Social History of Language Research Papers

The article deals with methodological aspects of the diachronic linguistic discipline called history of language. On the example of the history of Czech language it shows and evaluates various types of interdisciplinary relations to other... more

The French Language in Russia provides the fullest examination and discussion to date of the adoption of the French language by the elites of imperial Russia during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is interdisciplinary,... more

Bookmark
Download
- by Vladislav RJEOUTSKI
- •
- 19
  Languages, European History, Cultural Studies, European Studies

1. In the first half of the 19th century the diacritical letters marking vowel sounds were rarely employed in word initial position in the head word in a Lithuanian dictionary, and if occurring, their appearance was quite unsystematic.... more

1. In the first half of the 19th century the diacritical letters marking vowel sounds were rarely employed in word initial position in the head word in a Lithuanian dictionary, and if occurring, their appearance was quite unsystematic. The authors in Lithuania Major did not use the diacritical <Ė> at all, although it was present in the dictionary of Kristijonas Milkus (1800) from Lithuania Minor. Dominykas Sutkevičius wrote the diacritical <Ą> interchangeably with the plain <A> (1835). Diacritical <Į> (in the shape of <Ɨ>) was included in the section both by Milkus and Sutkevičius. Ambraziejus Pabrėža alone separated <Ą> and <Ę> under individual headings (in accordance with the alphabetical order of Polish; 1834).

Because of the traditional lack of a distinction between the capital letters and <J>, the words containing sounds [i] and [j] in word initial position most often were merged into a single list, and the sign was used to represent both of them (Milkus, Pabrėža, Sutkevičius, and the anonymous author of an Eastern Highland Dictionary). Stanevičius alone (1823) separated sounds [i] and [j] and formed two separate lists for the two distinct letters and <J>.

According to the practice of many alphabets based on the Latin alphabet, everyone was inserting the Greek <Y> at the end of the alphabet (in the penultimate or in the adjacent to penultimate position): Milkus, Stanevičius, Pabrėža, Sutkevičius, and the author of the Eastern Highland Dictionary.

Generally, the tendency to maintain the traditional order of the Latin alphabet was obvious: the rarity of diacritical letters in a register, the merger of and <J>, and the separate status of <Y> at the end of the alphabet. At the same time, the occasional appearance of diacritical marks reveal a certain novelty absent from Latin: <ė, Ɨ> by Milkus, <Ą, Ɨ> by Sutkevičius, and <Ą, Ę> by Pabrėža.

2. Ferdinand Nesselmann attempted a reform of the alphabet (1851); according to his newly invented order instead of the letters he had arranged the sounds of Lithuanian (for instance, Nesselmann wasn’t allocating any alphabetical position to the “mute” mark of palatalization ; it was written but “invisible” for the compiler of a dictionary list). Nesselmann was the first to advance the Greek <Y> in the alphabetical order and to place it side by side with the letter ; he also erased the distinction of alphabetical position between and <Y>. Nesselmann’s argument was that and <Y> in Lithuanian sounded very much alike. And his relocation of <Y> persists into the modern Lithuanian alphabet.

3. In a few of publications (1856, 1857, 1865) August Schleicher demonstrated his support for the merger of Nesselmann’s <I, Y> (along with <Ɨ>) and afterwards many followers appeared: Frydrichas Kuršaitis (1883), Vincas Kudirka (1890), Mykolas Miežinis (1894), Jonas Juška (1897), Antanas Lalis (1915), Jonas Jablonskis (1922), Kazimieras Būga (1924), Juozas Balčikonis (1941). Beside the merger of <I, Į, Y>, all of these authors also fused the alphabetical position of diacritical letters for vowels with the plain ones in the groups of <A, Ą>, <E, Ę, Ė>, <U, Ų, Ū>.

4. But not everyone at once accepted such eradication of alphabetical significance for the diacritical letters for vowels and <Y>. In his dictionaries Jurgis Šlapelis (1921, 1938) singled out individual segments under the titles “Ą,” “Ė,“ “Y,” and “Į.” Arndtas Bušas and Theodoras Chomskas (1927) treated those letters analogously, only they put the segment for the Greek <Y> after the diacritical <Į>. The Dictionary of the International Words (1936) moved the isolated section of the letter <Y> atypically even further behind <J>. Also a distinct segment for the words with the initial <Y> was present in The Lithuanian Botanical
Dictionary (1938), only elsewhere inside the register the words were alphabetized according to the merged <Y> value with . All the authors of these works must have been intending to have an alphabet of letters instead of a blend of acoustic and graphic values.

5. During World War II and the Soviet period the order and alphabetical significance of the letters for vowels initiated by Nesselmann were in essence accepted, but their representation
on the titles of dictionary segments varied. One tendency was preferred by linguists: to include every single letter in the titles regardless of its presence or absence in the word initial position (aim: codification of the sequence of all the letters) (cf. Orthographical Dictionary of Lithuanian 1948; Contemporary Dictionary of Lithuanian 1954, 1972). Another tendency was to register exclusively the letters really present in the word initial position (The Dictionary of the Botanical Terms 1965; The Dictionary of the International Words 1969). In the edition of Lithuanian Pseudonyms (2004) the compiler Jonas Mačiulis followed both tendencies: the titles in the first volume are minimalistic, and in the second one—quite thorough.

6. Such a comprehensive dictionary as the 20 volume Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (1956–2002) was the best place to discover the order within the groups of vowel letters <A, Ą>, <E, Ę, Ė>, <I, Į, Y>, <U, Ų, Ū>, even if generally their inner sequence is ignored. Their order became relevant in the words that differ only in letters within one group (the words close to homographs), cf. trèšti, tręšti, trėšti. It means that the compilers allocated an independent position even to the letters inside a group; as first came <a, e, i, u>, then <ą, ę, į, ų> were subordinated, and then <ė, y, ū> followed. Identity of the context activated the inner group differences.

