1901 m. Petro Kriaušaičio „Lietuviškos kalbos gramatikos“ kalbos mokslo terminai

HISTORY OF TERMINOLOGY Stasys KEINYS Institute of the Lithuanian Language LINGUISTIC TERMS IN PETRAS KRIAUŠAITIS’S 1901 “GRAMMAR OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE” In the first years of the 20th century, as can be seen from the Bibliography of Lithuania, 134 Lithuanian books were published1. The exact publication years of a dozen or so books and booklets issued at the very end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century are unknown2, so at least several of them may also belong to 1901. Judging by their titles, about a third of the books published that year dealt exclusively with religious subjects, and about ten were intended to popularize science. Among the latter, it is worth mentioning A. Gykis’s “Geology” (translated by St. Matulaitis), V. Lunkevičius’s “Where Our Domestic Animals and Cultivated Plants Came From” and “How Plants Live” (both translated and prepared by J. Adomaitis-Šernas), St. Matulaitis’s “How the Human Body Is Made,” J. Nusbaumas-Hilorovičius’s “Biology, or the Science of Living Things” (translated by J. Adomaitis-Šernas), Pr. Mašiotas’s translations from foreign languages, “Conversations about the Sky and the Earth,” and A. Vileišis’s “What Is Arable Land? How Did It Come About, What Are Its Divisions, and How Can They Be Recognized?” and “A Brief Talk about Contagious Diseases and How to Protect Oneself from Them.” All these books, except A. Vileišis’s booklets, were published in America (A. Vileišis’s in Tilsit). In addition, E. Roemer’s (Remer’s) work “Serfdom in Lithuania,” translated in abridged form by A. Janulaitis, was published in America. The yield was modest. But this was still the period of the press ban, and, moreover, it was only recently (in 1891) that the number of Lithuanian books published annually had exceeded one hundred3. 1 Lietuvos TSR bibliografija: Knygos lietuvių kalba [1862–1904] 2 (2), Vilnius, 1988, 844. 2 Ibid., 469–478. 3 Ibid. See also: Bibliography of Lithuania: Books in the Lithuanian Language [1547–1861] 1, Vilnius, 1969, 550–574. 50 Each of those books published a hundred years ago may be important and interesting in its own way, both for our culture and scholarship and for our language and terminology. This time, however, particular attention is focused on one of the three books on language published that year (and, incidentally, the only one in Lithuanian): “Lietuviškos kalbos gramatika. Rašytojams ir skaitytojams vadovėlis. Parašė Petras Kriaušaitis. Tilžėje 1901. Spauzdinta pas Otto v. Mauderode” (these are all the words on its cover and title page)4. The role of this 88 (+4)-page large-format book in creating the present-day standard language is so great that it will always be mentioned not only in the history of Lithuanian linguistics and grammars, but also in the history of the language itself. In cultural value, it is equal to the first grammar of the Lithuanian language, D. Klein’s “Grammatica Litvanica” (Königsberg, 1653). This is because “Lietuviškos kalbos gramatika” is the first prescriptive Lithuanian grammar of the present-day standard language. It established once and for all the regional basis of the standard language (“the language of this grammar will be ‘the common Suvalkija dialect,’ though where necessary it will also be reinforced and supported by other dialects”5), emphasized the primacy of people’s spoken language, which is so important for preserving the distinctiveness of a language (while also noting that “alongside genuinely Lithuanian words and expressions [‘word combinations’—St. K.], used among people from time immemorial, there is also much rubbish in our spoken language. One must know how to separate this rubbish from the grain, for grammarians should use only the grain of the people’s language”6), and justified the variations found in the grammar (“Our written language is still so undeveloped, its spelling so inconsistent, that for the time being it is very difficult to lay down firm rules for it. It must always be remembered that even in the grammars of other nations, although their orthography has been developed much further— 4 The other two books were also printed in Tilsit: a second edition of the first part of J. Schiekopp’s “Litauische Elementar-Grammatik” (a German summary of F. Kurschat’s grammar) and the second part of V. Gaigalaite’s doctoral dissertation, “Die Wolfenbütteler litauische Postillenhandschrift aus dem Jahre 1573,” defended at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Albertina in Königsberg (word formation, declension, text examples, and a dictionary). In addition, a couple of primers were published that year. 5 K r i a u š a i t i s P. [Jablonskis J.]