202 |

RECENZIJOS

ALBERTAS ROSINAS, THE SEMANTIC AND MORPHOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF PRONOUNS IN MIKALOJUS DAUKŠA’S TEXTS.

Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2001, 163 p.

Having created a distinctive system for classifying pronouns, described the semantic structure of pronouns not only in standard Lithuanian (Rosinas 1984; 1996) but also in the Baltic languages (1988a), and investigated and surveyed the origins and development of pronouns in these languages (1988a: 157–226; 1995), Prof. Albertas Rosinas is deservedly called the foremost researcher of pronouns in the Baltic languages. The book published in 2001 is devoted to the analysis of the semantic and morphological structure of pronouns found in the earliest writings of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania—Mikalojus Daukša’s Catechism and Postil. This monograph can be characterized as an extension, refinement, systematization, and synthesis of earlier research, not only because the class of pronouns was once again selected as the object of scholarly inquiry, but also because of its focus on Daukša’s texts: the usage of some pronouns in Daukša’s Postil had already been described (Rosinas 1988b: 186; 1991: 53–55), along with a pronominal paradigm and forms drawn from it (Rosinas 1995: 18; 42–43, etc.), and even certain features of the graphic representation of some words had been discussed (cf. Rosinas 1994: 83–84). In the Preface to the new book, discussing the value of Daukša’s texts, the author regrets that data from these texts are still most often used in linguistic scholarship merely “to support some hypothesis or regularity in language development” (p. 8), although a systematic study of language (as opposed to an atomistic one) makes it “easier to identify archaisms and innovations, [...] to bring to light the conditions, internal motives, and tendencies of change” (p. 8), and may make it possible to alter “the grammatical status of certain words” (ibid.). In this book, as in the author’s earlier descriptions of the pronominal system of contemporary Lithuanian (cf. Rosinas 1984: 10–12; 1996: 18–20), the word tūlas (“the word tūlas is not a pronoun but an adjective” (p. 153)) and the phrase *kok(i)s tok(i)s (“meaning ‘small, insignificant,’ like the expression šioks toks in present-day language” (p. 14)) retain the same status—that of an adjective, not a pronoun—but the word savas is characterized grammatically differently: “The so-called possessive reflexive ‘pronoun’ savas, -a is not a pronoun but an adjective, contrasting with the adjective svetimas, -a.” (p. 153) (cf. also: “utterances unrelated to a person [...] show that [...] the nominative forms do not have the meaning of a reflexive possessive pronoun, but rather that of a possessive adjective. [...] In the contexts under discussion, the forms of the word in question do not modify any noun or pronoun, [...] their meanings are adjectival: ‘not alien, close, belonging to oneself’” (pp. 32–33)). From Daukša’s texts, visoks, -ia is included in the inventory of pronouns, although it was not included in the list of pronouns in contemporary Lithuanian (cf. Rosinas 1996: 19). Having assessed the use of this word in Daukša’s texts diachronically (pp. 107–108; 111–112), the author argues that “only the singular forms of the word visokias had the meaning of generality pronouns, whereas the plural forms had the adjectival meaning ‘various’” (p. 108). The words included in the inventory of pronouns are also discussed in the monograph from the perspective of their origin and formation: “The basis of the inventory of pronouns in Daukša’s texts consists of pronouns inherited from Proto-Baltic and Proto-Lithuanian; only some existential pronouns (nékas, nēkuris, nēkurie, nēkokis) are calques from Polish, while the generality pronoun *kožnas [...] is borrowed from Belarusian ка́женъ, ка́жный” (p. 153). In the author’s view, “The relative pronoun kaskas (g) is a neologism coined by Daukša, arising from a reinterpretation of the components of the compound generality pronoun wifsa kas in sentences with the relative pronoun kas, whereby the second component of the generality pronoun was attached to the relative pronoun” (p. 154).

In the Preface, the author states the aims of the study: first, “to identify the inventory of pronouns in Daukša’s texts, to establish their functions and meanings, as well as the semantic differential [...] features that distinguish pronouns from one another and group them into particular subclasses” (p. 8); second, “re-

