LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GRAMATINĖ SANDARA LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

ON THE ADVERBIALIZATION OF SINGULAR LOCATIVES

K. ULVYDAS

Of all parts of speech, singular locatives come closest to adverbs in their meanings and syntactic function: this is especially true of the singular inessive forms of nouns, with their full or reduced endings. Nevertheless, the process by which these locatives become adverbial is not active in contemporary Lithuanian. This can be clearly seen by observing the use of the noun singular present internal locative (inessive), which has been preserved most robustly in the inflectional system, both in colloquial folk speech—the dialects—and in the literary language.

Like adverbs, which most often function in a sentence as expressions of place, and sometimes of time or even manner, and attach mainly to verbs, noun singular inessives, generally speaking, do not show a strong tendency to break entirely away from the general inflectional system or to become semantically isolated from other cases of the same word. Thus, the adverbs used in contemporary Lithuanian that derive from noun singular locatives (especially adesive, allative, and illative forms) are for the most part products of linguistic development in past periods.

In surveying the formation of locative adverbs, it is most appropriate to follow the order established for classifying the locatives themselves. Besides the present internal locative (inessive), which is widely used both in colloquial folk speech—the dialects—and in the literary language, three other locatives are distinguished: the directional internal (illative), the present external (adesive), and the directional external (allative). Each of these locatives also has corresponding adverbs.

1. Present internal locative

(inessive)

Of all the locatives, the inessive has proved the strongest and most vigorous in the history of the Lithuanian language. To this day, it has survived in the inflectional systems of both colloquial folk speech—the dialects—and the literary language. The inessive most often answers the questions: where, in what place is something done, exists, happens..? It expresses various kinds of interior location and space, not

6

of space, relations. As in other Indo-European languages (e.g., Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian), the inessive in modern Lithuanian sometimes also expresses temporal relations. In certain cases, the temporal meaning of the inessive of some words is intertwined with its locative meaning. Occasionally, the inessive acquires a manner or accompaniment meaning, and it is also used predicatively, with a meaning of state.

In modern Lithuanian there are singular inessives of two origins and morphological structures: postpositional and non-postpositional. At the outset of the formation of the postpositional inessive, the function of the postposition itself was performed by *en. Over time, this postposition merged completely with the case ending itself and eroded or disappeared. The postposition *en is attested by forms in East Aukštaitian dialects such as galì ‘at the end’, miški ‘in the forest’, where — i indicates the presence of a nasal sound at the end, originating from the acute diphthong én. In the case system of modern Lithuanian, only the postpositional inessive has become established. Therefore, we will first review its relationship to adverbs and the instances of its adverbialization according to individual stems.

a s t e m

As already mentioned, the process of adverbialization of noun locatives is not active at all in modern Lithuanian, and postpositional inessives are particularly resistant to adverbialization.

Among these, only a few forms have come somewhat closer to becoming adverbs, such as laukė ‘in the open air, not indoors’ (In the open a i r a fine rain was sprinkling, but so heavily that water was streaming in jets from all the eaves ŽR I 150.), orė ‘ditto’ (O u t d o o r s the frost is crackling Bien.), stulpė ‘like a pillar’ (The old woman tends and cuddles the child, while it, turned blue, froth coming from its mouth, its little eyes fixed, raises its legs and arms as if someone had seized and twisted it—terrible to see ŽR II 268.), vakarė ‘in the evening’ (In the e v e n i n g all the authorities of Pagramantis passed into the hands of the people CvR IX 214.); compare also adverbial expressions such as yesterday evening, today evening, tomorrow evening, late evening, and so on.

Although the inessives listed here are most often classified as adverbs in linguistic literature, it should be said that none of them has completely severed its connection with the noun: other noun cases continue to be used alongside them. Semantically, only some of these inessives have become somewhat isolated from nouns; compare laukas ‘field, plot of land, parcel’ (We will sow barley in that f i e l d Šlap.), on the one hand, and laukė (It is raining o u t d o o r s Šlap.), on the other. In the latter case, not only is any modifier impossible, but the meaning of the inessive itself is more general and abstract than in the sentence We will sow barley in that f i e l d. Semantic isolation and the inability to take any modifiers have led all linguists who have discussed inessive adverbs in their work to regard the form laukė ‘in the open air, not indoors’ as an adverb. The inessive orė, with the same meaning, is exactly similar in nature. Quite different is the form stulpė, which has no independence on its own in the sentence cited above and becomes clear only together with the noun little eyes, with which it forms an integrated image. In turn, vakarė likewise

7

is also used without any modifiers, unless we count the adverbs yesterday, today, tomorrow, late in the adverbial expressions mentioned above, which emphasize and specify the temporal concept expressed by it.

To expand the group of inessive adverbs derived from a-stem nouns, one could also include rytė ‘in the morning, in the morning, at dawn’. J. Otrębski, in his description of the Tverečius dialect (p. 419), also considers kraštė ‘to the side, at the edge’ an adverb. However, these words too (especially kraštė, which is also used with agreeing modifiers) have not completely detached themselves from nouns and have retained their nominal character.

Also to be included here is the Dzūkian form išgrytė: ‘in the morning, in the morning, early in the morning’ (I leave early in the morning Lp.); compare the noun išgrýtas, formed in the same way, which is used alongside the aforementioned adverb in the Dzūkian dialect (Mrk, Rod).

ia stem

Derivatives with the ia stem are weak in their degree of adverbialization, e.g.: rytėly „in the morning, in the morning hours“ (Rytoj ryte ly ankščiau saulės iškeliausiu į kelionėlę BsO II 191.), šviesy(je) „with light“ (Nieko šviesų nepasi darai, tai paskui tu čia atlikinėk patamsy! Krsn.), vakarėly „in the evening“ (Vakar vakarėly pioviau gaigalei d.), and so on.

E. Fraenkel, in his work „Syntax der litauischen Kasus“¹, considers viduryje an adverb, but this form shows no semantic isolation from the noun vidurys, whose other cases are all used with the same lexical meaning. Moreover, it can take both agreeing and non-agreeing modifiers (cf. pačiame viduryje, apskritimo viduryje), which further reinforce the inessive’s meaning (as a case) and emphasize its nominal character. It is true that viduryje (vidurį, vidurų, vidūrį) is sometimes used prepositionally (Vieną ilgesnę lentą perpiovė, padėjo vidury aslos ant dviejų kėdučių, užklojo audeklu CvR VIII 180. Tik vidury nakties tam- sybių okeanuos viena žvaigždė kaip deimantas nušvito... MntvR 137. Vidur tamsios naktužėlės d.), but this use of the inessive does not show that it belonged to the adverb category before becoming a preposition, since, as already noted, some nouns can pass directly into the preposition category, bypassing the adverb category. Finally, the shortening or complete loss of this inessive’s ending (viduryje>vidury>vidurų>vidūrų), which is otherwise characteristic of many adverbs derived from nominal forms, does not keep it in the adverb category, but leads directly to the preposition category. And even after becoming a preposition, vidur does not break its semantic connection with the noun vidurys. That the truncated inessive, which has turned into a preposition, vidurų is not easily detached from the noun is shown by an interesting expression of Žemaitė: pačiame vidurdang aus (Saulė stovėjo pačiame vidurdang aus... ŽR I 202.), where the modifier pačiame is syntactically related not so much to the whole highly individual compound vidurdangaus,

¹ „Tauta ir žodis“, t. 5, Kaunas, 1928, p. 128, 147.

8

as to its first element vidur — (cf.: pačiame viduryje dangaus or pačiame dangaus viduryje).

Inessives of nouns whose lexical meaning itself is associated with notions of time or place generally become adverbial or occupy an intermediate stage between nouns and adverbs, e.g., amžų „never“ (Aš ámžy nebuwau girtas Alk.), daiktų „at the thing, in a place, together“ (Popiet visi daiktų dirbome Šlap.). Both ámžų and daiktų can take modifiers (e.g.: savo ámžų, šitam daiktų), and then, of course, their adverbial character is further weakened. However, when used with the aforementioned meanings without any modifiers, their adverbialization is unquestionable. In particular, daiktų has become detached from the noun daiktas not only semantically, but also through its changed stem (the noun *daiktys has not been found either in those dialects where daiktų is used, or in the language as a whole).

Of all the inessive adverbs with an ia stem, the greatest degree of adverbialization is exhibited by rytój (rytó), tójas, from the old inessive rytáje. Its complete adverbialization is also shown by the fact that the ending -e has disappeared in all uses in the present-day language.

Examples of prefixed inessive adverbs with an ia stem include words used predicatively to denote a state rather than a place or time, such as atgiminý, atgimminý (Tai jau atgiminý (says the listener, surprised that the relatives have quarreled)? Cf. Pirma labai giminia-vos, o dabar at-gimgiminy! ib.).

There are many prefixed nouns whose inessive (especially in written language) is used somewhat more frequently than their other cases. Because of their locative or temporal meaning, and also their adverbial function in the sentence, their inessive forms do show some tendency toward adverbialization, but they do not become fully adverbial, e.g.: padirvyj ŽR II 225, pakely VnIP 425, nepakely ib 423, paprūdy ŽR II 311, pasienyje ib 252, pašalyje ib 131, pašermeny CvR VIII 214, patamsyje Llkž, patvoryje ŽR II 424, pavakaryj ib 67, pavasarėlyj ib I 188, pavasary LKŽ s. v. gairinti, prieky SNėrP II 291, priešakyje ŽR II 380, pryšakyje Rtr, užpakalyj ŽR I 176, užžpakalyj SD (s. v. poslad), užstaluj ŽR II 305, užungnyj ib 314, užvejyj ib 218, and so on.

Some foreign linguists classify such inessives (especially those associated with locative meanings) as adverbs. For example, E. Fraenkel² considers the inessives pryšakyj, užpakalyj adverbs; regarding forms such as pakaltyje, pamūryje, pasienie, paupie (taken from written sources rather than directly from dialect speech), and the inessives pakelyj, pasrovyj, etc., he observes that they too are fully adverbialized and that other cases alongside them are generally scarcely possible.

However, it must be said that such reasoning is possible only if one relies more on written sources than on facts from living, colloquial folk speech, or attributes the tendencies of one’s native language to phenomena in another language. Living speech shows something else here; it leads us to a quite opposite conclusion, na-

² See his Syntax der litauischen Kasus, „Tauta ir žodis“, vol. 5, p. 147.

9

tent: in most cases, other cases are also used alongside the inessives under discussion, so the adverbial character of these inessives is relatively slight. Thus, their unconditional assignment to the category of adverbs would be nothing but dry schematism. On the other hand, one cannot ignore the clearly initiated process of adverbialization in at least some of these inessives. The incipient process of fossilization is indicated by the intensive use of the inessives in comparison with other cases, as well as by their tendency not to take agreeing modifiers, as can readily be confirmed by observing the language of written texts. However, as long as no more pronounced semantic isolation from the basic meaning of the word is felt, and as long as other cases of the corresponding word are used, or are potentially possible, alongside the inessive with the same meaning, one cannot speak of complete fossilization.

The relationship to adverbs is entirely similar in the case of inessives of such disyllabic nouns as galūgalų “at the head end” Dgls, galikojų “at the foot end” ib, galudaržy “at the end of the garden” Sml, galūdieny “in the final days of pregnancy” Bsg, galūdirvy “at the edge of the field” Pc, galuežery “at the end of the lake” Ds, galūkaimy “at the end of the village” Pc, paklėtsaly ŽR II 484, paskuigaly “at the end, behind something” Biën, pirmagaly “at the front, ahead of something” OG 419, puskel y “halfway along the road” ŽR I 115, rytmetyj ib II 298, savit arpyj “among themselves” ib 53, tarpduryj ib 65, tarpusa avyj “among themselves, in their midst” CvR VIII 41, vidūdieny Bien, vidūnakty ib, vidūnedely “in the middle of the week” ib, vidūvasary ib, vidū-žiemų ib, and so on.

J. Otrębski³, understanding the category of adverbs very broadly, classifies inessives such as paskuigaly, pirmagaly, vidūdieny as adverbs. However, given that alongside these inessives not only are other cases of the same word potentially possible, but they are also actually used, and that no semantic isolation of the inessive from the other cases is apparent, it would be more appropriate to regard them as somewhat fossilized noun forms.

o-stem

Inessives of other stems, too, are difficult to detach from the noun and from the meaning of thinghood. Some linguists classify o-stem forms such as dienoję⁴, krūvoj, kupeto⁵, mėnesienoj⁶ as adverbs. In fact, they are merely on their way to becoming adverbs, since here, too, other cases are widely used alongside the inessive. The meanings of time alone (dienoję, mėnesienoj) or companionship (krūvoj, kupeto) cannot yet determine their adverbial status, because other cases, such as the nominative, have retained those meanings as well. Of course, the very limited possibility of taking agreeing modifiers inclines these inessives toward adverbs, just as it does some other inessive forms associated with temporal or spatial meanings, e.g. senyboj “in olden times” Bien,

³ Žr. jo Wschodniolitewskie narzecze twereckie, Kraków, 1934, p. 419.

⁴ J. Plākis, Leišu valodas rokas grāmata, Rīgā, 1926, p. 84.

⁵ E. Fraenkel, Syntax der litauischen Kasus, „Tauta ir Žodis“, t. 5, p. 147.

⁶ J. Otrębski, Wschodniolitewskie narzecze twereckie, p. 419.

10

tamsoje “in the dark” CvR VIII 177, tolumoj ib 103, tvarkoj VnlP 183, vėjoje TŽ V 147, ne vietoje ŽR II 457, and so on.

Some inessives of prefixed o-stem nouns exhibit a markedly higher degree of adverbialization, e.g. aplinkoj “around” Pls, apčiupoj “in the dark, groping about” N, apyžlėjoj “in the twilight” Krtv, toj įtampoj “without warning” Gl, intimpoj (įtimpOj) “the same” Kpr. But even here, the greatest intensity of inessive use does not always determine its adverbialization. For example, the inessive of the noun sambareška is used most often in literary language, yet we cannot regard it as fully adverbialized, since the nominative and other cases remain possible.

