Lietuvių kalbos vardininko su dalyviu (nominativus cum participio) struktūra ir raida

GRAMMATICS CATEGORIES IR JŲ RAIDA LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XVIII (1978) V. AMBRAZAS LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES GARDININKO SU PARTICIPANTS (NOMINATIVUS CUM PARTICIPATION) STRUCTURE IR RAIDA Traditional su participant of the denominator (hereinafter referred to as — VD) term is usually used for constructions in which the explanatory action is su ZodZiais! goes participle noun with predicative attribute in the sentence (adjunct) position double ir syntactic connections: verb noun su pronoun, e.g.: ir father felt ar sick, guest pretended (nudavé) without noticing, he said he had worked hard, my brother would not come back. The participle here is dependent on the verb and defines the content; at the same time it is ir semantically jo linked and formally combined with the noun of the noun pronoun, which also denotes the subject of su the verb, the ar participant's own action. ir ir ' VD structure ir development has long interested linguists. Ši construction discussed already D. Klein's grammar (K1G 165; K1C then 111), mentioned in the majority XVII — XIX a. Lithuanian Grammar (SC 82—4; R 150; MG 188—9: OsG 162, 165; HG 336; SchG 317). Many VD examples iš of the present Lithuanian language provided J. Jablonskis (1957 : 456 — 7,557), considering them as certain forms of participatory language, ir J. Balkevičius (1963 : 101—3; 403 tt. ), o iš ancient writings — K. Būga (1959 : 116—7,122—3)and in particular J. Palionis (1967 : 152—3). As a separate case of the noun usage described VD E. Fraenkelis (1928 : 18—9). Approaching Lithuanian ir Latvian Languages VD su corresponding facts of Slavic languages, the genesis of this construction explained A. Potebnia (IToreGust 1958 :156—67), later significantly different — E. Tanglis (1928 : 48 tt.) ir I. Marwan (1962; 1969 : 18). Examining the actionZodini phrase, the VD structure in the current Lithuanian language described V. Sirtautas (1965 : 27—32; 1968 : 305—38). However, VD the syntactic ir structure and use of the ancient language monuments are not systematico jo ally ir described, the origin and development are interpreted very contradictorily. Since the history of this construction is directly connected with the main processes of su the development of a continuous sentence by ir jo changing the syntactic — oppositions of the verb of the grammatical center, it is worthwhile to ją investigate it specifically. 1. GARDININKO SU PARTICIPANTS SYNTACTICAL STRUCTURE 1.1. VD consists only of verbs of certain semantic groups?. Individual forms of participants are su connected to them unevenly. ! T. y. verbs that can control the subordinate elements of explanatory sentences. Such verbs of phraseic control are called commentable ir (for the term, see aut. 1974 : 210). „* Like the personified forms of the verb, they can be made up of participants and semi-participants, e.g. : VD ir Jacob, realizing that he was dying, called all his sons Valanč (L IV 129); The blacksmith, knowing he had a strong child, began to forge some things Lt III 239; Anas says that he has the bird ir himself by physical Lt III 394, 1.1.1. The active participants in VD the construction usually depend on the verbs denoting: irl t pl a) perception, e.g.: see(s), see(s), feel(s), feel(s); The verbs close to them are (pa)rodyti, rodytis, atrodyti: The old mate no longer has power Dauk (LKŽ VII 916); Father ir mother saw ... son unconvincing §1 (MLLG I 362); he felt like he was standing at the doctor's house CvR III 108; ji does not feel guilty BirdK 264; For the first time I hear that I have lords on my land, II 24; ta appear to have the best heart SRagR III 233; (machine) showed finished its work ZemR III he 258; seemed to know nothing Kps; mental b) perception and activity, e.g.: think(s), think(si)think, think(si)think, agree, know(s), know(s), investigate, grasp, remember, remember, forget; here it is possible to distinguish the verbs that denote a decision and a promise to act, e.g.: assume, offer, decide, ir promise, intend, threaten, ensure, belief and doubt, e.g. : ir (i)tikéti(s), believe, hope, doubt: He thinks he's dreaming SimonI 321; guess he won't get anything good to hear Klp; (MLLG I 75); can feel fucked between famous doctors CVR 1X 93; Others of that age say they know everything, they know everything Blv (LKŽ VII the 833); dingo binding his feet LKŽ TI 385 dreams of being in church KatkR This 223; shy knows the bird — will not to have Lt III quickly 394; realized I was mistaken CvR TI 220; grep up and spoke out I 220; got caught up talking too much SimonVK I 158; The wolf remembered Wednesday without delay LTRn 284; Petronella has newly learned to have heavenly eyes on Earth I 223; Rimeika... hospital offers to bring a priest ZemR III intended 88; now then replying Aries (APh II 81); the priest jį threatened revenge Myk-PutS 304; you promise to help me VaižgRR 1 273; Dėgučius promised ją to kill BsRP 161; promised to save him Jrk (LKŽ III hoped 211); to have a good workinke ZemR II 7—8; trusts in the victory of the yiras storm VaižgRR TI 368; I hope it will be abundant Aries (APh VII 110); Vincas convinced by buying well VaižgRR I 276; c) information, e.g.: say(s), say(si)say, announce(s), confirm, mention, testify, speak, tell(s), state, write(s), admit, defend, apologize, swear, worship, boast, complain: sakeisi nedraskės O tu JD I 172; The women said they had nothing to burn Lt III 378; Bern expressed his desire to receive the royal carriage CvR V 34; Father... showed me, said school į brought ZemR IV 31; approved Soke over the fence CvR III 168; storyteller's mate Sts (LKZ VII guest 913); told about his treasures in a Latvian bank ZemR III 7; No gifts announced ji by nobody giving SimonVK I 280; Etmon... posted by josigs į Lithuania SimonSL, 13; the merchant signed to give all his goods BsRP wrote 59; something... not going to be printed Aries (Aph VI 157); they confessed to him that they had stolen the king's money BsRP 33; Pechura... he said he wouldn't steal again. Vien IMA that 77; right as a dumb knowing nothing Jrk 94; Antanas defended himself without seeing ZemR III bragged 347; the rooster caught the crow A man 341; complained about losing his manor TMPs 50; wolf... complains of not being able to defeat the mare ZemR IV 455; d) emotional and pretentious state, e.g.: to rejoice, to be afraid, to be terrified, to be afraid, to worry, to grieve, to regret, to cry, to be ashamed, to wonder; apsimesti, nu(si duoti, išsiduoti, dėtis, slėpti(s), tartis, būtis: * Fox... looking forward to having a good breakfast LKZ 11 727; I grew more angry when I got rid of it Sli: they're afraid they won't earn bread (from); sometimes (Petronėlė) feared cheating husband ŽemR I 225; Without the ko addition of sorbitol ZemR 1232; sorry I ir can't regret doing so stupid Kp (LKZ 111 25); cried parents' hope unfulfilled You 34: betrayed me without seeing me Alvt (LKŽ II 633); the du oldest déjos greatly cunning esą BsRP 102; mother of... pretended not to notice Krév Rg 193; Don't say nė a word, pretend you didn't hear Lt III 255; How he knows how to kiss, he will be ignorant ir again. I 221. Most VD commonly used es. 1. I'm sick. participants who can go with all of the above verbs. su Be. map. 1. I'm sick. participants are rarer; to, be not connected su by verbs, 8 Zymin&iais decision and promise to act (take, decide, promise, threaten, ensure). It is precisely with these su verbs, to, hope, be sure, hope, be doubt, defend, su which express a certain intention and perspective of the action by their very lexical meaning, that the will is more often used. 1. I'm sick. participants. On the other hand, it will. I. I'm sick. participants are reluctant to associate verbs su denoting an action limited by the present ar past, e.g., betray, grab or lead. verba memoriae: to remember, to remember, to forget (except for constructs su with modal participants, e.g. he remembered that he had to return). Just me. su 1. I'm sick. verb connected to participants biitis (see section 4.4). 4.6.3.3). VD su be. common I. I'm sick. participants occurs only in very rare cases. 1.1.2. Inactive es. ir be. 1. participants in VD the construction depend almost on the verbs of tų the groups themselves, as the subjects, but are more ir rare ir jų the range of use is narrower. In the present language, the verb being is not jų associated with some verbs of su mental perception (remember, remember, forget), with verbs denoting decision and promise to act (take, decide, promise, threaten, su secure) and with some verbs of information (mention, testify, speak, report, swear, worship) at all. ir He felt healed LKŽ 111 285; they felt themselves Normans deliberately wronged Isn't it? IV 194; old man as if felt pushed second į place CvR III path 156; appeared to him known Sl; in the morning Jurgis looked like a dumb Kp. ; Man does not understand weaned Sts; then the passenger, realizing deceived, said DaukRR 331; The ray, unconsciously inviolable, descended to Earth I 262; (Katrė) remembered already separated from her parents in ŽemR I 74; I hope acquitted ZemR III 284; Says hurt, who knows o them Kltn; you in no way will admit defeated JankKK 384; Those questions... require require answered JablR TI 256; father boasted well kept and treated Krž; o baby and there complains sliding Krž; Don't rejoice praised, don't cry VP 31; rebuked soldier pretended shot Ds; now he is hurt by Kv; pity persuaded to return Sd. 1.1.3. Participants of the present tense 1 may also depend on verbs denoting desire, striving (or vice versa —unwillingness, avoidance, fear, request or habit, e.g.: want, let, give, surrender, love, wait, fight, ask, plead, pray, (in)habit, endure, hate, fear). Both old, both want to be heated Tv (LKŽ V 317); Would you like to be better treated? ŽemR II 351; he let himself be persuaded SimonVK I 40; and the dog good gives is taught Ds (LKŽ V 324): we will not give up being wronged ZemR 11 71; he does not give over the nose Vlkv; Larsen likes to be praised (ex.); ans is waiting to be transported Kv (LKZ VII 185); The child does not expect (does not expect) vaksiamas (baramas) Als (LKŽ VII 186); then it will not resist beating ZemR 1 261; the horse is afraid of beating through the muzzle Skn®; He asked to be admitted with his friend Slv (LKZ VII 262); Pečiūra no longer cried and no longer asked for gifts VienIMA 78; she begged to be saved from that hell ŽemR II 233; she cried to be released back BaltSKVD I 138; the Book was so accustomed to Niaurų turtoma VaižgR IX 47; a simple young horse was led, a colt was ridden JabIRR 1 457; will you endure being so beaten? Alk (LKŽ V 641); who may exchange words as rods thrown CiurlE III 122. 1.1.4. As can be seen from the examples, VD can make up the same. conjugated and non-conjugated forms of verbs, e.g.: jausti(s), regėti(s), manyti(s), žinoti(s), sakyti(s), etc. The most common forms are the conjugated forms, with which VD is usually made in the Žemaičių dialektas. Constructions with non-conjugative verb forms, typical of some north-eastern Lithuanian dialects$*, in literary language also pro3 With bijoti pastebėtas and būti. 1. nev. participant, e.g.: potato is not afraid of early harvesting Skr (LKZ V 386), so such constructions could be assigned to the previous (1.1.2) group. But be. The 1st person participle is extremely rare here, and with the other constructions of this group VD with bijoti has common synonymy and transformational connections, Zr. 1.3.2. 4 See the cartographical scheme of the distribution of VD in the Lithuanian dialect area, author 1977: 17. Ductile. Only the conjugated forms are VD used for the verbs remember, embrace, worship, rejoice, wonder, fear, pretend, betray, put, negotiate, boast, complain, defend, convince, be. Only the verbs seem, decide, threaten, assure, confirm, mention, testify, speak, report, swear, grieve, doubt have non-conjugative forms here; love, avoid, plead, be simple, endure. 1.2.1. In the VD construction, the participle (P) is subordinated to the verb (V), which is connected by predicative relation to the noun of su the pronoun ar (N). In addition, P is also connected with the semi-predikative relationship of N, but their connection is not direct, but intermediate — through the interrelationships of the members of V. VD, which are expressed in the external structure and reflected in the grammatical forms of the words, is shown by the scheme: ši V ~~ — — P 1.2.2. Such complex relationships between the members of the VD can be explained by considering the construction as a derivative from a synchronic point of view, formed by transformation of two sentences of simpler structure. One of them (constitutive, or inclusive) is included in the other (matrix) and occupies the position of the propositional object (or semantic verb of explanatory meaning) in it, conditioned by the valence of the verb. For example, the construction father says he worked can be considered to be composed of the basic sentences father says (father worked), whose structure and interrelationships show its internal struktiirg- ®. The verb of the matrix sentence says here "opens" the position of the propositional object (semantic verb of explanatory meaning), which is occupied by the constitutive (inclusive) sentence the father worked. The verb of this sentence is replaced by the participle, and the subject noun, which coincides with the corresponding form of the matrix sentence, is deleted®. The coincidence of the subject in the external structure is often indicated by a conjunctive particle added to the verb." E.g.: brat cíti (brat trpí) = brother feels (is) ill; the boy was happy (the boy returned) => the boy was happy to return; father threatened (father will not give) => father threatened not to give; the child got used to (the child was beaten) => the child got used to being beaten; —friend admitted (friend was defeated) = friend admitted defeat. In addition, the passive forms of the verbs are derived from the active forms, e.g., the child got used to (the child was beaten) <= the child got used to (x beat the child). The form of the participle of the verb and the external structure of the inclusive sentence most often coincide, but not always. When the VD depends on verbs that indicate the intention of the action or projection into the future, e.g.: tikėti(s), tikėtis, norėti, laukti(s), bijoti(s), paprašyti(s), prašyti(s- ), in the inclusive sentence the future tense is postulated, e.g.: berniukas laukė pavežamas <= <= berniukas laukė (the (x boy will be transported) berniukas laukė pavežs berniuką). ) a Internal structure of the structure (English) underlying structure, rus. BHyTpeHHsS; CTpyKTYDpa) is considered its syntactic invariant, determined by transformation relationships with other constructions of su the same language. The internal structure understood in this way is syntactic and does not correspond to the deep structure (deep structure, ryGHHHAs CTpyKTYpa), which is postulated by generative semantics. In general, transformations are used in the work only as a means of syntactic analysis, generation of sentences, e.g. o ne jo aut. 1974 : 261 su lit. * Delete a matching noun phrase (English) Egui-Noun Phrase — Deletion, sutr. END) one of the — most elementary iš transformations, characteristic of infinitive ir constructions (I ask to eat, I'm going to work, etc.), cf. Rosenbaum 1967; Mother of pearl 1971; Miller 1974 : 224 tt. ; Wegner 1975 : 98. 7 In some cases, the particle of return helps to avoid homonymy with the corresponding constructions of oppositional participants, e.g.: su father says he had lunch father says he had lunch at the peak of a syntactic relationship ir || 10 Holding the verb (V) the grammatical center of the sentence ir jo (Tesniere 1959; Fillmore 1968; Lehmann 1974; Yeiid 1974) ir By marking the inclusive sentence S, the name Zoding phrase NP, and the participant P, VD viding structure can be shown in the following scheme: ~ Wa NE(Prop. vol.) Nu S S | S Yo P ‘NP 0 The verb-centric model of sentence structure allows to explain the position of the inclusive sentence with the valency characteristics of the verb and to describe it semantically. Therefore, it is more convenient už N. Chomsky’s (1956) ir jo dichotomy model, which is also applied to VD-type participle and infinitive constructions of other languages (cf. Miller 1974: 232. ). 1.3.1. According to its viding structure VD corresponds to the su final participle and participle (GD), also represented by NP, — S (Zr. aut. 1974 : 261). However, GD the difference is that the jtractive sentence does not NP coincide su with the matrix sentence NP ir todél is ne eliminated, in o the external structure it takes the form of a final form, cf.: brat cíti (mother is sick) brother = feels mother is sick. In a synchronous view, a large part of the VD constructions can be regarded as syntactic GD variants of the corresponding ones. 1.3.2. Iš the same internal structure as In VD, by applying a different transformation, the connective explanatory ir sentence that or that can be su derived. In the explanatory subjunctive, as ir VD, deleted NP, e.g.: brother felt (brother sick) => brother felt that (if) sick (e.g.: felt sick). Such explanatory sentences are used as syntactic VD synonyms. They can be made with the same verbs as su VD, but in literary language in many cases there is a tendency to give preference to participative constructions as stylistically more expressive ir (especially su conjugated verbs) unambiguous. In this respect the VD relationship in the su explanatory sentences differs from the GD. Synonymous explanatory sentences have ir VD su es. 1. ne. subjects dependent on verbs denoting desire, effort, fear, request, habit ar (see section 4.4). 1.1.3). When making such explanatory sentences, there is no passive transformation in the inclusive sentence, it is expressed in the form of a pronoun, V o NP pronominalized, e.g. the patient wanted to visit the patient) the patient wanted (x to visit; similarly allow(s), like(s), = wait(s), ask(s) etc. jį su ir Another feature of this group is the synonymy of communicative structures. The — communicative su construction consists of a transformed passive-inclusive sentence, in which the iš conjunctive is į eliminated, the auxiliary verb is translated into communicative, e.g., the patient NP wanted to be visited or o (after the verbs let down, give, ask) the same passive form, — ir e.g. mother didn't let down say goodbye nė Skr(LKŽ VII 245). Synonymous communicative constructions may have some ir VD su active participants, namely, dependent on the verbs signifying the intention of ir the perspective of action to take, decide, promise, threaten, ensure, expect, hope, etc. ir e.g.: father promised (father will = return) father promised to come back. Thus, the VD internal syntactic structure coincides su with the internal o structure of the explanatory sentences, in certain lexical and semantic defined — ir su cases of the communicative constructions. Iš tų the same basic sentences, by applying different transformations, can be made ir VD, ir explanatory sentences of the specified type and communication constructions. 1.3.3. VD in the construction, the participant plays a similar syntacsinj ir semantinj role as the ai The personified form of the verb in the salutary démen. It can connect various phrases, communicating to ir form complex constructs , 11 tions, which in į turn are composed of subordinate elements of sentences. The ir noun participle of the explanatory clause corresponds to the noun forms of the verb to be, e.g.: panos pasijuto besą VD baltos iki juostai ir Lt III 253 (for details see aut. LKG II 359). Compound verb tenses correspond to the full-meaning participle of the auxiliary verb to be, ir e.g.: sakė esąs pavalgęs Skd; mom will say she met her sister Y1; The fairy... realized she was deceived MLLG II 60; He waited to be as always sprinkled overpowered ir VaižgP 16 (see section 4.4). but LKG II 359, 361). They can be equivalents of the ir initiated, ir completed, and aggregated tenses, but are much rarer, some forms o (e.g., past su participle conjunctions) seem only theoretically possible. So next to VD su with individual participants we have a whole paradigmVD su verb to be participants of various ir lexical meanings of other participants, e.g.: father said he was, he would bebeeinąs he was, he was, he would have come 2 3» 2» 3 2 beating 9 7 2 >> The constructions of full-meaning participles with participle conjunctions used in VD correspond quite well to the conjugated forms of the indirect pronoun (see author 1977: 7—8). 1.4. According to the external structure, VD is close to constructions, which are made up of phase verbs, stop, stop, stop, etc. with being. map. 1. veik. participants, usually having the meaning of a course agent, e.g.: stop growling Gs; the wind stopped beating Lzd; the pots were sold to LTR. In such cases, the participatory connections be. k. 1. I'm sick. participants are not linked. In their internal structure, these structures differ from VD. The lexemes stop, end, stop in them do not mean a separate action, but only give the participant's action a phase characteristic of the end. Sentences like, have you finished the field? (Rdm) is the verb akenti with the ending character, which in this case is expressed lexically, but in other cases it can be expressed also by operative means, e.g. did you forest the field? It is not possible to derive an explanatory sentence (*baigei, kad akenai) from such a structure, but there are constructs of communicative action (baigei akenti, stovesi pūsti, stovėjo prekiauti, etc.), as with phase verbs of the beginning of action (pradėjo || ėmė akenti, pūsti, prekiauti...) and modal verbs (norėjo, galėjo, turėjo eiti). For more information about these structures and their development see. 4.1.The final phase of the action is also marked by some verbs that have an independent lexical meaning and are also associated with being. k. 1. I'm sick. nouns of participants, e.g.: stop running, horse LB 109; gentlemen parėjo hunting Plng; When will you come back on the cross? KIvD 250; he stood up on his knees SRagIT 282 (see author 1964: 56). Such constructions correspond to predicate attributes dependent on the state and movement verbs according to their internal structure. They are derived from two basic sentences, but we do not see explanatory (propozitional object) relations between them, e.g.: horse ran + horse stopped = horse stopped béges, cf. corresponding constructions with adjectives: father returned + father (was) angry = father returned angry. Similarly constructed are the verbs (iz)(nu)keėti, (iš)kentėti, ištverti, susivaldyti, susilaikyti, etc. with negative beings. k. 1. I'm sick. in the nominative forms of the participants, e.g.: sestra iškentėjo + sesuo nešnekėjo => sestra iškentėjo nekalbėdama (see 4.1.1.). Only in cases of double negation is the participle form without negation postulated for the internal structure: he did not suffer + he said => he did not suffer without saying. Thus, the internal structure of nominative constructions with participants used in the current Lithuanian language is not uniform. A characteristic feature of VD is the transformational derivation from the basic sentences, between which the explanatory relationships are established. 12 2. NOMINIVE WITH PARTICIPANT IN LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE MONUMENTS OF THE 16TH-17TH CENTURY In the monuments of the 16th—17th century, the development of VD is recorded somewhat earlier than in the present Lithuanian dialects, and the relationship of this construction with other syntactic means differs in some respects. Data from ancient writings help to better understand the formation and further development of VD. 2.1. Prevalence and relationship to original designs 2.1.1. VD in ancient writings is not very common. In all the 16th — 17th century language monuments we find only about 500 examples, so VD here is about 6 times rarer than GD (cf. author 1969). However, the relative frequency of use in the writings of individual authors of both constructions is similar. VD is most commonly used by B. Vilentas, J. Bretkūnas, S. Vaišnoras, i.e. authors from the Žemaičių and Western Lesser Lithuania Highland dialects. The construct frequency index (i.e. the number of constructions in a text section of about 40,000 characters) here ranges between 5 and 2. It is the highest in K. Sirvydo,,Punktai” (5, 6), where it even approaches the frequency of GD (7, 7). However, in other writings representing the eastern Highland dialect (e.g. AK, Ev) the VD is much less frequent, and in Reformed publications, based mainly on the dialect of Kėdainiai, this construction has to be searched for with a lamp (for example, in the largest Calvinist publications — Postila in 1600 and Chylinski’s New Testament — the VD frequency is only about 0.2). The more frequent use of VD in Summa Evangeliorum (1653) can be compared with other Žemaičių language elements of this publication, which are quite numerous (cf. Palionis 1967: 76), or with the possible origin of the translator from Žemaičiai or Pažemaitė. This suggests that VD, like GD, in the 16th—17th centuries was used most widely in the Žemaičių and Western Highland dialects of Lesser Lithuania, somewhat less frequently in the Eastern Highlands, and in the northern and central areas of the Western Highlands dialect (according to the new classification — in the Western Highlands Šiauliai dialect) it was rare and unproductive. Thus, the area of usage of VD in the 16th—17th centuries determined from the old writings approximately coincides with the present one, but it seems to be somewhat wider and includes part of the eastern Highlands, where VD is almost no longer used after conjugative verbs. 2.1.2. In addition to the dialect of the authors, the spread of VD in the writings of the 16th—17th centuries was determined by other circumstances, the most important of which were the relationship with the corresponding constructions of the originals, the nature and genre. Statistics on the prevalence of VD (see table 1) clearly show that this construction is used more intensively in original or semi-original writings than in translations. In J. Bretkūno compilation Postilé it is four times more frequent than in the Bible translation. In the Lithuanian introductions of Vaišnoras’s translations we find 7 examples of VD, and in the several times larger translation of “Apie popiežiškąją masę” (mainly from jų German) — 9. Especially striking is the intensive use of VD,,Points of sayings“. This is particularly remarkable because neither in the present Anykščiai — Ukmergė dialects, where the author himself probably came from, nor in the iš (plg. Zinkevičius 1971 : 153—167 su lit.), nei in the immediate vicinity of Vilnius, whose dialect contributed to the In the 17th century Lithuanian scripts koinė formation (Zinkevičius 1972: 90 etc.), VD with conjugative verbs is no longer used. It is unlikely that in the 17th century it could have been the most important focus of use of this construction, it was also probably in Žemaitija and Lesser Lithuania at je that time. The greater frequency of VD in the original writings can be explained by the fact that — the author was less constrained by the influence of the original language. This is confirmed by the comparison of the su translated texts with 13 In the parts of J. Bretkūno Bible translated from German, the following syntactic means of the original are used in VD constructions": a) secondary elements of connective explanatory sentences, e.g.: szinnokes smertimi mirsens I Mos 20, 7 —so wisse | das du des tods sterben must; ghis dęiosi tho negirdins I Sam. 19, 27 — er the originals, thet als hore ers nicht; b) | elements of conjunctive sentences (with or without conjunctions), e.g.: paleiskem, iei nenories mana uszmuschama I Sam 19, 17 —las mich gehen | oder ich tėdte dich; kaip galli sakiti (nubr. -es) manne milins Teis 16, 14 —How can I say | du You love me. c) infinitive constructions, e.g.: welcziaus... kariauiens Iz 27,4 —ich mocht... get. d) constructions of predicative attributes, e.g. ieib netartumbeis nekaltas esans Jer 30,11 —das du dich nicht vnschuldig haltest. e) various other statements, e.g.: and randosi teipo esa Deuteronomium 22,28 —vnd findet sich also; Ach welcziaus nu karda turrins Rankoia IV Moz 22,29 —Ah | that I had now a sword in my hand. Of the four VDs in Luke's Gospel, three translate Latin infinitive constructions (e.g., tikities atgause 6,34 —speratis recipere (e.g., ėAničers AaBstvy) in one case —verbal compound with noun: maritis sweikinami: diligitis...salutationes 11,43. Thus, neither in the German nor in the Latin original of J. Bretkūnas’ translations there were any constructions that were close to the VD in their external form. Those syntactical means, which the author translated into VD, could also be translated into the corresponding structures of Lithuanian statements (subordinate elements of connective sentences, communicative constructions, etc.), without infringing the laws of Lithuanian language. The fact that the author in many cases chose the VD, thus overcoming the attraction of the original language, can only be explained by the high productivity of the VD in the western Highland dialect of Lesser Lithuania at that time. Targeted, stylistically thought-out selection of VD and variation with subordinate elements of connective sentences? and other constructions together shows the great mastery of the translator and his lively sense of language. In M. Daukša’s “Postila” we find 63 VD, the majority of which (46, i.e. 74%) consist of constructions with the forms of being of the participant (esąs, esanti, esą). It should be noted that 38 of the latter are used in the translation of the Polish text in accusative cum infinitive with the verb byč, i.e. a Latin construction® borrowed from the Lithuanian language, which has no equivalent in the same form in the living Lithuanian language, e.g.: idgnt’ paroditus essąs tikriiu anit Pranaszy 504, —aby sie okazal byé prawym onym Prorokiem W 857; kasg... régis taw’ éssqs drtimu andm 322,, —KtoryZ... zda sie tobie bliznym by¢ onemu 534. Vertéjo's efforts to find a semantic equivalent for this construction aiSkintinas more common than elsewhere VD su bit participants consumption. Only such 4 constructions translate the secondary DP elements of connective sentences, statements of different 2 — structure. Iš VD su other verb participants also 8 correspond to the infinitive constructions of the original, the elements of connective 7 — sentences že, aby, iž, iakoby, su 2 — participatory structures. So the VD ratio of su the original quite su agrees with the general M. Dakšos translation — tendency to convey as accurately as or1 J. Bretkūno ir B. Comparison of Wilens' writings su 1549 m. Lutetium Bible edition: Bible: That is: the whole holy Writes... D. Mart. Luth. Wittenberg. Printed by Hans Air. For ironing su The Vulgate used the following permissions: Bible Sacra Vvlgatae editionis Sixti Ovinti Pont. Max. ivssv recognizes atgve edita Romae... MDXCIII; Novum Testamentum graece et latine... curavit Eberhard Nestle Stuttgart, *1921. Citations of iš tų texts are not marked with abbreviations. 2 Sometimes the secondary elements are changed VD, correcting the manuscript, e.g. : O tu Mote ar szinnaisi ischgananti Hero? (tais. iš bau ischganisi Hero?) I Chorus 7,16 — ob du Who would be saved? — si virum salvum facies? * South acc. c. int. in Polish, as syntaksis lime, see. S. Kropaczek 1928 : 424 tt. ; J. Construction er 1972 : 60; J. Safarewicz 1972 : 148 tt. That the VD authors of ancient writings were considerk. ed Polish acc. c. inf. the equivalent, showing ir Ratio of the original sermon text of,,Punkty su wypowiedzi” in Polish translation: acc. c. inf. here corresponds to VD 21 in the case of iš 51. 14 lI Table 1 Nomen su participle XVI-XVII a. writings (statistical data) Noun with participant 2 Sources 2.2 Md | mi ds age 83 28 £3 | 88 | 2. 2000. pp. 234. "About Us". (1547—1570) 6 || —- 1 —- = — 2 0,3 B. Vilentas,- ,,Enchiridion‘* (1579) 1,2 4 —|| —i —5 42 B. Wilens,,,Evangelium and Epistles“ (1579) 5 7 1 1 —= —9 1,5 J. Bretkūnas- ,,,Biblia...* (1579—1590) 100 78(3) | 26(1) | 39(7) | 14 4 — |161(11)/ 1,4 J. Bretkūnas- ,,,Postilla. . .* I-II (1591) 19 36(6) | 25(2) | 10(1) | 14(3) | 9(2) —95(14)| 5 J. Bretkūnas,,,Giesmes Duchaunas...*“ (1589) 2,3 5 1(1) 1 —= = 7(1) 3 M. Daukša,,,- Katechis- 'but...' (1595) 1,5 3 ———= —3 2 Anonymo1605 m. us cat 1.5 2°. -— —= —2 LT M. Daukša, "Postilla,.." (1599) 40 59(2) | — 1 2 1 — 63(2) 1,5 Ischguldimas Evangeliv; (1573) (excerpts) 1,2 1 2 = —-= = 3 3,3 S. Vaišnoras,,,Margarita Theologica...“, PM etc. (1600) 11,3 26(6) | 5(1) 3 22(3) || || 58(10)| 5 ,,Postilla Lietvwiszka““ (1600) 41,5 5 || = — || = 7 0,17 "Punktay sakimu..." I-11 (1629—1644) 9 33(3) | 20(3) 2 =—1 —56 6,2 S. M. SlavocCinskis,,- ,Giesmes...* (1646) 3,6 2 1 ————3 0,8 „Kniga Nobaznistes...“ (1653) 5,5 1 = — || = _— 2 0,4 "Summa... evangeliv...* (1653) ) 7 4(1) = 3 3(2) | — — 10(3) 1,4 S. B. Chylinskis,,,Novm Testamentum...“ (1658...) 21,3 2 —1 — — —3 0,2 „Ewangelie Polskie y Litewskie...““ (1674) 3,5 2 1 —-= —3 0,8 J. Rikovijus, „Naujos.- .. The Book of Psalms..- ." (1685) 6,5 4 2 —=. 1 —7 1 275(21) | 85(8) | 63(8) | 56(8) | 18(2) 1 |498(47) Note. When there are more than one participant in the construction, the number of forms of the denominator in the second, third or subsequent positions 15 im is given in parenthew ses zdat bycz inszey pastawie W 324); Powilas sakosi | Wissiems wissas buwens BrP 1 223. 2.2.2.4. As personifying ir forms of the verb to be, participle joins can be connected with a predicate noun. Subjunctive of nouns VD su (a) here even more common denominatuž or. Meanwhile, the adjective noun (b) occurs much less often, and pronouns — only in isolated cases (c). a) I was a servant in that MT LI XLI,; ne dating éssqs big debtor DP 481,, (he was not known to be the great culprit sakosi esa W 809); Apaschtalais BrB Apr 2, 2 (say they | are Apostle; se dicunt apostles esse); O Alcimus... ne tikeios... The Kingdom of Heaven BrB Il Mak 14, 3 (thought | That he... nor to Hohenpriesterampt kommen méchte) iszmdnos ēssąs ; b) brqgumi DP 291.4 (understood as the w weight of the bull) W 485); Korosiu tawe sude ieng netaritumbeis essqs teisumi | MT 1932, ; Kada tikeias isc hmintingais essa BrB Rome 1, 22 (Since they are fur wise held; dicentes enim esse sapientes)®; se What ižg tutriju regisi tau buwis artimu anam (it seems to you close to being him) Ev 116°; c) I've been there, but I've heard you. | kū Iénas essas ne pažinoš DP 23,, (heard | what lan byč didn't know) W 23) A iey kursai saw regise nek essqs it VEE 110, (read dark sey | er something). In general, the construction su jnagininku in ancient writings are used less ne often as a denominator, some authors su o (e.g., M. Ducks) they are even more popular (probably due to the influence of Polish predicative instrumental, especially in adjective — constructions). su In this respect VD differs from the GD, where the constructor's structures with su participatory connections are rarer (Zr. aut. 1974 : 248), plg. :Regim ne wisus krikschczonis essanczus kuri | girressi krikschezonims essa BrP I 249%; but right next door we find girresi ir Krikschczonis esa BrP 1 247. Interconnecting Sometimes, the forms of the participle duet are ir su associated su with the genitive, with which they also form the equivalents of the conjugated participle, e.g. : Because ne regieios weydas vnt io essus human (Don't get me wrong, it's a human nd face) SP 22055; Nesa Herod szinnosi swetimos genmenes neszidu esans BrP I 110. Be verb to be participants, the connection function can VD be performed by ir participants of other verbs of similar meaning, e.g. : Lutherus sakessi Theologian tapens MT 38,4. Thus, the VD participle member according to its syntactic features in ancient writings fully corresponds to the personified form of the verb. 2.2.3, Post-zician patterns The order 2.2.3.1. VD of the three main members in ancient writings is very stable: more than the examples found in them 450 (about 92%) represents the positional model NVP and only about 894 —other models. Except for a few examples, all constructions are characterized by the postposition of the participle (P) in relation to the noun (N). In this respect corresponds VD to other semi-predikative constructions of participants (plg. aut. 1973 : 170 etc.), but outperforms them in the regularity of the membership order, which, moreover, is not relevant to the structure of the VD itself in most cases. Iš of the six possible arrangements of the members of the trinar construction, only four were realized in the ancient writings. Basic positional model NVP is conditioned by the prevailing tendencies of Lithuanian word order in the historical period: subject preposition and object postposition in relation to the verb. The participating member of VD, representing the inclusive sentence of the explanatory (content) phenomenon, occupies the position of the propositional object. * Similar BrB Pat 28, 11, * Similar DP 322,, su essąs. 1 Similar BrB Gal 6, 3: for more information, see but Apd 5, 36. "I Plg. but Hear the christ's ace RG 34753. 22 tion. Thus, the model of NVP directly reflects the current Lithuanian language, as well as many other languages. languages, typical model SVO (subjectum-verbum-objectum). It is stylistically neutral and represented by VD with all forms of participants. A lot less word order is maintained by the secondary members of the construction within this model. In cases where the participating member in turn has an object, there is a tendency in most cases to move the object before P, rather than after it (which should be expected according to the consistent VO principle), e.g. : Herodas.- .. tares kaki szenkla niig io regesens BrP I 378; But that already will be expected wirszu gdwes | Ir isz wisso evil runs out RG 5503. The object preposition is also sometimes seen when the originals have a different word order, which corresponds to the VO model, e.g.: wiewienas... tikiesis tarnawimu Diewuy darus (mniemacz bedzie že czynił posłuch) God) Ev 858 (t. p. DP 231,,, VEE 91; SE 1195). The influence of the original could have promoted the object position against the participant only in German translations, where the final position iš of the verb in the secondary elements of the explanatory sentences is regular. This partly explains the particularly high popularity of this word order J. In Bretkūno writings, ją where we see whole VD series, e.g.: lei tu regiesi Diewo szodi nemilins | Baszniczon ne eians | poteru schwennemokans tu | God of kuna... rare time imans | tadda szinok really Welina nūg tawes God's shadow diamonds BrP The order 1250. of members prevailing in the triangular unexpanded structures was apparently ir favourable for the survival of this model The NPV su of the participant's final position. The case of the participant prepositional object is also common in translated iš and partially original writings in other languages. Jų occurs in folk ir spoken language and folklore, cf. : The thief said he was planning to steal the young man's horse BsMt I 73; The groom said he had lost his whole evening End (VoL II 321); copper jewellery groves having Pp (LKT 62). In general, such constructions are much more rare in the present language. It is very possible that the object preposition in them is antiquated reflecting a more ancient pattern of ir word order in di the final position of the verb su (t. y. Today, many researchers are working on the reconstruction of this. for the period of linguistic communion2. It should be noted that in a similar way, the participle į is moved to the end of the construction, ir linked to pronouns used in a prepositional su manner, e.g.: esch iaucziūs hadna alba werta santi ne BrP 11 268; I'll be innocent. BrB Jer 30, 11 (That you du do not hold yourself innocuous); Simon... sakes nęko didis esas BrB Apd 8, 9 (gab fur | Er were atwas grosses; dicens se esse aliguem magnum); in Po whose eyes did this sin happen? VE 12,5; who believe girresi right essa MT 9384. This word order in the ancient writings is also stylistically neutral, independent of the influence of the originals, and its autochthony is confirmed by ir the corresponding constructions in current dialects o and folklore, e.g. : The devil fell, felt o ji alone in the midst of the dancing S T 117; But the people put the ace in the right place Jrk 96. It is important to note that in old writings the participle conjunction is more often at the end when ji connected su with a noun. Exactly the form of the denominator in predicative compounds is the most archaicmost. Meanwhile, in newer constructions inagininku, su especially budvardinése, many of which in ancient writings are influenced by Slavic languages (plg. Fraenkel 1926 : 94 tt., 114;1928 : 201 — 4) noun conjunct more often eina po participle, e.g. pažinos ne ėssąs didžiūiu skolinįkū DP 481,, (was not known to be a great culprit pazikimes éssq W 809); naudigais tarnais ne DP 97, (Nine sq unpositive wells W 163); I would have... sakitis essu biaurumis ir iZteptays (powidddé You were unclean. y SP I 256 —7. Sometimes, even in the same sentence, me the word order of su constructs ir with nouns and adjectives differs, e.g. : Asch pasiszistiis takiop darbop per silpnas nehadnas ir neigi tam tikras esa, taczau ——— 2 For the final position of the verb ide., indicated already B. Delbriicko, see Watkins 1963: 36 tt., 1964: 1037 tt. ; HBanoB 1965: 194 tt. ; for as OV original ide. Model Lehmann 1972a: tt. 984 ; 1973 : 47 tt. ; 1974 : 30 tt. ; Vennemann 1974 : 345 tt. ; otherwise Ross 1970 : 258. About antecedent (t. y. OV) the archaicness of the word order from the point of view of general & Remove 1955 : 226—7 (8 325 — 6); Miiller 1957 : 3—4, 22; Lehmann 1972. 