LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GRAMATIKOS TYRINĖJIMAI

LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

ADVERBS DERIVED FROM THE SINGULAR NOMINATIVE

K. ULVYDAS

The group of adverbs that have developed from the singular nominative of nominal words is relatively small in Lithuanian. The nominative case, with its very clear nominative meaning, is not generally inclined to mark qualitative or circumstantial relations. In contemporary language, adverbs derived from the singular nominative are used mainly not as sentence adverbials, but as nominal parts of the predicate in impersonal sentences. Thus, they belong to the group of so-called predicative adverbs.

Among such adverbs, the following may be mentioned: gaila (negaila), ganà (neganà), garbė (negarbė), šlovė (nešlovė), gėda (ne gėda), laikas (ne laikas), mėtas (ne mėtas), sarmata (ne sarmata) “shameful (not shameful),” valià (nevalià), žinia (nežinia). The words listed here have been affected by the process of adverbialization to varying degrees. The forms gaila (negaila), ganà (neganà) have been completely adverbialized. No other case form has survived alongside them in the modern language. Moreover, the nominative character of these forms itself has completely faded from the speaker’s consciousness.

The adverb gaila, which in colloquial speech is known only with a circumflex accent on the root, can be derived from the nominative case of a noun only with less than complete certainty, although we do have the nouns atgaila DŽ, gailà, -õs, gailà “pity, regret” Ml. If the stress position in this adverb has not changed in comparison with the noun, it could be derived from the neuter singular nominative-accusative of an adjective.

The adverb ganà is most likely nothing other than the nominative of an old noun with an abstract meaning, whose root reflex is shown by Old Church Slavonic goněti. Although the other case forms of this word are not found in modern Lithuanian, we have plenty of related words—other words with the same root—for example: ganàtèl “enough (addressing more than one person),” ganàtet “enough, enough already,” užganantinti “to satisfy,” ganėti, -ėja (gána), -ėjo “to be enough, suffice, be sufficient,” ganėtinas, -a “sufficient; fairly good,” ganėtinai “sufficiently,” ganėtinumas “sufficiency,” ganėjimas “same,” ganėdinti “to satisfy,” paganėdinti “to satisfy,” užganėdinti “same,” ganėdinimas “satisfaction,” ganingas, -a “sufficient,” ganingai “sufficiently,” ganioliai “same,” ganõliai “same,” ganūmas “sufficiency,” užganuoti “to satisfy,” gánt (gànit) “enough,” gandėti, gandà, -ėjo “1. to have enough, suffice; 2. refl. to want; 3. to prosper, win,” apgandėti “to become somewhat tiresome, vexing,” atsigandėti “to become tiresome, vexing,” gandiotis,

¹ Examples are taken from the Lithuanian Language Dictionary, III, Vilnius, 1956.

7

-úojasi, -āvosi “to have enough,” gandžiaus (gan'džiaus) “preferably, rather, better, sooner,” cf. ganveik “quickly, soon,” gangreit “almost, nearly.” One might also mention here such translations in ecclesiastical writings, most likely formed on the model of Polish, as gandaryti, -o, -ė “to compensate, make amends,” gan(a)darymas “compensation, recovery,” ganapadarymas “same” (cf. Polish zadośćuczynić, zadośćuczynienie).

Thus, the root of the word ganà appears to be very firmly established in Lithuanian, but the word itself proved unviable as a noun and became an adverb, leaving no other case form in the modern language. The adverb ganà (like gãila), therefore, exhibits the highest degree of adverbiality compared with the other adverbs derived from nominatives mentioned above. But those other nominative-derived adverbs also differ in their degree of adverbiality. The adverbs valià (nevalià), žinià (nežinià) should be regarded as more detached from their corresponding nouns. When they function as predicates in impersonal sentences, they cannot take any modifiers. The others— garbė (negarbė), šlovė (nešlovė), gėda (ne gėda), laikas (ne laikas), metas (ne metas), sarmata (ne sarmata) — can take certain modifiers even when functioning as predicates in impersonal sentences; cf.: It is little honor to speak foreign languages, and a great shame not to know one’s own well; Such disgrace for them now!; It is high time to leave now, before we get a beating Šint; Now is just the right (very good) time to harvest the rye Vb; It is not such a shame that we have fallen a little behind them. Of course, when used with modifiers, such nominatives cannot be considered adverbs.

