ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

XLIV (2001), 3–39

The Adverbial Genitive in Lithuanian from the Perspective of Historical Syntax^*

Vytautas Ambrazas

Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius

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. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

0.1. The very diverse use of the genitive in Indo-European languages can be divided, according to syntactic relations, into two principal types: the adverbial genitive, associated with verbs, and the adnominal genitive, associated with nouns. The diachronic relationship between these types is still explained in different ways: some scholars consider adverbial constructions to be primary (Delbrück 1893: 308; Brugmann 1911: 566–567; Fraenkel 1928: 42; Hofmann, Szantyr 1972: 50–51), while others regard adnominal constructions as primary (Behaghel 1923: 484; Hirt 1934: 98; Kuryłowicz 1964: 186). It is, however, beyond doubt that both types were inherited at least from the period of the late Indo-European speech community (cf. Brugmann 1911: 571; Krahe 1972: 69; Haudry 1977: 376; Vaillant 1977: 80). This paper will discuss only adverbial genitive constructions in Lithuanian. By establishing their earlier state and direction of development, we may hope to gain a better understanding of their diachronic relationship to adnominal constructions as well.

0.2. The use of cases associated with verbs has changed considerably in the Indo-European languages. In modern languages that have retained morphological case distinctions at least in part, the choice of one or another object case is determined by the syntactic valency of the verb itself: because of its valency properties, a verb most often requires

^* Since the Lithuanian data are discussed in this article with reference to the broader context of the Indo-European languages, cases and other grammatical units are referred to using terms customary in comparative grammar (e.g., nominative, genitive, ablative, infinitive, and so on).

4 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

res one or more cases (in many instances with prepositions), which may be the same or different in various languages; cf. Lithuanian valdyti šalį, Russian upravliat’ stranoj, German über das Land herrschen, and so on.

In the ancient stages of the development of the Indo-European languages, the relations between verbs and cases were apparently different. Antoine Meillet had already observed that words in the Indo-European sentence were much more independent (autonomous) and were connected with one another according to the specific meaning of each. Various cases could accompany the same verb, arranged according to the shade of meaning one wished to express; they were selected according to the meaning of the case itself, rather than according to the verb’s “government”¹. For example, in Ancient Greek the verb χλύω ‘hear’ could occur alone, without any case, or be associated with the accusative denoting what was heard (ἔκλυον αὐδήν Hom. ‘I heard a voice’), with the genitive denoting the source of the sound (ἔκλυον αὐτοῦ ‘I heard from him’), or with the dative denoting the beneficiary (εὐχομένω μοι ἔκλυον ‘I heard him praying to me <lit. I heard one praying to me>’); according to Meillet, the accusative or genitive here stood in a relation to the verb similar to that of cases denoting instrument or location (οὔασι χλύω ‘I hear with my ears’, οἴκοι χλύω ‘I hear at home’); see also Meillet 1934: 359; Meillet, Vendryes 1952: 576–577; Humbert 1954: 272; Schwyzer, Debrunner 1975: 106. Thus, in ancient Indo-European languages, the so-called “grammatical” cases were not yet as clearly distinguished from the “concrete” cases (in Kuryłowicz’s 1949 sense) as they were in later periods. Studies of Vedic, Homeric epic, and other earliest-attested Indo-European languages have confirmed the semantic nature of the relationship between cases and verbs (Haudry 1977: 155 ff., 178 etc.; Renou 1965: 231–32; 1952: 355–356; Chantraine 1953: 12–15, 232, 319–321; Desnickaja 1984: 100 ff., 118, 150; Neumann 1960; cf. also Kurzová 1993: 42–44).

Although this state of case usage has not been entirely preserved in any Indo-European language², it can be reconstructed from traces attested in the ancient stages of those languages. Of course, the semantic independence of cases could never have been absolute. As the principal means of expressing the predicate, a verb, by virtue of its meaning, already requires one or more arguments (actants) of a certain type, expressed by cases. Thus verbs and the cases associated with them must have been semantically matched with one another³. For example, Indo-European verbs such as *dō- ‘give’ presupposed, by virtue of their meaning, actants denoting the performer of the action (agent), the object (patient), and the beneficiary, but the grammatical expression of these actants was not strictly defined. In various languages, the patient may be expressed either by the accusative or by the genitive, de-

¹ Cf.: “An Indo-European sentence consists of a variable number of impenetrable, autonomous elements, meaningful in themselves, which are called words […] (355) The case in which complements are placed does not depend on the verb, but only on the meaning to be expressed (358) […]. In Indo-European there was no ‘government’ of one word by another, as there is in Latin, for example; the autonomy of the word is the principle that governs the structure of the Indo-European sentence” (Meillet 1934: 355–359).

² Even in Homeric Greek, the grammaticalized object accusative is already clearly distinguished in many cases from the “concrete” accusative of direction and goal (cf. De Boel 1988: 44–65).

³ Plg.: „The characterization of predicate types (‘verb types’) is made in terms of (85) the „frame“ of case-roles 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“ (Givón 1984: 85–86).

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS | 5

depending on which nuance of meaning one wishes to emphasize, cf. Lithuanian daviau jam grūdus / grūdu; Russian dialectal dal emu chleb / chleba, cf. Vedic pā sōmam ‘drink soma’ and pā sōmasya ‘drink some soma’ (Haudry 1977: 377). On the other hand, with a verb of the *dō ‘give’ type, actants denoting either a perceiver, a content, or a result are altogether impossible.

In the development of the Indo-European languages, a strengthening of the syntactic relations between cases and verbs has been observed, eventually resulting in the government of cases or prepositional constructions (cf. Kuryłowicz 1964a: 18, 29; 1977: 141–156, 178; Desnickaja 1984: 132 ff.). Cases, at first on their own and later together with prepositions, became “attached” to certain verbs, and their selection came to depend on the verb’s syntactic valency. How this process took place is one of the most important questions that has not yet been clearly answered.

0.3. Since Lithuanian has preserved, better than any other Indo-European language, both its case forms and their ancient usage patterns, its evidence on this question is undoubtedly significant. It is especially useful to consider verbal constructions with the genitive. By observing the use of the adverbal genitive in Lithuanian dialects and early written texts, and comparing it with Latvian and other related languages that have progressed further along the path of syntactic development, one can discern ancient, semantically based case relations with verbs, as well as the grammaticalization of those relations. From this perspective, the syntax of cases in Lithuanian has not been studied, but previous works have amassed much valuable data from the contemporary 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; Paulauskienė 1989: 75–147) and early written texts (Fraenkel 1928; Palionis 1967: 151–170; Schmaltstieg 1987: 122–272), considered alongside related languages; the present study attempts to draw on them.

0.4. Two principal meanings can be distinguished in the use of the Lithuanian adverbal genitive. The first is the partitive meaning, regarded as an ancient characteristic of the Indo-European genitive. The negative genitive, which is highly grammaticalized in Lithuanian, is closely related to constructions with a partitive meaning. The second meaning is ablative. Forms with this meaning once denoted separation or departure (that is, a point of origin). In some Indo-European languages (Indo-Iranian and, in part, Italic), these forms were incorporated into the case system as a separate case—the ablative; in others, they merged with the genitive (Baltic, Greek) or dative (Celtic, Germanic). Forms with an ablative meaning have left traces in the declension of eastern Baltic and Slavic (i)o stems: such traces are considered to include the singular genitive ending in *-ā (Lithuanian vilko, Latvian vilka, Old Church Slavonic vlьka⁴). Once incorporated into the paradigm of genitive forms, the ablative (separative) meaning became one of the meanings of the genitive. The ancient meanings of the genitive and their various variants have now become intermingled in some contexts and are not always clearly distinguishable.

⁴ These forms are interpreted in two ways. Some scholars, representing the traditional view, identify here a truncated formant *-d or *-t (cf. Old Latin GNAIV-OD, Sanskrit aśv-āt; see Stang 1966: 70, 181 with references), while others find only a lengthened stem vowel (Kazlauskas 1968: 174; Mažiulis 1970: 99–106); cf. also 3.1.

6

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

1. PARTITIVE MEANING

1.0. The term partitive meaning is traditionally used for the use of the genitive to denote a part of an object or set of objects, or a clearly indefinite quantity of objects (persons). The genitive had this meaning in many Indo-European languages during early periods of their development (for example, in Gothic, Old Indic, and Greek textual monuments), but over time it faded, and the use of the genitive or accusative came to depend on syntactic government by the verb. The partitive meaning of the genitive is still quite clearly distinguished in early Slavic texts, but later it was strongly neutralized by the established tendency to express all complements denoting animate beings with the genitive. Only remnants of partitive genitive constructions are attested in Latin (cf. Hofmann, Szantyr 1972: 52).

The partitive meaning of the genitive has survived in Lithuanian to the present day. The use of this case in traditional Latvian folklore (especially material recorded in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) is quite close to Lithuanian; although in contemporary Latvian the opposition between the partitive genitive and the accusative and nominative has been lost in many cases, Latvian data help to make the direction and trajectory of syntactic development clearer. Under these circumstances, even data from contemporary Lithuanian dialects are important evidence of the ancient use of the genitive.

Jonas Jablonskis (1957: 577) partityvinę reikšmę vadino nežymybės arba dalies reikšme ir ją apibrėžė taip: „Vardininko arba galininko vietoje, jei tais linksniais nenorim pažymėti, daug ar mažą, visas daiktas ar tiktai jo dalis turima sakytojo galvoje, dažniausiai jei daikto arba daiktų būrio dalis sakytojo tėr galvojama, ne visas daiktas, ne visas daiktų būrys, tad vartojame savo kalboje, tai savo minties daliai išreikšti, nežymybės, arba dalies, kilm-ką“. Dabar lietuvių kalbotyroje įprastiniu tapo neapibrėžto kiekio reikšmės terminas. Juo gal geriausiai apimama tokios genityvo vartosenos įvairovė; be to, aiškiai nusakomas skirtumas nuo apibrėžto kiekio genityvo, kurį Jablonskis (1957: 576) vadino kiekio (kiekybės) kilmininku.

An attempt has been made to define the partitive meaning more broadly. For example, Brugmann called it the meaning of scope (Bereich), indicating that a statement applies not to the full extent and content of a nominal concept, or to the nominal concept as such, but only to a certain domain of it—to what belongs to it, and the like.⁵ This conception was adopted by other scholars and applied to the wide variety of cases involving the adverbal and adnominal genitive (cf. Sommer 1925: 10; Krahe 1972: 70 ff., 81–83). However, it is scarcely possible to derive a more concrete meaning historically from such a general and abstract one. It is more likely that the concrete meaning is the older one and that the term partitive is based on it.

On the basis of its partitive meaning, the genitive, when used with so-called transitive verbs, forms an opposition to the accusative (found the stones: found some stones; heard the rumors: heard some rumors), and sometimes to the instrumental as well (filled the pit with money / some money), while with verbs of state and change of state it forms an opposition to the nominative (there were stones: there were some stones;

⁵“A basic feature of the adverbal genitive can be abstracted as follows: the statement does not apply to the full extent and content of the nominal concept, or to the nominal concept as such, but only to its scope—to what belongs to it, and the like. This often gives rise to a partitive interpretation” (Brugmann 1911: 567).

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS

7

rumors spread: rumors spread). 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 most often depends on transitive verbs. It has singular and plural forms. Singular forms denote a substance or mass, some quantity of which is affected by the action (ate some bread, bought some sugar, found some gold, gave some flour...), or more abstract things conceived of not in their entirety (had an opportunity / courage, experienced pain, brought happiness...). Plural forms denote countable concrete objects (got some money, bought some potatoes, found some raspberries, gave some toys...) or abstract notions (received some advice, found some pleasures, gave some instructions...). The verbs associated with the partitive genitive most often denote:

(a) possession, acquisition and giving, or loss (have, get, find, take, grab, give, buy, provide...):

I still have some of that linen DG; If you have money, you will also have friends MRc; The ewe bleats as long as it gets hay VL; I got some bread SRD; Climb up to the attic—perhaps you’ll find some bacon Kp; Education costs money Gs; Give this soil some manure Ėr; You bought fish, so buy some pepper too PPR 226; Take some roast, take some cheese, some butter KzR;

(b) perception, experience, knowledge, receiving and conveying information (see, hear, listen, know, be able, teach, read, say...):

You were in town—did you hear any news? Lš; She knew some stories KB; She knows her work, what more is there? LNKV; She read some strange things there ŠRAG IT 281; He told me some bad news about you DKŠ;

(c) eating, drinking, tasting, and the like (eat, consume, drink, taste, savor...):

If you eat dairy, you’ll be shut up under the stove at Easter KB; Search, little horse, for some oats VL; But the others, sitting quietly together, are smoking tobacco DONPP 60; They taste some wort and see whether the beer will be good OB; Please taste some of our butter UžP;

(d) various other actions that may affect a certain quantity of objects or people (carry, transport, pour, sow, boil, bake, put, make...):

The willow grows, turns green, blooms white, bears black berries N 34; They brought soil and gravel to this end of the house SLM; Pour some sand into that pit DRSK; They used to sow some hemp for us to work with DGC; I cooked some meat for lunch Kp; Grate the potatoes; we’ll make some pancakes VLK; Help yourself to some 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; Švambarytė 1996: 39–47; Šukys 1998: 102–107).

