Das unflektierte Partizip des präteritums auf „-us“ im Litauischen

SMALL UV IY KALBOTYROS CLAUSE E-MAIL VI LIES PSUS VEO 8 TER M OK'S'L'U AK AD EMIIA DAS UNFLECTED PARTIZIP DES EXPIRY DATE AUF -US IM LITHUANIAN G. BENSE 1. Introduction 1.1 Zum Forms of the unflexed Participles (unfl. Part. )!, also Gerundies or Verbaladverbien called (lit. the participant; Russian. AeelpHyacrtme), belong to the in modern Lithuanian literary language a Form of the Part. Press. Act. on -nt, e.g. turning, saying, loving; one Form of the Part. fucked. Act. on -siant, z. B. Syksiant, Saüksiant, mylösiant; one Form of the Part. Talk. Act. on -us, e.g. sukus, gydzius, myléjus; and one Form of the Part. Prate. Act. II on -davus, e.g. sykdavus, Saükdavus, mylédavus. Reflective forms not zu preformed Verbs are written with the Extension -is formed, e.g. laughing, laughing out loud. For prefixed Verbs enters the Reflective particles -in between Prefix and Verbal stem, e.g. without laughing. I'm disappointed. 1.2 With regard to the syntactic Function can be basically two well-delimited application types of the unfl. Part. distinguish, the more striking in way of relatively uniform Face the form. 1.21 The two of us Application types can be briefly characterized as follows: I. When atoms fission, energy is released (with expressed actor of the participle form); At dawn the father left (excluding expressed Agents of the Participial form). Diese Constructions with the unfl. Part. serve him Expression of a Ancillary action (“accompanying action”) to Main plot without grammatical Binding in an Member of the of the total. ! Under unfl. Part. are those nominal verbal forms understand, zu which do not Numerusund accept case signs, however, with regard to the Tempus (in As opposed to Infinitive) and limited im scope with regard to the Genus verbi — provided that the Diathesis reflexive: not reflexive as a Appearance of the Gegensatzes Active: Passive to be perceived may be formally — differentiable. 191 II. 1998-1999 Everyone sees (the machine) while driving (so-called accusative construction after the verbs "sentiendi et declarandi"). Such constructions serve to express one action as the object of another action. 1.22 It should be noted that the distribution of the individual forms of unfl. Part. on the two types of application is not uniform: while in the so-called. Accusative construction Forms of the present, the past and the future occur, one encounters within the 1. Application type only forms of present and past tense?, 1.3 In modern Latvian literary language, the constructions can be made with approx. Part. into two corresponding application types, e.g. When the sun lets, all the birds sing; When throwing a harpoon, the animal was injured: 1. type of application; Everyone sees (ma$inu) coming: 2. Type of application. In Latvian, the two different forms of the unfl. Part., the one on -ot and the one on -am/am, distributed essentially to one of the two application types (whereby overlaps can only occur in the second application type). The Latvian language knows —except for those from Akk.sg. des Part. präs. pass. developed neoplasms on am/-ämnur an unfl. Part. präs. Act. on -ot (=-uot from -ant) and an unfl. Part. fut. Act. to -30t-(=-3uot from -siant). The latter form is found only in the 2. Application type structurally similar so-called „modus relativus"s. 14 Thus, only the unflexed form of the part. präs. Act. (from the -nt stem) and the unflexed form of the part. fut. Act. (with the stem-forming element -siant-*) as joint formations of Lithuanian and Latvian (on the few Old Prussian I do not go into evidence here). The formation of an unfl. Part. prät. Act. (from the -us root) to a special grammatical form is therefore to be understood in this sense as a Lithuanian innovation. 2. On the history of constructions with unfl. Part. in Lithuanian (Baltic) 2.1 The mere fact that the unfl. Part. prät. on -us is to be understood as a Lithuanian innovation, points out that the problem of the emergence of this formation is not easily associated with the problem of the emergence of unfl. Part. in the Baltic at all to be identified. There are, however, further reasons for a special development of the unfl. make -us participles likely. To represent the up-? The unfl. Part. prat. Act. II on -davus is actually almost only a grammatical fiction, because it practically does not occur at all. 3 Easy. ‘certification expression’. Diese Design method is last Finally from the so-called. Accusative construction was created, but also shows relationships to the constructions with flected participles to express the indefinite statement (e.g. lit. Sako miškas didelis buvęs). * The evidence for possible future formations on -sint can be ignored here. 192 thirteenth problems, let me briefly es refer to the relevant Results of my “Studies on Origin of the unflected Participles (Gerundium) in the Baltic languages". 