Dėl vienaskaitos galininko prieveiksmėjimo dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI II LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA ON ADVERBIALIZATION OF THE SINGULAR ACCUSATIVE IN CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN K. ULVYDAS In contemporary Lithuanian, a somewhat closer relationship between the accusative case and adverbs can be discussed with regard mainly to the noun accusative. The singular accusatives of other inflected parts of speech (e.g., adjectives and participles, whose principal functions in a sentence are to serve as attributes and as the nominal part of compound predicates, and numerals and pronouns, for which an adverbial function is likewise entirely uncharacteristic) show no tendency to become adverbs or even to draw semantically closer to adverbs (at least in cases where they occur on their own, without forming phrases with nouns). It should be noted, however, that even the noun accusatives that come closest to adverbs are only relatively weakly adverbial in character. Of all types of the singular accusative, the temporal accusative stands out for its somewhat closer relationship with adverbs and its tendency to become adverbial—but only in the meaning and use in which it denotes primarily the duration of time itself, rather than some precisely defined point within that duration (the “time line”). In a sentence, this temporal accusative functions as an adverbial of time and answers the questions: when? at what time? during which period? In Lithuanian, the temporal accusative is generally used with a fairly well-defined group of nouns, such as: day, night, morning, evening, spring, summer, autumn, winter, midnight, midday, mid-summer, midwinter, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and so on, which denote certain periods of the day and week, and the seasons.1 In meaning and in their relationship to adverbs, the temporal accusatives of the words kārtas, svykis differ little from the temporal accusatives of these nouns, especially when they denote a very general and indefinite time of an action, state, or event, rather than frequency (cf. the meanings of the accusatives kārtą and svykį in the following two pairs of sentences: 1. Once he [Mačionis] caught Mykolas carrying two not-quite-full buckets of water from the river Vn1P138. Bautis, having appeared in the town once and set people against one another with his stories, disappeared again ŽRII261.; 2. Antanukas, as he had already more than once 1 It is noteworthy that the negative genitive is impossible with the temporal accusatives of all these nouns when they are used with the meaning discussed here. This is explained by the very weak connection between this type of temporal accusative and the verbs in the sentence. 75 Agnieska taught, took Palmutė by the hand, and stood crosswise VnlP161., Having looked around once more and petted the dog, [Kurmelis] went inside ŽRII10. Some Lithuanian linguists call the temporal accusatives of the nouns mentioned here adverbs. For example, J. Otrębski classifies the dialect forms dzienų, naktį, vasarų, žiemų, pavasarį, rudenį, kartų, corresponding to the literary-language forms dieną, naktį, vasarą, žiemą, pavasarį, rudenį, kartą, as temporal adverbs derived from singular accusatives of nouns used in a temporal function2. It should be emphasized, however, that when deciding whether a particular word or expression has become adverbial or is adverbial in Lithuanian, one cannot rely solely on semantic or syntactic function, since, for example, various other inflected word forms, with or without prepositions—various case and prepositional constructions—can function as adverbials of time in a sentence, and no one even considers treating them as adverbs. The process by which both case constructions and prepositional constructions become adverbial has been almost untouched by Lithuanian linguists; it is therefore unsurprising that the adverb is one of the least thoroughly described parts of speech in Lithuanian grammars. Lithuanian grammatical literature, when discussing adverbs, generally confines itself to pronominal adverbs and to derivatives formed from other inflected parts of speech that have specific formatives clearly distinguishing them from the inflected parts of speech from which they developed. Yet the language itself contains, in addition to these adverbs, many that lack specific adverbial formatives and are not mere truncated words: in their external form they coincide entirely with the corresponding forms of inflected parts of speech, but their case inflection and case meaning have faded, their lexical meaning has also changed or become isolated in comparison with their base word (the word from which they developed), and their relations to other words in the sentence differ from those of inflected parts of speech. The fading of case meaning is sometimes so imperceptible that serious difficulties genuinely arise when examining the relationship of words of this kind to adverbs. How is the question of the adverbialization of inflected parts of speech treated in Soviet Russian linguistic literature? According to A. B. Shapiro, many authors have addressed the adverbialization of Russian cases (with and without prepositions) in their works, but this process is supposedly described most clearly by A. M. Peshkovsky3. It is therefore appropriate for us to set out A. M. Peshkovsky’s views here. In discussing various transitional cases between parts of speech, A. M. Peshkovsky emphasizes that most of them occur precisely in the domain of adverbs, since all Russian adverbs, except the so-called “prototypical” ones (such as здесь, там, тут, тогда, всегда, and some others), arose relatively recently from adjectives and nouns. 2 Jan Ot rębski, Wschodniolitewskie narzecze twereckie, część I, gramatyka, 419, Kraków, 1934. 3 Проф. А. Б. Шапиро, Об образовании наречий в современном русском языке. — „Русский язык в школе“, № I, 31, 1947. 76 A. M. Peshkovsky sees the process of adverbialization of adjectives and nouns in the “isolation” of some one case from the general inflectional system. This “isolation,” says A. M. Peshkovsky4, took place extraordinarily slowly. He lists5 at least seven factors that caused this “isolation,” namely: 1. “the fact that the remaining cases gradually fell out of use and died out”; 2. “the fact that they began to be used with a meaning different from the meaning of the whole word in which the corresponding case is used”; 3. “the fact that the case in question itself began to be used not with its case meaning, or not with the meaning of the whole word in which the remaining cases are used”; 4. “the fact that it acquired some phonetic distinction in comparison with the other cases, apart from those distinctions it already had as a separate case”; 5. “the fact that all the remaining cases acquired that distinction”; 6. “the fact that the preposition fused with the case into a single concept and drove it out of the system”; 7. “the combination of all or some of these factors (which was the most frequent occurrence).” A. B. Shapiro6 correctly observes that all these factors identified by A. M. Peshkovsky are in fact only possible consequences of the adverbialization of nouns and adjectives, not its causes, since the most important factor determining the transition of various forms into adverbs is their use as adverbials, their adverbial function in a word combination. This adverbial function eclipses the word’s objective meaning, and from this follows everything that isolates the case itself and weakens its meaning, which eventually disappears entirely, and the former case form passes completely into an adverb. These observations by A. B. Shapiro are also characteristic of the process of adverbialization of inflected word forms in Lithuanian. Here, too, the transition from noun to adverb occurs through the adverbial function of the word, the weakening of its objective and formal meanings, the isolation of the case, and finally the complete disappearance of its meaning. If, together with A. B. Shapiro, we recognize the factors identified above by A. M. Peshkovsky as possible consequences of the adverbialization of nouns and adjectives, it is interesting to consider whether the Lithuanian accusative of time, which, as we have seen, is sometimes considered an adverb, is connected in any way with at least one of those consequences. Observation does not yield an entirely affirmative answer here. First, it must be emphasized that all the other cases are also used for all nouns (old and newly formed) that occur in the accusative of time. If the use of some cases is not intensive or is sometimes less readily possible, this does not mean that they do not potentially exist. Moreover, within the inflectional system, all the cases of these words are used with almost the same “whole-word” meaning. For example, if we take the word dieną, “the period from morning until evening,” we will see that the same meaning of the word is retained in all the cases used: Speak quickly, the day is short B. Dienós jau ilga Krns. Dienai kelio nuo čia riogso kalnas Pč. Piktą dieną reik su piktžole pravaryt Sch77. 4 А. М. Пешковский, Русский синтаксис в научном освещении, изд. 4-ое, 129, М., 1934. 5 Ibid. 6 Проф. А. Б. Шапиро, Об образовании наречий в современном русском языке. – „Русский язык в школе“, №1, 31—32, 1947. 77 The patient recovered again during the day Šlap. During the day they will travel through all three schools Grš. On such a day you cannot go anywhere Rm. Give him many good wishes from me KII318. Such clothes are only for warm days Šlap. That day was warm Er. During those few days they made the finest progress through the alphabet of their studies rš. There is not much work to be done on such overcast days Rdm7. The examples also show that the accusative has retained its case meaning. In each instance, we perceive it here as an object accusative, here as a temporal accusative, and here as an accusative of manner. Finally, phonetically (in its stress or accent), the temporal accusative differs in no way from the other accusatives of that word. If we similarly examined other words used in the temporal accusative, we would likewise see that their temporal accusative forms are not associated with the above-mentioned consequences of the adverbialization of nouns and adjectives. Thus, the temporal accusative’s very isolation from the general inflectional system, as well as its adverbialization, cannot be extensive. However, even bearing all this in mind, we must by no means forget that the temporal accusatives of certain nouns used without modifiers nevertheless differ somewhat in meaning from the other cases of the same word, and also from temporal accusatives used with modifiers. Let us take temporal accusatives used without modifiers that denote certain intervals of the day or time of day, or seasons of the year (dieną, naktį, rytą, vakarą, pavasarį, vasarą, rudenį, žiemą). Surely, when these temporal accusatives are used without modifiers, no one will doubt their somewhat broader meaning, one might say, even a certain degree of abstraction. For example, in the sentences: Come during the day, not in the evening and Come the next day, in the first case dieną means ‘during the daytime’ in general, rather than at some specific point in the day; in the second case, the expression kitą dieną already emphasizes a particular, specified time, rather than daytime in general. This is precisely what explains the tendency of some linguists (e.g., J. Otrębski) to regard such temporal accusatives with generalized meaning as adverbs, especially since the broader meaning here is further reinforced by the fact that these accusatives are used only as sentence adverbials. And usage, as already noted above, is the primary factor determining the adverbialization of case forms. Thus, a certain generality of meaning and an exclusively adverbial function bring these temporal accusatives used without modifiers fairly close to adverbs, leaving them, as it were, at an intermediate stage between noun cases and adverbs. In studying the process by which noun case forms become adverbial, especially in cases where it is uncertain whether a particular noun case has already fully become an adverb, linguists often invoke one further criterion for deciding the matter—namely, whether that case can or cannot take adjectival modifiers. If the syntactic range of use of a noun or of one of its individual case forms is restricted, the number of modifiers agreeing with it decreases8. “The complete loss of the ability to be modified by an adjective means that the nou- 7 See J. Balčikonis (ed.), Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, 2, 343, 1947. 8 В. В. Виноградов, Русский язык, 380, М. — Л., 1947. 78 “the transition of a form into an adverb. A marked decrease in this capacity is a symptom of a transitional state”49. Let us now take the Lithuanian temporal accusative forms and examine how, when, and to what extent they can be modified by adjectival and other modifiers. 1. Temporal accusative with agreeing modifiers: a. adjectival: on All Souls’ evening, on the last night, in late autumn, on the very latest night; b. pronominal: at that moment, in midsummer itself, this time, on that same day, that day, the next day, one day, that morning, one morning, this autumn, that autumn, that same autumn, that night, one night, that evening, that same evening, at the height of the working season, next year, this little while, this winter, next spring, one afternoon; c. pronominal and adjectival: at such a solemn hour, on such a beautiful day, at that happy moment, on that same rainy morning; d. participial: on the coming day, last autumn, the autumn before last, last night. 2. Temporal accusative with agreeing and non-agreeing modifiers: on that autumn night, in that election spring, on one spring day, on one such holiday in the post-Christmas season, on a hot summer afternoon. 3. Temporal accusative with non-agreeing modifiers: on the day of the performance, in the month of the harvest, in the election spring. The examples given so far clearly show that words functioning as temporal accusatives in Lithuanian can be modified extensively by agreeing modifiers (adjectival, pronominal, numeral, and participial), by agreeing modifiers together with non-agreeing ones, or by non-agreeing modifiers alone. It is self-evident that whenever there is any modifier, there can be no question of the temporal accusative becoming adverbial, since the modifier itself emphasizes the meaning of the temporal accusative case; and as long as the case meaning remains clearly intact, the word has not yet become an adverb. In the examples given, the meaning of the temporal accusative case is reinforced both by agreeing modifiers, which are also in the same case, and by non-agreeing modifiers, which are linked to the temporal accusative form through government. In both the first and the second case, we still have unmistakable nouns. Even in a phrase such as on the very latest night, the case meaning remains, since it is reinforced here by a peculiar, individually formed adjective agreeing with a noun of the same root. Some nouns denoting time, such as moment, little while, hour, week, month, year, etc., cannot occur in the temporal (not manner) accusative without a modifier at all. In literary language, nouns such as late afternoon, evening, evening, working season, afternoon and the like are also most often used in the temporal accusative only with modifiers. This too demonstrates the nominal character of temporal accusative forms and the persistence of their case meaning in instances when the temporal accusative has modifiers. If there is anything in common between temporal accusatives used with modifiers, on the one hand, and adverbs, on the other, it is only their temporal meaning, which is otherwise most characteristic of temporal adverbs, and also their syntactic function: both a noun in the temporal accusative and a temporal adverb are used in a sentence to express a temporal adjunct. Б. Б. Виноградов, Русский язык, 308–381, М. – Л., 1947. 79 This is where the commonality between temporal accusatives used with modifiers and adverbs ends. Their very nature, their syntactic relations with other sentence words, and sometimes their formal features still differ. However, a certain group of nouns identified earlier, which ordinarily denote periods of the day, week, or year (dieną, naktį, rytas, žiema, vasara, pavasaris, ruduo, pirmadienis, antradienis, trečiadienis...), are used in the temporal accusative both with modifiers and without any modifiers. The temporal accusative of the noun vakaras perhaps stands out somewhat here: without a modifier, at least in literary language, we are not very inclined to use it, most likely because alongside the accusative we have the temporal locative vakare, which is used predominantly without a modifier and has almost entirely become an adverb. Temporal accusatives with and without modifiers are also used with nouns such as kartas, sykis. The temporal accusatives of all these words, when they have no modifiers, come closer to adverbs than in any other use of that case. The temporal accusatives of the nouns mentioned, when used without modifiers, have a somewhat different—more general, more abstract—lexical meaning than when they occur with modifiers. Sometimes temporal adverbs such as anksti, vėlai, vakar, rytoj are used prepositively with some of these temporal accusatives; they do not strengthen the meaning of the case at all but, on the contrary, further overshadow it, as if forming with the accusatives fossilized adverbial phrases, e.g., anksti rytą, rytoj naktį, vėlai rudenį, rytoj rytą; compare also the dialectal expression vidury naktį. It should also be noted that temporal accusative phrases such as dieną naktį, dieną naktele, dieną ir naktį, rytą vakarą, žiemą vasarą, which are ordinarily used without any modifiers, likewise usually have a highly generalized meaning and come very close to adverbs, almost entirely turning into adverbial phrases. The degree to which temporal accusatives used without modifiers approach adverbs is not the same in every case. This depends on the lexical meaning of individual words or groups of words. For example, temporal accusatives such as kartą, sykį, dieną, naktį, rytą, vakarą, pavasarį, vasarą, rudenį, žiemą come closer to adverbs than pirmadienį, antradienį, trečiadienį.... It is especially difficult to distinguish the temporal accusatives of the words kartas, sykis from adverbs, since their meaning is highly generalized; moreover, only the temporal accusative of these words has a strong temporal meaning, and precisely because of these semantic features it begins to become somewhat isolated from the declensional system. However, their ability to take modifiers prevents us from entirely excluding even those words that have come closest to adverbs from the category of nouns. J. Jablonskis has not classed temporal accusatives used with or without modifiers as adverbs in any of his works, although he otherwise understands the category of adverb very broadly, assigning the infinitive to it in certain cases, and treating the supine and the gerund as adverbs without any exceptions. J. Endzelīns likewise does not regard these accusatives as adverbs; in his works, when illustrating accusative-derived adverbs in Latvian and Lithuanian, he gives only such adverbs as šiandien (la. šūodien), šiąnakt (la. šūonakt), šįmet (la. šūogad), vienasỹk (la. viēnreiz), and then Latvian drusku, drusciņ, šūorit, 80 šiovakar, šūonedēļ, šiuosasar, rīt(u), mentioning alongside them the Latgalian forms vosor and žiem, which are said to be of either accusative or instrumental origin.¹⁰ Besides the temporal accusative, the accusatives of duration, frequency, and sojourn also function in the sentence as temporal adjuncts of an action or state. The first of these answers the questions: for how long? for what length of time? (All that day, and the next day, it was warm and pleasant in the Tarutis family CvRVIII1118. For a little while, one could see a small group of people appear on the hill ib225). J. Jablonskis does not distinguish the accusative of frequency and does not even use such a term, but he does give examples of this accusative’s usage when discussing the “accusative of duration, distance, and trajectory.”¹¹ The accusative of frequency answers the question: how often? (cf. Every morning, still before dawn, Kerpelė was now trudging along the street Blt¹sPvas252). The accusative of sojourn (which J. Jablonskis discusses separately, although in fact it is more closely related to the accusative of “duration, distance, and trajectory” than the accusative of frequency) answers the questions: for how long? for what length of time? J. Jablonskis distinguishes it solely on the grounds that it is used “most often after verbs of motion or movement to indicate that someone withdraws, leaves, or stops somewhere for a while, leaves to stay, visit, rest...”¹² (e.g., The watchman stepped away from the little window for a minute JbL76). A more pronounced tendency of all these accusatives to approach adverbs can likewise be discussed only in cases where they have no modifiers. But here, too, the degree of this tendency depends on the nature of individual words or their combinations. In their temporal meaning and adjunct function in the sentence, accusatives or their combinations with other words that come more clearly close to adverbs include trupūtį, trupūčiuką, galėlį, galiuką, mažumą, mažumėlę, akimirka, valandėlę, dieniukę, dienelę, kartą, sykį (ne kartą, ne sykį), kąs dieną, kąs rytą, kąs metą, kąs vakarą, kąs žiemą, kąs vasarą, visą dieną, kitą sykį, and so on. These words and their combinations approach adverbs and adverbial phrases to no lesser degree than the temporal accusatives discussed earlier. This is shown by the fact that some of them, e.g., trupūtį, trupūčiuką, mažumėlę, are not at all inclined to take modifiers in speech, while the combinations kąs dieną, kąs rytą... tend toward complete adverbialization (kasdieną, kasdien, kasdie...). However, neither the accusatives mentioned nor their combinations with other words that retain their inflectional endings (dieną, kitą sykį) can be considered fully adverbialized, since they have not become entirely isolated from the declensional system and other cases continue to be used alongside them; moreover, these accusatives or their combinations have not absolutely lost the ability to take modifiers (even the combination kąs + accusative can take modifiers, e.g., kąs mielą dienelę, kąs žiemą dienelę). Along with accusatives expressing an amount of time, we should also consider accusatives that express the quantity of an object, property, or action. These accusatives often take the same forms as those used to express an amount of time, e.g., kruopelę, kruopelytę, kruopelytę, gėlą, galėlį, galiūtį, galiuką, trupūtį, tru- 10 See J. Endzelīns, Latviešu valodas gramatika, 600, Riga, 1951, and also his Baltu valodu skaņas un formas, 228, Riga, 1948. 