Herman Kølln, „Oppositions of Voice in Greek, Slavic, and Baltic“

Herman Kolln, Oppositions of Voice in Greek, Slavic, and Baltic, Kobenhavn, 1969, 65 p. In my work "Species oppositions in Greek, ir Slavonic and Baltic languages" Danish linguist Sisters Kelln examines the issues of semantic differentiation of the preteritum formations of the above-mentioned languages. The author limits himself to analyzing in ir detail only those ja pre-Etruscan types that he has found common to the Baltic and Slavic Greek languages. ir H. The conclusions of Kellner are so important that it is necessary to annotate in more detail those chapters of the book where the Baltic languages are mainly concerned. Relative, monosyllabic verbs, as is known, in the Baltic languages usually have a preteritum: one du —with control -é-, second — su control -ū- (plg. replaced : by another). This opposition in the present system corresponds to the opposition between the interjections or sta-stems ir je | o-root verbs, the opposition of o transitivity —intransitivity in — the content plan. With this in mind, the problem H. raised by Kolln can be ir formulated as follows: Can the Baltic preteritum ar preteritum opposition be ė derived from — a the Slavic Greek opposition between the sigmatic iš aoristic and ir the strong aoristic? ir Before beginning to annotate, it should be noted that H. The semantic opposition between efficiency and ineffectivenejo ss plays a major role in Kolln’s hypothesis. Ji directly affected species (diathesis) sphere, expressing the relationship su of the ir actor with the object of action. An action that is non-essential to the object, that does not affect the object, after which the object remains as it was, Kolln calls ineffective H. (ineffective). Ir Conversely, if the object is created or changes its state during the action, the verbs denoting such action H. Kolln considers them effective (effective). It is not difficult to understand iš that this is really about the ideas of others. iš Languages (Greek, Indo-Iranian) well-known opposition of medial active ir species. Such a distinction between ineffective and effective verbs is quite reasonable, because it gives a deeper understanding of the more precisely ir expressed semantic relations of verbs. For example, the interjectional sta-stem verbs of the Baltic ir languages are better suited to be called ineffective: the term,intransitivity® is clearly too narrow to describe the jų content plan, because there are interjectional transitive verbs, cf. jų ir It's a rarity. Ineffectiveness – effectiveness from the point of view of opposition H. Kolln further ir examines the individual, @ first preterite, then ir ė the semantics of preterite types. ū preteritum, as is known, all interjective sta-stem verbs of the Baltic languages have. In semantic terms, they ir are, as already mentioned, intransitive, sometimes transitive, often inchoative, but always ineffective. So, ir jų a preterite also has an ineffective meaning. 4 preterite is used with kefta, verbs of the ir su type of kifta. In semantic terms, these verbs seem to have peripheral contact with interjective sta-stem verbs. Some are intransitive, e.g. su ir jų sneégti | sniéga, brėda, sleiika, lefida, telpa, sirg. In denoting slow movement, they differ from most interjective sta-stem verbs, but ir they are sometimes such, e.g. ir sniffing, brefing, dial. squeezes, fits. Other verbs of this type, although transitive, are also ir ineffective, cf. liėka, perka, perša, rerika, velka, because they do not indicate the change of the object, the object remains as it was. scraping, cutting, crossing means destructive actions. Clearly effective are only kemša, mélza (praet. A three. ir 250 Su kefta, cross-type verbs are related by their inflection to vowel-changing verbs such as dial. dial, dial, dial. swirl, stirrup, dial. gėma, gimė, mėna,. miné, géna, gynė, vėja, vijo. The older preteritum of these verbs is a palindromic in the old dictionaries (e.g., Milk ir "Latviešu valoda" (in ir Latvian). plg.lv. Dill, silk, ginger (a). a preteritum also has a group of verbs e/o present with su acute root vowel, cf. ir dugo, bėgo etc. In ir Lithuanian-Latvian languages, we encounter cases where the preteritum formant arose a due to semantic ne factors, but was generalized depending on background characteristics. In Lithuaniaa n, we now find the preteritum everywhere po j. In general, it was apparently a lipa, a lipo-type action in ZodZzies, where it ir replaced an older preteritum still preserved in dialects € (/ipė): the formant, a which is usually associated with the zero degree of the root, was easy su to get here because this type of verbs have the vowelism of the decadent degree of the root. Thus, the verbs of the types under consideration form a semantically defined group of verbs, the dominant meaning of which is ineffective. Morpho(no)logic characteristics of ir several verbs denoting destructive actions are intertwined. The verbs of the types examined have or have had a preteritum formant whose meaning, therefore, is also ineffective. jų su 4, H. Kolln stated that the ineffective meaning-: in the me preteritum ir system of the Slavic Greek languages has a strong (radiculir ar e/o) aortist. That the Baltic preterite is a historically related to the strong aoristic of the su Slavic Greek ir languages, Kelln proves beautifully with etymological H. parallels. For example, nasal verbs in Slavic languages usually have e/o (thematic) aorista, cf. Judge : aor. sedw „I sat down”, Liet. liėka, liko in relation to inflection exactly corresponds to gr. praes. sine „leave, leave out“, aor. &Move "I left, I gave up". Destructive verbs that at first glance seem contradictory iš H. In fact, they support Kolln's iš hypothesis, ją because in Greek, having an e/o aorist, they, as in the Baltic languages, also join ineffective verbs, cf. ir let. kifto, kirpo gr. ir Ėrapov „rėžiau, kirtau“ (cut, cut ir off); krimto gr. €čdaxov "I bitten, I gnawed". duga, the equivalents of dugo-type verbs in the Slavic Greek languages ir have a thematic aorist everywhere, cf. bėgo, sl. ran, fell, sl. pads, sat, sl. sėdo etc., kdndo, gr. dax ,,I bitten, I gnawed“. Iš of these correspondences floating logical conclusion which H. Kolln does, is ir that the verbs of the types examined in the Baltic languages also had the strong (root ir thematic) aorist. a preterite was previously, apparently, characteristic of the case, case ir type verbs,. t. y. for verbs in su a present tense ir a root vocalism. Ancient jų preterits of lacquer (inf. milk), crab (inf. rakti), kaso, baro, kalo, malo, aro, kavo, šavo are found in senosiogramatikās, dialects in Latvian. se ir Regarding these verbs, it should be noted that the preteritum formant, unlike the previously mentioned ineffective verbs, here a, associates with the effective meaning. su kdsa, kūsė type verbs denote a continuous, rhythmically repeated action, an action that was characteristic of primary vocalism t. y. verbs. o Ryshium su a preterite H. Kolln then goes on to review the verbs with the so-called “second” stem su a, plg. searching (Univ. ieszku), ieškojau, ieškoti, This type of verbs, having the normal degree of vowel change in the root and denoting the state, yraj] add to inchoative interjectional and sta-stem verbs of the declining degree, cf. fesko: dial su-Yška. Verbs with the second stem 4 are more widely represented in Slavic languages, cf. iskę, iskachs, iskati. A group of these verbs with the je/o present denotes a 17% 251 long-lasting, rhythmically repeated action, e.g. posati „to write“, lezati „to lick“, tesati, tašyti, stenati, stenéti“ etc. H. Kolln believes that it was precisely the continuative meaning that was the reason why verbs with je/o present and infinitive -ati were made from perfective (event) verbs of the strong aoristic, e.g., emlją, imati from jeto "to take" (2—3 sing. aor. Jjet®), dušą, dechati from dechnati "to breathe, to breathe". There are only five verbs with normal vocalism and the second ši stem 4 (sleep, sing, cry, ir search, squeal); ta apparently, this type of verb, unlike Slavic languages, remained undeveloped in Baltic languages. Therefore, the verbs of the Baltic languages, which, when resolving the iš correspondances in the Slavic languages, had to receive the second root, often have 4 tą @ only preterite, this is o probably a more archaic situation. It has already ir been noted by researchers that the Baltic preteritums in certain cases respond to Slavic verbs with the 4 second stem, cf. su @ kduty, sl kovati, lūko, lakti, rus. s. lokati, kdso, kasti, sl. comb. Iš here it is easy to conclude that the second stem of the Baltic Slavic ir languages (*ieska-ti) arose by 4 generalizing the preteritum suffix of the indicative -4- (praet. *seeking-). Since, as mentioned, verbs with the second root in Baltic @ Slavic languages denote continuous, rhythmically ir repeated (continuative) actions, it is logical to assume that the meaning of the old preteritum was continuous. 4 ir However, most of the verbs in 4 Baltic languages with preteritum, especially the interjectional sta-stames, denote not the continuation ir of the action state, but the ne inchoation. ar The question arises how to explain the fact that these verbs, which are ineffective-inchoative older than my ir H. Keolln, which had an e/o aorista, now regularly shows a preteritum in Baltic languages, which @ previously had a continuative meaning. In answering the question, Kolln writes: į šį H. , We have to admit that the e/o aoristic preteritum existed earlier one next to ir 4 the other, that these verbs received the efo aoristic, ir ir @ Preteritum ir that, while the thematic aorist was still alive, there was a semantic contrast between these two types of preteritum. Only when the po e/o aorist disappeared, probably for background reasons, when the preteritum became the only ir preteritum of 4 these verbs, did it become suitable to assume all the preteritum functions. Because of the specific character of the opposition between these two preterites, I aš think that it was an aspectual opposition in the preteritum, similar to that known in other languages as į the opposition between the iš aoristic and the perfect... 4 the continuative meaning of the preteritum makes me think that there was an aspectual opposition here; opposed to another preterite, casu ejo preterite, the preterite probably played in the role of imperfect” ū (p. 41). Comparing the opposition of the Slavic aoristic-imperfect with the su corresponding data of the Baltic languages, we see that the preteritums, known in the Slavic languages as aoristics, have disappeared in the Balto-Slavic languages; what remains in them are the old imperfects, tų closely related to the Slavic o imperfects. For a long time researchers have observed that the Baltic preteritums looking for ir the sitting are more similar to į the Slavic imperfect iskaache, sédéachs, than the į aoristus iskacho, sédéchs. In ir contrast, č the Baltic preterite veda is more reminiscent of the Slavic imperfect vedchacho. (aor. vesd). In Slavic languages, imperfects, become a verb iš affirmer su (Verbal ar efo) aorist, has a format - Chacho, o according to H. Kolln's hypothesis that in the Balto-Slavic dialects 4 imperfects were made iš tų same verbs as strong aorists, ir rather here we would expect a formant -aach® having imperfekty. Eliminating the šį inconsistency, Kolln quite H. convincingly showed that historically the preteritum a of the Baltics' ineffective-inchoative verbs has a connection with the Slavic 252 imperfective verbs with the formant -ati. Antai sl. dušą, dochati has the second stem docha-, which can be compared with the preterite of the balty’ interjectional and sta-stem verbs, diso, also in terms of root vocalism. It may be assumed that the Slavic second stem with -d continues the imperfect a preteritum of the Balto-Slavic inchoative verbs, or the 4 imperfect, reflected in the Balto-Slavic languages as dūso. The second stem with -4-(docha-) in Slavic languages was associated with the jeo present (see dušą) probably only after these stative verbs were reinterpreted as imperfect. H. Kolln believes that the initial stages of imperfect formation were common to the Baltic and Slavic languages. The 4th preterite, which initially served only as the preterite of continuative verbs (to seek, to search), eventually spread and acquired a more special meaning, becoming the imperfect preterite, or imperfect (diso, dacha-), opposed to the strong aoristic of inchoative interjective verbs (dusta, dufisa, dechnq). After the opposition of aoristic—imperfect became firmly established in inchoative verbs, the continuous verbs themselves were aspectually differentiated in the preteritum: their @ preteritum split into the aoristic