Nauji duomenys apie įvardžių dviskaitą dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje

D. KriKštaponytė. new data on the double number of pronouns in contemporary Lithuanian language 179 The Diamond Wedding University of Vilnius New data on the change of names Current English Language KEY WORDS: pronouns plural, main and secondary variants of the norm, new forms, increasing use. formerly the plural was used quite lively in the classes of verbs and nouns (jablonskis 1957: 194, 205, 226–228, 249). the forms of both classes were combined. As an example, we can give the following usage, which is already considered relative and non-normal: Mudvi pasitraukėva to a dark corner, behind the bushes, where not a single candle was burning (see 2013 01 09, fiction1). Some pronouns, which in the sentence usually go with the forms of nouns, verbs and participants, but are not combined by number, have retained the plural until now (Valeckienė 1998: 225), for example: Mudu savaime pradėjome vadinti vienas kitą vardais, ir tai įvyko visiškai natūraliai ir paprastai (see 2013 04 15, fiction). “the plural forms of adjectively used pronouns are also usually not coordinated in number with the plural forms of nouns” (Valeckienė 1998: 225), for example: Tiedvi squirrels were already familiar to us (see 2013 03 29, fiction). adelė Valeckienė bases the survival of pronoun (especially personal) plural forms (for more on the motivation of the plural origin, its decline and its stages see rosinas 2009: 377, 380, 492–493, 498, 500) on the fact that adjectives were not combined with noun pronouns, so the problem of coordination was not relevant to them. she considers the plural forms of pronouns used in such circumstances as plural variants, because she says that “[w]hen denoting two persons, it is possible to say: Mes ateinam and Mudu ateinam, therefore certain plural forms of pronouns are used next to the singular and plural” (Valeckienė 1 Data collected from Vytautas Didysis University Contemporary Lithuanian Language Textbook; the date of viewing and the area of use of the language are indicated in parentheses. 180 Languages and Culture | 86 1998: 225, 354). Vladimir Plungian emphasizes that the plural is more common in pronoun systems than in noun systems, and in some languages pronouns are the only group in which the plural occurs. An example is given in Lithuanian (plungian 2011: 75). The following article presents a real (or close to it) situation of the use of pronouns in the present Lithuanian language, which proves that pronouns in the two-numbered form are found in texts of all functional styles. Before presenting Table 1 and discussing its data, it is necessary to briefly review the methodology of data collection and to say that the first step of the work was to find the plural forms of the pronouns used in the Current Lithuanian Grammar, the Lithuanian Grammar I, and Valeckienės Functional Lithuanian Grammar. only afterwards it was looked at whether these forms are used in the textbook of Contemporary Lithuanian Language of Vytautas Magnus University (hereinafter – VDU). It should also be emphasized that the author of the article searched for all possible, perhaps sometimes not entirely possible and not characteristic for the formation of pronouns in the plural forms found in the text. The plural forms of pronouns used in the VDU texts presented in Table 1 are collected from all functional styles of the texts, i.e. fictional and non-fictional and administrative literature, journalism and oral language. The rows on the left side show the plural forms of the pronouns. the first, emphasized form is considered the main variant of the norm, and the adjacent one - secondary. The form variants are based on Kp 2009. The right side shows usage statistics. In Table 1, the vowel forms of some coincident pronouns are not specifically distinguished, i.e., if the pronoun form is used in the text in both the noun and the suffix vowels, the overall statistics of their use are presented. but if a particular plural form of a pronoun is used in the VDu text, for example only in the noun's singular, only the number of uses in the noun's singular is indicated. In a slightly different way, Table 1 presents the data of the overlapping verbs of the main and secondary variants of the norm, i.e. statistics of the use of each verb are given separately for these variants, so that the tendency of their use and competition can be seen. D. KriKštaponytė. new data on the plurality of pronouns in contemporary Lithuanian 181 Table 1. plural forms of pronouns in VDu text įvardžio forma pavartojimų skaičius Mudu (V., G.) 5571 Mudvi (V., G.) 1296 Mudviejų 1342 Mudviem / mudviems (n.) 643 / 6 Mudviem / mudviems (inn.) 1 / − judu (V., G.) 776 judvi (V., G.) 140 judviejų 491 For two / for two (n.) 103 / 5 For two (incl.) 1 / − Jiedvi / jodvi / juodvi (V.) 183 / 78 / 49 They two / they two / black (G.) 3 / 2 / 1 jiedviejų 3 Jiedviem / jiedviems (n.) 168 / 5 jiemdviem (n.) 1 jodviem (n.) 3 Black / they two (V.) 1813 / 3658 Black / two (G.) 369 / 3 black two 97 Black / black (n.) 47 / 3 1 / − theirtwo 781 aniedwi (V.) 2 aniedwi (n.) 3 aniemdwi (n.) 1 17 / 50 17 / 50 Anuodu / aniedu (G.) 17 / − anuodviejų 1 anųdviejų 5 182 Language Culture | 86 Šiedvi / šiodvi / šiuodvi (V.) 24 / 2 / 2 Šiedvi / įvardžio forma pavartojimų skaičius šiodvi / šiuodvi (G.) 5 / 2 / 3 šiedviejų 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 / − šiųdviejų 4 šiųdviejų 29 Tiedvi / todvi / tuodvi (V.) 14 / 6 / 6 Tiedvi / todvi/ tuodvi (G.) 2 / − / − tiedviem (n., įn.) 4 tiemdviem (n.) 1 todviem (n.) 1 134 / 285 Tuodu / tiedu (V.) 77 /2 tuodviem (inn.) 2 tųdviejų 5 abijas 208 abeiis 7 abeji 70 For both / both 7 / 1 both 10 For both / obojom 18 / − oboje 110 oboje 90 oboje 31 D. KriKštaponytė. new data on the plural of pronouns in the current Lithuanian language įvardžio forma pavartojimų skaičius 183 abijus 27 abijų 55 abi (V., G.) 11183 abidvi (V., G.) 153 abidviejų 1 abiejose 1478 abiejuose 776 abiejų 12830 Both / abiems (n.) 3653 / 668 Both / for both (n.) 2092 / − both (V., G.) 21863 both (V., G.) 1020 Katruodu (V.) 3 Other language (V.) 3 1000 years (V.) 3 3 / 4 3 / 4 Kuriuodu / kuridu (G.) 1 / − pačiudu (V.) 1 Single (V.) 1 Unit (V.) 60 It can be seen that the most commonly used pronouns are both, both and their forms. Fewer personal pronouns. Most of the time, they are used in combination with other indefinite pronouns. also falls into the eye the unusual pronoun abudu, abidvi noble form of both: - All right, all right. - Yeah. - Yeah. Well, I don't know yet. - Nobody does. - Nobody does. – Both (see 2013 03 26, spoken language). is probably a derivative of spoken language. The table does not show the masculine and feminine forms of pronouns separately, because it is often quite difficult to determine the gender. Always clear are the cases of the nominative and adjective forms of mot. and senior g., for example: Exactly at half past two mudvi stovėjome į Amandos knygyną (see 2012 12 11, fiction). The difficulties arise when the pronoun of the mot. and senior g. pronouns, the noun and the suffix 184 Languages Culture | 86 humorous forms coincide, for example: In the village of Galų A. Vilemą V. Mikaliakas murdered after a conflict between them (see 2012 12 11, publicistics); At first, Vanda was angry with her, and later that almost ended their friendship. Because Sophie was cruelly, mortally afraid of engaging in underground activities, and Vanda such avoidance of fighting seemed not only unpatriotic... (see 2012 12 11, fiction). In these examples, the morphological gender of the pronoun is determined by the nouns that are replaced by the pronoun in the sentence. In the first example, the pronoun genitive form is senior, and in the second – motto g. It happens that the pronoun genus can be found only from the preceding or following sentence, which mentions the pronoun, for example:...the older, Valdas, raises sons Mantas and Lukas, the younger, Darius – daughter Emilija. However, my mother used to say the same thing to both of us: “It doesn’t matter whether you return from the competition as champions or not – the washing does not decrease” (see 2013 05 09, publications). Here one of the characteristic functions of pronouns is seen – anaphora, which, according to Alberto Rosino, “connects two acts of communication with one common referent” (Rosino 1996: 10). It is easier to distinguish the genus of the funny forms of the noun and the genitive of the pronouns of the second paradigm, for example: Mark Willis never told about it. They parked their car in the small market square of El Palmar. As soon as they got off, Mark began to speak fluently to the ghost (see 2013 05 09, fiction). in this sentence it is already clear from the pronoun form that the masculine morphological gender of the pronoun is used, cf. mot. g. : Motušė walked up the stairs foot after foot, as if nothing in the world could stop her or make her go faster, and Tony and Kerim walked alongside her like princes (see 2013 05 09, fiction). This is different from the first paradigm, where the genitive and dative verbs have the same genitive and dative forms, for example: When we reached the top of the stairs, Hacumomo began to knock on the door and call Mother. She opened the door and looked at us angrily. "What happened to you?" − she shouted (see 2012 12 12, fiction); "Don't go, Jogaila," Marian Sigismund stopped him. - It's not their fault. Art both elevates man and throws him into the abyss. That is his power. Thank you guys. And to you, Jogaila. And to you, Kazimieras... for sympathizing in a difficult hour... (see 2012 12 12, fiction). In the first example, the pronoun refers to female persons, and in the second to male persons. if it is necessary to indicate both female and male persons, the generalizing form is used, e.g.: Raimis moved to Kaunas, closer to Vilija, and they started looking for office space (see 2013 05 09, publications). thus, overlapping forms of mot. and vir. g. verbs can usually be determined only from a broader context. It was noted that in many cases the data in the VDu textbook was not sufficient. D. KriKštaponytė. new data on the plurality of pronouns in contemporary Lithuanian language 185 paGrinDiniai ir šalutiniai norMos Variants From the data in table 1 it is apparent that the VDu text uses various plural forms of pronouns, which seem to mean exactly the same thing. for example, black and theytwo. the meaning is exactly the same – “he and something else.” but some pronouns and their forms are considered the main variants of the norm, and others – secondary. <uo> is typical for the roots of the genitive and adjective verbs of the senior g pronoun, and <ie> is typical for the roots of the genitive and adjective verbs of the mot. g pronoun (Kp 2009: 23). Mark Roduneris and Veslava Čižikprokaševa call the pronouns of the secondary norm variant plural, because they believe that the contemporary forms, whose first element consists of the plural form with the numerals du, dvi, are not appropriate to be considered binary forms. they emphasize that the forms of samplaika (for example, these two) and the variant of the secondary norm indicate the decline of the pronoun double (roduner, Čižikprokaševa 2006: 76−77). Zigmas Zinkevičius calls the forms juodvi, tuodvi, šiuodvi, jodvi, todvi, šiodvi, jiedu, tiedu, šiedu darkalas of the language and suggests using the old regular forms juodu, tuodu, šiuodu, jiedvi, tiedvi, šiedvi (Zinkevičius 1996: 58). A completely different opinion on this has a. rosinas, who claims that all pronoun forms in the plural are usable and regular, because they are formed according to the morphological development of the Lithuanian language (dialects) (rosinas 2000: 10). The statistics of pronoun usage in table 1 show that the main norm variants of the plural of mot. g. pronouns are much more common than the secondary ones in the VDu text. However, the number of uses of the personal pronoun of the principal noun declination is lower than that of the pronoun jiedu (noun declination), which is considered a secondary variant of the norm and is used almost several times more frequently in the VDu text. The secondary variants of demonstrative pronouns šiedu, tiedu, aniedu (noun and adjective verbs du kartus dažniau už pagrindiniais normos variantais laikomus įvardžius counted together) are used almost tutodu, tuodu, anuodu. However, when comparing the frequency of use of the final vowels of the main and secondary variants, it is clear that the final vowels šiedu and aniedu VDu are not used at all in the text. and here the pronoun tiedu final participle is used, but much less often than the pronoun tuodu. The general statistics show that the variants kuriuodu and kuriedu are used equally, but the cuidu noun is used more often, and kuriuodu – the adjective. The frequency of use of the noun verb forms šituodu and šitiedu is also the same. In the VDu text, this final vowel is not used at all. 186 Languages and Culture | 86 It can be seen that the secondary variants of the principal pronouns in the nominative subjunctive gradually push the principal ones. but the tendency to use the final vowels is the opposite, because the main pronouns in the plural prevail. The forms of the noun and adjective should also be discussed, one of which is written with, the other without it. their spelling varies, nouns and adverbs without je are considered the main variants of the norm, and written with this letter − secondary (Kp 2009: 22). In the Consultation Bank of the State Lithuanian Language Commission it is emphasized that both forms with and without ją are usable, but preference is given to forms without ją, for example, abiem.2 On the contrary, the plural forms of pronouns in the plural are evaluated: abiem, abiem are considered the main variants of the norm, and abiem, abiom – secondary (Kp 2009: 22). It is clear that in the VDu text there is a great difference in the number of uses of pronouns in the plural of the principal and secondary norms of the noun and the pronoun. Several times more basic variants of the norm. It is assumed that most of the texts included in the textbook are editable, so the main and secondary variants of the norm are well distinguished. In New Form, let's discuss the paradigms of pronoun duality. there are two of them. The first paradigm includes both of the first and second persons and pronouns, both of the first and second persons and pronouns, both of the first formos, o antrajai – trečiojo asmens formos (juodu, jiedvi, tuodu, tiedvi ir kt.). and second persons and pronouns, both of the first and second persons and pronouns, both of the first and second persons and pronouns, both of the first and second persons and pronouns, both of the first and second persons and pronouns, both of the first and second persons and pronouns. V. aniedu, šiedu, šiodvi, šiuodvi, šitiedu, vienudu, vienidvi, pačiudu, kuriedu, kituodu, jodvi, juodvi, tiedu, tuodvi, todvi; K. both, anuodviejų, anųdviejų, dviejų, šitųdviejų, juodviejų, jiedviejų; 2 http://vlkk.lt/lit/2509, accessed 2013 05 14. D. KriKštaponytė. new data on the plurality of pronouns in contemporary Lithuanian language 187 N. anie(m)dviem, juodviem, juodviesiems; G. thesetwo, thesetwo, thesetwo, black, tiedu; inn. tuodviem, black. It may be assumed that the ancestors of šiuodviejų, juodviejų, jiedviejų, anuodviejų, aniedviejų, anųdviejų, šiedviejų are forms of the masculine pronouns šiuodu, juodu, jiedu, anuodu, aniedu, šiedu or of the feminine pronouns šiuodvi, juodvi, jiedvi, anuodvi, aniedvi, šiedvi. From the VDu textbook, it was possible to determine that only vyr. g. has the forms of the following nobleman, noblewoman, and nobleman's verbs: šiuodviejų, anuodviejų, aniemdviem and tądviem. and the forms juodviejų, jiedviejų, juodviem indicate both mot. and vir. morphological kinships, for example: Kasdien po pamokų namo ėjau viena. I felt so stupid. That's a shame. I couldn’t go to Lucy when the blacks and Nesta were all right (see 2013 01 12, fiction); In some city in the countryside, he was considered to be Jupiter incarnate, and Paul – Mercury, so the city priest expelled crowned bulls to be sacrificed to blacks (see 2013 01 12, fiction). in the first example, it is written mot. g., and in the second, it is written vyr. g. Other forms, i.e. anųdviejų, siedviejų, aniedviem, juodviems, could not be identified because of lack of broader context. The form of both has already been discussed in the section Forms and Figures. The conjugation of pronouns tiedu, todvi, which were not included neither in a. Valeckienės nor in the paradigms of Modern Lithuanian Grammar, is presented by a. rosinas (2000: 11): V., G. tiẽdu, tõdvi; K. two; N. te(m)dviem, tó(m)dviem; int. tiẽ(m)dviem, tõ(m)dviem. comparing with the second paradigm distinguished by a. Valeckienė and the Contemporary Lithuanian Grammar (Valeckienė 1998: 356; DlKG 2006: 280), it is clear that the genitive, instrumental, and possessive verb forms of these pronouns are formed in the same way. differs only in the denominator. a. rosinas (2000: 10) also emphasizes that tiedu, todvi better fits with the corresponding plural forms. to form paradigms of other pronouns would be possible only if all their forms could be found in the text of a single author. according to the VD textbook this cannot be done. Nevertheless, it is noticeable that the paradigms of these pronouns are probably confused: one of the verbs-