Lietuvos istorijos institutas

The language model of Auszra (1883–1886, A) was formed on the basis of Handbuch der Litauischen Sprache by August Schleicher (1856) and Grammatik der littauischen Sprache by Friedrich Kurschat (1876). The publishers of A chose the subdialect of the southwest Highlanders as the basis for their language; its main distinctive features were maintained even when the editors changed. However, the editors’ opinions differed on some language issues. The article analyses how the language of A was changed by the editors Jonas Basanavičius (A1–A5 1883), Jurgis Mikšas (A1–A4 1883; A5/6 [7/8] 1884–A4 1886), and Jonas Šliūpas (A6 1883–A5/6 [7/8] 1884). In the first issues A1–A4 1883 the long vowel [i͘] was marked <y> (sakyti), [č] <cz> (Czekai), [š] <sz> (raszte), [v] <w> (sweczias), [ž] <ź> (źemes). The endings of the instr. sg. of ()ā,ē stem nouns and adjectives were ‑(i)a (skara), ‑e (upe); nom. pl. of (i)ŏ stem nouns and adjectives ‑ei (Totorei), instr. pl. ‑eis (paupeis). The digraph <uo> [uo], used in A1 1883, was replaced by <ů> (nůbodźei) from A2 1883; in A4 1883 <v> (Viešpatie) appeared instead of <w>. A2–A4 1883 shows the influence of Mikšas: he took the diacritical letters <ê, ô, û> from Prussian Lithuanian writing, as well as the praes. 1, 2 pl. of the verb būti with <ē> (ēsame) and praet. 3 of tapti–tapē.

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 main source of Jonas Jablonskis’ Lietuviškos kalbos gramatika (Grammar of the Lithuanian language, Tilsit, 1901 [JaG]), signed under the pseudonym of Petras Kriaušaitis, is Petras Avižonis’ Liėtùviška Gramatiklė (Small Lithuanian Grammar, [Petersburg, 1898] [AvG]). However, Jablonskis significantly supplemented AvG by adding the chapters on preposition, conjunction, interjection, syntax and orthography. He also separated the descriptions of noun and adjective, added chapters on phonetics, pronoun, numeral, verb, used Lithuanian language terms. Jablonskis did not indicate other sources in JaG, fragments of the text taken from other works are not identified as such. However, later Jablonskis wrote that he also used Kazimieras Jaunius’ Lietùviškas kalbomõkslis. Baltiko padangese (Lithuanian Grammar. In the Baltic Skies, [Dorpat,] 1897 [JaunK]). The aim of this study is to determine the relationship between these two grammars. Some of the material for JaG was undoubtedly taken over directly from JaunK, for it was not present in AvG or other grammars that Jablonskis could have used. However, Avižonis also used JaunK, so some fragments entered JaG through AvG, rather than directly from JaunK. Since Jablonskis took over AvG almost in its entirety, there is no doubt such fragments of JaunK had previously been incorporated in AvG only to later appear in JaG. All the more so as JaunK’s statements and examples are equally reformulated, supplemented or abbreviated in AvG and JaG. The article analyses only the material that was taken over to JaG directly from JaunK and that was not present in AvG. It is much more difficult to identify the source of the fragments which are found in both JaunK and Friedrich Kurschat’ Grammatik der Littauischen Sprache (Grammar of the Lithuanian language, Halle, 1876 [KG]). It is not always clear whether Jablonskis took it directly from KG or through JaunK. In such cases, the immediate context is considered. When not only the idea of KG but also more material, adjacent sentences, are taken over from the same section of JaunK, the path of the fragment is considered to be KG → JaunK → JaG. The connection between JaunK and JaG is also evidenced by the uniform wording of sentences. In his grammar, Jablonskis stated that he supported character <tš> [č], proposed by Jaunius, as well as orthography of nom. pl. of i, u stems with endings ‑įs, ‑ųs. JaunK could also have influenced the spelling of the numerals trįs ‘three’, keturiasdešimtas–devyniasdešimtas ‘fortieth—ninetieth’. Jablonskis used Jaunius’ terms būdvardis ‘adjective’, veiksmažodis ‘verb’, prieveiksmis ‘adverb’, jausmažodis ‘interjection’; linksnis ‘case’, linksniavimas ‘declination’, dvilypuotieji būdvardžiai ‘pronominal adjectives’, tikrieji ‘quantitative’ and paeiliniai ‘ordinal’ (numerals), sakomasis būdas ‘mood’, savyveiksmis ‘reflexive verb, form’, nestati, nestačioji kalba ‘indirect speech’. Fragments of JaunK about the concept and types of sounds have been taken over to the JaG. JaG material on consonant assimilation also has connection with JaunK. Jablonskis also used JaunK while preparing the chapter of morphology. There are connections in the definition of adjective, the description of category of number of nouns, pronominal adjectives and gradation of adjectives. There are also identical statements about the declension of numerals and their semantic groups in JaunK and JaG. According to JaunK, the definition of the pronoun was formulated in JaG. Jablonskis also used JaunK to describe verbs, adverbs, and interjection. In the chapter of the syntax, the influence of JaunK can be seen in the description of the use of participants. Jablonskis used the linguistic material, examples of JaunK. Jablonskis used the data of dialects, mostly Samogitians, provided by JaunK. Comments on the grades of adjectives, variants of pronouns, forms of future tense, use of adverbs, as well as lexical variants are related to JaunK.

