Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ Lithuanian Language Institute CODIFICATION NORM AND ITS IMPLICITITES KEY WORDS: ĮVARDŽIUOTINIAI DALYVIAI SU PRIKLAUSOMAIS ŽODŽIAIS: noun form, noun participle, noun adjective, dependent words, indicative word, indicative, noun. ANNOTATION The article examines the particularity mentioned when discussing noun forms – that the noun form of the participant is not used if the participant has dependent words, which are considered as words related to the participant in the control and fusion relationship. The author reveals the uneven scope of this criterion formulated in works of normative nature and discusses two main issues raised by its formulation: the question of analogy of the use of the participant and the noun form of the adjective; ambiguities related to the use of the participant in the noun position. Explaining the extent to which this criterion is equally applicable to adjectives and participants, not only normative but also research works are used, as well as syntax descriptions. INTRODUCTION Word combinations consisting of a noun participle with dependent words (hereinafter referred to as a noun participle) are used in the Lithuanian language, and this is shown by the Internet, which conveys a picture of broad usage. His search engine Google would return entries of such compounds in almost every UD, e.g. : What measures can performing arts writers take in these times of innovation and social media? One of the distinctive features of the 20th century miracle – radio are the voices of the speakers at the microphone; Middle-aged woman – a statistical portrait of a consumer borrower; Those wishing to undergo this procedure must receive a referral from law enforcement officials free of charge. However, the textbook of Contemporary Lithuanian, which is more focused on general language usage than on language usage in general, would reveal that the VD has very few controlled or affixed words. Here, the participle writing in the non-fiction literature sources of the textbook, which consists of 19,322,341 words, has them only in six cases, the speaking – in three, the taking – in two, and many even of the participles made of transitive verbs (giving – in two cases, taking – in one case). RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 or giving, seeing or seeing, defeating or defeating, etc.) – not once. The fact that such cases are 1 not common in common language is confirmed by the most recent sources that have not been included in the textbook. not typical of the language of the author or translator of the book, but Atsitiktiniu būdu pasirinkus dešimt pastaruoju dešimtmečiu išleistų negrožinės literatūros knygų, ĮD su priklausomais žodžiais rasta keturiose 2 , trijose tokių atvejų nerasta 3 , trijose rasta tik po du 4 . Žinoma, priklausomais žodžiais išplėstų ĮD vartojimas gali būti the complete absence of such cases. gerokos apimties leidinyje gali rodyti ir tai, kad jų vengia norminamaisiais leidiniais And indeed, in some works of normative nature or about the spread of norms, the D with the dependent words are indicated as unusable. In grammars, only noun adjectives extended by such words are directly identified as unusable, but the model of description of noun forms used in them allows to assume that the analogy can also be applied to participants. The descriptions of word combinations do not describe VD compounds, the descriptions of morphological structures do not discuss them, and the corrections show that VD with dependent words often find themselves among the corrective cases, although the criteria for corrections are formulated differently. All of this can create considerable uncertainty or even limit the use. Of course, it would only be possible to establish whether the codified rules really restrict consumption after a thorough examination and comparison of them and the rules. However, that is not the aim of this article. Considering habits and norms as equivalent subjects of study, it focuses only on norms. More specifically, the aim is to examine the norm of the use of UD with dependent words codified in normative and normative works and the uncertainties arising from its codification, and to grasp the deeper causes of uncertainties. Such an article should be relevant from the point of view of codification, but it is expected that it can also be useful for language users who are looking for an answer in normative works, whether the noun form of the participant is possible if the participant is connected to controlled or merged words. 1 The textbook of contemporary Lithuanian language (http://tekstynas.vdu.lt) was accessed on October 25, 2019. 2 J. Grigas. 2013; V. Žutautas. On the Paths of Knowledge: Looking Against the Clock, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press, 2013. In search of paradise on earth. Travel reports, Kaunas: UAB "Kriminalistika", 2011; J. Grudzinskas. In Search of Lost Paradise, Vilnius: Saulelė, 2015; E. Kuckailis. Silent Steps Through Moss, Kaunas: Vox Altera, 2016. 3 D. Paluckas, J. G. Siaurukas. Socialdemokratija be socializmo, Klaipėda: Eglė, 2014; P. Pomerantsev. Nothing is true and everything is possible: adventures in the new Russia, Vilnius: Sofoklis, 2015; V. Šmigelskas. Where the Planes of Sorrow Fly, Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2016. 4 A. Zakalnis. Prijaukintoji Anglija, Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2010; Tibetas: tolimas ir artimas, Laisvės byla, Vilnius: VšĮ „Aštuntoji diena“, 2018; B. Tiknevičiūtė. Tėvas Stanislovas – mažutėlių tarnas. Penktoji laida, Kaunas, 2016. RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 3 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 The structure of the article is quite simple. The first chapter examines the normative criterion, which in one way or another provides for the non-use of the noun form of the participant when it is extended by dependent words, and in the next two chapters – the ambiguities raised by the formulation of the criterion: the question of analogy of the use of the noun form of the participant and the adjective (chapter 2) and the ambiguities related to the UD used in the position of the noun (chapter 3). In clarifying these questions, not only normative works are used, but also morphological studies of noun forms, and in the fourth chapter this analysis is supplemented by the analysis of the syntactic treatment of the use of VD with dependent words. This should clarify both the problems of codification and whether all cases of use of UD with dependent words should be treated equally. Although the normative criterion, as will be shown in the first section, is formulated differently in different sources, if it is formulated as the non-use of an adjective with dependent words, the words dependent on the combination of words refer only to the words controlled and connected to the adjective by conjugation, and thus the meaning of that combination is different from that of the term dependent elements used to describe word combinations (the latter would also include words connected to the main element by combination). In this article, the term will be used in this meaning, and it will be marked by the abbreviation PZ. 1. FORMULATION OF THE NORMATIVE CRITERIA The criterion for not using the noun form of PZ as a participant is mentioned in