23 linguistics kaipog (40) szinausi tame essąs tarnu mana Pona MT LĮ XL —-XLI. Of course, this is not a strict rule, but only a tendency that emerges in places, and even in the same texts one can observe quite uniformly varying examples, e.g. : Powilas... sakossi tarnu essąs MT 702 ir szinausi tame essąs tarnu MT LĮ XLI,. However, the summarized data showed that the final position of the conjunction in VD is much more common and usual than in the corresponding verb constructions, where it was well preserved only in the Žemaičių dialect. Apparently, the VD construction will have preserved the older word order tendencies in this case as well. In addition to the above mentioned, in the old writings such constructions are also widely used, in which the object goes after the participant (a), and the noun or adjective of the predicative compound — after the participle (b), e.g. : a) Ka gielbt, Brolei, iei kas sakos turis Wiera BrB Jok 2, 14 (someone says | he has believed; si fidem quis dicat se habere); Ir tikiejosi | regesęs szenkla nig jo VEE 201,, (vnd hopes he was seen a sign of jm); A that raszty sakos turis akis | ausis | runkas ir kitus sunarius žmogaus (iz ma oczy | vszy | rece...) SP 196,,; Mr... says he hates moxlu and sluszbu zmogischku MT LI XXIV; b) reasons | which (327) seem to be contrary (ktore Sie zdadzq byé przeciwne) SP 327-8; Asch... pasiZistisi essqs guilty MT 143%,,; Those soot... you seem to be small (they zdadzq by¢ mate) SP I 315,; knows that it is covered by CN 55,,; "Nesa ghys sakiesi essas Sunumi Diewa VEE 208,,". In the present language, such constructions make up the vast majority of all cases of VD usage. Apparently, the stabilization of word order in the construction of VD during the period of written tradition took place in this direction. The noun member of VD can be unexpressed in the construction itself: it assumes the 1st or 2nd person form of the verb, said earlier in the same sentence, clear from the context or situation. Nes vžu akiu budamas gali sakitis dirbis SP 1 328; Gulkes ant Patalo tawa, ir dekes sergans BrB II Sam 13, 5 (mach dich kranck); Nes welmies numirens, nei giwas BrB Tob 3, 6 (I would rather be dead | than live); tikimes tiki DP 291,, (we think we believe in 486); Musu ghis Issijlga | Sakesi iau Trokschtas BrGD LX VIII Considering the usual subject preposition in relation to the verb and the absolute dominance of the VNP model, such constructions can be considered as variants of this model. 2.2.3.2. There are about 20 examples of the positional model of NPV in ancient writings. This model is based on the OV principle: the verb member, which organizes the structure of the whole construction, goes at the end, e.g. : And passerodei upon you, who draseis esa hoped BrB Ism 12, 17 (die sich keck wusten); idant meilu essus pasiroditu (aby šie wdziecznym stawil) SP 1 37,,; nameatuose sawa budamd | expecting a baby SE 18,,; nig wissa swieta paleista santi regissi MT 45*,,; Kacz nie chce taw réggisi | Heart of Tennessee’ RG 37553. Especially remarkable is the example from the original anonymous catechism discourse of 1605, where after the verb there is still a participle-belonging object: Atdio ausiump mano ne wieno žodzey, kuriė neyszmdnu sdkos Cathechismo perguldito, nuog... Daukszos AK 11,. Apart from about a third of the examples where the order of the NPV corresponds completely to the originals used by the translators (e.g., in M. Daukša’s Postila), from the remaining examples it is not apparent that such an inverse arrangement of the members of the construction has been influenced by the context or the peculiarities of the sentence structure itself (as in the corresponding GD constructions, cf. This may be the remnants of a previously productive pattern with the final position of the verb. In later writings and in the present language they occur only in exceptional cases (cf. : Out of great fear and worry I saw Tat old. (Ibid., pp. 919). 2.2.3.3. The VNP model is based on the verb being raised before the subject noun (i.e. VS order). It is unproductive (only a dozen examples) and is more common only in constru24 ctions with es. I. nev. participants, e.g.: ie norisi szmogus ischklausams maldoie BrP 11 101; noreios Diewas paszistamas, ir sawes klausomas MT LI XXVII,;,. It should be noted that the GD constructions with want to are much more often inverse, only in them the noun member is, on the contrary, brought before the verb (there the NVP order is usual), cf. aut. 1973: 176. In other cases, with the exception of examples with possible influence of the originals, this word order is determined by the inverse positioning of the verb in the first place and its connection with the previous context, e.g. : Gromata- ...ischsaka... santi ghi amszinūiu wiriausiūiu Kunigu... neigi kitus tokius Kunigus sakos ta gromata paszistanti MT (PM) 18*45; Ir todrin sakos Jonas S regieis eiūti pragaru (powiada Jan S. že | widžial) SP II 42,,. Sometimes a prepositional object of the participant is inserted between V and N, e.g. : Norint regisi ir tay Wieszpats ne kaday padaris (zda sie Pan | že y to nie kiedy vezynit) SP II 41, so here we also see a similar participant object preposition as in the NVP model. In modern language, the model VNP is also used as an inverse: stylistically marked or conditioned by context, e.g. : The fox boasts that it has caught the hare, and the dogs are already kimba in their tails PP 340; it seems that the first sister is eating Jrk 85; Peter remembered that he saw Marcikę looking for horses ZemR 11 162; He said he was a rich prince KrévSP 252. 2.2.3.4. Only a couple of isolated examples of the VNP model, where the participant occupies a prepositional position in relation to the noun, not typical of semi-predikative constructions, have been observed in ancient writings: Nessiszina piktai darąs szmogus Mž 44613; Per kuriuos žodžius ižsimano atimta galibe welinuy (dije sie wiedžieč | Ze iest too dressed Dyabiu) SP 1I 71,. Theoretically possible models PNV and PVN (also with the participant preposition in relation to the noun) are not proven in the texts studied. Very rare and binary model of impersonal construction in VP (e.g.: Ir randosi teipo esa BrB V Moz 22, 28 —vnd findet sich also), cf. the corresponding constructions of the participle with the participle Er neszinnai wissadai teipo buwus BrB Job 20, 4 (see section 4.4). aut. 1968 : 197). Thus, the VD order of the members in the ancient writings is based on the general laws of word order in Lithuanian, especially the predominant SVO model and the postposition of semi-predikative participants in relation to the noun (pronoun). At the same time, traces of the OV model are also noticeable in this construction, namely, the tendency to use the object before the participant in certain cases, and occasionally to move the verb itself to the end of the construction. 3 Table 1 The order su of the members of the denominator XVI-XVII a. Positional Design or Model Number 70 NVP 460 92.3: NPV 20 4.1 GNP 14 2.6 VPN 3 0.7 VP 1 0.3 3. PROBLEM OF THE ORIGIN OF THE NOMENIC WITH THE VD PARTICIPANT The formation of the noun with the participant has been ir studied to since the end of the last century. ne It has not yet been completely clarified. ir Although VD observed in ir other related languages, the Lithuanian and Latvian 18 Similarly, data are of particular RG 8954. 25 importance here, because in these languages VD is a living, well-preserved phenomenon, whose relationship with other syntactic means and usage can be directly observed, and the history over several centuries of written tradition can be documented with undoubtedly authentic facts. The peculiarities of the structure and development of VD in Lithuanian help to better understand the genesis of the corresponding constructions in other languages, and vice versa. Therefore, after discussing the structure of the VD in the present language and in the old writings, it is worthwhile to pay attention to its relationship with the corresponding constructions of other related languages. 3.2. Noun with participant in Baltic and Slavic languages 3.1.1. Latvian language is VD also made up of su *ant uot, > us, m ir t participants, especially the acting ones. The main members of the construction are also verbs of the same tų semantic groups, denoting physical and mental perception (e. g. : redzėties, rasties, zinoties, (ie)domūties), žadėjimą (e.g., delay), transmission of information (e.g.: sacities, teikties), emotional ir fake state (e.g., joy, hope, wealth, survival, glory) etc. ir Very nicely coincide the relationships of ir these verbs in certain forms of participants and the su distribution within the construction. jų As in ir Lithuanian, būt. I. I'm sick. participants with us here can still be associatedmi su will-effort verbs (especially in jų negative forms), e.g.: neciešu nesacij(u)se, nevaru nesnauduse, nevar absrēties nenēs Endzelins 1951 : 1015, o es. I. ne. Participants who have a form with verbs m — su signifying desire, expectation, etc., e.g.: nauda gribas skaitūma, gaidu tautu ir pacelama ib. 997. The latter constructions (with gribeéties, gaidit) in the Latvian language are derived from ancient monuments (found ir in Gliicko, Mancelio et al. in the writings, cf. Ta ne gribb dseedinajama Glūck Jer 15, 18; ghaida Weesis meelojams Manz. L. P. I, 529, see. P. Schmidts 1908 : 34) ir are often used in folk songs. It should be noted that the ancient ir Lithuanian language writings, as already K. Būga (1922 : 93), shows a high prevalence of such structures su m among participants, o ir now used only jų in Žemaitija, ne but in many ir Midand Long-term Eastern Places of Lithuania (Sirtautas 1965 : 31). The correspondance of such now extinct, but once widely used constructions in both languages is particularly characteristic. In general, everything that has been said about the internal structure of VD Lithuanian applies to (1. 2), Latvian. ir Overlapping in their syntactic structure, ir Lithuanian VD Latvian in most cases have the same lexical expression, t. y. They are composed of semantically ir etymologically identical lexemes: plg. ziuos tėva klausyuse knows ME IV 722 — father without asking Ši (LTR); sakas dzirdējis ME III 603 — says hearing the tą mercy Ssk; Schmidts bevelyčiau nepynus 1908 : 34 — Sd ir Sir. All this clearly shows the common origin of ir Lithuanian-- Latvian VD languages. The differences in these languages are related to the su subsequent development of ir constructions aimed at comparing the recent past. Most Important iš jų is that the Latvian language widely uses non-syllable forms of VD participants, which consistently push the nominatives of the participants in circulation. For example, next to iš sen. prevailing in the scriptures *nt the denominator of the participants, e.g. Mancelio Shit... tuvi esuoši, apzinuos correctly done Endzelins becomes the corresponding 1951 : 1009, unconjugated form, e.g.: škita pili būvėjuot ib. 1013 not to punch them BW 7327 (ME IV 722). However, ir ji in turn pushed by the iš VD increasingly spreading es. 1. ne. non-syllable forms of the participle su -m (J. Bergmane MLLVG which 26—27), could only penetrate here when it was already anchored in the structure GD (Endzelin 1951 : 1002), plg. I've been nothing. (Endzelins ib.). In the academic grammar of the Latvian language, when discussing VD the combinations of words of the current language type, only a few examples are given with us-subject nouns, * Be J. Bretkūnas, S. Vaišnoras writings, representing the western Altay ir Samogitian dialects, we jų also find M. Daukšos Postilae (e. g. : del’ to noris wadinami giaradeiomis chcą byč DP 49754 — zwdni W 838) ir Sumo Gospels (Not the field is prayed, but all the 16845). 26 others —with unconjugated forms (A. Bergmane MLLVG 23 etc.). Thus, Latvian VD, corresponding to Lithuanian in its original structure, represents a somewhat newer stage of the development of semi-predikative constructions, in which the processes of changing the conjugated forms of the participants into unconjugated ones and their species levelling have already advanced further. 3.1.2. In Prussian S., VD was apparently also used. This is evidenced by the 1561 Enchiridion (Catechism III): Pirsdau Deiwan turridi wissans Grikans sien skellants datunsi 177,,_,s —Fūr Gott sol man aller Sinden sich schuldig geben 176,,_5 (Mažiulis 1966)*. The form of the verb dat (datwei) sangraziné is used here in the meaning of “to admit” and is connected with the participant- ’s nominative in the same way as in Lithuanian, where it appears in the type of constructions “kultas”. The participant skellants can be considered abbreviated Nom. plural form i. e. < *slashes (see on this Endzelins 1943: 249), but the meaning of the German text allows it to be understood as a generalized meaning of Nom. Sing., plg. lit. skeliąs (from skeléti). In addition to the regressive communication, the causative of the orthotonic regressive pronoun is used pleonastically, probably due to the influence of German (cf. Jakulienė 1969: 40), although here one can also see a certain analogy with the “double regressive” forms of Lithuanian verbs: pasimestis, prisipažintis etc., cf. ir 4.4. We already have such lies here anyway. VD, as they say (admits) splitting, equivalent. All this allows us to consider VD the construction of common Baltic origin. Lithuanian k. XVI — In the 17th a. century writings are given in the form of forged constructions translated corresponding German (su sich geben) or Polish k. (with dač sie) sayings, e.g.: dūmiesi kaltas mana ghrieku VE 691,; smoky iz wisso chisel DK 1314 (daie sie... vine DK, 122); smoke chisel AK 160: Dad is guilty DK 125,, (niechay sie winien da DK, 118)*; should giveout of fault DK 115, (by be miaty winneddwdé mi DK, 112)*; impuolys. . . nusideimosna niesidawe kaltas (not dawat sie guilty) idant tay SP 75, 2; duotus vZ guilty (to take a picture) PK LVII; Data Diewuy kalti KN 5, 12; duosios | kaltds KN 36,°. 3.1.3. In the ancient monuments of Slavic languages, the regressive forms of verbs with participants of physical and mental perception, information, emotional and pretentious states also form a su construction corresponding to the VD*. Sen. in Slavic į ją includes ac. Participansu ts with prefixes *-nt ir *-us, depending on the verbs javiti sę, mončti sę, obrėsti sę, slyšati sę, tvoriti sę ir etc., e.g. : hear you.. .verb Supr 1625_,,; da obreitems se préds tobojo ugoždėše Euch 17a13-3“ (Party 1961 : 65). The semantics of verbs veik. ir forms of participants s. Slavic quite VD corresponded to Baltic ka constructions. The internal structure ir jų coincides: the discussed 1.2. model is suitable for Slavic ir languages. Here are also used constructions with participle connections, su e.g.: tvoręšte pravedonici sošte se Luk 20, 20 (Havranek 1928 : 158, Ružička 1963 : 191 —2). However, the lexical composition of the nominative forms of Slavic languages is much narrower in ir the sphere of use. Not at all observed characteristic of the Baltic languages VD su will effortwith verbs denoting desire, expectation, very rare, sporadic cases adverbs su *mo participants, e.g.: vedčaše... iskušaeme Luk 4, _, (recospaxovta mewpalbusvoc), which may have occurred due to kų k. 100 mg/ day (Róžička ib. 201); poor jų productivity in s. the Russian language indicated already Potebnia (1958 : 159). But the Slavic nature of the construction itself, its autochthony, is beyond doubt: this is confirmed by its close connection with su GD. 100 mg/ day po ty own (only nesangraZiniy) verbs made ir su ty by the same participants * Or 43,,_, ir 42,,_, according to Trautmann 1910. + Similar DK 119,,. * Occasionally, the noun is replaced by the noun form, e.g. : ir iž ko should us) guilty DK 115—6 (they are guilty even though they have DK, 112); pleading guilty to i? Septimius Severus Ev 19,;. * For Slavic languageVD s, see Slavic languages. Ilore6us 1958 : 156 tt. ; Jagič 1900 : 62: Vondrak 1928 : 406; Gebauer 1929 : 597 tt. : Havrdnek 1928 : 156-61; 181; 1963 : 51 — 2, 61; JlomTen 1956 : 141: Vecerka 1961 : 65 — 6; Ruzicka 1963 : 191 tt., 194, 201 — 2: Bopkosckuii-Ky3uenos 1965 : 377. 27 (cf. Večerka 1961: 66), comparison with the Greek originals, where infinitive constructions often occur in the corresponding places (Večerka ib; Rūžička ib. 191 etc.) and corresponding words in other Slavic languages in the oldest recorded periods of their development (especially in Russian and Czech). In them VD is usually made with verbs that follow the reflexes of the aforementioned Slavic lexems (especially vid-, obrėt, dvor-, mon-); similar situation in s. Serbian, s. Croatian, s. Slovenian, s. Polish (see Jagič 1900: 62; Havranek 1928: 158 etc. with lit.). It should be noted that in some of them there is a tendency of wider use of this construction. For example, in Russian, VD goes with verbs denoting an emotional state such as dogvabmu, padosamucs, ceomcanumucu, etc., e.g. cojicaauicu: omecaassd coma Vin. 190; xe y6oswacs Kks3a dea umyme JiaBp. 160 (Ilore6us 1958: 157). Considering the commonality of the internal structure and the external form (verbal lexems, participle suffixes) and the Baltic equivalents, it is almost certain that the syntactic model of VD is Slavic. However, in the oldest monuments of Slavic languages, VDs were apparently recorded already in the period of decline and in some cases somewhat activated Greek examples. They do not match the corresponding constructions of the Baltic languages in terms of form variety or usage, and later disappear in most Slavic languages altogether—replaced by secondary elements of explanatory sentences, infinitive constructions or combinations with instrumentals. Since the Lithuanian language has preserved the syntactic structure of the VD in the best way during the entire period of the written tradition to this day, its data are of great importance for the explanation of the genesis of the corresponding Slavic constructions. 3.2. Two hypotheses of origin There are two different hypotheses about the origin of the VD in the Baltic and Slavic languages. 