Dėl „sekančio“ klausimo

224 Languages and Culture | 81 Discussions DAINIUS RAZAUSKAS Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore About the NEXT question to Daugilas son, who asked to clarify this question in more detail This essay was created in an attempt to understand between the following participants of the meaning and not to be given, permissible and unpermissible use. Even if he is not a professional linguist, he has some right to try to understand things in his native language. It is true that I first tried to understand it by referring to linguists and only then, perhaps out of despair, I dared to think about it myself. but let these my attempts be judged as severely as possible by those who know the matter much better, but for some reason I do not understand did not offer to explain it. or not the first participant following the use consistently corrected our common language patriarch Jonas Jablonskis1. For example: The performance is postponed to the next Saturday; S e k a n t i s congress is convened in two years in Moscow, correct: K i t a s congress is convened in two years in Moscow; I can advise the farmer to treat the sick pigs in the s e k a n č i u way, corrected: Treat the pigs in the s e k a n č i u way…; (Reikia) ištrinti visa kiaulė s e k a n č i u mortar, corrected: Pigs need to be erased with mortar… (Jabų lonskis 1935: 107, 179; 1936: 159, 161; 1959: 108, 184, 448, 450). And as a summary: “Following, next = 1) another, 2) this, that. Fig.: 1) the next meeting (no: next meeting) will be on Wednesday; these people (no: the following people) were killed.” 1 for the advice to refer to the pre-war writings of J. Jablonskis, the instruction to use the Language Culture Arrows, the following article of Mantas Adomėnas, some valuable factually-oriented remarks and simply for his goodwill I would like to thank Dr. Pranui Kniūkštai. D. razausKas. 225 "For this purpose I tend to use the following words of our language: 1) the next meeting in a row will be this Wednesday; 2) killed (shot, killed, shot…) were these bubble people: antanas, John and Peter. That the words sekamas, sekantis are unusable in the language, that black is always correctable, I would not like to say that in these my words: this word of our language is not suitable to be used only without any reason…; black (following, following) is correctable only where the writer is n e z m o n i š k a i used“ (Jablonskis 1936: 202). John Jablonski was followed by another great Lithuanian language normizer and purifier, Juozas Balčikonis. First of all, its correction is to be mentioned: In the following (= next…) week, events blurred considerably. He explains his correction as follows: “E. Viskanta wants to leave the "next day, next week, next lesson" uncorrected because "the accuracy of the language" requires it. What accuracy can there be, if we give to the words of our speech a meaning that is not theirs! Do we say: “What day is next tomorrow?” “What month is next?” “What lesson is next now?” If we do not use it, then we cannot use “next day”, “next month”, “next lesson”. We have for this purpose: “next day”, “next month”, “next lesson”, “next week”, “next month” (cf. “What is the name of the month that is coming?”), “in the coming year”. If I say “I’m going to the garden next week”, “I’m going to live in the city next year”, or anyone else may not be clear what I’m saying?”. Here are some more of his corrections: he would agree where and when to meet the next (= next) time; (bee) climbed down to the next (= other) ring; the next (= next) day twenty men... must enter the manor; In the spring of the following (= next) year the barkun was fertilized (balčikonis 1978: 145, 155–156, 225, 288, 292, 307). Our language is followed by its later workers, but not all of them. we will briefly review the most important opinions expressed. Nijolė sližienė writes: “When we are asked to propose someone to the honorary presidium, we sometimes hear people say: we propose this composition or the next composition for the honorary presidium, and even we propose the next one. such statements are also literal values. Especially reprehensible here is the participle following, used instead of the pronouns this, this, that, and the adverbs following in these cases is absolutely impossible. we should say: to the honorary presidency we propose… (or to the honorary presidency we propose these friends…)“ (sližienė 1969: 18). Kazys ulvydas states: "It must be said that very often, especially in the colloquial language of intelligents, the verb sekti and its derivatives are used unsuccessfully. Here are some specific mistakes in the use of the verb and its derivatives: this use of the 226 Languages and Culture | 81 From this s e k a that they will not come to the help; Taking into account the material set out above, the sequence is …; This shows the s e k a n t in; The Commission notes the s e k a n t i; The undersigned (hereinafter referred to as) This can be seen from the s e k a n č i o s table; The work is distributed s e k a n č i a i. verb sekti and its derivatives is not Lithuanian. it is nothing more than a poor translation of the German verb folgen and its derivatives or the Russian следовать and its derivatives. in Lithuanian we can only say: What comes out of it? It follows that they will not come to the help; Here is what the material previously presented shows; It shows this; The Commission notes the following: Below (hereinafter) are the signatures; We can see this from the following table; The works are distributed as follows: 1972: 25–26). The article of Klementina Vosylytė "Meanings of the verb follow" is noteworthy. Having emphasized the verb sekti in the plural and listed its meanings, the linguist adds: “in addition to the mentioned meanings, the verb sêkti (sìka, sìkė) is used in the writings with the following meanings: 1) “to go, to be, to proceed immediately after something”, e.g.: after the polyclinic s e k d a v o (= it used to be, it used to begin) visits to the sick at home; 2) "to sail out, to clear, to see", e.g. : The conclusion is that the peasant will never adopt the right view of nature. This is not a good idea because it will cause confusion. about the inrepresentability of these meanings has already been discussed in previous “Language Culture” notebooks. The participle sìkantis,i with the meaning "this, that, that" is also not used, e.g. : The circle of questions is s e k a n t i s (= such); The order of business is as follows (= as follows). however, the participle sìkantis,i „who goes after something, another” is usable in Lithuanian. The “Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language” (both editions) also legitimizes this, e.g. : S e k a n t i s newspaper number; We'll get off at the s e k a n č i o j e station." The following are three examples from lKŽ, one of them by Donelaitis: Todėl tur kiekvienas… taipo pasirūpint, kad kožna diena, nusinkęs savo dalyką, dar ir s e k a n č i a i n’užmirstų reikalą skalsyt. And it is explained: “The words proposed for this purpose, next, coming, next, may cause confusion or make the thought unclear. Nevertheless, in cases where the words next, coming, next perfectly describe what the following is, they should be used. Let’s say, the sentence K i t ą vasarą atostogausiu pajūryje is completely clear and understandable, so there is no need to say S e k a n č i ą vasarą atostogausiu pajūryje” (Vosylytė 1978: 50; for examples see lKŽ XII 318). Again K. ulvydas, but now more precisely and clearly: "it is also not appropriate to correct the word sekantis, used in the meaning "who goes after something". “The current litu- D. razausKas. As for the following question, the 227 vių kalbos žodynas” confirms the following meaning of the word sekantis as the normative one, and gives examples: We'll get off at the next stop. There is no reason not to recognise that significance. but in other cases the word following is simply not allowed. For example, the statements This is shown in the following table; The following composition of the Commission is to be amended as follows: The Commission shall be composed as follows:’ (ulvydas 1986: 6). Of course, it is not possible not to mention the Language Practice Advices (hereinafter referred to as KPP) compiled by Aldonas Pupkis, which also states that the verb sekti “is not to be used in the meaning of “to be, to go immediately after what”: Kas s e k a (= Who goes, who is) immediately after winter? Below s e k a (= goes, is) signatures. S e k ė (= Was) two accurate shots (Late, then – two accurate shots). Toliau s e k a (Next goes, is; Next –) information about the pioneers of Vilnius drill factory". about the participant the following is said that it is not to be used with the meanings: 1. šis, šitoks, toks (before the enumeration): Vilniuje dabar veikia s e k a n č i o s (= these) exhibitions. The collective has accepted s e k a n č i u s (= these, those) commitments. We need s e k a n č i (= such) specialists. A commission of s e k a n č i o s composition was formed (= such a commission). We get s e k a n č i a s (= these, these, these) equations. For children, the sleep duration is suggested as s e k a n t i (= this, that; better Children are recommended to sleep this much). Treatment can be done in s e k a n č i u (this, that, that) way; 2. here what, here why (before explanation): In reply to your letter, I inform s e k a n t í (= I inform here what; I inform). It shows s e k a n t í (= this is what). The decision was upheld for s e k a n č i o (= for these reasons, motives; for this reason; because of …). and it is used as follows: S e k a n t i s wolf's footsteps hunter looked around. The people stopped him" (KPP 256-257). Finally, the decision of the Lithuanian language commission legalizes that the word sekantis,jiu is unusable in the following meanings: 1. „šis, šitas, šitoks, šita, toks, šitoks“ (before the enumeration): in Vilnius there are currently s e k a n č i o s (= these, those) exhibitions: […]; 2. “here is what; here is why” (before the explanation): In reply to your letter I inform s e k a n t to (= here is what): … (lCCC 145). I have not presented all the opinions of linguists on this issue, perhaps I have overlooked something, but from what has been said, it is clear – perhaps there is a certain contradiction, disagreement, but in fact it is a lack of consistency, accuracy or even (semi-) conscious silence. Let’s limit ourselves this time to one single question: is the verb sekti meaning “to go after (something)” and, therefore, the participle sekimas meaning “going after” or “the one who goes after” to be given or not to be given? 228 Languages and Culture | 81 J. Jablonskis emphasizes that the word following is not unusable in general – it is unusable only “without any need”, “inhumanly”, but from some of the examples he corrected (The play was postponed to s e k a n č i a m (= next) Saturday; next meeting (no: next meeting) will be on Wednesday) it is clear that among the "inhuman" he thought there was also the meaning of "going after". J. Jablonskis does not say anything about the meaning of the verb sekti itself as “going after” (Jablonskis 1935: 107; 1936: 202). J. balčikonis rejects such a meaning of the verb and thereby bases the rejection of the meaning of the corresponding participant („do we say: „Which tomorrow day follows?“... If we do not use it, then we cannot use „the next day“...“, see p. 225), and instead, among other things, proposes the verb come and the participant coming (balčikonis 1978: 155–156). In the opinion of K. Vosylytė, the verb sekti with the meaning “to go, to be, to proceed immediately after something” should not be used, “but the participant willkantis,i as “who goes after something, another” is to be used in Lithuanian”, as this is legitimized by the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary (both editions). Furthermore, it also provides examples from our classics, thus confirming that the tradition of using the word following in this sense is quite old. In fact, “the words next, coming, next, suggested for this matter, may cause confusion or make the idea unclear”, because the other is a much broader concept than just “the next, going immediately after”. And yet, for some reason, “there is no need to say I’ll be on holiday at the seaside this summer” (Vosylytė 1978: 50) – a tribute to authorities? According to K. ulvydas, also “it is not appropriate to correct the word sekantis, used in the meaning “who goes after something”, because “there is no reason not to recognize that meaning”. (ulvydas 1986: 6). According to the KPP advice, the verb sekti should not be used in the meaning “to be, to go immediately after something” (KPP 257), but the use of the participle following in the corresponding meaning is avoided here, it is simply silenced – it is not mentioned either directly or by any example. Unfortunately, the Lithuanian language commission did the same. Was it expected that no one would notice? It can also be added that in the great Lithuanian language dictionary (lKŽ XII 338–339) the first meaning of the verb sekti is defined as “to go, to proceed after, with additions”, and the second “to be, to proceed immediately after something” is marked as Slavism, so it is not presentable. In turn, the Modern Lithuanian Language Dictionary (DlKŽ) of the verb sekti indicates only the meaning of “go, proceed to a point”. Participant next to third D. razausKas. As for the next question, edition 229 (1993) is described as unusable in the meanings of „next 3“ („coming, following“) and „this 1“ („that, this (indicating a person or thing close in time or space)“), but nothing is said about the meaning of „next 4“ („going after this“), e.g. : Will you get off at the next stop? In the latter sense, the participle following is not unusable, avoidable? And to ask Are you going to get off at the s e k a n č i o j e station? is there no language error? and if so, then why is it in this sense expelled from everywhere – and above all from public transport messages? Since the linguists on this issue, as it seems, do not help to understand, I will try to consider it myself, in my head. I will try to do this in several steps: p i r m a – to compare the two mentioned meanings of the verb follow, the one that can be given and the one that can not be given; a n t r a – to look at the meanings of the verb follow indirectly, through some of its derivatives, common and unquestionable co-root words; t r e č i a – to discuss the very action of following, as going after, from a logical point of view; k e t v i r t a – to see how the words are treated in other languages. therefore, I will call my arguments, albeit conditionally, semantic, lexical, logical and typological. 1) The semantic argument The basic meaning of the verb follow is defined as “go, follow after” (DlKŽ), “go, follow after, with additions” (lKŽ XII 338); the second, unpresentable, – as “to be, to proceed immediately after something” (lKŽ XII 339), “to be, to go immediately after something” (KPP 257), “to go, to be, to proceed immediately after something” (Vosylytė 1978: 50). It is striking that the definitions are not fundamentally different. truth, when defining the first meaning, take the unused "to be", first said "to go"; but, defining the second, it is also said “to go” (once even in the first place). but is "being right after something" different from "going right after something"? the most obvious difference is that the action of the first meaning takes place „after, behind“, and of the second – „immediately after“. Unfortunately, the difference is only visible, because the preposition po here denotes, according to the definition of the DlKŽ, “a place or time n o s e k l u m ą”, in turn the sequence, according to the definition of the lKŽ, is “one after another, taking place”, thus “going after”; even though (from)sequence is exactly what follows (for the relationship of the words themselves see the lexical argument below). so „go after“ = „follow“ = „go after, after“. It would be expected that the two values are only defined incorrectly, and otherwise very clearly differ from the good and bad examples given. but between 230 Language Culture | 81 lKŽ provided suitable, impeccable examples of the first verb sekti meaning (true, transitive) and the following: Ancient words sekė (explanation: were inherited, passed from mouth to mouth) and atasekė lig šių laikų (antašavà, Kupiškio r.). Trouble follows trouble (letters); …the apostles are informed of the tribulations that will follow them (explanation: which they will experience) J. bretkūno Postilas (isn’t it the same as saying “which will come after that”); Disasters sometimes come quite unexpectedly and usually follow one another (a. Monk). The examples of secondary, unpresentable, meaning in lKŽ are scarce and unclear, so that it would be possible to decide something from them: After the polyclinic followed visits to the patients at home; The end of the placement (lKŻ XII 338-339) follows. but if it is possible to follow hardship after hardship, misfortune after misfortune, then why could not joy follow joy, happiness happiness and otherwise no (neutral) event no event or just occasionally follow? so congress congress, meeting meeting, (not outgoing) newspaper number (previously outgoing) newspaper number, etc. to follow? What distinguishes some examples from other analogues and makes them unpresentable? What is the basis for distinguishing between the first, principal (only transitive) and the second, non-transitive, meanings of the verb follow? Unfortunately, no real basis was found. 2) the EXACT ARGUMENT Let’s see what some other Lithuanian words of unquestionable usefulness – verb-followed vedic – indirectly tell us about this. One of them has already been mentioned – it is the adjective of the root of the verb sekti (follow), consistent “in turn, one after another going, happening, being done”, as well as “orderly, doing something in a row”; here and adverbs in sequence, e.g. : He learns lessons well, but is unable to present his thoughts to others in a coherent way (ICD VIII 953). If the thoughts can be arranged in sequence, then they form a sequence, in other words, they follow each other. any things that can only be sequential can only be so because they follow each other. Since the adjective is the derivative of the verb, and not the other way around, the sequence has this meaning only because the corresponding meaning – “in turn, one after the other to go, to take place, to be done” – has or at least had and can legitimately have the verb follow. Otherwise, as Mantas adomėnas has rightly written, “being consistent, we should probably give up consistency” (adomėnas 1995: 4). D. razausKas. On the next question 231 The noun sekâ, another derivative of the verb sekati that has just been mentioned, means “the following of events, phenomena or objects one after another” (1 CIC XII 318), thus again “going after”. It may only be a re-creation of another hundred years, but it also testifies that the verb sekti, from which it is made, had the meaning of “to follow events, phenomena or objects one after another”. If there can be thoughts, words, sentences, paragraphs, pages, as well as columns, stops, etc., then there can be a sequence of abstract numbers, that is, they follow each other (similarly, their sequence can be only because they follow each other = one goes after the other). The words of the root followed by the verb are the preposition for the verb „after, in biting“, the adverb for the verb „after“ (see also its gender pasekomybės, pãseku, etc.) and the adverbs paskuė, paskuaũ „when the previous action has been performed (denoting successive actions)“ or „after some time, later“ (lKŽ IX 462, 463, 481, 490–491). The latter obviously refers to “going behind” not in space but in time, and defines one action in relation to the previous one as “going after”, essentially “going after”. Since this adverb is derived from the verb, and not the other way around, its meaning is based on the corresponding meaning of the verb, so that the verb sekti may be used to denote not only ‘going after’ in space but also ‘going after’ in time (as regards the latter, see argument 3). From the adverb, in turn, is made the adjective paskutėnis (and pãkutinis). Its basic meaning is "after which there are no more of the same things or phenomena; at the end of a sequence of things or phenomena, final, final” (lKŽ IX 498). There is no need to give examples of use, everyone knows that it can be the last hour, the last day, the last dinner, the last dance, the last word and whatever you want. it is the thing that follows (after) all the others that have gone before it. (by the way, the Russians have an adjective made from the verb следовамь “to follow” – последний “the last”, which has not become an excuse to restrict the Lithuanian word paskutinis!) Finally, from the same root comes the synonym of following, paskèsnis, meaning “going after, later”, which has the second meaning of “being or going after something” (in a row) which is not disputed by anyone (1CZ IX 481), which means that the verb sekti, from which this adjective is made, had and can have the corresponding meaning of “to be or to go after something” (just as it is denied!), and the participle követő can be used in the meaning of “being or going after something”. (by the way, why did linguists not suggest replacing next with next?) 232 Language Culture | 81 Based on the words reviewed, it turns out that the thought, word, sentence, passtotelė, etc., is perfectly correct to be following,iji. traipa, puslapis, taip pat valanda, diena, mėnuo, vakarienė, šokis, stulpas, 3) Logic arguments The main meaning of the verb follow is "following, following after". However, it is possible to go not only in terms of space, but also in terms of time, as evidenced by such Lithuanian words as at-eitis and praeeitis and confirmed by the linguistic proposal (albeit unfounded) to change the next day with the coming day. and since in the sense of time it is possible to go, it is also possible to follow, this is clearly shown by the mentioned adverbs jälkeen, jälkeenaũ. J. Balčikonis, using the example of "Which month follows?" for his criticism, was inconsistent in this sense. In general, we perceive movement in two ways: as our (observer’s) movement in relation to immobile objects in the environment or as the movement of objects in the environment in relation to us (observer) – both when the observer is standing on the ground and someone is passing by, and when the observer is standing, for example, on a bus, and the poles of the road are passing by outside the window. the same is true of the movement in the sense of time or the movement of time itself. in the case when the observer goes in relation to time, the past is what he has already passed, and the future is where he will come (spatial metaphors in speaking about time are not only characteristic, but generally inevitable). On the other hand, when time passes by the immobile observer, the past is what has already passed and the future is what is coming. In language, this distinction is perfectly expressed, for example: last day, last year and last day, p r a ė j ę year. Thus, the basic meaning of the verb to follow, “to go after” in space, can easily be transferred in time. In the first case, I follow the one who goes before me, that is, the one who first crosses the present moment before me, and since I, as an observer, am always in the present, I always follow the one who just passed. It is precisely on this view of time that the concept of the follower is based: although the follower does not follow everybody (or, in this sense, not everyone), yet necessarily the one (that) who went first has already passed. in the second case, which is more relevant to us this time, the future follows the past. In other words, any future event that follows another follows it, thus "goes after", i.e. "goes after". Sometimes, by the way, an event comes together both in terms of time and space – for example, the coming cloud and the rain from it, and if another one follows it, then the latter certainly follows the first one in the literal meaning of this verb (therefore, the coming cloud from behind, and the rain at the same time, is exactly the next one). in fact,