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

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LIII (2005) 111–131 REVIEWS Reviews Daniel Petit Apophonie et catégories 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) (Linguistic Collection published by the Linguistic Society of Paris, lxxxvi) Before beginning to discuss this book, one somehow feels that it is first worth recalling that, during the “golden age” of the historical-comparative method among Western European linguists, Lithuanian was studied chiefly by Germans and—somewhat later—by the French. Without a doubt, Ferdinand de Saussure should be regarded as the pioneer of Lithuanian language studies in France: not only did he visit the territory inhabited by Lithuanians in 1879 or 1880 (Godel 1973: 7–24; Mauro 1972: 331–332), but he was also the first to teach Lithuanian at the universities of Paris (and later Geneva). Antoine Meillet, the most prolific French linguist, also drew extensively on Lithuanian data in his Indo-Europeanist works. His student Robert Gauthiot visited Lithuania twice, in 1900 and 1901. The fruit of this linguist’s first trip to Lithuania was the first monograph devoted to Baltic studies, published as a separate book in Paris in 1903: Buivydžių šnekta (Le parler de Buividze). By contrast, France had to wait a whole century for its second monograph devoted to Baltic studies. It was published in 2004 by Daniel Petit, a linguist interested in Baltic studies and well versed in Lithuanian. However, the monograph reviewed here differs considerably from the first. Robert Gauthiot’s monograph dealt with the speech of the Eastern Aukštaitian dialect of Kupiškis, whereas Daniel Petit’s book examines the development of grammatical categories and apophony in all three Baltic languages. In the book’s Preface (pp. 5–6), the author states that the work reviewed here, “arising from the habilitation defended at the University of Paris IV—Sorbonne on October 12, 2002, is the result of research into Indo-European comparative linguistics, and more specifically into the Baltic languages (Lithuanian, Latvian, and Old Prussian), begun several years ago” (p. 5). Naturally, the author remembers not only Ferdinand de Saussure, who began the long tradition of research into the Baltic languages, but also Robert Gauthiot, author of the first monograph devoted to Baltic studies. Thus, besides the Contents (pp. 3–4) and the aforementioned Preface, the book under review comprises an Introduction (pp. 7–13), six chapters of varying length (1. The category of person and root apophony, pp. 15–22; 2. The category of case and root apophony, pp. 23–121; 3. The category of number and root apophony, pp. 123–169; 4. The category of gender and root apophony, pp. 171–191; 5. The category of mood and root apophony, pp. 193–288; 6. The category of tense and root apophony, pp. 289–361), and Conclusions 112 | RECENZIJOS (pp. 363–374), Word Index (pp. 377–410), and Bibliography (pp. 411–436), at the beginning of which abbreviations for languages, grammatical terms, and certain publications are provided (pp. 411–412). In the Introduction, the author notes that “traditionally, apophony is studied from a formal perspective: most often, one must determine which phonemes participate in vowel alternation and what their formal relationship is,” and explains that, following this approach, two types of apophony are usually distinguished: qualitative and quantitative (p. 8). He goes on to state that “apophony can also be studied from a functional perspective,” which defines the morphological and semantic relationships between base forms (formes de fondation) and derived forms (formes fondées) of apophony (p. 9). In other words, the author of the work under review is more interested in so-called grammatical apophony, which manifests itself in the grammatical structure of the Baltic languages by forming some grammatical forms from others; that is, the monograph’s author focuses entirely on discussing the position of apophony inherited from the Indo-European period in the Baltic languages. Daniel Petit therefore evaluates this phenomenon from the perspective of Indo-European comparative grammar. Thus, this monograph is limited to root apophony, that is, vowel alternation in the roots of words and their forms, and does not address questions of suffixal apophony at all. It is easy to understand why the author has set this limit: it is simply impossible to