ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

XLVII (2002), 19–29

Mikalojus Daukša’s Catechism (1595)

complex explanatory

sentences^*

ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius

This article deals with the complex sentences containing complement clauses in M. Daukša’s Katekizmas as well as in his Trumpas būdas pasisakymo nuodėmių (1595). Attention is paid to the syntactic structure of these sentences and to the semantic relations between clauses. They are compared with the corresponding sentence models in Modern Standard Lithuanian. The conclusion is advanced that Daukša’s language had no complementisers proper, in the sense of semantically empty markers of embedding. Instead, we find subordinators reflecting different types of semantic relationship between complement and main predicate; similar types of semantic relationship are reflected in adverbial clauses introduced by the same subordinators.

0. INTRODUCTION

Explanatory clauses in the contemporary standard language¹ are linked by the polysemous conjunctions kad, jog or by connective words introducing an indirect question (Ambrazas 1994: 669–670). In academic grammars, the conjunctions kad, jog are also called non-semantic, or functional (asemantic, polyfunctional conjunctions), because they link a subordinate clause to a main clause but do not indicate the nature of the relationship between them (Ambrazas 1994: 661; 1997: 720).

Comparison of old Lithuanian writings with the contemporary standard language reveals fundamental changes that have taken place in the structure of complex subordinate sentences. This article examines the explanatory clauses in two works by Mikalojus Daukša, published together in a 1595 convolute—Catechism² and

* This article was written on the basis of material from the project “Complex sentences in M. Daukša’s 1595 Catechism,” supported by the Lithuanian State Science and Studies Foundation. The project was carried out together with Jūratė Pajėdienė; its registration No. is 96-163/3G. I sincerely thank Professor Axel Holvoet for his valuable comments while preparing the article.

¹ In this article, as in more recent works of Lithuanian linguistics, explanatory clauses are defined as complex subordinate sentences whose subordinate clauses depend on verbs, deverbal nouns, adjectives, participles, and adverbs functioning as predicates in the main clause, and have the syntactic function of the subject or object of the main clause (cf. Ambrazas 1994: 665, 668–669; 1997: 725–726; Labutis 2002: 157–158). A subordinate clause in an explanatory sentence occupies the position of a valency argument opened by the predicate of the main clause (cf. Labutis 2002: 157).

² KATHECHISMAS ARBA MOKSLAS KIEKIWENAM KRIKSZCZIONII PRIWALVS. Hereafter in the article: Catechism.

20 |

ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS

The Short Form of Confession of Sins³— explanatory clauses⁴. Unlike present-day standard language, these use the conjunctions idant, jog, and jei(g(u)), with which Daukša also links adverbial subordinate clauses⁵. The conjunction kad⁶, which predominates in explanatory clauses in present-day standard language, is used by Daukša only in temporal clauses and in causal and conditional clauses closely related to them.

1. C L A U S E S W I T H idant

The conjunction idant is the most frequently used connective in Daukša’s complex sentences: 144 complex sentences with this conjunction were found in the Catechism and the Short Form. Their subordinate clauses are linked by a direct syntactic relation to the predicate of the main clause or modify other parts of the main clause. Clauses required by the main predicate, that is, explanatory clauses, make up almost half of all the complex sentences found with this conjunction (68 examples). Only a few more adverbial subordinate clauses, which function as free members of the semantic structure of a complex sentence, were found in the works under study than explanatory clauses.

Subordinate clauses with idant that are not required by the main predicate, although directly syntactically linked to it, function in the complex sentence as clauses of purpose⁷ (a) or result⁸ (adverbial clauses). The latter are characterized by correlatives⁹ that highlight their syntactic function, for example:

a) all those nights come /// in order to fall upon us // and overwhelm us. (All those nights come, so that they may fall upon us and overwhelm us.) 169_18–20

³Trumpas Budas Paƒiƒákimo arba įpažinimo Nūdemių. Hereafter in the article: the Short Form.