RECENZIJOS

203

lying on data from the texts of Daukša ([...] and other sixteenth- and seventeenth-century authors), to explain [...] the conditions and internal motives behind the neutralization of the adessive and allative cases (p. 8). The implementation of these aims divides the book into two parts: the first, fulfilling the requirements of a systematic description, in which the application of the author’s theory of pronoun classification and semantics can be seen in the description of pronouns in Daukša’s texts; and the second, devoted to discussing and substantiating the conditions and motives underlying the formation and convergence of certain postpositional locative cases (the adessive and allative). This division is scarcely reflected in the external structure of the monograph: the book comprises a Preface, the main text—The semantic and morphological structure of pronouns, Conclusions—references to literature, sources, and abbreviations, and conclusions in English (The semantic and morphological structure of pronouns in Mikalojus Daukša’s texts). Only in the Table of Contents (pp. 5–6), among the references to paragraphs (the section “The semantic and morphological structure of pronouns (§ 1–45)” includes subsection “1.10. Postpositional locatives: origin, internal motives for changes in function (§ 46–48)”), is there an apparent attempt to distinguish this part of the discussion, which examines the origin and development of postpositional locatives not only of pronouns but also of other nominal words—a part whose theoretical generalizations are significant not only for the study and description of early writings but also for historical grammar. Having noted a certain correlation between syntactic constructions with the preposition prieg and the adessive and allative (p. 136), in the chapter “Postpositional locatives [...]” the author discusses the structure of sentences in Daukša’s texts containing the “adessive” construction (prieg + dative) (pp. 136–137) and argues that such constructions are positional variants of the morphological adessive form. The chapter also presents the frequent construction prieg + genitive in Daukša’s texts, whose original meaning was “allative” (p. 137). Drawing on material from Daukša’s texts, the author is able to provide a more detailed substantiation of his earlier hypothesis (cf. Rosinas 1995: 64) concerning the origin of the singular adessive from a dative phrase with the postposition *p(r)ei (pp. 143–144). In Rosinas’s view, the analogy of other symmetrical prepositional constructions shows that “reversing the order of the constituents does not affect their morphology—the same case governed by the preposition (postposition) is retained both after the preposition and after the postposition” (p. 144). In discussing the u-stem adessive, which does not coincide with the dative, the author advances a hypothesis supporting the views of Jonas Kazlauskas and Vytautas Mažiulis: at the time the adessive was forming, the enclitic postposition “could have become attached to the u-stem dative form in -u” (p. 144). Considering the problem of the origin of the adessive of o-stem nominal words, the monograph’s author is certain that “the singular adessive of nouns developed from the singular dative and the postposition *prei” (p. 147). The use in early writings of plural adessives unrelated to the dative structure (p. 147) is explained by rejecting the theory that plural adessive forms arose from the plural inessive with the addition of the postposition pi(e) (pp. 147–148), because, in the author’s view, this theory cannot explain the asymmetry characteristic of the inessive and adessive subsystems of the Baltic languages, nor the need to create a postpositional plural inessive when the plural locative with -su inherited from Proto-Indo-European was available (pp. 147–148). This part of the monograph also discusses the possible conditions under which the plural adessive with -su(m)p arose (pp. 149–150), as well as the internal motives: the choice of the old locative in -su as the basis for the plural adessive in -sump was determined by “the use of phonologically identical, or syncretic, dative and locative forms in singular inessive and

¹ Cf. In the Preface: “Pronouns are also nominal words, and at the same time substitutes for other nominal words (nouns, adjectives, numerals). Over time, masculine-gender pronouns have influenced the declension of other nominal words” (p. 9). But because the genitive form of a distinguishing pronoun is omitted in some places in the text, the impression may arise that the pronoun does not belong to the class of nominal words; cf.: “the inessive is also used with personal pronouns and nominal words [...]” (p. 141), “with stative verbs [...] the adessive of both personal pronouns and nominal words [...] is a synonym of the inessive” (p. 142).

204 |

RECENZIJOS

in adesive constructions” (pp. 151–152). In Rosinas’s view, this choice may be described as “a natural process of unifying the morphs of case endings” (p. 152).

In the main part of the monograph (§§1–45), devoted to describing the semantics and morphology of pronouns in Daukša’s texts, readers will find a brief introduction Relations among Pronouns (p. 10) and an inventory of pronouns in Daukša’s texts, accompanied by notes that discuss point by point the problem of excluding the word tūlas from the pronoun inventory. The following subsections describe the pronouns in Daukša’s texts, presenting the system of pronoun classification developed earlier by the author, according to which pronouns are divided into six classes: personal (participial, non-participial, reflexive) (§§4–10); possessive (§11); demonstrative (adjectival, concrete substantival, absolute and qualitative demonstratives, indirect-demonstration pronouns, dual forms of demonstrative pronouns) (§§12–22); distinctive (§§23–24); emphatic (§§26–27); and cognitive pronouns (interrogative, existential, indefinite, definite, general, reciprocal, negative, and relative) (§§28–44). The findings of the study are summarized in the section Differential Features and Semantic Structure of Pronouns in Daukša’s Texts (§45). Depending on their ability to occupy a position in a noun phrase, the author divides pronouns in Daukša’s texts (like pronouns in contemporary Lithuanian; cf. Rosinas 1996: 144) into two classes: “substantival pronouns, used only in noun positions, and adjectival pronouns, used in both noun and adjective positions” (p. 132). The structure of the pronouns in Daukša’s texts that was investigated is described through pairs of differential features identified by examining syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations among these pronouns. Seventeen such pairs are distinguished for describing pronouns in Daukša’s texts² (pp. 132–134). On the basis of this feature complex, the pronouns are presented in a matrix (p. 133), while their semantic classification and the hierarchy of systematic relations based on the 17 differential features identified are shown in the Dendrogram of Pronoun Identification (pp. 134–135).

Rosinas’s classification of pronouns has become firmly established in Lithuanian linguistics, and it would be difficult for anyone considering problems of pronoun classification or description to bypass or ignore it. In the context of the author’s own work, this monograph could be regarded as an application of the system he developed earlier to the description of pronouns in early written texts. Accordingly, this review, too, treats the monograph as a study of early written texts.

In describing the semantics of pronouns in Daukša’s texts (see contents, §§1–45), the author uses the methodology he applied to the analysis of pronoun structures and their paradigms in his first monograph, The Semantic Structure of Pronouns in Standard Lithuanian (1984), and refined in subsequent works—Pronouns in the Baltic Languages (1988a: §§12–79) and Pronouns in Standard Lithuanian (1996: §§12–71). In the book’s Preface, the author recalls that, to avoid repetition, the monograph does not discuss more complex theoretical questions and recommends consulting the 1996 monograph, in which theoretical matters are explained in greater detail (p. 8). Yet sometimes the book reproduces points that were established long ago. For example, the inventory of pronouns in Daukša’s texts, which fits into 9 lines (pp. 10–11), is accompanied by Notes extending over three pages (pp. 11–14), which reproduce in full the short article “On the status and origin of tūlas, –à” (Rosinas 1986: 30–33), even providing four references to it, although only the last two add anything.

² In describing the system of pronouns in contemporary Lithuanian, the author initially distinguished 20 pairs of differential features (Rosinas 1984: 115; 1988a: 146–148), later reducing them to 19 pairs (cf. Rosinas 1996: 145–147): in this monograph, combinations of pronouns such as vienas antro ‘one another’ are described only by the feature pair reciprocal/non-reciprocal, dispensing with the characterization by the features non-differential/differential. Differential features such as numerous/non-numerous and optional/non-optional were also dropped; they had been needed to describe pronouns in contemporary Lithuanian such as kas ‘something’ and daug kas ‘many’; keletas ‘several’ and visi, visa ‘all’, abu ‘both’; kiekvienas ‘each’ and bet kuris ‘any’ (Rosinas 1996: 146–147).

RECENZIJOS

205

information, much of it unnecessary for this book. The discussion thus seems to re-establish that the word tūlas “was never a pronoun” (p. 14). In the context of the monograph, it seems unconvincing to try once again to argue the point by means of a psycholinguistic experiment conducted in 1987 with several groups of pupils and students (see pp. 11–12). The author recalls that Jaunius and Skardžius regarded the word tūlas as an adjective (p. 12), but fails to mention that Palionis, too, lists the word tūlas with the label adj. (i.e. adjectivum, adjective) in the Index of Word Forms of the DK (Palionis 1995: 737). The verbatim reproduction of the short article seems like an attempt by the author to counterbalance quantitatively his doubts about the claim he defends—doubts that arose while examining the particularities of how tūlas is expressed in Daukša’s texts, for example: “in certain contexts tūlas may acquire the meaning ‘more than one’ or ‘several’ and come close to existential pronouns expressing relative abundance [...]”; “It is doubtful that, on the basis of these two instances of tūlas used with a restricted meaning³, this word should be classified as a pronoun. Even the single occurrence of tūlas with kuris in a pronominal sentence [...] DP 574 would not warrant doing so.” (p. 13).

The work, which required the selection and review of a vast amount of material, is modestly described in the Preface as “an attempt to fill a gap in the systematic description of the language of Daukša’s texts” (p. 8), with the observation that “to date, with the exception of Pranas Skardžius’s ‘Daukša’s Accentology’, we have no synchronic linguistic descriptions of Daukša’s texts that would allow us to form a systematic picture of his language” (p. 8). Although the author does not specify what a systematic study requires, it is clear from reading the monograph that it endorses and applies the principles of systematic description set out in Skardžius’s aforementioned work⁴, since parallels between Daukša’s and Ledesma’s catechisms are presented in the monograph only a few times (pp. 65, 66, 105, 115, 140,..?), while no comparisons with passages from Wujeko’s Postil are provided at all. Polish equivalents would strengthen claims in conclusions concerning whether or not the source text influenced the constructions under discussion. For instance, when discussing changes in the functions of the adesive and allative, the author states that “the changes in question did not arise under foreign influence [...]” (p. 139), but this is contradicted by the examples compared from Daukša’s and Ledesma’s catechisms; cf.: “With regard to the use of the allative in Daukša’s texts, one might also cautiously claim that it was inspired by prepositional constructions in the Polish original [...] (p. 140).”

In concluding his discussion of the use of possessive pronouns in Daukša’s texts, the author states that “as the examples given with the paradigms of manas and tavas show, the possessive pronouns manas, tavas are often used reflexively on the model of the Polish original (see Rosinas, 1988, 176–179)” (p. 37). Although there is no reason to doubt this conclusion, it would nevertheless be useful to find at least a few of the Polish equivalents cited, since the 1988 monograph referenced also offers only a conclusion about the influence of Polish originals (see Rosinas 1988a: 179), directing readers to the article “One Feature of the Use of First- and Second-Person Personal Pronouns in the Language of Old Lithuanian Writings,” which provides a single example from Merkelis Petkevičius’s catechism, compared with the original (see Rosinas 1973: 168). Original-language equivalents are also lacking for the accusations against Daukša of having chosen an unsuitable form. For example, p. 122 states that “the replacement in Daukša’s texts of forms of the pronoun tas ar bis with forms of the relative pronoun kuris is not correct,” and that “there are further instances of incorrect use of kuris forms in Daukša’s texts”; however, it is not mentioned that in the sentences cited, Kureis žôdžeis (DP 10) was translated from Ktoremi słowy, o kuriųsia daiktųsia (DP 582₁₆) from the w

³ The issue is not two examples—the author himself cites more than three: “[...] DP 265₃₄; [...] DP 257_34–35; [...] DP 257₂₆, and so on” (p. 13)—but the two meanings in which tūlas is used: 1) ‘more than one’; 2) ‘several’.

⁴ In Skardžius’s view, “the entire body of material under study [...] must be used in order to investigate the whole [...]” (quoted from Skardžius 1999: 49); it is important to take account of authentic examples from Daukša’s language, but they need not be statistically catalogued (Skardžius 1999: 49–50). For clarity and ease of reference, it is appropriate to provide the Polish meanings of some words (Skardžius 1999: 42).

206 |

RECENZIJOS

in whose crowds. Ignoring the Polish equivalents and the specificity of the texts (p. 102), conclusions are presented about the translation: “Daukša sometimes replaces the forms of the pronoun *abų* rather ineptly with the demonstrative pronounthose forms, although the logic of the text does not require this, cf.: Then Jesus said: Love the Lord God with all your heart / and with all your soul / and with all your mind / and with all your strength. This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it. Love your neighbor as yourself. On these two⁷ (=both₅” (p. 102). Compared with Wujeko’s text (“On these two⁸ commandments the whole law depends”), it is evident that Daukša followed the original, and it may be that he was also required to do so for theological reasons, since the demonstrative pronoun form agreeing with the numeral is like an address indicating which of the commandments of God is being discussed or summed up, cf.: And what might those be, who say that the Lord Christ commanded inconvenient things? Surely, if those people under the old law, having such difficult and commandments of the scribes and ceremonies from God, and not having that grace which we now have in the new law, could nevertheless fulfill all those commandments. And how can we Christians fulfill them, when we have only one commandment, that is, Love.” DP 463_34,39; What is the summary, the conclusion of the commandments? The summary of God's commandments concerning love is this: love the Lord God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself, for the Lord God's sake. In short, the whole law of God is summed up in the sweetest commandment meites DK 88_5–16

Because the text is not compared with the original, the meaning of the construction under discussion is sometimes determined superficially. For example, in the description of the use of the absolute demonstrative with prieg, it is claimed that: “The meaning ‘besides’ is used in Daukša’s texts [...] in the collocation prieg tam” (p. 137), although it is hard to believe that in the cited example DP 73₄₀ the predicate, expressed by the stative verb budamas + prieg tam, can be used not to express spatial relations but with the author’s assigned meaning ‘besides’ (which usually arises only when the collocation prieg tam translates przy tym, e.g., prieg tam DP 299₂₂, or owβem, e.g., prieg tam DP 22₆). Compare the original of the sentence cited: Nes išdas intikeio iog Wießpatis budamas prieg tam galėjo ij pašweikint (DP 73₄₀) (Bo Jud uwierzył że Pan bedoc obecnym/ mogł go uzdrowić) and the adjacent context (Žydą palietium/ o pahoni žodžiu paſweikino DP 74₇).

Perhaps the author, knowing that Prof. Jonas Palionis was preparing a parallel edition of Daukša’s and Wujek’s postils⁹, assumed that readers would themselves be able to compare them without much difficulty—

⁵In the case under discussion, Túfe dwieiuſę is not a disyllabic (on disyllabic forms of the dual, p. 103) locative form of the demonstrative pronoun tú du, nor an instance of the dual of a demonstrative pronoun (cf. 57–60), but two separate words, of which only the first is a demonstrative pronoun. Compare Daukša’s use of demonstrative pronouns in the genitive with numerals indicating the specific number of prayers: M. And what other things do you need when we pray? Mo. In those five petitions, which follow these two DK 53 (M. And when do we ask for other necessary things? V. In the other five petitions. LK 33_9–11); “What do we ask God for in those seven petitions? DK 51_8–9 (What do we ask for in these seven petitions / which follow them? LK 32_7–8). Moreover, when discussing the paradigms of the dual of demonstrative pronouns on pp. 59–60 of the monograph, the author himself does not give a dual locative form of the demonstrative pronoun tuodu. On the dual of pronouns, see also Rosinas (1995: 51–53), and cf. “There are no special genitive and locative forms of the dual in Lithuanian” (Zinkevičius 1980: 182); modern-language dual locative forms: tuódviese, tiédviese (Andronov 1999: 155). Ambrazas, ed. (1994: 280), gives no locative forms of the dual pronouns tuodu, tiedvi.

⁶DP 342₁₂, it is written: sihų – J. P.

⁷DP 342₁₄, it is written: dwieiuſę – J. P.

⁸An older form (than the innovation dwuch, dwoch, dwóch, which began gaining currency in the early 16th century) is used: the common genitive and locative form dwu < *dvojų (Klemensiewicz et al. 1955: 339).

⁹On the book Mikalojaus Daukšos 1599 metų Postilė ir jos šaltiniai, see Karaciejus (2001: 187–201), Judžentis (2001: 213–214).

RECENZIJOS

207

to compare the excerpts from Daukša’s Postilė text provided with their Polish equivalents. The monograph does not mention¹⁰ Czesław Kudzinowski’s “Indeks – Słownik do „Daukšos Postilė“, which makes it possible to quickly see not only the possible Polish equivalents of a word of interest¹¹, but also the forms in which the word itself is used and its locations¹², and to determine frequency of use from these. In the monograph under review, the quantitative picture of pronoun usage in Daukša’s texts is not specified, but is described only in generalizing statements, e.g., “and so on” (p. 107; 137; 138); “sometimes” (p. 102); “used occasionally” (p. 99); “not used at all” (p. 14); “most commonly used” (p. 117). It is therefore odd to find a remark detailing the use of forms in texts other than Daukša’s: “For example, of the 23 plural inessives in Vilentas’s „Enchiridion“, 17 have -su and only 6 have -sa” (p. 148).

Although identifying the inventory of pronouns in Daukša’s texts is one of the monograph’s objectives (see p. 8), the main list of pronouns (pp. 10–11) is presented without explanation, leaving the reader to revise the initial impression that, with graphic spelling taken into account, the pronouns in Daukša’s texts are listed alphabetically by their basic forms, with semicolons separating pronouns from different semantic groups and commas separating variant forms or particular members of a paradigm (e.g., possessive genitives). None of these principles is followed consistently, and since there is no index, checking whether a form has been recorded correctly may require browsing the book more carefully, because:

– the reasons for choosing a particular graphic spelling are sometimes unclear. For example, the inventory gives “ābeia, abeias; ābeietas” (p. 10), while on p. 106 the substantival abeia is presented, examples are given, and graphic variants are discussed, among which there is not even one identical to the ābeia given in the inventory. Abeia is also given in the synoptic table (p. 132) and matrix (p. 133);

– the alphabetical principle is followed inconsistently: the inventory gives “fawo; fawęs” separated by a semicolon, although the order should be reversed: “fawęs; fawo”; compare the genitive variants in the section “Reflexive Pronouns”: first “Jawė, Jawę, Jawęs, Jawes, Jawis” (p. 24), and then “fawo, sáwo, Jawô” (p. 25);

– the reconstruction mark is used inconsistently before pronouns whose nominative form is not attested in Daukša’s texts. For example, the pronoun nēkas is listed without an asterisk (p. 10), in the synoptic table (p. 132), and on p. 96 of the text, although p. 97 states: “Sometimes, instead of kas, Daukša uses the translated form *nēkas in the Postilė, with the same meaning, ‘someone.’ Conversely, the list marks “*keletas; *keli” (p. 10), while p. 98 discusses the indefinite determiners “keli, keletas.” These pronouns are presented without a reconstruction mark in the synoptic pronoun table (p. 132) and the matrix (p. 133);

– the list gives only masculine forms of gendered pronouns, e.g., “iis, ijffai” (p. 10), but the synoptic table (p. 132) and matrix (p. 133) distinguish iis; ii_i. The presentation of masculine and feminine pronouns (such as patis, -i; bitas, -a; kokis, -i/-ia; tokis, -i/-ia; tas, -a) is also not standardized—whether these are one or two separate pronouns; compare: “Such

¹⁰ This reference book for researchers of the language of the DP is also absent from the bibliography and list of sources, although its author did not ignore Palionis’s index of word forms in the DK (Palionis 1995: 627–748), and provided comments on it (e.g., p. 140). Additions or comments could also have been made to Kudzinowski’s work.

¹¹ Kudzinowski took them from the 1596 edition of Wujek’s Little Postil. Urbutis (1978: 84) and Palionis (2000: 17–21) hold a different view of the original of Daukša’s Postilė.

¹² For example, on p. 79 of the monograph, when discussing the phrase kito mėto, the quoted sentence from the DP is given without coordinates, but readers can readily determine them using Kudzinowski’s index: DP 318₄₅–₄₆.

208 |

RECENZIJOS

pronoun is patis, pati. It enters into various combinations with nouns [...]” (p. 86), “Pronoun patis, -i forms combinations [...]” (p. 87), “Pronouns patis, -i in those combinations emphasize [...]” (p. 86), “Pronouns’ patis, -i paradigms [...]” (p. 87);

– not all pronouns (not all their basic forms) are listed in the inventory; for example, among the pronouns of marked existence, *tiekas is not presented; compare the text: “An indefinite quantity of elements is also conveyed by the pronoun *tiekas, whose forms are occasionally used in Daukša’s texts and which is classified among the pronouns of marked existence [...]” (p. 99). Of the adjectival indefinite pronouns listed in the text (“vienas, kuris, kokis, kokai, nekūris, nėkokis, kažkokis, kuris nor(int), koksai nor(int)” (p. 97)), the multiword form koksai nor(int)¹³ was omitted. An index would make it possible to overlook such omissions. Its necessity is also evident because the tables and dendrogram present only one representative of each subclass “for lack of space” (p. 135), while the descriptions of subclasses may discuss the same pronoun in several places, as required by semantic classification. For example, the formally identical personal reflexive fawo (p. 25) and possessive fawo pronouns (only on p. 33, with the reference “see the paradigm of reflexive pronouns”); the description of the dual of pronouns is divided into two parts: the dual of demonstrative pronouns is discussed in the section “Use of the Dual of Pronouns” (pp. 57–60), whereas “the one-word dual forms inherited from Proto-Baltic” (p. 103) are discussed in the section “General Pronouns”; similarly, the pronoun niekas is discussed both in the section Negative Pronouns (pp. 113–114) and as a member of the combination niekas kitas in the section Distinctive Pronouns (pp. 80–81));

– some proofreading errors remain in the inventory, for example, the obscure pronoun ne kioks (p. 10), which the author himself does not discuss in the text. The differing presentation of the atonic forms mi, ti of personal singular participial pronouns may also be regarded as a proofreading error: mi is listed in the semantic field of the plural participial pronoun mes, since it is separated by a comma: “mes, mūjū, mi” (p. 10), whereas the atonic form ti is presented as a completely independent pronoun, separated by semicolons: “tawas; ti; tokis, toks, tokfai; tu, tawęs, tawo” (p. 11). In the monograph’s text, these forms are described in the section on personal singular participial pronouns: “Besides the oblique-case orthotonic forms of aš and tu discussed above, atonic forms also occur [...]. In Daukša’s Postilė [...] atonic forms likewise occupy the second position after a pronoun, verb, or preposition, and have dative and accusative meaning” (p. 16). Here, too, a comparison with the original equivalents is lacking, since the choice of the rare atonic personal pronoun forms found in Daukša’s Postilė (14 are listed in Kudzinski’s index) may have been prompted by combinations of certain Polish verbs¹⁴ with the enclitic datives¹⁵ mi, ci < ti or their shortened variants; compare: Atfakijūt (Odpowiemi) 478₈; likjūt arba rodiūt (radzeć) 514₁₁; parōdiūt (Pokažeć) 200₂₁; patirōdiū (okažeć) 250₂₉; rōdiūt (radzeć) 165₂₈; teikūt (radzeć) 248₅₁; teikūt (radzeć) 170₃₃; Tepataiminĭ (Niechći okaże [...] oblicże) 258₂₂; kuriūmi dawėi (ktroreś mi dał) 154₁₀; Pamirōdik (Vkaż mi) 84₂₃; Parōdikim (Vkaż mi) 64₃₄; pritajkim’ (dopuść mi) 512₈; Temi tāmpti (Niech mi Jle) 602₂₂. And another point concerns how they are presented: although atonic forms are part of a construction and occur only in an enclitic position, their notation in the inventory does not convey this (as is partly shown in Conclusions; compare: “Alongside orthotonic forms [...] Daukša sometimes also uses the atonic forms mi, ti (-m, -t) [...]” (p. 155)). When quoting Daukša in the text, no attention is paid either to the fact that,

¹³ The written combination fs is not characteristic of Daukša’s texts (the usual variant is ſs).

¹⁴ The synonyms given alongside one another, likjūt or rodiūt DP 514₁₁, show the difficulties Daukša faced in finding the appropriate equivalent for radzeć.

¹⁵ Compare: “the forms mi, ti of enclitic pronouns also correspond to the datives of pronouns in other languages (cf. Old Church Slavonic mi, ti [...])” (Ambrazas 1979: 119).

RECENZIJOS

209

that the shortened atonic forms in the Postilė are usually (except for teikiūt DP 248₅₁, DP 64₃₄) also marked with special signs (t’ or t; m’), for example, “Atsakifjū́t [...] DP 478₈” (p. 17) (DP has Atfakifjūt).

It is unclear on what basis one or another spelling variant of a pronoun was selected for the inventory, and how accurately the monograph aims to reproduce examples from Daukša’s texts, although the author sometimes discusses certain orthographic features and graphic presentation in Daukša’s texts (e.g., “the spelling wirefnė¹⁶ should be read as wirefnem. This is one of the abbreviation devices [...]” (p. 79); p. 18 offers a discussion of the spellings męs, ius... and whether they represent underlying forms). Some of the principles governing the reproduction of quotations from Daukša’s texts in the monograph are easy to infer. For example, not only the aforementioned t’; t; m’ are ignored, but also other special characters, such as ṗ; ġ; ṙ (e.g., p. 13: wienįtefp (instead of wienįtefp) DP 276₅₄; p. 137: prieg tam’ (should be prieg tam’) DP 73₄₀; p. 92 DP 9₆: Kuriū (Kuriū)), and so forth. Letters are quite often omitted, added, or changed, for example: p. 41: kanceliarioi, cf.: kancelliaroi DP 10₂₆; pp. 16–17: “Įdant išpilditus žodžei kuriūs bitolo / iog kuriūmi dawei ne pražudžieu ne wieno iż jų DP 154₁₀–₁₁” (cf.: Įdant išpilditus žodžei kuriūs bitolo / iog kuriūmi dawei ne pražudžieu ne wieno iż’ jų); p. 122: o per wārį ir getężi gatibe įbmānos / kuriūja daiktūfja vżgul’ wijśā garbę pasaulo DP 582₁₄–₁₇ (cf.: o per wārį ir getężi gatibe įbmānos / kuriūfja daiktūfja vżgul’ wijśā garbė pasaulo); p. 97: Būwog wel iūje kàżkokis kitas apreißkimas ijemus vżgulis (cf. DP 250₁: Būwog wel iūse kàżkokis kitas apreißkimas ijemus vżgulis). Sometimes an entire word, and even the pronoun itself, is transcribed incorrectly, for example: “As a lexical variant of abe used in Daukša’s texts, the pronoun abeias is used [...]: Ant galo abeias pafikłonioiimas ir DangibKas ir śmónibKas / draugią yra fude-ty DP 536₄₂” (p. 102). Compare the spelling in DP: Ant galo abeies pafikłonioiimas ir DiéwibKas ir śmónibKas / draugią yra fudečių; p. 13: “per akis sau būtų fugrįžę wienįtefp,” cf.: “per akis iaubutu fugrįžę wienįtefp DP 276₅₄; the masculine singular inessive, which is indeed very difficult to read in the 1926 edition of DP, abieioiė DP 141₅₁, is deciphered by the author as abieieė (p. 103); cf. abieioiė cited by Kudzinowski (1977₁: 1). Sometimes a non-existent word is inserted (e.g., p. 102: Ko padarit ir negal ieig ābeietas nebūs wienos ir tiejos wieros. Nes téwas tęss ant Jawos wieros / O motina wel ant Jawos; DP has: Ko padarit negal ieig ābeietas nebūs wienos ir tiejos wieros. Nęś téwas tęss ant Jawos wieros / O motina wel ant Jawos DP 70₃₉–₄₀) or an existing word is omitted (e.g., p. 97: pradėio nauius mókłus nè kokfai Thamoßius Muncérus DP 204₂₆; cf. DP has: pradėio nauius mókłus sęt nė kokfui Thamoßius Muncérus). Daukša’s adapted texts are presented inconsistently: sometimes with an asterisk, e.g., p. 117: “the sentence *ne wieną preizūfį fūmėrties ne randū iamė would be syntactically incorrect”; elsewhere only with an arrow, and with a mixture of old and modern letters. For example, an adaptation set in the letters characteristic of Daukša’s texts, repeating part of the preceding sentence and illustrating the possible transformation of kas into a positive general pronoun, reads: “Kas cżė nęregi / kaip ełt tikri żodżai Wießpaties DP 22₃₁–₃₂ → Wijfi cżė regi” (p. 93), and appears as though it had actually been taken from Daukša’s Postilė.

When presenting pronouns in the inventory, tables, and text, the author avoided the spelling customary in present-day language. Yet at times the correctness of pronoun usage in Daukša’s texts is judged according to the standards of present-day language codification. The use of some inessives is presented as a calque-

¹⁶ Čia vėl kartojama straipsnyje „Nepastebėta M. Daukšos rašybos ypatybė“ (Rosinas 1994: 83–84) padaryta klaida: „Iki šiol, rodos, nepastebėta, kad tokia abreviatūra būtų buvusi vartojama latvių ir lietuvių senuosiuose raštuose. [...] Brūkšneliu nosinės raidės abreviatūra kartais reiškiama ir M. Daukšos postilės tekste“ (ten pat, p. 83). Bet nurodyti DP rašmenys Kudzिनowskio indekse pateikiami su cirkumflekso (ū, ī) ženklu (plg. Kudzिनowski 1977 II: 30: pakłidelūp 436₂₇; p. 240 giwętūbime 568₃₃). Dar plg. Rosinas (1995: 28).

210 |

RECENZIJOS

old, e.g., of the inessive tamę it is said that “The use of the inessive under discussion in the meaning of an absolute demonstrative is nothing other than a direct calque of the corresponding Polish construction [...]” (p. 65). The inessive of abstract nouns is also evaluated; cf.: “A place (or places) is indicated by the inessive kameg or the allative kanag; answers are usually given with concrete nouns denoting place, characteristic of Lithuanian [...] However, Daukša’s texts contain cases in which a place (or places) is indicated by the inessive kameg using abstract nouns not characteristic of Lithuanian [...]” (p. 92). Rosinas also presents the inessive of the pronoun of totality wiffame as a word-for-word calque from Polish, accompanying it with the remark that “The inessive of the pronoun of absolute totality, which indicates a set of places, is foreign to Lithuanian” (p. 105), and that “The forms of all the other cases are regular and continue to be used in the modern language” (p. 105). Speaking of negative pronouns, the author emphasizes that they have retained archaic features (p. 113) and that “Of all the negative pronouns in Daukša’s texts, niekas stands out for its archaic usage” (p. 113), but does not mention the use of the inessive of the negative pronoun niekas, which is not characteristic of modern Lithuanian (indeed, the monograph does not provide the paradigm of the pronoun niekas in Daukša’s texts), although he has stressed this point repeatedly in his earlier works: “The contexts show that niekas has no locative case” (Rosinas 1984: 107); “The contexts show that neither Latvian nekas nor Lithuanian niekas has a locative case” (Rosinas 1988a: 136); “The contexts show that niekas has no locative case” (Rosinas 1996: 136). Although Daukša’s Katekizmas has no inessive of the pronoun niekas, the inessive of the negative pronoun niekas does occur in the Postilė, translated from the ni w czym¹⁷ found in Wujek’s Postil, and is used four times (see Kudzinowski 1977: 505):

But now, because the Holy Spirit is not inferior to anyone/, therefore, having taken it in place of its own, to offer it up DP 216, (nor in anything to me); likewise to no one does not belong DP 109 (Cžartowi nor in anything not customary); John's baptism would be to no one /which is from Christ DP 23 (nor in anything different); we should understand that we will not overcome anything more quickly than we overcome it in nothing we do not obey DP 109 (nor in anything do not listen).

The book also contains some editing errors, e.g.: “The inessive is used in the position of the inessive tamę instead of the instrumental or other cases” (p. 65), “the locative of the locative stem lokatyvo lokatyvas with *-ei” (p. 146), “the verb tarti, byloti, kalbėti ‘to say, plead, speak’ is used with the dative and allative” (p. 23), “The assignment of the form Jāwi DK 210₁₆ to the inessive is incorrect¹⁹ (see DK 720); here it performs dative functions” (p. 140). The footnote on p. 11—“In the dictionaries mentioned, tūlas is not considered a pronoun—there is no abbreviation for ‘pronoun’ next to it”—should accompany the ambiguously worded sentence “The word tūlas, -a, used in the position of a noun and an adjective and having the meanings ‘frequent, more than one, many’ (see DLKŽ, 1972, 867), ‘frequent, more than one’ (DLKŽ, 1993, 861), is traditionally considered a pronoun.” The spelling of the same name is inconsistent: “only two of his publications remain beyond doubt—the translation of Jokūbo Ledesma’s Catechism and Jakubo Wujek’s Postil” (p. 7) (cf. the original spelling: Przez D. Jákúbá Le-dezmá ir Przez D. JÁKVBÁ WVYKA), and so on.

For ni w czym, see Klemensiewicz et al. (1955: 320, 321).

Šią formą nurodo ir Skardžius (1999: 227).

It is difficult to assess the given form Jāwi as a dative, even if its occurrence is explained by the influence of the original; cf.: Jog pigėus numirt turimė/ nėkaip įy pažęift: ir turimė fu didė fargibė / faugot wiffūs priffākimus io / bragindami iūs Jāwididžeus ant wiffū dāiktū kurie yra qnt’ to Paffāulo. (Abowiem rūcėy vmrzeć mamy niżli go obrazić: y mamy też pilnie zachować wßytko przykazánie iego / ważąc go / żeby więcey/ niżli ktoreg zecj ná świećie. LK 43₁₇). Even from the perspective of modern Lithuanian, it is difficult to accept the phrase branginti sau ‘to cherish for oneself’ as possible in a similar context, whereas in Daukša’s writings the inessive is considerably more common than it is today.

RECENZIJOS

211

Extracting the pronouns alone from the vast body of material in Daukša’s texts is no easy task, let alone describing this class of nominal words as a distinct system. The author did not limit himself to classifying the pronouns in Daukša’s texts and identifying and describing their properties within subclasses. Studies of the syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations among the pronouns in these texts enabled the author to identify 17 pairs of differential features and, on this basis, to describe the semantic oppositions between pronouns and the meaning of each pronoun as a set of differential features. This, in turn, determined the place of a particular word within the system of the nominal class under investigation, or even excluded from it certain words that traditional grammatical descriptions had generally accorded pronoun status (visoks only in plural, not singular forms; koks toks, savas, tūlas). Having systematized the pronouns in Daukša’s texts and assessed the conditions for “the formation of the entire subsystem of postpositional locatives (especially the inessive and adessive)” (p. 150), the author of the monograph offered critical comments on the traditional explanation of the development of plural adessives with -sump and -samp, which is based on the assumption that the Baltic plural inessive may have originated from the plural accusative + *en (for more on this, see p. 148). In Rosinas’s view, “the merger of the plural inessive and adessive due to systematic shortening” (p. 156) may have influenced the mixing of the inessive and adessive of personal pronouns and other nominal words in certain contexts, as well as the singular forms of these cases (p. 156).

Soon after its publication, the book attracted the attention of scholars of early writings and received its first citations²⁰; it will surely receive many more reviews in the future. Readers of the monograph will find interesting and useful material relating not only to the morphology and semantics of pronouns and early writings, but also to syntax and historical grammar. This beautifully published monograph (designed by Albertas Broga) is also valuable from a scholarly perspective and deserves a new edition, since even Alberto Rosino’s books published in larger print runs used to sell out quickly (this book’s print run is only 400 copies). When preparing the book for reissue, it may be useful to take account of some of the proofreading-related comments made here, although these should have been noticed by the staff who prepared the book for printing (editor Rita Vinslovaitė, technical editor Elvyra Volkienė, proofreaders Danguolė Baliukynienė and Stasė Urbonienė).

ABBREVIATIONS OF SOURCES

DK – KATHECHISMAS ARBA MOKSLAS KIEKWIENAM KRIKSZCZIONII PRIWALVS. PARASZITAS PER D. JAKVBA LEDESMA. Theologian of the Society of Jesus. Translated from the Polish language into Lithuanian by the priest Mikaloju Daugfba, Canon of Samogitia. Printed in Wilniuie in the year of the Lord’s birth 1595.

LK – CHRISTIAN TEACHING. Or a catechism for children. By D. Jakuba Ledeżmá. Written by a theologian of the Society of Jesus / and now translated from Polish into Polish. In Kraków. (1605).

DP – Mikalojaus Daukšos’s 1599 POSTILĖ ir jos šaltiniai. Edition prepared by Jonas Palionis, 2000, Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

LITERATŪRA

AMBRAZAS, S. 2001: Dėl skaitvardinių būdvardžių kilmės. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 45, 3–9.

AMBRAZAS, V. 1979: Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas.

AMBRAZAS, V., red. 1994: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

ANDRONOV, A. V. 1999: Сопоставительная грамматика литовского и латышского языков. Словоизменение. Санкт-Петербург: Диссертация на соискание учёной степени кандидата филологических наук.

JUDŽENTIS, A. 2001: Naujų darbų apžvalga. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 45, 207–219.

²⁰ Žr. Kavaliaunaitė (2001: 103; 104); Ambrazas S. (2001: 6); Maskuliūnas (2001: 83).

212 |

RECENZIJOS

Karaciejus, J. 2001: [Rec.] Mikalojus Daukšos 1599 metų Postilė ir jos šaltiniai, Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 45, 187–201.

Kavaliūnaitė, G. 2001: Adesyvas Chylinskio Naujojo Testamento vertime. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 45, 93–111.

Klemensiewicz, Z., Lehr–Spławiński T., Urbańczyk, S. 1955: Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Kudzinowski, Cz. 1977: Indeks–słownik do „Daukšos Postilė“ I (A–N), II (O–Ž), Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.

Maskuliūnas, Br. 2001 [2002]: Dėl senųjų raštų posesyvinių konstrukcijų su veiksmažodžiu priklausyti. Baltistica 36 (1), 81–85.

Palionis, J. 1995: Žodžių formų rodyklė. Mikalojaus Daukšos 1595 metų Katekizmas. Parengė Vida Jakštienė ir Jonas Palionis, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 627–748.

Palionis, J. 2000: 1599 metų POSTILĖ ir jos leidimai, Mikalojaus Daukšos 1599 metų POSTILĖ ir jos šaltiniai. Leidimą parengė Jonas Palionis, Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 13–22.

Rosinas, A. 1973: Viena asmeninių I ir II asmens įvardžių vartosenos ypatybė lietuvių senųjų raštų kalboje. Baltistica 9 (2), 161–170.

Rosinas, A. 1984: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžių semantinė struktūra, Vilnius: LTSR aukštojo ir specialiojo vidurinio mokslo ministerija.

Rosinas, A. 1986: Dėl tūlas, -à statuso ir kilmės. Mūsų kalba 2, 30–33.

Rosinas, A. 1988a: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Rosinas, A. 1988b: Dėl žodžio visoks reikšmės ir statuso. Baltistica 24 (2), 185–189.

Rosinas, A. 1991: Neigiamųjų įvardžių vartosenos ypatybės M. Daukšos postilėje. Baltistica 27 (1), 53–55.

Rosinas, A. 1994: Nepastebėta M. Daukšos rašybos ypatybė. Baltistica 27 (2), 83–84.

Rosinas, A. 1995: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai: morfologijos raida, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Rosinas, A. 1996: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Skardžius, Pr. 1999: Rinktiniai raštai 5. Sudarė ir parengė spaudai Albertas Rosinas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Urbutis, V. 1978: [Rec.] Czesław Kudzinowski. Indeks–słownik do „Daukšos Postilė“. Baltistica 14 (1), 81–85.

Zinkevičius, Z. 1980: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika I, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Jūratė Pajėdienė Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected]

Gauta 2002 08 19