examine, in a single monograph, the problems of suffixal apophony alongside root apophony. We can only hope that Daniel Petit will discuss suffixal apophony in the Baltic languages in future works. Tiesa, diachroninės kalbotyros specialistams (plg. Stang 1966: 120t.; Zinkevičius 1980: 1, 89–96) jau senokai žinoma, jog iš ide. epochos paveldėtosios apofonijos pagrindinius bruožus baltų kalbos yra, palyginti, neblogai išlaikiusios, bet kuriuos ne kuriuos balsių kaitos tipus jau yra praradusios, o kai ką ir gerokai atnaujinusios. Be to, prisiminus istorinės lyginamosios kalbotyros beveik dviejų šimtmečių istoriją ir kokį vaidmenį šios krypties atstovai teikė lietuvių kalbai, aiškindami įvairias ide. lyginamosios fonetikos problemas, savaime darosi aišku, kad šiuo klausimu nuo Augusto Schleicherio iki šių dienų būtų galima nurodyti gana ilgą literatūros sąrašą šiuo klausimu. Bet tada gerokai nutoltume nuo recenzuojamos knygos turinio. It is therefore only natural that, upon taking up Daniel Petit’s new book devoted to the problems of vowel alternation, one should first ask what distinguishes it from other works of a similar kind. To answer this question at greater or lesser length and assess what sets this book apart from other works, one must mention, at least briefly, not only the topics examined by the author but also the conclusions that follow from the research findings. The shortest of all is the first chapter, which discusses the relationship between root apophony and the category of person. This is only to be expected, since, according to the author, the category of person in the Baltic languages was never associated with vowel alternation: they inherited this feature from the Proto-Indo-European language, where “the opposition of persons in the verbal paradigm had already been grammaticalized,” and in this respect the Baltic languages did not alter the Indo-European system in any way (p. 22). In the second, and largest, chapter, spanning 98 pages, the author concentrates on the fundamental nominal category of the Baltic languages—the category of case—and seeks to determine what role the inherited opposition played in the development of this category in the Baltic languages. To answer this question, D. Petit hypothesizes that apophonic oppositions were familiar in the Proto-Baltic paradigm of root nouns. Traces of these oppositions, in which the sg. nom. once had the full grade (cf. Old Prussian peuse < *peuk, “pine”), while the other cases had the zero grade (cf. Lithuanian pušis < *puk), are said by the author to have survived in the Baltic languages. Admittedly, this apophony has not survived within the same paradigm; it is indirectly attested RECENZIJOS 113 in independent lexemes (cf. p. 55). In the chapter’s conclusions, however, the author acknowledges that even if one can speak of the substratal preservation of root apophony in the Baltic languages, one must immediately recognize that it is manifested only under certain conditions, and that those “conflated” data which allow us to discern an older state of apophony are foreign to the synchronic apophony system (cf. pp. 120–121). The third chapter is related in some respects to the second: it discusses the category of number (pp. 123–169), since number is a category of both nouns and verbs. We might therefore even say that it is the predominant grammatical category. In this regard, it is interesting to ask which cases of root apophony are characteristic of these grammatical categories. Are they the same for nouns and verbs, or not? Beginning the second part of this chapter, which is devoted to number apophony in the nominal system, and having immediately confirmed that in the Baltic languages the singular and plural of nouns (as well as the dual) “are never associated with vowel alternation” (pp. 124, 129), Daniel Petit examines at greater length the relationship between Old Prussian wird's “word” and Lithuanian vardas, Latvian vārds “word, name” (pp. 124–129). In his view, the existence of two forms in different Baltic dialects raises the question of what their relationship was in the Baltic period: are they a remnant of an erstwhile apophonic opposition between sg. and pl. (collective), or are they dialectal lexical variants? The author is convinced that the second option is the more correct one (pp. 128–129). This decision may have been prompted by the fact that this is the only example of a noun in which one might try to look for