Lietuvių kalbos pasyvo raidos bruožai

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLV (2001), 11-38 The analytical passive arose in the course of the separate development of Lithuanian, though the preconditions for its rise must have existed in Proto-Baltic. Passive constructions are dialectally differentiated. In West and North Lithuanian, the passive is formed by means of agreeing participles and it is usually agentless (though agentive genitives occur as a result of reanalysis in phrases with an adnominal genitive). In East and South Lithuanian, the passive is formed by means of ancient neuter forms in *-mo and *-to often combined with agentive genitives, e.g. tėvo būvo sakoma "it was said by the father", kiškio bégta "it is run by a hare", i.e.: "(apparently) a hare has run". Such constructions are based on ancient nominal sentences with neuter predicates retaining the pure *-o stem, without grammatical agreement. The neuter nominal predicates (subsequently —neuter participles) in *-mo and *-to were similar in meaning to verbal abstracts and an adnominal genitive expressing the subject/agent could be added to them in the same way as to other verbal nouns. The possessive forms of the Lithuanian pronouns used in such phrases with neuter participles as with verbal abstracts show a close relation between the subjective and possessive genitives. The wide use of the agentive (subjective) genitive with the neuter passive participles in Lithuanian is apparently founded on their ancient nominal meaning. 1. RUSSIAN CATEGORY UTILITY 1.1 Passive, or inactive, species, as a morphological category, has probably been formed during the independent development of the individual groups of Indo-European languages. In ancient Anatolian, Indo-Iranian, Greek, Italian languages, the passive was formed by the medial personified verb forms, in Slavic and partly in Romance languages by the conjugated verbs. In addition to the personified forms, some languages (e.g., Hittite, Latin, Romance, Germanic) included the participles." There are no active forms of personal verbs in Baltic languages. The passive type here consists of periphrastic constructions with the passive *-mo and *-to participants, opposed to both constructions with the active part and the passive part. It is based on the fact that the periphrastic passive is found in many related languages, and its formation can be explained by the transformational and tagmemic method. In Indo-European protospeech, even the expression of the peripheral passive agent is attempted to be transferred by prepositional constructions (Costello 1984: 149—150). However, this hypothesis would be difficult to reconcile with the history of passive forms in Indo-European languages, the evolution of auxiliary verbs and other historical syntactic processes. 12 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS vias (e.g. is called —is called), as well as personified forms of the verb (e.g. is called —is called). The most important distinctive feature of the category of species is the relationship of the subject of the action (state) expressed by the verb, as a semantic category, with the sentence factor (or the participle- )*. The passive forms allow to describe the action (state) regardless of its subject (here it is sleeping; so it is written)* or by putting its object in the first place, which gets the function of a factor (Apples were brought); in such cases the subject of the action can be expressed by an adjective (Apples were brought by the father). In the passive constructions of Lithuanian language, in certain cases, not only the accusative or genitive of the direct complement, but also the dative of the indirect complement with the verbs duoti, atnėsti, liepti, etc., may be put in the first place and described as the noun of the factor (see Ambrazas, ed. 1997a: 322, Ambrazas, ed. 1997b: 278-279). In such cases, the infinitive of the direct complement remains unchanged in passive constructions, e.g. : Moans like a cat, tail broken ALS. ; bunny, end made in LTR; Shown path, it will travel further PN (LKZ,, 800); Lewas deprived waikus WP 217, etc. (Fraenkel 1928: 13-14). 1.2. Lithuanian language participants, opposed according to the kind of meaning, form groups of active and passive participants. In the active verbs, the participles with the prefixes -nt and -us are used, in the passive verbs, the prefixes *-mo and *-to. These forms of the participle are inherited from the time of the proto-Baltic and Indo-European language community. Now, the active participants usually represent the attribute of the person or thing that acts or experiences a certain state, and the opposite of them are the inactive ones — the attribute of the person or thing that is affected by another. The contradiction of these values emerged in the formation of the category of species. However, its roots can be seen in the very old differences in the construction and usage of verb nouns, from which the participants themselves emerged. In many Indo-European languages, since the earliest monuments, verb-based budvardzia (respectively participants) with the suffix *-nt have been used most frequently to indicate signs arising from the actor or status holder himself (except in the Hittite language and rare relics in the Indo-Iranian and Latin languages). The suffix *-nt has been widely used since ancient times to make names of actors (nomine agentis) (see the names of teeth in many related languages and such nouns as Latin parentes ‘parents’, Goth friJonds ‘friend’, etc.). Substantives made from verbs with the suffix *-us almost always meant characters or names of actors. It is understood that during the formation of the system of participants, the forms with *-usi and *-nt acquired the meaning of the active species. On the other hand, verb adjective forms with suffix *-mo have been neutral in relation to the subject of the action since ancient times, and forms with suffix *-fo, especially from transitive verbs, were mainly used to describe inactive, action or pro2 The term Subject here and hereafter denotes the semantic subject — the verb Zymimo action agent or state patient, percepient or other character holder. The factor of a sentence is defined by the syntactic relationships between the parts of the sentence (see. Ambrazas 1986: 9, 16-18, 23-28; Ambrazas, ed. 1997a: 487, 493-494). Plg. : passives center around agents, and their fundamental function has to do with the defocusing of agents” (Shibatani 1985: 831); zr. but Keenan (1986: 243-245), Foley, Van Valin (1986: 301 et seq.). LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE PASSIVE DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS | 13 ceso veikiamiems daiktams®. Because of this meaning of the construction, the forms made from transitive verbs with *-fo formed a clear contrast to the forms with *-us, which became the passive prefix, e.g.: vires: boiled, nėšęs: pregnant, daves: dusted. A part of the forms with *-to, made from intransitive verbs, e.g. baltas (: balti), bingtas (: bingti), skystas (: skysti), šaltas (: šalti), remained outside of this correlation; some of them differ from the corresponding verbs in the suffix, e.g.: šiltas: šilti, rimtas | rimtas: rimti, blogas: blogi. These are old verb adjectives, which have thus remained out of the system of participles’. In terms of construction and meaning they coincide with their Latvian, Prussian and other counterparts, cf.: la. white, salty, warm, bitter is pr. skijstan III 127 —rein ‘beautiful’ (acc.sg.), ructan-(- ructandadan E 690 —suwermilch), cf. lie. bitter. The Lithuanian verb adjectives with the suffix *-mo have in many cases retained their old species neutrality to this day. Only a part of them, representing the characteristics of the object of action, were included in the system of forms of the category of species. In the western Highland and Zemgale dialects, their masculine and feminine gender forms formed periphrastic passive constructions, opposed to constructions with *-fo participants, cf. ten uogos buvo skinamos | nuskintos. 1.3 Differences in meaning according to the relation of the action to the subject, characteristic of the category of species, are also observed among other verb adjectives that have not become participants in Lithuanian. For example, many verb adjectives ending in -us denote the attributes of the subject and in this respect are similar to the active participants, e.g. talkative and speaking, wise and wise, flying (horse) and flying, moving (man) and moving, capable and capable, eating and eating, etc. In contrast, the attributes of the object of the action are indicated by verb adjectives with the verb ending -as, e.g. atviras (see atvėrtas), laisvas (see palčistas), pasklidas (see pasklides). Such "species" réiksmes are also characteristic of some prepositions of action. Signs arising from the action or state of the subject are represented by verb adjectives with the suffix -lus (*-lu), e.g. auglus "well-growing', kiblūs 'inclined to hook', rėklūs, tikslūs, patrauklūs, as well as with the suffix -las (*-lo), e.g. aklas (: akti), dėglas (: dėgti), kūšlas (cf. la. kusls "weak, gleznas': kust 'weakness'). The vedic suffixes of *-lo with this meaning in Slavic languages became paradigmatic past participles (similarly to Lithuanian vedic suffixes with *-us) and formed the paradigm of the peripheral perfect of the active kind, which later became the continuous past tense in Russian. In contrast, the -nas (*-no) suffixes in Lithuanian have a resulting meaning and have since ancient times indicated the characteristics of the object of the action (state), e.g.: pilnas: pilti, kilnas: kilti, plonas: ploti, batelas: balti. Some of them correspond in their meaning to the derivatives of the suffix *-to, cf. piltas, plotas, baltas. Along with the derivatives of the suffix *-to, they have been included in the system of participles in Slavic, Germanic, and partly Indo-Iranian languages as forms of the inactive kind. Thus the opposition according to the relation to the subject of action (state) —the most important category of species— 4 According to Emilio Benveniste (1948: 167), their main function was to indicate the realization of the sign in the object (“I'accomplissement de la notion dans objet”). Cf. Brugmann (1906: 246-248), who also presented approximations of *-t0 forms in various languages and detailed their transformation into passive participles in the Italian languages (1895). Skardžius (1943: 319), Otrebski (1965: 235) considered them to be the above-mentioned participants or analogous compounds made according to the participants; the corresponding Latvian derivatives —Bergmane (1955: 28). 5 14 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS The distinctive feature of gorian is based on the differences in the meaning of verb nouns inherited from ancient times. This contradiction does not depend on the syntactic function of verb nouns (later — participants) in the sentence: it is equally characteristic of both sign and noun forms, e.g.: znančia moteris KB: žinomas daiktas VRN; ana y(ra) znananta SKD, KL: all thieves known in PLN; boiled egg turns, raw — does not turn ERZ: bulb turns when boiled ALS; those bulbs are not very cooked JRB: semolina porridge cooked ERZ. 1.4 Differences in the expression of the relationship with the subject of the action do not yet indicate a formed category of species. Its existence can be spoken of only when verb adjectives with certain suffixes (word-making units) become active and passive participants (morphological units), 0 their compounds with an auxiliary verb are included in the verb system as periphrastic forms of times correlated with other verb forms. In Lithuanian, as in other Baltic languages, verb adjectives with suffixes *-nt, *-us, *-mo and *-to became participants gradually and unevenly. First, the correlation of these forms on the basis of the meaning of time was established (see Ambrazas 1979: 39). Grammatization of species meanings and their use for periphrastic passive is a further stage of development, which took place differently not only in individual Baltic languages, but also in various dialects of Lithuanian. 2. LIABILITIES WITH COMPATIBLE NON-EXECUTIVE ACTIVES PARTICIPANTS Long before the beginning of writing, the Žemaites and Western Highlanders began to make a perifrastinative passive with present tense (*-mo) and past tense (*-t0) participants and the auxiliary verb biti. In the 16th-17th century writings, which reflect the peculiarities of those dialects, the structure of the periphrastic passive in most cases does not depend on the foreign language sources used by the authors. 2.2. Compound forms with *-mo participants usually denote a continuous or repeated action, e.g. : Ne dūdami ira Schaudai tawa Tarnamus NIV II Mos 5,15 (No straw is given to your servants NIV); nesa as antai sekla ira beerrama ant Dirwos ing szeme | schiteipo ir szodis Pono Diewo ira as ir baerems schirdisna szmoniu BP, 209, „; (Wiernieghi) dide naschta biauribiu /wargu ir beedu jra spaudczemi MT 203a,; In justice and repentance not only are we saved, but we are also preserved by God MT 93a, |, (lustitia et salus non modo appraehenduntur, sed etiam a DEO conservantur); Gelaszis is semes ira ischkasama, ir is akmenu witims (supra: tirpams) ira waris BRB JOB 28,2 (Iron is brought out of the earth /vii from the stones is melted ore LB). LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES LIabilities RAIDOS CHARACTERISTICS | 15 In particular, compound forms with conjugated *-mo participants rarely indicate a present-permanent action in old writings, e.g.: dukte mana sunkey nūgi welna esti warginama VEE 45, (My daughter is plagued by the devil vbel LB MT 15,22); Schitai, kaczei esch gwalto schaukiu, tacziau esmi ischklausams ne BRB JOB 19,7 (See /if I already cry for joy | so I will not be heard LB); Laukems ira reply nog tawens JOB 34,33 (We wait for the answer from you LB). How often a specific action *-mo participants are marked with a su past tense auxiliary verb, e.g.: and uszeia (in the language) wesuls (in the language storm) on the river, and pillami buwa BRB LK 8,23 (Vnd kam ein windwūrbel auff den see vnd die wellen vberfielen sie es | LB); but there was a guy in the room. BRB TeEi1s 16,12 (But they kept auff jnn der jn kamer LB). Perifrastiniy forms su The use of *-mo with participants to indicate a specific lasting action is relatively rare in the present Vysočina and Zemgale dialects (cf. Slinė 1974: 86; Ambrazas 1979: 176). This shows a not yet firmly established correlation in jų solid forms su of time. 2.3. Complex forms in the past su imperfect (*-f0) participants usually indicate iš the resulting state of the previous action. They have been used since the first writings in both general and specific meanings, e.g. : ir Schiteipa buwa Midianites subdued by po akim waiku Israel BRB TEs 8,28 (Thus the Midianites were humbled before the children of Israel LB); Schita wieta buya Gilgal wadinta BRB JOZ 5,9 (same place as previously) Gilgal Gennennet LB); idand zywatas ir butu apireyksztas and kuna musu CHNT II Chorus 4,10. A much broader use of the passive with *-todelindicates that it is a vestinise Lithuanian dialects formed earlier than su *-modalyviais. In this case, the peripheral passive is opposed to both su the solid and the composite forms of the active type by the passive participants of the past tense. ir Jų usage in Žemaičių dialects can be illustrated by these Alexo Girdenis (1996) wrote examples of Tyrklio šnektas: teip teip Ar you are ar bought, you have to work tu until you explode (112); Born alive, as it should be, one strangled, got yr ir (mother) herself twelve year old child už choking (126); I said that girl was baptized (123); They say that the child was laid there first; later already tą carried in the graves (125); All those wheats were cut, but come on, mom, bury the year's wheat! (310). The structure of passive structures is not quite established. From XVI is a a. variation of the auxiliary verb. In addition to the dominant forms of biūti, the auxiliary verb sometimes goes ir become, station, e.g. : 16 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS The young boy... becomes nog pana Diewa abandoned WP 111,.; Schitaipo made became Heaven and Szeme BRB I Mos 2,1 (Also ward volendet Himel vnd erden LB); And lair died and was hanged TE1S 10,5 (Vad lair starb /vnd ward begraben LB); pawargele diiszia /kaip erszkeczeis izdaigita tampa DP 100,, (poor soul though thorn vitrapiona bywa *W 101); ghissai stoiesi apchrikstitas Mc 107-108 (he... will be baptized Mc 170). Occasionally, Sie auxiliary verbs are used with *-mo participants, e.g.: pag p] yv pig lesaus prikelimas... swietui tape szinomas Mz 279; Welino mucziams stoiosi BP, Similarly, inactive participants (like budvardziai) are associated with become forms in the present Western Lithuanian dialects, e.g. : Black 296,,. paint on both sides of the BSV 327; Window painted with a punch from KLp. 2.4 In the eastern and southern Highland dialects, true passive verbs with combined male and female passive participles have not yet been formed. Periphrastic forms with *-mo participants are not yet found here, they are not found in Latvian, and the isolated cases in the old writings reflecting the characteristics of the Eastern Highlands are conditioned by the sources used. The participants of the resulting value *-t0, going with the verb biiti, here form noun-type constructions that are not correlated with the personified forms of the verb. For example, in the sentences I saw, your window was opened in KB; The participants of the LP are in the noun part of the adverb similarly to verb adjectives (cf. atviras, pilnas); Although they denote the characteristics of the object of the action, they cannot be considered as the equivalents of the passive kind of the past past continuous forms opened, filled. 2.5. In structures with coordinated non-acting participants, the subject of the action is usually inexpressed. This corresponds to the basic function of the passive – to indicate an action without putting the performer in the first place. Passive constructions without an expressed subject prevail in other Indo-European languages as well; they are probably the oldest (cf. Schwyzer 1943; Kurytowicz 1964: 72-73; Shibatani 1998: 137)*. This is confirmed by the differences in the subject’s expression. In Lithuanian, as already mentioned, the subject of the action of the inactive participant can be described by the genitive (so-called genitivus auctoris). The genitive of the subject is palindromic in the Vedas, Avesta, Tocharian, and occasionally in Greek, Latin, and Germanic languages. On the other hand, Sanskrit and the Slavic languages are dominated by the instrumentalis, Homeric Greek by the dative, and later Greek and Germanic languages by various prepositional constructions." Recent studies of Indo-European studies tend to consider the genitive as an extremely ancient means of subject expression (cf. Haudry 1977: 408; Schmalstieg 6 Such a passive is also typical of other language families and is considered basic in terms of typology, cf. Keenan (1986: 247 pp. ; 263). For more on the subject expression of passive construction in Indo-European languages, see Schwyzer (1943); Schmidt (1963); Jamison (1979; 1981); Luraghi (1986). 7 17 1980: 176-178; 1995), and its traces in jziurima and Slavic prepositional constructions, for example, ots + GEN. (see 3.14). However, in no other Indo-European language is the genitive of the subject as well established as in Lithuanian. 2.6 The Lithuanian language data are particularly significant in that they convincingly show the connection of the genitive of the subject of the passive construction with other cases of ancient use of this verb. As is known, the personal and some other pronouns in Lithuanian have two forms of the singular genitive: non-adjective: manės, tavės, savės, ko, kažko, nieko and adjective: mano, tavo, savo, kieno, kažkieno, niekvieno (Žulys 1969; Ambrazas, ed. 1997a: 261-262; Rosinas 1988: 23-24; 169-170). The use of these forms is clearly distinguished: when the pronoun has an objective meaning, the non-proprietary form is chosen, and when it denotes belonging or attribution to a certain person — the possessive form (except for rare exceptions, see Žulys 1969: 170-171). In Lithuanian constructions with *-to and *-mo participants only possessive genitive forms of pronouns are used, e.g. : Let all my paths walk VST; 275; Behold, thy great stockings are bought for RM; Those of mine shall be written down, they shall be placed on the guests' bench. I put on my knitted sweater KTK. Non-proprietary (objective) forms of personal pronouns (*me vychodiť, *me opýtať, *taves kúpené) are not possible in such cases. This shows that the genitive of the actor (genitivus auctoris) is related to the possessive genitive (cf. Fraenkel 1928: 95-96) and allows it to be classified in the group of constructions of the adnominaliniy genitive (cf. 3.12). 2.7. In certain cases, the genitive of the subject may simply be derived from the possessive. Ernst Fraenkel (1921: 97; 1928: 95) observed the possessive nature of the genitive in cases where it goes with noun-like passive participles, e.g. glorify my father's my, her beloved, his beloved, or with a noun and participle combination, e.g. my chosen brother! DON LG 74. In the case of a non-commercial association, the membership of the association and the membership of the association in general are subject to a number of restrictions. For example, in the sentence Mūsų valgomi burokai tai jau visai sušallo the PLM genitive mūsų indicates the whole noun compound valgomi burokai. In this type of statements, the genitive could be directly linked to the passive participant as the applicant of the subject of the marked action, cf. : I picked up the whole fabric and did not find your inserted needle KP (see also Ambrazas 1990: 197). Similarly, Axelis Holvoets (1994: 132) interprets the genitive of the subject in the corresponding adnominal constructions of the Latvian language: the previous meaning of the statement mates aditi cimdi was “the (knitted) gloves of the mother”, later — “the (knitted) gloves of the mother”, i.e. “the gloves knitted by the mother”. The connection of the subject genitive with the possessive is confirmed by the fact that in Latvian passive constructions the subject of the action is marked by possessive pronouns combined with indicative nouns, e.g.: dziesmas manas padziedatas, nava manas darinatas ‘paz. : songs sung by me, not created by me’ (Gaters 1993: 220). The subjective (agentyving) meaning of those possessive pronouns can be interpreted on the assumption that 18 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS that they have replaced here the formerly used genitive forms, corresponding to the characteristics of the Lithuanian genitive and occasionally occurring in the Latvian dialects”. 2.8. The genitive in adnominal constructions with passives, especially in the present tense, could in a similar way acquire the meaning of an object, e.g.: tobacco rubbed tree LEX 70, straw driven table (to cover the roof) Sts, beer made tub INS, cf. thesos mums sakamassis Szodis MT BĮ XV, gėlmės jėszkomas Szwinnas (ein Bleywurf) MŽ, 8); less often with past tense (*-to) participants: manure carrying wheels PN. This usage is also found in Latvian, e.g.: linu plūcams (raujams) laiks ME, 405 “linų raujamas laikas’, zivju duramais žebėrklis ME, 800 “žuvų duriamas žeberklas’; remained the colt BW 27495 “numirėlio vežti arkleliai' (see also Ambrazas 1990: 84-85, 92). These constructions, like the subjective ones mentioned above, are explained by the regrouping (re-analysis) of syntactic relationships: the genitive, which previously belonged to the designated noun (alone or with an adjective participant), has been redefined as the object of the participant’s action. Thus sheep (shearing Zirklés}—{- aveliy shearing shears, cf. sheep shears and shearing shears, as in la. mouth wash water) —{mouth wash water} water ‘mouth wash water’, cf. mouth wash ‘mouth wash water’ (ME 405). The genitive Cia of the object, as well as the subject, is linked to the participants in the same way as it has been linked to the abstracts of verbs since ancient times, e.g. shearing sheep and bleeding sheep (see 3.11). In certain cases, the genitive of the object with passive participants can be used instead of the accusative and according to the example of passive constructions with the genitive of the subject: Runs | runs like a head (head) sold KRTN, Lkv, MC; 168. Spreads like toothpaste gels. 2.9 The genitive of the subject (as well as of the object) with passive participants usually occurs in compounds having an attributing or apozicing function. This has also been observed in Latvian (Porite 1955: 153-154; Gaters 1993: 295-296). However, the combinations of passive participants with the genitive of the subject may also go in the participle, cf. : I will not be happy with the ring bought by my brothers N1EM 7 —If the ring is bought by a boy, sinking to the bottom LTR; Here is my barn built VRN —Our barn da grandfather built DGLS; The son-in-law's barama go through the door, the son's barama climb on the shoulder AN —Boba was the barama of all PN. Similarly, the corresponding Latvian compounds, e.g. : “The girl cursed by the people” (Mūlenbachs 1928: 209); abelite vėja brauzta ‘obelaite vėjo brauzta' (Gaters 1993: 295). That house was again built by the father “that garden house was still built by the father” (Holvoet 1997: 125). 8 On the possibility of the Baltic origin of the possessive genitive forms *mena, *teva, *seva see Raisins (1988: 167-173; 1995: 26); Schmalstieg (1997: 119-120); about their possible connection with Indo-Iranian possessive genitives Euler (1998: 75). For the opposite view — about the formation of characteristic genitive forms in later times, see Bolvoet (1995: 177); Petit (1999: 215—225) su lit. | 19 On the basis of this type of compound, a ternary passive could have been formed, which is present in the western dialects of Lithuanian, e.g. : Will you say that these (flowers) were planted by you? Blood; That he would be so loved by all, as Jablonski says (1957: 319); It seems that I am the greatest victim of your own wrongdoing ZEMR | 350; The priest was beaten by a gypsy PL'. However, even in these dialects, the ternary passive with combined inactive participants is much less common than the binary. Examples of this occur in 16th-17th-century writings reflecting the peculiarities of western Highland and Zemgale dialects: koszna diena ing griekus ir biauribes ibraidinami esme /sometimes Welino /sometimes pikto szmogous | sometimes musu pacziu kuno BP, 53,, „; szmogus- ... worm with walgams ira BP, 511,,; kosznas on what as Diewo pawadintas ira | work BP, 97 _; And he fell down | iog Vbagas died | and was carried by the angels into the shelter of Abraham BP, 191, (vnd ward getragen von den Engeln LB LK 16,22); bei busit muschti iusu Neprieteliu BRB 111 Moz 26,17 (what should be struck for everlasting enemies 1.B). 2.10 In passive constructions with some passive participants (especially in perception verbs) the subject of the action can be described with a DATED verb, e.g. : Have you ever heard of that name? SMN; There you will be visible to all ZG; For men, there are only few purely female businesses JABL (LKZ, 391); Nobody understands the thing IGN. The dative with inactive participants has been used since ancient writings, e.g. : Dala swieto akims regima *SD 226-227; szinom iumus ira Mz 106,, (So it is not forbidden to you as Christians McH 168-169); kas iem niig Adama priegimta ira MZ 104, (what is born of Adam MCH 166); the same Messenger to the high priest VEE 194, (linger /der dem Hohenpriester bekand war LB IN 18,15) (see also Fraenkel 1928: 126). Such a dative of the subject differs from the genitive in that it denotes the person or thing in relation to which the state is evaluated or described (cf. “the beneficiary of a thing that disappears to someone” Jablonskis 1957: 599). In this it is close to the dative, used with conjugated adjectives and with adjectives of the nominative genus, cf. man aiškus /aiškus, visiem svarbūs /svarbu and so on. With verb adjectives denoting suitability, ability, or necessity, e.g., tinkamas, galimas, reikalingas, as well as with necessity forms with the suffix -tinas, -a, only the dative is used. In constructions with passive participants of perception verbs, the modal shade of possibility or necessity is also felt. It is also characteristic of the majority of Latvian *-mo participants associated with the dative, cf. Sila zeme man arama BW 5220 “forest land is plowed for me (= ploughing)’; What did I have? For more examples, see Jablonskis (1957: 312-318; 586-588); Ulvydas, red. (1971: 162-167); from common language —Sliziené (1974). 26 | VYTAUTAS "The 100 Most Influential People in the World: Nobody Like the 'Father of All People'" (PDF). Meanwhile, constructions with the subject genitive and the participants of the non-noun genus *-mo and *-to correspond to the passive, characteristic of the accusative type of languages (plg. Ambrazas 1990: 210—211). In order to derive the genitive of the subject with intransitive passive participants of the indefinite genus from the nominative, the assumption is made that sentences with transitive and intransitive verb forms had different constructions in the past (according to the reconstructable ergative type model). However, the contradiction between transitivity and intransitivity in Indo-European languages is probably not original. It has become apparent in the development of individual language groups, and the data of both Lithuanian and other related languages show its gradual strengthening. Schmalstieg agrees with this, stating that Indo-European verbs and participants were in the past essentially intransitive (1982: 121; 1994: 13; 1999: 29). And if so, there should not have been a fundamental difference between constructions with transitive and intransitive verbs with the participle of the impersonal genus, such as tėvo ariama /arta and tėvo gyvėnama | gyvėnta, i.e. the genitive could in both cases join to the participle of the impersonal genus similarly as in the present Altay dialects. 3.8. Interprets the genitive of the subject differently with passive participants of an anonymous genus Axel Holvoet (1994; 1995). Based on the possessive nature of the genitive, he considers its subjective (agentive) meaning as new, arising from the formation of the passive in individual Baltic languages." A primary, inherited, former adnominal possessive genitive construction with a conjugated participant, e.g. la. mates {aditi cimdi) ‘mother- ’s (knitted) gloves’, lie. father (built troba). As a result of the reanalysis, which took place separately in Lithuanian and Latvian, the genitive was meaningful as the verb of the actor, e.g., lie. troba (was) built by the father, he had been transferred to the impersonal passive constructions of the Lithuanian language with the forms of anonymous genus participants'®. It is believed that the genitive may have been connected in a similar way with the participants of intransitive verbs, i.e., according to Vagies eitas kelias could be formed *Šis kelias vogies eitas and *Šis kelias vogies eita, and later the latter type of construction was replaced impersonally: Šiuo keliu vogies eita (Holvoet 1995: 80). This interpretation also faces serious difficulties. The transfer of the subject genitive from the trinomial passive constructions with combined passive participants to the constructions with the forms of the anonymous genus is doubted primarily by the fact that the latter are used in that area of Lithuanian dialects, for which combined passive constructions are not characteristic at all. In addition, trinarically coordinated passive constructions are relatively new and much rarer than those with non-coordinated members of the anonymous genus and the genitive of the subject. 14 Sentences with conjugated verb adjectives with *-fo suffix, made from intransitive verbs, e.g. : Oras šiltas/šaltas (they are mentioned by Schmalstiegas 1999: 28-29), are made according to the usual model of adjective sentences (cf.: Oras geras; Aš esu sveikas), while the genitive forms of the adjectives šilta, šalta can only be associated with the genitive of the subject, e.g.: jų ten visą naktį šalta (the statement *jie šalta is impossible). 1s Plg.: „I assume that the passive construction with an agentive complement arose from constructions with possessive adnominal genitives only in the course of the separate development of Lithuanian“ (Holvoet 1995: 181); zr. but Bolvoet (2001) su additional arguments. 16 pp. „At this stage the genetivus auctoris could also be transferred to the impersonal agentless passive constructions, which (as in Latvian) had developed independently” (Holvoet 1995: 178). PASSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE | 27 3.9 Passives with conjugated and inconjugated (non-genus) participants, apparently, were formed in the times of the independent development of the Baltic languages- "". This is shown by many circumstances, including the differences in auxiliary verbs (Lithuanian: būti, Latin: tikt, tapt, klūt), the rudimentary nature of the agent expression in Latvian, the different forms of the passive participle genus in Lithuanian dialects. However, this does not imply that only the possessive meaning of the genitive is inherited in constructions with members of the non-noun genus. It is worth noting the special function of the members of the anonymous genus. In the absence of a parent, the child will never be able to communicate with the adult. Therefore, the genitive of the subject associated with them would be difficult to explain by reanalysis of the possessive construction. In a sentence, the passive members of the indefinite genus, like adjectives, are usually the substantive part of the adverb, but they can also be the factor or complement, i.e. they have the functions characteristic of nouns, e.g. : Suction threaded SB; they found a great, much stolen SCHG 319, cf. I am already warm and cold mates and so on (Jablonskis 1957: 205-206; Fraenkel 1921: 35-36; Valeckienė 1984: 98-99). The generalized meaning of the state of the passive participants of the nominative genus is also close to verb nouns (cf. Ulvydas, ed. 1965: 526; 1976: 374; Ambrazas, ed. 1997a: 169). Because of this functional and semantic proximity, the passive participle forms of the genitive and the verb nouns can be used in the same contexts, cf. : There was pasture here last year | ganava, ganyklos; will not be forgiven you | forgiveness. That the semantic affinity of these forms was felt also in the Old Lithuanian language is evident from examples where the verb nouns of the originals were translated as members of the nominative genus, e.g. nei arta nei dagiita (mowed) nebus BRB I Moz 45,6 —kein pflügen noch kein erndten sein wird LB; wis kas... uszkeikta ira IV Mos 18,14 —All is destroyed. Similarly, the Prussian participle billiton, regardless of the original, is used with the noun meaning 'that which is said; iStarm¢’, plg. ka ast sta billiton? —what is it? 111 27. The affinity of adjectives (and adjectives) to verb nouns, especially verb abstracts, has deep historical roots and is observed in many related languages. Vedic nominative participles with the suffix *-to were widely used as abstracts of verbs, e.g.: jūtaūm ‘birth’, jīvam ‘life’, mrtam ‘death’, yaūtam ‘walking, riding’, gitūm ‘singing, song’ (Wackernagel, Debrunner 1954: 585-586), as well as Latin nominative participles with -fum, e.g.: factum ‘what is done, work’, dictum ‘what is said, saying’, inventum ‘what is invented, inventing’, propositum ‘intention’, etc. (Kūhner 1912: 230—231). 231). Bohuslav Havranek (1937: 111, 118) considered that all members of the infinitive genus of Slavic languages with *-fo, *-no, having the meaning of impersonal passive, were derived from predicatively used nouns of the infinitive genus (also Janke 1960: 57). The Lithuanian participle biita (see biita and pramanyta) corresponds to the Russian dialect. byte and still has the same meaning as s. ind. 7 Plg. Ambrazas (1990: 191-197). In this respect, the author’s and Holvoet’s views coincide, and the discussion about the alleged attempts to relocate the passive to the time of the Baltic proto-language (Holvoet 1995: 176) is meaningless. '*-Plg. : “The general concept of a thing has been knūpft since uridg. Time for the neutral” (Brugmann 1911: 658); See also Pedersen (1907: 159); Lagercrantz (1933: 20–22). 28 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS bhiitam *praeitis’. The Lithuanian sakyta, įsakyta, Prussian billiton quite corresponds to got. gipano ‘what was said’ (usfullnoda pata gipano MT 27,9 —éxhnpwdn to gndév “what was said was fulfilled”- ), cf. also Latin iussum “command, what was commanded”, cénsum ‘evaluation’, etc. Typologically important is the observation by Kari Liukkonen (1993) that verb-subject nouns with the suffix -ma / -md in Finnish languages were used even yesterday, e.g.: suom. eldmd ‘life’, kuolema ‘death’, sanoma ‘knowing’ are widely used as passive participles and correspond in function to the eastern Baltic *-mo participles. 3.10 The genitive of the subject in Lithuanian is associated with the inactive members of the infinitive genus having noun meaning just as with other verb nouns. In this respect, the word combinations my living | my living or my father's working | his working are comparable to my living or my father's working; saying There is my birthplace Sts means about the same as ‘there is my birthplace’; See an excerpt from modern prose: What does it mean to be lived? —And that: there you were born, there you died, there you raised your children, there you lived. The change of the noun genitive construction to a synonymous participle can be seen in the Bretkūnas Bible correction: Persegnotas bus tawa The weave and tawa is performed (instead of the deleted atstankas) Deuteronomium 28:6 —gesegnet wird sein dein korb vnd | dein vbriges LB. In Latvian, the participle gender of the participants has already disappeared, but the genitive of the subject can be associated with the masculine gender form with noun meaning, e.g. : Tėva dotu, mates dotu (= with debt, gift) to sasėju nastina (Mūlenbachs 1928: 209) “the gift of the father, the gift of the mother, ta suriSau in the carrier’ (cf. duots ‘das Gegebene, die Sache’ Such 536). subject genitive compounds with the participles of the *-to of the nominative genus used in the abstract meaning of verbs have direct correspondences in the Vedas (see Wackernagel, Debrunner 1954: 586), cf. Ved. mama yatam ‘my walk’ and lie. I'm going. The Iranian construction of similar structure *mana krtam ‘made by me’ can also be compared to Lithuanian; my work'", cf. lie. created by me. According to Jamison (1981: 322—323), the subjective genitive in the Vedas was generally used with noun passives. 3.11. verb nouns associated with the genitive of the subject, as well as passive participles of the anonymous genus, in Lithuanian are usually made from intransitive verbs, e.g.: baisus jos verkimas VIKV; VN spoken by old people; will pass fish spawning Jz (see also Ulvydas, ed. 1976: 204—205); similarly in the ancient writings: ischeijmas ia WP 52,,; opening in winter, cloudy *SD 390,,,,; io cross as fire burns BP 213 and so on. The subject genitive goes less frequently with derivatives of transitive verbs, e.g., mother's love, friend's invitation, teacher- 's praise. Similarly in Latvian, e.g.: bērnu raudasana | raudas “children crying / crying', acu “This construction has been studied in detail in many works, e.g. Benveniste (1962: 52 pp.), Cardona (1970); Edel'man (1974) Haudry (1977: 409); Schmalstieg (1995: 19-20); Euler (1998: 75). LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE PASSIVE DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS | 29 redzéjums “eye sight' etc. (zr. Endzelins 1951: § 400401; Lepika 1954: 66— 67; Ozols 1961: 183). It should be noted that with verb-subject nouns in Lithuanian the same pronoun adjective forms are used as with passive participants, e.g.: mano verkimas nieko nepadėjo KLM; that your deletion will not hurt anyone SINT; what is your pity —weeping without tears LDK. In contrast, the genitive of the object has a non-proprietary form, e.g.: tavęs ištrynimas, tavęs atradimas (LKŽ. jį 1057); looking for me / waiting for me etc. etc. This shows that the genitive, denoting the subject of action of verb nouns, is as much related to the possessive as it is used with the passive participants. 3.12. The historical connection between the subjective and possessive meanings of the adnominal genitive has long been observed in many Indo-European languages (cf. Delbrūck 1893: 342— 352; Brugmann 1911: 599-604; Krahe 1972: 74)%, but already Brugmann (1911: 604) emphasized that he does not yet show that the subject genitive with verb nouns is derived from the possessive. Subsequent research suggests that the subjective meaning is antiquated and laid the foundation for the objective and other meanings of the adnominal genitive- *'. Apparently, the subjective and possessive genitive with verb nouns and participles are part of a broader group of adnominal constructions, which meant the attribution of an active attribute to a certain thing or person. The very productive use of the subject genitive with verb nouns, inherited from ancient times and found in Lithuanian, must have been one of the factors that encouraged the wider use of the subject genitive with passive participles of the infinitive genus, which have a meaning vo and function similar to verb nouns. In both cases, we see the same characteristic genitive forms of pronouns. 3.13.The favourable conditions for the use of the subject genitive with the passive participants of the anonymous genus were created by the coincidence of the meanings of the subjective and partitive genitive in sentences, whose predicate is followed by verbs denoting presence, existence (biiti, gyvėti) or change of state (žygti, augti, etc.). In such cases, the genitive, denoting an indefinite quantity, also denotes the subject of the condition (patient); it depends both on the forms of personified verbs and on the passive participants of the nominative genus, cf. : There are still oaks in our forest; There were mushrooms here recently. The partitive significance of the genitive is evident from the parallel use of active and passive members of the anonymous genus, cf. : How many crows there are! PLS —Here the beetle is MZ; Tonight there were wolves PLS —Very blue were Kp. * On the possessive meaning of the agent (or subject) in the genitive, see Keenan (1986: 264). * Plg. Benveniste (1962: 17-18) on the constructions of Latin ludus pueri “child’s play”, risus pueri “boy’s laughter” as the basis of later mos pueri “boy’s habit”, liber pueri “boy’s book”. For the possible origin of the objective genitive from the subjective, see Haudry (1977: 66). 30 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS The genitive denoting the subject (patient) of the condition is similarly associated with the personified forms of the negative verb not to be and the active and passive participants of the anonymous genus, cf. : There was no | water; There was no | water here; There's no water here. It / has already been mentioned that the passive participles of the verb biiti (especially the participle biita) with the genitive of the subject are used very often (see 3.2). The crossing of the two meanings must have contributed to the establishment of the subject genitive in constructions with intransitive passive participants of the anonymous genus denoting the state. The partitive meaning of the genitive in Lithuanian is very well preserved, and the use of the negative genitive is generally grammatized. 3.14 The genitive of the subject with the passive members of the anonymous genus is used more widely in Lithuanian than in other related languages, but ir this does not indicate that the construction itself is new. In the Latvian language, the disappearance of the anonymous genus left no conditions for the subject genitive with the passive participants of the anonymous genus. The masculine singular noun that took their place retained only impersonal usage, similar to the feminine singular noun in some of the Žemaičių dialects of Lithuanian (see 3.5). However, the genitive of the subject has remained in Latvian constructions with combined passive participants, cf. the following examples from the Dignoja dialect given by Indane (1986: 101, 107): burkani pelu sagrauzti ‘carrots gnawed by mice’; deki vėl mates woti ‘clothes still woven by mother' (cf. Mūlenbachs 1928: 209; Endzelins 1951: § 398; Gaters 1993: 295-296), zr. but 2.7-8. This genitive of the subject was probably also associated with the passive members of the anonymous genus of Latvian before they disappeared. We see sharp parallels in the northern dialects of Russian, where the genitive denoting the subject with the preposition «ar of» is widely used with transitive and intransitive *-to and *-no passive participants, between them and the participant of the byte (cf. lit. buvusi), e.g.: u tebja vezde byto “your everywhere been’; u dožža (=doždja) byte ‘lietaus buta’; in him vypito “it swallowed; u menja otdochnuto ‘mano pasilsėta'; ot Pet'ki pisano ‘written by Petka’, etc. (see Matveenko 1961: 121-128; 1970; Kuz'mina, Nemčenko 1971: 18-19; Kuz'mina 1984: 27; Sabenina 1983: 56; Sobolev 1998). The construction is also documented in ancient Russian writings, e.g. of tė zapovédano obnoviti vetschii mirs LAVR. 11 ‘your promise to renew the old world’ (Borkovskij 1968: 172-173). It is thought that the prepositional construction here has replaced the older imperfect genitive * similarly to grieky bé + GEN. (for the Greek imperfect genitive of the subject, see Schwyzer 1975: 119). The corresponding prepositional construction from + GEN. in Lithuanian and Latvian was strongly promoted by Polish and German (cf. Palionis 1967: 1792 Schmalstieg (1980: 177-178; 1985: 31; 1995: 7-8, 14; 1999: 25). In this regard, the overlap of the subject-denoting ux + GEN. constructions (« menja otdochnuto ») and the non-conjunctive genitive with verba finita (volkov zdes’ est) in the northern Russian dialects is noteworthy, cf. Kuzmina (1984: 27-29). LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE’S PASSIVE DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS | 31 180; Endzelins 1951: $ 542), but the data from dialects and folklore suggest that it also has internal developmental motives (see 2.11). Prepositional constructions of subject meaning with passive forms of the nominative gender were also associated in Latin, e.g.: a nobis dictum est ‘what we have said is’ (Hartmann 1954: 138). Taking into account these and the previously mentioned (3.5, 3.9, 3.10) correspondences in related languages, it can be recognized that the Lithuanian constructions of passive participants of the indefinite genus of transitive and intransitive participants with the genitive of the subject are a legacy of distant antiquity. 4. CONCLUSIONS 1. The passive, like the category of species itself, is a relatively new linguistic phenomenon in Lithuanian. It was formed during the independent development of the Lithuanian language and has distinctive features in different dialects. However, the morphological and semantic assumptions of the category of species — the contradiction of the action meanings of verb adjectives and the participants derived from them with suffixes *-mo and *-to according to the relation of the action to the subject — are inherited from the Baltic antiquity. 2. The passive verb with conjugated passive participles in the western dialects of Lithuanian language began to form before the beginning of writing and is documented in the texts of the authors of those dialects since the 16th century. 3.The passive with incompatible passive participles of the nominative genus is widely used in the eastern and southern dialects of Lithuanian, while the constructions of the unipersonal nominative genus have long been characteristic of all dialects and common language. The basis of this passive is the Indo-European old noun (nominal) type sentences with incompatible forms of verbs and adjectives. 4.The genitive of the subject with the passive members of the infinitive genus, which had a meaning close to verb nouns, could otherwise be associated similarly as with other verb nouns. It has been closely associated with the possessive genitive since ancient times; This connection is shown by the adjective forms of Lithuanian personal and some other pronouns, used both with passive participants and with verb nouns. 5.The productivity of subject genitive constructions with passive participants of the non-substantial genus in Lithuanian can be explained by the following internal conditions: (a) the well-preserved predicative function of the non-conjugable forms of the non-substantial genus, based on the ancient nominal sentence type; (b) the extensive use of the subject genitive with verb nouns, in many cases close in meaning to the anonymous genus members; (c) crossing of subjective and partitive genitive meanings in constructions with passives of state verbs. Abbreviations AD —Adutiskis, Švenčionių r. A1N-Alanta, Molėtai district 32 | 33 | 34 Ars-Alsėdžiai, Plungės r. ALVT —Alvitas, Vilkaviškio r. A1z-Alizava, Kupiškio r. AN — Anykščiai AuK-Aukštadvaris, Trakai r. BARANAS -Baranauskas Antanas. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1949. BM -Lithuanian dialects, collected by A. BARANOWSKI, 1. Texte, ed. by E SPECHT, Leipzig, 1920. BP,-[Jonas Bretkūnas] POSTILLA Tatai elti Trumpas ir Praftas Ifchguldimas Euangeliu /fakamuiu Bafžniczoie Kriklchcsionilchkoie | nūg Aduento ik Weeliku. Per lana Bretkuna Lietuvos Plebona Karaliauciuie Pruftilu. "Königsberger" (in German). ofterberger.de. 1591. pp. 1591. BP, —[Jonas Bretkūnas] POSTILLA tatai elti Trumpas and Praltas Ilchguldimas Euangeliu /lakamuiu Bafinicjoie "Niig Weeliku ik Aduento- ". In the 19th century, it was part of the Lithuanian Pleboria. Iffpaufta Karaliaucziuie / Iurio Ofterbergero. 1591. pp. 1591. BRB —Biblia, tatai efti Wifsas Schwentas Rafchtas Lietuwifchkai pergulditas per JANA BRETKUNA... Karaliacziuie 1579-1590. Cited from the photocopy of the manuscript and the photographic edition of volumes 1, 2 and 7, 8 (compiled by J. D. Range and E Scholz, Paderborn-Miinchen-Wien- -Ziirich: E Schoningh, 1991-1998). BRZ — Biržai BsO —Ožkabalių dainos, compiled by Dr. J. BAsaNaviICIUS. Chicago: 1903–1905. BsV —Iš gyvenimo spūsčių ir velnių, surinktas daktaras J. Basanavičius, Chicago: 1903. Brc-Betygala, Raseinių r. BW - Kr. BARONS and H. WISSENDORFS. Latvian songs 1-6. Jelgava and Petrograd, 1894—1915. CHNT —Czestaw KUDZINOWSsKI, Jan OTREBSKI, Bible Lithuanian Chyliriskiego. New Testament 2, Text, Poznan: Zaktad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, 1958. DAUKD -[sud. SIMONAS DAUKANTAS] Dajnes Šiamajtiū pagat Zodiū Dajninikū iszraszytas... Petropilie 1846, Printed by C. KRAY. DBG —Dubingiai, Molėtų r. DGL-Daūgailiai, Utenos district Daiš-Daugėliškis, Ignalina district Dkk —Duokiskis, Rokiškio r. DoN - Kr. DONELAITIS, Metai ir pasakėčios, ed. V. VITKAUSKAS, Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1994. Hereinafter referred to as PL, VD, RG, ZR, PP. AG, LG denotes individual texts and numbers denotes lines of text. DP —Postilla CATHOLICKA Tdi elt: Expulsion of Ewangeliu kiekwienos Nedelos and ffwgtes during willTūs years, Per Kūniga MIKALOIV DAVKSZA Canonik Médniku | from lėkifko pergulldita. With wald and sharing wireuffy. W Wilniu | Drukamioi Akademijos SOCIETATIS IESU. A.D. 1599. From the post office. New York: University of New York Press, 1926. DRSK—Druskininkai. Ds-Dūsetos, Zarasų r. ERŽ—Erzvilkas, Jurbarko r. Gwmz —Silvestras Gimžauskas, Žodžej isz givos kalbos letuviy Linkmeniszkiu ir kiti jo raštai: Metine Dovanele antra del Lietuvninku ir Zemaiczu parasze Mainionis del brolu ir seseru Vilniuje: spaustuvėje Juozapa Zavadskia. 1891. GRANGD - R. GRANAUSKAS. 1998: The Singing Animals, Vilnius: Presvika, 1998. GRzZ —Grūžiai, Pasvalio r. IGN —Ignalina IMB—Imbradas, Zarasų r. JABL -Jono Jablonskio sheets in the LKŽ database, which do not indicate the source. JD —Lithuanian songs written by Antanas Juškėvičė. 3 volumes. Printing House of Kazan Imperial University, 1880-1882. 33 JNš —Joniškis JNšŠK —Joniškėlis JRB —Jūrbarkas JZ —Jūžintai, Rokiškio r. KB-Kabėliai, Varėnos r. KL —Kuliai, Plungės r. KriM-—Kelmė KrP-—Klaipėda Kurt -Kaltanėnai, Švenčionių r. KLvD —Prussian Lithuanian Songs. I collected... Vilus Kalvaitis. Tilžė: E. Jagomasto "Lietuvos" spaustuvė, 1905. Kp —Kūpiškis Krč —Kapčiamiestis, Lazdijų r. KRG —-Kretingalė, Klaipėdos r. KRTIN-Kairtena, Kretingos r. Krtk —Kūktiškės, Utenos r. LB —M. LUTHER, The New Tent Deut3/ch, Wittenberg, 1546. Cited according to the Weimar Critical Edition: D. Martin Luthers Werke. Knitische Gesamttausgabe 6. The New Testament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929. LBr —Lithuanian folk songs and songs from Prussian and Russian Lithuania, collected by A. LESKIEN and K. BRUGMAN. Strasbourg, 1882. LEX — Lexicon Lithuanicum. (17th century manuscript from the former Karaliaučius archive, Msc, 1784). LKT —Lithuanian language dialects. Chrestomatija, red. E. GRINAVECKIENĖ, K. MORKŪNAS, Vilnius: Mintis, 1970. LKZ —Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1-19, Vilnius: Mintis (1, 2, 7-9), Mokslas (10-15), Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla (3-5, 6), Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla (16, 17), Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas (18, 19), red. J. Kruoras (1, 2, 6-10), K. ULvyDas (3-5, 11-16), V. VITKAUSKAS (17-19), Vilnius 1968-— 1999. Lr-—Lčipalingis, Lazdijų r. LTR Lithuanian Folklore Manuscript, (Lithuanian Literature and Folklore Institute Manuscript Folklore Collections). "Evangelii gaudium" in Palaeo-Slavic version. Codex Marianus- ... ed. V. JAGIC, Berolini, 1883. Mc-K. Macius (1875-1905), his writings and additions to the Juška dictionary. MCcH —G. MICHELINI, Martynas Mažvydas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2000. Numbers indicate the pages of the book where the source texts are presented. ME — K. MULENBACHS, J. ENDZELINS. Latvian Language Dictionary 1-4, Riga: Ministry of Education, 1923-1932. MrT -Molétai MRC —Marcinkonys, Varėnos r. MT -MARGARITA THEOLOGICA |...) perguldita per Simona Wai lchnora |...) IL fchfpaurfta Karaliaucsiuie Pru fu/ perJurgi Olterbergem/meti fg) Chri ftaus 1600. The photographic edition prepared by G. Michelini was used together with the Latin original: Simono Vaisnoro 1600 metų Zemczuga Theologischka ir jos šaltiniai, Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1997. MT BI -Lithuanian pronunciation of Zacharijus Blotnas READ ON S. Vaišnoras "Theologically Zemčiūgai (MT). MZ — Mažvydas. The oldest Lithuanian language monuments up to 1570, prepared by Jurgis GERULLIS, Kaunas: Ministry of Education, 1922. x MZ, —Anfangs- -Grinde einer Litauischen Sprach-Lehre, in which the grammar previously published by the young Ruhig is laid to the basis, but with strong additions and new elaborations improved and increased by Christian Gottlieb Mielcke... Konigsberg, 1800. 34 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS Mžš-—Miežiškiai, Panevėžio r. NiEM—Lithuanian folk songs from the manuscript bequest of Prof. J. J. Mikkolas. Translated and edited by Eino Nieminen. Helsinki, 1949. OB —Obéliai, Rokiškio r. PG —Pagiriai, Kėdainių r. PL-Palėvenė, Kupiškio r. PLM —Palémené, Kaišiadorių r. PiN-Plūngė Prš-Palūšė, Ignalinos r. PN-—Panevėžys PRN —Prienai PRNG —Paringys, Ignalinos r. Pš-Pašvitinys, Pakruojo r. PšL—Pūšalotas, Pasvalio r. RDM —-Rudamina, Lazdijų r. RDN —Nemunėlio Radviliškis, Biržų r. RG-Ragainė RK —Rokiskis RM-Ramygala, Panevėžio r. SB-—Subačius, Kupiškio r. ScHG —Litauische Grammatik von August SCHLEICHER. Prag, 1856. SKD —Skuodas Ske —Skapiškis, Kupiškio r. SL-—Salos, Rokiškio r. SIX —Salakas, Zarasų r. SLM-Salamiestis, Kupiškio r. SINT Salantai, Kretingos r. SMN—Simnas, Alytus r. SP —[Konstantinas Sirvydas,] PYNKTY KAZAN... PRZEZ Kszyędza KONSTANTEGO SZYRWIDA /Theologa Societatis IESV... W WILNIE W Drukarni Akademiey Societatis [ESV ROKU (I-1692, II -1644; used photographic edition: Franz SPECHT, Syrwids Punktay sakimu, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929). Ss—Sasnava, Marijampolės r. ŠLČ—Matas ŠALČčius, dictionary and other writings. Sts—Satés, Skuodor. TRG-Tauragė. TRK —Tirkšliai, Mažeikių r. VEE-[Baltramiejus Vilentas]: Euangelias bei Epiftolas | The change of the days... fully and faithfully transferred to Lietuwifchka... through Baltramejus WILLENTA- ... Ifchfpauftas Karalauc3ui through Jurgi Ofterbergera/MetuM. D. LXXIX. Vkš-Viekšniai, Akmenės r. Vik —Valkininkai, Varėnos r. VLKV —Vilkaviškis VN-Vainūtas, Šilutės r. VRNV —Varenava, Grodno region. PASSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE | 35 Vs-Veisiejai, Lazdijų r. VST —Vištytis, Vilkaviškio r. VžNs—Vyžuonas, Utenos r. *W —Poftilla Catholicka Mnieylza. |...) Pr3e3 D. JakvBA Wvyka |...) IN CRACOW, In the Printing House of Andrseid Piotrkowciyk/Panfki Year/1590. Photocopy of the third edition. 1573) 1573 – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Austrian composer (d. The anonymous Wolfenbüttel post. Quoted from excerpts published by V. Gaigalaitis (GAIGALAT W., Die Wolfenbiirteler litauische Postillenhandschrift aus dem Jahre 1573, Mitteilungen der Litauischen literarischen Gesellschaft. Inaugural-Dissertation der Philosophischen Fakultat, Tilsit: Druck von Otto V. Mauderode, 1900) and J. Karaciejus' edition (Wolfenbiittelio Postilė, prepared and introduced by... J. Karaciejus, Vilnius: Zara, 1995), with corrections by J. Gelumbeckaitė (Archivum Lithuanicum 2, 2000, 173-194). ŽD-—Židikai, Mažeikių r. ZEMR — THE EARTH. 1956-1957: The 1956-1957 season of the National Football League. 2018, Johnstown, NY. LITERATURE AMBRAZAS, V. 1977: The spread of indirect narrative and the problem of origin. Issues of Lithuanian Linguistics 17, 7-54. AMBRAZAS, V. 1979: Historical Syntax of Lithuanian Language Participants, Vilnius: Mokslas. AMBRAZAS, V. 1986: Unit of the Syntactic and Semantic Structure of the Lithuanian Sentence. Language Studies 25, 4-44. AMBRAZAS, V. 1990: Cpaenumenbnoitū cunmakcuc npusacmui 6armuickux asvikos. Comparative Syntax of Baltic Participles, Vilnius: Mokslas. AMBRAZAS, V., red. 1997a: The Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, AMBRAZAS, 31997. V., red. 1997b: Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Baltos lankos. ANDERSEN, P. K. 1985: The grammatical category of passive in Old Hindi: Thre function. Schlerath, B., ed., Grammatical categories. Function and History, Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 47-57. BENVENISTE, E. 1948: Indo-European Names of Agents and Actions, Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. BENVENISTE, E. 1962: For the analysis of casual functions: the Latin genitive. Language 11, 10-18. BERGMANE, A. 1955: On the adjectives of the Latvian language. BORKOVSKIJ, V. I. 1968: Cpaenumenbno-ucmopuueckui cunmakxcuc 80CMoYHOCAABAHCKUX A36IK06. Tunbi npocmoeo npedaoxcenus, Mocksa: Hayka. BRUGMANN, 23-36. K. 1895: The verbal system of the Latin and Umbrian-Oskian languages. Indo-European Studies 5, 89-152. BRUGMANN, K. 1906: Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages 2/1, Strasbourg: Triibner. BRUGMANN, K. 1911: Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages 2/2, Strasbourg: Triibner. BRUGMANN, K. 1925: The Syntax of the Simple Sentence in Indo-European Languages. CARDONA, G. 1970: The Indo-Iranian construction mana (mama) krtam. Language 46(1), 1-12. CHODOVA, K. I. 1980: IIpocmoe npedioxcerue 6 cmapocaagsrckom a3bixe, Mocksa: Hayka. CHRISTEN, S. 1998: Impersonal constructions and secondary personification. 53-61. Linguistica Baltica 7, CosTELLO, J.R. 1984: The perphrastic passive construction in Proto-Indo-European. Word 35 (2), 127-161. DELBRUCK, B. 1893: Comparative Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 1, Strasbourg: Triibner. OzoLA, I., 2000: The dialects of the Kurzemes region of Latvia. International Baltic Congress