Dėl linksniuojamųjų žodžių kirčiavimo variantų pietinėse aukštaičių tarmėse

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE QUESTIONS XXXVI (1996) LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE: RESEARCHERS AND STUDIES Danguolė MIKULĖNIENĖ ON PRONUNCIATIONAL VARIETIES OF INCLINED WORDS SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS TOWNSHIPS in k In addition, the differences in the pronunciation of consonant words are often discussed from the point of view of the common language, considering which of them is more appropriate for the common language. In dialects, there are all kinds of pronunciation, but usually there is a tendency towards terminal pronunciation (Būga 1961: 79; Skardžius 1935: 35—42, 144—155; 1968: 58—59, Illič-Svityč 1963: 29—30, 41—42, 55; Girdenis 1967: 6 and others). in The tendency of spoken language to oxytonesis has been attempted to justify statistically: According to Bi Stundzias (1984: 88), diphthongs in the variant of root-terminal crossing constitute all cases of variation. Most often, the accentuation paradigms of the 86% same root preposition vary — the first and third (cf. bėržas 1 / bėržas 3, tėvas 1 / tėvas 3), the second and fourth (cf. aušra 2 / ausra 4, bala 2 / bala 4). Half less — 31.6% — are words whose pronunciation changes with the root suffix (cf. dudra 1 /audra 4, kdina 1 /kaina 4) (Stundžia 1984: 87, table 1). k 81. the Southern Highland dialects differ in the abundance of accent variants: they contain a number of words and their forms pronounced differently than in the common language, e.g. Zietelas and pas tok ūs žmonis; vient one liked; we built it in our feet (Vidugiris 1959: 207——209) or in the Dieveniškiai neighborhoods there is written and dai shining bones o kui ciei keys; pinks stable KK one dir-s and so on. (Lipskienė, Vidugiris 1967: 195—196). to In these dialects the vns is particularly fluctuating. innagininko and dgs. Final accent: words with a strong third (sometimes first) accent are rarely accompanied by a final accent. Thus, in the Dieveniškiai dialect there may be pas ma arkliūs, galvas, grūdai (Lipskienė, Vidugiris 1967: 196), Švendub karštū, nugū, pėsčiū; horse-like, hot (Naktinienė, Paulauskienė, Vit kas 1988: 8), Punsko —pédu, pėduos; alive, alive; long, long; Salta, (Grumadienė 1992: 11). 82. Since pronunciation variants are usually recorded in the most densely populated areas, the presence of accentuation similarities in the highland dialect of the southern border is often associated with the influence of Slavic languages (cf. kevičius 1966: 31). Under their constant influence, the dialectal coincidences with the place of the accent in certain word forms are disturbed, and there is a tendency towards morphological alignment of the accent paradigm —colon or terminal types of pronunciation (cf. Gr diene 1988: 144; 1994: 104). ; comfortable, uncomfortable). 148 The Slavic languages undoubtedly play a catalytic role in the dialectal pronunciation system, but the mixing of dialects is not always a new phenomenon. The variants in question are found not only in the endangered dialects of the border, but also in the whole area of southern Altays (Dzuks) and neighboring dialects!. Even to the north of it — for example, in the southern part of the East Altai Širvintų dialect, where the tendency of colony pronunciation is also observed (Morkūnas 1969: 117). So, to the deflection zone. j 83. There have been attempts to find phonetic reasons for this phenomenon: it has been explained by poorer distinction of long vowel prefixes in eastern and southern Highland dialects (Stundžia 1984: 86), similarity of tone of tvirtagalė and tvirtaprade prefixes (Naktinienė, Paulauskienė, Vitkauskas 1988: 8) or adaptation of tvirtagalė word root prefix to tvirtaprade of that dialect (Grinaveckis 1991 110—111). However, the presence of forms with a preserved solid-part suffix — for example, vns. galininkas karštą (trm. kda.rštu.) next to karštū, karštūs or arklį (trm. d.rkl'i.) next to arkliūs (and drklius) (Naktiniené, Paulauskienė, Vitkauskas 1988: 8) —shows that in the southern Highland dialects the stem acute is not completely extinct. In addition, the phonological contradiction of the consonants in the diphthongs is well preserved. According to Z. Zinkevičius, several adjacent forms used in the same locality (and even by the same informant — aut. p.) indicate the non-phonetic nature of the pronunciation variants, so they can be explained primarily by "the forgetting of the ancient pronunciation and its subsequent analogous equalization" (Zinkevičius 1979: 91). Thus, it is logical to assume that the "aligned" variants, considered hypercorrective from the point of view of synchrony (Grumadienė 1988: 144—148), may also have historical premises of existence. $4. M. Daukša’s writings already testify to their existence, cf. M. Daukša’s * daiktai (things) next to ddiktus (things), * darbūs (works) next to darbus (works, works), “ pėdas (pedds); * gardžias (gardžias) next to gardžius (gardžius, gardžius), *gyvū, gyvi (giwd, giwds) next to gyvus (giwus), * pilna (pilni), as well as * aiškūmi, “patogūmi (aifkimi, patogūmi) next to diškius, (ne)patégius (difikius, acc. pl. I guess these ar final nouns are just a simple proofreading error in the plural final form — * P. Cans detected five times (items six), *works — three times — (works — also three times). It is quite likely that M. Many of them may have been familiar to the iš southern highlands- : 1 This shows The manuscripts of the dialectological ir expeditions of the Department of Ir Language Dialectology of the Institute of Lithuanian (1991 m. — Language 1992 m. — Valkiniukai, Dieveniškiai, Balbiériskis; 1993 m. — Leipalingis, Mielagėnai, 1994 m. — Dievėniškės, 1995 m. — Chicken) material. „Long vowels (resp. ie, uo) prepositions are not yet sufficiently studied. Although ir about the | western hw neighbors, the eastern kapsai, it is said that they also almost hide the pronunciati- * on of long vowels and of bivowels ie, tvirtapradės tvirtagalės priegaidės" (Lithuanian seems, it is uo too early to ir talk about the leveling of the word 1970 : 29), stem jų (plg. Grinaveckis 1991 : 118—119). Moreover, the South-West Highlanders still distinguish the acute of syllables from the circumflex even in askirtinoty (Girdenis 1973 : 74—75; Zinkevičius 1983 : 121—122): 149 of these dialects or, according to P. Skardžius (1935: 40), "it could also have been the creature of a Vilnius | corrector- ". Although P. Skardžius attributes the conjugated forms (at least adjective-- |-jus) to the proofreading errors, his opinion is not supported by the pronouns, numerals, or adjectives themselves of the old writings. That the words with terminal pronunciation cannot be considered either accidental or mistaken, M. Daukša's pronouns kokts, ~id, toks, ~ia show: vns is pronounced consistently at the ending. innagininkas *kokia (kokid, kokė), *tokia (tokid) or dgs. final “what (kokés, kokias, koké[g], *tokias (tokés) next to such. (tokias), “such (tokie) next to tékius (tokie) together with other forms of verbs testifies that they were Occitans (Skardžius 1935: 198). There is no final form of the pronoun baritone. Like pronouns, numerals also seem to have retained the paradigm of ending pronunciation. This is shown by the DGS of M. Daukša's writings. * keturias (kie“turias, keturés), *septynias (Jeptinės) (Skardžius 1935: 183) as well as non-noun forms of numerals in the anonymous Catechism of 1605 * pirma (pirma), “ant(a)ra (vntdrd), * trečia (Trecia) šalia trėčia (Trėcta), * ketvirta (Ketwirtd) (Zinkevičius 1975: 63). $5. Because of the small number of examples, it is difficult to recognise * gardžiūs, * gyvūs, *pilni as relics of the terminal pronunciation, especially since K. Būga tends to interpret the form * gardžiūs as the gender of another schnekta (Būga 1961:77). However, there is some indirect evidence. First of all, it is the dgs of two-syllable acute masculine adjectives. the noun balti (<* balt-ie), pronounced at the ending exactly the same as primi ((<* pirm-ie) or koki (<* kak-ie), i and feminine vns. denominator balta (<*balt-a) —as first (<*pirm-a) or what (<*kak-(j)- a). Thus, before Saussure's and Fortunatov's law came into effect, these forms were not completely different from vns in terms of consonant pronunciation — two acute consonants. inagininko i and dgs. the final, cf. baltu/baltū (<*balt-uo), baltus/baltūs (<*balt-ūos) (Mikulėnienė 1993: ii 22). At the time of M. Daukša, Saussure's and Fortunatov's law had already affected the baritons of the stirrup root, e.g. * drūsus (drgfus), drgsu (drgfu), bet drąsieji (drą Jūs), * graūdus (graidus), graūdumi (graudumi), bet graudžiė (i.sg. graudžia- ), “sunkus (fuykus), sunkus (fuku), bet sunkieji ([ykits] (Skardžius 1935 or 1936). 143—144). Then what, if the trace of root ne pronunciation, should be considered *svetki ([weiki], sveikus ([wéikus]) next to sveika ([weikd], sveikas ([weikds], sveikū (i.sg. [weiki]) (Skardžius 1935: 151)? Apparently, the adjectives of the second-generation are also considered relics of baritone pronunciation, cf. "drąsu, * sunku, * teisu (téifu), * vargu (wdrgu) next to the much rarer form vargtū (wargu) (Skardžius 1935: 143—144). The same pronunciation —bjaūru (biaūru), dailu, graūdu, patogu, sunku ([uriku] — is observed in the dictionary of F. Kuršaitis (Kurschat. Thus, it is possible to assume that bi-syllabic adjectives, such as pronouns or numerals, will have had two root-end pronunciation paradigms. 1883) — ir — §6. 1605 m. catechism is mentioned not accidentally: it is assumed that the jo translator came from the southern iš part of Vilnius area (Zinkevičius 1968 : 109 tt, 1975 : 150 as mm Kusiai APRs 5 6 a iai i ia SS ai 5 4). In terms of pronunciation, the language of the anonymous catechism is close to that of M. Daukša's writings, so it is necessary to admit that the aforementioned "Vilnius corrector" (also cf. K. Būga (1961: 77) statement: "Daukšos postele is a translation by a few people"), or —the pronunciation of the dialect of the translator of the Catechism was not far removed from the dialect of M. Daukša's native area at that time. All the variants of the pronunciation found in the old writings have been preserved in the southern Highlands. First of all, these are universally used pronouns with a final consonant. In various variants —tokis, mvid; such as, mid; tokijs, ~id (next to tokis, mia or tékias, ~ia) and kokis, ~id; what, mia; kokis, mia (next to kokis, mia or kokias, mia) —they are recorded in Gervėčiai (Kardelytė 1975: 69), Lazūnai (Vidugiris 1959:208; Petrauskas, Vidugiris 1985: 124, 268; 1987: 5, 6 etc), Zietela (Vidugiris 1959: 208, 209; 1960: 122; Zinkevičius 1966: 318), Varanavo (Grinaveckienė 1994: 96, 106), Dieveniškiai (Grinaveckienė 1993: 166), Druskininkai (Naktinienė, Paulauskienė, Vitkauskas 1988: 161, 410), Punskas (Mikalonienė, Morkūnas 1988) and elsewhere. Secondly, there are the adjectives of the susiku type, which are the forms of adjectives of the second person singular and which have preserved the root conjugation (Vidugiris 1959: 206; Kardelytė 1975: 54; Petrauskas, Vidugiris 1985: 250; 1987: 26, 31, etc.; Naktinienė, Paulauskienė, Vitkauskas 1988: 357). Since even in the area of Kapsų—Zanavykų they are pronounced twice (both at the root and at the ending) —for example, baist, baūgū, bjaūrū, graūdū, nikū, skaūdū, svarbū, sunkū... (Senkus 1960: 142), —it can be said that the variant of the ending pronunciation sunkū is newer. . Thirdly —Lazūnų dialect numerals vien, vieni; aštuoni (instead of aštuoni), septyni (instead of septyni) (Petrauskas, Vidugiris 1987: 10, 19, 20, 33, 34, 38, 57), confirming the authenticity of the numeral forms of M. Daukšos writings. Thus it would appear that the Dzūki have "confounded" only the pronunciation of nouns, adjectives and adjective-variable numerals? 87. Then the morpho(pho- )nological alignment of the endings seems quite plausible (cf. Girdenis 1991): after the law of Saussure and Fortunatov came into effect, the endings of these vowels began to be pronounced even in the acute root words. This applies especially to adjectives, e.g. svetkas: sveikū (<*sveik-uo), sveiki (<*sveik-ūos) and baltas: baltu/baltū (<*bdlt-tio), baltus/baltūs (<*balt-ūos). Their analogy, exactly the same as dgs. in the case of the pronunciation of the noun — e.g. sveiki (<*sveik-1e) and balti (<*bdlt-ie), —may have been influenced by tvirtapra- (Mikulėnienė 1992 : 14). The presence of homoniminiy fleksijy in southern Highland dialects probably helped to establish the acute endings (Mikulėnienė 1993: 22), cf. vns of masculine and feminine adjectives. the infinitive —baltu/baltū (<*balt-tio) baltu/baltū (<*balt-ū <*balt-a(n)- ). The generalized pronunciation of acute limbs could also be applied to daikįnagini151 for surnames. For example, the d-camber noun vns is only distinguished by the place of the consonant. nką vilką vns. ir a wolf, whose limb is typical of the southern -u Highlands (Zinkevičius map. 1966 : 208, No. 75; Kazlauskas 1968 : 148; The 1991 : 40, Lithuanian Land. No. 36). $8. The end of the acute root of nouns tends to be pronounced dgs. mightycould ką have determined the coop plural, still alive in the Dzūkian dialects (Mikulėnienė 1994 : 18). Formally coinciding plurals of d-root nouns, ir nomina ir collectiva forms su -at (Claim 1981 : 191 tt; 1994 : 21; Ambrazas 1992 : 36—37; Kortlandt 1993 : 46—47). So in the ending pronounced biržūs, grūdai, kelmiai, pédus, tvartus... (Vidugiris 1959 : 207; Petrauskas, Vidugiris, 1985 : 71,90; 1987 : 9, 13 etc.) can be treated as cases of paradigm alignment (plg. birches, grains, stumps, feet, barns...). į This hypothesis is supported tą by the pluralia tantum nouns that are pronounced according to the model itself, e.g. Lazūnų dialect akėčias, pavalkūs (Senkus 1959 : 217, 222) dialect akėčias, pavalkūs (Senkus dialect akėčias, pavalkūs (Senkus dialect akėčias, pavalkūs (Senkus dialect akėčias, pavalkūs (Senkus dialect akėčias, pavalkūs (Senkus dialect akėčias, pavalkūs ( 1987 : 5 tt). In general, the Lazuny dialect seems to have generalized the final pronunciation of multisyllabic nouns, cf. oats, nuts, apples, samanės, edible, voverds... 1959 : 217, 225), (Petrauskas, Vidugiris 1987 : 5, 7 tt). 3 True, there are adjacent pronunciation variants of the root, e.g. mdrsking 8 (Senkus 1959 : 221), dudeklus (Petrauskas, Vidugiris 1985 : 20) ar Owl (Petrauskas, Vidugiris does 1987 : 42) not allow be retrospective assertion that the final pronunciation of these nouns was older, but does not rule out such a ir possibility (Kazlauskas 1968 : 35—36). 3 §9. The generalized terminal plural pronoun may have been derived from ir the singular ai forms of the stem pronoun. Then, as a reflection of this effect, a circumflex is ju found in the ar root suffix, which is generally characteristic of the ati traction accent (Zinkevičius 1966 : 40—41), plg. chair (3)/chair (4) science (4), 6th ring (4), (4)... (Naktinienė, Paulauskienė, Vitkauska; 1988) ar suffixes -ėjas, ~a vedinius — dėjėjas, ma (4), dengėjas (4) mezgėj (4), siuvėjas, ~a (4)... (Naktinienė, Paulauskienė, Vitkauskas 1988; also see. pe — Kurshat 1883). Perhaps so explained ir P. In the can, (1935 : 40) the dialectal variants — mentioned are: daiktas, veidas, žiedas. Plg. : vns. 3 diktas: dgs. objects: kuop. dgs. items — pcs. object object These singular forms have a strong secondary pronoun, thus the possibility of circumflex metatonia. ma O dialects unchanged some words (e.g., kdulas, šaukštas ar tvartas) the root prefix indicates that in n some cases this process was completed, cf.: vns. bone: dgs. bones: cuop. dgs. bones — pcs. Boneless §10. The above pronunciation variants in spoken language are constantly conki so sometimes it is difficult for linguists to determine the accents of the word concerned 152 radigm: singular forms can indicate baritone accent, plural moveable — accent, e.g. Lazūnų dialect barn (1): tvarti, tvartan (Senkus 1959: 216—217) and tvartas (3): tvartdp, tvartai (Petrauskas, Vidugiris 1985 : 273). Sometimes the movable fixed root paradigm is fixed by an exception, cf. bone (3): acc. su s.g. kduly, bones, but bones: Anas bones broke when we were drinking (Petrauskas, Vidugiris 1985: 112). In the Southern Highlands, the ridge is generally flat. innagininir ko dgs. The "strong" position of the finalis in terms of diachronicity is determined not so much by phonetic as by morphological circumstances. Therefore, due to the influence of the paradigm, the broken connection between the root preposition and the place of the accent in certain forms of the bisyllabic word cannot be considered the most important and only indicator of the accentuation IR paradigm. Ambrazas S. 1992: On the development of nomina collectiva in the Baltic languages. — Linguistics Baltica 1, 35—48. Būga K. 1961: Dictionary of the English Language. — Būga K., Selected Writings 3, Vilnius: 1967: "The State of ir the Art in the 1960s: A Study of 9—483. the Political Economy of the United States". — Scientific high. Conference of m-class teachers on Lithuanian language issues. Program ir for reporting theses. VU, Vilnius, Girdenis A. 6. 1973: Zapadnolitovskije i drevneprusskije slogovyje akcenty. — Baltic languages are closely related to i the Slavic, Finno-Ugric, so Germanic languages. i Thesis papers of the scientific conference devoted to the 100th so anniversary of the birth of A.A. - Yeah. - Yeah. Endzelina, Riga, 71—75. Girdenis A. 1991: Origin and development of the temporary ending of the word in Lithuanian. —VI International Congress of Baltists, 1991 m. of October 2—4 d. Thesis, Vilnius, Grinaveckienė Source texts. 33—34. E. 1993: — Peripheral dialects of Lithuanian language (Lithuanian Language Studies Issues 30), 134—180. Grinaveckienė E. 1994: Lithuanian dialect texts 1. Balatna (Varanavas), Vilnius: Encyclopedia ir of Science Fiction. Grinaveckis V. 1991: The West Indies War of Secession. — Grinaveckis V., Problems of pronunciation of Lithuanian dialects. VPI, Vilnius, Grumadienė 110—119. L. 1988: Sociolinguistic study of Vilnius Lithuanian language: consonantism accentuation. ir — Bilingualism in ir Lithuanian (Questions — of Lithuanian Linguistics 27), 132—149. Grumadienė L. 1992: The mixture of dialects in the Punski youth language. — Dialects of Lithuanian ir jų investigations. The past ir is the present. An t alarge Saliui (1902 07 21— 1972) mentioned. Thesis of conference papers. 1992 m. November 5—6 1st, Vilnius, Grumadiené 11. L. 1994: There are a number of different ways of forming the ir skeleton of a snake. — Dialects of Lithuanian ir jų researches (Lithuanian linguistics issues 34), 97—106. Svityč V. M. 1963: Imennaja akcentuacija v Baltic Slavic, i Moscow: | Science. Kardelyte J. 1975: Gervėčių dialect (phonetics ir morphology), Vilnius: A thought. Kazlauskas J. 1968: Historical grammar of the Lithuanian language, Vilnius: A thought. 111i eKortlandt PF. 1993: Such cold mornings. — Baltistica 28(1), 45—48. V rschat F. 1883: Dictionary of Lithuanian Language, hall. Latvian 1970: Lithuanian language dialects. Chrestomatija, Vilnius: A thought. - Lithuanian 1991: Atlas of the Lithuanian language 3, Morphology, Vilnius: University of Vilnius Science. 153 ( a] Lipskienė J, Vidugiris A. 1967: Dieveniškių dialektas. —Grammar Structure of the Lithuanian Language (Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 9), 183—222. 1988. pp. 10. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z. "Krievu valodas dialektiskie teksti". (The manuscript is preserved in the Department of Language History and Dialectology of the Lithuanian Language Institute. Reg. No. 63). Mikulėnienė D. 1992: On the development of the prepositions. —Jono Kazlauskas day: historical 13—14. grammar subjects. Mikulėnienė D. 1993: On the mixing of accentuation paradigms in Vilnius dialects of the southern and eastern Highlands. —Lithuanian language: researchers and research. In memory of Jurgis Gerulis (1883 08 13—about 1945). Conference papers, Vilnius, 21—22. Mikulėnienė D. 1994: On the development of d-stem nouns. —Lithuanian to language: researchers and research. In memory of Pranas Skardis (1899 03 26—1975 12 18). Thesis of the conference reports. Vilnius, 17-18. Morkūnas K. 1969: Morphology of the Eastern Highland Southern dialect. — Lithuanian Language Grammar Studies (Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 11), 107—146. Naktiniene G., Paulauskienė A, Vitkauskas V. 1988: Dictionary of Druskininkai dialect, Vilnius: Mokslas. PetrauskaisiJ.,, Vidugiris A. 1985: Lazūnų dialekto žodynas, Vilnius: Moks]as\ Petrauskas J, Vidugiris A. 1987: Lazūnų dialekto tekstai, Vilnius: Mokslas. |. 1959. "The Late Romanticism". —Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 2, Senkus J. 1960: Adjecti215—230." ve and Numeral Changes in the Kapsy-zanavyky Dialects. —Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 3, 133—159. in Skardžius P. 1935: Daukšos accentologija, Kaunas. Skardžius P. 1968: Lithuanian Pronunciation, Chicago. Stundžia B. 1984: Lietuvių kalbos dviskiemenių daiktavardžių kirčiavimo variantai. —Kalbotyra 35(1), 86—92. Stundžia B. 1981: Plural personal nouns oikonimes and their significance for reconstruction of inflection and pronunciation systems. —Lietuvių onomastikos tyrinėjimai (Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 21), 185—198. Stundžia B. 1994: Variations of noun stems and genus in Baltic languages (ide. and common lexicon of Baltic and Slavic languages). —Baltistica 27(2), 13—30. to Vidugiris A. 1959: Some features of the Zietela dialect. —Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 2, Vilnius, 195—213. 1960. pp. 60. "About the A.S.C.E.". —Lithuanian Linguistics Questions) 3:113—193:. -- | Zinkevičius Z. 1966: Lithuanian dialectology, Vilnius: Mintis. 1968. pp. 165. "The 1968 Olympic Winter Games". —Baltistica 4(1), Zinkevičius Z. 1975: 109—116. \ From accentology of Lithuanian history. 1605: Pronunciation of the Catechism, Vilnius. : in Zinkevičius Z. 1979: Diacritical digression and pronunciation paradigms. — Kalbotyra 30(1), 90-93. | Zinkevičius Z. 1983: On the development of dialects and accents in Lithuanian.-— Baltistica 19(2), 120—122. ; 154 m i Kal’ ui i Dai Gia A 1% gė ai ON THE QUESTION OF THE ACCENTUATION VARIATIONS OF THE NOMINA IN THE SUDAUKSTAITIC MOUNTAIN MOUNTAINS Summary A relatively large number of accentuation variants are present in the sudaukstaitic dialects. Here many words and forms are accentuated differently in common language, cf.: vienūs /vienus, pėduos /pedus, kaulai /kaulai and others. The accentuation varies particularly in the forms of the instrumental sing. and Accusative pl. J Since most accentuation variants are found in the South-East Asian dialects, the border area of Lithuanian, the accentuation variants are often attributed to the influence of Slavic languages. Although the Slavic influence is also obvious, the mixture of accentuation paradigms is not always to be perceived as a new phenomenon. In the present article, the view is expressed that diachronic conditions could also have led to the emergence of accentuation variants in the South Australian dialects. If we compare the corresponding material of the old writings (the Postilla and the Catechism of M. Daukša, the anonymous Catechism of 1606, the Worderbicher of F. Kurschat) with the later research data from the Aukštaitian dialects (Lazunai, Gervėčiai, Dieveniškės, Druskininkai, Punskas), we find that all the accentuation variants found in the old writings are preserved in these dialects. Consequently, they are not new. A number of possible causes of the emergence of accentuation variants are highlighted. The first is the morpho(- pho)nological balance of the endings, cf. sveikas: sveikū (<*sveik-- 10), sveikūs (<*svetk- -1ios) and baltas: baltu /baltū (<*bdli-iio), baltus /baltūs (<*bdli-os). The accentuation of these endings is analogous to the nominative forms of the plural (see: sveiki and balti). In addition, homonymous fexions could contribute to the consolidation of the final accent, cf. in these dialects the identical instrumental forms of the masculine and feminine in the singular baltu /baltū and baltu /baltū as well as the dative sing. of the d-root noun of the masculine gender vilku and the instrumentalis Sing. Wolf. Thirdly, the accentuation of the accusative forms of the plural of the noun mufite may have been influenced by the forms of the nomina collectiva still alive in these dialects. As the Nomina Collectiva on When -ai became a fact of language use, they completely coincided with the plural of the o-root nouns. It is worthy of praise that$ the accentuation of the ending of the plural could have an effect on the syllable accent of the stem of the singular forms, cf. : Sing. item: Pl. items: Nom. Koll. "Sing". object objects objects Thus, in the South-Australian dialects, the unified “strong” position of the ending of the instrumental Sing could be used. and of the accusative Pl. from a diachronic point of view predominantly determined by morphological conditions, but less by phonetic ones. 155