⁴ Explanatory clauses in Old Lithuanian have not been studied specifically. Information on individual types, especially on the use of conjunctions in them, can be found in studies by A. Leskien (1903), E. Hermann (1912, 1926), and J. Palionis (1967). Corresponding clauses in present-day standard language have been examined in grammars (Jablonskis 1911/1957, 1922/1957; Balčikonis, 1982; Balkevičius 1963; Sirtautas, Grenda 1988; Ambrazas 1972, 1976, 1994, Ambrazas, ed. 1997; Labutis 2002); V. Būda has written specifically on complement clauses in contemporary language (1979; see also his 1987 work).

⁵ Purpose, causal, conditional, and result complex sentences with these conjunctions in present-day standard language and older written texts have been studied most extensively by L. Drotvinas (1958, 1961, 1962, 1963a, 1963b, 1964, 1967). They are also discussed in the Lithuanian grammars mentioned above. Among more recent studies of individual types of adverbial clauses, one may cite the works of S. Girdėnienė (2000, 2001), E. Kibildaitė (2001), J. Liutkutė (Erichsmeier) (Liutkutė 1998, 2000, Erichsmeier 2002), and V. Našlėnaitė (Eberhardt) (2001, 2002).

⁶ The use of the conjunction kad in present-day Lithuanian is described in J. Žukauskaitė’s study (1957).

⁷ This article takes the view that verbs of motion or movement do not have a finite-complement function in their semantic structure that could be expressed by explanatory clauses; consequently, the corresponding subordinate clauses are classified as adverbial. N. Slizienė, author of the Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Valency, takes a different view; compare ateiti (Šlienė 1994: 105).

⁸ In academic grammars, such clauses are treated as descriptive clauses with direct subordination (cf. Ambrazas 1976: 836–842; 1994: 678–680, Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 735–737 (correlative clauses)), whereas in traditional grammars they are classified as subordinate clauses of the predicate, attributive clauses, or adverbial clauses of manner (cf. Jablonskis 1911/1957: 492, 495, 506, etc.). L. Drotvinas identifies in result clauses “a mixed, explanatory meaning of cause and condition” (1964: 22).

⁹ Here and below, citations are from the edition of the Catechism and the Short Method prepared by V. Jakštienė and J. Palionis (1995).

DAUKŠOS KATEKIZMO AIŠKINAMIEJI SAKINIAI | 21

b) You have prepared this for me // thus to embrace / and to receive you / so that neither in life / nor in death I might be separated from you. (raçį ʃą ták // obłąpić / y ku fobie przyiąc / aby // áni w żywocie / ani w śmierci // od ciebie oderwana byc niemo- // głą.) 168_18–22

Subordinate clauses not directly related to the main predicate, introduced by idant, modify the main clause’s object (a) or attribute (b)¹⁰. Their consequential meaning is blended with the meaning of purpose, of something sought to be achieved; cf.:

a) Do you know any remedy, idant no one might ever swear falsely? (Wießże ty iákie lekárʃtwo // ʃeby kto nigdy krzywo nie przy- // ʃięgał?) 79_1–3 b) loving you [...] I love you // so ardently, idánt all the innermost parts of mine burn // with love for you (mi- // ʃųąc cię [...] miłośćią tak gorą- / cą / aby wʃytkie wnętrzności // moje gorzały w miłości twey) 167_6–10

In a complex sentence, explanatory subordinate clauses introduced by idant function syntactically as subject or object. Clauses functioning as objects are required by:

a) verba desiderativa, that is, verbs expressing acts of will or efforts made to achieve some goal, such as norėti, rūpintis, and the phrase padaryti pasįgėjimą ‘to make an effort, take care’:

I can // beseech God, idant through my sins / and deeds // he may join the sevenfold together // upon our 66_4–8 You wanted idánt me to be like the ark of the Testament (Tyś chciał abẏch był iáko // ʃkrzynią Teʃtámentu) 166_6–8

b) verba postulandi, that is, verbs and phrases expressing speech acts intended to influence the addressee’s conduct (melsti, prašyti, liepti, graudinti ‘to admonish’, įgraudinti ‘to exhort’, padaryti paragįnimą):

How shall we fulfil the third commandment [...]? by commanding idánt those also who are under our authority to do likewise. (Jáko záchowamy trzéće // przykazánie [...]? czyniąc tę aby y inni // nam porucżeni / Mßey ʃuchałi.) 79₁₅–80₉

c) verba timendi (the verb ‘to fear’):

Beware, idánt God’s wrath should not let anything evil befall you (boyćie ʃię // ʃkaráńia Bożego) 81_5–7

d) verba sentiendi – the imperative form of the verb atminti ‘to remember’ (the conjunction idant is generally not characteristic of clauses with these verbs):

¹⁰In traditional grammars, they are regarded as attributive clauses (cf. Jablonskis 1911/1957: 494–495; Balčikonis 1982: 125; Balkevičius 1963: 342, 345; Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 163–164), whereas in academic grammars they are treated as directly subordinated attributive or descriptive subordinate clauses (cf. Ambrazas 1976: 830, 840–843).

22 |

ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS

Remember to keep holy the Lord’s day. (Pamiętaj, abyś dzień Niedzielny święcił.) 74₆–₇

e) modal verbs (expressing deontic¹¹ necessity) and adjectives used predicatively derėti, reikėti ‘to be fitting, to be necessary’; reikalingas, privalus ‘necessary, obligatory’:

it is necessary // idant we should honor the father / through whom they swear. (potrzeba uczciwości ku temu // przez kogo przysięgają.) 78₁₉–₂₁

f) causative verbs in the broad sense (pure causatives and verbs meaning that the subject, by permission, assistance, etc., enables some action or state) – duoti ‘to allow, grant’, padėti ‘to help’, padaryti ‘to do, cause’:

If now you give me health, // let me live well, // so that I may be able // to set my life in order. (Jeśliże byś mię przy zdrowiu zachować / day aby[m] mógł żywotá mego statecznie poprawić) 189₁₄–₁₇

g) the adjective vertas ‘worthy’:

Saint John the Baptist [...] did not consider // himself worthy to untie // your sandal strap. (Święty Jan Chrzciciel [...] ani ję znał być godnym, iżby w trzewiká rzemyk rozwiązał.) 149₂–₇

Explanatory clauses have the syntactic function of subject when they occur in the position of a noun in the nominative, as required by the reflexive infinitive verbi postulandi priminėtis ‘to request’ (a), or by verbs expressing identity between propositional arguments and its determination: išmanytis ‘to mean’, priskaityti ‘to count as’, būti ‘to be’ (b), e.g.:¹²

a) What can be requested, // so that everyone may be guarded // against every sin (Wiáruy ję každy grzechu wßelákiego) 93₈–₁₀

b) M. What does Amen mean? Mo. Jdánt that it be so, or // so that it be done thus, so God // grants. (M. A coś ję rozumie Amen? V. Aby tak było: tako Boże day.) 43₁₆–₂₀

Explanatory subordinate clauses with idant may have correlatives in the main clause, which link the clauses of the complex sentence more closely and highlight the syntactic function of the subordinate clause, e.g.:

¹¹ Dėl termino plg. Matthews (1997: 91); daugiau apie deontinį modalumą žr. Palmer (1986: 18–20).

¹² Panašus atvej us plg. Drotvinas (1964: 41).

DAUKŠOS KATEKIZMO AIŠKINAMIEJI SAKINIAI | 23

it is fitting to be dear to God / so it is necessary that // they proceed from love. (it is right to be pleasing to God / therefore it is necessary that // they should come from love.) 72₁₄–₁₇

Daukša’s language is characterized by complex sentences with nouns of asemantic or very general meaning serving as correlative words thing, matter, grace, even heart and the like¹³, whose usage was sustained by the nature of the text being translated. An article is often used with such nouns. For example:

it // is not a thing needed to do // so that it should often // have to do that. (there is no need for a thing // necessary, so that it should often // do it) 117₈–₁₁

Give me that // grace, so that I might // be grateful for that goodness (Deign to grant me that grace / so that I might be grateful for this benefaction) 167₃–₅

Explanatory clauses with idant are characterized by deontic modality. The semantic affinity of explanatory clauses of this type to circumstantial purpose clauses, which likewise convey acts of the subject’s will, is evident. This may also explain the use of the conjunction idant in clauses with verba timendi (to fear and the like): typologically, the complement clauses required by these verbs are derived from negative purpose clauses (cf. Lichtenberk 1995). Thus, the conjunction idant is characteristic of purpose clauses in the Katekizmas and Trumpas būdas and of those explanatory clauses that are related to them in terms of the semantic relations expressed.

2. CLAUSES WITH jog

In the Daukša book under study, the conjunction jog connects clauses of a complex sentence in 115 instances—making it one of the connective words Daukša uses most frequently for this purpose. Nearly two-thirds of the subordinate clauses with jog (70 examples) are explanatory; this is the main syntactic type of these clauses.

Half as many circumstantial subordinate clauses with the conjunction jog in the Katekizmas and Trumpas būdas were found. In the complex sentence, they have the syntactic function of adverbials of cause (a)¹⁴, condition (b), or consequence (c). For example:

a) King // David used to invite to his // table a distinguished man: // because he was the son of that // great and dear friend of his, // Jonathan (King // David used to invite to his table // a distinguished man, because he // was the son of that great and // dear friend of his, Jonathan) 153₁₇–₂₂

b) because // you, Lord, wished also to // come into this poor house // of mine and stand in it, begin // to bless the house of your // servant (since you, // Lord, also wished to come into this poor // house and stand in it, begin // to bless the house of your servant) 165₆–₁₁

¹³ Cf. similar sentences in contemporary language with nouns functioning as the nominal part of the predicate, such as shame, guilt and the like (Ambrazas 1976: 813, 820–821; 1994: 671).

¹⁴ Daukša also uses the specialized conjunctions nes(a) and kadang in clauses expressing cause.

24 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS

c) kas // yra žmogus / jog teip ȧtme- // ni ij (what is man / that thou art mindful of him) 162₂–₄

The use of the conjunction jog in causal adverbial clauses (sometimes even without correlative words!) is unfamiliar in present-day standard language¹⁵. In Daukša’s texts, causal relations are brought into sharper relief by the correlative words todri̇n, drin to and dėl to used in the main clause. Clauses of condition with jog are characterized by subordinate-clause preposing and lack correlative words.

A result subordinate clause with jog is occasionally linked not to the main predicate, but modifies an adverbial of manner¹⁶; cf.:

teip gerai prij- // jidabōjo tam iſmaną // žmones jog pataijimas / Baźniczios / ir giwa- // tos krikſcźioniſkos // kitaip but ne galėjo // tiekta per tą ƒekłą iau- // nūmo. (thus do- // well wise men observed // that otherwise the re- // form of God’s church and // the common Christian // life could not be accom- // plished except through // this young generation) 6₄–₁₁

In a complex sentence, explanatory subordinate clauses with the conjunction jog have the syntactic function of subject or object. Clauses that are introduced as objects are those selected by:

a) verbs of speaking (verba dicendi), such as byloti, pa(si)sakyti, etc., e.g.:

Tē paſsiſſākai iog ƒu ti- // krūiu ƒawú kūnu nē vſsi- // laike (May she tell that she // did not conduct herself // with her own true body) 126₁₆–₁₈

b) verbs expressing intellectual activity or epistemic evaluation¹⁷ (verba sentiendo), such as tikėti ‘believe’, tikėtis ‘expect’, žinoti ‘know’, pažinti ‘recognize’, išpažinti ‘confess’, atminti ‘remember’, neužmiršti ‘not forget’, veizdėti ‘keep in mind’, išmanyti ‘understand’, prirašinėti ‘attribute’, e.g.:

priwa- // hú žinôt / iog tokios // nūdemes gāli būt ar- // ba prieƀ Dieẃą / arba // prieƀ mūs pačius (one must // know that such sins may // be either against God or // against ourselves) 116₅–₉

c) the causative verb daryti ‘make’:

M. Kodrĩnag ją wa- // dina marinancźia? // Mo. Jog ii [...] daro tai // iog atima ƒweikatą / ir gi- // watą ios / tai eſt / malône // Diewo. (M. Why do they call it mortal? // V. It [...] makes it so // that it loses its life, that is, // God’s grace.) 92₁₀–₁₆

¹⁵Cf. Ambrazas (1976: 867).

¹⁶Traditional grammars treat such clauses as adverbials of manner (cf. Jablonskis 1911/1957: 506; Balčikonis 1982: 127; Balkevičius 1963: 357–358 (descriptive adverbials of manner); Sirtautas, Girdėna 1988: 168), whereas academic grammars classify them as descriptive clauses of direct subordination (cf. Ambrazas 1976: 840–842; 1994: 680, Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 735–737 (correlative clauses)).

¹⁷On the term, cf. Matthews (1997: 115–116); for more on epistemic modality, see Palmer (1986: 18–20).

DAUKŠOS KATEKIZMO AIŠKINAMIEJI SAKINIAI | 25

d) emotional verbs, i.e., verbs expressing an emotional reaction to be surprised, to complain (cf. Drotvinas 1963a: 17; 1964: 21), the phrase duotis kaltam ‘to confess (sins)’:

for one should be surprised / // that some devout persons // have found no sins / of which they might // consider themselves guilty (nie trzebá // ſię dżiwoẃać / iš niektóre // perſony nabożne / nie náy- // duja grzechow / 3 ktorych // by ſię miały winnemi dá- // wać) 115₆–₁₀ [they may confess themselves guilty] that they did not // have such strong faith / // as they ought ([može ſię dáć winien] iš nie miał ták ſtá- // tećney wiáry / iáko ſhuſba) 121₂₀–122₁₀

Those subordinate clauses with jog that are required by the passive voice of verborum dicendi have the syntactic function of subject (a); verbs expressing a relation of identity between propositional arguments—išmanyti ‘to mean’, išeiti ‘to turn out as a result’, būti ‘to mean’ (b); and the phrase expressing an epistemic assessment būti tiesa (c), for example:

a) It is clearly said of you: // that you received sinners / // and ate with them. (O tobie jáwnie mo- // wiono / žeś przyimował grze- // bne / y z nimi jadł.) 150₁₇–₁₉ b) M. What is sitting at the // right hand of God the Fa- // ther almighty? // A. That he sits at the highest // place, which is in hea- // ven 37₁₂–₁₇ From this it fol- // lows that he has no grounds // on which he could // declare himself guilty (z tąd pochodzi / iż // nie máią 3 czegoby // ſię win- // ni dáć mieli) 115₁₆–₁₁₆ c) It is true that what a person // has drunk in youth, // that he retains // even in later years (Rzecż pewna // ieſt / iż czego ſię cżłek z mło- // du napiie / to y ná poto- // mnie cżały zachowa) 5₅–₉

Correlative words are rarely used in explanatory clauses with the conjunction jog. Although they usually depend on the original, clauses have also been found in which the correlative used has no equivalent in the original. These include clauses with the main verbs daryti (cf. the example quoted), išmanyti:

M. How, then, do you understand that he was born of the Virgin Mary? // A. Thus, that not by human agency, but by the agency of the Holy Spirit she gave birth to him, remaining a virgin (M. A jákož ſię to ſtało? // V. Nie ſprawą cżłowiecżą / ále // ſprawą Ducha świętego: po- // nieważ ona Pánna zoſtała) 33₃–₉

A correlative word is necessary in several explanatory clauses with a preposed subordinate clause (a), as well as in clauses whose main verbs express the establishment of a causal relation between two propositions, for example, prirašinėti ‘to attribute’ (b), cf.:

a) That many of those // who often confess // their sins do not find in themselves // any sense of shame // or remorse of conscience [...] For this // two causes may be found (JZ niemáło 3 tych // co ſię cżęſto ſpowiá- // dáią w nieiákim žámieſá- // niu y roſtárgnieniu ſum- // nienia ſwego podcżás ſię / náyduią [...] temu može dwie przy- // cżynie náleść.) 111₂–112₅

26 |

ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS

b) I thank you for that grace [...] I beseech you, that you have deigned to call me to your holy faith (twojey to łafce [...] przypluié /jeś // mię do wiary twey świętey po- // wołać [...] racžył) 185₂₀–₁₈₆₅

In the sentences under consideration, as in sentences with the conjunction idant, nouns denoting abstractions—malonė, slaptė ‘mystery’, geradarymas ‘good deed’—also serve as correlatives, for example:

And I confess that I recognize your no lesser good deed, that you rescued and delivered me from numerous adversities [...] (Ale y to // nie mnıeyfe twoie dobrodziey- / ftwo wyžnawam /jeś mię od // przygod rozmaitych [...] wyrwał y vybawił) 186₈–₁₇

As the examples given show, explanatory clauses with jog are primarily characteristic of verbs expressing speech or mental activity (verba dicendi et sentien- di) and of emotional verbs. This latter type of explanatory clause is close to adverbial clauses of cause: the propositional argument may be understood not only as the object of surprise (complaint, etc.), but also as a circumstance expressing surprise (complaint, etc.).

Explanatory subordinate clauses with jog characteristically have indicative forms of the verb functioning as the predicate. This is related to their factual status¹⁸: it is presupposed that the content of the explanatory clause corresponds to reality.

3. SENTENCES WITH jei(g(u))

All 39 subordinate clauses with this conjunction in Daukša’s works under consideration are linked to the predicate of the main clause by direct syntactic relations. Some, the explanatory clauses, occupy the position of a valency complement of a verb or adjective functioning as the predicate; others, the adverbial clauses, occupy the position of a free constituent.

Most of Daukša’s complex sentences with the conjunction jei(g(u)) are adverbial. Their subordinate clause usually expresses a condition¹⁹ (a); sometimes, especially with a negative main predicate, it expresses a concession (b), for example:

a) If your father ordered you to say some untruth or commit some sin, or to do something bad, should you obey him? (kiedyby tobie oćiec twoy // ro|kažał rzeć iaką nieprawdę // ábo grzech jaki vczynic: winien // żeś go {łuchac?) 81₁₈–82₃

b) I will gladly show you my sins, which I cannot conceal from you, even if I wanted to. (To you, Father, I will gladly reveal my sins, which, even if I wanted to conceal them from you, I cannot.) 134₁₆–₁₉

18 Dėl termino žr. Matthews (1997: 125).

In the Katekizmo and Trumpo būdo, the special conjunction kačėib(a) is also used in conditional sentences.

Daukšos Katekizmo aiškinamieji sakiniai

27

Correlative words are not characteristic of conditional compound sentences. In these, the subordinate clause tends to precede the main clause. In concessive sentences, too, the subordinate clause precedes the main predicate.

Eleven examples of explanatory sentences with the conjunction if(g(u)) were found in the Katekizmas and Short Form. They are linked by emotional verbs (to complain), verbs of mental activity (to use ‘rozbierać’), the verb to suffice, expressing a causal relation (a sufficient or insufficient condition), and the verb to except ‘to exclude’, expressing restrictions on the validity of a statement, e.g.:

it suffices that // he has the desire / and the will / to ac- // cept them and if he does what // he ought to do (it is enough that he // has the desire and will to accept // them, if he does what he is bound to do.)

42₃–₆ [we will fulfil the sacrament] without discussing unknown sins (except // those which it would be proper // to disclose for their instruction // to the person concerned (not re- // proaching or revealing // secret sins (unless // for their correction, to the one // to whom it is appropriate)) 86₁₃–87₂

Explanatory subordinate clauses with if(g(u)) are also required by the predicate phrase to confess guilt:

[he may confess his guilt] if he has fallen with [his heart ([he may render himself guilty] if he has fallen into sin) 121₂₀–122₂₁

In all the examples cited, the subordinate clause has the syntactic function of an object. Subordinate clauses governed by the verb to suffice have a correlative word (as in the original).

The fact that in all these cases the subordinate clause is explanatory rather than an adverbial conditional clause is shown by the conjunction jog, which is used alongside if(g(u)) in the very same complex sentences. In every case, the choice of conjunction in the Lithuanian translation depends on the original; compare:

[It is grievous] that he was not patient // in adversity, or that he did not // have patience in hardships // and troubles ([Let him also be] accused // justly that he was not patient // in adverse circumstances, or that // he likewise had no patience in // afflictions) 124₁₅–125₃ [he may confess his guilt] that he did not have such [a kind of faith // as is fitting: or if he did not guard // himself against temptations // and thoughts ([he may render himself guilty] that he did not have such [a // true faith as is fitting: or if he did not guard // against these temptations and thoughts) 121₂₀–122₁₁

A subordinate clause has the syntactic function of a subject when required by the noun misfortune / trouble, which denotes a person’s inner state:

Misfortune // for me, if after so many // medicines I am not well, if I must suffer // the disease of sins in my body and // in my soul. (It is a misfortune for me, if after so // many medicines I do not become well, if I must suffer the sickness of sins // in my body and in my soul.) 143₉–₁₃

28 |

ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS

As the examples given show, the conjunction jei(g(u)) in explanatory clauses is very close in function to the conjunction jog (with which it is sometimes used interchangeably), but differs from it in its non-factive status. For example, the subordinate clause pakanka, jog turi norą ‘it is enough that he has a desire’ has a factive presupposition (it presupposes that the desire exists), whereas the corresponding clause pakanka, jeigu turi norą ‘it is enough if he has a desire’ is non-factive—it presents the desire as a sufficient condition, irrespective of whether it exists in a particular case.

Complex explanatory sentences with the conjunction jei(gu) are not alien to present-day standard language either (cf. Ambrazas 1976: 808–809, 874–875), but they are used rarely. In most cases, such sentences are now replaced by sentences with kad.

4. CONCLUSIONS

1. Unlike in present-day standard language, where explanatory clauses are linked by the semantic conjunction kad (and its stylistic variant jog), Daukša uses the conjunctions idant, jog, and jei(g(u)) in corresponding sentences. The subordinate explanatory clause begins with the first two conjunctions with approximately equal frequency, while jei(g(u)) is used considerably less often in these sentences. The same conjunctions also link the components of complex sentences expressing circumstantial relations of purpose, cause, consequence, and condition.

2. In terms of modality type, sentences with the conjunction idant differ markedly from sentences with jog and jei(g(u)): the former are characterized by deontic modality, and the latter by epistemic modality.

3. Daukša’s conjunctions in explanatory clauses are selected according to their semantic relation to the predicate: purpose or consequence relations are expressed by the conjunction idant, causal relations by jog, and less often by jeigu. These conjunctions differ not so much in the functions they perform as in terms of factivity.

LITERATŪRA

AMBRAZAS, V. 1972: Lietuvių kalbos prijungiamųjų sakinių struktūriniai tipai. Baltistica 8 (1), 23–48.

AMBRAZAS, V. 1976: Prijungiamieji sakiniai. Ulvydas, K., red. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3: Sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas, 789–916.

AMBRAZAS, V. 1994: Prijungiamieji sakiniai. Ambrazas, V., red. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 659–696.

AMBRAZAS, V., ed. 1997: Lithuanian Grammar, Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

BALČIKONIS, J. 1982: Paskaitos. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Rinktiniai raštai II. Sudarė A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslas, 4–140.

BALKEVIČIUS, J. 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Mintis.

BŪDA, V. 1979: Papildinio prijungiamųjų sakinių sandaros elementai. Kalbotyra 30 (1), 13–96.

BŪDA, V. 1987: Lietuvių kalbos prijungiamieji sakiniai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

DROTVINAS, L. 1958: Условные конструкции (союзные) в Постиллях М. Даукши. Kalbotyra 1, 123–146.

DROTVINAS, L. 1961: Apie kai kurių sąlygos konstrukcijų daugiareikšmiškumą lietuvių kalboje. Lietuvos TSR MA darbai A, 1 (10), 167–171.

DROTVINAS, L. 1962: Apie dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sąlygos konstrukcijas. Kalbotyra 4, 93–118.

DROTVINAS, L. 1963 a: Apie dabartinės lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos priežasties ir tikslo konstrukcijas su jungtuku kad. Kalbotyra 6, 15–27.

Daukšos Katekizmo aiškinamieji sakiniai | 29

Drotvinas, L. 1963 b: Apie tarinių formas dabartinės lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos priežasties konstrukcijose. Kalbotyra 9, 35–49.

Drotvinas, L. 1964: Priežasties ir tikslo sudėtinės konstrukcijos XVI–XVII a. lietuvių kalbos raštuose. Kalbotyra 10, 19–52.

Drotvinas, L. 1967: P respondent?