Summary Giedrius Subačius Simonas Daukantas’s Summary Rīga Orthography (1827–1834) Simonas Daukantas (1793–1864) was one of the most prominent activists of the Lithuanian national revival in the 19th century. He chose to write and publish his texts in Lithuanian, although at that time the dominant language of culture in Lithuania was Polish. Daukantas was the first historian ever to compose a history of Lithuania in Lithuanian. In addition to his volumes on Lithuanian history, Daukantas prepared several translations of histo- ries of antiquity, dictionaries, popular pamphlets on husbandry, a primer, a grammar book, a prayer book, and an adventure book for children. In the first half of the 19th century Lithuanian orthography was not yet standardized. It was quite open to innovations and new ideas. Daukantas was an enthusiastic innovator of spelling, and he never really stopped inno- vating. His orthographic variations were probably greater than those of any other author who ever wrote inDaukantas’s Lithuanian. intellectual activity may be di 1. RĪGA PERIOD MANUSCRIPTS. - vided into four major periods according to the places where he resided: Vilnius (1814–1822), Rīga (~1823–1834), St. Petersburg (1834–1850), and the Lithuanian Lowlands (Western Lithuania; 1850–1864). This book covers the first period, the Vilnius period, only to a limited extent (there are no authentic texts of Daukantas from that time). It concentrates conside- rably, however, on the second period, the Rīga period. Ten manuscript texts of varying scope were identified as produced then; eight of them were writ- ten by Daukantas, and two were copies written by someone who has not been identified. Based on analysis of paper (watermarks), of orthography and of other extra-linguistic factors, the chronology of Daukantas’s Rīga manuscripts was reconstructed as follows: 453 Vilnius Rīga (1) about 1827—Excerpts from Books (Išrašai iš knygų IK Graphic repre- 1827– 1828 ~ 1834 1827 1831–1833 1833–1834 (2) about 1827–1828—Little Lithuanian Songs (Canticula Lithuanica sentation ~1822 1828 or later RPG, GDKr ; ; 4 pp.); IK CL CL IKEI IƵ 1 ss IƵ 2 ss IƵ 3 ss IƵ 4 ss IƵ 5 ss IƵ 6 ss ; (3) Excerpts from Books on Ethnog‑ <y> K + + + + (+) + + + ; 20 pp.); raphy and History (Išrašai iš knygų apie etnografiją ir istoriją IKEI G + + + (+) end (+) about 1828 or somewhat later— [ẹ] (4) + + + Copy of the Grammar by Daniel (+) beginn. ; ; 12 pp.); <ę> K (+) Klein (DaKlG <-ty> inf. about 1828 or somewhat later—a G (+) + + + + + + + + (5) [ẹ] ; 77 pp.); <e> K (+) (+) (+) DicM about 1831—“The Dictionary of Milke” (“Dikcionar. Milke. Pa- G (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (6) [ẹ] tarles Letuwiszkas”; ; 0.5 pp.); er, esz + + + DDS about 1831—“On Duplicity of Nouns” (“De Duplicitate substan- (7) about 1831–1834—History of the Lithuanian Lowlands (Istorija (-) + + + + + + + + tivi”; ; 0.5 pp.); žemaitiška IƵ K<-te> inf. (+) + + + + (8) ONŁ <i> ; ; 553 ll. = 1106 pp.); ir, isz + + + + + + + + [i, ẹ] about 1833—“On Latvian Captivity” (“O Niewoli Łotiskiey”; ; <yi> kuryi + + + + + about 1833–1834—The Life of Rubinaitis Peliūzė (Rubinaičio (-) 10 pp.); K + + + (+) + + Peliūzės(9) gyvenimas RPG + + (+) [ẹi] (+) beginn. (10) about 1833–1834 or later—Lives of the Great Warriors (Gyvatos <ęi> K (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) ; ; 397 pp.); <kyi-> didžiųjų karvaidų GDKr (+) <ei> K + + + + + + + + [ẹi] <kęi-> ; ; 228 pp.). (+) (+) Daukantas’s manuscripts of the Rīga period have been preserved in <ij> kurij + + + + [ẹi] <kei-> three libraries: (1) The Library of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and K (+) + + + [ẹi] (+) beginn. Folklore in Vilnius (№ 1, 3–9), (2) The National Martynas Mažvydas Library (+) (+) beginn. of Lithuania in Vilnius (№ 2), and (3) The Vilnius University Library (№ 10). + + + + + + (+) <kij-> <iey> K (+) <ij> ‘jį’ 2. GRAPHEMES, DIGRAPHS, TURNING POINTS, AND SALIENT SEGMENTS. The (+) (+) + + + + + <iei> (+) graphemes and digraphs (trigraphs) that Daukantas introduced and/or [ẹi] <kiey-> ɨ <ou> (<ow> + + + modified in Rīga were especially diverse: <y, ę, e, i, ij, yi, iey, ęi, ei, iei, ë, ou, [ẹi] (<kiei->) (+) beginn. ow, ů, ų, û, ô, ù, aô, auo, ł, l, è, à, , ą, , å, on, ai, ay, ijs, ys>. One of the most ) [ọu, diacritics <ů> (+) + + + + + + + + uo] conspicuous features of Daukantas’s Rīga orthography was the introduc- <ų> [un (+) [ọu, uo] tion of multiple , with which he converted his rather plain Vilnius <û> [un (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) , u·] gen. pl. (+) beginn. orthography into a highly diacritical one. <ô> (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) , u·] gen. pl. Most of Daukantas’s diacritic graphemes marked the desirable dia- <-ù> (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) diaprecise [uo, o] lectal sound more precisely than variants of other types; usually their re- + + + + + + + + ɨ [ọ] lation to the non-diacritical letters was : <à, ą, , å> : <a>; <ę, è, <<ll,-awo> tt, ss, (< rr,- awa>pp, kk,) + + + ë> : <e>; <û, ų, ù> : <u>; <ô> : <o>; <ł> : <l>; < > : <i>. A diacritical letter nn> + + usually marked a phonetic or morphologic feature. Absence of the diacritic + + + + + <-aô> rendered a phonetic or a morphologic feature less specific. Thus, diacritical <ł> + + + (+) + + <-auo> + 1× <à, ą, , å> signified more concrete sounds [a·, e, a/ọ] and <ą> also the mor- <l> + + + + + (+) [l] phologicn accusative singular case, while simple <a> remained more vague. <è> (+) end (+) (+) (+) + + [l] Analogically <ę, è, ë> marked concrete vowels [ẹ, e·, ie/e]; <û, ų, ù> marked <ɨ> (+) + + ɨ [e·] adv. [u/u , ọ] plus the genitive plural and sometimes the accusative singular <ą> + + ‘jį’; acc. sg. <> (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) case; <ô>—[uo, o·]; <ł>—[l]; < >—the accusative singular case. Simple <e, acc. sg. u, o, l, i> were of less precise phonetic or morphologic content. [e·, e] 454 Simono Daukanto Rygos ortografija (1827–1834) Vilnius Rīga (1) about 1827—Excerpts from Books (Išrašai iš knygų IK Graphic repre- 1827– 1828 ~ 1834 1827 1831–1833 1833–1834 (2) about 1827–1828—Little Lithuanian Songs (Canticula Lithuanica sentation ~1822 1828 or later RPG, GDKr ; ; 4 pp.); IK CL CL IKEI IƵ 1 ss IƵ 2 ss IƵ 3 ss IƵ 4 ss IƵ 5 ss IƵ 6 ss ; (3) Excerpts from Books on Ethnog‑ <y> K + + + + (+) + + + ; 20 pp.); raphy and History (Išrašai iš knygų apie etnografiją ir istoriją IKEI G + + + (+) end (+) about 1828 or somewhat later— [ẹ] (4) + + + Copy of the Grammar by Daniel (+) beginn. ; ; 12 pp.); <ę> K (+) Klein (DaKlG <-ty> inf. about 1828 or somewhat later—a G (+) + + + + + + + + (5) [ẹ] ; 77 pp.); <e> K (+) (+) (+) DicM about 1831—“The Dictionary of Milke” (“Dikcionar. Milke. Pa- G (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (6) [ẹ] tarles Letuwiszkas”; ; 0.5 pp.); er, esz + + + DDS about 1831—“On Duplicity of Nouns” (“De Duplicitate substan- (7) about 1831–1834—History of the Lithuanian Lowlands (Istorija (-) + + + + + + + + tivi”; ; 0.5 pp.); žemaitiška IƵ K<-te> inf. (+) + + + + (8) ONŁ <i> ; ; 553 ll. = 1106 pp.); ir, isz + + + + + + + + [i, ẹ] about 1833—“On Latvian Captivity” (“O Niewoli Łotiskiey”; ; <yi> kuryi + + + + + about 1833–1834—The Life of Rubinaitis Peliūzė (Rubinaičio (-) 10 pp.); K + + + (+) + + Peliūzės(9) gyvenimas RPG + + (+) [ẹi] (+) beginn. (10) about 1833–1834 or later—Lives of the Great Warriors (Gyvatos <ęi> K (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) ; ; 397 pp.); <kyi-> didžiųjų karvaidų GDKr (+) <ei> K + + + + + + + + [ẹi] <kęi-> ; ; 228 pp.). (+) (+) Daukantas’s manuscripts of the Rīga period have been preserved in <ij> kurij + + + + [ẹi] <kei-> three libraries: (1) The Library of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and K (+) + + + [ẹi] (+) beginn. Folklore in Vilnius (№ 1, 3–9), (2) The National Martynas Mažvydas Library (+) (+) beginn. of Lithuania in Vilnius (№ 2), and (3) The Vilnius University Library (№ 10). + + + + + + (+) <kij-> <iey> K (+) <ij> ‘jį’ 2. GRAPHEMES, DIGRAPHS, TURNING POINTS, AND SALIENT SEGMENTS. The (+) (+) + + + + + <iei> (+) graphemes and digraphs (trigraphs) that Daukantas introduced and/or [ẹi] <kiey-> ɨ <ou> (<ow> + + + modified in Rīga were especially diverse: <y, ę, e, i, ij, yi, iey, ęi, ei, iei, ë, ou, [ẹi] (<kiei->) (+) beginn. ow, ů, ų, û, ô, ù, aô, auo, ł, l, è, à, , ą, , å, on, ai, ay, ijs, ys>. One of the most ) [ọu, diacritics <ů> (+) + + + + + + + + uo] conspicuous features of Daukantas’s Rīga orthography was the introduc- <ų> [un (+) [ọu, uo] tion of multiple , with which he converted his rather plain Vilnius <û> [un (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) , u·] gen. pl. (+) beginn. orthography into a highly diacritical one. <ô> (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) , u·] gen. pl. Most of Daukantas’s diacritic graphemes marked the desirable dia- <-ù> (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) diaprecise [uo, o] lectal sound more precisely than variants of other types; usually their re- + + + + + + + + ɨ [ọ] lation to the non-diacritical letters was : <à, ą, , å> : <a>; <ę, è, <<ll,-awo> tt, ss, (< rr,- awa>pp, kk,) + + + ë> : <e>; <û, ų, ù> : <u>; <ô> : <o>; <ł> : <l>; < > : <i>. A diacritical letter nn> + + usually marked a phonetic or morphologic feature. Absence of the diacritic + + + + + <-aô> rendered a phonetic or a morphologic feature less specific. Thus, diacritical <ł> + + + (+) + + <-auo> + 1× <à, ą, , å> signified more concrete sounds [a·, e, a/ọ] and <ą> also the mor- <l> + + + + + (+) [l] phologicn accusative singular case, while simple <a> remained more vague. <è> (+) end (+) (+) (+) + + [l] Analogically <ę, è, ë> marked concrete vowels [ẹ, e·, ie/e]; <û, ų, ù> marked <ɨ> (+) + + ɨ [e·] adv. [u/u , ọ] plus the genitive plural and sometimes the accusative