In the spring of 2019, historian Olga Mastianica-Stankevič found the previously unknown tome of Lithuanian grammar, Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar (Trumpas lietuviškos gramatikos konspektas), in the archive of Mečislovas Davainis-Silvestraitis in the Library of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore. The hectographed grammar book has a small format of 185 × 115 mm, with 32 pages, and without any information concerning the author, place or date of publication. This grammar book is not included in Lithuanian Bibliography of 1862–1904. Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar is genetically related to Petras Avižonis’s Lithuanian grammar (1898 or 1899). These two works are similar in structure, the Lithuanian material presented, usage of Latin terms and alphabet. Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar is more concise than Lithuanian grammar by Avižonis, but it is not an abbreviated version. This can be seen from the paradigms of nouns, adjectives and verbs: in Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar there is usually one example provided, but in Lithuanian Grammar it is often not in the first but in the second position, thus understood as a variant of the norm. If the Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar was made by shortening Lithuanian Grammar, the order of the norm variants would probably coincide, i.e. the first variant of Lithuanian Grammar would remain in the same position in the Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar. This feature suggests that Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar reflects an earlier version of Avižonis’s grammar, not yet edited by Jonas Jablonskis. This is confirmed by an analysis of the use of nasal letters in both works. The Russian inserts and simplified accent system (two accents, gravis and acute) of Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar suggest that this work was prepared to teach Lithuanian to those who were proficient in Russian, perhaps students who lived St. Petersburg. Lithuanian Grammar by Avižonis was hectographed in late 1898 or the beginning of 1899. Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar was probably completed by the end of 1897, before the grammar of Avižonis was edited by Jablonskis.

The Kvėdarna Parish (Šilalė District) Poster of Jesus Christ Heart Fraternity SPASABAS PASYLECAWOIMA SZWĘCZIAUSE SZYRDEY PONA JEZUSA Broctwoy Saldziausios Szyrdies Chrystusa (The Manner of Commitment to the Holiest Heart of Lord Jesus in the Fraternity of the Sweetest Heart of Christ) preserved in the archive of the Kretinga Franciscan monastery was not recorded in the Lithuanian Bibliography. The Poster was published in Vilnius by the printer Abromas Dvorčius (most probably in 1848). Until now, the activity of this fraternity in Kvėdarna has not been recorded either. A similar document of that fraternity in another parish (Rozalimas parish) had been printed four years earlier, in 1844, and has survived till now. A comparison of the two documents (from Rozalimas and Kvėdarna) uncovers significant textual differences. Even if their structures are comparable (they both contain a part of commitment to the fraternity and both list obligations and indulgences), the remaining content and the linguistic features differ substantially. The documents must have been prepared by different persons. The dialectal peculiarities of the Kvėdarna Poster suggest that it must have been prepared by a southern Samogitian (from the southern part of the Lithuanian Lowlands).

Maironis (1862–1932) prepared five editions of his poetry book Pavasario balsai. They were published in 1895 (in Tilžė), 1905 (Petersburg), 1913 (Kaunas), 1920 (Tilžė), and 1927 (Kaunas). The article analyses how Maironis changed the alphabet, spelling, phonetics, morphology, and syntax of these editions by tracking the causes of change. When the grammars by Jablonskis were published in 1901 and later, Maironis did not aim to take over the norms given there and to apply them in his poems. Only gradually, observing letters, the rules of spelling, and forms different from his own usage, recommended by authoritative persons or established in the media or in the texts of his friends Maironis himself started to use them. While preparing the edition of 1905, Maironis changed his mind about seven language features. This edition was printed with new characters <Č, č>, <Š, š> (instead of <Cz, cz>, <Sz, sz> in 1895 edition; mocziutė → močiutė, szirdies → širdies ) and <Uo, uo> (instead of <Ů, ů> in the 1895 edition; Jůksis → Juoksis). Earlier used nom., instr. pl. endings of the (i)ŏ stem nouns and adjectives ‑ei, ‑eis were changed to ‑(i)ai, ‑(i)ais (brolei → broliai, sveczeis → svečiais), instr. sg. endings of ()ā, ē stem nouns and adjectives ‑ą, ‑ę changed to ‑a, ‑e (bang → bangà, grožybę → gražybe). Maironis also edited the morphology: the ending ‑ė of adj. super. f. nom. sg. was changed to ‑ia, gen. sg. ‑ės – to ‑ios (brangiausė → brangiausia, brangiausės → brangiausios), cond. 1 sg. ending ‑czio, used in the 1895 edition, was changed to ‑čiau (Norėczio → Norėčiau). He stopped using conjunction ką in the attributive clauses as well. The language in the edition of 1913 was edited less. Maironis changed the nom. pl. m. ending of i stem ‑ys, used in the 1905 edition, to ‑įs (akys → akįs); he started to write ‑in‑ in the fut. forms of the verbs with ‑inti instead of the earlier ‑į‑ (pasveikįsiu → pasveikinsiu). These two changes were related with the works of Kazimieras Būga. Maironis also refused to use cond. 1, 2 pl. forms with ‑tumi‑ (learned from Jaunius; užmirsztumit → užmirštumėt) in the 1913 edition. Maironis slightly edited the language of the 1920 edition of Pavasario balsai as well. Acc. pl. f. of pronominal adjectives were written here with ‑ąsias instead of earlier ‑asias (Linksmasias → Linksmąsias). This ending was given by Jablonskis in 1901 and later in his grammars of 1918 and 1919 and recommended by Būga (1910). The language of the 1927 edition of Pavasario balsai, included in volume I of Maironis’s writings, underwent the most extensive editing. Here Maironis started using the letter <ū> much more consistently. He changed the endings of i, u stem nominals: he started to write ‑ys, ‑ūs instead of earlier ‑įs, ‑ųs (akįs, sunųs → akys, sūnūs); wrote the imperative forms with ‑k[‑] instead of earlier ‑kk[‑] (neverkk → neverk) (but still ‑gk[‑]; džiaugkis → džiaugkis), conjunctive 3 forms with ‑tų (earlier ‑tu; atspėtu → atspėtų). The ending of adjectives in the superlative nom. sg. ‑is was replaced with ‑ias (Augščiausis → Augščiausias), acc. sg. ‑į with ‑ią (didžiausį → didžiausią). Maironis edited the syntax of his poetry as well: he started to express the address of ė stem nouns not with the nominative, but with the vocative case (graži sesutė → graži sesute), replaced the conjunction kad with kai in the compound sentences meaning time.

