LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GRAMATIKOS TYRINĖJIMAI LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

ACCUSATIVE WITH PARTICIPLE IN 16TH–17TH-CENTURY LITHUANIAN TEXTS

(Distribution and relationship to the constructions of the originals)

V. AMBRAZAS

The traditional term accusative with participle (accusativus cum participio) generally denotes constructions consisting of an accusative noun or pronoun with an agreeing participle, following verbs that express sensation, feeling, perception, knowledge, speech, and the like, e.g.: I saw the child running, I hear you having returned. Such constructions are attested in many Indo-European languages, but over time they have changed or disappeared almost everywhere. Their domain of use has also narrowed in contemporary Lithuanian, and in many cases the participial accusative has been replaced by the adverbial participle¹. In old texts, however, the accusative with participle is used very extensively. More than that: the abundance and variety of these constructions may be regarded as one of the most striking syntactic features of our old literature. In old texts, the accusative with participle is often found in circumstances in which it is almost never encountered either in contemporary standard language or in dialects. Here are a few examples.

Asch szinau Ischgelbetoghi mana giwa santi. BrP II 40. Dūk mums jeib tikketumbime je Diewo Gimdiwe Sancže. RG 576. Numanai|tá Poná esanti Teisu|per šią išsilaicio nuog to ukinika ne weržusi|bátáig su loská io del pažadinusi. SE 75. Karalui Egypto pasakita buwa, Szmones ischbeguses. BrB II Moz 14,5. Anis tieklai szita giwáta būsenčią tiki. DP 584³¹. Asch... ludi|ju|tawę prijmamą MT 121^a. Nesa szinnat jau nu schū ciesu iawus isch lauko suwoktus. BrP 395.

Old texts are the principal, and in many cases the only, source from which we can gain knowledge of the structure and use of these constructions in the distant past. Their data must therefore be carefully checked and investigated.

The aim of this article is to survey the distribution of the accusative with participle in 16th- and 17th-century Lithuanian texts and to attempt to determine how the constructions found in them relate to the living language of that period.

Of the accusative constructions with participles, only those in which the participle has an attributive-predicative function will be considered here; many such constructions can serve as equivalents of subordinate clauses, cf. I see the neighbor ill and I see that the neighbor is ill. The term accusative with participle does not apply to expressions in which the participle

¹ For more on accusative constructions with the adverbial participle, see the author, “Baltistica,” IV (2), 1968, pp. 192 ff. On the accusative with participle, see E. Tangl, Der Accusativus und Nominativus cum Participio im Altlitauischen, Weimar, 1928.

41

the accusative is simply an attribute of a noun, e.g.: I met a neighbor who was seriously ill; attempts were also made to exclude such constructions when presenting the statistical data. However, because of variation in the punctuation of old texts and other factors, this distinction is sometimes difficult to make, and it is not easy to avoid subjectivity here. In general, an effort was made to set aside only those examples in which the participial accusative was unquestionably used as a simple modifier.

To determine the frequency of the accusative with a participle, the number of constructions in a single author’s sheet is counted; this is approximately 40,000 printed characters. That number is taken as an indicator of the frequency of the constructions in question.

The accusative with a participle is distributed very unevenly across various sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts. V. Falkenhan has noted that this construction is especially favored by J. Bretkūnas, while other authors use it less often². Since J. Bretkūnas’s writings make up the greater part of all sixteenth-century Lithuanian texts, and the largest of them—the manuscript of the Bible translation—has barely been studied to date, it is useful first of all to examine them.

In J. Bretkūnas’s Bible we find 1,191 constructions of the accusative with a participle. On average, about 12 constructions are used in a single author’s sheet, but their distribution across the various parts of the translation is highly uneven. Among the parts of the New Testament, the highest frequency indicators are found in Revelation (32.5) and the Gospel of John (20.5), followed by the Gospels of Mark (18.9) and Luke (17.1). Among the parts of the Old Testament, the accusative with a participle is most often used in the prophecy of Baruch (40), and in the books of Maccabees (32.5) and Judith (24), followed by Daniel (22.5), Ezekiel and Esther (20), Samuel (18.8), and Wisdom (18.1). On the other hand, these constructions are very rare in some parts of the translation. They occur least often in the Old Testament book of Proverbs (0.5), the Psalter (1.6), and Chronicles (5); their frequency indicator is almost twice below the average in Isaiah (6.7) and Sirach (6.9), and, among the parts of the New Testament, in Paul’s letters (6.5). Knowing the order in which the separate parts of the Bible were translated makes it possible to determine how the frequency of the accusative with a participle changed over the more than ten years spent translating the Bible. This change is shown in Table 1, which demonstrates that the frequency indicators for the constructions in question fluctuate greatly from the very beginning of the translation: in the parts translated in 1579–1580, between 6.5 and 32.5; in 1585, between 0.5 and 15; in 1586, between 4.1 and 24; in 1589, between 5 and 32.5; and in the very last year, 1590, they rise again from 7.1 to 40. Thus, the accusative with a participle is characteristic not only of the early³ but also of the later period of Bretkūnas’s work. The statistics show no steady decrease or increase in its frequency. If we compare its use in the New Testament, translated in 1579–1580, with that in a roughly equal-length portion of the Old Testament, from Joshua through Nehemiah (translated in 1589), we find that the difference in the number and frequency of constructions is not great (NT: 284 and 13.3; Josh–Neh: 238 and 11.3). As he was finishing the translation of the Bible, J. Bretkūnas sometimes used these constructions even more intensively than in the first years of his work.

² See V. Falkenhanhahn, Der Übersetzer der litauischen Bibel Johannes Bretke und seine Helfer, Königsberg und Berlin, 1941, p. 186.

³ Cf. V. Falkenhanhahn, ibid.

42

Table 1

Frequency of the accusative with a participle in Bretkūnas’s Bible

Translation year | Abbreviation of book | Frequency indicator | Translation year | Abbreviation of book | Frequency indicator | Translation year | Abbreviation of book | Frequency indicator 1579 | Luke | 17.1 | 1586 | Apocrypha | 11 | 1589 | GG | 10 | Lašk | 6.5 | | Judith | 24 | | Macc | 32.5 1580 | Rev | 32.5 | | Prov | 4.1 | | Job | 16 | Acts | 14 | | Wis | 18.1 | | Isa | 6.7 | John | 20.5 | 1589 | Josh | 9 | | Jer | 7.2 | Mark | 18.9 | | Judg | 9 | 1590 | Ezek | 20 | Matt | 10.7 | | Ruth | 15 | | Dan | 22.5 | NT | 13.2 | | Sam | 18.8 | | Bar | 40 | Ps | 1.6 | | Kings | 12.2 | | Minor Prophets | 7.1 1585 | Sir | 6.9 | | Chr | 5 | | Pentateuch* | 10.1 | Tob | 15 | | Ezra–Neh | 8.5 | | OT | 11.4 | Prov | 0.5 | | Est | 20 | | Total | 12

* The data for Genesis (I Moz), translated in 1588, are also included here.

In certain cases, the intensity of the use of the accusative with a participle can be linked to the style of the text being translated. It is easy to see that more of the constructions in question occur in passages dominated by epic narrative, and fewer in didactic and poetic sections. The high frequency of these constructions in Revelation and the books of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Baruch might be considered an exception; however, it can be explained by the frequent repetition here of very similar stereotyped constructions. For example, the construction And ye shall know that I am the Lord (the Lord) is repeated 51 times in the prophecy of Ezekiel, with minor variations (different tenses and moods, and sometimes different word order). Thus, in its distribution across the separate parts of the translation according to textual style, the accusative with a participle broadly corresponds to the absolute dative (cf. LKK V 50).

That the distribution of the accusative with a participle depends considerably on textual style is also confirmed by J. Bretkūnas’s hymnbook, in which this construction is relatively rare. Of course, a large proportion of the hymns there are reprinted from Mažvydas’s hymnbook, but the accusative with a participle is also much less common in the hymns translated by Bretkūnas himself than in prose texts.

To understand more clearly the relationship between the constructions found in J. Bretkūnas’s writings and the spoken language of the time, it is first necessary to determine to what extent their use may have been influenced by the originals used by the translator.

To clarify the influence of the originals, Bretkūnas’s Bible was compared with the 1549 edition of Luther’s Bible⁴, which appeared about a decade later than the 1537 and 1540 editions used by the translator himself (they were unavailable to us), and with the Vulgate,

⁴ Bible: That is: the entire Holy Scripture: German, newly revised. D. Mart. Luth. Wittenberg. Printed by Hans Lufft. 1549.

43

whose Old Testament text is presented according to the 1539 edition⁵, while the New Testament text follows E. Nestle⁶.

Since the technique of Bretkūnas’s Bible translation and its relationship to the originals have not yet been studied, several more general questions must first be addressed.

As is well known, J. Bretkūnas began translating the Bible from Latin and, judging from the note in the manuscript⁷, translated the entire Gospel of Luke in the course of a month in 1579. A comparison of the texts clearly shows that this part was indeed translated from the Vulgate. This is evident from the outset in numerous passages where Bretkūnas’s text corresponds word for word to the Vulgate and differs from Luther’s version (for example, compare 1, 2, 4, 6, 14, 17, 18, 19, 23, 37, 43, 44, 46, 48, 54, 62, 63, 2, 8, 9, etc.). However, some passages suggest that Bretkūnas also had Luther’s text at hand while translating and made use of it. There are sentences much closer to Luther’s version than to the Vulgate, and which probably could not have been translated directly from the latter; compare: Ne prabikite daugesnia neį padarita ira (above: prisakita ira dūti). 3,13 – Nihil amplius, quam quod constitutum est vobis, faciatis. – Foddert nicht mehr / denn gesetzet ist. Here, too, Luther’s text is indicated by the vocabulary: (Gwaltu) (above: Niewalios) ne wienam ne darikite, (pikta) nei ne tiesas. 3,14 – Neminem concutiatis, neque calumniam faciatis. – Thut niemand gewalt noch vnrecht. The translation of ecce as weisdek (1,31 and elsewhere) or dabakes (1,36), apparently prompted by the German text, cf. German sihe. Apparently, Bretkūnas also consulted the German text when it was difficult to translate a sentence directly from Latin because of idioms, constructions unfamiliar to Lithuanian, or similar reasons; in this connection, compare also: Weisdek, nescheze busi 1,31 – ecce concipies in utero – sihe du wirst schwanger werden. In addition, Bretkūnas divided the text being translated into paragraphs according to Luther’s Bible. Nevertheless, the principal source from which the Gospel of Luke was translated page after page was undoubtedly the Vulgate.

In the autumn of the same year, when he began translating Paul’s letters, Bretkūnas initially also tried to rely on the Vulgate, but translated only the first paragraphs from it (Rom 1,1–3) and changed the basis of the translation from that point onward. On the same page, after a small gap, the same text is repeated with the note Vel sic:, but this time translated from Luther’s Bible; the subsequent pages of the letters and the other parts of the New Testament were translated from it as well.

When translating the other parts of the New Testament, the Vulgate was only an auxiliary source for Bretkūnas. Here the spirit and letter of the German original are everywhere clearly perceptible. Only occasionally does the translator depart from Luther’s version and formulate a sentence according to the Vulgate, for example: Pravakas savo tiewischkeie garbes ne tur Jon 4,44 – ein Prophet daheim nichts gilt – propheta in sua patria honorem non habet; Wieschpatie, lei miekt, bus sweiks Jon 11,13 – Herr, schläft er / so wirds besser mit im – Domine, si dormit, salvus erit; compare also Cana in Galilee, John 4,46 – Cana in Galilea – Cana Galilaeae. The text of the Vulgate apparently helped Bretkūnas translate sentences containing idioms such as: Nesa bus, kaip (above: iog) Herodas tha Berneli ieschkos ant nuszavinimo Matt 2,14 – Denn es ist furhanden / das Herodes das Kindlin sueche / dasselb vmb zu bringen – Futurum est enim ut Herodes quaerat puerum ad perdendum eum, or: Nesa tu nebehuwa Matt 2,18 – Denn es war aus mit jnen – quia non sunt; Bei Iesus prawirka John 11,35 – Vnd Jhesu gingen die augen uber – Et lacrymatus est Iesus. However, individual sentences that were not translated directly from Luther are merely small islands in a continuous stream of paragraphs whose German basis for translation is beyond doubt. The Old Testament, too, was translated from German, though with occasional use of texts in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew⁸.