3.2.1. The first-generation VD simply derives from the GD. In this way, the structure of the Latvian VD was already explained by A. Bielenstein (1863: 265—6). VD with participants, e.g., šie teicūs gerai dirbojo, as well as corresponding constructions with adjectives, e.g., vinš teicas bagats, he considered to be composed of a verb, its object, indicated by a return particle, and a nominal predicate. The latter has acquired the nominative form instead of the accusative (cf. Latin. dixit se divitem) due to the influence (attraction) of the subject nominative. Similarly, A. Bielenstein explained the nominative form of the pronoun itself with recognition verbs, e.g. apskaties pats (ib. 266). This view, already severely criticized at the end of the last century by A. Potebnia (1958: 167), was later expanded and supplemented with new arguments by E. Tanglis (1928: 48, etc.). He claimed that the particle of return was originally used in the Lithuanian language GD construction in the meaning of the final; later, after this meaning faded, the participle began to be combined with the subject's denominator. Thus, from GD knew si (= himself) who came, the formed VD knew he had come. The VD with verbs in which the particle of return does not have the final meaning, E. Tanglis considered to have appeared later. He also considered the VD with non-recursive verbs (sakė atėjus, manė grįšiąs, etc.) as newer. Adopting E. Tanglio’s view that the Lithuanian VD originated from the GD with recursive pronouns, I. Marvanas (1962; 1969: 18) adapted it to the Slavic languages. He interpreted this direction of development of these constructions as a commonality of the Baltic and Slavic languages based on the genetic connection of their syntactic systems. According to this hypothesis, VD should be regarded as a relatively recent construction, formed in the Baltic and Slavic languages after the enclitic recursive pronouns lost their accusative meaning. 3.2.2. The second view was most clearly expressed by A. Potebnia (Ilore6Hs 1958: 156—67). He considered the VD of the Baltic and Slavic languages to be a long-existing variant of the “second denominator”, inseparable from the corresponding constructions with non-conjugative intransitive verbs. According to Potebnia, meopumecs uda is the same compound preposition as ocmarewmu meopa (ib. 167), cf. lit. and remained sleepless. The particle of return in such statements has no object meaning and is a pure,,indicator of mediality”. Therefore, the form of the participant's nominative in the VD construction is quite regularly combined with the subject, as in nemo doctus nascitur. VD with recursive and non-recursive verbs Potebnia presents together with such constructions as la. 28 There was a lot (163), of rain. left beast (161), s. Russian. cams n pe0bbisaeumu cbOa (157). B. Havranekas (1928: 160; 181) also believes that the predicative nominative type in Baltic and Slavic constructions may be very old, derived from the nominal sentence VD iš (as sentence [CHMoHb BO/IXb] cam 4 npembHswermes, 060 cmaps, 060 m01008), and the fusion of the recursive pronoun with the verb helped it to retain its form and not become an accusative- ." Many other scholars generally place the Balto-Slavs ir in the same VD group as the cases of the predicative nominative ir su "appear", "remain", ir etc. actionaZodZiais®. 3.2.3. Regarding the origin in VD general, without linking it to a certain period of the su evolution of the syntactic system, these hypotheses seem diametrically opposed, because they were once debated ir jų ne (plg. Ilore6ns 1958: 167; Tangl 1928: 48). From the point of view of relative chronology, this contradiction is only conditional. Except for the individual stages of the development of grammatical oppositions and syntactic relationships, it can be ir observed that both views concern VD different stages of the iš genesis and history of this construction. ir iš Parts are complementary. 3.3. Relationships su with other predicate attribute constructions 3.3.1. A. The older version may be used as a reference. the period of history reaching the times of VD linguistic communion. According to the syntactic relationships of members in the VD external structure fully corresponds to the predicate attribute (adjunct) constructions su with adjectives, depending mainly on verbs denoting states and changes, such jų as sit, lie, stand, go, run, rise, fall, be born, die, grow, live, etc., e.g.: man sits angry, lies lazy, stands dirty, runs drunk, sleeps happy, grows big, is born lame, dies old, lives rich, less often ir (usually in folklore) nouns: su son grew up a worker LTR; He's... turned ir turned out a great soldier LTt 322 (Valeckienė 1967: 99): he was already born sick Rk. There are clear parallels to these constructions in all ide. in language groups from the oldest monuments, cf.: s. sl. pado nick (Miklosich 1874: 16), slėpe rodi (ib. 136); s. Russian. crmoaue Kpbnoko JlaBp. 82, nade Mepmes JlaBp. 78; ude nshiuo Wn. 438 (TloreGust 1958: 168 tt. ; JlomteB 1956: 142: Menbunuyk 1966: 133 tt. ; Bopxosckuit 1968: 6; Crpunuak 1960: 67); got. (piumagus) ligip uslipa ,,(servant) lies sick“, galaip gaurs "going out sad" (Cyxman 1958: 222; for other germ. Languages Wilmanns 1909: 666 — 7; Behaghel 1924: 383 tt. 409 tt. ); lot. felix vivas (Schmalz-Hofmann 1928: 467), s. ind. (savita) "sthūd ūrdvah ‘standing upright’, Gr. oth) B'ėp96c ‘t. p.’ (Brugmann 1925: 93; 1911: 664 tt. : Delbriick 1888: 78; 1893: 453 su lit. ; CaBuenko 1974: 339) ir Mr. Due to the double syntactic connections of the noun, such constructions are unstable, in the long run in many ide. ir the structure jų of languages is rearranged: the noun with predicative attribute closely adheres to the verb, gets from the dependent verb jo (e.g., in Slavic languages instrumental) form or, having lost conjugation, adverbmėja (in Germanic, Romance languages). The antiquity of the predicate attribute constructions is beyond doubt: from B. Delbriicko (1893: 393—4, 453 tt.) ir A. Attached (1934: 359—60) summarizing comparative syntax reviews from time to recent years (e.g., Lehmann 1974: 42 tt. : They are considered to 1974: 340) be Proto-Indo-European. Many researchers believe that they are the result of the contamination of archaic nominal sentences with verbal su ’ By the way, in another place (1928 : 161) B. Havranek indicates that the combination of the ir subject of the predicative attribute may be of secondary origin in ir some places, t. y. iš divitem facit se type structures. 3 Plg. Miklosich 1868—74 IV : 344—5, 822 tt. ; Jagi¢ 1900: §§ 27, 34: Endzelins 1951 : 553, 997, 1013 —4: for other ideas. Languages Brugmann 1897 — 1916 112. 2: 643 tt. ; Delbriick 1893 —1900 I: 393—4. E. Fraenkelis 1928: 16 tt. also distinguishes to other VD cases of the predicative nominative, but 1947 : 102 time possible ir E. Tangle hypothesis. 29 niais (verbs)?. For example, lat. perii miser Plt. Amph. 1039 kildinama is. sentences (ego) perii, (ego) miser (Schmalz-- Hofmann 1928:467—8); Check. bratr leZi nemocen iš bratr (je) nemocen, leži (Zubaty ibi.; Travniček 1956: 123). Such a path of development is quite possible, it is confirmed by the transformational derivation: the predicative atri-buta is derived from the nominal sentence included in the composition of the verbal sentence? ?, so (ego) perii + (ego sum) miser = (ego) perii miser. However, this process probably reaches very far back in the very beginning. language history times, and ide. at the end of the existence of the linguistic community, many predicative attribute constructions must have already formed syntactic units. 3.3.2. Historically, the above-mentioned cases of predicative attribute are not distinguishable from the corresponding statements with such non-independent verbs as lie. show, remain, become, turn. In Lithuanian language, they are accompanied by nouns,. and nouns of adjectives and pronouns, e.g.: he... old and looks KrėvP 197; I was a widow Skr; one Kp remains; will not be indebted Ins; the brother became greedy; Jonny turned into a hare LTR; similarly in other ide. in speeches, Mr. Brugmann 1911: 644; 1925: 93 tt. The syntactic and semantic instability of the verb in predicative attribute constructions, its fluctuation between “full-meaning” verbs and syntactic connections was convincingly demonstrated by B. Delbriicka (1900: 12 et seq.). Combined into a single construction with a noun, the verb tends to loseits independence, becomes close to the conjunction. Thus, from the verbs of the *bheu/*bhū root, which once meant "to grow, to flourish" (Pokorny 1959: 146 etc.), through the intermediate meaning of "to rise, to become" in many ide. In many languages, including Lithuanian, the past and future tense connections have been formed, and the verb of the *yes root, which in ancient Indian still has a specific meaning,,- to stay, to spend the night, to live somewhere“ (cf. s. ind. vdsati „lives, sleeps“), in Germanic languages has been used as a pure connection, combined with the forms of the *es and *bhū roots, since the oldest monuments. It is very possible that the *es root verb, used in conjunction, probably already used in ide. in the times of communion, has followed a similar path of development: from a more specific lexical meaning and independent use through predicative attribute constructions to an abstract indicator of syntactic relationship!?. In this case, the use of this verb in the meaning "to exist, to live" (cf. lit. I eat well Jrb; how do you eat? Lp (LKZ 1, 1213—4), observed in many related languages, should be considered an archaism. The opposite view, which considers the *es connection (i.e. connective) to be the primary meaning (CaBuenko 1974: 332—3), is based on its dominance in the old ide. in linguistic monuments (e.g., Homeric epics) and semantic arguments'®, but is difficult to reconcile with the etymology and ide of other conjugated verbs. the common direction of development, showing the abstraction of the meaning of verbs with predicative attribute, its grammatalization. Such constructs, which are different from the point of view of contemporary language, as father was angry (the “pure” connection), remained restless (the “unpure” connection), lived happily (a predicative attribute, cf. Valeckienė 1967: 108 —9) reflect different degrees of that grammatalization and probably have the same genetic basis. 3.3.3. As with the nominative, the predicative attribute is ide. in languages was also associated with other verb-dependent syllables: dative, accusative, instrumental, locative. Due to the complex syntactic structure of this construct-? Plg, Zubaty (1954: 126 pp. ) ; Meillet 1934: 359 pp. ; Meillet —Vendryes 1952: 596; Travnicek 1956: 123 pp., 179 pp. ; Bauer 1958: 108 et al. 10 For the interpretation of sentences with predicative attribute from the point of view of transformative grammar, see plg. Harris 1964: 180–1; Růžička 1966: 56 pp. ; Kfižkova 1968: 106–7; Bapxynapos 1973: 59–60; Schwartz 1968: 757–8. 11 See also Jablonskis 1957: 455 et seq. ; Fraenkel 1928: 12 tt. ; 1926: 88 th. ; Balkevičius 1963: 106 pp. ; Valeckiené 1967: 108 etc. 12 For the primary specific meaning of existence of the verb *es and its relation to the conjunction, see Valeckiené 1967: 108 et al. Delbriick 1900:13—14; Brugmann 1904: 627; 1925: 72 pp. ; Meillet 1906 —8: 23—6; Benveniste 1950: 28 tt. ; 1960: 114 et seq. (= DBensenucr 1974: 175 et seq.; 203 et seq., see notes of J. Stepanov ibid. 433, 435 et seq.); 1965: 266 pp. 13 Pyz., Ch. Kahn (1973) interprets the meanings of "to live", "to become" as explanations of the primary meaning of "to be", composed of "to be" + semantic operator. 30 tions were also prone to change from the outset; their adverbialization and absolutization processes are already observed in the oldest ide. in language monuments. The most important of these are the accusative constructions, which are correlated with nominative constructions in both Lithuanian and other related languages. As the nominative usually goes as a predicative attribute with state verbs, so does the accusative — with verbs denoting active action, often even causative, cf. : (father) bėrė grūdą sausą: grain biro dry „„„—torn the fabric across: the fabric torn across ,, merke cloth dirty : cloth soaked dirty „ made him unhappy: he became unhappy ,, broke the board across: board broke across The basis of the correlation of such accusative and nominative predicate attribute constructions in contemporary Lithuanian language is the opposition of transitive and intransitive verbs. Transitive verbs usually denote a causative process, and intransitive verbs of the corresponding root denote a causative state (CrenanoB 1975: 191). However, the opposition of transitiviniy- —intranzityviniy verbs in Lithuanian, as in other languages, is not uncommon. in languages, is not primary, but formed on the basis of the previous opposition of active — stative (state) verbs. The roots of some transitive and intransitive verbs have remained undifferentiated until today; For example, the verbs of the root */eik*Y are used in Lithuanian for both meanings (see Senn 1935.—6: 73) and can form both accusative and nominative predicate attribute constructions, e.g.: tėvas palieka (palieka) sūnų sveiką and sūnus (pa)lieka) (pa)liko) sveikas. On the basis of morphological reconstruction of verb forms in Baltic and Slavic languages, J. Stepanov (1975: 182—97) convincingly showed that the opposition of transitive—intransitive verbs was begun to be realized by regrouping the paradigms of verbs with different degrees of vowel change: e-degree forms (ber-, verttipo) were used to denote transitive action, and i-degree forms (birvirtetc.) — intransitive action. Subsequently, the significance of causation of action characteristic of transitive verbs was emphasized by special suffixes -inti, -enti, paskui and -dinti-, dyti-, and the morphological indicator of the state meaning of intransitive verbs became the infix and sta stem forms. In that period, accusative predicate attribute constructions such as returns him unhappy, wakes the guest drunk, gave birth to a crippled baby or plant a frail plant had to be correlated with nominative ones he returns unhappy, the guest wakes up drunk, the baby was born crippled, the plant sprouts frail, and so on. Only after the formation of returning verbs, the returning particle became a sign of intransitivity. In this way it became possible to correlate the constructions makes him unhappy and he becomes (= becomes, turns) unhappy; shows it beautiful and it appears (= looks) beautiful; call him a friend and he is called a friend and so on. Since the opposition between transitive and intransitive verbs was already evident at that time, there is almost no doubt that most nominative predicate attribute constructions with conjugative verbs were made according to the model of earlier constructions with intransitive verbs (to become, to turn, to look, etc.), and not from accusative ones (*makes himself unhappy, *shows himself beautiful, *calls himself a friend). This is confirmed by the semantic differences between the verbs: darytis, rodytis, vadintis # do yourself, show yourself, call yourself are simply intransitive correlates of the corresponding non-recursive forms (see Jakulienė 1967: 188). The use of conjugative verbs is the latest stage of the evolution of correlation of accusative nominative constructions of opposition of transitivity and intransitivity, which is still ongoing. — — ir — ir 3.3.4. The correlation of nominative and accusative predicate attribuir te constructions is characteristic of other ide. languages in the earliest periods of jų development. Du-. “4 For the intransitive significance of these strains, see. Stang 1942 : 131 tt.,; 1966: 338 tt. ; Tonopos 1961: 57; Kazlauskas 1968: 316 tt. 31 *iGreta to be. k. 1. forms, only much less frequently, used and es. and will be. I. veik. nominatives of participants, e.g. : (a) is. 1.: džiaukis pati turėti kąsnį ŽemR II 168; (people) prided themselves on having such faith VaizgRR I 50; Deveika complains of sickling CvMS 206; (b) will. 1.: fox... was happy to have a delicious breakfast LTR; was happy to tie everyone- 's tongue and to calm Mr. ZemR III 383; he was even happy to be able to stretch his legs ŠRagR III 63; sometimes even new participants, e.g. : Will you bear being beaten like that? Alcohol; That fool enjoys being beaten Kps. Unlike constructions with phase verbs, the participants here have retained the meanings of the respective times. However, es. 1. veik. the participants are being intensively pushed out of these structures by newer forms of semi-participants; next to džiaukis gaunąs established much more productive džiaukis gaudamas type construction, cf. also: nesidžiauk pirmas pjaudamas LTR; the shepherd regrets not being able to drive the geese out of the oats Sr (LKŽ I 201) and so on. Both the participants and the half-participants correlated with them can also depend on word combinations having the meaning of verbs of the emotional state, e.g. be happy = to rejoice, cf. we were happy scaring the bird CvR II 9; I am happy seeing you Gruš ABP 1048, The half-participant, as is known, is a specific means of expression of secondary action. Thus, its penetration into these constructions (as well as into the corresponding statements with phase verbs mentioned in 4.1) clearly shows the connection of the spoken constructions with the participants’ use of the nominative forms to indicate secondary action. For example, the inner structure of such statements as I did not regret raising early || raising early includes the sentences (fu) I did not regret and (tu) I will rise early, whose relationship can be interpreted in two ways. In the first case, the second sentence will occupy the position of the propositional object, and the construction will be synonymous you do not regret getting up early". In the second case, both sentences will be connected only by a subordination relationship, and the construction will be synonymous when (if, that) you get up early, you will not regret (the meanings of time, condition or cause in this case are not syntactic and depend on the context, see author 1964: 66 etc.). There are also homonymous and corresponding constructions with new participants, e.g.: varna alpsta giriama LTRn 285. Often it is enough to move the participle with the dependent words after the verb in order to turn the construction denoting the secondary action into a propositional object, e.g.: mladý ženatý nepáľaj — vyrastú synovia ako bratia a nebudeš ľutovať, že si sa narodil a oženil skoro (LK III 24). However, in constructions with postpositional participants, the significance of secondary action is often felt. It is particularly evident when the construction consists of non-conjugated verbs (to mourn, to regret, to be surprised, to lament, etc.)®. 4.2.2. Although at the moment nominative constructs of participants are usually in the form of regressive verbs of emotional state, they are not very old. In dialects, folklore and old writings we find almost all of them non-consonant counterparts, used with the same meaning of a sensual state, cf. go tolej toliau džiaugdamas Mrc (MLLG VI 66), tu nejuok iš vargšo žmogaus Lp (LKŽ III 421), didžiuojasi, neateina Jušk (LK Ž II 494); twardome... nosį iddnt’ ne gerėtų (= would enjoy) kwėpimosse DP 568,,; I cannot be afraid („fear“) LKZ 1, 567; I drink J (LKZ III 280); What are you afraid of? J (LKZ III 152); nesielok PK 59,5; such forms also occur in nominative constructions, e.g.: negailék lost Nj (LKZ III 152). The SangraZ particle Cia has no verbal meaning and, of course, cannot be genetically related to 8 There are also participants and semi-participants close to the ones mentioned here, which express the content of predicates of modal (most often evaluative) meaning, e.g. : He is guilty of not taking care in time to find good workers' assistants JabIRR II 191; I did wrong, answering you Lt III 158 (maybe in answering), see also aut. LKG II 381. In the 7th-century writings, the construction with phase and modal verbs is sometimes used in this case as well as communicative, e.g. : Esch gailios giwenti po akim dukteru Heth BrB 1 Mos 27, 46 (I am afraid to live). ; 8 For this reason, in written language, constructions with these verbs are often distinguished, e.g. : Balsių Petras and Pranaitis were surprised when they saw grain in the market here and there Myk-PutR VI 11; Neighbors mourn, they are in trouble LKZ VII 188. * More about this Zr. Jakuliené 1968: 29-31, where many corresponding forms from ancient writings are given. 