Albertas Rosinas. „Mikalojaus Daukšos tekstų įvardžių semantinė ir morfologinė struktūra“

202 | REVIEWS ALBERTAS ROSINAS, SEMANTIC AND MORPHOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF PRONOUNS IN MANY OF MIKALAUS'S TEXTS. Having created a distinctive system of pronoun classification, having described not only the semantic structure of pronouns in the Lithuanian common language (Rosinas 1984; 1996), but also in the Baltic languages (1988a), having investigated and reviewed the origin and development of pronouns in these languages (1988a: 157-226; 1995), Prof. Albertas Rosinas is deservedly called the most famous researcher of pronouns in the Baltic languages. The book, published in 2001, is dedicated to the analysis of the semantic and morphological structure of pronouns in the first LDK writings — the Catechism and Postilas of Mikalojus Daukša. This monograph can be described as a continuation, refinement, systematization and generalization of previous studies not only because of the pronoun class chosen as the object of the scientific research, but also because of Daukša’s texts: the use of some pronouns in Daukša’s Postila (Rosinas 1988b: 186; 1991: 53-55) has already been described earlier, the paradigms and forms of pronouns (Rosinas 1995: 18; 42-43, etc.) have been presented from it, and even the peculiarities of the graphic presentation of some words have been discussed (see Rosinas 1994: 83-84). The author of the new book Pratarmė, discussing the value of Daukša’s texts, regrets that the data of these texts are still mostly used in the works of linguists only “to justify some hypothesis or law of language development” (p. 8), although systematic study of language (unlike atomistic) allows “easier to identify archaisms and innovations, [...] to highlight the conditions of changes, internal motives and tendencies of changes” (p. 8) and may allow to change “the grammatical status of some words” (ibid.). Rosinas 1984: 10-12; 1996: 1820), the same —not pronoun, but adjective—status is maintained by the word tūlas (“the word tūlas is not a pronoun, but an adjective” (p. 153)) and the conjugation *kok(i)s tok(i)s (“having the meaning “small, insignificant- ”, like the language of the present day somewhat such” (p. 14)), but the word savęs is grammatically described differently: “The so-called characteristic regressive “pronoun” savęs, -a is not a pronoun, but an adjective contrasting with the adjective strangers, -a.” (p.153) (see also: “the statements not related to the person [...] show that [...] the forms of the noun have not the meaning of a sangraic possessive pronoun, but of a possessive adjective. [...] in spoken contexts, the forms of the word in question do not change any noun or pronoun, [...] their meanings are adjectives: “not foreign, close, belonging to oneself” (p. 32-33). From Daukša’s texts, the inventory of pronouns includes every, -ia, which was not included in the list of pronouns of the current Lithuanian language (see Rosinas 1996: 19). After evaluating the diachronic use of this word in Daukšos texts (p. 107-108; 111-112) the author states that „ of the word visokias only the singular forms had the meaning of common pronouns, and the plural forms — the meaning of adjective „various“ (p. 108). The words included in the pronoun inventory are also discussed in terms of their origin and construction: “The basis of the pronoun inventory of many texts are pronouns inherited from the Baltic and Lithuanian protolanguage; only some pronouns of existence (none, none, none, none) are values from Polish, and the common pronoun *kojnas [...] is a loan from Belarusian x4>KkexH8, kano (p. 153). In the author’s opinion, “The relative pronoun sikas(g) is a Daukša novelty, arising from the perinterpretation of the elements of the sample common pronoun wifsa kas in sentences with the relative pronoun kas and by adding the second element of the common pronoun to the relative pronoun” (p. 154). In the preamble the author indicates the objectives of this work: first, “to identify the inventory of pronouns in Daukšos texts, to determine their functions and meanings and semantic differential [...] features that distinguish pronouns from each other and connect them to certain subclasses” (p. 8), secondly, “to re- RECENZIJOS | 203 based on the texts of Daukša ([...] and other authors of the 16th-17th centuries) to explain [...] the conditions and internal motives of the neutralization of [...] the adhesive and the aliative” (p. 8). The implementation of these goals divides the book into two parts: the first, fulfilling the requirements of a systematic description, in which the application of the author’s pronoun classification and semantics theory is noted in describing the pronouns of Daukšos texts, and the second, dedicated to discussing and justifying the conditions and motives of the formation and resemblance of some postpositional pronouns (adjective and aliative). This is hardly reflected in the structure of the