Lietuvių kalbos intarpinių ir sta-kamienių veiksmažodžių diachroniniai sluoksniai

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVI (1996) LIETUVIŲ KALBA: TYRĖJAI IR TYRIMAI Dalia PAKALNIŠKIENĖ INFIX VERBS OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE AND sta-STEM VERBS: DIACHRONIC LAYERS Infix verbs are found in almost all Indo-European languages—some have fewer, others more. Their development differs across individual languages: in some, infix verbs disappeared for phonetic or other reasons (e.g., they shifted into the class of suffixal verbs; cf. Armenian lkʿanem “I leave” and Latin linguō, Sanskrit riṇákti); in others, they increased in number. Infix verbs became especially numerous in the East Baltic languages, particularly Lithuanian. There the infix, like the suffix sta, acquired certain functions that were absent in other Indo-European languages. Categorical semantics played a particularly important role in the formation of East Baltic infix and sta-stem verbs: the emergence of the meaning of spontaneous action, associated with the formation of diathetic oppositional verb pairs, e.g., tìnka / tẽikia, rùnka / raũkia (Arumaa; Endzelīns LVG; Karaliūnas BKSBK; Kazlauskas LKIG; Kølln; Paulauskienė GVK; Stepanov VZP; Temčin RGF, etc.). It is therefore important to analyze the relationships of Lithuanian infix and sta-stem verbs with same-root (i)a-stem verbs and certain verbs of other structures. According to data from various sources, 356 oppositions between infix or sta-stem verbs and (i)a-stem verbs, as well as verbs of mixed type, have been recorded in Lithuanian. Analysis of the genetic and derivational relationships of verbal oppositions makes it possible to identify the diachronic layers of Lithuanian infix and sta-stem verbs. 1. The Proto-Indo-European layer of infix verbs is characterized by the following features: the infix was usually attached to zero-grade roots (e.g., Latin linguō “I remain”: Sanskrit riṇákti “leaves”: Prussian po-līnka “leaves”; Latin rumpō “I break, tear, destroy”: Sanskrit lumpáti “breaks”). Root-final consonantism was fairly restricted—the root most often ended in plosives, and less often in fricatives.1 From the perspective of categorical semantics, the meaning of Proto-Indo-European infix verbs was undifferentiated: they denoted both active and spontaneous action (the meaning of active action seems to have been more common), e.g., Latin strīngo “I cut,” Avestan minā́sti “mixes” (cf. Lithuanian strìnga, mýšta, denoting spontaneous action, and Latin ninguit (=Lithuanian sniñga). However, they differed from other 1According to our data, 12 Lithuanian infix verbs are inherited from the Proto-Indo-European period (sniñga, skìnda, lìmpa, strìnga, dialectal lìñka “remains,” mýšta, bùnda, dùnsa, kùñka, mùnka, rùñpa, sènka (Pečiulevičiūtė VEIK). 83 verbs in one of the aspects of categorical semantics—aktionsart, that is, they denoted terminative action (see Kuiper IN; Kölln: Marstrander NIC, etc.). 2. Proto-Baltic must have retained the same state. This is indicated by infix verbs in the Baltic languages with a residual meaning of active action, apparently inherited from the Proto-Indo-European period, e.g., Prussian po-līṅka “leaves,” common Lithuanian and Latvian formations brēnda and brēdu, čūm̄pa and čūpu, raũda and rũodu, etc.; Lithuanian rēnda “rolls,” brūika “pushes, inserts, thrusts, puts in,” etc. 3. In the East Baltic period, a number of changes took place. The process of branching of verbal roots with qualitative vowel alternation began, and the semantic-morphological opposition causativa / resultativa took shape (e.g., kēlia / kyla: Latvian ceļu / cēlstu, krēčia / krita: Latvian krešu / kritu, etc.). This process continued after the East Baltic languages had diverged—many Lithuanian oppositions have no Latvian counterparts. In the East Baltic languages, the sta stem gained ground alongside the infix, and the phonetic possibilities of infix and sta-stem verbs expanded: roots could end not only in plosives and fricatives, but also in sonorants and semivowels j, u. Root-final consonantism determines the different morphological structures of the present tense in Lithuanian and Latvian; for example, verbs with a sonorant auslaut have infix present-tense forms in Lithuanian (e.g., lỹja, griūva, bąla), whereas in Latvian they have sta stems (līstu, grūstu, balstu) or a-stems (liju). Alongside infix present-tense forms, sta stems are increasingly prevalent in both Lithuanian and Latvian (especially before root-final fricatives and sonorants, e.g., dūžta || dunža, biršta || bȳra). The infix and the sta stem acquire a specific meaning of spontaneous action, associated with the formation of verb pairs in diathetic oppositions: Baltic roots with vowel alternation split into separate lexemes forming a diathetic opposition, e.g., Baltic *vert- / *vīrt- > Lithuanian ver̃sti, ver̃čia, ver̃tė and vi̇̀rsti, vi̇̀rsta, vi̇̀rto. The formation of the causative/resultative opposition also inspired other processes of stem regrouping: root verbs with a meaning undifferentiated with respect to diathesis acquired new present-tense formatives emphasizing the nature of the action, the agent’s activity, and its relation to the object; for example, the verb burns “burns, grows hot” has ia-stem and infixed present-tense forms in dialects: burns, cf. Latvian dedzu (causative) and deñga (mutative). 4.1. In Lithuanian, in addition to the processes mentioned above, which began in the East Baltic period and are still continuing, a new semantic-derivational opposition, d u r a t i v a / t e r m i n a t i v a, begins to develop on the basis of the causativa / resultativa opposition. The categorical semantics of its members differentiated according to the nature of the action (verbs denoting unspecified and specified duration). Earlier, it seems, a derivational opposition formed between infix or sta-stem verbs and root ia-stem verbs, formally equivalent to the resultativa / causativa opposition, e.g., spinga / spėgna, -virksta / verčia, -šunka / šaukia. Later, infix- 84 ...pinal or sta-stem formations from mixed-type verbs, e.g., týla / týli, -ėti; kvimpa / kvėpia, -ėti. The semantics of these infix and sta-stem verbs becomes highly defined—they all denote a transition from one state to another. Most terminatives are used with prefixes, acquiring the meaning of the beginning of an action2. The relationship between two different types of oppositions (resultative / causative and terminative / durative) could perhaps be indicated by certain “bridge” verbs, whose categorial semantic relations are seemingly intermediate between the two types of opposition, for example: svinta / šviečia, rūksta / reiškia, ąlsta / gėlia. From the perspective of the contemporary language, these verbs form a terminative / durative opposition, but we can readily discern a causative relationship between the opposing lexemes (šviesti causes the verb švisti, and so on). 4.2. As present-tense formatives acquire a differentiated categorial meaning, direct imitative formations begin to appear in Lithuanian, denoting s o u n d or a c h a n g e i n s t r u c t u r e. Imitative roots acquire an appropriate morphological structure that realizes the categorial and specific semantics of verbs; compare bliurbti, -ia, -ė (durative, sound meaning) — bliurbėti, bliūrba, bliurbėjo (vibrative with an iterative nuance, sound meaning) — bliūrbti, -sta, -o (mutative, meaning a change in structure). The categorial semantics of spontaneous imitative verbs with infix and sta stems is undefined—they are all mutatives, usually denoting a change in structure (decay, drooping, contraction, or expansion), sometimes extending into the sphere of physiological or mental processes. The phonetic possibilities of imitative forms are essentially unlimited—the root may begin and end with any consonant or consonant cluster, and vocalism is highly varied, though most often in the zero grade (e.g., pliūrti, bliūkti, čipti, etc.). LITERATURE AND SOURCES A r u m a a P. 1957: Von der Eigenhart des Ablauts und der Diathese im Baltischen. — Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 26, Heidelberg, 118—149. DLKŽ — Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas / Ats. red. J. Kruopas. Vilnius, 1972. E n d z e l ī n s J. 1951: Latviešu valodas gramatika, Rīga. K a r a l i ū n a s S. 1987: Baltų kalbų struktūrų bendrybės ir jų kilmė, Vilnius. K a z l a u s k a s J. 1968: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika, Vilnius. K ø l l n H. 1969: Oppositions of voice in Greek, Slavic and Baltic. — Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Historisk — filosofiske Meddelelser 43, 4. København. K u i p e r F. B. J. 1937: Die Indogermanischen Nasalpräsentia, Amsterdam. LKŽ I — Lietuvių kalbos žodynas I, Vilnius, 1968. LLKŽ — Balkevičius J., Kabelka J. Latvių-lietuvių kalbų žodynas. Vilnius, 1977. M a r s t r a n d e r Carl J. S. 1924: Observations sur les présents indo-européens à nasale infixée en celtique, Christiania. 2 It is doubtful whether such a formation of terminatives with infix and sta stems could have begun in the common Eastern Baltic period. A dozen or so pairs of verbs of this type have been recorded in Latvian, but they neither form a productive terminative / durative opposition nor, apparently, exhibit any marked semantic difference; compare kūicu || -kstu. 85 Paulauskienė A. 1979: Gramatinės lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžio kategorijos, Vilnius. Pečiulevičiūtė V. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos intarpinių ir sta kamieninių veiksmažodžių etimologijos indoeuropiečių kalbose (dipl. darbas, rankraštis), Klaipėda. Stepanov J. S.: — Stepanov Yu. S. Aspect, voice, transitivity (the Balto-Slavic problem). — Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Series: Literature and Language. 1976, 35. P. 408—420 (1); 1977, 36. P. 135—152 (2); 1978, 37. P. 344—355 (4). Temčin S. L.: — Temchin S. L. On the distribution of the verbal formatives -n- and -sta in Proto-Baltic. — Litu?jų filologų darbai, Vilnius. DIACHRONIC LAYERS OF INFIX AND sta-STEM VERBS IN LITHUANIAN Summary In this article, it is established that the meaning of infix verbs, in terms of categorial semantics, was initially undifferentiated in Proto-Baltic as well as in Indo-European. These verbs denoted both active events (cf. Old Prussian polenka “remains”, Latin linquō “I remain”, Sanskrit tináktti “leaves”) and autonomous events (cf. Lithuanian sninga “it is snowing” and Latin ninguit). In Proto-Baltic, the morphological opposition between causatives and resultatives takes shape (cf. Lithuanian kėlia / kyla “raises / rises”, Latvian ceļu / cilstu). In the East Baltic languages, the word-formation opposition of durative / terminative develops (cf. spiṅga / spiēgia “resounds / shrieks”). Imitative formations are characteristic only of Lithuanian (cf. Lithuanian bliūrbsta “gets angry”). 86