Yet in even more complex cases, where the words close to homographs contained inner group variation not in a single but in two different positions, the compilers of Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language tended to disregard the first variable and to line up the words by the second (rẽtis, rėtis, retỹs, rėtỹs were ordered according to the fourth position containing <i, y> instead of basing the alphabetization on the second position of <e, ė>). The skills needed to identify the cases were not well developed most probably due to the exceptional rarity of such intricate examples even in this ample dictionary.

Three rules can be defined with respect to the need to turn on and off the alphabetical order of vowel letters within the groups: (1) if the words are different (far from being homographs), then the difference inside the groups <a, ą>, <e, ę, ė>, <i, į, y>, <u, ų, ū> is ignored (the basic rule); (2) if the words are close to homographs, the difference within a concrete group is turned on; (3) if the words are close to homographs and the variation occurs in more than one letter position, the difference inside the first group is turned on and inside the second—ignored.

Today, according to the initial proposal by Nesselmann, the first basic rule treats the letters that mark vowel sounds according to acoustic phonetic features of sounds and not according to any visual graphical attributes of the letters. The alphabetical order of Lithuanian is therefore hybrid: the consonants and plain vowel letters are alphabetized letter by letter, but the diacritical letters for the vowels and <Y> are alphabetized according to pronunciation.

Instead of disregarding the difference among the letters <A, Ą>, <E, Ę, Ė>, <I, Į, Y>, <U, Ų, Ū> (as in the first rule), the second and the third rule ignore the similarity of sound sequences [a, a·], [e, e·, ė·], [i, i·], [u, u·] and deal with the position of concrete letters (i.e., graphic signs). In the rare cases of the identical letter context within different words the Lithuanian alphabet switches to a different mode: for that moment it becomes a homogeneous collection of letters.

From 1795 to 1914 the Russian Empire controlled Lithuania. It instilled a ban on Latin letters for Lithuanian texts that lasted for almost forty years (1865–1904). During that time almost sixty Lithuanian books in Cyrillic (i.e., Russian)... more

From 1795 to 1914 the Russian Empire controlled Lithuania. It instilled a ban on Latin letters for Lithuanian texts that lasted for almost forty years (1865–1904). During that time almost sixty Lithuanian books in Cyrillic (i.e., Russian) letters were printed mostly by the initiative of the imperial administrators in Lithuania. Underground Lithuanian books and newspapers were printed in Latin script abroad and dispersed by knygnešiai (book carriers) and read illegally in Lithuania. At the same time, schools that had been teaching Lithuanian were also closed and so-called public “Russian schools” were introduced as a countermeasure to the spreading network of underground private “home” schools, which taught Lithuanian in Latin script.

The book The Experts of Lithuanian in Service of the Russian Empire: Dmitrii Kashirin, Zakharii Lyatskii, and Andrius Poidėnas (Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2011) recounts linguistic biographies of the three experts who served the administration of the Vilnius Education District to prepare, edit, evaluate, review, and correct certain Lithuanian texts in Cyrillic. Most of the Lithuanian Cyrillic texts approved by the imperial administrators in the Vilnius Education District were distributed to the schools and the populace in the form of primers and public readings. In the rare cases of private initiatives to print Lithuanian books in Cyrillic alphabet (e.g., that of Juozapas Miliauskas), the experts were used by the administrators to criticize and to reject the unwelcome proposals.

By and large this book deals with the life and work of Kashirin, Lyatskii, and Poidėnas: the three experts producing and evaluating Lithuanian Cyrillic during the 1867–1901 period of the ban on Latin script. It does not cover, however, the initial period of Lithuanian Cyrillization from 1864 to 1867, which is associated with the names of other experts: Stanisław Mikucki, Laurynas Ivinskis, Jonas Krečinskis, and Tomas Žilinskis.

.................
http://www.uic.edu/classes/lith/lith520/SUB_kn/SUB_2011_SUMMARY_of_BOOK_Experts_of_Lithuanian_in_Service_of_Russian_Empire.pdf

1. Į v a d a s. Šio straipsnio tikslas -pažvelgti į vladislovą sirokomlę (tikr. liudvikas Kondratavičius; ludwik Franciszek Władysław Kondratowicz vel Władysław syrokomla, 1823-1862) kaip į istoriką, o kartu aptarti dar vieną vadinamąjį... more

1. Į v a d a s. Šio straipsnio tikslas -pažvelgti į vladislovą sirokomlę (tikr. liudvikas Kondratavičius; ludwik Franciszek Władysław Kondratowicz vel Władysław syrokomla, 1823-1862) kaip į istoriką, o kartu aptarti dar vieną vadinamąjį lietuvos dvarą-archyvą 1 -bareikiškes (lenk. borejkowszczyzna; vilniaus gubernija, vilniaus apskritis, rukainių parapija). apie šį dvarą (tiksliau -palivarką, kurį sirokomlė "pakylėjo" iki dvarelio lygio) buvo ne kartą rašyta kaip apie svarbią to meto intelektinę salą, tačiau jis niekada specialiai nebuvo aptartas kaip lietuvos istorijos senienų kaupimo ir lietuvos istorijos rašymo dirbtuvės. samplaika sirokomlė-istorikas iš pirmo žvilgsnio gali atrodyti drąsi -tikrai drąsesnė už derinį Kraševskis-istorikas 2 . tačiau šiuo atveju žodis "istorikas" bus suprantamas tik ta prasme, kuria jis vartotas tada, kai sirokomlė kūrė, t. y. turint galvoje XiX a. pirmosios pusės lietuvos istoriografijos specifiką, kai riba tarp mokslinio ir grožinio teksto vis dar buvo trapi, o istorijos profesionalizacija -ypač menka. tačiau kad ir koks sudėtingas būtų šis kontekstas, bus mėginama "atskirti" sirokomlę-istoriką nuo sirokomlės-poeto. pasak tyrėjų, vadinamuoju bareikiškių laikotarpiu buvo sukurti visi svarbiausi sirokomlės kūriniai, kurie jam ir atnešė šlovę 3 . Žinoma, turėta galvoje grožinė kūryba. tačiau šiuo atveju dėmesys bus kreipiamas kaip tik į tuos kitus, "ne tokius šlovingus", darbus. svarbios bus šių kūrinių intencijos, bet dar svarbiau -šaltiniai, kuriais naudotasi juos rašant. Kitaip tariant, žvelgsime ne tik į sirokomlės tekstą, bet ir į išnašas apačioje -ypač į jas. Čia reikšminga vieta teks ir sirokomlės bibliotekai, archyvui, senienų ir net paveikslų rinkiniui. todėl nebus apsiribota tik bareikiškėmis -šių rinkinių ištakų bus ieškoma ir "pirmajame" sirokomlės dvarelyje -zalučėje (lenk. załucze; minsko gubernija, minsko apskritis). svarbios bus ir sirokomlės ištarmės apie istoriją ir istorijos rašymą, teorinės ir net metodologinės jo pažiūros -tai, kas jau ir tada buvo apibrėžiama žodžiu istorika 4 .

Chapters Four to Six, all from the pen of A. Andrlová Fidlerová, are dedicated to the Baroque period. The chapter “Baroque Czech: Contexts” deals with the terminology which is suitable to refer to the Czech of the 17th and the first three... more

Aunque desde la perspectiva actual pueda resultar chocante, entre los siglos xiii y xv el aragonés era una lengua romance autónoma, funcional en todos los ámbitos comunicativos y dotada de un registro formal y escrito. Los archivos... more

In this article I argue that there might be at least two usual types of standard language history in Europe: early dialect selection during the period of the Renaissance (e.g. English) and late dialect selection during Romanticism and... more

In this article I argue that there might be at least two usual types of standard language history in Europe: early dialect selection during the period of the Renaissance (e.g. English) and late dialect selection during Romanticism and slightly later (e.g. Lithuanian). Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Spanish, Swedish, and others can be attributed to early dialect selection languages. Languages like Belorussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Estonian, Faroese, Finnish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Nynorsk, Serbian, Slovak, Slovene, Ukrainian, and others constitute the type of late dialect selection standard languages. Early dialect selection languages differ from those of late selection by being dominant in their territories during the Renaissance period. Scholars tend to link the emergence of the early selection standards mostly to the political, historical, social conditions of the time. However, they also tend to emphasize the importance of codifying linguistic and other literary works—grammars, dictionaries, etc. for the emergence of late dialect selection standards. Early dialect selection languages usually had only the written pattern of standard Latin as a model. On the other hand, late dialect selection languages had a double prototype to imitate: written standard and spoken standard. Engineers of late selection languages borrowed not only the idea that a standard language has to have two forms—written and spoken—but also that it had to have stable, uniform forms with no fluctuation in grammar and orthography. Instead of having a standard with merely partly uniform grammatical and orthographic norms and tolerance for such fluctuation for several centuries (as in early selection), there was instant comprehension that standard had to be uniform and no variation was welcome or tolerated. There are some exceptions to these tendencies, e.g. Czech, Italian, Latvian. But it is possible to interpret these as deviations because of different than usual historical conditions (by their being dominated for a shorter period, by their having politically heterogeneous territory, or only by happenstance).

Giedrius Subačius, Mariusz Leńczuk, Wiesław Wydra The Earliest Known Lithuanian Glosses (~1520–1530) 1. There are 20 anonymous Lithuanian glosses (28 lexemes) inscribed on the margins of Joannes Herolt’s book Liber Discipuli de... more

Giedrius Subačius, Mariusz Leńczuk, Wiesław Wydra
The Earliest Known Lithuanian Glosses (~1520–1530)

1. There are 20 anonymous Lithuanian glosses (28 lexemes) inscribed on the margins of Joannes Herolt’s book Liber Discipuli de Eruditione Christifidelium (Basel, not before 1485; copy held in the National Museum of Poland in Kraków, in the collection of Emeryk Hutten-Czapski): teprÿda‖v[ſ]ʒÿ ‘let [God] smite’; vbagÿſte ‘squalor’; pryßcha- ‖deymaſ ‘enchantment’; ÿßdumo‖ÿmaſ thÿkraſ ‘deliberation of good will’; pakÿethÿnÿmaſ gÿerÿeaßnÿa pradeÿma ßu ÿßmÿntÿeſ padruthÿnÿmu ‘the initiation of a better intention with enforced deliberation’; ſchwą‖cumaſ ‘decency, honesty’; abßÿueÿ‖ſdeÿmaſ ‘precaution’; paÿka‖uÿmaſ ‘lack of restraint, dissoluteness, rampancy’; glauda ‘merriment, pleasantness’; glaud[us] ‘sociable’; kÿthraſtÿſ ‘cunning, astuteness’; mokąſ p[rÿ]uÿl‖tÿ ‘the one who knows how to deceive; sly, cunning’; platÿ ſo[m]ne[n]ia ‘wide (loose) conscience’; lÿ[n]xmaſ ‘happy’; prÿdereÿ[m]aſ ‘affability, friendliness’; prÿſſÿmanąſ ‘talkative, loquacious; chattering’; ßch[ÿ]kſtu[m]aſ ‘avarice, greed’; p[rÿ]dęctaſ ‘hypocrite’; neÿſmÿ[n]‖ti[n]gaſ ‘unwise, foolish, stupid’; iſaie ‘Isaiah’. These glosses (HGl) are dated approximately 1520–1530 (or around 1525).

2. HGl shares certain orthographic peculiarities with the first known Lithuanian Prayers (Pr; inscribed at the end of the book of Tractatus ſacerdotalis, 1503, by Nicolaus de Blony, held in Vilnius University Library): word final <ſ>; <ÿ>; <th>; <ß> [š] and maybe [ž]; and the letter <l> (absence of <ł>). An entirely unique feature is the final <ſ> (ßch[ÿ]kſtu[m]aſ and mergaſ); the use of <ÿ> in diphthongs (paÿka‖uÿmaſ and ßamÿaÿ) and <ÿ> as a palatalization mark (gÿerÿeaßnÿa and gÿalbÿaki) are important; the latter two are shared with the Polish inscriptions in the same copy of Herolt’s book. This strongly suggests that this correspondence originated from the same Observant Franciscan tradition of writing in Lithuanian. It also implies that HGl and Pr were created at approximately the same time.