monograph itself: the book consists of a Preface, a lecture — The semantic and morphological structure of pronouns, Conclusions, references to literature, sources, abbreviations and conclusions in English (The semantic and morphological structure of pronouns in Mikalojus Dauksa’s texts). Only in the Table of Contents (p. 5-6) from the references to paragraphs (in the section,,Ivardziy semantic and morphological structure (§ 1-45)“ the part „1.10. Postpositional pronouns: origin, inner motives of function changes (§ 46-48)“) there is an attempt to distinguish this part of the lecture, which deals not only with the origin and development of pronouns, but also with the origin and development of postpositional pronouns of other nouns. Having assessed the correlation between syntactic constructions with the preposition prieg and the adhesive and aliative (p. 136), in the chapter „Postpositional pronouns [...]“ the author discusses the construction of sentences with the “adhessive” construction (prieg + noun) in Daukša’s texts (p. 136—137) and states that such constructions are positional variants of the morphological form of the adhesive. The construction prieg + kilmininkas, which is common in Daukša’s texts and which had the initial meaning of “aliative” (p. 137), is also presented here. Based on the material of Daukša’s texts, the author can further justify the previously raised assumption (cf. Rosinas 1995: 64) about the origin of the singular adesive from the noun sampling with the postposition *p(r)ei (p. 143-144). According to Rosine, the analogy with other symmetrical prepositional constructions shows that “the interchange of prepositions does not affect the morphology of the prepositions — the same prepositional (inflectional) verb remains both after the preposition and after the inflection” (p. 144). When discussing the adverb of the stem u, which does not coincide with the dative, the assumption supporting the opinion of Jon Kazlauskas and Vytautas Mažiulis is made that the inclined postposition at the time of the formation of the adverb “could have been added to the dative form of the stem u with -u” (p. 144). Considering the problem of the origin of the adhesive of o-root nouns, the author of the monograph does not doubt that “singular noun adhesive was formed from the singular dative and the verb *prei” (p. 147). The fact that in ancient writings plural adhesives are used that are not related to the structure of the dative (p. 147) is explained by denying the theory about the origin of plural adhesive forms from the plural inessive after the addition of the postposition pi(e) (p. 147—148), because, in the author’s opinion, this theory is not capable of explaining the asymmetry characteristic of the subsystem of the inessive and adhesive in the Baltic languages and the need to form the postpositional plural inessive, having the plural locativ with -su inherited from the Indo-European protolanguage (p. This part of the monograph discusses both the possible conditions for the formation of the plural adhesive with -su(m)p (p. 149-150), and the internal motives: the fact that the plural adhesive with -sump was based on the old locative with -su was caused by “the use of phonetically coinciding, or syncretic, dative and locative forms in the singular inessive and singular inessive verbs”. In the preface: "Pronouns are also nouns, and at the same time substitutes for other nouns (nouns, adjectives, numerals- ). In the present tense, relative masculine pronouns have influenced the conjugation of other nouns” (p. 9). However, due to the absence of the genitive form of the distinguishing pronoun in some places of the text, the impression may be created that the pronoun does not belong to the class of nouns, e.g.: “in the case of pronouns and nouns [...] the inessive is also used” (p. 141), “with stative verbs [...] the adesive of both pronouns and nouns [...] is a synonym of the inessive” (p.142). 204 | REVIEWS in adhesive constructions“ (p. 151-152). This choice, in Rosine’s opinion, can be described as “a natural process of unifying the morphs of the verbs” (p. 152). In the main part of the monograph —dedicated to the description of the semantics and morphology of pronouns in many texts (§1-45) — the reader will find a short introduction Pronoun Relations (p. 10) and a list of the inventory of Daukša’s texts, accompanied by notes, in which the problem of not including the word tūlas in the pronoun inventories is pointed out. The description of pronouns in Daukša’s texts, presented in the other subsections of this part, reveals the system of pronoun classification previously developed by the author, according to which pronouns are divided into six classes: personal (participal, non-participal, conjunctive) ($4— 10); possessive ($11), demonstrative (adjective, noun, specific, absolute and qualitative demonstratives, indirect demonstrative pronouns, demonstrative pronouns in plural) ($12—22), distinguishing (§23-24), emphatic ($26—27) and cognitive pronouns (interrogative, existential, indefinite, indicative, common, reciprocal, negative and relative) ($28—44). Summaries of the research are presented in the section Differential features and semantic structure of pronouns in Daukšos texts (§45). According to the possibilities of occupying a place in the noun phrase, the author divides the pronouns of Daukša’s texts (as well as the pronouns of the contemporary Lithuanian language, cf. Rosinas 1996: 144) into two classes: “substantive pronouns, used only in the position of a noun, and adjective pronouns, used both in the position of a noun and an adjective” (p. 132). The structure of pronouns in Daukša’s texts is described by pairs of differential features that emerged from the analysis of syntactic and paradigmatic The relationships of pronouns in numerous texts. Seventeen* pronouns in Daukša’s texts are used to describe such pairs (p. 132-134). According to the complex of these features, pronouns are presented in a matrix (p. 133), and semantic classification and hierarchy of systemic relationships according to 17 differential features are reflected in the dendogram of pronouns identification (p. 134—135). Rosino’s pronoun classification is already firmly established in Lithuanian linguistics and it would be difficult to bypass or ignore it for anyone considering the problems of pronoun classification or description. In the context of the author’s own works, this monograph could be considered as the use of the previously developed system by the author to describe the pronouns of ancient scripts. Therefore, the monograph is considered in this review as a study of ancient writings. In describing the semantics of pronouns in Daukša’s texts (see contents §1-45), the author uses the methodology that he applied to the analysis of pronoun structures and their paradigms in his first monograph Semantic Structure of Pronouns in Lithuanian Common Language (1984) and improved in subsequent monographs — Pronouns in Baltic Languages (1988a: §12-79) and Pronouns in Lithuanian Common Language (1996: §12-71), and in the book In the introduction, the author reminds that in order to avoid repetition, more complex theoretical questions are not discussed in the monograph and advises to use the 1996 monograph, which explains theoretical issues more extensively (p. 8). But sometimes long-proven things are transferred to the book. For example, the 9-line inventory of pronouns in Daukša’s texts (p. 10-11) is accompanied by three-page (p. 11-14) Notes, in which the article “On the status and origin of tiilas, —a” (Rosinas 1986: 30-33) is entirely re-written, providing as many as 4 references to it, although only the last two have some additional information. 2 In describing the pronoun system of the contemporary Lithuanian language, the author initially allocated 20 pairs of differential signs (Rosinas 1984: 115; 1988a: 146-148), later leaving 19 pairs (cf. Rosinas 1996: 145-147): such pronoun samples as one of the second in this monograph are described only by the pair of characteristics reciprocal/non- -reciprocal, renouncing the characteristics of non-differential/differential. Differential features such as abundance/scarcity and optional/non-optional, which were necessary to describe the pronouns some and many in the present Lithuanian language, were also abandoned; several and all, all, both; everybody and anybody (Rosinas 1996: 146-147). REVIEWS | 205 mos, but definitely not necessary information for this book. It is thus re-proved that the word tul „never was a pronoun“ (p. 14). In the context of the monograph, the attempt to re-argument with the psycholinguistic experiment carried out in 1987 in several groups of pupils and students (see pp. 11-12) seems unserious. It is recalled that Jaunius and Skardžius considered the word tūlas to be an adjective (p. 12)), but it is not mentioned that Palionis also presents the word tūlas with the suffix adj in the DK Index of Word Forms. (i. e. adjectivum, adjective) (Palionis 1995: 737). The full transcription of the article seems like the author’s attempt to quantitatively balance his doubts about the defending statement, which arose when examining the peculiarities of the expression of tuls in Daukša’s text, e.g.: “in certain contexts tuls can acquire the meaning ‘not one’ or ‘many’ and approach the pronouns of existence conveying relative abundance [...]”; “It is hardly because of these two cases of narrowly used túlas that this word should be allocated to pronouns. This would not be allowed even by the one-time correlating tulas with which in the nominative sentence [...] DP 574,“ (p. 13). Pratarmė modestly describes the work, which required the selection and review of a large volume of material, as “an attempt to fill the gap in the systematic description of the language of Daukša’s texts” (p. 8), noting that “so far we do not have (except for Pranas Skardzis- ’s “Daukša- ’s accentology”) synchronous descriptions of the language