Dėl „*-ān“ atitikmenų liet. „*ā“ kam. vardažodžių ir įvardžių galūnėse kilmės

GRAMATINĖS KATEGORIJOS IR JŲ RAIDA LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XVIII (1978) Discussions V. GRINAVECKIS ON THE ORIGIN OF *-ān REFLEXES IN LITH. *ā-STEM NOUN AND PRONOUN ENDINGS 1. THE REFLEX OF -a, -ā (EASTERN -u, -ū) In almost the entire area of Lithuanian, the old acute word-final *-án has developed into short -a (: standard Lithuanian singular instrumental tā riba višta, plural genitive tās rības vištās), which has undergone corresponding changes in different dialects, depending on their phonetic systems². In some northern and southwestern Aukštaitian dialects, the ending -a < *-ān occurs long as a relic (although alongside it, under the influence of standard Lithuanian, the regular reflex—a short a—is now also familiar and used). In the Mituva River-basin dialect, unlike in standard Lithuanian, such -a is pronounced long in the endings of the pronouns anà, jì, jìjė ‘she’, katrà, ši, šità, šiojė ‘this one’, tà, tojė ‘that one’, and in the singular instrumental and plural genitive of pronominal adjectives, numerals, and participles, e.g.: su anà, jà, jàje, katrà, šìę, šìeje, šità, tà, tojė; anàs, jàs, jàsias, katràs, šiàs, šiàsias, šìtas, tà, tàsias; baltàja, pirmàja, audžiančiàja; baltàsias, pirmàsias, audžiančiàsias (Grinaveckienė 1957: 152—153; Zinkevičius 1966: 278, 310). Long a < *-ān occurred in the same forms in the past also in the neighboring dialect of the Smalininkai–Viešvilė area (Jurbarkas district) (: su geràja, geràsias, tàs, kitàsias ‘other’). In this origin, -a is also pronounced long in the second component of the pronominal pronoun jòji around Višakio Rūda (: su jèje), and elsewhere. In the Kapsai–Zanavykai dialects, the singular instrumental and plural genitive forms of the pronouns jì, tà are pronounced with long -a (: su tà, jà, tàs, jàs || jàs, Senkus 1962: 213); in the western Aukštaitian dialect along the Latvian border, the plural accusative forms anà, jì, katrà, ši, tà (: anà’s, jà’s, š’à’s, katrà’s, tà’s, Jonai tyte 1969: 201, 203, 204; LKT: 156.) According to A. Jonai ty tė, -a is long in the plural genitive of the pronoun šita in the Šakyna dialect as well: šita’s ‘these’. The a of these pronoun forms is also pronounced long in some central Aukštaitian dialects, e.g.: tà’s ‘that’ (LKT: 226). Fr. Kuršaitis knew the forms su tà, šià; tàs, šiàs, and J. Jablonskis the forms su jà, šią; jàs, šiàs, tàs (Kuršaitis 1876: 236—237; Kriaušaitis 1901: 23, 25; Jablonskis 1957: 227). Z. Zinkevičius (1966: 310—311) gives the forms tą ‘that’ (fem.), tàs ‘that’ (masc.) for the southern western Aukštaitian dialect area; tū, tū. ~ tà (< *tān) — in eastern Aukštaitian dialects (cf. also Valeckienė 1965: 1J. Kazlauskas (1968: 162, 163, 189) has convincingly demonstrated, with good grounds, that acute *-ān was the sole plural genitive ending of *ā-stem nouns (and pronouns) common to the entire Lithuanian language area. This is fully confirmed by data from other researchers as well (Šukys 1959: 159; Jasińskaitė 1959: 191; Vidugiris 1969: 167). 2In the Samogitian dialect area northwest of Klykolių, Akmenė, Alsėdžiai, and Gargždai (Grinaveckis 1973: 214), short word-final -a of this origin corresponds to reduced -ǝ (: mažò ~ mažà, kójo ~ kója, gerójo ~ geràja); in eastern Aukštaitian and Dzūkian dialects it corresponds to short (in some places reduced) -u (: mažù, mažù, maž ~ mažà, kóju, kóji, kój ~ kója). At the end of closed words in these dialects, and likewise throughout the rest of the Lithuanian dialect area, every -a of this origin in closed and open word-final position is pronounced short, and after j it also becomes fronted. 125 : 655). In the Zietela dialect, one instance has been recorded in which the singular instrumental ending of an *ā-stem noun daikta- has long -a, e.g.: xmoraˈ ~ chmoràˈ ‘with a cloud’ (Arumaa 1931: 51)³. In standard Lithuanian and the southern and northwestern Aukštaitian dialects, acute *-án in the first component of pronominal forms has developed into long -a (written -ą to reflect its origin); their unstressed second-component *-ān, which developed into -ā, was likewise shortened here (: baltāja, baltāsias, gerāusia, gerāusias). In the area of the eastern Aukštaitian dialects around Medeikiai, Užžsilinai, Biržai, Virškupėnai, Geidžiūnai, Pāpilis, Antāzavė, Vabalninkas, Panemunis, Lukštai, Svōbiškis, Antāšava, Subāčius, Žārasai, Rukiškė, and Šeimatis, acute *-ān in the first component of pronominal endings regularly corresponds to dialectal -ū (: baltūjų⁴ ~ baltāja, baltūs’as ~ baltāsias, cf. their kūsnis ~ kāsnis)⁵. Between Suvainiskis, Rokiškis, Kūpiškis, Svėdasai, Rubikiai, Leliūnai, Balninkai, Molėtai, Bijūtiškis, Nemenčinė, Kuktiškiai, Daugailiai, Degučiai, and Sūviekas, dialectal -ū occurs only in the singular instrumental ending of the first component of pronominal forms (gerūju ~ gerąja). However, along the boundaries of dialects and smaller subdialects, owing to close contact among them, forms with other reflexes of old acute *-ān are often used alongside these forms. Thus, alongside baltūj ~ baltāja, baltūs’s ~ baltāsias in Parovėja, one also hears baltuoj ~ baltāja, baltūos’s ~ baltāsias; around Imbradas, also baltōs’as ~ baltāsias; around Kāršakiškis⁶, also baltōju ~ baltāja, baltōs’as ~ baltāsias; around Raguvelė and Biržai⁷, also baltuos’s ~ baltāsias; around Kazitiškis, also gerūju ~ gerąja, gerōs’as ~ gerāsias; and around Spitrėnai, also gerō ~ gerāja. Apparently for this reason, Z. Zinkevičius (1957: 75) regards the eastern Aukštaitian forms baltūjū ~ baltāja, baltūsbs ~ baltāsias as disappearing. How did old acute *-ān yield long -a in the northern and southern western Aukštaitian dialects and in the endings of the first component of standard Lithuanian pronominal forms (as in the word stem), but long -ū in the cases mentioned in the specified eastern Aukštaitian dialect area, and short a, u in all remaining cases? Given that long and short -a from *-ān is widespread in the northern and southern western Aukštaitian dialects and in standard Lithuanian, and shows no nasalization, there are good grounds to suppose that -n in acute endings (as in the stem) disappeared here without leaving nasalization on the vowel and therefore did not produce a nasal vowel. That is, the process of -n loss here must have been so brief that the first component of this diphthong, the vowel -ā, inherited from -n only length. As a result, the inherently long stem-final -a of *ā-stem nouns would simply have been lengthened further here. J. Kazlauskas (1972: 83–84) rightly maintains that before acute endings changed in Lithuanian, “at the end and in the middle of a word before fricatives, nasal vowels had formed from diphthongs whose second component was a nasal consonant.” In our view, this claim is plausible, since in later periods the loss of n in acute diphthongs did not recur in those same Lithuanian dialects. Thus, it is possible that the consonant -n of acute *-ān may likewise already have disappeared in these dialects at that time. Its descendant, long -a, was shortened at the end of a word (: gerà < *gerān, geràs < *gerāns, pirmāją < *pirmān, pirmāsias < *pirmāns-jāns), but remained long in the first component of pronominal forms (as in the stem) (: gerāja < *gerājan, gerāsias < *gerānsjāns). However, as we have seen, in some western Aukštaitian dialects -a of this origin has remained long in the ending as well. In pronoun endings, long -a could most likely have been preserved here because of final stress (cf. aną, anų, katrą, katrų..., ją, jų, tą, tų... and aną ‘that woman’, anās ‘those women’, tą ‘that’ (fem.), tęs ‘those’ (masc.), katrą ‘which’, katrās ‘which (plural)’ 3 Abejotina, mums rodosi, E. Fraenkelio (1936: 47) nuomonė, jog Žietelos xmoraˈ ilgasis -a galūnėje galėtų būti kilęs iš -ai (< -aija) dėl apokopės, kadangi apokopė paprastai vyksta tik nekirčiuotuose skiemenyse ir jai būdingas vien mechaniskas garso numetimas. Greičiau, kad ilgasis -a, šiuo atveju būdamas vienišas, traktuotinas kaip reliktinis, esantis šnektoje iš seno ir, galima sakyti, yra atsiradęs tiesiog iš *-ān (> -ā). 4In the area of the strongest ending reduction (the Mūša River basin and neighboring dialects), the endings of the second component of pronominal forms are reduced or even entirely lost. In the examples presented here (and elsewhere), when the precise location is not specified, the phonetic changes under discussion are not marked. 5 Dar plg. rytų aukštaičių senėji ~ sendžio (Drotvinas — Grinaveckis 1970: 97; dar žr. Zinkevičius 1957: 95; Jasińskaitė 1959: 191; Zinkevičius 1966: 291). 6 Vns. in. formą baltōja iš Kāršakiškio pateikia ir Z. Zinkevičius (1966: 290). 7 Z. Zinkevičius (1957: 95) iš Biržų pateikia tik formas baltūjų ir baltūsos. 126 and so on), in the endings of the second constituents of pronominal forms—probably through analogy with forms affected by the final stress of pronouns (following tą, tās, ją, jās, and so on, also jąją, jąsias, tąją, tąsias, as well as gerąją, gerąsias… and so on). In the East Aukštaitian dialects mentioned, the -n of the acute diphthong *-án must also have disappeared at the time indicated by J. Kazlauskas, but the process here must have been different. Since the reflex of *-án in the first constituent of pronominal forms here is the narrow long -ū (pronounced -u in the second constituent), there is reason to think that -n disappeared slowly in these dialects. Consequently, along with length, the vowel -ā must also have acquired nasalization from -n. And under the influence of the latter, ā narrowed rapidly and was narrowed the most (Kazlauskas 1972: 84; Zinkevičius 1972: 227–228); having turned into the narrow long -ū (short -u in the second constituent), it has survived to the present day. For the time being, at least, no arguments against this development of *-án can be seen in the dialects in question, since it follows directly from their phonetic system, which in essence also helped reveal and clarify this development. 2. THE REFLEX OF -ai In the southern West and Central Aukštaitian dialects between Kudirkos Naumiestis, Griškabūdis, Garliava, Jieznas, Nemajūnai, and Navininkai, the reflex -ai is now found in place of the old stressed acute *-án (alongside newer normative forms that arose under the influence of the literary language). Here it occurs in word roots (stems), in the endings of pronouns and adjectives, and in the endings of the first constituents of pronominal forms, e.g.: kãisnis, sáispāra, pagelaišk; su tái gerãi mergà; anáis móteris; su gerãja, gerãsiais, etc.; see also Senkus 1955: 64, 126–127; 1960: 146–147; 1962: 213, Zinkevičius 1966: 137; LKT: 193–213, 232, 234–235). Cases of stressed -ai < *-án alongside, undoubtedly, the newer -a < *-án are also given by Fr. Kurschat, 1883: báino Bai, 419, Sãņobai, 366, Sãņabos, 365; laibis, 218, lėbūkas, 228; and also LKŽ, I: ážuolas ~ ąžuolas, 48; LKŽ, III: graižas ’grįžtė, ryšys’, 504, gražtis ’t. p.’, 544, graižyti (rankas) ’laužyti, sukioti’, 504, gražinti (rankas) ’t. p.’, 541, etc. Around Girdžiskė, alongside Samogitian forms with -an ~ -a, forms with -ai also occur rarely, probably under the influence of neighboring West Aukštaitian dialects (: gerānsias || gerãsias ~ gerãsias). Examples of the reflex -ai for old *-án were provided by J. Gerulis and Chr. Stang (1933: 11, 41, 42, 44), e.g.: geresnė:ises ~ geresniās, saldžė:ises ~ saldžiāsias; ážiuols ~ ąžuolas, kã’isti ~ kãsti, etc. In the Zietela dialect, the acute diphthong ai occurs in place of old *-án in roots and in the open word-final position of nominal forms, especially nouns, e.g.: kãisnis ~ kãśnis; sa savái pã’č’ai ’with one’s own wife’ and many others (Arumaa 1931: 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 70; Stang 1958: 184–190; Vidugiris 1959: 198, 201, 204, 206, 207, 209; 1960: 119, 121, 122, 125, 130; 1969: 166; 1974: 283, 286). In the Zietela dialect, the corresponding diphthong ei in place of *-ēn occurs at the open word end of *ē-stem nouns, e.g.: kultuvėi ’with a churn’, bitėi ’with a bee’. The diphthong ai in place of *-án is known around Palomenė and Žasliai only in the open, stressed endings of adjectives and pronouns, e.g.: su tái, gražiai, šitokiai baltai, tokiai jaunai, etc. (Valeckienė 1965: 483, 655); su tái, su jãi is also said around Gegużinė, Vandžiogala, and elsewhere (LKT: 222). The diphthong ai is also found in open pronoun endings around Šaki̇̀nė and Aukščiai, e.g.: anái || añai ’with her’, šė’i ’this’, tá’i ’that’, katrā’i ’which’ (Jonaitvtė 1964: 169; 1969: 201, 203, 204; LKT: 155),⁸ as well as around Šaukėnai, e.g.: tái ’with that’ (Grinaveckis 1973: 215; Rosinas 1975: 77). Around Pabaiskas, Vepriai, Žeimiai, and Bagaslaviškis, the reduced ending -ąi (stressed, with circumflex intonation) has become established in the singular instrumental of *ā-stem nominals, e.g.: su lazdąi, bobąi, savąi, gerąi, runkąi ’with a stick, a woman, one’s own, a good one, a hand’. These forms probably derive not directly from old *lazdān, *gerān…, but apparently are later formations that arose ⁸ The form ãnai ’with her’ (later recorded by A. Jonaitvtė), which is, so to speak, still somewhat unfamiliar within the system of this dialect (alongside katrāi, anái ’with which, with her’), should most likely be regarded as a new variant of anái, caused by retraction of stress; compare also analogous examples from neighboring dialects: ãną ~ añą, añie ~ añīe (LKT: 151, 152, 155). 127 already from dialectal lazdų ~ lazdą, gerų ~ gerą..., perhaps with the addition of an epenthetic -i, just as the Dzūkian dialects and those of their immediate neighbors add -i(-i) at the open word end (usually when long), probably because forms with open endings are fewer in the paradigm (as well as in the inflectional system generally), and are therefore “brought closer” to the forms of the majority of cases with closed endings. For instance, this is probably why -i(-j) is added in the southern West Dzūkian dialects to the singular nominative ending of vowel-stem nouns (: piemuoji ~ piemuo, akmuoji ~ akmuo, sesuoj — sesuō; cf. Fraenkel 1936: 47; Zinkevičius 1965: 256, map No. 60), while in East Dzūkian dialects it is added to the plural locative ending, e.g.: šakōsui ’in the branches’ Tvr, miškuosui ’in the forests’ Ign, kūnuosui ’in which’, vartuosui ’in the gates’ Lz (see also Fraenkel 1936: 37, 47; Morkūnas 1964: 149—150). Compare also the entirely analogous added ending, occurring mostly in the singular instrumental and plural nominative of pronouns in Dzūkian dialects and neighboring ones, e.g.: kuoji ’what’ (LKT: 380), šituoji ’this’ (LKT: 386), šita (LKT: 390); kuriei ’which’, katŗiei ’which’, aniei ’those’, šičiei ’these’ (LKT: 381, 402), etc. The fact that forms lazdai... -(a)i are probably the direct reflex, under the laws of the present-day phonetic system of these dialects, of an earlier dialectal -u (< *-ān) altered and combined with added -i, that is, of the newly formed diphthong -ui (not ai!), whose pronunciation has entirely coincided with the older dialectal -aį (< -ui, not from -ai!), is shown by comparing it with the other reflexes found here: -aį from -ui and -aį from -ai. In fact, it has fully merged only with stressed and unstressed -aį < -ui, e.g.: bōbči ’with a woman’, lazdai ’with a stick’ and vaikui ~ vaiki, vidai ~ viduj ’inside’. Since it differs from stressed -aį < -ai (: vaikai, not vaikąi ~ vaikai) and coincides only with unstressed -aį < -ai (: vyrai ~ vyrai), deriving it directly from -ai is