„Nešinas“, „vedinas“, „tekinas“

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVIII (2003), 19 – 34 Carried, led, running BERND GLIWA Sargeliai The article discusses Lithuanian words of the type nešinas, vedinas, tekìnas. While these items have usually been categorized as adjectives, it is shown that their syntactic use provides evidence for their interpretation as participles. They behave in the same way as the semi-participles nešdamas, vesdamas, *tekdamas, with one difference: forms such as nešinas are used with the instrumental. 1. INTRODUCTION1 The question of what the participle type nešinas, vedinas, tekìnas is called yields no answer in the chapter on verbs in Lithuanian grammar (Ulvy das, ed., 1971: 7–424). Instead, under the heading Adjectives, there is a brief entry: „Veiksmažodiniai priesagos -inas būdvardžiai dabar siaurai vartojami, pasitaiko tik atskiruose posakiuose ir žemaičių tarmėje su draugės įnagininku, pvz.: atlekia bėginas, eina žąsimis gėninas, žąsies sparnu nešinas, bėga skūbinas, skuba tekìnas, eina vārinas dviračių“ (Ulvy das, ed., 1965: 564, §968 c). The volume on syntax contains further brief remarks about the connection of “adjectives” of the type nešinas, vedinas with an object in the instrumental case (Ulvy das, ed., 1976: 243, §425). The classification as adjectives is unexpected, yet it is continued for individual words of this type even in the academic dictionary: vėdinas (LKŽXVIII 479), tėkinas (LKŽXV 1121), nešinas (LKŽVII 706), and others. This is surprising insofar as prominent linguists had already pointed out that it makes sense to regard the corresponding words as participles (Būga 1959: 114–115; Zinkevičius 1966: 385–386). The Lietuvių kalbos gramatika does not discuss this position. This article will discuss which part of speech nešinas, vedinas, tekìnas should in fact be assigned to. It will also call into question the claim that these forms occur exclusively in the Lower Lithuanian dialect area (Ulvy das, ed., 1976: 243; Zinkevičius 1966: 385), and provide corresponding examples from Upper Lithuanian dialects. In addition, it will briefly address the alternative use with an instrumental or accusative object and discuss the widespread adverbial use, including its adaptation to the morphological appearance of adverbs. Several sentences are devoted to the question of the word form’s origin and possible Indo-European cognates. 1 I thank Prof. A. Holvoet (Vilnius) for helpful comments on the subject and for assistance in obtaining literature, and Mr. K. Grikša (Žaiginys) for permission to use his private library. 20 | BERND GLIWA 2. PARTS OF SPEECH Classifying words into parts of speech is a task that can scarcely be considered complete. Formal concepts fail particularly because of the diversity of languages and the local traditions of classification in a given language. The division into parts of speech is a possible and often useful measure, but by no means a universal that must underlie a natural or formal language a priori. In general, it is difficult to formulate rules by which a word can be unambiguously assigned to a part of speech. The Lietuvių kalbos gramatika describes an adjective as follows: „Būdvardžiais vadinami žodžiai, kurie reiškia daikto ypatybę ir yra suderinti su pažymimuoju žodžiu gimine, skaičiumi bei linksniu“ (Ulvydas, Hrsg., 1965: 474). As can be seen, this description—which can hardly be called a definition—also encompasses participles. Because of such difficulties in definition, participles are generally not posited as a primary part of speech but are designated a hybrid form that semantically belongs to the verbs: “an infinite verbal form [...] which belongs to the verb’s inventory of forms but is declined like an adjective” (e.g. Conrad 1978: 192). Similarly, Lietuvių kalbos gramatika: „Dalyviai yra iš veiksmažodžių kamienų daromos linksniuojamos formos, turinčios veiksmažodžių ir būdvardžių ypatybių“ (Ulvydas, Hrsg., 1971: 311). In addition, there are also the semi-participles, pusdalyvis and padalyvis, which, in turn, are not grouped with participles because they are not declined (Ulvydas, Hrsg., 1971: 375, 384). The very specific question here is whether nešinas, vedinas, tekinas should, according to the usual classifications, be considered adjectives, participles, or semi-participles. Try replacing the corresponding forms in the short phrases given as examples in Lietuvių kalbos gramatika with an adjective of similar meaning: bėga skūbinas yields the possible synonyms bėga greitai, bėga skubėdamas, but substituting an adjective, *bėga greitas, is not possible. The adjective greitas could be used here only if a syntactic unit were formed with the following word: bėga greitas žmogus, bėga greitasis, bėga skubantysis, but that is something quite different. This observation already makes clear that the word category should instead be assigned to adverbs (greitai) or even to semi-participles (pusdalyvis: skubėdamas). To avoid misunderstandings that might arise from phrases taken out of context, the words in question should be examined in complete sentences, or at least in complete syntactic constructions. The examples come from various works of literature and, in a few cases, from spoken language. Naturally, only a selection can be presented. (1) Atsiranda šeimininkė, kibiru geralo nešina ‘The housewife comes along, carrying a bucket of fodder.’ In (1), nešina could be regarded as an adjective if this sentence were possible: Nešinas, vedinas, tekinas 21 (1a) * Atsiranda nešina šeimininkė. However, this is precluded by the further connection of nešina with the instrumental object kibiru and by the fact that the form in question occurs in a subordinate clause. One could try to explain the syntactic distance between šeimininkė and nešina as a predicative construction: (1b), with, as it were, two main clauses, or (1c), with the same division into main and subordinate clauses. However, the additional elements required for this are absent from all the examples. (1b) * The housewife is (was, seems) carrying something and comes along. (1c) * The housewife, who is carrying something, comes along. The sentence could be paraphrased in meaning, using a present active participle: (1d) A housewife carrying a bucket of fodder comes along. In Katkus, however, instead of being embedded in the main clause, there is a subordinate clause that can be rendered approximately as follows: (1e) The housewife comes along, carrying a bucket of fodder. Unlike in the original example (1), the object of the action is in the accusative here. Indeed, the use of the instrumental is unexpected, since nešti is normally used with the accusative. Whereas a clearly motivated use with instrumental objects is indicated for a number of concrete adjectives (gausus, gyvas, laimingas, skolingas, ginkluotas, kaltas): (2) Ne vien duona žmogus gyvas J. JABL. ‘Man does not live by bread alone’; (3) Vienu auksinu palikau aš tamstai skolingas OB, (Ulvydas, Hrsg., 1976: 242) ‘I remained indebted to you for one gulden.’ which undoubtedly accords with the semantics of the corresponding words and their cross-categorial relationship, as the possible sentence Ne vien duona žmogus gyvena ‘Man does not live by bread alone’ shows, words of the type nešinas are generally, that is, structurally, assigned a use with the instrumental (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 243). This could, of course, also be related to the fact that all words of the type nešinas, velkinas, skubinas, varinas, etc., refer to certain, mostly complex, types of movement, in which case the structural use with the instrumental would correspond to a semantic one. However, the fact that the underlying verbs, unlike those in the preceding examples, do not require the instrumental argues against this. Thus, the instrumental follows from the syntactic use and not from the government of the particular word. 22 | B E R N D G L I W A It could already be seen from (1d) and (1e) that an equivalent rendering by a participle (active present) or a half-participle is possible, with the half-participle better preserving the syntactic construction; in both cases, only the instrumental object is replaced by an accusative object. From a semantic point of view, it seems plausible to regard nešinas, velkinas, skubinas as an action rather than a property. As can be seen, agreement in number and gender with the referent is ensured. (4) Atjojo totorius, vedinas dar trimis žirgais (Kunčinas 1991: 174). ‘The Tartar rode up, leading three horses (with him).’ (5) Grigienė grįžo, pieno ąsočiu nešina V. Krėv. (LKŽVIII 706). ‘Grigienė returned, carrying a milk jug.’ (6) Tai brolis tik suriko: „bėgam!“, ir mes tik tękinį užlėkiam už kampą svirmo (Šeškauskas, I). ‘My brother just shouted, “Let’s run!”, and we ran around the corner of the granary in a hurry.’ It cannot be stated with certainty whether declension occurs, since in almost all cases the referent is the subject of the sentence. A rare exception: (7) Liepė ateiti su liudytojais vedinam Dauk. (LKŽXVIII 480). ‘(They) ordered (him) to come, bringing witnesses along.’ The overwhelming majority of examples, however, indicate that the regular use is indeclinable. This would further underscore the affinity with the half-participles nešdamas, vesdamas, since these too agree in gender and number with their referent, but do not inflect (rare exceptions in Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 378, §615), as they refer exclusively to the sentence subject. The almost exclusive use in the nominative is hardly conducive to supporting the adjective hypothesis. Jablonskis vehemently rejects classifying them as participles and calls the forms under consideration “simple adjectives.” He offers several arguments: in the sentence (8) Piemuo eina žąsimis geninas. ‘The shepherd walks, driving the geese.’ there is no equivalent *jis eina žąsis geninas, which should provide an active participle while preserving the verb’s government; a passive participle would require the subject of the action to be in the genitive (Jablonskis 1957: 302–303, §171). But since the expression *jis eina žąsimis [greitas] is likewise not used, Jablonskis in effect postulates deviations from the rule here too. If such deviations are accepted anyway, why take a roundabout approach? Pragmatically speaking, sentences of the type (8) are found, in which geninas, etc., represents an action and can therefore be assigned to a verbal paradigm. This does not mean that all words Nešinas, vedinas, tekines | 23 should be treated as corresponding to the form -inas, they do so only when the same syntactic usage is also present. In this respect, Jablonskis is right that kupinas in (9) Pūrą kupiną davė (= su kaupu) (Jablonskis 1957: 303). ‘[He, she, someone] gave a full bushel (=with a heap)’ is an adjective, since it functions syntactically like an adjective. However, with the implicit conclusion that, because kupinas is an adjective, geninas must also be an adjective, he is entirely wrong. That would amount to claiming that, because kupinas is an adjective, katinas ‘tomcat’, Velinas ‘a deity’, and žirgnas ‘male inflorescence of alder or birch’ must also be adjectives, which is obviously wrong. The mere appearance of a morpheme does not, in general, yet permit word-class classification. The fact that the stem underlying the formation of the forms under discussion varies—geninas from the present stem, sklidinas from the stem of the past forms, and kupinas not even from verb forms (Jablonskis 1957: 303)—may, on the one hand, result from these being forms of different origins. On the other hand, their syntactic use, alongside etymological considerations, points to the considerable age of the formation, with a possible loss of the base (cf. tek inas below). Thus, this argument of Jablonskis also fails; in any case, he usually argued from a synchronic perspective. Būga compared (10) with (11): (10) Eiti motyna vaikais vedina. ‘The mother goes, leading the children.’ (11) Pūdymas jaučiais ariamas. ‘The fallow field is ploughed with oxen.’ He cited this as an argument that “vedinas, nešinas, velkinas, varinas, geninas, palikinas, gametinas too are participles, which should not be given other names” (Būga 1959: 114). He may have been prompted to this by the use of the instrumental in the respective examples cited above, which, however, do not correspond to one another functionally. The comparison with the passive participle āriamas is likewise misleading. Nevertheless, Būga does not commit himself to the view that these are participles: “Išveiksmažodiniai būdvardžiai, arba dalyviai...” (Būga 1959: 115), nor does he discuss which specific participles they might be. Referring to examples from Soviet Lithuanian literature Lenino idėjų vedini, mes drąsiai žengiame..., Tarvydas notes that vedini is used here instead of the passive participle vedami. He further explains that vedinas, nešinas are not passive participles and, moreover, that their use with the genitive does not correspond to the usual use with the instrumental. Tarvydas also describes them as deverbal adjectives in the heading (Tarvydas 1961: 43–44). Zinkevičius, too, does not specify which participle it might be, but in the metalinguistic “translations” of (12) and (13): 24 | Bernd Gliwa (12) eit(a) kojomis velkinas ‘walks dragging his feet’ = (12 a) eina kojas vilkdamas ‘walks dragging his feet’; (13) pradūriau gumą ir gavau varinas eiti ‘I punctured the tire and had to go pushing it along’ = (13 a) pradūriau dviračio padangą ir turėjau eiti stumdamas ‘I punctured the bicycle tire and had to walk pushing it’ he chooses the half-participle (pusdal yvis) to render the situation and emphasizes that these are not passive participles, as Büga’s remarks might suggest. Nevertheless, he uses the term “veiksmažodinis būdvardis” (1966: 386). LKŽ also prefers rendering it with a half-participle, e.g. for vārinas ‘going on foot while driving [it/himself]’ (LKŽXVIII 190). Schmalstieg also cites example (13) with Zinkevičius’s “translation” (13 a): “Lithuanian verbal adjectives in -inas are also sometimes considered to be participles” (Schmalstieg 2000: 375). Here, too, there is no attempt to specify the kind of participle more precisely. The following examples explicitly show the similar use of forms with -ina(s) and half-participles in -dama(s): (14) Pasakė, kad mamą arkliu užmušė, tai visu keliu tekina ir rėkdama du namo SLM (LKŽXV 1122). ‘[Someone] said that Mama had been killed by a horse, so [she] ran all the way home, hurrying and shouting.’ (15) Bėgčiau per dvarą tekina, skųsčiaus močiutei verkdama song lyric, NIEM 30; (LKŽXV 1122). ‘I would run hurriedly through the manor estate; weeping, I would tell Grandmother my troubles.’ This points toward classifying them as half-participles (pusdal yvis). 3. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION Lietuvių kalbos gramatika and Zinkevičius record the use of the word forms under discussion exclusively in Low Lithuania (Zinkevičius 1966: 385; Ulvydas, Hrsg., 1965: 564) and in the literary language (Ulvydas, Hrsg., 1976: 243). In his commentary on Jablonskis, Palionis limits himself to noting “somewhat more frequent use of the type in Low Lithuania” (Jablonskis 1957: 676). This investigation was prompted, however, by example (1) and other corresponding uses of nešinas in Balanos gadyne by Katkus, who comes from Ažytėnai in the West Aukštaitian Šiauliai subdialect, as well as by several examples from Šeškauskas (6), who frequently uses tek inas: (16) Tik mama pamatė, apsisuko, tekina namo (Šeškauskas, I). Nešinas, vedinas, tekínas 25 ‘Mama just saw it, turned around, and [went] hurrying home.’ Although in (16) it would be possible, instead of assuming the zero realization of a verb of motion, to take tekina as the third-person form of tekinti (albeit involving a shift in tense usage, which is known as a stylistic device in narratives, especially fairy tales), the example (6) above does not permit this interpretation. Šeškauskas comes from Sargeliai, which is 12 km from Ažytenai. I recently heard several people there use nešinas. Further examples from High Lithuanian dialects: (17) Kažin ko Kazys net bėginas atlekia Trgn (LKŽ, 718). ‘Who knows why, Kazys came rushing over, even running.’ (18) paskui ją sekdavo „bobutė“, kūdikiu nešina (Kupiškis; Dundulienė 1958: 402). ‘The “old woman” would follow her, carrying the baby.’ (19) Po kiek laiko sugrįžo čebatų glebiu nešinas (Daukniūnų k., Biržų r.; Balys 2002: 348). ‘After some time he returned carrying an armful of shoes.’ (20) Ir už valandelės sugrįžo, daug žiedų nešinas (Daukniūnų k., Biržų r.; Balys 2002: 348). ‘And after a little while he returned, carrying many rings.’ (21) Vis tek inas, vis susirūpinęs (Merkinės apyl.; Vėlius et al. 1970: 395). ‘Always in a hurry, always worried’ (a contemporary’s account of V. Krėvė-Mickevičius). (22) Jai taip beverkaujant išeina tėvas, duona, druska ir ugnimi „ant dugno“ (tačės) nešinas (Krėvė-Mickevičius 1930: 65). ‘While she is weeping, the father comes in, carrying bread, salt, and fire on a tray.’ The following example: (23) Todėl taip skubinas, kad be krikštų nen umirtų... (Slančiauskas 1975: II 277). ‘That is why one hurries so, lest it die without baptism.’ can be interpreted in different ways: either as the omission of the “normal” verb form in the use of participles characteristic of Slančiauskas (“Beveik visos pasakos užrašytos tame krašte ypač mėgstama dalyvine kalba”, Vėlius 1974: 35)—here, a zero realization of esti, daryti or veikti, as is entirely normal in Slančiauskas’s work—or one may also see in (23) a form of skubinas(i) skubintis. In the Dictionarium trium linguarum one finds this entry: (24) Lat. Volu, cursu magno feror. Lit. Tekinomis eymi / Szokinomis teku / Skubinomis / Skubiey braukiu (Szyrwid 1642: 15) in an adjectival form and usage. 26 Bernd Gliwa 4. USE WITH THE INSTRUMENTAL OR ACCUSATIVE The line from the song lyrics: (25) Ruibis [a tomcat] tekìnas, paukščiais nešínas, bėgo į kuknelę (song lyrics, KL; LKŽXV 1122). ‘Ruibis, hurrying along, carrying little birds, ran into the kitchen’ with an instrumental object finds its accusative counterpart in (26) Ruibis tekìns, paukštelius nešìns, puolė į kuknikę. ‘Ruibis rushed into the kitchen, hurrying along and carrying little birds’. (JD: 628, no. 1512; LKŽVIII 707). In the original: tékìns, paukštelùs and nešèns, kuknìkę (JD: 628, No. 1512); it is therefore doubtful whether the entry *nešìns in LKŽ gives the correct accent here. Furthermore, LKŽ inserts a comma (after tekìns) to mark the stanza break in the text in the revised edition (LKŽVIII 707); the comma is absent from the original, where there is no line break at this point, but it seems appropriate. The main clause is: Ruibis puolė į kuknikę. Tekìns could also be considered in this context as a direct attribute of Ruibis, and thus as an adjective. Alternatively, tekìnas could here be an adverb modifying puolė, corresponding exactly to the aforementioned bėga skubìnas or mes tik tékini užlėkiam in (6). Further examples with the accusative can be found in Büga (1959: 114). The instrumental nevertheless predominates: (27) Vieną dieną pro šalį ėjo žydas, nešìnas parduodama dėžute (Kunčinas 1991: 101). ‘One day a Jew came by, carrying a box to sell’. (28) Vyrai pasiraĩtę braido, pančiais, brizgilais nešìni Žem. (LKŽVIII 706). ‘The men waded with their sleeves rolled up, carrying harnesses and fetters’. The instrumental is quite plausible in: (29) Įėjo pilvų varìnas, ridìnas J.Jabl., Žem. (LKŽXI 537). ‘(He) came in pushing with his belly and rolling’, for the person with the belly uses it, as it were, as an instrument, perhaps to push the door open or even to perform a belly dance. This raises the question of which variant is older: the use with the accusative or the instrumental. While the instrumental > accusative can be explained as a normalization through adaptation to the usual government of the respective verbs, the use of the instrumental usually appears unmotivated and can only be explained by tradition, without its deeper sense being evident. The use of the accusative thus appears to be an innovation, although one already found in Daukša: Nešinas, vedinas, tekìnas | 27 (30) palikiní namũs DAUK. (Būga 1959: 114). ‘leaving the house’. Further examples from old Lithuanian literature (Daukša, Bretkūnas) are given in Būga (1959: 114–115), with both the instrumental and the accusative, as well as without an object. The concrete examples from older and more recent Lithuanian literature do not reveal any clear change in the use of the word form under consideration, apart from the cases to be discussed in section 6. 5. ADVERBIAL USE Intransitive verbs do not require an object; their use here can therefore be described as adverbial: cf. (17) Kažin ko Kazys net bēginas atlekia TRGN (LKŽI 718). (31) Tu, motyn, būk prie ligonio, o tu, Juozai, greitesnis, bėk skubinas ŽEM. (LKŽXII 1110). ‘You, Mother, stay with the sick person, and you, Juozas, since you’re faster, run in haste’. Like the example in (23), the following cases are ambiguous, since here they are more likely to involve the instrumental of a noun than one of the forms under discussion. In: (32) Girtas eina šlitine, o ana bega begine, t. y. tekina J. (LKŽI 718). ‘The drunk man walks staggering, while she runs at a run, that is, running’ bėgine is presented as an adverb: „bėgine adv. begte, bėgtinai, bėgčiomis“ (LKŽI 718), although it apparently is, or is identical with, the instrumental of the noun *bėginė ‘running, a manner of walking’; cf. riščia ‘running in short steps, trotting’ (LKŽXI 681–682); riščia is classified in the same syntactic role sometimes as an adverb (Ulvy das, ed., 1976: 503), sometimes as an instrumental (Ulvy das, ed., 1976: 504). The same applies to šlitine (INSTR.): šlitinė ‘a manner of walking, staggering...’, šlitinỹs ‘the same’, cf. šlitinas, which in turn is labeled an adjective and provides precisely these two apt examples: (33) A reik vyrams taip prisivaryti šlitinims eiti! KRŠ (LKŽXIV 1084). ‘Do the men really have to get so drunk that they walk staggering!’ (34) After drinking plenty of little beers, I went staggering into the chamber (song, D 105; LKŽXIV 1084). ‘After I had drunk plenty of schnapps, I went staggering into the chamber.’ As can be seen, classifying it as an Instrumental or an Adverb is arbitrary and capricious, and demonstrates the limits of classifying words into parts of speech: the boundaries are fluid. In (33), note also the agreement in the Dative between vyrams and šlitinims, if the latter is not a distorted Instrumental. 28 | BERND GLIWA Although words with the structure verb root + -inas can already be used adverbially—bėga skubinas—forms with -ai are also formed on the model of usual adverb formations: (35) They ordered the child to walk around the fields carrying [something], so that [he] might be cured of whooping cough ŠtŠ (LKŽVIII 707). ‘They ordered the child to go around outside carrying [something], in order to cure [him] of whooping cough.’ (36) I’m writing the letter in a hurry, so that you don’t have to wait KrŠ (LKŽXII 1110). ‘I wrote the letter in a hurry, so that you would not have to wait.’ or formed with the Instrumental: skubinomis, tekinomis, šokinomis, as are already found in Szyrwid, example (20). Without an example, “šokinas, -a adj. LsB 398 kuris šokinėja, striksi” is given (LKŽXV 213), so that the specific usage cannot be verified here. The Adverbs šokiniu ‘šokinėjant, šuoliuojant; tanzend’ and šokinomis ‘ds.’ (LKŽXV 219) undoubtedly belong here. Būga argues, following Szyrwid’s example (24), that “instead of bėga skubinas or bėga tekinas, in earlier times one also said skubinomis braukiu...” (Būga 1959: 115). This seems to be a general claim, according to which constructions with skubinomis, tekinomis, šokinomis are older than those with skubinas, tekinas, šokinas; Būga offers no justification for this view. The reverse development is more likely, since Adverbs of the form skubinom(is) are quite common (Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 431). Thus skubinai or skubinomis would be adverbialized forms of skubinas, whose actual use as an adverbial Half-participle seems unusual. By contrast, there is no basis for explaining why the reverse should occur—that is, for the ‘normal’ Adverbs skubinai, skubinomis to turn into skubinas without this involving an innovative concept. In the case of skubinas, adjectival use with a preceding, jointly declined attribute clearly predominates: (37) We have already finished all the urgent tasks GrŽ (LKŽXII 1110). ‘We have already completed all the urgent work.’ Such examples make classification as an Adjective plausible; however, apart from skubinas, they are exceptional. Interestingly, corresponding cases are not given at all in Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. 6. ANDERE SYNTAKTISCHE KONSTRUKTIONEN At first glance, it looks: (38) Pabroliu vedina nuotaka klonjojas (JR 54, LKŽXVIII 479; JSDII 330). ‘The bride bows, leading the best man’. actually very much like, for example, (1). The problem, however, is that the sentence, which in fact— Nešinas, vedinas, tekinas 29 According to Lithuanian customs and events, it should actually read differently: ‘The bride led by the bridal escort bows’. Thus, we have a construction like the one in (11), with vedina as an apparent passive participle. Since the bridal escort is the agent of the (partial) action, one would actually expect pabrolio. The instrumental thus seems to be a relic of the ‘normal’ use of vedina. Zinkevicius simply calls this kind of use ‘wrong’ (1981: 159–160). Apart from this normative judgment of the matter, however, the question is not whether the use is right or wrong, but whether it serves its purpose, that is, whether it is understood. In principle, this question can be answered in the affirmative if we take into account that the content of the statement is known to listeners or readers a priori, and that they are no more familiar with the use of vedina than the author of the sentence is. Moreover, the context makes it clear—especially in the German translation ‘Brautführer’ (‘bridal escort’): ‘to lead’—that this figure is the one doing the leading and that it cannot be a passive participle. The point, then, is not to dismiss this sentence as wrong, but to show that such cases allow us to trace the conditions of language development. Just as Büga (10) compares Eit mótyna vaikaĭs vedinà ‘The mother goes, leading children’ with the passive participle (see above), it may be assumed that he understood the sentence as *‘The mother goes, led by children’. Juška evidently suffered the same fate. 7. D A S I N S T R U M E N T A L O B J E K T It is worth returning once more to the meaning of the instrumental object. To this end, the question of syntactic relations and the generative order in a construction should also be considered: (39) Ans vãrinas kumele eina J. (LKŽxviii, 190). ‘That one goes, driving a mare’. with the syntactic minimum: subject ans, predicate eina, half-participle varinas, instrumental object kumele. Ans eina is the complete main clause, kumele varinas a subordinate clause, separated by a comma and placed after it in many examples. Morphologically, varinas inherits number and gender from the subject; semantically, varinas is an explanation of eina (on the bivalent syntactic relations of participial and half-participial constructions, see Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 530), an adverb of manner. More precisely, kumele varinas should be designated as a whole as an adverbial construction (of manner, Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 503–506). The instrumental is frequently used to indicate the manner of an action, as are adverbs (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 503–504), which very often have an instrumental origin (Zinkevicius 1981: 173). If one takes into account the dual valency of this adverbial construction, as well as the impossibility, given the available set of morphemes, of realizing both valencies in a single lexeme, it seems reasonable to distribute these valencies between the two parts of the adverbial construction: the instrumental marks the adverbial character 30 | BERND GLIWA of the object, which takes over the correspondence with the subject varinas. This explains why the intransitive tekìnas, etc., quickly becomes adverbialized as tekinomis: here the object that could take over the adverbial marking is absent. This, however, by no means results in a closer connection between ans and varinas, or between eina and kumele, since that would dissolve the unit kumele varinas, which jointly relates both to the predicate and to the subject: (39 a) The situation is somewhat different with traditional half-participles such as varydamas: (39 b) Here the adverbial function is weaker, and the subordinate status of the action varydamas in relation to eina emerges more clearly than in (39 a) (cf. Ulvydas, Hrsg., 1976: 530); the step to a true subordinate clause is not far: (39 c) Ans, who is driving the mare, is walking. By contrast, (39 a) emphasizes an almost equal ranking of the two actions, close to: (39 d) Ans is walking and driving the mare. Thus, construction (39) can convey a nuance of meaning arranged along a scale running from two equally ranked actions to the subordination of one action to another, as follows: (39 d), (39), (39 b), (39 c). From a historical perspective, comparison with the sociative function of the instrumental suggests itself. The question, however, is whether this function necessarily entails an equal-ranking hierarchy: *Ans eina ir kumele eina = Ans eina [su] kumele, which was supplemented by an expression of the relation between the two: + [kurią] varo = varinas, or whether such a (socio)associative instrumental already entails a hierarchy, that is, whether varinas would be the primary verb: *Ans kumele varinas [eina]. 8. WORD FORMATION It is striking that only primary verbs occur as the basis for formation, or, if secondary verbs are involved, possibly varyti, then the connecting vowel is Nešinas, vedinas, tekìnas 31 omitted: varinas. In all cases, the underlying root ends in a consonant. What might the corresponding formation based on other roots look like? Without first considering the origin of -inas, two cases must be distinguished: the root ends (a) in a diphthong, (b) in a simple vowel. In the case of the diphthong, perhaps its resolution would be possible: *ėjinas: eiti, just like ėjimas, or *dovinas: duoti like dovana. In case (b), the root vowel and the -i- of the ending could merge to form a diphthong, or an additional hiatus breaker C/R, presumably j, could be introduced: *de(C)inas: dėti, dėjo, *lo(C)inas: loti, loja. Forms of this kind have not been found to date. The ending -ina(s) could derive from Indo-Germanic *-ₙo- and may be compared with adjective formations in -ena-, -ana-; cf. Lithuanian álkanas, Latvian alkans, and further Latvian vedene ‘daughter-in-law’, which Endzelin (as a derivative of a verbal adjective *vedens ‘led’) relates to Old Church Slavonic vedenъ (Endzelins 1951: 293). If -ena- and -ana- stand in ablaut relation to each other, then -ina(s) can readily be connected as having arisen from the zero grade *-ₙ-. Comparison with participles or verbal adjectives in other Indo-European languages is obvious: Old Norse bitinn ‘bitten’, early Old English gibaen ‘given’, Old Church Slavonic nesenъ ‘carried’ (Krahe 1969: 105; Meier-Brügger 2000: 174, 268) (although these examples do not derive from *-ₙ-). From this situation, one might expect forms such as Lithuanian *CVna(s) < Indo-Germanic *CV-ₙ-o(s), without the connecting vowel *-i-, but corresponding forms such as *dėnas: dėti are likewise not attested; it is therefore unclear whether this verb form could ever have existed as a paradigm. The existence of a complete paradigm can already be ruled out with a high degree of certainty. The formation, however, is hardly new. For example, tekìnas, which has survived in isolation and is used as the only word of this form by Šeškauskas, points to an underlying verb *tekti ‘hurry, run’, which is not attested (for this in the Indo-European context, see Jakulis 2003: 33), but is also supported by other derivatives: tekioti ‘run (about)’, tekininkas ‘runner’, tekūnas ‘runner, messenger’, tekýnė ‘race’, tekìnė ‘flight hole in a beehive’, cf. laka ‘same’: lekti ‘hurry, fly’ (LKŽₓᵥ 1122–1124, 1163), which is attested as having existed. Also belonging here is tēkis ‘male livestock, especially for breeding’ (LKŽₓᵥ 1130), which has a semantic parallel in German läufig ‘in heat, usually of a female dog’ (cf. Kluge 1999: 506). While the semi-participles are comparatively recent (Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 378, §614): vesdamas ← vesti, with *-d- + *-ti > -sti, vedinas, based on the root ved-, could also be considerably older. Also relevant to classifying the forms under discussion as adjectives or participles are differences of opinion regarding the general priority of these word classes. Whereas Ambrazas emphasizes the primacy of adjective formation, from which a paradigmatic participle gradually developed (Ambrazas 1993: 58ff., 2000: 161), Krahe sees the matter exactly the other way around: “Many original participles have detached themselves from their verb and become independent adjectives...” (Krahe 1969: 105). The problem probably lies in the fact that the verbal system is usually presented synchronically, that is, as a complete paradigm system with rules for forming individual forms, whereas adjective formation is usually described diachronically. Thus the adjective is immediately ‘complete’, 32 | B E R N D G L I W A although there are a number of competing formations, whereas the participle is considered complete only when it applies as a paradigm to all verbs. And, as shown here, this is by no means necessary. Just as there are several ways of forming adjectives with the same resulting meaning, alternative derivational processes can be used for one and the same participle. Nor must participles necessarily appear as a complete paradigm, as, for example, the nešinas examined here. 9. RESULTS There is no doubt that nešinas, bėginas, vedinas largely correspond in syntactic usage to the semi-participles nešdamas, bėgdamas, vesdamas. It would therefore make sense to classify and discuss them together with the semi-participles in a (synchronic) Lithuanian grammar. When they occur without further complements, that is, especially formations from intransitive verbs of motion, such as bėginas, tekínas, they coincide syntactically with adverbs, or with the adverbial participles called ‘būdinys’ (Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 421–424), which causes the ending to become adverbialized. Their integration into ordinary adverb categories is therefore already advanced for intransitive verbs. Conversion into a regular adjective is much rarer; a clear example is skubinas. Use with an instrumental object, which is the only difference from the semi-participles in -damas, may be connected with the adverbial use of the construction kumele varinas in relation to eina. By contrast, use with an accusative object is probably an innovative adaptation to the verb’s government, an early innovation already found in Daukša. Formation based on primary verbs with a root ending in a consonant or sonorant points to an incomplete paradigm of the participial form; formations based on roots other than those mentioned were not encountered. There is no difficulty in reviving the form and using it with suitable verbs. Palionis’s view, according to which these forms are used predominantly in Lower Lithuania, is confirmed; the exclusivity claims made by other authors must be rejected. A B B R E V I A T I O N S O F S O U R C E S (insofar as they were cited according to Lietuvių kalbos žodynas and Lietuvių kalbos gramatika) BP – Posilla... per Jana Bretkuna... D – S. Daukantas, 1846, Dajnes žemaitiu... DAUK. – S. Daukantas, works. GRŽ – Grūžiai, Pasvalys district. J. – Литовский словарь А. Юшкевича, 1897–1922. J. JABL. – Jonas Jablonskis, works. Nešinas, vedinas, tekinas 33 JR – Svotbinė rėda... by Antanas Juškevičius. Kl. – Kuliai, Plungė district. KrŠ – Kuršėnai, Šiauliai district. Lkv – Laukuva, Šilalė district. LsB – Die Bildung der Nomina im Litauischen von August Leskien. Leipzig, 1891. NIEM – Lithuanian folk songs from the handwritten estate of Prof. J. J. Mikkola, Helsinki, 1949. OB – Obeliai, Rokiškis district. Šts – Šatės, Skuodas district. Trgn – Tauragnai, Utena district. Trk – Tirkšliai, Mažeikiai district. Tt – Tytuvėnai, Kelmė district. V. Krėv. – Vincas Krėvė, Works. Žem. – Žemaitė, Works. OTHER SOURCES Balys, J. 2002: Raštai III, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. Dundulienė (Glemžaitė), E. 1958: Kup iškėnų senovė, Vilnius: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla. JD = Juška, A., Hrsg., 1954: Lietuviškos dainos I–III (hier Bd. III), Vilnius: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla. [Reprint des Originals von 1882.] JSD = Juška, A. und Juška, J., Hrsg., 1955: Lietuviškos svotbinės dainos I–II, Vilnius: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla. [Reprint der Originale von 1880, 1883, 1900.] Katkus, M. 1989: Bal anos gadynė, Vilnius: Vaga. Krėvė-Mickevičius, V. 1930: Dzūkų vestuvės. Mūsų tautosaka 2, 17–93. Kunčinas, J. (Übers.) 1991: Albanų pasakos, Vilnius: Vyturys. Vėlius, N. et al. (Hrsg.) 1970: Merk inė, Vilnius: Vaga. Vėlius, N. 1974: Matas Słančiauskas ir jo pasakos. (Vorwort) In: Słančiauskas 1974: 9–36. Słančiauskas, M. 1974: Šiaurės Lietuvos pasakos, Vilnius: Vaga. Słančiauskas, M. 1975: Šiaurės Lietuvos sakmės ir anekdotai, Vilnius: Vaga. Šeškauskas, J. (°1933, Sargeliai) 2000–2003: Prisiminimai. (Archiv des Autors, Tonträger I–VI.) LITERATURE Ambrazas, S. 1993: Daiktavardžio darybos raida, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Ambrazas, S. 2000: Daiktavardžio darybos raida II, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Ambrazas, V. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos pasyvo raidos bruožai. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 45, 11–38. Būga, K. 1959: Rinktiniai raštai II, Vilnius: Poltinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Conrad, R., Hrsg., 1978: Kleines Wörterbuch sprachwissenschaftlicher Termini, Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut. Endzelins, J. 1951: Latviešu valodas gramatika, Rīga: Latvijas Valsts izdevniecība. Jablonskis, J. 1957: Rinktiniai raštai I. Hrsg. von J. Palionis, Vilnius: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla. Jakulis, E. 2003: Veiksmažodžių tekėti, braškėti ir varvėti kilmė. Materiały XXXII międzynarodowej filologicznej konferencji, Vypusk 1, Sekcija Baltistiki, 33–34. St. Peterburg: Philologische Fakultät der Staatlichen Universität St. Peterburg. Kluge, F. 1999: Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 23. erw. Auflage, bearbeitet von E. Seebold, Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter. 34 | Bernd Gliwa Krahe, H. 1969: Germanische Sprachwissenschaft III. Wortbildungslehre. 7. Auflage, bearbeitet von Meid, W., Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter. Lyberis, A. et al., Hrsg., 1979: Pirmasis lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. LKŽ = Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language I–XX, Vilnius: Mintis, Mokslas, Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing, Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 1956–2002. Meier-Brügger, M. 2000: Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 7., völlig neubearbeitete Auflage unter Mitarbeit von Matthias Fritz und Manfred Mayrhofer, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. Rix, H. et al. 2001: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben, Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schmalstieg, W. 2000: The Historical Morphology of the Baltic Verb. (= Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph 37.) Szyrwid, C. 1642: Dictionarium trium linguarum. Facsimile reprint in: Lyberis 1979: 95–658. Tarvydas, J. 1961: Dėl veiksmažodinių būdvardžių vedinas, nešinas ir kitų vartojimo. Kalbos kultūra 1, 43–44. Ul vydas, K. et al., Hrsg., 1965, 1971, 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika I–III, Vilnius: Mintis, Mokslas. Zinkevičius, Z. 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius: Mintis. Zinkevičius, Z. 1981: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika II, Vilnius: Mokslas. Bernd Gliwa Sargeliai, LT 4404 Žaiginys [email protected] Received 2003 02 25