Dėl galūnių ir kamiengalių

Notes South galiiniy ir kamiengaliy These lines were inspired by prof. Vytautas Ambrazo Siame ALL in the room (pp. 109-111) printed comment 54th ALL issue i&printed article by Jolanta Vaskelienés (Vaskeliené 2006). The author of the aforementioned article, based on some authors' interpretations of the personal form endings of the Lithuanian 3 verb Zodziy -a, -i, to be considered -o finals in synchronous poïiriu, helped to adapt to ji the character ir of participant division. This attempt to fully rethink the consequences of the chosen interpretation of a certain expression in other areas of the grammatical framework is, without doubt, a useful thing that is rarely practiced. be ir Tatiau, anot Vytautas Ambrazo’s analysis, on which the author of the article relies, has been widely rejected in the literature. ir Prof. Ambrazas primena Vlado Zulio ir Tatjanos Bulygina's works, in which it is: firmly demonstrated that the synchronic verb personalization system of Lithuanian language can be transparently and consistently ir described only by considering the personal forms endings 3 as vowel stems, attempts to translate them into final forms are o obscured by numerous artificial flexions* (p. 110). Ig The straight approach, according to which the ends 3 of the person's forms are considered to be stone-ends, may seem more economical, so ir better those in which they are considered to ir be ends. uz Tags ar jo advantage is possible ,to firmly demonstrate- *, finally solving the problem by ir forever closing the discussion On this issue, it seems doubtful. By the way, when one issue is solved, ju another arises. After introducing j the action-word change back into the past, the question inevitably arises: why not introduce jy the noun i change? Isivede j veiksmaZodZio asmenuote Akademinéje gramatikoje i8stumtus kamiengalius, Current Lithuanian Language Grammar (hereinafter referred to as: DLKG) authors have not chosen to describe noun verbs according to the principle of pangy. Vowels in the forms vyr-a-ms, %mon-o-ms, siin-u-ms, gél-é-ms, av-i-ms a, 0, u, é, i in this grammar, the aprage me remains inseparable from the final parts, as it was ir Academic Grammar. Unknown We can only guess behind the scenes of the DLKG writing why different principles were chosen for the noun than for the verb. It may be suggested that some importance could have been given to purely statistical arguments. For the ty relative number of forms, in which the historical stem remains ir intact and easily recognizable, is greater in personification than in humorization. ActionZodiacWithdraw current time I want to thank Dr. 0. Vaigiulytei-Romanezuk (VarSuva University), with whom I recently su had the opportunity to discuss Lithuanian language ZodZiy on work issues. This discussion helped me formulate some of the These remarks contain a point. 112 Notes In the i§ paradigm of five actually distinct forms three (60 %) keeps the stone oil healthy -a- (leading, leading, leading), only two merge ji the rear su (see, see). The noun gélé paradigm has a ig maximum of thirteen different forms (multiple counts) The subjunctive always su coincides with the denominator) seven (slightly less than 54 %) i8laiko sveika kamiengalj - is- (v.s. gel, gelling, gelling, dgs. gélés, géléms, gélémis, gélése), in other cases, to operate on the stone-age vowels, additional morphological rules need to be introduced. The difference is not very pronounced, but in other cases the results are somewhat Worse: -okamieny case (July, Dec. caud. for linden) only 46 % form keeps a voice -o-. Of course, all this is only an illusion: we do not know, the possibility of changing the noun verb ar according to the same principles, operating ir with the stone, the author of the DLKG has always been discussed. Apparently, Bulyginos ir Zulis's articles prompted the authors to change the verb's o The question ir of unification of the noun-conjugation was not raised. O considering such a possibility should be dél keliy priZas¢iy. The statistical differences mentioned above can be overcome by treating verb nouns su differently, by introducing the kamiengalius ir only in the verb change area. i However, another important issue of the Lithuanian grammar tradition, namely the so-called final form, prompts us to rethink the definition of nouns. $i savoka is a peculiar feature of Lithuanian language grammar even the — term other languages j i8translate almost impossible. Ig Where did ji it come from? The