In the first half of the nineteenth century, the Lithuanian Catholic community still used the Gospels (in the narrow sense) or pericops translated in the seventeenth century. The book Ewangelie Polskie y litewskie by Jonas Jaknavičius, which was first published in 1647, remained popular until the middle of the nineteenth century, it had ten or eleven editions during the period of 1803–1859. The aim of the article is to discuss the relation between the New Testament, published by the Bishop Juozapas Arnulfas Giedraitis in Vilnius in 1816, and the above-mentioned editions of the Gospels, to detect whether the Gospels were based on Giedraitis’s New Testament. The edition of the Gospels printed in 1819 differed slightly from the previous edition of 1805. It was prepared on the basis of previous Gospel editions, but not on the New Testament. This was revealed by identic errors, same text lines missed. Some missed text lines in the edition of 1819 or later editions were rebuilt according to previous Gospel editions, but not according to the New Testament. Until 1856, the Gospels were reprinted without major changes without taking into account the New Testament of 1816. Bibliographers assigned the edition of the Gospels of 1858 to Jaknavičius’s works, but it is not, however, to be regarded as a new edition of Jaknavičius’s Gospels. The features of vocabulary, syntax, morphology, phonetics, and orthography show that the edition of 1858 was based not on the earlier Gospels, but on the New Testament of 1816. The unknown compiler of the Gospels of 1858 used some of the previous editions as well: retained their structure; at the beginning of the gospel fragments inserted some initial words that coincided with previous editions, used words from previous editions. Since the Gospels in 1805–1856 were published without major changes, substantial similarity of the Gospels of 1858 to any of previous editions was not detected. In the edition of the Gospels of 1858, there are some features of the Samogitian (Lowland Lithuanian) dialect. For example, although the entire book is dominated by forms with Highlander <e> [ė], <uo> [uo], forms with Samogitian <ie> [ie], <ou> [ọu] also occur. Thus, the compiler of the Gospels of 1858 must have been a Samogitian, probably from the western part of North Samogitians. It is likely that the intention to prepare a new edition of Gospels, based on the New Testament of 1816, did arise in the milieu of Bishop Motiejus Valančius.

The norms of emerging standard Lithuanian language began to reach inhabitants of countryside and towns at the end of the nineteenth century. Lithuanian epitaphs reveal how the norms of standard Lithuanian spread from the end of the nineteenth into the twentieth century. Even though many epitaph texts did not survive, and even though they are short and anonymous, they reveal the time when people started to recognize the prestige of emerging standard and focus their language on it. It could be assumed that the influence of standard language might have been stronger in areas where clandestine Lithuanian publications were distributed more intensively. According to Vytautas Merkys, they mainly were dispersed throughout the counties adjacent to the state border: Telšiai, Raseiniai, Naumiestis, and Vilkaviškis. This paper analyses the epitaphs from these regions—the Western part of Lowlanders (up to areas around Mažeikiai, Viekšniai, Nerimdaičiai, Varniai, Tytuvėnai, and Raseiniai) and the South West Highlanders (up to areas around Vilkija, Pilviškiai, and Vinkšnupiai). The articles published in periodicals in the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century show that intellectuals considered epitaphs as public language reflecting situation of Lithuanian language. They were not satisfied with epitaphs, written in non-Lithuanian or written inconsistently. In Lithuanian epitaphs the abbreviation S. P., indicative of Polish Swiętej Pamięci ‘sacred memory’ or Lithuanian expression with a loanword Šventos Pom[i]eties / Pomėties ‘sacred memory’ was used. It was used throughout all the period, found even in 1911. However, in the end of the ninth and the beginning of the tenth decade of the nineteenth century we find the collocation Šventos atminties ‘sacred memory’ and its abbreviations S. A., sz. atm., Š. A. The collocation Amžinąjį atilsį ‘eternal rest’ and its abbreviations A. A. ir Am. at. started to be used simultaneously. Thus, part of community began to feel the need to avoid the loanwords. The analysis of the orthography of epitaphs shows that the letters <L, l> (instead of traditional <Ł, ł>), marking hard consonant, also <AI , ai> [ai], <EI , ei> [ei (instead of traditional <AJ, aj>, <EJ, ej>) moved easily to personal usage from emerging standard. Letter <V, v> (instead of <W, w>) was used less frequently in the beginning of investigated period. There were cases, when letter <V, v> was used in the epitaph, but names, prayer “Hail Mary” has been written with the then traditional letter <W, w>. It suggests that some users did not want to change the orthography of special words—names and titles of prayers— and the letter <V, v> still was not perceived as own. Diacritical characters <Č, č>, <Š, š> (instead of traditional <CZ, cz>, <SZ , sz>) appeared in epitaphs even later of <V, v>. The change of orthography of epitaphs shows that focus on emerging standard strengthened in turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and particularly intensified during