Nekaitomosios kalbos dalys pirmosiose lietuvių kalbos gramatikose

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE QUESTIONS, XXXIII (1995) GRAMMATICS AND LEXICOLOGY KAZYS ULVYDAS INVERTED PARTS OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE FIRST LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE IN GRAMMATICS I. D. Klein's "Lithuanian Grammar”! Adverb. When studying the adverb of Lithuanian language it is useful and important to look at how this part of the language is discussed and highlighted in the first Lithuanian grammar. Of all the very old Lithuanian language grammars, not only the oldest, but also the most comprehensive and important is considered to be Daniel Klein's "Grammatica Litvanica", which was published in 1653 in Karaliaučius. For the first time in the history of Lithuanian linguistics, a chapter on adverbs — De adverbio — appears here. It is extremely interesting that D. Klein, teaching classical languages (Latin, ancient Greek and even Hebrew), is not satisfied with his grammar only in Lithuanian, but sometimes gives parallel examples from classical languages or, when describing Lithuanian phenomena, compares them with those of those languages. For example, when dividing adverbs by meaning, he says that adverbs, like Latin and Greek, also have many meanings in Lithuanian. There are more such remarks in grammar. Thus, D. Klein also appears here as the first linguist in the history of Lithuanian studies. In D. Klein’s grammar, Lithuanian adverbs are not only compared, but sometimes even compared with the adverbs of classical languages. Here are some examples de[zine[p dextrorsum, keire[p sinistrorsum dangun coelum versus, namūp (=namop), namūfna, namopri domum versus added: "more Graecorum, qui dicunt odpavovės, odpavoge, in coelum, oikade domum” G 135. We do not find any more detailed definition of the adverb in Klein's grammar, but nevertheless the most essential and essential things are said about the adverb here, e.g. that adverbs are unchangeable words, as well as that they are graded. Therefore, their non-reading is limited. The semantics of the adverbs presented by D. Klein is just amazing. It has a total of 17 chapters of adverbial significance, not counting a few smaller ones. These are the titles of the sections: 1) place, 2) time, 3) quantity, 4) quality and similarity, 5) fine and separation, 6) separation, 7) discount, 8 reinforcement and non-reinforcement. ! Grammatica Litvanica... primum in lucem edita a M. Daniele Klein, Pastore Tils. Litv... Regiomonti... 1653 (hereinafter referred to as G). German summary of this grammar: M. Danielis Kleinii Compendium Litvanico-- Germanicum... Konigsberg... 1654 (hereinafter referred to as C). gimo,9)showing,10)wanting,1l)inviting, 12)asking,13)doubling,14)coming, 15)eilei és, 16)p aligning, 17)nutylėjim o. The larger of the ty sections have a few smaller groups, e.g. the place and time adverbs are counted in four groups, the quantity adverbs in three groups. Let's see what groups of local adverbs there are: 1) inloco (in place): here, czonai, [zicze, there,... elsewhere,... wifJur,... far away, nowhere; 2) deloco (from place): ifz where?, ifz here, ifzten; 3) perlocum (over a place): [z8 object, neither (corrected neither) object, anil object; 4) adlocum (in place): [zén, [zia, tęn,... [zengu? “ar Sen?’,... nowhere, widun, laukan,... down, nami (corrected home), mane[p, tawe[p,. mufump,- ... anump, kop, kuriop. Of course, if we exclude the particles, conjunctions and some other modal words that have been included in these sections and groups, their number decreases, but we cannot fail to be surprised by D. Klein’s ambition and efforts to delve into the semantics of adverbs without having at hand any source, any study of adverbs or at least any determination of their meaning, because no one had said a word about adverbs in Lithuanian at that time. And this circumstance again shows the scientific nature of Klein's grammar. In addition to the adverbs mentioned in the seventeen sections of semantics, there are more adverbs mentioned in other parts of the grammar. For example, in the sentences quite verbally, ap [tai lobiū, maž dūnos, menkay išminties, adverbs, ganė, ap/tai, maž, menkay are considered adverbs of abundance and lack. The abundance and diversity of semantic sections and groups of adverbs in D. Klein’s grammar will have been determined by two circumstances: 1) the fact that he was an outstanding linguist of European scale and a great teacher of Lithuanian language, 2) the fact that in the grammar of other languages of his era the parts of the language were not more strictly differentiated and separated from each other, especially the invariant ones, which are still mixed in many places even today. The term parts of speech, which we use today, corresponds exactly to the term partes orationis, which Klein borrowed from classical grammar. It is true, that his concept of "parts of language" could in certain cases be described in Lithuanian by the compound žodžių rūšys, because in Latin he sometimes calls words voces, and species —species. The lack of stricter criteria for describing parts of language in the 17th century did not allow D. Klein clearly distinguished the adverb from other parts of the language, so in his grammar a number of words from other parts of the language, especially particles, came into the adverb, e.g.: esle, tegul, ne, [zitay, [ztay, wey, te, nuggi, ly[z ‘only’, tikt, tiktai, žin ‘maybe’, gu ‘or’, bės ‘or’, raffi, artes “or, maybe’, ben, ras ‘maybe’; for switches — attached; particles and together joinery: ar, argu; net shortcuts: ak, ey, ayman; as well as numerals, used in a modal sense (in order): first, second, third (the left sign here can be completely random and does not denote an accent). 7. Such prldvelksnių Skirstymg Bivins Bing All seiosionis gra: mathematics. D. Klein's "grammar shiūo; aspects, is not an exception. It must be said that even now there are plenty of grammar of other languages, where the invariant parts of the language are not as strictly separated as, say, in some modern Russian or 8 Polish grammar. There is a considerable freedom in distinguishing the invariant parts of the language even in the widely used grammars of the famous names Larousse and Duden. The distribution of language parts in Klein's grammar is interesting. It is composed of eight parts: the substantive, the pronoun, and the adverb. verbum (verb), participium (participant), adverbium (adverb), praepositio (preposition), conjunctio (conjunction) and interjectio (interjection). The term nomen here includes a noun, an adjective and a numeral. This use of the term is perfectly logical, because its content here consists of three things: names of objects, properties and numbers. In addition to the noun, there are also adjectives, adverbs, adjectives, adjectives, and adjectives. As separate parts of the language, Klein does not distinguish between particles and singulars, although he uses the Latin term particula. And otherwise, his system of parts of speech includes all other parts of speech that we have in our modern Lithuanian grammar. By the way, as a separate part of speech, D. Klein distinguishes the participant. For the reasons already mentioned, D. Klein is not always consistent in dividing words into parts of speech: in one case he considers the same word to be an adverb, in another — a particle. For example, on the same page, he calls the particles ne, nė negative adverbs: nėtiek (=not so much) nie noriu, nėwiens (=no one), daiktas ne e[ti geré[nis už Dievo baimę, nieka negėlbt, and here again the negation nejau jam is a prohibitive particle, most often used with the imperative preposition: ne užmušk, ne wok G 166—167. For the first time in the history of Lithuanian studies, D. Klein also touches on the question of the gradation of adverbs, which is solved in the Grammar briefly, but at the same time extremely clearly. Here it is said that adverbs are graded, e.g.: didey, didžaus, didZiaufey; many, more, many more; gražiey, most beautiful, graZidufey; fast, faster, faster G 139. We also find degree forms of such adverbs in other parts of Klein's grammar (e.g., in the gradation of adjectives): geraus atmenus, gerdufey atmenus, didesnio turys, didžiauJey turys, didesnio pavargęs, didziaufey pavargęs G 26. It is interesting to note that the higher-degree forms in Klein's Grammar are consistently presented with the -s ending. This should indicate that in his time in the Prussian Lithuanian dialect either there were no such forms without -s at all, or he normalized them, as he had done in many other cases. Of the other more interesting adverbs or words close to them presented by D. Klein, we should mention here the already mentioned kartunta in the sentence: Jey jis kartunta ateitu; typical (but already used in Compendium) wadinte, kweste, neznnete in compounds: wadinte wadinau, kweste pakwėčiau, nežinnote nežinojau C 110, where the positive or negative meaning of the verb is further emphasized. Of the pronouns, D. Klein leaves only one — the internal present — in the paradigm of inflection, but only after linking it with the innominate and naming them both with the common name of the ablative. Otherwise, he tends to classify other locals as subordinates. This can be seen from the notes to the preposition section: "huc referri possunt Nomina et Pronomina guaedam cum Praepositione inseparabili ip vel imp composita, ut: Diewipi et objecto i Diewip apud Deum, Jonipi apud Johannem, manip, tawip, [awip..., manimp, tawimp, [awimp apud me, apud te, 9 next to se G 134. ; Also in another place in the grammar, where it is spoken of noun vowels, the forms with -p(i), -n(a): bažničiosp, bažničiospi ad templum, bažničieip apud templum, bažničion, bažničiona in templum, bažničiump, bažnčiumpi ad templa, bažnčiosna in templa, are not considered vowels, but referred to the section of the adverb, where such things are spoken of. Thus, here too, such forms are brought closer to adverbs (G 29—30). D. Klein was the first to raise the problem of adverbialization in Lithuanian studies. It is the home of many locals, but also of many foreigners. Speaking of the fact that some nouns (e.g. faule, wakare, raf[a, giwata, salvation, [mertis, junyfte, [eny[te...- )) are not used, or at least rarely used in the plural, he says: ”...wakarais vero adverbialiter exponitur, vesperi, seu vespertino tempore” G 69—70. On the next page, again, Klein points out the missing pronouns: "Išku, gražu, tilomis, Zinnomis, pe[éiomis... rectius ad Adverbia referuntur” G 71. These extremely important and interesting observations show that already in the 17th century our linguist, not yet having separated the adjective of the non-substantial genus from the adverb, had very clearly understood the adverbiality of some plural nouns, and at the same time the process of their adverbialization, which in our age is so intensified and accelerated that it is now safe to speak not only about prepositional -(i)ai, -yn, but also -(i)om(is), -(i)ais adverbs. Along with the conjugation of the plural noun, which is already more pronounced, D. Klein also observed the conjugation of the singular noun, as well as the local noun. This is shown by the I note added at the end of the adverb section and by the following forms of lingers that have passed into the adverb: pulku and pulkais, wardu, skirtu, atwiromis, Zinnomas, tilomis, widuj'. There are more of these conjugated forms of adjectives or locutions in grammar, especially in the adverb section, e.g.: kartais, naktimis, neticzomis, [laptomis, apačioj, dienoj, lauke. D. Kleinas was the first in the history of Lithuanian linguistics to touch on the problem of adverb formation, arguing very precisely that adverbs derived from adjectives with -as have -ay (=ai) at the end, and those derived from adjectives with -is and -us have -ey (=iai), e.g.: from gėras —geray, piktas —piktay, didis —didey (=big), gražintelis —gražinteley (=grazinteliai), malonus —maloney, pridergs —priderančiey G 138—139. To what has been said about the construction of -(i)ai adverbs almost 350 years ago, we could not add much today, unless this rule should be somewhat clarified and supplemented. Therefore, the question arises: how can we explain the fact that the author of the first Lithuanian grammar, operating in his work with such already scarce factual material, was able to derive such comparatively insightful and justified laws of grammar and word formation? The answer to this question is also self-explanatory. The insightfulness of the author of the first Lithuanian grammar and the comparatively considerable accuracy of his statements will probably have been determined by his excellent knowledge not only of his native Lithuanian language, but also of other languages, especially classical ones, his creative view of the grammar of other languages and also his ability to use them for the purpose of Lithuanian grammar. True, the solutions of D. Klein's word composition, as well as other questions, are not always accurate. For example, the adjective tolus he derives from the adverb far, and narys 10 from near (G (8). This is easy to explain at the level of 17th century grammar. But the most important thing, of course, is that the author of the Grammar decided to take the first steps in the field of word formation in Lithuanian. Grammar also touches on the problem of homonymy, which is very important for lexicography. Here, for example, it is stated that some adverbs control the nobleman by having prepositional qualities: near miefto, pokim Diewo, widuj mie[to, outside the church; G 166. In fact, the words near, pokim, widuj, field mentioned here are nothing more than prepositions used with the noun. Thus, these words are some kind of grammatical homonyms. In D. Klein's grammar there is also a very accurate remark about the meaning of the combination adverbs + adverbs. There it is said that in such compounds as, for example, labay rettay, nelabay gražiey the first adverb is subordinated to the second. Although the Grammar, in general, relies on very little material from the mother tongue, the statements in the adverb section are based on extremely diverse examples from the point of view of construction and semantics. There are a number of examples of this, some of which are still in use today, and some that have only been used in the past. Of the latter we can mention: abelnay ‘generally’, kartunta ‘sometime, once, at least once’, kodrin ‘why’, miernay ‘moderately’, nobažnay ‘godly’, namopri ‘home’, pokim (=under the eye), todrin ‘todél’, wiežlibay ‘gentlely, politely’. In Klein's grammar, the adverb „jū“ and the adverb „ju“ are still adverbs meaning “more, more”, used to describe a higher degree, e.g.: jū mokintas ‘more learned’, jū paniekintas ‘more despised’; The adverb kada of that grammar is used also in place of the conjunction kad, which in turn, it seems, still has the meaning ‘when’ (D.Klein writes it with the apostrophe —kad’). The adverb priderančiey indicates that in the Prussian Lithuanian dialect there was already then a lively construction of adverbs with the suffix -iai from active participants. The modal loanword rodos, close to adverbs, had already become rods at that time, cf. : We want to be saved C 108. As mentioned earlier, in Klein's grammar we find almost all the basic types of adverbs that we have in the present language. Here are some examples: Nouns and numerals with the suffix -aip; taip, [zitaip, kitaip, katraip, antraip, kaip, niekaip. They have a -o at the end: kaipo, taipo. That the -0 here comes from the older a, is clearly shown by the forms taipag, taipajeg (=taipajag) ‘taipogi’, e.g.: dūna taipajeg winas ir G 173. Noun with suffix -iek: how much, so much. The fact that the Klein dialect had pronouns quantity, so much, from which the adverbs how much, so much were derived, is shown by the example ifz kieko in the ex word tam paucis verbis. Nouns with the suffix -ur: ku, ku jeng, kurgi, nowhere, wif[ur, elsewhere. Noun with suffix -da: when, then, never, wi[Jada. The close relationship of the Lithuanian examples of D. Klein's grammar with the folk spoken language shows -da suffix variants -dai, -dais, -dos: wif[adai, wi[Jados, never, never again, 11 Never. Mostly in D. Klein's grammar, as in the language in general, there are noun suffix of adverbs (especially su adjectives) -(i)s, e.g. : amžinay, drafey, gilley, ligey, mažay, palaimingay, smarkiey, [zirdingay, wif[iskay G 136—138. There are still very few adverbs with the suffix -yn in D. Klein's grammar, e.g.: up, tolyn, down. Jy is not even comparable to the adverbs of this type that are widespread in the present language. As mentioned earlier, from certain examples of D. Klein's grammar it can be concluded that already 350 years ago in the Prussian Lithuanian dialect the constructive type of adverbs with the suffix -(i)os had been firmly formed and the type of adverbs with the suffix -(i)ai was formed, e.g.: atwiromis, tilomis, [laptomis, pe[éiomis, neticzomis, žinnomis and kartais, pulkais. Of course, these types of adverbs could not have been as common as they are today. Except for the preposition (and therefore the adverb) posle, there are no adverbs with the suffix -(i)ui in grammar. This can be explained either by coincidence or by the fact that in the dialect of the author this type of adverbs was not yet fully developed. The variety of adverb types in Klein's grammar is also shown by the following adverbs: ifz toli, ifz lauko, ifz apačios. Almost insignificant in the grammar of participle adverbs. From them we find: prideranéiey, pripultiney. By the way, the latter adverb should not be in doubt: this is probably a proofreading error, and should be corrected immediately. The adverb section alone shows how lively and expressive the native dialect of the author of the grammar was. In that grammar we find such adverbs as mažinteley, mažtinteley paululum, ad minimum, trumpinteley breviter, guam brevissime, gražinteley pulchre valde. The emotionality of their meaning could be felt and properly expressed in Latin only by a person who had come from the depths of the people and had inherited the dialect from childhood. The vivacity and popularity of the language of the author of the grammar is also shown by the variety of parallel forms, e.g.: todel, todelei, todrin, kodel, kodėlei, kodrin, dabar, dabarteli, dabartelei. Only such adverbs as pernay ante annum, za užpernay ante biennium, propernay ante triennium, tūjau, tūjaus, weikiey, atgalos (= back), pirmay antea, olim enliven the language of the author of the grammar. In addition to the adverbs mažay, pamažay, there are also abbreviated forms maž, permaž, bemaž, which are so characteristic of the living language of the people. From what has been said about the adverb of D. Klein's grammar, the following conclusions follow: 1. Alone the analysis of the prepositional section of D. Klein's work "Grammatica Litvanica..- ." shows that this work itself is the first scientific and normative grammar of the Lithuanian language, and the prepositional section included in it is the first study of the Lithuanian language's preposition in the history of Lithuanian studies. 2.The short, but very contentious chapter on adverbs surprises the reader with the author’s ambition to present as detailed as possible the adverb types and individual meanings. In grammar, we find examples of almost all the basic adverb verb types: with the suffixes -(i)ai, -(i)omis, -ais, -yn, -aip, -ur, -iek. There are 17 distinct types of semiotics. 