Daiktavardžių linksnių adverbializacija ir jų pateikimas „Lietuvių kalbos žodyne“

LITHUANIAN LEXICOLOGY QUESTIONS XXXV (1995) LITHUANIAN LEXICOLOGY STUDIES Rita Šepetytė ADVERBIALIZATION OF NOUN LINKSNES AND THEIR PRESENTATION IN THE "LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE ZODYNE" Adverbialization, or adverbialization, is defined as "the transition of other parts of the language into the category of adverbs" (LKM: 204); in the latest works on Lithuanian language morphology —as "functional adverb formation", when "due to certain semantic and functional circumstances the form of various parts of speech, word combinations become adverbs" (Paulauskienė 1994: 380—381). In the Lithuanian language, the pronouns are described and studied in detail by K. Ulvydas; Moreover, this language phenomenon is usually discussed in grammar. In linguistic works of this kind, the following descriptions are used when speaking about adverbiation: "has not definitively broken the connection with the noun", "intermediate stage", "approaches the adverb at the closest" (Ulvydas 1967: 7, 28, 30, Ulvydas 1959: 80) and so on. When writing "Lithuanian ZodynaTM" it is necessary to decide whether to leave the adverb its status or to raise it to the rank of a lexical unit and treat it as an adverb. Of course, the division (grouping) of vocabulary into classes (parts of language) is a very complex linguistic problem. Adverbs complicate the situation by the fact that they are not a formally characterized class of lexicon, it is only united by the categorical meaning of the circumstance of action, more precisely, by the fact that adverbs characterize the dynamic (verb) or static (adjective) characteristic of the object. Considering that the consonant word combinations, e.g., 4š kartu, are initially considered to be LKŽ adverbs, it becomes unclear why the combination 4 šalį (by the way, in LKG — a local adverb), which is semantically adequate to the illative strann, is not considered to be an adverb and is used in those dialects where there is no illative as a paradigmatic vowel. The functional grammar solves the problem of the division of parts of a language, it does not arise at all in the flow of speech. Traditional grammar (e.g., LKM: 204), which lists, defines, and illustrates parts of speech with examples, also has little difficulty in discussing conjugation. Difficulties begin with the inclusion of words in such a register as the "Dictionary of the Lithuanian language", where the word must be given a morphological certificate of the language part. Firstly, we should review the presentation of adverbialized nouns in the LKŽ (1), secondly, evaluate it (2) and draw some conclusions (3). 1.As already mentioned, dictionaries, when describing a noun, very often face the problem of whether to treat a semantically separated paradigmatic syllable as an adverb and present it as a separate article of the dictionary, or to "snap" it into the illustration of the relevant noun (sometimes, though, explaining the specificity of use separately). I'd "complicate" it funny —it's the singular finalis, pronoun and pronoun, plural pronoun. The existence of this problem is very clearly seen in the LKŽ, where the interpretation of one or another syllable often comes from the opinion of the dictionary writer or editor. This situation could be explained by the fact that dictionaries have basically no basis, i.e., Lithuanian grammar traditionally does not define exactly which words are "true" adverbs and which are only adverbs that have been "approached" or "converged" to adverbs. In the first 142 grammar of Lithuanian language, between the place adverbs are indicated viduj, apačioj (PG: 506), between the time — kartais, vakarais, naktimis (PG: 507); It also notes that "as the noun of Greek nouns often acquires the nature of an adverb, so the singular and plural ablatives of many nouns, and especially the indefinite ablatives, have become 1 adverbs, e.g.: pulkuir pulkais, vardu, skyriu, atviromis..." (PG: 508). The modern Lithuanian grammar, recognizing the adverb status of some noun syllables, states that "between nouns and adverbs, since the very beginning of the formation of this part of the language, there have been, there are still (and, undoubtedly, will be in the future) transitional phenomena — words and constructions, where we can already see the weakening of noun or verb character, but not yet can be stated complete adverbization, e.g.:... pulku (cf. with PG: 508 —R.S.), circle, column..., edge,..., middle..., back, bottom,..., pile" (LKG: 428). In the most recent Lithuanian grammar, the distinction between adverbs is even more confused, it says that "between nouns and adverbs from the very beginning of the formation of this part of the language there have been, there are (and, no doubt, will be in the future) transitional cases - constructions and words, where the true meaning of the adverb arises only when there are no signs, e.g.: iš