Tariamosios nuosakos skaida: sinchroninės morfologijos problemos

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXI (2009), 31 ~ 40 This article deals with the morphological segmentatiASTA BALCIUNIENE on of the Lithuanian subjunctive mood forms from a synchronic point of view. The approaches advanced in earlier publications are discussed. The alternative is between disregarding diachronical facts and recognizing one affix -t-/-¢-(*tj), and recognizing two suffixes -ciaand -ty /-tum, which entails accounting for the facts of allomorphy. 0. PRELIMINARY REMARKS In today’s linguistics, a number of problems arise due to the unclear criteria for distinguishing diachronic and synchronic evaluation of certain language realities from the morphological point of view. Especially this question developed at the level of the action of the word system. In the article of Jolanta Vaskeliene (Vaskeliené 2006: 83-93) the idea that in synchronous morphology it is better to consider the verbosodziy 3 person stem as final, caused discussion (Ambrazas 2006: 109-110; Holvoet 2006: 112-166). This shows that the separation of diachronicity from synchrony still poses (at least in the verb system) some difficulties both in terms of subject and method!'. If the position is maintained that the stem coincided with the final stem after the stem was divided (so long as the synchronic stem can be considered as the final stem), then the absence of stem in the final stem in the 3rd century is contrary to the first statement. Holvoet's idea that the ending of verb 3 a is not considered to be final is incorrect, because in the noun system we consider the pure stone language to be final (see Zmond, where -a <*-@ < -eh,-#) shows that there is no unified system of morphological evaluation of expressions (Holvoet, 2006: 112-115). Thus, there are both material and methodological difficulties (even in the morphemy of the conventional system of signs it is necessary to introduce an additional sign, which represents the stone, and to teach the stone already in schools). Bee, atematiniy veiksmazodziy formy morphologiné skaida”. In linguistic literature, the morphological breakdown of the verbal sequence varies, and the question of paradigm codification* has not been resolved. The aim of this article is to reveal the problems of assigning and treating the predicate preposition /preposition in contemporary morphology and to identify certain ways of 31 ASTA BALCIONIENE solving them. 1, RESEARCH OVERVIEW The apparent sequence is studied in some detail in various morphological works: its significance and status in the sequence category system is particularly consistently studied (Holvoet, JudZentis 2004: 76-104; Paulauskiené 1979: 148-153; Paulauskiené 1994: 316-318; DLKG: 342-343; Holvoet 2002: 39-49; Holvoet 2007). Differences in pronunciation and similarities in Lithuanian and English were investigated (Usoniene 2004). The 3rd century galtiné -tt is universally assigned, although its functions and use are identical to the 1st century ending of thematic personification. There are various opinions about the coincidence of the functions of the camshaft and the rear axle. 2 For example, the inconsistent inclusion of the purpose in the verb system is questionable. In present-day Lithuanian grammar (1994: 385; hereinafter —DLKG) this verb form is ignored, and in Aldona Paulauskienes Morphology of Lithuanian Language (Paulauskiené 1994) it is not mentioned, although other dialectal facts are recorded. Tarmes are a constituent part of the Lithuanian language (they are used in the private space), and their protection is ensured by the Language Act, which in Article 19 states that,,The State protects the prestige of the correct Lithuanian language, creates conditions for the protection of language norms, personal names, place names, dialects*. Therefore, a grammar of the Lithuanian language is also necessary, in which the facts of the other language are consistently presented. The dialectal facts of the DLKG are reflected, for example, the dialectal forms suptau, suptai (DLKG: 343) are mentioned, but this is done inconsistently. 3This problem was identified by Sergejus Teméinas, who suggested that the paradigm of verbal order should be codified in the common Lithuanian language: vns. 1 a. bites, 2 a. bitum, 3 a. bity; dgs 1. a. biitume, 2. a. biitute, 3. a. bdty. It is also used in the morphological analysis of skeletal structures. With this idea one can agree, but in order to codify the paradigm, it is necessary to study the frequency of use of the adjacent forms, for example, biitute //batuméte //bitumét, in the common investigative language. According to the current Lithuanian language textbook (hereinafter — LKT), the most commonly used dgs. 1. a. form bitumen (total number of uses —2022, cf. bitumen —88, bitumen —9, 0 dgs. 2000. pp. 166. "A-165". Todél, based on the criteria of daZnumo, codified the dgs. 2 a. form probably had to be bit biituméte (a firm statement can only be made after i8tyring more medZiaga). 32 The synchronous morphology problems The synchronous morphology problems of Dél's works are based on a consensus — it has a communicative root. O Stai dél darbo afikso visisko ai8kumo néra. Different morphological studies have found that the pronoun has a communicative root and /,,terminal” (Jablonskis 1997: 83) /,,flexible prepositions“ (Valeckiené 1998: 362) /preposition (DLKG: 342,) /,nuosakos formantus“ (Paulauskiené 1994: 316),,,salygiSkai stabily Zymiklj* (a relatively stable marker) (Holvoet 2007: 35) /priesaga® (LKG,: 138140). Such terminological diversity shows that the criteria for the assignment of the form of the verb and the prefix or preposition (formanto / formanty) are not the same. Of course, there is no reason to talk about the final -ciau, -cia, -tumei, -tum..., -ty and so on. t. (cf. Jablonskis 1997: 83) néra. Jablonski's idea about the final action of the sentence is unfounded, if one observes the provision that verbs have no final action. In modern grammar, the concept of Si is therefore rejected. Vis délto keletas klausimy dél minéty baigmeny kyla. First, whether we distinguish one or several suffixes of the pronoun. Secondly, what suffix /verbas we synchronously distinguish, what are the boundaries of this morpheme /morphemy. 1.1. Appointment of suffixes- /adverbs PreeStaravimy dél verbal suffixes /priesagyu in current works of morphology is still considerable. The evaluation of this morphological division is particularly complicated by the fact that $i division is particularly laconically argumented. After reviewing the main studies, two opinions differ essentially: one distinguishes several prepositions of the predicate (their number varies), the other — one preposition of the predicate. *Of course, Gia does not include diachronic studies or those in which there is a historical aspect of the development of the narrative —the narrative was made in the 18th century. (supinum- ),,1plésto formantu -b(i) ir asmeny galdnémis* (Zinkevigius 1981: 122-124; cf. also Dini 2000: 329; Kazlauskas 1968: 385-404; Stang 1966; Endzelynas 1957: 193-194, Holvoet 2003: 39-49 et al.). 5 In the textbook Morphology of Lithuanian Language for Higher Schools (Jakaitiene, Laigonaite, Paulauskiene 1976: 150; hereinafter — LKM) it is stated quite abstractly that a formant is added to the communicative stem, which is not so easy to distinguish in the subdivision of the present language — all forms are united by the presence of an element“ and a final person. 33 ASTA BALCIONIENE 1.1.1, I8is distinguished several prepositions of the pronoun Aldona Paulauskiené in Lithuanian language morphology (Paulauskiené 1994: 316) indicates the following paradigm of personification of the pronoun: Singular Plural 1. né§-Cia-u 1. a) néS-tu-me_ b) nés-tumé-me 2. nés-tum-(ei) 2. nés-tu-te nés-tumé-te 3. nés-ty-—3. nés-ty-—neés-ty-— The morphemes -¢ia-, -tum-, -tu-, -ty-, -tuménu are also shown in another work of the author (Paulauskiené 1979: 149). It is stated here that,,histori8kai This division is not very accurate, but synchronically otherwise is not possible’. I8 This statement is not clear whether there are several suffixes -Cia, -tum, -tu and -tumé, or whether they are considered as variants of the same morpheme. By the way, there are few arguments for why synchronous cannot be divided in any other way. One of them is Zulys's position (Zulys 1974, 1988) that the third-person i8 is not essential, and thus -y cannot be the final person of an impersonal form, but this statement is poorly supported by the principle of such prepositional assignment. The atematic final -ti (és-ti) is considered final, although it also represents an “impersonal form”. Of course, the argument that in the present Lithuanian language we have only relics of athematic personification is undeniable, but both the form késti and néSa reiesa third person in essence is,,not a person,, need to be clarified. The so-called hierarchy of person indexing kia skaidyti ir traktuoti laikantis vienody principy. Struktdralistinj poZitri, (see Croft 2003: 156, based on Greenberg 1966: 42-44) is used in modern typological literature, reflecting relative differences in Zymétum in the category of person encoded in action-word forms. This hierarchy is presented as follows: 3rd person < 1 person < 2 person Thus, person 3 is the least Zymétas member, often able to get a null affix, but this does not mean that he is not a member of the person category. If we accept the possibility of designating the final of the 3rd person in general, then the final galéty bit of the synchroniSkai specific pronoun is considered either -y (ei-t-y) or nuliné (ei-ty-0). It is difficult to answer the question whether Paulauskiené distinguishes five separate suffixes or presents variants of one suffix. 34 A similar concept is presented in Adelés Valeckienés’s “Funcinéje lietuviy”, a grammar of the language, where three “flexional suffixes” of the pronoun are distinguished: - Hey. -tuméir -you- (Valeckiené 1998: 362). Argumenty dél siy prefix assignment is not provided. [The above authors' statements do not imply any interrelationship. ir iy If we consider suffixes as variants of a single morpheme, then it is quite unclear on what criteria we could do so. When assigning affixes, first of all, one must consider the phonetic criteria i (both vowel and morphemy priebalsiu variations are possible, but must be désning). O i’vardytose Priesagose -tu, -cia, -tum, -tumé is not possible to distinguish from ir désningy vowel consonants. Todél néra clear grounds to consider them as variants of one suffix. On the other hand, if These suffixes are treated as separate affixes, the problem is to justify the status of the indicative clause. DLKG verbal (342) order prefix number reduced two — prepositional morphemes are allocated -¢iair -tum(é)-, although the ir 3 a. suffix is indicated - you, the one with su the sight. This interpretation is based on phonetics (-tum ir -ty abi < *tun®) all ir acceptable, except variant su é -tumé- (-éoccurrence Gia is not explained by anything, although we could interpret it as iSplétima). Nevertheless, the most surprising thing is that different suffixes - Ciao. ir -tum(é) belong to the same category of predicate, no matter why. If we assume that the predicate is made by different su prepositions, then the problem is to understand the system of the predicate construction, because it is obvious that a certain grammatical category requires constants, only for it the appropriate affixes’. Axelio In Holvoet's monograph Mood and Modality in Baltic states that the predicative suffix Zymiklis -tum- / -ty is attached to the infinitive root, to the 0 present jo preteritum finalis. ir Separately considered forms 1 a. su - Bye, old man. lie. -cia, -cio problem (Holfoet 2007: 35), only so remains ir neaigku, author ar These are the ends that are considered ar prefixes, and they also ir distinguish the final ones. ®Of course, in the m morpheme -tumprifatsn io appearance in place should also be explained (about this iisamiai raSoma Zinkevicius 1981: 123). ’Only the category of evidentiality does not have This category bidingy afiksy (Holvoet 2004: 107-113). We can say that the ir imperative clause can be interpreted as a suffix -k- (ei-k) ir prieSdéliu te- (te-daro), but this situation is justified by the absence of the desired suffix. 35 ASTA BALCIONIENE Overall These researches, that matyti, in the synchronic aspect, the problem of the division of the singular personal form is especially poorly argued 1 (both because of the different suffix and because of the dél ir prefix's final boundary). Based on what is a person's io final é -u, 0ne - Who? Mayas deepening ir i singular 2 ir 3 the problem of the personal form: in accordance with the DLKG concepts, both These forms are formally be final, no — matter that 2 a. forms ei-tum we have to recognize zero final, o 3 a. form ei-ty its principle i§ cannot have, because it constituja tes pure the trunk. But then the question arises, ar formally These forms are only distinguished by the phonetic variant of the suffix? 1.1.2. I8assign one suffix of the implied clause There are grammar studies in which synchroniSki is assigned one pronoun suffix (formant) -t-/-¢-(*t)) (LKG,: 138; LKM: 1976, 150). In these works, a unified position is essentially maintained —that which changes is considered final (see further Paulauskiené 1994: 35-36), that which is stable —suffixes: pat, 35). Of course, the use of endings »nuo galiinés gramatinés priesagos skiriasi tuo, kad yra nekintamos“ (ten not typical of the Zodiac system, for example, -y (go-y), -uméme (go-uméme) is also problematic. It is obvious that in morphological studies opinions on the number of dél prepositions and the criteria for dél jy classification vary. Therefore, questions arise, what is the reason for such a variety of opinions, which of the two morphological divisions is more rational, and is it really rational to reject the concept of one suffix asserted in previous works? 2. DIACHRONIC ASPECT One of the most important problems of morphological division of the pronoun is probably the modernization of the pronoun structure, which leads to the appearance of many non-typical variants in Lithuanian dialects. Thus, the complex history of the formation of this sequence has contributed to some confusion in current morphology. As we know, we no longer have the pronoun form with the old formant -b(i)-(ne nufidetumbiau AK 56,, fchweftumbi Mz. 19,,, more detailed Zr. Zinkevigius 1981: 122) in the present Lithuanian language. In synchronic morphology, the suffix -ty < “tun is to be regarded as an affix of the verbal noun. There are no problems with this, because the aim is not the main form of the verb, so it is not argued that we become part of the aim trunk with the adjective. Tam labai neprieStarauty ir 36 Tariamosios nuosakos skaida: sinchroninés morfologijos problemos istorinis aspektas, nes pasak Holvoeto, su siekiniu identiska forma buvo paimta kaip baziné forma tariamosios nuosakos asmenuojamosioms 1 ir 2 a. formoms: »the 3rd person must have played an important part in the development of the forms in -tum from NON-FINITE to FINITE forms“ (Holvoet 2003: 43). It appears that by making the forms of this sentence with -ty / -tum in the communicative root, all questions are solved, because in the 3rd person forms it is possible to consider the null final®, as in the 3rd person form of the present tense ei-s-9. Still délto 1 a. form with the ending -cia with the mentioned prefixes phoneti3kai has nothing in common. Todél DLKG, Valeckienés, Paulauskienés, Holvoeto researches -a separate subdivision. Although the criteria for the division of this preposition are not discussed in all works, it is obvious that they are taken from the historical Lithuanian language grammar. This is based on diachronic media, which states that,,supletivinés 1 sg. In the 16th-17th century writings three variants are used: rasyciau, rasycio and rasycia* (Zinkevicius 1981: 124). But even diachronic studies do not answer all the questions of the morphological division of the 1st century. The most important aspects, showing the hypothetical unreliability of many explanations of the development of the 1st century, seem to be these: (1) is it possible to expect a complex form and heteroclitic suffix in such a recent paradigm of the sentence (it is only a paradigm suitable for eastern Baltic languages) which presupposes a rather archaic situation (in the Lithuanian language action-word system more of such a varied 1st century division was expected)- °; (2) why the Si suffix is -¢ia-, and not -¢-(<*tj), because the final form can be taken from the past tense'® (as we know, continuous nouns are not tied to a particular time, i.e. they do not change in the tense). The effect of the former time form is shown in dgs. *Zulys maintains the position that the distinction of the null final is illogical (Zulys 1983: 136-137), but if we draw the personification paradigm from the 3rd century, then such forms as eity, we must consider as having a null final. Otherwise they will be identified with unchangeable forms, for example, aust-ant, aus-ti. The Zulio's approach of considering the 3rd-century personal forms as morphologically indestructible (see also there) has never been applied in practice. °Chr. Stango nuomoné esq §i 1 a. form is the first form of the noun also does not explain the difference of the form in question from other personified forms (Stanford 1966: 252). © By the way, Zinkevičius (1981: 124; 1987: 222-223), Kazlauskas (1968: 401) and others also affirm that the badiau type form (which has prevailed in the common Lithuanian language) has the preteritum galling. 37 ASTA BALCIUNIENE variants of longer endings rasytum-- éme and rasytum-- éte, where -é probably also i8 preterite, cf. and vns. 2 a. with a longer final form rasytum-- ei (cf. the forms of the past tense raséme, raséte, raSei). The final paradigm of this longer pronoun form was added later and was introduced according to the model of the preteritum form. It only ne supports 1 a. Galiene -au, but also raises doubts about the validity of the suffix -tumé mentioned in some of the morphological works mentioned above. If we admit that the 1 a. final can be -aw (in dialects, when evaluating synchronicities —-a (eidia), or even nuliné (eié’)), then it is worth considering whether synchronically it is not clearer to distinguish between the suffix -and its phonetic variant -¢-(< *4). Seeking suffix -ty < *-tun, Looking at the present position, it is also possible to divide bits, because synchronously we make a predicate i8 communicative, and not i8 seeking (so why one thing we can read synchronously, another — no longer). In this case, there is no connection with the historical development of the narrative, but the synchronic evaluation may not coincide with the diachronic one." By choosing the §j path, it is no longer necessary to look at two different prepositions in the system of constructing the implied sentence, which is even historically difficult to explain. Moreover, considering synchronicity, it is difficult to imagine how two or more different prepositions can be of the same grammatical category in the paradigm of personification. Of course, the argument that such a finaly, as -y, is not a Lithuanian verb in the personification system of the word is valid, but in the personification system there is not a heteroclitic preposition. Thus, distinguishing synchroniSki from the suffix of the pronoun -t-/-¢-(< *tj), the process of making and recognizing the pronoun is much simpler. Of course, this does not mean that we should abandon historical grammar. It's a site, but I'd like to limit these areas. Another way, which does not necessarily exclude diachronic evaluation, could be this —traditionally distinguishing two suffixes of this sentence: -¢iair -ty/-tum-. In this case, it is necessary to argue what distinguishes vns. 2 a. and 3 a. forms, 0 synchronously to do so is necessary. Apparently, it is unavoidable that the form ei-tum has a null ending, and the form ei-ty has a pure root of the aim. Following example 4, we say that the aim is made out of the communicative stem, although historically communicative is newer than the aim) (See Zinkeviéius 1981: 163-164). Therefore, we cannot talk about the fact that the object has a communicative stem (in terms of diachronicity), although even in historical grammar it is written that,sickiniai <...> are formed in the stem of the infinitive* (Zinkevidius 1981: 162). 38 Tariamosios nuosakos skaida: sinchroninés morfologijos problemos From this position, school textbooks should be adjusted to a different division of the verbal order, because synchronic morphology should be based on the same principles. Abbreviations DLKG —Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, red. Ambrazas, V., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijy leidykla, 1994. LKG,, —Lietuviy kalbos gramatika, T. 2, red. Ulvydas, K., Vilnius: Mintis, 1971. LKM Lietuviy kalbos morfologija, Jakaitiene, E., Laigonaite, A., Paulauskiené, A., Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976. LKT —http://donelaitis.vdu.lt/ LITERATURA AMBRAZAS, V. 2006: On the search for new verbs in the 3rd century. Acta linguistica Lithuanica 55, 109-110. CROFT, W. 2003: Typology and Universals, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Press. D1nNI1, P. U., 2000: Balty kalbos. Comparative History. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. ENDZELYNAS, J. 1957: Sounds and Forms in the White Language. Vilnius: Politinés ir mokslinés literatiiros leidykla. GREENBERG, J. 1966. Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton. HOLVOET, A. 2003: Notes of the development of the Lithuanian and Latvian conditional. Linguistica Baltica 10, 39-49. HOLvoeT A., JUDZENTIS A. 2004: Structure of a deterministic category. In HOLVOET A., SEMENIENE L., red., 2004, 77-104. HOLVOET A., SEMENIENE L., ed., 2004: Grammatical category studies. Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. 39