12 Preposition. D. Klein (G 140—141) first divides prepositions into distinguishing and indistinguishable (in our language — prepositions and postpositions). The latter are: ap, api, at, par, pra, da, pi, na. Skiriamieji esti vienskiemeniai (pri, prie, prieg, pirm, be, tarp, del, po, už, pro, nig, ni, ifz, prie[z, pas, pa, po, in, y, ing, per, ties, ik, Ju, pra, pro. Two things are interesting in the latter list: the fact that the preposition y (=) is written here next to in and ing, as well as the fact that the author considers the prepositions pa and pra as facts of the Klaipėda dialect next to the facts of his native dialect po and pro. This shows his attention and sensitivity to matters of phonetics and dialect. The prefixes í and y honum are spelling variants of the same word '. Next, the diphthong prepositions are mentioned: tarpei, delei, arti, uzu, iki, aplink, pagal, palig, [ulig, apie, pokim ‘in the presence of’, pafkui, and the so-called indistinguishable prepositional illustrations with nouns, verbs and {names are mentioned: apgalu ‘in the presence of’, apkalbeimas, apikalbis ‘slander’, atdūmi, parpūlu, darafzau, padimi; The meaning of "in place" is described by the forms Diewop, mane[pi, mane[p, mie[tana, mie[tan, mie Įtumpi, jufumpi, mufumpi, mie[tump, jufump, mufump, and the meaning of "in place" by the forms Ponip Diewip, manip, manimp, tawipi, tawimp, [awip, [awimp, kitamp, newienamp. Like the prepositions in and y, the prepositions in and y-D. Klein are only identical variants. The examples ineiji and infiddmi pražuvon ‘I am in danger’ also show the inability of the prefix. In D. Klein’s grammar, the use of some adverbs in prepositional form is also appropriately noted, e.g.: blisko miefto, pokim Diewo, widuj mie[to, na zewnątrz cerkwi G 166. The use of prepositions is discussed in the section on syntax (G 167—169), where they are arranged according to the syllables with which they are used. Here, the excessive shortness of the examples of the use of prepositions by the author of the first grammar, their incompleteness, the total lack of complete sentences, but the constructions of the prepositions themselves are presented very consistently. They are relatively little different from the current constructions. For example, the author’s constructions before much mėtu, on honor, at the right, around teifybe (=a lot of years ago, for honor, at the right, about the truth) would not now meet the norm; to the right, through the dear God, around the righteousness (= to the right, through the dear God, about the righteousness); according to, leave those[6s, join me, join you (=according to the truth, to me, to you); po leires rankos, po trijų dienų, po [zwentai Traicei, po wifam [wietui, po wifas žmones (=after the left hand, after three days, after the Holy Trinity, after the whole world, after all people). The differences in the use of prepositions indicated here with the current norm are rather the facts of the old language than the consequences of the influence of other languages. Since all the other cases of prepositions mentioned by D. Klein completely coincide with the modern norm, they are not discussed here. Like the others of the family, the older children of the authors were very poorly educated. The penultimate chapter of this grammar (G 169—173) is entitled "De Praepositionum Signifcatione in Compositione". According to the title, it would appear that we are talking about prepositions, but in fact the Latin word compositio refers to a preposition. So here we are talking about the meanings of prepositions. This is undoubtedly the first definition of the meaning of Lithuanian prepositions in the history of Lithuanian studies. At the beginning of this chapter the author says that he wants to mention the "clearly emphatic meanings" of some prepositions (and in fact prepositions). By comparing the facts of the native language, he tries to explain the meanings of Lithuanian 13 prepositions (in his understanding — indistinguishable prepositions), teaching them all alphabetically. For example, "ap, api"! Firstly, it is associated with the Latin circum ‘around’ (ap/toti, apipiauftit), then with the Latin desuper ‘from above’ (apipilu), furthermore, the meanings of acquiring and exceeding this prefix are indicated (apturėti, cf. Polish otrzymač, apvalėti, apžaidžiu), in the fourth place is the meaning of intensity (ap [idZaugti, ap [akyti) and the fifth is the meaning of reduction (apiplekes, apipiauftyts). Similarly, in this grammar, the meanings of other prepositions are explained: at is compared to the Latin de, re, iz—with ez, nu —with de, par —with re, per —with per, trans, pra —with trans, ultra, pri —with ad, su —with cum. Of course, the author cannot explain all the meanings of the prepositions with such a comparison, so he resorts to descriptive interpretation in many places. For example, by comparing pri with Latin ad (to approach), the author says that this prefix sometimes intensifies the meaning of the simple verb (prifakau), and with the recursive verbs of the active kind has a certain emphatic meaning (prifitekinéju ‘I approach myself’, prifimiegojau, prifiklaufau, prifigeru). Of course, this interpretation of the meanings of prepositions is still very confusing, incomplete, but we cannot not be surprised by the fact that already in the first grammar of the Lithuanian language the meanings of prepositions are explained, which we do not find in many later grammars. This alone shows the great depth of the author of the first grammar in the nature of the native language and his great linguistic and grammatical judgment. Jungt uk as. In the first Lithuanian grammar (G 142—143) at once, without any introduction and without any definition, at least nine groups of conjunctions are presented: 1. conjunctives (and, bei, irgi, a, teipag, taipajėg ‘also’), 2. conditions (jey, jeygi, jeig, jeine, otherwise), 3. distinguishing (or, argi, alba ‘or’, or, ben ‘or’, buk-buk, ‘or-or’, e.g.: buk geri, buk pikti), 4. contradictory (but, bettaig ‘but, only, ly[z ‘only’, wienok’), 5. concessions (kacz, kaczei, norint, jeib, jeigi ‘though’, taczau’), 6. reason (nes, nefa, nefang ‘because’, that, since, jeib, idant, jeng, as, kada ‘when’), 7. conclusions (todel, todelei, todrin), 8. connection (priegtam ‘without that’, potam ‘after that’, as, tapagalaus, galdufey, pafkidufey), 9. additional (nes, jau, jeg, gi, gu ‘or’, afzgu? ‘or I?', tugu? ‘or you?’). At the end of the section on conjunctions of this grammar there is a note, probably taken from Latin grammar, about the fact that some unchangeable words (particulae) become sometimes adverbs, sometimes conjunctions, sometimes prepositions because of the diversity of their meaning. For example, the word or, which the author considers to be an adverb when something is being asked, and a conjunction when something is being distinguished. Such an opinion, of course, follows only from the fact that the particle is considered an adverb here. There is also another note by the author that the words priegtam, potam, wel, galaufey, tapagalaus are sequence adverbs when they go with verbs to indicate circumstance, and conjunctions when they join or continue words and thoughts. This remark is interesting in that it shows the author’s deepening into one of the most important prefixes.1 By the way, D. Klein added about here, but, apparently, out of inertia, since such a prefix is not illustrated. 14 the functions of action—the expression of circumstance, and that there is also a certain associative significance of the mentioned words. Interesting remarks about the conjunction are also found in the last section of the grammar (G 173—174). Here it is first stated that the conjunction i connects many things, o und —usually two things or only two things, e.g.: and [zis, and tas, and anfai; At Saul at Mend pames [twee[ybe; and the heavens and the earth and the angels and men have glorified God; and good, and evil, even a skinny man. Sometimes and expressing the Latin tam-guam: bei a [z, bei tu. Thus, and, as we see, in the old language it was possible to combine more than two singular parts of a sentence. Taipajeg “is also often said with and: dūna taipajeg and winas. When means also ‘when’: so [ilpnas tapa, kada ir tą dieną numirre (instead of kad, jog ir tą dieną numirre). The fluctuation and instability of the use of conjunctions, especially connective ones, is shown by the fact that, for example, the cause or purpose is described in the interjection by the words jeib, idant, jeng, kaip, kada, kad: kada (kaip, jeib) pakajus butu ant žemėes; idant (jeib) [zwentay giwentumb.m; jeng ilgay giwefi on the ground; fears, as (if) it cannot be established; pareitis Wirau[ybei, in order that nufidéjimai without roots do not perish; [towifis tefidaboja jeib nepultu. J out of eight. In 1943, the 1943-1944 SS-Panzer-Division "Grenadier" (G 1943) was formed from the SS-Panzer-Division "Grenadier" (G 1943) and the SS-Panzer-Division "Grenadier". It is a very correct idea that the emoticons represent states of mind, i.e. feelings, emotions, but in no way they can express gestures: they can only be accompanied by gestures. This grammar is satisfied only with the enumeration of emoticons. There are seven groups of them: 1. shouting (o, ak?), 2. affection (meilul, aukfut), 3. laughter (a a d), 4. pain (ay, ak, despite, ayman?), 5. confusion (a, o, ba), 6. cursing (czui, tfui), 7. silence (tit[z, štit[z, štir Styl, which is indicated as a fact of Klaipėda dialect). Of the mentioned jaustuky only štyl is Germanism, all the others — Lithuanian. There is no reference to the use of outliers in D. Klein's work: they are not even mentioned in the syntax. By the way, in the switch section there is a strange note that the switch a ‘0’ is switching to the emoticon class. This, of course, is an impossible thing. II. 1998-1999 K. Sapūnas and T. Šulco *Compendium Grammaticae Lithvanicae”! Overcome Miss. It is assumed that K. Sapūnas could have written his grammar, which he called "Nomenclator", already in 1643, i.e. ten years before D. Klein's "Grammatica Litvanica" was published. In 1651 he had received permission from the University of Karaliaučius to publish it, but he did not use this permission for unknown reasons. One of them could be this, 1 Compendium Grammaticae Lithvanicae Theophilii Schultzen, Past. Cattenov., Regiomonti... 1673 (hereinafter referred to as Sap). 15 Such a comparison alone clearly shows that F. Haackas could not fail to see į D. Klein's grammar. By the way, K. Sapūno ir T. Schultz's grammar mo (in loco) adverbs are in a different order. Finally, the individual descriptions of the meaning of the local adverbs themselves were probably copied by F. Haacko from the grammar of D. Klein (of course, if not from some other source common to them both), cf.: in loco, de Loco, per Locum, ad Locum. The plan of the adverb section in Haack’s grammar differs from the corresponding plans of Klein’s, Sapūn’s and Schultz’s grammar. In our first grammar, after all the meanings have been set out, there are four points of remarks in which, for the first time in the history of Lithuanian studies, a) the adjectives of the inhabitant and the local person were raised, compared with the adjectives of the ancient Greek language; b) touched on the formation of -(i)ai suffixes from adjectives; c) the use of the word in various meanings is shown: as an adverb of surprise (like géras ira Diewas mufu!), as a particle of wish (how would Diewas help me!, how would it be if Jandora!), as a relative or connective word (like the life of a man ira, so will his death), as a conjunction (like Adam falling buwo, threw away the weida Diewo; ira was commanded to a man, like giwentu nobažnay). Klein considers the word as a particle in these cases, except for the last sentence quoted, where he sees a conjunction. The chapter of K. Sapunas and T. Schultz’s grammar on prepositions begins with a couple of introductory notes, followed by a very brief (sometimes only one word) illustration of the 24 meanings of prepositions (in fact, often particles or other invariant words). The whole chapter ends with graduation. In Haack’s grammar, the adverb section contains a much larger number of examples, which can be explained by the fact that the author had accumulated more material than others when writing his dictionary. Of course, here, in addition to the true adverbs, there are plenty of words of other invariant parts of speech, which the author treats as adverbs. Among the rarer or more interesting adverbs in Haack’s grammar we can mention: Ifz tiefos, Kur jeng ‘where’, tiefogie ‘straight- ’, tiefam, etc. *, Tėnjau, [zengu, Tengu, Nami ‘home’, Katrul, Propérnay ‘three years ago’, Porytoj, Pirmto, Dienifzkay ‘every day’, Nepalautinay, Kartunta ‘sometime’, Kas metą, niekadai, niekadais, Walandéle, potreéiay ‘third time’, SzwéZey ‘recently- ’, Tulas together ‘sometimes?’, atpencz, Pridéranéiey, Rank[zéiey “suddenly, unexpectedly’, Régimay “openly, openly’, Powiffam ‘all’, Palengway, pamaZay ‘I’m paying attention- ’, Trumpinteley, Taipojau, Nieku budu, podraugiey ‘friend’, Skiru ‘separately’, Pripultinay, nefinnomis, galausey; cf. also the names Cziefu, Neczie[u, Miernay ‘moderately’, WieZlibay ‘comfortably, decently’, Nopro [nay ‘in vain’, Abelnay ‘completely’. All the other adverbs presented by F. Haack do not differ in any special way from those used in the present language. They are, as in the other grammars mentioned here, of various origins and of various types of verbs: noun, adjective, noun, verb or participle, with or without suffixes and prepositions, others simply derived from the fixed forms of the verbs — exactly like the ones used today. From the invariant parts of speech words that F. Haackas attributed to the pre22 ERR Time Uab din asai of verbs, looking at D. Klein’s grammar or grammar of other languages, one can mention the particles Ar, Argi, argu, bau, bės, er, Arne, Ne, Neygi, artés ‘may’, ben, Nuggi, E[te ‘let’, Sztay, wey, te, tikt, tiktay; ice cream ak, Ey, Ayman; switches Exactly, As antay, jū; modal words Tie[a, Berod’s, Beje, Pirma, Antra, Trečia, cf. translative conjunction Wienok, Slavic particle Lifz ‘tik’. It is interesting that already F. Haackas used such and now very popular conjunctions as Butent, Kaip antay, modal words Tiefa, Berod's, Beje. Such facts, even if they are quite simple, show the close connection of the grammar author's language with the living language of the people. In the adjective section of this grammar, which also deals with numerals (because the author classifies them as adjectives), even such compounds as wieną kartą, du kartu, tris kartus..., tri[[]de[zimts and wieng kartą..., du [zimtu kartu, tukftantis kartū are considered adverbs ("adverbia numeralia"- ). This, of course, can be explained by the fact that with adverbs, looking at them purely semantically, not only the invariant parts of the language were mixed, but sometimes even some words of the invariant parts of the language or even combinations of words. On the other hand, the author of the grammar could have felt at least some of these conjunctions approaching adverbs. After all, it is sufficient for the second adverb to be shortened by such conjunctions because of the verbal stabbing, and when it is attached to the first adverb it will form a real compound adverb, e.g.: vienukart, dūkart, triskart... Here it would be possible to recall also other modern adverbs of the same construction, e.g.: vienąsyk, dūsyk, trissyk..., pirmąkart, antrgkart, trécigkart..., pirmąsyk, antrąsyk, trécigsyk... The corresponding classifications of the grammars of D. Klein and K. Sapūnas and T. Schultz (also works of the 17th century). The basis for the semantic classification of adverbs in all three grammatical systems is the same – the lexical meaning of the adverbs. Since in all these grammars the adverbs are completely mixed with particles, sometimes with some conjunctions, even with emotions and modal words, the basis of the semantic classification of adverbs includes here also the meanings of all these latter words, which are usually very subtle, diffuse and unclear, so that it is even very difficult or simply impossible to describe them. The classification scheme itself is probably borrowed from the grammar of classical languages, the use of which in Lithuanian grammar is clearly evidenced by the comparison of Lithuanian meanings with the phenomena of classical languages, as well as such hints about this comparison as "more Graecorum, more Latinorum" or "sicut apud Latinos" and so on. The influence of classical grammar will have determined at least in part the approximate number of semantic sections of the adverb in Lithuanian grammar. True, at first glance it seems that the smallest number of such sections in D. Klein’s grammar is 17, and the largest one in K. Sapūnas and T. Schulz’s grammar is 24, but in fact, in D. Klein’s grammar, time adverbs are divided into three smaller groups: present, past and future, and quantity adverbs — also into three smaller groups: counting, tension and weakening. Thus, in D. Klein's grammar there are 17 main semantic sections of the adverb, and together with those smaller groups there are 22 in total. F. Haack's grammar of such sections 23.; The Latin 23 naming of the ty sections in all three grammatical systems could not have occurred without the influence of other languages, especially Latin, on the grammar. Interestingly, even the German grammar of those days has all the basic grammatical terminology in Latin. This is also the case with the Haack grammar. Therefore, the names of the semantic sections of the adverb are Latin, namely: 1) loci, 2) temporis, 3) numeri, 4) guantitatis, 5) gualitatis, 6) interrogandi, T) similitudinis, 8) comparandi, 9) intendendi, 10) remittendi, 15) jurandi, 16) optandi, 17) hortandi, 18) congregandi et separandi, 19) excludendi, minuendi, 20) corrigendi, 21) concedendi, 22) ordinis, 23) eventus. Most of these designations are included in the adverb sections of all three first grammars, but in each of them there is one other non-repetitive designation, for example, not used in D. Klein's grammar. The latter circumstance can be explained by the fact that in the adverb section of D. Klein’s grammar there are at least a little less particles, conjunctions, emoticons and other words, which are quite abundant in the grammars of the other two authors. It is understood that the more pronoun adverbs were added to the grammar, the more descriptions of their meanings were needed. For example, in the grammar of K. Sapūnas and T. Sulcas, the XI section of adverbs is called [adverbia] explanandi, i.e., [adverbs] of arrangement, of expansion. In fact, the adverbs are not presented here, but only the purest conjunctions Idant, Je: and the pronoun Tatai, which the author describes in Latin as id est ‘that is’. Thus, the pronoun is perceived by the author as a kind of conjunction used before the explanation of the word or phrase. Sometimes the illustrations do not seem to confirm the name of the section itself. For example, the chapter XXIII of Haack's grammar on adverbs (which, by the way, is simply a literal copy of chapter XIV of Klein's grammar on adverbs) is called in Latin [adverbia] eventus, "the [adverbs] of the way out", but the illustrative examples given therein, Pripultinay (in Klein's grammar — pripultiney), Palaimingay, Neticzomis, nežinnomis, are not themselves sufficient to show the way out. In some cases, only verbs accompanied by these adverbs could be a solution. : F. Haackas, like the authors of the two very first grammars (D.Klein and K.Sapūnas and T.Šulcas), assigns to the adverb not only all the particles, one more modal word, conjunction, otherwise connective word or even emotion, but sometimes one more syllable form or even a combination of words. For example, in his (F. Haacko) grammar, the adverbs Szū Daiktu, And Daiktu, Niekatru Daiktu were literally taken from D. Klein’s grammar and assigned to the local adverbs.- Now it is particularly interesting for us that already the authors of the first Lithuanian language grammars almost 350 years ago noticed the adverbiality of such adverbs, a certain distance between them and the verbal meaning and their approach to the adverb. This is the nature of the local craftsman from ancient times. But we could not consider the mentioned adverbs as true adverbs even today, just as we cannot consider as adverbs such present-day compounds as: šią diéng, tą diéng, kitą diéng, because diéng is here a real noun gaasi 24 a mų lininkas, although having the temporal meaning characteristic of an adverb, but remaining as a denoting word, the noun character of which is strengthened by the noun-conjugating denotations šią, tą, kitą. But as soon as the compounds of the type here mentioned began to stagner in their temporal meaning, and at the same time their verbal meaning began to fade, the indicator of verbal meaning, the ending of the second element, which, in the lively flow of speech, was supposed to merge both elements of the compound into one word, began to become unnecessary hundreds of years ago: šiaridien, šiaridie; cf. also the adverbs anaridie, kitaridie and many newer words formed according to the internal tendencies of the development of adverbs, e.g.: anaridiej, anandie.- ai, anaridienais, etc. By the way, the combinations Sz& Daiktu, And Daiktu, Niekatru Daiktu of the first grammars cannot be considered adverbs even now, because diktas is a very specific noun, although, among other meanings, it also has a place meaning, which is particularly characteristic of an adverb. Furthermore, the -u ending of the adverb of the word dikt never showed a tendency to fragment, and the compounds assigned to adverbs by the authors of the first grammars could never merge with that noun into a single word and become true adverbs. F. Haackas also felt a certain adverbiality of other innagin nks: to the adverbs he assigned the compounds Szitū budu, Nieku budu (see the same compound in the meaning of ‘nullo modo’ Sap 66), which, although they have come close to adverbs, have not become them. Here we can also mention the combination Tulas kartu “sometimes, sometimes’, which is not quite clear, because the relationship between the generations of the singular noun of the pronoun and the plural genitive of the noun is not quite understood. It is not surprising that F. Haackas also understood perfectly the process of adverbialization of adjectives or certain compounds, felt their adverbiality or complete adverbialization, cf. such adjectives or compounds as Dienoj, Rytmeczeis, Wakarais, Pietumis, Kas metą, Czie[u, Neczie[u, Naktimis, Walandėlę, Ifz naujo, Po wif[am “all, completely”, about whose complete approximation to adverbs or adverbialization it is not possible to doubt even now. The following conclusions can be drawn in closing the remarks on the adverbs of Haack’s grammar. 1. closer acquaintance with the prefix of F. Haac’s grammar alone shows that its author was a discerning Lithuanian language scholar, who, with very few sources — only a couple of the very first grammars — was able to write a rather original concise Lithuanian grammar, intended for even wider readerships than the very first D. Klein’s grammar. The first grammar of D. Klein could be used only by those layers of the intelligentsia (mainly in Prussian Lithuania) who understood Latin. Haac's grammar, like Klein's "Compendium", was available to all readers who knew German, and in Prussian Lithuania such readers were more in those days, because the language of instruction in schools was German. Preposition. Haack, like Klein, gives no definition of prepositions (H 326—328). He treats them, like adverbs, conjunctions and emoticons, as unchangeable words or particulae. The prepositions and postpositions, such as ap, api, at, par, pa, da, pi, na, are also classified as prepositions. All these elements of words he considers to be 25 inseparabile prepositions, because they are not used separately, for example: apgallu 'I will overcome'. The postpositions pi and na are at the end of a noun or pronoun, e.g. : Diewop ‘to God’, manęsp ‘to me’, mieftana into the city’. In the plural, the author says, between the genitive and pi, m is inserted: mufump ‘at us’, jufump ‘pas jus’. Differential prepositions can control one or more linksniy. Noblewoman holds nig, pirm, dėl, ant, tarp, i[z; per, pas, pra, or pro, about, around, priefz, in, ing; inagininka (ablativum instrumentalem) — You, ties. Ikki controls the noblewoman and the usufructuary; the adjective and the adverb rule over, but with different meanings: when it means ‘beyond’ — the adjective, when it means “just like” — the adverb. According to (secundum) and Prieg ‘prie’ rules without distinction here the noble, here the inferior. The latter two prepositions, as we see, are used somewhat differently in the present language: the first with a suffix, the second (more precisely, pri) with a pronoun. The prefix after is used with different vowels to indicate different meanings, e.g. after the left of Rankés (to indicate place), after [zwentés Traicés, or after [zwentai Traicei (to indicate time). In modern language and in describing a local relationship, the noun is used (under the left hand). The author of the grammar does not give such an example. The same preposition (po) controls the final, when it means “through iw wi [Ją [wietg] i” and the indefinite, when it means “in front of, in the presence of’ (po Diewu e me) or “below, below’ (po Niebu). As can be seen from this note, the prepositional section of F. Haackas’s grammar is very brief and concise, but on the other hand, it is planned, consistent, relatively precise and very Lithuanian: it can be said that there are absolutely no non-Lithuanian prepositions or non-Lithuanian cases of their use. All the prepositions raised by F. Haacko, except for one more archaic one (ing, prieg), are still normative today after spelling equalization, which in turn shows the efforts of the author — the normative of literary language. Switch. This section of the grammar is even more concise than the prepositional section. It is called "Von den Conjunctionibus", half in German, half in Latin, and consists of eight short paragraphs of 1 to 3 lines each, where the eight groups of conjunctions are listed in Latin. These are: 1. conjunctives (and, bey, also, o, teipag, taipajeg), 2. distinctives (or, perhaps, or, buk buk), 3. conditions (jey, jeyjgi, jeig, jeyne, kittaip), 4. contradictory (But, buttaig, d, or o, taczaus, ben, tiktay, ly[z, wienok], 5. concessions (kacz, kaczeyg, to want, jeib, jeygi), 6. reason (nės, néfa, néfang, that, because, jeib, idant, jeng, as, when ‘when’), 7. conclusions (therefore, thereforeey, todrin), 8. continuity, connection (attached, distant, after, tapagalaus, galdufey, pafkiaufey). F. Haack's conjunctive phrases do not differ in their compactness, planiness from other sections of invariant parts of speech. The Latin names of the individual groups of conjunctions are also very accurate. But it differs greatly from the adverb and preposition sections in its content, in the presentation of the conjunctions: here there are more non-Lithuanian words than elsewhere, and especially those that are already very archaic in comparison with the present literary language. Non-Lithuanian, for example, are d (slav.) ‘0’, ly/z (Slav.) ‘tik’, kacz, kaczeyg (cf. Polish choé, chociaż), and from the old or older writings only these are known: teipag, taipajeg, jeygi, jeig, bettaig, jeib, nės, néfa, alii obo néfang, jeib, jeng, kada ‘when’, todrin, tapagalaus. It's no longer the norm, though, wienok. Observing 26 the mm conjunctioad LLL M M a GL SA ns of this grammar (as in the first grammars in general), it is noticeable that they differ greatly from the present ir conjunctions, they are somewhat unstable and flexible. This is probably due to the fact that the conjunction is a part of the language that develops later than the other parts. In every ancient language, the number of conjunctions in the pre-writing period had to be very limited. The spoken language is generally satisfied with a smaller inventory of conjunctions, because it is characterized by simpler, conjunctionless constructions. Conjunctions are especially needed in the written period of each language. The Lithuanian language especially needed them when the ancient writers began to translate various texts, mainly of religious content, from other languages that had developed the system of conjunctions more extensively: prayers, hymns, the Bible, etc. In this case, the native conjunctions are usually not enough, they have to be borrowed from other languages or hastily created with the means of their own language. This is when borrowed and hastily created new words appear in the language, which must eventually leave the language, giving way to newer and more accurate ones. Sandwich. As in all the first grammars in general, the section on the sentiment is short in Haack's grammar — only ten lines. Here the author counts as many as ten groups of emotions, which, like the conjunctions, are named as follows: 1. shouting (o, ak), 2. affection (mielul, aukfut), 3. laughter lė, a, d), 4. pain (ay, ak, despite, ayman), 5. confusion (a, o, ba), 6. cursing (čzui, Pui), 7. crying (Ui, ui, ui), 8. mockery (a a), 9. threatening (Nu, nu), 10. silence (titfz, štit[z, st, p[t]). Haack's extensive use of Klein's grammar is shown, among other things, by the section on the sentiment. Here even the first five groups of emoticons are literally copied from D. Klein’s grammar, and in the same line are given absolutely the same examples. Only the Latin names of these groups differ slightly: D. Klein composed them focusing more on the emotions themselves, and F. Haackas — on the reader himself. Therefore, the former used the gerundium form to name them, and the latter — the present participle form, cf. D. Klein (interjectiones) exclamandi and F. Haack — exclamantis. Although not many of these emoticons are mentioned here, but, as in D. Klein’s grammar, they are very Lithuanian. By the way, at least one of the words assigned to emoticons by both authors mentioned here —unfortunately—is not so much an emoticon as a modal word. It is interesting that none of the authors of the first grammars put our idiosyncrasies on the stage, as if they did not hold them as words. The exotic is a category that entered into grammar as a part of language much later, when more attention was paid to spoken language and to the language of fiction that reflects it. IV. P.F. Ruigio ” Initial framework of a Lithuanian grammar?! Adverb. The grammar of D. Klein and P.F. Ruigis are separated by 94 years (almost a century). During that time (i.e. from 1653 to 1747 years ! Initial framework of a Lithuanian grammar in its natural context designed by Paul Friedrich Ruhig... Königsberg... 1747 (toliau sutr. R). 27 Prussians At least four grammars of the Lithuanian language were published in Lithuania by individual authors, in which phonetics, spelling, be dialects, word formation, syntax, and more broadly morphology were discussed in a very concise manner. All parts of the language recognized at that time were highlighted: noun, — adjective, numerals, pronouns, verbs, participles, prepositions, prepositions, conjunctions and emoticons. Compared to the usual classification of parts of speech today, there is not only a particle and a suffix here. The particle is used in the adverb here, and the singular is not even mentioned. Instead, the number of parts of speech is increased by the participant, who is considered a separate part of speech. All parts of speech in all four of the first grammars are divided into two classes, the first of which consists of variable parts of speech (noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, verb, participle) and the second — invariable parts of speech (adverb, preposition, conjunction and emoticon). By the way, invariant parts of language are called particles (particulae) in all four grammar systems, so adverbs are also particles. P.F. Ruigys calls the whole of the parts of speech "die so genannten Partes Orationis" R 18. In another place, he refers to the invariant parts of the language as Nebenworter R 115. Thus the adverbs are particulae, or Nebenworter —called particles, or secondary, secondary words. The chapter on prepositions itself in P.F. Ruig's grammar begins, it may be said, with exactly the same words as in F. Haack's grammar, but the construction of prepositions is described by him (P.F. Ruig) in much greater detail than in all the other grammars that have appeared before him. First, he states that adverbs can be made from verbs, and illustrates this statement with such adverbs derived from the participle of necessity as Laup [intinay, Mylétinay, which are supposedly made from the verb communicative by adding the "syllable" (die Syllbe) nay. Furthermore, he, like all other authors of earlier grammars, rightly noted the adverbization of the "ablative" of nouns, i.e. the local and the adverbial, cf. his statement: "Es ist zum voraus anzumerken... DaB sich... adverbia machen lassen,,, von Nominibus Subst. whose ablativus localis and especially instrumentalis is used adverbialiter, e.g. Widduj’ drinner, Pulkū or Pulkais heap by heap” R 115—116. Furthermore, there is a discussion of the construction of adverbs in the participle and participle form, which is illustrated by the following examples: Geras —geray, Didis —didey, Gražūs —graZey, Zinnomas —Zinnoy. The creation of biidvordiniy adverbsmiy forms of the higher and upper degree and the suffix -yn adverbsmiy is also touched here: "Geray, Compar. Geraus besser, Superl. gerdus am besten” R 116. The word ends in a strong -us, and the word starts in a strong -us. Interestingly, the superior form of such adverbs is given first with the dus end, as if it were the usual, main one, and about the full superior form dusey (=most) only that is said, that gerdus is often accompanied by ey (=that). It would appear that the upper-degree forms were then as if inclined to be shortened, which is not yet seen in the grammar of D. Klein, K. Sapūnas and T. Schulz. P.F. Ruigys explains the meaning of -yn adverbs and their use with the verb eiti, which in one case (e.g., Geryn eiti) means “werden, fieri’, and in another case (e.g., Eik tolyn) has the meaning of a simple walk, in a way that is not exact but very interesting. The only inaccuracy here is that yn, hears, makes the form of the higher degree, cf.: "Bei dem Verb gehen... wird in Comparativo yn angehanget” R 116. It is also not quite accurate to say that the adverbs may be accompanied by the "inseparable particles" gi, gu, juk, ja, pi, na, link, jau, because some of them do not merge or do not always merge with the adverb (e.g. juk, link, jau). And in P.F. Ruigi’s grammar there are 23 adverbial semantic sections, which, like all other any year’s grammar, also include particles. Although many of the examples given here are completely identical to those found in other grammar books (especially in Haack's grammar), there are also many examples that are not found in other grammar books. Thus, P.F. Ruigi also used kivumis grammar, although at the same time he tried to use at least a bit more diverse adverbs. For example, such particles as par, argi, argu, bau, bės ‘ar’, Arne, which are considered adverbs by all of them, are completely written off from other grammars (from D. Klein or F. Haack). 28 Especially extensively P.F. Ruigys will have used F. Haack's grammar when dividing adverbs into semantic sections. In both grammars the titles of these sections are completely the same, the numbering (order) of the sections is absolutely the same, and their number is exactly the same (i.e. —23). Many of the examples in those sections are not only exactly identical, but also listed in the same order. However, there are some examples that are not found in the previous grammar. This means that they are not copied from other grammars, but compiled by the author completely independently. These are all adverbs or words that the author considers to be adverbs and otherwise sayings, e.g. : In that thing, I[z somewhere, Tenuy, Tėnlink, Tenjau, Szénlink, Anapuf', in the widow; ifz rear; Now fit, Not yet; Tūlą karti, Kiek sykiū, Daug sykiū, Wienlinkay, Dar wienera tiek, Dwéje tiek, Trėje tiek, Kétwera tiek, Penkera tiek, S[é[zera tiek, Septynera tiek, Afztonera tiek, Devynera tiek, De[zimtera tiek, Szimtera tiek, T1ik[tantera tiek, Toktu ‘taigi’, Koktu ‘welcher gestalt’,Bjaurey, I[zmintingay, Tikkray, Wertay, Stipprey, Ni [zirdZiey, Prieteli[zkay, Szwelney, Mandagiey, Dikay, Regimay, Dowanay, Meiley; Uzkg, Kū budu; Four ‘tartum, lig’, Szittaipo, Szittu budū; and again, slowly; Ifztie[’, Manding, Man rédos; Nobody's house; Kažin, Koné ‘almost’; Testow ‘let’, At Least Once. P.F. Ruigio was so extensively concerned with creating semantic adverb sections that they included adverb constructions, compounds and even phraseologisms and idioms (sometimes not entirely Lithuanian- ), e.g. :On the second ‘zum andern’, On the third ‘zum dritten’...; Wienam daikte, Ko ne mittes? ‘why not?’, When mą Diews (emphasizing the great certainty of something- ), Diewé dik that. As we can see, the grammar of P.F. Ruig surpasses other previous grammars in the abundance and greater variety of examples of the adverb section, which already testifies to the author's great knowledge of the native language, his closest connection with the people, the spoken language of the people. su su References to Latin, Ancient Greek and Hebrew, comparing the facts of these languages with the facts of the Lithuanian language show that P.F. Ruigis was a well-prepared linguist. The foundations of Lithuanian studies he will undoubtedly have received first of all from his father Pilypo Ruigio, large XVIII a. Lithuanianist, author of the "Dictionary ir of Lithuanian—German German—Lithuanian languages" and the famous treatise "Betrachtung der Littauischen Sprache"; also had to help him a lot the study at the university docentship in the Lithuanian seminary. Karaliaučiaus 29 Preposition. ir According to P.F. Ruigis, a preposition is a particle, i.e. an unchangeable adverb used to more precisely describe a noun, i.e. ką to a noun, e.g. Pas Brother. R 18. As in other early grammar systems, there are two kinds of prepositions: separables and inseparables. First lessons in the mi management of winglets (R 122—123). Prepositions of the genitive: Nu, nd, nūg, pirm, dėl, ant, tarp, ifz, be, pri, prie, prieg, arti, pvz. : Nilg me, before that Czief, for the Man, on the Mountain, between the Skys bey the Earth, ifz good Walls, without Reason, at the Butt “at home? ',art Kelo. Final prepositions: Per, pas, pra, or pro, about, around, to[z, in, ing, pafkui, according to, linkay, e.g. :Across the bridge, to me, through the Wartus, about which Ddikta* speaks, around the Church. Pri[z Kardly [to strive (‘to stand, to rise*),to climb to Heaven, pa [who, according to the Word of God, is towards it. The prepositions of Inagininko: fu, [ulyg, ties, e.g. :With good Will, [like a Day, Butt. With the nobleman and the servant, ikki is used: Ikki [zi6s Dienos and [zei Dienai. The prefix za is used with the noun when it means ‘on one side, on the other side’: UZ Butto stow, otherwise —with the suffix:uz jj uzmokéjo. According to the word is said both with the adjective and the noun, and the adverb — both with the adjective and the noun: According to the Word (and the Word) of God, attached and attached. The prefix po, according to different meanings, controls different vowels: nobleman (po leirės rankos, po [zwentos Traicés]) or noblewoman (po [2wentai Traicei], final vowel (po wiffg [wietą, po du, po trzy), indefinite vowel (po Diewu e[fme, po Dangumi, po Stalū). According to P.F. Ruigis, distinguishing prepositions are used in combination with nouns: Antwožas, Pirmgalis, Pryweizda, Tarplyfė, Nūmona ‘opinion', Ifzbraukiei ‘what falls off when wiping linen, will be wiped out'; with adjectives: Perfunku, ufpérnik[- ztis; with pronouns: therefore, after, attached; with the verbs: Nukertū, ifzeimi prie[ztarduju, ifzsiilg[tu, Uf[ikėtinu, užfikėtinu *uzkietėju'; with adjectives: Berods, pripultinay. At the end of the chapter (R 124) it is spoken of the so-called inseparable (inseparabiles) prepositions, "which are mainly derived from the distinguishing ones, the latter from the Greek language... They include ap, api (from about), at, par (from through), pa (from by or after), pi (from before) and na. The first of them are at the beginning of the word, the latter, namely pi, at the end of the word.” Compare them in the adverbs apvalgalas, Pawa[aris, at[tankas ‘rest’, Pardo[zke ‘sale’; in the adjectives Apkunus ‘aptukes’; actionIn the words apZuri, apicjdustu (=circumcised), ateimi, pareimi, paka fu; in the adverbs atgalés, around, palaimingay. *Must be Ddikig. 30 This is what has been said about indistinguishable pi ir na prepositions. The first is at the end of the genitive, adjective, and pronoun, and the second at the end of the adjective (the final i and a can fall off, e.g. : Diewopi, Diewumpi (with epentential in place of m) Diewupi, Diewip’ iš In a divine place Diewė, GraZau[pi, Gražumpi, Gražampi, Wienopi, Wienumpi, Wienip’, Mangs[pi, mufumpi, mufip’. It is used in the singular of nouns, e.g. : Heaven, Heaven’, and to the adverbs: Far, Outside, Up[ztyn. P.F. Ruigi’s concept of distinguishing and undistinguishable prepositions differs somewhat from that of other authors of the first grammars: he also refers to a part of the prepositions as distinguishing prepositions, e.g.: ap, api, at, par, pa. In this respect, K.G. Milkus agrees with him, who, in fact, has mostly copied from him. In addition, P.F. Ruigys is perhaps more than other of our first grammarians connected with Romantic linguistics. This is evident from the prepositional section alone, where it is stated that the distinguishing prepositions are derived from the Greek language. There are no more distinct variations or rarity of other prepositions in this grammar. Except that here the indistinguishable preposition is considered to be the preposition without in the modal word Berods, where, the author assigns to the prepositions. Prepositions are also mentioned in the chapter "Vom Regimine Praepositionum" (R 148). Here we find strange and at the same time interesting reasoning of the author about the fact that prepositions "in compositione bei den Verbis” (that is, prepositions of verbs) control the vocals required by the verb itself. If the verb "extra compostionem" (i.e., without a prefix) does not control directly, i.e., is neutral in terms of control, then "in compositione" it acquires a prefix-controlled vowel, e.g. : To explore Pillj, to defeat Neprietelis, to overcome Prifakimus, to overcome Welng, to pass the Church, to ascend Heaven, to drink kafzkg. It is understood that such reasoning could only be caused by the mixture of prepositions with prepositions. Strange and interesting at the same time is also the author’s remark that the first and second can be used as conjunctions. This is illustrated by examples: Pirm nueinant, Pirm man ejant, Ikki aufztant, Ikki man ateifent. What is interesting here is that the author felt the special use of these prepositions and, to describe it, assigned them in such cases even to the conjunctions. Jungt uk as. 1) conjunctives: And, bey, also, oh, teip, so; 2) distinguishing words: or or, or or, buk buk, ney ney; 3) terms: jėy, jeygu, jeygi, jeyne, kitayp, pirm, pirm neng; 4) opposites: alle, but, ben, tiktay, wiendk, ben ne; Discounts: 5) Kacz, kaczeyg, to want, néy, when there is; 6) reason: Nes, néfa, néfang, that, because, namely, jéib, idant, that; Conclusi7) ons: Therefore, thereforeey, aža “kad net’,tay; connection:Acces8) sed, remote, potdm, galdufey, pafkidufey, ikki R 124—125. They are not very different from the other conjunctions in the first grammar. Most of them are Lithuanian, and are still used today, but there are many that we no longer use, e.g. :buk buk, jeygi, pirm neng, allė, wienok, Kacz, kaczeygi, Nės, néfa, ir NėJang, jeib, aža, Priegtam, Toliaūs. Part iš jų — ratings: buk buk, wienėk (plg. Polish bad? badj, equal); foreign words: allė, Kacz, kaczeygi, aža; archaisms: jeygi, pirm neng, nės, néfa, néfang, jieb, Priegtam, Toliaus. Switches are discussed in the ir syntax section Vom regimine Conjunctionum” Here, (R 149—151). more than in other first grammars, the problem), the desire 31 8. ([zlowék!), 9. observation (so!), 10. insurance (Ad, bė), 11. crying (ui, ui, ui), 12. threatening (nd, [zuk[ztu, minaū), 13. giving (and ‘imk'), 14. sildymo (tit[z, ticz, cit, p[t, st) Ost 118. At the end of the section, the author says that he has not given German equivalents everywhere, because some Lithuanian emoticons are pure sounds, and for others it is impossible to find equivalents in German. In fact, among the above-mentioned words, only one can be perceived as a sound denotation — that is brak[z. But it's not an emoticon, it's a real freak. In this way, G. Ostermeyer was the first of all the Lithuanian grammar creators to raise one clear exception, although he assigned it to the emoticons. This truth is confirmed by his remark that Lithuanians have more such words and sounds, which they insert into the language to express affection, wonder, etc., and that they can be learned, if anyone wants to, only by communicating with Lithuanians (Ost 119). Thus, in that remark, the sounds are emphasized, and the outtick is precisely not words or words caused by human affection, but imitations of sounds caused by the environment and natural phenomena themselves (braak, traak, berkeidkšt, etc.). In any case, G. Ostermeyer was the first in the history of Lithuanian grammar to grasp the essence of the interjection more clearly, without yet considering it as a separate part of the language. In this grammar there is also a section "Syntaxis Interjectionum" (Ost 178—179). It is said that emoticons do not control neither jokes nor conjunctions, but they can be used alongside jokes or verbs, e.g.: ak Bėda!/, ak afz bédnas!, ak man bėdnam! oh my luck!, oh Kriftau!, oh my God!, oh ramdikis!, oh no melok!, oh czedik!, bėda taw!, bėda Ju Wyru ‘salą vyrą, man jį nereikia’, ay man! “problem for me’, [zlowék taw “be healthy”, [zuk[ztu you ‘no, you can’t!’, tė Kudikj, ticz Waike!, [tuy Brolau!, ben girdékit ‘please hear’.. Of course, not all of the expressions in the grammar are used here. Like minéta, brak[z —a clear suffix, mielul, auk[ut —more modal words than emoticons, tataigi, te —particles. But still, the majority of them are real emoticons, arranged according to their meaning simply meticulously. The originality and independence of the emoticons section along with Lithuanianness also catches the eye. VI. K.G. Milkaus’ “The Beginning—Grains of a Lithuanian Language—Learning”! Overcome Miss. As indicated on the title page, K.G. Milkus has taken P.F. Ruigis' grammar as the basis for this grammar, only he has added and corrected a lot of things. However, at least the adverb section differs relatively little from P.F. Ruig's grammar. Even the names of invariant, or secondary (Nebenworter), parts of speech and adverb sections ul! Initially—Graphics of a Lithuanian Language—Learning, in the beginning laid on the basis of the grammar previously published by the young Ruhig, but with strong additions and new elaborations improved and increased by Christian Gottlieb Mielcke, Cantor in The pill. Konigsberg, 1800 (hereinafter referred to as — Milk). 