. Lietuviškos kalbos gramatika, Tilsit, 1901, 2. 6 Ibid., 1. 51 ta, there are quite a few various fluctuations”7). That grammar was an extremely important and significant step in the provision of the standard language, then being rapidly created, cultivated, and developed, as well as an example of orthography. Its features and role have been examined or at least surveyed and assessed more than once and by more than one person8. A. Piročkinas, the foremost researcher of J. Jablonskis, discussed it at great length in his book „Prie bendrinės kalbos ištakų“. This work by J. Jablonskis9 entered history with an adjective in the language’s name—the language in our book’s title is called Lithuanian language. He later corrected this himself: in 1911, „Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė“ was published, while in 1918 (1919) and 1922 his most important work in the field of grammar was entitled „Lietuvių kalbos gramatika“—and he explained this in 1912, writing in the newspaper „Viltis“: „Kaz. Jaunius and after him P. Kriaušaitis once wrote Lithuanian speech grammars, grammars of the Lithuanian language; later, having learned the language much better, people, both dared to write „grammars of the Lithuanian language“; now K. Būga, P. Kriaušaitis, J. Šlapelis, Jonas of Rygiškiai … have all begun writing „Lithuanian language dictionaries, grammars, syntaxes“. „A Lithuanian dictionary, a Lithuanian grammar“ would be merely textbooks written in Lithuanian“10. Incidentally, the language is named using an adjective only in the title of the grammar under discussion. The very first sentence of the preface already rejects such a designation of the language: „A Lithuanian grammar is a study of the laws and features of the L i t h u a n i a n l a n g u a g e [emphasis mine – St. K.]“11. Further on, too, the term Lithuanian language is used 28, 69, 7612, as is Russian language 28, 63, as well as with the plural 7 Ibid., 2. 8 Among the more important studies, the following should be mentioned: P a l i o n i s J. J. Jablonskis and his Lithuanian-language textbooks. – In: J a b l o n s k i s J. Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius, 1957, 17, 23–32; P i r o č k i n a s A. Prie bendrinės kalbos ištakų: J. Jablonskio gyvenimas ir darbai 1860–1904, Vilnius, 1977, 147–175; S a b a l i a u s k a s A. Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija: Iki 1940 m., Vilnius, 1979, 193–195. A. Balčaitis examined the terms used by J. Jablonskis in his dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Philological Sciences, “Lietuvių kalbotyros terminų istorija” (typescript; Vilnius, 1961). 9 On P. Avižonis’s role in preparing this grammar, see the works mentioned in the preceding footnote and the literature cited therein. 10 Jablonskio raštai 4, Kaunas, 1935, 91. 11 K r i a u š a i t i s P. Cited work, 1. 12 The numbers given alongside examples throughout this article indicate the pages of “Lietuviškos kalbos gramatika” (Tilsit, 1901) from which those examples are taken. 52 Names of dialects and their linguistic phenomena are formed with the genitive, e.g.: Highlander dialects 47, eastern dialects 64, Samogitian dialects 36, Samogitian verb 30, etc.; but compare also Lithuanian grammar 1, 69, Slavic languages 65, Samogitian sentences 61. In any case, Lithuanian language seems to lurk only in the grammar’s title, like a blot on a clean page. This shows that even then very little was needed for Lithuanian, rather than Lithuanian language, to shine in the title of the grammar. The terms of “Lithuanian Grammar” are reviewed below. The book uses nearly 300 different linguistic terms in all, not counting individual minor categories that could be considered nomenclatural labels, names for specific parts of words, names of individual languages and dialects, and so on, e.g.: ending of the comparative degree 20, dative dual 18, verb of the past narrative tense “past definite participle” 33, first person of the future tense “first future-tense person” 33, noun of the first declension 10, adjective of the third declension 18, Lithuanian language 1, eastern Highlander dialects 5, Russian language 28, sunrise Samogitian dialects 26, Samogitian dialects 34, and