Būdvardžių abstraktų semantika

LITHUANIAN LEXICON AND TERMINOLOGY PROBLEMS LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS, XXIX (1991) RITA ŠEPETYTĖ BŪVDARDŽIŲ ABSTRACTS SEMANTICS 0.1. Detailed analysis of the abstract semantics of ir adjectives is not the purpose of this paper, it would require a monograph. — Abstracts of noun verbs are a complex field of ir language semantics, in which elements of lexical, derivative, syntactic semantics are intertwined. Ji so far little research, because the most popular current methods of lexical semantics are more adapted to the analysis of specific lexicon than abstracts of “intangible” semantics. Syntactic semantics researchers often pay attention to the abstracts of į verbs. In word formation studies, adjective abstracts, as derivatives, are analyzed at least discussed, usually ar indicating that they have a transpositional meaning of construction, they are not very “interesting” from the point of view of t. y. derivatology ("If word formation is understood primarily as nomination, the giving of a name to a certain (new) content, then the role of transposition in word formation can only be considered secondary, because the existing content, which already has its name in the language, only acquires a grammatically different expression" ja (Urbutis, 1978, 167). However, although abstractly they are not equivalent units of nomination compared to other lexical groups, their semantic study is necessary simply because their presentation in explanatory dictionary is one of the most difficult lexicographic matters. The abundance of abstract forms of adjectives in Lithuanian seems to deny the principle of language economy. „Lietuvių kalbos gramatika“ (Lithuanian Grammar) presents as many as a dozen types of abstract jų construction of adjectives of varying productivity: with suffixes iš -umas, -ybė, -ystė, -enybė, -uma, -ovė, -ulys, -atvė, -atis, -yba, -astis, endings -is, -a, -as (LKG, 306—312, 315—316). The illustrative material of the Lithuanian language dictionary (LKŽ) shows that some of them are heterochronic and heterotopic, i.e. they are characteristic of different periods of language development and not the same dialects. Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language (DŽ) also has a lot of adjective abstracts. For example, blindness and blindness are presented in the adjective blind nest without explanation of the meaning (this is discussed in the dictionary "Introduction" (p. XII), blindness is already explained: "|. blindness, invisibility 2. prk. spiritual blindness, darkness” (without illustration); blindness ‘1. blind man's situation: The greatest disaster a. 2. prk. mental blindness’; darkness, obscurity —in the adjective darkness nest, and obscurity “darkness, obscurity”, obscure “darkness, obscurity” —separately and in the interpretation of unexplained words (metatonia, characteristic of abstracts with the ending -is, is not such a big argument to raise them in separate dictionary niches, even though their interpretation is essentially a repetition of abstracts with suffixes -um or -ybė). 128 First, to analyze the semantic differences of the most common types of abstract construction of adjectives (with suffixes -umas, -ybė, with the ending -is) (they are mentioned in „Lietuvių kalbos gramatika“ (LKG, 306, 308, 316) and P. Skardžiaus „Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryboje“ (Skardžius, 1943, 65, 97—98); secondly, to investigate the relationship between the abstractty type and the semantics of the reference adjective. More than 200 primary adjectives belonging to various semantic groups and their corresponding abstracts were selected from the LKŽ. Of course, the dictionary may not fix all the abstractions of adjectives, but it is precisely the fixation that is the argument for the reality of the word. Abstracts with the suffix -umas are made from all primary (and not only primary) adjectives, even from those that are not graded anymore, e.g. pėsčias —pėstumas, raitas —raidumas, basas —basumas, etc. Abstracts of the other two types of construction (with suffix -ybė and ending -is) are not made (or at least not recorded in the LKŽ) from all primary adjectives without exception. Abstracts with suffix -ybė do not have adjectives gaivus, gulsčias, basas, bukas, strižas, dubus, griežtas, keršas, kraupus, liaunas, pėsčias, rainas, palšas, sartas, etc., abstracts with the ending -is are not fixed next to the adjectives silpnas, senas, links, šaunus, drėgnas, ramus, prastas, ėdrus, gležnas, bjaurus, laisvas, blind, aštrus, laišas, garsus, smalsus,.- markus, gėdingas, gudrus, naujas, paikas, linksmas, etc. Is this situation due to the needs of the nomination, or is it determined by semantic or other peculiarities of the reference word? After all, as can be seen from the examples, the basic adjectives belong to very different semantic groups. Apparently, having set aside heterochronia and heterotopia, the construction of abstract adjectives with suffixes -ybė, -umas and the ending -is should be considered as regular construction types, especially since this is reflected in essence in the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language- ”. However, the finished derivatives, belonging to the same category of abstracts, differ in the potency of nomination and the degree of lexicalization. This differentiation is related to the type of action and the semantics of the base adjective. On the other hand, the tendency of unification and integration, which is usually characteristic of the development of literary (common) language, has a great influence. 2.0. Abstracts su in the limb -is are made only by primary iš adjectives (an additional feature of this type of action —elongated root vowel and metatonia). This type of abstract verb tends to lexicalisation and is rather nominative. This is particularly evident at present, with the proliferation of scientific terminology systematization. “It was agreed that the first (longer) terms ir ją (with appendix -um. — R. S.) to be used to name general concepts (features), and the second (with the endings -is, -a. —R. Š.) to describe a certain measurable size, dimension of the concepts, e.g., height meters, capacity liters“ 12 10 (Brazdžiūnas, 1977, 5). However, it is acknowledged that such a system... has not yet been fully implemented." ir (Ibid.). The ability to do this is also doubted by linguists (Kroopas, Kaulakienė, 1971, 11). In any case, the attempt to name parameters in scientific terminology with abstract endings su -it is measured. The argument could be that only one of the abstracts made from the adjectives forming the antonym pairs has nominative power, the second usually remains in the realm of pure abstracts. I am referring to such pairs of abstracts as thick thin, wide — narrow, heavy light, — dense rare, size — small, speed slow, — length —*short. — This feature of — abstracts 9. with the ending -is is partly 29 t. 129 reflected in the interpretations of the Lithuanian language dictionary. For example, gravity 3. physic. "quantity determining the gravitational force of the Earth or any other celestial body" and lightness "lightness- "; speed 2. ‘speed, magnitude of movement’ and/or ‘slowness- ’;’ thickness 1. ‘distance between the two surfaces of the width of the object’, thickness 2. “volume, weight” and thin 1. "Thickness", thin 2 "Thickness", width 1. "Diameter length" and narrow "narrowness"; length 1. ‘the dimension of the object between its two furthest points’ (DG) and *short: height 1. „the rise from the bottom upwards“ (the LKŽ has added examples to this meaning, illustrating both the pure abstract: What is the height of that tree? Vvr, and the measure of the property meaning: How high is the triangle? Z. Žem.) and *žemis. Abstracts with the ending -is, made from adjectives without a pronounced antonym, do not have such a clear polarization. 