Lietuvių kalbos papildinio vardininko su bendratimi kilmė

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVIII (1997) Vytautas AMBRAZAS LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES ADDITIONAL GARDININKO SU BENDRATIMI ORIGIN 0.1. Iš archaeology ir comparative linguistics research is known that the eastern Baltic tribes approximately VI a. po Kr. moved from the right bank of the Daugava north began į to form in ir the present North ir In the territory of Central Latvia. The dialects of the western Finns who lived there since ancient times were eventually assimilated, o jų and the substratum played a decisive role in the splitting of the eastern Baltic ir proto-language into the Latvian language. At the same time, the Slavs began to expand ir northwestward. By the 8th-9th į centuries, ir the Eastern Slavic tribes had spread into the area of present-day northern Russia They then ir settled in the area, assimilating the Finns who lived there. These processes must have resulted in large zones of intensive linguistic contact, interference, and substrate/superstratum in the northern part of the eastern Baltic and eastern Slavic dialects. These dialects are still linked by a whole series of common features of phonetics, lexicon and grammar. One of the common syntactic isoglosses in this area is the noun of the adverb in constructions with the participle, the participle, and in some cases with other verb forms. The term'substantive' applies to impersonal constructions in which the communicative or other form of transitive verbs is associated with a noun having the same function as the suffix in the corresponding personal sentences: lie. need to cut hay (e.g. have to cut hay); la. zifgs Vajadze mazgat' “the horse will need to be bathed”; ru. nado trava kosit'‘must cut the grass'; suom. faytyy kisjoittaa entry “need to write a letter". This type of construction is common in various Finnish languages (Collinder 1957: 217, 300, 323, 427; Timberlake 1974: 210—215). In Indo-European languages, however, the nominative is a communicative complement only in the already mentioned north-western area: in the northern dialects of Russian and in the writings of the 12th-18th centuries reflecting their characteristics, in various dialects of Latvian, and in Lithuanian — in the eastern and southern highlands! The Lithuanian names of the noun, adjective, etc. are used to denote the syllables of Lithuanian and Latvian languages, and the international terms of the nominative, accusative, etc. are used to refer to other languages with more or less different syllable systems. 93 in the dialects ir of some western Highlanders (by Data from the Lithuanian language atlas — į database south of the approximate line Jonava — Čėkiškė — Šakiai - Sinnauts. The origins of the construction in the East ir Baltic Slavic languages are discussed in many works. Two main directions can be distinguished in these interpretations. 0.2. The first group of speakers inherited the Indo-European language from su their ancestors. It is assumed that the iš nominative in it originally had the function of a factor, the communicative is the dative of iš a verb noun signifying purpose. This is a list of the most commonly o used names in ancient languages. su This direction is most prominently represented by Jablonski in Baltic studies. (1935: 29—33; 1957: 458-459) ir Endzelynas (1951: § 392), in Slavistics — Potebnja (1958: 405407), Borkovskis (1949: 347-350), Stepanovas (1984) ir kt Constructions have survived mą only on the northern edge of the Indo-European language range Kiparskis (1960, 1969) explained the conservative influence of neighbouring Finnish languages, which helped to keep the nominative inherited construction; this view was supported by Jacobsson (1964). The most important representative of the second direction is Timberlake (1974), has dedicated a special monograph to this issue. He concluded that the nominative of the Eastern Baltic Northern Russian ir languages in constructions with communicative and nominative su in all cases has the function of complement, its usage differs from other Indo-European languages coincides with the corresponding of the West Finnish languages, therefore it is considered a "syntactic ir borrowing of su some West Finnish language". iš (1974: 220). The influence of Finnish languages on the use of adjective nominative in Russian has been established ir by other researchers (plg. Veenker 1967: 158). The above views are usually considered to be opposite, confronting (plg. Timberlake 1974: 153-154, 220-224; Dunn 1982: 505, 526). In both cases, the nominative with the communicative is seen as a construction of a constant structure, in which the nominative denoting the semantic object of the communicative has either the function of a factor (in the first case) or of an adverb (in ir the second case)." However, the data of Lithuanian-Latvian dialects show that the function of the nominative in all its combinations with the participle cannot be interpreted equally. The results of the study of communicative usage, already published by the author (1987, 1995), confirm the view of the origin of communicative from the dative of verb abstracts having the meaning of purpose and allow to establish the primary function of the factor in some denominator constructions with communicative. On the other hand, the nominative associated with the communicative now definitely goes in the adjective in most cases. So we see a change in the function of the denominator. Here we would like to draw attention to the consequences of the reorganization of the internal structure of the denominator with the participant. 1 See also the following statements: “In such sentences (i.e. with the nominative and the communicative V.A.) the nominative always remains the subject" (Jablonskis 1935: 32); antra vertus: “The comparable use of the nominative in Lith. and Latv. dialects is an instance of the nominative object; it undeniably does not represent the grammatical subject" (Timberlake 1974: 220). 94 Having studied the Latvian denominator constructions with a debt, su Holvoet found in them "the transition from the primary factor to the adjective denominator, as in Finnish" (1993: 160). A similar process can be observed in Lithuanian denominator constructions in su communicative. They can be seen diachronic layers of different ages. 1.1. The ancient layer is represented by constructions, in which the denominator has retained the function of the factor, the communicative o purpose — meaning, characteristic of the verb abstrakt!. Such constructions are found in the following su types of denominator interjections: (1) su verbs denoting a state /ikti, pa(si) ) remain, have, hinder, occur, concern, suit, etc., e.g. : ir Potatoes (we) left/had to eat; (2) su the verb to be (present tense form usually zero), e.g. : a) O ta wand will lean, Already b) the whole lake (was) seen (with communicative verbs of perception); c) I alone (had) all the work to do (in the sense of necessity); (3) adjective forms with the noun part of the adverb: combining: a) I vodka disgusting to drink, b) unnamed relatives (incompatible): Bulviy bags hard to carry. 1.2, In those constructions of type (1) and (2) that have preserved the original structure, the function of the denominator as a factor is clearly shown by the combination with a predicate having a compound (periphrastic) or indirect form of the pronoun, cf. : His remaining/careful field near; Suny barking was still heard (cf. Troba besanti matytis, see Sirtautas 1971: 74); I was the only one who had that parrot, Sherry. It should be noted that the (1) and (2) type constructions are used not only in eastern and southern Highlands, but also in those dialects of Žemaitija and Western Highlands, where in impersonal sentences the communicative controls only the suffix. (3b) type sentences with adjectives of the infinitive genus cannot be combined, because the infinitive genus nouns no longer exist in Lithuanian. The primary function of the factor in some of these constructions can be determined by their syntactic relationships with others. Firstly, in the eastern Highland dialect, the forms of the genitive without a noun are sometimes used in conjunction with the forms of the masculine and feminine gender, e.g. : Honey eat delicious/- delicious; Slow/slow barley to harvest (Molėtai). Secondly, the forms of the genitive of the noun are associated with the noun of the factor in the same way as the conjugative forms of adjectives in the corresponding sentences, which do not have a communicative purpose or purpose, cf. : Honey tasty/tasty; Snake ugly/ugly; The guests are lovely. Such constructions with adjectives of the nominative genus are used in the same Eastern Highland dialects as with the adapted common noun,! The abstract dative of verbs is generally considered to be one of the most important means of expressing purpose and purpose used in the Indo-European languages of antiquity, see. Jeffers, Pepicello 1980. 95 are inherited iš from the grila antiquity, have correspondences in the ancient monuments of various related o languages, the adjectives of the anonymous genus themselves have retained the pure root forms (see section 4.4). aut. 1979: 200-202; 1990: 201-202 su lit. ). Similarly ir in some (2c) in type sentences denoting necessarybeg, purpose verb (resp. dative of the abstract verb) probably has been incorporated into the ancient posesyvinés construction (I have a house to build), which in the + Lithuanian language was eventually displaced by statements with the verb fureti, which su later also acquired the meaning of necessity. 