Adesyvas Chylinskio Naujojo Testamento vertime

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLV (2001), 93-111 This paper presents an analysis of the use of the adessive in Chylinskis’ translation of the New Testament. It is suggested that the use of the adessive as opposed to the inessive is associated with animacy, and that the distribution of adessive and inessive in the different parts of speech and their subcategories (1st and 2nd person pronouns, 3rd person pronouns, proper nouns, common nouns etc.) is determined by an animacy hierarchy as formulated by Silverstein, and partly also (in those cases where no difference in animacy is involved) by an individuation hierarchy. The adessive and the inessive are in complementary distribution, their use being determined by the categorial properties of the noun or pronoun. The view, often repeated in the literature, according to which the Old Lithuanian writings reflect confusion or functional merger of the adessive and the inessive, is shown to be inaccurate. It results from an erroneous view of the mutual relationship between these case Jorms. 0. IVADAS In examining the relation of Chylinski- ’s translation of the New Testament (hereinafter: CHNT) to the sources, considerable attention was devoted to the use of postpositional pronouns in this text. There are no postpositional pronouns in the original languages of the CHNT translation, but by comparing the individual CHNT postpositional pronouns and local prepositional constructions with the prepositional constructions of the sources, it is possible to determine certain patterns of adhesive usage. Assessing the extent of possible influence of sources, it is possible to draw conclusions about the use of postpositional pronouns in Chylinski- ’s Lithuanian, or at least in Chylinski- ’s idiolect. So far, in addition to the main works on postpositional pronouns, which focus on the problems of their construction (Laigonaitė 1957; Palionis 1967, Kazlauskas 2000; Zinkevičius 1980, 1982; Rosinas 1995, 2000), two studies have been published on the use of postpositional pronouns in Bretkūn’s writings and their relationship to the constructions of the originals (Range 1995, Gelumbeckaitė 1997, 1999). This article identifies the corresponding constructions with the adhesive in the translation sources of CHNT and the influence of the latter on the use of these constructions, analyzes the functions of the constructions with the adhesive used in translation, defines the limits of the scope of use of the CHNT adhesive, draws attention to the fact that the frequency of this verbal use is related to certain parts of the language and grammatical categories, and tries to clarify what this relationship is based on, once again discusses the problem of the use of the inessive in place of the adhesive. Here. 94 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ Only Chylinski language data are analyzed- ), so the formulated conclusions cannot be directly generalized to the 17th century Lithuanian language in general, but comparison with data accumulated by other authors on the use of postpositional pronouns in ancient Lithuanian writings shows that the use of postpositional pronouns in them differs only slightly from the use in Chylinski language. The use of adesive constructions in the CHNT translation can be interpreted somewhat differently than in other works dedicated to ancient writings or postpositional localities. It will be possible to draw broader general conclusions only when the data of all the authors of the aforementioned period will be collected and analyzed. The Chylinski language data are compared with the main translation source — Statenbijbel — and additional Polish — Gdansk Bible and Brasta Bible* — data. Since many arguments indicate that Chylinskis did not use the Vulgate and the Greek NT in his translation (Kavaliūnaitė 2001: 105-128), these sources will not be presented here. 1. PLACE OF THE ADHESION IN CHYLINSKI'S LINKS SYSTEMS 1.1. Adesyv is the rarest of all postpositional pronouns in Chylinski. Constructions with adhesive comprise 6,296 (507x) of all postpositional substituents.” In the Dutch original, the adverb CHNT corresponds to the prepositional construction in + DAT. /Acc. (58%) and by + DAT. (23%), less frequently (19% in total) —constructions op + DAT. /Acc, for + DAT. /ACC. is aen + DAT. /Acc. PolishIn many sources we find here constructionsw + Loc. (60%), u + GEN. (22%), less often (18% in total) —pr3y + Loc, prje; + Acc, 3 + INSTR, na + Loc. : Mt 17,5 CuHNT Tey = This is my place, which I have given away = megu STB Dele is my beloved Sone /in den welcken ick my welbehagen hebbe GDB Ten znak Syn moj mily /w ktorym mi šię upodobato BRAB Ten ielt moy [yn mily nd kthorym pr3eltaiwam Mk 6,14 CHNT Jonao [...] kietes iB numirufiu, ir togdel toc galibes deltic jampi STB Joannis [...] is van den dooden opgeweckt /ende daerom wercken die krachten in hem: The article is based on the New Testament translation data. 2 Until it is definitively proven that Chylinskis did not use the Brasta Bible in his translation, all cited passages are compared with it. 3 In total, CHNT has 8196 postpositional substituents, including: LOC. 4117x (50.2%), ADES. 507x (6.2%), ALLAT. 1706x (20.8%), ILLAT. 1866x (22.8%). For comparison, we present the statistics of the use of postpositional pronouns in the NT translation by Jon Bretkūnas (data by Jolanta Gelumbeckaité): in total there are 1286x constructions with postpositional pronouns in the NT, of which: LOC. 672x (52.4%), ADES. 82x (6.5%), ALLAT. 1456x (35.5%), ILLAT. 176x (5.6%). We see that postpositional vowels are used five times more frequently in CHNT than in BNT, although their percentage distribution in the text is very similar, CHNT has a slightly larger proportion than BNT of the illative and a smaller proportion of the alliative. 4 ADESYVAS CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIME | 95 GDB Jan [...] BrAB Lk 1.37 CHNT STB GDB For Luke 1.33 BRraB LK 1,56 CuHNT O Marya haer tr3y Lk 1.52 BRraB MT 27.43 CHNT STB He GDB BRAB MK 5.33 CHNT STB GDB But BrAB smartowych wltal; For this Sig cuda džieją priejeri Jan [...] wlthal 3 dead /y for thego3 [ię in him ty mocy okdsuia Zednac=- Nejokio nec dayktac nebuc Diewiep nepadabnac— negalimo Want geen dingh en [al by Godt onmogelick 3ijn Bo v Bogd nie bgd3sie jadne [fowo niepodobne A tak 3 there will be no impossibility in God's sight. nig miePkata Marya /idkoby pr3e3 try mieliace Tykiejoo Diewiep paliliko ieyp ape tric menaliuc STB Ende Maria bleef by ontrent drie maenden GDB Y joltatd 3 nig Marya jakoby mieSigce Trusted in God Dufal in God Pride in God The wife then [...] zynodama —zynant kao jeyp [tojoo Ende de vrouwe [...] wetende /wat aen haer gelchiet was A [...] niewidltha /wied3ac co [ig iey pr3ydato Adesyvo constructions CHNT you don't see [...] what Sig does not know [dad is represented by: 1) an inner state, place or event in the spiritual space of a person, often perceived as a space of (God’s) presence or activity or as a place where human thoughts are located or directed emotions*: ir MK 6,14 CHNT STB GDB BRAB 2TiM 1.14 CHNT STB ktory w BRAB Jonao [...] and togdel too galibec deltic jampi Joannis [...] and therefore these powers work in him John for [...] this Si¢ cuda djieja prjezeri Jan [...] dla tegoż [ię w nim ty mocy okd3uia [augok per dwalig Pweta kuriy giwena mulimp 3achoway pr3e3 Ducha s. ktory w nas miefka Bronius Maskuliūnas (2000: 202-203) made the constructions with the verb be and with some other verbs (live, be found, lie down) preserves [...] by the Holy Geelt /who dwells in us GDB Str3e3 [...] pr3e3 Ducha Swigtego nas miefka possessive of time. The local and possessive interpretations of the adverb are not fundamentally contradictory, since the possessive meaning can be considered to be based on the local meaning. The possibility of possessive interpretation of the adverb does not affect the issues discussed in this article ir į ją will not be taken into account. 96 | MK 11.22 CHNT STB Ende ddjac /Mieycie Diewiep Jelus /antwoordende [eyde tot haer: Hebt geloove op GDB A JE3us odpowidGood r3ekl im: Miejcie wiarę w Bogd BrAB A Jezus odpowiedz3iawfy /r3ekt im wiarę Boją GINA KAVALIUNAITE O Je3uc atlakidamao, tare jump: Turekit wiarę 2) place with ka, presence in (a person's) environment: ODA 13.7 ODA 28,7 CHNT zmogumPaulus BRAB CHNT STB pr3yjawBRAB Kurfey buwo Storafteyp Sergiufiep Powilep pi ipmintingampi STB Welcke was by den Stadthouder Sergius man /eenen ver[tandigen GDB Ktory byt pr3y 5acnym Stdroscie Sergiufu Pawle /mężu roltropnym Ktory byl pr3y ltdaroscie Sergiufu Pawle czlowieku mgdrym Publiuc /.../, kurley muc pryeme i tric dienac mietey muo turejo fawimp vriendelick herberghde podejwatc Publiufd /kthory nas pr3yiawpy Publius /[[ijne] lanthoeven /die ons ontvangh /ende drie dagen GDB Publiuf: ktory pr3e3 tr3y dni py nas /pr3e3 tr3y dni pr3yjaciellkie /pr3yiaciellkie chowal gofpodsie 3) place between what, (several persons) in the environment. Only first and second w person plural pronouns are used in this sense: JN 14,25 CHNT STB powied3iBRAB APD 20.18 CHNT MT 13.56 STB van do Azyey BrAB STB GDB And BrAB Tey katbejau jumuo, budamac julimp Share things hebbe ick till you gelproken /by you lasting GpDB Tomči wam at u was miefkajac Thom¢i wam powied3ial v was miefBkdigc nog pirmoc dienoc kad atajau Asion, kaypo julimp per cieta meta buwau by u den gant[chen tijt den eerlten daag af dat ick in Alien ben aangekomen /hoe ick GDB od pierwfego dnid /ktoregom pr3yPedt geweelt ben powfyltek c3ds byt od pirwfego dnid v /jakom 3 wami ktorym wfedt do Azyey /idkom 3 wdmi po wfylthek c3ds byt Seleric taypag no negu wiloc ira mulimp? End [and [after 3ijnfe not all of us? by sioftry his i3ali wfy(tkie in our country not [3? Sioltry te} iego wpPytki i3a3 v nas nie [3? Adhesive CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIME | 97 4) place inside. This is a very rare case, and only a few examples have been found in the entire CHNT translation. This is usually the adhesive of only third-person pronouns, which are substitutes for nouns denoting inanimate objects: MT21,33 CHNT uzfodyno Winnic3ig [...] i ikale jeyp prolawina = [paultuwa STB wijngaert plantede [...] ende groef eenen wijnper(back daer in GpDB naladžit winnicę[...] y wkopatl w niey pralę BRAB naladžit winnicę [...] y wkopatl w niey pralę APR 1,3 CHNT którzy klaulo Zod3ia too pranapyltec, i którzy uztayko tey kao ira parafyta jeyp STB die hooren de woorden defer prophetie /ende die bewaren het gene in delelve gelchreven is GDB ktorzy [tuchają [tow Proroctwa tego /y 3achowywają to co w nim znak napilano BRAB* In the case of non-communicable diseases, the diagnosis is not made. In general, the CHNT adhesive is primarily associated with vitality. Adhesive verbs denoting a place inside, rather than in or between living beings, are statistically so rare that the impression is given that the pronoun adhesive is used in such cases out of inertia: third-person pronouns can be used as substitutes for nouns denoting both living beings and inanimate objects. More detailed analysis shows that the use of pronoun adjectives to denote both living beings and inanimate objects is in fact not an isolated and accidental, but a systematic phenomenon. This issue will be discussed further in detail. The traditional meaning of place near something (cf. Zinkevičius 1980: 259) in Chylinskis NT translation is not confirmed by any form of adhesive. This semantic function with the verbs of movement put, carry, push, etc. is performed by the aliative (Luke 3:9; Luke 9:62; John 19:29; Acts 20:29). 2,23; 1 COR 7,27 etc. ). 1.2 From what has been said about the semantic functions of the adverb, it appears that the most important characteristic of the CHNT nouns used in the forms of adverbs is alive (+) dead (-). The adhesive of the lexicons denoting living beings is also very common in other ancient Lithuanian writings. As Zigmas Zinkevičius points out, such use is found in 70% to 100% of all cases: in Daukša’s Postila, the first and second person plural adhesive forms of pronouns make up 45% of all examples of plural adhesive, in Bretkūnas’ Postila — 75%, and in CHNT, Sirvydas- ’s Punktuose, Jaknavičius’ Gospels and Belarminas’ Catechism only these are used (Zinkevičius 1982: 33). Wojciech Smoczynski has emphasized the importance of the category of life and lifelessness in describing the place-denoting jokes. It indicates that one (Lithuanian) tribe usually has no more than two natives. „Obserwuje się wspotwystepowanie (I) illatiwu z lokatiwem oraz (II) allatiwu z adessiwem, a to w zależności od znaczenia tematu: przy niežywot2 LMA library are defective, they lack pages, especially at the beginning and end of the book. Therefore, some examples of the Brasta Bible cannot be given. 98 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ 100 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ 101 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ 102 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ 103 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ 104 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ 105 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ 106 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ 107 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ 108 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ 109 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ 109 There is no such subject, however, to which the locus[ativus] iill[ativus], like the ade[ssivus] and all[ativus] would be formed separately” (Smoczynski 2001: 215). Typological studies show that the category of life is grammatized, i.e. those grammatical features that are in some way related to life are regularly expressed by those parts of language (or their subcategories) that are by nature more often used to denote living beings. It goes without saying that first and second person pronouns usually denote people, and therefore they more regularly denote grammatical features related to life (humanity- ); This usage can be generalized to all members of the category in question, i.e. the pronoun adhesive is used even in the rarer cases when the pronoun does not denote a living being, e.g. : MT 10,11 CHNT Ir —O kad kokian Mieltan aba kieman ateylite —ieyflit, Klaulkiteoc kac tęn —jampi ira wertas —wertu STB Ende in wat [tadt ofte vlecke ghy [ult inkomen /onderloeckt wie daer in weerdigh is GDB A do ktoregokolwiek mialta albo midltecikd wnid3iecie /wywiddujcie Sig ktoby w nim tego byt god3ien BRAB A do kogorego midlta dbo wsi wnid3iecie /wywidduycie [ig kthoryby w niey byt godsien In the Natural HIERARCHY OF LIFE (animacy hierarchy) individual parts of language and their subcategories occupy certain places according to how often in usual, prototypical situations they denote living beings. The concept of the hierarchy of life has been introduced into linguistics by Michal Silverstein, who studied the distribution of nominative and ergative notation patterns of the transitive subject (agent) and object of the sentence according to the parts of the language and their subcategories in Australian Aboriginal languages (Silverstein 1976: 122 et al.). This concept is widely applied in the study and description of many other language phenomena related to the category of vitality. In particular, the grammatical systems of the genus are mentioned here. Jolanta Mindak (1990) successfully applies the concept of hierarchy of vitality to the description of grammatical family systems in Slavic languages. The concept of the hierarchy of life is widely used in recent linguistic literature and is considered in some publications on noun categories (e.g., Stephen Anderson- 's review in the popular Timothy Shopen-edited collection on syntactic typology). The Silverstein hierarchy of vitality is presented here (see table 1) as summarized in Anderson- ’s article (1985: 183): TABLE 1. HIERARCHY OF LIFE gvumas <€ > inanimateness first second demonstrative verified as persons gyvuybutybiy dead person person bethird names names (not people) pronouns pronouns of objects pronouns of person names names names pronouns < ~ ADESYVAS CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIME | 99 CHNT The statistics of the used adesyvy quite accurately correspond to the classification set out here. Adhesive form CHNTs are used at the following frequencies: 2. TABLE. FREQUENCY OF USE OF CHNT ADESYVO BY PARTS OF LANGUAGE AND THEIR SUBCATEGORIES First-person pronouns adesives vns. manimp (44x), dgs. mūsimp (21x) Second person pronouns stickers tavimp (21x), dgs. youimp (59x) Reverse pronoun stickers savimpi (61x) Real names stickers Kristusiep (65x), Viešpatiep (55x), Jėzusiep (47x), Diewiep (44x), Tėviep (11x), Sūnumpi (4x), Simoniep (4x) etc., a total of 177 real names stickers Pronoun stickers jampi, tampi, kitampi (90x) Relative pronouns stickers kuriampi, kampi (23x) Person names stickers žmogumpi (8x) Adjectives stickers gyvampi (1x), tikrampi (1x), išmintingampi (1x) There are no stickers for living beings (not people) and inanimate objects. As can be seen from the data provided, first and second person and reverse pronoun stickers are the most common (206x), followed by real names stickers (177x), in third place — demonstrative, third person and relative pronouns stickers (113x), the rarest — personal names stickers (8x) and adjectives stickers (3x). Neither the name of living beings (not humans) nor the name of non-living objects are used in CHNT. The fact that real names are used more frequently than demonstrative and third-person pronouns does not break the system in this case. In the neutral text, the words God, Father, Son are used as generics, but here the names of the Christian God and His persons are considered proper names, and these words are statistically more frequent in the Holy Scripture than in the neutral text. The scale of the hierarchy of life is part of the broader individuation hierarchy, which is used by many linguists in their work. This concept has been successfully used to describe various morphosyntactic phenomena, particularly in relation to the use of verbs — Alan Timberlake used the concept of object individuality to study the use of the Russian negative pronoun, and John Hopper and Sandra Thomp- 100 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ son applied it as a parameter of transitiveness (Timberlake 1975: 123-139; Hopper, Thompson 1980: 251-299). The following semantic oppositions are distinguished on the scale of the individuality hierarchy according to the amount of individuality expressed: TABLE 3: HIERARCHY OF INDIVIDUALITY high degree of individuality low degree of individuality real general living non-living singular plural specific abstract CHNT The semantic characteristics of the adjectives used in CHNT correspond exactly to the characteristics of the high degree of individuality listed here: most of the adjectives consist of real names, only the adjectives of nouns denoting living beings are used, the adjectives of the singular are predominant, only the adjectives of the plural of first and second person pronouns are used (most closely related to the grammatical life), the adjectives of abstract nouns are not used. Thus, the analysis of Chylinski’s language data confirms Zinkevičius’ observed tendency to use the forms of the adesive when speaking about living beings. It is more commonly used as an adhesive for those parts of language and their subcategories that occupy higher positions in the hierarchy of vitality. Differences in the frequency of the use of adjectives within one part of the language (i.e., when the degree of grammatical vitality is equal) can be described based on the hierarchy of individuality. 2. ADMINISTRATION OF ADESYV IN PLACE OF INESYV AND RETURNS 2.1. In the literature on postpositional localities this problem is given considerable attention. The reasons for the confusion of inessive and adhesive are explained in two ways. Most scholars hold the view that the difference between the functions of adhesive and inessive disappeared in the language itself (Laigonaitė 1957: 27; Palionis 1967: 120, 170; Rosinas 1995: 65; 2001: 140-143; Gelumbeckaitė 1996: 158; 1997: 189-190; Maskuliūnas 2000: 205-206), while others believe that their use in texts translated from Luther's Bible was conditioned by the influence of the sources of translation: „Die Frage, ob diese Vertauschung eine volkssprachige Grundlage hat, mochte ich verneinen. [...] I therefore assume that the interchange of adjective and locative (inessive) is ultimately template-abhūngigist” (Range 1995: 99-101). The analysis showed that the values of CHNT adhesive and inessive are quite clearly distinguished. The significance of adhesion in CHNTs is primarily related to vitality and location. The inessive is never used to indicate an event in the consciousness of living beings, it describes the place of an action or thing, the time of action, the place between something, the spread. The first and second person plural adverbs are used to mark the place between something, the spread of something, the third person pronouns go in the plural inessive: they, the hierarchy of life, ADESYVAS CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIME | 101 occupying a lower position in the chija, no longer had the plural forms of adesyvas. The number of these categories is also determined by a number of factors. As can be seen from the Index compiled by Czesław Kudzinowski (1964), CHNT does not contain any personal nouns, pronouns I, you, the lexicals God, Father, Jesus, Christ, etc. Of the 4117 inestives used in CHNT, only a few represent living beings. These are plural inestives in people (9x), prophets (5x), all (1x) and singular inestives in person (1x), bob (1x), mother (1x). These few cases will be discussed below: 1) plural inesyves in people (9x): MK 10,27 CHNT Zmonela tey ira nepadabna, but not Diewiep. 18,27 KJV Kao ira nepadabna jmonela, diewiep ira padabni STB De dingen die onmogelick 3ijn bij de menfchen /3ijn mogelick by GDB V ludjič to niemo3no /dle nie u Bogt: dbowié u Boga wpyltko znak mo3no BRAB /Vludjic to ielt niepodobno /ale nie v Boga /Abowiem v Boga wfyltko ielt podobno Lk 18,27 KJV Kao ira nepadabna jmonela, diewiep ira padabni STB De dingen die onmogelick 3ijn bij de menfchen /3ijn mogelick by Good GpB Co jelta nie mozna u ludsi /možna jelta u Boga BRAB To co ielt niepodobno v lud3i /podobno ielt v Bogd Since the examples in question refer to living persons, we should expect an adverb here, all the more so since the translation sources use typical adverbs in the respective places. We could explain the appearance of the inessive in people in this place by the fact that Chylinski did not use the plural adjectives of nouns at all and, not having the proper form of the inessive in his language system, used the inessive instead. This idea is confirmed by the adjacent adverb Dievep, which is used in exactly the same position and with the same meaning. Chylinski used the plural adjective of first and second person pronouns to mean between, but if the meaning is indicated by a noun or third person pronoun, it always goes in the plural inessive. 2) plural inesyve in the prophets (5x): ArD 13,40 CHNT kao ira palakita pranapofe STB 't gene geleght is in de Propheten GbpB to co powied3iano w Prorocech BRAB to co powied3iano w Prorocech Inesyve in the prophets means "in the books of the prophets- ", so in this case the place marked by the inesyve is not related to life. Purely theoretically in such a position it would be possible to use and ade- 108 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ used the inessive of first and second person pronouns and the returning pronoun in the spiritual space, although she sometimes corrected it into an adjective; 2) in the meaning of the place between what Bretkūnas, unlike Chylinskis, used the inessive of the first and second person plural pronouns. This can be seen as a confusion between inessive and adhesive. In other ancient writings, only the confusion of the inessive and the adesive of the third-person pronouns has been found. The reasons for such confusion probably lie in the language system itself: the boundaries of the meanings of inessive and adhesive in different authors may not coincide. In the language system of some authors the use of the adesive was associated with a higher degree of individuality (Chylinskis), while in others (Daukša, Sirvydas) its scope of use could also include members of a lower degree of individuality. The question of why Bretkūnas’ writings use inesy much more widely than other authors should be examined separately. 3. CONCLUSIONS RELATIONSHIP WITH TRANSLATION SOURCES. The main equivalents of the adhesive constructions used in CHNT are the prepositional constructions of local significance ol. in + DAT. /Acc. (58%) beilen.w + Loc. (60%), more rarely in the corresponding places we find ol. by + DAT. (23%) and len. u + GEN. (22%). The remainder is the equivalent of ol. op + DAT. /Acc., for + DAT. / Acc.,aen + DAT. /Acc. be there. pry + Loc., pr3e3 + Acc., 3 + INSTR. There were no trends that any of the constructions promoted the use of the adhesive. In the corrections, the constructions of the adjective, which in the Dutch text correspond to by + DAT., are occasionally changed to pas + Acc., with + INSTR., but there is no reason to say that these corrections are conditioned by the sources of the translation. VARTOSENA. Adhesive constructions denote a place in the spiritual space of living beings, a place with something, in someone's environment and a place between something, a spread (only first and second person plural adhesives of pronouns are used in this sense). The location of the adhesive structure in dead objects is indicated by CHNTs extremely rarely, only a few such cases have been found. The place to which the meaning of CHNT adhesive is not used. Adhesive meaning CHNT is directly related to grammatical vitality, i.e. more frequently used adhesive forms of those parts of the language that denote living beings. The adhesives used by CHNT correspond exactly to the Silverstein hierarchy of vitality (the most commonly found genders of the first and second person pronouns, slightly less often — real names, third person pronouns, even less often — the genders of the adhesive for personal names; There are no adhesive forms for the names of living beings (not humans) and inanimate objects) and the individuality of the hierarchy of individuality (more often used adhesives of real names and parts of speech, occupying a higher position in the hierarchy of living, adhesives of singular forms of adhesive are incomparably more common than plural, only adhesives of specific nouns are used). This confirms Zinkevičius’s finding that adhesive forms are used more frequently when referring to living beings, and Smoczynski’s conclusion that there is an additional distribution relationship between adhesive and inessive, respectively, between aliative and iliative, according to the opposite of vivid and inanimate. ADMINISTRATION OF INESYV IN THE PLACE OF ADMINISTRATION AND OFFERS 1. Such cases, when inesyvo and adesyvo are used in the same construction and the principle of combination is not violated (I. Matheiupj tapagaliauliagi Galwagi MzK 24, „;ira and wilo i per wic, i ju/imp wilofe CHNT EF 4,6 and so on), are not to be considered as confusion of inesyvo and adesyvo 109 facts: both Sie are verbally used in the meaning of place, the adesive is used for parts of language or their categories that occupy a higher position in the hierarchy of individuality or vitality, 0 is inessive — parts of language expressing less individuality and their subcategories. This is the additional distribution determined by semantic features. 2. Although the first and second person plural adesives CHNT are used in the sense of place between what and spread, the third person plural inesives of pronouns in them and the plural inesives in people are not to be considered as examples of confusion of the adesive and the inesives, because the plural of third person pronouns and nouns, as a weakly individualized category, did not have plural adesive forms in Chylinski language. Therefore, instead of adhesive, inessive is used here. Similarly in other ancient writings: įmonefe bediewiūfemp and neyGtikumūlfemp DP 44., „and others 3. In Chylinski's language, the boundaries between the meaning of inessive and adhesive are clearly distinguished and almost never confused. There are only a few such examples found in the NT, and it happens that the inessive (third-person pronoun) used instead of the adesive is corrected into the adesive (MT 23,21). 4. Undoubted facts of confusion of inessive and adessive in Bretkūnas’ writings should be considered the use of first and second person pronouns and the returning pronoun ([šlalumas kuris tawije —tawipi ira BNT LK 11,35 etc.) inessive and adessive to mark the place in the spiritual space of living beings and the first and second person plural inessive and adessive of pronouns to mark the place between what (tu daiktu, kurie mufui —mufip nulsidawe BNT Lx 1,1 etc.). In other ancient writings, inessive and adesive are confused when third-person pronouns are used to mark a place in the spiritual space of living beings (Dwalia S. būwo iame DP 426,, J Dwalia buwo iaimp DP 426.,,..) and when inessive and adesive plurals of third-person pronouns or real names and personal names are used to mark a place between (nera iumpi teylibes PS, 130,, „,; nera iuofe [weykatos PS, 125, „; turėtų will/ados malonę Diewiep ir gerūliamp jmonefemp DP 67; įmonefe bediewiūlemp ir neyfštikimūfemp DP 44_, „,). SIGNS [...] —banknote Zmog[us] —restored abbreviation ——changed to > —synonym {...} —not included | —start editing Z abcStrikethrough ABBREVIATIONS Acc. —accusativus (accusatives) ADES. —adessivus (the current deputy of the ward) ALLAT. —allativus (alternating deputy) A gift. —dative (noun) Page 110 | 111 GEN. —genitivus (genitive) ILLAT. —illativus (interim domestic deputy) INSTR. —instrumental len. —in Polish Loc. —locativus (current domestic placeholder) NOM. —nominative ol. —in Dutch SANTRUMPOS BNT —NAVIAS TESTAMENTAS. Ing Lietuwilchka Liel5uwi perrafchitas per lana Bretkuna Labguwos Plebona. 1580. Quoted from Range J.D., Scholz, Fr. eds., THE NEW TESTAMENT. Ing Lietuwilchka Liefzuwi perralchitas per lana Bretkuna [...] 1580, Faksimile der Handschrift 7 ir 8, 1991, Paderborn-Miinchen-Wien-Ziirich. BP —POSTILLA tatai elti Trumpas and Praltas Ilchguldimas Euangeliu [...] Per lana Bretkuna Lietuvos King's Promise. 1{[paufta King George of Offenberger. 1591. pp. 1591. BRAB —Biblia swigta, Tho iest, Ksiggi Old y New Testament, spring from Jewish, Greek, y Lacinijski, new nd Polish game with diligence y faithfully cast, [Brzeszcz], 1563. CHNT -Czestaw Kudzinowski, Jan Otrebski, Lithuanian Bible of Chyliriski. New Testament 2, Text, Poznan: Zaktad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, 1958. DP -Postilla CATHOLICKA Tdi elt: Iguldimas Ewangeliu kiekwienos Nedelos and ffwgtes per willis years. In the 1990s, the 100-year-- old castle was restored to its former glory. With wald and daldidimu wireufiuiuy W Wilniui /Drukarnioi Academy SOCIETY IESU. A.D. 1599. GDB -Biblia swigta, Tho iest, Ksiggi of the Old and New Covenant of the Jewish and Greek Language and Polish diligently and faithfully translated |[...], [Dantzig], 1632. MzK —-CATECHISMVSA PRAlty S3adei, Makllas (kaitima Rachta yr gielmes del kriklcjianiltes bei del berneliu iaunu nauiey lugulditas KARALIAVCZVI VIII. dena Meneles Saufia, Metu vfsgimima Gods. M.D.XLVII. PS —PVNKTY KAZAN od Adventu dj do Poltu, Lithuanian igzykiem, z wyttumdczeniem nd Polskie BY Książę KONSTANT Szyrwid | Theologd Societatis IESV | BY PERMISSION OF STARSZYCH wyddne. In Vilnius, in the Drukarnia Akddemiey Societatis IEsv Roku M.DC.XXIX. STB -Biblia, That Is The Whole Holy Scripture, Containing All The Canonical Books Of The Old And New Testament. By lalt der Hoogh-Mog: Heren Staten Generael van de Vereenighde Nederlanden [...] Uyt de Oorlpronkelijcke talen in onfe Nederlandtche tale getrouwelijck over-gelet [...] ende Door gemeene orde der Nederlandlche Kercken verbeterd van Druckfauten en Misltellingen die in den Eersten Druck gevonden worden. T'Amsteldam, Printed by the Widow of the late Paulus Aert(z van Ravefteijn [...] in 1657. LITERATURA ANDERSON, S. R. 1985: Inflectional morphology. Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3, Grammatical categories and the lexicon, Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press., 151-201. FRAENKEL, E. 1929: Syntax der litauischen Postpositionen und Pripositionen, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. GELUMBECKAITE, J. 1996: Vulgatos prielinksniniy konstrukcijų santykis su inesyvu J. Bretkūno „Evangelijos pagal Luką“ vertime. Baltistica 31 (1), 155-161. GELUMBECKAITE, J. 1997: Postpoziciniai vietininkai J. Bretkūno „Evangelijos pagal Luką“ vertime. Baltistica 32 (2), 179-202. GELUMBECKAITE, J. 1999: Linksniy ir prielinksniniy konstrukcijų vartosena Jono Bretkūno „Evangelijos pagal Luką“ vertime. Daktaro disertacijos rankraštis, Lietuvių kalbos institutas. HOPPER, P. J., THOMPSON, S. A. 1980: Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 251-299. ADESYVAS CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIME | 111 KAVALIONAITE, G. 2001: Chylinskio Naujojo Testamento vertimas ir jo šaltiniai: įrašai bei teksto taisymai. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 44, 105-128. KAZLAUSKAS, J. 2000: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. 1 d., Rinktiniai raštai 1, parengė A. Rosinas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. KupziNOwsKI, Cz. 1964: Biblia Litewska Chylinskiego. Nowy Testament 3, Indeks, Poznan: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. LAIGONAITĖ, A. 1957: Pašalio vietininkai dabartinėje kalboje. Lemchenas, Ch., red., Kai kurie lietuvių kalbos gramatikos klausimai, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 21-39. MASKULIŪNAS, B. 2000: Dėl vieno posesyvumo raiškos atvejo senuosiuose raštuose. Baltistica 34 (2), 199-208. MINDAK J. 1990: Językowa kategoria žywotnošci w polszczyznie i stowiariszezyžnie (na tle innych jezykow swiata). Proba ujęcia typologicznego, Wroctaw: Ossolineum. PALIONIS, J. 1967: Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI-XVII a., Vilnius: Mintis. RANGE, J.-D. 1992: Kommentierte Edition des Bandes 7 der altlitauischen Bibeliibersetzung (Evangelien und Apostelgeschichte) von Joh. Bretke, Labiau 1580. Habilitationsschrift, vorgelegt dem Fachbereich 13 Romanistik-Slavistik der Westfalischen Wilhelmsuniversitit Minster. RANGE, J.-D. 1995: Allativ und Adessiv in altlitauischen Texten des 16. Jahrhunderts. Linguistica Baltica 4, 96-102. RosINAS, A. 1995: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai: morfologijos raida, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. RosiNAs, A. 2000: Inesyvo ir adesyvo formų kilmės ir raidos klausimu. Baltistica 34 (2), 173-183. RosiNAs, A. 2001: Mikalojaus Daukšos tekstų įvardžių semantinė ir morfologinė struktūra, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. SILVERSTEIN, M. 1976: Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Dixon, R.M.W., ed., Grammatical categories in Australian languages, New Jersey: Humanities Press (Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Linguistics Series, 22), 112-171. SmoczyNskl, W. 2001: Przypadki lokalne jezykow battyckich. 1d., Jezyk litewski w perspektywie porownawczej, Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagielloniskiego, 214-216. TIMBERLAKE, A. 1975: Hierarchies in the genitive of negation. Brecht, R. D., Levine, J. S., eds., Case in Slavic, Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, 338-359. ZINKEVICIUS, Z. 1980: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika 1, Vilnius: Mokslas. ZINKEVICIUS, Z. 1982: Lietuviy kalbos postpoziciniai vietininkai. Baltistica 18 (1), 21-38. Gina Kavaliūnaitė Gauta 2001 10 04 Lietuviy kalbos institutas Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected]