Jonas Jablonskis

Corrections to the vocabulary of religion

AUŠRA RIMKUTĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

On the 150th anniversary of J. Jablonskis’s birth

On December 30, 2010, 150 years will have passed since the birth of Jonas Jablonskis (1860–1930), the father of modern standard Lithuanian. The linguist may also be called the father of Lithuanian terminology (Keinys 2000: 70). He not only created, developed, and standardized the standard language, but also helped create and organize the terminology of many fields of science, technology, and other areas, including religion. This article reviews the linguist’s views on some words used in religious writings from the beginning of the 20th century.

J. Jablonskis’s legacy is extensive and highly diverse. This is evident from his writings. The linguist wrote extensively on various pressing issues of social life. He devoted much attention to language, literature, public health, education, press freedom, culture, science, and other matters. Although he wrote no separate works on the vocabulary of religion (including religious terms), he did give considerable attention to the language of religious publications. This is evident from the linguist’s articles on religion, religious instruction, and the language of religious textbooks in the early 20th-century press (Viltyje, Santaroje, Nepriklausomojoje Lietuvoje, Lietuvoje, Lietuvos Mokykloje, Švietimo darbe and others)¹: Religious Instruction in Primary Schools (1909), School, Politics, and Religion (1917), The Methodology of Religious Instruction (1920), Methods of Religious Instruction (1921), as well as reviews of: D. Martynas Luther’s Small Catechism² and D. Jonas Jokūbas Rambakas’s Sermon on the doctrine of salvation, briefly summarized in the first 24 questions and then expounded at length in 237 questions (1917), Catechism of the Evangelical Reformed Faith for Children (1917), Religious Studies Textbooks (1917), Catholic Catechism (1919), Teacher Sim Tautvila’s “A Small Religious Studies Primer, or Catechism: A Gift for the Folk School” (1921).

¹ The articles and reviews were published in volumes II and IV of Jablonskis’s writings; the years of publication are given in parentheses.

² Emphasis added by J. Jablonskis.

Terminologija | 2010 | 17 9 3

and others. J. Jablonskis’s Answer to M. Jankaus’s “Explanation concerning Dr. Martin Luther’s ‘Small Catechism’,” published in 1917 in Santara, is noteworthy. The linguist writes: “I want the textbooks of Lutheran religious instruction to be written clearly, accessibly, and instructively, just as the textbooks of all civilized nations are published or written, if they are intended for a serious subject of children’s education” (Jablonskis II 1934: 92)³. These words clearly show that linguistic matters were extremely important to J. Jablonskis and that he sought to ensure that society learned correct and beautiful native-language usage from an early age.

THE LANGUAGE OF RELIGIOUS WRITINGS IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, religious writings contained many foreignisms, so their language urgently needed to be regulated and modernized. This began to be discussed in the press: in Aušra (1883–1886), Varpas (1889–1906), Tėvynės sargas (1896–1904), Žinyčia (1900–1902), Vilniaus žinios (1904–1909), and elsewhere. A fairly extensive discussion of religious terminology appeared in Jonas Gerutis’s (Jonas Balvočius) article “Errors in Ecclesiastical Terminology,” published on June 1 (14), 1905, in Vilniaus žinios (no. 134). The importance of regulating terminology in this field was also discussed on July 23 (August 5) of the same year by the priest Juozas Laukaitis, one of the most important advocates of Lithuanian ecclesiastical language and standardizers of religious terminology in the early 20th century, in his article “Our Ecclesiastical Language,” published in issue 178 of Vilniaus žinios: “In the past few years, one priest or another has tried to cleanse ecclesiastical language, but differences in terminology have caused dissatisfaction among both the clergy and the people”⁴ (Laukaitis 1905: 4).

