Archivum Lithuanicum

Text, what it is and what it is like, has always been a topic of discussion in philology. In turn, the variety of description of text and the interconnected definitions of work and document have been enormous, and specifying them never ends. As we operate in abstract nouns qualifying human activity, the conceptual metaphor that we choose considerably affects the direction of thinking. The article proposes a critical overview of commonly used

This article investigates the variation of the third person subjunctive forms būtų ~ būt and the genitive plural forms mūsų, jūsų ~ mūs, jūs in the poetical works of Christian Donelaitis (1714–1780). Following an introduction into the formal principles of Donelaitis’s poetry delineating the basic prosodic schema and rules of its hexametrical verse, the investigation turns to a detailed prosodic and syntactic survey of the distribution of the variant forms būtų ~ būt and mūsų, jūsų ~ mūs, jūs. The findings of this survey reveal that the distribution of the variant forms essentially relies on the prosodic rules of Donelaitis’ hexametrical verse and the basic rules of Lithuanian grammar (prosody and especially syntax). Observations on the syntactic level allow for the assumption that, in spite of its dependence on the prosody of hexametrical verse, the distribution of the variant forms būtų ~ būt, mūsų, jūsų ~ mūs, jūs in Donelaitis’ poetical works could reflect a more original distribution that not only applied to hexametrical poetry but to Lithuanian in general (be it natural discourse/ prose or poetry). This motivates further comparative research that should also take into account the relevant Lithuanian dialect material.

The article deals with the philological polemics that took place in the Kingdom of Prussia in the 1710s as the first discourse recorded in writing that addressed matters of using the Lithuanian language in social life, covering, among other things, aspects of the policy on language and language planning. Since the process concerning the public language had the involvement of governmental officials who acted in the name of the Prussian Church and the King, and had the authority to adopt different decisions, the Lithuanian language became an object of policy on

The article looks into five books on religious didactics published by the Calvinists in Eisleben in 1863–1865: Atsiminimas da geroje adijnoje, Nusidawimas biedna Joniuka, Prisiwertimas grieszna żmogaus ing Diewą, Wartojmas arba meginimas patis sawę and Gromata Naszłaitela ing sawa mieła Iszganitoja, which bibliographers and historians claim to have been written by Alexander Raphael Moczulski. A textological analysis has revealed Prisiwertimas not to have been drafted by Moczulski. This is evidenced in the differences in the spelling and the language of the texts covered by the analysis, the mismatched hypernormalisms, and the specific characteristics of the edits made to Biblical quotes and hymns. Certain qualities of the language in Prisiwertimas demonstrate that, unlike Moczulski, the editor of this text was under the influence of both the subdialect of Biržai and the subdialects of the northern Panevėžys region further to the west. Furthermore, Prisiwertimas features a much larger number of unique morphological forms not recorded elsewhere, which indirectly reflect the typical truncation of the ending of the Panevėžys subdialect and the resultant uncertainty on the editor’s part with regard to how certain parts of the text were to be written. The spelling and the language of the rest of the tracts covered by the analysis have a lot in common: without a shadow of doubt, they were drafted by the same person, as likely as not Moczulski. The hypercorrections that are present in the books edited by Moczulski suggest that, just like many Calvinists of the period, he was inclined to support the norms of the traditional Kėdainiai variant, even though by then the hub of Reformer activity had relocated to Biržai. Most efforts were focused on dropping the nasal reflexes of the East Aukštaitians.

Simonas Daukantas prepared two manuscripts of his Lithuanian translation of the Fables of Phaedrus: one in the first half of 1836 (PaP), and another ten years later in about the first half of 1846 (PaPhr). Daukantas exploited two different orthographic tactics in tapping the first manuscript (PaP) as the source for the second one (PaPhr): (1) either to substitute older orthographic peculiarities for his own more recently introduced spelling equivalents (more frequent approach), or (2) just to keep them (more seldom). (1) Habitually, Daukantas modified the features of the earlier PaP manuscript: (a) <i, î> [ẹ] → <ĩ> (Ƶînau ‘I know’ → Źĩnau); (b) [i·, i] in stems <i> → <y> (būti ‘to be’ present 3‑person form [ira ‘it is’ → yra], suffixes ‑yba, ‑ybė [prekibà ‘to the trade’ → prekybaj, narsibieje ‘in valor’ → narsybie], inf. suffix <i> → <y> [mokite ‘to teach’ → môkytĩ]); (c) in stems and endings <ai, ei> (<>, <iey>) → <aj, ej> (Ƶmaite ‘Lowlanders’ → Ƶámajtej; w eislę ‘a breed’ → wejslę); (d) [ẹi] in open endings <ij> → <ĩj> (kurij ‘which ones’ → kùrĩj); (e) [ẹi] in roots <ei> → <ie> (deina ‘a day’→ dieną) and <ei> → <ĩj> (lijpę ‘[he] ordered’ → lĩjpę); (f) instr. pl. m. endings <‑ays, ‑eys>, <‑às, ‑ès> → <‑ajs, ‑ejs> (łondeys ragays ‘[with] the pointed horns’ → łąndejs ragajs; aukuràs ‘[with] the altars’ → aukùrajs); (g) <on, om, an> (<un>) [ọn, an, ọm, am] → <ąn, ąm> (spindontiomys ‘[with] the glittering [something]’→ spindąntiomis; gełombiemys ‘[with] the baize’ → gełąmbiemis); (h) inf. ending <‑te> → <‑tĩ> (důte ‘to give’ → důtĩ); (i) būti ‘to be’ past 3‑person form bů ‘was’ → buwo; (j) dat. sg. m. and adv. Lowlanders’ endings <‑ů> [ọu] → Highlanders’ endings <‑uj> [‑ui] (skaititoiů ‘to a reader’ → skajtitojuj, pasků ‘later; afterwards’ → paskuj).

The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language by Jonas Jablonskis (Tilžė, 1901; MLLM : MB 206; hereinafter – JaG) with marginalia is preserved in the Maironis Memorial Library (Maironis Museum of Lithuanian Literature, Kaunas). Until now, it has been assumed that the marginalia in this copy of the JaG belongs to Maironis himself. Indeed, the marginalia are of two kinds: the handwriting, writing tools (black pen and pencil), content and writing intentions differ, and it is obvious they were written by two people. The handwriting of the corrections in black pen is very similar to Maironis’ and coincides with his notes in Kazimieras Jaunius’ Lithuanian Grammar (St Petersburg, 1911; MLLM : MB 212). So it is very likely that Maironis was the author of the marginal notes in black pen. The majority of the JaG marginalia is written in pencil. The particulary interested and attentive reader wrote various notes on the cover, in the margins, and between the lines: he revised, supplemented, corrected the text of the grammar, and compared it with the works of Indo-European and Lithuanian linguistics.

The paper is devoted to a discussion of Lithuanian elements in lyrics written by Franciszek Dionizy Kniaźnin (1750–1807), a poet, playwright and translator from the Grand uchy of Lithuania. Considered one of the most distinguished poets of the Enlightenment, Kniaźnin occupied himself in the last stage of his work with editing writings he had finished earlier, which he included, together with completely new poems, in a previously unpublished autograph entitled Poezyje Franciszka Dionizego Kniaźnina ręką własną pisane, which constituted his literary swansong. In the lyrics included, there appear various references to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. These are, among others, allusions to contemporary and past events, and to famous historical figures. In the manuscript, the poet also included a poem entitled Do Litwy, as well as writings dedicated to people connected with the Grand Duchy. The aim of the paper is to indicate and discuss these references, and to attempt to determine the literary image of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania that arises from the manuscript by the poet from Puławy.