Lietuvių kalbos studijų vadovas

for Smoczynski's bibliography of Kurytowicz's works (XXXV-XLVII), o at the end of the book — the index of ir the names of words. Ši excellently prepared ir very contentbook ga is no less than the best of this kind of Western European publications. Together su with the already mentioned second volume dedicated to Kurytowicz (Linguistics Baltica 4) ir to own The memorial collection prepared by Wojciech Smoczynski Janui Safarewicz (Analecta Indo-European Cracoviensia Vol. 1, Cracoviae, 1995) this could be an example of how we should ir honor the memory of the most famous Lithuanian linguists. Vytautas Ambrazas LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE STUDIES GUIDE TERJE MATHIASSEN. A SHORT GRAMMAR OF LITHUANIAN, Columbus, Ohio, Slavica 1996: Publishers, Inc. 256 P. In the last decade, we have seen a resurgence of Lithuanian language studies in many European countries. Lithuanian language courses are taught not only in Latvia, Germany, Poland, Russia, but also in universities of Italy, Sweden, Norway, Finland, the Czech Republic and other countries, in many of which important Lithuanian studies are carried out, new periodicals on Baltic linguistics are created. Until now, however, there has been a serious lack of Lithuanian grammar manuals in English adapted for university studies. This gap is helped to fill by the recently published “Brief grammar of Lithuanian” by Professor Terje Mathiassen of the University of Oslo. The author of the grammar is a well-known Baltic and Slavic linguist, continuing the traditions of his teacher Christian Stange’s studies of Lithuanian in Norway. He speaks fluently Lithuanian and has published many important works on Lithuanian linguistics. He taught Lithuanian for a long time at the University of Oslo and gained extensive experience in this field, which he used in his grammar. The grammar consists of a short introduction and 14 chapters. The introduction provides some information about the position of Lithuanian among other languages, its main dialects and its current state. The first chapter (21-36) describes the phonological system of the common Lithuanian language, its realization in spoken and written language, as well as the change of vowels and consonants and the consonant and consonant consonant. Chapters 2-7 (37-177) deal with morphological subjects according to the classes of words (so-called parts of speech), their morphological categories and variation. In view of the practical needs of the user of the book, the description of forms and their functions is not strictly separated from each other, kni-! One of the most recent is Res Balticae, edited by P. U. Dini and N. Mikhailov. Miscellanea italiana di studi baltistici. 1, 1995; 2, 1996; 3, 1997, Pisa. 252 we do not even find separate parts of morphologicir al syntax. Many forms of usage are presented in the adjective, numeral, verb sections, especially when describing the forms of participants. At the end of the noun, adjective, verb sections, the most important features of the language construction (prepositional, adverbial derivatives) are also briefly mentioned. The sections on conjugations (8), prepositions (9) and conjunctions (11) are already entirely devoted to syntax (178-202). A separate chapter (10) describes the means of expressing time (202-206), and then in chapters 12-14 the structure of the single and compound sentence (210-229), the combination (230-235) and the word order (236-247) are described. At the end of the book there is a list of the most important literature and a subject index. The description of grammar subjects in the book is oriented to the current language norm. Short historical commentaries, separated by a petitum, are usually provided only in cases where the author was concerned to explain the differences in į some forms (e.g., degrees of vowel change, metatonia, Saussure and Leskien's laws) or to highlight the specificity of the Lithuanian language's grammatical structure. Terje Mathiassen’s book is a new and original work both in its structure and in the way it presents the grammar data. Its methodological advantages will undoubtedly be appreciated by users studying Lithuanian language in many foreign countries and using its data for linguistic research. Here I would like to draw attention to the way the author presents and explains those things that so far in the descriptions of grammar and other works of Lithuanian linguistics are interpreted differently, which are often discussed. One of them is the non-conjugated forms of adjectives (gera, malonū, etc.), which some researchers have proposed to separate from the category of the genus and to consider them as non-noun forms (Aldona Paulauskienė), adverbs (Aleksas Girdenis, Vladas Žulys), words of a separate “being category” (Kazimieras Musteikis), while others, according to the prevailing tradition, consider the non-noun forms of the genus (Adelė Valeckienė, Dalija Tekorienė, etc.). Mathiassen calls them special neutral forms 62 et seq. and explains that the term neutral