LIETUVIŲ KALBOS MORFOLOGINĖ SANDARA IR JOS RAIDA

LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

COMPOUND PARTICLES IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE

V. LABUTIS

§ 1. Many Lithuanian particles are monosyllabic words that are morphologically indivisible (e.g.: ar, be, gi, juk, ne, nė, tik, vis, jos, and so on). Alongside them are several particles that can be divided into component parts (e.g.: argi, bene, kone, nebe, negi, tiktai, ko tik, tik tik, etc.), corresponding to simple particles. The relations between the components of these particles are usually close to those between the elements of certain independent compound words. For example, the relation between the components of the particle bene and the separate words be and ne is similar to, say, the relation between the components of the pronoun kiekvienas and the words kiek and vienas, or, for example, the particle ko tik ‘barely’ is a phrase-like unit of similar formation, as are the pronouns tas pats, šis tas, and so on. Thus particles consisting of several components may be regarded as a kind of compound words, differing essentially from independent compound words only in quantitative features: the weakness of the semantic load of their components and the tenuousness of the relations between them. Therefore, the structure and formation of particles will be examined here by adapting the same methods that are generally applied to the analysis of the formation of independent words.

§ 2. According to the degree of fusion of their components, compound particles can be divided into fused compounds and phrases. Of course, there are no strict boundaries between phrasal and fused particles, since the degree of fusion of their components is not always clear. Sometimes even spelling matters here. For instance, if the particles kadgi, dargi, netgi, etc. were written as two words, they would undoubtedly be phrasal; as they are now, it is more practical to regard them as fused compounds, although their components are less closely fused than, for example, those of the particles bene, argi, negi, tiktai.

Fused Compound Particles

§ 3. Fused compound particles consist of two (sometimes three) components, completely merged into a single word. In other words, they are a kind of compound words whose components were formerly independent particles.

119

Many fused compound particles have the same first or second component. On this basis, they are divided into certain groups.

§ 4. According to the first component, the following groups of fused compound particles can be distinguished¹:

ar-: ar-gi, ar-gu; cf. conj. ar-ba;

be-: be-gu, be-ne;

ne-: ne-be, ne-bent, ne-gi, ne-jau (gi); cf. conj. ne-gu;

te-: te-gi, te-gu(l).

§ 5. The component ar- is the interrogative particle ar, which usually also determines the meaning of the entire compound particle. Cf. the meanings of ar, argi, argu:

Were you at the doctor’s? SimBT 66. Are we sharing the parts, so that we won’t meet? PP 106.

Don’t you know the work of Petras Kurmelis? ŽemRR 199. Were you not there? Srj. Didn’t others tell you about me, as you yourself said argu? DP 164 (LKŽ I 242). You won’t begrudge him. JV 169 (LKŽ I 242).

The interrogative particle argu is not used in contemporary Lithuanian literary language; it is known only from old writings. It is sometimes used in the dialects of the southern Western Aukštaitians when correcting oneself after saying something, e.g.:

A centner of rye then cost sixteen, argu (=if not) eighteen litas. Vrb (LKŽ I 242). Juozai, argu Vincai, go and fetch some water. Dkš.

Thus, here the meaning of the element argu ar- of the particle is closer to that of the disjunctive conjunction ar and the element ar- of the compound conjunction arba than to the interrogative particle ar².

§ 6. The element be-, corresponding to the interrogative particle be, determines the meaning of the compound particles beg(u), bene, for example:

Did you not dream or doze? — she herself answered. ŽemR II 239. Will you not go out uncombed? Kp (LKŽ I 572).

Were you in the garden, were you picking rue, beg were your little tears not falling on the green rue? Pnd....having gone in, you even had a chance to look around, begu you only made it to your own cottage. VaizgV 197. — Could it be that Adomas has again reported him for the boards? — it suddenly occurred to Dėdelė. VienR I 281. Did that Jatulis perhaps become a forest ranger now? Skn.

The particle bene has not only the interrogative nuance conveyed by the element be-, but also a nuance of uncertainty or supposition, determined by the interaction of negation and interrogation (cf. Did you not dream..? and Could it be that he has again reported him..?). Sometimes this nuance of supposition is even more prominent than the interrogative one. In that case, of course, the interrogative meaning of the element be- is entirely faded. For example:

¹ There are compound particles whose first element is entirely unproductive and does not form groups on its basis, for example: ne-maž, net-gi, jau-gi, and others.

² The disjunctive conjunction ar is etymologically inseparable from the interrogative particle ar; see E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Göttingen (hereafter: Lit. et. Wb.), p. 15. Therefore, from a derivational perspective, the conjunction arba can also be compared with the particles argi, argu.

120

It was probably time for the Šalteikiai family to die out. SimVK I 16. The collection’s author was probably the first of all Soviet critics to pay somewhat greater attention to the literatures of the Baltic peoples... KorsLD I 124.

In the Eastern Aukštaitian dialects (and occasionally in written texts), the particle bag is found; it has the same meaning and formation as beg(u), but has ba- instead of the element be-. There is also a separate interrogative particle ba³. For example:

Was there no garden, was there no rue yet? Skp. He himself is now stooped and shrunk, and has been creaking in bed for less than four years. BaltPV I 179. Did a knitting needle fall here? LKŽ I 440. Look at the dry little sticks: are they greening, are they putting out leaves? JD 576.

The interrogative particles bes (bės), bei, which contain the same element be-, found in old writings and sometimes in dialects, belong here as well. For example:

Would you carry me across the river too? Ds (LKŽ I 635). Would I give you and your children permission to go too? BB II Moz X 10. And here is you’d better bring the fruit, or else I’ll cut them down. LKŽ I 635. Will you get it from him too? Klp (LKŽ I 598). I wonder if you may have seen it too? Vvr (LKŽ I 635).

§ 7. The element ne-. Only the particle nebe(-) clearly retains the negative meaning of this element, whereas in the particles nebent, nejau(gi), negi the negative meaning of the element ne- is barely perceptible, for example:

It is not useful for children to know everything. BalcAP 29. Two heads are not one. PP 177. It is not science that concerns him now. JablRR I 335.

Then there will no longer be time to run around, since there will soon be none left at all. ŽemRR 200. It’s no longer fairy tales that matter; I’ve forgotten already. Skb.

And what will they take from us here? Perhaps that last little cow. VenclR III 280. Perhaps we could try ripening it in the threshing barn. Surely you know such a little thing? Šil. So are you really going to graze like this day after day? VienR V 264. The fodder is running out; will the animal really die in the cowshed? Myk-PutS I 96. Are we really going to send a child away from us at our age?! BaltPV I 29.

§ 8. The element te-. The compound particle tegu(l) and tegi, which also occurs in old writings, have the same optative or permissive meaning as the particle te., which corresponds to the first element te-. Let us compare examples of their usage:

Let someone else go. Vs. — Let it caw! — the man once said, as if in pity. CvR II 30. Let him go to mow. Žl. Let such things remain for later mushroom-pickers. VaižgV 48. Let the ashes turned into hatred burn their hands up to the elbows. JstMarcKP 98. Then show us separately if anyone has ever done something like this in this holy and newly repaired church. DP 19₅₁.

³ The particles be, ba (and bo, now obsolete in Lithuanian) are of common origin; see J. Endzelīns, Latviešu valodas gramatika, Rīgā, 1951 (hereafter: Latv. val. gr.), p. 702; E. Hermann, Litauische Studien, eine historische Untersuchung schwachbetonter Wörter im Litauischen, Berlin, 1926 (hereafter: Lit. St.), pp. 347—348. Historically, the element ba- may also have been present in the particle ba-u; see ibid., p. 342; E. Fraenkel, Lit. et. Wb., p. 36.

121

§ 9. The types of compound particles distinguished according to the first component are quite limited in variety, and there are very few of them. These are wholly unproductive and nonproductive cases of particle formation. A somewhat exceptional case is the component ne-, with which more particles have been formed and which can serve as a prefix for many other words.

§ 10. According to the second component, the following groups of compound particles may be distinguished:

-be: ne-be(-), te-be and others;

-gi: ar-gi, dar-gi, kad-gi, na-gi, ne-gi, nejau-gi, net-gi, va-gi, vis-gi and others;

-gu: ar-gu, be-gu, cf. dialectal: jei-gu, ne-gu and the like. te-gu(l);

-ne: be-ne, beg-ne, ko-ne, kuo-ne, maž-ne;

-vis: cf. dialectal: per-vis, su-vis, už-vis.

§ 11. The component -be(-) is semantically related to the prefix be-, which indicates the duration of an action or state, and perhaps to the emotional particle be⁴, for example:

Neither did she walk, nor was she walking—youth is no more. Skn. While I was here I got hoarse; my voice became less resonant. BalčAP 310. Green rue, green rue is still turning green... JD 465. What a worker you are! Pn.

Etymologically, the suffix -b, found in words from old writings or dialects, may also be compared here: jėib⁵ “if” (it would have been better for him if b had not been born, then that one. WP 133¹³), jėb “but what if, suppose!” (Jeb I go away, this would not have happened. Dkš), as well as -ba in the word arba.

§ 12. The component -gi is the emphatic particle gi⁶, attached enclitically to another word. This component is relatively productive and freely usable: it can be added to almost every simple particle, as well as to many adverbs, conjunctions, and other words⁷. -gi retains its emphatic meaning with many particles (argi, dargi, kadgi, netgi, visgi...), and even more so with adverbs (čiagi, tengi, kaipgi, kurgi...), conjunctions (norsgi, betgi, beigi...), interjections (ėgi, ogi, ugi...), and so on. However, there are a few words in which the emphatic meaning of -gi is no longer felt⁸, for example: irgi “also”

⁴ Etymologically, the emotional particle be and the components be-, -be are probably related as well; cf. J. Otrębski, Gramatyka języka litewskiego, III, Warszawa, 1956 (hereafter: Gram.), p. 359.

⁵ After -b, -e or -a may have been lost here; cf. E. Hermann, Lit. St., p. 347 on this.

⁶ For the origin of the particle gi and its equivalents in other Indo-European languages, see: B. Delbrück, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, Bd. 2, Strassburg, 1897, p. 498 et seq.; E. Hermann, Lit. St., p. 323—327 et seq.; J. Endzelīns, Latv. val. gr., p. 699; E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik, Bd. 2, München, 1950, p. 558; K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, II, Vilnius, 1959; E. Fraenkel, Lit. et. Wb., p. 126.

⁷ Whether the particle gi is written separately or together with another word (i.e., rendered as the component -gi of a compound word) is a matter of convention. Spelling does not always indicate the degree of independence of gi.

⁸ F. Kuršaitis had already noted that -gi sometimes lacks a clear emphatic meaning; see F. Kurschat, Wörterbuch der littauischen Sprache, Erster Theil, B. I, Halle, 1870, p. 121.

122

‘... pat’, kadangi, taigi. The component -gi in the compound interrogative particle negi likewise does not have this meaning.

The suffix -gi can be shortened to -g. In old writings, related suffixes -gi, -ge, -g were much more frequent than in present-day language—they abound there with verbs, pronouns, and other words, for example: Weizedeg DP 15₁₄, Imkiteg DP 387, Wienoig DP 11₃₈, Kągi DP 14₂₅, kasge BB 1, Kor 3₅, and so on.⁹ A similar suffix -g(i) was quite common in old writings even after prepositions. It is possible that -g(i) in the words ingi, išgi, nuogi, pergi also had a certain emphatic meaning.¹⁰

An affix of related etymological origin to the particle gi, -gi (or -ge, -g), can also be discerned in the words jog, jogei.¹¹

§ 13. In present-day language, the component -gu survives only in the particles argu, begu and the conjunctions jeigu, negu.

In old writings, the particle gu is used in two ways: 1) as a separate particle gu (less often), and as a free postpositional suffix -gu (most often)¹²; 2) as an inseparable component of compound particles (argu, begu) and conjunctions (negu, jeigu). For example:

1) Akis gu tavo pikta yra? Ev (LKŽ III 688). Sākai mān essi gu tu, krikščionis? VoK 4. Jus gu teypag esate dar neiszman eleys? Ch II 34.

2) ...makslų nessimakinna nei waikų ergu schaiminas ta nemakinna. WP 85 (Hermann, Lit. St., 172). ...weisdeti begu dabar giwena. BB 2. Mos 4₁₈ (Hermann, Lit. St., p. 174). ...jeigu smanemus passimekczia, tada tarnas Chaus nebucziu. WP 18 (Hermann, Lit. St., p. 172).

Without special research, it is difficult to say with certainty what the meaning of the particle (-)gu is in the first case, and what its semantic and etymological relationship is to the component -gu. Most likely, in old writings the particle (-)gu has both an interrogative¹³ and an emphatic meaning, since, for example, in M. Daukša’s Postilė it most often translates the Polish interrogative words ażės, izali, -li, which also have an emphatic nuance. For example:

May that promised Messiah be the one who was to come? Or should we expect someone else?... Or can all of them (=Bo izali wszyscy... W 639) be prophets? Or all teachers? DP 17₄₂ — 18₁ (=A t y ž ė s iest on Messyasz obiecanny ktory miał przyść z y l i kogo inszego czekać mamy? W 27). For

⁹ Numerous examples from old writings containing -gi, -ge, -g are provided by E. Hermann; see E. Hermann, Lit. St. p. 106—171, 185—211, etc.

¹⁰ See Chr. Stang, Die Präpositionen ing(i), prieg(i), nuog(i), išg(i) und der litauischen Lokalkasus, „Scando-Slavica“, vol. 1, Copenhagen, 1954, p. 15.

¹¹ See E. Fraenkel, Lit. et. Wb., p. 194.

¹² In this case, whether the particle gu is separate or not may often be merely a matter of spelling.

¹³ The particle (-)gu is also termed interrogative in the dictionaries of Ruigys and Milkus, for example, in the latter: “Gu Particul. interrog. insep.”; see Ch. G. Mielcke, Littauisch-deutsches Wörterbuch, Königsberg, 1800, p. 88; P. Ruhig, Littauisch-Deutsches Lexicon, Königsberg, 1747, p. 44.

123

In addition, it should be noted that in M. Daukša’s Postilė the particle gu(-gu) is often used interchangeably with ar and especially with argu.

It is possible that in old writings the element -gu in the particles argu and begu had not only an interrogative but also an emphatic nuance (cf. the relationship between ar and argi, see § 5). It seems that in M. Daukša’s Postilė, ar more often corresponds to the original czy, izali, while argu corresponds to že, -li, izali.

In the interrogative sentences of old writings, the words negu¹⁴ and jeigu are also sometimes used, for example:

For are not all our brothers (=Bo ażażesmy nie... W 904) and of the creation of the flesh and of the repair of the flesh, and of the soul and body? Is not one of the creation of the flesh (=izali nie jeden... W 904) the Father of us all? DP 529₄₃–₄₄. Lord, is your seed not good, sown in your field? Ch II 30....he told us to ask you: if you are the one who was to come (=iesliś ty jest... W 28), or (=czyli) must we now wait for another? DP 18₄₀–₄₂.

Here, the meaning of the element -gu in the words negu and jeigu is probably also not so much interrogative as emphatic, since an interrogative sentence can begin with the particle ne¹⁵ alone as well (for example: You’ll say, isn’t this your work? Dkš; cf. also the particle negi, see § 7), while in old writings it sometimes begins with the word jei¹⁶ alone as well, for example: What then shall we say? Or why must we write down forgiveness for the debt? For the sake of kindness or for the sake of repentance? DP 48₁₄₁–₄₂ (=lesli wie-rze czyli mitosci czyli pokucie? W 809–810). He said to the learned men and Pharisees, saying, is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? DP 33₈₁₀–₁₁ (=Bo-dzili sie w sabat uzdrawiác? W 559).

Thus, the element -gu in the words negu and jeigu used in the interrogative sentences of old writings most likely has the same meaning as the particle (-)gu and the element -gu in the words argu and begu.

The meaning of the element -gu in the conjunction negu ‘when’ and jeigu ‘if’ is a different matter. It can hardly be connected with the interrogative nuance of the particle (-)gu¹⁷. Here, presumably, only the emphatic meaning of -gu has faded. Among other things, this is also indicated by the optionality of the element -gu: alongside jeigu, the conjunction jei is widely used with the same meaning; alongside negu, sometimes ne is used (for example: The Antažiegė people waited for more grass than we did. Ds). Optional use is especially characteristic of emphatic particles (cf. the particle (-)gi, see § 11).

From what has been said about the particle gu and the element -gu, it may be concluded that

¹⁴ The dictionaries of both K. Sirvydas and M. Miežinis list the word negu among interrogative particles; see Dictionarium trium linguarum... Avctore... Constantino Szyrwid... Quinta editio, Wilnae, 1713 (hereafter — SD), p. 30; M. Miežinis, Lietuwiszkai-latviszkai-lenkiszkai-rusiszkas žodynas, Tilžė, 1894, p. 146.

¹⁵ In M. Daukša’s Postilė, the interrogative sentences beginning with the word negu, as far as has been observed, also have a negative meaning.

¹⁶ Cf. Л. Дротвинас, Условные конструкции (союзные) в Постилле Н. Даукши, „Kalbotyra“, I, Vilnius, 1958, p. 127.

¹⁷ E. Hermann seems inclined to think similarly; see E. Hermann, Lit. St., p. 259–261.

124

that: a) etymologically gu (-gu) is related to gi (-gi, -ge, -ga, -g)¹⁸; b) semantically, the particle gu and, especially, the element -gu are most likely linked to gi (-gi, -g..) by an emphatic nuance; c) in old texts, the interrogative and emphatic nuances of gu (-gu) are mixed: sometimes one is more prominent, sometimes the other.

In contemporary standard Lithuanian, the particles ar, be, bene are used in place of the particle gu (-gu), which had an interrogative nuance; in place of the same particle with an emphatic nuance, gi (-gi) is most often used. Consequently, the particle (-)gu disappeared, and the element -gu remained only in the words negu, jeigu, begu (a word rare in literary language), where its emphatic meaning is not felt at all or is scarcely felt.

§ 14. The desiderative particle tegu(l)¹⁹ deserves separate mention; the element -gu(l) is also striking in it. This is a fairly common particle in contemporary Lithuanian, widespread in almost all dialects (less frequent among Samogitians and at the far northern edges of the Aukštaitian dialects, where it is replaced by the particle lai arba lei). In the monuments of our old writings, the particle tegu(l) is considerably rarer (in some texts it may not be used at all²⁰), but it cannot be regarded as a recent formation, since it is known to M. Daukša, K. Sirvydas, and some other authors of old texts; tegul is also given in D. Klein’s grammar²¹.

Many linguists tend to think that the particle tegul is formed from the particle te and the third-person present-tense verb guli²², while tegu arose from the already particle-like form tegul, through loss of its final sound -l. This derivation of the particle tegul is particularly supported by variants with -gi(-g) — tegigul and tegulig found in old texts. Sometimes tegul (or tegulig) is used here with a peculiar verbal meaning²³, for example:

Wissa taw tegúl už meszlą įdąnt tiek tai to Wiesżpaties malóne įgitum-bei DP 350₁₁–₁₂ (= wszytro sobie miey za gnoy... W 577). Betalg ėei nori

¹⁸ Cf. E. Fraenkel, Lit. et. Wb., p. 126. K. Būga seems to have held a similar view; see Rinktiniai raštai, I, Vilnius, p. 442.

¹⁹ At present, the particle tegul seems to be more commonly used in written language. In the dialects, tegu and tegul are used interchangeably in many areas, although tegul may occur somewhat more often in eastern Lithuania, whereas tegu occurs in the speech varieties of western and southern Lithuania. The final sound -l of the particle tegul is also pronounced differently: most often it is soft, but some southern western Aukštaitians pronounce it hard. This is most likely a secondary phenomenon; cf. ail, sakyt (hard t) from eili, sakyti Dkš.

²⁰ In old texts, the particle te is generally used in place of tegu(l). E. Hermann says that he did not find tegu in many old texts; see E. Hermann, Lit. St., p. 255. It is also absent from the dictionaries of P. Ruigys and K. Milkus.

²¹ Žr. D. Klein, Grammatica Litvanica... Regiomonti, 1653, p. 137; SD 179.

²² See F. Kurschat, Wörterbuch der littauischen Sprache, Erster Theil, B. 1, Halle, 1870, p. 451, and also F. Kurschat, Grammatik der littauischen Sprache, Halle, 1876, p. 372; E. Hermann, Lit. St., p. 255–259; Chr. S. Stang, Das slavische und baltische Verbum, Oslo, 1942, p. 245; J. Otrębski, Gram., p. 369–370.

²³ Cf. J. Otrębski, Gram., p. 369; E. Hermann, Lit. St., p. 259.

We do not mention the comparison of tegul with the desiderative particle tėstą (testo, testow), found in old texts and in some Dzūkian dialects, which is derived from te+stovi (see J. Otrębski, ibid.), since this explanation of its origin cannot be considered entirely certain.

125

not work for profit, what kind of work we wish to have as fitting: let this be our first and greatest concern... DP 333₁₇–₂₀ (= niechayže to będzie... W 551).

The parallel use of the particle tegu(l) with te and tegi (see § 8), and the analogy with ar: argi: argu; be: begi: begu; ne: negi: negu; jei: jeigu, provide grounds for interpreting its structure differently as well, namely: particle te+ particle gu+ suffix -l²⁴. The latter may, etymologically, be related to the particle lai (lei)²⁵ and the postpositional suffix -lei (-le, -li, -l), e.g.: kol ei, namol ei, es le KIG 137, and so on.

Also interesting in their function are formations of the particle lei (le) with the element -gu(l), found here and there in Samogitian dialects, e.g.:

If you go, then she [goes] too Skd. Legul’ would have been good, why did [they] leave having abandoned everything Pp. Let her go, if [you] want to see||Tėgul’ so — that is what the dog is for Sg.

This may be a simple contamination of the two particles tegu(l) and lai used in the same dialect, or perhaps the element -gu(l) was independently added to the particle lei, as it was to te?

§ 15. The element -ne is the particle ne (ne-, cf. § 7). As a genuine component of a compound word, -ne is not productive; much more often, ne forms combinations with other particles that have not fully fused into a single word, e.g.: ar ne, vos ne, etc. (see § 20).

The compound particles bene, kone, kuone, mažne, which contain the element -ne, most often resemble formations with a copulative meaning. In them, the negative meaning of the element -ne is relatively clear. For example:

I was so upset that I almost began to cry. DonM 108. In autumn it rains nearly every day. Krž. All the members of the household, the Dilbas, almost together raised questions about the Partūnas. ŽemRR 180.

For other examples, see §§ 6, 7.

§ 16. The element -vis, corresponding to the particle vis, is rare and unproductive. It combines with only a few prepositions to form several adverbs close to particles: pervis, suvis, užvis. Their meaning is sometimes closer to that of the words labiausiai, visai, visų, and sometimes to that of the particle ypač. For example:

The belly indicates the time much better... ŽemR I 94. He knows and learns absolutely nothing. Žž. But he was especially famous for his gluttony. CvR₁ VI 267. Here the puppies, especially those living in the manor, agreed to jump on their elders. ValR 388.

§ 17. Also to be mentioned separately are compound particles whose one or both components derive not from particles but from other words. From the perspective of the modern language, the particles tiktai and kažin. are clearly formed in this way.

²⁴ Cf. A. Bezzenberger KZ XLI, p. 112—113. K. Būga probably thought similarly; see the manuscript of his letter (the manuscript collection of the Library of the Institute of Lithuanian Language and Literature, KB-2, p. 32).

²⁵ In K. Būga’s view, the particle lai and Latvian lai need not derive from the imperative laid of the verb laist (Lith. leisti<) *laidi (see J. Endzelīns, Latv. val. gr. 892 and other literature), since the loss of -d is supposedly impossible here. Especially in Prussian būu-lai, ēi-lai, the element -lai cannot derive from *laidas; see KB-2, pp. 31—33.

126

The particle tiktai is formed from the particle tik²⁶ and the pronoun tai²⁷, whose meaning has faded. Its exclusive meaning is determined entirely by the first component, tik. Compare examples of the use of tik and tiktai:

At the table, only gentlemen and priests. PP 85. Only people who grew up in the forest recognize them... BarAS 9. Nothing else grows, only junipers. Žg. Rule over whom you like, only not me. SrR II 18.

No more compound particles are formed with the particle tik, but it can serve as a component of certain multiword particles and other words (see §§ 20).

The particle kažin is a contraction of the pronoun kas and the verb žino. Dialects also use further reduced variants of the particle kažin, or variants with various affixes: kaži, kaž(-), kažne, kažna, kažno, kažnai, kažnec, and so on. The particle kažin (and its variants) has an uncertain, doubtful interrogative meaning and most often occurs in a sentence alongside other interrogative words. For example:

I wonder if the cow wants to drink? Grz. I wonder if you will find it? Jrb. I wonder where my grandmother is? JD 733. I wonder why he has become like that? Slv.

The compound particle kažin (kaži, kaž...) can become a component of indefinite compound pronouns and adverbs, e.g.: kažin kas, kažin koks, kažkur, kažin kaip and others.

§ 18. Stress in compound particles. Stress in compound particles is not fixed and varies greatly across dialects. With regard to stress, it is easier to group particles according to their second component.

In standard Lithuanian, the second component of compound particles is most often stressed; only particles whose second component is -be or -gi tend to have the first component stressed. In dialects, the first component is stressed much more often, and in some places almost all compound particles have this stress pattern.

Some compound conjunctions or adverbs with the same components are stressed in a similar way to particles.

The following stress groups can be distinguished in compound particles in standard language (dialectal stress variants are given alongside, in parentheses):

nèbe (nebė), tèbe (tebė);

ar̃gi (argi), baũgi (báugi, baugi), dárgi (dargi), ìrgi, kàdgi (kadgi), vìsgi (visgi)...;

begù (bègu), negù (nègu), tegù (tègu), tegùl (tegul, tègul), but argù (argù), jéigu (jeigù);

26 In old texts and dialects, tikt, is also frequently encountered; therefore, K. Jaunius considers the word tiktai to be formed from tikt and the emphatic particle -ai (cf. tas-ai, kurs-ai and so on); see K. Jaunius, Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Petrapilis, 1908–1916, p. 107.

27 Cf. J. Otrębski, Gram., p. 298. The particle tik is probably etymologically related to tiek; see J. Endzelīns, Latv. val. gr., p. 609, E. Fraenkel, Lit. et. Wb., p. 1087–1088. In M. Daukša’s Postilė, tiktai DP 10₁₇ and tiktai DP 10₂₈ are also used with the same meaning (Polish tylko).

127

perhaps (perhaps), maybe (perhaps), perhaps (perhaps), somewhat (somewhat), somewhat (somewhat).

In dialects, and quite often in written sources as well, the accentuation of compound particles and conjunctions with the element -gu varies considerably. E.g.: argu Brt, Dkš, Gs, Mrj, Rdm, Vrb... DP 11₁, 13₂₁₅, 48₁₄₁, LKŽ I 242... and argu (alongside argų) DP 424₂₅, 425₂₈, JV 169... bėgu VoK 48 and begù Krkl, Tv, Rt, Pc, Srv, K 43, JV 240, nėgu²⁸ Dkš, Gs..., and negù Als, Plv, Rm, Vks, DLKŽ 489, jėigu Als, Dkš, Gs, Lp, Rm, Slm, Škn, Vkv, DLKŽ 289 and jėigu Trgn, Slm, Vks; tėgi²⁹ Al, Brš, Dkš, Dkšt, Drsk, Grš, Gs, Jd, Jrb, Kpč, Krm, Krk, KzR, Lkč, Lp, Nm, Rsn, Rmš, Sdr, Sūsn, Št, Skn, Tršk, Vl, Vkv, Zp, Zm... and tėgu³⁰ Als, Bb, Dt, Grk, Gs, Klm, Krkn, Nd, Sdb, Škt, Sln, Šlv, Tt, Vg, Vgr, Vnd..., with initial-accent dialects pronouncing tėgul or tegùl³¹ Alks, Alz, Antz, Ant, Auk, Brė, Db, Krs, Kps, Ker, Krn, Onš, Pin, Pbr, Rk, Raud, Sb, Skp, Slm, Šmn, Ukm, Žl, Žsl... and tegul Als, Btr, Dkš, Jzv, Kv, Lnkm, Lp, Nmj, Prn, Rtn, Smal, Slnt, Škn, Šr, Tj...

In standard literary language, the second element is also accented in the particles kažin, kažì, tiktai, beveik, bemãž, although other patterns of accentuation are also common in dialects: kažin, kažì, kažìn, tiktai, bemãž, etc.

In general, compound particles tend to retain an independent accent, although in rapid speech they, too, may lean on other accented words.

Multiword particles and particle combinations

§ 19. We consider multiword particles to be particles that have not yet become structurally fully fused, but are already semantically inseparable and form a lexical unit. One element of these particles is often a pronoun, adverb, or conjunction, while the other is a particle, very often the particle tik (both elements may also be particles), e.g.: ko tik ‘barely’, ką tik ‘just’, tik ką ‘just’, kaip ir ‘as if, seemingly’, bet tik (tiktai) ‘just for the sake of it, all the same’, ne bet ‘not just for the sake of it’, tik tik ‘almost’, vos vos ‘barely, with difficulty’, and others. E.g.:

Those gifts did not come cheaply to Juozas: he risked his life rescuing the young gentlemen from drowning. LzPR II 12. I’ve had a rest; I’ve just finished loading the cart. It’s only just warm. Ds. That soldier seems to be getting ready to run away from the other one. We just want to sit in a warm little place... OneR III 50. He’s no ordinary man—there’s plenty to admire! Jnšk (LKŽ I 642). Nerimaičienė kept telling everyone she met that her brother had almost become a general. VaižgR II 26. A tender song sounded faintly. SNNerP II 34.

In colloquial speech, such combinations often fuse into a single word, e.g.:

²⁸ That in the same localities both nėgu and negù are accented, see J. Senkus, Kapsų ir zanavykų tarmių jungtukas, jaustukas ir ištiktukas, „Lietuvos TSR MA Darbai“, Serija A, 1(10), 1961, p. 109.

²⁹ Based on the card index of the “Atlas of Lithuanian Dialects.”

³⁰ In the dialects of northern Lithuania, the accent has probably been retracted here.

³¹ In southern and eastern Lithuania, the rising-accented u must be lengthened here.

128

He seems familiar to me (=as if) I’ve seen him somewhere. Dkš. What does he do here? He works just a little. Kp (LKŽ I 643).

The meaning of some compound particles (e.g., bet tik, ne bet) is rather unusual—close to that of adverbs. Such compounds as just now “recently” (Iš asl­os sąšlavos k ą t i k į pasuolius išblaškytos... ŽemRR 211), just right “exactly the right thing, properly” (Dieną nepatogu, o naktį — k a i p t i k. VienR VI 172), almost (Vos-ne-vos ištrūkęs, vilkas bėgo į girią. BasRP 301), and the like, can already be considered adverbs.

§ 20. Multiword particles are not very numerous. Much more often, two (or several) particles, usually used next to one another, supplement each other’s meaning and are somewhat connected by intonational links, yet still retain a minimal semantic load and structural independence. The following combinations of such particles may be mentioned: ar ne, bau ne, dar ir, dar ne, dar tik, ir jau, jau jau, jau ir, jau kad, kad bent, kad ir, kad nors, kad tik, lyg ir, lyg kad, lyg tartum, net ir, nors ir, štai jau ir, tai kad, tik ir, vien tik, vis dar, vos ne, vos tik. For example:

Is my little nest not a manor? JD 593. You surely know something about them. Mrs. Ona was a daughter too. VencIR III 132. Even today the crow will be driving around in circles. PP 322....Vincelis was still wearing his first pair of trousers. CvR I 3. We’re struggling already too. Vlk. Already songs can be heard, already, already it is approaching, all the beauty can be seen... ŽemRR 423. I’ll scold the child as soon as he comes home exhausted! Slm (LKŽ IV 294). If only those frosts would stop for once... ŽemR II 58. Our own even went without food. Mžš. He has worn himself out and will wear out the children too! If only that money were already of some use to us!... KrėvRg 173. You need only stand there longer and wag your tails... VaižgV 64. In those carts it is as if someone were sitting... SimBT 196. As if that moss bee had shown me the way: I’ll close the book. CvR II 7. It is as though the snake-woman herself were mourning here. BarAŠ 8. Unable to get out of bed, Grandfather could no longer even help with anything around the house... Gud-GuzKIT 42. She even smiled, albeit with a smile of despair. SimVK II 71. And now already the rye has ripened. MašAMB 30. That’s how he made his fortune: he started with nothing. PP 66. And in those days grūzinai were born only for that purpose. VienR I 22. Everyone was startled just to see such hair. Jst Marc KP 50. The white-haired old man was still sitting in the same place. BalčAP 272. So he began waking everyone in the mornings almost at cockcrow. BaltPV I 44. The lagging cart-driver hurried back; the horses had barely warmed up. ŽemRR 60.

Such combinations most often form when particles ir, tik, ne attach to another particle.

The combinations mentioned above show particles’ tendency to cluster in certain pairs, as if they exerted a particular mutual attraction. However, their components are less closely connected and can be separated more easily than those of multiword particles. Naturally, there are no clear boundaries between multiword particles and particle combinations. It is even impossible to say more precisely how many are truly multiword particles and how many are particle combinations. The formation of particles and their convergence into a single compound lexical unit is a living, ongoing linguistic process.

9. Lietuvių kalbos morfologinė sandara ir jos raida

129

ABBREVIATIONS³²

BalčAP — H. K. Andersenas, Pasakos, vertė J. Balčikonis, Vilnius, 1957.

BaltPV — J. Baltušis, Parduotos vasaros, I, Vilnius, 1958.

BarAŠ — A. Baranauskas, Anykščių šilelis, Vilnius, 1954.

BasRP — J. Basanavičius, Rinktinės pasakos, Vilnius, 1948.

BB — (with references to the Bible text) Biblia tatai esti Wissas Schwentas Raschtas, Lietuwischkai pergulditas per Janą Bretkūną Lietuvos Plebona Karaliaucziuie (1579—1590).

Ch — Chylinski’s Lithuanian Bible, New Testament, volume II — Text, ed. Cz. Kudzinowski — J. Otrębski, Poznań, 1958.

CvR — P. Cvirka, Writings, I—XIII, Vilnius, 1949—1957.

CvR₁ — P. Cvirka, Raštai, I—VIII, Vilnius, 1959.

DonM — K. Donelaitis, Metai, Vilnius, 1956.

DP — Daukša’s Postil, facsimile edition, Kaunas, 1926.

Ev — Ewangelie Polskie y Litewskie... Wilnae..., 1690.

Gud-GuzKIT — A. Gudaitis-Guzevičius, Kalvio Ig noto teisybė, Vilnius, 1952.

JD — A. Juška, Lithuanian Songs, I—III, Vilnius, 1954 (The numbers following the abbreviation indicate the song number).

JstMarcKP — Just. Marcinkevičius, Kraujas ir pelenai, Vilnius, 1960.

JV — Lithuanian Wedding Songs, recorded by Antanas Juškevičė and published by Jūnas Juškevičė, Petropylė, 1883 (The numbers following the abbreviation indicate the song number).

KB-2 — K. Būga, Manuscript of a letter to J. Endzelyn (presumed addressee) (Library of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, shelfmark KB—2).

KIG — Lithuanian Grammar... first published in the light by M. Daniel Klein... Königsberg... 1653.

KorsLD — K. Korsakas, Literatūrų draugystė, I, Vilnius, 1963.

KrėvRg — V. Krėvė, Raganius, Vilnius, 1958.

KŽ — Journal of Comparative Linguistic Research in the Field of Indo-European Languages, founded by A. Kuhn (published since 1852).

LKŽ — Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, I—VI, Vilnius, 1941—1962.

LzPR — Lazdynų Pelėda, Collected Works, I—VII, Vilnius, 1954—1955.

MašAMB — Pr. Mašiotas, Ir aš mažas buvau, Vilnius, 1956.

Myk-PutS — V. Mykolaitis-Putinas, Sukilėliai, I, Vilnius, 1957.

MP — Lithuanian Postil. That is, a simple exposition of the Gospels for every Sunday and Feast throughout the year, which, according to the ancient custom, are read in God’s Church. Now newly issued with a thorough revision... in Vilnius by Jokubas Morkūnas... in the year... 1600.

PP — Proverbs and sayings, Vilnius, 1958.

SD — Dictionary of Three Languages, for the use of studious youth, by R. P. Constantino Szyrwid... Fifth edition... Vilnae, 1713.

SimBT — I. Simonait y tė...o buvo taip, Vilnius, 1960.

SimVK — I. Simonait y tė, Vilius Karalius, I—II, Vilnius, 1956.

SNėrP — S. Nėris, Poezija, I—II, Kaunas, 1946.

SP — Syrwids, Points of Sermons (Punkty kazáń), with a brief grammatical introduction, edited by F. Specht, Göttingen, 1929.

SrR — B. Sruoga, Raštai, I—VI, Vilnius, 1957.

VaižgRR — Vaižgantas, Selected Works, I—II, Vilnius, 1957.

VaižgV — Vaižgantas, Images, Vilnius, 1947.

ValR — M. Valančius, Raštai, Kaunas, 1931.

VenclR — A. Venclova, Raštai, I—III, Vilnius, 1955.

³² Place names are abbreviated as in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language”.

130

VencIR — A. Venclova, Raštai, I—III, Vilnius, 1955.

VienR — A. Vienuolis, Writings, I—VII. Vilnius, 1953—1955.

Vlk — Valkininkai.

VoK — Daukša’s Lithuanian Catechism, reprinted from the 1595 edition and supplied with explanations by E. Volter, Saint Petersburg, 1886.

W — Postille... By D. Jakob Wuyk in Kraków... 1617 (sixth edition).

WP — The Wolfenbüttel Postil (manuscript from the Wolfenbüttel Library, dated 1573).

ZemR — Žemaitė, Writings, I—VI, Vilnius, 1956—1957.

ZemRR — Žemaitė, Selected Writings, Kaunas, 1946.

COMPOUND PARTICLES IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE

В. ЛАБУТИС

Summary

In addition to simple, morphologically indivisible particles, the Lithuanian language has particles which, according to the degree of fusion of their components, fall into two groups: complex particles (e.g., argi, beгу, bene “surely, surely not,” kone “almost, scarcely,” nebe “no longer, not anymore,” etc.) and compound particles, or combinations of particles (e.g., ko tik, tik tik “a little, barely,” vos tik “as soon as, barely,” vien tik “only,” etc.).

Complex particles are two particles—sometimes even three (e.g., nejaugi “surely not”)—that have fused completely into a single word. The formation of these particles is a specifically unproductive method of word formation. Only the particle component -gi “indeed” can be considered productive: it can attach to almost any simple particle and form a new complex particle.

The component -gu is noteworthy. In modern Lithuanian, -gu is not used as an independent particle; it occurs only in the particles argи, beгу “surely, surely not” and in the conjunctions jeigu “if,” negu “than.” However, the component -gu is fairly widespread in ancient monuments of Lithuanian writing (where gu also occurs as a separate particle). On the basis of individual comparisons of M. Daukša’s Postilė (16th c.) with its original—the Postil of Wujek—it may be assumed that the component (and particle) -gu had an emphatic-interrogative meaning or, in some cases, simply an emphatic meaning. Etymologically, the particle -gu is related to the particle gi (-gi, -g).

Compound particles, which formally do not yet constitute a single word but already have a shared meaning, are also neither numerous nor varied. Much more often, two particles form combinations of words in Lithuanian that are semantically separable but are usually used together, e.g., ar ne “surely not,” lyg kad “as if,” net ir “even,” štai ir “there it is,” etc. Such combinations are especially often formed with the particles ir “and,” ne “not,” tik “just, only.” It is almost impossible to determine precisely the number of such particle combinations, or to distinguish compound particles from them, since the formation of either reflects a living and, moreover, ongoing process of one particle gravitating toward another.

9*

131