38 the structure of the participatory construction. One must agree with A. Jakuliene (1968: 14) that it is simply an additional indicator of the intransitivity of the verb, which began to be added to the verbs of emotional state after the returning verbs had formed and became a separate morphological group of forms. Similarly, the particle of return has been added to many other intransitive verbs, e.g.: gultis, klūptis, stotis, liktis, etc. The same process can be observed in Latvian, where in addition to the returning forms of bities, priecaties, brinities, smieties and so on, in the ancient scripts and dialects there are also non-returning forms, e.g. : Głucki's wife, biting and trembling Mork 5, 33, Mancelio her father bistam Post III 114 (ME I 305); smejat, Įaudis, dziesminai (ib. III 906); cf. also the addition of a particle of return to other intransitive verbs: tupties, judėties, sėsties, gulties, stoties etc. (Endzelins 1951: 987 — 8). 4.2.3. We see a very similar picture in the Slavic languages, in whose oldest monuments the regressive forms of the verbs of the sensual state still have a semi-analytical character (BoproBcknh-Kysnenos 1965: 288—9). In addition to these, the appropriate non-recursives, p.e. s.l., are sometimes used. plakat and plakat sę; green and co-green si; regati and rogati se (Havranek 1928: 120 et seq.), which are almost identical in meaning (as are ostati || ostati se x lit. likti || liktis), and only a few such verbs (e. g. s. sl. ubojati sę, smėjati sę) no longer has non-recursive equivalents. In nominal constructions, the returning forms predominate, for example, in Russian. s. COMcaAUCU omcnaes I'm coming. 190, xe ybostuaca kuass Wasp washed JlaBp. 160 (Ilore6usa 1958: 157), although possible ir non-returnable, e.g. : Jd086641Š MSKHOBDMS HANADHUED Yul (ib.) The formant of return, which still retains the position of a separate servile word in the sentence, here corresponds to the particle of return in the k. Belarusian according to its function. That the nominative ir constructions k. of the Balto-Slavs, depending on the verbs of the emotional state, are not by nature related to the iš use of conjugative forms, is su confirmed by other ide. language equivalents. S. in Greek, the nominative of the participants goes in the su medial forms of verbs of exactly the same meaning, e.g. foro ... tivov "delighted in the good" From. IX 353; yzyndase {&v Soph. Ph. 1021 "you are happy to ir live" etc. (Kūhner 1870: 616, 619—20; Schwyzer-Debrunner 1975: 392—3). J. Stahlis (1907: 737), commenting on such examples, emphasizes the primary predicative meaning of the participants (originally predicative meaning); similarly interprets these constructions ir Meillet-Vendryes, (1952: 613), highlighting the jų intermediate, transitional nature. As in the ir corresponding constructions ir of the Baltic k. Slavs, the cause of the emotional state here is togetherand its content. Likewise, as in Lithuanian, the gras. kų k. participants (also from Homer) siejami su Verbs meaning "to satisfy, to satisfy, to satisfy, to satisfy, to satisfy, to satisfy" Tapryoaxv & ėAAfAovc Špdovrec ž. "when satisfied (pasitotino) each other's measure (seeing)’ It. XXIV 633% (Schwyzer-Debrunner ib. 393). S. in the Indian language the participant su nominatives lgjj-,,gédytis“, nand- „joy“ etc. ir meaning root verbs denotes the basis of the respective affects just as in Lithuanian ar s. Slavic languages, p.e.: na lajjasa evam bruvūnah "You don't know how to talk like that?" Guys. II, 15, 17; nananduh siddhaharyah "rejoiced in fulfilling the intention" Kathas. 20, 99 (Speyer 1886: 373; 1896: 63). Even in Latin, where the usage of participants is much narrower, the verb gaudeo su "I am happy" sometimes goes with the participant's nominative, e.g. gaudent perfusi sanguine fratrum Verg. Georg. 2, 510 ,,rejoice in the blood of your brothers" (Schmalz-Hofmann 1927: 589). All this suggests that the nominative constructions of the emotional state actionaZodZiais su are based on the constructive meaning of these verbs actionaZodZiais. ir (later turned into participants sensu stricto) semi-predikative use, whose roots reach ide. times of language communion. The spread of consonant forms in ir the Baltic Slavic languages here is be undoubtedly a parallel phenomenon of later origin. VD genesis discussed examples of su emotional state verbs are important in that i 10 Pig, Rally J. etc. ir translation: ,, When they both looked at each other until they were satisfied" (Homer's 962: 522). 39 Odyssey, 1.1.1.1.) (Homer's Odyssey, 1.1.1.1.) (Homer's Odyssey, 1.1.1.1.) (Homer's Odyssey, 1.1.1.1.) (Homer's Odyssey, 1.1.1.1.) (Homer's Odyssey, 1.1.1.1.) 4.3. Constructions with perception and information verbs 4.3.1. In constructions with verbs of perception, thinking, information, the participant or the participant group of words determines the content of the verb. Such VD, as already mentioned, are most often made with conjugative verbs. The constructions with non-recursive forms are considered more recent by some scholars (Tangl 1928: 50; Mapsan 1962: 36). However, there are indications that the participants were associated with verbs of these meanings in the early antiquity, even before the formation of conjugative forms. In the Žemaičių and Western Highland dialects, non-consonant verbs of perception, thinking, and especially information can form VD in places just like consonant verbs: pagrečiui with brolis sakos atėjęs is said and brolis sako atéjes**. In the 16th-17th century writings we find about 40 examples of VD with non-conjugated verb forms (about 994). In north-eastern Lithuania, VD is currently almost exclusively with non-conjugated verbs and tadaromas??. Here the nominative constructions of the participants are inextricably linked to the indirect consequence that often follows the same verbs, which in turn is based on the antiquated predicative use of the participants (aut. 1970: 6—12; 1977: 18tt.). It is difficult to believe that all the Eastern Highlands VD with non-conversive forms are new forms, especially since in other cases in these dialects conversive verbs are very common and even push out of use the corresponding non-conversive ones (cf. kyla — rises, virsta — turns, kinta — changes, etc.). In addition, considering the VD with non-regressive verbs of perception and information as conjugations, they should be strictly distinguished from the VD with verbs of emotional state, although their syntactic structure is obviously similar. VD with non-recursive forms (alongside recursive) is also used in Latvian, cf. zinūju tēvu klausijusi (Bielenstein 1863: 377); cerėjat... paédusi ME I 375; duomddams viens pats esus (Endzelins 1951: 1009). Corresponding examples can also be found in the ancient monuments of the Slavic languages (see [Tore6us 1958: 156 etc.; Vondrak 1928: 406; Gebauer 1929: 597]). 4.3.2. Especially remarkable are the parallels with *men root verbs. The non-recursive forms of the verb mbnčti in Slavic languages can form the same nominative constructions as the recursive forms that prevail in this case, e.g. s. sl. mbnėacho dcho vidęšte Mar Luke 24, 37 (Rūžička 1963: 193; in the Greek text —infinitive: ždOxovy... Deopctv); s. check. I'm the deceiver of the Castle. 130a (Gebauer 1929: 597), cf. constructions with sangr. forms: s. sl. mnito se imy Mat 25, 29; p. ček. DalC 50 (Gebauer ibid.) etc. According to the main member —verb, such constructions even etymologically coincide with Lithuanian ones, only in the latter there are more likely to be non-consonant forms, used with participants of different times, e.g.: jis manė daugiau žinonąs VeinR V 250; gali manyti pakliuvęs tarp garsių daktarų CvR IX 93; numanau nieko gero negaussiąs girdėt Klp (MLLG I 75) and so on. (cf. manosi sapnoojanti LK Ž VII 832; manosi gerbiamas Tl, see also examples of old writings 2.2.1.1.). A completely identical type of construction with the verb man of the same root and meaning has been found in the ancient Indian language (from the Rigveda), e.g.: sėmam manyate " In the catalog of the dialectological atlas of the Lithuanian language, such cases of parallel use of non-sangrazine forms are recorded from the surroundings of Plungė, Palanga, Vainutas, Tilžė, Rietava, Ūžventis, Stulgill, Tryškiai, Kuršėnai, Šilalė, Šilutė and others. 12 For data on the distribution of VD with conjugated and non-conjugated verb forms in dialects (with a cartographic scheme), see aut. 1977: 17. 40 papivdn,,- somą mano gėręs“ RV X 85, 313, L. Renou (1936: 37), commenting on such examples, points out that in the oldest verse texts the participant here is still quite independent of the verb, and their union into one construction occurs later. In other words, the participant here still partially retains the old function of the nominal predicate. Similarly to man-in the Vedas with the nominative of the participants, the verbs of the roots drs-"to see", chad-"to show", vid-"to know" are sometimes used (Renou 1936: 10, 37). The same usage is attested in the Avesta (Reichelt 1909: 330 —1), where the corresponding constructions are also made with medial manforms, e.g. naéda manyete jaynvd,nicht geschlagen zu sein vermeint“ Yt. 10, 71. This indicates the Indo-Iranian origin of these structures. In S. Greek, the nominatives of the participants are associated with such verbs of perception and thinking as gatvopai "I seemed", *cidw "I know", «tcAėvopai "I feel", yryvooxo "I know, I know" and so on, cf. toc9u. :.elephant Arist. Pluto. 962 "know... having come"; odx aicdivecds ėEanarousvos Xen. Hist. 7, 1, 12 "do you not feel deceived- ?" (Co6ojeBckuh 1948: 347; Chantraine 1953: 326; Schwyzer-Debrunner 1975: 396). In addition to the usual constructs with infinitives, there are also corresponding constructs with participants in Latin, e.g. sensit medios delapsus in hostes Verg. A. 2, 377. Meillet-Vendryes (1952: 616) compares them with Greek ones, but other authors consider them to be Grecisms (Kūhner-- Stegmann 1912: 702—3), although formed after the example of original sentences with verbs of emotional state (SchmalzHofmann 1928: 588—9). 4.3.3. The parallels of the related languages mentioned here suggest that the nominative constructions of the participants with the verbs of perception and thinking are as ancient as those with the verbs of emotional state. It is clear from them that even the same verbs of perception could go both with the nominative of verb nouns (later — of participants) and with the accusative — the destis or their subject was the same as the personified forms of the verb or different. For example, the already mentioned verb misliti, having a subject different from the participant, forms GD, and having an identical subject —VD, cf. : Kastis thought she was sleeping SRagR III 124 (s. rast. —with participant: numane iauna Karaliu... gimimusi BrP I 132, see author 1974: 217)and he certainly thought he would not tell anyone KrēvAP 148; it could be that Kastis thought he was sleeping. Equally, the verb formations GD and VD of the corresponding root are related in the Slavic language, where next to GD monėvoša že i vo družinė sęšto Luk 2, 44 (Večerka 1961: 57) we have the already mentioned mončacho deho vidęšte Mar Luk 24, 37. L. Renou (1936: 10) points to the same differentiation of constructions with the man root verb in Vedic prose, cf.: tisthantam manyeta, “(near) standing my” and sa riricano manyata TS VI 6, 5, 1 “he emptied (tired) thought (felt)””*, S. in Greek verbs *ctdw “I know”, aicddvopar “I feel”, Ačyo “I say”, etc. could also be associated with both the accusative and the nominative (depending on the identity of the subject, see CoGoneBckui 1948: 346—7; Schwyzer-Debrunner 1975: 394 and 396). In Lithuanian, with the verbs regėti, jausti, žinoti, suprasti, rūkoti, tarti, atminti, tikėti, sakyti, etc., VD is used alongside GD since the writings of the 16th—17th centuries, cf.: f And regeio ghi wissos Smonis waikschczoienti BrB Acts 3,9 —Schis muitinikas regedams... prapulsens... pradest.- .. melstisi BrP II 363; Nesa kas szinna ghi ischmintinga alba durna munan BrB Pam 2, 19 —szinau, passilikses and pas iusu wissu (su iumis) buses BrB Philippians 1, 25; 13 More about this see. Delbriick 1888: 104; Whitney 1889—1964: 268; Illepusis 1883: 27—8; Speyer 1896: 63; Macdonell 1955: 298; especially Oertel 1926: 25 and Renou 1936: 10—11, 37 with further lit. Constructions with this verb are particularly productive in Brahmans, where, according to L. Renou (ib. 10), they are used as some kind of constant formulas. '4 For more examples, see 1926: 25. 41 Remember mana Giwenima Weia santi BrB Job 7, 7 —ndtmena karūlumi ēssąs DP 5864s. Er esch taw said not, schį me nothing good not lost BrB I Car 22, 18; Negu sakiey mdn... su Diewu kalbūs AK 6215, According to the identity of the subject, GD and VD with the same non-recursive verb sometimes even go in one sentence, e.g. : Nesa ghis regeia Kingiumi nebebusens, ir Salna nog sawens atpilancze BrB 1 Mak 15, 12. The correlation of nominative and accusative constructions belonging to the same verbs is related to the semantics of these verbs. Many perception verbs, like affect verbs, could by nature denote both the mental state of the subject and an active mental process directed towards a certain object of perception. For example, to think and now can mean both,,beiti susimas¢iusiam®, and “to think (about) something” (cf. LKŽ III 87); similarly, apparently, the meaning of state was used and think, cf. many thinking, little knowing Eržv (LKŽ VII 831), corresponding s. ind. manreferenzen (Cappeler 1955: 318 —9) and the reconstructable *men- „denken, geistig erregt sein“ (Pokorny 1959: 726—7); because of the old intransitive sl. monits: for the meaning of moné see also Kurytowicz 1964: 79. The significance of the state of psyché is shown by the etymology and use of many other verbs of perception. Nominative constructions with perception verbs having this meaning were extremely close to predicative attributes with other state verbs according to their external structure. The same ambiguity and some information verbs ir (plg. speak say ir synonym LKŽ V 113—4). 4.3.4. The antiquity of the VDs belonging to the non-recursive verbs of perception and information is confirmed by their connections with the predicative use of the participants. In dialects and ancient writings, VD is often difficult to distinguish from predicative participants in indirect forms, especially when there is a pause between the personified form of the verb and the participant. Brolis sako | ėjęs (buvęs) type statements are particularly common in north-eastern Lithuania (see author 1977:17 etc.). It should be noted that in the 16th-17th century writings, after the non-conjugative form of the verb sakáti, a punctuation mark indicating a pause is usually added before the participant, e.g.: moterischkes ateia sakydamas ... | Angelu weida regeiusias VEE 675, Luk 24, 22—23 (vnd say | they have seen a vision of the angels)'®; as galli sakiti (crossed out -es) manne milins BrB Teis 16, 14 (How can you say | du hast mich lieb), sometimes similar constructions are used with other verbs, ir e.g.: ieng tikrai Zinotu | essq draugisten schwentuiu priimti MT 1082; prassidesti iau dumoti | Diewop noris prisivilioti BrGD LXVI, 10, Zr. but 2.2.1.2. After sangraZiniy perception of verbs, punctuation is used in about 40 constructions (about 109%) in texts from the 16th-17th centuries, cf. : And you say you won't have where to put your head | BrP I 123; 29, 8 (traumet | das er esse...) 29, 9 (traumet | das er esse...) 29, 10 (traumet | das er esse...) the drink); er as when wienas apsiszadetu noris usch ... iūs wissus | walgiti MT (PM) 32-32* etc. Although the punctuation here may have been suggested by the originals used by the translators, the relatively frequent use suggests that the authors of the ancient jų writings apparently felt the semantic independence of some of the participants following the verbs of perception or information. In such examples of ancient writings, as in the corresponding statements of current dialects (brother says(s) that he | heard ar everything | from me) can be considered as independent predicates expressing indirect language or the content of perception, derived from old nominal sentences! ". Apparently, next to such asinditic verb iš statements, as brother says (my) sick sick, : whose || archaicness is unquestionable, since ancient times the corresponding nominal type statements ir have been used, e.g.: brat hovorí (my) sick, : who 15 E.g., DK already with the recursive form: sakčis man... kalbas? 65—66. See more examples Zr. 2.2.1.1 ir aut. 1974: 211—24. 18 MP 164%; the same text already punctuatibe on: sdkiddimos Angelu weyda seeing. 7 More on the VD relationshisu ps in the predicative use of ir participants aut. 1970: 10; 1977:19 tt.. 42 and laid the foundation for the nominative constructions discussed here. As the centralization of the sentence and the hypotactic connections between its parts strengthened, the verb was linked to the participant in a close intonational and semantic connection, following the example of other nominative constructions of the predicative attribute. In this way, the VD with the verbs of perception and information became variants of the constructions of the predicative attribute. When considering the individual types of nominative constructions, their genetic relationships with common ide are highlighted. syntactic models. Historically, constructions with phase and emotional verbs correspond to predicative attributes used with other state verbs since ancient times. The nominative of the verb noun, which later became a participant, had the function of the second, subordinate, predicate. The basis of constructions with verbs of perception and information are constituted by participants representing the content of feeling, thought or speech, which otherwise used to be relatively independent nominal predicates. These verbs were later joined with the participants into close VD constructions, and in both Lithuanian and other related languages (e.g. s. Indian, s. Greek) there are still traces of the more independent use of the participant. 4.4. Constructions with passive forms 4.4.1. The main model for the VD was the nominative predicate attribute construction with stative verbs. As already mentioned, they have always been the opposite of acusative verbs with active verbs. The contradiction of the accusative and the nominative, as is known, is connected with passive transformation: according to J. Kurytowicziaus (1964: 74, 179 etc.), the accusative is considered a grammatical vowel because it is opposed to the nominative in the passive construction (hostem occidit: hostis occiditur). Until the category of transitiveness and the passive were not formed in Lithuanian, the contradiction of nominative and accusative predicate attributes (respectively VD and GD) was primarily related to the different derivative meaning of the verb and the semantics of the verb itself, i.e. it was not syntactically strictly motivated.” When the passive began to form, next to the accusative construction with active verbs (shows him angry) and nominative — with statives (he looks angry) a nominative construction with forms of periphrastic passive (he is shown angry) was formed, opposite to the accusative on a syntactic basis, e.g.: (father) brings grain dry: grain is brought dry i; tear the fabric across: the fabric is torn across it made it unhappy: it turned unhappy from breaks the board across: the board is broken across (see the correlation of sentences with derivacinémi birti, prassti, virsti, sulaužti forms 3.3.3.). We find a lot of constructions with passive forms in writings of the 16th-17th centuries, e.g.: niekas ne buwo atrastas wertas BrB Apr 5, 4; apsiwilkime | idant nūgi nebutumbime rasti MT 139*,,; patinelis.- .. must be given to the Lord as schwenta wadintas VEE 473; the next day the tape will be given as schwenta wadinama BrB III Mos 23, 8 (sol also heissen heilig); which is declared invalid by BrP I 332 (= I 262). In the same way as nouns, they use nominative participles, e.g.: we... even now in Greek essa are found as esme BrB Gal 2, 17 (even if Stinder erfunden worden): bernelis ... dtrastas yra... besédis DP 665, (ndlefion iest... siedzac W, 66)1°. In the writings of the 16th—17th centuries, VD also occurs with the passive forms of the verbs believe, think, speak, say and proclaim, e.g.: 18 Pie, A. Meillet (1934: 359 etc.), L. Renou (1952: 355—6; 1965: 231-2), B. Havrianeko (1968: 409 tt.) the idea of the weakness of syntactic ir control semantic nature of verbs in the old ide. in the sentence structure. 19 Similarly BrB V Mos 22, 22, MT 83,,, ChB Acts 5, 39. 