Efforts to regulate the language of religious texts intensified particularly in the early 20th century, with the beginning of the reform of the Lord’s Prayer and other prayers. Although conservative old-guard priests were indignant that what they regarded as sacred words were being tampered with—words such as dūšia, ani uolas, griekas, spaviednė, pakūta, mūka—and proposed that “those forms used for five hundred years be left untouched, since, on close examination, ours prove to have been made in no way contrary to the spirit and rules of the language” (Jurgaitis 1907: 389), the language of the Church and religious writings did not satisfy the intelligentsia of the time. The linguist J. Jablonskis was also invited to a meeting of priests held in Punsk on February 9, 1909, to discuss Church terminology. In the same ye-

³ It should be noted that, although J. Jablonskis was Catholic, he was concerned not only with Catholic publications but also with Protestant ones (Lutheran and Evangelical Reformed)—perhaps because his wife, Konstancija Sketerytė-Jablonskienė, was an Evangelical Reformed Christian (for more, see Eglė Lukėnaitė-Griciuvienė’s book The Family of Konstancija and Jonas Jablonskis (Vilnius: Lithuanian National Museum, 2009)).

⁴ The language of quotations is not edited.

94 A. Rimkutė | Jono Jablonskio religijos leksikos taisymai

ar, he took part in a meeting of linguists organized by Juozas Laukaitis in Sejny, together with Jurgis Šlapelis, Kazimieras Būga, and Juozas Balčikonis. Here, a commission of linguists and priests (A. Dambrauskas-Jakštas, A. Petrulis, and J. Laukaitis), also known as the Prayer Commission, finalized the editing of the language of the prayers. The prayers were published in the journal Vadovas in 1910. Zigmas Zinkevičius writes that “in essence, this was the first gathering of Lithuanian linguists. It was then that the language of the more important prayers, including the Lord’s Prayer and other prayers, was regulated and the most essential ecclesiastical terminology established. The prayers were, one might say, newly translated into correct, pure, and beautiful Lithuanian” (Zinkevičius 2000: 179).

The reform of the prayers, begun in 1909, continued later—by 1922, as Zigmas Zinkevičius writes, it had intensified: “it seems that, thanks primarily to priests Juozas Laukaitis, Aleksandras Dambrauskas-Adomas Jakštas, and perhaps others, many of the phrases proposed by linguists in 1909, but ignored by the Prayer Commission as a compromise with the old clergy, were introduced into the prayers. Some things were newly revised and improved” (Zinkevičius 2000: 185).

CASES OF CORRECTING RELIGIOUS VOCABULARY

Before discussing J. Jablonskis’s corrections, comments, and recommendations concerning religious terminology, it should be noted that the linguist did not press them insistently. He wanted “newspapers and writers, where they agree with these observations-corrections, to make use of them in the future” (Jablonskis II 1934: 79).

The use and correction of words from foreign languages

J. Jablonskis probably changed the greatest number of non-Lithuanian words used in religious texts (usually foreignisms), which had Lithuanian equivalents—for example, he replaced the Polishism abrozas (Polish obrazek) with paveikslas, and recommended using sielą instead of dūšios (Polish dusza)⁵. Other corrections were also identified: griekas (Belarusian грехъ, Polish grech) – nuodėmė⁶, kielikas (Polish kielich, German Kelch) – taurė, koronė (Polish karanie, Russian каранне) – bausmė, mislis (Belarusian мысль, Polish myśl⁷) – mintis, nabašnikas (Polish nieboszczyk, Belarusian небощык) – velionis, prietelius (Belarusian прыяцель) – bičiulis, smertis (Belarusian смерць) – mirtis, soodba (cf. Russian свадьба) – vestuvės, viera (Russian вера, Polish wiara) –

⁵ In 1921, J. Jablonskis Lietuvos mokykloje (no. 1, pp. 36–41) pointed out that one had to choose which word—sielą ar vėlę—to use; thus, instead of the phrase vėlės nemirtingumas, he recommended saying sielos nemirtingumas (Jablonskis IV 1935: 247–248).

⁶ Nuodėmė is a word used in the writings of M. Daukša.