iskach® and, with the addition of the formant -@-, into the imperfect iskaa-chs. But in Slavic languages, such as minéta, the @ preterite (docha-) was associated with the jelo presente (shower), thereby losing its imperfect character and becoming the preterite of independent (imperfect) verbs. The result of this change was not only the creation of the second stem of 4, but also that the imperfect verbs of the type duš, dochati followed the pattern of the continuative verbs and extended their preteritum with -a to the explicitly expressed imperfect with -ag-(from *-ūja-). € H. Kolln begins his analysis of preteritum types with the verbs of type lėsa, lėsė. This type of verb has the e/o present and the ė preteritum and belongs to a special class of transitive verbs. Since they (except for succeed) denote the change or creation of an object, it is possible to guess that they come from the class of effective verbs. The corresponding Slavic verbs are also effective and have a sigmatic aorista, e.g. väso "I led", nėso "I carried", gréss "to take" (present tense), bass "to take" (present tense). H. Kolln believes that this type of verb in the Baltic languages also had a sigmatic aorist, since the sigmatic aorist in Greek and Slavic languages has an effective meaning. nę Another group of verbs where the é preteritum functions are the je/o-root verbs. Most of them are transitive and have adjacent intransitive and intransitive verbs. But, besides that, among the je/o-stem verbs we also find those that do not differ in terms of kind (diathesis) from the interjective and sta-stem verbs, in other words, like the latter they are ineffective. In this case, with the latter they form the opposition of the state — inchoation, cf. jaūčia: juiūita. Worth noting is H. Kolin’s attempt to determine the distribution of je/o-stem verbs — transitive-- effective versus static-ineffective —: if the subject of interjective and sta-stem verbs is a person or at least an animate subject, then the corresponding je/o verbs are static (state), cf. juiita: feels, pra-virksta: cries. If their subject is inanimate or passive (e.g. a sleeping person), the corresponding je/okamieni verbs are transitive (effective), cf. plysta: plésia, lūžta: laužia. This rule, although it quite well highlights the semantic difference between the two groups of je/o verbs, does not seem very successful, because it is not always easy to say whether the subject is alive or dead, and, moreover, in individual cases, —which were also noted by H. Kolln himself—int253 ermediate and sta-stem verbs have beside them both transitive and constructive je/o-stem verbs, cf. švifita: šviečia, šveičia. H. Kolln believes that the transitive-- effective je/o-stem verbs of the Baltic languages may have had a sigmatic aorist earlier, since the corresponding verbs of the Slavic languages have it, cf. praes. bljudą: aor. bljuso "I observed" (relative to lit. baiiūdžia: baiidé). But in the case of static (ineffectual) je/o-rooted verbs things are worse: their je/o present is perhaps old, because it is also shown in the Slavic language, e.g. emlją „imu“, dušą „dvesiu“, but it is hardly possible to assume that there was also a sigmatic aorist here, even if undirected in terms of meaning, because the corresponding Slavic verbs here have the second 4 root, e.g. imati, dschati. The surprising thing is that these transitive (effective) verbs in the Baltic languages get the je/o present: after all, in other languages they have the e/o present, which can probably be reconstructed as ide. 1, pp. 100, but cf. bljudą, gr. xe59op.a, s. ind. bodhati; Vepcia, but latin verto, s. ind. You're in trouble. The appearance of the e|o or je|/o present with the transitive verbs with the € preteritum, apparently, depends on the root structure: only those verbs with the TeTroot structure retained the e/o present, while the T(e)RT root verbs received the je/o present (if they retained the é preteritum), cf. nėša, but baūdžia, vefčia. The condition for such differentiation of present tense stems could be the different relationship of verb roots with vowel changes. Type TeTraknys does not participate in vowel conversion, and type TeRTraknys easily becomes zero-degree morphs. Only in the latter type of roots could transitively preconstructed pairs appear. H. Kolln believes that the opposition of species (diathesis) in the preteritum system, i.e. the difference between ė preteritum and @ preteritum (cf. veftė: vifto) and the sigmatic aorist and the strong aorist, motivated the differentiation of the present and past stems. The sigmatic aoristic, which had an effective transitive meaning and in the place of which, according to H. Kollnas, the preteritum é appeared later in the Baltic languages, could only be associated with the je/o stem in the present tense, since the e/o stem was found in interjective and sta-stem verbs and some other intransitive svita-type verbs. The transitive value associated with the je/o present stem gradually. The je/o stem became a productive model of transitive verbs only later, when the old e/o presents were replaced by jelo presents. The prerequisite for such a change of present roots and the formation of the model just mentioned were those transitive verbs which, as can be deduced from the etymological correspondances of Slavic languages, had the root from the old, cf. liėZia, sl. lick, draw, sl. pišą, rėžia, sl. režą etc. Transitive verbs with the e/o root, having a different shade of meaning, could have existed for some time alongside transitive verbs with the je/o root of the same root, similarly to the doublets that occur in the Old Slavic language, e.g. vęzą and vęžą, leka and lęčą. In addition, the sigmatic aorist does not always require the e/o present, it can be used (e.g. in Greek) with the je/o presents. Although ésti, give, take are not effective, their preteritum, in the opinion of H. Kolln, may be old. The Slavic equivalents of jy have a root aoristic, e.g. jasts, dasts, jets (present tense jam "I eat", dam "I give", imą "I take"). Here H. Kolln is forced, without his 254 the established regular ė correspondir ence of the Baltic Preteritum Slavic sigmatic aorist, and to recognize the historical identity č between the ir Baltic Preteritum Slavic root aorist. Ši pretension da reduces uniformity H. Koln's hypothesis, according to which the Slavic strong aoristic (root thematic) corresponds ir to the Baltic preteritum. a It is doubtful whether the ar preteritums of these é verbs are really old: in dialects the preteritum is found a (plg. édo) better matches the ineffective su meaning of this verb in the Slavic stripry aorist ir (plg. jast® "eat, eat"). Further supporting his hypothesis of é the preteritum origin, Kolln H. emphasizes the fact that tą the last three preteritum verbs are athematic. ė H. Kolln believes that the preteritum first appeared in athematic verbs. ir é With this in mind H. Kellner relies on the fact that the athematic Slavic verb jesmo (lit. esmi) has the imperfect béchs, which is the only Slavic preterite verb being that has had a preterite in ė the Baltic é languages, cf. ir pr. ast, béi, bė, be. Stative imperfect, or é preteritum, béchs formally coincides su with suffixes -&ti statyviniy verbs with aorist, e.g. aor. sédéchs iš inf. sit ‘sit’. Ta circumstance indicates the pattern by which the imperfections were created č (preteritums). H. Kollmann believes that the starting point was the opposition of inchoative verbs to static verbs ir with the second stem, p. su é sit sit, : white. sit to sit. : Jų aortic stenosis, strong aortic stenosis sčd8 "I sat down" ir (later sigmatised) č aoristic sédéchs "I sat", initially probably were preterites that had no aspectual status were opposed to each other as other verb ir forms, like brus. ir t. y. sit to sit : they formed the inchoation opposition. According to the model : séds sédéchs the verb byti is next to the root aorist bychs, 2—3 sing. bysts creates a tripod preterita be-che "I was". Thanks to the static present jesmo a special state verb su -go here was not created, oppositio on bychs ‘factus sum’ : beige “eram” was interpreted as an opposition to the aoristic:imperfect. Iš the preteritum of this verb č spread primarily to other athematic į verbs with a root aoristis, cf. let. ėdmi, ėdė, sl. pit, 2— 3 sing. aor. jasts, imperf. riders. The expansion of the imperfect (preteritum) began on the é basis of these verbs: the imperfect šį was formed by verbs with ir an old sigmatic aoristic, e.g. sl. vedą, aor. cool, imperf. spindle axle, brush. Weda, weda. Since the latter verbs are transitive, the suffix -ė-, used to create the imperfect next to the sigmatic aorist, loses contact with the intransitive su (ineffectual) meaning, typical of constructive verbs in the second stem. su č Suffix -ė in the Baltic Slavic ir languages at the beginning, apparently, was an indicator of non-present forms of stative verbs. In this su regard, H. Kollman notes that statics consists of three components: ineffectiveness, continuity and consequentiality. iš The component of continuity led to the fact that the suffix -become an ir indicator of imperfect. ir As in the case ir of continuative verbs with the su second stem, 4 the stative verbs with the second stem themselves were su aspectually ė differentiated in the preteritum system: next to the aoristic ti sedĕcho, the imperfect sedĕa-cho was created by adding the suffix. -@-, This is H. It is the result of the ir development of the a pre-Slavic ir & language. ir Iš of what has been said, it appears that the į question raised at the beginning H. Kolln answers negatively: jo in his @ opinion, the preterite resp. 255 The é preterite cannot directly continue the strong or sigmatic aorist in the Baltic and Slavic protodialects. The @ and ė preterites (imperfects), on the one hand, and the strong and sigmatic aorists, on the other, were parallel, side-by-side existing preterite formations, which were made from the same verbs. The preteritums a and é (imperfects) gradually expanded their scope of use, taking the place of the aorists and taking over their functions. Like every hypothesis, the Kolln hypothesis has stronger and weaker points. Methodologically, H. Kolln’s efforts to search for a historical connection between the preteritum formants éir @ and the corresponding (so-called “second”) verb stems are justified. The semantic equivalence between the Baltic a preteritum and the Slavic and Greek strong aoristic and between the Baltic é preteritum and the Slavic and Greek sigmatic aoristic, as established by H. Kell, opens broad perspectives for the study of the Baltic verb. The question arises before the researchers how to interpret this possible correspondence from a diachronic point of view, because H. Kolln’s solution of this question, i.e. that the Baltic dialects had a sigmatic aoristic, which was later lost, is problematic. Given the conservatism of the Baltic languages, the complete disappearance of the sigmatic aoristic would not be entirely understandable and, moreover, it would hardly be possible to satisfactorily justify and explain this disappearance. The truth is that the Baltic languages had a marked tendency toward unification and simplification of verbal paradigms. But it is also true that individual forms of the old paradigms in the Baltic languages may now exist as independent lexical units. H. Kolln's definition of the sigmatic aorist in Slavic languages is effective, and in Baltic languages the element -sfunctions as a formative formant with the stative verbs of the suffixes -ėti and -oti, e.g.: dubséti (present dubsi next to dubti, durnba) and vėpsoti (next to vempa, vėpti). Adverbs with -s often indicate elongated vowels, so here formanats -associates with the elongated degree of root vowels, which is often the case in the sigmatic aoristic of Slavic languages, cf. brus. *breath-- sir sl. aor. vésto „vedžiau“ from *véd-s-. According to the prevailing opinion, which is also held by H. Kolln himself, the sigmatic aorist is an innovation of the Slavic languages, hence its effective meaning would also have appeared later. In this case, it might be appropriate to take into account the semantic-- artificial types of other verbs when looking for corresponding words in Baltic languages. "Road to the Rocks, Vol. In the case of bosti, the d vowel appears in the Baltic languages in stative-inchoative verbs, e.g. bodėti (past bėdi), bostis (past -džiaugiasi) and bdsti (past bosta), while in the Slavic languages it appears in the sigmatic aorist, e.g. sl. bass "bedžiau" from *bod-s-. The sigmatic element in the -s suffix here functions in the present tense system just as the suffix -sK-(-sk-), which in the Baltic languages was initially a present formant, functions in the Armenian preteritum system. S. Karaliūnas