In this way, we see that the words discussed here can be divided into as many as three groups. The first consists of the unequivocal adverbs ganà (neganà), gãila (negãila), which no longer have any connection with nouns. The second group consists of valià (nevalià), žinià (nežinià). Corresponding nouns continue to be used alongside them, but when functioning as predicates in impersonal sentences, they can no longer take any modifiers. The third group comprises the hybrids (nouns-adverbs) garbė (negarbė), šlovė (nešlovė), gėda (ne gėda), laikas (ne laikas), metas (ne metas), sarmata (ne sarmata), which can take modifiers even when functioning as predicates in impersonal sentences, and which can only conditionally be called adverbs.

What is characteristic of the adverbs in all the groups discussed here is that they were once connected, and most of them are still connected, with nouns of abstract meaning. This abstractness of meaning will have partly determined their transition to adverbs, or their movement toward adverbial status. If we look at analogous adverbs in other languages, we will observe the same phenomenon: there, too, nominatives of nouns denoting abstractions have for the most part developed into predicative nouns functioning as adverbs; cf. Russian adverbs of the analogous type: время, грех, досуг, недосуг, лень, охота, пора, срам and some others in sentences such as На счастье грех роптать, — Жужутка отвечает².

Although the adverbs examined here are of varying degrees of adverbiality in Lithuanian and, undoubtedly, of different ages, and although their semantic relations with nouns differ greatly, their special predicative meaning nevertheless clearly distinguishes them from nouns. V. V. Vinogradov, discussing analogous adverbs in Russian-

² Грамматика русского языка, I, Фонетика и морфология, Москва, 1952, р. 634.

8

he assigns it to a particular category of state³, whose separation into an independent part of speech is, admittedly, questioned by some Slavists⁴.

As we can see, nominative forms of nouns are wholly disinclined to become adverbs in Lithuanian. Nominative adverbs are very few, both in the literary language and in the spoken vernacular—in individual dialects. Moreover, in their semantics and syntactic function these adverbs differ considerably from all other case-form adverbs. As already mentioned, the most characteristic feature of nominative adverbs is their predicative meaning; most often they function as the predicate of an impersonal sentence. For example:

gaila (negaila): I felt sorry CvR VIII 19; I feel sorry for my mother; I cannot leave her without a bite of bread VienP 167; It is shameful to gather [them], but a pity to leave [them] JV 542; It is a pity that you have no son SimonP 13; I do not regret the rue, the rue; it is only my youthful days I regret d.;

gana (negana): Enough working now; and if that is too little for you, pour yourself a little more Knv; Isn’t it enough for them (the Kaisers, the tsars) to drink the working people’s sweat and blood CvR VIII 14; Surely you have brought enough shame upon our family already Don; Only somehow he was unsuccessful, and that was that CvR II 222; Uncle… answered the question put to him quite affectionately at first BIR 216; He would turn [the spinning wheel] until someone told him “enough” VienP 193; But it is not enough that terror and fear torment him SimonA 120; Well! Not only did he refuse to let us in, but now, look, he’s wagging his tongue too ŽemR₁ I 339;

garbė (negarbė): Neither god nor devil deserves a moment’s delay LKŽ III 115; It is no disgrace to shun work;

