ON THE ORIGIN OF SOME PRONOUNSSummaryThis article is concerned with the origin of the Baltic general pronouns *visas, *visei, *visa “all”, the Lithuanian adjectival pronouns of (k)-oks “what” type ...and the Prussian stas “this”.1. The synchronic semantic analysis of the Baltic general pronouns (Lith. vìsas, visì, vìsa, Lat. viss, visi, OPr. *wiss, wissai, wissa(n)) indicates that the meaning of the pronouns in question is in close affinity to the concept of multitude.The plural forms visi, Lat. visi, Pr. wissai and the absolute forms vìsa, Lat. viss, Pr. wissa(n) usually have the meaning of general pronouns; the singular forms, however, have the meaning of general pronouns in combination with collective nouns. When combined with other nouns, they acquire the meaning of adjectives denoting size.The above-mentioned semantic structure was inherited from the Baltic parent language. Since the Baltic general pronouns under discussion are closely related to the concept of multitude, they can be regarded as derivatives from the reduced grade vis- of the verbal stem *veis- “to increase”, “to multiply”, “to procreate”, cf. Lith. veisti(s) and visti, Lat. veist, viest (ies) and Pr. wēisin “fruit”.The interpretation presented above can be verified by looking at the origin of general pronouns in other Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages from verbs meaning “to increase”, “to grow”, “to multiply”, “to procreate”, “to cultivate, raise”, “to be”, “to exist”, “to stand” and “to live”.2. Diachronically the Lithuanian pronouns of (k)-oks type are not exclusively derived from the suffix *-āk-; if they were derived from the suffix *-āk- only, in Modern Lithuanian there would be pronouns with o- resp. ā- stems, such as *kokas, *koka, cf. О SI. kаkъ, kaka, kako.On the basis of the forms kokìs resp. kok found in old literary texts and dialects one may conclude that the pronouns in question are compounds formed from collocations whose first component is the uninflected form *(k)-āka which, in its turn, is derived from the pronoun stems *kita-, *i-or *ši-, *ta-, *ana-, *ka-, *(v)eina- > viena- and from the comparative suffix *-āk-. The second component of the compound pronouns in question is the enclitic pronoun * (j) is (resp. * (j) ī) which, according to the law of Wackernagel, is the second member of the morphological sentence.3. According to the synchronic semantic analysis the Prussian demonstrative pronoun stas can be considered a pronoun denoting distance and having the distinctive feature of proximity. The pronoun stas can be regarded as a compound formed from *si and *tas, or as a compound formed from the collocation *se tas, cf. Lith. dial, še tàs “this”.
ON THE ORIGIN OF SOME DEICTIC WORDS, INTENSIFYING WORDS AND ADVERBSSummaryThe systematic investigation of the subject in question makes it possible to draw the following conclusions:1. The deictic ...words ve, va, vei resp. ave, ava are not reiic forms of the mystic pronouns *vas resp. *avas. In Lithuanian dialects the words ve and vei are reduced from the imperative veiz(d)ėk or veiz(d)i of the verb veiz(d)ėti “to look”, in Latvian vei is reduced from the imperative *vei(z)di resp. ve from veries (cf. vērties “to look”). The variant va has originated from ve in unstressed position. The deictic words ava, ave derive from the interjection a expressing astonishment combined with the words va or ve. The final component -skat of the form anskat “over there” (resp. taskat “there”, šiskat “here”), which is used in East Prussian Lithuanian written records, is a survival of the reduced imperative skatyk of the former verb skatyti(s) “to look”, i. e. an(a) “over there” + skat “look”, cf. anavè ← ana “over there” + vè “look” Geistarai, etc.2. The initial components ko, ka of the intensifying words kono, kапа are not particles originally, they are genitives of the pronoun kas “who”. The final components -no and -na should be interpreted as an adaptation of the Slavonic nai, cf. Russ. наихудший, Pol. najliepszy to the Lithuanian forms kо and ka. The component ka is reduced from *kā in unstressed position.3. The components ko resp. to of the adverbs kõtik, konè, niẽko, nekõ as well as the conjunction dėltõ are not particles originally, they are genitives of the pronouns kas and tas.
DEICTIC SYSTEMS IN BALTIC DIALECTSSummaryThe article is an attempt to investigate the Baltic deictic systems and to present the motivation of their systematic restructuring. The following conclusions ...can be drawn:1. Binomial deictic systems appear to predominate in Baltic dialects.2. The binomial deictic systems (as well as the one-member system in the Samogitian dialect) derive from three-member systems.3. The reconstruction of the common Baltic three-member deictic protosystem could be considered valid if it were to be assumed that the pronoun *vin(E) (j)is → viņš “that” had been early substituted for the Proto-Latvian pronoun *anas (cf. o-trs “second” < *an-taras).4. Diachronically Lithuanian and Prussian stand in closer affinity to each other than to Latvian; the latter possesses a different pronoun to indicate non-proximity in its three-member deictic system.5. Synchronically the Latgalian and the Lithuanian East Highland (Aukštaičiai) subdialects are, however, in closer affinity to each other; they are characterized by structurally similar binomial deictic systems, cf. Lat. itys / tys and Lith. itas / tas.6. The Lithuanian Samogitian dialect and some Latvian Liiv subdialects come close by their one-member deictic systems.7. The marked members of modern deictic systems, such as Lith. šitas, itas, Lat. šitas, itys, sitȩntas, šitȩnais, are independent derivatives of individual Baltic dialects. The derivatives in question appeared in dialects after the phonological changes in word-final position.8. New deictic systems of demonstrative pronouns can be formed by: a) combining a demonstrative word (local adverb) with a demonstrative pronoun, e.g. Lat. *it(E) “here” + ti/ys → iti/ys, Lith. it(ai) or *it(E) “here” + tas → itas, Lat. šitȩn “here” + tas → šitȩntas, *šitȩnE “here” + (j)is → šitȩnais, šitȩneis; b) combining stems of two demonstrative pronouns of a similar deictic meaning, e.g. Lith. ši- + tas → šitas “this”.9. Typologically the Prussian language and the Western dialects of East Baits, characterized by binomial deictic systems, approach the Finno-Ugrian languages which have binomial deictic systems as well, cf. Lat. šis / tas (Puze, Skrunda), Pruss. schis / stas and Est. see / too.10. The binomial deictic systems of the Baltic Eastern dialects are structurally similar to those of the East Slavonic languages, cf. Lat. itys j tys, Lith. itas / tas and Russ. этот / mom, Byeloruss. гэтот / тот, йэтот / mom.11. The Samogitian dialect and some Liiv subdialects are typologically similar to the Liiv and the Swedish languages by their one-member deictic systems, cf. Liiv sìe, Lat. and Sam. tas, Sw. den. The opposition proximity / non-proximity is expressed by the words “here”/“there”, cf. Sam. šitã˙- tas “this”/untã˙ tàs “that”, Lat. tas te “this”/tas tur “that” and Sw. Derme boka her er bedre enn den boka der.
THE ROLE OF ANALOGY IN THE EVOLUTION OF FORM IN LATVIAN PERSONAL PRONOUNSSummaryIn the article it is assumed that Latvian personal pronouns have inherited the “classical” case paradigm from the ...Lithuanian—Latvian parent language with a well-differentiated inflexion. The great variety of pronominal inflections in Latvian dialects and old manuscripts can be explained by the different conditions affecting the evolution of the language. Word-ending phonological and morphological changes, which created favourable conditions for the so-called changes by analogy, have resulted in morphological modifications in the system of all inflectional words.Therefore, the article is concerned with: (a) the process of neutralization of the singular accusative and instrumental cases in the () о and ()ā-stem paradigms (which occurred after the above-mentioned phonological changes); (b) the effect of neutralization on identical cases of singular personal pronouns; (c) the effect of prepositions, which govern several cases, on the process of neutralization.The article also deals with the influence of the accusative-instrumental cases of singular pronouns on the modification of the plural pronominal paradigms, and with conditions and variants of the modification in question.On the basis of the data from Latvian dialects and old manuscripts a conclusion can be drawn that the modifications in the personal pronominal paradigms could have begun prior to the written language.
On the Formation and Evolution of Qualitative (k)-oks, (k)-oki(a)-type PronounsSummaryOn the basis of data from old Lithuanian writings and existing dialects, an assumption is made that the ...qualitative (k)-oks, (k)-oki(a)-type pronouns, which formed in the Lithuanian protolanguage, were derivatives of the suffix *-āk- with the stems *šia-, *ja-, *ana, *ta-, *kita-, *ka-, *vę̄na- and *visa-. The masculine and neuter pronouns of this type possessed an a-stem, whereas the feminine pronouns possessed an ā-stem.Some modifications had already occurred in the stems and the declension of the said pronouns in the majority of cases under the influence of *(j)is, *(j)ī́ resp. *patis, *patī́-type pronominal declension even before Leskien’s Law. The most favourable conditions for this change, however, were in the paradigms of the indirect demonstrative pronouns *tākā patī́ and *tākas patis, with the pronoun patis gradually acquiring some ia-stem forms; *tākī́ developed on the model of *patī́, while *tākis > tokis developed on the model of patis (also cf. (j)is, šis) from *tākas. With the modification of the inflectional classes, these feminine pronouns began to be declined as *patī́-type words, whereas their masculine counterparts as (j)is, šis resp. patis pronouns, which possessed the nominative, accusative and inessive i-stem forms; the forms of the other cases possessed an i̯a-stem.The evolution of its further development involved the abolition of the weak suppletion from the paradigms of the feminine and the masculine pronouns (toki → tokia, tokis → tokias), and the reduction of the number of allomorphs according to he model of the adjectives žalias, žalia. This change, however, was not all-encompassing; it had a greater effect on the feminine gender paradigms.
THE VERBAL CONJUGATION SYSTEM OF THE ŠAUKĖNAI SUBDIALECT (SIMPLE FORMS)SummaryThe Šaukėnai subdialect belongs to the northern subdialects of the southern Žemaitian dialect and has retained their most ...characteristic features.However, due to considerable theoretical and practical obstacles, the description of the formation of the derived verbal forms in the Šaukėnai subdialect by applying the rules of the formation of derived verbal forms in Standard Lithuanian is impossible.The verb of the Šaukėnai subdialect possesses the morphological categories of person, number, tense, mood and voice. The inflected verbs (except the imperative mood) have three singular and three plural forms. The 3rd person form is neutral with respect to the category of number, it denotes an action performed either by one or more than one agent. The marked member of the opposition singular / plural is the plural. The verb of the Šaukėnai subdialect possesses both simple and compound tenses.In the Šaukėnai subdialect, the paradigms of verbal forms indicate three types of modal oppositions: they distinguish four moods, i.e. indirect, direct, imperative and subjunctive. The direct and indirect moods possess the tense forms of present, past, past frequentative and future whereas the imperative and subjunctive moods do not possess the category of tense.In the Šaukėnai subdialect, there are two verbal conjugations which are distinguished according to the underlying form endings in the present tense of the indicative mood. The 1st conjugation comprises verbs whose present tense underlying form ending is a zero morph (O) which is preceeded either by a consonant or –j, e.g. vèd, tí·l̑, šuokiníe, kaũlij, the 2nd conjugation comprises verbs whose present tense underlying form ends in /-a/, e.g. mãt-a, bìj-e, žìn-a, etc.The underlying simple past verbal forms of the 1st ( or (i̯)a-stem) conjugation end in /-a/ or /-i/, cf. rãd-a, lìj-e and ãr-i.The a-stem verbs constitute a highly productive and stable class while in the subdialect there have remained only four i̯a (former i) - stem verbs: tí·l̑ : ti·líeti, gál̑ : galíeti, mí·l̑ : mi·líeti and gúl̑ : gulíeti. The verbs of the 2nd conjugation (or a-stem) are also rather productive.The Šaukėnai subdialect has preserved some remnants of athematic conjugation. Some verbs are impersonal, e.g. per̃št, the others possess all personal forms derived from underlying form stems, e.g. mĩ·i̯ktu, etc.The categories in the Šaukėnai subdialect indicate a variety of symbolization.The categories of person and number are usually represented by grammatical morphemes, or endings (i.e. the morphological markers of the categories): /-u/, /-a·u/symbolize the categories of person and number, i.e. the 1st person and the singular, /-i/, /-a· /, /-e· / -- the 2nd person and the singular /-am/, /-uom/, /-iem/, /-ma/-- the 1st person and the plural, /-at/, /-uot/, /-iet/, /-te/-- the 2nd person and the plural. The ending forms of the 3rd person represent the category of person, i.e. the 3rd person only.The article rejects the opinion, which dominates in Lithuanian linguistic literature, as if the verbal form endings could also represent the category of tense. It is complete misunderstanding, cf. sak-á·u (present) and suk-á·u (past), mùš-ù (present) and mùš-ù (future), etc. As evidenced by the data from the Šaukėnai subdialect, the tense can be expressed by syntactic category markers, phonological means, cf. mat-á·u and mač̑-ǽ·u, various formants (infixes), such as –n-, -st-, -s-, cf. añk and ãka, ki̲m̃b and kì̲ba, ti̲r̃pst and ti̲r̃pa, dí̲́rbu and dí̲́rpsu, suffixes, cf. dí̲́rb-a·u and dí̲́rb-dav-a·u as well as vowel gradation, cf. ker̃t and ki̲r̃ta, etc. However, only the simple form endings of the indicative and subjunctive moods can express the mood.The forms of the subjunctive mood, alongside their specific endings, possess a distinctive formant, -t- while the forms of the imperative mood differ from the forms of the other moods only in the underlying form which has a specific suffix, -k. The above suffix is the basis for the formation of plural forms whose endings do not express the category of mood. The verbal forms in the Šaukėnai subdialect are derived from the underlying forms (see the list in the article) according to the additive rules by adding corresponding endings. The categoric asymmetry is realized additively. Therefore the coding of the derived forms is either maximally or minimally iconic.
ON THE ORIGIN OF SOME GENITIVE DUAL FORMS OF PERSONAL PRONOUNSSummaryThe article deals with the origin of the genitive dual forms mùma and jùma, which are personal pronouns used in the southern ...West Aukštaitian subdialect as well as in East Prussian Lithuanian texts and subdialects. Some scholars argue that the above forms are old dative-instrumental forms which acquired a genitive meaning in prepositional constructions only after the prepositions which govern the dative began to govern the genitive, i.e. when prie + dative → prie + genitive.The article puts forward the idea that the said dative forms obtained a genitive meaning long before the change in the prepositional government. This became possible by transforming the possessive construction with the subject in the dative + būti into ‘dative’ + noun: Mùma yra pamotė (‘She is a stepmother to us’) → Mùma pamotė (‘Our stepmother’), cf. Aš turiu pamotę (‘I have a stepmother’) → Mano pamotė (‘My stepmother’). The change of the meaning of these forms could also have been influenced by the atonic singular forms mi, ti, si used in the genitive, dative and accusative meanings. Had this change of meaning not occurred in an adjectival position before the change in the prepositional government, the constructions *iš muma, *nuo muma would hardly have arisen.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CATEGORY OF DUAL NUMBER IN LITHUANIAN NOUNS AND PRONOUNSSummaryThis paper attempts to prove the existence of a single-word dual number in Proto-Lithuanian (as well as in ...Proto-Baltic).The change of the single-word dual into a two-word dual was determined by the causes of the internal development: several forms of the single-word dual coincided with the singular forms. This process became more prominent, especially after Leskien’s law. With the emergence of a two-word dual, the single-word dual of nouns denoting „a pair of something” was the first to disappear: it was replaced by the plural form, because, due to the rules of selective restriction, the singular dual of nouns denoting „a pair of something“ could not build word groups with the numerical forms du, dvi ‘two’.The dual of nouns denothing „not a pair of something“ started to be replaced by the plural (i.e. the unmarked member) in those cases when it was no longer in the focus, i.e. when it had the feature -Fm (not first mention).However, the disappearance of the dual in Lithuanian had begun long before the introduction of the written language, and in the dialects this process is not yet over.
SOME REMARKS ON THE GENITIVE SINGULAR IN -as AND THE GENITIVE PLURAL IN -us OF LATVIAN OLD MANUSCRIPTSSummaryIn the translation of Catechismvs Catholicorum, as well as in Elger’s texts, the genitive ...singular in -es-as of (i̯)o-stem nouns results from the expanded sphere of application of the (rīt)-as- type, genitive in the Riga dialect; the latter choice must have been determined by the substantival genitive model of the strong declension in the native German language, which was structurally similar to the genitive model with limited application in the Latvian language. The form of the German article chosen by the translators – not the masculine genitive form tā, but the feminine form tās – appeared due to erroneously understood concord and the structural similarity of the form tās to the form of the masculine genitive singular of the article in the native language, cf. des.The nominal ‘genitive’ plural in -us (also spelt -es –us) is not a consequence of ‘assimilation’ to the demonstrative pronominal ‘genitive’ plural tuos, as is maintained by Endzelīns, because it is impossible to prove that the Western Latvian dialects (the Riga dialect included) could ever have possessed a ‘genitive’ of such a type. The ending in question in the old texts is rather typical of the masculine (i̯)o- and ii̯o-stem nouns only, except for some nouns whose gender may vary. Given that the idea of ‘assimilation’ is correct, in the old texts there should have appeared a similar type of ‘genitives’ in nouns of other stems, too, e.g. °pušus, °acus, °ļaužus, ‘debesus.The textual data allow one to assume that both the pronominal tuos-type form and the nominal genitive (vis)-us, (grēk)-us-type forms are just accusative plural forms which, due to the neutralization of the contrast between the genitive plural and the accusative plural in certain positions, are used alongside the genitive plural forms. The neutralization could have occurred first in prepositional constructions used by the Latvian-speaking German sociolect. For example, according to the model of proportional analogy no+gen. sg. : no+acc. sg. = no+gen. pl. : x, there appeared the construction no+acc. The second position of the neutralization in question could have evolved in the process of full nominalization when the governing of the accusative of transitive verbs was generalized so that it could apply to verbal abstracts and names of agents, too: atzīt / neatzīt tuos grēkus —> tuos grēkus (ne)atzīšana; salīdzināt tuos cilvēkus —> tuos cilvēkus salīdzinātajs, etc.
PDF
