Priesagos „-ietis, -ė“ vediniai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje: norma ir vartosenos pokyčiai

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-2292-1818 Research areas: neology, prescriptive linguistics, sociolinguistics. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all85-15 DERIVATIVES WITH THE –IETIS, –Ė SUFFIX IN CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN: NORM AND USAGE CHANGES Derivatives with the Suffix –ietis, –ė in the Lithuanian Language: Norm and Changes in Usage ABSTRACT The article examines derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix that pose problems for the codification of standard Lithuanian, revealing the relationship between codified norms and current usage tendencies for these derivatives. On the basis of formal and semantic features of the derivational base, five groups of derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix are discussed. The most important stages in the development of the codification of derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix are highlighted, and the factors determining the instability of the norms governing these derivatives and the directions of change are identified. Possible solutions for modifying the codification are proposed that would reduce the contradictions that have arisen between the codified norm and usage. The article provides a basis for further research based on the systematized features of derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix and the highlighted problems of their codification. KEYWORDS: standard language, word formation, suffix, codification, destandardization. ANNOTATION The article addresses problematic (as far as the codification of the standard Lithuanian language is concerned) derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė, reveals the relationship between the codified norms and the trends in the contemporary usage of these derivatives. Five Straipsniai / Articles 293 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ groups of derivatives with the suffix -ietis, -ė are discussed on the basis of the formal and semantic attributes of their derivational base. The key moments in the development of the codification of the derivatives with the suffix -ietis, -ė are identified and the factors that determine the instability of the norms of these derivatives and the course of their transformation are specified. A number of potential solutions to altering the codification are suggested to minimise the resulting contrast between the codified norm and usage. The article lays the foundations for further in-depth research grounded on the structured attributes of the derivatives with the suffix -ietis, -ė and the highlighted problems of codification. KEYWORDS: standard language, word-formation, suffix, codification, destandardization. INTRODUCTION In recent decades, globalization-driven post-standardization processes in the standard languages of Europe (see Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 161–176; Ghyselen et al. 2016: 75–91; Ayres-Bennett 2021: 49–50) have also been evident in Lithuanian (see Miliūnaitė 2019: 1–29). The boundaries between the standard language and nonstandard varieties are becoming not always clearly defined. Whatever version of change—“popularization” (demotization) of standard languages, the formation of a new standard (restandardization), or the narrowing of the boundaries of standard languages and the spread of nonstandard varieties (destandardization)—may characterize various languages, public usage is undergoing considerable change. Because of the interaction between standard Lithuanian and the substandard (see Miliūnaitė 2019: 8–16) in public usage, including the media, colloquial-style phenomena or phenomena not considered part of the standard-language norm have increased. At the same time, this has increased the variability of public usage, which, being a natural feature of living language and a driving force of change (cf. Aitchison 2013: 99), in turn raises the question of changes in norms. Because of the inertia characteristic of codification, contradictions between it and actual usage often arise; codification therefore sometimes needs to be reconsidered, and the arguments defining the boundary of norms need to be reassessed. Some decisions by language planners show that codification is becoming more flexible by legitimizing more variants previously considered nonstandard but particularly widespread in informal styles. Their adoption into the standard language can be justified by functional expediency and, in part, by the internal development of the Lithuanian language system¹ ¹ Cf. changes in the codification of the suffix –iokas, –ė, considered jargon (in derivatives klasiokas, –ė, grupiokas, –ė, etc.) (EKP: Word Structure, suffix –iokas, –ė). Available online: https://ekalba.lt/kalbos-patarimai/II.%20C5%BDod%C5%BEi%C5%BE%20sudarymas:%2055.%20-iokas,%20-%C4%97?paieska=-iokas*&i=484ab071-33d3-4ed0-8a33-bf687c91e12f [accessed 2021-09-30]. 294 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV Priesagos –ietis, –ė vediniai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje: norma ir vartosenos pokyčiai A systematic review of Lithuanian word-formation norms was essentially carried out as early as the second half of the 20th century, during the preparation of the Language Practice Advice (KPP₁ 1976; KPP₂ 1985). The State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter VLKK) regularly considers norms of accentuation, lexicon, grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and updates recommendations for their use. Word-formation matters have not recently been reviewed in a more consistent manner. The article aims to discuss the codification of derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix, one of the most problematic suffixes with regard to norms, and to examine the relationship between codified norms and current usage tendencies. To achieve this aim, the following tasks are set: 1) to characterize derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix that lie outside or on the margins of the norm and to reveal the most important features of their formation, functioning, and codification; 2) to highlight the factors determining the instability of the norms governing derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix and the directions of change; 3) to raise the most important problems in the codification of derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix and discuss possibilities for changing it. Here it is important to encompass the whole set of derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix systematically; therefore, the topic under examination is broad, and recognizing this, the article limits itself to essential matters that may be expanded and specified in further research. A qualitative research method is applied: a case study (of the actual usage and codification status of derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix), aimed at presenting the issues arising from an analysis of the situation. This study comprises an analysis of the content of three components—usage data, major descriptive works, and language recommendations. The following variables are compared: the structural and functional features of derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix, their relationship to the standard-language norm, and the argumentation for their normative value; their interrelationships and possible directions of change are established. Data were collected from various digital sources and databases: DVK, RekB, ND, eKP, VLKK KB², and the “Google” internet search tool was also used to verify usage facts. From the very extensive sources of usage and printed prescriptive literature, only the most essential facts and statements from language recommendations were selected for this article. ² Information accumulated in these sources about derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix was analyzed: DVK—approximately 100 selected public-usage examples from 1998 onward with features significant for codification; RekB—152 language recommendations from 1983 onward; ND—25 neologisms; eKP—16 lexicalized and 5 general recommendations from two codification works. The principles for compiling the specific sources are presented in the descriptions of the sources themselves. Straipsniai / Articles 295 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ 1. NORMATIVE DERIVATIVES WITH THE –IETIS, –Ė SUFFIX The boundaries of the norms governing derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix are defined by two lines: statements in descriptive grammars characterizing normative usage, and evaluations of nonstandard cases presented in language recommendations. In the main grammars of the Lithuanian language, derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix are assigned to the category of names for persons according to their place of origin and residence (LKG 1965: 411–412; DLKG 2006: 139–140). An examination of the headwords in several major Lithuanian dictionaries (LKŽᵉ, DLKŽ, BŽ) shows that the base words of these derivatives may be names of cities (Kaunas → kaunietis, –ė), towns (Zapyškis → zapyškietis, –ė), villages (Gudiškiai → gudiškietis, –ė), or names of larger entities—administrative units (village → kaimietis, –ė; city → mietietis, –ė), regions (Suvalkija → suvalkietis, –ė), states (Canada → kanadietis, –ė), continents (Europe → europietis, –ė), and names of other localities or places (mountain → kalnietis, –ė; north → šiaurietis, –ė; abroad → užsienietis, –ė). Thus, the base word consists of semantically fairly clearly defined groups of proper and common nouns—names of a person’s origin or place of residence. Informal styles also contain occasional, less usual derivatives that retain the semantic connection of the base word with a place name, for example: And after serving five years for stealing a sack of flour, the fellow will have graduated from such “užgrotiečių of the country” academies that his fingers itch to take up “serious business”! (Jurgis Kunčinas, Lietuvos aidas, 1999–02–12) The grammars mentioned above also identify some relatively rare derivatives of this suffix: Here one may also mention those relatively uncommon derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix (usually neologisms) that denote not a person’s connection with a place (usually expressed by a proper, less often a common, base noun), but their affiliation (ideology, activity, blood relationship...) with some collective, group of people, or the like, e.g.: ansambletis, –ė, giminietis, –ė, gvardietis, –ė, leninietis, –ė, pasaulietis, –ė, spartakietis, –ė, šeimynietis, –ė, tautietis, –ė. (LKG 1965: 412) ³ That is, those who temporarily live behind bars (in prison). The base word may be the phrase už grotų or užgrotis, although in LKŽ this is associated only with a church context (r. 1. altar; 2. a place separated by bars: Bobnyčios užgrotis). 296 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV Priesagos –ietis, –ė vediniai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje: norma ir vartosenos pokyčiai Distinct are those derivatives (usually neologisms) that denote not a person’s connection with a place, but their affiliation (ideology, activity, blood relationship...) with some group of people or the like, e.g.: ansambl ietis, –ė, šeimynietis, –ė, tautietis, –ė. (DLKG 2006: 140) Thus, the grammars essentially record the possibility of another derivational category as well, but do not define it explicitly, marking the novelty and “distinctiveness” of such derivatives. In current usage, they are much more varied and are no longer new or uncommon; on the contrary, they are numerous. 2. DERIVATIVES WITH THE –IETIS, –Ė SUFFIX⁴ THAT LIE OUTSIDE OR ON THE MARGINS OF THE NORM In descriptive and prescriptive works, several restrictions are noted for forming derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix⁵, taking into account the formal and semantic features of the derivational base and its belonging to a derivational category. According to these features, as well as their problematic relationship with standard-language norms, derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix that function in usage can be divided into several groups. 2.1. Derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix from adjectives—names of persons according to an internal characteristic At the end of the 20th century, derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix appeared in Lithuanian usage whose derivational base is not the noun specified in grammars but an adjective. Only a few such derivatives actually function, but in usage—not only in everyday speech but also in the media—they have become very widespread: gerietis, –ė (geras + –ietis) ‘one who does good, behaves well’ and blogietis, –ė (blogas + –ietis) ‘one who does evil, behaves badly’. For example: ⁴ The term derivatives is used in the article because most words with the –ietis, –ė suffix are new words created through derivation. The term formations is used only to designate words formed by a mixed process discussed in section 2.2. ⁵ Restrictions related to the structure and semantic properties of the derivational base concern not only derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix. This is a common phenomenon in Lithuanian word formation. For example, the highly productive adjective-forming suffix –inis, –ė has quite a few such restrictions (see Kniūkšta 1976: 7–55 for more detail). Straipsniai / Articles 297 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ [...] the writer, drawing on the traditions of the fairy tale, gradually erases the didactic “geriečių ir blogiečių” scheme. (Lietuvos aidas, 1998–10–17, DVK) “Is he a gerietis ar blogietis?” mother would ask. (Literatūra ir menas, 2007–05–25, DVK) This phobia is particularly often found among men who do not want to be blogiečiais in the eyes of the woman with whom they initially establish intimate contact, then leave and return to their former partner. (lrytas.lt, 2011–11–10, DVK) “But not all viruses are blogiečiai. Without certain types of viruses we could not survive, because some are used in biotechnology to create vaccines,” explains the biology teacher. (delfi.lt, 2020–04–19, DVK) In this case, the derivational base also determines the belonging of such derivatives to another derivational category—not names for persons according to origin and affiliation, but names for bearers of a nominal characteristic. Thus, not only persons but also other living or personified beings may be designated. From the perspective of word formation, these derivatives with the -ietis, -ė suffix are similar to normative derivatives with the -uolis, -ė suffix (cf. geruolis, -ė; smarkuolis, -ė, baikštuolis, -ė, etc.). No later than 1992, such derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix began to be corrected in various language-practice publications and articles (KPP₂ 1985 still contained no such corrections). The justification was that the -ietis, -ė suffix forms names for persons according to their place of residence or origin, whereas these derivatives are unsuitable for emphasizing the abundance of a person’s quality of goodness or badness (RekB 1992, 1999). The restriction on the derivational base is also mentioned: in the standard language, derivatives are not formed from adjectives with the –ietis, –ė suffix (VLKK KB). The following equivalents are offered: blogietis, -ė ntk. = blogasis, -oji; blogiukas, -ė; bloguolis, -ė; blogutis, -ė; geriukas, -ė; gerietis, -ė ntk. = gerasis, -oji; geruolis, -ė; gerutis, -ė; geriukas, -ė. Usage data show that efforts are made to introduce these equivalents into the language of edited publications, though not always systematically. Variations occur even within the same text: [...] the studio manager, in despair, signs a contract with an animation classic and thereby gives the green light not only to geruoliams Rokas and Bulvinklis, but also to the blogiečiams, without whom this film would not exist either. (Respublika, supplement Plius TV, 2021–03–23, DVK) 298 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV Priesagos –ietis, –ė vediniai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje: norma ir vartosenos pokyčiai In informal styles (everyday speech, electronic communication, and the like), nonstandard derivatives remain widespread. One reason for their abundance is that the recommended equivalents, especially blogiečio, –ės, do not always seem suitable to language users and sound somewhat artificial, for example: In life, are you a goodie or a baddie? (Lietuvos žinios, 2001–08–18, DVK) Quiz for subscribers: can you recognize at least 9 of the 12 most famous movie “baddies”? (15min.lt, 2021–06–30, DVK) The derivative blogietis, –ė often carries a strong negative semantic charge (for example, when designating characters in works for adults), while the equivalents blogiukas, –ė, blogutis, –ė are formed with diminutive suffixes; derivatives with the –uolis, –ė suffix often express positive qualities (cf. darbštuolis, šaunuolis, gražuolis, etc.). Substantivized pronominal adjectives blogasis, –oji, gerasis, –oji also do not always fit the sentence. Thus, usage shows that the proposed norm is not particularly stable. What is the solution for codification? To preserve the systematic relationship between the base of these derivatives and their derivational meaning, such derivatives, especially those with very restricted semantics, should continue not to be recognized as standard in the standard language—they should remain part of the substandard. In seeking adequate equivalents, the word-formation possibilities of Lithuanian should be exploited more fully. There is more than one suffix with a pejorative connotation (see ŽDV): blogūnas, –ė, blogišius, –ė (ND), and others. 2.2. Derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix formed from multiword phrases—names for persons according to place of residence or membership in a community Usage includes names for persons with the –ietis, –ė suffix formed by a mixed process—compounding–suffixation (Keinys 1999: 23), or composition–suffixation, in which “the formant consists of the suffix together with the boundary of compounding” (Urbutis 2009: 341). For example, ND includes the neologism laisvarinkietis, –ė (‘advocate of the free market’), formed from the phrase laisvoji rinka and the suffix –ietis, –ė⁶ (see also Murmulaitytė 2020: 4). Descriptions of Lithuanian word formation note that there are “very few living words formed in this way,” ⁶ Incidentally, ND also contains a formation variant with the suffix –ininkas, –ė with the same meaning: laisvarinkininkas, –ė. Cf. also plokščiažemininkas, –ė, “a supporter of the theory that the Earth is flat,” formed from the phrase plokščia žemė and the suffix –ininkas, –ė (ND). Straipsniai / Articles 299 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ for example, keturvėjininkas, –ė, pelėkautai and others (Keinys 1999: 23), and its “role in Lithuanian word formation is very minor” (Urbutis: 2009: 341). These descriptions reflect normative Lithuanian usage at the end of the 20th century. In reality, however, such formations were spreading at that time—not without the influence of Russian⁷—and Soviet-era language-practice publications consequently contained many corrections of them. KPP₁ included one usage-limiting recommendation: “to form names for persons from two-word names of places of residence and workplaces.” Typical examples from the Soviet period—naujagyvenimietis and raudonžvaigždietis—are corrected (KPP₁ 1976: 88). The same recommendation was repeated under compound words, but the definition was somewhat expanded (KPP₁ 1976: 255): [Not to be used] 1. compound words denoting persons, formed from two-word and multiword names of places of residence or workplaces, institutions, enterprises, or organizations.” In KPP₂ this recommendation was slightly revised and likewise presented in two places (in the articles on the suffix –ietis and compound words); metalokonstrukcijietis was added to the earlier examples (KPP₂ 1985: 89; 283): 1) -ietis—not to be used for names of persons from two-word names of collectives or places of residence: naujagyvenimietis (= a member of the “Naujasis gyvenimas” collective farm), raudonžvaigždietis (= a worker at the “Raudonoji žvaigždė” factory). 2) Compound words. III. Suffixes. 3. compound words denoting persons, formed from two-word or multiword names of places of residence or workplaces, institutions, enterprises, or organizations: naujavilnietis (= a resident of Naujoji Vilnia), naujagyvenimietis (= a member of the “Naujasis gyvenimas” collective farm, a member of the “Naujasis gyvenimas” collective farm), raudonžvaigždietis (= a worker at the “Raudonoji žvaigždė” artel), metalokonstrukcijietis (= an employee of a metal-construction factory). The corrected examples are dominated by derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix formed from names of workplaces and collectives. Of derivatives from multiword names of places of residence, only one is corrected—naujavilnietis. DKKS (1997) adopted the same evaluative approach to these formations: the recommendation is similar, but in addition to naujavilnietis, two more formations were added—from the two-word name of a place of residence and from the phrase varikų namai, which denotes both a place of residence and affiliation with a specific community: ⁷ At that time, the main dictionaries had legitimized loan translations from Russian jaunagvardietis, –ė (Jaunoji gvardija) and raudonarmietis, –ė (Raudonoji Armija) (Simonaitytė 1979: 44). 300 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV Priesagos –ietis, -ė vediniai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje: norma ir vartosenos pokyčiai 2.3. NONRECOMMENDED COMPOUND WORDS 2.3.1. Words with the –ietis, –ietė suffix denoting persons, formed from two-word or multiword names of places of residence, workplaces, institutions, enterprises, or organizations, e.g.: naujavilnietis (= a resident of Naujoji Vilnia), kazlūrūdietis (= a resident of Kazlų Rūda, kazlinis), vaiknamietis (= a resident of a children’s home). Current usage contains formations of this type with differing statuses. 1) Formations denoting persons with the –ietis, –ė suffix are formed from multiword names of places of residence both in Lithuania and in other countries (see Liutkevičienė 2008: 80–102 for more detail). There are generally two ways of dealing with them: a) names for persons are formed only from the second word, so the derivative with the –ietis, –ė suffix does not violate the norm in this case, for example: Kudirkos Naumiestis – naumiestietis, –ė⁸ (RekB, DLKŽ); Marshall Islands – maršalietis, –ė (VGP); East Timor – timorietis, –ė (VGP); b) the boundaries of the codified norm are violated when names for persons are formed from the roots of both words in the phrase or sometimes from the first entire word⁹. DVK records: Kazlų Rūda – kazlūrūdietis, –ė¹⁰, Naujoji Akmenė – naujaakmenietis, –ė, Naujoji Vilnia – naujavilnietis, –ė New Orleans – naujaorleanietis, –ė, New Zealand – naujazelandietis, –ė¹¹. ⁸ To refer to residents of Žemaičių Naumiestis or its environs, a derivative with the –iškis, –ė suffix is used: naumiestiškis, –ė (DLKŽ). ⁹ This case does not include formations made from multiword names of places of residence whose first component is indeclinable, because such a compound name is conventionally treated as a single word, cf.: Burkina Fasas – burkinafasietis, –ė; Kosta Rika – kostarikietis, –ė, San Marinas – sanmarinietis, –ė and others (VGP). ¹⁰ It is true that VLK K KB makes an exception for this word: “the proposed kazlinis (a one-word designation is often needed in usage) did not catch on; the residents of Kazlų Rūda use kazlūrūdietį, so kazlūrūdietis could be regarded as an exception to the rule.” [accessed 2021–08–27]. ¹¹ The VGP list legitimizes only the compound name Naujosios Zelandijos gyventojas, but naujazelandietis has also been included in the BŽ headword list (for now without an entry), so changes in codification may be expected. Straipsniai / Articles 301 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Thus, both usage and the few codification exceptions so far indicate a clear direction of change—the regularity of derivatives with the -ietis, -ė suffix, regardless of the derivational base. In other words, if we view multiword names of places of residence as fixed lexical units made up of closely related words (Kazlų Rūda, Naujoji Zelandija), the possibility of forming names for persons from them with the -ietis, -ė suffix purposefully outweighs the formal restrictions on the derivational base of such formations. 2) Formations from multiword names designating various communities—workplaces or enterprises, organizations, parties, social groups, and the like—are not very common in usage. It is true that they are generally not long-lived either, because the realities of life change. What matters here is the derivational model itself functioning in usage. For example: liberalsąjūdiečiai—members of the Liberal Movement of the Republic of Lithuania (ND); socialdarbiečiai—members of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Labour Party (ND); lietrytiečiai—1. employees of the daily newspaper “Lietuvos rytas”; 2. former players of the basketball team “Lietuvos rytas” (DVK); šiaurvasariečiai—participants in the international literary forum “Šiaurės vasara” (DVK). What accounts for the vitality of the formations with the –ietis, –ė suffix discussed above, whose bases are multiword names? Clearly, in this case, actual (not codified) usage is regulated by the principle of language economy. The multiword equivalents recommended in language recommendations, with words such as resident, employee, worker, member and the like, are inconvenient in everyday usage. Because of the aforementioned liberalization of public language and the “colloquialization” of the standard language, one-word variants with the –ietis, –ė suffix are becoming the actual norm and create a twofold contradiction in codification (with regard to the derivational base and membership in a derivational category), along with the need to eliminate it. 2.3. Derivatives with the –ietis, –ė suffix—names for residents formed from names of states ending in the suffix –ija In Lithuanian, a strong tendency has developed to use traditional names for the inhabitants of states whose names end in –ija alongside those state names (often 302 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV Priesagos –ietis, –ė vediniai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje: norma ir vartosenos pokyčiai coinciding with ethnonyms12) with the endings –as, –ė or –is, –ė—without the –ietis, –ė suffix. For example: Albanian, –ė (Albania), Australian, –ė (Australia), Brazilian, –ė (Brazil), Greek, –ė (Greece), Chinese, –ė (China), Latvian, –ė (Latvia), Syrian, –ė (Syria), Turkish, –ė (Turkey). This tendency is often mentioned in language-practice publications from the Soviet period. KPP1 (1979) distinguishes between traditional and newer names: “the suffix –ietis is now generally used, regardless of whether the name of the state has the suffix –ija or not.” KPP2 (1985) likewise advises preferably avoiding the suffix –ietis, –ė “for older traditional names derived from state names with the suffix –ija” and corrects four derivatives: australietis, brazilietis, kinietis, portugalietis. Usage reveals an opposite tendency: some traditional suffixless variants still compete with derivatives containing the suffix –ietis, –ė. The most widespread derivative, kinietis, –ė, is corrected particularly often. There have even been attempts to correct albanietis, –ė (RekB 2000) and belgietis, –ė (Piročkinas 1990: 56), which occurred in usage; today the actual norm of these words has become established and coincides with the codified norm: albanas, –ė; belgas, –ė. Incidentally, abandoning the suffix –ietis, –ė was also proposed in several isolated cases, but the suffixless variants did not become established, e.g. instead of indonezas, –ė, melanezas, –ė (RekB 1993), indonezietis, –ė; melanezietis, –ė were legalized. It has not been overlooked that suffixless derivatives have also become established (Azija – azijietis, –ė, Suvalkija – suvalkietis, –ė) (Piročkinas 1990: 56). The latest studies, having examined more and more varied data, likewise indicate that this derivational tendency is characteristic only of older (traditional) names of inhabitants of states: “the rule has too many exceptions for it to be followed in all cases” (Liutkevičienė 2008: 83). Newer and less frequently used names of inhabitants, maintaining the regularity of this derivational type, are formed with the suffix –ietis, –ė, e.g.: Gambija – gambietis, –ė, 12 For a fuller discussion of the relationship between names of inhabitants of states and ethnonyms, see Liutkevičienė 2001: 61–62. In general, the tendency to distinguish derivationally between names of inhabitants of states (forming the latter with the suffix –ietis, –ė) and ethnonyms (without the suffix –ietis, –ė, only with the endings –as, –ė; –is, –ė) is not particularly pronounced (see Liutkevičienė 2001: 61). Straipsniai / Articles 303 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Kenija – kenietis, -ė. Namibija – namibietis, -ė. When the names of inhabitants in this group formed with the suffix –ietis, –ė first began to be corrected, there are no precise data. In a report delivered by Juozas Balčikonis in 1952 in Russian at an international conference on lexicology, lexicography, and terminology held in the hall of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, he mentioned the preparation of a new prescriptive dictionary of the standard (at that time, literary) language¹³ and referred to a correction by Jonas Jablonskis. In the past, instead of the word kumaeų, kinietis was written, whereas Jablonskis explained in the press that it should be kinas (Balčikonis 1978: 2013). However, this fact could not be found in Jablonskis’s own writings (either in the five-volume or the two-volume edition), nor is it mentioned by Arnoldas Piročkinas, a researcher of Jablonskis’s work (1986). Thus, the codified norm is pressed from two sides: by the tradition of using suffixless derivatives and by the effort to preserve the regularity of the derivational type with the suffix –ietis, –ė. It is true that in some cases the criterion of distinctiveness also enters the recommendations: some suffixless derivatives, including names of inhabitants denoting historical realities, may coincide with other words, whereas derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė help avoid ambiguity. For example, in defending the form kinietis, it is said that use of the suffixless word kinas (masc.) may create ambiguity with the homonym kinas (neut. “1. the art of cinematography; 2. cinematographic equipment,” LKŽ). Nevertheless, context usually makes it clear what is being discussed, so variation between these derivational variants even within the same text more likely indicates merely shortcomings in editing, cf.: Kinietis unfolded a map containing 1,000 litas and began explaining to one of the girls what he was looking for. The girl had barely glanced at it when she snatched the map with the money and ran off. Meanwhile, her friend grabbed two kino backpacks lying on the ground. (Lietuvos rytas, 2000-08-30, DVK) UAB “V[...]” kiniečių restaurant KINŲ DRAKONAS (rekvizitai.lt, 2021-08-18, DVK) The recommendations also indicate further cases that may create ambiguity (but are rarely used): ¹³ The dictionary mentioned—Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas—was published in 1954. Eight editions of it have appeared to date (including electronic and online editions). In the first edition, the derivative in question was included with the cross-reference kiniečiai žr. kinai, whereas it is no longer marked as nonstandard in the latest editions. 304 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV Priesagos –ietis, –ė vediniai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje: norma ir vartosenos pokyčiai Babilonija – babilonietis, –ė (not babilonas, –ė), Kalifornija – kalifornietis, –ė (not kalifornis14, –ė), Kolumbija – kolumbietis, –ė (not kolumbas, –ė). In 2008, VLKK approved the recommendation “On Names of Inhabitants of States” (VGP), which maintains the traditional norm while also legalizing the aforementioned exceptions. It considerably stabilized codification and undoubtedly affects official usage. Given the relatively limited number of base words, lexically and derivationally, denoting various inhabited places and having the suffix –ija, conditional stability of the norms may be predicted, although variation in usage, especially informal usage, is unavoidable because of the various exceptions and abundance of traditional variants. 2.4. Derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė—names of persons based on their association on some grounds (profession, field of activity, organization, collective, etc.) This group of derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė is the largest and continues to expand. The semantics of the base words denoting various groups of persons associating on some basis is particularly diverse. There is evidence that as early as the beginning of the twentieth century J. Jablonskis began correcting certain derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė—specifically those belonging to this group. As Arnoldas Piročkinas notes, Liudas Gira’s 1905 notes from Jablonskis’s lectures record that Jablonskis recommended correcting names of members of societies formed with this suffix (Piročkinas 1986: 68). For example, it is noted that juozapiečiai should be corrected, and with a question mark the corresponding form is given—a derivative with the suffix –ininkas, –ė, juozapininkai (i.e. members of the Society of St. Joseph). In 1914, Jablonskis offered a fuller justification for correcting derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė, noting that nouns of this kind “did not openly express a person’s inclination, his preferred work, or his color” (Jablonskis 1914: 88–89): A person who is attached to the “scientific, agricultural, Aušra, or Rytas society” and takes care of their affairs [...] should, it seems to me, be called in the same way a s c i e n t i s t, a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t, an A u š r a i s t, or a R y t a s i s t (and that is how most newspapers now write). [...] To call members of particular societies, speaking rapidly, aušriečiai, maldiečiai, mokslečiai, rytiečiai, ūkiečiai, varpiečiai”—the language of the people gives us no right to do so. 14 Cf. kalifornis—a radioactive chemical element, a slowly decaying artificial metal (Cf) (Bž). Straipsniai / Articles 305 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Arnoldas Piročkinas, noting several later corrections by Jablonskis involving this suffix, including pasaulietį, for which pasaulininkas was recommended instead, writes: “The subsequent use of the suffix –ietis in the standard language took a direction different from that indicated by Jablonskis: today the derivatives žalgirietis, tiesietis, pasaulietis, leninietis, partietis are considered normative (KPP 8915). This use of the suffix is already implicit, among other things, in the word tautietis recommended by Jablonskis” (Piročkinas 1986: 68). Thus, Jablonskis’s principal argument was that “the language of the people gives us no right to do so.” As can be seen from Kalbos patarėjas (KP 1939), there were not many post-Jablonskian recommendations concerning the use of derivatives with the suffix -ietis, -ė: only one or two were included in this language guide. For example, the derivative darbietis, -ė was corrected in the phrase darbiečių partija – darbo partija (the Labour Party of England was meant). Recommendations increased particularly during the Soviet period—corrections were published in the periodical press and specialized language journals, as well as in KPP2: –ietis [...] better avoided: 1. for naming persons according to their profession, type of work, or place of attendance: švietimietis (– švietimo darbuotojas, pedagogas), būre lietis (– būrelio narys), geležinkelietis (– geležinkelininkas), darželietis (– darželinukas). The content and abundance of these recommendations indicate a strong need to name persons according to their association on some basis, and the suffix -ietis, -ė proved highly convenient for forming such names. The choice of the less categorical evaluation “better avoided,” rather than “not recommended,” suggests that there were arguments preventing a clear separation between the norm and its violation. This is most likely related to the statements in LKG mentioned in section 1 of the article, which do not rule out the possibility of forming names of persons in this group. Thus, one of the points in KPP1 on permissible derivatives with the suffix -ietis, -ė was formulated as follows: [Permitted:] 2. names of persons according to their affiliation with a collective, organization, or movement: spartakietis, žalgirietis, kolūkietis, ansamblietis, tautietis, pasaulietis, leninietis. In KPP2, some words from the earlier edition were no longer included as permissible, and the formulation was narrowed somewhat: 15 The examples provided in the quotation by Arnoldas Piročkinas do not entirely coincide either with those in KPP1 or with those in KPP2, although the list of abbreviations for the book (p. 238) indicates the second edition, which had just been published at the time (KPP2). 306 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV Priesagos –ietis, –ė vediniai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje: norma ir vartosenos pokyčiai [Permitted] 2. according to affiliation with certain collectives or teams: kibirkštietės (: “Kibirkštis”), kolūkietis (: kolūkis), žalgiriečiai (: “Žalgiris”). The boundary between the KPP2 recommendation “better avoided” and the recommendation “permissible” became unclear because semantically overlapping groups occupy opposite positions: the norm is associated with persons’ affiliation with “certain collectives,” whereas “better avoided” is associated with profession and type of work or place of attendance. For example, būreliečiai or darž eliečiai could semantically also be assigned to the permissible group—as persons affiliated with collectives. In a 1975 article entitled “Suffixal Formation of Lithuanian Terms,” Stasys Keinys, examining derivatives presented in terminology dictionaries, placed the suffix –ietis, –ė in the section “Names of Bearers of Nominal Features and Occupational Names of Persons” and gave the following examples: kolūkietis, olimpietis, pasienietis, pilietis, užsienietis, valstietis. The following note was added to them (Keinys 1975: 45): A considerable proportion of derivatives of this type names persons according to their place of origin or residence, but derivatives such as olimpietis and the like are closely related to names of bearers of nominal features. Thus, it is acknowledged that even in such a more strictly regulated field as terminology, derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė do not fit within the boundaries of a single derivational category. In 1976, Vida Simonaitytė examined in detail the properties of the base words of derivatives with this group’s suffix –ietis, –ė that had become more frequent in usage and, on that basis, divided the derivatives into several subgroups (Simonaitytė 1976: 38–44). In view of these properties, changes in contemporary usage are also briefly reviewed below16. 1) Names of persons according to affiliation with a collective, formed from place names. During the Soviet period they were formed “according to affiliation with a collective farm, state farm or some other farm, a production enterprise, a school,” and so on, e.g.: butrimonietis, –ė (Butrimonys collective farm); arvydietis, –ė (Arvydai fish farm), skiemonietis, –ė (Skiemonys secondary school). In this case, the semantic shift from the name of an inhabitant associated with a locality to the name of a person belonging to a collective bearing the locality’s name is natural, although, as V. Simonaitytė notes, it is supposedly unnatural when names of local inhabitants have become established with other suffixes (e.g., salantiškiai), while the names of collectives are formed from those 16 It should be noted that collecting data on names of persons belonging to small collectives is difficult, since few of them enter public usage, especially the mainstream media. Such names function within a fairly limited sphere and are more common in the regional press or in texts produced by specific communities. Straipsniai / Articles 307 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ from the place names themselves with the suffix –ietis, –ė (e.g., šalantiečiai) (Simonaitytė 1979: 40). With the departure from the Soviet system and the emergence of private farms, the semantic field of derivatives in this subgroup changed markedly at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The extent to which the formation of names of persons belonging to collectives with the suffix –ietis, –ė from place names remains relevant today does not appear to have been studied more broadly. 2) Names of persons formed from collectives’ symbolic names (sports, art, publications, publishing houses, and so on). This subgroup of names of persons is particularly abundant and constantly renewed. During the Soviet period, such derivatives were also encouraged by calques from Russian, where they have the suffix –еу, while in Lithuanian derivatives formed on this model “overshadow other forms, primarily nouns with the suffix –ininkas (Simonaitytė 1979: 41). In the early post-Soviet period, DVK recorded many similar examples (often as collective names), e.g.: plekšniečiai (members of the “Plekšnė” art club), hermiečiai (employees of the “Hermis” bank), respublikiečiai—employees of the daily Respublika, santariečiai (members of the “Santara–Šviesa” organization), vaidiliečiai (actors of the “Vaidila” Theatre), and others. They are also abundant in contemporary usage, e.g.: pegasiečiai (members of the “Pegasus” book-trade network’s club, ND), bohemiečiai (an opera company—named after the first opera staged, La bohème, ND), and others. 3) Names of persons formed from nouns (less often, adjectives) that enter into compound enterprise names and indicate the products they manufacture; even during the Soviet period such derivatives were “rare, unusual, and mostly unjustified,” e.g.: hidraulietis, –ė (Hydraulic Drives Factory) (Simonaitytė 1979: 42–43). During the Soviet period, autokompresorietis (Autocompressors Factory), grąžtietis (Drill Factory), metalietis (Metal Products Factory) (RekB 1983), and others were corrected. After Lithuania regained independence, enterprises with non-Lithuanian or hybrid names appeared. How the employees of these enterprises are called would require separate survey-based studies. 4) Names of persons formed from personal names by which collectives, movements, and so on are named after persons, e.g.: čiurlioniečiai (students of the Čiurlionis Secondary School of Art), janoniečiai (workers of the Janonis paper mill). According to V. Simonaitytė, this is “a new, unusual linguistic phenomenon; the Russian language may help it spread” (Simonaitytė 1979: 42). In recommendations from the Soviet period, kudirietis, –ė was corrected (= kudirkaitis, –ė; kudirkininkas, –ė; kudirkinukas, –ė), as was maironietis, –ė (= maironaitis, –ė) (RekB 1989), and so on; also corrected were names of adherents or followers of philosophical schools of personal-name origin, e.g., berklietis (= berklininkas) (RekB 1987). After independence was restored, various religious societies were revived, and their names were also corrected: birutietės (= birutininkės), ursulietės (= ursulininkės), zitietės (= zitininkės) (RekB 1994, 1996). In contemporary usage, there are also names of persons formed from personal names, e.g. (DVK): daukantiečiai (1. students of the Simonas Daukantas Gymnasium of Vilnius, 308 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV Priesagos –ietis, -ė vediniai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje: norma ir vartosenos pokyčiai 2. members of the Simonas Daukantas Bibliophiles’ Club and others), vydūniečiai (1. members of the Vydūnas Society, 2. students of the Vydūnas Gymnasium in Šilutė), and so on. They likewise tend to compete with derivatives containing other suffixes. DVK records čiurlioniukai (students of the Čiurlionis School of Arts), naujaliukai (students of the Juozas Naujalis Music Gymnasium in Kaunas). 5) Names of persons formed from common names of various collectives and organizations, e.g.: darželietis, -ė (a kindergarten pupil), leidyklietis, -ė (a publishing-house employee), švietimietis, -ė (a public-education worker), and so on (Simonaitytė 1979: 43). Darželiečiai (alongside the variant darželinukai) and švietimiečiai are also widespread in contemporary usage, although the recommendations explained that the latter is a calque of the Russian просвещенец (RekB 1990). Correct exceptions are acknowledged (ansamblietis, tautietis), but “multiplying such exceptional formations is not expedient” (RekB 1992). In usage, ansambliečiai continues to compete with the promoted variant ansamblininkai. A strong prescriptive struggle continued for a long time over the term for railway-transport employees: geležinkelietis, -ė or geležinkelininkas, -ė. As S. Keinys notes, the normative variant geležinkelininkas, -ė had already been recommended by the state Terminology Commission that operated from 1921 to 1926, while its competitor geležinkelietis, -ė was rejected because Lithuanian uses derivatives with the suffix -ininkas, -ė for persons according to their work or field of activity, as well as workplace, means, object, and so on (Keinys 2000). The principal Lithuanian dictionaries give the derivative with the suffix -ininkas, -ė as the principal variant (LKŽₑ) or as the sole normative one¹⁷; in terminology only this form is recommended, but in informal styles these two derivatives continue to compete. Attempts to correct the words olimpietis, -ė (= olimpininkas, -ė, olimpiadininkas, -ė), pasienietis, -ė (= pasienininkas, -ė; pasientukas, -ė) (RekB 1993, 1996, 2000) were unsuccessful. Olimpietis, -ė was not included in DLKŽ; only olimpiadininkas, -ė was recommended, but in contemporary usage the meanings of these words have diverged: olimpiadininkas, -ė means “a pupil or student, a participant in a subject Olympiad,” whereas olimpietis, -ė means “a participant in the Olympic Games” and an inhabitant of Mount Olympus, one of the gods in ancient Greek mythology (BŽ). Pasienietį, -ę was initially recommended to be retained only for inhabitants of the border area, but the principal dictionaries show competition between the two variants and an established recommendation to use this derivative in the sense “a soldier of a country’s border guard” (DLKŽ₇). Cf. also: klubietis, -ė “club member” is more frequent in usage than the variant klubininkas, -ė (ND). This shows that derivatives with the suffix -ietis, -ė for naming members of various collectives often assume the position of the stronger competitor. ¹⁷ Cf.: From the third edition of DLKŽ (1993), the following is given: geležinkelietis, -ėntk. = g e l e ž i n k e l i n i n k a s. Straipsniai / Articles 309 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ 6) A separate subgroup, which had receded into passive usage during the Soviet period, consists of names of party members, joined by names of members of social movements. The principal dictionaries record only the word partietis, –ė with the cross-reference “see” and the preferable variant partinis, –ė. Participants in the social movement that emerged on the eve of the restoration of Lithuania’s independence—the Lithuanian Reform Movement Sąjūdis—are still often called sąjūdiečiais, although this derivative has often been corrected and competes with the variant sąjūdininkai, which is more suitable for official usage, and sometimes also with the derivative sąjūdistai, which carries a negative connotation¹⁸. After Lithuania regained independence and began reviving the parties that had existed before the war, as well as establishing new ones, names formed with the suffix –ietis, –ė, derived from party names or individual words within them, were most often chosen for their members, e.g.¹⁹: darbiečiai (members of the Democratic Labour Party of Lithuania, later members of the Labour Party); prisikėliečiai (members of the Resurrection Party); tvarkiečiai (members of the “Order and Justice” party); laisviečiai (members of the “Freedom” party)²⁰, and others. Cf. also: maršiečiai—participants in the event “Great Family Defence March” and in the movement developing from it²¹. In general, the formation of party names and competition between their variants is a promising topic for individual studies. The entire group of derivatives discussed—names of persons according to their association on some common basis—is the most complicated with respect to norms, both because of established exceptions, the erosion of boundaries between the norm and error, and the continual and abundant emergence of new derivatives. As stated in one recommendation, the “system of meanings” of the suffixes –ietis, –ė and –ininkas, –ė “has been disrupted” (RekB 1996). Thus, contemporary usage marks a process that has been continuing for many years: an increase in the productivity²² of the suffix –ietis, –ė and an expansion of its derivational possibilities, accompanied by a movement away from the codified norm. Over more than a century of development of the norms of the standard language, codification has softened in some cases, but several pronounced usage tendencies still contradict it. Codification should reflect only the general tendencies of actual usage, while individual derivatives should be assessed with regard to each one’s competitive features ¹⁸ For more on the formation and frequency of use of derivatives from this root, see Čižik-Prokaševa 2018: 149–150; 161–162. ¹⁹ Party names are also provided that are recorded in DVK and ND but whose parties themselves eventually disappeared. ²⁰ ND also records further variants for naming members of this party: laisvistai, laisvūnai, laisvininkai. ²¹ ND also records further variants for naming members of this movement: maršininkai, maršistai, šeimamar­šininkai, šeimamaršiai. ²² For the concept of productivity in word formation, see Urbutis 2009: 309–314. For the case under examination, the ability to create new derivatives with this suffix is important. 310 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV Priesagos –ietis, –ė vediniai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje: norma ir vartosenos pokyčiai (frequency, the tradition of prescription, the emergence of a new meaning or the differentiation of its stylistic-functional connotation, and so on). 2.5. Derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė used to form certain names of persons according to their place of residence or origin Normative derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė are precisely suited to naming persons according to their place of residence or origin. In some northeastern Eastern Aukštaitian dialects and neighboring dialects, pasvaliečiai, pakruojiečiai, joniškiečiai, and so on, are traditionally used. However, unlike in the standard language, this suffix is not particularly characteristic of dialects (Norkaitienė, Girdenis 1987: 13). Other suffixes are customary in various regions of Lithuania, for example, –ėnas, –ė; –iškis, –ė; –ininkas, –ė; –uvis, –ė; –inis, –ė, and others. For example, derivatives with the suffix –iškis, –ė are particularly characteristic of Samogitians (telšiškis, –ė; salantiškis, –ė; tauragiškis, –ė, and others), while the suffix –ėnas, –ė is common in Eastern Lithuania (Anykštėnas, –ė; kupiškėnas, –ė; užpalėnas, –ė, and others). Due to the productivity of the suffix –ietis, –ė and the external factor—widespread migration—this diversity of suffixes, together with traditional dialects, is disappearing. Nowadays, such names tend to be formed with it most often (also bypassing the formal restriction discussed in Section 2.3). Consequently, competing variants arise in usage, for example, linkuvis, –ė – linkuvietis, –ė, telšiškis, –ė – telšietis, –ė, and so on. Both Soviet-era and more recent language recommendations advise retaining in the standard language authentic derivatives with different suffixes or endings characteristic of various regions of Lithuania, which usually also denote a representative of the corresponding dialect, for example: 1) –ėnas, –ė: anykštėnas, –ė ‘a resident of Anykščiai or its environs’; biržėnas, –ė ‘a resident of Biržai or its environs’; ratnyčėnas, –ė ‘a resident of Ratnyčia village’; 2) –iškis, –ė: kelmiškis, –ė ‘a resident of Kelmė or its environs’; skuodiškis, –ė ‘a resident of Skuodas or its environs’; skaudviliškis, –ė ‘a resident of Skaudvilė or its environs’; 3) –ininkas, –ė: nidininkas, –ė ‘a former resident of Nida’; ventininkas, –ė ‘a resident of Ventė village’; 4) –uvis, –ė: Straipsniai / Articles 311 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ linkuvis, –ė ‘a resident of Linkuva or its environs’; šeduvis, –ė ‘a resident of Šeduva or its environs’; 5) –inis, –ė: old marijampolinis, –ė | marijampolietis, –ė ‘a resident of Marijampolė or its environs’; old šakinis, –ė | šakietis, –ė ‘a resident of Šakiai or its environs’; f) –is, –ė: baisogalis, –ė ‘a resident of Baisogala or its environs’. Language recommendations from the second half of the twentieth century mention a tendency in usage to distinguish the traditional names for residents mentioned above from names for residents of cities and other larger settlements. In other words, when speaking about residents of a city or town, derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė may be used, whereas when it is necessary to emphasize local origin and dialect or subdialect, traditional derivatives with other suffixes are used, where available. Cf.: kupiškietis, –ė ‘a resident of the city of Kupiškis’ and kupiškėnas, –ė ‘a resident of Kupiškis and its environs who speaks the local subdialect’; in the 1987 journal Mūsų kalba, Milda Norkaitienė and Aleksas Girdenis wrote (Norkaitienė, Girdenis 1987: 13–15): In those subdialects that have more than one suffix, their derivatives tend to be distinguished according to meaning. For example, in some Aukštaitian areas, derivatives with the suffix –ėnas, –ė may denote a person from a particular locality or subdialect, whereas derivatives with –iškis, –ė or –ietis, –ė denote a resident of the corresponding town or city [...]. It is difficult to say at present what should be done with the tendency toward semantic differentiation of pairs of derivatives. It seems to us that, for now, this differentiation would be rather artificial, imposed on the language by force—we could justify it only in cases where one of the derivatives is a specialized scientific term. Thus, the relationships between these derivatives of the suffix –ietis, –ė and their variants are not stable; this is a long-term process that continues in our day. No clear system is evident in normative dictionaries either (DLKŽ, BŽ). The direction of change indicates leveling of expression and may be somewhat adjusted through codification, while retaining both authentic names for local residents and establishing names of subdialects as terms of linguistics. CONCLUSIONS 1. In the principal grammars of the Lithuanian language, normative derivatives of the suffix –ietis, –ė are assigned to the word-formation category of names of persons according to their origin and place of residence 312 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV Priesagos –ietis, –ė vediniai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje: norma ir vartosenos pokyčiai category, while codification sources indicate certain restrictions on the word-formation base. Data from contemporary Lithuanian usage and language recommendations show that actually functioning derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė do not always conform to the codified norm; consequently, conflicts arise between codification and usage. 2. The current diversity of derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė reflects a process that has been under way for many years—the expansion of the word-formational possibilities of this suffix, that is, the regularity and increasing number of derivatives, despite the norms established in grammars. This process has been reinforced by the particularly pronounced wave of post-standardization in European countries over the past decade, which is causing the “colloquialization” of standard languages and the erosion of the boundaries between the standard and nonstandard varieties. 2.1. In usage, the word-formation base of derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė is becoming more complex and diverse than indicated in descriptive grammars: these derivatives are formed not only from morphologically simple structures but also from the stems of more complex base words and, in some cases, not only from nouns but also from adjectives. 2.2. Some derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė belong not to the word-formation category of names of persons according to their origin and place of residence identified by grammars, but to another category—the word-formation category of names of bearers of a nominal characteristic. 2.3. This process is accompanied by extensive competition among variant derivatives, in which derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė generally tend to occupy a stronger position and become established in usage. This is determined by the productivity of the suffix –ietis, –ė, the principle of linguistic economy (kazlūrūdietis, –ė is more convenient than Kazlų Rūdos gyventojas, –a), and in some cases by distinctiveness (olimpiadininkas, –ė is not the same as olimpietis, –ė). 3. On the basis of the formal features and semantics of the base words, as well as the derivatives’ membership in different word-formation categories, five groups of derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė that are problematic from the standpoint of codification can be distinguished. At the same time, taking into account the regularities of the word-formation system, usage tendencies (the frequency of derivative use), and the direction of changes, several solutions for revising the codification may be proposed. 3.1. Codification is contradicted by the formation of names of persons from multiword combinations—according to a person’s place of residence or affiliation with a community (e.g., kazlūrūdietis, –ė, naujazelandietis, –ė). Codification should be relaxed (and this has already begun to be done by way of exceptions), since the change in usage is natural and functionally appropriate owing to linguistic economy. 3.2. Codification is contradicted by the formation of names for residents from names of states ending in –ija (kinietis, –ė), when a traditional nonsuffixed name exists (kinas, –ė). The current state of codification should be retained, based on the principle of stability of norms. 3.3. The formation of names of persons according to their association on some basis (by profession, field of activity, organization, collective, etc.) is problematic and lacks clear normative boundaries Straipsniai / Articles 313 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ formation of names (švietimietis, –ė; darž­elietis, –ė; maironietis, –ė; laisvietis, –ė). Since codification recognizes certain reservations and exceptions, while such derivatives are extremely numerous in usage, clearer criteria should be sought for expanding and more precisely defining the boundaries of the norms. 3.4. Derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė level out the formation of traditional names of persons according to their place of residence that reflect regional differences (salantietis, –ė – salantiškis, –ė). Derivatives with other traditionally established suffixes (–ėnas, –ė; –iškis, –ė; –ininkas, –ė; –uvis, –ė; –inis, –ė, etc.) should be supported by codification. 4. The codification of derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė, which has developed over more than a century of the evolution of standard-language norms, should better reflect natural word-formation tendencies emerging in usage. The stability of codification should be maintained where changes in usage have arisen under the influence of other languages and lack a systemic and functional basis within Lithuanian itself. ŠALTINIAI BŽ – Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, red. kolegija D. Liutkevičienė, D. Murmulaitytė, V. Sakalauskienė, A. Gritėnienė, A. Gaidienė, D. Daugirdienė, L. Jonušys, vyr. red. D. Liutkevičienė. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.ikl.lt/bendrinės-lietuvių-kalbos-žodynas [žiūrėta 2021–09–01–09–30]. DKKS – Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašas. Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos patvirtintas 1997–12–18. Nr. 68. 2019–01–31 nutarimas atšauktas. Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.E6FA99389109. DLKG 2006 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 4-oji pataisyta laida, red. V. Ambrazas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. DLKŽ₆ – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, vyr. red. S. Keinys, 6-asis (3-iasis e.) leidimas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2006. DLKŽ₇ – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, vyr. red. S. Keinys, 7-asis (4-asis e.) leidimas, atnaujinta versija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2017. Prieiga internete: ekalba.ikl.lt/dabartinės-lietuvių-kalbos-žodynas. DVK – Dabartinės vartosenos kartoteka, asmeninis e. išteklius. eKP – Kalbos patarimai. Kalbos rekomendacijų duomenynas, sud. R. Miliūnaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2021. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/kalbos-patarimai/ [žiūrėta 2021–09–16]. 314 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV Priesagos –ietis, –ė vediniai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje: norma ir vartosenos pokyčiai KP 1939 – Kalbos patarėjas, par. L. Dambrauskas, red. A. Salys, P. Skardžius, Kaunas: Lietuvių kalbos draugija. KPP₁ 1976 – Kalbos praktikos patarimai, sud. A. Pupkis, aut. A. Paulauskienė, V. Labutis, A. Pupkis, J. Šukys, A. Vanagas, J. Žemaitis, Vilnius: Mokslas. KPP₂ 1985 – Kalbos praktikos patarimai, sud. A. Pupkis, vyr. red. Z. Zinkevičius, aut. A. Paulauskienė, V. Labutis, A. Pupkis, J. Šukys, A. Vanagas, J. Žemaitis, Vilnius: Mokslas. LKG – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2, vyr. red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1965. 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. ND – Miliūnaitė R., Aleksaitė A. Lietuvių kalbos naujažodžių duomenynas [Tęstinis internetinis žinynas nuo 2011 m.], sud. R. Miliūnaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/naujažodžiai [žiūrėta 2021-10-02]. RekB – Kalbos rekomendacijų kompiuterinė bazė. [Netiražuota kompaktinė plokštelė], Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2006. VGP – Rekomendacija „Dėl valstybių gyventojų pavadinimų“. Patvirtinta Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos 2008-10-02 protokoliniu nutarimu Nr. PN-6; paskutinį kartą keista 20201221, Nr. PN11. Prieiga internete: http://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausios-temos/svetimvardziai/valstybiu-gyventoju-pavadinimai [žiūrėta 2021-09-01]. VLKK KB – Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos kalbos konsultacijų bankas. Prieiga internete: http://www.vlkk.lt/konsultacijos. ŽDV – Murmulaitytė D., Aleksaitė A. Žodžių darybos vedlys. [Elektroninis išteklius], Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2021. Prieiga internete: ekalba.lt/zodziu-darybos-vedlys/ [žiūrėta 2021-09-10]. Straipsniai / Articles 315 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ LITERATŪRA Aitchison Jean 2013: Language Change: Progress or Decay? 4th ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ayres-Bennett Wendy 2021: Modeling Language Standardization. The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics), eds. by W. Ayres-Bennett, J. Bellamy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27–64. Balčikonis Juozas 1978: Rinktiniai raštai 1, sud. A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslas. Coupland Nikolas, Kristiansen Tore 2011: SLICE: Critical Perspectives on Language (De)standardization. Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe, eds. by T. Kristiansen, N. Coupland, Oslo: Novus Press, 161–176. Čižik-Prokaševa Veslava 2018: Sąvokos sąjūdis išaškinimas lietuvių kalboje. – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 79, 144–176. Ghyselen et al. 2016: Ghyselen Anne-Sophie, Delarue Steven, Lybaert Chloé. Studying Standard Language Dynamics in Europe. – Taal en Tongval 68(2), 75–91. Jablonskis Jonas 1914: Rygiškių Jonas. Kalbos dalykai. – Vilties priedas 3, 81–94; 4 118–128. Taip pat: Jablonskio raštai 4. Kalbos dalykai, red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Akcinė „Ryto“ bendrovė, 1935, 147–173. Keinys Stasys 1975: Priesaginė lietuviškų terminų daryba. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 16: Lietuvių terminologija, 7–56. Keinys Stasys 1999: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla. Keinys Stasys 2000: Keletas atsakymų į klausimus. – Geležinkelininkas, spalio 16 d. Kniūkšta Pranas 1976: Priesagos –inis būdvardžiai. Daryba, reikšmės, gramatiniai sinonimai, Vilnius: Mokslas. Liutkevičienė Danutė 2001: Apie tautybių ir gyventojų pavadinimus su priesaga -ietis, -ė. – Kalbos kultūra 74, 60–64. Prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/Straipsniai/74/Liutkeviciene_KK_74_straipsnis.pdf. Liutkevičienė Danutė 2008: Valstybių gyventojų pavadinimai ir tautovardžiai. – Kalbos kultūra 81, 80–102. Prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/Straipsniai/81/Liutkeviciene_KK_81_straipsnis.pdf. Miliūnaitė Rita 2019: Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste. – Bendrinė kalba 92, 1–29. Prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/Straipsniai/92/Miliūnaitė_BK_92_straipsnis.pdf. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10. 316 Acta Linguistica Lituanica LXXXV Priesagos –ietis, –ė vediniai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje: norma ir vartosenos pokyčiai Murmulaitytė Daiva 2016: Naujieji asmenų pavadinimai darybos ir semantiniu aspektu. – Lietuvių kalba 10, 1–22. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/22591/21824. Norkaitienė Milda, Girdenis Aleksas 1987: Dėl asmenų pavadinimo pagal gyvenamąją vietą. – Mūsų kalba 1, 13–15. Piročkinas Arnoldas 1986: Jono Jablonskio kalbos taisymai, Kaunas: Šviesa. Piročkinas Arnoldas 1990: Administracinės kalbos kultūra, Vilnius: Mintis. Simonaitytė Vida 1979: Priesagos –ietis, –ė daiktavardžiai tarybinių metų raštų kalboje. – Kalbos kultūra 36, 38–44. Prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/Straipsniai/36/Simonaityte_KK_36_straipsnis.pdf. Urbutis Vincas 2009: Žodžių darybos teorija, 2-rasis leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Derivatives with the Suffix –ietis, –ė in the Lithuanian Language: Norm and Changes in Usage SUMMARY The object of the article is the derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė, which are problematic from the point of view of the codification of the standard Lithuanian language. As far as their formation is concerned, normative derivatives with this suffix in the mainstream grammars of the Lithuanian language are classed as personal names based on the person’s place of origin or residence. Codification sources also point to certain restrictions of the derivational base. The derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė that are actually in use in the contemporary Lithuanian language do not always conform to the codified norm. Based on the formal and the semantic attributes of the derivational base, there are five groups of derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė that fall outside or exist in the margins of the codified norm. The key moments in the development of the codification of the derivatives are highlighted and the factors that determine the instability of the norms of these derivatives and the course of their transformation are specified. The usage data have been collected in the databases and other digital resources listed among the references. The variety of derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė in usage reflects the expansion of the derivational potential of this suffix – the regularity of derivatives and the increase in their number regardless of the traditional norms rooted in grammars – a process that has been taking place for years. The derivational base of the derivatives with the suffix Straipsniai / Articles 317 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ –ietis, –ė is becoming more intricate and variegated compared to descriptive grammars, with derivatives being made from both nouns and adjectives; both from structurally simple and more complex stems of underlying words. Some derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė fall within the formational category of the bearers of a nominal attribute rather than the one that is specified in grammars. This level of productivity of the suffix –ietis, –ė is driven both by the internal laws of language development and external factors. This process is followed by a vibrant rivalry among varied derivatives, in which the derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė usually tend to come out on top and become prevalent in usage. It is the product of the principle of language efficiency (the derivatives are shorter and easier to use than phrases), the means of linguistic expression becoming increasingly productive, and the general course of language transformation: over the past decade, European states have been seeing a highly distinct wave of post-standardisation that brings substandard elements into public usage and erases the boundaries between standard languages and their non-standard variants. Established after more than a hundred years of development, the codification of the derivatives with the suffix –ietis, –ė ought to respond to the natural trends in word formation that are emerging in usage with a higher degree of accuracy. The stability of codification should be preserved where changes are driven by the impact from other languages and are pushing the traditional derivatives with other suffixes out of usage and do not have a systemic and functional foundation in the Lithuanian language as such. Įteikta 2021 m. spalio 11 d. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] 318 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV