M. Daukšos „Katekizmo“ (1595) lyginamieji sakiniai

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LIII (2005), 23–31 M. Daukšos Katekizmo (1595) lyginamieji sakiniai ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS, JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language The article deals with comparative clauses in M. Daukša’s Catechism. They contain the same conjunctions as in modern Lithuanian. Modifier clauses expressing comparison of quality are introduced by the conjunction kaip both in the Catechism and in the Trumpas Budas. A comparative clause of quantity introduced by kiek is attested only in the Catechism, and a correlative clause with kuo – tuo only in the Trumpas Budas. Comparative complement clauses expressing differences of degree, introduced by the conjunction neg, are used only in the part of the Catechism that has no Polish equivalent, and in the Trumpas Budas. Comparative clauses of the same type with the conjunction nekaip are used in the Catechism and in the preface to the Trumpas Budas. They are used to compare predicates. A comparative clause as a complement of the verb bevelyti, introduced by neg, is used in the text portion that is independent of the Polish model and presumably reflects the authentic usage. 1. This article continues the study of complex sentences in a book published in Vilnius in 1595, traditionally known as Mikalojus Daukša’s Catechism, but regarded in more recent research as a convolute comprising two works that differ in their relationship to the originals1, structure, and content: Kathechismas (KATHECHISMAS ARBA MOKSLAS KIEKWIENAM KRIKSZCZIONII PRIWALVS. PARASZITAS PER D. IAKVBA LEDESMA Theologa Societatis IESV. Ižguldytas iż Lieżuvio Łakiśko ing Lietuwiśka per Kuniga Mikaloiu Daugśa Kánonika Żemaicziu. Iśpáuśtas Wilniuie Metuśe uźgimimo Wieśpaties 1595) and Trumpas Budas (Trumpas Budas Paśiśákimo / arba iźpaźinimo Nůdemiu. Drin tu kurie daźnai wartója tú Sakramentu. Yź takiśko ant Lietúwiśko pergulditas. WILNIVI Metuśe M. D. XCV.). Comparative constructions2. In this article, 1Güdo Michelinis has established that “the text of Ledesma’s Catechism constitutes only the first part of the Polish book, since Krotki obyźay śpowiedźi (> Trumpas Budas Paśiśákimo / arba iźpaźinimo Nůdemiu) draws on other sources” (Michelini 2000. 260, 2001: 228). 2The comparative sentences in M. Daukša’s Catechism are investigated using the same methodology and described in a similar order to other types of complex sentences in the authors’ earlier publications (see Judžentis, Pajėdienė 2001, 2005). This article draws on the results of the authors’ study, supported by the Lithuanian State Science and Studies Foundation, “Complex Sentences in M. Daukša’s 1595 Catechism.” In quoting Daukša’s sentences, we used the photographic reproduction in the edition of the Catechism prepared by Vida Jakštienė and Jonas Palionis (Jakštienė, Palionis, eds., 1995). Examples of sentences from Ledesma’s Polish catechism have been transliterated from a photocopy of NAWKA CHRZESCIANSKA. Abo Kátechiśmik dla dźatek held at the Vilnius University Library and belonging to the Jurgis Lebedys collection. 24 | Artūras Judžentis, Jūratė Pajėdienė referred to in this article as subordinate clauses of complex subordination sentences that have comparative meaning. 2. Comparative subordinate clauses in early Lithuanian writings have been studied in the works of Eduardas Hermannas (1912), Jonas Palionis (1967), Leonardas Drotvinas (1968a, 1968b), and Artūras Judžentis (1995), but the comparative sentences in M. Daukša’s 1595 Catechism have not yet been examined in depth. In this article, Daukša’s comparative sentences are analyzed on the theoretical basis set out in the collection of articles Studies in Syntactic Relations (Holvoet, Judžentis, eds., 2003). To address certain questions concerning the syntactic structure and semantics of comparative sentences, we have drawn on synthetic works from the Western linguistic tradition (Lieko 1992; Fauconnier [1985] 2003; Anderson [1997] 2004; Culicover, Jackendoff 2005), general works on Lithuanian linguistics (Ambrazas, ed., 1976, 1994, 1997; Morkūnas, ed., 1999), and specialized studies (Ambrazas 19713; Semėnienė 2002). 