several works, and one of them also mentions its source. In the 1990 edition of Arnold Pirochkine’s Administrative Language Culture, it is stated: “If an adjective or participant has controlled or affixed words (nouns, pronouns, adverbs), then it is not appropriate to use the noun form, e.g.: veliau gerbiamasis (=veliau gerbiamas) pilieti (or simply: gerbiamasis pilieti)” (Piročkinas 1990: 87). Illustrating this statement with examples, a group of sentences corrected by Jan Jablonski is also presented, such as The Earth does not keep the heat received from the sun for a long time, Bishops were appointed people who were able to please the king, The train sent to protect the railway station was soon destroyed. sustabdytas (Piročkinas 1990: 87), o tai leistų daryti prielaidą, kad norminamojo kriterijaus That this is indeed the case is revealed by the previous work of the same author – The Jono Jablonskio kalbos taisymai. Juose minima viena J. Jablonskio parengta vertimo recenzija, RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: Codified Norm and its Obscureties, published in 1986 | 4 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 in which the reviewer, correcting nine incorrectly used participants, stated: „Čia visur 1986: reikalingi neįvardžiuotiniai dalyviai: prie jų yra vadinamųjų papildinių, aplinkybės žodžių, pareinančių nuo jų pačių... Kam čia pavartotas įvardžiuotinis dalyvis (būdvardis)?“ (Piročkinas 141–142). There are also sentences corrected by J. Jablonski, but they are not taken from the mentioned review, but from other works of this linguist, e.g.: aukoti... turi daugiau turintieji = who have more; The train, sent to protect the... railway station, was quickly stopped; The earth does not keep the heat received from the sun for a long time; (Bishops were appointed) men who were able to please the king in something; (They) were the greater landlords, able to build more armies = (They) were the greater landlords (peasants, nobles), able to build more armies; From them were born the today used (=used, used today, used these days) appearances of those phrases; The signs are compatible and incompatible with the marked word = The signs are (are) compatible or incompatible with the marked word. As you can see, some of these sentences are later transferred to the culture of the Administrative language. Discussing the corrected participants by J. Jablonski, A. Piročkinas also points out that one of the corrections contradicted the language scientist’s own formulated rule, thus indicating that the rule was formulated by J. Jablonski. The rule in question is formulated in the Lithuanian grammar of 1922, after saying that nominative adjectives cannot be used to say the “peculiarity” of objects in a comparative way, i.e. they are not used with so and very, for example, labai gerasis, taip gerasis, taip šventasis, labai (visai) raudonieji kviečiai, taip vadinamasis šeimininkas; things, so expensive, must be good (RR 1957: 415). After drawing attention to such a language feature, it is further stated that nominative adjectives “in general, have neither circumstantial words nor suffixes for the kind of matter for which they are used”, and to illustrate this formulation, almost only examples of participants are given, showing that when going with PZ, the participant is used only in the simple form. Participants 5 are presented not only with adjectives signifying comparison (People, who have worked so hard, must rest), but also with other words (Man, who has worked all day, can rest in the evening; Why do you go to the cottage, now not even mice inhabited?), and the most common thing between the examples is that, with the exception of two sentences (Men, who sold rye, went home; Summer not working, winter with what misit?), they form the distinctive adjectives used after the denoting word (RR 1957: 414–416). However, in formulating the rule, and again, the criterion is not such a position, but certain words depending on the participant: “Adjectives cannot have suffixes or adverbs in the language for their (and the sentence’s) purpose. 5 The adjective is given here only one example: We must distinguish those objects from other similar (RR 1957: 415). RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: objects the codified norm and its ambiguities | 5 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 circumstance words” (RR 1957: 415). Although J. Jablonski’s grammar, published in 1922, mainly presents only examples of postpositional signs, it is nevertheless clear from the aforementioned review that the linguist considered the noun form of the participants used as prepositional signs formą (Čia pat ir laukiantieji savo laimės kandidatai), o kartu ir daiktavardžio pozicijoje as a similar error, e.g. : There were not many who wanted to be consuls; Serve the man and remove him from the list of taxpayers; Further went the companions and assigned to the prėtoriaus... (RR 1959: 265). A. Piročkinas discusses the rule formulated by J. Jablonski, i.e. raises the question why an adverb or circumstance cannot be used together with the noun form (Piročkinas 1986: 142–143). Having described the issue as “the greatest problem of all corrections of nominative and non-nomenative forms”, he first uses an explanation from Adele Valeckienė’s article: “the noun, standing next to the adjective, clarifies, expands the meaning of the adjective and diverts it from the denoting word” (Valeckienė 1957: 220). In that article, the author has examined only the use of adjectives, so, according to the conclusion, the analogy of the use of adjectives and participle forms is applied. That it applies is also clear from A. Piročkinas’ attempt to explain the rule formulated by J. Jablonski: ĮD, like a nominative adjective, which indicates the characteristic of the marked thing, the suffix or circumstance used to it also indicates the characteristic, but the language avoids marking the phenomenon twice, therefore the non-nominative form of the participant is used (Piročkinas 1986: 143). However, this analogy was also used by J. Jablonski. Although the above-mentioned rule is formulated in the section of grammar entitled Adverbial adjectives, it is stated at the beginning that when using the term adverbial adjectives, in this section we will also have in mind other parts of speech that may have adverbial forms, including participants: “When we talk about adverbial adjectives, we will always have in mind other adverbial words (participants, participles and certain pronouns)” (RR 1957: 414). Thus, the rule of not using the noun form of an adjective with “additional or circumstantial words” applies equally to participants. As early as in 1901, in the grammar, when discussing nominative adjectives, the participants are mentioned together: “This meaning of doubled adjectives can, of course, also be acquired by doubled verbs (participia), i.e. adjectives made from verbs or adjectives” (RR 1957: 86). However, it was not yet formulated that the noun form is not to be used with "additional or circumstantial words". In formulating this, the grammar of 1922, as it appears, relies on the peculiarities of the use of adjectives, primarily the non-use of nominative adjectives with comparative adverbs, but examples are given basically only RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: the codified norm and its ambiguities | 6 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 participants. In the aforementioned review, too, only the participants are corrected, and A. Piročkinas, discussing J. Jablonski’s corrections, mainly gives examples of DD. When discussing the adjectives corrected by J. Jablonski, two sentences related to the use of the noun form are mentioned, namely Less talented (=where not so, not so talented...) are still forgotten and appear both among such very talented = appear such and very talented people, and among the talented (Piročkinas 1986: 116), but, as it appears, both are related to the expression of degree, and this circumstance may have an influence. Thus, it would be clear that although the rule is mostly formulated on the basis of adjectives, even J. Jablonski had to correct the participants more often. The fact that the noun form does not apply equally to both parts of the speech that go with PZ is also stated in Elena Oginskiene's article published in 1993. When writing about the use of the noun form of an adjective, it is said here that it is not necessary when the meaning of the adjective is defined in the PZ, e.g. : When the staff responsible for the clerkship changes, the files are transferred according to the act (Oginskienė 1993: 37). In writing about the use of the participant in this form, it is stated: "The noun form is not used if the meaning is narrowed by dependent words or the participant goes after the indicative word: The question of the areas of activity prohibited and restricted for foreign investment is being considered. For documents sent abroad, the forms are printed in two languages” (Oginskienė 1993: 40). The PZ criterion, as in J. Jablonski’s works, is applied to participants in the noun position – they are offered to use their ordinary form, e.g. : Those interested in farming are invited to listen to advice on agricultural issues; Build garden houses receive a loan; Each year, courses are organized for those entering higher education institutions (Oginskienė 1993: 38). Even earlier than E. Oginskienė, A. Valeckienė has mentioned the criterion of PZ. In 1961, in an article published in the journal Language Culture, she discussed in detail the meanings of nominative adjectives, mentioned that ĮD is used in the same way as nominative adjectives, and mentioned a couple of cases of incorrect use of the nominative form. As one of them, it is stated that there is a “great tendency to use noun forms of participants, (Valeckienė 1961: 15). Polinkis įvardytas kaip didelis, o tai lyg ir patvirtintų, kad PŽ išplėstus extended by other words and followed by accents”. Furthermore, that article does not refer to all tenderers as being abused, but only those with extended certificates, so that the criterion lyg ir numatomas siauresnis. When formulating the criteria in the Contemporary Lithuanian Grammar (hereinafter – DLKG) and in the Lithuanian Grammar (hereinafter – LKG), the position of the certificate is not distinguished in any way. The criterion is formulated as follows: “Adjective forms of 1997: 176); „Neturi įvardžiuotinių formų būdvardžiai, išplėsti daiktavardžiais, prieveiksmiais RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: adjectives do not have dependent words” (DLKG § 10). doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 or the indefinite pronoun such” (LKG 1965: 513). Nevertheless, the presented formulation LKG iliustruojama tik tokiais pavyzdžiais, iš kurių matyti, kad įvardžiuotine forma nevartojami tik extended adjectives: Shrubs, grass bearded, edges the forest riečia; Though the mountain was high and high-profile, the eyes of the people were full of joy, looking at its top like they were looking at the sun, and many were already preparing to climb; And he was already ninety years old, still had a mouth full of teeth, a sober mind and a wonderfully clear memory...; His heavenly blue eyes, surrounded by dark eyebrows, covered with long eyelashes, look in front of him. Another sentence illustrates the assertion that adjectives that follow the pronoun such are not to be used in the noun form: It was a cold, cloudy morning, and over the whole city lay such a thick fog that no one could be seen within a few steps (LKG 1965: 513). There are no examples of adjectives in the noun position. The DLKG wording is not illustrated at all by examples. Thus, it is not clear from the grammar if the formulations about the non-use of the noun form with PZ apply only to adjectives that go with a pointer or also used in the position of a noun. However, it is not clear from these grammars to what extent such a criterion applies to participants. The adjective is named directly, but the formulations are given in the adjective section. However, the substantive forms are discussed in detail only in the adjective section, which suggests that the meanings and usage characteristics described here in detail are considered to be common to other parts of the language, but in their sections repeated information is avoided. The Language Advices (hereinafter referred to as the KP) issued in 2002 correct the IDEs that are extended certificates. The noun form of the participants entering the special certificate is evaluated as not presentable (People with one or another disability gather in organizations; Hanging posters, calling (= calling) to participate in the spring talk), and as avoidable – the nominative form of the participants entering the extended certificate (The country’s ruling (–ruling) party has elected a new leader; The patterns that hindered production were identified) (KP 2002: 27–28), and thus cover all cases of the use of the adjective VD with the PZ. However, KP also corrects some of the participants used in the position of the noun, including the nouns: in the chapter Noun Use, present tense active participants for naming persons according to their position are assessed as not presentable (KP 2002: 43–44), as avoidable – present tense active participants for naming persons nuolatinį veikimą pavadinti (KP 2002: 44–46), o tarp taisomų atvejų patenka ir nemažai su PŽ according to the examples of VD used: The chairperson (= chairman) of the meeting gave the floor to a guest; The image of Lithuania abroad is also shaped by students (student youth); chess players and Miestelyje pradėjo veikti žaidžiančiųjų šaškėmis ir šachmatais (–šaškių ir šachmatų žaidėjų) chess players) club and others (KP 2002: 44–46). The codificated norm of such noun-prone participants RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: and its ambiguities | 8 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 the use of the noun form is negatively assessed elsewhere (Pupkis 1980: 137–138; Banevičienė 1992; ir kt. 2013: 151), bet būdvardžių daiktavardėjimo polinkiai niekur nevertinami neigiamai, ir tai Brūzgienė 1993; Brūzgienė 1994; Brūzgienė 1995). KP also mentions three cases of the use of present tense active participants, and as one of them – the use of such participants “to name a person acting (temporarily) in the speaking moment” (KP 2002: 46). The mention of such a case would already raise the question of whether that analogy exists, since this case could not be typical of 6 adjectives. It is true that, when illustrating it with examples, it is necessary to indicate the UDs without PZ, such as Laukiantieji smalsiai nustebino į mus and Stojantiesiems išdalinti egzaminų lapeliai, and thus the answer to the question whether the UD in the position of a noun should be used with PZ is not given. A certain PW could be found at least in the sentence We invited to the meeting those who work with adolescents, but there is also an indivisible compound in it, which indicates that both those who work with adolescents and adolescents were invited. In any case, the only case, which can be interpreted ambiguously, is not the confirmation that the UD with PZ in the position of a noun is to be used. In the textbooks of language culture and morphology, the corrections mainly include only the UDs that are marked, e.g. : Found documents exposing the conspirators; The Academy admits persons up to the age of 35, who have finished secondary school and passed the entrance exams (Paulauskienė 1994: 223; 2004a: 206–207; 2004b: 310). However, the criteria for corrections are formulated differently here. In two textbooks on language culture prepared by Aldona Paulauskienė such examples are presented to illustrate the statement that the noun form is not necessary when there is no definition or distinction (Paulauskienė 2004a: 207; 2004b: 310), elsewhere such examples as Find the scientists demasking (=demasking) facts and students and all those willing (=willing) to learn are used to support the statement that the noun forms are not necessary “when there is no need to distinguish, emphasize, individualize the subject in any way” (Pupkis 1980: 136). Thus, the criterion of significance is raised, and the statements are often explained not only by examples of participants with an extended grade: The most important (= most important) changes in the organism have been observed; The novel was translated into Lithuanian for the first time (Paulauskienė 2004a: 206). In the 1976 edition of the Language Practice Tips, such a group of syntactically different examples is illustrated as follows: In one morphology textbook, almost all the examples of IDs with extended notations are įvardžiuotiniai žodžiai nevartotini paprastai daikto ypatybei apibūdinti (KPP 1976: 114). 6 Be šio atvejo, dar minimas esamojo laiko veikiamojo dalyvio vartojimas, kai asmeniui nusakyti nėra atitinkamos reikšmės daiktavardžio (tikintysis, -ioji, skęstantysis, -ioji), ir jo vartojimas, kai dalyvis eina pažyminiu (A police crew on duty soon appeared at the scene; A year later I became a playing coach; The increase of people, the sergančių kvėpavimo takų ligomis) (KP 2002: 46). RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: codified norm and its ambiguities | 9 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 It illustrates the statement that „[people], not feeling the difference between the ordinary and noun forms, cannot use nouns where they seem to be really needed, and use noun forms where they are not needed“ (Paulauskienė 1994: 223), and this would show that this group of examples may be the result of a certain generalization. In any case, such corrections also mean that the analogy of the use of the participle and the noun form of the adjective applies. And in general, it becomes clear that in the works of normative nature and norm dissemination, the criterion of PZ is not equal: in some works it covers both the VD and the nominative adjectives, in others it directly names only the latter; in some cases this criterion applies only to the extended UD, in others – also used in the position of a noun. However, the amendments mainly focus only on VDs (both those with extended adjective and those used in the position of a noun), and this would encourage the assumption that there may be reasons why VDs are used with PZ more often than nominative adjectives, so that there may not be a complete analogy between the use of an adjective and the nominative form of a participle. However, such assumptions are not raised or discussed in normative works. Here we will try to consider the question of analogy of the use of adjective and participle noun forms, on which depends the unclear answer from the normative works, whether UD should be used with PZ. 2. THE USE OF THE PRONOUN AND THE SUBSTANT The nouns are discussed in a separate section only in some textbooks of morphology and language culture. A more usual model of morphological discussion is: in the section on adjectives, the meanings and peculiarities of use of noun adjectives are described, and in the sections on other parts of the language, it is mentioned that these parts of the language can also have noun forms and, if the description of the language structure is detailed, their conjugation and pronunciation are indicated. For example, in the LKG chapter on numerals, it is only stated that infinitive numerals may have noun forms, that their conjugation is not different from that of noun adjectives and that they have more often an emphasis (LKG 1965: 628–629). The pronoun section lists pronouns that may have pronoun forms, discusses their conjugation and states that the pronoun form emphasizes the object indicated by the pronoun (LKG 1965: 664–665). And in the adjective section there is already a detailed subsection on the meanings of nominative adjectives and it describes in detail the emphasizing and indicating meanings, the latter being divided into three subtypes (excluding things, indicating the kind of things and indicating things), which are again divided (LKG 1965: 505– doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 16 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 būdvardžio forma, kaip antai Surink kur didesnes bulbes, o mažesnes palik (Valeckienė 1998: 265), which would indicate that the mark of omission is not a function specific to the noun form. Other omissions are also mentioned, but usually only when discussing the participants’ consumption. A. Pupkis’ textbook on language culture mentions the omission of specific nouns. In Tiksliau, rašant apie veikiamųjų esamojo laiko dalyvių daiktavardėjimą nurodoma, kad liaudies the language and common language usage in such cases more common non-noun forms (Ne sraškantis griūva, o stovintis), and it is added: "Noun forms are told only where the clearly omission praleistas daiktavardis žmogus, vyras, vaikas, moteris...“ (Pupkis 1980: 137–138). Vienas tokį illustrated example shows the use of ĮD with PŽ: Walking around towns with catarinkomis usually carried parrots. This example is also presented in the LKG participant section. After describing the meanings of the 11 participants of the attributive usage, the nouns of the participants are discussed here, but before that the attributive participants used without the denoting word are mentioned and explained: “An unspoken denoting noun (most often denoting a general concept – a person, a man, a woman, etc.) is implied from the meaning or context of the statement” (LKG 1971: 349). Illustrating such use without the pronoun by examples of both the named and the unnamed participants, here are already presented three sentences, in which the use of VD with PV is formed: Walking around towns with catarinks usually carried parrots, All those living in that bottle were young people and Sisters as much as possible cared for the children and wives of those called to war. Another example – Aniems by tik nuo akių atmestoji – is given when writing about the above-mentioned participants. It illustrates the statement that the feminine noun forms of some passive participants of the past tense can also be used in the meaning of nouns, but it adds that such forms mostly occur in phraseologisms, more or less fixed sentences (LKG 1971: 350). The nouns of the participants are mentioned here separately from the use without the adverb, but it is said that the present tense noun-inactive participants used without the adverb are often nouns, thus indicating the interface of the dual use of the noun in the position (LKG 1971: 349). However, the LKG section does not mention the use of adjectives without a denoting word, it writes only about the nounification of adjectives, more precisely, the section Nounification of Adjectives separately describes ordinary and nounified adjectives (LKG 1965: 529–534). Such differences seem to indicate the specificity of the use of the participle form of the participant: 11 As the source of the chapter on the transition of one part of the language to another, A. Pupkis’ textbook refers to the LKG (Pupkis 1980: 138). RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: the codified norm and its ambiguities | 17 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 There are adjectives used without the adverb and with the adverb, and adjectives with the adverb only. However, from the description of adjectives with adjectives provided by the LKG it becomes clear that there are also different types of “adjectives with adjectives”. At the beginning of the chapter, it is said that not all noun adjectives with noun functions and meaning are conjugated to the same degree, and then there is a distinction between independent and non-independent conjugated noun adjectives. Non-self-contained adjectives are described as those that can be used both as adjectives and as nouns, and both subgroups mentioned are also associated with the designation of persons: one is described as conjugated adjectives, denoting a defined group of persons (The Alliance was not ruled by the powerful, but by the people’s elected ones; It is good to lie to young people for a long time, when they do not know it; Along the Nemunas path threads of threads 12 are drawn – pedestrian paths), the other – as conjugated adjectives, denoting a generalized person or otherwise a living thing (The blind man would have warned about his great intelligence, but there was no one to warn; The hardworking man finds work, the talkative man language, and the lazy man land) (LKG 1965: 531). It would appear that only the designation conjugated adjectives is misleading, and in fact there are both conjugated (self-contained) and non-self-contained (non-self-contained) adjectives. Nevertheless, it is finally mentioned that in addition to the non-independent adjectives, ordinary adjectives are often used in the same context (Laisvę pasiekia tik stiprūs; Anyway, he used to work for strangers), and only about them it is said that although they perform the syntactic function of a noun, they are not to be considered as adjectives (LKG 1971: 531–352). No such remarks are made about nominative adjectives, which would indicate that all the nominative adjectives discussed in the section of the LKG on adjectives with adjectives are considered to be adjectives in one way or another, and that the adjectives used in the position of the noun differ from the participants – the latter, as the description of nominative participants used without adjectives in the section on participants as “rarely noun-calling” shows, may be and the relationship of the participants and adjectives used in the LKG is rather unclear. nesudaiktavardėjusių, tik vartojamų be pažymimojo žodžio. Šiaip ar taip, daiktavardžio pozicijoje It is more clearly identified in morphology textbooks, where noun is discussed (1983: 40–49; 1994: 38–46). kaip žodžių darybos be formantų arba funkcinės žodžių darybos sudedamoji dalis (Paulauskienė They distinguish between substantivization (transformation of words signifying a particularity into words signifying an object, nouns; nounification) and substantive (noun) usage (only usage in the position of a noun), and the latter is clearly identified by one example of the participant. 12 Nors visas sudaiktavardėjusių būdvardžių skyrius iliustruojamas vien tik būdvardžių pavyzdžiais, čia RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 18 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 also as a characteristic of adjectives, though only mentioning ordinary adjectives: Jauni šoka – walls shake, seni šoka – teeth clatter; It is cheap for the naked to steal, for the rich to steal, and for the old to lie (Paulauskienė 1983: 43). In another work, it is summarized that in certain situations any words denoting a characteristic, thus both participants and adjectives, can be used as nouns (Paulauskienė 1994: 39). However, these textbooks do not describe the relationship between noun and noun usage more clearly than the LKG. On the one hand, it is stated that the use of a word as a noun does not yet indicate its transformation into a noun, on the other hand, certain stages are mentioned: 1) the same word, used freely as an adjective, occurs also in the syntactic position of a noun, but it is not yet possible to speak about its conjugation (The blind will not lead the blind near); 2) an adjective or participant has become an independent word – a noun (bedroom, smoking room) (Paulauskienė 1994: 39–40). In any case, both the interface of dual usage mentioned in the LKG and the analogy of adjectives and participants in the noun position provided in morphology textbooks seem to be in contradiction with normative works, in which the tendency to stop the nounization of present tense active participants is evident. In usage, as shown in Algirdas Malakauskas’ article published in 1987, which provides an overview of the use of nouns by participants, there seems to be a tendency to apply analogy. The article records quite a number of such nouns and concludes that it is not easy to explain such usage solely by the influence of other languages (Malakauskas 1987). It is true that a certain explanation can be found in works related to language norms: when Juozas Balčikonis began to correct the nouns of irregular action with respect to folk language, sukilėlis – sulumosysis, pasiryžėlis – pasiryžęs, ryžtusysis, etc., the participative form was rejected by the general language itself, which expanded the type of action not characteristic of dialects and remained to use nouns (Pupkis 1990: 138). Having examined the usage of noun participles, A. Malakauskas mentions that present tense participles sometimes go with PZ in place of a noun, and gives as many as seven examples of IDs going with PZ: Although much has been achieved in treating people with diabetes, this disease is not yet completely cured; He asked those entering the directorial profession not why they wanted to become directors, but what they were (Malakauskas 1987: 125–126). It is true that it is not nori pasakyti žmonėms; Mokytis visų specialybių priimami dirbantieji pagal specialybę ir kt. clear from their presentation whether such examples are associated with the noun participles in question or with the noun participle also mentioned in this article to name the action performed vartojimu konkrečiam asmeniui ar konkrečiai asmenų grupei pagal dabartiniu ar sakinyje during the participant’s speech (Malakauskas 1987: 122). The morphology textbook did not know what vienu tokiu pavyzdžiu iliustruojama daiktavardinė vartosena: Atvykusieji iš svetimų kraštų our customs were (Paulauskienė 1994: 39). RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 19 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 In any case, there are examples where the UD used in the position of a noun has a PZ, but when discussing noun usage or noun-making processes there are no examples where a nominative adjective goes with a PZ, except for the already discussed case of otherwise omitting it. The only example of the noun form used with PZ that has been included in the detailed study of the usage of the above-mentioned noun adjectives is also the case of the use of ĮD with PZ: Valdė Aljansą ne galingieji, bet liaudies išrinktieji (Valeckienė 1957: 242; LKG 1965: 531). On the contrary, when 13 discussing the use of participants, such examples are inevitable, and this alone would show that there may not be a complete analogy between adjectives used in the position of a noun and participants used in the position of a noun. This would be confirmed by the already mentioned formulation, which describes one of the cases of use of the present tense active participants in KP – to call a person acting (temporarily) in the speaking moment (KP 2002: 46). In A. Malakauskas’ article, as just mentioned, participants related to time are also mentioned (Malakauskas 1987: 122). Although both in it and in KP only the use of present tense active participants is associated with time (because only such participants are discussed), however, as stated in the grammar, other participants are also associated with the indication of time, which shows their verb nature. For example, when discussing the active participant of the past participle of the attributive usage (LKG 1971: 332–346), the LKG also mentions cases where it, like an adjective, denotes constant characteristics not related to time, but in general this participant is named as denoting characteristics arising from an action that took place in the past or before the time spoken of in the sentence, and it indicates many cases where its verb characteristics are more pronounced (LKG 1971: 334–337). Attributive adjectives have no temporal meaning, so they cannot name a person who has acted in the present or in the past (temporarily). In addition, although the adjectives also have the characteristic of stronger or weaker conjugation (LKG 1976: 235–262), at least the characteristic of control should be more characteristic of the participant as a verb form. In the description of the participant of attributive usage there are also quite a lot of indications that such a participant can control or join words (LKG 1971: 333, 335, 336, 337, 338, 344). Such differences may also be associated with a higher frequency of PV use with BD. 4. SINTAKSINĖ INTERPRETACIJA 13 In A. Valeckienės article, this sentence is used to illustrate the nouns of adjectives and refers to the tik būdvardis: Valdė Aljansą ne galingieji, bet liaudies išrinktieji (Valeckienė 1957: 242). Tačiau LKG jau nurodomas ir dalyvis (Valdė Aljansą ne galingieji, bet liaudies išrinktieji (LKG 1965: 531). Pavyzdys perkeliamas ir į DLKG description of noun forms (DLKG 1997: 176). RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 20 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Žodžių junginių aprašuose įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių ar ĮD vartojimo su PŽ pavyzdžių not provided (Balkevičius 1963; LKG 1976; Sirtautas, Grenda 1988; Labutis 1994a, 1994b, 1998; DLKG 1997). However, they do not even give examples of the use of non-named participants with PZ, because the combinations of participants are not described. In the descriptions of the syntactic structure of the Lithuanian language, the starting point for the division of word combinations is considered to be the part of the language, so it could be assumed that the morphological treatment of the participant does not allow the description of the participant combinations: in 14 Lithuanian grammar, the participant is not considered as a separate part of the language, but only as a verb form. However, the reasons are also indicated directly, and from this it becomes clear that it is unnecessary to describe such compounds: participants manage the words as corresponding verbs, so the information provided in the section on verb compounds would be repeated: “When classifying verb compounds, the form of the principal member is not necessary to take into account, because it has been observed that, when the form of the member of the principal word compound changes, the form of the dependent member does not change (e.g., read the book, reads the book, will read the book, etc.). Furthermore, the subjects, participles and semi-subjects have exactly the same controlling qualities as the verb” (Grenda 1964: 138). However, not only the descriptions of word combinations, but also many descriptions of sentence parts do not show the possibility of UD being used with PZ. In describing a certificate, the extended certificates are mentioned, but the examples are usually given only those in which the participant is used in the indefinite form: Only one heart, full of longing, full of pain, will remain alone; The shepherds gathered around the fire and told terrible stories (Labutis 1994b: 87–88). Jonas Balkevičius, discussing such marks as compound marks in the syntax of contemporary Lithuanian language, revealed a certain necessity of PZ by indicating that the complement and circumstance components of the compound marks have become the adverb complements and circumstance (Vaikai grįžta iš mokyklos → Buvo girdėti grįžtančių iš mokyklos vaikų balsai; Aviliai buvo pilni darbščių bičių → Aviliai, pilni darbščių bičių, dūzgia sode) (Balkevičius 1963: 156), even distinguished the participant-controlled marks (Balkevičius 1963: 161– 164), but provided only examples of extended 15 marks formed by unnamed participants. Nevertheless, in the description of the sentence parts in the LKG there are also a couple of sentences in which the joined PZ ĮD goes with a mark: Atsidūrė visi vienoje kertėj – Kurmelis su Zoliu ir du kaimynai, apie juodą kalbantyseji; He said, "Hey, wept, wept our sister, so far down" (LKG 1976: 415). As can be seen, these 14 The participant is described as a conjugated form made from the stem of the verb, having simply the veiksmažodžio ir būdvardžio ypatybių (LKG 1971: 311; DLKG 1997: 354), kaip neasmenuojamoji veiksmažodžio forma (Valeckienė 1998: 162), kaip linksniuojamoji veiksmažodžio forma (Paulauskienė 1983: 273; 1994: 273) ar verb form (Paulauskienė 1994: 351). For the proposal not to consider the participant as a verb, see Šveikauskienė (2018). 15 With the exception of the sentence In those days the most beautiful and luxurious houses were pushed back several dozen meters or even demolished altogether, and new houses were built in their place... (Balkevičius 1963: 163), but the use of nominative adjectives with the words sam, all (vse) was already mentioned by J. Jablonski (RR 1957: 87, 415). RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: the codified norm and its ambiguities | 21 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 The UDs are used in a position where they become quite close to the noun-like participants, and when discussing them, more examples of UDs with PZ are already given. For example, in the section of the certificate listing the parts of speech that can be used as adjectives, it is mentioned that “adjectives with adjectives are usually the noun forms of the participants”, and the adjectives are illustrated by the phrase The Alliance was not ruled by the powerful, but by the people’s elected representatives (LKG 1976: 398). In the next sentence, PZ goes with the pronoun origin: It was late when our acquaintances, having emptied the redheads and pockets they had brought, decided to return home. Before mentioning the adjectives that go with the indicative, the adjectives that have become adjectives are also mentioned and one example of the use of an adjective with a pronoun is given: At least one hour I stole alone, though to pass through the field with my most beautiful... (LKG 1976: 398). As could be inferred from these examples, the use of PZ in these cases is related to conjugation. The examples of extended VD in PZ are also given in the LKG when discussing circumstances and complement, because circumstance and complement in this grammar are not only considered as the part of the sentence related to the predicate (LKG 1976: 454, 479). It is true that the complement is described as a part of the sentence that usually joins to the adverb, but the complements that join to other parts of the sentence are also named (LKG 1976: 457–45). In discussing them, an example is given: Eigulį šaukiančiojo rūkymas skardėjo ilgai, pratisai, lyg butcher’s horn (LKG 1976: 457), in discussing circumstances – Walking around towns with catarinkomis usually carried parrots (LKG 1976: 479), but such usage is not associated with conjugation. In the section on circumstances, by the way, there is also one example of an extended certificate, where ĮD is used with PŽ: The farmers living in Pamiškiai and Papelkiai had enough meadows and pastures and engaged in livestock farming (LKG 1976: 480). When discussing the subjects corrected by J. Jablonski, A. Piročkinas has mentioned the tendency observed in grammar and linguistic works to use nouns governing complements and circumstances to denote the factor (Piročkinas 1986: 143), but this tendency is not evident in LKG – the section on the factor does not provide such examples. However, in J. Balkevičius’ Contemporary Lithuanian Language Syntax, the factor expressed by a combination of words controlled by the participant and the verb noun is distinguished as a separate subspecies of the compound factor, and it is also illustrated by examples of VD with such combinations of controlled words, in other words, examples of VD use with PZ, such as Sėdintieji aplink stalą susijuokė or Valstybės tvarką ardantieji baudžiami visa teisės griežtumu (Balkevičius 1963: 87–88). At least the first example would show not so much the participle of the participant as the use to name a group of persons acting (temporarily) in the conversation. On the other hand, it is clear from the examples presented that the boundary between the related to the speaking time and the generalized, with the time RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: the codified norm and its ambiguities | 22 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 The definition of the non-relative designation is not particularly clear, and it is precisely this that can cause confusion in the usage of the present tense actors in normative works. J. Balkevičius describes the distinguishing factor as a factor expressed by a controlled combination of words, and the present interpretation of it would show that for certain parts of the sentence the PZ is required as certain complement or circumstance components: “The compound factor is represented by participants and verb nouns with complements and circumstance components attached to them, which are not true complements or circumstances because they do not belong to the sentence’s conjunct.” (Brown 1963: 87). Thus, the descriptions of the syntactic structure would show that, applying one or another model of inventory of facts of the syntactic usage of the language, the mention of controlled or merged words as satellites of UD is unavoidable. This would be consistent with the notion of the participle as a verb form that preserves verb characteristics, including the ability to control or conjugate the same conjugative or adverbial constructions as the corresponding verb, as presented in the morphology sections. And in describing the mark it is emphasized: “The participant, as a verb form, very often joins other words and constructions” (LKG 1976: 414). And the examples of the use of PZ with the noun form in the syntax descriptions, as we can see, are mainly related to the use of the participant in the noun position. Such examples of adjectives are hardly found in syntax descriptions, which would also show that the use of adjectives and participles, including the use of the noun form, in relation to the position of the noun, does not completely coincide. By the way, such a reference to the inconsistency would also be the statement in the participants’ historical study that the participants are not very inclined to become nouns: “When they are in the position of nouns, they usually retain verb traits, control of conjugations and prepositions, or approach nouns only in one meaning (e.g., grown-up, eating, etc.)” (Ambrazas 1979: 65). Since the morphological part of the grammar directly mentions only adjectives extended by PZ, the įvardžiuotinė formos nevartojimas, LKG sintaksės dalyje pasitaikančiais pavyzdžiais morfologijos part is not objected to. The description of the syntactic structure of the sentence given by DLKG does not provide examples of UDs going with PZ, so the statement formulated here that the nevartotina su PŽ, juolab neprieštaraujama. Tačiau šioje gramatikoje pateikiamas kalbos description of the syntactic structure of the noun form is mainly based on descriptions of word combinations, and the traditional description of sentence parts, avoiding the repetition of the information told in the section of word combinations, is abandoned, and the description of the sentence includes only the description of the sentence models and their extension (DLKG 1997: 587–678). RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 23 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Taigi, PŽ išplėstų ĮD pavyzdžių nebuvimas šioje gramatikoje gali būti susijęs ne tiek su jų non-specificity of the language, as much as with the chosen model of description of the syntactic Juolab sintaksinės sandaros aprašuose neįvardijama daiktavardžio pozicijoje vartojamų structure of the language. the noun form function of participants or adjectives, since such functions are usually assigned and noun forms are discussed in descriptions of morphological structure. They, and some articles, refer to distinctiveness in such cases. Here is the sentence Not an hour passed before he saw the blue scarf with white stripes among the crumpled scarves and immediately recognized and distinguished from all such or at least similar scarves the scarf mentioned by DLKG in illustrating the separation of objects (DLKG 1997: 174). The case of the use of ĮD with PŽ Motina žiūrėjusi drabužius – lopiusi ir plautusi, kartais ir naujus siuvusi, nes dvaro duotieji buvę šuns neperžengiami is also explained in A. Valeckienės article of 1961. In A. Valeckienė’s 1957 article, the phrase „Valdė Aljansą ne galingieji, bet liaudies išrinktieji“ is included in the discussion of adjectives with a participle, and all non-independent adjectives with a participle are described here as having a distinctive meaning (Valeckienė 1957: 244, 246). The meaning of the adjectives in the article is not specified, but in the article of 1961 it is indicated as emphasis, saying that the adjectives in the article retain the same meanings (Valeckienė 1961: 15). As already discussed, in several works cases of use of the nominative form in the position of a noun are also called omission, but it becomes clear that this omission is not equal – in one case the already mentioned part of the sentence is omitted, in another – the word implied from the meaning of the statement or the context. The syntax description reveals the interface of these slightly different types of omissions. For example, in the LKG certificate section, a double omission of the indicative word is mentioned: when the previously mentioned indicative word is not repeated in the certificate (But he lacked the strength to lift a pot full of gold, so he took up money as much as he could carry,... and the rest he buried again nicely) and when an implied word is omitted from the context or the meaning of the sentence, usually denoting a person or some generalized object (Longer he wore lopytą, not as new) (LKG 1976: 399). It is true that both cases are illustrated only by examples of unnamed participants, but the examples of participants are generally given only one by one. This definition of omissions is very similar to the interpretation of the indicative meaning given in the descriptions of noun forms. In the LKG it is interpreted as follows: "Objects are indicated in this way. The first mention of an object, its RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: individual characteristic is expressed in the ordinary pronoun. The codified norm and its ambiguities | 24 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 adjective or described by other words. In a further context, to point out that the object is žinomas, jo anksčiau minėta ypatybė išreiškiama įvardžiuotiniu būdvardžiu“ (LKG 1965: 508) 16 . IŠVADOS Jau Jono Jablonskio formuluotas įvardžiuotinės formos nevartojimo su PŽ kriterijus expected of unequal coverage – in one place it covers both nominative adjectives and ĮD, the kitur – tik pastarieji. Taigi, kriterijaus formuluotės iškelia būdvardžių ir dalyvių įvardžiuotinės question of analogy of the use of the form. In J. Jablonski’s works, where the criterion is formulated, the analogy has been used, it is also used in some textbooks on morphology and language culture, as well as in works of a normative nature or norm dissemination, but in both detailed descriptions of the grammatical structure of language, which are also works of a normative nature, such analogy is not explicitly named. This may be influenced by the model of named forms used in these descriptions. The descriptive works are directly related to the research works, and the latter are essentially focused only on the nominative forms of the adjective and conclusions are drawn on the basis of their use. Thus, the treatment of noun forms presented in the grammar may have been determined not only by the chosen model of description, but also by the level of study of the language phenomenon, i.e. the fact that the noun forms of adjectives have been the most studied. Analogies of the use of the participle and adjective noun forms without direct nominative, rather unclear even the application of the PZ criterion mentioned in the adjective section of grammar to participants. True, in some works the analogy is noted, but only the analogy of the expression of meanings and definiteness, and the correspondence of the peculiarities or exceptions of the use of the noun form is nowhere examined or named. Some of the characteristics listed show that the participant could have some of them, but others cannot be applied to him. The criterion of non-use of PZ is formulated as one of such peculiarities, so the question of its application to participants is also unclear. Although this criterion is applied to the participants in some normative works or works of norm dissemination, there are still isolated linguistic facts in them that show that the D with P is used more often than the nominative adjectives. Such examples mainly concern the use of the participle without the adverb, in other words, its use in the position of a noun. Similarly, pronouns substitutes (that, that, this, this, etc.) that represent nouns or a whole group of them are interpreted – they indicate “a known, already mentioned or after these pronouns said person, being, thing or phenomenon” (Valeckienė 1998: The codified norm and its ambiguities | 25 16 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01 146). RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 juolab neaiškus daiktavardinės vartosenos ir daiktavardėjimo santykis, iš vienaip ar kitaip su noun position related to the discussion or assessment of the use would clarify that the full būdvardžio ir dalyvio įvardžiuotinės formos vartojimo analogijos šiuo atveju nėra. Tai sietina su būdvardžio ir dalyvio, kaip veiksmažodinės prigimties kalbos dalies, išlaikančios tiek laiko meaning, both the peculiarities of verb management, differences. Kalbos sintaksės sandaros aprašai irgi rodo, kad PŽ kaip dalyvių, įskaitant ir įvardžiuotinius, palydovų minėjimo neišvengiama. The noun form of the participants used in the position of the noun is attempted to be interpreted either by distinguishing meaning, which would be a morphological interpretation, or by omission, which would be a syntactic interpretation. The boundaries drawn between the morphological and syntactic layers in the descriptions of language structure do not allow these interpretations to be linked, but the interpretation of cases of omission in the description of the syntactic layer is very similar to the interpretation of the indicative meaning in the description of the morphological layer. LITERATŪRA Ambrazas V. 1979: Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas. Balkevičius J. 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Banevičienė N. 1964: Dalyvis ar daiktavardis? – Kalbos kultūra 63, 62. Brūzgienė R., Čekmonienė I. E., Žemienė A. 2013: Specialybės kalba, Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas. DLKG 1997: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Red. V. Ambrazas, 3-iasis patais. leid., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Grenda Č. 1964: Dėl veiksmažodinių junginių klasifikacijos. – Kalbotyra 10, 137–141. Jakaitienė E., Laigonaitė A., Paulauskienė A. 1976: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius: Mokslas. Kazlauskienė A., Rimkutė E., Bielinskienė A. 2011: Bendroji ir specialybės kalbos kultūra, 2-asis patais. leid., Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. KP 2002: Kalbos patarimai 1: Gramatinės formos ir jų vartojimas. Sud. R. Miliūnaitė, teksto aut. R. Miliūnaitė, A. Paulauskienė, vyr. red. A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. KPP 1976: Kalbos praktikos patarimai. Sud. A. Paulauskienė, Vilnius: Mokslas.