Kazimiero Būgos ir Juozo Balčikonio rengtų žodynų sąlyčiai ir skirtys

Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Knygos dalis / Part of the book
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Kazimiero Būgos ir Juozo Balčikonio rengtų žodynų sąlyčiai ir skirtys
Alternative Title:
Correlations and differences between dictionaries by Kazimieras Būga and Juozas Balčikonis
In the Book:
Leksikografija ir leksikologija. D. 5 / sudarė Aurelija Gritėnienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2015. P. 13-32
Balčikonis; Juozas Balčikonis; Kazimieras Būga; Kirčiavimas; Leksikografija; Lietuvių kalbos žodynas; Tarmės. Patarmės. Šnekta. Dialektai. Dialektologija / Dialects. Dialectology; Žodynas.
Accentuation; Būga; Dictionary; Lexicography; The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language.
Summary / Abstract:

ENSome parameters of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language by Kazimieras Būga (vol. I-II. 1924-1925) and the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language edited by Juozas Balčikonis (vol. I, 1941; vol. II, 1947) are compared in the article: explanations of words and their meanings, issues of the transposition of headwords, the field of illustrative examples and their relationship to the sources, as well as instances of their standardisation. Research revealed that in most cases Būga copied the word explanations from the sources, creating very little in this sphere. For lack of time he would not translate the word definitions into Lithuanian, but would give them in the original language of the source. Because of that Russian linguist Boris Larin comparing the two dictionaries, considered Būga's explanations even more progressive that those of Balčikonisand insisted on translating at least the main meanings of a word in the dictionary into the Russian language. According to Larin, Būga drew on the traditions of Eastern (Russian) lexicography, while Balčikonis' efforts to implement Western (Eastern Prussia) lexicographical practices were wrong, puristic. The article demonstrates howthe headwords a certain number of which had to be transposed to Standard Lithuanian were presented in both dictionaries. Most often Būga used as headwords non-transposed local forms, while Balčikonis undertook efforts to follow the rules of transposition that were emerging at that time. There are claims that without digging deep into dialectal phenomena there still remain some issues of transposition that have not been dealt with yet.Both linguists insisted on the strict rules of keeping to the authenticity of language facts in linguistic works. Unfortunately, in Būga's dictionary due to the haste there are quite a lot of examples of unauthentic sources. Most of them appeared because of Būga's principle to stress all words in illustrative sentences, even if they were unstressed in the original source. Because of this there are many cases of unauthenticstress that raise additional problems for historians of accentology. Generally speaking the examples in Būga's dictionary that are discussed demonstrate that as the authorities urged the authors to prepare the dictionary as fast as possible they had no time to check all the linguistic facts and handed in the work as material for a dictionary but not as a scientific work of lexicography. In this respect Balčikonis was free to do as he wished and prepared many things in his dictionary according to the requirements of European lexicography. [From the publication]

Related Publications:
2018-02-01 14:21:57
Views: 13