3. In complex sentences with a subordinate comparative clause, two propositions are compared on the basis of certain shared features4. Functionally, all the subordinate comparative clauses in the convolute under study are adverbial, but their syntactic relations to other words in the complex sentence differ. Some comparative clauses are adjuncts (most often attached to verbs functioning as predicates), while others are governed by words in the main clause (usually by certain forms of those words). 4. Adjunct comparative clauses fall into two groups according to their meaning and grammatical structure. One group consists of comparative clauses that express a property and serve as the standard of comparison for the main clause. According to the type of comparison and the connective words, they are divided into clauses of quality and clauses of quantity. Other adjunct comparative clauses express the identity of the degree of a variable property with the degree of the same or another variable property expressed in the main clause. These are comparative clauses of relation5. They are characterized by paired connective words and 3 In the article “The Structure of Comparative Sentences in Contemporary Lithuanian,” Vytautas Ambrazas notes that in the Lithuanian grammatical tradition comparative sentences were distinguished as a separate sentence type only in Jonas Balkevičius’s “Syntax of Contemporary Lithuanian” (Ambrazas 1971: 161). It is true that in the aforementioned syntax, comparative sentences are described both in the general section “Comparative Subordinate Sentences” (Balkevičius 1963: 329–331), according to their grammatical features, and separately, according to semantic relations, as predicate comparisons (ibid., 339–341), attributive comparisons (ibid., 345–346), or comparative sentences explaining temporal (ibid., 351–352) or manner (ibid., 358–360) adverbials. Ambrazas presents comparative sentences (the classification model for comparative sentences proposed in his 1971 article was incorporated into academic grammars) according to the grammatical features of their form, taking grammatical meanings into account and setting aside lexical and contextual meanings (Ambrazas 1971: 162). 4 Plg. Anneli Lieko duodamą apibrėžimą (1992: 222), kurio pagrindinė idėja perimta iš A Grammar of Contemporary English: „The basic feature of a comparative construction is that two propositions are compared with respect to something they have in common“ (Quirk et al. 1972: 765) Lietuvių kalbos gramatinėje tradicijoje skiriami lyginamieji sakiniai ir lyginamieji posakiai (apie juos žr. Morkūnas, par., 1999: 379–380) Pastaruosius galima laikyti redukuotais lyginamaisiais sakiniais (plg Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 144–146). Šiame straipsnyje redukuoti lyginamieji sakiniai nenagrinėjami. 5 V. Ambrazas characterizes comparative clauses of relation as denoting “actions and phenomena related to one another, such that as one increases or decreases, the other increases or decreases accordingly” (Ambrazas 1971: 172). In the English Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, comparative clauses of relation (com- M. DAUKŠOS KATEKIZMO (1595) LYGINAMIEJI SAKINIAI | 25 marking a variable property by means of comparative forms in both clauses of a complex sentence. 4.1. QUALITY In the comparative sentences examined in Daukša’s texts, as in present-day standard language, the conjunction as is used. In the studied Sammelband, this is the principal type of use of subordinate clauses linked by this conjunction⁶, cf.: nóri Bažni- // czia pagėrbt fawús ſúnus // ßwetúlius / kaip’ nie gėrbė io // Diewą / ir Bażniczią ßwęta 67₁₃–₁₆. Comparative clauses of quality usually follow the main clause, as in the sentence quoted, which has no Polish equivalent. The same clause order is characteristic of sentences that have a Polish original (as well as their counterparts in the Polish translation of Ledesma’s catechism), cf.: atháid’ mū́mus mū́- // ſų kaltės / kaip’ ir męs át- // haidżęmę ſawięmus kaltie- // mus 46₅–₈ (odpuść nam náſze winy // iáko y my odpuſcżamy náſym // winowáicom 28₁₀–₁₂). Comparative clauses of quality are rarely used before the main clause; in such cases, they usually correlate with correlative words, cf.: kaip’ anoí // ſkrinioi nē búwo dáiktas // bragẹ́lnis / tiektái toblíczios // priſsákimo Diewo / idant’ // teip widurū́ję ßi[r]diés máno // ne butú kita dumá / nei nó- // ras / tiektái tawóp ßwetóp // priſsákimóp 166₁₀–₁₇ (iáko w oney ſkrzyni nie // była rzécż przednieyſßa / iedno // tablice zakonu / aby tak wnętrz // w ſercu moim nie była inßa // myśl