so on. In 1901, the year “Lithuanian Grammar” was published, the modern standard language was still being developed rapidly. Much remained unsettled at the time, including terminology. J. Jablonskis himself, becoming increasingly involved in language work, was rapidly maturing as a language norm-setter. It is therefore unsurprising that roughly half the terms in “Lithuanian Grammar” failed to take hold; moreover, almost all the terms that did not become established were also absent from J. Jablonskis’s later grammars. At once, the distinctly Lithuanian character of the terms J. Jablonskis uses catches the eye. Only a few terms commonly regarded as international are used here: form 7, graphics 84, grammar 1, infinitive 71 (the sole occurrence alongside the term indirect statement, used everywhere else), and syntax 69 (of syntax 75)—about 1.5% altogether. There are virtually no compound terms containing borrowed words (only word form 7 is noted). The Lithuanian character of the terminology is a defining feature of J. Jablonskis and his school, and it is already quite evident in his first grammar. This will probably come as a great surprise to readers, but it is a fact that at the very end of the twentieth century I had occasion to review a dictionary of terms in another field 53 with nearly half a thousand terms, in which barely about 1.5% were non-borrowed. What a contrast in attitudes toward the sources of terminology and vocabulary in general! The use of international terms can perhaps be linked to the Latin labels often added in parentheses beside Lithuanian terms in the grammar. Latin terms are supplied for almost a third of the Lithuanian terms (usually only the first time a Lithuanian term occurs, and only by chance is any one of them given two or three times in very different places)—for parts of speech, semantic pronouns and verbs, types of inflection, many grammatical categories (cases, degrees, moods, tenses, voices), sentence constituents, and the names of certain expressions, among others. Many of those Latin terms are still used in linguistics, especially in works on the history of language, as genuine international terms, either adapted to Lithuanian or left unadapted. For example: 1) phonetic terms: vowels (vocales) 3, semivowels (semivocales) 3, consonants (consonantes) 3, syllable (syllaba) 3 (the Latin word syllaba is a borrowing from Greek συλλαβή); 2) morphological terms: noun (Nomen substantivum) 8, adjective (nomen adjectivum) 15, numeral (nomen numerale) 20, pronoun (pronomen) 22, verb (verbum) 27, adverb (adverbium) 55, preposition (praepositio, postpositio) 58, conjunction (coniunctio) 67, interjection (Interiectio) 69; personal pronouns (pronomina personalia) 23, reflexive pronoun (pr. reflexivum) 23, possessive¹³ pronouns (pr. possessiva) 24, demonstrative pronouns (pr. demonstrativa) 24, interrogative pronouns (pr. interrogativa) 26, relative pronouns (pr. relativa) 26, indefinite pronouns (pr. indefinita) 27; action (actio) 27, state (status) “condition” 27, causative verbs (verba causativa) 53, passive-causative verbs (verba passivo-causativa) 53, active-causative words [verbs – St. K.] (verba activo-causativa) 54, frequentative verbs (verba frequentati- ¹³ In the grammar, the nominative plural ending of inflected masculine forms is -ieji, but this case is not used in many terms. Even in such cases, however, the case is given here with the ending customary in that grammar. The spelling of the terms used in the grammar is also left unchanged. 54 etc.) 54; declension (declinatio) 8, (of verbs) conjugation (coniugatio) 28; cases (casus)¹⁴ 8, degrees (gradus)¹⁴ 20, numbers or numerals (numeri) 28, persons (personae) 28, tenses (tempora), voices (genera) 28, moods or statements (modi) 28 (elsewhere, when needed, the term statement is used); nominative (casus nominativus) 8, vocative (c. vocativus) 8, genitive (c. genitivus) 8, dative (c. dativus) 9, accusative (c. accusativus) 9, instrumental (c. instrumentalis) 9, false locative or second (c. locativus) 9; positive or first degree (gradus positivus) 20, higher or second degree (gradus comparativus) 20, highest or third degree (gradus superlativus) 20; indicative mood (m[odus] indicativus) 28, imperative mood (m. imperativus) 29, optative mood (m. optativus) 29, permissive mood (m. permissivus) 29, conditional or potential mood (m. conditionalis, potentialis) 29, precative mood (m. orativus) 29, non-finite mood (m. infinitivus) 29, supine (supinum) 