of Daukša’s texts that would allow us to form a systematic picture of his language” (p. 8). Although the author does not detail what is required for systematic research, reading the monograph it is obvious that the author supports the principles of systematic description set out and applied in the aforementioned work of Skardzis- *, since the comparisons of the catechisms of Daukša and Ledesma are presented in the monograph only a few times (p. 65; 66; 105; 115; 140;..?), and comparisons with passages of the text of Wujek Postila are not presented at all. The Polish counterparts reinforce the conclusions that speak about the presence or absence of the influence of the original on the constructs in question, for example, when discussing the changes in the functions of the adesive and aliative, it is stated that “the linguistic changes did not arise due to foreign influences [...]” (p. 139), but this is contradicted by the comparison of examples from Daukša’s and Ledesma- ’s catechisms, cf.: “Regarding the use of the aliative in Daukša’s texts, it could also be cautiously said that it was inspired by the prepositional constructions of the Polish original [...] (p. 140)”. In concluding about the use of adjective pronouns in Daukša’s texts, the author states that “as the examples presented at the paradigms manas and tavas show, the adjective pronouns manas, tavas are often used reflexively according to the model of the Polish original (see Rosinas, 1988, 176-179)” (p. 37). Although there is no reason to doubt the conclusion, it would still be convenient to find at least a few of the Polish equivalents given, since the 1988 monograph referred to also presents only a conclusion about the influence of the Polish originals (see Rosinas 1988a: 179), pointing to the article „Viena asmeninių I ir II asmenų įvardžių vartojimo ypatybė lietuvių senųjų raštų kalboje“, which gives one example from Merkelis Petkevičius’ Catechism, compared with the original (see Rosinas 1973: 168). The original counterparts are also lacking in the accusations made to Daukša about the inappropriately chosen form, for example, on p. 122 it is stated that “The change of the forms of the pronoun tas or fis of the relative pronoun kuris in the forms that occurs in many texts does not seem correct” and that “There are more cases of such incorrect use of which forms in Daukša’s texts”, but it is not mentioned that in the sentences given Kureis jodjeis (DP 10,) is translated from Ktoremi flowy, and kuriūfsia daiktūfsia (DP 582,,) from w It is not about two examples — the author himself mentions more than 3 of them: “[...] DP 265,,; ; [...] DP 2574, 4; [...] DP 257, etc.’ (p. 13), but about two meanings of the word: 1) “not one”; (2) ‘a number’. * According to Skardžius, “to investigate the totality [...] all the material under investigation must be used [...]” (quoted from Skardžius 1999: 49), it is important to take into account authenticity, but the samples of Daukšos language under investigation do not have to be statistically recorded (Skardžius 1999: 49-50); for the sake of clarity and easier orientation it is appropriate to give the Polish meanings of some words (Skardžius 1999: 42). 206 | RECENZIJOS which r3ecjach. Ignoring the Polish equivalents and the specificity of the texts (p. 102), conclusions are drawn about the translation: “Both forms of the pronoun Daukšos are sometimes not quite successfully replaced by the forms of the demonstrative pronouns” tit du, although the logic of the text does not require this, cf. : I was Jefus. Mité[si Wiefpati Diewą tawa ijg wifsos Pirdies tawos /ir ijg wifsos dūpios tawos /ir išg wifso hūmo tawo | ir i5g wifsų [ity® tawų. Tatdig is the greatest and first-born prifaking. And the second pathogen is for that. You'll love a hot taw as much as the faw. Thousand dwieiūfe' (=both sisters) prifakimūfe vifwiro wifsas 36konas and Pranafai. DP 342," (p. 102). A comparison with Wujek’s text („Na tych dwu® pr3ykazaniach 3awiJnat wByftek 3akon“) shows that Daukša adhered to the original, and it may be that he was obliged to do so for theological reasons as well, since the form of the demonstrative pronoun in harmony with the numerative is like an address indicating which of God’s commandments is discussed or summarized, cf. : And kurg is pitie/which bit idant' Wiefpatis Chriftus command uncomfortable things? Néffag ie anie peoples fenamė jokone turėdami teip [ykius/ir befkaicziaus prifakimu ir ceremonijų nig Diéwo | ir ne turėdami to papatpos/kurę mes nų tyrim jokonę nauaamčiimę)/gateio wienok' iBpildit' wiffus anūs prifakimus: O kaipog męs krikfegionis pildit' iy ne turime/kurié tiektai wiéng prifakimą turime | tatai yra/ Mitek'." DP 463 "." : Kamég virakinas | toii défjmtis pri[ffaūkimy? Dwéiaté priffakimų ape meilg /tai ¢ft tifffe: mitek Wiéfipaty Diewą gnt’ wifffo /o bliskim jak paty fawe/drin' Wiefipatiés Diewo. In short, [akani/wiffas 30konas Diewo virakinas$ faldseuséme priffikime meifes DK 88.. The absence of a text comparison with the original sometimes leads to a superficial determination of the meaning of the construct under consideration. For example, in the description of the use of the absolute demonstrative with prieg it is stated that: „In the meaning ‘in addition’ in Daukša’s texts is used [...] the predicate prieg tam“ (p. 137), although it is not easy to believe that in the example given in DP 73,, the predicate expressed by the verb of state budamas + prieg tam may be used not for the expression of spatial relations, but in the author’s attributed meaning of ‘in addition’ (which usually appears only when the predicate prieg tam is translated from pr3y tym, e.g., prieš tam’ DP 299,, or išy owfem, e.g., prieš tam DP 22,). According to the original (Bo 3yd uwiersyt je Pan bedoc obecnym/- mogt go uzdrowic) and the nearby context (3ydg paliteiimu- /o pahonj jod3iu pafweikino) of the sentence Nes 3idas intikeio iog Wieppatis budamas prieg tam’gaiéio ij pafweikini (DP 73,) DP 74.). It is possible that the author, knowing about Prof. Jonas Palionis’ finished preparation of Daukša and Wujek’s postilj parallel edition’, held to the provision that the reader himself will be able to find it without much trouble.5 In the case in question, Tiisé dwieitisé is not a single word (about single-word double forms p. 103) of the demonstrative pronoun in the form of the locative fiz du and not a case of double displayed pronouns (cf. 57-60), but two separate words, of which only the first is a demonstrative pronoun, cf. Many texts show the inesyve use of pronouns with numerals indicating a specific number of prayers: M. O kitų daiktų priwatomu kur méldziamé? Mo. Tofsė pekiofemaldofsė/kurios pafkui tie dvi eit DK 53 (M. And the other r5ec3y needed when we ask? V. In the other pigci requests. LK 33, |); Kog Diewiep prafom toff¢ feptiniofé matdoffé? DK 51, (What do we ask in these Seven Promises | which 5d are they? LK 32,). By the way, the author himself, discussing the paradigms of demonstrative pronouns in the plural at pp. 59-60 of the monograph, does not present demonstrative pronouns in the singular. Rosinas (1995: 51-53) also writes about the double count of pronouns and compares,,There are no special forms of the double count genitive and locative in Lithuanian language“ (Zinkevičius 1980: 182); the present-- day two-numeric locative forms: tuddviese, tiédviese (Andronov 1999: 155). No pronouns are doubled in that they do not provide the forms of the locativ Ambrazas, red. (1994: 280). * DP 342, written: Sith —J. P. 7 DP342,,, written: dwieitsė —J. P. The older (than the new form dwuch, dwoch, dwoch, which became common in the 16th century) common form of nobleman and local person dwu<*devoju (Klemensiewicz et al. 1955: 339) is used. * About the book of Mikalojus Daukša Postila of 1599 and its sources, see 2001: 187–201; Yudžentis (2001: 213–214). REVIEWS | 207 tinti pieces of text presented by Daukša Postila with Polish equivalents. The monograph does not mention" and Czestawo Kudzinowski's "Indeks —Stownik do "Mały Postiła", which gives the possibility to quickly see not only the possible Polish equivalents of the word of interest, but also the forms used by the word itself and the coordinates of its presence'- ?, and according to them to determine the frequency of use. In the reviewed monograph on the use of pronouns in Daukša’s texts, the quantitative situation is not specified and described only by generalizing statements, e.g., „and etc.“ (p. 107; 137; 138); “sometimes” (p. 102); “occasionally used” (p. 99); “not used at all” (p. 14); "most commonly used" (p. 117). Therefore, a note detailing the use of forms in non-Daukša texts appears strange: “For example, in Vilento Enchiridione, out of 23 plural inesives, 17 are with -su and only 6 with -sa” (p. 148). Although the identification of the pronoun inventory of Daukša’s texts is one of the objectives of the monograph (see p. 8), the main list of pronouns (p. 10-11) is presented in the monograph without explanations, and the reader has to correct the first impression that, taking into account the graphic notation, the pronouns of Daukša’s texts are presented in alphabetical order by sorting the main forms, separating pronouns from different meaning groups by commas, and by commas — adjacent forms or certain members of the paradigm (e.g., characteristic nouns). None of these rules are consistently followed, and since there is no index, it may be necessary to look at the book more closely to make sure that the form is correctly written, because: —sometimes unclear reasons for the choice of graphic notation, e.g. the inventory shows,,abeia, abeias; 10), and p. 106 presents the noun form of abeia, gives examples, discusses graphic variants, among which there is not even an identical one to the abeia presented in the inventory. The synoptic table (p. 132) and the matrix (p. 133) also contain doubts; —inconsistent alphabetical order: the inventory contains ‘Jawo’ separated by semicolon; [awgs®, although