Kalbos dalių paribio problemos

AURIMAS MARKEVIČIUS Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences Research areas: morphology, dialectology, historical grammar. BOUNDARY PROBLEMS OF PARTS OF SPEECH Issues Related to Periphery of Parts of Speech ABSTRACT The article examines the uncertain status of certain parts of speech and morphological forms, and their ambiguous interpretation in scholarly and practical grammars and the principal dictionaries of the Lithuanian language. The illative form, still widely used, is often unjustifiably ignored—that is, simply left unmentioned. Many cases were found in which words with very similar structures and semantics are treated as belonging to different parts of speech. The nominalisation of some adjectives is assessed inconsistently. Views on the adjectivisation of participles are even more divergent. For example, the words karpytas, –ą, prakėiktas, –ą, prišlėgtas, –ą are considered adjectives by some linguists and participles by others. The status of adverbs of pronominal origin is briefly discussed: some regard them solely as adverbs, while others classify them as both adverbs and conjunctions. ANNOTATION The article is devoted to analysis of the undefined situation typical of some parts of speech and morphological forms, their ambivalent interpretation in scientific and practical grammars as well as in the main dictionaries of Lithuanian. The illative-case form, which is still widely used, is often ignored without reason, i.e., it is simply suppressed. Numerous cases have been found where words having a very similar language structure and semantics are treated as different parts of speech. Ambivalence also exists in interpretation related to nominalisation of some adjectives. Different attitudes also exist towards participle adjectivisation. E.g., the words karpytas, –a ‘trimmed’, prakėiktas, –à ‘damned’, prišlėgtas, –à ‘depressed’ are considered to be adjectives by some linguists and participles by others. The article also embraces a brief overview on the status of adverbs having a pronominal origin – they are interpreted as adverbs by some, as well as both adverbs and conjunctions by others. K E Y W O R D S: parts of speech, illative case, adjective nominalisation, participle adjectivisation. K E Y W O R D S: parts of speech, illative case, adjective nominalization, participle adjectivization. 140 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Kalbos dalių paribio problemos INTRODUCTORY NOTES Cases in which words have salient features of two parts of speech and doubts sometimes arise as to whether they should be assigned to one part of speech or the other are considered borderline cases of parts of speech. Words whose status changes as a result of language development are also considered borderline cases. There are quite a few words which, despite having the same phonological form, belong to different parts of speech. Apart from less frequent cases of homonymy (for example, girtas ‘drunk’ is an adjective and a participle, while be ‘without’ is a preposition and a particle), words come to belong to different parts of speech as a result of semantic, morphological, or other changes. The migration of words from one part of speech to another is an old phenomenon in Lithuanian. Fundamental changes occur as certain grammatical forms disappear. For example, after the old locative case, the locative, disappeared, its remnants namie, pusiáu, used by some Eastern Highlanders, and artiẽ ‘near’, toliẽ ‘far’, oriẽ ‘outside’, and the Samogitian forms dvìjau or dvìejau ‘in twos’ became adverbs. The remnants of the postpositional allative met the same fate: galóp, myrióp, namóp, pavakarióp, pavasarióp, rudeniop, vakaróp, velniop. These words are now considered adverbs. The illative has survived much better, but its status in grammars is unclear. This article also examines numerous cases in which even linguists disagree about whether words belong to one part of speech or another. The problem has already been studied to some extent. Rita Šepetytė has written about the adverbialization of noun cases and about frequent discrepancies between The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language and The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, where the same word is still considered a noun in one source but an adverb in the other (Šepetytė 1995: 142–147). Grammars may omit such cases or present them as problematic. But lexicographers must arrive at one decision or another: when compiling dictionaries, every word must be precisely defined. THE UNCERTAIN STATUS OF THE ILLATIVE The illative has fared better than the old locative and the postpositional exterior locatives. It remains a systematic eighth case to this day in the Southern and Eastern Highlander dialects (except among the Northern Panevėžys subdialect speakers and in the western part of the Southern Panevėžys subdialect), as well as in the eastern part of the Western Highlander dialect (Birštonas, Jieznas, Kaišiadorys, Žiežmariai, Jonava, etc.). This means that at least half of Lithuania uses it. And that half, as Rasuolė Vladarskienė observes, “[…] uses this case without giving much thought to linguists’ recommendations, not only in everyday speech but also in texts presented publicly” (Vladarskienė 2003: 48). Unfortunately, the status of the illative is unclear in linguistic literature. In the first volume of The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, all postpositional locatives are still considered cases. The illative is treated as a substitute for the construction į + accusative, a kind of stylistic device. Its meanings are indicated (LKG I 207–209). The illative is also presented— Straipsniai / Articles 141 AURIMAS MARKEVIČIUS of origin: rightward, leftward, outside, homeward1, straight, forward, upward, downward (LKG II 447–448). In the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian, the illative is identified as a case of the Eastern and Southern Aukštaitian dialects, but its use in the standard language is no longer mentioned (DLKG 2006: 68). Several fossilized