29; present tense (t[empus] praesens) 30, past narrative tense (t. praeteritum narrativum, aoristus) “simple past tense” 30, simple past tense (t. praeteritum frequentativum) “frequentative past tense” 30, future tense (t. futurum simplex) 30, present perfect tense (t. perfectum praesens, praesens resultativum) 31 (e.g.: I have been carried, you have seen), past conative tense (t. praeteritum de conatu) 31 (e.g.: I was about to go), past perfect tense (t. plusquamperfectum, praeteritum resultativum) 31 (e.g.: he had ordered), future perfect tense (t. futurum exactum, futurum resultativum) 32 (e.g.: I will have lain down); copulative verb (verbum copulativum) “auxiliary verb” 29, participles (participia) 19, 28, declinable participles (participia declinabilia) 29, declinable active participles (participia activa declinabilia) 33, declinable passive participles (participia passiva declinabilia) 34, passive participles (participia passiva) 80, passive necessitative participle (partici- 14 Thus it is presented in the grammar (Lithuanian term in the plural, Latin in the singular). 55 pium passivum necessitatis, gerundivum) “necessity participle” 34, indeclinable active participles (participia activa absoluta) “adverbial participles” 34, contemporaneous verb (participium contemporale activum) “half-participle” 33; active voice (genus activum) 35, reflexive voice (genus reflexivum) 35, passive voice (genus passivum) 35; intransitive verbs (verba intransitiva) 80; 3) syntactic terms subject (subjectum) 9, 72, predicate (praedicatum) 72, 75, attributive modifier (attributum) “attribute” 75, object (obiectum) “object” 35, 71, direct object (p[r]oximum obiectum) “direct object” 9, 28 (with the synonym near object), proximate object (proximum obiectum) 75, circumstance (Umstand; circumstantia) “adverbial modifier” 79, indirect speech (oratio obliqua) “indirect speech” 77, [construction] “nominative with infinitive” (nominativus cum infinitivo) 72 and construction “dative with infinitive” (dativus cum infinitivo) 71. Besides the terms mentioned, the examples suggest that adverbial participles are called not only indeclinable active participles (participia activa absoluta) 34, but also indeclinable participles (participia absoluta) 80, although this latter designation would in fact be suitable for adverbial participles together with half-participles. In a few instances no Lithuanian term is provided, only an explanation followed by the Latin term, e.g.: 1) “Causative words are also formed from intransitive verbs, but they always have an inceptive meaning (v. inchoativo-causativa)” (p. 54). 2) “Verbs with a c a u s a t i v e p a s s i v e m e a n i n g (verba passivo-causativa) are formed from some passive words (sverdėti, skeldėti) and from various active verbs with transitive meaning (v. transitiva)” (p. 53). In this instance, the Lithuanian term is absent only in the quoted sentence; elsewhere, the equivalent of verba transitiva, transitive verbs, is used in the grammar (p. 28 et seq.). 3) “If the circumstantial action expressed by a verb is performed not by the subject of the sentence, but by some other thing clearly expressed in the sentence, then the thing that performs the circumstantial action expressed by the verb is used in the dative case; the verbal circumstance itself can only be an indeclinable participle attached to it (dativus absolutus)” (p. 80). Why did J. Jablonskis so relatively often place Latin terms alongside Lithuanian ones— 56 terms? It should be remembered that at that time Lithuanian grammatical terminology had not yet become established, and more than one grammar writer used a considerable number of terms of their own making. Thus Latin terms here clearly serve as explanations of meaning, which many pupils, students, and educated people who had studied Latin at school readily understood. Although this may seem strange to many people now, a hundred years later, at the time those Latin terms were the key to understanding the Lithuanian ones (indeed, they have not entirely ceased to play that role even today). Moreover, J. Jablonskis himself was a specialist in the classical languages and had taught Latin in secondary schools for a long time, so Latin terms were entirely familiar to him. In a few instances, German rather than Latin equivalents are included at the end of the grammar, e.g.: 1) “If a concessive subordinate clause (Concessivsatz) is used, or has the meaning of a concessive clause, then the main clause [‘principal clause’ – St. K.], placed after it, often has the conjunction vienok, tik (tikt)” (p. 68). 