Daniel Petit. „Apophonie et catégories grammaticales dans les langues baltiques“

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LIIT (2005) 111-131 REVIEWS Reviews Danie. Petit APOPHONIE ET CATEGORIES GRAMMATICALES DANS LES LANGUES BALTIQUES Leuven-Paris: Peeters, 2004, 436 p., ISBN 90-429-1529-3 (Peeters Leuven), ISBN 2-87723-824-5 (Peeters France) (Collection linguistique publiée par la Society de Linguistics de Paris, Ixxxvi) Before we begin to talk about this book, it is worth remembering that during the “golden age” of the historical comparative method of Western European linguistics, the Lithuanian language was mainly studied by Germans and, a little later, by French. Ferdinand de Saussure is undoubtedly the pioneer of Lithuanian language research in France, who not only visited the Lithuanian residential territory in 1879 or 1880 (Godel 1973: 7-24; Mauro 1972: 331-332), but also began teaching Lithuanian in the universities of Paris (and later Geneva). The most prolific French linguist, Antoine Meillet, relied heavily on Lithuanian facts in his Indo-Europeanistic works. His pupil Robert Gauthiot visited Lithuania twice, in 1900 and 1901. $10 The fruit of the linguist's first trip to Lithuania - in 1903 a separate book was published in Paris, the first monograph dedicated to Baltic studies Buivydiy Snekta (Le parler de Buividze). And the second monograph on Baltic studies in France had to wait a whole century. It was published in 2004 by Daniel Petit, a linguist who is interested in Baltic studies and speaks Lithuanian fluently. However, the monograph reviewed by Gia differs significantly from the first one. For Robert Gauthiot- ’s monograph was focused on the Eastern Slavic language, while Daniel Petit’s book is devoted to the study of all the grammatical categories of the Baltic language and the problems of the development of apophomia. The author of the book in Pratarméje (p. 5-6) indicates that Gia’s reviewed,,work, originating from the 15th IV habilitation defended at the University of Paris Sorbonne on October 12, 2002, is before’ several years started. the result of comparative linguistics, and more precisely, of the study of Baltic languages (Lithuanian, Latvian and ancient Pries)” (p. 5). Of course, the author does not forget not only Ferdinand de Saussure, who started a long tradition of studying Baltic languages, but also Robert Gauthiot, the author of the first monograph dedicated to Baltic languages. Thus the reviewed book, in addition to the Contents (p. 3-4) and the already mentioned Pratarmés, consists of Jvadas (p. 7-13), Se3i compartments of different sizes (1 Category of person ir Root apophony, p. 15-22; 2. The category of the joyful and the root apophony, p. 23-121; 3. The category of number and the root apophony, p. 123-169; 4. The category of Giminés and the apophony of Sakniné, p. 171-191; 5. The category of determination and the root apophony, p. 193-288; 6. 289-361), and concludes with the problems of comparative phonetics, it is obvious that a fairly long list of literature on this subject can be cited from August Schleicher to the present day. But then we 112 | REVIEWS (p. 363-374), Word register (p. 377-410) and Bibliography (p. 411-436), at the beginning of which are added languages, grammatical terms and some abbreviations of publications (p. 411-412). The author Jvade notes that,,traditionally, apophony is studied from a formal point of view: it is usually necessary to determine which phonemes are involved in the vowel change and what is their formal relationship*, and explains that, according to this position, two types of apophony are usually distinguished: qualitative and quantitative (p. 8), further stating that,,apophony can also be studied from a functional point of view, when defining the morphological and semantic relationships between the foundational forms (formes de fondation) and the i&vestiniy forms (formes fondées) of apophony“ (p. 9). In other words, the author of the reviewed work is more interested in the so-called grammatical apophony, which requires in the grammatical structure of the Lithuanian language one grammatical form to form the other, i.e. the author of the monograph devotes all his attention to i§ ide. the inherited apophony of the epoch in the Baltic languages to be discussed. Todél §j rei8kinj Daniel’is Petit vertina ide. comparative grammar. Thus, this monograph is limited only to the Root apophony, i.e. the change of the vowels in the Word and you forms in the Roots, and all the questions of prepositional apophony are not touched. Such limitation of the author is not difficult to explain: in one monograph it is simply impossible to examine the problems of prepositional apophony in addition to Saknine. It remains to be hoped that Daniel Petit will discuss the adverbial apophony in Baltic languages in his frightening works. Stang 1966: 120t.; Zinkevicius 1980: 1, 89-96) has long been known that i8 ide. The main features of the inherited apophony of the epoch are relatively well preserved in Baltic languages, but some types of vowel change have already been lost, and some have been significantly updated. In addition, when we recall the almost two-century history of historical comparative linguistics and the role that representatives of this direction played in the Lithuanian language, we can see the various ideas that they expressed. would be far away from the content of the reviewed book. Therefore, it is self-evident that, having taken up the issue of voice change, Daniel’s new Petit book, first of all, the question arises, what distinguishes ji it from other i8 similar work. In order to answer your question more broadly or narrowly and to assess how your book differs from other works, you need to iS In words to mention not ne only the issues addressed by the author, but also the conclusions arising from the results of the research. The least of all is the first chapter, which discusses how the root apophony relates to the category of the person. And this is self-evident, because, according to the author, the category of person in Baltic languages has never been associated with the change of vowels, because this feature was inherited from its i$ ide. prokalbés, in which the personal opposition in the verb paradigm will already have been grammatized* and in this case the white language will not change the idea. systems (p. 22). In the second, the largest, 98-page chapter, the author of the monograph concentrates his attention on the basic noun-word category in the Belarusian language — the syllable category — and attempts to determine the role played by inherited opposition in the development of the noun-word category. This category is for the English-language subcategory. In order to answer his question, D. Petit hypothesizes that the probaléi In Zodziy's paradigm there will be unfamiliar apophonic tensions. These pressures, when sg. name. once had a basic degree (cf. old pr. peuse <*peuk’,side- “), while others have a weak degree - (plg. lie. half < *puk’), which in Baltic languages, according to the author, is iSlike. True, the $1 apophony isn't bad inside that patina paradigm, it's indirectly witnessed REVIEWS | in 273 independent lexicons (plg. p. 55). However, in the introduction of the chapter the author admits ir that if it is possible to talk about Substrate preservation of the root apophomia in Baltic languages, iS we must admit that it occurs only under certain conditions that those ir ,,the data in the collection* allowing us to look at the earlier apophony subset are foreign to the synchronous apophony system (plg. 120-121). Su the second chapter is in some way connected ir to the third, which discusses the category of the number (p. 123-169), because the category of number is suitable for ir the name ir zodiac, the action zodiac. Therefore, perhaps we could even say that it is the dominant grammatical category. Dél in this to case jidomu, what Cases of root apophony are rare These grammatical categories? Ar they're the same as nouns and verbs, right? ir ar Pradédamas The second part of this chapter, devoted to the number apophony of the noun-word system, and i$ immediately confirmed that in Balty languages the noun Ziy singular plural ir (as ir binary) ,never néra associated vowel su change“ (p. 124, 129), Daniellis Small plateau nagrinéja sen. priisy wirds "Zodis* ir is lying. Name, la. vards ,,Word, name* relation (p. 124-129), because, in jo my opinion, the existence of two forms in different balty dialects allowed to raise the question of what was the ju relationship in the balty epoch: this is ar sg : pl (collective) former apophonic prepositions relic, they ar are dialectic lexical variants. The author believes that it is more correct to choose the second case (p. 128-129). Such author's decision, possible object, dictated the fact that this ta is the only example of a noun in which we could try to find the apophony pedsaky in the number category. Didesné Part of this section (p. 129-168) action is given to the word system. In this part of the apophony, the author first discusses the athematic presents (p. 130-158), o perfect prepositions ir are given much less space. A brief overview of white speech athematic presents Daniel'is Petit concludes that in Baltic languages, pallid athematic presents do not indicate any The root apophony in the pédsako number category expression. Be to, by studying athematic actions, In this case, it is necessary to limit ourselves only to those athematic actions which correspond to other ideas. in the languages are also athematic, to distinguish ir from balty kalby ty atematiniy verbazodzy, whose etymological equivalents belong to other flexional types, since only the former are suitable for studies of inherited root apophony (p. 133). The remainder of the ir Analysis of this part: at the end of the chapter the author only states that in ne the opposition of singular plural in Baltic : languages there is no trace of the inherited apophony of Sakninés, but even more This conclusion specifies that, when comparing the Indo-European system, the su Balti8koji characterizes the degree of homosexuality of the root within the paradigm* (p. 168). Thus, even in the case of the athematic verb Zodiiy, the expression of the change of the vowels after Zitri is incomparable su with Indo-European, where the change of the root vowels in the present and perfect opposition of the singular and plural verbs was quite regular, cf. : sen. indy sg. 1 dsmi<ide. *h,es-mi* ‘esu’ ir 1 pl. I'm sorry. *h,s-me-* (p. 130). Panafiai balty in languages are ir su the category of kinship. The Germanic inherited apophony of this category in Baltic languages is also unnecessary. But the ir Indo-European category of the genus differs from the category of the number in that ir Gia ,The root apophony is poorly documented* (p. 171). True, both in white and in other colors. in languages there is a group of nouns that can have male and female ir genders. ir These mobile nouns (noms mobiles) are characterized by the fact that the occlusive metatony occurring in them can be identified with the change of vowels su (plg. lie. varnas ~ vdrna, vilkas ~ vilké). But there is i8 a real richness in Baltic eye-opening metatony, which has nothing in 114 | REVIEWS are an old idea. common with apophony. Even more, nagrinédam These nouns, according to the author, we should talk about grammatical ne marking (un marquage grammatical), about lexical o derivation. Therefore, the heir Root apophony grammatical relatives in Russian and Belarusian languages are also all strange (p. 190-191). Recent du peer-reviewed monographs skyriat skirts Root apophony is used to discuss the functions of verbs in Belarusian language. Fifth In this aspect, the category of time is examined, and SeStame — the category of time. Beginning to talk about the category of the sentence, Daniel's Petit once again i§ emphasizes that in all grammatical categories the iS reconstruction of the reconstruction sequence poses perhaps the most problems, because until So I don't know how long you've been here. procalbe. In the old days. In the monuments found in the language there is a different number of them: in the Vedic language there are seven, in the Gothic language — five, in the o Hittite language — four. Be to, ir i8 uZfixed ju number up to So it's not clear which ones are attributable to this. pro-languo age, which, — apart from, it seems, the common ~ independent development of each language. Another problem, Daniel'io Petit In other words, is that the values after the events, the trace is not easy to classify, because it is not easy, we must as ar ,naukas* examine the participant, which is only the adverbial form of the verb, the general, which is the unconjugated ir nominal form of the verb (p. 193). O Specifically for the Baltic languages, the difficulty is due to ir their peculiar ju structure. It is a modified version of the IDE. fromsaky systems have made new ir fromsaky, which all’kai (or almost allSkai) unrelated ide. su prototype (plg. 194). Having regard to j These difficultiir es will also indicate that sen. Prisy language written in monuments and recorded 5, 0 in eastern Balty (lietuviy ir latviy) language tur bit correspondingly in 6 ir 8 the second volume Daniel'is Petit very precisely discusses the categories of the post-apophony of the roots in the Belarusian language. In the conclusions of the chapter, it is stated that modal apophony in Baltic languages occurs in two forms: the inherited form of apophony in the optative participle ir (but ia ji tends to disappear), o much daZnesné ir regulararené are in Vedic i8 infinitive. But infinitive ir indicative preposition (plg. lie. inf. myfiti, pres. ind. ména), according to the author, is an old word ir found only ne in every Baltic language, but in other ir languages it is not. languages, o its exact equivalents in slavy languages allow Gia ,,To look at the very deep ancient apophony" (p. 287). In the last chapter, SeStame, Daniel's. Petit nagrinéja how The root apophony is manifested in the categories of time in the white language, especially that baltiSkoji ,the temporal system is concentrated on the opposition of the present preteritum stem, ir to which the modal communicative stem contributes in contrast“ (p. 289). In the summary conclusions, the author asserts that Baltic languages consistently tend to,,limit the scope of apophony by binary oppositions: for example, in the time expression Root apophony exists as tk a binary pair <present / preteritum >; in the sentence ji language also occurs only in binary pair <indicative / infinitive>’ (p. 370). This idea is formulated by the author of the monograph based on the work of Wojciech Smoczynski, which examines the morphological development of the white consonant root of nouns. (Smoezynski 2000: 18-33), Taig pabreZes when whites talk A predisposition to root j apophony in binary prepositions Sas, Daniel'is In his introduction, Petit raises the following questions, which are essential for understanding white language apophony: 1) because of one grammatical category Root apophony iSlaikeé, and others lost it? ; kodél in the category of the 2) syllable apophony is limited to <indicative/infinitive > opposition, further, RECENZIJOS | Pts 0 unknown to optative, imperative, participle; 3) why is the root apophony used only in the <present/preterite> prepositions in the expression of the category of time? and 4) why in the system of action words the time category apophony was preserved, the number category 0 lost it all from the white procalbe time even in the athematic action words? (p. 371). And it is necessary to agree that there is no single answer to all these questions, because the fate of the root apophony in Baltic languages was influenced by many factors. First of all, it can be assumed that the weakest variations of the root vowels, i.e. those that were rare and exceptional already in Idy, were levelled very early in the Balty pro-language. procalbe (cf. apophony associated with the genus syllable). I agree with the author of the reviewed monograph that the most important and at the same time very difficult to evaluate factor is the level of morphological dependence. And it is most important because it allows to distinguish between basic and i8vestine forms. For in the categories that have lost their grammatical apophony, these forms are found as i8vestines, i.e. subordinated to the primary forms, which have inherited the degree of vocalism. The most obvious example is the white speakers, who in terms of vowel change differ in no way from the corresponding reference indicative form. Therefore, if the demise of apophony is related to the transition of forms into the basic and the outer forms, then, according to Daniel Petit, "it is important to explain not only the demise of apophony in certain grammatical categories, but also the change in the status of the forms which manifest these categories" (pp. 372-373). Furthermore, the change of status should be explained also because the development of apophony (i.e. its retention or loss) may be related to a greater or lesser grammaticalization of the category under consideration (p. 373). In general, without going into the details of Daniel Petit’s arguments, it is worth noting that they are all very well-argumented. The interpretation of all Belarusian facts shows not only the author's broad linguistic acumen (the ir bibliography lists over 400 positions), but also a good knowledge of the Belarusian grammar structure. Todél in the book, i’except one other case, when Latvian words with fallen suffixes are presented differently (cf. per ‘peria’ per, p. 293 ir min, 391; p. 255, 390 ir min ‘mine’, p. 313; stumj ,,push’’ p. 326, 391; vemj,,vomia“, p. 319, 392), as well as the incorrectly interspersed Lithuanian numeral aSttioni (=eight), p. 94, in 151 and instead of stipras iSspausdinta stipra, p. 386, in white language Zodiiai are presented without corrective error. This is also a great advantage of a foreign-published book. It is true that some more inaccuracies can be found in the bibliography, e.g. in the titles of Grazina Akelaitiene- ’s 1993, 1994 and 1997 works instead of morphologinés (p. 413) (changes) should be morphonologinés; In the title of Reginos Venckutés’ article published in 1981, instead of neapophony (p. 435) it should be neoapophony, 0 the capital work of Zigmantas Zinkevicius published in 1966 was not called Lithuanian language dialectology (p. 436), but Lithuanian dialectology. These inaccuracies do not diminish the value of Daniel Petit's book in any way, and it will be a must-read for any researcher of the Belarusian language in the future. Moreover, it will not be difficult to use it, because all the statements are not only well-argumented, but also explained in a fairly simple language. Therefore, Daniel Petit, who has come to Baltic studies with a lot of bagage, we wish him a long and exciting journey through the mazes of Baltic history and not only to test, but also to develop Baltic traditions in France. 116 | Reviews LITERACY Govt, R. 1973: A about du travel de F. de Saussure en Lithuania. Cahters Ferdinand de Saussure 23, 7-24. Mauro, T. de 1972: Critical biographical et notes on F, de Saussure. In: F. de Saussure, General de Language Course, Paris: Payot, 319-404. Smoczwski, W. 2000: Old Lithuanian Zmuo, Zmunj poza na prabaltyckich rzeczowmkéw atematycznych. Minutes Linguistics Lithuanica 43, 18-33. Sane, Cu. S. 1966: Comparative Grammar of the Baltic Languages. Oslo: Unwversitetsforlaget. Zinxevicius, Z. 1980: Historical Grammar of the Lithuanian Language 1. Vilnius: Mokslas. Institute of Lithuanian Language P. Vilei8io g. 5, 10308, Vilnius, Lithuania Lazorius ZENGSTOKAS GIESMES CHRISTIONISCHKOS IR DUKHAUNISCHKOS IR JU SOURCES Parengé Guwo Micueuit Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2004, 584 p., ISBN 9955-584-71-8 2005 at the beginning of the month,,Balty lanky“ publishing house (2004 month date) iSleido i8 karto ne bibliografiretenybe tapusj Lazarus ZengStoko 1612 might sing Giesmes Chrysktionischkos ir Duchaunischkos. The rarity has become because, although the books ,,developir ment permits parémé State Lithuanian Language Commission Lietuvos Republics Seimo* (p. 4), Almost to End of 2005 This publication j did not reach the ir bookstores, o the publisher itself also claims to no longer have it. jo Until now, there have been various questions: This publication was intended ir for why Publication sponsored by the State Lithuanian Language Commission is not available anywhere? After all, it is unreasonable to say that The State Lithuanian Language Commission has already begun to support the personal licenses of private producers. O gal Does this publication want to remind us of the Soviet,,global deficit* times?.. The publication begins with the preparation of the book Guido Michelin bilingual ‘Jvadu’ (Lithuanian) k. - p. 7-13; English k. - p. 14-21). Po jo printed text of the hymn of Lazaros Zengstokas with Saliniai (p. 22-523), reprints of the hymn in the Berlin copy su Fusion (p. 524-526), 3 accessoi§ ries, kuriy only first —,In the Vilnius copy there are trikstami lapai and rankrastinés giesmés in the Berlin copy* (p. 527-548) — is directly related su Song of Songs (second ir third, t. y. ,,A few examples i8 1588 m. A hymnal published in Karaliaucius Clergy Songs and Psalms" (p. 549-558) ir Here are some examples: i$ 1599 m. A hymn published in Nuremberg Clergy Songs and Psalmen“ (p. 559-571) is more illustrative), and at the end —,,Sources and bibliography“ (p. 572-573) and,,Giedamy teksty saraSas pagal pirmuosius posmus“ (p. 574-584). The author of the reviewed book,,[vade“, briefly indicates the relationship of the hymn of Lazaros Zeng3tokas with the earlier hymns of Martynas Mazvydas and Jonas Bretkiinas and describes the two copies of the hymn that have survived to the present day. 50 ,,until Zeng8toko edition has been published more than a generation, preparing 81