adverbs of illative origin are listed: outside, homeward, aside, inside, upward (DLKG 2006: 412). It is impossible to consider all illative forms adverbs for several reasons: 1. The illative can have a modifier, e.g.: He went into the dark forest; Get into the left hand; Turn toward this pine. Only those illative forms that do not have a modifier can become adverbial, e.g.: turn right, move aside, go inside, departed into eternity2. In the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian, it is stated that there can be no question of adverbial status if constructions or words are used with modifiers (DLKG 2006: 411). Therefore, it is doubtful whether the form above can be considered an adverb, since it is used with a modifier at least in spoken language, e.g.: And am I to climb up that ugly thing? (Alanta). It is regarded not as an adverb but as a noun also in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, e.g.: Then you make a circle, put it on top, and ride around (Apsas); You put [the cheese] in those traps, and put some kind of stone on top (Palėvenė) (LKŽe; cf. also KltŽ 408). 2. Proper nouns can have the illative, e.g.: Kaunas, Rokiškis, Panevėžys, Varėna, Ukmergė, Alytus, Vilnius, Paris. Proper adverbs would be anomalous. 3. Including the illative would make the category of adverbs expand excessively. 4. It is impossible to regard illative forms of adjectives (e.g.: white), numerals (e.g.: one, second), pronouns (e.g.: this, which), and participles (e.g.: opened, brought) as adverbs. Aldona Paulauskienė has perhaps described the current view of the illative most accurately. It is acknowledged that although the illative is not included in prescriptive grammars, it is nevertheless a fact of language (Paulauskienė 2001: 198). As the linguist puts it, “If this is free speech, journalistic writing with features of literary style, we retain this locative” (Paulauskienė 2001: 199). The status of the illative should be precisely described in scholarly and prescriptive grammars. Most people inevitably encounter the illative and need to know what it is. Erika Rimkutė gave two further reasons. Foreigners learning Lithuanian do not understand what kind of form it is, how it is used, or how it is formed. Since the illative is not included in the case system in grammars, it is not recognized by automatic morphological analysis software (Rimkutė 2004: 126). It is very unfortunate that practical grammars (especially school grammars) simply pass over the illative in silence. People will learn the essential features of their native language’s grammatical system— 1 The form homeward does not in fact derive from the illative, since the actual illative is homeward. In this case, the reverse process has taken place: the adverb home acquired the illative marker –n. 2 The adverb (or perhaps still an illative) into eternity is often used in condolences to the relatives and loved ones of the deceased. 142 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Kalbos dalių paribio problemos precisely during school years. Only in Jonas Šukys’s Lithuanian textbook for eleventh grade is there a note that the illative locative of motion may be used in informal styles (Šukys 2001: 111). This case is no longer mentioned in other school textbooks. As a result, many people cannot imagine what part of speech or form it is, and do not know whether it may be used. Thirty informants (students in various fields) were asked what part of speech the words into the water and into the old pantry were in the sentences The ring fell into the water, and I put the things away in the old pantry. Fourteen considered the given illative forms to be adverbs, five called them “another locative,” and the remaining respondents did not know what morphological form they were. Eleven thought these forms could not be used. For this reason, the illative should not be omitted from practical grammars. It should be stated that it is a non-systemic case, a second locative used in eastern and southern Lithuania and occurring rarely elsewhere. Even those who do not use it themselves should know about it. Everyone will find many examples of the illative in folklore and literary works, will hear it, and many will also use it in colloquial speech. The adpositional illative form in the name is used especially often: when making the sign of the cross, in the baptismal formula, in the Lithuanian national anthem, and so on. Paulauskienė argues that the use of the illative is almost confined to everyday colloquial speech and literary works (Paulauskienė 1994: 104; Paulauskienė 2006: 84). But these are, after all, the principal spheres of use of any language. It would be very unfortunate if people learned to speak correctly only from scholarly, bureaucratic, or other highly formal language. The language of literature is not an inferior, peripheral variety of language, and forms frequently used in it should not be ignored. Illative forms are in fact very frequent in literary works. The illative was and continues to be used by writers not only in eastern Lithuania, but also in the west: Kristijonas Donelaitis, Dionizas Poška, Silvestras Valiūnas, Simonas Daukantas, Simonas Stanevičius, Motiejus Valančius, Žemaitė, Vincas Kudirka, Maironis, Lazdynų Pelėda, Pranas Vaičaitis, Šatrijos Ragana, Jurgis Savickis, Vincas Mykolaitis-Putinas, Jonas Aistis, Salomėja Nėris, Kazys Boruta, Antanas Vaičiulaitis, Petras Cvirka, Marius Katiliškis, Vytautas Mačernis, Kazys Saja, Juozas Aputis, Juozas Erlickas, and others. The form is also used by writers born in non-dialectal settings, for example, Vytautė Žilinskaitė, Judita Vaičiūnaitė, Leonardas Gutauskas, and others, who come from Kaunas. In many cases this was most likely because Jonas Jablonskis acknowledged the Lithuanian Grammar (1901) the “false” (or “second”) locative, which answers the questions where to, into what, to which place? (Jablonskis 1957: 71). Illative forms are also quite numerous in literary works translated relatively recently: Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray (translated by Lilija Vanagienė), Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita (translated by Algimantas Mikuta), Jostein Gaarder’s Sophie’s World (translated by Eglė Išganaitytė), Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (translated by Valentina Churginaitė), and others. Forms of this case are also not avoided in contemporary translations of the Holy Scripture (by Česlovas Kavaliauskas, Antanas Rubšys, and Kostas Burbulys). They are particularly apt here, because in religious Straipsniai / Articles 143 AURIMAS MARKEVIČIUS tekstams būdingas tam tikras archajiškumas (Markevičienė 2012: 119). Iliatyvas neretai vartojamas ir administracinėje kalboje (Vladarskienė 2003: 47–56), ir kitų stilių tekstuose3. Paulauskienė also argues that no one is deliberately driving the illative out of the language (Paulauskienė 1994: 105). But this conscious or unconscious silence about it is nevertheless a form of discrimination against this form and the people who use it, and at the same time impoverishes Lithuanian morphology. The isolation of the illative greatly narrows the possibilities of literary (especially poetic) and spoken language. Therefore, practical grammars should state clearly that the illative is neither a foreignism nor a form that violates language norms. Of course, it should be emphasized that it is a possible, not a mandatory, form, since a large proportion of Lithuanians do not in fact use it. Forms omitted from grammars are rapidly disappearing. At least in literature and spoken language, the dual and the supine would probably have survived longer if school grammars had mentioned that these are dialectal forms that do not violate language norms. It is clear that the Samogitian necessity participle, supported by the authors of various scholarly and practical grammars, is holding up fairly well even today, although it is used in a more limited area and much less frequently than the illative. But the necessity participle is included in school textbooks4 (Palubinskienė, Čepaitienė 2008: 73 et al.). The use of this Samogitian form does not impoverish Lithuanian morphology. Forms teesiẽ, teateiniẽ, tebūniẽ are still included in grammars, although they are used very rarely (the first two mostly in prayers)5. MORE COMPLEX CASES OF ADJECTIVE SUBSTANTIVIZATION Inflected parts of speech and their forms most often migrate. An adjective especially often shifts into a noun, and a participle into an adjective. There are three main criteria for identifying and distinguishing parts of speech: lexical (meaning), morphological (form), and syntactic (syntactic function, agreement). When a word shifts into another part of speech, its form often comes into conflict with the inflectional system of the receiving part of speech. For example, pronominal forms appear in the noun system: jaunàsis, jaunóji, nelabàsis, paskutinóji, piktàsis, prakeiktàsis, šventàsis, šven- 3 The plural illative has greatly declined, but it is not yet a dead form. The Vytautas Magnus University corpus records 136 plural illative forms of nouns (Vladarskienė 2003: 52). 4 Unfortunately, by no means all of them. 5 These forms were formerly regarded as the desiderative mood (LKG II 63), but are now classified as the imperative mood (DLKG 2006: 343, 345). 144 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Kalbos dalių paribio problemos tóji, válgomasis and so on. In the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, even the abbreviation emph. is used to describe pronominal forms of nouns. The abbreviation sm. emph. appears with the words válgomasis, výkdomasis; sf. emph. with the words mirtinóji, paskutinióji, and smob. emph. with the words paláimintasis, -oji, prakeiktàsis, -óji, tikintỹsis, -čioji, and so on (LKŽe). In colloquial speech and dialects, nouns can even acquire comparative and superlative forms (e.g., vargšėsnis, asiliáusias, nabagiáusias, vėpliáusias). Pranas Skardžius wrote two articles on the comparison of nouns, both with the same title, “Daiktavardžių laipsniavimas” (Skardžius 1997a: 431–433; Skardžius 1997b: 433–439). Cf. his examples: jis už visus yra šunesnis; jis ir už tave ponėsnis (Skardžius 1997a: 432); jis už visus šuniausias, tinginesnis (Skardžius 1997b: 434, 437), and so on. Thus, comparative and superlative adjectives and adverbs are formed from nouns. The adjective degree forms formos vyrė́nesnis ir vyríáusias were once derived from the noun výras (cf. Skardžius 1997b: 437–438; LEW II 1260; SEJL 757–758). Skardžius also gives the examples piečiáu, ryčiáu, vakariáu, pakalniáu and so on (Skardžius 1997b: 435–436), galiausiai, and the adjective galiausias (Skardžius 1997a: 433). Comparative and superlative adjectives and adverbs formed in this way have no positive form. Degree forms derived from nouns are used when the semantic feature of a quality is strongly foregrounded in that noun, especially when the noun is a metaphor for a particular quality—for example, a donkey symbolizes stupidity, a dog meanness, and so on. A migrated word is declined not according to the declension type characteristic of its new part of speech. Adjectives and participles that have become nouns retain the ending –(i)am of the adjective’s singular dative form (e.g., kùrsiniam, pažįstamam), the ending –(i)ame of the singular locative form (e.g., keturnýčiame, kùrsiniame), and so on. In colloquial speech and dialects, attempts are made to eliminate or at least mitigate this conflict. The endings of case forms that do not conform to the system may be changed, e.g., baltakakliui, kùrsiniui, laukiniui, pažįstamui, juodaspal̃voje, kùrsinyje. Paulauskienė advises against being too strict and recommends tolerating noun-like endings when an adjective becomes a noun (Paulauskienė 2004: 219). There are many cases in which an adjective or participle that has become a noun should unquestionably be regarded as a noun, e.g., jaunàsis, jaunóji, pažįstamas, stiklinė, girtuoklė ‘lingonberry’, ilgalūpė ‘a plant of the orchid family growing in damp forests’, ilgapi̇̀rstis ‘thief’, Šventóji, Įlgas (a lake near Dubingiai), Juodsnùkis (a surname). In colloquial speech, such substantivized adjectives include gaisrinė, greitoji ‘emergency medical vehicle and its staff’, keleivinė, and so on. The boundary between nouns and adjectives is very broad, and even linguists often “get lost” in it. The substantivization of adjectives is discussed most extensively in the first volume of the Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (LKG I 529–534). Adjectives of the ia₂ and ē stems are most often substantivized: compounds (e.g., antramėtis, -ė, bendrámžis, -ė, keturný- Straipsniai / Articles 145 AURIMAS MARKEVIČIUS tis, –ė, nepilnamėtis, –ė, skeltalūpis, –ė), and some prefix and suffix derivatives (e.g., begalvis, –ė, jauniklis, –ė, laukinis, –ė, mažėlis, –ė, mažiukas, –ė, vilnietis, –ė), and so on. Usually, grammars and dictionaries do not specify criteria for distinguishing such parts of speech. The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language at least offers clear guidance: words of this type may be regarded as either nouns or adjectives, e.g., auliniai ‘boots with shafts’ (noun) and a u l i n i a i b a t a i (adjective) (LKG I 533). The examples in the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian suggest that it adopts the same position: adjectives are always given with the nouns they modify (e.g., baltakāklė antis) (DLKG 2006: 229), while nouns are given without modifiers (e.g., geltonplaukis, –ė) (DLKG 2006: 155). This position is logical and convenient. But there is no shortage of problematic cases. Because there are no clear criteria for distinguishing adjectives from nouns, dictionaries show considerable inconsistency. In the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, most words of the types mentioned above belonging to the ią2 and ē stems are treated as adjectives. This dictionary gives little indication of the substantivization of adjectives. Given its smaller size, it is presumably impossible to present this process in greater detail. The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language contains many more substantivized adjectives marked “sud.” Nevertheless, it remains unclear why, in the electronic version of this dictionary, bemarškinis, –ė is treated as an adjective, bekelnis, –ė, bekepūris, –ė as nouns, and bešvarkis, –ė as both an adjective and a noun (LKŽe). In the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, the compound trumparėgis, –ė is treated as an adjective, while žemazūris, –ė is treated as a noun; juod(a)plaukis, –ė as an adjective, while juodaveidis, –ė is treated as a noun; juodmaršis, –ė is treated as an adjective, juodberis, –ė as a noun, and žalmaršis, –ė as both an adjective and a noun. The word beveidis, –ė is treated as an adjective, while beširdis, –ė is treated as both an adjective and a noun (DLKŽe 2006), although both have figurative meanings. Such inconsistencies are also found in dictionaries of dialects and local speech varieties, for example, baltaplaukis, –ė is adj. (DrskŽ 28), while raudonabarzdis, –ė is smob., adj. (DrskŽ 297); greitūlis, –ė is smob. (DrskŽ 111), while gražūlis, –ė is adj., smob. (DrskŽ 108); baltpūkis, –ė is adj. (ZnŽ 1 106), while juodākis, –ė is adj., smob. (ZnŽ 1 575); juodaplaukys, –ė is adj. (KpŽ 2 87), while baltabarždys is sm. (KpŽ 1 144); ilganōsis, –ė is adj., while ilgakašė is sf. (KzRŽ I 271). In the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, two labels—adj., smob.—are sometimes given for words of this type (e.g., plačiapėtis, –ė, plikagalvis, –ė, trumparėgis, –ė) (LKŽe). This double label is often used in the Dictionary of the Druskininkai Dialect, Dictionary of the Kupiškis Dialect, and Dictionary of the Kaltanėnai Variety. The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language also uses another approach: nouns and adjectives are presented in separate entries, e.g., baltaplūnksnis, –ė, liepsnabarždis, –ė ‘red-bearded’, liepsnagalvis, –ė ‘red-haired’ (LKŽe). If dictionaries consistently adopted one position or the other, the confusion described above could be avoided. In terms of economy, the first approach is, of course, more convenient, but it would be more logical to present them in separate entries. These word pairs have different morphological categories and perform different syntactic functions. 146 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Kalbos dalių paribio problemos THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ADJECTIVES AND PARTICIPLES A very complex area is the adjectivization of participles functioning as modifiers. Vytautas Ambrazas argues that the adjectival use of many participles cannot be explained as adjectivization, since such use is primary, that is, inherited from a time when the participle had not yet been incorporated into the system of verb categories. But, in general, Ambrazas recognizes the adjectivization of participles, e.g.: an adult man, a satisfactory job, a prosperous person (LKE 96). The main grammars of the Lithuanian language take a reserved view of the adjectivization of participles. In Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje, derivatives expressing a permanent characteristic are regarded as participles in adjectival use, e.g.: pagalinti Severja, dedančią viščią, suverdančių žirnių, netikęs peilis, suaugęs vyras, sukalbamas žmogus, suprantama kalba (LKG II 334–338). Only a few words that have the form of a participle are considered adjectives, e.g.: drumštas, -à, glaũštas, -à, rieštas, -à, skiaũštas, -à, sùktas, -à, àtmestas darbas ‘poor-quality work’, paténkintas žmogus (LKG II 345). In Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje, the words àtmestas, paténkintas are also considered participles (DLKG 2006: 372). This grammar lists very few adjectives identical in form to participles, e.g.: drumštas, glaũštas, rieštas, sùktas, skiaũštas (DLKG 2006: 372), gaũbtas, skėštas (DLKG 2006: 223). Here these are regarded not as adjectivized participles but as adjectives formed from unprefixed verbs with the formant –t– and inflections (DLKG 2006: 223). Paulauskienė gives more examples of adjectivized participles, e.g.: skalbiamašis muilas, gelbėjamoji valtis, siuvamoji mašina, gyvenamasis namas, limpama liga, drumštas vanduo, atvėrtas langas, virtos bulvės, lenktà nosis, pašėlęs noras, netikęs vaikas (Paulauskienė 2006: 52). The authors of the main Lithuanian dictionaries take a different position. Here, the adjectivization of participles is recognized much more often. Generally, the authors’ views on this issue coincide. For example, 102 cases were found in which the words are considered adjectives in all of Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne (DLKŽ 2000), Lietuvių kalbos žodyne (LKŽ), their electronic versions (DLKŽe 2006; LKŽe), and Atgali­niame dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne (ADLKŽ), e.g.: atitiṅkamas, -à, drėbtas, -à, drumštas, -à, glaũštas, -à, įgimtas, -à, kiñtamas, -à, maišytas, -a, mókytas, -a, neapsakomas, -a, negirdėtas, -a, neišvengiamas, -à, nepakaltinamas, -a, nepriklausomas, -a, neraliuotas, -a, netašytas, -a, paláimintas, -a, tiñkamas, -à, žymėtas, -a. Another 23 words of this type are considered adjectives only in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne, its electronic version, and Atgaliniame dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne. The first part of Antanas Pakerys’s book Akcentologija assesses the adjectivization of participles in a way similar to the dictionaries (Pakerys 1994, 390–395). The adjectivization of participles is also recognized in dialect dictionaries. For example, in the Kupiškėnų žodyne the words drumštas, -à (KpŽ 1 455), karpýtas, -a (KpŽ 2 191), nema- Straipsniai / Articles 147 AURIMAS MARKEVIČIUS týtas, -a (KpŽ 2 999), in the Zanavykų šnektos žodyne the words būtinas, -à (ZnŽ 1 202), gimtas, -à (ZnŽ 1 450), and in the Kaltanėnų šnektos žodyne the words mókytas, -a (KltŽ 177), nematýtas, -a, neraliuotas, -a (KltŽ 185) are considered adjectives. Nevertheless, it is sometimes difficult to understand the reasons for classifying certain words as adjectives or participles. It is not very clear why the same words are treated as adjectives in one dictionary and as participles in another. For example, atliekamas, -à, įper­kamas, -à, įtariamas, -à, mątomas, -a, pamók­omas, -a, paš­tebimas, -à, paveldimas, -à, sukalbamas, -à, suprantamas, -à, válgomas, -a, détas, -à, karpýtas, -a, pavėluotas, -a, prakėiktas, -à, prislėgtas, -a, užimtas, -à are considered adjectives in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne (DLKŽe 2006), whereas in Lietuvių kalbos žodyne they are participles (they are not listed as adjectives at all, and many appear only in the entries for the corresponding verbs) (LKŽe). Conversely, the words suáugęs, -usi, paténkintas, -a Lietuvių kalbos žodyne are considered adjectives (LKŽe), whereas in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne they are participles (DLKŽe 2006). Even within the same dictionary, lexical units with very similar meanings and structures are assigned to different parts of speech. Cf.: in Lietuvių kalbos žodyne the word édamas, -à ‘suitable for eating’ is an adjective, whereas válgomas, -a ‘suitable for eating’ is a participle; sùšnekamas, -à is an adjective, whereas sùkalbamas, -à is a participle; padùkęs, -usi is an adjective, whereas pašėlęs, -usi is a participle; suáugęs, -usi is an adjective, whereas pagyvėjęs, -usi and subrén­des, -usi are participles (LKŽe). In Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne the word užkrečiamoji (liga) is an adjective, whereas limpamóji (liga) is a participle (DLKŽ 2000: 885, 370); tìkęs, -usi is an adjective, whereas výkęs, -usi is a participle (DLKŽ 2000: 844, 932). In Lietuvių kalbos žodyne, cases were also found in which a word with the same meaning is listed both as an adjective and as a participle (in the corresponding verb entry). Words assigned to both parts of speech include nepaláužiamas, -à, nepalenkiamas, -à, nepataisomas, -a, nepérmaldaujamas, -a, pakáltinamas, -a, pakeñčiamas, -à, žinomas, -a and others (LKŽe). This approach best reflects the actual situation, since the words discussed may become adjectivized, but may also remain participles. Both Lietuvių kalbos žodyne and Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne list some words in separate entries marked part., e.g.: netìkęs, -usi, pasilėidęs, -usi, pasiùtęs, -usi, pašėlęs, -usi (LKŽe), or dlv., e.g.: nemìtęs, -usi, pasilėidęs, -usi, suáugęs, -usi (DLKŽe 2006). There was probably little reason to present them this way. The participle is not a part of speech. On the other hand, there are very few such words. Atgaliniame dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne only 18 are listed (ADLKŽ 848). Given their small number, separate labels dlv. or part. are certainly unnecessary. 6It would be much simpler to put them in 6 Other very rare abbreviations are unnecessary as well. For example, in the electronic version of Lietuvių kalbos žodyno, the abbreviation neces. (necessity participle) occurs beside just one word, įsidėmėtinas, -a (LKŽe). 148 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Kalbos dalių paribio problemos the entries for the corresponding verbs. But in these cases they would fit better in the adjective entries. The adjectivization of necessity participles is more often indicated in the electronic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. Here, 42 instances were found, while 18 were found in the electronic Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian. The adjectivization of pronominal participles is recognized very rarely. In the electronic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, only 5 words of this type are marked with the abbreviation adj., whereas in the electronic Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, 9 words of this type are treated as adjectives. However, the substantivization of pronominal participles is widely recognized, e.g.: išrinktasis, -oji, kaltinamasis, -oji, meldžiamasis, -oji, mylimasis, -oji, teisiamasis, -oji, miegamasis, priimamasis, valgomasis, kertamoji, kuliamoji, pakeliamoji, pjaunamoji, sėjamoji, sodinamoji, trešiamoji, mokamieji ‘money’, baltosios ‘a disease affecting women’, lygiosios (DLKŽe 2006). These observations are not intended to blame anyone. The situation discussed shows that the problem is complex. Even experienced linguists hold conflicting and inconsistent views. It is even harder for someone unfamiliar with linguistic issues to make sense of it. The system should therefore be simplified: all, or at least most, of these words should be treated either as participles or as adjectives. There would be nothing wrong with treating words expressing a permanent property as adjectives, as is most often done in the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian. The category of tense then becomes irrelevant or greatly weakened. In phrases such as a person who can be blamed / reached / persuaded / educated / cursed, an unbearable life, an appropriate salary, curled lips, changing the tense of the participles (a person who has been blamed / reached / persuaded / taught / cursed, a life that has not been lifted, a salary that has been earned, lips being curled) would make the meaning of a permanent property disappear. In these cases, the category of voice is also irrelevant. If the property is related to a single action (for example, a carefully considered task), it is better to treat the word as a participle. ADVERB OR CONJUNCTION? Adverbs kur, kada, kol, kaip, kiek, kodėl are classified inconsistently when they serve a linking function—introducing subordinate clauses. In the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, two parts of speech are distinguished in such cases: these words are treated as both adverbs and conjunctions. Only the word kodėl is treated solely as an adverb. In the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, they are treated only as adverbs. But it is unclear why the word kaip is singled out, being treated as both an adverb and a conjunction (DLKŽe 2006). This was apparently an oversight. Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Straipsniai / Articles 149 AURIMAS MARKEVIČIUS In language grammar, words joining subordinate clauses such as (only the comparative), kadà and kòl are considered subordinating conjunctions, whereas kur, kiék, kodėl are absent from the list and table of conjunctions (DLKG 2006: 457–461). The words kur, kadà, kaip are treated as adverbs, while kiék and kodėl are also absent from this section (DLKG 2006: 412). The most consistent approach appears to be that of the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian. Gintarė Judžentytė, who has described Latvian adverbs of place in a novel way, considers the Latvian words kur, kurp, kurpu to be interrogative adverbs. When they introduce subordinate clauses, they are considered relative (a subcategory of interrogative adverbs) (Judžentytė 2009: 20–22). This approach would also be quite suitable for assessing Lithuanian adverbs of pronominal origin. However, in keeping with the tradition of Lithuanian grammars, they can be assigned to two categories, like pronouns. The pronouns kàs, kuris, kurì, katràs, katrà, kóks, kokià, kelìntas, kelintà and adverbs of pronominal origin kur, kadà, kòl, kaip, kiék, kodėl would then form a neat parallel: both would have interrogative and relative (relativizing) uses. A FEW MORE REMARKS The so-called neuter-gender adjectives appear to be assessed most inconsistently. Adelė Valeckienė identifies four interpretations of them (Valeckienė 1984: 174–175): 1. They are included in the adjective’s gender category and treated as its third gender (cf. also Valeckienė 1998: 244, 247–250; Holvoet, Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2006: 115–118; LKG I 478; DLKG 2006: 168). 2. They are treated as genderless adjective forms (Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 63–64; cf. also Paulauskienė 1994: 211–219, etc.). 3. It is proposed that forms of this type be treated as adverbs (Kazlauskas 1968: 324). 4. Such forms are assigned to an entirely separate category of state (Муствейikis 1972: 241–249). Tatjana Bulygina takes yet another approach. She, too, includes these adjectives in the gender category, but also assigns adjectival adverbs to it (Булыгиna 1970: 36; cf. also Girdenis, Žulys 1973: 208). The assignment of a word to one part of speech or another may also depend on convention. For example, the supine, long considered a verb form, is treated as an adverb in the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (DLKG 2006: 413). However, even in the electronic version of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, the supine is still considered a verb form. For example, under the verb žìnti, žįsta, -o, numerous sentences are given containing the supine form žìnte (LKŽe). In dictionaries, the nominative of nouns with an incomplete (defective) declension paradigm is sometimes reconstructed, even though it is not used in the language at all, e.g., mažùmė, pakarpà, pérstojis, pir̃šles (DLKŽe 2006). Such nouns often have only one case, which becomes adverbial, e.g., vargsta iš mažumės, pašėlęs nuo 150 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Kalbos dalių paribio problemos mažumės, lỹja be pérstojo, atvažĩavo piršlėmis (plg. Markevičius 2009: 43). Dažnai tokio tipo žodžiai ir laikomi prieveiksmiais, pvz.: užsùko prabėgõm, prótar­piais lỹja, gyvẽna pùsbadžiu (DLKŽe 2006). Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne prielinksninės konstrukcijos nuo mažumės ir iš mažumės pateikiamos daiktavardžio mažumė straipsnyje, o visai tos pačios reikšmės ir atitinkamos struktūros junginys iš mažẽnės laikomas prieveiksmiu (DLKŽe 2006). Tokiais atvejais žodynuose reikėtų teikti realų, egzistuojantį linksnį (vieną arba su prielinksniu) ir laikyti jį prieveiksmiu. Žodžiai abù, abì, abùdu, abìdui žodynuose laikomi skaitvardžiais (LKŽe; DLKŽe 2006), o Albertas Rosinas juos laiko bendrumo įvardžiais (Rosinas 2001: 101–103). There are other discrepancies as well. For example, in the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, the word vienóks is treated as a pronoun, while antróks and abejóks are adjectives; šè ‘here, there, take it’ is treated as a particle, while tè ‘take it’ is an interjection (DLKŽe 2006). Very few words in dictionaries carry the label modal. These words could also be assigned to some parts of speech. For example, the word palýginti should be treated as a verb, tikriausiai as an adverb with a specific modal meaning, and so on. Assigning a word to a part of speech may be complicated by an unusual syntactic function, e.g., One has to think about t h e r e every minute (the other world); You keep saying tomorrow, tomorrow you’ll do it, but that t o m o r r o w never comes; They grew up so, accustomed to t h a t—to bow before the master, to doff one’s cap before the master (Vidiškiai). Sometimes, because of an unusual structure, it is difficult to assign a word to any category. For example, the words alió, eĩkš, labãnakt, stòp are treated as interjections (DLKŽe 2006), even though they do not exhibit the typical features of interjections. Some inconvenience may result from the fact that certain peripheral lexical groups are not included in the normative Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian: refrains (e.g., lỹlia, lingõ, rìto), echo (rhyming) words (e.g., kìškis p i š k i s, lãpė s n ã p ė, meškà l e p e š k à). Onomatopoeic words imitating animal sounds are represented only to a limited extent. There are no sound words for a horse’s neighing (ỹgaga, ỹhaha), a sheep’s bleating (bė), a goat’s bleating (mekekė), a pig’s grunting (kriù), a dog’s barking (aũ, ãm), a cat’s meowing (miáu), geese’s honking (gà), hens’ clucking (kùt kudã), chicks’ peeping (cip, cỹp), and so on. But there are the words burkū, gir̃, kakarìeku, kár, kùkù, mũ, among others (DLKŽe 2006). There are few interjections used to call or drive animals, e.g., cibà, ciù, čiùk, kàc, kùzi, pùt, sà, šiù, škàc, štìš, ùis (DLKŽe 2006). However, there are no words for calling a cow (tprukà), sheep (burì), geese (ziù, ziùlia), or ducks (ùt), for driving away a dog (sciùc), geese (ziuliùkš), or a wolf (tulè), and so on. Almost all these peripheral words are recorded in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (LKŽe). Words on the periphery are sometimes difficult to identify morphologically. Therefore, in some cases a more liberal approach may be adopted. However, that approach should be more consistent and better coordinated. Straipsniai / Articles 151 AURIMAS MARKEVIČIUS CONCLUSIONS 1. As morphological forms disappear, their remnants pass into other parts of speech; for example, remnants of the old locative and allative have become adverbs. 2. When the sphere of use of some forms (for example, the illative) narrows, they are sometimes unjustifiably ignored in grammars. This is especially typical of school textbooks. Although people still often hear and even use the illative themselves, they are unable to identify this form and do not know whether it can be used. 3. The process of adjectives becoming nouns causes considerable confusion in Lithuanian linguistics. The same words are considered nouns by some authors and adjectives by others. In the electronic version of the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, words with very similar semantics and structure are often assigned to different parts of speech; for example, juodaplaukis, -ė is considered an adjective, whereas juodaveidis, -ė is considered a noun. 4. A particularly confusing area is the adjectivization of participles functioning as attributes. Interpretations in the major Lithuanian grammars and dictionaries differ considerably in this respect. In the Grammar of the Lithuanian Language and the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian, the adjectivization of participles is acknowledged to a very limited extent, whereas in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, the Reverse Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, and various dialect dictionaries, many participles denoting a permanent quality are considered adjectives. 5. The adjective’s neuter gender (five interpretations) and pronoun-derived adverbs that introduce subordinate clauses are interpreted inconsistently. Works on Lithuanian morphology and lexicography also differ in their treatment of some other linguistic elements. SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ADLKŽ – Reverse Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, compiled by Vida Žilinskienė. Vilnius: Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 1995. DLKG 2006 – Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian, edited by Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing. DLKŽ 2000 – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, editor-in-chief Stasys Keinys. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing. DLKŽe 2006 – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, electronic version, editor-in-chief Stasys Keinys. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. DrskŽ – Gertrūda Naktinienė, Aldona Paulauskienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Dictionary of the Druskininkai Dialect. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1988. 152 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Kalbos dalių paribio problemos Girdenis Aleksas, Žulys Vladas 1973 (review): Lithuanian Grammar, I–II. – Baltistica 9(2), 203–214. Holvoet Axel, Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė Loreta 2006: Gim inės kategorija. – Daiktavardinio junginio tyrimai, red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 101–120. Jablonskis Jonas 1957: Rinktiniai raštai 1. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Jakaitienė Evalda, Laigonaitė Adelė, Paulauskienė Aldona 1976: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija. Vilnius: Mokslas. Judžentytė Gintarė 2009: Latvių kalbos vietos prieveiksmiai: sinchronija ir diachronija. Daktaro disertacija. Vilniaus universitetas. Kazlauskas Jonas 1968 (review): The Lithuanian Language in the Soviet Years. – Baltistica 4(2), 322–327. KltŽ – Vilutytė Angelė 2008: Kaltanėnų šnektos žodynas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. KpŽ 1 – Vosyl y tė Klementina 2007: Kupiškėnų žodynas 1: A–H. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. KpŽ 2 – Vosyl y tė Klementina 2010: Kupiškėnų žodynas 2: I–O. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. KzRŽ I – Pupkis Aldonas 2008: Kazlų Rūdos šnektos žodynas 1: A–M. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. LEW II – Fraenkel Ernst 1962: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 2. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. LKE – Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language, compiled by Kazys Morkūnas, edited by Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2008. LKG I – Lithuanian Grammar 1, edited by Kazys Ulvydas. Vilnius: Mintis, 1965. LKG II – Lithuanian Grammar 2, edited by Kazys Ulvydas. Vilnius: Mintis, 1971. LKŽ – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 1–20. Vilnius, 1968–2002. LKŽe – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, electronic version, editor-in-chief Gertrūda Naktinienė. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2008. Available online at www.lkz.lt. Markevičienė Žaneta 2012: Keli XIX–XX amžiaus katalikiškų giesmių tekstų ypatumai. – Soter 42(70), 111–125. Markevičius Aurimas 2009: Šiaurinių širvintiškių daiktavardžio linksniavimas ir jo istorija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Straipsniai / Articles 153 AURIMAS MARKEVIČIUS Pakerys Antanas 1994: Akcentologija 1. Kaunas: Šviesa. Palubinskienė Elena, Čepaitienė Giedrė 2008: Lietuvių kalba: Vadovėlis VII klasei. Antroji knyga. Kaunas: Šviesa. Pulauskienė Aldona 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija: Paskaitos lituanistams. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Pulauskienė Aldona 2001: Lietuvių kalbos kultūra. Kaunas: Technologija. Pulauskienė Aldona 2004: Teisininkų kalba ir bendrosios normos. Vilnius: Justitia. Pulauskienė Aldona 2006: Lietuvių kalbos morfologijos pagrindai: Vadovėlis. Kaunas: Technologija. Rimkutė Erika 2004: Dar kartą apie iliatyvą. – Kalbos kultūra 77, 124–128. Rosinas Albertas 2001: Mikalojaus Daukšos tekstų įvardžių semantinė ir morfologinė struktūra. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. SEJL – Smoczyński Wojciech 2007: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Wilno: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wileńskiego. Skardžius Pranas 1997a [1961]: Declension of nouns. – Rinktiniai raštai 2. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 1961, 431–433. Skardžius Pranas 1997b [1961], Declension of nouns. – Rinktiniai raštai 2. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 1961, 433–439. Šepetytė Rita 1995: Daiktavardžių linksnių adverbializacija ir jų pateikimas „Lietuvių kalbos žodyne“. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 35, 142–147. Šukys Jonas 2001: Lietuvių kalba. Kalbos kultūra: Vadovėlis XI klasei. Kaunas: Šviesa. Valeckienė Adelė 1984: Lietuvių kalbos gramatinė sistema: Giminės kategorija. Vilnius: Mokslas. Valeckienė Adelė 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Vladarskienė Rasuolė 2003: Iliatyvo vartojimas dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje. – Kalbos kultūra 76, 47–57. ZnŽ 1 – Švambarytė Janina, Čepaitienė Giedrė 2003: Dictionary of the Zanavykai Dialect 1. A–K. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing. Булыгина Татьяна Вячеславовна 1970: Морфологическая структура слова в современном литовском литературном языке (в его письменной форме). – Морфологическая структура слова в индоевропейских языках, отв. ред. Виктор Максимович Жирмунский, Нина Давидовна Арутюнова. Москва: Наука, 7–70. Мустейкис Казимерас 1972: Сопоставительная морфология русского и литовского языков. Вильнюс: Минтис. 154 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Problems at the Boundaries of Parts of Speech Issues Related to Periphery of Parts of Speech S U M M A R Y The article is devoted to analysis of the undefined situation typical of some parts of speech and morphological forms, their ambivalent interpretation in different linguists’ works, dictionaries and practical grammars (especially in school grammars). Words usually acquire the status of another part of speech due to disappearance of some grammatical forms. Following extinction of the old locative case and the postpositional locative called the allative, their remains (e.g., namie ‘at home’, pusiaú ‘semi-’, vakaróp ‘towards evening’, etc.) became adverbs. Such cases do not raise any discussions. Yet the illative case, which is not extinct by far and used quite often, is ignored without any reason in some works related to morphology – it is simply omitted. Therefore, both Lithuanians themselves and people from other countries learning Lithuanian oftentimes do not know what kind of form it is, how it is derived and whether it is proper to use it. Nominalisation of adjectives is not expected to cause great problems. Nevertheless, words having similar structures and semantics are often attributed to different parts of speech. E.g., the words beveĭdis, -ė ‘faceless’, juodaplaukis, -ė ‘black-haired’ are called adjectives, whereas juodaveĭdis, -ė ‘black-faced’ is treated as noun (Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian). Great uncertainty is characteristic of the limit separating true participles and adjectivised participles. Adjectivisation of the participle is almost not recognised in Lithuanian language grammars, yet it is widely reflected in the main dictionaries of Lithuanian. Nevertheless, quite a number of cases of disagreement exists here, as well. E.g., the words pavėldimas, -à ‘inheritable’, prakėiktas, -à ‘damned’ are called adjectives in some publications yet participles in others. The article also embraces a brief overview on the ambivalent treatment of adverbs serving the function of subordinate conjunctions (e.g., kur̃ ‘where’, kadà ‘when’, kaĩp ‘how’, kiẽk ‘how many/much’, etc.). The most rational way would be treating them as relative adverbs. Received on 21 May 2012. AURIMAS MARKEVIČIUS Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences 31 Taraso Ševčenkos St., LT-03111 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 155