Keletas įvardžių semantikos klausimų

LITHUANIAN LEXICON AND TERMINOLOGY PROBLEMS LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE QUESTIONS, XXIX (1991) Adele VALECKIENĖ A FEW QUESTIONS ON THE SEMANTICS OF NOUNS 001. When writing new Lithuanian grammar or compiling dictionaries, pronouns, the definition of nomenclature and the treatment of certain forms of pronouns pose jų many problems. Recently, the Lithuanian linguistics has become more interested in pronouns. Significant recommendations on the treatment of certain forms of pronouns have been proposed by V. Žulys (1969, 167—177; 1974, 83—92). Recently, an article by T. Bulygina and J. Stepanov, prominent Russian linguists, Lithuanian language researchers and friends, appeared in the journal „Boripocbi s3biKo3HaHHa“ (Byxsiruka, Crenanos, 1988, 17—33), where they raise problematic questions about Lithuanian pronouns. A. Rosino (1984) published a study on the semantics of pronouns (for a review see Tekorienė, 1987, 86—92). The problems raised in these works make us think and further solve various questions related to the semantics of pronouns. Pronouns form a small, so to speak, closed class of words. Their core are old words, typical of many Indo-European languages. Therefore, there are many universal features in the class of pronouns. On the other hand, in each language there are specific things related to both the semantics of pronouns and their formal expression. In Lithuanian, the semantic boundary of pronouns with other classes of words, especially adjectives, is very unclear. Some words are close to both pronouns and adjectives in terms of their meaning and usage. However, pronouns are discrete forms, and for them, even in transitional cases, a classification decision should be made for purely practical purposes: a pronoun or an adjective. There are many difficulties in determining the gender, number, and vowel categories of certain Lithuanian pronouns. Sometimes it is not clear whether we are dealing with two or more forms of the same lexicon in terms of gender, number, and verb, or with two or more separate lexicons. One way or another, when solving questions related to the semantics of pronouns, the criterion of purposefulness is not forgotten, i.e. that a certain theoretical solution should not complicate, but facilitate the description of the grammatical structure. 002. distinguishing pronouns from other classes of words can be based on 3 criteria: semantics, distribution and morphological characteristics of words. The main semantic feature of pronouns, as a class of words, is their referential meaning. As R. Jakobson (1971, 132) points out, pronouns are distinguished from other elements of the linguistic code by their obligatory reference to a certain message. In addition, unlike nouns, the meaning of pronouns is very general and undefined. In their distribution, pronouns also differ from nouns. Unlike nouns, they don't have a suffix, for example, you can say: tall man, but you can't say: *tall I. 134 Unlike adjectives, pronouns cannot join adverbs, e.g. we say: sehr schön, but we cannot say: *very much like that. Distributive characteristics of pronouns affect ir jų semantics. The morphological characteristics of gimininiy pronouns coincide in many places with the morphological su characteristics of adjectives, because adjectives have inherited the iš conjugation of gimininiy jų pronouns, but in individual cases the morphological criterion can also help to determine the boundaries of word classes, especially when the semantic criterion is not very helpful. He, ji 003. This pronoun differs from the others in that it is used as a noun, usually in the positions of adjective or adjective, but t. y. has different forms of two genders as an adjective pronoun. According to this pronoun he, ji corresponds to nouns type ‘substantiva mobilia’ (teacher, teacher). The masculine and feminine forms of this type of noun are ir different lexicons, because the noun's genus determines its lexical independence. jų For the to pronoun he, the relative ir forms have recently been ji considered two different lexems, jvardžiu jis pronoun t. y. ir ji (see section 4.4). Žulys, 1969, 174 footnote; 1974, 91; Raisins, 1984, 31). On the other hand, there is no complete correspondence between the nouns of the above-mentioir ned type pronoun he, ji she. Nouns type teacher, teacher usually denotes persons, rarely other living things; they do not mean inanimate objects. These nouns are combined with other su nouns only syntactically, ne but semantically, the genus ir forms are t. y. jų distinguished by the person of the person (animal) sex, e.g. : Father is the teacher, Mother is the teacher. Thus, the gender forms of this type of noun have different meanings: the masculine gender forms denote persons of the male sex (living), female forms of o female persons — (gyvius). For them, to you need to ir consider different lexicons. The pronoun he, meanwhiji le, refers ne only to persons ar other living objects, but very often inanima- — te objects. When indicating inanimate objects between the pronoun of the noun's ir antecedents he, there is ji only a syntactic combination, e.g. : There was a table in the room. It was covered with a tablecloth; There was a chair in the room. Ji was a su backrest. In this case, there are no additional semiforms of the pronoun ji he. The meaning jų does not change when forms change. In both cases, they refer only to į the above-mentioned object (anaphoric meaning of the pronoun). Forms it, combination ji with su antecedent nouns is purely grammatical, the choice of pronoun form t. y. depends on the grammatical form of the noun. This allows the pronoun forms he, to be considered as separate lexems, but the ji same lexems in ne different genus forms, necessary to indicate the relationship in the text with nouns of the respective genus. su Be to, forms he, holding different ji lexicons complicates in Lithuanian language another thing. There are quite a lot of demonstrative, questioning-relative and indefinite pronouns, which are replaced by relatives ir They are used both adjectively and nounally. In the noun position they correspond to the pronoun it, urokt., e.g. : ji 135 old one. Completely as a pronoun he, in the position of a noun used combined ji with antecedents genus ir demonstrative su this, that, this, this, This, -a, that, -a, the same, the same, anaphoric meaning relatives which, -i, each, -a, indefinite self, -i ir Mrs. Gaidienė is sitting between Vilius and Martynas. She's beautiful and funny. She speaks to Willis, who, meanwhile, does not answer Simon; And after a break of a dozen years (born) — Martynukas. Almost put his ji head to this Simon; the O queen gave him a sword, covered with gold money, which was very useful to him Balč; He asked his father: "Do you let your daughter in?" And he answered: "I do." He asked his mother: "Do you?" he Ta asked. ‘I agree’ Val; Half a bunch of potatoeir s, blown away by the wind White; Zvairaakis peeled off an old stump, jį su stone į maSq, the 0 same su shepherd hid under po the bridge Cv; There's a pissed-off babe who doesn't ir have her own little ones, so she doesn't nė have to send the ko eggs. What? O Rye The man who beats on the sickle Don; As they walked, they both discovered a very hard pine tree, which was rotten in the middle BM. In the position of a noun, the following indefinite or questioning pronouns are also used: vienas, -a, aliai vienas, -a, vienas, -a, kitas, -a: vienas kitas, viena kita; all, -a, all, -a, every, -a, any, -i, some, -i, some(n) of, -i, somebody, -i; somebody, nė somebody; which which, which which; but each, -a; kai katras, -a, kaži(n) katras, -a, kažkatras, -a; katras nors, katra nors; which, -i, katras, -a, keli, -ios, keleri, -ios, kelintas, -a, e.g. : ne ne Some call tą the hill Giant Tomb, others Ghost Mountain Krev; Knowing iš the situation of their relatives, each woman brought a diaper and a ribbon. Cv; Sitting down all began to eat honey each bee ir worshiping Earth; Some of the jų workers said a few words, others laughed endorsingly White; No one could have said that Mykoliukas would never have su agreed with any of them What? Tuul just over the threshold of the oran iš cottage and quickly fled back Bil; Oh, how many of our herbs have become so stinking that neither Bob has a big ham Don; Tie (birds) all refused, one nė nowhere (brothers) have nė not seen, one knows nothing Apple; There are more ir limes in the village, nė but one iš jų cannot equal Linden Myk-Put; How many of you will be here tomorrow? Apple. In the case of the pronoun forms he, ji different lexicons should be considered as separate lexicons of all the ir formerly mentioned pronoun forms in the position of nouns. O this would cause considerable ir inconvenience complicating the grammatical description. For example, instead of one pronoun that, that, that (tatai) would be four or even five different ar pronouns: adjective that, that, noun that, noun that, noun that 1) 2) 3) 4) (tatai) and, if we consider the variants as separate pronouns (Zr. 015), 5) tas ‘that’. Accordingly, other pronouns should be ir "crushed". It would be a very incomplete description. Be therefore, it would be difficult to distinguish between individual uses. After all, he is a pronoun, ji not a specific feature of Lithuanian language. In other languages, the same word is ir used in different meanings, for example, in ir Russian. Oh, she, he, she, wook. he, she, it, engl. he, she, it ir kt This is a very old feature, formed in individual Indo-European languages due to the coordination of antecedents, su a possible object, even 136 before the attributive use of genus forms. In the grammar of the above-mentioned languages, the pronoun forms of the pronouns are usually not regarded as distinct lexemes. It-- gi ir it is hardly appropriate ar for us to divide such ar pronouns in grammatical dictionaries into separate lexems according to į the forms of the genus. I, we; you, you 004. As is known, the pronouns I, we; tu, you from Indo-European antiquity form supletive paradigms, individual verbs differ in their roots. t. y. jų There is a difference in the singular form from the plural form, as well as the noun from the conjunctive. tų Be external structure, the ir significant ratio of these forms differs. Between the forms aš ir month, tu ir you do not have an adequate singular/plural ratio. For to there is ground aš ir month, tu ir you consider different pronouns. On the other hand, in Lithuanian, like in other Indo-European ir languages, the forms aš ir month, tu ir you are not fully distinguished by the singular/plural ratio. In Lithuanian between tu ir you singular/plural antagonism is usually maintained. You is often used to refer to more than du ir one person (sometimes personification ir of living even inanimate objects) to — which you are į addressed, you have a t. y. grammatical plural meaning: ,tu+tu+tu®, e.g. : — Laurence, brother! Broliene! You don't envy me, I just love you ir į wedding please Zem; — So you'll lie here, pigs rotting o potatoes there! Aš You! — threatening with a whip (to the shepherds) shouted Pliauga Blood; — You roosters, su you're giving ir the chickens dung, run, hurry up to have fun once more Don: You is also close to the plural when referring to the addressee together with other persons, e.g. : su ar You see, it is iš immediately clear that we, the old, have trouble in youth. su You (,,you® ir other young people) think differently Vencl. The same meaning has you in prepositional constructions with: you su su Petru = tu With Peter. We can't be equal "I+I+I" simply because of the meaning of the aš pronoun — “speaking person”, since Several people usually do not speak together, although sometimes there may be such a linguistic situation, e.g. : We all see together: . We agree! Right!" ir and so on. Here we are ‘I+I+I’. A close meaning to the grammatical plural we has when the speaker is ir indicated together with other persons whom he represents, su when one ar speaks on behalf of several, e.g. : t. y. We're soldiers. Cold anger froze my face S. Nér: We all old gi remember the times of czarism well Vencl. Similar meaning has we in the construction preposition with: we su su Petru = aš su Peter. This use of the pronouns in question shows that aš ir month, tu ir you are not in a fully grammaticalized number category form (due to their specific significance), but it cannot be denied that they have ir characteristics of this category. Incomplete grammarization of the number category is typical of other ir pronouns, see. $ 008. 137 According to syntactic models, I, fu are singular forms, and we, you — plural forms, i.e. the first are used in the singular forms of numbers-- variable words, and the second — in the plural forms, e.g.: I go — we go; you go —you go, I'm good —we're good, you're good —you're good. According to the verb endings, I and you paradigms are close to singular nouns, and we, you paradigms — to plural nouns. Thus, taking into account the meaning, syntactic and morphological characteristics, in our understanding, it is possible to consider I and we, you and you as singular and plural forms of the number category, even though in Lithuanian language the plural forms of these pronouns are still used: mudu, mudvi, judu, judvi. The latter forms can be considered as variants of the plural forms we, you (they are also used with the plural forms, cf.: mudu einame, judu einate). Laikant aš, mes, tu, jūs, mudu, mudvi, judu, judvi atskiromis leksemomis, užsitušuotų visų šių formų su skaičiaus kategorija susiję semantiniai santykiai. 005. Lithuanian I, we; you, you; tamsta, savęs, like nouns of the type akiplėša, kerėpla, do not have different genus forms, but are semantically combined according to the gender of the person referred to with genus variable forms, e.g. : I, you, somebody good (about a man); I, you, something good (about a woman); We, you, that's good (about men); We, you, that's good (about women); Hates herself (about her husband); They hate themselves (about a woman). Plg. : This (such) akiplēša (about a man); That (such) akiplēša (about a woman). Therefore, it has been quite rightly pointed out recently that due to the “Semantic combination” with the relative variable forms, the 1st and 2nd person pronouns could be considered as double (homonymous) forms as nouns type akiplėša (see Bymmsiruna, Crenanos, 1988, 23). But the contradiction is in the speech itself about the uneven development of individual subsystems. The words of the type akiplėša form a relatively rare group of nouns in Lithuanian language. Their use is defined, partly statutory. They usually go only with relative interchangeable words signaling the gender of the person being expressed: Koks tu kerėpla; High non-payment; This is the case with the 1976 (see 1976, pp. 101). Therefore, such nouns are justified to be regarded as different (homonymous) lexems of two genuses (see TJISI, 1985, 84) as “substantiva mobilia” (teacher, teacher), although the latter have different genus forms, while the former do not. Meanwhile I, we; you, you pronouns with gender variable words are used relatively rarely, most often the gender of the person they refer to is revealed from the context, i.e. these pronouns often do not have not only morphological, but also syntactic and semantic indicators of gender distinction, cf. : I am writing. Often the gender of the persons referred to by these pronouns is irrelevant. This means that they only cover a small part of their usage. In most cases, they are non-mentioned. According to semantic combination with relative variable forms of pronouns I, we; you, you can also be compared with he, she, they, her, e.g.: I'm good —I'm good, you're good —you're good, we're good —we're good, you're good —you're good, he's good —she's good, they're good —they're good. But there are also fundamental differences between them. The pronoun he, she is a substitute, always in the position of nouns, it replaces the preceding nouns. Therefore, they have developed different forms of family. They are necessary 138 because of the combination with the noun antecedents and are used not only with the related variable words (he is good, she is good), but also with the verbs (he goes, she goes —by the antecedents). I, we; you, you are not substitutes, they have no direct syntactic relationship with nouns, i.e. they do not have antecedent nouns. For this reason, I, you, we, you are often not necessary at all in the text, for example, when going with verbs and the latter Zymi person: (I) go (person is marked by the morpheme -w). The family category, based on combination with antecedent nouns, is simply irrelevant to them. So in this case there are pronouns I, we; you, you restriction of the syntactically understood genus category. On the other hand, the plural forms of these pronouns are replaced by relatives (e.g., we are good, we are good; you are good, you are good). So the pronouns I, you, that, yourself are non-noun pronouns, but they also have the characteristics of relative pronouns. My, your, yours The proposal of V. Žulis (1969) to combine these forms into the paradigms of I, You, Self, initially accepted with mistrust, is now increasingly being legitimized and justified. One should agree with the idea of T. Bulygina and J. Stepanov (Byjnsiruua, Crenanos, 1988, 20) that it is appropriate to distinguish 2 pronouns in the paradigms of pronouns I, you yourself: I non-proprietary pronouns of me, you, myself and II possessive pronouns of my, your, yours. These forms are distributed according to the principle of complementary distribution (one excludes the other), but they clearly differ in their meaning according to the possession / lack of a characteristic shade. When the paradigms of pronouns mano, tavo, savo are integrated into I, tu, savęs, it is still not possible to assume that there are no longer possessive pronouns in Lithuanian. As the possessive pronouns manas, -a, tavas, -a, savas, -a disappear and become fixed in poetic language (savas, -a is used more frequently, but its meaning changes), their noun forms manasis, -oji, tavasis, -oji, savasis, -oji become more and more dominant in neutral sentences. Between manas, -a and manasis, -oji, as well as other corresponding forms, there is no longer an antagonism of ordinary/noun forms. The noun forms take effect as adjectives instead of ordinary ones (see Valeckienė, 1964, 46-47). In order to avoid confusion between adjective pronouns and adjective pronouns, it is advisable to combine adjective pronouns, as well as adjectives, into a general section of personal names and treat them as subsections of that section. Both recursive and adjective pronouns indicate relationships between persons: the recursive pronoun indicates the relationship of the person, who is perceived in the sentence as the subject of the action or state, with himself, and the adjective pronouns — the belonging of the object (person) to the person. Possessive pronouns relate directly to possessive pronouns: they have the same meaning and form optional variants when they are in the same position. The inappropriate forms of the root (mano, manas, -a, manasis, -oji, maniškis, -ė) indicate that the object belongs to the speaker, the tav forms of the root (tavo, tavas, -a, tavasis, -oji, taviškis, -ė) indicate that the object belongs to the addressee, and the own forms of the root (savo, savas, -d, savašis, -oji, saviškis, -ė) are a kind of regressive- -proprietary pronouns, they indicate that the object belongs to the persons who are the subject of the action or behaviour. 139 By combining characteristic pronouns with personal pronouns, it is also easier to explain the origins of the personal pronouns our, your in the single subsystem; no, no, you; us, you, them; tamstos, tamstų; pačios, pačios, pačių, which have a dual meaning: non-proprietary and proprietary, although their forms do not change according to these meanings. All, -a, all, -os 008. As is known, the singular and plural forms of this pronoun differ in lexical nuances. Vn. visas, -a has the meaning of,,iStisumo, apimties- “, i.e. it indicates that the object is whole, of full composition, all encompassed by a certain characteristic, e.g. : The whole body hurt; I sang the whole song (from start to finish). Dg. all, -os has a distributional, collective meaning, i.e. it indicates that the number of things is exhausted, e.g. : All people speak so; I sang all the songs (which I only knew) (see Valeckienė, 1984, 74). Some languages have two different pronouns for these meanings, e.g. German. ganz = lit. all, -a and german. all = song. Everyone, zeros. The question arises whether all, -a, all, -os are to be regarded as two different lexems, or as singular and plural forms of one lexem, and also whether vn. all, -a is a pronoun, an adjective. It must first be said that vn. all, -a ar and dg. all, -os meanings, while different, are also related to each other, intertwined, not strictly lexical. With plural nouns, all, -as have not only a collective meaning, but also a meaning of "completeness, volume" (which is characteristic of the singular all, -a forms). e.g. : All the year I pronounced —means "all the year to the end" (the meaning of "volume"). Meanwhile, All the years of my life I worked in one place —means “many years, all my life” (collective meaning). On the other hand, vn. all, -a, in addition to the meaning of "extent, continuity", implies a collective meaning (which is characteristic of the dg. all, -as forms) in cases where it is joined to singular nouns having a series, cohort, i.e. collective, meaning, e.g., all life — all years of life. So vn. all, -a and dg. all, -as differences in meaning directly depend on their surroundings, t. y. from the semantics of nouns. In addition, the relationship of the meaning of all, -a and all, -os complicates the specificity of the category of pronouns, number. As is known, the category of number: “one/more than one” has evolved from words of collective and collective meaning by means of grammaticalization. In the Lithuanian pronoun system, traces of this development have survived to this day. For example, the pronoun every, -a is not used in the plural, because the grammatical meaning of the plural contradicts the lexical meaning of this pronoun: "one openly taken from the general whole, all in a row separately to the end". Very clearly the stages of the formation of the category of number are revealed by the construction type typical of Lithuanian language: mes kiekvienas, -a, mes nė vienas, -a, vaikai vienas... kitas and others, where there is no coordination by number, because in such groups the pronouns kiekvienas, -a, nė vienas, -a, vienas, -a... kitas, -a and others have a distributive individualizing meaning. The semantic relationship of the forms all, -a, all, -os is related to the development of the number category. Both all, -a and all, -as retain the generalizing reference meaning characteristic of pronouns — they indicate the connection with the whole, only the generalizing meaning of one and the other forms differs from the grammatical meaning of the number category. All, -as forms used with plural nouns have a general collective meaning that corresponds to the grammatical meaning of plural — referring to and generalizing together more than one person or thing. And the generalizing lexical meaning of all, -a forms used with singular forms of nouns conflicts with the grammatical meaning of singular "one, -a". In this case, the grammar is .140 the same. The generalizing meaning of the forms visas, -a stagnated and inevitably acquired a shade of "volume, integrity", thus approaching the meanings of the adjectives ištisas, -a, pilnas, -a. The whole pronoun, -a, and the whole adjective, -a, approach their meanings also because the latter also in a certain context (and only in a certain context) approaches the meaning of pronouns, cf. ; full shirts of “this cut” and full years of “all years”. In the latter case, the whole, -a is quite close to the meaning of the pronoun all, -as. But this does not mean that iztisas, -a in the above-mentioned meaning is a pronoun as well as visas, -a in the meaning of "wholeness, extent" — an adjective. Synonymy and substitution in this case are not sufficient criteria to identify a class of words (see Tekorienė, 1987, 88). The terms of the class are often synonymous. On the other hand, the synonymy here is rather limited. Unusual would be sayings: *Isas kūnas skaudėjo instead of Visas kūnas skaudėjo or *Išgėriau visą puodelį pieno instead of Išgėriau visą puodelį pieno and so on. As the above points show, the meanings of all, -a and all, -as forms are not so distinct that they should necessarily be considered as different lexicons. The semantic relationship of all, -a, all, -as represents not the lexical separation of these forms, but not the complete grammaticalization of their number category. The whole, -a meaning of "the whole, the extent" retains the generalizing reference character characteristic of pronouns and is thus related to the whole, -as meaning. In determining the relationship of all, -a, all, -as forms, the morphological criterion must also be taken into account. su In terms of external structure, all, forms the -a singular, all, -os plural o paradigm. There is also — a syntactic criterion: todas, -a are used with singular forms of nouns, and todos, -as with plural forms of nouns. Thus, in our understanding, both from a theoretical and practical point of view, the forms all, -a and all, -0s is appropriate to consider (especially in the grammatical description and in dictionaries) in the singular — plural forms of the ir pronoun of one lexem. Based on all, -a ir all, -as meaning differences and synonymy jų with su adjectives whole, -a, full, -a A. Rosinas (1984, 101 — 102) distingui3 shes individual lexems: 1) all, -a — an adjective meaning “volume, 2) integrity”; all, -a — a pronoun when it goes with a collective noun, su e.g.: celý klub; all, -as pronoun in the collective sense. According to this 3) classification, we should also — distinguish 4) all, the adjective “apimties, iStisumo* meaning, when it goes with plural nouns, e.g. : -08 — su All the doors are t. y. cleaned, one from start to finish as: I wiped the whole window. But ne here's the point. The thing is that A.. Rosine separates all, -a, all, -os meanings as different lexems. Such a decision would greatly complicate the grammatical description. First of all, it would be very difficult to establish the boundary when all, -a — adjective ir when pronoun, — because these differences are determined by the semantics of the noun, ne pronoun, e.g. : The whole class "room" — would be an adjective (All clapped nicely 141 sė arranged) the whole class ir "student- — s" would be a pronoun (The whole class agreed.) The category of the number of complications due to these forms. Should be kept both „pronouns“ all, -a, all, -os, both "adjective" as a whole, -a individual words, not having a number category, o this does not correspond to the real situation. Thus, with such a dynamic development of these pronouns, there is more reason to go by the way of form difference, ne but reduction, jų t. y. consider all, -a, all, -os as one lexical pronoun, while highlighting the — differences in lexical meaning and jų the specificity of the number category. Visoks, -ia 009. As all, -a, so every, -ia ir A. Rosina la- (1984, 11; 1988, 185—189) ko ne pronoun, o adjective. It is also based on the synonymy that every, -ia corresponds to the adjective varied, -i, which can be replaced ji by the latter. Iš actual compliance is limited. The pronoun raznos, -ia is not an absolute synonym of the adjective -i raznos. For example, this pronoun cannot be replaced by the adjective various in such -i sentences: Ans y(ra) vsaks amatnieks: mācīties visu darīt Šts. It would be unusual to say: *Ans y(is) a diverse craftsman. The meaning of the pronoun vsaks, -ia only approaches (and only in a certain context) to the adjective varied, meaning, but -i because this pronoun to does not become an adjective. Jo meaning in ir such cases remains referential, nominative. Ji is generalizing, distributive, related to the t. y. distribution of su the whole: vsaks, -ia means „and such, ir such, any, taken together“, cf. : There are broken out displays from all kinds of javas White. By replacing in this sentence the noun of any with the adjective of various (java), we will raise only the variety of cereal species, the existence of several species of no relation to the whole, pronoun any, -ia is emphasized be above all cereal species su o (total) exhaustiot. y. n, indicating the ratio su of grains to total. So the accents of meaning differ. The meaning of the pronoun raznos, -ia approaches the meaning of the -i adjective varios, but does not su coincide with it. Not convincing A. Rosino (1988, 186—188) interpretation that vn. every, -ia forms, which at iš the beginning had the pronoun meaning "every, -a", o later acquired the adjective meaning "various, -i". Iš real pronouns every, every, -ia old have -a ir very close meanings. iš Sometimes, in a certain context, the meanings of these pronouns seem almost synonymous, e.g.: izliuosuodama juos... ir iš all kinds of violence is ir also possible: DP 566, dissolving them to the needs of each iš lo ir violence... the meaning of the statements is almost the same, only the semantic iš result is achieved at a different point: “and such, such, any together” ir emphasizes diversity; of every matter means — “and that, that, any of the ir common whole, all taken separately” iš emphasizes the order. In the old writings in some dialects, vars, -ia slightly — more widely used, "attacks" the pronoun every, ir semantics, e.g. : -a Write down any word Zt (Vidugiris, 1960, 122), t. y. "and such, such, any, ir together, every". The fact that the pronoun every, -ia is used in the superior form every, -ia is also not a criterion for adjectives. jį Visokiausias, -ia is used only in contexts where the pronoun raznos, -ia approaches the adjective įvairias, -i, thus ne be of the latter. Numeral first, also -a used in degrees 142