Lietuvių kalbos adverbalinis genityvas istorinės sintaksės požiūriu

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLIV (2001), 3-39 In the early stages of the development of the IE languages, the adverbal use of the partitive and the ablatival genitive was determined by the semantic relation which the noun phrase bore to the verb. In the history of Lithuanian, we observe two distinct tendencies in the evolution of the adverbal genitive. On the one hand, with many types of verbs the genitive was replaced with the accusative; on the other hand, the use of the genitive could also develop into a kind of verbal government, a syntactic rule being substituted for the original semantic motivation. A trace of the original semantic motivation underlying the adverbal genitive is still preserved in the form of the temporal genitive. The substitution of a syntactic rule for a semantic motivation is also observed in the case of the genitive of negation, which was originally a variety of the partitive genitive but became dissociated from it. 0. INTRODUCTION 0.1 In the very diverse use of the genitive in Indo-European languages, two main types are distinguished according to syntactic relationships: the adverbial genitive, associated with verbs, and the adnominal genitive, associated with nouns. The diachronic relationships of these types are still interpreted differently: some scholars consider adverbial (Delbrūck 1893: 308; Brugmann 1911: 566-567; Fraenkel 1928: 42; Hofmann, Szantyr 1972: 50-51), others — adnomenal constructions (Behaghel 1923: 484; Hirt 1934: 98; Kurytowicz 1964: 186). However, there is no doubt that both types are inherited at least from the late Indo-European period (see Brugmann 1911: 571; Krahe 1972: 69; Haudry 1977: 376; Vaillant 1977: 80). In this thesis only adverbial genitive constructions of Lithuanian language will be discussed. By clarifying their older state and direction of development, it is possible to hope for a better understanding of their diachronic relationship with adnominal constructions. 0.2. The use of verb-related pronouns in Indo-European languages has changed considerably. In modern languages, which have at least partially preserved the morphological differences between vowels, the choice of one or another objective vowel is determined by the syntactic conjugation of the verb itself: due to its valency characteristics, the verb is usually required- * Since the Lithuanian language data in the article are discussed in the light of the common Indo-European language g ų y psnyje around the south! In comparison to the context, verbs and other grammatical units are referred to by the terms commonly used in comparative grammar (e.g. nominative, genitive, ablative, infinitive, etc.). 4 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS pronounces one or more vowels (in most cases with prepositions), which may be the same or different in different languages, cf. controlling the country, russian. upravljat' stranoj, german. iiover the land rule ir pan. In the ancient times of the development of Indo-European languages, the relationship of verbs with consonants was apparently different. Already Antoine Meillet has observed that in Indo-European sentences the words were much more independent (autonomous) and related to each other according to their own meaning. The same verb could be accompanied by various adverbs, depending on the shade of meaning they were intended to express; they were chosen by the meaning of the verb itself, not by the verb “controlling”. For example, in ancient Greek, the verb xb ‘to hear’ could go alone, without any syllable, could be associated with the accusative, meaning the audible thing (žxAuvov addrjv Hom. ‘I heard a voice’), with the genitive, meaning the source of the sound (žxAvov adroū ‘I heard from him’), with the dative, meaning the purpose (edyopéve por Exiuvov ‘asking me <note: asking me> I heard’); According to Meillet, the accusative or genitive here relates to the verb similarly to the instrumental or local verbs (odaot Avo “I hear with my ears”, otxo: Ade “I hear the house”); plg. dar Meillet 1934: 359; Meillet, Vendryes 1952: 576-577; Humbert 1954: 272; Schwyzer, Debrunner 1975: 106. Thus, the so-called "grammatical" syllables in the Indo-European languages of antiquity were not yet as distinctly separated from the "concrete" (in the sense given by Kurytowicziaus in 1949) as in later times. The semantic nature of the verb-verb connection of the inflections has been confirmed by studies of the Vedic, Homeric epics and other most ancient Indo-European languages (Haudry 1977: 155 et seq., 178 etc.; Renou 1965: 231-32; 1952: 355-356; Chantraine 1953: 12-15, 232, 319-321; Desnickaja 1984: 100 et seq., 118, 150; Neumann 1960; cf. also Kurzova 1993: 42-44). Although this state of the usage of phrases is not fully preserved in any Indo-European language, traces from the ancient times of these languages allow us to reconstruct it. Of course, the semantic independence of the verbs could never be absolute. The verb, as the main means of expressing the predicate, already by its meaning requires one or more arguments (actants) of a certain type, expressed by syllables. The words and the words themselves are in a way connected to each other." For example, Indo-European verbs such as *d6-‘to give’ presupposed actants denoting the performer (agent), object (patient) and benefactor of the action, but the grammatical expression of these actants was not strictly defined. Patientas in various languages can be described both in the accusative and in the genitive pri1 Example: "Une phrase indo-europčenne se compose d'un nombre variable d'ėlėments impénétrables, autonomes, significatifs par eux-mêmes, qu'on appelle mots [...] (355) Le cas auquel sont mis les compléments ne dépend pas du verbe, mais seulement du sens à exprimer (358) [...]. In Indo-European there was no “rerection” of one word by another, as there is in Latin for example; The autonomy of the word is the principle that commands the structure of the Indo-European sentence” (Meillet 1934: 355-359). 2 Even in Homeric Greek, the grammatical accusative of the object is in many cases already clearly distinguished from the “concrete” accusative of the direction and purpose (cf. De Boel 1988: 44-65). Plg.: „The characterization of predicate types (‘verb types’) is made in terms of (85) the „frame“ of caseroles that obligatory participate in events (states coded by these predicates) and conversely, the characterization of the various semantic case-roles must be made in terms of the predicate-types with which they form propositions“ (Givon 1984: 85-86). LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE ADVERBAL GENITIVE | 5 depending on what shade of meaning is to be emphasized, cf. lit. I gave him grain | grains; rus. dial. dal emu chleb /chleba, cf. pa somam ‘to drink soma’ and pa somasya “to drink somos” (Haudry 1977: 377). On the other hand, with the verb with the meaning *do, neither the percipient, nor the contentive or the result actants are possible at all. In the development of Indo-European languages, a strengthening of the syntactic links of verbs with verbs has been observed, which eventually led to the control of verb or prepositional constructions (see Kurytowicz 1964a: 18, 29; 1977: 141-156, 178; Desnickaja 1984: 132, etc.). At first they were used alone, then with prepositions, and they “attached” to certain verbs, and their choice became dependent on the syntactic valency of the verb. The way in which this process took place is one of the most important questions that has not yet been clearly answered. 0.3 Since Lithuanian is the best of all Indo-European languages to have preserved both the forms of the verbs and the ancient features of their use, its data on this subject are undoubtedly significant. It is particularly useful to pay attention to the genitive constructions of verbs. By observing the use of the adverbial genitive in Lithuanian dialects and in old writings and comparing it with Latvian and other related languages that have followed the path of syntactic development, it is possible to see the old, semantica-based, verb-verb relationships and the grammatization phenomena of those relationships. In this respect, the syntax of Lithuanian vowels has not been studied, but so far many valuable data have been collected from the present language (especially Jablonskis 1957: 554-672; Senn 1966: 383-440; Ulvydas, ed. 1965: 182-210; 1976: 20-78, 458-467, 485-520; Balkevičius 1963; Šukys 1998; Paulauskiené 1989: 75-147) and from ancient writings (Fraenkel 1928; Palionis 1967: 151-170; Schmalstieg 1987: 122-272), which are closely related to the related Scandinavian languages; they continue to be exploited. 0.4. In the Lithuanian language usage of the adverbial genitive, two main meanings can be distinguished. The first —partitive meaning is considered to be typical of the Indo-European genitive since ancient times. The genitive of the negative is close to partitive constructions and is particularly pronounced in Lithuanian. The second is ablative. The forms that had this meaning used to mean separation or exit (respectively, the point of departure). In some Indo-European languages (Indo-Iranian, partly Italic) these forms were included in the conjugation system as a separate vowel — ablative; in others they were attached to the genitive (Baltic, Greek) or dative (Celtic, Germanic). The ablative forms of meaning have left traces in the conjugation of the eastern Baltic and Slavic (i)o stem: such traces are considered to be the singular genitive with the ending *-4 (lie. Wolf, la. which, s.b.s.l. vhhka)*. When they are attached to the paradigm of genitive forms, the ablative (separation) meaning becomes one of the genitive meanings. The old meanings of the genitive and their various variants are now intertwined in some places and not always clearly distinguished. i These forms have two interpretations. Some researchers, representing the traditional approach, see here a fragmented formant *-d or *et (cf. s. lat. GNAIV-OD, s.ind. ašv-at, Zr. Stang 1966: 70, 181 with lit.), others find only an elongated stem vowel (Kazlauskas 1968: 174; Mažiulis 1970: 99-106), cf. also 3.1. 6 | WORLD OF WORDS 1. PARTY IMPORTANCE 1.0 A traditional term of partitive meaning is the use of the genitive to describe a part of a thing or a set of things or a clearly undefined number of things (persons- ). This was the case in many Indo-European languages in the early periods of their development (e.g., in the Gothic, Ancient Indian, Greek monuments), but over time it faded and the use of the genitive or accusative became dependent on the syntactic control of the verb. The partitive meaning of the genitive is still quite clearly distinguished in the old Slavic scripts, but it is later strongly neutralized by the prevailing tendency to designate all the suffixes denoting living beings as genitive. Only the remains of partitive genitive constructions are left in Latin (cf. Hofmann, Szantyr 1972: 52). In the Lithuanian language, the partitive genitive has survived to this day. The use of this verb in Latvian traditional folklore (especially written in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) is quite close to Lithuanian; Although the opposition of the partitive genitive to the accusative and nominative in the present Latvian language is in many cases worn out, the Latvian language data help to see more clearly the direction and perspective of syntactic development. In such circumstances, even the data of the present Lithuanian dialects are important evidences of the ancient use of the genitive. In 1957, the Polish linguist Janusz Jablonski defined partitive meaning as the meaning of insignificance or part and defined it as follows: "In the place of a noun or a suffix, if we do not want to indicate with those syllables, much or little, the whole thing or only part of it is in the mind of the speaker, usually if the part of the thing or group of things is only thought of by the speaker, not the whole thing, not the whole group of things, so we use in our language, to express part of our thought, insignificance, or part, kilm-ka". The term "indefinite quantity" has now become common in Lithuanian linguistics. It perhaps best encompasses such a variety of genitive use; in addition, the difference from the genitive of the defined quantity, which Jablonski (1957: 576) called the progenitor of the quantity, is clearly described. Partitioning has been tried to be defined more generally. For example, Brugmann called it the meaning of the scope (Bereich), which shows that the statement is valid not for the entire scope and content of the noun concept or simply the concept of the noun, but only for its particular scope, for what belongs to it, etc.’ This concept was adopted by other researchers and applied to a wide variety of cases of adverbial and adnominal genitive use (see Sommer 1925: 10; Krahe 1972: 70 et al., 81-83). However, from such a general and abstract meaning, it is hardly possible to derive a more concrete meaning historically. It is more likely that the older has a specific meaning, which is the basis of the partitive term. On the basis of the partitive meaning, the genitive, going with the objective verbs, forms opposition to the accusative (found stones: found stones; heard rumors: heard rumors), sometimes to the instrumental (filled the pit with money / money), and going with the verbs of the state and its change — to the nominative (there were stones: there were stones; “As a basic feature of the adverbial genitive, it can be abstracted that the statement does not apply to the full extent and content of the nominal concept or the nominal concept par excellence, but only to its scope, to what belongs to it, etc. This is how the notion of the partitive often arises” (Brugmann 1911: 567). LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE ADVERBAL GENITIVE | 7 spread rumors: spread rumors). In the first case, the partitive genitive is called objective, in the second - subjective. 1.1. Objective use 1.1.1. In Lithuanian, as in other related languages, the partitive genitive is usually dependent on objective verbs. It has singular and plural forms. Singular forms denote a substance, a mass of which a certain quantity is touched by the action (eaten bread, bought sugar, found gold, gave flour...), or more abstract things, not thought of in full (had the opportunity / courage, suffered pain, gave happiness...). Plural forms denote countable concrete objects (he received money, bought potatoes, found raspberries, gave toys...) or abstract concepts (he received advice, found pleasures, gave instructions...). Verbs with a partitive genitive usually denote: (a) having, receiving and giving or losing (have, receive, find, take, grab, give, buy, give...): Turiu aš dar tos drobės DG; If you have money, you will have friends MRC; Beech blews until hay gets V1; Bread I got SRD; Climb up on the pot — maybe you will find some bacon Kr; Science takes money Gs; Give it to the earth fertilizer ER; You bought fish, buy pepper PPR 226; Take fried meat, take cheese, butter KZR; (b) perception, experience, knowledge, receiving and transmitting information (seeing, hearing, listening, knowing, learning, teaching, reading, saying...): You were in the city, did you hear any rumors? Lš; Anna knew this fairytale KB; Work pays, and what more? LNKV; Read there gossip stuff SRAG IT 281; Tell me about you bad news DKS; (c) valgyma, gėrimą, ragavimg ir pan. (valgyti, ėsti, gérti, ragduti, skanduti- ...): Jei tu pieno valgysi, per Velykq po pecium uzdarysiu KB; Hand, horse, avizéliy VL; But others silently drink tobacco DONPP 60; Tastes the must, seeing if there will be a good beer OB; Please taste our butter UZp; (d) various other actions that may affect a certain quantity of things or persons (nést, carry, befti, sow, cook, kept, put, do...): Aug ievelė, žaliuoja, žyd baltai, neš juodų uogų N 34; Šitan galan gryčios tai vežė žemių ir smėlio SLM; Berk sand tonne pit DRSK; He sat down and kissed hemp to work DGC; I boiled meat for lunch Kp; Grate the potatoes, pancakes will bake V1K; Thanks butter, don't eat dry bread Kp (for more examples see. Jablonskis 1957: 578-579; Fraenkel 1928: 42-47; Bulygina 1959: 96-107; Senn 1966: 393; Ulvydas, ed. 1976: 24-26, 461; Grenda 1979: 33-38; Svambaryté 1996: 39-47; Sukys 1998: 102-107). 8 || VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS 1.1.2. Partitive genitive with verbs of corresponding meanings is widely used in ancient writings; In translations it is used in many cases independently of the original: (a) ghis... ischszabaia Welbludus, and dawe iemus Schaudu. (number -s) is the paschal BrB I Mos 24,32 (vi gab jnen stro vnd futter LB); dowanoio iam Aukso, Incense and Myrrhen BRB MT 2,11 (schenckten im Gold, Weyrauch und Myrrhen LB); Diews prikel debessis dangaus/Teikdams Žemei Litaus MZ 241,, (Oui operit coelum nubibus, et parat terrae pluviam McH 303); (b) Oath of faith BRB Lx 18,20 (Mandata nosti VULG; Du weissest die Gebot wol LB); weisdek mana ranku BrP, 43,4; szmones szwalga to isch tolo Jos 36,25 (The people who came from far LB); kure bila esch nepermaniau, tos klausiausi BRB Jos 29,16 (which thing I did not know/which I investigated LB); (c) come, and eat of the bread of this day (Ruth 2:14); 0 others, while they were drinking, bought a bottle of sweet wine BRB Arp 2,13 (Sie sind vol stisses weins LB; musto pleni sunt isti VULG); kits plescha/ir surb krauio artimoio sawa BrP 472; (d) Neschkit sche Szuwu BRB IN 21,10 (Bringt her von den Fischen LB); And made wissokiu Stotku II Mos 38,3 (Vnd macht allerley gerete LB); Go, and buy us the law of the LORD, the LORD our God. keep (from -kiet) my oath BRB Jon 14,15 (haltet meine gebot LB). 1.1.3. In Latvian folklore, the partitive genitive is still clearly associated with verbs of (a) and (b) groups, e.g.: duod... man maizites (var.: maiziti) “give me bread”; kur jimsim naudos ‘where we will take money’; tėva klausisiet "you will listen to the father (voice)'; let me look upon thee (var.: tevi) ‘that I may look upon thee' (Endzelins 1951: § 394.3, 6). However, the genitive is usually associated with the verbs of the (c) and (d) groups only when they have full-meaning prepositions (e.g.: maizes piésusi ‘she ate bread’, alus piedzérusi ‘beer drunk’, pieberam... rudzu ‘we add ruddy’ (Endzelins ibid., cf. Bergmane et al., ed. 1959: 394). When the genitive is used as a variant of the dominant accusative, the semantic opposition of the Siu verbs in Latvian is iSblesusi (Gaters 1993: 101). 1.1.4. The partitive genitive of Lithuanian, going with all the verbs of the groups mentioned here, is opposed to the accusative as a marked member of opposition, whose distinctive feature is the meaning of an indefinite quantity, e.g.: ėmė mėsą /mėsos, matė paukščius /birvių, gėrė pieną | pieno, bere grūdus | grūdų, plg. God has given clear sky, God will give and rain a lot. The genitive form here is determined not by the conjugation of the verb, but by the partitive meaning of the verb itself. At the same time, the semantic coordination of verb and verb forms is also noticeable. It is not possible to oppose the accusative and the genitive with all transitive verbs. It has been observed that the partitive genitive is more often associated with verbs denoting a single, less often a repeated action (Švambarytė 1996: 47). On the other hand, verbs denoting actions whose objects cannot be divided (love, respect, 8 Cf. Daniel Klein’s remark on the dual use of the verb to listen in the sense of physical perception: with the accusative (Klausyti žodi Diewo) and with the genitive (Klausyti žodžio Diewo) KIG 152. More about klausyti with accusative and genitive zr. Fraenkel 1928: 72–73. LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE ADVERBAL GENITIVE | 9 like) or affected only to a certain extent (svéikinti, judėti, ldidoti...). However, even when the meaning of the verb allows it to be associated with a part of the object or a certain number of objects, only the accusative is often used. For example, the partitive genitive is not used (or no longer used) with the non-prepositional verbs ardy, baidyti, blizginti, dažyti, dirbti, draskyti, dulklinti, ganyti, gaudyti, gerbti, grėbti, nugriauti, kapoti, kasti, kirsti, maišyti, mėgti, mylėti, rauti, rašyti, skųsti, statyti, teisti and many others. 1.1.5. There are data that suggest that the use of the partitive genitive in the present language has been significantly narrowed due to the generalization of the accusative to mean a semantic object (patient, contentive). In ancient writings, the partitive genitive is sometimes found in cases where the common language has already generalized the accusative. The partitive genitive was used alongside the accusative in Old Lithuanian with the verb memoriae: atmižiti, minėti, užmiršti, etc. : Panas atsimines est/musu M7 464. “(The LORD remembers us; Dominus memor fuit nostri MCH 526); Then Peter remembered the word of Jesus (from Christ) BrB Mt 26,75 (Da dachte Petrus an die wort Ihesu LB); atmink tawo surinkimo RPS 74,2 (remember your Common Law); O atmink manes BRB I Moz 40,14 (But remember my LB); Augiwe pikta/ ir waro sawa uszmirscht BrP, 481,; ažumirszk žmoniu tawo, i namu tewo tawo (a zapomni narodu twego, y domu oyca twego) SP, 3,,.. (cf. with the accusative denoting the totality of things: ne gali wissa kosani atminti BRP 357, grekus musu wysus vszmirsk MZ 54,,)". This use of the genitive has been well preserved in Donelaičio writings. With the verbs at(si)minti, (pa)minėti ‘to remember- ’, pamiršti only the genitive is used, e.g.: atmena Dievo DoNŽR 401; atsimyk savo galą! RG 25; garlic and foxes densely mentioned LG 35; our troubles mentioners VD 236; his daily mentioned VD 169; work of his forgotten VD 584. However, not only the genitive but also the accusative is associated with forget, e.g.: užmiršęs dangų imasi šaukštą RG 302; neįmyną gerą pamiršti LG 10. The use of the genitive with these verbs remains in dialects, especially in traditional folklore, e.g. : Sister cried, remembering brother's KivD 340; Forgot to cut the ice with an axe SVN; Forgot your virginity AD. The genitive is replaced by the accusative here, and the semantic contradiction of these verbs is extinguished. The use of the genitive and accusative with verbs arminti, užmiršti has already been mentioned by Daniel Klein: atmenu žodžiū and žodžius, uzmirsk nami and namai KIG 152. More examples zr. Fraenkel 1928: 78; Palionis 1967: 154. On the partitive genitive with verbs of corresponding meaning in the ancient monuments of the related languages (Slavic, Germanic, Latin, Greek, s. Indian) zr. Brugmann 1911: 590-591; Hofmann, Szantyr 1972: 81, su lit. ; Schwyzer, Debrunner 1975: 108. 10 | The plural genitive of nouns denoting VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS with prepositional su verbs atsiminti, prisiminti, e.g. : Aunt recalled all kinds of adventures in VLKV (see I recalled all our adventures). 1.1.6. With the verbs to call, to shout, to kill, meaning to invite, in the ancient writings, in addition to the accusative, the genitive was used without noticeable influence of foreign sources, e.g.: tassai Elioschiaus wadin VEE 210, (Der ruffet dem Elias LB MT 27,47; Eliam vocat iste VULG); 0 atéies namūsn, suwadina gencziy ir susiédy DP 279,, (a przyszedszy do domu/ wzywa przyjacioly/y sasiūdy *W 286,; convocat amicos, et vicinos VULG LK 15,6); Wadink darbiniku, ir ataduok iiemus alu —Zawolay robotnikow, y odday im zaptatę SP I 317-319 (Voca operarios VULG MT 20,8); nesang tuien musu shauki —for there you call us to you PK 182,; tasay teypag shaukie musu —tenzec tez na nas wola PK 179; zZadinkite io/kolay arti ira —wzywaycie go poki blisko iest SP, 197,,.; plg. with the accusative: mus ne paldudamas wadina ir šauukia sawésp DP 380,,,, (nas vstawicznie pozywa y wode do Siebie *W 394 _; Tadda pakwiete Laban wissas Szmones tho kampo BRB I Moz 29,22 (Then Laban called all the people of the place LB); for acceleration and with the aliative: schauku tawesp Mz 340, (schrey ich zu dir McH 402); Balsas... schauk manensp BRB 1 Mos 4,10 (The voice... cries out to me LB). 8-9? The genitive is also associated with the corresponding verbs in Latvian folklore, cf.: kliedz brala LP VI 479 “calls brother- ”, velna saūkūdams “devil’s Sikaudamas” (Endzelins 1951: § 394; see also Fraenkel 1928: 66; 1947: 65; Palionis 1967: 154-155; Schmalstieg 1987: 163-164). 1.1.7. The verbs sdugoti, sérgeti, (pri)žiūrėti, (pri)veizdéti in the old writings also often go with the genitive, e.g. : Kurie teipaig sergeia i6 pas wartus diena ir nakti VEE 144 _ —They kept the doors open day and night LB Acts 9,24 (cf. padawe... sergeti ghy VEE 155 | —jn to keep LB APD 12,4); passisede sergeia io BRP 1389, (vnd sie sassen alda/vnd hūteten sein LB MT 27,36; et sedentes servabant eum VULG); iay sačuvate volios moj MP 124, (if you will keep my will RP 81a.,); Dawe... stirnikus/- kurie priweyzdetu tos io eldiios —kichzy by przyzrzeli tego akretu SP, 275, „plg. from Latvian folklore: meža sava (var.: meu savu) sargajiet! BW 1680,2 “guard your forest!” (Endzelins 1951: § 394.6; Fraenkel 1928: 74; 1947: 65; Palionis 1967: 155; about the genitive with sdugotis, sérgetis, signifying things from which to guard, see 3.5). 1.1.8. The partitive genitive was also used to indicate contact with a part of a thing (person), where the accusative meant the whole thing. The difference is evident in this example: and ghi nutwere ghi (i.e. on) Drapanu (above: Sermega, it. from Sermega) and biloia BRB I ENGLISH LANGUAGE ADVERBAL GENITIVE | 11 Mos 39,12 (vnd sie erwisscht jn bey seinem kleid | vnd spoke LB). Similarly, the genitive is used with other verbs of physical contact, e.g.: touching, licking, kissing: feminine... paliteja sterblies ruba io VEE 127, (ein Weib... rūret seines Kleides sawm an LB MT 9,20); palitéio karsto DP 334, (dotknąt si¢ mar *W 345); kas ira kuris (pabr.) manes liteiase (tais. liteios) BRB LK 8,45 (who is it that teeth me? Vulg; who has angered me? LB); No one is too daring, so I could kill BRB JOB 41,10 (der jn erwecken that LB), cf. also: he threw out the hair snatches DONPP 94. In dialects, the accusative is now generalized here, but the genitive has remained with the sangrazic verbs glaūstis, remtis, tvėrtis, e.g. : Glauskis in trouble of the wise but not rich LTR; leaning on a stick BM 116; While knife grip! Ds; hard work RX (cf. ius turit... io nusitemperti BRP 310, “„). 1.1.9. In Lithuanian language development, the opposite process is also observed: with some verbs, the accusative is not generalized, but the genitive of partitive origin. It has already been mentioned that the latter is more likely to be used with verbs denoting a single action (mainly the event verb). Verbs, whose non-prepositional forms can be associated with both the accusative and the genitive, after receiving a preposition in certain cases lost the ability to differentiate the verb form of the object according to its meaning. The genitive is particularly strongly established with verbs whose prefix indicates the completeness or excess of the action (e.g., per-, pri-, at-). For example, in addition to the statements nešė malkas | malkų, gėrė vyną | vyno, pirko bulves | bulvių, valgė kopūstus /kopūstų, where the genitive is opposed to the accusative on the basis of the meaning of an indefinite quantity, with the corresponding verbs having the prefix pri-, perar at(si)-, only the genitive is used, cf.: prinešė malkų, prisigėrė | persigėrė vyno, pri(si)pirko | parinko bulvių, atsivalgė kopūstų (see also Ulvydas, ed. 1976: 25; Senn 1966: 391). Similarly, the genitive is associated with non-prepositional verbs to indicate a broad scope of action, e.g. : Grain now breaks the market Kp; All of them are young men. This genitive no longer has a partitive meaning and is directly controlled by the verb. Directly controls the genitive of the contentive meaning and verbs teach, learn, e.g.: ožolinė forkėlė darbelio mokia NS 1169; mokysiuosi amato Jabl; as in the ancient writings, cf. "Mokiay manę walios sawo KN 63,,". 1.1.10. The use of the genitive is also generalized in constructions with verbs that mean striving for something, wanting, waiting, seeking, etc. In dialects and in old writings with such verbs sometimes also goes the accusative —according to Fraenke- 18 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS 1.3.2. Similarly, the genitive is associated with quantity nouns (a), numerals (b), pronouns (c) and adjectives in the genitive form (d), e.g.: (a) glėbys (firewood), stiklinė (milk), gabalas, dalis (cloth), maišas (flour), butelis (beer), būrys (people), pulkas (goose); (b) ten, eleven... (men), one hundred, one thousand... (stars), two, three... (horses); (c) several, a dozen (children- ); (d) small, full (of water, people) (for more examples of this meaning see Jablonskis 1957: 576-577; Ulvydas, ed. 1976: 202-203, 236-237, 263; 268-269). 1.3.3. The close relationship between the partitive genitive, which depends on the verb, and the genitive, which is associated with nouns and adverbs of quantity, was mentioned by Jonas Jablonskis. In the case of the partitive genitive, he stated: "Often the word for quantity is self-evident here (a little, a lot, a lot, a part...). The origin of part and quantity— when they are very closely related, they are sometimes difficult to distinguish” (Jablonski 1957: 579). The same relationship has long been observed in other related languages. Researchers, who considered the adverbial genitive usage to be the oldest, viewed the words of quantity meaning in colloquial sentences as certain suffixes specifying the meaning of the partitive genitive (Delbriick 1893: 333; Brugmann 1911: 613-614). Fraenkelis (1928: 55-60) also regarded Lithuanian examples with quantity genitive, depending on nouns and adverbs, as a kind of partitive genitive, which has been associated with verbs since ancient times. However, comparing the examples of both types, it is easy to see that the use of the partitive genitive covers only part of the noun constructions with the quantity genitive. Such compounds as a bag of flour, a few people, a lot of snow, little benefit, etc., can have a factor or adjective position in many sentences where one partitive genitive cannot replace them (see Bag of flour to carry hard; Little benefit from such work, etc.). Among the adjectives, only a few forms of the genitive of the infinitive (plna, mała) can form partitive-like constructions with the genitive, and in other cases the genitive of the quantity is joined by both the forms of the infinitive (gil, ilga, naūra, striūka) and the masculine and feminine forms of the genitive (vertas, -a; godūs, -i; gausūs, -i; sotus, -i; pilnas, -a, etc.). Thus, constructions with the quantity genitive, synonymous with the partitive genitive directly dependent on verbs, are only a specific case of the use of the quantity genitive dependent on nouns and adverbs of noun origin. Clearly derived are constructions with the genitive, depending on the verbs increase, decrease, resp. multiply, perpetuate, which can have various prefixes, e.g.: water will increase Pc; forests and fish are decreasing, see Ulvydas, red. (1976: 25). The basis of such constructions are the corresponding nouns or adverbs derived from them, associated with the genitive (many/many people, little water, etc.)*, and the verbs themselves are derived from them in the adjective. 12 The older forms daūgi, daūgia indicate the origin of the adverb daūg from the adjective genitive forms, e.g.: daugi sanariū turime VEE 23,13; linų pasėjau daugi ZT; kiekwieno stono people many yszmokitis maybe DP 64, (see also LKŽZ, 314), we find them also in the first stanzas of many compound words. LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE ADVERBAL GENITIVE | 19 1.3.4. The synonymy of some noun-adverbial and quantity genitive constructions with verb-adverbial ones has been proposed to be explained by assuming the null variant of the word signifying quantity (a little, at least, etc.) that is not defined in the latter (Girdenis, Zulys 1973: 212; Grenda 1979: 33-340). Constructions with partitive genitive, depending on the verbs, are interpreted according to the scheme: VERB + NULL SEMA “quantity” + UNDEFINED QUANTITY CELL. The word representing that zero set of quantities has either the nominative or the accusative position of the substantive. Based on this synchronic interpretation, it is possible to distinguish a large group of quantity genitive constructions depending on nouns and noun-origin forms (adverbs), consisting of: (a) constructions of defined quantity (a glass of water came running, a bag of money lay there); (b) indefinite quantity constructions with words of indefinite quantity meaning (there was some water, there was at least some money); (c) indefinite quantity constructions with unsaid (or) quantity-- meaning words (water came, there were money). Historically, such relationships of the verb-dependent partitive genitive with other quantity constructions help to understand the formation of the meaning of the indefinite quantity. Already Herman Hirt (1934: 111-116) speculated that verb combinations with the partitive genitive in Indo-European languages were established by the ellipse of the noun-like member. The origin of the reduced constructions with a stirrup (noun noun. Because of the implied nominative of the noun, the genitive of the ellipse sometimes replaces the sentence factor in such sentences as Kaimynų jau ir linus nurovė, ir roputes nukasė ŠLN (see Ulvydas, ed. 1976: 29; 290). The partitive genitive, like the adverbial genitive in general, can be diachronically derived from the system of use types of the adnominal genitive in many other cases (see Kurylowicz 1964: 184-185). Of course, it is not possible to prove this development of the genitive on the basis of the Lithuanian language, which was recorded relatively late, although it has preserved many conservative features. It can be assumed only for very distant times of the development of Indo-European languages, because the partitive genitive constructions directly related to verbs have been present in all related language groups since the very first written monuments. However, Lithuanian data clearly show that the usage characteristics of the partitive genitive and other similar constructions are best explained by their historical connections with the adverbial genitive. 1.3.5. Adnominal use is the broadest and most typical area of use for the genitive, and is often considered to be the basis of the grammatical function of this verb (see Benveniste 1962; Kurytowicz 1964: 183-186). The genitive in Lithuanian, like in other related languages, can describe nouns in many different ways, depending on the context and the lexical meanings of the nouns themselves. In addition to the already mentioned quantitative content, the variety of types of use of the adnominal genitive is based on the general meaning of dependence, which includes the meaning of property (parents' house, mother's scarf), material (gold ring, silver bullet), partitive, or part of the object (mountain peak), leveling (linen hair), purpose (bread knife), origin (peasant, forest beast), quality (intelligent man) and other meanings. With the meaning of dependence can be associated and grammatized 20 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS subjective (child’s joy, human life) and objective genitive (forest felling) types. The analysis of the types of adnominal usage in Siu and their relationships is the subject of a separate work. 1.4. Genitive of time 1.4.1. There is also the possibility of using a synchronous time machine, which can be used to calculate the time. Fraenkel regarded such cases simply as a subspecies of partitive use („eine Abart der partitiven Verwendung“ 1928: 62). In modern Lithuanian, the genitive is used relatively rarely to denote time, and only when the noun itself denotes the concept of time. The genitives of such nouns tend to adverb; of which the most common are nto, vakaro, found in dialects and traditional folklore, e.g. : I left the city in the morning SV; Morning frosts occurred at DKST; Who defended the morning, the morning dawn? NS 453; I went mushrooming in the morning at JNŠM; I can't eat Arxs for a long time in the morning; Evening, it used to be, I ride on a horse; Who sings in the morning, weeps in the evening STR; Only evening home paréjom Sv; The brothers grazed the party horses NS 453… The genitive is also used to indicate the phases of the moon: jauno reikia bulbas sodint or pilnaties AD (Vidugiris 1994: 62). Cf. the genitive of senybos ‘before’ with an even more abstract meaning: kai būdo (= was) senybos TVR (Otrębski 1934: 419). That the genitive in such cases adverbsmeans not very long ago, shows examples of folk songs with a mark, e.g. : Subata party maid swept the yard with BTR; I went to the water. 1.7. In dialects, other genitives denoting the concept of time with marks have also been observed, e.g. : Skinny days get up and sweep ZT; I don't know which mint it was Lz; well, they are given a little bit of GRV next time (Vidugiris 1994: 62; see also Ulvydas 1964: 12-13; LKŽ,, 755; LKŽ 1000; Zinkevičius 1966: 394; Valiulytė 1995: 78-79). XVII Such freely used genitives of time are also found in ancient writings, e.g.: log ischwisi kosznos dienos MZ 386,, (das du wirst schawen stetiglich Mcn 448); kalbeia kiek dienos Iskaloia BRB APD 19,9 (redet teglich LB, cotidie N); and the second day goes with ieis WP 158,,,,; neszinnate kuras (12) hadinas weschpats iusu tur ateiti WP 12-12a (you do not know | which hour the Lord will come LB MT 24,42; qua hora Dominus vester venturus sit N); tasiegu hadinas don't want to remember wissu greku ia WP 80 a; Gaigalat 1900: 45); plg. also the genitive of the compound noun midnight: as when midnight is likely Ekrutnikai Szemen nekokie atranda BRB ApD 27,27 (vmb die mitternacht LB, circa mediam noctem N), etc. BRB LK 11.5 (Gelumbeckaite 1999: 17). LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE ADVERBAL GENITIVE | 21 1.4.2. The genitive in these cases denotes the period of time during which an action takes place or occurs. The most commonly used is the acronym, or abbreviation, BS. Get up early in the morning PGG; It rained GRL and so on all evening (Valiulytė 1998: 194—241). The genitive and accusative are sometimes used in the same sentence, e.g. : Morning fish, day again fish catching go STRN. In the case of the usage of prepositional or prepositional genitive forms, it is difficult to distinguish their meaning from that of the temporal accusative or locative. However, considering the prevailing tendency to use the adverbial genitive to indicate only a partial, undefined quantity, it is possible to assume that in these cases the genitive probably differed from the accusative by a shade of partitive meaning, which faded when the time genitive was accompanied by a verb. The genitive of night, usually used to refer to the nightingale, has a purpose shade, e.g. : Then we lay overnight VZNs. It may be associated with the genitive after the verbs of movement, e.g. Juza eis naktiés Ds, for its possible connections with the partitive and adverbial genitive, see 1.1.2. and 1.3.5. In modern language, the genitive of nouns denoting the concepts of time is usually controlled by prepositions (e.g. from night, from morning, to evening, etc.). The use of the genitive in the non-verbal tense has even more declined in Latvian. Here only in folk songs are still observed conjugated compound nouns with half-, denoting the concepts of time, cf. : Pusritina saule lėca... Pusvasaras tautas jaja BW 14231/3 ‘Midsummer (= early morning) sun rose... Midsummer men were jogging’ (Gaters 1993: 106). 1.43 The Lithuanian cases of the genitive of the present tense have clear correspondences in the ancient monuments of other related languages, e.g., Slavic (s. rus. toi že zimy pridoša nemci I NovG LET. 128, see Borkovskij, ed. (1968: 161) ‘in that winter the Germans came’), Germanic (Go. nahts ‘night’, s. German a. tages ‘day’), S. Greek (fjptpag ‘day’, Hols ‘morning’, vuxrog ‘night’), S. Indian (aktoh ‘night’) (Delbrūck 1893: 356-359; Brugmann, 1911: 573-574; Behaghel 1923: 590 etc; Vondrak 1928: 245; Hirt 1934: 106-108; Krahe 1972: 79; Vaillant 1977: 79; Schwyzer, Debrunner 1975: 112-113); here, apparently, belongs the prefixed Latin nox “night, i. e. night (Hofmann, Szantyr 1972: 85). This suggests that the time-related remains of the adverbial use of the genitive are inherited from times when the objective function of this verb was not yet established. 2. NEGATIVE GENITIVE 2.1. Already in the first printed Lithuanian grammar the following rule was formulated: "Verbs with the negative part né usually get the genitive, although otherwise, without it, they would join the accusative". Daniel Klein also gave vivid examples showing the operation of this law: You do not know him | asz pažystu ji IN 8,55; You shall not have any other God, do not keep the laws of Moses II 20, 3; 14 (KLG 154), Good wheat brings good wheat | good wheat cannot bring evil wheat MT 7,17. "Verba cum particula negativa nė posita fregventissimė Genitivum recipiunt, cum alias sine illa Accusativam admitterent" KLG 154; similarly KLC 107. 22 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS Similarly, the genitive goes instead of the nominative in some state su verbs that have received a negative. Nors Klein does to not name the law, but also gives examples of such use: nera nieko gero szeme piktame swiete; there was no man who could save; | Jeib wylaus nebutu KLG 154. Card Klein observed that sometimes verbs require a negative ir su accusative: newėsk mus ing pagundima MT 6,13; lest death should make you drunken, but no, you are drunken. Similarly, the genitive of the denial is described in ir SapūnoŠulco's later (Ruigius, Milkaus) gramatikose. 2.2. The genitive of the denial has su been widely used with objective verbs since the beginning of the writing, both in the original and in the translated texts, where it — is used independently of the influence ir of the originals (usually the accusative is translated by it): nekada manes nog iusu neatmeskiet liudik prysch artima tawa neteisio liudima Ir MZ 9 6; Ne MZ 19,, ,. (Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour LB; You shall not bear false witness. McH 79); Ne Turkish kyty Diewy preg manes Mz 18, t. p. VEE 11, (Thou shalt not have other gods beside me. MCH kurs 78); szmogus isch yūssu... er ne Leave the nine in the nine ir forest VEE 88 4 LK 15,4 (What kind of man... who does not leave the nine vnd ninety jnn of the wise LB); Month io ne nuszawinkem (...) Don't shed blood, but mix it Dūbena BRB I Moz 37, 21-22 (Let vns not jn dead... Don't forget blood LB); Tatay is before aniis who no want | to do ne DP 64,, (which does not want to do anything) *W 65); Ir ne pakdka tau to DP 64, (A For it is not enough na *W 65). The ir contradiction of the genitive accusative is particularly obvious in cases where the verbs, going to the su accelerated negation be or his, depend on either the genitive or the accusative: manne Tu apdirgai, nei manens mili BRB Teis 14,16 (You're angry with me vnd don't love me LB); iey a don't do t6 then | fucking ti ghrieka anis do VE 7,_, (And don't wo do what a es damn good thing they do LE AS); We have... ghy mileti idant kozonies / szodzia nepapeiktumbim ir id | But if you're all tą schwenta laikitumbim VE 12, , (We should God fitrchten and love, that we the Not despising preaching and his word, but keeping it holy LE B3); who has human birth, but has human person ne (but not human ma persons SP, 166, ,.); You'll see ir me a little ne bit | ir wel’ maz regéssite ir mané DP 210,, "(Almost d you will not see the moment | y I'll be back soon. a *W 218, ,; Modicum, et jam non videbitis me, iterum et modicum, videbitis et me JN 16,16). 2.3. The accusative su with negative verbs is also found in the oldest writings, but much less frequently in the genitive. už Ernst Fraenkelis (1928: 48) attracted LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE ADVERBAL GENITIVE | 23 Attention is drawn to the fact that the accusative tends to be chosen before the verb, i.e. when the negation has not yet been said, e.g. : If you don't love me MZ 8; If you don't love me MZ 483,,,; Kursai Diewa ne prieim | kaip Kudikelis Mz 122,,, (Whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God MCH 184); ką este nedare wienamui tarpu tū maszausuiu | tatai este taipaieg man nedare VEE 133, “(as you did not do it to one of the least of these / you did not do it to me LB MT 25, 45); tus szodzius kurius esch yumus bilau / nesakau nūg manes VEE 151, "(The word that I speak to you LB IN 14,10). However, this tendency is not pronounced: the same authors use the genitive more often before the verb of the negative form. On the other hand, in the writings of the authors of Lesser Lithuania, the accusative is sometimes used after a verb with a negative, e.g. : Dabar maszo, o neberegies mane Swietas BRB IN 14,19 (It is still vmb a little | so the world will see me no more LB); tadda neimk augiwe su waikais V Mos 22,6 (so should not the mother with the young take LB); 13:6) and he does not tell me what his name is. The prepositional or postpositional accusative with negative verbs in the writings of authors not only from Greater Lithuania but also from Lesser Lithuania is much more rare than the genitive of the negation. In the original texts of translations, where Lithuanian authors used the genitive, we usually find the accusative. For example, in translating the Gospel of Luke, Bretkūnas translated 66 Vulgate constructions with negative verbs and accusative into the genitive of the negation, in another 20 cases he replaced the accusative with the genitive by correcting the manuscript and left the accusative in only 23 examples (Gelumbeckaitė 1999: 10). In contrast, there are no cases where the accusative of the denial is used independently of the Latin original. The genitive is also used in the 16th-century writings of Lesser Lithuania in constructions where it depends on the verb of the negative form not directly, 0 through the infinitive of the positive form, e.g.: to newienas negal sakiti VE 7 _ (das nicht zu sagen ist LE AS); nepadest taip waiku vszauginti VE 7,, (where they do not help children draw LE AS); netureia ko walgiti VEE 95, (vnd had no food LB MRK 8,1). Similarly in the writings of Greater Lithuania, cf.: ne turinčiu kur ir gatwos sawo priglaust SP, 184,; not letting swiesey truth see SP; 15, * From the 18-19 beginning of the scripture to this day the accusative is also used in such cases, cf. neder tau tureti moteriy brolia tawa VEE 170,, (Es ist nicht recht | das du deines bruders weib habest LB MRKXx 6,18), cf. Fraenkel (1928: 51). 24 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS Thus, in the 16th and 17th centuries, the genitive of negation was firmly rooted and prevailed not only in the dialects of Greater Lithuania, but also in those of Lesser Lithuania. This is confirmed by the examples in Sapūnas and Schulz's 1973 grammar and the remark that with negative verbs "it is better to use the genitive" (elegantius Genitivum): Nieko ne mate. You don't even get around Wissū. Asz taw not do Abydos and so on. (SC 78). 2.4 The accusative with negative verbs penetrated into the writings of the 16th-17th centuries mainly from German and Latin sources. Compared with originals by Jon Palionis (1967: 162) the cited examples of ancient writings, in which the accusative of denial is noted, we see that in almost all cases (except one) he translated the German accusative, cf.: nei siula nei kurpiu dirsa neimsiu BRB I Mos 14,23 —das ich... nicht ein faden noch einen schuch rimen nemen will LB; tadda neimk ugiwe waikais su V Moz 22,6 — so soltu not the mother with the young nemen LB; ghis man ne pasake warda sawa TEIs 13,6 —and he does not tell me what his name is LB; nekentcziu wissus falschiwus kellus RPs 119, 104 —Therefore I hate all false ways LB. There is no evidence to support Palionis’s assumption (ib) that the accusative was determined by the dialect of the authors in the 16th-17th century writings of Lithuania Minor. However, in later times, when the composition of the inhabitants of Lithuania Minor changed considerably due to colonization and Germanization, and a favourable soil was created for the spread of syntactic borrowings in the living language, the accusative of the negation could have gained more ground in the southern Highland dialects. This situation is reflected in Donizetti's writings. Jonas Šukys (1996: 52-53) found 20 examples in „Metai“ in which the accusative is directly associated with transitive verbs with a negative (e. g. : not eating soup VD 241; not yet broken the plot VD 448) ir in which 35, they are linked indirectly —through the positive form of the communicative (poniczne choroby cierpieć nie muszą VD 31 ir Mr. ). On the other hand, the genitive directly depending on the verb of the negative form was observed only in four examples (e.g.: the girl hates the knitted scarves in VD 351; the length of the coming winter is unknown in RG 905); some more examples were found in the intermediately dependent genitive (margu marginių dar nedrįsta su VD 351; neither could he smoke tobacco (RG 243). In addition, the accusative of the negation is sometimes associated here with those verbs that are used with the genitive of the negation in other cases, cf.: tas būrą dar nežino VD 504; nežinodami svietą RG 878 —jau šviesą nepažino RG 735; nei kurpių, nei sopagų dar nepažino RG 777; mums nedavė valią ŽR 197 —nei visiem gerai nedavė žodžio ŽR 341 (Šukys 1996: 53). Thus, the scope of use of the negative accusative Donelaičio writings has already been widely used, which is quite ir understandable considering that In the middle a. of the 18th century, Lithuanians constituted only a minority of the inhabitants of Tolminkiemis (about 25%, Jurgio Lebesgue 1977: 198), o in German, the accusative was consistently used after objective verbs in the negative form (see Lockwood 1968: 10). LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE ADVERBAL GENITIVE | 25 2.5. Even broader use of the accusative after negative verbs is attested In the stories published by Jonas Basanavičius, which are mainly recorded in the dialects of the south-western Highlanders and Žemaites in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. According to Janina Švambarytė (1998: 58), the genitive is used here in only 1096 examples with objective verbs (over 1000 sentences with the accusative and only about 100 with the genitive). Taking into account that Basanavičius’ collections include texts written in other dialects, such a ratio indicates an extremely large spread of the accusative, respectively a narrowing of the use of the genitive in the western Highland dialects. August Schleicher in his grammar also drew attention to the spread of the accusative with a negative verb. This is confirmed by current dialect studies. It has been observed that the closer to the former German (previously Prussian) border, the more rooted the accusative of the negation is, and further to the northeast the genitive of the negation is used next to it (Senkus 1959). The genitive after the objective verbs with negations now prevails in all Lithuanian dialects (except for the South-West Highlands dialects already mentioned), although the accusative is used alongside it in some places, especially in the Žemaitija dialect. The most generalized rule of the negative genitive in the common Lithuanian language. However, here too, in cases of indirect connection (through infinitives of positive verbs), the variation of the genitive/accusative is recognized (cf. Ulvydas, red. 1965: 187-188; 1976: 23-24; Ambrazas, red. 1997: 511; Oginskienė 1979; Piročkinas 1986: 186; Šukys 1998: 111, 202-203). Data from ancient writings and dialects suggest that the genitive of the negation was established in Lithuanian long before the beginning of writing. The wider use of the negative accusative in the writings of Lesser Lithuania and in the dialects of the southwestern Highlanders was encouraged by the influence of German. 2.6 The genitive with the conditional verbs with a negative is opposed to the nominative of the factor in the corresponding sentences without a negative. With the genitive of the denial are usually associated verbs nebiiti, nelikti, as well as conjunctive communicatives nematyti, negirdėti, nejaučiauti and their synonymous regressive verbs nesimato, nesigirdi, nesijaučia: Kad aš augau, su visu nékio mokslo nebuvo RT (LKT 61); If there will be no nibangs (= graduations), there will be no doors or windows SINT (LKT 71); Released until the last child, not one remained in KLK (cf.: what remains — is Miko INS); Still not seeing the way PGG; Pit, well, barn not seen NMC; It's dark, you can't see anything; Today you didn't hear the wind ER; Beer good good, drinks, —in the head nothing hears PRNG; There were times when cow horns from clovers were not visible Ds (cf.: Visas sklypelis matos kaip in delno SKDT) (for more examples see Šukys 1998: 108-109). Such sentences with the genitive of the denial have a generalized meaning of the impersonal state. The absence of an object or person in a certain place or under certain circumstances is expressed in personal sentences with a nominative, cf. : MZK was here, and then it wasn’t there again —Valiuné one day appeared and GRSL wasn’t there. Negative genitive with state verbs (as with objective verbs) is also typical of 16th-17th century writings, cf. : 26 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS nera id czonai VEE 56,, (He is not here LB MRK 16,6); and there is no wien sutwerimo pokim io invisimo SP I 4,0 the same was and its meaning opposite to the nominative, e.g. : Nera jame weida nei graiksztuma | kada weisdeiom ant id | nebuwa weidas kursai mumus passimegtu VEE 214-215 (Iz 53,5) —He has neither shape nor beauty | we saw him | but there was no shape that pleased him LB. 2.7. In Latviy, the same types of negative genitive are used: (a) objective constructions in the genitive su directly dependent on the verb: tas vietinis nežinau BW 3725 ‘I did not know that place’; meitas naida neturéja 6513 “the girl had no anger’ (Gaters 1993: 108-109); (b) with an indirectly dependent genitive — through infinitive or participle — irbju šauti nemaceja BW 30462 ‘kurapky Saudyt nemokojo’; neviens sveicinataja nebij redzéjis pienakam 'no one had seen the greeter approaching' (Lepika 1954: 14); (c) subjective constructions, in which the genitive relates to the nominative: karstas zemes ziemas nav ‘In warm lands winter is not’ (Endzelins 1951: § 403; for more on the genitive of the negation in Latvian, see Lepika 1954; Bergmane et al., ed. 1959: 394; Gaters 1993: 107-110). In Latvian folk songs, the genitive of the negative is still used quite regularly. In PagreCu, as in Lithuanian, there are also cases of the negative accusative (cf. šmuku zyrgu najem ‘grazy horse take' Endzelins 1951: § 403). In the times of written tradition, both in spoken and written language, such an accusative tends to spread, and the scope of use of the negative genitive has now been greatly narrowed (cf. Lepika 1954: 44). 2.8. In Slavic languages, the genitive of negation has been widely used since ancient times. The type of use is sen. bažn. in the Slavic language corresponds to those that are characteristic of Lithuanian and Latvian and are not influenced by the Greek originals, e.g.: (a) blodite ne vėdošte ktniga ni sily bžiję MT 22, 29 MAR klystate nežinodami knygų (raštų) nei Dievo galios' —nAavūo9e uv sidotes tag ypagpag unde thy Svvaury tol Yeol N; wine not imots JN 2,3 ZOGR, MAR, Ass “no wine have’ —oivov odx žyovotvy N; (b) črstva bZve naslédovati ne mogots EUCHSIN 89 a 20 “The kingdom of God cannot inherit’ — Baothetay Deo od xAnpovourjoovotv (Party 1958: 188); (c) no bė ima mėsta v obitėli LK 2,7 MAR, SAv, Ass “there was no room for them in the inn” —odx Hv adTolg Tomog Ėv TO xaraAdpari: N; ne bė ima čęda LK 1,7 MAR, ZOGR, Ass “there was no child for them” —odx #v adrois téxvev N (Chodova 1980: 214-215). Studies show the autochthonous nature of the genitive of the negative Ska in a large area of Slavic languages and the gradual narrowing of its usage in objective constructions (especially pronounced in the southern — Bulgarian, Serbian and Croatian, Slovenian languages)"; Miklosich 1868-1874/- 4: 498-501; Vondrak 1928: 251-252; Večerka 1958; Hausenblas 1958: 114-120; Borkovskij 1968: 274-277; Stanislav 1973: 158-159; Chodova 1980: 214-221; on the decline of the genitive of the negation in Russian see Timberlake 1986: 354–355 and an extensive bibliography in Corbett 1986: 361–372. In 27 structures, East Slavic languages tend to generalize the genitive in some places. The use of the genitive with negative verbs instead of the accusative or nominative is also documented in the oldest texts of Germanic languages — in the passages of the Gothic Bible. It should be noted that both the objective and subjective genitive variants of the negation here are independent of Greek sources, e.g.: (a) ni habaida diupaizos airbas MRK 4,5 —odx. selysv yv oAkny "had no deep ground'; (c) ni was im rums LK 2:7 "there was no place for them"; ni was im barne LK 1,7 “they had no children” (Guchman 1958: 121), cf. 2,8 (c). In the later development of Germanic languages, such usage is only observed in remnants of Old German, for example, hoch. tū ni habis kiscirres ‘you don't have indo (water)' Lockwood (1968: 10). 2.10 Although the genitive of the negative is common and undoubtedly old in the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages, this does not yet provide a basis for its attribution to the Indo-European heritage. In the examples observed in Greek and Indo-Iranian languages, the genitive, depending on the negative form of the verb, is very close to the partitive, e.g. gr. ob my ypods stoaro N 191 “nowhere was the skin to be seen” (cf. Schwyzer, Debrunner 1975: 102). Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the relationship of the genitive of the negative with the undoubtedly inherited partitive use. This relationship has been interpreted in two ways in historical linguistics. Some scholars considered the genitive of the negation simply as a subgroup of the partitive genitive (Miklosich 1868-1874: 498; Brugmann 1911: 611-613; Fraenkel 1928: 47-55; Schwyzer, Debrunner 1975: 102), others only derived it from the partitive (Meillet 1934: 465; Endzelins 1975: 102). 1951: 403)". The relationship of the negative genitive with partitive usage can be seen from Lithuanian examples, where the genitive of the noun is the name of a certain substance, mass (a) or, in the plural, represents countable things (b): (a) Kasė visą naktį, 0 aukso nerado MRC (see found gold); We, who haven't tasted the cake, won't go home Kp (cf. cake ragave); Don't drink water on the doorstep! YL (see grey water); (b) While walking he did not meet people in VL (see met people); The hen will not lay eggs VRN (see lay eggs). Such examples of the negative genitive are directly in line with the already discussed in 1.3.4 sequence of genitives of quantity meaning, in which on the first step would stand the so-called “quantity content” genitive, signifying an abbidefinite (had / took a bag of money) or an indefinite quantity (had | took a little money), then — the partitive genitive, signifying an indefinite quantity (had | took money), and the third place could be occupied by the negative genitive, signifying the absence of quantity (did not have / did not take money, cf. German. er hatte kein Geld, English. he had no money), e.g.: you will not take this money BSP, 200. It also relates to kie- * By the way, there was an attempt to derive the genitive of the negation from the ablative (see. Potebnja 1958: 320-321; Peškovskij 1956: 296-297). 34 | The genitive next to the accusative has been widely used since ancient times to denote the person to whom one prays, e.g.: io melsties BRP, 181, meldessi io 382; meldesi io (tais. iam) BRB JON 9,38 (Vnd betet jn an LB); Melsies Diewo MT 4,10 (Thou shalt worship God LB; Dominum Deum adorabis VULG), cf. tassai Diewa melsis JOB 12,4 (who will call upon God LB). Similarly, the genitive is associated with the verb skaūkti(s) meaning “to ask for something- ”: priego šauktis Sz; angel called MRC LTR, so also from the beginning of writing, e.g. : Szaukéu iųsu /tieg o iųs ne noreiote DP 96,, (Wotatem was | prawi *W 97). Such a genitive of the person who asks, who is asked, who prays may be of an ablative nature (cf. Fraenkel 1928: 71). This can be guessed from synonymic sentences in which the genitive goes with the exclusion prefix from (e.g.: prašė iš kareivio duonos ALN), the corresponding prepositional constructions in related languages: Slavic (with the preposition ots), Latin (with ab, ex), Greek (with mapa) and the ablative in ancient Indian texts (Speyer 1896: 15). In general, the ablative meaning of the genitive is in many cases close to the partitive, and it is difficult to draw a clear boundary between these constructs. It is possible that the coincidence of ablative forms with the genitive in the Baltic languages helped to preserve the partitive usage of the genitive, which narrowed early in languages that made the ablative a separate vowel (e.g., Latin)*?. 3.8.Constructions in which the genitive is associated with verbs denoting internal separation, fear, and other negatively connoted states, in the present Lithuanian language belong to the same group as those in which the genitive of partitive origin is associated with verbs to wait, to want, to desire, to lust, to regret, to envy, to listen, etc. The genitive in these cases means the content of the internal state described by the verb, is the necessary consonant of the verb and has the function of an adverb. In the passive transformation, it corresponds to the accusative of the direct complement, depending on the transitive verbs (see mother's feared / requested | expected | desired guest). Thus, in constructions with a genitive of ablative meaning, the same direction of development is evident as in the case of partitive constructions. The genitive, which previously had a distinctive meaning, is eventually also included in the semantic and syntactic field of the verb, loses its independent meaning and becomes a controlled complement verb. 2 Plg. Kurylowicziaus approach to the ablative as the historical basis of the partitive genitive (1964: 189-190; 1977: 142-143). # About such genitive-- controlled verbs in contemporary Lithuanian zr. Senn 1966: 388-340; Valiulytė kn. : Ulvydas, red. 1976: 21-22; Sukys 1998: 89-93. LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE ADVERBAL GENITIVE | 35 CONCLUSIONS 1.The semantic motivation of the choice of adjectives, characteristic of the earliest times of the development of Indo-European languages, is reflected in the use of the adverbial genitive in Lithuanian with partitive (undefined quantity) and ablative (separation) meanings. 2. The partitive meaning of the genitive is very well preserved in Lithuanian dialects and ancient writings. In this sense, the genitive forms an opposition to the accusative with many objective verbs, and to the nominative with verbs of state and its change, and is a marked member of this opposition. 3. Use of the partitive genitive in other Lithuanian languages in two main directions: a) the accusative was generalized instead of the genitive, previously used alongside the accusative with verbs of some semantic groups (meaning remembering or forgetting, inviting, storing, contact with the surface of an object, etc.); b) the genitive was generalized with verbs denoting striving, wishing, waiting, seeking, etc., or with prepositions with the full meaning of the action. In both cases, the semantic opposition of verbs is neutralized on the basis of partitive meaning and the semantically motivated verb selection is replaced by syntactic control. 4.The partitive genitive may also be associated with the use of some now-deprecated forms of the genitive to indicate time, indicating the previous semantic nature of this verb. 5. The analysis of the genitive of the partitive and the genitive of the quantitative content allows to assume not only synchronic, but also diachronic connections of these constructions in the distant antiquity of Indo-European languages and to explain the genesis of the genitive with the supinum. 6. The use of the genitive in the partitive sense formed the historical basis for the genitive negation. In Lithuanian and Latvian, a syntactic rule has prevailed, which requires changing the accusative or nominative associated with a negative verb into the genitive. This rule was generalized and lost its semantic (partitive) motivation. Similarly, the genitive of negation, separated from the partitive, was generalized in Slavic and partly in Germanic languages. Thus, the genitive of the negation can be considered an old syntactic commonality that unites the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages. The decline in the number of spoken languages is seen in Western Europe. 7.The ablative (separation) meaning, also inherited from the times of the Indo-European community, is less preserved in Lithuanian than the partitive one. Its local character is clear in syntactic archaisms with verbs of movement and similar meanings, but even in this position the genitive is usually accompanied by prepositions. Because of the far advanced process of desemantization, the genitives that meant separation have in many cases become dependent adjectives directly from the verbs be afraid, hang, guard, shake, stop, etc. In the context of modern language, they correspond to the genitives of partitive origin associated with verbs meaning waiting, wanting, striving, seeking. In this way, in Lithuanian (as in Latvian) a separate group of verbs governing the genitive of the complement has been formed. BRB —Biblia tatai esti Wissas Schwentas Raschtas Lietuwischkai pergulditas per Jana BRETKUNĄ... Karaliacziuie (1579-1590) (quoted from a photocopy of the manuscript). 36 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS BRP —Postilla tatai esti Short and poor translation of the Gospel... By Jana BRETKUNA... Royals... 1591. BW —BARONS, Kr. and WISSENDORFFS, H. Lartwju dainas 1-6, Jelgava and Petrograd, 1894-1915. DowN—Writing of Kristijonas Donelaitis: PL —Spring Funs, VD —Summer Work, RG —Autumn Goods, ZR —Winter Troubles, PP —Prickau- ’s Tale, LG —Foxes and the Goat’s Cries; numbers denote rows. DŪūNŽ-VITKAUSKAS, V. Dictionary of Northeastern Dūnininkai dialects, Vilnius, 1976. LB —Biblia /that is the whole Holy Scripture Deudsch. Mart. Luth. Wittenberg 1549 etc. (cited by Weimar ed.). LE-Enchiridion. The Little Catechism for the Common Pastors and Preachers, Mart. Lou. Gedruckt zu Wittenberg, 1531 etc. (cit. pagal Weimar 1910 m. leid.). LKT —Lithuanian language dialects. Chrestomatia, red. E. GRINAVECKIENĖ, K. MORKŪNAS, Vilnius, 1970. LKZ —Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1-19, red. J. BALČIKONIS, J. KRUOPAS, K. ULVYDAS, V. VITKAUSKAS, LP —LERCHIS- -PUSCHKAITIS, A. Latwees1941-1999. chu folk tales and fables 1-7, Riga, 1891-1896. McH -MICHELINI, G. Martynas Mazvydas finds and sources, Vilnius, 2000. (The numbers indicate the pages of the book that contain the sources of the cited places.) MG -Anfangs- -Griinde einer Littauischen Sprach-lehre... von Christian Gottlieb 1800. MIELCKE- ... Kėnigsberg, N —Novum Testamentum graece et latine... curavit Eberhard NESTLE, Stuttgart, 1921. RP —Swietych stow a spraw Panskich- ... Kroynika albo Postill... 1556 (Postilé by M. Rejus, quoted from the original in the LMA library). RPS —Psalteris Dowido... per k. Jona REHSA... su pilnaste atnaujintas... Karaliaučiuje... 1625 (quoted from photocopy of VU library). SC -Compendium Gramatice Lithvanice Theophili SCHULTZENS... Regiomonti... 1673 (cited from Sapūno and Sulco grammar, par. K. Eigminas, Vilnius, 1997). *W —Postilla Catholicka Mnieysza... by D. IAKVBA WVYKA... W Krakowie... 1590 (J. Wujek's 3rd edition of the Lesser Postilés, quoted from a photocopy of a copy at the Jogaila University in Krakow). WP —Ischguldimas Evangeliv per wisvs Mettvs... 1573 (anonymous Wolfenbuttel postilla, quoted from excerpts published by V. Gaigalaitis (Gaigalat 1900) and J. Karaciejus in 1995 edition with corrections by J. Gelumbeckaitė (2000). The abbreviations of other sources and place names are the same as in LKŽ and Ulvydas, red. (1965-1976). The examples of dialects, marked only with LKZ abbreviations, are taken from the printed volumes of the Great Dictionary of Lithuanian Language and the archive of the Lithuanian Language Institute. LITERATURE AMBRAZAS, V. 1978: Structure and development of the nominative with participle (nominativus cum participio) in Lithuanian language. Lithuanian Linguistics Questions 18, 7-67. AMBRAZAS, V. 1979: Historical Syntax of Lithuanian Language Participants, Vilnius: Mokslas. AMBRAZAS, V. 1995: Development of communicative constructions in Lithuanian language. 74-109. AMBRAZAS, V., ed. 1997: Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, 3rd ed., Vilnius: Institute for the Publishing of Science and Encyclopedias. BALKEVICIUS, J. 1963: Syntax of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mintis. BEHAGHEL, O. 1923: German Syntax 1, Heidelberg: Winter. BENVENISTE, E. 1962: For the analysis of casual functions: the Latin genitive. Language 11, 10-18. BERGMANE, A. e.a., ed. 1959, 1962: Grammar of Modern Latvian Literary Language 1-2, Riga: Latvian PSR Academy of Sciences Publishing House. BORKOVSKIJ, V. I. 1968: Cpagrumensro-ucmopuyeckuit cunmaxkcuc e0cmounociaeanckux A36ik06. Tunbi npocmoeo npednoxenus, Mocksa: Hayka. LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE ADVERBAL GENITIVE | 37 BORKOVSKIJ, V. 1, ed. 1968: Cpasnumensro-ucmopuseckuii cunmakcuc 60Cmo4HOCAA6AHCKUX A3biK06. Ynenbi npednoxenus, Mocksa: Hayka. Borkovsk1y, V. I., KUZNECOV, P. S. 1965: Hemopuueckas epammamuxa pycckoeo a3bixa, Mocksa: Hayka. BRUGMANN, K. 1911: Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages 2, Strasbourg: Triibner. BULYGINA, T. V. 1959: O coueraHHsiX ¢ pOAMTENBHBIM MAZEKOM B COBPEMEHHOM JIMTOBCKOM JMTEpaTypHOM s3bIKe. Lithuanian Linguistics Questions 2, 90-108. CHANTRAINE, P. 1953: Grammaire homėrigue 2. Syntaxe, Paris: Klincksieck. Cnopova, K. I. 1980: /Ipocmoe npedaoxcenue 6 cmapociaesnekom a3bixe, Mocksa: Hayka. CORBETT, G.G. 1986: The use of the Genitive or Accusative for the Direct Object of Negated Verbs in Russian: A Bibliography. Brecht, R.D., Levin, J.S., eds., Case in Slavic, Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, DE BoEL, G. 1988: Goal Accusati361-372. ve and Object Accusative in Homer. A Contribution to the Theory of Transinvity, Brussel: Paleis der Academien. DELBRUCK, B. 1893: Comparative Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 1, Strasbourg: Triibner. Desnicaja, A. V. 1984: Cpaenumenonoe azviko3nanue u ucmopus s3vikoe, Jlenmurpan: Hayka. ENDZELINS, J. 1951: Grammar of the Latvian language, Riga: Latvijas Valsts izdevniecība. ENDZELINS, J., MULENBACHS, K. 1928: Grammar of Latvian, Riga: Valters and Rapa. EULER, W. 1999: The supinum in Latin and Baltic Slavic and the ancient Indian infinitive. Questions about their Indo-European foundations. Res Balticae 5, 41-57. FRAENKEL, E. 1925: On Baltoslavic Grammar. Kuhns Zeitschrift 53, 36-65. FRAENKEL, E. 1947: Linguistic, especially syntactical examination of the Calvinist Lithuanian Catechism of Malcher Pietkiewicz of 1598, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht. FRAENKEL, E. 1928: Syntax der litauischen Kasus, Kaunas: Valstybės spaustuvė. GAI1GALAT, W. 1900: The Wolfenbiitteler Lithuanian Postillen manuscript from the year 1573. Notices of the Lithuanian Literary Society 5, 1-57; 117-165; 231-247. GATERS, A. 1993: Latvian Syntax. Die Dainas, edited by Hildegard Radtke, Frankfurt a. M., Berlin and others. : Peter Lang. GELUMBECKAITE, J. 1999: The Use of Case and Prapositional Constructions in Jonas Bretkiinas’ Translation of the Gospel of Luke, Abstract of the Doctoral Thesis, Vilnius. GELUMBECKAITE, J. 2000: Wolfenbüttel's Postile, edited by J. Karaciejus, Vilnius: Zara, 1995. Archivum Lithuanicum 2, 173-194. GIRDENIS, A., ZULys, V. 1973: [Rec.], Lithuanian Grammar 1 (1965), 2 (1971). Baltistica 9(2), 203-214. G1VON, T. 1984: Syntax. A. Functional-Typological Introduction 1, Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. GRENDA, C. 1979: Opposition of definiteness/indefiniteness in verb constructions with noun. Kalbotyra 30(1), 32-37. GucHMAN, M. M. 1958: Jomckuiu s35xx, Mocksa: M3jiaTeJibcTBO JIMTEPATYPhl Ha HHOCTpaHHbIX 513bIKAX. HAUDRY, J. 1977: The use of cases in vėdigue, Lyon: Editions 'Hermes. HAUSENBLAS, K. 1958: Vivoj predmétového genitivu v češtinė, Prague: Československa Akademie Věd. HIRT, H. 1934: Indo-European Grammar 6. Syntax I. Syntactic use of the case and the Verbal forms, Heidelberg: Winter. HOFMANN, J.B., SZANTYR, A. 1972: Latin Syntax and Stylistics, Miinchen: Beck. HUMBERT, J. 1954: Syntaxe grecque, Paris: Klincksieck. JABLONSKIS, J. 1935: Jablonskio raštai 4, red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Ministry of Education Publishing House. JABLONSKIS, J. 1957: Selected Papers 1, ed. J. Palionis, Vilnius: State publishing house of political and scientific literature. KAZLAUSKAS, J. 1968: Historical grammar of Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mintis. 38 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS KOPTIJEVSKAJA-TAMM, M., WALCHLI, B. eds. The Circum-Baltic languages: an areal-typological approach. Dahl, O., Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (eds.) The Circum-Baltic Languages: Their Typology and Contacts, Amsterdam-- Philadelphia: John Benjamins. KRAHE, H. 1972: Comparative Syntax of the Indo-European Languages, ed. by W. Meid, H. Schmeja, Innsbruck: Institute for Comparative Linguistics of the University of Innsbruck. KURYLOWICZ J. 1949: The problem of case classification. Newsletter of the Polish Society of Linguistics 9, 20-43. KURYLOWICZ, J. 1964: The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European, Heidelberg: Winter. Kuryrowicz, J. 1964a: On methods of internal reconstruction. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge Mass. August 27-31, 1962, La Haye: Mouton, 9-31. KURrYLowiICz, J. 1977: Indo-European Languages. Wroclaw—Warsaw—Krakow—Gdarnsk: Ossolineum. KURZOVA, H. 1993: From Indo-European to Latin. The evolution of a morphosyntactic type, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. LABUTIS, V. 1994: Lietuviy kalbos sintaksé 1, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. LABUTIS, V. 1994a: Lietuviy kalbos sintaksé 2, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. LARSSON, L.-G. 1983: Studies on the partitive use in the Baltic Finnish languages, Uppsala. (Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis, Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia, 15.) LEBEDYS, J. 1977: Ancient Lithuanian Literature, Vilnius: Mokslas. LEPIKA, M. 1954: On the object of the denied transitive verb in Latvian literary language. Journal of the Institute of Language and Literature 3, 5-45. Lockwoob, W. B. 1968: Historical German Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mažiuris, V. 1970: Relations between the Baltic and other Indo-European languages (Declination), Vilnius: Mintis. MEILLET, A. 1934: Introduction to the Comparative Study of Indo-European Languages, Paris: Hachette. MEILLET, A., VENDRYES, J. 1952: Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques, Paris: Champion. MIKLOSICH, F. 1868-1874: Comparative Syntax of the Slavic Languages, Vienna: Wilhelm Braumiiller. MOROZOVA, S. E. 1968: PomurenbHblit nanex. CpasHumenavHo-ucmopuveckuli CuHmaxcuc 80CMOYHOC. Kux a3vikos. Unenbi npedroxcernus, BopkoBckumit, pen. 1968, 151-178. NEUMANN, G. 1960: Time-indicating parentheses in Hittite. Hartmann, H. and Neumann, H. eds., Indogermanica. Festschrift fir W. Krause, Heidelberg: Winter, 138-140. OGINSKIENE, E. 1979: The use of the final in place of the genitive. Kalbos kultiira 35, 25-31. OTREBSKI, J. 1934: East Lithuanian-Turkish Names 1, Krakow: Polish Academy of Sciences. PALIONIS, J. 1967: Lithuanian literary language in the 16th-17th centuries, Vilnius: Mintis. PALIONIS, J. 1974: The use of supino in Lithuanian script monuments of the 16th-17th centuries. Baltistica 10(2), 143-148. PAULAUSKIENE, A. 1989: Grammatical categories of Lithuanian nouns, Vilnius: Mokslas. Peshkovskiy, A. M. 1956: Pycckuu cunmaxcuc 6 nayunom oceéewernuu, Mocksa: I'ocynapcTseHHOE yue6HoTIEIATOTHYECKOE M3/IAaTeNIbCTBO. PIROCKINAS, A. 1986: Translations of the works of Jon Jablonskis, Kaunas: Sviesa. PIROCKINAS, A. 1972: On the use of genitive and dative with the common noun to express the purpose of the circumstance. Baltistica 1 appendix, Vilnius, 131-134. POTEBNJA, A. A. 1958: M3 3anucok no pycckou epammamure 1-2, Mocksa: I'ocyaapcTBeHHOE yue6HoTIeJTaTOTHYECKOE M3aTe/TbCTBO. RENOU, L. 1952: Grammar of the Vedic Language, London: IAC. RENOU, L. 1965: General remarks on the Vedic phrase. Symbolae linguisticae G. Kunylowicz, Wroclaw— Warszawa-Krakow, 230-234. SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. 1987: A Lithuanian Historical Syntax, Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers. SCHWYZER, E., DEBRUNNER, A. 1975: Greek Grammar 2. Syntax and syntactic stylistics, Miinchen: Beck. 39 SENKUS, J. 1959: Some more prominent examples of the use of verbs in the past-present kapsy dialect. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 2(7), 177-188. SENN, A. 1966: Handbook of Lithuanian Language 1. Grammatik, Heidelberg: Winter. SIRTAUTAS, V., GRENDA, C. 1988: Syntax of Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mokslas. SLIZIENE, N. 1994: Lithuanian Verb Conjugation Dictionary 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. SOMMER, E. 1925: Comparative Syntax of School Languages, Leipzig, Berlin: Teubner. SPEYER, J. S. 1896: Vedic and Sanskrit Syntax, Strasbourg: Triibner. STANG, Ch. S. 1966: Comparative Grammar of the Baltic Languages, Oslo, Bergen, Tromso: Universitetsforlaget. STANISLAV, J. 1973: History of the Slovak Language 4. Syntax 1, Bratislava: Vydavatel’stvo Slovenskej Akadémie I know. Šukys, J. 1996: On the Negative and the Objective in K. Donelaičio ‘Metai’. Language Culture 68, 49-56. Šukys, J. 1998: Lithuanian verbs and prepositions: usage and norms, Kaunas: Šviesa. ŠVAMBARYTĖ, J. 1996: Definition and uncertainty and their expression. Language Culture 68, 39-48. ŠVAMBARYTĖ, J. 1998: Changes in the verb forms of object and noun to the negation in J. Basanavičius's collections of narrative folklore. Lituanistica 3(35), 59-82. TIMBERLAKE, A. 1986: Hierarchies in the Genitive of Negation. Brecht R.D., Levine J.S. (eds.). Case in Slavic, Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, 338-359. ULvyDpas, K. 1964: Adverbs with the formants -(i)o, -(i)os, -és in the present Lithuanian language. Lithuanian Linguistics Questions 7, 11-46. ULvypas, K., red. 1965, 1971, 1976: Lithuanian Grammar, 1. Phonetics and Morphology, 2. Morphology, 3. Syntax. Vilnius: Mintis (1—2), Mokslas (3). VAILLANT, A. 1977: Comparative Grammar of Slavic Languages 5, Paris: Klincksieck. VALIULYTE, E. 1995: Syntactic expression of time. Lituanistica 2(22), 68-81. VALIULYTĖ, E. 1995: Syntactic synonyms of contemporary Lithuanian language. The expression of place, time and cause, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. VEČERKA, R. 1958: Stfidani zaporovėho genitive with zaporovy accusative in Old Slavonic. Studies in Slavic Linguistics. K 70 narozenindm Františka Travnicka, Praha: Statni Pedagogické Nakladatelstvi, VIDUGIRIS, A. 1994: On the use of the time noun in Lithuanian dialects. Baltistica 29(1), 60-64. VONDRAK, W. 1928: Comparative Slavic Grammar, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. ZINKEVICIUS, Z. 1966: Lithuanian dialectology, Vilnius: Mintis. Vytautas Ambrazas Received 05/01/2001 Lithuanian Language Institute Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected] 185-200.