ani chuć / iedno ku twemu // naświętßemu zakonowi 125₂₂–₁₂₆₅). The syntactic structure of the quoted sentence depends on the original. However, Kathechisme also contains preposed comparative clauses that are independent of the original; these usually have no counterparts in the Polish catechism of Ledesma, e.g.: kaip’ pirmas // Adómas tėwas mū́ſų / át- // nēſe mū́mus paſkadinimą // per parágáwimą waiſéus // mędžio vźdrauto / teip’ // antras Adómas Jefus Chri- // ſtus / átnēſe mū́mus iźgá- // nimą / per mędźią kríźėus // ßwęto 35₈–₁₆. Only one instance of an interposed comparative clause of quality was found in the Sammelband. parative clauses of proportion) are described as indicating a comparison of the degree of intensity of different actions or phenomena (Ambrazas 1997: 750). 6 Clauses linked by the compound conjunction as soon as express a temporal boundary meaning (see Judentis, Pajedienė 2005: 60–61). 26 | A R T Ū R A S J U D Ž E N T I S, J Ū R A T Ė P A J E D I E N E It is used in the Trumpas Bude: Eimi [...] as having shed the true righteousness, // in order that you might make me // righteous 15112–17. (I [...] go as a sinner to the [source of] righteousness, // so that you may deign to make // me righteous 11216–19). Correlative words are used not only with prepositional (as in case 358–16), but also with postpositional quality comparative clauses (admittedly, there are few such instances in the Katechisme), for example: thus God will treat us // as we will treat // others 5419–21 (the Lord God will deal with us, // as we deal with // them 346–9). In Daukša’s quoted sentence, the correlative occupies a different position than in the original; moreover, it is accompanied by the particle *ir* (‘and’), attached to the connective, which has no equivalent in the original. In the Trumpas Bude, as many as a third of all postpositional quality comparative clauses have a correlative word, for example: one should love one’s neighbors // as one would wish // to be loved 12818–20 (love one’s neighbors // as one would wish to be // loved 928–10). A correlative immediately preceding the connective may form a functional unit with it—a complex connective; compare: Both together must preserve peace, unity, faith, love, as the Lord Christ does with his church 7019–103₂ (both together must preserve // peace, unity, faith, love, just as the Lord // Christ does with his church 707–10). The boundaries between the categories of quality and quantity are not clear-cut; some adverbial clauses with the connective kaip (‘as’) can also express comparison with respect to QUANTITY; compare: some still think // that they never confess // as fully // as they ought 11117–112 (some still think for this // reason, that they do not confess // as perfectly as // they ought 782–6). The specialized connective for quantity comparison kiek (‘as much as’) is used in only one comparative sentence in the Katechismo (note that the Polish equivalent of this sentence in Ledesma’s catechism uses a finite verb form): not // to read indecent books, not to utter // words, nor sing shameful songs, as much // as possible 8512–16 (not to read indecent // books, nor speak words, nor // sing indecent songs, nor listen // to them, as far as possible 5420–55₁). M. Daukšos Katekizmo (1595) lyginamieji sakiniai | 27 4.2. Only one comparative sentence of relation was found in the convolute7. Its connective kuo (the original uses the archaic form im of the connective) correlates8 with the correlative element tuo: Though I am not worthy—// finis / the more honorable you // shall become 1502–4. (Abowiem im ia ie- // ßtem niegodnieyßy / tym ty // chwalebnieyßy zoßtánieß 1115–7.) 5. GOVERNED COMPARATIVE SENTENCES9 are also heterogeneous in terms of the nature of comparison. Some express comparison of the quantity (or degree) of a property10, while in others the property as a whole is compared with the property expressed by the main clause. Daukša uses degree comparative sentences with the conjunction neg. They correspond to Polish comparative sentences with the conjunction niżli, cf.: you can forgive more // than I can forgive 1379–11 (więcey // ty możesz odpuścić / niżli ię ia // mogę dopuścić 9918–20.) The connective nekaip is used with property comparatives. In the original, as with degree comparatives, these correspond to sentences with the conjunction niżli, cf.: we must rather die // than offend [God] 7012–13 (ráčęy