8 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

1.1.2. The partitive genitive with verbs of the corresponding semantic groups is widely attested in older written sources as well; in translated texts, in many cases it is used independently of the originals:

(a) ghis... ischszabaia Welbludus, ir dawe iemus Schaudų. (with -s crossed out) and pascharo BrB I Moz 24,32 (vn̄ gab jnen stro vnd futter LB); gave him gold, frankincense, and myrrh (corrected from gold, frankincense, and myrrh) BrB Mt 2,11 (schenckten im Gold, Weyrauch und Myrrhen LB); Diews prikel debessis dangaus/ Teikdams Zemei Litaus Mž 241₁₁ (Qui operit coelum nubibus, et parat terrae pluviam MCH 303); (b) Prisakimu szinai BrB Lk 18,20 (Mandata nosti VULG, Du weisset die Gebot wol LB); weisdek mana ranku BrP₁₁ 43₇–₈; szmones szwalga to isch tolo Job 36,25 (Die leute schawens von ferne LB); kurę bilą esch nepermaniau, tos klausiauisi BrB Job 29,16 (welche sache ich nicht wuste/ die erforschet ich LB)⁶; (c) ateik sche, ir walgik tos dūnos BrB Rut 2,14 (mache dich hie herzu/ vnd iss des brods LB); o kiti apiūkdami iūs, biloio Apsigierę saldaus Wino BrB Apd 2,13 (Sie sind vol süsses weins LB; musto pleni sunt isti VULG); kits plescha/ ir surb kraujo artimoio sawa BrP₁₁ 472₆; (d) Neschkit sche Szuwų BrB Jn 21,10 (Bringet her von den Fischen LB); Ir padare wissokiu Stotku II Moz 38,3 (Vnd macht allerley gerete LB); Eikite, ir nupirkite mumus Jawų I Moz 42,2 (ziehet hinab/vnd keuffet vns getreide LB); saugoket (with -kiet crossed out) mano Prisakimų BrB Jon 14,15 (haltet meine gebot LB).

1.1.3. In Latvian folklore, the partitive genitive is still clearly attested with verbs of groups (a) and (b), cf.: duod... man māizītes (var.: māizīti) ‘give me some bread’; kur jimšim naudys ‘where shall we get some money’; tėva klausīsiet ‘you will listen to your father’s (voice)’; laî es tevis (var.: tevi) lūkuojųos ‘so that I may look at you’ (Endzelīns 1951: § 394.3, 6). With verbs of groups (c) and (d), however, the genitive is now usually associated with them only when they have prefixes indicating completion (e.g., māizes pièduši ‘having eaten one’s fill of bread’, alus pièdzeruši ‘having drunk one’s fill of beer’, pièberam... rudzu ‘we add some rye’ (Endzelīns ib., cf. Bergmane e.a., ed. 1959: 394). When the genitive is used as an alternative to the dominant accusative, the semantic opposition between these cases has faded in Latvian (Gāters 1993: 101).

1.1.4. The Lithuanian partitive genitive, when used with verbs of all the groups listed here, contrasts with the accusative as the marked member of the opposition, whose distinguishing feature is the meaning of indefinite quantity, e.g.: took meat / some meat, saw birds / some birds, drank milk / some milk, scattered grain / some grain, cf. God gave clear weather; God will also give rain DAUK. The genitive form here is determined not by the verb’s valency, but by the partitive meaning inherent in the case itself. Semantic agreement between the verb and case forms is also observed. By no means is the opposition between accusative and genitive possible with all transitive verbs. It has been observed that the partitive genitive tends to be associated more often with verbs denoting a single action and less often with those denoting a repeated action (Švambarytė 1996: 47). On the other hand, verbs expressing actions whose objects cannot be divided are not associated with the partitive genitive (love, respect,

⁶ Cf. Danielius Kleinas’s remark about the twofold use of the verb klausyti ‘listen’ in the sense of physical perception: with the accusative (Klausyti žodį Diewo) and with the genitive (Klausyti žodžio Diewo) KIG 152. For more on klausyti with the accusative and genitive, see Fraenkel 1928: 72–73.

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS

9

like or are affected only to a certain extent (greet, move, bury...). Nevertheless, even when the meaning of a verb allows it to be associated with a part of a divisible object or a certain quantity of objects, only the accusative is often used. For example, the partitive genitive is not (or is no longer) used with the simplex verbs tear down, scare, polish, paint, work, tear, dust, herd, catch, respect, rake, destroy, chop, bite, cut, mix, like, love, pull out, write, accuse, build, judge and many others.

1.1.5. There is evidence to suggest that, because the accusative has become generalized as the case marking the semantic object (patient, content), the use of the partitive genitive has narrowed considerably in the modern language. In older written sources, the partitive genitive is sometimes also found in cases where the standard language has already generalized the accusative.

Alongside the accusative, the partitive genitive was used in Old Lithuanian with the so-called verba memoriae: atmiñti, minėti, užmiršti ‘remember, mention, forget’, and the like:

The Lord remembered us Mž 464₈–₉ (Der HERR dencket an uns; Dominus memor fuit nostri Mch 526); Then Peter remembered Jesus’ words (corrected from Christ<ist>aus) BrB Mt 26,75 (Da dachte Petrus an die wort Ihesu LB); remember your congregation RPs 74,2 (gedenck an deine Gemeine LB); And remember me BrB I Moz 40,14 (Aber gedencke meiner LB); Augiwe piktą/ ir waiko sawa uszmirischt BrPₙ 481₂₁; forget your people and your father’s house (a zapomni narodu twego, y domu oyca twego) SPₙ 3₂₂–₂₃ (cf. the accusative denoting a whole entity: ne gali wissą kosanį atminiti BrPₙ 357₂₄; грекus musu wysus vsmirsk Mž 54₁₄)⁷.

This use of the genitive is well preserved in Donelaitis’s writings. With the verbs at(si)miñti, (pa)minėti ‘remember’, pamiršti ‘forget’, only the genitive is used in these writings, e.g.:

remember God DonŽR 401; remember your end! RG 25; he often mentioned the hare and the fox LG 35; you remembered our troubles VD 236; his daily mentions VD 169; he forgot his work VD 584.

With užmiršti ‘forget’, however, not only the genitive but also the accusative is used, cf.:

having forgotten heaven, he takes up a spoon RG 302; to forget a good neighbor LG 10.

Traces of genitive use with these verbs also occur in dialects, especially in traditional folklore, cf.:

The little sister wept, remembering her brother KlvD 340; The ice forgot to cut through the furrow SVn; She forgot her sweetheart AD.

Here the genitive is in the process of being supplanted by the accusative, and the semantic opposition between these cases has disappeared. However, the partitive meaning has been retained to this day in some places by countable nouns

⁷ The use of the genitive and accusative with the verbs atmiñti, užmiršti was already mentioned by Danielius Kleinas: atmenu žodžiu ir žodžius, užmiršk namų ir namus KIG 152. For more examples, see Fraenkel 1928: 78; Palionis 1967: 154. On the partitive genitive with verbs of corresponding meaning in early monuments of related languages (Slavic, Germanic, Latin, Greek, Old Indian), see Brugmann 1911: 590–591; Hofmann, Szantyr 1972: 81, with references; Schwyzer, Debrunner 1975: 108.

10 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

The plural genitive of nouns denoting atsiminti, prisiminti with prefixed verbs, e.g.:

Teta atsiminė visokių nuotykių VLKv (cf. Atsiminiau visus mūsų nuotykius).

1.1.6. With the verbs vadinti, šaukti, žadinti, meaning ‘to call, summon’, early writings also used the genitive alongside the accusative, without any discernible influence from foreign-language sources, e.g.:

calls Elias VEE 210, (Der ruffet dem Elias LB Mt 27,47; Eliam vocat iste VULG); and having come home, calls his relatives and neighbors DP 279₁₁ (a przyzsedzsy do domu/ wzywa przyjacioły y sąsiady ³W 286₁₁; convocat amicos, et vicinos VULG Lk 15,6); Summon the laborers, and pay them their wages – Žáwotay robotnikow, y odaday im zapłatę SP I 317–319 (Voca operarios VULG Mt 20,8); we call you to us PK 182₁₁; he likewise calls us PK 179₈–₉; call him while he is near SP₁ 197₂₄–₂₅;

Compare with the accusative: mus ne paláudamas wadina ir száukia sawęsp DP 380₁₀–₁₁ (nas vstawicznie pozywa y wota do siebie ³W 394₁₇; Tadda pakwiete Laban wissas Szmones tho kampo BrB I Moz 29,22 (Da lud Laban alle leut des orts LB);

and alongside it also with the allative: schauku tawęsp Mž 340₁₂ (schrey ich zu dir MCh 402); The voice... schauk manensp BrB I Moz 4,10 (Die stim... schreiet zu mir LB).

The genitive is also associated with corresponding verbs in Latvian folklore; cf.: kliedz brāļa LP VI 479 ‘calls for his brother’, vēlna saukādams ‘calling out for the devil’ (Endzelins 1951: § 394; see also Fraenkel 1928: 66; 1947: 65; Palionis 1967: 154–155; Schmalstieg 1987: 163–164).

1.1.7. In early writings, the verbs saugoti, sérgėti, (pri)žiūrėti, (pri)veizdėti also often occur with the genitive, e.g.:

Kurie teipaig sergeia ió pas wartus diena ir nakti VEE 144₁₅ – Sie hütteten aber tag vnd nacht an den thoren LB APD 9,24 (cf. padawę... sergeti ghy VEE 155₁₁ – jn zu bewaren LB APD 12,4); passisede sergeia io BrP I 389₁₁ (vnd sie sassen alda/ vnd hütteten sein LB Mt 27,36; et sedentes servabant eum VULG); jay saugosite walios mano MP 124₅ (ieśli będzecie strzegli woley moiey RP 81a₃₆); Dawe... stirnikus/ kurie priweizdetu tos io eldiios – ktorzy by przyźreli tego akrętu SP₁ 275₂₈–₂₉, cf. from Latvian folklore: meža sava (var.: mežu savu) sargājiet! BW 1680,2 ‘guard your forest / woods!’ (Endzelins 1951: § 394.6; Fraenkel 1928: 74; 1947: 65; Palionis 1967: 155; on the genitive with saugotis, sérgėtis, denoting things against which one guards oneself, see 3.5).

1.1.8. The partitive genitive also expressed contact with the surface or a part of an object (person), whereas the accusative denoted the whole object. This distinction is clear in the following example:

and he took him by the clothes (above: by the shirt, corrected from ‘by the shirt’) and spoke BrB I

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS | 11

Moz 39,12 (and she caught him by his garment / and said LB).

Similarly, the genitive was used with other verbs of physical contact, e.g.: to touch, feel, grab:

the woman... touched the hem of his garment from VEE 127₂₃ (a woman... barely touched the hem of his garment LB MT 9,20); touched the hot [iron] DP 334₁₅ (touched the sea ³W 345₈); who is it (emph.) that touched me BrB LK 8,45 (quis est, qui me tetigit? Vulg; wer hat mich angerüret? LB); No one is so bold as to be able to touch it BrB JOB 41,10 (der jn erwecken that LB), cf. also: having seized him by the hair, he threw him outside DONPP 94.

Nowadays, the accusative has already become generalized in the dialects here, but the genitive has been retained with the reflexive verbs to lean against, rely on, cling to, e.g.:

Lean on the wise in times of trouble, but not on the rich LTR; leaning on a stick BM 116; Don’t reach for a knife! Ds; reaches for work Rk (cf. you must... grab hold of it BrPII 310₉₋₁₀).

1.1.9. In the development of the Lithuanian language, the opposite process is also observable: with some verbs, it is not the accusative but the genitive of partitive origin that becomes generalized. It has already been noted that the latter tends to be used more with verbs denoting a single, bounded action (mostly perfective verbs). Verbs whose non-prefixed forms can take either the accusative or the genitive, when prefixed, in certain cases lost the ability to differentiate the object’s case form according to its meaning. The genitive became particularly firmly established with verbs whose prefix marks the completion of an action or the exceeding of a quantity (e.g.: per-, pri-, at-). For example, alongside the expressions carried firewood / some firewood, drank wine / some wine, bought potatoes / some potatoes, ate cabbage / some cabbage, where the genitive alternates with the accusative to express an indefinite quantity, with the corresponding verbs bearing the prefix pri-, per-, or at(si)-, only the genitive is used, cf.: brought in firewood, drank one’s fill of wine, bought up / picked some potatoes, ate one’s fill of cabbage (see also Ulvydas, ed. 1976: 25; Senn 1966: 391). Similarly, the genitive is also associated with non-prefixed verbs to denote a broad scope of action, e.g.:

The market is now bursting with grain Kp; All the threshing barns were abuzz with young people Sk.

Such a genitive no longer has a partitive meaning and is directly governed by the verb. Verbs to teach, to learn also directly govern the genitive with a content meaning, e.g.:

an oak twig teaches a lesson NS 1169; I will learn a craft Jabl; likewise in old writings, cf. I taught myself my own will KN 63₂₀.

1.1.10. The use of the genitive also became generalized in constructions with verbs meaning to strive for, desire, await, seek, and the like. In dialects and old writings, the accusative is sometimes also used with such verbs—as Fraenkel states-

12 | Vytautas Ambrazas

lio (1928: 67), tada, kai norimas dalykas suvokiamas kaip visuma, be jokio apribojimo, pvz.:

the wife reaches for bread from the oven PĖ; the horse reaches for oats ĖR; whatever he wants very firmly PlŠK; Look, grandmother, for yourself a spinner RD 40; they... had a son BsP IV 138.

However, even in such cases the genitive clearly predominates, and in the standard language it is already understood as a case directly governed by verbs (for examples, see Jablonskis 1957: 581; Fraenkel 1928: 65; Ulvydas, ed. 1976: 21–22). At present, with the verbs siekti, norėti, geisti, trokšti, linkėti, ieškoti, tykoti, laukti, the genitive denoting the thing sought (or awaited, or wished for) no longer has a partitive (i.e., indefinite-quantity) meaning and is not contrasted with the accusative (cf. Bulygina 1959: 104–105). The genitive was also used with the verbs šaukti, gaudyti to denote the thing sought, e.g.:

So if they call for their mothers (cf. their mother) early in the morning VD 441; But this was told to Saul, that they were chasing him BrB ApD 9,24 (das sie im nach stellet en LB).

With some verbs of seeking, the government of the genitive or accusative is generalized also according to whether the verb form is prefixed or unprefixed and the associated distinction between process and event aspect, e.g.: ieškoti + GEN., but suiieškoti + ACC., tykoti + GEN., but nutykoti, patykoti, pritykoti, suty-koti, užtykoti + ACC. (cf. LKŽ XVI 254–257). The genitive and accusative are distributed here in the reverse way from the examples mentioned above with verbs bearing prefixes that express completeness or excess in quantity, but without any opposition in terms of partitive meaning.

1.1.11. The genitive is also used to denote the thing sought with verbs of motion (eiti, bėgti, joti, važiuoti, gulti, lįsti, siųsti, etc.). This is the so-called genitive of purpose, e.g.: I went for lunch, he ran for the doctor, he rode off to fetch the night’s provisions, he went to have his horses shod, come to reap the rye, he ran to collect money, he sends for medicine (for more examples, see Jablonskis 1957: 579–581; Ulvydas, ed. 1965: 168; 1976: 28; Šukys 1998: 114). Such usage is attested from the earliest written texts, cf.

Wáisto tawésp atáimi _{DK 159₄–₅} (I am coming to you for medicine).

The purpose constructions with verbs of motion were considered a subgroup of constructions with verbs expressing desire, seeking, and waiting (Delbrück 1893: 325; Fraenkel 1928: 67). However, the relationship of the genitive to verbs of motion is different. Here the genitive is never contrasted with the accusative as a case of partitive origin, and its characteristic meaning of purpose is not conditioned by the semantics of the verb either. The establishment of the meaning of purpose in these cases was apparently furthered by constructions in which a genitive of purpose occurred alongside a supine (a) or an infinitive (b), e.g.:

(a) he ran out to fetch the doctor; they drove him to clear the forest; he went to Kraków to have the crows shod; come to reap the rye; he ran off to collect the money;

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS

13

(b) went to pick berries; set out to repair the road; came to buy brooms; ran to beat crows and so on (Jablonskis 1957: 477–478, 582; Ulvydas, ed. 1976: 168–169).

Both types of constructions have been widely used since the earliest writings; cf.:

(a) those would come to draw water BrB II Moz 2,16 (they came to draw water LB)

(b) who would go to Giriona to cut wood V Moz 19,5 (someone... would go into the forest to cut wood LB).

At the same time, data from old writings clearly show the declining use of the supine and its replacement by the infinitive (cf. Palionis 1974).

1.1.12. Ernst Fraenkel (1925: 48–51; 1928: 86) explained that in such cases the supine or infinitive was attached to the genitive, which depended on the verb⁸. This assumption is plausible for periods when the supine and infinitive had already become fossilized verb forms (Ambrazas 1995: 81). However, it is difficult to apply to earlier periods in the development of the Baltic languages.

First, the goal of movement is often expressed by a single supine (went out hunting, returned to work, went off to rest and so on). As is well known, the supine developed from the accusative of a verbal noun (an abstract noun), which had expressed the goal of movement since ancient times; cf. Old Church Slavonic ide...pomolitъ se МРК 6,46 ‘went to pray’; Latin eunt spectatum ‘go to see’ (lit. ‘seeing’); Sanskrit hōtum ēti ‘goes to sacrifice’ (lit. ‘sacrifice’; TS 6,3,1,6); see also Euler (1999). In the past, an accusative (or supine) with this goal meaning could have taken a dependent genitive as an adnominal case⁹.

Supine (or goal-accusative) constructions with an adnominal genitive apparently encouraged the use of a single genitive with goal meaning¹⁰, especially since it already had this meaning in constructions with verbs denoting desire, pursuit, and seeking.

Constructions with a single genitive after verbs of movement are still understood as elliptical. They are generally used only when the speaker presupposes an infinitive or supine meaning ‘bring, take, get, gather for oneself’¹¹. When the supine or infinitive has another meaning, its combination with the genitive cannot be replaced by a single genitive, or the meaning of the utterance changes fundamentally; cf.:

the women went out to weed the gardens SKP (but *went out for the gardens); we’ll run to sweep the room Ut (but *I’ll run

“Supines and infinitives with verbs of motion and sending also occur as epexegetic adjuncts alongside genitives dependent on these verbs...” (Fraenkel 1928: 86). Brugmann (1911: 629–630) argued that the genitive in such constructions is the “Genitive of the matter concerned, as, for example, in Lithuanian ateinų grėblio ‘I come for (after) the rake’” (ibid. 630).

Žr. Delbrück 1893: 475; Vondrák 1928: 244, 416; Kuryłowicz 1964: 185–186. Pasak Vaillant’o (1977: 78), nuo supino tokiais atvejais priklauso „génitif d’appartenance: pride vidět groba ‘il vint voir le tombeau’, littéralement ‘vers la vue du tombeau’“.

t. y., pasak Kuryłowicziaus (1964: 185), redukuoti konstrukciją (VERB + (ACC. OF GOAL + ADNOMINAL GEN.)) į VERB + ADVERBAL GEN.

Cf.: “The circumstance of an intended goal is also expressed by a single genitive, but this is possible only when the action requiring it as an object (the infinitive understood) is clear from the situation” (Labutis 1994a: 74; see also Šukys 1998: 114).

14 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

of the cottage); father went away to sow barley ErŽ (cf. went away for barley—i.e. ‘to bring back barley’).

Similarly in Old Lithuanian, cf.:

Išėjio seijas setu sekços sawa MP 97₃; Isch tę ateis suditu giwu ir numirusuiu Mž 22₃. (Stadže pržigidze sędžic žywe y martwe; Inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos MCh 82).

Expressions without the supine here would mean ‘went out to fetch seed’, ‘will come to look for the living and the dead (to<find>)’. Jablonskis (1893) even considered whether in such cases the accusative should be prescribed (e.g., everyone rushed to kiss the grandfather’s hands), but later decided in favor of the genitive (Jablonskis 1935: 36; 1957: 165). Piročkinas (1972: 132–133) noted a tendency in the Veliuona and Jurbarkas dialects to distinguish the constructions goes to buy a horse and goes to sell a horse. The accusative is sometimes used instead of the genitive in other dialects as well, especially in the Western Aukštaitian dialect. Such instances occur from the earliest writings, e.g.:

Ateit ramditi mus wissus MG₁₁ 331; kaip ateisi anu cėsu / Mus suditu Mž 449₇.

This is explained by a regrouping of syntactic relations (reanalyze) that occurred after the supine became fossilized as an invariable verb form and was in many cases replaced by the infinitive, which developed from the dative of purpose (cf. Ambrazas 1995: 81–82). The genitive was understood as an object case governed by the supine or infinitive, but in most cases (where it was not replaced by the accusative) it retained the case form characteristic of the meaning of intended purpose.

Similar syntactic relations also arose in constructions dependent on the verb norėti, in which the infinitive of transitive verbs is sometimes still used with the genitive, e.g.:

An pirkios tokia graži žolė, norim karvės užvaryt, kad ji nuėstų Kb (LTR); Bernas sumanė pabaidyti šiaurus SMAL (LKT 333); Trijs Marias... Nareia Christaus patepti Mž 245₇, (sie wolten den Herrn gesalbet han MCh 307); Szidai mane Baszniczioja sugawa, noredomi manes uszmuschti BrB ApD 26,21 (vnd vnterstunden mich zu toedten LB).

1.1.13. Constructions in which the genitive is associated with certain verbs expressing emotional states (to be astonished, to be amazed, to worry, to be indignant) suggest that in such cases it may once have been opposed to the instrumental by virtue of its partitive meaning, e.g.:

Stebeiosi ischminties BrP₁ 161₃; anis nusisteb...Diewo didzio Sussimillimo ir ischgelbeghimo szmoniu BrP₁ 119₅–₇; Todel (iš Todiel) nesirupinkite ritikschczos dienos BrB Mt 6, 34 (Darumb sorget nicht für den andern morgen LB); Ir piktinios io (tais. iš isch io) BrB Mt 13, 57 (Vnd ergerten sich an jm LB).

With the verb pasirengti, the genitive is also used in present-day dialects (see also Fraenkel 1928: 79), e.g.:

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS | 15

Lean on the table and sit LEL.

The cases of object use discussed here show that, as the genitive–accusative opposition weakens on the basis of partitive meaning, there is an increasing tendency to generalize either one or the other of these cases depending on the meaning of the verb. In this way, semantic case agreement with the verb is replaced by increasingly strong syntactic government.

1.2. Subject use

1.2.1. In sentences with verbs denoting a state and its change, the genitive is opposed to the nominative on the basis of partitive meaning, much as it is opposed to the accusative in sentences with transitive verbs. When used instead of the nominative, the partitive genitive changes not only the meaning of the sentence but also its syntactic structure, since the relation of mutual linkage (interdependence) disappears and the sentence becomes impersonal.

The singular and plural genitive forms used with verbs of state and change of state correspond semantically to those associated with transitive verbs: the singular genitive usually denotes a substance or an abstract phenomenon, while the plural denotes countable entities (cf. 1.1.1). Subject use, however, is considerably more restricted and covers far fewer verbs. Partitive genitive is most often associated with intransitive verbs denoting:

(a) presence, existence (to be, live, be blue, be black, occur, remain...):

There is water in the well KTK; There will soon be snow, too BM 440; Are there still people living beyond the marsh? Kl; Here and there, snow shows white PLV; Don’t go alone—anything can happen KRTN; There is still hay left for the cows Kl;

(b) the emergence or change of things and phenomena (to be found, appear, show up, sprout, grow...):

Flounders turned up in the head Šumskas (LKT 356); Bacon is found on the floor Krš; Mushrooms have already appeared Drsk; There still grew oak trees there; people used to gather there from the surrounding countryside Šl;

(c) movement (to go, run, travel...):

It’s going to rain now—the clouds are gathering Bgt; Guests arrived Ar; People came running to our shouts, with dogs Jablonskis 1957: 234; These days, gypsies don’t travel around like that Bt; It was moonlit; we’re going over the bridge—might some robbers jump out? Jd.

Sometimes the genitive also depends on the infinitive or reflexive form of the verbs see, hear, e.g.:

Stones can still be seen in the fields SLN; Various voices can now be heard (are heard) Ps.

The nominative of nouns, which can be associated with the same verbs,

16 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

The partitive genitive is opposed as the marked member of the opposition, e.g.:

When spring begins to appear, sap emerges LŽ (LKT 45); cf. also: Hares used to run in the forest / hares; In spring, ships used to arrive / ships (Balkevičius 1963: 77).

Such use of the partitive genitive is attested from the earliest written sources, cf.:

say, is there a house (emend., above: place) your father's house BrB I Moz 24, 24 (Haben wir auch rawm jnn deines waters hause LB); There are also other countless small things SP I 313₂₈ (Jest y innych bez liczby drobnych rzeczy).

It has counterparts in Latvian dialects and folklore (cf.: there will be... butter ‘there will be butter’; viņam ir naūdas ‘he has money’, see Endzelīns 1951: §§ 394, 403), and in ancient Slavic, Germanic, Indic, and Greek records (Delbrück 1893: 332; Brugmann 1911: 567; Hirt 1934: 105–106; Schwyzer, Debrunner 1975: 102; Chodova 1980: 209–210; 214–221).

1.2.2. In certain cases of subject (as well as object) use, the genitive of partitive origin tends to become generalized. When an intransitive verb occurs with a prefix indicating completion of the action or an excess in quantity (e.g., pri-, per-), the genitive is no longer semantically opposed to the accusative, cf.: guests came / some guests came, but only: some guests arrived. The partitive genitive here has already become a complement governed by the verb, e.g.:

Leaves fell in abundance Ktk; People gathered Asb; Those women came flying in like crows PŠL; We had mice multiply at our place DkS.

Similarly, in Latvian, the nominative may occur alongside the partitive genitive (viņam ir naudas / viņam būs nauda lit. ‘he has money / he will have money’), but verbs with a completive prefix govern a genitive complement: pienāca / sanāca ļaužu ‘people arrived / gathered’ (Endzelīns, Mūlenbachs 1928: 206; Endzelīns 1951: § 394; Gāters 1993: 98–99). A similar state of affairs is attested in Slavic languages, cf. Russian dialectal est’ chleb / chleba ‘there is bread / some bread’, but only the genitive: nabralos’ vody ‘water accumulated’, naechalo gostej ‘guests arrived’ (Borkovskij, Kuznecov 1965: 418; Vaillant 1977: 188).

1.2.3. Similarly, there is a tendency to generalize the genitive with verbs denoting a change in quantity, daugėti, mažėti (mažintis) ‘increase, decrease (diminish)’, e.g.:

There will be more water; it is raining Pc; What a lot of rye there will be here! J; Forests and fish are dwindling DrSK; People of my generation have dwindled completely JnŠk; Now we have become somewhat fewer ĖR.

The partitive origin of such constructions is indicated by rare cases in which these occur with the nominative, cf.:

The family increased in number DkS; The crops in the granary are dwindling SKR; The milk is not decreasing ALS.

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS

17.

The genitive is now also governed by verbs with a quantitative seme stigti, (pri)trūkti; (už)tekti, pakakti, and so on, e.g.:

There is a shortage of fodder for the animals STRN; Everyone lacked / had enough bread Vkš; That one is missing an eye ŠL; There is enough water in the wells PLS (LKŽ_xy 1146); There was enough slop for the cat LTs_v 302; cf. 1a. Putną pieną vien trūkst ‘only bird’s milk is lacking’; Krājuma pietiek visiem ‘there are enough reserves for everyone’ (Gāters 1993: 98).

The possibility that the genitive here could also sometimes have had a partitive meaning is suggested by sentences with a nominative of similar meaning, such as Visos dainuškos užtrūko ŠMN, cf. 1a. Man dziesmiņas pietrūkušas lit. ‘I have run short of little songs’ alongside Man pietrūka zaļa zīda ‘I ran short of green silk’ (Gāters ib.), cf. also Kas šodien trūkst? lit. ‘What is lacking today?’ However, the genitive here may also have come directly from adnominal constructions with nouns denoting quantity and denominal adverbs (cf. 1.3.3). This generalization of the genitive indicates that even in subject use, in some cases there is a tendency to replace the inherited ancient case agreement with syntactic government.

1.3. Genitive of definite quantity

1.3.1. In sentences with verbs associated with the partitive, i.e. indefinite-quantity, genitive, the quantity may be more or less specified by certain nouns or adverbs. In such cases, the genitive depends directly on the noun or adverb, and the quantity is expressed by the entire noun-or-adverb plus genitive phrase. In Lithuanian grammars, this genitive has been called the genitive of quantity (Jablonskis 1957: 576) and of quantitative content (Balkevičius 1963: 77, 83; Ulvydas, ed. 1965: 191; 1976: 47; Šukys 1998: 97). On the basis of its immediate syntactic relation, it is considered dependent on a noun or a denominal form, i.e. an adnominal genitive. However, both in its use with the same verbs and in its semantics, it is very close to the indefinite-quantity genitive discussed above, which depends directly on verbs. This connection is especially clear when the genitive is associated with adverbs of quantity: a lot (not much), little (quite a bit), plentifully, enough, a little, some amount, a bit, cf.:

(a) in sentences with verbs denoting a state or process, e.g.:

There were (many / few / a few...) people in the square; After the rain, (a few, a little, some...) mushrooms are already appearing; In the evening, (many, a few, quite a few...) guests arrived;

(b) in sentences with transitive verbs, e.g.:

I still had (a little, a bit...) linen; I got (a little, some, a lot...) of money from my neighbour; We heard (many, few, a few...) news items; The patient drank (a little, some...) milk; Aunt baked us (many, a few...) pancakes.

In the first case (a), the adverb-of-quantity and genitive phrase contrasts with the nominative; in the second case (b), it contrasts with the accusative.

18 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

1.3.2. In much the same way, the genitive is associated with nouns denoting quantity (a), numerals (b), pronouns (c), and neuter forms of adjectives (d), e.g.:

(a) an armful (of firewood), a glass (of milk), a piece, a portion (of shavings), a sack (of flour), a bottle (of beer), a group (of people), a flock (of geese);

(b) ten, eleven... (men), a hundred, a thousand... (stars), a pair, a trio... (of horses);

(c) a few, a dozen or so (children);

(d) little, 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 dependent on a verb and the genitive associated with nouns and adverbs expressing quantity was noted by Jonas Jablonskis. After giving examples with the partitive genitive, he stated: “Often the word expressing quantity is understood here as well (a little, quite a lot, much, a portion...). The origins of part and quantity are sometimes so closely connected that they are difficult to distinguish” (Jablonskis 1957: 579). The same relationship has long been observed in other related languages.

Researchers who regarded adverbal use of the genitive as the oldest treated quantity words in sentences of the type under discussion as certain appositions that specify the meaning of the partitive genitive (Delbrück 1893: 333; Brugmann 1911: 613–614). Fraenkel (1928: 55–60) likewise considered Lithuanian examples with a quantity genitive dependent on nouns and adverbs to be a type of partitive genitive, which had been associated with verbs since earliest times. However, when examples of the two types are compared, it is easy to see that use of the partitive genitive covers only some nominal constructions with the quantity genitive. Phrases such as a sack of flour, several people, much snow, little benefit and so on can occupy the subject or object position in numerous sentences, where a single partitive genitive cannot replace them (cf. Carrying a sack of flour is difficult; There is little benefit in such work, etc.). Among adjectives, only a few neuter forms (full, little) can form constructions with the genitive that are close to partitive constructions; in other cases, the quantity genitive is governed by both neuter forms (deep, long, narrow, steep) and masculine and feminine forms (worthy, -a; greedy, -i; abundant, -i; sated, -i; full, -a, and so on). Thus constructions with the quantity genitive that are synonymous with the partitive genitive directly dependent on verbs constitute only one particular case of the use of the quantity genitive dependent on nouns and adverbs of nominal origin.

Constructions with a genitive dependent on the verbs increase, decrease, and multiply, reduce, which may take various prefixes, are clearly derivative in nature, e.g.:

vandens padaugės Pc; miškų ir žuvų mažėja DrSK, žr. Ulvydas, red. (1976: 25).

The basis for such constructions is the corresponding nouns or adverbs derived from them, which are associated with the genitive (many / many people, little water, and so on)¹², while the verbs themselves are also derivationally formed from them.

¹² The origin of the adverb daug in neuter adjective forms is indicated by the older form daūgi, daūgia, e.g.: daūgi sananū turime VEE 23,13; linų pasėjau daugį ZT; kiekvieno stono žmonės daūgia užsmokėtis gal DP 64 (see also LKKž 314); these forms also occur in the first constituents of many compounds.

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS | 19

1.3.4. The synonymy of some nominal and adverbial quantity genitive constructions with verbal constructions has been explained by positing in the latter a zero variant of the word some, at least some, or the like, which expresses an indefinite quantity (Girdenis, Žulys 1973: 212; Grenda 1979: 33–340). Constructions with a partitive genitive dependent on verbs are interpreted according to the following schema: VERB + ZERO SEME ‘quantity’ + INDEFINITE-QUANTITY GENITIVE. The word expressing that zero quantity seme is said to occupy either the subject nominative or the object accusative position.

On the basis of this synchronic interpretation, a large group of quantity genitive constructions dependent on nominals and forms of nominal origin (adverbs) can be distinguished, comprising:

(a) definite-quantity constructions (a glassful of water ran in, a sack of money lay there);

(b) indefinite-quantity constructions with overt words expressing an indefinite quantity (some water ran in, there was at least some money);

(c) indefinite-quantity constructions with unexpressed (respectively) quantity words (water ran in, there was money).

From a historical perspective, such relations between the verbal partitive genitive and other quantity constructions help explain how the indefinite-quantity meaning arose. As early as 1934, Herman Hirt (1934: 111–116) conjectured that verbal phrases with a partitive genitive had become established in the Indo-European languages as a result of ellipsis of a constituent of nominal origin. An origin in reduced constructions with a supine (a form of nominal origin) can also be discerned in the Lithuanian use of the genitive of purpose mentioned in 1.1.11. Through the presumed ellipsis of a noun in the nominative, the genitive sometimes takes the place of the sentence subject in sentences such as The neighbours have already harvested the flax and dug up the turnips Šln (see Ulvydas, ed. 1976: 29; 290).

The partitive genitive, like the adverbal genitive more generally, can also be diachronically derived, along with many other cases, from types of use in the system of the adnominal genitive (cf. Kurylowicz 1964: 184–185). Naturally, such a development of the genitive cannot be demonstrated on the basis of Lithuanian, which was recorded relatively late, even though it has preserved many conservative features. It can only be posited for very remote periods in the development of the Indo-European languages, since partitive genitive constructions directly associated with verbs are attested in all groups of related languages from the very earliest written records. Nevertheless, Lithuanian data clearly show that the features of use of the partitive genitive and other related constructions are best explained by taking into account their historical connections with the adnominal genitive.

1.3.5. Adnominal use is the broadest and most characteristic domain of use for the genitive, and is often regarded as the basis of this case’s grammatical function (cf. Benveniste 1962; Kurylowicz 1964: 183–186). In Lithuanian, as in other related languages, the genitive can characterize nouns in a wide variety of ways, depending on the context and the lexical meanings of the nouns themselves. Besides the aforementioned meaning of quantity, the diversity of adnominal genitive uses is grounded in a general meaning of dependency, encompassing possession (parents’ home, mother’s scarf), material (gold ring, silver bullet), partitive, or part-of-an-object (mountain peak), comparison (flaxen hair), purpose (bread knife), origin (village man, forest animal), quality (a man of intellect), and other meanings. Grammaticalized

20 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

the types of subjective genitive (a child’s joy, a person’s life) and objective genitive (forest felling). Analysis of these types of adnominal use and their relations is a subject for a separate study.

1.4. Temporal genitive

1.4.1. Constructions in which the genitive denotes time are probably also related to partitive use. Fraenkel regarded such cases as simply a subtype of partitive use (“eine Abart der partitiven Verwendung” 1928: 62).

In contemporary Lithuanian, the genitive is used to express time relatively rarely, and only when the noun itself denotes a concept of time. The genitives of such nouns tend to become adverbialized; the most common are ryto, vakaro, found in dialects and traditional folklore, for example:

I set out for town in the morning Sv; There was frost in the morning DkŠT; Who drove them in the morning, early in the morning? NS 453; I went mushrooming in the morning JnŠM; I cannot eat for a long time in the morning ALKS; In the evening, as usual, I mounted the horse ŽnS; Whoever sings in the morning, weeps in the evening STR; We only got home in the evening Sv; The brothers grazed the horses in the evening NS 453.³⁶

The genitive has also been observed in use to denote the phases of the moon: jauno reikia bulbas sodint ar pilnaties AD (Vidugiris 1994: 62). Cf. also the genitive of a more abstract meaning, senybės ‘formerly’: kai būdo (= būdavo) senybos TvR (Otrębski 1934: 419). That the genitive in such cases has only fairly recently become adverbialized is shown by examples from folk songs that include a modifier, for example:

Subatos vakarėlio mergelė kiemą šlavė BTR; Nedėlios rytėlio ėjau vandenėlio LZ.

Other genitives denoting concepts of time and accompanied by modifiers have also been observed in dialects, for example:

Kožnós dienós užsikeli ir pašluoji ZT; aš nežinau, kurių metų itai buvo LZ; nu, jiem duoda tę kito karto trupučiuką GRV (Vidugiris 1994: 62; see also Ulvydas 1964: 12–13; LKŽ_XI 755; LKŽ_XVII 1000; Zinkevičius 1966: 394; Valiulytė 1995: 78–79).

Such freely used temporal genitives also occur in old writings, for example:

Jog ischwisi kosznos dienos MŽ 386₁₄ (das du wirst schawen stetiglich MCH 448); kalbeia kiek dienos Iskaloia BrB ApD 19,9 (redet teglich LB, cotidie N); ir antras dienas eija su leis WP 158_16–17, neszninate kuras (12) hadinas weschpatis iusu tur ateiti WP 12–12a (jr wisset nicht / welche stunde ewer Herr komen wird LB Mt 24,42; qua hora Dominus vester venturus sit N); tasiegu hadinas nenoriu atminti wissų grekų ia WP 80 a; Gaigalat 1900: 45); cf. also the genitive of the compound noun pusnakties: kaip kada pusnakties tikieios Ekruninkai Szemen nekołie atranda BrB ApD 27,27 (vmb die mitternacht LB, circa mediam noctem N), and likewise BrB Lk 11,5 (Gelumbėckaitė 1999: 17).

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS

1.4.2. In the cases mentioned, the genitive denotes a time interval during which an action lasts or takes place. Nowadays, the accusative or locative is most commonly used with this meaning; cf. Rytą anksti keltis PGG; Visą vakarą lijo GRL, and the like (Valiulytė 1998: 194–241). The temporal genitive and accusative are sometimes used even in the same sentence, e.g.: Ryto žuvų, dieną vėl žuvų gaudyt einu STRN.

It is difficult to discern a difference in meaning between the use of adverbialized or adverbializing genitive forms and the temporal accusative or locative. However, given the prevailing tendency for the adverbial genitive to express only a partial, indefinite quantity, it may be assumed that in the cases mentioned, too, the genitive probably differed from the accusative by a shade of partitive meaning, which faded as the temporal genitive became adverbialized.

The genitive nakties, generally used when speaking of staying out overnight with livestock, has a purposive nuance, e.g.: Tada gulėjom nakties VŽNS. It may be associated with the genitive after verbs of motion; cf. Juza eis nakties DS, on whose possible connections with the partitive and adnominal genitive, see 1.1.2 and 1.3.5.

In present-day language, the genitive of nouns denoting time is most often governed by prepositions (cf. from night, from morning, until evening, etc.). The use of the prepositionless temporal genitive has declined even further in Latvian. Here, only in folk songs have adverbialized compound nouns with half-, denoting temporal concepts, still been observed; cf.: The sun rose at midmorning... At midsummer the men rode BW 14231/3 ‘The sun rose at midmorning (= early in the morning)... The men rode at midsummer’ (Gāters 1993: 106).

1.4.3. The Lithuanian temporal genitive has clear parallels in the early monuments of other related languages, for example, Slavic (Old Russian toi že zimy pridoša nemci I Novg LET. 128, see Borkovskij, ed. (1968: 161) ‘that very winter the Germans came’), Germanic (Gothic nahts ‘at night’, Old High German tages ‘by day’), Ancient Greek (ἡμέρας ‘by day’, ἠοῦς ‘at dawn’, νυκτός ‘at night’), and Old Indic (aktoḥ ‘at night’) (Delbrück 1893: 356–359; Brugmann, 1911: 573–574; Behaghel 1923: 590 ff.; Vondrák 1928: 245; Hirt 1934: 106–108; Krahe 1972: 79; Vaillant 1977: 79; Schwyzer, Debrunner 1975: 112–113); the adverbialized Latin nox ‘at night, i.e. by night’ probably belongs here as well (Hofmann, Szantyr 1972: 85). This suggests that the remnants of the adverbial use of the genitive to express time are inherited from a period when the object function of this case had not yet become established.

2. GENITIVE OF NEGATION

2.1. Already in the first printed grammar of the Lithuanian language, the following rule was formulated: “Verbs with the negative particle né most often take the genitive, although otherwise, without it, they would take the accusative”¹³. Danielius Kleinas also provided striking examples illustrating how this rule operates:

Jus nepazįstat jo / asz pažįstu jį Jn 8,55; neturėk kitu Diewu, nepėrženk wenčiawones Moz II 20, 3; 14 (KLG 154), Gėras mėdis gėrą waisu atnes / gėras mėdis negal pikto waisaus atnešti Mt 7,17.

¹³ “Verbs accompanied by the negative particle né very frequently take the genitive, whereas without it they would otherwise take the accusative” KLG 154; similarly KLC 107.

21

22 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

Similarly, the genitive is used instead of the nominative with some stative verbs when negated. Although Kleinas does not state this rule explicitly, he also provides examples of this usage:

There is nothing good on this evil earth; there was not a single person who could help; if there were no more KLG 154.

At the same time, Kleinas observed that verbs sometimes take the accusative even when negated:

newėsk mus ing pagundima Mt 6,13; idant smertis nepasmaugtu jus girtus, bet ne: jusu girtu.

The genitive of negation is similarly described in the grammars of Sapūnas–Šulcas and in later grammars (Rugys, Milkus).

2.2. The genitive of negation with transitive verbs is widely attested from the very beginning of the written record, in both original and translated texts, where it is used independently of the influence of the originals (most often translating an accusative):

Ir nekada manes nog usu neatmeskiet Mž 9 6; Ne ludik prysch artima tawa neteisaus liudima Mž 19₁₄–₁₅ (Du solt kein falsch zeugnis reden widder deinen nehesten LB; Niebędziesz falsiwie swiathczil MCh 79); Ne tureki kytų Diewų preg manes Mž 18₁₂, t. p. VEE 11₆ (Niebędziesz miał bogow ynich nadmȩ MCh 78); kurs szmogus isch yüssu... er ne paliekt dewinių deschimtų ir dewinių ginoje VEE 88 4 Lk 15,4 (Welch mensch... der nicht lasse die neun vnd neuntzig jnn der wüsten LB); Mes io ne nuszawinkem (...) Nepralieķet kraujo, bet mesket ghį Dūbena BrB I Moz 37, 21–22 (Lasset vns jn nicht tödten... Vergesset nicht blut LB); Tatày yra priesz anùs / kurie nieko ne nor dariti DP 64₃₄ (co nic niechca czynić ³W 65₃₆); Ir ne pakąką tau to DP 64₃₆ (A zać nie dosyć ná tym ³W 65₃₈).

The contrast between the genitive and the accusative is especially evident in cases where verbs occurring both with and without negation take either the genitive or the accusative:

You have angered me, and do not love me BrB Tes 14,16 (You are displeased with me and do not love me LB); and if they do not do that / then they commit a cursed sin VE 7₁–₂ (And if they do not do so, what a cursed sin they commit LE A5); We must... love him / so that we do not despise his sermon and word / but hold them holy VE 12₇–₉ (We should fear and love God, so that we do not despise the sermon and his word, but hold them holy LE B3); who are subject to human oppression, but do not have human nature (but there is no human person SP₁ 166₁₁–₁₃); Soon you will no longer see me / and soon again you will see me DP 210₄₃–₄₄ (A little while and you will see me no more / and again a little while and you will see me ³W 218₄₁–₄₂; A little while, and you will see me no more; and again a little while, and you will see me Jn 16,16).

2.3. The accusative with verbs containing negation is also found in the oldest writings, but considerably less frequently than the genitive. Ernštas Fraenkelis (1928: 48) noted

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS | 23

note that the accusative tends to be chosen before the verb, i.e., when the negation has not yet been uttered, e.g.:

If you brothers do not reject these words, sisters Mž 8₁₈; I call upon you... so that you would not abandon us Mž 483_10–11; Whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God / like a child Mž 122_9–11 (Wer das Reich Gottes nicht entphehet MCh 184); what you did not do to one of the least of these / that you did not do to me as well VEE 133_8–9 (vas jr nicht gethan habt einem vnter diesen geringsten / das habt jr mir auch nicht gethan LB Mt 25, 45); ‘these words which I spoke to you / I do not say from myself VEE 151_21–22 (Die wort die ich zu euch rede LB Jn 14,10).

Nevertheless, this tendency is not pronounced: the same authors more often use the genitive before a verb in a negative form. On the other hand, in the writings of authors from Lithuania Minor, the accusative sometimes also occurs after a verb containing negation, e.g.:

Soon, but the world will see me no more BrB Jn 14,19 (Es ist noch vmb ein kleines / so wird mich die welt nicht mehr sehen LB); then do not take the mother with the young V Moz 22,6 (so soltu nicht die mutter mit den jungen nemen LB); and the man did not tell his name Teis 13,6 (vnd er saget mir nicht wie er hiesse LB).

In the writings of authors from both Greater and Lesser Lithuania, preposed or postposed accusatives with verbs in a negative form are much rarer than the genitive of negation. In the corresponding places in the originals of translated texts, where Lithuanian authors used the genitive, we generally find the accusative. For example, when translating the Gospel of Luke, Bretkūnas immediately rendered 66 Vulgate constructions with verbs in a negative form and an accusative using the genitive of negation; in another 20 cases he replaced the accusative with the genitive while correcting the manuscript, and in only 23 examples did he retain the accusative (Gelumbekaitė 1999: 10). By contrast, no cases were found here in which the accusative of negation was used independently of the Latin original.

In 16th-century writings from Lithuania Minor, the genitive is also used in constructions where it depends on a verb in a negative form not directly, but through an infinitive in a positive form, e.g.:

so that it cannot be said VE 7₁₅ (das nicht zu sagen ist LE A5); unable to raise children properly VE 7_7–8 (wo sie nicht helffen kinder ziehen LE A5); they had nothing to eat VEE 95₈ (vnd hatten nicht zu essen LB Mrk 8,1).

Similarly in the writings from Greater Lithuania, cf.:

having no place to shelter his head SP₁ 184₂₀; does not allow to see the light of truth SP₁ 15_18–1914.

¹⁴From the beginning of written records to the present day, the accusative is also used in such cases; cf. it is not fitting for you to have your brother’s wife VEE 170₂₁ (Es ist nicht recht / das du deines bruders weib habest LB Mrk 6,18), see Fraenkel (1928: 51).

24

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

Thus, the genitive of negation was firmly established in the 16th–17th centuries and prevailed not only in the dialects of Greater Lithuania but also in those of Lithuania Minor. This is confirmed by examples in the 1973 grammar by Sapūnas and Schulz and by the note that with verbs containing negation it is “better to use the genitive” (“elegantius Genitivum”):

I saw nothing. You don’t hate anything. I do not cause you any harm and so on (SC 78).

2.4. The accusative with verbs in the negative form entered 16th–17th-century writings mainly from German and Latin sources. Comparing with the originals the examples from old writings cited by Jonas Palionis (1967: 162), in which the accusative of negation was observed, we see that in almost every case (with one exception) the German accusative was translated by it; cf.:

nei siułà nei kurpiù dirṣà neimsíu BrB I Moz 14,23 – das ich... nicht ein faden noch einen schuch rimen nemen wil LB; tadda neimk augiwe su waikais V Moz 22,6 – so soltu nicht die mutter mit den jungen nemen LB; ghis man ne pasake warda sawa TEIS 13,6 – und er saget mir nicht wie er hiesse LB; nekentecziu wissus falschivus kellus RPs 119, 104 – Darumb hasse ich alle falsche wege LB.

There is no evidence to support Palionis’s assumption (ib) that in 16th–17th-century writings from Lithuania Minor the accusative here was determined by the authors’ dialect. However, in later times, when colonization and Germanization substantially changed the population of Lithuania Minor and created favorable conditions for syntactic calques to spread in everyday speech, the accusative of negation may have become more established in the southern Aukštaitian dialects. This state of affairs is reflected in Donelaitis’s writings. Jonas Šukys (1996: 52–53) found in “The Seasons” 20 examples in which the accusative is directly associated with transitive verbs containing negation (e.g., does not eat the soup VD 241; had not yet moved the plot VD 448), and a further 35 in which it is associated indirectly, through an infinitive in the affirmative form (we need not endure the lordly diseases VD 31, and so on). On the other hand, the genitive directly dependent on a verb in the negative form was observed in only four examples (e.g., does not like the girls’ bloody patterned skirts VD 351; we do not know the length of the coming winter RG 905); somewhat more examples were found with an indirectly dependent genitive (does not dare wear colorful patterned skirts any longer VD 351; could no longer smoke tobacco RG 243). In addition, the accusative of negation is sometimes associated here with verbs that in other instances take the genitive of negation; cf.:

that fellow does not yet know VD 504; not having seen the world RG 878 – they had already known no daylight RG 735; they had not yet known either shoes or boots RG 777; they did not give us freedom ŽR 197 – they did not give everyone a good word either ŽR 341 (Šukys 1996: 53).

Thus, the domain of use of the accusative of negation in Donelaitis’s writings had already expanded considerably, which is quite understandable given that in the mid-18th century Lithuanians made up only a minority of Tolminkiemis’s inhabitants (about 25%, according to Jurgis Lebedys 1977: 198), while in German the accusative was already used consistently at that time with objects of verbs in the negative form (cf. Lockwood 1968: 10).

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS

25

2.5. Even more extensive use of the accusative after verbs containing negation is attested in the folktales published by Jonas Basanavičius, which were recorded mainly in the southern Western Aukštaitian and Samogitian dialects in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. According to Janina Švambarytė (1998: 58), the genitive is used in only 10% of examples with object verbs (over 1,000 sentences with the accusative and only about 100 with the genitive). Given that Basanavičius’s collections also include texts recorded in other dialects, this ratio indicates extremely widespread use of the accusative, or, correspondingly, a narrowing of genitive use in the Western Aukštaitian dialects. August Schleicher also drew attention in his grammar to the spread of the accusative with negative verbs. Current dialect studies confirm this as well. It has been observed that the closer one gets to the former German (formerly Prussian) border, the more firmly established the accusative of negation is, while farther to the northeast the genitive of negation is also used alongside it (Senkus 1959).

Generally, the genitive after object verbs containing negation now prevails in all Lithuanian dialects (except the Southwestern Aukštaitian dialects mentioned above), although in some areas, especially among Samogitians, the accusative is also used alongside it. The rule for the genitive of negation is most generalized in Standard Lithuanian. Nevertheless, even here, in cases of indirect connection (through infinitives of verbs in the affirmative form), variation between the genitive and accusative is accepted (cf. Ulvydas, ed. 1965: 187–188; 1976: 23–24; Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 511; Oginskienė 1979; Piročkinas 1986: 186; Šukys 1998: 111, 202–203).

Data from old writings and dialects suggest that the genitive of negation became established in Lithuanian long before the advent of writing. The influence of German encouraged wider use of the accusative of negation in the writings of Lithuania Minor and in the southern Southwestern Aukštaitian dialects.

2.6. With stative verbs containing negation, the genitive contrasts with the subject nominative in corresponding sentences without negation. Verbs nebūti, nelikti are usually associated with the genitive of negation, as are predicative infinitives nematyti, negirdėti, nejausti and reflexive verbs synonymous with them, nesimato, nesigirdi, nesijaučia:

When I was growing up, there was absolutely no schooling Rt (LKT 61); If there are no floods (= embankments), there will be no doors or windows SLNT (LKT 71); They let them all go, right up to the last child; not one remained Klk (cf.: whoever was left was Mikas’s Jnš); The road cannot be seen yet PG; There, the barn cannot be seen Nmč; It is dark; nothing can be seen TVR; Today the wind cannot be heard Er; Drink good beer, and drink it again—the mind hears nothing PRNG; Usually, the cows’ horns could not be seen among the clover Ds (cf.: The whole little plot can be seen as if in the palm of your hand SKDT) (for more examples, see Šukys 1998: 108–109).

Such sentences with the genitive of negation have a generalized impersonal stative meaning. The absence of a thing or person in a particular place or under particular circumstances is expressed by personal sentences with the nominative; cf.:

She stayed here for a while, and then she was gone again Mžk – Valiūnė appeared one day and was gone GršL.

The genitive of negation with stative verbs (as with object verbs) is also characteristic of 16th–17th-century writings; cf.:

26 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

nera iô cõznai VEE 56₁₆ (Er ist nicht hie LB Mrk 16,6); ir nera ne wieno sutwerimo pokim io neregimo SP I 14₂₄–₂₅;

The same was true of the contrast in its meaning with the nominative, for example:

There is no form or beauty in him / when we looked upon him / there was no appearance that would have pleased us VEE 214–215 (Isaiah 53:5) – He had no form nor comeliness / we saw him / but there was no appearance that would have pleased us LB.

2.7. The same types of negative genitive use are attested in Latvian: (a) object constructions with a genitive directly dependent on the verb: tās vietinas nezināju BW 3725 ‘I did not know those places’; meitas naida neturēja 6513 ‘the girls bore no anger’ (Gāters 1993: 108–109); (b) with a genitive dependent indirectly—through an infinitive or participle: irbju šaut nemācēja BW 30462 ‘could not shoot partridges’; neviens sveicinātāja nebij redzējis pienākam ‘no one had seen the greeter approach’ (Lepika 1954: 14); (c) subject constructions in which the genitive contrasts with the nominative: karstā zemēs ziemas nav ‘there is no winter in warm countries’ (Endzelins 1951: § 403. For more on the negative genitive in Latvian, see Lepika 1954; Bergmane e.a., ed. 1959: 394; Gāters 1993: 107–110).

In Latvian folk songs, the negative genitive is still used fairly regularly. As in Lithuanian, examples of the negative accusative are also found in the underlying corpus (cf. smuku zygru najem ‘don’t take a handsome horse’ Endzelins 1951: § 403). Since the period of the written tradition, both colloquial and written language have seen this accusative tending to spread, and the domain of use of the negative genitive has now narrowed considerably (cf. Lepika 1954: 44).

2.8. In the Slavic languages, the negative genitive has been widely used since the earliest times. Its usage types in Old Church Slavonic correspond to those characteristic of Lithuanian and Latvian and are not dependent on the influence of Greek originals, for example:

(a) błǫdite ne vědošte knigъ ni sly bžije Mt 22, 29 MAR ‘you are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God’ – πλανᾶσθε μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφὰς μηδὲ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ θεοῦ N; vina ne imǫtъ Jn 2,3 ZOGR, MAR, ASS ‘they have no wine’ – οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσιν N; (b) črьva bǫže naslědovati ne mogǫtъ EuchSin 89 a 20 ‘they cannot inherit the kingdom of God’ – βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν (Večerka 1958: 188); (c) ne bě ima města v obiteli Lk 2,7 MAR, SAV, ASS ‘there was no room for them in the inn’ – οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι N; ne bě ima čeda Lk 1,7 MAR, ZOGR, ASS ‘they had no child’ – οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τέκνον N (Chodova 1980: 214–215).

Research demonstrates the autochthonous character of the negative genitive across a large area of the Slavic languages and its gradual retreat in object constructions (especially pronounced in the southern languages—Bulgarian, Serbian and Croatian, and Slovenian)¹⁵; on the other hand, in subject constructions-

¹⁵ Miklosich 1868–1874/4: 498–501; Vondrák 1928: 251–252; Večerka 1958; Hausenblas 1958: 114–120; Borkovskij 1968: 274–277; Stanislav 1973: 158–159; Chodova 1980: 214–221; on the loss of the negative genitive in Russian, see Timberlake 1986: 354–355 and the extensive bibliography in Corbett 1986: 361–372.

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS | 27

In constructions, East Slavic languages tend in some cases to generalize the genitive.

2.9. The use of the genitive with negative verbs instead of the accusative or nominative is attested even in the oldest Germanic-language texts—in passages from the Gothic Bible. It is noteworthy that neither of the two variants of the genitive of negation—the object genitive and the subject genitive—is dependent here on Greek sources, e.g.:

(a) ni habaida diupaizos airpas MRK 4,5 – οὐκ εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν ‘it had no deep soil’; (c) ni was im rumis Lk 2,7 ‘there was no room for them’; ni was im barne Lk 1,7 ‘they had no children’ (Guchman 1958: 121), cf. 2,8 (c).

In later periods in the development of the Germanic languages, this usage is found only in remnants, e.g., Old High German tū ni habis kiscīres ‘you have no vessel (for drawing water)’ Lockwood (1968: 10).

2.10. Although the genitive of negation is a common and undoubtedly ancient phenomenon in Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic, this does not yet provide grounds for classifying it as inherited from Proto-Indo-European. In the examples observed in Greek and Indo-Iranian, the genitive dependent on verbs in the negative form is very close to the partitive, e.g. Greek οὐ μὴ χροὸς εἴσατο N 191 ‘nowhere was any skin to be seen’ (cf. Schwyzer, Debrunner 1975: 102).

It is therefore important to consider the relationship between the genitive of negation and the unquestionably inherited partitive usage. This relationship has been explained in two ways in works on historical linguistics. Some scholars regarded the genitive of negation simply as a subtype of the partitive genitive (Miklosich 1868–1874: 498; Brugmann 1911: 611–613; Fraenkel 1928: 47–55; Schwyzer, Debrunner 1975: 102), while others merely derived it from the partitive (Meillet 1934: 465; Endzelins 1951: 403)¹⁶.

The connection between the genitive of negation and partitive usage can also be seen in Lithuanian examples in which the noun in the genitive denotes a particular substance or mass (a), or, in the plural, denotes countable things (b):

(a) He dug all night, but found no gold MRC (cf. found gold); We, having tasted no cake, will not go home KP (cf. having tasted cake); Don’t pour water on the threshold! YL (cf. pour water); (b) As he walked, he met no people VL (cf. met people); That hen will lay no eggs VRN (cf. will lay eggs).

Such examples of the genitive of negation fit directly into the series of quantity genitives discussed already in 1.3.4. At the first stage in this series would be the so-called “content of quantity” genitive, denoting a definite (had / took a bag of money) or indefinite quantity (had / took some money), followed by the partitive genitive, denoting an indefinite quantity (had / took money), while the third position could be occupied by the genitive of negation, denoting the absence of a quantity (had no / took no money, cf. German er hatte kein Geld, English he had no money), e.g.: you will not take this money BsPₙ 200. This also relates to quantity

¹⁶ Beje, buvo bandyta neiginio genityvą išvesti ir iš abliatyvo (žr. Potebnja 1958: 320–321; Peškovskij 1956: 296–297).

28 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

with constructions and the so-called subjective genitive of negation, dependent on verbs of state, cf.: there were many people in the village / there were people / there were no people.

Brugmann explained the development of the genitive of negation from the partitive as follows: in cases of negation, the speaker perceived that no part of the whole denoted by the noun was affected by the action: whoever does not see the forest does not see any part of the forest. Therefore, the characteristic expression of the partitive can readily be extended to negation¹⁷. Alan Timberlake (1986: 345) similarly explains the connection between the partitive meaning and Roman Jakobson’s postulated “general meaning of the genitive”: the genitive denotes a certain extent of participation in an action, while in a negative sentence that extent of participation is negated: the participant does not participate in the action at all. However, only a small portion of the constructions with the genitive of negation can now be linked to the partitive in this way, above all the examples of types (a) and (b) mentioned above. It is possible that constructions of this type were once the starting point for the genitive of negation. Yet most constructions with the genitive of negation in Lithuanian, Latvian, Slavic and, apparently, Gothic can no longer be classified as partitive, since the genitive in them does not have a quantitative meaning and is governed by negation. This is especially clear in those Lithuanian sentences where a genitive noun denoting a specific individual entity depends on a negated verb, for example:

Do not leave the road for a footpath (cf. leave the road); Equal to a tree, it never sees the sun (cf. sees the sun) (For more examples, see Jablonskis 1957: 236; 584–585; Balkevičius 1963: 187; Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 107; Šukys 1998: 109–110).

This genitive is opposed to the accusative not on the basis of a semantic feature (e.g., a particular quantitative meaning), but according to a syntactic rule that requires the accusative to be replaced by the genitive after transitive verbs bearing negation. This rule operates independently of lexical and semantic factors: a noun takes the genitive form even when it would be entirely impossible to use the genitive with the corresponding affirmative verb. The genitive replaces not only accusatives governed by the valency of a transitive verb, but also those denoting a quantity of time or distance (path), provided they are directly associated with a negated verb, for example:

I stayed there for two days – I did not stay there for two days; The journey lasted a week – The journey did not last a week; I walked half the way – I did not walk even half the way.

In sentences with verbs of state, the nominative subject is replaced by the genitive, and the sentence takes on an impersonal-state meaning (cf. 2.6). Given this universal character, the genitive-of-negation rule primarily determines case selection also in the already-mentioned sentences of types (a) and (b), where the noun denotes a substance, mass, or countable entity. Jablonskis (1957: 584) best describes the principal condition for its operation, stating that “the genitive itself must be closely connected with the negative form of the verb

¹⁷ “When the speaker wishes to negate that something is happening in relation to the concept denoted by a noun, the idea readily arises that nothing from the whole of this nominal concept is affected by the action; whoever does not see the forest sees nothing of it” (Brugmann 1911: 611).

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS

29

form.” Meanwhile, Fraenkel’s remark that the genitive of negation is used when the action and its effect on the object are viewed more generally and abstractly, while the accusative is used when speaking of a particular concrete case (1928: 48), is more applicable to Slavic languages, where the use of the genitive of negation in object constructions is considerably more restricted.

The syntactic rule governing the genitive of negation clearly distinguished constructions with negated verbs from cases where the genitive is motivated by a partitive (indefinite-quantity) meaning. Across the Baltic, Slavic, and at least part of the Germanic language area, this rule was generalized and became established, apparently during the period of early contact among these language groups. Its antiquity in Germanic is demonstrated by ninth-century Gothic texts, and in Slavic by its regular use already in Old Church Slavonic monuments and its gradual decline in many Slavic languages, documented in historical times. Thus, we have here one of the ancient syntactic commonalities linking the Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic languages.

2.11. It is worth noting that a syntactic rule requiring the case associated with a verb to change in negative sentences is also characteristic of Estonian, Finnish, and other West Finnic languages. In negative sentences in these languages, the partitive is used in both “object” and “subject” constructions, just as in the Baltic languages, e.g.: Finnish mie heitä en tuntenut ‘I did not know her’; ole ketään pelastajia ‘there is no savior’ (Larsson 1983: 77, 80). The West Finnic partitive, like the Baltic and other Indo-European genitives, is also widely used to express an indefinite quantity, but in cases of negation its opposition to the accusative is neutralized on this basis. Detailed studies of the partitive in West Finnic languages show that West Finnic speakers most likely adopted the use of this case in negative sentences, as well as for expressing an indefinite quantity, from Baltic, along with many lexical loans, during the period of early Baltic–Finnic language contact (Larsson 1983: 2–3, 141–147). In current typological studies, the partitive together with the genitive of negation is considered one of the syntactic isoglosses characteristic of the languages of the Baltic Sea region (Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Wälchli forthcoming).

3. ABLATIVE MEANING

3.1. Lithuanian genitive has inherited its ablative (source and separation) meaning from forms used in the distant Indo-European past (mostly with *-ōd), which in Baltic (as well as Slavic and Ancient Greek) became attached to the genitive. Their original function was apparently to indicate a point of departure—the things or persons from which movement begins, or away from which it proceeds. The local meaning of these forms was the opposite of that later acquired by the postpositional locatives of Lithuanian, the illative and the allative. In Indo-Iranian, and perhaps also in Old Italic, these forms were generalized as the ablative case, with a very defective paradigm. It is possible that the basic *o-stem ablative form with *-ōd in the languages mentioned also arose in a way similar to the Lithuanian illative, that is, through the addition of the postposition *-(o/e)d at the end, which in this case had the opposite, “centrifugal” meaning (cf. Latin de ‘from’, Slavic otъ ‘from, away from’). Since these ablative forms merged with the genitive in Baltic very long ago, their original meanings are not always distinguishable from those long characteristic of the genitive. Nevertheless, fairly clear traces of ablative usage can still be discerned in Lithuanian.

30 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

3.2. The meaning of a POINT OF DEPARTURE, which was probably prototypical, has survived in Lithuanian in unproductive, obsolescent constructions, mostly with the verb bėgti:

Run from the thief and his tracks Alks; Don’t run from the first market Lp (cf. Don’t run from the first merchant LŠ); He differs little from that Vv (‘differs little’).

Similarly in old writings, for example:

While fleeing from the wolf, he will overtake the fox B 1007 (likewise 160, 184, 435, 972); Then he and St Paul... escape the hands of their enemies WP 55₁₀₋₁₂; So that you might escape all that is to come WP 12₃₂.

The genitive retained this meaning also in rare constructions with flow, move away, and in old writings also with save:

A stream flows from a spring, green reeds grow along the banks Zp (LKŽₓᵥᵢᵢ 514); He moved away from his home Kv (cf. Children move away from their parents DŪNŽ (LKŽₓᵥᵢ 505); We believe in Jesus Christ, who arose (...) and saved us from eternal death Mž 244₅₋₆, 90₉₋₁₀ (saved us from eternal death MCH 151, likewise 296₆₋₈); I will deliver him from all trouble PK 80₁₆.

Latvian folklore also attests constructions with a corresponding meaning, cf.: I did not flee from wolf or bear BW 13167/1; From which land did I bring (the bride)? 183 ‘from which country did I bring (the bride)’ (Gāters 1993: 111); From what bog did you crawl out? 382 ‘from what bog did you crawl out?’ (Endzelīns 1951: § 407).

In these sentences, the genitive is linked to the verb as a local case, not syntactically governed by the verb’s valency. Similarly, in ancient Indo-Iranian languages the ablative was associated with verbs of motion, for example with Vedic i- ‘go’, dhāv- ‘run’, pat- ‘fall’, as well as causatives: aj- ‘drive’ (ókasah ‘from home’), see Delbrück 1893: 201. However, this usage became obsolete very early; already in Avestan, only remnants predating the expansion remain. In Homeric Greek, genitives with meanings of source and separation are attested with verbs denoting retreat from something, such as χαζομαι, χωρέω, εἴκω and the like, but later give way to genitives with prepositions (Schwyzer, Debrunner 1975: 91–92). Similarly, in Old Latin ablatives were used with verbs of motion curro, fugio ‘I run’, mitto ‘I send’, but in the classical period these were replaced by prepositional constructions and survived better only with place names, e.g. Athenis proficisci ‘to depart (from) Athens’ and the like (see Krahe 1972: 105–106; Hofmann, Szantyr 1972: 102–103). Only remnants of the separation genitive with verbs of motion are attested in old Slavic-language monuments, cf. Old Russian běži, duša, Vavilona ‘run, soul, away from Babylon’¹⁸. In this context it is clear that Lithuanian constructions in which the genitive with intransitive verbs has the prototypical meaning of a point of departure are part of the common inheritance from Indo-European antiquity.

¹⁸ Plačiau apie abliatyvinės reikšmės genityvą slavų kalbose žr. Miklosich 1874: 451–454; Vondrák 1928: 246; Borkovskij, Kuznecov 1965: 466; Morozova 1968: 152–154.

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS

31

3.3. A meaning of separation, very close to the one already discussed, emerges in constructions with the verbs atsiskirti, likti that have become syntactic archaisms, for example:

What did the sunrises separate from? RD 27; If I survive this war, I will become a doctor ¹⁹.

The genitive also retained the meaning of separation with the verb gintis (also apsiginti, atsiginti), used in the sense ‘to protect oneself’, for example:

Did the dogs defend themselves with that stick? ĖR; I could not fend off those bees RM.

In some constructions denoting separation from a particular whole, the genitive can also be understood as expressing quantity and partitivity, for example:

You separate a pinch of chamomile, put it in water UPN (LKŽ_XII 931); Cut me a slice of bread too; I’ll have some of this bacon to cut off for myself as well Jablonskis (1957: 590).

3.4. The genitive has a local meaning close to separation in some constructions with the verb lenktis, when it denotes ‘to go around in an arc, avoiding an encounter’, for example:

Oh, the bright little sun keeps going around the black little clouds KrvD 39; Avoid the manure not out of fear, but because of the stench PND.

Such constructions are apparently historically grounded in the use of this verb without requiring a valency complement; cf.:

Don’t go around (= don’t take a circuitous route), or you’ll keep running into things everywhere Ds.

Nowadays, however, the verb lenktis most often has the generalized meaning ‘to avoid, beware of’, and the genitive is its obligatory complement, denoting the thing avoided, for example:

Thus you’ll avoid your mother-in-law like a spark of fire JV 26,

and likewise in the old writings:

Who then shrinks from those words – strėžę siė tych słów SP_II 55₃ (cf. who guards against all kinds of words ib. 55_26–27).

Since the verb vengti < *uengh- also once meant ‘to go around’, its combination with the genitive may likewise have been grounded in a local case meaning, which was later generalized. Possible traces of it and its connection with ‘lenktis’ can be discerned in sentences such as these:

¹⁹ Similarly, in Bretkūnas’s example with ap(i)plėšti: Jus appleschat manne mana waiku BrB I Moz 42,36, though here the influence of the German text is also possible; cf. Ir beraubt mich meiner kinder LB.

32 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

Avoids, would go past DAUK (LKŽ_XVIII 710); (The wolf) avoids people, does not come near KLT; Christ... avoided them, did not go near BrP_II 74₅.

3.5. How the genitive’s relation to the verb changed through semantic generalization can also be seen in constructions with the verb kratytis, whose old, concrete meaning ‘to tremble’ provided the basis for the general (figurative) meaning ‘to avoid, defend oneself, fear’, e.g.:

She is afraid of that old man SLN; Why are you afraid of that little glass here? KRS.

The verbs saugotis, sergėtis can still be used independently, with the meaning ‘to be careful’, e.g.:

Now thieves have begun to be wary JRK 95; Whoever is careful, God also protects Be careful not to get sick PLN (see LKŽ_XII 182–183, 427).

However, these verbs are most often used with the genitive, which denotes the content (contentive) of a mental state (inner distancing), e.g.: to be wary of / guard against thieves (neighbors, bad people), and so on (see also Jablonskis 1957: 589–590).

The genitive also has a meaning close to inner distancing when used with verbs denoting negatively connoted states (to fear, be apprehensive, be frightened, be ashamed, be repelled, and so on). Like saugotis, sergėtis, gintis, these verbs can also be used independently; however, the genitive is usually needed to specify the content (contentive) of the states they denote, e.g.: to fear / be apprehensive of wolves, be frightened by thunder, be ashamed of girls, be repelled by a guest (for examples, see Fraenkel 1928: 82–83; Valiulytė in: Ulvydas, ed. 1976: 21; LKŽ_I 665, 790, 926; LKŽ_III 152). The original sense of separation is also discernible in corresponding constructions in Latvian (with būties, bijāties, kaunēties), Slavic (Old Church Slavonic bojati se, styděti se + GEN.), Greek, and other languages, whereas Old Indo-Iranian used the ablative here (e.g., with Old Indian bhí- ‘to fear’, rej- ‘to tremble’).

In present-day language, when expressing inner distancing from something or the content of an emotional state, the genitive is no longer freely associated with a verb; rather, it is determined by the verb’s valency, so the genitive’s relation to the verb is syntactically defined. The nature of this relation is not altered by the case variation possible in some instances, cf.: to avoid debtors / work / neighbors and to avoid debtors / work / neighbors. The different cases here are simply syntactic variants: they are governed by the verb and do not change the meaning of the phrase (cf. Sližienė 1994: 359). The same applies to prepositional constructions, which are becoming increasingly established and depend on many of the verbs mentioned above: to avoid [away] from debtors, to guard against / be wary of thieves, to renounce [away] from relatives.

With some verbs of emotional states (to cry, mourn, grieve, and so on), the genitive with a contentive meaning has a causal nuance and can be used alongside the prepositional construction dėl + GEN.:

The young horse neighs for its feedbag, the little sister weeps for her wreath JV I 122; I will help them mourn their brother KRV 158; I shall mourn my dear father for many years JD 140; she mourns for her deceased husband Balč (LKŽ_VII 598).

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS | 33

Similarly, from the earliest writings the genitive is also associated with the verb juoktís ‘to laugh’, e.g.:

Wiriausieghi Plebonų ūkės io tarp savęs BrB Mk 15,31 (die Hohen priester verspotteten jn vnternander LB); nesa kursai tatai girdes, manens ūkksis BrB I Moz 21,6 (denn wer es hören wird / der wird mein spotten LB); Schita jokessi brolio wedancio murinka BrP₁₉₀₁₅; Manęs nejúok LP (see also Fraenkel 1928: 82; Palionis 1967: 155; LKŽᵢᵥ 420–421).

With this verb, the dative and instrumental have also been used since the earliest writings to express the content, while in contemporary language constructions with the preposition iš ‘from’, which has a prototypical source-point (i.e. ablative) meaning, have become dominant.

3.6. In the early writings, the genitive was associated with the verb liauti(s) ‘to cease’, denoting the end of an action or withdrawal from something; comparison with the originals shows that in some cases this usage may also have been supported by Polish, e.g.:

Liaukesi pikto (in the margin, instead of the underlined Pamesk piktenibe) ir darik gera BrB Ps 37,27 (Las vom bösen vnd thu guts LB); Ir todryn palowis rustibes... gievdžia... atlevst – I przeto przestáwszy gniewu... SP₁₃₆₁₆–₁₈; nessilauia iu (= greku) WP 142a₇; szitie... palówe prabagų / apsiriimo ir girtáwimo DP 586₁₇–₁₈ (ci... żaniechawszy sbytkow / obżarstwa y opolstwa ³W 668); leib liaucžias piktibiu mana Mž 67₂ (so that I might cease from my wickedness MCH 127).

Like the other verbs mentioned above, liauti(s) has also long been used independently, e.g.:

Liove perkūnija RD 193 (LKŽᵥᵢᵢ 396); Kerschtas tawo brolio liausis BrB I Moz 27,44 (bis sich sein zorn widder dich von dir wende LB); thinai lowesi RubezSus BrB Joz 19,47 (vnd an den selben gehet die grentze... aus LB) (for more detail, see Ambrazas 1978: 35).

The ablative meaning of the genitive associated with this verb is indicated by the parallel prepositional construction with nuo ‘from’, e.g.:

Palausi nůg tawa darba Mž 388₉–₁₀ (Du solt von deim thun lassen ab Mch 450); Lauientims nůg ghreku ib 354₃, and elsewhere (see also LKŽᵥᵢᵢ 396).

3.7. A distinctive relationship between the genitive and accusative developed in constructions with the verbs prašyti, klausti ‘to ask, to inquire’. In these, the genitive of partitive origin became established with the meaning of the thing requested or asked about, while the person who is asked or questioned is often expressed by the accusative, e.g.:

Prašáite tėvą lentos KLI; Klausk durnių proto.

This distinction in meaning between the genitive and accusative became dominant in the standard language; however, in many dialects the person asked or questioned is also expressed by the genitive, cf.:

Aš prašiau Dievo per visą dieną ūkanotos naktelės BsO 66; Aš tavęs klausiu pinigų Ut.

34 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

Alongside the accusative, the genitive has long been widely used to denote the person to whom one prays, for example:

io melsties BrP₁ 181, meldessi io 382; meldesi io (corrected to iam) BrB JON 9,38 (Vnd betet jn an LB); Melsies Diewo Mt 4,10 (Du solt anbetten Gott LB; Dominum Deum adorabis VULG), cf. tassai Diewą melsis Job 12,4 (der wird Gott anruffen LB).

Similarly, the genitive is associated with the verb šaukti(s) ‘to implore someone earnestly’: kunego šauktis Sz; angelo šaukesi Mrk LTR, also attested from the earliest written records, for example:

I called to you / but you did not want to DP 96₃₋₄ (I was ready / to beg ³W 97₁₅).

Such a genitive denoting a person who is entreated, questioned, or prayed to may be ablatival in origin (cf. Fraenkel 1928: 71). This is suggested by synonymous sentences in which the genitive occurs with the separative preposition iš ‘from’ (e.g., prašė iš kareivių duonos ALn), by corresponding prepositional constructions in related languages: Slavic (with the preposition отъ), Latin (with ab, ex), Greek (with παρά), and the ablative in Old Indian texts (Speyer 1896: 15).

In general, the ablatival meaning of the genitive is close to the partitive meaning in many cases, and it is difficult to draw a clear boundary between constructions bearing these meanings. It is possible that the formal identity of forms with ablatival meaning and the genitive in the Baltic languages helped preserve the partitive use of the genitive, which became restricted early in languages that made the ablative a separate case (for example, Latin).²⁰

3.8. In present-day Lithuanian, constructions in which the genitive is associated with verbs expressing inner detachment, fear, and other negatively connoted states belong to the same group as those in which a genitive of partitive origin is associated with verbs such as laukti, norėti, trokšti, geisti, gailėti(s), pavydėti, klausytis ‘wait for, want, desire, long for, pity, envy, listen to’, and the like.²¹ In such cases, the genitive denotes the content (contentive) of the inner state expressed by the verb, is an obligatory complement of the verb, and functions as an object. In terms of passive transformation, it fully corresponds to the direct-object accusative governed by transitive verbs (cf. motinos bijomas / prašomas / laukiamas / geidžiamas svečias ‘a guest feared / asked for / awaited / desired by the mother’).

Thus, constructions with an ablatival genitive reveal the same direction of development observed in the discussion of partitive constructions. The genitive, which formerly had a separative meaning, is gradually drawn into the verb’s field of semantic and syntactic attraction, loses its independent meaning, and becomes an object case governed by the verb.

²⁰ Cf. Kuryłowicz’s view of the ablative as the historical basis of the partitive genitive (1964: 189–190; 1977: 142–143).

²¹ On verbs that govern the genitive in present-day Lithuanian, see Senn 1966: 388–340; Valiulytė in Ulvydas, ed. 1976: 21–22; Šukys 1998: 89–93.

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS

35

CONCLUSIONS

1. The semantic motivation for case selection, characteristic of the earliest periods in the development of the Indo-European languages, is reflected in the use of the adverbal genitive in Lithuanian with partitive (indefinite quantity) and ablative (separation) meanings.

2. The partitive meaning of the genitive is particularly well preserved in Lithuanian dialects and early written texts. On the basis of this meaning, the genitive forms an opposition to the accusative with many transitive verbs, and to the nominative with verbs of state and change of state, and functions as the marked member of that opposition.

3. The use of the partitive genitive changed in Lithuanian in two main ways: a) with some semantic groups of verbs (denoting remembering or forgetting, inviting, protecting, contact with the surface of an object, and so on), the accusative became generalized in place of the genitive, which had previously been used alongside the accusative; b) with verbs denoting pursuit, desire, waiting, searching, and so on, or containing prefixes with a completive meaning, the genitive became generalized. In both cases, the semantic opposition between cases on the basis of the partitive meaning is neutralized, and semantically motivated case selection is replaced by syntactic government.

4. The use of some genitive forms that have now become adverbialized to express time may also be associated with the partitive genitive, indicating the earlier semantic character of this case.

5. Analysis of the partitive genitive and the so-called genitive of quantitative content allows us to posit not only synchronic but also diachronic connections between these constructions in the remote past of the Indo-European languages, and to explain the origin of the genitive with the supine.

6. The use of the genitive with a partitive meaning provided the historical basis for the genitive of negation. In Lithuanian and Latvian, a syntactic rule became established requiring the accusative or nominative associated with a negative verb to be replaced by the genitive. This rule was generalized and lost its semantic (partitive) motivation. Similarly, the genitive of negation, which had developed from the partitive, was generalized in Slavic and, in part, Germanic languages. Thus, the genitive of negation may be regarded as an old syntactic feature common to Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic languages. The further spread of the genitive of negation is observable in the West Finnic linguistic area.

7. The ablative (separation) meaning, likewise inherited from the period of the Indo-European community, is less well preserved in Lithuanian than the partitive meaning. Its local character is clear in constructions that have become syntactic archaisms, with verbs of motion and related meanings; however, even in this position, the genitive most often occurs with prepositions. As a result of the far-advanced process of desemanticization, genitives expressing separation have in many cases become complements directly dependent on verbs such as fear, avoid, guard against, shake off, cease, and the like. From the perspective of the modern language, they align with genitives of partitive origin associated with verbs expressing waiting, desire, pursuit, and searching. In this way, Lithuanian (as well as Latvian) has developed a distinct group of verbs that govern the genitive complement.

ABBREVIATIONS

BrB – The Bible, that is, the Entire Holy Scripture translated into Lithuanian by Jan BRETKŪNĄ... in Königsberg (1579–1590) (quoted from a photocopy of the manuscript).

36 | VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

BrP – Postilla, that is, a brief and plain exposition of the Gospels... By Janas BRETKŪNAS... Königsberg... 1591.

BW – Barons, Kr. and WISSENDORFFS, H. Latvian Folk Songs 1–6, Jelgava and Petrograd, 1894–1915.

DON – The writings of Kristijonas Donelaitis: PL – The Joys of Spring, VD – Summer Labors, RG – The Gifts of Autumn, ŽR – The Worries of Winter, PP – Pričkus’s Tale, LG – The Fox and the Stork’s Feast; the numbers indicate lines.

DUNŽ – VITKAUSKAS, V. Šiaurės rytų dünininkų šnektų žodynas, Vilnius, 1976.

LB – The Bible / that is, the whole Holy Scripture in German. Mart. Luth. Wittenberg 1549 etc. (cited according to the Weimar edition).

LE – Enchiridion. The Little Catechism for Ordinary Pastors and Preachers, Mart. LU. Printed in Wittenberg, 1531 etc. (cited according to the Weimar edition of 1910).

LKT – Dialects of the Lithuanian Language. A chrestomathy, ed. E. GRINAVECKIENĖ, K. MORKŪNAS, Vilnius, 1970.

LKŽ – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 1–19, ed. J. BALČIKONIS, J. KRUOPAS, K. ULVYDAS, V. VITKAUSKAS, 1941–1999.

LP – LERCHIS-PUSCHKAITIS, A. Latvian Folk Legends and Tales 1–7, Riga, 1891–1896.

MCH – MICHELINI, G. Martyno Mažvydo raštai ir jų šaltiniai, Vilnius, 2000. (Skaičiai žymi knygos puslapius, kuriuose pateikti cituojamų vietų šaltiniai.)

MG – Fundamentals of a Lithuanian Grammar... by Christian Gottlieb MIELCKE... Königsberg, 1800.

N – The New Testament in Greek and Latin... edited by Eberhard NESTLE, Stuttgart, ⁶1921.

RP – Holy words and matters of the Lord... A Chronicle or Postil... 1556 (M. Rej’s postil, cited from the original held at the Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences).

RPs – The Psalter of David... by the Rev. Jona REHSA... fully revised... Königsberg... 1625 (cited from a photocopy in the Vilnius University Library).

SC – Compendium Gramaticae Lithuanicae by Theophil SCHULTZENS... Königsberg... 1673 (cited from the grammar of Sapūnas and Šulcas, ed. K. Eigminas, Vilnius, 1997).

³W – The Lesser Catholic Postil... By D. IAKVBA WVYKA... In Kraków... 1590 (J. Wujek’s Lesser Postil 3rd edition, cited from a photocopy of the copy held at Jagiellonian University in Kraków).

WP – Ischguldimas Evangeliv per wisws Mettvs... 1573 (anonymous Wolfenbüttel Postil, quoted from excerpts published by V. Gaigalat (Gaigalat 1900) and J. Karacejus’s 1995 edition, taking into account J. Gelumbekaitė’s (2000) corrections).

Kitų šaltinių ir vietų vardų sutrumpinimai tokie pat kaip LKŽ ir Ulvydas, red. (1965–1976). Tarmių pavyzdžiai, žymimi tik LKŽ sutrumpinimais, yra paimti iš didžiojo Lietuvių kalbos žodyno spausdintų tomų ir Lietuvių kalbos institute esančios kartotekos.

LITERATŪRA

AMBRAZAS, V. 1978: Lietuvių kalbos vardininko su dalyviu (nominativus cum participio) struktūra ir raida. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 18, 7–67.

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

AMBRAZAS, V. 1995: Lietuvių kalbos bendraties konstrukcijų raida. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 33, 74–109.

AMBRAZAS, V., red. 1997: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 3 leid., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

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

BEHAGHEL, O. 1923: Deutsche Syntax 1, Heidelberg: Winter.

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

BERGMANE, A. e.a., red. 1959, 1962: Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika 1–2, Rīga: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība.

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

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS

37

Borkovskij, V. I., red. 1968: Сравнительно-исторический синтаксис восточнославянских языков. Члены предложения, Москва: Наука.

Borkovskij, V. I., Kuznecov, P. S. 1965: Историческая грамматика русского языка, Москва: Наука.

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

Bulygina, T. V. 1959: О сочетаниях с родительным падежом в современном литовском литературном языке. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 2, 90–108.

Chantraine, P. 1953: Grammaire homérique 2. Syntaxe, Paris: Klincksieck.

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

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, 361–372.

De Boel, G. 1988: Goal Accusative and Object Accusative in Homer. A Contribution to the Theory of Transitivity, Brussel: Paleis der Academiën.

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

Desnickaja, A. V. 1984: Сравнительное языкознание и история языков, Ленинград: Наука.

Endzelīns, J. 1951: Latviešu valodas gramatika, Rīga: Latvijas Valsts izdevniecība.

Endzelīns, J., Mülenbachs, K. 1928: Latviešu gramatika, Rīga: Valters un Rapa.

Euler, W. 1999: Das Supinum in Lateinischen und Baltisch-Slawischen und der altindische Infinitiv. Fragen zu deren indogermanischen Grundlagen. Res Balticae 5, 41–57.

Fraenkel, E. 1925: Zur baltoslavischen Grammatik. Kuhns Zeitschrift 53, 36–65.

Fraenkel, E. 1947: Sprachliche, besonders syntaktische Untersuchung des kalvinistischen litauischen Katechismus des Malcher Pietkiewicz von 1598, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht.

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

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

Gāters, A. 1993: Lettische Syntax. Die Dainas, hrsg. von Hildegard Radtke, Frankfurt a. M., Berlin e.a.: Peter Lang.

Gelumbekaitė, J. 1999: Die Verwendung von Kasus- und Präpositionalkonstruktionen in Jonas Bretkūnas’ Übersetzung des Lukasevangeliums, Zusammenfassung der Doktordissertation, Vilnius.

Gelumbekaitė, J. 2000: Wolfenbüttelio postilė, parengė J. Karaciejus, Vilnius: Žara, 1995. Archivum Lithuanicum 2, 173–194.

Girdenis, A., Žulys, V. 1973: [Rec.], Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1 (1965), 2 (1971). Baltistica 9(2), 203–214.

Givón, T. 1984: Syntax. A. Functional-Typological Introduction 1, Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Grenda, Č. 1979: Apibrėžtumo / neapibrėžtumo požymių opozicija veiksmažodžių konstrukcijose su daiktavardžiu. Kalbotyra 30(1), 32–37.

Guchman, M. M. 1958: Готский язык, Москва: Издательство литературы на иностранных языках.

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

Hausenblas, K. 1958: Vývoj předmětového genitivu v češtině. Praha: Československá Akademie Věd.

Hirt, H. 1934: Indogermanische Grammatik 6. Syntax I. Syntaktische Verwendung der Kasus und der Verbalformen, Heidelberg: Winter.

Hofmann, J.B., Szantyr, A. 1972: Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, München: Beck.

Humbert, J. 1954: Syntaxe grecque, Paris: Klincksieck.

Jablonskis, J. 1935: Jablonskio raštai 4, red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidykla.

Jablonskis, J. 1957: Rinktiniai raštai 1, red. J. Palionis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Kazlauskas, J. 1968: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika, Vilnius: Mintis.

38 |

VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS

KOPTJEVSKAJA-TAMM, M., WÄLCHLI, B. spausd. The Circum-Baltic languages: an areal-typological approach. Dahl, Ö., Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (eds.) The Circum-Baltic Languages: Their Typology and Contacts, Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

KRAHE, H. 1972: Grundzüge der vergleichenden Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, Hrsg. von W. Meid, H. Schmeja, Innsbruck: Institut für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.

KURYŁOWICZ J. 1949: Le problème du classement des cas. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 9, 20–43.

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

KURYŁOWICZ, 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.

KURYŁOWICZ, J. 1977: Problèmes de linguistique indo-européenne. Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk: Ossolineum.

KURZOVÁ, H. 1993: From Indo-European to Latin. The evolution of a morphosyntactic type, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

LABUTIS, V. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė 1, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

LABUTIS, V. 1994a: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė 2, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

LARSSON, L.-G. 1983: Studien zum Partitivgebrauch in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen, Uppsala. (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia, 15.)

LEBEDYS, J. 1977: Senoji lietuvių literatūra, Vilnius: Mokslas.

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

LOCKWOOD, W. B. 1968: Historical German Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

MAŽIULIS, V. 1970: Baltų ir kitų indoeuropiečių kalbų santykiai (Deklinacija), Vilnius: Mintis.

MEILLET, A. 1934: Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes, Paris: Hachette.

MEILLET, A., VENDRYES, J. 1952: Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques, Paris: Champion.

MIKLOSICH, F. 1868–1874: Vergleichende Syntax der slavischen Sprachen, Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller.

MOROZOVA, S. E. 1968: Родительный падеж. Сравнительно-исторический синтаксис восточнославянских языков. Члены предложения, Борковский, ред., 1968, 151–178.

NEUMANN, G. 1960: Zeitangebende Parenthesen im Hethitischen. Hartmann, H. und Neumann, H. Hrsg., Indogermanica. Festschrift für W. Krause, Heidelberg: Winter, 138–140.

OGINSKIENĖ, E. 1979: Galininko vartojimas vietoj neiginio kilmininko. Kalbos kultūra 35, 25–31.

OTRĘBSKI, J. 1934: Wschodnio litewskie narzecze twereckie 1, Kraków: Polska Akademja Umiejętności.

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

PALIONIS, J. 1974: Supino vartojimas XVI–XVII a. lietuvių rašto paminkluose. Baltistica 10(2), 143–148.

PAULAUSKIENĖ, A. 1989: Gramatinės lietuvių kalbos vardažodžių kategorijos, Vilnius: Mokslas.

PEŠKOVSKIJ, A. M. 1956: Русский синтаксис в научном освещении, Москва: Государственное учебно-педагогическое издательство.

PIROČKINAS, A. 1986: Jono Jablonskio kalbos taisymai, Kaunas: Šviesa.

PIROČKINAS, A. 1972: Dėl kilmininko ir galininko su bendratimi vartojimo tikslo aplinkybei reikšti. Baltistica 1 priedas, Vilnius, 131–134.

POTEBNJA, A. A. 1958: Из записок по русской грамматике 1–2, Москва: Государственное учебно-педагогическое издательство.

RENOU, L. 1952: Grammaire de la langue védique, Lyon–Paris: IAC.

RENOU, L. 1965: Remarques générales sur la phrase védique. Symbolae linguisticae G. Kuryłowicz, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków, 230–234.

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

SCHWYZER, E., DEBRUNNER, A. 1975: Griechische Grammatik 2. Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik, München: Beck.

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ADVERBALINIS GENITYVAS

39

Senkus, J. 1959: Kai kurie ryškesnieji linksnių vartojimo atvejai pazanavykio kapsų tarmėje. Mokslų akademijos darbai, A ser. 2(7), 177–188.

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

Sirtautas, V., Grenda, Č. 1988: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Sližienė, N. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Sommer, E. 1925: Vergleichende Syntax der Schulsprachen, Leipzig, Berlin: Teubner.

Speyer, J. S. 1896: Vedische und Sanskrit-Syntax, Strassburg: Trübner.

Stang, Ch. S. 1966: Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen, Oslo, Bergen, Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget.

Stanislav, J. 1973: Dejiny slovenského jazyka 4. Syntax 1, Bratislava: Vydavateľ’stvo Slovenskej Akadémie Vied.

Šukys, J. 1996: Dėl neiginio ir tikslo kilmininkų K. Donelaičio ‘Metuose’. Kalbos kultūra 68, 49–56.

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

Švambarytė, J. 1996: Apibrėžtumas ir neapibrėžtumas bei jų raiška. Kalbos kultūra 68, 39–48.

Švambarytė, J. 1998: Objekto galininko ir kilmininko linksnių kaita prie neiginio J. Basanavičiaus publikuotuose pasakojamosios tautosakos rinkiniuose. 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.

Ulvy das, K. 1964: Vienaskaitos kilmininko prieveiksmėjimas ir prieveiksmiai su formantais -(i)o, -(i)os, -ės dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 7, 11–46.

Ulvy das, K., red. 1965, 1971, 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 1. Fonetika ir morfologija, 2. Morfologija, 3. Sintaksė. Vilnius: Mintis (1–2), Mokslas (3).

Vaillant, A. 1977: Grammaire comparée des langues slaves 5, Paris: Klincksieck.

Valiulytė, E. 1995: Sintaksinė laiko raiška. Lituanistica 2(22), 68–81.

Valiulytė, E. 1995: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksiniai sinonimai. Vietos, laiko ir priežasties raiška, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Večerka, R. 1958: Střídání zaporového genitivu se zaporovým akuzativem v staroslověnštině. Studie ze slovanské jazykovědy. K 70 narozeninám Františka Trávníčka, Praha: Státní Pedagogické Nakladatelství, 185–200.

Vidugiris, A. 1994: Dėl laiko kilmininko vartojimo lietuvių kalbos tarmėse. Baltistica 29(1), 60–64.

Vondrák, W. 1928: Vergleichende slavische Grammatik, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Zinkevičius, Z. 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius: Mintis.

Vytautas Ambrazas Lietuvių kalbos institutas Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected]

Gauta 2001 05 01