DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

ORCID id: orcid.org/0000–0001–6941–6504

Research areas: history of the Lithuanian language, Baltic studies, geolinguistics.

DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all85–02

INFIXAL AND STA-STEM DEDURATIVE VERBS IN 16TH–17TH-CENTURY LITHUANIAN WRITINGS

Infixed and sta–stem Deduratives Attested in Lithuanian Scripts of the 16^th–17^th Century

ABSTRACT

The article presents a study of the morphosemantic opposition durative / terminative, attested in 16th–17th-century Lithuanian writings: it analyzes the relationships between the semantics and formal expression of the members of the opposition, the types of predicative situations, their linguogeographical and chronological distribution, and the origins of this correlation. The opposites under investigation are differentiated with respect to the boundedness of predicative situations: basic root verbs and verbs with variable suffixes denote a durative, non-boundary-implying action, whereas infixal and sta-stem verbs denote a telic, usually inchoative and punctual action, thus corresponding to the actional classes of processes and events. Prefixation and the predominance of past-tense forms play a particularly important role in marking the predicative situations expressed by dedurative verbs.

KEYWORDS: verbs, derivation, duratives, terminatives, telicity, aspect, actionality, prefixal perfectivization, ablaut.

ANNOTATION

The article investigates the morphosemantic opposition durativa / terminativa attested in the Lithuanian scripts dating back to the 16^th–17^th centuries. Relations of semantic and formal expression of the members of the opposition, the types of predicate situations, areal and chronological distribution are analyzed and the origin of this correlation is considered. The opposites under study are differentiated with respect to the aspectual property of telicity: primary verbs stand for a durative, boundless action, while infixed and sta–stem

Straipsniai / Articles

25

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

verbs denote a telic (usually inchoative) and punctual action, and thus can be ascribed to the actional classes of accomplishments and achievements respectively. Prefixation and the prevailing forms of the past tense play a particularly important role in denoting the predicate situations expressed by deduratives.

KEY WORDS: verbs, derivation, duratives, terminatives, telicity, aspect, actionality, prefix perfectiviation, apophony.

INTRODUCTION

Lithuanian infixed and sta-stem verbs are usually studied together: they are united by lexical and grammatical semantics, morphosyntactic features, and often genetic relatedness as well (cf. bąla and bálsta, gę̇sa and gę̇sta, etc.). According to the data of LKŽe and dialect dictionaries, there are more than a thousand of them in Lithuanian: approximately 500 infixed and 600 sta-stem verbs. In other languages, these inflectional classes are not as numerous: in Latvian, half as many infixed and sta-stem verbs are recorded, while in Prussian there are only a few (Pakalniškienė 1993, 1996, 2000; Rudzītė 1973). Infixed verbs are considered more archaic: they occur in many Indo-European languages (for the development of their formal structure and semantics in individual Indo-European languages, see Kuiper 1937; Strunk 1967; Gorbachov 2007 etc.). The second type—the sta _{stem—is generally regarded as an innovation of the Baltic (or East Baltic) languages (Kazlauskas 1968; Schmid 1963; Kuryłowicz 1964; Stang 1942, 1966; Oettinger 1979; Karaliūnas 1987; Pakalniškienė 1993; Kaukienė 1994, 2002), although attempts have been made to relate them to various formations in the Indo-European languages (Villanueva 2010}^¹; Gorbachov 2014).

The productivity of infixed and sta-stem verbs in Lithuanian implies the relative “youth” of these inflectional classes and prompts an investigation of the paths by which the verbs under study arose. Synchronic and diachronic linguistic studies emphasize the connection of these verbs (usually not evaluated from a derivational perspective) with cognate nouns and verbs. A more systematic approach to these connections makes it possible to establish the derived status of some infixed and sta-stem verbs and thus explain their abundance in Lithuanian (Skardžius 1943: 486–488; Hofmann 1956; Kuiper 1937; Endzelīns 1951: 764–765; Skardžius 1943: 463–486; Būga 1959: 431–469; Arumaa 1957; Kazlauskas 1968: 319–323; LKG 2, 225; Temčინ 1986: 29–34; Karaliūnas 1987; Pal­maitis 1998; Valeckienė 1998:

^¹ See there for a detailed review of hypotheses concerning the origin of the format sta.

26

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

27–28; Pakalniškienė 1993, 2000, 2018, 2019, 2020; Gorbachov 2007; Arkadiev 2008, 2011, 2013; Villanueva-Svensson 2010, 2011, 2016).

The article continues research into the origin and derivation of the infixed and sta-stem verbs recorded in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Lithuanian writings—in the texts of Martynas Mažvydas and Jonas Bretkūnas and in the Wolfenbutelio Postilėje, in the works of Mikalojus Daukša, the Knygoje nobažnystės, and the works of Konstantinas Sirvydas^²—which represent three varieties of the written language of that period. Earlier research (see Pakalniškienė, Šarkytė 2012: 149–170; Pakalniškienė 2018: 61–101; 2019: 8–36; 2020: 1–16) established that approximately 65 percent of the infixed and sta-stem verbs attested in the writings under study can be considered derivatives: deverbal derivatives (derived from verbs) constitute nearly 70 percent, while denominative derivatives (derived from adjectives and nouns) account for over 30 percent.

This time, a study of one morphosemantic opposition, durative / terminative, is presented: the relationships between the semantics and formal expression of the members of the opposition, the types of predicative situations, and their linguistic-geographical and chronological distribution are analyzed, and the origins of these correlations are considered. The study used the Database of Old Writings created by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, electronic concordances of old texts, the Dictionary of the Writings of Martynas Mažvydas compiled by Dominynkas Urbas (1998), the critical editions of Konstantinas Sirvydas’s Punktai sakymų by Virginija Vasiliauskienė and Kristina Rutkovska (2015), and Kazius Morkūnas’s index of verbs in Konstantinas Širvydas’s “Punktai sakymų” (1980). The examples were collected manually: only the likely terminative infixed and sta-stem verbs were selected from all sources; their argument structure, the quantitative distribution of present- and past-tense forms, and the characteristics of prefixed and unprefixed verbs were analyzed.

INFIXED AND STA-STEM DEDURATIVES IN SIXTEENTH- AND SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY LITHUANIAN WRITINGS

1. Examples of the morphosemantic opposition durative / terminative attested in old writings number 38—considerably fewer than the realizations of the opposition causative / anticausative (Pakalniškienė 2020: 1–16). In order to determine the opposition under study

^² Jonas Bretkūnas’s Biblia 1985, 1986, 1590, Giesmės Duchanos 1589, Kancionalas 1589, Kolektos 1589, Protesti 1591; Martynas Mažvydas’s Katekizmas 1547, Giesmė šv. Ambraziejaus 1549, Forma krikštymo 1559, Paraphrasis 1589, Giesmės krikščioniškos 1566, Giesmės krikščioniškos 1570; Mikalojus Daukša’s Katekizmas 1595, Postilė 1599; Wolfenbute­lio postilė 1573; Knyga nobažnystės krikščioniškos 1653; Konstantinas Sirvydas’s Punktai sakymų part I 1629, part II 1644, Dictionarium trium linguarum ~ 1620, 1642, 1677.

Straipsniai / Articles

27

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

To describe the relations among the members, a modified aktionsart classification of predicates developed by Zeno Vendler (1957) is employed, further elaborated in numerous studies (Dowty 1979; Verkuyl, 1993; Smith 1997; Kroft 2012; Падучева 1998, 2004, 2009; Татевосов 2010, 2015; Holvoet, Čižik 2004; Plungian 2010, 2011; Rothstein 2014 and elsewhere). The most important semantic features of this classification – stative vs. dynamic, durative vs. punctual, atelic vs. telic – make it possible to divide the entire predicate lexicon of any language into several universal groups^³, called semantic or aktionsart predicate types (English actionality classes): ^⁴

1) state predicates (English states), or statives, contrast with dynamic verbs: they denote stable situations, are unlimited in duration, atelic, non-agentive, since “the continuation of a state usually requires no special effort or energy on the part of the subject, whose subject is a patient or an experiencer” (Plungian 2010: 105), for example, gyventi, miegoti, mylėti, žinoti;

2) activity predicates (English activities) denote dynamic situations continuing for an unlimited time and are therefore atelic. They may be agentive, for example, juoktis, verkti, vaikščioti, and non-agentive, for example, degti, šviesti;

3) process predicates (English accomplishments) denote dynamic, directed situations implying a natural endpoint or culmination and a gradual change of state. They may be agentive, for example, rašyti laišką, įtikinti, or non-agentive, for example, balti, griūti, tirpti;

4) event predicates (English achievements) presuppose an abrupt transition from one state to another: the duration of an event is so short “that an event can only be stated ex post” (Holvoet, Čižik 2004: 148). They are therefore also called punctual or semelfactive predicates, for example, atsidurti, gauti, pamėšti, pargriūti.

^³ Vendler’s popular classification, although regarded as typologically relevant, is modified in various ways by linguists, because the manifestation of actionality in a particular language may differ considerably. The nomenclature of predicate situations, or actionality classes, varies; for example: states, events, processes (Comrie 1976); states, activities, accomplishments, semelfactives, achievements (Smith 1997: 3); total-statisch, relativ-statisch, temporär (activities), total-terminativ, graduell-terminativ, inzeptiv-statisch, inchoativ (Breu 2007: 123–166); cтатичные глаголы, непредельные глаголы, сильные предельные глаголы, пунктитивные глаголы (Татевосов 2010: 30); Lithuanian verbs are grouped similarly, cf.: stative, processual, punctual, multiplicative, strong and weak telic, while prefixal derivation additionally assigns them to the following classes: limitative stative, limitative telic, weak inceptive-stative, punctual-ingressive, limitative processual, strong multiplicative (Arkadiev 2011: 78) etc. The classification presented in the article also differs somewhat from Vendler’s.

^⁴ The article follows the view of Vladimir Plungian, Rolandas Mikulskas, Piotr Arkadiev, and others that, instead of the terms for the grammatical categories of the verb verbal aspect, cf. Aktionsart, it is appropriate to use the terms actionality and actionality class (Plungian 2010; Arkadiev 2011; unlike LKG 2: 8–46; Holvoet, Čižik 2004. For discussion, see Comrie 1976; Mikulskas 2013; Татевосов 2015; Горбова 2016).

28

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

The opposites representing the verb morphosemantic correlation under examination “fall into” precisely these actionality classes: one group consists of state and activity predicates, atelic verbs, and the other of processes and events, telic verbs. The opposition in question is primarily based on telicity, so it may be called variously, for example, atelica / telica. Such an opposition is foregrounded in many works on aspectology. Jelena Padučeva proposes translating the English term telic as terminative, and atelic as (potentially) unbounded, non-terminative (Падучева 2009: 15–16). The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language uses similar terms – verbs of indefinite duration, durative verbs, and verbs of definite duration, terminative verbs (LKG 2: 15–18). In this study, it was decided to call the opposition under investigation durative / terminative, in order to emphasize the distinction between opposites representing different actionality classes, differentiated by the parameters unboundedness / boundedness. Consequently, the binary opposition atelic verbs vs. telic verbs is foregrounded (similarly Smith 1997: 3; Rothstein 2004: 7; Padučeva 2009: 5). The durative verbs of this opposition, such as šaukti, šviesti, are opposed to terminative verbs possessing an inherent feature of telicity, for example, sušūkti, prašvisti. Other semantic-grammatical-morphosyntactic parameters, such as transitivity, valency, and agentivity, are not essential for the oppositions under investigation: both members of a pair may be intransitive, avalent, non-agentive, or transitive, valent, and agentive (cf. the extensive derivational opposition causativa / anticausativa, differentiated in terms of transitivity and usually agentivity). Thus, the actant structure of both members of the opposition durative / terminative is identical (cf. causatives and anticausatives, which have different actantial compositions).

The formal expression of the semantic opposition durative / terminative is heterogeneous. Atelic action is always denoted by root and prefixal verbs, whereas telic action is denoted by infixal and sta-stem verbs. Some correlations precisely reflect the morpho(no)logical model of the opposition causativa / anticausativa: infixal or sta-stem verbs are derived from ia-stem verbs, usually with vowel alternation between the opposed lexemes, cf.: šviesti ‘to give off, emit light’ / –švisti ‘to begin to shine, to flash’, šaukti ‘to produce a loud voice from the throat, to shout, to scream’ / sušūkti ‘to cry out, to call out’, verkti ‘to shed tears, to sob with emotion (usually from pain, sadness, or joy)’ / pravirkti ‘to begin to cry’ (durative / terminative), and rėžti ‘to cut a slice from a loaf; to plow, to turn a furrow’ / rikti ‘to err; to fall apart, to disintegrate’, raukti ‘to make wrinkles, to wrinkle’ / rūkti ‘to wrinkle, contract, shrivel’, versti ‘to lay down, knock over onto its side or onto the ground...’ / virsti ‘to fall, collapse...’ (causativa / anticausativa). However, more pairs are recorded whose durative members are primary and secondary suffixal verbs (more precisely, verbs with alternating

Straipsniai / Articles

29

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

with suffixes⁵), for example, kalbėti ‘to express one’s thoughts, feelings, and experiences in words, to speak’ / prakalbti ‘to begin speaking’, girdėti ‘to perceive sounds with the ears’ / išgirsti ‘to perceive a sound; to experience, find out’, etc. Only a few of these correlations exhibit qualitative vowel alternation; productive oppositions without vowel alternation predominate.

Tables 1–4 and 6–11 present the dedurative oppositions attested in old writings, grouped according to vowel alternation and productivity, indicating the frequency of terminative usage⁶, the ratio of present and non-present forms, and the ratio of prefixed and unprefixed forms, since these parameters are especially relevant to the specificity of actional classes.

DERIVATIVES FROM ROOT VERBS

Derivatives from root durative verbs account for approximately one quarter (10) of all terminatives attested in the texts under study. Almost all productive oppositions are characterized by vowel alternation in the root: the most frequent is the diphthongal apophony CauC– / CūC– (6), CeiC– / CiC– (1), the rarer diphthongal CeRC– / CiRC– (2), and the only pair attested in SD, without vowel alternation (see Tables 1–4).

TABLE 1. Apophony type CauC– / CūC– (6)⁷

DUR. ia / TERM. n, sta Frequency of terminatives Present vs. non-present forms Prefixed vs. unprefixed forms džiaugtis, džiaugiasi, džiaugėsi INTR ‘to have joy, pleasure, to amuse oneself⁸ / –džiūgti, *džiūnga, –džiūgo INTR ‘to begin rejoicing’⁹ 3xB, 10xDP, 4xWP, 2xKN — 19 19 — pra–

⁵ For the term, see Kaukienė, Pakalniškienė 2011: 113–114. ⁶ If a verb form is attested in several works by the respective author, only authorship is indicated, without specifying the particular sources: Mž – Mažvydas, B – Bretkūnas, D – Daukša, S – Sirvydo darbai. ⁷ Cf. throughout the Lithuanian language area – 10 oppositions (Pakalniškienė 1993: 147). In the footnotes and hereafter, a comparative quantitative characterization is provided (the concept of the Lithuanian language is used here as an unmarked chronological opposition to the term Old Lithuanian). ⁸ The meanings of the terminatives were established on the basis of texts from old writings and LKŽe definitions. ⁹ Pitch accents are poorly reflected in old writings. Here they are marked on the basis of LKŽe.

30

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

DUR. ia / TERM. n, sta

Frequency of terminatives

Present vs. non-present forms

Prefixed vs. unprefixed forms

jausti, jaučia, jautė TR ‘to experience a feeling; to experience a sensation; to sense, intuit’ / –justi, –junta, –juto TR ‘to experience stimuli through the sense organs; to sense, feel’

3xMŽ, 33xB, 16xDP, 29xWP, 8xKN

22 65 87 – pa-, į-

klaupti(s), klaupia(si), klaupė(si) INTR ‘to rest on one’s knees on the ground / klūpti, klumpa, klūpo INTR figurative ‘to err, sin’

1xBP, 8xDP, 3xWP, 9xS

6 15 19 2 pa-

siausti, siaučia, siautė INTR ‘to frolic, romp’ / –siūsti, *siunta, –siūto INTR ‘to become enraged, get angry’

10xB, 3xDP, 1xWP, 2xSD

– 16 16 – pa-

snäusti, snūdžia, snūdė INTR ‘to be overcome by drowsiness, to be half-asleep’ / snūsti, snūsta, snūdo INTR ‘to begin to doze; to fall slightly asleep; figuratively, to die’

1xMŽ, 1xBP, 6xDP, 3xWP, 1xKN, 5xS

7 10 16 1 ap-, už-

šaukti, šaukia, šaukė TR, INTR ‘to emit a strong sound from the throat, to shout, scream’ / *–šukti, –šunka, –šuko TR, INTR ‘to cry out, call out’

2xBP, 17xDP, 4xWP, 10xKN, 10xS

– 44 44 – pra-, su-

Total 35 169 201 3

TABLE 2. Apophony type CeiC– / CiC– ⁽¹⁾

DUR. ia / TERM. n, sta

Frequency of terminatives

Present vs. non-present forms

Prefixed vs. non-prefixed forms

to shine, šviečia, švietė INTR ‘to give off, spread light’ / *–švisti, –švinta, –švito INTR ‘to begin to shine, to light up’

2xBB, 1xDP

1 2 1 – ap-, pa-, pra-

Total 1 2 3 –

^¹⁰Six oppositions of this apophonic series have been recorded in Lithuanian (Pakalniškienė 1993: 139).

Straipsniai / Articles

31

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

TABLE 3. Apophony type CeRC– / CiRC– (2)^¹¹

DUR. ia / TERM. n, sta Frequency of terminatives Present vs. non-present forms Prefixed vs. non-prefixed forms vėrėti, vėrkia, verkė INTR ‘to weep because of pain, misfortune, etc.’ / –virkti, *–virksta, –virko INTR ‘to begin crying’ 1xMž, 2xBP, 1xWP, 2xSD – 6 6 – žvelgti, žvelgia, žvelgė INTR ‘to direct one’s eyes, to look’ / –žvilgti, *žvilgsta, –žvilgo ‘to glance briefly, to see; figuratively, to take an interest; to foresee’ 2xMž, 1xBB, 1xDP – 4 4 – Total 0 10 10 0

TABLE 4. Non-apophonic type (1)^¹²

DUR. ia / TERM. n, sta Frequency of terminatives Present vs. non-present forms Prefixed vs. non-prefixed forms kvėpti, kvėpia, kvėpė INTR ‘to emit a smell, to smell’ / *o–kvėpti, o–kvėpsta, o–kvėpo INTR ‘to air out, to lose its smell’^¹³ 2xSD 1 1 2 – Total 1 1 2 0

Tables 1–4 reflect the usage tendencies of these terminatives: non-present forms dominate—they account for 82 percent; systematically used

^¹¹ In Lithuanian 4 (Pakalniškienė 1993: 145).

^¹² In Lithuanian 7 (Pakalniškienė 1993: 152).

^¹³ The form iškvėp̦tu in Sirvydas’s dictionary, judging from its mutative meaning (cf. wywietrzeć & wywietr̨ie / infipidus fio), could presuppose an independent paradigm *kvėpti, kvėpsta, kvėpo. Such a paradigm is not recorded in LKŽe, but several sentences, for example, Nukvėpęs alus tavo J; Čia krėnos jau suvisu nukvėpios Krk; Nukvėpęs alus – nusales, nuvešės Šts; Kad nenukvėptų sula, reik apsėti avižoms Ggr; Nepali­kat par naktį atidarytų butelių, o nukvėps alus, ir nėkas nebnorės jo gerti Rt, together with the o-stem past-tense forms given in LKŽe under the headword, would allow the reconstruction of a sta-stem verb denoting a durative action and forming an opposition to the durative ia-stem verb (see Pakalniškienė 1993: 193 for more details).

32

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

prefixed forms of derived verbs: they account for as much as 99 percent of the forms recorded in the old writings^¹⁴ (see Table 5).

TABLE 5. Derivatives from root verbs. Ratio of present and non-present forms and of prefixed and non-prefixed forms (n=219)

DERIVATIVES FROM SUFFIXAL VERBS

More than 70 percent of the terminative forms in the old writings are formed from variable-suffix verbs (28). From a diachronic perspective, the base suffixal verbs have different derivational statuses: verbs with the suffix –eti, –a, –ėjo are considered primary (Jakulis 2004), while those with other variable suffixes are secondary. However, this is not relevant to the opposition under investigation: in all cases, the semantic relationship between the opposites is the same: infixal and, respectively, sta-stem verbs denote a telic action, whereas suffixal verbs denote an atelic action.

The verbs are grouped according to the morphological structure of the base word and the (non-)occurrence of vowel alternation: derivatives from the suffixes –ėti, –i, –ėjo (14); –ėti, –a, –ėjo (10); –ėti, –ia, –ėjo (1); –oti, –o, –ojo (2); –yti, –o, –ė (1).

^¹⁴ Of the 219 forms used, only 3 are non-prefixed (!).

Straipsniai / Articles

33

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

DERIVATIVES FROM VERBS WITH THE SUFFIX –ĖTI, –I, –ĖJO

Quantitatively, terminative derivatives from durative verbs with the suffix –ėti, –i, –ėjo predominate (14). This derivational productivity may have been determined by the salient stative meaning of the base verbs and by the pragmatic need for an actional class explicating telicity. All terminative derivatives were formed without vowel alternation, which attests to their innovative character.

TABLE 6. Non-apophonic type (14)¹⁵

DUR. –ėti, –i / TERM. n, sta Frequency of terminatives Present vs. non-present forms Prefixed vs. non-prefixed forms bodėti(s), bōdi(si), bodėjos(si) INTR ‘to feel hostility toward someone, to dislike, hate, avoid’ / –bōsti, –bōsta, –bōdo INTR ‘to become bored; to become tiresome, bothersome’ 12xB, 4xD, 1xKN, 14xSD 11 20 31 – budėti, būdi, budėjo INTR ‘to remain awake, not to sleep’ / –būsti, –būnda, –būdo INTR ‘to stop sleeping, to wake from sleep; figuratively, to arise, emerge’ 2xMž, 18xB, 5xDP, 3xSD 7 21 28 – girdėti, girdi, girdėjo TR, INTR ‘to perceive sounds with the ears’ / –girsti, –girsta, –girdo TR, INTR ‘to perceive a sound; to experience, find out’ 17xMž, 35xB, 49xD, 14xWP, 21xKN, 10xSD 6 140 146 – ilsėti, ilsi, ilsėjo INTR ‘to stand, sit, or lie down when tired from work; after work, to do nothing so that one’s strength may return’ / ilsti, ilsta, ilso INTR ‘to grow tired, weaken, lose strength’ 3xMž, 24xBB, 7xDP, 9xWP, 6xKN, 6xSD 24 31 52 3 liūdėti, liūdi, liūdėjo INTR ‘to be sad, depressed, dejected, grieve’ / –liūsti, –liūsta, –liūdo INTR ‘to become sad, cheerless’ 42xDP, 6xKN, 18xS 5 61 66 –

¹⁵ Cf. in Lithuanian – 29 oppositions (Pakalniškienė 1993: 195).

34

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

DUR. -ėti, -i / TERM. n, sta

Frequency of terminatives

Present vs. non-present forms

Prefixed vs. non-prefixed forms

mylėti, myli, mylėjo TR, INTR ‘to feel love, attachment, favor’ / TR, INTR –milti, –milsta, –milo ‘to begin to love; to take pity’

65xMž, 91xB, 54xD, 43xWP, 38xKN, 5xS

99

197

296 su(si)- pa-

–

spindėti, spindi, spindėjo INTR ‘to shine brightly, beam, glow’ / *–spišti, *–spišta, –spindo INTR ‘to begin to shine, light up, sparkle’

1xMž

– 1 1 –

stebėtis, stėbisi, stebėjosi INTR ‘to express astonishment’ / –stėbti, *–stėmba, –stėbo INTR ‘to begin to be astonished’

14xDP, 2xSD

– 16 16 –

tylėti, tyli, tylėjo INTR ‘not to make a sound’ / –tilti, –tyla || tilsta, –tilo INTR ‘to become quiet, quieter; to cease speaking, shouting, making noise; to stop raging, storming (of natural phenomena, the elements)’

5xBB, 3xDP, 3xKN, 21xS

14 19 32 1

tingėti, tינגi, tingėjo INTR ‘to be disinclined to work or act, not to budge’ / *tingti, tingsta, –tingo INTR ‘to become sluggish, lazy’

1xBG, 2xS

2 1 1 2

turėti, turi, turėjo TR ‘to be an owner, to control; to hold after taking’ / *tūrti, –tūrsta, –tūro INTR ‘to become wealthy’

5xSD

3 2 5 –

veizdėti, veizdi, veizdėjo; vyzdėti, vyždi, vyzdėjo TR/INTR ‘to look, gaze’ / –vysti, –výsti, –výdo TR ‘to see; understand’

15xMž, 62xB, 143xD, 18xWP, 60xKN, 3xSD

11 290 301 –

vėlėti, vėldi, vėldėjo TR ‘to have under one’s control’ / o-vilsta, –vildo TR ‘to reach, take possession of, acquire, possess; figuratively, encompass, possess’

2xBB, 13xDP, 1xKN

3 13 16 –

žydėti, žydi, žydėjo INTR ‘to be in bloom (of a flower), to bear flowers’ / –žysti, –žysta, –žydo INTR ‘to begin blooming, to produce flowers’

5xDP, 3xWP, 1xKN, 3xS

3 9 12 –

A total of 188 821 1003 6

Straipsniai / Articles

35

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

DERIVATIVES FROM VERBS OF THE -ĖTI, -A, -ĖJO SUFFIX

Derivatives from the duratives of this suffix are likewise productive. Most consist of non-ablauting derivational oppositions (8); two terminatives are formed with vowel alternation^¹⁶—such a working model should be regarded as more archaic, especially since alongside a-stems athematic (older) present-tense forms are also recorded.

^⁷ TABLE. Non-ablauting type (8)

DUR. -ėti, -a / TERM. n, sta Frequency of terminatives Present vs. non-present forms Prefixed vs. non-prefixed forms derėti, dėra, derėjo TR, INTR ‘to negotiate, agree to do, be equivalent’ / *-dėrti, *-dėrsta, -dėro TR, INTR ‘to agree, reach an agreement’ 1xDP – 1 1 – sujudėti, juda, judėjo INTR ‘to change one’s position in a place, move; to change location, move in some direction’ / *-jūsti, -jūnda, -jūdo INTR ‘to begin moving’ 2xBB 1 1 2 – sukalbėti, kalba, kalbėjo TR, INTR ‘to express one’s thoughts, feelings, and experiences verbally, speak’ / *-kalbti, *-kalbsta, -kalbo TR, INTR ‘to begin speaking’ 3xDP – 3 3 – pramokėti, moka, mokėjo TR, INTR ‘to be able to do something, know how’ / -mōkti, -mōksta, -mōko TR, INTR ‘to acquire knowledge and skills through learning’ 5xMŽ, 29xB, 17xDP, 8xKN, 2xSP 2 59 61 – iš-, priskelėti, skėla, skelėjo INTR ‘to be in debt’ / *skilti, *skyla, skilo INTR ‘to fall into debt, become indebted’ 1xBP, 2xDP – 3 2 1 apsmirdėti, smirda || smirdi, smirdėjo INTR ‘to emit a bad smell, stink’ / *-smirsti, -smirsta, -smirdo INTR ‘to begin to stink, become smelly’ 1xBP, 2xDP, 4xSD 2 5 7 – pa-

^¹⁶ Cf. in Lithuanian—76 oppositions (Pakalniškienė 1993: 160).

36

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

DUR. -ėti, -a / TERM. n, sta

Frequency of terminatives

Present vs. non-present forms

Prefixed vs. non-prefixed forms

žadėti, žada, žadėjo TR, INTR ‘to intend to do something, plan, want; to announce one’s future action’ / *-žāsti, -žanda, -žado TR, INTR ‘to begin speaking, utter’

6xS

5 1 6 – iš-, pra–

žibėti, žiba, žibėjo INTR ‘to shine with reflected light, sparkle, gleam; to shine with its own light; to shine brightly’ / –žibti, –žimba, –žibo INTR ‘to begin shining; figuratively, to sparkle’

5xDP, 6xSP

1 10 11 – pra–

Total 11 83 93 1

TABLE 8. Apophonic type CieC– / ČiČ– (2)

DUR. -ėti, -a / TERM. n, sta

Frequency of terminatives

Present vs. non-present forms

Prefixed vs. non-prefixed forms

giedóti, gieda ‖ giẽsti, giedójo TR, INTR ‘to sing, to sing a song or hymn; to chirp, to scream (of birds)’ / –gýsti, *–gýsta, –gýdo TR, INTR ‘to begin singing’

2xBP, 5xDP, 4xKN

– 11 11 – pra–

miegóti, miẽga ‖ miẽgti, miegójo INTR ‘to be in a state of sleep’ / –mį́gti, –mį́nga, –mį́go INTR ‘to begin sleeping; figuratively, to die’

3xMŽ, 5xB, 4xDP, 6xWP, 2xKN, 6xS

1 25 26 – pa–, už–, ažu–

Total 1 36 37 –

DERIVATIVES FROM VERBS WITH THE SUFFIX –ĖTI, –IA, –ĖJO

M. Daukša’s Postilėje records the only terminative formed from a durative verb with the rare suffix -ėti, –ia, –ėjo involving vowel alternation.

Straipsniai / Articles

37

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

9 LENTELĖ. Apofoninis tipas CeC– / CiC– (1)¹⁷

DUR. -ėti, -ia / TERM. n, sta Frequency of terminatives Present vs. non-present forms Prefixed vs. non-prefixed forms

kvėpėti, kvėpia, kvėpėjo INTR ‘to have a pleasant smell, to waft a pleasant scent’ / *-kvipti, *-kvi̇m̄pa, -kvipo INTR ‘to begin to have a smell, to spread a scent’ 1xDP – 1 1 – pa-

Total 0 1 1 0

DERIVATIVES FROM VERBS WITH THE SUFFIXES –OTI, –O, –OJO

Only two derivatives are formed from verbs with the suffixes –oti, –o, –ojo, yet the frequency of the terminative –žinti in the old written language surpasses that of all terminatives because of the abundance of prefixes and the lexicalization of some of them and, naturally, because of the religious nature of the text.

TABLE 10. Non-ablaut type (2)¹⁸

DUR. -oti, -o / TERM. n, sta Frequency of terminatives Present vs. non-present forms Prefixed vs. non-prefixed forms

byloti, bylo, bylojo TR, INTR ‘to speak, to talk, to say’ / bilti, bilsta, -bilo INTR ‘to utter, to begin speaking’ 1xBB, 5xDP 1 5 5 1 pra-

žinoti, žino, žinojo TR ‘to have knowledge, to understand’ / –žinti, –žįsta, –žino TR ‘to have knowledge of something; to distinguish from others; to maintain ties, relations; to establish identity; to confess sins; to recount openly, to express; to adhere to convictions...’ 53xMŽ, 257xB, 143xD, 223xWP, 197xKN, 50xS 368 555 923 – api-, ap­si-, iš(si)pa-, pa(si)–, pri(si)–, pripa-

Total 369 560 928 1

¹⁷ Cf. the same single opposition in the Lithuanian language (Pakalniškienė 1993: 189).

¹⁸ Cf. 5 oppositions in the Lithuanian language (Pakalniškienė 1993: 206).

38

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

DERIVATIVES FROM -YTI, -O, -Ė VERBS

Among this type of suffixal verbs, only one derivative with vowel alternation has been recorded.

TABLE 11. Apophonic type CauC- / CuC- (1)¹⁹

DUR. -yti, -o / TERM. n, sta

Frequency of terminatives

Present vs. non-present forms

Prefixed vs. unprefixed forms

klausyti, klauso, klaušė INTR ‘to carry out someone’s order, command, wish, will’ / -klūsti, -klūša, -klūšo INTR ‘to obey, to become obedient’

9xB, 9xDP

1

17

18

–

pa-

Total 1 17 18 –

Table 12 clearly shows that, in this derivational model as well, the non-present forms of terminatives are used most frequently—they account for over 70 percent; and if the present-tense forms of the verbs -milti and -žinti, whose semantics and usage are highly specific, were excluded²⁰, the percentage of non-present forms would rise to 94. The forms of the terminatives under investigation are systematically prefixed—they account for as much as 99 percent of the forms recorded in the old writings²¹.

Similar results are shown by an experimental study of verbs in contemporary Lithuanian from the perspective of aspectuality and actionality (Arkadiev 2011). Drawing on S. Tatevosov’s methodology (Tatevosov 2002) and survey results, P. Arkadiev established that the actional system of Lithuanian verbs differs from the typical European (“Standard Average European”, ibid.) and Slavic systems (Slavic-type system, ibid.); moreover, the actional system of Lithuanian is considerably more complex and richer. Here we shall limit ourselves to a quantitative

¹⁹ Cf. one opposition in Lithuanian (Pakalniškienė 1993: 206).

²⁰ The statistics for non-present forms are distorted by the lexemes –milti and -žinti, whose meanings in the religious-genre text are highly specific, determined by the lexicalization of various prefixes. For example, su(si)milti is used in the borrowed meaning ‘to have mercy’ (cf. Polish zmiłować się); the present-tense participle forms of this verb are often used as an epithet of God. Only prefixed forms of the verb –žinti are used, changing not only the actional class but also the lexical meaning; cf. api-, apsi-, iš(si)pa-, pa(si)-, pri(si)-, pripa-.

²¹ Of the 8088 forms used, only 8 are unprefixed (!).

Straipsniai / Articles

39

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

by comparing the results of Arkadiev’s experiment and the study of Lithuanian early writings. In Lithuanian early writings, prefixed forms of terminative, or telic, verbs predominate (99 percent). The same situation is also shown by the results of the experiment: among 120 prefixed verbs, most are telic verbs expressing lexemes—110, approximately 92 percent.^²²

TABLE 12. Derivatives from variable-suffix verbs. The ratio of present and non-present forms and of prefixed and unprefixed forms (n=2307)

Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language and Corpus contain approximately 70 such pairs (Arkadiev 2013), but not all of the examples provided by the author are relevant^²³.

^²² The article distinguishes more akcional classes—punctual, strong telic, limitative telic, weak inceptive–stative, punctual ingressive, weak telic.

^²³ For example, the correlation subtilsti / belsti differs not only in akcionality but also in agentivity; therefore, subtilsti should be paired with bildėti, while the two could form an anticausative / causative opposition with belsti. The same can be said about the relationships between sutviksti / tvikšeti (not tuyksėti, which is of interjectional origin) and tvieksti. The verb pražvingti forms an akcional pair with žvengti, whereas žvingauti is an iterative derivative of žvengti. Earlier studies show that terminative infixal and sta stems can be formed from verbs with alternating suffixes (otherwise known as mixed-type verbs), but not from verbs having suffixes in all principal forms (Pakalniškienė 1993). Therefore, pagarsti, pakvailti, aplesti, aptamsti, pagrožti, idrąsti, sulysti, sublogti can hardly be derivationally related to the cognate-rootal suffixed verbs pagarsėti, pakvailėti, etc.; both verbs should be interpreted as independent derivatives from the corresponding nominal bases—adjectives and nouns (Pakalniškienė 2000: 71–89).

40

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

P. Arkadiev rightly recognizes the relative novelty of this opposition and its connection with the causative / inchoative opposition (in Arkadiev’s terms), whose lexicalization (and perhaps derivation as well) determined the formal and semantic homogeneity of the forms of infixed and sta-stem verbs—the meaning of spontaneous (uncontrolled) action, state, or change thereof, and intransitivity, while prefixes and the corresponding tense forms changed the actional class.

Ankstesnio tyrimo duomenimis (Pakalniškienė 1993), visame lietuvių kalbos plote opozicijų durativa / terminativa fiksuojama gerokai daugiau – 150 koreliacijų: 32-jų opozicijų intarpiniai ir sta kamieno terminatyvai yra pasidaryti iš šakninių ia kamieno veiksmažodžių, o 118-os opozicijų atitikami terminatyvai – iš kintamųjų priesagų veiksmažodžių (palyginamoji kiekybinė charakteristika pateikta išnašose ties atitinkamomis senųjų raštų opozicijomis). Darybiniai modeliai ir intarpinių resp. sta kamieno veiksmažodžių vartosena visoje lietuvių kalboje atliepia senųjų raštų situaciją: daugiausia fiksuojama priešdėlinių neesamojo laiko formų, eksplik uojančių tel iškumą.

Table 13 reflects the quantitative relationship among the derivational models of the studied oppositions in the old writings: it can be seen that the largest share consists of terminative infixed and sta-stem derivatives formed from durative verbs with alternating suffixes.

TABLE 13. Derivatives from root and alternating-suffix verbs (n=38)

2. The studied infixal and sta-stem terminatives are unevenly distributed in the written sources of that period. Almost half of them (16) are attested in all three written variants: –bosti, –busti, –girsti, ilsti, klupti, –migti, –milti, –mokti, –siusti, –smirsti, snūsti, –sukti, tilti, –vysti, –žinti, –žysti, while the verbs su(si)milti, išvysti and pa(si), pripa–, iš(si)pa–, ap(si)pažinti are used particularly frequently in all the texts. A considerable number of infixal and sta-stem lexemes (9) are attested in the western, Prussian Lithuanian, and central variants, for example:

Straipsniai / Articles

41

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

in the central variants, for example: –bilti, –džiugti, –gysti, justi, –klusti, skilti, –švisti, –vilsti, –žvilgti. In the central and eastern variants of the written language, four infixed and, respectively, sta-stem derivatives are attested: –liūsti, –stebti, –žibti. Two terminatives, tingti, –virktti, are attested in opposite, non-contiguous areas—the Prussian Lithuania and eastern variants²⁴. Other infixed and sta-stem terminative derivatives are recorded in individual written variants, cf.: in the western variant, justi (junda) (BB), spįsti (Mž); in the central variant, –derti (DP), –kalbti (DP), –kvėpti (DP); in the eastern variant, –kvėpti (SD), –turti (SD), –žasti (SD, PS). According to the data of LKŽ, many of these verbs, used by individual authors, occur more or less widely throughout Lithuania.

3. Prefixal telicization, or perfectivization, together with paradigmatization, is thus attested already in the earliest old writings; it “continues to operate” in all dialects and in present-day Lithuanian. Parallels are found in other Baltic and Slavic languages, as well as in Germanic languages (for the typology of the prefixal perfective, see Arkadiev 2015). However, many of the oppositions under investigation should be regarded as innovations of the Lithuanian language, since very few etymological equivalents exist in other languages.

3.1 In Latvian, only a few (4) formally and semantically analogous pairs are attested, cf.:

1a. dzirdēt, dziržu, dzirdēju ‘to hear’ / –dzirst, –dzirstu, –dzirdu; iz– ‘to hear, catch’; jāust || jāust || jāust, jāušu, jautu; sa–, iz– ‘to feel, (to) sense’, refl. / just, jūtu, jutu; sa–, iz–, nuo– ‘to feel’, refl.; klausīt || klausīt, klauşu, klausīju ‘to listen’ / klust, klūsu || klustu, klusu ‘to fall silent, calm down; to be silent’ (it may also be linked derivationally with 1a. klusēt, klusu || klusēju, klusēju ‘to be silent’)²⁵; zināt, zinu, zināju ‘to know’ / –zīt, –zīstu, –dzinu; at–, ie–, pa– ‘to recognize, acknowledge...’. The usage of some Latvian verbs shows that such a pronounced actional distinction between the opposites as exists in Lithuanian is absent, for example, in the dictionary of the standard Latvian language Latviešu literārās valodas vārdnīca the verb izdzirst, –dzirstu, –dzird u is explained by the verb izdzirdēt.

Several equivalent oppositions (8) are attested only in historical dictionaries; in present-day Latvian, only one member of the opposition remains, or other lexemes are used, cf.:

1a. arch. bādēt ‘to feel disgust or fear, to be a nuisance’ ME I, 270 / arch. –bāst, –bāstu, –bādu ‘to become tiresome, to grow weary’; at–, nuo–; refl. ME II, 760; EH I, 134 (in present-day Latvian, the verb apnikt is used with both meanings); mācēt, māku, māčēju ‘to be able, to know’ / mākt ‘to learn, to be able’ ME II, 579, 580 (in 1a. standard language, instead of –mākt ‘to learn’, izmācīties, iemācīties is said); arch. miegāt, mieguot, mieguoties ‘to feel drowsy; to sleep, to slumber’ ME II, 652; EH

²⁴ According to LKŽe data, these verbs are widespread throughout Lithuania.

²⁵ For the relationship and history of the meanings of Lithuanian and Latvian oppositions, see Karaliūnas 1987: 40–42.

42

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

I, 824 / –migt, –miegu (*–migų ME II, 624, 625), –migu; aiz-, ie- ‘fall asleep, go to sleep’ (in Latvian standard language, gulēt, dusēt are used instead of the lost miėgа̄); smirdėt, smirdū, –ėju ‘smell, stink’ / smirst, smirstu, smirdu; sa- ‘die off, stink to death’ ME III, 966; EH II, 539 (in Latvian standard language, the phrase sākt smirdēt is used instead of smirst); spīdēt, spīd, spīdēja ‘shine, gleam, sparkle’ / spīst, spīstu, spīdu ‘shine’ ME III, 1004 (Mühlenbach indicates that spīstu, spīdu = spīdēt ‘scheinen, leuchten, glänzen’: saule spīst Stelp); šaust, šaušu, šautu, šaust ‘rage, rampage’ ME IV, 8 / arch. šust, šūtu, šūtu ‘roar, run wild, rage, be furious’ ME IV, 107 (in Latvian standard language, plosities, trakot, ālēties, draiskoties LLVV, LLV); zibēt, zibu, zibēju ‘glitter, shine’ / zibt, zibu ‖ zibstu ‖ zibstu, zibu ‘glitter, shine’ ME IV, 718 (iezibēties is used instead of the second member of the opposition); ziėdēt, ziėdu ‖ ziėžu, ziėdēju ‘blossom’ / saziest, saziest, sazied ‘begin to bloom, blossom’ ME III, 797.

Several Lithuanian oppositions are represented in Latvian by only one of the opposing members, usually the durative one, cf.:

duratives

root-derived: šaukt, šaucu, šaucu ‘to shout’; snaušt, snaužu, snaūdu ‘to doze’;

suffix-derived: dziėdāt, dziėdu, dziėdāju ‘to sing, chant’; arch. judēt ME II, 115; EH I, 566 ‘to move’ (Latvian standard kustēties ‘to move’); mīlēt, mīlu ‖ mīlēju, mīlēju ‘to love’ ME II, 644; arch. stebēties, stebuos, stebējuos ‘to be surprised’ ME IV, 103; EH II, 575 (Latvian standard brīnīties ‘to be surprised’); turēt, turu, turēju ‘to hold’; vidēt, vidu, vidēju; viedēt, viedu ‖ arch. viedēju, viedēju ‘to see, discern, examine’;

terminatives

bust, būdu ‖ būstu, budu ‘to awaken’ ME I, 356 (standard Latvian mosties, at-, pamosties ‘to (awaken), wake up’; the inceptive meaning is expressed by other verbs or word combinations—būt nomodā, negulēt ‘to stay awake’); klupt, klūpu, klupu ‘to stumble’; kvėpt, kvėpstu, kvėpu ‘to smoulder, emit smoke (e.g., of a kerosene lamp or candle)’²⁶.

The Latvian equivalents show that the expression of aspect in contemporary Latvian is different: a telic action is formalized by prefixation, most often together with reflexivity, cf.: iemīlēt ‘to fall in love’; iesaukties ‘to exclaim’; aizsnausties, iesnausties ‘to fall asleep’; iedziedāties (par putniem) and by periphrastic forms, for example, sākt dziedāt ‘to start singing’; sakūsties, iekustēties and sākt kustēties ‘to start moving’; izmācīties, iemācīties ‘to learn’; iezibēties ‘to flash’; uzziedēt and sākt ziedēt ‘to blossom’, and

26 In view of the correspondence to Lithuanian oiškvėpti, iškvėpsta, iškvėpo ‘to begin to emit a smell, to lose its smell’ in SD, these verbs may also have developed independently in parallel in the two languages. For Lithuanian kvėpti, kvėpia, kvėpė ‘to emit a smell, to smell’, which is associated with Lithuanian oiškvėpti, –sta, –o, has no Latvian equivalent (Latvian smaržot ‘to emit a smell, to smell’). The terminative meaning in Latvian is likewise expressed by a lexeme with a different root, atvadēties, novadēties (cf. Lithuanian nusivadėti).

Straipsniai / Articles

43

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

likewise. However, several adequate Latvian pairs could indicate common tendencies of the eastern Baltic languages to differentiate verbs with regard to telicity^²⁷.

In the sources of the Prussian language, there are no analogous reflexes of the opposition durativa / terminativa; only one of the two expected verbs is attested, more often duratives, for example:

duratives:

inf. billīt, praes. 3 sg., pl. billā || billē ‘to speak’; inf. klausīton, praes. 1 pl. klausēmai ‘to listen’²⁸; inf. milijit, praes. 3 sg., pl. milē ‘to love’; partic. praes. act. nom. sg. masc. skellānts ‘indebted (being indebted); guilty (being guilty)’, pr. turrītūwei, praes. turri ‘to have’;

terminatives:

praet. 3 sg., pl. ismigē ‘fell asleep’, partic. praet. act. nom. sg. masc. enmiguns ‘having fallen asleep’²⁹; pr. praet. 3 sg. widdai ‘saw, perceived’; inf. ersinnat, praes. 1 p. ersinnimai ‘to know’, inf. posinnat, praes. 1 sg. posinna ‘to acknowledge’.

It should be noted that, formally, the equivalents of the verb Lithuanian žinóti, Latvian zināt—Prussian ersinnat ‘to know’, posinnat ‘to acknowledge’—are used with a terminative meaning in Prussian texts, thus semantically corresponding to Lithuanian –žinti, Latvian -zīt. The facts of Prussian should indicate that the actional opposition in question began to form in the period of East Baltic.

3.2. Analogues of the opposition under investigation are found in Slavic and Germanic languages³¹, for example:

cf. svьtěti ‘to shine’ / svь(t)nutі ‘to whistle’, cf. mbžati ‘to doze’ / mbǫtnuti ‘to blink’, OCS sěděti, sědi- ‘to sit’ / sěsti, sęde- ‘to sit down’;

Gothic bi-leiban ‘stay’ / af-lifnan ‘be left over’, Gothic wakan ‘be awake’ / ga-waknan ‘wake up’, Old Icelandic sofa ‘sleep’ / sofna ‘fall asleep’, Germanic *hnīpan ‘be sad’ / *hnīpnan ‘grow sad’, Germanic *blīkan ‘shine, be bright’ / *bliknan ‘grow bleak, become pale’,

^²⁷ A study of such Latvian oppositions would substantially supplement research on the actional classes of Baltic verbs, but no even somewhat complete inventory is currently available. Usually, individual examples are used, for instance, bijāt, bijāju (durative) / bīties, bīstuos (terminative, inchoative) (Villanueva-Svensson 2008: 175–199). Incidentally, bijāt has been replaced in contemporary Latvian by the verb baidīties.

²⁸ V. Mažiulis reconstructs Prussian verb *paklus- ‘begin to obey, become obedient’ from the adjective nom., acc. sg. n poklusman ‘obediently’ PEŽ 3: 311–312.

^{²⁹ Pr.} meicte interpretation is unclear: it may be inf. or praes. 3 sg., pl. (PEŽ 3: 122).

³⁰ Kitaip Migelis Vilanuyeva-Svenssonas: “This fact may point to an exclusively East Baltic origin of the inchoative, specially considering the great productivity of sta-presents in Lithuanian and Latvian, but since sta presents are so sparsely attested in Old Prussian in any case a secondary loss in this language cannot be absolutely excluded either” (Villanueva-Svensson 2008: 176).

³¹ It should be noted that infixation—the original model of nasal stems—has been preserved in the Baltic languages; however, in the Slavic and Germanic languages, as in many other IE languages, this model was reworked, and nasal suffixation became established (Gorbachov 2007: 203).

44

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

Germanic *belgan ‘swell with anger, be enraged’ / *bulgnan ‘swell up’, Germanic *wūkan ‘turn, yield, move aside’ / *wīk̑nan ‘start giving in, grow weak’ (Villanueva-Svensson 2010: 222; 2011: 39; Gorbachov 2007: 67–70; Темчин 1984: 186).

However, the pairs recorded in Old Lithuanian writings have no counterparts in the Slavic and Germanic languages, except for Old Church Slavonic bъděti, bъdi- ‘be awake’ / vъz-bъ (d)оti, vъzъb(d)ne- ‘wake up’^³². There are somewhat more individual counterparts: Slavic *smirdėti, *smiržd̑o ‘smell bad’; Old Church Slavonic znati, znąo ‘know’; Old Church Slavonic viděti ‘see, notice’, Latin videō, vidēre ‘see’, Sanskrit vindāti ‘finds’, Avestan vīnastī ‘finds’; Russian очнуться (: Lithuanian justi). Thus, one can speak only of a general tendency of the North Indo-European languages, a formal and semantic model realized already in separate language branches or even in individual languages.

SUMMARY

1. In 16th–17th-century Lithuanian writings, nearly four dozen durative / terminative oppositions have been recorded. Two working models have been established: terminative derivatives from 1) root ia-stem verbs and 2) verbs with alternating suffixes. The first model precisely reflects the formal expression of the causative / anticausative opposition—a change in the root vowels is characteristic of the formation: basic ia-stem verbs have a full-grade root, whereas infixal and sta-stem derivatives have a zero-grade root. The derivatives of the second, three times more numerous, model correspond to the formal and semantic parameters of the terminatives and anticausatives of the first model, but the derivational base is already of a different structural type—verbs with alternating suffixes—and vowel alternation is not characteristic of this derivational opposition. Such features indicate that the second model is innovative.

2. The study showed that the derivational dedurative models attested in the old writings are the same as those found in Lithuanian dialects and in the modern language.

3. The meanings of the oppositions under investigation contrast in terms of boundedness: basic root verbs and verbs with variable suffixes denote a durative, non-boundary-implying action, whereas infixal and sta-stem verbs denote a telic, usually inchoative and punctual action, thus corresponding to the actional classes of process and event. Prefixation plays a special role in marking these predicative situations: prefixed verbs make up 99 percent of terminative derivatives. Verb prefixes perform not only

^³² From a synchronic perspective, an opposition durative / terminative can be discerned, but the infixal verb may be more archaic; cf. equivalents in Indo-European languages: Old Irish ad-boind ‘report’, uss­bond ‘give up’, Greek μυνθάνομαι ‘learn, hear of’.

Straipsniai / Articles

45

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

grammatical predicate-boundary markers (telicizers or perfectivizers), the lexical meaning explicating spatial orientation is also often retained (for example, į indicates the intensity of an action, immersion into some state or place, su– – reciprocal action, pra– – an action directed outward, and so on). The telicizing character of tel isizators is underscored by the predominance of non-present verb forms (over 90 percent).

4. Not all the investigated infixal and sta-stem telic verbs were equally widespread in the written language of the period. Nearly half of them (16) are recorded in all three written varieties: –bosti, –busti, –girsti, ilsti, klupti, –migti, –milti, –mokti, –siusti, –smirsti, snūsti, –sukti, tilti, –vystyti, –žinti, –žystyti, while the verbs su(si)mil-ti, išvystyti and pa(si), pripa–, iš(si)pa–, ap(si)pažinti are used particularly frequently in all the texts. A considerable number of infixal and sta-stem lexemes (9) are attested in the western, Old Prussian Lithuania, and central varieties, for example: –bil-ti, –džiūgti, –gysti, justi, –klusti, skilti, –švisti, –vilsti, –žvilgti. Three infixal and respectively sta-stem derivatives are recorded in the central and eastern written varieties: –liūsti, –stebti, –žibti. Two telic verbs tingti, –virkti are attested in opposite, noncontiguous areas—the Old Prussian Lithuanian and eastern varieties. Other infixal and sta-stem telic derivatives are recorded in individual written varieties: in the western variety, justi (junda), spįsti (Mž); in the central variety, –derti (DP), –kalbti (DP), –kvipti (DP); in the eastern variety, –kvėpti (SD), –turti (SD), –žašti (SD, SPS). On the basis of Daukša’s forms, we could suspect –derti (LKŽe records it only from DP and SInt.). According to LKŽe, the “exotic” verbs of Sirvydas are used in various dialects: –žašti is recorded from the southeastern Aukštaitian area (Armoniškės, Rodūnia, Varanavas, Punskas, Paringys), while –turti is recorded from various locations (Alsėdžiai, Šiluva, Šiauliai, Joniškis, Eriškiai, Veliuona, Seredžius).

5. The origins of the durative / telic opposition can be linked to the formation of the causative / anticausative opposition in the Eastern Baltic languages. Within this opposition, a homogeneous class of infixal and sta-stem verbs with distinctive semantics explicating a process or event “matures.” This morphological-semantic model was adapted to a new opposition, differentiated no longer by causativity but by telicity, in Lithuanian. Equivalent pairs in other languages are not numerous; therefore, this formation should be regarded as an innovation of the Lithuanian language. In Latvian, such a model is poorly developed, and telicity is expressed by other means. The corresponding correlations in Slavic and Germanic languages may have developed independently in particular language groups or languages, since infixal verbs or verbs containing the n suffix had already acquired the same semantics as in Lithuanian.

46

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

ŠALTINIAI

BB – BIBLIA tatai eſti Wiſſas Schwentas Raſchtas, Lietuwiſchkai pergulditas per Janą Bretkuną Lietuvos pleboną Karaliaucziuje 1590 (naudotasi e. tekstų variantais ir konkordancijomis^³³).

BG – Giesmės Duchau­nas / iſch Wokiſchka ing Lietu=wiſchka ließuwi / per ne=ku­rius Pleb­onus Her=cegites Prūſų / per=gulditas. Iſſpauſtas Karaliaucziu=je / per Jurgi Oſterbergera 1589 (naudotasi e. teksto variantu ir konkordancijomis^³⁴).

^³³ Patarlių knyga (Pat), 1585 (perrašą rengė Birutė Triškaitė; konkordancijas rengė Birutė Triškaitė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2018, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=71); Mokytojo knyga (Mok), 1586 (perrašą rengė Birutė Triškaitė; konkordancijas rengė Birutė Triškaitė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2018, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=70); Antra metraščių (kronikų) knyga (2 Met), 1590 (perrašą rengė Birutė Triškaitė, Veronika Adamonytė, Ernesta Kazakėnaitė; konkordancijas rengė Birutė Triškaitė, Veronika Adamonytė, Ernesta Kazakėnaitė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2018, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=64); Danieliaus knyga (Dan), 1590 (perrašą rengė Ona Aleknavičienė, Nijolė Čepienė, Veronika Adamonytė; konkordancijas rengė Ona Aleknavičienė, Nijolė Čepienė, Veronika Adamonytė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2018, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=65); Esteros knyga (Est), 1590 (tekstą rengė Birutė Triškaitė, konkordancijas rengė Birutė Triškaitė, Mindaugas Šinkūnas, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2020, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=89); Ezechielio knyga (Ez), 1590 (perrašą rengė Ona Aleknavičienė, Nijolė Čepienė, Veronika Adamonytė, Ernesta Kazakėnaitė; konkordancijas rengė Ona Aleknavičienė, Nijolė Čepienė, Veronika Adamonytė, Ernesta Kazakėnaitė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2018, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=66); Giesmių giesmės knyga (Gg), 1590 (perrašą rengė Birutė Triškaitė, Vaida Jankūnaitė; konkordancijas rengė Birutė Triškaitė, Vaida Jankūnaitė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2018, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=62); Izaijo knyga (Iz), 1590 (perrašą rengė Ona Aleknavičienė, Veronika Adamonytė; konkordancijas rengė Ona Aleknavičienė, Veronika Adamonytė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2018, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=67); Jeremijo knyga (Jer), 1590 (perrašą rengė Ona Aleknavičienė, Ernesta Kazakėnaitė; konkordancijas rengė Ona Aleknavičienė, Ernesta Kazakėnaitė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2018, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=68); Jobo knyga (Job), 1590 (perrašą rengė Birutė Triškaitė; konkordancijas rengė Birutė Triškaitė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2018, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=69); Pirma metraščių (kronikų) knyga (1 Met), 1590 (perrašą rengė Birutė Triškaitė, Veronika Adamonytė, Ernesta Kazakėnaitė; konkordancijas rengė Birutė Triškaitė, Veronika Adamonytė, Ernesta Kazakėnaitė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2018, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=63); Raudų knyga (Rd), 1590 (perrašą rengė Ona Aleknavičienė; konkordancijas rengė Ona Aleknavičienė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2018, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=72).

^³⁴ Jonas Bretkūnas. Giesmės Duchau­nos, 1589 (tekstą rengė dr. Ona Aleknavičienė, Ineta Krampaitė; konkordancijas rengė dr. Ona Aleknavičienė, 2002, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=12).

Straipsniai / Articles

47

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

BKa – Kancionalas nekurur Giefmiu / Ba=ßniczioie Diewa / ant di=dzjun Schwe[n]czjun fœnu budu giedamuiui. Ißpauftas Karaliauczieie / per Gurgi Ofterbergera 1589 (naudotasi e. teksto variantu ir konkordancijomis³⁵).

BKo – KOLLECTAS Alba Paſpalitas Maldas / pra=ſtafû Nedeliału ir didźofu Schwen=tefu / per wiſſus mætus Hercegi=ſteie Prufu giedamas / iſch Wokifchko ließuwio / ing Lietuwifchka pergulditas / Per Iana Bretkuna. M. D. LXXXIX (naudotasi e. teksto variantu ir konkordancijomis³⁶).

BP I – POSTILLA Tatai eſti Trumpas ir Praſtas Iſchgul­dimas Euangelіu / Jaka­muiu Baſniczoie Krikſchczioniſchkoie / nůg Aduento ik Wźliku. Per Iana Bretkuna Lietuwos Plebona Karaliaucziuie Pruſſu. Iſſpaude Karaliaucziuie Iurgis Oſterbergeras. Mæta Pono 1591.

BP II – POSTILLA Tatai eſti Trumpas ir Praſtas Iſchgul­dimas Euangelіu / Jaka­muiu Baſniczoie Krikſchczioniſchkoie / nůg Wæliku ik Aduento. Per Iana Bretkuna, Lietuwos Plebona Karaliaucziuie Pruſſu. Iſſpaude Karaliaucziuie Iurgis Oſterbergeras. Mæta Pono 1591 1591³⁷.

DK – KATHECHISMAS ARBA MOKSLAS KIEKWIENAM KRIKSZCZIONI PRI WALVS. PARASZITAS PER D. IAKVBA LEDESMA Theologa Societatis IESV. Iźguld itas iź Lieżuwio Łankiſko ing Lietuwiſka per Kuniga Mikaloiu Daugßa Kánonika Žemaičiu. Iźpáuftas Wilniuie Metufſę vźgimimo Wießp aties 1595{.} (naudotasi e. teksto variantu ir konkordancijomis³⁸).

DP – Poſtilla CATHOLICKA. Tái eſt: Iźguldimas Ewangelіu kiekwienos Nedelos ir ßwętes per wiſſus metús. Per Kúnigą MIKALOIW DAVKSZ{Ą} Kanoniką Mėdnikų / iź łėkiſko pergúldita. Su walá ir daláįdimu wіreſuiui. W Wilniui / Drukárnioi Akademios SOCIETATIS IESV, A. D. 1599 (naudotasi e. teksto variantu ir konkordancijomis³⁹).

35 Jonas Bretkūnas, Kancionalas, 1589 (tekstą rengė dr. Ona Aleknavičienė, Ineta Krampaitė; konkordancijas rengė dr. Ona Aleknavičienė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2002, http://senieji rastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=13).

36 Jonas Bretkūnas. Koletos, 1589 (tekstą rengė dr. Ona Aleknavičienė, Ineta Krampaitė; konkordancijas rengė dr. Ona Aleknavičienė, 2002, http://senieji rastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=14).

37 Naudotasi Aleknavičienė Ona (red.) 2005: Jono Bretkūno POSTILĖ. Studija, faksimilė ir kompaktinė plokštelė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

38 Mikalojus Daukša, Katekizmas, 1595 (tekstą rengė Mindaugas Šinkūnas, konkordancijas rengė Mindaugas Šinkūnas, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2006, http://senieji rastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=1).

39 Mikalojus Daukša, Postilė, 1599 (elektroninis tekstas, rengė Veronika Adomonytė, Milda Lučinskienė, Jūratė Pajėdienė, Mindaugas Šinkūnas, Eglė Žilinskaitė, Ona Aleknavičienė, konkordancijas rengė Veronika Adomonytė, Milda Lučinskienė, Jūratė Pajėdienė, Mindaugas Šinkūnas, Eglė Žilinskaitė, Ona Aleknavičienė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2006, http://www.lki.lt/seniejirastai/db.php?source=2).

48

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

KN – Knyga nobažnystės krikščioniškos (1653), faksimilinis leidimas, red. D. Pociūtė, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004 (naudotasi „Knygos nobažnystės“ morfologijos duomenų baze⁴⁰).

LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20 (1941–2002), red. kolegija G. Naktinienė, J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, vyr. red. G. Naktinienė, e. variantas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008 (atnaujinta versija, 2017). Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas.

LLV – Lietuviešu-latviešu vārdnīca. Prieiga internete https://www.letonika.lv/groups/default.aspx?g=2&r=10631062.

LLVV – Latviešu literārās valodas vārdnīca 1–8 (1972–1996), atb. red. R. Grabis, Rīga: Zinātne. Prieiga internete: www.tezaurs.lv/llvv.

Mž⁴¹ – CATECHISMVSA PRAĮty S‹adei, Makłas ſkaitima raſhta yr gieſmes del krikšč‹aniſtes bei del berneliu iaunu nauiey ſuguldıtas KARALIAUČZV1 VIII. dena Menefes Saufia, Metu vβgimima Diewa. M. D. XLVIII.

FORMA Chrikſtima. Kaip Bažnyčias ſtatime Hertikſtites Prulu / ir kitofu ſemefu laikoma ira. Drukawot Karalaučʉui per Iona Daubmana / Metu Chriftaus M. D. LIX.

GESMES Chrikſc‹onifkas gedomas baβnic‹oſu per Welikas ir Sekminias ik Aduenta. Iſchſpauſtas Karalaučʉui / nůg Iona Daubmana Metu Diewa / M. D. LXX.

Geſmes Chrikſc‹oniskas gedomas Baβnic‹oſu per Aduenta ir Kaledas ik Gramnic‹u. Iſch ſpauſtas Karalaučʉui nůg Iona Daubmana Metu Diewa / M. D. LXVI.

Gieſme S. Ambraßeijauſ, bey S. Auguſtina, kurė wadin: Te Deũ laudamuſ. Su geſmemis ape iſch numirufiu priekelima Jeſaus Chriftaus, ſchgulditas per M. Moſſuida Waitkuna &c. Ant naudos Ragaynes Baβnic‹ey ir kitu etc. [1549].

PARAPHRASIS, permanitina poteraus malda / per Martina Moſwida iſchguldita. (tekstas išspausdintas kartu su šaltiniu BG, įdėtas jo pabaigoje).

PEŽ – Vytautas Mažiulis. Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 1–4. Vilnius: Mokslas (t. 1, 1988), Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla (t. 2–3, 1993–1996), Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas (t. 4, 1997). Prieiga internete: http://www.prusistika.lfl.vu.lt.

⁴⁰ Jakulytė Dalia, Pakalniškienė Dalia 2018: Senųjų raštų morfologijos duomenų bazės taikymas semantikos tyrimams: veiksmažodžių semantika. – Baltų kalbų tekstų ir žodžių reikšmės, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

⁴¹ Mažvydo veiksmažodžiai rinkti iš Urbas Dominykas 1996: Martyno Mažvydo raštų žodynas, Vinius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Straipsniai / Articles

49

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

PS 1 – Virginija Vasiliauskienė, Kristina Rutkovska, red. 2015: Konstantinas Sirvydas. Punktai sakymų nuo Advento iki Gavėnios = Punkty kazań od Adwentu do Postu, 1629, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

PS 2 – Virginija Vasiliauskienė, Kristina Rutkovska, red. 2015: Konstantinas Sirvydas. Punktai sakymų Gavėniai = Punkty kazań na Wielki Post, 1644, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas⁴².

SD – Dictionarium trium linguarum, 1620 (naudotasi e. teksto variantu ir konkordancijomis⁴³).

SD4 – DICTIONARIUM TRIUM LINGVARUM, In vfum Studioſæ Iuventutis, AVCTORE R. P. CONSTANTINO SZYRWID è SOCIETATE JESU Cum Superiorum permiffu editum. Qvarta editio recognita & aucta. VILNÆ, Typis Academicis Societatis IESV. Anno Domini M. DC. LXXVII (naudotasi e. teksto variantu ir konkordancijomis, žodynu Pakalka Kazimieras 1979: Pirmasis lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas⁴⁴).

WP – ISCHGVLIDIMAS EVANGELIV PER WISVS METTVS, SVRINKTAS DALIMIS ISCHDAVGIA PASTILLV̨, TAI EST ISCH PASTILLAS NICVLAI HEMINGY ←HE=MINGI, ANTONY CORVINI, IO ANNIS SPANGENBERGI, MARTINI LVTHERI, PHILIPPI MELANTHONIS, IOANNIS BRENTY, ARSATY, SCHOPER, LEONARDI KVLMĄNI IODOCY WILICHI IR ISCH KITTV φ (naudotasi e. teksto variantu ir konkordancijomis⁴⁵).

42 Naudotasi indeksu Morkūnas Kazys 1980: Konstantino Širvydo Punktai sakymų veiksmažodis (indeksas). – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 20, 109–222.

43 Kontantinas Sirvydas. Dictionarium trium linguarum, 1620 (tekstą rengė Milda Lučinskienė; konkordancijas rengė Milda Lučinskienė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2008, http://senieji raštai.lkĮ.lt/db.php?source=20).

44 Konstantinas Sirvydas. Dictionarium trium lingvarum, 1677 (tekstą rengė Mindaugas Šinkūnas; konkordancijas rengė Mindaugas Šinkūnas, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2012, http://senieji raštai.lkĮ.lt/db.php?source=53).

45 Wolfenbüttelio postilė, 1573 (tekstą rengė habil. dr. Jolanta Gelumbekaitė; konkordancijas rengė habil. dr. Jolanta Gelumbekaitė, Vytautas Zinkevičius, 2007–2008, http://senieji raštai.lkĮ.lt/db.php?source=37).

50

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

LITERATŪRA

Arkadiev Peter 2008: Lietuvių kalbos pirminių veiksmažodžių klasių semantika tipologinių duomenų kontekste. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 59, 1–27.

Аркадиев Петер 2010: Ещё раз о семантике литовских n/st глаголов: от непереходности к начинательности. – Топоровские чтения. I–IV. Избранное, Москва: Институт славяноведения, 309–324.

Arkadiev Peter 2011: Aspect and actionality in Lithuanian on a typological background. – Langues baltiques, langues slaves, eds. by D. Petit, C. le Feuvre, H. Menantaud, Paris: Éditions CNRS, 57–86.

Arkadiev Peter 2013: From transitivity to aspect: the causative-inchoative alternation and its extensions in Lithuanian. – Baltic Linguistics 4, 39–77.

Arumaa Peeter 1957: Von der Eigenart des Ablauts und der Diathese im Baltischen. – Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie 26, 118–149.

Breu Walter 2007: Der Verbalaspekt im Spannungsfeld zwischen Grammatik und Lexik. – Sprachwissenschaft 32/2, 123–166.

Būga Kazimieras 1959: Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Comrie Bernard 1976: Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dowty David R. 1979: Word meaning and Montague grammar, Dordrecht, Boston, London: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Endzelīns Jānis 1951: Latviešu valodas gramatika, Rīga: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība.

Galnaitỹtė Elzė 1958: Veiksmažodžiai su priešdėliu padabartinėje lietuvių kalboje. – Vilniaus valstybinio V. Kapsuko vardo universiteto mokslo darbai XXVI. Kalbotyra 1, 101–122.

Gorbachov Yaroslav 2007: Indo-European origins of the nasal inchoative class in Germanic, Baltic and Slavic: PhD Dissertation, Harvard University.

Gorbachov Yaroslav 2014: The origin of the Baltic inchoative in –sta-. An overlooked Proto-Baltic sound law. – Indogermanische Forschungen 119, 21–53.

Hofmann Erich 1956: Die baltischen Verba mit Nasalinfix. – Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie, Vol. 25, No. 1, 58–66.

Holvoet Axel, Čižik Veslava 2004: Inherentiniai semantiniai veikslo požymiai. – Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai. Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 2, red. A. Holvoet, L. Semėnienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 146–151.

Straipsniai / Articles

51

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

Holvoet Axel, Čižik Veslava 2004: Veikslo priešpriešos tipai. – Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai. Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 2, red. A. Holvoet, L. Semėnienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 141–162.

Jakulis Erdvilas 2004: Lietuvių kalbos tekėti, teka, tekėjo veiksmažodžiai, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Karaliūnas Simas 1987: Baltų kalbų struktūrų bendrybės ir jų kilmė, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Kaukienė Audronė 1994: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžio istorija, Klaipėda: Rytas.

Kaukienė Audronė 2002: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžio istorija 2, Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla.

Kaukienė Audronė, Pakalniškienė Dalia 2011: Prūsų kalba: vadovėlis, Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla.

Kazlauskas Jonas 1968: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika, Vilnius: Mintis.

Kuiper Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus 1937: Die indogermanischen Nasalpräsentia: Ein Versuch zu einer morphologischen Analyse, Amsterdam: N.V. Noord-Hollandsche Uitgeversmaatschappij.

Kuryłowicz Jerzy 1964: The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European, Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

LKG – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2, red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1971.

Mikašauskienė Raimonda 2018: Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno veiksmažodžiai senojoje lietuvių raštijoje: daktaro disertacija, Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla.

Mikulskas Rolandas 2013: [analitinė recenzija] Plungian, V. 2011: Gramatinių kategorijų tipologija 2, Bibliotheca Salensis 5. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, Asociacija „Academia Salensis“; Lietuvių kalba 7. Prieiga internete: http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/67/54.

Mühlenbachs Karlis 1923–1932: Latviešu valodas vārdnīca 1–4, rediģējis, papildinājis, turpinājis J. Endzelīns, Rīga: Izglītības ministrija.

Oettinger Norbert 1979: Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums (Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprachund Kunstwissenschaft, Bd. 64), Nürnberg: Carl.

Ostrowski Norbert 2004: Dėl išgirsti ir prabilti tipo ingresyvų Daukšos Postilėje. – Baltistica XXXIX (1), 55–59.

Ostrowski Norbert 2019: Old Lithuanian ischtirra ‘Found Out’ and Some Notes on the Development of Baltic Preterite. – Baltistica LIV (1), 47–62.

Pakalniškienė Dalia 1993: Lietuvių kalbos intarpiniai ir sta-kamieniai veiksmažodžiai: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

52

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

Pakalniškienė Dalia 1996: Lietuvių kalbos intarpinių ir sta-kamieninių veiksmažodžių diachroniniai sluoksniai. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai XXXVI, 83–86.

Pakalniškienė Dalia 2000: Intarpiniai ir sta-kamieniai denominatyvai – lietuvių kalbos inovacija. – Veiksmažodžio raidos klausimai. Tiltai, priedas Nr. 1, 71–89, Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla.

Pakalniškienė Dalia 2018: Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno denominatyvai senojoje lietuvių raštijoje: nominacija ir motyvacija. – Res humanitariae 24, 61–101.

Pakalniškienė Dalia 2020: Senosios lietuvių raštijos veiksmažodžių daryba: intarpiniai ir sta kamieno antikauzatyvai. – Lietuvių kalba 15, 1–16. Prieiga internete: http://www.lietuviukalba.lt.

Pakalniškienė Dalia, Šarkytė Raimonda 2012: Mikalojaus Daukšos raštų intarpiniai ir sta kamieno veiksmažodžiai natūraliosios morfologijos požiūriu. – Res humanitariae 11, 149–170.

Palmaitis Letas 1998: Baltų kalbų gramatinės sistemos raida, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Plungian Vladimir 2010: Gramatinių kategorijų tipologija 1, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, Asociacija „Academia Salensis“.

Plungian Vladimir 2011: Gramatinių kategorijų tipologija 2, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, Asociacija „Academia Salensis“.

Rothstein Susan 2004: Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect, Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Rudzītē Marta 1973: O-celmi ar nāsēna infiksu un sto-celmi Latgales dienvidaustrumu izloksnēs. – Baltų kalbų veiksmažodžio tyrinėjimai, Vilnius: Mintis, 187–197.

Schmid Wolfgang Paul 1963: Studien zum baltischen und indogermanischen Verbum, Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.

Skardžius Pranas 1943: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslų akademija Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Smith Carlotta S. 1997: The Parameter of Aspect, second edition, Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Stang Christian S. 1942: Das slavische und baltische Verbum, Oslo: Dybwad.

Stang Christian S. 1966: Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen, Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø: Universitetsvorlaget.

Strunk Klaus 1967: Nasalpräsentien und Aoriste. Ein Beitrag zur Morphologie des Verbums im Indo-Iranischen und Griechischen, Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Straipsniai / Articles

53

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

Valeckienė Adelė 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Vendler Zeno 1967: Verbs and Times. – The Philosophical Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, 143–160.

Verkuyl Henk 1993: A Theory of Aspectuality. The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Villanueva-Svensson Miguel 2008: Lithuanian žinoti “to know”. – Baltistica XLIII (2), 175–199.

Villanueva-Svensson Miguel 2010: Baltic sta-presents and the Indo-European desiderative. – Indogermanische Forschungen 115, De Gruyter, 204–233.

Villanueva-Svensson Miguel 2011: Anticausative-inchoative verbs in the northern Indo-European languages. – Historische Sprachforschung 124, 33–58.

Villanueva-Svensson Miguel 2016: Zero-grade denominative nasal and sta-presents in Baltic. – Baltistica LI (1), 37–59.

Топорова Елена 2016: Лексический вид глагола. – Kobe City University of Foreign Studies Journal of Research Institute, Vol. 55, 29–36.

Падучева Елена 1998: Систематизация понятий и терминов аспектологии. – Russian Linguistics 22, 35–58.

Падучева Елена 2004: Динамические модели в семантике лексики, Москва: Языки славянской культуры.

Падучева Елена 2009: Лексическая аспектуальность и классификация предикатов по Маслову–Вендлеру. – Вопросы языкознания 6, 3–20.

Татевосов Сергей 2010: Акуциональность в лексике и грамматике: диссертация на соискание ученой степени доктора филологических наук, Москва.

Татевосов Сергей 2015: Акуциональность в лексике и грамматике. Глагол и структура события, Москва: Языки славянских культур.

Сергей Темчин 1984: Глагольные инфиксные -пи -стаосновы балтийских языков и их соответствия в праславянском: дипломная работа, Вильнюсский университет.

Сергей Темчин 1986: Семантика -пи -стаглагольных основ в литовском языке – Kalbotyra 37, 87–98.

54

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Intarpiniai ir sta kamieno deduratyvai XVI–XVII a. lietuvių raštijoje

Infixed and sta-stem Deduratives Attested in Lithuanian Scripts of the 16^th–17^th Century

SUMMARY

The article continues the investigation of infixed and sta-stem verbs attested in the Lithuanian scripts of the 16^th–17^th centuries that represent the prevailing varieties of this period: the Prussian variety (the scripts of Martynas Mažvydas and Jonas Bretkūnas’ scripts and the Sermon Book of Wolfenbüttel), the central variety (Mikalojus Daukša, Knyga nobǎžnystės), and the eastern variety (Konstantinas Sirvydas). Previous research has shown that nearly 65 percent of the infixed and sta-stem verbs in the mentioned Lithuanian scripts are derivatives: deverbatives comprise almost 70 percent, denominatives make up over 30 percent.

The current article presents the study of the morphosemantic opposition durativa / terminativa where the relations of semantic and formal expression of opposition members, the types of predicate situations, areal and chronological distribution are analyzed and the origin of this correlation is considered. The opposition in question was named durativa / terminativa in order to emphasize the difference between the opposites standing for different actional classes that are distinguished by telicity. Therefore, the binary opposition in question is comprised of atelic verbs (states and activities) vs. telic verbs (accomplishments and achievements). Durative verbs of this opposition (such as šaukti, šviesti) are opposed to terminative verbs sharing inherent telicity (such as sušukti, prašvisti). Other semantic-grammatical-morphosyntactic parameters such as transitivity, valency and agency are not essential to these oppositions: both binary opposites can be intransitive, avalent, non-agentive or transitive, valent and agentive (cf. derivational opposition causative / anticausative exhibiting a different argument structure).

In the old Lithuanian texts almost 40 oppositions durativa / terminativa were found. Two derivational patterns have been identified: terminatives derived from 1) ia-stem verbs and 2) verbs with suffixes. The first pattern corresponds exactly to the formal expression of the opposition causativa / anticausativa with the root apophony: the primary ia-stem verbs have a full degree root, and the infixed and sta-stem derivatives have a zero root. The derivatives of the second (three times more abundant) pattern correspond to the formal and semantic parameters of terminatives and anticausatives standing for the first model, however, they are derived from another structural type, i.e. verbs with suffixes, and the apophony is usually absent in this derivational pattern. These indications suggest that the second model is innovative. It should be noted that the derivational patterns attested in the 16^th–17^th century are the same as in dialects and contemporary Lithuanian.

The origin of the opposition durativa / terminativa stands in close relation to the formation of the opposition causativa / anticausativa in the Eastern Baltic languages. In this opposition, a homogeneous class of infixed and sta-stem verbs sharing peculiar semantics (they all

Straipsniai / Articles

55

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

indicate an accomplishment or an achievement) has “matured”. This morphological-semantic model was applied in Lithuanian to form a new opposition, the outstanding feature of which was no longer causativity but telicity. There are a few equivalents in other languages as well, therefore this formation can be considered an innovation of the Lithuanian language. In Latvian this pattern is poorly developed, while telicity is exhibited in other means of expression. Corresponding correlations found in Slavic and Germanic languages could have formed in particular groups of these languages or even in different languages because the verbs with nasal infix or suffix n had already acquired the same semantics as in Lithuanian.

Įteikta 2021 m. lapkričio 9 d.

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-1038 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected]

56

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV