1759 metų „Ziwato“ skaitvardžių linksniavimas ir jų raida

SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences Research interests: synchronic and diachronic morphology, word formation. DECLENSION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NUMERALS IN THE 1759 ZIWATO1 Declension of Numerals in the 1759 ZIWATAS and Their Development A B S T R A C T The article analyzes the declension and development of numerals in the 1759 Ziwato, the finest written monument of the Kretinga subdialect of North Samogitian in the 18th century. The aim of the study is to analyze and present a synchronic description of numeral declension in the Ziwato subdialect, and to compare the numeral declension paradigms of present-day Kretinga speakers of the northwestern Samogitian dialect2 and the subdialect under analysis. The methods of internal reconstruction and comparison made it possible to reconstruct the numeral declension system of the 18th-century Northwest Samogitian Kretinga subdialect. A B S T R A C T The article analyses the declension of numerals in the best 18th century monument of writing of the North Samogitian sub-dialect of Kretinga, the 1759 Ziwatas, and their development. The goal of research is to analyse and provide a synchronic description of declension 1 ZIWATAS PONA YR DIEWA MUSU JEZUSA CHRISTUSA. Metų̨ Pona 1759. Dabartine bendrine kalba knygos pavadinimas reikštų Mūsų Viešpaties ir Dievo Jėzaus Kristaus gyvenimas. Mokslo darbuose ji vadinama tiesiog Ziwatu. 2 Hereafter, this subdialect is abbreviated as ŠVŽK. K E Y W O R D S: numeral, Ziwato subdialect, Kretinga speakers of North Samogitian, declension, ending. K E Y W O R D S: numeral, subdialect of the Ziwatas, North Samogitian dialect of Kretinga, declension, ending. 154 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX 1759 metų Ziwato skaitvardžių linksniavimas ir jų raida of the numeral in the sub-dialect of the Ziwatas; to compare the declension paradigms of the numeral in the contemporary Northwest Samogitian sub-dialect of Kretinga with those in the sub-dialect under analysis. Internal reconstruction and the comparative method made it possible to reconstruct the numeral declension system of the 18thth-century Northwest Samogitian sub-dialect of Kretinga. INTRODUCTION Researchers in historical morphology and dialectology3 regard the 1759 Ziwatas as the finest monument of the eighteenth-century Kretinga sub-dialect of North Samogitian. The publication clearly and consistently presents the phonological system and the structure of the grammar and morphology of the Northwest Samogitian Kretinga sub-dialect, using what were probably Polish orthographic characters of the time4. The phonological and morphological system of the Ziwato sub-dialect has been studied in considerable detail5 (for more, see Girdenis, Girdenienė 1997: 19–44; see also footnote 3). The declension system of nouns and other nominal parts of speech in this written monument has also been systematically studied and described6 (see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b). The morphology of the Ziwato sub-dialect is archaic; consequently, its systematic analysis reveals the development and trends of change in the nominal morphology of the Northwest Samogitian Kretinga sub-dialect. Comparing the nominal paradigms of the Ziwato sub-dialect with those of Northwest Samogitian Kretinga shows features of change in the nominal forms of the sub-dialect under analysis, as well as the mixing of stems. 3 For more on the fact that the Ziwatas was written in the coastal Samogitian sub-dialect of the Kretinga area, see Girdenis 2000a: 237–257; Girdenis, Girdenienė 1997: 11–19; Girdenis, Skirmantas 1998: vii–xiv; Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 4–7. Vladas Grinaveckis used the Ziwato text to explain the emergence of affricate distinctions in Samogitian dialects (1973: 292, 365 et seq.). In discussing the gradual establishment of Samogitian in eighteenth-century Lithuanian written language, Zigmas Zinkevičius classified the Ziwatas among texts “written entirely in Samogitian” and identified the most important phonological and morphological features of this written monument (1966: 217–218 et seq.; 1980: 196 et seq.). Giedrius Subačius (1998: 38, 44–58) also investigated the book’s Samogitian features, identifying those most and least readily noticed by Samogitian speakers and highlighting innovations in the orthography of the Ziwato of the time. In analyzing the language of eighteenth-century religious texts, Jonas Palionis (1979: 114–115; 1995: 122) noted the clear tendency in the Ziwate to abandon certain forms of coastal Samogitian dialect and to make the language more Aukštaitian. The author identified the Aukštaitian forms most frequently used in the text, whose use was probably determined by the contemporary orthographic tradition of Aukštaitian texts. 4 Apie Ziwato grafiką ir rašybą jau ne kartą rašyta (plačiau žr. Girdenis 2000a: 233–257; 2000b: 183–190; 2001: 292–326; Girdenis, Girdenienė 1997: 11–44; Girdenis, Skirmantas 1998: vii–xiv; Vaičiakauskytė 2001: 119–133; 2002a: 223–236; 2002b: 4–7), todėl šiame straipsnyje apie tai nesikartojama. 5 Jau Kazimieras Būga (1958: 561–578) analizuodamas fonetinius balsių pakitimus lietuvių tarmėse dažnai rėmėsi Ziwate fiksuotomis formomis. Albertas Rosinas (1995: 25 ir kt.) rekonstruodamas baltų kalbų įvardžių kait ymo paradigmas pasinaudojo Ziwate paliudytomis participinių įvardžių formomis. 6 For more on the declension system and development of nouns in the Ziwato, see also Vaičiakauskytė 2001; 2002a; Vaičia-kauskienė 2005; 2013; on the declension and development of pronouns, see Vaičiakauskienė 2004a; 2004b. Straipsniai / Articles 155 SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ The aim of this study is to analyze and provide a synchronic description of numeral declension in the Ziwato sub-dialect, and to compare the numeral declension paradigms of Northwest Samogitian Kretinga with those of the sub-dialect under analysis. The article examines the historical development of nominal forms, discusses the origins of endings, and seeks to explain the causes and motivations for change. Internal reconstruction and the comparative method made it possible to reconstruct the numeral declension system of the eighteenth-century Northwest Samogitian Kretinga sub-dialect. The Ziwato contains cardinal and ordinal numerals. Sentences containing multiplicative numerals were found, as well as one sentence each containing a collective numeral and a fractional numeral. First, the inflectional paradigms of cardinal numerals will be discussed, followed by those of ordinal numerals. This is the order in which numerals are usually presented in grammars (cf. DLKG 239–244). CARDINAL NUMERALS The text under examination most often uses cardinal numerals, which differ little from the forms used in the Kretinga subdialect. We will discuss these first. Cardinal numerals 1. The text under examination contains wynas 3123, wynt s 4011, wyina 1322. The numerals mentioned can also function as pronouns (cf. LKG 693); this is confirmed by the use of numerals in the text under analysis, e.g.: Tada wyiny kalbėję, jog ira czernakrižniks, ne užlaykus Zokana židu 1796–8. The case endings of the numerals in question, both in Ziwate and in the present-day Kretinga subdialect, coincide with the paradigms of o-stem (f. ā-stem) adjectives (for further detail, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 69–75; cf. also Aleksandravičius 1967: 237); therefore, the article discusses only those features of the paradigms that are relevant to the development of the numerals under consideration. In the dialect of Ziwato, the singular paradigms of the numerals mentioned are very well preserved. Singular Plural Nom. wynt s 4011, wync 10911, wyinas 3123 ~ vên(t)s Nom. wyiny 4827 ~ vėinė Gen. wyina 1420 ~ vėina Gen. – Dat. wyinam 20026 ~ vėinâm Dat. – Acc. wyina 7010 ~ vėina Acc. wyinus 12121 ~ vėinùs Ins. wyinu 8620 ~ vėinò Ins. – Loc. wyinamy 3198 ~ vėinarnè Loc. – Ill. – Ill. – 156 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX 1759 metų Ziwato skaitvardžių linksniavimas ir jų raida Singular Nom. wyina22 13₂₂ ~ vęinà Gen. wyinos 24₂₂ ~ vę́iniuos Dat. wyina 94₄ ~ vę́inâ⁷ / vęinâ Acc. wyina 114₁ ~ vęina Ins. wyinu 56₁ ~ vęinò Loc. wyino 59₅, wyinoy 66₁₁, wyinoj 69₈ ~ vęinũo Ill. wyina 177₁₄ ~ vęinà 1. The singular nominative endings are -as and -a, e.g.: Yr teyp milawſis Pona Jezufas Karalus wyſa ſwieta, wyinas yſzeje, nes dabar Mokityniu neturjeje 53₁₇–₁₉; Tu Maria wyina yſź gymynes źmoniu, kurę mes figurowojom, yr apſakjem 289₂₁–₂₃. In the comparative dialect, the vowel a has been lost from the masculine singular nominative ending, hence the form with -s, whereas the feminine has -a (vę̇ns ~ vienas, vę̇inà ~ vienà). In Ziwate, the Aukštaitian masculine nominative form with the ending -as predominates. Forms with the Samogitian ending occur only about three times in the text under analysis, e.g.: [...] when the Mother embraces, because there was not another one among them [...] 20₂₇–₂₈; They lived there for several days, those holy children Jesus and John, playing by one another and looking at the game [...] 40₉–₁₁; [...] you do not know; one person must die for all the world, lest all the worlds perish, as you would have it 109₁₁–₁₂. The vowel in the ending of the masculine nominative form of the numeral under discussion was lost while ė was still present in the stem, i.e. *vę̇nas; therefore, the authentic dialectal forms are wyns, wyn c, and wynts. 2. The singular accusative forms of numerals of both masculine and feminine gender have the ending -a, e.g.: O anyi pakiely akis fawa nieka neregjeje, tyktay wyina Jezula Chriſtuſa 89₁₇–₁₈; Pyrmu wyina rąka ſugroby, yr ne afzryję wyny prymuſie, jog až gilas y ąntrapufy Kriziąws yſzeje 223₂₅–₂₆. In the comparative subdialect, the singular accusative form is likewise shortened to -a (vę̇inâ ~ viéną) from *-an̄⁸. 3. The singular instrumental ending is -u = [ọ]⁹, e.g.: Tynay priſz anà wyinu kielu kławpynieje, yr abłudnay ij ſweykyna kalbiedamy 205₂₆–₂₇; Pyrmu dydy pakara Jezula milawſe: Kurſay ju wyinu Motryſzky gylus dayktus apey yſzganima kalbieje [...] 78₁₃–₁₅. In the comparative subdialect, the singular instrumental form has the ending -o, recorded by Ziuwatas (vę̇inò ~ viénu, viéna). The singular accusative of the numerals under discussion 7 It should be noted that in the text under analysis the feminine form is used with a monophthong (for more on such forms, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 17). 8 Plačiau dėl šios galūnės kilmės žr. Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 15, 36. 9 Here and elsewhere in the text, the phonetic endings of the dialect are given in square brackets in transliteration, following the graphics and spelling of Ziwato; these do not correspond to the text’s spelling. Straipsniai / Articles 157 SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ the form’s inflection is –a, while that of the instrumental form is –o. This is because in the North Samogitian dialect long unstressed circumflex endings shortened earlier than acute ones (cf. Girdenis 2001: 174; see also Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 37). 