Dar kartą dėl sintaksinių ryšių skirstymo

Notes in the tuva are provided by pirsys sf. pl. (1) even at Varniy (LKZ, 26 provides 2pirSis). The horses were usually ridden by men, who broadly say that there are pirSys, pirsims, that is, pirsys sm. sing. unknown iS location I know. In the book ir there are many typo errors: = brudZas briioZas, = ruézas rtiozas, = rasliava rasliava, Eerina = Ezeriina, ti lydziu tud = lydzit, skétra skétra = scom. (1) ir skétrd sf. (4), aFZuolas = driuolas, z. pudkai = puokat z. Vytautas Antanas Vitkauskas Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileitium g. 5 LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania Again dél sintaksiniy rySiy in the year of distributi2006 on iéjo The fourth, revised edition of the current Lithuanian grammar. Whereas: The editor-in-chief of this grammar recently (Ambrazas 2005: 168) admitted that in previous DLKG licenses used morphological ,,... control ir For the study of the development of the syntactic system of ir conjugation in Lithuanian language, it was not very useful to look at how the types of conjugation are defined in the new, revised edition. It turns out that ir In this release, the same debugging, control and ir Fusion. Pacituosime i8 eilés ju apibrézimus: »Adjusting is the selection of the morphological form of the dependent ZodZio (vowel, consonant, genus) according to the Zodj... * (DLKG*, p. 480); »Management is the selection of a dependent Word, sqlygowana by the connectivity of the main Word. Valdomu Zodziu daZniausiai ema noun ivardziy ar verbs [.... It can go unchanged ir The shape of the zodiac’ (also, »Merging is the selection 480). of the form of the dependent Word according to its meaning, unconditioned by the connection of the main Word* For convenience, 481). let us compare the cited definitions ia with the definitions su given in previous editions. The definition of tuning, compared to previous releases, has su not changed, but the ir The definitions of fusion previously read as follows: »The control is the choice of the form of the dependent Zodz10 verb, conditioned by the conjugation of the main Zodz.“ (DLKG', 480). 104 Notes »Shejima is a connection, not the expression of a dependent word. In this respect, the Fusion constitutes the prerequisiir te for the coordination of control taken together.” (also, 481). J§ the definitions j given in the new edition are of a different nature: in defining harmonization and Merging is about choosing the form of the dependent Word, while controlling is o about choosing the dependent ~ Word itself. AiSku, that without limiting the control only to the arrow control (as was done in previous DLKG editions) should be understood as a selection of semantically adequate part of the speech and lexical content: verb noréti atveria, for example, position of the propositional argument, (I want sleep) or intercourse (I want to sleep); 8ia position can, but must necessarily take funny changes as Zodis. According to similar principles, it is not possible to define matching, so control is defined syntactically, matching morphologically. The o definition of — pouring remains vague. In the construction I want to sleep Zodis sleep is selected according to the control Zodzio junguma, in the construction variné handle o Zodzio variné Form is selected according to the main Zodj. The question arises, what is the meaning of compounds half magnes, ZodZiy half back rorma ir selected by The meaning of this form. What form is it? Juk Zodiacs back in ir half are unchangeable! So Gia repeats ta the same situation that ir prompted DLKG authors clarify the definition of control: since the Sliejimo savoka includes we traveled last year, we traveled in forests type ir constructions, then certainly ir its definition should be supplemented with the same words that i§ were added when defining control (we give them only in reverse order, reflective order, according to which ir p. 480-481 given examples): »Merged Words usually go in the unchanged form of the Word L..]. It can go with nounZiy jvardZiy ir humorously*. ar But then it is no longer understood why in one case it is said that the dependent Zodis, another 0 form of the — dependent ZodzZio. Let's try to apply practically the given Sliejimo definition: in the compound ilgesgas Žilgsnis Zodiio longsighted morphological form is selected according to the main Zodi, in 0 the compound A glimpse back Word back form is selected by the main ne Word conjunction in ir general by main ne Zodi,,,pao gal jos reik'me". Kokia Word back form ¢is it meant morphologically any — other? ar Apparently morphologiné, because other authors do not mention (although only in the case of harmonisation they specify that the morphological form is meant). However, the morphologi8i cal form cannot be associated with the verb, the su genitive number ir after the signs, because you have the word back, of course, does not have. By the way, if he had them, he would probably be matched according to them ir su 105 Notes on the main ZodZiu. So, what form of ZodZio back is chosen not according to the main Zodi, it remains unclear. It is true that in the case of such compounds as atsisédom pasilséti bitty, it can be said that the morphological form 8i is communicative. But then it is not clear why a different formulation is used in the case of fusion than in the case of control. In the definition of control it is added that,‘in controlled words, the noun or the verb is usually in vowel […] It can also be in the unchanged form of the word’. In this case, »unchangeable« actually means,,unchangeable with apostrophes“. But even if in the case of Sliejimo we choose a broader concept of “variable Zodis” than in the case of control, including also the personified and non-personified forms of the action Zodis, then the definition of Sliejimo still remains unclear, because no one explains to the reader what other, besides morphological, form the Zodis back can have. Kodél The definition of Slicing is about the choice of the dependent Word Form, 0 is not about the choice of the Word itself, it is easy to understand. For if Merger is defined as the choice of a dependent Word, unconditioned by the conjugation of the main word, then Merger is a subtype of Merger, and it is necessary to distinguish between Merging and Non-Merging Merger; or, even better, it is necessary to eliminate the i3 connection type from the list and adopt the distinction between control and modification that is proposed in Lithuanian grammar works (see Holvoet, Judzentis 2003, Holvoet, Judzentis 2005). In order to avoid this, it is about the choice of form. Whether this is a better solution is doubtful. For if the word back has some morphological form, which is chosen according to the meaning of this form, then perhaps the word long-lasting (in addition to the already mentioned pozymiy of the verb, gender and number) has such a form, and then the combination defined by this is a subtype of Merger? Since the DLKG authors postulated that the morphological form of the back of the Zodzio is not visible to the naked eye, we cannot confirm such an opinion, but we cannot reject it either. In general, it cannot be said that the newly defined control and fusion stresses are less morphologically defined than the previous ones. In fact, only the definition of control is less morphologically defined, while the definition of fusion remains the same as before. In fact, there is no longer any reason for this, because both definitions refer to completely different things: in one case to the choice of a dependent word, in the other case to the choice of the form of a dependent word. The contradiction between fusion and harmonization has also ceased to exist in its essence, because if the definition of harmonization speaks about »the choice of the morphological form according to the main word«, then it probably has to be understood that the Si form is chosen according to the form of the main word, not according to its conjugation (which is completely irrelevant for harmonization); in order for the fusion to be formed for matching, it must be defined as a choice of form not based on 106 Notes The form of the main Word. The following definition brings up the,,form selection according to the main ne The fact that the word is connected does not distinguish fusion from harmonization, because This criterion applies to both connection types. Thus, although the connection tipy definitions, compared to su previous DLKG permits, significantly changed, the total number of internal PriStaravimy remained more or less the same, or even notSignificantly increased. Ir in the future we will watch closely In this grammar, which is so important for university studies, the development of the concept of conjunction is applied. [wondering how connection types will be defined in other Current editions of Lithuanian grammar, which will undoubtedly be more in the future. Amrazas, V. 2005: [Rec.] Axel Bolvoet, Artiras Judzentis, red., Sintaksiniy rySiy tyrimai, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 2003. Acta Linguistics Lithuanica 52, 167-170. Hotvoer, A., and Juozevns, A. 2003: Types of syntax relations. In: A. Howoer, A. Juvzenns, ed., Syntax Relationship Studies, Vilnius: Howvoer, A., Jupzevnis, 11-35, A., 2005a: The Lithuanian Language Institute. Types of syntax dependencies: additions ir clarifications. In: A. Holvoet, R. Mikulskas, ed., Gramatiniy funky tyrimai, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 11-38. DLKG' = Vytautas Ambrazas, red., Modern Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Science ir encyclopedia publishing 1994, house, DLKG* = Vytautas Ambrazas, red., Dabartinés lietuviy kalbos gramatika. Fourth revised edition. Vilnius: Science ir encyclopedia publishing institute, 2006. Axel Bolvoet Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileigio g. 5 LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania South Lietuviy kalbos tarmiy chrestomatijos recenzijos! Obviously, every book is only alive when it has a reader. su All authors and editors want to ar hear as much — feedback as possible about the prepared publication. Lithuanian language tarmiy chrestomatijos (Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 2004, 328, * Minutes Linguistics Lithuanica 52, 170-174. 107