SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ

Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences

Research areas: synchronic and diachronic morphology.

FEMININE-DECLENSION NOUNS IN THE 1759 ZIWATO¹ AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT

Nouns of Feminine-type Declension in the Ziwato of 1759 and the Morphological Development of Those Nouns

A B S T R A C T

The article analyzes the development of feminine-declension nouns in the 1759 Ziwato, the finest written monument of the eighteenth-century North Žemaitian Kretinga dialect. The feminine declension type comprises three stems: ā and iā stems, as well as the ē stem. The dialect data in the Ziwato are compared with data from the contemporary North Žemaitian Kretinga dialect. Comparison of the paradigms of the analyzed noun stems reveals trends and features in the development of nominal morphology in the North Žemaitian Kretinga dialect. The comparative analysis shows that changes in feminine-declension noun forms and the prevalence of homonymous gender forms are determined by the development of dialect phonetics as well as by stress. Thus, the development of dialect morphology depends on morphological and phonological phenomena.²

¹ ZIWATAS PONA YR DIEWA MUSU JEZUSA CHRISTUSA, Metų Pona 1759. Dabartine bendrine kalba knygos pavadinimas reikštų „Mūsų Viešpaties ir Dievo Jėzaus Kristaus gyvenimas“. Mokslo darbuose ji vadinama tiesiog Ziwatu.

² The article draws on the noun declension-type hierarchy proposed by Aleksas Girdenis and Albertas Rosinas (for more details, see (Girdenis 2000b: 50–62).

K E Y W O R D S: the Ziwato dialect, North Žemaitians of Kretinga, feminine declension, inflectional ending, morphological reduction.

K E Y W O R D S: the Ziwato Dialect, Northern Žemaičiai of Kretinga, feminine-type declension, inflection, morphological reduction.

Straipsniai / Articles

51

SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ

ANNOTATION

The present article is devoted to the analysis of the development of the feminine-type declension nouns as represented by the 18th century best record of the Northern Zemaičiai (Samogitians) of Kretinga Dialect – the Ziwato, published in 1759. The feminine-type declension comprises three kinds of stem: ā and iā, and also ē stems. The data of the Ziwato Dialect were compared with the data of the present-day form use in the Northern Zemaičiai of Kretinga Dialect. The comparative study of the noun stem paradigms revealed certain characteristic features and tendencies in the morphological development of proper names in the Northern Zemaičiai of Kretinga Dialect. The comparative analysis proved that changes in the noun forms of the feminine-type declension and the abundance of homonymous forms had been preconditioned by the phonetic developments in the Dialect as well as by the patterns of stressing. Thus the morphological development of the dialect depends both on morphological and phonological phenomena.

INTRODUCTION

Present-day research in historical morphology undoubtedly allows the 1759 Zi- watą to be regarded as the finest ³monument⁴ of the Kretinga subdialect of the Northern Samogitian dialect in the 18th century. The publication clearly and consistently presents, using the Polish orthography of the time, the phonological system and grammatical and morphological structure of the Kretinga subdialect of Northern Samogitian.

The phonological and morphological system of the Ziwato dialect has been consistently studied and described (see Girdenis, Girdenienė 1997: 19–44 for further discussion). As early as Kazimieras Būga (1958: 561–578), when analyzing phonetic changes in the vowels of Lithuanian dialects, frequently relied on forms recorded in the Ziwate.

Consistent and comprehensive studies devoted to the morphology⁵ of the written monument under analysis are still lacking. Ziwatas, with its archaic grammatical features, has attracted the interest of many historians of the Lithuanian language and researchers of its dialects. Aleksas Girdenis has written extensively about the lexical features and syntactic characteristics of the Ziwato, and especially about its morphology (2000a: 204–210; 233–257; 2000b: 183–190; 355–356; 2001: 170–181; 292–325; Girdenis, Girdenienė, 1997, 11–19; Girdenis, Skirmantas, 1998, vii–xiv). Vladas Grinaveckis (1973: 292, 365 et al.) used the text of the Ziwato to explain the formation of affricate contrasts in Samogitian dialects. Zigmas Zinkevičius, discussing

³ Hereafter, the name of this dialect is abbreviated as ŠVŽK.

⁴ For more on the fact that the Ziwatas was written in the coastal Samogitian dialect of the Kretinga area, see Girdenis 2000a: 237–257; Girdenis, Girdenienė 1997: 11–19; Girdenis, Skirmantas 1998: vii–xiv; Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 4–7.

⁵ Čia minėtini du gana išsamūs Vilniaus universiteto studentų darbai: Bazinys 1995, Šiliauskaitė 1992.

52

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

1759 metų Ziwato moteriškojo linksniavimo daiktavardžiai ir jų raida

the gradual entrenchment of Samogitian in the language of Lithuanian writings in the 18th century. Ziwatas was classified among texts “written entirely in Samogitian,” and the most important phonological and morphological features of this monument of writing were identified (1966: 217–218 et al.; 1980: 196 et al.). Giedrius Subačius (1998: 38, 44–58) took an interest in the Samogitian features of the book, identified the features that were most and least readily noticed by Samogitians, and highlighted the orthographic innovations of the Ziwato of that period. In analyzing the language of 18th-century religious writings, Jonas Palionis (1979: 114–115; 1995: 122) emphasized that in the Ziwate there was a marked tendency to abandon certain forms of the coastal Samogitian dialect and to make the language more Aukštaitian. The author identified the text’s most frequent Aukštaitian features, whose use was probably determined by the orthographic tradition of Aukštaitian texts of that period. Jonas Kazlauskas drew on the edition under study when explaining the origin, development, and accentuation of Lithuanian forms (1958: 59, 62; 1959: 17–44; 1963a: 333; 1963b: 178–179; 1968: 248 et al.). It should be noted that Albertas Rosinas (1995: 25 et al.), in reconstructing the inflectional paradigms of Baltic pronouns, also used the participial pronoun forms attested in the Ziwate.

The morphology of the written monument under investigation is archaic, so it is appropriate to compare the inflectional paradigms of feminine-declension nouns in the dialect of the Ziwato and the present-day Kretinga dialect (as well as those of all noun types in general⁶). Comparing the paradigms of the stems of the nouns under analysis reveals trends and features in the development of nominal morphology in the ŠVŽK dialect. Thus, the aim of this article is to present a synchronic description of the development of feminine-declension nouns in the 18th-century written monument of the Northern Samogitian Kretinga dialect—the 1759 Ziwato—and, above all, to compare them with the nominal inflection system of the present-day ŠVŽK dialect. The article systematically analyzes the inflectional paradigms constructed for nouns of the aforementioned stems, discusses the origins of the endings of the nouns under analysis, and attempts to explain historical processes in the development of nominals, as well as the causes and motivations of change. Comparison of data from the Ziwato and the ŠVŽK dialect made it possible to reconstruct the feminine-declension noun morphology of the dialect under investigation in the mid-18th century.

The Ziwato dialect has three feminine-declension stems: the ā and jā stems, and the ē stem. The first two stems are very similar to each other, differing only in the palatalization of the stem-final consonant; for this reason, they could be discussed together (cf. Rinkauskienė 1999). The stems mentioned will be discussed separately in this article because the origins of their endings differ and their representation in the text varies⁷. The study showed that the jā and ē stems have become very similar in the Samogitian dialect.

⁶ For the development of other noun declension types in the written monument under analysis, see Vaičiakauskytė 2001: 119–133; 2002a: 223–236; Vaičiakauskienė 2005: 91–99.

