ETYMOLOGICAL REMARKS. PART V: Postverbal derivatives of the type indas, pergas, išeiga SummaryCertain two-syllable Lithuanian nouns at first glance seem to be primary formations, but in fact they are not. Cf. pãdas like vãdas, pradžià like vadžià,, pardà like vadà, ãpstas like mãstas, próga like úoga, etc. What separates these quasiprimary words is the presence of the prefixes pa-, pra-, par-, ap-, pro-. Pursuant to this observation it has been proposed to etymologize the Lithuanian words with the help of a model suggested by Vedic composita with a final zero-grade root member, e.g. duḥ-sth-a-, su-ṣṭh-u-etc. Applied to the Lithuanian material, this hypothesis yields the following analyses: pa-d-as, pra-d-jā with -d- from */dhh1V-/ related to */dheh1/ „put“; par-d-a, with -d- from */dh3-V-/ to */deh3-/ „give“, ap-st-as, with -st- from */sth2-V-/ to */steh2-/ „stand“; pro-g-a, with -g- from */gwh2-V-/ to */gweh27 „go”. The problem, however, is: (1) the Vedic material offers no parallel for adding preverbs to the zero grade of a verbal root to form a nomen compositum, (2) the compounds quoted from Vedic with su- and dus- are rather rare in other ancient languages, and in Balto-Slavic are not attested at all (apart from the hypothetical instances mentioned here). Hence we should look at the quasiprimary Lithuanian words from another angle. The author’s suggestion is that they are postverbal derivatives formed by replacing the verbal suffixes -ė(ti), -uo(ti) or -o(ti) by the nominal suffixes -a-, -ā-, -jā-, -ė-. Cf. pad-as pard-a pard-uoti, apst-as apst-oti, prog-a prag-oti. The most important point is that the verbal bases in -ėti, -uoti, -oti shown in the schema appeared in Lithuanian secondarily, i.e. as a result of resegmentation of etymologic bases (1) whose infinitive had the suffix zero + -ti, and (2) whose theme was compounded with a preverb, namely pa-dė-, par-duo-, ар-sto-, pra-go-. The author assumes that resegmentation in preverb compounds with the roots di-, duo-, sto-, go- must have taken place under the (synchronic) pressure of secondary verbs in -ėti, -uoti, -oti, which also gave the pattern for retrograde postverbal derivation, cf. e.g. žadėti => žad-as, nežad-as; byl-oti => byl-a. The hypothesis of postverbal derivation from preverb compounds also convincingly explains a number of other quasiprimary nouns, e.g. samd-as from samd-yti sam-dyti (:: semti), tard-ai from tard-yti tar-dyti (reanalysis of the causative infinitive in -dyti according to the pattern of the more frequent verbs in -yti). These, however, will be presented elsewhere.