2.2 First, it is shown es that in the es Formation of the unfl. Part. special im Lithuanian, but also im Latvian by no means a closed um unique process can act, but rather the um Summary of several originally independent morphological and syntactic Appearances. That proves the Origin of the unfl. Part. on -am/-äm im Latvian in — process, which only since the Use of the written tradition becomes effective. Here lies probably the newest Phase of Creation of unfl.Part. im Baltic Area before. Auf Reason for Relations in the oldest Lithuanian Texts — both in formal Aspect as well in Reference to the Distinction of the two above Application types — also arises for the Lithuanian that the Formation of Accusative constructions with unfl. Part. the youngest Phase of Creation of the unfl. Part. as a special grammatical Form stellt‘. Thus, we can Observations an Constructions with unfl. Part., insofar as these as Accusative constructions according to Verbs ,sentiendi et declarandi" occur, in which Treatment of formal and functional Appearance of the unfl. Part. within the 1. Application types are ignored. 23 Within the 1. Application type can be the Use of unfl. Part. on older construction models, and namely offer themselves here, according to the Distinction of Constructions with expressed actors and those without expressed Agents of the Participial form, on the one hand the so-called. absolute Participle constructions of other ie. Languages? and on the other hand the stand-alone nominal Verbalformen® to Compare to. 231 The Lithuanians (and Latvian) constructions in of their single-language development fall under this in framework especially in that the verbal (predicate-worthy) Part of the absolute Participial constructions formally identical with the stand-alone nominalem Verbal form? in : both Positions takes the unfl. Part. up. 5 Inaugural dissertation, Halle, (typewritten). 1961 ® Es is im Grunde um die Differentiation of Accusative constructions with flected Participle and such with unfl. Part., which on the tendency is based, the im Participle expressed Action im Fall of the unfl. Part. reinforced as direct Object of another action, in contrast to the im strongly attributive Ratio of flexed Participles to the nominal Accusative object. 7 For example, the ancient Indian “locativus absolutus”, the Greek. “genitivus absolutus”, the Latin. ‘ablativus absolutus’ means: ‘dativus absolutus’ im Gothic and im Slavic. ® A little bit. Absolutely on -tvä, -(t)ya, das Gerundium im Slavic, the gerondif im French and similar formations in other Romanesque Languages. ® The formal identity corresponds to a specific Functional load of the unfl. Part. for both constructions, what from the relationship of the same to each other becomes clear: they do not differ by their ‘Stellung im Total rate (as ‘absolute Case" or ‘subject-related secondary action“), but above all by the presence or Lack of Agents of the unfl. Part. 13. Questions of Speech VI, 193 2.32 Das Specific of an absolute Participle construction consists in that it is a fixed, independent of the main verb and of any other part of the sentence Connection of one represents a nominal case and a flexional participle’’, which serves to express a primarily temporal determination in the sentence. Now, if a participle joins a noun in the locative in the function of a closer (attributive) determination of the same, then according to the verbal nature of the participle, the predicate is also determined closer at the same time! !, The relationship of this no longer random locative connection noun-participle to the predicate is thus closer than that with the simple locative (as the case of spatial and temporal fixation, the "grammatically unbound" adverbial case par excellence) is the case. A syntactic division into main and secondary action, each with a different actor, is created within the sentence. And the temporal (not “local and/or temporal”) character of this “absolute” participle construction results not from the lexical and grammatical- /categorial meaning of the individual elements, but from the syntactic structure of the sentence construction with two verbal actions, one of which is expressed in the predicate and the other in the participle, which is not to be understood as punctual (simultaneity), but rather as linear (sequence, succession). The absolute participle construction thus obtains its fundamentally temporal character not simply from the updated expressive content of its two components, but from the purely syntactic qualification of main and secondary action. The specific fixation of a temporal relationship in Lithuanian by the obligatory distinction between the time- "values expressed by -tun and -us participles is also secondary from this point of view (all the more remarkable that Latvian does not seem to know this distinction in the absolute participle construction!). Also the use of active participles of the perfect in the absolute participle construction for example in Greek and of participles perf. pass. The absolute participle in Latin is already a more recent phenomenon, oriented to the respective single-language verbal system, not to mention the relationships in the absolute participle constructions in Slavic and Germanic, which are problematic with regard to their age and origin'?, 2.4 Since the beginning of the written tradition of Lithuanian and Latvian, an absolute dative (abs. dat.) is known, a combination of a (nominal) dative and an unflexed participle10 ve. Hermann Hirt, Indogermanische Grammatik, Volume VII, Heidelberg, 1937, p. 92. N Vgl. 1955, pp. 77.'1955, pp. 77.'1955, pp. 77.'1955, pp. 77. ' 12 vgl. Rudolf Rūžička, Structure and Authenticity of the Old Slavic Absolute Dative (in „Zeitschrift für Slawistik”, VI, Berlin, 1961, S, 588—596). 194 form"? of the original consonant Stammes der -nt participles. However, this exclusively dative opinion, especially since they are only. on the nominal Part of the Construction supports, quite secondary. From the circumstances of the case in the Baltic! * as well as from the handed down Forms of the unfl. Part. (-nt<-nti; next to -ntie<*-ntei) can be used for the (East) Baltic an absolute Participle construction on the Base of a locative Close the case. Diese Acceptance is, among other things, supported by the The fact that the Dative im Baltic never Time case can be. Im Framework of this Construction arose the unfl. Part. Press. Act. on -nt(i), by extracties ng from the Verband der flektierten Participles on Reason of its syntactic special position excluded, while the nominal Case im Trains of the Formation of the new Baltic Lokativs according to his formal Identity (or similarity) with the Dative den Connection with the Case system as Dative form preserved. 25 Die Constructions without an expressed agent (absolute constructions!®) im Lithuanian and im Latvians are among the absolute Subsuming participle zu construction, regardless of the different developmein nt of these two Sprachen'®. 3. Die Position of the unfl. Part. Prate. on -us within Constructions with unil. Part. im Lithuanian 3.1 Regarding the Construction possibility is the unfl. Part. Talk. on -us today the unfl. Part. pigs. on -nt almost completely equalized. Through the two unfl. Part. is merely another relative Time stage designated. Die Present form serves the Expression of Simultaneity, the preteritum Shape them. Expression of prematurity of the in participle form contained verbal statement in Reference to another Out- '* The abs, dat. with flexed Participle of Zo strains of Participles turn out to be outside of this development lying, probably hypercorrect Education. Anders V. Ambrazas, AarerbHblä CaMOCTOSTEALHLIM B IAMSATHHKAX AHTOBCKOTO S3bIKA XVI-XVII BB. Asropedepar Ancceprammm ..., Vilnius, 1958, S. 4. '4 Zu the Special features of the balt. Case system, which unserm in Context of are of interest, mainly include the Training one with one Postposition versehenen ostbalt. Locatives, der im Old Prussian missing; das Presence of so-called. locative Remaining case as Illative, Allative, Adhesive (with significant Traces of older Locative formations in diesen ‘Remainder case’, cf. also A. Laigonaite, Pašalio vietininkai dabartinėje lietuviy kalboje, „Grammatical Questions“ Vilnius, 1957, S. 21—39); das Behavior of the Dativ opposite Prepositions. '® As purely grammatical Terminus for the absolute Participle constructions without expressed Agents (= Constructions with stand-alone unfl. Part.) im Lithuanian. I use further im History of my Investigations easy ,,Absolute construction". ' Während Absolute constructs im Lithuanian im general not on the Subject case can be obtained (“subject diversity”), this is the case in The construction im Latvian quite possible, z. B. Returning (useful when returning!) no excursions, young people talked about the impressions (quoted from Ga ilums/ Vilans, Latvian grammar for classes VIII—XI, Riga, 1958, S. 265). 195 sage. The problem therefore lies in why in Lithuanian (but not in Latvian) there is to these two stages of time both in abs. That. as well as in the absolute construction, which have formally strictly separated possibilities of expression (within this problem the possibilities of use of the unfl. part. in the so-called accusative construction do not play a role). The unfl. Part. of the Lithuanian designates a certain fixed time value in both constructions. 3.2 With regard to the designation of time values, the unfl. Part. similarly to the flexional (active) participles, which, regardless of their syntactic position, by their form alone indicate a certain relative temporal reference (,,concomitance",,,pre-- temporary" or,,post-temporary") of the verbal statement contained in them in relation to another (verbal or nominally formulated) statement. 3.21 From the fact that the unfl. Part. and the flexional participle have certain similarities within the syntactic function "expression of a secondary action to the main action!", one could of course conclude that the unfl. Part. also corresponds to the flected participle in terms of the expression of a fixed time value, for example: eidamas suklupo —nereikia einant suklupti; came and found everyone at home —it's not easy to come and find everyone at home. It is likely that this coincidence is based on a secondary approximation. In Lithuanian, the absolute construction concerning the relationship to the subject of the main action (“subject difference”) is characterized by the abs. Dat., i.e. the absolute participle construction and thus delimited from the constructions with flected participles. But this unfl. Conversely, part. is given the possibility to designate a fixed time value as a predicate-worthy component of the absolute participle construction, but only in the alternatives "simultaneity" or "pretermity". | 3.22 This process of secondary approximation, which leads to the present condition leads, can be explained by means of a simple statistic, which I can draw up on the basis of the Old Lithuanian documents I have used'®. While 210 abs. That. with forms of !7 constructions with unfl. Part. and those with a flected participle, which serve to express a secondary action to the main action, represent sentence-building- -wise’ related constructions, whose distinctive feature essentially consists in the position occupied by the respective actor of the verbal statement expressed in the participle form in the whole sentence. 18 Except for the altlit indicated in the index of used texts. Texts is kind this statistic only the Catechism of Daukša (Anroscknä karmxusuc H. Aaykıım rrepeneyaranuuoM 9. A. Borprepom, C-Tlerep6ypr, 1886) used. The evidence of -norintin den mentioned altlit is not taken into account in this statistic. Texts. 196 present Participial stems are formed, contain abs. 92 That. Forms of the Preteritum Partizipialstammes'®, On the other hand, are found in the Absolute construct 132 Connections with present forms and with 101 those of the Preteritum. This Ratio indicates that the single unfl. Part. with regard to the Distribution of Präsensund Preterital forms the connected” , flected (active) Participles correspond, whose Proportion an of present and past tense Shapes each about the same Percentage makes up. 3.3 Im einzelnen resulting in the Statistics furthermore the following: Of the Absolute constructions are omitted Mostly on already phraseically used Expression possibilities with an unfl. Part., wie z. B. ißskirus, iBėmus, pradeius a., the parenthetic u. phrases sakant, katbant, netarent etc. In the remaining not very numerous absolute constructions (in total, the preterites by far 64) Forms, e.g. ir after the death of two of us Diéwui afierawoia “according to our Death sacrificer es our Seelen Gott" (DP) 516); Néssa between fawéno ir man's food Bunes/not what you'll find after ne you die , Because between the Body of one People and the Cadaver of one Dogs you find no one Difference if (Human and dog) have died“ (DP) 583); But reminding Goddess Us Over Wargus wadinanti pakutospi/weisdekem... “Remembering that...” (BrP II 479); ...adunt žmones mokietu tiktay dptavst darbu ne iägänimo/del ne pasipeneimo/bet pati walgimu dpfaydus skubinties ir Bwentump dayktump: (Yes II 177; single Evidence of this the way I ever at Sirvyd found habel! ). Als Example of Absolute constructions, which with the unfl. Part. Press. are formed, are the following Sentences quoted: ...what a pity it was Wiespaties Jesus regint' teip' primistq meting sawa... (DP) 174); We're going to be there for a while. Pona God's wife adbotij... (KNSu 238); Tay ptačiey izguldit galesis kas čionay trumpay azusirakina/moksiu duodunt kaliniams/ku turi weykti kaliney (Yes I 42/3); ...attadüti dani/tatai est/cziese alba sometimes picking meslawa (BrP II 503). 3.4 Die Observation of the relatively frequent Occurrences preteritum Formen in den Absolute constructs of Old Lithuanian Text (in Ratio of zu present Forms of in Absolute construction or in den absoluten participle constructions at all) lets the Conclusi_ on to that this in Absolute constructions with unfl. Part. Prate. one construction type is represented, which corresponds to the original Structural model for the use of the unflexed -us-participles must be particularly close. This Structural model can therefore no absolute (i.e. ihrem Origin by attributive) have been a participle construction; could therefore occur a es um participative construction have acted, which of the conventional in Weise as predicative. zu Yeah. '® Zu of a similar Assessment also reaches V. Ambrazas, I. c, S. 7; lessons. Absolute beneficial su owner XVI-XVI aa. Lithuanian language monuments, “Lithuanian TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai“, Serija with is A 2(5), 1958, S. 152. 197 a fact that can be taken as a starting point for the history of the development of the unfl. Part. prät. on -us, which both in abs. That. as well as in the absolute construction can occur, somewhat to lighten. 4. Remarks on the formation of the participle pris. Act. and the participle prit. Act. in the Baltic 4.1 First of all, some basic features of the formation of the participle pras. Act. and the participle prät.akt. in the Baltic, which are of interest in our context. The Baltic Part. präs. Act. with the educational element -ntist old ie. Erbe, it is formed from the present tense of the verb and shows such ancient forms as santfrom the root es-“to be” (cf. ai. sant-/sat-, greek. dn etc.), entfrom the root ei-/iä “to go” (with unclear pronunciation). The Part. pras. Act. is in all forms clearly marked as a present form in the Baltic languages. It is different with the Baltic part. prät. act., which is a Baltic new formation according to its formation. This is supported by the generalization of a declination of the suffix -ves-/-us-, which in ancient Indian and Greek forms nominal verbal forms of perfect roots? !, as well as the appearance of this suffix on very differently characterized verbal stems. Both are also found in Slavic languages. However, the Baltic and the Slavic do not agree further than in the general approaches to this education. Just as the Baltic preteritum is a specifically Baltic self-formation, which is only in individual forms of certain verbs with the Slavic or with other ie. languages can be compared, the -us participle also goes its own way in terms of its expansion and its integration into the verbal system. Ways. 42 Judging by the Baltic conditions, according to which no proof can be produced that the Baltic the ie. Perfect and the ie. Aorist “lost”?? (one must rather assume that the Baltic never really formed these formations), the suffix - should not have been originally a "perfect suffix". In the Baltic languages, it will initially be perceived merely as a means of nominal verbal derivation with its own semantic imprint. The connection of these formations with the Baltic preterite is obvious. Das 0 Siehe J. Otrebski, Gramatyka jezyka litewskiego, III, Warszawa, 1956, S. 251; A. Sabaliauskas, Atematiniai lietuvių kalbos žodžiai, „Gramatikos klausimai- “, Vilnius, 1956, S. 251. 1957, S. 99 ff. 2! Vig. K. Brugmann, Grundriss ‘der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen II, 1, Strasbourg, 1889, pp. 410 ff. ? ? A possible participle perfect form in Old Latvian buewis, büwis from *büwens (?), which with slaw. Byv®, ai. babhüvän can be compared, cf. J. Endzelin, Latvian grammar, Heidelberg, 1923, p. 727; Chr. S. Stang, The Slavic and Baltic, however, does not mean that the Verbum, Oslo, 1942, pp. 196/209. 198 Derivation with the Suffix -not even independent of the Preterital formation could be carried out, especially since this Principle in corresponding Frame just just for the old ie. Participle formation applies. In general, it can be said that the Baltic Participle on -of one verbal stem is formed, which does not has a presence sign (presence ablaut, nasal infection, -st infix, ie/o stem formation, etc.), compare for example kreiitantkritus-; refikantrifikus-; ryckstantrykus-; driantärus-. : : : : 4.3 For this (current) Lithuanian applies the rule that the Part. Prate. Act. of Preteritum stem is formed. The Baltic States Preterital verbs me on their part on and on are based -2 on a complicated -@ Intertwining of various verbal stem formations, which originally did not have an exclusively temporal character. Die Form of Verbal root of in this Trunk formation can be with various old ie. verbal Root blue types and under circumstances can also be compared with other trunk formations”, but not with those of the old Presence. Infinitive root and Preteritum stem are im Baltic not identical. 4.31 Furthermore, the present Lithuanian in participle forms reflect -certain differences of the preteritum stem formation, which reflects in the finite No more verbal forms in appearance step: man compare säkiussakyti zu (Infinitive), säko (pres.), fuse (prep.) gegenüber finished, zu finished, finished and dégusdögti, burning, zu burning. In der 1. "Sakiaü, baigiaü, es degiaü". In addition to today identical £-Präterita therefore steps im Participle einmal -iusand the other time -usaup. This diversity can in our context the reinforce the view that the Baltic -us participle not necessarily simultaneously with the verbal &-stems of a zu Preteritum formation within the Baltic Tempus system? 4.4 From the Wurzelund trunk design for the Part. prät.akt. a smaller and less distinctive marking than for the Part. Press. Act. Furthermore, there are im Baltic within the Complexes of -us participles Forms of -nt-participles, namely in Nom. s.g. mask. (nešęs) and im Nom. plur. mask. or in Nom. s.g. neutr. (neSe). For in recent times it is quite rightly asserted that this Forms from the -nt-participle of the verbal é-root are to be derived, i.e. nešęs from *it doesn't look like it does *nesant-s etc. ?., You will Forms as Remnants of £-Flexion des Verbs from a to perceive time, since the temporal (preteritum) function of this formation was not yet pronounced. In the course of the development of the Baltic 3 Chr. Stang, I. c, S. 189/190. M Zur Discussion of the various verbal stems underlying the Baltic preteritum cf. Stang, I. c., S. 150f., 209 f. ® J. Otrebski,l. c., S. 257 £. ; Chr. Stang, l. c., S. 208. 199 measure the gift. This Gerundium auf -u@i exists im Russian today as Restform®® next to the dominant Form on - Yeah, the ones from Name. s.g. mask. the so-called Short form of Particips is derived. However, the Agents of the Russian Gerundium with the Main plot match (except for some phrase-like turns). The degree of generalization is therefore a smaller one than it is for the Lithuanian unfl. Part. on -us should be assumed. Moreover, the Slavic forms on -uči are of course the old -nt participle. One can follow the development of the Slavic forms on -uči and the origin of the unfl. Part. prät. in Lithuanian from a nom. s.g. Five. so not to be perceived as parallel development or as syntactic borrowing. A comparison possibility for the use of certain syntactic constructions with active participles would at least remain. 5.62 Prates for the generalization of a feminine form of the part. Act. Finally, the fact that the masculine nominative forms on -es and -e are not suitable for generalization because they do not have a characteristic Baltic preteritum in the stem-forming participle suffix could also speak for an unflexed participle form with special syntactic specialization. However, since it is at the unfl. Part. on -us, even after it has its Since the preteritum has acquired specification as an immutable nominal verbal form in the grammatical system of Lithuanian to act as a means of expressing the prematurity of a verbal statement in relation to another statement, a clear formal preteritum designation for this formation is certainly necessary. | 6. Zur Question of an old endless Nominativ des Partizips brät. Act. 6.1 Despite everything, however, the development of the unfl. Part. on -us from Nom.sg.fem. des Part. prät.akt. doubtful (also the mentioned derivation of the Slavic gerundium on -uči is not at all secured). A contradiction not to be underestimated to the hypothesis explained in the previous sections seems to be the system of the Lithuanian participle paradigm itself, insofar as the feminine never appears in this system as an unmarked member, i.e. it cannot be used as a “neutral” form, at least of such a form. Use of his Being after opposes. No less hypothetical, but more in keeping with the Lithuanian participle system, is the attempt to use masculine or neutral forms to explain the Origin of the unfl. on - to draw us in. 39 E. B. Oyayın, ynraroun, eAyuH, KuByunu quoted from R. Trautmann, Kurzgėlassto Russian Grammar, Leipzig, 1948, S. 102, 4 p J, Tschernych, Historical Grammar of the Russian Language, Halle, 1957, pp. 239 ff. ; B. B. Hs aros, PassuTue rpaMMaTH4eCcKOro CTPoOA pyccKOro AsbIKa, MockBa, 1960, S. 121 ff. ; 206 6.2 Because you have to get the Submit question, ob not even for the Maskulinum originally a Training of -usParticiples to be used is'!. Die Observations on the ‘heteroclitic’ Method of formation of Nominative forms of the Part. Prate. Act. on their part do not prevent it — they can rather in it strengthen older, — i.e. not delivered formations of -us root of Participles also for the To assume masculine. It would be conceivable, for example, that this -us formations formal (and functionally) not sufficiently characterized and therefore all syntactic in positions by the Forms on -es and -e “replaced”, which may initially only be used to designation of either the attributive or the adverbial/circumstantial Function of the Part. Prate. Act. were used. In diesem senses would have the formal Characterization according to Genus, Numerus and case proved to be stronger than the unequivocal formal Characterization of the absolute Fair value or of the specific of expression of the Baltic -usParticiples. Only seems to es be zu difficult concrete Indications for one or similar so Find zu development. 6.3 Im Slavic one encounters in turn a Note in favour of a corresponding Argumentation in Reference to the Lithuanian (Baltic) Development: the The gerundium boasts. on -v" (e.g. znavs) is derived from a noun. s.g. mask. on *-(uJus®? hergeleitet*®, A Slavic form *znavus would thus be a Lithuanian Zinojus correspond. Now, it is not possible to prove with certainty that there was ever in the Baltic such a Form of the Masculinums would have given (except with the functionally motivated educational possibilities I have presented here), but one cannot refute it either. If the assumption is true, however, that a form like Zinojus was a masculine nominative, then we would have to deal with a striking Balto-Slavic (or rather Lithuanian-Slavic) agreement, in a sense with a partial innovation in Balto-Slavic. 6.4 This Zinojus-type formation is to be understood as the infinitive form of the -us participle, which was possibly originally a neutral form. It can be pointed out that the Nom. plur. —mask. the -nt-participles of the type nešą is also traced back to a neutral, i.e. infinitive form. The situation is also quite complicated with the -nt participle, for example, it is not easy to explain the (later) use of the infinitive form in the plural. And yet the explanation of the plural forms on -q, -i, -ę from (homophone) forms of the neutrum seems to be the only plausible one. ‘1 The attempt to explain the nominative on -es and -e as formations with the strong root level of the participle suffix -ves|usis based above all on the assumption of a uniform paradigm of the -ves|-us participles, for the sake of which considerable irregularities in the sound development are accepted. #2 Die Generalization of the Stammes auf -new- (=-vus-) is Slavic New formation. 4 Vgl. V. Ivanov, lc, S. 123; J. Otrebski, L. c., S. 257 comprises the Slavic Form on -us as originally neutral Form on, which the in Masculinum has penetrated. 207 So is probably es by no means so entirely deviant, the Existence of an endless Form of the Assume -us zu participles. Diese Formation on -us is im Baltic perhaps not about the Stage of one ‘neutral’ Expressively come out. 6.5 Es therefore, the Possibility of The assumption, so however daring it may seem, that the monolingual Lithuanian unfl. es Part. Prate. um an old endless Form of the -usParticiples act. Diese Form should im Lithuanian may have been nominative, and it could have been according to the Loss of (baltic) Neutrums dem have belonged to masculine. Es would be quite conceivable that according to the excretion of these Form from the Verband der flektierten Partizipien vom -us-stamm die Acquisition of the Nominative on -it and be done. -e On the other hand, one could in ‘heteroclitic’ Formation of the Nominativ des Part. Prate. Act. the Reason for a grammatical Isolation of a possible masculine Nominativ auf -us see, who this in Case the adverbial circumstantial Function of the must have fulfilled participles. On these Wise will also the Continuation of the Form according to the unfl. Part. Talk. very similar Name. s.g. Five. on -us(i) understandable without further ado. Die Reflexivbildung des unfl. Part. Prate. on -usis can be as Analogy formation, as Shape compensation approximately after after the Sample of the Infinitives, des unfl. Part. present, des Name. s.g. mask. des Part. Press. and prat. Act. (z. B. dirbgsis, dirbesis) or Name. s.g. mask. des - ladyParticiples (z. B. nėšdamasis)** abgetan werden. However, one should again no Forms of the unfl. Part. Prate. with a diphthongic Element before the Expect reflective particles. As long as the Zemaitian Forms on -usies, however, with regard to their actual Character im Senses of an intralingual Reconstruction of the respective Dialects themselves remain unexplained (cf. top section 5.51), they can neither the aforementioned nor any other Hypothesis about the Creation of the unfl. Part. Prate. affect or confirm. 7. The further Training of the endless Form of the preteritum -ius_Partizips 7.1 Thus, it is possible to hypothesize that in the Baltic languages there has been a non-inflective form of the -us participle from the beginning, which in the course of the (monolingual) development of the participle paradigm in Lithuanian exclusively assumed the function of “designating a secondary action preceding the main action”. Such a form with such a function could easily become a (uninflected) adverbial form, which was not able to express any gender and numeral designations, nor did it need to express them at all. In this way, the explanation of a "transposition" of the inflexible -us form into all genera and numbers is of course unnecessary. * dirbgsis instead of *dirbgs-si, dirbesis instead of *dirbes-si, neädamasis instead of *nesdamas-si, cf. J. Otrebski, l. c., S. 352 f., 258 f., 271. 208 72 Um the position of this flexionless -us form zu den unfl. Part. Press. on -nt and then followed "Connection" of these two unfl. Part. zu one for the Lithuanian characteristic grammatical formation with its own Embossing so zu illustrate that the Particular of this appearance becomes apparent, this must an place was found. - ‘the, that for the unfl. Part. Press. on -nt a corresponding Derivation from a Nominative form not in can come into consideration, not even as a parallel Developmezu nt of the above im 2. Chapter presented Creation of the unfl. Part. Press. on -nt im Framework of an absolute Participle construction (with subsequent Coincidence of these Bildungen). For this purpose, two Give reasons: 7.21 An endless Form of the -nt-particips is present im Name. plur. mask. or Name. s.g. neutr., z. B. I'll take it, I'll tell you, I'll take it. Diese Forms are known to ♪ bringing, telling, loving back. ♪ Auf Ground of the Baltic Proclamation laws can a Lithuanian Form on -nt only from a longer form have arisen, against which Lithuanian pronouncing -us in Baltic -us can be traced back, one compares for example the Name. s.g. (mask.) of the u-trunks sünüs, saldüs, etc. 7.22 The closing of the -i Name. s.g. Five. der -nt-participles falls with only a few Exceptions (cf. Note all 29) im Lithuanian Language area neither at Still at Recreation of the (attributive) Participles still usually of the compound in Verbal form out (here once quite apart from certain phonetic conditions im Realisation course of the Sequence of speech, the one could cause waste of the latter, e.g. -i Elision before initiating Vokal ä. ). u. Except purely auditory and auditory-historical circumstances here should be the Fact one role play that the feminine Form on -nti is used predominantly attributively and in the compound verbal form in (to Expression of adverbial/circumstantial Function is that ja -dama participle present) and thus like the adjective Attribute one Characterization of the Cases of in form must express. 73 His further grammatical Training im Lithuanian has the unfl. Part. Prate. on -us after the pattern and under the Influence of the unfl. Part. pigs. on -nt received, so especially with regard to the Use abs. im That. and among the Conditions of the so-called. “Subject diversity”. Es can, however, not be entirely separated from the hand be shown that the Tendency to (,partial”) Subject equality of Constructions with unfl. Part. in of modern Lithuanian Literary language (e.g. When I iS left the grove, I literally to fell on the edge of the ditch (iSéjau aš "and a few more children) I. Simonaitytė- ,..o was so, Vilnius, 1960, S. 321; Walking along the neatly trimmed bushes, ji entangled į a spider P 1960/12 S. 75) web auf der The fact could be that precisely the preterital flexionless Form on - out of yours Origin after one "subjektsgleiche" Out- . 14. Kalbotyros klausimai has VI, 209 been expressed and under circumstances this has never completely given up construction possibility”. 7.4 In summary, it should be emphasized once again that the unfl. Part. Prate. on -us, that only im Lithuanian is present, not simultaneously and not on the same Ways like the unfl. Part. pigs. on -nt has been created. While the latter, which can be considered as Baltic, the special Conditions of absolute Participle construction im Baltic Sea origin, the former is originally a es nominative um Forms of the adverbial/circumstantial in function occurred and which were either Beginning an away from (flexed) participative paradigm or relatively early departed from this and a Art Special position obtained. 79 The depicted so Relations refer only to the 1. Application type of the unfl. Part. (see above) Section 1.21). For die Development of the unfl. Part. on -us within the 2. Application type is the same as —- for the unfl. Part. on -nt with a — morphological une syntactic Interconnection of Accusative constructions with flected Participle and Constructions with unfl. Part. from the 1. Calculate zu application type. Der Coincidence range should both in Fall especially the Akk.sg.mask. of the flected participles on the one hand and the Form of the unfl. Part. on the other hand, have encompassed. Da das Latvian in of the so-called. Accusative construction, apart from the Latvian unfl. Part. on -am/-am, dessen use not this in context needs to be zu discussed, only Forms of the unfl. Part. on -nt (lett. -of) knows, is also the Inclusion of the unfl. Part. on -us die in sog. Accusative construction as a monolingually formed phenomenon of Lithuanian zu values. You can Old Lithuanian in texts observe that endless -us forms in of the so-called. Accusative construction only very occasionally when Oh, yeah. s.g. mask. (also -us next to more frequent -usi, -usj as flectiter form), but as so good as no other in occur in the environment; the Evaluation of the me to Available altlit. Texts in any case did not result in any other Picture. On the other hand, endless -nt forms in of the so-called. Accusative in construction allen environments —but with different frequencies —be occupied. Also from this one can the Conclude that this zu Time of the first written Tradition that unfl. Part. Talk. on -us also within the 1. 45 However, one meets in these sentences with “partial” subject equality the unfl. Part. pras. as well as the unfl. Part. prät., both even in abs. That. an! Examples include: Speaking of this, I ask the student what is the difference between a living Zmogus ar gyvulys nuo mirusio TMa 1959/11 S. 20; Dabar anksti gulé, anksti kėlė, jautėsi sveikas, valgė daug, kaip studijų laikais gavus stipendiją M. Sluckis, Vėjų pagairėje, Vilnius, 1958, S. 6; Kolükiečiai unanimously nutarė —Lietuvos TSR dvidešimtmetį sutikti įvykdžius pusmečio užduotį T 1960 VI 16;..paklausė Adomėnienė Barvainio, kai jie išėjo į aikštę P 1960/12 S. 44, Die Tendenz zur Subjektsgleichheit kann also andere Ursachen haben, bestimmt hat sie außer der erwähnten Stellung des unfl. Part, auf -us also other causes, such as the use of certain formal phrases, e.g. atidarant mitingą (kongresą, spaudos konferenciją, etc.), atsisveikinant, baigiant (with and without object), etc. 210 Application type not yet the unfl. Part. Press. on -nt them in Mass was equated, as is the case with the modern Lithuanian literary language. in Halle/Saale List of used Texts, insofar as these are not in the work were fully cited BrP I-II — Postilla tatai esti Trump ir Bad Ischguldimas Euangeliu... Per Jana Bretkuna Lietuvos Plebana, Karaliaucziuie... 1591, Part and I II. 1998-1999 DP — Daukšos Postilé, Photographic edition, Kaunas, Lithuania 1926. Si I-I — Syrwids Punktay Sakimu, Edited by F. Specht, Göttingen, 1929, part and I II KNSn — Kniga Nobaznistos Christian... second time reprinted, Kiedaynise, Summa or 1653; A brief introduction to Ewangeliu Szwentu... T — Court (Communist Party of Lithuania Centro Committee, Lithuania TSR The Gold Council Presidium, Lithuania TSR Ministry Council organ), Vilnius. P — Pergalé (Literature, art criticism ir Zurnalas; Lietuvos TSR Tarybiniy rasytojy Sajungos organas), Vilnius. TMa — The Soviet school (Lithuanian TSR Ministry of Education, Vilnius. (All scientific Literature that for this essay was used—unless they are here the in Work noted is—, is im Bibliography of the Dissertation der Author specified. AEENPHMACTHE TIPOWEAWETO BPEMEHH C -us B JIHTOBCKOM A3bIKE I. BEH3E Pesmwme Ha ocHoBe (opmanbHbIX H CHHTAKCHYeCKHX OCOGEHHOCTEIl AeenpuyacTHA NpOLIEJLIero BpeMeHH B CTATbE BbIABHTAeTCH MPeANORKEHHE, YTO AaHHow JeernpHYacTHe MO TIPOHCXOMIEHHIO pa3jJiuuaeTCS1 OT JAeeNpHYACTHA HaCTOALIETO BPEMEHH, KOTOPoOe aBTOp CYHTAeT 3AaCTbIBIIHM JIOKATHBOM EightBbl corjacHbifl. Ha JleempHuacTHe nnumerario BPeMeHH MOKHO BbIBECTH H3 IIPennonaraeMorO HMEHHTEJIBHOTO TANERA ENHHCTBEHHOTO UHCJIA TIPHYaCTHsl mbolleniero BpeMeHH CPenHero son C -US, T. €. 663 OKOHUAHHS (cp. AUT. Zinojus u cnas. znavo<*znavus). BosBpaTHBIM JeenpHYACTHSIM CBOHCTBEHHOE OKOHYAHHE -i (Hanp.: praüsusi-s) MOTJIO BO3HHKHYTB MO aHaJIOTHH C HHOHHHTHBOM, J€eNpHYacTHeM HaCTOSILIEr0 BPEMEHH H HMEHHTEJbHbIM TIANe>KOM MY2KCKOTO son NPHYACTHH HacTosmero H MpOIIeALIero OJHOKPATHOTO BpeMeHH. 211