it should be the opposite: „fawęs; fawo”, cf. in the section “Recursive pronouns” the variants of the adjective: first,, fawé, fawė, fawės, fawęs, fawįs” (p. 24), followed by “fawo, sawo, Jaw6” (p. 25); —inconsistently marked reconstruction sign before pronouns, whose nominative form is not recorded in Daukša’s texts, e.g., the pronoun nėkas without the asterisk is given in the list (p. 10), in the synoptic table (p. 132) and on page 96 of the text, although on page 97 it is written: „Sometimes instead of kas Daukša Postila uses the transliterated *nėkas, which has the same meaning as ‘someone’. And vice versa, the list is marked,, *keletas; *keli“ (p. 10), 0 98 p. discusses non-complex nouns,keli, keletas“. In addition to the reconstruction mark, these pronouns are presented in the synoptic table of pronouns (p. 132) and in the matrix (p. 133); —the list contains only masculine forms of pronouns, e.g. “tis, iiffai” (p. 10), but the synoptic table (p. 132) and the matrix (p. 133) allocate iis; ii. The text also does not unify the presentation of masculine and feminine pronouns (such as pats, -i; Pitas, -a; kokis, -i/-ia; toks, -i/-ia; tas, -a) —whether it is one or two separate pronouns, cf.: „Toks 10 This book, which is a favorite of DP linguists, is not included in the list of literature or sources, although the author of Palionis’ index of DK word forms (Palionis 1995: 627-748) did not ignore it and provided comments (e.g., p. 140). Additional additions or comments may have been made to Kudzinowski's work. Kudzinowski presented them from the 1596 edition of Wujek's Little Poster. Other opinions about the original of Daukša Postila Urbutis (1978: 84) and Palionis (2000: 17—21). 12 * For example, on page 79 of the monograph, when discussing samplery, the DP sentence quoted from another ment is presented without coordinates, but the reader can easily identify them using the Kudzinowski index: DP 318, „L. 208 | RECENZIJOS pronoun is itself, itself. It enters into various compounds with nouns [...]“ (p. 86), „The pronoun itself, -i forms compounds [...]“ (p. 87), „The pronouns themselves, -i emphasize [...]“ (p. 86), „The paradigms of pronouns themselves, -i [...]“ (p. 87); —not all pronouns (not all their basic forms) are listed in the inventory, e.g., *tiekas is not presented from the designative existence pronouns, cf. in the text: „The pronoun *tiekas, whose forms are occasionally used in Daukša’s texts and which can be attributed to the designative existence pronouns [...], also conveys an indefinite number of elements“ (p. 99). Of the adjective indefinite nouns listed in the text („wienas, kuris, kokis, kokfai, nėkuris, nėkokis, kaškokis, kuris nor(int), koksfai nor(int)“ (p. 97) the sampler koksfai nor(int) did not appear. The arrow would allow such omissions to be ignored. Its necessity is obvious also because in the tables and the dendogram “due to lack of space” (p. 135) only one representative of the subclass is presented, and in the descriptions of the subclasses the same cas pronoun can be discussed in several places, because semantic division requires it, e.g. identical graphic expression of personal recognition pronouns fawo (p. 25) and characteristic pronouns fawo (only p. 33 is presented with the reference “see paradigm of recognition pronouns”); the description of the pronoun double is divided into two parts: the double of demonstrative pronouns is discussed in the chapter “Usage of pronoun doubles” (p. 57-60), and the “monosyllabic double forms inherited from the proto-Baltic language” (p. 103) are discussed in the chapter “Common pronouns”; Similarly discussed is the pronoun none: in the section Negative pronouns (p. 113-114) and as another member of the sample none in the section Distinguing pronouns (p. 80-81)); —the inventory list contains proofreading errors, e.g. the enigmatic pronoun ne kioks (p. 10), which the author does not discuss in the text. The different presentation of the atonic forms mi, ti of the personal singular participle pronouns can also be considered a proofreading error: mi is presented in the meaning field of the plural participle pronoun we, because it is separated by a comma: „mes, mūfų, mi“ (p. 10), while the atonic form ti is presented as a completely independent pronoun, separated by semicolons: „fawas; ti; such, such, such; tu, tawęs, tawo“ (p. 11). In the text of the monograph, these forms are described in the section of singular personal participle pronouns: “In addition to the discussed I and you indirect lyrical orthotonic forms, there are also atonic forms [...]. In the Postilla of Daukša [...] the atonic forms also occupy the second position after the pronoun, the verb, the preposition and have the meaning of the noun and the suffix” (p. 16). The comparison with the corresponding forms in the original would not be confused here, because the rare choice of atonic personal pronouns in Daukša's Postila (they are listed in Kudzinowski's index as 14) may have been determined by combinations of certain Polish verbs with enclitic datives mi, ci < ti or their abbreviated variants, cf. : Atfakifiūr' (Responders) 478;; lėkiūt or rodiiūt (rad3ec) 514;pardodiliūi (Poka3ec) 200,,; patirėdiliu (okašeč) 250,,; rėdiiūti (radzed) 165,,; teikiūt (rad3ed) 248,; teikiūi (radsec) 170,,; Tepataiminit (Doesn't want eyes |...) face) 258,,; kuriūfmi dawėi (ktrores mi dat) 154,; 84,; Pamirėdik (Vkaj mi) 84,; Parédikim (In My Way) 64,,; ; pritaifkim' (let me) 512,; 602 (1960) Let Me Cry, op. And again about the way of presentation: although the atonic forms are part of the construction and are used only in the enclitic position, the notation in the inventory does not convey this (as is partly shown in the Conclusions, cf.: “Greta ortotonic [...] Daukša sometimes uses the atonic forms mi, ti (-m, -t) [...]” (p. 155)). In the text, when quoting Daukša, no attention is paid to the fact that 13 The written sf combination is not typical of Daukša’s texts (the usual variant is fs). Many difficulties in finding the right radjec match are shown by the synonyms: lįkiūi or rodiiūi DP 514. E.g.: “the forms of enclitic pronouns mi, ti also correspond to the datives of pronouns in other languages (cf. s. sl. mi, ti [...J])” (Ambrazas 1979: 119). 14 15 RECENZIJOS | 209 that abbreviated atonic forms in Postilae are usually (except for teikiūr DP 248.,; DP 64.,) also marked with special signs (t' or f; m’), e.g., „Atsakijfiūt [...] DP 478.“ (p. 17) (DP spelled: Atfakifiūt'). It is not clear why one or another variant of the pronoun was selected for the inventory and how accurately the monograph aims to convey examples of Daukša's texts, although sometimes the author discusses some spelling features and graphic presentation of Daukša's texts (e.g., "the writing wirefné's reads like wirefnem. It is one of the means of abbreviation [...]’ (p. 79); 18 gives considerations about the notations mgs, iys... and whether they denote reference models). Part of the patterns of quotation of Daukša’s texts in the monograph are easily foreseeable, for example, not only the abovementioned f) are ignored. f; m), but also other special characters, e.g.: p; & 7 (e. g., p. 13: wieniftefp (instead of wieniftefp) DP 276_,; p. 137: prieg tan?’ (should be prieg tam’) DP 73,; p. 92 DP 9,: Kuriū (Kuriit)) etc. Letters are frequently omitted, added or replaced, e.g.: p. 41: kanceliariioi, cf.: kancelliariioi DP 10 „; p. 16-17: „Idant išpildinis Fod5ei kuriūs bitoio | iog kuriūsmi dawéi ne prajudjeu ne wieno ij iy DP 154, |“ (e.g.: Idant išpilditus' jodgjei kuriūs bitoio | iog kuriūfmi dawéi ne prašudjeu ne wiéno iš' iy); p. 122: o per wūrią ir geteši gatibe ifmanos | kuriūfia daiktūfia vigul’ wifsa garbe pafaylo DP 582,, „(cf.: o per wūrią ir getešį galibe ifmanos | kuriūfsia daiktūfsia vigul’ wifsa garbė pafaylo); p. 97: Buwog wel iūsē kaškokis kitas apreiBkimas iiémus viguljs (see DP 230,: Buwog wel iūsē kaškokis kitas apreiBkimas iiémus viguljs). Sometimes the whole word and even the pronoun itself are incorrectly rewritten, e.g.: „As both lexical variants in Daukša’s texts use the pronoun abeias [...): At the end, abeias pafiktonioiimas and DangiBkas and žmonipkas | draugia is fudėty DP 536,,“ (p. 102) E.g., DP is written: Ani gato abeies pafiklonioiimas and DiewiBkas and žmonipkas | draugid is fudėtų; p. 13: per akis sau butų fugrišę wienifte[p, plg.: per akis iaubutu fygrišę wieniftefp DP 276.,; In the 1926 edition of the DP the mot. g. vns is really hard to read. inesyvas abieioié DP 141,, deciphered by the author as abieieié (p. 103), cf. Kudzinowski (1977: 1) refers to the abieioié. Sometimes a non-existent word is recorded (e.g., p. 102: Ko padarit ir negal ieig abeietas nebis wienos ir tiefios wieros. Because you will continue on the fawos faith | O mother wel on the fawos; DP paraSyta: What do you do, you can't go to the abeietas, there will be no wienos and tiefios wieros. Because the father will continue on the faith of the fawo | O mother wel ani fawos DP 70,, “) or the existing one is omitted (e.g., p. 97: pradéio nauius mokftus nė kokfai Thamopius Muncérus DP 204,,, cf. DP written: pradéio nauius mokftus sét’ nė koksai Thamopius Muncérus). Reproduction in Daukša’s text is presented in different ways: somewhere with an asterisk, e.g., p. 117:,sintaksiSkai incorrect would be the sentence *ne wieng priejaftj fmérties ne randi iamė“ „elsewhere only with an arrow, in a mixture of both ancient and modern characters, e.g., the reproduction presented in characters characteristic of Daukša’s texts, repeating a part of the previous sentence and indicating the possible transformation of what into a positive pronoun of commonality: „Kas c3jė néregi /kaip ėft tikri 36d3ai Wieppaties DP 22,.,—Wifsi cjė regi“ (p. 93), seems to be taken from Daukša’s Postila. In presenting pronouns in the inventory, tables and text, the author avoided the notation typical of the present language. However, the correctness of the use of pronouns in Daukša’s texts is sometimes assessed according to the current standards of language codification. As an evaluation of the use of some inesyvs6 Ciavél repeats the error made in the article „Nepastebėta M. Daukšos rašybos ypatybė“ (Rosinas 1994: 83-84): „Until now, it seems, it has not been noticed that such an abbreviation has been used in Latvian and Lithuanian old writings. [...] The abbreviation of the nasal letter is sometimes represented by a dash in the text of M. Daukšos postilla” (ibid., p. 83). But the DP characters given in the Kudzinowski index are given with the circumflex (i, i) sign (see Kudzinowski 1977: 30: paklidelūp 436,,; p. 240 giwgtiibime 568.,). But plg. Rosinas (1995: 28). 210 | REVIEWS old, e.g.: about the inessive fame it is said that “the use of the verbal inessive in the sense of absolute demonstrative is nothing else than the direct value of the corresponding construction of the Polish language [...]J” (p. 65). The inessiveness of abstract nouns is also evaluated, e.g.: “The place (or places) are called by the inessive kameg or the iliative kanag: the answers are usually given by specific nouns of local meaning characteristic of the Lithuanian language [...] However, in Daukša’s texts there are cases when the inessive kameg is called by abstract nouns not characteristic of the Lithuanian language [...]” (p. 92). As a paraidical translation from Polish, Rosinas also presents the inessive of the common pronoun wiffame, accompanied by the remark that,,The inessive of the absolute common pronoun, which denotes a number of places, is foreign to Lithuanian” (p. 105) and that,,All other forms of the inessive are regular and still used in the present language” (p. 105). Speaking about negative pronouns, the author emphasizes that they have retained ancient characteristics (p. 113) and that “Archaic usage of all negative pronouns in Daukša’s texts stands out as niekas” (p. 113), but he does not mention the use of the negative pronoun niekas in the inessive form, which is not characteristic of the current Lithuanian language (it is true that the paradigm of the pronoun niekas in Daukša’s texts is not presented in the monograph), which he has repeatedly emphasized in his earlier works: “Contexts show that nothing has a localisable pronoun” (Rosinas 1984: 107); “It is clear from the contexts that neither the Latvian nothing nor the Lithuanian nothing has a local verb” (Rosinas 1988a: 136); “The contexts show that no one has a local joke” (Rosinas 1996: 136). Although the pronoun niekas is not inessive in Daukša's Catechism, in Postila the negative pronoun niekas is inesive, translated from Wujek Postila's "ni w cjym", used four times (see Kudzinowski 1977: 505): Bet nij/iog Dwasia S. ne eft’ miekam’- ma3e[ne/- žada ią iiémus ani fawos wietos atsiųft' DP 216, (mi w cjym mnieyfy); Wellookai niekame ne priftok DP 109 (Cidrtowi ni w ¢iym nie priyiwatay); krifftimas John's dwellings nikame [kirus nig Chriftaus DP 23 _ (ni w ciym rojny); Mus iffmoke/iog ne wiénu daiktu gréicieus welino ne pérgatefsime/kaip’ kad’ io niekame* ne pakiufsime DP 109, (ni w cjym nie vftuchamy). The book also contains editing errors, e.g. :,In the position of the inessive, the inessive is used instead of the instrumental or other vowels” (p. 65), “and the root locative with *-ei” (p. 146), “the verb tarti, byloti, kalbėti is used with the noun and the alif” (p. 23), “the assignment of the form f/ūwi DK 210,, to the inessive is incorrect” (see DK 720); here it performs the functions of the dative” (p. 140). The footnote at p. 11: „In the mentioned dictionaries the title is not considered a pronoun — there is no mark inv.“ should be accompanied by the ambiguously formulated sentence „The word rūlas, -a, used in the position of noun and adjective, having the meanings „often, none, many“ (see DLKŽ, 1972, 867), „often, none“ (DLKŽ, 1993, 861), is traditionally considered a pronoun“. The spelling of the same name is not harmonized: “there are only two unquestionable publications of his — the translation of the Catechism by Jakub Ledezma and the Postilla by Jakub Wujek” (p. 7) (see the original spelling: Przez D. Jūkuba Ledezma and Przez D. JAKVBA WVYKA) and others. 17 About it in cjym žr. Klemensiewicz et al. (1955: 320, 321). 18 Skardžius (1999: 227) also refers to this form. 19 The given form /žiwisunku is difficult to assess as a dative, even if its origin is explained by the influence of the original, cf. : Jo pigėus numirt tūrimė| nēip iy pageifi: ir iirimé fu didė fargibė /faugoi wi[Jus priffakimus io /bragindami iūs fawididjėus ant wiffy daikty/kurie yra gnt’ to Paffaulo. (Abowiem rdciey vmrzeč mamy nijli go obrašič: y mamy tej pilnie 3achowdc wfytko priykdjdnie iego | wažgc go fobie wigcey/nijli którą rieci na szwiečie. LK 43,,). Even from the point of view of contemporary Lithuanian language, it is difficult to recognize the possibility of appreciating the word combination for oneself in a similar context, and in Daukšos writings the inesy is much more popular than it is now.