⁷ These verbs also needed correction: mislyti (Belarusian мыслить, Polish myśleć) – svarstyti, venčia votis (Polish wieńcować, Belarusian віншаваць) – tuoktis, jungtis, and also the adjective svietiškas (cf. Polish świecki) – pasaulietiškas.

Terminologija | 2010 | 17

95

tikėjimas⁸, zakonas (Polish zakon, Russian зокон) – įstatymas⁹, and so on. As the corrections show, foreignisms were replaced with Lithuanian words used in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts or dialects.

J. Jablonskis did not avoid using non-Lithuanian words, especially when they were widespread in the language or were international words. Arnoldas Piročkinas also wrote about this in Jono Jablonskio kalbos taisymuose: “If a foreign word was very widespread and had taken root in various spheres, he did not discourage its use” (Piročkinas 1986: 10). Therefore, J. Jablonskis did not correct old borrowings such as kunigas, bažnyčia¹⁰, and so on. Interestingly, he also did not correct the old borrowing grabas, which came from a Slavic language (Belarusian гроб, Polish grób), instead of which karstas is now used—also a borrowing (cf. Belarusian копма). Apparently, he did not correct it because grabas, meaning “a place for burying the dead; a grave,” was already used in the writings of Martynas Mažvydas.

J. Jablonskis’s views on words from foreign languages are well illustrated by his correction of the word pastorius¹¹. In the article Rašomosios kalbos dalykai, published in Viltis in 1912, the linguist, noting that this word had begun to spread in usage, wrote: “Neither the Prussian Lithuanians (Lutherans) nor our Evangelical Reformed (Calvinists) call their priests ‘pastors’; they all call their spiritual shepherds priests. Lithuanian Catholics, their Protestant neighbors, use the same name for their spiritual leaders. <...>. I cannot for the life of me understand why some of our newspapers have now begun calling the priests of Lithuania’s Lutherans and Calvinists ‘pastors’” (Jablonskis 1959: 105). Today the word pastorius is used to refer to a Protestant evangelical priest.

Word-formation problems

If J. Jablonskis could not find a suitable equivalent or substitute in the Lithuanian language (including its dialects or older written sources), he would create one himself, following the rules of Lithuanian word formation. Thus, instead of the old Slavic names for the days of the week, common in the religious writings of the time, we now use the clearly formed names he coined: pirmadienis, antradienis, trečiadienis, ketvirtadienis, penktadienis, šeštadienis, sekmadienis. Similarly, instead of sūdas (Belarusian суд), sūdyti (Belarusian судзіць), teismas, teisti came into use.

⁸ We find the word tikėti in the writings of M. Mažvydas.

⁹ The articles in which these corrections were proposed are not specified. This can be traced through Jablonskis’s Raštų, “A list of language errors corrected by Jablonskis” (Jablonskis V 1936: 259–280), and the alphabetical index of linguistic items corrected in Volume II of Jablonskis’s Collected Writings (Jablonskis 1959: 533–553).

¹⁰ Vietoj bažnyčios J. Jablonskis yra siūlęs vartoti maldykla, šventovė (Piročkinas 1970: 7).

¹¹ Cf. German Pastor, <Latin pastor – shepherd and herdsman; cf. also Polish pastor, Russian пастор.

96 A. Rimkutė | Jono Jablonskio religijos leksikos taisymai

The linguist’s articles contain many corrections of words formed improperly. First to mention is ypata, a word common in religious writings of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, on whose usage J. Jablonskis expressed his opinion. In the article Šių dienų rašomosios kalbos reikalai, published in Viltis in 1914 (no. 86 (1034)), the linguist, seeking to bring “language errors to light and encourage newspaper writers, <...>, so that this kind of error would no longer occur in our newspapers”¹², proposed using žmogus, asmuo (“person, individual”) instead of ypatos (Jablonskis 1959: 153).

J. Jablonskis replaced the Polish loanword ambona (Polish ambona), derived from Greek (Greek ambōn, “raised platform”), with the word sakykla (“pulpit”). Interestingly, the word he proposed, pamokslinė, did not catch on. It was proposed instead of the poorly formed hybrid pamokslinyčia, with the non-Lithuanian suffix –inyčia¹³. The word sakykla came to be used instead of the hybrid (Jablonskis 1959: 62).

The linguist also corrected abstract nouns derived from nominal stems with the suffix –ybė, especially those formed from nouns: bedievybę was changed to bedievystę (bedieviškumą), girtuoklybę to gir̃tybę. When, in his 1926 article Literatūros dalyko kalba, he proposed the word būtybė (Jablonskis 1959: 340–341) instead of the unusually formed noun esybė (cf. Latin essentia), his proposal met with disapproval. In 1927, the linguist Pranas Skardžius defended the use of this word in Švietimo darbas, publishing a short article entitled Esybė ir būtybė (Skardžius III 1998: 60–61).

J. Jablonskis replaced the word tikyba (and its form tikybe) with tikėjimas (Jablonskis I 1933: 56); however, the word tikyba is still used today synonymously with tikėjimas, religija (“faith, religion”).

Instead of dvasiškis, J. Jablonskis proposed using dvasininkas, kunigas (“clergyman, priest”). This proposal was discussed quite extensively in Viltis in 1914 (Jablonskis 1959: 155–178)¹⁴. It is worth noting that the linguist changed not only the word dvasiškis but also dvasionis (=dvasininkas). He wrote about this in 1926 in Švietimo darbas, discussing the language used for literary subjects (Jablonskis 1959: 359). J. Jablonskis’s proposal to use the word religininkas sparked much discussion in the press. In 1914, the linguist wrote in Viltis that he knew this word “from people’s speech” (Jablonskis 1959: 159).

The linguist proposed avoiding some derivatives with the suffix –ija that denote collective groups, for example dvasiškija (=dvasininkai), kunigija (=kunigai), and so on. In a four-part article, Kalbos dalykai, published in the 1914 supplement to Viltis, he wrote: “Lithuanians who are not ‘confused’ would, it seems to me, never say this: ‘The others left; only the menfolk, the clergy, and the children remained,’”

¹² Jablonskis 1959: 149.

¹³ For more, see Jablonskis IV 1935: 55.

¹⁴ See also Skardžius II 1997: 553, Klimavičius 2006: 3–4.

Terminologija | 2010 | 17 97

the woman herself; <...>.“ As far as I can tell, <...>, my compatriots, “not understanding,” would say it only this way: “The others left, only men alone, priests alone, children alone, one woman; <...>“ (Jablonskis 1959: 166).

In an article published in 1914 in Viltyje, The Issues of the Contemporary Written Language]. Jablonskis corrected the word giedorius because of the Slavic suffix –orius. Instead, he proposed using giedotojas, giesmininkas (Jablonskis 1959: 153–154).

The linguist also corrected compound words, poorly formed and used in the press and religious texts of the time; for example, instead of dievmelystės, the word he proposed, prayers, is still used today. There were other suggestions as well—in 1914, in Viltyje (no. 154), J. Jablonskis wrote that in some places in Panevėžys County, “dievmeldystė” was called “šventimas” (Jablonskis 1959: 152). However, the word celebration did not catch on.

Corrections to calques and word meanings

From J. Jablonskis’s articles on language questions, reviews, and various corrections, it is clear that he avoided translating terms blindly. He corrected blind calques. In a 1921 review of Methods of Religious Instruction, he wrote: “One should not translate everything literally and, come what may, make new words at all costs—necessarily just as other people, people of other nations, have made them for their own needs: when translating, one must first of all take care to express a certain thought clearly, not chase after windmills and hammer the words of the text into every shape—not in the way people themselves shape them for the language of the nation” (Jablonskis IV 1935: 247).

In an article published in 1920 in Švietimo darbas (no. 4), On the appearance of Gamtos pradžiamokslis (Language Matters), J. Jablonskis discussed language errors in the textbook and mentioned the verb tverti. The linguist had no doubt that tverti could not be used in the sense of “to create,” and believed that this meaning had arisen under the influence of Polish—the meaning of the Polish word tworzyć (Jablonskis IV 1935: 223, 1959: 230). He proposed using words such as kurti, daryti. For precisely this reason, J. Jablonskis corrected the nouns sutvėrėjas¹⁵ (Polish stworzyciel), tvarinys (Polish stworzenie), tvėryba (Polish twórczość), replacing them with the words kūrėjas ir kūrinys (Jablonskis 1959: 247), kūryba (Jablonskis 1959: 504).

It should be mentioned that J. Jablonskis distinguished between the meanings of the words dausa and dausos. Dausa means “paradise,” whereas dausos means “warm regions” (Jablonskis 1935 IV: 326). He also distinguished between the meanings of the words gerybė and gerumas (for more, see Jablonskis V 1936: 50).

¹⁵ According to K. Būga, “our to create ‘tworzyć, schaffen’ is a native word. <...> when to create is used in the meaning of the Polish word “tworzyć,” then sutvėrėjas is used, not sutvertojas” (Būga II 1959: 132). In Z. Zinkevičius’s opinion, sutvertójas “was not a neologism coined by Mažvydas. Apparently, it is a word that Lithuanians have had since ancient times” (Zinkevičius 2000: 76, 123), but LKŽE does not confirm this—it provides no examples from either sutvertojas or sutvėrėjas in living speech (dialects).

98 A. Rimkutė | Jono Jablonskio religijos leksikos taisymai

Other corrections

In an article published in Švietimo darbe in 1925, Language and Literature, J. Jablonskis proposed correcting unnecessary words used in V. Krėvė’s Skirgaila, including the term for the service pakasynos. In its place, he recommended the words laidotuvės, pakastuvės (Jablonskis IV 1935: 327; 1959: 305). In an article published in Lietuvoje in 1926, The Language of Literary Studies, the linguist proposed using apvaizda instead of the dialectal word apveizda (Jablonskis 1959: 344).

Particularly noteworthy are the verbs atnašauti, ganytojauti, common in religious writings of that period, which J. Jablonskis regarded as “lexical and partly etymological errors” (Jablonskis 1959: 357) and proposed replacing with aukoti, piemena uti, ganytojo darbą dirbti, būti ganytoju (Jablonskis V 1936: 42). He also corrected the verbs aukauti, atgailoti į aukoti, atgailauti (Jablonskis 1959: 153, 359)¹⁶, among others.

A brief review of J. Jablonskis’s corrections, which were extremely significant for the language of religious writing in the early twentieth century, clearly reveals the principal principle behind them—purity—and their Lithuanizing orientation: Lithuanian equivalents were sought for foreignisms, and new coinages were proposed. The fate of the linguist’s religious terms is clear: almost all of them are still in use today.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Jonas Jablonskis’s contribution to the language of religious writing in the early twentieth century was extremely important. He participated in the work of the Prayer Commission (1909) and, together with the linguists J. Šlapelis, K. Būga, and J. Balčikonis, and the priests A. Dambrauskas-Jakštas, A. Petrulis, and J. Laukaitis, edited the most important prayers.

2. J. Jablonskis’s corrections to religious vocabulary, published in the press in the early twentieth century, show that the linguist replaced foreignisms with Lithuanian words used by authors of old writings (nuodėmė, tikėjimas, among others) or in dialects (bičiulis, among others), and, when necessary, coined Lithuanian terms himself (teismas, pirmadienis, antradienis, among others). He devoted considerable attention to words formed incorrectly: he replaced dievmeldystę with pamal domis; pamokslinyčia with sakyklą; and dvasionį, dvasiškį – dvasininku, among others. The linguist did not avoid using non-Lithuanian words either, including old loanwords (bažnyčia, kunigas, among others) and international words. J. Jablonskis corrected calques: sutvėrėjas – kūrėjas, tvarinys – kūrinys, among others, and proposed distinguishing the meanings of certain words (dausa, ‘paradise,’ and dausos, ‘warm regions,’ among others).