⁷ Apie Ziwato grafiką ir rašybą jau ne kartą rašyta (plačiau žr. Girdenis 2000a: 233–257; 2000b: 183–190; 2001: 292–326; Girdenis, Girdenienė 1997: 11–44; Girdenis, Skirmantas 1998: vii–xiv; Vaičiakauskytė 2001: 119–133; 2002a: 223–236; 2002b: 4–7), todėl šiame straipsnyje nekartojama.

Straipsniai / Articles

53

SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ

ā AND iā STEMS

All nouns with ā, iā stems are feminine, have seven cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, locative (inessive), and vocative), and three numbers (singular, plural, and dual).

ā stem

Singular

Plural

V. rąka _57₁₀ ~ rǫnkà⁸

V. rąkas 108₉ ~ rǫnkas

K. gałwos, rąkas 119₁₃ ~ gálvũos, rǫnkas

K. rąku 4₁₄ ~ rǫnku

N. zmona, dyinay ~ žmúonas, dėinâ

N. žmonoms 273₂ ~ žmuonũoms

G. rąka 2₁₇ ~ rǫnka

G. rąkas 2₉ ~ rǫnkàs

Įn. rąku 81₁₇, ~ rǫnkǫ

Įn. rąkomis 75₁ ~ rǫnkũoms

Loc. rąko 8₂, dyinoy 21₁₉, dienoj 32₁₅, kalbojy 59₁₄ ~ rǫnkũo, dėinũo, kálbũo

Loc. rąkoły 9₁₆ ~ rǫnkũosę

Instr. karuna 291₈ ~ kàrù·nà

Instr. žmonas 118₂ ~ žmũonas

1. The singular nominative ending is -a, e.g.: [...] there is no custom that a white head should die such a death, nor, Lady, is such a decree issued against you 235₂ₐ–₄.

In the comparative dialect, the singular nominative ending is also -a (rǫnkᵃ ~ rankà⁹, trúobᵃ ~ trobà), which derives from the ancient long *-ā̄. The old acute endings were shortened in Lithuanian around the end of the 13th century and the beginning of the 14th century (Būga 1961: 46; Girdenis 2001: 173–174; Grinaveckis 1973: 267).

2. The singular genitive endings are -as, -os, e.g.: Do you not know that he brought you out from the bondage of Pharaoh; from the hands of the hostile force 185₁₉–₂₁; Then they would not dare call out to him, even if not with their lips, but in their hearts, because they had not seen this custom and example among those pagan women 97₁₆–₁₈.

In the present-day Kretinga dialect, the singular genitive ending of nouns with root stress is -as, whereas that of nouns with ending stress is -uos (rǫnkᵃˢ ~ rañkos, trúobũos ~ trobõs). The singular genitive ending derives from *-ãs. As dialect studies show, in the northern Samogitian dialects, unstressed long circumflex endings underwent shortening earlier than acute ones. This is most clearly demonstrated by the different reflexes of *-an and *-án. In the first case, the diphthong had monophthongized but remained open (e.g., sg. acc. dárba ‘work’); in the second, it had not only monophthongized but had already shifted to mid height (e.g.:

⁸ The article uses the Palemonas font and its diacritical marks to present dialect examples.

⁹ Here and below, the examples from the comparative dialect were created by the author of the article.

54

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

1759 metų Ziwato moteriškojo linksniavimo daiktavardžiai ir jų raida

sg. instr. šàkò ‘branch’; cf. also: sg. nom. rąka 57₁₀ and sg. instr. rąku 81₁₇) (Girdenis 2001: 174). In Samogitian dialects, circumflex vowels in unstressed endings are more or less reduced (Grinaveckis 1973: 272). The genitive forms in the analyzed written monument confirm the fact that the unstressed ending –as was shortened in the dialect long ago, while the stressed ending – (most likely through an intermediate –o·s) developed into –uos.

3. The singular dative endings are as follows: –ay, –a = [a·]¹⁰, e.g.: Stojofy, kada Ju dydy nobażenſtwu, cuda to Diewa ławkie aż ligi trete dienay, neregiedamy niekokie cuda, parsýganda _8₂–₅; Abludnikay (tay ira bludyjentis) ne tepkiet tay žmogaws ney mozokiet, kas yłž burna eyta ale kas yłž burna paeyta yr [zyrdies, kaypo tay mysles pyktas, fwetym moteriltes, už mušimas, yr kytas toms padabnes _86₃–₆.

In the contemporary ŠVŽK dialect, the case under discussion ends in –a (lí́ovå̄ ~ lóvai, trío-bâ ~ tróbai). Ziwatas confirms that the singular dative ending –a merged into a monophthong in the dialect from *–ai (for a fuller discussion, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 18). The Ziwato translator used no diacritical marks that could indicate the length of a monophthongized vowel. Without them, the monophthongized Samogitian endings –[a·] (and also –[e·]) can only be written with the digraphs –aa, –ee. The author of Ziwato, apparently avoiding the digraph –aa, used the Samogitian singular dative form in the analyzed text only a few times.

4. The singular accusative ending is –a, e.g.: Dufiu jums znoka, jog kuri aſz pabučiusiu yr ant kurio rąka pyrmu pakielſiu, tafay bus _{134₂₇–₂₈.}

The Kretinga dialect singular accusative form matches the one attested in Ziwate, i.e., the ending of the case in question is –a (lí́ovå̄ ~ lóvá, trióbᵃ ~ tróbą). The accusative inflection –a is undoubtedly to be derived from *–ān.

5. The singular instrumental ending is –u = [ọ], e.g.: Weyziek tada kaypo ława rąku Apaſztalams duna dalyje, lyipdams, idaut wyſims dalitum ne šiſztay, yr kaypo rąkoſy anu, yr rąkoſy tu, kuryi nu anu jeme duna skielſtum _{81₁₇–₁₉.}

In the Kretinga dialect, the singular instrumental ending –ọ (rõnk’o ~ ranką, trióbᵒ ~ tróbą) is derived from *–ā̄ < *–ān < *–ān. The study revealed that the singular instrumental ending of feminine-declension nouns coincides with the singular instrumental ending –ọ < *–ō of masculine-declension o-stem nouns (Vaičiakauskytė 2001: 121). Thus, already in the Ziwato dialect, the singular instrumental forms of o- and ā-stem nouns had merged (cf. also Girdenis, Girdenienė 1997: 13).

6. The singular inessive form varies: –o = [uo], –oj, –oy, –oįy, e.g.: Gałwo nu Erſzkiešiu karunas (y kurę kieturesdešimt kartu wiezdays užgawa, tankiey įę dielodamy) buwa ronu gylu tukſtąnte _{332₁₁–₁₃;} Ale tay Jezus kalbieje apey Bazničių kuna ława, kurſay trečioy dienoy yłž numyrusių atsikiele _{115₁₇–₁₈;} Jaw ira ciefas

¹⁰ Here and below, following the Ziwato graphics and spelling, the phonetic endings of the dialect are given in square brackets in transliteration; these do not correspond to the spelling in the text.

Straipsniai / Articles

55

SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ

hurry quickly, for on that day we may find and take it, certainly from me, so that no one will take it from us 157^26–28. Work, heavens, work, clear skies, the place of rest has been given to you; work, Perkūnas, and powers of Heaven; by the Lord’s Grave 333^15–18.

In the comparative dialect, the singular inessive form ends in -uo ~ -o(je) (rõnkiọ ~ rañko[je], trūobūọ ~ trobõ[je]). This is a suffix of secondary origin, derived from the old locative *rankāi and the postposition *-én. Thus, the development of the ending under discussion was as follows: *-āi + en > -ājęn > -ōję. As Rosinas (2000: 181) states, postpositional locatives must have formed before *-āi, *-ān or *-ēi, *-ēn shortened; otherwise, today we would have forms such as *rankaje, *žemena). The singular inessive forms became one syllable longer than the forms of the other cases, and therefore underwent morphological shortening. Old writings show that shortened forms already existed in texts of the 16th–17th centuries (Zinkevičius 1980: 192).