In the Late Latin from which J. Bretkūnas translated the Gospel of Luke, the accusative with participle (accusativus cum participio) is used quite frequently. Therefore, first of all, attention must be paid to the relationship between the accusative-with-participle constructions used by the translator

⁵ Biblia sacra Vvlgatae editionis Sixti Qvinti pont. max. ivssv recognita atqve edita Romae… MDXCIII.

⁶ Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Utrumque textum cum apparatu critico ex editionibus et libris manu scriptis collecto imprimendum curavit Eberhard Nestle, Stuttgart, 1921.

⁷ Po Luko ev. vertimo: Isch latinischko perguldita… Incepi vertere 6. die Martij Et absolui 30. Martij.

⁸ Žr. A. Bezzenberger, Beiträge zur Geschichte der litauischen Sprache, Göttingen, 1877, p. XVII; aut., LKK V, 1962, p. 37.

44

with the corresponding passages in the Latin text. Table 2 shows which Vulgate expressions J. Bretkūnas translated using the accusative with participle.

Table 2

The relationship of the translation of the Gospel of Luke to the Vulgate

Vulg | Accusative with participle: after see, hear, etc. | after find | after other verbs | Total number Accusativus cum participio | 11 | 15 | – | 26 “ “ cum infinitivo | 4 | – | 13 | 17 “ “ cum adjectivo | – | – | 1 | 1 Subordinate clauses with quod | – | – | 3 | 3 “ “ with quia, quoniam, etc. | – | – | 2 | 2 Total | 15 | 15 | 19 | 49

The table shows that Latin accusativus cum participio accounts for more than half of all Lithuanian equivalents of the accusative with participle. In all such cases, however, the accusative with participle occurs after verbs such as see, hear, find, and the like, which govern the accusative. In these constructions, the direct government relations between the verb and the accusative noun (pronoun) have not been severed, and the accusative can be regarded as the verb’s object, e.g.:

When you see a cloud rising from the west, you immediately say 12,54 – Cum videritis nubem orientem ab occasu, statim dicitis.

When he heard the crowd going ahead, he asked 18,36 – Et cum audiret turbam praeferentem, interrogabat.

As you enter, you will find a colt tied 19,30 – introëuntes invenietis pullum asinae alligatum.

With constructions occurring after say, know, and other verbs and linked to them only by phrasal government (as are explanatory subordinate clauses), the Latin accusativus cum participio is not translated. Bretkūnas most often used them to translate accusativus cum infinitivo or subordinate clauses, e.g.:

But whom do you say that I am? 9,20 – Vos autem quem me esse dicitis?

For I know that power has gone out from me 8,46 – nam ego novi virtutem de me exisse.

And they understood him to have seen the vision (emph.) in the church 1,22 – et cognoverunt quod visionem vidisset in templo.

But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth 5,24 – Ut autem sciatis quia Filius hominis habet potestatem in terra.

There is no example in the Latin original for such independent accusative-with-participle constructions in Bretkūnas’s translation, and their use could not have been directly influenced by it. In general, the accusativus cum participio is not characteristic of Latin in these cases; instead, the accusativus cum infinitivo is most commonly used. Meanwhile, it is precisely such independent accusative-with-participle constructions

45

Their abundance and variety are a distinctive feature of Bretkūnas’s language and that of many other early Lithuanian authors.

The extent to which the Latin original may have influenced the use of the accusative with a participle in passages translated from Latin can readily be tested by the contrastive method as well. For this purpose, we will compare the data in Table 2 with the data obtained by comparing with the Vulgate the constructions used in other parts of the New Testament translated from German.

Table 3

The relationship of other parts of the New Testament translation to the Vulgate

Vulg | Accusative with a participle: after verbs of seeing, hearing, etc. | after finding, leaving | after other verbs | Total Accusativus cum participio | 97 | 20 | 2 | 119 “ | “ | infinitivo | 9 | — | 22 | 31 “ | “ | adjectivo | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 Subordinate clauses with quod | 3 | — | 11 | 14 “ | “ | with quia, quoniam, etc. | 7 | — | 38 | 45 Other constructions | 12 | 1 | 8 | 21 Total | 129 | 22 | 83 | 234

The comparison clearly shows that in both cases the relationship between the Lithuanian constructions and the Latin accusativus cum participio is almost the same. In the translation of the Gospel of Luke, acc. c. part. accounts for about 53% of all Lithuanian equivalents of the accusative with a participle, while in the remaining parts it accounts for 50.9%. Their distribution by construction type is also analogous: the Latin acc. c. part. generally corresponds to constructions in which the accusative follows verbs such as see, hear, find, etc., and may be considered their object; only exceptionally does it correspond to an independent accusative-with-participle construction following other verbs. This further confirms that the Latin accusativus cum participio had no discernible influence on the use of Lithuanian accusative-with-participle constructions in the Gospel of Luke.

The relationship between the Lithuanian constructions and the accusativus cum infinitivo, as well as subordinate clauses, differs somewhat in the two cases. In the Gospel of Luke, acc. c. inf. accounts for 34.6% of the equivalents of Lithuanian constructions, whereas in the other parts of the New Testament translation it accounts for only 13.2%; by contrast, subordinate clauses with quod, quia, quoniam and other conjunctions are more than twice as frequent in them (10.2% in the Gospel of Luke and 25% in the other parts). In structure, Latin accusativus cum infinitivo constructions were closer to the Lithuanian accusative with a participle than were subordinate clauses, and thus they may have indirectly stimulated the use of the accusative with a participle in passages translated from Latin. Certainly, this stimulative effect of acc. c. inf. could only have been very slight. After all, in the Gospel of Luke translated from Latin, the frequency rate of the accusative with a participle is lower than in the Gospels of John or Mark, translated from German (20.5: 18.9), not to mention Revelation or such parts of the Old Testament,

46

such as the Books of Maccabees. There is absolutely no basis for speaking of any influence of acc. c. inf. on the structure or use of the Lithuanian constructions themselves.

To determine which German constructions J. Bretkūnas translated using the accusative with a participle, Bretkūnas’s Old Testament books from Joshua through Nehemiah inclusive were compared with the German original. They were translated consecutively in 1589 and are comparable in length to the New Testament (approximately 13 printed sheets). The results of the comparison are presented in Table 4.

Table 4

Relationship of the translation of the books of Joshua–Nehemiah to Luther’s Bible

LB | Accusative with a participle | after verbs of seeing, hearing, etc. | after finding, leaving, etc. | after other verbs | Total | Accusativus cum participio | 3 | 2 | – | 5 | „„ infinitivo | 26 | 5 | – | 31 | Subordinate clauses with dab | 66 | 1 | 112 | 179 | Other subordinate clauses | 3 | 3 | 5 | 11 | Asyndetic clauses | – | – | 9 | 9 | Other constructions | 1 | – | 2 | 3 | 99 | 11 | 128 | 238

With the exception of a few accusative constructions with part. perf. pass. (e.g.: they saw the body lying thrown in the road I Kings 13:25 – sahen sie den Leichnam in den Weg geworffen), the German text contained no expressions whose structure corresponded to the Lithuanian accusative with a participle. The construction closest to it was the accusativus cum infinitivo. However, the accusative with a participle corresponds to it only rarely, and only when it follows verbs such as see, hear, find, etc., with which it can be connected by government relations, for example:

I see a god rising from the earth I Sam 28,14 – Ich sehe Goetter erauff steigen aus der erden.

As if you heard one voice praising and giving thanks II Kron 5,13 – als hoeret man eine stimme zu loben vnd zu dancken.

They found Dagon lying face down on the ground I Sam 5,3 – funden sie Dagon auff seinem andlitz liegen auff der erden.

Thus, the relationship between Lithuanian constructions and the Latin and German accusativus cum infinitivo differs: the Latin acc. c. inf. most often corresponds to entirely independent accusative-with-participle constructions, whereas the German construction corresponds to those in which the accusative can still function as the object of a verb (in Luke, such constructions often translated the Latin acc. c. part.). This is explained by the different use of the acc. c. inf. in the languages in question: in Latin this construction is much more independent, whereas in German it is closely associated with verbs of particular lexical meanings that govern the accusative. As we can see, J. Bretkūnas sensed this difference and chose different linguistic means when translating in the two cases. Given the translation practices of the time, this demonstrates a very subtle linguistic sensibility on the translator’s part.

47

J. Bretkūnas most often translated German subordinate clauses, especially those introduced by the conjunction daß, using independent accusative-with-participle constructions in which no relation of government can be discerned between the verb and the accusative.

Ghis sawa akis pakiele, ir suprata, Wirą prisch sawe stowinti. Joshua 5:13 – vnd ward gewar das ein Man gegen jm stund.

Tadda regeia wissas szmones, ghi Maischa apaczoie ant Kuno turint! 2 Kings 6:30 – Da sahe alles volck/das er einen Sack vnten am leibe anhatte.

Bei Wiriausieghi neszinnoia, mane kur vejusi nei ką weikent! Nehemiah 2:16 – Vnd die Obersten wussten nicht/wo ich hin gieng/oder was ich machte.

In the original, some accusative-with-participle constructions also correspond to asyndetic sentences following a verb of saying or thinking, for example:

Nesa anis tars, mus nog ju beganczius, kaip pirm Joshua 8:6 – Denn sie werden gedencken/wir fliehen fur jnen/wie vor hin.

Idant szinnotumbit Mane sant! PONV 1 Kings 20:28 – Das jr wisset/Ich sey der HERR.

Sometimes, departing considerably from the wording of the original, Bretkūnas also used the accusative with participle to translate other German constructions, for example:

Iei r egesi Syrus mane apgalinczius, tadda tu man paschok 1 Chronicles 20:12 – Wenn mir die Syren zu starck werden/so kom mir zu huelff (Si vicerit me Syrus…).

Er nori schechūli deschimti trapu (marginal note: schinkšnių) toliaus aisenti (corrected to iog scheschūlis.... eitu) or deschimti trapu (marginal note: steps) backwards? 2 Kings 20:9 – Sol der schatten zehen stuffen forder gehen/oder zehen stuffen zuruecke gehen? (vis ut ascendat umbra…).

Ach welcziau Pona sawa essanti pas pranascha Samariaie 2 Kings 5:3 – Ach/das mein Herr were bey dem Prophete zu Samaria (Utinam fuisset dominus…).

Bretkūnas could have translated these expressions, like the subordinate and asyndetic sentences mentioned above, correctly while following the original more closely and not departing from it. After all, alongside the accusative with participle, subordinate clauses introduced by the conjunction jog, asyndetic sentences, and other constructions corresponding to German expressions were widely used in Lithuanian at the time, and they abound in Bretkūnas’s own translation. The original itself—a sacred text—encouraged the choice of these constructions, since according to the principles of the time it had to be translated as accurately as possible, “verbum verbo.” The German original not only failed to encourage the use of the accusative with participle but, on the contrary, strongly restricted it. And yet, overcoming the pull of the original, Bretkūnas often used the accusative with participle to translate a variety of quite different syntactic devices. This can be explained only by the very strong command this construction had gained in the translator’s own language.

Galininko su dalyviu produktyvumas dar labiau išryškėja Bretkūno Postilėje (1589), kurios viename aut. lanke vidutiniškai randame 37,8, o abiejuose tomuose — 719 konstrukcijų. Savo struktūros ypatybėmis ir vartosena jos maždaug atitinka Biblijos vertime randamas konstrukcijas. Tačiau jų vidutinis dažnumo rodiklis čia daugiau nei dvigubai didesnis, kaip Biblijoje, ir pranoksta rodiklius net tokių jos dalių, kuriose galininkas su dalyviu itin gausiai vartojamas (pvz.: Mak, Apr, Dan, Jon ir kt.).

How can this difference be explained?

48

The Postil was written at a time when the entire New Testament and some books of the Old Testament (Ps, Sir, Tob, Prov, Apokr, Judith, Pam, Job) had already been translated⁹. We observe no marked increase in the use of the accusative with a participle in the later parts of the translation compared with those translated before 1588; thus, factors related to chronology (e.g., the habit of regularly using certain constructions in particular circumstances, the automatization of their use, standardization) could not have played a major role here. However, when writing the Postil, Bretkūnas was less constrained by the sources he used. Although the Postil’s relationship to these sources has not yet been investigated, and the sources themselves are meanwhile unavailable to us, the nature of the text alone leads us to believe that the Postil is a compilatory work, original at least in part. Many passages in the book devoted to Lithuanian peasants and concerning their way of life, customs, illnesses, and misfortunes were undoubtedly written by Bretkūnas himself; elsewhere, it seems, “the commentaries of the most eminent theologians” were freely paraphrased. Less constrained by his originals, Bretkūnas could use his usual linguistic resources more freely here, including various participial constructions. For example, the absolute dative occurs here much more frequently than in the Bible translation (see LKK V 51–52); the same can be said of participial word groups with connecting words that function as equivalents of subordinate clauses, semi-participial constructions, and others. Thus, the high productivity of the accusative with a participle here is a regular phenomenon, associated with the overall system of participial-form usage and apparently grounded in tendencies of the spoken language.

To explain the frequent use of the accusative with a participle in J. Bretkūnas’s prose writings, V. Falkenhan advanced the hypothesis that the author may have been prompted by Old Prussian, which he had spoken from childhood¹⁰. We know nothing certain about the use of the accusative with a participle in Old Prussian. No such constructions have been recorded in surviving Old Prussian writings, although German expressions with an infinitive are sometimes rendered by participial constructions. We could suppose that Bretkūnas was influenced here by Old Prussian if the frequent use of the accusative with a participle were a specific, distinctive feature of Bretkūnas’s language, unlike that of other authors. However, having examined other writings of the period, we see that this is not the case.

B. Vilentas is close to Bretkūnas in his linguistic features. Excerpts from his “Gospels and Epistles” (1579), known as pericopes, are included in Bretkūnas’s Postil without significant changes. Although B. Vilentas’s writings are limited in scope and contain far fewer examples of the accusative with a participle, in frequency of use (12.8) the “Gospels and Epistles” almost match Bretkūnas’s translation of the New Testament (13.3) and slightly exceed the translation of the entire Bible (12). Thus, in translating parts of the New Testament, both authors used the accusative with a participle with approximately equal frequency. This similarity is all the more significant because both B. Vilentas and J. Bretkūnas translated from the same source—Luther’s Bible. The relationship between the constructions used by B. Vilentas and the original is shown in Table 5.

⁹ Plg. V. Falkenhahn, min. veik., p. 97 tt.

¹⁰ Žr. V. Falkenhahn, min. veik., p. 187.

4. Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos tyrinėjimai

49

B. Vilentas’s “Gospels and Epistles” in relation to Luther’s Bible

Table 5

LB

Accusative with a participle

after verbs of seeing, hearing, etc.

after rasti (“find”)’

after other verbs

Total number

Accusative with a participle

2

10

—

12

“ “ infinitive

20

4

—

24

Subordinate clauses with daß

5

—

6

11

Other subordinate clauses

1

—

—

1

Asyndetic sentences

1

—

7

8

Other constructions

5

1

2

8

34

15

15

64

B. Vilentas more often than J. Bretkūnas translated asyndetic sentences in the German original using the accusative with a participle, and somewhat less often translated subordinate clauses introduced by the conjunction daß (cf. Table 4). In addition, after the verb rasti ‘find’, B. Vilentas more often translated the original’s acc. c. part. These differences were apparently determined by the particular features of their individual translation techniques. In other cases, the data from comparing both translations with the original are similar. When using the accusative with a participle, B. Vilentas, like J. Bretkūnas, almost everywhere had to overcome the influence of the source language and go against the current. We will mention a few examples of this kind of translation, which demonstrate the productivity of the accusative with a participle.

For each one hears | them speaking in his own language 84 – Denn es hoeret ein jeglicher|das sie mit seiner Sprache redten Acts 2:6.

He is my Father… whom you say is your God 61 – welchen jr sprecht|er sey ewer Gott John 8:55.

But we hoped|he would redeem Israel 67 – Wir aber hoffeten|er solte Israel erloesen Luke 24:21.

That one… will come thus | as you saw him going into heaven 81 – wie jr jn gesehen habt|gen Himel faren Acts 1:11.

In B. Vilentas’s Enchiridion—a didactic booklet with very little narrative content—we find the accusative with a participle much less frequently; its frequency rate (5) here is similar to that in the books of Ecclesiastes (4.1), Chronicles (5), and Sirach (6.9) in Bretkūnas’s Bible, but higher than in the didactic book of Proverbs (0.5).

S. Vaišnoras used the accusative with a participle even more extensively than B. Vilentas. In his writings, most of which (“Žemczvga schwentoia raschta”, “Ape dvsches…”) were translated from Latin¹¹, while the smaller part (“Ape popieszischkaie missche”) was translated from German, the average frequency rate of this construction (20.2) is considerably higher than in Bretkūnas’s Bible. Vaišnoras is no less than Bretkūnas in the freedom and variety with which he uses the accusative with a participle; in his writings, this construction is almost never linked to verbs by direct government relations. Many of these constructions have a complex structure. Here are a few examples:

¹¹ See W. Witte, Der Übersetzer Simon Waischnoras d. Ae., I, Braunschweig, pp. 56 ff.

50

So that, having escaped the righteousness... and being openly approved, | we may truly justify faith, | and not let that true faith die, | but let it live and flourish in our hearts MT 92.

There is no need to doubt | that, together with the other disciples, they received from his mouth the body and blood of Christ MT 156^a.

(Wanderings) of the old Epicureans, | who found their world in their own thoughts | and said that it would perish with their own thoughts, | and that people | (245), like animals, | with soul and body, | vanish into smoke MT 245–245^a.

I say that I accept you on account of the Son, the Redeemer of the Church, | and the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier MT 122.

Although we do not have the Latin original of “Žemčiūgos,” the structure of the constructions used here itself allows us to conclude that the Latin accusativus cum participio could not have exerted any notable influence on them, since in those cases where Vaišnoras uses the accusative with a participle, the acc. c. part. is either entirely impossible in Latin or very rare. Another matter is the accusativus cum infinitivo construction, which in the Latin of that period was used in circumstances similar to those in which Vaišnoras’s writings use the accusative with a participle. Although different in structure, the acc. c. inf. here, as in passages of Bretkūnas’s Bible translated from Latin, may have somewhat stimulated the use of the accusative with a participle. In “Žemčiūgos,” translated from Latin, the accusative with a participle is more frequent than in the book “Ape popiežiškąją mišą.” However, the structure and use of this construction here are exactly the same as in original Lithuanian prefaces and in sections translated from German. Thus Latin could not have had a greater influence on the accusative-with-participle constructions in Vaišnoras’s writings.

As is known, S. Vaišnor(as) was one of the proofreaders of Bretkūnas’s Postil¹², while Zacharijus Blotnas, who wrote an original Lithuanian preface for Vaišnoras’s book, corrected the manuscript of Bretkūnas’s translation of the Book of Tobit¹³. In two passages of this book, subordinate clauses used by Bretkūnas were amended by Z. Blotnas in his own hand to the accusative with a participle.

And he did not know that he was an Angel of God (jog underlined, above: ghij Angelu Diewa essant(i?) 5,6 — wuste nicht | das der engel Gottes war (ignorans quod… esset).

Then Tobias called the Angel to himself, who said that he was a man (s crossed out, above: tikeia szmogumi santi) 9,1 — denn er meinet | es were ein Mensch (quem quidem hominem existimabat).

In the translation of the short Book of Tobit, in addition to these, there are 13 more accusative-with-participle constructions. However, Z. Blotnas apparently felt that Bretkūnas did not yet use them often enough, and considered it necessary to replace some subordinate clauses with this construction.

In other—poetic and didactic—sixteenth- and seventeenth-century writings of Lithuania Minor (by M. Mažvydas, J. Rėza, J. Rikovimaus, and others), the accusative with a participle is found less frequently (see Table 7).

The accusative with a participle is used in all the more important publications of that period that appeared in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, although not to the same extent as in the epic writings of authors from Lithuania Minor. Here, these constructions occur mainly

¹² See V. Falkenhahn, cited work, pp. 389 ff.

¹³ Ibid., pp. 255 ff.

4*

51

Examples are recorded in M. Daukša’s Postilla, but because of the text’s great length their frequency is low—it does not even reach 4.

Which expressions in the Polish original did M. Daukša, who came from the Middle Aukštaitian dialect, translate using the accusative with a participle, and to what extent could the original have influenced the use of this construction? To answer this question, Daukša’s Postilla was compared with the second (1582)¹⁴ and sixth (1617)¹⁵ editions of J. Wujek’s Small Postil (see Table 6).

Table 6

The relationship between M. Daukša’s Postilla and J. Wujek’s Postil

W

Accusative with a participle

after verbs meaning ‘see’, ‘hear’, etc.

after ‘find’

after other verbs

Total number

Accusativus cum participio

78

12

4

94

” ” infinitive

2

—

29

31

Subordinate clauses with the conjunctions że, iż, etc.

6

—

7

13

Other constructions

6

3

5

14

92

15

45

152

The relationship between the accusative-with-participle constructions in Daukša’s Postilla and those in the original in many respects recalls the relationship between Lithuanian and Latin constructions in Bretkūnas’s translation of the Gospel of Luke. In the original, the accusativus cum participio is usually matched here by constructions following verbs meaning ‘see’, ‘hear’, ‘find’, etc.; in most of them, the accusative can be regarded as the direct object of the verbs mentioned, e.g.:

Ir Pówillas girdėjo ij bilantį: kam mane persakioji? 196₃₄ — I Pàwel słyszał go mówiącego W₃ 333.

Nėssa tenai regių ilgimą sutrumpintą | platumą susėrintą | augsztiumą padàutą | giltumą sulgintą 399₁₇ — Abowiem tâm widzę długość skroconą | szerkość ścísnioną | wysokość poddāną | głębokość zrownāną W₃ 655.

And returning, he came and the second time found them sleeping 149₉ —... and again he found them sleeping W₂ 9.

M. Daukša more often uses more independent accusative-with-participle constructions when translating the Polish original’s accusativus cum infinitivo and subordinate clauses, e.g.:

They believe only this life to be 584₃₁ — they believe only this life to be W₃ 995.

Thereby all shall know that you are my disciples 142₃₆ — Then all shall know that you are my disciples W₂ 164.

The English saw an apparition | who said that he was alive 189₁₉ — who say that he is alive W₃ 322.

¹⁴ Postilla Catholliczna mnieysza... Przez Jakuba Wuyka... w Poznaniu Roku Pańskiego MDLXXXII.

¹⁵ Postille... Przez D. Jakoba Wuyka... w Krakowie... 1617.

52

When translating Polish acc. c. inf., changing the construction of the original was necessary, but M. Daukša could have rendered subordinate clauses with že, iż here, as in many other places in his book, as Lithuanian subordinate clauses. Since Daukša adhered strictly to the original and strove not to depart from it without good reason, such instances of paraphrase are significant and also indicate the productivity of the accusative-with-participle construction.

In Old Polish, acc. c. part. and especially acc. c. inf. were strongly influenced by the corresponding Latin constructions. This explains the similarity we observe when comparing the relationship of the constructions in Daukša’s Postilė and Bretkūnas’s Gospel of Luke to their originals.

That the accusative with participle was widespread in the East Aukštaitian dialects as well is evident from “Punktai sakymų” (1629–1644), where it is used almost twice as often as in Daukša’s Postilė (see Table 7). These works are convenient to compare because their styles are very similar. However, “Punktai sakymų” is largely an original work, and this probably contributed to the more frequent use of these constructions.

The Gospel excerpts in “Punktai sakymų,” known as pericopes, are borrowed from J. Jaknavičius’s “Evangelijos,” which also represents the East Aukštaitian dialect, but is already dominated throughout by an epic style. We might therefore expect a considerably greater number of the constructions under discussion here. In fact, however, they are less frequent here (frequency index: 6.8). Apparently, translation from Polish not only failed to stimulate but constrained the use of the accusative with participle. Here, as in Daukša’s Postilė, Polish acc. c. part. corresponds only to most of those constructions that are linked by direct government to the verbs see, hear, find and the like (15 examples); more independent constructions correspond to subordinate clauses with že, iż (5) and acc. c. inf. (2). Comparing the corresponding passages in the pericopes, one can observe that in “Evangelijos” the accusative with participle is also used where Daukša used a subordinate clause, cf.:

You say Beelzebub casts out devils Ev 49 (also SP II 43).— you said that I cast out demons by Beelzebub DP 117₄₀ (you say that I cast out devils by the power of Beelzebub).

However, in other places the two sources correspond closely, cf.:

Whom do people say the Son of Man to be? Ev 181 — Who do people say the Son of Man to be DP 465 (Whom do they say the Son… Quem dicunt homines esse Filium…); see also: Who do people say the Son of Man to be? VEE 142; similarly Ev 181 — DP 465 — VEE 142; Ev 67 (SP II 236) — DP 189²⁴.

In the writings of the Reformed Church of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in which the features of the Central and Northern Aukštaitian dialects are most prominent, the accusative with participle is used to varying degrees. In the largest of these works—Morkūnas’s 1600 Postilė—it is about three times less frequent than in M. Daukša’s Postilė. The relationship between the constructions and the original—the 1556 Postilė by M. Rėjus¹⁶—closely resembles that in M. Daukša’s Postilė and J. Jaknavičius’s “Evangelijos”: constructions dependent on the verbs see, hear, show and the like correspond to the original’s acc. c. part. (29 of 38; 9 correspondences are unclear¹⁷), while the more independent constructions, which are linked to verbs by direct government

¹⁶ Świętych słow ásprav Pańskich… Kronyiká álbo Postillá… krotce vczyniona… 1556.

¹⁷ Since the copy of Rėjus’s Postilė held in the Rare Books Department of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences is defective (some leaves have been cut out), it was not possible to find all the accusative-with-participle correspondences in it.

53

Accusative with a participle in 16th–17th-century writings (statistical data)

Accusative with a participle: | Sources | Extent (in quires) | pres. act. | past. act. | fut. act. | pres. pass. | past. pass. | fut. pass. | Total number | Number per quire

M. Mažvydas’s writings (1547–1570) | 6 | 8 | 8(10) | – | – | 3 | – | – | 19(10) | 3.1

B. Vilentas, “Enchiridion” (1579) | 1.2 | 6(2) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 6(2) | 5

B. Vilentas, “Evangelias bei Epistolas” (1579) | 5 | 53(5) | 3 | 1 | – | 7 | – | 64(5) | 12.8

J. Bretkūnas, “Biblija...” (1579–1590) | 100 | 826(110) | 223(31) | 60(16) | 17(2) | 65(14) | – | 1191(173) | 12

J. Bretkūnas, “Postilla...” I–II (1591) | 19 | 352(22) | 281(93) | 46(24) | 11(8) | 29(28) | – | 719(275) | 37.8

J. Bretkūnas, “Giesmes Duchaunas...” (1589) | 2.3 | 3 | 3(2) | 1 | 1 | 2 | – | 10(2) | 4.3

M. Daukša, “Postilla...” (1599) | 40 | 113(27) | 14(2) | 1 | 1 | 23(9) | – | 152(38) | 3.7

M. Petkevičius, “Katechism...” (1598) | 3.8 | 3 | 1 | 1 | – | 5(4) | – | 10(4) | 2.6

“Išguldimas Evangeliv...” (1573) (excerpts) | 1.2 | 1 | 4 | – | – | 1 | – | 6 | 5

S. Vaišnoras, “Margarita Theologica...” (1600) | 11.3 | 163(35) | 21(7) | 12(6) | 22(1) | 8(4) | 3 | 229(63) | 20.2

54

Table 7 (continued)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 „Postilla Lietuwizka“ (1600) | 41,5 | 33(2) | 4 | 1 | – | – | 12(2) | – | 50(4) | 1,2 J. Reza, „Psalteras Dowido“ (1625) | 5,4 | 7 | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | 8 | 1,5 K. Sirvydas, „Punkty sakimu...“ I–II (1629–1644) | 9 | 42(13) | 10(3) | 1 | 2(1) | 15(1) | – | 70(18) | 7,7 S. M. Slavočinskis, „Giesmes...“ (1646) | 3,6 | 15(2) | 5(4) | – | – | 10(4) | – | 30(10) | 8,3 „Kniga Nobanistes...“ (1653) | 5,5 | 11(3) | 4(2) | – | – | 1 | – | 16(5) | 2,8 „Summa... Ewangeliy...“ (1653) | 7 | 39(11) | 10(5) | 3 | 3 | 4,2 | – | 59(18) | 8,4 „Maldos Krikscioniszkos“ (1653) | 1,5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 0,6 S. B. Chylinskis, „Nowm Testamentum...“ (1658...) | 21,3 | 38(8) | – | – | – | 22(3) | – | 60(11) | 2,6 „Ewangelie Polskie y Litewskie...“ (1674) | 3,5 | 23(3) | 1 | – | – | – | – | 24(3) | 6,8 J. Rikovijus, „Naujos... Giesmių Knygos...“ (1685) | 6,5 | 15 | 5(3) | – | – | 2 | – | 22(3) | 3,3 D. Kleinas, „Naujos... Maldu Kny-geles...“ (1685) | 3 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | 0,6 | | 1754(343) | 597(162) | 127(46) | 57(22) | 210(71) | 3 | 2748(641)

Note. Constructions with a noun or pronoun in the accusative sometimes contain not one but two or several participle forms. In such cases, the number of accusative participle forms occurring in the third or a later position is given in parentheses.

55

cannot be linked; they correspond to subordinate clauses (usually with iš—5 examples) and the accusative with infinitive (4; another 4 correspondences are unclear). For example:

O nu ghi regi teip nuwárgintą | teip iszkruwinta₁₅₃₃₀ – and now he sees him so exhausted | so bloodied RP 105^a.

Sakie ghi giwa santi 164^a – they said | that he is alive RP 111.

Ponas... pádáre tą kálbeimą... kaip ghi tárp sáwe santi iszmánitu III 31^a₂₀ – as though they understood each other RP 300^a.

Almost all of Morkūnas’s more independent constructions in the Postil occur in pericopes taken from B. Vilentas’s “Gospels and Epistles” and merely edited by the translator¹⁸.

The accusative with a participle is used somewhat more frequently in Chylinski’s Bible (although here it occurs only after verbs that directly govern the accusative, such as see, hear, find, etc.) and in the “Book of Piety” (1653), while in the “Summa of the Gospels” (1653) its frequency rate (8.4) is even higher than in the “Punkty sakimu”.

The “Summa of the Gospels” stands apart from other Reformed writings not only through the much more frequent use of these constructions, but also because most of them (33 of 59) are independent, not linked to verbs by government, for example:

On the other hand, know full well | that it is not God’s but the devil’s teaching 73. Whoever loves something does only that | which he believes he will come to love 124. David... says | the foundations planted by them on the mountains 242–243.

A survey of the distribution of the accusative with a participle in the more prominent linguistic monuments of the 16th–17th centuries shows that it is related to the authors’ dialects. This construction is most frequently used in the writings of authors from the Western Aukštaitian and Samogitian dialect areas (J. Bretkūnas, B. Vilentas, S. Vaišnoras), and in the old literature of Lithuania Minor in general, which from its very beginnings was created on the basis of the Western Aukštaitian dialect. Later major works published there (e.g., S. Bytner’s New Testament of 1701, J. Quandt’s Bible of 1755, and even the Bible of 1823) are no less abundant and varied in their use of the accusative with a participle than J. Bretkūnas’s writings, and some even surpass them. For example, in the Book of Acts in the 1823 Bible we find 58 accusative constructions with participles and 15 with converbs (most of them entirely independent), so the frequency rate for the accusative with a participle (21.4) is considerably higher there than in the same book of Bretkūnas’s Bible (14), even without counting the aforementioned converb constructions. Authors from the Eastern Aukštaitian dialect area also use the accusative with a participle quite intensively. In writings based on the Central and Northern Aukštaitian dialects, this construction is less common, although in some (for example, the “Summa of the Gospels”) its frequency curve rises sharply again.

If we now look at the dialects of present-day Lithuanian, we will see a fairly similar picture. The construction in question is used most widely by Samogitians and Western Aukštaitians, but here, instead of accusative participles, we much more often find indeclinable forms—converbs. Among Eastern Aukštaitians (especially in folklore), this construction is still fairly popular, although less common and already tending to become fixed, while in the Central Aukštaitian dialects it is very rare or no longer used at all. The intensity of use of this construction is especially-

¹⁸ The two copies of Morkūnas’s Postil held in the manuscript section of VVU are missing their last 46 leaves. The author is unaware of their contents.

56

The dialects of the Northern Western Highlanders who lived in the former territory of East Prussia stand out in particular. This is clearly evident from the folklore recorded in the area of these dialects by C. Jurkšaitis, V. Kalvaitis, and other collectors, where the construction in question occurs literally on every page. Thus, the area where the accusative with a participle (gerund) is most widespread coincides with the area of intensive use of the absolute dative (cf. LKK V 51 ff.) and other archaic participial constructions.

Conclusions

1. The accusative with a participle is attested in all the more significant linguistic monuments of the 16th–17th centuries and is used in them much more intensively than in contemporary Lithuanian. This construction is most productive in the prose writings of authors representing the Western Highlander and Samogitian dialects—J. Bretkūnas, B. Vilentas, and S. Vaišnoras.

2. Comparison of the translated writings of J. Bretkūnas, B. Vilentas, M. Daukša, J. Jaknavičius, and other authors with their originals shows that the accusative with a participle was used in Old Lithuanian literature independently of the influence of other languages. Authors most often used this construction to translate subordinate clauses in German, Latin, and Polish originals, accusativus cum infinitivo, and, only in certain cases, accusativus cum participio. Latin originals stimulated its use only here and there, whereas German and Polish originals generally restricted the use of the accusative with a participle.

3. The use of the accusative with a participle in the Old Lithuanian literary language is grounded in living speech, and its distribution across different texts reflects the dialectal tendencies of that period.

THE ACCUSATIVE WITH A PARTICIPLE IN 16TH–17TH-CENTURY LITHUANIAN TEXTS

(Distribution and relationship to the constructions of the originals)

V. AMBRAZAS

Summary

The accusative with a participle (accusativus cum participio) in Old Lithuanian written texts is distinguished by its wide range of use and high productivity. The article examines the spread of this construction in almost all sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts available for study (excluding dictionaries), taking into account the relationship between translated texts and their German, Polish, and Latin originals.

Based on a statistical analysis of constructions, using an exhaustive selection of examples extracted from Old Lithuanian texts, it was established that the accusative with a participle is most characteristic of authors who represent the Western Aukštaitian and Samogitian dialects (I. Bretkūnas, B. Vilentas, S. Vaišnoras). The area where this construction is most widespread approximately coincides with the area of intensive use of the dative absolute and other archaic participial constructions, and, in the modern language, with the area where the accusative with a gerund is used.

57

A comparison with the originals of translated texts (I. Bretkūnas’s Bible manuscripts, M. Daukša’s Postilla, the anonymous Postilla of 1600, translations by B. Vilengas, I. Jaknavičius, and others) showed that the accusative with a participle in Old Lithuanian written texts does not depend on the influence of other languages. German, Polish, and Latin subordinate clauses are most often translated by means of this construction. Some constructions associated with verbs taking a direct object correspond to accusativus cum participio in Latin originals; however, this construction did not noticeably influence the freer use of the accusative with a participle. In translations from Latin, only the stimulating effect of the construction accusativus cum infinitivo can be traced. Polish and German originals, by contrast, hindered the adoption of the accusative with a participle in translated works. The accusative with a participle is usually used more frequently in original works than in translations by the same author (cf. the ratio of 3:1 in I. Bretkūnas’s Postilla and Bible).

The widespread use of the accusative with a participle in Old Lithuanian texts is grounded in spoken language and reflects the dialectal features of Lithuanian during the period under study.

Data comparing translated texts with their originals, as well as statistics on the distribution of the constructions under study, are presented in Tables 1–7.