Daiktavardžio ir įvardžio genityvo vieta senojoje lietuvių kalboje

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVIII (1997) Virginia VASILIAUSKIENĖ NOUN PRONOUN IR GENITIVE PLACE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE 1. Introductory remarks 1.1. In Lithuanian, almost every noun can have an incoordinative pronoun, expressed by the genitive of the noun or pronoun (Dievo valia, mano knyga), and this expression of the pronoun is more widespread here than in related neighbouring languages (cf.: Russian 60X54 BO/IA, MOS KHHra; Polish wola boska, moja księżka; German mein Buch, das Jüdishe Land). Thus, the non-converging mark of Lithuanian language corresponds to the converging mark of other languages according to position in some cases. The adjective and the noun genitive can be used to accelerate: aukso Ziedas/auksinis žiedas. This relates to the origin of both certificates and their evolution. In some Indo-European languages, the genitive has replaced an older adjective in the past, e.g.: domus patria; rus. yYOxnucTBO HropesBo (Handry 1985: 54; Hcropuueckas TpaMMaTHuKa pycckoro s3bIKA 1978: 149-151). Both of these signs are closely related in their use. According to L. Tesniėre, the genitive mark differs from the adjective mark only morphologically (Tesniėre 1969: 150; 365). 1.2 In the modern Lithuanian language, the incoordinate sign, expressed by the origin of a noun or pronoun, usually goes before the indicative word (GenN), and this position is neutral, unmarked. The exception is only the pronoun that determines the relation of quantity — the norm of the general language is its postposition (Ambrazas 1986: 96-97; Kniūkšta 1979: 73-74; Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1976: 420; Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1994: 655-656; Durys 1927: 82). The postpositional noun genitive (NGen) is strongly emphasized, and in the case of the postpositional pronoun genitive, the emphasis is usually on the demonstrative noun. The preposition of the genitive, established in contemporary language, differs noticeably from the tendency recorded in the earliest written sources to use it more frequently postpositionally, e.g.: žvirždai mariu PS 344, širdis iusu PS 304; giesmes Angelu BrP 87,,,.; motinos sawa BrP 31,. It is assumed that the frequent postposition of the genitive is due to the influence of Slavic or other languages, probably due to the translational nature of the ancient writings. 104 2. The position of the genitive in the Old Lithuanian language: statistical data In studying the position of the genitive in the K. The first part of Sirvydas- 's "Points of Sayings" ir J. The first hundred pages of Bretkūnas' Postiles (for the reasons for the choice, see Vasiliauskienė 1995: 125). Additionally examined the position of the incompatible certificate in several passages iš J. Bretkūno Bible translation (Book of Ruth, Book of Judges ir Leviticus)! to compare the jo compilation (i.e. "Translation" su (translation). Analyzed the 3742 sequence of su elements of compounds with incoherent sign, running ar as a noun pronoun origin (2197 — iš PS; 866 — iš BrP ir 679 — iš BrB). In both main sources, the genitive postposition prevails: PS 76,496; BrP 52,596 (1 Table), the dominance of the preposition in the Bible passages is associated with the su relatively more frequent use of the — o adjective pronoun it is more typical — preposition in the position of the (2 indicative table). 1 Table 1. Genitival position in ancient scripts Source Total Prepositional Postpositional Number sk.% sk.% PS 2197 518 23,6 1679 76,4 BrP 866 411 47.5 455 52,5 BrB 679 414 61 265 39 2 Table 1. Genitive ir position of noun pronouns (without Gospel passages) Shaki Genitive of noun Genitive of pronoun is Bendras sk. Prepositional | Postpositional | Bendrassk. | Prepositional | Postpositional sk. Yo sk. To sk. vo sk. % sk. | % sk. % PS 1291 | 58,8 247 | 19,3 | 1044 | 80,7 | 906 | 41,2 | 271 | 29,9 | 635 | 70,1 BrP | 510 58,9 165 | 32,4 | 345 | 67,6 | 356 |41,1 | 246 | 69,1 | 110 | 30,9 BrB | 333 49 115 | 349 | 218 | 65,5 | 346 51 299 | 86,4 47 13,6 Comparing the position of the incompatible certificate K. Sirvydo ir J. In Bretkūnas' works, we notice a number of differences. The most inconsistent pronoun nobleman!Bretkūnas J. Selected Writings. V., 1983. 105 position: "in the points of statements" it usually goes in the po indicative word (Po 70,1%), o In the Postilae ir The Bible, on the — contrary, jo is dominated by prepositions (Pr: BrP 69,1%, BrB 86,4%). Be of, although in all sources the postposition of the noun genitive clearly predominates (For: PS 80,7%, BrP 67,6%, However, 65,5%), the frequency of use of BrB in the texts of these two authors also differs. The "point statements" were examined separately. ir "The Gospels of the Apostles". To check, the position of the ar incompatible certificate in the translated original semi-original ir text differs. It ar turned out that the genitive postposition is much more common in these passages than in the main texts. J. In Bretkūnas’s “Postiles” peripaths, even the genitive of the pronoun usually goes with the po demonstrative noun (Po 77.4%).You statistics are presented in a separate ir į table general statistics (3 exclude table). 3 Table 1. Genitive position of "point statements" ir "Postilas" in the Gospel passages Noun genitive Pronoun genitive Cold- | Prepositional Postpositional Prepositional Postpositional nis | sk.% sk.% sk.% sk.% PS 1 1,8 54 98,2 2 4,4 43 95,6 BrP 5 13,1 32 86,5 7 22,6 24 77,4 By the way, the passages of the Gospels in “Postilas” are not written by J. Bretkūnas himself, but taken from B. Vilentas’ “Evangelijai ir Epistolai- ”. Comparing the position of the genitive in this author’s translated Bible and, at least in part, in the original Postila, no fundamental differences were observed. In K. Sirvydas’ writings the position of the noun (GenN) and the pronoun ancestor (Gen N) differs only slightly: 80,796 nouns and 70,196 pronouns are used postpositionally, while in J. Bretkūnas’ works the position of the noun and pronoun ancestor differs fundamentally: GenN, as in „Punktuose sakymų“, is more often used after the indicative word (Po: BrP 67.6%, BrB 65.5%), while Gen N, on the contrary, is characterized by a preposition (Pr: BrP 69.1%; BrB 86.4%). Due to the above inconsistencies, it is advisable to consider the place of the noun and noun incompatible sign in relation to the žymimasis word separately, taking into account the specificity of these sentence parts, the relevant section of the sentence and the possible influence of other languages. 3. The position of the noun genitive 3.1.1. The position of the genitive in relation to the same noun often varies (although the postposition prevails). The high possibility of changing position is shown by the most commonly used non-conjugative notation Dievo: the difference between the preposition and the postposition of this notation is smaller than 106 shown by the ir general statistical data — "In Points of Sayings" GenN 3896, NGen 6296; In the Postilae GenN 58,3%, NGen 41,7% (plg. su 2 Table 1): Lie to God PS 313,— iszminti Diewo PS 113, Diewo baymes PS 40,, —baymes Diewo PS 212,; Diewo malone BrP 100, — malone Diewo BrP 91,, Akim God BrP 91,, „-— akim Diewo BrP 72,.. O in the combination Diewo, the word is dominated by the genitive preposition (Ps 21:8; Ps 18:6). 3.1.2. The position of the noun genitive can vary in the same compounds with a more be pronounced difference in meaning: Schwentas Euangelista Lukoschus Schestame pagul. rascha/iog thū cžiesu as Jano mokintinei ateia/tadda Kristus buwa begidas daug negalincziu szmoniu BrP 34. Tadda Christ shows disciples Janosawa works/ as when I say... BrP 342, „, We have a great right to read the full scripture about the birth of Christ a/none who does not know it/the birth of Christ does not bring anything down... BrP 53,, „„Schiteiponumes Diewo stalop eidami tikekem/iog Dina and Wina perszegnota imdami kartue gaunam ir imame mūsų paties Jėzaus Kristaus kūną ir kraują... BrP 66, „. To this end, we must never forsake our faith/But to God we must go/We and our children...- BrP 64,,. Turrim teipaieg dabotissi- /isch kieno isakimo Angels shepherds of Christ uszgimim aapsakeBrP 82,,... Schcze szinnok lovely Krikschczonie/Angels shepherds of Christ uszgimima Krista us apreischkusi... BrP 82,... Right now people are gathered righteous/who are unt to build PS 4,,,,. I'm not sure how many people have a raysitoiu and swiedku PS 5,,. This variation of word order in the sentence shows that the place of the genitive in relation to the noun is not defined; The alternation of positions was apparently a means of expressing rhetorical language (doctrines), helping to emphasize the desired words or groups of words in the text. In some cases, this means of expression may have been borrowed from other languages. 3.1.3. Let’s take a common noun combination in the “Points” sayings, karaliste dungaus/- dungaus karaliste, and look at how it is used in different sentences: (1)Karaliste dungaus/- aba szwentieii/kurie dunguy su Diewu iau karalauia PS 320, „, (2) Miegas ira mustimas szwentu ir vmžinu dayktu ape Diewu/ape Christu/ ape karalisty dungausirape kitus PS 284, „„ (3) O tokieys turi but ir wisi kriksčionis/kurie wilasi apturetkaralisty dungaus PS299,, (4)... del to nupelno žmogus teysus ažu iuos karalisti dungaus/- kuri praminta ira atgu/karunu teysibes/- grašiu ažu darbu PS 321,. (5) Todrinir karalisty dungaus siula iam kayp grasi/1ey.- .PS 325,,.. (6) Noreio Diewas žmoguy duot karalisty dungauskaypalgu/ape... PS 325 28-30" 107 (7) ... pakotay darbimete dirbkime/ nes sawo metu piausime/ tai ira penesimes karalistey dunga nupetnays gieru darbu us PS 284, „„ (8) Grasis uzsimano karaliste dun usabavmzZinas ga giwenimas su Oh, my God. PS 323, ,,. (9) Jog turi patogiby vnt vmZinos laymibes dangaus karalistey/kuri vžguli swiesiami regeimi weydo Diewo PS 90. (10) Po kayrey oZiey/ a po tens of thousands of dollars last day. Nes ožiey paskundon/a awis dungaus karalisten eysPS 241, „į (11) ... for he has approached iusump ne hell/ which he deserves/ but du ngaus karalistePS 130,131, The first two sentences (1), (2) start new paragraphs of the text, in such cases postposition is very common (see 3.4.1 for more information), in addition, (2) in the sentence only one of the homonymous parts of the sentence has the incompatible mark; (3) in a sentence the genitive is in the last, neemphatical position of the phrase; (4) in a sentence, the demonstrative noun of the postpositional adjective is the object of the subordinate demonstrative sentence (see 3.3.2), but the opposite is also possible (9); (3) and (4) sentences emphasize the demonstrative noun; the postpositional genitive is apparently not emphasized in (5), (6), (7) sentences: (5) the particle in the sentence emphasizes the demonstrative noun, (6) in the example the position of the genitive could be determined by the inversion of the whole sentence; In sentences with enriched adverbs, the postpositional genitive is usually used as the incoherent sign of the noun (8) or the substantive (no examples with the compound in question were found): Oiog sunis Diewo ira žodis ir iszznys Tėwo PS 22, „„ (10), (11) In sentences the genitive is used prepositionally, it is used as the adverb of one of the homonymous parts of the sentence, connected by the oppositive conjunctions a, bef. In the Polish text, the corresponding postpositions are: Bo koztowie do piekia/a owce do krolestwa niebieskiego poyda PS 241,,,„... abowiem šię prżybliža do was nie piekto/ktorescie byli zasfużyli/ a krolestwoniebieskie PS 130,-131,. 3.2 In some cases, the alternation of the genitive position may be motivated: the preposition is neutral, unmarked, and the postposition is inverse. The genitive of a noun used as a preposition is usually unemphasised: Wisokias Diewo word ira vgningas- /aba kayp vgnies skida wisiemus turintiemus wilti iumpi PS 356, „Labay pridereio idant tasay butu žmoniu mokitoias/ane kas kitas...PS 64, „Ne norojo Christaus aprent iž puykos aba širdies aukštsztibes PS 74,.. O tokiiszmintis ira žmoguy swieto sekietoiuy smetrtis ir prapultis vmzina PS 382,. Well, people often say that they have raysitoiu and swiedku PS 5,,. Tatai kaip ischtirra Janas kosnodieia/apbara karaliu/bilodams/- Ne gerai darai iog brolio mot e r i sawip laikai BrP 29, „Schestame pagul: rascha/iog thū cziesu as Jano mokintinei Kristauspi ateija/tadda Kristus buwa begidas daug negalincziu 108 szmonium BrP 34,, .. Tape sakauirant smerties pata 10 atminkem Kristu usz mus gimusi/ identi... BrP 84, „. But she counts the trees like a man's pilwa ir kuna. BrP 65, .. As already mentioned, the postposition of the noun genitive prevails in all the studied ancient scripts (PS 80,796; BrP 67,696; BrB 65,5%). The postpositional genitive can be emphasized more strongly: ...Vnt tos teypagi paseio God is threefold in the lowly gifts of nature, love and glory. 292,—293,. Tasgi mustidamas saw ape iszminti Diewo ir Zmeniu/praszuko..PS 113, . Kaypgi numanot far baysesnes nupelno kunčias/ which sunu Die wo paminditu/ir krauiu testam ent per kuri buwo paszwistas/ o/ ažu pateptu saw iszmanitu...PS 156 ,,. Because iu two of them also/ who were the first to die/ are now too old to die The crushed wo buwo PS 88, . Thai Daniel Prophet Aprasie Toligiby Small a k m e n el o/ who would throw down a i7 pole or a tree in the cold... PS 132, . On the third we have to... investigate... why we're watching Vszgimimas Jesaus Christ's Son Diewo ir Marios deraBrP 53 ‘Mr. Jesus Christ/.../ must is ne maszu/ but didei didžiu wargu noreia isgelbeti/ is wargu kuno tiktai/ but kuno dusches..BrP ne ir 72, ... Many 100 mg/ day Se kcrowd hearing Szodzio Diewo/Schwentam Peter says kosani to ir go in there and get the shit out of me BrP 95, . Ghis ira Diewo appointed/idant would sudžia g iWu and the dead BrP 20,....that is the uszgimmes courses galwa sZalc Zio there smash... BrP80,. But anus praplatin tatai esti kalba ka anis nug to Bernelio/isch mouth Angelo buwa girdeie BrP 96,-97.. In the sentence of written speech, it is not easy to determine which nameThe zodines component of the phrase is emphasized more strongly, but often it becomes clear from the context that one or another component must be pronounced stronger due to the contrasting accent. The position of the genitive is alternated in the following sentence: Vnt gato pakrutina and inartina marias menuo/kuris kad auga/ir wunduo M A R I U hardens and kayp would grow/that minin eyt and gayszta/- and mariu wunduo nupuofa winter PS 2714, „. First said, the genitive of the noun is more emphasized because it conveys new information; repeated in the same sentence a second time is no longer such important information. 3.3 In some cases, the origin is placed after the indicative word in order to emphasize other words or groups of words in the sentence. When studying the place of the coordinating sign in the colloquial language, it was observed that at the end of the sentence there are very frequent permanent signs, which usually do not convey new information and are used to complete the intonational structure of the phrase (Girdenienė 1981:161—162; Kniūkšta 1979:73-74). 3.3.1. The postpositional genitive (similar to the adjective mark) is usually unemphasized when it occurs at the very end of a phrase, which, given the purpose of the sermon, is usually less informative. In this case, the demonstrative noun in the penultimate position of the phrase is emphasized: 109 Kad Zinotumey tieg dow anu D ie w o/ and who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is/ who is PS 58 , .. The third day Gods are garbos aba aralistes k du ngauss PS179, ,,. Pateysey bilau iemus/ iey nopsigrisite stosites ir kayp maZinteley ieysite karalis ten ne dungaus PS299, ‘Bet Dinaie ira k uus Christ/and Wine sweet blood KristausBrP 66, . The benefits of uszgimimo Christ's wrath is written/ fog ghis szmogumi gimmens/ mus ischgelbeia nig curse Sokan o BrP 74 .. Schoie primoie Aileie Angelai koszna szmogu/ moka/ idant wienas neuszmirschtu schos malones ne Diew o/alba ana nieku nenuleistu BrP 90,, „Tas Kristusesti awinelis Dieneschans wisso swieto w o/ griekus BrP 45, ,.. The non-informativeness of the position of the last phrase is even clearer when it contains a part of speech with an abstract meaning — (see section 4.4). 4.3.4.). In some cases, the postpositional genitive goes at the end of the phrase as a kind of addition; in this position, the genitives of terminological compounds are very common. 3.3.2. A postpositional noun is usually emphasized when it is the supporting word of a subordinate noun. The supporting word is a prominent, prominent component of the sentence. The postposition further emphasizes his prominence: IZ tu ir iž kitu tumsibiu niekas negafeio patogiaus mum izgetbet- /kayp mokitoias iž dungaus atais Sunus Die wo/kuris ira pati tikra tiesa ir pati iszmintis PS 63,, „„Vntras niekas ira Zmogump iz szalies milistos Diew o/be kurios nieku ira PS 119, „. And other people do not let down anything s z odžius Diewo who imums through shepherds sakami buwa BrP 101,,. Winicia namay Israeloaba gimine Zid u/ape kuriu Diewas ipačiu tureio apiwayzdu... PS 320, "Separated from the connective which, the demonstrative noun must be pronounced stronger to emphasize its connection with the secondary sentence. And in other similar cases, the word of the noun compound with which the secondary accent is associated is more emphasized: Kaypgi numanot far baysesnes nupetno kunčias/- kuris sunu Diewo paminditu/ir krauiutestamento/per kuri buwo paszwistas/ažu pateptu saw iszmanitu... PS 156,,,,....tay ira apgriž Diewop paganus/- Diewo žodžiu/ kuriu širdis dūžis ir trupins... PS 356,, „„ 3.4 All related neighbouring languages usually use the genitive postpositionally, so they could have promoted the postposition of the Lithuanian adjective stronger than the postposition of the adjective sign — the adjective in those languages often goes before the noun, its position can vary. We are well aware that K. Sirvydas and J. Bretkūnas, when writing their sermons, relied extensively on church works written in other languages. Many sacralized ecclesiastical phrases with the genitive order of the points could have been borrowed directly or through other languages from primary sources: mother Diewo (Latin: Mater Dei); the gay sacrament (Latin: Sacramentum misericordiae); regnum coeli (kingdom of heaven); 110 stridor dentium (striding of teeth) and so on. 3.4.1. Probably due to the influence of foreign languages, the genitive postpoziciSkai is used in the title sentences, the first sentences of individual chapters, which briefly describe the essence of the subsequent comments, or in cases where a thought is presented to a subparagraph: Kayp priderus buwo ataimas sunaus Diewo swietan iž szalies žmoniu PS 63, „Apie priežastis moteristesPS228,. Grudas muštytės ira ženklu bažnyčios PS 298,.. AZutaykimas gimines ir šeimos aba namuPS 231, „ IZ priežastimi def kuriu karalus Ziames kariauia/tos rundasi ir Diewiep...2. Turtes Die wo pasawinimas... 3. P aZieydimas Maiestoto...4. Interruption...- 5. 12-13, Koksai ira buwes uszgimimas KristausBrP 59, „Ape Cžista Vszgimima Kristaus BrP 54, Ape Gimine KristausBrP 56, First part of Kosanies Ape questiona Jano. Part two. The Appeal of Christ. Part Three. "Ape Ii udima Kristaus Jano delei BrP 30, ". 3.4.2. In the Lithuanian and Polish texts of „Punktų sakymai“ the position of more than a quarter of the prepositional noun marks does not coincide. The postposition of the genitive here is more typical of the Polish part of the text (see table 4): 22,796 The position of the prepositional marks (GenN) of the Lithuanian part changes in the Polish translation (NGen): Diewo dowanu —darow Boskich 89,, „; Diewo baymy —bojążnią Bogą 135,;, fortunos atmaynay —odmiany fortuny 184,., welino ira karieywiu — żolnierczem czartowskim 193,; Diewo milistu —faską Božą 300,; Diewo tarnay —sfudzy Bogay 308,,; ape bažnyčios priespaudas —o včiskach Koščiola 225,,,; Diewo tiesoy —sądzie Božym 6,, człowieka buyti —byt cztowieczy 80,,; Christaus smerti —smierci Chrystusowey 74, „Diewo teysibe —sprawiedliwosć Boska161- ,, „Diewo žodis —stowo Boze 307,, „; 304,; 305, „; 139,; ; Diewo sunus—son of God 139,; vnt žmoniu tiesos —na sądzie ludzkim 5; Szwyntieii Diewo — świci BoZy 18; ape Christaus smerti —o smierci Chrystusowey 74, „„ Christaus Ttybunalas —Trybunat Chrystusow 25,,. 8-9’ Table 4. The position of the genitive in the Lithuanian and Polish texts of „Punktų sakymai“ The position of the genitive coincides The position of the genitive differs 2000. pp. 10. "% of the population". The position of the genitive GenN 181 73.3 1044 100 66 26.7 = — Gen,N 224 82.7 629 99.1 47 17.3 6 0.9 111 5 J. Bretkūnas' "Postilas" Gospel passages ir M. In the Lutheran Bible, the genitive position coincides with the genitive position differs Pr-Pr Po-Po Pr-Po Po-Pr sk. % sk. % sk. % sk. % GenN 5 83,3 26 76,5 1 16,7 8 23 Gen N 11 100 — — - — 19 100 In the Lithuanian language, the non-consonant mark in the Polish text very often corresponds to the consonant mark. In both texts, the noun's pronoun is usually not the same wo (equivalents in Polish adjectives) — of all — 6996 non-matches: Diewo milista taska — God (8 times); Diewo word — sfowo God (6 times); Diewo sunus — syn Božy (5 kartus) ir etc. Thus, the position of the inconsistent pointer used in the “Points of Sayings” differs most in the ir Lithuanian Polish parts of the text. The place of the postpositional genitive in both parts of the text coincides everywhere, i.e. if in Lithuanian it is used postpositionally, then in Polish its equivalent also never goes before the demonstrative noun. The influence of the Polish language would be made clearer only by comparing the original Polish texts with their translations into Lithuanian. 3.4.3. After comparing the position of this prepositional notation in J. Bretkūnas’s “Postilas” Gospel passages and in M. Luther’s Bible, we see that the prepositional notation of the German text in the Lithuanian text can go after the noun —23,596 (table 5), e.g.: des menschen Son (Luke’s Gospel, chapter 21) —Sunu szmogaus BrP 15,; in the Royal houses (Mato ev. 11 skyr.) -Namuosu karaliu BrP 28.; of the Lord Angel (Luko ev. 2 skyr.) —Angelas Wieschpaties BrP 50,; inn das Jiidische land (Luke 2) —ing szeme Sžidu BrP 58; the multitude of the heavenly hosts (Luke 2) —daugybė pulku dangaus BrP 51,,; Thus, the postpozicing use of the genitive Cia could be promoted in Latin. 3.4.4. The previously mentioned use of the pabréziamo (emphatic) genitive after the pronoun may also have been borrowed from Latin or Polish along with the borrowed rhetorical sentence model. However, we should not assume that the more clearly unmotivated genitive postposition has always arisen only due to the influence of foreign languages — the variation in Old Lithuanian, apparently, was possible because of the more free position of this sign in relation to the noun. The absence of a strict norm allowed to alternate the place of the genitive in order to highlight, emphasize one or another component of the noun phrase. A component of a nominal phrase for position. In a written sentence it is often difficult to determine which element of a noun compound should be emphasized. 112 In some cases, the motives of the postposition are not very clear. The influence of other languages could not be the only possible reason for such a frequent postposition of the noun genitive. 2. The place of the genitive of a pronoun in relation to a noun is more clearly justified: gu (a) the prepositional genitive of the pronoun is unemphasised; (b) the genitive of the pronoun is used postpositionally to emphasize the demonstrative noun; (c) the PS dominant postposition of the pronoun genitive due to the ir influence of Latin Polish languages; (d) BrP and BrB are dominated by the pronoun genitive preposition; BrP and BrB contain a number of cases of pronoun genitive postposition, although these works are based on German sources; The genitive postposition here may have been partly influenced by Latin, but usually reflects the loose word order in a noun phrase. 3.The language of the ancient scripts was apparently influenced by the attributive compound pattern typical of Latin and Polish, in which the adjective is more often used before the noun and the genitive is used postpositionally. This may have contributed to the postposition- 's status as a "high style". In Lithuanian, as already mentioned, the attributive genitive occurs much more often than in neighboring languages (instead of the genitive they often use the coordinating sign). In addition, the possessive pronoun forms mano, tawo, sawo are incompatible with nouns. This explains the more defined position of the characteristic genitive of pronouns compared to the noun genitive; the departure of the characteristic genitive of pronouns from the prevailing order is more clearly motivated. The comparison shows that the model of attributive compounds in Old Lithuanian differed from that of Lithuanian and Polish languages, but it was not strictly defined, so the patterns of word order of attributive compounds in these languages could in certain cases be transferred to the written language of Old Lithuanian. 4. Greenberg’s second universality states that the genitive postposition dominates in prepositional languages (Greenberg 1966: 78). Thus, we would also expect GenN to dominate in the current Lithuanian language, but we know that the prepositional genitive prevails. It is believed that in Lithuanian the order of the components of the sentence nucleus has changed from SOV to SVO (Ambrazas 1982: 101—104). Thus, the prepositional genitive could typologically harmonize with SOV and syllabic constructions (4 Greenberg's universality states that in SOV languages syllabics are more common)?. However, it is difficult to explain why the prepositional genitive prevails in the present Lithuanian language, when in the old Lithuanian language it was very often used postpositionally, the postposition of the genitive must have increased due to the dominance of prepositions. M. S. Drayeris claims in several of his recent articles that SOV model languages have a very strong implication with GenN, 2 J. Hawkins believes that the ancient Lithuanian language was prepositional (Hawkins 1990: 120-121). 119 but In SVO languages it is possible ir GenN, ir NGen (Drayer 1988: 192-193; 1991: 464-465; 1992: 91). But jo research has also shown that Greenberg's second universality is that correct prepositions in — languages dominate NGen. Therefore, Lithuanian language iš is an exception to this Greenberg's Universals. ABBREVIATIONS BrB — Bible tatai asti Wissas Schwentas Raschtas Lietuwischkai pergulditas per Janą Bretkun... Karaliaucziuie (1579-1590). BrP - Postilla tatai esti A short, ir poor introduction to the Gospel... Per Jana Bretkuna.- .. karaliaucziuie... 1591. GenN the - genitive of the noun; prepositional genitive of a noun. Gen N - the genitive of the pronoun; prepositional genitive of the pronoun. NGen - postpositional noun genitive. NGenp - postpositional genitive of jvardZio. [0] - object. Postpositional. Pr prepositional. PS -Pvnkty kazan... in Lithuanian with Polish translation by Księdz Konstanty Szyrwida... W Wilnie... 1629. S — subject. V is a verb. Ambrazas V. 1986: Models of word order in contemporary Lithuanian language. —Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USSR, A ser. 3(96), 92—102. Ambrazas V. 1982: Word order and sentence type reconstruction in Baltic languages. —Baltistica, 18(2), 92-102. English Grammar, 1994. Dryer M.S. 1988: Object-verb order and adjective-noun order: dispelling a myth. —Language 74, 77-109. Dryer M.S. 1991: SVO languages and the OV:VO typology. —Journal of Linguistics 27, 443— 482. Dryer M.S. 1992: The Greenbergian word order correlations. —Language 68(1), 81-138. Durys M. 1927: Lithuanian language syntax, Kaunas. Faarlund J. T. 1990: Syntactic change: Toward a theory of historical syntax. —Winter | W.(ed.). Trends in Linguistics. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Girdeniené D. 1971: Current division and its role and ways of expression in Lithuanian language. —Kalbotyra, 22(1), 35-47. 1981: The place of the harmonic certificate in the dialect and common Lithuanian language. —Baltistica, 17(2), 1981, p. 156-169. Greenberg J.H. 1966: Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. —Greenberg J.H.(ed.). Universals of language, 2nd edn., Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 72-113. Handry J. 1985: Les Indo-Europeans, Paris. Hawkins J. A. 1990: Seeking motives for change in typological variation. —Studies in typology and Diachrony. Papers presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th birthday, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: 120 John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kniūkšta P,Girdenienė D.,Girdenis A. 1979: About the language "luxury" ir word order. — Cultural bars 1, 73-74. Lithuanian language grammar, Vilnius: Science, 1976. Palionis J. 1967: Lithuanian literary language XVI-XVII c., Vilnius: A thought. Rosinas A. 1988: Baltic pronouns, Vilnius: Science. Tesniere L. 1969: Elements de Syntax Structurale, Paris. the V. 1994: On placement the genitive of attribute in Old Lithuanian. — Dept. of General Linguistics University of Umed, Report 35, 99-115. Vasiliauskienė V. 1995: The position of the alignment certificate in the old Lithuanian language. — Issues of Lithuanian Linguistics 33, 124-142. Žulys V. 1969: The position of the so-called invariant pronouns in the Lithuanian grammar system. — Baltistica, 5(2), 167-177. TpaMMarHuka JiuTOBCKOTO A36IKa, BuwibHioc: Mocnac, 1985. Hcropraeckas rpammaTika pycckoro A3sika. Currakcuc. ITpocroe npewroxerue, Mocksa, 1978. THE PLACEMENT OF THE GENITIVE ATTRIBUTE IN OLD ENGLISH Summary 1. In most cases a preposed Gen is unstressed. In the case of postposed Gen, different constituents can be stressed: in certain cases the genitive noun and in other cases the head noun. However, sometimes no constituent seems to have stress in noun phrases with a postposed Genn. In such cases the function of the postposed Gen, in Old Lithuanian is unclear. We conclude, however, that influence of other languages cannot be the only possible explanation of the so frequent postposition of Gen_ in Old Lithuanian. For such alternation of placement of Gen, to be possible at all, the language must be, in a sense, prepared for it. We therefore assume that the position of the attribute was less strictly determined in Old Lithuanian than is the case in Modern Lithuanian, and that this made it easy for the authors of the period to take over the Latin or Polish form of the noun phrase. 2. The position of the genitive pronouns is more clearly determined than that of genitive nouns, and we can explain almost all deviations from the predominant word order. The facts are as follows: (a) preposed Gen is unmarked; (b) when Gen, is postposed, its head noun is stressed; (c) in PS postposed Gen, ’ predominates, because of the influence of Latin and Polish; (d) in BrP and BrB preposed Gen, predominates; (e) even though the latter works are based on German, we find not a few examples of postposition in these sources, which partly could be due to the influence of Latin, but in other cases reflect a characteristic feature of Old Lithuanian, that of allowing some freedom of word order in the noun phrase. 3. We would expect Modern Lithuanian to have predominantly postposed genitive attributes, since it has prepositions, not postpositions (Universal 2; Greenberg 1966:78). According to several researchers Lithuanian has undergone a change from SOV to SVO. Preposition of the genitive attribute could thus be a remnant of an earlier grammar with SOV order and postpositions. It is odd, however, that preposition of the genitive attributes is more predominant now than was the case in Old Lithuanian. We would expect postposition of genitive attributes to increase over time, at the expance of prepositions, not the other way around. So Modern Lithuanian remains a counterexample. 121