ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

XLV (2001), 93–111

The Adessive in Chylinski’s New Testament Translation

Gina Kavaliūnaitė

Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius

This paper presents an analysis of the use of the adessive in Chylinskis’ translation of the New Testament. It is suggested that the use of the adessive as opposed to the inessive is associated with animacy, and that the distribution of adessive and inessive in the different parts of speech and their subcategories (1st and 2nd person pronouns, 3rd person pronouns, proper nouns, common nouns etc.) is determined by an animacy hierarchy as formulated by Silverstein, and partly also (in those cases where no difference in animacy is involved) by an individuation hierarchy. The adessive and the inessive are in complementary distribution, their use being determined by the categorial properties of the noun or pronoun. The view, often repeated in the literature, according to which the Old Lithuanian writings reflect confusion or functional merger of the adessive and the inessive, is shown to be inaccurate. It results from an erroneous view of the mutual relationship between these case forms.

0. INTRODUCTION

In investigating the relationship between Chylinski’s New Testament translation (hereafter: ChNT) and its sources, considerable attention had to be paid to the use of postpositional locative cases in this text. The languages of the original sources of the ChNT translation have no postpositional locative cases, but comparing individual ChNT postpositional locatives and prepositional constructions expressing location with the prepositional constructions in the sources makes it possible to identify certain patterns in the use of the adessive. Taking into account the extent of possible influence from the sources, conclusions can be drawn about the use of postpositional locative cases in the Lithuanian of Chylinski’s time, or at least in Chylinski’s idiolect. To date, apart from the principal studies devoted to postpositional locative cases, which focus mainly on problems of their formation (Laigonaitė 1957; Palionis 1967, Kazlauskas 2000; Zinkevičius 1980, 1982; Rosinas 1995, 2000), two studies have been published on the use of postpositional cases in Bretkūnas’s writings and their relationship to constructions in the originals (Range 1995, Gelumbeckaitė 1997, 1999).

This article identifies the equivalents of adessive constructions in the sources of the ChNT translation and the influence of the latter on the use of these constructions; analyzes the functions of the adessive constructions used in the translation; defines the limits of the domains in which the ChNT adessive is used; draws attention to the association between the frequency of this case and certain parts of speech and grammatical categories, and seeks to explain the basis of this association; and revisits the problem of using the inessive in place of the adessive. Here

94 |

GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ

only Chylinski’s linguistic data are analyzed¹, so the conclusions formulated cannot be directly generalized to Lithuanian of the seventeenth century as a whole. However, comparison with data gathered by other authors on the use of postpositional locative cases in old Lithuanian writings indicates that their use of postpositional locatives differs only slightly from that in Chylinski’s language. The use of adessive constructions in the ChNT translation can be interpreted somewhat differently from the way proposed to date in studies of other old writings or of postpositional locative cases. Broader general conclusions will be possible only once data from all the authors of the period in question have been collected and analyzed.

Chylinski’s linguistic data are compared with those of the main source of the translation – Statenbijbel – and of supplementary Polish sources – the Gdańsk Bible and the Brest Bible². Since much evidence suggests that Chylinski did not use the Vulgate or the Greek New Testament when translating (Kavaliaūnaitė 2001: 105–128), equivalents from these sources will not be presented here.

1. THE PLACE OF THE ADESSIVE IN CHYLINSKIS’S CASE SYSTEM

1.1. The adessive is the least frequently used of all Chylinskis’s postpositional locatives. Constructions with the adessive make up 6.2% (507 occurrences) of all postpositional locatives³.

In the Dutch original, the adessive in ChNT corresponds to prepositional constructions in + DAT. / ACC. (58%) and by + DAT. (23%); less frequently (19% in total), the constructions are op + DAT. / ACC., voor + DAT. / ACC., and aan + DAT. / ACC. In the Polish sources, we find the constructions w + LOC. (60%), u + GEN. (22%); less frequently (18% in total), przy + LOC., przez + ACC., z + INSTR, and na + LOC.

Mt 17:5 ChNT Tey ⇒ This is my beloved Son → My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ⇒ may StB This is my beloved Son / in whom I am well pleased GdB This is my beloved Son / in whom I am pleased BrAB This is my beloved Son / on whom I rest Mk 6:14 ChNT Jonaß [...] has risen from the dead, and therefore such powers are at work in him StB Joannis [...] has been raised from the dead / and therefore the powers work in him

¹The article draws on data from the New Testament translation.

²Until it is conclusively established that Chylinskis did not use the Brest Bible in his translation, all the cited passages are compared with it as well.

³ChNT contains 8,196 postpositional locatives in total, including: LOC. 4,117 occurrences (50.2%), ADES. 507 occurrences (6.2%), ALLAT. 1,706 occurrences (20.8%), ILLAT. 1,866 occurrences (22.8%). For comparison, we present statistics on the use of postpositional locatives in Jonas Bretkūnas’s NT translation (data provided by Jolanta Gelumbickaitė): BNT contains 1,286 constructions with postpositional locatives in total, of which: LOC. 672 occurrences (52.4%), ADES. 82 occurrences (6.5%), ALLAT. 1,456 occurrences (35.5%), ILLAT. 176 occurrences (5.6%). We see that postpositional cases are used five times more frequently in ChNT than in BNT, although their percentage distribution in the text is very similar; the illative accounts for a slightly larger share in ChNT than in BNT, and the allative for a smaller share.

ADESYVAS CHYLIŃSKIO NT VERTIME

95

GdB Jan [...] rose from the dead; therefore miracles are performed through him

BRAB Jan [...] rose from the dead / and for that reason these powers are manifested in him

Lk 1:37 ChNT Zedna ⇒ Nothing shall be impossible to God → impossible

StB For no thing shall be impossible for God

GdB For no word shall be impossible for God

Lk 1:33 BRAB For with God no word shall be impossible

Lk 1:56 ChNT And Mary stayed with her about three months

StB And Mary remained with her about three months

GdB And Mary stayed with her for about three months

Lk 1,52 BRAB And thus with her she stayed, as if for three months

Mt 27,43 ChNT He trusted in God

StB He has trusted in God

GdB He trusted in God

BRAB He trusted in God

Mk 5,33 ChNT The woman then [...] knowing → knowing that within her [had happened]

StB Ende the woman [...] knowing what had happened to her

GdB But the woman [...] knowing what had happened to her

BRAB And [...] the woman, knowing what had happened to her

In ChNT, the adessive constructions express: 1) an inner state, place, or process in a person’s spiritual sphere, often understood as the sphere of (God’s) presence or activity, or as a place where a person’s thoughts and emotions are located or toward which they are directed⁴:

Mk 6,14 ChNT John [...] and therefore these powers can be at work within him

StB Joannis [...] and therefore the mighty works are performed in him

GdB John [...] for this reason miracles are performed through him

BRAB John [...] for that reason these powers are manifested in him

2Tim 1,14 ChNT guard through the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us

StB preserved [...] by the Holy Spirit / who dwells in us

GdB Guard [...] through the Holy Spirit who in us dwells

BRAB preserve through the Holy Spirit, who in us dwells

⁴ Bronius Maskuliūnas (2000: 202–203) adesyvo konstrukcijas su veiksmažodžiu būti ir su kai kuriais kitais veiksmažodžiais (gyventi, rasti, užgulėti) laiko posesyvinėmis. Lokalinė ir posesyvinė adesyvo interpretacijos iš esmės viena kitai neprieštarauja, kadangi posesyvinė reikšmė gali būti laikoma pagrįsta lokalinė reikšme. Šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjamiems klausimams posesyvinės adesyvo interpretacijos galimybė įtakos neturi ir į ją nebus atsižvelgta.

96 |

GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ

Mk 11,22 ChNT Jesus answering said to them: Have faith in God

StB Ende Jesus, answering, said to them: Have faith in God

GdB And Jesus, answering, said to them: Have faith in God

BrAB And Jesus, answering, said to them: Have faith in God

2) location at someone, being in a person’s presence:

ApD 13,7 ChNT Where he was with the governor Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man

StB Who was with the governor Sergius Paulus, a wise man

GdB Who was with the noble governor Sergius Paulus, a prudent man

BrAB Who was with the governor Sergius Paulus, a wise man

ApD 28,7 ChNT Publius /…/, who welcomed him and kept him for three days as his guest

StB Publius / [his] country estate / who received us and hospitably entertained us for three days

GdB Publius: who, having received us, entertained us hospitably for three days

BrAB Publius, who, having received us, hospitably lodged us for three days at the inn

3) location among people, in the company of (several persons). Only the adessive forms of first- and second-person plural pronouns are used in this sense:

Jn 14,25 ChNT I spoke these things to you while being with you

StB I have spoken these things to you, while with you remaining

GdB I have told you while dwelling with you

BrAB I have told you while dwelling with you

ApD 20,18 ChNT from the first day when I came to Asia, how with you I was the whole time

StB from the first day that I arrived in Asia, how I was with you the whole time

GdB from the first day on which I came to Asia, how I spent the whole time with you

BrAB from the first day on which I came to Asia, how I spent the whole time with you

Mt 13,56 ChNT Are not all his sisters with us?

StB And are not all [his sisters] with us?

GdB And are not all his sisters with us?

BrAB Are not all his sisters also with us?

ADESYVAS CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIME

| 97

4) location inside. ChNT adesives with these meanings are used particularly rarely; only a few examples have been found in the entire ChNT translation. These are usually the adesive forms of third-person pronouns alone, which substitute for nouns denoting inanimate objects:

Mt 21,33 ChNT planted a vineyard [...] and dug in it a winepress ⇒ Ipfauftuwa StB planted a vineyard [...] and dug a winepress in it GdB planted a vineyard [...] and dug a winepress in it BrAB planted a vineyard [...] and dug a winepress in it APR 1,3 ChNT who hear the words of this prophecy and keep what is written in it ⇒ StB those who hear the words of this prophecy and keep what is written therein GdB those who listen to the words of this prophecy and preserve what is written in it BrAB⁵

Adesives of nouns denoting inanimate objects are not used at all in ChNT. In general, the ChNT adesive is associated primarily with animacy. Adesives expressing location inside, rather than in or among animate beings, are statistically so rare that one gets the impression that in such cases the adesive of pronouns is used by inertia: third-person pronouns can substitute for nouns denoting both animate beings and inanimate objects. More detailed analysis shows that the use of pronominal adesives to denote both animate beings and inanimate objects is not in fact separate and accidental, but a systematic phenomenon. This question will be discussed further below. The traditional meaning of location near something (cf. Zinkevičius 1980: 259) is not attested by a single adesive form in Chylinskis’s NT translation. This semantic function with verbs of movement to put, carry, strike etc. is expressed by the allative (Lk 3,9; Lk 9,62; Jn 19,29; ApD 2,23; 1 Kor 7,27 etc.).

1.2. From what has been said about the semantic functions of the adesive, it is clear that the most important feature of nouns used in the adesive case in ChNT is animate (+) versus inanimate (–). Adesives of lexemes denoting animate beings are very common in other old Lithuanian writings as well. As Zigmas Zinkevičius points out, such usage accounts for between 70% and 100% of all cases: in Daukša’s Postil, the plural adesive forms of first- and second-person pronouns account for 45% of all plural adesive examples; in Bretkūnas’s Postil, 75%; and in ChNT, Sirvydas’s Punktai sakymų, Jaknavičius’s Gospels, and Belarmin’s Catechism, they are the only forms used (Zinkevičius 1982: 33).

Wojciech Smoczyński has emphasized the importance of the categories of animacy and inanimacy in describing locative cases. He notes that a single (Lithuanian) stem usually has no more than two locative cases. “One observes the co-occurrence of (I) illative with locative and (II) allative with adesive, depending on the meaning of the stem: with inanimate names of places – (I), and with animate (especially personal) nouns and personal names – (II). There is, however, no stem that forms both loc[ativus] and ill[ativus], or ade[ssivus] and all[ativus]” (Smoczyński 2001: 215).

⁵ The copies of the Brasta Bible held in the LMA library are defective; pages are missing, especially at the beginning and end of the book. Therefore, we cannot provide some examples from the Brasta Bible.

98

GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ

place names – (I), and with animate nouns (especially personal nouns) and personal names – (II). There is, however, no stem that forms both loc[ativus] and ill[ativus], or ade[ssivus] and all[ativus]” (Smoczyński 2001: 215).

Typological studies show that the category of animacy can be grammaticalized: that is, grammatical features related in some way to animacy are regularly expressed by those parts of speech (or their subcategories) that by their nature are more often used to denote animate beings. It goes without saying that first- and second-person pronouns usually denote people, and therefore express grammatical features associated with animacy (humanity) more regularly; this usage can be generalized to all members of the category in question, meaning that the pronominal adesive is used even in the rarer cases when a pronoun does not denote an animate being, e.g.:

Mt 10,11 ChNT And when you come to any town or village, ask who there is worthy ⇒ STB And into whatever city or village you enter, inquire who in it is worthy GdB And into whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy BrAB And into whatever city or village you enter, inquire who in it might be worthy

In the natural ANIMACY HIERARCHY (animacy hierarchy), individual parts of speech and their subcategories occupy particular positions according to how often they denote animate beings in ordinary, prototypical situations. The concept of the animacy hierarchy was introduced into linguistics by Michael Silverstein, who studied the distribution of nominative- and ergative-type marking patterns for the subject (agent) and object of transitive clauses across parts of speech and their subcategories in Australian Aboriginal languages (Silverstein 1976: 122 et seq.). This concept is widely applied in the study and description of many other linguistic phenomena associated with the category of animacy. First and foremost, grammatical gender systems should be mentioned here. Jolanta Mindak (1990) successfully applies the concept of the animacy hierarchy to describing grammatical gender systems in Slavic languages. The concept of the animacy hierarchy is also widely used in more recent linguistic literature and is taken into account in some publications on nominal categories (e.g., in Stephen Anderson’s survey, published in Timothy Shopen’s popular edited volume on syntactic typology). The animacy hierarchy of Silverstein is presented here (see Table 1) as Anderson summarizes it concisely in his article (1985: 183):

TABLE 1. ANIMACY HIERARCHY

ADESYVAS CHY LINSKIO NT VERTIME

99

The statistics of adesyves used in ChNT correspond quite closely to the classification presented here. Adesyv forms are used in ChNT with the following frequency:

TABLE 2. FREQUENCY OF ADESYVE USE IN ChNT BY PARTS OF SPEECH AND THEIR SUBCATEGORIES

Adesyves of first-person pronouns — singular manimp (44x), plural mū simp (21x)

Adesyves of second-person pronouns — tavimp (21x), plural jū simp (59x)

Adesyves of the reflexive pronoun — savimpi (61x)

Adesyves of proper names — Kristusiep (65x), Viešpatiep (55x), Jėzusiep (47x), Die wiep (44x), Tė viep (11x), Sūnumpi (4x), Simon iep (4x), etc.; 177 adesyves of proper names in total

Adesyves of demonstrative and third-person pronouns — jampi, tampi, kitampi (90x)

Adesyves of relative pronouns — kuriampi, kampi (23x)

Adesyves of designations for persons — žmogumpi (8x)

Adesyves of adjectives — gyvampi (1x), tikrampi (1x), išmint ingampi (1x)

Adesyves of designations for animate beings (other than humans) and inanimate objects — none

As the data presented show, adesyves of first- and second-person pronouns and the reflexive pronoun are the most frequent (206x), followed by adesyves of proper names (177x); in third place are adesyves of demonstrative, third-person, and relative pronouns (113x); the rarest are adesyves of designations for persons (8x) and adjectives (3x). ChNT uses no adesyves of designations for animate beings (other than humans) or inanimate objects.

The fact that proper names are used more frequently than demonstrative and third-person pronouns does not undermine the system in this case. In neutral text, the words dievas, tėvas, sūnus are used as common nouns; here, however, the designations of the Christian God and his persons are treated as proper names, and these words occur statistically more frequently in Holy Scripture than in neutral text.

The animacy hierarchy scale is part of the broader INDIVIDUALITY HIERARCHY (individuation hierarchy), which many linguists draw on in their work. This concept is successfully applied in describing various morphosyntactic phenomena, especially those related to case-use systems—Alan Timberlake used the concept of object individuation in studying the use of the Russian genitive of negation, while John Hopper and Sandra Thomp-

100 |

G I N A K A V A L I Ū N A I T Ė

son ją taikė kaip tranzityvumo parametrą (Timberlake 1975: 123–139; Hopper, Thompson 1980: 251–299). Individualumo hierarchijos skalėje pagal reiškiamą individualumo kiekį skiriamos tokios semantinės opozicijos:

3. TABLE: HIERARCHY OF INDIVIDUALITY

high degree of individuality

low degree of individuality

proper

common

animate

inanimate

singular

plural

concrete

abstract

The semantic features of the adessives used in ChNT precisely correspond to the features of a high degree of individuality listed here: most adessives are proper names; adessive forms are used only for nouns denoting animate beings; singular adessives predominate; plural adessives are used only with first- and second-person pronouns (most closely associated with grammatical animacy); and adessives of abstract nouns are not used. Thus, analysis of Chylinskis’s linguistic data confirms the tendency noted by Zinkevičius to use adessive forms when referring to animate beings. The adessive is used more frequently with parts of speech and their subcategories that occupy higher positions in the animacy hierarchy. Differences in the frequency of adessive use within a single part of speech (i.e., where the degree of grammatical animacy is the same) can be described on the basis of the hierarchy of individuality.

2. USE OF THE ADESSIVE IN PLACE OF THE INESSIVE AND VICE VERSA

2.1. The literature on postpositional locatives devotes considerable attention to this problem. The reasons for confusion between the inessive and the adessive are explained in two ways. Most researchers hold that the distinction between the functions of the adessive and inessive disappeared within the language itself (Laigonaitė 1957: 27; Palionis 1967: 120, 170; Rosinas 1995: 65; 2001: 140–143; Gelumbec kaitė 1996: 158; 1997: 189–190; Maskuliūnas 2000: 205–206), while others believe that their use in texts translated from Luther’s Bible was conditioned by the influence of the source texts: “Die Frage, ob diese Vertauschung eine volkssprachige Grundlage hat, möchte ich verneinen. [...] Ich nehme also an, daß die Vertauschung von Adessiv und Lokativ (Inessiv) letztlich vorlagenabhängig ist” (Range 1995: 99–101). Analysis has shown that in ChNT the meanings of the adessive and inessive are fairly clearly distinct. In ChNT, the meaning of the adessive is associated primarily with animacy and location. The inessive, by contrast, is never used to denote an event taking place in the consciousness of living beings; it expresses the location of an action or object, the time of an action, a place among something, or distribution. The first- and second-person plural adessives are used to denote a place among something or distribution, whereas third-person pronouns occur in the plural inessive: being lower in the hierarchy of animacy, they no longer had plural adessive forms—

ADESYVAS CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIME

101

—in that hierarchy. Nouns expressing this meaning likewise occur only in the plural inessive.

Kaip matyti iš Czesławo Kudzinowskio sudaryto Indekso (1964), ChNT nėra nė vieno asmenvardžio, įvardžių aš, tu, leksemų Dievas, Tėvas, Jėzus, Kristus ir pan. įsėvyu. Iš 4117 ChNT pavartotų įsėvyų vos keletas reiškia gyvas būtybes. Tai daugiskaitos įsėvyai žmonėse (9x), pranašuose (5x), visuose (1x) ir vienaskaitos įsėvyai žmoguj (1x), boboj (1x), motinoj (1x). Tuos kelis atvejus toliau ir aptarsime:

1) plural inessive žmonėse (9x):

Mk 10,27 ChNT For people this is impossible, but not for God. For God all things are possible

StB By de menſchen is impossible / but not by God: for all things are possible by God

GdB V ludźiċ is impossible / but not with God: for with God all things are possible

BrAB V ludźić this is impossible / but not with God / for with God all things are possible

Lk 18,27 ChNT What is impossible žmoneła, diewiep is possible

StB The things that are impossible by de menſchen / are possible by Godt

GdB What is impossible u ludźi / is possible u Bogá

BrAB What is impossible v ludźi / is possible v Bogá

Since the examples under discussion refer to living persons, we would expect the adessive here, all the more so because typical adessive equivalents are used in the corresponding passages of the source texts. The occurrence of the inessive žmonėse in this position could be explained by the fact that Chylinskis did not use plural adessives of nouns at all and, lacking the required adessive form in his language system, used the inessive instead. This interpretation is also supported by the adessive Diewiep, which occurs nearby in precisely the same position with the same meaning. To express a place among something, Chylinskis used the plural adessive of first- and second-person pronouns; but when this meaning is expressed by a noun or a third-person pronoun, it always occurs in the plural inessive.

2) plural inessive pranašuose (5x):

ApD 13,40 ChNT as has been said pranabołe

StB ‘t has been wished in the prophets

GdB what was said in the Prophets

BrAB what was said in the Prophets

Pranašuose means “in the books of the prophets”; thus, in this case, the location denoted by the inessive is unrelated to animacy. Purely theoretically, the adesive could also be used in such a position, since ad-

102 |

GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ

jective, since the word prophet, when used to denote a work, can be interpreted grammatically as animate (according to the grammatical animacy principle) or inanimate (according to the referential principle). Chylinskis’s translation follows the latter principle. Moreover, in this case too, when explaining the choice of the inessive, one should bear in mind that plural adesives of nouns are not attested at all in the text of Chylinskis’s NT.

3) plural inessive visuose (1x):

Eph 4:6 ChNT One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all, and in all

StB One God and Father of all / who is above all / and through all / and in you all

GdB One God and Father of all / who is above all / and through all / and in you all

BrAB One God and Father of all / who is above all things / and through all things / and in you all

Here the inessive is used with its typical adesive meaning. However, this exception too can be explained by the same reason as in the previous cases: the generalizing pronoun “all” had no plural adesive form in the ChNT declension system. In Chylinskis’s language, only the plural adesive forms of first- and second-person pronouns, which occupy the top position in the animacy hierarchy, are used: musimpi, musiṁp and jusiṁpi, jusiṁp.

4) singular inessive žmoguj (1x):

Eph 3:16 ChNT to be strengthened with power through his spirit widutiniame žmoguj

StB to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inwendigen menſche

GdB strengthened with power through his Spirit in the wnętrznym człowieku

BrAB to be strongly strengthened through his Spirit / w wnętrznym człowiecże

The adesyvas form žmogumpi is generally used in ChNT (7x), and in this case the occurrence of the inessive can certainly be described as “confusion.” Instead of the plural adesyvas, for the reasons already discussed, the plural inessive žmonėse had already become an “established” pattern; by analogy, the singular inessive žmoguj may also have been introduced here. We cannot discern the influence of the translation sources here, since most constructions with the adesyvas in the originals correspond to the constructions used in this case: Dutch in + DAT and Polish w + DAT.

5) singular inessives boboj (x) and motinoj (1x):

2 Tim 1:5 ChNT For I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first dwelt boboy tawo Loiloy, ir Motynoy tawo Eunice, and I am convinced that it dwells in you too.

ADESYVAS CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIME

| 103

StB When I call to mind the sincere faith that is in you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice, I am convinced that it dwells in you too.

GdB Recalling the sincere faith that is in you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice, I am certain that it dwells in you too.

BrAB Recalling the faith in you, which is sincere and first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice, I am certain that it is in you too.

There are no adesyvo forms *bobaip or *motinaip in ChNT. In general, there is not a single adesyvo form of a feminine noun; ChNT uses only the single feminine pronoun ji in the adesyvo form jeyp (7x). It may be supposed that, by not using adesyvo forms of feminine nouns at all, Chylinskis chose the inesyvo forms bobo and motinoj. The question of why there is not a single adesyvo form of a feminine noun in the entire NT translation deserves a separate study⁵. Nor can we discern the influence of translation sources in this case.

Thus, throughout ChNT we found only a few instances in which the inesyvo of nouns denoting persons was used. Usually in such cases (except for žmoguje), only the inesyvo of parts of speech whose adesyvo forms are altogether unattested in Chylinskis’s language system is used in place of the adesyvo.

2.2. Like Chylinskis, authors of other early writings also used the adesyvo of first- and second-person pronouns and the reflexive pronoun. Albertas Rosinas (2001: 140) notes that “the subsystem of personal participial and reflexive pronouns (which occupy the highest position in the animacy hierarchy – G. K.) in Daukša’s texts has no inesyvo; the adesyvo is used instead, most often to express an internal state.” This fact corresponds completely to the data on Chylinskis’s language. Without specifically reviewing all early writings from this perspective, it is impossible to say which authors’ writings lacked inesyvo forms of personal pronouns and the reflexive pronoun altogether. According to Rosinas, inesyvo forms of participial pronouns are absent not only from Daukša’s writings, but also from Petkevičius’s catechism and Sirvydas’s writings (Rosinas 1995: 17, 20; 2001: 140). The inesyvo of these pronouns is used only in Bretkūnas’s and

⁵ Given that the use of the adesyvo in ChNT corresponds very consistently to the features of the animacy and individuation hierarchies, and considering the fact about Chylinskis’s language that adesyvo forms of both pronouns and nouns are used much less frequently in the feminine than in the masculine, can we assume that the feminine occupies a lower position in the individuation hierarchy? Range (1995: 100) has also noted that adesyvo forms of feminine nouns are used less frequently than those of masculine nouns. The literature does not discuss the position of masculine and feminine gender in the animacy and individuation hierarchies, but it is possible that feminine gender could occupy a lower position in this hierarchy. It is noteworthy that in some Slavic languages, where the accusative form identical to the genitive is associated with animacy, feminine nouns acquire grammaticalized animacy features inconsistently: cf. Russian ja znaju étix mal’čikov, étix devušek (Acc. = Gen.), but Polish widzę tych chłopców (Acc. = Gen.): widzę te dziewczyny (Acc. = Nom.) (for more on the relationship between gender and animacy categories, see Mindak 1990).

104 |

GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ

in Vilentas’s writings. The reasons for this exceptional usage in these authors’ texts should be investigated separately.

The adesyvo used by Daukša is also related to degree of animacy. This is confirmed by Rosinas’s observation that “in sentences with the verbs to be, to live and others, only the adesyvo of participial and reflexive pronouns is used, whereas with gendered pronouns and nouns, the inesyvo is often used alongside the adesyvo” (2001: 141).

Unlike Chylinskis in one respect, Daukša used plural adesyvo forms of names for persons:

Apė ką Augūltinie p S. Ambraziejep ir kitūfiámp fenūliámp Daktarūfiámp daug ‘kaitit’ gali DP 369_33–34; turėtų wiłładós matóne Diewiep ir gerūgiámp žmonełėmp DP 67_8–9 (quoted according to Rosinas 2001: 141).

From this we can conclude that in Daukša’s idiolect, the domain of grammaticalization of animacy or individuation expressed through the use of the adesyvo was somewhat broader than in Chylinskis’s language, although no fundamental difference is apparent between the two authors’ use of the adesyvo.

2.3. When discussing the confusion of the inessive and adessive in the language system, it is necessary to define clearly what is meant by such confusion and according to what criteria it can be identified. Many authors who have written about the neutralization of the inessive and adessive give examples in which the adessive and inessive are used within a single noun phrase:

nė regi Dwãlios f. žmogup atgimdītame DP 255_35–36; žmonełe bediewiũłemp ir neybti-kumūłemp DP 44_52–53 (Examples from Daukša’s Postil are cited according to Palionis 1967: 170).

Such passages are usually cited as typical examples of confusion between the inessive and adessive. However, the use of the inessive and adessive in a single phrase does not indicate confusion between the adessive and inessive. This usage is explained by the relationship between the cases under discussion. Since the use of the adessive and inessive depends on the categorical properties of nouns (these cases are used according to the hierarchies of animacy and individuality), they are in complementary distribution. Wojciech Smoczyński reaches this conclusion, writing about the relationship between the inessive and illative, and the adessive and allative: „Realnie mamy [...] do czynienia z dwiema izofunkcyjnymi parami form o dystrybucji komplementarnej, która jest regulowana semantyką rzeczownika“ (Smoczyński 2001: 215). Thus, in terms of distribution, the inessive and adessive function as variants of a single case. This explains why both the adessive and the inessive can be used within one noun phrase whose constituents are linked by agreement, while the agreement relation nevertheless remains intact. This relationship reflects the semantic structure of the inessive and adessive: the component associated with case semantics (place, location) is shared by both cases. Additional categorical semes are marked independently of one another within the boundaries of a single noun phrase. In these cases, the adessive and inessive do not form a distinct case opposition. The fact that the inessive and adessive are used side by side within one noun group does not prove that they are used promiscue, since their use is conditioned by the categorical properties of the noun.

ADESYVAS CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIME | 105

Let us analyze other examples presented as illustrations of confusion between the inessive and adessive:

kaipo ſchwentaie Euangelyaie parafchit / ira. ſ. Matheupj tapagaliauſiagi Galwagi MžK 24₇₋₉; Matehulſiep Dwieu Defſymtu Pirmoi Cap. DP 1₄₋₅; and netiktai kitas βmones Jordanip ira krikſchtjens BP₁₁ 239₁₁₋₁₃ (cited according to Range 1995: 101).

We see that when referring to a place not associated with animacy (ſchwentaie Euangelyaie, tapagaliauſiagi Galwagi, Dwieu Defſymtu Pirmoi Cap.), the inessive is used, while within the construction the personal name Matheupj, Matehulſiep is expressed in the adessive. The hydronym Jordanip used in Bretkūnas’s Postil as a proper name could have been associated with a personal name, and its adessive could thus have arisen here by analogy.

Bearing in mind these general structural features of the use of the inessive and adessive, we can attempt to formulate criteria for determining whether these cases are in fact confused. The loss of the distinction in meaning between the inessive and adessive can be demonstrated only by cases in which, in different locations but in identical contexts and without a clear functional distinction, the inessive and adessive forms of the same word (the same part of speech) are used. These are precisely the cases in which the inessive and adessive forms of pronouns are used to denote both an internal state or a place within the surroundings of one or more people, and a location in inanimate objects. Chylinskis’s translation contains only a few such cases:

Mt 23,21 ChNT pryſiekt per Baźnicų į a/.../ ir per ghi kurſey giwena jeyp → joy StB Ende wie ſweert by den tempel / die ſweert by den ſelven / ende by dien die daer in woont GdB A kto przysięga ná Kościoł / przysięga náń / y ná tego ktory w nim mieſka BRAB A kthoby kolwiek przysięgł ná kościoł / przysięgać náń / y ná tego ktory w nim mieſka

Such passages can be regarded as examples of “confusion” only in part, since the use of the adessive with pronouns is justified even when they stand in for inanimate objects, because pronouns occupy a very high position in the animacy hierarchy. In Chylinskis’s NT translation, however, this can justify only the use of the adessive with masculine third-person pronouns referring to inanimate objects. Chylinskis used masculine singular third-person pronouns replacing nouns denoting both animate and inanimate objects in the adessive only (76 times), with the sole exception of one instance (Jas 1,25). The feminine singular third-person pronouns are used somewhat differently. Their forms are generally differentiated: the inessive is used only in place of pronouns replacing nouns denoting inanimate objects, whereas the adessive is used indiscriminately (in Mt 1,20; Mk 5,33; Lk 1,56, the adessive forms of feminine singular third-person pronouns replace the nouns wife and Mary, while in Mt 21,33; Mt 23,21; Rom 1,17; Rev 1,3 they replace the nouns church, gospel, prophecy, vineyard). Thus, in Chylinskis’s translation, feminine third-person pronouns are the weak link where the mixing of the inessive and adessive begins.

106 |

G I N A K A V A L I Ū N A I T Ė

In the literature, examples of this type are given from the writings of Bretkūnas, Daukša, and Sirvydas; most of the examples here involve the use of third-person pronouns in the inessive and adessive in the same context:

there is no iumpi truth PS₁ 130₁₈–₁₉; there is no iuole [wejkatos PS₁ 125₂₀–₂₁; … Dwalia S. was iamimp DP 429₃₂–₃₃; Dwaliá S. was iame DP 426₃₉–₄₀ (quoted according to Maskuliūnas 2000: 206).

Such inconsistent usage may have arisen from the referential function of pronouns: in different contexts they can refer either to living beings or to inanimate objects.

2.4. Unlike in the texts discussed earlier, pronouns are used in Bretkūnas’s writings. Here, the inner state of a person or persons and actions in their consciousness are expressed by the first- and second-person pronouns and the reflexive pronoun in the inessive (unlike in Chylinskis) and the adessive, for example:

But it has no root fawimp BNT Mt 13,21; the Pharisee stood thus, himself faw eie praying BNT Lk 18,11; And they said fawija BNT Lk 20,5; Satan fawija → fawije was divided against himself BNT Lk 11,17; Did not our hearts burn mulūi BNT Lk 24,2 (quoted according to Gelumbec kaitė 1997: 189).

However, it must be borne in mind that in this position the inessive in Bretkūnas’s NT translation is often replaced by the adessive:

they thought fawei → fawip BNT Lk 12,17; he said fawije → fawip BNT Lk 18,4; [the light that tawije →tawipi is in you BNT Lk 11,35; you will know how I am Tiewieie →Tiew+pi, and you manije →manipi, and I iuſuie → iuſuie / iuſuia →iuſipi BNT Jn 14,20; (quoted according to Gelumbec kaitė 1996:157; 1997: 189).

From the illustrated pattern of replacing the inessive with the adessive, we see that Bretkūnas doubted the suitability of the inessive in this position and sensed a difference between the domains of use of the cases under discussion. Range (1995: 99–101) explains this inconsistent distinction between usage domains by the influence of the source texts for the translation. It is quite likely that the German construction in + DAT. may have favored the occurrence of the inessive in such positions (although in Chylinskis’s translation these constructions had no influence whatsoever on the use of the adessive). The presence of German constructions with + ACC. in the same kinds of contexts encouraged Bretkūnas, at least occasionally, to replace the inessive with the adessive. These replacements were most likely influenced not only by the originals used for translation, but also by Bretkūnas’s own linguistic intuition or his doubts about which form was better. The hypothesis that Bretkūnas sensed a distinction between the adessive associated with animacy and the inessive associated with location is also supported by Gelumbec kaitė’s data (1999: 217), showing that in BNT the adessive is not replaced by the inessive when an action in a person’s (or persons’) consciousness or the localization of mental processes is expressed. Inessive (allative) forms in BNT are occasionally corrected to the adessive also when referring to a place among things or to spread within an environment:

ADESYVAS CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIME

107

of those things which mufui → mufip had been accomplished among us BNT Lk 1,1; the miracles which iufui → iulip were done among them BNT Lk 10,13; I have spoken to you iufump → iufipi while I was with you BNT Jn 14,25 (quoted from Gelumbeckaitė 1996: 157; 1997: 191–192).

This is another type of use of the inessive and adessive, arising from different circumstances: the adessive meaning of being with someone, in someone’s environment, is very close to the meaning of location among something, of being spread throughout someone’s environment. It is even possible to imagine that the meaning of being with someone is the singular adessive meaning, whereas the meaning of being in someone’s environment, of being spread among something, is the plural adessive meaning, cf.:

Who was Storafteyp Sergiubiep Powilep zmogumpi ibmintingampi ChNT ApD 13,7; Are not his sisters here with us? mufimp? ChNT Mt 13,56.

In ChNT, the meaning of location among something or of being spread within it is expressed not only by the plural adessive of first- and second-person pronouns, but also (when this meaning is denoted by members occupying a lower position on the scale of individuation—that is, third-person pronouns or nouns) by the plural inessive or prepositional constructions:

So that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled mufimp ChNT Rom 8,4; I have spoken these things to you while I was iufimp ChNT Jn 14,25; What is exalted among zmoneſa ChNT Lk 16,15; and they had favor among all zmoneſa ChNT ApD 2,47; <Therefore> when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay → remain jofe ChNT Jn 4,40.

We cannot say that in these cases Chylinskis confused the domains of use of the inessive and adessive in expressing location among something. On the contrary, he sensed their boundaries very subtly: he expressed more highly individuated parts of speech or their subcategories (first- and second-person pronouns) with the plural adessive, and less highly individuated ones (third-person pronouns and nouns) with the plural inessive. Similarly, Jonas Bretkūnas used the plural adessive of pronouns in the Bible translation to express location among something (most often in corrections). When location or distribution among something is denoted by a noun, it takes the inessive case (as in Chylinskis’s translation) (Gelumbeckaitė 1997: 191–192):

the kingdom of God is among you → iufipi BNT Lk 17,21; he has taken away my reproach, ſmonieſa → among people BNT Lk 1,25 (quoted from Gelumbeckaitė 1996:157; 1997: 91).

Unlike Chylinskis, Bretkūnas also used the plural inessive of first- and second-person pronouns to express location among something:

of those things which mului → mufip had been accomplished among us BNT Lk 1,1; the miracles which iufui → iufip were done among them BNT Lk 10,13 (quoted from Gelumbeckaitė 1997: 191).

We see that in Bretkūnas’s Bible translation the domain of use of the adessive is narrower than in ChNT, while that of the inessive is considerably broader: 1) unlike Chylinskis, Bretkūnas, when referring to living beings

108

GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ

to express location in the spiritual sphere, he used the inessive of first- and second-person pronouns and the reflexive pronoun, although he sometimes corrected it to the adessive; 2) to express location among or between something, Bretkūnas, unlike Chylinskis, also used the plural inessive of first- and second-person pronouns. We can regard Bretkūnas’s usage as a confusion of the inessive and adessive.

In other old writings, only cases of confusion between the inessive and adessive of third-person pronouns have been found. The reasons for this confusion most likely lie in the language system itself: the boundaries between the meanings of the inessive and adessive may have differed among authors. In the language system of some authors, the use of the adessive was associated with a higher degree of individuality (Chylinskis), while elsewhere (Daukša, Sirvydas) its domain of use may also have included entities with a lower degree of individuality. The question of why the inessive is used much more broadly in Bretkūnas’s writings than in those of other authors should be investigated separately.

3. CONCLUSIONS

RELATIONSHIP TO THE SOURCE TEXTS. The main equivalents in the source texts for the adessive constructions used in ChNT are locative prepositional constructions Dutch in + DAT. / ACC. (58%) and Polish w + LOC. (60%); less frequently, we find Dutch by + DAT. (23%) and Polish u + GEN. (22%) in the corresponding places. The remaining equivalents are Dutch op + DAT. / ACC., voor + DAT. / ACC., aan + DAT. / ACC., and Polish przy + LOC., przez + ACC., z + INSTR. No tendencies indicating that any of these constructions encouraged the use of the adessive were observed. The adessive constructions analyzed in the text correspond to by + DAT.; in the corrections, they are occasionally changed to pas + ACC., su + INSTR., but there is no basis for claiming that these corrections were prompted by the source texts.

USAGE. Adessive constructions denote a location in the spiritual sphere of living beings, a location at someone’s place or in someone’s surroundings, and a location among or between entities, as well as distribution (only plural adessives of first- and second-person pronouns are used with this meaning). ChNT uses adessive constructions to indicate location in inanimate objects only very rarely; just a few such cases were found. ChNT does not use the adessive to express location next to something.

In ChNT, the meaning of the adessive is directly related to grammaticalized animacy: adessive forms of parts of speech denoting living beings are used more frequently. The adessives used in ChNT correspond exactly to Silverstein’s animacy hierarchy scale (the most frequently attested are adessive forms of first- and second-person pronouns, somewhat less frequently those of proper names and third-person pronouns, and still less frequently those of personal nouns; there are no adessive forms of names for living beings other than humans or of inanimate objects) and to the individuation features of the individuation hierarchy (adessives of proper names and of parts of speech higher in the animacy hierarchy are used more frequently; singular adessive forms are incomparably more frequent than plural ones; only adessives of concrete nouns are used).

This confirms Zinkevičius’s observation that adessive forms tend to be used more often when speaking about living beings, and Smoczyński’s conclusion that the adessive and inessive, and respectively the allative and illative, stand in a relation of complementary distribution according to the animacy: inanimacy opposition.

USE OF THE INESSIVE IN PLACE OF THE ADESSIVE AND VICE VERSA

1. Cases in which the inessive and adessive are used in a single construction and the principle of agreement is not violated (I. Matheiu[p] tapagaliauſiagi Galwagi MŽK 24₇,₉; ira and wilo ir per wiø, ir julump wiole ChNT Ef 4,6, etc.) should not be considered cases of confusion between the inessive and adessive

ADESYVAS CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIME | 109

facts; both cases are used with a locative meaning: the parts of speech or their categories occupying a higher position in the hierarchy of individuation or animacy, respectively, take the adesive, while parts of speech expressing less individuation and their subcategories take the inessive. This concerns the complementary distribution determined by semantic features.

2. Although the plural adesives of first- and second-person pronouns in ChNT are used to denote location among something and extension, the plural inessives of third-person pronouns juose and the plural inessives žmonėse should not be considered examples of confusion between the adesive and inessive, because in Chylinskis’s language the plural of third-person pronouns and nouns, as a weakly individuated category, had no plural adesive forms. Therefore, the inessive is used here in place of the adesive. The same applies in other old writings: žmonele bediewiufemp ir neyßtikumiufemp DP 44^52–53 and elsewhere.

3. In Chylinskis’s language, the boundaries between the meanings of the inessive and adesive are clearly distinguished and almost never confused. Only a few such examples were found in the entire NT; occasionally, through oversight, an inessive (of a third-person pronoun) used in place of an adesive is corrected to the adesive (Mt 23,21).

4. In Bretkūnas’s writings, unequivocal instances of confusion between the inessive and adesive should include the use of the inessive and adesive of first- and second-person pronouns and the reflexive pronoun to indicate a location in the spiritual space of living beings (fshwieſumas kuris tawịe → tawipi is BNT Lk 11,35 etc.), as well as the plural inessive and adesive of first- and second-person pronouns to indicate a location among something (those things which mului → mulip were handed over BNT Lk 1,1 etc.).

In other old writings, the inessive and adesive are confused when third-person pronouns are used to indicate a location in the spiritual space of living beings (Dwalía S. būwo iame DP 426^39–40; Dwalía buwo iamimp DP 426^32–33), and when the plural inessives and adesives of third-person pronouns or proper names and names for persons are used to indicate a location among something (nera iumpi teyßibes PS₁ 130^18–19; nera iuole [weykatos PS₁ 125^20–21; one should have wilładós malóne Diewiep and gerūliamp žmoneleſemp DP 67^8–9; žmonele bediewiufemp ir neyßtikumiufemp DP 44^52–53).

SIGNS

[...] – omission

žmog[us] – restored abbreviation

→ – changed to

⇒ – synonym

{...} – illegible

Γ – beginning of correction

∠ abc\>– deleted

ABBREVIATIONS

Acc. – accusativus (accusative)

ADES. – adessivus (present peripheral locative)

ALLAT. – allativus (allative peripheral locative)

DAT. – dativus (dative)

110

GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ

GEN. – genitivus (genitive)

ILLAT. – illativus (illative interior locative)

INSTR. – instrumentalis (instrumental)

Pol. – in Polish

LOC. – locativus (present interior locative)

NOM. – nominativus (nominative)

Dutch – in Dutch

ABBREVIATIONS

BNT – THE NEW TESTAMENT. Translated into the Lithuanian language by Jonas Bretkūnas, pastor of Labguva. 1580. Quoted from Range J.D., Scholz, Fr. eds., THE NEW TESTAMENT. Translated into the Lithuanian language by Jonas Bretkūnas [...] 1580, facsimile of manuscripts 7 and 8, 1991, Paderborn-Munich-Vienna-Zurich.

BP – POSTILLA, that is, a brief and simple exposition of the Gospels [...] By Jonas Bretkūnas, pastor of Lithuania in Königsberg, Prussia. Printed in Königsberg by Georg Osterberger. In the year of Our Lord 1591.

BrAB – The Holy Bible, that is, the Books of the Old and New Testament, accurately translated from Hebrew, Greek, and Latin into Polish, with diligence and fidelity, [Brest], 1563.

ChNT – Czesław Kudzinowski, Jan Otrębski, Chylinski’s Lithuanian Bible. New Testament 2, Text, Poznań: Ossoliński National Institute, 1958.

DP – CATHOLIC POSTILLA, that is: An exposition of the Gospels for every Sunday and feast throughout the year. By the priest Mikalojus Daukša, canon of Medininkai / translated from Polish. With the permission and authorization of the superiors, in Vilnius, at the press of the Academy of the SOCIETY OF JESUS. A.D. 1599.

GdB – The Holy Bible, that is, the Books of the Old and New Covenant, carefully and faithfully translated into Polish from the Hebrew and Greek languages [...], [Danzig], 1632.

MžK – CATECHISMUS, a simple little book, the art of reading and writing and hymns for Christianity, and for young children, newly compiled in Königsberg, on the eighth day of the month of March, in the year of God’s birth. M.D.XLVII.

PS – POINTS OF SERMONS from Advent until Lent, in the Lithuanian language, with an explanation in Polish, BY the Reverend Konstanty Szyrwid / Theologian of the Society of Jesus / published with the permission of the superiors. In Vilnius, at the printing house of the Academy of the Society of Jesus, in the year M.DC.XXIX.

StB – The Bible, that is, the entire Holy Scripture, containing all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. By order of the High and Mighty Lords, the States General of the United Netherlands [...] Faithfully translated from the original languages into our Dutch tongue [...] and, by common order of the Dutch churches, corrected for printing errors and mistakes found in the first printing. In Amsterdam, printed by the widow of the late Paulus Aertsz van Ravelstein [...] In the year 1657.

LITERATŪRA

ANDERSON, S. R. 1985: Inflectional morphology. Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3, Grammatical categories and the lexicon, Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press., 151–201.

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

GELUMBECKAITĖ, J. 1996: Vulgatos prielinksnių konstrukcijų santykis su inesyvu J. Bretkūno „Evangelijos pagal Luką“ vertime. Baltistica 31 (1), 155–161.

GELUMBECKAITĖ, J. 1997: Postpoziciniai vietininkai J. Bretkūno „Evangelijos pagal Luką“ vertime. Baltistica 32 (2), 179–202.

GELUMBECKAITĖ, J. 1999: Linksnių ir prielinksnių konstrukcijų vartosena Jono Bretkūno „Evangelijos pagal Luką“ vertime. Daktaro disertacijos rankraštis, Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

HOPPER, P. J., THOMPSON, S. A. 1980: Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 251–299.

ADESYVAS CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIME

111

KAVALIŪNAITĖ, G. 2001: Chylinskio Naujojo Testamento vertimas ir jo šaltiniai: įrašai bei teksto taisymai. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 44, 105–128.

KAZLAUSKAS, J. 2000: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. I d., Rinktiniai raštai 1, parengė A. Rosinas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

KUDZINOWSKI, Cz. 1964: Biblia Litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament 3, Indeks, Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

LAIGONAITĖ, A. 1957: Pašalio vietininkai dabartinėje kalboje. Lemchenas, Ch., red., Kai kurie lietuvių kalbos gramatikos klausimai, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 21–39.

MASKULIŪNAS, B. 2000: Dėl vieno posesyvumo raiškos atvejo senuosiuose raštuose. Baltistica 34 (2), 199–208.

MINDAK, J. 1990: Językowa kategoria żywotności w polszczyźnie i słowiańszczyźnie (na tle innych języków świata). Próba ujęcia typologicznego, Wrocław: Ossolineum.

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

RANGE, J.-D. 1992: Kommentierte Edition des Bandes 7 der altlitauischen Bibelübersetzung (Evangelien und Apostelgeschichte) von Joh. Bretke, Labiau 1580. Habilitationsschrift, vorgelegt dem Fachbereich 13 Romanistik–Slavistik der Westfälischen Wilhelmsuniversität Münster.

RANGE, J.-D. 1995: Allativ und Adessiv in altlitauischen Texten des 16. Jahrhunderts. Linguistica Baltica 4, 96–102.

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

ROSINAS, A. 2000: Ines yvo ir adesyvo formų kilmės ir raidos klausimu. Baltistica 34 (2), 173–183.

ROSINAS, A. 2001: Mikalojaus Daukšos tekstų įvardžių semantinė ir morfologinė struktūra, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

SILVERSTEIN, M. 1976: Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Dixon, R.M.W., ed., Grammatical categories in Australian languages, New Jersey: Humanities Press (Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Linguistics Series, 22), 112–171.

SMOCZYŃSKI, W. 2001: Przypadki lokalne języków bałtyckich. Id., Język litewski w perspektywie porównawczej, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 214–216.

TIMBERLAKE, A. 1975: Hierarchies in the genitive of negation. Brecht, R. D., Levine, J. S., eds., Case in Slavic, Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, 338–359.

ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1980: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika 1, Vilnius: Mokslas.

ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1982: Lietuvių kalbos postpoziciniai vietininkai. Baltistica 18 (1), 21–38.

Gina Kavaliūnaitė Lietuvių kalbos institutas Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva gina.kav偏[email protected]

Gauta 2001 10 04