3. The HGl author most probably used an idiom of the Western Highland Lithuanian Šiauliai subdialect (around Dotnuva, Kėdainiai, Šėta, and Kulva). This approximate idiom would have been native to a famous Lithuanian writer Abraomas Kulvietis (~1510–1545). This suggests that this subdialect may have been used at the time by more than one person, implying that the tradition to use the southern Šiauliai subdialect (of Kėdainiai, Kulva) in writing may have been set at least by the time of HGl’s inscription (or earlier).

However, a less convincing candidacy of Kaunas subdialect for HGl cannot be rejected either. With firm certainty we can only claim that the HGl author spoke a variety of Western Highland Lithuanian.

The written idiom, a dialect called Kėdainiai (or middle Lithuanian), was used in print, especially by the Catholic Church, as a major Lithuanian written variety in the Grand Duchy for several centuries, from 1595 (DK) up to the second half of the nineteenth century. Later, at the end of the nineteenth century, this long tradition of writing in the Kėdainiai idiom was one of the influential supporting factors for the emerging Standard Lithuanian in the Kaunas subdialect. Thus, 1520–1530 HGl is the very earliest known example of writing in Western Highland Lithuanian—possibly in the Šiauliai subdialect; HGl attests to a much earlier beginning of this important writing tradition.

4. The incunabulum containing HGl has only provenance inscriptions of a later period from the Jesuit College in Nesvyžius (Nesvisium; Nieśwież; Нясвіж). But because of the Polish prayers and the Decalogue and a binding that is typical for the Observant Franciscans, we can infer that the Lithuanian Observant Franciscans owned the incunabulum before Jesuits, and that they inscribed HGl. The glosses must have been created in either the Vilnius or Kaunas monastery of the Observant Franciscans operating in the territory of today’s Lithuania. There is no certain method, however, to single out one of them specifically.

5. The majority of the words in HGl are abstract nouns (15 of 28) needed to express concepts used in the theological discourse of the time. These abstract nouns make HGl very different from Pr. Of the 28 Lithuanian lexemes of HGl, 27 are absent from Pr (the only word they share is the preposition su). Thus, 27 of 28 words in HGl appear for the first time ever.

Giedrius Subačius, Mariusz Leńczuk, Wiesław Wydra
SENIAUSIOS ŽINOMOS LIETUVIŠKOS GLOSOS (~1520–1530)
Santrauka

1. Joanneso Herolto inkunabule Liber Discipuli de Eruditione Christifidelium (Baselis, ne anksčiau kaip 1485; egzempliorius saugomas Lenkijos nacionaliniame muziejuje Krokuvoje, Emeryko Hutten-Czapski’o rinkinyje [Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie, Muzeum im. Emeryka Hutten-Czapskiego]) įrašyta 20 anoniminių lietuviškų glosų (28 leksemos): teprÿda‖ v[ſ]ʒÿ ‘tetrenkia (Dievas)’; vbagÿſte ‘skurdas’; pryßcha‖deymaſ ‘užkerėjimas’; ÿßdumo‖ÿmaſ thÿkraſ ‘geros valios svarstymas’; pakÿethÿnÿmaſ gÿerÿeaßnÿa pradeÿma ßu ÿßmÿntÿeſ padruthÿnÿmu ‘geresnio pradėjimo ketinimas su sutvirtintu pasvarstymu’; ſchwą‖cumaſ ‘padorumas’; abßÿueÿ‖ſdeÿmaſ ‘apdairumas’; paÿka‖uÿmaſ ‘paikas elgimasis; nesusilaikymas’; glauda ‘mielumas, meilumas (kūniškas), malonumas (kūniškas)’; glaud[us] ‘linksmas, draugiškas’; kÿthraſtÿſ ‘gudrumas, suktumas, klastingumas’; mokąſ p[rÿ]uÿl‖tÿ ‘mokąs apgauti, nuvilti’; platÿ ſo[m]ne[n]ia ‘plati (palaida) sąžinė’; lÿ[n]xmaſ ‘linksmas’; prÿdereÿ[m]aſ ‘pritikimas, draugiškumas’; prÿſſÿmanąſ ‘prisigalvojąs; kalbąs, plepąs’; ßch[ÿ]kſtu[m]aſ ‘šykštumas’; p[rÿ]dęctaſ ‘hipokritas’; neÿſmÿ[n]‖ti[n]gaſ ‘neišmintingas’; iſaie ‘Isajo’. Lietuviškos glosos Herolto knygoje (toliau – HGl) įrašytos maždaug 1520–1530 metais (arba apie 1525 metus).

2. HGl turi bendrų rašybos bruožų su seniausiais žinomais lietuviškais poteriais, įrašytais Mikalojaus Bloniečio (iš Blonės) knygos Tractatus ſacerdotalis (1503) pabaigoje (toliau – Pr): žodžio pabaigos <ſ>; <ÿ>; <th>; <ß> [š] ir galbūt [ž]; taip pat <l> (<ł> nebuvimas). Sutampa gana unikalios ypatybės – žodžio galo <ſ> (ßch[ÿ]kſtu[m]aſ ir mergaſ); <ÿ> dvibalsiuose (paÿka‖uÿmaſ ir ßamÿaÿ) bei minkštumo ženklas <ÿ> (gÿerÿeaßnÿa ir gÿalbÿaki); dvi pastarosios sutampa ir su lenkiškais įrašais toje pačioje Herolto knygoje. Toks bendrumas akivaizdžiai sugestionuoja, kad HGl ir Pr kilo iš tos pačios pranciškonų observantų tradicijos rašyti lietuviškai ir kad šios glosos buvo įrašytos maždaug tuo pačiu metu kaip ir poteriai, 1520–1530 metais. HGl ir Pr laikytini seniausiais žinomais lietuvių kalbos paminklais.

3. HGl autorius greičiausiai vartojo kurią nors pietinės vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškių patarmės šnektą (apie Dotnuvą, Kėdainius, Šėtą, Kulvą). Ši apytikslė šnekta turėjo būti gimtoji garsiam lietuvių raštijos pradininkui Abraomui Kulviečiui (~1510–1545). Tai leidžia manyti, jog tokia ar panaši šnekta buvo vartojama rašomajai kalbai daugiau negu vieno asmens; vadinasi, tradicija rašyti pietinių šiauliškių (Kėdainių, Kulvos) patarme galėjo prasidėti bent tuo metu, kai įrašytos HGl, o gal ir anksčiau. (Vis dėlto, kad ir silpnesnė, išlieka ir vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių autoriaus mokėtos patarmės tikimybė. Todėl tvirtai tegalima pasakyti, kad HGl autorius kalbėjo vakarų aukštaičių patarme.) O greta gimtosios lietuvių, HGl autorius turėjo mokėti lotynų, lenkų ir galbūt vokiečių kalbas.

Kėdainių apylinkių šnektomis paremta rašomoji kalba (dar vadinamasis vidurinis rašomosios kalbos variantas) LD K buvo vartojama knygoms spausdinti keletą šimtmečių (ypač Katalikų Bažnyčios, bet ne vien) – nuo 1595 (DK) iki pat antrosios XIX amžiaus pusės. Vėliau, XIX amžiaus pabaigoje, ši sena tradicija buvo vienas iš bendrinės kalbos iškilimą kauniškių patarmės pagrindu remiančių veiksnių (dėl ryškaus šiauliškių ir kauniškių patarmių panašumo). 1520–1530 metų HGl yra seniausias vakarų aukštaičių rašto pavyzdys – galbūt ir šiauliškių patarmės. HGl liudija daug senesnę šios rašto kalbos tradiciją.

4. Inkunabule su HGl yra tik vėlesnių proveniencijų iš Jėzuitų kolegijos Nesvyžiuje. Bet dėl ranka įrašytų pranciškonų observantų religinei praktikai būdingų lenkiškų maldų, dekalogo bei įrišimo galima daryti išvadą, kad prieš patekdamas jėzuitams inkunabulas priklausė pranciškonams observantams ir kad būtent kas nors iš jų įrašė HGl. Glosos galėjo būti sukurtos Vilniaus ar Kauno vienuolynuose, kurie tada jau veikė dabartinės Lietuvos teritorijoje. Nėra galimybių išskirti vieną kurį iš jų.

5. Glosose rasti 28 lietuviški žodžiai: apsiveizdėjimas ‘apdairumas’, geras, ‑a ‘geras’, glauda ‘mielumas, meilumas (kūniškas), malonumas (kūniškas)’, glaudus, ‑i ‘linksmas, draugiškas’, Isajas ‘Isajas’, išdūmojimas ‘svarstymas’, išmintis ‘išmintis’, kytrastis ‘gudrumas, suktumas, klastingumas’, linksmas, ‑a ‘linksmas’, mokėti ‘mokėti (sugebėti)’, neišmintingas, ‑a ‘neišmintingas’, padrūtinimas ‘sutvirtinimas’, paikavimas ‘paikas elgimasis; ardymas, atmetimas’, paketinimas ‘ketinimas’, platus, ‑i ‘platus; palaidas’, pradėjimas ‘pradėjimas’, pridaužti ‘trenkti’, pridengti ‘pridengti; apsimesti’ [pridengtas ‘hipokritas’], priderėjimas ‘pritikimas, draugiškumas’, prisimanyti ‘prisigalvoti; kalbėti, plepėti’, privilti ‘apgauti’, prižadėjimas ‘užkerėjimas’, somnenia ‘sąžinė’, su ‘su’, šykštumas ‘šykštumas’, švankumas ‘padorumas’, tikras, ‑a ‘tikras’, ubagystė ‘skurdas’. Dauguma HGl lietuviškų žodžių – abstraktūs daiktavardžiai (15), kurie buvo reikalingi to meto teologiniams diskursams. Ši abstrakti leksika daro HGl labai skirtingą nuo maždaug tuo pačiu metu užrašytų Pr. Tik vienas HGl žodis yra pavartotas ir Pr – tai prielinksnis su. Vadinasi, iš 28 HGl leksemų 27 laikytinos lietuvių kalbos istorijoje raštu užfiksuotomis pirmą kartą. O prielinksnis su pirmą kartą užrašytas HGl arba Pr.

El insulto, expresión de las tensiones entre los seres humanos, es un indicador de valores culturales y un ejemplo de los usos sociales de la lengua. Este Diccionario constituye el resultado del análisis de unos 1500 procesos judiciales... more

I discern at least two types of strategies regarding the implementation of the Cyrillic alphabet for Lithuanian during the initial stages of this process (1864–1866). Books prepared by Stanislovas Mikuckis, Laurynas Ivinskis (1810–1881),... more

I discern at least two types of strategies regarding the implementation of the Cyrillic alphabet for Lithuanian during the initial stages of this process (1864–1866). Books prepared by Stanislovas Mikuckis, Laurynas Ivinskis (1810–1881), and Tomas Žilinskis (1840–1925) share certain important orthographical peculiarities. For instance, these authors use the non-Russian letters <ô> (ôгу ~ uogų ‘of berries’) and <ў> (даўгъ ~daug ‘many, much’) for the Lithuanian Cyrillic alphabet; they tend to use the letter <e> for the sounds [e] (прикелту ~ prikeltų ‘would wake up’) and [ė] (рэгети ~regėti ‘to see’); the letter <ѣ>—for the diphthong [ie] (вѣнъ ~ vien ‘only’). They all rejected the Russian letter <ы>. There are evident efforts by Mikuckis, Ivinskis, and Žilinskis to match Cyrillic letters to Lithuanian dialectal sounds as exactly as possible. Even if some orthographical differences exist in their texts, it can be generalized that these authors constitute a group, who used a single, comparatively consistent orthography. This is the first orthographical group.

The most distinct representative of the second orthographical group was Jonas Krečinskis (c. 1820–after 1884 ). In several books, he used orthography and orthographical rules as close as possible to the Russian ones. For instance, he refused the letters <ô> and <ў> since they were not part of the Russian Cyrillic alphabet. He used the letter < ы > for the Lowland Lithuanian sound [ẹ] (represented by <y> in the traditional Latin alphabet), even though its Lithuanian pronunciation was substantially different from the Russian one. Krečinskis also used the digraph <дз> for the Lithuanian affricate [dž’], which was also a clear distortion of Lithuanian phonetics. The letter <ѣ> was not used to signify a concrete sound but to denote the Lithuanian sounds [e], [ė], and the diphthong [ie] in accordance with Russian orthographical rules (in Russian, certain roots and endings were written with the letter <ѣ> and others with the letter <e> with no phonetic difference). Krečinskis’ intentions were not to create a sound-to-letter correspondence in the Cyrillic version of Lithuanian but to keep the impression of the Russian nature of the alphabet intact.

Thus, in 1864–1866 there were two major orthographical groups adopting the Cyrillic alphabet to Lithuanian. The first one, consisting of Mikuckis, Ivinskis, and Žilinskis, tried to create a Lithuanian Cyrillic script corresponding to the Lithuanian sounds (Lithuanian Cyrillic). The second one (Krečinskis) preferred to preserve the features of Russian orthography (Russian Cyrillic).

rezension von: mikas vaicekauskas (par. / ed. / hrsg.), Kristijono Donelaičio rankraščiai = The Manuscripts of Kristijonas Donelaitis = Die Handschriften von Kristijonas Donelaitis, Fotografuotinis leidimas / A Facsimile Edition /... more

Perhaps one of the saddest consequences of the demise of traditional Khoikhoi societies during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is the loss of their languages. Contemporary reports by visitors abound with references to how... more

The reconquest of Toledo supposed a radical change in the linguistic history of the city. During the Andalusian period, the Toledan population had experienced an intense process of linguistic and cultural Arabization. The old Romance... more

Bookmark
Download
- by Yuliya Miteva
- •
- 8
  Mozarabs, Social History of Language, Arabic Language, Language contact

Ûemaiçiai XIX a. pirmojoje pus∂je pretendavo perimti pagrindinio etnoso funkcijas, ir j¨ raßtai ∂m∂ stelbti aukßtaitißkuosius. Íioje knygoje pagrindinis d∂mesys ir skiriamas trij¨ XIX a. deßimtmeçi¨ pastangoms kurti bendrin´ kalbå... more

Investigates how the Frisians, contrary to the conclusions by Rolf Bremmer in his 'Hir is eskriven' (Hilversum 2005) began putting down their laws in writing in the vernacular language (Old Frisian) rather than in Latin, as was the custom... more

The Arab conquest of Hispania meant the entry into the Iberian Peninsula of two different ethnic and linguistic communities: the Arabs and the Berbers. These communities came into contact with the indigenous Hispanic population, who in... more

Note: The course was not aimed at prospective Croatian philologists, and I had to mainly rely on anglophone scholarship. As a result, in many cases the choice of reading materials is far from being ideal. The course is an... more

Este libro analiza la producción impresa en euskera en Vizcaya, Guipúzcoa, Álava y Navarra entre 1767 y 1833. No se trata de ofrecer un listado de obras describiendo su contenido, ni biografías de autores cronológicamente ordenadas, sino... more

The history of various European standard languages is currently being studied by many scholars throughout the world. This is the concern of the sociolinguistic history of language, or to put it more precisely, the history of standard... more

1. Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža (1771–1849) established his own Samogitian (Lowland Lithuanian) orthography. On the other hand he did not use any other letters than the ones used in Polish orthography. The uniqueness of Pabrėža’s writing... more

1. Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža (1771–1849) established his own Samogitian (Lowland Lithuanian) orthography. On the other hand he did not use any other letters than the ones used in Polish orthography. The uniqueness of Pabrėža’s writing comes from his effort to adjust 18th century Lithuanian or Polish orthography to Samogitian texts, his selection of letters to convey Samogitian phonemes.

2. Pabrėža perfected his orthography step by step as the years went by. In 1798 in Raudėnai he still used a mixture of Highland Lithuanian—Aukštaitian (or more exactly, the 18th century Lithuanian written language) and Samogitian, but in 1799, in Tverai already decided to write consistently in Samogitian: his writings are dominated by ó [ọ] ą [ọn] (not at the beginning of words) ón [ọn] (at the beginning of words) óu [ọu], óm [ọm], yi [ẹi]. 1800–August 10, 1801 he began to write the combiunation kia [k’e] as kie (gia [g’e] was turned into gie earlier). When already working in Plungė instead of le [l’ie] he introduced lie from September 29 1801 to September 8, 1802. Later he still hesitated three times, over whether it would not be better to write le again (April 5, 1803, November 1, 1808–October 2, 1809 and January 1, 1810–April 2, 1811). At the same time (September 29, 1801– September 8, 1802) in Plungė he changed ci [č’] to czi [č’]. Ca. November 2, 1805 he decided to denote the Samogitian diphthong [ẹi] not by yi, as earlier, but by yy, though he soon stopped this experiment. From December 8, 1807 to November 1, 1808, already living in Kartena Pabrėža began to write gy, ky instead of giy [g’ẹ], kiy [k’ẹ]. Also in Kartena from October 2, 1809 to April, 2 1811 he rejected the written combination gie [g’e], kie [k’e] and introduced ge, ke.

Later (from the end of 1816, living in Kretinga) Pabrėža did not modify his orthography for a long time, the only change to be mentioned is that ca. May 21, 1822 zi [ž’i] was changed into żi in his sermons. The new reform wave in Pabrėža’s orthography appeared only in 1831: although not very consistently, he began to change the orthography of palatalised consonants [č’], [š’], [ž’] for which ć, ś, ź are introduced and began to denote ą [ọn] also at the beginning of the words, as earlier in the middle of the words. From 1831 to 1834 he further modified it and began to denote [č’] and [š’] in his own way: ćź and śź. At the same time he also introduced a new manner to denote long and lengthened vowels, namely, by writing them double (e.g. aa, ee, yy, oo, óó, etc.)

3. There might have been three linguistic motives for Pabrėža’s modifications: a) to establish a uniform orthography (gia [g’e], kia [k’e]>gie, kie; ci [č’]>czi; yi [ẹi]>yy>yi; giy [g’ẹ], kiy [k’ẹ]>gy, ky; gie [g’e], kie [k’e]>ge, ke; ą [ọn] in all the positions; b) to transcribe the sounds of Samogitian more exactly (le [l’ie]>lie; zi [ž’i]>żi>źi; and the double vowels); c) to give norms for the Standard Samogitian Written Language (SSWL) (ćź, śź, and double vowels). There might have been extralinguistic reasons for the further urge to change his orthography, namely, changes of habitat, internal disturbances, social events.

4. Until the very beginning of the new orthographical reform in 1831, Pabrėža apparently uses the same orthography for all his scientific and religious texts. From 1831–1834, however, his religious texts were written according to the earlier orthography (without ćź, śź, and double vowels), while in his diverse secular writings he used his innovations. It is possible to claim that ca. 1828-1831 (or perhaps a little later) Pabrėža decided to create a standard Samogitian written language for secular texts. The religious texts continued to be only auxiliary forms of oral language. Though he had written in Samogitian for a long time, he decided to create the SSWL only in his sixties.

5. Pabrėža created the SSWL only for ethnic Samogitians (he acknowledged the different traditions of the written language in Prussia and the GDL). He expected not all future Samogitians, only the more enlightened ones to use his SSWL. He did not model the standard spoken language more profoundly, because while creating written norms he relied on oral use, anyway.

6. He tried to spread his SSWL and implant it into all his and his students’ (especially Simon Gross’ and Juozas Butavičius’) writings. The most important works preserving Pabrėža’s SSWL are the following: a) his own Tayslós augumyynis, i.e. A Systematisation of Plants on 1000 p (1843); b) Simon Gross’ Kałbrieda Leżuwe Ƶemaytyszka, i.e. a grammar and a Polish–Samogitian dictionary of the basic 3,000 words (1835); c) Simonas Daukantas’ Istorija žemaitiška (Samogitian History) copied by Juozas Butavičius, ca. 1000 p (ca. 1834–May 16, 1835). We have to emphasize that owing to Pabrėža the Kretinga Bernardine Monastery, especially after the 1831 uprising, became a very important center of Samogitian culture.

Nevertheless the wide range of Pabrėža’s efforts to create and implant a standard language were forgotten for a long time, since there have never been any books printed in his SSWL, even up to now.

El insulto, expresión de las tensiones entre los seres humanos, es un indicador de valores culturales y un ejemplo de los usos sociales de la lengua. Este Diccionario constituye el resultado del análisis de unos 1500 procesos judiciales... more

Bookmark
Download
- by Iryna Papa
- •
- 2
  Travel Writing, Social History of Language

Bookmark
Download
- by Javier Villa-Flores
- •
- 7
  Inquisition, Slavery, Social History of Language, Labor History

Póster presentado en las I Jornadas Doctorales de la UPV/EHU

( 1 8 2 8 -1 8 3 4 ) r a š y b o s l ū ž i a i : d i a k r i t i k a i , g e m i n a t o s , d i g r a f a i A r c h i v u m L i t h u a n i c u m 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 i S S N 1 3 9 2 -7 3 7 X , p . 1 3 5 -1 8 4

The interplay between language and politics has been the subject of increased academic interest in the last few decades. The idea that language can be used as a device not only for communication but also for control and manipulation,... more

This essay considers the teaching of Italian in early modern England by looking at the texts, methods, and individuals involved. It considers some ways in which audiences not conforming to the traditional stereotype of the 'Italianate... more

1. It is most probable that the earliest surviving Lithuanian lines in Simonas Daukantas’s (1793–1864) hand were inscribed in 1827 in Rīga (Latvia) in his manuscript Excerpts from Books (Išrašai iš knįgų [IK]; Library of the Institute for... more

1. It is most probable that the earliest surviving Lithuanian lines in Simonas Daukantas’s (1793–1864) hand were inscribed in 1827 in Rīga (Latvia) in his manuscript Excerpts from Books (Išrašai iš knįgų [IK]; Library of the Institute for the Lithuanian Literature and Folklore [LLTIB], Vilnius: f. 1 – SD 31). Another almost contemporary manuscript titled Lithuanian Songs (Canticula Lithuanica [DaCL; National Lithuanian Martynas Mažvydas’s Library, Vilnius: f. 110 – 21) originated in about 1827–1828. These two manuscripts contain quite similar orthography that Daukantas was exploiting in Vilnius (until the end of 1825) and later in Rīga (1826–1827). Its salient features were: (1) the letter y to denote close vowel [ẹ] of Northwestern Lithuanian Lowland dialect; the digraph yi to denote [ẹi]; (2) the grapheme e‑ in word-initial position both in conjuncture ir ‘and’ and in preposition iš ‘from’ (as well as in the prefix iš‑); (3) the diacritical non-palatal ł [l]; (4) the absence of geminates; (5) the avoidance of all diacritics (except for the traditional “Polish” letters ł, and ż).

2. The next (third) known Daukantas’s manuscript book with Lithuanian inscriptions—Excerpts from Books of Ethnography and History (Išrašai iš knįgų apie etnografje ir istorje [IKEI], LLTIB: f. 1 – SD 40) is dated approximately in 1828. This IKEI included many modifications in Daukantas’s Vilnius orthography. Certain signs of change had already appeared in DaCL in about 1827–1828 (diacritical ‑ę, ů), but the most conspicuous changes were introduced merely in IKEI in 1828: (1) in many endings Daukantas chose ę [ẹ] instead of former y; (2) the digraph <ei> replaced yi; (3) the diacritical <ů> was introduced instead of <ou> and <ow>; (4) in certain cases Daukantas adopted diacritical <ô> [uo] instead of former plain <o>; (5) introduced a new diacritical <‑ù> in the instr. sg. m. ending; (6) instituted geminates (double consonant letters ll, tt, ss; (7) initiated verb infinitives with the final <‑te> instead of the former ‑ty. This way the modifications in Daukantas’s individual spelling in 1827–1828 were very substantial: they touched upon multiple particularities of his orthographic habits.

3. Daukantas was educated in Lithuania, so his earliest known Vilnius orthography was conforming to certain spelling practices particular to contemporary Lithuania (especially those that were used for the texts in his native Lithuanian Lowland dialect). In his new Rīga orthography from 1827–1828 on Daukantas switched to the system that to a significant degree followed the Lithuanian orthography of East Prussia.

4. Not all of the contemporary Lithuanian texts of East Prussia contained all the features that Daukantas decided to transform in 1827–1828. The majority of his modifications comply with the first edition of notorious poem by Kristijonas Donelaitis Seasons (Das Jahr in Vier Gesaengen; Metai), edited and published by the professor of Königsberg University Liudvikas Rėza in 1818. The most salient feature that made Daukantas’s resolve of change possible were frequent past participles (part. praet. act. nom. pl. m.) in Donelaitis’s poem with the ending ‑ę; they must have inspired Daukantas to introduce the same grapheme in his simple past tense verb endings instead: the two forms in Daukantas dialect were quite confusing, often homophonic.

5. One more source that might have had a certain impact on Daukantas’s orthographic metamorphoses was the Grammatica Litvanica by Danielius Kleinas (1653). Daukantas copied most of this grammar book in his own hand for his personal use. Daukantas’s diacritical ô might have undergone the direct influence of Kleinas’s Grammatica Litvanica (along with Donelaitis’s Seasons).

6. Daukantas implemented his modifications gradually. Daukantas started from ‑ę, ů in DaCL, and only after he grew accustomed to them, Daukantas introduced more novelties in IKEI: ‑û, ô, ‑ù, and geminates; simultaneously he relinquished the diacritical mark of ł.

7. In his orthographic transformation Daukantas attempted to keep in his own Lowland Lithuanian dialectal features (East Prussian Lithuanian texts were rendered in a significantly distinct Western Highland dialect). In 7 different endings containing the grapheme ę Daukantas coded the Lowland sound [ẹ], which was entirely absent from the Western Highland dialect. Lowland Lithuanian phonetics has to be reconstructed for the following Daukantas’s following diacritical letters: ô (Lowland [uo], in Daukantas’s words—“oa”), ‑û (in certain cases Lowland [un], in Daukantas’s words—“indistinct un”), and ‑ù (Lowland [ọ], in Daukantas’s words—pronounced “in husky voice”). Daukantas borrowed the graphic appearance of the Eastern Prussian Lithuanian texts but adjusted it to his own Lowland pronunciation.

8. In 1828, in addition, independently from the East Prussian Lithuanian tradition Daukantas introduced e in the Lowland diphthong [ẹi], rendering <ei>; the same e he chose for infinitives in ‑te. In both cases Daukantas tried to represent his Lowland pronunciation. On the other hand, Daukantas abandoned e representing Lowland [ẹ] in some cases of word-initial position—er, esz, and esz‑ were turned into ir, isz, and isz‑.

9. In sum, in about 1827–1828 Daukantas proceeded in aborting his Vilnius orthography and modelling a new one, Rīga writing system, to a substantial extent based on Donelaitis’s poem 1818 edition, on Kleinas’s 1653 grammar, and on other Lithuanian texts of East Prussia. In 1828 Daukantas was among the very first, who attempted a (partial) merger of East Prussian Lithuanian orthography with that of Lithuania proper.

10. Enthusiasm for significant changes in orthography could have been partially encouraged by Daukantas’s change in cultural milieu: from mostly Polish speaking Vilnius to predominantly German Rīga. In addition, almost simultaneously a project to introduce a lectureship of Lithuanian at Vilnius University was proposed to the Ministry of Education in Saint Petersburg. This might have become an uplifting impulse for brushing up ones spellings. The two authorities of Donelaitis and Rėza must have helped Daukantas set his mind on their orthography in particular.

Bookmark
Download
- by José María Imízcoz
- •
- 45
  History, Intellectual History, Cultural History, Print Culture

The language-learning texts of the early modern period were intimately concerned with questions of orality and the sound of speech. This article begins by looking at methods of representing and teaching pronunciation in vernacular... more

¿Qué hay más cotidiano que la lengua? Al analizar lo cotidiano debemos tomar consciencia de la importancia de comprender las lenguas y su significado a lo largo del tiempo en las comunidades que las usaban. En este sentido tenemos que... more

In the library of the University of Missouri – MU Ellis Special Col-lections Rare Vault, PC1121.I82 1600 – there is a seventeenth-century manuscript of 68 pages almost certainly composed as a didactic tool for an English reader to... more

Bookmark

Envoi du pdf sur demande. Ulrike Krampl, Working with Languages. Foreign Languages, Servants and Gender in Paris at the End of the Ancien Régime. Based on advertisements in Parisian newspapers (1751–1789), this article examines the... more

Bookmark
Download
- by Paul Cohen
- •
- 20
  Religion, History, Cultural History, Travel Writing

Social History of Language

Log In