Slavų kalbų morfologijos istorijos bruožai

the approximate date of Iranian contacts. From a methodological point of view, this is very important, because toponymics and archaeology, going together, can give very important knowledge about the oldest period of the history of nations. Interesting in this case is this; that toponymics played the role of a scout, in whose footsteps researchers of other fields not only did not make a mistake, but also confirmed the preliminary conclusions of toponymics. A. Vanagas C. Kysnenos, Ouepkn rio Mopo/iorau npacaaBsHckoro si3bika, Mocksa, 1961, 144 p. P. Kuznecovas, a renowned specialist in Slavic languages, in his book examines the issues of the formation of the pre-Slavic noun and verb conjugation systems, touches on some of the development moments of those systems during the Slavic protospeech. The author analyzes linguistic phenomena by linking them to each other. This allows him to quite successfully trace the causes that caused the phenomena under analysis. The formation and development of the Slavic morphological system cannot be understood without the Baltic languages. In P. Kuznetsov- ’s book, the analysis of the data of the Baltic languages occupies a very important place. Of all the Indo-European languages, the Pro-Baltic morphological system is the closest to the Slavic morphological system. For that reason P. Kuznetsov, tą perhaps exaggerating the closeness, uses the term “common Baltic-Slavic language” (o6mecJraBsnoGajiTHicKHĖ si3bIK). Common Baltic-Slavic Language (or pro-speech) has not been reconstructed in phonetics or moriology. The author of the book did not succeed in nė reconstructing it. The ir morphological systems of the Baltic Slavic languages are similar. but ne identical. For example, in noun coding systems there are many endings that P. Kuznetsov does not consider iš them originated from one source: vns. kilm. let. rank-os (when -os out*-as) ir s. sl. Zen-y (when -y P. Kuznetsov kildina iš *-om+-s); vns. J.N. let. Sonu-mi (when -I'm probably iš *-mf; ta; shown as Samogitians -mi') ir s. sl. rabo-mo (when -me iš *-mi); dgs. kilm. let. wilk-ū (when -ų iš *-gn) ir s. sl. rab-o6 (when -» iš *-on, nes *-6n Slavic would be -ą), dgs. in. Lit. vilk-ais (where -ais from *-gis) and s. sl. rab-y (-y from *-6is could not phonetically occur). The flexion differences mentioned here may be very old, inherited from the Indo-European language community. In general, the inflection of nouns in the Baltic and Slavic languages is very similar, but this similarity is not due to common innovations in the Baltic and Slavic languages, but to the fact that the Baltic Slavic languages inherited the ide. ir jį iš of linguistic community. With this in mind, the term "common Baltic-Slavic language" seems unfounded. When reading the book, it is clear that the author intends to find a ne common basis for one ir morphological fact of the Balto-Slavic languages ir phenomenon, although ir different. Antai P. Kuznetsov claims (true, very carefully) that ‘general "K. Bouga, Selected writings, I, Vilnius, 1958, p. 566 (equals).. 16. Lithuanian grammar structure in the 241 Baltic-Slavic language” inherited the ne formative -stik for the ir aoristic, but for the future tense (p. 132). It would appear that the Baltic languages once had a sigmatic aoristic, which was later lost. However, this statement is contradicted by the fact that no traces of a sigmatic aoristic are found in the Baltic languages. The Baltic languages, like the ir Germanic, probably jo never had one. In the Baltic languages, the formant is used for the future tense, the Slavic aoristic, and o later the — imperfect tense. Since ir the formant -s in Slavic languages has become a sign of the present tense, it must be assumed that it could no longer be used to form future tense forms. P. Kuznetsov is one iš tų researchers who hold the hypothesis that the Slavic languages, like the ir Baltic, have had a sigmatic future tense. For this reason, he devotes a separate article to the problem of the sigmatic future of Slavic languages. są (p. 127—132). However, the forms su -with future tense nowhere in Slavic languages. The only sigmatic structure that suggests that Slavic languages iš had a formant for the future su -s-, there are participants (man. g.), byšęšti (and byšąšti; against. g.), byšę (comm. (g). However, they are found only in Eastern Slavic church writing monuments. The phonetic structure of these participants would suggest that they most likely iš came from the Old Slavic language (Bulgarian — Macedonian dialects). But the ancient Slavic language is not found in jų monuments. It would be most appropriate to consider these participants as present-time desiderative forms?. The author’s thesis that there once existed a Balto-Slavic language sometimes presupposes such a treatment of linguistic phenomena that raises doubts. For example, based on the fact that lit. est displaced the old athematic form, the author claims that thematic flexion was generalized "in the common Baltic Slavic language" (p. 89). But even its generalization in Lithuanian language began, it seems, rather late, because the athematic flexion is still well preserved in the old Lithuanian writings*. I would like to stop at one thing about noun inflection. Baltų ir Slavic o-kamieniy noun singular genitive endings (lit. Pull it, sl. s. rab-a)* origin question is one of those to iš which are attributed most of the various hypotheses developed ir in literature (see section 4.4). p. 35— 43). It is interesting that P. Kuznetsov most reliable time K. In the Baltic-Slavic language, the vowel of the singular pronoun of o-root nouns was newly formed by the addition of a postposition to the root of the noun, which later functioned as a prepositional prefix in the Baltic-Slavic languages, cf. ir ir let. at-, s. sl.0t(+)*. Balsio liet. -o ir sl. -a the appearance of the singular noun in the verb P. Kuznetsov explains as follows (p. 35): Kamiengallium o ir post-headings 0 (the author's idea that in the early Baltic ir 2 A. Meite, O6mecaasanckuit s3b1kK, Mocksa, 1951, p. 193. 3 Chr. S. Stang, The Slavic and Baltic Verbum, Oslo, Norway 1942, p. 99—104: A. Sabaliauskas, Atematiniai lietuvių kalbos žodžiai, kn. : Some questions of Lithuanian grammar, Vilnius, 1957, p. 77—114, + Ši ending is not co-Baltic, because the Prussian language seems to have retained the old flexion -s, plg. pr. deiwas ‘dievo’ ir het. Anthuchshash ‘human’. 5 C. Kappus, The Indo-European Ablativ, Marburg, 1903, p. 14. 242 in the periods of the development of Slavic languages existed phoneme o, one must agree) by contraction gave 6, which, being quite open, coincided with a. This phonetic interpretation raises many doubts: it is not clear why the long vowel, which arose by contraction (even from open o), had to be open. It seems that the quality of the new long vowel does not depend on the quality of the contracted vowels: in old Lithuanian texts two open vowels e and a give a long a (see noteit from ne-ateit). Forms lit. vilko and s. sl. raba are usually associated with other ide. kalby ablatives (cf. s. ind. vfkat, vikad) and are therefore considered old singular ablative forms (with phonetically declined -d), which in Baltic and Slavic languages acquired the meaning of singular genitive. However, this association, as it seems at first glance, is contradicted by phonetics: in other ide. In other languages there is 6 here (cf. s. lat. Gnaivéd and gr. Foixo „von Hause“, therefore s. ind. -at, -ūd is from *-6d), while Lithuanian has -o here, which is believed to have come from *-ū. This phonetic mismatch gives rise to various interpretations and speculations. However, this phonetic discrepancy seems to be supposed. In recent years, a very rational and fairly easily fact-based idea has been put forward that ide. In Lithuanian, the uo in the pronounced position has changed to uo, and in the unpronounced one has coincided with ide. a® In the Baltic and Slavic languages, the singular noble forms of o-kamieniy nouns were baritone not only in the paradigm of the fixed root accent, but also in the paradigm of the mobile accent (see the form of wolf, which belongs to the mobile accent paradigm). It is probably derived from the Latin -a. o. If this statement proves to be correct, there will be no reason to doubt that the origin of the singular o-kamieniy nouns in the Baltic and Slavic languages is genetically related to the old ablative. The remarks made here came from different iš perspectives on the į phenomena in question, and therefore they, of course, do not in any way indicate that the interpretation of Mr. Kuznetsov is wrong. There is a lot of rational thought in Mr. Kuznetsov’s book. Many of the phenomena examined, for example, why the Slavic languages lost the old imperium and formed the new one, the author of the book explains quite convincingly. In general, P. Kuznetsov’s book is a very valuable outline of the history of Slavic and Baltic morphology. mi ir S. Karaliūnas ® H. Kasnayckac, K passutuid oGueGaatuilckoh chcreMhi raacusix, BSI, 1962, Ne 4, p. 24; B. Maxioanc, 3a no Bokaamsmy, kn. : Bonpocs truck H ucropuu si3bika (COopuuk B again B. A. Jlapuua), Jlennarpan, 1965, p. 195-196; Remarks on Old Prussian le Vocalism, du „Acta Baltico-Slavica* t. 2, Bialystok, 1965, p. 53—59. 16* : 243