Daiktavardžio ir įvardžio genityvo vieta senojoje lietuvių kalboje

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVIII (1997) Virginija VASILIAUSKIENĖ THE POSITION OF THE GENITIVE OF NOUNS AND PRONOUNS IN OLD LITHUANIAN 1. Introductory remarks 1.1. In Lithuanian, almost every noun can have a non-agreeing modifier expressed by the genitive of a noun or pronoun (Dievo valia, mano knyga); moreover, this way of expressing a modifier is much more firmly established here than in the related languages of neighboring peoples (cf. Russian божья воля, моя книга; Polish wola boska, moja książka; German mein Buch, das Jüdishe Land). Thus, in terms of position, the Lithuanian non-agreeing modifier in some cases corresponds to an agreeing modifier in other languages. An adjectival modifier and a noun in the genitive may be used side by side: aukso žiedas/auksinis žiedas. This is related to the origin and development of both types of modifier. In some Indo-European languages, in earlier stages of their development, the genitive replaced an older adjectival modifier, for example, Latin domus patria; Russian убийство Игорево (Handry 1985: 54; Историческая грамматика русского языка 1978: 149–151). These two types of modifier are similar in their usage. According to L. Tesnière, a modifier expressed by the genitive differs from an adjectival modifier only morphologically (Tesnière 1969: 150; 365). 1.2. In contemporary Lithuanian, a non-agreeing modifier expressed by the genitive of a noun or pronoun usually precedes the word it modifies (GenN); this is its neutral, unmarked position. The only exception is the genitive denoting quantitative relations—in standard usage, it occurs postpositively (Ambrazas 1986: 96–97; Kniūkšta 1979: 73–74; Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1976: 420; Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1994: 655–656; Durys 1927: 82). A noun genitive used postpositively (NGen) is strongly emphasized, whereas when a pronoun genitive occurs postpositively, it is generally the modified noun that is emphasized. The preposition of the genitive established in contemporary language differs markedly from the tendency recorded in the earliest written sources to use it more often postpositively, for example: žwirždai mariu PS 34416, širdis iusu PS 30416; giesmes Angelu BrP 8716–17; motinos sawa BrP 314. It is conjectured that the fairly frequent postposition of the genitive arose under the influence of Slavic or other languages; the translated nature of the old writings probably also played a considerable role. 104 2. The position of the genitive in Old Lithuanian: statistical data In investigating the position of the genitive in Old Lithuanian, we draw on the first part of K. Sirvydas’s „Punktai sakymų“ and the first hundred pages of J. Bretkūnas’s „Postilė“ (for the reasons for this selection, see Vasiliauskienė 1995: 125). The position of the non-agreeing modifier was additionally examined in several extracts from J. Bretkūnas’s translation of the Bible (the Book of Ruth, the Book of Judges, and the Book of Leviticus)¹, in order to compare his compilatory text (i.e. the „Postilė“) with a translated text. The order of constituents was analyzed in 3,742 phrases containing a non-agreeing modifier in the genitive of a noun or pronoun (2,197 from PS; 866 from BrP; and 679 from BrB). In both main sources, genitive postposition predominates: PS 76.4%; BrP 52.5% (Table 1); the dominance of preposition in the Bible excerpts is related to the relatively more frequent use of possessive pronouns—which more typically occur prepositively—in the modifier position (Table 2). Table 1. Genitive position in texts of old writings Source | Total number | Prepositive (no.;%) | Postpositive (no.;%) PS | 2197 | 518 | 23,6 | 1679 | 76,4 BrP | 866 | 411 | 47,5 | 455 | 52,5 BrB | 679 | 414 | 61 | 265 | 39 Table 2. Position of noun and pronoun genitives (excluding Gospel excerpts) Source | Noun genitive: Total no. (no.;%), Prepositive (no.;%), Postpositive (no.;%) | Pronoun genitive: Total no. (no.;%), Prepositive (no.;%), Postpositive (no.;%) PS | 1291 | 58,8 | 247 | 19,3 | 1044 | 80,7 | 906 | 41,2 | 271 | 29,9 | 635 | 70,1 BrP | 510 | 58,9 | 165 | 32,4 | 345 | 67,6 | 356 | 41,1 | 246 | 69,1 | 110 | 30,9 BrB | 333 | 49 | 115 | 34,9 | 218 | 65,5 | 346 | 51 | 299 | 86,4 | 47 | 13,6 Comparing the position of non-agreeing modifiers in the works of K. Sirvydas and J. Bretkūnas, we note considerable differences. The greatest divergence concerns pronoun genitives 1 Bretkūnas J. Rinktiniai raštai. V., 1983. 105 Position: in „Punktuose sakymų“ it most often follows the modified word (Po 70.1%), whereas in „Postilė“ and the Bible the reverse is true—preposition dominates (Pr: BrP 69.1%, BrB 86.4%). Moreover, although postposition of the noun genitive clearly predominates in all sources (Po: PS 80.7%, BrP 67.6%, BrB 65.5%), the frequency of use in the texts of these two authors also differs. The Gospel excerpts in „Punktų sakymų“ and „Postilė“ were examined separately. The aim was to check whether the position of the non-agreeing attribute differs in translated texts and in original or semi-original texts. It emerged that genitive postposition is much more frequent in these excerpts than in the main texts. In J. Bretkūnas’s pericopes in „Postilė“, even the pronoun genitive most often follows the modified noun (Po 77.4%). Their statistical data are presented in a separate table and are not included in the overall statistics (Table 3). Table 3. Genitive position in the Gospel excerpts in „Punktų sakymų“ and „Postilė“ Source | Noun genitive: Prepositional (no.,%) | Postpositional (no.,%) | Pronoun genitive: Prepositional (no.,%) | Postpositional (no.,%) | PS | 1 | 1.8 | 54 | 98.2 | 2 | 4.4 | 43 | 95.6 | BrP | 5 | 13.1 | 32 | 86.5 | 7 | 22.6 | 24 | 77.4 Incidentally, the Gospel excerpts in „Postilė“ were translated not by J. Bretkūnas himself, but taken from B. Vilentas’s „Evangelijų ir epistolų“. A comparison of genitive position in this author’s translated Bible and in the at least partly original „Postilė“ revealed no substantial differences. In K. Sirvydas’s writings, the position of the noun genitive (GenN) and pronoun genitive (Gen N) differs only slightly: 80.7% of nouns and 70.1% of pronouns are used postpositionally, whereas in J. Bretkūnas’s works the positions of the nominal and pronominal attributes differ substantially: GenN, as in „Punktuose sakymų“, more often follows the modified word (Po: BrP 67.6%, BrB 65.5%), while Gen N, conversely, is characteristically preposed (Pr: BrP 69.1%; BrB 86.4%). In view of the discrepancies noted, it is appropriate to examine separately the position of the nominal and pronominal non-agreeing attributes relative to the modified word, taking into account the specific characteristics of these sentence constituents, the information structure of the sentence, and the possible influence of other languages. 3. Position of the noun genitive 3.1.1. The position of the genitive relative to the same noun often varies (although postposition predominates). The commonly used non-agreeing attribute Dievo illustrates the considerable potential for positional variation: the difference between this attribute’s prepo- 106 the use of prepositions and postpositions is less frequent than the overall statistical data indicate—GenN 38%, NGen 62% in “Punktuose sakymų”; GenN 58.3%, NGen 41.7% in “Postilė” (cf. Table 2): Diewo wisdom PS 31328– wisdom Diewo PS 11324–25; Diewo fears PS 4012 – fears Diewo PS 2128–9; Diewo crown BrP 1001 – crown Diewo BrP 912; Diewo eye BrP 9116–17 – eye Diewo BrP 7223. In the phrase Diewo word, genitive preposition predominates (PS 21: 8; BrP 18: 6). 3.1.2. The position of a noun in the genitive can vary within the same phrases without any notable difference in meaning: The Holy Evangelist Luke writes in the sixth chapter, that when the disciples of John came to Jesus, Christ was surrounded by many sick people BrP 3410–14. Then Christ shows his works to the disciples of John, as if to say... BrP 34223–24. It is very necessary for us to know the full account of Christ’s birth, for whoever does not know this, makes nothing of Christ’s birth... BrP 5318–20. Thus, as we approach the table of God, let us believe that, when we receive the blessed Bread and Wine together, we also receive and partake of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ... BrP 6620–23. Therefore, we must never forsake this practice, but go to God’s table; thus we and our children...BrP 6419–20. We must also take care to learn at whose command the Angel announced Christ’s birth to the shepherds BrP 8212–14. Now, dear Christian, know that the Angel revealed Christ’s birth to the shepherds... BrP 8212–14. There is a place for true people PS 45–6. True people gather where truth is done; they are established upon it PS 422–24. For people of truth, one often needs witnesses and judges PS 59–11. Such variation in word order within a phrase shows that the position of the genitive in relation to the noun is not fixed; the alternation of positions was apparently a means of expression in rhetorical speech (sermons), helping to emphasize desired words or groups of words in the text. In some cases, this expressive device may have been adopted from other languages. 3.1.3. Let us take the noun phrase karaliste dunga us/dungaus karaliste, which occurs fairly often in “Punktuose sakymų,” and examine how it is used in different sentences: (1) Kingdom of heaven, or the saints who reign in heaven with God PS 32017–20. (2) Sleep is meditation on holy and eternal things, on God, on Christ, on the kingdom of heaven, and on other things PS 28423–27. (3) And all Christians who hope to inherit the kingdom of heaven must be like this PS 29913–16. (4) ... therefore a righteous person earns this kingdom of heaven, which is called a reward, the crown of righteousness, and grace for one’s works PS 32722–27. (5) Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is offered now as grace, if...PS 32514–16. (6) God wished to give the kingdom of heaven to man as a reward, about... PS 32528–30. 107 (7)... let us work while it is day / for we shall reap in due time / that is, we shall be nourished by the good works of the kingdom of heaven PS 28420–22. (8) The just person desires the kingdom of heaven or eternal life with God... PS 3239–11. (9) That you may have the comfort of eternal bliss in the kingdom of heaven / which is covered by the bright, visible face of God PS 906–10. (10) After the goats on the left / and the sheep on the right will stand on the final day. For the goats will be condemned / and the sheep will enter the kingdom of heaven PS 2419–13. (11)... for hell has drawn near to you / which you had deserved / but the kingdom of heaven PS 13024–1312. In the first two sentences, (1) and (2), new text paragraphs begin; in such cases postposition is very common (see 3.4.1 for more detail). Moreover, in sentence (2), only one of the coordinated sentence constituents has a non-agreeing modifier; in sentence (3), the genitive occurs in the final, non-emphatic position of the phrase; in sentence (4), the noun modified by the postpositional genitive is the resumptive word of a subordinate relative clause (see 3.3.2), though the reverse order is also possible (9); in sentences (3) and (4), the modified noun is more strongly emphasized. The postpositional genitive is apparently unemphasized in sentences (5), (6), and (7) as well: in sentence (5), the particle *ir* ‘also’ more strongly highlights the modified noun; in example (6), the genitive’s position may have been conditioned by the inversion of the entire sentence. In sentences with a compound predicate, the postpositional genitive most often functions as a non-agreeing modifier of the nominal part (8) or of the subject (no examples with the construction under discussion were found): And that the Son of God is the word and wisdom of the Father PS 2221–23. In sentences (10) and (11), the genitive is used prepositionally; it modifies one of the sentence constituents coordinated by the adversative conjunctions *a* ‘and/but’ and *bet* ‘but’. In the Polish text, the equivalents of these genitives are postpositional: For the goats go to hell / and the sheep to the kingdom of heaven PS 24112–14:... for hell is not drawing near to you, which you had deserved, / but the kingdom of heaven PS 13025–1312. 3.2. In some cases, the alternation of genitive positions may be motivated: preposition is neutral and unmarked, whereas postposition is inversive. A noun genitive used prepositionally is usually unstressed: Wisokias D i e w o ž o d i s ira vgnningas/ aba kayp vgnies skida wisiemus turintiemus wilti iumpi PS 3563–7. It was highly fitting that he should be a t e a c h e r o f p e o p l e, and not anyone else...PS 641–2. He did not wish to choose Christ out of pride or h e a r t ’ s a r r o g a n c e PS 7416–18. And such wisdom is the death and eternal ruin of people, h a r d o f t h i s w o r l d PS 3827–10. A m a n o f t r u t h often needs a writer and witnesses Vnt 59–11. Thus, as John preaches and rebukes the king, saying: “You do not do well in keeping y o u r b r o t h e r ’ s w i f e for yourself” BrP 294–7. In the sixth lesson it is written that when J o h n ’ s d i s c i p l e s came to Christ, then Christ was healing many who were ill 108 people BrP 3411–13. Thus I say, and at the b e d o f d e a t h remember Christ, born for us, so that... BrP 8422–23. But this hardship is only for the m a n ’ s b o d y BrP 654–5. As already mentioned, postposition of the noun genitive predominates in all the texts of old writings examined (PS 80.7%; BrP 67.6%; BrB 65.5%). The postposed genitive may be more strongly stressed: ...thus God also gave those three kinds of seed as gifts of nature: g i f t s o f l o v e and g i f t s o f h o n o r PS 29226–2932. As he thought about the w i s d o m o f G o d and of people, he asked...PS 11323–26. How can you imagine the dreadful torments that the s o n o f G o d endured, and the b l o o d o f t h e c o v e n a n t, through which he was sanctified, as one who had been anointed...PS 15618–24. For those souls who had once lived in the body were restored to their bodies by t h e p o w e r o f G o d PS 882–6. Thus the prophet Daniel described the p o w e r o f a s m a l l s t o n e, which was cast from the clay of a pillar or post... PS 13226–30. On the third Sunday... why should we, the afflicted, celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, the s o n o f G o d and M a r y? BrP 531–4. The Lord Jesus Christ /.../ wished to save us not from small things, but through great suffering—not from the s u f f e r i n g o f t h e b o d y alone, but of body and soul...BrP 7213–16. Many Jews, on the d a y o f P e n t e c o s t, listened to the Word of God as Saint Peter preached, and this word pierced their hearts BrP 954–6. He is appointed by God to be t h e j u d g e o f t h e l i v i n g and t h e d e a d BrP 2013–14....that is the one born who must crush t h e h e a d o f t h e s n a k e... BrP804. But they explained that they had heard it from the Child’s m o u t h o f a n a n g e l BrP 9626–972. It is not easy to determine in a written sentence which component of a nominal phrase is more strongly stressed, but context often makes it clear that one component or another must be pronounced more forcefully because of contrastive stress. The genitive position is alternated for a reason in this sentence: At the end the moon stirs and agitates the sea; as it waxes, the w a t e r o f t h e S E A becomes agitated, and as though it were waxing, when it begins to wane and decline, the s e a w a t e r subsides toward the bottom PS 2741–8. When stated for the first time, the noun genitive is more strongly stressed because it conveys new information; when repeated for a second time in the same sentence, it is no longer such important information. 3.3. In some cases, the genitive is placed after the word it modifies in order to emphasize other words or word groups in the sentence. Research on the position of the agreeing attribute in spoken language has shown that permanent attributes are very common at the end of a phrase; these usually do not convey new information and are used to complete the phrase’s intonational structure (Girdenienė 1981:161–162; Kniūkšta 1979:73–74). 3.3.1. The postposed genitive (similarly to an adjectival attribute) is usually unstressed when it occurs at the very end of a phrase, which, given the purpose of sermons, is generally less informative. In this case, the greater emphasis falls on 109 the marked noun in the penultimate phrase position: That you may know that gift of God and who is speaking to you, give me to drink PS 5813–17. The third work of God is the glory or kingdom of heaven PS 17920–22. I truly tell them: unless you turn back and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven PS 29916–17. But the bread is the body of Christ, and the wine has become the blood of Christ BrP 668–10. The benefit of Christ’s birth is this: that he will be born a man and save us from the condemnation of hell BrP 741–3. In this first line, the Angels teach every person so that no one forgets this grace of God or lets it go to waste BrP 9016–18. This Christ is the lamb of God, carrying the sins of the whole world BrP 4523–24. The uninformative nature of the final phrase position is even clearer when the element occupying it is a part of speech with an abstract meaning—the genitive of a pronoun (see 4.3.4.). In some cases, the postpositional genitive occurs at the end of a phrase as a kind of afterthought; genitives in terminologized expressions are very common in this position. 3.3.2. The head noun of a postpositional genitive is usually emphasized also when it functions as the head word of a relative clause. The head word is a prominent, salient component of the sentence. Postposition further accentuates its prominence: For you and no one else among these dark places could have helped us better than the teacher who came from heaven, the Son of God, who is the very truth and the very wisdom PS 6315–22. Secondly, nothing is more precious to man from God’s side than God’s love, without which there is nothing PS 11922–25. And other people do not disregard the words of God, which were spoken to them through the shepherds BrP 1013–4. The people of the house of Israel, or the Jewish nation, about whom God had especially provided examples... PS 3203–6. Separated from the relative word which, the marked noun must be pronounced more strongly so that its connection with the subordinate clause becomes clear. In other similar cases, too, the noun phrase element to which the subordinate clause is linked receives greater emphasis: How then do you suppose he would more easily endure the torments of hell, who tramples on the Son of God and the blood of the covenant, by which he was sanctified, considering it common... PS 15618–24....that is, to turn the pagans back to God, by the word of God, which strikes and breaks the heart... PS 35624–27. 3.4. All related neighboring languages most often use the genitive postpositionally; thus, they may have encouraged the postposition of the Lithuanian genitive more strongly than that of the adjectival attribute—adjectives in those languages more often precede the noun, and their position can vary. We know well that K. Sirvydas and J. Bretkūnas, when writing their sermons, drew extensively on ecclesiastical works written in other languages. The order of constituents in many sacralized ecclesiastical phrases with a genitive may have been borrowed directly, or via other languages, from the primary sources: mother of God (Latin Mater Dei); sacrament of mercy (Latin Sacramentum misericordiae); king- 110 dom of heaven (Latin regnum coeli); gnashing of teeth (Latin stridor dentium), and so on. 3.4.1. Probably owing to the influence of foreign languages, the genitive is used postpositionally in headings and in the opening sentences of individual sections, which briefly state the essence of the ensuing commentary, or when an idea is presented in numbered points: As is fitting, the coming of the Son of God into the world from among humankind took place PS 63₂–₄. On the causes of the womanhood PS 228₂₈. The sound of the trumpet is a sign of the church PS 298₂–₃. The protection of families and households PS 231₃–₄. For the reasons why kings wage war, these are found also in God... 2. The appropriation of God’s wealth... 3. The desecration of the Majesty... 4. The interruption of the covenant... 5. The praise of God’s servants PS 12₆–₁₃₂. What was the birth of Christ like BrP 59₁₇–₁₈. On the holy birth of Christ BrP 54₉. On the family of Christ BrP 56₉. First part of the sermons: On John’s question. Second part. On Christ’s answer. Third part. On John’s testimony concerning Christ BrP 30₄–₇. 3.4.2. In the Lithuanian and Polish texts of “Punktų sakymų,” the position of more than a quarter of the prepositional genitive attributes does not correspond. Genitive postposition is more characteristic of the Polish portion of the text (see Table 4): the position of 22.7% of the prepositional attributes (GenN) in the Lithuanian portion changes in the Polish translation (NGen): Diewo dowanu – darow Boskich 89₂₃–₂₄; Diewo baymy – boiążnią Bożą 135₃; fortunos atmaynay – odmiane fortuny 184₁₃; welino ira kariewwiu – żolnierczem czartowskim 193₂₃; Diewo milistu – łaską Bożą 300₄; Diewo tarnay – słudzy Boży 308₁₄; ape bażniczios priespaudas – o vćiskach Kościóła 225₂₁–₂₂; Diewo tiesoy – sądzie Bożym 6₄; žmogaus buyti – byt człowieczy 80₂₉–₃₀; Christaus smerti – śmierci Chrystusowey 74₈–₉; Diewo teysibe – sprawiedliwość Boska 161₁₁; Diewo žodis – słowo Boże 307₁₁–₁₂; 304₁₁–₁₂; 305₃; 139₂–₃; Diewo sunus – syn Boży 139₈–₉; vnt žmoniu tiesos – na sądzie ludzkim 5₉; Szwyntieji Diewo – swęći Boży 18₈; ape Christaus smerti – o śmierci Chrystusowey 74₈–₉; Christaus Trybunalas – Trybunał Chrystusow 25₇–₈. Table 4. Genitive position in the Lithuanian and Polish texts of “Punktų sakymų” Genitive position corresponds | Genitive position differs Pr–Pr | Po–Po | Pr–Po | Po–Pr count |% | count |% | count |% | count |% GenN | 181 | 73,3 | 1044 | 100 | 66 | 26,7 | – | – GenNₚ | 224 | 82,7 | 629 | 99,1 | 47 | 17,3 | 6 | 0,9 111 Table 5. Genitive position in the Gospel excerpts of J. Bretkūnas’s “Postilė” and in M. Luther’s Bible Genitive position agrees | Pre–Pre: no. 5, 83.3%; Post–Post: no. 26, 76.5% | Genitive position differs | Pre–Post: no. 1, 16.7%; Post–Pre: no. 8, 23% Genₙ | 5 | 83.3 | 26 | 76.5 | 1 | 16.7 | 8 | 23 GenₚN | 11 | 100 | – | – | – | – | 19 | 100 The Lithuanian non-agreeing modifier is very often represented by an agreeing modifier in the Polish text. In both texts, the position of the noun genitive Diewo most often differs (the Polish equivalents are adjectives)—69% of all mismatches: Diewo milista – łaska Boże (8 times); Diewo žodis – słowo Boże (6 times); Diewo sunus – syn Boży (5 times), etc. Thus, the position of the non-agreeing modifier most commonly used in “Punktai sakymų” differs the most between the Lithuanian and Polish parts of the text. The position of the postposed genitive is the same throughout both parts of the text; that is, if it is used postpositively in the Lithuanian text, its equivalent in the Polish text likewise never precedes the modified noun. The influence of Polish would become clearer only by comparing original Polish texts with their translations into Lithuanian. 3.4.3. Comparing the position of this modifier in the Gospel passages of J. Bretkūnas’s “Postilė” and in M. Luther’s Bible, we see that a preposed modifier in the German text may follow the noun in the Lithuanian text—23.5% (Table 5), e.g.: the son of man (Luke 21) – Son of man BrP 15₂; in the houses of the kings (Matthew 11) – in the houses of kings BrP 28₁₂; the angel of the Lord (Luke 2) – Angel of the Lord BrP 50₈; into the Jewish land (Luke 2) – into the land of the Jews BrP 58₁₀; the multitude of the heavenly host (Luke 2) – many of the hosts of heaven BrP 51₂–₃. Latin may therefore have encouraged postposed use of the genitive here. 3.4.4. As mentioned earlier, the use of the emphatic genitive after the modified word may in some cases also have been adopted from Latin or Polish, along with a borrowed rhetorical sentence pattern. However, we should not assume that a less clearly motivated postposed genitive always arose solely through the influence of foreign languages: variation in Old Lithuanian was apparently possible because this modifier had a relatively free position with respect to the noun. The absence of a strict norm allowed the position of the genitive to vary in order to highlight or emphasize one or another component of the noun phrase. Due to the position 112 The ambiguity made it easier for authors of early texts to transfer word-order patterns from Latin or Polish into Lithuanian. 4. The position of the pronominal genitive 4.1. The position of the pronominal genitive differs considerably in the works of K. Sirvydas and J. Bretkūnas: in “Punktai sakymų” it is predominantly postpositional (70.1%), whereas in “Postilė” and the Bible it is much less frequent—BrP 30.9%; BrB 13.6% (see Table 2). In its use as a possessive genitive (for the term, see Žulys 1969: 167–177; Rosinas 1988: 23–24), Lithuanian differs from neighboring languages: in Latvian, Polish, German, and Russian, this pronoun is usually in agreement with the noun (except for the third-person pronoun in Latvian and Slavic languages, e.g., его книга, ее книга, их книга; vina gramata, vinas gramata, vinu gramata). 4.2. In the endings of the pronouns mano, tavo, savo, J. Bretkūnas writes -a; -o is very rare, e.g.: mano atėjimo82₁₂; sawo sunaus42₇; sawo tarno59₁₄. The forms with -a in savo agree graphically with the masculine singular genitive and accusative, and the feminine singular nominative, accusative, and instrumental of the pronouns manas, tavas, savas; consequently, it may seem that they agree in case with the noun: sawa sunu88₂₀; tawa szodi102₇; dusche mana91₆; sawa Tiewo7₁₃; tawa akim66₁₄; tawa dusche68₂₂. However, this is merely a coincidence in spelling, since these pronouns do not change form when used with other nominal cases: tawa prisakimus93₃; sawa Gromatoie64₃; sawa giwenime9₄; sawa Ponui86₇; mana szodžius4₃; tawa pergaleghimas75₁₈. Thus, we are fully justified in treating them as possessive genitives retaining the old long a. 4.3.1. The preposed position of the pronominal genitive (Gen_N) is generally neutral: Through his own knowledge / m a n a p T a r n a s/ he will do much good BrP 11₇–₈. Seeing how much good the Lord God does for the world, giving it h i s s o n... BrP 90₁₁–₁₂.... he is not afraid to speak even to the King himself about h i s l i f e, and to rebuke him BrP 37₅–₆.... as now he is not only bread but in the bread or with the bread, my friend is the body, which for y o u r s i n s will soon be broken and crushed by the Jews BrP 65₁₂–₁₅. I say that the Almighty Lord can make it so that h i s b o d y a n d b l o o d remain in the bread and wine for us in an invisible way BrP 66₁₇–₁₉. So that we too, having heard from God’s word what o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g cannot comprehend, may not be astonished at it or condemn it... BrP 101₂₆–102₂. Behold, y o u r k i n g comes to you, poor, riding on a donkey and on a young donkey accustomed to work BrP 9₁₀–₁₂. No one can say how grievously these people suffer for t h e i r s i n s PS 161₂₇–₃₀.... and the offense would have been serious if she had turned against h e r w o m e n... PS 374₆–₈. You must answer: m y n a m e is not to be; they call me, I am not PS 79₂₉–80₂. And when Scripture says that a human being has eyes, ears, hands, and other limbs, it speaks for the sake of o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g PS 96₁₈–₂₂. That paralytic is y o u r p a r a- 113 lytic, who fights against my servant... PS 2593–6. Rejoice that y o u r n a m e s are written in heaven PS 15213–15. 4.3.2. In cases where the pronominal genitive is used postpositionally, it is the noun, rather than the pronoun itself, that receives greater emphasis: For his Father is Lord of all wealth and commands... PS 37823–25. Take care lest y o u r h e a r t become weighed down with feasting and drunkenness PS 30415–17. I labored so much in vain and without cause, and my strength and toil I wasted and exhausted PS 34325–29. Show me your face. For your face is beautiful PS 17531–176₂. Bring all the tithe into my storehouse, so that my house may have provisions BrP 135–7. So we did not esteem him, because we hid our faces from him and held him for nothing BrP 19. But his kingdom extends not only over people but also over the Devil, hell, and Death BrP 1022–23. And his kingdom must not pass away, perish, or vanish, but endure forever BrP 1023–25. Longed with your eyes to see that dear Lord Christ of yours, as Saint Simeon rejoiced when he saw Christ BrP 961–3.... so that you too may not forget that word of God when you have heard it, nor let it slip away, but remember it and keep it in y o u r h e a r t BrP 961–3. 4.3.3. The head noun modified by a postposed pronominal genitive is strongly emphasized when it serves as the antecedent of a relative clause: ... and he repaid them justly for it through his own Son, who suffered and died for us PS 6112–16. But even here there is no comparison with our Lord, who, by the means of his own war, won an immeasurable victory over all our enemies PS 18513–18.... from his deeds, then, his work is understood, which he performs in a particular place, or even without a place... PS 3515–8. 4.3.4. At the end of a phrase, the possessive genitive usually conveys no significant information; it merely helps complete the sentence’s intonational pattern by shifting the noun into the stronger penultimate position (Kniūkšta 1979: 73–74): For God did not command him to burn it at that time; therefore he forgot his origin, so that he might obey God his Creator PS 26424–29. Thus my mother conceived me in iniquity and brought me forth in sins PS 22914–16. From these creatures let us learn to obey God according to our nature, that is, by fulfilling his Ten Commandments, which accord with our nature... which we have inscribed in our conscience PS 26520–29. And for that reason it seems that we need not bargain with our God over our work in order to earn a penny, that is, to enrich ourselves, since God is our Father PS 3245–12. But these things are nourishment for our souls BrP 6526–66₁. The body of Christ does not need food because a man’s belly is empty; rather, it is needed because God’s grace is hungry and thirsty, and so are our souls BrP 661–3. This use of the postposed pronominal genitive is more characteristic of “Punktai sakymų.” 4.3.5. The influence of context or a change in the word’s function in the sentence may 114 to alter the aforementioned distinction between Gen N and NGenₚ. According to human nature, it is fitting that Christ judge the deeds of this world and of the people whom he judges. Of this world, because every authority belongs to him, for... PS 22₃₀–₂₃₂. So that they might all send their children, their little ones, their household, their servants, and their hearers to Christ, so that... BrP 32₂₂–₂₄. In the first example, the postpositionally used pronoun io bears contrastive stress, whereas in the second, the word sawo, repeated several times before the listed nouns, helps emphasize them (similarly to the particle ir). 4.4.1. The usage tendencies of individual pronouns may differ somewhat from the overall statistical average, but the predominant position in the text is invariably maintained (see Tables 6 and 7). In J. Bretkūnas’s “Postil,” the pronoun musu occurs more often postpositionally (Po 43.5%). This pronoun is used postpositionally in recurrent combinations with an apposition: Ponas musu Jesus Kristus BrP 5₄–₅; Ischgelbetoias musu Kristus BrP 59₁₅–₁₆; Ischganitoio musu Jesaus Kristaus BrP 69₁₃–₁₆. In these instances, the influence of a canonicalized Latin construction is evident, and it is also apparent in the corresponding Polish phrases. The apposition in these combinations can be emphasized in two ways: by using the pronoun musu after the preposed apposition, or by placing the apposition itself after the noun (in the second case, the word order is Lithuanian): Indeed, our Lord Jesus Christ appeared for the first time on earth in a very humble manner/ just like another poor person/... BrP 19₅–₇. Let us carefully remember this well, so that we may know where our Savior Christ was born BrP 59₁₅–₁₆... let us take care where/ or in what city our Savior Christ was born BrP 58₅–₆. The postposed apposition is emphasized more strongly when it is followed by the genitive of a pronoun: Knowing this about the coming of Christ, our Lord, with great eagerness we await the Day of Judgment BrP 20₁–₃. This construction is translated literally from Latin; cf.: ...de adventu Christi Domini nostri... Table 6. Position of pronominal genitives in J. Bretkūnas’s “Postil” Pronominal genitive | Preposed | Postposed | no. |% | no. |% | io (ios, iu) | 46 | 78 | 13 | 22 | iusu | 4 | 80 | 1 | 20 | mana (-o) | 24 | 85.7 | 4 | 14.3 | musu | 39 | 56.5 | 30 | 43.5 | sawa (-o) | 110 | 67.5 | 53 | 32.5 | tawa (-o) | 23 | 71.6 | 9 | 28.1 115 Table 7. Position of pronominal genitives in K. Sirvydas’s “Punktai sakymų” Pronominal genitive | Preposed | Postposed | no. |% | no. |% | io (ios, iu) | 118 | 39.9 | 178 | 60.1 | iusu | 1 | 11.1 | 8 | 88.9 | mana | 3 | 4.4 | 65 | 95.6 | musu | 11 | 13.1 | 73 | 86.9 | sawa | 134 | 33.9 | 261 | 66.1 | tawa | 1 | 2.3 | 42 | 97.7 The pronouns least often used postpositionally in J. Bretkūnas’s sermons are mano (Po 14.3%) and iusu (Po 20%), but there are too few instances in the text to draw statistically well-founded conclusions. In “Punktai sakymų,” the genitives mano (Po 95.6%) and tawo (Po 97.7%) are used almost exclusively postpositionally; however, the position of the pronouns most frequently used in K. Sirvydas’s work, io (ios, iu) and sawo, is more variable (Po 60.1% and 66.1%). The position of individual pronouns generally differs between the two sermon collections: K. Sirvydas almost always uses mano postpositionally (Po 95.6%), whereas in the “Postilė” this pronoun is postposed least often (Po 14.3%); the use of the pronoun tawo likewise differs (Po: PS 97.7%; BrP 28.1%). Perhaps only the pronoun io (ios, iu) tends to be used prepositionally more often than the others in both sources (Pr: PS 39.9%; BrP 78%). Incidentally, first- and second-person possessive pronouns in Latin are almost always postposed (except in emphatic contexts), whereas third-person forms (e.g., eius) are also used prepositionally. In this respect, J. Bretkūnas’s “Postilė” differs markedly from Latin. A comparison with B. Vilentas’s pericopes, which clearly show the influence of the Latin text, confirms this. 4.4.2. It was mentioned earlier that in translated text—the Gospel excerpts—the pronominal genitive is used postpositionally much more often than in the sermons themselves (Po: PS 95.6%; BrP 77.4%). This difference is particularly pronounced in the “Postilė”: the main text predominantly has the pronominal genitive preposed (Pr 69.1%), while the pericopes taken from B. Vilentas’s “Evangelijos ir epistolų” have it postposed (Po 77.4%). In the excerpts from M. Luther’s Bible translated by J. Bretkūnas, the pronominal genitive is used prepositionally more often than in the compiled “Postilė” (Pr: BrP 69.1%; BrB 86.4%)—in German, the possessive pronoun precedes the noun. Thus, all postposed genitives in the pericopes correspond to preposed forms in M. Luther’s Bible (100%; see Table 5): dein König (Gospel of Matthew, ch. 21)—karalius tawa2; ire kleider (Gospel of Matthew, ch. 21)—rubus sawa2; ewer heubter (Gospel of Luke, ch. 21 116 )—galwas jusu 15₄; maine wort (Gospel of Luke, ch. 21)—žodžei mana 15₁₄; meinen Engel (Gospel of Matthew, ch. 11)—Angela mana 28₁₇; inn seine stad (Gospel of Luke, ch. 2)—miestana sawa 48₂₀; inn irem hertzen (Gospel of Luke, ch. 2)—schirdije sawa 48₂₀; mein leib (First Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 11)—kunas mana 62₉; seine mutter (Gospel of Luke, ch. 2)—motina io 102₁₇; ire kinder (Gospel of Luke, ch. 2)—vaikus sawa 103₁₇; seines vaters (Gospel of Luke, ch. 2)—Tiewo sawa 104₁₀. As we can see, the German source could not have encouraged postposed pronominal genitives in the Gospel excerpts; rather, the opposite would be expected. Apparently, the postposition of possessive pronouns was encouraged by the influence of Latin source texts and of the Latin-language tradition more generally. 4.4.3. Comparing the position of genitives in the Lithuanian and Polish portions of K. Sirvydas’s sermons, we see that the differences are systematic (similar to those involving nominal genitives): 17.3% of preposed genitives in the Lithuanian text change their position relative to the noun in the Polish translation (Table 4): sawo vmžio 135₃₁–136₁ – wieku swego; sawo pagiwenimo 116₄–₅ – żywota swego; sawo essiby 173₃ – istotę swoie; sawo nuodemes 161₂₁–₂₂ – grzechy swe; io dowanu 171₁₅ – daru iego; io giereby 37₂₀ – dobroć iego; io drauginikay 213₉ – towarzysze iego; io pedus 68₆ – trapow iego; musu karalistey 55₂₂–₂₃ – w państwie naszym; iusu warday 152₁₄ – imiona wasze; tawo pačios dusū 163₉ – duszę twa; sawo Wieszpatiemus 135₂₁–₂₂ – panom swoim; iu iztrinimu 111₁₀–₁₁ – zgładzenie ich; iu wałdonay 124₁₇ – poddani ich; pagal sawo noro 168₂₃–₂₄ – widług woley sweiey; sawo piktu darbu 8₉ – złych spraw swoich; ažusiginimas io waldžios 12₁₁–₁₂ – nieprzyznanie władziey iego; wisus sawo nusideimus 237₂₅–₂₆ – wszystkie grzechy swoie; musu galiausia ir didžiausia taymibe 336₁₁–₁₂ – naostateczneysze y nawjększe błogoskawienstwo nasze. The position of the pronoun sawo differs most often—23.1% of the time. In Polish, the equivalents of the possessive genitives iusu, musu, sawo, tawo agree with their modified nouns; only the pronoun io (ios, iu). always retains the genitive case. In the corresponding places in the Polish text, the postposed pronominal genitive in the Lithuanian text precedes its headword only six times (0.9% of all postposed pronouns in the Lithuanian text): nasis iu 256₂₀ – ich nozdrą; apsigrižimo iu 243₁₁–₁₂ – ich nawrocenia; gražibey ios 170₁₈–₁₉ – iey piękności; deł szwento vżaukfeimo iu 212₁₆–₁₇ – dla Świętego ich wychowania; atilisi sawo 352₁₆ – swoy odpocżynek; wiresnius sawo 126₄–₅ – swymi przełożoniemi. The influence of other languages on “Punktai sakymų” must have been stronger because both Latin and Polish encouraged postposition of the pronominal genitive. Postposition may also have been affected by the tendencies of the eastern dialects of that period. A comparison with older records of the eastern Aukštaitian dialects and with folklore could help provide a more specific answer to this question. 4.4.4. In both sources examined, there are sentences in which the genitive is used only prepositionally, when the sermon authors depart from the canonized texts: 117 The sea has its own boundaries.../ and its waves break there: likewise the world/ or people have their own paths/ along which they lose their pride/ undermine the strength of their hearts/ and finally sink... PS 271 14–22.... that is, such great grace is given/ as Christ apportioned according to his will. For he earned grace for us and all the gifts of heaven through his death: therefore, as the Lord apportions his merits or all kinds of gifts/ a share to each as he wishes PS 179 9–19. Let us learn, then, that we too, the people, should give thanks to God and not forget/ this precious gift of his/ our Savior Christ BrP 89 11–12. These examples also confirm the previously expressed idea about the influence of other languages on the postposition of the possessive genitive in early writings. 5. Causes of ambiguity Because the genitive has a relatively free position with respect to the modified word, it is not always clear which of the two nouns the genitive actually belongs to; it can be associated with either one: They are called the p a t h s o f G o d in Scripture/ therefore, because... PS 35120–23. That word was set among the Jews, that is, the S o n o f G o d, a m a n, assumed in human nature, was first sent to the Jews... PS 342–343. I n t h e h u m a n b o d y immersed, and as if sunk in mud, there is no fitting place for the human reason of God... PS 21023–26. This is in the birth of people/ because of s i n i n t h e i r h e a r t s/ not one had a sound mind... BrP 9114–16. There is no such ambiguity in the Polish section of “Punktai sakymų”; cf.: ... therefore they are called the r o a d s o f G o d in Scripture, because... PS 35120–21.... that is, the S o n o f G o d, having assumed human nature, was first sent to the Jews... PS 342–343. R e a s o n a b l e, who has immersed himself in the body... PS 21023–24. As we can see, an insufficiently fixed position can give rise to ambiguity, especially when a pronominal genitive occurs between two nouns. It is thought that the more frequent postposition of the genitive in contemporary Lithuanian would pose a real risk of ambiguity (Knüükšta 1979: 73), e.g.: I was waiting for my sister’s husband. But all kinds of ambiguity occur in many languages. They are usually avoided with the help of semantics and/or context or situation (see Faarlund 1990: 53–54). The risk of ambiguity does not show that the postpositional genitive is foreign to Lithuanian (ambiguity could also be avoided by a strictly fixed postposition). CONCLUSIONS 1. A preposed nominal genitive is usually unstressed. In the case of a postposed nominal genitive, the following may be stressed: (a) the nominal genitive; (b) the head noun; (c) neither component of the noun phrase is stressed. 118 In a written sentence, it is often difficult to determine which constituent of the noun phrase should receive greater emphasis. In some cases, the reasons for postposition are not very clear. The influence of other languages could not have been the only possible reason for such frequent postposition of the nominal genitive. 2. The position of the pronominal genitive relative to the noun is more clearly motivated than that of the nominal genitive: (a) a preposed pronominal genitive is unstressed; (b) the pronominal genitive is used postpositionally to emphasize the head noun; (c) in PS, postposition of the pronominal genitive predominates under the influence of Latin and Polish; (d) in BrP and BrB, preposition of the pronominal genitive predominates; many instances of postposition of the pronominal genitive are found in BrP and BrB, although these works were written on the basis of German sources; the postposition of the genitive here may have arisen partly under the influence of Latin, but most often reflects the flexible word order within the noun phrase. 3. The language of the early writings was apparently influenced by an attributive construction pattern characteristic of Latin and Polish, in which the adjective more often precedes the noun, while the genitive is used postpositionally. This likely helped confer “high-style” status on postposition. In Lithuanian, as already mentioned, the attributive genitive occurs much more frequently than in neighboring languages (instead of the genitive, they often use an agreeing modifier). In addition, the possessive pronoun forms mano, tavo, savo do not agree with nouns. This explains the more clearly defined position of the pronominal possessive genitive compared with the nominal genitive; departures of the pronominal possessive genitive from the predominant order are more clearly motivated. The comparison shows that the attributive construction pattern of Old Lithuanian differed from those of Lithuanian and Polish, but was not strictly fixed; consequently, the word-order patterns of attributive constructions in those languages could in certain cases have been transferred into the written language of Old Lithuanian. 4. J. Greenberg’s second universal states that genitive postposition predominates in prepositional languages (Greenberg 1966: 78). Thus, we would also expect GenN to predominate in Modern Lithuanian, but we know that preposed genitives prevail there. It is thought that the order of the sentence’s core constituents in Lithuanian has changed from SOV to SVO (Ambrazas 1982: 101–104). Thus, the preposed genitive could have been typologically compatible with SOV and postpositional constructions (Greenberg’s fourth universal states that postpositions are more frequent in SOV languages)2. However, it is difficult to explain why preposed genitives predominate in Modern Lithuanian when in Old Lithuanian they were very often used postpositionally—the dominance of prepositions should have led to more frequent postposition of the genitive. In several of his recent articles, M. S. Dryer argues that SOV languages are very strongly implicated with GenN, 2 J. Hawkins mano, kad senoji lietuvių kalba buvusi prielinksninė (Hawkins 1990: 120–121). 119 tačiau SVO kalbose galima ir GenN, ir NGen (Drayer 1988: 192–193; 1991: 464–465; 1992: 91). Bet jo tyrinėjimai taip pat parodė, kad Greenbergo antroji universalija yra teisinga – prielinksninėse kalbose dominuoja NGen. Vadinasi, lietuvių kalba yra išimtis iš šios Greenbergo universalijos. ABBREVIATIONS BrB – Biblia tatai asti Wissas Schwentas Raschtas Lietuwischkai pergulditas per Janą Bretkuną... Karaliaucziuie (1579–1590). BrP – Postilla tatai esti Trumpas ir prastas ischguldimas Evangelíu... Per Janą Bretkuną... Karaliaucziuie... 1591. GenN – nominal genitive; preposed nominal genitive. GenₚN – pronominal genitive; preposed pronominal genitive. NGen – postposed nominal genitive. NGenp – postposed pronominal genitive. O – object. Po – postpositions. Pr – prepositional. PS – Pvnkty kazan... in the Lithuanian language with an explanation in Polish by the priest Konstanty Szyrwid... In Vilnius... 1629. S – subject. V – verb. LITERATŪRA Ambrazas V. 1986: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodžių tvarkos modeliai. – Lietuvos TSR mokslų akademijos darbai, A ser. 3(96), 92–102. Ambrazas V. 1982: Žodžių tvarka ir baltų kalbų sakinio tipo rekonstrukcija. – Baltistica, 18(2), 92–102. Dabartinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1994. Dryer M. S. 1988: Object-verb order and adjective-noun order: dispelling a myth. – Lingua 74, 77–109. Dryer M. S. 1991: SVO languages and the OV:VO typology. – Journal of Linguistics 27, 443–482. Dryer M. S. 1992: The Greenbergian word order correlations. – Language 68(1), 81–138. Durys M. 1927: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Kauna. Faarlund J. T. 1990: Syntactic change: Toward a theory of historical syntax. – Winter (ed.). Trends in Linguistics. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Girdenienė D. 1971: Aktualioji skaida ir jos vaidmuo bei reiškimo būdai lietuvių kalboje. – Kalbotyra, 22(1), 35–47. Girdenienė D. 1981: Derinamojo pažyminio vieta tarmėje ir bendrinėje lietuvių kalboje. – Baltistica, 17(2), 1981, p. 156–169. Greenberg J. H. 1966: Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. – Greenberg J.H.(ed.). Universals of language, 2nd edn., Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 72–113. Handry J. 1985: Les Indo-Europeans, Paris. Hawkins J. A. 1990: Seeking motives for change in typological variation. – Studies in typology and Diachrony. Papers presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th 120 birthday, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kniūkšta P., Girdenienė D., Girdenis A. 1979: Apie kalbos „prabangą“ ir žodžių tvarką. – Kultūros barai 1, 73–74. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976. Palionis J. 1967: Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI–XVII a., Vilnius: Mintis. Rosinas A. 1988: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslas. Tesnière L. 1969: Elements de Syntaxe Structurale, Paris. Vasili auskienė V. 1994: On the placement of the genitive attribute in Old Lithuanian. – Dept. of General Linguistics University of Umeå, Report 35, 99–115. Vasiliauskienė V. 1995: Derinamojo pažyminio vieta senojoje lietuvių kalboje. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 33, 124–142. Žulys V. 1969: Vadinamųjų neįtomųjų įvardžių vieta lietuvių kalbos gramatinėje sistemoje. – Baltistica, 5(2), 167–177. Грамматика литовского языка, Вильнюс: Мокслас, 1985. Историческая грамматика русского языка. Синтаксис. Простое предложение, Москва, 1978. THE PLACEMENT OF THE GENITIVE ATTRIBUTE IN OLD LITHUANIAN Summary 1. In most cases a preposed Genn is unstressed. In the case of postposed Genn different constituents can be stressed: in certain cases the genitive noun and in other cases the head noun. However, sometimes no constituent seems to have stress in noun phrases with a postposed Genn. In such cases the function of the postposed Genn in Old Lithuanian is unclear. We conclude, however, that influence of other languages cannot be the only possible explanation of the so frequent postposition of Genn in Old Lithuanian. For such alternation of placement of Genn to be possible at all, the language must be, in a sense, prepared for it. We therefore assume that the position of the attribute was less strictly determined in Old Lithuanian than is the case in Modern Lithuanian, and that this made it easy for the authors of the period to take over the Latin or Polish form of the noun phrase. 2. The position of the genitive pronouns is more clearly determined than that of genitive nouns, and we can explain almost all deviations from the predominant word order. The facts are as follows: (a) preposed Genp is unmarked; (b) when Genp is postposed, its head noun is stressed; (c) in PS postposed Genp predominates, because of the influence of Latin and Polish; (d) in BrP and BrB preposed Genp predominates; (e) even though the latter works are based on German, we find not a few examples of postposition in these sources, which partly could be due to the influence of Latin, but in other cases reflect a characteristic feature of Old Lithuanian, that of allowing some freedom of word order in the noun phrase. 3. We would expect Modern Lithuanian to have predominantly postposed genitive attributes, since it has prepositions, not postpositions (Universal 2; Greenberg 1966:78). According to several researchers Lithuanian has undergone a change from SOV to SVO. Preposition of the genitive attribute could thus be a remnant of an earlier grammar with SOV order and postpositions. It is odd, however, that preposition of the genitive attributes is more predominant now than was the case in Old Lithuanian. We would expect postposition of genitive attributes to increase over time, at the expance of prepositions, not the other way around. So Modern Lithuanian remains a counterexample. 121