Prielinksninių konstrukcijų skverbimosi svarbesnieji atvejai pontininkų ir vakarinių puntininkų tarmėse

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, VI LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA THE MORE SIGNIFICANT CASES OF THE SPREAD OF PREPOSITIONAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE PONTININKAI AND WESTERN PUNTININKAI DIALECTS1 J. ŠUKYS Lithuanian has preserved a comparatively large number of cases with various meanings, but the general process of analytization in the Indo-European languages has not bypassed Lithuanian either: in place of some cases of particular meanings, prepositional constructions are beginning to take hold or have already become established. Among these, in the Pontininkai and Western Puntininkai dialects2, the constructions replacing the dative of purpose and the instrumental of means and quality are worth mentioning first, as are prepositional constructions that displace the locative cases. I. Prepositional and non-prepositional constructions of the dative of purpose The dative of purpose without a preposition3 has been preserved in the Western Puntininkai, especially farther south, and also occurs in the southern Pontininkai, for example: This is my house (10)4. Let this land remain for me to cultivate (56). Children, don’t- grind all the grain, leave the seed (58). We’ll feed the pigs with straw (112). Take out the screw, then I’ll have something to eat (173). First, set aside the grain for seed 1 From the dissertation in progress “Syntactic features of the Pontininkai and Western Puntininkai dialects”. 2 For a fuller account of these dialects, see J. Šukys, “Characteristic phonetic features of the Eastern Aukštaitian Pontininkai and Western Puntininkai dialects,” “Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics” (hereafter — LKK), vol. 5, Vilnius, 1962, pp. 175—183, as well as the maps appended to that article. 3 The dative used to express purpose seems to be more characteristic of the dialects of southern Lithuania (see E. Grinaveckienė, The dialect of the Mituvos basin, candidate’s dissertation, VVU Manuscript Section 152, Vilnius, 1955, p. 443; J. Senkus, “Some of the more salient cases of case usage in the Pažanavys Kapsai dialect,” “Proceedings of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences,” Series A (hereafter — MAD, A), vol. 2(7), 1959, p. 182, etc.). In northern Lithuania, the construction dėl + genitive is more commonly used in this case (see A. Jonaitytė, The Šakyna dialect, candidate’s dissertation, VVU Manuscript Section, Vilnius, 1962, p. 367, etc.). 4 The numbers indicate the localities whose network was established by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature for the purposes of the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language.” For their locations, see the “List of localities of the Pontininkai and Western Puntininkai dialects” appended at the end of this article, as well as the maps appended to the previously mentioned article by J. Šukys (LKK, vol. 5, 1962, p. 182). 275 Give that bread, the fool — to the animals (202). Go, Levun, give the cow and the ewe a drink (234). Now it is time for the other things — beans, vegetables (269). In most of the Pontininkai area and in the north of the western Puntininkai area, the dative of purpose is more often replaced by the construction dėl + genitive, for example: Palik bū.lbų dėl sėklos (11). Telù.ks eži.nd vi.so pieno, nepaliek nė dėl vaiko5 (54). Labiauš kū.ldavam kūls dėl stogu (79). Pamėrk ži.rnu dėl šu.pina š ridene (110). Avõžu duod dėl ta árkla (112). Mėšla ir dėl runkulu ir dėl kukurūzu (140). Sâu susl.verp dėl apsãvima, dėl pirštinu (170). Burolks aš taiso dėl givuliu (203). The construction dėl + genitive occasionally also occurs in the dialects described where the standard language would use an infinitive expressing purpose or intention, which, historically, is likewise nothing other than a dative. In place of the infinitive, a genitive noun derived from a verb is used here with the preposition dėl, for example: Kalakū.te dėl perbjima pašeliek (54). Jauj dėl džòvinima, a klòj.ms dėl kolima (79). Laike dėl pasėžorėjema (79). However, the construction dėl + genitive is generally not used when the infinitive expressing purpose is accompanied by a dative that further specifies that infinitive (and likewise expresses purpose), for example: Klėts grūdam pilì (54). Tàs stòrs (kirvis) gí.ro mėdžam kiřšt gėrs (57). Kor tàs šmùrs apìnem prerìšt? (79). Dàve žėmes buròkem pasisodi.ni (112). Užunìs pelànam, žarì.jom sužėrì (203). Only occasionally (more often in Pontininkai) is the infinitive in this case also replaced by the construction dėl + genitive, while the dative is replaced by the genitive, for example: Pėc korėn tòk dėl šùonos kepìma (79). Jie reikalava tò mokìtoj dėl vaìku mukìnima (203). II. Prepositional and non-prepositional instrumental constructions of means In earlier Lithuanian, the instrumental of means was expressed without a preposition. Nowadays, the instrumental of means with the preposition su is already quite common in Lithuanian dialects. This newer construction is particularly characteristic of the Palatvijis dialects, the Samogitians, and their closest neighbors⁵. In many Lithuanian dialects⁶, both constructions are used alongside one another. In the southernmost Lithuanian dialects, especially those located in the territory of the Byelorussian SSR, the instrumental of means is used only without a preposition⁷. Non-prepositional instrumental constructions of means remain characteristic of Slavic languages today. Latvian is the reverse, since there the instrumental itself is generally used only with a preposition⁸. 5 See E. Grinaveckienė, The dialect of the Mituvos river basin, p. 470; A. Jonait ytė, The Saky-nos dialect, p. 398, and others. 6 Cf. J. Senkus, Some more salient cases of case usage in the Pazanavykio Kapsai dialect, MAD, A, vol. 2(7), 1959, p. 185. 7 See A. Vidugiris, The Lithuanian dialect of Zietela, candidate dissertation, VVU Manuscript Department 343, Vilnius, 1962, p. 427. J. Šukys, More characteristic features of the Ramaškoniai dialect, LKK, vol. 3, Vilnius, 1960, p. 184. 8 In Latvian dialects, the instrumental of means (līdzekļa instrumentalis) also occurs in the plural without a preposition, for example, in the Aizupe subdialect: Ait’gs čėp žirkļem; cf. A. Jankevics, 276 In the dialects under discussion, the instrumental of means with a preposition has now gained the upper hand. The dominance of prepositional constructions is entirely clear in the Pontininkai and northwestern Puntininkai dialects, but they also prevail in the southern part of the western Puntininkai area, for example: With reins, with little daughters’ “nets,” with three-pronged things,— everything that is alive is called “destroys” (10). One—with a whip, another—with a whip! (11). How he climbs with that little leg (26). Let’s go with a flat little sled (54). It is much more fun to ride with these wheels than to rattle along with those carts (54ᵃ). Well, don’t go with your hand; row with a spoon (79). Don’t wait; we need to go with the knife today (80ᵃ). We’ll stick out our arms with the tool (112). Cut with a little stick (139ᵃ). They drove out with a plough or a machine. To Panevėžys? They set off with the master (204). With one ear, he cannot hear (234). Wipe away the cobwebs with a broom (268). We cannot beat the animals with an alder switch (338). They used to build the barn with an axe (374). The instrumental of means without a preposition is rare in Pontininkai and in the north of the western Puntininkai area. In this case, the instrumental is quite often accompanied by an attribute. For example: Jokūbs pašvilp sidabrīn švilpėl (11). Nō kareive tuoj gāus pālk „pagaliu“ nugarō (79). Akėjam paprastōm akecōm (142). Mediniais rātāis Rigōn nuvažiodava (173). Važinėja kėtvert ārklu (203). The instrumental of means without a preposition occurs more often in the southern part of the western Puntininkai area, for example: Vėnu runku turi, kitū — tašė (269). Medinēs arklēs ardava, akmeninēs kirvēs kapōdava (302). Reiki bevaždžū pirštu mu lunga patrinti rasū (338). Senāu pjautuvōis rugis mupjaudava (374). Tadū peili dūve nugarōn (409). It has not been observed that the presence or absence of a preposition depends on the semantics of the instrumental in question. For example, in the sentence Su dalgēm pjaudava, káltuvēs kūldava, su ārklēs ardava (80), different constructions are used inconsistently, although both dalgis, ir kultuvas mean ‘tools.’ Prepositional instrumental-of-means constructions also predominate in dialects adjacent to the Pontininkai and western Puntininkai areas. III. Prepositional and non-prepositional instrumental constructions of quality In Lithuanian, only a quality instrumental that has a modifier (usually an agreeing one) can be used without a preposition. If the quality instrumental has no modifier, it is used with a preposition (I saw a man with a beard. A woman with a headscarf arrived). However, quality instrumentals with a modifier are used more often without a preposition only in northern Lithuania⁹, while in the south they are most often used with the preposition su¹⁰. The Aizupe dialect, “Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akadēmija, Valodas un literatūras institūta raksti” (hereafter — “VLI raksti”), vol. 6, Rīgā 1958, p. 311), whereas in the literary language it is generally used with the preposition ar, cf. “Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika” (hereafter — MLLVGr), vol. II, Sintakse, Rīgā 1962, p. 296. 9 See A. Jonaitytė, The Šakyna Dialect, pp. 397—400. 10 J. Senkus, Some More Pronounced Cases of Case Usage in the Pazanavykys Kapsas Dialect, MAD, A, vol. 2(7), 1959, p. 186; J. Šukys, More Characteristic Features of the Ramaškoniai Dialect, LKK, vol. 3, p. 184; A. Vidugiris, The Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela, p. 427. 277 In many dialects, both variants are used11. In Latvian, the quality instrumental (kvalitatīvais instrumentalis) is most often used without a preposition12. In modern Russian it is used only with a preposition, but in old Russian texts there was no preposition here13. In the Pontininkai and western Puntininkai dialects, the quality instrumental, unlike the instrumental of means, is most often used without a preposition, e.g.: Bū.va drūts užols kāur vi.dur (28). Kanā tās peļs medi.nēm krāu.nom? (54). I pelēd ir di.del galv (54). Žīles, kas jos, pagurkļēlem tōm geltōnom? (79). Uōbus tōks i.lgu snapù, kōjas takās un šalis (142). Givāte.s takōs pi.kos, rainōm nugarōm, margōm (172). Starķo „gandrą“ mēs vadī.nam starkś; aūkštom kōjom, jūdės sparnės (203). Dabař kaulīti. tokì nusipirki. didelēm ausīm (234). Žūri — dvi mergōtes žirnauji baltōm sukni̇tēm (l. p.) (409). The quality instrumental construction with the preposition su is used less frequently in the dialects described. No isogloss for this phenomenon is apparent. For example: Nūg tō su neveik runk — Bagdonienė (9). Akėc — medi.ne su geležī.nės virbalės un dvi.dešim kolų14 (57). Bū.va čē viens žmogs su kreiv kōji (268). Mūsu kārve su baltōm kōjom; a kad su bāltu gālyv, ti lauku (269). It seems that the quality instrumental with a preposition is somewhat more common among the western Puntininkai’s neighbors, whereas among the Pontininkai’s neighbors, the quality instrumental is used almost always without a preposition. IV. The penetration of prepositional constructions into the use of locative cases Of the four old locative cases, two have been more or less preserved in the dialects under discussion: the inessive and the illative. The adessive and the allative, as in the standard language, have already disappeared and have mostly been replaced by prepositional constructions. However, even the inessive and the illative are no longer secure here. In some places (especially around Biržai) their usage is mixed, while in others (especially in Puntininkai) they are replaced by prepositional constructions. 1. Inessive Of all locatives, the present-day interior locative, or inessive, is the most resistant to the encroachment of prepositional constructions. In nearly all western Puntininkai dialects and in the southern part of the Pontininkai area, its usage is the same as in the standard language. However, in the northern part of the Pontininkai area (Vaškai, Joniškėlis...) and in adjacent western 11It is used alongside the corresponding form, for example, in the dialect of the Mituvos basin (E. Grinaveckienė, Mituvos basin dialect, p. 447, 470). 12See MLLV Gr., vol. II, p. 259; M. Plūme, Raunas izloksne, “VLI raksti,” vol. 3, 1954, p. 163, and others. 13 Žr. Т. П. Ломтев, Очерки по историческому синтаксису русского языка, М., 1956, p. 279. 14This sentence contains two non-agreeing attributes: one is a comitative of quality with the preposition su; in the second instance, it is replaced by the Slavic construction ant + genitive. This is characteristic when the non-agreeing attribute includes a numeral, e.g.: Armōniku unt aštūnū bōsu. (234). Pājamu karštuvus unt aštūnū a šešū geležī.nu peīlu (302). 278 In the Puntininkai subdialects (Saločiai, Pasvalys...), the prepositional construction terp (between) + genitive15 is often used instead of the locative inessive. This construction most often occurs when the object being referred to can be inside another object, as if surrounded by it (in smoke, in a vessel, in forests, in a garden, in straw, in water...), for example: A hole between the earth “in the earth” (54). Dve kaŕi bū.vam oštaiše “hid” between the šaũdai “in the straw,” kãt negaĩmtu (54). In summer or winter—some girls are bathing between the piẽnas “in the milk” (54ᵃ). Terp tā sòda “in that garden” nāms (57). Paseklasik terp kū.bila “in the tub,” ar als už (79). Kõl ešekurin, people were košedava between the dūmai “in the smoke” (79). Tẽrp tā pãtẽs vãndene “in that same water” pavi.fon (79). Vėrd terp puoda “in the pot” (80). Vaiks praũzdava terp gėldu “in the washtubs” (112). Piẽns terp uzboũ.ṅ.ka “in the little jug, into the little jug” ipĩlts (112). Terp šaudìklas “in the weaving loom” yra tõkos skliũ.kes (141). Bù.va tarp tū mišku “in those forests” kalnẽlis (170). Terp tas skìlas “in that hole, into that hole” įstatit(u)s skersiniũ.k(u)s gelãž.nis (202). However, in the area under discussion, the construction terp (between) + genitive never replaces: a) the temporal inessive, e.g.: Nõ, jō mȯsėt dẽvenlō dẽsẽmtį “having entered his ninth decade” (79). Dẽšimtuos (in the 1910s) he returned, venolęktos apsįžẽnjo (79). Nedẽlio “on Sunday” bù.va atvažẽvęs (79); b) the inessive of the names of towns and other localities, e.g.: Pasvalī there māt dẽdžãus tõrgs būdava; in Vaškùos mōnīks tõrgs—a small town; in Jonẽškėli ar mōnīks tõrgs (79); c) the inessive denoting the interior of a homestead building, e.g.: They live pìrtì (80). Grīž.o nedù.kinikit (112). Kamãro tos gĩ.mos stovẽdava (112); d) the inessive, whose replacement would change the meaning, e.g.: Ar kle viẽto žmogs (79) (cf. — among the places of the horse). Miẽže pašėti laukẽlos (79) (cf. — among the fields). In general, even in cases where one object can be in the middle of another, variation occurs in the area under study, e.g.: Tàs võlks er įkẽšė tõ vúodego e tū.r terp ãketẽs, a jām ẽme e pri.sala ta vúodeg tõ aketẽ (79). The construction terp (tarp) + genitive instead of the inessive is especially characteristic of the northern pantininkai, neighbors of the pontininkai. In general, it occurs throughout the Mūša river basin¹⁶. The Latvian preposition starp, meaning not only between but also in the middle, may perhaps have had some influence on the emergence of this construction. However, in Latvian one usually says only ūdens spaini ir paslēpu govi salmos. 15 In some Lithuanian dialects (the Klaipėda Samogitian dialect, see A. Laigonaitė, Vietininkai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje, doctoral dissertation, VVU Manuscripts Department 125, Vilnius, 1956, pp. 95—96; the Mituva river-basin dialect, see B. Grinaveckienė, Mituvos upyno tarmė, p. 455, and others), instead of the inessive, the solecism į + accusative, which arose under the influence of Germanic languages, is used or occurs. 16 See A. Laigonaitė, Vietininkai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje, pp. 93—94. 279 Regarding the instability of the inessive, it should be noted that it is replaced not only by prepositional constructions; around Biržai, where the use of the inessive is mixed with that of the illative, the illative is also used instead of the inessive, e.g.: One dog [goes] to the barn¹⁷ [kri.ta] (9). [Bū.va] [grīčela] into the forest (11). Many people used to fall ill in the village [mišu káiman] (28). The weather, mother, is warmer than [kep grīčo] (57). We used to work at the manor (81). 2. Illative The present interior locative, or illative, has been displaced by prepositional constructions in Lithuanian dialects more extensively than the inessive. The illative, as an independent case, has disappeared in Samogitia and in the western and central Aukštaitian dialects18. Prepositional constructions replacing the illative already occurred in early Lithuanian texts (especially those of Mažvydas and Daukša)19. The Dzūkians and eastern Aukštaitian puntininkai have preserved the illative best. The conventional statement that “the illative is widely used in the eastern Aukštaitian dialects”20 needs qualification, since, generally speaking, the illative is not characteristic of pontininkai and pantininkai. The isogloss marking the use of the illative runs precisely through the western puntininkai: the illative still predominates in Miežiškiai and Karsakiškis; from there, at Barklainiai, it turns eastward via Šukionys and runs approximately along the boundary between the western puntininkai and rotininkai. Thus, the illative clearly predominates in the center and south of the western puntininkai area. In addition, the singular illative is still occasionally found in the north of the western puntininkai area and in the east of the pontininkai area. For example: Brigadērs ain darbān (9). Tu džiok jām galvōn su dmur „kuju“ (57). Raik šešt tan krēslan ir láistis urvan (59). Žievis alun dēdava seniau (81). Paklūva trečōn rušīn (112). Aikim grīčōn no letōs (113). Malūnan mūšas važiuōt (141). Atain palōngēn e gied (169). Nešk stalan valgi (171). Bū.bas maišan pīla (172). Ataina kalvan kai kada (173). Vien bū.va mutekēs pacōn Ramigalen (203). Tik pūpi tukān palalan kip pukuos, minkštai (234). Bažničon baisē žmonīs nebēnu (234). Tan prislan rugis tan prislan kviečis kraumu (269). Nuvažiuojam į Raguvōn, į Panavižīn, į Miēškos, į Raguvēlen, į Truškūnos (269). Anīs nēja baudžavōn (339). (Ponai) lēbdava, medīn intli.pus, kukuōt, kalādēn dēdava (374). Išlaidē miškūn²¹ rešutaut (409). The plural illative with unshortened postpositions is used only in the southern part of the western puntininkai area, starting from Raguva, although it is also found in Karsakiškis and Narbutai, for example: Pažiūri kešēnesnu—nebēnu (204). Kumōsnu paprašē. (204). Kvailis, leidū akisnu (269). Diōdu (su piesta) grudōsnu sudžuvī.ntuosnu (338). Drubī.nasin impilōsin, būdava, sū.pilam plū.nksn(u)s (338). Ait sveč.uōsin (339). Anū žūsis miežosin atsiūrē (374). Šukitēsin kokōsin 17 In the very north of the western puntininkai area, the illative is stressed with a circumflex at the end of the word. 18 Žr. A. Laigonaitė, Vietininkai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje, p. 111—112. 19 Ten pat, p. 112—113. 20 Žr. J. Jablonskis, Rinktiniai raštai, t. I, p. 642, 674. 21 In the south of the western puntininkai area, starting from Raguva, the singular illative ending -an>-un. 280 [insipìlbė], [válgidava] (374). I am coming to Taujenas (374). He/she went to the matchmakers (408). [Šu.vertė] [dobèsin] (409). When will you give [rūgùosin] to eat! (446). In the remaining area of the dialects described, where the singular illative is used or occurs, the plural illative has lost its postposition and become identical in form to the shortened plural inessive, e.g.: Tėp ir ivìrta bù.ibos (10). Dvarùos raikė ait (28). Miškùos nuvažiuojam šámanu (81). Kur skùps „šykštus“ būdava, žemės każdava (pinigus) (170). Aš aišu Šaltenuos (173). Sakò, gal grudùos avižas prieš „gal subręs grūdai“ (234). Nuveinu krùmos į prikertų žabu (302). Láisk svečiùos (303). Norėja priveršti ponevalį kunigžios (374). Neither the singular nor the plural illative is used in the northern and southwestern Pontininkai dialects, nor in the Saločiai dialect of the western Puntininkai, adjoining the northern Pontininkai. Only fossilized singular illative forms occur here: šalin, laukan, kieman, e.g.: Aitėji jus šok laukan abuod tė melòje (79). Gal mosėt ožoje kor nebūt „kur nors“ kieman „kiemmeti“ (79). Generally, in this area the inessive is used instead of the illative, and most often prepositional constructions are used. At the western edge of this area, as in the neighboring Pantininkai dialect, the construction i22 + accusative is used, e.g.: Lenė to the shop (26). And put less flour in that food (54). I watered the cow and the calf (79). We used to go from Dagaus to Pasvalys (79). She moved to the little town to live (111). [Skù.bin] to carry (flax) to the market, to the flax market (202). He/she went to the tavern (232). Throughout the rest of the area of the dialects described, the illative is most often replaced by the construction ant + accusative23. It is especially characteristic of the eastern part of the Pontininkai dialect and the north of the western Puntininkai dialect24. E.g.: 22 Except for the area mentioned, the dialects described do not have the preposition i. However, in some places A. Baranauskas’s texts record the preposition ing, e.g. “...lėp’a jăm lip’t ing šuln”... (Pūšalota parish (point 169), Litauische Mundarten, gesammelt von A. Baranowski, Band I: Texte aus dem Weberschen Nachlass herausgegeben von Dr. Franz Specht... Leipzig, 1920, p. 167). It is possible that the preposition ing was formerly used in the Pontininkai and western Puntininkai dialects. In isolated cases (more often in the south of the western Puntininkai area), the preposition in also occurs (though more often to express direction), e.g.: Vienus jòji in vienu pùši, kituos — in kitu (374). In all Lithuanian dialects lying to the west and south of the dialects described, the preposition į is generally used in the construction that replaces the illative (A. Jonait ytė, Šakynos tarmė, p. 368; E. Grinaveckienė, Mituvos upyno tarmė, p. 456; J. Senkus, Prielinksnių vartojimas bei svarbesniosios jų reikšmės kapsų ir zanavykų tarmėse, MAD, A. t. 1(8), 1960, p. 133, and others). 23 With certain nouns denoting gatherings, the Pontininkai and western Puntininkai dialects use not the construction ant + accusative, but ant + genitive, e.g. Geráu būtum nòėjs ant kìna (54ᵃ). Atañ kviešt tá karalòs unt bálos (58). Ontañu.ks ešvažòles on kúr.su (111). Aiš on sošerenkìma (140ᵃ). Tò mérgo tik i težl.na un šòku.. unt vakarėlų lėški (234). Vaziùosme un turgos (234). Išòja unt atlaidų (302). (Un kermošos — 234). Pádave un teis.ma (303). Similar constructions are found in other Lithuanian dialects in comparable cases (see A. Jonait ytė, Šakynos tarmė, p. 362, and others). It most likely arose under the influence of Slavic languages. 24 Where the illative is still very common (especially in the southern part of the western Puntininkai area), the construction ant + accusative more often expresses direction. It also expresses direction in many other eastern 281 I’m going to Riga; perhaps they took me by cart (9). Well, how about going to Bauska—when are you going to set off? (55). Now grandfather and grandmother have decided to climb onto the roof (56). Let’s go to Tātlib. to catch crayfish (57). The sister had married in Latvia (79). Climb up onto the roof and look (79). She wanted to go to Panevėžys to buy something (111). Gather the flax and take it to the farmstead (112). We’ll cut it at the culture hall (140ᵃ). Shouldn’t it be given at dawn? (169). She had been sent to the hospital, to Vilnius (232). Everyone scattered to all sides (338). Perhaps I’ll add something to those cornstalks (409). Besides prepositional constructions, in almost the entire area of the dialects under description the inessive is also used in place of the illative. Such usage is not very characteristic of the pontininkai and most of the western puntininkai, but in the north of the western puntininkai area (around Biržai) the inessive is very often used instead of the illative. For example: I had gone away with him (10). It smells of that witch. that milk (10). One must join the army (26). Why don’t you come to see us old women? (54). The child thought for a moment and ran out into the hayfield (56). Eat, eat, and again the cat wet the bench (56). The rooster climbed onto the sieve (57). On Sundays we gather as a crowd (57). He sat in the cart and drove home (59). And he’s going to that farmstead of ours! (79). Don’t go out onto the street (81). In the old days people used to ride through the woods more often (111ᵃ). The man drove the herd into the orchard (112). They used to go to church barefoot (169). Go, grandma, herd the geese in Ramygala (203). My father used to go to the fair, too (338). The fir trees have grown up (409). Around Biržai, one even encounters cases in which the head word is expressed by the inessive and its modifier by the illative, or vice versa, for example: The little alder tree immediately grew up there, climbed to the top and sat (10). They mix the yeast into lukewarm water (81). The white one fell into this thing (172). Pile it up at the other end (203). The mixing of local cases is a phenomenon of Lithuanian itself. It is especially pronounced in the western dialects. Its main cause is the decline of the illative as a case. However, in the dialects under description, this mixing—especially the establishment of the inessive in place of the illative—was probably also encouraged by the neighboring Latvian language, since Latvian quite often uses the same form in dzīvōju mežā ‘I live in the forest’ and gāju mežā ‘I went into the forest’, sēž istabā ‘he/she sits in the room’ and iet istabā ‘he/she goes into the room’, etc.²⁶ This is also confirmed by the fact that this mixing is strongest in the north of the dialects under description, that is, in Palatvia. Here no distinction is made at all between aik grīčo ‘go to the farmstead’ and sēdž grīčo ‘sit at the farmstead’, ain namė ‘go into the house’ and būst namė ‘be in the house’ (10). There is no doubt that only under the influence of Latvian did expressions such as láist vālo ‘let go’ (10) (Latvian láist vaļā) arise in the northern part of the pontininkai and western puntininkai dialects; of Lithuanian dialects (in place of ant, in may also occur), cf. K. Morkūnas, Rytų aukštaičių pietinė tarmė, candidate’s dissertation, VVU Manuscript Department 322, Vilnius, 1961, p. 359; J. Kardelytė, Linkmenų tarmė, candidate’s dissertation, VVU Manuscript Department 295, Vilnius, 1961, p. 296, and others. 25In some localities (especially those of the pontininkai), the plural inessive is distinguished from the shortened plural illative by the softness of s. 26These are most often cases in which a place entered inward is indicated (MLLVGr, vol. II, p. 341). However, when the direction or side toward which something is moving is indicated, Latvian generally uses the prepositional construction uz + accusative, for example: Lai pasaule allaž tiekos uz augšu (ibid.). 282 li.pė žemė “to get down” (10) (Latvian kāpt zemē); aĩ ōr “to go out” (10) (Latvian iet ārā). Similar Leticisms occur throughout the Latvian borderland of our republic, even in areas where the illative is not used as a case (the northern parts of the Central and Western Aukštaitian²⁷ and Samogitian dialects). Conclusions In the pontininkai and western puntininkai dialects, the penetration of prepositional constructions is quite pronounced. In some cases, their distribution yields isoglosses (for example, prepositional constructions replacing the illative), but most often one can speak only of the use of parallel prepositional and non-prepositional constructions, or of the predominance of one over the other. None of the more prominent isoglosses of prepositional constructions replacing cases coincides with the boundary between the pontininkai and western puntininkai, determined by the depalatalization of stressed ám, án. However, syntactic phenomena support some isoglosses of phonetic phenomena, or the general historical direction of spread of more recent phonetic phenomena. The boundary of the extensive establishment of prepositional constructions displacing the illative essentially coincides with the isogloss marking the shift from intensive retraction of stress to conditional retraction (from a short ending to the preceding long syllable)²⁸. The intensive mixing of the use of the illative and inessive coincides completely with the consistent retraction of stress from a short ending to a long and a short root, characteristic of the Biržai dialect²⁹. The Salociai dialect on the edge of the Mūša river basin, although belonging to the puntininkai, but in many phonetic features leaning toward the pontininkai³⁰, also aligns with the latter in the syntactic features mentioned in this article. Almost all historically more recent constructions (in this case, prepositional ones) spread in the dialects described from north (northwest) to south (southwest), mainly from the Mūša river basin. As has been demonstrated, stress retraction characteristic of the dialects described, and the associated shortening of word-final syllables, also spread in this direction³¹. It is possible that a regular relationship can be discerned between these phenomena. As short word-final vowels were lost or reduced, long vowels shortened, and diphthongs became monophthongs, the endings of some cases in the western puntininkai, and especially in the pontininkai, merged, and cases without prepositions became insufficiently clear in sentences. Thus, the emergence and strengthening of prepositional constructions may to a considerable extent have been prompted by the pursuit of more precise syntactic differentiation. 27 A. Jonaitytė, Šakynos tarmė, p. 351—352, ir kt. 28 See the maps accompanying J. Šukys’s article “Characteristic phonetic features of the East Aukštaitian pontininkai and western puntininkai dialects” (LKK, vol. 5, 1962, p. 182). 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid., p. 175—183. 31 V. Grinaveckis, Galūnių trumpėjimas lietuvių kalbos tarmėse, „Vilniaus Valstybinio pedagoginio instituto mokslo darbai“, t. 8, Vilnius, 1959, p. 97—104. 283 List of points in the dialects of the Pontininkai and western Puntininkai3233 Point No. | Point name | Locality | District 9 | Kuldūnai | Suostas | Biržai 10 | Nemunėlio Radviliškis | N. Radviliškis | „ 11 | Totorkalnis | Tabokinė | „ 26 | Nemajūnai | Nemajūnai | Pasvalys 27 | Užusiliai | Užusiliai | Biržai 28 | Šleideriškis | Šleideriškis | „ 54 | Nairiai | Vaškai | Pasvalys 54a | Vaškai | „ | „ 55 | Saločiai | Saločiai | Pasvalys 56 | Smilgiai | Smilgiai | Biržai 57 | Pabiržė | Pabiržė | „ 58 | Juodžioniai | Parovėja | „ 59 | Obelaukiai | Obelaukiai | „ 79 | Kriaušiškiai | Gružiai | Pasvalys 80 | Puodžiai | Puodžiai | „ 80a | Manikūnai | Manikūnai | „ 81 | Dauknūnai | Krinčinas | „ 82a—83a | Geidžiūnai | Geidžiūnai | Biržai 110 | Gailioniai | Svobiškis | Pakruojis 111 | Joniškėlis | Joniškėlis | Pasvalys 111a | Gustonys | „ | „ 112 | Pasvalys | Pasvalys | „ 113 | Šukionys | Jasiuliškiai | Biržai 113a | Lebeniškiai | Lebeniškiai | Biržai 114 | Gataučiai | Vabalninkas | „ 139 | Dikonys | Dičiūnai | Panevėžys 140 | Jurgėnai | Jurgėnai | Pasvalys 140a | Švilpiškiai | Pampėnai | „ 141 | Barklainiai | Daujėnai | „ 142 | Mockūnai | Vabalninkas | Biržai 169 | Medikoniai | Skaistgiriai | Panevėžys 170 | Sereikonai | Pampėnai | Pasvalys 171 | Stumbriškis | Sodeliai | Panevėžys 172 | Darsiškiai | Antašava | Kupiškis 173 | Šalteniai | Palėvenė | „ 202 | Spirakiai | Berčiūnai | Panevėžys 203 | Piniava | Piniava | „ 204 | Karsakiškis | Karsakiškis | „ 232 | Naujamiestis | Naujamiestis | „ 233 | Pažagieniai | Pažagieniai | „ 234 | Miežiškiai | Miežiškiai | „ 268 | Dūdony s | Uliūnai | „ 269 | Narbutai | Narbutai | „ 302 | Raguva | Raguva | „ 303 | Alukėnai | Traupis | Anykščiai 338 | Alanta | Šilai | Ramygala 32 The dialects of the Pontininkai and western Puntininkai were studied from 1954 to 1961. The collected material is held at the Institute of Lithuanian Language and Literature. 33 Localities and districts are given here according to the administrative division of 1962. 284 Tęsinys Point No. | Point name | Locality | District 339 | Radžiūnai | Baleliai | Kavarskas 373 | Meilūnai | Meilūnai | Ukmergė 374 | Taujėnai | Taujėnai | Kavarskas 408 | Bielazariškiai | Siesikai | Ukmergė 409 | Kunigiškiai | Kurėnai | Ukmergė 446 | Jakutiškiai | Atkočiai | „“ MORE IMPORTANT CASES OF PENETRATION OF PREPOSITIONAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE DIALECTS OF THE PONTININKAI AND WESTERN PUNTININKAI Й. ШУКИС Summary The article discusses certain prepositional constructions alongside which, in the dialects of the Eastern Aukštaitian Pontininkai and Western Puntininkai, cases without prepositions are also used with the corresponding meanings. Thus, in the south of the dialects under discussion, the dative of purpose has been well preserved, e.g.: Pīrmalak(v)s (grādus) páškir(i) sėklę abu dūonę, ūntralak(v)s—givulām, whereas in the north, a prepositional construction with the genitive, dėl, is more often used in this case, e.g.: Pali.k bū.lbu del sėklos. In these dialects, the instrumental of means is used much more often with the preposition su, e.g.: Nò, nejomk sę rọnk’i, válgok sę šaukšt, although it also occurs without a preposition, e.g.: Sėnai pjautuvais rugis nupjāudava. The comitative instrumental, by contrast, is most often used without a preposition in the dialects under discussion, e.g.: Bū.va drūts ūžols kāur vi.dūr, though it also occurs with the preposition su, e.g.: Mūsu kārve su baltōm kōjom. The ancient local cases—the adessive and the allative—have already been completely replaced by various prepositional constructions. The dialects under discussion are also crossed by the isogloss marking the disappearance of the illative. Across most of the Pontininkai dialect area, as in most dialects of southern and western Lithuania, the illative has fallen out of use (only fossilized forms šalin, laukan, kieman have survived, having become adverbs). The illative is replaced by prepositional constructions with į and the accusative, e.g.: Isikāla į mistėl givėn, or with ant and the accusative, e.g.: Kišk ont āketė vīdėgo. The illative is still used quite frequently in the center and south of the Western Puntininkai area, e.g.: Bažnīčon baise žmōni.s nebėrū. Nuvāžiujam į Ragu.von, į Panavižīn, į Miėškos, į Ragu.vėlen, į Truškūnos. Šuklėsim kokōsin insipīly, vālgidava. Even the most persistent local case—the inessive—in the basin 285 of the Mūša River (primarily in the north of the Pontininkai area) is in some cases replaced by the prepositional construction terp (tarp) with the genitive, e.g.: Vērd terp pьoda. Prepositional constructions in the dialects under discussion, like the retraction of stress, spread mainly from north (northwest) to south (southeast). Intensive stress retraction (especially in the Mūša River basin) led to the shortening of word endings (short vowels were lost, long vowels shortened, and diphthongs became monophthongs), and many cases without prepositions in sentences became insufficiently clear. One of the main causes that led to the emergence and consolidation of prepositional constructions was evidently the desire for more precise syntactic differentiation.