2.1. At the same su time, the remains of the old denominator function in ir Lithuanian-Latvian languages clearly show the consequences of the reorganization (reanalysis) of syntactic relationships. In many constructions, which in their external form correspond to the aforementioned types, the communicative is already closely associated with the personified form of the verb and, having lost o its original purpose, the nominative is directly dependent on the communicative. Such sentences are already understood as impersonal, and a large part of Lithuanian and Latvian dialects use the suffix instead of the noun in them — the typical verb of the direct adjective. ką In Lithuanian, the denominator is best preserved as a factor in (2a), (2b) and (3a) types of constructions. They do not use the extension end at all. A fairly regular function of the factor is also found in (2c)-type constructions, typical of the Žemaites and some of the West Highlands dialects. Perhaps that is why Jablonski (1935: 32; 1957: 560-564) was inclined to generalize the function of the factor to all cases of the nominative with the communicative use. On the other hand, most of the type 1 constructions in Lithuanian and Latvian have already been re-analyzed and the noun is understood as a communicative complement, the omission of which would fundamentally change the meaning of the sentence, e.g. : I had the chance to see those Yellows Skp (cf. I had the chance to see those yellows), Tėvui beliko pirkt tas sodas Dr (cf. Tėvui beliko sodas) and so on. (3b) The reanalysis of constructions of the generalized state, characteristic of the forms of adjectives of the non-noun genus, was particularly favourable. In Eastern and Southern Highland sentences with the forms of the genitive of the noun, the noun is very often a communicatively controlled complement and is necessary for the sentence structure, cf. : It's nice to find beans (Marcinkonys), but *It's nice, beans. In this type of constructions, adverbs of state meaning (or forms close to them) have come into force with adjectives of non-noun forms. : Enough/Early/Time to write beans. Some adjectives and adverbs of the nominative genus, in turn, gave rise to new paradigms of impersonal verbs: gailėti (from gaila), ganėti (from gana), reikėti (from reikia or reikė), zr. Fraenkel 1925: 37–38; aut. 1995: 87–88). The combinations of verbs with conjugation have become extremely productive!. In the eastern and southern Highland dialects, the noun used with them has the following | Verb reikėti, most often associated with communicative, in common language has become one of the most widely used verbs (fourth place among all verbs in publicistics, see Žilinskienė 1990: 10). 96 the same function as a suffix in the western highland Samogitians, cf. ar need firewood/firewood splitting. 2.2. Thus, the noun denoting the semantic object of the communicative action is found only in relative type constructions, ne in which the function of the preposition can still be seen, but is widely used in many impersonal sentences, where it has jo never been a nę factor. ir In the eastern, southern and ir western Highland dialects, the tendency to express the communicative suffix of an impersonal sentence with a noun has spread and the form of the noun has been used in the respective impersonal phrases with past participles. Transitive past participles are usually associated with the noun of the complement in the following cases: in questioning (relative) adjectives where, as and pronoun What, e.g. : Where is the horse now standing? (Utena); But where did the wheels come (1) from? su (Kupiškis); Uturojam, kap čia ratukai dagyvenus (Zarasai); What did I do? (Mažeikiai); (2) in wishful sayings with the particle k2(d), e.g. : It's that good babe wherever you find (Utena); Ka teip sweater unknitted (Miežiškiai); (3) in sentences of similar meaning with the state adverb well, e.g. : It would be good to hire a strong worker (Kupiškis). These structures are pallid in dialects where the noun of the complement is regularly used with the communicative, but they are rarer than the corresponding communicative structures. Even more rarely, the noun of the complement depends on the present participle of the circumstances in impersonal statements. In the Lithuanian language atlas, it is recorded only in some places of the noun with the communicative area, e.g. : lo Kožnas work while working science needs (Utena); Old trees lacked wood chips when cut (Rokiškis- ); One piglet is better to keep from autumn (Miežiškiai). 3.1 The data discussed agree with the conclusion of Timberlake (1974: 152): “Lietuviy and Latvian dialects have the object nominative rule: the actant, which would otherwise be expressed in the accusative, is expressed in the nominative in a systematically impersonal environment, where the nominative of the factor is not possible”. This rule could have been established in constructs with a communicative function after the (t)rkamieno dative detached itself from the abstract paradigm of verbs, became fixed and became an impersonal verb form that began to control the direct complement verb. Only then did the premises for rearranging syntactic relationships appear in many of the old type of denominator-cognate constructions. However, the internal conditions do not yet allow to answer the question, why in the reanalyzed to impersonal constructions the nominative was not replaced by the suffix, but itself acquired the function of a complement and then spread in a large part of the eastern Balts dialects. The noun of the adjective has no clear equivalents in other Indo-European languages, 97 except for the northern East Slavic dialects'. In contrast, in the West Finnish languages it has been used extensively and intensively since ir ancient times. In these circumstances, Timberlake's hypothesis of the influence of Western Finnic languages best explains the adverbial nominative's prevalence in Eastern Baltic dialects. The influence of the Western Finnish substrate on the noun in su communicative form was probably not only conservative, helping to preserve the form of the noun, as Cypriot (1960, 1969) ir earlier in his support of the author of these verses (1987: 215). Ji helped to form constructions with a new internal su structure on the basis of the old type of denominator. Since the nominative of the adverb is used only in impersonal context in the West Finnish languages, it could have affected the Eastern Baltic languages only when the communicative had already become a separate impersonal form of the verb. ir su ja ar iš part re-analysed as impersonal. In the Baltic languages, communicative differed iš from the abstract paradigm of verbs, apparently due to the po split of the common proto-Baltic language. Its relatively late date is indicated by the mę differences in ir communicative forms of Lithuanian-Latvian Prussian languages (aut. 1995: 75), as well as in Lithuanian and Latvian, its semantic functional connections with the dative of purpose, which have been well preserved to date, are clearly felt in ir the old type of nominative su communicative constructions. ir su Therefore, it is unlikely that impersonal constructions as adjectives su would have been formed during the time of prehistoric Baltic-Finnic — contacts, as evidenced by the hydronymy of old lexical borrowings. ir The more difficult it is to consider the su complement nominative as a communicative remnant of iš even older times, inherited from the ergative ar "active" sentence structures (plg. Larin 1963; Palmaitis 1977: 116-119). Due to the above circumstances, it is most likely that the suffix nominative took hold in the eastern Baltic dialects during the second period of Baltic-Finnish intensive contacts, beginning in the 12th century. VI a. po Kr. At that time, the East Baltic dialects still formed a fairly homogeneous area of passage for innovations. ir Therefore, the suffix denominatoiš r, initially established in the northern Baltic dialects influenced by the Finnish substratum, could further spread south through the territory of present-day Latvia and reach the eastern and southern Lithuanian dialects. It is based on the re-analyzed old type of denominator with a communicative construction. However, this process has hardly affected the Žemaičių and a large part of the western Highland dialects, where the nominative in constructs with the communicative has so far well retained the primary function of the factor, and in impersonal statements the communicative of transitive verbs quite regularly controls the final. 3.2. The Slavic expansion into the western Finno-Ugric areas between Pskov and Novgorod created similar conditions for the extension of the suffix nominative to the northern eastern Slavs. 3.3. Traces of the suffix nominative with conjunctive have also been observed in the southern Russian dialects and texts written on their basis, in places and in the area of the Gudi and Ukrainian languages, but there the construction has specific characteristics and it is still being debated whether it did not arise due to the influence of the northern Russian dialects, cf. Kuz'mina, Nemchenko 1964; Stanisheva 1966; Dunn 1982 are lit. 98 vy in dialects. Tų dialectal features of the Old Russian language XIIIIn the 18th a. century writings, the nominative su of the complement is used in the je colloquial ir impersonal environment as arising 1974: 198) (Timberlake or preserved (Kiparsky 1960; 1969) due to the influence of the western Finn substrate. A long time ago. Russian language construction extensively studied by many authors! ', but examples in which the communicatisu ve nominative would have an unquestionable factor function, we find in the current works only in conjugated forms of adjectives su (e.g., water Iordana sweet pits ‘water Jordan sweet drinking', see. Sprinčak 1960: 179) ir su perception verbs in conjunction +verb Dyti 'be', e.g. : bė v to weather videos ... pechal gorskaya Mos. Letop. 290 “was seen at that time... thirty times’ (Sabenina 1978: 404, see also author 1995: 90-91); they correspond to examples of the old (2b) and (3a) types of Lithuanian dialects (see 1.1— 2). The constructions with adjective nominative used in the present-day northern dialects of the Russian language have been greatly altered due to syncretism, morphologization of the opposite of the living and the dead genus and other specific processes of Russian language development. — ir (see section 4.4). Timberlake 1974: 104—116; 1984). Thus, the primary function of the factor for the nominative in the communicative case is reconstructed by Slavic linguists mainly on the basis of comparative analysis. In this regard, the old-type constructs of the noun with a benratim that have survived in Lithuanian dialects are particularly significant: they can be considered as an argument that the noun of the complement has had the same syntactic basis in Slavic languages as well. 3.3. Thus, the term ‘traditionsu al nominative iš conjugation’ actually refers to constructions with different internal structures: (1) a factor nominative of Indo-European origin with a conjugation that has emerged from the dative of a verb noun and has more or less retained its old function, and (2) a conjugation compound with a controlled adverbial conjugation that has acquired this function, probably as a result of the influence of the West Finnish dialects after the reanalysis of the first type of construction. The first type of constructions can be considered common syntactic archaisms of Lithuanian and Latvian languages. Impersonal constructions with a communicatively-controlled suffix-denominator are of later origin, but they are now pushed out of the usage of the correspondingly meaningful compounds with a suffix. Their relative nature is particularly pronounced in Latvian dialects. Unlike in Lithuanian, where the noun of the adjective is still used consistently in a defined area of eastern and southern dialects, in Latvian dialects its foci are scattered in islands in various dialects and separated from each other by šneki, in which the communicative controls only the final one (see author 1995: 96-98). Better, the suffix denominator remained only in combinations with a debitive (see Rudzite 1964: 138, 240, 372). This shows that the influence of the West Finns on the noun with communicative has long since ended, and afterwards this construction in the East Baltic dialects has taken a peculiar and different path of development-! For a literature review, see Larin 1963; Kiparsky 1960, 1969; Timberlake 1974; Dunn 1982. 99 lią. It is particularta ly interesting that the noun of the suffix disappeared most in the Latvian dialects, where it should have been the jo focal point of spread, but it survived better in the peripheral area in the — eastern ir southern part of the Lithuanian language area. This can be explained by the different position of the construction in the syntactic system of ir Lithuanian-Latvian dialects. 3.4. In the eastern southern ir Highland dialects of Lithuanian language, the expression of the semantic object by the noun is not limited su to the general statements. In them, the ancient construction of the passive ko participants of the noun genus as a noun, denoting the patient of the action su (semantic object), e.g.: miškas kertama [kirsta; hay is transported | transported; cow grazed etc. ir (more about them aut. 1979: 213-218; 1990: 197-214 su lit. ). Since these constructions are part of the į passive-kind paradigm, the denominator is considered a factor, but the semantic function is the same as in the conjugated jo forms, e.g. : Here the forest crosses and need the forest cross; We've already brought the hay and tomorrow we'll take the hay. The number of people living in the villages and the number of people living in the villages in the surrounding area are almost identical. In addition, constructs of the nominative with passive participants of the anonymous genus, like the communicative, are also re-analyzed as impersonal, and in the place of the nominative sometimes penetrates the participle-controlled ending of the suffix: medus/medų kopama; letter letter is written. In the same Lithuanian dialects, the noun of the factor is widely used with adjectives of the non-noun genus: svecias miela; cottage cheese delicious and so on. When a common noun is added, an old (3b) type of noun with common noun is formed: svecias miela priimti; cottage cheese is delicious to eat (see 1.2.). The above-mentioned models with passives and | adjectives of the infinitive form a natural support for the suffix noun in the eastern and southern dialects of Lithuanian. In the Latvian dialects, the noun with conjunction no longer has this support, because the adjectives and participants of the infinitive genus have long disappeared in them. Instead of the adjectives of the non-noun genus, here adverbs (sunki ‘difficultly’, lengvi ‘easily’, etc.) are associated with the communicative function, which form already clearly impersonal constructions, e.g.: aka nav viegli rakt ‘well not easy (see not easy) to dig’. Thus, the Latvian nominative with the communicative is more distant from personal constructions. With the cessation of intensive contacts with the western Finish, it was quickly replaced by the usual direct noun verb — the final. In general, the constructions of the communicative and passive participle forms of the genitive with the object (respectively patient, contentive) denominator may have a common basis. Their interrelationships and their connection with the similar usage of participants in the West Finnish languages still need to be studied separately. Conclusions 1. In Lithuanian dialects, there are two constructionally-chronological layers of the nominative with the communicative. The oldest layer we see in sentences with a substantive in the singular, which has retained its original purpose, characteristic of the dative of abstract verbs. The second, newer layer consists of a design relation-controlled add-on denominator. 100 jų su ir su 2. The su construction of the noun complement may have been po formed when the communicative departed from the abstract iš paradigm of verbs, became a separate verb form when some of the old type constructions were ir reanalyzed as impersonal. In impersonal constructions, the noun has been established as a suffix, probably due to the influence of Western Finnish dialects. 3.Diachronic stratification of the denominator with the conjunctive allows to reconcile two main hypotheses about the origin of the construction, so far considered opposite. The first (Jablonski-- Endzelynas-Kiparski) applies to the oldest layer of these structures and describes their original Indo-European structure. The second (Timberlake's) applies to the subsequent period of its development and explains the establishment of the non-denominator function of the complement in reanalyzed impersonal constructions with communicativeness. 4.The adverbial noun with the conjunctive (as well as the indirect conjunctive) can be considered one of those East Baltic grammatical structures that have an Indo-European basis, but acquired their present internal structure under the influence of intensive contacts with the West Finnish languages in the second half of the last millennium. LITTERACY Ambrazas V. 1977: The spread of indirect pronouns and the problem of origin. —Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 17, 7-54. Ambrazas V. 1979. Historical Syntax of Lithuanian Language Participants, Vilnius. Ambrazas V. 1987. The Indo-European origins of the dativus and nominativus cum infinitivo in the Baltic languages. —Indogermanische Forschungen 92, 203-219. Ambrazas V. 1990. Sravnitelnyj sintaksis pricastij baltijskix jazykov| Comparative syntax of Baltic participles, Vilnius. Ambrazas V. 1995. Development of communicative structures in Lithuanian language. —Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 33, 74—109. 1949: Syntax of Ancient Russian Grammar. Prostoe submission, Lviv. Collinder B. 1957: Survey of the Uralic Languages, Uppsala. Dunn J. A. 1982: The Nominative and Infinitive Construction in the Slavonic Languages. — Slavonic and East European Review 60(4), 500-527. Endzelins J. 1951: Grammar of the Latvian language, Riga. Frankel E. 1925: On Baltoslavic Grammar. —Journal of Comparative Linguistics in the Field of Indo-European Languages 53(1), 36-65. Holvoet A. 1993: On the Nominative Object in Latvian, with particular reference to the debitive. —Baltic Linguistics 2, 151-156. Jablonskis J. 1935: Jablonskis raštai 4, red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas. Jablonskis J. 1957: Selected Writings 1, sud. J. Palionis, Vilnius. Jacobsson G. 1964: On the question of the nominative viv as a case of the direct object in Slavic. —Lingua viget, commentationes slavicae in honorem V. Kiparsky, Helsinki. Jeffers R, Pepicello W.J. 1980: The Expression of Purpose in Indo-European. — 101