2) “Interjections, especially onomatopoeic words (Nachahmungswörter), are very often used in spoken language” (p. 69). 3) “The verb used to express a compound predicate is often accompanied by all those pronouns and adverbs with which we introduce whole clauses used in place of the subject and object (in Subjekt- und Objektsätzen)” (p. 76). 4) Finally, among the syntactic examples is the sole instance already mentioned above in which the Lithuanian term for ‘circumstance’ is explained by German and Latin equivalents—circumstance (Umstand; circumstantia) 79. The reasons for including them in the grammar are undoubtedly the same: they explain the meaning of a term or expression (in the third sentence). It is noteworthy that the “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” contains few synonymous terms. They are used consistently only alongside the names of the independent parts of speech, e.g.: noun (substantive) 8, adjective (qualifier) 8, numeral (number-word, numeral-word) 20, pronoun (name-substitute) 8, verb (action-word) 8, 19, 27, while the others do not form any particularly clear groups, e.g.: superlative or third degree 20, comparative or second degree 20, reflexive or self-action verb “reflexive verb” 28, infinitive or unexpressed mood 71, positive or first degree 20, improper or adverbial prepositions “newly formed prepositions” 59, false or mixed diphthongs 4, preposition and preverb 58, 57 conjugation or tense “conjugation” 28, moods or modes “moods” 28 (both are presented together here, and vice versa), numbers or numerals 28, 9 (singular), conditional or suppositional mood “conditional mood” 29, simple or non-compound adjectives “simple adjectives” 15, false locative or second “present interior locative” 9 (on p. 61, the second locative is followed in parentheses by the directional case, which one would scarcely consider yet another name for that case—it differs too much from other grammatical terms of this type; it is probably only an explanation), true locative or first “present interior locative” 9. In general, only one of each pair of synonyms is used in the grammar, usually the one written first (perhaps with the exception of the terms infinitive, mood and false locative, while the true locative is usually called simply the locative). The “direct object” is named most inconsistently: direct construction 9, direct or proximate construction 28, proximate construction 28, 75, and finally again direct construction 80. Incidentally, the reason for supplying these alternative forms of the principal terms would require specific investigation. For now, one can only suppose that one of these synonyms may have been familiar to J. Jablonskis from other sources (as reflexive was from K. Jaunius), but was unsuitable for one reason or another; otherwise, there would seem to be little point in occasionally coining two terms for the same thing. Thus, these synonyms were probably included to help readers of the grammar make sense of terms they had used or at least encountered. It should be added that there are several synonymous terms not paired together in the grammar itself, for example: voiceless consonants 6 and unvoiced consonants “voiceless consonants” 84, sonorous consonants 6 and voiced consonants “voiced consonants” 84, instrumental 9¹⁵, 18 and instrumental case 34, 83, conjunction 8, 67 and conjunctive “conjunction” 29, simple adjective 18 (on p. 15, simple and non-compound adjectives are paired), whole adjective 16, and probably simple adjective 22. The following should be considered variants rather than synonyms: softening sign 4, softening mark 6, and softening marker (in all three 15 Here, įrankininkas is printed, but this is certainly a proofreading error, since the term įrankininkas is used later. 58 in these instances, the letter i is meant) members. Clear variants are terms in which the simple and pronominal forms of words are used as modifiers of the same headword, for example: hard consonant16 10, 35 and the hard consonant 35, feminine gender 8 and feminine gender 16, intransitive verbs 28 and non-transitive verbs “intransitive verbs” 28, indirect speech 77 and indirect speech “indirect speech” 77, transitive verbs 28 and transitive verbs “transitive verbs” 28, written language 1 and written language 23, written Lithuanian dialect 60 and written dialect 4, direct speech 77 and direct speech “direct speech” 79, softened consonant 35 and softened consonant 10, 35, simple tenses 30 and simple tenses 29, 35, masculine gender 8 and masculine gender 16, etc. Most often, pronominal forms of adjectives, numerals, and participles are used in grammatical terms, so in at least some instances the non-pronominal forms may be ordinary descriptive modifiers that do not indicate a distinguishing feature. Here is a short extract from the grammar in which simple and pronominal forms are used just as they are in ordinary (non-technical) language: “§ 76. Verbs proper are transitive and intransitive. Transitive verbs denote an action that passes onto some other thing; that thing in the sentence upon which the action passes is called the direct or proximate object (p[r]oximum obiectum). The proximate object is expressed only by the accusative (what?) or the genitive (of what?). <...>. Intransitive verbs do not take a proximate object; they may take only a more remote object, expressed in other cases, or an object with a preposition. <...>” (p. 28). Incidentally, a very interesting tendency in the use of simple and pronominal forms is that, in terms containing two coordinated modifiers placed next to one another, the more distant modifier is more often a simple form, while the one adjacent to the headword is pronominal; for example: future perfect tense 32, passive obligatory verb 34 (but compare passive past verb “passive past participle- 16 In “Lietuviškos kalbos gramatikoję,” the same terms vowel, diphthong, consonant, semivowel refer both to sounds and to letters. 59 “vis” 34), transitional perfect tense 31, past perfect tense 31, past attempted tense 31, past simple tense 30, past narrative tense 30, etc., although only the terms future tense 30, transitional tense 30, past tense 34, etc., are used separately. This is not a universal pattern, since there are also instances of other usage, e.g.: declinable passive participles 34, declinable active participles 33, indeclinable active participles 34, even passive past-tense participle 34, and so on; but such examples, being compound terms and designating individual forms or groups of forms, could also be regarded as nomenclatural designations or term combinations close to them. The matter of the relationship between simple and pronominal forms under discussion should be investigated separately and more thoroughly using various sources—for it is certainly interesting whether this reflects some former linguistic tendency or is merely an incidental phenomenon (although J. Jablonskis did have a certain system: such tense names were formed uniformly). The ratio of single-word terms to multiword terms in the grammar can be said to accord with the general tendency in our terminology: only about one term in four is a single word. Similarly, two-thirds of all terms are two-word terms, while longer terms make up less than a tenth (three-word terms are more frequent and four-word terms much rarer). From the point of view of word formation, single-word terms and the components of multiword terms are varied: here, both suffixes are used (derivative “complement” 35, t arinys 72, sentence 76; kiltininkas “genitive” 8, nominative 8; declension 8; pronunciation 6, spelling 6; adjectives būdvardinis, -ė, ypatinis, -ė “personal,” išvardinis, -ė “pronominal” in the terms adverbial adjectives 57, ypatiniai išvardžiai 23, išvardiniai veiksmažodžiai “only reflexive verbs” 28, and prefixes (išvardis 8, consonant 3, preposition 8, adverb 8; adjectives beypatis, -ė “impersonal,” bevardis, -ė in the terms impersonal sentence 73, 80, impersonal verb 72, bevardė gimtis 16, etc.), while compounding is also used (adjective 8, noun 8, plural 9, diphthong 5, dv is kaita 9, gars ažodis 69, interjection 8, lie mengalys 37, 54, semivowels 3, numeral 8, veiksma vardis 19, verb 8, viens kaita 9, word ending (or word-end?) 37), and adjectives in multiword terms half-long vowel 61, reflexive verb “reflexive verb” 28, acute-length quantity 3, circumflex-length quantity 3, monosyllabic word 83). Compound nouns account for about one-fifth— 60 of the one-word terms for that part of speech; there are considerably more of them here than prefix-derived words. Moreover, J. Jablonskis apparently also considered prefix-derived words to be compounds in this grammar; compare: “When writing compound words, we usually also show the origin of those words; in words compounded with the prepositions iš, už, the consonants š and ž disappear before s, š, ž, but when writing such words, we nevertheless retain š and ž. Examples: pūssalė (Halbinsel), žvākgalis, išsūnkti (pronounced išūnkti), iššēmti (pronounced išēmti), išžirgas (pronounced išžirgas = išsižerges), užžōkti, užžēngti, užsieniai (pronounced ušōkti, užžēngti, ušieniai)”17 (p. 7). This seems to preclude saying (even with reservations) that J. Jablonskis avoided compound words here18. A certain proportion of the grammar’s terms were borrowed from other languages. However, only a few terms could be classified as actual calques, and even that, it seems, with some reservations; for example: apystova “adverbial” 7, 9, lankstymas 8 (and lankstyti “to inflect” 25, indeclinable words 55), sąjunga “conjunction” 8, sąjungojimas 28 (and sąjungoti “to conjugate” 29), vardavietė 8 (though this word occurs only once as an alternative term alongside išvardžio and is also misspelled), and so forth. There are considerably more calques in the sense of words formed by analogy with the equivalent in another language or languages (but not translated blindly!), for example: instrumental-case form 18 (and instrumental 83), declension “to decline” 9 (this term is ambiguous in the grammar: it is also used in the sense of “inflection by cases”), ending “inflectional ending” 10 (the term ending is used quite broadly in the grammar, more often perhaps in the sense of “the formal expression of inflectional forms”), vocative 8, predicate 72, and so forth. Also worth mentioning, of course, are multiword terms such as reflexive pronoun “reflexive pronoun” 23, reflexive verb 28, intransitive verbs “intransitive verbs” 28, unextended utterance “infinitive” 29, transitive verbs “transitive verbs” 28, past narrative tense “past frequentative tense” 30, subordinate sentence “subordinate clause” 67, and so forth. Considering the grammar’s terminology as a whole, it did not appear that at least about 17 True, elsewhere in the grammar prefixal verbs are called compound verbs (p. 17); the term prefix is also used here. In addition, on p. 24, the forms viens-an tro, viens-antrām, kits-kito, kits-kitām, viens-kito, viens-kitām, grouped with the pronouns, are called compounds. . 18 Cf. Piročkinas A. Prie bendrinės kalbos ištakų [...], 170. 61 One might say that a rather large proportion of the terms that have not survived to the present day were supposedly “cumbersome and unclear,” “often literal translations from Latin,” or “otherwise unsatisfactory in form or meaning,” and that there were supposedly many “such poor terms”19. As mentioned, at the very beginning of the twentieth century J. Jablonskis was rapidly maturing as a language norm-setter; soon he became deeply involved in the creation of Lithuanian school terminology and other terminology. The foundations for naming concepts that are still accepted today were established, so it is unsurprising that many terms were changed in the new editions of Lietuvių kalbos gramatika in 1918 (1919) and 1922. Incidentally, almost all the terms in those grammars are still in use today, and all Lithuanians become familiar with them. The largest group of two-word terms consists of combinations with an agreeing attribute. The attribute is most often an adjective, less often a participle (nearly a third), and least often a numeral (one thirteenth). Some adjectives, participles, and numerals first and second occur in more than one term, e.g.: true diphthongs 4 and false or mixed diphthongs 4 (the second variant is used later in the grammar), proper noun “proper noun” 8 and common noun “common noun” 8, cardinal numerals “cardinal numbers” 20, true verbs “active verbs” 28 and non-true verbs “verbs of state” 28, true prepositions “older prepositions” 59 and non-true or adverbial prepositions “newer prepositions” 59, true sentence “main clause” 67, true locative or first “inessive” 9 and false locative or second “illative” 9; long vowels 3, long syllables 3; single or non-doubled adjective “simple (non-pronominal) adjective” 15 (and simple adjective 18), simple tenses “simple tenses” 29 (and simple tenses 30); reflexive pronoun “reflexive pronoun” 23, reflexive conjugation “reflexive conjugation” 35, reflexive verb 33, reflexive verb 33, reflexive voice (genus reflexivum) 35; copular verb “auxiliary verb” 29, conjunction word “ditto” 31, connecting vowel 35 19 See P a l i o n i s J. J. Jablonskis ir jo lietuvių kalbos vadovėliai [...], 28–29. 62 (the vowel ė preceding the mixed-verb infinitive-form suffix -ti is meant); comparative or second degree 20 (the first term is used below), second declension ‘the second declension’ 10, second locative ‘inessive’ 9, 10, 61, second person ‘the second person’ 29, etc. Only approximately one in thirteen two-word terms has a non-agreeing modifier, usually expressed by a noun in the genitive, e.g.: parts of speech 8, stress marks 3, sentence constituent ‘sentence part’ 67, human language 1, word forms 7, etc. Other types of terms in this category are extremely rare; for example, perhaps the phrase phenomenon with a preposition ‘phrase with a preposition’ 63 may be considered a term. A good two-thirds of all the linguistic terms in Petro Kriaušaitis’s “Lithuanian Grammar” are from the field of morphology. On this occasion, it should be borne in mind that the book itself devotes most of its space (three quarters of the text, i.e. 62 of its 84 pages) to morphology and the discussion of parts of speech. The morphological terms changed more in J. Jablonskis’s later works than the phonetic, syntactic, and general linguistic terms used here. Incidentally, half of the remaining terms are phonetic, while syntax and general linguistics account for roughly equal numbers (the latter category here includes terms such as grammar 1, language 3, orthography 6, written dialect 1, written language 1, foreign languages 1, 69, spoken language 1, dialect 1, subdialect 1, human language 1, word 3, etc.). This article has examined only some aspects of the terminology in Petro Kriaušaitis’s 1901 “Lithuanian Grammar.” More than one of them deserves broader and more thorough investigation. In addition, many interesting questions, including those concerning the sources and influences behind the terminology, have generally been left aside here. Having substantiated the terms used in “Lithuanian Grammar” and by K. Jaunius, A. Piročkinas concluded that “we could call K. Jaunius the spiritual father of this grammar’s terminology,” and that the terms in that “grammar formed an intermediary link connecting the old pre-Jablonskis terminology with the terminology of the 1919 grammar and, consequently, with the linguistic terms used today”20. If so, perhaps one might suppose that twelve years later, in a study about 1911 published in “Lietuvių tauta” in 1913, 20Piročkinas A. Cited work, 171, 172. 63 In his grammar of K. Jaunius, J. Jablonskis passionately broke with K. Jaunius’s terminological tradition and demonstrated the essential and timeless basis for term formation: “newly coined terms must be fashioned in the same way as ordinary words of the language are fashioned by people”21 (in his view, K. Jaunius’s grammar lacked this). But would J. Jablonskis really have viewed his own 1901 terms so negatively at the time? This very important question concerning the development and maturation of our terminology must certainly be investigated specifically and with due care. For now, however, we venture to assert that Petro Kriaušaitis’s “Lithuanian Grammar,” published in 1901, does not yet seem outdated a hundred years later (and thus of interest only to historians of language), nor is it incomprehensible because of its terminology (although a good many of its terms were replaced over the first several decades of the twentieth century; incidentally, this can also be put another way: a large proportion of the grammar’s terms, roughly half, are still used in linguistic scholarship today). It was a narrow grammar, dealing first and foremost with morphology, but we would be very pleased if young people graduating from today’s secondary schools and gymnasiums knew at least as much about these subjects as is written there. LINGUISTIC TERMS IN PETRAS KRIAUŠAITIS’S “LIETUVIŠKOS KALBOS GRAMATIKA” (1901) Summary This paper reviews the presentation of terms, investigates synonyms and variants of terms, as well as matters of structure and derivation and analyses question of the fate of those terms. It is pointed out that Latin equivalents in brackets are given to almost one third of terms of linguistics and they could be considered as explanations of meanings of Lithuanian terms. Approximately a half of terms from this grammar are still being used as Lithuanian terms of morphology (they make the biggest part), phonetics, syntax and general linguistics. Stasys KEINYS Lietuvių kalbos institutas Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius E. paštas [email protected] Received 2001 09 19 21Jablonskis’s writings 3, Kaunas, 1934, 37. 64