Šakynos tarmės daiktavardžio kaityba

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, III LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA INFLECTION OF NOUNS IN THE ŠAKYNA DIALECT1 A. JONAITYTĖ 1. GENERAL NOTES Gender. The dialect distinguishes three noun genders: masculine, feminine, and common. There are not very many common-gender nouns in the dialect. Except for nouns denoting names of persons or agents, e.g.: grėbėjas, grėbėja; krėklis, krėklė “a screamer”; piemuo, piemenė; senis, senė; šaltmiris, šaltmirė “someone who is very afraid of the cold”; viligis, viligė..., and the names of some animals and birds, e.g.: kalakuc, kalakutė; ožis, oška, etc., where grammatical gender corresponds to actual male or female sex, the grammatical gender of all other nouns is a purely formal grammatical category. All a-, ia-, u-, and iu-stem nouns are masculine (dā’irc, birvis, lītus, sōdžus), except sesuva and dūktė; all consonant-stem nouns (rāumuo, taēšmuo); the i-stem nouns dantis, vagis; and those o-, io-, and ē-stem nouns that denote a male person, e.g.: dėde, tėtė “father”, viršila; surnames: karpā’viče, lā’pe, maže’ika, pāuga, no’rutā’viče... It should be noted that surnames with the suffix — avyčia || -ėžvyčia may have masculine plural forms as well as feminine ones, e.g.: jeckē’vičes || jeckē’vičei, karpā’vičes || karpā’vičei... Masculine forms are more common. O-stem surnames also tend to shift to the a-stem, e.g., alongside daugē’la, nō’reika, nō’r vaiša, rā’duila, daugē’ls, nō’reiks, nō’r vaišas, raduīls. are also used. O-, io-, and ē-stem nouns are feminine (gē’rve, marī, ūoga, vāldže), except dāntis, vāgis; all i-stem nouns (ā’nkstis, nāktis); and the consonant-stem nouns dūktė and sesuva. The gender of dialect nouns and their standard-language (lk) equivalents does not always match, e.g.: ābgama “mole”, blakstiens “eyelash”, dē’na “palm”, ēketis “ice hole”, mō’rks “carrot”, pō’ris “pair”, skālkei “chalk”, valnarē’žis “burdock”. If the gender of a dialect noun differs from that of its standard-language equivalent, it most often matches the gender in neighboring Samogitian (e.g., Kuršėnai) or Aukštaitian dialects. 1This article forms part of a larger work being written on the Šakyna dialect. It uses the same phonetic transcription as the article “Stress and Accentuation in the Šakyna Dialect,” published in volume II of „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, pp. 109–130. Only here, the consonant accentuation of mixed diphthongs ui and iu, and u + l, m, n, r, is marked not with (ˊ) but with (ˋ). Except in special cases, dialect examples are not transposed into standard Lithuanian. 91 In the dialect there are also nouns that have both masculine and feminine gender, e.g.: cibìlis || cibùle “onion”, grì:ba || grì:ps, lìepa || lìeps, rū:ta, but in the plural alongside rū:tas and rū:tai, spìrga || spìrks, súodis ~ súodys || súodžei (common), žãba || žã:ps (common), žìlvitìs || žìlvite (rare). Common-gender nouns are those that can be applied equally to persons of either male or female sex (and sometimes to various animals). Most common-gender nouns have an o-stem, but some belong to other stems as well (a, ia, ē, iu), e.g.: avė:pìza “a goggle-eyed person”, drambìla “a large, clumsy person”, ìštiža, ìžarga ~ išžarga “a gaping-mouthed person”, klìuka “a fool”, làmata “a wreck of a person”, liežūnėša “a gossip”, lãrva “a slovenly, shapeless person”, nævalá, nævalėìka “a slovenly person”, nævalga, nuòspò:ga “a good-for-nothing”, pakarìla “a rascal”, pamì:va, pà:mpla “a simpleton”, pikčiūrna, plìkata “a frivolous person”, rūkata “a sour-faced person”, slòpsna “a weakling”, snarglėda “a snot-nosed child”, sprō:gena “a weakling, good-for-nothing”, sūkata “a twisted, sour-faced person”, taradėìka “someone who likes to talk a lot and loudly”, và:lkata, galvãčas “a clever person”, gargáras “a lanky person”, kànčas “a miser and grumbler”, lū:žas “a lazy person”, makã:rs “a cunning person”, plūrpal̇s “a chatterbox”, salì:klus “a person who takes offense easily, a capricious person”, snačas “a scatterbrain”, stūlbis “a clumsy, uncouth person”. Comparing the examples, it appears that o-stem nouns have been common-gender nouns from ancient times, whereas words belonging to other stems entered the common gender later. This is partly confirmed by the following dialect feature: any masculine- or feminine-gender noun shifts to the common gender whenever someone is characterized by it, e.g.: that biàurì:be a real šùrbė:lė; nèma:te to: jaunìke, sà:ke, kó:ks pelė:da; ale gi, that one is indeed a bēnt kàule; nùveik pas pèlkìsiene, àna gera iškalbò:čus “she likes to talk”. All common-gender nouns share one characteristic: they all have a derogatory, pejorative meaning. As an exception, however, mention should also be made of common-gender words that have no negative meaning, e.g.: ligó:nìs (sà:ka, ka, ligó:nìs jau į kà:muoli sutrãkta; ligó:nìs sà:kanti…; jau sa ré:jus jau šenei ligó:nìs), tūlmo:čus “translator, interpreter” (âns tė: bùva par tūlmo:ču; a jau tūlmo:čaus prìtrū: kai (said of a woman)). Case. The dialect has the same seven cases as Standard Lithuanian. The old postpositional locatives have disappeared. The adessive and allative have vanished without a trace; remnants of the singular illative occur only in adverbialized forms and, most often, in truncated forms, e.g.: sà bū:da “drives the dog”; tàu vis rèik ēit į kàndin “you always have to go after”; làuka || làuko || làukuton “outdoors”, cf. the Northern Samogitian forms làuko, and the Klaipėda forms làuko; slėta ~ sietan “thus the cows are driven into their stall”; ėik šalin; mąsk žėme “into the ground”. These postpositional locatives have given way to prepositional constructions, e.g.: mìška pàukštis į mìška įžū:rį; ižėje į píevas; pas motìnąte viesa valà:te “for children, the best place is with their mother”; vàžiūj pas bró:li. Sometimes, though very rarely, there are also cases in which the simple locative is used with an illative meaning, e.g.: kàntminius nuvà:re vėrsius “they drove the calves to Kantminiai.” It is probably not possible to treat this example as a remnant of the old illative and compare it with such East Aukštaitian constructions involving the shortened plural illative as, for example: dar namùos atvežė (near Varėna); jūs atvažiavosit svečiuos (Lazūnai), since there are nowhere in the dialect any clearer traces even of an adverbialized plural illative- 92 forms. This is most likely an entirely new phenomenon, simply an extension of the meaning of the simple locative2. It is difficult to determine exactly when the old postpositional locatives disappeared in the dialect. But it seems that this must have happened long ago, since these locatives are absent not only from the Šakyna dialect, but also from all neighboring Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects. In general, the dialect’s case endings correspond almost everywhere to the case endings of the corresponding stems in Standard Lithuanian and share their origin. Nearly all differences in the dialect’s case endings arose through phonetic or morphological shortening of endings3. Thus, with the exception of the a-stem, nouns of all stems have a shortened singular locative ending, e.g.: gō’vi, miškē’li, gálvo, liepo, dáržinē, pálubē, pē’či, viduj, vándeni… The plural dative endings and, except for a- and ia-stem nouns, the plural instrumental endings are also shortened. However, these endings are shortened unevenly across the dialect area. Along the entire Samogitian border (Kruopiai, Dilbinai, Šakyna), forms with -s are found much more frequently among older people in particular than in areas farther from the Samogitian dialect, e.g., plural dative: akūms, bō’bums, pō’nā’ms, sē’nā’ms, žmo’nīms, žō’lūms “to the grasses”…; plural instrumental: d̄ienums “with days”, nāktims, pušē’lē’ms, žī’cūms “with geese”. But even along the Samogitian border, forms without -s are already considerably more frequent than those with it, e.g., plural dative: arklām, bā’tām, lā’vē’m, mō’terim…; plural instrumental: māldum “with prayers”, raudē’m, pūšim. The dual forms are thought to have initiated the loss of -s4. On the basis of Standard Lithuanian and old writings (Vilento’s catechism and the Gospels), it may be supposed that in the dialect the old plural dative ending was shortened first, and long ago, whereas the plural instrumental ending—which has survived in Standard Lithuanian to this day—was shortened considerably later, e.g.: akimis, rankomis. The same sources suggest that the singular instrumental ending was shortened at the same time as the plural instrumental ending. In discussing the plural dative and instrumental cases, the plural dative and instrumental endings -um(s) of feminine words in all declinable parts of speech should also be addressed, e.g.: to’kūm(s) susivē’lusum(s) žīlum(s) galvūm(s) (plural dative); sū’cīso’kūm(s) sēnum(s) kūlamum(s) mašīnum(s) (plural instrumental). (See also the paradigms of the individual stems.) This ending is familiar to almost all northwestern Aukštaitians and a fairly large part of the Samogitian population. On the basis of the material collected for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language available at present, the ending -ums extends westward to this boundary: Papilė, Tryškiai, Kuršėnai, Kelmė, Adomaičiai, Pagramantis, Žygaičiai, Lauksargiai, Rugaliai, Eičiai; farther on it extends eastward and reaches the Nemunas at Jurbarkas. Still farther west beyond this bound- 2 Cf. Б. А. Серебренников, О некоторых возможных причинах происхождения иллативного значения у латышского локатива, Rakstu krājums veltījums akadēmiķim profesoram dr. Jānim Endzelīnam viņa 85 dzīves un 65 darba gadu atcerei, 243, Rīgā, 1960. 3 For a fuller discussion of morphological shortening of endings, see Vl. Grinaveckis, Galūnių trumpėjimas lietuvių kalbos tarmėse. — Vilniaus valstybinio pedagoginio instituto Mokslo darbai, 8, 97—98, Vilnius, 1959; J. Kazlauskas, Daiktavardžių (i) u linksniavimo nykimas. — Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, 2, 26, Vilnius, 1959. 4 For more detail, see J. Endzelīns, Latviešu valodas gramatika, 405, Rīgā, 1951, and the literature cited there. 93 The plural dative ending of the stem -ums was recorded in Veiviržėnai, e.g.: šakoms, vėsoms, etc. In Pakapurnis (Raseiniai district), Joniškė (Tauragė district), Viduklė (Raseiniai district), Nemakščiai (Skaudvilė district), and Didvėjye (Raseiniai district), the ending -ums was recorded only in the plural instrumental. In the plural dative, feminine nouns of all stem classes retained their own old endings. A comparison of older sources shows that the occurrence of the ending -ums only in the plural instrumental is either a very recent development or a transcriber’s error, since in the writings of S. Stanevičius⁵, who came from Nemakščiai and Viduklė, the ending -ums occurs in both the plural dative and the plural instrumental, e.g.: Padyrbdynsnu laywele, plauksiu jurirms marelums (p. 26)⁶; …munes graudey w erky graudžiums aszarelums (p. 34); Mes pasysamdisme Rigos sliesorely, mes prydyrbdynsme skriniums jurinėles (92); Asz pasērsu savo žyrgūžely ney rugēleys, ney mižēleys, grinumus awyžēlums (122); …kurys tum layku būdamas Wylniuje, mun yr muna daynams išrašdy tą teyksma jog daināžimes parašy (132). Neither the songs published by Stanevičius in 1829 nor the broad distribution of -ums allow this ending to be regarded as a very recent phenomenon. As the examples show, in Stanevičius’s writings the ending -ums occurs in o-, io-, and ē-stem nouns; thus it cannot be entirely new there either, since it must first have arisen in just one stem class, most likely the (i)o-stem class, and only later spread into the others. It must first have entered the e-stem class, because in the Žemaitian and northwestern Aukštaitian dialects the case endings of ē- and io-stem nouns with fixed stem stress are identical, except in the singular and plural locatives and the plural dative and instrumental. The precise age of the ending -ums cannot yet be determined. It is true that in the Evangelijos of Vilentas, a northwestern Aukštaitian from Prussian Lithuania, we find: priewaisdum̄is (Ev. 25) and paslapūmis (Ev. 30). But no further similar cases occur throughout Vilentas’s writings, and it is unclear how to interpret these examples: as instrumentals in -umis, or as printer’s errors. Moreover, the first word may be an incorrect u-stem form, while the second may simply be a Žemaitian form, which occur fairly often in Vilentas’s writings. Since the plural instrumental with the ending -*umis has not been recorded anywhere in present-day Lithuanian dialects or older sources (Stanevičius), it should be assumed that the ending -ums arose when the old plural dative and instrumental endings were shortened and merged, and that the new ending -ums was immediately generalized to both cases. The ending -ums was formerly considered a borrowing from the Veliuona dialect. This view is contradicted, however, by the exceptionally broad area in which -ums is found: it covers not only almost all northwestern Aukštaitians but also a considerable part of the Žemaitians, and extends from the border of the Latvian SSR to the Nemunas. Nor can -ums be regarded as a regular, straightforward case of the shortening and development of the unstressed ending -om(s), since this is contradicted by the fact that for a long time in those... 5 See S. Stanevyčia, Pasakėčios, 5, Kaunas, 1948. 6 Pavyzdžiai imami iš S. Stanevičiaus, Dainos Žemaičių, Vilnius, 1954. Perrašant Stanevičiaus tekstą, pakeistas raides ž rašymas. Some of these examples are also mentioned by E. Grinaveckienė. See E. Grinaveckienė, Mituvos upyno tarmė, dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Philological Sciences, 305, Vilnius, 1955, typescript. 94 In dialects where the ending -um(s) occurs, the verb plural first-person ending -om (< -ome) arose, e.g.: darom, sakom, kirtom never turns into -um, although for a long time the plural dative–instrumental ending and the verb plural first-person ending have been phonetically similar. The only exceptions are a couple of examples: prašum ‘please’ (Šakyna, Kuršėnai) and žinum ‘of course’ (Šakyna, Kuršėnai). As can be seen, these have already become detached from the general verb system. But in some northwestern Highlander dialects, stress also played a certain role in the emergence of -um(s). Thus, for example, in the dialect of the Mituva river basin (around Jurbarkas), only root-stressed words have the ending -um(s) in the plural dative and instrumental, e.g.: rankum(s), ūgum(s)7… Nor can -um(s) be regarded as having come from u-stem nouns, because wherever it occurs, the ending -um(s) is used only with feminine nouns, whereas Lithuanian has no feminine u-stem nouns that later shifted to another feminine stem and thereby also carried over the ending -um(s). Moreover, except for the plural genitive, no case ending of the u-stem nouns themselves coincided with the ending of any case of a feminine stem; thus, even simple analogy could not have been at work. Adverbialized plural instrumental forms with -umis are found in Latvian, e.g.: retumis ‘rarely’, mazum(is) ‘little by little’, milzumis ‘a great deal’, vietumis ‘in places’, and so on.8 K. Mühlenbach explains these forms as the plural instrumental of derivatives formed with the suffix -uma9. But this cannot explain the Lithuanian forms with -um(s). Thus, the origin of the ending -um(s) remains unclear. Perhaps one might suppose that the instrumental of the pronoun kas played a decisive role here. In the dialects of that area, the instrumental form of the pronoun kas is almost everywhere kum < kuom < kuomi, as aštuntas < aštuontas. This pronoun is also used with the plural instrumental of feminine nouns, e.g.: su kum? — su rankom(s) ‘with what? — with hands’. Later, by analogy, this could have changed into su-kum? — su rankum(s) ‘with what? — with hands’. Within the Šakyna dialect area itself, the ending -um(s) is not used uniformly everywhere. It is most vigorous closer to the Samogitian border (Kruopiai, Šakyna, Dargaičiai, Dilbimai, Žagarė), but, for example, around Skaistgirys it is already less common, especially in ė, i stems. There the old endings of individual stems are already more frequent. Farther east (Daunorava, Joniškis), it has not been recorded at all.10 The plural inessive ending is also shortened in the dialect, e.g.: aūžio's, laukuos, namuos. But the plural inessive is shortened less regularly than the singular, and full forms are often used alongside shortened ones, e.g.: laukuose, miestuose, trō·bo·se… Moreover, shortening is not uniform across nouns of different stems. The plural forms of a-, iā-stem nouns are shortened the most. 7 El. Grinaveckienė, Mituvos upyno tarmė, filologijos mokslų kandidato laipsnio disertacija, 294–295, Vilnius, 1955, mašinraštis. 8 J. Endzelins, Latviesu valodas gramatika, 602–603, Rīgā, 1951. 9 K. Mühlenbach, Das Suffix -uma- im Lettischen, Indogermanische Forschungen, XVII, 412–413, Strassburg, 1905. For Daunorava and Joniškis, the material was taken from the card index of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, held at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences.10 95 Locative forms are shortened less in -o-, -io-, and ē-stem nouns, and least of all in i-stem nouns and nouns with consonant stems in the dialect: the plural locative forms of these stems are almost never shortened. The greatest shortening of plural locative endings in a- and ia-stem nouns is characteristic not only of the Šakyna dialect and other Northwestern Aukštaitian dialects (e.g., those of the Mituvà river basin)11 but, as the Dialect Atlas materials show, also of the kapsai-zanavykai dialects (which do not shorten the plural locative of other stems at all)12 and their neighbors, the Veliuona dialects. Number. The dialect noun has only two numbers: singular and plural. The dual has generally disappeared. Some remnants of it still occur in the plural accusative of masculine nouns with a- and ia-stems and other stems, when they are used with “two” or “both (two),” e.g.: I had sown a hundredweight of oats, [with] two written statements, they threshed with a flail, a sack at each end. But in such cases plural forms are also used alongside them, e.g.: two months passed by;...the kiln heated for two days and nights; they took two hundred. Everywhere else the dual has disappeared, and the plural has taken its place, e.g.: those two spindles no longer give milk;...put two barrels of barley into the loft and dried [them]...;...we had two barrels in the granary; nobody knows what will become of those two. The remnants of the dual in the plural accusative of a-stem and ia-stem nouns are explained by analogy with the numerals “two,” “both.” This is also confirmed by the fact that precisely the same traces of the dual are characteristic of many other dialects in which the nominal dual has likewise almost disappeared, e.g. the Kapsai-Zanavykai13, the dialect of the southernmost northwestern Aukštaitians (Jurbarkas)14, and the eastern Aukštaitian dialect (Linkmenys)15. The dual has also left traces in the plural dative of all stems and, except for a- and ia-stems, in the plural instrumental16, where, under the influence of the dual, the final -s began to be dropped, for example: [dialect examples]. It is difficult to say when the dialect lost the dual. Number not only indicates the number of things, but various lexical meanings are sometimes also associated with its grammatical forms, e.g.: bicycle “bicycle” and bicycles “the front axle of a cart, with wheels and shafts,” beauty “beauty” and beautiful things “ornaments; beautiful objects,” hail and hailstones “hail,” firewood and firewood “firewood,” nostril and nostrils “nostrils,” side and sides “cardinal direction,” etc. As in Ik and other Lithuanian dialects, some nouns in the Šakyna dialect sometimes have only one number: either only the plural or only the singu- 11 Plg. El. Grinaveckienė, Mituvos upyno tarmė, 292, 299, 307, 311—312, Vilnius, 1955, mašinraštis. 12 Plg. Atlase medžiagos rinkimo „Programos“ 290 klausimo bandomuosius Pietų Lietuvos žemėlapius, Vilnius, Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas, rankraštis. 13 J. Senkus, Daiktavardžių linksniavimo kapsų ir zanavykų tarmėse bruožai.— Lietuvos TSR MA Darbai, Serija A 2 (9), 157, Vilnius, 1959. 14 El. Grinaveckienė, Būdingesnės giminės, skaičiaus ir linksnio formos Mituvos upyno tarmėje. — Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, 2, 181, Vilnius, 1959. 15 J. Kardelytė, Daiktavardžio kait ymas Linkmenų tarmėje. — Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, 2, 166, Vilnius, 1959. 16 Žr. J. Endzelīns, Latviešu valodas gramatika, 405, Rīgā, 1951 ir ten nurodytą literatūrą. 96 inflection. E.g., singularia tantum: balti̇·be, dė·jims, kareivije, krėida, piens, švi̇ns, etc.; pluralia tantum: bȧltinei, ekė·čes, lȧšinei, miėles, mi̇ltai, mi̇t·bas, mušči̇·nes, niu̇obaigas, pakaši̇·nas, pru̇šnas “muzzle,” smȧ·genas, ni̇ežai, rȧudes “erysipelas,” niu̇okulstas “chaff,” pȧ·biras, pȧmazgas || sȧmazgas, bȧrkštei, vė·darai, etc. Stem. The noun stems in the dialect are the same as in standard Lithuanian (a, ia, o, io, ė, i, u, iu and consonant stems), but: 1. The stem of individual dialect nouns does not always correspond to the stem of the equivalent standard Lithuanian noun, e.g.: ȧbgama, bi̇tis, blakstiens, dȧine, dėbeši·s, dė·na, kišė·nis, nȯ·sini·s, ȯ·baela, pȯ·ris “pair,” smȧ·genas, ši̇rša, viėšnė, žu̇·ri·s… Some words have two stems, e.g.: gri̇·ba || gri̇·ps, su̇odžei || su̇odis ~ su̇odys, ži̇lvitis || ži̇lvite, ėketi·s || ėketė, žȧba || žȧ·ps, etc. 2. Not all the noun stems in the dialect have been equally well preserved. The a, ia, o, io stems are best preserved and, in part, the ė stems; i, u, iu stems, and especially consonant stems, are much less well preserved and are still weakening, as new words continually shift from them to other stems: masculine nouns shift to