38 in both grammar completely identical, namely: "Sechster Abschnitt. Of the number and variety of adverbs, or Recensio Particularum... S83. I. Of the adverbs- ”. Such occasional overlap of even headings and paragraphs clearly shows K.G. Milky shaving iš P.F. Ruigi's Grammar. The adverb section "Von den Adverbiis" itself begins with exactly the same words, and the page dedicated to the construction of adverbs is literally copied from P.F. Ruig's grammar. Next, in exactly the same order and with the same Latin names, the semantic sections of 23 adverbs are arranged, of which only five differ by one Zc'from the corresponding sections of P.F. Ruig's grammar. Finally, the distance of those five from the corresponding sections of P.F. Ruig's grammar is minimal. For example, in K.G. Milkaus grammar, the section of temporal adverbs is supplemented with one adverb —Tolydziau, which is translated into German as sogleich (?); The section of quality (gualitatis) adverbs is supplemented with the single word Stropjey, the section of oath and confirmation (jurandi) adverbs — with the words Diewaži, Diewažigi and finally the section of sequence adverbs — with the words Nū'atay, paeiluy. It should also be added that P.F. Ruigys in his section on syntax of grammar Š116 (III. Vom regimine Adverbiorum) speaks of the fact that adverbs control the nobleman (Lauke Butto, Widduj' Miesto; It's enough of a word, around the corner of Lobby, Maz Dunes, Menkay Ifzminties. The whole paragraph has been literally copied by K. Milkus. By the way, even the spelling in the two grammars mentioned here is almost identical. If there is any difference, it's just one other little thing. For example, P.F. Ruigys writes Ypačiey, and K.G. Milkus —Ypacziey. However, this notation of the č sound by both of these authors is not consistent: in many places it completely coincides. The fact that the authors of all the grammaticals discussed here made great use of each other's works, often simply copying and copying even the illustrative examples, is clearly shown by this fact. The group of local adverbs, called "ad locum" in Latin, in all those grammar (except the grammar of K. Sapūn and T. Schulz) consists almost exclusively of the following adverbs: Szū Ddiktu, Annū Dūiktu, Niekatru Ddiktu, Tiefog, Tie[ogie, (Tie[dm) Milk 148. The difference here is only that in some grammar these adverbs are not written in the same way: some are in uppercase, some in lowercase, and so on. This fact alone shows most clearly that the adverbs mentioned here are nothing more than a literal repetition of the adverbs of the "ad locum" group in D. Klei's grammar, e.g.: fzū daiktu, andl daiktu, niekatru daiktu... tie[og, tiefogie... Tiefsam G 134. As this overview shows, the section of K.G. Milkaus grammar on adverbs differs very little from the corresponding section of P.F. Ruigis grammar. About the same could be said about the whole tą ir K.G. Milkaus gramatika. Preposition. Six K.G. Milkaus grammar section is also written off iš P.F. Ruigi’s grammar, except for one note where it says that there are various adverbial nouns that are used as prepositions ir that control the noun but are not real prepositions, e.g.: annapus, ir annafzal, lauke, widduj’ and so on; they have an adjective next to them according to the well-known rule: if nouns of different meanings come together, then one du iš jų takes the form of a nobleman, e.g.: annapus Kiemo, annafzal Uppės, lauke Rubežus, Szalle Kalno, 39 Widduj' Outside. But toji ir K.G. Milkaus remark and rule is neither original nor sufficiently precise: here mentioned prepositionally used words, as ar ir jų compounds su as adjectives ir are found in other old grammar, and from two nouns with different meanings used together, one does not necessarily have to get the adjective form, e.g.: autumn in the forest, sea in autumn, etc. ir Thus, the prepositional section of this grammar is written out of P.F. Ruigi’s grammar, and the only added note and rule in essence does not supplement or correct it at all. By the way, the prepositional syntax section is also exactly the same as P.F. Ruigi's Grammar. The conjunction and sense clauses are also not written by K.G. Milkas, but copied from P.F. Ruigis' grammar. The only small detail here is new: K.G. Milkus adds the eleventh group to the Latin list of names of emoticon groups with illustrations, but he does not give it any name, but only writes it as follows: XI. Szmukfzt and explains in German 'wenn atwas entzwey gehet, herab glitscht, wegkommt'. But this is no longer an emoticon, but a real outcast, which the author could no longer assign to any group of emoticons, and he could not find a Latin name for his new group. By the way, the outlier Szmurk/zt assigned by K.G. Milkaus to the emoticon is the second outlier in a row to enter the grammar, next to the outlier bark[z] previously assigned to the emoticons by G. Ostermeyer. This shows the difficult path of the outlier to the old Lithuanian grammar based on the principles of classical grammar and at the same time the difficult development of grammatical thought. Concluding the discussion of the invariant parts of the first six Lithuanian grammar texts mentioned here, it is possible to arrive at more general conclusions. 1.The appearance of at least six or seven grammar books (including D.Klein's "Compendium") in Prussian Lithuania in less than a century shows a lively Lithuanianist movement, concern for the development of the Lithuanian language, the upliftment of its culture, its study and teaching. 2. The greatest event and achievement in the history of Lithuanian grammar is the publication of D. Klein’s grammar. His "Grammatica Litvanica" was like a guideline reminding Lithuanian intelligentsia of the need to develop the spoken and written language, and linguists of the need to study the Lithuanian language. Without his grammar works, none of the other, later grammar authors mentioned here would have been able to get by. Even two hundred and more years after D. Klein's first grammar appeared, A. Sleicher, who was called a hero of linguistics by F. Kuršaitis ("Schl. war ein Heros auf dem Gebiete der Sprachwissenschaft!"), in writing his "Litauische Grammatik", in addition to the newly published grammar of P.F. Ruigis by K.G. Milkas, as well as the grammar of K. Sapunas and T. Schulz and other linguists, used both D. Klein's grammar (Latin and German), although, in his (A. Sleicher's) opinion, the use of D. Klein's works should be particularly careful, because he often masters the language ("da er die Sprache nicht selten schulmeistert*"). IF Course chat, grammar of Lithuanian English language, Hall, 1876, VI psl. 2 A Schleicher, Lithuanian English grammar, Prague, 1856, X— XI psl. 40 3. Compared to other Lithuanian authors of 17th century books, D. Klein’s grammar stands out for the Lithuanianness, purity and normativity of the examples presented: it contains very few barbarisms and dialectisms. The basis of the Lithuanian material in that grammar is the Prussian Lithuanian dialect, very close to the South-West Highland dialect, which in turn gave the basis for the current Lithuanian literary language. 4. The choice of Latin or German to write these grammars was not so much due to their addressee — the intelligentsia of Prussian Lithuania in the 17th century, primarily clergymen and young people studying theology — as to the fact that there was no grammar terminology for the Lithuanian language at that time, and creating it would have been an insurmountable task for the authors of the first grammars, since the creation of grammar terminology requires many decades of work. 5.The authors of the grammar made very creative use of 17th century grammars of other languages, especially traditional classical Latin, which helped the authors to present a concise picture of the grammatical categories of the Lithuanian language. 6.The sense of invariant parts of language and stylistic nuances and the ability to express them in Latin or German, the understanding of the necessity of the norm, the comparison of some facts of the Lithuanian language with the facts of the Latin and ancient Greek languages show that the authors of our first grammars were excellent teachers of native and classical languages, well-prepared linguists. 7.The question arises of itself when the first Lithuanian grammars are being disseminated today, how to explain the fact that they were all created and published in Prussian Lithuania, and not in Greater Lithuania, where the majority of Lithuanians have lived compactly over the centuries. The answer to this question can only be repeated, because it has already been given by more than one researcher. During the intensive Germanization of Lithuanians, the German authorities were concerned primarily to draw Lithuanians to their side through the church, through the spread of Protestantism in their native language. This required "Lithuanian scripts, a spoken and written common language, and, of course, the grammar of the Lithuanian language. But at the same time here we must remember the importance of Protestantism for Lithuanian culture, its progressiveness. Summary In the years 1653—1800 seven Lithuanian grammars were published in Königsberg: “Grammatica Litvanica” and “Compendium Lithvanico—Germanicum” by D. Klein (1653 and 1654), “Compendium Lithvanico—Germanicum” by K. Sapiinas and T. Schultz (1673), “Anhang einer kurzgefassten Lithuanian Grammatik” by F. Haack (1730), “Anfangsgrinde einer Lithuanian Grammatik” by P.F. Ruhig (1747), “Neue Lithuanian Grammatik” by G. Ostermeyer Her ” Anfangsgrinde einer Lithuanian Sprach—Lehre” by Ch.G. Mielcke The article discusses the description of the inflexible word types in these grammars. The most important of them is ”Grammatica Litvanica” by D. Klein, who laid the foundations for all the other grammars mentioned above. The explanation of the inflexible parts of speech in all these grammars is strongly oriented to the classical grammar of the Latin language. The authors of the first Lithuanian grammars have taken into account the semantic and stylistic nuances of Lithuanian Adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections sharply felt and showed an excellent proficiency in Latin or To express in German. 41 Der Comparison of Lithuanian Language material with the Facts of the Latin, Ancient Greek and German language shows the excellent Skills and Knowledge of Author on the Territories of Lithuania language, as well as the German and classical Linguistics. All these Grammars are in PreuBlischen Lithuania verfait, wo die government through the Protestant Kirche die Lithuanian an chains zu chirped. For this, Lithuanian scripts, Lithuanian literary language and Lithuanian grammar were needed. At the same time one can also see here the progressive an Role of the Protestantism of in the Remember the history of Lithuanian writing. 42 I EI EE IIIT. ii I ai a