Dėl esamojo ir būtojo kartinio laiko dalyvių bei padalyvių darybos ir morfeminio skaidymo

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LIV (2006), 83 – 93 On the formation and morphemic segmentation of present and past simple participles and converbs JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ Šiauliai University In this article a new attempt is made at defining, from a synchronic point of view, the morphological structure of present and (semelfactive) past participles and gerunds. Grammars and manuals differ in the way in which these forms are segmented. The treatment depends, first of all, on whether the 3rd person present indicative forms on which they are based, and the inflectional affixes, are viewed diachronically or synchronically. Often the examples cited in the literature contradict the definition offered for an inflectional ending, and the interpretation of 3rd person forms may vary between thematic vowel and ending throughout one work. This article shows how the formation of present and past participles and gerunds can be described on the assumption that the historical thematic vowels of 3rd person forms are, synchronically, endings. Morphology, according to A. Paulauskienė, “is the study of parts of speech, examining the grammatical semantics and morphemic composition of the words that constitute them” (Paulauskienė 1994: 10). Thus, this discipline investigates: (1) the morphemic structure of a word—defining and classifying the meaningful parts, or morphemes, that make up a word; (2) the inflection of words1. These two aspects of inquiry—morphemic analysis and inflection—should complement one another, since the identification of certain morphemes is related to the formation of forms. The aim of this article is to clarify once again how (from a synchronic perspective) present and past simple participles and converbs are formed, and how these verb forms should be segmented morphemically. 1 A. Paulauskienė morfologijos objektu laiko ir žodžių darybą (Paulauskienė 1994: 10; Paulauskienė 2006: 9). Kitų kalbininkų (taip pat ir straipsnio autorės) manymu, žodžių daryba yra atskira kalbotyros disciplina. Bet kokiu atveju žodžių daryba, kaip ir kaityba, lemia darybiškai skaidžių žodžių morfeminę analizę. 83 JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ First, some morphological terms need to be recalled. In many linguistic works, the definitions of morpheme, prefix, suffix, root are essentially the same2. The definition of stem is relevant. It is understood as the part of a word that remains after the ending and inflectional suffixes have been removed3 (LKE 305; see also KTŽ). This would be the definition of a lexical stem, whereas a morphological stem is considered to be the part of a word that remains after the ending has been removed4 (see Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 12; see also Paulauskienė 2006: 15–16). There are stems that can be segmented morphologically (when the morphemes identified recur in other stems), partially segmentable stems, and non-segmentable stems (see Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 13–14). Definitions of endings, which are particularly important in discussing present and past simple participles and converbs,5 vary especially widely; for example, an ending is “an affix occurring after the root of a word or after the root and a suffix” (LKE 210), through which grammatical meanings are realized. According to A. Paulauskienė, the difference between an ending and other morphemes is that it is “the variable part of a word that indicates the word’s grammatical meanings and the syntactic relations between words in a sentence conditioned by them” (Paulauskienė 1994: 35; see also Ambraškas, Žiugžda 1985: 32; Paulauskienė 1983: 25; Paulauskienė 2006: 15). In Lithuanian, most grammatical meanings of a word are realized by the ending; for instance, noun endings most often indicate gender, number, and case, and the verb- 2 For example, a morpheme is the smallest two-sided unit in a language system, having both form and meaning (cf. LKE 420; Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 4–5; KTŽ); a prefix is “an affix that occurs before a word’s root and defines its meaning more precisely” (LKE 503). Definitions of the root emphasize various of its properties: the root is “the main morpheme of a word, taken without any affixes” (LKE 615); it “characterizes the lexical basis of a word and forms its semantic backbone” (Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 6); word-formation and inflectional affixes “are attached” to this morpheme (Paulauskienė 1994: 32); and more related words are derived from it (see Ambraškas, Žiugžda 1985: 32). Suffixes are considered to be affixes that occur after the root and serve as formatives for word formation or the formation of grammatical forms (cf. Paulauskienė 1994: 34–35; Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 7–8; LKE 503). 