Search

THE DECLENSION OF CONSONANT STEM NOUNS IN THE SUBDIALECT OF JONIŠKISSummaryThe article deals with the declension of consonant stem nouns in one of the nothern West-Aukštaitian subdialects and shows the inner motives of any observed changes. It demonstrates that the consonant stem nouns compose an unstable inflectional class in the subdialect of Joniškis. The consonant stem nouns pass to the stable noun classes by way of the i stem class: the feminine consonant stem nouns get the unmarked inflection from the stable iā̯, ē stem feminine nouns, whereas the masculine consonant stem nouns get their unmarked inflection from the stable masculine (i)i̯ŏ, P stem nouns. Only the consonant stem inflection of the nominative singular and genitive plural cases is maintained much better. The nouns sæ̀suo̾ and vὰnduo̾ still maintain the shortened consonant stem inflection of the genitive singular case.

THE RELATION BETWEEN THE SUFFIXES OF DENOMINAL VERBS AND THE INFLECTION CLASSES OF THEIR BASE NOUNS IN MODERN LITHUANIANSummaryIt is well known that Lithuanian verbal suffixes -ėti, -y-ti, -o-ti, and -uo-ti are historically related to nominal stems ē, ī, ā, and o respectively. At an earlier stage, the suffix *-éó was added to nominal stems and this addition simply transferred them to the class of verbs without any predictable derivational meaning (cf. Meillet 1937, 219). Later on, the former theme vowels were reanalyzed as verbal (neo-)suffixes, but the relation to certain nominal stems (= inflection classes) still remained to some extent (Skardžius 1943, 488, 493, 504, 509, 521, 534f.; Stang 1966, 360, 364, 366), cf. historically regular seil--ti ‘slobber, slaver’ (← séilės ‘saliva’), vag-óti ‘furrow’ (← vagà ‘furrow’), ak-ýti ‘get holes, become porous’ (← aks ‘eye’), žaibúoti ‘flash (of lightning)’ (← žabas ‘lightning’) alongside (historically) nonregular kand--ti ‘be destroyed by moths’ (← kánds ‘moth’), seili-óti ‘slaver’ (← séilės ‘saliva’), dm-y-ti ‘emit smoke’ (← dmai ‘smoke’), etc.In this paper, all synchronically derivationally transparent denominal verbs with -ėti, -y-ti, -o-ti, and -uo-ti found in the dictionary of Modern Lithuanian (DŽ6e) were analyzed and qualified in respect of the relation between the suffix and its historically correlated nominal stem.It is clear that in Modern Lithuanian the distinction can be made between the suffixes with (а) weak (-ėti, -y-ti) and (b) strong (-(i)o-ti, -(i)uo-ti) relation to the corresponding noun inflection classes -ė, -i-, -(i)o-, and -(i)a-. In the case of group (a), the nouns of historically predictable inflection classes constitute ca. 20–30% of the bases, while in the case of group (b), these classes take up ca. 70% (cf. Tables 1–4).The denominal formations in -ėti (especially the ones which are not based on inflection class ė) have an easily predictable inchoative meaning, but this has to be an extension of use of inchoative deadjectival -ėti (< *-eh1-) rather than “semantization” of nominal thematic suffix -ė. In the case of other suffixes, some meanings such as factitive are quite frequent, but they cannot be qualified as specialized and predictable.

This paper discusses morphological adaptation of borrowed adjectives in modern Lithuanian. Five types of adaptation are identified: zero adaptation, assignment to inflection class (IC), addition of the derivational suffix, substitution of the derivational suffix, and truncation of the derivational suffix. It is shown that the selection of ICs for borrowings is determined by the register (standard vs. non-standard) and the source language (English vs. non-English), while the choice of adaptational suffixes is determined by their derivational productivity and semantic interpretation of the use of the borrowing.

The traditionally assumed intermediate Balto-Slavonic stage after the break up of Proto-Indo-European can be additionally supported by two highly specific and thus potentially exclusive developments at the end of a word. The first development is the loss of the PIE word-final short *i after a long vowel followed by a labial consonant. This sound change must have occurred later than the secondary shortening of long vowels before word-final PIE *m which is shared by Celtic. The second sound law is the raising of stressed PIE *o to *u in word-final position before consonants both in Baltic and Slavonic. The postulated sound changes are established by means of an in deep analysis of the relevant endings in the inflection of Baltic and Slavonic nouns, pronouns and adjectives.

DENOMINATIVE STATIVES IN -ėti IN MODERN LITHUANIANSummaryDenominative verbs in -ėti, -ėja are predominantly inchoative in Modern Lithuanian (senė́ti, -ė́ja ‘to become old’ : sẽnas ‘old’, akmenė́ti, -ė́ja ‘to harden, to turn into stone’ : akmuõ, -eñs ‘stone’). There is a relatively small group of synchronically or diachronically analyzable denominatives in -ėti which have stative meaning. I have tried to compile a preliminary list of these verbs from the electronic edition of Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian, 2003, DŽ5). The present stem of denominative statives in -ėti varies and can be one of the following four: (1) ja-stem in -ė-ja (gars-ė́-ti, gars-ė́-ja ‘is known, famous’ : garsùs ‘known, famous’), (2) i-stem (šykšt-ė́-ti, šỹkšt-i ‘is stingy’ : šykštùs ‘stingy’), (3) i-stem plus reflexive marker (bjaur-ė́-ti-s, bjaũr-i-si ‘be disgusted’ : bjaurùs ‘disgusting’), (4) a-stem (vert-ė́-ti, ver̃t-a ‘to be worth’ : ver̃ta ‘it is worth’). I have used a frequency dictionary (DDRKŽ, 1998) to separate rare and dialectal cases from the verbs of the main lexicon of Modern Lithuanian (henceforth “rare list” and „main list“).The main list of type 1 (-ėja) includes garsė́ti : garsùs ‘to be known, famous’ and malonė́ti ‘to be kind’ : malonùs ‘kind’. Rare or dialectal are badė́ti ‘to starve’ : bãdas ‘starvation’ (= Modern Lithuanian badáuti), dagė́ti ‘(figurative) to be prickly, biting’ : dagùs ‘prickly, biting’ (cf. also dagỹs ‘thistle’), ganė́ti ‘to be enough’ : ganà ‘enough’ (cf. OCS gonĕti, gonĕjetъ), gardė́ti ‘to be delicious, tasty’ : gardùs ‘delicious, tasty’, grožė́ti ‘to be nice, beautiful’ : gražùs ‘nice, beautiful’, grõžis ‘beauty’, padorė́tis ‘to dear, to consider appropriate (of clothing, behaviour)’ : padorùs ‘appropriate, decent’, skanė́ti ‘to be delicious, tasty’ : skanùs ‘delicious, tasty’.Type 2 (i-stem) posits some problems, because it is not always easy to prove the denominative origin of some verbs. The synchronic interpretation is usually obscured by the general tendency of Modern Lithuanian to derive deverbative u-stem adjectives from primary or secondary (the so called „mixed type“ which includes presents in -a, -ia, -i and -o beside suffixed infinitive stems) verbs. The main list of less problematic cases of type 2 includes gailė́ti, gaĩl-i ‘to feel sorry, pity’ : gaĩla ‘(impers.) it is a pity’, mylė́ti, mýl-i : dial., Old Lithuanian mýlas (cf. Latvian mĩlêt : mīls, mĩļš, Old Prussian milijt : mijls, Bulgarian милея, Macedonian милее beside common Slavic *milъ), šykštė́ti, šỹkšti-i ‘to be stingy’ : šykštùs ‘stingy’, viešė́ti, viė̃š-i ‘to be on a visit’ : (rare, archaic) viẽšis, -ỹs ‘guest’ (cf. Latvian viêsêt(ies)2 : vìesis). Problematic (at least from the synchronic point of view) cases can be exemplified by tylė́ti, tỹl-i and tingė́ti, tìng-i. The first one could be deverbative in origin if we accept the comparative evidence from Slavic (OCS tьlĕti ‘modern, vergehen’), Germanic (Gothic þulan, -aiþ ‘ertragen, dulden’) and Celtic (Old Irish -tuili ‘schläft’). The second one could be denominative if Lithuanian tingùs is considered archaic based on correspondences in Slavic (*tęgъkъ, cf. OCS otęgъčiti, -ati; note also prefixed inchoative *-ē- verb otęžati ‘to become burdened’) and Germanic (Old Icelandic þungr). The list of rare verbs includes non-problematic skonė́ti, skõn-i, skomė́ti, skõm-i ‘to be delicious, tasty’ (: skõnis, skõmas ‘taste’), a lengthened grade deverbative gorė́ti, gõr-i ‘to experience a bitter taste’ (beside garė́ti, gãr-i), an etymologically unclear spulė́ti, spùl-i (denomina­tive derivation could be implied by the existence of gorùs, spulùs, but note the aforementioned general tendency to form deverbative adjectives in Modern Lithuanian) and skardė́ti, skar̃d-i ‘to echo, to sound’ (related to the family of kerd-/kird- verbs or simply denominative beside skardùs ‘sono­rous’).Type 3 (i-stem plus reflexive marker) covers a group of verbs expressing a certain attitude or evaluation and can be paraphrased as ‘to consider something / someone (or a situation in general) to have the quality of the base adjective or noun’, cf.: jis šlỹkšt-i-si (inf. šlykštė́tis) tuo valgiu ‘he considers that dish disgusting’ (: šlykštùs ‘disgusting’). Type 3 is almost unproblematic, because the possibility of deverbative formation of adjectives is blocked semantically in most of the cases. There is no model of adjective formation in Lithuanian which could be paraphrased as ‘the one who / which is evaluated by the activity of the speaker described by the base verb’ (vs. productive model of ‘the one who / which verbs’, e. g. pavydŭs ‘the one who envies’ : pavydė́ti, pavýdi ‘envy’, but šlykštùs ≠ ‘the one which is disgusted at’). Lithuanian drovė́tis, drõv-i-si ‘to be shy’ also belongs to type 3 because of its morphology, but is probably to be analyzed as a deverbative formation with root vowel lengthening (cf. Latvian druvêtiês ‘erschrecken, sich fürchten’, drudêt ‘zittern’).Type 4 (a-stem) has only one verb in standard Modern Lithuanian: vertė́ti ‘(impers.) to be worth’ : ver̃ta ‘it is worth’. Some other verbs based on predicatively used neuter adjective forms or nouns could have probably belonged to this type (cf. ganė́ti, -ė́ja : ganà, gailė́ti, gaĩl-i : gaĩla), if their nominal ending was reinterpreted as a 3rd present indicative (cf. the deverbative type tekė́ti, tẽka), but was later substituted by stems in -i- and -ė-ja.My main conclusion is that denominative statives in -ėti are an unproductive derivational category in Modern Lithuanian. It is still possible to identify some isolated groups characterized by presents in -ė-ja, -i, -i-si or -a. Predominant inchoative semantics of Lithuanian denominatives in -ėti is probably to be considered an innovation. As inchoatives in -ėti, -ėja started to gain ground, at least some statives adopted i-stem presents (a typical feature of deverbative statives). If Indo-European formations in *-eh1- primarily had presents in *-eh1-i̯e/o- (as argued by Jasanoff 200212003, 147; cf. reconstructions of athematic inflection *-eh1-ti by Watkins 1971, 83; Jasanof f 1978, 124; Ruijgh 2004, 56 and zero-grade suffix in *-e-h1-ie/o- suggested by Rasmussen 1993, 481 and Hardarson 1998, 337), the more archaic morphology was taken over by the dominating inchoative type in Lithuanian, while the possibly archaic stative type lost the morphological uniformity of the present stem and drifted towards deverbative i-presents. Many of the latter ones became derivationally obscure as verbs in -ėti, -i can be considered as bases for the productive formation of deverbative u-stem adjectives in Modern Lithuanian. The space left by (formerly productive?) statives in -ėti was taken over by new denominative suffixes, cf.: gudr-áuti ‘to act using tricks’ : gudrùs ‘clever, cunning’, draug-áuti ‘to be friends’ : draũgas ‘friend’, balt-úoti ‘to be white’ : báltas ‘white’, šnip-inė́ti ‘to spy’: šnìpas ‘spy’.

NOTES ON THE EAST-BALTIC PRONOMINAL “BICASUALISM”SummaryThe synonymous case-forms and the occasional quasi-bicasual paradigms of personal pro­nouns (e. g. Lith. sg. nom. aš — non-nom. mani, pl. nom. mes — non-nom. mumi) might have aris­en in different ways by the neutralization, redistribution, generalization, etc. of the various case-forms, though the reason of all these processes was the original bicasualism of the pronominal system (e. g. pi. *mes — *nō(±-s)). The thing is that the formation of the nominatival four-case system took place in personal pronouns after it had taken place in nouns and on the basis of the latter. The same case inflection might have been added to different, not to the single (non-nomi­native) stem, though the number of such stems (e. g. *nōs, *nō) was fewer than of the current cases. Thus the nominative system paradigms of personal pronouns were “weak” from the very begin­ning and there is no sense to speak about the “Common-Baltic” paradigms of the type, e. g. nom. *mes, gen. *nōsōn, dat. *nōmōs, acc. *nōs, instr. *nōmīs, iness. *nōsu. Even in the East-Baltic (“Lithuanian-Latvian”) parent language there were no “classical” (i. e. “Suvalkized”) paradigms, the final formation of the declensional systems taking place after the split of East-Baltic. Thus Lith. instr. manimi, iness. manyje are late i-stem pattern innovations on the basis of the non-paradigmatical East-Baltic dat./loc. mani. Latvian manim (tevim, sevim) is an innovation spread from the dative where the final -m has occurred according to the pure Latvian datives singular in -m of nouns and adjectives. There are no traces of singular instrumentais in -m in Latvian nominal dec­lension. The instrumental (and the form *manimi) has never existed in Prussian as well (III 10715 is “dat.” *mei with the postponed *-mi).

THE ROLE OF CASE SYNCRETISM AND ANALOGY IN THE EVOLUTION OF SOME CASE FORMSSummaryThe article presents an analysis of the role of case syncretism and analogy in the evolution of some case forms. The data drawn from the old manuscripts and dialects attest to the following: 1. In Žemaitian subdialects, the oxytonic i-stem nominal nominative singular form (aus)-iẽ evolved under the influ¬ence of oxytonic ē-stem nominal nominative and inessive singular syncretic forms according to the pro¬portional analogy formula: ines. sing. (žuol)-iẽ : nom. sing. (žuol)-iẽ = ines. sing, (aus)-iẽ : nom. sing, x, where x = (aus)-iẽ. 2. Both the Žemaitian i-stem resp. (i)io-stem and C-stem inessive singular ending -ie and the Aukštaitian ending –ėj(e) as well as the Latvian -ē, (-e) were introduced from the ē-stem inessive singular as a result of the merger of ē-stem and i-stem nouns brought about by word-final phonological changes. 3. The said ending first occurred in the barytonic i-stem nominal paradigm, and later it was introduced into both the masculine and the feminine oxytonic nominal paradigm. 4. As the old (i)io-stem accusative singular form was replaced by the i-stem form in the whole Baltic area, in Žemaitian (and their nearer neighbours’) subdialects, the inessive ending, as a superstable and maximally iconic inflection, was introduced into the (i)io-stem paradigm, too, on the model of the i-stem (and C-stem) accusative and inessive singular. 5. In most Žemaitian subdialects, the old i-stem inessive plural form in -isu was modified to -ies(e) on the ē-stem model. 6. The o-stem inessive singular form (lauk)-é evolved from the syntactic construction *laukei + en -> *laukē + en -> *laukén by eliminating the first compo¬nent -ē under the regulating influence of the structural model of (i)o-stem adjectival and pronominal dative and inessive singular forms. 7. In the Latvian language, the (i)o-stem locative singular form ending -ā was introduced from the (i)ā-stem not because of the phonetically determined syncretism of the old ending of the locative *(darb)-i (

MORE ON THE ORIGIN OF INDO-EUROPEAN INFLECTED SYSTEMSummaryAs investigations in the field of Afro-Asiatic languages show, the primary Afr.-A. vocalism may be represented as an opposition а —ə, -a and -ø being allophons in ultima. Therefore the fact that according to V. Ivanoff — E. Pulleyblank the primary I. — E. opposition may be reinterpre­ted as а —ə, enables us to suppose it's universality in all West-Borealic dialects. So the I.—E. vo­calism in ultima may be also identified as -a‖-ø — ə— cf. e. g. Hittite datives-locatives with zero inflection and with -a. It seems possible, that in C-stems' endings the zero variant was genera­lized, while in a-stems it was the a-variant. In this way the thematic suffix -a may have arised.The gender system which preceded the I. — E. trigender system was like that of Afr.-A. type, part of the former common gender having been turned into “masculinum”, the other part as well as the former neutral (non neutrum!) gender having formed an “intermediate” gender (genus Σ). I. — E. sg. fern. = pl. neutr. were mostly nomina abstracta derivated from the “intermediate” gender stems by adding H2 (а/ə stem ending +H2 = ā, or ø stem ending +H.2) (see table).It is possible that Proto-I. — E. derivations with ā having been descended from the primary *a/ət2 > *а/əНг, like Afr. -A. -ābeing a common Borealic formative pointing to passivity and abstraction.