In exactly the same way, the inessive of the two-stem noun akivaizda (akývaiz-da), used more intensively than the other cases in both colloquial speech and literary language, does not become an adverb, because it is usually syntactically governed by other words (cf. in my presence, in everyone’s presence, etc.).

Only forms such as aplinkoj, intim-poj (įtimpOj) and the phrase toj įtampoj have become completely isolated from the inflectional system of their base words and fully adverbialized.

io stem

There are also very few inessives of the io stem that have finally become detached from the noun. Forms such as žiniojė “in a familiar place” (Viską pasidėti žinioje Llkž.), apačioje (apačioj), nedėlioje (nedėlio(i) Šlap) “on Sunday” ŽR II 184, palaidžioj “in the thaw” Ds, pradžioje, užvėjoje, and so on, although sometimes regarded as adverbs (e.g., apačioje), are nevertheless shown not to be such by the presence alongside them of other cases that retain the same lexical meaning of place or time. On the basis of meanings of place or time alone, these inessives cannot be artificially separated from nouns, since such meanings are characteristic of the absolute majority of inessive forms.

In deciding the question of the adverbialization of inessives, one must consider the extent to which each form has undergone semantic isolation—that is, how far it has become semantically detached from the lexical meaning of other cases of the same word and how far it has become detached from the inflectional system. It is precisely by looking at such inessives as b a s i n y č i o j “barefoot” Jnšk, bąsnyčioj “same” Kp, that their complete adverbialization becomes apparent.

ė stem

Inessives of nouns with an ė stem, too, often occupy an intermediate stage between nouns and adverbs, e.g.: dešinėj “on the right side,” draugėj “together, in company,” kairėj “on the left side,” pusėj “partly, having divided it in half” (Kas čia do per gyvenimas pusėj, kas do per apgaulė?! ŽR I 382.), savėje “among one’s own, one’s close relations” CvR VIII 124, 149, apynamėj “around the house” Pg, apytemėlėj “near dusk” Grž, pakaimėje “near the village” CvR VIII 179, pakelėj “along the roadside, on the way” ib 181, pakojėj “underfoot” Dgl, pavakarėj “in the late afternoon” ŽR II 266, and so on.

11

In their meanings of place and space, time, and companionship, these inessives are likewise close to adverbs, especially those without prefixes. However, in the degree of their adverbialization they cannot be compared at all with such two-stem forms as bašiautėj (bastautėj Bien) “barefoot” Tvr, vienomarškinėj “wearing only a shirt” Bien, vienõplaukej “without a hat” ib, since no other cases are used alongside the inessives of the latter forms. In this way, these inessives have fallen out of the inflectional system and become fully adverbialized. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that the nouns *basiautė, *vienomarškinė, *vienoplaūkė never existed at all, and that these two-stem adverbs are products of analogy.

i and u stems

Among nouns with an i stem, the inessive of the noun šalis “side,” šalyje “beside,” has completely passed into the adverb class; in colloquial speech the shortened forms šalyj, šalý are more common and are also used prepositionally. Likewise, all linguists regard the inessives vidujė, viršujė of nouns with a u stem as adverbs (their most commonly used shortened forms are viduj, viršuj). These inessives, especially in their shortened forms, were already used prepositionally in the language of 16th–17th-century texts (cf.: viduj manes Mž 478, v i d u j dienų mano ib 475, v i d u j neprietelių tavo ib 457, paukščia telekioja v i r š u j žemės Ch 1 Moz 1, 20.).

Although, alongside the inessive adverbs mentioned here, the language also has other cases of their base words (the nouns from which those adverbs developed), the inessives are nevertheless characterized by a more generalized and abstract meaning of spatial location or time, which most likely accounts for their adverbial character. On the other hand, it should be noted that even these inessives do not readily become detached from nouns: in expressions such as inside the side, at the top of the stem or right at the top, their nominal use is still evident; this is reinforced here by the non-agreeing modifiers of the side, of the stem, which are linked to them by government, and by the agreeing modifier right at, which is linked by agreement.

In addition to the postpositional inessive mentioned here, Lithuanian once also had what is called a non-postpositional inessive in its inflectional system. This old non-postpositional inessive is attested in other Baltic languages as well, and its equivalents are also found in other Indo-European languages. J. Endzelīns⁷ considers the Old Prussian form bitai “in the evening” to be an inessive (in his terminology, a locative), where -ai< corresponds to IE -o-i; cf. Greek οἴκοι “at home,” πέδοι “on the ground, on earth,” Ἰσθμοῖ, Σφηττοῖ, Old Church Slavonic vlьcě “in the wolf,” rocě “in the hand.”

As in the ancient Prussian or Greek languages, this inessive occurs in Lithuanian only in adverbialized forms: ankstie, artie, namie, orie “outdoors,” tolie, where ie< corresponds to -e-i; cf. Greek οἴκει “at home.” The distribution of these inessives across individual dialects was apparently not uniform. More remnants occur in the Samogitian dialect, where in certain cases -ie (=Samogitian -ei) may even be regarded as

⁷ J. E n d z e l ī n s, Baltu valodu skanas un formas, Rīgā, 1948, p. 116.

12

an adverb-forming ending or formant, encompassing not only nominal but also adjectival, pronominal, and even participial derivatives, e.g.: šaltie “when the weather is cold,” šiokie “in such-and-such weather, at such-and-such a time,” dulkantie “when it is very dusty, when there is a lot of dust.”

The common formant of all these derivatives—the former inessive ending -ie—groups them together into a single type. The adjectival, participial, and pronominal derivatives of this type approach the nominal ones not only morphologically but also semantically. One might therefore suppose that all non-nominal adverbs with the formant -ie developed from two-word phrases in which the second constituent was some noun, eventually dropped, leaving its nominal coloring on the remaining word of the phrase (which later became an adverb). Because of their morphological and, most importantly, semantic similarity, both nominal and non-nominal adverbs originating in the non-postpositional inessive are discussed together—not separated into different parts of the article.

Alongside the formant -ie, another formant of the same origin also appears—-i (anksti, arti, toli). Both the adverbs ankstie, artie, tolie, and anksti, arti, toli are old non-postpositional inessives of a-stem nouns (historically o-stem), as K. Būga⁸ argues, or of substantivized adjectives aṅkštas, aĩtas, tōlas. The nominal meaning and use of these words, as well as their closest connection with adjectives, are still evident in indivisible phrases used adverbially in sentences, such as iš anksto, nuo anksto, už anksto “in advance,” pro ankštą, nuo ankščiausio, iš arto, nuo arto, iš tolo, nuo tolo. K. Būga gave the most plausible explanation of how -i arose alongside the formant -ie in parallel adverb forms: “Both Lithuanian forms—tolie and toli—developed from a single underlying form, tále:i (á is long and has the accent known as ‘acutus’; the word is stressed on the final syllable, i.e. -ei). From the form tále:i, the modern form toliẽ must have developed in the inflectional system; for a long time it served as a noun and eventually became an adverb. But that tálei which had already become an adverb from a noun in remote antiquity must have changed its accent long ago, that is, become the form *tále:i. Nothing other than the modern word toli could have arisen from this latter form.” Thus, the formant -i (alongside -ie) in this case is merely the result of metatony.

Of the parallel forms ankstie || anksti, artie || arti, tolie || toli, the latter are now used predominantly. They have become established as standard forms in the literary language. The former occur more often only in certain dialects, especially Samogitian and sometimes Eastern Aukštaitian; otherwise, they are not used at all in the present-day literary language. They occur in Žemaitė’s written language alongside the latter forms. That these adverbs are indeed a product of remote antiquity is shown by the diversity of their meanings and uses in the present-day language. A variety of idiomatic expressions are also formed with them. The most frequent meanings of these adverbs have been determined by the lexical meaning of their base words (from which they developed). The forms anksti || ankstie are generally used temporally and function in the sentence as adjuncts of time—

⁸ Žr. „Tauta ir žodis“, t. 1, Kaunas, 1928, p. 433.

⁹ Žr. ten pat.

13

while arti || artiē, toli || toliē most often have a spatial-locative meaning and function in the sentence as adjuncts of place. In addition, all these adverbs are also used predicatively.

Let us illustrate their use with examples.

The adverb anksti (ankstie) expresses various temporal relations associated with the time of day, season, age, and so on (A n k s t i visi kėlė, vėlai gulė “Everyone got up early and went to bed late” ŽR II 23. Žmonės, pasinaudodami ankstyba šilima, a n k s t i susiarė laukus “Taking advantage of the early warmth, people plowed their fields early” ib 5. Kaziukas a n k s t i ėmė bręsti rimtiems klausimams “Kaziukas began to mature early for serious questions” CvR VIII 140.). However, most often they are used with a temporal meaning associated with one part of the day—namely, the morning. It is therefore no coincidence that Širvydas, in his dictionary, lists the Latin equivalents “mane, diluculo, prima luce” between the Polish adverb rano and the Lithuanian anksti (originally unksti). Nor is it accidental that anksti (ankstie) forms stable idiomatic expressions with forms of the words rytas, rytėlis, rytužėlis...; these function as adjuncts of time in the sentence, e.g.: a n k s t i rytą (a n k s t i ē rytą), a n k s t i rytėlį (a n k s t i e rytelį), a n k s t i ryto rytėlio, a n k s t i rytą rytužėlį (cf. also the free combinations rytē a n k s t i, a n k s t i rytais). The close semantic relationship between anksti and rytas is also shown by the fact that even compound derivatives are sometimes formed from them (cf. ankšrytas “morning” Zt and ankštryčiai “daybreak” LL 311).

Of the other idiomatic expressions with the word anksti, another worth mentioning is anksti vėlai “all the time; a lot,” which functions in the sentence as an adjunct of quantity (A n k s t i v ē l ā i dirbi “You work all the time” Gs.).

Predicative use of anksti (ankstie) is relatively rare (A n k s t i dar, bet miesto alėjose jau klega rinkėjų būriai... ReimSp 101. Rodos, dar a n k s t i e, o miestčiukas jau pičpilnaitis “It is still early, yet crowds of gatherers are already clamoring in the city avenues... It seems still early, but the little town is already packed full” ŽR I 146.). anksti (ankstie) more often acquires a predicative meaning only when used with the particle nebe (Jau n e b e a n k s t i, vyrai, laikas “It is no longer early, men; it is time” ŽR I 488. Dar niekieno neišginė, nors, rodos, n e b e a n k s t i e “Nobody has driven them out yet, although it seems it is no longer early” ib II 303¹⁰.).

Finally, the rarest use of anksti should be noted—namely, when this adverb attaches to a verbal noun and serves as an uninflected modifier (Kas iš a n k s t i kėlimo “What is the benefit of getting up early?” Alk.). It should be observed that this use of the adverb is very rare. In Lithuanian, adverbs in general are least inclined to attach to nouns and serve as uninflected modifiers of head words expressed by nouns.

The most common meaning of arti (artiē) is spatial-locative, and its sentence function is that of an adjunct of place (A r t i stointys girdi ramų spiečiaus ūžesį “Those standing nearby hear the calm hum of the swarm” CvR IX 138. A r t i ē gal sukurti, kad rūḳsta “Nearby, perhaps, it is smoking” Ds.). There are few more stable idiomatic expressions with this meaning and function; among them are only such expressions as visai arti (visai artiē), taip arti (taip artiē), iš arti (iš artiē) and more individ-

¹⁰ The unsettled spelling of the particle (together or separately) is illustrated by these examples from the 1948 edition of Žemaitė’s works, where under exactly the same contextual conditions nebeanksti is written in one instance and nebe ankstie in another, instead of writing it separately in both cases.

14

The combination of the dual forms far and near (Far away, somewhere over there, Fierce giants are fighting MPutSv 67.).

In rarer cases, a highly interesting figurative manner meaning is found here, characteristic of the language of works of fiction (Press close to me, little son... I will feel your heart so near... It was extraordinary that through this groping he would come to experience the secret of the Geisha, which, she sensed, was close to him and to her herself TDėdės. And it was as if my own youth had suddenly vanished. With songs inspired by him (A. Mickevičius), so closely connectednear LGR 267.).

When used predicatively, arti most often retains its locative meaning (Only those who are near, and those from Kaunas who are in their Sunday clothes, stand quite near the monument CvR VII 210.), though only occasionally does a temporal meaning also arise here (Autumn is already near Šlap.).

Both arti and artie have also developed into prepositions (That means, one still cannot show up near his cottage, otherwise one will have to “dazzle the eyes” Gud-GuzB II 6. Their garden is near the houses Sv.); the former, together with the preposition prie, forms a prepositional phrase (Children, don’t go near the horse; it may kick Kp.). Even after becoming a preposition, arti retains its most salient lexical meaning. Incidentally, the prepositional use of the word arti is extremely varied and interesting, but its examination lies beyond the scope of this article.

Toli (toliė), like arti (artie), most often has a locative-spatial meaning and functions as an adverbial of place in a sentence (Far above, in the depths of the sky, the bright morning star of the east is aflame MntvR 70. A train whistled not far beyond the hill BlnR 40. And there, far away, at the edge of the sky, black walls lie... ŽR I 199.). In eastern Lithuania, a distinctive formation nestolie (with the usual s) is found in the meaning ‘not far’.

Toli (toliė), netoli (netolie) are also used predicatively, and here in some cases the locative-spatial meaning is retained, in others the temporal meaning (Is Skuodas far away, uncle? Sunset was still far off, but a mountain rose in the west, and its slopes darkened the earth CvR VIII 103. The carriage was already near; it soon turned onto the village road ib 227. Spring is already near! Going back around is far away ŽR I 44.).

Very rarely, toli has a quantitative meaning and functions as an adverbial of manner (On closer approach, he seems far more handsome Llkž.).

Sometimes, depending on the context, toli acquires an especially abstract figurative spatial or temporal meaning (Jurgis turned back, but sleep flew far from his eyelids... ŽR II 16. His gaze reached far into the future VnIP 8.).

