Disappearance of the auxiliary verb esti in the Lithuanian passive

 Straipsniai / Articles 117 PAWEŁBRUDZYŃSKI UniversityofWarsaw ORCIDid:orcid.org/0000-0002-1850-0818 Fieldsofresearch:HistoryofBalticlanguages,morphology, syntax,semantics,voice,modality. DOI:doi.org/10.35321/all91-05 DISAPPEARANCEOFTHE AUXILIARYVERBESTIINTHE LITHUANIANPASSIVE Pagalbinioveiksmažodžioesti išnykimasiš lietuviųkalbosneveikiamosiosrūšies ANNOTATION TheprototypicalpassivevoiceinLithuanianisananalyticalconstructionconsistingofa passivepastparticipleandtheauxiliaryverbbūti‘tobe’.Nowadays,theconjugationofthis verbinthepresenttenseisregular,exceptforthesuppletiveformofthethirdpersonyra,an EastBalticinnovation,andhistorically,itsoriginalformwasesti.Althoughthedevelopment andusesoftheverbyraarewelldescribed,itsdevelopmentasapassiveauxiliaryverbhas notreceivedenoughattention.Thepaperaimstotracethedisappearanceoftheformesti fromthefunctionofanauxiliaryverbinthepassiveconstructionsbasedonOldLithuanian textsfrom1547–1816,representedbyprintsfromthreehistoricaldialectsofLithuanian.  KEYWORDS:Lithuanian (language), diachrony, passive, participle, auxiliary verb. ANOTACIJA Lietuviųkalbosneveikiamosiosrūšiesprototipasyraanalitinėkonstrukcija,sudarytaiš neveikiamosiosrūšiesbūtojolaikodalyvioirpagalbinioveiksmažodžiobūti.Dabartinėje lietuviųkalboješioveiksmažodžioesamojolaikoasmenavimasyrataisyklingas,išskyrus supletyvinę3-iojoasmensformąyra,kuri– rytųbaltųkalbųinovacija,oistoriškaipirminė josbuvusiforma– esti.Norsveiksmažodžioyraraidairvartosenageraiaprašyta,jo,kaip neveikiamosios rūšies pagalbinio veiksmažodžio, raidai skirta nepakankamai dėmesio. Straipsniotikslas–remiantis1547–1816metųsenosioslietuviųkalbostekstais,kuriuos PAWEŁBRUDZYŃSKI 118 ActaLinguisticaLithuanicaXCI reprezentuoja trijų istorinių lietuvių kalbos tarmių spaudiniai, atsekti formos esti, kaip atliekančiospagalbinioveiksmažodžiofunkciją,išnykimąneveikiamosiosekonstrukcijose.  ESMINIAIŽODŽIAI:lietuvių kalba, diachronija, neveikiamoji nuosaka, dalyvis, pagalbinisveksmažodis. 1. INTRODUCTION Informulatinguniversalsrelatedtothenatureofthepassive,onemustbe carefulbecauseitmaydifferinstructureandfunctionfromlanguagetolanguage (Siewierska1984;Shibatani1985;Geniušienė2016).Ofcourse,itispossible toidentifyseveralcommonfeaturesconstitutingthecanonicalpassivevoice inEuropeanlanguages(Holvoet2001:366).However,itisnoteasytofind universalsthatarecommontoalllanguages.Theconceptofthepassivevoice itselfisusuallyassociatedwithitsprototypical,personaluse(Siewierska1984: 28),wherethesentencehasacorrespondingconstructionintheactivevoice,it ispossibletodeterminethesubjectandthesubjectofthepassiveconstruction correspondstothepatientoftheactiveconstruction.However,inthispaper,the passiveisunderstoodbroadlyastheso-calledpassivefamily(Nauet al.2020), i.e.,severaldifferentpredicativeconstructionswithapassiveparticiple,which canbegroupedbasedonformalandfunctionalparameters,includingpersonal, impersonal, actional, resultative or modal constructions. The prototypical passivevoiceinLithuanianisananalyticalconstructionconsistingofaso-called passivepastparticiple(t-participle)orpassivepresentparticiple(m-participle) andtheauxiliaryverbbūti‘tobe’.Nowadays,theconjugationofthisverbinthe presenttenseisregular,exceptforthesuppletiveformofthethirdpersonyra, anEastBalticinnovation,andhistorically,itsoriginalformwasesti. Thehistoryofthenew,suppletiveformhasbeenextensivelydocumented (Stang1947:1970;Ford1967;Ostrowski2017a;2017b;2021).Theverbesti, originallyanexistentialverb,wasreplacedbytheverbyraandnowservesonly ahabitualfunction,similartotheformbūna‘usuallyis’(Genialiausios mintys esti paprasčiausios.‘Themostgeniusideasusuallyarethesimplestones.’).The originalformofyrashouldbereconstructedas*ī-r-,asindicatedbytheOld Balticanddialectalforms(Endzelin1922:556;Ostrowski2017b:167;2021 66–67).Etymologically,itisaformationbasedonthestemoftheanaphoric pronouni-(tobepreciseinstr.sg.*h₁i-h₁),andtwolocativepostpositions-rand *-.Initially,itwasalocalverb,whichthenacquiredanexistentialmeaning (as evidenced by texts from the 16th and 17th centuries). This development pathalignswith thetypological data onthe relationshipbetween locational  Straipsniai / Articles 119 Disappearance of the auxiliary verb esti in the Lithuanian passive andexistentialsentences(Lyons1967:390–396;Clark1978:85–126;Yong, Jie2013;Ostrowski2017b:168;2021:67). Whiletheevolutionandusesoftheverbyrahavebeenextensivelydocumented, itsevolutionasapassiveauxiliaryverbhasbeenarelativelyunexploredarea. Thisstudyfillsthisgapbymeticulouslytracingthedisappearanceoftheform estifromtheroleofanauxiliaryverbinpassiveconstructions.Theresearchis basedonOldLithuaniantextsfrom1547–1816,whichrepresentthreehistorical dialectsofLithuanian.Thepaperwilldelveintofrequencydata,examining thedistributionofindividualformsofthethirdpersonoftheverbbūti‘to be’incombinationwithpassiveparticiples.Thiscomprehensiveanalysisaims topresentadetaileduseoftheseconstructionsand,crucially,toexplainthe vanishingoftheformestiintheauxiliaryfunction. 2. METHODOLOGY The results presented in the paper were based on a corpus created for thestudy,consistingofOldLithuaniantextsfromtheterritoriesofvarious historicaldialectsoftheLithuanianlanguageandwrittenoveralmost300years. ThetextswereselectedbasedonthepublicationsofZigmasZinkevičius(1987; 1988;1990;1998)asthemostrepresentativemonumentsoftheOldLithuanian language.Zinkevičiuswritesaboutthreehistoricaldialects:theWesterndialect used on the territory of Prussia and dialects spoken in the territory of the GrandDuchyofLithuania(lith.Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė (LDK))–the CentralandtheEastern.1Theperiodinwhichthesedialectscanbesaidtohave existedlastedapproximatelyuntiltheendofthe17thcentury.Inadditionto textsfromthisperiod,somelatertextshavealsobeenincluded.Eventhough itisakindofanachronism,forthestudy,thesetranslationswereincludedin thedialectsmentionedabove,basedontheoriginoftheauthors,andtherefore asanaturalwayofdevelopingthelanguagetheyused.Thissimplificationwas intendedtofacilitatethedescriptionandcomparisonoftextsand,thus,totrace thedevelopmentofthestudiedconstruction.Thetablebelowshowsthesizes ofindividualtexts 1 Fulllistofwritingsisattachedintheabbreviationsection. PAWEŁBRUDZYŃSKI 120 ActaLinguisticaLithuanicaXCI TABLE1:corpussize DIALECT TEXT Word by text Word by dialect Total Prussian (west) 1547MžK 7297 411255 (650170with Quandt’sNT) 2398569 1573WP 183894 1579VE 40224 1579BB 166975 1612ZE 12865 1727KNT 238915 LDK (central) 1599DP 419036 1222710 (1654968with Bitneris’and Giedraitis’NT) 1660MP 201170 1653KN 171861 1660ChB 430643 1701BtNT 228586 1816GNT 203672 LDK (east) 1644ŠPS 68982 93431 1647JE 24449 Ascanbeseen,thenumberoftextsfromindividualdialectsisnotuniform. Themaingoalincreatingthecorpuswastodiversifytextssothattheresults obtainedwereasreliableaspossibleandtoexcludepossibleindividuallinguistic characteristicsofauthors.Theonlytextfromthe19thcenturyrepresentsthe Centralvariantbecausethegreatestdiversitydistinguishedthisdialectduring the study. The last problem concerns the representation of texts from the Easterndialect.Thisisbecause,asZinkevičiusstates(1998:252–255),this dialectistheleastrepresentedanddeveloped.Forthisreason,althoughthe datafrombothtextsprovideinterestinginformation,theyaretheleastreliable andimportantforthestudy.Toeliminatesignificantnumericaldiscrepancies further,percentagedatawillalsobepresentedintheanalysisinadditionto numbers. Tofindinthecorpusdescribedinthepaperconstructions,aformulawas usedconsistingof: 1)third-personauxiliaryverbyraoresti; 2)endingsofthenominativesingularandpluralforbothgenders: a.pastpassiveparticiples(t-participle), b.presentpassiveparticiples(m-participle). Intheory,theauxiliaryverbcombinedwiththepassiveparticipleis the basisofthepassive.Allformulastookintoaccounttheorthographyusedbythe  Straipsniai / Articles 121 Disappearance of the auxiliary verb esti in the Lithuanian passive authorsandthefactthattheauxiliaryverbcouldbeinbothpostpositionand prepositiontotheparticiples.Unfortunately,theresultsdonotconsiderforms wheretheauxiliaryverbcouldbeinafurtherpositionrelativetotheparticiple. Theobtainedresultswerethenmanuallyfiltered: TABLE2:Distributionofauxiliariesinpassiveconstructions Participle m-participle t-participle Auxiliary yra esti yra esti total 232 314 2251 210 546 2461 Ascanbeseen,theresultsforindividualconstructionsdiffersignificantly. Constructionswitht-participlesdominate,butthedistributionoftheauxiliary verbinconstructionswithm-participlesattractsmoreattention.Thefollowing sectionswilldiscussadetailedanalysisofindividualauxiliariesinthepassive. 3. ANALYSIS Thetablesbelowpresentnumericaldataonthedistributionofyraandesti. Table 3 shows the absolute values of the occurrence of individual verbs in combinationwithm-participleandt-participle.Thesedataaregroupedinto largerentitiesaccordingtothecenturyanddialecttheyrepresent.Table4shows thesamedataexpressedasapercentagevalue. TABLE3:Totalnumberofauxiliariesbydialect DIALECT Century m-participle t-participle yra est yra est Prussian (Western) XVI 38 139 437 55 492 XVII 0 0 0 11 011 XVIII 45 0 45 243 3 246 LDK (Central) XVI 58 15 73 559 32 591 XVII 8 263 271 490 67 557 XVIII 41 34 75 216 46 262 XIX 42 143 295 2 297 LDK (Eastern) XVII 0 0 0 0 5 5 PAWEŁBRUDZYŃSKI 122 ActaLinguisticaLithuanicaXCI TABLE 4:Totalpercentageofauxiliariesbytext DIALECT TEXT m-participle t-participle yra est =yra est = Prussian (Western) XVI 97 3 100 89 11 100 XVII 0 0 0 100 0 100 XVIII 100 0 100 99 1100 LDK (Central) XVI 79 21 100 95 5 100 XVII 3 97 100 88 12 100 XVIII 55 45 100 82 18 100 XIX 98 2 100 99 1100 LDK (Eastern) XVII 0 0 0 0 100 100 AlownumberofoccurrencesofexamplesfromtheEasterndialectofthe GrandDuchyofLithuaniawillbediscussedinthenextsection.However,for obviousreasons,theyaretoostatisticallyinsignificant.Thegeneralpicturethat mayemergefromtheabovedatasuggeststhatestiasanauxiliarywasused marginallyalreadyinthetimesofthefirstwrittentexts,especiallyinthecase ofthepassivewiththet-participle.However,adeeperanalysisofindividual textsmayshowinteresting relationshipsbetweenbothforms.Thefollowing paragraphswilldiscusstheuseofbothverbsincombinationwiththepassive basedonthet-participleandthem-participle. 3.1. t-participle AccordingtoVytautasAmbrazas(2006:353),initially,passivewasbased ontheso-calledpassivepastparticipleformedbyaddingthesuffix-t-andthe appropriateendingtotheinfinitivestem.Thisparticiplewasinitiallyusedto createdeverbaladjectives(e.g.,baltas‘white’<balti‘towhiten’),andeventually, itbecamethebasisforthepassiveandhasprobablyservedthisfunctionsince pre-literatetimes.IntheoldestLithuaniantextsfromthe16thcentury,theform ofthethirdpersonoftheauxiliaryismostlyyra.However,someconstructions withestistillcanbefound: (1) 1579VEE: …ghiſſai jra paʃkirtas nůgi 3.sg.m.det aux.prs.3 appoint.pst.pp.nom.sg.m from Diewa ſudʒia God.gen.sg judge.gen.sg ‘…heisappointedbyGod-judge.’  Straipsniai / Articles 123 Disappearance of the auxiliary verb esti in the Lithuanian passive (2) 1579VEE: Pagirtas eʃt waiſus ßiwata tawa bless.pst.pp.nom.sg.m aux.prs.3 fruit.nom.sg womb.gen.sg poss.2.sg ‘Blessedisthefruitofthywomb.’ Observationsrelatedtothedistributionofthethirdpersonformsofthe verbbūtiaregiveninthetablesbelow,wheretable5presentsabsolutenumbers whiletable6–percentagedataregardingthedistributioninindividualtexts: TABLE5:Totalnumberofauxiliariesbytext DIALECT TEXT t-participle yra est TOTAL Prussian (Western) 1547MžK 0 3 3 1573WP 237 27 264 1579VEE 61 20 81 1579BB 139 5 144 1612ZE 11 011 1727KNT 243 3 246 LDK (Central) 1599DP 414 6 420 1660MP 145 26 171 1653KN 0 12 12 1660ChB 490 56 546 1701BtNT 216 46 262 1816GNT 295 2 297 LDK (Eastern) 1644ŠPS 0 4 8 1647JE 0 1 1 PAWEŁBRUDZYŃSKI 124 ActaLinguisticaLithuanicaXCI TABLE 6:Totalpercentageofauxiliariesbytext DIALECT TEXT t-participle yra est = Prussian (Western) 1547MžK 0 100 100 1573WP 90 10 100 1579VE 75 25 100 1579BB 97 3 100 1612ZE 100 0 100 1727KNT 99 1100 LDK (Central) 1599DP 99 1100 1660MP 85 15 100 1653KN 0 100 100 1660ChB 90 10 100 1701BtNT 82 18 100 1816GNT 99 1100 LDK (Eastern) 1644ŠPS 0 100 100 1647JE 0 100 100 Theoverwhelmingmajorityofexamplesusetheauxiliaryyraasthedefault one.As expected,a gradual disappearanceof thepassive with theverbesti can benoticed.However,this processdifferedslightlybetween thedialects ofPrussiaandtheGrandDuchyofLithuania.Basedonthedata,itcanbe assumedthattheconstructionwithestiasanauxiliaryverbfinallywentoutof useinPrussiainthe18thcenturyandtheLDKinthe19thcentury.According toAmbrazas (2001:15),this isprobablyrelated to the development ofthe passiveitself,whichwasfirstfullygrammaticalizedinWesterndialectsandthen graduallycoveredsubsequentdialectstotheEast.Thisprocessinsomeeastern dialectswasnotfullycompleteduntilmoderntimes(Ambrazas2001:15–16; 2006:365–366).Below,thecharacteristicsoftheuseofthementionedverb formsinindividualdialectswillbediscussed. 3.1.1.Prussiandialect TheoldeststudiedtextrepresentsthePrussiandialect,andatthesametime, theoldestLithuanianbookistheMartynasMažvydas’Catechism.Duringthe corpussearch,threeexamplesofthepassivewithanauxiliaryinthethirdperson werefoundinthetextmentionedabove,andinterestingly,alltheseexamples areconstructionswiththeverbesti:  Straipsniai / Articles 125 Disappearance of the auxiliary verb esti in the Lithuanian passive (3) 1547MžK …Baßniczie padota esti Christui church.nom.sg give.pst.pp. aux.pst.3 pn.dat.sg (4) 1547MžK Szadis Dewa […] apraschitas esti word.nom.sg God.gen.sg describe.pst.pp.nom.sg aux.prs.3 Tais zadeis this.ins.pl.m word.ins.pl ‘WordofGodisdescribedwiththesewords.’ Ofcourse,theexamplesfoundarenotnumerousenoughtobeconsidered statisticallysignificant.However,itisworthnotingthatinthetextofPostilla from1573,only28yearsaftertheCatechism,thedominantformoftheauxiliary is yra,andestioccursinonly10%oftotalexamples(27outof264).However, despitethisoverwhelmingdiscrepancy,thereisnoapparentdifferenceinthe useofthetwoforms.Theycanbeusedbothinresultativemeanings(5a)and (5b)andinactionalmeaningswithanexpressedagent(6a)and(6b): (5) Resultative: a. 1573WP Priliginta est karaliste dangaus ßmagu equate.pst.pp.nom.sg.f aux.pst.3 kingdom.nom.sg heaven.gen.sg man.dat.sg kareliu king.dat.sg ‘Thekingdomofheavenislikeuntoacertainking…’ b. 1573WP Priliginta ira karaliste Dangaus ßmagu equate.pst.pp.nom.sg.f aux.pst.3 kingdom.nom.sg heaven.gen.sg man.gen.pl seiancʒiam gierụ seklụ sow.prs.ap.dat.sg.m good.gen.pl.m seed.gen.pl ‘Thekingdomofheavenislikeneduntoamanwhichsowedgoodseed…’ (6) Actional: a. 1573WP Diewas […] regetas est nog God.nom.sg see.pst.ap.nom.sg.m aux.prs.3 from angelụ angel.gen.pl ‘…Godwas[…]seenofAngels.’ PAWEŁBRUDZYŃSKI 132 ActaLinguisticaLithuanicaXCI beginningofthe18thcentury,estiwasstillaproductiveauxiliaryusedina fully-fledgedpassive,whilethepassivewithyra,althoughnumerous,wasless developed. The statusofthe form esti haschangedover 100years,and in Juozapas ArnulfasGiedraitis’text,onlytwousesofitinthepassiveconstructioncanbe found.Interestingly,bothexamples,similarlytoChylinskis’,arenegations: (22)1816GNI a[Jog jums duota ira zinot pasłeptinés karalistes dangaus:] o jemis ne est duota exclam 3.pl.m.dat neg aux.prs.3 give.pst.pp.n ‘[Because it is givenuntoyoutoknowthemysteries of thekingdomof heaven,]buttothemitisnotgiven.’ b [Daug teypogi ir kitu stebukłu padare Jezus po akimis mokitiniu sawo,] kurie ne esti parasziti tose which.pl.m neg aux.prs.3 write.pst.pp.nom.pl.m this.loc.pl knigose book.loc.pl ‘[AndmanyothersignstrulydidJesusinthepresenceofhisdisciples,]which arenotwritteninthesebook.’ Theverylowfrequencyofesti(1%)maysuggestthattheformisprobably usedforstylisticreasons,andmostlikelysomewherebetweenthe18thand19th centuries,estiasanauxiliaryverbintheterritoryoftheLDKfinallyfellinto disuse. Atthispoint,asmallsampleoftheeasterndialectisworthmentioning– namelytextsbyKonstantinasSirvydasandJonasJaknavičius.Inbothtexts, onlyfiveexamplesofthepassivewiththethirdpersonwerefound,andalluse theverbesti. (23)1644ŠPS kayp kiti dárbay Diewo […] as other.nom.sg.m work.nom.pl god.gen.sg eʃti dariti nuog wiſu triiu aux.prs.3 made.pst.pp.nom.pl.m from all.gen.pl.m three.gen.m Perſunu Trayces S[ventosios] person.gen.pl trinity.gen.sg holy.gen.pl.f ‘AsotherworksoftheGodaremadebyallHolyTrinity.’  Straipsniai / Articles 133 Disappearance of the auxiliary verb esti in the Lithuanian passive (24)1647JE A wienas ig iu kad exclam one.nom.sg from 3.pl.gen when ißwido apćistitas esti [sugrio su bałsu didʒiu garbindamas Diewu.] realize.pst.3 cleanse.pst.pp.nom.sg.m aux.prs.3 ‘Andoneofthemwhenrealizedthatiscleansed,collapsedonearthand praisedloudlytheLord.’ Theabsenceofyraformsinthepassivecouldsuggestthattheprocessof developingformsofthethirdpersonofthepassivevoicestartedintheWest andmovedtotheEastandtheEasterndialectwasthelasttofullydevelop thepassive.ThiswouldconfirmAmbrazas’(2001:15–16)observationsonthe developmentofthepassive,butunfortunately,thesampleistoosmalltobe fullyreliable.Nevertheless,itshowsacertaintendencyandisastartingpoint forfurtheranalysis. 3.2. m-participle Inadditiontothet-participle,theLithuanianpassivemaybebasedonthe so-calledpresentpassiveparticiple(m-participle),formedbyaddingthesuffix -m-andanendingtothepresenttensestem.Historically,theparticiplewas usedtocreateadjectives(cf.lat.firmus, en.warm),andnowadays,constructions usingitarecharacterizedbyadurativeaspect.Inthisfunction,itisaLithuanian innovation. The same participle is present in Latvian. However, it has not developedasthebasisforthepassiveandinsteadhasamodalmeaning. Interestingly,intheoldesttextsfromtheterritoryofPrussia,thedefault auxiliaryverbwasyra,andestiappearedlater,mainlyintheterritoryofthe LDK.Thedistributionoftheseformsispresentedinthetablesbelow: PAWEŁBRUDZYŃSKI 134 ActaLinguisticaLithuanicaXCI TABLE 7:Totalnumberofauxiliariesbytext DIALECT TEXT m-participle yra est = Prussian (Western) 1547MžK 0 0 0 1573WP 10 0 1579VE 7 1 8 1579BB 30 0 30 1612ZE 0 0 0 1727KNT 45 0 45 LDK (Central) 1599DP 58 2 60 1660MP 0 13 13 1653KN 0 5 5 1660ChB 7257 264 1701BtNT 41 34 75 1816GNT 42 143 LDK (Eastern) 1644ŠPS 0 0 0 1647JE 0 0 0 TABLE 8:Totalpercentageofauxiliariesbytext DIALECT TEXT m-participle yra est = Prussian (Western) 1547MžK 0 0 0 1573WP 100 0 100 1579VE 88 12 100 1579BB 100 0 100 1612ZE 0 0 0 1727KNT 100 0 100 LDK (Central) 1599DP 97 3 100 1660MP 0 100 100 1653KN 0 100 100 1660ChB 3 97 100 1701BtNT 55 45 100 1816GNT 98 2 100 LDK (Eastern) 1644ŠPS 0 0 0 1647JE 0 0 0  Straipsniai / Articles 135 Disappearance of the auxiliary verb esti in the Lithuanian passive Thedistributionmentionedaboveseemspuzzling.Asalreadymentioned, passivewasfirstgrammaticalizedintheterritoryofPrussia.Thisisparticularly importanttakingintoaccountthepassivewiththem-participlebecauseitfirst emergedinPrussiaandonlylaterspreadtotheterritoryofLDK,andaccording toAmbrazas(2001:16),apassiveofthistypehasnotdevelopedinsomeEastern dialectstothisday,whichseemtobeconfirmedbythedatacollectedforthis study.Below,ananalysisofindividualexamplesfoundinthePrussianandLDK dialectswillbediscussed. 3.2.1.Prussiandialect Asalreadymentioned,thepassivebasedonthem-participleisaLithuanian innovationthatfirstappearedontheterritoryofPrussia.Intheoldesttext– Mažvydas’ Catechism, there were no examples of this type of use with an auxiliary.Itisdifficulttosayhowdevelopedthisconstructionwasduringthis period,anditmaynotbeattested.However,itcanbeassumedthatitwasstill notfullygrammaticalizedasapassive,andtheoldestattestedexamplecomes fromVilentas’textfrom1579,wheresomedifferentusesoftheparticiplecan befound: (25)1579VEE: Nëʃa Agar wandinamas jra Arabioie for pn call.prs.pp.nom.sg.m aux.prs.3 pn.loc.pl kalnas Sinai mountain.nom.sg pn ‘ForMountSinaiiscalledAgarinArabia.’ (26)1579VEE: Wiʃʃi daiktai taw jra galimi all.nom.pl.m thing.nom.pl 2.sg.dat aux.prs.3 can.prs.pp.nom.pl.m ‘Allthingsarepossibletoyou…’ (27)1579VEE: … vbagams apʃakoma jra Euangelia poor.dat.pl preach.prs.pp.nom.sg.f aux.prs.3 gospel.nom.sg ‘…tothepoorthegospelispreached.’ PAWEŁBRUDZYŃSKI 136 ActaLinguisticaLithuanicaXCI (28)1579VEE: … kurie nîg iô [Dievo] jra which.nom.pl.m from 3.sg.gen.m aux.prs.3 ʃiuntemi send.prs.pp.nom.pl.m ‘…whicharesentbyhim[theGod]…’ Example(25)illustratestheattributiveorresultativeuse,whichtypically marks the initial stage of the passive’s evolution (Bybee et al. 1994: 64; Ambrazas2001:12).Example(26)demonstratesamodaluse.Examples(27) and (28) represent the actional passive, which shares the same meaning as the contemporary construction with the m-participle – namely, durative or habitual.Crucially,asshowninexample(28),itispossibletoexpressanagent intheconstruction,indicatingthatitisalreadyfullydeveloped,muchlikethe passivebasedonthe t-participle.ItisworthnotingthatVilentas’textistheonly examinedPrussianDialecttexttofeatureconstructionwithesti. (29)1579VEE: … dukte mana ʃunke’ nůgi daughter.nom.sg 1.sg.poss.nom.f grievously from Welna eʃti warginama devil.gen.sg aux.prs.3 vex.prs.pp.nom.sg.f ‘…mydaughterisgrievouslyvexedwithadevil.’ Ascanbeseen,itisafull-fledgedactionalconstructionwithanexpressed agent,butitistheonlyexampleofthistypeintheexaminedtexts.Thetexts byBretkūnasandQuandt(theonlyonesfromtheterritoryofPrussiawhere theconstructionoccurs)onlyusethecombinationyra + m-participle.Please considerbelowexamples: (30)BB1579: 30 Mana Duktie nůg Welino piktai 1.sg.poss.nom.f daughter.nom.sg from devil.gen.sg grievously ira mucʒijma aux.prs.3 vex.prs.pp.nom.sg.f ‘…mydaughterisgrievouslyvexedwithadevil.’ (31)KNT1727: Mano Dukte ſunkiey Wélno warginnama 1.sg.poss.nom.f daughter.nom.sg grievously devil.gen.sg vex.prs.pp.nom.sg.f ‘…mydaughterisgrievouslyvexedwithadevil.’  Straipsniai / Articles 137 Disappearance of the auxiliary verb esti in the Lithuanian passive Due to the scarcity of data, it is challenging to pinpoint when the grammaticalizationofthepassivebasedonthem-participleoccurred.However, itisundeniablyplausiblethatbythe16thcentury,inthePrussianterritory,it wasalreadyfullydeveloped,andfromtheoutset,itsdefaultauxiliaryverbwas yra.Thisislikelylinkedtothefactthatwhenthistypeofconstructionemerged inthelanguage,thepassivebasedonthet-participlewasinthefinalphase of grammaticalization. In the 16th century, yra was the dominant auxiliary. Most likely, the newly emerged passive construction with the m-participle automaticallyadoptedthemostfrequentauxiliaryduringthisperiod. 3.2.2.Centraldialect Basedonthepreviouslypresenteddataregardingthet-participle,itcouldbe assumedthatthesituationinLDKwasanalogoustothatinPrussia.However, thedatapresentedinTables(7)and(8)seemtocontradictthis.Theoldestof theexaminedtexts–Daukša’sPostyll–hasasimilardistributiontothetextsof Prussianauthors,andtheonlytwoexamplesoutof60usesofthem-participle areconstructionswithesti: (32)DP1599: ... numírelei kârtais giwúmpiumṗi śiuncʒemi dead.nom.pl sometimes life.all send.prs.pp.nom.pl.m est aux.prs.3 ‘…deadsometimesaresenttolife.’ (33)DP1599: … anié kurié lûdintiemus dâromi 3.pl.nom.m which.nom.pl.m witness.ins.pl made.prs.pp.nom.pl.m est’ aux.prs.3 …thosewhoaremadewitnesses…’ However,alreadyayearlater,inMorkūnas’text,theresultsaresurprising, andthedominantauxiliaryisesti,whileyrawiththem-participledoesnot appearatall: PAWEŁBRUDZYŃSKI 138 ActaLinguisticaLithuanicaXCI (34)1600MP: a.[Postilla LIETVWISZKA Tátáy est Iǯguldimás prástás Ewángeliu ant koǯnos Nedelios ir Sʒwentes’ per wisus metus] kurios págal budá sená Báǯnicǯioy which.nom.sg.m according way.acc.sg old.acc.sg.m church.loc.sg Diewá est skáitomos God.gen.sg aux.prs.3 read.prs.pp.nom.pl.f ‘[ThisLithuanianPostilisthesimpleexplanationoftheGospelforevery Sundayandholidaythroughtheyear],whichaccordingtotheoldtraditionis readintheCongregationoftheGod.’ Zinkevičius(1998:247)accusesMorkūnasofmanymistakes,butthesame cannotbesaidaboutBitnerisorSteponasJaugelisTelega–renownedlanguage expertsoftheirtime(Zinkevičius1988:216–223).Inthe50yearsoldertextof Knyga nobažnystės,theonlyconstructionexpressingthistypeofpassiveisstill esti + m-participle. (35)1653KN 35… kita irȧ dángus kurion other.nom.sg.f be.prs.3 heaven.nom.sg which.ill.sg wisi wierni ir pábȧni all.nom.pl.m faithful.nom.pl.m and devout.nom.pl.m Ʒmones people.nom.pl siunćiámi esti send.prs.pp.nom.pl.m aux.prs.3 ‘…differentistheHeaventowhichallfaithfulanddevoutpeoplearesent.’ Whatthis type of distribution ofconstructionwithesti can indicate?Of course,itcanbeassumedthatsomewherebetweenthe16thand17thcenturies, theverbestireappearedonceagainasthedefaultauxiliaryforthem-participle, but this seems unlikely. The reason for such a large discrepancy between DaukšaandtheotherauthorsfromtheLDK,asalreadymentioned,shouldbe soughtintheoriginoftheauthorofthePostille.Therefore,itcanbeassumed thatDaukša’stext,whichisarepresentativeoftheCentraldialect,wasatleast influencedbytheWesterndialectinthisrespect,whichseemstobeconfirmed byboththedataregardingthet-andm-participles. While the examples cited so far have not been numerous, the text of Chylinskis’ Bible seems to confirm the thesis that in the territory of the LDK,theconstructionofyra + m-participlehasnotyetbeendeveloped.In thementionedtranslation,outof266examples,onlysevenconstructionsare combinedwithyra.Fourareusedwiththeparticiplezynoma ‘known’andone  Straipsniai / Articles 139 Disappearance of the auxiliary verb esti in the Lithuanian passive withwadynama ‘called’andnotszaukiamas ‘notcalled’–sooneshouldconsider themaslexicalizedattributiveormodalusesratherthantheactualpassive. (36)1660ChB a… ana dirwa ju liezuwe that.nom.sg.f field.nom.sg 3.pl.gen.m tongue.loc.sg wadynama ira Akeldama call.prs.pp.nom.sg.f aux.prs.3 pn.nom ‘…thatfieldiscalledintheirpropertongue,Aceldama…’ b [Jog nes zymus ziankłas padarytas ira per jos,] zynoma ira wisiemus kurie giwena know.prs.pp.n aux.prs.3 all.dat.pl.m which.nom.pl.m live.prs.3 Jeruzalej pn.loc.sg ‘[Forthatindeedanotablemiraclehathbeendonebythem]ismanifesttoall themthatdwellinJerusalem.’ Onlyoneexamplecanbeinterpretedastheactionalpassive: (37)1660ChB [Bet tepraszo jos wieroy, tas nes kursej abejoia ligus ira] Wilniey mariu, kursej waromas ira wave.dat.sg sea.gen.pl which.dat.sg move.prs.pp.nom.sg.m aux.prs.3 nog wejaus from wind.gen.sg ‘[Butlethimaskinfaith,nothingwavering.Forhethatwaverethislike]a waveoftheseadrivenwiththewind…’ Mostexamples(259)withapassivebasedonthem-participleinChylinskis’ text use the verb esti. Among them, one can also find constructions with theparticiplesmentionedinexamples(36)and(37),butthereareonly6of them.Theoverwhelmingmajorityarepassiveconstructionscorrespondingto contemporarydurativeandhabitualuseofthem-participle. (38)1660ChB a…[teywaniste] nog Izaoka paszławinime jo from pn.gen.sg blessing.loc.sg 3.sg.m.gen paźadama ir pastyprynama est promise.prs.pp.nom.sg.f and renforce.prs.pp.nom.sg.f aux.prs.3 ‘…[heritage]ispromisedandreinforcedbyIsaac’sblessing.’ PAWEŁBRUDZYŃSKI 140 ActaLinguisticaLithuanicaXCI bIzraelitey pamuszami est nog Filistynu pn.nom.pl defeat.prs.pp.nom.pl.m aux.prs.3 from pn.gen.pl ‘IsraeliteswasdefeatedbyPhilistines.’ cPastyprynamas est asabliwu apireyszkimu reinforce.prs.pp.nom.sg.m aux.prs. 3peculiar.ins.sg.m revelation.ins.sg ‘Wasreinforcedbypeculiarrevelation.’ Asinthecaseofthet-participle,thereareconstructionswithahortative prefix (39a) and a negation prefix (39b). However, these are just five such examples: (39)1660ChB aWiezliwiste jusu t’est pazystama wisiem[us] moderation.nom.sg 2.pl.gen aux.prs.3.hort know.prs.pp.nom.sg.f all.acc.pl.m zmonem[us] man.acc.pl ‘Letyourmoderationbeknownuntoallmen.’ b… jeygu wel n’est wadojama if again aux.prs.3.neg redeem.prs.pp.nom.sg.f tada bus pardot pagal apwertynima then be.fut.3 sell.pst.pp.n accordingto estimation.acc.sg tawo 2.sg.poss ‘…ifitisnotredeemed,thenitshallbesoldaccordingtothyestimation.’ Thismayindicatethattheverbesti,whichcouldhavespecializedfunctions inconstructionswithat-participle,isratheradefaultauxiliaryinthecaseof an m-participle.Thishypothesismayalsobesupportedbythefactthatmanyof theexamplescomenotfromthetextoftheBibleitselfbutfromintroductions tochaptersthatarenotinspiredbythesourceofthetranslationandreflectthe idiolectoftheauthorhimself–andthereforetheactuallanguageoftheCentral dialectofthesecondhalfofthe17thcentury. Bitneris’ text, which is 40 years older, the situation changes, and the distributionofbothauxiliariesarealmostequal(45%–estiand55%–yra). Thereisnoapparentdifferencebetweentheuseofbothverbs,butthepassive withestiseemsmoreactional.Atthesametime,incombinationwithyra,there aremorelexicalizedorattributiveforms.  Straipsniai / Articles 141 Disappearance of the auxiliary verb esti in the Lithuanian passive (40)1701BNT a… duktė mano sunkey mucʒijama daughter.nom.sg 1.sg.poss.nom.f grievously vex.prs.pp.nom.sg.f esti nůg Welnio aux.prs.3 from devil.gen.sg ‘…mydaughterisgrievouslyvexedwithadevil.’ b[Grómata] skaitoma ira nůg wissû book.nom.sg read.prs.pp.n aux.prs.3 from all.gen.pl ʒmonû man.gen.pl ‘Bookisreadbyallmen.’ (41)1701BNT aTegul jumus wissiemus žinoma esti shall 2.pl.dat all.dat.pl.m know.prs.pp.n aux.prs.3 ‘Beitknownuntoyouall…’ bNes žinoma ira jog Wießpats because know.prs.pp.n aux.prs.3 that Lord.nom.sg musu ißėjo iß plemês Iudos 1.pl.gen go.pst.3 from tribe.gen.sg pn.gen ‘Forit isevidentthatourLordsprangoutofJuda…’ This mayindicatethattheturn of the 17th and 18thcenturies was when theesticonstructionbegantofallintodisuse.Giedraitis’ texthasonlyone constructionwiththeverbestioutof43.Itcan,therefore,beassumedthat thisconstructionwasnolongerproductiveinthe19thcentury.Although,as inthecaseofthePrussiandialect,theexactdateofthegrammaticalizationof theconstructionwithyracannotbegiven,itmusthaveoccurredattheturn ofthe18thand19thcenturiesatthelatest,i.e.,over100yearslater.Thedata fromtheEasterndialectareindeedfragmentary.However,theabsenceofthe discussedconstructionintheexaminedtextsmaybeareasontoclaimthatthis constructionmusthavedevelopedandbeengrammaticalizedevenlater. 4. CONCLUSIONS Historically,thethirdpersonoftheLithuanianverbbūti ‘tobe’usedtheform esti,correspondingtootherBalticandIndo-Europeanlanguages(cf.Prussian ast;Polishjest,Latinest,Germanist,etc.).However,duetothesemanticshift,