Nauji duomenys apie įvardžių dviskaitą dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje

DEIMANTĖ KRIKŠTAPONYTĖ Vilnius University NEW DATA ON THE DUAL NUMBER OF PRONOUNS IN CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN KEYWORDS: dual number of pronouns, primary and secondary normative variants, new forms, increasing usage. In the past, the dual was used fairly actively in the verb and nominal classes (Jablonskis 1957: 194, 205, 226–228, 249). The forms of these two classes were mutually congruent. As an example, consider the following usage, now regarded as a relic and nonstandard: The two of us withdrew into a dark corner, behind the bushes, where not a single candle was burning (see 2013 01 09, fiction). To this day, some pronouns have retained the dual; in a sentence, they usually occur with noun, verb, and participle forms, but do not agree with them in number (Valeckienė 1998: 225), for example: The two of us spontaneously began calling each other by our names, and it happened entirely naturally and simply (see 2013 04 15, fiction). “The dual forms of pronouns used adjectivally are also generally not in number agreement with plural noun forms” (Valeckienė 1998: 225), for example: Those two beetles were already familiar to us (see 2013 03 29, fiction). Adele Valeckienė explains the survival of dual forms of pronouns (especially personal pronouns)—for more on the motivation behind the origin of the dual, its decline, and its stages, see Rosinas 2009: 377, 380, 492–493, 498, 500—by the fact that adjectives were not attached to nominal pronouns, and thus agreement was not an issue for them. She regards the dual forms of pronouns used in such circumstances as plural variants, since she says that “[w]hen referring to two persons, one can say: We are coming and The two of us are coming; therefore, alongside the singular and plural, certain dual forms of pronouns are used” (Valeckienė1 1 Data were collected from the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian at Vytautas Magnus University; the parentheses indicate the date accessed and the domain of language use. D. KRIKŠTAPONYTĖ. Nauji duomenys apie įvardžių dviskaitą dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje 179 1998: 225, 354). Vladimir Plungian emphasizes that the dual occurs more often in pronominal systems than in noun systems, and that in some languages pronouns are the only group in which the dual is distinguished. Lithuanian is given as an example (Plungian 2011: 75). The article goes on to present the actual (or near-actual) situation regarding the use of the dual number of pronouns in contemporary Lithuanian, showing that dual pronoun forms occur in texts representing all functional styles. FORMS AND NUMBERS Before presenting Table 1 and discussing its data, it is worth briefly reviewing the data-collection methodology and noting that the first step in the study was to find the dual forms of pronouns used in Contemporary Lithuanian Grammar, Volume I of Lithuanian Grammar, and A. Valeckienė’s Functional Grammar of Lithuanian. Only afterward was it examined whether those forms occur in the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian at Vytautas Magnus University (hereafter VDU). It should also be emphasized that, on the basis of the dual forms of pronouns found in the corpus, the article’s author searched for all possible forms, including forms that may at times be not entirely possible and that are atypical of pronoun dual formation. The dual forms of pronouns used in the VDU corpus and presented in Table 1 were collected from all the corpus’s functional styles, i.e. fiction and nonfiction, administrative literature, journalism, and spoken language. The rows on the left list the dual forms of pronouns. The first, boldfaced form is considered the primary norm variant, while the form following it is secondary. The variants are indicated on the basis of KP 2009. Usage statistics are given on the right. Some forms of pronouns that coincide across cases are not specifically distinguished in Table 1; that is, if a pronoun form occurs in the corpus in both the nominative and accusative, their usage statistics are presented together. However, if a particular dual form of a pronoun occurs in the VDU corpus, for example, only in the nominative, only the number of nominative occurrences is indicated. Data for coinciding cases of primary and secondary norm variants are presented somewhat differently in Table 1: the occurrence statistics for each case are given separately for these variants, so that their usage tendencies and competition with one another can be observed. 180 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86 TABLE 1. Dual forms of pronouns in the VDU corpus Pronoun form Number of occurrences Mudu (Nom., Acc.) 5571 Mudvi (Nom., Acc.) 1296 Mudviejų 1342 Mudviem / mudviems (Dat.) 643 / 6 Mudviem / mudviems (Ins.) 1 / – Judu (Nom., Acc.) 776 Judvi (Nom., Acc.) 140 of you two 491 you two (f.) / you two (f.) (N.) 103 / 5 Judviem / judviems (Instr.) 1 / – Jiedvi / jodvi / juodvi (Nom.) 183 / 78 / 49 Jiedvi / jodvi / juodvi (Gen.) 3 / 2 / 1 of the two of them 3 they two (f.) / they two (f.) (N.) 168 / 5 Jiemdviem (N.) 1 Jodviem (N.) 3 Juodu / jiedu (Nom.) 1813 / 3658 Juodu / jiedu (G.) 369 / 3 Juodviejų 97 they two (m.) / they two (m.) (N.) 47 / 3 they two (m.) / they two (m.) (Ins.) 1 / – Jųdviejų 781 Aniedvi (V.) 2 Aniedviem (N.) 3 Aniemdviem (N.) 1 Those two / those two (nom.) 17 / 50 Those two / those two (gen.) 17 / – Anuodviejų 1 Of those two 5 D. KRIKŠTAPONYTĖ. Nauji duomenys apie įvardžių dviskaitą dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje 181 Pronoun form Number of occurrences Šiedvi / šiodvi / šiuodvi (V.) 24 / 2 / 2 Šiedvi / šiodvi / šiuodvi (G.) 5 / 2 / 3 Of these two 1 Šiedviem (N., Įn.) 2 Šiemdviem (N.) 1 Šitiedvi (V.) 2 Šituodu / šitiedu (V.) 2 / 2 Šituodu / šitiedu (G.) 1 / – Šiuodu / šiedu (V.) 48 / 263 Šiuodu / šiedu (G.) 54 / – Šiuodviejų 4 Šiųdviejų 29 Those two / those two / those two (V.) 14 / 6 / 6 Tiedvi / todvi / tuodvi (G.) 2 / – / – Tiedviem (N., Įn.) 4 Tiemdviem (N.) 1 Todviem (N.) 1 Tuodu / tiedu (V.) 134 / 285 Tuodu / tiedu (G.) 77 /2 To those two (Instr.) 2 Of those two 5 Both (fem., acc.) 208 By both (Instr.) 7 Both (nom.) 70 Both (dat.) / both 7 / 1 With both (Instr., fem.) 10 For both (dat.) / both 18 / – Both (fem., nom.) 110 In both (loc., fem.) 90 In both (loc.) 31 182 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86 Pronoun form Number of occurrences Both 27 Of both 55 Both (Nom., Acc.) 11183 Both (Nom., Acc.) 153 Of both 1 In both 1478 In both 776 Of both 12830 Both / both (Dat.) 3653 / 668 Both / both (Instr.) 2092 / – Both (Nom., Acc.) 21863 Both (Nom., Acc.) 1020 Each of the two (Nom.) 3 Kituodu (V.) 3 Kuriedvi (V.) 3 Which two / which two (V.) 3 / 4 Which two / which two (G.) 1 / – Pačiudu (V.) 1 Vienidvi (V.) 1 Vienudu (V.) 60 It can be seen that the pronouns both and their forms are used most often. Personal pronouns are somewhat less frequent. Demonstrative and other indefinite pronouns are used much less often. Also striking is the unusual genitive form of the pronouns both, of both: – Okay, okay. Yes. Well, I don’t know yet. – Nobody takes it. – Nobody takes it. – Of both (see 2013 03 26, spoken language). This is most likely a colloquial formation. The table does not list masculine and feminine forms of pronouns separately, since it is often quite difficult to determine gender. The feminine and masculine nominative and accusative forms are always clear, for example: Exactly half past one mudvi were standing in Amanda’s library (see 2012 12 11, fiction). Difficulties arise when the genitive, dative, and instrumental forms of feminine and masculine pronouns D. KRIKŠTAPONYTĖ. Nauji duomenys apie įvardžių dviskaitą dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje 183 the case forms coincide, for example: In the village of Galai, A. Vilemas was murdered by V. Mikaliakas after the two of them mutual conflict (see 2012 12 11, journalism); At first Vanda was furious with her, and later, because of this, the friendship between the two of them almost broke off. For Sofi was terribly, deathly afraid of becoming involved in the main activity, while to Vanda such avoidance of combat seemed not only unpatriotic... (see 2012 12 11, fiction). In these examples, nouns replaced by a pronoun in the sentence help identify the pronoun’s morphological gender. In the first example, the pronoun’s genitive form is masculine, while in the second it is feminine. Sometimes the pronoun’s gender can be determined only from a preceding or following sentence in which it is mentioned, for example: ...the elder, Valdas, is raising sons Mantas and Lukas; the younger, Darius, is raising a daughter, Emilija. But once their mother both of them used to say the same thing: “It doesn’t matter whether you come back from the competitions as champions or not—the laundry doesn’t get any smaller because of it” (see 2013 05 09, journalism). Here we can discern one of the functions characteristic of pronouns—anaphora, which, according to Albertas Rosinas, “links two acts of communication that have one common referent” (Rosinas 1996: 10). It is somewhat easier to distinguish the gender of the dative and instrumental case forms of pronouns in the second paradigm, for example: Mark had never told Vilis about it. The two of them parked their car in a small square in the El Palmar market. As soon as the two of them had got out, Mark once again began talking animatedly (see 2013 05 09, fiction). In this sentence, the pronoun’s form itself makes it clear that the masculine morphological gender is used; cf. feminine: Motusė walked up the stairs, one foot after the other, as if nothing in the world could stop her or make her walk faster, while Tony and Kerim strode the two of them at her sides like a couple of princes (see 2013 05 09, fiction). It is different with the dative and instrumental cases of the first paradigm, because their masculine and feminine forms coincide, for example: When the two of us reached the top of the stairs, Hacumomo began banging on the door and calling for Mother. She, tying her belt, opened the door and looked us over angrily. “What has happened to the two of you!” she cried (see 2012 12 12, fiction); “Don’t go, Jogaila,” Marianas Zigizmundas stopped him. “It’s not their fault. Art both elevates a person and casts them into the abyss. Such is its power. Thank you both of you. And you too, Jogaila. And you too, Kazimieras... for offering sympathy in a difficult hour...” (see 2012 12 12, fiction). In the first example, the pronoun refers to female persons, while in the second it refers to male persons. If reference is made to both female and male persons, the generalized masculine is used, for example: Raimis moved to Kaunas, closer to Vilija, and the two of them began looking for office space (see 2013 05 09, journalism). Thus, forms of the feminine and masculine cases that coincide can usually be identified only from the broader context. It was observed that in many cases the data from the VDU corpus were insufficient for this. 184 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY NORM VARIANTS The data in Table 1 show that various forms of the dual pronouns are used in the VDU corpus, and appear to mean exactly the same thing. For example, juodu and jiedu. The meaning is exactly the same—“he and someone else.” However, some pronouns and their forms are considered primary norm variants, while others are secondary. The stems of the nominative and accusative forms of masculine pronouns among the primary norm variants are characterized by <uo>, while those of the feminine nominative and accusative forms have <ie> (KP 2009: 23). Markas Roduner and Veslava Čižik-Prokaševa call the secondary norm-variant pronouns plural forms, because they consider it inappropriate to treat compound forms whose first component is a plural form with the numeral du, dvi as dual forms. They emphasize that compounds (for example, these two) and secondary norm-variant forms indicate the decline of the dual pronouns (Roduner, Čižik-Prokaševa 2006: 76–77). Zigmas Zinkevičius calls the forms juodvi, tuodvi, šiuodvi, jodvi, todvi, šiodvi, jiedu, tiedu, šiedu linguistic corruptions and proposes using the old, correct forms juodu, tuodu, šiuodu, jiedvi, tiedvi, šiedvi (Zinkevičius 1996: 58). A. Rosinas takes a quite different view, arguing that all dual-pronoun forms are acceptable and correct because they developed in accordance with the regularities of morphological development in Lithuanian (dialects) (Rosinas 2000: 10). The statistics on pronoun usage presented in Table 1 show that the primary norm variants of feminine dual pronouns are much more frequent in the VDU corpus than the secondary variants. However, the masculine nominative personal pronoun juodu is less frequent than the pronoun jiedu, which is considered a secondary norm variant (nominative case) and is used nearly several times more often in the VDU corpus. The secondary variants of demonstrative pronouns šiedu, tiedu, aniedu (nominative and accusative cases counted together) are used almost twice as often as the pronouns šiuodu, tuodu, anuodu, which are considered primary norm variants. However, a comparison of the frequency of use of the accusative forms of primary and secondary variants shows that šiedu and aniedu are not used at all as accusative forms in the VDU corpus. The accusative form of tiedu is used, but much less often than that of tuodu. The aggregate statistics show that the variants kuriuodu and kuriedu occur equally often, but the nominative form kuriedu is used more often, while kuriuodu is more frequent in the accusative. The nominative forms šituodu and šitiedu are also used equally often. In the VDU corpus, šitiedu is not used at all in the accusative. D. KRIKŠTAPONYTĖ. Nauji duomenys apie įvardžių dviskaitą dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje 185 It can be seen that the nominative forms of masculine-gender pronouns’ dual secondary variants are gradually displacing the primary ones. But the tendency in the use of accusative forms is the opposite, since the primary variants of pronoun dual forms predominate. DATIVE AND INSTRUMENTAL FORMS The dative and instrumental forms of pronouns should also be discussed; one is written with <s>, the other without it. Their spelling varies: datives and instrumentals without <s> are considered the primary normative variants, while those written with this letter are secondary (KP 2009: 22). The Consultation Bank of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language emphasizes that both forms with <s> and those without it are acceptable, but preference is given to forms without <s>, for example, abiem.2 By contrast, plural forms of pronoun duals are evaluated differently: abejiems, abejoms are considered the primary normative variants, while abejiem, abejom are secondary (KP 2009: 22). It is clear that the number of occurrences of primary and secondary normative variants of pronoun dual dative and instrumental forms differs greatly in the VDU corpus. The primary normative variants occur several dozen times more often. It is likely that most of the texts included in the corpus have been edited, which explains why the primary and secondary normative variants are so clearly distinguished. NEW FORMS Let us discuss the paradigms of pronoun duals. There are two. The first paradigm includes the forms of the first and second persons, as well as the forms of the pronouns abu (abudu), abi (abidvi); the second includes third-person forms (juodu, jiedvi, tuodu, tiedvi, etc.). The data in Table 1 show that the VDU corpus also contains pronoun dual forms that are not found in The Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (2006: 280). These are the following (the forms in the corpus are unaccented): V. aniedu, šiedu, šiodvi, šiuodvi, šitiedu, vienudu, vienidvi, pačiudu, kuriedu, kituodu, jodvi, juodvi, tiedu, tuodvi, todvi; K. abidviejų, anuodviejų, anųdviejų, šiedviejų, šiuodviejų, juodviejų, jiedviejų; 2 http://vlkk.lt/lit/2509, accessed 2013 05 14. 186 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86 N. anie(m)dviem, juodviem, juodviems; G. šiodvi, šiuodvi, jodvi, juodvi, tiedu; Įn. tuodviem, juodviem. It may be surmised that the genitive forms šiuodviejų, juodviejų, jiedviejų, anuodviejų, aniedviejų, anu̇dviejų, šiedviejų are forms of masculine pronouns šiuodu, juodu, jiėdu, anuodu, aniedu, šiedu or feminine pronouns šiuodvi, juodvi, jiedvi, anuodvi, aniedvi, šiedvi. The VDU corpus made it possible to establish that only masculine forms occur in the genitive, dative, and instrumental cases: šiuodviejų, anuodviejų, aniemdviem and tuodviem. The forms juodviejų, jiedviejų, juodviem, however, indicate both feminine and masculine grammatical gender, for example: Every day after classes I walked home alone. I felt so foolish. Pathetic. I couldn’t go to Lucy’s when juodviem everything was fine with Nesta (see 2013 01 12, fiction); In a town deep in the countryside, he was thought to be Jupiter incarnate, and Paul Mercury, so the town priest drove out garlanded oxen to sacrifice juodviejom (see 2013 01 12, fiction). The first example indicates feminine gender, while the second indicates masculine gender. It was not possible to determine the gender of other forms, i.e. anu̇dviejų, šiedviejų, aniedviem, juodviems, because the broader context was lacking. The form abidviejų has already been discussed in the subsection Forms and Numbers. The declension of the pronouns tiedu, todvi, which were included neither in A. Valeckienė’s nor in the paradigms of the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian, is given by A. Rosinas (2000: 11): Nom., Acc. ti̇edu, tȯdvi; Gen. tu̇dviejų; Dat. tie(m)dviem, tó(m)dviem; Instr. tie(m)dviem, tó(m)dviem. Compared with the second paradigms distinguished by A. Valeckienė and the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (Valeckienė 1998: 356; DLKG 2006: 280), it is apparent that the genitive, dative, and instrumental forms of these pronouns are formed in the same way. Only the nominative differs. A. Rosinas (2000: 10) also emphasizes that tiedu, todvi fit better with the corresponding plural forms. Paradigms for other pronouns could be constructed only if all their forms could be found in the text of a single author. The VDU corpus does not make this possible. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the masculine and feminine paradigms of these pronouns are probably mixed: one case form may come from one declension paradigm and another from a different one. D. KRIKŠTAPONYTĖ. Naujų duomenys apie įvardžių dviskaitą dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje 187 Some case forms may belong to one declension paradigm, while others belong to another. It may be surmised that some pronouns representing primary and secondary norm variants are declined according to the same paradigm. An obvious example might be the forms jiedvi and jodvi. Both are third person and feminine, so the oblique-case paradigm of the pronoun jodvi should probably be exactly the same as that of the pronoun jiedvi. Many more such case-form variants were found in the corpus. INCREASING FREQUENCY OF USE It was observed that the number of occurrences of dual pronoun forms in the VDU corpus had increased. To demonstrate this, we drew on the 2006 article “The Category of Number” by M. Roduner and V. Čižik-Prokaševa, in which the authors presented more than twenty different dual pronoun forms from the VDU corpus (cf. Roduner, Čižik-Prokaševa 2006: 77) and indicated their frequency of use. Let us compare the frequency of masculine forms in the VDU corpus in 2006 and 2013: 2 TABLE. Frequency of use of dual pronoun forms in the VDU corpus in 2006 / 2013 Pronoun form | Frequency of use in 2006 and 2013 | Pronoun form | Frequency of use in 2006 and 2013 Mudu | 2757 / 5571 | Šiedu | 199 / 263 Judu | 323 / 776 | Šitiedu | 0 / 2 Jiedu | 2004 / 3661 | Šituodu | 1 / 3 Juodu | 846 / 2182 | Šiuodu | 35 / 102 Aniedu | 30 / 50 | Tiedu | 183 / 287 Anuodu | 9 / 34 | Tuodu | 89 / 211 A comparison of the statistics for 2006 and 2013 shows that the number of occurrences of dual pronoun forms increased considerably. This should partly be attributed to the growth of the corpus itself. At the same time, however, this indicates that the dual use of pronouns is not disappearing; as new sources are added to the corpus, the number of its occurrences also grows. 188 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86 CONCLUSIONS 1. In contemporary Lithuanian, the use of the standard and secondary normative variants of pronoun dual forms is changing; that is, the secondary variants are gradually displacing the standard ones. This, however, is characteristic only of masculine nominative forms, since secondary variants of feminine nominative and accusative forms, as well as dative and instrumental forms, are not used more frequently than the pronoun dual forms regarded as the standard normative variants. 2. New, analogically formed pronoun dual forms have appeared in the VDU corpus; they are not presented either in The Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian or in A. Valeckienė’s Functional Grammar of the Lithuanian Language. The paradigms of these forms cannot be established from the VDU corpus, but it has been observed that the masculine and feminine paradigms are most likely mixed. 3. The dual form of pronouns is certainly not disappearing from contemporary Lithuanian and is used quite actively. This is clearly shown by a comparison of statistical data on masculine pronoun dual forms from 2006 and 2013, which indicates that the number of pronoun dual forms increased as new sources were added to the corpus. ABBREVIATIONS V. – nominative; G. – accusative; N. – dative; Įn. – instrumental. ŠALTINIAI Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas. Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Kompiuterinės lingvistikos centras. Prieiga per internetą: <http://tekstynas.vdu.lt/tekstynas/menu?page=advanced>. DLKG 2006: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Redagavo Vytautas Ambrazas. Ketvirtoji pataisyta laida, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. LKG I 1965: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Redagavo Kazys Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis. V a l e c k i e n ė A. 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. D. KRIKŠTAPONYTĖ. Nauji duomenys apie įvardžių dviskaitą dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje 189 LITERATŪRA J a b l o n s k i s J. 1957: Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. KP 2009: Gramatinės formos ir jų vartojimas. Sudarė Rita Miliūnaitė, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijos leidybos institutas. P l u n g i a n V. 2011: Gramatinių kategorijų tipologija 2, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, asociacija „Academia Salensis“. R o d u n e r M., Č i ž i k - P r o k a š e v a V. 2006: Skaičiaus kategorija. – Daiktavardinio junginio tyrimai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 67–100. R o s i n a s A. 1996: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. R o s i n a s A. 2000: Dėl įvardžių dviskaitos. – Gimtoji kalba 7–9, 9–11. R o s i n a s A. 2009: Baltų kalbų semantinė ir morfologinė struktūra, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. VLKK KB – Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos Konsultacijų bankas. Prieiga per internetą: <http://vlkk.lt/lit/2509>. Z i n k e v i č i u s Z. 1996: Apie įvardžių dviskaitą. – Kalbos kultūra 68, 58. Gauta 2013 09 17 Priimta 2013 12 20 NEW DATA ABOUT THE DUAL NUMBER OF PRONOUNS IN MODERN LITHUANIAN S u m m a r y The article New Data about the Dual Number of Pronouns in Modern Lithuanian provides the forms of the dual number of pronouns whose inventory was made on the basis of the data kept in the Corpus of Vytautas Magnus University. However, it should be noted that the forms of the dual number of pronouns were first sought in the Grammar of Modern Lithuanian, Volume I of the Grammar of Lithuanian and A. Valeckienė’s Functional Grammar of the Lithuanian Language. The article addresses the problem of identification of coincident forms of masculine and feminine gender and discusses specific examples. Based on Language Recommendations, principal and secondary variants of the norm are singled out. Statistical data prompt a conclusion that the secondary variants of the dual number of masculine pronouns in the nominative case are more commonly used than the principal variants; however, the secondary variants of the dual number of pronouns in the genitive case are far less commonly used than the principal 190 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86 ones. For example, the forms of the principal variants of the norm of the dual number of feminine pronouns used in both the nominative and the accusative case are far more common than the forms of secondary variants. What is more, the principal variants of the norm in the dative and instrumental case are far more common than secondary variants. The article further presents and discusses the forms of the dual number of pronouns, which do not belong to the first or the second paradigm and are most likely formed on the basis of equivalent forms of the said paradigms. The article ends with the comparison of statistics of the masculine variants in the nominative case of 2006 and 2013 leading to the conclusion that the forms of the dual number of pronouns in the Corpus of Vytautas Magnus University are on the increase. Of course, it is associated with the growth of the corpus itself; however, it is obvious that as the corpus is growing, the number of the forms of the dual number of pronouns tends to increase rather than decrease. KEYWORDS: dual number of pronouns, principal and secondary variants, new forms, more frequent use. DEIMANTĖ KRIKŠTAPONYTĖ Vilniaus universitetas Universiteto g. 3, LT-01513 Vilnius [email protected] D. KRIKŠTAPONYTĖ. Naujì duomenys apie įvardžių dv is k aitą dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje 191