ŽODŽIŲ FORMOS IR JŲ VARTOSENA

LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

REVIEWS

К. Мустейкис, Сопоставительная морфология русского и литовского языков, Вильнюс, 1972, 288 р.

This is the first comparison of the morphology of Russian and Lithuanian. Its essence lies in revealing how morphological categories and forms function in both languages, analyzing the different means used in the two languages to express the same grammatical meanings, and examining identical forms that have different meanings. The work is based on extensive factual material amassed by the author through practical experience during his many years of teaching. A large share of the illustrative material and comparative data was collected from Russian and Lithuanian works of fiction, explanatory dictionaries, and bilingual dictionaries. The author’s own and earlier studies of grammatical structure were also drawn upon. In addition to comparing the present-day morphological systems of Russian and Lithuanian, the book also touches on questions concerning the history of each language and, in part, their dialectology.

The book is intended as a teaching aid for students specializing in Russian language and literature, Lithuanian language and literature, and journalism. It may also be used by instructors and teachers of Russian language and literature, as well as by the authors of Russian-language textbooks for schools where instruction is in Lithuanian, among others.

The work consists of eleven main chapters and four shorter sections devoted to the preface, introduction, and other questions of a more general nature. At the end, it presents brief conclusions and a list of works consulted (28 entries).

The book surveys all inflecting and non-inflecting independent parts of speech and discusses the use of their forms. It does not address the formation of nouns or verbs. It gives a fairly good account of the variation in the forms of both languages, their meanings, and their use, and points out the differences and commonalities between them. The author highlights numerous cases in which a form in one language cannot be replaced by the corresponding form in the other, but instead requires a fuller explanation, sometimes even an entire sentence.

Perhaps the author’s greatest achievement is that he has himself largely created the comparison of the morphological systems of Russian and Lithuanian. The literature on this subject, which the author has collected with considerable care, is quite limited. Thus K. Musteikis had to break almost entirely new ground in this area, and his work is largely original. Here the author approaches certain linguistic phenomena (for example, Lithuanian neuter-gender adjectives, ideophones, the category of verbal aspect, and so on) from a new perspective and expresses his own views. The work compares all parts of speech in relatively comprehensive detail, but perhaps its most extensive treatment is of the richest and most complex part of both languages—the verb.

In comparing the number category in the two languages, the author points out (p. 41) a significant, specific feature of Russian morphology, important for learners of Russian: plural forms in Russian never indicate gender. A learner of Lithuanian

21*

315

will also learn here that Lithuanian clearly distinguishes gender in both the singular and plural paradigms. In the chapter on adjectives (pp. 61–63), inflectional and syntactic differences are compared fairly successfully between Russian full and short adjectives, on the one hand, and Lithuanian simple and pronominal adjectives, on the other. Here (p. 67), the fundamental differences between the comparative forms of adjectives in Russian and Lithuanian are clearly highlighted. In Russian, comparative forms are invariable; in Lithuanian, they are inflected and may also be either simple or pronominal. The book shows (p. 65) that in Russian the distinction between full and short forms disappears entirely, whereas in Lithuanian the simple and pronominal forms are clearly differentiated in their use.

The author shows that Lithuanian verbs have many ways of expressing action for which there are no exact equivalents in Russian (138).

Although the work under review compares the meanings and use of morphological forms and categories in Russian and Lithuanian in considerable detail, it also has shortcomings: certain inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and an occasional factual error.

In our view, readers will perhaps find least useful the historical information about one part of speech or another or a particular category, given rather cursorily at the beginning of nearly every chapter. For example, in explaining the category of verbal aspect in Russian (p. 125 ff.), the book discusses at length the history of its development, beginning with Old Russian. This history, however, is essentially taken from existing literature and contributes little to the comparison of aspect in Russian and Lithuanian. The analysis of the category of aspect in Lithuanian is somewhat scant and fragmentary overall.

When discussing the ways of forming aspect in Lithuanian, the author merely states that: „…. словообразовательные средства в системе литовского глагола по своему (išretinta mūsų) используются для видового противопоставления глаголов“ (p. 129).

At times, one gets the impression that the category of aspect in Lithuanian is made to fit Russian somewhat: it is not emphasized that most Lithuanian verbs are single-aspect verbs; that, with respect to aspect, Lithuanian verbs do not form pairs exactly like those characteristic of Russian verbs; and that Lithuanian imperfective verbs are most often distinguished from perfective verbs not by the morphological forms of the verbs, but by the nature of the action they express—its duration, progression, boundedness, and so on.

The section “The Origin of Adjectives” (pp. 58–61), which mostly repeats claims from specialized studies about the possible derivation of adjectives from nouns, contributes little to the comparisons.

The section on the category of state (pp. 241–249), in which the Russian and Lithuanian neuter-gender adjectives are discussed, contributes little to their comparison, since it does not address at all how Russian neuter-gender adjectives differ from, or correspond to, Lithuanian neuter-gender adjectives.

Some of the book’s claims about Lithuanian do not accord with reality and need correction. On p. 63, it is asserted that „Простые прилагательные литовского языка изменяются по именному (išretinta mūsų); turėtų būti — местоименному типу...“ On p. 42, it is incorrectly stated that „Во всех четырех типах склонения (кроме первого) в творительном падеже множественного числа все слова оканчиваются на -mis, ср.: rankomis — руками, akimis — глазами, sūnumis — сыновьями; seserimis — сестрами, akmenimis — камнями и др., а род определяется по конечным звукам основы“ (išretinta mūsų). i-stem and consonant-stem words

316

The latter rule is inapplicable, since the stems of both genders have the same stem-final vowel, e.g.: vagimis and pirtimis, piemenimis and dukterimis. On p. 71, the comparisons of all superlative forms are illustrated with expressions that are entirely unused in Lithuanian: pats laimingas, pats linksmas, pats gražus, pats įdomus. Among the qualitative adjectives said not to have degrees are plikas, kurčias, and others (p. 66). However, plikas, meaning лысый, can be graded, since one person may possess this quality to a greater extent and another to a lesser extent. kurčias can also be graded in Lithuanian. On p. 67, a surname form entirely uncharacteristic of Lithuanian is given, with the superlative suffix of adjectives, e.g., Žebriūniausias instead of Žebriūnas, a form that occurred quite accidentally (most likely the writer’s invention) just once in a single work of fiction. Yet from this fact the author draws a wholly unwarranted and far-reaching conclusion, namely, that “Данное явление, по-видимому, следует считать еще одним фактом, свидетельствующим о том, что имена прилагательные и имена существительные восходят к одной нерасчлененной категории имени, существовавшей в далеком прошлом”.

In comparing the past-tense forms of Russian and Lithuanian (pp. 141–148), the author correctly emphasizes the Lithuanian past frequentative tense, recognizing it as a feature specific to Lithuanian alone (p. 141). This tense’s distinctive character would have been brought out even more clearly if the book had stated that its forms are characteristic of both single-action and iterative verbs and participles, e.g.: rašyti — rašydavo — rašydavęs; rašinėti — rašinėdavo — rašinėdavęs. This might perhaps have helped the author decide whether it is appropriate to compare the Lithuanian past frequentative of single-action verbs with the past tense of iterative verbs in Russian, e.g.: rašydavau — писывал, perrašydavau — переписывал (p. 141). All dictionaries translate the verbs писывать, переписывать into Lithuanian as iterative verbs rašinėti, perrašinėti. Thus писывал, переписывал should be translated as rašinėja, perrašinėja, while rašydavau, perrašydavau might perhaps be rendered by a construction with the adverb часто, e.g.: rašiau — писал, rašydavau — часто писал, rašinėju — писываю, rašinėdavau — часто писывал, skaitęs — читавший, skaitydavęs — часто читавший, skaitinėjęs — читывавший, skaitinėdavęs — часто читывавший (cf. skaitydavęs, skaitinėjęs and skaitinėdavęs), and so on. Proceeding in this way might perhaps have highlighted the functions of the past frequentative more clearly, without associating them with Russian iterative verbs. In addition, the book should have shown the difference in meaning between Lithuanian pairs such as degė (горел) and degdavo (часто горел). In the book, these two distinct forms are now translated by the same word, горел (p. 145).

In this case, the past frequentative tense of each verb group can be compared only with the past single-action tense of verbs in that same group (e.g.: rašydavau: rašiau; rašinėdavau: rašinėjau; rašydavęs: rašęs; rašinėdavęs: rašinėjęs); in our view, comparing different tenses of verbs from different groups is unlikely to be fruitful (cf. rašydavau and писывал = rašinėjau, perrašydavau and переписывал = perrašinėju; yet rašydavau and rašinėjau, or perrašydavau and perrašinėjau are not the same thing). That comparisons of different tenses of verbs from different groups are in fact unproductive is also borne out by the book. For instance, we read: “Способ повторяемости действия в русском языке можно назвать грамматическим и абсолютным. Грамматическим он является потому, что органически связан с категорией вида... Абсолютным... потому, что проходит через все глагольные формы...” And: “Наряду с этим от каждого глагола литов-

317

ского языка можно образовать особую форму прошедшего многократного времени, которая противопоставляется прошедшему однократному (р. 147)”. Thus, one conclusion stands on its own, and the other on its own. Taken separately, both are correct, but they have neither been compared nor contrasted with each other. Moreover, the first conclusion applies fully to Lithuanian iterative verbs as well, whose repetition of action is likewise grammatical and absolute.

When discussing the differences between Lithuanian past single-action and past frequentative forms, the author is mistaken in asserting that “... разница между ними в наличии суффикса -dav- в прошедшем многократном”. (Footnote on p. 144.) In fact, the difference between these forms does not lie solely in the suffix -dav-; they are both formed from different forms: the past frequentative from the infinitive — rašy-ti: rašy-davo, whereas the past single-action form is independent, one of the three principal forms of the Lithuanian verb-

An incautious statement also appears on p. 203, reading: “Выделяются в этом отношении причастия, образованные от глаголов второго спряжения настоящего времени (emphasis ours). Они имеют особый формант: myli (любящий) и mylė-sias, ср.: rašąs (пишущий) и rašysiąs”. The quotation seems to imply that the future-tense form of the participle mylėsias is also formed from the present tense.

In examining the form of Lithuanian pronominal adjectives, the author states too categorically that “В ряде падежных форм простое прилагательное и местоимение выступают как самостоятельные формы (р. 63)”. In fact, pronominal adjectives are specific formations fused into a single form with double endings, whose pronominal forms jis, ji now resemble the stem endings of ją, jo.¹

A footnote on p. 102 incautiously asserts that “Alongside the fossilized genitive forms mano, tavo, savo, other forms may also be used in rare cases. For example: vis kažkur važiuodavo su žmonėmis, dažniausiai ne savais reikalais…” The quotation may sometimes give the false impression that savais is a case form of the invariable pronoun savas rather than of the invariable pronoun savo. Lithuanian has two types of possessive pronouns formed from the same roots: invariable mano, tavo, savo and inflected manas, tavas, savas. Moreover, the forms of the invariable pronouns mano, tavo, savo differ clearly from the genitive singular forms of the inflected manas tavas, savas in the quantity and accent of the root vowel in their stems—māno, tāvo, sāvo and māno, tāvo, sāvo (cf. mānojo, tāvojo, sāvojo). The author is also mistaken in asserting here that “When the negative particle savas — свой is attached to the pronoun ne-, it acquires the meaning of an adjective and, as a rule, is not used (emphasis ours) in the genitive case.” In fact, the pronoun nesavas, which has acquired an adjectival meaning, has not only a genitive case in Lithuanian, but its entire masculine and feminine singular and plural paradigm is also widely used.²

The author is reluctant (p. 63) to recognize the superlative degree of adjectives, conventionally distinguished in Lithuanian grammars, which, as an intensified superlative, in fact denotes the greatest possible amount of a thing’s quality and singles out the thing being described from the others.

In the book, Lithuanian collective and multiplicative numerals are artificially lumped together, without any explanations or qualifications and without clarifying their differing meanings, into a single category and type

¹ Plg. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, I, Vilnius, 1965, p. 493.

² See ibid., pp. 675–676.

318

to call the language examples by the general name собирательные числительные (p. 89). Such a comparison of numerals contributes nothing and, in our view, is unjustifiable in a scholarly work.

The author classifies the nouns vakarais, naktimis, vakare, lauke (p. 237) and the nominal phrases du kartus, du sykius, šešis kartus, šešis sykius (p. 239) as adverbs, although none of them serves such a function in Lithuanian.

Suitable Lithuanian examples are not always chosen for comparison in the book. On p. 42, in order to show that in Russian and Lithuanian stress placement can sometimes be a distinguishing feature of noun number, the author gives, alongside the Russian examples бал, бала,..., балу, балов, in which singular forms are stressed on the stem and plural forms on the ending, the paradigm of the word langas, whose plural accusative contradicts this rule. The author consequently draws the misleading conclusion here that “...это явление не имеет последовательного характера”. Had a word of accentuation class IV rather than III been selected for this comparison, say laukas, the comparison would have been unproblematic, since all plural forms of this word are stressed on the ending.

Some aspects of Lithuanian are presented incompletely in the book. On p. 65 it is claimed that Lithuanian pronominal adjectives are used, как правило, только (emphasis ours) “в роли определения”; however, Lithuanian grammar cites cases in which they also function as predicates³.

At times, the morphological differences between the compared parts of speech are insufficiently demonstrated and analyzed. Lithuanian, for example, unlike Russian, has a fully independent and fairly extensive part of speech, the interjectional word (ištiktukas). Interjectional words are formed using various derivational means (suffixes, alternation of root vowels, prefixes, etc.), which sometimes also change their meaning (cf. tikšt ir tykšt, kibykšt ir pakibykšt). We find no discussion of these matters in this work. The author classifies interjectional words as verbs without providing any justification: “Нам представляется, что слова типа pokšt, несмотря на их происхождение, можно назвать усеченными глаголами (p. 197)”. Baltsists are unlikely to agree with this treatment of Lithuanian interjectional words. They could simply have been compared with their Russian equivalents (admittedly few in number), without classifying them as verbs. On the contrary, treating them as a separate part of speech would have made it easier to show their specific features and richness in Lithuanian.

On the other hand, it is hardly justifiable to distinguish in Lithuanian the independent part of speech identified by the author—the category of state—to which all neuter adjectives and certain other individual words are assigned (gėda, laikas, kančia…). After all, these words do not form a unified system among themselves and fit perfectly well into different parts of speech: some can be declined, inflected for number, and have the category of gender; others can be compared. Nevertheless, the book even discusses the morphological features of this category (pp. 243—246), the semantic groups of its words (p. 246), its syntactic function (pp. 246—249), and even the way in which neuter adjectives become members of the category of state (pp. 242—243): “...предмет (являющийся носителем какого-то качества) → отвлеченное качество (которое приписывается предмету) → состояние (которое мыслится в несвязи с каким либо предметом)”. Yet none of this is scientifically substantiated, and no general formal features distinguishing the category of state are identified. Therefore, in our opinion, at least the question of the category of state in Lithuanian remains seriously unresolved in the book.

³ See ibid., p. 512.

319

Among the individual forms that do not correspond in Russian and Lithuanian, the Lithuanian compound verb forms should be mentioned; Russian no longer has these forms. For this reason, the book does not treat them separately as an independent category of Lithuanian verbs. True, they are mentioned briefly in discussions of aspect, participles, and moods. However, the full specifics of these forms (their meaning, formation, and use) remain unexplored. On the other hand, it is questionable whether it is correct to translate the forms skaityčiau ir būčiau skaitęs with the same читал бы. In our opinion, the latter translation suits only the form skaityčiau; to bring out the specificity of the form būčiau skaitęs, would the literal translation я был бы читавший not have been better? After all, in Lithuanian skaityčiau ir būčiau skaitęs are not at all the same thing. Among compound forms of the subjunctive mood, Lithuanian also has the forms būčiau beskaitęs, būčiau buvęs beskaitąs, būčiau buvęs skaitęs, yet none of them is mentioned even in the section on moods.

The Lithuanian frequentative adverbial participle (būdinys) is classified in the book as an adverb, without further explanation (pp. 239—240). Alongside its examples, the book also gives several remnants of the Russian frequentative adverbial participle, e.g., стоймя стоит (p. 239), cf. stovėte stovi, but they are not compared with one another.

On pp. 129 and 134 it is stated that the Lithuanian verb pranešti means сообщить, but this is not entirely accurate, since it can also mean пронести (past).

On p. 189 it is stated that būti can have only the synthetic permissive form teesie, whereas in actual Lithuanian literary usage the analytic form tegul būna is also widely used.

In some cases, the author relies on examples from only one language. In these instances, the comparative character of the book seems to disappear. This applies to passive participle forms derived from intransitive verbs (p. 174), the Russian творительный агентивного дополнения (p. 175), Russian imperative forms мерзни, получай (p. 188), and so on.

Although the book also has a considerable number of shortcomings, it nevertheless provides a fairly successful, if incomplete, picture of comparative morphology in Russian and Lithuanian. In reading and studying it, one cannot fail to see and appreciate the fruits of the author’s work, which are significant for comparative Slavic-Baltic linguistics. In fact, this is a rather good beginning to a major and important work that will lay the foundations for further research in this field. Students, translators, press workers, and all those interested in comparing the morphology and usage of Russian and Lithuanian will undoubtedly be grateful to K. Musteikis for this book.

E. Grinaveckienė

Балто-славянский сборник. Москва, 1972, 424 р. (отв. ред. В. Н. Топоров).

The Institute of Slavic and Balkan Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences has published a substantial volume, “Baltic-Slavic Collection.” It contains fifteen articles and three reviews. Baltic studies predominate in most of the articles, and a considerable number are specifically Lithuanian studies. The collection’s interlinguistic character is due to the majority—eight of the fifteen—of the articles being devoted to the relations and contacts between the Baltic and Slavic languages.

The book opens with Z. Zinkevičius’s article “On the Development of Baltic Vocalism” (pp. 5—14). In this article, the author seeks new arguments to support the claim that the Baltic “proto-language” had short and long vowels a (*a, ā). For example, it was argued that the short Baltic vowel *o was best preserved in mixed diphthongs

320