author of this line is néra atlikes nuodugniy lietuviy Studying the traditions of word making, but perhaps it is too risky to say that it was created by removing the roots of the noun. ne ji Whereas: Word glasses conclusion -us sync8when considered a backend, Make i’conclusion that the reference Zodiac glass at a glance Six The word only differs by one ~ final element. Comparison Build a belangé su backdrop Zodiac window, two working means are distinguis- — hed at the ir rear. Sis apagas iS first A glance seems credible, tèiau uz jo lies there: true Paradox: since every phrase has a different ending, The word stikliai ix actually has one, ne thirteen o different forms for each syllable other, — except for always the same plural denominator ir The rear of the constable. South These complications are usually not considered: it is said that Zodyje glasses as darybiné The measure is used in the final -’us, 0 ig The abstraction is essentially operated Gia,,,generalized“ rear (,,galiiné -’us or equivalent ja Patios paradigmos galiinés". That in such cases the noun is meant in its entirety, explicitis verbis pabrézia Urbutis (1978: 221). But this clarification of the formulation does not change the essence of the matter: to use operands constant, for all variable forms 113 Notes the general characteristic of the verb, the verb is combined with an element that changes according to the grammatical category — the final, and there are different verbs for each syllable and for both numbers. This faulty construction of bitty can be avoided by separating it from the final stem, which is common to all vocatives and both numerals. In this case, in Zodyje stiklius the means of making used is to change the stone (-a-—-'u), 0 the final remains the same. For the creation of a word there are two necessary means —pre-emptive and pre-emptive -é-; in the final form of the nominative belangé nebiity (since the nominative forms are as unzyméty as the actionaZodZio 3rd person forms in the actionazZodzZio paradigm, this seems quite normal). In favour of such a definition there is yet another argument: it is already applied in the definition of the Lithuanian language in part i8, so much so that it is masked. What is the difference between ZodzZiai Queen and pork? According to the DLKG —prepositions: in one case -iené (p. 142), in another —-iena (p. 141). But this obviously contradicts the example of noun conjugation given in the same grammar: after all, -é and -a are finalisés, so the suffix is common to both words. Can the final part of an adverb be biiti? This should not be the case, but if we agree that the operative means of Zodziy karaliené and poruliena consist of the adverb sensu stricto and the substantive, then we get two different operative tense -ien-éir -ien-o-, to which we can assign different operative meanings. In fact, this is done by distinguishing the suffixes -iené and -iena. So much so, that then to the elsewhere given description of the change (according to which -a and -é are final), and i3 esmés and »galiiniy darybos« are given their own ways. When comparing the words belangé (: langas) and pork (: kiaulé) it is clear that in both cases there is a change in the conjugation, but in one case this change is regarded as a constructive means, and in the other it is ignored by adding the conjugation to the adverb. Preconceptions in the very concept of grammar remain masked, and usually no one pays attention to them (although Urbutis 1978: 222 briefly mentions the matter). The proposal here to re-introduce stems and nouns is not the only one. Using stems, it is possible to operate on an abstract, phonetically unrealized part of the verb — transferring it to another type of conjugation. Already Urbutis (1978: 221) uses the term,,final actions“ as a substitute for the term,,paradigmization“. The term,,paradigmization“ is used, e.g., by Smetona (2005). But what is paradigm(- i)zation? Is it the paradigm itself, or a paradigm shift? If the paradigm itself, it turns out to be a certain complication, because there is no then done114 Notes biskai neiSvestiniy Zodziy. The final whole then performs not only qualitative functions, but also constructive. The noun’s brother’s final i3 stem in the plural leads to the noun’s brother, although the noun’s meaning is not easy to define. On the other hand, if the meaning of the action is a paradigm shift, then also the definition of the action becomes significantly complicated. For when defining the pronouns of the Zodiac brother, child, sibling, we usually do not consider to which paradigms the basic Zodiacs brother, child, sinus belong: the suffix mechanically determines the type of change regardless of the basic Zodiac's type of conjugation. But if we consider the change of paradigm type as a means of action when considering the relationship between ZodZiy langas and belangé, this should also be done in the case of the child. This complicates the apraSq greatly, because it makes it necessary to include a lot of unnecessary, 100 percent predictable information, such as the fact that the changing paradigm of the minor form kid is different from that of the substantive child. Having all this in mind, the old principle applied by SkardZius (1943) does not seem so bad, when (albeit inconsistently) such constructive elements are distinguished as -ja-(aukstis —aukstas), -ju-(kolius,- anglininkas, K6hler‘ —kolis), or (when coal forms a complex unit with the suffix) -ala-(plantas), -inja-(silbrinis) and so on. Such a treatment may seem too historical, but no less historically motivated is the statement that in the form of the plant lies the fossil -a-. Similarly, as in the case of verb personalization, the decision to introduce stems and nouns in the definition of verb personalization is motivated not by the assumption that the synchronic definition should coincide with the historically justified one, but by the aim to describe the qualitative and constructive morphology of the current Lithuanian language in a simple and uncomplicated way. In the case of a noun, the advantage of such a definition is triple: (i) the actual definition of noun conjugation would acquire the same characteristics of,,transparency and consistency*, which Prof. Ambrazas recognizes and appreciates in the case of action-word personification, (ii) the definitions of noun and action-word conjugation would be based on the same principles, (iii) it would be easier to make word-making definitions and not remain a prefix, when the same segment -é in the pages of the same grammar is regarded as the final part, and elsewhere as the part of the adverb (-iené). The authors of DLKG decided not to use these advantages, and we are not going to criticize this decision here. However, there is no basis to say that the solutions applied in this grammar are more transparent and consistent than those applied in Jolanta Vaskeliene- 's article. Prepositions: the position where both the endings of the form ugal-a-ms and the form aug-a (-ams and -a) are final is more consistent than the DLKG author's position, where only the ending -ams of the first form is final. 115 Notes BIBLIOGRAPHY DLKG ~ The grammar of the present-day hetyuviy language. 4th supplementary edition. Vilnius: Institute of ir Science and Technology. Skanvztus, P. 1943/1996. Lietuviy languages Zodziy daryba. Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, Vilnius, 1943. Lithuania Selected works 1, par. A. Rosinas, from Vilnius: Science ir encyclopedias publishing 1996. house, Smerona, A. 2005, Main work on the issue of appointment of bidy. Minutes Linguistics Lithuanica 52, 83-89. Urautis, V., Zodziy's 1978. theory of work. Vilnius: Mokslas. VaskeLaené, J. 2006: Dél of the present ir tense participle and participle action morphological ir breakdown. Minutes Linguistics Lithuanica 54, 83-93. Axel Bolvoet Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileigio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lithuania South syntactically bilingual ir reminder-reminder structures Su Rolando Mikulsko ,,Notes dél syntactic ambiguity sqvokas“ (Sis ALL Issue, pp. 1-53) polemize prompted ne only the issue mentioned in the title of the article, but ir ,,other related matters- *, in particular This line by the author 2003 m. (based on Bogustawskio 1977 m. concept) formulated the criticism of the concept of actual division. Discussion While it touches on fundamental questions of the grammar structure of the language, Mikulski's remarks raise ir fundamental problems. First of all dél syntactic ambiguity: According to Roland Mikulskas, the construct we are discussing is Onutés Green eyes cannot be considered as syntaxically ambiguous, because they have a clear, only ji This construction has two meanings; syntactic ambiguity implies semantic ambiguity, which ir We just don't notice it. In cognitive linguistics, the position of which i8 Mikulskas criticizes with analysis (similar to constructioir ny in grammar, which can be considered cognitive 116