a, ia stems, feminine nouns to o, io stems, and sometimes also to ė stems. Moreover, individual cases or even entire numbers from more numerous stems encroach on these declining stems; for example, u-, iu-stem nouns are inflected throughout the plural according to the a-, ia-stems. In the singular, the form of a-, ia-stems is encroaching on the instrumental singular of u, iu-stem nouns, e.g.: su alėju, su cukru, su trākto·ru. Forms ending in -um(s) have encroached on the plural dative and instrumental of feminine nouns with ė, i and consonant stems, e.g.: plural dative akūm(s), ka·r’um, mo·taerum “to women”; plural instrumental dilgī·num “with nettles,” du̇ktaerum “with daughters,” ši̇rdžum “with hearts”… The instrumental singular form of io-stem nouns has also encroached on feminine nouns with i-stems, e.g.: su ake, no·se, ža·se, etc. Consonant stems are the least well preserved: the inflection of nouns with these stems is completely mixed up (see the paradigm): Although i, u, iu stems are disappearing, individual cases from them sometimes encroach on words with certain ia, ė stems, e.g.: singular nominative kȧtis “cat,” kū·tis “kutė,” mo·ki·tojus “teacher,” raš·tojus “writer,” ūpis “river” (standard Lithuanian upė), etc. Some io-stem nouns have shifted to the ė stem, e.g.: gū·nė, jȧ·uje (loc. jȧ·ujė ~ jāujėje), skri·ne (loc. skri·nė ~ skrẏnėje), viėšnė ~ viešnė, u̇ž·sne ~ vẏšnė (loc. u̇ž·snė ~ vẏšnėje). This shift occurred because most case endings in the dialect coincided with those of the corresponding ė-stem nouns (only the singular locative, plural locative and, in part, dative and instrumental differ—that is, where the ending -ums has not encroached on them). To conclude, it should also be emphasized that where the stem of a dialect noun differs from that in standard Lithuanian, it most often corresponds to the stem of the equivalent noun in neighboring Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects (Kuršėnai, etc.), and sometimes also in neighboring Latvian dialects (Bukaiši, Mežamuiza) (cf. Latvian akmins, kalki, pāris, etc.). Accentuation. The disyllabic nouns of the dialect have the same four accent paradigms as standard Lithuanian, except that the singular locative of a-stem nouns in accent paradigm III is accented not on the ending, as in standard Lithuanian (e.g.: beržė, darbė), but on the root, e.g.: be·ržė, da·rbe, etc., as in other northwestern Aukštaitian and Samogitian dialects. Polysyllabic nouns differ from standard Lithuanian in having only three accent paradigms: I (e.g.: akūoc, pavȧ·saris), II (e.g.: kȯ·pu·sc, paklȯ·de) and III (e.g.: kȧmuo- 7. Kalbotyros klausimai 97 li·s, riešuc, sprā·gils). In addition, the singular locative of polysyllabic a-stem nouns with the third accent paradigm is stressed on the stem, just as in disyllabic nouns of the same stem type and the III accent paradigm, e.g.: a·žuole, riešute, etc. The accentuation of individual nouns does not correspond to that of the respective lk nouns. For further details, see the paradigms of the individual stem types. 2. DECLENSION a-stem Singular N. kā·uls, pirš·, kae·lms, lāuks G. kā·ula, piršta, kae·lma, lāuka D. kā·ului, pirštui, kae·lmui, lāukui A. kā·ula, piršta, kae·lma, lāuka I. kā·ulu, pirštu, kae·lmu, lāuku L. kā·ule, piršte, kae·lme, lāuke V. kā·ule, piršte, kae·lme, lāuke Plural N. kā·ulai, pirštai, kae·lmai, lāukai G. kā·ulų, pirštų, kae·lmų, lāukų D. kā·ulá·m¹⁷, pirštá·m, kae·lmá·m, lauká·m kā·ulá·ms, pirštá·ms, kae·lmá·ms, lauká·ms A. kā·ulus, pirštus, kae·lmus, lāukus I. kā·ulais, pirštais, kae·lmais, lāukais L. kā·uluos, pirštuos, kae·lmuos, lāukuos kā·uluose, pirštuose, kae·lmuose, lāukuose V. kā·ulai, pirštai, kae·lmai, lāukai kae·lmai, lāukai Notes. Declension. Singular locative. In the dialect, a rather unusual singular locative form is occasionally found, e.g.: bl·džūkuo, daždžūkuo, laukūkuo (Šakyna) kalnūko (Dilbinai). This form is found only in nouns with the diminutive suffix -ukas. This locative form is borrowed from neighboring Samogitian dialects (cf. Kuršėnai kalnūkuo, suodžūkuo, svižnūkuo… It is quite prevalent in this dialect). But what is interesting is that the phonetic Samogitian forms are no longer always corrected in the Šakyna dialect. In Samogitian, this ending derives from the singular locative of o-stem nouns¹⁸. Singular vocative. The singular vocative of polysyllabic a-stem nouns very often has a shortened ending, e.g.: ā·vin, kā·tin, pā·tin, vā·buol “beetle,” žā·sin, etc. The singular vocative form of proper nouns is not— 17 In cases with variant forms, the more frequently used form is given first, followed by the less frequent one. 18 Cf. the Latvian singular locative of a-stem nouns mežā, tevā. For the etymology, see J. Endzelynas, Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos, 106, Vilnius, 1957. 98 which do not have the ending -e, but only the formant -ai, e.g.: bǐčužai (surname), janká'uskai (surname), jō'nai, mā'rti'nai, pẽ'trai, etc. Among common nouns, in the singular vocative this formant is always found only in the word “father” — tē'vai. In other common nouns this formant occurs only very rarely, e.g.: žō'gai, žō'goi, dúok degūta (Dargaičiai). Singular vocative forms of proper pluralia tantum nouns (names) are also very often shortened, e.g.: jō'kim, lẽ'vo'n “Leonai,” stanislau, vā'cilau10. Plural vocative. The dialect increasingly also uses the plural nominative instead of the plural vocative in disyllabic nouns of accent paradigms III and IV (cf. paradigms). Stress. Some a-stem nouns in the dialect are stressed differently than in standard Lithuanian20. In the dialect, the following take accent paradigm I: àmarninks, ameríkō'ns, dvārininks, kelà'minks, pabī'klas “device, tool,” prō'c, pūrsłas, skō'lininks, sā'vininks, stebū'klas, ū'ps, žvī'rs, gīntars, kā'rininks, krā'uklas “some old object.” Nearly all nouns with the suffix -ūnas also take accent paradigm I, e.g.: alei'ns (surname), bijū'ns, keikū'ns, lakū'ns, pasalū'ns, perkū'ns, ratū'naī (village), sargū'ns (surname), taučū'nai (village), vijū'ns, etc., but alū'ns, kāltū'ns, mā'lu·ns, pālatru'ns “a herb grown in gardens.” In the dialect, nouns with accentuation pattern II are stressed as follows: drīžas, gāurai, jūnks, līeknas, līūkšča, māldai “reeds,” rīkmas, rī'mai, rūnks ~ rūngas, rōžas, vāistai. In the dialect, nouns with accentuation pattern III are stressed as follows: kūoc ~ kūodas, māigai “rakes,” mūškuls, pūocs, smā'iks, žā'ips, žā'gnc. In the dialect, nouns with accentuation pattern IV are stressed as follows: kānc ~ kāitas, mūils, nērus, vērks ~ vērgas. Some a-stem nouns have two or even three possible stress patterns, e.g.: akuōc I and III, àtklastai I and III b, jezmīns and jē'mins I, II and IIIb, pavālkai II and pā'valkai I, māurai II and mā'urāi I. ia stem Vienaskaita I II III IV V. stūobris, mē'dis, rū'pesti's, kē'ls K. stūobre, mē'dže, rū'pešče, kē'le N. stūobru, mē'džui, rū'peščui, kē'lui G. stūobri, mē'di, rū'pesti, kē'li Įn. stūobru, mēdžū, rū'peščū, kē'lu Vt. stūobri·, mē'di·, rū'pesti·, kē'li· Š. stūobri, mē'di, rū·pesti·, kē'ls kē'li· For the origin of the singular vocative forms, see J. Otrębski, Gramatyka języka litewskiego, 3, 15, Warszawa, 1956. J. Endzelynas, Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos, 106, Vilnius, 1957.10 For the accentuation norm of the literary language, the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian,” Vilnius, 1954, is taken.20 99 Plural I II III IV V. Š. stúobrei, mēdžei, rūpeščei, kēlei K. stúobru, mēdžu, rūpešču, kēlu N. stúobram, mēdžām, rupeščām, kelām stúobrāms, mēdžāms, rupeščāms, kelāms G. stúobrus, mēdžus, rūpeščus, kēlus Įn. stúobreis, mēdžeis, rūpeščeis, kēleis Vt. stúobruos, mēdžuos, rūpeščuos, kēluos stúobruose, mēdžuose, rūpeščuose, kēluose Notes. Inflection. Singular accusative. The nouns kē‘ls, vē‘jes, vē‘lns in the singular accusative in the dialect have the ending -i: kē‘li, vē‘ji || vē‘je, vē‘lni. This ending is also found in neighboring Samogitian dialects (e.g., Kuršėnai vē‘Ini, kē‘li, u̯ēni). It arose by analogy with the singular accusative of those iā-stem nouns that regularly have -i in the singular accusative (see paradigms). Singular locative. In the dialect, especially near the Samogitian border, forms of the singular locative borrowed from neighboring Samogitian dialects are occasionally encountered, e.g.: grō‘vie, kēlie, lō‘vie, mē‘die, tī‘relie “in Tyrelis,” etc. (Cf. the Kuršėnai forms luō‘psie, muo-lie, viejie … Here, throughout, the singular locative of iā-stem nouns has regularly been replaced by the singular locative of ē-stem nouns.) In these borrowings, as in the borrowed forms of the singular locative of a-stems, the dialect does not restore Samogitian phonetic features (in the Šakyna dialect the forms should be * grō‘vie, *lō‘vie, etc.). Accentuation. The following may be mentioned among iā-stem nouns accented differently from those with accentuation pattern 1. In the dialect, the following have accentuation pattern I: bēprō‘tis, bēsō‘tis, džē‘snis, jaunā‘vedis, kaminšluostis, kē‘imaris, lē‘lis “bird, Caprimulgus europaeus,” naujā‘kuris, ni‘kštis, stúobris, tvink­snis, vijō‘klis, virvagalys, žvīlksnis. In addition, all nouns with the stressed suffix -uoklis have accentuation pattern I, e.g.: girtuōklis, sapniuok-lis, “dreamer, scatterbrain,” svī‘riuoklis. In the dialect, the following have accentuation pattern II: āklis, kūžlis, spīglis, spī‘ris “support,” žemkēntis. Also, all nouns with the suffix -ē‘jis, e.g.: dirbē‘jis, ge‘rē‘jis, metē‘jis, pjō‘vējis. In the dialect, the following have accentuation pattern III: bō‘tkō‘tis, kō‘šūvis, rū‘pestis, užvalktis, vō‘kietis. o-stem Singular I II III IV Nom. pieva, rānka, gālva, šāka Gen. pievas, rānkas, gālvo’s, šāko’s Dat. pievai, rānkai, gā‘lvai, šā‘kai Acc. pieva, rānka, gā‘lua, šā‘ka Ins. pieva, rānka, gā‘lua, šāka Loc. pievo‘, rānko‘, gāluo‘, šāko‘ Voc. pieva, rānka, gālva, šāka 100 Plural I II III IV V. field(s), hand(s), head(s), twig(s) K. field(s), hand(s), head(s), twig(s) N. fieldum(s) 21, handum(s), headum(s), twigum(s) fieldom(s), handom(s), headom(s), twigom(s) G. field(s), hand(s), head(s), twig(s) Įn. fieldum(s), handum(s), headum(s), twigum(s) fieldom(s), handom(s), headom(s), twigom(s) Vt. fieldo˙s(e), hando˙s(e), heado˙s(e), twigo˙s(e) fields(e), hands(e), heads(e), twigs(e) Notes. Declension. Singular vocative. In the dialect, it has merged with the singular nominative. If the old vocative form with the old stress on the root had been preserved, the old unstressed short final a22 should have been lost in the dialect. For the singular locative and plural dative and instrumental, see the section “Case” in “General Notes.” Plural locative. The dialect’s plural locative forms in -uos(e) of o-stem nouns, e.g., pievuos(e), rãnkuos(e), etc., can be explained in two ways: 1. It may have arisen within the dialect itself by analogy with nouns that in the dialect have both a- and o-stems, e.g., plural nominative: grìbas || grìbai, krūopas || krūopai, lìepas || lìepai, rū˙tas || rū˙tai, slì˙vas || slì˙vai, etc. Indeed, this ending occurs not only with o-stems but also in feminine nouns with io-, ē-, i-, and consonant stems, e.g.: ãkuos “in the eyes” (Šakyna), jã˙ujuos “in the threshing barn” (Dargaičiai), pū˙suos “in the halves” (Dilbinai). But here, too, it may have arisen by analogy with the dialect’s two-stem nouns, e.g.: cibãlis || cibùle “onion,” èketìs || èketė, siõdžei || siõdis ~ siõdys (plural nominative), žìlvitìs || žìlvite, etc. In addition, the analogy of the new o-stem forms may also be at work here. 2. Just as in the Šakyna dialect the plural locative ending of a- and ia-stem nouns has intruded into the plural locative of o-, io-, and ē-stem nouns, the same has happened in many Samogitian dialects (Kuršėnai, Kaunatava, Šaukėnai, etc.), e.g.: runkuosi || runku˙si (rare), vestùvės (rare) (Kuršėnai). Thus, Šakyna dialect rãnkuos(e) may have arisen either under the influence of the mixed plural locative forms of neighboring Samogitian dialects or may simply have been borrowed from Samogitian runkuosi (cf. the borrowed Samogitian forms of the singular locative of a- and ia-stem nouns, which were not adapted to the dialect). Accentuation. In the dialect, ã˙traiža, džõ˙va “tuberculosis,” lèčpìra “white wagtail,” lì˙guma, pãkaba, sló˙gas, žã˙rna also follow accentuation pattern I. In the dialect, ieva, jūra, krãunas, lã˙stas, lùbas, lū˙šna, plūta, stì˙ga, šẽiva also follow accentuation pattern II. 21 The ending in parentheses is less frequent. See also footnote 17. 22 For the Lithuanian singular vocative, see J. Endzelynas, Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos, 114, Vilnius, 1957. 101 In the dialect, words gãinava, lètėna, nùgara. are also stressed according to accent paradigm III. In the dialect, the word próga. is stressed according to accent paradigm IV. Among the dialect's o-stem nouns that may be stressed in two ways, the following may be mentioned: brùna (II and IV), sàmanas (I and III). io stem Vienaskaita N. sg. kó·je, telì·če, àpače, vãldže; G. sg. kó·jes, telì·čes, àpačõ·s, vãldžõ·s; D. sg. kó·jei, telì·čei, ã·pačei, vãldžei; A. sg. kó·je, telì·če, ã·pače, vãldže; I. sg. kó·je, telì·če²³, ã·pače, vãldže; L. sg. kó·jo, telì·čo, àpačò, vãldžõ Daugiskaita N. pl. kó·jes, telì·čes, ã·pačes, vãldžes; G. pl. kó·ju, telì·ču, àpačù, vãldžù; D. pl. kó·jum(s), telì·čum(s), apačùm(s), valdžùm(s); kó·jo·m(s), telì·čo·m(s), apačõ·m(s), valdžõ·m(s); A. pl. kó·jes, telì·čes, ã·pačes, vãldžes; I. pl. kó·jum(s), telì·čum(s), apačùm(s), valdžùm(s); kó·jo·m(s), telì·čo·m(s), apačõ·m(s), valdžõ·m(s); L. pl. kó·jos(e), telì·čo·s(e), apačõ·s(e), valdžõ·s(e); kó·juos(e), telì·čuos(e), apačuõs(e), valdžùos(e) Notes. The case endings of io-stem nouns, apart from phonetic changes, are the same as those of o-stem nouns. In the dialect, besides màrti, pàti, the nominative singular ending -i is also found in the borrowing põni ‘lady’. Apparently, it was adapted in the dialect from the outset to “daughter-in-law” and “wife” and thus retained its old nominative singular form (cf. Polish pani). ė stem Singular Nom. Š. kã·uge, piẽne, gíesmė, žõ·lė Gen. kã·uges, piẽnes, gíesmės, žõ·lės Dat. kã·ugei, piẽnei, gíesmei, žõ·lei Acc. kã·uge, piẽne, gíesme, žõ·le Inst. kã·uge, piẽne, gíesme, žõ·le Loc. kã·ugė, piẽnė, gíesmė, žõ·lė 23For the accentuation of polysyllabic words of accent paradigm II, see A. Jonaitytė, Šakynos tarmės kirtis ir priegaidė. — Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, 2, 113, Vilnius, 1959. 102 Plural Nom. Š. ká·uges, pīenes, giēsmes, žō·les Gen. ká·ugų·, pīenų·, giēsmų·, žō·lu· Dat. ká·ugum(s), pīenum(s), giēsmūm(s), žō·lūm(s) ká·ugē·m(s), pīenē·m(s), giēsmē·m(s), žō·lē·m(s) Acc. ká·uges, pīenes, giēsmes, žō·les Inst. ká·ugum(s), pīenum(s), giēsmum(s), žō·lūm(s) ká·ugē·m(s), pīenē·m(s), giēsmē·m(s), žō·lē·m(s) Loc. ká·ugē·s(e), pīenē·s(e), giēsmē·s(e), žō·lē·s(e) ká·ugųos(e), pīenųos(e), giēsmųos(e), žō·luos(e) Notes. Declension. Singular vocative. In the dialect, the singular vocative has merged with the singular nominative. For the plural dative and instrumental ending -um(s), see the section “General Notes,” “Case.” For the plural locative ending - uos(e), see the note on the plural locative of o-stem nouns. Accentuation. In the dialect, the forms ã·dgires “plant Lycopodium Selago,” gūote “fungus Hygrophorus,” šli·kšti·ne “an ugly thing,” and tá·rški·ne are also accented according to accent paradigm I. In the dialect, the forms ãikšte || ēikšte, glēives, kē·de, lāime, lāisve, mēnte, srāige, tūlpe. are also accented according to accent paradigm II. Accent paradigm III is used for drō·bulē. The word žūrke, except in the singular nominative and genitive (žūrke·s), is accented according to accent paradigm I in all other cases. i-stem Feminine gender Singular I II III IV V. Š. á·nkštis, ãnglis, širdis, ãusis K. á·nkšties, ãnglies, širdies, ãusies N. á·nkšči, ãnglei, širdžēi, ãusei G. á·nkšti, ãngli, širdi, ãusi Įn. á·nkšče, ãngle, širdže, ãuse á·nkštim (1. ret.), ãnglim (1. ret.), širdim (1. ret.), ãusim (1. ret.) Vt. á·nkšti·, ãngli·, širdi·, ãusi· á·nkštie (ret.), ãnglie (ret.), širdie (ret.), ãusie (ret.) Plural V. Š. á·nkštis~á·nkštys, ãnglis~ãnglys, širdis~širdys, ãusis~ãusys á·nkštės, ãngles, širdes, ãuses K. á·nkščių·, ãnglių·, širdžių·, ãusų· N. á·nkštim(s), ãnglim(s), širdim(s), ãusim(s) á·nkščūm(s), ãnglūm(s), širdžūm(s), ãusām(s) ãusīm(s) 103 G. áṅkštis, ánglis, širdis, ausis áṅkštės, ánglės, širdės, ausės Įn. áṅkštim(s), ánglim(s), širdim(s), ausim(s) áṅkštum(s), ánglum(s), širdžum(s), ausum(s), áušum(s) Vt. áṅkšti·s, ángli·se, širdi·se, ausi·se áṅkščuos(e), ángluos(e), širdžuos(e), ausuos(e) áṅkšties(e), ánglies(e), širdies(e), ausuos(e), ausies(e) Masculine gender Singular Plural V. tooth V. thief V.S. tooth~teeth, thief~thieves tooth K. thief’s thief K. tooth N. thief’s K. teeth, thieves tooth G. thief N. teeth, thieves N. tooth Įn. thief tooth G. tooth thief (1st variant) G. teeth, thieves Įn. tooth Vt. thief teeth tooth (1st variant) thief Įn. teeth, thieves Vt. tooth Š. thief teeth tooth (1st variant) Vt. teeth, thieves Š. tooth teeth, thieves tooth teeth, thieves tooth (1st variant) Notes. Declension. Except for dantį and vagį, all i-stem nouns in the dialect are feminine. In earlier times pėti·s was also masculine, but now, except for the singular genitive form pėties, it has shifted to the ia-stem. As can be seen from the masculine paradigm, dantis and vagiu are already shifting to the ia-stem: many ia-stem inflectional forms have entered the declension of these words. The main reason for the shift of masculine i-stem nouns to the ia-stem is the simplification of the dialect’s declensional system. There are very few masculine i-stem nouns in the dialect, whereas the ia-stem is very numerous. Moreover, the endings of some ia- and į-stem case forms have long coincided in the dialect (e.g., singular nominative and accusative, plural genitive and accusative); by analogy with these, forms of other ia-stem cases readily entered the declension of masculine i-stem nouns. Endings of individual cases. Singular dative. For a long time, in the dialect, as in standard Lithuanian, the singular dative form of feminine i-stem nouns has been borrowed from the io-stem, while that of masculine nouns has been borrowed from the ia-stem. It is unclear what the ending in the dialect was in earlier times. The neighboring Samogitian dialects likewise now have ia- and io-stem forms in the singular dative (á·ke·, žóuse·, Papilė; duńču·, auše·, á·ve·, Kuršėnai). 104 Singular instrumental.In the dialect, as in many other Lithuanian dialects, forms of the ia- and io-stems have intruded into the singular instrumental of i-stems. The io-stem instrumental form also seems to have intruded into feminine i-stem nouns long ago, since its beginnings are already found in the writings of Vilentas, a northwestern Aukštaitian from Prussian Lithuania, where, alongside the old feminine singular instrumental form of the i-stem, e.g. ugnimi (Ev. 84), the io-stem form is also attested, albeit rarely, e.g. akie (Ev. 183), Ischmincße (Ev. 168). It is impossible to determine when ia-stem forms began to intrude into the masculine singular dative of the i-stem. Singular locative.Alongside the old i-stem forms, feminine ė-stem forms borrowed from Samogitian are occasionally encountered throughout the Samogitian border area, e.g. ākie, pirtie, etc. Here, as with locatives of other stems, a characteristic feature is the retention of Samogitian phonetic traits. Singular vocative.In the dialect, the feminine singular vocative has been replaced by the singular nominative. In the masculine, alongside the very rarely used old i-stem vocative forms, the ia-stem vocative is used. Plural nominative and accusative.Alongside the old genders, throughout the Samogitian border area ė-stem forms borrowed from Samogitian are occasionally encountered in feminine nouns [cf. úntes, širdes (nom. acc.), Kuršėnai]. Plural genitive.In the dialect, as in 1k and other dialects, words that have shifted from consonant stems to i-stems retain a hard consonant before the plural genitive ending -u²⁴, e.g. āusu, dāntu, dūru, nōsu, šāknu, žāsu, etc. But this feature has not been retained in all words formerly belonging to consonant stems; cf. žūvu, nākču || nāktu. Plural dative and instrumental.In these cases, feminine i-stem nouns have, alongside the old ending, the ending -um(s) as well. Words that have shifted from consonant stems to i-stems, as in the plural genitive, have a hard consonant before the ending -um(s) of these cases, e.g. plural dative ausūms(s), dūrum(s), šaknum(s), ža:sūm(s); plural instrumental āusum(s), durum(s), šāknum(s), etc. But a soft consonant also occurs sometimes, e.g. āusūm(s) (dat.), dūrum(s) (instr.). Plural locative.Alongside the old i-stem ending, feminine nouns also use forms with -uos(e) (for their origin, see the notes on o-stems). As in the plural genitive, dative, and instrumental, nouns shifted from consonant stems generally retain a hard consonant before this ending as well, e.g. āusuos(e), dūruos(e), etc. The same phenomenon occurs in masculine nouns, e.g. dāntuos(e). Alongside these two plural locative endings, -i’s(e) and -uos(e), forms of the ė-stem borrowed from neighboring Samogitian dialects are also occasionally found throughout the Samogitian border area, e.g. ākies(e), ā’nkšties(e), etc. Here, as in other borrowed locatives, Samogitian phonetic traits remain unassimilated. Accentuation.There are almost no i-stem nouns of accent paradigm II left in the dialect. The word “dūris ~ dūrys” has survived. “ānglis ~ ānglis” is already beginning to be accented according to paradigm IV as well, while ušnis follows paradigms II and IV. 24For the shift of words with root-final consonant stems to the i-stem class, see J. Kazlauskas, Lietuvių kalbos daiktavardžių linksniavimo sistemos paprastėjimas, candidate dissertation in philology, 48–59, Vilnius, 1958, typescript. 105 u, iu stem Singular I II IV V. Nom. á·mžus, tūrgus, sō·džus, lī·tus Gen. á·mžaus, tūrg aus, sō·džaus, lī·ta us Dat. á·mžui, tūrgui, sō·džui, lī·tui Acc. á·mžu, tūrg u, sō·džu, lī·tu Instr. á·mžum, tūrgum, sō·džum, lī·tum á·mžu, tūrg u, sō·džu, lī·tu Loc. á·mžui, tūrgui, sō·džui, lī·tui Voc. á·mžau, tūrgau, sō·džau, lī·tau Plural Nom.-Voc. á·mžei, tūrgai, sō·džei, lī·tai Gen. á·mžų', tūrgų', sō·džų', lī·tu· Dat. á·mžd·m(s), tūrgd·m(s), sō·džā·m(s), lī·tām(s) Acc. á·mžus, tūrgus, sō·džus, lī·tus Instr. á·mžeis, tūrgais, sō·džeis, lī·tais Loc. á·mžuos(e), tūrg uos(e), sō·džuos(e), lī·tuos(e) Notes. Inflection. The dialect’s u-stem is very scarce; the iu-stem is considerably more numerous than the u-stem, but is nevertheless not very numerous. In the plural, both u- and iu-stems have shifted to the a- and ia-stems. The noun žm·gus, which derives from a consonant stem, has shifted in the dialect plural, as in other neighboring Highlander and Samogitian dialects, to the i-stem: žmō·ni·s (plural nominative), žmō·nim(s) (plural dative), etc. Among the remnants of the u-stem plural in the dialect, one may mention the adverb pietuse, derived from the plural locative. No traces remain of the iu-stem plural. It is thought that u- and iu-stem nouns shifted in the plural to the a- and ia-stems because of analogy between the genitive and accusative plural forms of the a-, ia- and u-, iu-stems, which had become identical25. The u- and iu- stems in the singular also already show traces of a shift to the a- and ia-stems. This is the singular instrumental, which, alongside its older form, already has a fairly frequently encountered form of the a- and ia-stems (see the paradigms). This form is now widespread not only in the Šakyna dialect, but also in many other Lithuanian dialects26. In certain cases it was already known to Vilentas, e.g.: sunu (Kat. 27). Stress. The dialect has no u-stem nouns of accentuation classes I and III. lītus and sū·nus follow accentuation class IV; the singular of žmō·gaus follows class IV, while the plural follows class III. There are no nouns of accentuation classes III and IV in the iu stem. 25 See J. Kazlauskas, The Decline of (i) u-Declension of Nouns. — Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics, 2, 20—21, Vilnius, 1959. 26 For a fuller discussion, see J. Kazlauskas, the article cited above, Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics, 2, 22—30, Vilnius, 1959. 106 Consonant stems Consonant stems in the dialect, as in many other Lithuanian dialects²⁷, are the most mixed.²⁸ With the exception of the words diktė and sesuva, all nouns with consonant stems in the dialect are masculine. Feminine words have shifted to the o-stem class, e.g.: āˑšmenas, pūtmenas “putmenys, swelling,” sēˑmenas, skūtmenas “skutmenys, peelings,” and so on. Masculine nouns with consonant stems also no longer have a unified declension system. All of them, except for the single word āˑkmenis || āˑkmuo, show a clear tendency to shift to the ia-stem class, but almost every one is declined differently, since some have more and others fewer ia-stem forms. The word šuva has a completely separate paradigm. The nouns āˑkmuo, vāˑnduo, gen. sg. āˑkmens, vāˑndens || vāˑndene... etc., have variant forms in all cases: nom. sg. āˑkminis, gen. sg. āˑkmina, vāˑndine, dat. sg. āˑkminui, vāˑndinui, and so on. The same phenomenon is also observed in neighboring Samogitian and Latvian dialects, e.g., in Kuršėnai Samogitian: gen. sg. tēšmens, dat. sg. tēˑšminu “to the udder,” acc. sg. tēšmini, ūndini “water”; Latvian: akmins “stone,” dibins “bottom,” tesmens “udder” (Bukaiši, Mežamuiza)²⁹. This alternation of in and en is explained in two ways: K. Būga regards it as a purely phonetic phenomenon³⁰, whereas J. Kazlauskas, in his dissertation, on the basis of data from Lithuanian dialects and old written texts, as well as Latvian and Old Slavic, treats it as a remnant of n-stem nouns that generalized the weak grade of the suffix³¹. However, in individual cases, i and e can alternate before n, m in the dialect even outside consonant stems, e.g., rēibinei || rēibene “Reibiniai, village,” gimbūˑčei || gembūˑčei “Gimbūčiai, village,” pāgimbūte || pāgembūte “Pagimbūtė, a field in Reibiniai village” (the examples were recorded in the vicinity of Skaistgirys). Declension of masculine nouns with consonant stems Singular Plural Nom. tēšmuo Nom. tēšmenei Gen. tēˑšmenē Gen. tēšmenų tēšmens tēšmenų Dat. tēˑšmenui Dat. tēšmenāˑm(s) tēšmenim(s) Acc. tēˑšmeni Acc. tēšmenus Instr. tēˑšmenu Instr. tēšmeneis tēšmenim(s) Loc. tēšmeniˑ Loc. tēšmeniuos(e) tēšmenie ²⁷ J. Senkus, Daiktavardžių priebalsinio kamieno linksniavimas kapsų ir zanavykų tarmėse. — Lietuvos TSR MA Darbai, Serija A 2 (7), Vilnius, 1959; J. Kardelytė, Daiktavardžių kait ymas Linkmenų tarmėje. — Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, 2, 172—176, Vilnius, 1959. ²⁸ For a fuller discussion of the causes of the decline of the old consonant-stem declension in Lithuanian, see J. Kazlauskas, Lietuvių kalbos daiktavardžių linksniavimo sistemos paprastėjimas, 4—10, Vilnius, 1958, typescript; J. Senkus, op. cit., pp. 167—168. ²⁹ Žr. L. Bičolė, Mežamuizas izloksne. — Filologu biedrības raksti, XII, 12, 17, Rīga, 1932. ³⁰ K. Būga, Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, 1, 42, Kaunas, 1924. ³¹ J. Kazlauskas, Lietuvių kalbos daiktavardžių linksniavimo sistemos paprastėjimas, 61—63, Vilnius, 1958, typescript. 107 Notes. Declined like tašmuo are juosmuo, rāumuo, rīduo, stūomuo, ž̃elmuo. The noun ā̃šmenas || ā̃šmenei is masculine and feminine within the dialect area. When masculine, it is declined in the same way as tašmuo. The word vānduo is also declined in the same way, except that in the singular genitive it is stressed on the stem, vā́ndens, as in the neighboring Samogitian dialects (Kuršėnai, Papilė). In the plural nominative and accusative, the noun lĩemuo has also retained the old forms: liemenis ~ liemenys || lĩemenei, liemenis || liemenįs; in the plural dative and instrumental, the old consonant-stem forms are more frequent: liemenim(s), lĩmenim(s), while the ia-stem forms are rarer: liemenā́m(s), lĩmeneis. In the plural nominative, pi̇emuo and skĩemuo have only the old forms piemenis ~ piemenys, skiemenis ~ skiemenys; in the plural dative and instrumental, alongside the more frequent old consonant-stem forms, pĩemuo also has rarer a-stem forms: piemenim(s) || piemenā́m(s), pĩemeni̇m(s) || pĩemėnais. In the plural accusative, alongside the more frequent piemenįs, piemenis is also used. In the plural dative, skĩemuo retains the old consonant form: ski̇emenim(s); in the plural instrumental, alongside the old skĩemenim(s), the ia-stem form skĩemeneis is also found. Both consonant-stem and ia-stem forms are used in the plural accusative: skiemenis || skieme-ni̇s. The ia-stem form skĩemėnuos(e) is used in the plural locative. Ākmeno, except for the singular nominative and genitive, which have variant forms: ā̀kmuo || ā́kmins, ā́kmens || ā́kmina, has shifted entirely to the a-stem in all other cases, e.g., singular dative ā́kminui, plural nominative ā́kminai, etc. Mė́nuo, except in the singular nominative, has shifted to the ia-stem, as in standard Lithuanian. As can be seen from the paradigm and notes, the declension of masculine consonant-stem nouns is greatly mixed with the ia-stem and, partly, the a-stem. The ia-stem forms entered, one might say, regularly: first, i-stem forms entered the consonant stems; then, as masculine i-stem nouns began shifting to the ia-stem, forms of that stem entered the consonant stems by analogy as well. The entry of a-stem forms can be explained by analogy with the plural genitive, cf. the a-stem bā́lnu- and consonant-stem pĩemenu-; on this basis, other plural forms with a hard consonant also arise: plural dative piemenā́m(s), plural instrumental pĩemenais, etc.32 The singular locative forms tęšmenie, vā́ndenie, as in the i- and ia-stems, are borrowed from Samogitian. The noun ši̇va is declined in a quite distinctive way in the dialect. Singular Plural N.S. ši̇va G. šūnies D. šūnei (Šakyna, Dilbinai, Dameliai, Skaistgirys, etc.) šūnui (Skaistgirys) A. šūni I. šūnim (Šakyna, Dilbinai, Dameliai, Skaistgirys, etc.) šūnu (Skaistgirys) L. šūni šūnie N.S. šūnis ~ šūnys G. šūni- D. šūnim(s) A. šūnis I. šūnim(s) šūneis (rare, Skaistgirys) L. šūnuos(e) 32 Cf. J. Kazlauskas, Lietuvių kalbos daiktavardžių linksniavimo sistemos paprastėjimas, 31, Vilnius, 1958, typescript. 108 Thus, šuva33 is almost entirely declined according to the i-stem pattern. The singular dative form is difficult to explain, but it is probably borrowed from Samogitian (cf. the dounininkai dialect of Papilė šånei ~ šūnie); only the phonetic Samogitian features have not been eliminated in the dialect (cf. also the borrowed Samogitian locatives). This is confirmed by the fact that this form is used only near the Samogitian border, while farther east (Skaistgirys) it begins to disappear. It is probably not possible to regard šūnei as the singular dative of the feminine noun *šuniai, since, apart from locatives borrowed from Samogitian and used less frequently, masculine and feminine noun case forms are never mixed in the dialect itself. Declension of consonant-stem nouns of the feminine gender Singular Plural Nom. daughter, sister Nom. daughters~daughters, sixes~six K. daughter's, sister's daughters, sixes daughters, sisters' K. daughters, sixes Dat. to the daughter, to the six Dat. to daughters, to sisters daughters, sisters Gen. daughter, six Gen. daughters, sixes daughters, sixes Instr. with the daughter, with the six Instr. with daughters, with sisters with daughters(1.ret.) with daughters, with sisters Loc. in the daughter, in the sister Loc. in the daughters, in the sisters in the daughter, in the sister in the daughter, in the sister in the daughters, in the sisters Notes. The singular nominative form sesuva probably arose by analogy with the singular nominative of the o-stem, because sesuo ‘sister’ was the only feminine noun in the dialect with the ending -uo. In the singular genitive, the ė-stem form is already beginning to prevail in duktė, by analogy with the singular nominative. In the singular locative and the plural nominative, accusative, and locative, Samogitian ė-stem endings are also found throughout the Samogitian border region (cf. Kuršėnai šešeres, Papilė dukteres, šešeres). For the plural locative forms dukteruos(e), seseruos(e), see the note on the o-stem plural locative. Reflexive nouns Reflexive nouns are not very common. In the dialect they have two endings, -is and -ies, e.g.: drà·skimd·sis || drà·skimd·sies, šà·udimd·sis || šà·udimd·sies. The origin of the ending -ies is unclear. Sometimes, especially near the Samogitian border, purely Samogitian forms also occur, e.g.: ãrdimo·s ‘anger, tearing oneself up’, etc. What is characteristic of the dialect is that reflexive nouns are indeclinable: the nominative form is used for all cases For the origin of this form, see J. Kazlauskas, cited work, p. 64.33 109 e.g.: čė ša'udimā'sies nebūva girdēti ‘there was no sound of shooting here’; ōi tù kada, nòns usidārpsi us, ta. lō'jo'imā'sis ‘oh, sometime you will suffer for that barking’; ka, tù pasistum su sava daužimā'sies ‘so that you can have a go with your own beating’ Reflexive nouns are indeclinable not only in Šakyna but also in neighboring dialects, such as Kuršėnai and others. NOUN INFLECTION IN THE ŠAKYNA DIALECT А. П. ИОНАЙТИТЕ Abstract The article examines the features of noun declension in the Šakyna dialect. The following characteristic features of noun inflection are identified: 1. Disappearance of the dual number. In place of the ancient dual, the dialect uses the plural, e.g.: dù ā'rklei ‘two horses’, dù sù'nai ‘two sons’, dvǫ gā'lvas ‘two heads’, etc. Remnants of the dual have been preserved in the accusative case of nouns with stems in a, ia when these nouns occur together with the numerals dù ‘two’, àbu ‘both’, àbùdu ‘both’, e.g.: dù a'ǝRklu ‘two horses’, àbu gàlu ‘both ends’. 2. The case endings of nouns in the dialect are basically the same as those of the corresponding stems in the standard language; in the dialect, however, they have undergone phonetic or morphological reduction. Some case forms are identical to forms in neighboring Samogitian dialects, e.g.: the singular locative of diminutive nouns with the suffix —ukas: da'fàikuo ‘in the little garden’, ǫuodėžiuo ‘in the little pot’; the singular locative of nouns with stems in ia, i, and a consonant: gėr'ioie ‘in the ditch’, dántie ‘in the tooth’, vǫndenie ‘in the water’; the plural locative of i-stem nouns: àkies(e) ‘in the eyes’, dánties(e) ‘in the teeth’; the plural nominative and accusative of feminine i-stem nouns: nominative ā'kes, accusative àkes ‘eyes’, àuses ‘ears’. The intrusion into the plural locative of feminine nouns of forms from the masculine locative is also most likely to be explained by Samogitian influence: àusios(e) ‘in the ears’, šàkuos(e) ‘in the branches’, žō'lios(e) ‘in the grasses’. The dialect also has dative and instrumental plural forms of all feminine stems ending in —um(s): bǫ'bum(s) ‘to/with grandmothers’, gė'rum(s) ‘to/with cranes’, ā'nkšćum(s) ‘to/with pods’, etc. The origin of these forms is unclear. In the author’s opinion, they may have arisen by analogy 110 with the instrumental form of the pronoun kas ’who, what’, kum? ’with whom, with what’, which may be used with the instrumental plural of feminine nouns, e.g., sù, kum? su mĕrgom(s) ’with whom? with the girls’> sù kum?—su mergum(s). 3. The noun stems in the dialect are the same as in the standard language, but it should be noted that not all stems have been preserved equally well in the dialect. The stems a, ia, o, io, ē and feminine nouns with the stem i have been preserved best, e.g.: ākis ’eye’. Masculine nouns with the stem i have almost entirely shifted to the stem ia. Nouns with the stem u (iu) have shifted in the plural to the stems a, ia, e.g.: sū’nai ’sons’, sō’džei ’villages’. Consonant-stem nouns have been preserved least well in the dialect. Almost every word with a consonant stem is inflected differently in the dialect, since a different number of forms of nouns with the stem ia (and sometimes a) has entered the inflectional system of each noun. If the stem of a particular noun does not match that of the corresponding noun in the standard language, it almost always matches the stem of the corresponding noun in Samogitian dialects, and often that of a Latvian noun as well. 4. Reflexive nouns in the Šakyna dialect, as in neighboring Samogitian dialects (e.g., Kuršėnai), are not declined. 5. In the dialect, apart from certain exceptions noted in the article, nouns have the same accent paradigms as in the standard language.