studies of J. Jablonskis’s Legacy (Language Culture 39, 1980, 61–67). A. Piročkinas compiled and prepared an extensive collection of documentary materials on Jablonskis, Letters of Jonas Jablonskis (1985). Drawing on his booklets for teachers, he prepared a more comprehensive book, Jablonskis’s Language Corrections (1986). The culmination was his doctoral dissertation in 1987 (then the second degree). During the years of liberalization, he hastily published a collection of articles and studies omitted from The Writings of Jablonskis, together with unpublished letters: J. Jablonskis, Articles and Letters (1991).

With Aleksas Girdenis joining the effort, the already diverse scholarly portrait of J. Jablonskis was further broadened: “the first among Lithuanian linguists to investigate comprehensively the s y s t e m of a single, strictly defined and localized dialect. This may be explained <...> and by a certain ‘innate’ sense of systematicity in language, which is clearly evident in his practical work on codification as well. For him, the systematicity of language was perhaps the most important, though not explicitly formulated, criterion for selecting norms” (Girdenis, Piročkinas 1978: 28). The emphasis on the criterion of systematization is especially significant.

In 1982, Language Culture (issue 42) broadened the range of topics in Jablonskis studies. It featured Kazio Ulvydo’s editorial On J. Jablonskis’s Views on Language (3–16) (discussed in section II), Antanas Lyberis’s J. Jablonskis as Lexicographer (16–20), and Kazimieras Gaivenis’s J. Jablonskis’s Work on the Terminology Commission (20–24).

The author of this survey, too, made a brief contribution on the sidelines, offering his understanding of J. Jablonskis (and his older predecessors) and reminding the public of his program (J. Klimavičius, The Eternal Foundation of the Standard Language, – Library Work, 1984 10 33–35).

During the years of the Second Republic, too, A. Piročkinas remained the most productive author of work on Jablonskis.

Undoubtedly the most significant is his study Jonas Jablonskis—Creator of New Words. J. Jablonskis’s neologisms yielded an astonishing result: “610 words coined by J. Jablonskis are used in the contemporary Lithuanian standard language (...). In addition, there are 470 words he coined that did not take root in the language: some were not entirely successful, while others were auxiliary neologisms” (Piročkinas 2000, 10: 6). A. Piročkinas duly marked the great linguist’s 140th anniversary—in scholarly fashion! S. Keinys also contributed to the occasion in the journal Terminology (No. 8, 2001, 50–64) with an article-

16

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

niu The terminology of the science of language in Petro Kriaušaitis’s 1901 “Lithuanian Grammar.” Robertas Gedrimas took up a new subject, Jonas Jablonskis and Lithuanian terminology in the natural sciences (Gimtoji kalba 2000, 12, 4–8). Nor was the author of this paper absent from the discussion (J. Klimavičius, What Jablonskis did for geography and what is being done with it, – Terminologija 8, 2001, 7–27). Kalbos kultūra (issue 74, 2001, 3–8) featured only J. Palionis’s article J. Jablonskis and the contemporary standard language, which reiterates an idea he had already expressed in 1979: “to consider publishing all Jablonskis’s writings in an academic edition” (Palionis 2001: 8).

The 150th anniversary prompted abundant and varied responses. In volume 83 of Kalbos kultūra (2010), no fewer than four authors write about J. Jablonskis’s life and public activities (Eglė Lukėnaitė-Griciuvienė, Vytautas Landsbergis, Vitas Labutis, Giedrė Čepaitienė). Two fairly substantial linguistics articles are Vilija Sakalauskienė’s The lexicographic activity of Jonas Jablonskis (30–43) and Regina Koženiauskienė’s Jonas Jablonskis’s attention to style (66–83). There are also smaller topics. R. Koženiauskienė’s article Jonas Jablonskis’s love of language, ethics, and the present day (Gimtoji kalba 2010, 12, 3–12) turns another important page in Jablonskis scholarship.

J. Jablonskis is presented chiefly from the perspective of terminology in S. Keinys’s article Thoughts on the great linguist and terminologist Jonas Jablonskis. On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of his birth (Terminologija 17, 2010, 80–92).

A highly significant publication not tied to an anniversary is a dissertation-based book by Arvydas Vidžiūnas, a young-generation linguist from Zanavykija: The accentology of Jonas Jablonskis (1997)—a thorough study of a written-language subject that was not of greatest importance to J. Jablonskis.

Once again, A. Piročkinas is currently the most prolific.

His wide-ranging article Along a thorny path, he led the language into the Lithuanian school goes well beyond the remit of J. Jablonskis as pedagogue and educator. The main subject here is the recovery of rights for the Lithuanian language and their realization through schooling; the de-Russification of Lithuanian, whose rights had been defended, through its purification; J. Jablonskis’s own difficult entry into the Lithuanian school; the establishment of a standard variety; and the preparation of his textbooks, glossary, and readers. J. Jablonskis “understood very well that the school is the principal institution that instills the mother tongue in future generations. The cultivation of language is part of the great task of language for the nation” (Piročkinas 2010–2011, 2: 11).

In A. Piročkinas’s article On Some Reasonings about Jonas Jablonskis’s Linguistic Activity, it is perhaps unnecessarily, though in fact not insistently, asserted that “Jablonskis was not the father of Lithuanian standard language, but its adoptive father or foster parent” (Piročkinas 2010: 10). Nor does it seem that “a much more complicated and important issue from the standpoint of evaluating J. Jablonskis’s linguistic activity is whether it

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

17

was scholarly or merely practical” (10). In essence, this question is being raised 90 years too late. The matter is important, but the question has been settled: the truths written in 1922 by Kazimieras Būga—whom P. Skardžius and others presented as J. Jablonskis’s opposite—remain valid: 1) J. Jablonskis’s writings on morphology and syntax “have not only scholarly but also great practical value”; 2) J. Jablonskis is “the sole expert on Lithuanian syntax”; 3) the discussion by the editor J. Jablonskis devoted to Antanas Juška’s dictionary

Posleslovie (Lithuanian translation: Baigiamasis žodis, – Jablonskis J. Straipsniai ir laiškai, 1991, 95–145) “is a certain study of the dictionary,” also important for dialectology (quoted in Piročkinas 2010: 10), and A. Girdenis and A. Piročkinas further reinforced this latter claim. From P. Skardžius’s words that J. Jablonskis “laid the foundations for our standard language, while the late K. Būga did so for the science of language,” let us continue: “and we, their students, can only carry on the work they began—<...>” (Skardžius 1928: 578). One truth is clear: the two were different. That K. Būga laid the foundations for the science of language makes one thing clear again: it was not J. Jablonskis. Yet even if honorary professor J. Jablonskis did not lay the foundations for the science of language, it by no means follows that he was not himself a scholar—for it is clear that he laid the scholarly foundations for the standard language and that his descriptions of Lithuanian grammar met the level of grammatical scholarship of the time. K. Būga could no longer take on the task J. Jablonskis had undertaken, if only because J. Jablonskis, having begun a full 17 years earlier, had already laid the foundations of the standard language. Since the principle of linguistic authenticity was sacred to K. Būga, there was no contradiction; on the contrary, it was support for J. Jablonskis’s undertaking. This short article by P. Skardžius, On Prof. J. Jablonskis’s “Infallibility”, is a rejoinder to two outbursts by Stasys Dabušis against J. Jablonskis. By slyly “raising” P. Skardžius “high above” his teacher “for his differing views,” Dabušis sets him against his teacher so starkly that “the whole edifice of language built by J. J-skis will soon come crashing down” (Skardžius 1928: 578). Thus P. Skardžius quashed S. Dabušis’s provocation. He also recalls his earlier words, from 1927: “It is likewise unpraiseworthy, upon noticing an error by someone who has accomplished a good deal, to immediately make nothing of that person and consider oneself greater than he” (Skardžius 1928: 579). P. Skardžius’s integrity toward both individuals—J. Jablonskis and S. Dabušis—is beyond doubt. Much later, in 1973, he similarly silenced Leonardas Dambriūnas (Piročkinas 2011–2012, 3: 4; only the quotation and its reference are inaccurate). He evidently felt himself to be of greater stature than those two, and with good reason. But greater than J. Jablonskis too? Perhaps he measured himself from the shoulders of a giant—his teacher!—rather than from the ground.

Whether one likes it or not, one must also pause at greater length over the side paths of Jablonskis scholarship.

18

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

Savo Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba (1943) P. Skardžius tikrai pranoko mokytoją. Bet paradoksas – žodžių darybos teorijos nesukūręs J. Jablonskis sukūrė per 600 ir dabar vartojamų naujadarų. Ir jau ne paradoksas, o P. Skardžius kalbinės mąstysenos ir būdo yda, kad net gyvenimo saulėlydyje neįstengia suprasti, jog jo keliauninko gynimas veda į šalikėlę, ką iškart suprato J. Jablonskis subtiliai ironiškai paerzines nesamais riešutauninku ar mergau­ninku, t. y. nurodė keliauninko nebūdingumą – juk, susiprask, būdingas keliautojas. P. Skardžiaus 1926–1927 m. Kalbos mažmenų serija pradedama nuo Bendrų pastebėjimų – tam tikrų principų, bet padrikai padaugžodžiaujant ir be reikiamo loginio ir terminologinio aiškumo (todėl mano čia nesiryžtama persakyti, o cituojama): „Mūsų literatūrinė kalba yra t i e – s i o g i n ė b e t a r p i š k a š n e k a m o s i o s k a l b o s i š v a d a, imama plačiausia prasme, kitaip sakant – tai yra v i s ų t a r m i ų (visur ret. – P. S.) summa summarum, tik, žinoma, su tam tikru pagrindu. Todėl nieku būdu negalima paniekinti tų tarminių kalbos duomenų, kurie rašomąją kalbą gali tik gaivinti, turtinti, ne susinti“ (Skardžius 1926: 26). Pabaiga – būgiškos gaidos! Serijos dalis – 5. Priesaga –auninkas – to principo dedukcija, bet prireikia ir reiškinio istorijos. Ji sunki: „vieni iš jų yra visai slaviškos kilmės, o kiti yra slaviškais pavyzdžiais sudaryti a r b a (ret. mano – J. K.) tiesiog lietuviško kilimo“ (Skardžius 1927: 46). Duoti atsakymą su arba – tai nėra uždavinio sprendinys. Ir toliau – nieko aiškiau: „Bet a š m a n a u, kad tokiems daiktavardžiams susidaryti, kaip drąsauninkas, kariauninkas, keliauninkas, smarkau­ninkas, užžauninkas... n e v i s u o m e t yra reikalinga slaviška įtaka; jie, r o d o s (ret. mano – J. K.), gali ir savarankiškai būti sudaryti iš bendratinio veiksmažodžių <...> liemens ir priesagos –ininkas; <...>. Bet a n t r a v e r t u s, kad ir būtų kiek veikusi slaviška įtaka panašių žodžių sudarymą, tai vis dėlto jie varyti lauk iš rašomosios kalbos būtų k i e k p e r drąsu, nes, viena, tos rūšies žodžių jau yra senuose mūsų raštuose; antra, jų nemaža yra ir gyvoje kalboje; trečia, k a i k u r i ų tokių žodžių sudarymas gali būti pateisinamas ir savo pavyzdžiais“ (Skardžius 1927: 49). P. Skardžiui visai neatėjo į galvą, kad tam yra taip pat keliautojas ir keleivis, tar­mėse – ir keleivinis, raštuose – ir kelion(in)inkas. Pirmiausia, kodėl P. Skardžius nemini K. Būgos – ar ne todėl, kad K. Būgos tiesmukai neigiama keliauninko esant lietuviško: „Kas do klaida tūno žodyje keliauninkas, mūsų kritikas (S. Dabušis, pasirašęs slapyvardžiu Du dobilai, penki lapai) nesiteikia skaitytojams paaiškinti“ ir reiškia nusistebėjimą dėl S. Dabušio tikrai nevykusio taisymo: „Žmonių žodis keliauninkas reikias pakeisti kaltiniu kelion(i)ninku“, nors pabaigoje primena: „Be keliauninko ir keleivio Lietuvo-

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

19

je pažįstamas yra dar ir keliautojas: <...>“ (Būga 1922: 66). Tik 1973 m. P. Skardžius prisimena, bet... apverčia: „Visai nenagrinėdamas šios priesagos darinių darybos, K. Būga pirmas nurodė, kad šalia keliautojo ir keleivio lietuvių kalboje jau nuo seniau plačiai vartojamas ir keliauninkas (...)“ (Skardžius 1973: 555). Tiesa, dar ne taip seniai tas keliauninkas buvęs oficialus susisiekimo žodis – terminas, pvz.: Tarifas keliauninkams įvestas liepos 1 (14) d. 1910 m.; keliauninkų pervežimas (Šviturys. Kalendorius – [literatūros] almanachas, 1911, 269 (ten jau ir p r a važ iavimas 270), nors yra ir važiuotojas 279 (iš gyvosios kalbos!). Ir visai neseniai rimtos kelionių knygos vertime vėl dar keliauninkas pirmas ir dažniausias (H. Melvilis, Enkantados. Kelionė po Europą ir Levantą, vert. O. Armaly­tė, Vilnius: Mintis, 1987, 4, 16, 22, 30, 41, 46, 84, 93), o keliautojas retesnis (6, 23, 77). Štai toks „turtinimas“... Gyventojo miške knygos vertime – tikra maišalynė: koks vaikščioj-tojas po mišką – retai vienišas klajoklis (H. D. Toro, Voldenas, arba gyvenimas miške, vert. R. Pavilionis, Vilnius: Vaga, 1985, 188), čia pat jis saujingas keliauninkas (p. 188), dažniausiai – reikšmingas keliautojas (15, 162, 163, 206, 215, 234); tikras keleivis – čia retai keleivis (174) arba bent keliautojas, o dažniausiai – keliauninkas (251) (= keleivis), ankstyvieji paukščiai keliauninkai (219) (= keleiviai), žąsys – pavargėlės keliautojos (221) (= keleivės). P. Skardžiui dedant gyvinimo ir turtinimo pastangas, o nepaisant autentiškumo ir duomenų būdingumo, mums randasi kitas rūpestis – gryninimo, diferencijavimo ir norminimo.

P. Skardžiaus Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryboje (1943) veltui ieškotume senųjų raštų žodžių kariautojas (ir J. Jablonskio), keliautojas, kekšautojas, taip pat kekšininkas, kerštininkas, burtininkas, drąsininkas; yra tik smar­kininkas. O -auninkų – dar daugiau negu 1927 m. Darybos būdų, sinoniminių darinių ryšių – lyg nebūta... Dabar, žinoma, pradedama be istorijos, be nuoseklumo – nuo tų „lietuviškų“, tik paskui imamasi „ištisų slaviškų“ (Skardžius 1943: 148), o anie gali atrodyti „būti sudaryti slavybių pavyzdžiais“, bet „tai nebūtinas dalykas: šie žodžiai lengvai gali būti mūsų pačių sudaryti <...>, kaip ir keikininkas, mušinininkas, plėšininkas (Skardžius 1943: 149). Fonetiškai galima forma paaiškinti kaip lietuvišką, bet fonetika čia nėra joks darybos veiksnys, todėl išvada – „dvi darybinės galimybės, savoji ir svetimoji, tarp savęs yra labai susipynusios“ (Skardžius 1943: 150) – konstatuoja tik ryšio faktą, bet ne kilmę ir priežastį. Taip ir po pusšimčio metų: „galėjo skatinti ir atitinkami lenkų kalbos vediniai su -ownik (Ambrazas 1993: 145). Jei dalyko istorija tvirtai nepaaiškinama, dalykas viena koja šlubuoja... Panašia fonetika P. Skardžiaus aiškinamas ir baudžiauninkas (ir baudžiaunininkas; bet nei LKŽ I₁ 1941,

20

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

although LKŽ I₂ 1968 provides no evidence for such an accentuation variant) <*baudžiav-(i)ninkas (: baudžiava), but gives no consideration at all to the possibility that it might derive from baudžiauti ‘to perform serf labor’ in Vaškai, Gruzdžiai (LKŽ I₂ 1968). P. Skardžius says that he “set aside <...> the accentological analysis” <...> (Skardžius 1943: 11), although his explanations might have helped here—the common variant -auniñkas (alongside -áuninko) seems to lend at least some support, albeit only from this perspective, to the word’s Lithuanian character. The accentuation remained unchecked even 50 years later—in both keliaunỹkas (Ambrazas 1993: 145—with a reference to P. Skardžius, who also has keliauniñkas) and keliáunỹkas (Ambrazas 1993: 228), while the word index lists only keliaunỹkas (Ambrazas 2000: 271). An areal analysis of the variants -auninkas / -aunỹkas might perhaps also bring some clarity. The parallels between foreign and Lithuanian (?) formations are quite telling: vaj auninkas – kariauninkas, vand-rauninkas / vendrauninkas – keliauninkas (even keliaunýkai, kelelio vandrau-nykai LKŽ V 1959, song), čerauninkas – burtauninkas, lėbauninkas and latrau-ninkas – užauninkas, štukauninkas – juokauninkas; among nouns—pulkáu-niñkas / pulkaunýkas – pulkeninkas (already in Konstantinas Sirvydas!), pirmaũnykas – pirmiñinkas. P. Skardžius says briefly—without even drawing a parallel or making a connection—that the suffix -auna- – didžiaunas, kariaunas, kekšaunas, linkaunas, žiūraunas, kaštaunas, talkaunas, vaj aunas, and so on, is Slavic (Skardžius 1943: 293)—here he finds no Lithuanian character in the phonetics. And so on means first of all vandraunas / vend-raunas – keliaunas, then štukaunas – juokaunas, buvaunas, kerštaunas. Thus, this whole question requires a study.

J. Jablonskis’s analogy is based on the system—his is induction (as P. Skardžius acknowledges). P. Skardžius’s analogy is based on usage (even a foreign model!), whereas his is deduction (which he himself condemned when discussing J. Jablonskis).

But standardization does not wait. It was not until 1973 that P. Skardžius recalled K. Būga’s 1922 idea and J. Palionis’s opinion, based on it, that “words more widely used in the living language are more convenient and preferable for the needs of the literary language: keliáutojas and keleĩvis” (Palionis 1959: 531), as well as Vinco Urbutis’s assessment of derivatives with the suffix -(i)au-ninkas—“in the literary language <...> they are generally perceived as dialectisms” (LKG I 1965: 333). Now P. Skardžius thinks (“it still seems to me”) that kariauniñkas and keliauniñkas “can easily be used in w r i t t e n l a n g u a g e (italics mine—J. K.), if not as standard forms, then at least as certain characteristic semantic variants” (Skardžius 1973: 555)—kariauniñkas meaning “someone who likes to fight with others, a bellicose person, a warrior,” while keliauniñkas “may be useful as a synonym for keleivio and keliautojo” (Skardžius 1973: 556). It is certainly right to retain only these two -auniñkai in DŽ, but this can be accepted only after more clearly establishing the differentiation of synonyms (semantic variants) that has essentially taken place in usage. First of all, the derivatives with the suffixes -tojas and

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba 21

-ėjas derivatives, which may have more than a simple—transpositional—meaning (and, when formed from polysemous verbs, meanings), must be removed from their verb entries and explained separately (not only kariautojas, but also nukariautojas, užkariautojas). When P. Skardžius cites DŽ’s definition—“one who likes fighting, a warrior”—he forgets (?) the correct stylistic label menk. (‘derogatory’) that was given, but aptly expands the definition: “one who likes to fight with others, a b e l l i c o s e p e r s o n, a warrior” (Skardžius 1973: 556, 555). But in his explanation, he conflates it precisely with the synonym kariautojas. Kariauninkas ‘warrior’ is also arch. (‘archaic’) and tarm. (‘dialectal’), and thus entirely unnecessary in the standard language. DŽ₂ 1972, ₃ 1993, ₄ 2000 gives kariauna as—1. derogatory “warriors, a military clique” (DŽ₁ 1954 had 1. “military clique,” 2. psn. (‘historical’) “army”). But in known antiquity (among Lithuanians, Balts, Vikings, and Cossacks alike), a kariauna was not a regular kariuomenė (karias, karia) (‘army’), but a troop or band assembled for expeditions and raids, whose core was made up of warriors, although they themselves were farmers and brought their own households and slaves with them. Thus attempts are made to call those semi-karius kariauninkais: he became the retainer of a chieftain (Egilė saga, trans. S. Steponavičienė, Vilnius: Vaga, 1975, 12). Another little nut for lexicographers.

Keliaunininkas was not even considered by P. Skardžius as a member of the synonym group—DŽ₁ 1954 thus explained it very badly by means of synonyms: “traveler, passenger”; while keleivis was defined as “traveler, keliauninkas.” Keleivis is defined in DŽ₂ 1972 as “someone who travels by some means of transport or on foot; a traveler, keliauninkas”; DŽ₃ 1993 gives a shorter definition, without the unnecessary synonyms: “someone who travels by some means or on foot.” The defining word vyksta distinguishes a keleivis from an ordinary ėjėjas or vaikščiotojas—vykti means “to go, travel, set out on a journey” in DŽ₁ 1954, while DŽ₂ 1972 omits eiti (‘to go’): “to set out on a journey, to travel.” Thus keleivis should also be linked with kelias (‘road’) and kelionė (‘journey’). Although for many years people have been setting out to keliauti (‘travel’) epidemically after barely moving a foot anywhere (see Klimavičius 1983: 9–50), in fact a greater purpose and preparation are necessary, as is, in accordance with folk etiquette, bidding farewell to one’s household; this is not simply making everyday trips from home or routinely getting somewhere nearby—to the field, pasture, a neighbor’s, a party, the local market, or church. The synonym-based definition of kelionė in DŽ₁ 1954, ₂ 1972, ₃ 1993—“traveling”—is very inadequate, essentially tautological, but the illustrative examples correct it, especially such examples as ruoštis į kelionę, lydėti kelionėje in DŽ₂ 1972, taisytis, rengtis į kelionę in DŽ₃ 1993, and figurative žemės kelionė, paskutinė kelionė in DŽ₂ 1972, ₃ 1993; also kelioninis (‘travel’ bag, i.e. travel sack), kelionlapis (see kelialapis), kelionpinigiai (‘travel money’). The sense kelias 3. ‘journey’ belongs here too: kelyje nelaimė atsitiko, keliui pašaro įsidėk in DŽ₁ 1954 (‘an accident happened on the journey; take provisions for the journey’). Keliautojas differs from keleivis first and foremost in purpose—to reach somewhere farther away, to see the wider world, to see what one has not seen, to experience,

22

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

to investigate, not to discover the unknown. But this is not the migration of peoples with all their belongings, although one may also not return from wherever one travels, but stay and settle there. The traveler’s journey is concrete, clear—to this place or that; the voyager’s is into the unknown and through the unknown.

A wayfarer, incidentally, like most travelers, is simply characterized by a fondness for, an enthusiasm for traveling without greater, more serious, or clearer goals—the 1993 explanation in DŽ₃, “one who travels a lot or far,” is quite plausible. The child who finds happiness in fairy tales—and in songs, even his little horse—are wayfarers. Here, by no means unexpectedly, the question arises of the synonymy differentiation between wayfarer and tourist (also hiker, trekker, wanderer...), to travel and to go sightseeing (perhaps not yet recorded anywhere), although attempts to initiate it were made long ago (SinŽ 1980).

Quite rightly, kelionininkas (journeyer) is no longer found in DŽ₃ 1993.

J. Jablonskis successfully selected two future linguists from among his students—Pranas Skardžius and Antanas Salys. For A. Salys, a Telšiai gymnasium student who had come to believe in the merit of the written language, his new teacher Matas Untulis, a former auditor of Jonas Jablonskis, “explained that ‘not everything written in books is correct and good; that one must look at living speech—at how people speak; that, for example, Jonas Jablonskis bases the correctness and usage of the Lithuanian language precisely on the rules of people’s speech’” (from a conversation with Salys). “That was when he decided to study linguistics.” (Jonikas 1979: XVIII). In separate articles, A. Salys paid tribute to Antanas Baranauskas, Kazimieras Jaunius, Adomas Dambrauskas-Jakštas (2), and K. Būga (3). But there is no such article about J. Jablonskis (P. Skardžius wrote 7, plus 1 review). Yet J. Jablonskis (and Rygiškių Jonas, P. Kriaušaitis) is mentioned most often in his volume Bendrinė kalba, always respectfully, though in a matter-of-fact way (chapter III will also demonstrate A. Salys’s attentiveness to J. Jablonskis’s credo).

And a year after the 150th anniversary, A. Piročkinas published It Is Never Too Late to Talk about Jablonskis (Piročkinas 2011–2012). A great deal is covered here, though some matters are touched on only superficially—for example, the young grammarians’ conception of derivatives and analogy. In evaluating some of J. Jablonskis’s corrections, passages written with an overly light hand also stand out. Where J. Jablonskis, driven by necessity—and sometimes for no reason at all—hurriedly took not the road but a shortcut across country, instead of now laying that road, thoughts are repeated offhand, by inertia and with a few jabs, without bringing together the full body of data or examining it thoroughly. In 1904 J. Jablonskis criticized siekį, which, he said, did not occur in people’s speech; only sykis, ‘an occurrence’, existed, derived from siekti—like liežti – lyžis, laužti – lūžis, augti – ūgis (Piročkinas 2011–2012, 22: 4). But it is quite inaccurate to regard vowel alternation as an ironclad rule—it is sometimes present and sometimes not. Consider, alongside the vowel-alternation forms found in ordinary speech, išlyžis, 1. ‘webbing between the toes, the membrane between the claws on waterfowl’s feet’, in Upyna, Užventis, Surviliškis, Salam(i)estis, Subačius, Pandėlys, and also in K. Sirvydas and P. Ruigys; išlyžė in Saugos, išlyža in Žemaičių Kalvarija,

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

23

Šiauliai—there is also a human-language outgrowth in Skuodas, Mosėdis, Salantai, Kalnalis, Tverai, Gegrėnai (i.e., among the Samogitians), and likewise F. Kuršaitis (LKŽ IV 1957). The reach is also found in K. Jaunius and A. Juška; 2. “fathom” in M. Miežinis; 3. “reaching with the hand” in A. Juška; likewise crane reach, gun reach (LKŽ XII 1981)—these cannot be replaced with precision! There is driekis (: driekti) in Gegrėnai (LKŽ II₂ 1969), and pliekis (: pliek-ti) in Grūžiai and Skaisgirys (LKŽ X 1976). From sriegti we also have both srygis and siegis (the standard form), but only sriegas (in everyday speech), as well as sraigė / sraigis / sraigtis and the sraigtas coined by K. Jaunius (LKŽ XIII 1984). From sieti come sija and siena, sielis, sietas, and saitas (LKŽ XII 1981). Very briefly, the following must also be mentioned: augti—and ūgis, augis, ūglis, and auglys (the latter two differ in meaning); auti—and autai, auklė, auklas, aulas, and ūlė “horizontal chimney” (syn. batas 3.); kliūti and kliautis—and also kliautis / kliaudis / kliauda; kliūtis; lūžti—and laužas, lūža, lūžtve (and lūžis is likewise influenced by the u in lūžti, not by laužti); pjauti—and pjūvis, pjūtis, šienapjūtė, pjaunis / pjaunys, pjovis / pjova / pjovė, šienpjovys; skliausti “train,” as well as traukinys, trauka, traukis, trauksmas. In living speech, when vowel alternation becomes vigorous, it sometimes goes beyond the bounds of semantics—that is, intelligibility (ulė, trūkis)—and the danger of strange homonymy arises: maigūnas (: miegoti), šautas (: šusti), sodyba (: sėdėti); or unintelligibility: paūdėti (: paausti), ūde (: aust i), ūdis (: austi). In the standard language this is unacceptable and by now intolerable: to heckle flax—bruktuve, brukt uvas, priebrukas, and to scutch the flax fibre or seed heads—braukčiai, brauklys, brauktuvai, brauktuvas, although the more usual brūkl ys (: braukti) remains, not brauklys; bruknė (: braukti) remains (even though etymological explanation is needed)—as does sodyba, since the variant sėdyba (archaic for sėdėjimas) is hardly any clearer either. In the standard language, only remnants remain of this sense of sėdėti, “to live somewhere permanently, to be (somewhere)”—(in prison, at home, in the same class for a second year, without work, for no reason) sėdėti. J. Jablonskis’s own living, vowel-alternating variant from 1915, dėmėdavosi kalba (JablR I 1932: 188), has long been anachronistic in the standard language.

Dissatisfaction with derivatives lacking alternation was expressed long ago: “just as alongside jausti (‘to feel’) there is pojūtis (‘sensation’), so alongside augti (‘to grow’) there ought to be prieūgis” (Piročkinas 1970: 10). Prieū-gis is already justified, since augis also exists. Moreover, one must consider meaning: prieūgis would mean “an addition to height”—like priesvoris, “an addition to weight”—whereas prieaugis means “the amount of growth.” Pojūtis derives from pajusti (‘to sense’ with the senses!). To be sure, K. Sirvydas’s pajau-ta means 2. ‘sensation, feeling’: five sensations, five feelings (Clavis Germa-

24

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

nico-Lithuana (~1673–1701) I 729), klausos pajautos LRKŽ (LKŽ IX 1973) niekada nebuvo bendrinės kalbos faktas. Teisingai pasuko A. Baranauskas – pajautą susiejo su (pa)jausti, plg. jausmas ir nuojauta, prieja uta, atjauta, užuojauta. Ilgai vartoti jutimai užleido vietą pojūčiams, taip ir pajautos patogesnės už pajautimus. Negi neskiriam fizinių šalčio, alkio pojūčių nuo dvasios pajautų – grožio, laisvės, visų žmonių broliškumo, tapatumo, švenčių, galių?!. Skiriam seniai – pajauta „pajautimas, jausmas“ LKV 1950, knyg. „kas pajaučiama, jausmas“ DŽ₁ 1954, knyg. „jausmas“: Širdis apsąla, tūkstančiai pajautų pabunda DŽ₂ 1972 (ir vėlesni leidiniai). Skiriasi potyris ir patirtis, požiūris ir pažiūra, pokrypis ir pakraipa, poreiškis ir paraiška, postūmis ir pastūma. Ir nėra per daug. Tik nereikia pajautos tapatinti su jausmu – plg. veiksmas ir poveikis, įveika, sąveika, juoksmas ir pajuoka, išjuoka, plūsmas ir poplūdis, išplūdis, perversmas ir pervarta...

Some dreamed styprį, but perhaps then, even not in a dream, styprus might occur to someone (especially styprų).

A. Piročkinas agrees with J. Jablonskis without hesitation: abandoning (or lacking) vowel alternation would undermine that system, while he regards “the absolute regularity of the Young Grammarians” (Piročkinas 2011–2012 22: 4), following J. Palionis (and a Latvian encyclopedia), as an error; then, using examples such as mokytojauti and others, he shows that “absolutizing the laws” (Piročkinas 2011–2012 1: 4) also did J. Jablonskis a disservice. Perhaps he would have avoided such contradictions with himself had he remembered that the necessary correction here was made by J. Balčikonis, otherwise a faithful pupil of J. Jablonskis, who constantly stressed the essential need to remain faithful to actual facts of living language (putting it most forcefully in a lively discussion: “Even the laws of metatony must fall silent before the facts!”). K. Būga already knew this, too. Incidentally, it grates on the ear and the heart to see living, frequent examples of such exceptional language facts rejected blindly—without having become acquainted with them! (or merely to see an attempt to reject them). With students, that is easy, but faithful users of the standard language are left stunned.

It is not enough to cite J. Jablonskis’s 1922 statement that the suffix -ingas indicates a quality “usually internal to a thing, which often or sometimes comes to light” (Piročkinas 2011–2012 22: 4). The formulation “usually, often, sometimes” is far too indefinite to draw a strict distinction between -ingas and -ėtas, -otas, -uotas. Where do kūningas (≠ kūniškas!), stuomeningas, liemeningas, krūtingas, krūtinga, petingas, šlauningas, blauzdingas come from? But piluotas! Why audringas, lietingas, but sauletas, vėjuotas? LKG I 1965: § 966, p. 556–558 explains this more fully and quite differently. Taktingas is astonishing—cf. etiškas, diskretiškas, ironiškas, melancholiškas, logiškas...

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

25

Much time was spent, but certainly not in vain, returning from side roads (and wrong turns) to the path of Jablonskian scholarship. Its present-day endpoint is also close by.

It has long been known that many prominent European linguists “have made considerable use, and continue to make use, of J. Jablonskis’s major works” (Skardžius 1950: 379). A. Piročkinas has now explored and supplemented this extensively in the article Jonas Jablonskis žymių užsienio kalbininkų akiratyje (Mokslo Lietuva, 2010: 19, 1, 12; 20 12, 15). In the same publication (Mokslo Lietuva, 2011: 3, 12), an article by the Zanavykian Giedrė Čepaitienė and Algirdas Malakauskas, Kur iš tiesų gimė Jonas Jablonskis, establishes the precise name of his birthplace.

In 1992, part of the Prisiminimų (Memoirs) of J. Jablonskis’s brother-in-law, his sister Marytė’s husband, the lawyer Motiejus Čepas, was published: Apie žymųjį kalbininką Joną Jablonskį ir jo artimuosius bei gimines (80 pp.). In 2009, the National Museum of Lithuania published a book of memoirs and letters, with illustrations, compiled by Eglė Lukėnaitė-Griciuvienė: Konstancijos ir Jono Jablonskių šeima (248 pp.). Juozas Vytautas Uzdila wrote a review from the perspective of a Lithuanian intellectual family, Iš lentynų ir dėžučių – naujam gyvenimui (Mokslo Lietuva, 2010 11 12). In 2010, Gimtasis žodis published a collection, Atsiminimai apie Joną Jablonskį (compiled by Giedrė Čepaitienė and Lionė Lapinskienė, 472 pp.), with G. Čepaitienė’s characterizations of the vivid, enduring—or, regrettably, fainter and shadowed—features of J. Jablonskis’s portrait; it also includes illustrations, a glossary, author biographies, a bibliography of sources, photograph captions, and indexes of place names.

In various histories and encyclopedias, Jonas Jablonskis is described as “a standardizer and scholar of the Lithuanian language” (Sabaliauskas 1979: 193), who “was the first <...> to insist that the core of the standard language and the foundation for its further development should be the language of the people,” “theoretically established <...> the standard language,” and “formulated the principles for standardizing the standard language” (Zinkevičius 1992: 146, 152, 153); he “rendered a great service to the science of the Lithuanian language, especially syntax” (LKEnc 1999: 272; 2008: 234). Increasingly, the emphasis falls on his work in syntax: “the phonological and grammatical structure of the Lithuanian language has been described quite accurately and scientifically, and the foundations of the study of syntax have been laid” (LTE IV 1978); “his works on syntax are also of great significance for Lithuanian linguistic scholarship and practice” (TLE II 1986); “he had a major influence on Lithuanian linguistic practice and scholarship, especially syntax” (VLE VIII 2005). Until, finally, what remains is... almost a mere trifle—“in a distinctive way to fuse the language of the Lithuania Minor region with the Suvalkian dialect and reconcile the two” (Zinkevičius 2013: 379).

In 1930, J. Balčikonis counted J. Jablonskis among the “heroes of the nation,” prophetically comparing his merits to those of “such people as Vytautas the Great” (Balčikonis 1930: 169). In 1999, the Lithuanian National Radio and Television …

26

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

In the elections of the 100 most influential people in twentieth-century Lithuania, J. Jablonskis placed 12th. This indicates a certain public understanding, so it is inappropriate to elevate him too much in comparison with K. Būga, who placed 61st (Piročkinas 2000 10: 2)—Jablonskis is easier for scholars themselves to understand. Incidentally, J. Jablonskis fully recognized K. Būga’s worth: “K. Būga was the only specialist in our linguistics. <...>. With K. Būga, the science of our language loses its principal pillar, its great researcher (emphasis added by J. Jablonskis – J. K.). That pillar, <...>, is also lost to the entire comparative science of Indo-European languages, which draws much from our language” (JablR I 1932: 263). In the list of Lithuania’s most distinguished people compiled for the millennium of the first mention of Lithuania’s name (the Scientific Editorial Board and consultants of the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia submitted a list of 300 to the Academy of Sciences, which supplemented it and selected 100) are, in chronological order, Jonas Jablonskis—“linguist, standardizer of the Lithuanian standard language”; Kazimieras Būga—“founder of Lithuanian linguistics and language researcher, one of the most prominent Balticists”; and Juozas Balčikonis—“linguist, the most devoted continuer of Jonas Jablonskis’s traditions, editor of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (100 Most Distinguished People of Lithuania, 2009).

Conclusions

The course of Jablonskiana has taken shape in three periods of unequal duration, with great thematic diversity and variation in the dissemination, quantity, and quality of research and legacy: I—the five-volume collected works, the first assessments and syntheses, followed, after an almost barren interval, by a two-volume collected works (with extensive explanations and assessments of specific corrections), a study of his life and work, and several survey and evaluative articles (the leading contributors being J. Balčikonis and J. Palionis)—the pre-monograph period; II—the monographic period of A. Piročkinas, reckoned from the initial approaches of 1970–1977–1978–1987, with significant contributions by other authors (including J. Palionis), though appearing infrequently, broadening the range of topics and occasionally addressing conceptions and assessments; III—the post-monograph period, expanding in scope and diversity and including additions, but also marked by repetition, fragmentation, and the ascription of significance (and self-signification), even opposition (and resistance), without substantially new assessments or a more serious effort at a fundamental reassessment (and a more positive one). J. Palionis has almost entirely withdrawn, A. Piročkinas remains active and productive, and the number of authors addressing specific aspects is growing; no new (or revised) monograph has appeared, and perhaps none is even in the making. Political periodization would not be appropriate, though considering it would show how the results relate to conditions and opportunities of freedom and unfreedom—political and academic. The significance of the relatively numerous results of Jablonskiana in the final period, which almost coincides with the years of liberalization and the two decades of freedom, is so far limited by the relationship between academic freedom and project-based funding.

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

27

Not every publication (including the present article’s author’s) is mentioned here—because of the abundance of material and the purpose of this discussion—so that what is already visible may be seen more clearly, along with what is becoming desperately lacking and what—gaps as well as flaws—is beginning to distort the image of J. Jablonskis.

Another necessary classification, not elaborated here, would be thematic. Research into J. Jablonskis’s linguistics and his scholarly and practical domains, and especially their proportional assessment—or, more precisely, the still inadequate investigation of even the most important areas and, at times, a highly contradictory assessment, not without dilettantism and even nihilism—has overstepped the bounds of common sense and decency: J. Jablonskis was no scholar... The public, by contrast, has been led to believe that he was only a linguist (and that is how he appears even in the list of those hundred). Semi-scholars imagine him merely as a language corrector...

One reason for this diversity of assessments is that J. Jablonskis’s work as a linguist is mostly classified and rarely ranked hierarchically; and even when syntax is placed at the top, the theory of the standard language almost never is. A hierarchy would be fully sound only if it encompassed J. Jablonskis as an integral person and as a man of his nation in his own time. For him, that hierarchy was undoubtedly as clear as day, and every day. Yet in Jablonskiana, although it is becoming somewhat clearer, it remains indistinct and has not been made its key. An assessment by a statesman who was also a linguist points in this direction: “he was also one of the leaders of our national revival, a builder of the foundations of the state.” “Jablonskis regarded the standardizing activity of language as one of the most important forms of creating Lithuanian identity and the Lithuanian state” (Vidžiūnas 2000: 1, 2).

The stretch of road here is long, but pleasant, and the step is light.

2. JABLONSKIS’S GUIDEPOSTS AT THE NATION’S CROSSROADS

J. Jablonskis did not begin with the science of language, but with defending and sustaining its vitality, and awakening love of the homeland. In 1883, Aušra published his words: “Young Lithuanians, returning from secondary and higher schools, come back with a genuine love for their people and language, although they have received all their education in a foreign language and spirit. Their perseverance and their failure to lose even the slightest part of their love for the homeland are praiseworthy” (JablR I 1932: 3). Like a child, he rejoiced when the press was restored; and, under freer conditions, he set to work on behalf of the nation and its language like a bee, in Vilniaus žinios: “we will have a whole year to mend the leaky roofs of our nation and revive its branches that have not yet dried up” (JablR I 1932: 74). Broadly

28

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

The 1906 article Apšvietimo reikalai in Lietuvos ūkininkas concludes with a clear national imperative: “that people might at last work not only with their hands and feet, but also with their heads. Work is the source of people’s wealth. Education and learning give the nation not only wealth, but also life and happiness: a nation that fears education is always impoverished, declines, and dies” (JablR I 1932: 122). During the Great War, on the tenth anniversary of the Great Seimas of Vilnius, when “we do not know what fate has in store for us next” (JablR I 1932: 193), he recalls it first of all by lamenting the sacrifices made by its participants and the painful question of the national language: “I remember that I was simply saddened to see my compatriots, seeking their own happiness and speaking of all kinds of equality, as if pushing away their brothers who wished to work alongside us but could no longer speak Lithuanian with us” (JablR I 1932:194).

That J. Jablonskis greeted the new century with a textbook for writers and readers (there were no Lithuanian schools yet!...)—a grammar of the written language with its own original foundation for its creation, the language of the people—was a happy convergence of two things: the initiative of Lithuanian Americans and J. Jablonskis’s realization of it. Without a doubt, J. Jablonskis’s contribution here was the most important—the decisive one. And most often he worked alone—both creating and setting out guidelines—for himself and for the language.

1892 m. Varpe K. Obelaičio slapyvardžiu būsimas rašomosios kalbos tėvas pavadinimu Kalbos dalykai paskelbė pirmą kalbos taisymų ir jos ugdymo straipsnį. Paskui tuo pačiu pavadinimu jų buvo dešimtys iki Laikraštinės kalbos dalykų 1930 m., išėjusių Kalboje jau po autoriaus mirties. Tačiau 1915 m., kai griaudėjo pikti, nežinia ką Lietuvai lemsiantys karo dievai, atkampiame Vėližė parašė jau daug metų vykdomą savo kalbos credo. Pavadino – Kalbos dalykų vietoje ir pasirašė R. J. (t. y. Rygiškių Jonas). Pirmiausia buvo išspausdinta Vaire – su paantrašte skliaustuose Iš vieno kalbos vadovėlio, paskui – 1916 m. – savo paties sudarytoje kalbos mokymosi skaitinių knygoje Vargo mokyklai – čia jau pavadinta Kalba (Kelios palaidos mintys). Ji buvo daug kartų perleista. Po 60 m. 3 punktai šio straipsnio autoriaus pacituoti vaikų žurnaliuke Žvaigždutė, jie palydėti tokiais žodžiais: „Siaučiant Pirmojo pasaulinio karo audrai, gyvendamas toli nuo Lietuvos, jau beveik visiškai pasiligojęs, prislėgtas tėvynės ilgesio, J. Jablonskis sugiedojo įkvėptą himną gimtajai kalbai“ (Klimavičius 1975: 8). Remdamasis pirmąja paantrašte A. Piročkinas nesigilindamas pareiškė: „Tos mintys, matyt, ne originalios, bet verstos, kaip rodo paantraštė“ (Piročkinas 1978: 74). Bet J. Jablonskis, ką vertęs ar kuo rėmęsis, pasinaudojęs, sąžiningai nurodydavo originalą ar šaltinį. Ir atidžiai skaitykime J. Jablonskį: „Kad mūsų

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

29

nation had no songs, folk tales, riddles, proverbs, and sayings written down, then we would have no language textbook—for today’s student, teacher, priest, and writer” (JablR IV 1935: 191). Surely, this clearly refers to the soon-to-be-published textbook of our language—a reader in the language, in which one learns the language in its living form—from exemplary texts, not from grammar (although J. Jablonskis also called his 1901 grammar a textbook, pedagogically it is certainly not a textbook). In a letter to his son Konstantinas from Voronezh, dated October 16, 1915 (Old Style), J. Jablonskis asks: “Are there any textbooks for Lithuanian in Petrograd (‘Lith. Tales,’ ‘Vis. įnamių,’ ‘Žiupsnelio,’ etc.)?” (JablL 1985: 144). Piročkinas notes that at that time “more journalistic elements appeared” in J. Jablonskis’s language articles—the example being precisely “the short article ‘Kalbos dalykų vietoje,’ composed of a cluster of aphorisms” (Piročkinas 1978: 74). Much later, too, he saw it merely as “a little collection of maxims, given the title Kalba” (Piročkinas 2010–2011 1: 11). He thought that in this Kalba “Jablonskis hoped to awaken in society a desire to learn a standard language that was correct and based on the laws of the people’s language” (Piročkinas 1978: 75), but unfortunately he sees neither its connection with the school reader mentioned above nor the author’s intention, its distinctive genre, or the spirit of the times.

Kazys Ulvydas, too, did not dare to regard this “publication” by J. Jablonskis as his own—original rather than translated—even though by signing it he “assumes responsibility for the thoughts set out in it, <...>, as if considering them his own” (Ulvydas 1982: 4, also 15). Failing to understand, or disregarding, what J. Jablonskis felt at the nation’s crossroads—his heart’s voice and concern, even the genre and style—he views that national-language manifesto in quite the opposite way: coldly, as “the views of any researcher” concerning “the chosen object of study, the problems addressed, and their particular aspects,” determined by one’s years of study—teachers and literature (Ulvydas 1982: 3). It is true that K. Ulvydas distinguishes “general views on language,” “the specific goals and objectives of his life and work,” and “the main direction of his work,” but he dismisses this attempt to establish a hierarchy of views and goals, along with the emphasis on direction—even though it is left unstated (toward the national language!)—and immediately leaves it without a nation, abstract: “Thus, what interests us here above all are J. Jablonskis’s views on language as humanity’s greatest achievement in history” (Ulvydas 1982: 3). But it is incorrect to describe J. Jablonskis as “any researcher”—he was the first, the pathfinder; his ambition, resolve, and purpose came not from his studies, but from Jonas Basanavičius’s Aušra and from Vincas Kudirka’s Varpas, which he helped awaken. First and foremost, he was a cultivator not of the standard language, but of the vitality of the mother tongue—the language of the nation—and of its distinctiveness, its Lithuanian character and purity. From this came the scientific foundations, cornerstones, and walls. He was both a researcher and a creator. In his own way-

30

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

he also had many people obstructing him—some were merely insensitive or brazenly ignorant, others outright antagonistic deniers and malicious detractors. He had fewer capable supporters: the learned K. Būga offered substantial, well-argued support, sometimes even when asked; most others were nowhere near his knowledge and perseverance, with only J. Balčikonis coming close.

In 1915, J. Jablonskis restated for the intelligentsia, and in 1916 for the schools, clearly, persuasively, and simply the guidelines he had published in his 1901 grammar. In its Preface, having just explained what grammar is, he immediately proceeds to explain the distinctive foundation of the Lithuanian language:

The science derives the laws and characteristics of language from the language of the people: <...>. Where <...> there are many writers who have understood the spirit of the people’s language <...>, there one may also use their writings for the purposes of grammar. <...>. The person compiling a Lithuanian language textbook must act differently, however. He must base all his learning on the laws of the people’s language, since our writers themselves have often based the language of their writings <...> on the laws of foreign languages. <...>. <...>. And when using the language of the people for the purposes of grammar, one must be careful: <...>. <...>: from foreign languages there have entered our language not only many foreign words, but also many phenomena that have polluted and continue to pollute the language of our people. <...>. One must know how to distinguish this refuse from the grain, <...> (JablR I 1957: 59–60).

J. Jablonskis had already concisely set out this foundational idea underlying his life’s work and creative activity—his greatest guiding principle—in 1890, in a review of Mykolas Miežinis’s grammar, published in Varpas under the initials K. Ob.:

If one wishes to compile a grammar and thereby learn to teach others to speak and write, one must, of course, oneself understand well the rules being taught to others, drawn directly from the people’s language and from those writings in which diligent men have collected many of our songs, riddles (conundrums), sayings, proverbs, and folk tales. Material for a grammar may be drawn from other works only if their authors themselves based their work on the people’s language (JablR IV 1935: 3).

In 1915, J. Jablonskis begins not with the language of the people, but with the individual and the nation:

Language is a reflection of human life.

In language, a nation declares what it is and what it is worth. The nature of the nation as a whole—its history, characteristics, soul, and spirit—is set forth in its language (JablR IV 1935: 190).

After skipping 12 short paragraphs, we come to two recommendations concerning language standardization:

A mixture, neither one thing nor the other, both this and that in language—is disorder, weakness, darkness in the mind. Disorder, weakness, darkness in the mind—is a mixture, neither one thing nor the other, both this and that in language (JablR IV 1935: 191).

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

31

As in 1890 and 1901, so too in 1915, at the end of his credo, he repeats:

To learn one’s own language and to go out among the people—with one’s own pen—one must first know how to understand the people’s songs, tales, and proverbs, and marvel at the riches and treasures of their language. To this end, one must often read the works of great writers, of artistic writers—those works in which the true, great qualities of the people’s language have emerged (JablR IV 1935: 191).

J. Jablonskis’s authorship of this entire text In Place of Language Matters is clearly attested by the triple identity of its ideas and the partial identity of the text, as well as by its distinctive spirit (our nation, the spirit of the nation, the nation’s language, the nation’s songs, the nation’s children, and the nation’s mother) and distinctive vocabulary (nature laid out in the language and wisdom that has poured its soul into the language, outstanding qualities), phraseology (it pierces the heart, to go among the people), folk-like lexical pairs characteristic of his style (wealth and treasures, implement and tool, songs and little songs), and, finally, the experienced educator’s lively, persuasive repetitions: A mixture, neither one thing nor the other, both this and that in language—a disorder <...> in the mind. Disorder <...> in the mind is a mixture <...> in language.

How did these two prominent linguists (and with them, a whole group of humanities scholars) fall into the trap of a stereotype? His name is worn threadbare—Jablonskis—the language corrector / cultivator / father. Yet they failed to discern the guiding principles of his work. The important Prakalba by Mikalojus Daukša, the long-famous Varpas, and most recently Jurgis Lebedys’s work were published by A. Piročkinas as a separate volume in 1990 (Mikalojus Daukša, Postilės prakalbos, Vilnius: Mintis), accompanied by his own article (38–46). There was no precedent for bringing forward J. Jablonskis’s credo... K. Ulvydas took the text, divided into 12 points from a reader, and added the longest—at times banal and dull, occasionally clumsy—commentaries, “his own observations and some explanations” (Ulvydas 1982: 4): “in fact,” “expressed in these words” (4), “raised here” (10), “thus described,” “in fact,” “this idea is confirmed” (11), “this confirms,” “which, of course, no one doubts today” (13), “once again (only in other words) emphasized here,” “the importance is highlighted here” (14), “the idea emphasizes the importance” (15). In point II, the “apt and graceful description of the relationship between language and nation” (4) leads the commentator to an expression of Lithuanians’ respect for their dwelling place—home, even with its adverb (the subject of K. Ulvydas’s study!...) “through the possibilities of word formation” (9)—but not to the home of language, the nation, nor to the home of the nation, the state...

This credo of J. Jablonskis, numbered in points and given a new title—Jono Jablonskio mintys apie kalbą—was published in the book Konstancijos ir Jono

32

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

Jablonskių šeima (229). Its broadest and most accessible dissemination is essential, presenting its historical significance while also giving it contemporary relevance.

It is high time to state clearly that J. Jablonskis was not merely a man of his time—as if limited and constrained by that era—but, on the contrary, a modern man of the nation, who understood very well the need for liberation and was well attuned to the march of his age’s Central—then, rather, Eastern—Europe, in Milan Kundera’s words, the homeland of small nations. That march of nations was broad and comprehensive. National liberation meant not only regaining lost freedom, but also new creative horizons of nationhood and programs for the nation’s creativity—modernization.

Just as J. Jablonskis (he came first!) had set out a program, so in 1908 Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis wrote in Vilniaus žiniose: “Lithuanian folk art <...> must be the foundation of our art; from it a distinctive Lithuanian style must arise. It is our pride, because the beauty it possesses is pure, distinctive, and exclusively Lithuanian” (Čiurlionis 1960: 279–280). A year later, in Vilnis, writing about music as “man’s most important and primary language” (Čiurlionis 1960: 295), he spoke with sorrow, but also with hope: “it does not yet exist, and what does exist is like a bewitched treasure; to make use of it, one must know the magic word, one must be called. That treasure lies in our songs, <...>” (Čiurlionis 1960: 286). Only the magic word in Česlovas Sasnauskas’s Kur bėga Šešupė ir Jau slaviai sukilo had been found: “there emerges clearly that truly Lithuanian string—a strange, ancient, elusive melody that reigns in our songs, composed ages ago” (Čiurlionis 1960: 287). But, just as J. Jablonskis’s path in language was strewn with obstacles, so too was the musical path of M. K. Čiurlionis and Č. Sasnauskas blocked by the most foolish impediments: “Our musical evenings have nothing to do with music—not only with Lithuanian music, but with music in general. Worse still, so-called new songs are beginning to spread in the villages of Lithuania. Their words are very ‘poetic,’ but the tune is so wretched and international that it is revolting to listen to. <...>, as long as it is new, while old songs are pushed aside and fade away, forgotten, <...>. And this is happening in the days of our nation’s resurrection!” (Čiurlionis 1960: 288). In Sofija Čiurlionienė-Kymantaitė’s 1910 book Lietuvoje, where “the pan-European model of modernism <...> is turned toward Lithuanian folklore” (Vytautas Kubilius – LLEnc 2001: 340), in M. K. Čiurlionis’s musicological essay Apie muziką, included in the book, the framework is also discussed: “As the music of every nation develops and grows, it does not lose its particular qualities, for composers continue to enrich it. As sons of their homeland, they receive from their fathers, together with their blood, love for their songs, and often, without even realizing it, they cherish their

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

33

būdą ir ypatybes“ (Čiurlionis 1960: 295), bet „lietuvių muzika dar tebilsis liaudies dainose ar užrašuose, kurie tuo tarpu teturi muziejaus vertę“ (Čiurlionis 1960: 297). Į profesionaliosios muzikos pamatą liaudies melosą jie dėjo lygiai kaip didysis norvegas Edvardas Hagerupas Griegas (1843–1907), „nac. kompozitorių m-los pradininkas“, ir įvairiapusiškas vengrų kompozitorius ir etnomuzikologijos profesorius Béla Bartókas (1881–1945), ir kūrybiškai gausiai naudojęs liaudies meliką, ir kūręs „liaudies muzikos (vengrų, rumunų, slavų, arabų ir kt.) transkripcijas“ (MuzEnc I 2000).

The poet of the national revival, Maironis, looks at it similarly—in 1898 he proclaimed in manifesto-like fashion: “I would like to rouse at least one old man / From the graves of giants / And hear at least one, but living, little word / From ancient times! // Perhaps I would draw a new source of poetry, / Only not today’s, / Which borrowed both its clothes and its spirit, / Oh no, not its own, not its own!” (Maironis 1987: 53). From where was it borrowed, and why? Maironis himself provided part of the answer—in 1906, In a brief survey of Lithuanian writing, he pointed, not by chance, to Mykolas Olševskis’s Broma opened to eternity, which had reigned darkly for nearly a century—from 1753 to 1851—as “an example of the mutilation of the Lithuanian tongue” and had “contributed enormously to the mutilation of the living language among the people” (Maironis 1992: 707). J. Basanavičius had already supplied another part of the answer in the 1883 preface to Aušra—we stand at the grave of the nation: “Lithuania is slowly perishing, because its language is perishing!” (Basanavičius 1970: 695). It was still long before the restoration of the press and Lithuanian schools: “Today <...> schools (šuilės) with foreign languages of instruction mostly turn Lithuanians into foreigners and separate children from their parents” (Basanavičius 1970: 696). The familiar linguistic stereotype—describing an action as spontaneous instead of as something actually done by people (in this case, by two empires)—obscures the danger of imminent destruction. In truth, it is not perishing but being destroyed—this is not death from old age but killing. In parts of Lithuania, the Lithuanian language has been destroyed. In 1885, in Aušra, J. Jablonskis wrote: “Travel through Seiniai, Rumbonė [–Rùmbonis] and other places—you will see Lithuanians, already superficially Polonized <...>: the most wicked of the local Ruthenians forbade our press and thus introduced Polish writing in our land, <...>” (JablR I 1932: 5). Twenty years later, he concludes his lengthy article Among the dying: “The Lazūnai... are dying” (JablR I 1932: 132). Even in 1914, he still felt it necessary to explain—not to just anyone, but to K. Būga: “Our writers have read nothing in their childhood except foreign writings; while learning, they never heard anything beautifully written in Lithuanian. Many have become entirely unaccustomed to the characteristics of their own language, to its spirit; almost all of them still live in cities, where one rarely hears living native”

34

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

“... <...>; all that is needed is for writers to begin taking their work seriously—for them to make genuine use, among other things, of the findings of linguists, drawn chiefly from those very people to whom almost all our writings are addressed” (JablR III 1934: 66).

Why did Maironis want to raise the old man and hear his little word—as a new source of poetry for himself? This is no romantic poeticizing—looking at things from both sides, almost ten years later, in the poem Jaunoji Lietuva he made a starkly realistic and sorrowful observation: “If you want to find a Lithuanian today, / Look where the thatched roofs are smoke-blackened! / <...>; Yet even there, those who came into wealth [– grew rich] / No longer understand the language of their forefathers” (Maironis 1988: 55). And yet—let me repeat—Maironis looks from both sides, a point also noted by modern scholars of the modernization of Lithuanian culture: “For Maironis, the history of Lithuania is by no means a history of the corruption of Lithuanians and of demoralization caused by foreign influences, just as it is not for him a reminiscence of a lost Golden Age. For Maironis the past is clearly subordinated to the hic et nunc dimension. It is simply indispensable to the present and the future (Donskis 1993: 71). Drawing also on Tomas Venclova, Leonidas Donskis, while arguing that ‘Maironis did not in fact archaize, but, on the contrary, modernized Lithuania of his time,’ sees Maironis’s modernity as something that even now remains unrecognized: ‘To make Maironis a true classic, to place him within the context of a dynamic culture that does not cyclically repeat the same movements and apocalyptic theories—this would undoubtedly testify to the long-awaited emancipation and maturity of our consciousness and culture’ (Donskis 1993: 71).

The path Maironis wanted to follow in poetry was laid by Liudas Gira with his “concept of the unity of folk and professional creativity” (R. Karmalavičius – LLEnc 2001), and by the first gifted modernists—Balys Sruoga, a Symbolist who saw in M. K. Čiurlionis’s paintings “the nationality of art rising from the depths,” and who sought in folk songs above all “reflections of inner life, moral and poetic beauty, and features of the national worldview” (Samulionis 1986: 153), though not without abundant diminutives (we—as birch saplings, youth, little youth, little leaning place,...), author of the still-significant major study Dainų poetikos etiudai, the article Jausmažodžiai ir vaizdažodžiai poezijoje, and even Rašytojas ir gramatika, and creator of many poetic neologisms; Putinas, modernizing without forgetting the lyricism of folk songs, even as he climbed toward the sublime heights of Symbolism, suffuses them with the lines of the pure-hearted Rūpintojėlis: I will go out, I said to myself, onto a level road: / On the level road, my little boat, / On the level road, in the bright little night / There, only for the young, broad

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

35

thoughts to think; the Lithuanian Russian Symbolist Jurgis Baltrušaitis begins his Lithuanian poetry collection Ašarų vainiką with Lūšnos daina—such a symbol, such an emblem of human earthly life!.. Finally, the quintessential neoromantic Jonas Aistis, for whom the fate of the Lithuanian nation is the only riddle of life, who rightly foresaw that our bones would groan in captivity, and later lamentingly reproached us—one drop of blood would have defended you—even as a young man marveled at the apt, vivid imagery of villagers’ expressions. Together with Antanas Miškinis, living on little fish from the lagoon and humming folk songs at dusk, he sought in them the secrets of national character in poetry—the spirit that was one’s own, not borrowed. In his 1935 essay Lietuvės būdas, J. Aistis said, as if agreeing with V. Kudirka, “The nation is in the hands of mothers,” but, invoking Solomon’s wisdom—“the earth trembles at three things, and cannot bear a fourth”—he added, “when a servant becomes a lady”: her “culture, of course, extends no further than her shirt” (Aistis 1991: 160, 161)... And at the very end of his life, far from his homeland, in the painfully wise Elegies of Milford Street Epilogue, he remarked sharply: “A Lithuanian does not trouble himself about two things: his mother tongue and the history of his nation,” explaining matter-of-factly: “Including linguists and historians. I am a linguist, why should I care about history! I am a historian, why should I care about language!” (Aistis 1991: 457).

The conclusion suggests itself: J. Jablonskis belongs among them, both within his own field and beyond it, but his field is the most significant, and chronologically he comes first. If society has not grasped this, only linguists are to blame for failing to understand it (or, if some did understand, for not saying so or explaining it). Even Vytautas Kavolis, the leading scholar of the broadest-ranging comparative and interdisciplinary cultural studies, in his study Epochų signatūros (1991), surveying Lithuanian culture from 1387 through the lens of modernization, noted only this: in the “lost century” (1640–1750), “the language of Lithuanian books grows barbarous” (Kavolis 1994: 383); after that, at sunset, “Sirvydas’s sermons are gone, and Olševskis’s lamentations have taken their place” (Kavolis 1994: 400); in the nineteenth century, the nation’s growing activity is expressed rationally—in temperance—and theatrically—in barn plays; V. Kudirka creates a “synthesis of the folk and the national,” from which emerges a democratic culture (Kavolis 1994: 455). But V. Kavolis does not see the standard language—or even language itself—in it (at least he does not show this); for him, J. Jablonskis appears only in the context of V. Kudirka (Kavolis 1994: 463–464). In essence, the study Sąmoningumo trajektorijos. Lietuvių kultūros modernėjimo aspektai (1986) is no different. Individual freedom is important to the ideology of liberalism—not only in economics, but also in poetic creation, which is mostly rebellious!.. And what of national identity in culture?

36

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

3. THE PATH OF LANGUAGE – LIKE THAT OF A NATION

From J. Jablonskis’s credo, from the hopes and resolve of the Lithuanian intelligentsia, scattered across Lithuania, Russia, America, and Europe after 1916, to restore Lithuania, let us leap to Western Europe and its linguistics. In that very same year, 1916, the work of the great French-speaking Swiss Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), Course in General Linguistics (Cours de linguistique générale), was published posthumously. Having begun his studies in 1876 at Leipzig, then the center of Indo-European comparative linguistics, and having published there in 1878 the Memoir on the Original System of Vowels in the Indo-European Languages, later called a work of genius, he was astonished that the great German Indo-Europeanists cared not at all about the main question—what language is. In the outlines of his lectures from 1891, citing one surname and the University of Vienna as typical, he writes that such linguists survey all the languages of the world but take not a single step toward explaining what language is (Холодович 1977: 664). By contrast, he speaks favorably here of three Romance philologists (including Hugo Schuchardt), the Germanist Hermann Paul, and the Russianists Jan Baudouin de Courtenay and Nikolai Kruszewski. From 1906 to 1911, F. de Saussure delivered such a course three times at the University of Geneva; after his death, his students compiled and published it from their notes. This is an epoch-making work. For F. de Saussure, language is a system of signs; it has its own history and is a physical, physiological, and psychological phenomenon, both individual and social—it forms a unity, an indivisible whole, of meaning and sound. Language is conventional: the linguistic sign is not organically motivated (otherwise there would be one unchanging language in the world). Thus language is a kind of agreement among members of a collective (speakers). But what is that collective? The fact that it is a nation—this is what is missing from the Course in General Linguistics. In J. Jablonskis’s guidelines, language is first and foremost that of a person, a nation, then the nation’s songs and so on, and only afterward

Language is the creation of human thought, but it is also the instrument, the tool, for expressing human thoughts (JablR IV 1935: 190).

True, F. de Saussure argues that the diversity of languages was created by time, while differences between languages manifest themselves in space; that every nation feels it has its own language and considers its own superior (де Соссюр 1977: 233–235); there is a section titled Language and Race, and even one titled Ethnicity, which says that a shared language can create an ethnic and social community (for example, Romance peoples) (де Соссюр 1977: 260). But there is not a trace of a conception of national language. Although no other kind of language exists—even if one later becomes international or global—language as such is otherwise only an abstraction. He discusses the voluntary or forced adoption of the conquerors’ language (for example, that of the Romans) in Gaul—the newcomers’ language overlays the languages of the indigenous population.

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

37

He reminds us that two or three languages can coexist in one territory without mixing (but can they do so without interference?!—J. K.); for example, Spanish and French alongside Basque. He mentions the Polish language, established in Lithuania (in Lithuania Minor, where he spent half a year in 1880) alongside Lithuanian as a result of the union, and Russian as a result of Lithuania’s incorporation into the Russian Empire (де Соссюр 1977: 229–230). It would seem there are enough opportunities—without theoretical rigor or comprehensiveness—to speak about national languages and the processes of their interaction, not just the results. But… for linguists (and poets) of the great (numerous, powerful) nations, on a large civilizational scale, and of nations that have been free since time immemorial, this has long ceased to be a relevant issue. The free Swiss proceeds most boldly and recklessly to the ultimate limit: “in the practical relations between people, reason loses its ground,” and language therefore loses its freedom and identity—the passage of time allows the forces acting upon it to demonstrate their power (де Соссюр 1977: 110–111); the stream of language flows ceaselessly through time (де Соссюр 1977: 173): “There are, essentially, no immutable features” and “evolution is blind” (де Соссюр 1977: 266 and 268). This is like an insurmountable entropy. In language, homo – insipiens?.. F. de Saussure is not alone in this: “Man is a capricious and enigmatic being, and here he is the principal actor” (Hjelmslev 1995: 153). The final thesis of F. de Saussure’s work (its last sentence): “the sole true object of linguistics is language considered in and for itself” (де Соссюр 1977: 269).

This idea emerges in all its concreteness in the section Standard Language and Local Dialect: “Left to itself, language is in a state of division into dialects, <...>; under such conditions it is doomed to divide endlessly” (де Соссюр 1977: 231). A standard language—a created, cultivated, and refined language—is necessary when a nation reaches the requisite level of cultural and political integration. This is clearly the result not of blind evolution but of purposeful, consciously directed evolution and creation, especially since it is most often accompanied and reinforced by writing and orthography, language teaching, and language cultivation. F. de Saussure also mentions politics, the Church, the royal court, salons, and academies (де Соссюр 1977: 60). And he makes a significant qualification: “Once established, a standard language is generally sufficiently stable and tends to remain identical to itself; its dependence on writing ensures even greater stability” (де Соссюр 1977: 173). Textbook theory of dialectology states: “dialects arise from the unceasing change of language, which is not uniform across different parts of the linguistic area,” and this “process is called linguistic differentiation” (Zinkevičius 1978: 15). Time, alas, has aged some truths about the benefits of dialects, for example: “Whoever breaks ties with a dialect loses a firm foundation for language, because our standard language is still young and itself

38

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

be tarmių negali lengvai verstis“ (Zinkevičius 1978: 130). Bet ką daro regioninio patriotizmo ir tarmių metų entuziazmo kurstomas ryšių nutraukimas su bendrine kalba ar bent jų silpnėjimas? To galimas vardas – kalbinė dezintegracija. Be to, daugybė veiksnių skatina ir pačios bendrinės kalbos segmentaciją. Globalizmo pagairėje juokinga gelbėtis tarmiškumais ir visokiomis archajiškomis ar moderniškomis dezintegracijomis. Telktis reikia: kalbos ateities ir saugumo garantas – bendrinė kalba.

F. de Saussure speaks of no other source for the standard language: it is only a dialect, simply the dialect itself, not a foundation. Since the myth of the capital-city dialect as the source (or foundation) has almost completely taken hold in Lithuania, and pupils are asked to decide what is better for them—the standard language or Vilnius pronunciation (Vaicekauskienė 2013: 26)—it is necessary to state the variety of motives for choosing a dialect that F. de Saussure identifies: the dialect of the most culturally developed region, the dialect of a region with political hegemony and central government, or a language imposed by the ruler’s court; thus only in the last case is it that of the capital. French is based on Île-de-France (not Paris), Italian on Tuscany (not Rome) (Де Соссюр 1977: 231). Thus, following F. de Saussure, we will have to acknowledge that standard Lithuanian comes from the dialect of Suvalkija, then the most developed region. And he says nothing about changing foundations, breaks, or variation in the standard language, because none exist.

As the Saussurean conception of language as a social (conventional, societal) phenomenon took hold, and especially as sociolinguistics (social or sociological linguistics) based on that conception gained prominence, an understanding—or rather, an assumption—also took hold, almost imperceptibly: that the primary function of language is communicative, rather than its primary, innate denotative—representational—function. At the university (academic) and encyclopedic levels, a distorted conception became entrenched: language is a means of communication. In countries that are melting pots of nations and languages, the loss of national identity—assimilation—is given an even more euphemistic name: c o d e switching.

In his extensive 1997 monograph Language and Society (Psychosociological and Communicative Aspects of Language Use), the Lithuanian linguist Simas Karaliūnas, whose subtitle might suggest that it is devoted to that instrument, decisively rejects the dogma and argues very convincingly that the functions of language are not confined to communication and naming: above and prior to these is the ethnic function of language—the function of identification, unification, and national differentiation, national distinctiveness, and linguistic affiliation with a nation (Karaliūnas 1997: 163, 164). And this was already stated 100 years ago (in 1913) by K. Būga: “It is l a n g u a g e that makes all Lithuanians, both Highlanders and Lowlanders, one nation” (Būga 1913: 403). Incidentally, F. de Saussure also spoke about

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

39

language as a means of bringing together a collective of speakers from different ethnoses (де Соссюр 1977: 260), but one-sidedly and in passing—the ethnos or nation naturally resides in language in the first place, and ultimately so does the bringing together and establishment of nations (ethnic or political). Only in very rare cases does language—the expression of an ethnos and a means of communication—differ; there are two (the Irish nation), but the loss of the former poses the danger of losing nationality, its first step, or even its last—the end. Very rare cases are the political nations of the Swiss or Belgians, made up of multilingual ethnoses, and the latter is the less harmonious one. In the Spanish political nation, the Spanish (Castilian) ethnos faces strong demands for autonomy from the Catalans (peacefully) and the Basques (including terrorist ones). The political nation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the Union, when it became Polish-speaking (only the common people remained almost entirely Lithuanian-speaking), lost its state. The regional patriotism of the Samogitian sub-ethnos (subnation) is mostly linguistic, ethnic, and cultural, but is sometimes exploited by party bosses...

Neither LKEnc 1999 nor 2008 has an entry for language, language functions, or even the Lithuanian language... There is a very substantial article by Adelė Valeckienė on standard language—a definition in one paragraph and 3.5 pages on the history of standard Lithuanian. Theories (or theory) of standard languages, the European or at least neighboring situation, their foundations, and their interaction with dialects have not been addressed. In Vytautas Ambrazas’s concise 2003 article on standard language in VLE III, the foundations for the formation of Greek koinē and standard German and Russian are discussed, but a full and relevant account for us is still a long way off; our distinctiveness is not brought out. A. Piročkinas pointed to the dialectal foundation of standard Serbian and Slovak, and the literary foundation of standard Czech (at the end of the sixteenth century!) (Piročkinas 2010: 10), but left aside the highly distinctive, dual foundation of the not-distant Russians: “The Russian standard language arose gradually through the Russification of Old Church Slavonic, based on the dialects of the Bulgarians of Macedonia, and its adaptation to Russian dialects” (V. Ambrazas – VLE III 2003). It should be added that the pre-national standard Russian language (литературный язык) was bookish only, while the standard language of the nation grew on a spoken—popular-language—foundation (KPP 2003: 307). When the first academic dictionary of standard Russian was being compiled, the vocabulary of the ordinary people (простонародье) was strictly distinguished from the vocabulary of the upper classes (which at the time also included French speakers!), thereby forming colloquial vernacular (просторечие). Even today standard Russian, though no aristocratic speech, is considered the opposite of popular language: territorial and social dialects and colloquial vernacular—a non-codified, supra-dialectal (used by various social strata), topic-limited form of speech (KPP 2003: 303–304). Boris Larin expressed a somewhat milder view of colloquial vernacular in 1928, calling it “lower” standard (общий) speech (KPP 2003: 517). Moving from the margins inward—into the periphery of standard lan-

40

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

guage—it becomes a stylistic layer of the standard language, plain and unconstrained, as opposed to the refined, elevated, bookish register (KPP 2003: 518). The claim that the standard language is constantly replenished and renewed by popular language, and that interaction with it is a national characteristic of standard Russian (KPP 2003: 304), is quite close to our situation (perhaps we have even appropriated it somewhat), except that for us this is not a secondary interaction but an inherent foundation. Yet renewal has long been more of a declaration (in Russian too!..); on the contrary, both sides, though unequally, have become substantially mixed—this is their only similarity; otherwise, they are separate! F. de Saussure spoke of a sharp collision between standard language and dialects—as the separation of a product of culture from the sphere of nature (de Saussure 1977: 60).

F. de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics, chapter The Object of Linguistics, having established the language–speak-ing dichotomy and identified the place of language within speech, summarizes the main characteristics of language in four substantial points (де Соссюр 1977: 52–53). Neither here nor later, as he develops his theory, does he offer a more concise definition of language. Axel Holvoet’s substantive article on language in VLE IX 2006 begins, without mentioning it, from F. de Saussure (who is mentioned at the end, but no literature is cited). The functions of language are then presented according to Karl Bühler and Roman Jakobson. The national function is absent here, although S. Karaliūnas had already proposed it in 1997.

Didysis danų kalbininkas glosematikas Louis Hjelmslevas (1899–1965) knygoje Kalba. Įvadas (daniškai 1963; prancūziškas vertimas 1966, lietuviškas 1995), irgi nekalbantis apie tautos kalbą ar kalbos tautą, o tik kalbinę bendriją, kalbines bendruomenes (Hjelmslev 1995: 52, 75), prie tautinės funkcijos, žinoma, ir negali priėti. O ir funkcija jam – „mokslinio aprašymo atskleidžiami objektų santykiai“ (Hjelmslev 1995: 8), elementų funkcija – tai, kas klasikinei kalbotyrai – fonetiniai dėsniai (Hjelmslev 1995: 103), taigi ir kalbą jis glaustai apibrėžia kaip „struktūrą, kurioje visus kiekvienos kategorijos elementus sieja tarpusavio komutacijos santykiai“ ir dar patikslina: „kad struktūra, kurios turinio ir išraiškos planai yra susieti dvišalės presupozicijos santykiu, būtų pavadinta kalba, būtina, kad šiuo santykiu nebūtų susieta nė viena šių dviejų planų vienetų pora“. (Hjelmslev 1995: 119, 122). Šitas stulbinamai vienpusiškas apibrėžtis gana greitai pats apibūdina kaip aspektines – „kalbos s t r u k t ū r o s (ret. mano – J. K.) bendrąjai teorijai sukurti reikalingas“ (Hjelmslev 1995: 123). Tai jau į šalį nuo šio straipsnio užmojo, bet įžvalgusis autorius (L. H.) vėl netikėtai nuo šio teiginio pasuka į straipsniui aktualų dalyką: „struktūra remiasi savais dėsniais ir kinta ne dėl tendencijų, būdingų kalbos bendruomenei, o dėl pačios sistemos kintančių polinkių“ (Hjelmslev 1995: 154). Dar svarbiau bendrinės kalbos

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

41

for those preparing the turning points to hear: “the structure of language tends to move only in certain directions” (Hjelmslev 1995: 154). Moving (or being moved!) otherwise, it strives toward a different type.

All of this yields many clarifications from various perspectives. One more significant insight of F. de Saussure should be added: in linguistics, the object does not determine the point of view; rather, it is the point of view that creates the object (де Соссюр 1977: 46). And from those sciences whose object is self-evident comes a warning: if a subject is entirely clear, that means it has been poorly investigated. Language is not entirely clear, because it has neither been comprehensively investigated nor is it a matter with just one key. One aspect—that language is merely a means—has become plainly wrong and nauseatingly tiresome. Tertullian already knew: “Different peoples call the same person by different names. One soul—different words, one spirit—various sounds. Every people has its own language, <...>” (Tertulianas 1988: 194). The paths of the languages of peoples are varied: some are similar, many are different. And even L. Hjelmslev, turning around and astonishing us, declares: “Everything—from the character of a people to the traits of an individual—belongs to the domain of linguistics” (Hjelmslev 1995: 160). Our own old European, Algirdas Julius Greimas, can also instruct those who have become overzealous about European identity: “homeland is language, it is culture” (Greimas 1991: 93).

This cannot be brought to an end, but it must be concluded. And with the one with whom it began—Jonas Jablonskis. His path has continued; it was almost never interrupted, though at times impeded and denied. A new method has also been devised: to keep J. Jablonskis silent. Here is an eloquent example: on the occasion of the distinguished anniversary, the weekly Veidas, intended for a broader readership, published a fairly extensive article (with six photographs), although not by a linguist (also symptomatic!), which concludes as follows: “J. Jablonskis’s lessons and example could help us even today, for globalization poses many new dangers to the Lithuanian language” (Rudokas 2010: 55). For the journal of religion, culture, and public life Naujasis židinys–Aidai, is J. Jablonskis’s name terra incognita, an unreachable Rubicon, a bogeyman, or aut nihil?.. The wanderings of alternative linguistics—Loreta Vaicekauskienė’s and, for the most part, those of non-linguists (Algirdas Patackas, Guoda Azguridienė, Tomas Daugirdas, Nerijus Šepetys)—through fields and along byways, accompanied by malicious mockery and absurd attempts to make fools of us. Lithuania’s Jablonskis scholarship means nothing to them, because J. Jablonskis means nothing to them. So here we will turn to another Jablonskis scholar, not mentioned before, who did his greatest work in America, though he defended his doctorate in Leipzig, and accomplished much—in historical linguistics, dialectology, and the fields of language standardization and orthography—while still in his homeland: Antanas Salys (1902–1972).

42

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

In 1937, Naujojoje Romuvoje, the article Language and Society begins in a distinctly Jablonskian manner: “The concept of language is defined in very different ways, depending on the perspective from which we look at it. Many say that language is a means by which a person expresses thoughts, concepts, and wishes. Someone else emphasizes that it is only a means, nothing more. Thus, paradoxically, we could place language in the same category as, say, an antiaircraft gun. <...> Viewed in this way, national languages would, of course, have to be replaced by an international jargon <...>” (Salys 1979: 3). But “this is not its very essence”—“Language does not live by itself; it is not an organism, but only its function”—“a constituent of the spirit of society” (Salys 1979: 3). Languages differ not so much in phonetics as they “deepen in their essence, bound up with the soul of the nation”; “language is the fundamental principle of the concept of nation”; “languages are national <...> in all their inner, intellectual content” (Salys 1979: 4). A year later, in Tautos Mokykloje, he publishes the extensive article The Native Language and Thought. In 1935, the article School and the Sense of Language in Gimtojoje kalboje begins by citing J. Jablonskis: “In language, a nation declares what it is and what it is worth,” and continues: “language makes a nation” (Salys 1979: 13). Like J. Jablonskis, he sees two distinct worlds: “People of great nations, growing up in an entirely native, exclusively national environment, receive far fewer foreign influences in their language than do small nations scattered among the great ones. The common languages of those nations have long been established; usage as a whole is more conventional, the norm is firm, and every speaker or writer easily distinguishes what is native from what is foreign, what is correct from what is not in use” (Salys 1979: 13). And P. Skardžius, too, found it apt to say this (about J. Jablonskis!): “And since our native language is not merely an ordinary, everyday means of communication, but also an expression of our national consciousness and culture, he <...> undertook the work of cultivating our standard written language, <...>” (Skardžius 1940: 303–304).

There will never be an end to everything that can be said on this subject, but this will suffice for now.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Jonas Jablonskis must first of all be seen (and presented to the public!) as an integrated, indivisible personality, a modern man of his time—the springtime of nations—and of his place—the homeland of small nations in Eastern Europe—and his numerous activities should not be classified flatly, but hierarchically, bringing out the guiding principles of his life and the directions of his work. The most important things on J. Jablonskis’s path were the foundations: the vitality of language and nation, the education of the nation, and independence; then came the guiding principles of language

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

43

—that is, the principles of the standard language: a national foundation (the language of the people), the principle of lexical and syntactic purity, implemented through an abundant and successful creation of new words (about 600) and a description of syntax based on pure, most authentic data. The outlines of the grammar have stood the test of a century. Assessments of certain specific matters—grammar and word formation—were made without the necessary thorough investigation; excessive reliance was placed on strict, continuous systematization, which current sources (LKŽ, etc.) show is not borne out by linguistic data. The long, ongoing, persistent practice of extensive corrections (Kalbos dalykai and so on) is mostly sound, sometimes corrected by Jablonskis himself, and rarely unfounded, though it is not always abandoned. It could and should have been more fruitful, especially during the decades of independence, when the press was free and universities and gymnasiums were most active; often, particularly in newspapers and even among some writers, it was met with indifference or even hostile animosity—and, incidentally, still is today. Both the instances in which he was wrong, the blind assent to them, and the unjustified rejection of his views call for the most thorough specific research and the soundest conclusions. Dull repetition of ingrained notions alienates people both from J. Jablonskis and from language. One should not blindly follow every footprint he left; above all, one must look to the guiding principles. The study of Jablonskis, begun while he was still alive, has been marked by a five-volume edition of his writings (articles), a two-volume edition including grammars, and a two-volume monograph, studies, and numerous articles—but also by a fairly large amount of polemic, much of it, unfortunately, tiresome, empty, and even nihilistic. J. Jablonskis has been studied and described better than he has been fully understood and properly embraced. The greatest misunderstanding—also a theoretical misconception!—is the attempt to force our distinctive path as a nation and language into the mold of the major Western languages.

ŠALTINIAI

DŽ₁ 1954 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Ats. red. J. Kruopas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

DŽ₂ 1972 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Ats. red. J. Kruopas, Vilnius: Mintis.

DŽ₃ 1993 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. St. Keinys, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

DŽ₄ 2000 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. S. Keinys, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

LKV 1950 – Lietuvių kalbos vadovas. Sudarė Pr. Skardžius, St. Barzdukas, J. M. Laurinaitis. Lietuvių tremtinių bendruomenė. – Antroji dalis [žodynas].

LKŽ I₁ 1941 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1. I leid. Red. J. Balčikonis, Vilnius.

LKŽ I₂ 1968 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1. II leid. Ats. red. J. Kruopas, Vilnius: Mintis.

44

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

LKŽ II₂ 1969 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 2. II leid. Ats. red. J. Kruopas, Vilnius: Mintis.

LKŽ IV 1957 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 4. Ats. red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

LKŽ V 1959 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 5. Ats. red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

LKŽ IX 1973 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 9. Vyr. red. J. Kruopas, Vilnius: Mintis.

LKŽ X 1976 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 10. Vyr. red. J. Kruopas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

LKŽ XII 1981 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 12. Vyr. red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

LKŽ XIII 1984 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 13. Vyr. red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

TŽŽ 1936 – Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Sudarė K. Boruta, Pr. Čepėnas, A. Sirutytė-Čepėnienė, Kaunas: Sakalas.

LITERATŪRA

Aistis J. 1991: Milfordo gatvės elegijos, Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjunga.

Ambrazas S. 1993: Daiktavardžių darybos raida, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Ambrazas S. 2000: Daiktavardžių darybos raida 2, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Balčikonis J. 1919–1920: Jablonskis ir mūsų šių dienų kalba. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, 1982, Vilnius: Mokslas, 155–158.

Balčikonis J. 1930: Jablonskio nuopelnai. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, 1982, Vilnius: Mokslas, 166–168.

Balčikonis J. 1931: Kuo mums brangus Jablonskis. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, 1982, Vilnius: Mokslas, 169–172.

Balčikonis J. 1932a: Prakalba. – Jablonskio raštai 1, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerija, VII–X.

Balčikonis J. 1932b: Trumpas gyvenimo aprašymas. – Jablonskio raštai 1, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerija, XI–XXVIII.

Basanavičius J. 1970: Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Vaga.

Būga K. 1913: Kalbų mokslas bei mūsų senovė. – Rinktiniai raštai 1, 1958, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 401–418.

Būga K. 1922: Kalba ir senovė. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, 1959, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 7–328.

Čiurlionis M. K. 1960: Apie muziką ir dailę, Vilnius: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla.

Donskis L. 1993: Maironis lietuvių istoriografijos ir istoriosofijos paradigmų kontekste. – Kultūros barai 1, 68–71.

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

45

Girdenis A., Piročkinas A. 1977; 1978: Jonas Jablonskis – dialektologas. – Kalbotyra 28(1), 29–39; 29(1), 19–28.

Greimas A. J. 1991: Iš arti ir iš toli, Vilnius: Vaga.

Hjelmslev L. 1995: Kalba. Įvadas, Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

JabL 1985: Jono Jablonskio laiškai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

JablR I 1932: Jablonskio raštai 1. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerija.

JablR III 1934: Jablonskio raštai 3. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerija.

JablR IV 1935: Jablonskio raštai 4. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerija.

JablRR I 1957: Jablonskis J. Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

J. P. 1930: Darbų pagerbkime didįjį kalbininką! – Kalba I 2, 64–65.

Jonikas P. 1930: Jablonskio kalbos tyrimo charakteristikos bruožas. – Kalba I 2, 63–64.

Jonikas P. 1940: Į Jablonskį atsigręžus. – Gimtoji kalba 2, 17–19.

Jonikas P. 1979: Antano Salio gyvenimo ir mokslinės veiklos pagrindiniai bruožai. – Salys A. Raštai 1, Bendrinė kalba, Roma, XIII–XX.

Kalbotyra 1962, V tomas.

Karaliūnas S. 1997: Kalba ir visuomenė (Psichosociologiniai ir komunikaciniai kalbos vartojimo bruožai), Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Kavolis V. 1994: Žmogus istorijoje, Vilnius: Vaga.

Klimavičius J. 1975: Visą gyvenimą. – Žvaigždutė 3.

Klimavičius J. 1983: Kelionės aplink stalą. – Mintis ir ženklas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 9–50.

Klimavičius J. 2008: Draugiškas, draugingas, draugus. – Kalbos kultūra 81, 133–140.

LKG I 1965: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1, Vilnius: Mintis.

LKEnc 1999: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

LKEnc 2008: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

LLEnc 2001: Lietuvių literatūros enciklopedija, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas.

LTE IV 1978: Lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija 4, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Maironis 1987: Raštai 1, Vilnius: Vaga.

Maironis 1988: Raštai 2, Poemos, Vilnius: Vaga.

Maironis 1992: Raštai 3, kn. 2, Vilnius: Vaga.

MuzEnc I 2000: Muzikos enciklopedija 1, Vilnius: Lietuvos muzikos akademija, Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

46

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

Palionis J. 1957: J. Jablonskis ir jo lietuvių kalbos vadovėliai. – Jablonskis J. Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 7–56.

Palionis J. 1959: J. Jablonskio kalbiniai taisymai. – Jablonskis J. Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 5–34.

Palionis J. 2001: Jonas Jablonskis ir dabartinė bendrinė kalba. – Kalbos kultūra 74, 3–8.

Piročkinas A. 1970: J. Jablonskio kalbos norminimo pagrindai ir principai. – Lietuvių kalbos sekcijos sąsiuvinis 5(18), 5–15.

Piročkinas A. 1978: J. Jablonskis – bendrinės kalbos puoselėtojas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Piročkinas A. 2000: Jonas Jablonskis – naujų žodžių kūrėjas. – Gimtasis žodis 10, 2–6; 11, 14–16; 12, 7–12.

Piročkinas A. 2010: Dėl kurių ne kurių samprotavimų apie Jono Jablonskio kalbinę veiklą. – Mokslo Lietuva 17 1, 10–11.

Piročkinas A. 2010–2011: Erškėčiuotu keliu lydėjo kalbą į lietuvių mokyklą. – Mokslo Lietuva 2010 22, 6–7; 2011 1, 10–11; 2, 10–11.

Piročkinas A. 2011–2012: Apie Joną Jablonskį kalbėti niekada ne vėlu. – Mokslo Lietuva 2011 22 4; 2012 1, 4; 31, 4.

Rudokas J. 2010: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos tėvas. – Veidas 52, 54–55.

Sabaliauskas A. 1979: Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija iki 1940 m., Vilnius: Mokslas.

Salys A. 1979: Raštai 1. Bendrinė kalba, Roma: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija.

Samulionis A. 1986: Balys Sruoga, Vilnius: Vaga.

SinŽ 1980: Lyberis A. Sinonimų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Skardžius P. 1926: Bendri pastebėjimai. – Kalbos mažmenos. – Rinktiniai raštai 3, 1998, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 25–31.

Skardžius P. 1927: Priesaga -auninkas. Kalbos mažmenos. – Rinktiniai raštai 3, 1998, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 46–49.

Skardžius P. 1928: Dėl prof. J. Jablonskio „neklaidingumo“. – Rinktiniai raštai 5, 1999, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 578–579.

Skardžius P. 1931: J. Jablonskis. – Rinktiniai raštai 4, 1998, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 323–331.

Skardžius P. 1937: J. Jablonskis ir dabartinė lietuvių bendrinė kalba. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, 1997, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 245–267.

Skardžius P. 1940: Jonas Jablonskis. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, 1997, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 301–306.

Skardžius P. 1943: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius.

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

47

Skardžius P. 1950: J. Jablonskis kalbininkas. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, 1997, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 368–380.

Skardžius P. 1973: J. Jablonskio taisymai. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, 1997, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 546–562.

Tertulianas 1988: Apie sielos liudijimą. – Katalikų kalendorius žinynas, Kaunas–Vilnius: Lietuvos Vyskupų Konferencijos leidinys, 190–194.

TLE II 1986: Tarybų Lietuvos enciklopedija 2, Vilnius: Vyriausioji enciklopedijų redakcija.

Ulvy das K. 1961: J. Jablonskis – lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos ugdytojas. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 4, 5–18.

Ulvy das K. 1982: Dėl J. Jablonskio požiūrių į kalbą. – Kalbos kultūra 42, 3–16.

Vaicekauskienė L. 2013. – Gimtoji kalba 8, 24–28.

Vidžiūnas A. 2000: Jonas Jablonskis – visuomenės žmogus. – Gimtoji kalba 12, 1–3.

VLE III 2003: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 3, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

VLE VIII 2005: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 8, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

VLE IX 2006: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 9, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Zinkevičius Z. 1978: Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Zinkevičius Z. 1992: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 5. Bendrinės kalbos iškilimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Zinkevičius Z. 2013: Lietuva. Praeities didybė ir sunykimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras.

KPP 2003: Культура русской речи. Энциклопедический словарь-справочник, Москва: Наука.

Соссюр де Ф. 1977: Труды по языкознанию, Москва: Прогресс.

Холодович А. А. 1977: Фердинанд де Соссюр. – Соссюр де Ф. Труды по языкознанию, Москва: Прогресс, 650–671.

Gauta 2013 11 04

Priimta 2013 12 20

48

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

JONAS JABLONSKIS AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE NATION

Summary

Jonas Jablonskis should first be seen as a solid integral personality and a modern man of his time, known as the Spring of Nations, his place, Eastern Europe, known as the homeland of the small nations, and his nation. Instead of being classified flatwise, his abundant activities should be organised in a hierarchical order by highlighting the landmarks of his life and the milestones of his activities. The road of Jablonskis primarily relied on the very foundations, i.e. the existence of the language and the nation, national education, independence, followed by the landmarks of language, i.e. the standard language as the national foundation (people’s language), a well-founded principle of dictionary and syntax purity implemented by the fruitful formation of new words and the description of syntax based on pure authentic data. An outline of grammar withstood the trials of the century. The evaluations of certain specific aspects – grammar and word-formation – are lacking a thorough study; a simple and strict systemization which is not testified by language data, as contemporary sources show (Dictionary of Lithuanian, etc.), was unduly relied upon. A long, continuous and persistent practice of numerous corrections (Gimtoji kalba – Language Matters, etc.) is to the most part correct; self-corrections are occasional; in some cases, they are ill-founded but not always refused. Though it could and should have been more fruitful, in particular in the free press, mostly during the decades of independence of universities and gymnasiums, it was often approached without due attention, even with bitter hostility, in particular by the press and even by certain writers, which, by the way, is still apparent today. Occasional invalidities and their blind acceptance as well as unreasonable rejections require the most thorough targeted studies and the most valid conclusions. Blunt repetitions of long-established matters push away from both Jablonskis and the language. Not every step he had taken should be blindly followed – landmarks should first be observed. The road of the jablonskiana which had begun during his lifetime was marked by 5 volumes of his writings (articles), 2 volumes of grammars as well as a 2-volume monograph, studies, numerous articles and rather rich, though mostly insistent, empty, even nihilistic, polemic. Jablonskis has been better studied and described than fully understood and duly acknowledged. The greatest theoretical misunderstanding is the attempt to address our peculiar road of the nation and the language according the pattern of the great Western languages.

KEYWORDS: Jablonskis, jablonskiana, language, nation, language of the nation, national function of the language.

JONAS KLIMAVIČIUS

Erfurto g. 56-14, LT-10308 Vilnius

J. KLIMAVIČIUS. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

49