3 The examples of stems given in LKE (305) are karei-vis, atgalin-is, aukštesn-is. The stem of the noun kareivis should be considered to be kareiv-, not karei- 4 It should be added that if not only the ending but also the infinitive suffix -ti is removed, the result is, for example, knyg-a, knygyn-as, kabin-ti, and so on (Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 12). 5 Often this depends on what the author emphasizes—the morpheme’s position in the word or its function. The morpheme at the end of the infinitive, -ti, should be regarded as a suffix, not an ending, although, according to the authors of KTŽ, it is also most often called an ending because of its position. 84 Dėl dalyvių bei padalyvių morfeminio skaidymo words—person and number (sometimes also mood and tense). The endings of masculine short participle forms, e.g., dirb-ąs, dirb-ą; myl-įs, myl-į; dirb-ęs, dirb-ę, are considered special endings—these participles’ suffixes (present tense -nt-, past simple tense -us-) “have historically changed and merged with the endings” (LKE 135; see also LKGII 313, 315; DLKG 355). There is no consensus on the third-person ending of verbs in the present and past simple tenses: some linguists claim that this person has no ending, while others believe that, from the perspective of contemporary Lithuanian, it is appropriate to treat it as an ending. This latter view is evident in Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje, which states that verb conjugation classes are determined according to the ENDING (emphasis mine—J. V.): “the ending of the third-person forms of verbs of the first paradigm is -(i)a,” [...] “verbs of the second paradigm are those that have the ending -i in their third-person forms,” while “the ending of the third-person forms of verbs of the third paradigm is -o” (LKGII 131–133; cf. also Ambraškas, Žiugžda 1985: 93–94; Paulauskienė 1994: 297). The vowels -o (suko) and -ė (barė) are considered the endings of the third person in the past simple tense (see LKGII 134–135). There is also a different view: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje emphasizes that third-person forms have no special endings6, but “consist of the bare stem” (DLKG 332); three conjugation classes are distinguished according to the stem-final segments in the present and past simple tenses (see DLKG 334; cf. also Paulauskienė 2006: 147–148). So, from the perspective of contemporary Lithuanian (synchrony), what is the third-person ending of the present and past simple tenses—a word ending or a stem-final segment? The latter choice makes the task of segmenting words into morphemes more difficult, since it raises the question of how to classify the morphemes a, i, o and o, ė that occur after verb roots (suk-a, myl-i, raš-o; suk-o, raš-ė, and so on). A. Paulauskienė’s view should be endorsed: if someone “interprets the historical stem-final segments in a grammar of the contemporary language as endings, this cannot be considered an error. From the perspective of the contemporary language, stem-final segments are endings” (Paulauskienė 1979: 133). Thus, the interpretation of the same linguistic unit (or part of it) from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective may differ, and does differ7. 6 The formulation has no special endings is unclear; it immediately raises the question of whether the third-person form has an ending at all. 7 For example, the diphthongal endings of the first- and second-person singular forms of present and past simple verbs in the contemporary language (saug-au, saug-ai; suk- 85 JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ Most Lithuanian words (all inflected words and some uninflected ones) are morphologically segmentable, and their division into morphemes usually presents no difficulty8; however, some confusion arises when explaining the formation (and, at the same time, the segmentation into morphemes) of active-voice present participles (1) and converbs (2), passive-voice present participles (3), and active-voice past simple participles (4) and converbs (5)—partly also because of the chosen view of the third-person ending/stem-final segment. What do the most important linguistic works say about these participles and converbs? J. Jablonskis’s Lietuviškos kalbos gramatikos discusses participles in the chapter Veiksmavardžiai as well9. (1) With regard to active present participles, e.g., velkąs – velkanti, darąs, -anti, stovįs, -inti, it is written: “from the verb, the third-person ending (of the present tense) must be changed from a – o, i to ąs, iš” (Jablonskis 1901/1957: 105). (2) Of the indeclinable present converbs, e.g., sukant, stovint, it is said that “this verbal form is made from the third person of the present tense by replacing the endings o – a, i with ant (antis), int (intis)” (Jablonskis 1901/1957: 106). (3) Declined passive present participles, e.g., rašomas – rašoma, sukamas, -a, mylimas, -a, are formed “from the third person of the present tense: the syllable mas, ma must be added to the endings o, a, i” au, suk-ai) arose when the personal endings -u and -i attached to the old stem-final segment ā (see LKGII 134–135). From a synchronic perspective, the verb ramstyti, denoting repeated action, is considered a derivative of remti with the suffix -styt (Pakerys 2002: 309); the place name ganykla is a derivative with the suffix -ykla (Ambrazas 1993: 209; LKGI 399), whereas diachronically ramstyti is related to the noun ramstis and considered a derivative with the suffix -yti, while ganykla would have been formed with the suffix -kla (Urbutis 1978: 33). 8 For example, the verb nusinešdavau consists of the root morpheme neš- (cf. the same root in related words neš-ti, neš-imas, at-neš-tas, etc.), the prefix nu- (cf. nu-vežti, nu-sukti), the reflexive particle si (at-si-gulti, nu-si-pirkti), the past frequentative suffix -dav- (ei-dav-ome, pieš-dav-au), and the ending -au, which carries the grammatical meanings of first-person singular (cf. ėj-au, buv-au); we segment the adjective gražesnį into the following morphemes: the root graž- (cf. graž-umas, apy-graž-is), the comparative-degree marker—the suffix -esn- (cf. nauj-esn-is), and the ending -į (gražesn-is, gražesn-io, gražesn-iam, etc.; other adjectives ending in -į, e.g., baltesn-į, geresn-į, have the same grammatical meanings of masculine singular accusative). Thus, in these words the marker of the past frequentative tense is the suffix -dav-, and the comparative-degree marker of the adjective is the suffix -esn-. (The article does not examine the problems of segmenting monomorphemic words (conjunctions, prepositions, etc.), empty/quasi-morphemes, and so on.) 9 In this grammar by Jablonskis, participles and converbs are called verbal forms, the present tense is called present tense, and person is called person. 86 Dėl dalyvių bei padalyvių morfeminio skaidymo (Jablonskis 1901/1957: 107). (4) To form past simple active participles (e.g., vilkęs, vilkusi, daręs, dariusi), “the third-person (past tense) endings o and ė must be changed to ęs – usi” (Jablonskis 1901/1957: 105). (5) Past simple converbs (e.g., dirbus, rašius) are formed “from the third-person past tense form, by changing o or ė to us” (Jablonskis 1901/1957: 106). In the section Participles of Jablonskis’s later grammar (where the current term is already used), it is stated that (1) present active participles are formed from the third-person present-tense stem: “by changing the stem-final vowels (a, o, i) to the endings as, ęs, we obtain the forms: sukęs, lūžtas, vėjęs, skaitęs, lydįs” (Jablonskis 1922/1957: 299); (2) according to Jablonskis, present converbs are formed from present-tense stems: “we turn the stem-final vowels a and o into the ending ant, and the stem-final vowel i into the ending int, obtaining the forms – metant, leidžiant, [...] lydint” (Jablonskis 1922/1957: 320); (3) present passive participles are formed from third-person stems: “to the stem-final vowels (a, o, i) we add the ending mas; adding it, we get: suka-mas, lūžta-mas, veja-mas, skaito-mas, lydi-mas” (Jablonskis 1922/1957: 300); (4) in forming past simple active participles, “we replace their stem-final vowels (o, ė) with the ending ęs, obtaining: sukęs” (Jablonskis 1922/1957: 299); (5) past simple converbs are formed from the past simple stem: “we turn the stem-final vowels (ė, o) into the ending us, obtaining – bėgus” (Jablonskis 1922/1957: 321). Thus, according to Jablonskis, all derived forms are formed from the verb’s third-person present or past simple form, but the procedure is inconsistent: in one case—when forming present active participles and converbs (1, 2), as well as past simple active participles and converbs (4, 5)—it is proposed that stem-final segments be “changed / turned into”10 participial endings, whereas in forming present passive participles (3) it is said that a syllable / ending must be added to the stem-final segment. The ending -mas, -ma cannot be treated as an ending, since in inflecting the word (sukam-as, sukam-o, sukam-am, sukam-ą, etc.) only -as, -a changes, while m remains in all participial forms. Moreover, the converb suffixes cannot be considered endings11. 10 Jablonskis’s rather unclear formulations to change / turn stem-final segments into endings are repeated in some later works on Lithuanian linguistics as well. 11 In J. Jablonskis’s grammars, endings is also the term used for both the infinitive suffix -ti and the past passive participle formant -tas, e.g., myletas; that is, the relationship between suffix and ending is unclear. 87 JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language states that present active participles (1) “are formed from the present-tense stems of verbs. After removing the third-person singular present-tense ending of the verb, the participial masculine singular nominative ending -(i)ąs, the plural nominative ending -(i)ą is added when the participle is formed from first-conjugation verbs; the masculine singular nominative ending -as, the plural nominative ending -ą when the participle is formed from third-conjugation verbs; and the masculine singular nominative ending -įs, the plural nominative ending -i when the participle is formed from second-conjugation verbs, e.g.: dirb-a: dirb-as, dirbą; kur-ia: kur-ias, kur-ią; rašo: raš-ąs, raš-ą; tyl-i: tyl-įs, tyl-į. Other masculine forms and all feminine forms have the suffix -(i)ant- [...], -ant- [...] or -int- [...]. The same suffixes also form the long, or secondary, forms of the masculine singular and plural nominative12, e.g.: dirb-ant-is, dirb-ant-ys; [...] tyl-int-is, tyl-int-ys” (LKGII 312). (2) “Present converbs are formed from the present-tense stems of verbs by adding the suffix -ant [...] or -int [...], e.g.: dirb-a: dirb-ant, raš-o: raš-ant, tyl-i: tyl-int” (LKGII 385). This account bases the morphemic segmentation (raš-ąs, raš-anč-io, raš-ant-i; tyl-is, tyl-inč-io, tyl-int-i; raš-ant-i, raš-anč-ios, etc.) on the formation of the forms. It seems that the formation of present passive participles (3) should also be explained in The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, but the work is inconsistent in its account, since, according to the authors, these participles “are formed from the third-person present-tense form of verbs (which coincides with the old present-tense stem), by adding the suffix -mas, -a to the ending, e.g.: dirba: dir- The formation of participles and converbs is explained in much the same way as in Jablonskis’s grammars in Ambraška and Žiugžda’s Grammar of the Lithuanian Language: in discussing the formation of present active participles, the imprecise formulation stem-final segments are replaced by endings is used (see Ambraška, Žiugžda 1985: 130). The ending of the third-person present-tense form of verbs is alternately called an ending (ibid.: 93) and a stem-final segment (ibid.: 130, 141); the past simple vowels of verbs are called stem-final segments, which, according to the authors, in forming participles and converbs, are replaced by the corresponding participial endings (ibid.: 130) or by the converb suffix (ibid.: 141). Calling the present passive participle formant -mas (ibid.: 131) and the converb formants -ant and -us (ibid.: 141) endings contradicts the definition of an ending given in the same grammar (ibid.: 32). 12 For the use of long and short forms, see LKGII (313–314); DLKG (355); Paulauskienė (2006: 155); Miliūnaitė, ed. (2004: 51); LG (330). 88 Dėl dalyvių bei padalyvių morfeminio skaidymo ba-mas, dirba-ma; myli: myli-mas, myli-ma; rašo: rašo-mas, rašo-ma” (LKGII 322). First, the ending -mas, which also includes the ending -as, should not be called a suffix13. Another point: if -mas is added to an ending (see the verbs dirba, myli, rašo), it is unclear which morphemes the endings a, į, o in the participles dirbamas, mylimas, rašomas belong to, and how such words should be divided into morphemes. (4) Regarding active past simple participles, Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje states that they “are formed from the past simple stems of verbs. After removing the third-person singular ending of the verb’s past simple tense, the masculine singular nominative ending -ęs and the plural nominative ending -ę are added, e.g.: dirb-o: dirb-ęs, dirb-ę [...]. The other masculine cases and all feminine cases have the suffix -(i)us-, to which [...] adjectival case endings are attached, e.g.: [...] dirb-us-io” (LKGII 317). (5) “Past simple converbs are formed from the past simple stems of verbs by adding the suffix -(i)us, e.g.: dirb-o: dirb-us” (LKGII 385). Thus, in Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje, all derived forms (except present passive participles) are formed from the present and past simple stems, while the stem is taken to be the third-person form without an ending. The positions of Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos are essentially followed in some university morphology textbooks (see Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976, Paulauskienė 1994)14. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje emphasizes that the present and past simple stems are the basis for forming participles and converbs: (1) “the present active participle is formed from the present stem with the suffix -nt- and adjectival [...] endings: dirba – dirba-nt-is, dirba-nt-i; tyli – tyli-nt-is, tyli-nt-i. When forming these participles from verbs of the third conjugation (with an o-stem), the verb- 13 Admittedly, in word formation, for convenience, the term suffix is used for a part of a word together with its ending, but when discussing the formation of forms, the terms suffix, ending should be used more precisely. 14 There are some differences, for example, in textbooks: the ending -mas of present passive participles is considered not a suffix (see LKGII 322), but an ending (see Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 177; Paulauskienė 1994: 347–248). As mentioned, only the variable part of a word, that is, -as, should be considered an ending. The past simple converb suffix -us cannot be called an ending (see Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 195). An unfortunate term, ending-formant, is used to refer to the morphemes -ant, -int of present converbs (Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 195). 89 JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ the stem-final vowel of verbs—o—IS CHANGED (emphasis added – J. V.) to -a, e.g.: rašo – raša-nt-is, raša-nt-i” (DLKG 355). (2) The present converb is formed in an analogous way, except that here it is stated that “when forming converbs from verbs of the third conjugation (with an o-stem), the stem-final vowel -o of the present tense BECOMES (emphasis added – J. V.) -a- [...], e.g.: daro – dara-nt, skaito – skaita-nt” (DLKG 379). (3) “The present passive participle is formed from the present stem with the suffix -m-, to which [...] adjectival endings are added: dirb-a – dirba-m-as, -a; myli – myli-m-as, -a; rašo – rašo-m-as, -a” (DLKG 361). (4) “The past simple active participle is formed from the past simple stem with the suffix -(i)us (except in the masculine singular and plural nominative) and adjectival [...] endings. When forming these participles, the stem-final vowels -o and -ė are DROPPED (emphasis added – J. V.). [...] The short nominative forms of the masculine are formed with the endings -ęs (singular) and -ę (plural), attached to the final consonant of the past simple stem: dirb-o – dirb-ęs, dirb-ę” (DLKG 357–358). (5) “Past simple converbs are formed from the past simple stem of a verb by removing the stem-final vowel and adding the suffix -(i)us: dirb-o – dirb-us”¹⁵ (DLKG 379). Thus, in essence, Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje adopts a diachronic perspective: Z. Zinkevičius’s Lietuvių kalbos istorijoje states that “the basis of present active participle forms contains the verb’s present stem extended by the suffix -nt-” (Zinkevičius 1996: 159). According to the author, passive participles developed from certain adjectives, and “the basis of present-tense forms contains the verb’s present stem extended by the suffix *-mō- (>Baltic -ma-) [...], e.g., renka-mas (: renka), rašo-mas (: rašo), myli-mas (: myli)” (Zinkevičius 1996: 163). Like DLKG, LKE (see 134, 135, 454)¹⁶, Paulauskienė (2006: 155–156, 159, 169)¹⁷, LG (329, 334, 340), and Dobrovolskis et al. (1998: 186–187, 190) also explain the formation of present and past simple participles and converbs, except 15 Again, unclear formulations are used: the stem-final vowels -o and -ė are dropped / removed, or the short endings are attached to the final consonant of the stem. Thus, in forming the past simple active participle and converb, the old stem-final element, or the ending -o and -ė, must be dropped. 16 The work certainly does not mention that the stem-final vowel of past simple verbs is dropped or anything of the sort. 17 The textbook does not explain where the stem-final vowel of the past simple stem disappears when past simple participles and converbs are formed; present active participles— 90 Del dalyvių bei padalyvių morfeminio skaidymo Regarding gerunds, the book states that these indeclinable verb forms are formed from the stems of the corresponding tenses by adding the suffixes: -ant, -int for the present tense, and -us for the past simple tense (Dobrovolskis et al. 1998: 197–198). As can be seen, specific examples in various works on Lithuanian linguistics often do not correspond to the definition of an ending provided (for example, an ending is defined as the variable part of a word, yet the term is used for the ending -mas of present passive participles, the gerund suffixes -ant, -int, -us, and so on). Moreover, the same work does not always adhere to a single view of the third-person ending—it should be considered either a stem-final element or an ending. Thus, if the variable part of a word is its ending, then from the perspective of the present-day language—that is, synchronically—the endings of present-tense verbs dirb-u, dirb-i, dirb-a, dirb-ame, dirb-ate, past simple verbs dirb-au, dirb-ai, dirb-o, dirb-ome, dirb-ote, and the like should be considered to be -u, -i, -a, -ame, -ate; -au, -ai, -o, -ome, -ote (with the explanation that the third-person ending is the old stem). Then (1) the formation of present active participles can be explained as follows: after removing the third-person singular ending (a, i, o) of present-tense verbs, the masculine singular nominative ending -(i)ąs / -is or the plural nominative ending -(i)ą / -i is added, e.g.: kur-ia: kur-ias, kur-ią; raš-o: raš-ąs, raš-ą; tyl-i: tyl-įs, tyl-į (with the explanation that historically the participial suffix -nt has coalesced with those endings). The other masculine cases (including the long forms of the masculine nominative) and all feminine cases have the suffix -(i)ant- / -int- and the corresponding endings, e.g.: kenč-iant-i, raš-ant-i, tyl-int-i, dirb-ant-is, tyl-int-is, dirb-ant-i, tyl-int-i, etc. (2) Present gerunds are derived in an analogous way: after removing the third-person ending of present-tense verbs, the suffix -ant or -int is added, e.g.: dirb-a: dirb-ant, raš-o: raš-ant, tyl-i: tyl-int (thus, in the present-day language there are two suffix variants, -ant- and -int-). (3) Present passive participles are likewise formed from the third-person present-tense forms of verbs: after removing the ending, the suffix -am- / -om- / -im- and the corresponding ending are added, e.g.: dirb-a: dirb-am-as, raš-o: raš-om-as, myl-i: myl-im-as (the most important marker of present passive participles is -m-, but in the present-day language there are three suffix variants: -am-, -om-, -im-). (4) Past simple active participles are segmented as follows: dirb-a – dirb-a-nt-is (dirbęs), stov-i-nt-is (stovįs), whereas in passive participles the vowel following the root can no longer be separated: dirb-a-m-as, turi-m-as, raš-o-m-as, and so on. 91 JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ Participles are formed from the third-person singular past simple forms of verbs: after removing the ending, the masculine singular nominative ending -ęs or the plural nominative ending -ę is added (dirb-o: dirb-ęs, dirb-ę, and so on, with the explanation that historically the participial suffix -us- has coalesced with these endings). The other masculine cases and all feminine cases have the suffix -(i)us-, to which the corresponding endings are attached. (5) Past simple gerunds are formed from the third-person singular past simple forms of verbs: after removing the ending, the gerund suffix -(i)us (dirb-o: dirb-us) is added. Thus, this explanation grounds morphemic segmentation in the formation of the forms. LITERATŪRA AMBRAŠKA, J., ŽIUGŽDA, J. 1985: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1. Fonetika ir morfologija. Chicago: JAV Lietuvių bendruomenės Švietimo Taryba. AMBRAZAS, S. 1993: Daiktavardžių darybos raida. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. DLKG = Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, red. Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2005. DOBROVOLSKIS, B., KNIŪKŠTA, P., KUČINSKAITĖ, A., PAULAUSKIENĖ, A., RYKLIENĖ, A., STUNDŽIA, B., TARVYDAITĖ, D. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos žinynas. Kaunas: Šviesa. JABLONSKIS, J. 1901/1957: Lietuviškos kalbos gramatika. Cituojama pagal: Jablonskis 1957, 57–180. JABLONSKIS, J. 1922/1957: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Cituojama pagal: Jablonskis 1957, 183–433. JABLONSKIS, J. 1957: Rinktiniai raštai 1. Sudarė J. Palionis. Vilnius: Valstybinės politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. JAKAITIENĖ, E., LAIGONAITĖ, A., PAULAUSKIENĖ, A. 1976: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija. Vilnius: Mokslas. KTŽ = Kalbotyros terminų žodynas [www.terminynas.lt]. 92 Dėl dalyvių bei padalyvių morfeminio skaidymo LG = Lithuanian grammar, red. Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1997. LKE = Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1999. LKGI = Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. T. 1. Fonetika ir morfologija. Vilnius: Mintis, 1965. LKGII = Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. T. 2. Morfologija. Vilnius: Mintis, 1971. Miliūnaitė, R., sud., 2004: Kalbos patarimai. Gramatinės formos ir jų vartojimas (1). 3-as leid. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Pakerys, A. 2002: Akcentologija II. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Paulauskienė, A. 1979: Gramatinės lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžio kategorijos. Vilnius: Mokslas. Paulauskienė, A. 1983: Lietuvių kalbos morfologijos apybraiža. Kaunas: Šviesa. Paulauskienė, A. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija. Paskaitos lituanistams. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Paulauskienė, A. 2006: Lietuvių kalbos morfologijos pagrindai. Kaunas: Technologija. Urbutis, V. 1978: Žodžių darybos teorija. Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinkevičius, Z. 1996: Lietuvių kalbos istorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Jolanta Vaskelienė Šiaulių universitetas Lietuvių kalbotyros ir komunikacijos katedra P. Višinskio g. 38, LT-76352 Šiauliai [email protected] 93