Antanas Salys ir žodynas

A. PuPkis. Antanas Salys and the dictionary 9 kALBA ALDONAS PUPKIS Institute of Lithuanian Language ANTANAS SALYS AND THE DICTIONARY1 110th anniversary KEY WORDS: lexis, lexicography, standardization, modernization. One of the most famous Lithuanian linguists of the 20th century, Antanas Salys (born on 21 July 1902 in Vilnius) Reese, Dave. 31 July 1972 in Philadelphia, USA) has contributed to many fields of Lithuanian linguistics. First of all, he is mentioned as one of the most accomplished researchers of synchronous and diachronic Lithuanian dialectology, who raised the entire dialectology science to a qualitatively new level. In the pre-war years, Salys worked particularly productively in the field of Lithuanian toponymy: he organized the collection of place names from the living language, studied the origin of place names, personal names and other real names, determined their normative genders, contributed greatly to the standardization of names and surnames of residential places in the Vilnius region, together with others prepared dictionaries and lists of various real names in this field. 1 Article prepared under the project “Juozas Balčikonis lexicographer” (No. LTI-5-14) funded by the Lithuanian Science Council. 10 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 85 The review and encyclopedic articles dedicated to Antanas Salis emphasize his merits in other fields of linguistic science and practice: lexicology and lexicography, terminology, phonetics and pronunciation, general linguistics, language culture, etc. He is described as a researcher with very broad interests and high ambitions, well mastering the methodology of linguistic research work of his time, skillfully linking the research of the current language with the historical perspective in his works. His ability to base his statements on historical linguistic data makes many of his works particularly attractive to readers. Among other things, readers cannot fail to be attracted by the very peculiar style of language in Sali’s works, which distinguishes him from almost all linguists of the time as a subtle stylist. Antanas Salis can be described as a dictionary writer in several respects: on the one hand, in terms of lexicology – as a historian of individual words (a researcher of their origin), an interpreter and normifier of the meanings of words, a researcher of the potential and prospects of new words, a master of creating new words. On the other hand, we cannot ignore Salis’s lexicographical work: as a practitioner he is one of the many compilers and editors of dictionaries and dictionary books, as a theoretician he is one of the creators of the theoretical basis of the Great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, as well as a historian of general and Lithuanian lexicography. Antanas Salis’ relationship with the dictionary – with lexicology and lexicography – has been different at different stages of his life. Apparently, due to the circumstances and the different linguistic needs of the society, work was done in the field of dictionaries and in the interpretation and standardization of words in bars. Firstly, the work of Kazimieras Būga's lexicography was encountered. As a gifted student, Salys, who had just started his studies at the University of Lithuania, was invited to assist Bogus in the work on the Lithuanian language dictionary he had begun to prepare. After his death, he was commissioned to examine and describe the archives of the linguist. This is how the article "Prof. The Legacy of K. Bugas’ Writing” – it was published in the collection of scientific papers Tauta i žodis (Vol. III, 1925, pp. 564–577; see Salys 1985: 136–154). This publication has become an important source not only for the scientific biography of Bogda, but also for the history of the great Lithuanian dictionary. Later, due to study at the University of Lithuania and abroad, Salis' contact with lexicography was interrupted for several years. After returning from studying in Germany, I had to devote myself to pedagogical work, and in addition, a whole lot of hard language practice was waiting for me. Firstly, she started working in the writing commission, then she became involved in organized activities of general language culture – without the articles of Salis and various reports it would be difficult to imagine the content of the Mother Language Journal or the activities of the Lithuanian Language Society at that time. Former States A. PuPkis. Antanas Salys and the Dictionary 11 language advisor of the Council, member and consultant of various language commissions, collaborator of many periodicals. In 1938, he published the article "Language Slice" in the daily newspaper Lietuvos Aidas. From January 24 to November 12 of that year (except for July-September and half of October) the newspaper published every day (with small exceptions) more or less articles by Salys on topical issues of language practice (see Salys 1979: 290– 366). Many of them deal with various topics of vocabulary. In these articles, as well as in “Klausimų kraitelė” (see Salys 1979: 209–289), published in the Mother Language, and in other articles published in periodicals, the most important provisions of the standardization and education of the Saly language, the theoretical bases and principles of this work were highlighted. Here he appeared as a great supporter of Lithuanianization of the Lithuanian language dictionary, implementing the principles of living language in all language practice work. One of the main features of his methodology is a constant look at the origin of words, a strong connection between word structure and semantics, as well as an extremely strong argumentation of the facts and propositions examined. In this respect, a great step forward was made in Lithuanian language practice compared to the superficial correction of vocabulary matters in the press and publishing houses, which was popular at the time. In addition, it should be said that Antanas Salys, like other linguists of the School of Native Language, gave his recommendations not as mandatory, but as advisory, thus going more not corrective, but educational language practice path. It should not be forgotten that Antanas Salys was also the editor of the important language practice publication of the time, Kalbos patarėjas (1939) (together with Pranas Skardžius; Salys “mainly edited” pages 28–46 of the booklet, see Salys 1979: 371). The subjects of the dictionary were not foreign to him even after his withdrawal to the West: he also published a number of valuable works in the Lithuanian-American press. Among them, the article “Modern Lithuanian language renovations” (in English; published in Volume I of his Writings (1979: 165–169). Based on the statements of this article, as well as other corrections and statements in the press, an attempt has already been made to evaluate somewhat the work of Antanas Salis in this field (Pupkis 2010: 201–208), but in general, Salis’ legacy in the history of language practice is still little studied and awaits more detailed and consistent studies. It is also regrettable that this legacy is hardly functioning in the current discourse of language practice. Antanas Salys also left a distinctive mark in the history of Lithuanian lexicography. He first came into contact with this field during his studies in Germany. Antanas Salio fellow student Pranas Skardžius, hoping to become the director and editor of the updating work of the great Lithuanian language dictionary. Here we must remember Balčikonio old disagreements with Pranas Skardžius about the dictionary (more: Pupkis 2012: 108 etc.). Skardžius, perhaps feeling resentment that he had not been appointed editor of the dictionary, had repeatedly accused Balčikonis of certain (but unspecified) shortcomings of the dictionary in preparation in the press since the pre-war years, constantly emphasizing that the dictionary should be published in a corrected (reformed) spelling, of which he was one of the authors. These spelling issues were discussed immediately after the establishment of the Lithuanian Institute. But the discussions lasted, and because of 12 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 85 (see Pupkis 2012:106), had divided the work with Salys and planned that Salys could take on the work of preparing the small2 dictionary, as well as being one of the editors of the large dictionary. When Juozapas Balčikonis was appointed editor by the Ministry of Education, these plans were discontinued, but soon both had to contribute to the discussion of theoretical issues of the large dictionary that was being prepared. It is known from various sources that at the beginning of the work of the dictionary editors (approximately 1932-1933) the theoretical and practical issues of the dictionary were discussed in the editorial office by the editor Juozas Balčikonis and young Vytautas Magnus University lecturers Pranas Skardžius and Antanas Salys. There is no precise information about what was discussed and what was decided there – there were no protocols, apparently, and we have few memories of the contemporaries. From scattered facts it is known that they “contributed to the compilation of the dictionary template” (Napalys grigas. – Dėk žodį prie žodžio 2006: 194), discussed the structure of the dictionary, the question of placing older borrowings (Skardžius 1997: 601), the nested and alphabetical presentation of verbs (Aleksandras Žirgulys. – Dėk žodį prie žodžio 2006: 209–210). The connection with the Lithuanian Language Dictionary was again necessary when the Institute of Lithuanian Studies was founded in Kaunas in 1939 and the editorship of the Dictionary was transferred to this institution. Antanas Salys first as head of the language department of the institute, and from 3 December 1941 as director of the institute became the direct supervisor of the dictionary editor Juozas Balčikonis. Initially, the relationship between the two linguists was normal, but later turned into confrontation and complete hostility. disagreements, Balčikonis was even dismissed from his editor’s post3. In otherwise not so difficult circumstances of historical restructuring, Volume I of the dictionary was published in the old, Balčikonis's chosen 2 currency. During Kazimieras Būga's lifetime, it was planned to prepare a small Lithuanian language dictionary for practical purposes next to the large one. For a long time, this was the name of this practical lexicographic work conceived by linguists in the press and in various documents. When it was prepared a few decades later, it was named the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language (1954). 3 This was done in the last weeks of the first Soviet occupation, but when the Germans took over the office, Balčikonis was returned. A. PuPkis. Antanas Salys and the dictionary 13 jablonskine spelling. During the preparation of the second volume, the directors of the Institute repeatedly announced their ambitions to improve the editing of the dictionary and introduce the new spelling. They were started in the summer of 1942: at the proposal of the director Antanas Salis, a scientific aid commission (appointed by Juozas Balčikonis, Antanas Salys, Pranas Skardžius, Janas Otrembskis (Otrębski) and Petras Jonikas) was set up to solve the problems of the structure and spelling of the dictionary, because the work was allegedly beyond the scope of one chief editor. The members of the commission were divided into tasks: for example, Salys had to look at the presentation of dialectal forms (transposition) (Lyberis 2009: 268), pronunciation and transitive and intransitive verbs (ibid., p. 272), the identification of borrowed and homonyms, the presentation of adjectives in the present tense, etc. (Kroopas 1973: 259)4. According to Antanas Lyberis, “J. Balčikonis expected a truly scientific assistance from the commission” (Lyberis 2009: 272), but when the question of spelling reform was raised at the second meeting, the editor expressed a separate opinion at the third meeting on October 14, 1942, and no longer attended them. When the new spelling was very quickly discussed and adopted by the commission, approved by the Academy of Sciences and signed by the then Education Minister, Balčikonis refused to rely on it and withdrew from the institute5. It can be assumed that these disagreements arose mainly because of the long-standing opposition between Pranas Skardžys and Juozas Balčikonis, and they were exacerbated by the stubbornness and ambitions of both linguists. in the end it turned into an almost empty argument about writing or not writing the consonant j in the root of three well-known words (ugly, cut, spit). Antanas Salys was involved in the whole mess as the head of the administration and supported not Balčikonis’ side but Skardžio’s, but behaved relatively correctly. That friction could not contribute to the smooth development of the dictionary. First of all, the people of the editorial staff were confronted. Instructed by the heads of the institute to correct the spelling of the texts of the dictionary that had already been prepared, they split into two camps: one side supported Skardžiai and Salis, the other did not want to publicly oppose them. 4 From 28 September 1942 to 2 July 1943, a total of 44 meetings of the Scientific Auxiliary Commission took place. They first confirmed the most important principles of the composition of the dictionary established by Balčikonis, then discussed certain cases of the already published volume I and mostly edited volume II texts. A number of various inaccuracies and otherwise all kinds of flaws were raised, especially issues to be corrected in the edited volume II. They were later successfully used in the work of the editors of the second and subsequent volumes. 5 All these peripeties between the scientific aid committee and the editor of the dictionary lasted a long time. All or almost all of its documents are in the archives, so it is to be hoped that a detailed account of their content and the publication of the documents themselves would help to better understand the atmosphere prevailing at the Lithuanian Language Institute at that time and fill the gap that remains to this day in the history of the Lithuanian language dictionary. 14 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 85 editors. In the wartime, this was too much of a luxury. Including the time when the printing work of the dictionary was temporarily halted by the decision of Salis, these unnecessary ambitions lost many precious years of the preparation and publication of the dictionary. In addition to the internal divisions in the institute, the opposition moved to the press. Not to mention the pre-war and wartime discussions of Skardzis and Balčikonis in the periodical press, it must be said that Antanas Salys has published only one article on these issues. This was a response to former editor-in-chief Napalis Grigas for his criticism of the Scientific Advisory Committee in an article (Grigas 1944). Antanas Salis, apparently, was caught up in the fact that Grigas accused the commission of only correcting the text of the dictionary, but not working on anything else, and stated that he did not see any evidence that the commission would have justified itself. Salys reacted quickly to this and published an article “Explanation of the matter of the Lithuanian language dictionary” (Salys 1944). The author tried to justify the necessity of the commission, claiming that Balčikonis had not been removed from the editorial work, but that he himself was not fulfilling his duties, so the commission now takes care of the editing and printing of the dictionary. Besides, the editor is angrily reproached that the editorial board has gone astray, just like the editor himself, who, having received a very good salary, was the first to leave his job and go somewhere more satisfying, and it is not proper for him, as an outsider, to take care of the location of the dictionary library. To sum up this whole series of disagreements between the two groups of linguists, it should be said that both sides were partly right. The establishment of the scientific aid commission was a positive moment in the work of preparing the dictionary, its work allowed later to improve some aspects of the dictionary editing. But because of the enthusiasm of the commission to reform the spelling and publish a dictionary in it during the war, the prioritization of this task did not yield positive results: the stubbornness and ambition of both sides only hindered the preparation and publication of the dictionary. Here we could, without mentioning other things, quote one excerpt from Balčikonis’ reply to Sali about the statements in his article: “I was of the opinion that spelling changes during war are nonsense in general. I have said many times that it would be worth publishing a dictionary during war even with proofreading errors; proofreading errors could be corrected later, and if the sheets with the words were lost, you would not get them back for any money. But the scientific institutions went a different way” (Balčikonis 1978: 188). In this case, Juozas Balčikonis proved to be far more far-sighted. In addition to the fact that he was supported by other people in the press and in letters to the editors, the dictionary’s reprint was in fact in great danger and the most important actor in this was precisely Antanas Salys. A. PuPkis. Antanas Salys and the dictionary 15 In March 1943, when the German occupation authorities closed the Academy of Sciences and dismissed the institute’s staff, the institute’s assets and an important part of it – the dictionary of the Lithuanian language – were in danger. With the approach of the front and the possible bombing of the city, the director Salys figured out that the library had to be taken out of the institute and hidden somewhere (and perhaps even taken abroad if necessary). In the autumn of 1943, part of the library was taken to Salantus to a known church priest, and the other part was later hidden in Kaunas, St. Antony's Church. Salys himself retreated to the West in 1944 without telling anyone where the library was hidden. After the Soviets occupied Lithuania for the second time and the Academy of Sciences was re-established, the search for the dictionary archive was started. Part of the hidden archive was found in the autumn of 1945 in Salantai, and the other part was found in Kaunas at the beginning of 1948, thanks to the efforts of Antanas Lyberis. In this way, the enormous wealth that Balčikonis had previously feared was returned to science. The whole story is thoroughly told in the memories of the participants of those searches, the documents of the acquisition of the archive have been published (Kniūkšta 2007), summarized in the article of Antanas Balašaitis (Balašaitis 2010). It can be concluded from it that Salys looked responsibly at this wealth accumulated by the society, tried to protect it from loss or destruction and made a lot of efforts to this end. The director can be excused for not informing anyone in Lithuania about the location of the archive due to urgency, and he can be glad that nothing bad happened to it. All those events are now beautifully arranged in one of the most interesting linguistic detectives in Lithuanian culture. After leaving Lithuania and later working successfully as an academic, Salys did not abandon the issues of Lithuanian language science and practice. In addition to the already mentioned works, there are three bars that he ran in this area that should be raised. One of them would be the detailed article “Dictionary” (Salys 1985: 213–244) published in the so-called Boston Lithuanian Encyclopedia (vol. XV, 1968), a kind of study on the lexicon of the Lithuanian language and the history of lexicography. In addition to general remarks, it first of all writes extensively about the changes in the Lithuanian language vocabulary during the Soviet occupation, critically evaluating many of the innovations of those times. The history of lexicography introduces the types of dictionaries and reviews Lithuanian dictionaries published up to that time. A lot of space is devoted to the history of the great dictionary. It contains important facts from his history since Volume I, only mentioned by Sally. Among other things, it is written about the two versions of the dictionary volume II that are used in the usage, and their differences are indicated. In addition, the lexicography section also tells about the 1954 edition of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary, 16 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 85 whose origins are indicated as being in the pre-war Lithuanian Institute, and the overall appearance of this dictionary is evaluated positively. It should be emphasized that Salys nowhere in the study values Balčikonis’ work, only mentions him as the editor of the dictionary, and throughout the text there are quite pronounced anti-Soviet attitudes, showing the attempts of the authorities of that time to politicize the preparation of the dictionary and turn it into a servant of ideology. On the other hand, this work of Salis is, although not comprehensive, the first sufficiently large study in Lithuanian linguistics on the lexicon of the Lithuanian language and the history of Lithuanian lexicography. Another area of activity of Antanas Salis is the work on the bilingual (Lithuanian-German) Lithuanian written language dictionary (1926-1968). It was founded in 1923 by Alfred Senn, Max Niedermann and Franz Brender. The first notebooks were prepared by all three compilers, after Brender’s death (1938) two others worked, and from 1947 Antanas Salys also contributed. After Nyderman's death (1954) Sen worked on the dictionary with Sal and finished it. In addition to their joint work (and the pronunciation of the text by Salys and other results of their joint work), we should mention the supplement to this dictionary prepared by Salys – a list of real names (Vol. V, pp. 481– 560; see Salys 1983: 185–266). Many examples and definitions of this dictionary were used by the editors of the Great Lithuanian Dictionary and other lexicographic works, and the supplement to the dictionary was a good basis for standardizing the entire Lithuanian dictionary. Otherwise, the latter part of the work of Antanas Salis is little studied by linguistic historians and still awaits its researchers and objective evaluation in the context of the whole history of Lithuanian linguistics. According to the biographer of Antanas Salys Petras Jonikas (1979: XVII), while working as a lexicographer, Antanas Salys constantly felt a lack of historical perspective. Therefore, Salys has stated that he wants to prepare a short historical dictionary of Lithuanian language before finishing the Lithuanian written language dictionary. He visited Lithuania in 1969 for this purpose, but did not manage to complete the dictionary. According to Jonikis, she left collected materials, but we do not have more information about her. It is not clear where the material is now. Thus, the works of Antanas Salis in the fields of dictionary (lexicology) and lexicography show the breadth of the linguist’s interests and have not lost their relevance. His methods of work – to rely firmly on the data of living language, to examine issues in a broad historical perspective, to take into account the principle of purposefulness of the phenomena to be regulated – are not outdated today and provide many ideas for various reflections. In general, the heritage of Lithuanian linguistics could function much more broadly in our current linguistics than it has done so far. I won't... A. PuPkis. Antanas Salys and Dictionary 17 It is difficult to forget that the linguistic works of Antanas Salys constitute the gold treasure of our entire linguistic heritage, and many generations of Lithuanian language researchers and norm-setters will be able to draw ideas and thoughts from it. LITeRATūRA B a l a š ai t is A. 2010: Iš „Lietuvių kalbos žodyno“ kartotekos ir jos saugojimo istorijos. – Gimtoji kalba 7, 29–32. Balčikonis J. 1978: Rinktiniai raštai 1. Sudarė Aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: mokslas. Dėk žodį prie žodžio 2006: Dėk žodį prie žodžio – turėsi žodyną. Atsiminimai apie kalbininką Juozą Balčikonį. Sudarė Birutė goberienė ir Aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. g r i g a s N. 1944: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas ir jo redakcija. – Ateitis, kovo 28, 29. Jo n ik as P. 1979: Antano Salio gyvenimo ir mokslinės veiklos pagrindiniai bruožai. – A. Salys. Raštai 1: Bendrinė kalba, XIII–XX. K n i ū k š t a P. 2007: Žodyno kartotekos perėmimo dokumentai. – Gimtoji kalba 11, 27–30. K r u o p a s J. 1973: A. Salio kalbinė veikla. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 14: Baltų kalbų veiksmažodžio tyrinėjimai, 257–259. Lyb e r i s A. 2009: Leksikografijos teorija ir praktika. Sudarytoja Zita Šimėnaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. P u p k i s A. 2010: Antano Salio bendrinės kalbos norminimo pagrindai ir kriterijai. – A. Pupkis. Lietuvių kalbos normintojai ir puoselėtojai. Vilnius: mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras, 201–208. P u p k i s A. 2012: Pranas Skardžius ir didysis „Lietuvių kalbos žodynas“. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 67, 101–129. S a l y s A. 1944: Paaiškinimas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno reikalu. – Ateitis, balandžio 11. S a l y s A. 1979: Raštai 1: Bendrinė kalba. Redagavo Petras Jonikas. Roma: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija. S a l y s A. 1983: Raštai 2: Tikriniai vardai. Redagavo Petras Jonikas. Roma: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija. S a l y s A. 1985: Raštai 3: Įvairūs straipsniai. Redagavo Petras Jonikas. Roma: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija. Skardžius P. 1997: Rinktiniai raštai 2: Bendrinės kalbos dalykai. Sudarė ir parengė Albertas Rosinas. Vilnius: mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. received 24 November 2012