Nauji prancūzų mokslininko darbai apie lietuvių kalbą

what the distribution. jų It is an important contribution ne only to į grammar theory. A detailed description tų of all variants is very necessary ir for language practice. After closing the last page of “Functional Grammar of Lithuanian Language”, we must say that this is a capital description of the grammar system of Lithuanian language, which summarizes only the author’s own ne researches on grammar, but opens up space for ir newly raised problems. ir Be This work cannot be done only by linguist ne professionals, but also by Lithuanian teachers, ir philologist students and more knowledgeable users of the common Lithuanian language. The grammar, which was tastefully attractively published by the Institute ir for Publishing Scientific Encyclopedias ir of the State Lithuanian Language Commission Lietuvos Republics With the Seimas funds, he significantly enriches the treasure of Lithuanian linguistics. Albertas Ruže Vilnius University Kaunas Faculty of Humanities NEW FRENCH SCIENTIFIC WORKS ABOUT LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE Daniel Petit Presentation de la Lithuanian language. — Lalies. Actes des sessions linguistique de littėrature et de 19, Paris, 1999, 7-22. Phonology of Lithuanian. Systėme vowels and accentuation. — Up. cit., 23—42. Morphologie nominale du Lithuanian. Le system of declinations et I'expression du genre grammatical. - Up. cit., 43-74. Verbal Morphology of Lithuanian. Diathesis and passive voice. - Up. cit., 75-111. Lithuanian syntax. Syntax of participles. — Up. cit., 113-135. About the Lithuanian Sambaris: The root IE. *bheren eastern baltic. —Bulletin of the Society de Linguistics de Paris 93(1998), fasc. 1, 229-288. The study of Lithuanian language in France has long traditions since the time of Ferdinand de Saussure, Antoine Meillet, Robert Gauthiot; They were later continued by Raymond Schmittlein, Paul Garde, Jean Haudry and other linguists who wrote about the Lithuanian language and used its data for comparative and typological studies. However, in recent decades, with the emergence of new Baltic studies centres in Poland, Italy, Germany and other countries, Lithuanian studies in France have been somewhat weakened. Therefore, the whole series of books by the young French linguist Daniel 214 Petit works on Lithuanian phonology, grammar and lexicology. ir Published in Paris by the École Normale Supérieure (School Normal Lalies, the linguistic chronicle of the École Normale Supérieure, whose 19th volume contains the majority of the works in the language, has for several years now devoted the bulk of its volume to the peculiarities of individual languages (e.g., the new Greek, Etruscan, Arabic, Coptic). The first volume of this chronicle (1979) published the work of the famous Indo-Europeanist Jean Haudry, au “Introduction comparative lituanien”. Five Daniel Petit’s study on the grammar structure of the Lithuanian language covers 135 voluminous pages of the 19th volume, thus already in its volume it is equivalent to a monograph. The introductory article (7—22) discusses the place of Baltic languages in the Indo-European language family, the most important differences between Eastern and Western Baltic languages (mainly caused by Eastern Baltic innovations), the conservatism of Lithuanian language. In describing the oldest contacts with the Western Finnic, Slavic and Germanic languages, the author shows the gradual narrowing of the Baltic languages’ area and the oldest differences in the dialects of the Lithuanian language (by the way, on p. 19 they are dated according to tradition to the 13th century, although according to recent research they are probably older). The following are the main monuments of writing and the further development of the language is described in general terms. This brief introduction to Lithuanian language is very informative, written accurately, methodically, summarizing the latest literature. It is only necessary to clarify the statement that Daukša’s Postila is written in the western dialect of Žemaitija („dans un dialecte bas-lituanien de |'Ouest“ 19) — it is apparently due to the ambiguous use of the name Žemaitija in Lithuanian sources. I would think that the coincidence of the 3rd person plural and singular forms of verbs should not be regarded as a loss of the Balts (9), because it may be a remnant of the grila antiquity'. The article on the phonetics of Lithuanian language focuses on the vowel system and accentuation, which has long been of interest to world linguists due to its unique synthesis of dynamic and tonal accent. Continuing the French linguistic tradition“ the author describes the differences between long and short vowels, as well as strong and weak vowels, diphthongs and mixed diphthongs in the Lithuanian language on the basis of the theory of diphthongs: short vowels are considered monophonic, long vowels, diphthongs and diphthongs — diphthongs; The long fixed-ends are considered to have a pronounced first mora (i = U + u, du = A + u,ar = A+r), the long fixed-ends — the second mora (i = u + U, att = a + U,ar = a + R). The types of noun pronunciation are distinguished according to the tendency of the word to be pronounced (root-terminal pronunciation) and the intonational structure of the root. Pisani 1958: 343; Toporov 1961: 62-63; Kazlauskas 1968: 303; Watkins 1969: 49 et seq., 85, 126, 213 et seq. ; 1970: 166—-170; Ivanov 1981: 58-59. > Martinet 1960; Garde 1968: 14 et al., similarly Trubetzkoy 1977: 180. 215 (roots of — sturnum). The four types of pronunciation thus distinguished correspond to the traditional accents, but are marked differently: A2=1, B2=2, A1=3, B1=4 (32). The implementation of the above-mentioned basic principles of pronunciation in various contexts is discussed below. Here, in particular, focuses on the paradigm of ne į constant — mobility, mą o į individually defined for each syllable root-end interjection ratios. ir In this respect, the author’s description of noun pronunciation differs from the usual Lithuanian accentology. Because of its particularly complex ir structure, accentuation in Lithuanian language is, in the author’s opinion, an important subject not only of historical, but ne also of typological research. In ir the section on noun morphology, the relation of Lithuanian conjugation (43-74) types to the category of gender is examined in detail. su The types of conjugation themselves, or conjugations, as is now usual in descriptive Lithuanian grammar, are distinguished according to the flexional stems; the deficiencies of the previous classification and numbering. It is observed that the disappearance of the noun ir genitive caused a tendency to polarize the masculine feminine genitive conjugation types: the masculine feminine genitive conjugation types diverged. ir (i)a/u, feminine o/é mixed type of — conjugation. ir The hypothesis is i that it was ca. “general genus” historically relies on abstracts of the feminine genus, cf. pabdisa — baisa ‘baimé’, gyra ‘pagyrunas’ — gyra ‘gyrimas’; based on ir ta the fact that many vad. The nouns of the “common family” are verb derivatives, e.g.: dilba delbti, niūra niūrti. : : The generalization of old feminine genus abstracts (death, thought) explains the ir dominance of the feminine genus among tų i some nouns, no which in other ide. in languages since ancient times were male genders (e.g. sheep, fire). It is believed that the tendency to assign nouns of the old consonant stem to the chief of the stem is based on family. (n — g., stem r mot. — (g) may be related to some root su nouns r (e.g., *bhratér, plg. lie. broterélis) (52-53). Since the conjugation of adjectives is most prominently distributed on the basis of the genus, it is assumed that the adjective system may have been a model according to which nouns ti were redistributed accordingly. ir The morphological similarity of ir the flexional roots of noun adjectives has created favorable conditions for this process. (60). Ta i increase type relics), which can also explain the diversity of i the root noun genus. Having examined the differences of the genus stems in the paradigms of ordinary nominative ir adjectives (cf. didis —didė, but didysis —didžioji, etc.), the author comes to the conclusion that the basis of the correlations of the genus of adjectives in the Lithuanian language is formed by two systems inherited from the Indo-European antiquity: 1) pagringinė: we g. -as, mot. g. -a < ide. *-0s, *-a; 2) secondary: vir. g. -us, mot. g. -i < ide. *IH,, *ieH; the model -is typical of the present Lithuanian language: -¢ (idl: oi is considered a variant of the basic system derived from -ė from *-ia < ide. *ieH, (67). The flexive stem ė, predominant in the correlation of masculine and feminine nouns denoting persons or animals, is also considered innovative 216 (wolf — wolf, lamb — lamb, deer — deer, sleeper — sleeper). Senoving correlation a : 0 (< *o : *a, plg. skr. dšvah ‘arklys’ : ashva ‘kumele’) still has substantimva obilia su prepositions -tojas, -€jas, plg.: teacher teacher, : carrier carrier. : It is believed to change *i-a í-é į here is hindered by the need to keep the same prepositional forms, because *i-ė had to be phonetically transformed -ė (68). The morphology of the verbs (75-111) examines the decay of the ir diathesis. vo Diathesis is defined by the author as the morphological expression of the relation of su the actants to the verb, but focuses (78), on the contradiction of transitivity and intransitivity, — which is expressed in the following ways: 1) tų the forms of the verbs themselves, prefixation, 2) internal 3) flexion (resp. Apophony), 4) external flexion (by adverbs) agglutination (by ir conjugated verbs). The following is ma a synchronous ir diachronic overview of these methods. The oldest, relative, reasonably considered expression of diathesis in the same verb forms (e.g.: germinate, grow). Pairs of — prepositional non-prepositional verbs also do not form a true antagonism on the basis of transitiveness; stressed that some prepositional verbs (e.g. leave) also from seturi no double (t. y. type 1) diathesis. The use of internal flexion, t. y. apophony, to express the opposite of — transitivity and intransitivity is discussed as a distinctive innovative process of the Baltic languages. The author jį associates the su apophony of some verb adjectives with the suffix *to, formose (to drink: drunk, to raise : raised), describes ir different flexional stems, formant *st6 and the infix role. It is stated that this way of expressing diatesis in the Baltic languages was productive, but did not acquire a systematic character for two reasons: first, apophony is possible only in the roots of some verbs (formal factor), secondly, intransitive verbs usually denoted natural or spontaneous processes: the wind rises, the branches bend, etc. (92-93). Here we could add that the opposition of transitive — intransitive verbs with different degrees of vowel change (keisti : kisti, lefikti : linkti, ir etc.) in the Baltic languages probably formed on the basis of the opposition of the older active action — self-state. The relatively recent formation of the contradiction between transitivity and intransitivity is shown not only by morphological, but also by syntactic processes that are clearly visible in the — history of Lithuanian language: the weakening of the independent role of verbs, their semantic combination with the verb turning into grammatical dependence, the strengthening of verb control. Before becoming a means of expressing transitivity—intransitivity, the apophony of the verb root eX: X in Baltic languages probably had a semantic (derivate) character, which has partly survived to this day. Infixation (unlike apophony) does not depend on the root structure and is used in various ways to express the opposites of transitivity and intransitivity: transitivity can be marked by a prepositional verb (dugti — augti), non-prepositional (sverti — svėrdyti), both members of the opposite can be prepositional (gražėti — grūžinti), sufixation is combined in various ways with apophony (sėsti — sodinti, etc.). Most often the sign of transitiveness has verbs with prepositions 217 su -inti ir -yti, but these suffixes together give the verbs other meanings: the suffix inti is usually made ir causative, the suffix su - su -yti iterative — verbs, only when added to intransitive ir verb roots the suffix yti changes the diathesis. - jų Thus, the iš author’s reviews clearly show that infixation based on the opposition of ir transitive intransitive verbs in — Lithuanian language is not grammatized, has a semantic and adjective nature. In some cases, the conjugative formant of verbs in Lithuanian has become a productive means of expressing intransitivity. The author traditionally si considers the dative to be the primary meaning, but this is not easy (100), to reconcile with the old prevailing function of elimination of su the accusative ir complement, which later enabled the regressive verbs to become other ide. languages in ancient times, the gų equivalents of medial forms. The thesis briefly describes the most important groups of recursive verbs, among which the potential and conditional ir reflexives close to the passive are indicated. (the field was well sown; they ate plenty of bread). Such cases of use are considered marginal (by the way, this is indicated by the lexical ir limitation of verbs); a reasonable conclusion is drawn that returning verbs, although productive, have not evolved to ir become passive in Lithuanian, as they have in Slavic languages (103). From the point of view of language typology, such passive-like constructions (the so-called quasi-passive reflexes) are considered to be a link between the decausatives and the passive, which suggests that the Baltic languages have ir retained an o older state in this respect. Discussing the comparatively new expression of passive with perifrastinal constructions with passive su participants, the author highlights the peculiar ways of expression of passive in Lithuanian: passive making only the accusative, but other conjugations of controlling ne verbs, as well as iš intransitive verbs. ir iš (vad. impersonal passive). It is concluded that iš ide. inherited Lithuanian language verb system due to loss of medium intransitive forms construction ir characteristics of the history of existence lacking internal means to form je passive had to use external forms, participants ir t. y. (107). The last chapter of the grammar studies (113-134) discusses the syntax of Lithuanian language participants by summarizing the In Lithuania. The author emphasizes that the Lithuanian language has expanded all the possibilities of participant usage inherited from Indo-European antiquity, and this shows the central place of participants in the syntactic structure of the language (132). In the study “On the Lithuanian k. Sambaris: ide. The root *bherrytų in Baltic languages“ the author examined in detail Lithuanian words with the root ber-/bir-, taking into account the equivalents in related languages. The 1987-1988 season was 351:351. 218 su It's going. *bher- “to carry', in the eastern Baltic languages has a distinct, different meaning ‘to pour, to pour a bulk thing'. The author tries to discern the Indo-European usage of the word sambaris, meaning in Lithuanian: “complex feasts of the end of sowing or harvest*, “(shepherds’ feasts during the Pentecost’, ‘collection, collection’, ‘add things money’. Based ar on old writings, folklore dialects, the work shows ir how the various stem forms of this word are used (sambaris, sambariai, simbaras, sambara, sūmbarē, simbarés) ir ju equivalents in Latvian. It is noted that the word sambari was an ancient ritual of farmers, which had two parts: the collection of grains, the bringing and the general eruption of them. The first part of the ritual, according to the author, reflects the oldest meaning of the verb suberti ‘to gather’, which also has the Slavic equivalent sibirati. From the second part of that ritual — the grain scatter — could have developed the meaning of the root verb “to scatter grains)", later generalized to the scatter of other small objects. The reconstructed verb *smi-bher- ‘to gather’ for both Baltic and Slavic languages, however, in Slavic languages its derivative sitborit, due to the influence of Greek cuvayoynmn, has come to mean “assembly of priests, cathedral”, while in Baltic languages the original meaning of this verb was applied not to people, but to the collection of grain offerings. The author comes to the conclusion that due to different paths of development and independently occurring semantic processes lies. cymbalum and sl. stiborii should not be regarded as traces of the common cult of the Balto-Slavs.” This brief overview of Daniel Petit’s works probably shows that they deal with important problems of ir Lithuanian linguistics. The works are very contentful, compact, they highlight good knowledge of the researched subjects and a high level of philological culture. They will certainly contribute to the further resolution of the issues discussed. The author is well acquainted with the literature of modern Baltic linguistics, he relies on the latest works of Lithuanian linguists, bringing them into the circulation of European linguistic thought. The author is fluent in Lithuanian language and works with its data; I would just like to correct the construction glad to be praised (130), apparently artificially made up by wants to be praised. In the numerous Lithuanian examples I did not find any proofreading errors, only one other minor one in nouns: Velius = Vėlius (9, 18, 22), Rindaugas = Mindaugas (18), Genušienė = Geniušienė (102, 103, 108). In general, the works of Daniel Petit mentioned here are significant for the progress of Baltistics and deserve the close attention of Lithuanianists. After reading them, it becomes clear that a talented researcher of Baltic languages has appeared in the Francophone world. We are now looking forward to his further work in this area. * Pietro Dini 1995: 147-152 puts forward this common hypothesis. LITTERACY Dini P 1995: A about old du sl. ssbors. — Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia Ioannis Safarewicz Memoriae Dicata, ed. W. Smoczyniski, Cracoviae: University, 147-152. Guard P. 1968: L’accent, Paris: Presses Academics de France. Geniuses E. 1987: The Typology of Reflexives, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Ivanov The wind. Vs. 1981: HBanos Bsu. Be. Craeanckuii, 6amiickuti u pannedanxanckui 21az2on. Hndoespaneiickue ucmoku, Mocksa: Hey. Kazlauskas J. 1968: Historical grammar of Lithuanian language (pronunciation, noun, verbword), Vilnius: A thought. Martinet A. 1960: Elements de de linguistique générale, Paris: Armand Colin. Pisani V. 1958: East European reconstructed. — Language 7. Toporov V. N. 1961: Tonopos B. H. K sBoripocy 06 3BOoJrtormM1H CTaBSHCKOIO H Gajithuckoto's revolt. — Bonpochi caaesnckoz2o szvikosnanus S, 35-70. Trubetzkoy N. S. 1977: Fundamentals of the Phonologie, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Watkins C. 1969: Indo-European languages Grammar 3: Theory of forms 1: History of Indo-European Verbal flexion, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Watkins C. 1970: Remarks on Baltic verb inflection. — Baltic Linguistics, ed. Magner T., Schmalstieg W. R., University Park and London: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Vytautas Ambrazas Office language tips. Corrected ir supplementary edition / Institute of Lithuanian Language; [prepared by Pranas Kniūkšta), Vilnius: Publicatiir ons of the Institute of Science Encyclopedias, 1998, 339 p. The 1993 edition of the “Office Language Tips” and the 1994 re-edition of the same were no longer available in the bookstores, and many of those who had purchased this favorite book had read it quite a lot. Since this type of book is relevant and necessary for those who manage business correspondence, for a large number of civil servants, and because a lot has changed over the past few years, the Language Culture Department of the Lithuanian Language Institute has prepared a new, revised and supplemented edition of “Office Language Tips”. In preparing this book, the authors (the main editor and curator Pranas Kniūkšta) had to review the phenomena and facts of the office language themselves and select them. It was abandoned outdated and disappeared from the business papers. In the “Tips” are no longer included such words as atsinešti (to express attitude, behaviour- ), davinys (to describe facts, data), išnešti (when there is no carrying, e.g., to carry out a decision, proposal, reprimand) and others. As headings are included about two hundred in the past year in case letters arisen or started to use more actively rights, administrative 220