the bibliography of Kuryłowicz’s works compiled by Smoczyński (XXXV–XLVII), and at the end of the book, indexes of words and names. This excellently prepared and very rich book is in no way inferior to the finest Western European publications of this kind. Together with the aforementioned second volume dedicated to Kuryłowicz (Linguistica Baltica 4) and the memorial collection for Jan Safarewicz prepared by the same Wojciech Smoczyński (Analecta Indoeeuropea Cracoviensia Vol. 1, Cracoviae, 1995), it can serve as an example of how we, too, should honor the memory of Lithuania’s most distinguished linguists.

Vytautas Ambrazas

A GUIDE TO THE STUDY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE

T E R J E M A T H I A S S E N. A SHORT GRAMMAR OF LITHUANIAN, Columbus, Ohio, 1996: Slavica Publishers, INC, 256 P.

Over the past decade, we have seen a revival of interest in the study of Lithuanian in many European countries. Courses in Lithuanian are taught at universities not only in Latvia, Germany, Poland, and Russia, but also in Italy, Sweden, Norway, Finland, the Czech Republic, and other countries; important Lithuanian studies research is carried out at many of them, and new periodicals in Baltic linguistics are being established¹. However, until now there has been a serious shortage of Lithuanian grammar guides in English designed for university study. This gap is being filled by the recently published Short Grammar of Lithuanian by Terje Mathiassen, professor at the University of Oslo.

The author of the grammar is a Balticist and Slavist well known to Lithuanian linguists, who continues the traditions of Lithuanian studies established in Norway by his teacher, Christian Stang. He speaks Lithuanian fluently and has published many important works on Lithuanian linguistics. During his long career teaching Lithuanian at the University of Oslo, he gained extensive experience in this field, which he drew on in writing his grammar.

The grammar consists of a short introduction and 14 chapters. The introduction provides some information about the place of Lithuanian among other languages, its main dialects, and its present state. Chapter 1 (21–36) describes the phonological system of standard Lithuanian, its realization in speech and writing, as well as vowel and consonant alternations, stress, and pitch accent. Chapters 2–7 (37–177) discuss morphology by word classes (the so-called parts of speech), their morphological categories, and inflection. In view of the practical needs of the book’s users, the description of forms and their functions is not strictly separated into distinct parts,

¹ One of the latest is Res Balticae, edited by Pietro U. Dini and Nikolaj Mikhailov. Miscellanea italiana di studi baltistici. 1, 1995; 2, 1996; 3, 1997, Pisa.

252

In the book, we do not even find separate sections on morphology and syntax. Many issues of usage are presented in the sections on adjectives, numerals, and verbs, especially in the description of participial forms. At the end of the sections on nouns, adjectives, and verbs, the main word-formation features of these parts of speech are also briefly mentioned (prefixal and suffixal derivatives). The sections on cases (8), prepositions (9), and conjunctions (11) are devoted entirely to syntax (178–202). A separate section (10) describes means of expressing time (202–206), while sections 12–14 describe the structure of simple and complex sentences (210–229), agreement (230–235), and word order (236–247). A list of the most important literature and a subject index are appended at the end of the book.

The book’s treatment of grammatical topics is oriented toward the current language norm. Brief historical comments, set in petit type, are generally provided only when the author considers it important to explain differences among certain forms (e.g. vowel gradation, metatony, and Saussure’s and Leskien’s laws) or to highlight the specific features of Lithuanian grammatical structure. Both in its structure and in its presentation of grammatical data, Terje Mathiassen’s book is a new and original work. Its methodological merits will undoubtedly be appreciated by users studying Lithuanian in many foreign countries and using its data in linguistic research. Here I would like only to draw attention to how the author presents and explains those topics that have been interpreted differently in grammatical descriptions and other works of Lithuanian linguistics to date, and that are often debated.

One of these topics is the indeclinable adjective forms (gėra, malonų, etc.), which some researchers have proposed separating from the category of gender and treating as genderless forms (Aldona Paulauskienė), adverbs (Aleksas Girdenis, Vladas Žulys), or words belonging to a separate “state category” (Kazimieras Musteikis), while others, following the prevailing tradition, regard them as neuter forms (Adelė Valeckienė, Dalija Tekorienė, et al.). Mathiassen calls them special “neuter” forms (special neutral forms 62 ff.) and explains that the term neuter (neutral) is justified from a diachronic perspective. At the same time, he proposes an alternative term: the (adjective) indeclinable form (the indeclinable form). This term is undoubtedly better than genderless form, but it is difficult to apply to participles, which have other indeclinable forms—the gerunds. The author himself, having proposed this term, goes on to write only about special neuter (neutral) forms.

The description of the verb is based on the view, now established in Lithuanian linguistics, that the third-person form is a bare stem and that the first- and second-person endings are the same in all tenses. This makes it possible to describe the entire system of verb forms more simply and consistently, using a much smaller inventory of morphological formatives than was used in the past. In this respect, the author sets a good example for grammars used in Lithuanian schools and for some of our university courses, where the vowel at the end of the stem in third-person forms is still treated as an ending.

The grammar distinguishes four moods: indicative, imperative, subjunctive, and indirect. Discussing the indirect mood (the re-

253

lative mood), the author points out that it has the same range of tense and voice forms as the indicative. This is not a universal feature of marked moods (which generally have fewer tense forms than the indicative); it raises the question of the special place of this mood in the language system (134–135). The author’s observation once again brings to mind the possibility of interpreting the formation of the indirect mood as a separate evidential category, identified and described by Roman Jakobson.

The group of imperative forms includes what is termed the permissive/optative mood (permissive / optative). In this respect, the work under discussion agrees with other contemporary grammars. However, the aforementioned subgroup of the imperative includes third-person present forms with the particles tegù(l) and tè, e.g. tegù(l) ateina, teateina (129). In the works of Lithuanian linguists, these forms are now classified as indicative, as is the third-person future with the same particles, e.g. tegù(l) ateis, teateis (which the author does not mention at all), while only forms with -ie, -ai (teatemìe, terãšai) are considered a distinct imperative subgroup. Here one might debate with the author whether the addition of a modal particle is sufficient grounds for assigning present and future indicative forms to another mood—the imperative.

Two tenses are distinguished in the subjunctive: present (present subjunctive) and past (past subjunctive). The treatment of compound subjunctive forms consisting of the subjunctive of the verb būti ‘to be’ and the past active participle as the past tense of this mood is entirely justified by their semantic opposition to simple forms in terms of tense, cf.: pirkčiau: būčiau pirkęs, turėčiau: būčiau turėjęs (132).

The section on the verb’s voice category highlights its relationship to functional sentence perspective, which differs considerably from English: because the position of the complement in relation to the verb is grammatically unrestricted in Lithuanian, various Lithuanian equivalents are possible for English passive constructions (especially ditransitive ones) (142–145). It is only unnecessarily that, alongside the impersonal construction patvirtinama, kad... (one confirms that...), the author gives as an alternative the expression patvirtina, kad..., which with this meaning is not characteristic of standard language (143). The author describes the much-debated Lithuanian constructions with neuter forms of intransitive passive participles (čia žmonių gyvenama / gyventa, etc.) as formally passive (formal passives), noting their impersonal character and modal nuances (144).

Incidentally, the verb bijóti ‘to fear’ should not be listed among verbs without reflexive forms (148), since it is often used with a reflexive marker with the same meaning.

The book divides non-finite verb forms into three groups: 1) the infinitive (infinitive), 2) gerunds/half-participles and participles (gerunds and participles), and 3) the verbal noun (verbal noun). The so-called group of “gerunds” is defined and discussed in a new and distinctive way; it includes “participial for-

254

forms, used in an adverbial function” (163). According to the author, this group consists of two indeclinable gerunds, corresponding to the present and past simple converbs (indeclinable) (išeinant, išėjus), and two partly declinable gerunds, corresponding to the half-participle and the nominative of the past simple active participle (išeidamas, -à, išėjęs, -usi). The correlation of half-participles with participles denoting a subordinate action (i.e. adverbial participles) has already been noted many times, and Lithuanian linguistics now generally tends to regard the half-participle as a form of the present active participle, specialized for an adverbial function. In this way, the half-participle is incorporated into the participle subsystem. The grammar under discussion takes the opposite approach: both the half-participle and the correlated nominative of the past simple active participle are assigned to the gerunds. But this would also require treating the nominative forms of the present and past passive participles as gerunds (half-participles), since, when used adverbially, they correlate with half-participles and the nominative of the past simple active participle on the basis of voice and tense (atnešdamas: atnešęs = àtnešamas: àtneštas). The author’s proposal would thus greatly expand homonymy among participial forms: the same nominative forms of the past simple active and present and past passive participles would have to be treated either as participles or as partly declinable gerunds, depending solely on their function. Incidentally, the form domėjęs (154), listed among the “partly declinable gerunds,” should be corrected to the reflexive form domėjęsis.

In describing indeclinable gerunds (i.e. converbs), the author mentions only their adverbial use. Special constructions with converbs of explanatory meaning (e.g., žinau ją verkìant / verkus / verksiant) are not included in the grammar; perhaps this is why it also omits the past frequentative and future converbs, which, according to the author, are “especially rare” (extremely rare 152).

The third group of non-finite verb forms in the grammar consists of verbal nouns (verbal nouns) with the suffix -imas / -ymas (165–167). The author emphasizes their high productivity: they can be formed from almost any verb. This, undoubtedly, brings these derivatives closer to morphological forms and justifies their inclusion in the verb system, especially in a work intended for language teaching. Alfred Senn also classified Lithuanian verbal nouns in -imas / -ymas among nominal formations included in the verb system in his 1966 grammar, pp. 224–225 (alongside the infinitive, participles, converbs, etc.); Latin verbal nouns with the suffix -nd-, so-called gerunds, are likewise traditionally regarded as members of the verb system.

The syntax of the simple sentence is discussed on the basis of a verb-centered sentence model. The predicate is regarded as the central sentence constituent because (a) the predicate is the main constituent of impersonal sentences, and (b) dependent sentence constituents (objects and adverbials) depend directly on the predicate, but not on the subject. The subject is linked to the central sentence constituent—the predicate—by a relation of interdependency (interdependency) (212). Thus, the approach here follows principles similar to those in the grammars of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language—

255

published in parallel. The claim that the copula yra, e.g.: žmogus yra mirtingas is not omitted in general statements and formulations of so-called “eternal truths” seems debatable (212). Sentences of this type without a copula, representing Indo-European nominal sentences, have long been widely used in Lithuanian (ąžuolas kairūs medis; žmogus mirtingas etc.). The section on agreement (229–235) is new and interesting, describing many cases of agreement characteristic of Lithuanian.

The final chapter of the book, on word order (236–247), reveals the role of information structure in selecting among different word-order patterns, the relationship of those patterns to different constructions in English, and many other important matters in this area that have not previously been discussed systematically in grammar courses of this kind.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that Terje Mathiassen’s book provides a coherent, concise, and systematic description of the grammatical system of Lithuanian, which will be useful not only to students of Lithuanian but also to authors of future grammar works.

Vytautas Ambrazas

THE FOURTH VOLUME OF “LINGUISTICA BALTICA”

Here we take into our hands the fourth volume of “Linguistica Baltica,” the international journal of Baltic studies launched in Poland in 1992. This volume is special: it is dedicated to commemorating the centenary of the birth of the great Indo-Europeanist and Balticist J. Kuryłowicz.

At the beginning, following a brief preface, W. S m o c z y ń s k i (pp. XI–XXV), the originator and editor of this excellent journal of Baltic studies, surveys the life and scholarly work of his teacher, J. Kuryłowicz. W. S k a ł t m o w s k i (pp. XXVII–XXII), S. U r b a ń c z y k (pp. XXXII–XXXVII), and F. S ł a w s k i (pp. XXXIX–XL) then share their recollections of J. Kuryłowicz. The biographical section concludes with a comprehensive bibliography of J. Kuryłowicz’s works on Baltic and Slavic studies, compiled by W. S m o c z y ń s k i (pp. XLI–XLIX).

The volume then presents 36 articles written in English, German, French, Italian, and Russian, addressing various questions in Baltic and Slavic studies, and some in Indo-European studies as well. It is pleasing to see the names of Lithuanian linguists in this volume of “Linguistica Baltica” (as in the others). First to be mentioned is Z. Z i n k e v i č i u s’s article (pp. 83–91), which, on the basis of an analysis of manuscript texts written before the appearance of M. Mažvydas’s Catechism, advances the hypothesis that Lithuanian manuscripts may have existed as early as the time of Mindaugas. S. K a r a l i ū n a s (pp. 135–140) offers an original etymology of century. The late V. G r i n a v e c k i s (pp. 145–148) linked the word kanka ‘pine’ found in the Samogitian dialect with Latvian kūoks ‘tree’.

256