2.1. Several abstracts with the ending -is have a significantly lexicalized meaning, e.g.: heat (heat 1. "heat, heat", heat 2. "high body temperature (when sick); ‘heat’): cold (cold 1. ‘cold, low-temperature air (atmospheric condition state)’: level (level 1. ‘ascent altitude’, level 2. ‘quality, size, degree of development’); liquid (liquid 1. “liquid substance- ”, liquid 2. “hard”), anger “hostile attitude due to suffered wrong; anger, irritation, anger” (DŽ) and others. 2.2 Most other abstracts with the ending -is are interpreted as abstracts with the suffix -umas, e.g.: baltis „white“, pygis „cheap“, pilkis „greyness“, etc., and, as can be deduced from the illustrative material provided by LKŽ, they are often used synonymously, e.g. : What a beautiful red cow Skr and Both calves of one marge Gs or What face do baltis, what lip red Kltn and No redness, yellow i yellow Pvn. However, there is a difference that cannot be overlooked (or at least not felt). Abstracts with the ending -is are more suitable to indicate a property parameter than abstracts with the suffix -umas. Especially obvious this is in the case of abstract taste. This abstract is no longer synonymous with delicacy. Sweet, bitter, sour, cheese would probably mean taste variants. Similarly, yellow, red, white, black, etc. would mean color variants. For example, the compound pepper bitter means “the taste (bitterness) that peppers have”, and the compound pepper bitterness means the modulation of that taste and as if requires an extension, an explanation of what that bitterness is (extraordinary, terrible, etc.). Milky yellow means a colour characteristic of milk in general, and milky yellow means (or at least may mean) a variant of this colour, etc. These hypothetical reasonings could be summarized as follows: abstracts with the ending -is are often semantic invariants with respect to abstracts with the suffix -um (see also beauty — beauty, goodness — goodness). Therefore, in terminology, to name the parameter of some property (as a semantic invariant) should be used abstracts with the ending -is (or other), but abstractly suffix -umas. 3.0. Abstracts with the suffix -ybė are semantically more transparent. They have features that quite well distinguish them from other abstracts. “The most important difference is that the derivatives of the prefix -ość are especially liked to be used when the designating characteristic needs to be more emphasized, intensified, in other words, when we are talking about a very pronounced, strongly manifested characteristic” (LKG, 308), “... sometimes the derivatives of the prefix -ość denote not so much an abstracted characteristic as the object itself having the characteristic...” (LKG, 308). The meaning of intensity is partly reflected in the interpretations of the LKŽ (smerybė 1. „high peak“; statybė „high stature“; plokštybė „very large plane“; šlapybė „high wetness“); lexicalized values are recorded in a common abstract nest, e.g.: rarity 2. "rare item, rarity"; acidity 2. ‘very acidic food or drink’; abomination 1. "a ugly, disgusting thing, thing"; difficulty 2. ne "heavy thing, su burden", abomination 1. “an ugly, disgusting thing”; horror 3. "horrible thing", horror 4. "a scarecrow, a ghost"; peak 2. “sharp object”, etc. However, not all abstracts with the suffix -ość have lexicalized meanings, nor do all have the meaning of intensity. This is related, it seems, to the semantics of the base adjective. The lexicalized meaning of “a place with a characteristic” must be made abstractly, from the adjectives high, near, wide, narrow, far, deep, in addition wet, dry, slippery, i.e. from adjectives that themselves can join into the group of the semos place by the foundation. It should be said that the meaning of the place is usually 130 reflected in the plural form of abstracts, e.g., We... look... at the blue expanses of the sea J. Balč, Tauta turi visokių pasakų apie aukštybių dvasius rš. These abstracts are synonymous with derivatives with the suffix -uma. The meaning of “an object with a characteristic” must be made abstractly from adjectives denoting taste (bitter, sour, etc.), in addition from adjectives sharp, light, heavy, ugly, beautiful, ugly, scary, rare; that value is recorded in the corresponding abstracts with the suffix '-ity'; apparently, other abstractions of this suffix could potentially acquire this meaning. In fact, it would be more accurate to define it as “an object characterized by the intensity of a characteristic”. 3.1.A large group of abstracts with the suffix -ybė are synonymous with abstracts with the suffix -ystė, which are characterized, in the words of P. Skardžys, by the meaning of “special existence”. It is abstract, made of adjectives denoting external or internal characteristics of a person: courage, generosity, cunning, greed, drunkenness (drunkenness 2. “the habit, the inclination to drink intoxicants; drunkenness- ”), rarity, pride, lameness, deafness, etc. They are called the possession (existence) of the property. It should be noted that abstracts with the suffix -ość are often used to name a characteristic. They lose their transpositional meaning and pass, so to speak, to the section of specific nouns, i.e. they become variable in number, e.g. : He has many weaknesses, three virtues, a few commonalities, etc., etc. Abstracts with the suffix -ość are, in essence, the "most noun-like" abstracts of the types of action discussed here. 4.0. The most “abstract, transpositional, syntactic” are abstracts with the suffix -um. This feature is reflected in the dictionaries — they are not explained, but only associated with the base adjectives (DŽ — by presenting the relevant adjective in a niche, LKŽ — in a separate niche, but without explaining the meanings, but only by referring to the meaning of the base adjective). On the one hand, this facilitates the work of lexicographers, on the other hand, it does not reveal abstract semantic features. For example, the transpositional meaning of the verb limits the nominal power of the abstract, but, like every noun, it has. iš ją Therefore, we should at least try to distinguish purely transpositional, syntactic abstract suffixes su -use (and the meaning) from the nominal (naming the characteristic). For example, abstract margument LKZ is described as follows: margumas — margas: 1. The flowers are yellowish with a yellowish-brown color. The colours of the flags were yellow. "Višta vango Ge 131 margumo Šts. What a beautiful cow Skr. In the first two illustrative sentences there is a clear transposition, the abstract here expresses itself as a means of sentence formation; in the latter two, the abstract performs the function of attribute naming. mo Often transposition (nomination of the predicate compound) implies ja ambiguity, for example, the sentence I don't like cunning can be interpreted jo in two ways: I don't like that he is cunning I don't like how he is cunning. ir 4.1. Of course, it is necessary to examine in detail which syntactic structures are nominalized su (transposed) by the abstract suffix su -um. But that is not the purpose of this short article. Let's discuss a couple. First, the predicative compound is „X very Y“ (X — subject represented by a noun, attribute Y — represented by an adjective) is transposed by a subjective compound (abstract noun originator of the corresponding adjective), e.g. : ir The to ugliness of the dog — nė į the yard does not allow Room, Bukumas ylos — nė Rotten bitches can't pierce! Er. Ką your ir blindness — po eyes stand ir not see Gs ir Mr. Such transposition is very common in spoken language, because in cases of negative signs, it performs a euphemistical function, ji ir t. y. phrase You're gi stupid! not as offensive as you are very Tu stupid. Secondly, a very widely used sentence type is any „X Y, Z“ (X — subject, Y, Z — attributed attributes) volumetric transposition through the structure, in which the attribute is described by Y the noun of du the adjective — of the respective abstract, the ir fixation of the attribute o in the Z superficial structure is optional. The following use of abstracts is meant: Virtue of ji virtue, but unreasonable Pn, Smagumo this place is fun Skr, It's not very old, just unstable Rm it t. t. In these adjectives, the abstract performs nę an emphasis function. 4.2. Suffix of su abstracts -um lexicalization, by the way, less than the abstract suffix su -ity, also related to the semantics su of the base adjectives. For example, abstractly, make iš taste adjectives have meaning “a food with (some) flavour”: taste 4. "delicacy, delicacy", acidity 3. "sour food, acidification", sweetness 2. “sweet thing, sweets” i.e.; ir t. abstractly, make adjectives, iš united by the semas of "space", can acquire a local meaning, e.g.: peak 3. ‘See peak 2“: On the to mountain, on the to very peak there is a hole Skr, height 2. “upright position- ”, flatness 4. ‘see flatness 1“ ir t. t. Most abstracts can acquire the meaning of "thing with a particularity", e.g., stupidity 2. "a thing incompatible with the mind", malice 3. "evil, wickedness, abomination" ?. || Drinks all kinds of disgusting things just to heal faster Ds ir t. t. Lexicalized abstracts are often used in the plural form (in some abstracts the plural is given LKŽ as separate words, e.g. liquids, fats). The Lithuanian Grammar states that ‘adjectives -um abstracts tend to acquire a slightly more concrete meaning when plural forms are used“ jų (LKG, 306). Iš in fact is the opposite, only after acquiring a more specific meaning, they acquire the characteristic feature of specific nouns changing by numbers. — The use of the plural itself can be an indicator of the ne specificity of the meaning, a o stylistic means, e.g.: beauty, O novelty of 0 your scarf! Vb, Ir delicatengi — ess barely tą touched a bite of meat! Slm. It's a white snake on — the tail carried away! Sl. 132 When comparing the semantic differences of the discussed abstracts, it becomes clear that abstracts with the suffix -umas and the ending -is are closer in terms of nominative power. In terms of lexicalization, abstracts with suffixes -um and -ość are closer. In some positions, all these types of abstracts can be used synonymously. However, one cannot ignore the following tendency: abstracts with the ending -is are used to name parametric characteristics; Abstracts with suffix -ybė indicate the presence of a property, and abstracts with suffix -umas, in addition to naming the property, perform the function of a syntactic transposition tool. This systemic trend due to the action of various asystemic factors (e.g., that euphonia) ir always ne bright. SANTRUMPOS DZ -—Dictionary of contemporary Lithuanian language. V., 1972. Grammar of the English Language. V., 1965. T. 1. Dictionary of the English Language. V., 1956-1986. Vols. 1-14. Brazdžiūnas P. Creation of the Lithuanian terminology of physics //Language culture. V., 1977. Sas. 44. P. 4-8. Kruopas J., Kaulakienė A. Differentiation of adjectives in abstract with suffix -umas and endings -is, -a in terminology //Linguistics. V., 1971. Sas. 21. P. 8-11. Skardžius P. Lithuanian language word formation. V., 1943. Urbutis V. Theory of word formation. V., 1978. P. IIATIATUTE CEMAHTUKA J/IEA/IbEKTHBHbIX ABCTPAKTOB Peszome |. Ha Marepmajie MHOrOTOMHOTO,,C10Baps JIMTOBCKOrO si3bikaTM #,,Cl0Baps COBPEMEHHOTO JIMTOBCKOrO s3blka“ pacCMaTPHBAIOTCH Pa3/iH4YHsi B CEMAHTHKE CJIOBOOOpa3OBATEJIbHbIX THIIOB JIeaTbeKTHBHBIX aOCTpaKTOB C cyhdukcamu -umas, -ybé W OKOHuaHHeM -is. TIpaKTHYECKH He HMesi JICPHBALHOHHBIX OTpaHH4UCeHHH CO CTOPOHBI MOTHBHPYIOUIErO CloBa (MPHIATaTeILHOrO), aOcTrpakTbI, NpHHAMIEKAIIME K ONpejiejIEHHbIM CIOBOOOPA30BATENLHLIM THIAM, Pa3IHYAIOTCH CBOMM 3HAYCHHMEM, a TaKXe CTENeHbIO JIEKCHKAJIH3aLIHH H HOMMHATHBHON NOTEHIIMEH. 2. HecMorpsa Ha ONpeeeHHYIO TETEpOTOMNHIO abCTPAKTOB BhIIIEYKa3aHHBIX THIIOB, a TaKkKe B3aNMONPOHHUAEMOCTh HX CEMAHTHKHM, H3 B3aMMO3aMEHAEMOCTb B HEKOTODBIX KOHTEKCTaXx, TIPOCIICKHBACTCA TCHIACHLMS HCIIOJIb30BaTh B fi3biKe a0CTPaKThI C OKOHYAHHEM -iS [UTS HMEHOBaHHUSA nmapaMeTpH4eCKHX Ka4eCTB npeamera, abcrpaktel ¢ cyhdukcom -ybė nas nMeHOBaHHS KaueCTBA, CBOMCTBA KaK TaKOBOro, OTBJICYEHHOTO OT ero HocuTenei, a aGerpakrst C cydhdukcom -umas, KaK HaMMEHee JIEKCHKAJIH3OBAHHbIC, —B KaYecTBE CPE/CTBA TEKCTOOOpa3OBaHMsS H CHHTaKCHYECKOro BapbUpPOBaHMS.