Postverbų pateikimo problema „Lietuvių kalbos žodyne“

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVIII (2003), 71 - 96 Postverbų pateikimo problema The article deals with ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS the treatment of the so-called ‘postverbs’ (i. e., particles occurring in phrasal verbs) in Lithuanian lexicography. In this connection, the North Lithuanian ‘perficientive’ constructions involving such postverbal markers are discussed in detail. The forms selected to act as postverbs are usually original illatives. Their functioning as aspect markers deprives them of their proper lexical meaning and of the possibility of functioning as adverbials. That is why, in dealing with the question of the grammatical interpretation of such forms (inspired by the needs of lexicographical description) one should first of all reject attempts to connect them with the process of adverbialisation of illatives in the West Lithuanian dialects. 0. Last June, after the publication in the press of the 200th Lithuanian Language Dictionary (hereinafter — ti, as edited my text passage. I was particularly concerned about how the editors looked at my attempts to introduce some ethnolinguistic ideas and innovations in the grammar of words for the organization of the text and definitions of meanings. Unfortunately, reading the edited text I was disappointed more than once: it seems that my effort to introduce new principles of organization and presentation of lexicographic material was not recognized. Of course, the editors of LKŽ adhered to the tradition of editing established over many years, but does not such a position sometimes give rise to a certain inertia that prevents innovations? Of course, in order to maintain the methodological integrity of the final volume of the Dictionary, it is perhaps not time to radically change the principles of editing. However, the innovations I proposed were not radical in nature. They were driven by two more general assumptions. Firstly, during the hundred-- year period of the implementation of the LKŽ project, in order to keep pace with the development of linguistics, methodological and theoretical innovations were repeatedly applied to the writing of texts. Secondly, we are talking about the word žėmė, which has a particularly complex semantics, and it is precisely this word and its closest derivatives that the twentieth volume of LKŽ had to describe. Because of their existential weight, the modern science of meanings – cognitive semantics – pays special attention to words of this type (in addition to earth, we can also mention heavens, home, place, homeland, the historically important words for Lithuanians – west and east, etc., cf. Gudavičius 2000: 39). Because in the world of meanings covered by such words are encoded bius things and its mentality. When writing or creating such “basic texts of Lithuanian culture” as LKŽ (Daujotytė 2002: 35), it makes sense to arrange and present the meanings per ilgus amžius susiklostęs tautos, kalbinės bendrijos požiūris į jos egzistencijai svarof these existentially important words in such a way that the mentality of their users can read them. 72 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS researcher would be as clear as possible, so that it would be transmitted in the purest form to future generations, using the most adequate (and also non-traditional) lexicographic means. In this regard, the accumulated experience of value management would be useful in the future for continuing the LKŽ project in one form or another. Here I would like to end these introductory remarks, the abstract nature of which may start to irritate the reader. I hope to return in the future to ethnolinguistic considerations and the application of the principles of this direction to LKŽ type dictionaries. Next, I would like to dwell a little longer on one problem of grammar — the presentation of so-called postverbs in LKŽ. 1.Writing the word žėmė, I noticed that in the northern dialects of Lithuanian the iliative vowel of this word or its analogue prepositional construction „į+akuzatyvas“, used after verbs of a certain meaning, indicates that the action they mark is performed to the end, i.e. goes as the indicator of their verb. In the North-West Žemaičių (Kretingiškių) dialect, this function is still performed by the adverb žėmyn (down) and its longer variant žėmynai (land). When looking at the analogous cases presented in other volumes of the LKŽ (e.g.: laūka(n), šalin, viršuje, etc.), it is clear that the meaning of these words is defined in a different way, that the editors' attitude to the grammatical purpose of these forms remained undefined. Sometimes these words are called reinforcement particles, elsewhere — adverbs, and elsewhere examples of such use are lost among the syllables of the respective nouns used in various meanings. Seeing such an undefined treatment of these words in the LKŽ and in order to show a more consistent approach to them, I tried, as far as possible, to present all forms related to the word žėmė, performing the same grammatical function, in one place (this is impossible to do completely, because some examples of such use inevitably end up with the adverb down). Thus, my intention was to establish a separate meaning in the article. In addition, after noting that the iliative form of the elevated word or its analogue is a prepositional construction "in + accusative", ppr. after verbs meaning disappearing, destroying or removing and indicating that the action is coming to an end or is almost completed, could lead to the absolute majority of such uses. The abbreviations of the places would indicate the geography of the phenomenon. Taking into account the latest studies of verbs’ verb form expression in northern Lithuanian dialects (Girdenis, Kačiuškienė 1986: 21-27), I think it is correct to call spoken forms of grammatical purpose postverbs. It is true that, having chosen such a formula for presenting this phenomenon in the LKŽ, it was necessary to close our eyes to the fact that in the western dialects of Lithuanian language the iliative as a paradigmatic vowel is no longer used, rather, only isolated cases of such use are recorded. Many people already consider the iliatives of some words used here as adverbs. However, as we will see later, not all the illiative forms of words are equally detached from their conjugation function digmų. Dėl šios priežasties „iliatyviškai“ traktuoti veiksmažodžių tarpinio veikslo due to their inherent semantics. In the latter case, they are also treated differently: they are presented as a separate meaning of the corresponding adverb (šaltin, virsuo) or are raised by a separate article as special purpose adverbs (žėmė(n), žemyn). The problem of postverbs in LCZ | 73 1.1. The LCJ editors chose a different solution. Only a part of the examples of žymė(n) are treated as "iliativne" in accordance with the "grammatically correct" view that iliativne to the west from a certain boundary of eastern dialects are not allowed (see LKŽ, x*313, 3. reikšm.). Only those examples of the Žemaičių dialektas are left here, in which the prepositional construction „į+akuzatyvas“ performs the function of the verb indicator. Sentences with žėmėn (or north-eastern Samogitian žėmė) editors are presented to the separately raised adverb žėmėn (ibid., 337). The function of the latter is not explained separately, only it is indicated to look downwards (ibid., 344), where it is explained that this adverb (and its accentuated variant downwards) is used in the Žemaičių dialect to emphasize the final action.” It should be added that some cases of such usage are also found in the adverb žemynys (zemynai- ), which is raised by a separate article? (ibid., 345). The editors' decision has logic. Its essence is that it is based on a certain “knowledge of the position of things”, i.e., on the knowledge of historical grammar and dialectology about the development and fate of the iliative vowel in the present Lithuanian dialects. Some flaws in the principle of such editing will become apparent later. Now I would like to draw attention to the most striking drawback of this choice — forms with essentially the same grammatical function are presented in as many as four places in the Dictionary, and they are not treated equally. This unreasonably fragments the unified verb grammar phenomenon. The new postverb term is left only for the first case (i.e., the third article marked the meaning). By the way, a closer look at how this value was edited also shows some inconsistencies and even errors. The above mentioned semantic groups of verbs, after which the postverbs žėmė(n) and į žėmę are usually used, are “adjusted” in the definition so that instead of the declination meaning we find verbs with the diminutive meaning. That is not true! The geographical principle of the separation of the illiative verb is also not consistently maintained: the sources refer to Plagumai as being far to the west of the paradigmatic area of use of the illiative. In addition, among the examples with postverbal use of žėmėn are mixed those that not only go beyond the range of postver- (2) Mušiau mušiau — žemėsan sumušiau (ps.) DGLS. bs, but do not show such use. Therefore, the examples here are not appropriate: (1) Simple heart, you can't turn: you drop your hands on the ground and ML falls. (3) You, my brothers, my dear ones, you go to the new hill and cut down a thorn of gold and cut off my head on the ground (d.) PRNG. (4) That you put your head on the ground to him — does not say, does not recognize ML. All these sentences are written from Eastern dialects, in which the illative is still used as a paradigmatic vowel. This is also the case for the plural of the second example. In the first example, the adverbial meaning of the word žemėn is obvious: here it indicates the direction of action, i.e. it modifies the verb in relation to the direction in space. In the third * TThis reference seems to confirm the precedence of the form źródło over the form źródło(n- ), although geographical data suggest that the former is an obviously local variant. In the usual place, i.e. next to the corresponding adjectives žēmas, -a, the adverb down is given together with its longer variants (see LKZ,, 298and on). 74 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS and in the fourth example the iliative meaning of the words žemėn is especially emphasized by the kėja palyginus šiuos sakinius su geografiškai artimais iliustraciniais sakiniais, pameaning of žėmė in the second sentence: (5) Mergiotė užpukus grėblį žėmėn ir nuėjo LB (308). (6) As soon as it falls to the ground like an [apple] it splits, and there is a lack of the Holy Spirit (309). These remarks clearly show that the editors of LKŽ were not entirely clear about the meaning of my submission concerning spoken postverbal forms of use. Apparently, enough arguments have been expressed here, for which it is worth discussing more seriously about the presentation of postverbs in LKŽ. So let's start from the beginning and in order. First of all, it would be useful to recall the main statements of the aforementioned article by Aleksas Girdenis and Genovaitė Kačiuškienė. In it, the authors, drawing attention to parallel phenomena in Latvian and Northern Lithuanian verb systems, state that in Northern and North-West Lithuanian dialects there exists a ternary opposition of the verb, resembling significantly the Latvian one in its development. The essence of the ternary verb system is that, in addition to the verb of the course —imperfective and the verb of the event —perfective, there is also an intermediate category, which the authors of the article propose to call PERFECTIVE. The perfective is made with certain adverbs of "falling" semantics, their function and meaning close to the prepositions of the perfective verb. The authors of the article propose to call them POSTVERBS*. The general meaning of perfective verbs and their postverbs is to be THE APPROACHING OF THE ACTION TO THE END OR THE DEFINITIVE TO A CERTAIN LIMIT. Almost all the postverbs used in Lithuanian dialects have their equivalents in Latvian. The most common postverb is žėmė(n) and its local variants žėmyn, žėmynais, į žemę, which corresponds to the Latvian nudst, zemė (e.g.: š. žem. Kirsk koje žėmėn TRK = Cértiét kūju nuost). This is particularly true for the so-called "destructive" (annihilating) verbs. In Žemaitija, verbs with laūk (laūko(n), laūkonai) = la are quite common. drag. In northern dialects of Panevėžys, they are usually represented by forms with dre. They have little to do with the perfective with strann (sideways, to the side) = la. prué(ja)m. The authors of the article provide examples of perfection with other, less common postverbs. The grammatical purpose of some ju, e.g.: pry(šais), pusiau (pūsiau), į rinkį, giai, is more difficult to see —at least in the given examples, cf.: (7) Nekėls man rankos prysais! TRK. (8) Don't break the bubble - ALS will crumble. (9) With the horse will go to the market KL. (10) Anié went —i[r] mani védēs[i] just like KLK. After all, it can be said that these words modify the predicates of the sentences presented here. 4 Girdenis used this term to indicate the grammatical function of spoken words in the leaflets with examples of Northern Samogitian dialects submitted to the LKŽ kartoteka well before the article appeared. LKŽ | 75 in terms of semantics, not the verb (e.g., in the last sentence equally easily galétu2.0.- 1. After conducting a detailed analysis of me pakeisti prieveiksminiu semantiniu atitikmeniu kartit). decrypted tape recordings made in almost all northern Žemaičių parishes, the authors of the article state that many perficient constructions (more precisely — macroforms) are completely usual and neutral only in northern dialects. Already to the south (and southeast) of Viekšniai, Tirkšliai, Salant, Grūšlaukis they gradually lose their regularity, becoming more and more dependent on the context and the expressiveness of the speech. Probably that is why the most widespread “annihilational” constructions die, berig(i)a(- si), explode on the ground. 2.0.2. The authors of the article draw one diachronic conclusion from all of this: the Northern Lithuanian ternary verb system (or its precursors or rudiments) is a new grammatical phenomenon, which arose as a result of the influence of the Latvian language- .” This influence may have been fruitful because, firstly, the new intermediate factor increased the clarity and accuracy of the language and, secondly, its appearance was beautifully in harmony with one of the most pronounced tendencies of the northern dialects — the tendency of their syntax to be as specific as possible. 2.1.After briefly recalling the main ideas of Girdenis and Kačiuškienė’s article, we would like to highlight a few moments that are significant for further consideration. Firstly, the words žėmė(n), laūko(n), ore, salin, etc., used after some verbs and performing the function of a certain indicator of their intermediate agent, are much more accurately called postverbs than adverbs, even if their semantics has “decayed- ”. Secondly, when interpreting the structureal characteristics of perficient constructions, it is important to remember that their common meaning is the approach of the action to the end or to a certain limit in general. This idea is supported by the fact that the most common postverb is žėmė(n) (to the ground). It is this postverb, compared to the others mentioned in the article, that best represents the concept of the boundary, i.e. due to the inherent semantic feature of locating the final point of the action, it can also mean the end of the action or the boundary to which the action is approaching. The fact that the Latvian postverb nudst, which when used as an adverb means ‘Salin’ and merely indicates direction, is most often echoed by the Lithuanian žėmė(n), would precisely indicate the tendency of the syntax of Northern Lithuanian dialects to be as specific as possible, as noted by the authors of the article. Thirdly, it is very important for the uniform grammatical interpretation of postverbs that the authors of the article consider perficient constructions as certain MACROFORMS of grammar. Girdenis has explained this concept in a previous article (Girdenis 1984: 25-30). Macroforms are distinguishable on a deeper morphosyntactic level, they directly “serve” syntax and include both synthetic forms and those peripheral constructions that in the sentence belong to the same “horizontal” paradigms as synthetic forms and play the same role. Macroforms are related to the relationships of realization (or manifestation) at the microform level. The sentence straight5 It seems that this conclusion is now questioned by E. Liparte (2000: 149-150). In her opinion, the three-factor system in northern Lithuanian dialects should be derived from the Baltic language system of particular verbs and prepositional verb correlations. It is widely spoken in Latvia. Its remnants or embryos are found not only in the northern, but also in the eastern and southern dialects of Lithuanian, but these correlations are not yet sufficiently studied. However, the few examples of verbs with particles e, from se pastawopale presented by the author of the article do not serve as adjective indicators. 76 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS The giai esąs „konstruojamas“ iš makroformų, tačiau teksto lygmeniu jis jau traktuojamas kaip atskirų mikroformų (arba tiesiog žodžių) junginys. Kaip tik todėl ir esanpossibility of various permutations of words belonging to one macroform is also worth jų elipsė ir daugelis kitų tekstualinių reiškinių. Pastarąją straipsnio autoriaus mintį noting, as it explains some irregularities in the expression of perficient constructions, such as the occasional occurrence of postverbs in the position before the verb or their use after prepositional verbs. In accordance with Girden, we could consider the prepositional construction to the land and the synthetic form žemė(n) as different manifestations of the same macroform, the periphrastic iliative. And, bearing in mind that the meaning of the directive is a component of the meaning of the iliative, we could add the adverb žemyn to these two forms. Thus, we could look at these forms as three different realizations of the same postverb macroform (which in turn is a microform of the periphrastic perfective!) This unified treatment of the postverb might be somewhat contradicted by a certain locality of the forms žėmyn and į žemę — the first is more used by the north-western, and the second by the north-eastern Samogitians. However, as the LKŽ database data shows, the postverb žėmė(n) is doubtless used as a certain “substrate” form. 2.2 In their article, Girdenis and Kačiuškienė note that the postverbs of LKŽ are presented only sporadically. The remark is basically correct, but now, after twenty volumes of the Dictionary have been published, the situation is somewhat better. In the latter volumes we can also find the postverbs šalin (XIV), viršuje (XIX) and the spoken žymė(n) with variants (XX). They are all considered adverbs and interpreted differently. The function of the verb indicator, as already mentioned, is more clearly recognized only for the postverb mark(n). LKZ data confirm the fact raised by the authors of the article that the most common postverb is žėmė(n) and its local variants. Therefore, in explaining the prevalence of the ternary verb system in northern Lithuanian dialects, its origin and peculiarities of functioning, we should first of all rely on the analysis of examples of statements with this postverb. After collecting all the suffixes with postverbs žėmėn, į žemę, žeiminyn (down), žėmynai (land) in the LKŽ database, it is possible to draw a fairly reliable southern limit of the distribution of these constructions. It could be represented by the line Klaipėda —Vėžaičiai —Endriejavas —Plūngė —Telšiai —Luokė —Šaukėnai —Raudėnai —Kuršėnai —Meškūičiai —Lygumai —Linkuva —Pasvalys —Krinčinas —Kupréliskis — Papilys —Čedasai —Jūodupė. This line could be considered as the limit of the general spread of perficient constructions. It does not fundamentally contradict the geography of distribution of the authors of the article in question, including the northern Panevėžys, ending at Salėčiai. pateiktiems duomenims, išskyrus tą faktą, kad jų tirtų perficientyvinių konstrukcijų Thus, LKŽ data allows to include northern Kupiškis and Utena in this area. This fact only confirms the conclusion of Girdenis and Kačiuškienė about the Latvian origin of perficient constructions in northern Lithuanian dialects. However, it may be significant for further discussion for another reason: perfective constructions with the postverb žemėn are also used in dialects where the illative is still alive as a paradigmatic vowel.’ This allows us to look at the grammatical origin of this form in a slightly different way. 6 According to the Lithuanian Language Atlas, the western limit of the paradigmatic use of the singular iliative runs along the line Smilgiai —Pasvalys —Pūšalotas —Panevézys —Ramygala —Šėta —Jonava —Kaišiadorys —Darsūniškis —Birštonas —Gudéliai —Krosna —Rudamina (LKA,, 54-55, map no. 48). The problem of postverbs in LCZ | 77 2.3 Considering that in our northern Snektas the system of ternariné verbs was formed on the basis of the Latvian language, it is quite understandable that the Latvian perfective constructions with the postverbs of directive origin nuost, zemė, ara, prué(ja)- m, in Lithuanian soil are echoed by analogous constructions with the iliative forms žėmė(n), (į žemę), laūka(n)', šalin. Since these postverbs primarily perform the function of indicator of the subject in the constructs under consideration, it would seem to be pointless to talk about their meaning as the iliatives of specific nouns. However, the task of lexicographical presentation of these forms, which, among other things, necessarily presupposes grammatical interpretation, requires this. In addition, as mentioned earlier, it is easy to classify these words as adverbs, which complicates their presentation in the Dictionary. 2.3.1. Although we agree with the authors of the article that this is a new grammatical phenomenon, we cannot say anything more clearly about the beginning of the spread of perficient constructions in northern Lithuanian dialects. Since Daukantas had already used them in his writings, we can only guess that some of them were common in the North-West Žemaites (Kretingos) dialect at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries. Data from historical grammar show that the iliative, as a paradigmatic verb, had already been replaced by the prepositional construction „į+akuzatyvas“ (Zinkevičius 1980: 258). Most likely, the change of the synthetic iliative form into a prepositional structure gradually intensified as we went westward. Even now, the illative of the singular of some nouns is systematically used by the old generation far west of the above-mentioned line, even about Aridgala, Tytuvėnai, Radviliškis, Jūkiškiai, elsewhere in western Lithuania it occurs mainly only in folklore (Zinkevičius 1966: 200—201). It is clear that the need for the iliative as a macroform functioning on a morphosyntactic level has not disappeared. Only its general purpose —to indicate the place to which the action is directed or is directed — is realized in the western dialects of Lithuanian by periphrastic construction. The question arises as to what to consider the synthetic iliative forms of 2.3.2. Gramatikoje prieveiksmis apibrėžiamas kaip nelinksniuojama ir neasmenuojasome words that are still used in these dialects for one reason or another. In trying to answer this question, linguists are forced to deal with another problem – the degree of subordination of these forms. ma an independent part of speech, modifying an action or a state in relation to various circumstances (place, time, cause, etc.) (cf. Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 425; Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 410; LKE 504). However, in order to distinguish an adverb from other parts of speech, we often cannot use these characteristics as criteria. For example, when attempting to determine the degree of conjugation of a particular noun in a particular syllable, the question of whether or not it belongs to the conjugation paradigm is essentially resolved, so that the first criterion — the non-conjugated part of speech — becomes tautological here. Sometimes the context helps to distinguish the non-paradigmatic form of a noun from the paradigmatic one, rather than the function of that form in the sentence. The authentic Žemaitijos genders laūko(n), laūkonais (ibid., 184), referred to in the article by Girdenis and Kačiuškienė, are not associated with the spoken grammatical function in Zodynas, here they are considered as adverbs indicating the direction of action in space, although in some sentences these words can also be interpreted as postverbs, cf. : Enough, climb time [from the tree]! Za. 78 | ROLAND MIKULSKAS (Paulauskienė 1989: 55-56). In the present case, however, both the illative and the adverb derived from it in the meaning of the directive modify the action in terms of direction in space and therefore both serve a function of local context. Thus, the second, functional, characteristic of the adverb in this case cannot serve as a criterion for distinguishing the adverb from the noun iliativ. A more serious reason to consider the disputed word form not completely separated from the noun paradigm is the still occurring diminutives or plurals of that form. However, the latter criterion is only partially applicable, because in the western dialects of Lithuanian the plural iliatives first disappeared and we are talking only about the remaining singular forms. If we specifically take the form žėmė(n), then, given its important postverbal connection with the basic meaning of the word žėmė — 'the surface (of our planet) on which we walk, on which we stand' — it is generally difficult to expect its plural form. It is quite different when using this word in other meanings. For example, the fourth article marked with the meaning “the upper loose layer of the surface of our planet” (LKZ.. 313) completely allows the plural of the iliative, cf.: (11) We zémésan nenusinesme, what we ate, we suggested SVNC (316). (12) Born in the forest, raised in the forest, gone out into the field, Zemésna lenda (žagrė) SLK (316). 2.3.3. As an effective means of distinguishing adverbs from the verbs from which they originate, their inability to have conjugation signs is cited (Laigonaitė 1957: 49; Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 426; Paulauskienė 1989: 56). We must agree with this, but we would like to add that not all specific nouns, not all polynomial dai tend to join conjugable signs. For example, when an object is used in speech only as a point of reference to indicate the direction of movement, in such a case the iliative used (or the prepositional construction "in + daiktavardžio reikšmės ir ne visos vienos reikšmės paradigminės formos būna vienoaccusative") usually has no signs, because the circumstances of the sentence construction do not require additional modification of the object. 2.3.4. It would be a mistake to assume that the criteria listed here exhaust all possibilities of distinguishing adverbs from the specific humorous meanings that arise from them. The semantic analysis of the whole sentence provides great opportunities here. Aldona Paulauskienė also acknowledges the influence of context, understanding and interpretation of the situation on the meaning of the grammatical form (ibid., 56). According to her, the verb has become an adverb when the objective meaning disappears altogether, the adverb 0 becomes the principal (ibid., 55). The “objective” interpretation of the grammatical meaning also depends on the specific meaning of the noun. On the other hand, it is required and supported by the semantics of some of the predicates most often used in the sentences with that noun. It is not difficult to understand that such a noun as 8 The editors decided to put the meaning of Si in the second place, putting the meaning of Earth as a planet in the first place. Such a solution would be understood when writing an encyclopedic dabartinės kalbos žodyną. Tačiau tokia reikšmių pateikimo eilė visiškai netinka LKZ tipo žodyne, kuriame dictionary, an astronomical guidebook or, finally, when meaning is formed primarily on the basis of folk sayings. A careful semantic and cognitive analysis of these statements shows that for Lithuanians the concept of the earth as a surface on which we walk and the corresponding meaning are fundamental. It is precisely from this concept that the threads of many other meanings of the word “mark” come out and return to it. LKŽ | 79 In Zeme, whose basic meaning inherently means the boundary at which the action of all falling or thrown objects naturally stops or ends, the illative, used with the predicates kristi, mėsti, léistis, lipti, etc., retains its objective meaning more easily than, for example, the illative of the nouns laitkas or šalis. Due to the semantic structure of these nouns, their iliative forms, by modifying the action, cannot locate its final point. Because of their very abstract meaning of the direction of action, they are easier to interpret as adverbs. However, only after studying each case of use of such forms individually can we draw reliable conclusions about the relationship of their objective and adverbial meanings. For example, even the Iliative forms of such sentences in Žemaičių, which are usually considered adverbs (Laigonaitė 1957: 50), can be interpreted differently, cf.: (13) Eisiu laukan paveizieti, koks vejelis pučia VKš. (14) Get away! VKkš". In the first example, the objective meaning of the form out is easy to see because of its semantic relationship with the content of the secondary sentence. In the second example, the form apartn has only an adverbial meaning. 5, (15) When the smoke from the chimney turns to the ground — so will the rain be PLs (309). (16) When you burn, the smoke falls to the ground —already before the VDK (309). (17) That smoke falls on the earth, that it will not be pagada ALN (309). (18) Smoke down, maybe rain will be more again Kp (309). In the first sentence, the illative žėmėn and in the second sentence, the corresponding prepositional construction į žemę Cia indicate the direction of smoke spreading, and thus have only a directive meaning. This is made even clearer by comparison with the examples of the following statements: for the description of an analogous situation, clear directives are chosen here — the adverb down (4) and the prepositional construction in zemę (3)". These examples were intended to show that even “true” iliatives can be interpreted as “adverbs”. True, such cases occur less often. Much more frequent contexts, emphasizing the objective meaning of the word žėmė in the iliative, cf.: (19) Whenever it falls to the ground where it looks like [apple] i razsipleskoja, i trūksta ŠvNč (309). (20) Storm muni raised, laid on the ground Ak (309). The verbs razsipleskėja, trūksta, dėjo ‘trenké’ of both sentences, predicting the hardness of the earth’s surface, also determine the “objective” interpretation of the corresponding iliative forms of the word. ? The examples from A. Laigonaitė’s book are presented here unchanged, although they do not correspond to the transposons adopted by the LKŽ- *—In Eastern vimo į bendrinę kalbą taisyklių. Lithuanian dialects, where the iliative is used as a paradigmatic vowel, the direction is indicated by the construction „į+akuzatyvas“ (Laigonaitė 1957: 47; Zinkevičius 1980: 255). This is also the case for the southern highland dialect, plg. : If in the height roars, it is an fire, and if in the earth, it is an death shuva roars MRC (LKŽĄ 308). 86 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS (51) Bulbs drying next to ZR (LKZ,, 447). (52) Those machines are gone, we need to work on other STs (LKŽ,, | 447). In many sentences with predicates with the meaning of removing, the form strann can be considered as performing the function of a space adverb. And this is not surprising—as an adverb, strann fits perfectly semantically with verbs of this meaning. If the verbs of this meaning are modified in dialects that are far from the area of use of perfective constructions, then it is considered purely an adverb, cf.: (53) I say, will I have to cut the whole hand apart? 54 (1954) Aida, op. 446) (p. 446). Due to the possible double interpretations of most of these examples, it has to be admitted that the perfective constructions formed with the form next to it (except, of course, those rare cases with verbs with the meaning of decay or destruction) are not as pure as, for example, with the form žėmė(n). This is why it is difficult to present them in a lexicographic description." The weak expression of the perfective in such constructions is evidenced, among other things, by the fact that the form vedn in them quite often goes after prepositional verbs, which themselves can already signify a final action, cf.: (55) Liepė seniesiems tuos tvartus nugriauti šalin KRT. (56) After that, the tower was overturned again next to Lk (LKZ,, 447). (57) Peel the rind away, cut the [apples] into large pieces Tv. 4.1 The reasons for the inappropriateness of the form for the expression of the coefficient, as in the previous case, should be sought in its semantics. As an adverb, this form is widely used throughout the area west of the area of use of the iliative. It, like the form laūka(n), usually modifies the verbs of scrolling or horizontal movement in general. The rapid decline of the iliative form Salini is probably due to the abstraction of the meaning of the noun šalis. The most abstract meaning of this noun is “a place or space farther away from something, the periphery” (LKZ 456) which means the opposition of space center (where the subject is located) vs periphery one side. Such a noun has already lost its objective meaning. Its iliative form Salin abstractly indicates the direction in space (from the place where the subject is, to the edge) and is in fact already an adverb. Si form, like the form laūka(n), inherently does not localize the end of the action being modified and is perhaps less suitable than žėmė(n) for the perfective. On the other hand, in seeking an answer to the question of how words of such semantics can perform the role of adjective indicator, attention should be drawn to the fact that the perficient of the directionally modifiable transitive verbs waūkan and šalia is not so much related to the end of the action as to the location of the beginning of the action, which is always assumed in these constructions. In the same place in LKZ 8, examples are given from both the northern and southern dialects. Another clearer perfective seems to have interspersed among examples of adverbial usage, cf. : Grain seeds removed, irgan ZEML (LKZ,,, 446); I took a jackal that dog to fight Salin END (LKZ, 446). LKŽ | 87 In the riniy panevezyskiy dialect it 5. Ne visi šiaurinėse lietuvių Snektose vartojami postverbai yra sietini su iliatyvo linksniu. Šiaurinių žemaičių vartojamas virsué greičiausiai yra inesyvo kilmés'. Siauis represented by the forms viršū (viršum), virš. All these forms are frequently mos interpretuojamos semantiškai ir pateikiamos kaip prieveiksmiai. Kadangi jos repeated after some verbs in the LKZ, so they are often considered in the Dictionary as components of phraseological compounds formed by those verbs (especially if the verbs are used in an indirect sense). However, this is done inconsistently, cf.: (58) Pitola above, bar: closed groove VšK (LKZ,, 605). (59) I can't say anything, I'm about to fall over VSK KZ. 621). (60) Ka ans pazo, pula virsué as Serna TL (LKZ,,, 626). The latter example in Zodyne is presented no longer as a phraseology (by the way, like other nearby Žemaičių sentences). On the other hand, phraseologisms are made here without any basis from such directly understood statements as Lipa viršuo [dog], jei nieko nesakai Kik (LKZ, 626) and others. 5.1. It is obvious that the spoken forms of LKZ are not related to the category of verbs. Looking at the Zemgale sayings with the form virsué presented here, it is clear that it is most often used with verbs denoting horizontal movement (pūlti, šokti, eiti, važiuoti) and modifies them not only in terms of direction (indicates approaching directly to something, attacking directly on something), but also in terms of intensity (indicates rapid approach, sudden attack). As action intensifiers, indicating the sudden approach of an object or phenomenon to someone, they could also be interpreted as grammatical indicators of the verb, because they also mean the action of sliding rapidly approaching the end (until collision, contact). The analysis of the statements shows that if the verb denotes direct (physical) contact with the object, then the form nad0 is usually easier to interpret as a directional adverb, cf. : (61) [The car] shook, I thought it was riding above), I shook the KRŠ (LKŽ: 626). (62) Had a saying, —ka pala viršū! RNV (LKZ,,, 626). (63) Esam bége nu ty bulių, —pals virsué ŽD (LKZ,,, 626). It may be assumed that the form virsué inherited its function as a modifier of the direction of action from the use of prepositions (pronouns) in essentially the same kind of statements, e.g. : (64) Mauna su vėjais Įrangos), i virščiau žmogaus važiuo|ja] RDN (LKZ,. 626). 5.3. When Sie (65) Ta karvė dideliai draskés, piiolé žmonims viriué AkM (LKZ, 626). verbs are used in an indirect meaning, i.e. they do not mean physical contact, the form virsué that modifies them is easier to consider as a postverb, cf.: *—There is also a form virsuéon, where n is probably from the iliative form virswsi: Daba vaikai viršuon pulna ant senesnio KRŠ Kz... 627). 88 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS (66) I didn't want to betray you that child, on that will blow up SD (LEZ... 626). (67) Séksta virsuo, akis drasko [boy] KrS (LKZ,, 626). 5.4. The expression of the infinitive is most clear when the form virsuo goes after the transitive verbs and denotes the (rapid) approach of something directly to the place where the speaker is, cf.: (68) Vokytis eita viršuo, bet maišos i rusiškai Sts (LKZ,,, 626). (69) The wind foams that smell above the TRK (LKZ,,, 626). (70) Lytus goes virsué, rather only grébkiat AKM (LKZ,,, 626). This is understandable, because the event factor of the form virsué modifikuojamy of verbs of this meaning necessarily relates to the arrival of the subject of the action (or the bringing of the object) to a certain point of space (path). 6. Finally, one practical question should be discussed, which arises when applying the term postverb to the forms in question in cases where they precede the verb, cf. : (71) Višta maybe something to sing, the head of the earth crosses KRS. (72) The village began to be burned, some of the inhabitants enslaved, others cut out (out? —R.M.) S. DAUK (LKŽ,,, 177). The analysis of perfective constructions shows the following trend: the purer the expression of the intermediate factor, the more strictly fixed the position of the postverb after the verb. And, conversely, the more the grammatical function performed by spoken forms is confused with the expression of the directive, the more free is their place in the sentence. However, even in the case of clear perfectives, the occasional use of a postverb before a verb is fully understandable if we interpret it as a textual phenomenon, i.e., depending on the circumstances of realization of the statement. Such an “inversion” is possible when there is a strict rule that only fixes the order of the elements of the peripheral perfective on a deeper morphosyntactic level. Thus, the use of the term postverb to describe the forms in question is fully justified. CONCLUSIONS 1. There is no doubt about the existence of perficient constructions in northern Lithuanian dialects. They must be properly represented in the LCI text. 2. Perfective constructions of LKŽ are to be presented with the forms of their verbs indicating the intermediate action. These forms should be treated as grammatically uniform as possible. This results in the maximum concentration of the structures in one place, which allows us to determine their geographical distribution. The uniform presentation of these coefficient indicators would also increase the transparency of the electronic search of the newly prepared LKŽ publication. 20 Perfective constructions with postverbs of other semantic nature, such as kidury, lygiai, kietai ir pan., nenagrinėtos. The problem of postverbs in LKZ | 89 3. The perficientyviniy constructs used in northern Lithuanian dialects have a different degree of clarity. The purity of the perfective depends on the degree of desemantization of its grammatical forms. The more these forms are de-emphasized, the purer the expression of the intermediate factor. The possibilities of resemantization of these forms, i.e. when they can be interpreted as spatial adverbs, partly depend on the semantics of the predicates of the statements. 4. There is no theoretical basis for considering spoken forms as adverbs. In the dictionary, it is sufficient to use the formal postverb term (abbreviated as postv.), and if necessary, in the definition it is possible to use non-binding terms of the iliative form, adverb form, or the like (depending on the semantic nature of those forms). 5.The most common are the perfective constructions with the postverb of iliative nature žėmė(n) (i Zéme) and its local variants of adverbial nature (northwestern Zemaites) žėmyn (down) and žėmynai (land). These postverbs usually follow verbs meaning decay, destruction and removal (separation). The significance of the perficient of these peripheral constructions is the most prominent. The only other case that seems ambiguous is when the aforementioned verbs also mean vertical movement downwards (then the spoken forms can be perceived as space adverbs). 6. Perfective constructions with the postverb žėmė(n) are used throughout the Latvian-Lithuanian border. The southern limit of the distribution of these constructions can be considered as the general limit of the perficient distribution in the northern Lithuanian dialects and it can be used in cases where spoken perifrastinal constructions can be interpreted in two ways. 7. the postverbs laūka(n), (laūko(n), laūkonais) and šalin of lyatitive origin are to be regarded as more adverbial forms than the form laūk. Perfective constructions with these postverbs are of a mixed type, as they can often be interpreted as modifiers of the direction of action in space. The perfective expression of the same annihilatory verb constructions formed with these postverbs is somewhat clearer. The forms that follow the verbs denoting horizontal (sliding) action are the easiest to interpret as adverbs, so their postverbal function is the most “obscured”. 8. with the inessive origin of the Samogitian form, perficient constructions are made up of a limited number of verbs denoting attack or sudden slip. This form often modifies the action of the sentence both in terms of quantity (meaning the intensity of movement) and direction in space (directly to the object), funkcijos) rodiklis. Aiškiausiai postverbinė formos virsuo funkcija atsiskleidžia, kai so it is not purely grammatical (in the figure it goes after the scrolling verbs. When it means the sudden approach of something directly to the subject of the statement, it also means the end of the scroll action. 9. In the dictionary, these forms serving as indicative of the intermediate factor are to be presented with the postv. separately from adverbs. Ideally, of course, they should be raised in a separate article. In order to present as many perficientive constructions as possible in one place, local variants should be provided with the basic forms as far as possible. For example, the LCZ methodology does not allow the forms žėmė(n) and žėmyn (down) to be presented in one lexicographic article, but it is appropriate (and there is, as we have shown, a theoretical basis for this) to present next to the perfectives with the synthetic iliative form žėmė(n) 90 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS examples with the form of the periphrastic iliative in zēmē (or vice versa, as was done here with the article zémé). Similarly, in addition to constructions with the postverb žemėn (down) in one article, examples with its longer variant žėmynai (zemynai) could also be given, as is done with the adverbs in the article žėmas, -a. TABLE 1. PREDICATIONS OF STATEMENT WITH PERFICIENCY CONSTRUCTIONS (VERBS OF DEATH MEANING) die PING, LG, KRrS,TrRS TL DR, GRSL, SD,VGR LNK SK Veiksmažodis žėmėn žėmė į žėmę žėmyn žemyn žėmynais žemynais SKD, TRKN, Pir STs, YL, TRK, AKM, VGR, MZK exploded KLVRZ, x2 RDN, KRŠ DR, SKD, SD, TRK TrRK x 3 BRrs dveésti KRT, PLT KRrS SD x 2, KLVRZ, AKM berigtis TRK šlopti AKM kdrsinties Sts YL kandéti Sts (about the fur) cold ŽEML, MŽK, Pp KLVRZ x 2, TrRK Xx 3 TRK skėsti VKš, LŽ Sts go ‘slide’ VGR (about sharp), RDN (about hair) LKŽ | 91 | TABELS TESINYS Verb Zémeén smėlė į žemę žemyn žemynais kontinentais šėrties Šts birti Ms (about blades) sirgti YL kristi SKD (about heads in war) galu SKD blogėti SKD TABLE 2. PREDICTS OF SECTIONS WITH PERFICIENCY CONSTRUCTIONS (VERBS WITH DESTRUCTIVeiksmažodis žėmėn žėmė į žėmę žėmyn žemyn žėmynais žemynais VE MEANING) shoot neighbor KL, [people] tako žaltį [human] PLT, KAL, SD, human [human] [zmogy] ZDx2, KRTYN, [Zmo-Sp, Įžmo-[human] gu] ALs, gu]GD YL, [human- [human] YL, gg] SD [people] ZEML, that bad TRK, [people] Sk, Bob VŠK, parents Ps, communist PPL, male KPR beat the child TRK, [zmogy] [zmogu] YL teva TRK, TRKN 92 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS 2 LENTELĖS TĘSINYS Verb žemėn žemė žemyn žemyn žemyn TRK, [daiktą] [žmogu] YL, muses END (for)kick that person PING bengti [man] himself SD ZEMML, bobą TRK take life [man] SD hurt [man] Lc (man) YL strangle [man] TRK [man] TRK, [human] Ms lock boar KRŠ pour shoot" manhunter murderers kill man] YL [ canoti [raven] PLT (su)lesti the chickens Sts mučti staro VKS (nu)daūžti seniisius ZEML pasturing clover Sts javus PLNG The problem of postverbs in LCZ | 93 2 LENTELĖS TĘSINYS Verb žemėn į žemę žemyn žemyn žemynais kontinentais spausti (about congestion (about in church) pain) SLNT Sts worship linen Sts stiffen (about speiga) Sts cross [human] Sts cut (about disease) SD TABLE 3. PREDICTS OF SECTIONS WITH PERFICIENCY CONSTRUCTIONS (VERBS OF REMOVING (DISSOCIATING) MEANS) Verb žemėn į žemę žemyn žemynais kontinentais imti skūrą YL, cross TRK, sleigh KLK, hat KLK, hand KLK, jewels VGR, shell Jpop, Burocus AKN dust PP pull(s) jacket JNŠ, [clothes] VšK kinkati horse KLK, horse ŽG, mares KLVRŽ throw [food] [horse] TRS 94 | The New York Times TABLE 3 Veiksmažodis žėmėn žėmė į žėmę žėmyn žemyn žėmynais žemynais PLN, smoking lopą LNKV, Kkš beer KRČ cut trees VŽ, head KRŠ head LK leg TRK head KL, leg TRK, head VB griduti(es) [house] KRTN, [houses] YL numus STs, school KLK, namuka SLC cut beard Sp, ports SD, [material] YL, material ŽG to cut [grain] BDR, hazel foot KRG gypsum BDR, AKM pear ŽG, feet Vkš rauti linus KLVRŽ žoles KRš bulves KRTN, linus JDR linus KLP dig bulbes SD bulbes TRK break the hand TRK tickle the bees MSK (nu)plēst sīpolu ādu Č mitrināt akni Vkš grūtnieci katlu KL celt katlu KL pannu The problem of postverbs in LCZ | 95 TABLE 3 THESIS Veiksmažodis žėmėn žėmė į žėmę žėmyn žemyn žėmynais žemynais LK [pot] Sp maduti(s) gredzenu TRK klenes SAUK zekes GRSL rēdīt(s) [cilvēku] TRK darītes Lkž Ms ‘prepare’ staigāt burnosus PLT skalot berzus AKM smear honey Sts (nu)mesti viršaitį JDR rolinti seni RDN versti valdžią SkD SUTRUPINIMAI LKA,, —Atlasas 3, Morfologija, red. K. MORKUNAS, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991. LKE-Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, red. V. AMBRAZAS, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, LKZ,,, —Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 14, red. K. ULvYDAS, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1986. LKZ, —Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 19, red. V. VITKAUSKAS, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, LKZ., —Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1999. LKŽ,,,- Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 7, red. J. KRUOPAS, Vilnius: Mintis, 1966. 20, red. V. VITKAUSKAS, Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos institutas, 2002. LITERATURE AMBRAZAS, V., ed., 1997: Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian Language. New York, NY: Institute for the Study of Science and Technology. DAUJOTYTE, V. 2002: Reference text of culture. Twenty volumes of the Lithuanian language dictionary, compiled by J. Zabarskaitė, Z. 1999. Šimėnaitė, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 34—35. GIRDENIS, A. 1984: Stratificational model of Lithuanian verb morphology. Linguistics 35(1), GIRDENIS, A., KACIUSKIENE, G. 1986: Parallel phenomena in Latvian and Northern Lithuanian verb systems. Kalbotyra 37 (1), 21-27. GUDAVICIUS, A. 2000: Emolinguistics, Šiauliai: Šiaulių University. 25-30.