is justified from a diachronic point of view. At the same time, he proposes an alternative term — the indeclinable form. This term is, of course, preferable to the non-verbal form, but it is difficult to apply to participants who have other invariant forms—participants. The author himself, who proposed the term, continues to write only about special forms of the noun gender (neutral). The description of the verb is based on the view already established in contemporary Lithuanian linguistics of the 3rd person form as a pure stem and the same 1st and 2nd person endings of all times. This allows for a simpler and more consistent description of the entire system of verb forms using a much smaller inventory of morphological forms than was done previously. In this respect, the author gives a good example for Lithuanian school grammars and some of our university courses, where the stem vowel of the 3rd person forms is still considered an ending. The grammar distinguishes four conjugations of the verb: direct, imperative, pronoun and indirect. Speaking of the indirect mood (the relative mood), the author points out that it has the same range of forms of the kind of time as the direct 253 mood. į ji tą ir This is a non-universal feature of marked strings (they usually have fewer temporal forms than the direct pronoun); The author’s thought, which allows ji to raise the question about the special place of this line in the language system, once again reminds of the possibility of interpreting (134— 135). Ta the paradigm of indirect line as a separate category of evidential, which has been distinguished by Roman Jakobson. The ir form of the ordering clause is called the adverb. ir permissive/optative. In this respect, the colloquial work agrees with other current grammars. However, to the aforementioned subgroup of imperative verbs belong the present tense 3 person forms with the particles fegū(/) and tė, e.g. tegu(l) ateina, teateina (129). In Lithuanian linguists’ works these forms are now assigned to the direct pronoun, as is the third person of the future tense with the same particles, e.g. tegu(/) ateis, teateis (the author does not mention them at all), and only forms with -ie, -ai (teateiniė, terasar) are considered a specific subgroup of the imperative pronoun. Here it would be possible to discuss with the author whether the added modal particle is a sufficient basis for distinguishing the present and future forms of the direct pronoun from the other — the imperative pronoun. There are two tenses: the present subjunctive and the past subjunctive. The approach to the composite forms of the pronoun with the pronoun of the verb be and the active participant of the past tense as the past tense of this pronoun is entirely based on their semantic opposition to the solid forms on the basis of the temporal meaning, cf.: pifkčiau: būtu pirkęs, turėčiau: būčiau turėjęs (132). In the section on the category of verb type, its relationship with the functional perspective of the sentence is highlighted, which differs significantly from English: due to the grammatically undefined complement of the local verb, various equivalents of English passive (especially triennial) constructions are possible in Lithuanian (142-145). Only the impersonal construction one confirms that... (one confirms that...) considered as a variant of this meaning, which is not necessary for general language, confirms that... (143). The author describes the controversial Lithuanian language constructions with intransitive passive participle forms of the nominative genus (here Žmonių gyvenama /gyventa, etc.) as formal passives, pointing to their impersonal nature and modal nuances (144). Incidentally, the verb to fear (148) should not be included among the verbs that do not have conjugative forms, because it is often used with the conjugative formant in the same meaning. In the book, the non-personal verb forms are divided into three groups: 1) infinitive, 2) participles and participles, 3) verb noun. The group of so-called „gerundies- “, to which belong „participant forms used in adverbial function“, is defined and discussed in a new and distinctive way. 254 (163). According to the author, the tą group consists of du unconjugated (indeclinable) gerundia corresponding to the ir present past participle (iSeinant, after leaving), ir du semi-conjugated gerundia, corresponding to the ir semi-participle of the past participle of the present tense (going out, -a, gone out, -usi). Pusdalyviy correlatisu on with side-effects (resp. adverbial) participants has already been ne established once, now in ir Lithuanian linguistics in general tends to consider the semi-participle present tense active participant form, specialized for circumstantial (adverbial) function. In this way, the semi-participant is į included in the subsystem of participants. In the grammar under discussion, the opposite path has been taken: both the semi-participsu le and the noun of the past participle of the past participle are classified as gerundia. However, in doing so, you should gerundium (half-participants) to ir consider the present and past tense forms of passive participants, which having circumstantial (adverbial) function are correlated su with semi-participants and nouns of past participles on the basis of kind and time (afnėšdamas: atnéses = being brought: brought). Thus, the author’s proposed solution would greatly expand the homonymy of participle forms: the same nominative forms of the past participle and the present and past participle would have to be considered either as participles or as partially conjugated gerundia only by function. By the way, the form doméjes (154) given for “partially conjugated gerundia” should be corrected to the conjugative doméjęs. In describing non-conjugated gerundia (respectively participles), the author mentions only their circumstantial (adverbial) usage. Specific constructions with explanatory participles (e.g. Zinad ją verkiant| verkus| verksiant) are not included in the grammar, perhaps that is why the participles of the past frequent and future tense, which, according to the author, are “extremely rare” (extremely rare 152), are not included. The third group of non-personalized verb forms in grammar are verb nouns with the suffix -imas/-ymas (165—167). The author emphasizes their high productivity: they can be made from almost any verb. This undoubtedly brings those derivatives closer to morphological forms and justifies their inclusion in the verb system, especially in the work dedicated to language teaching. Alfredas Sennas also distinguished Lithuanian verb nouns with -imas/-ymas in his 1966 grammar 224—225 (beside the infinitive, participles, participles, etc.) from noun constructs that are part of the verb system; Latin verb nouns with the suffix -nd-, called gerundia, are also traditionally considered members of the verb system. The syntax of single-line sentence is discussed based on the verb-centric sentence model. Conjunction is considered a central part of the sentence, because a) the main part of impersonal sentences is the preposition, b) the dependent parts of the sentence (additives, circumstances) depend directly on the preposition, but not on the factor. With the central part of the sentence —conditional —factor is linked by a relationship of interdependency (212). Therefore, similar principles are used here as in the grammars prepared by the Lithuanian Language 255 Institute. The idea that in generalized statements and descriptions of so-called “eternal truths” the connection is not omitted, e.g. : Man is mortal (212). This type of sentences without a conjunction, representing Indo-European nominal sentences, have been used in Lithuanian since ancient times (4Zuolas kaitrūs mėdis; Zmogus mirtingas etc.). A new and interesting chapter is the one on coordination (229-235), which describes many cases of coordination specific to Lithuanian language. The last chapter of the book on word order (236—247) reveals the role of the relevant sentence division in the selection of various word order models, the relationship of those models with different constructions in English, and many other important matters in this field that have not been consistently discussed in this kind of grammar courses so far. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that Terje Mathiassen’s book provides a coherent, concise and systematic description of the Lithuanian grammar system, which will be useful not only for Lithuanian language students, but also for future authors of grammar works. Here we are taking into our hands the fourth volume of the international journal of Baltic Vytautas Ambrazas studies “Linguistica Baltica”, which was launched in Poland in 1992. This volume is special, it is dedicated to the centenary of the birth of the great Indo-Europeanist and Baltist J. Kurytowiczius. At the beginning, after a brief introduction, W Smoczynskis (pp. XI-XXV), the creator and editor of this excellent journal of Baltic studies, gives an overview of the life and scientific activities of his teacher J. Kurytowiczius. W. Skatmowski(p. XXVII-XXXII- ),S. Urbanczykas (p. XXXII-XXXVII), E Stawskis (p. XXXIX-XL). The biographical part is concluded with a detailed bibliography of J. Kurytowicz’s Baltic and Slavic works compiled by W. Smo czy ni s ki10 (pp. XLI-XLIX). The following are 36 articles written in English, German, French, Italian, Russian on various issues of Baltic studies, Slavic studies, and some also Indo-European studies. I am pleased to see Lithuanian linguists’ names in this volume of Linguistica Baltica (as in other volumes). First of all, Z. Zinkevičius’ article (p. 83-91) should be mentioned, in which, based on the analysis of manuscript texts written before the appearance of M. Mažvydo Catechism, the hypothesis is raised that manuscript Lithuanian writings may have existed already in the time of Mindaugas. S. Karaliūnas (p. 135-140) presents the original etymology of Amžiaus. The late V Grinaveckis (p. 145-148) associated the word kdnka „pušis“ (bird) in the Žemaičių dialect with la. cake “tree” 256