ACTA
LINGUISTICA
LITHUANICA
XLIX
(2003),
131
-
152
RECENZIIOS
Re iews
OsTEN
DAHL
AND
MARIA
KOPTJEVSKAJA-TAMM,
EDS.
THE
C1RCUM-BALTIC
LANGUAGES:
TYPOLOGY
AND
CONTACT.
VOLUME
I:
PAST
AND
PRESENT.
Ams e dam
&
Philadelphia:
John
Benjamins,
pp.
xx
+
360
+
(sepa a ely
pagina ed)
22
index
pp.
(S udies
in
Language
Companion
Se ies,
Vol.
54.)
OsTEN
DAHL
AND
Ma IA
KOPTJEVSKAJA-TAMM,
EDS.
THE
CIRCUM-BALTIC
LANGUAGES:
TYPOLOGY
AND
CONTACT.
VOLUME
2:
GRAMMAR
AND
TYPOLOGY.
Ams e dam
&
Philadelphia:
John
Benjamins,
pp.
xx
+
400
+
(sepa a ely
pagina ed)
21
index
pp.
(S udies
in
Language
Companion
Se ies,
Vol.
oe
Acco ding
o
he
In oduc ion
he
i s
olume
o
he
wo- olume
se ies:
‘...
su eys
impo an
sub-g oups
in
he
p esen -day
Ci cum-Bal ic
languages,
placing
hem
in
hei
geog aphical,
his-
o ical
and
socie al
se ing
and
discussing
speci ic
con ac
si ua ions’
(p.
x ii).
The
languages
su eyed
in
pa
I
include
Li huanian,
La ian,
sou heas e n
Bal ic
Russian
dialec s,
Swedish
dialec s
a ound
he
Bal ic
Sea,
and
he
Finnic
languages.
The
second
olume
“...
ocuses
on
g amma ical
phenomena
in
he
Ci cum-Bal ic
languages,
ela ing
hem
o
he
la ge
ypological
pe spec i e’.
The
in oduc ion,
he
name
and
subjec
indices
a e
p in ed
in
bo h
olumes,
bu
in
olume
2
he
las
page
o
he
subjec
index
has
been
omi ed.
Laimu e
Balode
and
Axel
Hol oe ’s
a icles
abou
La ian
(pp.
3-40)
and
Li huanian
(pp.
41-79)
a e
well-o ganized
and
concise
desc ip ions
o
mode n
La ian
and
Li huanian
and
hei
dialec s,
al hough
he e
is
ela i ely
li le
abou
language
in luence,
excep ,
pe haps
o
he
men ion
o
Li onian
in luence
on
Tamian
La ian
(p.
27).
One
appa en
o e sigh
ha
could
cause
con usion
is
he
ansc ip ion
o
Li huanian
[~mjz: a]
‘ h ow(s)’
whe e
he
[j]
seems
o
con as
wi h
he
simple
pala aliza ion
encoun e ed
in
[~m,x: a e]/[~m
z: a ]
‘you
h ow.’
(p.
5).
Vale iy
Cekmonas’
a icle
“Russian
a ie ies
in
he
sou heas e n
Bal ic
a ea:
U ban
Russian
o
he
19 h
cen u y”
(pp.
81-99)
discusses
he
Russian
used
in
Vilnius,
Riga
and
Tallinn.
In
Vilnius
he
edi o s,
au ho s
and
co ec o s
ied
o
emula e
he
language
o
S .
Pe e sbu g
and
Moscow.
Pa icula ly
in e es ing
a e
he
mis akes
in
Russian
made
by
Li huanians
in
a ious
pe i ions,
e.g.,
ibo
isCezli
mezdu
nami
li o skie
knizki
‘Li huanian
books
ha e
disappea ed
among
us’,
whe e
meZdu
nami
is
a
calque
o
Li h.
a p
miusy
‘among
us’ (p.
89).
In
Riga,
which
has
a
I
should
like
o
hank
he ewi h
Ma i
Nyman
o
he
Uni e si y
o
Tu ku
o
ad ice
on
some
o
he
Finnish
syn ac ic
s uc u es
discussed
in
his
e iew.
lam
pa icula ly
g a e ul
o
Vi ginia
Vasiliauskiené
o
he
Uni e si y
o
Kaunas
o
he
help
wi h
nume ous
aspec s
o
his
e iew.
Nei he
o
hese
is,
o
cou se,
esponsible
o
any
e o s
which
I
may
ha e
made.
132.
|
RECENZIJOS
longe
his o y
o
Russian
popula ion,
one
o
he
phonological
cha ac e is ics
is
he
ha d
p o-
nuncia ion
o
2,
é,
§,
§¢,
e.g.,
Scy
‘cabbage
soup’.
A
mo phological
ea u e
is
he
occu ence
o
plu als
o
he
ype gldzy
‘eyes’,
dégi
‘ho ns’,
ixi
‘ea s’
ins ead
o
he
s anda d
Russian
glaza,
ogd,
si
(pp.
92-93).
Tallinn
was
pa
o
he
Russian
empi e
since
1710,
bu
a e
his
ime
Russian
was
limi ed
p e y
much
o
he
mili a y
ga ison.
Acco ding
o
Cekmonas’
a icle
“Russian
a ie ies
in
he
sou heas e n
Bal ic
a ea:
Ru al
dialec s”
(pp.
101-136)
he
Russian
language
in
his
a ea
de i es
p ima ily
om
he
Old
Belie e s
seeking
eligious
eedom
(p.
101).
Cekmonas
lis s
a
numbe
o
phone ic,
mo phological
and
syn ac ic
ea u es
cha ac e is-
ic
o
hese
dialec s.
One
o
he
mos
in e es ing
syn ac ic
ea u es
is
he
occu ence
o
s uc-
u es
o
he
ype
(u)
men’a
a a u
z'a a
‘I
ha e
aken
some
goods’
(p.
118).
Cekmonas
w i es:
“The
p eposi ion
(uw)
is
used
wi h
he
ins umen al
(sic!)
plu al
o
nouns
o
exp ess
he
meaning
o
he
S anda d
Russian
u
kogo
‘whose,
who
has/ha e’:
kupcax
segda
deneg
mnoga
‘ he
me chan s
always
ha e
much
money”
(p.
120).
Ce ainly
he e
he
wo d
‘ins u-
men al’
should
be
eplaced
by
‘p eposi ional’
o
‘loca i e’.
Cekmonas
epo s
ha
he e
a e
no
phone ic
ai s
in
he
Old
Belie e
dialec s
which
could
be
connec ed
wi h
o eign
in luence.
One
mo phological
ai
which
migh
be
so
iden i ied
is
he
change
o
neu e
o
eminine,
e.g.,
m’és a
‘place’,
a ’éc
zanimal
xa dSuju
m’es u
‘smb’s
a he
occupied
a
good
pos ’
(p.
125).
Ano he
mo phological
ea u e
common
o
he
Russian
dialec s
o
Eas
Li huania
may
be
he
esul
o
Li huanian
in luence,
iz.,
he
occu ence
o
he
3 d
singula
e b
wi h
a
plu al
sub-
jec ,
c .,
e.g.,
ani
az’m’6
‘ hey
will
ake’
(p.
126).
Many
Li huanian
ocabula y
i ems
ha e
pene a ed
he
cen al
Li huanian
Russian
dialec s,
e.g.,
uku
“a
ma ied
man
who
li es
in
his
wi e’s
house’
(<
Li h.
uzku js).
The
a icle
is
ma ed
by
nume ous
edi o ial
in elici ies,
e.g.,
on
p.
85
wi hin
he
cou se
o
wo
consecu i e
lines
we
encoun e
c oun
(>
c own),
Ydish
(>
Yiddish)
and
he
de ini ion
each
people
(>
ich
people).
O he
mis akes
include
Kazlauskas
>
Kulikauskas
(p.
89),
pleophiny
>
pleophony
(p.
112),
bye
>
buy,
by
>
buy
(p.
117),
inn e
>
inne
(p.
118),
guagmi e
>
quagmi e
(p.
127).
The
a icles
“Swedish
dialec s
a ound
he
Bal ic
Sea”
(pp.
137-177)
by
Anne-Cha lo e
Rendahl
and
“The
Finnic
languages”
(pp.
179-212)
by
Johanna
Laakso
a e
solid
and
in e es ing,
bu
say
li le
abou
language
con ac .
Os en
Dahl’s
a icle
“The
o igin
o
he
Scandina ian
languages”
(pp.
215-235)
concludes
ha :
“Ge manic-speaking
g oups
a i ed
o
he
e y
wes e nmos
co ne
o
he
Bal ic
(p esen -day
Ge many
and
Denma k)
somewha
be o e
he
beginning
o
ou
e a.
A
li le
la e
hey
expanded
eas wa ds
as
a
as
Uppland
on
he
no h
side
and
he
Vis ula
es ua y
on
he
sou h
side
o
he
Bal ic.
Du ing
he
ensuing
hal
millennium,
he
languages
o
he
di e en
Ge manic
g oups
became
di e en ia ed,
exac ly
how
much
we
do
no
know”
(p.
231).
La s-Gunna
La sson’s
a icle
“Bal ic
in luence
on
Finnic
languages”
(pp.
237-253)
begins
wi h
many
examples
o
Bal ic
loan-wo ds
in
Finnish
in
he
ields
o
animal
husband y,
e.g.,
Fin.
uohi
‘goa ’,
c .
Li h.
oZys,
body
pa s,
e.g.,
Fin.
kaula
‘neck’,
c .
Li h.
kaklas,
amily
ela ionships,
e.g.,
Fin.
heimo
‘ ibe’,
c .
Li h.
Seima
‘ amily’,
e c.
(pp.
239-240).
The
only
possible
phone ic
in luence
o
Bal ic
on
P o o-Finnic
would
be
he
change
o
he
sequence
* i
o
si,
i.e.,
he
pala aliza ion
o
*
by
a
ollowing
on
owel,
c .
Fin.
sil a
‘b idge’
wi h
Li h.
il as.
Howe e ,
as
La sson
co ec ly
ema ks
(p.
243),
he
P o o-Bal ic
pala aliza ion
o
consonan s
by
ollowing
on
owels
is
a he
unlikely.
La sson
discusses
wo
simila
syn ac ic
phenomena,
he
use
o
he
pa i i e
geni i e
bo h
as
subjec
and
as
objec
and
he
agen
pa iciple
in
Finnish.
An
example
RECENZIJOS
|
435:
o
he
i s
phenomenon
is
Fin.
Me sdssd
on
susia
(pa .
pl.)
‘In
he
o es
he e
a e
wol es’
=
Li h.
Miske
ilky
y a
(p.
245).
An
example
o
he
second
phenomenon
is
Fin.
Jsdn
(gen.
sg.)
os ama
au o
‘ he
ca
bough
by
a he ’
=
Li h.
Té o
(gen.
sg.)
pe kamas
au omobilis
(p.
247).
I
seems
o
me,
howe e ,
ha
he e
is
a
di e ence
in
o ce
be ween
he
wo
pa icipial
cons uc ions
which
he
English
ansla ion
(co ec
o
bo h
ph ases)
does
no
ca ch.
The
Finnish
cons uc ion
exp esses
a
comple ed
ac ion
and
he
Li huanian
an
ac ion
in
p og ess,
mo e
like
‘ he
ca
which
is
being
bough
by
a he ’.
Thus
Finnish
/sdn
os ama
au o
can
be
pa aph ased
as
Au o,
jonka
(acc.)
isd
os i
/
on
os anu
‘Ca
ha
a he
bough /has
bough ’.
In
his
case,
he
Finnish
cons uc ion
ce ainly
exp esses
a
comple ed
ac ion.
On
he
o he
hand
he
co esponding
Li huanian
cons uc ion
canno
be
pa aph ased
by
au omobilis,
ku j
(acc.)
ée as
pi ko
/
nusipi ko,
since
pe kamas
has
a
du a i e
meaning.
La sson
also
poin s
ou
ha
Ma i
-m-
pa iciples
di e
om
Finnish
in
ha
hey
can
be
o med
om
in ansi i e
e bs
(p.
248),
hus
Eas e n
Ma i:
memnan
(gen.)
olmo
ko no
‘ he
oad
ha
we
ha e
come’,
li .
‘ he
by
us
come
oad’,
bu
simila
cons uc ions
a e
possible
in
Li huanian
also,
e.g.,
Cia
kelelis
pésciy
(gen.
pl.)
einamas
(nom.
sg.
masc.
p es.
ps .
pa .)
‘he e
he
oad
is
a eled
on
by
he
pedes ians’
and
Cia
mano
(gen.
sg.)
ei as
(nom.
sg.
masc.
pas
ps .
pa .)
kelias
‘He e
is
he
pa h
ha
I
ha e
gone
on’
(LKZ,,
1069).
Al hough
he
co espondences
be ween
Finno-Ug ic
and
Bal ic
a e
no
exac
i
seems
a
ema kable
coincidence
o
me
ha
Finno-Ug ic
has
bo h
a
pa iciple
in
-m-
and
a
pa iciple
in
- -
which
ha e
somewha
(bu
no
exac ly!)
simila
unc ions
o
he
Indo-Eu opean
pa iciples
wi h
-m-
and
- -.
Collinde
(1964:
48,
57)
would
see
his
and
many
o he
ea u es
as
e idence
o
a
common
inhe i ance.
One
migh
compa e
also
he
cu ious
Hunga ian
pa allel.
Ka oly
(1972:
119)
w i es:
‘ he
pa iciple
wi h
he
o man
-7/-
can
be
ound
in
subjec i e
geni i e
cons uc ion...
az
[demons a i e]
én
[p onoun]
dlasz o am
[pa iciple]
‘one
chosen
by
me’.
(The
g amma ical
de ini ions
in
b acke s
a e
mine
—
WRS.)
This
seems
o
me
o
be
e y
simila
o
Li h.
Sis
mano
pa ink as
(daik as)...
‘ he
( hing)
chosen
by
me...’,
al hough
in luence
o
Bal ic
on
Hunga ian
seems
unlikely
i
no
impossible,
a
leas
wi hin
his o ic
imes.
E en
he
ac
ha
he
Bal ic
and
Finno-Ug ic
cons uc ions
a e
somewha
di e en
in
meaning
would
seem
o
a gue
o
a
common
sou ce,
a he
han
ou side
in luence,
whe e
mo e
exac
co espondences
migh
be
expec ed.
Pe haps
ins ead
o
ying
o
in e p e
Finnic
syn ax
in
e ms
o
Bal ic,
one
should
y
o
in e p e
Indo-Eu opean
syn ax
in
e ms
o
Finno-Usg ic.
I
seems
o
me
ha
he
syn ac ic
de elopmen
o
bo h
Indo-Eu opean
and
Finno-Usg ic
needs
deepe
analysis
be o e
wide- anging
conclusions
can
be
d awn
abou
Bal ic
in luence
on
Finnish
syn ax.
S e an
M.
Pugh’s
a icle
“The
ale
o
language
con ac
in
he
o ma ion
o
Ka elian,
pas
and
p esen ”
(pp.
257-270)
desc ibes
a
language
which
seems
o
ha e
been
almos
o e whelmed
by
Russian.
F om
he
in o ma ion
supplied
in
Pugh’s
a icle,
i
seems
o
me
ha
Ka elian
aces
a
e y
unce ain
u u e.
The
loss
o
a
language
is
ce ainly
a
ma e
o
eg e
o
human
cul u al
his o y,
bu
such
losses
a e
on
he
o he
hand
a
boon
o
hose
Ame ican
syn ac icians
who
base
hei
a gumen a ion
almos
exclusi ely
on
hei
na i e
English.
I
he e
a e
ewe
languages,
hen
ob iously
he e
will
be
ewe
uncom o able
coun e -examples
o
he
language
uni e sals
es ablished
by
such
schola s.
Indeed,
i
English
becomes
he
only
wo ld
language,
hen
language
uni e sals
could
indeed
be
based
on
English.
Fo
me
his
conside a ion
calls
in o
ques ion
also
he
signi icance
o
de e mining
he
numbe
o
languages
exhibi ing
a
speci ic
ypological
ea u e.
134
|
RECENZIJOS
The
exis ence
o
a
language
depends
on
he
exis ence
o
a
popula ion
speaking
ha
language,
no
he
na u e
o
he
language.
Pe haps
i
he
wa -like
Indo-Eu opeans
had
no
in aded
Eu ope,
ha
con inen
would
con ain
many
mo e
e ga i e
languages
like
Basque.
A e
eading
E a
Agnes
Csa ’s
a icle
“Syn ac ic
code-copying
in
Ka aim”
(pp.
271-283)
I
wonde ed
abou
he
u u e
o
ha
language
also,
c .
such
a
sen ence
as
J
uze
bu
o og a
u a
kolo
Bas’yanin
‘And
his
pho og aphe
is
al eady
s anding
nea
Basia’
(p.
275)
in
which
he
Ka aim
wo ds
a e
bu
‘ his’,
su a
‘is
s anding’
and
he
name
Basia,
which
is
he e
in
he
(Ka aim)
geni i e
case
as
equi ed
by
he
Polish
p eposi ion
kolo.
The
au ho
a gues
ha
in
Ka aim
“... he
use
o
pos posi ions
is
disha monic
wi h
he
o he
syn ac ic
p ope ies
o
Ka aim’
and
ha
‘The
pa h
o
syn ac ic
change
in
Ka aim
is,
howe e ,
no
pos posi ion
=
p eposi ion,
bu
a he
noun-like
pos posi ion
=
pa icle
like
pos posi ions’
(p.
276).
Since
I
don’
know
Ka aim
mo phophonemics
some imes
he
easoning
is
ha d
o
me
o
ollow.
Thus
he
p eposi ion
e e ed
o
as
bila
and
glossed
as
‘wi h’
appa en ly
appea s
wi hou
he
inal
syllable
in
sequence:
m en’imb’a
yanasa
I:
GEN.
wi h
nex
o
‘nex
o
me’
In
he
au ho ’s
iew
his
‘...illus a es
a
possible
de elopmen
in
he
g amma icalisa ion
o
pos posi ions
as
case
endings.
Compa e
his
Ka aim
cons uc ion
o
he
use
o
he
Polish
p eposi ion
p zy
‘by,
a ’,
which
go e ns
he
ins umen al
(sic!)
case’
(p.
281).
I
could
no
ind
any
sou ce
documen ing
he
use
o
Polish
p zy
wi h
he
ins umen al
case
and
in
ac
unde
he
heading
p i
Vond ak
(1928:
312)
w i es:
“Als
P ap.
ha
es
im
Sla .
nu
den
Lok.
bei
sich...”.
P obably
he
ansla o
o
his
a icle
jus
w o e
‘ins umen al’
o
‘loca i e’
o
‘p eposi ional’,
cu iously
enough
making
he
same
mis ake
as
in
Cekmonas’
a icle
men ioned
abo e.
S ill
such
edi o ial
o e sigh s
a e
un o una e
pa icula ly
o
pe sons
un amilia
wi h
he
ma e ial.
Neil
G.
Jacobs’
a icle
“Yiddish
in
he
Bal ic
egion”
(pp.
285-311)
is
a
well-o ganized
and
compe en
(al hough
necessa ily
b ie )
ou line
o
he
main
ea u es
o
ha
language
in
he
Ci cum-
Bal ic
e i o y.
In
his
sec ion
on
Li huanian
in luences
in
No heas e n
Yiddish
Jacobs
elies
p ima ily
on
he
wo ks
o
Lemkhen
(Lemchenas),
he eby
making
a ailable
in
English
(p obably
o
he
i s
ime)
some
o
he
esul s
o
ha
ou s anding
specialis ’s
s udy
o
Li huanian
impac
on
ha
a ie y
o
Yiddish.
The
bulk
o
Li huanian
in luence
on
Yiddish
is
lexical
and
Li huanian
ocabula y
bo owed
in o
Yiddish
con o ms
o
he
phonology
o
Yiddish.
Fo
example,
he
dis inc ion
be ween
sibilan s
and
shibilan s,
cha ac e is ic
o
Li huanian
(and
many
o he
languages)
is
los
and
he e
is
a he
some
kind
o
in e media e
sound.
Lemkhen
w i es
ha
in
he
wo d
bo owed
om
Li h.
speigas
‘big
os ’
he
canno
say
whe he
i
is
Spejg-
o
spejg-.
On
his
phenomenon
see
Ma ine
(1951:
92).
In
his
a icle
“The
No h
Russian
Romani
dialec :
In e e ence
and
Code
Swi ching”
(pp.
313-337)
Aleksand
R.
Rusako
w i es
ha
his
dialec
“...is
a
e y
ypical
example
o
s ong
linguis ic
in e e ence”
(p.
313).
In his
dialec
unde
Russian
in luence
a
new
e bal
sys em
is
a ising,
in
which
he
old
na i e
opposi ion
o
impe ec
s.
ao is
disappea s,
he
old
ao is
se ing
as
a
gene al
pas ,
and
he
old
impe ec
se ing
as
a
a ely
used
o m
wi h
i e a i e
meaning.
Almos
e e y
e b
may
use
bo owed
p e ixes
on
he
Russian
model
(p.
315),
¢.g.,
e
o -des
‘ o
gi e
back’
(Russ.
o -da ’),
e
y-des
‘ o
gi e ou ’
(Russ.
y-da ’),
e
oz-des
‘ o
dis ibu e’
(Russ.
oz-da ’).
Acco ding
o
he
au ho
one
encoun e s
in
he
dialec
‘ he
ex ensi e
use
o
RECENZIJOS
|
135
g amma ically
unadap ed
Russian
lexical
elemen s’
(p.
323).
An
example
is:
Da
na ,
me
p os o
na
dumind’om,
so
me
u
da e
s echu
which
is
supplied
wi h
he
somewha
unidioma ic
English
ansla ion
‘No,
I
didn’
jus
hink
ha
I
mee
you
he e’
(p.
323).
Un o una ely
his
is
no
supplied
wi h
any
g amma ical
commen a y.
Someone
wi h
a
knowledge
o
Russian
can
p e y
well
igu e
his
ou ,
bu
I
doub
ha
a
pe son
who
knows
no
Russian
would
ha e
any
idea
o
he
ex en
o
he
code-swi ching.
The
au ho
concludes
ha
he
speake s
o
he
Romani
language
hemsel es
eel
a
need
o
p ese e
i
“...as
a
special,
sec e
language,
which
canno
be
unde s ood
by
ou side s’
(p.
334).
The e o e,
one
assumes,
ha
di e en ly
om
Ka elian
and
Ka aim,
also
discussed
in
his
olume,
he
No h
Russian
Romani
dialec
migh
no
die
ou .
Vale iy
Cekmonas’
a icle
“On
some
Ci cum-Bal ic
ea u es
o
he
Psko -No go od
(No hwes e n
Cen al
Russian)
dialec ”
(pp.
339-359)
conside s
se e al
phonological
phenomena
om
he
poin
o
iew
o
he
subs a um
heo y.
Acco ding
o
he
au ho
he
phenomenon
o
cokan’e
( he
me ge
o
*¢
wi h
*c)
“...was
one
o
he
mos
cha ac e is ic
ea u es
o
he
old
Psko ...
and
old
No go od
dialec s...”
(p.
341).
An
examina ion
o
he
unc ion
and
he
dis ibu ion
o
c
and
¢
o
he
a ious
subs a um
Finnic
languages
o
he
Ci cum-Bal ic
a ea
sugges s
ha
hey
migh
s imula e
he
coalescence
o c
and
¢
in oc
in
Russian
dialec s.
Fu he mo e
he e
a e
wo
o he
phenomena
which
mus
be
aken
in o
conside a ion.
The
i s
is
he
me ge
o
he
so
*s
and
*z
and
so
*
and
*Z
in o
*s”,
*z”
(an
in e media e
sound
be ween
sibilan
and
shibilan )
and
he
second
is
he
ee
(and
spo adic)
al e na ion
o
ha d
*s
and
*z
wi h
(ha d)
*§
and
*2
(p.
346).
A
simila
phenomenon
is
Li huanian
Slekia imas
as
desc ibed
by
Gi denis
and
Pab éza
(1978:
127-129).
The
lack
o
a
con as
be ween
/s/
and
/8/
in
Finnic
is
an
ancien
ea u e,
and
he
Russian
phenomena
in
ques ion
could
be
explained
in
his
way.
Ano he
phenomenon
which
migh
be
asc ibed
o
Finnic
in luence
is
he
unmo i a ed
change
o
oiced
o
oiceless
consonan
and
ice- e sa,
e.g.,
buza
<
puza
‘belly’,
ybuci ’
(glazd)
<
ypuci ’
‘ o
open
one’s
eyes
wide’
(p-
351).
A
i s
Finno-Ug ic
popula ions
could
no
p onounce
oiced
consonan s,
bu
la e
a e
mas e ing
he
oiced
consonan s
hey
could
p oduce
hype co ec
o ms
wi h
oiced
consonan s
ins ead
o
oiceless
ones.
In
he
i s
a icle
o
olume
2
“Impe sonals
and
passi es
in
Bal ic
and
Finnic”
(pp.
363—
389)
Axel
Hol oe
poin s
ou
possible
a eal
links
be ween
he
passi e
and
impe sonal
cons uc ions
o
La ian
and
Li huanian
on
he
one
hand
and
Finnic
on
he
o he
hand.
In
many
languages
he
impe sonal
cons uc ions
a e
e ymologically
de i ed
om
passi e
cons uc ions,
e.g.,
Pol.
Zbu zono
Sciane
“They
pulled
down
a
wall’,
‘A
wall
was
pulled
down’
as
Opposed
o
Sciana
zos a a
zbu zona
(p zez
obo nikéw)
‘The/A
wall
was
pulled
down
(by
he
wo kmen)’
(p.
365).
Fo
he
pu poses
o
his
pape
Hol oe
inds
i
use ul
o
gene alize
some
di e ences
be ween
he
passi e
and
he
impe sonal.
In
his
iew
“The
passi e:
(a)
p omo es
he
o iginal
objec
o
an
ac i e
cons uc ion
o
subjec ;
he
passi e
e b
o m
mus
ag ee
wi h
his
subjec
in
numbe
a
leas ;
i
he
passi e
o m
is
pe iph as ic
and
con ains
a
pa iciple,
hen
his
pa iciple
will
ag ee
wi h
he
subjec
in
case
and
gende
as
well
(p o ided
we
a e
dealing
wi h
a
language
whe e
hese
o ms
o
ag eemen
exis );
(b)
mus
no
necessa ily
con ain
an
agen
ph ase,
bu
may
do
so
i
necessa y;
i
no
agen
ph ase
occu s,
he
sen ence
con eys
no
in o ma ion
abou
he
kind
o
agen
in ol ed”.
“The
impe sonal:
(a)
does
no
p omo e
he
o iginal
objec
o
subjec
( he
ag eemen
ea u es
men ioned
o
passi es
will
he e o e
no
apply),
and
(b)
does
no
allow
an
agen
ph ase
o
be
added,
bu
always
applies
o
human
agency”
(p.
366).

136
|
RECENZIJOS
Examples
o
he
Finnish
passi e
a e:
Naapu i
ku su iin
illalliselle.
NOM.SG
PRET.
PASS.
ALLATIVE
‘The
neighbou
was
in i ed
o
dinne .’
Minu
ku su iin
illalliselle.
ACC
PRET.PASS
ALLATIVE
‘I
was
in i ed
o
dinne ’
Naapu i
ei
ku su u
illalliselle.
PRIV.
SG
NEG
PASS.PART
ALLATIVE
‘The
neighbou
was
no
in i ed
o
dinne ’
(p.
367).
I
mus
con ess
ha
I
was
con used
by
he
las
example,
since
I
would
ha e
expec ed
ha he
pa i i e
would
be
di e en
om
he
nomina i e.
Since
my
knowledge
o
Finnish
is
minimal
I
asked
Ilse
Lehis e
who
sugges ed
o
me
ha
his
migh
be
a
ypog aphical
e o
o
naapu ia.
In e es ingly
enough,
Hol oe
w i es
(p.
368)
ha
he e
does
no
seem
o
be
a
endency
in
Finnic
o
in eg a e
he
agen less
passi e
in o
a
passi e
pa adigm,
bu
a he
a
endency
o
in eg a e
passi e
o ms
in o
he
ac i e
pa adigm.
I
hink
ha
his
migh
be
a
common
endency,
one
ha
Go ab
(1975:
29)
has
e med
‘ac i iza ion’
o
Polish
(c .,
e.g.,
he
examples
Hol oe
has
quo ed
abo e).
Go ab
compa es
also
pos classical
La in
cons uc ions
such
as
legi u
lib um
(acc.)
‘a
book
is
ead’
(c .
Plau us
epi y a
es u
insanum
‘oli e
sp eads
a e
ea en
madly’),
and
Pol.
czy a
sie
ksiqzke
‘a
book
is
being
ead’.
In
his
connec ion
I
should
like
o
quo e
a
u he
example
om
he
Iliad
(XIII,
597):
O
epédue o
NOM.
[ACC.?]
SG.
NEUT
CONJ
3
SG.
MIDDLE
AOR.
he
and
d agged
ws A oy
EYYOS
NOM.
[ACC.?]
SG.
NEUT.
NOM.
[ACC.?]
SG.
NEUT.
ashen
spea
Schwyze
(1966:
237)
w i es
ha
he
sen ence
could
be
ansla ed
in
se e al
ways,
(a)
‘de
eschene
Spee
schlei e
nach’
o
(b)
‘wu de
nachgeschlei ’
o
e en
(c)
‘e
schlei e
den
e.
Sp.
hin e
sich
nach’.
I
one
accep s
ansla ion
(a)
he
e b
is
simply
in ansi i e,
and
i
one
accep s
ansla ion
(b)
hen
he
e b
is
passi e.
Bu
i
one
accep s
he
ansla ion
(c)
hen
he
e b
has
been
‘ac i ized’
and
made
ansi i e.
In
my
iew
he
sequence
o
possible
ansla ions
ollows
exac ly
he
his o ical
de elopmen .
The
middle
oice
was
o iginally
in ansi i e
and
hen
wi h
he
appea ance
o
an
ac i e
coun e pa
in
he
p e e i
he
mo phological
middle
oice
could
be
in e p e ed
as
passi e.
Finally
a
possible
‘ac i ized’
usage
o
he old
passi e
was
in oduced.
In
his
discussion
o
he
La ian
agen
ph ases
Hol oe
quo es
he
examples:
manis
cel a
maja
and
mana
cel a
maja
‘a
house
buil
by
me’
(p.
371)
no ing
ha
he
second
example
is
now
obsole e.
He
w i es
u he
ha
o iginally
“..mana
cel a
maja
mean
‘my
house,
which
I
ha e
buil ’,
and
subsequen ly
came
o
mean
‘ he
house
buil by
me’
( he
agen
and
he
possesso
no
RECENZIJOS
|
187
being
necessa ily
iden ical
any
mo e)”
(p.
372).
The
syn ax
is,
o
cou se,
simila
o
ha
o
he
Li huanian
example:
Namas
y a
mano
pas a y as
‘The
house
was
buil
by
me’.
Hol oe
w i es
(pp.
377-378):
‘The
geni i e
mano
used he e
is
he
same
as
in
mano
é as
‘my
a he ’,
bu
di e s
om
he
geni i e
manes
used
in
nuo
manes
‘ om
me’
and
laukia
manes
‘is
wai ing
o
me’
[...]
This
sugges s
ha
in
Li huanian
as
well,
he
agen i e
geni i e
was
o iginally
an
adnominal
possessi e
geni i e...”
Howe e ,
he
use
o
manes
in
agen
usage
is
known
also
in
Li huanian
(Schmals ieg
2002a:
50-51;
Zulys
1969:
170).
I
mus
be
kep
in
mind
ha
syn ac ic
cons uc ions
can
be
los
as
well
as
gained
in
he
his o y
o
indi idual
languages,
c .,
e.g.,
he
English
agen i e
o ,
discussed
below.
The
heo y
o
he
possessi e
o igin
o
he
geni i e
o
agen
is
simple
and
a ac i e
and
has
been
ably
de ended
by
Hol oe
elsewhe e,
e.g.,
(2001
wi h
li e a u e).
The
heo y
ce ainly
wo ks
well
o
he
Bal ic
passi e
which
is
only
encoun e ed
in
pa icipial
cons uc ions.
Bu
in
a
ecen
a icle
in
his
jou nal
(2002a:
41-43)
I
ha e
gi en
examples
om
Old
Pe sian,
Old
Indic,
Tokha ian,
G eek
and
Old
Chu ch
Sla ic
in
which
he
geni i e
is
used
wi h
agen i e
meaning
in
ini e
e bal
cons uc ions
as
well
as
in
pa icipial
cons uc ions.
The e o e,
i
one
we e
o
assume
he
possessi e
o igin
o
he
agen i e
geni i e
in
pa icipial
cons uc ions
in
hese
languages,
one
would
hen
ha e
o
cons uc
a
sepa a e
heo y
o
he
agen i e
geni i e
in
he
ini e
cons uc ions
(pe haps
p esupposing
a
ans e
o
he
meaning
de i ed
in
pa icipial
cons uc ions
o
ini e
cons uc ions).
This
seems
less
p obable
o
me
han
Haud y’s
(1977:
409)
no ion
ha
he
subjec i e
geni i e
and
he
geni i e
o
belonging
go
back
o
he
same
o igin,
iz.
he
geni i e
o
sou ce,
which
when
used
wi h
he
passi e
pa iciples
deno es
he
au ho
o
he
ac ion.
T augo
(1972:
127-128)
no es
ha
in
English
he
p eposi ion
o
became
he
mos
popula
agen i e
un il
ca.
1600,
c .
Chauce :
... ha
is
a
lo d
o
be
bilo ed
o
his
ci ezeins
and
o
his
peple.
Al hough
he
use
is
ecessi e,
one
can
s ill
ind
in
Shakespea e:
‘I
ha e
been
old
so
o
many’.
She
w i es:
“... his
use
o
o
is
an
ex ension
o
i s
use
exp essing
sou ce
o
o igin...”
(p.
127);
“In
O(Id)
E(nglish)
o
was
used
mainly
o
signal
‘ou
o ,
o igina ing
om’,
o
pa - o-whole
ela ionship.
P obably
s ongly
suppo ed
by
he
in luence
o
F ench
de,
o
sp ead
om
he
pa i i e
use
o
Possessi e
cons uc ions
and
o
many
o he s
ha
had
in ol ed
he
geni i e
ma ke ”
(p.
128).
Al hough
o
is
no
longe
used
o
exp ess
agen
in
a
passi e
cons uc ion
(a
leas
in
any a ie y
o
con empo a y
English
ha
I
am
amilia
wi h),
T augo ’s
explana ion
p o ides
a
good
example
o
how
he
agen i e
and
possessi e
meanings
can
be
de i ed
om
a
common
sou ce
wi hou
assuming
ha
he
o me
meaning
a ose
om
he
la e .
[would
also
add
ha
he
assump ion
o
an
e ga i e
o igin
o
he
agen i e
geni i e
would
explain
he
iden i y
o
he
nomina i e
and
geni i e
singula
o
Hi .
an- u-u -Sa-as
‘man’,
Go h.
ha jis
‘a my’,
hai deis’
‘shephe d’,
Vedic
eh
‘bi d’.
In
my
iew
he
sigma ic
nomina i e
was
o iginally
cha ac e is ic
o
only
he
e ymological
*-0
o
*-jo
s em
nouns,
he
ending
*-os
ha ing
i s
o igin
in
an
agen i e
o m
o
an
olde
consonan
s em
noun,
see
Schmals ieg
(2000:
386;
2001).
Long
ago
Hi
(1928:
102)
ecognized
ha
he e
was
a
mo phological
ela ionship
be ween
he
G eek
3 d
sg.
middle
ending
- o
(and
Old
Indic
- a)
and
he
inde ini e
case
o
he
Indo-
Eu opean
pa iciples
in
*- o.
No e
he
ollowing
pa allel:
e
Tes
e iua o
ond
CONJ.
NOM.
SG.
MASC.
3
SG.
PSV.
IMPERF.
PREP.
i
anyone
was
hono ed
by
138
|
RECENZIJOS
zo0
dquo
GEN.
SG.
GEN.
SG.
he
people
(Goodwin
and
Gulick
1958:
261).
In
G eek
he
agen i e
geni i e
has
been
ein o ced
by
he
p eposi ion
x6
‘by’.
The
ac an s
would
be
in
he
same
espec i e
cases
(i.e.,
he
subjec
in
he
nomina i e
case
and
he
agen
in
he
geni i e
case)
in
a
possible
Li huanian
syn ac ic
coun e pa :
jéigu
kas
bi o
au os
CONS.
NOM.
SG.MASC.
3
PRET.
GEN.
SG.
i
anyone
was
by
people
page b- a,
NEUT.
PAST
PSV.
PART.
hono ed
T adi ion
says
ha
he
Gk.
ending
- o
is
he
3 d
sg.
middle
ao is
/
impe ec
ending,
whe eas
he
phone ically
co esponding
Li huanian
ending
- a
is
he
neu e
sg.
pas
passi e
pa iciple
ending,
bu
he
esemblance
is
s iking.
Could
he
Indo-Eu opean
middle
e bal
ending
*- o
de i e
om
an
ea lie
pa iciple?
I
so,
could
he
pu po ed
possessi e
o igin
o
he
agen i e
be
sa ed
by
acing
i
back
o
Indo-Eu opean
imes?
The
inco po a ion
o
e ymological
pa iciples
in o
he
e bal
pa adigm
has
pa allels
elsewhe e,
c .,
e.g.,
he
Sla ic
p e e i
in
-l-,
which
is
o
pa icipial
o igin.
Ho n
(1898:
148)
w i es
ha
he
wo Pahle i
p e e i
cons uc ions
am
ka
‘ on
mi
(wa d)
ge han’
and
man
ka
‘mein
Ge hanes’
me ged
and
ga e
he
mode n
Fa si
p e e i
sg.
1
man
ka dam
‘I
did’,
e c.
Could
he
I anian
de elopmen
me ely
be
a
epe i ion
o
wha
happened
in
Indo-Eu opean
imes?
In e es ingly
enough
mode n
Fa si
man
‘I
de i es
om
he
Old
Pe sian
(gen.)
mand
‘mine,
o
me’,
and
may
now
be
used
e en
as
he
subjec
o
in ansi i e
e bs,
c .,
e.g.,
man
dok o
am
‘1
am
a
doc o ’
(Schmals ieg
1995:
19-20).
Al hough
in
gene al
language
speci ic
explana ions
a e
mo e
likely
han
hose
going
in o
he
dis an
Indo-Eu opean
pas ,
he
occu ence
o
common
syn ac ic
phenomena
in
o he
Indo-Eu opean
languages
ce ainly
sugges s
a
common
o igin.
I
doub
ha
one
would
wan
o
explain,
o
example,
he
subjec
use
o
he
nomina i e
case
me ely
wi hin
he
amewo k
o
he
his o y
o
Bal ic
alone,
wi hou
e e ence
o
G eek,
La in,
Indo-I anian,
e c.
Simila ly
he
nomina i e
objec
o
he
in ini i e
has
i s
o igins
in
Indo-Eu opean
imes,
al hough
he
scope
o
i s
use
may
ha e
been
in luenced
by
Wes
Finnic
(see
below).
Hol oe
(pp.
379-386)
discusses
he
p oblem
o
inde ini e,
gene alized
ze o
subjec s
o
e bs.
The
use
o
he
plu al
e b
in
such
ci cums ances
is
qui e
common
ypologically
and
occu s
bo h
in
La ian
and
Finnish,
e.g.,
La .
Manu
dzi okli
k a ijusi,
mani
mekléjusi
‘I
was
old
ha
my
la
had
been
ansacked
and
ha
I
had
been
looked
o ’
(wi h
plu al
pa iciples)
and
Finnish
Siella
kuulu a
(3 d
pl.
p es.)
ienaa an
(ac .
pa .)
hy in
‘I
is
said
ha
one
ea ns
well
he e’
(pp.
381—
382).
On
he
o he
hand
he
use
o
he
3 d
sg.
e b
wi h
no
subjec
is
common
in
Finnic,
c .
Finnish
Puhees a-ni
(ela i e
plus
possessi e)
oi
(3
sg.
p es.)
Kuula
(in .),
e d
olen
(1
sg.
p es.)
ulkomaalainen
(nom.
sg.)
‘F om
my
speech
you
can
hea
ha
I
am
a
o eigne ’
(p.
382).
In
Bal ic
languages,
o
cou se,
he
di e ence
be ween
3 d
pe son
singula
and
plu al
e bal
ag eemen
can
only
be
de e mined
in
hose
o ms
wi h
pa iciples.
Fo
La ian
Hol oe
gi es
us
he
example:
RECENZIJOS
|
139
Ja
pa asa i
dzi d
dzeguzi
kikojam
un
Ja
na
édis
un
naudas
na
kla ,
ad
ai
gada
slik i
klajas
‘T
in
he
sp ing
one
hea s
a
cuckoo
c ying
and one
hasn’
ea en
and
one
has
no
money
on
one’s
pe son,
hen
ha
yea
will
be
a
bad
one’
(p.
383).
The gene alized
o m
o
he
pa iciple
édis
‘ea en’
he e
is
in
he
masculine
singula
(showing
a
neu aliza ion
o
gende ).
S essing
he
simila i ies
be ween
La ian
and
Finnic
Hol oe
w i es:
‘On
he
whole,
howe e ,
i
is
La ian
ha
seems
o
ha e
adap ed
i s
sys em
o
impe sonal
and
passi e
cons uc ions
o
a
Finnic
model’
(p.
387).
A
mino
edi o ial
slip
in
he
p eceding
a icle
is
ha
he
Li huanian
sen ences
(40)
and
(41)
on
p.
308
a e
e oneously
labeled
La ian.
In
his
a icle
“On
he
de elopmen
o
he
nomina i e
objec
in
Eas
Bal ic”
(pp.
391-412)
Amb azas
w i es
ha
he e
a e
wo
opinions
conce ning
he
o igin
o
he
nomina i e
wi h
he
in ini i e.
Acco ding
o
he
adi ional
opinion
“... he
nomina i e
is
ega ded
as
he
o me
subjec
and
he
in ini i e
is
ea ed
as
a
e lec ion
o
he
pu posi e
da i e
o
he
ac ional
nominal”
(p.
391).
Acco ding
o
Timbe lake’s
(1974:
220)
iew
he
nomina i e
used
wi h
he
in ini i e
“...a ose
as
a
syn ac ic
bo owing
om
some
Wes
Finnic
language(s)”
(p.
392).
Amb azas
i s
no es
he
da i e
o igin
o
he
Bal ic
in ini i e
and
hen
no es
ha
in
some
cons uc ions
he
in ini i e
can
be
eplaced
by
some
o he
nominal,
e.g.,
Rugiai
(mums)
liko
sé i
/
séjai
‘The
ye
emained
( o
us)
o
sow
/
o
sowing’
(p.
393).
A
simila
La ian
example
is:
Pienins
és
/
€Sanai
nede éja
‘The
milk
wasn’
i
o
consump ion’
(p.
394).
The
pu posi e
meaning
is
pe haps
less
clea
in
he
example:
Jam
eko
/
pa iko
|
iipéjo
laukas
a i
‘I
ell
o
him
/
He
was
pleased
/
conce ned
o
plough
he
ield’
(p.
394).
The
nomina i e
wi h
he
in ini i e
is
obse ed
wi h
e bs
o
pe cep ion,
c .
he
exp essions
Li h.
Kas
gi dé i
‘Wha
is
o
be
hea d?’;
La .
Kas
Jauns
dzi dé
‘Wha
news
is
o
be
hea d?’
(p.
395).
The
e b
‘ o
be’
may
unc ion
wi h
he
nomina i e
wi h
he
in ini i e
o
exp ess
necessi y,
e.g.,
(man)
(y a)
bu o
/
bus
namai
s a y i
‘( o
me)
i
is
/
was
/
will
be
necessa y
o
build
a
house’.
In
La ian
his
is
appa en ly
a e
as
is
e idenced
by
a
single
example
om Endzelins
(1951:
783):
Kungam
és
ei
meizi e
‘The
gen lemen
ha e
o
ea
his
b ead’
(p.
397).
I
is
possible
ha
he
La ian
debi i e
has
i s
o igin
in
such
cons uc ions
(Hol oe
1993:
152):
*man
i
maize
ja
és
li e ally
‘ o
me
is
b ead
which
(is)
o
ea ’,
i.e.,
‘I
ha e
b ead
o
ea ing’.
The
no ma i e
g amma s,
o
cou se,
demand
a
nomina i e
case
o
he
subjec
o
such
a
cons uc ion,
hus,
e.g.,
Lini
bijusi
jakal é
‘The
lax
was
in
need
o
d ying’.
Ina
le e
da ed
18
Feb ua y
1984
he
now
sadly
deceased
La ian
linguis ,
Valdis
Zeps
w o e
o
me:
‘The
business
abou
no
accusa i e
a e
a
debi i e
is
s u
and
nonsense,
p omulga ed
by
he
Academy
G amma ,
al hough
o
my
knowledge,
nobody
has
old
he
Empe o
abou
he
new
clo hes’.
Zeps
e en
hough
o
be
possible
he
sen ence:
Man
i
jalasa
g ama u
(acc.)
‘I
ha e
o
ead
he
book’,
see
Schmals ieg
(2002b:
153).
In
ha
we
ha e
o
deal
wi h
he
eplacemen
o
a
his o ical
nomina i e
by an
inno a ing
accusa i e
now
el
as
an
objec ,
he
phenomenon
is
somewha
simila
o
he
phenomenon
o
‘ac i iza ion’
discussed
abo e.
The
example
is
also
men ioned
in
he
a icle
by
Baiba
Me uzale-Kange e
and
Ke s i
Boiko,
see
below.
The e
a e
also
examples
consis ing
o
an
adjec i e
and
a
link
e b,
e.g.,
Li h.
(Man)
medus
(y a)
/
bu o
/
bus
ga dus
algy i
‘Honey
is
/
was
/
will
be
delicious
( o
me)
o
ea ’
(p.
398).
Wi h
neu e
adjec i es
one
encoun e s
in
some
local
dialec s
o
Eas
Li huania:
Sal inio
anduo
s eikas
/
s eika
ge i
‘Sp ing
wa e
is
heal hy
o
d ink’.
Amb azas
w i es
(p.
399):
‘Ke nel
s uc u es
medus
ga di
[‘honey
is
swee ’];
anduo
s eika
[‘wa e
is
heal hy’]
ep esen
he
pa e n
o
an
146
|
RECENZIJOS
abla i e.
Shields (2001)
gi es
a
b ie
e iew
o
he
his o y
o
he
p oblem
and
sugges s
an
o igin
o
his
ending.
I is
he
common
opinion
ha
in
G eek
he
abla i e
has
been
los
and
ha
in
he
*-o
s ems
he
geni i e
has
aken
o e
he
unc ions
o
he
Indo-Eu opean
abla i e.
Schwyze
(1966:
90)
sugges s
ha he
o m
¢oix«
‘ om
he
house,
a
one’s
own
expense’
ep esen s
a
elic o
he
Indo-Eu opean
abla i e.
I
sugges
jus
he
con a y,
iz.,
ha
he
new
*-o
s em
abla i e
(*-d[d/ ]
o
*-a[d/ ]?)
ne e
ook
hold
in
G eek
as
i
did
in
La in,
Old
Indic,
Bal ic
and
Sla ic.
Unde
he
heading
Gen.
de
Abs ammung
Schwyze
(1966:
124)
quo es
he
Iliad
(21,
109):
ma ed¢
[GEN.
sG.]
8
cius
xya9o o
[GEN.
SG.]
li e ally
‘I
am
o
a
good
a he ’.
The
elemen a y
G eek
g amma
by
Goodwin
and
Gulick
(1958:
236)
no es
ha
poe s
used
he
geni i e
o
sepa a ion
wi h
e bs
o
mo ion,
€.g.,
ODAduTOL0
[GEN.
SG.]
xa THAVoue
‘we
descended
om
Olympus’
(Iliad
20,
125).
I
would
sugges
hen
ha
he
Indo-Eu opean
geni i e
did
a
leas
o iginally
ha e
sepa a i e
meaning
and
ha
he
au ho ’s
de elopmen al
scena io
(appa en ly
con a y
o
he
asse ion)
is
alid
o
Indo-
Eu opean
as
well
as
o
Finno-Ug ic.
Iha e
sugges ed
(Schmals ieg
2000;
2001)
ha he
Indo-Eu opean
syn ac ic
nomina i e
singula
had
h ee
mo phological
o igins,
a
ze o
ending
o
he
e ymological
absolu i e
case
(o iginally
he
subjec
o
in ansi i e
o
an ipassi e
cons uc ions),
an
anima e
ma ke
*-s
(o iginally
he
agen
o
e ga i e
cons uc ions)
and
an
inanima e
ma ke
*-m
(o iginally
he
ins umen
in
cons uc ions
simila
o
he
e ga i e
cons uc ions).
Hi i e
shows
he
e en ion
o
he
*-os
as
-a§
in
he
nomina i e,
geni i e
and e en
pa ially
in
he
abla i e
unc ion
(al hough,
as
men ioned,
a
new
abla i e
in
-az
is
enc oaching
on
he
olde
-as).
The
ein e p e a ion
o
he
e ymological
e ga i e
ending
*-os
as
a
nomina i e
ending
led
o
a
comple e
es uc u ing
o
Indo-Eu opean
*-o
s em
mo phology
such
ha
in
some
o
he
Indo-Eu opean
languages
he
old
geni i e
ending
*-os
was
modi ied
o
subs i u ed
wi h
ano he
ending
and
in
he
case
o
La in
and
Indo-I anian
a
new
ma ke
o
sou ce
( he
abla i e)
was c ea ed
o
he
olde
unc ions.
This
same
ma ke
o
sou ce
(*-4d[ /d]?,
*-6[ /d]?)
se ed
he
Bal ic
and
Sla ic
*-o
s em
nouns
wi h
geni i e
as
well
as
abla i e
meaning.
The
heo y
is
de eloped
in
de ail
in
Schmals ieg
(2000).
The
ending
*-s
which
o iginally
had
geni i e-abla i e-e ga i e
meaning
was
e ained
as
such
in
all
bu
he
*-o
s ems.
In
he
*-o
s ems
*-s
came
o
ha e
he
addi ional
nomina i e
singula
meaning
and
was
also
sp ead
o
o he
s ems.
Tha
his
sp ead
o
-s
is
an
ongoing
p ocess
can
be
shown
by
he
c ea ion
wi hin
his o ical
imes
o
such
new
nomina i es
as
La .
akmens
‘s one’
(beside
Li h.
akmud)
and
mode n
Gk.
xa épac
‘ a he ’
beside
classical
xa yg9.
This
no ion
explains
why
he
mo pheme
*-s
is
encoun e ed
in
he
geni i e,
abla i e
and
nomina i e
singula
unc ion
in
he
ancien
Indo-Eu opean
languages.
In
he
es uc u ing
o
he
*-o
s ems
a
new
geni i e
singula
was
c ea ed
in
all
he
Indo-Eu opean
languages
bu
Hi i e
and
a
new
abla i e
was
c ea ed
in
some
o
he
Indo-Eu opean
languages.
In
his
a icle
“Non e bal
p edica ion
in
he
Ci cum-Bal ic
languages”
(pp.
569-590)
Leon
S assen
no es
ha
adjec i al
and
nominal
p edica es
may
be
ei he
in
he
nomina i e
case
o
some
oblique
case,
he
di e ence
depending
upon
he
Rela i e
Time
S abili y.
He
w i es
(p.
569):
“...
encoding
in
he
nomina i e
is
used
o
e e
o
si ua ions
which
a e
ela i e
‘ ime-
s able’
and
hus
unlikely
o
change
o e
ime,
whe eas
he
oblique
encoding
emphasizes
he
‘ lee ing’
o
empo a y
na u e
o
he
si ua ion”.
The
au ho
con i ms
he
exis ence
o
his
seman ic
con as
in
a
numbe
o
di e en
languages
om
he
well-known
Spanish
dis inc ion
be ween
se
and
es a
o
examples
in
such
dispa a e
languages
as
Tamil,
Kannada,
Telugu,
A a ,
Chechen
and

RECENZIJOS
|
147
A chi.
He
concludes
ha
“... he
double
encoding
o
non e bal
p edica es,
which
akes
he
o m
o
a
nomina i e-oblique
case
opposi ion,
is
an
a eal
ea u e
o
he
Ci cum-Bal ic
a ea...”
and
ha
“,..
his
double
encoding
is
in
essence
a
non-Indo-Eu opean
cha ac e is ic,
which
has
been
‘pushed
aside’
by
Indo-Eu opean
expansion,
bu
which
may,
in
some
bo de
a eas,
con inue
o
exe
i s
in luence
on
Indo-Eu opean
languages
as
well”
(p.
588).
Thomas
S olz’
a icle
“On
Ci cum-Bal ic
ins umen als
and
comi a i es:
To
and
o
cohe ence”
(pp.
591-612)
begins
wi h
he
s a emen
ha
“Recen
in es iga ions
...
ha e
e ealed
ha
sync e ism
o
comi a i e
and
ins umen al
ca ego ies
is
no
as
common
among
he
languages
o
he
wo ld
as
o me ly
pos ula ed”.
Acco ding
o
he
s udy
o
323
languages
comple ed
by
S olz’
esea ch
g oup
sligh ly
less
han
25%
o
hei
sample
languages
we e
like
Ge man
and
a e
cha ac e ized
by
comi a i e-ins umen al
sync e ism
(p.
593).
Those
languages
which
display
comi a i e-ins umen al
sync e ism
a e
labeled
‘cohe en ’
languages
and
hose
which
dis inguish
comi a i es
om
ins umen als
a e
called
‘incohe en ’
languages.
Those
languages
which
mix
cohe en
and
incohe en
mo phemes
a e
called
‘mixed’
languages.
(p.
593).
Thus,
o
example,
Swedish
is
cohe en ,
Li huanian
is
mixed
and
Finnish
is
incohe en .
The
au ho
w i es:
“None
o
he
Sla onic
languages
o
he
Ci cum-Bal ic
a ea
a e
s ic ly
speaking
cohe en ,
hough
o he
membe s
o
he
same
amily
ha e
become
cohe en ,
some
o
hem,
e.g.
Slo ene
and
So bian,
mos
p obably
because
o
Ge man
in luence....”
(p.
601).
One
could
possibly
add
o
his
lis
Se bo-C oa ian
whe e
also,
con a y
o
school
book
p esc ip ions,
s
is
some imes
used
o
deno e
‘wi h,
by
means
o ’.
Some
speake s
say:
Idém
s
lékom
( ézom)
‘I'm
going
by
ain’
ins ead
o
he
p esc ibed
o m
wi hou
he
p eposi ion
(Magne
1972:
255).
Al hough
he
au ho
is
co ec
wi h
ega d
o
Russian,
in
S a
(IV
9)
we
encoun e
de ini ion
no.
5
o
c:
“Yno peOase cs
npH
o603HayeHHH
TIp€AMeTa,
JIMWa,
MOCPEACTBOM
WIM
C
MOMOLIbIO
KOTOPO O
OcyllecTBAAeTCA
AelicTBHe”
‘I
is
used
o
deno e
an
objec
[o ]
a
pe son
by
means
o
which
o
wi h
he
help
o
which
an
ac ion
is
pe o med’.
Examples
include:
omnpaeume
naxem
co
cea3HbiM
‘ o
send
a
package
wi h
(by?)
a
messenge ’;
paccmampueamb
¢
aynoii
‘ o
examine
wi h
a
magni ying
glass’;
meimb
c
Molo
‘ o
wash
wi h
soap’;
—Jla
kak
noce aamb
nucemo-mo?
~
C
noumou
Hado,
—
omeexaa
Haea
Heanoeuup
(“And
how
should
one
send
he
le e ?”
“One
mus
[send
i ]
by
[wi h
he?]
mail”,
answe ed
Il'ja
I ano ic’);
4
yesoca
...
c
noezdom
6
namb
namnad-
yamb
‘I
am
lea ing
by
ain
a
i e- i een’.
The
line
be ween
he
ins umen al
o
ins umen ali y
(opyduiinocme)
and
he
ins umen al
o
means
(cpedcmeo)
is
hazy
in
Russian
and
I
ha e
p edic ed
(Schmals ieg
1966:
179)
ha
one
day
Russian
will
become
a
‘mixed’
o
‘cohe en ’
language.
I
based
my
specula ion
on
Ku y owicz’s
(1960:131-150)
no ion
ha
bipa i e
mo phemes
end
o
eplace
monopa i i e
mo phemes.
The
au ho
concludes
ha
despi e
he
lack
o
his o ical
e idence
i
is
p obably
he
case
ha
“... he
p og ess
o
cohe ence
in
he
Ci cum-Bal ic
egion
was
enhanced
p incipally
by
he
pa ial
Ge maniciza ion
in
no he n
Scandina ia
(Sami)
and
in
he
o me
s a e
o
he
Ge man
Knigh s
(La ian
and
Es onian)”
(p.
609).
The
olume
concludes
wi h
a
comp ehensi e
a icle
“The
Ci cum-Bal ic
languages:
An
a eal-
ypological
app oach”
(pp.
615-750)
by
Ma ia
Kop je skaja-Tamm
and
Be nha d
Walchli.
Acco ding
o
he
au ho s:
“The
goal
o
his
concluding
pape
is
o
show
ha
he
Ci cum-Bal ic
languages
as
a
whole
o m
an
in e es ing
linguis ic
landscape
o
hei
own
among
he
languages
o
he
wo ld,
in
gene al,
and
he
Eu opean
languages,
in
pa icula ”
(p.
615).
This
a icle
begins
wi h
a
a he
in e es ing
s udy
o
he
his o ical
backg ound
o
he
a ea.
I
148
|
RECENZIJOS
was
su p ised
o
ead,
howe e :
“Old
P ussian
and
Li huanian
ca echisms
began
o
be
p in ed
in
he
duchy
o
P ussia
a
he
end
o
he
15 h
cen u y...”
(p.
620).
I
assume
he
au ho s
had
in
mind
he
i s
Old
P ussian
and
Li huanian
ansla ions
o
he
Lu he an
ca echisms
(Fi s
Old
P ussian
Ca echism
1545;
Maz ydas
1547),
so
e en
i
his
is
a
simple
misp in
o
“16 h
cen u y”
i
is
s ill
w ong.
Ma in
Lu he
was
bo n
in
1483,
died
in
1546
and
he
usual
da e
gi en
o
he
publica ion
o
his
Smalle
Ca echism
is
1529.
I
know
o
no
ca echism
by he
eenage
o
younge
Ma in
Lu he
da ing
om
he
end
o
he
15 h
cen u y.
Nex
he
au ho s
p oceed
o
he
examina ion
o
ea lie
s udies
o
language
con ac s
in
he
Ci cum-Bal ic
a ea.
Fi s
he
au ho s
ake
up
he
exed
ques ion
o
Sp achbiinde
and
w i e:
“An
obsession
wi h
Sp achbiinde
is,
howe e ,
no
a
necessa y
p econdi ion
o
inding
he
linguis ic
si ua ion
he
CB
a ea
a
h illing
(sic’/)
objec
o
inqui y”
(p.624).
As
men ioned
abo e
i
is
always
good
o
ind
emo ional
a achmen
o
one’s
a ea
o
esea ch.
The
au ho s
hen
dis inguish
hose
a eal
s udies
which
me ely
(p.
626)
ca alogue
simila i ies
be ween
languages
and
hose
which
y
o
explain
he
simila i ies.
They
also
ind ha
he
equency
o
occu ence
o
an
obse ed
ea u e
is
also
an
impo an
aspec
o
hei
s udy.
I
is
also
e y
di icul
o
de e mine
whe he
he
loss
o
an
inhe i ed
s uc u e
is
jus
a
na u al
de elopmen
o
he
language
o
in luenced
by
a
neighbo ing
language.
In
he
es
o
hei
a icle
hey
“...
hope
o
combine
he
achie emen s
o
a eal linguis ics
in
he
CB
a ea
and
gene al
linguis ic
ypology”
(p.
629).
Fi s
hey
discuss
Plu alia
an um
which
we e
o iginally
mo e
common
in
he
Indo-Eu opean
languages
han
in
Finno-Ug ic.
Some imes
he
plu alia
an um
may
be
bo owed
along
wi h
hei
e yma,
e.g.,
Finnish
a aa
‘ca ’
<
Bal ic
(Li h.
a ai,
La .
a i)
which
is
li e ally
he
plu al
o
he
wo d
o
‘wheel’,
Finnish
a as
‘wheel’
<
Bal ic
(Li h.
a as,
La .
a s).
Plu ali y
sp ead
om
his
wo d
“... o
o he
wo ds
deno ing
ca s
in
Finnish
such
as
aunu
and
ka y ”
(p.
633).
In
he
au ho s’
iew:
“... he
gene al
endency
o
o
agains
plu alia
an um
is
inhe i ed,
bu
i
may
change
in
he
de elopmen
o
languages”
(p.
633).
The
au ho s
conclude
hei
discussion
o
sup asegmen al
phonology
wi h
he
s a emen
ha
he e
a e
a
leas
h ee
di e en a eas
in
he
languages
o
he
Ci cum-Bal ic
egion
displaying
he
ollowing
ea u es:
(1)
he
opposi ion
o
one
con ou s
in
long
syllable
co es
[ ound
only
in
he
Bal ic
languages];
(2)
‘o e leng h’,
i.e.,
he
exis ence
o
h ee
deg ees
o
leng h
exhibi ed
by
Es onian,
e c.;
(3)
wo d- one
he
o igin
o
which
is
some
way
connec ed
wi h
he
o iginal
numbe
o
syllables
in
a
wo d
and
he
p esence
o
absence
o
an
o iginal
seconda y
s ess
encoun e ed
in
many
Scandina ian
dialec s
(p.
645).
The
ini ial
s ess
o
many
o
he
Ci cum-Bal ic
languages
and
he
poly onici y
may
be
ela ed
(p.
646).
A
e y
in e es ing
po ion
o
his
a icle
is
de o ed
o
he
mo phological
cases,
pa icula ly
he
use
o
he
geni i e
and
pa i i e
in
he
Bal ic
and
Finnic
languages,
al hough
he
au ho s
don’
always
a o
mu ual
in luence.
Fo
example,
hey
ques ion
he
common
opinion
ha he
de eloped
sys em
o
seconda y
loca i e
cases
in
he
Bal ic
languages
is
o
Finnic
o igin,
e.g.,
because:
“The
seconda y
local
cases
o
Eas e n
Bal ic
ep esen
g amma icaliza ions
o
nouns
wi h
hei
pos posi ions.
Simila
de elopmen s
a e
ound
also
in
Umb ian,
Tokha ian
and
Osse e
in
Indo-
Eu opean
languages”
(p.
672).
One
migh
a gue
o
Finno-Ug ic
in luence
in
Tokha ian
( an
Windekens
1979:
166),
bu
ha dly
in
Umb ian
o
Osse e.
Wi h
espec
o
he
exp ession
o
possession
he
au ho s
w i e
ha
he
loca i e
ype
“...
is
he
op ion
ha
is
in a iably
chosen
o
hose
Indo-Eu opean
languages
ha lack
‘ha e’- e bs
(e.g.
RECENZIJOS
|
149
Cel ic,
Indic,
Ana olian)”
(p.
676).
Bu
he
‘loca i e’
ype
o
exp ession
does
no
necessa ily
p eclude
he
exis ence
o
‘ha e’
e bs,
as
mus
be
ob ious
o
he
au ho s
om
hei
discussion
o
Russian
wmemp
‘ o
ha e’.
Baldi
has
clea ly
demons a ed
his
wi h
ega d
o
La in
(see
abo e)
and
I
ha e
men ioned
i
wi h
espec
o
Li huanian.
Al hough
in
Hi i e
(an
Ana olian
language)
he
usual
means
o
exp ession
o
possession
is
wi h
he
da i e, Hi i e
does
use
a
e b
‘ha e’
(in e es ingly
enough
also
as
an
auxilia y
e b
wi h
pe ec
ense
meaning).
Thus,
e.g.,
om
he
Hi i e
laws
(Ho ne
1997:
152):
ék-ku
(conj.)
LU-as
(nom.
sg.)
MUNUS-an
(ace.
sg.)
ha -zi
(3 d
sg.
p es.)...
‘I
a
man
has
a
wi e...’
In
languages
wi h
bo h
means
o
exp ession
o
possession
he
unc ion
o
he
e b
‘ o
ha e’
is
di e en
om
ha
o
he
da i e
o
possession.
The
au ho s
igh ly
e ine
he
no ion
o
possession
in
he
‘be’
languages
(p.
677).
A e
e iewing
he
comi a i e
and
ins umen al,
he
compa a i e,
he
passi es,
desubjec i es
and
ze o-subjec
cons uc ions
he
au ho s
p oceed
o
sen ence
syn ax.
He e
hey
discuss
adjec i e
ag eemen ,
loss
o
gende
in
Low
La ian
dialec s.
and
he
syn ax
o
nume al
cons uc ions.
On
pp.
702-703
he
au ho s
p esen
a
able
illus a ing
he
in e nal
syn ax
o
nume al
cons uc ions
in
Finnic,
Bal ic
and
Sla ic
showing
he
possibili y
o
ei he
go e nmen
s a egy
‘case
on
he
nominal
go e ned
by
nume als’
o
ag eemen
S a egy
‘case
on
he
nominal
de e mined
by
he
unc ion
o
he
whole
ph ase’.
Among
he
oo no es
on
p.
704
we
ind
he
s a emen :
“In
Old
Chu ch
Sla onic,
lowe
nume als
decline,
highe
nume als
a e
indeclinable”.
I
don’
unde s and
why
he
au ho s
w i e
ha
highe
nume als
a e
indeclinable.
Diels
(1932:
218)
gi es
he
example
sz
dese ijo
(INSTR.
SG.)
ysgS e
(GEN.
PL.)
‘wi h
en
housand’
in
which
he
wo d
o
‘ housand’
in
he
geni i e
plu al
is
go e ned
by
he
wo d
o
‘ en’,
which
i sel
is
in
he
ins umen al
Case
as
equi ed
by
he
p eposi ion
sz.
Diels
gi es
also
he
example
s
da éma
dese ema
yses ama
‘wi h
wo
housand’
in
which
all
he
nume als
a e
in
he
ins umen al
dual
as
go e ned
by
he
p eposi ion
sz.
The
only
la ge
Old
Chu ch
Sla ic
nume al
migh
be
conside ed
ema
which
o
he
mos
pa
ansla es
we d
and
deno es
an
inde ini e
ex emely
la ge
numbe .
The
wo d
appea s
o
be
ully
declinable
acco ding
o
he
en ies
in
Su4sT
(pp.
545-546).
One
is
le
o
wonde
how
he
chu ch
a he s
migh
ha e
eac ed
o
gigaby es.
The
au ho s
ind ha
(p.
704)
“...a
la ge
po ion
o
he
Eu opean
lexible
SVO
languages
is
ound
in
he
CB
a ea.
These
include
Sla ic, Bal ic,
Finnic,
as
well
as
No he n
and
Eas e n
(a
leas
Ina i)
Sami”.
The
au ho s
hen
o e
a
able
wi h
he
i le:
“F om
SOV
o
SVO
in
Eu ope”
(p.
705).
This
uns
om
SOV
(Hi i e,
Nene s)
o
highly
lexible
SOV
(La in,
Old
G eek)
o
spli
SOV/SVO
(Hunga ian)
o
highly
lexible
SVO
(Russian,
Li huanian,
Komi,
Veps,
e c.)
o
lexible
SVO
(Finnish,
Es onian)
o
V2
(Swedish,
Ge man)
oSVO
(English)”.
(Hi i e,
o
cou se,
al hough
Indo-Eu opean,
is
an
Ana olian
language
a
one
ime
p esumably
spoken
in
Ana olia,
a
leas
ha
is
whe e
he
majo i y
o
he
ex s
ha e
been
ound.)
S ill
he
able
is
in e es ing
in
classi ying
he
wo d
o de
ypes
encoun e ed
mos ly
in
Eu ope.
The
au ho s
w i e
u he :
“...Bal ic
and
Finnic
appea
o
be
he
only
VO-language
amilies
in
Eu ope
in
which
all
nominal
modi ie s,
excep
o
ela i e
clauses and
p eposi ional
ph ases
p ecede
he
head”
(p.
707).
The
au ho s
appea
o
dispu e
Vasiliauskiené’s
claim
ha
in
Li huanian
he e
was
o iginally
some
eedom
o
wo d
o de
in
he
noun
ph ase.
They
w i e:
“Vasiliauskiené’s
S a is ics
a e
p oblema ic
o
a eal
compa a i e
pu poses
since
we
do
no
know
which
pe cen age
is
co e ed
by
geni i es
in
(pseudo-)
pa i i e
unc ions,
such
as
‘a
pound
o
apples’
( hese
always
ollow
hei
heads)”
(p.
708).
150 |
RECENZIJOS
Vasiliauskiené
eplies,
howe e ,
(pe sonal
communica ion)
ha
in
he
i s
pa
o
Si ydas’
Punk ai
sakymu
16
pa i i es
we e
ound.
O
hese
13
(81,3
%)
we e
NG,
and
h ee
(18,7
%)
we e
GN
and
in
gene al
in
he
Punk ay
sakymu
81
pe
cen
o
he
geni i e
nouns
a e
used
pos posi ionally
(in
all,
1291
sequences
wi h
he
geni i e
we e
ound
and
in es iga ed).
In
Eas e n
Li huanian
dialec
ex s
collec ed
by
A.
Ba anowski
62
examples
wi h
he
pa i i e
we e
in es iga ed
o
which
44
we e
NG
(71
%)
and
18
we e
GN
(29
%).
Vasiliauskiené
w i es
u he
ha
she
has
jus
comple ed
he
collec ion
o
ma e ial
om
he
i s
h ee
issues
o
Au&s a
( he
i s
Li huanian
magazine,
1883),
whe e
om
se e al
hund ed
sequences
wi h
he
geni i e
she
encoun e ed
only
13
wi h
he
pa i i e
meaning
and
nine
o
hese
we e
NG
and
ou
GN.
In
he
majo i y
o
he
16-19 h
cen u y
ex s
we
encoun e
he
p edominance
o
pos posi ion.
The
con empo a y
GN
ule
is
much
mo e
s ic
han
he
ela i ely
ee
wo d
o de
o
he
ea ly
ex s.
I
should
also
be
emphasized
ha
in
sequences
wi h
he
pa i i e
he e
was
much
mo e
eedom
o
placemen
han
he e
is
in
con empo a y
Li huanian
whe e
he
NG
o de
p edomina es.
In
summa y
he
a icles
by
he
indi idual
au ho s
a e
well-w i en
and
in e es ing
(al hough
pe haps
no
always
‘ h illing’,
a
leas
om
he
Ame ican
in e p e a ion
o
ha
adjec i e).
Among
he
ai ly
equen
misp in s
a e
New
Mex ico
(p.
ii)
>
New
Mexico,
Win ied
Lehmann
(p.
I[ndex]-4)
>
Win ed
Lehmann,
Allan
Timbe lake
(p.
I[ndex]-7)
>
Alan
Timbe lake,
e c.
Al hough
he
edi o s
and
au ho s
migh
ha e
done
a
be e
job
o
p oo - eading
and
paid
mo e
a en ion
o
de ail,
hese
olumes
p esen
a
weal h
o
new
ideas
and
equen ly
a
eo ganiza ion
o
well-known
ac s.
The
edi o s
a e
o
be
cong a ula ed
on
compiling
pa h-b eaking
omes
o
he
s udy
o
bo h
he
languages
o
he
Bal ic
a ea
and
ypological
linguis ics.
ABBREVIATIONS
LKZ
-
Lie u iy
kalbos
Zodynas
1-20,
ed.
by
J.
BALCIKONIS,
J.
KRuopas,
K.
UL ypas,
V.
VITKAUSKAS,
1941-2002.
NT
1972:
Bible
Socie y
ansla ion
o
he
New
Tes amen :
Naujasis
Tes amen as,
No
place
o
publica ion
gi en.
S JA
—
Slo a ’
usskogo
jazyka
IV,
ed.
by
S.
G.
BARXUDAROV
e
al.,
Moscow:
Gosuda s ennoe
izda el’s o
inos annyx
i
nacional’nyx
slo a ej,
1961.
Suas
—
Slo nik
jazyka
s a oslo énského,
ed.
by
Zon
Hau o A
e
al.,
ase.
44,
P ague:
Academia,
Naklada els i
Ceskoslo enské
Akademie
éd,
1992.
WessTER’s
—
Webs e 's
Thi d
New
In e na ional
Dic iona y,
ed.
by
PHiLip
BABCOCK
Go e
e
al.,
Sp ing ield,
Massachuse s:
G.
&
C.
Me iam
Company,
1966.
LITERATURE
BaLpI,
P.
2002:
Whe e
does
La in
habeo
come
om?
In:
Ca o o,
F.,
ed.,
Fes sch i
o
Alexis
Manas e -Rame ,
Munich:
Lincom
Eu opa,
23-32.
BALDI,
P.,
CUZZOLIN,
P.,
o
appea :
E ymological,
geog aphical
and
ypological
dimensions
o
“ha e”
e bs
in
Indo-Eu opean
languages.
In:
Sal i,
G.,
ed.,
Fes sch i
o
Joseph
He man,
Budapes .
BRUGMANN,
K.,
DELBRUCK,
B.
1911:
G und iss
de
e gleichenden
G amma ik
de
indoge manischen
Sp achen.
Vol.
11/2.
2nd
ed.,
S assbu g:
Ka l
J.
T iibne .
COLLINDER,
B.
1964:
Sp ach e wand scha
und
Wah scheinlichkei ,
Uppsala.
(Ac a
Uni e si a is
Upsaliensis,
S udia
U alica
e
Al aica
Upsaliensia.)
DIELs,
P.
1932:
Al ki chensla ische
G amma ik,
Vol.
I,
Heidelbe g:
Ca l
Win e .
GIRDENIS,
A.,
PABREZA,
J.
1978:
Nauji
Slekia imo
s ebéjimai
Zaga és
apylinkése.
Bal is ica
7,
127-129.
RECENZIJOS
|
232
Go ag,
Z.
1975:
Endocen ici y
and
endocen iza ion
o
e bal
p edica es:
Illus a ed
wi h
La in
and
Sla ic
ma e ial.
Gene al
Linguis ics
15,
1-35.
Goopwin,
W.
W.,
GULICK,
C.
B.
1958:
G eek
g amma ,
Wal ham,
Mass.,
To on o,
London:
Blaisdell
and
Co.
Haup y,
J.
1977:
L‘emploi
des
cas
en
édique,
Lyon:
Edi ions
LHe més.
Hi ,
H.
1928:
Indoge manische
G amma ik,
4.
Doppelung,
Zusammense zung,
Ve bum,
Heidelbe g:
Ca l
Win e .
Ho eneR ,
H. A.
1997:
The
laws
o
he
Hi i es:
A
c i ical
edi ion,
Leiden,
New
Yo k,
Cologne:
B ill,
HOFMANN,
J.
B.,
SZANTYR,
A.
1972:
La einische
Syn ax
und
S ilis ik,
Munich:
C.
H.
Beck.
How oe ,
A.
1993:
On
he
nomina i e
objec
in
La ian,
wi h
pa icula
e e ence
o
he
debi i e.
Linguis ica
Bal ica
2,
151-161.
HOoL oe ,
A.
2001:
Once
mo e
he
Bal ic
geni i e
o
agen .
Bal is ica
35,
45-58.
Ho w,
P.
1898:
Neupe sische
Sch i sp ache.
In:
Geige ,
W.,
Kuhn,
E.,
ed.
G und iss
de
i anischen
Philologie,
Vol.
1,
pa
2,
S assbu g:
Ka l
T iibne ,
1-198.
KAROLY,
S.
1972:
The
g amma ical
sys em
o
Hunga ian.
In
Benk6,
L.,
Samu,
[.,
eds.,
The
Hunga ian
Language,
The
Hague
and
Pa is:
Mou on
and
Co,
85-170.
KRONASSER,
H.
1955:
Ve gleichende
Lau -
und
Fo menleh e
des
He hi ischen,
Heidelbe g:
Ca l
Win e .
K uopas,
J.
1963:
Daba inés
lie u iy
kalbos
ys ymosi
y inéjimas.
Lie u iy
kalbo y os
klausimai
6,
21-30;
ep in ed
as
pp.
407-416
in
Rink iniai
as ai,
compiled
by
S.
Keinys,
K.
Mo kiinas
and
A.
Sabaliauskas,
Vilnius:
Mokslo
i
enciklopedijy
leidybos
ins i u as,
1998.
Ku yLowIcz,
J.
1960:
Esquisses
linguis iques.
W oc aw,
K akow:
Ossolineum.
MAGNER,
TH.
F.
1972:
In oduc ion
o
he
C oa ian
and
Se bian
Language,
S a e
College,
Pa.:
Singidunum.
Mak TINeT,
ANDRE.
1951:
Conce ning
some
Sla ic
and
A yan
e lexes
o
IE
s.
Wo d
7,
91-95.
MaziuLis,
V.
1970:
Bal y
i
ki y
indoeu opieciy
kalby
san ykiai
(deklinacija),
Vilnius:
Min is.
MEILLET,
A.
1964:
In oduc ion
a
l'é ude
compa a i e
des
langues
indo-eu opéennes,
Uni e si y,
Alabama.
(Rep in
o
he
1937
ed.)
Pe i ,
D.
2001:
P onoms
neu es
e
égle
SVO
en
ieux
p ussien.
Bal is ica
36,173-188.
REICHELT,
H.
1909:
Awes isches
Elemen a buch,
Heidelbe g:
Ca l
Win e .
Rusys,
A.,
ansl.
1998:
Senasis
i
Naujasis
Tes amen as.
S en asis
RaS as,
Vilnius:
Ka aliky
pasaulis.
SCHMALSTIEG,
W.
R.
1966:
The
p eposi ions
+
he
ins umen al.
Sla ic
and
Eas
Eu opean
Jou nal
10,
178-180.
SCHMALSTIEG,
W.
R.
1995:
A
S uden
Guide
o
he
Geni i e
o
Agen
in
he
Indo-Eu opean
Languages,
Washing on,
D.C.:
Ins i u e
o
he
S udy
o
Man.
Jou nal
o
Indo-Eu opean
S udies,
Monog aph
Numbe
Fou een.)
SCHMALSTIEG,
W.
R.
2000:
Li huanian
and
Indo-Eu opean
Pa allels,
Jou nal
o
Indo-Eu opean
S udies
28:
385-398.
SCHMALSTIEG,
W.
R.
2001:
La
iplice
o igine
del
nomina i o
singola e
indoeu opeo.
Res
Bal icae
7,
23-32.
SCHMALSTIEG,
W.
R.
2002a:
The
Indo-Eu opean
geni i e
o
agen
wi h
ini e
e bs
and
pa iciples.
Ac a
Linguis ica
Li huanica
47,
41-54.
SCHMALSTIEG,
W.
R.
2002b:
Valdim
Ju im
Zepam
70.
Bal u
Filologija
11
(1),
151-154.
ScuwyZeR,
E.
1966:
G iechische
G amma ik.
Vol.
2.
Syn ax
und
syn ak ische
S ilis ik.
Ve olls andig
und
he ausgegeben
on
Albe
Deb unne ,
Munich:
C.
H.
Beck.
SHIELDs,
K.
2001:
On
he
o igin
o
he
Bal ic
and
Sla ico-s em
geni i e
singula
su ix
*-ad.
Bal is ica
36,
165-171.
Sims-WILLIAMS,
N.
1998:
The
I anian
languages.
In:
Giacalone
Rama ,
A.,
Rama ,
P,
eds.
The
Indo-Eu opean
Languages,
London
and
New
Yo k:
Rou ledge,
125-153.
STREITBERG,
W.
1919:
Die
go ische
Bibel,
Heidelbe g:
Ca l
Win e .
STURTEVANT,
E.
H.
1951:.4
compa a i e
g amma
o
he
Hi i e
language,
New
Ha en
and
London:
Yale
Uni e si y
P ess.

152
|
RECENZIJOS
TIMBERLAKE,
A.
1974:
The
nomina i e
objec
in
Sla ic,
Bal ic
and
Wes
Finnic,
Munich:
O o
Sagne .
(Sla is ische
Bei age,
82.)
TRAUGOTT,
E.
C.
1972:A
his o y
o
English
syn ax.
A
ans o ma ional
app oach
o
he
his o y
o
English
sen ence
s uc u e.
New
Yo k,
e c.:
Hol ,
Rineha
and
Wins on,
Inc.
VASILIAUSKIENE,
V.
1997:
Daik a a diio
i
j a dzio
geni y o
ie a
senojoje
lie u iy
kalboje.
Lie u iy
kalbo y os
klausimai
38,
104-121.
VASILIAUSKIENE,
V.
1998:
A ibu iniy
junginiy
modeliai
Mikalojaus
Daukéos
Pos iléje
i
An ano
Ba anausko
a miy
eks uose.
Bal is ica
33
(2),
215-232.
VASILIAUSKIENE,
V.
2001:
A ibu iné
azé
su
de inamuoju
komponen u
Kip ijono
Lukausko
Pamoksluose.
Ac a
Linguis ica
Li huanica
45,
151-178.
VASILIAUSKIENE,
V.
2003:
Pos posi ion
in
he
A ibu e
Ph ase
o
Old
Li huanian.
Zei sch i
ii
Li e a u wissenscha
und
Linguis ik
33
(129),
96-108.
VONDRAK,
W.
1928:
Ve gleichende
Sla ische
G amma ik,
Go ingen:
Vandenhoeck
&
Rup ech .
VAN
WINDEKENS,
A.
J.
1979:
Le
okha ien
con on é
a ec
les
au es
langues
indo-eu opéennes,
Vol.
I,
1.
La
mo phologie
nominale,
Lou ain,
Cen e
In e na ional
de
Dialec ologie
Géné ale.
Woopcock,
E.
C.
1959:
A
new
La in
syn ax,
Camb idge,
Mass.:
Ha a d
Uni e si y
P ess.
Zu ys,
V.
1969:
Vadinamyjy
nekai omyjy
j a dziy
ie a
lie u iy
kalbos
g ama inéje
sis emoje.
Bal is ica
5
(2),
167-177.
William
R.
Schmals ieg
Gau a
2003
10
28
814
Co nwall
Road
S a e
College,
Pa.
16803
email:
[email p o ec ed]