ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

XLV (2001), 11–38

Features of the Development of the Passive in Lithuanian

Vytautas Ambrazas

Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius

The analytical passive arose in the course of the separate development of Lithuanian, though the preconditions for its rise must have existed in Proto-Baltic. Passive constructions are dialectally differentiated. In West and North Lithuanian, the passive is formed by means of agreeing participles and it is usually agentless (though agentive genitives occur as a result of reanalysis in phrases with an adnominal genitive). In East and South Lithuanian, the passive is formed by means of ancient neuter forms in *-mo and *-to often combined with agentive genitives, e.g. tévo buvo sakoma ‘it was said by the father’, kiškio bėgta ‘it is run by a hare’, i.e.: ‘(apparently) a hare has run’. Such constructions are based on ancient nominal sentences with neuter predicates retaining the pure *-o stem, without grammatical agreement. The neuter nominal predicates (subsequently – neuter participles) in *-mo and *-to were similar in meaning to verbal abstracts and an adnominal genitive expressing the subject/agent could be added to them in the same way as to other verbal nouns. The possessive forms of the Lithuanian pronouns used in such phrases with neuter participles as with verbal abstracts show a close relation between the subjective and possessive genitives. The wide use of the agentive (subjective) genitive with the neuter passive participles in Lithuanian is apparently founded on their ancient nominal meaning.

1. THE EMERGENCE OF THE VOICE CATEGORY

1.1. The passive, or passive voice, as a morphological category most likely took shape during the period when the individual branches of the Indo-European languages developed independently. In the ancient Anatolian, Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Italic languages, the passive was formed using finite verb forms with middle meanings; in the Slavic and, in part, Romance languages, reflexive verbs were used. In some languages (for example, Hittite, Latin, Romance, and Germanic), participles were also incorporated alongside finite forms¹.

Baltic languages have no finite verb forms in the passive voice. The passive voice (the passive) is formed here by periphrastic constructions with the passive participles *-mo and *-to, in contrast both to constructions with active participles—

¹An opposing view has also been published, according to which the periphrastic passive was inherited from Proto-Indo-European (Costello 1984). This view is based on the fact that the periphrastic passive is found in many related languages and that its formation can be explained by the transformational and tagmemic methods. Even the expression of the agent in the periphrastic passive through prepositional constructions has been traced back to Proto-Indo-European (Costello 1984: 149–150). However, this hypothesis would be difficult to reconcile with the history of passive forms in the Indo-European languages, the development of auxiliary verbs, and other processes in historical syntax.

12 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

ticiples (e.g., yra šaikštas – yra šaikęs), as well as to finite verb forms (e.g., yra šaukiamas – šaukiama).

The most important distinguishing feature of the voice category is the relationship between the subject of the action (state) expressed by the verb, as a semantic category, and the grammatical subject of the sentence (or the word modified by a participle)². Passive forms make it possible to describe an action (state) without regard to its subject (here people sleep; so it is written³), or by foregrounding its object, which assumes the function of grammatical subject (The apples were brought); in such cases, the subject of the action may be expressed by a complement (The apples were brought by the father).

In Lithuanian passive constructions, in certain cases not only the accusative or genitive of a direct object, but also the dative of an indirect object with verbs such as give, bring, tell, and the like, may be foregrounded and expressed in the nominative as the grammatical subject (see Ambrazas, ed. 1997a: 322, Ambrazas, ed. 1997b: 278–279). In such cases, the case of the direct object remains unchanged in passive constructions, e.g.: He meows like a cat, his tail being twisted ALS.; the hare, its head being made LTR; The road has been shown, he will travel on PN (LKŽₓₗ 800); Lewas atimtas waikus WP 217₈, and so on (Fraenkel 1928: 13–14).

1.2. Lithuanian participles, distinguished by voice meaning, form groups of active and passive participles. The active participles include those with the suffixes -nt and -us, and the passive participles those with the suffixes *-mo and *-to. These participial forms were inherited from the period of the Proto-Baltic and Indo-European linguistic communities. Today, active participles most often denote a property of the person or thing that acts or experiences a particular state, while the passive participles opposed to them denote a property of a person or thing that is acted upon by another. This contrast in meaning became clear as the voice category took shape. Nevertheless, its beginnings can already be discerned in the differences in derivational meanings and usage of very ancient deverbal nouns, from which the participles themselves also developed.

In many Indo-European languages, from the earliest records onward, adjectives (or participles) derived from verbs with the suffix *-nt were most often used to express properties arising from the agent itself or the bearer of a state (with the exception of Hittite and rare relics in Indo-Iranian and Latin). Since ancient times, the suffix *-nt has also been widely used to form names of agents (nomina agentis) (cf. the words for ‘tooth’ in many related languages and nouns such as Latin parentes ‘parents’, Gothic frijonds ‘friend’, and so on). Deverbal nouns formed with the suffix *-us almost always denoted properties of agents or names of agents. It is therefore understandable that, as the participial system took shape, forms with *-us- and *-nt- acquired an active-voice meaning.

On the other hand, deverbal adjective forms with the suffix *-mo were long neutral with respect to their relation to the subject of the action, whereas forms with the suffix *-to, especially those derived from transitive verbs, were used primarily to describe inactive participants, objects of an action or pro-

² Here and throughout, the term subject denotes the semantic subject—the agent of the action denoted by a verb, or the patient, percipient, or bearer of another property in a state. The grammatical subject of a sentence is defined by the syntactic relations among the sentence constituents (see Ambrazas 1986: 9, 16–18, 23–28; Ambrazas, ed. 1997a: 487, 493–494).

³ Cf.: “passives center around agents, and their fundamental function has to do with the defocusing of agents” (Shibatani 1985: 831); see also Keenan (1986: 243–245), Foley, Van Valin (1986: 301 ff.).

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PASYVO RAIDOS BRUOŽAI

13

…-affected objects⁴. Because of this meaning of action, forms made from transitive verbs with *-to formed a clear opposition to forms with *-us, which became the beginnings of the passive, cf.: boiled: cooked, carried: carried, given: given. Some forms with *-to, made from intransitive verbs, remained outside this correlation, e.g.: báltas (: bá́lti), bìngtas (: bìngti), skýstas (: skýsti), šáltas (: šálti); some of them differ in accentuation from the corresponding verbs, cf.: šìltas: šìlti, rìṁtas / rimtas: rimti, praštas: prašti. These are old deverbal adjectives that likewise remained outside the participle system⁵. In function and meaning they correspond to their Latvian, Prussian, and other-language equivalents, cf.: Latvian balts, salts, silts, pikts and Prussian skijstan III 127₁₀ – rein ‘beautiful’ (acc.sg.), ructan- (ructandadan E 690 – suwer[m]ilch), cf. Lithuanian rūgtas.

Lithuanian deverbal adjectives with the suffix *-mo have in many cases retained their ancient neutrality with respect to voice to the present day. Only some of them, those denoting properties of the object of an action, were incorporated into the system of forms of the voice category. In Western Aukštaitian and Samogitian dialects, their masculine and feminine forms constituted periphrastic passive constructions, opposed to constructions with *-to participles, cf. there the berries were being picked / picked.

1.3. Differences in meaning according to the relation of the action to the subject, characteristic of the voice category, are also evident among other deverbal adjectives that did not become participles in Lithuanian. For example, many deverbal adjectives with the derivational ending -us denote properties of the subject and in this respect resemble active participles, cf. talkative and speaking, inventive and devising, swift (horse) and flying, agile (person) and moving nimbly, capable and able, voracious and eating etc. By contrast, deverbal adjectives with the derivational ending -as denote properties of the object of an action, e.g.: open (cf. opened), released (cf. let go), scattered (cf. having spread). Such “voice-related” meanings are also characteristic of some derivational suffixes. Deverbal adjectives with the suffix -lus (*-lu) denote properties arising from the subject’s action or state, e.g.: auglūs ‘growing well’, kiblūs ‘inclined to catch’, rėklus, taiklūs, patrauklūs, as do those with the suffix -las (*-lo), e.g.: aklas (: akti), dėglas (: dėgti), kūšlas (cf. Latvian kusls ‘weak, frail’: kust ‘to become weak’). In Slavic languages, derivatives with the suffix *-lo of this kind became paradigmatic active past participles (similarly to Lithuanian derivatives with the suffix *-us) and formed the paradigm of the active-voice periphrastic perfect, which later became the simple past tense in Russian. Meanwhile, derivatives with the suffix -nas (*-no) have a resultative meaning in Lithuanian and have since ancient times denoted properties of the object of an action (or state), e.g.: pìlnas: pìlti, kìlnas: kìlti, plónas: plóti, bá́lnas: bá́lti. Some of them correspond in meaning to derivatives with the suffix *-to, cf. pìltas, plótas, báltas. Together with derivatives of the suffix *-to, they were incorporated into the participle system in Slavic, Germanic, and, in part, Indo-Iranian languages as passive-voice forms. Thus, opposition according to the relation to the subject of an action (or state) is the most important feature distinguishing voice cate-

⁴ Pasak Emilio Benveniste’o (1948: 167), jų pagrindinė funkcija buvo reikšti požymio realizavimą objekte (“l’accomplissement de la notion dans l’objet“). Plg. dar Brugmann(o (1906: 246–248) pateiktus įvairių kalbų *-to formų gretinimus ir išsamiai nušviestą jų virtimą neveikiamaisiais dalyviais italikų kalbose (1895).

⁵ Skardžius (1943: 319) and Otrębski (1965: 235) considered them to be derived adjectives that had become participles or analogous formations made on the basis of participles; Bergmane (1955: 28) held the same view of the corresponding Latvian formations.

14 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

…gory is a defining feature, grounded in differences in the derivational meanings of deverbal nouns inherited from the distant past.

This opposition does not depend on the syntactic function of deverbal nouns (later, participles) in the sentence: it is equally characteristic of forms used attributively and as nominal predicates, cf.:

a woman who knows Kb: a known thing VRN; she is (a) knowing SKd, KL: all thieves are known PLN; a boiled egg spins; a raw one does not spin ErŽ: the potatoes are cooked through ALS; those potatoes still aren’t quite cooked JRB: the semolina porridge is cooked ErŽ.

1.4. Differences in the expression of the relation to the subject of an action do not yet indicate that a voice category has taken shape. Its existence can be asserted only when deverbal adjectives with certain suffixes (word-formation units) become active and passive participles (morphological units), and their combinations with an auxiliary verb are incorporated into the verbal system as periphrastic tense forms correlated with other verbal forms.

In Lithuanian, as in the other Baltic languages, deverbal adjectives with the suffixes *-nt, *-us, *-mo and *-to gradually and unevenly developed into participles. The correlation of these forms based on tense meaning became established first (see Ambrazas 1979: 39). The grammaticalization of voice meanings and their use in the periphrastic passive represent a later stage of development, which proceeded differently not only in the various Baltic languages but also across different Lithuanian dialects.

2. PASSIVE WITH AGREEING PASSIVE PARTICIPLES

2.1. Long before the beginning of writing, the Samogitians and Western Aukštaitians began forming a periphrastic passive with present-tense (*-mo) and past-tense (*-to) participles and the auxiliary verb būti ‘to be’. In sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts reflecting the characteristics of these dialects, the structure of the periphrastic passive in many cases does not depend on the foreign-language sources used by the authors.

2.2. Compound forms with *-mo participles most often denote an action performed continuously or repeatedly, e.g.:

Without putting straw for your servants BrB II Moz 5,15 (Man gibt deinen Knechten kein stro LB); for just as seed is sown into the earth of the field, so the word of the Lord is sown into people’s hearts BP₁ 209₂₃–₂₅; (Wiernieghi) the burdensome load of hardship and troubles is borne MT 203a₁₁; Righteousness and salvation are not only apprehended but also preserved by God MT 93a₁₂–₁₃ (Iustitia et salus non modo apprehenduntur, sed etiam a DEO conservantur); Iron is dug from the earth, and copper is smelted from stones (above: melted) is copper BrB Job 28,2 (Eisen bringt man aus der erde / vñ aus den steinen schmeltzt man ertz LB).

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PASYVO RAIDOS BRUOŽAI | 15

Compound forms with agreeing *-mo participles rarely denote a specific action in progress in the present, e.g.:

My daughter is being grievously tormented by the devil VEE 45₂₁ (Mein dochter wird vom teuffel vbel geplaget LB Mt 15,22); Behold, although I cry out against violence, I am not heard BrB Job 19,7 (Sihe / ob ich schon schrey vber freuel / so werde ich doch nicht erhöret LB); The fields await an answer from you Job 34,33 (Man wartet der antwort von dir LB).

More often, *-mo participles denote a specific action with the past-tense auxiliary verb, e.g.:

and a whirlwind (corrected: storm) came upon the lake, and they were overwhelmed BrB Lk 8,23 (Vnd es kam ein windwürbel auff den see / vnd die wellen vberfielen sie LB); but he was being watched in the chamber BrB Teis 16,12 (Man hielt aber auff jn jnn der kamer LB).

The use of periphrastic forms with *-mo participles to express a specific ongoing action is relatively rare even in present-day Aukštaitian and Samogitian dialects (cf. Slizienė 1974: 86; Ambrazas 1979: 176). This indicates that their correlation with simple tense forms has not yet become firmly established.

2.3. Compound forms with past passive (*-to) participles most often denote a resultant state arising from a preceding action. From the earliest writings onward, they have been used with both generalized and specific meanings, e.g.:

Thus the Midianites were humbled before the children of Israel BrB Teis 8,28 (Also wurden die Midianiter gedemütiget für den kindern Israel LB); This place was called Gilgal BrB Joz 5,9 (dieselbe stet ward Gilgal gennennet LB); so that the life of Jesus might be manifested in our body ChNT II Kor 4,10.

The much broader use of the passive with *-to- participles suggests that it developed in the western Lithuanian dialects earlier than the passive with *-mo- participles. Here the periphrastic passive with past passive participles is opposed to both simple and compound perfect active forms. Their use in Samogitian dialects may be illustrated by the following examples from the Tirkšliai variety recorded by Alekso Girdenio (1996):

Whether this way or that, you have been bought; you must work until you drop dead (112); She was born alive, everything as it should be, but she was strangled, and (the mother) got twelve years for strangling the child (126); I said that she had been baptized when she was little (123); They say that the child had first been put there; later they took it away to the cemetery (125); All those flowers had been cut, but look, dear mother, how they are sprouting! (310).

The structure of passive constructions is not entirely fixed. Variation in the auxiliary verb is attested from the 16th century onward. Alongside the predominant forms of būti ‘be’, the verbs tapti, stotis ‘become’ are also sometimes used as auxiliaries, e.g.:

16

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

A young man... becomes abandoned by the maiden of God WP 111_12–13; Thus made, heaven and earth came to be BrB I Moz 2,1 (Thus heaven and earth were completed LB); And he died and was buried Tes 10,5 (And thus he died and was buried LB); the poor soul, as if pierced with thorns, becomes DP 100₄₂ (a wretched soul is as if tormented with thorns ³W 101₆₂); all stand baptized Mž 107–108 (he... be baptized Mch 170).

These auxiliary verbs are occasionally used with *-mo participles as well, cf.:

Jesaus prikelimas... swietui tape szinomas Mž 279_18–19; Welino mucziams stoiesi BP_I 296₁₆.

Similarly, in present-day western Lithuanian dialects, passive participles (like adjectives) are associated with forms of tāpti, cf.:

Juodu abudu tapę nuo staldo velkamu BsV 327; Langas tapę išmuštas KLP.

2.4. In eastern and southern Aukštaitian dialects, a true passive with agreeing masculine and feminine passive participles has not yet developed. Periphrastic forms with *-mo participles are still absent here, as they are in Latvian; isolated examples in old writings reflecting features of eastern Aukštaitian are due to the sources used. The resultative *-to participles, when used with the verb būti ‘be’, form nominal-type constructions here, which do not correlate with finite verb forms. For example, in the sentences Regėjau, tavo langas buvo atdarytas KB ‘I saw that your window was open’; Svirnas pripiltas kviečių Lp ‘The granary is filled with wheat’, the participles function as predicative complements, much like verbal adjectives (cf. atviras, pilnas ‘open, full’); although they express properties of the object of an action, they cannot be regarded as passive counterparts of the simple past forms atidarė, pripylė ‘opened, filled’.

2.5. In constructions with agreeing passive participles, the subject of the action is usually unexpressed. This corresponds to the primary function of the passive—to describe an action without foregrounding its agent. Passive constructions without an expressed subject predominate in other Indo-European languages as well; they are apparently the oldest type (cf. Schwyzer 1943; Kurylowicz 1964: 72–73; Shibatani 1998: 137)⁶. This is also confirmed by differences in how the subject is expressed. In Lithuanian, as already mentioned, the agent of a passive participle may be expressed by the genitive (the so-called genitivus auctoris). The genitive subject is attested in the Vedas, Avestan, Tocharian, and occasionally in Greek, Latin, and Germanic languages. Sanskrit and Slavic, on the other hand, predominantly use the instrumental; Homeric Greek uses the dative; later Greek and Germanic use various prepositional constructions⁷. Recent Indo-European studies tend to regard the genitive as an especially archaic means of expressing the subject (cf. Haudry 1977: 408; Schmalstieg

⁶ This type of passive is characteristic of other language families as well and is considered typologically basic; see Keenan (1986: 247 ff.; 263).

⁷ For a fuller discussion of the expression of the subject in passive constructions in Indo-European languages, see Schwyzer (1943); Schmidt (1963); Jamison (1979; 1981); Luraghi (1986).

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PASYVO RAIDOS BRUOŽAI | 17

1980: 176–178; 1995), and its traces can also be discerned in Slavic prepositional constructions, for example, otъ + GEN. (cf. 3.14). Nevertheless, in none of the Indo-European languages is the subject genitive as firmly established as it is in Lithuanian.

2.6. The Lithuanian data are particularly significant because they convincingly show the connection between the subject genitive in passive constructions and other instances of the ancient use of this case. As is well known, Lithuanian personal pronouns and some other pronouns have two forms of the singular genitive: non-possessive forms: manęs, tavęs, savęs, ko, kažko, nieko and possessive forms: mano, tavo, savo, kieno, kažkieno, niekieno (Žulys 1969; Ambrazas, ed. 1997a: 261–262; Rosinas 1988: 23–24; 169–170). The use of these forms is clearly distinguished: when a pronoun has an object meaning, the non-possessive form is used, whereas when it denotes belonging or attribution to a particular person, the possessive form is used (with rare exceptions; see Žulys 1969: 170–171). In Lithuanian constructions with *-to and *-mo participles, only the possessive genitive forms of pronouns are used, e.g.:

Tę mano visi takai išvaikščioti Vš; Katrie mano bus suprašyti, tie bus svečių suole pasodyti LBr 275; Žiurek, tavo didelės kojinės nusipirktos Rm; Apsivilkau savo megztu megztiniu Ktk.

Non-possessive (object) forms of personal pronouns (*manęs išvaikščioti, *manęs suprašyti, *tavęs nusipirktos) are entirely impossible in such cases. This shows that the agent genitive (genitivus auctoris) is related to the possessive genitive (cf. Fraenkel 1928: 95–96) and allows it to be included in the group of adnominal genitive constructions (see 3.12).

2.7. In certain cases, the subject genitive may have developed directly from the possessive genitive. Ernst Fraenkel (1921: 97; 1928: 95) discerned a possessive origin in cases where it occurs with substantivized passive participles, e.g.: pašlovinti tėvo mano, jos mylėtasis, jo mylimąją or with a noun–participle combination, e.g.: mano išrinktasis broleli! Don LG 74.

Sentences in which a genitive adjacent to a passive participle is associated with a noun–participle combination occur in various dialects. For example, in the sentence Mūsų valgomi burokai tai jau visai sušalo Plm, the genitive mūsų modifies the entire noun phrase valgomi burokai. In utterances of this type, through reanalysis the genitive could have become directly associated with the passive participle as the expression of the subject of the action it denotes; cf.: Visą audeklą išščupinėju ir neradau tavo įkištos adatos Kp (see also Ambrazas 1990: 197).

Axel Holvoet likewise explains the subject genitive in corresponding Latvian adnominal constructions (1994: 132): the earlier meaning of the expression mātes adīti cimdi was ‘mother’s {knitted gloves}’, and later became ‘{mother-knitted} gloves’, i.e. ‘gloves knitted by mother’.

The connection between the subject genitive and the possessive genitive is also confirmed by the fact that in Latvian passive constructions the subject of the action is expressed by possessive pronouns agreeing with the nouns they modify, e.g.: dziesmas manas padziedātas, nava manas darinātas ‘lit.: songs mine sung, not mine composed’ (Gāters 1993: 220). The subject (agentive) meaning of these possessive pronouns can be explained on the basis of the assumption,

18 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

that they replaced here the genitive forms used earlier, corresponding to the possessive genitive in Lithuanian and occurring occasionally in Latvian dialects⁸.

2.8. The genitive in adnominal constructions with passive participles, especially present-tense participles, could acquire an object meaning in a similar way, e.g.: a tobacco-rubbing tree LEX 70, a shingles-driving board (for roofing) ŠTS, a vat for brewing beer JNŠ, cf. tes mums sakamassissi Szodis MT BĮ XV, flowers sought with Szwinnas (ein Bleywurf) MŽ, 8); more rarely with past-tense (*-to) participles: carts for hauling manure PN. Such usage is also attested in Latvian, cf.: flax-pulling (uprooting) time ME_II 405 ‘time for pulling flax’, fish-piercing harpoon ME_IV 800 ‘harpoon for spearing fish’; horses for carrying a corpse BW 27495 ‘horses for carrying the deceased’ (see also Ambrazas 1990: 84–85, 92). These constructions, like the aforementioned subject constructions, are explained by a regrouping (reanalysis) of syntactic relations: the genitive, which had previously depended on the modified noun (alone or together with an adjectival participle), was reinterpreted as the object of the participle's action. Thus sheep {shearing shears} → {sheep shearing} shears, cf. sheep shears and shearing shears, as also Latvian mouth {washing water} → {mouth washing} water ‘water for washing the mouth’, cf. mouth water ‘water for the mouth’ (ME_IV 405). Here the object genitive, like the subject genitive, is associated with participles in much the same way as it has long been associated with verbal abstracts, cf. sheep shearing and sheep bleating (see 3.11).

In certain cases, the object genitive with passive participles can be used instead of the accusative, on the model of passive constructions with the subject genitive: He is staggering / running as if his head had been smashed KRTN, LKV, MC; He is flailing about as if his teeth were aching DAUKD 168.

2.9. The subject genitive (like the object genitive) with passive participles most often occurs in phrases functioning attributively or appositionally. This has also been noted in Latvian (Porīte 1955: 153–154; Gāters 1993: 295–296). However, phrases with passive participles and the subject genitive may also function as predicates, cf.:

I will not rejoice in a ring bought by the brothers NIEM 7 – If the ring was bought by the young man, it sinks to the bottom LTR; Here is the barn built by me VRN – Our threshing barn was also built by grandfather DGLŠ; When scolded by the son-in-law, go out the door; when scolded by the son, climb onto the stove AN – The woman was scolded by everyone PN.

Corresponding Latvian phrases similarly function as predicates, for example:

laužu pelta tā meitiņa ‘žmonių peikta ta mergina’ (Mūlenbachs 1928: 209); ābelīte vēja lauzta ‘obelaitė vėjo laužta’ (Gāters 1993: 295). Tas šķūnis vēl tēva taisīts ‘ta daržinė dar tėvo statyta’ (Holvoet 1997: 125).

⁸ For the possibility that the possessive genitive forms *menā, *tevā, *sevā are of Baltic origin, see Rosinas (1988: 167–173; 1995: 26); Schmalstieg (1997: 119–120); for their possible connection with Indo-Iranian possessive genitives, see Euler (1998: 75). For the opposing view—that the possessive genitive forms arose in later periods—see Holvoet (1995: 177); Petit (1999: 215–225) with literature.

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PASYVO RAIDOS BRUOŽAI | 19

A three-place passive attested in the western dialects of Lithuanian may have developed on the basis of constructions of this type, for example:

Perhaps you will say that these (flowers) too were planted by you? Klm; If only he were loved by everyone as you say Jablonskis (1957: 319); It seems I am being wronged more by you yourselves _Žem 350; The priest had been overpowered by a gypsy PL⁹.

Nevertheless, even in those dialects the three-place passive with agreeing passive participles is much less frequent than the two-place passive. Examples of it are also found in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts reflecting features of the western Aukštaitian and Samogitian dialects:

Every day we are drawn into sins and abominations, sometimes by the Devil, sometimes by an evil person, sometimes by our own body BP _II 53_18–21; a person... is food for worms BP _II 511₁₆; everyone must work at the task to which they have been appointed by God BP _II 97₁₅; And it happened that the rich man died and was carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom BP _II 191_6–8 (and was carried by the angels LB Lk 16,22); but you will be struck by all your enemies BrB III Moz 26,17 (and you shall be struck down before your enemies LB).

2.10. In passive constructions with certain passive participles (especially those of perception verbs), the subject of the action may be expressed in the DATIVE case, for example:

Have you heard such a name? Smn; There you will be visible to everyone Žg; A man can scarcely manage purely female occupations JABL (LKŽ_V 391); A thing incomprehensible to anyone IGN.

The dative has been used with passive participles in this way since the old written sources, for example:

Part of the world visible to the eyes ³SD 226–227; szinom umus ira MŽ 106₁₆ (So ist euch als Christen unerboren MCh 168–169); kas iem nūg Adama priegimta ira MŽ 104₇ (was jm von Adam angeborn ist MCh 166); tas pats Pasauintinis buwa paszytams Wiriausemkungui VEE 194₂ (lünger / der dem Hohenpriester bekand war LB Jn 18,15) (see also Fraenkel 1928: 126).

This subject dative differs from the genitive in that it denotes a person or thing in relation to which a state is evaluated or described (cf. “the usefulness of something that happens to someone” Jablonskis 1957: 599). In this respect it is close to the dative used with agreeing and neuter adjectives, cf. clear / obvious to me, important / of importance to everyone, and so on. With verbal adjectives denoting suitability, possibility, or necessity, for example: suitable, possible, necessary, as well as with necessity forms containing the suffix -tinas, -a, only the dative is used. Constructions with passive participles of perception verbs also have a modal nuance of possibility or necessity. This is characteristic of most Latvian *-mo participles associated with the dative as well, cf. Sila zeme man arama BW 5220 ‘the forest land is ploughable for me (= arable)’; kas man bija

⁹For more examples, see Jablonskis (1957: 312–318; 586–588); Ulvydas, ed. (1971: 162–167); for the standard language, see Slizienė (1974).

20 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

nerėzdama BW 95,1 ‘what was invisible to me’ (Endzelīns 1951: §429; Gāters 1993: 125). It is possible that the characteristic purpose and intended-use meaning of the present forms provided a basis for this usage (cf. Brugmann 1911: 558–559). In other cases, the subject dative became more widespread in Lithuanian and does not compete with the usual subject genitive.

2.11. The meanings of agent and instrument are sometimes related. Therefore, phenomena (usually natural) that cause certain states can be expressed in constructions with passive participles by either the genitive or the instrumental, cf. the ground is covered with snow / snow; the city is surrounded by mountains / mountains, and so on (see Senn 1966: 427–428; Paulauskienė 1979: 99; Schmalstieg 1987: 182–183; Sawicki 1991; Šukys 1998: 230–231). In some languages (Indo-Iranian, Slavic; cf. 2.5), the instrumental used with an instrumental meaning was generalized as the agent case in passive constructions, but this tendency did not take hold in Lithuanian and is observed only in cases of metaphorical usage, e.g.: By the time they got home, all the horses and the carriage were covered with doves SL 156 (LKŽ_XVII 66). Such constructions are occasionally found in old writings, e.g.:

Nęsa kurie Dwasse Diewa yra wedami VEE 96, Denn welche der geist Gottes treibt Rom 8,14); szidu wiresniss mestas daugiu tukschstancziu smanių apsestas ira WP 98_35–36

In general, the instrumental of means is used with passive participles when it can also be associated with the corresponding active participles or finite active forms.

2.12. Besides the prepositionless genitive, in old writings the subject of the action is also expressed by the construction nuog(i) + GEN., e.g.:

Luther was ordained by a bishop DP 204_36–37 (Luther was ordained by a bishop³W 212₄₇); I consider the matter concluded / so that you may be judged VEE 5_5–6 (that I may be judged by you LB I Cor 4,3); so that he might be regarded as faithful / and be loved by him SP_I 223₂₆ (and was loved by him); I was tempted by the enemy – I was tempted by the enemy SP_I 24–25; the child is being led by the priest WP 46a₁₄; so that they may be enlivened by the Holy Spirit MT 203a_16–17 (may be enlivened by the Holy Spirit); when we are judged / by the Lord / we are chastened MT 135_20–21 (When we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord).

Such prepositional constructions spread in old writings under the influence of Polish and German; they are especially numerous in the writings of authors from eastern Lithuania (Palionis 1967: 179–180). However, they also have some basis in Lithuanian itself. In other contexts, the preposition nuo + GEN. marks the source of an action, e.g.:

from whom did you receive a letter? PG; I received gifts from my son KtK; I heard from others KtK.

The meaning of mediation is also close to that of the subject genitive, e.g.:

the angel Gabriel is sent by God WP 115_7–8, cf.: There are little gifts sent by a young lad JD 481;

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PASYVO RAIDOS BRUOŽAI

21

From here, it is but one step to expressions such as

Even though once it would not have been said by the Lord God, those words WP 49^1–3.

The meaning of the agent marker is similarly associated with that of the cause of an action; cf.:

born of God VEE 12,19 (Jn 1,13) – von Gott geboren sind ir essi gimditas / born of the Virgin Mary Mž 74^7–8

(cf. also Fraenkel 1929: 110). Constructions with nuo + GEN. expressing the subject of the action of a passive participle occur in dialects and folklore, e.g.:

you will be honored by people Ktk; Perhaps here there will be a man struck down by lightning KRg; the maiden on the board, dressed in silk by her brothers and sisters LTR (Auk); here you will live loved by your husband KlvD, and so on (Ulyvdas, ed. 1971: 601; LKŽ_VIII 902; cf. also: stay, as ordained for you by God! DonAG 37).

Corresponding constructions in Latvian are likewise associated with the use of nuo + GEN. to mark the source of an action; cf.: piedzimu... no večiem ļautiniem BW 3002 ‘I was born... from old people’ and Žēli raud sērdienīte no bajāra (variant – GEN. without a preposition: bajāriņa) bildināma BW 5117 ‘the orphan girl weeps bitterly, wooed by a nobleman (a young nobleman)’ (Endzelīns 1951: § 542; 1971: 435–436; Gāters 1993: 297). It may therefore be that German constructions with von and Polish constructions with od have also encouraged the tendency, observable in other instances in Lithuanian and Latvian, to reinforce the meaning of the genitive with a preposition (cf. Fraenkel 1928: 96; 1929: 112–113; Gāters 1993: 296–297; Schmalstieg 1999: 24–25).

2.12. The three-member passive, with masculine and feminine agreeing participles and a genitive subject, is most characteristic of the standard written language. Here its choice is influenced by the actual sentence articulation, the aim of placing the object of the action first while also indicating its agent, the sentence’s links with the preceding context, and other requirements of coherent text formation. The role of these factors becomes apparent because three-member passive constructions describe the same situation as the corresponding active constructions. In this respect the three-member passive differs from the two-member passive, which has a distinctive function of eliminating the subject and a much broader range of use.

3. PASSIVE WITH NEUTER PASSIVE PARTICIPLES

3.1. Passive constructions with neuter participles in *-to and *-mo suffixes, whose distribution covers most Aukštaitian dialects¹⁰, differ markedly from the discussed constructions with agreeing participles in their use of the subject genitive. The subject ge-

¹⁰ For a cartographic scheme of these constructions based on data from the card index of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, see Ambrazas (1977: 37).

22 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

nitive is frequent and usual in them, and the constructions themselves often have distinctive modal nuances.

The subject genitive is especially often associated with INTRANSITIVE neuter participles. Persons—agents or holders of a state—are denoted by possessive pronominal genitive forms (a), other pronouns (b), and nouns (c):

(a) Here I am grazing, not you Sb; Who has lived here? PL; I have served a lot Kpč; Perhaps I too have left tracks here RdN; You got up early Rk; (b) And he went to the market Ktk; They ate here JN; How much did we run there? Ds; They say they stole DGL; (c) Father mushrooms in that little birch grove JNš; Where the little sister went, the path was strewn with rue, and the dear brothers rode alongside ALVT; The young people danced around the little fire BSO 111.

Genitives of nouns denoting animals (d) or inanimate things (e) are also associated with intransitive neuter passive participles:

(d) I saw that the hens were sitting in the beans VŽnS; The cow went into the barn VRN; The dog ran here PRN, VLK, ŠLČ, Rk; You can see and tell: the hare danced DRSK; The hare lay here, the fox dug here VLK; The cat was tired out and came home Ds; (e) The earth dries and becomes completely dry Ds; It is evident that people once slept here in the forests BARANAŠ 213; The piglet had its mouth open; blood even came out of its mouth Klt; The house was burned down there Ob; There used to be a house here Jablonskis (1957: 466); All the wealth was lost, and only the rolls that he had given to the beggar remained BM 40 (LKŽVII 497)¹¹.

3.2. The genitive denoting the subject of a state very often occurs with neuter passive participles of the verb to be:

There are probably mushrooms here too Kp; On the other side there are good pastures JNš; The suitors came inside and looked around, saying that there were two girls here Ds; And whose was it here? DBG; He was there and left SLM; There were children in Žirmiai SKP; There used to be mushrooms there MLT.

When a passive participle of būti ‘to be’ associated with the genitive functions as a copula, the nominal predicate also takes an agreeing genitive form, e.g.:

He is still alive BM 18; Everyone said, “A good man,” but he was the last one GMŽ; It was very windy at night Ob.

The participle būta, associated with the subject genitive, functions as an auxiliary verb when it occurs with another neuter participle:

¹¹ Taigi taisytinas Masayoshi Shibatani (1998: 123–124) aiškinimas, jog lietuvių kalbos beasmenis pasyvas (t. y. pasyvas su bevardės giminės neveikiamaisiais dalyviais) esąs daromas tik su žmones reiškiančiais protagonistais (subjektais), o gyvūnus bei daiktus reiškiančios jų formos čia esančios „negramatiškos“. Iš tikrųjų jos yra tik retesnės.

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PASYVO RAIDOS BRUOŽAI | 23

We had already lain down when he arrived Kp; I had already fallen asleep, you see MlT; He had already flown in, the berry Brž; He had already left ALz, ALN, Mlt, Vlkv and so on; Aneliutė had already arrived Vžns.

The inflected forms of the verb to be also occur as auxiliaries with neuter-gender participles; cf.:

Apparently, people once lived here Sk; Well, the hares have scattered by the apple trees Vkš; And the cranes had perched there Sb; I didn’t find him; he had already left ALN; I was gone for a little while, and by then he had already been there Ss; I had served for twenty years Žd; We will already have gone Ds; Don’t go; he will already have left Kp.

3.3. Much less commonly, the subject genitive is associated with TRANSITIVE (object-oriented) neuter-gender passive participles. In such cases, we have three-member passive constructions in which the object of the action is expressed in the nominative:

Mat ir jų laikoma arklys Jablonskis (1957: 587); Vaikų buvo kėpama bulvės Ds; Mūs čia trys eilės apvažiuota VLk; Jos mokėta rublis Ktk; Jo dar nušpirkta arkliukas Vs (LKT 381); Aš eisiu: tę kilpinis mano pastatyta Pš; Jo ir grūzta padaryta, ir vištukai atpudyta Rdm; Jos jaunos turėta geras balsas Mrc; Mūsų svetelių kiaulės ganyta PRNG; Šitas sodas tai mano sodinta Dkk (plg.: Anos (obel ys) gi mano rankom sodintos AD).

As with constructions containing intransitive forms, the transitive neuter-gender *-to participle may take an auxiliary verb (usually in the past or future tense):

I had such a stump built Ob; Everything used to be made, ploughed, boiled, and washed by me Rg; They had sown grain here Prn; That horse will have been stolen and sold by him Kp.

3.4. Transitive and intransitive neuter-gender participial constructions are semantically similar in that both express a state arising from a generalized action (with present-tense participles) or an action that occurred earlier (with past-tense participles). Transitive and intransitive participial constructions are often used in the same sentence, e.g.:

A beggar sat on a stump, a fire was lit, and he went on PšL; At night thieves came, the granary was broken into, things were loaded into the cart, and they drove away Jablonskis (1957: 310); A little bird flew from the oak, and its neck was twisted (ibid.).

Constructions with neuter-gender passive participles are not used to express an action taking place in the present or a specific action that took place in the past. For example, the sentence The rye had been sown by a person AUK denotes a state of affairs observed by the speaker and thus differs from the sentence The person sowed the rye, which denotes an action that occurred in the past. The assertion of a state is the core content of sentences with neuter-gender forms.

24 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

3.5. A state expressed by neuter passive participles may be wholly impersonal, unrelated to any subject or object, e.g.:

Taip jau esama JNšk; Žū – jau ir čia ariama Kp; Čia visai nelyta Imb; Iš nakties buvo pašnigta GrŽ (cf.: Buvo šviežiai sniego pašnigta Slk); Pirmiau tame laike jau būdavo pašienauta TrG; Reikėta važiuot toli į miestus parsivežt druskos BTG; Nuveisi, ir bus atbūta MŽs.

Such constructions have been widely used since the earliest written texts, independently of the influence of sources in other languages, e.g.:

kalbama ira BrB IV Moz 21,14 – spricht man LB (buwa BP₁₆₉₁₈); žinoma ira SP₁₁₃₇₁₁, 145₅, 159₆; buwa prisch ios karaughema BrB TEIS 5,20 – ward wider sie gestritten LB; liepta iür nuimte... rubus SP₁₁₇₀₁₀; bus kalbeta Czebuwims BrB IV Moz 14,14 – man wird sagen zu den einwonern LB; Tüieg budu tur... darjta buti BrB II Moz 21,31 – Desselben gleichen sol man... handeln LB (see further Ambrazas 1990: 198).

The Prussian evidence confirms the Baltic character of impersonal constructions with neuter participles, cf.:

bhe kai stesmu nimassi kittawidin pogalbton būt III 115₂₄–₂₅ – vnnd das jhm nicht anders geholffen werden möge ‘and that he cannot otherwise be helped’; Beggi titet stalli peisāton III 105₂₁ – Denn also stehet geschrieben (cf. kaip knigase ira parašita SP₁₁₇₂₃).

That corresponding constructions were also used in Latvian before the neuter gender disappeared is shown by such remnants in dialects as jau diezgan gulēta ‘already quite a lot of sleeping’ (Dzintars, Ozola 2000: 78), as well as by sentences in which the neuter gender of the participles has been replaced by the masculine, while the impersonal construction type and meaning have been retained, cf.: pie visiem jau bij būts ME₁ 359 ‘everyone had already been visited’; jau diezgan strādāts ‘already quite a lot of work has been done’ (Endzelīns 1951: 984; Mülenbachs 1928: 156, 192); (for more detail, see Ambrazas 1990: 199). Similarly, in some Samogitian dialects of Lithuanian the neuter gender was replaced by the feminine, cf.: Kaip lieptā, taip ir dirbk Als, although in some places it was also replaced by the masculine, as in Latvian, e.g.: Nu, sako, tai man beigts (the manor is burning) Trk (Girdzinas 1998).

Evidence from other related languages clearly shows that the use of neuter forms of impersonal participles (or verbal adjectives) is a legacy of the distant Indo-European past (cf. Old Church Slavonic vъzęto bǫdetъ ASSEM Luke 8:18 – ἀφθήσεται ‘will be taken’, řečeno estъ MAR Luke 4:12 – εἴρηται ‘has been said’, Latin dictum est ‘has been said’, itum est ‘one went’, pugnatum est ‘there was fighting’, and so on), cf. Brugmann (1925: 36–41); Hartmann (1954: 127–138; 166–170); Janke (1960: 58–62); Chodova (1980: 230–233).

Bipartite constructions also belong to the Indo-European heritage; in them, neuter forms of verbal adjectives (or participles) are linked to a nominative denoting the patient of the action (rugiai sėjama / sėta). They, too, have clear parallels in related languages and, in their structure, correspond to sentences of the ancient nominal type (pienas sveika, alus gardu and so on; see Ambrazas 1979: 200–202; 1990: 200–204).

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PASYVO RAIDOS BRUOŽAI | 25

3.6. The use of the subject genitive with neuter passive participles is explained in various ways.

Williamas Mathewsas (1955) ir Pavelas Trostas (1960) laikė beasmenes konstrukcijas su bevardės giminės neveikiamaisiais dalyviais pirminėmis, seniausiomis, o subjekto genityvą – jų vėlesniu išplėtimu. Dėl bevardės giminės formoms būdingos beasmenės reikšmės dalyviu žymimo veiksmo subjektas čia negalėjęs būti nusakytas veiksnio nominatyvu, tad lietuvių kalboje jis gavęs genityvo, rusų kalbos tarmėse – genityvo su prielinksniu formą. Taip atsiradusi konstrukcija, panaši į ergatyvines, susiformavusias indoiranėnų kalbose vėlesniais jų raidos laikais (Matthews 1955: 367–371). Panašiai ir Kari Liukonenas (1995) manė, kad subjekto genityvas čia galėjęs išplisti dėl konstrukcijos „antrinės personifikacijos“, kaip plinta nominatyvas prie beasmenio pasyvo formų suomių šnekamojoje kalboje. Tačiau tokios suomių kalbos konstrukcijos yra naujos, ryškiai skiriasi savo sandara ir įžiūrėti jų bendrą kilmę sunku (Christen 1998).

Jūris Maranas (1973) ir Letas Palmaitis (1977: 116–117) subjekto genityvą, siejamą su bevardės giminės neveikiamaisiais dalyviais, jau tiesiogiai kildino iš ergatyvo, o objekto nominatyvą – iš absoliutyvo ir manė, kad ta konstrukcija yra ankstesnio indoeuropiečių sakinio sandaros tipo liekana.

3.7. The hypothesis linking the subject genitive to the ergative was developed most fully by William R. Schmalstiegas¹². He regards the genitive in constructions with transitive neuter participles as an archaism inherited from a period when the structure of Proto-Indo-European was of a semi-ergative type, that is, ergative in sentences with past-tense forms and accusative in sentences with present-tense forms (the so-called split ergativity). The subject genitive is supposed to have developed from the ergative, which expressed the agent, while the neuter past participle is supposed to have developed from a finite past-tense form with *-to, corresponding to the 3rd person singular middle forms in Old Indian and Greek (Old Ind. ákṛta ‘he made’, Greek ἐγένετο ‘it happened’, etc.).¹³ On the other hand, present-tense sentences were formed according to the accusative pattern. Later, accusative-type structure became established in past-tense sentences as well. The old ergative was then reinterpreted in three-part constructions as the agent genitive in a passive sentence (genitivus auctoris), and the absolutive as the object nominative. Thus, the agentive (actor) meaning of the genitive is regarded as primary and inherited.

According to this hypothesis, only genitive constructions with transitive *-to participles are derived directly from the ergative, whereas those with *-mo participles are considered newer, formed by analogy. It is also assumed that genitive constructions with neuter intransitive *-to participles are newer, since they do not fit the reconstructed ergative pattern (in two-part ergative-type sentences, one would expect the absolutive, that is, the nominative). It is hypothesized that in two-part sentences with intransitive participles the genitive replaced the nominative on the model of three-part constructions, i.e. father’s lying< *father lay, on the model of father’s sowing [of] rye. This is not easy to prove, since sentences with a subject

¹² See Schmalstieg (1976; 1978; 1980: 177) for the original version of this hypothesis. It was subsequently refined, elaborated, and developed in later works (1982; 1985; 1987: 34–39, 128–142; 185–192; 1994; 1995; 1999, etc.).

¹³ On the relationship between the passive participle suffix *-to and the 3rd person middle, see Hirt (1928: 102); Watkins (1969: 113–114).

26

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

nominative and neuter intransitive *-to participles (such as *father lay) are unattested¹⁴. Meanwhile, constructions with the subject genitive and neuter *‑mo and *‑to participles have a structure corresponding to the passive characteristic of accusative-type languages (cf. Ambrazas 1990: 210–211).

Deriving the subject genitive with intransitive neuter passive participles from the nominative rests on the assumption that sentences with forms of transitive and intransitive verbs once had different structures (according to the reconstructed ergative-type model). However, the transitivity–intransitivity opposition in Indo-European languages is probably not primary. It emerged in the development of individual language groups, and evidence from Lithuanian and other related languages allows us to discern its gradual strengthening. Schmalstiegas also agrees, arguing that Indo-European verbs and participles were once essentially intransitive (1982: 121; 1994: 13; 1999: 29). If so, there should have been no fundamental difference between constructions with neuter participles of transitive and intransitive verbs, such as father’s plowing / plowed and father’s living / lived; that is, in both cases the genitive could have combined with the neuter participle in a manner similar to that found in present-day Highland Lithuanian dialects.

3.8. Axel Holvoet (1994; 1995) explains the subject genitive with neuter passive participles differently. On the basis of the possessive nature of the genitive, he regards its subject (agentive) meaning as a later development, which arose as the passive formed in individual Baltic languages¹⁵. The original, inherited construction was an adnominal possessive genitive with an agreeing participle, e.g.: Latvian mātes {adīti cimdi} ‘mother’s {knitted gloves}’, Lithuanian tėvo {pastatyta troba} ‘father’s {built house}’. Through reanalysis, which took place independently in Lithuanian and Latvian, the genitive came to be understood as an agent case, e.g. Lithuanian troba (buvo) tėvo pastatyta ‘the house was built by father’; it was then transferred to impersonal passive constructions in Lithuanian with neuter participle forms¹⁶. It is thought that the genitive may have become associated with participles of intransitive verbs in a similar way, i.e. on the model of Vagies eitas kelias ‘the road walked by the thief’, *Šis kelias vagies eitas ‘this road walked by the thief’ and *Šis kelias vagies eita ‘this road walked by the thief’ may have been formed, while a later development replaced the latter type of construction with an impersonal one: Šiuo keliu vagies eita ‘this road was walked by the thief’ (Holvoet 1995: 80).

This interpretation, too, faces serious difficulties. The idea that the subject genitive was transferred from three-part passive constructions with agreeing passive participles to constructions with neuter forms is called into question primarily by the fact that the latter occur in the Lithuanian dialect area where agreeing passive constructions are generally not characteristic. Moreover, three-part agreeing passive constructions are relatively recent and much less frequent than those with non-agreeing neuter participles and a subject genitive.

¹⁴ Sentences with agreeing verbal adjectives in the *-to suffix, formed from intransitive verbs, e.g. Oras šiltas/šaltas ‘The weather is warm/cold’ (mentioned by Schmalstiegas 1999: 28–29), follow the usual adjectival sentence pattern (cf. Oras geras; Aš esu sveikas ‘The weather is good; I am healthy’), whereas the neuter forms šilta, šálta can only be associated with a subject genitive, e.g. jū ten visą naktį šála ‘they were cold there all night’ (the utterance *jie šálta is impossible).

¹⁵ Cf.: “I assume that the passive construction with an agentive complement arose from constructions with possessive adnominal genitives only in the course of the separate development of Lithuanian” (Holvoet 1995: 181); see also Holvoet (2001) for additional arguments.

¹⁶ Plg. „At this stage the genetivus auctoris could also be transferred to the impersonal agentless passive constructions, which (as in Latvian) had developed independently“ (Holvoet 1995: 178).

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PASYVO RAIDOS BRUOŽAI | 27

3.9. The passive with agreeing and non-agreeing (neuter) participles apparently arose during the period of independent development of the Baltic languages¹⁷. This is indicated by many circumstances, including differences in the auxiliary verb (Lith. būti, Latv. tikt, tapt, kļūt), the rudimentary nature of agent expression in Latvian, and the differing gender forms of passive participles in Lithuanian dialects. However, it does not follow from this that in constructions with neuter participles only the possessive meaning of the genitive is inherited. Here it is useful to draw attention to the distinctive function of neuter participles.

Once the neuter gender of nouns disappeared, neuter participles never functioned as noun modifiers. Therefore, the subject genitive associated with them would be difficult to explain as a reanalysis of a possessive construction. In a sentence, neuter passive participles, like adjectives, most often function as the nominal part of the predicate, but they may also function as subject or object—that is, they have functions characteristic of nouns; for example: Šukta nedarūta Sb; they found [it] splendid, much stolen SCHG 319, cf. I have already seen both warm and cold, and so on (Jablonskis 1957: 205–206; Fraenkel 1921: 35–36; Valeckienė 1984: 98–99). Also close to verbal nouns is the generalized state meaning of neuter passive participles (cf. Ulvydas, ed. 1965: 526; 1976: 374; Ambrazas, ed. 1997a: 169). Because of this functional and semantic proximity, neuter forms of passive participles and verbal nouns may occur in the same contexts, cf.: Here, last year, there was grazing / pasture; you will not be forgiven / forgiveness. That the semantic proximity of these forms was also felt in Old Lithuanian is evident from examples in which verbal nouns in the original are translated by neuter participles, cf.: there will be neither ploughing nor reaping (mowing) BrB I Moz 45,6 – kein pflügen noch kein erndten sein wird LB; everything that is devoted IV Moz 18,14 – Alles verbannete. Similarly, the Prussian neuter participle billīton is used with a nominal meaning, independently of the original, ‘that which is said; utterance’, cf. ka ast sta billīton? – was ist das? III 27⁸.

The affinity of neuter participles (and adjectives) with verbal nouns, especially deverbal abstract nouns, has deep historical roots¹⁸ and has been observed in many related languages. Vedic neuter participles with the suffix *-to were very widely used as verbal abstracts, for example: jātám ‘birth’, jīvitam ‘life’, mṛtam ‘death’, yātám ‘going, travelling’, gītám ‘singing, song’ (Wackernagel, Debrunner 1954: 585–586), as were Latin neuter participles in -tum, for example: factum ‘what has been done, deed’, dictum ‘what has been said, saying’, inventum ‘what has been invented, invention’, propositum ‘intention’, and so on (Kühner 1912: 230–231). Bohuslav Havránek (1937: 111, 118) considered all Slavic neuter participles with *-to, *-no that have an impersonal passive meaning to have developed from neuter nouns used predicatively (see also Janke 1960: 57). The Lithuanian neuter participle used as a noun būta (cf. būta ir pramanyta) corresponds exactly to dialectal Russian byto and still has the same meaning as Old Indian.

¹⁷ Plg. Ambrazas (1990: 191–197). Šiuo atžvilgiu autoriaus ir Holvoeto požiūriai sutampa, ir diskusija dėl tariamų bandymų nukelti pasyvą į baltų prokalbės laikus (Holvoet 1995: 176) neturi prasmės.

¹⁸ Cf.: „Der allgemeine Begriff einer Sache knüpft sich seit uridg. Zeit an das Neutrum“ (Brugmann 1911: 658); see also Pedersen (1907: 159); Lagercrantz (1933: 20–22).

28 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

bhūtám ‘past’, Lithuanian sakýta, įsakýta and Prussian billiton correspond exactly to Gothic aibano ‘what is said’ (usfullnoda bata gibano Mt 27,9 – ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν ‘what was said was fulfilled’); cf. also Latin iussum ‘command, what is commanded’, cēnsum ‘assessment’, and so forth.

Tipologiniu požiūriu svarbus Kari Liukkonenno (1993) pastebėjimas, kad ir vakarų finų kalbų veiksmažodiniai daiktavardžiai su priesaga -ma / -mä, pvz.: suom. elämä ‘gyvenimas’, kuolema ‘mirtis’, sanoma ‘žinia’, yra plačiai vartojami kaip neveikiamieji dalyviai ir savo funkcija atitinka rytinių baltų *-mo dalyvius.

3.10. In Lithuanian, the subject genitive is associated with neuter passive participles that have a nominal meaning in exactly the same way as with other verbal nouns. In this respect, phrases such as mano gyvenama / gyventa arba tėvo dirbama / dirbta may be compared with mano gyvenimas or tėvo darbas; the expression Ten mano gimta Šts means approximately the same as ‘there is my birthplace’; compare also the following excerpt from contemporary prose: What does užgyventa mean? – Well, it means: you were born there, died there, raised your children there, and there is where you made your living GRANGD. Replacement of a nominal genitive construction by a synonymous participial one is seen in Bretkūnas’s revision of the Bible:

Your basket and your produce will be blessed (instead of the deleted atstankas) V Moz 28,6 – gesegnet wird sein dein korb vnd / dein vbriges LB.

In Latvian, the neuter gender of participles has already disappeared, but the subject genitive may be associated with a masculine form that has a nominal meaning, for example:

Tēva dotu, mātes dotu (= devumu, dāvanu) to sasēju nastinā (Mühlenbachs 1928: 209) ‘tėvo dovana, motinos dovana, tą surišau į nešulėlį’ (plg. duots ‘das Gegebene, die Sache’ ME, 536).

Such subject-genitive phrases with neuter *-to participles used in the meaning of verbal abstracts have direct parallels in the Vedas (see Wackernagel, Debrunner 1954: 586), cf. Vedic māma yātám ‘my going’ and Lithuanian māno ēita. The Iranian construction *mana kṛtam ‘what I have done; my work’¹⁹, which has a similar structure, may also be compared with Lithuanian māno kūrta. According to Jamison (1981: 322–323), in the Vedas the subject genitive was most commonly used with nominal passive participles.

3.11. In Lithuanian, verbal nouns associated with the subject genitive, like neuter passive participles, are most often derived from intransitive verbs, for example: her terrible weeping VLKv; the speech of old people VN; the fish will spawn Jž (see also Ulvydas, ed. 1976: 204–205); similarly in old writings: ischejimas ia WP 52¹³; atsiverimas ziemes, dangaus ³SD 390¹⁷–¹⁸; io kerschta kaip ugnis dega BPₙ 213₁₄, etc. The subject genitive is less common with derivatives of transitive verbs, cf.: a mother’s love, a friend’s invitation, a teacher’s praise. The same is true in Latvian, cf.: bēru raudāšana / raudas ‘children’s crying / cries’, acu

Ši konstrukcija išsamiai nagrinėta daugelyje darbų, plg. Benveniste (1962: 52 tt.), Cardona (1970); Edel’man (1974); Haudry (1977: 409); Schmalstieg (1995: 19–20); Euler (1998: 75).

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PASYVO RAIDOS BRUOŽAI

29

redžėjums ‘akių regėjimas’ ir pan. (žr. Endzelīns 1951: § 400–401; Lepika 1954: 66–67; Ozols 1961: 183).

It should be noted that Lithuanian uses the same pronominal possessive forms with verbal nouns as with passive participles, e.g.: my weeping was envied by no one KLM; that scrubbing of yours is no good SLNT; what sort of pity is that of yours—you weep without tears LDK. The object genitive, meanwhile, has a non-possessive form; cf.: the scrubbing of you, the finding of you (LKŽ_XVI 1057); the searching for / waiting for me, etc. This shows that the genitive marking the subject of the action of verbal nouns is also associated with possession, just as it is when used with passive participles.

3.12. The historical connection between the subjective and possessive meanings of the adnominal genitive has long been noted in many Indo-European languages (cf. Delbrück 1893: 342–352; Brugmann 1911: 599–604; Krahe 1972: 74)²⁰, but Brugmann (1911: 604) had already stressed that this does not yet show that the subject genitive with verbal nouns developed from the possessive genitive. Later studies suggest that the subjective meaning is archaic and provided the basis for the objective and other meanings of the adnominal genitive²¹. Apparently, the subjective and possessive genitives with verbal nouns and participles belong to a broader group of adnominal constructions expressing the attribution of an actional property to a particular thing or person. Inherited from remote antiquity and highly productive in Lithuanian, the use of the subject genitive with verbal nouns must have been one of the factors that encouraged the wider use of the subject genitive with neuter passive participles, which have a meaning and function close to those of verbal nouns. It is therefore understandable that in both cases we find the same possessive pronominal genitive forms.

3.13. Favorable conditions for the use of the subject genitive with neuter passive participles arose from the overlap between the subjective and partitive meanings of the genitive in sentences whose predicate is a verb denoting existence or presence (to be, to live) or a change of state (to sprout, to grow, etc.). In such cases, the genitive denoting an indefinite quantity also expresses the subject (patient) of the state; it depends both on finite verb forms and on neuter passive participles, cf.:

There are / there remain oaks in our forest; There were / there had been mushrooms here recently.

The partitive meaning of the genitive is evident from the parallel use of active and passive neuter participles, cf.:

How many crows there are! PLš – There are said to be beetles here Mž; There were wolves here last night PLš – There were many blueberries KP.

²⁰ Apie agento (resp. subjekto) genityvą posesoriaus reikšme plg. dar Keenan (1986: 264).

²¹ Plg. Benveniste (1962: 17–18) apie konstrukcijas lot. ludus pueri ‘vaiko žaidimas’, risus pueri ‘berniuko juokas’ kaip vėlesnių mos pueri ‘berniuko įprotis’, liber pueri ‘berniuko knyga’ pagrindą. Apie kai kur galimą objektinio genityvo kilmę iš subjektinio žr. dar Haudry (1977: 66).

30 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

The genitive denoting the subject (patient) of a state is similarly associated with the finite forms of the negative verb not to be and with active and passive neuter participles, cf.:

There is / was no water here;

There is said / was said to be no water here;

There is / was no water here.

It has already been mentioned that the neuter passive participles of the verb būti ‘to be’ (especially the participle būta) are very frequently used with the subject genitive (see 3.2). The intersection of the two meanings must have contributed to the establishment of the subject genitive in constructions with intransitive neuter passive participles denoting a state. The partitive meaning of the genitive has been very well preserved in Lithuanian, while the use of the genitive of negation has been generalized and grammaticalized.

3.14. The subject genitive with neuter passive participles is used more widely in Lithuanian than in other related languages, but this by no means shows that the construction itself is new. The loss of the neuter gender in Latvian removed the conditions for the use of the subject genitive with neuter passive participles. The masculine singular nominative that took their place retained only personal usage, similar to that of the feminine singular nominative in some Lithuanian Samogitian dialects (cf. 3.5). However, the subject genitive has survived to this day in Latvian constructions with agreeing passive participles; compare, for example, these examples from the Dignāja dialect given by Indāne (1986: 101, 107): burkāni peļu sagrauzti ‘the carrots have been gnawed by mice’; deķi vēl mātes ausi ‘the blankets are still [at] mother’s ears’ (cf. Mülenbachs 1928: 209; Endzelīns 1951: § 398; Gāters 1993: 295–296), see also 2.7–8. This subject genitive was probably also associated with Latvian neuter passive participles before they disappeared.

Clear parallels are found in northern Russian dialects, where the subject-marking genitive with the preposition u or ot is widely used with transitive and intransitive *-to and *-no passive participles, including the participle byto (cf. Lithuanian būta), e.g.: u tebja vezde byto ‘there has been plenty at your place’; u doždžja (=doždja) byto ‘there has been rain’; u nego vypito ‘he has drunk’; u menja otodchuto ‘I have rested’; ot Pet’ki pisano ‘Pet’ka has written’, etc. (see Matveenko 1961: 121–128; 1970; Kuz’mina, Nemčenko 1971: 18–19; Kuz’mina 1984: 27; Sabenina 1983: 56; Sobolev 1998). The construction is also attested in Old Russian texts, e.g.: ot te zapovědano obnoviti vetčhii mir LAVR. 11 ‘you have been commanded to renew the old world’ (Borkovskij 1968: 172–173). It is thought that the prepositional construction here replaced an older prepositionless genitive²², much as Greek ὑπό + GEN. does. (For the prepositionless subject genitive in Greek, see Schwyzer 1975: 119.) The corresponding prepositional construction nuo + GEN. in Lithuanian and Latvian was strongly encouraged by Polish and German (cf. Palionis 1967: 179–

²² Schmalstieg (1980: 177–178; 1985: 31; 1995: 7–8, 14; 1999: 25). Šiuo atžvilgiu pažymėtinas subjektą reiškiančių u + GEN. konstrukcijų (u menja otodchnuto) ir neprielinksninio genityvo su verba finita (volkov zdes’est’) arealų sutapimas šiaurės rusų tarmėse, plg. Kuz’mina (1984: 27–29).

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PASYVO RAIDOS BRUOŽAI

31

180; Endzelīns 1951: § 542), but dialect and folklore data lead us to think that it also has internal motivations for its development (cf. 2.11). Prepositional constructions expressing the subject with neuter passive participle forms were also associated in Latin, e.g.: a nobis dictum est ‘it has been said by us’ (Hartmann 1954: 138).

Taking these and the correspondences in related languages mentioned earlier (3.5, 3.9, 3.10) into account, it can be acknowledged that the neuter passive-participle constructions of Lithuanian transitive and intransitive participles with a subject genitive are an inheritance from remote antiquity.

4. CONCLUSIONS

1. The passive, like the category of voice itself, is a relatively recent linguistic phenomenon in Lithuanian. It developed during the period of Lithuanian’s independent development and displays distinctive features in different dialects. However, the morphological and semantic prerequisites for the category of voice—the opposition, in terms of the action’s relation to the subject, between the derivational meanings of verbal adjectives and the participles derived from them with the suffixes *-mo and *-to—are inherited from the ancient Baltic languages.

2. The passive with agreeing passive participles began to take shape in the western Lithuanian dialects before the advent of writing and is attested in texts by authors from those dialects from the sixteenth century onward. In the eastern and southern dialects of Lithuania, only the beginnings of such a passive are observable to this day.

3. The passive with non-agreeing neuter passive participles is widely used in the eastern and southern Lithuanian dialects, while impersonal neuter participial constructions have long been characteristic of all dialects and of the standard language. The basis of this passive consists of Indo-European sentences of the old nominal type, with non-agreeing forms of verbs and adjectives.

4. In the past, the subject genitive with neuter passive participles, whose meaning was close to that of verbal nouns, may have been associated in a similar way to its association with other verbal nouns. Since ancient times, it has been closely connected with the possessive genitive; this relationship is evidenced by the possessive forms of personal and certain other pronouns in Lithuanian, used with both passive participles and verbal nouns.

5. The productivity of subject-genitive constructions with neuter passive participles in Lithuanian can be explained by the following internal conditions:

(a) the well-preserved predicative function of non-agreeing neuter forms, based on the ancient nominal sentence type;

(b) the widespread use of the subject genitive with verbal nouns, which in many cases are close in meaning to neuter participles;

(c) the overlapping of subject and partitive genitive meanings in constructions with passive participles of stative verbs.

ABBREVIATIONS

Ad – Adutiškis, Švenčionys district

Aln – Alanta, Molėtai district

32 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

Als – Alsėdžiai, Plungė district

AlvT – Alvitas, Vilkaviškis district

Alz – Alizavà, Kupiškis district

An – Anykščiai

Auk – Aukštadvaris, Trakai district

BARANAŠ – Baranauskas Antanas. Anykščių šilelis, Vilnius: State Publishing House of Fiction, 1949.

BM – Litauische Mundarten, collected by A. BARANOWSKI, 1. Texts, edited by F. SPECHT, Leipzig, 1920.

BP₁ – [Jonas Bretkūnas] POSTILLA Tatai efti Trumpas ir Praftas Iſchguldimas Euangeliu / ſakamuiu Baſniczoie Kriſchczioniſchkoie / nug Aduento ik Weliku. Per Iana Bretkuna Lietuvos Plebonu Karaliauczuje Prufiſu. Iſſpaude Karaliauczuje Iurgis Oſterbergeras. Mæta Pono 1591.

BP₂ – [Jonas Bretkūnas] POSTILLA tatai efti Trumpas ir Praftas Iſchguldimas Euangeliu / ſakamuiu Baſniczoie Kriſchczioniſchkoie / nug Weliku ik Aduento. Per Iana Bretkuna Lietuvos Plebonà Karaliauczuje Prufiſu. Iſſpaulſta Karaliauczuje / Iurgio Oſterbergero. Mæta Pono 1591.

BrB – Biblia, tatai efti Wiſſas Szwentas Raſchtas Lietuwiſchkai translated by JANA BRETKUNA... Königsberg 1579–1590. Cited from a manuscript photocopy and the photographic edition of vols. 1, 2 and 7, 8 (prepared by J. D. Range and F. Scholz, Paderborn–München–Wien–Zürich: F. Schöningh, 1991–1998).

Brž – Biržai

BsO – Ožkabalį dainos, surinko daktaras J. BASANAVIČIUS. I–IV dalis, Chicago: 1903–1905.

BsV – Išgyvenimo vėlių bei velnių, surinko daktaras J. Basanavičius, Chicago: 1903.

BTg – Betygala, Raseiniai district

BW – Kr. BARONS and H. WISSENDORFS. Latwju dainas 1–6. Jelgawa and Petrograd, 1894–1915.

ChNT – Czesław KUDZINOWSKI, Jan OTRĘBSKI, Biblia lietuwska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament 2, Text, Poznań: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1958.

DaukD – [compiled by SIMONAS DAUKANTAS] Dajnes žiamajtiû pagal Zodîu Dajnikû iszraszytas... Petropilie 1846, printed at C. KRAY’s.

Dbg – Dubingiai, Molėtai district.

Dgl – Daugailiai, Utena district.

Dglš – Daugėliškis, Ignalina district.

Dkk – Duokiškis, Rokiškis district.

Don – Kr. DONELAITIS, Metai ir pasakėčios, edited by V. VITKAUSKAS, Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1994. Hereafter, the abbreviations PL, VD, RG, ŽR, PP, AG, LG denote individual texts, while the numbers denote lines of text.

DP – Postilla CATHOLICKA Tái eft: Iſguldimas Ewangeliu kiekwienos Nedelos ir ßwętes per wiſſus metus, Per Kúniga MIKALOV DAVKSZA Kanoniką Médniku / iſ lekiſko pergůldita. Su wala ir dalaidimu wirêwiui. W Wilniui / Drukarniôi Akademios SOCIETATIS IESU. A.D. 1599. Cited from Daukša’s Postilė. Photographic edition, Kaunas: publication of the University of Lithuania, 1926.

Drsk – Druskininkai.

Ds – Dusetos, Zarasai district.

Erž – Eržvilkas, Jurbarkas district.

Gmž – Silvestras Gimžauskas, Žodžei isz giwôs kalbos letuvį Linkmeniszkiu ir kiti his other writings: Metine Dovanele antra del Lietuvninku ir Žemaiczu written by Mainionis for the brothers and sisters in Vilnius: printed at Juozapas Zawadskis’s printing house. 1891.

GranGD – R. GRANAUSKAS. Gyvulėlių dainavimas, Vilnius: Presvika, 1998.

Grž – Grūžiai, Pasvalys district.

Ign – Ignalina.

Imb – Imbradas, Zarasai district.

Jabl – slips by Jonas Jablonskis in the LKŽ card index in which the source is not indicated.

JD – Lithuanian Songs, recorded by Antánas Juškevičė. 3 volumes. Printing house of the Imperial University of Kazan, 1880–1882.

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PASYVO RAIDOS BRUOŽAI | 33

Jnš – Joniškis

Jnšk – Joniškėlis

JRB – Jurbarkas

JŽ – Jūžintai, Rokiškis District

Kb – Kabeliai, Varėna District

Kl – Kuliai, Plungė District

Klm – Kelmė

Klp – Klaipėda

Klt – Kaltanėnai, Švenčionys District

KlvD – Songs of Prussian Lithuania. Collected... by Vilus Kalvaitis. Tilsit: E. Jagomasto’s “Lituania” Printing House, 1905.

Kp – Kupiškis

Kpč – K>apėčiamiestis, Lazdijai District

KRg – Kretingalė, Klaipėda District

KRTN – Kartena, Kretinga District

Ktk – Kuktškės, Utena District

LB – M. Luther, Das Newe Testament Deutzsch, Wittemberg, 1546. Cit. pagal Weimaro kritinį leidimą: D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe 6. Die Deutsche Bibel, Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1929.

LBr – Lithuanian Folk Songs and Tales from Prussian and Russian Lithuania, collected by A. Leskien and K. Brugman. Strassburg, 1882.

Ldk – Lydūkiai, Ukmergė district.

Lex – Lexicon Lithuanicum, (a 17th-century manuscript from the former Königsberg archive. Msc, 1784).

LKT – Dialects of the Lithuanian Language. Chrestomathy, ed. E. Grinaveckienė, K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1970.

Lkv – Laukuva, Šilalė district.

LKŽ – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 1–19, Vilnius: Mintis (1, 2, 7–9), Mokslas (10–15), State Publishing House for Political and Scientific Literature (3–5, 6), Institute of Science and Encyclopedias Publishing (16, 17), Institute of Science and Encyclopedias Publishing (18, 19), ed. J. Kruopas (1, 2, 6–10), K. Ulvydas (3–5, 11–16), V. Vitkauskas (17–19), Vilnius 1968–1999.

Lp – Leipalingis, Lazdijai district.

LTR – Lithuanian Folklore Manuscript Repository, (manuscript folklore collections of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore).

MAR – Of the four Gospels, the Old Church Slavonic version. Codex Marianus... ed. V. Jagić, Berolini, 1883.

Mc – K. Macius (1875–1905), jo raštai ir papildymai prie Juškos žodyno.

Mch – G. Michelini, The Writings of Martynas Mažvydas and Their Sources, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedias Publishing, 2000. The numbers indicate the pages of the book on which the source texts are given.

ME – K. Mülenbachs, J. Endzelīns. Latviešu valodas vārdnīca 1–4, Riga: Ministry of Education, 1923–1932.

Mlt – Molėtai

Mrc – Marcinkonys, Varėna district.

MT – MARGARITA THEOLOGICA [...] translated by Simona Waičhnora [...] I Ch[paul]ta Karaliaucziuie P[ruf] per Jurgi Olterbergen[...]/metūlė/ Christus 1600. The photographic edition prepared by G. Michelini was used together with the Latin original: Simono Vaišnoro 1600 metų Žemčiūga Theologiszcka ir jos šaltiniai, Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1997.

MTBĮ – Lithuanian preface by Zacharijus Blotnas to S. Vaišnoras’s “Theological Pearl” (MT), SKAITITOIOP.

Mž – Mažvydas. The Oldest Monuments of the Lithuanian Language up to the Year 1570, prepared by Jurgis Gerullis, Kaunas: Ministry of Education, 1922.

MŽi – Fundamentals of a Lithuanian Grammar, in which the grammar formerly published by the younger Ruhig was indeed taken as the basis, but was improved and expanded with substantial additions and new elaborations by Christian Gottlieb Mielcke... Königsberg, 1800.

34 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

Mžš–Miežiškiai, Panevėžys District

NIEM–Lithuanian Folk Songs from the Manuscript Estate of Prof. J. J. Mikolas. Translated and edited by Eino Nieminen. Helsinki, 1949.

OB–Obėliai, Rokiškis District

PG–Pagiriai, Kėdainiai District

PL–Palėvenė, Kupiškis District

PLM–Palomenė, Kaišiadorys District

PLN–Plungė

PŠ–Palušė, Ignalina District

PN–Panevėžys

PRN–Prienai

PRNG–Paringys, Ignalina District

PŠ–Pašvitinys, Pakruojis District

PŠL–Pūšalotas, Pasvalys District

RDM–Rudamina, Lazdijai District

RDN–Nemunėlio Radviliškis, Biržai District

RG–Ragainė

RK–Rokiškis

RM–Ramygala, Panevėžys District

SB–Subačius, Kupiškis District

SCHG–Litauische Grammatik von August SCHLEICHER. Prag, 1856.

SK–Skaisgirys, Joniškis District

SKD–Skuodas

SKP–Skapiškis, Kupiškis District

SL–Salos, Rokiškis District

SLK–Salakas, Zarasai District

SLM–Salamiestis, Kupiškis District

SLNT–Salantai, Kretinga District

SMN–Simnas, Alytus District

SP–[Konstantinas Sirvydas,] PUNKTÝ KAZAN... BY THE PRIEST KONSTANTY SZYRWID / Theologá Societatis IESV... IN VILNIUS AT THE PRINTING HOUSE OF THE ACADEMY OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS IN THE YEAR (I–1692, II–1644; the photographic edition was used: Franz SPECHT, Šyrwids Punktay sakimu, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929).

SS–Sasnava, Marijampolė District

ŠLČ–Matas ŠALČIUS, glossary and other writings.

ŠTS–Šatės, Skuodas District

TRG–Tauragė.

TRK–Tirkšliai, Mažeikiai district.

VEE–[Baltramiejus Vilentas]: Evangēlias bei Epistolas / Nedeliu ir šwenczuiu dienofu / skaitomofias... pilnai ir wienai pergulditas ant Lietuwiſchka... per Baltramieju WILLENTA... Iſchſpaujſtas Karalauczui per Jurgi Oſterbergera / Metu M. D. LXXIX.

VKŠ–Viekšniai, Akmenė district.

VLK–Valkininkai, Varėna district.

VLKV–Vilkaviškis

VN–Vainūtas, Šilutė district.

VRNV–Varenāvas, Grodno region.

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PASYVO RAIDOS BRUOŽAI | 35

Vs – Veisiejai, Lazdijai district.

Všt – Vištytis, Vilkaviškis district.

Vžns – Vyžuonos, Utena district.

³W – Pofjilla Catholicka Mnieyza. [...] Przez D. JAKYBA WYKĄ [...] W KRAKOWIE, W Drukárniey Andréia Piotrkowczyjká / Roku Pańjkiego / 1590. Photocopy of the third edition.

WP – ISCHGVLDIMAS // EVANGELIVM PER WISVS METI|VS [...] 1573. Anoniminė Wolfenbüttelio postilė. Cituojama iš V. Gaidgalaičio paskelbtų ištraukų (GAIDGALAIT W., Die Wolfenbütteler litauische Postillenhandschrift aus dem Jahre 1573, Mitteilungen der Litauischen literarischen Gesellschaft. Inaugural-Dissertation der Philosophischen Fakultät, Tilsit: Druck von Otto V. Mauderode, 1900) ir J. Karaciejaus leidimo (Wolfenbüttelio Postilė, parengė ir įvadą parašė... J. Karaciejus, Vilnius: Žara, 1995), atsižvelgiant į J. Gelumbeckaitės taisymus (Archivum Lithuanicum 2, 2000, 173–194).

Žd – Židikai, Mažeikiai district.

ŽemR – ŽEMAITĖ. Writings, 1–6, Vilnius: State Fiction Publishing House, 1956–1957.

Žg – Žagarė, Joniškis district.

LITERATŪRA

AMBRAZAS, V. 1977: Netiesioginės nuosakos paplitimas ir kilmės problema. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 17, 7–54.

AMBRAZAS, V. 1979: Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas.

AMBRAZAS, V. 1986: Lietuvių kalbos sakinio sintaksinės ir semantinės struktūros vienetai. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 25, 4–44.

AMBRAZAS, V. 1990: Сравнительный синтаксис причастий балтийских языков. Vergleichende Syntax der baltischen Partizipien, Vilnius: Mokslas.

AMBRAZAS, V., red. 1997a: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, ³1997.

AMBRAZAS, V., red. 1997b: Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

ANDERSEN, P. K. 1985: Die grammatische Kategorie Passiv im Altindischen: Ihre Funktion. Schlerath, B., Hrsg., Grammatische Kategorien. Funktion und Geschichte, Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 47–57.

BENVENISTE, E. 1948: Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen, Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.

BENVENISTE, E. 1962: Pour l’analyse des fonctions casuelles: le génitif latin. Lingua 11, 10–18.

BERGMANE, A. 1955: Par latviešu valodas divdabju adjektivēšanos. Valodas un literaturas institūta raksti 5, 23–36.

BORKOVSKIJ, V. I. 1968: Сравнительно-исторический синтаксис восточнославянских языков. Типы простого предложения, Москва: Наука.

BRUGMANN, K. 1895: Die mit dem Suffix -to- gebildeten Partizipia im Verbalsystem des Lateinischen und des Umbrisch-Oskischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 5, 89–152.

BRUGMANN, K. 1906: Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen 2/1, Strassburg: Trübner.

BRUGMANN, K. 1911: Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen 2/2, Strassburg: Trübner.

BRUGMANN, K. 1925: Die Syntax des einfachen Satzes im Indogermanischen, Berlin–Leipzig: De Gruyter.

CARDONA, G. 1970: The Indo-Iranian construction mana (mama) kṛtam. Language 46(1), 1–12.

CHODOVA, K. I. 1980: Простое предложение в старославянском языке, Москва: Наука.

CHRISTEN, S. 1998: Unpersönliche Konstruktionen und sekundäre Personifizierung. Linguistica Baltica 7, 53–61.

COSTELLO, J.R. 1984: The perphrastic passive construction in Proto-Indo-European. Word 35 (2), 127–161.

DELBRÜCK, B. 1893: Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen 1, Strassburg: Trübner.

DZINTARS, N., OZOLA, I. 2000: Divdabji vidus dialekta Kurzemes izlokšnēs. Starptautiskais baltistu kon-

36 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

gress „Baltu valodas laikmetu griezos“. Referātu tēzes, Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts.

ĖDEL’MAN, D. I. 1974: О конструкциях предложения в иранских языках. Вопросы языкознания 1974/1, 23–33.

ENDZELĪNS, J. 1951: Latviešu valodas gramatika, Rīga: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība.

ENDZELĪNS, J. 1971: Латышские предлоги. I часть. Id., Darbu izlase 1, Rīga: Zinātne, 303–520.

EULER, W. 1998: Das Altpreußische – Schlüsselsprache des Baltischen? Smoczyński, W., ed., Colloquium Pruthenicum Secundum. Papers from the Second International Conference on Old Prussian held in Mogilany near Kraków, October 3rd–6th, 1996, Kraków: Universitas, 69–77.

FOLEY, W. A., VAN VALIN, R. D. 1986: Information packaging in the clause. Shopen, T., ed., 1986, 282–364.

FRAENKEL, E. 1921: Baltoslavica. Beiträge zur balto-slavischen Grammatik und Syntax, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht.

FRAENKEL, E. 1928: Syntax der litauischen Kasus, Kaunas: Valstybės spaustuvė.

FRAENKEL, E. 1929: Syntax der litauischen Postpositionen und Präpositionen, Heidelberg: Winter.

GAIGALAT, W. 1900: Die Wolfenbütteler litauische postillenhandschrift aus dem jahre 1573. Mitteilungen der Litauischen Litterarischen Gesellschaft 5, 1–57; 117–165; 231–247.

GĀTERS, A. 1993: Lettische Syntax. Die Dainas. Hrsg. von H. Radtke, Frankfurt a. M., Berlin etc.: Peter Lang.

GENIUŠIENE, E. 1976: Das Passiv des Litauischen und seine Verwendung. Lötzsch, R., Ružička, R., Hrsg., Satzstruktur und Genus verbi, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 139–152.

GIRDENIS, A. 1996: Taip šneka tirkšliškiai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

HARTMANN, H. 1954: Das Passiv, Heidelberg: Winter.

HAUDRY, J. 1977: L’emploi des cas en védique, Lyon: Editions l’Hermes.

HAVRÁNEK, B. 1937: Genera verbi v slovanských jazycích, Praha: Královská česká společnost nauk.

HIRT, H. 1928: Indogermanische Grammatik 4, Heidelberg: Winter.

HOLVOET, A. 1994: Notes on the Latvian passive. Linguistica Baltica 3, 131–140.

HOLVOET, A. 1995: On the evolution of the passive in Lithuanian and Latvian. Smoczyński, W., ed., Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia I. Safarewicz memoriae dicata, Cracoviae: Universitas, 173–182.

HOLVOET, A. 1997: Latviešu valodas pasīvās un nenoteiktas personas konstrukcijas no areāltipoloģiskā viedokļa. Linguistica Lettica 1, 117–128.

HOLVOET, A. 2001: Once more the Baltic genitive of agent. Baltistica 35 (1), 45–58.

INDĀNE, I. 1986: Dignājas izloksne, Rīga: Zinātne.

JABLONSKIS, J. 1957, 1959: Rinktiniai raštai 1–2. Sudarė Jonas Palionis, Vilnius: Valstybinė mokslinės ir politinės literatūros leidykla.

JAMISON, S. W. 1979: The case of the agent in Indo-European. Die Sprache 25, 129–143.

JAMISON, S.W. 1981: Remarks on the expression of agency with the passive in Vedic and Indo-European. Indo-European Studies 4, 280–315.

JANKE, G. 1960: Der Ausdruck des Passivs im Altrussischen, Berlin. (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Slawistik, Nr. 22.)

KEENAN, E.L. 1986: Passive in the world’s languages. Shopen, ed., 1986, 243–281.

KRAHE, H. 1972: Grundzüge der vergleichenden Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, Innsbruck: Institut für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.

KÜHNER, R. 1912: Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache 2/1, Hannover: Hahn.

KURYŁOWICZ, J. 1964: The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European, Heidelberg: Winter.

KUZ’MINA, I. B. 1984: Первые результаты изучения синтаксических материалов ОЛА по русским и белорусским говорам. Аванесов, В. И., ред., Общеславянский лингвистический атлас: Материалы и исследования 1981, Москва: Наука, 20–33.

KUZ’MINA, I. B., NEMČENKO, E. V. 1971: Синтаксис причастных форм в русских говорах, Москва.

LAGERCRANTZ, O. 1933: Indogermanisches Prädicativ, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PASYVO RAIDOS BRUOŽAI

37

LEPIKA, M. 1954: Par objektu pie noliegta transitīva verba latviešu literārajā valodā. Valodas un literatūras institūta raksti 3, 5–45.

LIUKKONEN, K. 1993: Pastabos dėl baltų–slavų ir vakarinių uraliečių kalbų neveikiamųjų dalyvių vartojimo. Baltistica 27 (2), 27–30.

LIUKKONEN, K. 1995: Jo būtā. Linguistica Baltica 4, 209–210.

LURAGHI, S. 1986: On the distribution of instrumental and agentive markers for human and non-human agents of passive verbs in some Indo-European languages. Indogermanische Forschungen 91, 48–66.

MARVAN, I. 1973: Baltic and Indo-European ergative (based on professor P. Trost’s pioneering work). Lituanus 19, 31–38.

MATTHEWS, W. K. 1955: Lithuanian constructions with neuter passive participles. Slavonic and Eastern European Review 33 (81), 350–371.

МАТВЕЕНКО, V. A. 1961: Некоторые особенности структуры страдательно-безличного оборота в русских говорах. Материалы и исследования по русской диалектологии. Новая серия 2, Москва, 103–139.

MATVEENKO, V. A. 1970: Страдательно-безличный оборот в говорах восточнославянских языков. Slavia 29, 350–365.

MŪLENBACHS, K. 1928: Sintakse jeb teikuma macība. In: Latviešu gramatika J. Endzelīna un K. Mūlenbacha sarakstītā, 4 iespiedums, Rīga, 112–281.

OTRĘBSKI, J. 1965: Gramatyka języka litewskiego 2, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

OZOLS, A. 1961: Latviešu tautasdziesmu valoda, Rīga: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība.

PALIONIS, J. 1967: Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI–XVII a., Vilnius: Mintis.

PALMAITIS, L. 1977: Dėl baltų kalbų denominatyvinės praeities. Baltistica 2 priedas, 114–123.

PAULAUSKIENĖ, A. 1979: Gramatinės lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžio kategorijos, Vilnius: Mokslas.

PEDERSEN, H. 1907: Neues und Nachträgliches. Kuhns Zeitschrift 40, 129–217.

PETIT, D. 1999: *sue- en grec ancien: la famille du pronom réfléchi, Leuven: Peeters.

PORĪTE, T. 1955: Vārdu kārta mūsdienu latviešu literatūras valodas vienkāršajā teikumā. Valodas un literatūras institūta raksti 5, 117–204.

ROSINAS, A. 1988: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

ROSINAS, A. 1995: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai: morfologijos raida, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

SABENINA, A. M. 1983: Из истории двухкомпонентных неглагольных предложений. Борковский, В. И., ред., Структура предложения в истории восточнославянских языков, Москва, 9–101.

SAWICKI, L. 1991: Genitive and instrumental in passive constructions in Lithuanian. Indogermanische Forschungen 96, 168–174.

SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. 1976: Speculations on the Indo-European active and middle voices. Kuhns Zeitschrift 90, 23–36.

SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. 1978: Lithuanian constructions of the type jo būtā as a reflection of the Indo-European middle voice. Baltistica 14 (1), 15–19.

SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. 1980: Indo-European Linguistics. A New Synthesis, University Park, London: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. 1982: The shift of intransitive to transitive passive in the Lithuanian and Indo-European verb. Baltistica 18 (2), 119–134.

SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. [Шмальштиг, У.Р.] 1985: Эративность в индоевропейских конструкциях со сказуемым в форме аориста медиа. Вопросы языкознания 1985/6, 25–34.

SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. 1987: A Lithuanian Historical Syntax, Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.

SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. 1994: Again the Baltic genitive of agent. Linguistica Baltica 3, 13–19.

SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. 1995: A Student Guide to the Genitive of Agent in the Indo-European Languages. Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph N 14, Washington.

SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. 1997: Lithuanian mano, tavo and savo. Ponto-Baltica 7, 113–121.

SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. 1999: Further thoughts on genitive constructions. Baltistica 34 (1), 23–36.

38 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

SCHMIDT, K. N. 1963: Zum Agens beim Passiv. Indogermanische Forschungen 68, 1–12.

SCHWYZER, E. 1943: Zum persönlichen Agens beim Passiv. Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 10, 1–43.

SCHWYZER, E. 1975: Griechische Grammatik 2, hrsg. von Albert Debrunner, 4. Aufl., München: Beck.

SENN, A. 1966: Handbuch der litauischen Sprache 1: Grammatik, Heidelberg: Winter.

SHIBATANI, M. 1985: Passives and related constructions: a prototype analysis. Language 61 (4), 821–848.

SHIBATANI, M. 1998: Voice parameters. Kulikov, L., Vater, H., eds., Typology of Verbal Categories, Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 117–138.

SHOPEN, T., ed., 1986: Language Typology and Syntactic Description 1. Clause Structure, Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.

SKARDŽIUS, P. 1943: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

SLIŽIENĖ, N. 1974: Sudurtinių neveikiamųjų veiksmažodžio formų reikšmės ir vartojimas. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 15, 75–88.

SOBOLEV, A. N. 1998: О предикативном употреблении причастий в русских диалектах. Вопросы языкознания 5/1998, 74–89.

TROST, P. 1960: Das Prädikativum im Litauischen. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 3, 219–222.

ŠUKYS, J. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos linksniai ir prielinksniai: vartosena ir normos, Kaunas: Šviesa.

ULVYDAS, K., red., 1965, 1971, 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 1. Fonетika, 2. Morfologija, 3. Sintaksė, Vilnius: Mintis (1–2), Mokslas (3).

VALECKIENĖ, A. 1984: Lietuvių kalbos gramatinė sistema. Giminės kategorija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

WACKERNAGEL, J., DEBRUNNER, A. 1954: Altindische Grammatik 2/2. Die Nominalsuffixe, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht.

WATKINS, C. 1967: Remarks on the Genitive. To Honor R. Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday. Vol. 3, The Hague–Paris: Mouton, 2191–2198.

WATKINS, C. 1969: Indogermanische Grammatik 3. Formenlehre 1. Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion, Heidelberg: Winter.

ŽULYS, V. 1969: Vadinamųjų nekaitomų įvardžių vieta lietuvių kalbos gramatinėje sandaroje. Baltistica 5 (2), 167–177.

Vytautas Ambrazas

Gauta 2001 09 14

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]