Ką seka „sekantis“?

236 Languages and Culture | 81 PRANAS KNIŪKŠTA lietuvių kalbos institutas WHAT'S NEXT? The participant’s next case is long and controversial, and I remember it because of the article “On the next question” by Dainius Razauskas. It covers, you can say, the entire history of this participant's corrections, and it also contains a lot of new ideas. Many of the author's arguments are worth considering, but there are some controversial points that need to be clarified. All the more so, we must respond to the criticisms made of linguists. The main topic of the article is the participant following. It begins with doubts about its meaning, then discusses it, and at the end insists on defending its use in the meaning of “next, coming after something”. Similarly, the verb follow is examined. We have our considerations here and we will start with him. The verb to follow can indeed be compared with the verb to go, but one should not put an equal sign between them and replace one with another without consideration. Their relationships of meaning are confusing and complex. The first (main) meaning of the verb follow is indicated as “to go, to follow after” (DŽ 1993 and DŽ 2000 684), “to go, to follow after, with additions” (lKŽ XII 338), and it is best illustrated by the following examples from the dictionaries: The dog will kill a man (DŽ); It is enough for me to stroke with one finger, it will leave it and follow me; And as he went down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him. The verb to follow here means not just going after something else in terms of place, but also a kind of dependence on the one who goes ahead, surrender to his will or becoming a part of him. the one who is in front leads, or rather leads, the one who is behind him. Let's take an example where the duck in front of the ducks leads the ducks, the ducks after it follow it, and the ducks one after the other only go, but do not follow each other. There are several other meanings of this verb with similar diphthongs, e.g. “going in the footsteps to explore, to try to find whose direction of walking”: Šuva seka hare’s footsteps (lKŽ XII 339); „to observe a moving object“: The children stopped talking, only followed the squirrel with their eyes (also). There Mr. Book. What's next? 237's going behind. The second meanings here overshadow the movement, are more important and are presented as separate independent meanings of the verb. It can be said that the verb to follow is justified by the secondary or distant meanings that it has. is or was a moving “actor” here, and after him another, but in the first meaning of the verb to follow, the LC also gives examples where going after something is described without the additional meaning of dependence or that meaning is very unclear: The following rounds will have a white dog (lKŽ XII 338). Other examples of lKŽ with the figurative meaning of the verb sekati: Nesreče [...] sledijo druga drugi; "The War of the Worlds (1938)" (PDF). There is no backwardation in terms of place, but events are described one after the other in terms of time. It is also possible to see the causal relationship of one after another occurring phenomena – disasters and hardships can be related and arise from each other. that secondary meaning here justifies the verb to follow. from this point of view, its meaning of "float out, become clear" can also be justified: From this followed the conclusion... (lCZ XII 339). but here, meanwhile, it is not the meaning of the verb that is concerned, but the ability to indicate a movement after some time. one must agree with D. razauskas that the basic meaning of the verb sekti in the space of “going after” can easily be transferred to time, because the verb eiti can also mean the passage of time. his rhetorical question is also logical: “but if it is possible to follow hardship after hardship, misfortune after misfortune, then why couldn’t joy follow joy, happiness happiness, and otherwise nothing (neutral) happening nothing happening or just occasionally follow? thus, a convention should follow a convention, a meeting should follow a meeting, a (not yet published) newspaper issue should follow a (previously published) newspaper issue, and so on?” And then: “What distinguishes some examples from other analogous ones and makes them unpresentable?” (see p. 230 of this summary). the difference can be seen in the fact that the one together can show the movement of something in terms of time and the causal relationship (the one with the other can be connected – troubles and misfortunes, joys and happiness); others indicate only a subsequent thing or phenomenon without a causal connection between them – such are, for example, several newspaper issues and neutral events. For the first, the verb is suitable to follow, for the second – it is stretched artificially. Simple presence or appearance after something without external meanings or connections is expressed in living language by the verb go or its synonyms: one issue of the newspaper goes after another, a bus goes after a bus, a day goes after a day, a month after a month, a year after a year. so also the future goes (comes) after the past (and present). In living speech, the unspoken day follows the day, the more the false saying of the future follows the past. 238 Languages Culture | 81 proofs nothing and does not change anything the reasoning about two moves – both in terms of space and time. whether the buses pass by a person standing on the road, or the poles of the road pass by the bus, they still go one after the other. whether metaphysically speaking we are passing through time (past year) or time units are passing by us (past year), we are still talking about walking, not tracking. There are these lines in the translation of a poem by Rilke: "...it seemed to us that the year was passing, but in fact only we passed (Rilke 1975: 133). you can’t say – not the year followed us, but we followed the year. When it comes to twofold walking and following, the meanings of these actions (walking and following) are fundamentally different – a person follows objects or events from the side – how buses pass by or road poles fly, how days pass after days or years after years; objects or events are observed in succession. You don’t have to confuse walking after something with watching things happen from the side. nor should the follower be placed in the same row as the objects being followed and draw conclusions about the verb to follow and the events that follow one another. Not to mention the verb to follow the movement to describe something, language is not satisfied with the verb to go, it can be replaced by more pronounced and pictorial synonyms. for example, year after year moves, day after day runs or flies, clouds after clouds move or float. o In Maironis’s “Trakai castle” (Mairrr I 65) wave gena wave is much more picturesque than wave goes after wave and it would be very poor – wave follows wave. or a verse from the poem “An evening on the lake of Four Cantons”: How many memory incidents, Living pasts, One after the other breach and shit Beyond the limit! (Mairrr I 129) can it be inferred here that memories followed memories or events events? It is possible, but what would it do and prove? Artificially derived sentences with the verb follow cannot be considered decisive arguments to justify the participant following. The participle following is obviously derived from the verb to follow, but not every case of its use can be related to or derived from that verb. Other circumstances also determine the significance of the participant. The most important thing is to distinguish two subsequent meanings of the participant, more precisely – two ways of using it. In some cases, this participle means something that follows or is going after something, when that thing has been Mr. Book. What's next? 239 is after the previous day, the next bus after the previous bus. In other cases it is not connected with the preceding things, but only emphasizes what is said afterwards: This is shown by the following table (before that there were no other tables); The composition of the Commission is as follows (no other composition is mentioned). said before or is otherwise clear: following the six meanings, linguists clearly distinguish and evaluate them differently. J. Jabł lonski began to correct this participle, he mentions both meanings and corrects them both – the first with the noun kitas, the second with the pronouns šis, toks, štas kas. for example, the following Saturday was corrected to the next Saturday (Jablr IV 107; J.Jablrr II 108), and the treatment of pigs in the following way was corrected to treat in this way (Jablr V 159, 161; J.Jablrr II 448, 450). Later, in writing comments on Viktoras Kamantauskas’s Dictionary of Language Irregularities, he quotes that dictionary, where both corrections are presented, but he himself says that he used to use “toliaunis dabar iš eilės” in the first meaning “for his own purposes” (the second one is added in brackets, apparently doubting whether it can be enough) (Jablr V 202). the second value is considered an error by all linguists and is corrected by consensus. It has been repeatedly revised in the Language Culture Publication. Both these meanings are mentioned in articles published in the journal Kalbos kultūra by Klementina Vosylytė (KK 35 50) and Kazys ulvydas (KK 51 6), but there they are evaluated differently – the first one is recognized (the next issue of the newspaper, the next stop), only the second one is corrected: This is shown in the following (= this) table; The order of work is as follows. The emphasis of that participant is considered an undeniable error. In another article, written earlier, K. ulvydas has shown that the participle of the emphasis meaning sekantis is used even as a noun (without a denoting word) or is made from it and used with the emphasis meaning as an adverb sekančiai: Tai rodo sekantį, tai koreguojama: Tai rodo štai ką; Work is distributed as follows, corrected: Work is distributed as follows (KK 23 26). without mentioning the first didelės klaidos, rodančios, kur gali nuvesti aklas šio dalyvio vartojimas pagal kitų kalbų (šiuo atveju rusų kalbos) pavyzdžius. meaning, the participle following the emphasis corrects it Language practice advice: In Vilnius are now running the following (= these) exhibitions; It can be treated in the following way (= this, this way, that way) (CPP 256-257). there is also corrected the noun usage of the participant and the adverb formed from it: Atsakydamas į jūsų laišką, pranešu sekantį (= I am reporting this); The funds were spent as follows (= yes). such participant following and adverb following errors are entered in the Language Commission approved Great 240 Language Culture | 81 language errors list (KKn 145). There should be no doubt as to the meaning of the subjunctive of the emphasized participant – such use is unjustifiable. It is possible to discuss only about the participant following in the meaning of the usage "being immediately after something, going immediately after something". That is what is being debated, or if not debated, there are different opinions. Some people consider the use of this participle to be a mistake, others recognize and defend such use, and others remain silent. This participle, in addition to J. Jablonski, has been corrected by Juozas balčikonis, one of the most influential linguists. First of all, it should be mentioned that in 1935 in the Mother Tongue he corrected the next week to the next week (J.balčrr I 145) and discussed this with Edvardas Viskantas, who defended the next day and the next week because of the “accuracy of language” that required it (ibid., 155–156). Similarly to E. Viskanta, the editors of the Language Advisory Committee, Leonardas Dambrauskas, Antanas Salys and Pranas Skardušas, wrote about this participant in 1939 (but they did not write following, but sekąs, sekanti); In their words, it “cannot be replaced by the pronoun another”, because “the next day may not be the one that immediately follows the one we are talking about” (KP 111). Later, in 1959, when writing remarks on J. Jablonski’s corrections, similar thought was repeated by Jonas Palionis (J.Jablrr II 522–523). but J. balčikonis held his opinion and continued to correct that participant (J.balčrr I 225, 288). Linguists’ disagreements, of course, disturb society, but it is most confusing that such usage of this participant is not equally assessed by the normative works: The Language Advisor (1939) and the first two editions of the Dictionary (1954, 1972) acknowledge, and since the third edition of the Dictionary (1993) it is corrected by the pronoun other. Everyone who defends that participant points to the same reason – that the pronoun other may not be enough to replace it, because the pronoun may not mean the immediately following thing. No one mentions that the participle is used in the verb to follow, and the participle's meaning is not shown by the verb. Here, it is not the verb that determines the meaning of the participant, but on the contrary, the meaning of the verb is derived from the participant. Sayings next bus, next day are more necessary and acceptable than next bus, next day. All in all, we have to admit that the participant following in the meaning of “going immediately after something” should not be considered a language error. but it is not a natural traditional form of Lithuanian. In Lithuanian it was influenced by other languages and first appeared in ancient writings. As the Language Advisor writes, this usage “has been determined not by the practice of the popular, but by the written language” (KP 111). by the way, as can be seen from the examples of lKŽ, in the old writings there are also quite inappropriate uses of this participant, when he uses- Mr. Book. What's next? 241 mas aiškinimui nusakyti: O viešpats jiems padėjo ir žodį pastiprino sekančiais stebuklais (lKŽ XII 318). The living language did not use this participle to name either the following thing, or even more so, the emphasized thing. lKŽ does not give any example of such a participant in any of the dialects. They are almost not even in folklore. In both the living language and in fairy tales, the usual pronoun in that sense is another. the meaning of this pronoun "going after what" with the example Will you get off at the next stop? subsequent DG editions (1993, 2000 308). lKŽ also gives examples of this meaning: Next year will you go (to school)? ; Don't cry, don't cry, young virgin, I'll bring you next autumn (lKŽ V 902). We find beautiful examples of this pronoun in J. Balčikonio’s fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm, where it cannot be understood otherwise, as “the nearest, the first-being”: The next day a man came, and she began to guess his name (Pasakos 1966: 278); The soldier agreed and worked all the next day from the heart (ibid., 302); The next morning the king sent men to look for the trace... (ibid., 305). Similar sentences are found in tales prepared for the printing of Solomon's crochet: The next day Jonukas vaikščiojo lyg dumnaropių suvalgęs (p.nėrr III 190); The next night another servant guarded (ibid., 226). in these tales the immediately following thing is described in another way, but the following of the participant is not even a smell. When more than one thing is mentioned, they are indicated by the pronouns antras, trečias: On the second day the groovakasys remains for lunch; On the third day, the blacksmith remains in the kitchen (ibid., 218). the same meaning has the saying tomorrow day: Tomorrow day <...> the boy, taking roses, went out on the road and waits (ibid., 269). It is interesting and telling that not the next day, but tomorrow we find in the administrative text – the Civil Code: The deadline begins tomorrow at zero hours zero minutes (art. 118). for that purpose there are other ways of expression. such is the subordinate, which in dictionaries explains the corresponding meaning of the pronoun další (coming is not suitable for this purpose, because the descriptive thing can have already come and passed). It could be later, but probably the nearest one would be better: I’ll get on at the nearest stop, the deadline starts the next day. The participant next is not as necessary as its fierce defenders explain, and the pronoun next is so vague that it would hinder conversation. In most cases it is obvious (from the context) that the thing described by the pronoun is immediately after another thing of the same or similar kind. such are all the above cases: I will get on the next stop, the next day walked, the next night guarded. The next requi- 242 Languages Culture | 81 slower except when several things are named one after the other, for example, there are several people invited somewhere in a row. In other places, it is not considered a mistake, but not necessary. It can be agreed that saying whether you will get off at the next stop is not a language error. but there is no drawback to ask: Will you get off at the next stop? And the next stop is not expelled from the transport reports, it was never common there. simply chosen a more Lithuanian, more suitable for the language option – next stop. That the next one is unnecessarily thrown wherever it falls, can be seen from the examples corrected by J. Balčikonis. Artificial statements with that participant he replaced with live language equivalents with the pronoun kitas, and no ambiguities or ambiguities can be attributed to those substitutions: In the spring of the following (= other) year the barkūnas was fertilized (J.balčrr I 307); (the bee) climbed down to the next (= other) ring (ibid., 288); the following (= next) day twenty men <...> were to enter the manor (ibid., 292). Substitutions here are not only more common, but also clearer than corrective statements: the spring, when the barkun (such grass of the meadows) was fertilized, can be not any other, but the nearest past; the bee climbed from one ring to another, i.e. the first ring in a row. in the second example not only the next ring is wrong, it is illogical to climb down – climbing is only possible upwards. also illogical and unjustifiable is the following with the particle yet: yet next day, – yet next is not immediately following. This is just right for looser meanings even the next day. The following of a participant in the sense of “going immediately after something” cannot be considered separately from the questions arising in specific cases – who needs that participant, what he gives, how it fits into the context and style. Its ardent defenders tend to forget these questions, everything seems very simple to them, only linguists do not understand it or avoid it. on the other hand, the subsequent releases of DG hardly did well. The advice of Language Practice had found a better way out: here the mistake of this participant, which is recognized by all, is corrected, its traditional use is recalled, and the controversial meaning is diplomatically silenced – it is not corrected, and it is not wanted to be disseminated. It may be desired that the advice publication answers all questions, but it is not appropriate to demand this from the list of major language errors approved by the State Lithuanian Language Commission. It only lists the major errors of this participant, and what is not included in it is not there and should not be. The opinion of the language commission should be stated in the Language Advice Booklet on the meanings of words. Mr. Book. What's next? 243 Temperature and cooling J. balčrr I – J. balčikonis. Selected Papers 1, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1978. DŽ – Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary, Vilnius: State Political and Scientific Literature Publishers, 1954; 3rd revised and supplemented edition, Vilnius: Science and Encyclopedia Publishers, 1993; 4th edition, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing, 2000. Jablr IV, V – Jablonskio raštai 4, 5, Kaunas: Ministry of Education, 1935, 1936. J. Jablrr II – J. Jablonskis. 2, Vilnius: State Political and Scientific Literature Publishers, 1959. "Decisions of the Language Commission 1977-1998". 3rd revised and supplemented edition, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1998. KKP – Language Practice Tips. composed by aldonas Pupkis. 2nd revised and supplemented edition, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985. KP – Language Advisor. Prepared by L. Dambrauskas, edited by A. salys and Pr. skardžius. Kaunas: Lietuvos kalbos draugija, 1939. lKŽ V – Lithuanian Language Dictionary 5, Vilnius: State Political and Scientific Literature Publishers, 1959. lKŽ XII – Dictionary of Lithuanian Language 12, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1981. Mairrr I – Maironis. 1956. 1956. Selected Writings 1. s.nierr III – Solomon knit. New York: The New York Public Library, 1957. The Brothers Grimm. "J. Balčikonis". 1966. r i l k ė r. M. 1975: Poezija, Vilnius: Vaga. u l v y d a s K. 1972: incorrect use of good words. – Language Culture 23, u l v y d a s K. 1986: Fifty “Language Culture” notebooks. – Language Culture 12–30. 51, 3–6. 1978: The Meaning of the Verb to Follow. – Kalbos kultūra 35, Gauta 2008 09 01 the verb 48–50. sekti is ambivalent: it means going after someone or something and depends on the one 244 Languages and Culture | 81 WHat FolloWs tHE FolloWInG Summary the participle sekantis (Eng. ‘following’) has aroused and still arouses a large amount of discussion. there are quite a few issues to be solved in its relation to the verb sẽka (sèkti). who/which goes before him/her/it. It thus is possible to follow sb or sth (sekti) in space or time, e.g. : The dog follows after a man (Eng. lit. ‘the dog follows after a man’); ‘Misfortune follows onenomsg anotheraccsg/one after another’). Going one after another with no relation of dependency or causality is expressed by the verb eiti (‘to go’) or another verb in the same meaning, e.g.: dienos eina (slenka) po dienų (Eng. lit. ‘Days go/drag after days’), autobusas eina (važiuoja) po autobuso (Eng. ‘a bus goes after a bus’ <one after another>). the participle sekantis is not fully compatible with the normative use of the base verb sekti. the participle can also refer to sb or sth going after another, but the causative relation can be excluded, like in the following: sekanti diena (Eng. ‘the next day’), sekantis autobusas (Eng. ‘the next bus’). there are also cases with no reference to previous events, rather, the focus is on further developments, e.g. : Darbų tvarka sekanti (‘the work sequence is the following’). such use is clearly deviant and is unanimously corrected. However, the first two examples (sekanti diena and sekantis autobusas) are debatable: some linguists replace the participle by the pronoun kitas (autobusas) (Eng. ‘another bus’), others tend to justify the given usage without any implied causality, because the pronoun kitas could equally refer to the immediate as well as any further item in a sequence. traditional actual use has never accepted the participle sekantis in such utterances; it cannot be used in the language of formal register. However, it should not be treated as a gross and indisputable mistake either. Pranas KnIūKšta lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, lt10308 Vilnius