Veiksmažodiniai galūnės „-a“ vediniai sinchroniniu ir istoriniu požiūriu

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVIII (1997) Daiva MURMULAITYTĖ VERBAL DERIVATIVES WITH THE ENDING -a FROM A SYNCHRONIC AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 1. Relations between derivatives and their base verbs 1.1. When collecting verbal derivatives with the ending -a from DLKŽ and identifying derivational oppositions and base words, the derivational relations existing in the contemporary language (rather than word origins) were taken as the basis; that is, the subject of this study is derivatives that have retained a derivational relationship with their base words. First, words that were once derivatives but whose base words have disappeared were excluded from the group under investigation, e.g., dejà: *dieti (BEE 56tt)¹. Words of the standard language that are based on words now rarely used, found only in old writings, or dialectal are likewise no longer considered derivatives. For instance, the noun bangà is derived from bíngti ‘to gain strength’ (Būga II 397, LEW 34, LKL 203). However, DLKŽ₃ 82 lists bíngti 1. ‘to gain strength, become entrenched’; 2. ‘to recover’ as dialectal, whereas bangà is widely known in the standard language. Thus, synchronically, the latter is not a derivative but a simplex word (cf. Akc 33). 1.2. Sometimes the contemporary language has retained the base words and the meanings on which a derivative was based, but the latter is now semantically very distant from its base verb, that is, it has become fully lexicalized². Today, rankà no longer means ‘a means of gathering’, già is no longer associated with gýti, and lankà, lėšos, lùbos, ribà, salà, skarà have likewise become semantically distant from lėñkti, lôštis (LEW 359), laũbti (LEW 388), ribėti (LKŽD 41), sálti ‘to flow’ (Būga II 305; LKL 162), skirti (LKŽD 41). Núoma is considered a non-derivative both in LKŽD 43 and Akc 15; however, on the basis of the derivational opposition pérnuoma: pérnuomoti (Keinys 1979: 169), one can envisage an analogous opposition in the contemporary language, núoma: núomoti, that is, deriving a noun from a prefixed verb. Historically, the direction of derivation is the reverse, and núoma, like Latvian nòma, is related to Latvian ņemt ‘to take’ (LEW 512; LKL 180; Karulis 1992: 630, 632). 1.3. Thus, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a word under consideration is a derivative from the perspective of the contemporary language or has already passed into the class of simplex words. “Intuitively, drawing on their own linguistic intuition, everyone distinguishes derivatives. Only that 1 LKŽD 69 states that this is a completely isolated noun with the suffix -ja. 2 For this term, see DDR 13 with literature. 138 The sense of derivation is subjective and not always uniform. A linguist may also be hindered here by knowledge of a word’s actual formation and etymology” (ŽDT 66). Because of this subjectivity, the same word may be regarded as derived in one place and simple in another; for example, Akc 16 srúoga is listed among simple words, but its connection with sriegti ‘to go around, turn’ (LKŽ XIII 581) apparently has not been completely severed. Akc 239 states that the relationship between the words byla and prabilti is no longer clear, although this noun is still regarded as a derivative. Indeed, some meanings of this word, such as 1. legal ‘court proceedings’; 2. ‘a particular set of office documents’, are more remote from the base verb, but the third sememe—‘speech, utterance’—is a clear abstract noun derived from bílti, bylóti, for example: Everyone listened to that speech. Speech—speaking. The aforementioned more specialized meanings may have developed from this meaning; their semantic connection with the base verb is no longer so evident because of partial lexicalization. Skolà is no longer a derivative of skelėti ‘to be indebted’ (cf. LKŽD 47; LEW 812). This verb is no longer used in the standard language. LKŽ XII 797–8 gives examples only from written sources, mostly old ones, although it is also included in DLKŽ₁ and DLKŽ₂ with the label dialectal. Today, semantically, skolà would be related to its derivative skõlintis3, cf. paskolà: paskõlinti. These two nouns differ in meaning: skolà denotes, from the perspective of the borrower, what is borrowed, for example, skolà ne žaizda, and so on, whereas paskolà can mean either the result of an action (: paskõlinti) or an object (: pasiskõlinti) (Keinys 1979: 159). The word skolà is apparently more often used in the latter sense. Formally, however, such a reversed direction of derivation (skolà: skõlintis) is hardly possible, since it precludes an account of the verb’s derivation: it is unclear what its base word would be. Thus skolà, historically a suffix -a derivative of skelėti, is no longer considered a derivative, while it is in turn the base word of the verb skõlinti (cf. the opposition mentioned above, núoma: núomoti—in this case, apparently, one may speak of a changing direction of derivation and a tendency to motivate the noun by a prefixed verb, based on the opposition between cognate prefixed words pérnuoma: pérnuomoti). 2. The question of derivational homonyms 2.1. In examining verb-derived suffix -a derivatives, it was observed that a substantial proportion (about 40%) of the polysemous words (as presented in DLKŽ₃) could be regarded as derivational homonyms. They have been divided into groups according to several criteria⁴. One group of derivational homonyms would consist of such polysemous entries in DLKŽ₃… 3For Russian (as well as Polish and Czech) linguists’ views on the relations between similar verbs and nouns and the direction of derivation, see Zverev 1972: 75–76. 4First, it was considered whether the parts of speech of the derivatives’ base words coincide (cf. Urbutis 1955: 194–195); for example, vaisà 1. ‘fruitfulness, fertility’ is derived from the adjective vaisùs, -i, whereas 2. ‘reproduction, breeding’ is derived from visti, veisti(s). The next two groups consist of words derived from different base verbs 139 words whose meanings differ morphologically (in this case, by gender), for example, áimana 1. ‘lamenting, moaning’ and 2. b. ‘someone who constantly laments, moans’. These will be discussed in somewhat greater detail. 2.2. Common-gender agent nouns and abstracts derived from the same verbs could be considered derivational homonyms only from a synchronic perspective. Diachronically, these would be meanings of polysemous words, since it is known that action nouns belong to a fairly mobile derivational category: they can acquire meanings denoting results of actions, agents, and other meanings characteristic of deverbal nouns (Paul 1920: 99; DDR 20). Over time, however, relations between a word’s meanings change. It often happens that, historically, one meaning of a polysemous word derives from another meaning of the same word, while today that origin is no longer felt (cf. Kėzytė 1961: 248). Therefore, from the perspective of the present-day language, the word in that meaning could already be linked directly to the base word rather than derived from another meaning5. 2.3. DLKŽ3 contains 39 polysemous words that are verb-derived suffix -a derivatives and can be considered derivational homonyms of this type. They can be further subdivided according to the derivational categories to which these homonyms belong—or, more precisely, according to the derivational categories of the derivatives forming the homonym pairs (groups). First, it should be noted that in almost all cases (87.18%) the homonyms belong to different derivational categories. There are only 5 cases (12.82%) in DLKŽ3 in which homonyms of different genders denote agents; for example, derivatives in which the different meanings may in one case be motivated by different cognate verbs (cf. Urbutis 1955: 190 ff.; in Russian linguistics, Achmanova 1957: 126; 1986: 6; Šmelev 1973: 102), such as išnašos 1. ‘worn-out clothes, rags’ (: išnešioti), 2. ‘what water has carried or washed ashore’ (: išnešti); in another case, the base verbs are homonyms (cf. Urbutis 1955: 104 ff.; in Russian linguistics, Achmanova 1957: 127; 1986: 6), for example, atakaišta 1. ‘a place in the sun or by a fire’ (: atkaisti, -sta, -o) and 2. ‘food heated, cooked a second time’ (: atkaisti -čia, -tė). Those derived from the same verb might be considered homonyms if a) some are fully lexicalized (cf. Urbutis 1955: 169–171, 184; in Russian linguistics, Achmanova 1986: 7), for example, vadà 1. ‘pretext, excuse’, 2. ‘occasion’, cf. 3. ‘leading; animals driven together, birds hatched at the same time’ (: vèsti); LEW 1176 lists this as a pair of homonyms; b) some are based on a simple verb and others on a lexicalized reflexive verb (cf. in Russian linguistics, Achmanova 1957: 126, 128; Šmelev 1973: 102), for example, laida 1. ‘setting (of the sun)’ (: lėistis) and 3. ‘issue (of a newspaper)’ (: léisti); c) they are motivated by different meanings of a verb (cf. Urbutis 1955: 199–199), for example, šóva 1. ‘tree hollow, cavity, nest hole’ (: šáuti ‘to burst’) and 2. ‘door bolt, latch’ (: šáuti ‘to close, push’). One pair of homonyms consists of a derivative and a calque (cf. Urbutis 1955: 203): įtaka 1. ‘the effect or significance of authority or some force’ (cf. Russian влияние, Polish wpływ, German Einfluss, English influence) and 2. colloquial ‘river mouth’ (: įtekėti). 5Indeed, even in synchronic studies, nouns denoting an action and its result are considered polysemous; semantic derivation is recognized here (Barauskaitė 1979: 42; Apresjan 1974: 193–200; Babickienė 1981: 92–94; Liaudanskaitė 1980: 89 ff.). Only results of actions that have become terms and are semantically very distant may be considered homonyms of action nouns (Achmanova 1957: 126–127). 140 patárška6 1. colloq. “someone who talks and chatters a lot” (: (pa)tarškėti “to talk or tell nonsense or at great length”) and patárškab 2. zool. “a noisy, speckled, barren hen (Numida)” (: (pa)tarškėti “to produce a shrill sound (of non-songbirds and some insects)” LKŽ XV 930), as well as klūika7, padráika, patránka, vambrà. In three of the five cases (padráika, patárška, patránka), the homonyms are motivated by different meanings of the base verbs; cf. patránkaa 1. military “an artillery gun that fires shells” (: (pa)si)trankyti, trankyti(s) 1. “to knock, bang; to knock or bang against one another”) and patránkab 2. colloq. “a rowdy, restless person” (: pasitrankyti, trankytis 2. colloq. “to roam about, bang about”)⁸. On the basis of the LKŽ example (IX 53), three homonyms padráikaa could also be distinguished: 1. derog. “a promiscuous woman” (: pasidraikyti, draikytis 5. “to behave frivolously, to be promiscuous” LKŽ II 627), padráikab 2. colloq., derog. “a frivolous person, a flighty person, a fool” (: pasidraikyti, draikytis 4. “to wander about, to knock about” LKŽ II 627), and padráikac 3. bot. “a long, spreading plant resembling a clubmoss, with branches fanning out (Diphasium)” (: pasidriek­ti, driek­tis)⁹; it can be seen that, compared with the first two, the third homonym may be semantically motivated by a different (related) verb. 2.4. Thus, in most cases, a common-gender agent noun can form homonym pairs (groups) with feminine derivatives belonging to other derivational categories. From this perspective, several groups of the words under discussion can be identified. 1. The common-gender agent nouns are listed in DLKŽ₃ together with feminine action nouns (21 cases—53.85% of all derivational homonyms of different genders, or 61.76% of the homonyms in this group belonging to different derivational categories), e.g. the aforementioned áimana, as well as blausà, blevyzgà, išýra, išjúoka, išškyra, nėjauta, nėjėga, neniúovoka, nepakantà, neprieranga, nerėpa, núobaiga, núoboda, 1 rentà, snaudà, snudà, snūdà, tauzà, užmaršà, zaunà. In five cases, the homonyms are based on different meanings of the base verbs, e.g. išskyraa 1. “separation, selection” (: išskirti 1. “to separate from a pile or group”) and išskyrab 2. colloq., derog. “someone who is very choosy about food or fodder” (: išskirti 21. “to select something better or more suitable, to choose” LKŽ XII 935), núobaigaa 1. “end, conclusion” (: nubaigti) and núo-baigab 2. colloq., derog. “a person or animal at the point of death”; 3. colloq. “someone who has become destitute” (: nusibaigti 3. 6 Homonyms that DLKŽ₃ presents as polysemous words are marked in this study with lowercase letters a, b, c… after the word. For clarity, the numbering of the senses of the polysemous word is also retained. Homonyms in DLKŽ₃ are marked as in the dictionary—with Arabic numerals 1, 2… before the word. 7 Owing to space constraints, definitions not given here or below can be found in DLKŽ₃. 8 LKŽ IX 628 has two homonyms patránka. 9 LKŽ IX 53 has three homonyms padráika. 141 “to waste away, to perish”10 (it should be noted that in this case one homonym is based on a lexicalized reflexive verb, the other on a simple verb), as well as išira, nepakanta, zaunà. These account for 23.81% of all derivatives in this group; in the other cases (76.19%), the homonyms are motivated by verbs of the same meaning and form. 2. The common-gender agent nouns are listed together with feminine nouns denoting results of actions (6 cases—15.38% or 17.65%, respectively), e.g. atmataa 1. usually plural “a rejected, unnecessary thing”; 2. regional “abandoned farmland, fallow” (: atmėsti) and atmatab 3. colloq., pejorative, ironic “a person useless and harmful to society” (: at(si)mėsti), atplaišaa 1. “a detached splinter, fragment” (: atplyšti) and atplaišab 2. colloq., pejorative, ironic “someone who does not adapt to their surroundings, leaves or betrays their native land or home” (: atsiplėšti)11, as well as draskà, kevėrza, plámpa, sąvela. In all cases except plámpa (83.33%), the formation of homonyms was also influenced by derivation from reflexive or simple verbs. Besides the examples mentioned, compare sąvelàa 1. “something tangled or entangled” (: su(si)vėlti) and sąvelàb 2. colloq., derog. “a person with tangled hair, a slovenly person” (: susivėlti). Draskàa 1. “bark, shaving” (: drėksti) and draskàb 2. colloq. “one who tears or rips (clothes, books)”; 3. colloq. “a quarrelsome, brazen person” (: draskýti12; and the homonyms in the plámpaa group: 1. “warping or buckling of a scythe blade” (: plam̃pinti colloq. 1. “to beat, strike”) and plámpab 2. colloq. “a pot-bellied person” (: plam̃pti, plam̃pinti 2. “to slurp, pour down in torrents”). As is evident from their definitions, the homonyms in these groups may be semantically associated with different verbs from the same derivational families (formally, such a derivation is also possible, since deverbal derivatives in -a may undergo root-vowel alternation and need not be based solely on primary verbs). In two cases (kevėrza, plámpa), the meanings of the base verbs also differ. 3. In the dictionary, common-gender agent nouns are listed together with feminine instrument nouns (2 cases—5.13% or 5.88%, respectively). These are patáuškaa 1. colloq. “someone who talks and chatters a lot; a frivolous person” (: (pa)tauškėti, (pa)tauškėti colloq. “to talk nonsense, to chatter”) and patáuškab “a small cord tied to the end of a whip to make it crack” (: (pa)tauškėti 1. “to crack, snap”), as well as švìlpaa 1. ethnogr. “a long wind instrument with one hole, made from willow bark” (: švilpti) and švìlpab 2. colloq. “someone who whistles” (: švilpauti). 4. Common-gender agent nouns are listed together with feminine nouns denoting actions and the results (objects) of actions (2 cases—5.13% and 5.88%, respectively). These are papjovaa 1. “meat slaughtered in autumn 10 LKŽ VIII 904 records two homonyms núobaga. 11 If this is not a metaphor. 12 Draskà “a quarrelsome, brazen person” is semantically related also to colloq. draskýtis “to quarrel, bicker,” and not only to draskýti (akis). 142 animals; slaughter of an animal’ (: papjauti 2. ‘to take life with a sharp instrument’)¹³, papjovaᵇ 2. ‘slaughter’, e.g., this kind of road is a slaughter for horses, and papjovaᵇ 3. b. ‘a tormented person’ (: papjauti 10. ‘to exhaust greatly, torment’ LKŽ IX 898), as well as pasaląᵃ 1. ‘secret preparation, lying in wait to attack or do something harmful, deceit, trap’; 2. ‘a part of an army deliberately concealed in order to launch a surprise attack on the enemy’ and pasaląᵇ b. 3. ‘one who attacks or bites from ambush’ (of a dog); 4. ‘one who acts secretly, deceitfully’ (: paselėti). 5. The common-gender agent noun is listed in DLKŽ₃ alongside feminine-gender action and instrument nouns (1, or 2.56% and 2.94%, respectively) – papliauškaᵃ 1. ‘a slap’; 2. ‘a small cord tied to the end of a whip to make it crack’; 3. bot. ‘an aquatic plant with arrow-shaped leaves (Sagittaria)’ (?) (: (pa)pliaukšėti) and papliauškaᵇ 4. b. colloq. ‘someone who talks a lot and frivolously, a chatterbox’ (: (pa)pliaukšėti, (pa)pliaukšti ‘to chatter, talk nonsense’). 6. The common-gender agent noun is listed alongside feminine-gender action, instrument, and location nouns (1, or 2.56% and 2.94%, respectively) – kamšaᵃ 1. ‘a road laid with brushwood and poles’; 2. ‘stuffing’; 3. ‘a jam, congestion’ (: kimšti(s) 1. ‘to put in, cram in, press’) and kamšᵇ 4. b. colloq. ‘a glutton’ (: kimšti 2. colloq. ‘to eat a lot, stuff oneself’). The first three sememes form a single polysemous word (regular polysemy, metonymic transfer of meaning); they are based on the same meaning of the underlying verb, although the action noun is motivated by the reflexive verb, while the instrument and location nouns are motivated by the non-reflexive verb. The second homonym is based on another meaning of the same verb and differs from the first (polysemous) word in its morphological properties—gender. 7. The common-gender agent noun is listed in DLKŽ₃ alongside feminine-gender nouns denoting the result of an action and an agent (1, or 2.56% and 2.94%, respectively) – prielipaᵃ 1. ‘an object that has stuck or been stuck on’; 2. ‘a place on thread that has become stuck and thickened during spinning’ (: prilipti, prilipinti), 4. pejor. ‘mistress, cohabiting partner’ (: prilipti), and prielipaᵇ 3. b. pejor. ‘an annoying, persistent person’ (: prilipti). Although the first two sememes of the derivative prielipaᵃ can be semantically motivated by two verbs, and the third by one, and the latter also differs stylistically from the first two (pejor.), this does not undermine the unity of the polysemous word, since all three sememes have the same grammatical meaning (unlike the common-gender noun). Moreover, the third sememe (‘mistress, cohabiting partner’) can also be understood as a result of semantic derivation ¹³ This homonym actually has two meanings, i.e. it consists of two sememes—the action-result (object) noun and the action noun. The latter action noun is a derivational homonym of another action noun (papjovaᵇ); they are based on different meanings of the underlying verb. 143 result, i.e. derived directly from the first (‘an object that has stuck or been stuck on’), without the ‘mediation’ of the underlying verb. 2.5. In summary, it can be said that the derivational homonyms of most common-gender agent nouns denote an action (64.10% of all derivational homonyms that differ in morphological properties, or 73.53% of cases in which these homonyms belong to different derivational categories). In only one case (kamša) does the homonym of an agent noun denote a location, but the other sememes of this word also denote an action and an instrument. No cases were found in which a common-gender agent noun formed a homonym pair only with a location noun. In all cases except one (patárska), the common-gender agent nouns in DLKŽ3 are presented as later sememes of a polysemous word, i.e. feminine-gender nouns denoting actions, results of actions, or instruments are listed first. A third of the common-gender agent nouns also differ from their derivational homonyms in being based on other meanings of the same underlying verb; about 18% differ in being semantically related to other verbs in the same word-formation nest; about 20% differ in that one homonym is based on a non-reflexive verb and the other on a reflexive verb. Approximately 15% of the derivatives satisfy not just one but several of the listed conditions. As noted, words of this kind can be regarded as derivational homonyms only from a synchronic perspective. From a historical perspective, they are polysemous words. ABBREVIATIONS Akc – Pakerys A. Akcentologija, Kaunas: Šviesa, 1994. BEE – Urbutis V. Baltų etimologijos etiudai, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1981. DDR – Ambrazas S. Development of Nouns. Lithuanian Verbal Derivatives, Vilnius: Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing House, 1993. DLKŽ1 – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, Vilnius: State Publishing House for Political and Scientific Literature, 1954. DLKŽ2 – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, Vilnius: Mintis, 1972. DLKŽ3 – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, Vilnius: Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing House, 1993. LEW – Fraenkel E. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg; Göttingen, 1962. LKL – Sabaliauskas A. Lietuvių kalbos leksika, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1990. LKŽ – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 1–2, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968–1969; 3–6, Vilnius: State Publishing House for Political and Scientific Literature, 1956–1962; 7–9, Vilnius: Mintis, 1966–1973; 10–15, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976–1991; 16–17, Vilnius: Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing House, 1995–1996. LKŽD – Skardžius P. Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius, 1943. ŽDT – Urbutis V. Žodžių darybos teorija, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1978. 144 LITERATŪRA A c h m a n o v a O. 1957: Leksiko – semantičeskoje varjirovanije slova i omonimija kak predel takogo varjirovanija. – Očerki po obščei i russkoi leksikologii, Moskva: Učpedgiz, 104–165. A c h m a n o v a O. 1986: Slovarj omonimov russkogo jazyka, Moskva: Rus. jaz. A p r e s j a n J. 1974: Leksičeskaja semantika. Sinonimičeskije sredstva jazyka, Moskva: Nauka. B a b i c k i e n ė Z. 1981: Obščije zakonomernosti vozniknovenija reguljarnoj polisemi v russkom i litovskom jazykach. – Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai, A serija 4 (77), 91–98. B a r a u s k a i t ė J. 1979: Leksikologijos pradmenys (Leksinė semantika), Vilnius: LTSR Aukštojo ir spec. vid. mokslo m-jos Leid.ybinė red. taryba. B ū g a K. 1958–1961: Rinktiniai raštai 1–3 / Par. Z. Zinkevičius, Vilnius: Valstybinės politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. K a r u l i s K. 1992: Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca, Rīga: Avots. K e i n y s S. 1979: Galūninė terminų daryba. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 19, 155–183. K ė z y t ė S. 1961: Perkeltinės žodžio reikšmės ir jų pateikimas „Lietuvių kalbos žodyne“. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 4, 233–253. L i a u d a n s k a i t ė Z. 1980: Razvitije proizvodnych značenij u otglagolnych imen suščestviteljnych v russkom i litovskom jazykach. – Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai, A serija 2 (71), 87–94. L i p k a L. Lexikalisierung, Idiomatisierung und Hypostasie-rung als Probleme einer synchronischen Wortbildungslehre. – Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung. Hrsg. von H. E. Brekle, D. Kastovsky, Bonn: Bouvier Verlag, 1977. 155–164. M a l a c h o v s k i j L. Teorija leksičeskoj i grammatičeskoj omonimii, Leningrad: Nauka, 1990. P a u l H. 1920: Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, Halle. P i l c h H. The Synchrony – Diachrony Division in Word Formation. – Historical Semantics, Historical Word-Formation: Ed. by J. Fisiak, B.; N. Y.; Amsterdam: Mouton, 1985. 423–425. S o b o l e v a P. Slovoobrazovatelnaja polisemija i omonimija, Moskva: Nauka, 1980. Š m e l e v D. 1973: Problemy semantičeskogo analiza leksiki (na materiale russkogo jazyka), Moskva: Nauka. U r b u t i s V. 1961: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos galūnių darybos daiktavardžiai. – Kalbotyra 3 (1), 27–61. U r b u t i s V. 1955: Lietuvių kalbos leksikos homonimų susidarymo būdai. Filologijos m. kand. dis., Vilnius. Z v e r e v A. 1972: Vyraženije napravlenija proizvodnosti v russkom jazyke. – Aktualnyije problemy russkogo slovoobrazovanija 1. Samarkand: Samark. gos. un–t im.. A. Navoi, 72–80. DEVERBATIVA MIT DER ENDUNG -a AUS SYNCHRONER UND HISTORISCHER SICHT Zusammenfassung In dem ersten Teil des Beitrags werden die Beziehungen der Deverbativa mit der Endung -a zu ihren Grundverben untersucht. Aus der Sicht der litauischen Gegenwartssprache werden als keine Ableitungen Wörter betrachtet, deren Grundverben nicht mehr erhalten sind (vgl.: dejà) oder nur in den Schriftdenkmälern bzw. den Mundarten gebraucht werden (vgl.: 145 bangà); als Simplizia gelten auch Wörter, die vollständig lexikalisiert sind, d.h. deren Bedeutungen sich von denen der Grundverben gelöst haben (vgl.: rankà, ribà u.a.). Häufig ist es schwer festzustellen, ob ein Wort noch als Ableitung zu betrachten ist oder ob es schon in die Klasse der Simplizia übergegangen ist: in den linguistischen Arbeiten werden diese Probleme unterschiedlich behandelt. In den einzelnen Fällen kann man von einer sich veränderten oder sich ändernden Wortbildungsrichtung sprechen, wenn das Deverbativum sein Grundverb motiviert (vgl.: nuomà). In dem zweiten Teil des Beitrags untersuchen wir die Bezeichnungen der handelnden Personen im Neutrum, die im DLKŽ3 als besondere Bedeutungen vieldeutiger Wörter angeführt werden. Die gleichen Wörter können Handlungen, Handlungsresultate, der Ort, die Instrumente oder die handelnden Personen bezeichnen, wobei sie Feminina sind, z.B. áimana: 1. "dejavimas, aimanavimas" (das Gestöhne, das Ächzen); 2. "kas nuolat aimanuoja, dejuoja" (wer ständig stöhnt, ächzt). Von diesem morphologischen Unterschied ausgehend, sind sie in diesen Fällen aus synchroner Sicht Bildungshomonyme, die als einzeln abgeleitet vom selben Verb zu bestimmen sind. Aus historischer Sicht gelten sie indessen als Bedeutungen eines vieldeutigen Wortes. 146