11 See Rygiškių Jonas, Linksniai ir prielinksniai, 74, Kaunas, 1928. 12 See ibid., 75–76. 6. Kalbotyros klausimai II. 81 a little, a tiny bit, a little, a piece (<Polish szmat), etc.; cf. also the forms a bit, a bit, a little bit, a little bit, a tiny little bit (<German bischen), which are not used in literary language and are unnecessary there. These accusatives, functioning in the sentence as quantitative manner adverbials, also come considerably closer to adverbs, but do not become fully adverbial, just like accusatives functioning as temporal adverbials, which have no modifiers. Thus we see that the noun accusatives used to express adverbials in a sentence, although they come considerably closer to adverbs, especially when they have no modifiers, are nevertheless unable in present-day Lithuanian to form even a somewhat clearly established type of simple (uncompounded) accusative adverbs. At most, one could say of such accusatives that they have undoubtedly reached an intermediate stage between noun and adverb. Overall, it should be emphasized that the noun accusative (both singular and plural) is one of those cases that, even when used adverbially, are not inclined to become adverbs in their full form (with the ending preserved), except in cases of shortening and, especially, combination with other parts of speech or other words (kart¹³<kartą, vakar<vakarą¹⁴, today, šiandieną<šian dienan, šįnakt<šią naktį, vienąkart<vieną kartą, šįmet<šį metų, anąsyk<aną sykį, visadien<viesą dieną...). Incidentally, A. Leskynas¹⁵, J. Endzelynas¹⁶ and other linguists even derive vakar ‘yesterday’ from the singular locative. K. Būga, however, has remarked on this: “That the adverb vakar ‘yesterday’... should have originated from the locative vakarė, scarcely anyone in Lithuania will believe Leskynas. It is clear to everyone that vakar is a clipped accusative vakarą. From vakarė we would have vakar.”¹⁷ It should be noted that in Lithuanian there are exceedingly few noun accusatives with clipped endings that have become adverbs and have not merged with other parts of speech or other words: only one or two (cf. kart, vakar, if the latter adverb really derives from the accusative). Compound accusative adverbs are incomparably more common in the language. They have a first component that is pronominal, adjectival, numeral, and occasionally nominal or adverbial, and a second component that is nominal (most often a noun accusative with a clipped ending, and occasionally with its ending preserved). Let us therefore pause briefly to consider the word-formation tendencies of these adverbs, dividing them into at least a few groups. 1. Pronominal + nominal component Formations in which the first component is a pronoun and the second is a noun accusative with a clipped, deformed, or (occasionally) retained ending occupy the most prominent place among compound adverbs formed from the accusative. 13 Cf.: Will he ever gain some sense? etc. 14 It should be noted here that yesterday could with equal certainty also be derived from the genitive evening. 15 A. Leskien. Litauisches Lesebuch mit Grammatik und Wörterbuch, 177, Heidelberg, 1919. 16 J. Endzelīns. Baltu valodu skaņas un formas, 228, Rīgā, 1948. 17 K. Būga. Kalba ir senovė, 1, 160, Kaunas, 1922. 82 a. Pronoun kàs and the noun accusative¹⁸: kasdiẽną, kasdiẽn, kasdiẽ, kasnãkt, kasvãkar, kasšiẽm. b. Pronoun tà, its accusative, and a noun accusative with a clipped or deformed ending: tandẽn, tandẽj, tañdėj, tandẽi, tądien, tądien, tądien, tąkart, tąnakt, tąnedėl hybrid: “that week; that Sunday,” tąžiem. c. The pronoun anàs, anà in its full or clipped and deformed accusative form, and a nominal component: anañčės hybrid: “that time,” anañdien, anańdė, anańdė, anãdien, anãdie, anãdėj, anańdėj, anańdienai, anańdai, anańdai, anańdies, anańdienais, anąkart, anąmẽt, anąmẽt, anąryt, anąšįk, anąvakar. d. Pronoun šìs, šì in its accusative form, and a nominal component: ši̇̀kart, ši̇̀met, ši̇̀ryt, ši̇̀syk, šįvakar¹⁹, šiandieną, šiandien, šiande, ši̇̀ndei, šiandei (= šiandei?), šianđėj, šiañdie, šiandiej, ši̇̀nakt, šiąnakt, šiąnedėl hybrid: “this week; this Sunday,” šiąvakar, ši̇̀žiem. Sometimes dialects also show less common cases of word-boundary fusion here; cf. the Samogitian šianpadiẽną. e. The accusative of the pronoun šiokià and the clipped or deformed accusative of the noun dienà: šiokiandėj (šiokiandėi?), šiokiādien. f. The clipped accusative of the pronoun kurì and the noun dienà: kuriādien. g. The accusative of the pronouns kìtas, kìta and a nominal component: kitandien, ki-tandie, kitądien, kitādie, kitañdei, kitañdie (cf. also the still-unfused word group kitą dieną, in which the accents of both words are still preserved), kitąkart, “another time; once, in the past,” kitąmet, kitąmėt, kitąnedėl hybrid: “next week; next Sunday,” kitąsyk, “not now, at another, coming time; once; in former times; sometimes; earlier.” Sometimes the ending of the first component is clipped here: kitsyk. h. The accusative of the pronouns kiekvienas, kelintas, visas and a truncated nominal element: kiekvienąkart, kelintąsyk, visąčės hybrid visądien. 2. A d j e c t i v a l + n o m i n a l e l e m e n t The first element here is the accusative of an adjective (usually with its ending preserved), and the second is a truncated noun: amžinądien ‘by no means, under no circumstances, never; not at all’, amžindė ‘the same’, amžindẽn ‘the same’²⁰, prāstandei ‘on an ordinary day, on a working day’, šventądien. 3. N u m e r a l + n o m i n a l e l e m e n t a. A cardinal numeral and a truncated noun: vienadien, vienaṅkart, viena-syk, šešìskart, šešìssyk, šimtąkart. 18 It is noteworthy that in certain cases the second element of these truncated adverbs could also be of nominative origin. 19 These formations also include the form šiapavasar. found in the Dusetos dialect. Here, with the meaning of gender having faded, a feminine accusative pronoun has probably been used in place of a masculine pronoun, by analogy with those adverbs whose first element is feminine. 20 Sometimes, especially when the ending of the first element is truncated here, it is impossible to determine whether the adverb is accusative, nominative, or, finally, instrumental in origin; cf. the idiomatic phrase amžina diena ‘by no means, as sure as I’m alive, very, extremely’ in the sentence Amžina diena nenorėjo slv. 83 b. Ordinal numeral and truncated noun: pirmąkart, pirmąsyk, antrąkart, antrądie, antrądien, antrandien, antrandien, antrąryt, antrąsyk, trečiąroz hybrid, aštuntądien 21. 4. Noun or adverb + noun In rarer cases, the first constituent is the accusative of a noun or an adverb, and the second is the accusative of a noun (with either preserved or truncated endings): põrąkart, põrąkart, rytorytą ‘in the morning’, vãkarryt ‘yesterday morning’, vãkarnakt ‘last night’. The brief survey of compound truncated adverbs given here shows that some of their types (e.g., pronoun + noun) are extremely common. A feature shared by all the compound forms discussed here is that in most of them the second constituent is truncated. While the first constituents here are quite varied, the number of second constituents is particularly limited. The second constituents are predominantly the accusative forms of the truncated nouns dieną, naktis, rytas, vakaras, vasara, pavasaris, kartas, šykis. As we can see, these are all the same accusatives which, even otherwise, when not fused with other words and used as temporal adjuncts, come closest to adverbs, but are unable to become adverbs completely. Thus, our evidence clearly shows that the singular accusative of a noun, which because of its strong object meaning cannot become fully adverbialized (even in cases when it functions as an adjunct and has no modifiers), nevertheless enters the adverbial domain, but by other routes and in another form (fusing with accusatives of other parts of speech or with other words, and usually losing its ending and becoming distorted). A further, exceptionally interesting phenomenon emerges from an examination of this material. We have already seen that temporal accusatives with modifiers, that is, those forming phrases, are even less inclined to become adverbial than those without modifiers, since a modifier strengthens and emphasizes the meaning of the case all too strongly. However, as we can readily observe, the compound accusative adverbs examined here are in fact nothing other than former modifiers fused with the words they modified. Thus, under certain conditions, accusatives used as adjuncts and accompanied by modifiers can also become adverbial together with those modifiers. This is determined primarily by their adjunct function. In the process of adverbialization, combinations of nouns in the accusative functioning as adjuncts with the pronouns, numerals, and adjectives modifying them become lexicalized, fusing into a single compound word, whose second constituent is most often distorted (its ending is truncated or otherwise altered). This distortion or alteration of endings most likely occurs for phonetic reasons, owing to accentual factors and ease of pronunciation. But the most important cause of changes to and distortion of endings here is the process of adverbialization itself: the ending of an adverbialized case loses its function as a marker of case meaning, and is therefore readily subject to phonetic changes and distortion. 21 It is interesting that in some dialects compound adverbs of this truncated type are apparently also formed from genitives; cf. vienokart, pirmokart, (Vienokart skrenda pulkas krunkų [crows] Bien. Pirmokart nuvė vyresnysai sūnus vartuit [to guard] ib.). Vienokart, pirmokart here have most likely developed from the phrases vieno karto, pirmo karto. 84 Finally, it should also be noted that the adverbs examined here are witnesses to a distant antiquity. The old accusative ending sometimes preserved in their first component (cf. kitandie<kitan dienan) shows that adverbs of this type have been formed in Lithuanian for a very long time, dating back to when the old accusative endings containing the sound n were still intact. Among compound adverbs with truncated accusative forms, we should also include formations whose first component is the preposition per, and whose second is a truncated accusative form of a noun, e.g.: percien hybrid (<per cienia) ‘too much’, perdien pergavėn, hybrid ‘throughout Lent’, pernakt, pernákį, pernedėl hybrid ‘for a week; on Sunday’, perryt ‘throughout the morning’, pervá­sar, peržiem, paržiem. Here, too, as we can see, the second components are mostly truncated accusative forms of nouns denoting parts of the day, the day-night cycle, or the week, or seasons of the year. Since in some dialects—for example, in Kaniava (Varėna)—the preposition per is used with the nominative forms of these nouns (per rudū, per žiemą, per vāsarą, etc.), in individual cases the mentioned adverbs could also be of nominative origin. Mention should also be made of prepositional phrases, which gave rise to the relatively small group of singular accusative adverbs in the language. Their first component is a preposition, and their second an accusative noun (less often, a neuter adjective in the nominative-accusative or a masculine adjective in the accusative), and sometimes even a noun with its modifying adjective, or simply a word belonging to another part of speech; for example: į valią ‘sufficiently, completely’²², per dalį ‘somewhat, a little’, per plauką ‘by a hair’s breadth’, per šalį ‘from the side’, per velnią ‘very, extraordinarily’, per ilgą ‘over time, over a long period’, per ilgą ‘the same’, per visą pilvą ‘very, completely (with the adjective kvailas “stupid”)’, per vieną ‘together, jointly, in a heap’, per savę ‘all alone, by one’s own efforts’, per visądien, per visąnakt, prõ ankštą, prõ auštrą, prõ dieną, prõ naktį, prõ tamsą, prõ pirštus ‘very early, just at daybreak or even earlier’, ‘just before dawn’, ‘at dusk, as it gets dark’, ‘superficially, seeing without reacting (with the verb žiūrėti “to look”)’, nė prõ šalį ‘not badly’, už dyką ‘for free, without charge’. The accusative with its intact ending, being unable to become fully adverbial on its own, also forms adverbial phrases with prepositions or other cases, such as dieną į dieną ‘every day’, kamp̃s į kampelį ‘in every corner’, rýts į rytą ‘every morning’, tvõrą į tvõrą ‘very close by, nearby’, niẽką gyvą ‘very little’, gyvą velnią ‘a great deal’. But compare these latter phrases with expressions such as Gyvas kelmas čia tų akmenų Krtn., Šiemet grybų gyvą balą Slm., Ožų laike gyvus kelmus Ggr., where the phrases gyvas kelmas, gyvą balą can be inflected and even varied for number (cf. gyvus kelmus), and in such cases they should not be regarded as adverbial. Having examined the relationship between the singular accusative and adverbs, as well as cases of its adverbialization, we arrive at the following conclusions: 22 Cf. plural phrases functioning as adverbials of manner or quantity: į valias ‘plentifully, sufficiently’ (Anie visą ko turi valias Užv.), į pietas ‘at noon, at midday’ (Šį pietas pašokusį G²².), per akis ‘in plain sight, visibly’ (Per akis meluoja Ds.), ‘enough, a lot’ (Per akis bus [užteks] Alk.). 85 1. Because of its strong object meaning, the singular accusative is not inclined to become fully adverbial, even when it functions as an adverbial in a sentence. 2. If we can discern a somewhat closer relationship between the accusative and adverbs, this is only with nouns denoting parts of the day, the day-night cycle, or the week, or seasons of the year (dieną, naktį, vakarą, rytą, vasarą, žiemą, rudenį, pavasaris...), or a very general, indefinite time (kartas, sykį...). 3. However, when these latter nouns’ accusative forms have a modifier, they again diverge from adverbs, since the modifiers strengthen their case meaning. 4. The accusative forms of these nouns can enter the category of adverbs only as components of compound words. 5. When they fuse with their modifiers—the accusative forms of other parts of speech (mostly pronouns)—the accusative forms of the nouns mentioned above are usually deformed: they are truncated or undergo phonetic changes. This deformation is caused by the process of adverbialization, in which the ending ceases to indicate case meaning. 6. In some compound adverbs with truncated accusative forms, the first component, protected by the second, preserves to this day the old accusative ending with the consonant n. This phenomenon most clearly demonstrates that the processes by which accusatives used with temporal meaning fused with their modifiers and underwent adverbialization and lexicalization began in the distant past, at the latest when the accusative forms of declinable parts of speech still had the intact old ending with the sound n. 7. The relatively small group of compound singular accusative adverbs is augmented by word combinations that are becoming or have become adverbial, especially prepositional constructions in which the accusative bears the principal meaning of the phrase. 8. Even in those phrases, the most important component—the bearer of the principal meaning—is usually nominal. 9. Singular accusatives of other parts of speech (not nouns) likewise hardly ever become adverbial on their own, unless the pronoun accusative ką in expressions such as ką mums rūp Plaučiūns? Dn., ką mums mačys priprovas, ką mūsų triūšeliai? ib.23 is considered an adverb. Even that same pronoun accusative ką becomes fully adverbial only as a component of the phrases tik ką ‘recently’ and ką tik ‘the same’ (Tìk ką išėjo i vė sugrįžo Šlap. Ką tik mačiau jį einant pro šalį ib.)24. 23 See E. Fraenkel, Syntax der litauischen Kasus. – “Tauta ir žodis”, vol. V, pp. 84–85, Kaunas, 1928. 24 Cf. ibid. ABBREVIATIONS Alk – Alksnėnai, Vilkaviškis district. B – Lexikon Lithuanico – Germanicum et Germanico – Lithuanicum,... von Jacobo Brodowski,.. (manuscript from the early 18th century [1713–1745], two volumes). 86 Bien—Bieniūnai, Dūkštas district. BtšPvas—Juozo Baltušis, Parduotos vasaros, a novel of stories, 1, State Publishing House for Fiction, Vilnius, 1957. (The numbers indicate pages). CvR—Petras Cvirka, Raštai, vols. I—XI, State Publishing House for Fiction, 1949—1953. (The numbers indicate volumes and pages). d. — folk song. Dn—Kristijonas Donelaitis (1714—1780), a word or sentence from the language of his writings. Ds—Dusetos. Ėr—Ėriškiai, Ramygala district. G—Litauische Studien, Auswahl aus ältesten denkmalern... von Dr. Leopold Geitler, Prague, 1875. (The numbers indicate pages). Ggr—Gegrėnai, Seda district. Grš—Grįškabūdis, Naumiestis district. hibr.—hybrid. ib—ibidem, in the same place. K—Deutsch-litauisches Wörterbuch by Friedrich Kurschat, 2 parts, Halle a. S., 1870—1874. (The numbers indicate parts and pages). kn.—book. Krns—Kriaūnos, Obelių r. Krtn—Kretingą. la.—Latvian (language). Pč—M. Pečkauskaitė-Šatrijos Ragana (1878—1930), a word or sentence from the language of her writings. r.—district. Rdm—Rudaminą, Lazdijų r. Rm—Ramýgala. rš—a word or sentence from the language of more recent writings, newspapers, or magazines. Sch—Litauisches Lesebuch und Glossar von A. Schleicher, Prag, 1857. (Skaičiai rodo puslapius). Slm—Salāmiestis, Vabalninko r. Slv—Slavikai, Šakių r. Šlap—Šlapabėržė, Kėdainių r. t.p. — the same, the same meaning. Užv—Užventis. VnlP—A. Vienuolis, Puodžiūnkiemis, Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla, 1952. (Skaičiai rodo puslapius). ŽR—Žemaitė, Raštai, I—IV t., Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla, 1948. (Skaičiai rodo tomus ir puslapius). ON THE ADVERBIALIZATION OF THE SINGULAR ACCUSATIVE IN MODERN LITHUANIAN K. M. ULVIDAS Summary 1. The singular and plural accusative cases in modern Lithuanian are among those cases that exhibit the weakest tendency toward adverbialization. Their clear objective meaning prevents the complete adverbialization of the singular accusative, even— 87 when it functions as an adverbial modifier. 2. Of all types of singular accusative, the accusative of time shows a more pronounced tendency toward adverbialization, but most often only when it denotes the course of time itself, rather than some specific point within that course (on the “time line”). In a sentence, this accusative functions as an adverbial of time and answers the questions: when? at what time? 3. The range of nouns whose accusative, in its temporal meaning, approaches an adverb to a greater or lesser degree is very limited. Only singular accusative forms of nouns denoting specific periods of time, i.e. parts of the day, a day, or a week (rytas “morning,” vakaras “evening,” dieną “day,” naktį “night,” vidurdienis “midday,” vidurnaktis “midnight,” pirmadienis “Monday,” antradienis “Tuesday”…), seasons (pavasaris “spring,” vasara “summer,” ruduo “autumn,” žiema “winter”) or an indefinite time (kartas, sykis “time, occasion”), functioning as adverbials of time, approach the adverb to a considerable degree; if they do not pass fully into this category, they nevertheless occupy an intermediate position between noun and adverb. 4. However, the singular accusative of the nouns mentioned, when combined with one or more modifiers (ankstyba rytą “early in the morning,” vieną gražią dieną “one fine day,” pati vidurnaktį “at midnight itself,” perėita žiemą “last winter”), moves away from the adverb, since the modifier or modifiers here reinforce the noun’s case meaning. 5. The singular accusative of the nouns mentioned enters the category of adverbs completely only as the main component of compound words. By means of the singular accusative of these nouns, a whole series of compound adverbs is formed, whose first components are: a) the pronoun kas “what”; b) the accusative forms of the pronouns tas “that, this,” anas “that,” šis “this,” šioks, toks “such,” kuris “which,” kitas “other,” kiekvienas “each,” visas “all”; c) the accusative of certain adjectives or numerals; d) sometimes an adverb or even the preposition per, for example: kasdieną (>kasdien>kasdie) (<kas dieną) “daily,” anąkart (<aną kartą) “that time,” ši vakar (<ši vakarą) “this evening,” šiąžiem (<šią žiemą) “this winter,” kitamet, kitamėt (<kitą metą) “next year,” kiekvienąkart (<kiekvieną kartą) “every time,” visądien (<visą dieną) “all day,” šventądien (<šventą dieną) “on a holiday,” antrąsyk (<antrą sykį) “for the second time,” rytoytą (<rytoj rytą) “tomorrow morning,” pervasar (<per vasarą) “throughout the summer,” etc. 6. As can be seen from the examples just given, all adverbs of the type mentioned arise from phrases whose second component (and, in rare cases, the first as well), in the process of their adverbialization and fusion into a single word, usually loses its ending. Sometimes even 88 There is deformation not only of the ending of the second component, but also of the root itself, as well as loss or alteration of the ending of the first component. A striking example of such deformation is provided by compound adverbs consisting of the singular accusative forms of the pronoun anàs “that” and the noun dienà, e.g.: anandien, anande, anądien, anądie, andien, andie, anandiej, anandien, anandienai, anandai, anandai, anandies, anandienais<anan dienan “on that day”; compare also šįpavasar (instead of šįpavasar< šį pavasari) “this spring”. 7. The fact that in certain cases the first component of adverbs of this type retains the old full singular accusative ending (with the final nasal consonant -n) shows that the word-formation type of these adverbs arose long ago (no later than the 16th–17th centuries), when the singular accusative retained the old full ending with the nasal consonant -n. The class of compound adverbs formed from the singular accusative is expanded by adverbialized phraseological combinations, or combinations in the process of adverbialization, especially prepositional constructions containing the accusative, e.g.: į vãlią “to one’s heart’s content, sufficiently,” pér pláuką “by a hair’s breadth,” pér vélnią “very,” pér ilgą “in time,” prõ diẽną “very early, at dawn, before dawn,” prõ aũstrą “at dawn,” ryts į rytą “every morning,” tvord į tvorą “very close, fence to fence,” and so on. 9. The main component (the carrier of the principal meaning) of the aforementioned phrases is most often a noun. 10. Although the singular accusative of nouns denoting time does in some cases show a certain tendency toward adverbialization, the same cannot be said of other declinable parts of speech. An exception is the accusative of the pronoun kàs “what” in expressions such as ką mums rúp Plaučiūnas? “What do we care about Plaučiūnas?” (K. Donelaitis), ką mums mažys pripro vos, ką mūsy trūšeliai? “What good will our preparations and our fussing do us?” (ibid.)25. However, this form is fully adverbialized only in the combinations tìk ką, ką tìk “just now”; compare: Tik ką išėjo į vė sugrįžo “He had only just left when he came back again” (Kėdainiai district, village of Šlapaberžė)., Ką tik mačiau jį einant pro šalį “I had just seen him passing by” (ibid.)26. 25 See E. Fraenkel, Syntax der litauischen Kasus. — „Tauta ir žodis“, V кн., 84—85, Kaunas, 1928. 26 Compare ibid.