Toli forms somewhat tighter phraseological adverbial combinations only with certain words, especially with the particles nebe (often written together with toli), per, the adverb taip, and the preposition iš, e.g.: nebe toli (nebe toliė) ‘no longer far’, per toli ‘too far’, taip toli (taip toliė) ‘so far’, iš toli ‘from afar’. Also belonging among these are expressions such as toli toli (toliė toliė) ‘very far’ and toli gražu (toliė gražu); compare also the compound adverb anaitoli (dialectal aneiptoli), of which only the shortened form anaiptol is used chiefly in the literary language.

15

The aforementioned combinations function both as locative adverbials (a) and predicatively; even in the latter case, however, they retain either their locative (b) or temporal (c) meaning.

a) Don’t tire our little animals out by taking them so far away... ŽR₁ II 13. From afar the two of them come on foot: exhausted, they are resting now after a long journey BlnR 89. We gave our daughter away far, far away. Bien. We’ve gone too far—we won’t find any porcini here. Šlap.

b) The cemetery was not far away. VnlU 142. But Kimša was already so far away that the water could not reach him. CvR I 213. Is that visitor from far away? Šlap.

c) I saw Praniukas carrying hay, and Marikė was carrying it too, and I heard them... how long can he keep it without having eaten it by now, for dawn is not far off... ŽR III 132.

The combination toli gražu (toliè gražu) in its meanings and use is much closer to modal words or the category of state than to adverbs (cf.: It is still a long way off before I can fathom the meaning of life... MntvR 77. But as for old age, am I still far from it? I’m nowhere near even talking about it!.. ŽR II 150.).

Finally, the prepositional use of the word toli should at least be mentioned. Toli is not used as a preposition on its own, but only together with nuo forms the prepositional phrase toli nuo (Far, far from here we will rise by night SNėrP II 119. Sabalis’s sawmill was in desolate forests, far from the public road, beside a raftable river VnlP 93.). Only netoli is used prepositionally (both on its own and with the preposition nuo).

Generally speaking, there are very few fossilized forms of the non-postpositional inessive of nouns. Here, namie and oriè should also be mentioned: the former has become established in the literary language and in many dialects, while the latter is known only in some eastern Aukštaitian dialects (Dusetos, Svedasai, Skapiškis, etc.). It is true that oriè was used in his writings by Jablonskis and Vaižgantas, but otherwise this word is quite rare in the literary language.

The adverb namie differs greatly in meaning from the present-day nominal inessive namė, whereas the adverb oriè does not differ in this respect from orė, nor from the adverb laukė, which, it should be assumed, also prevented an adverb oriè with exactly the same meaning from becoming established and surviving universally. The adverb namie, having acquired a more generalized and abstract meaning than the nominal inessive namė, could not be replaced by the latter, and therefore became most widely established in the dialects (cf. its Samogitian equivalents nọmėi, nọmėi, nọmij...).

Adverbs of nominal origin derived from the non-postpositional inessive are characterized by a generalized, abstract locative or temporal meaning and by their inability to take any modifiers. It is chiefly this generality and abstractness of meaning that determined their conversion into adverbs and their persistence in that category for centuries, up to the present day. Moreover, the absolute impossibility of taking modifiers expressed by inflected parts of speech had already, in remote antiquity, completely severed them from nouns: in terms of their degree of adverbialization, adverbs derived from the non-postpositional inessive cannot even be compared with adverbs derived from the inessive found in the present-day case system. It is true,

16

E. Frenkelis (see TŽ V 146), taking the words māna namīe (=māno namīe) out of context (from A. Baranauskas’s dialect texts, published by F. Specht in “Litauische Mundarten” I, Leipzig, 1920, p. 182), claims to have found in the Joniškis dialect a counterpart to the Latin expression domi meae. This would mean that the inessive namīe, which is otherwise adverbialized everywhere, functions in this dialect simply as a noun case and has the non-agreeing attribute māno. But the context itself shows that the words māna namīe have absolutely nothing to do here with the Latin expression domi meae. The sentence, “translated” into standard Lithuanian, is as follows: That horse is raised at my home, not bought from someone at the market. It is perfectly clear to a Lithuanian speaker that the word mano must be linked here not with namie, but with augintas.

Alongside namīe, the form namieje is also used in dialects with exactly the same meaning (I can’t sleep at home, but here, in a strange place, I slept the whole night KlvŽ.). This form is most likely nothing other than an analogical formation based on the inessives of other noun stems (cf. pievo-je, panamė-je, etc.).

Besides adverbs in -ie derived from nouns, old written texts and dialects also attest adjectival forms. Some have the same meaning as adverbs in -(i)ai and have therefore most likely been almost entirely displaced from use by them; others have a specific meaning that is not replaced by adverbs in -(i)ai or by adverbs of other common types, and consequently they remain alive in the Samogitian dialect. Examples of the former include forms such as aukštie ‘high’ Mž 274, gilie ‘deep’ (we crawled into the barn ourselves, I got out through the wall deep... ŽR III 14.). In the latter, the lexical meaning of the underlying word is retained and intertwined with a temporal meaning; they are used to denote various kinds of weather and its conditions (sometimes with a pronoun bearing the same formant, tokie), for example: biaurie ‘in bad, rainy weather’ Kv, Rt, Ms; tokie biaurie ‘when the weather is so foul’ (In such foul weather you wouldn’t drive even a dog out of the house. Grg. Where are you going in such foul weather? Vvr.); šaltie ‘when it is freezing, in cold weather’ (In cold weather the animals eat more fodder Šts.); tokie šaltie ‘when it is so cold’ Pgr (In such cold weather you can’t even set foot outside Kv, Rt, Ms.); šil tie ‘when the weather is warm’ (When it’s warm, drink your fill; when it’s cold, drink less—good (=to drink⟧) moonshine Šts.).

Adverbs with the -ie formant are also frequently used in the Samogitian dialect to denote weather conditions (sometimes with pronouns bearing the same formant, tokie, šiókie); they are derived from adjectives with the suffixes -ota-, -uota-, for example: audrotie ‘during a storm, when there is a storm’ Pgr; dárganotie ‘when it is stormy, in foul weather’ (Enemies had to suffer day and night in stormy or bitterly cold weather p.); tokie dárganotie ‘when the weather is so stormy, so foul’ (In such stormy weather even the crows are ruffled Vvr.); dárgnotie with the same meaning as dárganotie Slnt; tokie dárgnotie with the same meaning as tókie dárganotie (In such stormy weather you wouldn’t even stick your head out of the house Slnt.); giedrotie ‘when it is clear’ Ž.; grúodetie ‘in December’ ib; káitrotie ‘in hot weather’ ib; lýt otie ‘when it is raining, in rainy weather’ Pgr; lýtuotie ‘same’ Šts; migluotie ‘when it is foggy’ (We got lost on the lake in the fog Llkž.); sniēguotie ‘when it is snowing, when there is snow’ (When it’s snowy, you won’t get far barefoot Šts.); speig otie ‘when it is bitterly cold’ Šts; spéiguotie ‘same’ (In bitterly cold weather the roads freeze hard Šts. So

2. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinė sandara

17

the children, raised from an early age and later as they grew up, had to endure hunger and hardship, to suffer in bitter cold and clear weather for nothing at all D.), anokie speiguotie ‘in such bitter cold’ Kv, vėjuotie ‘when it is windy’ (It will be necessary to travel in windy weather Pgr.), etc.

In some Samogitian dialects (e.g. in Pagramantis), adverbs derived from the postpositional inessive of feminine adjectives are used alongside these old adjectival adverbs of inessive origin, with exactly the same meanings: audrotoje || audrotie, lytotoje || lytotie, vėjuotoje || vėjuotie, etc.

An example of a disyllabic derivative of this type is blauždlaužotie (and tokie blauždlaužotie) ‘when it has frozen and the ice is not yet firm, but breaks’ (In such breaking-ice weather, who can travel on the road? Jb.); cf. blauždlauža (blauždlaužā Vdžg) ‘the period when ice breaks on roads and in marshes; ground frost that is not completely frozen’ End, Kv, Krkl, Sv; blauždlaužas ‘same’ Vvr; blauždlaužynė ‘same’ Vdžg; blauždlauža (blauždlaužā Skr) ‘same’ Vdk, Užv, Up.

In the Samogitian dialect, adverbs denoting various kinds of weather and its conditions are formed with the -ie formant not only from adjectives, but also from present or past active participles, for example: dulkantie ‘when there is a lot of dust, when the road is dusty’ (It is better to travel when it’s raining lightly than when it’s dusty Sts.); lynantie ‘when it is raining, lytotie’ Sts; pašalusie ‘when it has frozen’ (When it has frozen, the roads become slippery Sts.).

A strict distinction is made between adverbs in -ie and those in -(i)ai: adverbs such as speigōtie (speiguotie), pašalusie answer the question ‘when?’, whereas forms such as speigōtai (speiguotai), pašalusai answer the question ‘how?’ (cf. It is bitterly cold this morning, as it has frozen (not speigōtie) Sts.).

The examples given already made it possible to observe that the -ie formant is not confined to noun-, adjective-, and participle-based derivatives; it also occurs in certain demonstrative (or identifying) pronouns, which with this formant have themselves become adverbs and, when used prepositionally alongside adjectival adverbs in -ie, form certain idiomatic adverbial expressions with them (tokie biaūrie, tōkie šalitie, tōkie dārgnotie (tōkie dārgnotie), anōkie speiguotie, tōkie blauždlaužotie, etc.).

Sometimes, however, when the weather conditions are clear from the linguistic context or the surroundings themselves, a single pronominal adverb in -ie is used. The form šiōkie ‘in such weather’ is especially common here (Traveling in weather like this is no picnic Ž.). This phenomenon is also reflected in the language of imaginative literature—in Žemaitė’s writings (cf. Perhaps it will stop raining; how on earth can one travel in weather like this? ŽR I 146. It would be healthier for the children to be outdoors in weather like this ib 301. Such a busy season has begun that, as the saying goes, in weather like this even a stone moves in the field ib II 23. What will the animals have to graze on in weather like this? ib 198. The mares will get worn out in weather like this (they will tire on a rainy day) ŽR.).

To conclude this survey of adverbs originating from the singular inessive, it should be noted that the postpositional inessive, which has survived in the inflectional system of modern Lithuanian, is much less prone to adverbialization than, say, the instrumental. Inessives of nouns expressing more generalized and abstract notions of time or

18

the concept of location. Generally speaking, the endings of the postpositional inessive are not inclined to turn into adverb-forming formatives.

Already in remote antiquity, the ending of the non-postpositional inessive, which had disappeared from the declensional system, -ie shows a certain tendency to become an adverb-forming formative, also encompassing non-nominal derivatives; however, this phenomenon does not extend beyond the Samogitian dialect and has not become generally established. There are very few adverbs of non-postpositional inessive origin in the literary language. They are also very scarce in the language of works of fiction. Even Žemaitė, apparently taking account of the tendencies of the literary language, uses fewer adverbs with the formative -ie in the language of her works than occur in the Samogitian dialect itself.

The adverbialization of the postpositional inessive is a living process in contemporary Lithuanian literary language, whereas adverbs of non-postpositional inessive origin show no vitality. Only a few forms of these have survived here, established both in colloquial folk speech—in the dialects—and in the literary language (anksti, arti, toli, namie).

2. The illative (directive interior locative)

Alongside the postpositional inessive, which still survives in the declensional systems of the dialects and literary language, the illative is also used. In the language of texts from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as well as in present-day East Aukštaitian dialects, the illative firmly retains its place in the declensional system as an independent case. It is found here in all inflecting parts of speech. Alongside the inessive, which answers the questions: where, in what place is something done, is, happens...? the illative is used to indicate the place toward which someone goes, moves, proceeds, or turns. It is therefore sometimes called the directive, to emphasize its directional meaning. The meaning of the illative, like that of the inessive, is connected with the interior of a place; that is, it expresses relations of interiority, not exteriority, with respect to the place toward which someone goes, moves, or proceeds.

The singular illative derives from the singular accusative, to which a certain postposition was attached. The formation of the illative in Lithuanian is an ancient phenomenon, dating back to a time when the long acute-stressed vowels and diphthongs in endings had not yet been shortened and final -n in the singular accusative had not yet disappeared. Since the form of the postpositional element of the illative has still not been convincingly explained, the question of how the illative itself was formed cannot yet be regarded as definitively resolved. Almost all scholars of Lithuanian agree that the singular illative was formed from the singular accusative and a certain postposition. There is no consensus only on the form of the postposition itself.

In his latest works, J. Endzelīns does not address the question of the form of that postposition; in his work „Baltu valodu skaņas un formas“ (Rīgā, 1948, p. 143), he merely cites E. Fraenkel’s view that the postposition was a<ide. *o. Since, among several conjectured forms of the postposition, J. Endzelīns mentions only one (namely a), one might therefore think that on this question he is more in agreement with E. Fraenkel. Thus, the view that the singularviena-

2*

19

illative derives from the old singular accusative form and the postposition a, would perhaps be the most recent.

There have also been other views on this question in the past. K. Jaunius’s arguments here are particularly interesting and original. In his grammar, he claims that the accusative could once indicate a place toward which something slides, moves, or turns even without the preposition į. He gives as examples the Latin accusatives domum, rus. Romam, Corinthum, Athenas, which do not require the preposition in, although, generally, the accusatives of other nouns, when indicating a place toward which one moves, proceeds, or turns (in urbem, in silvam), are not usually used without the preposition in. K. Jaunius regards the directional forms of East Aukštaitian dialects eik gulti, jis eina šieno piautų as remnants of such prepositionless accusative usage in Lithuanian. Thus, the Lithuanians once also used noun accusatives with such meanings: *laukan, *šalin. Since such accusatives were very close in meaning to adverbs, an adverbial formative was eventually added to them (which K. Jaunius calls a “confirmatory particle”) ai (cf.: šaliai, šiltai), which later eroded away, while -n remained in all dialects because it had reached the very end of the word relatively recently¹.

