Mažmožiai 2–3

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA L (2004),135-138 REMARKS Remarks MAŽMOŽIS 2 Rolandas Mikulskas (Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 48, 87) associates the adverb v'iršū'n written in Žemaičių (KRš) with the native word virsusi of the eastern Highland dialects (now mostly said v'ir.šū“ —viršuo, apsukū“ ~ apsuko, v'el.tu-—veltuo and many others). This is highly doubtful (see ten (KRS) and elsewhere used forms paskun., paskuna-s, šal'in., žė.m'ie ~ žėmė(n): m'ėsk ¥é.m’ie | n'ekūnck and others). Here is the long voice ulig and directed to say otherwise. This appearance of the sonant n has long been discussed by dialectologists: Kazimieras Būga (Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius, 1958, 397-398, 588; III 692-693), Zigmas Zinkevičius (Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius, 1966, 196-198; it is a pity that only transposed forms are provided- ), Vladas Grinaveckius (Žemaičių dialekto istorija, Vilnius, 1973, 332-334) and the author of these lines („Kelios pastabos dėl formų $7, sesą“, Baltistica 2 (2), 1966, 205-207; Lietuvos kalbos tarmių morfonominiai reiškiniai, Vilnius, 2001, 167-169). In the paradigm after u“ in southern Samogitian, the platoks are §ii'n —šuon (= dog), rudi-n ~ ruduon (= autumn), singular noun va -kū-n ~ vaikuon (= child), vaik'i-n ~ vaikiuon (= child, boy), pava.sar- 'icn (and pava.ser- 'ū"n PVN) ~ pavasariuon (spring), bii.ndze ~ būonže (= bee), jū'nc ~ jins (= you), v'ėltū'n ~ veltuon (= in vain) VARN, Užv, PVN, etc. ; so also v'if.šun that neetymologinj n will have received from the ending -u-(<-uo). This is supported by the whole history of ty words: especially in paradigms where there is n after everywhere (cf. aut., Baltistica 2 (2), 205-206) (after the diphthong u-* I doubt that the sonant would have stuck, as it did after -ou < -u in northern Samogitians, and after -oin western Samogitians) < -which has nowhere to go). 3 Vytautas Vitkauskas Gauta 2004 04 07 Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lietuva Sonant r is hard and soft, in Lithuanian conversation it sometimes varies. These are the cases: a. some Southern Highlanders do not have 7’ at all, some Highlanders from Vilnius and Utena harden it before the vowels of the front row (Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius, 1966, 153-156; Lietuvos kalbos atlasas II, 87 zem.); 136 | REMARKS b. is sometimes pronounced hard before the reduced diphthong -ai: rai.kst’e: “raikštė' DRSK, RTN, kraū.šis “pyraušius' KB, VRN, krai.vas “kreivas' DRSK and others. ; c. in the combination *rj > *ri > r: braū.na ‘edge’ Užv, Kkš, KRTV, kraū.š'is (pear of common language) KRŠ, RDN, TL, EIG, krūokt'e ‘to cry’ (scream of common language) TL, RDN, VARN, Šv, RT, ra.uš'ęs ‘riosés’ Šv, GRDM, etc. They are accompanied by the borrowed krū-ks (aukšt. kriūkas), šrū'ps (Northern Žemaičių and Vysokiaičių š'r'ūps | š'r'ū-bas- ), kraū.č'us “kriaučius, siuvéjas- ’, krūk'is ‘kriukis, ramentas’ KRŠ, KRTV, SAUK, kril.k'is ‘t. p.' RDN, TRS, TL, etc. The whole range of *rjau, *rja, *rjo, *rju, *rjū variation rau, ro, ru is known in zemaitics, where there is no r hardening before the vowels of the anterior row (cf. aut., Morphonomenal phenomena of Lithuanian dialects, Vilnius, 2001, 158-161). The study of such a phenomenon was not foreseen by the LKA, the authors of the phonetic volume, there was an unsettled transposition of dialectal facts, so many uncertainties were already raised earlier, but are still confused. For example, in LKŽ, 626 the word sukrokė (pronounced sūkruok'i KRŠ) is corrected sukriokė (R. Mikulskas, Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 48, 87), and krii-kas in KLVR is assigned to kriūkas *, although there too there can be no r hardening (unless there is some unusualness). So *rj + a, a; The problem of u, u is still associated with the hardening and softening of r, although here there is a question of the old *į decay and the later analogy (when it was generalized in conversations only rau, ro“, ru, ruar r'au, r'o-, r'u, r'u-). In each case, the structure and system of dialects must be studied. Could an empty space mean anything? Professor Vlado Žulis’ article “About the supposed Vytautas Vitkauskas Gauta 2004 04 07 Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lietuva null connection” (Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 48, 177-184) is a polemic against Contemporary Lithuanian Grammar (Vilnius, 1994), in which such sentences as Oras gražus are considered to have a null connection. The author of the article believes that the term null connection (and null forms in general) is faulty. That opinion is respectable. I would just like to say a few words about the arguments on which it is based. The first of these is attributed to Immanuel Kant: Nothing has characteristics. The author adds: Nobody's hair grows. If a class is empty, it has no elements, and only elements can have attributes. Therefore, the statement is logically contradictory: Although there is no connection (nothing), it has the meaning of the present time of direct relation (sign) (p. 178). Accepting the rules of the game proposed by the author of the article —referring to authorities to be left to theology- —I will not mention any of the many works written about zero forms. The cited logical statements are correct, but they do not contradict the notion of zero presented in the Grammar at all. Linguistic zero is not some non-existent empirical object or element equal to nothing. This term denotes the absence of a formal indicator of a member of the grammatical paradigm, which was avoided to be interpreted for the sake of convenience of Mikulskas because of the variants santy-!-krūkas, krukas, kriūkas, as well as the changes vąšas (even the impossible ąšas), O-nčas, ūnčas,vė- .ršos, lo-rsas (see R. Mikulskas, Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 46, 85).