43 it is likely that they will come under BtGD XXXVI (52); Christus- ... should a pramanit have two legs? MT (PM) 31 per cent; atstaijmas rakoijmas esti Kancze esanti BrB Išm 3, 2 (abschied wird fur ein pein gerechnet); the deceased is said to sleep and rest MT 262,; nesa skelbams essi giwenans o numirens essi*® BrB Apr 3, 1 (For you have the name | that you live). The active forms of all these verbs are used in GD constructions, cf. nebutu tikeie... Neprietelį ieisenti BrB JerR 4, 12 and so on (see aut. 1974: 216 et al.). In modern language, VD with the passive forms of the verbs matyti, regėti, girdėti, rodyti, skelbti, pranešti, etc. also forms the opposite of GD with the corresponding active forms, e.g.: mato jį einant (į): jis matomas (be)eings; shows him returned: he is shown to have returned; proclaimed him coming: he is proclaimed coming; acceleration with the participles of the participants here sometimes uses and divisors: it is seen walking. 4.4.2. In exactly the same way as in Lithuanian, the Latvian VD is also formed from the old scripts with passive forms, cf.: vinš tika redzéts stūvus (Endzelins 1951: 1009) alongside the corresponding constructions with non-conjugated participants, e.g.: vinč nav rędzēts braucuot (Valmiera, Endzelins ib. 1013), dzirdēts bērns raudam (ib. 1002). That we have here the corresponding variants of noun predicate attribute constructions is clear from the correlations of these Latgalian examples, e.g.: jys sovus kaiminus padarėja laimigus: kaimini tyka padareiti laimeigi; I was the first to be hurt: I was the first to be hurt, etc. (Bukšs-Placinskis 1973: 303). The same contradiction of accusative and nominative constructions can be seen in the ancient monuments of Slavic languages, cf. s. sl. vidčcho nečostivaego prėvoznosjęšta sje Ps Sin 36, 35 (Večerka 1961: 58) i vidim®s bčaše prėbyvaję prisno Supr 544,25—6 (ib. 65). The forming forms of the periphrastic passive in the S. Slavic languages also correspond to the structure of the Baltic languages, although they are strongly influenced by Greek (Havranek 1928: 115 et al., Večerka 1961: 73 with lit.). In the Greek language itself, passive forms, forming a corresponding correlation with the active forms of the accusative constructions, are close to the medial ones mentioned in 3.3.4. (Co6ojieBekuh 1948: 252, 291—2, 345 etc.; Schwyzer-Debrunner 1975: 396); This also applies to the s. Indian language, where since the Vedic accusative and nominative constructions are correlated on the basis of the active-medial-passive forms of verbs (see 3.3.4.). The accusative constructions with active and nominative with passive forms form a sharp contrast in Latin, e.g.: ego vos salvas sistam Pl. Rud. 1049 ir omnia... salva sistentur tibi ib. 1359 (Kiihner-Stegmann 1912: 293); also with participants: mandata dicam Jacta Asin. 913 and is now called Venturus Peregre Truc. 84 (Schmalz-Hofmann 1928: 383—4), cf. dar oppugnata domus... nuntiabatur Cic. A thousand. 66 (ib. 608)?!. The spread of these constructions in Latin is related to the intensive use of the passive forms themselves. Meanwhile, in Lithuanian, the formation of the periphrastic passive has stopped as if halfway: here the passive has begun to disappear in some dialects before it has been firmly established. Therefore, VD with periphrastic passive forms did not become more common, and their opposition to GD, although syntactic in nature, remained secondary. ir The formation of conjugative verbs played a much greater role in the VD further development of the Baltic and Slavic languages. This process occurred independently in both language groups, but had similar assumptions and a common direction. ir 4.5. Formation of conjugative verbs The genealogy of the family is difficult to establish. — ir a question that has been discussed and discussed many times. From W. Porzesinski- 's Studies (Iopzkesunckui 1903), iš once caused a lively polemic, on this issue formed 20 Written in the margin instead of underlined in the text: nes warda turi, iog giwas essi, numires essi. ir ?*! In the old period language, the nominative of the adjectives of the ir participants are used equally in such cases, acc is used in front of them. o duplex is functionally equivalent to the younger acc. c. inf. for construction (Hofmann 1924: 79; Schmalz-Hofman1928: 383—4), 44 rė n's extensive literature would take up many pages to review. On the recursive fortiori mų their opinions are set out in J. Endzelynas (1901, 1903, 1951 ir et al.), J. Zubaty (1904), E. Hermannas (1926), Chr. S. Stangas (1966), J. Otrębski (1956), V. Mažiulis (1959), J. Kazlauskas (1968) ir other Baltists; in recent decades conjugative verbs have been specifically studied P. Bernadišienės (1961) ir A. Monographs. (1968) However, this issue cannot yet be considered resolved. Further investigation of the forms and usage of the conjugative verbs, together with new data, has raised new problems that su make it difficult to determine the origin. jų 4.5.1. Recent studies have shown that the dative, ir accusative ir formants date back to si the distant past, but attempts to iš jų The ir iš second attempt did not yield any convincing results. Consider the primary accusative meaning ir to derive si iš In other languages, the form of the dative pronoun ir does not allow the accusative of the recursive pronoun. si < *six or *so, hot. ši ir Mr. ** Su with the accusative was attempted to presumably link the southern Samogitian, Prussian dialects ir s. the form of the letters se (Hermann 1926: 83 et al., 87; Mažiulis 1959: 13), but seems to be explained by newer ji phonetic and morphological processes in these dialects (Zinkevičius 1966: 331—2, Jakuliene 1968: 241 —2); doubted its antiquity already ir J. Endzelynas (1951: 914). It's hard to raise iš the accusative *if ir s. Prussian si*, because in that case it would be assumed that in the eastern western Baltic ir languages the consonant formant was formed si by iš different vowels of the adjective. The corresponding forms of the enclitic ti pronouns mi, also correspond to the dative forms of pronouns in other languages (plg. s. sl. mi, ti, gr. pot, over (Hom. tou), ind. s. mé, tė (Endzelynas 1957: 148). On the other hand, output si iš The dative of the sangraZ pronoun to explain the ir formation of sangraZ verbs in Baltic languages, considering the dative meaning as primary, is impeded by other form and semantic motives. Dative suffixation in Žemaičių transitive verbs si (e.g., ,,or find“ next to appear ,,missing somewhere, appearing again“ Zinkevičius 1966: 334) as if indicating ir a later growth of the verb than infix su forms of the accusative meaning (Kazlauskas 1968: 144— 145; Jakulienė 1968: 65, 78, 220, 246). S. in Prussian the dative meaning of transitive conjugative verbs sin su was not found at all si ar (Jakulienė 1969: 42), relatively narrowly they are used in Latvian ir (Endzelin 1951: 986; Lepika MLLVG I 557). In Lithuanian, they are also much rarer than the corresponding intransitive conjugated verbs. E. Hermanno (1926: 80 tt.) the higher frequency of mi, the ti dative meaning, in the XVI-XVII writings a. compared to the su accusative, can be explained by the fact that orthotonic pronoun forms mane, tave quickly displaced the old enclitic forms of the direct object (syntactic) iš verb position, more peripheral dative o forms remained longer; therefore the circumstance does not make the ši accusative mi, ti, meaning newer either. si 4.5.2. Since the original meaning of enclitic is not clearly si defined, it has been iš questioned whether enclitic can ar šį be considered as a pronoun form of the verb. Svarbiame ir containing A. Jakuliene’s work (1968) convincingly shows that in contemporary Lithuanian language the particle is often an si indicator of intransitivity, which does not have a syllable meaning. However, does not seem convincing the author's attempt si to hold such a ir function the oldest moved ją į distant times of the Baltic past (1968 : 227—8; 231 tt. ; SIkynene 1968 : 17). First, it is hard to believe that the original meaning of si the formant would have been so abstract. This is contradicted by typological motives, especially the formation of conjugative verbs in Slavic, Germanic and Romance languages in ir — historical times, where the position of — the conjugative formant, which often still has a separate word in the sentence, is clearly visible, the origin of the accusative and dative forms of conjugative pronouns, the semantics of iš conjugative verbs themselves very similar to those of the Baltic o languages. į (plg. when ** For the relation of si the su formant in the dative forms of the recursive pronouns, see here. Tlopxe3nHckuit 1903: 88—9; Havyranek 1928: 111; Endzelins 1951: 915; Mažiulis 1959: 11 — 12; Stang 1966: 253—4. * For this assumption, see. Zubaty 1904: 59— 60: Endzelins 1944: 131-2; 1957: 148; Raven 1928: 114; In 1959: 13. 45 addition, the term is used to refer to the similarity of structure and meaning in all of the above-mentioned language groups.) The opposition of transitivity: intransitivity itself is not very archaic: it shows both the oldest ideas. language monuments? *, as well as Lithuanian language data*?*. However, the most important thing is that the enclitic si is historically inseparable from mi and ti, which in ancient writings, occasionally and in folklore, have a clear dative and accusative meaning of pronouns. The meaning of these verbs: is more or less felt in many conjugated verbs. It is important to note that in other, especially the oldest, id. in languages, the forms of the corresponding enclitic pronouns can take different syllables. For example, s. ind. (ved.) mé, te, prakr. See, av. me, te, he, she, corresponding to lie. (and Slavic) mi, ti, si, have not only a dative but also an accusative meaning (Delbriick 1888: 205—6; 1893: 462; Wackernagel 1930: 471 et seq., 484); be to, s. ind. mé, tė corresponds semantically also to genetic, and av. hė — also ablative and instrumentalj (Wackernagel ibid.; Havranek 1928: 112 with lit.). Attempts to derive some of these inclinetic meanings (e.g., genetyving) from the primary dative have proved unsuccessful®®. The Hittite noun enclitics mi, ti, ši (=si), which, according to V. Ivanov (1965: 230), directly correspond to lie. mi, ti, si, have a possessive, dative (Friedrich 1952: 141—2, 192, 223; Kronasser 1956: 143—6), and the Luvian hieroglyph. mi —perhaps also the nominative meaning (JlynaeBckas 1969: 72). In such circumstances, the most plausible assumption seems to be that the use of noun enclitics mi, ti, si in various vowel meanings (especially dative and accusative) is an archaic phenomenon, perhaps inherited from those times when the indirect vowels of pronouns were not yet morphologically differentiated (Wackernagel-Debrunner 1930:471, 485; Havranek 1928: 111, 113; Erhart 1970: 37)?". Thus, both the dative and accusative meanings of Lithuanian enclitic pronouns mi, ti, si can be equally ancient. The fact that the enclitic si represents the root of the reversible pronoun is clearly shown by its form, meaning, relationship with mi, ti and noun equivalents in related languages. 4.5.3. But which of the two meanings of the enclitic pronoun si played a greater role in the formation of conjugative verbs? Since in all Baltic languages, for which data are known, the conjugative verbs are primarily opposed to the transitive verbs (Jakulienė 1967: 199 — 200), it should be assumed that this opposition was mainly determined by this accusative meaning. The accusative use of this enclitic, which eliminates the possibility of another direct object, best explains its predominant intransitive function. This is also confirmed by the typological parallels of related languages. For example, in the East Slavic languages, the development of regressive verbs from the accusative pronoun ser samples with verbs is still clearly visible (Meite 1951: 263; Havranek 1928: 24 etc.; Taspanek 1963: 60 etc.; BopkoBckuiiKysnenos 1965: 288 —9). From the Germanic languages, we see a particularly striking parallel in the Scandinavian languages, where the formant -sk of conjugative verbs is clearly derived from the accusative of an enclitic pronoun; s. in Icelandic it is used for acceleration with -s, which may also be of dative origin. These formants, which had a predominant accusative (and in some cases dative) meaning, have become morphological indicators, Denoting the limitation of action to the subject sphere and are already different from the accusative forms of orthotonical pronouns (see isl. sik, nor. seg), which Denote an action directed simply to the subject (Cre6jinmn-- Kavenckuh 1953:238tt.;1957:124tt.; Tyxman 1964: 214 et seq., 229 —59). In many other Germanic ? * Due to the weakness of the control links that determine transitivity in s. ind., gr. and others. plg. Meillet-Vendryes 1924 : 519 tt. ; Renou 1965: 231; Chantraine 1953: 8, 16—7, 232, 319 tt. (slightly differently CaBuenko 1975: 336—7); directly due to the transitivamo category ide. see [lecunmxas 1951: 143; Ilepesbmyrep 1974: 71-81. *5 Plg, aut. 1974: 233—4; 1974a: 244-5; see. but 3.3. “Plg. Havers 1911: 19 tt., 323 ir Brugmann thumb 1913: 458 déls. ind. mé, tė genetivinés Jeltumés származás; the reasoned criticism of this approach Zr. Hermann 1926: 77 and especially Havrének 1928: enklitiniy pronouns in „ *“ Su antiquity from F. Boppo times some associate the corresponding atematiniy verb flexions -m, -t, origin -s (by agglutination of nominal elements); The accusative forms of recognition pronouns in Casuenko 1960: 48 tt. ; HBanoB 1963: 185; Erhart 1970: 12—3, 51. 46 German (even in Gothic, which has the oldest written tradition®), as well as in Romance languages, still retain their morphological independence, although they are in many cases semantically indistinguishable from the verb (such as in German: sich freuen, sich fiirchten, French: se réjouir etc.). The formation of this type of regressive verbs from compounds with the accusative of the regressive pronoun is already observed in popular Latin, where, alongside the forms of mediopassive nature delectari, fieri and so on, se delectare, se facere, cf. ubi se tamen montes... aperiebant Peregr. He's gone. I, 1 ([IbuukoB u Ap. 1975: 282]); made it time guinta ib. 60, 135). In addition to the accusativeness of the vowel meaning sangraZiniy for the formation of verbs ide. The *s(e)inclusive meaning* of the root of the pronoun sangraZinis itself also played a major role in the languages? ?, which enabled recombinant forms of verbs in individual ide. in language groups (Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Romance) to acquire very similar functions and become semantic equivalents of the old mediopassive. Unlike Romance and most Germanic languages, the r. The Baltic enclitic pronoun si lost its morphological independence before the beginning of writing. This is not contrary to the archaic nature of the Baltic languages, because in them this pronoun could have been associated with a verb much earlier than, for example, in the Germanic languages. The antiquity of the Baltic languages is not absolute, encompassing the entire grammatical system. Both the Baltic and other related languages have conjugative verbs that do not belong to the ancient Indo-European relics and are certainly much newer than the medial forms of the corresponding meaning in the Indo-Iranian or Greek languages. 4.5.4. The old thematic personal endings preserved in the conjugative forms of Lithuanian verbs show that the verb with the joined postpositional enclitic pronoun si was considered a morphologically uniform form before the abbreviation of the endings -fe < *-¢i, lo < *-0, cf. lie. I'm going, I'm going, la. weak, weakness (Endzelins 1951: 903 et al.). Specific pronunciation characteristics also indicate that the words grew into one rather long time ago (Skardžius 1935: 201 etc.; Kazlauskas 1968: 88 etc.; Girdenis-Žulys 1972: 199). Unshortened endings are also found before the decreasing enclitic -£ recorded in old writings, e.g.: duosiuot MP 85, KN 525, BrB Pat 3, 28, liįkiūt („I wish you“), rodiiūt DP 514,,, meldziuot N 379, duomiet MP 176*1,, BrB Apr 3, 18 (Hermann 1926: 50, 37 etc., 46 etc.). Meanwhile, before the enclitic mi, which has best preserved the pronoun’s verbal (especially dative) meaning, the endings are already shortened, cf. dosi mi ChB II Kar 20, 5, nedosi mi I Moz 30, 31, služysi mi I Moz 29, 27, budawosi mill Sam 7, 5 and so on, even kalbejot mi ChB I Sam 12, 1, although before the shorter form -m still occurs and would be preserved, cf. galim, “can me” BrB Ps 44, 7 galiem ir ‘t. p.’ Teis 19, 18%, The enclitics -mi, -ti, especially those with a dative meaning, have retained their morphological and semantic independence to the end. In other words, the enclitic si: its compounds with verbs and verb nouns have functioned as semantically indivisible units in the Baltic languages since the earliest monuments. The enclitic mi to verbs with -si, which have lost their vowel meaning, is joined in the same way as to non-vowel verbs, e.g.: gailis mi ChB I Moz 6, 7, regis mi III Moz 14, 35, etc. (Hermann 1926: 37). Semantically unified and innumerable Prussian verbs with enclitics -si and -sin; When translating the original recognition constructions, with them, as with the non-recognition ones, go the accusative of orthotonic recognition pronouns, e.g. : Turei sien... maitūtunsin 1993,.1 —sollen sich... neeren 198,, (Jakulienė 1969: 39—40). Apparently, the accusative enclitic si in Lithuanian (as in the corresponding enclitic forms of Slavic and Scandinavian languages) has been semantically described since very old times. *8 For Gothic conjugated verbs, see Herold 1952, pp. 85. ; Book 1958: 335 pp. 29 Zr. Tyxman 1964: 214. See also the use of *s(e) stem forms in all three vn. and dg. the characteristic significance of persons from the earliest ide. language monuments. For the impossibility of deriving all the meanings of intransitive regressive verbs from the accusative use of the regressive pronoun, see but Hatcher 1942: 44; Hermodsson 1952: 85 tt. 80 Examples iš Hermann 1926: 19, 21. 47 106,47; Ana...rodose teip biauri, kaip maischas BrB Sir 25, 24 (wird so scheuslich); "There is a white and beautiful bread out of the mouth of the witch" (zdd Sie... chleb bidly) SP II 106,47; "There is a white and beautiful bread out of the mouth of the witch" (zdd Sie... chleb bidly); atkrirė žeme...ieng (402) pasirodytu sausa MT 40*—41; God is a wonder (sowie Sie dziwny) SP 1 177,; we declare guilty RG 435,,; szmogus | tarasi right | good and pleasing to God BrP II 91%; codelei sasies swetima BrB I Kar 14, 6 (Why do you pretend to be a stranger?)*?. so In ancient writings, many of these constructions are correlated with the corresponding accusative forms just as VD, plg. : Kad ins regi grinus DP 484,, (When they see the poor) —Kosznam sawa (tai. iš io) kelis tikras regessi BrB Pat 21, 2 (Einen jglichen dincket sein weg recht sein); Isch to nu blissful me sakis BrP II 259—(Maria) to ne wertd sakos DP 6005, (this is unworthy to read) W 726); Tadda tare Eli ie-girta BrB I Sam 1, 14 (Da meinet Eli sie were truncken) — Cadelei and the council itself are not worth BrB Luke 7, 7 (non sum dignus arbitratus). The third member of the correlation are nominative constructions, depending on the corresponding form of the periphrastic passive, e.g. niemand wirdig erfunden ward (nobody will be found). Also correlated are constructions with factual verbs.Words do, leave, call, etc. (see author 1974: 201 —2), cf.: wadina blaymintus grinus (zowie blogoslawionymi vbogie) SP 303,; "Alwyn the male... must be Pomii schwenta wadintas VEE 39,; Ioab palikka giwus atlikusius mieste BrB I Kron 12, 8 (let the rest live) —Ir passilikos wienas BrB I Moz 32, 24 (and stay alone). However, nominative constructions with vardaZodZziai consist of only a part of the sangraziniu verbs that can go as the main members of VD. Such is the action. feel, see, feel, appear, appear, say, talk, act, pretend (as in the unreturnable give), betray and their synonyms. Nominative constructions with them are made up to this day (such as he feels angry, rich, felt himself the boss, appeared old, said he was happy, acted poor, pretended to be stupid, etc.), although the corresponding accusative (I feel my father angry, said me a little bit, etc. see author 1974: 200, etc.) are now archaisms and only occasionally observed in folklore or folk language (except for somewhat more popular sayings with show, e.g.: showed her naked to everyone, etc.). Neither in the old writings nor in the present language there are accusative equivalents of the constructions with the recursive verbs of the pretentious state dėtis or feistis. Except to look (for example, it looks strange), with nouns, nominative constructions are made only by the conjugated forms of the mentioned verbs. Such absolutization of the regressive forms is explained by the fact that they were early generalized to represent an action limited to the sphere of the subject, and thus in the constructions of the predicative attribute became a means of assigning the spoken characteristic to the same subject. Only in the corresponding constructions with participants having the meaning of secondary action (not property) survived alongside the recursive and non-recursive forms, e.g.: he said returned, but not *said angry (of course, except for VD with non-recursive equivalents of verbs of the pronoun state). However, according to the model of their internal structure, nominative constructions with nouns and participants do not differ: he felt angry <= he felt (he was angry), cf. 1.2.2. 4.6.3.3, Having become a special means of expressing an action limited to the sphere of the subject, the return particle was sporadically added not only to the otherwise intransitive, but even to the returning verbs with infixed si. This phenomenon has been observed since the beginning of scripture, especially in the writings of J. Bretkūnas and S. Vaišnoras, e.g.: passigaileias (3 sing.) BrB I Mos 43, 30; neapsijmas 39, 8; nessibijokities TV « Moz 14, 9; prassideiosi 16, 46; atsikreipsities 32, 15; nussiweskes Teis 4, 6; nusidūs47 Similarly BrB Pat 16, 2; 30, 12; III Mos 14, 37; II Mac 12, 16; Joz 22, 19; Sir 8, 18 and others. 18 Similar BrB Sir 6, 1; 8, 11. 4 Similarly BrB I Mos 42, 7; I Kings 14, 5. 54 of MT 93,,, 105*,,; prasidestissi 138*,,; self-study 90%; atsiskiressi 118,,, issimanosi 85%; PM 20,,; sasieitiszi (3 pl.) MT 713; passisawinamesi 145,; 98,4 and so on.® With such,,double-stained“ action words are made and VD, e.g. : You'll know you're guilty MT 143%,; I'm too ... weak ... MT LT XL-XLIš!, Apparently, due to the addition of the formant sangraZos to the verb būti in the Žemaičių dialektas, specific constructions were created, in which the regressive forms of this verb have a similar meaning as dėtis, pretend are also associated with es. ir su I. I'm sick. nominatives of participants, e.g. : I'm not going to see it Infringement; He's begging, we're o gonna be hearing nothing. Be silent! Š; ZemR II 306; Come to sankrovon, be willing to buy ko Š (LKZ 1, 1216)%2. Kuršėnai, Tryškiai, Raudėnai, ir etc. in Žemaičių kalboje will. 1. 3 the person in these constructions has the usual limb of convex forms -es lk. ~ -ias(is): will be ~ (will be) like di'se's ~ drummer (sighs) Krš (Vitkauskas 1960: 68; 1965: 17). It should be noted that in these constructions of the verb biitis only the future tense imperative is used; therefore, ir the aforementionbe ed verb forms are only associated with es. su 1. I'm sick. participants (no *both ar *would not be seen, nor *has not seen the type of statements unnoticed). The limitation of the grammatical structure clearly distinguishes these constructions from VD ir suggests that they have a specific origin. ] As is known, the verb biiti has an irreversible form es. su 1. I'm sick. the participants can form the nouns vad. the enriched initial future tense, which is usually used to describe a non-certain, assumed future action in the ar present, e.g.: zapnij tylko światło, będzie beingrążony wewnątrz į LzPR I 367 (Sližienė 1961: 68; LKG II 147). Such statements as that it will be invisible first of all have a modal meaningme „that probably (maybe) doesn’t see anymore“. The imperative forms of the pronoun are: biti, biti (e), biti (e) es. su 1. I'm sick. also denotes a non-existent, only ordered to be realized state in the speaking time. Therefore, both the future tense and the imperative form of the verb to be are in the non-recursive form es: veik. su 1. participants indicate unreal ir states have a distinct modal meaning. When the participant is a su negative, they can indicate a pretentioir us action. For example, words such as bitk nemlátós (not knowing, not hearing) can be used with the same meaning as bitk in many contexts and situations. ( = thanks) not seeing (not knowing, not hearing). Just negative self. 1. I'm sick. the forms of the participants are usually ir found in su constructions being. These circumstances lead to the assumption that the constructions || of the -anti type were created by adding the return form to the verb to be, which forms es. su I. I'm sick. the participants formed the initial forms of ir the future imperative sentence. Bis. 1. 3 the length of the vowel of the personal form (future) in the conjugative form is quite regular, cf. will sew, but will sew; in the Žemaičių dialektas, the vowel of the corresponding non-sangraZiniy forms is ir as long: būs, gys ‘gis’, cf. Zinkevičius 1966: 361. Return formant -s(i) is sometimes added to the forms of the verb biti in other cases, but it does not ir give the meaning of pretending, cf. : The old man's being yr, but I knew no good Dr (LKŽ T, 1213); While I'm here (waiting), ir parėjo numie Šts (ib. 1215). In the 16th a. century writings there are still examples where it has the clear meaning of the dative of a recursive pronoun even in participle constructions, e.g.: asch busiūs — Gargawebe ns isch Pharaono BrB II Moz 14, 18 (if I I have placed honor; cum glorificatus fuero)®. When the verb to be joined with the particle sangrazos, the mentioned future tense imperative forms coincided ir su VD. Semantically, the closest subgroup to VD them were the su 50 For the corresponding forms in current dialects, see here. It is 1966: 332; particularly common in the mountainous areas of the country. Vitkauskas 1978. 51 Plg. passiszisti grieschnas essas VE 72s. *2 For more examples, see Vitkauskas 1965: 17; 1976: 57; aut. LKG II 360. 59 Plg. : asch saw I'll be honoured BrB II Moz 14, 17 (so will I Inherit honour). Similarly si used in other (not participation) in constructions, e.g. : Mana Sunaus Hemora schirdis norisi (top: geidulauia) iusų Daughters with BrB 1 Moz 34, 8. 55 verbs, also common in Žemaitija, e.g.: būsis nematomas, būkis nematomas dėsis nematomas, dėkis ir nematomas. Therefore, it is quite understandable that the fear of su construction adhered to this subgroup, which established VD the meaning of the fake action. jų In this way, a construction of a VD completely different syntactic nature, which has so far retained specific structure limitations, has been adapted. Ta the fact that the meaning of disguise has only a certain verb Form is only in constructions ir es. su 1. I'm sick. participants, confirms the syntactic motives for the appearance of this meaning. 4.6.4. Relationship with su Slavic constructions A similar role as the Lithuanian noun participant sangraZiniy verb formation had nominative su constructions of Slavic languages. ir As is known, the recursive verbs of Slavic languages were formed due to the recursive pronouns sę (initially apparently orthotonic, later inclined**) and si (enclitic) forms of agglutination. Eastern Slavic languages Sie returning pronouns joined in verb one word, in su other į (e.g., Czech, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Polish) maintained positional mobility, but their semantic unity is in many cases noticeable from the oldest monuments. S. in Slavic si, often o ir sę no longer have a vowel meaning, are sometimes used for acceleration (e.g., moniti si || se; sožaliti si || sę) and function as return formants (I 'aspanek 1963: 50 et seq., 62). In predicative attribute constructions with regressive verb forms, the nominative of the adjectives and participants are most often used, e.g.: utvrodi sé roka ego céla Mark 3:5; naučito so velii narečeto se Matthew 5:19; monito se imy Matthew 25:29 (Havranek 1928: 157 —8)%® —as in the constructions with intransitive verbs mentioned in 4.3.1. However, the accusative form of the recursive pronoun sę is used with all three. persons, can also go with the accusative of adjectives and participants, i.e. just like lie. save, e.g.: kogo se sam? those who make Jon 8, 53 (Raven ibid. 157). Corresponding constructions from the ancient scripts to the present day are occasionally found in Czech and Bulgarian, where se has retained some autonomy, e.g.: s. sl. vidė sę sokrušena (Ilore6Hs 1958: 309)%, s. ček. Josef Kruml is not worth me. 17 (Havranek ib. 157), nn. Check. vidél se leZici beside the usual vidél se leZet (ib. 160). The relationship between the accusative and nominative constructions in the Slavic languages is even more pronounced than in Lithuanian, because in both constructions the same orthotonic pronoun se form is used. Thus, the use of sangraziniy pronouns in the accusative, parallel in both language groups, must have contributed significantly to the spread of sangraziniy verbs in nominative constructions. However, this does not mean that nominative constructions in Baltic and Slavic languages can generally be derived from accusative forms with recursive pronouns, as I. Marvans believed (Mapsan 1962: 35). The accusative construction with recursive pronouns could not have played such a role simply because it itself is probably secondary, formed as an example of constructions with pronouns denoting different subjects, i.e. vidim se nucena according to vidim té zdrdva 54 The question of the inclusion of the accusative forms of pronouns in Slavic languages me, fe, sę was solved in various ways. They were considered orthotonic by E. Berneker, J. Zubaty, A. Margulis, enclitic by K. Muulenbach, S. Kulbakinas, V. Vondrakas, J. Rozwadowski, and at first by A. Meillet, but later he changed his opinion. B. Havranekas (1928: 25 et seq. with lit.) thoroughly investigated this question, orthotonic sl. ś nature seems quite clear. 55 More about these constructions on p. Miklosich 1868—74 IV: 345, 822—3; Ilore6ns 1958: 156tt. ; 1900: 61 th. ; Gebauer 1929: 197—8; Travniček 1956: 186; BopkoBernū-Kyanem10B 1965: Dvorak 1970: 155—6; Bauer 1972: 59; Večerka 1961: 65 pp. ; Rūžička 1963: 191 et seq., 198; Poxuosckas 1970: 43 et seq. 56 M. RoZnovskaja points out that in modern Bulgarian the form ce may have the meaning of the accusative of the sangrazian pronoun and go with the attribute of the direct complement, e.g. : Kamo ce euda omomar (PoxnosBckas 1970: 24 et seq.). Because of the predicative attribute of the invariant form of the noun, "the connection with the subject or object here can be determined only from the meaning of the sentence. There is no clear boundary in Bulgarian between ce, which goes with a return form, and 5, which goes with a return pronoun (Kocros 1939: 56 (Zubaty 1919*7), and in literary South and West Slavic languages the Latin dixit se divitem type constructiony® is still being activated. Much more reliable is Havranek- 's assumption that the fusion of the accusative-meaning returning pronoun with the verb, its transformation into a returning formant (particle) in Slavic languages strengthened and preserved the ancient nominative construction, perhaps based on secondary nominal predication (I 'aspanek 1963: 61). : Due to the prevalence of sangraziniy forms, nominative constructions in the ancient monuments of Slavic languages are correlated with accusative constructions just as in Lithuanian, i.e. VD with sangraziniy verbs form an antithesis of GD with corresponding non-sangraziniy verbs, cf.: s. sl. It was seen by the guards. 553, (Večerka 1961: 65) and vidėšę i juZe umbrošo Jon 19, 33 Zogr., Mar. (Večerka 1961: 58)*?, we also find here the third member of the correlation —a nominative construction with a periphrastic passive, p. in the language could go in a variant of regressive forms, e.g.: vidimo béase prébyvaje Supr. 54425. Thus, VD-type constructions in Baltic and Slavic languages not only have a common genetic basis, but their prehistoric development, associated with the formation of conjugative verbs, took place in parallel in the same direction and gave surprisingly similar results. The VD constructions of Lithuanian and the oldest Slavic language monuments coincide in terms of their place in the system of syntactic means (especially in relation to the accusative ones), in terms of their syntactic structure, and even to a large extent—in terms of their morphological realization. 4.6.5. Direction of further development The subsequent history of VD in the Baltic and Slavic languages, which took place already in the period of written tradition, differs. In Eastern Slavic languages, with the disappearance and decrease of the short (non-nominative) forms of participants, the accusative and nominative constructions of participants relatively quickly went out of circulation, and the nominative of adjectives and participants as a predicative attribute was in many cases replaced by the instrumental one. (Fraenkel 1926: 77 pp.; Mpasek 1962: 347 pp.; 1958: 15 pp.) It's quite possible that in the living tomorrow. in Slavic languages nominative participle constructions disappeared even earlier than in the writings, where they were still supported for some time by the Old Slavic language tradition and the influence of Greek examples. In the South and West Slavic languages, these structures have also decreased significantly, but have survived longer, and some (e.g. Czech, Bulgarian) still have remnants of their use. In Lithuanian and Latvian, VD, like GD, is widely used to this day, but the relationship between these constructions, and partly their structure, also changed during the period of written tradition. In accusative constructions, the participle form spread, but the participants remained only in cases where the noun or pronoun ending has the meaning of a direct object (aut. 1974: 265 et seq.). Therefore, the use of the forms of the litigated participants in accusative constructions has been significantly narrowed. At the same time, the contradiction of accusative-nominative constructions weakened. At present, such VDs as sakėsi || žinojosi grįžtąs can no longer be correlated with GD sakė || žinojo jį grįžtantį as XVI—XVII a., because instead of the latter usually divisor constructions (sakė || žinojo jį grįžtant) or connective sentences (sakė || žinojo, kad jis grįžta) are used. Under these circumstances, the functional load of the particle has decreased. This is why in modern Lithuanian the VD has been used more widely with non-regressive verbs of perception and information, for example: jis sakė || žinojo grįžtąs. Article 57, exp. in Naše Reč, 1919, No. 3, p. 29 according to Havranek 1928: 160. 58 pp. Raven ib. 160. However, the Latin constructions of this type with se, for example, imperatorem se appelaverat Caes. B.G. 3, 31; se mizum praedicat Pl. Men. 909 (Kiihner-Stegmann 1912: 294) are considered to have been influenced by the corresponding examples with me, te, denoting a different subject (Miller 1974: 229). 59 See, for example, the corresponding correlation in Czech: zriš sė stojė—zFi tė stojiec(- e) (Dvoiak 1970: 155). 57 In this way, VD has come even closer to the indirect pronoun, which is also used after verbs of the corresponding meaning, e.g.: saku || tean că el vine. The productivity of VD with non-recursive forms is particularly pronounced in the northern eastern Highland dialects, where GD is almost no longer used, so correlation of nominative constructions with accusative ones is not possible here at all. Meanwhile, the indirect connotation is very popular in these conversations. From the writings of K. Sirvydas it is clear that VD with conjugated verbs was still widely used by the eastern Highlanders in the 16th — 17th centuries.,- ,Punktuose sakymų“ of 51 VD we find only one non-conjugated form of the verb: idant žmogus... gailetus... bewelidams ing kunorint kito pikto impuolys essus | negi Diewu pažieydis 1 158,,. Other VDs with conjugative verbs are correlated with GD, which is still quite common and productive here (about 70 constructions, cf. author 1969: 53, etc.), according to the identity or difference of the subject in the “Points in Sayings”. At present, in the dialect of K. Sirvydas, as in the whole north-eastern corner of Lithuania, neither VD with conjugated verbs, nor GD almost do not occur, although after non-conjugated verbs such nominative constructions of participants, as Janė said when he met Petra Kp; people spoke after seeing Kraujelis and so on, are quite common. Of course, this does not indicate that they are new and derived from constructions with conjugative verbs. Sangr. The spread of forms in the VD, most characteristic of the Žemaičių dialect, probably only partially affected the nominative constructions of the eastern dialects, many of which could retain an older form. However, the fact that the non-consonant forms in these dialects have almost completely displaced the consonant forms, which were still used in the 16th—17th centuries, cannot be accidental. The withdrawal of GD from circulation and the disappearance of the mentioned correlation of nominative- -accusative constructions, apparently, was one of the most important reasons for this phenomenon. The correlation with accusative constructions for the use of regressive verb forms is also evident in the current literary language. Most of the verbs that have only non-recursive forms in VD (see 1.1.4) do not form GD constructions, and some of them, e.g., hľadať, hroziť, rozčuľovať, pochybovať, vyhýbať, jednoduché, do not have a suffix at all. Such information verbs as to confirm, to testify, to speak, to report, to swear, GD are usually used with a participle conjunction (being, being, being). Although there is a tendency to use VD with some non-conjugative verbs, conjugative forms are still predominant in this construction. The particle of conjugation functions as a prominent, although often optional, grammatical indicator, marking the identity of the personified verb and the subject of the participant’s actions. The genesis and history of VD in Lithuanian language shows that the development of constructs of participants is largely conditioned by changes in morphological processes and more general syntactic oppositions. CONCLUSIONS 1.VD consists of verbs of physical and mental perception, information and emotional without pretentious state, which can join the secondary elements of explanatory sentences. Be to, su es. I. nev. Participants are also verbs denoting desire, effort (or unwillingness, avoidance, fear), request and habit. In this construction, the participant noun (alone or with dependent words) represents an explanatory inclusive sentence, occupying the position of the propositional object. According to its internal syntactic structure, VD corresponds to the final with the participant (GD), but differs from the latter in the coincidence of the personified form of the verb and the subject of the participant. 2. VD witnessed from the very first monuments of Lithuanian language. XVI -— XVII it is most a. often used by authors representing the West ir Samogitian Highland dialects (J. "BrettkūS. no, Vaišnoro" (in Lithuanian). The area of use is determined according 58 VD to ancient writings XVI — XVII a. roughly coincides su with the present, only covers «still part of the eastern Highlands, where at the moment conjugative verbs are po almost not used. VD 3. XVI-- Comparison a. of the 17th-century su translations with the Latin, German and Polish originals shows that the usage in VD the ancient writings is based on the living language of the time to ir iš essentially unaffected by the influence of other languages. Most of the VD time, the side elements of the original connective explanatory sentences were translated. The influence of the original languages ne encouraged, but, on the contrary, constrained and narrowed the usage in VD the ancient language monuments. ThereforVD e, the prevalence of XVIIn the 17th a. texts only partially iš reflect the true extent of the use of this construction in the living language. This is confirmed by the considerably VD wider use in the original and compilative writings of the same authors. 