¹⁶ Of course, the linguist also corrected nouns derived from these verbs. – Author’s note.

Terminologija | 2010 | 17

99

LITERATŪRA

Būga K. I–II 1958–1959: Rinktiniai raštai I–II. Red. V. Mažiulis, Vilnius.

Jablonskis J. I–II 1933–1934: Jablonskio raštai I–II. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas.

Jablonskis J. IV–V 1935–1936: Jablonskio raštai IV–V: Kalbos dalykai. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas.

Jablonskis J. 1959: Rinktiniai raštai II. Sud. J. Palionis, Vilnius.

Jurgaitis M. 1907: Apie kalbos gryninimą ir poterių reformą. – Draugija 8, 386–389.

Keinys S. 2000: Pr. Skardžiaus terminologijos srities veikla ir jos reikšmė. – Terminologija 6, Vilnius, 69–77.

Klimavičius J. 2006: Kodėl dvasiškis taisomas, o kariškis – ne? – Gimtoji kalba 10, 3–4.

Laukaitis J. 1905: Mūsų bažnytinė kalba. – Vilniaus žinios 178, 4.

LKŽe I–XX 2005: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius. – www.lkz.lt.

Piročkinas A. 1970: Jono Jablonskio leksiniai taisymai: apybraiža, Kaunas.

Piročkinas A. 1986: Jono Jablonskio kalbos taisymai, Kaunas.

Skardžius P. II–III 1997–1998: Rinktiniai raštai II–III, Vilnius.

Zinkevičius Z. 2000: Lietuvių poteriai: kalbos mokslo studija, Vilnius.

JONAS JABLONSKIS’ CORRECTIONS OF RELIGIOUS VOCABULARY. ON THE OCCASION OF 150 YEARS OF JABLONSKIS’ BIRTH

30 December 2010 was the 150^th anniversary of the birth of the father of standard Lithuanian Jonas Jablonskis (1860–1930). The article overviews his opinion about some words used in religious writings at the beginning of 20^th century. The material for this article was collected from articles about religion, religious education and language of religion textbooks and reviews published in the press of this period (Viltis, Santara, Nepriklausomoji Lietuva, Lietuva, Lietuvos Mokykla, Švietimo darbas, etc.).

At the beginning of the 20^th century the need to regularise and renew the language of Lithuanian religious writings arose. There were various amendments of religious vocabulary suggested by Jablonskis. He corrected loan-words (abrazas (Pol. obrazek) – paveikslas (image), dūšia (Pol. dusza) – siela (soul), griekas (Belor. грехъ, Pol. grech) – nuodėmė (sin), nabašninkas (Pol. nieboszczyk, Belor. небощук) – velionis (deceased), viera (Rus. вера, Pol. wiara) – tikėjimas (faith)), borrowings of meaning (sutvėrėjas (Pol. stworzyciel) – kūrėjas (creator), tvarinys (Pol. stworzenie) – kūrinys (creation)), badly formed words (he suggested pamal dos instead of dievm eldystė, saky kla instead of pamokslinyčia, dvasininkas instead of dv asionis or dvasiškis), dialectisms (pakasynos – laidotuvės, pakastuvės) and other. Jablonskis did not try to avoid using non-Lithuanian words, especially if they were commonly used (old borrowings bažnyčia (church), kunigas (priest), etc.) or international words. Jablonskis suggested differentiating the meanings of some words (dausa ‘rojus’ (heaven) and dausos ‘šil tieji kraštai’ (warm countries)).

Gauta 2010-12-13

Aušra Rimkutė Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius E. paštas: [email protected]

100 A. Rimkutė | Jono Jablonskio religijos leksikos taisymai