ruled out. This newly formed diphthong -ui is less reduced in the neighboring Čiobiškis dialect, e.g.: su lazdų ’with a stick’. Thus, here it is especially clearly distinguished from dialectal -aį < -ai, coinciding completely with the ui of that dialect (Morkūnas 1959: 199; 1960: 32—35; Zinkevičius 1966: 93, 208). Consequently, the forms of Pabaiskas, Vepriai, and neighboring dialects lazdai, gerai..., like the Čiobiškis forms lazdų, gerų ’with a stick, with a good one’, are new. Their ending -aį (-ui) has no direct connection with the old acute *-ān (only an indirect one, through dialectal -u < *-ān). And their -i was added here, as K. Morkūnas (1959: 201) correctly points out, only after retraction had taken place in these dialects. In our opinion, the feminine singular instrumental forms of the Azi ėrkų and Pãditvis dialects, which O. Broch (1960: 28—29) unjustifiably considers pronominal forms, should be treated in an entirely analogous way: šitų || šitų ’this’, tūj || tuj ’that’, etc. We have also recorded the stressed circumflex ending -ai in the feminine singular instrumental of numerals and pronouns in the Lazūnai dialect, e.g.: Raikia gerc triskart pa vienai; kartų pa vienai; ānas po jat skučāu ’he missed her’. This *-ān locative has perhaps given rise to the greatest number of conflicting opinions. What is the actual origin of the reflex -ai? What was its precursor? P. Arumaa (1931: 70) suspected that the ending -ai of the singular instrumental of *ā-stem nominals in the Zietela dialect had arisen from pronominal forms through their shortening: jāja > jā’i. Without examining the question further, other linguists repeat P. Arumaa’s view in a generalized form (Fraenkel 1936: 49; Zinkevičius 1957: 100; Vidugiris 1959: 201; 1960: 125; 1969: 167; 1974: 283), including those who have examined the reflex -ai for *-ān outside the Zietela dialect (Senkus 1962: 213; Zinkevičius 1966: 312—313; Rosinas 1968: 249). This view, however, is not very credible, since in the dialects where this reflex occurs, endings of this case of acute origin do not in fact disappear. This is clearly shown, among other things, by the example given by Z. Zinkevičius (1966: 137), tā’je ’that one’ alongside žemā’ises ’the low ones’. It is therefore really difficult to believe (Zinkevičius 1966: 310) that around Liubavas, Vilkaviškis, Garliava, Punia, Zietela, Šakyna, and even Kuršėnai tai could have developed from tāj (the form tāj is not attested there by anyone; phonetically, it is also impossible in those dialects). For this reason, some linguists, encountering forms with the ending -ai in the singular instrumental of *ā-stem nominals and pronouns in various dialects, and unconvinced by P. Arumaa’s view, sometimes begin to propose other possible explanations for the origin of the reflex -ai (and also -aį). For example, A. Vidugiris (1969: 167) suggests that the singular instrumental ending -ai in the Zietela dialect 128 (and elsewhere) could have arisen “through the retention of nasality” from -ą, but surely these forms’ -ai has in fact no trace of nasality at all. Z. Zinkevičius (1966: 137) tentatively supposes that the kaisti’ ‘to dig’, ‘tais’ ‘that’, gerais ‘the good one’ forms with -ai instead of standard Lithuanian -ą, found in some western Aukštaitian and Zietela dialects, derive from -ain. But here Z. Zinkevičius seems to contradict himself. If acute -ą had been changed to -ai, then that -ai could not at the same time have developed from -ain (which, moreover, is attested by no one). *-ain can thus only be a consequence of the process under discussion, not its cause. Having questioned the influence of pronominalized forms on the singular instrumental forms with the ending -ai of *-ā-stem nominal words and pronouns in the southern eastern Aukštaitian dialect spoken in the Pabaiskas, Gélvonys, and neighboring areas, on account of the different intonations (the intonation of pronominalized forms in this case is circumflex, while that of the stressed forms under discussion is acute, from circumflex), K. Morkūnas supposes that this ending arose morphologically under the influence of pronominalized pronouns (Morkūnas 1959: 199–201; 1969: 111, 130). However, this derivation of the ending, essentially differing little from the earlier one, seems not to alter the situation: the singular instrumental form of pronominalized pronouns, which is assumed to have influenced the simple pronoun form in this case, also has a circumflex intonation in its first component ending. J. Kazlauskas (1958: 57), remdamasis tuo, kad lietuvių kalboje nėra P. Arumos nuomonei paremti paralelių reiškinių, stačiai pripažįsta ją nepatikima ir iškelia naują hipotezę. Atmetęs morfologinę mot. g. vns. įn. galūnės -ai kilmę, J. Kazlauskas čia spėja ją esant fonetiniu keliu atsiradusią iš senesnės to linksnio galūnės *-ajan (plg. *rankajan, slavų rąkoją), galėjusios lietuvių kalbos senovėje egzistuoti šalia įprastinės galūnės *-ān (plg. *rankān, slavų rąką). Tačiau savo gramatikoje (Kazlauskas 1968: 188) mot. g. vns. įn. galūnę *-ān jis pripažįsta esant bendrą lietuvių-latvių ir slavų kalboms, o slavų galūnę -oją (rąkoją) laiko vėlyvesne. Lithuanian dialectological literature has long accepted the view, apparently first published by J. Senkus (Сенкус 1955: 10; Senkus 1960: 147), that the reflex in question, -ai, in southern western Aukštaitian dialects may have arisen phonetically from *-ān. This view in fact conflicts with neither the phonetic regularities of southern western Aukštaitian nor those of other Lithuanian dialects adjoining them, and seems quite reliable. For this reason, our association of it (Grinaveckis 1973: 215) with the rare pronoun singular instrumental ending -ai in the Šaukėnai and Kuršėnai dialects is not without foundation. A. Girdenis and A. Rosinas, attributing this view to us, characterize it without evidence as an attempt to interpret phonetically phenomena that arose because of morphological factors (Girdenis – Rosinas 1974: 202). They assert (Girdenis – Rosinas 1974: 203) that “The instrumental can… only have arisen morphologically, either from pronominalized forms (a not very likely assumption) or newly formed under the influence of the singular dative (see Baltistica, XI(1)”. However, the two mutually contradictory assumptions of the morphological origin of the -ai reflexes cited here do not seem convincing. Moreover, the second assumption is based on inaccurate and incomplete phonetic data for this case in the Šaukėnai dialect. Our 1976 studies of the Šaukėnai dialect show, for example, that the feminine pronoun tą has two forms in the singular dative here. The phonologically altered form tá- ~ tái is more characteristic of, and more familiar to, older speakers of the dialect, e.g.: sakáu táː búobą ~ sakáu (= sakau) tái bóbaì; reik dùːti gérti táː mùno kárveː ~ reikia duoti gerti tái mùno (= mano) kárvei; dùːk mẽːžų táː vĩšta ~ duok miežių tái vištai (Vincas Kasparas, 89 years old, born, raised, and living in Šaukėnai); kas irà táː mùna gáːlvà / skàust ~ kąs vẽːta tái mùno (= mano) gá lvai – skaišta (Stanislovas Jurgilas, 86 years old, born, raised, and living in Šaukėnai); bluõg gi véːntį táː mergẽle ~ blõga gyvẽnti tái mergelèi; nulūːža gáːls táː làza ~ nulūžo galas tái lazai (= lazdai) (Julius Raila, 88 years old, living in Šaukėnai, born and resident until age 16 in Pašilėnai village, 5 km west of Šaukėnai); reik dùːti lẽsti táː vĩšta ~ reikia duoti lesti tái vištai; táː mùotriška bùva viežːrs ~ tái mótriškai (= moteriškai) buvo vėžys (Konstancija Kvietkienė, 70 years old, born, raised, and living in Laiškiai village, 4 km south of Šaukėnai). On the lips of the younger and middle generations, the form coinciding with standard Lithuanian is more common. 9. Gramatinės kategorijos ir jų raida 129 tái. Two forms are also known in the singular dative of feminine pronouns of other genders in that dialect: aná | anā’i, pacė’ | pacė’i ‘to oneself’. A similar picture is found in the neighboring Vidsodis and Kuršėnai dialects (see LKT, 97; cf. Vitkauskas 1960: 65). However, A. Rosinas (1975: 78), without mentioning at all the shorter (monophthongized) singular dative form of the pronoun tā, asserts: “In the Šaukėnai dialect, according to the general rule, we should expect the feminine singular dative *tā, cf. būobā, but the feminine singular dative of pronouns of other genders here has retained -ái, i.e. tái (respectively aná’i, katrā’i, etc.).” A. Rosinas (1975: 79) proceeds analogously with the feminine singular dative forms of pronouns of other genders in the Kuršėnai dialect, listing only the longer forms convenient to his argument. The theoretical justification for this assumption is also doubtful. Explaining why the singular dative -ai, which should have changed into long -a in the Šaukėnai dialect, remained undiphthongized, A. Rosinas (1975: 78) says: “…the pronoun tā primarily functions as an article in the dialect (this opinion of A. Rosinas has been cogently criticized; see Valeckienė 1974: 37; our note — V. G.). Therefore, the pronoun form, often occurring in an unstressed position, could have retained the diphthong -ái…”. But in Lithuanian and its dialects (including Šaukėnai), just the opposite is true: words in an unstressed position usually shorten and are reduced. This is also clearly evident from examples from Šaukėnai recorded by A. Rosinas himself, e.g.: p’rįeim p’ri (= pry) stūla (LKT: 100); nūmiri ti (= tai) nūmiri; du kartū gimīs, ne (= nė, nei) kartā ne-krikšt’ic; isigėlbieti nu (= nuo) mirt’i-s; tarnāju pri (= pry) pūonu, etc. (Rosinas 1960: Reg. Nr. 590 / 194). Consequently, the claim that the unstressed position helped the diphthong -ai in the Šaukėnai pronoun tái remain undiphthongized is undoubtedly false. It should also be noted that in the Šaukėnai (as well as Kuršėnai) dialect, two feminine singular dative forms—with monophthongized a (which, according to dialect speakers, is older and more usual) and with the intact -ai—are also found with disyllabic pronouns katrā, visā and with *ā-stem adjectives: katrā || katrā’i, visā || visā’i, baltā || baltā’i, nudjē || nudjā’i. This, then, may indicate that the spread of the form with -ai (regarded in the dialect as newer; A. Rosinas 1975: 78 also acknowledges that it is recent) was aided by the influence of standard Lithuanian and neighboring western Aukštaitian dialects. Compare also forms used under the influence of standard Lithuanian by younger speakers of the Šaukėnai dialect, such as žieda (not žī’da), artī’n (not artī’), jis (not uñs), jī (not ānā), jā’i (not anā’i), mū’n (not mū’n), and the like. Perhaps the least substantiated part of A. Rosinas’s assumption is that, under structural pressure, the feminine singular dative ending -ai of pronouns of other genders in the Šaukėnai dialect took over the functions of the old singular instrumental form (t)ā. Here is his argument: “With the shortening of the feminine plural instrumental (tum̄s) and masculine singular instrumental (tum̄), the relationship between the dative and instrumental forms became even more pronounced and can be expressed by the following proportions: tūms: tāi = tūm̄s: x and tām: tāi = tūm̄: x. Thus both proportions show that x = tāi… Consequently, by this relationship, the old ending -ā of the singular instrumental form of the pronoun (t)-a will have been replaced by -ái (the same as in the singular dative)” (Rosinas 1975: 79). However, it is hardly possible to prove this assumption on the basis of Lithuanian data. Indeed, data from Lithuanian and its dialects do not support it at all. For example, a very similar relationship between the dative and instrumental forms—not only of pronouns but also of nominal words, and just as pronounced as in the Šaukėnai dialect—is found in other Lithuanian dialects as well. A. Rosinas’s model of proportions is entirely suitable for expressing that relationship. Yet in those dialects, incidentally, the feminine singular dative tái of pronouns of other genders has had (and has) not the slightest influence on the singular instrumental form tā, nor does it take over its functions. Furthermore, the article does not explain at all why, or for what purpose, structural pressure here provided an impetus for the feminine singular dative alone to influence the singular instrumental. The phonetic shortening of the feminine plural instrumental and even the masculine singular instrumental forms, raised by A. Rosinas, is entirely irrelevant here; this shortening occurred relatively long ago, not only in the dialect under study but in many other Lithuanian dialects as well. After all, even in that same Šaukėnai dialect, the feminine plural dative and instrumental forms are much closer to one another, yet neither shows any effect of structural pressure from the other. Moreover, if a proportion is defined as “the equality of two relations” (TŽŽ: 623), then in the cited proportions one can only expect the value of the unknown 130 of the circumflex reflex (say, even *tai, but certainly not tái, which is what A. Rosinas has obtained. All this shows that the explanation of the morphological origin of the Šaukėnai dialect’s feminine singular instrumental pronoun ending -ai, published by A. Girdenis and A. Rosinas in “Baltistica,” has not, at least for the time being, brought us closer to resolving the question. But how could -ai have arisen phonetically from *-án? It should be noted that the reflex -ai, representing old *-án, has no nasalization whatsoever. On this basis, there is reason to believe that the second component of acute *-án in the indicated part of the southern Lithuanian dialects, as in the case of *-án > ā in other Western Aukštaitian dialects, disappeared very long ago, likewise leaving no nasalization on ā. After its loss, an unusual acute vowel will have developed in the syllable that constituted old *-án, equal in length to the sum of two vowels (: the length of acute ā + the length gained when n disappeared). With this excessive length, this acute vowel must have stood out sharply (and, undoubtedly, will have stood out) from the system of other long vowels. And, being very long and having an acute accent, it could not remain in that system for long. Phonetic conditions arose (cf. Зиндер 1960: 217 – 222; Vaitkevičiūtė 1960: 213; 1961: 39) for it to become a diphthong. This is most likely why it became diphthongized, adapting to the diphthong ai (for the development of long ā into ai, rather than into some other diphthong, cf. the reverse process of ai turning into a˙, which occurs in Samogitian dialects: matā˙ || matā˙ < matái, vā˙kā˙ < vaikai). Having become a diphthong, this reflex of *-án could undergo no further change in the word stem and has remained so to this day (ká˙isnis, gerá˙ija, gerá˙isias). In the endings of oxytone pronouns, however, stress prevented it from undergoing the shortening of acute endings, and it remained intact (su tái, anái, katrái; táis, anáis, katráis). The intact reflex -ái from *-án in the endings of simple adjectives most likely survived through the analogy of pronominal forms (gerái, ’good’ [feminine], geráis ’good’ [masculine]). On the basis of all this, there is reason to suspect that the reflex -ai is the oldest, very first result of the disappearance of the second component of old acute *-án, having developed in the distant past earlier than any other reflex and, in its quantity and narrowness, remaining closest to its predecessor *-án. However, -ai (-a̜i, -u̜i) found in place of old *-án in not every dialect can be of the same origin. As the already-mentioned data from the Gėlvonai and Čiobiškis dialects clearly show, in the singular instrumental ending of *ā-stem nouns, that -ai may be later, having arisen after *-án had become a monophthong, with final j added thereafter. The clearest indication that -ai here could have arisen later through the alignment of individual *ā-stem forms with the system of most cases having a closed ending would above all be the lack of this form in the plural genitive. Most likely, -ai arose by a similar process in the singular instrumental ending of *ā-stem adjectives (as well as adjectives that had shifted into this class) in the Palomenė and Žasliai dialects. In the Žietela dialect, the reflex -ai in place of *-án, being more regular, is most likely old, as in the other southwestern Aukštaitian dialects. However, its absence from the plural genitive ending of *ā-stems permits the suspicion that in the singular instrumental forms of this stem, as in the Gėlvonai–Žasliai dialects, it may also be more recent. In other words, alongside the reflex -ai that arose directly from *-án, there could also be a more recent -ai in the Žietela dialect. Moreover, as A. Vidugiris astutely maintains (1959: 201), Slavic languages could have contributed to the emergence of the newer -ai here. In our view, the example pa vienai from the Lazūnai dialect, whose Slavic origin is beyond doubt (even syntactically), best demonstrates that this possibility is entirely real. 3. THE REFLEX OF -an (an, on, o˙, un, ou) In the Dunininkai dialects around Kuršėnai, Užventis, Kelmė, Tytuvėnai, Lioliai, Kražiai, Upyna, Žemaičių Naumiestis, Vainutas, Žvingiai, Pagramantis, Skaudvilė, Nemakščiai, Viduklė, Tauragė, Gaurė, and Eržvilkas, the acute ending *-án of the first element in pronominal forms has been preserved entirely intact, e.g.: geránje ~ gerája, geránses ~ gerásias, laimínganje ~ laimíngaja, laimínganses ~ laimíngasias, etc. (see also Jonikas 1939: 53; Zinkevičius 1957: 30, 78; 1965: 136; Drotvinas – Grinaveckis 1970: 96). 9* 131 cf. also their regularly pronounced kánsnis ~ kąsnis⁹. This -an- also occurs entirely intact in the second-element ending of pronominal forms in some Aukštaitian dialects neighboring this area, e.g.: su tájan ~ su tája (Pakalpė), su jájen ~ su jája (Kairiai, Šiauliai district). It is also attested in the first-element ending of pronominal forms in some old written sources (: pirmanes, schaukenzans, BP I: 170₁₃; II: 5₁₂). Around Rietavas, Kvėdarna, Šilalė, Laukuva, Tryškiai, Vidsodis, and Varniai, this old *-ān of the first element has regularly become -on- (: gerónję ~ geróją, gerónęs ~ gerósias, etc.: Zinkevičius 1957: 78, 92, 96; 1966: 136; Drotvinas – Grinaveckis 1970: 96, 148 – 149; cf. their regularly pronounced kónsnes ~ kąsnis), although around Raudėnai (so baltúoje – LKT: 74), Požerė, and sometimes Laukuva, the form gerúoje ~ gerója ‘the good one’ is also known (for its origin, see below). Around Pajūris, Girdiškė, and Karklenai, the *-ān of the first element in pronominal forms has become un (: gerúnję ~ gerója, gerúnses ~ gerósias, ju-kíngunses ~ juokíngąsias; cf. their pronunciation kúnsnis ~ kąsnis). Elsewhere in Lithuanian dialects, the second component (n) of acute *-ān has disappeared in the first-element endings of pronominal forms, modifying the first component (the vowel a) in various ways. Around Švėkšna, Priekulė, and Dovilai, acute *-ān is reflected by the narrow monophthong -o° (: baltóję ~ baltúją, baltósęs ~ baltúosias, raštóję ~ raštýąją, although around Būdviečiai one also hears baltúoje ~ baltúja; cf. also Švėkšna and Dovilai kósnis ~ kąsnis); around Palanga, Darbėnai, and Len kimai, it is reflected by the diphthong -ou (: baltóuję ~ baltúoja, baltóuses ~ baltósias; cf. also their kóusnes ~ kąsnis). The *-ān of the first element in the singular instrumental has likewise regularly become -o° in the Duonininkai dialects around Skuodas, Židikai, Ylakiai, Laižuva, Seda, Mosėdis, Šalantai, Kretinga, Kartenė, Gargždai, and Vėžaičiai (: geróję ~ gerója; cf. kósnes). 4. THE CORRESPONDENCE OF -o In the Eastern Aukštaitian dialects around Lygumai, Kriukai, Daglėnai, Šeduva, Palonai, Pūšalotas, Joniškėlis, Linkuva, Pašvitinys, Lauksodis, Vaškai, Pasvalys, Guostagalis, and Panevėžys, the archaic *-ān has the correspondence -o° (: geróji || geróji ~ gerája, gerósis || gerós’s ~ ~ gerósias¹⁰, cf. also their kósnis || kósn’s ~ kąsnis), but the ending of the first component here varies from place to place at times under the influence of neighboring dialects. In the plural accusative between Joniškėlis, Linkuva, Pašvitinys, Lauksodis, Vaškai, and Pasvalys, the reflex -uo is also beginning to gain ground, e.g.: storóji || storói ~ storája, but storúos’s || storúosias (Grinaveckienė 1962: 164 – 165. Z. Zinkevičius also cites the form baltója from Vaškai, 1957: 78), while in Šeduva the forms gerúoji ~ gerája, gerúosis ~ gerósias are also used. The reflex -o° (Samogitian -uo) in place of acute *-ān is also used in a very narrow strip of Samogitian dialects around Pikieliai, Leckava, Žemalė, Papilė, Vaiduva, Alsėdžiai, Gadūnava, Šateikiai, Lauko Soda, Stalgėnai, Tverai, and Medingėnai (jaunúoje ~ jaunúja, jaunúosės ~ jaunósias), and only in the endings of the first component of plural accusative pronominal forms in the Eastern Aukštaitian dialects—also around Suvainiskis, Onuškis, Juodupė, Pandėlys, Kuprėliškis, Kazliškis, Skemai, Salamiestis, Alizava, Jūžintai, Rokiškis, Obeliai, Kresčionys, Aleksandravėlė, Šuvieka, Tūfmantas, Tilžė, Kupiškis, Skapiškis, Palėvenė, Aukštupėnai, Puožas, Kamajai, Kamajėliai, Sidabravas, Svedasai, Šimonys, Užpaliai, Antalieptė, Degučiai, Dusetos, Andrioniškis, Debeikiai, Vyžuonos, Sudeikiai, Daugailiai, Rubikiai, Tauragnai, Kazitiškis, Kirdeikiai, Ignalina, Kačergiškė, Labanoras, Paliūšė, Tverėčius, Rimšė, Mielagėnai, Antaliedė, Švenčionėliai, Švenčionys, Skiemonys, Leliūnai, Alanta, Skudutiškis, Suginčiai, Kuktiškės, Balninkai, Šešuoliai, Molėtai, Pastovėlis, Kretuonis, Bijūtiškis, Pažeimenė, and Nemenčinė (: gerós’as ~ gerósias; see also Zinkevičius 1957: 27 – 28, 78; 1966: 291). It is noted here, among other things, that the -o° of the first component of pronominal plural accusative forms is also used in the old— ⁹ Also worth mentioning here are certain purely phonetic variations among forms. For example, in Pagramantis, alongside baltá·n’je || bá·ltan’je, there is also baltá·ine || bá·ltaine, due to n:j metathesis; in Laukuva and Lauko Soda, due to the same n:j alternation, baltáoję is also said alongside baltónje (< baltó·nje). ¹⁰ The form didžiausias alongside didžiausias is also used in the Western Aukštaitian dialects along the Latvian border around Skaistgirys, due to contact with the neighboring Eastern Aukštaitian dialect of Kriukai (Jonaitytė 1969:191). 132 in those writings), in the Samogitian dialects—between Laižuva, Mažeikiai, Salantai, Kartena, Gargždai, Kretinga, and Skuodas (: mažūosės ~ mažūosias; see also Явниц 1908–1916: 32, 115; LKT ⁷⁰; Zinkevičius 1957: 28), and in some Western Dzūkian dialects (:gerósias ~ geręsias Vs; dzidziósės ~ didžiasias Vng, LKT: 374; see also Zinkevičius 1957: 79, 94, 99). However, variation among forms also occurs frequently here (also most likely due to the influence of neighboring dialects). Alongside the form gerós’as ~ gerę́as around Šalakas and Liūkmenys (Kardelytė 1961: 14–15), gerūju and gerūoju ~ gerąja are also heard; and in Palėvenėlė, Skapiškis, Utena, and Viešintos, gerūju and saldójū¹¹ ~ gerąja, saldója ‘with the sweet one’ are also heard; while instead of *-ān in the singular instrumental, UL: 15 is also known (: mažoja ‘with the small one’). Discussing the reflex -o in place of *-ān in the first component of pronominal endings, Z. Zinkevičius (1957: 27) says: “The loss of tautosyllabic n began in ancient times and affected various forms at different times, including pronominal forms. n disappeared very long ago in the masculine plural accusative baltūosius... The feminine plural accusative baltósias ‘the white ones’ also lost n long ago.” Thus, the quotation speaks of the unequivocally phonetic origin of the reflex -o. Later, Z. Zinkevičius (1966: 291), supporting K. Būga, further confirms that gerósias is an old form. A. Valeckienė (1965: 498) and J. Kazlauskas (1968: 163) are entirely right to regard gerósias as having arisen phonetically on the model of the simple adjective *gerās. In fact, the form *gerós (< *gerāns, with n disappearing before s and a becoming shorter), among other things, could also have contributed to the loss of -n in the first component of pronominal forms. Thus, the phonetic origin of this form and the recognition of the reflex -o as old are most likely correct. In Lithuanian dialects, as J. Kazlauskas and Z. Zinkevičius rightly maintain, tautosyllabic n really did begin to disappear a very long time ago. However, the loss of that n, being highly dependent, as we have seen, on the phonetic conditions and developmental tendencies of individual dialects, did not proceed everywhere with the same intensity or at the same time; consequently, the long vowel a did not narrow uniformly. Where gerója, gerósias are now said, n must have disappeared quickly, and after losing it, a did not at first begin to narrow on its own. Therefore, -a- from *-ān and -a- from Indo-European *-ā must have merged here, and when the time came for a˙ to change into o, -a- from *-ān would have changed into o along with -a- from *-ā. That this could indeed have happened is well illustrated by the coincidence, in some pantininkai and pontininkai dialects, of the reflexes of -a- from *-ā and -a- from *-ān in all cases¹²; cf. pantininkai and pontininkai ōžals ~ ęžuolas and, with gerōji || gerōj ~ gerąja, gerósias ~ geręsias. This parallel is precisely what allows A. Jonaitis (1969: 191) to confirm the phonetic origin of the Kriukai dialect borrowing didžiójas, used in the Skaistgirys dialect. With all this in mind, in our opinion it is difficult to agree with Z. Zinkevičius that there is no connection between the forms baltóju ~ baltąja and baltós’as ~ baltęsias. The supposition that the form “baltója with o most likely comes from other cases” (Zinkevičius 1966: 290) is quite doubtful. Indeed, which case could have served as a model for Eastern Aukštaitian baltóju ~ baltąja? Neither the genitive nor the locative, since their intonation differs (cf. sg. instr. baltóju, sg. gen. baltósia.s, sg. loc. baltója.), nor the Eastern Aukštaitian sg. dative balta, from which ‘to the white one’ and sg. accusative balta.ju ‘the white one’ would result, since the stress position differs and their o, as Z. Zinkevičius (1966: 286, 290) thinks, is likewise “most likely from other cases”; nor, finally, the sg. nominative, since the ending differs (cf. baltóju ‘with the white one’ and baltója ‘the white one’). Nor does the claim that there is an apparent “tendency to adapt forms of other cases to the more frequently used nom. sing., replacing the inflection of their first component with the vowel o of the nominative ending, which, together with j, tends to form a peculiar suffix oj” (Zinkevičius 1966: 282) help resolve the question. If -oj here really were a suffix, such a suffix would normally be expected to retain the same stress position and intonation regularly in all cases. But, as we can see, this is not so. The situation is further complicated by -oj, classified as a suffix, in the masculine singular accusative form baltóji. It is hard to believe that -oj in this form, too, could likewise reflect ¹¹ Formą saldójū ~ saldája ‘saldžiąja’ iš Skapiškio pateikia ir Z. Zinkevičius (1966: 278, 310). Čia lk. u, į ką meni­nius būdvardžius atliepia *o, ką kam.: saldā. ¹² Z. Zinkevičius (1966: 291) tokį refleksų -a < *-ān ir -o < *-ā sutapimą (abiem atvejais tariamą o) vadina suplakimu. 133 the tendency toward adjustment under discussion. The substance of the matter is also unaffected by the coexistence of the neighboring gender forms baltojų and baltųjų ~ baltąja in the Skãpiškis and Karšakiškis dialects. Their time of emergence, causes, and users are generally different in any case, although it also sometimes happens that neighboring phonetic variants are possible within the same dialect, even in the speech of the same speaker. For example, around Ukmergė, alongside forms vãikas, vàrpas, etc., forms vìkas, vỹrpas are also occasionally used¹³. Moreover, the coexistence of neighboring forms in dialects is entirely understandable, especially nowadays, when contact between them and their mutual influence are so intense. Thus, recognizing that the -o of the first component in forms geróju ~ gerąja and gerósias ~ gerąsias is a phenomenon common to both, arising for the same phonetic reasons, may perhaps, at least for the time being, provide an answer concerning their origin and, at the same time, help determine the origin of the pronominalized inflectional endings in those cases whose origin has not yet been fully explained¹⁴. 5. -uo CORRESPONDENCE The diphthong -uo in place of acute *-ān in the first-component endings of pronominalized forms is consistently pronounced around Nemunėlio Radviliškis, Suostas, Smilgiùs (Biržai district), Pabiržė, Puodžiai, Krinčinas, Pãmpėnai, Daujėnai, Gaižūnai (Pakruojis district), Klovainiai, and Miežiškiai, e.g.: gerójo, geróju ~ gerąja, gerós'as ~ gerąsias (cf. also Zinkevičius 1966: 290–292; Grinaveckienė 1972: 56,62). Dialectal -uo is also pronounced in the first-component ending of singular pronominalized forms around Pándėlys, Tùrmantas, Tìlžė, Tauragnùs, Kazìtiškis, Kìrdeikiai, Ignalina, Kačergiškė, Labanòras, Palūšė, Tverẽčius, Rìmšė, Mielagėnai, Antãliedė, Švenčionėliai, and Švenčionys, e.g.: geróju ~ gerąja (see also Otrębski 1934: 252–253; Zinkevičius 1957: 24,79), as well as here and there in Western Dzūkian dialects, e.g.: su geróju ‘with the good [feminine] one’ Vs, margúoju ~ margąja (LKT: 397, see also Lipskienė — Vidugiris 1967: 198). The feminine forms baltóju ‘with the white [feminine] one’, baltúos'as ‘the white [feminine] ones’ are regarded by linguists as masculine forms whose emergence was prompted by the merger of the forms of simple adjectives (Zinkevičius 1957: 75,79; Kardelytė 1961: 14–15; ¹³ The examples are taken from the description of the Juodãusiai dialect (Ukmergė district) in the card index of the old “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language” (compiled by Z. Zinkevičius; his native dialect), held at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature (see Program question No. 259, answer No. 447). ¹⁴ Considerable uncertainty persists regarding the origin of dialectal singular dative and accusative forms of masculine and feminine gender: báltójam ‘to the white [masculine] one’, báltoji, báltąja ‘to the white [feminine] one’; báltoji, báltąją ‘the white [feminine] one’. Yet, on closer inspection, all of them reflect fairly well an undeniable and regular phonetic development. J. Endzelīns (1951: 469) very correctly regards the first-component -o in the Eastern Aukštaitian and some Samogitian forms gérojai ‘to the good [feminine] one’ as a reflex of *-ākam (cf. *gērái + jai). And indeed, the first-component -i of these forms, having merged with -i in these dialects in ancient times (Zinkevičius 1957: 43), formed *baltāi, whose first-component -ā would have become equivalent in quantity and quality to -ā < of PIE *-ā. As -ā (< PIE *-ā) changed into -o, -ā (< *-ā-i + j) must likewise have changed into -o. In this way the form báltoji arose (*baltā-i + -iai, cf. Endzelynas 1957: 140; Valeckienė 1965: 497; Otrębski 1956: 116). The -ā in the non-pronominalized endings and in the second component of pronominalized endings, being part of a diphthong, was shortened and remained -ai. In other Aukštaitian dialects (Vilkaviškis, Jurbarkas, Šakyna, etc.), in forms bálta jai the first-component -ā remained long, most likely because the diphthong -āi > -ā (báltai — jai > baltąja) arose only after *ā > o. It is possible that the masculine singular dative báltoju ‘to the white one’ in Samogitian dialects also arose phonetically. Given the highly plausible and convincing possibility that the ending -uo derives from PIE *-o (Mažiulis 1970: 106–118), and adopting the view that unstressed PIE *ō yielded Lithuanian ō and Latvian ā (Kazlauskas 1968: 115–116; Mažiulis 1970: 21), there are sound grounds for regarding báltoju as deriving from *baltójō; cf. also the analogous case in Latvian dialects, mazajam (Endzelīns 1951:467). The Šakyna dialect form báltoju (Jonaitė 1969: 190), baltójame in LŽTPr: 40 (< probably from baltójam through diphthongization of o), and forms with first-component o in old written sources (artimoiui, mehdnoiam...), although they could be considered entirely independent, are most likely to be explained as having arisen under the influence of neighboring Samogitian dialects. A phonetic origin may perhaps also be recognized for the singular accusative forms báltoji (< *baltānjąn), used in Dūnininkai and some Pontininkai and Puntininkai dialects. In these dialects the first-component -n of these forms must have disappeared, apparently a very long time ago, before *-an- > -ōn resp. -un and *-ān > -ā > -ū. As is usual in analogous cases, the loss of -n would have lengthened -ā, which would have merged with ā (< PIE *ā) and changed into o along with it. In view of all this, the hypothesis that these forms were generalized on the model of other cases can reasonably be rejected. 134 Valeckienė 1965: 498; Zinkevicius 1966: 292; 1970: 596—597). Tačiau, mūsų nuomone, vargu ar yra pagrindo jas tokiomis laikyti. Tas tiesa, kad šių šnektų paprastųjų vyr. ir mot. g. būdvardžių (kaip ir *o ir *a kam. daiktavardžių!) vns. įn. formos sutampa, bet tas sutapimas yra grynai fonetinis, ir mot. g. forma į lk. dėsningai atstatoma tik su -a (: su baltu skardžiu, su balt skār ~ su balta skara). Visai tas pats ir su įvardžiuotine šio linksnio forma. Čia irgi mot. g. forma, laikantis šių šnektų fonetinių dėsnių, visai teisėtai į lk. atstatytina baltuoja, ne *baltuoju (plg. dar Linkmenyse greta baltuoju vartojamą žal’ūju, kurios atitikmenį lk. ir pati J. Kardelytė (1961: 15) pripažįsta tik žalįja, o ne *žalįju. Taigi ją laikyti vyr. g. lytimi nėra pamato. O kalbėti apie formą geruôs’as’ kaip apie vyr. g. lytį, iš viso neįmanoma, nes ne tik paprastųjų, bet ir įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių vyr. ir mot. g. dgs. gĭn. galūnė šiose šnektose niekada nesutampa (plg. gerùs, gerùos’us ir geràs, gerùos’as; dar plg. baltūs’as ir baltōs’as)¹⁵. Iš viso to matyti, kad kalbamųjų mot. g. formų kilmės šaknys tikrai ne čia. Esame linkę manyti, kad jos, būdamos paplitusios gana nemažame areale, negalėtų būti koks atsitiktinis, naujas ar nedėsningas reiškinys, nesiderinantis prie visos tų šnektų fonetinės sistemos ar iš jos iškrintantis. Padėti gerokai praskaidrina aukščiau nurodytoje tam tikroje paribinėje tų šnektų ploto dalyje šalia geruoju ~ gerąja vartojama sena fonetinės kilmės forma gerōs’as ~ ~ gerąsias. Turėdami tai prieš akis, drįstame manyti, kad ir formos geruoju ~ gerąja, geruôs’as ~ gerąsias gali būti tokios pat senos, kaip ir gerōs’as, gerùs’as ar geroju, gerūju, tik vartojamos kitoje (gretimoje) šnektoje. Jų fonetika visai nesunkiai leidžia jas kildinti iš tų pačių senųjų lyčių *gerānjān, *gerānsjāns, tik tautosilabinio n ir priklausomai nuo jo ā raidą bei jų abiejų tarpusavio santykis čia bus buvęs kiek kitoks. Taigi ten, kur dabar tariama geruoja, geruôsias, n bus nykęs ne taip sparčiai, ir prieš jį ėjęs ā siaurėjęs taip pat silpniau ir dėl to bus išvirtęs į *ō, kuris bus sutapęs su senuoju *ō. Atėjus senojo *ō virtimo laikui į uo, kartu į uo bus išvirtęs ir *-ō < *-ān. Fonetinės -uo iš *-ān kilmės galimybę akivaizdžiai patvirtina latvių kalba (Endzelīns 1951: 170, 171, plg. dar liet. lăngas, lat. luogs ir kt.). Kad ir liet. kalbos šiaurėje fonetiškai tikrai galimas -uo vietoj *-ān, -ą (be geruoju ~ gerąja, geruôsias ~ gerąsias, gerai rodo vietomis tarmėse vartojami ąžuolas formų ir jų vedinių variantai su uo vietoj ą, pvz.: vuožuolas (Senkus 1959: 219; Grinaveckienė 1960: 200), vuožuolinis Lz. Taigi senesnės (arba pirminės) jų formos turbūt bus buvusios *ąnžuolas, *anžuolinis, t. y. tokios pat, kaip ir tų žodžių formos, davusios kitose liet. k. tarmėse ir lk. ąžuolą. Most likely as a result of the change of *-ān to -uo in Eastern Aukštaitian dialects, the corresponding masculine and feminine pronouns also merged phonetically in the singular instrumental and plural genitive: tuoj ‘with that [masculine], with that [feminine]’, juoj ‘with him, with her’; tūos ‘those [masculine] and those [feminine]’, jūs ‘them [masculine], them [feminine]’. Once the phonetic origin of -uo from *-ān is accepted, the coexistence of forms geruoja, but gerōsias; gerūja, but gerōsias, etc., in the previously mentioned areas of the Eastern Aukštaitian dialects becomes understandable. The matching reflexes (gerōja: gerōsias; gerūja: gerōsias, geruoja: geruōsias) show that the loss of n here occurred in the same way both before s and where s was absent, whereas the non-matching forms indicate that n before s (*gerānsjāns) disappeared more rapidly than where there was no influence of s (*gerānjān). Additional source abbreviations LKT — Dialects of the Lithuanian Language (Chrestomathy). Eds. E. Grinaveckienė, K. Morkūnas. Vilnius, 1970. LKŽ — Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. Vols. I—IX. Vilnius, 1941—73. TŽŽ — Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. V., 1969. UL — Universitas linguarum Lithuaniae… Vilnius, 1737. Vng — Vingrėnai, Lazdijai District. 15 Ryšium su tuo vargu ar teisingai daro Z. Zinkevicius (1970: 597) pontininkų šnektos mot. g. dgs. gĭn. forma baltuōs’as atstatydamas į baltuosius ir pagal tai darydamas apibendrinančias išvadas. 135 LITERATŪRA Arumaa P. Litauische Mundartliche Texte aus der Wilnaer Gegend mit grammatischen Anmerkungen. Dorpat, 1931. Broch O. Zum Litauischen südlich von Vilna. — „Norsk. Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap“, 1960, Bd. XIX. Drotvinas V., Grinaveckis V. Kalbininkas Kazimieras Jaunius. V., 1970. Endzelīns J. Latviešu valodas gramatika. Rīgā, 1951. Endzelynas J. Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos. V., 1957. Fraenkel E. Der Stand der Erforschung des im Wilnagebiete gesprochenen Litauischen. — „Balticoslavica“, 1936, t. II. Girdenis A., Rosinas A. [Rec.:] V. Grinaveckis. Žemaičių tarmių istorija (Fonetika). V., 1973, 370 p. — „Baltistica“, 1974, t. X(2). Grammatik der litauischen Sprache von Friedrich Kurschat. Halle, 1876. Grinaveckienė E. Mituvos upyno tarmės fonetika. — „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, 1957, t. I. Grinaveckienė E. Tarmių medžiagos rinkimas lietuvių kalbos atlasui. — „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, 1960, t. III. Grinaveckienė E. Kai kurios lietuvių kalbos tarmių ypatybės (Iš 1961 metų dialektologinių ekspedicijų). — „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, 1962, t. V. Grinaveckienė E. Mūšos upyno tarmių leksika. — Kn.: Leksikos tyrinėjimai. V., 1972. Grinaveckis V. Žemaičių tarmių istorija (Fonetika). V., 1973. Jablonskis J. Rinktiniai raštai. T. I. V., 1957. Jašinskaitė I. Biržų tarmės įvardis. — „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, 1959, t. II. Jonaitytė A. Žemaitiškos morfologinės ypatybės Šakynos tarmėje. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalbos morfologinė sandara ir jos raida. V., 1964. Jonaitytė A. Palatvės vakarų aukštaičių šnektų būdvardis, skaitvardis, įvardis. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos tyrinėjimai. V., 1969. Kardelytė J. Linkmenų tarmės būdvardis ir įvardis. — „Kalbotyra“, 1961, t. III. Kazlauskas J. Lietuvių kalbos vienaskaitos įnagininko ir vietininko formų kilmės klausimu. — „Kalbotyra“, 1958, t. I. Kazlauskas J. Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. V., 1968. Kazlauskas J. Baltų kalbų pakitimų santykinės chronologijos nustatymo galimybės ir ribos. — „Baltistica“, I priedas, 1972. Kriauzaitis P. Lietuviškos kalbos grammatika. Tilžėje, 1901. Litauisch-deutsches Wörterbuch von Friedrich Kurschat. Halle, 1883. Lipskienė J., Vidugiris A. Dieveniškių tarmė. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalbos gramatinė sandara. V., 1967. Mažiulis V. Baltų ir kitų indoeuropiečių kalbų santykiai. V., 1970. Morkūnas K. Įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių liekanos rytų aukštaičių pietinėje tarmėje. — „Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai. Serija A“, 1959, t. 2(7). Morkūnas K. Rytų aukštaičių pietinės tarmės fonetika. — „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, 1960, t. III. Morkūnas K. Iš rytų aukštaičių tarmių daugiskaitos inesyvo formų istorijos. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalbos morfologinė sandara ir jos raida. 1964. Morkūnas K. Rytų aukštaičių pietinės tarmės morfologija (Daiktavardis, būdvardis, skaitvardis, įvardis, veiksmažodis). — Kn.: Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos tyrinėjimai. V., 1969. Otrębski J. Wschodniosłowiańskie narzecze twereckie. T. I. Kraków, 1934. Otrębski J. Gramatyka języka litewskiego. T. III. Warszawa, 1956. Rosinas A. Šaukėnų šnektos aprašas. 1960. — Lietuvos TSR MA Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros instituto Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos sektorius, lietuvių kalbos atlaso rankrašt ynas. Rosinas A. Lietuvių ir kitų baltų kalbų gimininiai įvardžiai. Filol. kand. dis. Vilniaus valstybinio V. Kapsuko universiteto Mokslinės bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius. Nr. F-76 / DS-1019. Rosinas A. Vienaskaitos įnagininko su (t)ái kilmė. — „Baltistica“, 1975, t. XI(1). Senkus J. Pazanavykio kapsų tarmė. Filol. kand. dis. Vilniaus valstybinio V. Kapsuko universiteto Mokslinės bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius. Nr. F-76 / DS-100. Senkus J. Lazūnų tarmės tekstai. — „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, 1959, t. II. Senkus J. Kapsų-zanavykų tarmių būdvardžio ir skaitvardžio kait ybos bruožai. — „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, 1960, t. III. Senkus J. Kapsų-zanavykų tarmių įvardžio bruožai. — „Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai. Serija A“, 1962, t. 2(13). Stang Chr. S. Die litauische Mundart von Zasečiai im Gebiet von Wilna — „Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap“, 1958, Bd. XVIII. Šukys J. Miežiškių tarmės vokalizmo bruožai — „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, 1959, t. II. Vaitkevičiūtė V. Lietuvių kalbos balsių ir dvibalsių ilgumas, arba kiekybė. — „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, 1960, t. III. Vaitkevičiūtė V. Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos balsinės ir dvibalsinės fonemos. — „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, 1961, t. IV. 136 Valeckienė A. Būdvardis. Įvardis. – Kn.: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. T. I. V., 1965, p. 474–603, 637–721. Valeckienė A. Bevārdes giminės formos ir jų santykiai su kitomis įvardžių formomis. – Kn.: Žodžių formos ir jų vartosena. V., 1974. Vidugiris A. Kai kurios Zietelos tarmės ypatybės. – „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, 1959, t. II. Vidugiris A. Zietelos tarmės įvardis. – „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, 1960, t. III. Vidugiris A. Zietelos tarmės daiktavardis. – Kn.: Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos rinkiniai. V., 1969. Vidugiris A. Zietelos tarmės būdvardis. – Kn.: Žodžių formos ir jų vartosena. V., 1974. Vitkauskas V. Kuršėnų tarmės kirtis ir priegaidė. – „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, V., 1960, t. III. Zinkevičius Z. Lietuvių kalbos įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių istorijos bruožai. V., 1957. Zinkevičius Z. Lietuvių dialektologija. V., 1966. Zinkevičius Z. Dėl vienos rytų aukštaičių diskaitos galūnės. – Kn.: Donum Balticum, to Professor Christian S. Stang on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday 15 March 1970, Edited by Velta Rūķe-Draviņa. Stockholm, 1970. Zinkevičius Z. Dėl lietuvių kalbos tautosilabinių an tipo junginių pirmojo dėmens siaurėjimo. – „Baltistica“, I priedas, 1972. Зиндер Л. Р. Общая фонетика. Л., 1960. Сенкус Ю. Говор северо-западных капсов. Автор. канд. дис. Вильнюс, 1955. Явнис К. Грамматика литовского языка. Литовский оригинал и русский перевод. Петроград, 1908–1916. В. ГРИНАВЕЦКИС ОТНОСИТЕЛЬНО ПРОИСХОЖДЕНИЯ СООТВЕТСТВИЙ *-ān В ОКОНЧАНИЯХ ЛИТ. ИМЕН И МЕСТОИМЕНИЙ С ОСНОВОЙ НА *ā Резюме В окончаниях имен и местоимений с основой на *-ā в литовском языке и его говорах вместо древнего акутового *-án (твор. пад. ед. ч. и вин. пад. мн. ч.) выступает 5 соответствий (с вариантами): 1) a (в местоименных формах ā, в диал. u, ū ~ a, a); 2) ai; 3) an (варианты: on, o°, un, ū); 4) o; 5) uo. В статье дается география каждого из указанных соответствий и анализ прежних исследований по данному вопросу, выдвигается и защищается мнение о возможности происхождения всех соответствий древнего *-ān фонетическим путем. В свете новых данных подробно исследуются также и причины возникновения этих соответствий, делается предположение, что есть основание считать их результатом множества различных условий, создавшихся в фонетических системах отдельных говоров с течением времени. Отпадение второго компонента зависит от хронологии и способа его исчезновения, и с этим связаны соответствующие изменения первого компонента, его приобщение к различным долгим гласным (в некоторых случаях и взаимодействие местоименных и простых форм имен). По мнению автора статьи, данные изменения и могли быть решающими факторами, обусловившими образование указанных выше соответствий древнего *-ān. V. GRINAVECKIS ÜBER DIE ENTSTEHUNG DER *-ān ÄQUIVALENTE IN DEN ENDUNGEN DER LIT. *ā-STÄMMIGEN NOMEN UND PRONOMEN Zusammenfassung Im Litauischen und seinen Dialekten werden anstatt des alten akuten *-ān in bestimmten und gelegentlich auch in unbestimmten Endungen der ā-stämmigen Nomen und Pronomen (Sg. Instr., Pl. Akk.) 5 verschiedene Äquivalente gebraucht: 1. a (in den bestimmten Formen ā, a, dialektisch u, ū ~ a, a); 2. ai; 3. an (Varianten: on, o°, un, ū); 4. o; 5. uo. In dem Artikel wird die Analyse der früheren Forschungen darüber dargelegt, die Geographie jedes *-ān Äquivalentes angewiesen. Auf Grund des an den Dialekten gesammelten Materials werden hier die Ursachen der Entstehung dieser Äquivalente untersucht. Es ist als Resultat vieler phonetischen Änderungen zu betrachten, die in verschiedener Zeit in den sprachlichen Systemen einzelner Dialekte vorgegangen sind. Der Autor ist der Meinung, daß unterschiedliche Zeit des Verschwindens des tautosyllabischen -n, die davon abhängige Anschließung des Vokals a(<ān) an verschiedene lange Vokale, verschiedene *-ān Entwicklung unter Wirkung von phonetischen Gesetzen der Dialekte und gelegentlich auch von den Wechselbeziehungen zwischen den bestimmten und unbestimmten Formen, konnten die Hauptbedingungen der Entstehung von untersuchten Äquivalenten sein. 137