Mažmožiai 7–8

PASTABOS 161 The search must continue, and the confrontation of ideas and concepts will undoubtedly one day make it possible to formulate a theory of syntactic relations better than the one formulated by SRT. Axel Holvoet Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lietuva Received 2005 05 13 TRIVIA 7 We have known and been taught for a long time that the sonorant n allophone ŋ is soft only before k’ (this was investigated by Prof. Aleksas Girdenis (Kalbotyra 48–49 (1), pp. 165–167), presented by the author of these lines in the Lietuvių kalbos tarties žodynas (2001), and this is how it is pronounced throughout Lithuania (some Southern Aukštaitians, the so-called Dzūkians, change it to n under Slavic influence). Dabar žurnale Lituanistica (2004, 4 (20)) pasirodė (po Vilniaus pedagoginio universiteto mokslininkų darbų) Arimanto Raškinio, Gailiaus Raškinio, Astos Kazlauskienės straipsnis „Lietuvių bendrinės šnekamosios kalbos garsų fondo kūrimo principai“ (p. 53–62). Jame teigiama, turbūt pagal prof. Antaną Pakerį (kaip rodo prof. A. Girdenio minimas straipsnis), kad bendrinėje kalboje turi būti tariama aŋ’ks’t’i, taŋ’km’ė, aŋ’kš’t’is (p. 56), o paprastai visur lietuvių tariama aŋks’t’i, taŋkm’ė, a.ŋkš’t’is ir pan. Tai neįtikinamas siūlymas ir neigiamas dalykas (gal tame straipsnyje nereikėjo keisti ir daiktavardžių su priesaga -ybė priegaidės – tikimybė (p. 61) = tikimybė). Through its students, injustice also spreads from VPU to LKI: the important publication Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija (2004) gives luŋ’.kt’ “to bend” (Širvintiškiai) (p. 162), aŋ’k’š’č’au (Pākražantis) (p. 215), deŋ’.kt’ (p. 18—the theoretical section). They even go against the book’s consultant, Prof. Habil. Dr. A. Girdenis! There is even bė’kt’ (p. 62). And those are the Šiauliai dialect speakers... TRIVIA 8 In northern Samogitia (all Dounininkai, northern Dūnininkai, the so-called Varniškiai, and northern Donininkai—from Saūgai northward), stress is retracted from all short and circumflex endings to the beginning of the word (universal stress retraction). In these dialects, stress can also fall on the preposition of an inflected word (this was noted by Jonas Jablonskis while editing Antanas Juška’s dictionary). Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimų volume three (1960) (pp. 62–63) discusses this phenomenon in Samogitian—in the Kuršėnai, Papilė, Kaunatava, Raudėnai, and other dialects; similar phenomena in the Kalnėlis dialect (P. Kniūkšta), Laukuva (V. Grinaveckis), and even the western Aukštaitian Šakyna dialect (A. Jonitytė) were reported; I myself recorded the pronunciation vā-re aŋ darbu· near Šiupylai, not far from Gruzdžiai. Many dialectologists believed this, especially Acad. Zigmas Zinkevičius, one of the authors of the first Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija. Now the dialectologist Aleksas Girdenis and his student Dr. Lina Muriniene discuss this question at considerable length in their article “The Specific Features of Stress Retraction onto a Proclitic in the Eastern Northern Samogitian Dialect” (Baltistica 36 (1), 2001, pp. 87–102). The problem, which has been under discussion since 1960, is examined here very persuasively, with examples transcribed from various recordings; even its frequency is specified, 162 | P A S T A B O S More varied shifts are found in the Akmenė, Klykoliai, Papilė, Vegeriai, and Tirkšliai dialects (the abbreviation Vg (pp. 92–93) would have been Vaiguva, but this phenomenon does not occur there—there must be some mistake). In most places, stress is generally not retracted from a modifier, and sometimes not from a short ending either (but puo žemaičiùs Rdn, Trš, Šiaudinė near Pp; puo agl’ík’ės Krš, etc.). Šiek tiek pavyzdžių pateikta naujojoje Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatijoje (2004): Darbėnuose ė(š) šėrdė ~ iš širdie (transponuota iš širdie); ėš jėgà (transponuota iš jėgai); ar ne ėš jie-gà(~ iš jėgai) – negi iš tvirtapradės galūnės galėtų kirtį šitaip atitraukti! Tai nelaukta, nes susiję su iškil ia mokslininko kalbininko, konsultavusio šį leidinį, asmenybe. Vytautas Vitkauskas Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lietuva Received 2005 05 23 “EMPTY PLACE” IS A METHODOLOGICALLY VULNERABLE CONCEPT1 In his response, Vytautas Ambrazas, discussing my views on the so-called zero copula, argues in Can an empty place mean anything? (Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 50, 136–138) that my “logical claims are correct, but they do not at all contradict the concept of zero presented in the Grammar” (p. 136), since there “zero is regarded as a methodological concept that helps determine when the absence of a particular marker has a defined grammatical function” (p. 137). If zero (or an empty place) belongs to methodology, then it should be used as it is customary in other sciences—“unburdened” by semantics. I myself do not object to using zero as a purely technical device (cf. the explanation of vowel alternation, where the term zero grade of that alternation is used). Nor do I object to the term empty place, since, for example, formal grammar theory uses an empty (base-element) string, whose symbol E is rendered as ‘ ’.² I object only to attributing meaning to an empty place, since grammars of this kind are set apart from all empirical sciences (I cannot regard grammatical facts as mere components of the psyche, because linguistics is not a branch of psychology for me). In presenting my reasoning about the so-called zero copula, I have already shown how a logical contradiction arises: a meaning that is not communicated by any text is ignored, while an additional meaning is assigned to the text (through overinterpretation). I think this often happens because 1 When I found the entry Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedijoje, published in 1999, Nulinis kalbos elementas (p. 441), and, after giving it careful thought, realized that I could not agree with most of its claims, I decided to set out my reasoning in three texts within a short time: (i) on the so-called zero copula, (ii) on so-called zero endings, and (iii) on so-called nominative sentences (such as, for example, Žiema ‘Winter’), to which some also attribute the zero expression of the verb būti ‘to be’. Only after that would my full view of “zero” language elements become clear, and only then did I expect to take part in a discussion, should anyone disagree with my reasoning. But after I published my thoughts on the so-called zero copula (Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 48, 177–184), various misfortunes completely interrupted my reflections, and in the meantime I received Vytautas Ambrazas’s polemical response. Therefore, temporarily setting aside my earlier plan, I am compelled to enter the discussion. I tell readers of this text that I am reserving some arguments about zero language elements for later, because I hope to write about zero endings and so-called nominative sentences as well. 2 Гросс, М., Лантен, А., Теория формальных грамматик, Москва, 1971, 15.