Die statischen Lokalkasus bei Bretke und in anderen altlitauischen Texten des 16. und 17. Jhdt.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXI (2009), 41 – 59 The Stative Local Cases in Bretke and in Other Old Lithuanian Texts of the 16th and 17th Centuries* GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas The article deals with the stative locatives in 16th and 17th century Lithuanian texts (Daukša, Chylinski, Bretkūnas). The distribution of the inessive and adessive is shown to be determined by the animacy hierarchy: nominals that are higher in animacy have only adessives, inanimates have only inessives. The complementary distribution of these two cases is revealingly shown by such non-homogeneous noun phrases as žmogup atgimditame (DP). Bretkūnas’ language seems to differ in this respect from that of his contemporaries: he is the only one to use inessive 1sg. pronouns like manyje (alongside the adessive manipi). He hesitates between forms musui and musip(i), jusui and jusip(i), savęie and savip(i), and corrections are frequent. Alongside the regular inessive jame, he has also jamije (on the analogy of tavyje, savyje?). It is suggested here that such inessives as manyje, Dievije (instead of Dievipi) etc. were created ad hoc by Bretkūnas, and that the living language had only adessives. This seems also to be the case with the 3rd person inessive jamije, used as an animate counterpart to jame. 1. THE STATIVE LOCAL CASES IN OLD LITHUANIAN: STATE OF RESEARCH Considerable attention has already been devoted in the scholarly literature to the question of the use of the stative local cases (inessive and adessive) in Lithuanian, as well as to the alleged confusion of these cases. In the firs- * The present article is an expanded and improved version of a paper that was awarded in 2003 in the international competition of the PRO BALTICA Forum for the best study of Bretke’s work. Since the publication of the competition entries, which had originally been planned, was evidently abandoned, the author decided to use the text elsewhere. 41 GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ First, mention should be made here of Laigonaitė’s article on the use of local cases in Lithuanian linguistic enclaves outside Lithuania (1957:27). She identifies the sound-law shortening of the postposition as the main cause of the confusion between the two cases. Laigonaitė cites examples not only from contemporary dialects but also from Old Lithuanian writings (žmonėse bediewiūḟemp ir neystikimūḟemp DP 4452–53). In his book Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI–XXVII amžiuje (1967: 120), Palionis writes that the adessive and inessive were closely linked from the outset, both in meaning and in syntactic use, and cites examples of the mixing of the two cases, such as: žmōgųp atgimdāmē DP 25535, kókfai ne wienamę žmōgųp ne bū DP 47718. Rosinas (1995: 65) cites examples from modern Lithuanian dialects of the synonymous use of the inessive and adessive, also repeating Laigonaitė’s example from Daukša’s Postille. He, too, identifies the sound-law shortening of the ending as the probable cause of the adessive’s demise as an independent case. In his most recent book, Rosinas (2001: 140–143) discusses at length the neutralization of the contrast between the inessive and adessive. He demonstrates that neutralization must initially have taken place in certain precisely delimited contexts, specifically with stative verbs such as būti, gyventi, rasti. Only where an event in human consciousness is described, according to Rosinas (2001: 142), did the adessive retain its characteristic meaning; once again, the cause cited for the neutralization of the opposition between the inessive and adessive is the merger of inessive and adessive forms as a result of the shortening of the postposition. Gelumbeckaitė cites examples from Bretke’s Bible of the use of both local cases, as well as of the replacement of the inessive by the adessive, and cautiously suggests that the reason why the adessive replaces the inessive with verbs denoting events in human consciousness may be that, unlike the inessive, the adessive can acquire the meaning of an Adessivus sympathethicus or Adessivus possessivus (Gelumbeckaitė 1997: 189–190). Maskuliūnas (2000: 205–206) cites quite a few passages from Daukša’s Postill and Szyrwid’s Punktai sakimu in which both the inessive and the adessive occur with the same possessive meaning. The researchers mentioned hold that the functional distinction between the inessive and adessive has been lost within the language system itself. 42 Die statischen Lokalkasus bei Bretke und in anderen altlitauischen Texten Anders äußert sich zu dieser Frage Range (1995: 99–101). Letzterer kommt aufgrund einer Untersuchung zur Verwendung des Inessivs und des Adessivs bei Bretke zum Schluss, die Ursache der Vertauschung dieser Kasus sei im Einfluss der Übersetzungsvorlagen zu suchen. Zusätzliche Beispiele für die Neutralisierung des Gegensatzes zwischen Inessiv und Adessiv führt er aus Moswids Schriften sowie aus Daukšas Postille an. In ihrer Doktorarbeit pflichtet Gelumbeckaitė (1999: 241) dem von Range geäußerten Gedanken bei, die deutsche Konstruktion mit bey dürfte zum Ersatz des Inessivs durch den Adessiv beigetragen haben. Nach den Forschungsergebnissen von Eglė Žilinskaitė (2007: 408–409) dürften zur Verwendung des Adessivs in Daukšas Postille die in der polnischen Vorlage auftretenden Konstruktionen u + Gen. und przed + Instr. beigetragen haben: Diese stehen bei den Übersetzungsvorlagen solcher Verba wie pulti, stotis usw. sowohl zur Bezeichnung der Ortsruhe in der Nähe eines Gegenstandes sowie für Angabe der Richtung nach einem Gegenstand hin. Solche Fälle, wo von einem und demselben Wort sowohl Inessiv wie auch Adessiv gebildet werden, sind ganz vereinzelt: degs anóie úgnìie ant’ ámžiu be gâfo DP 607; ßìldes’ úgnìp [Petras] DP 158; pats Christùs perfónoie fawóie / krikßtìtu 357₃₆; ne geyde pakàiaus perfônayp nórint didžiaufèip’ 42₁₂ (cf. Žilinskaitė 2007: 419). 2. ON THE MUTUAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE STATIC LOCATIVE CASES A study of the use of the adessive in Chylinski’s translation of the New Testament has shown that the source texts for the translation are not relevant to the choice of locative case (Kavaliūnaitė 2001: 93–111). The choice of the adessive or inessive is determined not by the prepositions used in the source text, but by the categorial features of the noun phrases. The use of the adessive is associated with animacy, whereas the use of the inessive is associated with inanimacy. Animacy is not to be understood referentially here, but in terms of Silverstein’s animacy hierarchy. Certain word classes are inherently marked for animacy or inanimacy. As expected, first- and second-person personal pronouns are marked as animate, since they normally refer to people. 43 GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ Third-person pronouns, too, rank higher than nouns; among the latter, proper names rank higher than common nouns, and so on. If a grammatical rule—for example, a rule of case marking—is sensitive to animacy, its domain of application will primarily include those categories ranked higher in the animacy hierarchy. We cite here a schematic representation of Silverstein’s animacy hierarchy after Anderson (1985: 183): Diagram 1. Silverstein’s animacy hierarchy Chylinski’s use of the adessive reflects this animacy hierarchy quite closely. The most frequent are adessives of first- and second-person personal pronouns and the reflexive pronoun (206x). These are followed by proper names (177x), demonstratives, third-person personal pronouns, and relative pronouns (113x). The least frequent are adessives of personal common nouns (8x) and adjectives (3x). No adessives are formed from non-personal animates or inanimates. It should be noted that the words referring to the Christian God and his persons dievas, tévas und sūnus have been classified here as proper names, which seems justifiable given the nature of the text. The independence of case choice from the preposition used in the source text is illustrated by the following examples: Diewiep nes wifi dayktey ira padabni ChNT (for all things are possible by Godt StB) Mk 10,27; 44 Die statischen Lokalkasus bei Bretke und in anderen altlitauischen Texten ó (tas) ʒodis buwo Diewiep ChNT (and the Word was by Godt StB) Jn 1,1; Jr dwalia mano linxminas diewiep Jzganitojep mano ChNT (And my spirit rejoices in Godt / my Savior StB) Lk 1,47; Teyp (ira fu to) kurley [...] nebagotas eft Diewiep ChNT (Alloo [is it so with him,] who [...] is not rich in Gode StB) Lk 12,21. Both in Godt and by Godt are rendered by the adessive, apparently because there was no comparable contrast in Chylinski’s language system. If an inessive had existed for animates, it would have been obvious to use this case as the counterpart of the Dutch preposition in, since an equivalent “Dutch in = Lithuanian inessive” is found with inanimates. It occurs, for example, in the following passage: The father was heard in Rama in ChNT (A voice is heard in Rama in StB) Mt 2,18. That the contrast between Dutch in and by in can in principle be rendered in Chylinski’s language system is readily established with inanimates. It is not rendered by a corresponding “inessive: adessive” contrast, however; rather, in the case of inanimates by is translated using prepositions, most often pas: Peter [...] warmed himself by the fire in ChNT (Then Peter [...] was [...] warming himself by the fire in StB) Mk 14,54. Before proceeding to discuss the peculiarities of the use of the adessive in Bretke1, the principal uses of the adessive in Bretke and other authors (Chylinskis, Daukša) will first be briefly presented. The adessive denotes: 1) location in the spiritual realm of a person, often understood as the sphere of divine activity: faugok through the holy spirit who dwells mufjmp ChNT (preserved [...] by the Holy Spirit / who in us dwells StB) 2 Tim 1,14; 1 Wilent uses the inessive in much the same way throughout as Bretke, but his usage is not considered in this article. 45 Gina Kavaliūnaitė Grant me an unstained heart manīp to make, gracious Lord DP 53411 (Create a clean heart within me, kind Lord Wuj 58047–48); His faith <was> greater in that sick woman DP 36914 (The faith <of> that sick woman was Wuj 38131); Do not doubt; we in our hearts think; we have Abraham as our Father BP II 24015²; Had those deeds been done in Sodom, which in you have been done BNT (For if the deeds had been done in Sodom which among you have been done LB; Quia si in Sodomis factae fuissent virtutes quae factae sunt in te V) Mt 11,23. 2) the object or domain of human thoughts or emotions: Have faith in God ChNT (Have faith in God StB) Mk 11,22; and my spirit rejoices in God my savior DP 47112–13 (And my spirit rejoiced in God my Savior Wuj 5028); For thus you have apprehended eternal life in God, living and salvation BP I 26818; for nothing is impossible to God, every word BNT (For with God nothing is impossible LB; quia non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbum V) Lk 1,37. 3) localization near or in the vicinity of a person: Kurſey buvo Storaſteyp Serguſiep Powilep žmogump įßmintingamp ChNT (Welche was by den Stadthouder Sergius Paulus / eenen verstandigen man StB) Apd 13,7; taӡiau rádo tatái húkiie ſawamé ir ſunų ſawąmp DP 35529 (prӡedfié naydował to w domu ſwoim / y w ſynie ſwoim Wuj 36717–18); Ne gerai darai jog brolio moteri ſawip laikai BP I 296; nes radai malane Diewip BNT (du haft gnade bey Gott funden LB; invenisti enim gratiam apud Deum V) Lk 1,30. 4) localization among several objects, within a group of persons: 2 In collecting the material, the electronic concordance to Bretke’s Postille, compiled at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language in Vilnius, was used. 46 Die statischen Lokalkasus bei Bretke und in anderen altlitauischen Texten I spoke these things to you, while being among you ChNT (These things I have spoken to you / while with you StB) Jn 14,25; he had no place among you DP 412 (he had no among them Wuj 4031); And Jesus increased in wisdom, stature, and grace with God and people BP I 16211; if such works had been done in Tyre and Sidon as among you BNT (if such deeds had happened in Tyre and Sidon as among you have happened LB; quia si in Tyro et Sidone factae essent virtutes quae factae sunt in vobis V) Mt 11,21. 5) localization inside an object: He planted a vineyard [...] and dug jeyp a winepress ⇒ a vat ChNT (planted a vineyard [...] and built a winepress therein StB) Mt 21,33; And prānaſiep. But the Lord will save them in the Lord their God DP 257 (Y v Prophet; The Lord speaks / I will save them in the Lord their God Wuj 26528). This meaning seems to be attested neither in BP nor in BNT. 6) localization near an object. In Chylinski, the Adessive is not attested in this meaning. Some examples, however, occur in DP and BP: leave your offering attōriųp DP 2969 (leave your offering still at the altar Wuj 30422); some women, our neighbors, who were formerly at the grave BP II 1716. Nach Angabe von Eglė Žilinskaitė (2007:408) machen solche Adessive 6,43% sämtlicher Belege des Adessivs aus. Nach Angabe von Gelumbeckaitė (1997: 191–192) ist diese Verwendungsweise des Adessivs auch im BNT nicht belegt. In ChNT, the Inessive expresses localization with respect to an inanimate object. Inessives of Animata expressing an event in the consciousness of a person are not attested. When the Inessive is formed from Animata, the forms are plural, and the meaning is localization in the midst of a group of people. It concerns 47 GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ a meaning that is not intrinsically linked to animacy. In the plural, Adessives are regularly formed only by those word classes ranked highest in the animacy hierarchy, i.e., the 1st- and 2nd-person pronouns; otherwise, Inessives are mostly used. Compare, for example: One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and juſjmp wiſoje ChNT (One God and Father of all / who is above all/ and through all / and in you all StB) Eph 4,6. In this example, an Adessive occurs alongside an Inessive within the same noun phrase. There is evidently no difference between them in case meaning; there is only a difference in the marking of animacy. With Daukša and in Bretke’s Postille, too, the use of the Adessive is linked to animacy. Adessives of Inanimata are extremely rare, e.g., attoriųp DP 2969, and grabiepi BP II 1716. Rosinas writes on this: „in sentences with the verbs būti, gyventi and others, only the Adessive of participial pronouns and the reflexive pronoun is used, whereas with relational pronouns and nouns, alongside the Adessive, the Inessive is also often used“ (2001: 141). Furthermore, Rosinas notes that „the subsystem of personal participial and reflexive pronouns (that is, precisely those ranked highest in the animacy hierarchy — G. K.) in Daukša’s texts has no Inessive; the Adessive is used in its place, most often expressing an inner state“ (2001: 140). This accords exactly with what was established for Chylinski’s language system. According to Rosinas, Inessives of 1st- and 2nd-person personal pronouns are attested neither in Daukša nor in Pietkiewicz’s Catechism or in Szyrwid (Rosinas 1995: 17–20; 2001: 140). Such Inessives are found only in Bretke and Wilent. This remarkable peculiarity of the language of these writers should therefore be examined separately. 3. THE INESSIVE OF INANIMATE NOUNS IN BRETKE First, it should be noted that in Bretke, too, the adessive is associated with animacy. For the categories ranked highest in the animacy hierarchy, namely the 1st-person and 2nd-person pronouns and the reflexive pronoun, Bretke regularly uses the adessive: 48 Die statischen Lokalkasus bei Bretke und in anderen altlitauischen Texten and 2nd person and the reflexive pronoun, Bretke regularly uses the adessive: Nefa iei Sodomoia thie Darbai butu nuſsidawę, kurie tawip nuſsidawę BNT (For if the deeds that happened to Sodom had happened to you LB; Quia si in Sodomis factae fuissent virtutes quae factae sunt in te V) Mt 11:23; Ir netur ßaknų ſawimp BNT (and have no root in them LB; et non habent radicem in se) Mk 4:17; Dwafe Wieſchpaties ira manip BP II 47₂₆; Ir IEſus daukſinoli iſchmintije / ſenatweie ir maloneie Diewiep ir S₃moniſamp BP I 162₁₁. The distribution of the adessive and inessive is clearly apparent in the following examples. In all cases, the reference is to Holy Scripture or parts thereof; however, where a book is designated by the name of its author, the adessive occurs, while elsewhere the inessive is used: Schwentamip Ianip trecziame puguldime BP I 420₂₀; Ponas IEſus Kriſtus wadinna Pharifeuſchus Raſſabin̄ikais / Schwentamip Ianip deſchim tame paguldime BP II 61₂; neſa ghi Schwentame raſchte liudima dūſt BP II 88₂₋₃; tada Ponas Diewas Schwentame ßodie / koſnam pamokſla dūſt BP II 279₁₄. Since the distribution of the adessive and inessive depends on the categorical properties of the noun, so that certain nouns normally form only an adessive, while others form only an inessive, the two are in a relationship of complementary distribution. They should therefore not be regarded as entirely independent cases, but only as variants of one and the same local case (cf. Smoczyński 2001: 215). At Bretke’s, however, personal pronouns are treated differently than at Daukša and Chylinski. Here we find inessives of 1st- and 2nd-person personal pronouns, as well as of designations for persons, expressing a process in human consciousness or in a person’s inner being. paſinfite, kaip eſch mano Tiewieie → Tiew + pi eſmi, ir jus manyie → manipi ir eſch iuſuie → iuſuie/iuſuia → iuſpi BNT (you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in 49 GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ you LB; cognoscetis quia ego sum in Patre meo et vos in me et ego in vobis V) Jn 14,20; ir ſunus tawa kuris → kurie taweie ira BNT (et filios qui in te sunt V; and your children with you LB Lk 19,43) Lk 19,44; Satanas [...] ſaweie pats ne ſudera BNT (Satan [...] is at odds with himself LB; Satanas consurrexit in semetipsum V) Mk 3,26; Er ne dege ſchirdis muſu muſui BNT (was not our heart burning in nobis V; Did not our heart burn in us LB) Lk 24,32; Pharifeuſchas ſtowedams / teipo pats ſawije meldefi BP II 353₃; tada permanik ir ßinnok ſchitai ſchtiefos Schwenta Dwaſe tawije darancze BP II 125₂₀. It should be noted, however, that Bretke himself not infrequently corrected such Inessives to Adessives: kaip anis taipo ſawÿa dumoio → anus taipo ſawipi dumoiencзius BNT (that they thought thus by themselves LB; quia sic cogitarent intra se V) Mk 2,8; dumaia ſawei → ſawip BNT (et cogitabat intra se V; and he thought to himself LB) Lk 12,17; bilaia ſawÿe → ſawÿp BNT (autem dixit intra se V; he thought to himself LB) Lk 18,4. Such passages, in which an Inessive is replaced by an Adessive, attest to Bretke’s uncertainty about the appropriateness of the Inessive in such contexts. Range (1995: 99–101) explains such variation as resulting from the influence of the Vorlage. Indeed, it is quite possible that the German construction with in and the dative could have provided the conditions for such use of the Inessive, although the use of similar constructions in the Vorlagen had no noticeable influence on Chylinskis’ choice of Locative cases. Similarly, the German construction with bey may have prompted Bretke, at least in individual cases, to replace an Inessive with an Adessive (BNT Lk 12,17; Lk 18,4 etc.). Nevertheless, the influence of the Vorlagen cannot have been the only reason for such changes. The BNT contains several examples of an Inessive being replaced by an Adessive even though the Vorlage could not have encouraged the use of an Adessive: 50 Die statischen Lokalkasus bei Bretke und in anderen altlitauischen Texten the light which in you → in thee is BNT (lumen quod in te est V; the light in thee [...] shines LB) Lk 11,35; know ye that as I am in my Father → in my Father, and ye are in me → in me, and I am in you → in you/in thee → in you BNT (ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you LB; cognoscetis quia ego sum in Patre meo et vos in me et ego in vobis V) Jn 14,20. Both Luther and the Vulgate have constructions with in at these points. Thus, in these cases there can have been no other reason for the corrections than the translator’s linguistic intuition. The same impression is gained by closer examination of the passages where, at least in the German text, prepositions other than in occur: of the things which among us → among us have been fulfilled BNT (quae in nobis conpletae sunt rerum V; concerning the events that have taken place among us LB) Lk 1,1; the miracles which in you → in you have been performed BNT (virtutes quae in vobis factae sunt V; deeds [...] which have been done among you LB) Lk 10,13; I have spoken to you, being among you → being among you BNT (haec locutus sum vobis apud vos manens V; I have spoken such things to you, since I have been among you LB) Jn14,25. In the German text, bey occurs in some cases, but there are also other equivalents. The reason for the correction muſui → muſip must have been different; the causes will be discussed below. Furthermore, the following should be noted. To make it plausible that the reason for replacing the Inessive with the Adessive lies in the influence of the German source text, one would have to demonstrate that in Bretke’s translation there is indeed a regular correspondence between the Lithuanian Adessive and the German preposition bey. In that case, one would expect to find such an equivalence with Inanimata as well. However, we find that in Bretke, the combinations of the preposition bey with Inanimata correspond not to Adessives but to prepositional phrases: and warmed himself by the fire LB (he warmed himself by the fire BNT; et calefaciebat se ad ignem V) Mk 14,54; 51 GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ but stood by the cross LB (ſtoweio prieg Krijsaus BNT; Stabant autem iuxta crucem V) Jn 19,25; still baptizes at Enon, near Salim LB (krikſchtya Enone, arti Salim → Salem BNT; baptizans in Aenon iuxta Salim V) Jn 3,23; by the bush LB (pas erſchkieczius → kruma → pas krumus BNT) Lk 20,37; near the desert LB (arti puſchchczos BNT; iuxta desertum) Jn 11,54. Incidentally, it should be noted that even combinations of by with animates are not always rendered with adessives. Here follows an example with a nonpersonal animate: and was among the animals LB (buwo su Sverimis BNT; Eratque cum bestiis V) Mk 1,13. Bretke often apparently let himself be guided by his linguistic intuition, and sometimes he must have considered which form would be more correct in a given case. On the other hand, he was apparently intent on reproducing certain distinctions made in the source texts in the use of prepositions, since these were important for a correct understanding of the relevant passages. Thus, for example, the difference between in God (in Deo) and with God (apud Deum) could hardly have seemed to Bretke a phenomenon conditioned purely by syntax or style, without theological implications. Since such expressions occur quite often in the text, he also felt impelled to proceed as consistently as possible here, and wherever the Latin or German text had in, to use the same form everywhere, namely the inessive. In the case of an animate such as tėvas ‘father’, the only form probably available in the living vernacular was the adessive tėviep, whose normal meaning was ‘with the father’ (‘in the father’s house’). The meaning ‘in the father’ was probably foreign to the vernacular, since such metaphorical uses could occur only in religious contexts. To render the phrase in Patre, in the Father, he could either form an inessive that did not exist in the vernacular, or use the adessive that actually existed, thereby having to give up the possibility of distinguishing between ‘in the Father’ and ‘with the Father’. There can hardly have been a comparable reason for using the adessive instead of the 52 Die statischen Lokalkasus bei Bretke und in anderen altlitauischen Texten inessive under the influence of the (German) source text. First, as explained above, there seems to have been no regular correspondence between the adessive and any German preposition. Second, substituting the adessive for an inessive with animates amounts to substituting a form grounded in the Lithuanian linguistic system for one introduced under foreign influence. As explained above, third-person pronouns are ranked somewhat lower in the animacy hierarchy than first- and second-person pronouns. This is because they can refer both to animates and to inanimates. Nevertheless, pronouns as a whole rank higher in the animacy hierarchy than nouns. This relatively high ranking of third-person pronouns occasionally leads to their adessive forms referring to inanimates. The grammatical feature of animacy is determined not by the referent, but by the general ranking of a category in the animacy hierarchy. This is particularly clear in Chylinskis, who at several points uses the masculine form jampi in reference to an inanimate: Ir → And when you come to some town or village → enter, ask who there → jampi is worthy → worthy ChNT (And into whatever city or village you enter, inquire who there is worthy StB) Mt 10,11. For Bretke, this extended use of the adessive of third-person pronouns does not seem to be characteristic. By contrast, the use of the adessive for animates is well attested: nóg ſcho Kriſtaus niekur neatſtokem / net iampi ſtipra wiera ikki ſmerties ſawa ifſilaikikem BP I 12413; Tu eſſi Sunus Diewo giwoio. Iampi giwena pilnjbe Deiwiftes kunifchkai BP II 886. For inanimates, by contrast, Bretke seems to have used only the inessive: for there is no such bird that would sing so sweetly, as if there were no owls in it BP I 21121. A comparison between Bretke and Chylinskis is also made difficult by the fact that Bretke often uses the adverb tę where Chylinskis has a local case of the personal pronoun referring to an inanimate (e.g. Mt 10, 11, Mt 21, 33, etc.). 53 GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ Where animate entities are concerned, a curious fluctuation can be observed in Bretke. In several passages we find an inessive that Bretke himself subsequently corrected to an adessive: ne wienas bilas ſmerczia ne randu iame → elch newienas prziafties ſmerczio ne randu iampi BNT (nullam causam mortis invenio in eo V; I find no cause of death in him LB) Lk 23,22; Kurſai walga mana Kuną ir gieria mana Kraughį, paſsiliektis manyè → manipi, ir elch iame → iamimp BNT (Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem in me manet et ego in illo V; Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him LB) Jn 6,56. One should also note the curious fact that the inessive for animate entities has two different forms: iame and iamije. The former seems to refer to inanimate entities, the latter to animate ones. Compare the passage cited above, BP I 21121: Nu eſti ſunus zmogaus perſchwiefſtas / ir Diewas iamije ira perſchwiefſtas BP I 36315; lei Diewas apſchwiefſtas eſt iama, tada Diewas ghi teipaieg perſchwieceg iama pacziama BNT (If God is glorified in him, then God will also glorify him in himself LB; si Deus clarificatus est in eo et Deus clarificabit eum in semet ipso V) Jn 13,32. However, iame in Lk 23,22 refers to Jesus, but it is probably no mere coincidence that Bretke crossed out precisely this form and replaced it with the adessive iampi. The form iamije, too, was occasionally crossed out and replaced by an adessive: ne tiefos nera iama → iamp BNT (and there is no injustice in him LB; et iniustitia in illo non est V) Jn 7,18. The form iamije occurs in various passages and therefore cannot be a mere spelling error. This form seems unattested in other Old Lithuanian authors. Rosinas (1995) does not mention it. The question is whether this might be a new formation coined by Bretke. One may perhaps surmise that the third-person masculine personal pronoun had no inessive form for animate entities in Bretke’s linguistic system (as in Chylinski’s linguistic system). 54 Die statischen Lokalkasus bei Bretke und in anderen altlitauischen Texten Since Bretke sought to render the preposition in used in the source languages (Latin, German), he did so by means of the inessive, supplementing the missing forms on the basis of productive models. Iamije was probably modeled on maneie, tawie, ſaweie. Some uncertainty is also evident with regard to this form, since the inessive is often corrected to an adessive. Perhaps Bretke regarded iame as a form marked for inanimacy. This may have been the reason why he either replaced it with the adessive or, on the model of maneie, tawie, formed an animate variant. Yet the latter, too, seems not to have fully satisfied him, since it is sometimes corrected to an adessive as well. In addition to the enigmatic form iamije, which has gone unnoticed in the literature, further inessive forms should be mentioned: they are attested in Bretke but unknown to the other Old Lithuanian authors. These are the second-person plural forms muſui(e), iuſui(e) (on these forms, see Rosinas 1971: 147–152): Er neſinnat […] iog dwafe Diewo iuſuie giwen BP II 37018; Er neſinot / iog kunas iuſu Baßnicze eſti Dwafīos iuſuie giwenanc̄ios BP II 37022. Here, too, it is conceivable that these are forms artificially coined by Bretke, since only adessives are attested in other authors. The forms muſui(e), iuſui(e) also seem not to have satisfied Bretke, since he replaced them with adessives in various passages: tų daiktų, kurie muſui → muſip nulsidawe BNT (ordinare narrationem quae in nobis completae sunt rerum V; of the events that have taken place among us LB) Lk 1,1; magnbes kurias iuſui → iuſip daritas ira BNT (factae fuissent virtutes quae in vobis factae sunt V; deeds, […] that were done among you LB) Lk 10,13. 4. CONCLUSIONS With regard to the use of the static local cases (inessive and adessive), there is no fundamental difference between the language of Bretke and that of the other Old Lithuanian authors. The distribution of these 55 GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ cases is governed not by case semantics but by the categorial features of noun phrases, with the use of the adessive reflecting a high ranking in the animacy hierarchy. Unlike the other Old Lithuanian authors, Bretke uses inessives of the 1st- and 2nd-person personal pronouns and of the reflexive pronoun; in part, these forms are not found elsewhere. He also uses forms of the 3rd-person singular masculine inessive for animates that are otherwise unattested (iamije alongside iame). This is presumably an imitation of constructions with Latin and German in used in the source texts. The numerous instances in which these inessives have been corrected to adessives, however, point to Bretke’s uncertainty about the correctness of these forms. His linguistic system probably contained only adessives. Bretke’s linguistic system here probably did not differ from that of other Old Lithuanian authors such as Chylinski, Daukša, and others, and the particularities of inessive use in his texts reflect above all the peculiarities of his translation technique, not of his language. SPECIAL SIGNS → correction in the manuscript ⇒ synonym added above the line “…” beginning or end of a correction in the manuscript <…> editor’s emendation (Kudzinowski and Otrębski 1958) […] deletion in the manuscript […] omitted passage [TOT] word added for clarification in the Statenbijbel + illegible letter in the manuscript 56 Die statischen Lokalkasus bei Bretke und in anderen altlitauischen Texten LIST OF SOURCES BNT — THE NEW TESTAMENT. Translated into the Lithuanian language by Ian Bretkunas, pastor of Labiau. 1580. Cited from: THE NEW TESTAMENT. Translated into the Lithuanian language by Iana Bretkunas, pastor of Labiau. 1580. THE NEW TESTAMENT translated into the Lithuanian language by Johann Bretke, pastor at Labiau 1580: Facsimile of the manuscript, volumes 7 and 8, Labiau i. Pr. 1580. Edited by J.D.Range and Fr. Scholz. 1991. Paderborn – Munich – Vienna – Zurich. BP — POSTILLA that is, a Brief and Simple Explanation of the Gospels [...] By Ian Bretknas, Lithuanian pastor in Königsberg, Prussia. Printed in Königsberg by Georg Osterberger. In the year of the Lord 1591. ChNT — Czesław Kudzinowski, Jan Otrębski, The Lithuanian Bible of Chyliński. New Testament. 2, Text, Poznań: Ossoliński National Institute, 1958. DP — CATHOLIC POSTILLA, that is: An exposition of the Gospels for every Sunday and feast throughout the year. By the priest MIKALOIV DAVKSZ[A], canon of Medininkai / translated from Polish. With the permission and support of the superiors. In Vilnius / At the printing house of the Academy of the SOCIETY OF JESUS. A.D. 1599. LB — D. Martin Luther’s Works. Critical Complete Edition (Weimar Edition). The German Bible, volume 6. 1968: Hermann Böhlau’s Successor – Weimar Academic Printing and Publishing House – Graz. StB — The Bible, that is, the entire Holy Scripture, containing all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. By order of the High and Mighty Lords, the States General of the United Netherlands [...] Faithfully translated from the original languages into our Dutch language [...] and revised by common order of the Dutch churches to correct printing errors and mistakes found in the first edition. Amsterdam, printed by the widow of the late Paulus Aertsz van Ravesteyn [...] In the year 1657. V — Die Vulgata, zitiert nach: Roger Gryson, ed., 1994: Biblia Sacra Vulgata. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. WuJ — The Short Catholic Postilla. That is: Brief sermons / or explanations of the holy Gospels [...] By D. IAKVBA WVYKA of Węgrowiec, theologian of the Society of Jesus. [...] IN KRAKÓW, at the printing house of Andrzej Piotrkowczyk / in the year of the Lord 1590. 57 GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ REFERENCES Anderson, S. R. 1985: Inflectional morphology. In: T. Shopen, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3. Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 151–201. Gelumbeckaitė, J. 1997: Postpoziciniai vietininkai J. Bretkūno „Evangelijos pagal Luką“ vertime. Baltistica 32.2, 179–202. Gelumbeckaitė, J. 1999: Linksnių ir prielinksnių konstrukcijų vartosena Jono Bretkūno „Evangelijos pagal Luką“ vertime. Daktaro disertacijos rankraštis. Kavaliaūnaitė, G. 2001. Adesyvas Chylinskio Naujojo Testamento vertime. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 45, 93–111. Kudzinowski, Cz. 1997: Indeks–słownik do „Daukšos Postilė“ 1–2. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. Laigonaitė, A. 1957: Pašalio vietininkai dabartinėje kalboje. In: Ch. Lemchenas, Hrsg., Kai kurie lietuvių kalbos gramatikos klausimai. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 21–39. Maskuliūnas, B. 2000: Dėl vieno posesyvumo raiškos atvejo senuosiuose raštuose. Baltistica 34.2, 199–208. Palionis, J. 1967: Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI–XVII a. Vilnius: Mintis. Range, J.-D. 1992: Kommentierte Edition des Bandes 7 der altlitauischen Bibelübersetzung (Evangelien und Apostelgeschichte) von Joh. Bretke, Labiau 1580. Habilitationsschrift, vorgelegt dem Fachbereich 13 Romanistik–Slavistik der Westfälischen Wilhelmsuniversität Münster. Range, J.-D. 1995: Allativ und Adessiv in altlitauischen Texten des 16. Jahrhunderts. Linguistica Baltica 4, 96–102. Rosinas, A. 1971: Dėl asmeninių įvardžių formų (mūs)-uje ir (mūs)-yje kilmės. Baltistica 7.2, 174–152. Rosinas, A. 1995: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai: morfologijos raida, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Rosinas, A. 2001: Mikalojaus Daukšos tekstų įvardžių semantinė ir morfologinė struktūra. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. 58 Die statischen Lokalkasus bei Bretke und in anderen alitauischen Texten SILVERSTEIN, M. 1976: Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In: R. M. W. DIXON, ed., Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Humanities Press, 112–171. SMOCZYŃSKI, W. 2001: Przypadki lokalne języków bałtyckich. In: Ders., Język litewski w perspektywie porównawczej. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 214–216. ŽILINSKAITĖ, E. 2007: Adesyvas Mikalojaus Daukšos Postilėje. Baltistica 57.3, 407–422. Gina Kavaliūnaitė Institute of the Lithuanian Language P. Vileišio 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] 59