Ziwato’s analysis of graphics and orthography allows us to conclude that -uo should be regarded as the authentic singular inessive inflection (cf. also Girdenis 1996: 221), while the other graphic variants of the case in question are raised forms introduced by the text’s author (cf. Girdenis, Girdenienė 1997: 31–32).

The text under analysis shows that by the mid-18th century the singular inessive inflection of nouns in the stem class under discussion among speakers of the Kretinga dialect had already shortened.

7. The singular vocative ending is -a, e.g.: O k a r u n a fprav edliwałtys! 330²⁵. In the present-day comparative dialect, ā-stem nouns effectively have no vocative form: it has merged with the nominative, differing only in accent (mérgà ~ mergà). Having lost its morphological meaning, the vocative inflection -ā must eventually have been dropped, e.g.: motin, Onut (Zinkevičius 1966: 222; Girdenis 1962: 60). Such “regular” singular vocative forms without an ending also occur in Ziwate, e.g.: motin 61²¹; žmon 68¹.

8. The plural nominative ending is -as, e.g.: Ale rąkas yr koies jo buwa furyjztas, yr tare Ponas Jezufas Apafztalms yfzyrzkiet ij tegut waykščio 108^9–11. In the present-day dialect in the Kretinga area, it likewise ends in -as (rõnkᵃs ~ rañkos, trūobᵃs ~ tróbos). The ending -as is derived from *-ās. Studies show that unstressed -ā in Samogitian shortened very early (Girdenis 2001: 171; Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 14).

The plural vocative has long been identical to the plural nominative. The plural nominative and vocative forms in Ziwate likewise coincide.

9. The plural genitive ending is -u, e.g.: And when they were not far away, [I saw] the Lady clearly carrying the child in her own arms 35^19–21; After how many days Elizabeth, having blessed Zachariah and John, went with Joseph to the Lady in Nazareth [...] 40^17–18. In the present-day ŠVŽK dialect, the ending of the case in question is either stressed -u or unstressed -u, i.e. it coincides with the form represented in the text (rõnkᵘ ~ rañkų, trūobūᵘ ~ trobų). The ending of this case is derived from *-ūn.

56

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

1759 metų Ziwato moteriškojo linksniavimo

daiktavardžiai ir jų raida

The analysis of nouns of the masculine and mixed declension types in Ziwato (Vaičiakauskytė 2002a: 223–236; 2002b: 18) would allow us to conclude that the stressed genitive ending of the nouns under discussion was still pronounced with a nasal vowel (see also Aleksandravičius 1963: 102). Moreover, such a conjecture could be supported by the plural genitive form tu Ziwate of the pronoun tun 174₁₀ or the optional use of the diphthong un in non-final positions, e.g.: Kam munęs ape tay kławfi, kada muny mi netyki, kławskies tun, kuryi munęs kławfę, nes afz pataiemnay ne mokiaw nieka 174_8–10; apskunstas 188₁₇, skundės 314₁₀.

10. The plural dative ending is -oms, e.g.: Yr yłz kalbynieje iems ne ityk iema ju, yr kyitiby šyrdyis, jog ne norieje tykiety žmonoms, kurios regieje ij yłznumyrufiu kiełufi, tada ftroławoje anus yr bara 273_1–3.

In the Kretinga dialect, the ending of this case is -uoms (rõnkúoms¹¹ ~ rańkoms, trọbųoms ~ trobóms) (cf. Alminauskis 1931: 92). According to the dialect's sound laws, the vowel of the ending under discussion diphthongized from -omus, which developed from the ancient *-āmus. Studies of old texts show that in the 16th–17th centuries the uncontracted dative forms *šakāmus ‘for branches’, *rankāmus ‘for hands’ were still in use. Uncontracted dative forms are generally not found in present-day dialects. Dialectologists agree that the short variants became established earliest among the Samogitians (cf. Zinkevičius 1966: 232), and therefore contracted dative forms became universally established in Ziwate as well.

11. The plural accusative has the ending -as, e.g.: Diel to kławpufis rąkas fudiejufi pakarney kalbieje 16_6–7.

In the comparative dialect, the plural accusative form is also -as (rõnkà’s ~ rankàs, trúobà’s ~ tróbas), contracted from *-āś. Some linguists (Kazlauskas 1968: 189; Zinkevičius 1980: 195) tend to think that the inflection of the case under discussion derives from *-āns¹². Most likely, however, as with nouns of other stems, the old plural accusative ending lacked n, i.e. *-āś, since otherwise we would have today: *-ā́ns → -ā́ns → -ā́ś → -ọ́ś → -ọ̀s.

12. The plural instrumental endings are -omis, -oms, e.g.: Afz fugriawju tą Bažničių rąkomis dyrpta, o po tryju dienu paftatifiu aną nawjy, try mis dienomis 181_19–21; Yr pabudyna Pons Diews Juzupa yr Nikodema, kuryi iemy pazwaleny nu Pyłota, ateje fu drobinoms <...> 247₁₈.

In the present-day Kretinga dialect, the plural instrumental ending is -uoms (rõnkųoms ~ rańkoms, trúobūoms ~ trobōms). Girdenis has heard uncontracted forms of the case under discussion in one song (Girdenis, Pabrėža 1998: 20; see also LKA 1991: 66, map no. 63). The dialect that has best preserved the morphologically unchanged ending—

¹¹ In the Northern Samogitian Telšiai dialect, nouns with ā (as well as i̯ā and ē) stems may have instrumental stress and intonation in the plural dative, e.g.: dėinūoms ‘for days’, mērgūoms ‘for girls’ (Girdenis 1996: 57, 103, 142).

¹² Dėl šios fleksijos kilmės dar žr. Mažiulis 1970: 311–312.

Straipsniai / Articles

57

SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ

je išlaikė i ir prebal­s inio kamieno daiktavardžiai (Zinkevičius, 1966, 233; dar plg. Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 59). Galūnė -uomis atsirado iš senovinės lietuvių *-āmīs, kur -ā kamiengalis ir galūnė *-mīs. Daugiskaitos įnagininko galūnėje i neteko morfologinės reikšmės ir išnyko – tokiu būdu aptariamojo linksnio forma sutapo su daugiskaitos naudininku. Šiuo metu oksitoninio kirčiavimo galūnė skiriasi nuo naudininko tik priegaide ir su ja susijusiu atitrauktiniu kirčiu¹³: naudininko formos kirčiuojamos tvir­tapradžiai, įnagininko – tvirtagališkai; baritoninio kirčiavimo abu linksniai sutampa (dar žr. Aleksandravičius 1963: 105).

Ziwatas shows that in the mid-eighteenth century, the Coastal Samogitians—the Kretinga dialect speakers—still used the unabbreviated instrumental plural forms (abbreviated forms occur in the text under analysis only a couple of times).

13. The plural inessive ending is -osy = [uosę], e.g.: Jey ne yſzwiliu rąkoły jo praduryma wyniu yr ne idieſiu pyrſzta muna y wyita wyniu, yr ne ydieſiu rąkas muna y ſzona jo, ne itykeſiu₂₇₁^9–11.

Only some Kretinga and coastal speakers retained the unabbreviated locative (inessive) forms (Girdenis, Rosinas 1976: 188–197); otherwise, in the comparative dialect the plural locative ending is -uos (rõnkũos ~ rañkos[e], trũobũos ~ trobõs[e]); cf. also (Aleksandravičius 1963: 107). The plural inessive was one syllable longer than the other forms of the paradigm and was therefore prone to morphological shortening.