matymo, iš ryto, ratu, būriu, Sonu, žaibu. But as soon as such constructions and words are used with marks, there can be no question of their adverbiality, e.g.: 18 early morning, a great host, the right Son” (DLKG: 411). Those two long quotes are given to show that in Lithuanian grammar there is no reasoning for the addition of nouns to adverbs (e.g., why does a mark eliminate the "true meaning of an adverb"?). It is therefore understandable that dictionary writers and editors often include (or exclude) the vowels of certain nouns in the class of adverbs at their discretion. For example, the so-called time ending, which is semantically out of the paradigm, is systematically presented by the LKŽ as an illustration of a noun, e.g., the LKG considers the time adverb diena (LKG: 458), the LKŽ presents the noun diena in the article as a simple illustration (Kam lengva diena, kam naktį, o kam niekad Zr). Once is also not presented in the LKŽ as a separate article, and an analogous time, mentioned in the LKG among the time adverbs (LKG: 455), is also presented in the LKŽ as a separate article with the attestation adv. At the bottom, as an adverb, LKŽ is not distinguished, šaly (and šalyje) is presented as an adverb (apparently, this will also be done inside, in the middle, at the top). After reviewing the volumes published by LKŽ, it becomes clear that in its latest volumes there is a tendency to distinguish more consistently the semantically "out of paradigm" syllables, to present them in separate syllables as adverbs. However, there is not much consistency in them either. It is usually used to indicate a time or place, such as "in the evening" or "in the morning". "before evening" (next to the article pavakarė sf. 1. "time about evening, before dusk"); for dinner adv. "about the evening, before the evening"; drinking "while 143 drinking"; in the country "near, next"; countries 'from countries, from Sony'; to the left 'left-hand side'; sometimes "sometimes, sometimes not sometimes"; twilight "temstant"; priblandžiu "t.p. " ; 'at dusk', 'at dusk', 'dusk', 'dusk'; forward "in the direction of forward movement, forward"; premorning "just before the morning"; the side "neighbor- "; šonan "to the side, away"; in the dark 'in the evening or night state, at dusk'; between 1 'places, stretches, somewhere' and between 2'sometimes, occasionally, sometimes'; objects "places"; age 1 "all the time, very long" oran 1 "outside"; in the field "outside", etc. Differentiated as an adverb and one other vowel having the meaning of a way, e.g.: drauge 1 "in a group, together, not separately"; in exchange 'exchanging, exchanging'; section "separately"; chorus "all together, in unison"; voice "voices, voices"; in writing "in writing"; jumps "dancing with screams, jumps, headache"; "in a fast, dense pace (run, ride, drive)" etc. 2.1 In assessing the presentation of the adverbialized nouns in the LKŽ, first of all, it is necessary to emphasize the discrepancy between this dictionary and the LKG. The huge discrepancy between the LKG and the LKŽ volumes 1-8 can be explained by the fact that the LKG, when these volumes of the dictionary were published, had not yet been printed (1971). Since the 9th volume of the LKŽ this discrepancy is decreasing, but still remains. For example, in the LKŽ they are not raised as separate lexems, but are mentioned in the LKG as adverbs (pagrioviais, didiais —LKG: 443, senybėj, senybėse —LKG: 455, pradžioje —LKG: 456, popiečiu, -prievakarėj —LKG: 458, prieblandėlėj, prietemėlėj, prieteméliais, prietemėlytėj —LKG: 459, Sesiose —LKG: 436) or as transitional cases (paaviziais, pabaliais, padebesiais, padirviais, pakluoném, pakampém, etc.); 2.2 Without questioning the "Lithuanian grammar" in terms of the distinction of adverbs, the discrepancy between it and the dictionary is a bit shocking. However, if the dictionaries critically evaluate the LKG data, it would be desirable to see more precise criteria for assigning adverbialized vowels in the LKS. I would like to see a certain system maintained. It is precisely her LKŽ that is lacking in this respect. 2.3. It can be assumed that LKŽ is based on lexicographic tradition. For example, in F. W. Haack's dictionary (Haack 1730) the following adverbs are distinguished: drauge adv., iš vidaus, iš viršaus, lauke adv. loci, laukan adv. loci, opposite (without mark), in the east adv. temp., morning time adv. temp., from adv. loc., in the evening adv. temp., hardly adv. dubit., Pil. In Ruigio dictionary (Ruhig 1747), in addition to these, there are also: apačioj adv., kartais (without mark), čėsu adv., rytmetyj adv. The LKŽ does not present as a separate lexicon only at the bottom, in rytmečiais and rytmetyj (I mean printed volumes). G. H. F. Nesselmann's dictionary (Nesselmann 1851) uses separate articles to distinguish laukan, priešais (without a mark), čėsu, | LLKG among the transitional forms of the plural noun mentions pobobias, although it is not a vowel form —there is no paradigm of the noun * pabobys at all. | together, next to, outside (orig. waiting), next to, 144 EN i > side by side, side by side with certificate adv., outside with certificate adv. and the explanation "eig. locat. von laukas"; the forms dole, občas, risčia, rytmeciais, šuoliai, tarpais, pryšokiais in the articles of the respective nouns; compounds ¢§ inside, from above, from the beginning also in the articles of the corresponding nouns. In the dictionary, which is marked by the LKŽ abbreviation NdZ, as adverbs distinguished together, next to, outside, oran; in front, next, side, side, side, side, side, side, between, immediately, from the beginning (original spelling —R.Š.); a little bit —separated as a noun a little bit 2 meaning. The forms of adverbs in the LKŽ kruopą, kūliais, šokiais, choru, laiku, mainais, metu, naktį, rytą, pavakare, risčia, raštu, šonais, NdŽ are only illustrative examples of the corresponding nouns. Thus, to claim that the LKŽ follows the lexicographic tradition would not be appropriate. By the way, in the current editions of the dictionary (DŽ!, D2?), which appears to be based on LKŽ and its kartoteka, the tradition is also not maintained: not to raise adv. chorus, voice (only the singular adverbial meaning of the noun is indicated), time (without DZ?), immediately, at first, at dawn, in the evening, in writing, etc. 2.4. Thus, it can be said that the LKŽ develops the lexicographic tradition, i.e., more and more, compared to previous dictionaries of the Lithuanian language, funny forms are included in the class of words-adverbs. However, the system is not maintained — it is not clear why the adverbs of some nouns are considered adverbs, and those of others — semantically analogous — not. I will illustrate this with a few examples. The form is raised as an adverb with the meaning “near, next to", and is presented as the adverbialized meaning of the noun 2.; in front and in front are not raised in separate articles, but somehow raised form in front (although the temporal meaning is also characteristic of the noun in front). The form is raised forward, but the analogous forward is not raised ("He walks forward"- ). and with vietomas, but the analogous areas ("Rugiai areas izbalę K") is not distinguished. The adverb (according to the LKŽ data) is interpreted as: "tarpais, gusiais"" and "rūžais, juosžis", but neither gusiai nor ruožais are considered adverbs. Nuorudeniu "rudens pradžioje, rudeniop" iškeltas — apyrudeniu (Apyrudeniu numirė Grz) —daiktavardžio straipsnyje, aptemiais —adv., apytamstais —sm. etc. 2.5 It should be noted that the most commonly treated adverbs in the LKŽ are verbs with a temporal and spatial meaning, apparently, it is believed that they are most likely to fall out of the paradigm. The verbs with mode meaning (singular and plural nouns) are significantly "injured" in this respect. Only the words denoting the way of movement are consistently distinguished —riséia, jumps, apparently, will be raised and žingine. Other noun syllables with the meaning of circumstance of manner (except for a few — choru, balsu, mainais, etc.) are not presented as articles — these are the forms rutu (cf. Paulauskienė 1994: 378), būriu, apskritimu, srove, jega, lašais, vamzdžiu, nota, glėbiais, gnuuzulais, etc. It is not easy to distinguish the infinitive verb with the meaning of quantity (except for kruop), i.e. the forms kasng, krūvą, kupetą, etc. 2.6. As can be seen from the LKŽ, dictionaries have problems with deminutive 145 attaching nouns, which are usually present in the article of the base word, to adverbs in the illustration. For example, adv. kruopą illustrated by the derivatives kruopelę, kruopelytę. In later volumes of the dictionary, recognizing that suffixes -elis, -ė, -ytis, -€, etc. are, anyway, noun formants, the vowel forms of deminutive nouns, treated as adverbs, are presented as separate articles, e.g.: adv. ristel, ristute, adv. jumping, jumping and jumping, jumping (but not jumping), adv. gaps and gaps, gaps, gaps. However, this system is not maintained to the full, for example, the country is presented in the article. After reviewing some of the peculiarities of presentation of adverbialization of noun verbs in LKŽ, we would like to draw certain conclusions. 3.1 First of all, LKŽ is written without clear criteria (or with them being considered "inconsistent") as to which words and which verbs to treat as adverbs, when the verb is semantically isolated (Ulvydas 1967: 7) and when its ending "lose its function as a verb indicator" (Ulvydas 1959: 84). The fact that one noun verb is the subject of the sentence, the other — the accessory, the third — the circumstance, does not mean that one of them is semantically isolated (day prašvito; I love day, I hate night; I work day). The pronoun, adjective, and suffix of nouns with a time set may have the meaning of a time circumstance, a place set — a place circumstance, a manner and quantity set — a manner circumstance. These are the paradigmatic meanings of verbs; grammar indicates the final of time (Jablonskis 1928: 73—74; LKG I: 197), the indefinite of time (Jablonskis 1928: 81—83 —illustration: noči, protarpiais, gaidgyste etc. ; LKG I: 201 —illustration sometimes (sic!)), way (place) innagininkas (Jablonskis 1928: 79—81 —illustration: with spaces, objects, turns, etc.; LKG I: 203), way innagininkas (Jablonskis 1928: 86—88 —illustration: with voice, jumps, clubs; LKG I: 203—204), time inesyvus, time iliative (LKG I: 206, 208). The use of such forms without adjectives (which is indicated as one of the main indicators of "over-adverbation" (Ulvydas 1963: 8; LKM: 204; DLKG: 411), in my opinion, is not a sufficient argument to consider them adverbs, on the contrary, the ability to use them with adjectives shows that it is only a verb, not a lexem. For example, the compound dideliais žingsniais in the LKŽ is presented as substantive žingsnis in the article, and žingsniais as a separate adverb; in spaces raised as an adverb (Tarpučiais geriau, kai negeria Jrb), and the analogous meaning (time) compound —(Takiais tarpčiais užeina lyt Jrb) —as an illustration of the meaning of the noun space. This is apparently just a complication of the vocabulary structure. The adverbs that are formally only inverted forms, usually cannot have any signs, e.g.: retkarčiais, priešokiais (the noun priešokis, apparently, is only a reverse action), pašokomi, etc. The belonging to the conjugation paradigm of infinitives meaning a little, a little bit, a little bit, a little hour, etc., is also shown by the fact that when used with a negation they become adjectives (wait a little, I won't wait a little), i.e. they behave like | normal paradigmatic infinitives. | 3.2. The certificate adv. should be added only after careful consideration, whether the verb is really | out of paradigm, or whether it can not yet be "stretched" to other nouns | 146 Mato kas liana SL funny. As a Lithuanian user, I would look for the word sometimes in the article of the noun kartas (both are connected by the time meaning), and the word together in another place in the dictionary. They stopped next to (next to) —the meaning of the way (next to —the way things are arranged, similarly would have stopped in a row, in rows, walking in a row, etc.); these compounds could be illustrated by a noun next to it. In the sentence I sat down, and she stood up next to would be an adverb (place meaning). 3.3 Most of the inconsistencies in the presentation of adverbialization should, however, be justified by the fact that there is no theoretical basis in this regard — in grammar, the "conjunction and conjugation" of noun verbs is insufficiently justified. LITERATURA DLKG —Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius, 1994. DZ! —Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language, Vilnius, 1972. pž?2i—Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language, Vilnius, 1993. Haack F. W. 1730 —Vocabvlarivm Litthvanico- -Germanicvm et Germanico-- Littvanicvm, Halle. JablonskisJ. 1928: Rigiškių Jono. Happy and Prepositions, Kaunas. LKG —Lithuanian Grammar 2, Morphology, Vilnius, 1971. LKGI —Lithuanian Grammar 1, Phonetics and Morphology, Vilnius, 1965. LKM —Jakaitienė E., Laigonaitė A., Paulauskienė A. Morphology of Lithuanian language, Vilnius, 1976. LKZ —Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 3—15, Vilnius, 1956 —1991; II ed. 1—2, 1968—1969. Dictionary of the English Language. English-German dictionary, part 1-5. Compiled by H. Niedermann, A. Sennas, F. Brender, A. Sia 1 y s, Heidelberg, 1932—1968. NeselmannG. H. F. 1851 —Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, Konigsberg. 1994: Morphology of the Lithuanian language, Vilnius. PG —The First Grammar of Lithuanian Language, Vilnius, 1957. Ruhig P. 1747 —Lithuanian-German and German-Lithuanian Lezicon..., Königsberg. ; UlvydasK. 1959: On the prepositioning of the singular final in the present Lithuanian language. —Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 2, T5—89. UlvydasK. 1967: The question of singular local verbs. — Lithuanian Linguistics Questions 9, 6—42. ADVERBIALIZATION OF SOME SUBSTANTIVAL FORMS AND THEIR PRESENTATION IN THE DICTIONARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE Summary The article deals with the lexicographical problem of adverbialization. The author presumes that only those substantival forms which cannot be related to declensional paradigm of corresponding substantive, must be given separate entries in the dictionary as adverbs. The possibility of having attributes (bėgo šuoliais — bėgo dideliais šuoliais) and the usual transformation that takes place in negative sentences (davė truputį — nedavė nė trupučio) show that spoken forms belong to the class of nouns and not to that of adverbs. | 2 By the way, J. Jablonski presents this word as an illustration of the time hunter: Sometimes wolves know how tr to appear affectionate (Jablonskis 1928: 81). 147