Žodžių daryba rankraštinėje Kazimiero Kristupo Daukšos lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA 2003, pp. 63–102 Kazimieras Kristupas Daukša's manuscript grammar, dating from the first half of the 19th century, Vilniaus universitetas is the earliest Lithuanian grammar written in Lithuanian. This makes it an important source for investigations into the history of grammar and grammatical terminology, and a testimony to the theoretical achievements of the science of language in Dauksa’s times. Among other pre-Schleicherian grammars of Lithuanian (and other languages) it stands out by its exhaustive and theoretically sound treatment of word formation, which is given more prominence than in earlier grammars. Compounding and derivation are already distinguished and dealt with in separate sections. Dauksa’s treatment of word formation can therefore be viewed as an autonomous part of the grammar, though its place in the grammatical system is not yet clearly defined. 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1.1. Grammar of Lesser Lithuania 1.1.1. In the first grammar of the Lithuanian language, there is already a discussion of daryba in addition to word substitution. In Daniel Klein's Grammatica Litvanica, the noun and verb sections contain the following sections on the form: De nominis specie et figura (On the form and figure of the noun) (Klein 1653: 64-69) and De verbi specie et figura (On the form and figure of the verb) (Klein 1653: 129-131). There is no system of verbs, only individual cases of prepositional verbs are mentioned, one after the other. It explains that nouns are primary and derivative, that they are made from nouns and from other parts of the language. Four types of derivative nouns are made from nouns: adjectives —tėvainis (: father), namiškis (: house), miesčionis (: city), laukininkas (: field), karaliaučionis (: King); first names —Adamaitis (: Adomas), klebonaitis (: klebonas); minors —senelis (: ponas), žmogutis (: žmogus), silpnas (: silpnas); pronouns —iron (: iron), truth (: right), beauty (: beautiful- ). Nouns are also made from other parts of the language —the ending -a and the suffix -imas are derived from verbs: valdžia (: valdau)', pabaiga (: pabaigiu); admonition, admonition, admonition. There are several variants of the -im suffix. In addition, the adjectives —šventas (: švenčiu), sveikas (: sveikas) — are made from verbs. In Latin grammar, the first person of the present tense is considered the basic form in old grammar. The presentation of examples in this work varies somewhat because, in order to maintain authenticity, the reference words are not given where they were not in the original. 64 | ANTANAS SMETONA (: greetings)*. It is also known as "The Closest I've Ever Been" or "The Closest I've Ever Been". The structure of the verb construction unit is also similar, verbs are primary and derivative — klausinėju (: klausau)- *. There are three kinds of them: beginner (I begin to die — merdmi, I begin to attack — atakėju), frequent (sendnéju, zapuolinėju, darbuliuoju, sakydavau, valgydavau)* and minor (eating, walking, asking, mirėju, girsnoju, girsnoju- ). It should be noted that Klein sometimes assigns the prepositional verbs to the primary ones (past participle), sometimes to the conjugated ones (present participle). In the section on verb formation, four types of compound verbs are mentioned: noun + verb (kargvedu, jookdarau), adverb + verb (gerdarau), preposition + verb (prieimi, sugrįžtu) and particle + verb (beesmi). There are no more word formation sections. But the subjects of action are also discussed in the sections on action of the verbs or grammatical forms. It should be noted that functional construction has been observed in the first grammar. In the section on participants (Klein 1653: 133) it is stated that some participants become nouns under certain conditions: when a verb is combined with a negative particle (Klein called an adverb) (unlearned, unheard), when the temporal meaning is lost (to be loved, to be beaten, to be taught) and when it is possible to compare and grading (learned — the most learned). The subjects of the functional verb are also the accolade of the tenant and the local (in flocks, by name, openly, silently, inside). In addition to the word formation, Klein distinguishes between alligatives and iliatives, which he does not consider to be vowels, but states that with such endings adverbs are made (manimp, namuosna, jūsump)- ." Klein's Compendium refers to the construction of minor forms and states that more about this can be read in grammar. The first grammar of the Lithuanian language presents the most general things. But this grammar is the first and is intended for practice and to show that even the "barbaric language" is not as bad as many have thought (see. Klein 1653: 14-15). 1.1.2. In the Compendium grammaticae lithvanicae of Sapūnas and Šulcas, the construction of Zodziai is also discussed in the sections on nouns and verbs. There are sections on form and figure —Figure 4 Species (Schultz 1997: 18). In this grammar the same types of action are mentioned — adjective (tėvainis, miesčionis, laukininkas- ), paternal (Adomaitis, Jokubaitis), minor (ponelis, vaikas, žmogutis, lietutis, dukteraitė) (Schultz 1997: 18—20). It talks about the construction of nouns from nouns (iron, fleshly, truth, courtesy, convenience), separately mentioning the suffix -imas Vedic and Vedic from other parts of the language. Also mentioned are participants that have become nouns (mokytas, pagirtas, pripratęs, 2 This operative connection of two-syllable adjectives with a verb is important even for modern grammar (see Paulauskienė 1994: 181-182). Actually, I'm asking. Klein, as can be seen from the examples, did not distinguish the grammatical iterative with -dava (of the present tense) from the operative iterative. The fact that the ancient verbs (which are historically not very old —see Zinkevičius 1966: 200-202) no longer belonged to the verb paradigm in Klein’s time is also shown by the fact that he considered their postpositional elements as adverbs, not as means of making verbs. Although, as we will see in the following, Kazimieras Kristupas Daukša, as a representative of the eastern Highlands, still included the iliative in the linguistic paradigm, he already considered the 0 elements -p, -pi as certain postpositional variants of the prepositions. WORD CONSTRUCTION IN K. K. NUMBER GRAMMATICS | 65 saved, having, seeing, believing) (Schultz 1997: 22). In addition, the phrases are often used to describe a variety of things, such as a variety of things that are different from each other (Schultz 1997: 23). Verb construction also differs little from Klein's grammar. Only here are four kinds of derived verbs identified (Schultz 1997: 41): frequent (attack, send), minor (pacify, walk, giggle, worship), permissive (laugh, attack) and intransitive (love, write, be love, be love). Composed verbs are discussed in more detail (Schultz 1997: 42): they are made by combining verbs with nouns (karavedu, jookdarau, dalytėju)- *, with adverbs (gierdarau, gandangau), with prepositions (prieimi, ateimi) and with particles (be eimi, be esmi). The participant section mentions the participant transformation into noun (Schultz 1997: 63-64) in the same way as Klein's grammar. In grammar, Sapūnas separated the past tense from word formation and was the first in the history of Lithuanian grammar to include it in the tense system as the second perfect. Only he did not make this time form from the communicative but from the first perfect, so he established two suffixes of the past tense: -davo (used to work) and -ydavo (used to say). He was a very good player, but he wasn't able to make the first goal, so he was replaced by a new starter, and he wasn't able to make the first goal. Furthermore, there was a lack of consistency: the communicative has three vowels before -ti: -é-, -y-, -0-, so Sappho, in order to be consistent, had to distinguish not two, but four forms of the past tense: -dava, -ydavo, -ėdavo and -odavo. Nevertheless, the separation of the past tense from word formation is an important theoretical observation, a discovery, which has been established in many Lithuanian grammar books and has survived in current both practical and scientific grammar books. 1.1.3. A more detailed description of word formation is given in Paul Friedrich Ruhig's Anfangsgriinde einer Littauischen Grammatick. Klein's grammar influenced later authors, even before August Schleicher, but it is possible that the greater focus on German grammar also led to his work. Initially, without any system, the descriptions of some parts of the language mention individual cases of action, especially conjugation. But the whole chapter is devoted to the Vedas (paragraphs 3). His minima nomina derivata —denominativa: patience (: patience), pots (: pot), drunkard (: drunk), iron (: iron); gentilia: examples surprisingly similar to Ostermeier's (see next paragraph); patronimica: Jokubaitis, Karalūnas; deminutive: brolužis, broliukas, brolytis, etc., etc. —The following vedic verbs are not quite clearly added here: weak, grieving, requesting, redeemer, adding, majority, mediator, opponent, first; and verba derivata —loop (: loop), worship (: honour), take advantage (: benefit), distance (: far), allocate (: divide). Of course, in all these examples there are many inaccuracies and a lack of understanding of the real working relationships. 1.1.4. Perhaps the most comprehensive description of word formation is found in Gottfried Ostermeyer's Neue littauische Grammatik. There are 12 paragraphs. Aiš5 Although both grammars distinguish between compound verbs, there are no such verbs now. LKZ,, 96 is recorded as gandary, but examples are given from old church books and writings of Antanas Baranauskas, and war lead it was already and in those days probably two words. 66 | ANTANAS SMETONA There are two distinct ways of making vedas — making vedas and striking them. The Vedic is already described quite consistently. First, the noun suffixes are listed (-astis, -estis, -ybe, -ėna, -ojis, -oje, -onas, -yčia, -ystė, -immas, -ummas, -inkas, -inne, -innis, -yne, -ykle, -ikas, -ėjas, -ėjis, -ėje, -onis, -one, -aikštis, -iškis, -iške, -alas, -alus, -unas, -uwas, -uwe, -gys, -lys, -wys, -orus, -žys, -ba, -džia, -kla, -we), then with examples it is explained from which parts of speech nouns are made: from nouns —knygininks (: knyga), from adjectives —plotis (: platus), from pronouns —saviškė (: save), from verbs —valdžia (: valdau), vagis (: vagiu), šėriks (: šėriau) —the present, past and future tense and conjugation of nouns are presented; adverbs —majority (: many), prepositions —space (: between). Similarly, the adjective is described — adjective suffixes are listed and examples of adjective construction from noun, adjective, pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, preposition are given. Ostermeyer does not use verb suffixes, but again gives examples of construction from nouns, adjectives, numerals (to unite), pronouns, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, and pronouns. Furthermore, the logic is slightly violated and a few more individual cases of construction are distinguished: deminutives of nouns, patronymic names (Adamaitis — Adam’s son), and then cognates (lietuvininks, vokėtis, tilžėnas, karaliaučionis, isrutiškis, klaipėdiškis, darkiemujis). The names of persons according to their place of residence (or origin) are repeated in the same way as in Rugi's grammar, some of which are from Klein's grammar. The next, smaller, chapter is about composition. Here the punctuaries are classified according to the second component, as in the present grammar, it is felt that the first defines, denotes the second: noun + noun, adjective + noun, pronoun + noun, adverb + noun (pussiaužiemis, pussiaukštis, neganda, negalė, nežinė), preposition + noun (posunis, įsunis, patevis, bedugnis, patvoris, pavasaris, priangis), adverb + adjective (negyws, nelab's)*. 1.2. Great Lithuanian Grammar 1.2.1. The grammars written and published in Greater Lithuania pay much less attention to word formation. In one of the most important grammars, Universitas Lingvarum Litvaniae (1737), there is nothing written about the construction at all (only the construction of forms is mentioned — degrees, adjective genus, tenses, etc.). Apparently, the works of Lesser Lithuania had no influence on this grammar. Sabaliauskas (1979: 21), whose authors are probably more influenced by the trends of German grammar. The influence of German grammar on the authors of Lesser Lithuania can also explain such a different approach to word formation. 1.2.2. In the 18th century there were no more grammars published in Greater Lithuania, so the grammars discussed below are from Daukša's contemporaries. Unfortunately, they do not give much more space to word making than their predecessors. In the Polish written by Juozas Čiuldas Krotkie pomysty o prawidtach grammatycznych jezyka żmudzkiego about the word making paraĮ In fact made of own, and own next to own made of itself. š Apparently, the particle called an adverb is ne. WORD CONSTRUCTION IN K. K. NUMBER GRAMMATICS | 67 Syta absolutely little. In the semantics of AiSkinantis noun only mazybiniy noun nests are presented (Čiulda 1993: 133). The absence of the perception of action here is shown by comparing minor nouns with stylistically negatively connoted nouns, which can also be indefinite in action (in Polish O imionach zgrubiatych i zdrobniatych), i.e. they are divided according to semantic nuances. In the following sections, construction is discussed only in the section on syntax (O Sktadni): word formation, preposition addition (also perceived as word formation) and suffix addition are compared to syntactic word joining and combining. The basis of the compound noun — the syntactic construction — may justify this approach, but here word formation is not perceived as a quite independent grammatical phenomenon. In this view, it is possible to see rather the embryos of modern functional grammar, because the following things are explained: we denote the time with the final and local nouns, we describe the object made of a certain material with the derivatives of the suffix -inis, we have the suffix -ystė to denote the whole. After all, even the title of the section on prepositional verbs emphasizes not action, but function —o slowach dokonanych “about verbs of the event' (Čiulda 1993: 191-197) —the formation of prepositional verbs is explained through function. Although it is in the section on syntax, word formation is perhaps best discussed in two sections: “On the formation of simple nouns from other simple nouns” and “On compound words” (O formowaniu się rzeczownikow prostych jednych od drugich; O wyrazach ztożonych) (Ciulda 1993: 191-193). The following examples are presented and briefly described and classified here: 1) whiteness, superiority; 2) the kingdom; 3) ąžuolas (the group nouns banda, būrys, krūva are also connected to it, although the first two are not vedic); 4) weaving; in the second section —(1) half-headed, black-backed, white-backed; 2) the world, the world, the world; 3) prankster, fireplace cloths, structure, earnings; 4) grey-tailed woodpecker, black-tailed woodpecker; 5) half-shepherd, half-dog. Examples show that a single classification basis and a systematic presentation of word formation in general are lacking. And yet these sections can already be considered as crafts of the science of making. 1.2.3. Another grammar of the time —also written in Polish by Kalixtas Kasakauskas (Kalixt Kossakowski) Grammatyka języka żmudzkiego... This grammar was published in 1832, so probably both Čiulda and Daukša could be read. In this grammar there is no word formation, only a few parts of word formation are mentioned, but they are presented in a scattered and insignificant way. For example, in the section on adverbs, the construction is mentioned, where it is explained that from adjectives adverbs are made —giarai (: giaras), didiey (: didis), gražiey (: gražus), and from them degrees of adverbs —giariaus (: giarai), gražiaus (: graZiey), gražiausiey (: gražiau). A little further, another group of adverb formations is distinguished, where it is stated that adverbs are made from nouns (and in fact they are made from noun adjectives) —lingviškai (: kalba), bitiškai (: bitė), poniiškai (: ponas); talkatively, pontifically, stoney, stoney (Kasakauskis 1832: 13-14). In the section on the gradation of adjectives, it is briefly explained how nominative forms are made (Kasakauskis 1832: 57-58), and in the sections on the classification of nouns and verbs, the following types of adjectives are identified: žodiey nesudiety — dedu, raszau (Kasakauskis 1832: 27), sudiety —sudedu, iraszau (Kasakauskis 1832: 28), sudietiny —draugmokitinis, medutekans; pirmutiny —tiews, dirwa; iszeywy —tiewiszkas, dirwinis (Kasakauskis 1832: 15). 68 | ANTANAS SMETONA 1.2.4. Another manuscript grammar of the first half of the 19th century by an unknown author is X. D. K. P. S. Prawidta Ięzyka Litewskiego Czyli Grammatyka Litewska. It only mentions the prepositional construction of the verb along with the paradigms of forms. The detailed description of the work (and other language matters) was deliberately avoided. The author of the grammar states:,,.- .I have no need to expand this booklet syklėmis; juk tyrinėjančiam šios mirusios (ar apleistos) kalbos literatūrą gausiai iškyla with those less necessary and unlimited wealth and beauty of the language, develops and most words, particularly affecting the mind, the effect and return; Let’s take for example the word I fear, I fear: gądaw, gądaws, Jssygadaw, pargadaw, nusygądaw, parsegądaw, parsegądynaw...” (X. D. K. P. S. 2002: 314). 2. PRESENTATION OF WORKS IN NUMBERS GRAMMATICS GENERAL OVERVIEW 2.1. in the grammar of Dauksha (hereinafter —DG) there are four sections specifically devoted to word formation: 1) On the formation of one part of the language from other parts (About the formation of one part of the language from another,- „,„-—written about conjugation (DG 209-211); 2) About compound words (Apie iSrejSk’- us sudetin’- us, „,,„) —written about punctual and prepositional words (DG 212-214); 3) About the preposition and the prefix (About the preposition “) — about the prepositional construction (DG 131-135); 4) On the formation of adverbs from adjectives and participles and on the gradation of jy (Apie taisimų prežod“ u iš pripultiniku ir vardžod- “'u ir apie ju žiengsn'- avimų,,„,,- ,) —written about one model of the formation of adverbs (with the formant -ai) (DG 174). 2.2. The chapter on DEMINUTIVES has four sub-sections: 1) about the deminutive forms (About tajsimy daiktiniku lapningu from daiktiniku abenu (paprastin'u) "); 2) about the construction of nouns (Apie taisimy daiktiniku iš kitu dal’u kalbos, “,”); 3) about the construction of adjectives (About the construction of adjectives from other parts of the language..- ); 4) about the construction of verbs (About the construction of words from other parts of the language,,- ,„). The section on the deminutives is perhaps the most comprehensive, they are classified, and the works are briefly discussed. However, there is also a group of adjectives with diminutive suffixes between the deminutive nouns. This is quite understandable, because in old grammar the noun and the adjective are often included in the same noun. In fact, the conjugation of minor nouns and adjectives can only be formally identified. Adjectives in diminutive form only denote a weaker amount of attribute than ordinary adjectives (e.g., gražučiukas, gražutėlis), and they only acquire the pleasure of adjective when used next to a deminutive noun. The adjective is always combined with the noun, so in fact deminutive adjectives do not mean a characteristic, but the minority or pleasant relationship of the thing that has that characteristic. The other subsections of the verb structure simply provide examples of the verb structures of the respective parts of the language, classified according to the basic parts of the language. There is no description of the meaning, only formal examples of the work are given. In the section on the construction of prepositional nouns, one inconsistency is noticeable — the construction of deminutives is repeated again, which is completely inappropriate in the 210/19 section on the construction of nouns from other parts of the language, because it is modificative. Such inconsistency of methodology did not allow to reveal a detailed system of word formation and semantic relationships between base words and derivatives. However, the idea of presenting derivatives according to the basis of the action is also quite valuable. The fact that we are talking about the prepositional construction of nouns from other parts of the language can be understood only from the examples. 2.3. COMPOSITE WORDS are not presented in a separate section of grammar, but according to the parts of the language and are not called compound, but compound (according to Polish zfożone). The grammar has three sub-sections: 1) about compound nouns (Apie dajktinikus sudetin'us 2) about compound adjectives (Apie pripultinikus sudetin'us,,, |); 3) about compound verbs (Apie Zod“ us sudetin'us,,,„). These subsections not only provide examples of construction, but also explain some aspects of the usage of compound words and indicate the type of construction to which the noun belongs. Unequally detailed descriptions of conjugations: conjugated nouns are described in the most detail, 0 verbs are only given as examples. As with other ancient grammar authors, Daukša also assigns prepositions to the punishments, i.e., he observes the provision that the prepositional word is made up of a preposition and an independent word. This is not an unexpected or unusual approach and has a rational basis, since prepositions and prepositions are undoubtedly related." Therefore, the identification of a certain part of the prefixation with the composition is basically acceptable for synchronic linguistics, because it is very clear that both prepositional nouns and adverbs have the same form of action — the ending (cf. prieš aušrą = priešaušris and grėblio kotas = grėbliakotis). Despite the fact that the prepositions are considered to be punctuations, it is still possible to say that the PREPOSITION is also spoken of separately in grammar. In the section dedicated to the preposition, the author considers the prepositions and the prepositions derived from them as part of the language, and therefore mentions the prepositional construction. This is due to the author's theoretical view of the parts of the language: the ancient tradition is followed, where the preposition and the prefix are called the same name because they are related and often the preposition (especially nouns) is part of the word, for example, pod stolu —pastalė. The author felt that this is the same. Finally, the prepositions of verbs are also prepositions, e.g. get out of..., get into... Naturally, it was understood that the preposition and the preposition are the same element, only one is free and the other has become a part of the word. However, such an attitude of the author of the grammar to the essence of the prefix and preposition in grammar leaves many contradictions: the prefix is written together with the word, that is, the part of speech is considered not only the word, but also the part of the word; prepositional words are considered as punches, but after all, any single element of ordinary punches should not be considered as a separate word, a separate part of speech; if prepositions are identified with prepositions derived from them, there should be some explanation for those prepositions that do not have prepositional counterparts. It is particularly difficult to understand why postpositional elements -p, -pi are also considered prepositions, although it is possible in historical grammar to combine prepositional and postpositional elements into one non-independent, prone to grow up with an independent word2122) Urbutis (1978: 284) states that prepositional composition is sometimes considered a type of composition in historical linguistics. This is also the case with Daukša and many of the grammars written before him, where only compound words are mentioned. Even nowadays, verb prepositions are classified into prepositions of adverbial and particulate origin (be-, te-, nebe-, tebe-), and that noun prepositions are clear prepositions, many researchers write not only in Lithuania, but also abroad. In addition to the above mentioned, there are also the following categories: 1994: 64. 70 | ANTANAS SMETONA džiu, class of elements. This DG section lists the prepositions, explains what they are according to the controlled syllable (a partial sheet of the five dedicated to this part of the language: DG 131-135), and everything else is for the prepositions. This section can therefore be regarded as a section of prepositional construction with an introduction on the origin of prepositions. Thus, ideas about prepositional construction can be found in the prepositional section, where prepositions, prepositions and enclitics of pronouns (all of them, in the term of the author of the grammar — pronouns) are divided into real and false, written with a capital and adjectives. The endings of postpositional pronouns -p, -pi (real pronouns) and prepositions (inverted pronouns) are considered to be affixes. Real prepositions have received little attention—they are simply divided according to the control of the different prepositions. The author of the grammar, although putting prepositions and prepositions into one section, emphasizes their fundamental difference: prepositions, having become part of the word, lose the ability to control the vowel (preposition aj prilipe)l'- aj ne, tikriejie ne, control prietik'ajs,,,,,). The following is the use of prepositions (adverbs of false pronouns) and the interpretation of the verb. Firstly, they are classified according to origin: the first group — same as the real ones, because they have absolute prepositional equivalents: až, ažu, in, i, z, nil, nu, po, pe,; prie, pro, su. „; the second group —to make variants of actual prepositions, in other words, prepositions: ap yr api — išejna from about; nu išejna iz ni; pa išejna iz po, par is peg; pra from pro, pri from prie, sun from SU 517397 third group —not made of anything and mean nothing alone, i.e. we would now say that they are prepositions of particle origin and otherwise do not have corresponding prepositions: at, ata, ato; už, uzu; be, tebe, nebe, <...> lienkisky preposition do, which Lietuvnikas pronounces da,... Then a large, but not named part of the explanation of the prepositional action, the spelling (and usage) of prepositions is given — almost four pages are devoted to this (DG 132-135). In the section About prepositions, we talk about all parts of speech that can have a prefix: nouns, verbs, and adjectives. In grammar, the explanation of a verb with one or more prepositions in most cases indicates from which part of the language it is made. This makes it difficult to distinguish which part of the speech belongs to which part of the speech. This confusion forces us to choose the following plan for the further description of prepositional construction: the basic description of prepositional construction will be presented in the section of prepositional verbs (because Daukša also mainly talks about verbs, and in general this form of construction is the most typical for verbs) (see 5.2.2), and in the sections of prepositional nouns (see 3.3.2) and adjectives (see 4.3.2) construction only mention the things characteristic of those parts of the language with references to the main section of prepositional construction (unfortunately, dėlinės darybos). this grammar, as recently mentioned, does not distinguish between prepositional and prepositional construction). The title of the chapter "On the taisimy prepositions" 'u from pripultniku and vardžod"- 'u and about their meaning,, shows that the making of degrees here is not yet separated from the making of words. It is not a part of the language, but rather a function of the language. In general, all parts of speech are divided into variable and unvariable, and accordingly the grammar consists of two large sections: About fixed parts of speech and About variable parts of speech; The first of the invariant parts is described by an adverb, and the description of the adverb’s construction is found in the section of the variable parts —perhaps because the title also mentions the gradation. In the section on adverbial construction, there are four cases of construction, but after a closer examination it becomes clear that there is only one case of actual construction of adverbs (with the formant -ai, see 6.1), and the other three groups of examples: construction of adjectives from adverbs (see 6.2), construction of adverbs of higher and superior degrees, and non-nomenal construction of the state form of an adjective. 2.6. Poorly DG described FINAL WORD CONSTRUCTION. The non-prepositional derivative structure of the endings is transferred to the section of compound words. In addition to the actual final form, there is a section on grammar, which describes the formation of feminine nouns and pronouns from masculine nouns, for example, anglė (: anglas). The section is titled On the making of feminine gender from masculine (On the making of taisim female gender from masculine). In fact, it is more about the conjugation of relatives, and one more thing about word formation will be discussed in the section on noun formation (see 3.4.1). 2.7. WORD CONSTRUCTION EXTRACTS can also be found in other sections of grammar, i.e. where teaching logic requires. Among those fragments of the work, we should first mention the quite detailed description of the work of verb forms in the introductory section of the paradigms of personification (DG 176-181). There are three subsections of verb forms according to the base of the verb – three basic verb forms. Among the verb forms there are also several derivatives of verb and noun suffixes. This is because the old grammar still does not fully distinguish between the forms of the verb and the forms of some prepositions. This can be understood by knowing how regularly, for example, derivatives of the suffix -imas (-ymas) are made from the verb. Such a regularity of the action apparently prevented the author of the grammar from not mentioning this particular case of action in the subsection of the phonetic section, where the spelling of the vowel i is explained in detail (DG 118-119). All the derivatives of these chapters are discussed in this work in the relevant parts of noun and verb prepositions. Thus, the word formation in DG is generally given more attention than in other grammars written in Greater Lithuania. On the other hand, the greater attention to the creation was not enough to break away from the understanding of the predecessors' creation. 3. CONSTRUCTION OF NOUNS 3.1. Adverbial nouns 3.1.1. The main focus is on the DG. The largest and most extensively described category of such nouns is DEMINUTIVES (prepositional minor nouns). This is the beginning of the description of the noun prepositional form, which has survived to this day, although the deminutives are stylistically connoted and not used in all styles. This is due to two factors: (a) their frequent use in colloquial language; and b) potential regularity of construction: from every noun, even with several suffixes, it is possible to make a deminutive (Ulvydas, ed., 1965: 253-288). The diminutives DG are divided into three types of verbs (the fourth type of verbs in grammar is adjective verbs with minor suffixes, discussed in the corresponding section on adjective verbs, see 4.1.2): 78 | ANTANAS SMETONA mis, the basis of which is probably that: “maybe, there is a grown-up particle -ai” (Zinkevičius 1966: 408). An even more vague example is given by kadžia. It can still be perceived as a noun. In the manuscript of Ambraziejus Kašarauskas, a citizen of Daukša, the following example is given: Kuri tat kadė! (LKZ, 44) — kade ‘time, hour’. And the transformation of kadė into kadžia in the eastern Highland dialects due to the mixing of the ė and ia stems is completely natural (Zinkevičius 1966: 226, 247) (also 3.1.4). However, the noun kadžia "time, hour" verb conjunction with the conjunction that is in fact wrong. The semantics of the conjunction does not allow the addition of noun construction means (adverbs- ), so it is not possible to make nouns from conjunctions: the suffix must change the lexical meaning, and the conjunction has no lexical meaning. Its function is grammatical. It is a morpheme of the sentence. 3.2. Composed nouns 3.2.1. The examples given in the section on the construction of compound nouns in grammar are perhaps the most commented by the author. Firstly, we discuss the compound nouns made from two nouns. The author of the grammar states that the basis of such a construction is the plural origin of one noun and another freely variable noun. It is not clear why the base form of the first compound noun is considered to be the plural origin, it is said that the plural origin ending -u should be changed to -a or dropped altogether. One thing is clear, that this avoids the interpretation of consonant stem changes, e.g. hund-foot. Changes in the second component of the compound noun and the choice of the compound word ending are not so smoothly explained: the masculine endings are changed to -is, and the ending of the consonant root nouns is changed to -enis. From the point of view of morphological division, this is not entirely accurate, but for practical teaching purposes it is quite convenient: ryt-met-is, mišk-a-žmog-is, galvij-piem-enis. There is no written record of the meeting. The author states that the ending of the feminine noun is changed to -ė: bal-puš-ė. The author sees such a change of endings only in puns of two nouns, and not always, because, as we can see below, the choice of ending does not coincide with the parent of the base word, e.g., ritme,is,,,, it darbimege,,,., —the second singular tense of both puns. Also quite dubious is the statement that if the base word of the relevant genus has the ending -is or -ė, it remains unchanged in the conjugation: wolka-žolė. This is only formally correct, because in fact we are dealing with the homonymy of morphemes that is usual in Lithuanian.' Almost all of the punches are indicated to which syllables they belong. After the description of the construction and the paradigm of punctuation change, the meanings of some punctuation and their base word combinations are also explained. The following examples are used: Ritme,tis (: Rito metas), Miškažmogis (: Miško žmogus), Galvijpieme,nis (: Gal'- 13 This theoretical inconsistency is not always fully understood even in modern linguistics, so it is worth explaining it separately. After all, it would be wrong to say that in the words ož-k-a, ei-k and Graž-k-a there is the same suffix — these are three different suffixes, only their form coincides. There are also completely different endings al-us (nom. sg. u stem) and vaik-us (acc. pl. a stem). The conclusion is that the endings žol-ė and vilkžol-ė are just as different as puš-is and balpuš-ė. Therefore, it is not possible to say that in the word vilkžolė the ending is unchanged. The word grass end means nom. s.g. ; of the word wolfgrass —nom. s.g. + action formant. WORD CONSTRUCTION IN K. K. DAUKŠA'S GRAMMATICS | 79 viju ėmuo), Vilkazole,, vilkZole, (: Vilko Zole,), Šilaže; me,, šilžeme, (: Silo Zemey,), Sunpedis, Suntakis (: Sunies pedas, Sunies takas), Balpuse, (: Balos pušis) and tajp tol avs... It is clear that the author chooses examples in such a way that it is possible to illustrate the relationship of the compound noun and the basic syntactic construction, i.e. it is noticeable that the basis of the construction is not random nouns, but only those that form a meaningful word žodžių junginį. (Aišku, ne visada galima išskaidyti dūrinį ir gauti tos pačios reikšmės combination: dviratis —tai ne du ratai; a camel is not a hump and a back; punching often semantically breaks away from the foundation, functions in the language as an independent word, acquires new and figurative meanings.) Many examples are given not in the same way, Oo explains how to split a compound word or what syntactic construction must match the punch. Here it is worth to quote the author of the grammar himself: Often compound nouns are expressed by two nouns: the first is used as the singular noun of the noun, and the second is alternated with nouns and numbers according to its noun,,,... In addition, the basic syntactic construction and the punch are not considered complete synonyms, there is a semantic difference: the compound word has more negative connotations, and the syntactic construction — more positive connotations: all in name, said in two names, means a little poshness (see Polish poszanowacz ‘to honor’), and if said in one name in a compound, then it means more paeica,,,.. 3.2.2. Furthermore, Daukša identifies a few more patterns of stumbling blocks, commenting on their construction and conjugation: šienapjutis, rug'apjutis, vasarojpjutis, mežlaveįžtis, „„conjugated as uncomposed words according to the seventh paradigm established in grammar — it is feminine. About stitches in the night,, we work,, night,. It has been said that the basis of the first elements is the abbreviated singular inessive, although it has just been said that the basis of the first punctual element is the plural progenitor (see 3.2.1). However, this is the only possible solution when the connecting vowels are not named. There is no clear distinction between these groups. The genus of nouns denoting inanimate objects is not motivated, so even now the genus of some of them is not established and varies in dialects. The grammar states that the gender of the punctuation is determined by the gender of the second base word (see 3.2.1). The examples, of course, are few, but if the feminine nouns sienapjutis, rug'apjutis, vasarojpjutis, mežlave,žtis are made from two nouns, it turns out that the established rule of choosing the ending -ė for feminine nouns is not followed. If we follow the rule that these punches are made from a noun and a verb, the choice of gender will not be motivated, but then the appearance of the suffix - becomes unclear. In general, such a variety of choice of relatives (or rather, of stems) is perfectly natural in today’s dialects (Zinkevičius 1966: 219), so this phenomenon was also alive in the middle-nineteenth-century eastern Highland dialects. 3.2.3. Separately described punchings, meaning names of persons: šienapjovis, šienpjuvis (: hay pjovėjas, pjovėjas); žmogažudis, žmogžudys (: žmogavs or žmon'u '*—By the way, the nouns vasarojpjūtis and vežtis /važtis are not recorded in the Lithuanian language dictionary. This means that the time is not counted (as in a time machine). Therefore meslaveztis | manure truck can also be a subject of analogous action. 80 | ANTANAS SMETONA murderer); downy, downy (: downy davies, duties); malkakirtis (: malku kirtejas, kirstojas); mesedis (: mesos edejas, estojas),- ,,,. Only the male forms are given. The grammar states that this type of punctuation is joined in the same way as two ordinary nouns, only that more components are dropped from the verb noun: what and how —unexplained. In fact, they can be puns with the second verb component: heap-cutter "who cuts the hay', murderer "who kills a man', bread-giver "who gives bread', etc. Haycutter, murderer, bread-bearer may have replaced basic components: žmogžudys (: to kill a person), but it is possible to assume that at the time when this type of punches were made, there was a different word order in the sentence: duondavis (: to give bread), or perhaps it was already made from a different construction: duonadavis (: bread-bearer; descriptive pronoun + verb noun) ‘the one who gives bread’. The latter idea seems more convincing — the second step from the verb, i.e. from the verb is made the name of the actor davėjas (: give), its meaning is further narrowed by the descriptive noun duonos davėjas, when making a punch, the suffix with the ending is rejected and duondavis is obtained. There are a lot of such words and this is exactly how Daukša sees their work. The presentation of some puns with and without the conjunctive vowel is likely to reflect the actual usage trends. Among the specific examples, heensiivuus —with the verb root vowel u (probably a long or semi-long vowel). LKZ,,, 750 examples are given only from scripts and western and southern Altay dialects, 0 from eastern Altay dialects are not given. Another example is mésédis ‘who eats meat’. Its structure is usual, but on the same page another punch made from the same base words is mentioned —mesiedas,,,,. It should be assumed that the time from Christmas to Easter is meant. In the narrow Panevėžys dialect (about Biržai) this ė transformation ie is lawful (LKŽ,,, 44). The different ending allows it to be distinguished from the personal name meésédis. The basic words of this group of puns are the Vedic adverbs -tojas and -ėjas. They are presented in the DG in the section on the construction from the basic verb forms, and in this work they are discussed in the section on adverbial nouns (see 3.1.8.). 3.2.4. The grammar separately describes the permutations with what are now called prefixoids and suffixoids — elements of compound words that, due to the regularity of their use, already resemble prepositions or suffixes, for example: pusrytis or laibgalis. The observation and grouping of these phenomena shows the grammatical insight of the author of the grammar. Separately discussed are the punctuations with half-, midand end-: pusrutis, pusbe,rnis, kuzyn, pusdienis, pus'žuSIS 4,3,» PUS @vnaktis, pus'avziemis, pus'avgave,nis, pus'avdienis,.. vidudienis, vidunaktis, viduvasaris, viduzZiemis, vidupievis (vidulavkis or vidulavke,"),,.,, drutgalis, lajbgalis- .» tvoragalis, tvorugalis,,,., sienojgalis,... The examples given with the démenis pusi and pusiauparodo (and the author of the grammar states this), that the basis of the phrase can be not only the noun puse, but also the adverbs pusi. Also in grammar, the verb meaning of this type of verb is stated: denotes half of the object named by the second accent —puse, rito, puse; bemno, „„„Undoubtedly, this is not a very accurate generalization, the real adverbial meaning of half-boy ‘not yetVIII The words vidulavkis and vidulavke are crossed out in the manuscript. 81 grown up to a certain age’, puszgsio — “about half of the thing said in the second démen”, kusin — “child of the father or mother’s sister or brother- ”, etc., etc. There are two other examples that were previously included in the section of compound adjectives, but were later deleted: pus'žmogis, pus'ponis,,. (composed adjectives with accent are discussed in 4.2.3). Their operative meaning is much more generalized, less variable, and perhaps that is why the variety of the meanings of the corresponding compound nouns was not observed. Also note the adjectives made from a semi-noun, because they are very much conjugated today —see 4.2.3 for more details. DG already shows the distinct adverbial meaning of the punctuation marks: vidudienis, vidunaktis, vidusavaris, vidužiemis means "the middle of the day, night, summer, winter", i.e. 'the middle of the time period indicated by the second punctuation mark'. This semantic group does not include the middle meadow — it means the meadows between the soil e„sūnnt- “"s,,.„„The same meaning is described in the dictionary: „between the fields or soils being meadow“ (LKZ, 96). It should be noted that the author of the grammar of this group of punch words has deleted the medial and medial. And indeed, the middle space does not have the meaning of "being between something". Dūriniai with the root -gal form two groups, separated by the first element of the dūriniai - adjective or noun. Examples of adjective punches are: drūtgalis and laibgalis. The grammar says that not from every adjective you can make such stitches, but only from the adjective aržvalgingo? (wzglednego), “From just two examples it is difficult to say what the author meant, because it is clear that he himself doubted about the term artzglednegos, so he even provided the Polish equivalent. Today we perceive this Polish term as relative (Vaitkevičiūtė 1994: 924). Thus, Daukša stated that only relative adjectives are used to make puns with galus. Of course, all relatives are not made (e.g., beautiful + end, fast + end are not combined), but the given examples do not deny this. In addition, the base compounds drutasaj galas, lajbasaj galas,,., iS which show that the base adjectives are nominative are also given. Another group of puns with the first accent noun: tvoragalis, tvorugalis, sienojgalis. The practical meanings of the given examples differ considerably: tvoragalis means the end of the fence or Smotas,,- ,,,, 0 tvorugalis means the ends of the fence, where tvora bajg asi,., sienojgalis means the ends of the wall or šmotu and mažu sienoji, „„.The generalization of the meanings is shown by the author's statement: all "equal to them" have the same meaning. Thus, DaukSa believes that in the case of rvoragalio | tvorugalio the difference in meaning is determined precisely by the connecting vowel. It is not known if this is only a dialectal feature, because more material about such cases could not be found. 3.3. Prepositional nouns 3.3.1. Prepositional verb nouns are mentioned in the section on compound nouns. In the author’s opinion, they are made up of a prefix and a verb: priedas, apiraSas, atarašas, ažurašas, irašas, išrašas, parašas; peiras, prirašas, surašas, užrašas, “„. prepositioKaip jau kalbėta 2.3, čia priešdėlinių veiksmažodžių galūnių vediniai sutapatinami su nal nouns, which can in fact be regarded as puns. This is also the reason why there is no mention of the term in any of the texts. More precisely, the author does not discuss the work here. It simply states the fact 82 | ANTANAS SMETONA that "conjugations of prepositional verbs" are changed as non-prepositional nouns of the corresponding verbs (iSejnyntie nit žod"'u sudetin'u |...) atsimajno kajp n'e, sudeti,.). Therefore, the appearance of these examples in the section of punches would indicate that the author of the grammar did not distinguish between the types of verbs apirašas and bracelet. In the same section these doubts are dispelled —prepositional nouns, composed of a preposition and a noun, are mentioned separately: pamiske, palavke, paupe,; apinactis, apiziem; priesienis, Beside is also given the constructive meaning of these constructs: Zinklina artumy sudetin’o prie n'ežsudetin'uj e; synt€o,,., —the construct shows the proximity to the object said by the base word. In the section of compound nouns, the prepositional noun niisaviste,,, "L. It is said to be made of a preposition and a pronoun. In the nest of the possessive pronoun construction, this construction, of course, has its place, but because of the complex grammar of the construction chain, the author was unable to set it up: this construction is also mentioned in the section of prepositional nouns (see 3.1.10). 3.3.2. More on the construction of prepositional nouns is discussed in the prepositions section of the manuscript grammar (see 2.4). Although most of it is devoted to prepositional verbs, there are many examples of other parts of the language, including prepositional nouns. There are few nouns with the prefix AT and all its variants. This prefix is used most often to form verbs (see 5.2.7) and explains the use of prefix variants. The author claims that the prefix is reused with nouns derived from verbs, and in the class of the noun itself, sometimes with adjectives: atož'ura, atotvanas,.,,, No more examples are given, but he himself uses atožvalga,.,., and once atomajna,, (this may be a proofreading error, because anyway everywhere else is used atamaina). In the language of the author of the grammar, only one noun with the prefix atis used: the variant “paradigma, linjiotė, asmenotė, ending' —atamajnos, atmajnas, atomajna. PREFIXES P4-AND-PO are also mentioned in the prepositions section. It explains that these prefixes (in grammar terms prepositions) are most often added to verbs and much less often to nouns and adjectives. There are no examples of verbs at all, only rare uses are illustrated. The following nouns are given: poil'sis, posunis, povajkis, podukra "". The use of these prefixes is closely related to nouns, adjectives, and the most commonly made verbs, although their examples are the fewest. In the 19th century grammar, the derivatives of prepositions are not yet systematized according to the parts of the language, and perhaps it was not possible to do so, because, for example, adjectives are also presented with the same prepositional variants: padidis, pabaltis, etc. Therefore, in order to get a more complete picture, it is more appropriate to discuss all prefix subordinates in one section. This is done in section 5.2.3. NOUNS WITH PREFIXES UZ-, AZthere are only a couple (ažurašas, įrašas,..“.), and they are made from prepositional verbs, so their peculiarities and differences are discussed in detail in section 5.2.8. There are only a couple of nouns with the prefix irgi: islenis,„„„, (: valley), irasas, „„(: record). The author of the grammar rarely uses the derivatives of this prefix and rather briefly describes them. The problem of the derivatives of this prefix is more clearly revealed through the derivatives of prepositional verbs, so it is discussed in Chapter 5.2.4. At first glance, in that section of prepositions, the PAIR OF PREFIX AND PREFIX SU AND SAN-(SÁ-) is completely unreasonably formed. This, apparently, was due to the change of the prefix są-, sanvocalism (the northern Panevėžiečiai pronounced su-, sun-), and the prefix su variants known to the author of the grammar (part of the western Highlands and Latvian sa) —that is, due to purely phonetic similarity could identify this prefix with the prefix. Prefix conjugations in grammar: syntarme,, sundara, synzine,,.,, suzine,,,,.. prepositional conjugations: sustatimas,,.., subal’ses,, and two verbs —sudetas „„„„„sudūti,,.. (about conjugation of verbs with sgir see 5.2.5). There are two Vedic questions. The Suras may be an ending derivative of the preSdélin verb supísati (see description from aprakstīti), although the grammar spelling does not prevent the Suras from being interpreted as a list. Subalsa can only be understood as a conjunctional consonant, because there is no verb with the same prefix sunext to it. All these examples nevertheless allow to assume that the people of northern Panevėžys could identify these prefixes due to the coincidence of prefixes and suvokalism. 3.4. Nouns — derivatives of endings 3.4.1. The final form of DG is not named, but in general about the derivatives of the ends Daukša still inevitably has to speak when explaining About the making of the feminine gender from the masculine (Apie taisimų gimties moteriškos iš viriškos „„„). Here are two groups of words. In the first group, it is said that masculine nouns made from other parts of the language are made into feminine forms by changing the ending -us to -ė: yndegne, (: undegn'us), tikne, (: tikn'us), kitre, (: kitrus),„„- „This is already a presentation of final word formation. Although the words tiknius and kitrus can be used as adjectives, we have to trust the author of the grammar that they are nouns, because without examples nothing can be decided. The second group is described even more briefly — from the masculine gender names the feminine gender name is made by changing the ending -as to -ė: Lietuv'nike, (: Lietuv'nikas), Ruse, (: Rusas), Linke, (: Lienkas), tFegkea (: tFeskas), Latve, (: Latvis), Ingle, (: Inglis),,,,.. After all, only the limb is actually replaced here. It is still unclear whether this is an explicit opposition to action, or whether they are equivalent substantiva mobilia forms, not bound to each other by action relations. Judita Džežulskienė’s dissertation states that these pairs are to be considered “a separate (including the names of the actors and the owners of the characteristic) creative category of persons (animals)” (Džežulskienė 2001: 5). Therefore, it is hardly possible to talk about the working relationships of the couple. This pattern of conjugation, it seems, was not common in the dialect and was not developed in the way it is today. It was only suitable for people's names. After presenting seven paradigms of noun conjugation, the author lists fourteen groups of words that do not fit into these paradigms in one way or another: some lack plural, others singular, the singular of some is conjugated according to one paradigm, the plural — according to another, and so on. The list of such irregularities includes the names of beasts and birds that are of one genus, but can denote both male and female gender (e.g., bear, hare). Author 84 | ANTANAS SMETONA does not propose to expand the spoken constructive model or to use any prefixes to form both genus forms (e.g., beškinas, harškė), but takes the auxiliary words patinas and patytė and even does not combine nouns with them: bajkstus harškis patinas, bajkštus harškis patite,; ke,bli meSka patinas, kebli meįška patite,; gray sparrow male, gray sparrow female,; marga kregzde, male, marga kregzde, female, ‘L. 3.4.2. Daiktavardžių darybos skyriuje dar pateikiama darybos iš jaustukų pavyzdžių: ajmana, ajman'a (: ajman’),,.- .. The Lithuanian language dictionary states that the emoticon aiman originated from the coinciding ai and man (LKZ, 38), so it is quite possible that such words in DG would be classified as punctual. However, aimana is listed in the section of prepositional nouns, although the word does not have an adverb. This type of noun is actually derived from the endings of verbs, e.g. rauda (: cry), malda (: beg), etc. In the sections on the construction of verbs and adjectives, the emoticon aiman again serves as the construction base (see 5.1.4) —aimanuoti and aimaningas. In fact, the main word of the constructive nest is jaustukas, but first we make a verb from jaustukas, and then from it and all other possible derivatives, for example, the -ingas suffix derivatives are made from the noun: aimaningas (: aimana). The grammar presents two variants of the noun aimana —a and ia stems: aimana and aimania. This probably reflects the actual usage of the Eastern Highlanders at that time. 4. CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICES In his grammar, Daukša devoted two sections to the formation of adjectives, as well as nouns: on prepositional adjectives and on enriched adjectives. Prepositional adjectives have been divided into two sections- —compound adjectives and prepositions. The presentation of adjectives is not different from that of verbs or nouns. 4.1. Adverbial adjectives 4.1.1. It is also possible to distinguish between the following types of adjectives: Adjectives from other parts of the language: About a taism pripultininku from another part of the language,,,,. It states that adjectives are made from nouns, adjectives, pronouns, participles, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, emoticons, and gives examples of this construction without comments. Also, some of the adjectives are mentioned in the section on the noun adjectives (see 3.1.1) and form the fourth type of deminutives. This is quite understandable, because even in the list of partsSe the noun is not separated from the adjective, and both are named as nouns — this is the tradition of Latin grammar. 4.1.2. As in the section on the construction of nouns, the discussion of the construction of prepositional adjectives begins with adjectives with minor suffixes: baltutis, baltute, baltutelis, baltutele, (: baltas, balta), nedidutis, nedidute,, nedidutelis, nedidutele, (: ne, didis, nedide,), grazutis, grazute,, grazutelis, grazutele, (: gražus, graži), This type of construction is presented very concisely, without comments. It is said that the adjective endings -as, -iS, -US5, -4, -i, -€34,„,are changed to suffixes -utis and -utėlis (-utis, -ute,, -utelis, -utete,,,.,). The derivatives are completely systematic and clear. The suffix -utėlis is considered one independent suffix, Oo not a combination of two suffixes. WORD CONSTRUCTION IN K. K. DAUKŠA'S GRAMMATICS | 85 4.1.3. The following is a list of parts of speech that make up adjectives. From nouns: from brol’o —broliskas, brolinis,,,: from adjectives: from balto —balsganas, balsvas and all crushed —baltutis, baltutelis itt, „„; from pronouns: from mano, tavo, savies, musu, jusu ejna: mano, taviskas, saviškas, musiškas, jusiškas- ,..; iS dalyvių: iš pirkto —pirktinis, rašito —rašitinis,,. '°; from the verbs: from dūti —davingas, davus, dušlingas, dušlus, dušningas, dusnus,, „„; from adverbs: from far —totus, tol'imas; from unksti —unkstus, unkstivas; from now —dabarišt“'as, dabarikstis,,. ; from prepositions: from prieš — opposite; from lig —ligus,, y, from emoticons: from ajman —ajmaningas, ajįmanus.. From the given examples it is possible to form an opinion about the author's theoretical thought. Of course, derivatives presented without sentences or word combinations do not allow for an accurate perception of their meaning. There are no doubts or problems with the formation of adjectives from nouns, adjectives, pronouns. The examples of verbs from adjectives are divided into two parts: ordinary forms (balzganas, balsvas) and deminutives (baltutis, baltutélis). The adjectives maniškas, taviškas, saviškas, broliškas and others are used as adjectives. This is quite normal, because the suffix -iškas only exists in adjectives (e.g. žemiškas, žmogiškas, miliškas, etc.). Very similar Vedic maniškis, taviškis, saviškis, etc. are considered nouns in grammar (see 3.1.10). Although in fact the vedic suffixes -iškis could also be adjectives (see vilniškis laikraštis), and maniškis, taviškis are usually used as nouns or even as adverbs. The examples chosen for the formation of adjectives from emoticons are inappropriate — it is clear that aimanus and aimaningas are authentic members of the joint construction nest from the emoticon aiman, but they are not made directly from the emoticon, but are already secondary derivatives from the corresponding noun — see 3.4.2. and 5.1.4. 4.1.4. Daukša has described the construction of adjectives from participants —presenting suffixes -inis Vedic pirktinis, rašytinis. In Lithuanian grammar (Ulvydas, ed., 1965: 571) there is a presumption that such derivatives can be associated with communicative and exclude the suffix -tinis. Furthermore, this reveals Daukša’s insight, which allowed him to see both the relative meaning of the adjective and the meaning of the participle of the passive kind in the construct: even now there are authors who think that pirktinis, austinis, dirbtinis and similar adjectives are made from the respective participle of the passive kind in the past tense (pirktas, austas, dirbtas) with the suffix -inis (Paulauskienė 1994: 183). The author of the grammar had also added the pair rastas —rastinis, but it is not known why he deleted it. 4.1.5. Quite confusing making slot from give. Otherwise, the construction of adjectives from verbs is common, but the examples of the construction nest are presented as equivalent, regardless of the hierarchy of constructs: davingas, davus, dušlingas, dušlus, dušningas, dušnus (: dūūti),.. From the past participle there can be only a davus — moreover, it is not a derivative of a preposition, but of an ending. In this nest, the basic forms of the verb are not determined, although Daukša distinguishes well the acting from the different basic forms of the verb —see. 2.7. The -ingas derivatives of adverbs are made from the corresponding adjectives. The meaning of some of the Vedas is very unclear, so there is even reason to doubt their reality. Davus, dūsnus and dūslus are synonyms (LKZ, 343). There is no doubt about the synonymy of dūsnus and dūslus, the variants and meanings of the adverbs, because the dictionary 16 Here deleted: from found —rastinis. 86 | ANTANAS SMETONA gives sufficient examples (LKŽ, 614). However, there is no example of this in the davus, only the sources —Jurgis Slapelis and Ambraziejus Kašarauskas. And one fact makes us doubt the reliability of these sources: both of them held the DG and the dictionary in their hands and copied examples from them (see Būga 1923: 344—345; Balčikonis 1955), thus these are not two different sources, 0 is basically based on one unverified source, which may also contain unreal forms. For the same reason, doubts arise about the noun kadžia, kadė ‘time, hour’ (see 3.1.12). Another rather confusing thing is the spelling of the root vowel: dir, dislingas, diislus, diisningas, diisnus. This polyphonic script could be perceived in three ways. Firstly, it is indeed a polyphonic raSmuo, meaning that the author of the grammar heard different sounds in different dialects, e.g.: duoti, duti, douti (cf. Zinkevičius 1966: 84-88); This is also supported by the grammar statement: in some places, the Vysočans pronounce a whole diphthong, while the Zemgales only change the first vowel or both sounds and pronounce ou (ov),, instead of uo... By the way, we see that the alternance of the diphthong uo in Daukšos is considered as a difference between Vysočans and Zemgales, but even the eastern Vysočans monophonize this diphthong. Secondly, it may not be a matter of polyphonic, 0 morphological spelling: the author of the grammar did not hear any variants of pronunciation, but wrote according to the base word; required to write avti, gauti, mavti, because ave,, got, Move... Thirdly, the author heard Žemaičiai diphthongizing the long root vowel in the words dosnus, doslus, dosningas, doslingas and therefore wrote the polyphonic character:t, but this is least likely, because the author, when speaking about the pronunciation of the vowel o, does not say anything about its diphthongization. 4.1.6. Adjective construction from adverbs: tofus, tol'imas (: far), unkstus, unkstivas (: unksti), dabarišt'- as, dabarkštis (: now),,. The action from adverbs is again illustrated by the adverbs far, early. More on this in 3.1.11 and 6.2 If we do not consider the far — far and early — early direction of action, everything is understandable here. The derivatives of the adverbs distant and early, of course, are not made from adverbs, 0 from the corresponding adjectives. There is no doubt that the Vedic present perfect and present perfect forms from the adverb. There are different types of tables with different names. s.g. limbs. It appears that the derivative with the noun ending will be used more frequently by the eastern Highlanders, because it is given first. 4.1.7. Forming adjectives from prepositions: priešingas (: prieš), ligus (: lig),,-IS prepositions, as well as from conjunctions (see 3.1.12), nouns cannot be made. There is no root to which the prepositions can be connected. Therefore, the examples of such actions are incorrect. The opposite could be made from the adverb priešais (there was also the adjective priešus) or the noun priešas, like many -ingas derivatives (Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 198), and the equivalent in general should be considered a simple word. Therefore, the model of adjective construction from prepositions remains without examples and is considered to be a mistake of the grammar author. 4.2. Compound adjectives 4.2.1. The section on compound adjectives is not more concise than the section on compound nouns. Together with the section on compound verbs, it fits on one page ŽODŽIŲ DARYBA K. K. DAUKŠOS GRAMATIKOJE | 87 and is called About compound adjectives (Apie pripultinikus sudetin’- us,,). Composed adverbs are classified according to the basis of their formation, some of which are accompanied by short explanations: adverbs, made of two nouns —linaZiedis, Sunisardis,,,,; from the verb and noun —žmogus baltaplavkis or baltaplukis,,,; from a pronoun and a noun —kasdienis, kasdieninis, kasmetinis, ins from a noun and a verb — šalnakundis,,,,,; from two adjectives —jūdmargis, jūdberis, Zal''margis,,,,; i$ adjective and participle —Visogalis,,,,; from adverb and participle —davgalis- ,,,,. The noun pusė is mentioned as a separate conjugation component, with which nouns and adjectives can be joined, e.g. pus'ymzis,,,., pus'baltis,,.. 4.2.2. Many punches do not raise any doubts and questions. Attempts are made to explain the adjective meaning of some of the adverbs, as well as of compound nouns: jūdmargis, jūdberis, Zal''marygis žienklina dvi pripulti vienon vietn sumanšitas, kajp šitūsie išre; jšk'uosie —dvi "mostis,,, As; baltaplavkis or baltaplaukis marks taj: a man with white swimsuits or a man with white swimsuits or a man with white swimsuit,,,. However, the individual lexical meaning is not explained here, but the synonymous syntactic equivalents — the verb, the prepositional construction and the group of the exclusive participle mark; linažiedis, šunaširdis —signifies adjectives, tur'unti, nusavisti, tu daiktiniku,,,„ The meaning of other groups of compound adjectives is not explained, but only the parts of the language from which they are made. The grammar states that the punctual judmargis, jūdberis, žal margis are made from two adjectives. In fact, the roots of both are adjectives. If Daukša had tried to find a syntactic equivalent (as in the case of compound nouns), it might have turned out that it is a combination of an adjective adverb and an adjective — juodai margas, juodai bėras, žaliai! mottled (in damage —it is indicated by the softness mark next to /). Academic Lithuanian grammar does not see the first-point adverb, but states that there are two adjective stems (Ulvydas, ed., 1965: 600). Some other sources (Paulauskienė 1994: 197; Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 234) take the same view as Daukša, although in fact it can be different here: juodmargis, juodbėris, žalmargis is certainly from an adverb and an adjective, but famsžalis can also be from tamsus žalias, because in the language such a combination is perfectly possible: Nupirkau tamsią žalią suknelę. 4.2.3. Another type of construction of compound adjectives —with the noun-origin component half-. This prefix is also used to form enriched nouns (see 3.2.4.). The grammar clearly distinguishes two types of verbs according to the second base element (adjective or noun). The first group of Vedic nouns is very similar to enriched nouns: pus'umžis, pus'gal'vis, pus'begrnis, pus'kvortis,,,„,.. Especially pusbernis and puskvortis. The half-brother even got into the compound nouns section. Daukša explains the meaning of these punches and convincingly shows that they can be perceived as adjectives: tur'gntis pusi, to viso: umž'o, galvos ir pripulties be; rno,,,,., i.e., to have half the age, half the head and half the characteristics of a boy. In certain circumstances, all of these puns can be used as nouns, and even completely conjugated. Unfortunately, there are very few examples in the old grammar, especially of sentences or word combinations. And it is precisely about these classes of punctuation that we can talk only in the clear context of word combinations (e.g.: the past half century was calm — noun; half-aged man was calm —adjective; only half a century can understand and do it —adjective used as a noun; or an example with a word, 94 | ANTANAS SMETONA The author of mathematics understands the differences of noun and verb prepositional forms. Here is how the construction with some prepositions is described: prepositions ato, od, po, do, pro, san are usually written with nouns made from verbs and with enriched nouns, but sometimes they are also written with adjectives, etc. : atož'ura, atotvanas, poil'sis, priespavda <...> posunis, povajkis, podukra, priekletis, priesienis, produris, prokirtis... This statement shows that verb prepositional nouns, such as priespauda (: prispausti), are clearly distinguished from, in the words of the grammar author, compound nouns, such as prieklėtis (: prie klėties). In another place it is even explained what syntactic equivalents the actual prepositional (compound) nouns have to make: beardless —means the same as having no beard or without beard.,,,. The author of the grammar could not yet be completely consistent. In the section on the construction of compound words, he still calls prepositional verbs compound words, although this does not deny that he distinguished between the construction of nouns from prepositional verbs and the construction of prepositional nouns within the noun class. The view of prepositions as punches in further sections of grammar (especially those dedicated to compound words) helps to avoid the theoretical error that is often made today: nowhere is it said that a preposition can be used to make a derivative from another part of the language — after all, the preposition does not change the categorical meaning of the word. For example, in the section on compound adjectives it is stated that an adjective can be made by combining a noun and a preposition be, which is not the same as saying that a noun with a prefix makes an adjective. This phenomenon is explained in more detail by Paulauskienė (1994: 192-193). It has been mentioned several times that in sangraZ derivatives of prefixes the sangraza particle is between the prefix and the root. The author of the manuscript grammar understands that individual parts of the language have their own prepositions and that the prepositional construction does not change the categorical meaning of the word. He lists the prefixes with which only verbs are made: ap, at, ata, až, da, in, iš, nu, par, per, pro, pri, su, uz, užu —dedasi with the word „od“'ajs yr visajs iSre,jsk ajs nit žod"'u išejjnunt“"ajs „L. This, of course, is a kind of error in the concept of creation, because, for example, atvažiavimas is made not from važiavimas and the prefix, but from atvažiuoti and the suffix. However, Daukša always looks at the structure of the words, not at the relationship between the base word and the construct. The grammar of the spoken language did not distinguish between morphological and functional analysis. Therefore, Daukša could not think otherwise. He only saw what is in the word, and on this basis it is not difficult to assign the same structure to both prepositional and adverbial words. Prefix and preposition are related, so Daukša can say that with the same prefixes are made both verbs and nouns, and even adjectives: ažuupis or aZuupe,, ažukalnis or ažukalnę- ,, islenis, negbilis, negale,, n'apikunta, ne,krikštas, negikedis „„,; apiname,, paname,, apibaltis, pabaltis, apibalt“'- aj, pabalt“'- aj.,,.. These statements and examples raise the question of whether there are differences in the use of some variants of prepositions. And this question arises not only for readers of grammar, but also for the author himself. Furthermore, he tries to distinguish the actual use of some prepositional variants: not only on the formal basis of spelling, but also on differences in meaning. In grammar, the following prepositional variants are discussed separately: apapi-, atata-, ažažu-, užužu-, parper-. Parir per-, of course, are different prefixes, not the same prefix va- WORD CONSTRUCTION IN K. K. DAUKŠOS GRAMMATICS | 95 riantai, but for phonetic reasons they are in the same row as variant pairs. On the other hand, they are not considered variants and are strictly separated. The pairs of prepositions įir in-, sąir su-, poir are not often mentioned, but from the examples, remarks and mentions even in other chapters of the work it is clear that they are also attempted to be semantically linked in one way or another. Therefore, they are all discussed below. for the purposes of this study. In two places, they attempt to define their usage. Daukša states 5.2.3. POIR PAaprašyti palyginti išsamiai, nors atskiro skyrelio, skirto šiems priešthat it is most commonly used with nouns made from verbs (such as poilsis from pailsėti). Since the author of the grammar pairs the polaik with the same prefix, he is already able to combine the allomorphs into one morpheme (morpheme identification). The prefix of the phoneme is. This is usually the result of a synchronous process. The author of the grammar also sees a separate model of action from the syntactic construction (preposition + noun). The name is derived from the child's name, Snorri. Sometimes adjectives are made, but no examples are given, although further in this section it is clear that the word used is just padidis, saldis. The prefix is used with verbs, words and forms made from them, and sometimes with nouns, adjectives and adverbs: helps with verbs and all words made from them, as well as with nouns, adjectives and adverbs: paname,, pabaltis pabalt“'aj.,.. There are no examples of verbs, only the rarer nouns and adjectives. More words with these prefixes are found in the sections of the manuscript grammar on compound nouns (see 3.3.1) and adjectives (see 4.3.1) and otherwise throughout the text of the grammar. To make it clearer what the author of the grammar thought about the prefixes pair po-, one can review their use throughout the grammar: prefix po is used 9 times: povajkis, posunis, podukra „,,, povejsdis- ,, ‘example’, porit,,. polygintin- 'aj „„„„*comparative', poil’sis „„„zime,s poiSrejSkine,s or poistarine,s “punctuation of the sentence'; the prefix is used much more often (over a few hundred examples, but these are mostly verbs and their forms). In the section of compound adjectives of the grammar, the first are presented pagrajtis, padidis and pasal'dis,,- ". Other examples: pabajgas,- ,,,,, paavgo,.,.. pabajgtin- 'aj,,., pabaltis,,., paZisti,,,, pauntrins- ,,.. pasalijie,... papegktin- 'aj y., paprastin- ’is,.,., pamiske,, palavke, paupe,,.... paname, „and so on " The examples given by IS show that the prepositional pair povartosena does not differ from today's, except for the prepositional adjectives of adjective origin pagrajtis, padidis, pasal'dis, pabaltis and some prepositional adjectives with the suffix -inis pabajgtin- 'aj, pape,; jktin'aj, paprastin- 'is —poligintin- 'aj, poišre,įškinę,s, poistarine,s. In other words, in the pronunciation of the eastern Altays, o can translate as a (Zinkevičius 1966: 69), so that DG can be seen as having several contradictions. First, it is unclear why the polyphonic '" is not used. In modern Lithuanian grammar, in the noun and adjective construction systems, the prefix is deprecated as a subvariant — both are considered as different prefixes (Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 145, 224). Then there remains the vague panors of the prefix and the not quite regular transformation into a prefix when dividing nouns from verbs: potraukis (: patraukti- ), postūmis (: pastūmi), poilsis (: pailsėti), pokalbis (: pakalbėti) and so on. There are many such forms, perhaps even as many as help (: help), show (: show), mark (: mark). Therefore, in manuscript grammar, the view is that the prepositions pair poy are phonetic variants; Aldona Paulauskienė does not object to this, considering these prepositions as phonetic variants due to their equal relationship with the preposition po (Paulauskienė 1994: 96). 96 | ANTANAS SMETONA spelling, because the examples show fluctuation of pronunciation. Second, there is no system suffix -inis in Vedic variants. It is possible that some of the features of the dialect were not noticed or understood by the author of the grammar. 5.2.4. In-and-out. The author of the grammar determined that these prefixes were related, but did not emphasize their semantic identity. In grammar there are such prepositional introductories: in examples —isikalbeti,- ,,,, isiris „„„, ikalbeti,, iduti „, 444 (There are also a couple of nouns — islenis „„,„irašas- ,..“.); in the author's language —itikti,,„„„- „„ivegstu- „„„„intiktu,.„„inegštus „y... imegstos,,- ,.,., The following tendency can be seen: the preposition į and its variants in, ing, ieng are mentioned several times in the descriptions of the prepositions, but the author himself does not use them at all, and the prefix in is used only once (by the way, there are both cases: įtikti and intikti) and the prefix įis used another 10 times. And it is clear why: the people of northern Panevėžys systematically change the preposition į into the preposition ant (Zinkevičius 1966: 416). This is confirmed by the author of the grammar himself: sometimes the Highlanders follow the Žemaites, but often use the preposition on place in, e.g., ‘unt miestu ejnu’ but such a saying has a slightly different meaning, because it means ‘in the suburbs, near, near the city, at the city, to the city', but not “in the middle of the city", because 'ejnu mestan or ing miestų" means 'in the middle of the city' _... The preposition is never used in the anthrographic and, as can be seen from the examples just given, is confused with the preposition. 5.2.5. S4-IR su-. Most of the examples of nouns are given with these prepositions, so in this work they are described in the section of prepositional nouns. Verbs and their forms in the grammar are presented as follows: sudetas.- ,, suditi,,.. These examples do not raise any doubts, but when compared with noun prepositions it becomes clear that due to the overlap of prepositions and suvokalizmas northern Panevėžys could confuse them (see 3.3.2 for details). 5.2.6. AP-IR API-. These prefix variants are described very briefly, there is no semantic difference between them. First, there are recommendations when one is more likely to be written (used with conjugative verbs) and when the other (mainly used with verbs beginning with b, p), then it is explained that in all other cases they are used synonymously (apdeti or apideti; apdūti or apidūti; apgavti or apigavti; apjūkti or apijūkti „„„). The same applies to the prefixes až-, ažu and za-, zau-. Only ažuir užurecommended to use with verbs beginning with š, ž. According to the author, with adjectives should be used only api-. This probably means that due to spelling peculiarities the prepositions of different parts of the language are identified in grammar as api and apy (see 4.3.2). 5.2.7. AT-IR ATA-. There seems to be no semantic distinction between these prefixes. In grammar, therefore, the difference between these prefixes is only a problem of spelling: there are as many as five cases where atmust be written, and three where atamust be written. Answered: 1) with returning verbs —atkalbeti, atsiduoti „„; 2) with verbs beginning with vowels —atarti, atarditi, atesti, ate,jti, atgauti, atirti „„„; 3) with verb communicative forms beginning with the consonants b, g j, k,, m,n, p, 5, Š, t, v, z, Z, and forms made from them, except for past participles of the passive kind — atane,štas, atnešti, atnavjinti, atpesti, atpilti, atrasti, atsieti, atsakiti, atšavkti, atve,sti, atzingti, atžbti, atrasti, atsakiti, atvariti, atžlobinti; bring, atpe, Sti, cancel, atze, lti 4) with the present and past participles of the active kind —atne,Sis, atpe,WORD CONSTRUCTION IN K. K. MULTIPLE GRAMMATICS | 97 SiS 4.4, 9) And in general, in the common language, atne, kajp ata-, and lab’avs’aj are often used before n, p, š, s, “ks. ames, atpesti, atpilti, atSavkti |... is written: 1) with verbs beginning with the consonants d and t, and their derivatives —atadirbti, atadirbimas, atadeti, atadejimas, ataduti, atadavimas, atatravkti, atatravkimas, atatveypti, atatveimas, although iSsirunda and atdirbti -bimas, aideti -dejimas, atduoti -davimas,,,, (we see that the rule is not strict, apparently, based on the facts of living language, i.e., in the dialect the uncomfortable sampling of consonants is not very strictly avoided); 2) more often with the verbs of the first person of the present and past tense before the consonants m, p, š, s —atanegsa -e, atapejša“ -e,, atašavk'a -ke, beg vienog sakosi yr atšavk'a, atsavke, — or shortaj sakunt before š both at yr ata as much as’ outruns,, (i$ basically positive synonymous use of prepositional variants); 3) with passive past participles and some other forms of the verb (the examples are not even worth giving, because one form (with ata-) is stated above, but it is immediately acknowledged that another form (with ar-) is also used). Thus, we see that the attempt to distinguish and strictly define the spelling of these prefix variants is very unclear. In fact, the presence of the prefix before the root has nothing to do with the grammatical form of the verb, which is shown by the suffix or endings, and the author of the grammar mixes here phonetic things with grammatical ones, which have absolutely no influence on the use and spelling of the prefix variants. From this complicated deduction, it can only be said that in the dialect of Daukša the longer form of the prefix —ataneštas, atanešiau — was also used, but the shorter forms were used more often, because this is confirmed by the fifth syllable in all cases of atarašyba. The prefix variant atodoes not fall under these rules of atyr atavartoseny. The author himself rarely uses it and only separately mentions in one place that it is written with nouns (see 3.3.2). The other variant of this prefix is generally neither used nor commented on. In the language of the author of the grammar, there are very few cases of prefix-derived usage, but they also show that the prefix variants are not distinguished in any systematic way. Only a few vedic verbs with the prefix and its variants are used, so they can all be mentioned: atmesti —atame,ta, atame,tamos', atame,tunt, atme,sdami, atmegsti, atmetimas, atmegtus; subtract — subtract; atmainyti ‘to change’ —atmajnamas, atmajnimu, atmajno; discover —discover,, discoveries; answer —atsakiti, atsakynt’- y. 5.2.8. Much more complicated is the DG ADDITION aZ-AND relation. The author of the grammar strongly warns that the confusion of these prefixes is a very big mistake. The semantic motivation of this requirement is as follows: one means —to cover (zakryč) the eyes of the standing, and the other means —to cover (nakryč) the eyes of the lying “„„or one means —to cover something on top (na vrchu, nahor) (not from, not from the top), and the other means —to cover, to cover something from the side, from the side (from the beginning, the end, the middle, from, from the bottom, from the top, from the edge or from the edge),_.. In his opinion, the prepositional prepositions control the construction of the prepositional on, the suffix and the iliative: zajoti unt kalno, zaejti unt bažnit“'os, uždeti peili unt stalo, zastoti unt ke,l'o, uždeti akmegni unt ke,l’o, uzzienge, dungun, uzdave, šienų viršun,..,,„- Prepositional ažve- * In the words atane,a and atape,ša the preposition is corrected to ata-. vedinių valdymas. Daukšos aiškinimai sudėtingi ir painūs dėl dar nesusiformavusios 98 | ANTANAS SMETONA diniai valdą prepositional až construction, adjective and adjective: ažjoti až kalno/-u, ažejti až bažnit“'os- /-u, aždeti peili až stalo/u, ažstoti až ke, l'o|-u, ažvariti galvijus až kalno/-u, až ked'o/-u; <...> sharpen the keels; aime,sti akmenimis ke,l'ų, ažtajsiti žabajs piliMY oo Here it is very useful to look not at the examples given in the grammar by the author, but at how he himself uses these prepositions and prepositions: i$ they are used 32 times in total; prefix za, uzu is not used at all; preposition až, ažu used 4 times (gal'ame skajtiti ažu klajdy „,„ažu toki skajtiti,,.., prijiemtu ažu ligu „„„priimtas ažu pirmų..); prefix až-, ažuvediniai used 25 times (ažginti ažgresimo ažlajkidami, „„,ažrakintin'aj „„„„ažsimajno „„ažsitil'a,- „„„ažtil'a „„,ažutil'a,- ,., ažsitur'a „„„,ažutur'a „„„ažudravdimu,,,„„ažujiema,.,„- ,.., azulajko,,., azustoja,.., noun aZuvardis „„); prefix uz-, uzvediniai used 3 times (uzZimetos,,,, and two pronouns uzgamin’aj,,,, uzgamin’isie,,,.). Thus, the description of the prepositions až, aZu and the prepositions az-, aZubei uz-, uua used in eastern high Ciy corresponds to the researches carried out by Zigmas Zinkevičius (Zinkevičius 1966: 428). Of course, Daukša’s description reflects the situation of the mid-19th-century dialect: it freezes the meaning of on apima and the iliative —užjoti ant kalno, užengti dangun, užduoti viršun. The author of the grammar uses two prepositional triggers that are also systematic: marked — we mean accent marks written on top of letters; name of birth —from the name of birth "people, family", is meant a folk name, a national name and this is probably related to born on Lithuania. There are also two verb nouns that have both these prefixes: ažuras, įrašas, „„. According to Daukša’s rule, ažuras should mean ‘second’, and the inscription would probably correspond to the inscription of modern meaning. 5.2.9. It seems that PAR-IR PER are compared probably only because of external similarity, because in some dialects they coincide: parlaužti —perbražti, parkirsti —perkirsti. It is also important to note that this is not the same as the phrases that are used to describe the same thing, and therefore it is not possible to distinguish between these two phrases, but only to distinguish between them in the context of the phrase. True, we do not find any warning (and warnings are frequent here in general) that one or another variant of pronunciation would be a major error, from which it can be concluded that Daukša himself clearly distinguished these derivatives of prepositions and did not hear anyone confusing them. On the other hand, the spelling of the prefix and preposition per —per — shows that the pronunciation can be different: both par and per. Grammar distinguishes two adverbial meanings of the preposition parvediniai: the direction of action to their home and the action of individual meaning: 1) par is added only with verbs denoting any movement, and denotes the return or return of a person or thing „,,,parvažiuoti, pereiti, parjoti, parkakti —and it can be done not with all, But only with direction verbs; 2) sell, sell what on the market. The prefix transpositions have four operative meanings: they indicate the passage of something over [1], through [2] or doing too much [3],,,,., subtitrinimq, the end, the reworking [4],.,., — pegejti, pegjoti, pegvaž'ūti, pegbegti “,„; pegdūti.,. ; pegarti, peyskajtiti, rework, As already mentioned, polyphonic writing pes does not allow to determine the true form of the prefix and preposition. There are also errors in the grammar manuscript. Prefix and preposition in only once by mistake written par.,... From this error one could hesitantly assume that the author of the grammar himself used the form par, although, as said, he clearly distinguished the meanings. 149/307 13023? WORD CONSTRUCTION IN K. K. DAUKŠA'S GRAMMATICS | 99 5.2.10. In addition, the grammatical meanings of the adverbs BEZ-, NEBEAND BEZare discussed separately. First of all, the grammatical insight is surprising, which even modern researchers sometimes lack. Here we have in mind the determination of the two meanings of the prepositional unused verbs: firstly, we see a purely formal, official non-function —not to change the meaning of the verb and its derivatives, 0 to separate the unused verb from the ending to make it easier to read: Be, is added with verbs whose meanings usually do not change, but sometimes lots means do —or — gi most often added to the unused verbs “Although in the section of prepositions (prepositions) and no example of such unused verbs is given, but further — in the section of the participant reading this statement is repeated with examples: d“ 'avg'untisis“ or bęssid avg yntis; d 'avg'yntisi or bessid 'avg'unti; d" 'avg'yntisi or be,sid“avg'ynt,, "Or another example: dedamas (besidedyntas),. Even Juozas Balčikonis did not recognize this prefix's inefficiency much later. In response to a similar statement in one dissertation, he wrote: "The assertion that 'beyra is even necessary for the returning form of the participle' is a living heresy. The particle gives a certain meaning to the verb.” (Brown 1978: 333). Later Paulauskienė and Tarvydaitė (1986: 154-156) convincingly proved that the prefix still has the function of diverting the return from the variable ending. Another meaning of the prefix bevednih: be, with nouns means lack of possession or is expressed through the same prefix with the noun, e.g. : be,leg means the same as having no leg, legs or without leg, legs “i.e. preposition beindicates the absence of the object denoted by the base word and fully corresponds to the syntactic construction with the preposition be. In other words, the joyful is a prepositional verb, and the headless is a contracted syntactic construction. In grammar, there are independent prepositions nebe and tebe-. The difference in their meaning is clearly visible: it no longer means almost the same thing as and already ne-, but still means almost the same thing as and still —Ne„begrašav, ky ne, tiek pat’ kajp jav n'e, rašav,„„„,- te,be,rašav, te; beg aras, ky ne, tiek pat’ kajp —do rasav,,.. The author of the grammar also sees a synonymy of constructions: next to I no longer write, it can be said that I no longer write, and next to I still write, it can be said that I still write. In this way, Daukša seems to acknowledge the inadequate description of the prepositions' no longer and still meanings. 6. COMMITTING OF INFRINGEMENTS 6.1. The first group of adverbs, as mentioned in the general overview of adverbs (see 2.5), are regular adverbs with the formative -ai. In fact, the author does not seem to see this formant at first — he claims that adverbs are made from adjectives and participle nouns with the ending -as, changing -s to -j: g'araj (: g'aras), mil'amaj (: mil'amas) „,„„This is a formal approach, because the ending is divided, although in fact the ending as a morpheme cannot be divided. When a morpheme is broken down, it is automatically converted to a consonant of non-significant language units (phonemes). This is probably done in order to make the textbook as comprehensible and memorable as possible. The following examples of this type of action show that the author has given the adverb form -aj. It is stated that from adjectives and participles with the endings -is and -us, adverbs are made from the genitive —the endings -o or -aus are changed to the form -aj: did“ aj (: didis, did“'0), 100 | ANTANAS SMETONA gal'unt“'- aj (: gal'untis, gal''ynt©- o), ne tikus aj (: negtikis, negtikus- 'o)), plat“'aj (: platus, platavs), gard“ 'aj (: gardus, gardavs), giedr'aj (: giedrus, giedravs- ),.,,,. It is also clarified that the last stem consonant always softens, and f, d becomes č, dž. There are a few unusual things here. First, it is suggested to make the adverb from the nobleman, although it is explained that the stem £, d turns into the afrikats ¢, dz. Apparently, the logic was this: original and more understandable. However, after giving ninkas dažniausiai jau turi pavirtusius ¢, dž, todėl taisyklė pasidaro trumpesnė, aiškesexamples it became clear that this change does not occur in the -u stem ancestor (platus, platus), thus it was necessary to clarify the softening of the stem consonant transferred to the category of adverbs and the transformation of f, d to č, dž. Another at first glance somewhat unusual statement is that adverbs are made from adjectives and participles with the ending -is. In fact, there is only one such adjective — proud — and it may be considered an exception. However, the ending DG of the present tense masculine singular noun of the participant of the active kind is systematically written -is: netikis, atnešis, atpešis, matis and is completely coincident with the ending of the present tense masculine singular noun, e.g. galiuntis, dirbuntis. Sometimes adverbs can also be made from these participles if the meaning of the base word allows it, e.g. netykisiai (: netinkamas, netikusio), although adverbs made from these forms are often considered a mistake today. 6.2. Another group of adverbs with the ending -i mentioned in the section on the construction of adverbs: lähellä, kaukana, aikaisin. It is said that adjectives are made from them: toli, tolimas (: far), artus, artimas (: near), unkstus, ynkstivas (: ynksti).,... Having in mind the derivatives from near, far described in other sections of the grammar, it can be assumed that Daukša considers near, far, early as the reference words. This is correct, but near, far, early historically are derivatives, and most likely from adjectives. In addition, the author of the grammar talks about the construction of adjectives in the section on the construction of adverbs. He used the adjectives artus, ankstus, tolis, and did not notice the suffixes -umas, -yvas in the construction of adjectives. For conclusions, the material is sufficient to determine the types of work, but without generalization. At the end of the grammar, the author draws attention; In general, the construction of adverbs from early, far, near is mentioned in several places: in the construction of nouns (see 3.1.11), in the construction of adjectives (see 4.1.6) and in the construction of verbs (see 5.1.4). 6.3. Adverb construction is also discussed in other parts of the grammar, whenever the opportunity arises. For example, when talking about the synonymy of the adverb forms -aj and -u —grajtokaj aba grajtoku „„„tolokaj aba toloku,.. It is not very clear whether these are really adverbs, because functionally there can be an incompatible form of the adjective, e.g.: man gerai —man geru — man gera. The author of the grammar himself uses both adverbs and non-noun forms of the state with the formant -u, corresponding to the formant -a of the present common language: kas i reg as buti labaj doru,., —the unquestionably incongruous form of the adjective; kadu „„„,tadu ss,,„slapt“'u,,.„„—- unquestionable adjectives. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the author of the grammar’s statement that the forms grajtokaj aba grajtoku „„„tolokaj aba toloku,,., are synonymous, and the adverbs with the formant -u are clearly Eastern. On the other hand, it should be remembered that the third group in the DG section of the construction of adverbs includes precisely the non-noun form of the adjective šlastu or šalta...Already in another place, where it is spoken about the peculiarities of noun conjugation, there is a reference to the conjugation of the indefinite adverb: some of them, although they have all the vowels, acquire a different meaning in the broken vowels, e.g.: slapt“"'- u, šalin (from staptis, šalis), tolin, artin', etc. All such nouns can be WORD CONSTRUCTION IN K. K. DAUKŠOS GRAMMATICS | 101 are called adverbs,- ,,,,, i.e. the meaning of the inaginative (and the iliative) can change so much that those nouns even become adverbs. This is a very important observation, showing the diversity of the construction of adverbs. The singular noun of both genders in DG usually ends in -u in all paradigms. It is even emphasized that to say sukalba, with rikšte or with rikšti, with src“'a or with srci; with kume,jle or with kumae,li, with herb or with herb „„, is a big mistake —you should say with rikšt'u, Sird'u, kumegdu, herb, speak. In the section on the construction of adverbs in the DG (although there is actually no discussion of the construction of words, but of forms) there is also written about the formant -yn for the construction of adverbs —Silte lin (: šiltele,snis), šiltin (: Silte,snis) „,,And in the paradigms of noun conjugation that formant is called the ending of the iliative. 7. SUMMARY In Kazimieras Kristupas Daukša's grammar, word formation is given much more space than in previously written Lithuanian grammar. Although word formation is not yet a cohesively perceived section of grammar, the clear separation of derivation and composition and the design of separate sections are already visible. Therefore, word formation in Daukša’s grammar can already be considered as an independent section of grammar and the following conclusions can be drawn from its perception and presentation: + Compared with the grammars of his predecessors and contemporaries, the manuscript grammar of Daukša devotes incomparably more attention to word formation and does so at a much higher theoretical level. + Not yet decided on the place of word formation in grammar. It is perceived in three ways: derivation and composition are named and described in separate chapters; some things of the verb are described as organic parts of the description of the parts of speech (the description of verb conjugation begins with the notes of the verb, the description of prepositions is mostly dedicated to the verb); for some of the forms there is no place at all and they are presented in separate sections in random places (forms of nouns, forms of nouns). + The ending is abandoned (or not understood at all): the pure noun ending (stalius) is not mentioned at all, and the prepositional derivatives of the endings from the verbs are attributed to the composition. + Composition and derivation are not discussed in general, but according to the parts of the language, i.e. the completely different composition of individual parts of the language is already seen. | + The prepositional construction of a noun is perceived as a type of composition and is based on theory and examples. + It is already theoretically understood that different parts of language have different sets of construction formats. + As in all the grammars of the predecessors and contemporaries, the study and understanding of the statements is greatly complicated by the fact that there are few examples, there is no wider context, without which some phenomena are not even possible to evaluate at all. + It is quite right that the non-noun forms of adjectives and participles are classified as adverbs. + In the sections on word formation, the subject of language norming is not left without attention: the various variants of word formation are sometimes evaluated in a motivated way, and sometimes based only on linguistic instinct. 102 | ANTANAS SMETONA SOURCES CIULDA, J. Short reflections on the grammar rules of the Samogitian language. Published by Giedrius Subačius, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. Daukša, K. K. Trumpa kalbmokstea li“žuv'o li“tuviško lienkiškaj išguldita pear Kaz'ų (Kazimier'ų) Kris'u (Krištap'ų) Davksi. Manuscript, VU manuscript, F 119-516. KASAKAUSKIS, K. Grammar of the Žmudija language laid down by X. Kalixt Kossakowski: Katbrieda ležuwio žiamaytiszko, Vilnius, 1832. KLEIN, D. Gramatica Litvanica, 1653. Cited by: First Lithuanian Grammar: 1653 years, ed. New York, NY: National Library of Medicine, 1957. OSTERMEYER, G. New Lithuanian Grammar, Konigsberg, 1791. RUHIG, P. Anfangsgriinde einer Littauischen Grammatick, Königsberg, 1747. Scuulrz, T. Compendium Grammaticae Lithvanicae. Cited by: Sapiens and Schultz's grammar, spec. red. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing, 1997. University of California Press, Red. 1981: Kazimieras Eigminas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1981. X. D. K. P.S. Prawidia Iegzyka Litewskiego Czyli Gramatyka Litewska. Cited by: X. D. K. P. S. Lithuanian grammar: the beginning of the 19th century. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybosinstitutas, 2002. LITERATURE AMBRAZAS, V., ed., 1997: Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas., BALČIKONIS, J. 1955: Found language science document. 1955 04 16. BALČIKONIS, J. 1978: Selected Papers 1, Vilnius: Mokslas. BUGA, K. 1923: Material for the Study of the Lithuanian Language Vocabulary and Speech. The People and the Word 1, 344-345. DŽEŽULSKIENĖ, J. 2001: Mobile nouns in Lithuanian. Doctoral dissertation, Vilnius. į FRAENKEL, E. 1962, 1965: Litauisches etymologisches Worterbuch 1-2, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. KEINYS, S. 2000: Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Institute for Publishing of Science and Encyclopedias. LKŽ ss Lithuanian language dictionary, Vilnius. PAULAUSKIENĖ, A., TARVYDAITĖ, D. 1986: Grammar norms and current use, Kaunas: Šviesa. PAULAUSKIENĖ, A. 1994: Morphology of the Lithuanian language (Lectures for Lithuanianists), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. | SABALIAUSKAS, A. 1979: The History of Lithuanian Language Research until 1940, Vilnius: Mokslas. Urvypas, K., ed., 1965: Lithuanian Grammar 1, Vilnius: Mintis. URBUTIS, V. 1978: Theory of word formation, Vilnius: Mokslas. 1994: Dictionary of Polish-Lithuanian Languages, Vilnius: Enciklopedija. ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1966: Lithuanian dialectology, Vilnius: Mintis. ZINKEVICIUS, Z. 1994: The dialectology of the Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Antanas Smetona Received 2003 09 15 Department of Lithuanian Language Universiteto g. 5, 01122 Vilnius, Lithuania Vilniaus Universitetas