Disagreeing with A. Schleicher, who claimed that the singular illative originated from the singular accusative and the postposition to, indistinguishable from Old Church Slavonic to (Russian на, Polish na), K. Jaunius goes on to write: “Schleicher reasoned that outdoors and other such forms arose from the singular accusative *laukan and a preposition corresponding to the Slavic one. But this view is unfounded. Given that the eastern Aukštaitians have changed an before consonants into un (cf. the eastern dialect’s sū-sparą = versus the Samogitian są-sparą ‘the one who walks on beams’, sū-narys = versus the Samogitian są-naris), it suffices only to glance at an expression such as, for example, ‘you used to go into the forest’ (Anykščių šilelis, line 20), and it will become clear that into the forest could have originated only from *miškanai, but not from *miškan-na. From the proleptic form *miškan-na, one would expect in the eastern dialects not miškān, but *miškūna¹².

K. Jaunius’s latter argument is now considered obsolete. In fact, the illative miškana could not have developed into *miškūna in East Aukštaitian dialects, because in the form miškana the sound sequence an is heterosyllabic, not tautosyllabic (cf. miška-na). The view that miškana once contained a tautosyllabic an has no basis. This view presupposes a tautosyllabic an where it is entirely impossible and unsupported by the laws of Lithuanian. The pronunciation *miškān-na (with tautosyllabic an) is impossible in Lithuanian, since the language does not tolerate geminates either now or in antiquity, as is readily evident from feminine illative forms such as rañkon, galvōn. If such forms had contained geminates in antiquity—that is, if they had been pronounced *rankān-nā, *galvān-nā—then in the modern language the vowel a, rather than o, would have survived before final -n; that is, they would be pronounced *rankan, *galvan, not rañkon, galvōn. Geminates could not have occurred already at the very point when the postposition joined with

¹¹ К. Явнис, Грамматика литовского языка, отдел II, перевод грамматики литовского языка, исполненный К. Буга, Петроград, 1908–16, p. 119—120.

¹² Ibid., p. 120.

20

the accusative form at the beginning. Thus, if we were to acknowledge that the postposition ná was present here (as is also confirmed by the forms šalina, namuosna, attested long ago), we could quite reasonably also assert that, from the very beginning of this postposition’s combination with the accusative form, miška-nā, ran-kā-nā, galvā-nā was pronounced, from which the present-day forms miškān, raṅkon, galvōn. must have developed over time.

At first, K. Būga, like K. Jaunius, considered ai¹³ to be the postpositional element of the illative; later, he proposed nā¹⁴.

In this way, at least three postpositions emerge: a, ai and nā. This fact alone shows that there is still no consensus on the form of the postpositional element of the illative. It is therefore understandable that some scholars of the Lithuanian language (including Chr. S. Stang¹⁵ and, in part, J. Endzelīns¹⁶) do not even venture to identify the form of the postposition itself, noting that it has not yet been clarified.

In its use of the illative case, Lithuanian does not differ from the other Baltic languages. As J. Endzelīns¹⁷ points out, the illative (singular!) was also used as a living case in the oldest Latvian written monuments, where it answered the questions “where?”, “to where?” or “when?” (e.g., kounan tapt, krustan sists, cietuman tur, tan trešan dienan, tan... vietan, zemen, etc.). In later writings, as well as in present-day Latvian dialects, the illative forms that occur are completely adverbialized.

On the basis of the form andangonsun “in the heavens” from a fragment of a pre-Reformation Prussian text, cited by E. Mikalauskaitė¹⁹, J. Endzelīns¹⁸ also argues that the illative existed in Old Prussian.

Illatives are formed from nouns of all stems both in the East Aukštaitian dialects and in the literary language. The productivity of illative forms and their distribution depend not only on the lexical meaning of nouns and their usage tendencies, but also on the frequency of the nominal stems themselves or the productivity of their suffixes: the more often a stem or suffix occurs in spoken or written language, the more illative forms are used with it.

Nouns of the a stem have a generalized ending in the illative, -an (after a hard consonant) (laukan, oran). Nouns of the ia stem are morphologically heterogeneous: some have the singular nominative ending -as (after a soft consonant) (kėlias, medžias “tree; forest,” vėjas), while others end in -is, -ys (káilis, užpakalỹs). Accordingly, the illatives of the former end in -an (after a soft consonant) (kelian, medžian, vėjan), while those of the latter end in -in (káilin, užpakalin). It should be noted that the illatives of these former nouns (such as kėlias, medžias, and especially such as vėjas, kraujas), at least in the written language of our day

¹³ K. Būga, Aistiški studijai, I d., Peterburgas, 1908, p. 41.

¹⁴ K. Būga, Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, I—II sąs., Kaunas, 1924, p. XXX.

¹⁵ Chr. S. Stang, Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas, Oslo, 1929, p. 106.

¹⁶ J. Endzelīns, Latviešu valodas gramatika, Rīgā, 1951, p. 460—461.

¹⁷ Ten pat ir Baltu valodu skaņas un formas, Rīgā, 1948, p. 143.

¹⁸ J. Endzelīns, Baltu valodu skaņas un formas, p. 143.

¹⁹ „Archivum Philologicum“, t. 7, Kaunas, 1928, p. 105—106.

21

In the language, it occurs very rarely. The illatives of o-stem nouns end in -on (after a hard consonant) (galvón, píėuon); those of io-stem nouns in -on (after a soft consonant) (pi̇ṙkon, sáujon), those of ė-stem nouns in -ėn (draugėn, kelionėn), those of i-stem nouns in -in (akiñ, šaliñ), those of u-stem nouns in -un (after a hard consonant) (vidūn, viršūn), those of iu-stem nouns in -un (after a soft consonant) (sodžiūn, spi̇ėčiūn), and those of consonant-stem nouns in -in (akmeni̇n, vandenin).

What is the relationship between noun illative forms and adverbs?

It is sometimes claimed that noun illative forms in present-day Lithuanian are nothing other than adverbs²⁰. It should be noted, however, that such a claim is a priori and premature. The relationship between noun illative forms and adverbs is one thing in colloquial speech—in dialects—and quite another in literary language. Finally, even in individual dialects this relationship is not uniform. For example, among the eastern Aukštaitians, as already mentioned, the illative remains a true case, established within the declensional system itself, whereas in other dialects only separate adverbialized forms are known (laukan, namien, oran, paškun, šalin...). In literary language, nouns of all stem types participate in the formation of illative forms. They are especially widespread in the language of works of fiction. There, both in the author's narration and in the speech of characters, they are used not only by writers from eastern Lithuania, but also by representatives of other dialects.

The examples given below, taken mainly from works of fiction and classified by stem type, will help provide an idea of the distribution of illatives in literary language. To keep the examples themselves from taking up too much space, alongside the illatives we retain mostly only the words that govern them, as well as modifiers of the illatives. Ellipses indicate omissions within the illative construction.

a-stem

having poured into the ancestral granary LGR 292, will go to the dance MPuta II 72, carried out... onto the balcony VnlU 151, Sing to my voice JbL 100, in one voice they shouted together, ib, into the hut fell MntvR 137, clung to work CvR VIII 104, at work he crushed it SNeirP II 214, set to work CvR II 75, would let (third person of the conditional mood) to work GGuzKlT II 186, will set to... work LGR 150, Don't scratch at work VnlP 190, into the garden flies JbL 100, the arsonist's to the manor CvR VIII 94, went to the manor ib 99, into the lake they plunged ib 77, to the bottom sinks (goes under) JbL 100, I went out into life MntvR 91, into the office entered VnlP 35, 36, went out to the countryside CvR II 71, blew his nose outdoors ib VIII 82, the path leading up the hill ib 108, climbed up the hill ib IX 168, climbed up the hill ib II 228, to be laid in the grave... (passive past participle). JJanR 146, went to war

²⁰ In the “Lithuanian Spelling Dictionary” (Kaunas, 1948, p. 70), alongside such adverbializing or fully adverbialized illative forms as outdoors, aside, inside, down to the ground, forms such as akiñ, atksnyñan, daržan, eilėn, galan, galvón, gerklėn, kaiman, kišenėn, krūman, lákton, miškan, pūšen, are also classified as adverbs, although their nominal character remains most clearly preserved.

22

JbL 100, leads into war CvR VIII 143, rushes into war Gud-GuzKIt II 186, having placed in the coffin VnlU 159, to go to Kaunas CvR VIII 236, on the journey to Kaunas VnlP 31, more and more people go into the yard CvR I 59, had gone out into the yard ib II 218, returned... into the yard ib VIII 37, was on his way into the yard ib 173, having entered the yard ib 219, They flocked into the yard ib 228, They emerge into the yard ib IX 127, from outside through the window into the yard VnlP 53, threw through the windows, into the yard ib, threw into the yard ib 56, went out into the yard ib 58, 63, 80, entered Papievas's yard ib 171, He comes and goes into our yard LGR 135, walking into the barn VnlP 79, runs to the shore... JJanR 94, roars toward the shore AMickKrS (MPut) 23, went to his own land GuzKIt II 184, He invites and calls to the enchanted shore SNėrP II 13, seated himself in a soft chair VnlU 122, go into the bush JbL 99, No longer let them pass into Kurskas LGR 113, you will be able... to return to the ship ib 100, raindrops spread across the window CvR VIII 106, knocked on the window ib 117, onto the window AMickKonr (MPut) 80, looked out the window ib 81, looks out the window JJanR 148, Went outside (into the open) JbL 99, I dared to go outside ib BlnR 112, stuck his head outside Gud-GuzB I 28, drive outside JJanR 153, the threshing floor turns into the open TDėdes 118, ran outside VnlU 169, slipped outside ib 66, went outside VnlP 349, 400, possible... to run outside ib 162, moved outside ib 171, darted outside CvR VIII 118, was not preparing to go outside ib 133, saw the animals driven outside ib 203, to jump outside ib 210, dashed outside ib IX 130, shot (bolted) outside ib II 176, called out outside ib 113, asked to go outside ŽR IV 240, throw outside ib I 22, Having gone outside ib II 28, Why don't you like it—outside! ib I 76, climbed outside ib II 133, trudges outside ib II 133, trudges outside ib IV 106, hurried outside ib I 74, III 98, get outside ib II 130, smoke wafted into the middle of the great hall, from papers and books piled in the fire ib CvR II 153, toward the side Rž, Fell asleep TDėdes 42, took away... to the city CvR VIII 142, wandered into the city MntvR 165, I will return... to the city JJanR 91, head to town VnlP 57, had gone to town ib 43, took to the city, ib 32, ran into the forest JbL 100, aren't you afraid... to go into the forest TDėdes 33, turned into the forest LGR 205, it would be time to enroll him in school CvR VIII 137, take by the nail JbL 100, I'll take by the nail VnlP 39, go outside... JbL 100, went outside Bien, go outside BlnR 165, raised him up CvR II 200, raised upward VnclOb 90, I will go to the post office VnlU 62, drive into the goat's horn VnlP 23, having entered the restaurant CvR VIII 206, was entered... on the list of candidates ib 130, looking at the lintel CvR VIII 151, parted the hair at the parting... ib 143, pinching the cheek ib 118, into hardship... threw VnlU 157, carried into the garden CvR VIII 203, carries to the table (onto the table) JbL 99, climbs up the stem... AMickKrS (MPut) 15, began to cut into the glass CvR VIII 107, started climbing onto the roof ib II 167, raised onto the pole Gud-GuzKIt 56, turned aside VnlP 82, glanced to the side CvR II 175, To the side of spring... ib 188, Only, I see, he turns aside, to the side Gud-GuzKIt II 13, turned to one side CvR VIII 88, leaned to the side ib 67, Look... between the huts JJanR 132, I wonder, what if we tried going to court?"

23

VnlP 187, went to the barn CvR VIII 115, went out to the barn ib 118, sending to the barn ib 212, gave money to his son studying at the university VnlP 13, will lock [him] in the cave MntvR 154, vardan (preposition with the genitive case) CvR IX 251, vargan... you would push ib VnlU 157, eyes... sank into the face ib VIII 100. He will look into the face ReimTž 27, šyščičia veidan SNėrP I 268, They lift the white goose into the golden carriage SNėrP I 260.

ia stem

invited [someone] to come into the garden LGR 268, Come into the garden ib 174, falls into the embrace of the sea VnclOb 188, took [him] into his arms CvR VIII 61, inviting [him] into his arms ib 207, having taken [him] into his arms ib II 184, I go into the porch LGR 205, threw [him] into bed CvR II 117, got [it] into his fur coat Bd, He also led [her] into the mirror room CvR VIII 98, Bless [him] on the distant little road LGR 186, having put [it] into the basket CvR VIII 138, drove [him] into sadness ib 132, don’t drive [him] into the woods (forest) JbL 100, went into town CvR VIII 38, pulled [him] into town ib 84, Into town (he went) VnlP 57, will go to town CvR VIII 119, would not walk in the forest VnlP 82, We [go] into the muddy place LGR 188, set off down the slope CvR VIII 7, far away (: distance) Rž, to travel far away MPutSv 75, having harnessed [it], right into the little cart MntvR 188, turns into the middle of the river BlnR 94, ran onto the highway CvR VIII 93, shoved [it] into the hearth Gud-GuzKIt II 227, to set off on a campaign LGR 127, set off on a campaign ib 261, He opened [his mouth] to say that word (saying that word to someone) JbL 100, He spoke to that word (in response to those words of his, to that) ib, Are you speaking right here, at the right time and place, as you should? Sts, goes to the lakeside TDėdės 64, I toss [it] to the lakeside JJanR 90, pointing at the head CvR VIII 144, will go to Panevėžys VnlP 44, breaks out into the world MntvR 60, gathered... for an extraordinary meeting VnlP 128, slipped into the entryway ib 53, we move forward Gud-GuzB I 319, Forward, brothers! MntvR 231, went forward CvR VIII 231, having moved forward (taken a step, gone a little way) ib 48, thrusting her chin forward CvR IX 67, looking forward Gud-GuzKIt II 47, you will march forward LGR 34, will lead forward ib 234, would step forward ib 281, We now charge, now forward ib 114, I took a step forward MPutA I 167, to be locked in the storeroom Gud-GuzKIt II 38, shoved [it] into [his] bosom ib 194, carried [it] behind the stove CvR VIII 179, dragging their sticks behind them BlnR 184, went out to the back yard ib 189, having sat down in the carriage CvR VIII 66, having run out into the passageway JJanR 172, went to Puodžiūnkiemis VnlP 32.

o stem

goes to Argentina rš, we charged into the attack LGR 116, fell onto the floor CvR VIII 107, 117, threw [it] onto the bathhouse floor ib II 176, had to wade into the puddle ib 70, would put [it] into [his] mouth ib VIII 53, having crammed [it] into his mouth ib 230, Bert to the field LGR 256, an unsown grain in the field MntvR 50, blows into the same bread oven VnlP 96, baked moss into bread JbL 100,

24

even curls up into a ball (when the stomach hurts badly) Vs, Take it on my head (I’ll answer for it) JbL 100, stuck in [his] head VnlP 79, loading into the boy’s head CvR VIII 140, hits [him] on the head Gud-GuzKIt II 43, The little waves wind their way into the depths of the sea SNėrP I 264, Let us go to fight, let us go into his nest LGR 116, the sun sets into the sea ib 99, into the forehead ib 71, got mixed into the language VnlP 88, climbed onto the hill CvR VIII 136, Tie [them] together Gud-GuzKIt II 10, To battle, friends! SNėrP I 201, The battle calls us VnclOb 187, got caught up in a heap CvR VIII 103, lākton lenda JbL 100, into an even field Ad, They all tumbled into the foundry MntvR 259, will bring [him] to Lithuania LGR 111, gathered in Juro’s hut CvR VIII 30, took [him] to school ib 143, bring [him] to school ib 158, was not preparing to go to school ib 157, would lean toward [her] mother ib 32, while driving [them] into the meadow JbL 99, The scythe to the meadow, the little lights to the wall ib 100, I let (released) the horses into that meadow ib, would not let [them] graze in the meadow CvR II 75, would come home to the hall MntvR 199, drops pattered onto the wall CvR VIII 106, knocked [him] against the wall ib 192, preparing to move to the newly planned homestead ib 49, cooked bark into soup JbL 100, leads [us] into the light of Communism LGR 279, may the nations find their way to eternal peace ib 60, came to help VnlP 33, having nestled into the shade (LGR 220, called out for truth JbL 100, I look into the distance MntvR 90, the road glimmers into the distance SNėrP I 264, Įgaben krob on Š, lėjo trobon Gud-GuzKIt II 185, so that... it would not spread... into public view MPutA II 63, appointed in his place VnlP 165, looking at one spot ib 159, puts a spoon in his place TDėdės 10, put [it] in its place Gud-GuzKIt II 11, atsavõn (= atsavoj!) “separately” Lš.

io stem

began to descend... downward VnlP 140, hurried downward BlnR 66, to enter the gymnasium CvR II 134, into a green forest... having darted LGR 183, got onto [his] leg CvR II 113, breaks into the shop JJanR 159, drove [them] into slavery SNėrP II 259, returned back Aru 17, will not return back Nč, was making his way back AMickKOnr (MPut) 61, He will not let [her] turn back... SNėrP II 228, Let us return... back KlvD 264.

ė stem

brings out into the open BlnR 261, I released (let go) the horses into the distance JbL 100, beckons upward SNėrP II 14, Go, throw to the right JbL 100, turned... right VnlP 11, MPutA II 40, you go into the workshop MntvR 130, Go together (where the whole group of friends is) JbL 100, joined together as friends... hands MPutA III 203, practical activity and theoretical thought must merge trš. Let us join together ib, they would gather together CvR VIII 201, they mingled together ib 192, in a row Rž 70, penetrates into space JJanR 64, poured into the street... CvR VI 138, into the depths of the Svedžiai secret JJanR 49, sank into the depths ib 172, deep-

25

mein įsirausę MPutSv 15, gelmėn grimzdo VnclOb 164, nukrito ežero gelmėn ib 174, gerklėn Rž 70, tiesiame tautos gerovėn kelią LGR 227, gyvybėn kelias (keliasi, kyla) ib 142, Eik, mesk... kairėn JbL 100, pasisuko kairėn ŽR II 409, išsiruošė... kelionėn CvR VIII 78, 66, pasiruošė kelionėn ib 179, pasiruošė tolimon kelionėn ib 234—235, lisdao... kerten VnlU 51, kerten numetė CvR VIII 207, kišenėn dėdas JbL 99, subruko kišenėn CvR IX 197, įsigrūdo kišenėn ib II 184, bėgsu krautuvėn VnlP 119, patekės žaislų krautuvėn CvR II 214, Taručio krūtinėn tvino kažkoks džiaugus nerimas ib VIII 46, skverbėsi krūtinėn ib 201, buvo beeinąs kūtėn ib 173, trokšte trokštu vis nukakti laimėn idealo JJ anR 113, busi visuomet pavyzdžiu gyvu, šūkiu didžiuoju laisvėn ir saulėn SNėrP II 318, laisvėn riedėjo MntvR 21, Išeik... lygon lankelėn LGR 172, atvežta ligoninėn, ji dar kalbėjo CvR II 218, veš pieninėn ib VIII 118, nuvažiuavo ton pusėn JbL 100, linko priešingon pusėn VnlP 54, pradėjo bėgti slėnio pusėn CvR II 162, betraukiant namų pusėn ib VIII 53, sviede pusnynėn Gud-GuzKt II 42, pernešti salėn VnlU 155, salėn pradėjo veržtis CvR VIII 91, saulėn kopia LGR 206, saulėn tiesias ib 151, Veržias, kyla saulėn SNėrP II 226, grįžta sostinėn CvR II 212, ton stiprybėn įsityrinė LGR 226, pažengė šalin VnlP 67, Grįžti tėvynėn JJ anR 139, Grįžt tėviškėlėn LGR 133, tėviškėn ateiti ib 261, grįžta tėviškėn VnlU 28, tiesėn „dešinėn“ Bien, ateisiu komunistiskon tolybėn MntvR 248, įsimerkusias tolybėn ŽR I 155, atsiima trobelėn VnlU 72, vadina kraujo upėn JbL 100, įkrito upėn JJ anR 172, vaistinėn nešk VnlP 75, nuvažiuavo į uošvį viešnagėn JbL 100, viralinen ėjo VnlP 81, išliuogė jo (perkūnsargio) viršūnėn CvR VIII 202, įvesdinti visuomenėn ib II 210, Žagrelėn įkinkutas LGR 180, nusirito žemėn ŽR III 92, numetė žemėn VnlP 40, nugriuvo žemėn TDr IV 193, žemėn krenta LGR 40, dunkstelėjo žemėn CvR II 162, brink! žemėn Vaižg. Šešk... žemėn ŽR II 405, nugulė žemėn CvR VIII 136, kniubo žemėn ib 119, nulėkė žemėn BlnR 178, lyg kiaurai žemėn prasmegęs CvR II 25, Žodžiai virsta darbais ir kaip kirčiai smenga lietuviškon žemėn MntvR 100, Joja žemėn svečimon LGR 170. Lipa žydrėn JJ anR 63, įsibriedęs žolėn CvR VIII 198, Nepataikysi žvaigždėn JJ anR 49, antiklodėn susuptą VnlP 55, pabugęs... ežero atrakantien puolusios vilnies CvR II 68, atsakomybėn traukti Likž, Begalybėn dangaus nusidriekus kometa VnclOb 148, pakliuvęs... lenkų nelaisvėn CvR VIII 13, perėjo amžinon... nuosavybėn VnlP 16, perimsime nuosavybėn ib 71, turėjo pereiti... dvaro nuosavybėn CvR VIII 133, padangėn pasikėlę MntvR 55, pamatė padangėn kylančią liepsną CvR VIII 200, Eikit paežerėn JbL 100, nusileidžia pakalnėn CvR II 227, nudrožė pakrumėn VnlP 164, pamėtyti palubėn CvR VII 32, atšovė (atsakė) sau panosėn ib 229, atviliojami paraištėn TDėdės 22, kaimiečio, pa-

26

ends up in the attic LGR 270, stored in the loft VnlP 76, Looked toward the side of the palace ib 63, went into the antechamber ib 65, beckons to the table CvR IX 122, to sit at the table TDėdės 24.

i stem

Akin Rž 70, a sound broke through his ear, plugged with dense wool CvR VIII 45, would carry into eternity MntvR 229, drives to death JJanR 61, turned with his face toward death SNėrP I 199, condemned to death ib II 262, entered the castle LGR 185, rode into our castle AMickKonr (MPut) 75, I am going to the bathhouse JJan 162, Men, shall we let such chatterers speak?! Away! CvR VIII 129, Away from the table ŽR I 315, Away from our midst MntvR 171, away with war CvR VI 180, Down with the tsar's autocracy! trš, Down with capitalism! ib, Go away, go! CvR VIII 155, barely managed to run away VnlP 55, drives... away CvR IX 78, Pushed the bowl away ŽR I 288, The old man waved his hand away from me JbL 100 That away (look) LGR 128 (cf. the form šaliną “away” in 16th-century writings Mž 279), took to heart TPrg, strives into the heart JJanR 66, leads into the fire of battle VnclOb 186, lures into a bright future JJanR 61, his gaze reached far into the future VnlP 8, There is no way back to the past SNėrP II 321, You will fall to ruin VnclOb 187.

(i)u stem

gazes toward the sky CvR VIII 146, the oaks... stretched skyward VnlK 14, rolled headlong inside CvR VIII 117, went inside ib 210, rushed inside ib 232, not let in... inside JbL 100, look inside SNėrP II 48, Please come inside VnlP 171, fire broke through upward Llkž, surged upward BhnR 162, looked upward AMickKonr (MPut) 19, stretched upward Prg, will throw upward ib (cf. viršun, used as a preposition: Bubbles rise above the water Llkž.), around “around” N, had gone to Königsberg VnlP 8, I am driving to the village JJanR 173, Ga ga ga honk the geese in the summer fields Š, looked at those who had waded into the summer fields and were thinking VnlP 40, climbs to the surface AMickKonr (MPut) 14.

Consonant stem

had waded into the water VnlU 99, The salty little tears fell into the water SNėrP I 267, would keep leaving into the water VnlP 98.

The examples given show that (at least in the language of works of fiction) illatives are used predominantly with nouns denoting concrete meanings, which are also characterized by a high frequency of use in another locative case—namely, the inessive. The following may serve as examples of illatives of such nouns: būtan, daržan, ežeran, kaiman, kieman, kraštan, krūman, miestan, miškān, sōdan, tvārtan, urvan, daržėlin, gārlavin, kamba-rin, krēpštin, purvynėlin, vežimėlin, pasaūlin, priēangin, sändėlin, užāštin,

27

ūžkrosnin, lāirpurin, āslon, bālon, dirvon, galvōn, gūžtōn, jūron, lankōn, mokyklon, pievon, trobōn, girion, pi̇kion, gātven, gerklēn, kūtēn, sālēn, ūpēn, viršūnēn, pakalnēn, pakrūmēn, palubēn, pastogēn, užstalēn, akin, ausin, pilin, pirtin, ugnin, sōdžiun, vandenin and so on. Most often, the nominative form of these nouns already has a certain locative meaning.

However, none of this yet allows us to conclude that there is no tendency in the language to use illatives of nouns with abstract meanings. The language of works of fiction alone shows that, alongside illatives of nouns with concrete meanings, illatives of nouns with abstract meanings are also used (though much less frequently), e.g.: miegān, mōkslan, gyveniman, liūdesin, kalbōn, šviesōn, taikōn, tamsōn, tiesōn, viešumōn, gerovēn, gyvybēn, laimēn, laisvēn, rūstybēn, stiprybēn, atsakomybēn, begalybēn, nelaisvēn, nuosavybēn, mirtin, amžinastin, ateitin, praeitin, pražūtīn and so on.

In short, the nature of a noun’s lexical meaning (whether concrete or abstract) does not in itself determine whether illatives can or cannot be used; the nature of the meaning determines only how frequently they are used. In other respects, the illative is potentially possible with almost every noun, even in the language of works of fiction. This, in turn, attests to the vitality of this case, which is apparently sustained by the fact that the illative remains a living case in the spoken vernacular itself—across a large area of the Eastern Aukštaitian dialects. Thus, while the illative still shows such vitality at least in the language of works of fiction, we cannot regard it as dead or adverbialized in literary language as a whole, even though, for example, it is used very rarely in scholarly works and in the language of newspapers.

How mistaken it is to claim that noun illative forms have become adverbialized in literary language is shown by the simple fact that in the language of works of fiction they can readily occur with, and are used with, modifiers: a) agreeing modifiers (also expressed in the illative form) and b) non-agreeing modifiers, e.g.:

a) into one voice, into one’s own land, into an enchanted land, into a soft chair, to one side, onto a distant path, into one bagpipe, into an even meadow, onto that meadow, into a newly planned orchard, into eternal peace, into one place, into a green forest, onto a distant road, into an even little meadow, onto that side, to the opposite side, into that strength, into communist equality, into Lithuanian land, into foreign land (=foreign), into eternal property, to that side “to that side,” into a clear future;

b) into the granary of the homestead, into my voice, into the Papievas’ yard, into our yard, onto the list of candidates, into a golden carriage, into the embrace of the sea, into the mirror room, into the bathhouse, into my head, into the depths of the sea, into his nest, into Juras’ hut, into the light of Communism, in his place, into the depths of secrecy, into the prosperity of the nation, into Tarutis’ breast, into the ideal of happiness, to the side of the valley, into the flow of blood, onto its summit, into the lake’s opening, into the infinity of the sky, into the peasant’s shelter,

28

to the side of the room, into his ear, mano šaliñ ‘toward my side,’ kovos ugnīn.

A modifier (agreeing or non-agreeing) is potentially possible with every illative form, as long as it has not left the category of nouns. Conversely, as soon as an illative begins to become adverbial, the number of modifiers used with it decreases. The inability to take agreeing modifiers already indicates a certain degree of adverbialization. The use of any modifiers is impossible when the illative has fully transitioned into an adverb.

For example, the use of modifiers is very limited with illatives such as priekin (Jonas went priekin and says Bien.), priešakin (During the holidays I steeled my resolve and took a good step forward MPUtA I 167.), užpakalin (All three stretched out, dragging their sticks behind them BlnR 184.), vidun (At once, at once! — Antanas answered from the darkness and ran inside, into his room, carrying a full bucket of water VnlP 53.), viršun (Looking upward, one sees something dim — Someone from the rooftops reaches a hand down to the ground AMickKorr(MPut) 19.).

Although these illatives are used mostly without any modifiers, non-agreeing modifiers (especially genitive modifiers) are still possible with them. In addition, other cases of the same word are used alongside these illatives with the same lexical meaning. Thus, the illatives here have not yet become completely detached from nouns, but have only reached an intermediate stage between nouns and adverbs.

In examining the relationship between the illative and adverbs, one observes tendencies toward adverbialization in this case that are also characteristic of the adverbialization of other cases (including the inessive). Illatives that express the most generalized and abstract spatial and locative relations usually come closest to becoming adverbs, e.g.: laukan (Having gained nothing, the people hurried outside ŽR III 98.), oran ‘outside’ (And everyone went outside to look around TPrg.), ‘upward’ (He (the child) cries, exhausted, but then again he lifted the kite up above the table VncIOb 90.), aukštėn (The prose writer gathers the most notable manifestations from the life of society and brings into the open all those that, until then, had been scattered and hidden... BlnR 261.), to the right, to the left (And both women, having returned home, went up to the shared veranda and, misunderstanding one another, parted: Jonienė turned toward her side—to the left, Antonienė toward hers—to the right VnlP 11.), draugėn (It happened, as if in revenge, that all the little flames gathered together and began dancing in a linked chain somewhere on the roof CvR VIII 201.), tiesėn ‘to the right’ (Turn the horses tiesėn Bien.), žemėn ‘downward’ (He did not even notice how he tumbled down the stairs žemėn... ŽR III 92.), ‘onto the ground’ (Jonas Puodžiūnas looked around, came up to the fence, and, after looking around once more to see whether anyone was watching, tossed the top rail onto the ground VnlP 40.), šalin (Borrow a little something, then quietly ask in writing; give my surname and say I sent you, urge them to buy it back, and when you are done, slip away so no outsider catches on ŽR I 50.).

That generality and abstractness of meaning determine the adverbialization of the illative is clearly demonstrated by the use of the form žemėn. When žemėn means ‘downward,’ we have an adverb used to express a particular spatial-locative

29

relation, and no modifier of any kind is possible with the illative here (neither agreeing nor non-agreeing). When žemėn means ‘onto the surface on which we walk; onto the ground,’ no modifiers are used either, so in this case, too, the illative should be considered an adverb. Its adverbial character here is determined by the generality and abstractness of its meaning, and the illative’s reluctance to take a modifier follows from this. The illative adverb žemėn is also used in a generalized sense when what is meant is not the surface of a particular piece of land, but the surface one walks on in general—floors, pavement, a ship’s deck, and so on.

In both cases mentioned here, the case meaning itself also facilitates the adverbialization of the illative. The illative, like the inessive, is inherently associated with expressing the spatial-locative relations characteristic of adverbs. Thus, when it expresses these relations, it becomes adverbial more quickly than cases that are not inherently associated with meanings characteristic of adverbs.

Alongside all the illatives mentioned here that are becoming or have become adverbial, corresponding inessives of the same words are also used, as has already been seen; their relationship to adverbs is almost as advanced as that of the illatives, e.g.: priekyje, priešakyje, užpakalyje, as with priekin, priešakin, užpakalin, having come only a relatively small distance toward becoming adverbs; lauke, orė, as with laukān, orān, having become almost completely adverbs; aikštėj ‘in a visible place; in public,’ dešinėj, kairėj, draugėj, tiesėj ‘to the right’ Bien, žemėj(e) ‘on the ground; on the surface one walks on,’ as with aikštėn, dešinėn, kairėn, draugėn, tiesėn, žemėn, mostly occupying an intermediate stage between nouns and adverbs, and therefore often considered adverbs by linguists. The form šalyj ‘beside,’ like šalin, has become fully adverbial. Finally, vidujė, viršujė (viduj, viršuj), like vidun, viršun, are used without any modifiers to denote the most general spatial-locative relations and have likewise become adverbs.

Illative adverbs formed individually and completely detached from inflecting parts of speech should be mentioned separately, e.g.: linkān (used postpositionally) ‘toward’ Rž, numien (numie + postpositional n) ‘home’ Pgr, aplinkun ‘around’ (Wander around N.), atgaliona ‘back’ (Come back, brothers KlvD 264.), atgalion ‘the same’ (Once the swarm has left the hive, it will not come back Nč.)²¹, atsavōn ‘separately’ (When you go to dig a ditch, then for the dernas separately Lš.), atvirsčiun ‘backward, in reverse, upside down’ in sixteenth-century writings, įredin ‘on time, in place, as is proper’ J (Are you speaking įredin (įredinai) here? Šts)²², paškūn (<pasku (pasaku) + postpositional n) ‘afterward’ Pgr.

Some of these individually formed illative adverbs (e.g., linkān, aplinkun, atgaliona, atgalion, atsavōn) have already become so distant from inflecting words that it is sometimes difficult to say which inflected part of speech they derive from (a noun, adjective, or even pronoun?).

²¹ Compare also here atgalionai ‘back’ J.

²² įredin may have been shortened (?) from the adverb įredinai, a form ending in -ai that is used with the same meaning in Samogitian, or from some other form.

30

Thus, it is evident that adverbs derived from nominal illatives are relatively few in present-day Lithuanian. They are characterized neither by productivity nor by a wealth of forms or wide distribution. This circumstance also shows that it would be entirely incorrect to regard the illative as adverbialized in the Lithuanian literary language and in all dialects except Eastern Aukštaitian (and its immediate neighboring dialects). If this case had become adverbialized here, we would have a great many illative adverbs, since, as the facts from Eastern Aukštaitian dialects still confirm today, every declinable part of speech has an illative (potentially, the illative form of every declinable word is possible in the dialects). In reality, however, both in Eastern Aukštaitian dialects and in dialects where the illative has disappeared entirely from the case system, and finally in the literary language itself, the number of illative adverbs is very limited, and the same forms are most often used in one place or another. Thus, we can speak not of the illative case as a whole becoming adverbialized, but only of individual forms becoming adverbialized in those dialects where the illative has disappeared from the case system, and in the literary language.²³

The concrete linguistic facts themselves (for example, the scarcity of adverbs derived from the nominal illative) show that the illative as a case is not so much becoming adverbialized as disappearing, giving way to the prepositional construction with į and the accusative. In many dialects, as well as in some varieties of the literary language (the language of scholarly works, journalism, official correspondence, etc.), it has almost disappeared, leaving a few fossilized forms in the category of adverbs.

However, abundant examples have shown that this case remains alive in the language of works of fiction, especially with nouns and adjectives in mind. Many writers of fiction use the illative as a synonymous alternative to the prepositional construction with į and the accusative. The use of the illative in the language of works of fiction is stylistically motivated. Alongside the aforementioned construction, the illative expands the possibilities of grammatical synonymy in the language of works of fiction, enriches the rhythmic and melodic resources of verse, and also lends local color to the speech of a work’s characters.

That the use of illatives in the language of works of fiction, and thus also in the literary language itself, is stylistically motivated can be demonstrated with concrete examples.

Our poets make especially skillful use of illative constructions as certain syntactic synonyms (bearing in mind that prepositional constructions are more widely used alongside illatives in the literary language), for example: The enemy is doomed to die — In vain he still struggles. And our victory draws near, on powerful wings it flies SNėrP II 262. They lift the white goose into the golden carriage: Take her with you as a bride, my dear daughter! SNėrP. I 260. Bitter tears fell into the water — They enchanted me with a bewitching fire ib 267. Nature weaves dreams for the sated, lures them into a bright future, but he...

²³ Of course, individual illative forms that have become adverbialized are also found in those dialects where this case has survived in the case system.

31

he loops a rope around his neck, for the boot is pushing him to his death JJ anR 61. There was no need to order us to attack again: We leapt up as one and charged into the attack LGR 116.

How stylistically and rhythmically/melodically motivated the use of illatives is in the examples given here can be seen simply by trying to replace the illatives with prepositional constructions. If these are only short excerpts—individual sentences that show the stylistic and rhythmic-melodic motivation for the illatives—the context (omitted here to save space) would illustrate this even more clearly. Of course, a writer’s talent can make prepositional constructions no less lively, vivid, and sonorous than illative ones. But the two cannot always replace one another.

Because of their relatively close semantic relationship to adverbs, illatives often express, when required by the linguistic context, more general, abstract, and subtle spatial relations than prepositional constructions do, for example: Such words drove Tarutis deeper into sadness CvR VIII 132. His sky-blue eyes... gaze straight ahead, fixed on the distance ŽR 155. And once more the land of song rises to life LGR 142. Along with her (Monika’s) words of lament, ice began to strike the window. A few pieces fell onto the floor CvR VIII 107. (Monika’s) eyes had sunk even deeper into her face ib 100. Juras would recount all his experiences in astronomy, filling the boy’s head with the few scientific facts he had happened upon by chance in a newspaper ib 140. The boy, with his fist stuffed into his mouth, looked now at the cow, now at his father ib 230. All three stretched out, pulling their sticks backward BlnR 184. Compare also the colloquial folk expression My belly hurts so much it twists me into a knot Vs.

In these expressions, prepositional constructions would needlessly render the spatial relations being expressed in a peculiar way, making them less general and subtle than when they are expressed by illatives.

In other cases, illatives are used in the language of works of fiction to avoid clashes between prepositional constructions or other features that detract from euphony (alliteration, dissonance, etc.), for example: “She (Monika) saw the fair head of the older child, Kaziukas, bent down in the meadow, and thought it was time to send him to school CvR VIII 137. she had turned onto the road leading up the hill ib II 108. he is only waiting for a chance to sneak into the gymnasium in his place ib 134. The smoke from the gossipers slipped into the middle of the great hall, from the papers and books heaped onto the bonfire ib 153. The father alone carried his dead son behind the stove, into the bed that had been pulled out ib VIII 179. They set guards on the roads and highways, occupied the county offices, and are gathering into units to march on Kaunas ib 236. Early in the morning, Darulis would get up, eat a meager breakfast and, having harnessed the dun horse to the cart, set off to work in a sullen mood MntvR 187—188. we will take you to the seminary in Kaunas VnlP 31.”

Sometimes a fossilized but entirely non-adverbialized illative forms idiomatic expressions with certain verbs, used in both spoken and written language. In such expressions, the fossilized illative is generally not amenable—or is not even possible—to replacement by prepositional constructions. Compare the expressions: bring to trial, prosecute,

32

bring to legal responsibility, hold responsible, pass into ownership, etc.

All this clearly shows that the use of the illative in contemporary language, especially in the language of works of fiction, is motivated not only stylistically and rhythmically, but that sometimes the illative cannot even be replaced by a construction consisting of the preposition į and the accusative.

It is precisely for these reasons that many writers of fiction do not abandon the illative form. The language of Petras Cvirka’s writings is particularly notable for its frequent use of the illative, although this case is not alive in the writer’s native dialect.

The example of relatively intensive use of the illative in the language of Petras Cvirka’s writings clearly shows that a feature of grammatical structure which is disappearing or has entirely disappeared across a large area of dialects and, in part, in the written language (we have in mind the illative), when used by a writer of fiction for stylistic reasons, comes back to life and shines with new colors. Thus, the living use of the illative in the language of works of fiction must in no way be regarded as an artificial revival of a vanishing form, since this case, used masterfully, enriches the syntax of works of fiction, expressing spatial relations in the sentence more generally (where needed), more expressively, and more subtly in certain instances.

However, even in the language of works by writers who use the illative extensively, the construction with the preposition į and the accusative is much more frequent. This construction, demonstrating extraordinary vitality in contemporary Lithuanian and continually acquiring new meanings as well as new functions, has already replaced and displaced the old illative in many dialects and in the written language. Competition between this construction and the illative continues to this day, most often in favor of the former. If the prepositional construction prevails even in the language of works of fiction, then there can be no doubt that the illative, too, will eventually disappear from it as a living case, only occasionally turning into adverbs and, more often, giving way to the construction with the preposition į and the accusative.

Both of these tendencies (the adverbialization and disappearance of illatives) are sufficiently pronounced in contemporary Lithuanian. In discussing the development of the illative, these tendencies must in no way be conflated. The fate of the illative in Lithuanian cannot be explained by adverbialization alone, because the process of adverbialization of this case is not intensive, and, as already mentioned, there are not all that many fully adverbialized illative forms.

3. The Present Adessive (adessive)

Like all locative cases, the adessive, by expressing spatial relations and serving mainly as an adverbial of place in the sentence, also comes very close to adverbs semantically and syntactically. It answers the questions: at whose place, beside what is someone or something, acts, happens...? Thus, this case too indicates spatial relations that emphasize the exterior of the (grammatically understood) object it expresses, rather than its interior.

3. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinė sandara

33

It is generally held that the singular adessive of nouns was formed from the old non-postpositional inessive (whose a-stem examples include the adverbialized forms artiė, toliė, namiė) and the postposition -pi (: piė ‘near’ in Grv, as well as Latvian pie ‘near’ and pie-) < Proto-Indo-European *pei²⁴.

This particular formation is easy to discern in the (i)a-stem forms gaidiep, grabiep, miškiep, tėviep, which derive from the old non-postpositional inessives *gaidie, *grabie, *miškie, *tėvie and the postposition -p(i).

Tačiau adesyvą išlaikiusios tarmės ir (i)a kamieno formose ne visada prieš postpozicinį -p turi dvibalsį ie: Lazūnuose ir Zieteloj šalia -iep pasitaiko ir -ip. Pirmąjį žodžio galą (-iep) tose tarmėse dažniausiais atvejais turi galūnėje kirčiuojamos adesyvo formos (arkliep, vaikiep, veršiep) ir antrąjį (-ip) — ne galūnėje (brolip, senip, vyrip, bočiulip).

In word-final position, the singular adessives of the (i)a-stem differ considerably from those of the (i)o-stem, since the non-postpositional inessive forms of nouns belonging to these stems were themselves different. Adessive forms with the ending of the non-postpositional inessive of Old Lithuanian o-stem nouns preserved before the postposition are -p(i): bobai-p, mergai-p, momai-p. This is confirmed by the inessives of other Indo-European languages: Latin Romai, Romae ‘in Rome’, Greek dialectal ’Ολυμπίαι ‘in Olympia’, Old Church Slavonic rybĕ, rǫcĕ, nǫdzĕ, mušĕ, which together show that the inessive ending of Lithuanian o-stem nouns is -ai a legacy from very distant epochs, since in other Indo-European languages the diphthong here remained intact (Latin, Greek) or had already changed (Old Slavonic) thousands of years ago.

All in all, it should be emphasized here that the formation of adessives, like that of other postpositional Lithuanian cases, is very ancient. This is vividly demonstrated by the accentuation. Alongside the form rañkai-p(i) there is the form mergái-p(i). This means that the postposition itself attached to the old inessive at a time when it had retained ancient Indo-European accentuation²⁵.

Thus, it is evident that the adessive of Lithuanian o-stem nouns in those dialects where it has survived as a case to the present day ends in -aip. The io-stem nouns have the same word ending here, cf. žmėjap (singular nominative žmėja, from Belarusian зьмеи Aru 33). In the Lazūnai dialect, from which this example is taken, the adessive -ap is shortened from -aip. The adessive of ė-stem nouns ends in -eip, where -ei before the postposition -p(i) is likewise nothing other than the old ending of the non-postpositional inessive, cf. dešinei-pi²⁶. In Lazūnai -eip < -ep.

The formation of adessives of nouns with other stems has been considerably affected by analogy. Adessives of i- and consonant-stem nouns generally end in -ip, while those of the u-stem end in -up: ugnip, širdip, akmenip, sūnup. The adessive of iu-stem nouns is in some places formed by analogy with the ia-stem, and its word ending is -ip alongside the usual -up (after a palatalized consonant).

It is of great interest that, for example, in the Gervėčiai dialect the adessive (and also the allative) is formed not with the postposition -p(i), as in Lazūnai

²⁴ J. Endzelīns, Baltu valodu skaņas un formas, p. 143—144 ir K. Būga, Kalba ir senovė, I d., Kaunas, 1922, p. 275.

²⁵ See “Iš K. Būgos palikimo”, “Archivum Philologicum”, vol. 1, Kaunas, 1930, pp. 66—67.

²⁶ J. Endzelīns, Baltu valodu skaņas un formas, p. 128.

34

and in the Zietela dialects, and with -k, e.g.: a-stem: žū́riek, paš̌iek, berniek; io-stem: žvirblik, kiškik, arklik; o- and ē-stems: vārnak (< vārnaik), vištak, žmonāk (< žmonāik), mergāk, gērvek (< gērveik), katēk (< katēik); a-stem: usnik, ānglik, širdik, žąsik; (i)u-stem: karālik, sūnūk || sūniek; consonant stem: šunik²⁷. Such a postposition does not occur either in the old written sources or in other dialects. At present, there is no evidence in any Baltic language to explain its origin. Only conjecturally could it be connected with Old Church Slavonic preposition kъ, Russian к. The origin of this postposition is also unclear because the preposition piè continues to be widely used in the dialect where it occurs, and it most likely gave rise to the postposition -p(i).

After these brief remarks on the meaning, origin, and formation of the adesive, the questions that concern us most here arise: what is the relationship of this case to adverbs, and to what extent has the adesive become adverbialized in contemporary Lithuanian?

The answers to these questions must be sought in the use of the adesive itself. First of all, it must be said that in the Gervėčiai, Lazūnai, and Zietela dialects, the adesive has survived in the singular case system, while pronouns also use plural adesive forms. Thus, the forms of this case here cannot in any way be regarded as adverbs, especially since they are widely used even with agreeing modifiers, which further emphasize the meaning of the adesive as a case, e.g.: savām rōdnam̄ bočiulip Zt, taip mergāip ib, svetimāip momāip ib. However, even in Zietela, where singular adesive forms have been best preserved phonetically, plural forms of the adesive, except for pronominal ones, are no longer found. Here, as in other dialects, the inessive has taken over the functions of the plural adesive.

All this clearly shows that the adesive is a declining case in the dialects mentioned, as it also was in sixteenth-century written texts. The disappearance of adesive forms is not the same as their adverbialization. If these were identical phenomena, then in dialects where the adesive has disappeared we should find numerous adesive adverbs. In fact, this is not so. Even in the eastern Dzūkian dialects (e.g., Dieveniškės), where the adesive probably disappeared later than elsewhere, adesive adverbs are exceptionally few—only one or two.

Thus, the adesive is more prone to complete disappearance than to adverbialization. The principal cause of the disappearance of the adesive (as of other postpositional cases: the illative and allative) has been and remains the following: the expansion of the meanings and functions of prepositions and the ever-increasing establishment of prepositional constructions.

It can thus be seen that the adesive, originating in a postpositional construction that must have been characteristic of the pre-literary period of Lithuanian linguistic history, gradually disappeared as a case, unable to withstand prepositional constructions. Its functions were taken over by prepositional constructions.

Today, the disappearance of the adesive has progressed so far that in some dialects no trace of this case remains (at least no trace with the postposition -p(i), not even

²⁷ P. Arumaa, Lithuanische mundartliche Texte aus der Wilnaer Gegend mit grammatischen Anmerkungen, Dorpat, 1930, p. 57.

3*

35

not a single adverbialized form of it. The fate of the adessive in literary language is much the same, one might say. This alone clearly shows that the development of the adessive is characterized not so much by adverbialization as by disappearance.

Only in exceptionally rare cases can one find an occasional nominal adverb of adessive origin, both in dialects where this case has long been extinct and in literary language, e.g.: galiep “at last” (Ant galiep galo atėjo Užv.), galyp “ditto” LKŽ “G”, nakťiep (Dieną dienop nuo griautuvų virsta mūrai ir bokštai, Naktį naktiep rausia žemę griaunančios minos, kaip kurmiai AMickKonnr (MPut) 50.), namiep(i) RŽ, šaliep JbL 102, šalip ib, LKŽ “G”, TŽ V 130, Llkž, RŽ, TPrg, LzPR.

In actual usage, these few adessive adverbs more often serve the function of allative adverbs (galiep, galyp—instead of galóp; compare also nãkti naktiep alongside dieną dienóp). This change in function itself attests to the phase in the development of the adessive when its meaning as a case has completely faded from the speaker’s consciousness. It is precisely this complete lack of awareness of the meanings of the adessive and allative that explains the use here of such unusual, artificial combinations as dieną dienóp, nãkti naktiep, with which the translator of “Konrad Wallenrod” seeks to lend the language of the translation an archaic coloring.

4. Current allative case (allative)

This case (with nouns in mind) indicates a person or thing that one approaches, goes or moves toward, advances toward, or heads for. In old writings, the allative occurs in forms such as tėvop, motinosp, žemiesp, sūnausp, seseresp, and so on. Thus, like the adessive, the allative is formed with the postposition -p (< -pi < -pie)²⁸, except that here it is attached to forms of a different case, namely the genitive (both singular and plural).

In the plural allative forms, the nasal consonant (m) has been preserved before the postposition -p(i). This shows that the case arose when the plural genitive ending still contained -n. Yet this alone is not evidence that the allative is especially ancient, since in reality the nasal sound -n was present in the plural genitive ending until relatively recently. The accentuation of such singular forms as miškóp, namóp, stalóp, in which the ending retains the accent, attests to the allative’s great antiquity. The genitives of nouns with ancient final stress, such as miškas, nāmas, stālas, are now stressed on the stem (miško, nāmo, stālo). Thus, the allatives miškóp, namóp, stalóp were formed from singular genitives before stress was retracted from the ending to the stem in these forms—that is, in prehistoric times, before stress shifted from the stem to the ending according to the well-known Saussure–Fortunatov law.

Both in 16th–17th-century writings and in those modern dialects that still retain the adessive, the nominal allative is the least well-preserved of all the local cases.

In the Gervėčiai dialect, as already mentioned, the allative is formed from the genitive and the postposition -k, e.g.: I promise to go to Sturliók, Galiniók, Misiuliók (to Šturli, Galini, Misiuli).²⁸

36

In addition to the competition between the prepositional constructions mentioned above, we must also point to phonetic factors that may have accelerated the disappearance of the -pi cases (the allative and adessive). Such Lazūnai dialect utterances, “translated” phonetically into the literary language, as I brought you a calf, I added an ear of grass, the bear ran down to the river, one girl chats with another, return to your son, show that in the forms tavęs, žolės, upės, kitós, sūnaus the postposition -p(i) has been lost after the sound -s. Thus, essentially, only the first components of the allative remain here—the genitive forms. In the Lazūnai dialect, the postpositional -p is generally retained in allatives whose first component (expressed by the genitive case) does not end in the sound -s. In this way, a particularly important phonetic factor becomes evident in the Lazūnai dialect itself, showing why in many other dialects the allative (and also the adessive, another case formed with the postposition -p(i)) could have disappeared relatively long ago, even though these cases were still quite common in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century writings. For phonetic reasons (most likely ease of pronunciation), -p (< -pi < -pie) is lost after the sound -s in the allative, and later also after the sound -m (vaikump, manimp, didžiamp) in the allative and adessive. Once the postpositional -p is lost, these cases become syntactically ambiguous, polysemous, or even wholly incomprehensible. But language cannot tolerate this: forms that obscure meaning or are incomprehensible cannot survive in it. Thus, shortened by phonetic factors and thereby deprived of syntactic distinctiveness, the allative and adessive forms could have fallen out of use and yielded to more expressive forms and constructions. It goes without saying that such forms could not become adverbialized.

It is therefore no coincidence that in written language and in those dialects where the cases formed with the postposition -p(i) have long been extinct, the allative forms that have become adverbial usually have a vowel before the postpositional -p: amžinóp, atgalióp, atpakalióp, geróp, namóp, vakaróp, and so on. It is interesting that in present-day language the allative (motion toward a place) meaning of adverbs is more vigorous than the adessive (presence beside a place) meaning; consequently, even such adverbs of adessive origin as galiep, galyp, naktięp, namiep(i), šaliep, šalip more often perform the function of allative adverbs. Thus, the already scant remnants of the adverbialized adessive are functionally indistinguishable from allative adverbs; as a result, in present-day written language and dialects (except among the easternmost Dzūkai and in the Zietela enclave), even adessive adverbs are dying out—not to mention the adessive itself as a case, which has long been extinct.

By contrast, allative adverbs (although the allative itself as a case is the least well preserved even in the Lithuanian-speaking enclaves mentioned above) show somewhat greater vitality and are used a little more widely and frequently both in written language and in dialects where the cases formed with the postposition -p(i) are already extinct. For example: dangospį “to heaven, skyward” (And the Lithuanian does not cry out to heaven... LGR 270.), dienóp “toward daybreak” (Day after day, toward daylight, the walls and towers topple from the cannons... AMickKonr (MPut) 50.), dievóp “to God” (Elsewhere through the villages he went, calling to God the good-willed Catholics, a man dressed half like a priest, collecting offerings to equip the cathedral bells CvR VIII 191.), galópi “to the end, finally” (at first the voice comes from far away, then grows faster and finally at the end at an incredible speed Blv. As if in the clearings the wind, [Valteris] must wander about to-

37

day, Smurtaut, to kill and finally die a traitor’s death AMickKonr (MPut) 55.), galóp “the same” (Everything is coming to an end Jb. Jijė, the housekeeper, finally drives me, that is, nags and hounds me J. War is war, but plague—turn it as you will—is worse than war, the eldest man finally said Gud-GuzB I 19. Finally, if all plants were alike, who would protect them from the heat, the storm, the north wind?.. VnlU 90.), mirióp “fatally” Llkž, mirióp “the same” (And whoever begins to drink heavily is the one who gets dead drunk most often SimnA 146.), myrióp “to freeze to death, to condemn” Llkž, namópi “home” (Come back home at dusk LGR 168. Come home, hunter... AMickKonr (MPut) 47.), namóp “that is” Llkž, pavakarióp “toward evening” Llkž (Toward evening the commotion in the corridor quieted a little; only the warders run about, laughing and jingling their keys ŽR III 307.), pavakaróp “the same” ŽR I 117, pavasarióp “toward spring” Rž, Llkž, ŽR IV 48, MontyR 13, CvR VII 34 (Monika, who had been sick all winter, recovered toward spring, but after another, her fourth consecutive, fainting spell, she relapsed and never again crossed the threshold of her home CvR VIII 234.), rytóp “toward morning” Rž, rudenióp “toward autumn” ib, Llkž, ŽR II 251, IV 74, CvR VII 38, VIII 56, 138, 201, IX 154, BlnR 42, MPutA II 15, VnlU 164 (In autumn, when the frosts began, things and people crowded into the kitchen, vying on colder days for the place nearest the fire CvR II 113), rudenóp “the same” Llkž, ŽR I 262, III 247, IV 375, 410 (The summer was hot and dry; but toward autumn, as the days had already shortened by quite a bit, rain too began to visit more often ŽR II 228.), vakaróp “toward evening” Llkž, Rž, ŽR I 239, II 480, CvR III 125, VI 272, IX 73, VnlU 17, 121, MPutA III 35, Gud-GuzB II 162, Kpn (Tlpr 99) (Now wait for me this evening... I’ll bring something back from mother ŽR I 226.), vasaróp “further into summer” (It’s getting more like summer, it’s no longer as cold as in winter Llkž. already... further into summer, yet the evening is just as lovely and clear ŽR I 194.), velnióp “to hell” Llkž, TDDėdes 84, ŽR I 249, Gud-GuzB I 120 (And now, sir, be off! Get out of here! Do you hear?! CvR VIII 191.), žiemóp “toward winter” Llkž.

As the examples show, allative adverbs are found more often in the language of works of fiction. Their use there is usually motivated by stylistic or rhythmic-melodic considerations. Sometimes, wishing to give the language an archaic coloring, a writer of fiction is not satisfied with the allative adverbs available in the literary language of their time and uses one or another allative case form. For example, when V. Mykolaitis-Putinas was translating A. Mickevičius’s “Konrad Wallenrod,” he enlivened the speech of the bard’s tale not only with the allative adverbs galopi and namopi²⁹, but also with archaisms such as kalnоп “up the hill” (As soon as the sun rose, I looked up the hill; two riders hurried up the hill in the morning mist AMickKonr (MPut) 54.), kiemopi “into the yard” (Smoke poured into the palace; we ran out into the yard ib 45.), and others.

Of course, forms thus creatively revived in a special context and at the author’s particular initiative do not become adverbs. They

²⁹ The translator seems to want to give these adverbs an even more archaic coloring as well, by retaining -i at the end.

38

times with such sixteenth- and seventeenth-century written-language allatives as galybėsp, intai- symop, išganymop, keliop, prisakymopi, pulkop, skaitytojop, stalop, sūnauspi, tėvapi (=tėvopi), žodžiop, etc., are nothing other than nouns. Thus, only a relatively small proportion of allatives, too, have turned into adverbs.

Although allative adverbs proved somewhat more numerous than adessive ones, they nevertheless do not constitute any stable or productive type on the basis of which new words could be derived. The examples themselves have already shown that almost every allative adverb can easily be replaced by other linguistic means, especially by the prepositional į plus accusative construction. This explains their limited distribution in the present-day language.

Adjectival adverbs approach the adverbial derivatives of the singular allative very closely in their formation and semantics, and are therefore mentioned here alongside the latter. In the present-day language, adjectival formations of this type occur even less often than nominal ones, and they, too, are for the most part retreating from the active vocabulary, giving way to more widely used adverbs. Their examples alone—amžinóp ‘eternally’ (Tas žmogus... atsigulęs ir užmigęs a m ž i n o p LC 1884, 1.), atgalióp ‘back’ (Atgrįžti veidą a t g a l i o p rš., a t g a l i o p pašlijo AMickKonnr (MPut) 39.), atpakalióp ‘the same way’ (Eik a t p a k a l i ó p į namus Skdv.), geróp ‘for the better, betterward’ Dv, ilgainop ‘in the course of time’ srš—show that these, too, are nothing other than remnants of past periods. They are formed from the genitive form of an adjective (possibly substantivized) and the postposition -p: amžinóp (: ámžinas, -à), atgalióp (: ãtgalias, -ià), atpakalióp (: ãtpakalias, -ià), geróp (: gẽras, -à).

Only ilgainop stands out somewhat among them. In present-day language there is no corresponding adjective *ilg ainas, -a, and one can only conjecture that such an adjective once existed in the language.

The conclusions presented below will help us summarize the analysis of adverbialization of the singular locative cases, in which their meaning, formation, usage, relationship to adverbs, and the process of adverbialization were discussed, as well as the meaning, formation, and usage of the results of adverbialization—the locative adverbs themselves.

1. Although the locative cases of some parts of speech (for example, nouns) come very close to adverbs in both meaning and syntactic function, the process of adverbialization of locative cases is not active in present-day Lithuanian. Thus, the locative adverbs found today (especially adessive, allative, and illative adverbs) are for the most part products of linguistic development in past periods.

2. Present-day Lithuanian has inessives of two different origins and morphological compositions: postpositional and non-postpositional. At the beginning of the formation of postpositional inessives, *en served as a postposition. Over time, this postposition merged completely with the case ending and was either reduced or lost. Of the two types of inessive, only the postpositional inessive has become established in the case system of the present-day language. Postpositional inessives are more readily and quickly adverbialized when formed from nouns denoting more generalized, abstract notions of place, space, or time, cf. adverbs:

39

locations or concepts of time, cf. the adverbs: vakarė, laukė, orė, rytój (< rytóje), aplinkój ‘around’, apčiūpoj ‘in the dark, fumbling about’, (intimój) (įtimpoj) ‘without stopping’, apačioj, palaidžioj ‘at large’, pradžioj, dešinėj, draugėj, kairėj, savėj ‘among one’s own, one’s close associates’, bąsčiautei, vienõmarškinei, vienõplaukei, šalyjė ‘beside’, vidujė, viršujė. In general, the endings of the postpositional inessive are not inclined to become derivational formatives for adverbs.

3. The ending -ie of the non-postpositional inessive, which had already fallen out of the inflectional system in remote antiquity, shows a certain tendency in the Samogitian dialect to become an adverb-forming formative, encompassing not only nominal but also adjectival, pronominal, and participial derivatives (ankstie, artie, namie, tolie, šaltie, šiokie, dūlkantie...). Alongside the formant -ie, another formant (derived from the ending of the non-postpositional inessive) should also be mentioned—-i (cf. anksti, arti, toli)—which is entirely non-vigorous and unproductive, surviving in only a few forms, though these are used with remarkable breadth and frequency.

4. In the language of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century writings, and likewise in the inflectional system of today’s East Aukštaitian dialects, the singular illative, formed from the singular accusative and a postposition, remains firmly established. A considerable number of illative forms are also used in present-day standard Lithuanian. There is no basis whatsoever for considering all of them adverbialized. In all Lithuanian dialects as well as in the standard language, only a small number of illative forms have become adverbialized, generally those expressing the most generalized and abstract spatial relations or the manner of an action’s state, cf.: laukan, oran, dešinėn, kairėn, draugėn, tiesėn ‘to the right’, žemėn ‘downward, onto the ground’, šalin, vidun, viršun, linkan, aplinkun, atgalion, atsavõn ‘separately’, įredin ‘in time, in place, as it should be’, pāskūn.

5. In the history of Lithuanian, the illative is disappearing more than it is becoming adverbialized. Both of these tendencies—the adverbialization and disappearance of illatives—can be clearly observed in the present-day language as well. In studying the development of illatives, these tendencies must not be conflated under any circumstances.

6. The use of illatives in the language of works of fiction is stylistically motivated: illatives (alongside prepositional į plus accusative constructions) expand the possibilities of grammatical synonymy in the language of works of fiction, enrich the rhythmic and melodic resources of poetic language, and also lend local color to the speech of a work’s characters.

7. In the eastern Dzūkian and Zietela Lithuanian-speaking enclaves, two cases with the postposition -p(i)—the adessive and allative—have survived, to a greater or lesser extent, in the inflectional system. Their development, too, is characterized far more by complete disappearance than by adverbialization. Their disappearance is to be explained by the establishment of prepositional constructions.

8. In some dialects (and likewise in the standard language), the disappearance of the adessive has progressed so far that no trace of this case (at least with the postposition -p(i)) remains. If one or another adessive adverb is occasionally used in dialects lacking the adessive and in contemporary fictional writing (naktìep, šalìep, šalìp, galìep), its function is generally confused with that of allative adverbs.

40

9. Of all the locative cases, the allative is the least well preserved. However, allative adverbs themselves show greater vitality and are used more widely and frequently both in written language and in dialects. There are nominal forms (galóp, mirióp, namóp, pavasarióp, vakaróp...) and adjectival forms (amžinóp, atgalióp, atpakalióp...).

10. The accentuation of such singular forms as miškóp, namóp, stalóp, in which stress is retained on the ending, is especially indicative of the allative’s antiquity. The genitives of nouns with such ancient end-stress, as miškas, namas, stalas, are now stressed on the stem (miško, namo, stalo). Thus, allatives were formed from the genitives of these nouns before stress shifted from the ending to the stem in them, that is, in prehistoric times.

ON THE QUESTION OF THE ADVERBIALIZATION OF SINGULAR LOCAL CASES

К. УЛЬВИДАС

Резюме

1. The article examines the relationship of the inessive, illative, adessive and allative to adverbs; the adverbialization of these cases; and the meaning, formation and use of adverbs that have developed from these cases.

2. Although the singular local cases of certain parts of speech (e.g., nouns) are very close to adverbs in their semantics and syntactic function, the process of adverbialization of these cases cannot nevertheless be considered active in modern Lithuanian. Adverbs found in modern Lithuanian that correspond to singular local cases (especially adessive, allative and illative forms) are generally inherited from the past.

3. Modern Lithuanian has two types of inessive, differing in origin and morphological composition, namely, the inessive with a postposition and the inessive without one. In the initial stages of the formation of the postpositional inessive, *en served as the postposition; over time, it merged with the noun, became distorted, or disappeared. Only the postpositional inessive has survived in the declensional system of modern Lithuanian. Postpositional inessives formed from nouns are more frequently and readily adverbialized when they express generalized spatial and temporal relations or denote manner of action; compare the adverbs: vakarė ‘in the evening’, lauké ‘in the yard, in the street, outdoors’, orė ‘same’, rytój (‘rytóje) ‘tomorrow’, aplinkój ‘all around, around’, apčiūrėj ‘by touch’, intimpój (‘itimpój) ‘impartially’, apačioj ‘below’, palaidžiój ‘during the thaw’, pradžiojė ‘at the beginning’, dešinėj ‘to the right’, draugėj ‘together’, kairėj ‘to the left’, savėjė ‘within one’s own circle’, básiautėj ‘barefoot’, vienómarškinėj ‘in a single shirt’, vienóplaukéj ‘bareheaded’, šalyjė ‘nearby’, vidujė ‘inside’, viršujė ‘above’. In general, however, the endings of the postpositional inessive do not become derivational formatives of adverbs.

3. The ending -ie, characteristic of the non-postpositional inessive, which disappeared from the declensional system in remote antiquity, is preserved in the Samogitian dialect, where it shows some tendency to become an adverb-forming suffix in adverbs corresponding not only to nouns but also to adjectives, pronouns and participles, e.g.: ankstie ‘early’, artie ‘near’, namiė ‘at home’. toliė ‘far’, šaltie ‘when it is cold’, šiokiė ‘in such (bad) weather’, dūlkantie ‘when it is dusty’, lynantie ‘when it rains’, pašalusie ‘when there has been a frost’, compare also the phrases tókie dárganotie ‘in slush, in bad weather’, tókie bláizdlaũziotie ‘when there has been a slight frost and one’s feet sink into the mud (i.e., one can break a leg)’.

Alongside the formative -ie, the formative -i, also derived from the ending of the non-postpositional inessive, should be mentioned, e.g.: ankšti ‘early’, arti ‘near’, toli ‘far’.

41

The formant -i is highly unproductive; it has survived in only a few adverbs, but these adverbs stand out for their exceptional frequency and prevalence in Lithuanian.

4. In written monuments of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as well as in modern East Aukštaitian dialects, the inflectional system retains the singular illative, which arose from the singular accusative and a postposition whose form has not yet been firmly established (some researchers point to the existence of the postposition a, others to ai, and still others to na). Illative forms are also frequently found in modern standard Lithuanian, especially in the language of fiction. There is no reason to regard all these forms as adverbs. In both dialects and the literary language, only a small number of illative forms have become adverbs. As a rule, only denominal illative forms that express the most generalized spatial relations or denote manner or state become adverbialized, e.g.: láikan “into the yard, outside,” ogañ “into the air,” dešinėn “to the right (to go),” kairėn “to the left,” tiesėn “straight ahead,” žemėn “onto the ground, against the ground,” šalìn “aside; away, off,” vidùn “inside,” viršùn “upward,” linkañ “in the direction of,” aplinkùn “around, all around,” atgalióp “back,” atskirõn “separately,” įrėdin “appropriately, in time, as it should be,” paskūn “following, after; afterwards.”

5. If Lithuanian is considered as a whole, the illative is gradually dying out and becomes an adverb only in a few cases. Both tendencies—the adverbialization and the decline of the illative—are also observed in modern Lithuanian. These tendencies should be clearly distinguished when studying the development of the illative.

6. The use of illative forms in the language of fiction is stylistically justified: by replacing the construction with the preposition į and the accusative, the illative expands the possibilities for grammatical synonymy in literary works, enriches the rhythmico-melodic resources of poetic language, and lends the speech of characters local color.

7. In the East Dzūkian dialect and in the Lithuanian variety spoken in the Dyatlovo district (Zietela) of the Byelorussian SSR, two cases with the postposition -p(i) are retained in the inflectional system: the adessive and the allative. Like the illative forms, these forms are more likely to die out than to become adverbs. They are gradually being displaced by prepositional constructions.

8. In the literary language and in a number of dialects, the adessive with the postposition -p(i) has been completely lost. Adverbs with a fossilized adessive ending are sometimes found here, but these formations often have an allative meaning (cf. the use of the adessive forms galiep, galyp in the allative sense, instead of galóp “finally”).

9. Of all the local cases, the allative is the least well preserved. However, the adverbs that arose from allative forms are stable and widely used both in the written language and in dialects. Some adverbs of this type correspond to nouns (galóp “toward the end, finally,” mirióp “to death,” namóp “home,” pavasarióp “toward spring,” vakaróp “toward evening”), while others correspond to adjectives (amžinóp “forever,” atgalióp “back,” atpakañiop “likewise”).

10. Local cases with postpositions, like the adverbs derived from these cases, are archaic features of the language. The accentuation of denominal allatives such as miškóp “to the forest” and stalóp “to the table,” as well as that of allative adverbs such as galóp “toward the end, finally” and namóp “toward home,” should be considered particularly archaic. As is known, the singular allative was formed by the fusion of the postposition -p(i) with the singular genitive form. In modern Lithuanian, the singular genitive forms of ancient oxytone words are stressed not on the ending but on the first syllable, e.g.: miško “of the forest,” stalo “of the table,” galo “of the end,” namo “of the house.” This shows that the allative was formed before stress in the forms mentioned had shifted from the ending to the stem (i.e., to the first syllable). The shift of stress from the ending occurred in remote antiquity, even before the operation of the well-known Saussure–Fortunatov law—before the shift of stress (under certain conditions) from the stem to the ending.

42