Canonical and non-canonical conversion in Baltic

Canonical and non-canonical conversion in Baltic Jurgis Pakerys (Vilnius University) ABSTRACT Canonical and non-canonical conversion in Latvian and Lithuanian (Baltic, Indo-European) is discussed by applying the following criteria: (A) identity of form, (B) word-class change, and (C) the absence of dedicated derivational affixes. The absolute identity of form and the realization of (B) and (C) are found in the conversion of non-inflecting word classes, and deviations from that canon are seen in the word-class changing and word-class retaining conversion of inflecting words. They obligatorily change their inflection patterns and their base stems are optionally affected by vowel, consonant, and tone alternations as well as by truncation. The inflection patterns are altered in two ways: paradigm assignment (mostly replacement of the paradigm of the input with that of the output) and paradigm adjustment (mostly restriction of the paradigm when the output has fewer paradigm cells than the input). It is agreed with Štekauer, Valera and Körtvélyessy (2012) that due to criterion (C), conversion can be classified alongside other non-concatenative word-formation processes. KEYWORDS Canonical typology, conversion, paradigmatic derivation, Latvian, Lithuanian DOI https://doi.org/10.14712/18059635.2025.1.2 1 INTRODUCTION During conversion, as aword-formation process, an input word is transferred to the word class of the output without alternation of the base form (Bauer, 1983, p.32; Bauer & Valera, 2005, p.8; Valera, 2014, p.154; Valera, 2015, p.322). For example, in(1), the form of the input and output is identical (bottle = bottle), and the word class changes from noun to verb: (1) bottle N → bottle V English ‘acontainer typically ‘to put into bottle’1 made of glass or plastic with anarrow neck’ In this paper, Idiscuss the problems encountered when the notion of conversion is applied to inflectionally-rich languages like Lithuanian and Latvian, members of the Baltic genus from the Indo-European family. The point of departure for the discussion is offered by canonical typology (Corbett, 2005), and ‘canonical conversion’ is 1 Definitions adapted from Merriam-Webster online dictionary available at https://www. merriam-webster.com/, accessed on January 24–25, 2025. OPEN ACCESS JURGIS PAKERYS 17 initially defined based on two major criteria— the identity of form and the change of word class— by aset of possible deviations from that canon (Section 2). Ireview relevant Baltic data beginning with cases manifesting afull identity of form of noninflecting words (Section 3.1), and then move to examples where the input and output differ in their inflection (Section 3.2) and additional alternations of the base stem occur (Section 3.3). In Section 4, Iaddress the question of whether the word-formation pairs that formally resemble conversion (lacking dedicated derivational affixes but belonging to the same word class) can be considered as akind of conversion. In Section 5, the main points of the discussion are summarized. 2 DEFINING CANONICAL CONVERSION As astarting point for the analysis, the approach of canonical typology will be used where “[…] we take definitions to their logical end point and build theoretical spaces of possibilities. Only then do we ask how this space is populated” (Corbett, 2005). According to awidely-held view, conversion is aword-formation process characterized by two major features illustrated in (1) above: (A) Identity of form (B) Word-class change After defining canonical conversion according to (A) and (B), one may start exploring the theoretical space of possibilities summarized in Table 1, where canonical conversion is marked as (a) and other combinations of the features are treated as non-canonical due to deviations from (a). First, one expects examples where certain aspects of identity of form are not maintained (b). Then, there may be cases where both formal identity and word class are not changed (c). Finally, the set of combinations ends with the negative realization of both features (d). Canonical conversion Non-canonical conversion a b c d Identity of form + – + – Word-class change + + – – table 1.Canonical and non-canonical conversion defined by two features The term ‘canonical’ has already been applied to conversion by Štekauer, Valera and Körtvélyessy (2012, p.218) and Valera (2014; 2015, p.326, 334), among others. The distinctions of degrees of canonicity of conversion in Table 1 are very close to the following ones formulated by Valera (2015): “conversion as word-class change plus formal identity”, “conversion as word-class change without formal identity”, “conversion without word-class change, but with formal identity”. The variability of OPEN ACCESS 18 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2025 conversion can also be addressed in terms of degrees of conversion (Valera 2014) and prototypicality (Manova & Dressler, 2005). Now it is time to examine the relevant Baltic data beginning with examples of canonical conversion and then moving to non-canonical ones. First, the issue of identity of form will be discussed and then attention will be turned to word-class change. 3 IDENTITY OF FORM In this section, the analysis begins with instances of conversion in which full identity of form is maintained (Section 3.1), followed by cases involving differences in inflectional material (Section 3.2), and then cases resulting from morphophonological alternations and truncation of the base stem (Section 3.3). 3.1 FULL IDENTITY OF FORM Full identity of the form of the input and output is possible only when both of the words involved in conversion have no inflectional categories realized by bound morphology,2 as bound morphology in Baltic creates inevitable formal differences (cf.Section3.2). When anon-inflecting word is converted to another member of anon-inflecting class, the form may remain exactly the same, as it is free from the inflectional requirements;3 consider (2) and (3), where adverbs are transferred to theclass of adpositions (prepositions): (2) šalià Adv → šalià Prep Lithuanian ‘close by, in proximity’ ‘next to’ (3) blakus Adv → blakus Prep Latvian ‘close by, in proximity’ ‘next to’ This type of conversion is not very common in Baltic and is typically omitted in wordformation literature, but one finds frequent notes elsewhere stating that, e.g., some Baltic adpositions are adverbial in their origin, or that adverbs may take on adpositional functions (see Ulvydas, 1971, p.580; Ambrazas, 1994, p.438; Ambrazas, 1997, p.405; Ambrazas, 2006, p.284, 288–290, 293–294 on Lithuanian, and Ahero et al., 1959, p.701, 722–723; Nītiņa & Grigorjevs, 2015, p.627; Kalnača & Lokmane, 2021, p.354 on Latvian). 2 Admittedly, morphological boundedness has certain degrees. One may begin with complete isolation of grammatical markers that function as free phonological words and then move through degrees of concatenation manifested in cliticization and affixation of the markers to their hosts, see, e.g., Bickel and Nichols (2007, p.180) on the degree of fusion of inflectional exponents. 3 Ido not imply that in the case of the conversion of non-inflecting word classes the form should always remain the same, which leaves room for possible differences due to truncation and morphophonological alternation of the base. OPEN ACCESS JURGIS PAKERYS 19 Afurther limited group of Baltic examples includes cases of the transfer of adverbs or particles4 and prepositions into the class of conjunctions, e.g., Lithuanian kaĩp Adv ‘how’ → kaĩp Conj ‘how’, tìk Ptcl ‘only, just’ → tìk Conj ‘but, however’, ikì Prep ‘until, up to’ → ikì Conj ‘until’; Latvian kâ Adv ‘how’ → kâ Adv ‘how’, tik Ptcl ‘only, just’ → tik Conj ‘but, however’, lĩdz Prep ‘until, up to’ → lĩdz Conj ‘until’ (Ulvydas, 1971, p.550, 655; Ambrazas, 1994, p.455; Ambrazas, 1997, p.425; Ahero et al., 1959, p.777–778; Nītiņa & Grigorjevs, 2015, p.645–650; Kalnača & Lokmane, 2021, p.376). Both groups discussed above are non-productive and result from the diachronic development of certain word classes to adpositions (prepositions) and conjunctions through syntactic reanalysis. For correspondences of the above-mentioned Baltic examples in English, consider, e.g., only Adv → only Conj, until Prep → until Conj, behind Adv → behind Prep,5 etc. Such cases, one should note, can be interpreted as “conversion lookalikes” (see Martsa 2020). They never played acentral role in the standard understanding of conversion in English, and most attention was paid to the word classes with bound inflections: nouns, verbs, and adjectives, which will be discussed below. 3.2 ALTERNATION OF THE INFLECTION In the above, it has been mentioned that absolute identity of the form is possible only in the case of non-inflecting inputs and outputs. If at least one of the words involved in conversion carries bound inflectional morphology, the full identity of the form across inflectional paradigms will not be maintained. This is seen in (4), where the initial English example (1) is presented not as mere dictionary headwords, but as sets of inflectional forms. The majority of these forms are characterized by bound morphology, and only the first line contains bare stems.6 Acomparison between (1) and (4) demonstrates that the focus should not be only on the citation forms because citation forms are based on extralinguistic conventions that vary from one linguistic tradition to another. In the case of English, citing dictionary headwords may give the wrong impression that conversion does not affect inflection because the citation forms happen to be accidentally bare stems. 4 The interpretation of some words as adverbs and particles varies, and Iwill not address this issue here for the sake of brevity. In the examples that follow, Ireflect the interpretations available in the literature. One should also note that further study of the full identity of input and output may also include cases of conversion of adverbs into particles, see, e.g., Ulvydas (1971, p.571) on Lithuanian. 5 Aclass of intransitive prepositions that bear no NP complement may be distinguished instead, i.e., in look behind, the word behind would be seen as an intransitive preposition distinct from the transitive one in look behind you. In this case, one is dealing with atransition from one type of preposition to another without the word-class change, see Bauer (1983, p.227) for adiscussion of conversion within the same word class. Remarkably, these cases have also been described as prepositional adverbs (cf. Quirk et al., 1985, p.713–714). 6 In (4), the abbreviation “V” is used for both finite and non-finite verbal forms. OPEN ACCESS 20 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2025 (4) bottle N → bottle V English bottl-es N bottl-es V bottl-ed V bottl-ing V One may note at this point that the most common understanding of conversion in English, illustrated in (4), is one step away from the canon defined in Section 2: criterion (B) is fulfilled, but criterion (A) is partly violated; the converted stem remains identical, but the bound inflectional morphology changes. It is true that, in Section 3.1 above and in some other approaches to conversion, criterion (A) is taken to the extreme by requiring absolute identity of the form, see Valera (2014, p.160) with further references. In one of the earliest definitions, Sweet (1891, p.38) explicitly states that inflectional changes are not intended when requiring that there should be no modification of the word undergoing conversion nor any addition to it: But in English, as in many other languages, we can often convert aword, that is, make it into another part of speech without any modification or addition, except, of course, the necessary change of inflection, etc. [emphasis added] For example, in Slavic linguistics, the change of the inflectional paradigm in examples like (4) was seen as acentral feature of the word-formation process in question and gave rise to terms like ‘paradigmatic derivation’, ‘paradigmatic word-formation’, and ‘transflexion’.7 The scholars who advocate this terminology recognized derivational pairs of the same word class that differ only by their inflection and viewed them as belonging to the same word-formation process, see, e.g., Dokulil (1962, p.63). This meant overriding the requirement of word-class change, criterion (B), and thus moving away from the original definition of conversion (cf. also Section 4.2).8 It is important to note that some scholars view the assigned paradigms as fulfilling the function of derivational affixes, see Štekauer, Valera and Körtvélyessy (2012, p.219–220) with relevant references. This is understandable, but one must keep in mind that these paradigms serve adual function and are not dedicated (special) derivational markers: they both express the inflectional categories and mark the derivational con7 As pointed out by one of the anonymous reviewers, one may prefer using the term ‘conversion’ for languages that employ little or no concatenative inflectional markers, while ‘paradigmatic word-formation’, ‘transflexion’, etc. could be reserved for languages with rich concatenative inflectional systems. My position here is to look for common ground (and acommon term) for the word-formation process found in both types of languages, the essence of that process being the formation of anew lexical item without the addition of a(dedicated) derivational marker, no matter how developed concatenative inflection in agiven language is, as done by, e.g., Štekauer, Valera and Körtvélyessy (2012, p.213–224). 8 Notably, Dokulil (1962, p.63) still speaks of conversion in this case, namely, “conversion within the [same] word-class” (“konverze uvnitř slovního druhu”). OPEN ACCESS JURGIS PAKERYS 21 trast, cf. Dokulil (1962, p.24, 62).9 For further discussion of the criterion of formal identity due to achange of inflections in conversion, see Štekauer, Valera and Körtvélyessy (2012, p.219–222) and Valera (2014, p.159–160; 2015, p.330–331). The developments in Slavic linguistics mentioned above influenced the descriptions of the corresponding phenomena in Baltic scholarship in the 1960s and 1970s, and terms like ‘derivation by the means of endings’, ‘(in)flectional derivation’, ‘paradigmatic derivation’, ‘paradigm(iz)ation’, and the like sprang up where the focus is also on inflections and inflectional paradigms (see Ulvydas, 1965, p.253–423, 550–578; Urbutis, 1978, p.283–286; Soida, 1976; Soida, 1977; Soida, 2009,10 etc.). Ahero et al. (1959, p.81, 159) use asomewhat specific term, ‘suffixal ending’, where ‘suffixal’ refers to the derivational function of the inflection that is typically fulfilled by suffixes. Now let us go back to the actual Baltic data. In the cases of conversion where bound inflectional morphology changes, the transition is mostly from verb to noun, as in (5) and (6); the conversion of adjectives to nouns is also notable, as in (7) and (8). Lithuanian, but not Latvian, also has asignificant number of converted deverbal adjectives, as in (9), but denominal adjectives are exceptionally rare (not illustrated below for the sake of brevity). (5) aûg-t V → aûg-sN Latvian grow-inf plant(m)-nom.sg ‘to grow (itr.)’ ‘plant’ (6) ráug-ti V → ráug-as N Lithuanian ferment-inf leavening(m)-nom.sg ‘to ferment (tr.)’ ‘leavening, (bread) leaven’ (7) lìksm-sA → lìksm-eN Latvian joyful-nom.sg.m joy(f)-nom.sg ‘joyful’ ‘joy’ (8) gret-as A → gret-is N Lithuanian fast-nom.sg.m speed(m)-nom.sg ‘fast’ ‘speed’ (9) kìb-ti V → kib-ùs A Lithuanian stick-inf sticky-nom.sg.m ‘to stick (itr.)’ ‘sticky, tenacious’ 9 Dokulil (1962, p.62) defines conversion as aword-formation process where no specific derivational affixes are used (“bez použití jakýchkoli specifických slovotvorných afixů”) and only the transfer of the base word to another paradigm occurs. 10 The manuscript of this study was written in the 1970s. OPEN ACCESS 22 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2025 It should be noted that the types illustrated in (5) to (9) are frequently characterized by various morphophonological alternations of the base stem (discussed in Section 3.3), but examples where the form remains identical were selected specifically for the purposes of this section. There is one accentual difference seen in (9) that needs to be explained: the stress is placed on the root of the infinitive, but it falls on the ending of the nom. sg. m. of the adjective. Lithuanian is apitch-accent language with amovable stress system, and the converted items are assigned to both segmental (bound) and suprasegmental (accentual) paradigms, which together form an inflectional profile (paradigm) of the word. To recognize the actual tone alternation11 of the base stem, the stress must be on the root syllable (cf. Section 3.3). In (9), the root is ashort syllable, which already excludes the possibility of tonal alternation in Lithuanian, and this can be verified when the stress falls on the root, as in acc. sg. m. kìb-ų, where the stressed syllable remains exactly the same as in the inf. kìb-ti. Conversion from adjectives and nouns to verbs is mentioned only rarely in the literature, and Iwill limit myself to the deadjectival examples in (10) and (11):12 (10) pig-ùs A (pìg-ų) → pìg-ti V Lithuanian cheap-nom.sg.m cheap-acc.sg.m become.cheaper-inf ‘cheap’ ‘become cheaper’ (11) slb-sA → slb-t V Latvian weak-nom.sg.m turn.weak-inf ‘tired, weak’ ‘become weaker’ The type of conversion just discussed and illustrated in (5) to (9) and in (10) and (11) may be referred to as ‘paradigm-replacing conversion’, and aselection of relevant references for further study will be provided in Section 3.3 after discussing the base stem alternations. Adifferent type of inflection change occurs when conversion induces the restriction of the input’s inflectional paradigm, as in (12) and (13): the input adjectives (or participles) lose one of their gender paradigms and are no longer available for gradation once they are turned into nouns, which inherit masculine and feminine gender, respectively, from the input forms. The outputs may undergo specific lexicalization: in (12) and (13), the respective meanings ‘parents’ and ‘bride’ are achieved through the intermediate stages of ‘the older ones’ and ‘the young one’. (12) vec-âk-iA → vecâk-iN Latvian old-comp-nom.pl.m parent(m)-nom.pl ‘older’ ‘parents’ (pl. tant.) 11 Iuse ‘tone’ as aconvenient yet imperfect label for accentual contrasts found in heavy syllables in Lithuanian and Latvian. 12 Acc. sg. m. pìg-ų is cited in (10) to demonstrate that the accentual properties of the root do not change during conversion, as explained above. OPEN ACCESS JURGIS PAKERYS 23 (13) jaun-óji A → jaunój-iN Lithuanian young-nom.sg.f.def bride(f)-nom.sg ‘(the) young’ ‘bride’ Compared to the paradigm-replacing conversion discussed above (examples (5) through (11)), this subtype can be interpreted as essentially syntactic, except with repercussions on morphology, which are manifested as arestriction of the paradigm.13 It also differs from aparadigm-replacing conversion by not manifesting stem base alternations. An endpoint of paradigm restriction would be the full elimination of it, which happens in the case of aconversion to non-inflecting word classes, as in (14) and (15), where the nominal case and verbal non-finite forms are turned into noninflecting adverbs:14 (14) kat-ais N → katais Adv Lithuanian time(m)-ins.pl sometimes ‘at times’ ‘sometimes’ (15) bèidz-t V → bèidzt Adv Latvian finish-cvb finally ‘(while) finishing’ ‘finally’ These examples refer to arestriction of the paradigm based on the conversion of adjectives (or participles) to nouns, illustrated in (12) and (13), and the adverbialization of forms of inflecting word classes, as seen in (14) and (15). In the case of the conversion of participles to adjectives, one may actually observe an expansion of the original paradigm when the converted items become gradable, consider the conversion of participle to adjective in (16a) and its gradated forms in (16b): 13 Iagree with one of the anonymous reviewers who points out that even in this case, the paradigm change can be seen as akind of paradigm replacement: the larger paradigm of the input is replaced with the smaller paradigm of the output (and one may ignore the fact that the smaller paradigm is inherited from the larger paradigm). By characterizing the process as “essentially syntactic”, Iwish to emphasize that the syntactic properties of the input are changed, but the inflectional morphology is inherited (copied) from the input as much as the new syntactic properties allow it, cf. Manova and Dressler (2005, p.71–72) who interpret nominalized adjectives that keep their inflection as cases of syntactic conversion (or re-categorization). Iadmit that Ileave aside interesting cases of conversion with defective paradigms and also cases where the output not only partially preserves the forms of the input, but also supplants them with some additional forms, see Manova and Dressler (2005, p.76–77). 14 And in the case of the conversion of non-inflecting word classes to inflecting ones, like in English down Ptcl → down Vor zap Onom → zap V, one is dealing with paradigm assignment as there is nothing to be replaced. Just like in English, this type is marginal in Baltic and can be illustrated by converting onomatopoeias to verbs, e.g., Lithuanian pp Onom ‘beep (sound produced by abird, an electronic device, acar, etc.)’ → pp-ti V‘to beep’. OPEN ACCESS 24 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2025 (16a) žìn-o-m-as Ptcp → žìnom-as A Lithuanian know-prs-pass.ptcp-nom.sg.m famous-nom.sg.m ‘known’ ‘well-known, famous’ (16b) žinom-èsn-is žinomi-áusi-as Lithuanian famous-comp-nom.sg.m famous-super-nom.sg.m ‘more famous’ ‘the most famous’ The distinction between participles and adjectives is tricky, and according to the argument presented above, one needs to assume that gradation is available only for (some) adjectives and not for participles. Moreover, under this interpretation, it is the participle (rather than the verb to which it belongs) that is taken as the input. But if the verb with its finite and non-finite forms is seen as an input, this involves both paradigm restriction (the forms of the participle are cut out from the verbal paradigm) and paradigm expansion (once the gradated forms are made available to the output). So, to cover both the restriction and expansion of the paradigm, one may refer to this type of conversion as ‘paradigm-adjusting’. At this point, some terminological remarks related to the tradition of Baltic linguistics are in order. In the literature on Latvian, the term ‘conversion’ is most frequently used in reference to paradigm-adjusting conversion (see, e.g., Ahero et al., 1959, p.85; Skujiņa, 2007, p.194; Nītiņa & Grigorjevs, 2015, p.202, 207–209; Kalnača & Lokmane, 2021, p.73; etc.). In Lithuanian linguistics, however, the same phenomena are typically termed ‘X-(ial)ization’, where X stands for the word class of the output: ‘substantivization’, ‘adjectivization’, ‘adverbialization’, etc., see Ulvydas (1965, p.529–533), etc. Latvian linguistics also employs these terms, but only to refer to subtypes of conversion distinguished by the word class of the output. 3.3 ALTERNATION OF THE BASE STEM The discussion now needs to return to the paradigm-replacing conversion that moves one more step away from the canonical definition when not only the bound inflections change, but also the base stem is affected by various alternations. The most common types of alternations are root vowel and tone changes, which sometimes co-occur. In (17) and (18), only tone alternation affects the base stem marked by gravis and circumflex in the Latvian example, and by acute and circumflex in the Lithuanian case (as explained earlier, an inflectional form where the stress falls on the root is needed to reveal its accentual properties in Lithuanian; in (18), acc. sg. was added for that purpose): (17) tèik-t V → tek-aN Latvian tell-inf tale(f)-nom.sg ‘to tell’ ‘tale’ (18) tráuk-ti V → trauk-àN (trak-ą) Lithuanian pull-inf traction(f)-nom.sg traction(f)-acc.sg ‘pull, attract’ ‘(at)traction’ OPEN ACCESS JURGIS PAKERYS 31 Lieber, R., & Štekauer, P. (2014). The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199641642.001.0001. Manova, S. & Dressler, W.U. (2005). The morphological technique of conversion in the inflecting-fusional type. In L.Bauer & S.Valera (Eds.), Approaches to conversion/ zero-derivation (pp.67–101). Münster: Waxmann. Martsa, S. (2020). Conversion in morphology. Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.567. Navickaitė-Klišauskienė, A. (2016). Latvian. In P.O.Müller, I.Ohnheiser, S.Olsen, & F.Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe (Vol. 5, pp.3107–3123). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110424942-002. Nītiņa, D. & Grigorjevs, J. (Eds.). (2015). Latviešu valodas gramatika. Rīga: LU Latviešu Valodas Institūts. Pakerys, J. (2011). On derivational suffixes and inflectional classes of verbs in Modern Lithuanian, Lietuvių kalba, 5, 1–17. doi: 10.15388/LK.2011.22793. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S, Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). Acomprehensive grammar of the English language. London, New York: Longman. Skujiņa, V. (Ed.). (2007). Valodniecības pamatterminu skaidrojošā vārdnīca. Rīga: LU Latviešu Valodas Institūts. Soida, E. (1976). Galotnes funkcijas latviešu valodas vārddarināšanas sistēmā. Latvijas PSR Zinātņu Akadēmijas Vēstis, 12, 103–112. Soida, E. (1977). Galotnes derivatīvās funkcijas latviešu valodā. Latvijas PSR Zinātņu Akadēmijas Vēstis, 2, 109–121. Soida, E. (2009). Vārddarināšana. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds. Štekauer, P., Valera, S., & Körtvélyessy, L. (2012). Word-formation in the world’s languages: Atypological survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/ CBO9780511895005. Stundžia, B. (2016). Lithuanian. In P.O.Müller, I.Ohnheiser, S.Olsen, & F.Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe (Vol. 5, pp.3089–3106). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110424942-001. Sweet, H. (1968/1891). Anew English grammar: Logical and historical (Vol. 1). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ulvydas, K. (Ed.). (1965). Lietuvių kalbos gramatika (Vol. 1). Vilnius: Mintis. Ulvydas, K. (Ed.). (1971). Lietuvių kalbos gramatika (Vol. 2). Vilnius: Mintis. Urbutis, V. (1978). Žodžių darybos teorija. Vilnius: Mokslas. Valera, S. (2014). Conversion. In R.Lieber & P.Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (pp.154–168). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199641642.013.0010. Valera, S. (2015). Conversion. In P.O.Müller, I.Ohnheiser, S.Olsen, & F.Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe (Vol. 1, pp.322–339). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110246254-019. Jurgis Pakerys Department of Baltic Studies, Institute for the Languages and Cultures of the Baltic, Vilnius University Universiteto 5, LT-01513 Vilnius (Lithuania) ORCID: 0000-0002-9944-8598 [email protected] OPEN ACCESS 32 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2025 ABBREVIATIONS 1 – first person 3 – third person a – adjective acc – accusative adv – adverb comp – comparative conj – conjunction cvb – converb def – definite f – feminine gen – genitive ic – inflectional class mark (suffix) inf – infinitive ins – instrumental itr – intransitive m – masculine n – noun nom – nominative onom – onomatopoeia pass – passive pl – plural prep – preposition prs – present pst – past ptcl – particle ptcp – participle sg – singular suff – suffix super – superlative tant – tantum tr – transitive v – verb, verbal form OPEN ACCESS