4. The masculine singular locative form has the ending –amy = [amę], while the feminine has –o, –oy, and –oj, e.g.: Zwyczajus griekiey norint w yin a m y, kurflay ant fugriešiyima prymufyje 3198–9; Tropyios w y i n o dyno fubatos, kada buwa Baźničioy, ftojos yr skayte knigas Izaiošiaws Praraka 595–7; Ateje dynoy w y i n o y Jezulas milawlis tamy Miefty Kafarnawy y namus S. Petra 6611–12; Razkaźniamfis yr milawlis Ponas Jezufas, prašitas buwa w y i n o j dynoj ant pietu pry Symona rawputoje, o tafey buwa Lycemerniku 697–9. In the ŠVŽK subdialect, the singular locative form endings are –amę and –uo (vė́inà–mė ~ vienamè, vė́inūo ~ vienol[jè]). It should be noted that the graphic variants of the feminine numeral’s singular locative ending in the text coincide with noun forms, that is, the endings of both nominals agree (cf. the feminine examples given). 5. The masculine plural nominative form of the numeral has the ending –y = [e], e.g.: Tada w y i n y kalbieje, jog ira czernakriźniks, ne užłaykus Zokana židu 1796–8. In the text of Ziwato, the masculine plural nominative form of the numeral under discussion (the feminine is unattested) coincides with the form used in the ŠVŽK subdialect (vė́inę ~ vienì). This numeral ending is of pronominal origin10. 6. The masculine plural accusative forms (the feminine is unattested) have the ending –us, e.g.: Kelfes Enoks yr Eliošius Prarakay, kurie w y i n u s wieroy patwirtins, kiy tus y wiera afabliway židus wers 30917–19. Present-day Kretinga speakers also have the ending –us in the plural accusative form (vė́inʹūs ~ vienus). The –us inflection in this case form of numerals was borrowed from the u-stem11. 2. In the dialect of Ziwato, besides the numerals just discussed, the paradigms of the numerals du 394, dwy 33122 are also fairly well preserved. Only the locative and vocative forms are missing (see the paradigm). N. du 39₄ ~ dò N. dwy 331₂₂ ~ dvè G. dwyju 42₇ ~ dvėǰū G. dwyiu 106₂ ~ dvėǰū D. dum 266₁₀ ~ dòm D. dwym 61₅ ~ dvēm A. du 3₁ ~ dò A. dwy 20₈ ~ dvè I. dum 209₇ ~ dòm I. dwym 205₁₆ ~ dvēm L. – L. – V. – V. – 10 Plačiau apie šios galūnės kilmę ir raidą žr. Aleksandravičius 1967: 222; dar plg. Zinkevičius 1966: 271, žemėl. nr. 22; 309–310. 11 Plačiau dėl šios galūnės kilmės ir raidos žr. Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 19. 158 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX 1759 metų Ziwato skaitvardžių linksniavimas ir jų raida 1. The nominative and accusative endings are -u = [ọ], -y = [ẹ], e.g.: Akyjlmyrknju du Aniohu ftojos, yr kà anims ifakie Ponas Jezufas yfz prowije 5712–13; Kada Daržėlie meldžiaws yfztekejie yfz munas Krawje lafzu afztunioleka tukftančiu d u šimtu d w y d e š i m - t y yr pækiy 33121–22. In the Kretinga-area dialect, the same forms are used as those recorded in Ziwatas (dọ̃ ~ dù, dvẹ̃ ~ dùi). The masculine nominative and accusative ending -ọ was shortened (probably as a result of proclisis) from *-ō, while the feminine -ẹ was shortened from *-ę12. 2. The genitive ending is -u, e.g.: Aynofius prakieyktafis yfzwidys Jezufa, d w y j u dayktu jo klawfe 1743–4. In the comparative dialect, the genitive form coincides with that attested in the text under analysis (dvẹjū̃ ~ dvijū̃). It is true that in some dialect points (Kretinga, Budria) the archaic -n or -m is preserved in the ending: dvẹjūn13 (cf. Aleksandravičius 1967: 238). 3. The dative and instrumental forms are used with the inflections -um = [ọm], -ym = [ẹm], e.g.: Ponas Jezufas pafyrode d u m Mokityniurn Eytantyms y Ermaus 26610, Jog qnfay dabrawalnay diel yfzganima Swieta norjeje numyrty, o d u m dayktum dydefney aną apkalbieje [...]; Dyinu arba d w y m pyrmejney, diet pryfygatawoima ant węfeles 614–6; [...] Jpawzdamy jem ant Galwos Szwe, tos fu d w y m kartym [...] 20515–16. In the Kretinga-area dialect, the dative and instrumental forms do not differ from those attested in Ziwate (dọm ~ dùm, dvẹm ~ dùim). The feminine numeral dative differs from the instrumental only in intonation and the retracted stress associated with it (cf. the paradigm; see also Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 39; Aleksandravičius 1963: 105). The forms of the modern dialect dum, dvim are a Samogitian innovation, formed from the singular nominative and the formant -m, i.e. dọ + -m, dvẹ + -m (cf. Aleksandravičius 1967: 239; Girdenis 1962: 215; Kazlauskas 1968: 128). 3. The paradigm of the cardinal numeral tris 501 is also incomplete: Ziwate does not attest locative or vocative forms of this numeral. N. tris 501 ~ trĩs G. tryju 1422 ~ trẹjū D. trims 15626 ~ trĩms A. tris 2014 ~ trìs I. trymis 11514 ~ trèmìs Loc. – Voc. – 12 Dar dėl lyčių du ir dvi kilmės žr. Zinkevičius 1981: 57–58. 13Probably, even in the time of Ziwato, the stressed genitive ending of nominal forms was pronounced with a nasal vowel (for further discussion, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 18); see also Aleksandravičius 1963: 102. Straipsniai / Articles 159 SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ 1. The nominative ending is -is, e.g.: Weyżiek ćion źmagau, t r i s cuday 50₁. In the comparative subdialect, the nominative form of the numeral under discussion ends in -īs (trīs ~ trȳs). The nominative inflection of this numeral is derived from the i-stem (for more detail, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 51–52; cf. also Būga 1958: 566). 2. The genitive form has the ending -u, e.g.: Mokikes źmagau nu tos Pagonkas t r y ju dayktu 85₁₆–₁₇. In the Kretinga area, the genitive form of this numeral coincides with the form in Ziwato (trėjū ~ trijų). At some subdialect locations, as with other nominal forms, -n or -m has been preserved in the genitive: trėjūn (cf. Aleksandravičius 1967: 238). 3. The dative, accusative, and instrumental forms adopted the i-stem endings -ims, -is, and -mis, e.g.: [...] potam pradieje fu dydziu fmutku t r i m s Mokitynems kalbiety [...] 156₂₆–₂₇; Apey tą, ką Jezus milawfis nu Dwilekas metu dare, yr fprowojos pakol deje t r i s defimtis 51₁–₂; Hey, Hey, Hey, Wach, kurfay griawni Baźńićiy Diewa, o t r y m i s dynomis ię pabudawoj 229₁₈–₂₀. In the ŠVŽK area, the dative and accusative cases correspond to the forms in the text being analyzed (trīms ~ trìms, trīs ~ trīs, trę̀mìs ~ trimìs¹⁴). However, in the present-day Kretinga subdialect, shortened instrumental forms are also frequent. 4. The paradigms of numerals from 4 to 9 are likewise incomplete: Nom. šiésy 19₃ ~ šešė Nom. kietures 37₂₂ ~ kė̇torės Gen. pi̇ekiu 102₈ ~ pęńkū Gen. kieturiu 208₂₇–₂₀₉₁ ~ kė̇turū̃ Dat. – Dat. – Acc. kieturis 303₈, kieturius 55₆ ~ kė̇toris Acc. kietures 55₁ ~ kė̇tores Instr. šiésies 126₃, siésieys 322₂₄ ~ šešės Instr. kieturiomis 311₁₉ ~ kė̇turū̃mìs Loc. – Loc. – All. – All. – 1. In the nominative, masculine numerals have the endings -y = [ę], -i, while feminine numerals have the ending -es, e.g.: To paznoćiyma znokay f e p t i n y 325₁₁; Znokay to ira aſztuni 318₂₇–₃₁₉₁; Kada jaw k i e t u r e s deśimtis dienu yſz eje po pagimdima Sunaws Diewa [...] 37₂₂–₂₃. In the ŠVŽK subdialect, the nominative forms of the numerals under discussion have the endings -ę and -ęs (šęšę ~ šeši, šę́šęs ~ šešios). It should be noted that in the numeral aſztuni 319₁, the vowel i in the nominative ending has not been broadened (see the example given). This is most likely an accidental proofreading error or the result of sporadic Aukštaitian influence. 2. The genitive ending is -’u, e.g.: Jezufas milawfis Pylotuy nieka ne atlākie, o tay diel k i e t u r i u pryčinu 208₂₇–₂₀₉₁. The genitive of numerals in the Kretinga dialect corresponds to the form attested in the text being analyzed (šęšū, ~ šešių). 14 Įnagininko forma šiaurės žemaičių gali būti ir trīms (plg. Girdenis 1996: 25). 160 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX 1759 metų Ziwato skaitvardžių linksniavimas ir jų raida 3. Accusative endings: -is, -’us and -es, e.g.: Having counted four things: about death, about judgment, about Hell, and about eternal glory 3038–10; You will find four spiritual works here that help, namely, a special way of life, prayer, fasting, and bodily mortification 556–8; Then, when four tens of days and nights had passed, the grass withered, which had fed and sustained the whole world 5518–20. In the Kretinga subdialect (six ~ six, sixes ~ six), masculine numerals have the consonant-stem ending -is, which, as Zigmas Zinkevičius (1981: 59) argues, attests to a remnant of the ancient consonant r stem. In North Samogitian dialects, instead of the plural accusative form four, speakers now also say four (Girdenis 1996: 51, 56). Such forms are even more frequent in the Kretinga area. The numerals adopted this inflection, of course, from the adjective paradigm (cf. green, beautiful). This accusative form occurs once in the text under analysis (see the second example cited). 4. The instrumental form has the following endings: -eys, -es = [e˙s], -’omis, e.g.: Look now at my whole body, healthy, but on Friday it will be consumed, with six thousand, six hundred, six tens, and six rods beside the stake with a little rod, and more 1262–5; With what? With six spears 32224. In the ŠVŽK subdialect, the instrumental forms are (six ~ six, six ~ six). In Ziwate, the masculine numeral instrumental form with the Samogitian monophthongized ending -es alternates with the Aukštaitian form (cf. the examples given; for further details, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 17). The instrumental form of feminine numerals (as with nouns and adjectives) is consistently used in Ziwate in its still-unshortened form (for further details, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 44, 74). 5. In Ziwate, forms of the numeral ten 2251 are most often used with plural meaning. The singular form occurs only once. The numeral in question is declined like i-stem nouns (cf. Vaičiakauskytė 2002a: 223–236; see also Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 50–62), so this is not repeated in the present article. Only those points relevant to the development of the declension of this numeral will be mentioned. The paradigm of this numeral is as follows: Nominative ten 2251 ~ ten Genitive ten 9516, ten 515 ~ ten15 Dative – Accusative ten 1337, ten 3722 ~ ten Instrumental by tens 1264 ~ by tens Locative – Allative – 15 At some subdialect points, the genitive (as with other nominal words) retains -n or -m (cf. Aleksandravičius 1967: 238; see also footnote 13). Straipsniai / Articles 161 SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ 1. In the Kretinga area, genitive plural forms (like those of other numerals) are used with the ending -u (dešimtū ~ dešimčių). The genitive form dešimtu, which occurs in the text under analysis, 515—that is, the ending vowel follows a hard consonant—“betrays” the fact that this numeral once had a consonant stem (see also Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 57). 2. Numerals from 1 to 9 may be written as one word with the numeral dešimtis 2251, but they are usually written as separate forms; cf. trisdešimtis 29516 and tris dešimtis 1336. The text under analysis shows that in the mid-eighteenth century the people of Kretinga used the uncontracted forms of the tens numerals. Numerals in speech (cf. Girdenis 1962: 215) function somewhat like labels, so their phonemic composition, especially the word ending, is simplified. But this simplification in the Kretinga subdialect apparently took place only after the mid-eighteenth century. 3. In the comparative subdialect, the instrumental form varies—it may have the inflections -ęms and -ęmis (dešimtèm(i)s16 ~ dešimtim(i)s), since the North Samogitians preserved the full instrumental plural forms best; this is particularly true of i-stem nouns (Zinkevičius 1966: 233; see also Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 59). In Ziwate, the instrumental plural forms of the numeral dešimtis are used without contraction. 