Linguistic scenery in Latvian botany textbooks (1880s–1940s): Stable and varying features

Texts, including original botany textbooks (not translations or adaptations) produced in the second part of the 19 th century and early decades of the 20 th century embody a period of intense linguistic development in the Latvian language. This paper provides a linguistic analysis of the features of two botany textbooks: Botānika tautas skolām un pašmācībai ( Botany for Folk Schools and Self-Ed-ucation ) by Jānis Ilsters (1883) and Botānika ( Botany ) by Pauls Galenieks, also citing its further editions (1924– 1945). The aim of the study is to collate data that is representative of morphological, syntactic and lexical chang-es and stable elements from these texts. The respective linguistic phenomena are discussed and analysed in the context of language facts present in several dictionaries and other relevant publications. The data obtained in this study illustrates that by the end of the period covered in this paper, the process of turbulent linguistic changes in the Latvian language had been replaced by more balanced development with some indications of stabilisation, although numerous features remained variable and dynamic. Despite a number of the syntactic and lexical elements recorded in the main sources of the study having since changed and/or become obsolete, these textbooks provide evidence that both the Latvian language and the linguistic materials used in botany were to a great extent already well developed and had begun to enter the stabilisation phase. In recent years, botany has become an area of increased linguistic interest among botany experts and linguists themselves, although the collation of a detailed data set detailing the development of the whole body of specialised lexis used in botany remains a task for the future.


The aspect of text tones: moods written into the text
Here we consider, first, the lexical elements that form the moods and attitudes expressed in and throughout the texts. To achieve this, the 1883 textbook embodied the full range of typical text-building features from that time. Although the author's attitude, when assessed relative to modern textbooks, may seem naïve and excessively personal, it exemplified what was then a typical contemporary approach. Moreover, such elements might also be considered as a means to make the text more elements and lexical material. Even as late as 1924, Pauls Galenieks, a prominent Latvian botanist, admitted that all the previous Latvian textbooks in botany had been shortened translations from German or Russian, and so failed to illustrate and discuss the features specific to local flora (Galenieks, 1924, p. 3) 1 .
This paper provides a strictly linguistic insight into the features of two botany textbooks: Botanika tautas skolām un pašmācībai (Botany for Folk Schools and Self-Education) by Jānis Ilsters (1883; henceforth T1) and Botanika (Botany) by Pauls Galenieks (1924; henceforth T2), including its corrected and elaborated third edition in 1929 (henceforth T3), and fifth edition in 1945 (henceforth T4) 2 . For the purpose of contextualization, we also include references to several dictionaries and other relevant sources. The aim of the study is to identify and analyse morphological, syntactic and lexical changes and stable elements observed in botany textbooks published in the period of 1880s-1940s. 1 Galenieks' books also included borrowed elements, for instance, some of the illustrations; it is also noted that some illustrations describe plants which were not observed in the local flora (see Carex, 1924). 2 The term folk school refers to an elementary school from the respective period associated with the Reformation movement (other terms found included rural school, peasant school, parish school, etc. (Laizāne, 2012)). It should also be noted that in some instances this paper also includes references to the 2 nd edition of Botany (Galenieks, 1925). We should note that the units of the 1883 publication and other publications of the 19 th century analysed in this study have been transcribed according to modern Latvian orthography (thus, şch is š, ah is ā, etc.) and Latin letters; however, short vowels are kept according to the original text. 3 In his response to Matīss Siliņš' review, Ilsters (1884) notes that he did have the opportunity to read the text after its second proofreading (our emphasis), a note which also provides some details as regards the proofreading and editing procedures used by periodicals during the time.

Results and Discussion
To achieve the goal of this study, the paper provides, by applying the methods of qualitative research, a strictly linguistic insight into the morphological, syntactic and, most importantly, lexical features of two botany text books: Botanika tautas skolām un pašmācībai (Botany for Folk Schools and Self-Education) by Jānis Ilsters (1883) and Botanika (Botany) by Pauls Galenieks (1924), including its corrected and elaborated third edition in 1929, and fifth edition in 1945 as the respective linguistic facts would demonstrate, through empirical research based on collection (extraction) of representative units from the source texts and analysed respectively, typical patterns from the period and also suggest conclusions regarding stable and variable features and elements of the Latvian language. For the purpose of contextualisation, we also include literature review, namely, references to several dictionaries and other relevant sources. Meanwhile, the specialised nature of this area implies limits and constraints that provide the requisite focus and specific context for the facts and details included. This thereby avoids the study slipping dangerously into vague generalisation. It is also due to considerations of focus that we do not include comments upon orthographic features and changes, as these can be tracked and explained by the standards, instructions and typical features of application presented in publications on Latvian grammar and orthography (for instance, see Cukurs, 1898;Endzelīns, 1951;Jansone, 2008;Mīlenbahs, 1908;Mīlenbahs & Endzelīns, 1907;Ullmann, 1883).
As Galenieks' publications feature minor changes, i.e., Viņām sekodami, mēs iemācāmies (T1, p. 5) to Tām sekodami, mēs iemācāmies (T4, p. 3), such editorial scrutiny implies the reliability and relevance of the linguistic phenomena observed in the texts (however, the texts include multiple instances of misspelling 3 ). Along with a note provided by Rūdolfs Grabis (1978, p. 115), stating that the 19 th century authors of Latvian textbooks were among those users of Latvian who possessed the best linguistic competence and who applied the best written text practices, we should also credit both Ilsters and Galenieks for producing texts that became benchmark embodiments of area-specific knowledge and linguistic skills. These are essential prerequisites verifying the methods and relevance of further inquiry.
For comparison purposes, a botany textbook for students at grade 7, published in 2012 (Aizpure, 2012), featured highly formal language, which was counterbalanced by diverse visual elements, for instance, a regular text section marked with an icon in the form of a palm reaching towards the reader (ibid., p. 17). We were only able to record a few more expressive units, including Kas gan var būt skaistāks par atpūtu mežā! [..] Egles ir loti skaisti koki; sirma senatane (ibid., p. 75,190) and some value-and awareness-building units, for instance, [m]eži ir Latvijas dabas bagātība (ibid., p. 197).

Syntax, specific expressions
The source texts include obsolete syntactic structures, which were either only observed during the time period when Ilsters' textbook was published, or migrated across various phases of the development of the Latvian language and texts respectively; in the majority of cases, modern Latvian texts only feature these as stylistically marked units:
However, multiple features of the 1924 textbook also indicated that in many respects the terminology of botany had already matured, leading to some initial stability. One of the reasons for this was the importance of plants to everyday life (e.g., for food, clothing and medical needs) since ancient times. The lexicographic development of Latvian lexis in botany dates to as early as the late 18 th century (Fischer, 1778). For instance, the classification of neveroņi and atveroņi (T2, p. 53) (the term neveroņi was preceded by neatveroņi (T1, p. 111); atveroņi later changed to veroņi (T4, p. 41)), and the relevant terms are largely still in use (Ilziņa et al., 1995, p. 93). However, in the 1883 text it was already apparent that some terms and their specific definitions also illustrate a level of elaboration: dzelonis ('prickle'; a short outgrowth on the bark 7 ) and ērkšķi ('thorn'; it grows from the stem itself) (T1, p. 47).
In the 1870s and even in early 1880s the initial term stāds (ibid., p. 112) and its subsequent variant augs, two terms that now possess a distinctive semantic difference (augs -plant; stāds or dēsts -seedling), were used as synonyms. In 1883, Ilsters used stāds and did not use augs; however, the text included augšanas vieta, augt, noaugt, uzaugt, stādi, stādu māciba, and stādu valsts 16  The texts included many instances where explanations, synonyms or variants of the specialiased lexis were provided. This followed, first, from the explanatory function of the books, second, from the general communicative nature of botany, and third, typical features of the use of lexis in the respective period of time. Botany has always been both an area of academic scholarship and everyday interest, with many people contributing towards its diverse vocabulary. Thus, scientific names have been used along with other items of specialised lexis, which have typically not been stable, tended to be diverse and changed arbitrarily; they could also possess regional features and belong to specific dialects. Some plant names may include dozens of variants (Ēdelmane, 1993, p. 29 In several instances, the preferences represented in the text differed from the choice currently made by modern Latvians: Ilsters indicated both svešēdeji or paraziti ('parasites') but further used only the Latvian variant svešēdeji (Galenieks mentioned both the Latvian variant liekēži and the borrowed word parazīti (T2, p. 25) but used both further in the text). Similarly, Ilsters suggested both lapu zaļums jeb hlorofils, but used only the Latvian variant lapu zaļums. Another illustration of authorial preferences and/or the process of how language users choose between a borrowed word of one from their own language was provided by the following situation: while at the time two options iesavināšana and asimilācija existed (ZTV, 1922, p. 46), Galenieks' texts only included the term asimilācija (though in one instance it also provided an explanation with a terminological potential: oglekļa saistīšana jeb asimilācija (T2, p. 95; T4, p. 84).
The texts featured lexical items that possessed a different meaning, thus they were used in different contexts and/or different syntactic constructions:

Compounds and multi-word terms
Compounding is a productive Latvian word-building technique used in the formation of both common names and terms. Many linguists have previously studied the Latvian compounds used in different time periods (e.g., Ahero, 1965;Elksnīte, 2011;Ēdelmane, 1997;Kvašīte, 2002;Skujiņa, 2006;Sviķe, 2014). Their inquiries have indicated that compounds were widely used long before the texts discussed in this paper, and the theory and classification of compounds was already relatively widely elaborated on in the 19th century (including the contributions of Oto Rozenbergs and Augusts Bīlenšteins; see in Frīdenberga, 2016, p. 21-22). This study also illustrates the use of typical compounding techniques, for instance, generic plant names -eponymous plant names formed by zero affixation and possessing no external features of derivation (veronika (T1, p. 30); two-component compounds where the modifier is an anthroponym (jāņuzāles (T3, p. 237)), triple-component compounds (deviņvīruspēks (T1, p. 33)), including compounds where a stem is an anthroponym (suņupētersilje 20 (T1, p. 104)), or compounds that also include a suffix (raganzālīte (T4, p. 234)) (for further classification details see Ēdelmane, 1978, p. 97-101; Piete, 2008, p. 124-133).
However, specific features and issues apply here. Compounds may be formed and used inconsistently, and they may also possess a regional character. For instance, Marta Rudzīte suggests that, in subdialects, compounds may include full genitive forms that are used more frequently than in standard Latvian (Rudzīte, 1964, in Elksnīte, 2011  Aside from the general nature of the use of a language, including specialized lexis, where the element of chaotic practices is always present, some variations may also be caused by insufficient semantic difference in a word group or a compound (Ahero, 1965, p. 19). Meanwhile, we should also note that some multi-word terms have become the standard form of specialised lexis replacing the initial compound form which is typically considered a more formal Latvian variant (e.g., aknusūnas → aknu sūnas which is still used in botany). In some instances, the motivation for using a compound or word group is apparent: dīgļsaknīte (T4, p. 77) highlights the type or classification aspect as opposed to dīgļa šūnas (T3, p. 67) where the cells of germs are discussed and not specific types of cells. A similar distinction can be observed in these units: mežmala (T2, p. 191; T4, p. 189) vs. mežu zāles (T4, p. 189); however, we also observed inconsistent use: mežu malas (T3, p. 263; T4, p. 228). In this context we oberve variable uses: mežu rozes (T3, p. 263) or meža rozes (T4, p. 228). The compound mežroze, which is currently used in standard Latvian, is in line with the principle of forming a compound, where a word in its genitive form ends with a vowel or where a genitive plural word is used (Skujiņa, 2002, p. 93) (meža(-u) + mala -mežmala). This pattern is approved in the following change: miežu brālis (Phalaris arundinacea) (T3, p. 278) -miežbrālis (T4, p. 240) and raganu zālīte (Circaea) (T3, p. 271) -raganzālīte (T4, p. 234).
We should note here that Ilsters' text (1883) included compounds with the same structure, but a different singular or plural form of the modifier, compare: suņanāve (104) and suņuburkani (76), suņu=vijole (13)  , although the multi-word terms lapukoku meži has also been used since early 1900s at least. We should note that the word-group form was even preserved in triple-element terms, in which the necessity for a compound was apparent: lapu koku suga and skuju koku suga (ZTV, 1922, p. 67) (now, the correct uses are 'lapkoki' and 'skujkoki' (see Ilziņa et al., 1995, 293, 230)).

Specialised lexis and the terminological aspect
The terminology used in the main sources (botany text books) and additional sources of this study covers three of the five phases of the development of Latvian terminology (mid-19 th century -1918; 1918-1944; 1944-1990) as defined by Māris Baltiņš (2013, p. 418). This implies transitive, dynamic language facts, including changes to the terms used in botany.
The background describing the potential variability of specialised lexis, and even terms (for instance, gada riņķi (T2, p. 80) -gada joslas (T3, p. 80)) was implicitly illustrated by the comments relating to the practical procedures used when developing specialized lexis during the respective time period. Jēkabs Prīmanis explained that he had collected anatomy terms in multiple ways, including extraction from specialized literature, translation, conversations (our emphasis) with physicians and the creation of new words based on the recommendations of linguists (Prīmanis, 1925 (Galenieks, 1950, p. 7).
The data in Table 1 illustrate how some neulogisms are accepted in the language (e.g., spulgnaglene) while others are a short-time phenomenon (e.g. plūris). Another note should be made regarding the plural forms of plant names used in Galenieks' Dictionary -preferably, names of species should be indicated in their singular form.  T1  T2  T3  T4  Galenieks, 1950  T1  T2  T3  T4  Galenieks, 1950 results may, in the form of language facts, be observed in publications like the source texts for this paper, or in numerous periodical sources.
A specific feature of the dynamic changes in the Latvian language are associated with the variable pace at which particular new words were accepted by ordinary users and/or experts.
Meanwhile, the study provided evidence that a portion of the lexis has become obsolete to the extent that most users of Latvian would not include it in their everyday language usage, and are even unlikely to be able to recognise its meaning or background implications.
The study provides extensive evidence of the productive nature of the compounding technique when developing both the common names used in everyday language and specialised lexis. However, we support the findings of those investigations that suggest an unfavourable lack of consistency. Although during the period of late 19 th century this particular trait could be justified by the generally unstable state of the Latvian language, inconsistencies in the mid-20 th century suggested that this feature could remain as a permanent linguistic phenomenon.
An important feature of botany vocabulary is synonymy in the use specialised lexis. Although in some instances this implies vague variations and chaotic use or potential complications in the context of translation needs, it also represents linguistic abundance, i.e. favourable richness contributing to the vitality of the language, and an extensive base resource which may be used to further develop the Latvian language.
A specific practical suggestion for botany textbooks or any reference-type texts to be used is the inclusion of an Index section. Neither the 1883 textbook by Ilsters or the editions of Galenieks' textbook featured this element, making it challenging to identify where all the instances where a unit of specialised lexis was discussed.