Proofing Differences in some Lithuanian Books of the 16th – 17 th century S u m m a r y The differences in the print of the old books confirm that proof-reading was a common practice when printing Lithuanian books in the 16th century already. The differences can be classified into technical and proofing-related. The former occurred due to typographical actions or materials, the latter were caused by corrective proofing. They allow reconstructing the course of the printing processes and suggest that the presswork would not be ceased after the press proof was taken. While corrector was at work, certain copies of sheets would be printed and the unrevised sheets would later be bound rather than destroyed. They would end up in different copies, resulting in slight differences of print between some of them. Later on, any mistakes that were noticed would be included and printed in a list of errata. There were no lists of errata in the very first Lithuanian books. The oldest 16th century issue with clear evidence of revision was Evangelijos bei Epistolos (1579) by Baltramiejus Vilentas, with corrections made by pasting bits of paper on top of printed words with errors. The first Lithuanian book that had the list of errata was Postilė (1591) by Jonas Bretkūnas, which was printed at the same printing house of Georg Osterberger. Bretkūnas’s Postilė possesses a number of proofing differences in the print that show, with an almost absolute degree of accuracy, whether the printer’s sheet was printed before, or after proofing. A comparison of some of the differences present in the copies (accounting for a fraction of all copies known to exist) allows making a cautious statement that the unrevised sheets had been printed in a smaller number. Some major differences between copies might have been caused by the printer’s decisions or could have occurred as a result of changing a part of the run to fit the target audience. The last half-sheet signature of the Lithuanian grammar in German (1654) by Daniel Klein was composed twice, allowing a more efficient use of the press and cutting of the printing time by half. The forewords to Klein’s hymnal were removed from some of the copies by the printer (1667). The forewords to the 1701 New Testament were removed to accommodate the target audience. To distribute the remaining run of Konstantinas Sirvydas’s postil (1629), the forewords of the first part were reprinted when publishing the second part of the book in 1664. The proofing differences in the print of the books by Bretkūnas, Sirvydas, Klein, and others were discovered by accident. After the second copy of the first issue of Suma Evangelijų, a postil from Knyga Nobažnystės was identified in Krakow, it was carefully compared to the copy that had been known to exist in Uppsala. Computer algorithms aided to discover four proofing differences, all of them in the headings of chapters. The Krakow copy contained printing errors (mixed-up order of words, mistakes in ref
16 - 17世纪立陶宛一些书籍的校对差异古书印刷的差异证实，在16世纪印刷立陶宛书籍时，校对已经是一种普遍的做法。这些差异可以分为技术上的和校对方面的。前者是由于印刷动作或材料引起的，后者是由于校正打样引起的。他们允许重建印刷过程的过程，并建议印刷工作不会停止后，印刷证明是采取。当校阅员工作时，将打印某些纸张的副本，然后将未修改的纸张装订而不是销毁。它们最终会出现在不同的版本中，导致其中一些版本之间的印刷略有不同。后来，任何被注意到的错误都会被列入并印在勘误表中。在最初的立陶宛书中没有勘误表。有明确修订证据的最古老的16世纪出版物是Baltramiejus Vilentas的《Evangelijos bei Epistolos》(1579)，他在印刷错误的单词上粘贴小块纸来进行修改。第一本有勘误表的立陶宛书是约纳斯Bretkūnas的《波斯蒂列》(1591年)，在乔治·奥斯特伯格的同一家印刷厂印刷。Bretkūnas的postilkv拥有许多打印的打样差异，几乎绝对准确地显示打印机的纸张是在打样之前还是之后打印的。对这些副本中存在的一些差异进行比较(占已知存在的所有副本的一小部分)可以谨慎地声明，未经修改的纸张印刷数量较少。不同版本之间的一些主要差异可能是由印刷商的决定造成的，也可能是由于改变了印刷的一部分以适应目标受众而造成的。丹尼尔·克莱因(Daniel Klein)的《立陶宛语德语语法》(1654年)的最后半页签名由两次组成，从而更有效地利用了印刷机，并将印刷时间缩短了一半。克莱因的赞美诗的前言被印刷者从一些副本上删除了(1667)。1701年《新约》的前言被删除以适应目标读者。为了发行康斯坦丁纳斯·西尔维达斯的《邮政》(1629年)的剩余部分，在1664年出版该书的第二部分时，重印了第一部分的前言。Bretkūnas、西尔维达斯、克莱因等人在印刷书籍时发现的校对差异是偶然发现的。在克拉科夫发现了第一期《sumaevangelijui》的第二份副本后，来自Knyga Nobažnystės的邮包被仔细地与已知存在于乌普萨拉的副本进行了比较。计算机算法帮助发现了四种校对差异，它们都在章节的标题中。克拉科夫的副本中有印刷错误(单词顺序混乱，引用圣经的错误)，这些错误在乌普萨拉的副本中得到了纠正;两个副本中仍有几个标题错误。校对版本的一个共同点是，它们都引用了约翰福音。这篇文章是由两名翻译准备的。Knyga Nobažnystės其他部分参考文献的差异分布及其校对修订表明，邮政中间部分的翻译人员对他翻译的部分进行了更正，或者是由印刷厂的校对员根据翻译人员的手稿进行了修改。
{"title":"Korektūriniai spaudos skirtumai kai kuriose lietuviškose XVI –XVII a. knygose","authors":"M. Šinkūnas","doi":"10.33918/26692449-23002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33918/26692449-23002","url":null,"abstract":"Proofing Differences in some Lithuanian Books of the 16th – 17 th century\u0000\u0000S u m m a r y\u0000\u0000The differences in the print of the old books confirm that proof-reading was a common\u0000practice when printing Lithuanian books in the 16th century already. The differences can be classified into technical and proofing-related. The former occurred due to typographical actions or materials, the latter were caused by corrective proofing. They allow reconstructing the course of the printing processes and suggest that the presswork would not be ceased after the press proof was taken. While corrector was at work, certain copies of sheets would be printed and the unrevised sheets would later be bound rather than destroyed. They would end up in different copies, resulting in slight differences of print between some of them. \u0000Later on, any mistakes that were noticed would be included and printed in a list of errata. There were no lists of errata in the very first Lithuanian books. The oldest 16th century issue with clear evidence of revision was Evangelijos bei Epistolos (1579) by Baltramiejus Vilentas, with corrections made by pasting bits of paper on top of printed words with errors. The first Lithuanian book that had the list of errata was Postilė (1591) by Jonas Bretkūnas, which was printed at the same printing house of Georg Osterberger. \u0000Bretkūnas’s Postilė possesses a number of proofing differences in the print that show, with an almost absolute degree of accuracy, whether the printer’s sheet was printed before, or after proofing. A comparison of some of the differences present in the copies (accounting for a fraction of all copies known to exist) allows making a cautious statement that the unrevised sheets had been printed in a smaller number. \u0000Some major differences between copies might have been caused by the printer’s decisions or could have occurred as a result of changing a part of the run to fit the target audience. The last half-sheet signature of the Lithuanian grammar in German (1654) by Daniel Klein was composed twice, allowing a more efficient use of the press and cutting of the printing time by half. The forewords to Klein’s hymnal were removed from some of the copies by the printer (1667). The forewords to the 1701 New Testament were removed to accommodate the target audience. To distribute the remaining run of Konstantinas Sirvydas’s postil (1629), the forewords of the first part were reprinted when publishing the second part of the book in 1664.\u0000The proofing differences in the print of the books by Bretkūnas, Sirvydas, Klein, and\u0000others were discovered by accident. After the second copy of the first issue of Suma\u0000Evangelijų, a postil from Knyga Nobažnystės was identified in Krakow, it was carefully\u0000compared to the copy that had been known to exist in Uppsala. Computer algorithms\u0000aided to discover four proofing differences, all of them in the headings of chapters. The\u0000Krakow copy contained printing errors (mixed-up order of words, mistakes in ref","PeriodicalId":335211,"journal":{"name":"Archivum Lithuanicum","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129088368","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The History of Revisions of Prayers in Johann Arndt’s ROJAUS DARǮELIS (1807 – 1817) S u m m a r y Johann Arndt (1555–1621), the German theologian and next-generation religious reformer is the author of the uniquely successful prayer book titled Paradiesgärtlein (Magdeburg,1612). The first known Lithuanian translation of Arndt’s Paradiesgärtlein appeared in early 19th century in Prussian Lithuanian. It was published in 1807 by the widow of Gottlieb Lebrecht Hartung, a printer from Königsberg. This article aims to reveal the history of revisions of six prayers from Johann Arndt’s Rojaus Darelis (The Garden of Paradise) that were first published in Königsberg in 1807. The goal is to show the revision trends and content transformations Arndt’s texts underwent in the second, 1816 Königsberg edition of Rojaus Darǯelis, the 1816 Tilsit edition, and the unofficial 1817 conventiclers’ (Lith. surinkimininkai) hymnal Wiſſokies Naujes Gieſmes arba Ewangelißki Pſalmai (Tilsit). The analysis of the prayers has shown that the language of the hymnal Rojaus Darelis (Königsberg, 1807) is rather grounded on the standard of the official ecclesiastical and philological papers of Prussian Lithuania: the prevalent southern subdialect of the Western Aukštaitians of Prussian Lithuania. It is dominated by rather stable normative elements of morphology and diacritic orthography, as evidenced in the philological written works of the period: the grammars of the Lithuanian language by Gottfried Ostermeyer (1791) and Christian Gottlieb Mielcke (1800). The only identifiable non-grammatical orthography trait is the ending -ęs that sometimes appears in the acc. sg. endings of feminine adjectives, pronouns, and numerals. A comparison of the prayers from Rojaus Darǯelis that were published in Königsberg in 1807 and in 1816 has revealed that the texts had remained stable and free from major or significant revisions content-wise. This edition is even more consistent in its placement of the stress-marks than the one before. Efforts are made to keep up with the standard trend of spelling and language that prevailed in the official printed texts (grammars) of Prussian Lithuanian. It has been established that the making of the new edition of Rojaus Darelis published by the printing house of Johann Heinrich Post in Tilsit in 1816 relied on the Königsberg edition that had been released earlier that year. This is evidence in the morphological and lexical revisions that had been carried over. Structurally, the prayers in the 1816 Tilsit edition had remained intact. There were a little bit more orthography and syntactic differences compared to the 1816 Königsberg edition. It is probable that the Tilsit edition had had an effect on the preparation of Arndt’s prayers that were later featured in Wiſſokies Naujes Gieſmes arba Ewangelißki Pſalmai, a hymnal by Kristijonas Endrikis Mertikaitis (Tilsit, 1817). Nonetheless, it is the 1816 Königsberg edition (or the prior 1807 edition) that is to
约翰·阿恩特(1555-1621)，德国神学家和下一代宗教改革家，是唯一成功的祈祷书Paradiesgärtlein(马格德堡，1612)的作者，《祈祷书》的修订史DARǮELIS(1807 - 1817)。阿恩特的Paradiesgärtlein的第一个已知的立陶宛语译本出现在19世纪初的普鲁士立陶宛语。它于1807年由Gottlieb Lebrecht Hartung的遗孀出版，他是Königsberg的一名印刷商。本文旨在揭示约翰·阿恩特于1807年首次出版于Königsberg的《天堂花园》(Rojaus Darelis)中的六篇祈祷文的修订历史。目的是展示阿恩特的文本在1816年Königsberg版Rojaus Darǯelis、1816年Tilsit版和非官方的1817年convention’s (Lith)中所经历的修订趋势和内容转换。surinkimininkai)赞美诗Wiſſokies Naujes Gieſmes arba Ewangelißki Pſalmai (Tilsit)。对祷文的分析表明，赞歌Rojaus Darelis(Königsberg, 1807)的语言相当基于普鲁士立陶宛官方教会和语言学论文的标准:普鲁士立陶宛西部Aukštaitians流行的南部次方言。它由相当稳定的规范的形态学元素和变音符正字法所主导，这在该时期的语言学著作中得到了证明:Gottfried Ostermeyer(1791年)和Christian Gottlieb Mielcke(1800年)的立陶宛语语法。唯一可识别的非语法正字法特征是有时出现在acc中的结尾-ęs。sg。女性形容词、代词和数字的词尾。对1807年和1816年分别发表在Königsberg上的Rojaus Darǯelis的祈祷文进行比较后发现，这些文本一直保持稳定，在内容方面没有进行重大或重大的修改。这个版本在重音标记的位置上比以前的版本更加一致。正在努力跟上在普鲁士立陶宛语的官方印刷文本(语法)中流行的拼写和语言的标准趋势。已经确定的是，1816年由蒂尔西特的约翰·海因里希·波斯特印刷厂出版的新版《罗哈斯·达尔》的制作依赖于当年早些时候发布的Königsbergedition。这在被保留下来的词法和词法修订中就是证据。从结构上看，1816年蒂尔西特版的祷文完好无损。与1816年Königsberg版本相比，在拼写和句法上有更多的不同。很可能提尔西特的版本对阿恩特的祈祷文的准备工作产生了影响，这些祈祷文后来被收录在了Wiſſokies Naujes Gieſmes arba Ewangelißki Pſalmai中，这是克里斯蒂乔纳斯·德里基斯·默蒂凯蒂斯的赞美诗(提尔西特，1817年)。尽管如此，1816年Königsberg版本(或之前的1807年版本)被认为是Mertikaitis赞美诗中发表的祈祷文的原始来源。正是在《Wiſſokies Naujes Gieſmes arba Ewangelißki Pſalmai》(Kristijonas Endrikis Mertikaitis, 1817)中，阿恩特的祈祷经历了最大程度的转变。与本文中提到的Königsberg或Tilsit版本相反，这个版本在所有层次上都充满了差异:正字法、语音学、形态学、词汇、构词法和语法。对来源之间关系的分析表明，默蒂凯提斯的赞美诗并没有试图遵循公认的语法用法。这种非传统的方法很可能是Mertikaitis对当时语言的精通和缺乏文化的产物。值得一提的是，Mertikaitis不是一个学术或精神精英，而是一个充满活力的家庭祈祷服务的传教士和学校教师，他倾向于教牧关怀，拯救自己的灵魂和他人的灵魂以及永生，他不认为使语言更加语法正确和符合标准是他世俗关注的重要组成部分。
{"title":"Johanno Arndto Rojaus Darǯelio maldų redagavimo istorija (1807–1817)","authors":"Inga Strungytė-Liugienė","doi":"10.33918/26692449-23005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33918/26692449-23005","url":null,"abstract":"The History of Revisions of Prayers in Johann Arndt’s ROJAUS DARǮELIS (1807 – 1817)\u0000\u0000S u m m a r y\u0000\u0000Johann Arndt (1555–1621), the German theologian and next-generation religious reformer is the author of the uniquely successful prayer book titled Paradiesgärtlein (Magdeburg,1612). The first known Lithuanian translation of Arndt’s Paradiesgärtlein appeared in early 19th century in Prussian Lithuanian. It was published in 1807 by the widow of Gottlieb Lebrecht Hartung, a printer from Königsberg. This article aims to reveal the history of revisions of six prayers from Johann Arndt’s Rojaus Darelis (The Garden of Paradise) that were first published in Königsberg in 1807. The goal is to show the revision trends and content transformations Arndt’s texts underwent in the second, 1816 Königsberg edition of Rojaus Darǯelis, the 1816 Tilsit edition, and the unofficial 1817 conventiclers’ (Lith. surinkimininkai) hymnal Wiſſokies Naujes Gieſmes arba Ewangelißki Pſalmai (Tilsit).\u0000The analysis of the prayers has shown that the language of the hymnal Rojaus Darelis\u0000(Königsberg, 1807) is rather grounded on the standard of the official ecclesiastical and\u0000philological papers of Prussian Lithuania: the prevalent southern subdialect of the Western Aukštaitians of Prussian Lithuania. It is dominated by rather stable normative elements of morphology and diacritic orthography, as evidenced in the philological written works of the period: the grammars of the Lithuanian language by Gottfried Ostermeyer (1791) and Christian Gottlieb Mielcke (1800). The only identifiable non-grammatical orthography trait is the ending -ęs that sometimes appears in the acc. sg. endings of feminine adjectives, pronouns, and numerals.\u0000A comparison of the prayers from Rojaus Darǯelis that were published in Königsberg in\u00001807 and in 1816 has revealed that the texts had remained stable and free from major or\u0000significant revisions content-wise. This edition is even more consistent in its placement of the stress-marks than the one before. Efforts are made to keep up with the standard trend of spelling and language that prevailed in the official printed texts (grammars) of Prussian Lithuanian.\u0000It has been established that the making of the new edition of Rojaus Darelis published\u0000by the printing house of Johann Heinrich Post in Tilsit in 1816 relied on the Königsberg\u0000edition that had been released earlier that year. This is evidence in the morphological and lexical revisions that had been carried over. Structurally, the prayers in the 1816 Tilsit edition had remained intact. There were a little bit more orthography and syntactic differences compared to the 1816 Königsberg edition. It is probable that the Tilsit edition had had an effect on the preparation of Arndt’s prayers that were later featured in Wiſſokies Naujes Gieſmes arba Ewangelißki Pſalmai, a hymnal by Kristijonas Endrikis Mertikaitis (Tilsit, 1817). Nonetheless, it is the 1816 Königsberg edition (or the prior 1807 edition) that is to ","PeriodicalId":335211,"journal":{"name":"Archivum Lithuanicum","volume":"535 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127641990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
CORDON – KRISTIJONO DONELAIČIO TEKSTŲ SKAITMENINIS GILIOSIOS ANOTACIJOS KORPUSAS S a n t r a u k a CorDon (https://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/cordon/menu/lt/startas.html) yra laisvai prieinamas leksiškai ir morfosintaksiškai anotuotas lietuvių literatūros klasiko Kristijono Donelaičio (1714–1780) lietuviškų tekstų korpusas. Anotuoti tekstai pateikiami paslankaus formato skaityklėje, kurioje galima aktyvuoti atskirus anotacijos sluoksnius, paralelius teksto leidimus ir vertimus į vokiečių, anglų ir italų kalbas. Paieškos grafinė naudotojo sąsaja įgalina paiešką visuose anotacijų sluoksniuose nenaudojant specialios užklausų kalbos ar reguliariųjų išraiškų. Šis paieškos metodas yra nepriklausomas nuo anotacijos schemos ir gali būti apibendrintas panašiu būdu anotuotiems tekstams. Anotacijos pagrindu sugeneruotame leksikone su konkordancija pagal antraštinį žodį (lemą) suregistruoti Donelaičio tekstų žodžiai. Intuityvi CorDon paieška sukonstruota taip, kad užklausą būtų galima palaipsniui tikslinti ir plėsti. Paieškos rezultatai pateikiami plačiam vartotojų ratui prieinama forma. CorDon gali pasitarnauti kaip skaitmeninis leidinys Donelaičio tekstų tyrėjoms bei tyrėjams, kaip anotuotas korpuso archyvas kalbininkėms bei kalbininkams arba kaip skaitymo korpusas mokymo(si) procese.
{"title":"CorDon – A Deeply Annotated Digital Corpus of the Works of Kristijonas Donelaitis","authors":"Mortimer Drach","doi":"10.33918/26692449-23012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33918/26692449-23012","url":null,"abstract":"CORDON – KRISTIJONO DONELAIČIO TEKSTŲ\u0000SKAITMENINIS GILIOSIOS ANOTACIJOS KORPUSAS\u0000\u0000S a n t r a u k a\u0000\u0000CorDon (https://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/cordon/menu/lt/startas.html) yra laisvai prieinamas leksiškai ir morfosintaksiškai anotuotas lietuvių literatūros klasiko Kristijono Donelaičio (1714–1780) lietuviškų tekstų korpusas. Anotuoti tekstai pateikiami paslankaus formato skaityklėje, kurioje galima aktyvuoti atskirus anotacijos sluoksnius, paralelius teksto leidimus ir vertimus į vokiečių, anglų ir italų kalbas. Paieškos grafinė naudotojo sąsaja įgalina paiešką visuose anotacijų sluoksniuose nenaudojant specialios užklausų kalbos ar reguliariųjų išraiškų. Šis paieškos metodas yra nepriklausomas nuo anotacijos schemos ir gali būti apibendrintas panašiu būdu anotuotiems tekstams. Anotacijos pagrindu sugeneruotame leksikone su konkordancija pagal antraštinį žodį (lemą) suregistruoti Donelaičio tekstų žodžiai. Intuityvi CorDon paieška sukonstruota taip, kad užklausą būtų galima palaipsniui tikslinti ir plėsti. Paieškos rezultatai pateikiami plačiam vartotojų ratui prieinama forma. CorDon gali pasitarnauti kaip skaitmeninis leidinys Donelaičio tekstų tyrėjoms bei tyrėjams, kaip anotuotas korpuso archyvas kalbininkėms bei kalbininkams arba kaip skaitymo korpusas mokymo(si) procese.","PeriodicalId":335211,"journal":{"name":"Archivum Lithuanicum","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121947734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review: Domas Kaunas, Martynas Jankus. Tautos vienytojas\u0000ir lietuvių spaudos kūrėjas, 2021. ISBN 978-609-07-0630-5","authors":"Silva Pocytė","doi":"10.33918/26692449-23011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33918/26692449-23011","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":335211,"journal":{"name":"Archivum Lithuanicum","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131989910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
REFERENCES TO JOHANNES VOIGT’S GESCHICHTE PREUSSENS (1827–1839) IN BUDĄ SENOWĘS-LËTUWIÛ KALNIENÛ ĨR ƵÁMAJTIÛ (1845) BY SIMONAS DAUKANTAS S u m m a r y The article addresses citations from vol. I, III , IV , VI of Johannes Voigt’s (1786–1863) Geschichte Preußens von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Untergange der Herrschaft des Deutschen Ordens (Königsberg, 9 vols., 1827–1839) in BUDĄ Senowęs–Lëtuwiû Kalnienû ir Ƶámajtiû (1845) by Simonas Daukantas. The goal of the article is to use the inventory of the references made by Daukantas to identify the places in the original GP text, revise the references, discuss the nature of the citations, and the impact of the tract as such. The article also touches upon the history of Daukantas citing Voigt’s GP in his prior work, ISTORYJE ƵEMAYTYSZKA (1834). The article analyses 20 references to Voigt’s text. Daukantas identified the page number wrong in seven references out of the twenty; four of the references were one page number off; one did not specify the volume. Nonetheless, all of these references were successfully revised and corrected. Analysis of the nature of reliance on GP has suggested that Daukantas treated this tract as a font of new resources. Daukantas used GP to recite handwritten work by medieval chroniclers or Königsberg scholars, university graduates or residents of the region that he was having difficulty accessing himself. The prevalence of work by Königsberg scholars shows that Daukantas valued this historiographical tradition first and foremost. In his reliance on GP references, Daukantas would obtain and quote some of the sources from the original texts. Comparing the indirect citations by Daukantas and the original text, one could say that it was only once (Bd 214) that he did not add information from elsewhere in the GP text or other sources to the text. Even though Daukantas did not have any open discussions with his predecessor, the ample revisions and the content of the supplementary material point to his critical stance. Relying on the narrative historic tradition (‘noumone patioie tautoie tebesąntĩ patwĩrten’ Bd 214), the Lithuanian language and folklore (‘kou dar pates patarles kałbo tebesąntes twĩrtĩn’ Bd, Pratarme 9) as sources of Lithuanian history with the highest degree of authority, he revised the text written by Voigt from a German position. However, the expression of Germanism in GP helped Daukantas create images of Lithuanianism. The GP text and the ample explanations given in footnotes sparked Daukantas’s creativity. GP was an example of composition of material to Daukantas. Drawing inspiration from GP, Daukantas discussed the history of the formation of the region, the characteristics of the landscape, delineated the borders of Lithuania, talked about the daily living and about the holidays, gave a lot of attention to the dynamics and sanctuaries of the ancient Lithuanian religion, the history of regional institutions, commerce as the key element of the viability of th
引用约翰内斯·沃伊特的GESCHICHTE PREUSSENS (1827-1839) IN BUDĄ SENOWĘS-LËTUWIÛ KALNIENÛ ĨR ƵÁMAJTIÛ (1845) BY SIMONAS DAUKANTASS um m ar .本文引用了约翰内斯·沃伊特(1786-1863)GESCHICHTE Preußens von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Untergange der Herrschaft des Deutschen Ordens (Königsberg, 9卷)的第一，三，四，六卷。(1827-1839)在BUDĄ Senowęs-Lëtuwiû Kalnienû ir Ƶámajtiû(1845)由西蒙纳斯·道坎塔斯。本文的目标是使用Daukantas制作的参考文献目录来确定原始GP文本中的位置，修改参考文献，讨论引用的性质，以及该小册子的影响。这篇文章还提到了dakantas的历史，引用了Voigt的GP在他之前的工作，ISTORYJE ƵEMAYTYSZKA(1834)。这篇文章分析了20处引用Voigt文本的地方。道坎塔斯在20篇参考文献中有7篇的页码是错的;其中四个参考文献的页码差了一页;一名官员没有具体说明音量。尽管如此，所有这些参考文献都被成功地修改和更正了。对GP依赖性质的分析表明，dakantas将这一区域视为一种新资源。Daukantas使用GP背诵中世纪编年史家或Königsberg学者、大学毕业生或该地区居民的手写作品，他自己很难接触到这些作品。Königsberg学者的作品的盛行表明，道坎塔斯首先重视这一史学传统。在他对GP参考文献的依赖中，道坎塔斯会从原始文本中获取并引用一些来源。比较dakantas的间接引用和原文，我们可以说只有一次(bd214)他没有从GP文本或其他来源添加信息到文本中。虽然达坎塔斯没有与前任长官进行公开讨论，但从大量的修改和补充材料的内容来看，他的立场是批判的。凭借历史叙事传统(' noumone patioie tautoie tebesąntĩ patwĩrten ' Bd 214)，立陶宛语言和民间传说(' kou dar pates patarles kałbo tebesąntes twĩrtĩn ' Bd, Pratarme 9)作为立陶宛历史的最高权威来源，他从德国的角度修改了Voigt所写的文本。然而，《GP》中日耳曼主义的表达帮助道坎塔斯塑造了立陶宛主义的形象。GP文本和脚注中给出的充分解释激发了道坎塔斯的创造力。GP是Daukantas的材料组成的一个例子。从gp中获得灵感，Daukantas讨论了该地区形成的历史，景观特征，划定了立陶宛的边界，谈论了日常生活和节日，对古代立陶宛宗教的动态和避难所，地区机构的历史，商业作为国家生存的关键因素给予了很多关注。Voigt强调的古代普鲁士人和十字军在建立新德意志民族中的重要性帮助道坎塔斯理解立陶宛身份的发展如何不能绕过普鲁士立陶宛人的文化，或者更确切地说，是波罗的海国家的文化。Daukantas吸收了许多概念，尽管是Herder-esque，但已经被Voigt吸收并与历史相关，例如:民族的历史(' tautos wejkałus ' Bd 127)，民族的文化(' akyłómą sawo tautoie ' Bd 236)，民族的方式(' pagajowbudo sawo tautós ' Bd 190)，民族的自由(' tautû lousybzi ' Bd, Pratarme 9)。GP的表达帮助道坎塔斯创造了多个浪漫的形象，这些形象后来进入了立陶宛文学的黄金基金。
{"title":"Johanneso Voigto Geschichte Preußens (1827–1839) nuorodos Simono Daukanto veikale BUDĄ Senowęs-Lëtuwiû Kalnienû ĩr Ƶámajtiû (1845)","authors":"Roma Bončkutė","doi":"10.33918/26692449-23008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33918/26692449-23008","url":null,"abstract":"REFERENCES TO JOHANNES VOIGT’S GESCHICHTE PREUSSENS (1827–1839) IN BUDĄ SENOWĘS-LËTUWIÛ KALNIENÛ ĨR ƵÁMAJTIÛ (1845) BY SIMONAS DAUKANTAS\u0000\u0000S u m m a r y\u0000\u0000The article addresses citations from vol. I, III , IV , VI of Johannes Voigt’s (1786–1863)\u0000Geschichte Preußens von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Untergange der Herrschaft des Deutschen Ordens (Königsberg, 9 vols., 1827–1839) in BUDĄ Senowęs–Lëtuwiû Kalnienû ir Ƶámajtiû (1845) by Simonas Daukantas. The goal of the article is to use the inventory of the references made by Daukantas to identify the places in the original GP text, revise the references, discuss the nature of the citations, and the impact of the tract as such. The article also touches upon the history of Daukantas citing Voigt’s GP in his prior work, ISTORYJE ƵEMAYTYSZKA (1834).\u0000The article analyses 20 references to Voigt’s text. Daukantas identified the page number\u0000wrong in seven references out of the twenty; four of the references were one page number off; one did not specify the volume. Nonetheless, all of these references were successfully revised and corrected.\u0000Analysis of the nature of reliance on GP has suggested that Daukantas treated this tract\u0000as a font of new resources. Daukantas used GP to recite handwritten work by medieval\u0000chroniclers or Königsberg scholars, university graduates or residents of the region that he was having difficulty accessing himself. The prevalence of work by Königsberg scholars shows that Daukantas valued this historiographical tradition first and foremost. In his reliance on GP references, Daukantas would obtain and quote some of the sources from the original texts.\u0000Comparing the indirect citations by Daukantas and the original text, one could say that\u0000it was only once (Bd 214) that he did not add information from elsewhere in the GP text or other sources to the text. Even though Daukantas did not have any open discussions with his predecessor, the ample revisions and the content of the supplementary material point to his critical stance. Relying on the narrative historic tradition (‘noumone patioie tautoie tebesąntĩ patwĩrten’ Bd 214), the Lithuanian language and folklore (‘kou dar pates patarles kałbo tebesąntes twĩrtĩn’ Bd, Pratarme 9) as sources of Lithuanian history with the highest degree of authority, he revised the text written by Voigt from a German position. However, the expression of Germanism in GP helped Daukantas create images of Lithuanianism. The GP text and the ample explanations given in footnotes sparked Daukantas’s creativity.\u0000GP was an example of composition of material to Daukantas. Drawing inspiration from\u0000GP, Daukantas discussed the history of the formation of the region, the characteristics of the landscape, delineated the borders of Lithuania, talked about the daily living and about the holidays, gave a lot of attention to the dynamics and sanctuaries of the ancient Lithuanian religion, the history of regional institutions, commerce as the key element of the viability of th","PeriodicalId":335211,"journal":{"name":"Archivum Lithuanicum","volume":"79 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126340738","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Language and Identity in the Forewords to Christian Gottlieb Mielcke’s Dictionary Littauisch -deutsches und Deutsch - littauisches Wörter - Buch (1800): Discourse Analysis S u m m a r y The article deals with the discourse pertaining to the ties between the Lithuanian language and identity in the Prussian Kingdom at the cusp of the 18th and the 19th centuries. The main sources here are four forewords to Christian Gottlieb Mielcke’s (Lith. Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus) dictionary Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800) as monologue texts sharing the following elements: (1) the subject of the focus (the view of the language and the nation); (2) the direct context (book publication); (3) the historical context (the political situation in the Prussian Kingdom at the cusp of the 18th and the 19th centuries); (4) the target (German reader); (5) the contents (descriptive and evaluative statements about the language and the nation). Discourse analysis is applied as a methodological access-way. In this discourse, views of the language and the nation were articulated by persons holding different positions: (1) Christian Gottlieb Mielcke, cantor at the Evangelic Lutheran Church of Pilkalnis; (2) Daniel Jenisch, philosopher and Evangelic Lutheran priest of Berlin; (3) Christoph Friedrich Heilsberg, counsellor at the House of War and Domains in Königsberg, school counsellor in Königsberg; (4) philosopher Immanuel Kant. Since Heilsberg initiated Mielcke’s foreword in April of 1799 and wrote one himself in December of 1799, brokered the deal between Mielcke and the printing house and kept correspondence with all the authors, he could have provided an impetus for writing forewords to others, and then given them the conditions to rely on the texts by one another to formulate a relevant discourse about the Lithuanian language and nation. All four forewords target the German reader. The authors of the forewords imagined the target differently, with Mielcke and Heilsberg approaching it from a rather pragmatic, Jenisch and Kant, a scientific position. Mielcke identified five target groups: priests, teachers, lawyers, translators, merchants; according to Heilsberg, these were public servants, lawyers, merchants, and teachers, hence both of them were focusing on the non-Lithuanians whose duty it was to proliferate general and religious teaching, solve legal and administrative issues, engage in trade. Jenisch and Kant primarily focused on members of the scientific and educational tribe. As representatives of different trades, the authors of the forewords also differed in their descriptions of the underlying subject of the discourse: 1. Mielcke defined the range of the Lithuanian language that had expanded in the Prussian Kingdom after the Third Partition of the Polish–Lithuanian (1795) and the need for it to be learned by non-Lithuanians, in the New Eastern Prussia post annexation in particular, to facilitate the formation of communications. In
克里斯蒂安·戈特利布·米尔克(Christian Gottlieb Mielcke)的《立陶宛德语词典》(litauisch -deutsches和Deutsch - litauisches)的前言中的语言和身份Wörter - Buch(1800):话语分析本文论述了18世纪和19世纪初普鲁士王国立陶宛语与身份之间的关系。这里的主要来源是克里斯蒂安·戈特利布·米尔克(Christian Gottlieb Mielcke)的《生命》的四个前言。米库斯(Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus)词典《litauisch -deutsches》和《deutsch - litauisches》Wörter-Buch(1800)作为独白文本共享以下要素:(1)焦点的主题(对语言和民族的看法);(2)直接语境(图书出版);(3)历史背景(18世纪和19世纪初普鲁士王国的政治局势);(4)目标对象(德语读者);(5)内容(对语言和民族的描述性和评价性陈述)。语篇分析是一种方法论的途径。在这篇演讲中，对语言和民族的看法由持不同立场的人阐述:(1)Pilkalnis福音路德教会的唱诗班Christian Gottlieb Mielcke;(2) Daniel Jenisch，柏林的哲学家和福音路德宗牧师;(3) Christoph Friedrich Heilsberg，战争与领域之家顾问Königsberg，学校顾问Königsberg;(4)哲学家康德。由于海尔斯伯格在1799年4月发起了米尔克的前言，并在1799年12月自己写了一篇，在米尔克和印刷厂之间牵线，并与所有作者保持通信，他本可以为其他人写前言提供动力，然后给他们提供条件，让他们依靠彼此的文本来制定有关立陶宛语言和民族的话语。这四个前言都是针对德国读者的。前言的作者对目标有不同的想象，米尔克和海尔斯伯格从一个相当实用的角度来看待它，而杰尼施和康德则是从一个科学的角度来看待它。Mielcke确定了五个目标群体:牧师、教师、律师、翻译、商人;根据海尔斯伯格的说法，这些人是公务员、律师、商人和教师，因此他们都专注于非立陶宛人，他们的职责是传播一般和宗教教学，解决法律和行政问题，从事贸易。Jenisch和Kant主要关注科学和教育领域的成员。作为不同行业的代表，前言的作者对话语的基本主题的描述也有所不同:Mielcke定义了波兰立陶宛人第三次瓜分(1795年)后在普鲁士王国扩大的立陶宛语范围，以及非立陶宛人学习立陶宛语的必要性，特别是在吞并后的新东普鲁士，以促进交流的形成。在描述立陶宛语的主要使用者时，他还谈到了身份的文化(语言、习俗、传统)和社会(乡村起源)方面。Jenisch认为立陶宛语具有科学价值，因为它的历史悠久，与其他语言的亲和力，以及对母语特征的保存，但他预测立陶宛语将会消亡，并提出了将其记录下来用于科学研究的问题。Jenisch认为所有语言都是形成和保存民族特征的工具，并认为语言和习俗是民族个性的关键因素，同样也是立陶宛人的文化认同的关键因素。他认为立陶宛人的民族自豪感和对外国人的不信任(只有当外国人说立陶宛语时，这种不信任才会转化为信任)是消极的特征。杰尼施把旧观念的消失和文化的进步与教育和与西方邻国的接触联系在一起;因此，他认为引进德语是扩大教育和文化的正确工具。海尔斯堡认为语言是民族认同的关键因素，并认为语法学是形成和维持文化认同的工具。他强调，丧失语言将导致丧失美德，立陶宛人自己也支持这一观点。根据海尔斯伯格的说法，第二种与语言相关的丧失是民族特征的丧失。与Jenisch相反，Heilsberg认为在整个国家引入单一语言没有任何好处，甚至认为德语和习俗对立陶宛人的影响是有害的，这在文化适应中变得明显。 海尔斯伯格认为立陶宛人的骄傲是一种防御机制，并认为他们对其他国家——尤其是新德意志移民和其他外国人——的谦虚是一种性格和一致性的力量，而不是像杰尼施那样的缺点。康德在提到杰尼施和海尔斯伯格时强调，必须努力保持普鲁士立陶宛语的独特性，由于语言是形成和保存立陶宛语的关键工具，因此也必须保护其纯洁性。康德并没有讨论语言的生存问题，他的前言的主要亮点是为了两个目的而保持语言的纯洁性:(1)这样国家就可以发展和保持其民族特性;(2)使语言可以用作科学研究的工具。与杰尼施相反，康德并没有设想语言的消亡，而是提出了保存小国语言的工具，包括在学校和教堂中使用语言的纯粹形式，并尽可能广泛地使用语言。康德作为后记的前言的本质是强调一件被其他作者忽略的重要事情:民族本身和研究民族和国家历史的科学关注的是纯粹形式的语言——真实的、独特的、不受其他形式影响的语言，而不仅仅是任何一种语言。18世纪和19世纪初，随着米尔克的《字典和语法》的出版，语言在形成和维持国家身份的过程中所起的作用被认为是独一无二的:它是构建文化和社会身份的工具，而不仅仅是交流的工具。立陶宛语也被视为该地区独特文化的象征，它的继续存在被认为受到威胁，并设想在不同的情况下。感谢Jenisch能够依靠Mielcke的前言，Heilsberg，在Jenisch和Mielcke的前言上，以及康德，在他们三人的前言上，话语中点缀着和平对话和反对的元素，导致对潜在问题的多方面分析，突出了对语言和身份之间关系的理解，在18世纪和19世纪的风口上，为后来的研究提供了支柱。 海尔斯伯格认为立陶宛人的骄傲是一种防御机制，并认为他们对其他国家——尤其是新德意志移民和其他外国人——的谦虚是一种性格和一致性的力量，而不是像杰尼施那样的缺点。康德在提到杰尼施和海尔斯伯格时强调，必须努力保持普鲁士立陶宛语的独特性，由于语言是形成和保存立陶宛语的关键工具，因此也必须保护其纯洁性。康德并没有讨论语言的生存问题，他的前言的主要亮点是为了两个目的而保持语言的纯洁性:(1)这样国家就可以发展和保持其民族特性;(2)使语言可以用作科学研究的工具。与杰尼施相反，康德并没有设想语言的消亡，而是提出了保存小国语言的工具，包括在学校和教堂中使用语言的纯粹形式，并尽可能广泛地使用语言。康德作为后记的前言的本质是强调一件被其他作者忽略的重要事情:民族本身和研究民族和国家历史的科学关注的是纯粹形式的语言——真实的、独特的、不受其他形式影响的语言，而不仅仅是任何一种语言。18世纪和19世纪初，随着米尔克的《字典和语法》的出版，语言在形成和维持国家身份的过程中所起的作用被认为是独一无二的:它是构建文化和社会身份的工具，而不仅仅是交流的工具。立陶宛语也被视为该地区独特文化的象征，它的继续存在被认为受到威胁，并设想在不同的情况下。感谢Jenisch能够依靠Mielcke的前言，Heilsberg，在Jenisch和Mielcke的前言上，以及康德，在他们三人的前言上，话语中点缀着和平对话和反对的元素，导致对潜在问题的多方面分析，突出了对语言和身份之间关系的理解，在18世纪和19世纪的风口上，为后来的研究提供了支柱。
{"title":"Kalba ir tapatybė Kristijono Gotlybo Milkaus žodyno Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800) pratarmėse: diskurso analizė","authors":"Ona Aleknavičienė","doi":"10.33918/26692449-23004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33918/26692449-23004","url":null,"abstract":"Language and Identity in the Forewords to Christian Gottlieb Mielcke’s Dictionary Littauisch -deutsches und Deutsch - littauisches Wörter - Buch (1800): Discourse Analysis\u0000\u0000S u m m a r y\u0000\u0000The article deals with the discourse pertaining to the ties between the Lithuanian language\u0000and identity in the Prussian Kingdom at the cusp of the 18th and the 19th centuries. The\u0000main sources here are four forewords to Christian Gottlieb Mielcke’s (Lith. Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus) dictionary Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800) as monologue texts sharing the following elements: (1) the subject of the focus (the view of the language and the nation); (2) the direct context (book publication); (3) the historical context (the political situation in the Prussian Kingdom at the cusp of the 18th and the 19th centuries); (4) the target (German reader); (5) the contents (descriptive and evaluative statements about the language and the nation). Discourse analysis is applied as a methodological access-way.\u0000In this discourse, views of the language and the nation were articulated by persons\u0000holding different positions: (1) Christian Gottlieb Mielcke, cantor at the Evangelic Lutheran Church of Pilkalnis; (2) Daniel Jenisch, philosopher and Evangelic Lutheran priest of Berlin; (3) Christoph Friedrich Heilsberg, counsellor at the House of War and Domains in Königsberg, school counsellor in Königsberg; (4) philosopher Immanuel Kant. Since Heilsberg initiated Mielcke’s foreword in April of 1799 and wrote one himself in December of 1799, brokered the deal between Mielcke and the printing house and kept correspondence with all the authors, he could have provided an impetus for writing forewords to others, and then given them the conditions to rely on the texts by one another to formulate a relevant discourse about the Lithuanian language and nation.\u0000All four forewords target the German reader. The authors of the forewords imagined\u0000the target differently, with Mielcke and Heilsberg approaching it from a rather pragmatic, Jenisch and Kant, a scientific position. Mielcke identified five target groups: priests, teachers, lawyers, translators, merchants; according to Heilsberg, these were public servants, lawyers, merchants, and teachers, hence both of them were focusing on the non-Lithuanians whose duty it was to proliferate general and religious teaching, solve legal and administrative issues, engage in trade. Jenisch and Kant primarily focused on members of the scientific and educational tribe.\u0000As representatives of different trades, the authors of the forewords also differed in their\u0000descriptions of the underlying subject of the discourse:\u00001. Mielcke defined the range of the Lithuanian language that had expanded in the Prussian Kingdom after the Third Partition of the Polish–Lithuanian (1795) and the need for it to be learned by non-Lithuanians, in the New Eastern Prussia post annexation in particular, to facilitate the formation of communications. In","PeriodicalId":335211,"journal":{"name":"Archivum Lithuanicum","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114123169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
LIETÙVIŠKAS KALBOMÕKSLIS. BALTIKO PADANGESE (1897) BY KAZIMIERAS JAUNIUS – THE SOURCE OF LIETUVIŠKOS KALBOS GRAMATIKA (1901) BY JONAS JABLONSKIS S u m m a r y The main source of Jonas Jablonskis’ Lietuviškos kalbos gramatika (Grammar of the Lithuanianlanguage, Tilsit, 1901 [JaG]), signed under the pseudonym of Petras Kriaušaitis, is PetrasAvižonis’ Liėtùviška Gramatiklė (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 [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’,
LIETUVIŠka KALBOMOKSLIS。波罗的海语(1897)KAZIMIERAS JAUNIUS - LIETUVIŠKOS KALBOS语法(1901)的来源乔纳斯·雅布伦斯基(JONAS JABLONSKISS)的主要来源Lietuviškos KALBOS语法(立陶宛语语法，Tilsit, 1901 [JaG])，以彼得拉斯(Petras)的笔名Kriaušaitis签署，是PetrasAvižonis ' Liėtùviška Gramatik(小立陶宛语语法，[彼得堡，1898][AvG])。然而，Jablonskis通过增加介词、连词、感叹词、句法和正字法等章节，对AvG进行了显著的补充。他还将名词和形容词的描述分开，增加了语音学、代词、数词、动词的章节，使用了立陶宛语术语。雅布伦斯基在JaG中没有指出其他来源，从其他作品中提取的文本片段没有被识别出来。然而，后来Jablonskis写道，他也使用了Kazimieras Jaunius的Lietùviškas kalbomõkslis。波罗的海语(立陶宛语语法)。在波罗的海的天空，[多帕特，]1897 [JaunK])。本研究的目的是确定这两种语法之间的关系。jagg的一些材料无疑是直接取自JaunK，因为它不存在于AvG或其他雅布伦斯基可以使用的语法中。但是Avižonis也使用了JaunK，所以有些片段是通过AvG而不是直接从JaunK进入JaG的。由于Jablonskis几乎完全接管了AvG，毫无疑问，JaunK的这些片段之前已经被纳入AvG，只是后来出现在JaG中。更重要的是，JaunK的声明和例子同样被重新制定，补充或缩写在AvG和JaG。这篇文章只分析了从JaunK直接送到JaG的材料，而这些材料在avg中并不存在。要确定在JaunK和Friedrich Kurschat ' Grammatik der litauischen Sprache(立陶宛语语法，Halle, 1876 [KG])中发现的碎片的来源要困难得多。目前尚不清楚雅布伦斯基是直接从KG那里还是通过JaunK获得的。在这种情况下，要考虑直接上下文。当从JaunK的同一部分中获取的不仅是KG的概念，还有更多的材料，即相邻的句子时，片段的路径被认为是KG→JaunK→JaG。JaunK和JaG之间的联系也可以从句子的统一措辞中得到证明。在他的语法中，Jablonskis表示他支持由jaunius提出的字符[]，以及以- įs， - ųs结尾的i, u词干的名词复数的正字法。JaunK也可能影响了数字trįs ' three '， keturiasdešimtas-devyniasdešimtas ' fortith - ninetieth '的拼写。雅布伦斯基使用了朱尼乌斯的术语būdvardis“形容词”，veiksmažodis“动词”，prieveiksmis“副词”，jausmažodis“感叹词”;Linksnis“格”，linksniavimas“委婉”，dvilypuotieji būdvardžiai“代词形容词”，tikrieji“数量”和paeiliniai“序数”(数词)，sakomasis būdas“语气”，savyveiksmis“反体动词，形式”，nestati, nestaijikalba“间接引语”。关于声音的概念和类型的JaunK片段已经被接管到JaG。关于辅音同化的JaG材料也与JaunK有关。Jablonskis在准备形态学章节时也使用了JaunK。在形容词的定义、名词数量的范畴描述、形容词的代词和形容词的级配等方面都存在联系。在JaunK和JaG中也有关于数字的衰落及其语义组的相同陈述。根据JaunK，该代词的定义是在JaG中制定的。雅布伦斯基还用JaunK来形容动词、副词和感叹词。在语法一章中，对参与者使用的描述可以看出JaunK的影响。雅布伦斯基使用了语言学材料，比如JaunK。Jablonskis使用了JaunK提供的方言数据，主要是萨莫吉希亚语。对形容词的等级、代词的变体、将来时的形式、副词的使用以及词汇变体的评论都与JaunK有关。总之，JaunK的直接影响可以在不到四分之一(224个段落中的48个)的JaG段落中记录下来。
{"title":"Kazimiero Jauniaus Lietùviškas Kalbomõkslis. Baltiko padangese (1897) – Jono Jablonskio\u0000Lietuviškos kalbos gramatikos (1901) šaltinis","authors":"Jurgita Venckienė","doi":"10.33918/26692449-23006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33918/26692449-23006","url":null,"abstract":"LIETÙVIŠKAS KALBOMÕKSLIS. BALTIKO PADANGESE (1897) BY KAZIMIERAS JAUNIUS – THE SOURCE OF LIETUVIŠKOS KALBOS GRAMATIKA (1901) BY JONAS JABLONSKIS\u0000\u0000S u m m a r y\u0000\u0000The main source of Jonas Jablonskis’ Lietuviškos kalbos gramatika (Grammar of the Lithuanianlanguage, Tilsit, 1901 [JaG]), signed under the pseudonym of Petras Kriaušaitis, is PetrasAvižonis’ Liėtùviška Gramatiklė (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.\u0000Jablonskis did not indicate other sources in JaG, fragments of the text taken from other\u0000works 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.\u0000Some of the material for JaG was undoubtedly taken over directly from JaunK, for it was\u0000not 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.\u0000It is much more difficult to identify the source of the fragments which are found in both\u0000JaunK 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.\u0000In his grammar, Jablonskis stated that he supported character [č], proposed by\u0000Jaunius, 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’.\u0000Jablonskis 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’, ","PeriodicalId":335211,"journal":{"name":"Archivum Lithuanicum","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133963813","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
TEODOR NARBUTT’S SCIENTIFIC CORRESPONDENCE AS TESTIMONY TO THE ‘ACADEMIC’ NATURE OF DZIEJE NARODU LITEWSKIEGO S u m m a r y The critique of Dzieje narodu litewskiego (The History of the Lithuanian Nation 1–9, Vilnius, 1835–1841, [DNL]) had always made Teodor vel Teodor Mateusz Narbutt (vel O styk-Narbutt,1784–1864) argue that he was not a layman nor a wilful forger. His own approach to defending himself against the attack was unique: he prepared a second edition of DNL and the so-called New Mythology – Mytologija Litewska ze sczegółami do wiary, obyczajów i oświaty przedchrześciańskiej Narodu litewskiego odnoszącemi się (Lithuanian Mythology with Details about the Belief, Customs, and pre-Christianity Education of the Lithuanian Enlightenment, 1848), intended to publish the collection of sources of Lithuanian history kept at his manor in Szawry (Lith. Šiauriai; Grodno Governorate, as of 1843 Vilnius Governorate, Lida Region), and finally, as proof of his honest work, pieced together his scientific correspondence – the letters from scholars, old collectors, and other citizens that cared for Lithuania’s past. Today, this collection that Narbutt made himself – Korrespondencya Uczona (Scientific Correspondence [KU]) is kept at the Manuscript Department of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Science (LMAVB : f. 18 [Manuscript collection B4], b. 185/2–185/16, 25r–791v). Narbutt’s peculiar method of defence bore an ad te ipsum character; however yet, due to historic circumstances (the sequestration of the Szawry manor, the seizure of the library and its transfer to the public library of Vilnius), originally designed as a tool of self-reflection, the collection became accessible to the public. And researchers dug into letters addressed to Narbutt with much gusto indeed. Nonetheless, the real attention grabbers were the celebrity names in this collection. Hence, just like the printed work of this historian, his handwritten legacy (in this case, correspondence), too, would often merit a fragmented read, which was largely due to its tremendous volume. For instance, DNL has 5,220 pages, KU 766 archival pages – a total of 1,532 pages recto and verso. In other words, letters to Narbutt were never approached in corpore, as an intentionally built collection with an incredibly bright idea and purpose. The idea that the appearance of this epistolary compendium had been inspired by autograph-hunting, a hot trend at thetime, should be disregarded straight away, because not every one of Narbutt’s correspondents was a celebrity. With a few exceptions, their overarching trait was intellectual work and love of Lithuanian antiques. The goal of the article was to approach the collection of letters to Narbutt as a whole, as a means of self-reflection a unique weapon of defence. Narbutt’s epistolary collection had never been dissected from any of these angles. The research has showed that today, KU consists of 386 letters. It is correspondence in Polish, G
对DZIEJE NARODU litewskiego(立陶宛民族历史1-9，维尔纽斯，1835-1841，[DNL])的批评总是使TEODOR velteodor Mateusz NARBUTT (velo styk-Narbutt, 1784-1864)认为他不是一个外行，也不是一个故意的伪造者。他自己防御攻击的方法是独一无二的:他准备了DNL的第二版和所谓的新神话- Mytologija Litewska ze sczegółami do wiary, obyczajów i oświaty przedchrześciańskiej Narodu litewskiego odnoszącemi sizi(立陶宛神话，详细介绍立陶宛启蒙运动的信仰、习俗和前基督教教育，1848年)，打算出版保存在他在绍里(立陶宛)的庄园里的立陶宛历史资料集。Šiauriai;格罗德诺省，1843年维尔纽斯省，利达地区)，最后，作为他诚实工作的证明，他将他的科学信件拼凑起来-来自学者，老收藏家和其他关心立陶宛历史的公民的信件。今天，Narbutt自己制作的Korrespondencya Uczona(科学通信[KU])收藏在立陶宛科学院Wroblewski图书馆手稿部(LMAVB: f. 18[手稿集B4]， b. 185/2 - 185/ 16,25 r - 791v)。纳巴特独特的辩护方法具有一种独特的特点;然而，由于历史的原因(szazwry庄园的扣押，图书馆的没收和它转移到维尔纽斯的公共图书馆)，最初的设计是作为一个自我反思的工具，这些藏品开始向公众开放。研究人员对寄给纳巴特的信件进行了深入的研究。然而，真正吸引眼球的是这些名人的名字。因此，就像这位历史学家的印刷作品一样，他的手写遗产(在这种情况下是通信)也常常值得零散地阅读，这主要是由于其庞大的数量。例如，DNL有5220页，KU有766页——正反共1532页。换句话说，给纳巴特的信从来没有作为一个整体来处理，而是作为一个带有令人难以置信的聪明想法和目的的故意构建的集合。有人认为，这本书信体简编的出现是受到了当时风行一时的“签名搜刮”的启发，这种看法应该立即不予理会，因为并不是纳巴特的每一位通讯员都是名人。除了少数例外，他们的主要特点是智力工作和对立陶宛古董的热爱。这篇文章的目的是把给纳巴特的信件作为一个整体，作为一种自我反省的手段，一种独特的防御武器。纳巴特的书信集从来没有从这些角度被剖析过。研究表明，如今的KU由386个字母组成。它是波兰语、德语、俄语和法语(按出现顺序)的通信，写于1808-1858年(其中4封信没有注明日期)。在这些信件的作者中，68位是男性，3位是女性。KU的社会图景非常丰富多彩:从体育馆的学生到民政长官，从神职人员到省统计委员会的成员。不过，纳巴特的大多数通讯员都是历史学家、档案保管员和文学家。有些作家既是文人，也是地主;作为政府官员的历史学家;牧师，因为他们是收藏家。这些形形色色的人有一个共同点:他们都读过DNL。灾难性的政治发展使我们无法拥有最终形式的KU。纳巴特本人收藏的信件并没有全部保存到今天。然而，不管今天的KU有多不完整，它的特点是几乎每一个立陶宛历史学者或立陶宛古董爱好者的名字。KU的基本主题是立陶宛的历史，寻找和传播历史资料。这些信件对DNL充满了热情，而批评则非常温和，如果有的话。这些藏品表明，纳巴特是一位杰出的权威人物，他震撼了立陶宛科学界的历史和公众。KU对Narbutt也有很高的心理价值。DNL在媒体上的批评是日常压力的来源，而纳巴特记者的来信恰恰相反——对他的研究和DNL在社会上的传播的认可。这可能就是纳巴特如此重视收藏的原因。从他手工制作的信件文件夹中可以明显看出他一直以来的关心，在他自己的笔记中更是如此。他的藏书室里的书是他唯一能以同样方式接近的东西。20世纪的历史学家开始认为，KU是narbutt是一个诚实的研究者的重要证据。 然而，更重要的不是所谓的历史(非)证伪案，而是对KU整体的看法。大部分信件是在维尔纽斯帝国大学关闭后写的。官方的维尔纽斯历史学派已不复存在，但历史思想却流传了下来。它将通过搜索和传播立陶宛历史资料，通过历史小册子和评论(往往是匿名的)来展示自己。这将在另一个层面上变得明显:在信件中，因此私人媒体充当了关于立陶宛历史主题的好奇科学研讨会和书信对话的论坛。纳巴特没有选择《通信》，而是将他的文集命名为《科学通信》，这并非偶然。它也以自己独特的方式代表着szzawry。这个外省庄园变成了一个知识中心——如果不是DNL，这是不可能实现的，因为在这片土地上(没有)犯了所有的错误。 然而，更重要的不是所谓的历史(非)证伪案，而是对KU整体的看法。大部分信件是在维尔纽斯帝国大学关闭后写的。官方的维尔纽斯历史学派已不复存在，但历史思想却流传了下来。它将通过搜索和传播立陶宛历史资料，通过历史小册子和评论(往往是匿名的)来展示自己。这将在另一个层面上变得明显:在信件中，因此私人媒体充当了关于立陶宛历史主题的好奇科学研讨会和书信对话的论坛。纳巴特没有选择《通信》，而是将他的文集命名为《科学通信》，这并非偶然。它也以自己独特的方式代表着szzawry。这个外省庄园变成了一个知识中心——如果不是DNL，这是不可能实现的，因为在这片土地上(没有)犯了所有的错误。
{"title":"Teodoro Narbuto mokslinė korespondencija kaip veikalo Dzieje narodu litewskiego „akademiškumo“ liudijimas","authors":"Reda Griškaitė","doi":"10.33918/26692449-23007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33918/26692449-23007","url":null,"abstract":"TEODOR NARBUTT’S SCIENTIFIC CORRESPONDENCE AS TESTIMONY TO THE ‘ACADEMIC’ NATURE OF DZIEJE NARODU LITEWSKIEGO\u0000\u0000S u m m a r y\u0000\u0000The critique of Dzieje narodu litewskiego (The History of the Lithuanian Nation 1–9, Vilnius, 1835–1841, [DNL]) had always made Teodor vel Teodor Mateusz Narbutt (vel O styk-Narbutt,1784–1864) argue that he was not a layman nor a wilful forger. His own approach to defending himself against the attack was unique: he prepared a second edition of DNL and the so-called New Mythology – Mytologija Litewska ze sczegółami do wiary, obyczajów i oświaty przedchrześciańskiej Narodu litewskiego odnoszącemi się (Lithuanian Mythology with Details about the Belief, Customs, and pre-Christianity Education of the Lithuanian Enlightenment, 1848), intended to publish the collection of sources of Lithuanian history kept at his manor in Szawry (Lith. Šiauriai; Grodno Governorate, as of 1843 Vilnius Governorate, Lida Region), and finally, as proof of his honest work, pieced together his scientific correspondence – the letters from scholars, old collectors, and other citizens that cared for Lithuania’s past. Today, this collection that Narbutt made himself – Korrespondencya Uczona (Scientific Correspondence\u0000[KU]) is kept at the Manuscript Department of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian\u0000Academy of Science (LMAVB : f. 18 [Manuscript collection B4], b. 185/2–185/16, 25r–791v).\u0000Narbutt’s peculiar method of defence bore an ad te ipsum character; however yet, due to historic circumstances (the sequestration of the Szawry manor, the seizure of the library and its transfer to the public library of Vilnius), originally designed as a tool of self-reflection, the collection became accessible to the public. And researchers dug into letters addressed to Narbutt with much gusto indeed. Nonetheless, the real attention grabbers were the celebrity names in this collection. Hence, just like the printed work of this historian, his handwritten legacy (in this case, correspondence), too, would often merit a fragmented read, which was largely due to its tremendous volume. For instance, DNL has 5,220 pages, KU 766 archival pages – a total of 1,532 pages recto and verso.\u0000In other words, letters to Narbutt were never approached in corpore, as an intentionally\u0000built collection with an incredibly bright idea and purpose. The idea that the appearance\u0000of this epistolary compendium had been inspired by autograph-hunting, a hot trend at thetime, should be disregarded straight away, because not every one of Narbutt’s correspondents was a celebrity. With a few exceptions, their overarching trait was intellectual work and love of Lithuanian antiques. The goal of the article was to approach the collection of letters to Narbutt as a whole, as a means of self-reflection a unique weapon of defence. Narbutt’s epistolary collection had never been dissected from any of these angles.\u0000The research has showed that today, KU consists of 386 letters. It is correspondence in\u0000Polish, G","PeriodicalId":335211,"journal":{"name":"Archivum Lithuanicum","volume":"124 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128049796","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：