4. XVIIn the XVII a. writings VD usually consists of conjugated verbs (approx. 90%), iš of which the most common are see, expect, say, know, i.e. those verbs whose non-conjugated forms predominate in the participle ir of the final su (GD) construction. In addition, the old scripts used the non-consonant VD and periphrastic ir passive forms of the corresponding verbs. 5. VD the participating member corresponds to the démens subordinate of the explanatory sentence according to its constructive characteristics. About the 329, ancient writings VD composed to be su participants, passing verb conjunction equivalents. 6. VD nariy order in the ancient scriptures is relatively stable. Dominant positional model NVP (929, examples) is based on the general laws of word order in Lithuanian language (SVO principle). In addition, VD traces of patterns are ir OV noted in the structures. 7. The ir grammatical VD structure of the Lithuanian-Latvian ir languages, in most cases the lexical expression, VD coincides, only the Latvian languages su have newer features related to the spread of non-syllable forms of participants. The traces of this construction are seen in the ir s. Prussian language. Su The Balts are linked to the k. corresponding Slavic VD constructions by the same internal structure, very similar semantics of the main members, many features of the ir morphological jų structure (tendencies of verb reflexivity, genetically identical forms of participants, etc.). ir 8. Internal reconstruction ir approximation su with other ideas. The syntactic foundation was formed by VD predicative attribute in stative state verbs, for which in Indo-Iranian, su Greek, Italic languages the mediopassive paradigms were iš formed. The nominatives of the participants are used as noun forms in the constructions of predicative attributes. Nominative constructions of predicate attributes with static verbs have been opposed to accusative active verbs since ancient times. su su Based on this, the primary VD ir GD correlation. 9. In nominative constructions su with phase ir verbs of emotional state, the noun of the verb noun, which later became a participant, once had the function of a secondary participle. Su perception ir information verbs were used to connect the nominatives of the participants, which went into relatively independent nominal sentences, which later joined the close constructions su with verbs. į VD In all these cases, the non-recursive iš forms of verbs were used in the past. 10. Formation of periphrastic passive, accusative constructions su with transitive verbs (found lying) jį formed a contradiction with the ir nominative construction of new passive su forms (he was found lying). 11. VD development is closely related to the su formation of conjugative verbs, which plays a very important role (especially in the last period) had the accusative meaning of the enclitic si noun. Although the enclitic pronoun grew into a verb si before the su beginning of writing, much earlier than mi, ti, the remains of the former independence are still found in už the old writings. jo 59 12.The data of ancient writings show that, when denoting objective relations between two actions with identical subject, GD was used in addition to VD with the ending forms of regressive pronouns: enclitic (atonic) si and orthotonic sebe. After the enclitic si lost its vowel meaning, the participle was replaced by a nominative according to the long-existing model of VD and other nominative constructions. This has contributed to the spread of conjugative verb forms in VD constructions. 13. Becoming a morphological formant, Denoting the limitation of action in the subject sphere, a particle of return As in other constructions, ir VD has also begun to be applied to intransitive verbs. VD with conjugated intransitive verbs formed an opposition to GD with transitive verbs, particularly pronounced in the 16th-17th century writings: In the same direction accusative and nominative verbs. constructions rolled in Slavic languages. ir 14. Due to the addition of the particle of return to the verb be in the forms of the compound initial future time in the Žemaičių dialects, Dūsis nematytas type constructions were formed, which later adapted to VD. 15. In the period of written tradition, with the narrowing of GD usage, its opposition VD weakened. Accordingly, the functional load of returning forms in nominative constructions has also decreased. In modern Lithuanian, VD is often used again with non-recursive verbs of perception and information. Additional abbreviations AfslPh —Archiv fiir slavische Philologie*. BrB —Biblia tatai esti Wissas schwentas Raschtas Lietuwischkai pergulditas per Iana Bretkuna (1579—1590 manuscript, cited from VVU and LKI by photocopy). BrGD —Giesmes Duchaunas [isch Wokischka ing Lietuwischka lieszuwi... pergulditas. Printed in Karaliauczuie... 1589 (photocopy of J. Bretkūno hymn, in the library of Uppsala University, kept in the Library of the Lithuanian SSR). BrP I-11 —Postal... Per Ian Bretkun... Kraliauczuie... 1591. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris. BW - Kr. Barons and H. Wissendorfs. Latvian songs. T. I-VI. Jelgawa un Petrograda, ChB —Versionis Bibliorum in Lingvam Lithvanicam. Pope Tomus VII Novm Testamentum... Lithvanica Lingva donatum (New Testament manuscript of the Bible by B. Chylinski, published in: Biblia litewska Chylinskiego, Nowy Testament. T. II. Text, ed. by Cz. Kudzinowski-Jan Otrebski, Poznan, 1958). HG — W. Haack. Vocabvlarium... with an appendix of 1894— 1915. a brief Lithuanian grammar. Halle, 1730. IF —„Indo-European Studies®. KIC-M. Danielis Kleinii Compendium Litvanico-Germanicum.- ..Kėnigsberg, 1654. KIG —Grammatica Litvanica... edited by M. Daniele Klein... Regiomonti, 1653. KZ —,, Journal for Comparative Linguistic Research in the Field of Indo-European Languages, edited by A. Kuhn“. Grammar of the English Language. Vol. I-III. Red. K. Ulvydas. V., 1965-76. "Lithuanian Language". LKT —Lithuanian language dialects. Chrestomatija. Red. E. Grinaveckienė, K. Morkūnas. V., Mar 1970. —Quattuor Evangeliorum versionis palaeoslovenicae, Codex Marianus glagoliticus. Ed. by V. Jagič. Berolini, 1883. ME — K. Miilenbach's Latvian Vocabulary. Red., supplemented, continued by J. Endzelins. T. I-IV. Riga, MG 1923—32. —Initial Framework of a Lithuanian Language Teaching- ... by Christian Gottlieb Mielcke ... Kėnigsberg, 1800. MLLG J gu pg of the Lithuanian Literary Society. T. I-VI. Heidelberg, MLLVG —LPSR ZA Institute of Languages and —1912. Literature. Grammar of the modern Latvian literary language. T. I-II. Riga, MT 1959—62. LI —S. Vaišnora Lithuanian introduction to the book: Margarita Theologica... perguldita per Simona Waischnora warnischki... Karaliauczuie... 1600. MT(PM) —Ape popieszischkaie missche. Released together with MT. 60 OsG —New Lithuanian Grammar brought to light by Gotfried Ostermeyer.., Konigsberg, R —Ph. Calm down. Anfangsgriinde einer 1791. Littauischen Grammatick. Knigsberg, 1747. RB-L. J. Rhesa. The Bible, This is: Wissas Szwentas Rasztas... fourth time printed. Tilžeje 1824. RP —Swietych stow aspraw Panskich- ... Kroynikd or Postill4... 1556 (M. Rėjaus) "Postile", quoted from a defective copy in the Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences). SC = Compendia Grammaticae Lithvanicae Theophili Schultzen... Regiomonti... 1673. ST —Lithuanian Folk Tales in the 17th-18th Centuries. Prepared by Jurgis Lebedys. Vilnius, 1956. Supr —Cynpacabckas pyconuch. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do it. T. II. I, Hap. C. CeBepssxoBa. Cankrnerep6ypr, 1904. VE - Enchiridion... by Baltramius Willentha... printed for Karalaucius... 1579. VEE —Euangelias bei Epistolas... pergulditas... per Baltramieju Willenta... Ischspaustas Karalauczui... 1579, W. —Postilla Catholiczna mnieysza... Przez D. Iakuba Wuyka... w Poznaniu- ... 1582 (second edition). Ww —Postilla... by D. Iakoba Wuyka... in Kraków... 1617 (sixth edition). Zogr — Codex Glagoliticus olim Zographensis nunc Petropolitanus... edited by V. Jagié. Berlin, 1879. Literature. Alexander J. Kretingas dialect verb. —,,Science works of the Vilnius State Pedagogical Institute. Lithuanian Language and Literature", 1959, t. VIII, p. 107—141. Ambrazas V. Absolute noun in Lithuanian language monuments of the 16th—17th centuries. —,,Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, 1962, t. V, p. 3—146. T. p. Atributive-Predicative Usage of Lithuanian Language Participants. - Kn. : Morphological structure of Lithuanian language and its development (,,Lietuviy lingvistikos klausimai“, t. VII). V., 1964, pp. 47-79. "T. p. Galininkas with a participant in Lithuanian monuments of the 16th-17th centuries (spread and relationship with the constructions of the originals). - Kn. : Studies in the grammar of the Lithuanian language („Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, t. XI). V., 1969, pp. 41-56. T. p. "Modus Relativus" (in Lithuanian). —In: Donum Balticum to Prof. Chr. S. Stang. Stockholm, 1970, p. 6-13. T. p. Lithuanian language positional models of adjectives with a participle, —Kn. : Studies of the verb in Baltic languages („Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, t. XIV). V., 1973, pp. 169-182. Ta. Structure and use of the accusative with participle (accusativus cum participio) in the Old Lithuanian language. - Kn. : Word forms and their use („Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, t. XV). V., 1974, p. 195-275. T. p. On the development of the participle constructions with obligate case in Lithuanian. —,, Journal of Slavic Studies“, 1974 (a), Bd. XIX, Hf. 2. P. 241-251. "T, p. The spread of indirect lineage and the problem of origin. - Kn. : Lithuanian Language Area Linguistics Issues (,,Lietuviu kalbotyros klausimai“, t. XVII. V., 1977, p. 7—54, Balkevičius J. Syntax of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language. V., 1963. Barnet V. Development of the system of active participation in Russian. Prague, 1965. Bauer J. StaroCeskd väta a staročeskė souveti na zakladė srovnavacim. —In: The Comparative Study of the Slavic Languages. Prague, 1958, pp. 108—123. "T. p. Syntactica Slavica. Brno, 1972. Behaghel O. German syntax. Bd. 1I. The Word Classes and Word Forms. Heidelberg, 1924. Benveniste E. The nominal phrase. —,,Bulletin of the Society of Linguistics of Paris“, 1950, XLVI, t. f. 1., p. 19-36. T. e. „Ētre“ and,,avoir* in their linguistic functions. —,,Bulletin of the Society of Linguistics de Paris’, 1960, t. XLI, f. 1. BernadiSiené P. SangraZiniy verb meaning and usage in contemporary Lithuanian language. Kid. dis. rankr. V., 1961. Bezzenberger A. Contributions to the History of the Lithuanian Language. Gottingen, 1877. Bielenstein A. Latvian grammar. Mitau, 1863. Borrow T. The Sanskrit Language. London, 1959. Brugmann K. Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Language1904. : s. Strasbourg, T. p. Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages. Strasbourg, 1906, Bd. II, T. 1; 1911, Bd. II, T. 2; 1916, Bd. II, T. 3. "T. p. The syntax of the simple sentence in Indo-European. Berlin-Leipzig, 1925. Brugmann K., Thumb A. Greek grammar. Miinchen, 1913. 61 Book T. The reflexive construction of the verb in Gothic. —„Kwartalnik Neophilologiczny*- ,. 1958, V, 4, pp. 335–345. K. Collective Writings. T. II. South. Mr Zinkevičius. V., 1959. Bukšs M., Placinskis J. Latgales valodas gramatika un pareizrakstības vārdnīca. Miinchen, 1973. Cappeler C. Sanskrit dictionary. New edition, Berlin, 1955. Chantraine P. Grammaire homėrigue. T. 2. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1953. Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Massachusetts, 1965. Delbriick B. Ancient Indian Syntax. Halle, T. p. 1888. Comparative Syntax of Indo-European Languages. Bd. I. Strasbourg, 1893; Bd. II. 1998-1999 Strass-burg, Bd. 1897; III. Strassburg, 1900. Dvofak E. Development of crosswalk structures in the older Cestiné. Prague, 1970. Endzelynas J. Sounds and forms of Baltic languages. V., 1957. Endzelins J. On the reflexive form of the Latvian language. 1901, pp. 13—22. T.p. [Rec.:] B. K. Ilopxesnnckut. Mocksa, 1903. —„H3Becrus Mmnepatopckoii Akagemun Hayk no orįtesieknto pycckoros3bIKa H CJIOBecHOCTHK“, 1904, T. IX, u. 2, c. 376—388. T. p. Old Prussian language. Riga, T. p. 1943. Riga: Riga University Press, 1944. T. p. Grammar of the Latvian language. Riga, 1951. T. p. A selection of works. T. I. Riga, 1971. Erhart A. Studies on Indo-European Morphology. Brno, 1970. Fillmore Ch. J. The Case for Case. —In: Universals of Linguistic Theory. New York, Chicago etc., 1968, p. 1—88, Forssmann Th. The Transmission of the Greek Participle Constructions in the Eastern Roman Gospel. Strasbourg, 1877-8. Fraenkel E. The praūdikative instrumental in the Slavic and Baltic languages and its syntactic foundations. —,,Archiv fur Slavische Philologie- “, 1926, pp. 77—117. T. p. Syntax of the Lithuanian case. K., 1928. T. p. Linguistic, especially syntactical examination of the Calvinist Lithuanian Catechism of Malcher Pietkiewicz of 1598. T. p. Lithuanian etymological dictionary. Bd. I. Göttingen, 1962. Friedrich J. Hethitisches Worterbuch. Heidelberg, 1952. Gebauer J. Historickd Dictionary of the Czech Language. T. IV. Prague, 1929, 2nd ed. [Rec.:] J. Kazlauskas, A. Girdenis and V. Zulys. Historical grammar of Lithuanian language (pronunciation, noun, verb). V., 1968. —Baltistica, 1972, vol. VIII (2), pp. 193-202. Harris Z. S. Co-occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure. The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs —New Jersey, 1964, p. 155—210. Hatcher A. Reflexive verbs. Latin, Old French, Modern French. Baltimore—London, 1942. Havers W. Studies on the Case Syntax of the Indo-European Languages. Strasbourg, 1911. Havranek B. Genera of verbs in Slavic languages. T. I. Prague, 1928. T. p. The floor in the debate. —In: Otazky Slavonic Syntax. T. II. Brown 1968, pp. 409–411. Hermann E. Litauische Studien. Berlin, 1926. Hermodsson L. Reflexive and intransitive verbs in Late West Germanic. Uppsala, 1952. Hirt H. Indo-European grammar. Bd. VI. Syntax. T. I. Heidelberg, 1934. Hofmann J. B. Syntactic shifts in the structure of Latin as a result of the rigidization of originally appositional verbs. —,,Indogermanische Forschungen®, 1924, vol. XLII, pp. 75-87. Homer. Iliad. Translation by J. Ralys et al. Red. A. Dambrauskas. V., 1962. Jablonskis J. Selected Writings. I. J. Palionis. V., 1957. Jagič V. Slavic Syntax. —,,Academy of Sciences of the Russian Federation. Philos. —historische Klasse“, 1900, Vol. XLVI. Jakuliené A. On the functions of sangraZiniy verbs in Lithuanian language. —,,Baltistica®, 1967, III t. (2), p. 185-200. T.p. The history of conjugative verbs in Lithuanian and other Baltic languages. Philol. kand. dissert. manuscript. ., 1968. T. p. Prussian sangraZic verbs. -,,Baltistica*, 1969, vol. V(1), pp. 37-42. T. p. For wisesi there ischpoznati. — ,,Baltistica®, 1969(a), V(2), t. p. 197—8. Kahn Ch. The verb “be* in Ancient Greek. Foundations of Language. Suppl. ser. 16. The Verb gi and Its Synonyms. Philosophical and Grammatical Studies, V. 6. Dordrecht —Boston, Kazlauskas, J. Historical grammar of Lithuanian language 3, (Pronunciation, noun, verb). Kronasser H. Comparative phonology and form theory of the Hittite language. Heidelberg, 1956. Kropaczek S. The accusative phrase with infinitive in Polish. —,,Philological works“, 1928, t. XII, s. 424—093, Kfižkova H. Adverbial determination of verbs and sentence formula. —In: Otazky slovan syntax, II. z. Brno, 1968, s. 103—109. Kūhner R. Executable Grammar of Greek Language. Bd. II. 1998-1999 T. I. Hannover, 1870. 62 Kiihner R. Stegmann C. Exhaustive Grammar of the Latin Language. Bd. 11. T. 1. Hannover, 1912. Kurytowicz J. The Middle Desinences of 1’Indo-European and Hittite. —,,Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris“, 1932, t, XXX, p. 1—4. T. p. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg, 1964. Lehmann W. P. Converging Theories in Linguistics. —“Language”, 1972, V. 48, No 2, p. 266-75. T. p. Contemporary Linguistics and Indo-European Studies. —In: “Publications of the Modern Language Association“, 1972(a), V. 87, p. 976—993. T. p. A Structural Principle of Language and its Implications. —“Language”, 1973, V. 49, p. 47— 66 T. p. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin—London, 1974. MacDonnell A. A. A Vedic Grammar for Students. London, 1955. Mažiulis V. Notes on the question of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages. —,,Lietuviy kalbotyros klausimai“, 1959, t, II, p. 5—16. Mažiulis V. Monuments of Prussian language. V., 1966. Meillet A. The nominal phrase in Indo-European. —,,Memoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris“, 1906—1908, t. XIV, f. 1, p. 1-26. r T. p. Introduction a I’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Paris, 1934. Meillet A., Vendryes J. Comparative grammar of classical languages. Paris, 1952, Miklosich F. Comparative Grammar of the Slavic Languages. Bd. IV. Vienna, 1874. (in German) Miller G. On the History of Infinitive Complementation in Latin and Greek. —,,The Journal of Indo-European Studies“, 1974, V. 2, No 3, p. 222—245. Miiller D. Studies in Modern English Syntax, Two Aspects of Synthesis. Winterthur, 1957. Oertel H. The Syntax of Cases in the Narrative and Descriptive Prose of the Brihmanas. V. I. The Disjunct Use of Cases. Heidelberg, 1926. Otregbski J. Grammar of the Lithuanian language. T. III. The Science of Forms. Warsaw, 1956. Palionis J. Lithuanian Literary Language XVI-XVII C. V., 1967. Pedersen H. Hittite and the other Indo-European languages. Copenhagen, 1938. Perlmutter D. M. Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York, 1971. Pokorny J. Indo-European etymological dictionary. Bd. I. Bern —Miinchen, 1959. Reichelt H. Awestisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg, 1909. Renou L. Studies of Sanskrit grammar. T. I. Paris, 1936. T. p. Grammar of the Vedic language. Lyon—Paris, 1952. T. p. General remarks on the Vedic phrase. —In: Symbolae linguisticae in honorem G. Kurylowicz. Wroclaw —Warszawa —Krakow, 1965, p. 230-234, Rosenbaum 4 S. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, Mass., 1967. Rosary B. The Hittite hi —conjugation and the idg. Perfect. —,, Journal of Comparative Linguistics in the Field of Indo-European Languages, edited by A. Kuhn“, 1958, Bd: LXXV. Ross J. R. Gapping and the Order of Constituents. —In: Progress in Linguistics. Ed. by M. Bierwisch, K. E. Heidolph. The The Hague — Paris, 1970, p. 249—259. Ruzicka R. The syntactic system of the Old Slavic participles and its relationship to Greek. Berlin, T. 1963. p. Studies in the Theory of Russian Syntax. Berlin, 1966. Safarewicz J. Influence of lacific on the grammar system of Polish. —In: Symbolae Polonicae in honorem St. Jodlowski. Wroclaw, 1972, pp. 145–150. Schmalz J. H., Hofmann J. B. Syntax and Stylistics. —In: The New York Times. Latin grammar. Miinchen 1928, pp. 345–850. Schmidts P. Gliika bibbeles waloda. —,,Rakstu krajums- ®, 1908, p. XIV, Ipp. 21-100. Schwartz A. Derivative Functions in Syntax. —‘‘Language®, 1968, V. XLIV, p. 747-783. Schwyzer E. Greek grammar. Bd. I. Miinchen, 1938. Schwyzer E., Debrunner A. Greek grammar. Bd. II. 1998-1999 Syntax and syntactic stylistics. Miinchen, 1950, 1975. Senn A. On the Lithuanian numerals for 11—19. —Studi Baltici“, V. Roma, 1935—1936. Sirtautas V. The constructions are convincing, waiting for the pevazamas and so on. structure and use. — „Language Culture”, 1965, ed. 9, pp. 27-32. T. p. The verb conjunction in contemporary Lithuanian literary language. Kid. desert. manuscript. V., VVU bibl., 1968. Skardžius P. Accentuation of accents. K., 1935. Sližienė N. On the conjugated primitive forms of verbs. —„,Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, 1961, t. IV, pp. 67-72. Speyer J. S. Sanskrit Syntax. Leiden, 1886. T. p. Vedic and Sanskrit syntax. Strassburg, 1896. Stahl J. M. Critical-historical syntax of the Greek verb of the classical period. Heidelberg, Stang Chr. S. Perfectum 1907. and medium. —„The Journal of the American Medical Association- “, 1932, vol. p. 29—39, 63