šlovė (nešlovė): Glory to the heroes who fell for their homeland’s freedom; dishonor to the idlers and loafers;

gėda (negėda): It was terribly awkward and shameful Gud-GuzKIT₁ II 12; I am not at all ashamed of those tears; they are like blood from a living wound SNěr;

laikas (ne laikas): He remembered that it was time to tend to the livestock CvR VIII 173; It is time to pay the taxes Grž; We have lived out our lives and done our part; it is time to make way for the children LKŽ VII 30; Don’t you see it’s time to take a broom and sweep around the house ib 30; It’s been time for a long while, my girl, to get into the carriage ib 30; It’s time for me to go to bed; I’m still not sleepy Ds; It’s no time to water the dog when there’s a wolf in the yard Plt;

metas (ne metas): It is time for me to marry too LKŽ; It’s time for you, it’s time for you to leap from the garden ib; It is time for the young lad to ride off to his young maiden ib; Hitch up the horses, guests: it’s time to head home ib; It’s already time to cut the rye ib; The Pleiades are already at breakfast time—it’s time to get up ib; It is no time to water the greyhound when one needs to hunt ib; It is no time to water the dogs when there’s a wolf in the flock ib;

sarmata “shame” (ne sarmata “not shameful”): What he said was shameful even to hear Šlap; Aren’t you ashamed to speak like that?;

valia (nevalia): He is free to rise with the falcons and even bridle the northern death SNėrP II 208; Is it permissible to behave like that? Rg; We reconquered those forests—it is our right to be their masters CvR VIII 126; No one is allowed to curse Vrb; The bearer of light-rays must not despair SNėrP II 203;

³ Žr.. В. В. Виноградов, Русский язык, Учпедгиз, М.-Л., р. 399—422.

⁴ Cf. the conclusion of O. K. Balaišvilis’s candidate dissertation: “Words of the category of state have no grammatical expression; therefore, we believe that in Russian there is no category of state as a part of speech, and the opinion that this part of speech is taking shape is scarcely justified.” O. К. Баляшвили, Вопросы о категории состояния в русском языке, Москва, 1951 (Библиотека им. Ленина, рукопись).

9

“news” (nežinia “it is unknown”): Kad žinia, ką jis šelmis bernužėlis, būčiau vainikelio nedavus tepti, būčiau tytolyn paaug(e)nus Rod; Žinia, kad žmonėms dirbti savo laukus ir dvaro darnudirbti buvo sunku (ps.) Nm; Ar taip tikrai buvo — nežinia SimonP 4; Pasidarė be galo liūdna ir nežinia kas veikti CvR VIII 27; Tik galulaukiuose stovėjo vėtrų nuplėšytas, žaibų suažytas jovaras, tarytum išmir(usio) kaimo seniūnas, ir nežinia, apie ką mąstė ib 234.

As can be seen from the examples, the adverb ganà differs from all the other nominative adverbs in having not only a predicative meaning but also a manner-and-degree meaning—it can function both as the predicate of an impersonal sentence and as an adverbial of manner in any kind of sentence. Moreover, of all the adverbs mentioned, only ganà is also used in the truncated form ganì, which has mostly already developed into a particle.

Alongside the Lithuanian adverb laikos, the Slavic loanword čėsas ‘time, occasion’ is used in the dialects, cf.: Jau čėsas rugius sėti Šlap.

The fact that the forms mentioned here have become fixed or adverbialized (in cases where they are used with a predicative, and sometimes a manner-and-degree, meaning) is also shown by the fact that in certain cases they can even be graded, e.g.: Išėjo mokslą, dabar sarmačiau (more shameful) su juo sueiti (to meet him) Inšk; Ankščiau jiem viskas buvo valiau (more permissible, allowed) Gs.

Alongside one or another nominative adverb, an instrumental form is also used (though, naturally, with an entirely different—adverbial—meaning), e.g.: laikas || laikù, laikais ‘at intervals, sometimes’, cf. čėsas || čėsù, čėsais. It is most likely on the model of the latter forms that even adjectives are created (čėsùs, -i ‘early’ R), from which adverbs are then in turn derived, cf.: Geriau, kai čėsiai apsilūobi Inšk; Mes čėsiau atvažiuovom ib. It is true that it is sometimes difficult to say whether the comparative degree of these adverbs is derived from an adverb in -iai or whether a fossilized instrumental form of a noun is simply being graded, cf.: Pusė antros kad būtų atsikelta, tai jau laikiau LI; Laikiau daržus sėkme už kitus metus J. Cf. also the adverb laikiai, e.g.: Laikiai kel LKŽ VII 31.