Analysis of Ziwato allows us to conclude that in the mid-eighteenth century, ā-stem plural locative (inessive) forms had not yet shortened.

i̯ā stem

Noun declension in the i̯ā stem is not extensive. A large proportion has shifted to the ē stem¹⁴. The reason for the shift is that, in unstressed position, the sounds *-i̯ā, *-i̯an, *-i̯a and *-ē, *-en merged as -e; cf. (Rosinas 1971: 49). As a result, nouns with ending stress acquired six homonymous forms, while those with root stress acquired eight. Thus, already in the mid-eighteenth century, the nonproductive stems of feminine nouns (as, indeed, of the entire nominal system¹⁵) were shifting to productive stems in the Kretinga dialect.

¹³ This can be stated only with a qualification, since the plural dative of ā-stem nominals in the North Samogitian dialect may have the stress and accent contour of the instrumental (Girdenis 1996: 57, 103, 142).

¹⁴ In some linguistic studies, nouns of the i̯ā and ē stems are discussed together (Aleksandravičius 1963: 101–116; Šiliauskaitė 1991). Here, ē-stem nouns are discussed separately.

¹⁵ For more on the transition of nonproductive nominal stems in the Ziwato dialect to productive ones, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002a: 223–236; Vaičiakauskienė 2005: 91–99.

58

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

1759 metų Ziwato moteriškojo linksniavimo daiktavardžiai ir jų raida

Singular

Plural

Nom. dwafe_55₂₀, poni₁₈ ~ dvàsè, pṹonì

Nom. duśies_54₁₇ ~ dũśes

Gen. dwafes_15₁₉, ponios_247₁₂ ~ dvā.ses, pṹonũos

Gen. dwafiu_85₂₅ ~ dvā.šu

Dat. dwafey_17₁₄, duśiey_44₂₄ ~ dvàśê

Dat. dwafioms_242₂₈ ~ dvàṣùoms

Acc. dwafy_11₁₁ ~ dvā.se

Acc. dwafes_190₁₇ ~ dvàśès

Ins. dwafy_19₁₀ ~ dvàṣè

Ins. kojomis_53₂₀ ~ kúojùomìs

Loc. baznicio_2₂₄, baźnicioj_79₂₁, dwafioy_77₁₀ ~ bažnĩčùo, ~ dvàṣùo¹⁶

Loc. kojofy_VI₃₄ ~ kúojùõse

Voc. dwafe_236₁₀, poni_VII₂ ~ dvàṣè, pṹonì

Voc. dwafes_243₂₀ ~ dvā.ses

1. The singular nominative endings are -’a = [e], -e, and -i, e.g.: Yr teyp tawa d u - ś i e greyta aną atras, iey gieray kaypo Panna ƒzwečiawfe ano yijžkofi 50₁₇–₁₈; Dafylytie kiete, yr pryflyweyziekiete, nes d w a f e kuna yr kawłu ne tur: kayp muni regete turyn ti 269₁₇–₁₉; Tada atimk zapłota už jawa ćijſtata, kuri efi Aniolanis ligi, Tu pati bufi wadinta Poni Aniotu 287₁₃–₁₅.

In the comparative dialect, the singular nominative ending is -ę (dvàṣę ~ dvasìą, dãlę ~ dalìą), which developed from the archaic *-i̯ā. In the dialect (as in all Northern Samogitian dialects, except for their southernmost and easternmost margins), the vowel a after a palatalized consonant, when unstressed, was narrowed through the intermediate vowel e to ę. It should be noted that Juozas Aleksandravičius (1963: 109) considers that such an a in the Kretinga dialect narrowed to ę, but it is doubtful whether this vowel could have narrowed so much¹⁷.

In the dialect of Ziwato, as the examples show, the vowel in the ending had not yet undergone narrowing. As analysis of the text’s orthography shows, the mentioned graphic variants of the singular nominative (except -i) denote the vowel e or -æ after j.

Atskirai reikia minėti žodį poni (pṹonì ~ põni), kurio galūnė -i (Zinkevičius 1966: 223). Galūninio -i nepaplatėjimas rodo, kad jis kilo iš *-ī (Būga 1958: 566). Tarmių tyrimai rodo, kad ilguosius pralietuvių akūtinių galūnių balsius, taip pat ir *ō ir *ę, sutrumpino visos tarmės. Šiaurės žemaičiai, skirtingai nuo kitų tarmių, *ū, *ī nesuplakė su *ų, *i arba *ō, *ę, pvz.: vns. vard. gražì ‘graži’, dgs. gal. mėškūs ‘miškus’ (Zinkevičius 1966: 116).

The singular vocative form does not differ from the nominative.

2. The singular genitive has the following endings: -es, -os, e.g.: Kaltas taſay ƒuwa-džiotojes, pyktos d w a f e s apfieƒtas, ƒmerte 182₁₄; Ponas Jezušas uterniky po werbu n e d i e l o s griža y J eruzalu 121₃.

¹⁶ At present, the comparative dialect uses a form with an ē-stem ending, e.g.: dvàṣė ‘spirit (loc.)’.

¹⁷ It should be noted here that the open e in the stressed absolute ending existed until quite recently in the Northern Samogitian localities of Žemaičių Kalvarija and Nevarėnai; for more on this, see Girdenis 2000a: 233–236; cf. also Juškaitė, Girdenis 1974: 93–94.

Straipsniai / Articles

59

SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ

In the Kretinga dialect, the ending of the case under discussion is of two kinds: unstressed -ęs and stressed -uos (dvâ.sęs ~ dvâsios, pūonūos ~ ponió̄s). The unstressed inflection coincided with the ē-stem form both in Ziwato and in the comparative dialect. In the text, the graphic variants of the singular genitive record the ending -es, which later became -ęs in the dialect.

3. The singular dative ending is -ey = [ė], e.g.: Garbie buk Tiewuy, yr Sunuy, yr Dwafey Szwětay_25–26.

In the present-day ŠVŽK dialect, the singular dative ending -e (dvâsê ~ dvâsiai) developed by monophthongization from -iai, which in turn developed from the archaic *-iai. As analysis of the orthography and spelling of Ziwato shows (Girdenis 2000a: 233–257; 2000b: 183–190; 2001: 292–326; Girdenis, Girdenienė 1997: 11–44; Girdenis, Skirmantas 1998: vii–xiv), the forms with -ey in the analyzed text should be regarded as forms raised by the author.

4. The singular accusative endings are -y = [ė], -e, -q¹⁸, e.g.: O anyi užšmutnity yr iftrósity taries Dwafy regi_13–14; Galeie Aniolas paimte aną fukne, yr parodite jė Diewuy Tiewuy kalbiedamas apweyziek Diewy Tiewy fukne_1–2 165.

The comparative dialect uses the singular accusative form with -ę (dvâ.sęs ~ dvâsią, vā.ļę ~ vālią).

In the Samogitian dialect, nasal vowels have been shortened in circumflex endings, which are never stressed. Thus, the vowel -ę found in the dialect today developed by shortening from the archaic *-į̄an (→ *-įan → *-jęn → -en → -ęn → -ē → -ę), cf. Girdenis 2001: 172.

5. The singular instrumental ending is -y = [ė], e.g.: Nes Jonas szwętas Dwafy fzwetu prypilditas, prypilde Motina Jawa 19_19–20.

In Ziwato, the recorded singular instrumental ending corresponds to the present-day dialectal singular instrumental form with the inflection -ę (dvâsê ~ dvasią, vāļê ~ valią). The ending -ę of the case under discussion developed by shortening from *-į̄an (→ *-įan → *-jęn → - ēn → -ęn → -ē → -ę).

6. The singular inessive endings are -o = [uo], -ioi, -ioy, e.g.: Trécioie dieyno ftejos balfas dydis Baźnićio, kuri wyły gyrdieie 7_19–20; Dyino pewno fubatos Ponas Jezuzas mokie Baźnićioj, kur tynay buwa žmogus nekurfay fudziuwufy ręka turynti 79_21–23; Patayminty ira ubagay dwaśioy (tyi ira pyrmyi žodey) nes anu ira Karalifte Dangaus 63_19–21.

The authentic singular inessive inflection in the comparative dialect should be regarded as -uo; it differs from the endings of ā-stem nouns only in the softness of the stem-final consonant (cf. the ā-stem forms discussed).

¹⁸ Dėl šios galūnės plačiau žr. Girdenis, Girdenienė 1997: 23–25. Su šia fleksija tekste pasitaikė tik vienas žodis, kuris dėl sakralumo veikiausiai vertintinas kaip lenkiška forma, pvz.: O tay Ponas Jezuzas kalbieje, diet to, idant butum pakarny, yr tare iems eydamy po wyfa fwieta apfakikiete Ewangelią wyfam futwierymuy_3–6.

60

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

1759 metų Žiwato moteriškojo linksniavimo daiktavardžiai ir jų raida

7. The plural nominative ending is -’as = [es], -es, e.g.: Potam jogiey anos kojes ſzwętas buwa ſu waykſčiotas yr ſuronitas nu akmenu yr ſmyltu karſzte; maſty bragy patepe yr bučiawa neparſtodama 70₁₆–₁₈; Dabar kunay ſzwętuju, duſies pryaždabitas bus karunomis trejokiomis 326₂₅–₂₆.

In the comparative dialect, the plural nominative ending is -ęs (dvà.sę ~ dvãšios, và.łęs ~ vàlios). The Samogitians have long shortened unstressed long circumflex endings, so the inflection of the case under discussion is derived from the ancient *-į̃as (→ *-į̄as → *-’ãs → -’as → -es → -ęs). Žiwatas records an intermediate stage in this development, -es. The plural vocative form coincides with the plural nominative.

8. The plural genitive ending is -’u, e.g.: Teyp ana pry ejufi pry Pona Jezuſa pole po koju jo; dudama garby jem, yr tare: Pony padiek mąn 85₅–₇; [...] kurie priemy Wiera Szwęta kada kayte pry Myſiu. Szwętu Ewangeliyjy [...] IV₈–₉.

In the comparative dialect, the plural genitive ending may be stressed or unstressed (kúoi̯ ~ kóįų, marč̃ų ~ marčių). In the dialect of Žiwato, the genitive ending in the stressed form, as already mentioned, most likely still retained a nasal vowel.

9. The plural dative ending is -oms, e.g.: Tada ſu dydziu ſzturmu, yr ałafu uźgiedintas, y Pekła biega, yr pyktoms dwaſioms apſakie 242₂₇–₂₈.

The ending of this case differs from that of the ā-stem only in the softness of the stem-final consonant (cf. the ā-stem forms discussed).

10. The plural accusative ending is -es, e.g.: Yr teyp uſtawyczney aſzaromis maźgoje kojes jo ſzwętas 70₁₀–₁₁.

The Kretinga dialect’s plural accusative form ends in -es (dvàšės ~ dvasiàs, vàlės ~ valiàs), which developed from the ancient Lithuanian *-jãs (→ *-jās → *-’ãs → -’as → -es → -ęs). Ziuwatas records the endingal e before it underwent narrowing.

11. The plural instrumental ending is -omis, e.g.: Kada jau buwa awźtanti, tada eje Ponas Jezuſas nu kalna, pry anu par Mary wyŕźumi wąndens, Sawſonis ko-jomis kaypo źemy 83₂₁–₂₃.

In the present-day ŠVŽK dialect, the plural instrumental forms of barytone-accented words do not differ from the dative (dvàšiõms ~ dvãšioms), although, as already mentioned, in North Samogitian the dative can often bear the instrumental stress and intonation (cf. the ā-stem forms discussed); oxytonically accented words, however, differ from the dative only in intonation (vâl̃džioms ~ valdžiõms). In the Kretinga dialect, the ending of the case under discussion has undergone morphological shortening, as the examples show.

12. The plural inessive is used with the ending -ofy = [uose], e.g.: Tada ćionay Szwetas Bernotas kalba: o diwna prowa yſzganima muſu, jog Chriſtufas Ponas kibodamas ant kriźiaus, daug ronu, daug muku, yr fopulu kięntieje, kaypo tay karuna Erſzkiečiu ant Galwu Szwęčiaufyj, rąkoſy, koioſy wynis, o wyinog apey muka tiljeje: ne ſzawkie skawd, ale trokſtu 240₁₆–₂₂.

Straipsniai / Articles

61

SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ

In the comparative dialect, the form of the case under discussion differs from that of the ā-stem only in the palatalization of the stem-final consonant (cf. the ā-stem forms discussed).

ē STEM

Nouns of this stem (like those of the stems just discussed) are feminine (except for the word diedes 7₂₁ ‘aunt’), have seven cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, locative (inessive), and vocative), and three numbers (singular, plural, and dual).

Singular

Plural

V. meyle 34₁₀, garbie 105₂₇ ~ mêile, gấrbīe

V. linkɱibes 229₄ ~ linkšmîbes

K. meyles 11₁₅, garbies 2₄ ~ mêiles, gấrbīes

K. links mibiu 288₁₀ ~ linkšmîʹbu

N. meyle 300₄, sawley 258₁₆ ~ mêilê, sáulê

N. paneliems 177₂ ~ panèlèms

G. meyly 28₃ ~ mêilę

G. linkɱibes 20₁₁ ~ linkšmîʹbès

Įn. meyly 58₂₃ ~ mêilę

Įn. links mibiemis 152₁₃ ~ linkšmîʹbiemìs

Vt. žiemie 5₂₂, žiemiey 199₂₂ ~ žèmîè

Vt. in the hymn 30₂₆ ~ géismièsę

Š. love 145₄, star 291₈ ~ mêile, žvaizdė

Š. family 312₂₂ ~ gèmę.nes

1. The singular nominative endings are –e and –ie, e.g.: Dielko tawa meyle ateje 34₁₀; Blagasłowitas, kurłay wardon Diewa eyta: ant amžiu tegul garbie iem bułey 113₅–₆. In the comparative dialect, the singular nominative ending of nouns with ending stress is –ie, while that of nouns with root stress is –ę (pêłkę ~ pélkę, žuolė ~ žolė) (Zinkevičius 1966: map nos. 38, 42). The result of the development of unstressed *–ē (after a soft consonant) coincides with that of *–ā (Girdenis 2001: 171). Usually the stressed ending allomorph displaces the unstressed one; for example, instead of sg. nom. *(bált)–ā, one says *(bált)–a, and instead of sg. instr. *(bált)–ō, *(bált)–u. As Girdenis (2001: 377) states, if the ending belonged to an inflectional type (stem) clearly inclined toward barytonic accentuation, an unstressed allomorph of one ending or another could also become established. This is apparently how the development of the case under discussion is to be explained, namely (sául)–ė < *(sául)–ē and especially (giesm)–ẽ < *(gęsm)–ē < *(gęsm)–è.

Ziwatas preserves at the end of the word the vowel e, which has not yet undergone narrowing.

The singular vocative coincides with the nominative form.

2. The singular genitive endings are –es and –ies, e.g.: Yļžzódžiu Motinas milawłes, yr yļz meyles Jawa uaykielis ne werkie 33₁₁–₁₂; Swyłiby ant apšwitytma Pagon iu, yr ant garbies žmoniu tawa Jzraelu 38₁₈–₂₀.

In the ŠVŽK dialect, the singular genitive ending (like the singular nominative ending) has two forms: for nouns with root stress the ending is –ęs, while for those with ending stress it is –

62

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

1759 metų Žiwato moteriškojo linksniavimo daiktavardžiai ir jų raida

-ies (pêlkᵉ ~ pêlkės, žuol̃lės ~ žol̃ės) (Zinkevičius 1966: map no. 40, 44). The inflection of the case in question derives from Old Lithuanian *-ẽs.

As the analysis of Ziwato shows, in the mid-eighteenth century the inflection -es < *-ẽs in the Kretinga dialect still differed from the ending -ęs < *-ę̄s, cf.: meyles 33₁₂ < *-ęs ‘love’ and ugnys 90₄₁₉ < *-ę̄s ‘fire’.

3. The singular dative endings are -ey and -e = [eʳ], e.g.: O Diewy wyfagalis, ne yf̄zpakafitas dudu diekawones tawa galibey, teykies mun tą duty yf̄fawa gieribes, idant pylnay galiečio s̄užity ano s̄zwėtay milafzyrdittey 25₂₃–₂₅; Cionay diwities galem yfzgieribey yr meyle Chrifʃufa Pona, jog diet grieʃzna žmogaws ant tokie ʃmerte afierawojos, yr atʃydawė 300₃–₅.

The singular dative form in the Kretinga dialect is used with -e (pêlkê ~ pêlkei, žuolê ~ žolei), which arose through monophthongization from *-ei (Zinkevičius 1980: 205; 1966: 90).

The genuine, i.e. Samogitian, singular dative inflection is -e, whereas forms with -ey (as with the stems of nouns discussed earlier) should be regarded as the result of Aukštaitian influence. For this reason, forms of the dative with a monophthongized ending vowel are apparently very rare in the text²⁰.

4. The singular accusative ending is -y = [ę̄], e.g.: O unfay mumis užtą y amžyna garby pryimfey 24₁₃–₁₄.

In the comparative dialect, the singular accusative ending coincides with the accusative inflection of the Ziwato dialect, -ę (pêlkᵉ ~ pêlkę, žuolᵉ ~ žolę). The ę of the case under discussion derives from Old Lithuanian *-ę̄ (ęn → -ę̄ → -ę).

5. The singular instrumental ending is -y = [ę], e.g.: Ale ką tynay raśie, kalba ʃzwetas Ambrażiejus, jog raśie tus źodźius: źieme źiemv pakalba 122₂₃–₂₄.

In the present-day Kretinga dialect, the singular instrumental ending -ę coincides with the accusative (pêlkᵉ ~ pêlkę, žuolᵉ ~ žolę). The inflection -ę of the case under discussion was shortened from Old Lithuanian *-ę̄n (→ -ę̄n → -ę́n → -ę̄ → -ę).

6. The singular inessive endings are -ie, -iey, e.g.: Uźlaykity Prifjakimus Diewa, kurius pyldity reykalas, ne tyktay pagal żwyczjaws, ale pagal intencyes pryfakitoje, tay ira, meylie, yr pagal meyles 329₈–₁₁; Apey paftati Pona muʃu Jeżusa Chriʃtuja, ciely Oktawiona Ciecorawws: ne kurfay Lentulus ʃzaliey Zidu źiemiey Heroda Karalaws Uriedniks, Senatuy yr wyfay Roday Rima apraśie VIII₁₉–₂₁.

In the present-day ŠVŽK dialect, the ending of the case under discussion is -ie ~ -ė(je) (pêlkê ~ pêlkė(je), žuolê ~ žole(je)); dialect studies show that it has long coincided with the singular locative of i-stem and consonant-stem nouns. (See also Girdenis 1963: 34.) Because of the morpho-

¹⁹ For the development of i-stem nouns in the Ziwato dialect, see Vaičiakauskytė 2000²a: 223–236.

²⁰ The orthographic singular dative variant -e in Ziwato is found in only seven words, namely, meyle 300₄ ~ meilei, pane le 7₃ ~ panele(i), Pylotiene 214₃ ~ Pilotenei, tarneyte 53₁₆ ~ tarnaitei, zdraice 145₁₅ ~ zdraicei, zwazyde 328₁₀ ~ žvaizdei, źieme 310₂₈ ~ žemei.

Straipsniai / Articles

63

SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ

Due to logical shortening, this case has lost one syllable. The ending of the case under discussion is of nasal origin. It is formed from the old locative *žemēi + *ēn (Rosinas 2000: 179).

In the text under analysis, the genuine inflection of the case in question is, of course, -ie, while forms with -iey should be regarded as the result of Aukštaitian influence.

7. The plural nominative ending is -es, e.g.: Zwayzdes ira [zweetiey Diewa, niejokios [zwayjibes griežnikams ne žičios 310_14–15.

In the Kretinga dialect, the plural nominative form has the ending -ęs (pẽlkẽs ~ pélkės, žùolẽs ~ žòlės) (cf. Zinkevičius 1966: map no. 44, 48). The inflection -ęs of the form in question was shortened from *-ēs (*-ēs → *-es → -es).

In Ziwato, as can be seen, the vowel e in the plural nominative form had not yet undergone narrowing.

The plural vocative (as with the stems analyzed earlier) coincides with the nominative.

8. The plural genitive ending is -u, e.g.: Kaypo tawarcíeys bufte muku, teypo bufete yr l i n k s m i b i u 288_9–10.

In the present-day ŠVŽK dialect, the plural genitive endings are -u or –u (pẽlkų ~ pélkių, žùolũ ~ žolių) and do not differ from the genitive inflection of the nouns discussed earlier.

9. The plural dative ending is -iems, e.g.: Antra karuna wadinta ira Panelu, o ta P a n e l i e m s ira duta, apey kures gieda Bažničia Szwęta 294_14–16.

In the comparative dialect, the plural dative ending coincides with the form attested in Ziwate, that is, it is -iems (pẽlkiem²¹ ~ pélkėms, žùolėms ~ žolėms). The ending -iems ~ -ēms is morphologically shortened from the Old Lithuanian *-ēmus (*-ēmus → *-ēmos → -iemọs → -iems).

10. The plural accusative ending is -es, e.g.: Kławfely Maria prałydieima Elzbietas [zwętos, Elzbieta kławfes prałydieima [zwęčiawęs Pannos; yr teyp dydes l i n k š - m i b e s paþakoie wyina qntray [...] 20_9–12.

In the present-day Kretinga dialect, the plural accusative ending -ęs (pẽlkẽs ~ pélkes, žùolẽs ~ žolès) derives from the ancient *-ēs. Analysis of Ziwato shows that the vowel e, as in the plural nominative ending, had not yet undergone narrowing. The broad e found among other Samogitians indicates that this vowel narrowed only recently. As already mentioned, the open e survived until recently in the northern Samogitian areas of Žemaičių Kalvarija and Nevarėnai. This open e occurs only in place of formerly secondarily stressed acute *–ā and *–ē (Girdenis 2000a: 233–236, 321–323; cf. also Aleksandravičius 1963: 111; Būga 1958: 560).

²¹ For more on the fact that the plural dative of nouns of the stem under discussion may have the stress and intonation of the instrumental, see also Zinkevičius 1966: 235.

64

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

1759 metų Ziwato moteriškojo linksniavimo daiktavardžiai ir jų raida

11. The dative plural ending is -iemis, e.g.: O tų avyneli walgyti pradije, batus nuo koju nuawe, frienas par jufe, łazdeliemis pasyrieme, nie wyina kawła netawzie 143_16–18.

