KALBA

IRENA SMETONIENĖ

BRIGITA DAMBRAUSKAITĖ

Vilnius University

IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF JONAS JABLONSKIS: CASE ERRORS AND MOTIVES FOR CORRECTION

KEYWORDS: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, locative, standardization.

INTRODUCTORY NOTES

Much has been written about the use, meanings, and errors of cases. The intensive standardization of the Lithuanian standard language began in the late nineteenth century; articles on language published in Varpas were important to its development. It is beyond doubt that, from the time of Jonas Jablonskis, the systematization and consolidation of the norms of the Lithuanian standard language became consistent. In the early twentieth century, linguists of Gimtoji kalba—Pranas Skardžius, Antanas Salys, Petras Jonikas, and Jurgis Talmantas, followed later by Juozas Balčikonis and Leonardas Dambriūnas (Dambrauskas)—had a major influence on standardization. From the mid-twentieth century, standardization work became collective and more organized. Articles discussing practical language matters began to appear periodically in various newspapers and journals, and polemics ensued. These articles most often examined individual cases of the use of various cases and errors related to usage and current issues of the time.

This article surveys the beginnings of correcting case errors, the efforts of interwar linguists to standardize case usage, the rationale behind corrections by J. Jablonskis and the linguists of Gimtoji kalba, and some later responses. J. Jablonskis’s work Cases and Prepositions, publis-

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

25

that of 1928, since it systematically and consistently describes the meanings of the cases, formulates principles for their use, provides examples, and identifies incorrect instances. Also reviewed and included in the study were publications in which J. Jablonskis published many articles on language usage (Varpas, Viltis, Švietimo darbas, Santara, Lietuva, Lietuvos, Kalba, relevant language columns in the newspapers Lietuvos žinių and Lietuvos aido), along with valuable articles from other periodicals (notably Vairas, Rytas, Pradai ir žygiai, Aidas, Draugija, Panevėžio balsas, and others). Data were also collected from publications on practical language usage. Of particular note is the interwar Kalbos patarėjas, prepared by linguists P. Skardžius, A. Salys, and L. Dambrauskas for Gimtoji kalba and published in 1939.

NOMINATIVE

Most nominative errors were observed when this case was used in place of the partitive genitive; when addressing people, groups of people, animals, objects, or phenomena with the nominative; in cases of fluctuating use of the nominative and accusative; to express a state; and in the use of the nominative and genitive forms of names. The nominative in place of the partitive genitive was already corrected by J. Jablonskis: In the town of Varėna, besides Jews, there also live Lithuanians (=Lithuanians) (Jablonskis 1911a: 1); not one person found unexpected friends (=unexpected friends)¹ (Jablonskis 1912a: 1–2); they visited institutions where there were sick Jews (=sick Jews) (Jablonskis 1914: 4); on the ground there occur salty springs (=salty springs occur in the ground) (Jablonskis 1920: 26); now even spruce, cedar, and birch forests occur (=spruce, cedar, and birch groves) (Jablonskis 1926a: 2); I never even dreamed that such things (=such things) could exist (Jablonskis 1926d: 159); there are people (=people) with lesser or greater flaws (Jablonskis 1926b: 50).

J. Jablonskis also recommended the partitive genitive when the nominative denotes abstract concepts or material: now there is already hope (=hope) that the patient will recover (Jablonskis 1911a: 1); do it again so that you may benefit from it (=benefit) (Jablonskis 1925a: 1212); hydrogen is part of all kinds of bodies (=hydrogen is found in various bodies, in the composition of various bodies) (Jablonskis 1920: 26); clay comes in all kinds of colors: white, yellow (=there is, occurs, clay of all kinds) (Jablonskis 1920: 25).

¹ The quoted examples follow current spelling rules; some examples have been abridged by the article’s authors. Editor’s note.

26

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

Straipsnių paskelbimo metai (1911, 1912, 1914, 1920, 1925, 1926) rodo J. Jablonskio taisymų nuoseklumą. Jis yra rašęs, kad kai kuriuos pasakymus būtų galima ir „viena kita žmonių kalbos tarme pateisinti“ (Jablonskis 1911: 2), tačiau siūlė tokių vardininkų vengti. Sakinių, kuriuose kalbininkas teikia ir vardininką, ir kilmininką, yra gerokai mažiau: auksas, sidabras ir dabar pasilaiko gryname pavidale (=aukso, sidabro ir dabar pasitaiko gryno pavidalo) (bet kalnų auksas, žemės auksas gali būti ir gryno pavidalo) (Jablonskis 1920: 26). Vieno straipsnio pabaigoje J. Jablonskis prisipažįsta, kad taisydamas beveik niekur nesiteisina, neaiškina klaidų taisymo („sunku buvo ir vietos rasti visokiems kalbos aiškinimams“) (Jablonskis 1925a: 1217). Vienas svarbiausių taisymo kriterijų – gyvoji žmonių kalba ir gramatikose užfiksuotos kalbos normos. Kalbininkas yra pabrėžęs, kad taisyklingai vartoti kalbą labiausiai padėtų pačių žmonių domėjimasis tarmėmis, tautosaka, reikėtų „naudoties vieno-kito kalbininko nurodymais ir bent vienu kalbos vadovėliu (kalbos sintakse)“ (Jablonskis 1911a: 3)². Remdamasis dalies kilmininko taisykle vardininką taisė ir Pranas Meškauskas: pasklido apylinkėj gandai (=gandų) (Meškauskas 1931: 61); iš Amerikos atėjo žinios, kad bankrutavo dar 4 bankai (=žinių; pvz., pasklido kalbų) (Meškauskas 1932: 67).

There was much discussion and debate about the nominative of address, especially the use of the address adjunct ponas (“Mr.”). P. Skardžius recommended the nominative for the address adjunct on the grounds of usage tradition. In his view, alongside pone mokytojau (“Mr. Teacher”) one may

² A stern response to J. Jablonskis’s corrections was published in 1912 in the periodical Draugija. Adomas Jakštas (writing under the name Druskius) harshly criticized the linguist for making numerous unnecessary corrections, excessive self-confidence, rigid opinions, and the absolute nature of his rulings (“Rygiškių Jonas brooks no doubts; he strikes like an axe”) (Jakštas 1912: 285). According to A. Jakštas, J. Jablonskis insists that one should write now there is hope that the patient will recover; eat, if you have the appetite; there was an opportunity to talk with him; does he have any sense, etc., while the sentences now there is hope; eat, if you have the appetite; there was an opportunity to talk with him; does he have sense, etc. are supposedly incorrect. In A. Jakštas’s opinion, both versions are good, differing only in meaning, and he suggests that J. Jablonskis not rely so strictly on people’s speech.

In 1912, J. Jablonskis published an ironic article in Viltis, addressing A. Jakštas and attempting to systematically rebut all of his remarks. He stated that A. Jakštas had failed to notice the comments explaining that he, J. Jablonskis, had not even attempted to list all the corrections, since doing so requires knowledge of all the dialects. J. Jablonskis tries to defend himself and substantiate particular cases of case usage with arguments. He disagrees with correcting the sentences now there is hope; there will be people. The rationale is clear: in his view, the partitive genitive is most appropriate in these sentences and in this particular usage, but he emphasizes that the nominative is also possible when speaking generally about hope or all people (Jablonskis 1912d: 2).

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

27

it may also be said Mr. Teacher, but it is better to say Almighty God, because almighty is first and foremost an adjective (cf. good father) (Skardžius 1998: 514)³.

J. Jablonskis proposed the nominative of the object as normative. When correcting a sentence, he replaced the accusative with the nominative: a drunk man (=a drunk man) is unpleasant to see (Jablonskis 1912b: 2)⁴; sweets (=sweets) are bought there where it is more beautiful

³ Later, the form of address prompted much discussion. For example, Vytautas Ambrazas considers the nominative the more usual form: when addressing someone with the word Mr, the more usual form is the nominative (Mr Director), although the vocative is also used (Mister Director). According to the linguist, the nominative probably became established here because the word serving as a politeness modifier occupies a position characteristic of an adjective (Ambrazas 1990: 11). Thus, in this case both forms are correct. Jonas Šukys agrees that both forms are possible, but says that the nominative should be avoided (Šukys 1995: 13). The grammar states that the formal polite form of address is occasionally expressed in colloquial speech by the singular nominative of the noun Mr; in other cases, the nominative is not recommended and is considered an error. Antanas Rasimavičius likewise believes that a modifier preceding a form of address is usually made to agree with it, but that the nominative of the noun Mr is not an error. In Practical Advice on Language (1976), the nominative and vocative forms of the nouns ponas, draugas (‘Mr’, ‘friend’) are given as equivalent, whereas in all other cases the nominative is not to be used to express address. In Language Advice (2009), ponas is considered a secondary variant of the norm, more appropriate to informal styles.

⁴ In 1912, a polemic began in the third issue of Viltis between Emša (the writer Marcelinas Šikšnys) and J. Jablonskis. Emša’s article on J. Jablonskis’s corrections and J. Jablonskis’s reply were published. In criticizing the linguist’s corrections, Emša relied on established usage. Instead of the accusative proposed by J. Jablonskis, he suggested the nominative: they have already matured in body, and are already maturing in mind (=their bodies have already matured, and their minds are already maturing) (Jablonskis 1912c: 1). Emša offers analogous examples (“after all, people say the rye has ripened, the spring crops are maturing, but not the spring crops, the rye are maturing”) (Jablonskis, ibid.) and says that J. Jablonskis recommends speaking this way on the basis of colloquial speech. Emša doubts whether people really speak this way and criticizes the linguist for trusting people’s speech too much (“it seems to me that people use many forms incorrectly, contrary to the requirements of grammar and logic”) (Jablonskis 1912c: 1).

J. Jablonskis agrees that the nominative may be used in this sentence, but also defends his own corrected sentence by drawing on other examples of language: his legs are cold; my legs grew tired; his neck broke; may your head break; the kitten broke its little legs; have your hands warmed up yet; I rested my hands and feet (Jablonskis 1912c: 2). He argues that Emša’s proposed example the rye are maturing proves nothing. Here, according to J. Jablonskis, we have an accusative of description, or of the descriptive element. J. Jablonskis also corrected a sentence of this kind: they have already matured physically and are already maturing mentally; thus, in the very first article he replaced these adverbs with the accusative case, which means that here, while agreeing that both variants are correct, he chose the one he preferred—the accusative.

Similarly, J. Jablonskis replaced the nominative with the accusative in 1926 in the Lithuanian journal, while revising Motiejus Gustaitis’s written Monograph: in them the pupil... felt reborn in the spirit of the ancestors (reborn in the spirit of the ancestors); and everyone returns strengthened in the national spirit (=strengthened in the national spirit) (Jablonskis 1926c: 8). No rationale for the correction is given. In Jonas Palionis’s view, J. Jablonskis justified the need for the accusative with such folk sayings of specific meaning but remote sense as “with hands chilled, legs tired, head wearied, face brightened”.

28 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

padaryta (Jablonskis 1914: 4); prisieis badą kęsti (=teks badą kęsti) (Jablonskis 1917: 2). Panašiai taisė Jonas Murka: jaunam mat berneliui reik protą (=protas) plėtot, kad vėliau išaugus naudingu pastot („suvestinis veiksnys šalia bendraties vardininko reikalingas“) (Murka 1917: 14–15). Gimtojoje kalboje teikiamos abi formos: reikia turėti tą veikalą, reikia turėti tas veikalas (Talmantas 1933: 40). Kalbos patarėjuje abu variantai (reikia darbas dirbti ir reikia darbą dirbti) teikiami kaip lygiaverčiai, nurodomas svarbus argumentas: galininkas plačiau vartojamas vakarų aukštaičių bei žemaičių tarmėse ir todėl teiktinesnis bendrinei kalbai (Kalbos patarėjas 1939: 105). P. Skardžius, nors ir rašė, kad sakiniai šulinys kasti nelengva ir šulinį kasti nelengva yra lygiaverčiai (Skardžius 1998: 177), dar kartą pabrėžė mintį, kad vardininkas plačiai vartojamas rytų tarmėse, tačiau žemaičiai vietoj vardininko sako galininką. Istorija ir dabartinė vartosena rodo, kad vardininkas nebėra gajus, todėl norminė forma galėtų būti galininkas (Skardžius 1998: 688).

J. Jablonskis, drawing on living speech (my sides ache, my hands sting), corrected the nominative found in written texts with the verbs to ache, to hurt to the accusative: all the muscles, all the bones hurt (=the muscles, the bones) (Jablonskis 1925b: 186); the poor fellow’s heart began to hurt (=his heart) (Jablonskis 1926b: 50); but with the verbs to tire, to turn, the linguist retains the nominative and changes the whole construction: his head grew tired (=his head grew tired) (Jablonskis 1927: 2, 4).

Visada daug klausimų kėlė vardininko ir įnagininko vartosena. Ne kartą savo straipsniuose J. Jablonskis daiktavardinį būvio vardininką yra keitęs įnagininku: kun. Justinas buvo Petrapilio Kunigų Akademijos profesorius (=profesoriumi) ir ekonomas (=ekonomu), o paskui – Žemaičių Kunigų Seminarijos inspektorius (=inspektoriumi), galop jos rektorius (=rektoriumi); Varnių seminarijos rektorius tuo metu buvo Motiejus Valančius (=rektoriumi); ir tapo jis katalikų šeimynų židinys (=židiniu) (Jablonskis 1926g: 404)⁵. Įnagi-

Emša also criticized J. Jablonskis’s corrections because they changed the meaning of the sentence. Here J. Jablonskis provided examples from other languages (Polish, French, German) and, on their basis, emphasized the importance of context. It is clear that J. Jablonskis tried to correct systematically, striving to establish a system and formulate general rules.

⁵ A. Jakštas, in an article published in a Draugija publication, harshly criticizes J. Jablonskis for insisting that the nominative be used everywhere with the verb to be and rejecting the construction with the instrumental. According to the critic, “the author is wrong to retain only one construction. We are even astonished that Rygiškių Jonas cannot distinguish the meanings of sentences such as he is a king (in reality) and he is a king (on stage)” (Jakštas 1912: 287). J. Jablonskis disagrees with A. Jakštas’s unfounded criticism. He says that he did not write that way in his articles either. The linguist says that he quoted the sentence in question from Antanas Juška’s dictionary, relied on it, and advised correcting other similar sentences in the same way. The distinction between the nominative and instrumental is perceived, but J. Jablonskis does not explain more specifically, beyond the examples mentioned

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

29

The instrumental case, as J. Jablonskis wrote, is used to express a temporary state, transformation, or becoming.

J. Jablonskis did not use the now-standard term nominative of the name; in his works he mentions the nonexistent nominative of the subject, which is corrected to the genitive: the river Kražantė flows (=the Kražantė River flows); even the village Beduonai is already visible (=the village of Beduonys). By analogy, he also corrected word order: that night in the village of Serdokai (=in the village of Serdokai) a farmer’s granary was broken into; now a school will be established in the village of Bedruskiai (=in the village of Bedruskiai); the locative was most likely corrected by analogy as well: a mill in the city of Radviliškis (=in the city of Radviliškis) (Jablonskis 1911b: 2). Jurgis Talmantas wrote in Gimtoji kalba that the nominative of the name is displacing the genitive of the name from usage. Expressions such as the steamer “Kęstutis,” the gymnasium “Aušra” are foreign to the Lithuanian language. One should say the “Kęstutis” steamer is departing (Talmantas 1934: 118). Drawing on living usage, Juozas Balčikonis defended expressions such as the river Kražantė (Balčikonis 1978: 72). P. Skardžius wrote that in names it is better to use what is called the genitive of definition: Šviesa printing house, the Baltic Sea, the Švyturys bookstore, the “Regina” laboratory (instead of a laboratory produced at “Regina”), the Pienocentras snack bar (instead of the snack bar Pienocentras), although some instances of the nominative of the name are also acceptable (Skardžius 1998: 741). In an article published in 1938, A. Salys says that the genitive of the name is an old

examples; here he does not elaborate on them: “the difference between these two cases when they are used as predicates is a very complicated matter” (Jablonskis 1912d: 3). That A. Jakštas’s criticism was unfounded, and that J. Jablonskis did not in fact insist strictly on writing the nominative, is shown by instances in which J. Jablonskis offers both the nominative and the instrumental as corrections to sentences: they would like to lead the people= (they would like to be leaders of the people, to lead the people, to lead for the people) (Jablonskis 1911b: 2). For J. Jablonskis, systematicity of language was one of the most important criteria for correction.

A. Jakštas, in claiming that J. Jablonskis avoids the instrumental, does not explain why he criticizes this sentence corrected by the linguist: five people were invited to serve as experts and were later brought back= (five experts were invited and later brought back) (Jakštas 1912: 287). Discussing the instrumental and its avoidance, J. Jablonskis wrote that he had offered several corrections for the same sentence, allowing readers to choose one that suited them and fit the meaning. In Jablonskis’s view, A. Jakštas criticized without justification and without providing any examples. Throughout the article, J. Jablonskis defends himself, saying that he never strictly demands or orders the use of one or another correction he proposes. On the contrary, he tries to offer several alternatives. In criticizing and disparaging corrections (not necessarily only case corrections), A. Jakštas accuses J. Jablonskis of failing to explain why a proposed correction is better; of unjustifiably imposing words from his own dialect that cannot be explained by any logic; of making corrections simply because he dislikes a word or construction; of trying to introduce one word in place of others in use; of requiring people to use his proposed construction; of advising the translation of Slavic sentences; of replacing words with constructions unheard of anywhere; and of making supposedly unscientific arguments. Thus, J. Jablonskis was accused of making corrections without motivation or argument, relying excessively on intuition and linguistic feeling.

30

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

a characteristic of the Lithuanian language, e.g.: the city of Telšiai, the Nemunas River. However, a new form is becoming increasingly established—the nominative of the name. Such examples given by J. Jablonskis as the café “Aldona” are innovations, but unavoidable ones. In a compound name, not only the attributive words but also the proper name must be declined: “Lana” products (=“Lana’s” products); from the newspaper “Ūkininko patarėjas” (=from the newspaper “Ūkininko patarėjas” in the genitive); works at the company “Ranga” (=works at the “Ranga” company in the genitive) (Salys 1938a: 4).

The use of the nominative and accusative in greeting formulas was debated. Most discussion concerned the use of greetings such as good morning, good afternoon and the like. A. Jakštas identifies the nominative as preferable. His principal rationale is that the accusative a good day, a good morning is a Germanism, an expression unsuitable for all situations, whereas the nominative is more appropriate both because of established tradition and because it suits almost all occasions of speech (Jakštas 1933: 2–3). Like A. Jakštas, A. Salys recommends the nominative form primarily on the basis of usage tradition, supported by dialect data and old texts. In his view, the accusative arose under the influence of German (Salys 1937: 135; Salys 1938d: 3). Kalbos patarėjas recommends the nominative because it is more customary than the accusative. Later, both cases began to be proposed as equivalent variants of the norm.

GENITIVE

The genitive forms that raised many questions were corrected most frequently, particularly those related to the Lithuanian language’s characteristic expression of whole and part objects. It appears that the genitive was corrected to the nominative or accusative when the object expressed by that case did not have a partitive meaning. Concrete nouns denoting things or objects raised the fewest doubts; the most discussion concerned the genitive of singular nouns with abstract meanings.

Interestingly, the genitive was corrected to the accusative as early as the end of the nineteenth century in Žemaičių ir Lietuvos apžvalga (1890: 13): from there he will come to salt the living and the dead, not the living and the dead in the genitive. The rationale given for the correction is verb government (the word “to salt” governs the accusative, not the genitive).

J. Jablonskis corrected the genitive when it was used incorrectly with verbs governing the accusative, e.g., to reach: and the goal (=the goal) we will reach more easily (Jablonskis 1925a: 1212); then religion will reach the goal (=the goal) (Jablonskis 1926g: 404); to approach: every person arrives at that opinion (=that opi-

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

31

monę) (Jablonskis 1925a: 1212); visuomenė turi teisės piktintis ir prieiti tos išvados (=išvadą) (Jablonskis 1926b: 50); Bedier priėjo išvados (=išvadą), kad autorius naudojosi kitų kūriniais (Jablonskis 1926f: 741, 746).

Following J. Jablonskis’s examples, P. Meškauskas also corrected similar cases: of the three states, only Lithuania achieved its goal (=its goal) (Meškauskas 1931: 236); he walked for a long time along the dark streets of the suburb and reached a small wooden house (=a small wooden house) (Meškauskas 1931: 393); following the notary’s system, one can arrive at a conclusion (=at a conclusion) (Meškauskas 1932b: 354). Considering analogous sentences, P. Skardžius also recommended the accusative rather than the genitive (to arrive at a conclusion, not of a conclusion) (Skardžius 1998: 710). In Gimtoji kalba he criticized unnecessary, nonessential corrections lacking serious grounds, and replaced the genitive with the nominative: bubbles are rising (=bubbles rise). Similar examples are cited (foam is coming, clouds are rising, not foam is coming, clouds are rising) (Skardžius 1936: 14). The reasons for using such genitives are not easy to determine. It has been written that this usage may have arisen under the influence of other languages or dialects; under the influence of Russian, the genitive came to be used with the verb pasiekti, and some such genitives may also be hypercorrect forms.

The genitive was corrected in constructions with the verb padaryti ‘to make’. J. Balčikonis corrected an improperly used genitive: it made an indelible impression on Liudas Vasaris (=an indelible impression) (Balčikonis 1935: 45)⁶. A genitive governed by verbs can denote an indefinite object or a part of it. In Kalbos patarėjas the following sentence is given as an acceptable expression: give me some knife / lend me a knife (Kalbos patarėjas 1939: 31). The motivation is a request for a short-term loan. P. Meškauskas often replaced the nominative and accusative with the partitive genitive (usage fluctuates), but acknowledged that in some cases it too is unsuitable: A society, previously unknown in Lithuania, is being established in Kaunas, which has the goal of helping people (=whose aim is to help people) (Meškauskas 1932: 66).

⁶ The article in which J. Balčikonis commented on the language of Vincas Mykolaitis-Putinas’s novel Altorių šešėly drew a response (Balčikonis 1935: 45–48; Skardžius 1935c: 124–126; Skardžius 1997: 192). An article by Eduardas Viskanta was published in Vairas, in which he attempted to refute the linguistic points raised by J. Balčikonis and P. Skardžius (Viskanta 1935). According to P. Skardžius, E. Viskanta boldly and even mockingly disparaged those who corrected Putinas’s language, while himself addressing linguistic questions superficially (Skardžius 1997: 192). J. Balčikonis replaced the genitive in the sentence I came to say goodbye to the baroness with a prepositional construction. E. Viskanta considered such a genitive with an infinitive expressing purpose to be customary in Lithuanian, for example, the mother came to fetch the child (Viskanta 1935: 369), I went out into the little forest to shoot pigeons (Viskanta 1935: 700). In P. Skardžius’s view, E. Viskanta judged many things without sufficient consideration, superficially. It is emphasized that several things are being confused: no linguist proposes blindly copying folk speech, but the usage of our language must be grounded in Lithuanian inclinations (Skardžius 1997: 193).

32

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

Regarding the use of object-denoting constructions with singular nouns denoting abstract concepts (honor, sympathy, influence, significance, impression, and the like), it has been written that in these cases, to avoid offending or hurting another person, the accusative rather than the partitive genitive is required: I have the honor (=honor) of greeting you; we express our deep sympathy (=sympathy) (Kalbos kertelė 1933: 3). This comment later received support in Gimtoji kalba: “instead of I have the honor, I express sympathy, one should of course say and write I have honor, I express sympathy” (Labokas 1933: 63). P. Skardžius wrote that the genitive should be used only when a part is clearly meant: give me some bread, draw some water, but baked bread, lost his money, and so on. One may express sympathy (if we express only a little, just a part; this expression of sympathy is fainter, lesser) and sympathy (all of it; this expression is stronger, more significant). Similarly, one may say to make an impression and to make the impression, to have influence and to have the influence. P. Skardžius found especially strange the expression frequently used in newspapers, I express my deepest sympathy to the relatives (“how can this be the deepest sympathy if only one part of it is being expressed? When expressing great, and all the more the greatest, sympathy, our language’s inclinations require us to express sympathy, not some sympathy. [...] Similarly [...] we should have the honor, not have the honor to ask, I express my respect to you, not some respect”). Thus P. Skardžius (1936: 17) disapproves of the genitive and recommends the accusative. M. Jurkynas also proposes the accusative instead of the genitive: having inquired and found (=having inquired and found) the person sought, we have the honor (=honor) to inform you; I have the honor (=honor) of asking the Director (=the Director) (Jurkynas 1938: 21). In Kalbos patarėjas both variants are now permitted, but the choice between genitive and accusative depends on context. In certain cases, one says I express sympathy (in full) and I express some sympathy (in part) (Kalbos patarėjas 1939: 31). Later, L. Dambriūnas (1962, 1964) expressed a different opinion in Gimtoji kalba. In many cases, he recommended the genitive.

In standard language, the genitive of numerically specified nouns and quantity-denoting nouns is not used to express comparative quantity with comparative adverbs. The genitive was consistently replaced by a comparative construction: more than a hundred people were killed here last year (=over a hundred) (Jablonskis 1911a: 1, 2); it will soon be more than a year (=more than one year) since we began urging people in our newspaper columns to fight tuberculosis (Jablonskis 1911b: 2); more than a hundred people were killed (=more than one hundred) (Jablonskis 1914a: 2, 3); they would open a trade school no later than next autumn (=by next autumn) (Jablonskis 1914a: 2, 3); more than three quarters of our body consists of water (=more than three quarters) (Jablonskis 1920: 26); already more than twen-

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

33

likos (=daugiau kaip dvylika) mėnesių praėjo (Jablonskis 1925d); šis „Fondas“ yra įsteigęs daugiau 900 (=daugiau kaip 900) knygynėlių (Jablonskis 1926b: 50). P. Skardžius rašė, kad slavų ir mūsų kalbos duomenys rodo, jog anksčiau toks posakis jis yra geresnis manęs galėjo būti vartojamas su vienu atskirties kilmininku, tačiau šiandien jis yra svetimas ir nebevartojamas (Skardžius 1998: 720).

DATIVE

First of all, the dative merits mention, as it was incorrectly used as an object case. Many linguists have expressed their opinions on the use of the verb tikėti ‘to believe’. Corrections are also discussed here concerning the dative used to express instrument or kind, and the dative of purpose with an infinitive.

The dative is often incorrectly used as an object case—that is, with verbs or adjectives that do not govern the dative. The verb atitikti: is particularly noteworthy: your conduct corresponds to the words (=corresponds to the words) (Jablonskis 1925a: 1212); word for word, it matches the slogans (=the slogans)⁷ (Jablonskis 1926b: 50); these phenomena correspond to other phenomena (the explanation offered is: the axe fitted the handle) (Jablonskis 1928: 61, 62); the promises made matched the bold dreams of the workers and peasants (=the dreams) (Meškauskas 1931a: 394); this is a drink suited to the local climatic conditions (=conditions) (the axe fitted the handle) (Meškauskas 1932c: 70). With užjausti: the city council sympathized with this meeting (=this meeting) (other examples are cited: only the hungry can sympathize with the hungry) (Jablonskis 1914a: 2, 3). With sekti: speech comes quickly, thought follows thought (=thought follows thought) (Jablonskis 1926b: 50); needlessly, he follows these language examples (=needlessly follows these language examples) (Jablonskis 1928: 62). P. Skardžius corrected the incorrectly used dative with the verb atsiliepti: responding to those words (=to those words) (Skardžius 1998: 655).

The dative is also corrected after adjectives (by using a prepositional construction with the accusative). One of the most common is panašus ‘similar’. J. Jablonskis corrected it: The state of Orange is similar to a war camp (=to a war camp) (Jablonskis 1914: 4); in this respect he is similar to the world’s greatest teachers (=to the greatest (to the grea-

⁷ In the same year, 1926, J. Jablonskis also corrected the calque obalsis (Raštai, vol. 5, p. 7). Editorial note.

34 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

džiausius) pasaulio mokytojus) (Jablonskis 1926c: 3); J. Balčikonis: žemė panaši plytai (=į plytą) (Balčikonis 1935a). Taisyta ir kitų kalbos normintojų: bulgarų būdas kiek panašus lietuviškam (=į lietuvišką) (Meškauskas 1932a: 505); „Eneida“ yra panaši „Iliadai“ (=panaši į „Iliadą“) (Barzdukas 1940: 24). P. Meškauskas nurodo motyvaciją – taisoma dėl vokiečių kalbos įtakos. P. Skardžius taip pat teigė, kad vartotinas ne naudininkas, o prielinksninė konstrukcija: visos priesagos panašios kitoms priesagoms (=į kitas priesagas) (Skardžius 1936a: 92); troškimas laimės ieškoti buvo panašus paukščių jausmui (=į paukščių jausmą) (Skardžius 1998: 639). Taisyta ir po daiktavardžio panašumas: lietuvių kalbos panašumas graikiškajai kalbai (=į graikiškąją kalbą) (Kalbos kertelė 1933b: 3).

There is disagreement about the use of the verb tikėti in the standard language. It is asserted that this verb has variable government and is used with the dative, instrumental, accusative, or prepositional constructions. As early as the beginning of the 20th century, Lithuanian linguists expressed disapproval of the dative form and the prepositional construction, considering them to be the influence of other languages⁸. Drawing on dialect data, Kazimieras Būga wrote that the forms tikėti kam ‘believe someone’ and tikėti į ką ‘believe in someone/something’ were borrowed from Slavic languages, whereas tikėti kuo ‘believe something’ is unquestionably a Lithuanian feature, inherited from antiquity. The verbs kliauties, abejoti, rūpintis ‘rely on, doubt, care for’ are also used with the instrumental (the term K. Būga used for the instrumental case) (Būga 1914: 18). P. Skardžius relied on this article by K. Būga, arguing that tikiu į Dievą ‘I believe in God’ is clearly a foreign expression in our language. Instead of a prepositional construction, P. Skardžius, following K. Būga, J. Jablonskis, and older writings, proposed using the accusative or instrumental (tikiu Dievą or tikiu Dievu). Tikiu Dievą would mean that God exists, that one believes God to exist. Tikiu Dievu would express trust in God, with God as the basis of one’s faith. The so-called instrumental of basis used here is well known in our language (Skardžius 1998: 299). The dative and prepositional construction, as their use shows—especially in old Lithuanian language monuments—probably arose in ecclesiastical language on the model of corresponding Slavic forms, and may later have entered colloquial speech (Skardžius 1998: 407). Tikėti is used with the accusative and instrumental, and rarely with the dative (believe the teachings given by heaven) (Skardžius 1998: 410). In his works, P. Skardžius shows that the verb tikėti varies in its government in translations (Skar-

⁸For more, see “The Creed: believe God or believe in God” (http://www.vlkk.lt/lit/naujienos/naujiena.1092.html).

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

35

džius 1998: 544). Naudininką taisė P. Meškauskas: sulig tais daviniais, kuriems (=kuriais) net sunku patikėti, indėnai yra turtingiausioji pasaulyje tauta (Meškauskas 1931c: 350). Tokios nuomonės, kad bendrinei vartosenai netinka naudininkas ir tikėti su prielinksniu, laikomasi ir Kalbos patarėjuje. Čia rašoma, kad prielinksninė konstrukcija yra verstinė, paimta iš bažnytinės kalbos, o naudininkas atsiradęs dėl kitų kalbų įtakos (Kalbos patarėjas 1939: 128).

The dative was incorrectly used with verbs of motion that require a clear goal of the action to be specified. In such cases, the genitive of purpose should be used: sent representatives for negotiations (=for negotiations) (Jablonskis 1912a: 2); the lads gathered here argued over important divisions (=important divisions) (Skardžius 1998: 639); the brothers agreed to invite [someone] for Saturday evening (=for the evening) (Skardžius 1998: 655, 656); you won’t invite me to this dance (=to this dance) (Skardžius 1998: 655); the delegates met [...] to conclude the negotiations; I went to... for the night (=for the negotiations; for the night)= (Juška 1938: 30); you made it back at least for dinner (=for dinner, to have dinner) (Balčikonis 1978: 289); today he arrived in Delhi on an official visit (=on an official visit) (Balčikonis 1978: 309). Drawing on dialects, J. Balčikonis proposed replacing the genitive with a prepositional construction: they gathered for a meeting (=they gathered at a meeting), since it does not denote the thing desired (as, for example, in goes for firewood, sends for yeast); at a meeting, one discusses, decides, and seeks some other matter, not the meeting itself (Balčikonis 1938: 297).

Dative of time and the use of the accusative also raised many questions for linguists. In his articles, J. Jablonskis corrected temporal adjuncts expressed by the dative: when the steamer had stopped for a longer period (=for a longer time), Halėjus went ashore (Jablonskis 1925c: 56); stopped for a minute (=for a minute) (Jablonskis 1925a: 1212); The cruiser is staying for several more days (better several more days); I went out for an hour (better: for an hour) having gone out (Jablonskis 1925d: 4); decided to stay here for the night (=at night, overnight) (Jablonskis 1926b: 50). The dative was later corrected in Cases and Prepositions: he went away on vacation for only a few days (=he went away on vacation for only a few days); the clerk was asked to come to the office for an hour (=for an hour); they released him from the seminary for one year (=released him for one year) (Jablonskis 1928: 62). However, for the distinct temporal meaning of the dative, J. Jablonskis gave the following examples: the brother learned to save for a hungry day whatever he had earned; from that money the priest’s family feeds itself, will cook little pies, and dry others for a longer period, and so on. This dative expresses not only time but also purpose (Jablonskis 1928:

36

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

The examples corrected by the linguist show that two patterns of usage are distinguished: the dative of time is appropriate when purpose is clearly felt; in other cases, the accusative is recommended⁹.

Following J. Jablonskis’s examples, P. Meškauskas corrected the dative of time: it is believed that the debt moratorium will be extended for three years (=three years [accusative]) (Meškauskas 1932a: 508). J. Balčikonis also often criticized and corrected the inappropriate use of the dative. It was written that the dative is unsuitable in the following cases: At Christmas the pupils are sent on a two-week holiday; by Epiphany the pupils should already have learned their lessons for the morning; the animals are driven into the barns for the night and locked in (Balčikonis 1978: 42). Gimtoji kalba states that in the sentence left for one day [dative] or one day [accusative] both the dative and the accusative are acceptable, but derive from different dialects (Salys 1933: 13).

The dative of abstract nouns with the suffix –imas (–ymas) was corrected: his wife was pregnant and had already been registered for childbirth (=to give birth) (Meškauskas 1932b: 352); I did it not for sale (=to sell) (Balčikonis 1978: 290); none of the combines is suitable for threshing (=not suitable for threshing) (Balčikonis 1978: 309). It was written that the dative is not to be used to indicate purpose.

⁹ In 1925, Lietuvuje published an article by Antanas Vireliūnas on the use of the dative case to express a temporal adjunct. He questions J. Jablonskis’s and P. Skardžius’s attempt to standardize the language and introduce new rules, and also questions their corrections (he does not specify exactly where the sentences were taken from), criticizing examples such as: left for five hours (=five hours [accusative]) and went away for three days (=three days [accusative]). He argues that linguists’ work lacks justification and clarity, and that there are no defined usage norms or rationale for corrections. A. Vireliūnas doubts the use of the accusative; he writes that the dative of time would be entirely suitable for standard language, since examples of it occur in dialects and folklore texts (Vireliūnas 1925: 13).

A. Salys defended J. Jablonskis’s opinion. He criticizes A. Vireliūnas’s inappropriate choice of examples, his failure to distinguish the dative of purpose from the accusative of time, and his reliance on just one Kupiškėnai dialect. The following examples of the accusative in spoken language are presented: step aside for a few days and look out, the gendarmes; I left home for a few days, and just look—what a misfortune happened!; I’ll go lie down for at least an hour; she will go to her mother’s for a few days. It is written that the accusative most often follows verbs of motion (Salys 1925: 10).

Soon A. Vireliūnas’s reply to A. Salys was published in the newspaper. This time he identifies the source on which he relied when quoting J. Jablonskis: the issue of Švietimo darbo (see Jablonskis 1925c: 56). The article contains only one instance in which J. Jablonskis replaces the dative with the accusative. From this A. Vireliūnas concludes that J. Jablonskis (together with P. Skardžius) seeks to reshape the language, “apparently by abandoning the dative altogether for expressing time” (Vireliūnas 1925a, LI, 13). It is stated that A. Salys did not understand the essence of his article. A. Vireliūnas asked whether a sentence with the dative could be used or whether it had to be categorically rejected, since J. Jablonskis had not allowed the use of such a sentence.

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

37

To express an attribute and type of an object, in 1936 P. Skardžius proposed in Gimtojoje kalboje using the term suimtųjų namai (prisoners’ home), rather than namai suimtiesiems (a home for prisoners). The linguist drew on similar examples: an institution for juvenile offenders, an asylum, a sanatorium for officers, a seminary for priests, a pigsty. P. Skardžius argued that the genitive expresses not only possession but also purpose or designation (Skardžius 1936: 16). J. Balčikonis corrected the dative to the genitive: shoe polish for shoes (=shoes [genitive]), tooth powder for teeth (=teeth [genitive]) (Balčikonis 1978: 227). It is evident that the genitive was recommended as a better form. Later, the evaluation of the phenomenon itself shifted somewhat: the genitive proposed by P. Skardžius and J. Balčikonis was subsequently presented as the better case for expressing an object’s attribute, but not as something that had to be strictly corrected.

It was debated whether the dative of purpose with an infinitive can be used in a sentence that contains no noun denoting a means of achieving that purpose. J. Balčikonis is particularly noteworthy here: he consistently argued that the dative of purpose with an infinitive is unsuitable when the noun does not denote a means by which the purpose is achieved. In expressions such as a knife for slicing bread; a cart for hauling hay; I have no teeth for cracking nuts, the dative is appropriate because the knife, cart, and teeth are means—a concrete tool for achieving the purpose. There are many examples corrected by J. Balčikonis: we submitted requirements to the factory management for improving the workers’ situation (=so as to improve the workers’ situation); I have no desire for cracking nuts (=nuts [genitive]); to begin a struggle to purify the language of the church from foreign words (=in order to purify the language) of foreignisms; who will find a criterion for unifying these variations (=a criterion for the unification of these variations) (Balčikonis 1978: 330). J. Balčikonis’s view was later challenged. J. Palionis joined the discussion, and J. Kruopas disagreed with J. Balčikonis, arguing that the means can also be abstract concepts: I have no grandmother’s dowry chest to fill (“One cannot agree with Balčikonis’s opinion on the use of the dative with an infinitive. This understanding of means is narrow, subjective, and has no basis in actual language practice. In Lithuanian, the dative of purpose with an infinitive is used not only with words denoting a concrete instrument, but also with words of abstract meaning.”) (Kruopas 1998: 511). In response to an article describing J. Balčikonis’s unjustified corrections, he himself wrote another article. It reveals the author’s rationale for correction: the principles governing the use of the dative of purpose with an infinitive were formulated on the basis of living language and usage, and the corrections aimed to achieve linguistic purity and uniformity (Balčikonis 1978: 310).

38

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

ACCUSATIVE

In Lithuanian, under the influence of other languages and for internal reasons, the accusative tends to displace other cases. One of the more frequent errors involving the accusative of the object is its inappropriate use instead of the genitive of indefinite quantity. Perhaps the earliest correction was recorded in 1890. The language corrector writes: “In the Lord’s Prayer, among the words ‘Give us our daily bread this day,’ they unnecessarily inserted the conjunction ‘and.’ In all primers it is ‘bread,’ and everyone says ‘bread,’ not ‘the bread’” (Žemaičių ir Lietuvos apžvalga 1890: 13). The correction was motivated by more customary usage and the influence of tradition.

J. Jablonskis consistently corrected the accusative to the partitive genitive: bought all kinds of tales (=all kinds of tales) (Jablonskis 1911a: 1, 3); the Italians have great losses (=great losses) (Jablonskis 1912b: 2); I have sent people (=people) to find them (Jablonskis 1925a: 1213); in the theater I used to find comfort and amusement (=comfort and amusement) (Jablonskis 1926b: 51); have many settlers not received title documents (=title documents) (Jablonskis 1930: 31, 33).

From 1931 onward, articles by P. Meškauskas analyzing the language of newspapers began to be published in the literary, art, and science journal Vairas. They contain numerous instances of the accusative incorrectly used instead of the partitive genitive, which is clearly distinguished in Lithuanian: we wish the jubilarian many more years in which to impart knowledge to our young people, knowledge that he himself has abundantly acquired over a long life (=knowledge, which he himself) (Meškauskas 1931: 236); foreign countries know us and are interested in us only because we export timber, bacon, etc. (=timber, bacon); book publishers had planned to set up modern bookstores during the season (=modern bookstores) (Meškauskas 1931: 232); the oldest remains of world civilization were found in the vicinity of Lake Titicaca (=remains) (Meškauskas 1932a: 509).

The articles published in Vaire show that at first no reasons were given for the corrections, but later an increasing number of notes explained why a correction was made: in the fifth issue of 1931 there was only an occasional explanation of a correction, whereas the eleventh issue contained considerably more. Case and preposition errors, as well as lexical errors, were now explained in detail and systematically, and converbs were corrected. The arguments drew on dialects and folklore, and attention was drawn to the work of K. Būga, J. Jablonskis, and K. Jaunius. The influence of other languages (Polish, Russian, German) was emphasized in particular; expressions from other languages were cited, and literal translation and constructions unusual in Lithuanian were criticized. The accusative was also consistently corrected to the partitive genitive in articles in Gimtoji kalba.

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

39

The accusative tends to displace other cases and is often chosen with verbs that do not govern it. The verb atstovauti (‘to represent’) was the subject of much heated discussion. The accusative is very often used incorrectly with this verb, and even today errors persist in standard language. J. Jablonskis corrected the accusative: I represent the Polish king (=to the king) (Jablonskis 1925a: 1213); one represents love (=to love), and the other revenge (=to revenge) (Jablonskis 1926b: 51); their son represented the finest stratum of our youth (=to the stratum) (Jablonskis 1926a: 2); he represents one part of Paris in parliament (=to one part) (Jablonskis 1930: 31, 33). As the rationale for his corrections, J. Jablonskis presented the entire case-governing system of similar verbs: he is our servant, our representative; he serves us, represents us, or leads us (he also corrected the nominative: Mykolas was suited to lead the murderers (=the murderers) (Jablonskis 1925d: 4)¹⁰. A. Salys wrote that the accusative is used on the model of foreign languages, whereas when indicating purpose the verbs vadovauti, viešpatauti, atstovauti (‘to lead, rule, represent’) are used only with the dative: he represented Lithuania in Italy for five years (Salys 1938d: 4). Other linguists made corrections as well: you will represent Saulėgrąžas (=Saulėgrąžoms), while Niaura will represent Bičiulius (=Bičiuliams) (Švietimo darbas 1920: 73). Discussing the use of the verb atstovauti, J. Kruopas wrote that the dative is chosen most often, though the verb is also used with the accusative. Its usage becomes clear from the usage of other similar words: to serve the country, to rule the world. Thus, in this case the dative, not the accusative, should be used (Kruopas 1951: 31).

For a long time, the accusative of the object has been corrected to the genitive of negation. Antanas Baranauskas had already recommended the genitive of negation as the form to use: I cannot do the work, I do not want to mow hay, I have neither a plough nor money (Baranauskas 1896: 68). J. Jablonskis also proposed correcting the accusative to the genitive of negation: keep the books, do not keep the books; the nominative was also corrected: they have a head (=head-

¹⁰ Lietuvos aidas published articles criticizing J. Jablonskis’s work. In one issue from 1930, an article by J. Jablonskis is analyzed (Jablonskis 1930: 31–36), and the use of the verb atstovauti with the dative is discussed. It states: “the meaning of representation is much closer to the meaning of substitution, of acting in someone’s place. After all, a representative stands in for the whole. Serving is a notion with a recipient meaning—he serves me; but if he goes to a meeting in my place, he stands in for me there. If we call that meaning representation, it seems that the matter still does not acquire a recipient meaning.” (Lietuvos aidas 1930: 4). P. Skardžius criticizes these ideas. Drawing on comparison with other similar verbs (to serve, to be enslaved, to chair, to lead), he argues that the verb atstovauti governs not the accusative but the dative (Skardžius 1930: 84–93).

40 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

vos) neskauda (Jablonskis 1926b: 50); taisė ir kiti kalbos tyrėjai: ėmė melste melsti sūnų, kad nuo jos neslėptų savo ligos priežastį (=priežasties) (Vireliūnas 1923: 486; remiamasi kupiškėnų tarme); tačiau suprantama, kad joks liberalizmas, jokios laisvės negalėjo nuraminti besvajojančius lenkų bajorus (=besvajojančių lenkų bajorų) (Meškauskas 1931: 235); juk niekas jį neprašė pareikšti savo įsitikinimus (=niekas jo neprašė pareikšti savo įsitikinimų) (Jūška 1938: 30); neleido steigti „Šviesos“ draugiją (=draugijos); džiaukimės žiema, bet neužmirškime ir darbą (=darbo) (Stonys 1940: 59).

The accusative is used incorrectly in purpose constructions. Already in Varpas, J. Jablonskis wrote that purpose can be expressed by the genitive after transitive verbs: I am going for water, he sent me for documents, a man is going for firewood (Jablonskis 1893: 150). The genitive is also used after intransitive verbs denoting a stable state: the girl weeps for a wreath, the horse neighs for oats, he sleeps through lunch, he rings for supper (Jablonskis 1893: 151). A rule is formulated: the genitive is appropriate when one is expressed. When the construction includes an infinitive (or supine), the accusative should be used: everyone rushed to kiss the grandfather’s hands, Stankūnas ran to take the money to the lawyer (Jablonskis 1893b: 151). The reason the genitive is unsuitable is explained: the verb pulti does not govern the genitive, and hands in the first sentence are not the purpose. In the second sentence, Stankūnas did not run for money but carried it to hand it over (Jablonskis 1893b: 151). It is true that in the 1901 Lithuanian Grammar both sentences are used with the genitive: everyone rushed to kiss the grandfather’s hands and Stankūnas ran to take the money to the lawyer. The same rule for the genitive after verbs of motion is invoked (Jablonskis 1901: 74). J. Jablonskis corrected similar cases later as well: he said he had gone to Vilnius to visit his brother (=his brother’s); he went to interrogate the thief (=of the thief) (Jablonskis 1911a: 1); the Germans came to congratulate the duke (=the duke’s); he also came here to sow discord (=discord’s) (Jablonskis 1925a: 1213).

Other language researchers also corrected this: he sent apostles to teach all the nations of the world (=he sent them to teach all the nations of the world) (Būtėnas 1929: 30). P. Skardžius wrote in Gimtoji kalba that the history and usage of cases show that the genitive is more characteristic of Lithuanian, and that its use should therefore be favored in the standard language: one must go to haul manure, although in western Lithuania the accusative is also often used to mark purpose: one must go to haul the manure (Skardžius 1935a: 3, 7). P. Skardžius noted that after the verb kviesti the genitive of purpose should be used, not the accusative; cf.: the host invited the guests

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

41

to inspect the fields; the lad invited the girl to dance the suktinis; so he also invites [her] to celebrate his name day (Skardžius 1999: 738); Sargenis wanted to return to Kaunas to take care of some matters (=some matters=); he goes outside to clear all that infernal mess from his head (Skardžius 1998: 656). In 1923, Švietimo darbas gives sentences with the genitive: she pleaded with her son in every way; I ask the same of You; I give [you] a quarter of an hour to ask God for forgiveness of sins (Vireliūnas 1923: 487). The Kupiškėnai dialect is cited, and it is written that the accusative should be used here. The rationale for the correction is as follows: with the accusative case, the meaning is clearer and more precise. In saying I ask for Petro’s knife, it is unclear whether one wants the knife that belongs to Petro or is addressing him with a request (Vireliūnas 1923: 487). J. Jablonskis classified these sentences as genitives of purpose: the sick man asked for (called for) a doctor, a priest (asked that a doctor, a priest be brought to him) (Jablonskis 1928: 33); I asked for a horse, a person (to give [one]); did you ask him for a horse? (Jablonskis 1928: 34). With the verb to ask, both the genitive and the accusative are used: the importunate father asked his son for boots (shoes, footwear), and the son gave them to him (Jablonskis 1928: 45). At the end of the chapter it is written that the genitive and accusative are used for good reason (no detailed explanation is given, but presumably because of ambiguity) (Jablonskis 1928: 46). P. Skardžius recommended the accusative because it more readily distinguishes the person being asked from the thing requested, thus avoiding ambiguity (Skardžius 1998: 694, 750). Aidas, in discussing case government with the verb to ask (I asked the teacher or I asked the teacher), draws on J. Jablonskis and P. Skardžius: it is better to use the accusative to denote the person being asked, and the genitive for the thing requested. This avoids ambiguity. We should say I asked the teacher for a book, I asked my father for a watch (Horodničūtė 1938b: 3); the expressions ask what and ask about what. He asked me about you (he wanted to learn about you from me) and he asked me about you (he wanted to learn something about me from you) (Horodničūtė 1938a: 3). Questions concerning the use of these verbs were also discussed by A. Salys, P. Skardžius, L. Dambrauskas, and M. Jurkynas in Gimtoji kalba. In standard language, it is better to use the accusative, because this makes it easier to distinguish the person being asked from the thing requested and avoids ambiguity (Skardžius 1935b: 173). A strict distinction must be made between the sick man asks the priest (to do something to him personally) and the sick man asks for a priest (to have one brought to him). Likewise, between asks his father and asks about his father. This is based on dialects and actual usage (Salys 1937: 134). Something similar is written in Kalbos patarėjas: it is better to say asks the child to recite prayers than asked the child’s prayers (1939: 64–65).

42

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

INSTRUMENTAL

The main errors in the use of the instrumental are: using it to express an object with verbs denoting filling, to express the content of a quality with adjectives denoting abundance, and with forms of the verb būti to express an unchanging state.

J. Jablonskis corrected the instrumental case to the genitive in his articles: glass is filled with water, quicksilver, sand (=glass is filled with water, quicksilver, sand) (Jablonskis 1920: 26). He also corrected the instrumental used with an adjective denoting abundance: rich: are you perhaps rich in money (=are you perhaps wealthy)?; our country was once very rich in folksongs (=was often sung, was much sung) (Jablonskis 1911b: 2); P. Meškauskas also made corrections: in a program of work rich in papers (=rich in papers), information predominates (Meškauskas 1931a: 396); the association grows in members (=grows in number of members) (Meškauskas 1931b: 61). P. Skardžius wrote that Lithuanian uses the genitive of content rather than the instrumental: The Lord filled you with love; he filled the pot with milk (Skardžius 1998: 561). He also corrected incorrectly used instrumental forms when reviewing literary works: filling life with their senile groaning (=with their senile groaning); a building drenched in blood (=with blood) (Skardžius 1937: 159). This case was also corrected repeatedly in Švietimo darbas and in Vairas: with torches they could enter a house filled with smoke (=filled with smoke) (Meškauskas 1931a: 395–396); the great city will become one enormous mass grave, one mass of ruins, filled with mountains of corpses (=filled with mountains of corpses) (Meškauskas 1931c: 347). The instrumental, incorrectly used with verbs expressing fullness, was also corrected by linguists in Gimtoji kalba: surely it was they who filled the temples with treasures seized from the enemy (=with treasure seized from the enemy) (Balčikonis 1935a); the stadium will fill with Lithuanians (=Lithuanians) (Lengvinas 1938: 5).

The instrumental is often incorrectly used to express a permanent or unchanging state.In Vairas, P. Meškauskas corrected it: the hydroelectric power station would be a source of electrical energy (=source) for all Lithuania (Meškauskas 1931a: 392); the owner of the factory (=owner) is Vaitkus (Meškauskas 1931a: 395); the reason for this (=the reason for this) is that the storm caused by the German bank crashes is still far from having subsided (Meškauskas 1932: 67); the cause of the uprising (=cause) was a reduction in the soldiers’ pay (Meškauskas 1932a: 508). He found the instrumental as the cause particularly unsuitable; when correcting it, he always gave the same rationale, namely that it was a foreignism borrowed from Russian. This instrumental was also corrected in Gimtoji kalba: at the end of 1936, it was the darkest period in its history (=was the darkest period in its history) (Juška 1938: 30).

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

43

Attention was drawn to the aggressive use of the instrumental in double-case constructions, where the predicate nominal is expressed by the instrumental case of adjectives or adjectival words. Nearly all linguists have corrected the erroneously used instrumental to the nominative: the priest urges them to be sober and virtuous (=that they should be sober and virtuous) (Jablonskis 1911b: 2); everyone felt themselves to be happy (=felt happy) (Jablonskis 1925c: 54, 57); he was destined to be born with a misfortune, hunchbacked (=hunchbacked) (Jablonskis 1926b: 51); not from what we earn, but from what we save, shall we become rich (=rich; cf. stay well) (Jablonskis 1926e: 12, 13). P. Meškauskas made numerous corrections: I deliberately pretended to be drunk (=drunk), because I wanted to catch you (Meškauskas 1932: 67); it could not be said that the voice of the owner of the winter coat seemed triumphant (=triumphant) (Meškauskas 1932b: 351). P. Meškauskas argued for the necessity of the nominative by comparing Lithuanian constructions with German and Russian ones. The instrumental was corrected in Gimtoji Kalba: our temple teaches us what we must be like (=what we must be); you are something greater (=someone greater) (Balčikonis 1935a); the heroes of the Aeneid know how to be compassionate (=compassionate) (Barzdukas 1940: 24); feels terribly unhappy (=unhappy); seemed ridiculous (=ridiculous) (Salys 1937: 135); I admit that I am guilty (=guilty) (Dambrauskas 1937: 68–69); he feels happy (=happy); pretends to be good (=good) (Kalbos patarėjas 1939: 126); Tarutis deliberately wanted to appear insignificant and black (=insignificant and black) (Skardžius 1998: 639).

Because of the negative that has appeared, the instrumental is corrected to the genitive: words do not make a person holy and righteous (=holy and righteous), but virtuous conduct makes a person pleasing to God (=pleasing) (Jablonskis 1926g: 404); I am not holy, and I do not want to make you holy (=you holy) (Jablonskis 1925a: 1213); the villagers had never seen Burzdulis as different (=different) (Švietimo darbas 1920: 73). Sometimes the instrumental displaces the dative: will it be worthwhile for the prince for me to be grateful (=grateful); it is not fitting for a soldier to be cruel (=cruel) (Jablonskis 1925a: 1213).

J. Jablonskis replaced the instrumental with the accusative after the transitive verb (to) make: those few years make them easy and pleasant (=easy and pleasant) (Jablonskis 1912b: 2); particles of soil make the water cloudy (=cloudy); impurities make it dangerous (=dangerous) to health; they make the axe harder (=harder) (Jablonskis 1920: 26); the characteristics of the works made them sharply distinct (=distinct) (Jablonskis 1926b: 51); frugality makes a person rich (=rich); Latin quotations from the canons made his language tedious (=tedious) (Jablonskis 1926e: 12–13). When making corrections, P. Meškauskas

44

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

consistently adhered to the rule that in Lithuanian an adjectival modifier agrees in gender, number, and case, and is left uninflected only in very rare instances. In his view, the instrumental borrowed from Russian should not be used: the woman has in fact now become even more exposed, and moralists, recalling the days of short dresses, will soon have to admit that they were the most decent (=that women’s clothing was the most decent) (Meškauskas 1931c: 348); with their liveliness they even beautify spring and make it warmer (=warmer) (Meškauskas 1932b: 351). The instrumental alongside the transitive verb (to make) was corrected by P. Skardžius: the shortening made the language more fluent (=more fluent) (Skardžius 1998: 722); corrected in Gimtoji kalba: he will lose his balance, which today makes him powerful (=powerful) (Balčikonis 1935a); that restraint makes almost impossible (=that restraint... impossible) (Barzdukas 1938: 61). Consistently corrected in Švietimo darbas: Niaura did not regard (=consider) it as profit that could increase wealth and make one all the more prosperous (=prosperous, wealthier) (1920: 72); those signatures alone made Niaura necessary and even indispensable (=made him necessary and even indispensable) in the district (1920: 72); resentment makes a person insensitive (=insensitive) (1920: 73).

Bendrinėje kalboje jau tada buvo matyti priemonės įnagininko ir tą pačią reikšmę turinčių prielinksninių konstrukcijų konkurencija. J. Jablonskis įnagininką, pavartotą be prielinksnio, taisė į prielinksninę konstrukciją: jis stovės ginklu rankose (=su ginklu); atvyko pasiuntiniai lauro šakelėmis (=su lauro šakelėmis) rankose; belaisvius apsiautė kareiviai ietimis (=su ietimis) rankose (Jablonskis 1921: 138); turėdamas du diplomu – gimnazijos ir akademijos, Kriaučiūnas ryžosi jų pagalba įsigyti aukštąjį pasaulinio mokslo cenzą, reikalingą gimnazijos katedrai (=turėdamas atestatą ir diplomą ryžosi su jų pagalba) (Jablonskis 1926c: 8)¹¹. Vienas iš J. Jablonskio darbų tyrinėtojų Arnoldas Piročkinas vėliau rašė, kad J. Jablonskis įnagininką taisęs, nes šis linksnis jam galėjo rodytis tarmybe (Piročkinas 1986: 197). Pats J. Jablons-

¹¹ Siekiant geriau suvokti ir paaiškinti J. Jablonskio taisymus, pravartu pasitelkti ir keletą sakinių, kuriuose kalbininkas siūlė keisti prielinksnį. J. Jablonskis taisė taip: B. telegrafu pasveikino karalių su naujais metais (=naujųjų metų) (Jablonskis 1914c: 4) (šalia yra redakcijos prierašas: „turbūt naujųjų metų dieną. Bene geriau būtų naujuose metuose, varduvėse“). Vėliau pasakymą su mielu noru, dar kartą pabrėždamas taisymo konteksto svarbą, remdamasis savo tarme ir nurodydamas panašų lenkų kalbos pavyzdį, J. Jablonskis buvo linkęs taisyti – mielai, noromis (Jablonskis 1928b: 3). Linkšniuose ir prielinkšniuose pateiktas toks pat taisymas: ar jį su noru (=noringai, mielai, noromis) ima (Jablonskis 1928: 123). Iš taisymų matyti J. Jablonskio svarstymai, aiškį įnagininko ir įnagininko su prielinksniu reiškiant priemonę arba būdo aplinkybę skirtis.

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

45

kis does not explain these corrections in greater detail in the article, merely remarking that one must follow certain general rules (Jablonskis 1921: 140). P. Meškauskas, most likely basing his proposal on J. Jablonskis’s earliest corrections, suggests using a prepositional construction: the Englishman gladly (=with pleasure) bought that prepared head (cf.: received with great joy, spent with fine words) (Meškauskas 1931c: 350); Semion Jedreikin scratched all the glass with the utmost fraternal honesty (=with the utmost fraternal honesty); café owners quickly noticed with what favor (=with what favor) the men received that novelty (Meškauskas 1931c: 351). J. Balčikonis also corrected the instrumental: with great difficulty (=with great difficulty) he finally entered some department (cf.: gladly, asked with tears); I will gladly accept that favor (=with pleasure); performances were staged with great success (=with great success) (Balčikonis 1978: 71); we work willingly (=with willingness) (Balčikonis 1978: 828). J. Balčikonis’s explanations suggest that he relied on spoken language and J. Jablonskis’s examples. P. Skardžius held the same view as J. Balčikonis—his proposed instrumental with a preposition was based on similar expressions with great joy, with great success, with an open heart (Skardžius 1936b: 97). The instrumental was also corrected later in Gimtoji kalba, for example: at the meetings, the participants listened with great attention (=with great attention) (Kulbokas 1968: 19).

LOCATIVE

Errors in the use of the locative are among the most common. Interwar linguists argued that, of all the cases, the locative is most strongly influenced by foreign languages; many errors result from conflating the Lithuanian and Russian locatives, and new locative forms, especially abstract ones, also arise from the need to intellectualize the language. The locative is most often used incorrectly to express the experiencer of a state, the domain of an action, a condition, state or attribute, the cause or basis of a state, or the manner or time of an action. The locative does not express a subject or object and therefore should not be used to denote the experiencer of a state. J. Jablonskis also included the following sentence among examples of the locative expressing place: besides that, there is no milk in the cows, but alongside it he gives the more usual example, besides that, the cows are without milk (Jablonskis 1928: 97). Thus, J. Jablonskis presents both sentences as correct.

46

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

Many corrections concern the incorrect use of the locative to express the domain of an action, state or attribute (but not place). J. Jablonskis corrected this use of the locative: they are accused in espionage (=of espionage) (Jablonskis 1911b: 2). When P. Meškauskas corrected locatives used improperly to express the domain of an action, he also explained the rationale for the correction. He wrote that these locatives had arisen in Lithuanian under the influence of Russian: those suspected in the murder (=those suspected of participating in the murder, those suspected of the murder) are summoned to court and shown to witnesses, but the latter refuse to admit that they saw them shooting (Meškauskas 1931c: 350); acquaintances are made here, love is confessed (=they confess their love) (Meškauskas 1932b: 353). The sentence through school we will rise in culture (=our culture will rise) is corrected by reference to similar examples that are uncharacteristic of Lithuanian: “one does not say ‘he improved in health’ or ‘he grew stronger in health.’” According to P. Meškauskas, “here the word is understood as one of our own qualities, like health, wisdom, or intellect. One can become stronger, rise, or grow only under circumstances that are external to us, for example: he rose at work, in life” (Meškauskas 1932a: 506). P. Skardžius corrected similar misuses of the locative: keep him in arrest (=under arrest) (Skardžius 1998: 707); suspect him in his father’s murder (=of his father’s murder) (Skardžius 1998: 306); the German court found him guilty (=guilty) of illegal use of public property and taking bribes (=of the illegal use of property and taking bribes) (Skardžius 1998: 306). In Gimtoji kalba, J. Kruopas identified the most characteristic locative errors. These included the frequent use of the locative to express the domain of an action: during interrogation he gave a false name (=during interrogation, when questioned); he won the record in running (=he won the running record); the comedy had success in that director’s production (=was a success); he was suspected in arson (=of arson) (Kruopas 1939: 124).

The locative should not be used to express a thing’s condition, state or attribute. J. Jablonskis corrected such cases in his articles: in what (=of what) is he guilty? (Jablonskis 1911a: 1, 3); the water is to blame in that (=for that) (Jablonskis 1914b: 2, 3); it convinces us in that (=it convinces us of that) (Jablonskis 1920: 26); A. Salys corrected examples in Gimtoji kalba: what’s the matter in that (=what’s the matter); that’s not the issue in that (=that’s not the issue) (Salys 1935: 8), as did J. Kruopas: the matter is in that (=such) (Kruopas 1939: 124); and J. Balčikonis: the author likes precision in everything (=everywhere, always) (Balčikonis 1978: 210). In correcting the sentence the misfortune is in that (=the misfortune is that) many emigrants forget their native language, P. Skardžius emphasized that this locative is a pure Russianism not used in Lithuanian (Skardžius 1936a: 92).

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

47

Locatives often corrected by linguists include in clothes, in garments, in uniform and the like, for example: a woman in white clothes sat nearby (=in white garments) (Jablonskis 1926b: 52); he walked around in a priest’s clothes (=wearing a priest’s clothes) (Jablonskis 1926c: 8); the present estate owner, Faria di Castro, a slow-witted old man in a domestic woollen garment (=in clothes), complains about the difficult conditions (Meškauskas 1931c: 351); come to me at once in full uniform (=in your full uniform; the locative arose under the influence of Russian) (Meškauskas 1932: 69); Pharaoh in war clothes (=in war clothes) (Balčikonis 1935a); a child in silk clothes (=wearing silk clothes) (Dambrauskas 1937: 68, 69); I met him in military clothes (=wearing military clothes) (Juška 1938: 30); he appeared in full uniform (=in full uniform) (Kruopas 1939: 124); he let him go in his underwear (=in his underwear) (Kruopas 1939: 124); Berlin policemen always look as if in new clothes, white gloves (=wearing new clothes, white gloves) (Skardžius 1936: 15); most Samoyeds walk around in their fur garments (=wearing fur garments; in fur garments) (Skardžius 1998: 636). When correcting such locatives, P. Skardžius also repeatedly explained the rationale: the locative generally expresses the place where something is or happens. The sentence in question means that the Samoyeds walk not inside their clothes, as they would in a yard or field, but wearing fur garments or in fur garments (Skardžius 1998: 636).

Already in the interwar period, locatives established under the influence of other languages were being corrected.

At a distance: 25 miles at a distance from the Mediterranean Sea (=25 miles from the Mediterranean Sea) (Balčikonis 1935).

Atvejyje: teisinimasis [...] šiame atvejyje (=šiuo atveju) pakenktų (Juška 1938: 30); tame atvejyje (=tuo atveju) (Kruopas 1939: 124); visuose atvejuose (=visais atvejais) įrodomi paviršutiniai santykiai – vietininkas visuose atvejuose netinka kaip ir visuose atsitikimuose: čia mūsų kalbos palinkimais vartotinas tik įnagininkas (Skardžius 1936a: 93).

In duplicate: this locative was corrected in Gimtoji kalba: the document is presented in two copies (=in duplicate) (Jurkynas 1938: 19).

In force: all the recipes that keep a woman from gaining weight remain in force, and she must still follow them (=remain just as effective) (this locative is a foreignism borrowed from Russian) (Meškauskas 1931c: 348).

Formoje: žaidikas yra geroje formoje (=geros formos) (Kruopas 1939: 124); plg.: jis geros galvos, stiprių plaučių).

Nuotaikoje: jis buvo geroje nuotaikoje (=geros nuotaikos) (Skardžius 1998: 344); P. Meškauskas šį vietininką taiso todėl, kad jis lietuvių kalboje atsi-

48

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

arose under the influence of Russian and German: if women were often in an optimist mood, then (=optimistically inclined) (Meškauskas 1932: 68).

In the form of: pure limestone, like other minerals, is sometimes found in the form of crystals (=in crystalline form) (Jablonskis 1920: 26); the Germans think they can assign all of Lithuania to Poland, but do not yet know in what form [...] or in the form of the Union of Lublin (=what form [...] or in the form of the Union of Lublin) (Juška 1938: 30); appeared in the form of a serpent (=in serpent form) (Kruopas 1939: 124).

In the matter of: their hearts, in matters concerning the nation (=their hearts are responsive to the nation’s concerns), are sensitive (Barzdukas 1940: 24); in that matter (=about that matter) turn to him (Kruopas 1939: 125).

In the composition of: hydrogen is in the composition of various substances (=hydrogen occurs in various substances, as a component of various substances) (Jablonskis 1920: 26); came out in a permanent composition (=with a permanent composition) (Kruopas 1939: 124).

Skaičiuje: išspausdino dideliame skaičiuje (=dideli skaičių) (Kruopas 1939: 125).

In the amount of: a bill of exchange in the amount of 300 litas (=for 300 litas) (Kruopas 1939: 124); wrote an invoice in the amount of 100 litas (=for 100 litas) (Skardžius 1998: 344).

Stiliuje: rūmai statyti švedų stiliuje (=švedų stiliaus) (Meškauskas 1932c: 70); namas pastatytas tautiškame stiliuje (=stiliumi) (Kruopas 1939: 124).

Stovyje: ar jums ne gėda tokiame stovyje (=tokiems) rodytis žmonėms (Meškauskas 1931c: 350); prašoma pranešti, kokiame stovyje skolos išieškojimas (=kiek yra skolos išieškota) (Skardžius 1998: 720); gėda tokiame stovyje (=tokiam) rodytis (Kruopas 1939: 124); jį rado girtame stovyje (=girtą) (Skardžius 1998: 344).

Temoje: rašėme rašinį temoje (=tema) „Maironio lyrika“ (Skardžius 1939a: 9).

J. Jablonskis also corrected other locatives, e.g.: his newspaper would be printed in two languages (=in two languages); all newspapers are published in the Lithuanian language (=in Lithuanian); and the Latvians also wanted to speak at the meeting in their native language (=to speak in their native language) (Jablonskis 1911b: 2); he shows that he is very knowledgeable in all the properties of stockings (=about the properties) (Jablonskis 1926f: 741, 746). P. Skardžius also corrected similar cases: the Germans know very little in the Lithuanian language (=about the Lithuanian language). In his opinion, to be knowledgeable in a language or other matters is an entirely unjustifiable calque (Skardžius 1936a: 92); the expression everything is in order is a calqued feature of the speech of intellectuals (from German and Russian), and is therefore alien to Lithuanian. P. Skardžius does not strictly correct this locative, but—

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

49

notes that it can also be put another way (everything is fine, everything was as it should be, everything was taken care of) (Skardžius 1998: 757). J. Balčikonis corrected it more strictly: so let them move away in an orderly fashion (=well) (Balčikonis 1978: 228).

In Gimtoji kalba, J. Kruopas wrote that the tendencies of Lithuanian cannot justify locatives translated from other languages when they express a brief temporal circumstance, an attribute, or are used to express a circumstance of place or manner where the feel for the language calls for other cases (Kruopas 1939: 123–124). In his article, he gives many locatives that should be corrected. However, he mentions translated uses of the locative that should not be corrected: everything is in order; marched with his commander at the head (Kruopas 1939: 125). Those locatives are not corrected that can be justified by examples from Lithuanian: he is in office, in service, on leave; carried out reforms in finance; is knowledgeable in Lithuanian; the party won in the elections; remained in a sad situation; in the course of many years; the law remains in force; in Lithuanian we express those thoughts differently (Kruopas 1939: 125). “It can also be said differently, but there is reason to claim that the locatives mentioned above fit closely with locatives that raise no suspicion: in some cases they express a certain field (carried out reforms in finance; is knowledgeable in Lithuanian), and in others they indicate an almost concrete place (he is in service)” (Kruopas 1939: 125). It is evident that J. Kruopas was inclined to justify some locatives corrected by J. Jablonskis and P. Skardžius.

The locative is also not to be used to express the cause or basis of a state. Under the influence of other languages, many unacceptable causal locatives appeared in Lithuanian: as a result, in consequence, as a result, and so on. Such locatives were corrected by P. Meškauskas: as a result of that sad campaign (=the result of that sad campaign), four firefighters were buried (Meškauskas 1931a: 395); J. Kruopas: as a result, in consequence, as a result of that (=because of that, in connection with that) prices rose (Kruopas 1939: 124); P. Skardžius: as a consequence of wars (=because of wars) refugees always emerge; in connection (=in connection) with the worsening situation, much unrest had arisen (Skardžius 1998: 334); L. Dambrauskas: as a consequence of that, a call to fight arose in various countries (=that consequence) (this is simpler and more Lithuanian) (Dambrauskas 1936: 111); J. Balčikonis: as a consequence of that (=because of that, for that reason) frequent accidents occur (Balčikonis 1978: 308); as a consequence of that (=for that reason) the forms of their ancient proper names look very varied (Balčikonis 1978: 329).

The locative is not to be used to express the manner of an action or time. J. Jablonskis corrected such cases: for the time being we are mostly (=most) clean (Jablons-

50

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

kis 1926e: 12, 13); P. Meškauskas: jeigu aš tikrumoj (=iš tikrųjų) tokia bjauri, tai kodėl tu nepersiskiri su manim (Meškauskas 1932: 68); protinis darbas jai turi sektis, ir tikrumoje (=iš tikrųjų) sekasi (Meškauskas 1932b: 352). Taisyta Gimtojoje kalboje: departamento principe (=iš principo) sutiko (Jurkynas 1938: 19); gyventojai daugumoje (=daugumas gyventojų) yra ūkininkai (Kruopas 1939: 124); negalima pilnumoje (=pilnai) naudotis (Kruopas 1939: 125). Taisė P. Skardžius: vietininkas principe prieveiksmiškai vartoti netinka (Skardžius 1998: 733); tikrumoje (=iš tikrųjų) jis labai turtingas (Skardžius 1998: 344); šios priesagos esmėje (=iš tikrųjų) yra skirtingos (Skardžius 1936a: 92); J. Balčikonis: dalis pavardžių tikrumoje (=iš tikro, tikrai sakant) galėjo atsirasti lietuvių kalboje žymiai anksčiau (Balčikonis 1978: 32); A. Salys: daugumoje (=daugumas) nebeįstengė prisitaikyti prie naujo gyvenimo; susirinkusieji daugumoje (=dauguma susirinkusiųjų) tam pritarė. Šis vietininkas, anot A. Salio, yra gryna rusybė (Salys 1938b: 4).

The Language Adviser states that tikrenybėje, tikrumoje are calques from Russian and should not be used as adverbs (1939: 129). P. Skardžius also criticized similar locatives. In his view, many such locative forms arose under the influence of other languages: tikrumoje (=in fact) that printing house had been shut down by the security police. Tikrumoje is just as much a foreignism as esmėje: he esmėje (= essentially) was good (Skardžius 1998: 304).

The locative should not be used as a preposition or postposition to express a period of time. The use of the temporal locative was also considered, and incorrectly used instances were corrected: during her short life in Vilnius (=while living briefly in Vilnius) she accomplished much (Jablonskis 1911b: 2); all this can be removed within a few hours (=in a few hours) (Jablonskis 1926b); within two weeks (=in two weeks) (Jablonskis 1928a: 3); the office will be set up within this week (=this week, this week) (Jablonskis 1930: 31, 33); the notes were made over the course of ten years (=over ten years) (influence of Russian) (Meškauskas 1931c: 351); asks to pay everything within three days (=in three days) (Kalbos kertelė 1933a: 3); within three weeks, months (=in three weeks, months) (Jurkynas 1938: 19); greets people during celebrations (=during celebrations, at celebrations, at the time of celebrations) (Kruopas 1939: 124); within three weeks (=in three weeks) much may yet happen (Skardžius 1998: 344); in time the people, too, learned Lithuanian pronunciation (=with time) (our language does not justify this expression, and therefore it should not be used) (Skardžius 1935d: 173).

Aidas stated that a temporal adjunct is expressed not by the locative but by the instrumental. Drawing on the corrections made by J. Jablonskis and P. Skardžius, the sentences at that time already

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

51

people lived here; during the war we had no bread are corrected as follows: people already lived here at that time; during the war we had no bread; the sentences “the office will be set up within this week”; “within three weeks” are corrected to the office will be set up this week; this week; in three weeks (Horodničūtė 1938c: 3). Laiko bėgyje, laikotarpyje are also cited as forms needing correction in The Language Adviser.

CONCLUSIONS

1. A review of early case corrections allows us to conclude that their motivations were largely lacking; when explanations were provided, they usually generalized the issue as the influence of Russian, Polish, or German. Some authors attribute almost all corrections to the influence of foreign languages, without considering the internal laws of the language. Arguments become apparent only in discussions. Discussion brings out other, more interesting motives for correction, and opinions and viewpoints on linguistic matters are actively expressed.

2. Corrections are often justified by quoting another author's sentence and presenting it without qualification as an example of correct language. In other words, the sentence endorsed by another author itself serves as the rationale for the correction. In such cases, the authority of the author being cited carries considerable weight. The same correction tradition often runs through the works or articles of several authors.

3. Jonas Jablonskis often did not explain his corrections, because he aimed to provide more examples and to save space and time. It can be argued that, in making corrections, he relied primarily on dialect data, folklore, song collections, and grammars. Through all his corrections, statements, and arguments, J. Jablonskis sought linguistic correctness, system, and consistency.

4. Correcting the nominative to the partitive genitive is one of the most consistent practices. Corrections were most often based on dialect data and norms established by grammars, with due regard for context and usage tradition. Non-Lithuanian forms, borrowings, and forms foreign to Lithuanian were corrected.

5. The genitive cases corrected most often, and raising many questions, were those connected with the expression of whole and part characteristic of Lithuanian. The main motivations for correction were the tradition established by J. Jablonskis, the influence of other languages, and consideration of the meaning of the utterance.

6. Many dative corrections were debated for a long time, and quite a few differing opinions were put forward. The dative was corrected most consistently when used incorrectly-

52

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

is considered the case of the object. The main rationale for this correction is the influence of other languages, Russian or German, and dialect evidence. Because of the influence of other languages, the use of the verb tikėti with the dative is considered incorrect.

7. Summarizing all the corrections of the accusative, as well as the considerations and ideas of various authors, it can be stated that the use of the accusative with verbs of address was variable. The most common rationale for correcting the accusative is the tradition of usage and correction established since J. Jablonskis; the native dialect and living speech have a great influence. Many corrections are based on the influence of foreign languages.

8. The most common rationale for correcting the instrumental is the influence of other languages (Russian, Polish, German). In polemicizing with other authors, J. Jablonskis based some corrections on dialect evidence. Later linguists took the context into account, and, less often, the internal rules of the Lithuanian language. The summarized rationales for the corrections suggest that the most important criterion is linguistic purity.

9. The main rationale for correcting locative errors is the influence of other languages, most often Russian. In isolated cases, internal rules of the language were also relied upon. Compared with other cases, corrections of locative errors relied least on linguistic intuition and subjective arguments. Although there was some variation, locative corrections changed very little.

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

Ambrazas V. 1990: Kaip kreiptis? Kaip vadinti? – Gimtoji kalba, 4, p. 9–11.

Balčikonis J. 1935: Recenzijos. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 3, p. 45–48.

Balčikonis J. 1935a: Recenzija. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 11, p. 174

Balčikonis J. 1938: Kalbos reikalu. Susirinko posėdžio. – Naujoji romuva, Nr. 12, p. 297.

Balčikonis J. 1978: Rinktiniai raštai, t. 1, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Baranauskas J. 1896: Kalbomokslis lietuviškos kalbos (Mokslas lietuviškos kalbos).

Barzdukas S. 1938: Recenzijos. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 4, p. 60–64.

Barzdukas S. 1940: Vėl po vidurinę mokyklą pasidairius. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 2, p. 21–25.

Būga K. 1914: Kalbos mažmožiai. – Vairas, Nr. 11, p. 18–19.

Dambrauskas L. 1936: Taisymai. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 7, p. 111–112.

Dambrauskas L. 1937: Recenzijos. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 4, p. 68–69.

Horodničiūtė E. 1938a: Lietuvių kalbos skiltis. – Aidas (Vilnius), Nr. 5, gegužės 13, p. 3.

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

53

Horodničiūtė E. 1938c: Lietuvių kalbos skiltis. – Aidas (Vilnius), Nr. 9, gegužės 26, p. 3.

Horodničiūtė E. 1938b: Lietuvių kalbos skiltis. – Aidas (Vilnius), Nr. 7, gegužės 20, p. 3.

Jablonskis J. 1893: Medega sintaksjui. – Varpas, Nr. 10, p. 148–151.

Jablonskis J. 1901: Lietuviškos kalbos gramatika, Tilžė.

Jablonskis J. 1911a: Kalbos dalykai (Šių dienų rašomosios kalbos reikalams). – Viltis, Nr. 126, p. 1–3.

Jablonskis J. 1911b: Kalbos dalykai (Šis tas iš linksnių ir prielinksnių mokslo). – Viltis, Nr. 147, p. 2–3.

Jablonskis J. 1912a: Rašomosios kalbos dalykai. – Viltis, Nr. 55, p. 2–3.

Jablonskis J. 1912b: Rašomosios kalbos dalykai. – Viltis, Nr. 108, p. 2.

Jablonskis J. 1912c: Kalbos dalykai. – Viltis, Nr. 3, p. 1–3.

Jablonskis J. 1912d: „Rašomosios kalbos dalykų“ kritikui. Laiškas p. Druskui. – Viltis, Nr. 132, p. 2–3.

Jablonskis J. 1914: Kalbos dalykai. – Viltis, Nr. 7, p. 4.

Jablonskis J. 1914a: Kalbos dalykai. – Lietuvos žinios, Nr. 12, sausio 16, p. 2–3.

Jablonskis J. 1914b: Šių dienų rašomosios kalbos reikalai. – Viltis, Nr. 86, balandžio 23, p. 2–3.

Jablonskis J. 1914c: Kalbos dalykai. – Viltis, Nr. 9, sausio 12, p. 4.

Jablonskis J. 1917: Review. – Santara, No. 22, p. 2.

Jablonskis J. 1919: Kritika ir bibliografija. – Švietimo darbas, Nr. 2–3, p. 7–8.

Jablonskis J. 1920: Kalbos dalykai. – Švietimo darbas, Nr. 4, p. 21–27.

Jablonskis J. 1921: Kritika ir bibliografija. – Švietimo darbas, Nr. 11–12, p. 121–150.

Jablonskis J. 1925a: Kalba ir literatūra. – Švietimo darbas, Nr. 11, p. 1208–1217.

Jablonskis J. 1925b: Keli kalbos dalykai. – Lietuvos žinios, Nr. 104, p. 186.

Jablonskis J. 1925c: Dėdės Tomo trobelė. Karklio vertimo recenzija. – Švietimo darbas, Nr. 1, p. 54–57.

Jablonskis J. 1925d: Keli kalbos dalykai. – Lietuvos žinios, Nr. 104, p. 4.

Jablonskis J. 1926a: Literatūros dalyko kalba. – Lietuva, Nr. 45, p. 2–3.

Jablonskis J. 1926b: Kalba ir literatūra. – Švietimo darbas, Nr. 1, p. 46–55.

Jablonskis J. 1926c: Spaudiniai. – Lietuva, Nr. 113, p. 2–8.

Jablonskis J. 1926d: Kritika ir bibliografija. – Švietimo darbas, Nr. 2, p. 158–159.

Jablonskis J. 1926e: Laikraščio kalbos dalykai. – Lietuvis, Nr. 26, p. 12–13.

54

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

Jablonskis J. 1926f: Literatūros dalykų kalba. – Švietimo darbas, Nr. 6, p. 741–746.

Jablonskis J. 1926g: Literatūros dalykų kalba. – Švietimo darbas, Nr. 4, p. 401–407.

Jablonskis J. 1926h: Mūsų laikraščių kalbos dalykai. – Lietuva, Nr. 200.

Jablonskis J. 1927: Ir vėl laikraštinės kalbos dalykai. – Lietuva, Nr. 246, p. 3–4.

Jablonskis J. 1928: Linksniai ir prielinksniai: jų vartojimas mūsų kalboje, Kaunas: Sakalas.

Jablonskis J. 1928a: Įvairūs mūsų žodynėlio dalykai. – Lietuvos aidas, Nr. 215, spalio 22, p. 2–3.

Jablonskis J. 1928b: Įvairūs mūsų žodynėlio dalykai. – Lietuvos aidas, Nr. 221, spalio 29, p. 2–4.

Jablonskis J. 1930: Laikraštinės kalbos dalykai. – Kalba, sąs. 1, p. 31–36.

Jakštas A. (Druskius) 1912: Rašomosios kalbos dalykai. – Draugija, Nr. 68, p. 284–287.

Jakštas A. 1933: Pasisveikinimai. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 1, p. 2–3.

Jurkynas M. 1938: Dėl mūsų raštinės kalbos. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 1, p. 19–23.

Juška A. 1938: Recenzijos. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 2, p. 29–31.

Kalbininkų rungtynės, 1928: Lietuva, Nr. 23, sausio 28, p. 6.

Kalbos kertelė, 1933: Kalbos kertelė. – Panevėžio balsas, Nr. 14, balandžio 2, p. 3.

Kalbos kertelė, 1933a: Kalbos kertelė. – Panevėžio balsas, Nr. 23, birželio 4, p. 3.

Kalbos kertelė, 1933b: Kalbos kertelė. – Panevėžio balsas, Nr. 24, birželio 11, p. 3.

Kalbos patarėjas, 1939: Lietuvių kalbos draugija, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Kruopas J. 1939: Vietininko vartojimas. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 8, p. 122–125.

Kruopas J. 1951: Atstovauti kam ar ką? – Tarybinė mokykla, Nr. 11, p. 31.

Kruopas J. 1998: Rinktiniai raštai. Sudarytojas Stasys Keinys, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Kulbokas V. 1968: Mūsų spaudos kalba. – Gimtoji kalba, Nr. 1–2, p. 19–21.

Labokas J. 1933: Apžvalga. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 4, p. 63.

Lengvinas A. 1938: Užsienio lietuvių spaudos kalba. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 1, p. 3–7.

Meškauskas P. 1931: Laikraštinės kalbos trūkumai. – Vairas, Nr. 6, p. 231–237.

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

55

Meškauskas P. 1931a: Laikraštinės kalbos trūkumai. – Vairas, Nr. 7–8, p. 390–397.

Meškauskas P. 1931b: Laikraštinės kalbos trūkumai. – Vairas, Nr. 9, p. 58–67.

Meškauskas P. 1931c: Laikraštinės kalbos trūkumai. – Vairas, Nr. 11, p. 345–354.

Meškauskas P. 1932: Laikraštinės kalbos trūkumai. – Vairas, Nr. 1, p. 66–69.

Meškauskas P. 1932a: Laikraštinės kalbos trūkumai. – Vairas, Nr. 4, p. 505–510.

Meškauskas P. 1932b: Laikraštinės kalbos trūkumai. – Vairas, Nr. 3, 350–358.

Meškauskas P. 1932c: Laikraštinės kalbos trūkumai. – Vairas, Nr. 5, p. 70–74.

Meškauskas P. 1932d: Laikraštinės kalbos trūkumai. Atsakymas E. Viskantai ir keli paaiškinimai. – Vairas, Nr. 7–8, p. 358–363.

Mur ka J. 1917: Recenzijos. – Laisvoji Lietuvos mokykla (Petrapilis), Nr. 1, p. 14–15.

Piročkinas A. 1986: Jono Jablonskio taisymai, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Salys A. 1925: Dėl A. Vireliūno „Kalbos neaiškumų“. – Lietuvis, Nr. 10, kovo 6, p. 10–11.

Salys A. 1935: Mokykla ir kalbos jausmas. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 1–2, p. 7–10.

Salys A. 1937: Iš naujybinės kalbos praktikos. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 8, p. 134–137.

Salys A. 1938a: Dėl vardo kilmininko ir vardininko. – Lietuvos aidas, Nr. 167, balandžio 13, p. 4.

Salys A. 1938b: Ne daugumoje, bet daugumas pritarė. – Lietuvos aidas, Nr. 106, kovo 9, p. 4.

Salys A. 1938c: Vadovauti, atstovauti kam, o ne ką. – Lietuvos aidas, Nr. 193, gegužės 2, p. 4.

Salys A. 1938d: Laba diena, ne labą dieną. – Lietuvos aidas, Nr. 470, spalio 17, p. 3.

Salys A. 1979: Raštai. T. 1. Bendrinė kalba, Roma.

Skardžius P. 1999: Rinktiniai raštai. T. 5. Akcentologija, bendrinės kalbos kultūra, publicistika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Skardžius P. 1930: Dėl mūsų kritikų nuomonės apie kalbos dalykus. – Kalba, sąs. 2, p. 84–93.

Skardžius P. 1935a: Bendrinė kalba ir jos rūšys. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 1–2, p. 3–7.

56

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

Skardžius P. 1935b: Klausimų kraitelė. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 10, p. 173.

Skardžius P. 1935c: Apžvalga (dėl E. Viskantos „Putino kalbos kritikos šešėly“). – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 8, p. 124–126.

Skardžius P. 1935d: Taisymai. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 10, p. 171–173.

Skardžius P. 1936: Klausimų kraitelė. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 1–2, p. 13–17.

Skardžius P. 1936a: Taisymai. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 6, p. 92–93.

Skardžius P. 1937: Recenzijos. Prošvaistė. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 9, p. 158–160.

Skardžius P. 1939: Klausimų kraitelė. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 1, p. 9.

Skardžius P. 1997: Rinktiniai raštai. T. 2. Bendrinės kalbos dalykai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Skardžius P. 1998: Rinktiniai raštai. T. 3. Bendrinės kalbos dalykai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Stonys M. 1940: Modernybės mūsų spaudos kalboje. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 4, p. 58–59.

Šukys J. 1995: Kaip geriau: ponas direktoriau ar pone direktoriau? – Gimtoji kalba, Nr. 8–9, p. 13.

Švietimo darbas, 1920: Kritika ir bibliografija, Nr. 8–9, p. 62–76.

Talmantas J. 1933: Klausimų kraitelė. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 3, p. 39–43.

Talmantas J. 1934: Klausimų kraitelė. – Gimtoji kalba, sąs. 7–10, p. 118–120.

Vireliūnas A. 1923: Kritika ir bibliografija. – Švietimo darbas, Nr. 6–7, p. 486–488.

Vireliūnas A. 1925: Kalbos neaiškumai. – Lietuvis, Nr. 7, vasario 13, p. 13.

Vireliūnas A. 1925a: Kalbos neaiškumai. Atsakymas Saliui. – Lietuvis, Nr. 14, balandžio 3, p. 13.

Viskanta E. 1935: Kalbos dalykai. Putino kalbos kritikos šešėly. – Vairas, Nr. 7–8, p. 366–371.

Žemaičių ir Lietuvos apžvalga, 1890, Nr. 2.

Received 2011 11 30

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

57

FOLLOWING THE PATH OF JONAS JABLONSKIS: CASE ERRORS AND WHY THEY SHOULD BE AMENDED

S u m m a r y

Starting with Jonas Jablonskis, the systematicity and attempts to strengthen the Lithuanian language norm have become more consistent. At the beginning of the 20^th century the norm experienced a major impact of linguists working in the journal Gimtoji kalba, such as Skardžius, Salys, Jonikas, Talmantas, later—Balčikonis, Dambrūnas (Dambrauskas). Since the middle of the 20^th century attempts to set the norm have become much less individualistic, more organised, contributors of the journal Gimtoji kalba were engaged in heated discussions on a number of topics relating to the theory of language culture as well as many of its practical issues, language use and norm setting in standardised language. Various newspapers and magazines started publishing articles dealing with practical language issues, including debatable topics. The articles focused on the research into grammatical cases and their usage, including errors, found in the actual language usage of the time.

The present paper offers an overview of the first steps when the cases were started to be amended, attempts to amend the usage of the cases by linguists of the period between the two world wars, reasons for such amendments given by J. Jablonskis and linguists of the Gimtoji kalba, some later repercussions. The overview of early amendments of case usage can be summarised by pointing out that the reasons for such amendments were not always sufficiently detailed and well-grounded; in most cases reference was made to the impact of Russian, Polish and German. Some authors pointed out the impact of foreign languages as the key reason for all amendments, with no reference to the laws of language. An inclination to adopt the reasons from other authors is noticeable. The reasons supported by arguments are only given in the discussion section. In the course of discussion, some other, more vivid, reasons emerged; different opinions and new approaches to language were actively expressed. Jablonskis abstained from commenting and attempted to provide more examples, tried to save space and time. Very often the explication mainly included a sentence quoted from another author, which was given as an example of standard language. No discussion as to its well-formedness was found. In other words, the sentence by another author was the motivation to present it. In many cases the name of the author was mostly relied on. Often the same tradition of amending is noticeable in the works of several authors. Jablonskis must have relied on the data of the dialects, folklore, collections of songs and grammars. In all of his amendments Jablonskis attempted at language well-formedness, systematicity and consistency. His pro-

58

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

posal to replace the nominative case by the partitive genitive (Genitivus partitivus) was among the most consistent. When amending, reference was mostly made to the data of the dialects, the language norms set by grammars; however, the context and tradition of usage were also important. The genitive case was among the most heatedly debated and most frequently amended cases, which must have been due to the whole-part relationship often expressed in Lithuanian by the genitive case. Numerous amendments of the dative case were the result of long-lasting discussion and a range of different opinions. The dative erroneously used to refer to an object was amended in the most consistent manner. The overview of all amendments of the accusative, comments and ideas suggested by different authors have led to a conclusion that the usage of the genitive case with the verbs of address was fluctuating. The data collected from different authors has led to a conclusion that the most frequent reason for amending the instrumental case is the impact of other languages (Russian, Polish, German). Jablonskis, in his discussion with some other authors, used the data of the dialects. Later linguists more often referred to the context, very seldom also to the laws of the Lithuanian language. When amending the locative, the linguist’s intuition seems to have been the least reliable; more arguments were provided. Despite that the usage was rather fluctuating, the amendments of the locative were largely stable.

KEY WORDS: nominative case, genitive case, dative case, accusative case, instrumental case, locative case, codification.

IRENA SMETONIENĖ

BRIGITA DAMBRAUSKAITĖ

Vilnius University

3 Universiteto St., LT-01513 Vilnius

[email protected]

brigit [email protected]

I. SMETONIENĖ, B. DAMBRAUSKAITĖ. Jono Jablonskio pėdomis: linksnių klaidos ir taisymo motyvai

59