LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GRAMATINĖ SANDARA

LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

PARTICIPIAL CONSTRUCTIONS WITH CONNECTIVE WORDS IN LITHUANIAN

V. AMBRAZAS

§ 1. The complex syntactic system of participles in modern Lithuanian has taken shape and developed over many centuries, and we can discern only the very latest links in this process on the basis of the comparatively brief period of written tradition. Yet, owing to the uneven development of the language’s syntactic structure, even in the modern language we find quite a number of participial constructions inherited from the distant past. Such constructions now usually occupy an isolated position, failing to conform to the principal patterns of usage, and have often even become certain fossilized idioms. These features help identify syntactic archaisms and, once their interrelations have been established, reconstruct earlier patterns and tendencies in the use of participles.

This article aims to discuss one such phenomenon, which occupies a rather distinctive place in the syntactic system of Lithuanian participles: certain participial constructions with connective words. Here this term refers to constructions in which particles, conjunctions, adverbs, and other connective words precede a participle and link it (either alone or expanded by dependent words) to a finite verb form (less often, to another participle or a half-participle). The first to draw attention to the significance of constructions with connective words for elucidating the development of the participial system was A. Potebnia. In examining corresponding expressions in Slavic languages, he cited a considerable number of Lithuanian examples and demonstrated their connection with participles used in forms of indirect mood¹. Such Lithuanian constructions have not yet been studied specifically. Some instances of their usage, which occur rarely in the modern language or only in certain lexically restricted expressions, are attested much more extensively in older written monuments. Therefore, in discussing these constructions, alongside facts from the modern

¹ Žr. A. A. Потебня, Из записок по русской грамматике, I—II, М., 1958, 222—228.

43

literary language and dialects, data from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts are also presented².

§ 2. Participial constructions with connective words are not all alike. In some of them, particles, adverbs, or conjunctions preceding a participle (either alone or with dependent words) merely clarify or modify its adverbial meaning, without changing its syntactic relations with other words. In such cases, active past-tense and passive present- and past-tense participles are used. The shades of adverbial meaning contributed by function words vary.

The temporal meaning of a participle or participial phrase is often clarified and more precisely defined by particles such as dar ‘still’, prieš ‘before’, tik ‘only’, vos ‘barely’, vos tik ‘as soon as’, and the like.

Before the swallow had even been seen, he threw the cart into the pond. PP 322. Cry out before you are beaten, and then you won’t be beaten. JabIRR 479. Just as they were entering the village, they met a yellow carriage. Myk-PutR VI 117. Here again, scarcely having returned from the horses of strangers, the foal gets tangled in a net. CvR II 63. Ignotas says a word or two in a restrained manner, while Dekšnys, barely touched, bursts into tears. Gud-GuzKIT, 302.

Concessive meaning is often brought out by connective words preceding the participle, such as ir ‘even’, kad ir ‘even if’, nors ‘although’, nors ir ‘even though’, and the like.

Giniotis, even without being urged, was the first to jump up and tear off the roof. LzPR II 110. There were even some who, though uninvited, intended to drop by the Jokūbas family’s as if on some errand. Myk-PutS 94. So the people came streaming onto the hillfort, even though they had left their clubs at home behind the door. VaizgP III 115. A little while later Anatolis was already at the top of the haystack, although threatened with pitchforks and pushed back. CvR III 35. Although given fodder, not one (animal) ate. CvR III 131.

Comparative particles such as it ‘as if’, kaip ‘like’, kaip ir ‘as though’, lyg ‘as if’, tartum ‘as though’, and tarsi ‘as if’, when preceding a participle or participial phrase, convey comparative, uncertain, doubtful, and other modal meanings.

The townspeople, as if stubborn, stayed close to the door. VienR V 171. The men hurried outside as if stung by a fly. Šv. He rushed here, rushed there, and stands there as if stunned. Nč. Why are you wandering about as if you had lost something? Skp. “What is this, where on earth did he come from?” the stranger began, as if pleased, as if frightened, unexpectedly reaching to kiss the hand. VienR I 146. Slamming the door, Grigas dashed out of the cottage as if chased by a hundred dogs. KrėvRg 25. Kūnas was also running about in the yard as if stung by bees. CvR VIII 282. The moon’s shadows could no longer be seen at all; the sky had cleared, as if the air had dispersed, and the trees, as though they had opened up, began to whisper more kindly to the man. VienR I 175. Father, as though recalling something more cheerful, began to speak more animatedly. VencIR II 39.

Half-participles are also used in constructions of the corresponding structure. They are contrasted with participles on the basis of the categories of tense and voice.

² Examples from eighteenth- to twentieth-century texts, folklore collections, and dialects are presented according to the spelling norms of the modern literary language, while the punctuation of the originals is retained. Examples from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts are not transposed into the literary language; only the so-called “Gothic” letters are replaced with Latin letters of the type used today.

44

We often learn about new things, phenomena, processes, and concepts before having names for them in our language (trš). Why does mother Ėtmė first sprinkle cold water on the floor before sweeping the house? SimonOBT 17. And so he sat all day, carrying nothing, merely blowing a great cloud of smoke from his pipe. VaižgR II 173. Although swallowing his saliva, the doctor angrily broke free. LzPR II 78. Though fearing him as one would a bogeyman and even keeping away from him, people called him “sir” to his face. CvR III 159. The woman, having a small baby, had to go to work. BsMt II 198.

The position of participles and half-participles used with the aforementioned function words in relation to the finite verb form can vary, but preposed instances are considerably more frequent and predominant.

In the constructions mentioned here, nominative participles correspond entirely in meaning and syntactic relations with other words to attributive-predicative participles used without connective words and indicating a secondary action in the sentence³. Like the latter, they agree with the subject of the sentence and are semantically associated with the predicate. They also relate to half-participles in exactly the same way as the corresponding participles used without connective words. Particles, adverbs, and conjunctions merely modify the circumstantial meaning of a participle or half-participle, without essentially changing its function (cf.: The fire goes out angrily. Nj — The fire burns even when left unstoked. Sim). All this shows that these are ordinary instances of the attributive-predicative use of participles. Therefore, in what follows, when discussing participial constructions with connective words that have a different meaning, these instances are set aside.

§ 3. A separate group consists of those constructions with connective words in which participles and half-participles correspond in meaning to finite verb forms, without the modal nuances characteristic of indirect mood. With this meaning, participles are sometimes used with the case forms of the relative pronoun kas, and with kiek, kur, iki, ligi, and other connective words. Sometimes constructions with participles that occur with the very same connective word have different meanings. The distinction between the two types becomes clear when we compare the two kinds of construction with the connective word how.

a) Why on earth are you rushing off so quickly, as if the malt had caught fire? Slm. He lies there as if he had finished the harvest work. Rdn.

b) Jonukas will marry, receive support, and we will be able to live as we have been living. ŽemR I 66. The manor remained just as it had been, only it was called a center. CvR III 112.

In constructions of the first type (a), the connective word how indicates the uncertainty of the action denoted by the participle and can be replaced by the particles as if, as though, and the like. In constructions of the second type (b), such a replacement is not possible, since in this case two equally real actions are juxtaposed and compared. The participle here may be regarded as a finite verb form (a compound

³ For a fuller discussion of this question, see V. Ambrazas, Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių atributyvinė-predikatyvinė vartosena, in: Lietuvių kalbos morfologinė sandara ir jos raida (LKK VII), Vilnius, 1965, pp. 47—49.

45

or the syntactic equivalent of the simple past tense (cf.: as they had lived or as they lived; as he had stood or as he stood). In contemporary Lithuanian, such constructions are quite rare, and their structure is generally uniform: after the conjunction as, an unexpanded simple past participle is used, with the same root as the finite verb functioning as the predicate.

Bernas did not move and stood as he had stood. KrėvRg 42. But the ancestors of Baltaragis’s parents had long since passed away; the lake kept washing the shore all the while, and the mill stood on the slope just as it had stood before. BorBM 3. Whoever was a fool hurried and gave himself away, while whoever was not afraid lived as he had lived. AvyžKK 23. The grasshopper paid no heed to the owl and chirped as it had chirped. P 43. There, there, calm down, my dear little one!.. I’ll be back, and we’ll be as we were. ŽemR I 293. Tomorrow my pocket will be empty again, as it was before. KrėvLŽ 245. Well, what will you do now? Be as you were; we’ll see tomorrow. LTRn 300. Those same castles were as they had been. DaukB 196.

This also includes fossilized constructions in which as occurs with a participle of the verb to be in a sentence without a finite verb form.

Now the youngest daughter will be mine; the cones are as they were. Jrk 133. Nu-stebės (the hunchback) felt around, and the humps were as if they had never been. CvR V 110. There was no bread (it was eaten quickly). Vkš.

Constructions in which the participle has a different root from the finite verb are less common. Nevertheless, they too have been used in Lithuanian since the earliest written monuments; cf.: The wise did not return as they had intended. DP 419 (ne vročilu wedde obietnice W).

Alongside constructions containing simple past participles, corresponding constructions with half-participles are also used; here, their meaning is likewise close to that of finite verb forms, specifically present-tense verbs.

Everyone knows that I repair the buildings for them as best I can. ŽemR II 35. The gentlemen began to howl, dance, and amuse themselves as best they could, and this went on until cockcrow. S I 171. Even the children, leaving the fireside corner, squeezed through the adults as best they could. SRagR III 72. The living fled home as best they could, but not everyone managed to escape the plague. ValžV I 173. Ah, let everyone speak as they wish; for me, the olive tree is dearer because of its fruit. DaukRR 316.

Such half-participle constructions are fossilized and unproductive in contemporary Lithuanian. The half-participles in them are most often formed from verbs with modal meaning (to be able, to manage, to be capable, to want, and so on). Dialects also have constructions in which the half-participle and the finite verb form share a root, for example: Work as if you were working, and it will turn out that you are not suitable for the master. Trk.

In Old Lithuanian texts, and partly also in some contemporary dialects, nominative forms of present active participles are used with a meaning similar to as, like half-participles. This use of present active participles in place of contemporary half-participles indicates these

46

the archaic nature of fossilized, lexically restricted constructions (cf. P. Skardžius, APh VI 102—103).

Let those women marry whom they wish; only let them marry within the clan of their father’s tribe. BrB IV Moz 36 (wie es jnen gefelt LB). So that we might be able to value this which we receive from him as we are able. DP 617₁₁. And all these things are accomplished by one and the same Spirit, distributing to each as he wishes. DP 261₂₀ (rozdawiający każdemu iako chce W). So that, as he is able, he may repay so much. (co maż tak wiele zadał). SP I 146₂₄. You will hear, as soon as the doctor arrives (iako może). SP I 247₁₃. We will speak as soon as we can to others in the same way. AK 11. Wladystaus... endeavoured to enter into relations with the Lithuanian... tribes. DD 142. Act with this in mind, as those who understand. Grg.

Present and past passive participles have a meaning close to finite verb forms in constructions with kaip much less often, and likewise only in certain fossilized expressions.

Having entered the house of a villager, he may feast as he sees fit. DaukB 74. Do as you see fit. Grg. The same was once true of the Lithuanian people, when the world was still as it were. DaukB 122. (Such is his stubbornness—he will never do it, as ordered. Skd. (Cf.: After three days the man came to the king, as he had been ordered. LKŽ VII 430.)

Most participial constructions with case forms of the relative pronoun kas, with adverbs kur, kiek, kada, and with conjunctions iki, ligi and similar connecting words are of the same type as the constructions with kaip, discussed here. Past frequentive participles in these constructions also correspond to gerunds, alongside which dialects and old writings also use nominative forms of present active participles. The subject of the actions denoted by the participle and the finite verb form is the same.

Constructions with past frequentive active participles

§ 4. Among the case forms of the relative pronoun kas, the accusative most often serves as a connective word in these constructions.

In the village everyone told the neighbors what he had heard. Myk-PutS 47. And she, having rested, recounted what she had done. SRagR III 111. Then, having returned home, (the brothers) said nothing to Eglė about what they had done. LTt III 299. Though all three sons and the old woman tried to wrench old Dirdas’s hand free, he would not yield, and did not let go of what he had grasped. BaltPV I 276. She would make a good girl, only she keeps rejoicing over what she has just caught. Sml. He is sharp-eyed; he never keeps quiet about what he has spotted. Rm.

We also find corresponding constructions in the old monuments of our language; cf.:

You eat what you have not laid out and reap what you have not sown. VEE 186. Let the sinner confess what he has done. DP 122₉ (niech się grzesznik spowiada co uczynił W 211). Piktadeia confesses what he has done. SP I 249₂₄.

47

In contemporary Lithuanian, constructions with active past simple participles and the accusative of the relative pronoun *kas* are fairly productive. Only a few such constructions, especially those in which the roots of the participle and the finite verb form coincide, are used as set phrases (e.g., Daryk ką nedaręs. ŠRagR III 68). Most of them do not show marked signs of phraseological fossilization. The participle in them often also occurs with dependents.

The men would twist ropes, braid cords and reins, split kindling, and tell one another what they had seen or heard in the village. VienA 63. Of course! I’m telling you what I heard with my own ears and saw with my own eyes. LzPR II 83. I said nothing, though I still didn’t understand what bad thing I had done. BaltPV I 344.

The greater freedom and productivity of such constructions can be explained by analogy with the corresponding subordinate clauses in which compound perfect-tense forms function as the predicate (cf.: they would tell one another what they had seen or heard). In contemporary language, many constructions with *ką* and past simple participles are understood as such subordinate clauses with a zero conjunction.

Constructions with active past simple participles and the nominative of the relative pronoun occur only very rarely (cf.: There will be someone who hasn’t been there—I don’t believe it! Šts). Constructions with the genitive are also used much less frequently than those with the accusative.

Everyone, though still young, felt what they had lost. VaižgRR I 389. Now, little brother, you’ll hear something you’ve never heard before... I feel sorry for you. ŽemR III 103. In spring... a man does not hurry out of the smithy; he rummages for a long time through all his pockets, looking for what he has not put away, until at last he agrees. BaltPV I 212.

§ 5. Constructions with *kur* (‘where/from where’), *kiek*, *kada*, *ligi* and other linking words are not productive in contemporary Lithuanian.

He cuts (Misiulis), scrapes, hews... At night he drives along back roads, taking where he has arranged to go. KrėvRg 167. Did we arrive late, or did we not know where we had got on the tram? ŽemR IV 89. “Go,” he says, “back where you came from!” Give back what you got! CvR IX 54. He is not as capable as he has made himself out to be. Srv. Only now do we understand how far we have come. CvR II 22. He lay there for a while, then fell asleep. LKŽ V 743. I can no longer remember when I last tasted fish. LTt III 377. Having entered the pantry, (Kurmelis) could no longer remember when he had last been there. ŽemR I 169.

Don’t rejoice until you’ve caught it; it might still escape. Sim (LKŽ I 592). Lukošius... had three daughters and two sons; they all died before reaching old age. ŠRagR II 225—226. Others... appropriated many foreign offerings before they had even become Christians. DaukB 93.

In many constructions of this type, as in corresponding expressions with case forms of the pronoun *kas*, active past simple participles are now understood as equivalents of compound perfect verb forms; cf.: They went where they had intended to go. BsMt II 238. — Gužutis flies where he had not intended to go (rš).

48

In J. Bretkūnas’s Bible translation, constructions with iki most often translate original subordinate clauses with bib or ehe.

And the Lord... Neither will he delay nor suffer any longer. Until the wicked... has crushed their loins, and takes his revenge on them. Sir 35, 23 (bis er den unbarmherzigen die Lenden zuschmettere / und sich an solchen Leuten reche LB). We will go through your boundary, until we have passed it. IV Moz 21 (bis wir durch deine Grenze komen LB). For that man will not rest until he has completed this day’s work. Rut 3, 18 (er brings denn heute zum ende LB)⁴.

In older writings, constructions with active past frequentative participles are also used with kur (from where), pirm nei, net, net pirm.

Show us where they went from. DP 460 (skąd poszli W) They... will be driven out before they have ripened. BrB Sir 41 (ehe es reiff wird LB). I will pursue my enemies and destroy them. I will not turn back until I have slain them. BrB II Sam 22, 38 (bis ich sie umbbracht habe LB). So that you may not see my face unless you first bring Michal, Saul’s daughter, to me. BrB II Sam 3,13 (das du mein angesicht nicht sehest / du bringest denn zuvor zu mir / Michal LB). Do not judge until you have first heard the case. BrB Sir 10 (ehe du die Sache zuvor erkennest LB).

Constructions with net, net pirm, like the corresponding subordinate clauses that express the limit of the main action, eventually disappeared entirely and are no longer found in present-day Lithuanian. Used as a connective, the particle net now generally has an exclusive and emphatic meaning and is not used to express relations of limitation.

Constructions with semi-participles

§ 6. Among the forms of the relative pronoun kas used with semi-participles, the accusative is also the most common, while the genitive and instrumental occur less frequently.

If you do not know yourselves, I will tell it briefly, as best I can ŽemR II 351. Say what you know. VaižgRR I 279. Having nothing to do, he whittles whatever he can get hold of. Gs. She would throw at her eyes whatever she could grab. SimonVK I 199. Wherever such a storm comes through, it echoes, striking whatever it encounters. Jž.

Ask for whatever you want. GM 18. Thus the neighbors helped old Balsienė as much as they could. Myk-PutR VI 103. The boy tended the bird, caring for it and feeding it with whatever he had and could manage. TMPs 113.

As with the cases of the relative pronoun kas, semi-participles are used with other connectives as well (kur, kiek, ligi, and so on).

Walk wherever you want, look for whatever seems suitable. As old Maceikis tells it, when he was in the Turkish war, they shot and stabbed living people wherever they attacked. ŽemR III 74. But somehow I can’t find any money, though I search as hard as I can and follow Saliamutė wherever she goes

Cf.: A person will not rest until he has finished that task today. Ch. (Volte 100).

4. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinė sandara

49

as best he could. BaltPV I 205—206. The women were frightened and hurried as fast as they could. ŽemR II 328. My friend, having driven the animals in, comes running as fast as he can. CvR II 52. The stork threw out the pig and runs as fast as it can. LTt III 228. The wolf remembered Wednesday’s fast day—he eats meat whenever he gets the chance. LTRn 284. That fellow is never in a hurry to work—now, for instance, he is ploughing the fields whenever he thinks of it. Ob. When he has his own, whenever he wants; when he gets someone else’s, whenever he can. Ppr. 130.

Let us talk, my lad, while we are still young. Kltn. I walked until I could walk no more. JablRR I 324. We started drinking until we got drunk. JablRR II 351. They wore those only until they were leaving the church. ValPJ 21.

§ 7. Most such constructions have an adverbial nuance of meaning, determined by the general tendencies in the use of the half-participle in contemporary Lithuanian. For example, in the sentence For several days Kasiulienė continued to complain about her son, a neighbour, whom she had just met (KrevSP 210), instead of a relative pronoun with a particle (just), we can use a noun (e.g., people, acquaintances) and obtain a conventional half-participial construction denoting a secondary action. The adverbial meaning is especially pronounced in constructions with the instrumental form what, which explain the manner of the main action. However, although they have an adverbial nuance, half-participles in constructions with connectives also function as equivalents of finite verb forms, cf.: (The frog) began to drag its skin as far as it could. PP 13. — (The wolf) caught its breath and opened its mouth as wide as it could. PP 285. Half-participles with forms of the relative pronoun whoever are rarely used with the meaning of finite verb forms and without an adverbial nuance, and are not characteristic of contemporary literary language; cf.: Do not cry, father, you do not know what you are thinking. LB 258. Dialectal emphatic constructions in which a half-participle occurs with a verb of the same root are likewise used only occasionally.

Do whatever you are doing; see how it turns out. Sln. Break away, girls, whatever you are breaking; do not break the little tops. NS 210. Go straight along the road wherever you are going; do not veer off anywhere. NžR (LKŽ II 772). The king is travelling from wherever he is travelling. Pn. Whatever it may be, it is nevertheless desirable today that experts in the Lithuanian language collect all the remnants that still remain. DaukB 136.

Also related to constructions of this type are the following idioms without a finite verb form:

Whatever the circumstances, those two men had quaffed a lot of beer. DD 41. Nevertheless, Gediminas resolved to break into the castle by any means. MLLG III 309.

In contemporary Lithuanian, half-participles occur very rarely with the conjunction iki ‘until’. Data from old texts, especially J. Bretkūnas’s Bible translation, show that they were more productive in the sixteenth century.

⁵ This is also shown by comparison with the originals in old translated texts, cf.: They go wherever they can. BrB I Sam 23, 13. — Wandelten wo sie hin kunden. LB.

50

Thus they went together until they came to Bethlehem. Rut 1, 19 (until they came to Bethlehem LB). The people... worked until they could work no longer. I Sam 30, 4 (wept until they could weep no more LB). He went on prophesying until he came to Naioth in Ramah. I Sam 19,23 (prophesied / until he came to Naioth in Ramah LB). You will strike the Syrians until you have destroyed them. I Kar 22,11 (you will smite... until you have consumed them LB). Joab remained there six months, he and all Israel, until he had killed every male in Edom. I Kar 11,16 (he stayed... until he had exterminated every male in Edom LB). Judas encouraged them all along the way until he had brought them into the land of Judea I Mak 5,53 (comforted them... until he brought them into the land of Judea LB).

Constructions with present active participles

§ 8. Nominative forms of present active participles with connective words are now found only here and there in dialects, and occasionally in belles lettres as well. They are generally not freely formed, occurring only in expressions with a particular lexical composition. In older writings, constructions with certain connective words are used much more widely.

Among the forms of the relative pronoun kas in these constructions, the accusative is most commonly used.

Afterward she began to demonstrate in practice what she knew how to do LzPR II 470. (The Samogitians) showed what they knew how to do. ValŽV I 52. I would hurry at once to show what I knew how to do. VenclPU 100. Do what you can. ValTK 22. The fisherman Šeškutis himself does not know what he is saying. CvR IX 122. Drunk as you are, you do not know what you are babbling; better go to bed. ŽemR II 443. While working, Ona... had little idea what she was doing; when asked, she did not know what she was answering. CvR III 40. You yourselves... have no idea what you are doing. ValVK 3. Do not be such a blockhead; watch what you are doing. Skr. Do what you can; we will not plant you in the ground. Jrk 25. And do what a poor man does! Nm.

The lexical composition of both the participles and the finite verb forms is limited here: apart from cases where the roots of the participle and the finite verb form coincide, the predicate is most often a verb denoting perception or showing (verba percipiendi et demonstrandi), while the participle is formed from a verb with modal meaning, a derivational verb, or a verb of speaking (verba faciendi et dicendi). Some of these constructions, such as do what you can, are completely fossilized and have lost their literal meaning.

Only some constructions with present active participles have synonymous constructions with half-participles, cf.: Do what you can and Do what you can. In many of them, it would be entirely impossible to replace the participle with a half-participle. Unlike half-participles, present active participles here have no adverbial meaning at all and function as fully fledged equivalents of present-tense verbs, cf.: His eyes were bloodshot; he himself did not know what he was doing.

4*

51

LI. — Oh, don't eat, dear friend, don't eat; I was drunk and didn't know what I was doing. LTRn 282.

The relation between corresponding constructions found in older monuments of the language and their originals shows that in spoken language of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries they were still quite usual and widespread. Translators such as J. Bretkūnas and M. Daukša, who especially avoided departing needlessly from the original, sometimes used them to translate subordinate clauses with finite verb forms:

Moreover, Sara... bore a son in her old age, and to him he gave all that he possessed. BrB I Moz 24, 36 (for he had given him everything he owned LB). Let us do good as much as we can. DP 472²⁴ (whatever good we can W). Carrying... he did not know what he was saying. DP 594⁵⁰ (he did not know what he was saying W 199). And then... out of joy and wonder he did not know what he was saying. DP 595³⁹ (he did not know what he was saying W 200).

Present active participles are used much less frequently with other cases of the pronoun kas, for example, with the nominative (In that school, anyone who wanted to learn could do so. ValŽV I 8), with the genitive (She approached the young man and began telling him what she was looking for. LTt III 290), and with the instrumental (Vertelga now bit her lips, wondering why she, a woman, had let her tongue loose, not knowing with whom she was speaking. VaižgR VII 35). Cf. from older writings: Likewise, they too do not know what they are asking for / what they lack in order... DP484⁴² (what they are asking for W).

§ 9. When used with the nominative of the relative pronoun kas after finite forms of the verb būti (occasionally also after turėti and atsirasti), present active participles form a specific construction (called by J. Jablonskis the “vacant subject nominative,” see JablRR I 555), which is used alongside corresponding verbal expressions (cf.: nėra kas dirbąs ‘there is nobody working’ and nėra kas dirba ‘there is nobody who works’) and can be transformed into a dative phrase with an infinitive (nėra kam dirbti ‘there is nobody to work’). This construction is characteristic of Samogitian dialects and the writings of Samogitian authors. Alongside the masculine singular nominative, the participle’s neuter form is also used in it with the same meaning.

What will you do, left alone: there will be no one to cook the porridge, nor anyone to say a word. LzPR II 11. For a couple of years I kept giving out those little books—someone else has already learned to read—now there will be no one to give them out. SRagR III 124. (Ka- zokai) gave the animals away for nothing, but there was no one to take them. DaukRR 404. The Samogitians... could have returned to their old faith quite soon, had there not been someone to continue teaching and working. ValŽV I 45.

Constructions of the type nėra kas daro are also used in Lithuanian with another meaning—as syntactic synonyms of constructions of the type nėra kas (ką) daryti. In the same way, the corresponding construction with the neuter form of the present active participle relates to the nominative (accusative) plus infinitive construction; cf.: There is nothing for him to do (Dglš) and There is nothing left for him to do (Grž); There is nothing to do (Rm). Such participial constructions occur not only after the verb būti, but also after other verbs (verba cogitandi, percipiendi, sciendi, etc.).

52

There’s no one to deal with such a king—one has to go. BsRP 109. Trembling, Žiužka thought about who was doing it. LzPR II 187. Aleksiukas did not know who was doing it, either. VaižgP III 44. Whoever wants to live will always find someone doing it. VaižgR VII 105.

This construction in S. Vaišnoras’s writings should probably also be included here: And there is no need for both of us / that Lord Christus... should have reminded. MT (PM) 2^a.

It should be noted that the relative pronoun kas and participial constructions, which can be transformed into nominative, accusative, or dative combinations with an infinitive, have no equivalents involving semi-participles at all.

§ 10. Present active participle constructions with kur, kiek, kada, iki and other linking words are sometimes used in Samogitian dialects and in the writings of Samogitian authors.

The fisherman... went through the forest, not knowing himself where or why he was going. TMPs 27. And disappear wherever you disappear: there’s no money, and that’s that. Skrd. Laučkis... began to teach the farmers as much as he could. ValžV I 80. Every stranger... could sit down at the table, eat and drink as much as he wanted. ValžV I 252. The child... had as much bread as he wanted. ValPŽK 4. All those people... could take up any work they wished for their own benefit. DaukB 169.

Those who were unable... to repay their debts... had to serve them as slaves until they repaid them or worked them off. DaukB 169. A vairinkas (a woman’s garment) was worn by a wife until she gave birth to a son. DD 29. (For more examples from S. Daukantas’s writings, see APh VI 103.)

Sometimes such constructions become so fossilized that they are used regardless of number, e.g.: As much as one can work. Dr. Constructions with iki are no longer found in the modern literary language.

We find something quite different in language monuments of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Nominative constructions of present active participles with iki are very popular here and frequently used to indicate the limit of the main action. J. Bretkūnas, a representative of the Western Aukštaitian dialect, and M. Daukša, a Central Aukštaitian, often used these constructions to translate subordinate clauses containing finite verb forms in German and Polish originals.

Do as you please, stay (be) until he has finished it. BrB I Sam 1,23 (bleib bis du in entwenest LB)⁶. He will pursue you until he destroys you. BrB V Moz 28, 22 (bis er dich umbringe LB). And as for his own House, Salomon built it for thirteen years, until it was completely built. BrB I Kar 7, 1 (bawete... das ers gantz aus bawet LB). And he girded his loins, and ran before Ahab, until he came to Iesreel. BrB I Kar 18, 46 (lieff... bis er kam gen Iesreel). He said to the lepers, “Until we die?” BrB II Kar 7, 3 (bis wir sterben? LB). Then you would have struck the Syrians until they were all destroyed. BrB II Kar 13, 19 (bis sie auffgerieben weren LB)⁷. They ate (took food) until they were satisfied BrB Ps 22, 27 (das sie satt werden LB). One... set out to flee

⁶ Similarly, also I Sam 1, 24.

⁷ Similar constructions, but with future-tense verbs, also occur in II Kar 13, 17; Ezr 9, 14; Jer 9, 16.

53

until he can no longer wield it, nor drink water, until he faints. BrB Iz 44, 12 (until he can no longer / drink... until he grows faint LB). And you shall eat fat until you are full, and drink blood until you are drunk. BrB Ez 39, 19 (you shall... eat / until you are full / and... drink / until you are drunk LB). Yet our eyes are fixed on worthless help, until they grow weary. BrB JerR 4, 17 (until they grew weary LB). Do not wait until you fall ill. BrB Sir 18 (until you become ill LB). And on the first day, Alcimus waits until he sees the right moment to act boldly. BrB II Mak 14,5 (he delayed... until he saw his opportunity LB)³ All they do is... vomit until they are full / and lie down BrP II 1959.

Likewise, if a person so carefully watches over a beautiful flower that has blossomed, he turns almost the whole house upside down, searching for it for so long until he finds it... DP 281₆ (he turns the whole house upside down / for so long until he finds it W 469). The woman... searched the house and looked for it / until she found it. DP 279₁₅ (and sought diligently / until she found it W 466). He puts off repentance for sins until he is dying. DP 549₁ (he postpones repentance until death W 936)⁹. My soul is sorrowful unto death. DP 148₃₅ (my soul is sorrowful / until death).

As the examples show, in J. Bretkūnas’s writings, constructions with iki are used quite freely. While revising the manuscript of the Bible translation, they sometimes even replace other expressions, for example: I ask two things of you; do not deny them to me before my death (written above: until I am dying) BrB Pat 30,7 (before I die LB). No instances of the reverse type of correction have been observed. In M. Daukša’s “Postilė,” some of these constructions (for example, the frequently occurring iki mirštas, -anti) already show signs of becoming fixed idioms. Alongside them, both authors widely use synonymous subordinate clauses with iki. In some places, constructions with iki and subordinate clauses occur side by side and correspond to sentences of the same structure in the original; compare: The prayer of the poor passes through the clouds; it does not cease until it reaches its destination, nor stop pleading until the Most High looks upon it. BrB Sir 35,21¹⁰ (The prayer of the afflicted... does not cease / until it comes / and does not stop / until the Most High looks upon it. LB). Over time, such subordinate clauses gradually displaced participial constructions with iki and took their place. Alongside participial constructions, constructions with iki using the absolute dative, individual converbs (see LKK V 74—81, 115), and half-participles also declined. Although constructions with iki and half-participles are still used more frequently in J. Bretkūnas’s writings than in the nineteenth century or in present-day language, they

⁸ In the Vulgate, in such cases we most often find subordinate clauses with the conjunctions donec, usque, and more rarely constructions with verbal nouns, coordinate clauses, and so forth.

⁹ The prepositional construction do śmierci is translated in the same way elsewhere in the Postilė: 161²⁹, 176²², 256⁵, 264¹², 265²¹, 477⁴⁹, 534⁵², 554⁴².

¹⁰ The construction with net iki also translates the same participles used with aż do śmierci elsewhere: 46⁴⁷, 103¹⁰, 137⁴⁶, 145²⁵, 150³⁶, 159¹⁸, 176²², 186⁵⁴, 354³⁵, 365²⁴, 441²⁵, 479²⁷, 494¹⁷, 501¹, 507⁴², 534⁵². BrP II 99 is very similar.

54

They are rarer than the corresponding constructions with participles. Apparently, here the half-participles did not manage to displace the present active participles before the construction itself fell into disuse.

§ 11. Considerably less often than with iki, old writings contain present active participles with other linking words: pirm, kur, kiek.

For who among you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the necessary expenses for its construction? BrB Luk 14,28 (non prius sedens computat)¹¹. I shall go wherever I can. BrB Teis 17,9 (wander / wherever I can LB). Such great joy had overwhelmed his heart... because he did not know where he was or what he saw (nie wiedział / gdzie był / y co widział). Sp II 324. And let us strive as much as we can, so that our whole life may be his life. DP 148₂ (let us strive with all diligence W 255). Those, wishing to overthrow Peter by means of heresies, take care to remind him as much as they can. DP 468₄₃ (they strive in every way W 781).

In M. Daukša’s “Postilė,” we also find a participial construction of the same type with the conjunction idant, for which no parallels have been observed in other writings.

There are such men... who are willing to give money cheaply, so that they may attain the venerable unity of the Christian faith, so that their wives may not hinder them. 277₁₄ (so that they may come... so that their wives do not hinder them W 463).

§ 12. Active participles of the future tense

The meaning of an accompanying action is not characteristic of them. However, in constructions with connecting words, nominative forms of these participles are also sometimes used.

He prayed... that God might send good fortune and that they might find someone to lay their heads against. BsMt II 244. He had ordered that nothing be done to either the mother or the baby until they returned home. TMPs 47. On the third day the king ordered a full sack to be stuffed with lies, until they would say it should be tied up. Jrk 46. I don't know when I shall die. BrB I Moz 27,2 (ich weiss nicht wenn ich sterben sol LB).

§ 13. Passive participles of the present and past tenses, with case forms of the relative pronoun what and other connecting words, are rarely used with the meaning of finite verb forms, and usually only in certain fossilized, lexically restricted expressions.

Help yourself and chatter about whatever you can. ValŽV I 103. Benedikt... ordered that people... work on whatever they can. ValŽV II 224. I pounded away, but my fingers, stiffened by the cold, would not loosen and would not do as they were told. BaltPV I 175. Alexandra... ruled with the nobles and moved those wherever appropriate. ValŽV I 209. At dusk, released, I dream wherever appropriate. DaukRR 311. I resolved to go where no one was heading. DaukRR 330. I will go wherever I am told. PIKT 277. He has them baked, boiled, smoked—every kind

¹¹ Cf.: Stop, Lord, holding me back, so that I may recover before I depart. BrB Ps 39,14 (ehe denn ich hinfare LB).

55

as appropriate. Blv (LKŽ V 744). The learned men... are handling whatever cases they can. ValŽV I 158. I do whatever I am told. BaltPV I 265. I sat down where I was told. BaltPV I 211.

§ 14. Participial constructions with connecting words, used as syntactic equivalents of the corresponding subordinate clauses, most often follow finite verb forms. In their postposed position, they differ markedly from those participles and half-participles in which an accompanying particle, adverb, or conjunction merely modifies the adverbial meaning (cf. § 2). However, participial and half-participial constructions with case forms of the relative pronoun what, with where, how much, until and the like are sometimes also used prepositionally.

a) Constructions with active participles of the past simple tense:

Whatever you have defended, graze it too; whatever you have mounted, sit on it too. Br (Sch 81). In their opinion, a person must do whatever they have seen. DaukB 71. The Žveidai soldiers... eagerly seized whatever they found. ValŽV I 167. Whenever he met someone, he immediately showed his courtesy. DaukB 64. Though it is painful, you cannot win love by force... And I, having loved, still love ardently. ŽemR IV 255. Wherever he stepped, wherever he went, Petras did not cease to be vexed. ŽemR I 204. Before trusting a person, first test his reliability. DaukRR 330. Until you have had your fill of drink, do not go swimming. P 207. Until you have crossed the ditches, do not yet say “op.” DaukRR 323.

b) Constructions with half-participles:

They are people, just like people. They go about, keep moving, even if infirm; they do whatever they can. VaižgRR I 130. The Peses held a wedding. They put whatever they had on the table. CvR III 252. That man, whatever he wishes, can write it cleverly—more cleverly still. DD 20. The people... were kind and helped the refugees as best they could. CvR III 211. Nevertheless, the man did not stop tiring the animal, and harnessed the old mare whenever he could. CvR II 70. So, whenever they came upon some local devotee or hospice attendant, they would surround the (women), asking questions, swearing oaths, and praising. ŽemR III 114. Therefore I, not knowing their origins, will describe their deeds as best I can. ValPŽK 39. The soldiers, seizing every opportunity, set off running into the fields. CvR II 98. The parents tried as best they could to spoil the baby. CvR V 227. Laughing, Kastis answered somehow, as best he could. SRagR.

These constructions can be regarded as syntactic equivalents of subordinate clauses with corresponding connecting words only in a very qualified sense. Many of them are much closer to expressions with attributive-predicative participles, in which the connecting words merely modify the adverbial meaning. For example, in the sentence Thus this man, not yet having lain down, went to inspect his little horse (LTt III 393), the participial construction until not having lain down is more closely related to not yet having lain down (cf. § 2) than to the subordinate clause until he lay down or until he had lain down. In general, the connective function of case forms of the relative pronoun what, of the adverbs where, how much, and of other similar words is less pronounced in prepositional constructions. This is especially true of constructions with half-participles. Indeed, prepositional half-participial constructions with connecting words only occasionally correspond in meaning to

56

subordinate clauses, cf.: God does it just as he wishes. BrP I 283¹⁵.

Constructions with present active participles preceding finite verb forms are rare. In meaning, they differ little from the corresponding postpositional constructions.

Share what you have with others. WK 96. Do what you are doing. ValTK 225. The parish... helped its people as much as it could. ValŽV I 208. As far away as you can, keep away from the great gathering. ValTK 26. At the school, anyone who wished to learn could do so at once. ValŽV I 8.

Preposed constructions with passive participles also occur, though they are rare.

She looked after even the smallest children and did whatever she was told. Žem (LKŽ VII 430). Thus the dog, wherever it was sent, carried cakes, bread, and meat. ŽemR IV 204.

Some preposed participial and half-participial constructions have become fixed and are used as certain idiomatic expressions.

Here, the men and women from the estate, everyone who could, ran and ran and ran after them. ŽemR II 208. Everyone who can, come to help. Krkl. The devil, out of nowhere, brought that stone. BM 230. Out of nowhere, the village dogs caught the scent too. Škn. She was always there, appearing out of nowhere, right by my bed. CvR III 99 (cf.: Wherever she had been, the little oriol sang right into her ear. ŽR₁ 209).

§ 15. A distinct place among the constructions of the type examined here is occupied by past simple active participles used with the connective instead of (occasionally also with than), denoting an action in place of which the action of the predicate takes place. Such constructions may be preposed or postposed, but more often occur before a finite verb form. The participle in them frequently has dependent words (governed or adjoined).

He loafs around instead of working. K I 82. But you’ll do even better if, instead of swearing and mocking, you get down to work. JabIR I 222. Instead of helping sing, you go and get in the way. SimonPA 7. The young gentleman spoke with an ironic smile instead of looking dejected. LzPR II 474. Uncle listened, scratched the back of his head and, instead of answering Vincas, began shaving himself. Mvk-PutS 393. And Marta, instead of going to the shop, returned home. VencIGD 21. Instead of admiring the fragrant flowers, they prefer to pick ripe fruit. AvyžŽLŽ 107. Instead of occupying himself with serious work, after a while he came up with a new theory. CvR II 213. You, mother, instead of praising me, would do better to arrange for us to have a tasty supper. KrėvLŽ 176.

Present active participles also occasionally occur with the connective instead of, cf.: Instead of me hauling that worthless cupboard home, I’ll just throw it into the river. Sch 226¹².

¹²The word instead of is sometimes also used as a preposition with the genitive or accusative case, e.g.: In former times, instead of today’s galoshes, people were given bast shoes to wear. BV 15. Instead of meat, she wore dry bread. Lžt 58. Instead of marrying a poor woman, he should have married a rich one. Lžt 58. Also cf.: The laumė, instead of going to the horse... scrambled up to him. BsLP II 1902.

57

§ 16. To summarize the material presented, it can be said that in constructions with connecting words kur, kiek, kada, iki, ligi and the like, participles exhibit the following specific usage features:

a) In these constructions, nominative forms of participles stand in a relation to converbs with a similar meaning in old writings, while active present-tense participles are still used sometimes in dialects as well.

b) When a participial construction is transformed into a verbal one, the participle or converb may be replaced by a finite verb form without changing the grammatical form, position, or mutual relations of the other constituents of the construction.

§ 17. The first feature (a) connects the participles used in the constructions examined here with attributive-predicative participles, which are contrasted with converbs on the basis of tense and voice meanings; see LKMS (LKK VII) 56—64. For example, the constructions I go wherever I want and I go wherever I have wanted stand in relation to each other in the same way as I go wanting and I go having wanted. In this respect, the first two constructions are of the same type and differ only in the tense and aspect meanings of the participle and converb forms used in them (the active past simple participle denotes an anterior action, while the converb denotes a simultaneous one). In the second construction (I go wherever I have wanted), however, from the perspective of present-day language the participle can also be regarded as a past simple perfect form with a zero copula (cf.: I go where I have wanted). The converb construction, by contrast, has no connection with the system of compound perfect tenses. Thus, although the construction with an active past participle and the one with a converb have the same structure, in present-day language they relate differently to other types of participle usage.

The contrast between active past simple participles on the basis of tense (and usually aspect as well) is sometimes partly neutralized as constructions with connecting words become fixed. This often happens, for example, when the participle (converb) and the finite verb form share a root; cf. expressions such as go wherever you have gone (while going), do whatever you have not done (while doing), and the like. Moreover, not all constructions allow both a converb and a nominative form of an active past simple participle. Constructions with užuot use almost exclusively past simple participles, while the very rare active present-tense participles hardly differ from them in meaning.

§ 18. The second feature (b) connects the participles following connecting words with predicative participles that form compound tenses and the indirect mood (modus relativus). The use of nominative forms of present- and future-tense participles also indicates a connection with predicative usage (see § 13). The greater predicativity of constructions with active present-tense participles in old writings, along with their becoming fixed and disappearing in present-day language, allows us to conclude that the converb became established here later, most likely on the model of constructions having an attributive-predicative function. Before converbs became established in place of nominative forms of active present-tense participles, constructions with connecting words must have been even more closely associated with the predicative use of participles.

58

In the constructions discussed so far, the subject of the participle (converb) is identical to that of the finite verb form functioning as the predicate. This is not always the case, however. The subject of nominative participle forms following inflected forms of the relative pronoun kas and other connecting words may differ from that of the finite verb form. The connection of such constructions with the predicative use of participles is particularly close.

And the old king’s mother heard a rumor about the two children, and from their names she understood what sort they would be. Jrk 86. Having been met and questioned on the road by a stranger (104), he said what he was longing for. Jrk 104—105. The priest asked what I knew. SimonOBT 132. The people of one tribe asked one another how she had lived there with the snakes. LTt III 299. He goes where the executioner ordered (does not obey). Dr. Don’t stick your fingers where it’s burning. Grv. Everyone wondered where she (the princess) knew it from. Jrk 114. The farmer asked that gentleman where he was going. TDr III 55. Bemierinis urges everyone to drink before him, as much as he can. Jrk 32.

In these constructions, participles cannot be contrasted with converbs at all. Used after verbs denoting speech or sensation and perception (verba dicendi et percipiendi), they are comparable to participles used in indirect-mood forms, which convey the content of reported speech or express matters not known with complete certainty and therefore subject to doubt; cf.: Then, somehow, I found out that there had been some red posts on the north side, and bullets had flown from them. SimonOBT 87. They said of the madwoman that she was lulling children to sleep. CvR III 200. From the perspective of present-day language, participles with different subjects in these constructions differ in their clear predicative function from the participles discussed above, used in constructions with an identical subject, which occupy an intermediate position between attributive-predicative and predicative usage. This difference, however, is probably not original. Before converb forms became established, the meaning of participles in constructions with identical and different subjects could not have been fundamentally different. In both cases, occurring in a sentence with a finite verb form, they were used to denote a subordinate action.

§ 19. Some constructions with connective words and an identical subject can also be compared with constructions of the so-called “nominative with participle” type, especially when the participle’s nominative, together with a relative pronoun in an oblique case, follows verbs of saying and perceiving (cf.: he stated that he had seen his father and he stated what he had seen). In such cases, the relative pronoun ką ‘what’ may be considered the object of the participle’s action, much like a noun or another nominal, while the connective word kur ‘where’ is compared with the adverbs used in nominative-with-participle constructions, and so on.¹³ Here are a few more examples of this kind:

¹³ On this basis, R. Ružička considers the corresponding Old Church Slavonic constructions with relative pronouns (e.g.: samb bo věděaše čьto chote sъtvoriti “for he himself knew what he wanted to do”) to be certain variants of nominativus cum participio constructions without relative pronouns; cf. věděaše chotę sъtvoriti “he knew what he wanted to do,” of the same initial structure (gleicher Ausgangsstruktur); see R. Růžička, Das syntaktische System der altkirchenslavischen Partizipien und sein Verhältnis zum Griechischen, Berlin, 1963, p. 195—196.

59

Kastis also stated who he was. ŠRagR III 82. The young man went to the sun and stated why he had come. LTt III 348. Here, on their own plots, everyone wants to show what they can do, what they know. Myk-PutS 68. Don’t give away what you heard. ŽemR I 220. You see, they’ve had too much to drink... they don’t know what they’re doing. ŽemR III 123. (When you get the earpiece, you’ll soon remember where you heard it. Klvr. He still hasn’t said where he is going! ŽemR IV 116. The young man stated where he was from. LTt III 290.

Nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference in modern Lithuanian between constructions of this kind with connective words and nominativus cum participio. A construction with a connective word can be converted into a verbal construction by using a finite verb of the same tense in place of the participle, without changing any other component of the construction (e.g.: stated what he saw). By contrast, transforming a nominativus cum participio construction would require using the conjunction kad or jog (cf.: stated that he saw). This comparison makes clear that in constructions with connective words, the relationship between the participle and the finite verb form is indirect and mediated. In nominativus cum participio constructions, by contrast, the participle and the finite verb form constitute a close syntactic-semantic unit, belong to the predicative center of the sentence, and have no correlative relation to half-participles. Finally, only a small subset of constructions with relative pronouns and other connective words can be compared at all with nominativus cum participio constructions.

§ 20. Thus, owing to their specific characteristics, constructions with connective words do not fit wholly into any of the types of participle use characteristic of the modern language. In most cases, their function in the modern Lithuanian sentence is indeterminate and variable. Constructions with half-participles that have circumstantial nuances of meaning are associated with other half-participles and participles expressing circumstances and are generally interpreted as secondary sentence elements. Most constructions with past simple active participles and present and past passive participles, on the other hand, although connected to half-participial constructions through correlative relations, are associated with subordinate clauses whose predicates are compound perfect-tense forms¹⁴. It should be noted that only constructions that can be linked to the aforementioned types of half-participle and participle use are more numerous in modern language and more varied in their lexical composition and capacity for expansion. All the others, especially constructions with present active participles, are unproductive. The participle in them generally occurs alone, without dependent words, as in many other instances of archaic usage. Unable to compete with subordinate clauses, these constructions are becoming fossilized and disappearing from the modern language. That this fossilization began long ago is evident from the relative-

¹⁴ Owing to the functional indeterminacy of constructions with connective words, their punctuation also varies considerably in modern Lithuanian. Unexpanded half-participial constructions are treated as adverbials and are most often not set off by punctuation. Corresponding constructions with past simple active participles are more often set off by commas, by analogy with

60

the pronoun kas, which has become the indefinite pronoun kas nors, and the construction with the participle noris, whose lexicalization can still be discerned in old writings; cf. Praszīk’ manē ko nôris idąnt tâve padariczio. DP 236₁₇ (pros odemnie co chcesz W). — Ta wilku walia ira aweis gauditi / ischkl aidinti / ir kaip norins sudraskyti. BrP II 604. In other constructions, participles and half-participles are formed from verbs with fairly restricted lexical meanings, among which verbs meaning can, be capable (manage), have, and the like, predominate (cf. constructions such as what, with what, how, how much, where + able, being able, having been able; can, being able, having been able¹⁵). All this indicates that participial constructions with connective words form a certain residual, isolated layer in the syntactic system of modern Lithuanian.

The antiquity of Lithuanian constructions with connective words is also attested by their counterparts in other related languages. In their structure, these constructions correspond to expressions with connective words found in old Slavic-language monuments, such as kъto, čьto, česo, ideže, joduž(e), egože, and so on, although they differ from the latter in the greater variety of participial forms and usage (cf.: o našichъ ne bysto, kto i věsto prinesa Lavr 168 “there will be no one among our people who has brought news”; ne věsta se česo prosošta Mar Marc 10,38 “you do not know what you are asking”; žьnjo ideže ne sěavъ Ass Mat 25,26 “I reap where I did not sow,” and so on.). A. Potebnia, who studied such Slavic constructions and compared them with Lithuanian ones, concluded that they indicated a greater degree of predicativity in participles within sentences of the ancient type¹⁶. This conclusion by A. Potebnia was essentially confirmed by later researchers of the Slavic participial system, although participial predicativity is now no longer identified with proximity to verbs but, on the contrary, is based on the participles’ nominal nature¹⁷. Lithuanian participial constructions with case forms of the relative pronoun kas, and with connective words such as iki, kur, kiek, kada, and so on, can likewise be explained historically only as relics of the predicative functions of participles. They were probably inherited from a period when attributive-predicative participial usage had not yet developed, and participles, occurring alone or with relative pronouns and adverbs, functioned as nominal predicates in the sentence. Later, when participles used without connective words became subordinated to finite verb forms and turned into secondary sentence elements, those in constructions with connective words retained a more independent meaning. Their ability to retain it was supported by the syntactic-semantic function of the pronouns or adverbs themselves serving as connective words, and by analogy with subordinate sen-

tences. Punctuation is especially unsettled in the rare constructions with present active participles and passive participles of both tenses. This variation is also reflected in the examples given in the article, where the punctuation of the originals has been retained.

¹⁵ It should be noted that even alongside these fossilized expressions, subordinate clauses of corresponding meaning with finite verb forms were already being used in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century writings; cf.: Bet tha Dziewo szodi kiek primanam praplatinti turim. BrP I 28₁₁. Garbin wieszpāti... Dusia kaip primaną. SIG I 20.

¹⁶ A. A. Potebnia, op. cit. pp. 208–228, especially p. 221.

¹⁷ Žr. F. Trávníček, Historická mluvnice česká, III, Praha, 1956, p. 123 tt.; R. Večerka, Ke genesi slovanských konstrukcí participia praes. act. I, „Sborník prací filosofické fakulty Brněnské university“, A (1959), p. 40; R. Růžička, op. cit., p. 200.

61

… and the circumstance that there was no direct link here between the participle and the finite verb form. Over time, many such constructions were displaced by subordinate clauses, while some became fixed and merged with other types of participle usage.

PARTICIPIAL CONSTRUCTIONS WITH CONJUNCTION WORDS IN LITHUANIAN

V. AMBRAZAS

Abstract

The article describes constructions in which a participle is linked to a finite verb form with the same agent by means of different cases of the relative pronoun kas “who” and other conjunction words (kur “where”, kada “when”, kaip “how”, kiek “how much, to what extent”, iki “until” etc.). In terms of their function, participles here occupy an intermediate position between attributive-predicative and predicative participles. On the one hand, they contrast with semi-participles, e.g.: einu kur norėdamas (panorėjęs) “I go where I want.” On the other hand, they function as syntactic synonyms of finite verb forms. Participial constructions with conjunction words can therefore be transformed into corresponding verbal constructions by replacing the participle with a finite verb form, while the other components of the construction remain without change (cf.: baik ką pradėjęs and baik, ką pradėjai “finish what you started”). Alongside semi-participles, these constructions (especially in Old Lithuanian texts) also use nominative forms of present active participles (e.g.: dirbk ką galis (galėdamas) “work as much as you can”).

A structural-semantic analysis of participial constructions with conjunction words leads to the conclusion that they are archaic. This is also indicated by the isolated position of these constructions in the syntactic system of modern Lithuanian, their gradual decline and transformation into fixed expressions, as well as by striking parallels in the oldest records of Slavic languages (of the type ne vėsta sę česo prosešta). The features of these constructions are explained by the ancient function of the participle as a nominal predicate. After participles without conjunction words had become subordinate to a finite verb form and had become secondary sentence constituents, in constructions with conjunction words they retained their predicative character. This was facilitated by the absence of a direct link with the finite verb form, the syntactic-semantic function of conjunction words, and analogy with subordinate clauses, which over time replaced most of these constructions.

62