6. The paradigm of numerals from 11 to 19 is incomplete in the text under analysis—the locative and vocative forms do not occur. These numerals are compound words. Their first component consists of certain numeral forms, while the second is the element -leka17. Old writings show that the corresponding ordinal numerals were still word combinations in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, whereas cardinal numerals had already acquired fused forms of the modern type in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Zinkevičius 1981: 60). Ziwatas does not record such forms. V. dwileka 8110 ~ dvîleka K. dwilekas 15214 ~ dvîlekas N. dwilekay 4616 ~ dvîlekâ G. dwileka 15214 ~ dvîleka I. dwileku 1434 ~ dvîlekǫ Loc. – Voc. – 1. The nominative and accusative forms of the numerals under discussion end in -a, e.g.: Yr furinka kaypo butum dwileka pintyniu, truputiu kuriu lyka kur walgius 8110–11; Mufu milawjis Ponas Jezujas, turiedamas metu dwileka, norieje uzlaykity pryfakimus Tiewa fawa 4622–23. 16At the end of a word, a secondary short diphthong often has a circumflex rather than the expected continuing accent (Girdenis 1996: 25). 17 Dėl šio dėmens kilmės žr. Zinkevičius 1981: 61–63. 162 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX 1759 metų Ziwato skaitvardžių linksniavimas ir jų raida In the Kretinga subdialect, the nominative form also coincides with the accusative (dvîlek̃a ~ dvýleka). The text under examination also attests to this: essentially, only the nominative and accusative cases are used18. After the neuter gender disappeared from Lithuanian, the ending –a was probably eventually taken to be the singular nominative ending (*–ā) or accusative ending (*–añ) of ā-stem nouns (cf. LKG 1965: 620). Singular ā-stem forms of the other cases were then also created. Data from North Samogitian dialects and their analysis (Girdenis 1996: 214, 252) show that the vowel a in the nominative and accusative endings of the numerals under discussion is usually pronounced with strong reduction or not pronounced at all. Judging from the spelling, it was apparently still pronounced in the nominative and accusative endings in the subdialect of Ziwato. As the analyzed examples given in the text show, the vowel of the second component –lek– in the numerals 11–19 was still open. As is known, Samogitians have ė instead of e in the unstressed medial position of certain morphemes (cf. Zinkevičius 1966: 58; see also Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 53), so North Samogitian pronunciation varies: both e and ė are used. The variants with ė are more frequent and are perhaps the only ones used in the speech of young people (Girdenis 1996: 117). Thus, the analysis of Ziwato supports the view that the more archaic variant is –lek– (cf. also Girdenis 1996: 252). 2. The genitive ending is –as, e.g.: O Tamofius wyinas, yłz dwilekas kurſay wadynas Newierniku, ne buwa ſu jeys, kad ateje Jezufas 2715–7. In the ŠVŽK subdialect, the genitive form coincides with the form attested in Ziwate (dvîlekas ~ dvýlikos). The Samogitian ending –as was apparently introduced by analogy with the nominative and accusative, on the model of the ā-stem noun paradigm (for details, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 37). 3. The dative form ends in –ay = [ɑː], e.g.: O nuto čiefa nerądama, apey darbus Jezufa milauſe, iki pat dwilekay metu 4615–16. In the dative form of the numerals under discussion in the comparative subdialect (as with ā-stem nouns), the Samogitian ending –a has undergone monophthongization (dvîlekâ ~ dvýlikai) (for details, see Vaičiauskytė 2002b: 36). The ending –ay used in Ziwate should clearly be regarded as the result of Aukštaitian influence19. 4. The instrumental form ends in –u = [ɔ], e.g.: Ateje ſu dwileku Apaſztalu y Jeruzalu, idant tynay ſu anays, kaypo ſu ſawa milemays pyrmesney wećieriotum, ne kaypo ſu ieys parſyſtotum 1433–6. In the ŠVŽK subdialect, the instrumental form does not differ from that attested in the text under analysis (dvîlekò ~ dvýlika). 18 Only the numeral dwileka 8110, in addition to the cases mentioned, is also used in the genitive, dative, and instrumental forms (see the paradigm), because this numeral is associated with the sacred, e.g.: ſu dwileku Apaſztalu 1434–5, etc. An exception is the form pſakiſlekas 251, used once. 19 Plačiau apie tai žr. Vaičiauskytė 2002b: 17. Straipsniai / Articles 163 SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ 7. The text under examination contains no nominative forms of the numeral 100 (e.g., šimta 6412), and only plural forms are used. This numeral is declined like o-stem nouns, discussed by Vaičiakauskytė (2002b: 12–27), so the present article does not repeat that discussion. The comparative dialect uses the forms of this numeral attested in the text under analysis. Thus, the paradigm of the numeral under analysis is as follows: NOM. – GEN. šimtu8 ~ šimtų / šimtų DAT. – ACC. šimtus16 ~ šimtùs INS. šimtas3 ~ šimtãs LOC. – ILL. – 8. Of all the cardinal numbers used in Žiwate, the numeral tukfątąnte 33213 remained to be discussed. As the text under examination shows, by the mid-eighteenth century this numeral had already shifted in the Kretinga subdialect from the old i stem to the ē stem20; only the plural instrumental form has an iā stem ending (see the paradigm), which should probably be regarded as an authorial hypercorrection. The declension of this numeral coincides with that of ē-stem nouns (cf. Vaičiakauskienė 2013: 62–65); therefore, the paper discusses those cases in the paradigm that are relevant to the development of the declension of the numeral in question. Singular Plural NOM. tukfątąnte13 ~ túkstônte NOM. tukfątąntes15 ~ túkstôntes GEN. tukfúntes11 ~ túkstôntes GEN. tukfątanciú80 ~ túkstôņũ DAT. – N. – G. tukfątṇy15 ~ túkstôṇte G. tukfąntes10 ~ túkstôntes Instr. – Instr. tukfąntančiomis126 ~ túkstôņčùomis Loc. – Loc. – All. – All. – 1. The singular nominative form has the ending -e, e.g.: Gałwo nu Erſzkiesiu21 crowns (which he had won four times in combat, having defeated them, he would hang around his neck) was around the neck of the Roman general, in the thousandth year 33211–13 20 Aleksandravičiaus (1967: 241) teigimu, šis skaitvardis dažniausiai linksniuojamas kaip i kamienis daiktavardis ir tik retkarčiais pasakomas su ē kamieno galūnėmis. Veikiausiai aptariamas skaitvardis yra visuotinai perėmęs ē kamieno fleksiją dabartinėje kretingiškių patarmėje. Tai liudytų ir analizuojamas tekstas. 21 This is most likely a typographical error, because according to the text’s graphic form and spelling (see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 6), this word should be written Erſzkieziu. 164 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX 1759 metų Ziwato skaitvardžių linksniavimas ir jų raida In the Kretinga area, as already mentioned, this numeral has an ē-stem ending -ę (tūkstōntę ~ tūkstantė). Ziwatas records an unraised vowel e22. The recency of vowel raising is also indicated by the open e found in other Samogitian varieties; for further discussion, see Girdenis 2000a: 232–236; Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 49; see also Aleksandravičius 1963: 111; Būga 1958: 560. 2. The plural instrumental, as already mentioned, has the iā-stem ending –’omis, e.g.: Regi dabar wÿsa kuna muna śweyka, ale Petnicio yszwiji, Ju śiešiomis tu kʃftančio-mis […] 1262–3. The ending of the plural instrumental form in the Kretinga dialect is in the ē-stem: –iems (tūkstōntiems ~ tūkstantėm(i)s). As the example given shows, the instrumental form of the numeral under discussion in the dialect of Ziwato had not yet undergone shortening, whereas the iā-stem ending –’omis, as already mentioned, should be regarded as a case of hypercorrection. Multiplicative numerals In the dialect of Ziwato, multiplicative numerals, as usual, are used with plural (and possibly collective) nouns. The accusative form of these numerals is used most frequently. In addition to the form mentioned, sentences with the nominative and genitive also occurred. The declension of these numerals coincides with that of o-stem adjectives (cf. Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 72–73). Thus, it was possible to construct the following paradigm of multiplicative numerals: NOM. trejy 2251 ~ trėjė23 GEN. septineriu 5221 ~ sèptìnėrū DAT. – ACC. trejus 2173 ~ trėjùs INS. – LOC. – VOC. – Collective numerals In the analyzed text, the accusative form of the collective numeral group 812 is used once, namely: There was one little child who had a group of two women and two Jews [...] 811–3. Generally, these numerals are entirely uncharacteristic of Samogitians. It is worth noting that Northern Samogitians now use them only in the fixed expression a couple, three (cf. Aleksandravičius 1967: 243; see also Girdenis 1996: 22). 22 Plačiau apie šios galūnės raidą žr. Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 46; Vaičiakauskienė 2013: 62. Nesusiaurėjusi balsį e Ziwatas fiksuoja ir šio skaitvardžio daugiskaitos vardininko ir galininko formose, pvz.: Diel tyrionyfzka ſuronyima Gałwos karunu, yfzekieje krawje łafzu tris t u kʃt ą n t e s […] 332₁₄–₁₅; Kada par piękes t u kʃt a n t e s metu yr daugiaws mizerna gymyne zmonia karota buwa ant prapulties 110–12. 23 Northern Samogitians often say mèts rather than metâ; therefore, alongside the usual expressions trėjė metâ, trėjùs mèts, combinations such as trīs metâ, trīs mèts also occur (cf. Girdenis 1996: 69). Straipsniai / Articles 165 SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ Fractional numerals Ziwate also contains a single instance of the fractional numeral puskietwyrtas 30922. As the form used shows, the genitive in the text under analysis has the Samogitian ending –as, for example: [...] yr gulieley kunay anu p a r p u s k i e t w y r t a s dienos Jeruzaluy regiemay, ku-ryi anus užmufz tiesijes 30921–23. ORDINAL NUMERALS 1. Ziwato uses ordinal numerals relatively extensively. The most frequent are those from 1 to 10. It is noteworthy that in the dialect of Ziwato, the ordinal numerals Sekmas 28819 ‘seventh’ and afzmus 28825 ‘eighth’ were still in use. In the comparative dialect, these numerals are, one might say, no longer used; elderly people use them only rarely and optionally. A few compound ordinal forms also occur, for example kieturiolektay 3715, piɛkiolektamy 2982. It should also be mentioned that only singular forms of ordinal numerals are used. The exception is the masculine plural genitive form antru, used once, 31223. Ordinal numerals are declined and stressed like o-stem (f. ā-stem) adjectives (cf. Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 68–95). The discussion here concerns those case forms in the paradigms of the numerals in question that are relevant to the development of declension. Masculine Feminine N. ąntras 16010, pęnkts 31016 ~ õntros, pęnkts N. ąntra 2095 ~ õntrà G. antra 2028 ~ õntra G. àntros 422 ~ õntrùos D. antram 1477 ~ õntrâm D. àntray 2012 ~ õntrā; / ontrâ: I. àntra 13624 ~ õntra I. àntra 2249 ~ õntra Ill. pyrmu 19616 ~ pẽrmò Ill. – see àntramy 29512 ~ õntràmè See antroy 2582 ~ õntrũo Adv. – Adv. – 1. The masculine nominative forms of numerals have the endings –as, –s, –us = [ɔs], and the feminine forms –a, for example: Apaſztalu qn t r a s apłakimas 16010; Pęnkts znoks 31016; Sekmus znoks 31217; Antra karuna wadinta ira Panelu, o ta Paneliems ira duta, apey kures gieda Bažnicia Szwęta 29414–16; Aſzmus Chors prieme ę, Cherubynay, garbindamy jos Wiera [...] 28825–26. In the comparative dialect, the singular nominative forms are the same as those attested in Ziwate (õntrˢə ~ àntras, pęnkts ~ pẽnktas, õntrā ~ antrà). As the examples from the text under analysis show, the masculine nominative forms of ordinal numerals ending in –as are Aukštaitian. This is most clearly demonstrated by the use of forms ending in –us = [ɔs] (for more detail, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 13; cf. also Girdenis, Girdenienė 1997: 22). 166 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX 1759 metų Ziwato skaitvardžių linksniavimas ir jų raida 2. The singular genitive endings are –a and –os, while the plural genitive ending is –u, e.g.: Givena tyn kielės dynas, anyi waykiele fzwaty Jezusas yr Jonas loskaway ant wyn̄ts a n t r a weyzīedamy, yr zīertawodamy 409–11; [...] ylz a n t r o s fzalyis fiedieje Motina ano kaypo fzul̄yne wyfokios milašyr̄dites 136–13726–1; Kada ant kal̄na Aliwu fiefes Majeftoty fawa, terp Aniolu, fufyrinkufes regies wyfas gymynes, yr atlacis wyinus nu a n t r u [...] 31221–23. In the Kretinga area, masculine ordinal forms coincide with the forms in Ziwato, whereas the genitive of feminine numerals in the North Samogitian dialect is usually stressed on the stem rather than the ending (õntrᵃs ~ añtros) (Girdenis 1996: 145). The form with –os discussed in Ziwate shows that this form was formerly stressed on the ending in the dialect (see the paradigm provided; cf. also Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 36). 3. The dative forms have the following endings: –am and –ay = [aˑ], e.g.: Jey tada afz numazgojaw koies jufu, Ponas Mokitojes: yr jus kalty efte wyinas a n t r a m kojes mazgoty 1475–7; [...] yr teyp dydes linkfmybes paſakoie wyina ą n t r a y [...] 2011–12. In North Samogitian, the masculine dative form of numerals coincides with that of the Ziwato subdialect, while feminine numerals have the monophthongized ending –a (ontrâm ~ antrám, õntrâˑ / ontrâˑ ~ añtrai). In Ziwate, the Aukštaitian ending –ay is written (for details, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 17). It should be noted that the text under examination once uses the feminine singular dative form with a monophthong trete 8₄ ~ tretê ‘to the third’. 4. The masculine locative form of ordinal numerals has the ending –amy = [amę], while feminine forms are represented by the graphic variants –o, –oy, –oj, e.g.: Pęnkta karuna ira žiwata, apey kurę parašie Jonas fzwętas Apokalipfiu (kures wadȳnama knigas taiemničiu Diewa) ą n t r a m y k apytuly 29510–12; A n t r o y dynoj, tay ira, Subatoj, eje Biskupay židu pry Pylota, kalbiedamy [...] 2581–2; Kada ateje dyn̄a Szwętes weliku, kurioy dynoj mufyie užmufzty ant wakara awyneli, tay ira k i e t w y r t o dešimtoj dynoj Mienelys pyrmoie (tay ira) Marčiawa: o p ę k t o dešimto dynoj, praſydieje Szwęte weliku [...] 1384–7. In the Kretinga speech, the forms in question underwent morphological shortening (õntrám ~ antram[è], õntrũo ~ antro[jè]), whereas unshortened forms are found in other locations within the comparative subdialect. The masculine locative form of ordinal numerals, like that of other nominal words (for details, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 15–16), had not yet undergone shortening. 2. The text under examination uses comparative and superlative forms of the numeral pirmas, pirma24. A few particularly interesting sentences containing comparative and superlative forms are presented, e.g.: O milawfis Jezusas anims tare: Užtyj̄a užtyj̄a ſakaw jums, jog p y r m e s n i s ne kaypo Abrahamas buwa 10210–11; Tą p y r m i a w ſi znoka yr cuda Padare Ponas Jezusas yr itykeje i ang Mokityney jo 627–9. 24 For more on adjective degree forms, see (DLKG 245; see also Paulauskienė 1994: 245–246, etc.). Straipsniai / Articles 167 SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ 3. All ordinal numerals can have pronominal forms (cf. DLKG: 245). Ziwate pronominal ordinal numerals are also used25. Here are several interesting sentences containing pronominal ordinal numerals from the text under analysis, e.g.: Pa-layminty ira ubagay dwåsioy (tay ira pyrmyi žodey) nes anu ira Karalifte Dangaws 6319–21; [...] garby tu, kuri ira po Diewa pyrmoj, ant amžiu amžinuju 2929–10; [...] kur buwa paskutyne wečiere, giwena, iki dėsìmtofes dyinos, tay ira, iki Sekminiu 27612–14; Jezus milawfis tuo cieflu pry Motinas žiwaty giwena iki dewintoje mienefys 247–8. CONCLUSIONS Having analyzed the numerals in the dialect of Ziwato and compared them with those in the ŠVŽK dialect, the following general conclusions can be drawn. 1. As the text under study shows, in the mid-eighteenth century the form of the numeral dešimtis in the Kretinga dialect had not yet been shortened; consequently, the forms of the tens were also generally used without shortening. 2. The plural genitive form dešimtu 515 of the numeral dešimtys, alongside defimtiu 9516, shows that this numeral formerly had a consonant stem. 3. The vowel in the second component -lek- of compound numerals had not yet undergone narrowing. Analysis of Ziwa-to shows that the more archaic variant is -lek-. In the present-day North Samogitian Kretinga dialect, forms with -lek- and -lęk- are used optionally; forms with a narrowed ending vowel are more frequent. 4. Already in the dialect of Ziwato, the numeral tūkstantis had shifted from the old i stem to the ē stem. 5. In the mid-eighteenth century, speakers of the Kretinga dialect still used the ordinal numerals sek­mus 28819 ‘seventh’ and afzmus 28825 ‘eighth’. These numerals have since disappeared from the comparative dialect. LITERATŪRA A l e k s a n d r a v i č i u s J u o z a s 1963: Kretingos tarmės daiktavardžio kait ybos ypatybės ir galūnių raida. – Kalbotyra 9, 101–117. A l e k s a n d r a v i č i u s J u o z a s 1967: Kretingos tarmė. Daktaro disertacija. Vilniaus universitetas. B ū g a K a z i m i e r a s 1958: Rinktiniai raštai 1. Vilnius: Valstybinė polit. ir moksl. lit. leidykla. DLKG – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, vyr. red. Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras, 2006. 25 Kelintinių skaitvardžių įvardžiuotinės formos sutampa su atitinkamų būdvardžių formomis (plg. Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 90–95). 168 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX 1759 metų Ziwato skaitvardžių linksniavimas ir jų raida Girdenis Aleksas 1962: Tirkšlių tarmės morfologija ir žodžių darba (rankraštis). Girdenis Aleksas 1996: Taip šneka tirkšliškiai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Girdenis Aleksas 2000a: Kalbotyros darbai 1. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Girdenis Aleksas 2000b: Kalbotyros darbai 2. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Girdenis Aleksas 2001: Kalbotyros darbai 3. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Girdenis Aleksas, Girdenienė Danutė 1997: 1759 metų Ziwato indeksas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Girdenis Aleksas, Skirmantas Petras 1998: 1759 metų Ziwatas. (Faksimilinis leidinys). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Grinaveckis Vladas 1973: Žemaičių tarmių istorija. Vilnius: Mintis. Kazlauskas Jonas 1968: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. Vilnius: Mintis. LKG – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1. Fonetika ir morfologija, ats. red. Kazys Ulvydas. Vilnius: Mintis, 1965. Palionis Jonas 1979: Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos istorija. Vilnius: Mokslas. Palionis Jonas 1995: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Paulaukienė Aldona 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija. Paskaitos lituanistams. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Rosinas Albertas 1995: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai: morfologijos raida. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Subačius Giedrius 1998: Žemaičių bendrinės kalbos idėjos: XIX amžiaus pradžia. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Vaičiakauskytė Sonata 2001: 1759 metų Ziwato o, io, iio kamienų daiktavardžiai ir jų raida. – Kalbotyra 50(1), 119–133. Vaičiakauskytė Sonata 2002a: 1759 metų Ziwato i ir priebal­s inio kamieno daiktavardžiai ir jų raida. – Baltistica 36(2), 223–236. Vaičiakauskytė Sonata 2002b: 1759 metų Ziwato vardažodžio linksniavimo sistema. Dak­taro disertacija. Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas. Vaičiakauskienė Sonata 2004a: 1759 metų Ziwato gimininiai įvardžiai ir jų raida. – Kalbotyra 53, 81–91. Vaičiakauskienė Sonata 2004b: 1759 metų Ziwato negimininiai įvardžiai ir jų raida. – Baltistica 39(2), 279–287. Vaičiakauskienė Sonata 2005: 1759 metų „Ziwato“ u ir iu kamieno daiktavardžiai ir jų raida. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 53, 91–99. Straipsniai / Articles 169 SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ Vaičiakauskienė Sonata 2013: 1759 metų Ziwato moteriškojo linksniavimo daiktavardžiai ir jų raida. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 68, 51–70. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1980: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika 1. Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1981: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika 2. Vilnius: Mokslas. Declension of Numerals in the 1759 ZIWATAS and Their Development SUMMARY The article analyses the declension of numerals in the best 18th century monument of writing of the North Samogitian sub-dialect of Kretinga, the 1759 Ziwatas, and their development. The goal of research is to analyse and provide a synchronic description of declension of the numeral of the sub-dialect of the Ziwatas; to compare the declension paradigms of the numeral in contemporary Northwest Samogitian sub-dialect of Kretinga and the sub-dialect under analysis. The paper focuses on the development of the nominal; it discusses the origin of endings and tries to explain the reasons and motives of change. Internal reconstruction and comparative methods enabled the reconstruction of the declension system of the numeral of the 18th century North Samogitian sub-dialect of Kretinga. The analysis of numerals in the sub-dialect of the Ziwatas and their comparison with contemporary North Samogitian sub-dialect of Kretinga revealed that in the mid-18th century the sub-dialect of Kretinga still featured an un-shortened form of the numeral dešimtis (ten); therefore, the forms of tens are universally used un-shortened. What is more, the plural genitive form of the numeral dešimtys, dešimtų 515 next to dešimčių 9516, shows that the numeral used to have a consonantal stem. The study of numerals in the sub-dialect under analysis shows that the vowel of the second component -lek- in compound numerals was still not narrowed. The analysis of the Ziwatas validates the idea that -lek- is a more archaic variant. Contemporary North Samogitian sub-dialect of Kretinga uses the forms with -lek- and -lęk- optionally; more common forms are those with a narrowed vowel of the ending. The study leads to the conclusion that in the sub-dialect of the Ziwatas the numeral tūkstantis (thousand) had already shifted from the old i stem to ē stem. Įteikta 2014 m. balandžio 16 d. SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ Lietuvos edukologijos universitetas Taraso Ševčenkos g. 31, LT-03111 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] 170 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX