VINCENTAS DROTVINAS

Vilnius Pedagogical University

YOU CAN’T TAKE A WORD OUT OF AN IDIOM

We often hear or come across, while reading, vivid expressions containing foreignisms, which are avoided in independent use. Such expressions (proverbs, sayings, comparisons) abound in older writings and are often included in dictionaries of idioms. So how should we use these idioms without violating the requirements of linguistic purity? This question concerns the expression (lexicon) of idioms, that is, which words are their constituents and how idioms containing foreignisms are presented and treated in phraseography.

Without going into a more detailed explanation, we will say that by no means every Lithuanian word can serve as a constituent of an idiom. Therefore, a dictionary of idioms is always narrower in scope than the lexical resources of the language as a whole. Words serving as constituents of idioms can be characterized in several ways: by frequency of use, origin, and other aspects. According to the frequency of the words in idioms, two lexical groups of idioms are distinguished:

1) idioms composed of words in general use that belong to the active vocabulary. Lexically, such idioms resemble free word combinations; in fact, they derive from free word combinations and differ only in their figurative use, cf. nuleisti rankas and nuleisti rankas “to become discouraged”;

2) idioms containing words with restricted use, which are used less often or not at all in free contexts and occur only in idioms. Most often these are archaisms and lexical dialectisms that have survived in dialects, that is, have not become part of the standard language’s vocabulary. (Archaisms and lexical dialectisms in idioms should be examined separately.)

Among words in general use, the most frequent in idioms are somatisms (Greek soma “body”). In terms of origin, these are inherited vocabulary items (Indo-European, Baltic and Slavic, Baltic) that also form the core of the active vocabulary of the modern language. The abundance and variety of idioms containing somatisms is characteristic of many languages. Lithuanian idioms containing somatisms have been collected, studied, and presented lexicographically by Jonina Lipskienė (Lietuvių kalbos somatiniai posakiai (su galvos dalių pavadinimais), 1979). In the new

52

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

The author’s work Vaizdingieji lietuvių kalbos posakiai (2008) presents phraseologisms and other figurative expressions containing names of all body parts.

Somatisms themselves, as a lexical thematic group, are not particularly pure; quite a few loanwords occur among them (incidentally, the same can be said of other thematic groups). This is evidence of the interaction of Lithuanian with other languages. Alongside older loanwords (Germanisms and Slavicisms) that have become established in standard-language usage, there are also newer borrowings, now regarded as foreignisms. Standard usage can do entirely without them, since it has good Lithuanian equivalents; for example, foreignisms are not included in synonym dictionaries. Yet they have not disappeared from living speech, and in proverbs, proverbial sayings, and phraseologisms they are almost immovable because of their specific nature (primarily their fixed structure and fossilization).

The “case” of phraseologisms containing foreignisms came to the fore with the publication of the first Lietuvių kalbos frazeologijos žodynui (1977). In the introduction, the dictionary’s author, Jonas Paulauskas, stated that “phraseological combinations sometimes contain words of non-Lithuanian origin, foreignisms, [...], e.g.: ant tuščios dūšios, iš vienos bačkos eiti.” He also noted that “if a foreignism [...] were replaced by a standard-language word, the phraseological combination would cease to exist. Therefore, in the standard language, such phraseological combinations containing foreignisms [...] are tolerated” (LFŽ introduction, 9).

Reviewers’ views on including such phraseologisms in dictionaries were very cautious, if not outright critical. For instance, lexicographer Vytautas Vitkauskas does not consider phraseologisms containing foreignisms to be part of the standard language’s wealth. He stresses that “the same criteria of correctness should, in principle, be applied to phraseologisms of the standard language as to the lexicon as a whole; therefore, phraseologisms formed with the borrowings barakatas, čiup­ryna, dralas, dūšia, murinas, melnyčia, strainuška, patieka, tarba, pasamonas, and others, must be judged to fall outside the bounds of the standard language and to be suitable for use only for stylistic reasons” (Vitkauskas 1978: 56). The reviewer emphasized a similar point on another occasion, saying that “phraseologisms are an area into which foreignisms intrude particularly actively, seeking to take hold and displace Lithuanian combinations” (Vitkauskas 1977: 37).

Another reviewer of the dictionary mentioned above, lexicographer Klementina Vosylytė, writes even more sharply. In her view, phraseologisms containing borrowings (cacka pacacka, iš čiuro eiti, pilni delmonai, and others) should not have been included in the dictionary at all (Vosylytė 1978: 177).

How were these remarks put into practice? Foreignisms are retained in other types of phraseologisms as well. For example, in the collection of comparative phraseologisms Lietuvių kalbos palyginimų žodynas (1985), we find the following phraseologisms:

V. DROTVINAS. Iš frazeologizmo žodžio neišmesi

53

murzinas kaip pečius; šalta troba lyg ledainė; taip meluoja, kaip zalatyte zala-tija, and others. Comparative phraseologisms with some foreignisms occur in whole clusters; for example, there are nearly 60 with ubagas (ubagė) (for interest’s sake, the Frazeologijos žodyne [2001] also has 57), 40 with svietas, and so on.

Naujausiame lietuvių kalbos frazeologizmų rinkinyje Frazeologijos žodyne (2001) kalbamųjų frazeologizmų gal ir kiek mažiau, bet visai jų atsikratyti nepavyko. Frazeologizmų svetimybių sąrašas bent apytiksliai būtų netrumpas, pavyzdžiui: abroz­das, bačka, mačyti, nabašnikas (nabašnikas), navyna, skūra, svietas, svodba, spice, šaiba, šalamo­jus, šaldra, špokas, šriubas, terba, ubagas, zalietos, zerko­las, zomatas ir kt.

Foreignisms occur both among the key words of phraseologisms (marked here with a cross (x)) and among their other words. Phraseologisms containing two foreignisms are also common: bieso abrozdeliai “negative: cards,” ubago šmotas “a kind of curse,” ubago terba “a poor person,” ubagas su terbom matos “of thin soup,” ubagas ženijasi “said when the sun shines while it rains,” cacka pacacka; ir prie tanciaus, ir prie ražanciaus. Comparisons containing two foreignisms also occur, e.g., kaip smerčio adyna, and others.

Yet this dictionary already shows lexicographers’ efforts to make a certain selection among phraseologisms containing foreignisms. The dictionary’s editor notes that “the FŽ does not include some combinations whose one component is a v e r y r a r e (emphasis mine. – V. D.) foreignism, e.g.: ant truco, ant to norako” (Paulauskas 2002: 13).

In J. Lipskienė’s new dictionary of phraseologisms, foreignisms are understood as “less frequently used designations that have synonymic relations,” for example, synonyms of the noun koja: Slavic kačergos, kado­kai (kadūkai, kudōkai), pãdkavos, German kėgeles (kėgeliai), kantãpliai, šlėpės, Latvian kuibena. Foreignisms are also listed for other somatisms, e.g.: kailis – Polish kučnerius, kūtnara, kutnerius; hand – bračnagė, brančnagė, and others. Foreignisms are also presented as headwords in phraseologisms, e.g.: klynas (crotch, buttocks): skystas klynas “of a feeble, weak person”; blėkas, blėkai (plėkai): eik šunims blėkų šinkuoti “to trade”; čiup­ryna (Belarusian чуприна, Polish czup­ryna), cf. į čiup­ryną susikibti “to get into a fight”; kaltūnas (Russian калтун, Polish kołtun), cf. kaltūną nuo galvos rauti, and others.

It is worth emphasizing that foreignisms are not characteristic only of phraseologisms collected in the decades of the first half of the twentieth century and published in the Lietuvių kalbos žodyne or in the specialized dictionaries mentioned above, which are based on its card index. Quite a few have also been newly recorded in recent dialect dictionaries:

54

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

Dictionary of the Zanavykai dialect (vols. 1–3, 2003–2007), Dictionary of the Daukšiai dialect (2004), Dictionary of the Kupiškėnai dialect (vol. 1, 2008), and others.

All this shows that foreignisms (we should recall that almost all of them have been removed from the resources of synonyms in contemporary Lithuanian) persist stubbornly even today in the vocabulary of spoken language. Indeed, cases continue to arise in which, alongside an idiom containing a foreignism, its counterpart is also used—an idiom with the corresponding Lithuanian component, for example: balkis – beam: one (tenth, ninth, of nine, of five) balkis is missing, there is a shortage of balkis, and – the beam has broken in the head, and so on; šliubas – post: there is a shortage of šliubas (in the head), šliubas has turned around in the head and – one post is missing in the head; skūra – hide: you couldn’t write it all down on a bull’s hide, and – it won’t fit on a bull’s hide, and so on.

Thus, the question of whether an idiom with a Lithuanian component is the result of our efforts to avoid foreignisms or arose independently, that is, within Lithuanian itself, would be a question not so much of lexical purification as of the history of idioms in general. Therefore, V. Vitkauskas’s opinion that idioms are a medium into which foreignisms intrude especially actively, seeking to displace Lithuanian words in idioms, merits consideration (cf. Vitkauskas 1977: 37). We could test it. For example, In the Dictionary of Idioms there are about 470 idioms with the word devil (and another 17 under other headwords), whereas with biesas there are only 35 (here we should also mention idioms with the synonyms the evil one, the horned one, etc.). However, we could not say this about idioms with the Lithuanian word beggar and the foreignism ubagas: beggar occurs in only three idioms (to leave someone a beggar, to leave someone as beggars, a beggar in spirit, and so on), whereas ubagas occurs in about 60 idioms.

What appeared first—an idiom with a foreignism or one with a Lithuanian word—and which is “seeking to displace” which may be explained to some extent by evidence concerning the Lithuanian (or non-Lithuanian) character of the components themselves. For example, K. Sirvydas’s dictionary contains only sija (beam, cf. Trabs, trigum, siia, sienoias) ^SD³ 6; today there is only one idiom with it, cf. the beam has broken in the head, “the mind has become unsettled”: the beam in the head of that man has broken, who believes in trifles and is afraid of trifles (D. Poška). The Germanism balkis is used much more often in idioms, cf. one (tenth, ninth, of nine, of five) balkis is missing, and others. K. Sirvydas’s dictionary has oda skura ^SD³ 27; oda in werbludo, lapes pilkos oda 164; cf. also odininkas (alongside kazėmekas), while the dictionaries of Lithuania Minor give both words: Haut Skura, ós. Oda C III 346, and so on. There are as many as 40 idioms with the foreignism skūra, and several more in other idioms; with oda there are only 5.

Some phraseologisms containing a foreign word and phraseologisms containing a Lithuanian word are approximately equally widespread, e.g.: the screw has turned in his head “he acted foolishly—

V. DROTVINAS. Iš frazeologizmo žodžio neišmesi

55

ly,” he is short a screw in his head “not quite intelligent” (FŽ 722), and the screws have come loose “he acted foolishly,” the screws have turned “he acted foolishly,” one screw is loose “of a rather foolish person,” and so on (FŽ 796). Phraseologisms with the Lithuanian word pillar have similar meanings, e.g.: not all the pillars “half-wit,” one pillar is missing in his head “not quite intelligent,” he is short of pillars in his head “of a half-wit,” and so on (FŽ 723).

Thus, we are clearly faced with a contradiction: the foreignisms themselves are nonstandard words in the standard language, and their use is becoming increasingly limited (for example, today’s Lithuanian-language students are entirely unfamiliar with the meanings of many foreignisms), yet these words persist in idioms. In other words, the retention of foreignisms in idioms is one of the essential features of an idiom as a unit of nomination—that is, it is a condition of the idiom’s stability and reproduction.

Therefore, we should not exaggerate the danger posed by phraseologisms containing foreign words to the purity of Lithuanian phraseology. Indeed, many phraseologisms containing foreign words are not frequently used. More than one such phraseologism, once widespread in spoken language, is now found only in dictionary pages. The Dictionary of Phraseologisms (2001) is a comprehensive collection of phraseologisms in the Lithuanian language. If, for example, we had a collection of phraseologisms in contemporary (standard) language, we could take a differentiated view of phraseologisms containing foreign words, taking into account how widespread the foreign words themselves were in the language in the past and are today.

It is worth recalling here that as early as 1922 Kazimieras Būga strongly condemned the wholesale replacement of Slavicisms with Lithuanian words, emphasizing that Kristijonas Donelaitis should remain with his glūpas, sopagai, and Antanas Baranauskas with his iščinto, etc. (Būga 1959: 37). We should apply this regularity in the relationship between borrowings and Lithuanian vocabulary to foreign words in phraseologisms as well.

Apparently, the statement by the most prominent Lithuanian phraseologist, Jonas Paulauskas, that “[...] to deny the use of foreignisms in phraseology would mean condemning the emotional expression of thoughts” (FŽ introduction, VII) is entirely acceptable. In the absence of a Lithuanian equivalent, the use of phraseologisms such as to crawl into the nook behind the stove ‘to be cowardly’, a beggar’s morsels ‘large clumps of falling snow’, and others is justified (FŽ introduction, VIII). This specific phenomenon of Lithuanian phraseology needs to be discussed in greater depth, and the sources, distinctive functions, and sphere of use of such phraseologisms explored more broadly (this is connected with the general progress of Lithuanian phraseological studies).

Idioms are witnesses to the past of our people and language. They arose hundreds of years ago, and in them the experience of our ancestors’ existence and daily life is encapsulated— they are documents of our historical memory, of the history of our mentality. The words and their meanings are expressions of this historical memory, the former—

56

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

in the mouths of our ancestors during the formation of phraseological units and their subsequent survival over the years. These words are an integral part of the history of the Lithuanian language and the development of its lexicon. To eliminate phraseological units containing foreign elements would mean artificially cleansing (purifying) our inventory of phraseological units. By Lithuanizing them, would we not diminish the entire treasure trove of phraseological units and artificially distort the historical development of our phraseology as a part of the language (lexicon) as a whole? Therefore, if we wish to preserve phraseological units as the heritage of our language and the mentality of our nation, let us not accelerate their natural development or rush to Lithuanize them.

LITERATŪRA

Būga K. 1959: Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

FŽ 2001: Frazeologijos žodynas. Red. J. Paulauskas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

LFŽ 1977: J. Paulauskas. Lietuvių kalbos frazeologijos žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa.

LPŽ 1985: Lietuvių kalbos palyginimų žodynas. Sud. K. Vosilytė, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Lipskienė J. 1979: Lietuvių kalbos somatiniai posakiai (su galvos dalių pavadinimais), Vilnius: Mokslas.

Lipskienė J. 2008: Vaizdingieji lietuvių kalbos posakiai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Paulauskas J. 2002: Išaugęs iš „Lietuvių kalbos žodyno“. – Gimtoji kalba 7–8, 11–13.

Vitkauskas V. 1977: Sušvytėjo frazeologizmai vienoje knygoje. – Naujos knygos 8, 37.

Vitkauskas V. (rec.) 1978: Jonas Paulauskas. Lietuvių kalbos frazeologijos žodynas. – Mūsų kalba 6, 54–58.

Vosilytė K. 1978: Frazeologijos žodyno sulaukus. – Pergalė 10, 175–178.

Gauta 2009 11 06

V. DROTVINAS. Iš frazeologizmo žodžio neišmesi

57

YOU CANNOT DELETE A WORD IN AN IDIOM

Summary

The paper deals with Lithuanian idioms containing lexical borrowings. Idioms in which Lithuanian words replace borrowings give rise to doublets. To maintain the stability of idioms, borrowings should not be replaced with Lithuanian words.

VINCENTAS DROTVINAS

Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas

T. Ševčenkos g. 31, LT-03111 Vilnius

[email protected]

58

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82