Some linguists classify the words rods, berods, tiesa⁵ as adverbs originating from the nominative singular of nominal forms. The first two are linked to Old Slavic rado; J. Endzelynas, in turn, compares the third with Russian правда, citing from F. Kuršaitis’s grammar the following sentence: aš tai tiesą žinai, ale nesakāi, which F. Kuršaitis translates into German as „ich weiss es zwar, ich sage es aber nicht“. In this sentence F. Kuršaitis himself regarded the word tiesą as an adverbialized instrumental form of a noun⁶ and, in the syntax section, discussing adversative coordination⁷, grouped it with the words rods, beje. According to F. Kuršaitis, zwar — aber in a German adversative sentence corresponds to rods (or tiesą, beje) — alė (or bėt) in a Lithuanian adversative sentence; cf. his illustration of this claim: aš tai rods (arba tiesą, beje) žinau, alė nesakāi, “ich weiss es zwar, aber ich sag es nicht”⁸.

As for the words rods, berods, it should first be said that they have nothing to do with a noun. They can only be connected with the adjective rōdas, -ā, which F. Kuršaitis, for example, includes in his dictionary, albeit questioning its authenticity. This adjective appea-

⁵ A. Leskien, Litauisches Lesebuch mit Grammatik und Wörterbuch, Heidelberg, 1919, p. 176; J. Endzelīns, Baltu valodu skaņas un formas, Rīgā, 1948, p. 228.

⁶ Žr. F. Kurschat, Grammatik der littauischen Sprache, Halle, 1876, p. 385.

⁷ Ibid., p. 439.

⁸ Ibid., p. 439.

10

…is apparently borrowed from the Slavic languages. Baltic pad, -a, Polish rad, -a, Russian pad, -a are used predicatively, for example: Baltic (я) вельми рад ‘I am very glad, I am pleased’; Рад бы й пай, дбы грэхи не пускаюць ‘I would be glad [to get] to paradise, but sins do not let me’; Polish Rad to czynię ‘I do this gladly’; Rad gościom ‘I am glad to have guests’; Russian Я так рад, что… ‘I am so glad (so pleased) that…’; Рад стараться! (a Tsarist Russian soldier’s response to praise) ‘I’ll do my best! (At your service!)’; Я очень рад играть эту роль ‘I am very pleased to play this role’.

The adjective rodas, -a is used similarly in old Lithuanian writings, for example: we… have the will to act according to his commandments; she works willingly with her own hands; willingly… we will go⁹, and also in the living folk language and folk songs, where it has survived with the meanings of adjective, adverb, and connective. E. Fraenkel¹⁰ explains very convincingly the process by which the adjective rõdas, -à became adverbial, drawing on examples from old writings and living speech. The beginning of this process can already be observed in the language of Bretkūnas’s Postil. Here, alongside the older expression rodi nueit, the expression ką šie rodas darė, kaip ana (pekla) rodas norėtų ‘what these were willing to do, as that one (hell) would like to’ is already used. Thus, gender (masculine—feminine) and number (singular—plural) meanings are already being conflated in a single form; in other words, the gender and number meanings of the adjective rõdas are weakening, and the process of adverbialization is occurring alongside this. Evidence of gender distinction can still be found in folk-song language, for example: — Oh, maiden, lily fair, will you marry me? — Willingly to go, willingly not to go, willingly to frolic Mrk. Here, as we can see, the adjective rõdas still agrees in gender with its subject. On the other hand, however, in the maiden’s statement, apparently: Willingly to give away the little rue wreath, oh, but unwillingly the little gold ring Rdm, and also in the duckling’s lament in a song: I would willingly take it off, hand over the little wreath, but two riflemen stand quietly in the road TŽ IV 145, such agreement is absent (the gender meaning of the word rõdas has weakened so much here that it is used even when a feminine subject is implied). Moreover, in the latter example, as E. Fraenkel observes, the word rõdas acquires a concessive meaning. It should only be added that here rõdas approaches a conjunction in meaning and function, forming a pair with ale (rodas — ale, cf. although — but).

In contemporary colloquial speech, the adjective rõdas, -à ‘pleased’ is used mainly as the nominal part of the predicate and as a predicative attribute, cf.: He is pleased with this horse Ds; They were all displeased when they heard such news Trgn; He wipes his hands behind his back and strolls about pleased Km. In addition, dialects have the particle rõds < rõdas, cf.: You don’t need that there; do take an axe along — you can’t do anything without an axe Sr; Last year an owl apparently nested here, in this hollow; who knows what bird may have settled here this year ib; Why should I work alone for everyone, after all Vrb; Let’s take this job first, I suppose ib; It would apparently be easy if one could know what will happen tomorrow Grg; You apparently have an easy life since you have money Kv.

In contemporary standard literary language, neither this adjective nor this particle is used. Only in the language of Donelaitis’s writings is rods used as a connective; cf. the statement in his “Winter Cares”: Apparently it is shameful to hear, and a great disgrace for a peasant, but what can a man do, destitute and dying of hunger?

⁹ Examples are taken from E. Fraenkel, Syntax der litauischen Kasus, “Tauta ir žodis,” IV, 1926, p. 145.

¹⁰ Ibid.

11

Nuo būdvardžio rõdas, -à neatskirtinas u kamieno būdvardis rodus, -i, plg.: Vaikai labai rodùs kermošium Slm; Ar šienelis grėbt nubodo, ar namulio buvo rodu (d.). Kp. Su tais dviem būdvardžiais vėl susijęs prieveiksmis rodžiai „mielai“ MT 91 ir beasmenis veiksmažodis rodėti(s), plg.: Taip man rodėjo jį pamatyti Všk; Man rodėtus namo parvažiuoti Grž.

rõds < rõdas must be distinguished from the modal word rõdos (: rõdytis).

Only with the meaning of a modal particle has the hybrid form berõds become established in Lithuanian, cf.: It would apparently be a fine thing to catch a hare while it sleeps Skr.

Finally, the word tiesà is not used adverbially at all in contemporary standard Lithuanian. It functions only as an interjection—a modal word; it is understood as a nominative form, not an instrumental one.

Words considered adverbs derived from the neuter nominative-accusative of adjectives include daug (< daugia), maž (mãž) (< mažà). The former (daug) is used exceptionally intensively with a quantitative meaning; the latter, mãž (mãž), is a rather rare word, occurring mostly in colloquial speech. The adverb vis (< visa) derives from the neuter nominative-accusative of a pronoun and is fairly common both in writing and in colloquial speech. The rarity of the adverb mãž (mãž) can be explained by the tendency to use in its place the full neuter nominative-accusative form maža or the adverb mažai. The rather limited frequency of the adverb vis is due to the fact that adverbs visàd, visadà, visadõs, nuolāt, nuolatõs, among others, are also used alongside it, with the same or a very similar meaning.

Here is a selection of examples illustrating the use of the adverbs daug, maž (mãž), vis:

daug: He said a lot, but said nothing LKŽ II 210; There were very many people ib; It is much warmer in a fur coat ib; Many trees, few cutters ib 209; We threshed it with few people (there were only a few helpers) ib 210.

mãž (mãž): Our family eats little ib VII 960; Know much, speak little ib; Let us stay here briefly ib; The cows gave only a little milk ib; The wolf doesn’t care whether there are many or few sheep ib;

vis: The ice is always slippery, while it is always dark by the stove LKŽ; We keep drinking, keep drinking—there’s always more; we keep looking, keep looking—it’s always full ib; Always different little voices, always different stories ib; Perhaps she isn’t always so frowning ib; And beneath the window stands a little tree, so its berries are always sweet ib; All the winds blew—still they caught me; all the rains fell—still they drenched me ib.

All neuter nominative-accusative forms of adjectives or participles used as the predicate of an impersonal sentence undoubtedly approach the group of predicative adverbs. But these forms can also perform other functions: those of subject and object, and that of the nominal part of the predicate in a personal sentence. For this reason, and partly also because of tradition, these forms are retained in the category of adjectives.

Of all the nominative-accusative forms of neuter adjectives that have not been truncated, the most adverbialized should be considered little. In certain cases, the meaning and usage of this form coincide completely with the meaning and usage of the adverb little^¹, cf.: understands little || few people remained. The adverbialization of the forms little, like that of much, was especially likely to have been driven by a generalized quantitative meaning. The complete loss of case meaning facilitated the truncation of the forms little, much. It must only be said that the truncation of these forms is not

^¹ See Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences, Lithuanian Grammar I, Vilnius, 1965, p. 528.

12

uniform. Daugia is used only rarely in contemporary language (cf.: Whoever talks a lot knows little LKŽ II 213). This form is more common in older writings. Maža is used more often than the truncated form maž (mãž).

Some of the adverbs discussed here, especially maž (mãž), vis, have in certain cases shifted into the category of particles, cf.: It is hard to describe what that journey was like: it was almost eight when they finally got back LKŽ VII 960; They will help us even better than the children. Thus, one can speak of the adverbs maž (mãž), vis as well as particles of the same form (and sometimes even modal words, cf.: He got at least five cartloads of hay from the meadow LKŽ VII 960).

It is interesting that in the Kaniava dialect the preposition per forms prepositional constructions with nominatives of nouns denoting parts of the day, periods of the day and week, and seasons of the year, e.g.: per povakaris “during the late afternoon,” per rytas “in the morning,” per popietis “in the afternoon,” per mėnasis “during the month,” per nedėlia “during the week”, and so on. Cf.: I churned the butter and churned it all evening but didn’t get it to set; You kept me awake all evening; I mowed the whole meadow all afternoon; The cows eat like barrels all afternoon. The degree to which these constructions have become fixed—and thus have come closer to adverbs—should be noted.

A few adverbialized phraseological expressions or combinations that include nominative forms (sometimes truncated) should also be mentioned, e.g.:

laikas metas ‘it is time’: It is time, my daughter, to get into the cart (dial.) Pnn;

valia nevalia ‘willingly or unwillingly, whether you want to or not’: Willingly or unwillingly, she had to swallow it; even tears sprang into the old woman’s eyes ŽemR₁ I 242; Willingly or unwillingly—we’ll have to put another woman in her place ib 111;

gėda ant gėdos (solecism?) ‘a great disgrace’: It is a great disgrace not to know one’s parents’ language Sim;

visų geroji ‘the best’: To keep a pig, the best thing is to fatten it: it takes feed better than a sow does Vkš;

ši vieta ‘far away’: Where am I going to get to from here—it’s far Trgn;

kaip kartas ‘certainly’: That is certainly what it will be Tvr; It had certainly disappeared Ad;

kaip sykis ‘just as if on cue’: We had barely brought in the hay when, just as if on cue, it started to rain Nmk;

kas kartas: As the sun rose higher each time, it spread through the mist and shone more and more intensely Žem.

The following fixed or partly fixed expressions containing the words daug, maža, maž (mãž), vis should also be mentioned. Here are some examples:

tiek daug ‘at least, if nothing else’: If only the roads were known, it would be easy enough to get there, but now you’ll get lost LKŽ II 210;

vis tiek daug “anyway, no matter what”: Vis tiek daug kuo apsivilksi, bet tik nen(u)ogas ib;

daug maža “approximately, roughly, a little”: Daug maža savo kortą žinau ib;

“quite a lot”: Reikė išmokėt daug maža, bet neturėjo ib;

daug daug “as many as possible”: Daũg daug lig Velykų šieno jei užteks ib; Daũg daug jei gausi tris dešimtis (pūrų) ib;

maž maž “just barely”: Kad didysis mistras, pagrįžęs į Parusnį, ilsėjo, lietuviai maž maž neigavo pilė ib; “at least”: Pasėjau dešimtį pūrų avižų ir viliuos gausias maž maž penkias dešimtis pūrų ib; Antukui kelionė kaštuos maž maž penki šeši rubliai ib; Teipogi imk laivon visokio gyvio maž maž po du, patiną ir patelę ib;

maža ką “not much, a little, barely”: Kiaulės maža ką didesnės už ežius ib;

maža kiek “at least a little, barely”: Tai man ne vaikas, kad maža kiek prisikliaudai, tai ir verkia ib;

13

visa lygu “anyway” LKŽ;

vis ir vėl “constantly” ib;

vis ir vis “constantly” ib;

vis lygantis “anyway” ib;

vis lyg daug “anyway” ib;

vis lygu “all the same” ib;

vis tasià “anyway”: Vesk — vis tasià tau ib;

vis tiek “it doesn’t matter”: Vis tiek, ar mažas, ar senas ib;

vis tiekà “all the same” ib;

vis tiekaja “all the same”: Perhaps not all the same? ib;

vis tiekam “all the same”: We’ll perish all the same! ib;

vis tik tiek “all the same”:It’s all the same to me whether you come yourself or send him ib;

vis tojį “all the same” ib;

vis už vis “especially, most of all” ib;

vis vien “all the same”: I’ll go to him all the same ib;

vis vienà “all the same”: I have to do it all the same ib; In the old days the girl was worn out, but now she is as full as a barrel ib;

vis vientara “all the same”: It’s all the same to him ib; One says, “I prefer daytime,” another says, “I prefer nighttime,” and the third says, “It’s all the same to me” ib.

visa vientara “all the same” ib;

Compare also the conjunction and particle vis dėlto (“nevertheless”).

Sometimes the nominative of a numeral also functions as a component of an idiomatic expression; compare: trečia į vieną “anyhow, carelessly, superficially”:

He harrowed it haphazardly (whether he harrowed it or not), so it’ll grow, who knows Rš; Work, boy—you do everything haphazardly, as if just for yourself, and then things will be good for the others and for you too Lkm;

trečia pernai “a very long time ago”: The shoes haven’t been greased in ages ŽemR₁ I 403.

Compound adverbs arise from such expressions; compare:

kaskarts Val, Stn (< kas kartas);

kasmet Kurs (< kas metas): Go on, you fool, you complain about food every year Don;

every month (< every month): He gets paid every month Š (Dglš);

every morning (< every morning): Every morning he eats potatoes with milk Ob;

every week (< every week): Bread needs to be baked every week ib¹².

It is understandable that compound adverbs have also originated from the nominative-accusative of the neuter gender of adjectives: approximately (< a little much), more or less (< much a little), cf.:

approximately “roughly, almost, about”: We plowed approximately the whole fallow field; Approximately half the work remains LKŽ VII 967; Approximately three times as much still needs to be gathered ib; I have more or less learned it, but should still review it;

more or less: You are more or less as tall as your brother LKŽ II 219; Every reasonably educated person must read ib; The manor is about half a kilometer away ib.

In some places the adverb approximately means “somewhat, a little, at least somewhat, to some extent,” cf.: He understood somewhat of the guests LKŽ VII 960; The other brothers somewhat moved away ib;

12 In some cases the main component of these adverbs may also be a truncated singular accusative: every morning < every morning, every week < every week.

14

If you’re promising to give me roughly some money, then from my share let Stasiukas continue studying a little longer¹³.

Entirely individual formations also occur; cf.:

kadkādē (< kadā kādē) “sometime already, a long time ago”: Jau kadkādē kumeliukas nujunky(t)as Grž.

Thus, we see that cases of adverbialization of the nominative singular occur relatively infrequently in Lithuanian. Because of its strongly marked nominative, naming function, this case is hardly inclined at all to express circumstantial relations. Simple (uncompounded) nominal adverbs originating from the nominative singular gaila (negaila), ganà (neganà), garbė (negarbė), šlovė (nešlovė), gėda (ne gėda), laikas (ne laikas), metas (ne metas), sarmata (ne sarmata), valia (nevalia), žinia (nežinia)… are used mostly predicatively; only the adjectival adverbs daug, maž (mãž), mažà and the pronominal adverb vis, as well as the comparatively few idiomatic or other phraseological combinations that have become adverbs, also have circumstantial meaning.

ADVERBS DERIVED FROM THE NOMINATIVE SINGULAR

К. УЛЬВИДАС

Summary

The article examines the relationship between the nominative singular and adverbs, discusses cases of nominative-case adverbialization, and determines the meaning, formation, and use of adverbs originating from the nominative singular.

Analysis of the factual material shows that this case, given its strongly expressed nominative meaning, is poorly suited to expressing qualitative and circumstantial relations. The nominative singular is adverbialized only in exceptionally rare cases; consequently, the class of adverbs originating from this form is small, for example: gaila “it is a pity,” negaila “it is not a pity,” ganà “enough,” neganà “not enough,” garbė “glory,” negarbė “shameful,” šlovė “glory,” nešlovė “disgrace,” gėda “shameful,” ne gėda “not shameful,” laikas “time,” ne laikas “not the time,” mètas “it is time,” ne mètas “it is not time,” sarmata “shame,” ne sarmata “no shame,” valia “permitted,” nevalia “forbidden,” žinia “it is known,” nežinia “it is unknown.” As the examples show, these adverbs originated from the nominative singular of nouns with abstract meanings. A similar phenomenon is observed in other Indo-European languages, especially Slavic ones; cf. Russian время, грех, досуг, недосуг, лень, охота, пора, срам. As in other languages, in Lithuanian these adverbs are usually used predicatively. Only in very rare cases do some of those examined here

¹³ In volume VII of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, the adverb with this meaning, approximately, is listed after the adverb more or less, after a diamond symbol, as follows: more or less, that is, as a certain compound expression. Since both components here are truncated, it would be more accurate to write them together. The word approximately, used with the meaning discussed here, should be considered a compound adverb. Thus, approximately is an adverb used with two meanings, which can be briefly described as follows: “1. approximately; 2. a little.”

15

adverbs occur in the function of an adverbial of manner, e.g. Gėdos juk gana padarei giminei mūsų “You have indeed brought enough shame upon our kin” (Kristijonas Donelaitis). Naturally, the degree of adverbialization of these adverbs is not uniform. The fact that in some cases they form degrees of comparison provides partial evidence that certain forms are fully adverbialized, e.g.: sarmaciai “more shamefully,” valiau “more clumsily,” žiniau “better known.”

In the modern Lithuanian literary language, prepositional constructions with the nominative case that are adverbialized or undergoing adverbialization are not found. However, such constructions exist in some southern Lithuanian dialects. For example, in the Kaniava dialect (Varėna district), constructions with the preposition per “throughout” and the nominative case of nouns denoting times of day, parts of the day, weeks, etc., as well as seasons, are used; cf.: per rytas “all morning,” per vakaras “all evening,” per mėnasis “all month,” per vāsara “all summer,” per žiemà “all winter, during the winter.” The degree of adverbialization of these constructions must certainly be noted.

Adverbialized idiomatic expressions with the singular nominative are also relatively few in Lithuanian. Even expressions consisting of the pronoun kas “what” and a singular nominative noun with a temporal meaning, which are used only as adverbials of time, are not fully adverbialized in every case, since a modifier may precede their principal component; cf.: kas dienà “every day” and kas mielà dienėlė “every lovely little day”; cf. also: kas antrà dienà “every other day.” In the process of adverbialization, the principal component of such expressions usually loses its ending and merges with the pronoun into a single word, e.g.: kaskàrts < kas kàrtas “every time,” kasmėts < kas mètas “annually,” kasmėn < kas mėnuo “monthly”; cf.: kasryt < kas rytas “every morning,” kassy̆k < kas sy̆kis “every time,” kasvàkar < kas vāk aras “every evening”¹⁴.

The composition and formation of adverbialized idiomatic expressions with the singular nominative are most often of an individual character, e.g.: laikas mètas “(the) time has come,” valia nevalia “willingly or unwillingly, whether you want to or not,” visų gerõji “best of all,” ši vietà “far away,” trečià į vienà “superficially,” trečià pérnai “a very long time ago.”

¹⁴ It should be noted that in some cases the principal component of these adverbs may also be nothing other than a truncated form of the singular accusative, cf.: kasryt < kas rytą, kassyk < kas sykį, etc.

16