traces of apophony in the category of number. The greater part of this chapter (pp. 129–168) is devoted to the verbal system. From the perspective of apophony, the author first discusses athematic presents (pp. 130–158), while perfects and preterites receive considerably less attention. After briefly examining athematic presents in the Baltic languages, Daniel Petit concludes that the attested athematic presents in these languages show no trace of root apophony in the expression of the category of number. Moreover, in examining athematic verbs in this context, it is necessary to limit the discussion to those athematic verbs whose cognates in other Indo-European languages are also athematic, and to exclude Baltic athematic verbs whose etymological cognates belong to other inflectional types, since only the former are suitable for research on inherited root apophony (p. 133). The remainder of the analysis in this part does not alter these conclusions: at the end of the chapter, the author not only states that there is no trace of inherited root apophony in the singular–plural opposition in the Baltic languages, but makes this conclusion even more specific, noting that “compared with the Indo-European system, the Baltic system is characterized by uniformity of the root grade within the paradigm” (p. 168). Thus, even the expression of number in athematic verbs is not comparable, in terms of vowel alternation, with the Indo-European system, in which root-vowel alternation in the singular–plural opposition of verbs was fairly regular in the present and perfect, cf. Old Indic 1 sg. ásmi < Indo-European *h₁es-mi ‘I am’ and 1 pl. smáh < Indo-European *h₁s-me- (p. 130). The situation is similar in the Baltic languages with the category of gender. Inherited apophony is likewise not characteristic of the expression of this category in the Baltic languages. But the Indo-European category of gender also differs from the category of number in that here, too, “root apophony is poorly attested” (p. 171). It is true that in both the Baltic and other Indo-European languages there is a group of nouns that can be either masculine or feminine. These mobile nouns (substantifs mobiles) are characterized by the fact that the acute metatony occurring in them could be equated with vowel alternation (cf. Lithuanian vārnas ~ vārna, vilkas ~ vilkė). But in fact, what we have here is Baltic acute metatony, which 114 | RECENZIJOS has nothing to do with the Old Indo-European ablaut. Moreover, when examining these nouns, according to the author, we should speak not of grammatical marking (un marquage grammatical), but of lexical derivation. Thus inherited root ablaut is also entirely foreign to the expression of grammatical gender in the Baltic languages (pp. 190–191). The final two chapters of the monograph under review are devoted to discussing root ablaut in the verbal categories of the Baltic languages. The fifth examines the category of mood from this perspective, while the sixth considers the category of tense. Beginning his discussion of the category of mood, Daniel Petit immediately emphasizes that, among all grammatical categories, mood is perhaps the most problematic to reconstruct, since it remains unclear how many moods there were in Proto-Indo-European. The oldest written records of the Indo-European languages attest different numbers: seven are recorded in Vedic, five in [the language], and four moods in Hittite. Moreover, even among the attested moods, it is still unclear which belong to Proto-Indo-European and which—apart from, it seems, the infinitive—developed independently in each language. A second problem, in Daniel Petit’s words, is that it is difficult to classify Indo-European moods in terms of their value, since it is unclear whether we must treat as “moods” the participle, which is merely an adjectival form of the verb, and the infinitive, which is an indeclinable nominal form of the verb (p. 193). Specifically in the Baltic languages, their distinctive structure also creates difficulties. Alongside a modified Indo-European system of moods, they have developed new moods that are wholly (or almost wholly) unrelated to the Indo-European prototype (cf. p. 194). Taking these difficulties into account, and noting also that five moods are attested in Old Prussian written records, while the East Baltic languages (Lithuanian and Latvian) must have had six and eight, respectively, Daniel Petit discusses the mood categories of the Baltic languages from the perspective of root ablaut with great precision in the second-longest chapter. In its concluding remarks, he points out that modal ablaut in the Baltic languages occurs in two forms: inherited ablaut is found in the optative and the participle (though here it tends to disappear), while a much more frequent and regular pattern is found in formations from the infinitive. The contrast between the infinitive and the indicative (cf. Lithuanian inf. minti, pres. ind. mėna), however, is ancient and is found not only in every Baltic language but also in other Indo-European languages; its precise parallels in the Slavic languages make it possible to “discern here an ablaut of very deep antiquity” (p. 287). In the final, sixth chapter, Daniel Petit examines how root ablaut manifests itself in the tense categories of the Baltic languages, especially since the Baltic “tense system is centered on the opposition between present and preterite stems, to which the modal infinitive stem stands in contrast” (p. 289). Having examined the phenomena of root ablaut, the author asserts in his general conclusions that the Baltic languages consistently tend to “restrict the domain of ablaut to binary oppositions: for example, in the expression of tense, root ablaut survives only as the binary pair <prezentas / preteritas>; in the expression of mood, it likewise occurs only as the binary pair <indikatyvas / infinityvas>” (p. 370). The author of the monograph formulates this idea on the basis of Wojciech Smoczyński’s work on the development of the morphology of Baltic consonant-stem nouns (Smoczyński 2000: 18–33). Having emphasized, then, that root ablaut in the Baltic languages tends toward binary oppositions, Daniel Petit raises in his conclusions questions essential to understanding ablaut in the Baltic languages: 1) why did some grammatical categories preserve root ablaut while others lost it?; 2) why, in the category of mood, is ablaut confined to the <indikatyvo/infinityvo> opposition, RECENZIJOS 115 and is absent from the optative, imperative, and participle; 3) why is root ablaut used in the expression of tense only for the < prezento / preterito > opposition? and 4) why has the category of tense preserved ablaut in the verbal system, while the category of number has lost it entirely since Proto-Baltic, even in athematic verbs? (p. 371). We must unreservedly agree that there can be no single answer to all these questions, since the fate of root ablaut in the Baltic languages was shaped by many factors. First, one may suppose that the weakest root vowel alternations were levelled very early in Proto-Baltic—that is, those that were already rare and exceptional in Proto-Indo-European (cf. ablaut associated with the expression of gender). We must agree with the author of the monograph under review that the most important, and at the same time very difficult to assess, factor is the degree of morphological dependence. It is crucial because it makes it possible to distinguish basic from derived forms. In categories that have lost grammatical ablaut, the forms in question occur as derived forms, that is, subordinated to basic forms, from which they have also inherited their grade of vocalism. The clearest example is the participles of the Baltic languages, which differ in no way from the corresponding basic indicative forms with respect to vowel alternation. Thus, if the loss of ablaut is connected with forms shifting from basic to derived status, then, according to Daniel Petit, “it is important to explain not only the disappearance of ablaut in certain grammatical categories, but also the change in status of the forms that manifest these categories” (pp. 372–373). This change in status must also be explained because the development of ablaut (that is, its preservation or loss) may be related to the greater or lesser grammaticalization of the category under consideration (p. 373). In general, without discussing Daniel Petit’s conclusions in greater detail, it should be emphasized that they are all very well argued. His interpretation of evidence from all the Baltic languages demonstrates not only the author’s broad linguistic perspective (the bibliography contains over 400 entries), but also his thorough knowledge of the grammatical structure of the Baltic languages. Thus, with the exception of a few instances in which Latvian words with falling intonation are presented inconsistently (cf. per ‘hears’ and pēr, pp. 293 ff., 391; min, pp. 255, 390 and min ‘presses’, p. 313; stumj ‘pushes’, pp. 326, 391; vemj ‘rolls’, pp. 319, 392), and the Lithuanian numeral aštuoni is incorrectly accented (= aštuoni), p. 94, n. 151, and stipra is printed instead of stipras, p. 386, the words in the Baltic languages are free of typographical errors. This, too, is a major advantage of a book published abroad. Somewhat more inaccuracies can, however, be found in the bibliography: for example, in the titles of Gražina Akelaitienė’s works from 1993, 1994, and 1997, morfologinės (p. 413) (alternations) should be morfonologinės; in the title of Regina Venckutė’s 1981 article, neapofonija (p. 435) should be neoapofonija; and the major work published in 1966 by Zigmas Zinkevičius is titled not Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija (p. 436), but Lietuvių dialektologija. These inaccuracies, however, in no way diminish the value of Daniel Petit’s book, which no researcher of the Baltic languages will be able to do without in the future—especially as it will certainly be easy to use, since all its arguments are not only well supported but also presented in fairly accessible language. Daniel Petit, who has arrived in Baltic studies with an impressive body of knowledge, deserves warm wishes for fruitful future journeys through the labyrinths of Baltic linguistic history, and for continuing and developing the traditions of Baltic studies in France. 116 | RECENZIJOS LITERATŪRA GODEL, R. 1973: A propos du voyage de F. de Saussure en Lituanie. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 23, 7–24. MAURO, T. de 1972: Notes biographiques et critiques sur F. de Saussure. In: F. de Saussure, Cours de linguistique générale, Paris: Payot, 319–404. SMOCZYŃSKI, W. 2000: Starolitewskie žmuo, žmuni na tle prabaltických rzeczowników atematycznych. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 43, 18–33. STANG, CH. S. 1966: Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1980: Lietuvių kalbos istorine gramatika 1. Vilnius: Mokslas. Juozas Karaciejus Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308, Vilnius LOZORIUS ZENGŠTOKAS GIESMES CHRIKSZCIONISCHKOS IR DUCHAUNISCHKOS IR JŲ ŠALTINIAI Parengė GUIDO MICHELINI Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2004, 584 p., ISBN 9955-584-71-8 2005 metų pradžioje „Baltų lankų“ leidykla (2004 metų data) išleido iš karto bibliografinę retenybę tapusį Lozoriaus Zengštoko 1612 metų giesmyną Giesmes Chriks-czionischkos ir Duchaunischkos. Retenybe tapo todėl, kad, nors knygos „rengimą ir leidimą parėmė Valstybinė lietuvių kalbos komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo“ (p. 4), beveik iki 2005 metų pabaigos šis leidinys į knygynus taip ir neatkeliavo, o pati leidykla irgi jau seniausiai tvirtina jo nebeturinti. Todėl nejučia kyla įvairių klausimų: kam šis leidinys buvo skirtas ir kodėl Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos remto leidinio niekur negalima gauti? Juk nesinorėtų teigti, kad Valstybinė lietuvių kalbos komisija jau pradėjo remti asmeninius privačių parengėjų leidinius. O gal šiuo leidiniu norėta priminti sovietinius „visuotinio deficito“ laikus?.. Leidinys pradedamas knygos parengėjo Guido Michelinio dvikalbiu „Įvadu“ (lietuvių k. – p. 7–13; anglų k. – p. 14–21). Po jo fotografuotiniu būdu spausdinamas Lozoriaus Zengštoko giesmyno tekstas su šaltiniais (p. 22–523), Berlyno egzemplioriuje esančių rankraštinių giesmių perrašymai su šaltiniais (p. 524–526), 3 priedai, iš kurių tik pirmas – „Vilniaus egzemplioriuje trūkstami lapai ir rankraštinės giesmės iš Berlyno egzemplioriaus“ (p. 527–548) – yra tiesiogiai susijęs su Zengštoko giesmynu (antras ir trečias, t. y. „Keli pavyzdžiai iš 1588 m. Karaliaučiuje išleisto giesmyno Geistliche Lieder und Psalmen“ (p. 549–558) ir „Keli pavyzdžiai iš 1599 m. Niurnberge išleisto giesmyno Geistliche Lieder und Psalmen“ (p. 559–571) yra daugiau iliustracinio pobūdžio), o pabaigoje – „Šaltiniai ir bibliografija“ (p. 572–573) bei „Giedamų tekstų sąrašas pagal pirmąsias eilutes“ (p. 574–584). Recenzuojamos knygos „Įvade“ parengėjas, trumpai nurodęs Lozoriaus Zengštoko giesmyno ryšį su ankstesniais Martyno Mažvydo ir Jono Bretkūno giesmynais bei apibūdinęs dviejų iki mūsų dienų išlikusių perleidžiamo giesmyno egzempliorių būklę, toliau pabrėžia, jog dėl to, kad 50 giesmių tekstai „iki Zengštoko leidimo buvo publikuoti daugiau nei kartą, rengiant šį