In the comparative dialect, the instrumental plural of words with baritone stress (pėlkėms ~ pėlkėms) does not differ from the dative plural, whereas words with oxytone stress are distinguished from the dative only by the pitch accent and the retracted stress associated with it²² (žūolėms ~ žolēm[i]s). The instrumental plural differed by one syllable from the other forms of the paradigm, and therefore underwent morphological shortening, i.e., the ending vowel i has disappeared. It is true that only three words occur in shortened forms in the text under analysis: [...] yr užsłuzyje ant amžynu muku neteyfibiems ława 321_18–19; Jezufas milawfis kada yszwida Judósiu yfz toła ateynanti, židus Ju miečieys, yr Ju pachodniems, tada budyna Apałztalus kalbiedamas [...]168_12–14; Yr kaypo Zwayzdes Ju žwayzdiems ne tur wyfas ligie [zwie]uma terp Jawes, Sawle Ju Mieneliu [...] 311_22–23. Thus, in the mid-eighteenth century, instrumental plural forms were shortened only sporadically. In the dialect of Ziwato, the instrumental plural differed from the dative by the presence of the ending vowel i.

12. The inessive plural ending is -ieły = [iese], e.g.: Apey tą karunawoima ira Giefmieły Salomona parašita 206_7–8.

In the present-day ŠVŽK dialect, the locative plural ending is also -ies^e. The form of this case was one syllable longer than the other forms of the paradigm, and therefore the ending underwent morphological shortening in the Kretinga area (pėlkies ~ pėlkės(e), dõubies ~ duobės(ė)).

In the dialect of Ziwato, the form of the case under discussion (like those of the other stems discussed earlier) had not yet undergone shortening.

DUAL FORMS OF FEMININE-DECLENSION NOUNS

In Ziwate, as throughout the Lithuanian language, dual nominative, dative²³, accusative, and instrumental forms are used for nouns of the feminine declension (as with the noun generally; see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 62–66). It should be noted, however, that genitive dual forms occur several times in the text under examination. Thus, the dual paradigm of the stems of the nouns analyzed is as follows:

N. dwy žwayzdy 20₈ ~ dvè žvàizdè

G. dwyiu dyinu 106₂ ~ dvėjų: dėinū

²² This can be asserted only with a qualification, since, as has been noted more than once, the dative plural of feminine-declension nouns may have the stress and pitch accent of the instrumental; see also (Zinkevičius 1966: 243).

²³ Dative forms of nouns with the stems under analysis do not occur in the text.

Straipsniai / Articles

65

SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ

G. dvy dviny 106₁₄, aby kojy 224₁₄ ~ dẁė dėinė, ȧbė kūožė

Instr. dwym gatwym 311₁₉ ~ dvėm gálvėm

1. The nominative and accusative dual endings of feminine-declension nouns are -y = [ę], e.g.: Yr teyp par d w y d i n y ape tay tilieje, yr tare potom po dwyiu dyinu Jawa Mokitynems: Eyk iem y židu žiemy _106₁–₃; Yr teypo ij yſtzæſy kaypo ſtriuna ant Lutnes, dydy wyny a b y [zwæčiawſy k o j y pry kriziaws prymušie _{224₁₃–₁₅}; Patam ana ſu uczčiwałty pakiele anà: yr teyp ſiedieje aby ligiev, yr pradjeje terp ſawaes kałbiety d w y ž w a y z d y Dangaws, Motinas [zwaetas _20₆–₉].

In the present-day comparative dialect, the nominative and accusative dual forms of nouns under investigation coincide with those attested in Ziwate (dvė žvaizdė ~ dvi žvaigždi ‘two stars’). The feminine nominative and accusative dual inflection -ę ~ -i is derived from the archaic Lithuanian *-ḗ (cf. Kazlauskas 1968: 130; see also Zinkevičius 1980: 181).

2. The genitive dual ending is -u, e.g.: Yr teyp par d w y d i n y ape tay tilieje, yr tare potom po dwyiu dyinu ſawa Mokitynems: Eyk iem y židu žiemy _106₁–₃.

In the present-day Kretinga dialect, the genitive dual ending of nouns is likewise -u (dvėjųˑ būobu ~ dvijųˑ bóbu ‘of two beans’) and coincides with the genitive plural of the nouns under discussion.

3. The instrumental dual ending is -ym = [em], e.g.: Norint wynu butum [weykiy buwy, kyty ulomny: raku koju neturiejy: kuprotty, akly, d w y m g a l w y m, kieturiomis kojomis […] 311₁₇–₂₀.

In the present-day ŠVŽK dialect, the instrumental dual ending is also -em (dvėm šakėm ~ dviṁ šakiṁ ‘with two forks’). Various explanations have been proposed for the origin and development of the instrumental dual (cf. Mažiulis 1970: 209–218; Zinkevičius 1980: 198). This article follows Kazlauskas’s hypothesis. Thus, the stem-final element in old instrumental dual forms is the nominative and accusative ending. The oldest form of this case had the ending -ma, perhaps derived from *-mā (Kazlauskas 1968: 128, 132; cf. also Aleksandravičius 1967: 239; Zinkevičius 1966: 206). The form of the dual under discussion found among speakers of the Kretinga dialect is most likely of morphological origin²⁴: the Samogitians adapted the vowel quality of the instrumental ending (as, indeed, also that of the dative) to the vowel quality of the nominative and accusative ending.

To conclude the discussion of the dual forms of nouns of the type analyzed, it can be stated that in the time of Ziwato, as the examples presented show, feminine-declension nouns already had the same dual forms as those still used today in the Kretinga area (cf. also Aleksandravičius 1963: 104).

²⁴ Antanas Salys attempted to explain these Kretinga dual forms phonetically, but this is contradicted by the origin of the feminine noun ending -em from *ām; nor could forms such as (dộm) gaidôm ‘(to two) roosters’ be explained phonetically, since the sequence *djā had become fronted in the Samogitian dialect before the narrowing of the diphthongs in question (Girdenis 2001: 430).

66

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

1759 metų Žiwato moteriškojo linksniavimo daiktavardžiai ir jų raida

CONCLUSIONS

Having analyzed and compared the stem paradigms of feminine-declension nouns in the dialect of Žiwato and in ŠVŽK, the following conclusions can be drawn.

1. A comparison of feminine-declension noun paradigms in the dialect of Žiwato and in ŠVŽK revealed that no fundamental morphological changes had occurred in the Kretinga dialect since the mid-eighteenth century. The development of the dialect’s morphology depends on morphological and phonological phenomena.

2. As early as the mid-eighteenth century, nonproductive stems of feminine-declension nouns (as of nominals in general) were shifting to productive stems in the Kretinga dialect.

3. The study revealed that already in the dialect of Žiwato, the singular instrumental forms of nouns with o- and ā-stems had merged.

4. As early as the mid-eighteenth century, the singular inessive forms of feminine-declension nouns in the Kretinga dialect had undergone morphological shortening. The plural forms (as, incidentally, those of masculine-declension nouns) had not yet shortened. Today, the shortened forms in question are characteristic only of the Kretinga subdialect.

5. Analysis of Žiwato shows that the plural dative forms of feminine-declension nouns underwent morphological change by the mid-eighteenth century: shortened forms are used throughout the text.

6. In the dialect of Žiwato, the plural instrumental forms of feminine-declension nouns differed from the dative only in the presence of the final vowel i. In the dialect used for comparison, the forms mentioned differ only in accent and the retracted stress associated with it.

7. As the analysis of Žiwato shows, in the mid-eighteenth-century Kretinga dialect, the inflection -es < *-ēs of ē-stem nouns still differed from the ending -es < *-ēs; cf. meyles 33₁₂ < *-ēs ‘love’ and uġnys 90₄ < *-ēs ‘fire’.

8. Dual forms are rare but numerous in the text under examination. As the examples presented show, in the time of Žiwato, feminine-declension nouns already had dual forms of the kind still used today in the Kretinga area.

LITERATŪRA

A l e k s a n d r a v i č i u s J u o z a s 1963: Kretingos tarmės daiktavardžio kait ybos ypatybės ir galūnių raida. – Kalbotyra 9, 101–117.

A l m i n a u s k i s K., 1931: Vyskupo A. Baranausko laiškai Hugo Weberiui. – Archivum Philologicum 2, 68–116.

B a z i n y s R. 1995: 1759 metų „Žiwato“ veiksmažodis ir jo formos (bakalauro darbas). Vilniaus universitetas.

Straipsniai / Articles

67

SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ

Būga Kazimieras 1958: Rinktiniai raštai 1. Vilnius: Valstybinė polit. ir moksl. lit. leidykla.

Būga Kazimieras 1961: Rinktiniai raštai 3. Vilnius: Valstybinė polit. ir moksl. lit. leidykla.

Girdenis Aleksas 1962: Tirkšlių tarmės morfologija ir žodžių daryba (rankraštis).

Girdenis Aleksas 1996: Taip šneka tirkšliškiai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Girdenis Aleksas 2000a: Kalbotyros darbai 1. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Girdenis Aleksas 2000b: Kalbotyros darbai 2. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Girdenis Aleksas 2001: Kalbotyros darbai 3. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Girdenis Aleksas, Rosinas Albertas 1976: Keletas samprotavimų dialektologinės fonetikos klausimais. – Baltistica 12(2), 188–197.

Girdenis Aleksas, Girdenienė Danutė 1997: 1759 metų „Ziwato“ indeksas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Girdenis Aleksas, Skirmantas Petras 1998: 1759 metų „Ziwatas“: Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Girdenis Aleksas, Pabrėža Juozas 1998: Žemaičių rašyba. Vilnius–Šiauliai.

Grinaveckis Vladas 1973: Žemaičių tarmių istorija. Vilnius: Mintis.

Juškaitė T., Girdenis Aleksas 1974: Tas pats ir Nevarėnuose. – Kalbotyra 25(1), 93–94.

Kazlauskas Jonas 1968: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. Vilnius: Mintis.

Kazlauskas Jonas 1958: Lietuvių kalbos į-kamieno daiktavardžių vienaskaitos įnagininko ir vietininko formų kilmės klausimu. – Kalbotyra 1, 51–67.

Kazlauskas Jonas 1959: Daiktavardžių (i)ų linksniavimo nykimas. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 2, 17–45.

Kazlauskas Jonas 1963a: Archajiškos priebalsinio kamieno linksnių formos. – Kalbotyra 6, 333–334.

Kazlauskas Jonas 1963b: Dėl lietuvių kalbos vardažodžio kirčiavimo sistemos raidos. – Kalbotyra 7, 171–181.

LKA II – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 2. Fonetika. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982.

LKA III – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 3. Morfologija. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991.

Mažiulis Vytautas 1970: Baltų ir kitų indoeuropiečių kalbų santykiai. Vilnius: Mintis.

Palionis Jonas 1979: Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos istorija. Vilnius: Mokslas.

68

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

1759 metų Žiwato moteriškojo linksniavimo daiktavardžiai ir jų raida

Palionis Jonas 1995: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Rinkauskienė Regina 1999: Rytų aukštaičių uteniškių vardažodis: dabartinė padėtis ir istorinė raida (daktaro disertacija). Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas.

Rosinas Albertas 1971: Šaukėnų šnektos iā, ē ir i kamieno daiktavardžiai. – Kalbotyra 23(1), 49–54.

Rosinas Albertas 1995: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai: morfologijos raida. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Rosinas Albertas 2000: Inesvy o ir adesyvo kilmės ir raidos klausimu. – Baltistica 34(2), 173–183.

Subačius Giedrius 1998: Žemaičių bendrinės kalbos idėjos: XIX amžiaus pradžia. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Šiliauskaitė R. 1991: 1759 metų „Ziwato“ daiktavardžių linksniavimo sistema (diplominis darbas). Vilniaus universitetas.

Vaičiakauskytė Sonata 2001: 1759 metų „Ziwato“ o, io, iio kamienų daiktavardžiai ir jų raida. – Kalbotyra 50(1), 119–133.

Vaičiakauskytė Sonata 2002a: 1759 „Ziwato“ i ir priebalsinio kamieno daiktavardžiai ir jų raida. – Baltistica 36(2), 223–236.

Vaičiakauskytė Sonata 2002b: 1759 metų „Ziwato“ vardažodžio linksniavimo sistema (daktaro disertacija). Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas.

Vaičiakauskienė Sonata 2005: 1759 metų „Ziwato“ u ir iu kamieno daiktavardžiai ir jų raida. – Acta linguistica lithuanica 53, 91–99.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1980: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika 1. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Nouns of Feminine-type Declension in the Ziwato of 1759 and the Morphological Development of Those Nouns

SUMMARY

The aim of the article was to research and describe the development of the feminine-type noun declension, with emphasis on the Ziwato of 1759, the written record of the 18th century Northern Žemaičiai of Kretinga Dialect. There are three kinds of stem identified in the feminine-type declension – ā and iā stems, and also ē stem in the Ziwato Dialect. The first two

Straipsniai / Articles

69

SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ

of the three stems are very much alike, the only difference being the palatalized consonant in the immediate post-stem position. As the present research proves, a very close similarity can be observed between the stems jā and ē in the Zemaičiai Dialect.

The research presents an accurate and consistently carried out analysis of the aforementioned noun stems in terms of the study of their declension paradigms, and the obtained data were compared with the data of the present-day use in the Northern Zemaičiai of Kretinga Dialect. With the help of the method of inner reconstruction, the following points were disclosed and given solid grounding: the origin of noun inflections, some processes in the historical development of proper names, causes and motives for change. The method of comparative study enabled us to present the reconstructed morphology of nouns of the feminine-type declension in the Northern Zemaičiai of Kretinga Dialect of the mid-eighteenth century.

The thorough study and the subsequent analysis carried out provide sufficient grounds to state that that singular locative case forms of the feminine-type declension in the Northern Zemaičiai of Kretinga Dialect in the 18th century had already undergone the processes of morphological reduction. Although the forms of plural locative cases had not as yet been reduced. In the present-day use, reduced forms of this kind are typical only of the sub-dialect of Kretinga. The comparative study of the data of the Ziwato Dialect and of the Northern Zemaičiai of Kretinga Dialect revealed that in the Ziwato Dialect, in the nouns under discussion, the stems of the plural instrumental case and dative case forms differed only in the presence of the final vowel i. In the present-day dialect of Kretinga, in the feminine-type declension, these noun forms are differentiated only by the tonic accent and, related to it, the fronting of the stress shift. Thus, it is evident that the plural dative forms in the Ziwato Dialect had already been morphologically reduced. With reference to the nouns of the ē stem, it should be noted that the inflection of the nouns of the ē stem speaks for the fact that in the mid-18th century, in the dialect of Kretinga, the inflection -es < *-ēs still differed from the inflection -ęs < *-ęs, cf.: meyles₁₂ < *-ēs ‘meilēs’ and ugnys₀₄ < *-ęs ‘ugnies’.

Įteikta 2012 m. rugpjūčio 2 d.

SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ

Lietuvos edukologijos universitetas

Taraso Ševčenkos g. 31, LT-03111 Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]

70

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII