Old Lithuanian “añskat”, “šiskat”, “tàskat” and Cognates

DANIEL PETIT École Normale Supérieure, Paris OLD LITHUANIAN AÑSKAT, ŠÌSKAT, TÀSKAT AND COGNATES Senosios lietuvių kalbos añskat, šiškat, tàškat ir su jais susiję žodžiai 0. INTRODUCTION First introduced by the Greek grammarians (Chrysippos, Apollonios Dyskolos) and later elaborated by the German psychologist Karl Bühler (1934: 80), the notion of ‘deixis’ has been much debated throughout the 20th century1. Although intuitively appealing, it is an artifact, which encompasses various types of gestural reference and covers a wide range of phenomena with different semantic features. Among the most striking expressions of deixis, the so-called ‘thetic judgements’ occupy a special position, in that they simply report the existence of a situation (e.g. Engl. there is a cat sleeping in my room), while ‘categorical judgments’ simultaneously assert the existence of an object and describe its action or state (e.g. Engl. a cat is sleeping in my room = there is a cat + it is sleeping in my room). This distinction is well known2. However, a subclass of thetic judgments seems to have been generally overlooked in the standard textbooks of linguistics and in most specialized monographs and articles dealing with deixis3. Many languages present special deictic particles, which draw the attention of a speech partner to some event or state of affairs (e.g. Lat. ecce, Russ. vot, Fr. voici, voilà ‘here is/are’). By their most salient syntactic and semantic features, especially by 1 See for example Charles Fillmore (1997) or Stephen Levinson (2006) for a recent overview. 2 See for example Hans-Jürgen Sasse (1987). 3 An exception is Levinson (2006: 111), who uses the term ‘presentative particles’, otherwise very rare in English-language linguistics. Straipsniai / Articles 11 ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 11 2011.06.17 08:23:46 DANIEL PETIT their reference to a speech partner, such particles differ from the other deictic particles (e.g. Lat. ibi, Russ. zdes’, Fr. ici, là ‘here’). In scholarly literature, they are sometimes named ‘presentative particles’; this technical term goes back to the description of the Biblical Hebrew particle hinneh ‘here is/are’ and has been afterwards applied to the French particles voici, voilà. As I tried to show elsewhere4, the notion of ‘presentative particles’ is a powerful and attractive notion which could account for the use of some deictic particles of the Baltic languages, especially Lith. štai, Latv. re, rau, lūk and še ‘ecce’. The aim of this paper is to discuss the origin of a subclass of presentative particles that is widely attested in Old Lithuanian and in some Lithuanian dialects, but remains unexplained from an etymological point of view. 1. DESCRIPTION In Old Lithuanian literature and in some modern Lithuanian dialects, we find a set of presentative particles, which obviously share some common morphological features, but still lack a convincing etymology. Descriptively, these particles are a compound of a demonstrative stem (anàs, šìs, resp. tàs) and an ending –(s)ka(t) or –(s)ga(t). In Table 1 all relevant forms are listed and briefly described. Judging from the main uses of these different particles in Lithuanian, it is clear that they belong to the category that I have briefly presented above under the name of ‘presentative particles’: their basic meaning corresponds to that of the Latin particle ecce. To begin with, some of these particles may introduce a nominal form. Examples with šìskat: [1] Wolfenbüttel Postilla (WP 118 2–3 [1573]): [chi]kat tar/naite we[3]paties. ‘Here is the maid servant of the Lord!’ [2] Jonas Bretkunas, Postilla (BP I 84 21 [1591]): Jei tawe gandin Smertis bei prapūlims / tadda [chi]kat tawa gelbetoias Kriſtus. ‘If death and perdition frighten you, then behold your Saviour, Christ!’ With šìsgatės: [3] Simonas Daukantas (LKŽ XIV 914): Šìsgatės piemuo! ‘Here is the shepherd!’ 4 Daniel Petit (2010). 12 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 12 2011.06.17 08:23:46 Senosios lietuvių kalbos anškat, šiškat, tàskat ir su jais susiję žodžiai TABLE 1 stem ans- stem šis- stem tas- with voiceless consonant -k- -ka šiška Daukantas -kat anskat Bretkūnas šiškat Wolfenbüttel Postilla, Bretkūnas taskat Wolfenbüttel Postilla, Bretkūnas, Klein, Sapūnas, Mielcke, Clavis Germanico-Lithvana, Lexicon Lithuanicum, Nesselmann, Kurschat -kate šiškate Wolfenbüttel Postilla -kategi taskateghi Wolfenbüttel Postilla with voiced consonant -g- -g tàsg dialects of Papilė, TirKšliai -ga ansga Juška šiga Juška, dialects of Alsėdžiai, Skaudvilė šišga Kossarzevski, dialect of Raudėnai tàšga Pabrėža, Juška, dialects of Plungė, Raudėnai, Žemaičių Kalvarija -gat tàšgat dialects of Kvėdarna, Rietavas, Salantai -gatės aṅgatės dialects of Kuliai, Plateliai, Salantai anšgatės Alsėdžiai, Gargždai, Grūšlaukis, Stakliškės šišgatės Sereiskis, dialects of Salantai, Skuodas šišgatės Daukantas, Juška, Kossarzevski, dialects of Alsėdžiai, Gargždai, Plateliai, Salantai, Veiviržėnai, Žarėnai tàšgatės Juška, Lazdynų Pėlėda, Baronas, dialects of Grūšlaukis, Ylakiai, Kvėdarna, Luokė, Plungė, Rietavas, Salantai, Seda, Tirkšliai, Truskava, Tverai, Viekšniai, Žarėnai -gati tàšgati dialect of Žemaičių Kalvarija -gaties šišgaties dialect of Žarėnai -gatis šišgatis Niedermann, Senn, Brender and Salys tàšgatis Pabrėža, Valančius, Juška, dialects of Kretinga, Mosėdis, Plateliai, Raudėnai, Salantai, Žemaičių Kalvarija -gačiuos tàšgačiuos dialect of Šatės Straipsniai / Articles 13 ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 13 2011.06.17 08:23:46 DANIEL PETIT With tàškat: [4]　Martynas Mažvydas, Gesmes Chríkſczonijkas (MŽ 447 4 [1570]): Motriſchk taſkat sunus tawa! ‘Mother! There is Your son!’ [5]　Jonas Bretkūnas, Biblia (BB Song 5, 2 [1590]): Taſkat balsas mana Prieteliaus tuskinanczio. ‘There is the voice of my friend who is knocking.’ In this construction, the presentative particles are regularly followed by a nominative. This nominal construction is predominantly attested to in Old Lithuanian religious literature; an influence of the Biblical phraseology is possible. However, some instances may be found in later sources as well. Example with tàšga: [6]　Antanas Juška, Литовскій словарь ([1897–1922], cf. LKŽ XV 961): Tàšga triba jo dirvos! ‘Here is the edge of his field!’ A construction with an indirect interrogative clause is also found, but seems to be very rare. To judge from the material collected from the LKŽ and Old Lithuanian literature, very few instances can be produced, and most of them are doubtful. For example: [7]　Jurgis Pabrėža’s writings (LKŽ XV 961): Taſga, koks vẽl reikalas! ‘Look over there! What a story!’ Obviously, we are dealing here not with an indirect interrogative clause, but with an independent particle tasga followed by an exclamation koks vẽl reikalas! ‘what a story!’. We are not yet able to determine whether this impossibility to use these particles with indirect interrogative clauses is due to the scantiness of our documentation or reflects a significant feature. The same particles may be used as sentence-opening particles, introducing independent verbal predicates. This construction is abundantly attested not only in Old Lithuanian literature, where one might reckon with the influence of Biblical phraseology, but also in the modern dialects, where such an influence is precluded. Examples with añškat: [8]　Jonas Bretkūnas, Biblia (BB 22 Kings 4, 25 [1590]): Anſſkat ateia Sunamitiene. ‘Behold! The woman from Sunam is arrived.’ 14 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII ALL_62_63 maketas.indd　14 2011.06.17　08:23:46 Senosios lietuvių kalbos ańskat, ši̇skat, tàskat ir su jais susiję žodžiai With ši̇skat: [9] Wolfenbüttel Postilla (WP 158 30 [1573]): Ir ſchijkat Ritą metą ankſti iſch wiſſiu ſzaliu muras paſikiele. ‘And behold! Early morning arose from all countries a wall.’ [10] Jonas Bretkūnas, Biblia (BB Judg 15, 16 [1590]): Schijkat anis gul pulkais. ‘Behold! They are lying gathered together.’ [11] Jonas Bretkūnas, Biblia (BB Lk 7, 27 [1590]): Schijkat ſiuncziu Angelą mana. ‘Behold! I am sending my angel.’ With ši̇skate: [12] Wolfenbüttel Postilla (WP 195 12–13 [1573]): A meſs ſchijkate, ka/iamis miname. ‘And we – behold! – are trampling down with our feet.’ With tàskat: [13] Wolfenbüttel Postilla (WP 16v 28–29 [1573]): A taſkat artinąji jumis karaliſ/te Dangaus! ‘And behold! The word of the realm of heaven is coming to you!’ [14] Jonas Bretkūnas, Biblia (BB Gen 29, 6 [1590]): Ir ſchitai taſkat jo dukte Rahel ateit su avimis. ‘And behold! His daughter Rahel is arriving with her sheep.’ [15] Jonas Bretkūnas, Postilla (BP I 303 7 [1591]): Todelei mielas Krikſchczonie tu taſkat eſſi krikſchtitas. ‘Therefore, o dear Christ! Behold! You were baptized.’ With tàskategi: [16] Wolfenbüttel Postilla (WP 117r 10 [1573]): Taſkategi panas Die=||was tąwe paaukſtinaią. ‘Behold! The Lord God has raised you.’ With tàsgatės: [17] Dialect of Tryškiai (LKŽ XV 961): Tàsgatės kare buvo, ne juokai! ‘Behold! It was in war, is not a joke.’ Straipsniai / Articles 15 DANIEL PETIT 2. MORPHOLOGY From a morphological point of view, it is obvious that we are dealing here with two different formations. As far as I can see, forms with a voiceless consonant (-ka-) are exclusively Old Lithuanian: they occur in the Wolfenbüttel Postilla (1573) and in the works of Jonas Bretkūnas (ca 1590), Daniel Klein (1653, 1654) or Kristupas Sapūnas (1673). They are still mentioned in some 19th century dictionaries, where they were probably taken from older sources: we have for example taskat, Adv. siehe da in the dictionaries of Georg Nesselmann (1851: 95) and Friedrich Kurschat (1883: 450). On the other hand, forms with a voiced consonant (-ga-) occurred only more recently. To my knowledge, their oldest attestations go back to the writings of Jurgis Pabrėža (1771–1849) and Motiejus Valančius (1801–1875). There is thus a chronological difference between both types of endings: forms with -ka- are older than forms with -ga-. This first impression is corroborated by the dialectological distribution. In Old Lithuanian, forms with -ka- are best attested in the Wolfenbüttel Postilla (WP 1573), but occurrences are found in various texts based on other dialects as well, e.g. Martynas Mažvydas, Bretkūnas or Mikalojus Daukša. It is thus likely that the ending -ka- represents a common Lithuanian inheritance. The picture is radically different with the younger forms with -ga-, since they are restricted to a little number of Low Lithuanian (Žemaitian) dialects: they are predominantly attested in the north of a line drawn between Klaipėda and Kuršėnai (e.g. in Kretinga, Skuodas, Telšiai, Rietavas, Luokė, Papilė). From older literature one may mention the writings of Pabrėža and Valančius, both born precisely in this area (Skuodas, resp. Kretinga). It is clear that the voiced ending (-ga-) is a local innovation of the Northern Low Lithuanian dialects. However, it can hardly be considered a regular evolution of an older -ka-. 3. ETYMOLOGY Since the 19th century, the etymology of these particles has been much discussed. In a brief note, the Latvian master Jānis Endzelīns (DI II 499 [1913]) explained the ending -skat in aņskat, šīskat, tàskat as cognate with the stem of the Latvian verb skatīt ‘to see, to look’. This explanation was also adopted by Eduard Hermann (1926: 387). Another view was proposed by Adalbert Bezzenberger (1877: 175–176), who saw in aņskat, šīskat and tàskat compound forms of the demonstrative pronouns aņs (anàs), šis, resp. tà(s) in combination with different 16 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII Senosios lietuvių kalbos ańskat, ši̇̀skat, tàskat ir su jais susiję žodžiai deictic particles. He derived the first particle –ka– from the PIE coordination *kʷe ‘and’ (cf. Gr. τε, OInd. ca) and compared the second particle –t (from –te) with the ending of Lith. nèt ‘even’. In a slightly different way, Ernst Fraenkel (1921: 3, 33, cf. LEW I 11 [1962]) derived ańskat, ši̇̀skat and tàskat from the demonstrative pronouns ańs (anàs), ši̇̀s, resp. tà s in combination with a deictic particle –ka–. However, he did not trace back the ending –t to another deictic particle, but to a shortened form of the 2nd singular personal pronoun in the dative case (–ti ‘to you’ > –t). The same view was taken by Peter Arumaa (1933: 35) and more recently by Wojciech Smoczyński (2007: 17, 640, 661). None of these scholars seems to have supported any of these explanations by precise historical or typological evidence. It would perhaps not be unfair to apply to all of them the skeptical judgement pronounced by Alvils Augstkalns (1934–1935: 67) on Fraenkel’s proposal: Diese Vermutung läßt sich aber, soweit ich sehe, auch durch nichts erklären. A thorough examination of all the implications involved by these etymologies is still to be conducted. Let us begin with Endzelīns’ proposal. In support of his claim that the ending of ańskat, ši̇̀skat and tàskat goes back to a verbal form cognate to Latv. skatīt ‘to see, to look’ one could mention the Modern French presentative particles voici, voilà. These particles were created in Middle French from the imperative of the verb voir ‘to see’ in combination with the local particles ci ‘here’, resp. là ‘there’. In contrast to Fr. voici, voilà from vois ci, vois là (imperative + local particle), Lith. ańskat, ši̇̀skat, tàskat would display the opposite word order (local particles *anà, *ši̇̀, *tà + imperative of *skatitī = Latv. skatīt). From this point of view, the regular use of these particles with the nominative (as in fchijkat tarnaite weſ3paties ‘here is the maid of the Lord’ WP 118 2–3 [1573]) would be secondary. A similar case would be the Greek presentative particle ἰδοὺ ‘ecce’, which goes back to the imperative form of the aorist ἰδεῖν ‘to see’: it was originally followed by noun phrases in the accusative, but in Hellenistic Greek it came to be used with noun phrases in the nominative (e.g. ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ‘ecce homo’ Jn 19, 5). However attractive it may appear at first glance, Endzelīns’ etymology faces a serious difficulty: the segmentation proposed by Endzelīns (*anà, *ši̇̀, *tà + *sket-) does not account for the forms with a voiced consonant (cf. tàsgat, etc.), nor for the forms without final dental (cf. ši̇̀ska, tà sga, etc.). It is likely that the ending –t is not inherent to the structure, but is rather an adventitious element added to an already constituted stem, which suggests that, the connection with the verbal root of Latv. skatīt must be seen as mistaken. I now turn to Bezzenberger’s and Fraenkel’s etymologies. Whichever solution one prefers, both have in common the idea that –ka–, resp. –ga– are originally Straipsniai / Articles 17 DANIEL PETIT deictic particles added to the demonstrative stems of añs (anàs), šìs, resp. tàs. Although rare, a deictic particle -ka- occurs in some Lithuanian dialects, instead of Standard Lithuanian -ki-. A particle -ga- has left some traces in Old Lithuanian (e.g. nesanga ‘because, for’, betaiga ‘but’, cf. OPruss. anga ‘if, whether’) alongside the more frequent particle -gi-. The sibilant before these deictic particles must belong to the demonstrative stems. It should probably be interpreted as the masculine nominative singular ending (añs = anàs, šìs, tàs), and indeed in many cases the context implies agreement with a masculine singular noun, see for instance the following examples: [18] Martynas Mažvydas, Gesmes Chrikſczonijkas (MŽ 447 4 [1570]): Motriſchk tafkat sunus tawa! ‘Mother! There is Your son!’ (agreement of taskat ‘this one there’ with sunus ‘son’). [19] Simonas Daukantas (LKŽ XIV 914): Šišgatės piemuo! ‘Here is the shepherd!’ (agreement of šišgatės ‘this one here’ with piemuo ‘shepherd’). However, counter-examples are relatively frequent, either with feminine gender nouns, as in the following examples: [20] Wolfenbüttel Postilla (WP 118 2–3 [1573]): ſchikat tar/naite weſzpatties! ‘Here is the maidservant of the Lord!’ (disagreement of šiškat ‘this one here’ with tarnaītē ‘maid servant’). [21] Antanas Juška, Литовскій словарь ([1897–1922], cf. LKŽ XV 961): Tàsga triba jo dirvos! ‘Here is the edge of his field!’ (disagreement of tasga ‘this one there’ with triba ‘edge’). or with plural nouns: [22] Jonas Bretkūnas, Biblia (BB Judg 15, 16 [1590]): Schikat anis gul pulkais. ‘Behold, they are lying gathered together.’ or even without any substantive at all: [23] Dialect of Tryškiai (LKŽ XV 961): Tàṡgatės kare buvo, ne juokai! ‘Behold, it was in war, it was not a joke.’ 18 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 18 2011.06.17 08:23:46 Senosios lietuvių kalbos ańskat, ši̇skat, tàskat ir su jais susiję žodžiai This might be the result of a secondary extension, once ańskat, ši̇skat, tàskat have been reanalyzed as uninflected particles. As a parallel, one could mention the Hittite presentative particles kaš̌a, kaš̌ma ‘look here, behold’ and ašma ‘lo, behold’, which, according to a standard etymology, go back to the common gender nominative singular of demonstrative pronouns kāš ‘this one here’ (< PIE *ḱós, cf. Lith. ši̇s < *ḱi-), resp. *āš ‘this one’ (< PIE *h₁ós), in combination with a deictic particle *-(m)a (cf. Hitt. imma ‘truly, really, indeed’, namma ‘then, once again, furthermore’), but may be used more widely as petrified adverbial formations. One may likewise assume that the first part of ańskat, ši̇skat and tàskat is a frozen masculine singular nominative ending. The forms were reanalyzed as uninflected adverbs or particles. It should be noted that forms without sibilant are attested in some Lithuanian dialects: ši̇ga, ši̇gatės (beside ši̇sgatės), ańgatės (beside ańsgatės); they must be seen as renewed adverbial formations. The ending -t remains as the main problem. This is precisely the point where Bézzenberger’s and Fraenkel’s explanations diverge. I shall first discuss Fraenkel’s etymology, since nowadays it turns out to predominate in the standard handbooks. His claim is that the ending -t reflects a second singular personal pronoun in the dative case -t (from -ti ‘to you, for you’). Although not mentioned by Fraenkel nor by any scholar having endorsed his opinion, this etymology could apparently be strengthened by a vast amount of typological evidence, showing a phraseological predilection of presentative particles for being linked with second singular or plural personal pronouns in the dative. In Latin, for example, the presentative particles ecce and em ‘here is / here are’ are frequently followed by the dative singular tibi ‘to you, for you’. Examples with Lat. ecce tibi ‘here is / here are’: [24] Cicero, Pro Sestio 89: Ecce tibi consul, praetor, tribunus plebis noua noui generis edicta proponunt! ‘See now the consul, the pretor, the tribune of the people proposes new edicts of a new sort!’ [25] Cicero, Ad Atticum 7, 19: Ecce tibi ante diem tertium Nonas Februarias mane accepi tuas litteras! ‘But here, this 3rd of February, I have received in the morning a letter from you!’ With Lat. em tibi ‘here is / here are’: [26] Plautus, Asinaria 880: Em tibi hominem! ‘There is your man!’ [27] Plautus, Amphitryon 778: Em tibi pateram, eccam! ‘There! Your bowl, see!’ Straipsniai / Articles 19 ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 19 2011.06.17 08:23:46 DANIEL PETIT [28] Plautus, Pseudolus 754: Em tibi omnem fabulam! ‘There’s the whole plot for you!’ A similar feature is also documented in the Romance languages, for example in Italian, where the presentative ecco has a variant eccoti (< ecco ‘here is’ + ti ‘for you’, sg.): [29] I Fioretti di San Francesco XXXVI [first edition 1476]: Ed eccoti venire una grande moltitudine! ‘And behold! A big crowd is coming!’ [30] Pietro Aretino (1492–1556), Ragionamenti 11 [first edition 1533]: E venuto il tempo di levarsi. Eccoti mia madre che mi rimenò a casa. ‘The time to get up is come. Here is my mother who brings me back home.’ [31] Carlo Goldoni (1707–1793), La sposa persiana III 8 [first edition 1753]: Eccoti il mio consiglio. ‘Here is my advice.’ and in Old French es vos (< es ‘here is’ + vos ‘for you’, pl.): [32] Chanson de Roland 1989 [end of the 11th century]: As vus Rollant sur son cheval pasnet. ‘You’d seen Rollant aswoon there in his seat.’ [33] Beroul, Roman de Tristan 3702 [12th century]: Atant es vos le roi Artus. ‘And look, here is King Arthur.’ [34] Wace, Vie de Sainte Marguerite 562 [ca 1130–1140]: Es vos un tonoire mult grant. ‘Here is a very big thunder.’ A similar collocation of the dative of a second person pronoun with a presentative particle is also known in Biblical Armenian. At least, two instances may be found in the New Testament (aha ‘here is’ + cʿjěz ‘to you’, pl.): [35] Jn 19, 5: eu asœ Ãnosa: aha ayrd ÃjeÔ. Ew asē c‘nosa : aha ayrd c‘jěz. ‘And he saith unto them: Behold the man!’ [36] Jn 19, 14: eu asœ Ãhreaysn : aha »agawor jer ÃjeÔ. Ew asē c‘hreaysn: aha t‘agawor jer c‘jěz. ‘And he saith unto the Jews: Behold your king!’ 20 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 20 2011.06.17 08:23:46 Senosios lietuvių kalbos añskat, šiškat, taškat ir su jais susiję žodžiai Finally, every speaker of any Slavic or Baltic language knows that presentative particles may be enlarged by the dative of the second singular personal pronoun. Evidence may be found for example in Russian vot tebe (< vot ‘here is’ + tebe ‘to you, for you’, sg.): [37] Russian proverb: Vot tebe, babushka i yur’yev den’. ‘That’s, Grandma, the Yuri’s day (± What an unpleasant surprise!).’ in Polish oto ci, OPol. otóści (< oto ‘here is’ + ci ‘to you, for you’, sg.): [38] Polish (instance found on the web <symia.blog.interia.pl>): Widzieliście więc sępa łaciatego? Oto ci on. ‘Did you (pl.) see the speckled vulture? Here he is.’ in Lithuanian e.g. tè táu, và táu (< tè, và ‘here is’ + táu ‘to you, for you’, sg.): [39] Dialect of Daukšiai (cf. LKŽ XV 1046): Te tau mano bėrą žirgą. ‘Here is my bay horse.’ [40] Dialect of Mžš (cf. LKŽ XVII 763): Và táu gražioji diena – koks debesys kyla! ‘What a lovely day, indeed – what a cloud is raising!’ and in Latvian e.g. še tev (< še ‘here is’ + tev ‘to you, for you’, sg.): [41] Lerchis-Puškaitis, 1891. Latviešu tautas (teikas un) pasakas, V 318 (cf. ME IV 13): Še tev brīnumi! ‘What a surprise! (± Look at this miracle!)’ In some cases, this feature may be explained by a special pragmatic value of the presentative particle which does not only draw attention to something, but also invites the speech partner to take possession of it, which implies that the dative case refers to the recipient or beneficiary of the action. The general meaning then is ‘here is for you, at your disposal, you may take it’. In other contexts, there is no such implication of giving something, but the dative case seems merely to point out the presence of a speech partner who is invited to feel concerned about the action, that is, the function of the dative is that of a so-called ‘ethical dative’. Even if the ethical dative is not particularly frequent in Baltic, its existence should not be controversial at least for the oldest stages of the Baltic languages. It is interesting that the same typological feature is expressed in different Indo-European languages with various linguistic means ; this shows that encoding of a speech partner is frequently seen as constitutive of presentative particles. Nevertheless, all Straipsniai / Articles 21 DANIEL PETIT this typological evidence would convincingly support Fraenkel’s etymology of the ending -t of Lith. aňskat, šiškat and tàskat. Nevertheless, typology itself is not an argument in etymological issues; it has only a confirmatory value. One must first examine whether the reconstruction proposed is simply possible from a technical point of view. Having this point in mind, let us now have a look at Bezzenberger’s etymology. According to Bezzenberger, a structure like tàskat should be seen as the result of the agglutination of two deictic particles (–ka– + –t). It is true that presentative particles are often expanded by the addition of other deictic or local adverbs or particles: in Lithuanian, for example, beside štai ‘ecce’, instances of štai čia are also found. Long forms such as šiškate, tàskategi, šišgatės and tàsgatės seem to speak in favor of the form *–tē > *–te which could reasonably be equated with the local particle tè ‘there’ (if from *–tē < *teh1); there is also evidence for a clitic form, cf. OLith. arte (SD3 413) and artès (SD1 127, SD3 4) ‘maybe’ beside ar. Taken at face value, these forms seem to weaken Fraenkel’s explanation of the ending –t by a personal pronoun –ti in the dative case. At least, one would be compelled to accept the idea that the ending –ti was replaced by –te on the analogy of a pattern *–t / *–te attested in some adverbial formations, see for example Lith. net ‘even’ and OLith. nete PK 98 (cf. also netegi = netgi in SD3 32, netes in the manuscript dictionary of Silvestras Gimžauskas 1879–1881) or Lith. anót ‘according to’ and anòte or anotè ‘according to’. But it is true that such an analogy rests on a shaky foundation and appears to be too far-removed from a semantic point of view to be likely to have played a role whatsoever in the formation of šiškate, tàskategi, šišgatės and tàsgatės. On the other hand, some of the presentative particles in question display long forms with a final vowel –i, e.g. tàsgati (in the dialect of Žemaičių Kalvarija), šišgatis (in the dictionary of Max Niedermann, Alfred Senn, Franz Brender and Antanas Salys), tàsgatis (in the works of Pabrėža, Valančius and Juška, and in the dialects of Kretinga, Mosėdis, Plateliai, Raudėnai, Salantai, Žemaičių Kalvarija), which could speak in favor of Fraenkel’s etymology. In any case, one has to assume some secondary analogy. It is thus difficult to determine which form is old and which is new. Another argument in favor of the reconstruction of a deictic particle *–tē > *–te in aňskat, šiškat and tàskat, and against the dative of a personal pronoun is the fact that the same particle *–tē > *–te > *–t may occur, although sporadically, with other local particles, even when they are not presentative particles. In some Lithuanian dialects, we find for example čionáitės ‘here’ (LKŽ II 115, dialect of Bartninkai) or tenáitės ‘there’ (LKŽ XVI 34, dialects of Vilkaviškis, Daukšiai, Bartninkai). If the ending –t, *–te or *–tē-s, was the refection of an older personal pronoun *–ti, one would expect to find it only in presentative particles, because, as I have already 22 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII ALL_62_63 maketas.indd 22 2011.06.17 08:23:47 Senosios lietuvių kalbos añskat, šiškat, tàskat ir su jais susiję žodžiai pointed out, encoding of a speech partner is particularly important in such particles, not in normal local particles in which the presence of an ethical dative would hardly be justified. Nevertheless, this argument is rather weak, because we could assume that the ending of añskat, šiškat and tàskat is different from that of čionáitės, tenáitės and that the ending of šišgatės, tàšgatės is simply due to analogy. 4. CONCLUSION In view of these data, there is no way to decide between both solutions: Fraenkel’s etymology appears very attractive on a typological level, but leaves certain questions open; Bezzenberger’s explanation is more trivial and probably less exciting, but still remains as a possibility. It would be nice, of course, if we could fit the Lithuanian data into a more general typological framework. However, it all depends on the data and data alone. L I T E R A T U R E A r u m a a P e t e r 1933: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der litauischen Personalpronomina. Tartu: Universitas Tartuensis. A u g s t k a l n s A l v i l s 1934–1935: Baltische Miszellen. – Studi Baltici 4, 63–71. BB – B r e t k ū n a s J o n a s 1590: Biblia tatai esti wissas Schwentas Raschtas Lietuwischkai pergulditas per Jana Bretkuna. Königsberg. B e z z e n b e r g e r A d a l b e r t 1877: Beiträge zur Geschichte der litauischen Sprache. Auf Grund litauischer Texte des XVI. und des XVII. Jahrhunderts. Göttingen: Peppmüller. BP – B r e t k ū n a s J o n a s 1591: Postilla Tatai esti Trumpas ir Prastas Ischguldimas Euangeliju / sakamuiu Basznyczoie Krikschczionischkoie / nuog Aduento ik Waeliku. Per Iana Bretkuna [...]. – Jono Bretkūno Postilė, ed. by Ona Aleknavičienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2005. B ü h l e r K a r l 1934: Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer. DI I–IV – E n d z e l ī n s J ā n i s 1971–1982: Darbu izlase 1–4. Rīga: Zinātne. F i l l m o r e C h a r l e s 1997: Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications. F r a e n k e l E r n s t 1921: Baltoslavica, Beiträge zur balto-slavischen Grammatik und Syntax. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Straipsniai / Articles 23 DANIEL PETIT Grevisse Maurice 11936, 121986: Le bon usage, Grammaire française. Bruxelles: Duculot. Hermann Eduard 1926: Litauische Studien, Eine historische Untersuchung schwachbetonter Wörter im Litauischen. Göttingen: Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft zu Göttingen. Kurschat Friedrich 1883: Littauisch–Deutsches Wörterbuch. Halle. Levinson Stephen C. 2006: “Deixis”. – The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn, Gregory L. Ward. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 97–120. LEW I–II – Fraenkel Ernst 1962–1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1–2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. LKŽ 2II, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 2, 2-asis leid. Ats. red. Jonas Kruopas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1969; 14–15. Vyr. red. Kazys Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1986–1991; 16. Vyr. red. Kazys Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1995; 17. Vyr. red. Vytautas Vitkauskas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996. ME I–IV – Mühlenbach Karl, Endzelīns Jānis 1923–1932. Latviešu valodas vārdnīca, Lettisch-deutsches Wörterbuch 1–4. Rīga: Izglītības ministrija. MŽ – Mažvydas Martynas 1547–1570: Gesmes Chrīkſczoniſkas. – Katekizmas ir kiti raštai, ed. by Giedrius Subačius. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1995. MŽ – Mažvydas Martynas 1547–1570: Gesmes Chrīkſczoniſkas. – Martyno Mažvydo raštai ir jų šaltiniai, ed. by Guido Michelini. Vilnius: Mokslas, 2000. Nesselmann Georg H. F. 1851: Wörterbuch der Littauischen Sprache. Königsberg: Verlag der Gebrüder Bornträger. Niedermann Max, Senn Alfred, Salys Antanas, Brender Franz 1932–1968: Wörterbuch der litauischen Schriftsprache 1–4. Heidelberg: Winter. Petit Daniel 2010: On presentative particles in the Baltic languages. – Particles and Connectives in Baltic, ed. by Nicole Nau, Norbert Ostrowski. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 151–170. PK – Petkevičius Merkelis 1598: Katechismas. – 1598 metų Merkelio Petkevičiaus Katekizmas, ed. by Juozas Balčikonis. Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos knygų leidimo komisija, 1939. Sasse Hans-Jürgen 1987: The Thetic/Categorical Distinction Revisited. – Linguistics 25, 511–580. SD – Sirvydas Konstantinas 31642: Dictionarium trium linguarum. – Pirmasis lietuvių kalbos žodynas, ed. by Antanas Lyberis. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1979. 24 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 24 2011.06.17 08:23:47 Senosios lietuvių kalbos ańskat, ši̇̀skat, tàskat ir su jais susiję žodžiai SD – S i r v y d a s K o n s t a n t i n a s K. 1ca 1620: Dictionarium trium linguarum. – Senasis Konstantyno Sirvydo žodynas, ed. by Kazys Pakalka. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1997. S m o c z y ń s k i W o j c i e c h 2007: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. WP – Wolfenbüttler Postilla 1573: Die litauische Wolfenbütteler Postille von 1573, ed. by Jolanta Gel umbeckaitė. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag in Kommission, 2008. Senosios lietuvių kalbos ańskat, ši̇̀skat, tàskat ir su jais susiję žodžiai S A N T R A U K A Šio straipsnio tikslas – aptarti parodomųjų dalelyčių poklasiui – pristatomosioms dalelytėms – priklausančių ańskat, ši̇̀skat, tàskat, gausiai paliudytų senuosiuose lietuviškuose raštuose ir kai kuriose dabartinėse lietuvių tarmėse, etimologijas. Išsamiau analizuojamos dvi šių dalelyčių kilmės versijos, kurias iškėlė Adalbertas Bezzenbergeris (1) ir Ernstas Fraenkelis (2): 1) ańskat, ši̇̀skat, tàskat traktuojami kaip dūriniai, sudaryti iš parodomųjų įvardžių ańs (anàs), ši̇̀s, tà ir įvairių parodomųjų dalelyčių; 2) ańskat, ši̇̀skat, tàskat laikomi dariniais iš parodomųjų įvardžių ańs (anàs), ši̇̀s, tà, parodomosios dalelytės -ka- ir sutrumpėjusio asmeninio įvardžio antrojo asmens vienaskaitos naudininko linksnio (-ti ‚tau‘ > -t). Detaliai aptarus šias hipotezes ir nurodžius argumentus pro ir contra, prieita prie išvados, kad verifikuoti kurią nors iš šių hipotezių galėtų tik išsami lietuvių kalbos duomenų analizė. Įteikta 2011 m. vasario 12 d. DANIEL PETIT École normale supérieure 45, rue d’Ulm, 75005 PARIS, France E-mail – [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 25