vmrgęć ma- // my niżli go obrázić 4314–15.) Comparative sentences of relation are also abundant in Daukša’s Postilė (see Czesław Kudzinowski’s index, 1977 (vol. 1): 354; 1977 (vol. 2): 316). There, Polish sentences with the correlated connective im... tym correspond to Lithuanian sentences with kuo... tuo. For example, the sentence in Wujek’s Postilė im fie kościół więcej na nabożeństwo gotuie/ tym więcej świat Isaleie y blążnuie is translated as follows: kū Ba=źnícza daugéus ant nôbáźnumo zopótijęs/ tū didżéus pãfaulus fêucźę ir ßu –tie, 10238–39. For discussion of the im... tym comparative constructions in Old Polish, see Klemensiewicz et al. (1955: 479–480). For English correlative comparative constructions, their closest grammatical counterparts, and their range of meanings, see Culicover, Jackendoff (2005: 500ff.). V. Ambrazas calls these contrast comparatives, cf.: “Contrast comparative sentences denote a difference between the actions and phenomena being compared. The subordinate clauses of these sentences, introduced by the conjunctions negu, nekaip, kaip, are linked to comparative adjectives, adverbs, or pronouns indicating difference in the main clauses.” (Ambrazas 1971: 173). Loreta Semėnienė’s study shows that “the valency property of comparative and superlative adjective forms—their ability to take comparative constructions [...] is characteristic not of the adjective as a particular part of speech, but only of the morphological category of degree, which includes adverbs as well as adjectives” (Semėnienė 2002: 142). John M. Anderson (2004: 126) also draws attention to the relationship between the structure of comparative constructions and verb valency. Vladimir Plungian links the emergence of a comparative marker to the need for a second argument: the second argument is needed to reveal a property of the main argument or its intensity (Plungian 2003: 212). For more on assigning comparative sentences governed by a degree marker to the adverbial clause type, and on why the morphological class of the governing word is irrelevant in determining the syntactic category of comparative sentences, see Holvoet, Judžentis (2003: 149ff.). 28 | A R T Ū R A S J U D Ž E N T I S, J Ū R A T Ė P A J E D I E N Ė In sentences of the latter type, the contrast between comparative features is pronounced. These sentences are close to adversative coordinate sentences, as is also shown by the Polish equivalent of the comparative sentence, with the coordinating word a niżli, which exhibits not only semantic but also syntactic features of comparative and adversative sentences; cf.: the sins of // righteous people // [...] are forgiven more readily // for the remission of good things // (whose knowledge is more difficult) // than for the remission of evil 1136–15 (grzechy lu- // dži sprawiedliwych / [...] lą rychley // z odpułsćenia rzeczy do- // brey (ktorych wiado- // mość przytrudnieyßym) // á niżli z odpułsćenia złey 794–12). Only one sentence in Katechizmo does not conform to the established distribution of conjunctions according to degree and feature in comparative sentences: a sentence with the conjunction neg, in which the verb bevelyti11 serves as the criterion of comparison. This sentence is close to those with nekaip (see the sentence quoted above, no. 7012–13); cf.: it is possible to die without recognizing any sin 283–5. The usual position of the criterion of comparison in complex comparative sentences is before the standard. When the standard of comparison precedes the object, the criterion may be placed before both of them; cf.: Before beginning to confess one’s sins, one must be guilty of these four things 11917–19 (Pierwey niż pocznie powiadáć // grzechy swoje / ma się dać winien z tych // czterech rzeczy 8413–15). The quoted sentence is the only instance in Daukša’s Katekizme in which the criterion of comparison is expressed by the adverb pirm, which immediately precedes the conjunction neg. It is considered a complex comparative sentence because of its semantic relations and their expression: two predicates are compared with respect to time12. The subordinate comparative clause marking the standard of comparison 11 Although Katekizme bevelyt is used only once, this Slavic-origin verb (Skardžius [1931] 1998. 293, Fraenkel 1965: 1219) occurs fairly frequently in the Postilėje. There, the verb governs comparative constructions linked by the conjunction negu; in the Polish text of Wujek’s Postilės, these correspond to sentences with the verb woleć (“to prefer, give preference to, be more inclined to,” Vaicekauskaitė 1979: 877), e.g.: bewėliji kakłą dūt/ nég atfót’ nūg W. sawo 34440 (woliś gardło dać/ niżli odtąpić od Pana swego). Comparative sentences with forms of the verb bevelyti are also used in Konstantinas Sirvydas’s Punktuose Sakymų (the search for comparative sentences was conducted using the concordance of Sirvydas’s Punktų Sakymų, compiled at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language under the “1996–2005 Programme for the Use and Development of the State Language of the Republic of Lithuania”), e.g.: Kas tádu linkiáfiu tų žodžių / bewelida = mas tilet / negi niekus kal=bet / Śwentay daro (kto te=dy łtrzęge się tych flower / wo = łąć milczeć/ á niż frałski mo = wić świetobliwie czyni) PSII 551–2; beweliia badu kif / ir fun = kiey wárgt / negi iż fwetimu runku penukßło tikot (wołą głod cierpieć/ y ciężko nę = dźować/ á niż z cudzych rąk pokarmu czekać) PSII 10316–18. 12 Anelli Lieko recognizes the connection between comparative and temporal sentences: “Comparative sentences have a natural link […] with temporal sentences, the times of events can be compared as well as their M. Daukšos Katekizmo (1595) lyginamieji sakiniai | 29 The sentence is embedded in the main clause and is governed by the criterion of comparison13. The order of the clauses in the complex sentence corresponds to that of the Polish sentence, while the short conjunction form neg corresponds to the original niż14. Another interpretation of this complex sentence is also possible: rather than treating pirm neg as a compound conjunction introducing a subordinate temporal clause15. Such an interpretation would also be supported by punctuation identical to that of the original, the immediate sentence context16, and the use of complex subordinate sentences with pirm neg in Daukša’s Postil17. Eduardas Hermannas (1912: 34–35)18, Jonas Jablonskis (1957: 510–511), Leonardas Drotvinas (1968)19, and Jonas Palionis (1967: 202) classified sentences with pirm neg as temporal rather than comparative. properties.“ (Lieko 1992. 223). 13 P. V. Ambrazas’s description of similar sentences: “Differences in the manner of an action are expressed by sentences whose subordinate clause is associated with various adverbs in the comparative degree, such as kitai, purma, and so on, which characterize the manner of the action. The subordinate clause follows immediately after the adverb, and less often after other words characterized by that adverb.” (Ambrazas 1971: 174). 14 In Jaroslav Bauer’s view, the Old Czech než derives from a negation and gradually became a temporal conjunction (Bauer 1972: 227). The meaning of the Czech connective niž also changed over time. niž acquired a temporal meaning in comparative constructions in which this conjunction followed the comparative dréve or the adverb prvé (Bauer 1972: 448); for comparison, here is a sentence from Daukša’s Postil with neg, used to express temporal relations, although the original has the adverb perwey niž: Šia naktį / neg gaidis du kartų pragis / tris kartus manęs vßgßsies 148 (džiš tey nocÿ / pierwey nižli dwákróč kur źápoie/ trzykróč fįe mnie źáprzylß). 15 Aprašant Daukšos Katekizmo laiko sakinius (Judžentis, Pajėdiene 2005) šis sakinys nebuvo paminėtas, nes dviejų gramatinių interpretacijų galimybę patogiau aptarti vienoje vietoje, tą vietą pasirenkant ties dažniau vartojamu jungiamuoju žodžiu ir nemėginant spręsti, kuris semantinis tarp propozicijų egzistavancių ryšio aspektas – lyginimas ar laiko santykis – yra svarbesnis (apie netiesioginį ar neišreikštą lyginimą bet kokio pobūdžio teiginiuose plg. Lyons 1993: 274tt). Lyginti du veiksmus reiškia lyginti jų išsidėstymą tam tikroje (pavyzdžiui, laiko) skalėje (plg. Fauconnier 2003: 137). 16 On page 119 of Daukša’s Katekizmas, the new topic Mokstas Jžpąžinimo (Náuká Spowiadánia) begins with a subordinate participial temporal clause, which ends with a full stop (cf.: A btiòjes Jžpąžinimą wiſ-//[g]adienį […]). The sentence under discussion, no. 119, beginning with a capital letter and containing pirm neg, is attached to it. Thus, temporal adjuncts with different grammatical structures occur one after another, the second specifying the first. 17 Most (80%) of the sentences in Daukša’s Postil feature the compound use of pirm neg: in some of them, the clause order and punctuation might appear to allow pirm to be assigned to the subordinate clause, for example: teįstremi weliną įžg širdų fawu / pirm’ neg patis bus imęti ing tamſibes wifſutnes 507–508 (dybata 3 ſerc / woch wyzucią / pierwey nižli ſámi bedą wyrzuceni w zewnetrze ciemności), Praſłik’ manė ko nôris idánt táw padaríc30/ pirm’ neg bûfiu ûmtas nûg tawęs DP 236 (Pros odemne co chceſ bymći vçžynit / pierwey niż bedę wzięt od ciebie). In some of them, punctuation separates the adjacent pirm and neg, for example: vžėk pirm’ neg numirs lūnūs mánas DP 355(2) (sſtap pierwey / niżli umrze łyn moy). 18 That Hermann regarded sentences linked by the conjunction pirm neg as temporal adjunct clauses is evident from how he presents them (separately from sentences with neg) and from his German translation; cf.: “Bevor man beginnt, seine Sünden zu nennen, soll man sich wegen folgender vier Dinge für schuldig erklären” (Hermann 1912: 34–35). In another instance (writing about Bretkūnas’s Postil), Hermann associates the compound use of pirm neg with the meaning of the German conjunction ehe (ibid., 29). In the summary table of connective research, pirm neg is entered under temporal meaning (Hermann 1912). 19 In Drotvinas’s view, pirm neg (and its variants pirma neg, purm neig...) are subordinating conjunctions used in Old Lithuanian writings to connect subordinate temporal clauses (1968a, 1968b. 89). Drotvinas notes that these “special temporal conjunctions […] are not used entirely 30 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS, JŪRATĖ PAJEDIENĖ 6. CONCLUSIONS. The comparative sentences in M. Daukša’s Catechism use the same connecting words as contemporary Lithuanian. In the Katechisme and Trumpas Budas, attributive comparative sentences of quality are used with the connecting word kaip. A comparative sentence of quantity with the connecting word kiek occurs only in the Katechisme, while a comparative sentence of relation with the correlative connecting word kuo occurs only in the Trumpas Budas. Comparative sentences governed by a verb and expressing comparison in degree of property, with the conjunction neg, occur only in the section of the Katechismo that has no Polish equivalent, and in the Trumpas Budas. Comparative sentences of the same syntactic type with the connecting word nekaip occur in the Katechisme and in the preface to the Trumpas Budas. They compare predicates. A comparative sentence governed by the verb bevelyt, with the conjunction neg, occurs in a section of the text independent of the Polish original and probably reflects the authentic usage of this type of sentence. The syntactic structure of comparative sentences, together with other features of complex-sentence structure, supports the view already emerging in earlier studies that the Katechismas and the Trumpas Budas should be regarded as separate texts, with distinct relationships to their originals and their own syntactic structures. Considered separately, the text of the Katekizmo is heterogeneous, consisting of at least several distinct parts: a preface, text with a Polish original, and text without a Polish equivalent. ABBREVIATIONS DP – Mikalojaus Daukšos 1599 metų POSTILĖ ir jos šaltiniai. Edited by Jonas Palionis, Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2001. PS – [Konstantinas Sirvydas] PVNKTY KAZAN od Adwentu áž do Połtu, Litewskim językiem, z wytłumaczeniem ná Polskie PRZEZ Księdza KONSTANTEGO SZYRWIDA / Theologá Societatis IESV / Z DOZWOLENIEM STARSZYCH wydáne. W WILNIE W Drukárni Akademiey Societatis Iesus Roku M.DC.XXIX. (Naudotasi fotografuotiniu leidimu: Franz SPECHT, Szyrwids Punktay sakimu, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929) LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, V. 1971: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos lyginamųjų sakinių sandara. Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai, A serija, 2 (36), 161–177. AMBRAZAS, V. 1976: Prijungiamieji sakiniai. In: Ulvydas, K., red., 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3. Sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas, 789–916. AMBRAZAS, V. 1994a: Išplėstinis sakinys. In: Ambrazas, V., red., Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 625–637. AMBRAZAS, V. 1994b: Prijungiamieji sakiniai. In: Ambrazas, V., red., Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 659–696. nuosekliai“, nes „tas pats veiksmų laiko santykis įvairiuose paminkluose (arba net ir tame pačiame paminkle) yra reiškiamas įvairiomis prijungimo priemonėmis“(1968b: 95); be to, „pagrindinis […] komponentas purm gali būti ir pagrindiniame sakinyje, o antrasis komponentas neg, tarsi pirmojo koreliatas – šalutiniame“ (ten pat). Ir iš tiesų, veiksmo išsidėstymas laiko ašyje išlieka akivaizdus ir sakiniuose, kuriuose prieveiksmis purm ir jungtukas neg vartojami atskirai, tačiau tokiais atvejais labiau išryškėja lyginimo reikšmė. Drotyvinas taip pat nustatė, kad pagal lenkiškų jungiamųjų žodžių pierwiej niz, pierwiej niżeli modelį sudarytas jungiamasis žodis purm neg vartojamas dažniau (1968b: 97) nei atsiėtas jungtukas neg ir prieveiksmis purm. Kaip jau buvo minėta, Daukšos Postilėje samplaikinė purm neg vartosena sudaro keturis penktadalius visų atvejų. M. Daukšos Katekizmo (1595) lyginamieji sakiniai | 31 Ambrazas, V. 1997: Comparative clauses. In: Ambrazas, V., red., Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 748–751. Anderson, J. M. 2004 [1997]: A notional theory of syntactic categories, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Balkevičius, J 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Bauer, J. 1972: Syntactica Slavica. Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyně. Culicover, P. W., Jackendoff, R. 2005: Simpler Syntax. Oxford: University Press. Drotvinas, L 1968a: Sudėtinės prijungiamosios laiko konstrukcijos senuosiuose lietuvių kalbos raštuose. Kalbotyra 19, 67–88. Drotvinas, L 1968b: Laiko aplinkybės šalutinių sakinių prijungimo priemonės senuosiuose lietuvių kalbos raštuose. Kalbotyra 19, 89–98. Fauconnier, G., 2003 [1985]: Mental spaces. Cambridge: University Press. Fraenkel, E. 1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Band II Heidelberg. Winter, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht. Hermann, E. 1912: Über die Entwicklung der litauischen Konjunktionalsätze. Jena: Frommansche Buchdruckerei. Holvoet, A., Judžentis, A. 2003: Sudėtinio prijungiamojo sakinio aprašymo pagrindai. In: Holvoet, Judžentis, red., 2003, 115–172. Holvoet, A., Judžentis, A., red., 2003: Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Jablonskis, J. 1911/1957: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Cituojama pagal: Rinktiniai raštai I. Sudarė J Palionis. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 435–549. Jakštienė, V., Palionis, J., par., 1995: Mikalojaus Daukšos 1595 metų Katekizmas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Judžentis, A. 1995: Senosios lietuvių kalbos lyginamosios konstrukcijos. Daktaro disertacija, Vilnius. Judžentis, A., Pajėdienė, J. 2001: Mikalojaus Daukšos Katekizmo (1595) sudėtiniai sujungiamieji sakiniai. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 45, 63–92 Judžentis, A., Pajėdienė, J. 2005: Mikalojaus Daukšos Katekizmo (1595) sudėtiniai prijungiamieji vietos ir laiko sakiniai. Baltu Filologija 14 (1), 53–65. Klemensiewicz, Z., Lehr–Spławiński, T., Urbańczyk, S. 1955: Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe Kudzinowski, Cz. 1977: Indeks-słownik do „Daukšos Postilė“ I (A–N), II (O–Ž), Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. Lieko, A. 1992: The Development of Complex sentences. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Lyons, J. 1993: Semantics, Vol. 1, Cambridge: University Press. Michelini, G. 2000: Daukšos Katekizmo šaltinių klausimai. Baltistica 34 (2), 259–261. Michelini, G. 2001: Itališkas Ledesmos Katechismo Dottrina Christiana: Daukšos panaudoto lenkiško teksto šaltinis. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 44, 227–250. Morkūnas, K., par., 1999: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Palionis, J. 1967: Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI–XVII a. Vilnius: Mintis. Plungian, V. A. 2003: Общая морфология. Москва: УРСС. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. 1972: A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman Group Semenienė, L. 2002: Aukštesniojo ir aukščiausiojo laipsnio būdvardžių valentingumas. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 46, 131–144. Skardžius, Pr. 1998 [1931]: Rinktiniai raštai 4 Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Vaitkevičiūtė, V. 1979: Lenkų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. Artūras Judžentis Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lietuva Jūratė Pajėdienė Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lietuva