LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXXIII (1995) GRAMATIKA IR LEKSIKOLOGIJA

KAZYS ULVYDAS

INDECLINABLE PARTS OF SPEECH IN THE EARLIEST LITHUANIAN GRAMMARS

I. D. Klein’s ”Grammatica Litvanica”¹

Adverb. In studying the Lithuanian adverb, it is useful and important to examine how this part of speech is discussed and presented in the earliest Lithuanian grammars. Of all the very oldest Lithuanian grammars, Daniel Klein’s ”Grammatica Litvanica,” published in Königsberg in 1653, is to be considered not only the oldest but also the most comprehensive and important. Here, for the first time in the history of Lithuanian linguistics, a chapter on the adverb appears—De adverbio. It is extraordinarily interesting that D. Klein, who knew the classical languages (Latin, Ancient Greek, and even Hebrew), does not confine himself to Lithuanian in his grammar, but sometimes also gives parallel examples from the classical languages or, when describing features of Lithuanian, compares them with features of those languages. For example, when classifying adverbs by meaning, he says that adverbs have many meanings in Lithuanian, just as in Latin and Greek. The grammar contains further observations of this kind. Thus, D. Klein also emerges here as the first comparativist in the history of Lithuanian studies.

In D. Klein’s grammar, Lithuanian adverbs are not only juxtaposed but sometimes also compared with adverbs in the classical languages. Thus, after the examples dežinęp dextrorsum, keiręp sinistrorsum dangųn coelum versus, namųp (=namop), namųfna, namopři domum versus, the following is added: ”more Graeco-rum, qui dicunt οὐρανόυδε, οὐρανόσε, in coelum, οἴκαδε domum” G 135.

We find no more detailed definition of the adverb in Klein’s grammar, but nevertheless the most essential and necessary points about the adverb are stated here—for example, that adverbs are indeclinable words, and that they can be compared. Thus, their indeclinability is limited.

The semantics of the adverbs presented by D. Klein is simply astonishing. He sets out as many as 17 sections on adverbial meanings, not counting several more minor ones. Here are the titles of those sections: 1) place, 2) time, 3) quantity, 4) quality and similarity, 5) diminution and distinction, 6) separation, 7) concession, 8) intensification and nega-

¹ Grammatica Litvanica... first published by M. Daniel Klein, Pastor of Tilsit, Litv... Regiomonti... 1653 (hereafter abbreviated G). A German summary of this grammar: M. Danielis Kleinii Compendium Litvanico-Germanicum... Königsberg... 1654 (hereafter abbreviated C).

7

… of manner, 9) of indication, 10) of desire, 11) of urging, 12) of question, 13) of doubt, 14) of origin, 15) of order, 16) of comparison, 17) of omission. The larger of these sections are further divided into several smaller groups; for example, adverbs of place and time are each divided into four groups, while adverbs of quantity comprise three groups. Let us look at the groups of adverbs of place:

1) i n l o c o (in a place): čia, čionai, iščia, tenai,... kitur,... wi[s]ur,... toli, niekur;

2) d e l o c o (from a place): iš kur?, iš čia, iš ten;

3) p e r l o c u m (through a place): šiu daiktu, niekatru (corrected to nekatru) daiktu, anu daiktu;

4) a d l o c u m (to a place): žen, žia, ten,... žengu? ‘this way?’,... niekur, widun, laukan,... žemyn, namų (corrected to namo), mane[p], tawe[p],... mušump,... anump, kop, kuriop.

Of course, if we exclude the particles, conjunctions, and occasional modal word included in those sections and groups, their number decreases; nevertheless, we cannot help being impressed by D. Kleins’s ambition and efforts to delve into the semantics of the adverb, despite having no sources, no studies of adverbs, or even attempts to determine their meanings at hand, since no one had yet said a word about the adverb in Lithuanian. This circumstance once again demonstrates the scholarly nature of Kleins’s grammar.

In addition to the adverbs listed in the seventeen semantic sections, others are identified elsewhere in the grammar. For example, in the expressions ganà žodžiu, apstai lobū, maž dünos, menkay išminties, the adverbs ganà, apstai, maž are considered adverbs of abundance and scarcity, as is menkay.

The abundance and diversity of semantic sections and groups of adverbs in D. Kleins’s grammar were likely determined by two circumstances: 1) he was an excellent linguist of European stature and a great expert on Lithuanian; 2) in the grammars of other languages in his era, parts of speech—especially indeclinable ones—had not been sharply differentiated and distinguished from one another, and even today they are still often confused.

The term parts of speech that we use today precisely corresponds to the term partes orationis, which D. Kleins took from classical grammars. Indeed, in certain cases his concept of “parts of speech” could also be rendered in Lithuanian by the phrase word classes, since he sometimes calls words voces in Latin, and a class species.

The lack of stricter criteria for defining parts of speech in the seventeenth century prevented D. Kleins from distinguishing the adverb more clearly from other parts of speech. Consequently, quite a few words belonging to other parts of speech—especially particles—were included among the adverbs in his grammar, for example: esle, tegul, ne, šitay, štay, wey, te, nuggi, lyže ‘tik’, tikt, tiktai, žin ‘gal’, gu ‘ar’, bes ‘ar’, raßi, artes ‘argi, gal’, ben, ras ‘gal’; conjunctions — priegtam; particles and conjunctions together: ar, argi; even interjections: ak, ey, ajman; as well as numerals used with modal meaning (to indicate order): pirmà, antrà, trečià (the grave accent here may be entirely accidental and may not mark stress).

Such variation in the classification of adverbs is characteristic of all old grammars. D. Kleins’s grammar is no exception in this respect. It should be said that even today there are grammars of other languages in which indeclinable parts of speech

8

are not distinguished as strictly as, let us say, in some modern Russian or Polish grammars. Considerable latitude in distinguishing the uninflected parts of speech is found even in the very widely circulated grammars bearing the famous names of Larousse and Duden.

The distribution of parts of speech in D. Kleinas’s grammar is interesting. He distinguishes eight parts of speech: nomen (name, nominal), pronomen (pronoun), verbum (verb), participium (participle), adverbium (adverb), praepositio (preposition), conjunctio (conjunction), and interjectio (interjection). The term nomen here encompasses nouns, adjectives, and numerals. This use of the term is entirely logical, since it comprises three kinds of names: those of things, qualities, and numbers. In other contexts, D. Kleinas also uses such terms for nominals: substantivum, adjectivum, nomen numerale. D. Kleinas does not distinguish particles and onomatopoeic words as separate parts of speech, although he does use the Latin term particula. Otherwise, his system of parts of speech includes all the other parts of speech found in modern Lithuanian grammars. It is worth noting that D. Kleinas distinguishes the participle as a separate part of speech.

For the reasons already mentioned, D. Kleinas is not always consistent in classifying words by parts of speech: he treats the same word as an adverb in one instance and as a particle in another. For example, on the very same page he calls the particles ne, nė negative adverbs: netiek (=ne tiek) nenoru, nevienas (=ne vienas), dáiktas ne eſti geréſnis už Dievo baimę, nieka negelbt, and right there he identifies the negative ne-jau as a prohibitive particle, most often used with the imperative mood: ne užmušk, ne woki G 166—167.

For the first time in the history of Lithuanian studies, D. Kleinas also addresses the question of adverb comparison; in the Grammar, he treats it briefly but with remarkable clarity. It is stated here that adverbs have degrees of comparison, for example: didey, didžiaus, didžiaſey; daug, daugiau, daugiaſey; gražey, gražiaus, gražiaúſey; greitai, greičiaus, greičiaúſey G 139. We also find such adverbial degree forms elsewhere in D. Kleinas’s grammar (for example, in the discussion of adjective comparison): geraus atmenus, geráuſey atmenus, didžiaus turys, didžiaúſey turys, didžiaus pawarges, didžiaúſey pawarges G 26.

It is interesting that the comparative forms in D. Kleinas’s Grammar are consistently presented with final -s. This would indicate that in the dialect of Prussian Lithuanians in his time, forms of this kind without -s either did not yet exist at all, or that he standardized them, as he did in many other cases.

Among the more interesting adverbs, or words akin to them, given by D. Kleinas, we should mention the previously noted kartunta in the sentence: Jey jis kartunta ateitu; the forms in -tin (though already used in the Compendium) wadinte, kweste, nežinnote in combinations: wadinte wadinau, kweste pakwėčiau, nežinnote nežinojau C 110, where the positive or negative meaning of the verb is further emphasized. Of the locative cases, D. Kleinas retains only one in the declensional paradigm—the inessive singular—and even that only by linking it with the instrumental and giving the two the common name ablative. Otherwise, he tends to classify the other locatives as adverbs. This is evident from a note in the adverb section: ”huc referri possunt Nomina et Pronomina quaedam cum Praepositione inseparabili ip vel imp composita, ut: Diewipi et objecto i Diewip apud Deum, Jonipi apud Johan-nem, manip, tawip, ſawip..., manimp, tawimp, ſawimp apud me, apud te,

9

apud se G 134.

Likewise, elsewhere in the grammar, forms with -p(i), -n(a): bažnyčiosp, bažnyčiospi ad templum, bažnyčieip apud templum, bažnyčion, bažnyčiona in templum, bažnyčiump, bažnyčiumpi ad templa, bažnyčiosna in templa, are not treated as cases; instead, the reader is referred to the section on adverbs, where such matters are discussed. Thus, here too, such forms are brought close to adverbs (G 29—30).

D. Kleinas was the first in Lithuanian studies to raise the problem of adverbialization. This shows that he was an exceptionally perceptive scholar of grammar. He considered not only the adverbialization of postpositional locatives, but also that of the plural instrumental. Discussing the fact that the plural is not used, or at least is used less often, with certain nouns (for example: laulė, wakaras, raſſa, giwata, išgánimas, ſmetis, jaunyste, ſenyſte...), he says: ”...wakarais vero adverbialiter exponitur, vesperi, seu vespertino tempore” G 69—70. On the following page, again reviewing defective nominals (those lacking certain cases), D. Kleinas states: ”Iſku, grąžu, tilomis, žinnomis, peſčiomis... rectius ad Adverbia referuntur” G 71. These exceptionally important and interesting observations show that already in the seventeenth century our linguist, while not yet distinguishing the neuter-gender adjective from the adverb, clearly understood the adverbial character of the plural instrumental forms of certain nouns, as well as their process of adverbialization. In our century this process has become so strong and widespread that it is now reasonable to speak not only of adverbs formed with the suffixes -(i)ai, -yn, but also of those formed with -(i)om(is), -(i)ais. Alongside the adverbialization of the plural instrumental, which is generally more pronounced, D. Kleinas also noted the adverbialization of the singular instrumental and the locative. This is shown by Note I added at the end of the adverb section and by such case forms that have become adverbs: pulka ir pulkais, wardu, skirtu, atwiromis, žinnomis, tilomis, widuj. There are even more such adverbialized instrumental or locative forms in the grammar, especially in the adverb section, for example: kartais, naktimis, neticzomis, ſlaptomis, apačioj, dienoj, lauke.

D. Kleinas was the first in the history of Lithuanian linguistics to address the problem of adverb formation, reasoning very precisely that adverbs derived from adjectives in -as have the ending -ay (=ai), while those derived from adjectives in -is and -us have -ey (=iai), for example: from géras – geray, piktas – piktay, didis – didey (=didei), grąžintelis – grąžinteley (=grąžinteliai), matonus – matoney, priderąs – priderančey G 138—139.

Regarding what was said here about the formation of adverbs with the suffix -(i)ai nearly 350 years ago, there is little we could add today, except that the rule might be refined somewhat and expanded. The question therefore naturally arises: how can we explain the fact that the author of the first Lithuanian grammar, working with such a limited body of factual material in his work, was able to formulate relatively perceptive and well-founded principles of grammar and word formation? The answer to this question also seems to follow naturally. The perceptiveness of the author of the first Lithuanian grammar, and the considerable accuracy of his claims, were probably due to his excellent command not only of his native Lithuanian but also of other languages, especially the classical ones; his creative adaptation of other languages’ grammars; and his ability to make use of them for the Lithuanian language

10

for grammatical purposes.

Admittedly, D. Klein’s solutions concerning word formation, as well as other questions, are not always accurate. For example, he derives the adjective tolas from the adverb toli, and artimas from arti (G 68). This is easy to explain in light of the state of grammatical scholarship in the seventeenth century. But most important, of course, is that the author of the Grammar already then ventured to take the first steps in the field of Lithuanian word formation.

The Grammar also touches on the problem of homonymy, which is very important for lexicography. It states, for example, that some adverbs govern the genitive while exhibiting prepositional properties: arti mieſto, pokim Diewo, widuj mieſto, lauke bažnyći; G 166. In fact, the words listed here, arti, pokim, widuj, and lauke, are in the cited instances nothing other than prepositions used with the genitive. Thus, these words are certain grammatical homonyms.

D. Klein’s grammar also contains a very perceptive observation about the meaning of the combination adverb + adverb. It says that in combinations such as labay rettay, nelabay graźiey, for example, the first adverb is subordinated to the second.

Although the Grammar, taken as a whole, draws on a very limited body of material from the native language, the statements in its chapter on adverbs are nevertheless supported by examples displaying considerable variety in terms of word formation and semantics. Here we find most of the adverbs still in use today, and very few that are characteristic only of earlier centuries. Among the latter, one may mention the following: abelnay ‘in general’, kartunta ‘sometime, once, at least once’, kodrin ‘why’, miernay ‘moderately’, nobaźnay ‘devoutly’, namopri ‘homeward’, pokim (=before the eyes), todri ‘therefore’, wieźlibay ‘politely, decorously’. The particle and conjunction juo is still an adverb in D. Klein’s grammar, meaning ‘more’, used to express the comparative degree, e.g.: jū mokintas ‘more learned’, jū paniekintas ‘more despised’; the adverb kada in that grammar is also used in place of the conjunction kad, which in turn seems still to retain the meaning ‘when’ (in this instance D. Klein writes it with an apostrophe—kad’). The adverb pridertanćiey shows that even then, in the Prussian Lithuanian dialect, adverb formation with the suffix -iai from active participles was productive. The borrowed modal word rodas, closely related to adverbs, had by then already become rods; compare: Rods norim išganytais būti C 108.

As mentioned earlier, D. Klein’s grammar contains almost all the principal derivational types of adverbs that are also found in the modern language. Here are examples:

Pronominal and numeral adverbs with the suffix -aip; taip, įzitaip, kitaip, katraip, antraip, kaip, niekaip. Among these, kaip and taip also have -o at the end: kaipo, taipo. That this -o derives here from an older a is clearly still shown by the forms taipag, taipajeġ (=taipajaġ) ‘also, likewise’; compare: dūna taipajeġ ir wunas G 173.

Pronominal adverbs with the suffix -iek: kiek, tiek. That D. Klein’s dialect had the pronouns kiekas, tiekas, from which the adverbs kiek, tiek developed, is shown by the example iź kiek’o żodźiu ex tam paucis verbis.

Pronominal adverbs with the suffix -ur: kur, kur jęng, kurgi, niekur, wiſſur, kitur.

Pronominal adverbs with the suffix -da: kada, tada, niekada, wiſſada. The variants of the -da suffix, -dai, -dais, and -dos, show the close connection between the Lithuanian examples in D. Klein’s grammar and the vernacular of the people: wiſſadai, wiſſados, niekadai, niekadais,

11

never.

Most adverbs in D. Klein’s grammar, as in language generally, are nominal (especially adjectival) adverbs with the suffix -(i)ai, e.g.: amžinay, drąsey, gilley, ligey, mažay, palaimingay, smarkiey, įžirdingay, wilfiskay G 136–138.

There are still very few adverbs in D. Klein’s grammar with the suffix -yn, e.g.: aukštyn, tolyn, žemyn. They cannot be compared with adverbs of this type that have become widespread in contemporary language.

As already noted, certain examples in D. Klein’s grammar allow us to conclude that more than 350 years ago the adverb-forming type with the suffix -(i)omis was already firmly established in the Prussian Lithuanian dialect, while an adverb type with the suffix -(i)ais, was taking shape; cf.: atwiromis, tilomis, flaptomis, peſčiomis, neticzomis, žinomis and kartais, pulkais. Of course, these adverb types could not yet have been as widespread then as they are today.

Apart from the preposition (which is also an adverb) paſkui, the grammar contains no adverbs with the suffix -(i)ų. This may be explained either by chance or by the fact that this adverb type was still entirely uncommon in the author’s dialect.

The diversity of adverb types in D. Klein’s grammar is also illustrated by such adverbs as: įſz tolo, įſz lauko, įſz apačios.

Participial adverbs are almost entirely absent from the grammar. Of these, we find only: priderančey, pripultiney. Incidentally, the latter adverb should not give rise to doubt: this is probably a typographical error, and pripultinai should be restored.

The section on adverbs alone makes it possible to judge how vivid and expressive the grammar author’s own native dialect must have been. In the grammar we find such adverbs as mažinteley, mažintелеу paululum, ad minimum, trumpinteley breviter, quam brevissime, gražinteley pulchre valde. Only someone who had emerged from the depths of the folk and inherited the dialect from earliest childhood could have felt the emotional force of their meanings and expressed it aptly in Latin.

The variety of parallel forms also attests to the liveliness and popular character of the grammar author’s language, e.g.: todel, todele, todżin, kodel, kodelei, kodrin, dabar, dabarteli, dabartelėi. The author’s language is further enlivened by such adverbs as pernay ante annum, už užpernay ante biennium, propernay ante triennium, tįjau, tįjaus, weikiey, atgalos (=atgalios), pirmay antea, olim. Alongside the adverbs mažay, pam ažay, shortened forms maž, per maž, bem až, which are so characteristic of the living language of the people, also occur.

From what has been said about the adverb in D. Klein’s grammar, the following conclusions may be drawn:

1. The analysis of the adverb section in D. Klein’s work ”Grammatica Litvanica...” alone shows that the work itself is the first scholarly and normative grammar of the Lithuanian language, and that its section on adverbs is the first treatment of Lithuanian adverbs in the history of Lithuanian studies.

2. The brief but highly substantive section on adverbs impresses the reader with the author’s ambition to present as comprehensive a picture as possible of adverb-forming types and individual meanings. The grammar contains examples of nearly all the main adverb-forming types: with the suffixes -(i)ai, -(i)omis, -ais, -yn, -aip, -ur, -iek. It sets out no fewer than seventeen semantic categories of adverbs.

12

Preposition.

D. Kleinas first divides prepositions (G 140–141) into separable and inseparable ones (in our terms, prefixes and postpositions). The latter are: ap, apì, at, par, pra, da, pi, na. Separable ones are monosyllabic (pri, prè, prieg, pirm, be, tarp, del, po, už, pro, nūg, nū, įž, prieƒž, pas, pa, po, in, y, ing, per, ties, ik, ƒu, pra, pro. Two things in the latter list are interesting: that the preposition y (=į) is included here alongside in and ing, and that the author regards the prepositions pa and pra as features of the Klaipėda dialect, alongside features of his native dialect, po and pro. This shows his attentiveness and sensitivity to matters of phonetics and dialect. For him, the prepositions į and y are variant spellings of the same word.

The following disyllabic prepositions are then listed: tarpei, delei, arti, užu, iki, aplink, pagal, palig, ƒulig, apie, pokim ‘in the presence of’, paƒkui, after which the author illustrates the so-called inseparable prepositions with nouns, verbs, and pronouns: appalu ‘I overcome’, apkальbeimas, apikalbis ‘conversation’, adūmi, parpūlu, daraƒzau, padūmi: the meaning ‘to a place’ is expressed by the forms Diewop, maneƒpi, maneƒp, mieƒtaną, mieƒtan, mieƒtump, juƒump, muƒump, mieƒtump, juƒump, muƒump, mieƒtump, while the meaning ‘in a place’ is expressed by the forms Ponip Diewip, manip, manimp, tawipi, tawimp, ƒawip, ƒawimp, kitamp, newienamp.

Just like the prepositions į and y, the prefixes i- and y- are, for D. Kleinas, merely identical variants. The examples ineimi and inƒidūmi pražuvon ‘I plunge into danger’ also demonstrate the vitality of the prefix in-.

D. Kleinas’s grammar also aptly notes the prepositional use of certain adverbs, for example: arti mieƒto, pokim Diewo, widuj mieƒto, laukė bažnyčios G 166.

The use of prepositions is discussed in the syntax section (G 167–169), where they are arranged according to the cases with which they are used. What stands out here is the excessive brevity of the examples of preposition use given by the author of the first grammar, their incompleteness, and the complete lack of full sentences, although the prepositional constructions themselves are presented very consistently. They differ relatively little from present-day constructions. For example, the author’s constructions many years ago, in honor, on the right, around truth (=many years ago, in honor, on the right, about truth); on the right, through dear God, around truth (= on the right, through? dear God, about truth); according to, leave truth, near me, near you (=according to truth, near me, near you); under the left hand, after three days, after the Holy Trinity, under the whole world, under all people (=on the left hand, after three days, after the Holy Trinity, throughout the world, among all people). The discrepancies in preposition use noted here in relation to the present-day norm are rather facts of the older language than effects of the influence of other languages.

Since all the other instances of prepositional usage cited by D. Kleinas fully conform to the modern norm, they are not discussed here.

D. Kleinas, like other authors of old grammars, conflates prefixes with prepositions. The penultimate section of this grammar (G 169–173) is entitled ”De Praepositionum Significatione in Compositione”. The title would suggest that prepositions are discussed here, but in fact the Latin word compositio here denotes a prefixed word. Thus, this section discusses the meanings of prefixes. This is undoubtedly the first account in the history of Lithuanian studies of the meanings of Lithuanian prefixes. The author begins this section by saying no-

13

It is also worth mentioning the “clearly emphatic meanings” of certain prepositions (in fact, prefixes). Comparing facts from his native language, he seeks to explain the meanings of Lithuanian prefixes (which he understands as inseparable prepositions), setting them all out alphabetically. For example, ap, ap¹ is first associated with the Latin circum ‘around’ (ap|foti, ap|ipiaufiti), then with Lat. desuper ‘from above’ (ap|ipilu), and further on the meanings of acquisition and excess associated with that prefix are indicated (aptartėta, cf. Polish otrzymać, opanėti, opanždžiu); fourth, the meaning of intensity is raised (ap|idžiaugti, ap|akyti), and fifth is the meaning of diminishment (ap|plekės, ap|ipiau|tyts).

The meanings of other prefixes are explained similarly in this grammar: at is compared with Latin de, iš with ex, nu with de, par with re, per with per and trans, pra with trans and ultra, pri with ad, and su with cum. Of course, by such comparisons the author cannot explain all the meanings of the prefixes, and so in many places he resorts to descriptive explanation. For example, having equated pri with Lat. ad (to approach), the author says that this prefix sometimes intensifies the meaning of a simple verb (prijakau), while with reflexive verbs of the active voice it has a certain emphatic meaning (prifitekinėju ‘I run around a lot’, pri|imiegajau, pri|iklau|au, pri|igeru).

Of course, this explanation of prefix meanings is still very deficient and incomplete, but we cannot help being struck by the fact that prefix meanings are explained already in the first Lithuanian grammar, something we do not find in many later grammars. This alone shows how deeply the author of the first grammar delved into the nature of his native language, and how keen his linguistic and grammatical insight was.

Conjunction. The first Lithuanian grammar (G 142–143) presents at least nine groups of conjunctions straight away, without any introduction or definition: 1. coordinative (ir, bei, irgi, a, taipag, taipēj ‘also’); 2. conditional (jey, jeygi, jeig, jeine, kitaip); 3. disjunctive (ar, argi, alba ‘or’, arba, ben ‘or’, buk-buk ‘either-or’, e.g., buk geri, buk pikti); 4. adversative (bet, bettaig ‘however’, tiktai, ly[z ‘only’, vienok); 5. concessive (kacz, kaczei, norint, jeib, jeigi ‘although’, taczau); 6. causal (nes, ne|a, ne|ang ‘because’, jog, kadangi, jeib, idant, jeng, kaip, kada ‘that’); 7. inferential (todel, todelei, tod|rin); 8. connective (priegtam ‘besides’, potam ‘after that’, kaip, tapaglaus, galau|ey, pa|kiau|ey); 9. supplementary (nes, jau, jeg, gi, gu ‘whether’, a|zgu? ‘whether I?’, tugu? ‘whether you?’).

At the end of the conjunction section of this grammar is a note by the author, most likely taken from Latin grammars, stating that certain invariable words (particulae), because of their varied meanings, become sometimes adverbs, sometimes conjunctions, and sometimes prepositions. For example, the word ar is cited here: the author considers it an adverb when asking a question, and a conjunction when something is distinguished. This view, of course, follows only from the fact that the particle is regarded here as an adverb. The author also notes here that the words priegtam, potam, wel, galau|ey, tapaglaus are adverbs of sequence when they accompany verbs to express circumstance, and conjunctions when they link or continue words and thoughts. This note is interesting because it shows the author’s insight into one of the most important functions of the adverb—the expression of circumstance—and because it also reflects an understanding of a certain connective meaning in the words mentioned.

¹Incidentally, D. Klein also added apie here, but apparently out of inertia, since this prefix is not illustrated.

14

— the expression of circumstance—and the fact that a certain connective meaning of the words mentioned is also recognized here.

Interesting observations on conjunctions are also found in the final subsection of the grammar (G 173–174). It is stated first that the conjunction ir links many things, whereas bei usually links two things, or just two things, for example: ir Jżis, ir tas, ir anſai; Bei Sáulė bei Menù pames [zviejybe; ir dangus, ir žémė, ir Angelai ir žmones tur Dieuwo garbę apsakyti; bei gerēji, bei piktieji, beigi kożnas žmogus. Sometimes bei also expresses Latin tam-quàm: bei a ſz, bei tu. Thus, as we can see, in the old language bei could link more than two coordinated sentence constituents.

Taipajeg ‘also’ is often used together with ir: dūna taipajeg ir winas.

Kada also means ‘that’: taip ſilpnas tapa, kada ir tą dieną numirre (instead of kad, jog ‘that’, and tą dieną numirė ‘died that day’).

The variability and instability in the use of conjunctions, especially subordinating ones, is shown by the fact that, for example, cause or purpose is expressed interchangeably by the words jeib, idant, jeng, kaip, kada, kad: kadą (kaip, jeib) pakajus butu ant žémes; idant (jeib) [zwentay giwentumb;m; jeng ilgau giweſų ant žémes; bijaus, kaip (kad) negale[j]i tai iſtaijyti; pareitis Wirauſybei, idant nufidėjimai be karonės nepaſiliktu; [tow]is teſidaboja jeib nepultu.

Interjection. D. Klein states (G 143) that interjections are used to express states of mind or gestures. It is quite right to say that interjections express states of mind—that is, feelings and emotions—but they certainly cannot express gestures: they can only be accompanied by gestures. This grammar contents itself with merely listing interjections. Seven groups are distinguished: 1. exclamations (o, ak!); 2. endearments (meilul, aukſut); 3. laughter (à à á); 4. pain (ay, ak, deja, ayman!); 5. admonition (a, o, ba); 6. cursing (czui, tfui); 7. silencing (titſz, štitſz, št and styl, which is identified as a feature of the Klaipėda dialect).

Of the interjections listed, only styl is a Germanism; all the others are Lithuanian. D. Klein gives no examples of the use of ideophones: they are not even mentioned in the syntax. Incidentally, the conjunction section contains the strange observation that the conjunction ‘o’ passes into the class of interjections. This, of course, is impossible.

II. K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas, ”Compendium Grammaticae Lithvanicae”¹

A d v e r b. As is conjectured, K. Sapūnas may have written his grammar, which he called ”Nomenclator”, as early as around 1643, that is, ten years before D. Klein’s ”Grammatica. Litvanica” was published. In 1651 he had obtained permission from the University of Königsberg to publish it, but for unknown reasons he did not make use of that permission. One of them may have been that,

¹ Compendium Grammaticae Lithvanicae Theophilii Schultzen, Past. Catt enov., Regiomonti... 1673 (toliau sutr. Sap).

15

a better and more comprehensive grammar had already been written around the same time, namely D. Klein’s, with which K. Sapūnas must have been familiar, since D. Klein had sent him its manuscript for an extended period, as his collaborator. According to J. Gerulis’s conjecture, K. Sapūnas made extensive use of the manuscript of D. Klein’s grammar in his ”Nomenclator”, which T. Šulcas published in 1673 under a different title – ”Compendium Grammaticae Lithvanicae”.

Generally speaking, in all the old Lithuanian grammars, alongside commonalities and similarities, we also find numerous differences, showing that their authors, although they made use of one another’s work, nevertheless strove to create independent, original grammars. D. Klein and Sapūnas were close associates, and therefore must have known each other’s work well. T. Šulcas, in turn, while editing and preparing K. Sapūnas’s grammar for publication, could not have failed to look to the only grammar by D. Klein published at that time. Only this can explain the many commonalities and similarities between those grammars.

It has already been mentioned that those grammars abound in differences as well as commonalities and similarities. That their authors had distinct ideas, aims, and plans is also shown by the adverb section in K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas’s grammar, which differs considerably from the corresponding section in D. Klein’s grammar. First of all, the very beginning of that section is quite different: in D. Klein’s grammar, the section on adverbs begins with the observation that, alongside inflected words, there are also indeclinable words, among which the adverb is gradable (that is, inflected at least in part); it goes on to say that the Lithuanian adverb has many meanings, as in Latin and Greek, and then proceeds to set out those meanings in turn. The adverb section in K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas’s grammar begins in an entirely different way: first, it states that meaning and gradation are characteristic of the adverb; it then asserts that adverbial meanings are very numerous and finally enumerates them, together with very few illustrative examples—mostly individual words (adverbs, but also particles and sometimes even one or another modal word, conjunction, or interjection), without providing phrases or sentences. There are especially many subsections on adverbial meanings here—as many as 24—whereas D. Klein’s grammar, as we have seen, has 17. The abundance of subsections on adverbial meanings in K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas’s grammar, as in other grammars of the period, must also be explained solely by the fact that, according to the tradition of old grammars, all particles and modal words, and sometimes one or another preposition, conjunction, or even interjection, were classed as adverbs, e.g.: O, ak, jeib (cf. D. Klein’s Ey, nuggì).

Not one subsection of meaning in the adverb section of K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas’s grammar fully coincides with the corresponding subsection in D. Klein’s grammar. This, too, shows that the adverb sections of those grammars were written independently. Sometimes only a few illustrative examples coincide, but this cannot indicate that the authors were not independent: such coincidences are inevitable in grammars of all periods and all languages.

The distinctiveness of the grammar discussed here from D. Klein’s grammar, and consequently its originality, is also shown by the fact that its adverb section does not even mention the adverbialized postpositional case forms of nouns and pronouns, which are incorporated into the adverb section of D. Klein’s grammar with great insight.

16

The gradation of adverbs is explained in a wholly original and distinctive way in both grammars: in D. Klein’s grammar, gradation is illustrated in a section of notes, whereas in the grammar by K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas, the gradation of adverbs is presented as the third part of the chapter on adverbs, where the forms of degree are accounted for in two different ways: some of them (e.g., Gerrai, Gerriaus, Gerriau[ei]) are related to gradable adjectives, while others are said to have been determined by usage itself (e.g., Daug, Daugiaus, Daugiau[ei]). The conclusion of this account is especially interesting, since in fact the connection between the adverb daug and the corresponding adjective is no longer perceived by speakers today, and had already faded centuries ago. As in D. Klein’s grammar, the comparative forms end in -s: Auk[š]čiaus, Piktčžiaus.

In the grammar by K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas (as in D. Klein’s), most of the adverbs presented are the most common words themselves (and are still in use today). There are very few older or rarer adverbs here. Among these, one can mention only Kartunta ‘sometime’, (cf. the same adverb in D. Klein’s grammar), Szónai ‘here’, Kur[š]tel, kur[š]tellai ‘far’, Katrul ‘in which direction, where to’, Waggik[š]znai ‘stealthily, secretly’, and Foritoi ‘the day after tomorrow’. Among other non-inflecting parts of speech, rarer or older words treated as adverbs in this grammar include the particles Wei, Anaskat ‘behold’, Sziskat ‘likewise’, and the conjunctions Pirm neng, Nengnėkaip.

Here, as in D. Klein’s grammar, there is also a section on adverb syntax, but it is incomparably more precise and concise than the corresponding section in D. Klein’s grammar. First, in this section the adverb is not conflated with other non-inflecting parts of speech (in the analogous section of D. Klein’s grammar, all of these are conflated). Most importantly, however, the grammar by K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas clearly defines the main relation between adverbs and other parts of speech—what we would call syntactic attachment (see the statement on page 87 of this grammar: ”Adverbia Lithvanorum, Latinorum more, junguntur Verbis, vel Nominibus. Interdum aliis Adverbiis”). The grammar then illustrates attachment first to verbs (Maž dumoja, Tawo gromatos didel laukiu, Stebuklingai wadžioja), participles (Piktai darąs, Gerai [š]akęs), nominal forms, especially adjectives (Labai baugus), and finally to adverbs themselves (Didei palaimingai [ž]ta[i]fe Kiellione, Labai gerai, Nelabai gražei). This demonstrates the excellent command of the language possessed by K. Sapūnas, and perhaps T. Šulcas as well, and their great linguistic erudition.

On this occasion, it is worth adding that the sections on other non-inflecting parts of speech in the grammar by K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas were also written wholly independently and originally—unlike the corresponding sections in D. Klein’s grammar. Consider, for example, the preposition chapters in these grammars. Not only do the plans of these chapters differ, but so do their content and the material presented. In D. Klein’s grammar, even the postpositions -p(i) and -n(a) are classed among the so-called “inseparable” (inseparabiles) prepositions, e.g.: Diewop, manep, mie[t]ana, mie[t]an, mie[t]umpi, ju[š]umpi, mie[t]ump, ju[š]ump, mu[š]ump, Ponip Diewip, manip, manipm, tawipi, tawipm, [š]awip, [š]awim, kitamp, newienamp. The analogous chapter on “prepositions” in the grammar by K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas does not even mention -p(i) and -n(a), although here, too, all prefixes are conflated with prepositions (the latter fact is, one might say, the only common feature of the chapters under discussion).

17

The chapters on conjunctions and interjections in these grammars differ in their organizational plans, examples, and content. For example, the conjunction chapter in D. Klein’s grammar is not only much more detailed but also more precise and richer, since, following the example of Latin grammar, it attempts to describe the relationship between adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions, maintaining that some invariable words can function sometimes as adverbs, sometimes as prepositions, and sometimes as conjunctions. For example, D. Klein treats the words priegtam, potam, wel ‘vel’, galauſey, tapagalauſ as adverbs of sequence when they are joined to a verb to express an adverbial circumstance, and as conjunctions when they connect or continue words and sentences (G 143). The conjunction chapter in the grammar by K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas contains no such generalizing remark, which further clearly shows that the authors of these grammars worked independently, at least in this respect.

Concluding these remarks on the adverb in the grammar by K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas and its relation to the analogous chapter in D. Klein’s grammar, we arrive at the following conclusions.

1. At least the chapters on adverbs and other non-inflecting parts of speech in the grammars by K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas differ completely from the corresponding chapters in D. Klein’s grammar. Thus, the authors of those chapters worked entirely independently.

2. D. Klein’s grammar is considerably more comprehensive and more advanced than the grammar by K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas. This is already evident from a comparison of the chapters on non-inflecting parts of speech in the two grammars.

3. The authors of both grammars frequently refer to Latin, and sometimes Greek (and D. Klein even to Hebrew) and their linguistic facts. This shows that, in their work, they took classical-language grammars as their model. This helped them identify the rules of Lithuanian more accurately, but at the same time it also served as a kind of “last,” not always suited to the nature of Lithuanian.

4. In the grammar by K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas, the scarcity of examples, the lack of fuller sentences, and the excessive concision of the syntax chapter are striking. At least to some extent, all of this is also characteristic of D. Klein’s grammar.

5. Both grammars mentioned here are significant achievements in Lithuanian linguistic scholarship in the seventeenth century. They played an important role in the standardization and development of the Lithuanian literary language, especially in Prussian Lithuania.

P r e p o s i t i o n.

Following the tradition of their time, K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas divide prepositions (Sap 69—70) into two groups: separable and inseparable. The latter are nothing other than prefixes.

Prepositions are classified here according to the cases with which they are used, or, as the grammar puts it, which they govern (regunt.). With the genitive: Ant, Be, Arti, Delei, Tarp, Prie, prieg, Nū, Nūg, iż, Pirm; with the accusative: Prieſz, Paſkui, Per, Apie, Aplink, Pro, Pas, Į, (= į) ing, in, Linkai; with the dative: ik, ikki; with the genitive and accusative: uſz, Pagal; with the instrumental: Po, Su, Ties.

The inseparable prepositions (in our terms, prefixes, quae separatim extra Compositionem non usurpantur) are these: Ad (= at-): Adgawmu; Ab, Ap, Appi, Apſu: Abbarſtau, Apſlepiu, Apſikabinnu, Apturriu ‘I overcome’; At, atta: Attadūmi, Atſzwencziu ‘I desecrate’, Atwerriu ‘I open’; Par: Pardūmi, Parmetu ‘I throw down’, Pareimi ‘I come home’; Is (?), Isji (= jsi-, išsi-?): Isſimettu ‘??; Nu: Nuimmu, Numettu; Pra: Prawarau, Pra-

18

riju; With: Priimu; According to: Pawarg[tu, Paimmu; Bes[i: Bes[ipe[ziu (= besipešu), Bes[imu[zu; Without: Begerriu, Bewalgau, Bėmie gmi.

This section on prepositions is very deficient. Some prefixes are not even clear (Is, Is[i); one form is unclear (Bes[ipe[ziu). It is interesting that although the grammar itself is written in Latin, the meanings of the prefixes included here are given in German. Apparently, the authors’ relationship with Lithuanian and German was closer than with Lithuanian and Latin, although they knew Latin very well.

Prepositions are discussed much more fully in the syntax section of this grammar (Sap 88–93). This is one of the most detailed sections on prepositional syntax in the first Lithuanian grammars. Here, too, prepositions are arranged according to the cases they govern and their meanings, expressed by Latin prepositions. Illustrations are provided for each meaning, mostly from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, with textual references. A Latin, and sometimes even a Greek, equivalent is given alongside each such illustration. Thus, a genuine scholarly apparatus emerges here, attesting to the authors’ very painstaking work.

This is how they present the preposition ant. in the syntax section.

I. Some prepositions govern the genitive, for example:

1. Ant/ signifies

(1) Above; for example: I[tacžiau [awo Karalių ant Zion [zwento mano kalno Psal 2,6. Constituti meum Regem super Zion montem sanctum meum.

(2) On, for example: Jo nepalaiṁ bus ant jo Galwòs ir jo Siu[tamas ant Momenies Psal 7,17. Ejus infortunium convertitur in caput ejus, & ipsius iniquitas in verticem ejus descendet. Szlowek kurs nèžengia ant Kielo Grie[znųjų Psal 1,1. Beatus qui non ambulat in via peccatorum.

In what follows, for reasons of space, this brief overview of prepositional syntax makes do mostly with Lithuanian material, which in itself is the most important for studying the earliest grammars.

Other prepositions with the genitive.

Be: If you persecute those who hate me without cause; They hate me without cause. Arti: They live near the city; Delei: If you suffer anything for the sake of righteousness; For my enemies’ sake, this is your way; Not believing for joy; Cast them out because of their great transgressions. Tarp: Declare among the people (= people) his deeds; And between us and them there is a great gulf. Pri, Prie, Prieg: Were you at the court?; But God is with the family of the righteous; I do not sit with wicked people. Nù, nùg: From the Father’s eternal abode, protect us from sins; Let us cast their ropes from ourselves; And their joy shall not be among them. I[ž: And none of you asks me Καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐρωτᾷ με, Et nemo ex vobis interrogat me Joh 16, 5; Convict them of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. Pirm: Behold, I send my Angel before your face, who will prepare your way before you; This is the way before you.

With the accusative. Before: Ponai rodija ‘tariasi’ tarp awes prie[ž wie[žpati. According to: Ab[udyk mane pagal Tei[ybe mano: Jis užmok man pagejol (= pagal) Čzy[tybe Rankù mano. After: Tas[ai yra kurs pa[kui mane ateis, kurs pirm manęs buwo. Through: Mi[tre, per vis[ą naktį dirbom, o nieko negawom. About: Kas para[žyta yra apie manę Zokanè Može[žiaus; Apie Jezu Nacaren[kąjį. Around, all around: Aplink Mie[stą, Ἀμφὶ τὴν πόλιν, Circa urbem. In front of: Nè pro

19

food is set before you, Non pro te cibus appositus; I pray to God for you, Per Deum rogo te. Pas: And he stood as the blind man who was begging along the road to Jericho sat by the road. I, ing: Go into the town; And Jesus went into the boat; And as they looked up to heaven. Linkai: towards the town.

With the genitive and dative. Ik, Ikki: And the word unto the ends of the world; I am with you unto the end of the world.

With the genitive and accusative. Uż: They hide behind my back; And it is not innocent for you to cast your Father behind you.

With the genitive, dative, accusative, and instrumental. Po: And after eight days his messengers were again inside; And placed the sheep on the right; Walking about the town; Protect me beneath the shadow of your wings (=of the wings).

With the instrumental. Ties: And to stand with the Son of Man. Su: When I was with you; You are holy with the saints; With God we shall accomplish great works.

Iš retėsnų faktų čia reikia paminėti prielinksnį pirm ‘prieš’, kuris gramatikoje nurodomas ne tik laiko, bet ir vietos santykiui reikšti. Čia pateikta prielinksnio pro vartosena labai skiriasi nuo dabartinės, plg.: pro tawę ‘prieš(ais) tave’, Pro Dievwą ‘Dievo vardu’. Tas pats pasakytina ir dėl linkai vartosenos su galininku (Mieſtaną linkai) bei dėl neaiškios formos ſlapdawais (=slėpdavais?).

The conjunction is presented here (Sap 70) without any definition or introduction, arranged according to functions designated by the Latin terms copulativae, disjunctivae, disctectivae, and so on. They are thus classified as follows: 1. copulative (Ir, Bei), 2. disjunctive (Ar, Argu, Alba, abba), 3. restrictive, adversative, and connective (Bet, Bettaig, Kacżei, Cżiuſta, Tacżiau, jūg), 4. supplementary, confirmatory (Butent), 5. causal, conditional, explanatory (Kaddang, Nesa, Jeine). 6. justificatory, inferential (Todiel, Togidiel), 7. expressions of doubt (Beg, Beggu, Bau), 8. diminutive (Tikt, tiktay).

This section on conjunctions is very short indeed—perhaps the shortest in all the early grammars. On the other hand, it is very imprecise and incomplete: it covers only a tiny part of the conjunctions. Moreover, not all the words treated here as conjunctions are actually conjunctions: Cżiuſta ‘as if, as though’, Beg, Beggu, Bau, Tikt, tiktay are particles. The author set out to present as many as eight groups of conjunctions, listing as many as 14 Latin names for those groups, while including only 17 conjunctions themselves. The fourth group, designated by two names, contains a single conjunction (Butent).

Although this section is so meagre in every respect, its examples were probably not copied from anywhere: undoubtedly, only the outline itself was copied superficially here, and it was never developed at all.

A few words about the conjunction are also said in the subsection ”De Syntaxi Conjunctionis” (Sap 93—94). Of interest here is this Latin description of the purpose or function of conjunctions: ”Conjunctionum officium est connectere dictiones et sententias”. Since dictio means not only an expression or phrase, but also a word, this characterization of the conjunction’s function is both precise and concise. A single sentence is given here as an illustration: But I shall see you again, and your hearts shall rejoice, and no one shall take your joy from you, and on that day you will ask me nothing. The subsection ends with a remark that adds nothing new: copulative conjunctions connect cases.

20

Interjections (Sap 72) are divided into as many as 9 groups, namely: 1. surprise (Ai, ei), 2. indignation (O, ak, boddai), 3. threatening (Nu, nu), 4. pain (Ai, ei, ak), 5. weeping (Ui ū ui), 6. laughter (ha ha ha), 7. disgust (Tžū, čiū, Puì), 8. mockery (aa), 9. quieting (titcz, cit, [t, p[t). It is also said here that interjections are to be sought out and observed in everyday Lithuanian conversation.

Even in that tiny list of interjections, boddai (Slavic) is no interjection at all, but merely a particle meaning ‘as if, as though’. The section on the syntax of interjections (Sap 94) states that Lithuanians have very few interjections. Following Latin usage, they are more often inserted into speech without case forms, as absolute elements. Nevertheless, an attempt is then made to connect interjections with cases, claiming that they attract (adsciscunt) case forms, for example: Ay, ei sometimes the nominative, sometimes the accusative (Ay kok[ai Pauk]ztis!, Eiej kokios flogos ‘woes’, Ay Budą [zio Cž[efo! ‘O mores hujus temporis!’); Ak and o are joined (junguntur) to the dative, sometimes the accusative or vocative (Ak man Biednam!, Ak mane Biedną!, Ak griežna[is žmogau!); Niunui is joined to the dative (Niunui tau!), while Tui, czūt, cit are joined to the vocative. Clearly, such a connection between interjections and cases is artificial. The authors’ earlier statement that interjections are more often used absolutely (i.e. independently) should be considered more accurate.

III. F. Haack’s “Appendix to a Concise Lithuanian Grammar”¹

A d v e r b. The third part of F.Haack’s grammar is devoted to describing the indeclinable (more precisely, non-inflecting and non-conjugating) parts of speech (the adverb, preposition, conjunction, and interjection). The author himself calls all these parts of speech particles (that is, particles in the narrower sense); compare the German heading of the grammar’s third part, ”Von den Particulis”. The section on the adverb, ”Von den Adverbiis”, comes first after that heading.

The common features of the adverb sections in the early grammars may often have been determined less by the authors’ borrowing from one another’s work than by the shared subject of description itself—the adverb.

The most striking similarity between F.Haack’s and D.Kleinas’s grammars is that many of the same adverbs are included, sometimes even in precisely (or almost precisely) the same order; compare: čia, czonai, [zicze, tenai, tenaygi, kitur, kur, kame, kur jeng, kurgi, wi[ur, widui, laukie (corrected to lauke) G 134 and Čia czonay, [zicze, Tenay, tenaygi, aure, Kittur, Kur, Kame, Kur jeng, Wi[ur, Widduj, Abi[zalei, Lauke H 322.

¹ Vocabularium Litthvanico-Germanicum et Germanico-Litthvanicum... nebst einem Anhang einer kurtzgefassten Litthauischen Grammatik... von Friedrich Wilhelm Haack... Halle, [1730] (toliau sutr. H).

21

Even this comparison alone clearly shows that F.Haack could not have failed to draw on D.Kleinas’s grammar. Incidentally, in K.Sapūnas and T.Šulcas’s grammar, the adverbs denoting location (in loco) are arranged in an entirely different order.

Finally, F.Haack’s descriptions of the individual meanings of locative adverbs were most likely copied from D.Kleinas’s grammar (unless, of course, from some other source common to them both); compare: in loco, de Loco, per Locum, ad Locum.

In other respects, the plan of the adverb section in F.Haack’s grammar differs both from D.Kleinas’s and from the corresponding plans in K.Sapūnas and T.Šulcas’s grammars. In the first of our grammars, after all the meanings have been set out, four points of commentary are given, in which, for the first time in the history of Lithuanian studies: a) the adverbial use of the instrumental and locative is raised and compared with the adverbial use of the dative in Ancient Greek; b) the formation of adverbs from adjectives with the suffix i) (ii) is discussed; c) the use of the word kaip in various senses is shown: as an adverb of wonder (kaip gėras ira Diewas mužul!), as a particle expressing a wish (kaip man Diewas padetu!, kaip pakajus butu bei Jandora!), as a relative or connective word (kaip žmogaus giwenimas ira, taip bus ir jo mirimas), and as a conjunction (kaip Adomas puolęs buvo, pametę weidą Diewo; prisakyta ira žmogui, kaip giwventu nobaznay). In these cases, D.Kleinas regards kaip as a particle, except in the last quoted sentence, where he also recognizes a conjunction.

The adverb section of K.Sapūnas and T.Šulcas’s grammar begins with a pair of introductory remarks, followed by 24 adverbial meanings, set out and illustrated very briefly (sometimes with just one word). In fact, many of these are particles or other indeclinable words. The section concludes with degrees of comparison.

What stands out in the adverb section of F.Haack’s grammar is the much larger number of examples, which can be explained by the fact that, while compiling his dictionary, the author had gathered more material than others. As one would expect, alongside genuine adverbs, a great many words belonging to other indeclinable parts of speech are also included here and treated by the author as adverbs.

Among the rarer or more interesting adverbs in F.Haack’s grammar, the following may be mentioned: Iš tiejos, Kur jeng ‘where’, tieJogie ‘straight’, tieJam ‘likewise’, Ténjau, Jzengų, Tengų, Namų ‘homeward’, Katruł, Propérnay ‘three years ago’, Porytoj ‘the day after tomorrow’, Pirmto, Dienįškay ‘daily’, Nepalautinay, Kartunta ‘sometime’, Kas metą, niekadai, niekadais, Walandėlis, potrečiay ‘for the third time’, Szwežey ‘recently’, Tulas kartu ‘sometimes?’, atpencz, Pridėranczey, Rank[zčiey ‘suddenly, unexpectedly’, Régimay ‘publicly, openly’, Pouiłłam ‘entirely’, Palengway, pamažay ‘gradually’, Trumpintley, Taipojau, Nieku budu, podraugiey ‘together’, Skiru ‘separately’, Pripultinay, nezinomis, galausiey; also compare the Slavisms Czie|u, Neczie|u, Miermay ‘moderately’, Wiežlibay ‘conveniently, properly’, Nopro|nay ‘for nothing’, Abelnay ‘completely’.

All the other adverbs listed by F.Haack stand out in no particular way from those used in the modern language. As in the other grammars discussed here, they are of various origins and belong to various derivational types: pronominal, adjectival, nominal, verbal, or participial; with or without suffixes and prefixes; others have simply developed from fossilized case forms. They are all just like those still in use today.

Among the indeclinable words that F.Haack classified as ad-

22

Among the particles, having taken his cue from D. Klein’s grammar or grammars of other languages, one may mention Ar, Argi, argu, bau, bes, er, Arme, Ne, Negi, artės ‘perhaps’, ben, Nugai, E[te ‘let’], Szday, wey, te, tikt, tiktay; the interjections ak, Ey, Ayman; the conjunctions Butent, Kaip antay, jü; the modal words Teſa, Berod’s, Beje, Pirmà, Antrà, Trečià; cf. the translated conjunction Wienok and the Slavic particle Lįž ‘only’.

It is interesting that F. Haack already used such conjunctions, still very popular today, as Butent, Kaip antay, and modal words Tieſa, Berod’s, Beje. Such facts, simple though they may be, show the close connection between the grammarian’s language and the living language of the people. In the adjective section of this grammar, where numerals are also discussed (since the author assigns them to adjectives), even combinations such as vieną kartą, du kartu, tris kartus..., triſſ[]deſimt ir vieną kartą..., du [zimtu kartu, tukſtantis kartų. are treated as adverbs (“adverbia numeralia”). This is, of course, to be explained by the fact that, when viewed solely semantically, not only indeclinable parts of speech were lumped together with adverbs, but sometimes also some words belonging to declinable parts of speech, or even word combinations. On the other hand, the grammarian may also have intuitively sensed that at least some such conjunctions were approaching adverbs. For it is enough for the second component of such conjunctions to be shortened through the erosion of case endings, and, attaching itself to the first component, it will form a true compound adverb; cf. vienąkart, dūkart, triskart... One might also mention here other modern adverbs formed in the same way, for example: vienąsyk, dūsyk, trissyk..., pirmąkart, antrąkart, trečiąkart..., pirmąsyk, antrąsyk, trečiasyk...

Next, it is important to consider how the semantic classification of adverbs in F. Haack’s grammar (a work from the eighteenth century) differs from the corresponding classification in the other two earliest grammars by D. Klein and K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas (both works from the seventeenth century).

The semantic classification of adverbs in all three grammars is based on the same principle—the lexical meaning of adverbs. Since in all these grammars particles are consistently lumped together with adverbs, and sometimes also some conjunctions, even interjections and modal words, the basis for the semantic classification of adverbs also includes the meanings of all these latter words, which are often very subtle, diffuse, and unclear, so that it is very difficult or simply impossible to define them. The classification scheme itself was most likely borrowed from grammars of classical languages, whose use in Lithuanian grammars is clearly attested by the juxtaposition and comparison of Lithuanian meanings with phenomena in classical languages, as well as by such references to that juxtaposition and comparison as “more Graecorum, more Latinorum” or “sicut apud Latinos,” and the like.

The influence of grammars of classical languages will at least partly have determined the roughly similar number of semantic subdivisions for adverbs in the Lithuanian grammars. Admittedly, at first glance the smallest number of such subdivisions appears in D. Klein’s grammar—17—and the largest in the grammar of K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas—24; in fact, however, in D. Klein’s grammar temporal adverbs are also divided into three smaller groups: present, past, and future, while adverbs of quantity are likewise divided into three smaller groups: enumeration, intensification, and weakening. Thus, D. Klein’s grammar too has 17 principal semantic subdivisions for adverbs, and together

23

with those smaller groups, 22 in all. F. Haack’s grammar has 23 such subdivisions.

The Latin names of these subdivisions in all three grammars likewise could not have arisen without the influence of grammars of other languages, primarily Latin. It is interesting that even in grammars of the period written in German, all the principal grammatical terminology is Latin. This is true of F. Haack’s grammar as well. Thus, here too the names of the semantic subdivisions of adverbs are Latin, namely:

1) place, 2) time, 3) number, 4) quantity, 5) quality, 6) questioning, 7) similarity, 8) comparing, 9) intensifying, 10) weakening, 15) swearing, 16) wishing, 17) exhorting, 18) gathering and separating, 19) excluding, diminishing, 20) correcting, 21) conceding, 22) order, 23) outcome.

Most of these names occur in the adverb sections of all three grammars, but each of them also contains one or two names that do not recur elsewhere, for example, one not used in D. Klein’s grammar. The latter circumstance can be explained by the fact that D. Klein’s adverb section contains somewhat fewer particles, conjunctions, interjections, and other words, of which the other two grammars have quite an abundance. It is understandable that the more alleged adverbs a grammar includes, the more descriptions of their meanings are needed. For example, in K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas’s grammar, the eleventh adverb subsection is entitled [adverbia] explanandi, i.e., [adverbs] of explaining, of elaboration. In fact, what is presented here is not adverbs but the purest conjunctions Idant, Jei and the pronoun Tatai, which the author renders in Latin as zd est ‘that is’. Thus, the author also understands this pronoun as a kind of conjunction used before an explanation of a word or expression.

Sometimes the examples given seem not to confirm the name of the subsection itself. For instance, the twenty-third adverb subsection in F. Haack’s grammar (incidentally, copied verbatim from the fourteenth adverb subsection in D. Klein’s grammar) is entitled in Latin [adverbia] eventus ‘[adverbs] of outcome’, but the illustrative examples given there, Pripultinay (in D. Klein’s grammar—pripultiney), Palaimingay, Neticżomis, neżinomomis, cannot by themselves indicate an outcome. In certain cases, only the verbs to which these adverbs are attached could express an outcome here.

F. Haack, like the authors of the two earliest grammars (D. Klein and K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas), classifies as adverbs not only all particles, some modal words, conjunctions, other connective words, or even interjections, but sometimes also certain case forms or even word combinations. For example, in his (F. Haack’s) grammar, the instrumental forms Szù Daiktu, Anù Daiktu, Niekatru Daiktu. are copied verbatim from D. Klein’s grammar and classified as adverbs of place.

What is especially interesting to us now is that the adverbial character of such instrumental forms—their certain detachment from case meaning and their approximation to adverbs—was already noted by the authors of the first Lithuanian grammars almost 350 years ago. Such is the nature of the locative instrumental from time immemorial. But even today we could not consider the instrumental forms mentioned true adverbs, just as we cannot consider such expressions in contemporary language to be adverbs: šią dieną, aną dieną, kitą dieną, since dieną here is a genuine noun inflected in the accusative—

24

the instrumental, although having the temporal meaning characteristic of an adverb, nevertheless remains a determinative word, whose substantival character is reinforced by the pronominal agreeing modifiers šią, aną, kitą. But as soon as the temporal meaning of the type of compounds indicated here began to grow fixed through their constant use, and their case meaning began to fade at the same time, the case marker—the ending of the second constituent—had already begun to become unnecessary hundreds of years ago; once it dropped out in the living stream of language, the two constituents of the compound would have merged into a single word: šiandien, šiąndie; compare also the adverbs anańdie, kitańdie and many newer words, formed in accordance with the internal tendencies of adverbial development, e.g.: anańdie, anańdie ai, anańdienais, etc. Incidentally, the compounds in the earliest grammars Szę Dąiktu, Anų Dąiktu, Nie katu Dąiktu still cannot be regarded as adverbs even today, also because dąiktas is a very concrete noun, although, among its other meanings, it also has a locative meaning, which is especially characteristic of an adverb. Furthermore, the instrumental ending -u of the word dąiktas never showed a tendency to erode, and the compounds with this noun that the authors of the earliest grammars classified as adverbs could never merge into a single word and become true adverbs.

F. Haack also sensed a certain adverbial character in other instrumentals: among the adverbs he included the compounds Szitų budu, Nieku budu (cf. the same compound with the meaning ‘nullo modo’ in Sap 66), which, although they approached adverbs, did not become them. Here one may also mention the compound Tulas kartu ‘several times, sometimes’, which F. Haack regarded as an adverb; it is not entirely clear, since the relation between the nominative singular of the pronoun tūlas and the genitive plural of the noun kartų is not fully comprehensible here.

It is impossible not to be struck by the fact that F. Haack also understood very well the process by which cases or certain compounds become adverbs, and sensed their adverbial character or complete adverbialization. Compare cases or compounds such as Dienoj, Rytmečezis, Wakarais, Pietumis, Kas metą, Czie/ų, Neczie/ų, Naktimis, Walandėlę, I/ž naujo, Po wi/jam ‘entirely, completely’, whose full approximation to adverbs or adverbialization could hardly be doubted even today.

Concluding these remarks on the adverb in F. Haack’s grammar, one may arrive at the following conclusions.

1. A closer acquaintance with the adverb in F. Haack’s grammar alone shows its author to have been a perceptive scholar of Lithuanian, capable of writing a fairly original, concise Lithuanian grammar, despite having very few sources—barely a couple of the very earliest grammars—and intended for an even wider readership than D. Klein’s first grammar.

Only those members of the intelligentsia (mostly in Prussian Lithuania) who understood Latin could make use of D. Klein’s first grammar. F. Haack’s grammar, like D. Klein’s “Compendium,” was accessible to all readers who knew German, and there were more such readers in Prussian Lithuania at the time, since German was the language of instruction in schools.

P r i e l i n k s n i s. F. Haack, like D. Klein, gives no definition of prepositions (H 326—328). Like adverbs, conjunctions, and interjections, he regards them as indeclinable words, or particles (particulae). He also classifies prefixes and postpositions, or postpositions, as prepositions, e.g.: ap, api, at, par, pa, da, pi, na. He regards all these word elements as

25

with inseparable prepositions (inseparabilės), since they are not used separately, e.g.: overcome ‘I overcome’. The postpositions pi and na occur at the end of a noun or pronoun, e.g.: Diewop ‘to God’, manes̩p ‘to me’, miestana ‘to the town’. In the plural, the author says, m is inserted between the genitive and pi: m: muʃump ‘to us’, juʃump ‘to you’.

Separable prepositions can govern one or several cases. The genitive is governed by nùg, pirm, dėl, ant, tarp, iš; the accusative by per, pas, pra, arba pro, apie, aplink, prieš, į, ing; the instrumental (ablativum instrumentalem) by su, ties. Iki governs the genitive and dative; the genitive and accusative are governed by už, but with different meanings: when it means ‘beyond’, it takes the genitive; when it means ‘just like’, it takes the accusative. Pagal (secundum) and Prieg ‘near’ govern either the genitive or accusative here, without distinction. As we see, these last two prepositions are used somewhat differently in the present-day language: the first with the accusative, the second (more precisely, prie) with the genitive.

The preposition po is used with different cases to express different meanings, e.g.: po kairės Rankos (expressing location), po ſzwentòs Traicės, arba po ſzwentai Traicei (expressing time). In the present-day language, the dative is also used to express a locative relation (po kairei rankai). The grammar’s author does not provide such an example. The same preposition (po) governs the accusative when it means ‘through’ (po wiʃʃą ʃwietą), and the instrumental when it means ‘before, in the presence of’ (po Diewu eʃme) or ‘under, below’ (po Dangumi).

As is apparent from this brief survey, the preposition chapter of F. Haack’s grammar is very short and concise, but systematic, consistent, comparatively accurate, and thoroughly Lithuanian: one can say that it contains virtually no non-Lithuanian prepositions or non-Lithuanian uses of them. All the prepositions highlighted by F. Haack, with the exception of one or two somewhat archaic ones (ing, prieg), are standard even today once their spelling is regularized, which in turn points to the author’s efforts as a codifier of the literary language.

J u n g t u k a s. The conjunction chapter of this grammar is even more concise than the preposition chapter. It is titled half in German and half in Latin, ”Von den Conjunctionibus”, and consists of eight short paragraphs, each one to three lines long, in which eight groups of conjunctions are listed in Latin. They are: 1. copulative (ir, bey, irgi, o, teipag, taipajeg), 2. disjunctive (ar, argi, arba, buk buk), 3. conditional (jei, jeigu, jeig, ȷeyne, kitaip), 4. adversative (Bet, bettaig, á, arba, o taczau, ben, tikłay, lyſz, wienok), 5. concessive (kacz, kac zeyg, norint, jeib, jeygi), 6. causal (nės, nėſa, nėſang, jog, kadangi, jeib, idant, jeng, kaip, kada ‘that’), 7. inferential (todėl, todėley, todrin), 8. connective, sequential (priegtam, toliaus, potam, tapagalaus, galáuſey, paſkiauſey).

F. Haack’s conjunction chapter is no different from the chapters on other indeclinable parts of speech in its compactness and systematic arrangement. The Latin labels for the individual conjunction groups are also very accurate. But in its content and the conjunctions it presents, it differs greatly from the chapters on adverbs and prepositions: here there are more non-Lithuanian words than elsewhere, and especially words that are very archaic in comparison with present-day literary language. Non-Lithuanian, for example, are á (Slavic) ‘but’, lyſz (Slavic) ‘only’, kacz, kac zeyg (cf. Polish choć, chociaż), while such forms are known only from older or earlier written sources: teipag, taipajeg, jeygi, jeig, bettaig, jeib, nė s, nėſa,

26

nešang, jeib, jeng, kada ‘that’, todrin, tapagalaus. No longer conform to present-day norms are taczaus and vienok either.

When observing the conjunctions in this grammar (as in the earliest grammars generally), one is struck by their greater divergence from conjunctions today and by a certain instability and fluidity. This characteristic is most likely explained by the fact that the conjunction is a part of speech that develops later than the others. In every old language, during the period before writing, the number of conjunctions must have been very limited. Spoken language is generally content with a smaller inventory of conjunctions, since simple, asyndetic constructions are more characteristic of it. Conjunctions become especially necessary in the written period of every language. They became particularly necessary in Lithuanian when the old writers began translating various texts, mostly religious in content, from other languages with more developed systems of conjunctions: prayers, hymns, the Bible, and so on. In such cases, a language’s own conjunctions are usually insufficient, so they must be borrowed from other languages or hastily formed using the language’s own resources. That is when loanwords and hastily formed neologisms emerge in a language, and over time they must give way to newer and more precise forms.

I n t e r j e c t i o n. As in the earliest grammars generally, the section on interjections in F. Haack’s grammar is very short—just ten lines. The author counts as many as ten groups of interjections here, which, like the conjunctions, are labeled as follows: 1. exclamation (o, ak), 2. affection (mielul, aukjut), 3. laughter (a, ė, á), 4. pain (ay, ak, deja, ayman), 5. admonition (a, o, ba), 6. cursing (czui, Pui), 7. weeping (Ui, ui, ui), 8. aid (a a), 9. threat (Nu, nu), 10. silencing (tit[z, štit[z, št, p]t).

Among other things, the section on interjections also shows that F. Haack made extensive use of D. Klein’s grammar. Here, the first five groups of interjections are copied almost word for word from D. Klein’s grammar, with exactly the same examples presented in precisely the same order. The only slight difference is in the Latin labels for these groups: D. Klein formed them with greater reference to the interjections themselves, while F. Haack oriented them more toward the reader. Thus, the former used the gerund form to label them, while the latter used the present active participle form; cf. D. Klein’s (interjectiones) exclamandi and F. Haack’s exclamantis.

Although not many interjections are listed here, as in D. Klein’s grammar, they are very Lithuanian indeed. Incidentally, at least one of the words mentioned here and classified as an interjection by both authors—namely deja—is not so much an interjection as a modal word.

It is interesting that none of the early grammarians drew attention to our ideophones, as if they did not consider them words. The ideophone is a category that entered grammars as a part of speech much later, when greater attention began to be paid to spoken language and to the language of literary works that reflects it.

IV. P.F. Ruigys’s “Introduction to a

Lithuanian Grammar”¹

A d v e r b. The publication of the grammars by D. Klein and P. F. Ruigys is separated by 94 years (almost a century). During that time (i.e., from 1653 to 1747)

¹Introduction to a Lithuanian Grammar, set out in its natural coherence, by Paul Friedrich Ruhig... Königsberg... 1747 (abbreviated hereafter as R).

27

At least four Lithuanian grammars by separate authors appeared in Prussian Lithuania; in addition to the usual, very concise treatment of phonetics, spelling, dialects, word formation, and syntax, they present morphology in somewhat greater detail, describing all the parts of speech recognized at the time: noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, preposition, conjunction, and interjection. Compared with the conventional classification of parts of speech today, only the particle and the ideophone are absent here. The particle is subsumed under the adverb, while the ideophone is not mentioned at all. The participle, considered a separate part of speech, increases the number of parts of speech here.

In all four of the earliest grammars, all parts of speech are divided into two groups: the first comprises inflected parts of speech (noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, verb, participle), and the second, uninflected parts of speech (adverb, preposition, conjunction, and interjection). Incidentally, the uninflected parts of speech are called particles (particulae) in all four grammars; thus adverbs, too, are particles, or little words. P. F. Ruigys calls the whole set of parts of speech ”die so genannten Partes Orationis” R 18. Elsewhere, he calls the uninflected parts of speech Nebenwörter R 115. Thus, for him, adverbs are also particulae, or Nebenwörter—that is, particles, or secondary, subordinate words.

The section on adverbs in P. F. Ruigys’s grammar begins, one might say, with almost exactly the same words as in F. Haack’s grammar; but the formation of adverbs is described by him (P. F. Ruigys) much more fully than in all the grammars published before his.

First, he states that adverbs can be formed from verbs, illustrating this claim with adverbs derived from necessitative participles, such as Laupſintinay, Myletinay, which are said to be formed from the infinitive of a verb by adding the “syllable” (die Sylbe) nay. Further, like all the authors of earlier grammars, he aptly notes the adverbial use of the “ablative” of nouns, i.e. the locative and instrumental, cf. his statement: ”Es ist zum voraus anzumerken... Daß sich... adverbia machen lassen,, von Nominibus Subst. deren Ablativus localis und besonders instrumentalis adverbialiter gebraucht wird, z.E. Widdųj’ drinner, Pulkų oder Pulkūais haufenweise” R 115—116. Still further, he discusses the formation of adjectival and participial adverbs, illustrated by examples such as Geras — geray, Didis — didey, Gražūs — gražey, Žinnomas — žinnomay. The formation of comparative and superlative forms of adjectival adverbs, as well as adverbs with the suffix -yn, is also touched upon: ”Geray, Compar. geráus besser, Superl. geráus am besten” R 116. The word ending áus indicates the circumflex accent, while áus indicates the acute accent.

What is interesting here is that the superlative form of such adverbs is first given with the ending áus, as though it were the usual, basic form; as for the full ending of the superlative form, áusey (=most), it is only said that ey (-est) is often added to =geráus. It would seem that there was then a tendency to shorten superlative forms, a tendency not found in the grammars of either D. Klein or K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas. Though not entirely accurately, P. F. Ruigys gives a very interesting explanation of the meaning of adverbs with the suffix -yn and their use with the verb eiti ‘to go’: in one case (e.g., Geryn eiti) it means ‘werden, fieri’, while in another (e.g., Eik tolyn) it has the ordinary meaning of going. Inaccurate

28

here is only the claim that yn supposedly forms the comparative, cf.: ”Bei dem verbo eiti... wird in Comparativo yn angehänget” R 116. Nor is the claim entirely accurate that the “inseparable particles” gi, gu, juk, ja, pi, na, link, jau are added to adverbs, since in fact some of them do not combine, or do not always combine, with an adverb (e.g., juk, link, jau).

P. F. Ruigys’s grammar also presents 23 semantic subsections of adverbs, which, as in all the other grammars of that period, include particles as well. Although many of the examples listed here coincide exactly with examples found in other grammars (especially F. Haack’s grammar), there are also many that cannot be found in them. Thus P. F. Ruigys, too, made use of other grammars, while also seeking to include at least a somewhat greater variety of adverbs. For example, particles entirely copied from other grammars (by D. Klein or F. Haack), and regarded by all of them as adverbs, include ar, argi, argi, bau, bės ‘whether’, Arne.

P. F. Ruigys seems to have made particularly extensive use of F. Haack’s grammar in dividing adverbs into semantic subsections. In both grammars, the titles of those subsections are identical; the numbering (sequence) of the sections is strikingly exactly the same, and their number is also identical (namely, 23). Many examples in these sections are not only exactly alike but are also listed in the same order. Nevertheless, we also find here examples absent from earlier grammars. They were therefore not copied from other grammars, but collected entirely independently by the author. These are adverbs, or words and expressions that the author considers adverbs, for example: Tam dáikte, I[z kažinkur, Tenuy, Ténlink, Tenjau, Szénlink, Anàpu], į widdų; į[z užpakalo; Dabàr tikt, Dár ne; Tùla kartù, Kiek sykù, Daug sykù, Wienlinkay, Dár wienera tiek, Dwéje tiek, Tréje tiek, Kétwera tiek, Penkera tiek, S[é]zera tiek, Septynera tiek, A[š]tonera tiek, Devynera tiek, De[š]zimtera tiek, Szimtera tiek, Tùk[stantera tiek, Toktù ‘thus’, Koktù ‘in what manner’, Bjaurey, I[š]mintingay, Tìkkray, Wertay, Stipprey, Nù[š]zirdžiey, Preteli[š]zkay, Szwelney, Mandagiey, Dikay, Regèmay, Dówanay, Meiley, Užką, Kù budu; Néy ‘as if, like’, Szittàipo, Szittu budù; ir wel, Pamažėlù; I[z tie], Manding, Mán ródo; Nieku budù; Kázin, Konè ‘almost’; Testow ‘let it be’, Bent Sykį.

P. F. Ruigys’s broad-ranging undertaking in compiling semantic subsections of adverbs was such that they came to include adverbial constructions, phrases, and even phraseological expressions and idioms (sometimes not entirely Lithuanian), for example: Ant antro ‘secondly’, Ant tréčio ‘thirdly’...; Wienam dáikte, Ko ne mittes? ‘why not?’, Kai mą Diews (emphasizing the great certainty of something), Diewė dūk kad.

As we can see, in the abundance and greater variety of examples in the section on adverbs, P. F. Ruigys’s grammar surpasses the other earlier grammars; this already attests to the author’s great command of his native language and his closest ties with the people and their spoken language.

References to Latin, Ancient Greek, and Hebrew, and the comparison of facts from those languages with facts from Lithuanian, show that P. F. Ruigys was a well-prepared linguist. He must undoubtedly have received the foundations of Lithuanian studies first and foremost from his father, Pilypas Ruigys, a great eighteenth-century Lithuanian scholar and the author of the “Lithuanian–German and German–Lithuanian Dictionary” and the famous treatise ”Betrachtung der Littauischen Sprache”; his studies in Königsberg must also have helped him considerably

29

university and teaching in the Lithuanian Seminar.

P r i e l i n k s n i s. According to P. F. Ruigys, a preposition is a particle, that is, an invariable function word used to specify something more precisely in relation to a name, that is, a noun, e.g. Pas Brolį R 18.

As in other early grammars, two types of prepositions are recognized here: separable (separabiles) and inseparable (inseparabiles). The former are presented according to the cases they govern (R 122–123).

Prepositions governing the genitive: Nū, nū, nūg, pirm, dėl, ant, tarp, įž, be, pri, prie, prieg, arti, e.g.: Nūg manęs, pirm to Czie[o, dėl Žmonū, ant Kalno, tarp Dangaus bey Žėmės, įž gėros Wāles, be Razumo, prie Butto ‘near the houses’, arti Kėlo.

Prepositions governing the accusative: Per, pas, pra, arba pro, apie, aplink, prie[ž, į, ing, pa[kui, pagal, linkay, e.g.: Per tiltą, pas manę, pro Wartus, apie tą Dāiktą* kalba, aplink Bažnyčią. Prie[ž Karāly [tengtis (‘stand up, revolt’), į Dangų nukakti, pa[kui jį, pagal Žodį Diewo, menę link.

Prepositions governing the instrumental: [u, [ulyg, ties, e.g.: Su gera Walė, [ulyg Dienā, ties Buttū.

ikki is used with the genitive and dative: Ikki [žios Dienos and iki [žei Dienai.

The preposition už is used with the genitive when it means ‘on the other side, beyond’: Už Butto stow; otherwise it takes the accusative: už jį užmokėjo. According to is used with both the accusative and genitive, while prieg is used with both the accusative and dative: Pagal Žodžio (and Žodį)Diewo, priegto and priegtam.

The preposition po governs different cases according to its meaning: the genitive (po kairės rankos, po [žwento Traicės), the dative (po [žwentaį Traicei), the accusative (po wi[fą [wietą, po du, po trys), or the instrumental (po Diewu e[me, po Dangumi, po Stalū).

According to P. F. Ruigys, separable prepositions are used fused with nouns: Antwožas, Pirmgalis, Prgweizda, Tarply[ė, Nūmona ‘opinion’, [żbraukiei ‘what is removed when flax is combed, combings’; with adjectives: Per[funku, užpérnik[žtis; with pronouns: todėl, potam, priegtam; with verbs: Nukertù, į[žeimù prie[tarāuju, į[ziilg[tu, U[ſikėtinu, užſikėtinu ‘I become hardened’; with adverbs: Berōds, pripultinay.

At the end of the chapter (R 124), the so-called inseparable prepositions (inseparabiles) are discussed, “which mostly derive from separable ones, while the latter derive from Greek. They include ap, api (from apie), at, par (from per), pa (from pas or po), pi (from pri) and na. The former occur at the beginning of a word; the latter, namely pi, na, occur at the end of a word.” Compare them in nouns apdangalas, Pawa[aris, at[tankas ‘remnant’, Pardo[zkę ‘sale’; adjectives Apkunus ‘plump’; verbs apžūrù, apipjāustu (=apipjāustau), ateimì, pareimì, pākā[u; adverbs atgalōs, aplink, palaimingay.

^*It should be Dāiktą.

30

Regarding inseparable postpositions pi and na, the following is said. The former occurs at the end of the genitive, instrumental, and locative forms of nouns, and the latter at the end of the accusative (the final i and a may drop out, e.g.: Diewopi, Diewumpi (with epenthetic m) instead of Diewupi, Diewip’ from Diewije instead of Diewė, Gražaumpi, Gražampi, Wienopi, Wienampi, Wienip’, Manęs[pi], mu[?]umpi, mu[j]ip’. Na occurs with the singular of nouns, e.g.: Danguna, Dangun’, and with adverbs: Tolun, Laukan, Auk[š]tyn.

P.F. Ruigys’s conception of separable and inseparable prepositions differs somewhat from that of the other authors of the earliest grammars: he also calls some adverbs separable prepositions, e.g.: ap, api, at, par, pa. In this respect he is in agreement with K.C. Milkus, who, in fact, copied most of his material from him. Moreover, P.F. Ruigys may be more closely connected than the other early Lithuanian grammarians with Romance linguistics. This is evident from the section on prepositions alone, where it is stated that separable prepositions are supposedly derived from Greek.

Nor do we find any other particularly striking variations or rarities concerning prepositions in this grammar. Perhaps the only exception is that be in the modal word Berōds is treated here as an inseparable preposition, which the author classifies among prepositions.

Prepositions are also mentioned in the section “Vom Regimine Praepositionum” (R 148). Here we find the author’s strange yet interesting reflections on how prepositions “in compositione bei den Verbis” (that is, verb prefixes) govern the cases required by the verb itself. If a verb “extra compositionem” (that is, without a prefix) does not govern a case directly, and is therefore neutral with respect to government, then “in compositione” it takes the case governed by the prefix, e.g.: Ap[stoti Pillį, Apgalėti Nėpriešlį, Pėržengti Prij[akimus, Pėrgalėti Welnią, Praeimi Bažnyčią, Užžengti Dangų, Užgėrti ka[žką. It is understandable that such reflections could only have been prompted by the conflation of prefixes with prepositions.

The author’s remark that pirm, ikki can also be used as conjunctions is likewise strange and interesting. This is illustrated with examples: Pirm nueinant, Pirm mán nuejus, Ikki au[štant, Ikki mán atei[jent. What is interesting here is that the author sensed the special use of these prepositions and, in order to describe it, classified them in such cases as conjunctions.

C o n j u n c t i o n. The following conjunctions are listed here: 1) coordinating: Ir, bey, irgì, o, teip, taip; 2) disjunctive: ar ar, ar arba, buk buk, ney ney; 3) conditional: jėy, jeygu, jeygi, jeyme, kittayp, pirm, pirm neng; 4) adversative: allė, bet, ben, tiktay, wienók, ben ne; 5) concessive: Kacz, kacżeyg, norint, nēy, kad ir; 6) causal: Nēs, ne[a, ne[ang, jog, kadangi, būtent, jeib, idant, kad; 7) conclusive: Todėl, todėley, aža ‘kad net’,tau; 8) connective: Priegtam, toliauš, potám, galáu[ey, pa[kiáu[ey, ikki R 124—125. They do not differ greatly from the conjunctions presented in the other early grammars. Most are Lithuanian and are still in use today, but quite a few are no longer used, e.g.: buk buk, jeygi, pirm neng, allė, wienók, Kacz, kacżeygi, Nēs, nē[a, Nē[ang, jeib, aža, Priegtam, Toliaus. Some of them are calques: buk buk, wienók (cf. Polish bądź bądź, jednak); borrowings (Polonisms): allė, Kacz, kacżeygi, aža; archaisms: jeygi, pirm neng, nēs, nē[a, nē[ang, jeib, Priegtam, Toliaus.

Conjunctions are also discussed in the syntax section “Vom regimine Conjunctionum” (R 149—151). Here, more than in the other early grammars,

31

more living language data is presented—sentences and other expressions illustrating the use of conjunctions and the ways words and sentences are joined, e.g.: Kaip Pons Dievus Dangų bey Žemę sutwere, tay Žėmė buvo pulſta ir tuſzcza, o (ir) buvo Tamſu ant Gillybės. Regarding the joining of nouns, it is further stated that bey joins only individual words: Saulė bey Mėnu; Bey gerieji, bey piktieji, beygi kožnas Žmogus. O ‘ir’ joins sentences: Aſz jūs myliu, o jūs mane ne mylit; O Pons Dievus paſakė Obroomu.

Ir joins nouns, verbs, and sentences alike: Dangus ir Žėmė ſugrùs ir niekù pawirs, ir Ponas Dievus abbùdu kitokiu padarys.

Use of “verbal conjunctions” with indicative and subjunctive forms: Mės džiauġſimės, kad Kriſtus ateis; Ką miſliji, kad dabar Kriſtus ateitu?; Ir praſzykime Dievą, kad (jeib, idant) Pakąjų dūtų ant Žėmės.

The use of pirm and ikki, classified as conjunctions, is illustrated as follows: Pirm ateinant, jis ſawę apſakydis; Pirm tam būſent; Pirm Dangų ſutvėrus; Pirm mums atėjus; pirm Sālei (=saulei) užtekant; Ikki Kriſtui ateiſent (also iki Kriſtus ateis); Ikki pawalgant paláuk (also ikki pawálgyſu...). In fact, what is shown here is not so much the use of these “conjunctions” as the parallel use of verbs and corresponding converbs, which does not entirely correspond to present-day norms.

Such examples also demonstrate the use of participles and verbs in sentences rather than conjunctions (especially those in which conjunctions are entirely omitted):Girdžiu kad jis eſąs juſip’, arba kad jis eſti...; Pažadėjo man, kad Nammei būſęs, arba... bus; Herodas girdėjo, kad Iſzganvtojis uſzgimęs; buvo pažadėjęs kad Žmones buſę žegnoti; norėjo pabandyti, bau buſęs tikſkus; Klauſė, kur Awis eſanti; pirm numirſztas pažadėjo Žėgnonę dūti, jéy ſlaužiſes; kaip ji pradėjusi ſzaukti tai jis iſzbėgęs; Mės iſipážyſtam jog tai ne muſų eſanti Teiſybė; kokį nors Czeſą, kad tikrai paſitikėtuṃbim per jį amžinay buſę iſzganvyti; Pradėjo Paraonas gailėtis, jùs iſzleidęs.

Cf. also: Sákoſi turįs (instead of kad turįs); Kalbà buvo Iſzganvtojis užgimſęs; Atſákė Joſepas, wienas iš jų turįs Nammù kelláuti; iſz to galeſęs numatytį, ar jie Spėgai eſą; Jie ſáko eſą (kad eſą, arba é(ti) atſu(ti). Pažadėjo dūſęs; tyrinėjo kiek (i.e. ben) žinnąs iſz manes; Klauſė, kodėl (ben) jie eſą Spėgais; neſ ſakė (kad) pañukſtyſęs; netikkėſi (=netikkija?) ſuláukſenti Waikų; ſkundžiaſi Netėkės; nuſidùt nežiņngs.

According to the author, the possibility of omitting a conjunction is also shown by examples such as: Jėzus pawadinnes Waikėlį ſawępi, klauſė jį, arba wadinnno Waikėlį awępi, klauſdams jį; Jėy Dievus ateidams raſtu tawę Griekose; Ką darydams apturėſu amžiną Gywātą [?] instead of ką daryſu ir (taipo) apturėſu...?

The author’s examples also show that in his time participial and converb constructions were actively used in place of subordinate object clauses introduced by the conjunction kad: Kadangi Dievus iſzroda jį mus mylint, eum nos amare, also jį mus mylintį (cf.: Kadangi Dievus iſzrod’, kad jis mus myl’); Miſliji mane turėſent, also turėſentį Czeſą; girdėjau tawę ſweiką muſump’ parėjus, also parėjuſį; Skundžiaſi ſawę nemylimą eſant, also eſantį, also Skundžias ne mylims eſąs.

Cf. also: Dievė dùk mums naują Mėtą ſweikiems ſuláukt; Dùk mano

32

Call/summon you to oneself; Tell them, being I/zganytiems; To me, while saying that, it was nu/šidawė; He says that to him it was thus; As the Last Day draws near.

Interjection. Ten groups of this part of speech are presented here: 1. exclamation (o, ah!), 2. affection (mielul, auk/ut), 3. laughter (á, ã, ã), 4. pain (ay, ak, dejā, ayman, bejčū, taiĝā), 5. reproof (a, o, bā), 6. cursing (czui, pui), 7. weeping (Ui, ui, ui), 8. mockery (a a), 9. embellishment (Nu, nu, Szuk/ztu, Minnáu), 10. silencing (Tit/ž, št, čit, pjt). The Latin names of these groups and the order in which they are arranged are exactly the same as in F. Haack's grammar; only a few new words occur here (be/ka ‘surely?’, taiĝā, Szuk/ztu, Minnáu ‘no’, though this is more a particle than an interjection). And here, as is evident from the examples given and the structure of the whole chapter, there is a great deal of copying from earlier grammars.

In the excessively brief syntax subsection “Vom Regimine Interjectionum” (R 151), only the use of the interjection Ak with cases is presented. It is said here that, when referring to the speaker, ak is used with the nominative, dative, and accusative, while in addressing a second person the vocative is also used: Ak! a/š Bednas!; Ak man Bednam!; Ak manę Bedną!; Ak! kok/ai Pauk/ztis!; Ak! Būda [zio Czéjo, o tempora, o mores!; Ak grie/žna/šis Žmogau! The author's assertion that ak governs (regieret) the cases listed here cannot, of course, be considered correct, although it does show the author's efforts to discern a connection and relationship between words everywhere.

V. G. Ostermeyer's “Neue Littauische Grammatik”¹

Adverb. The fifth section on etymology in this grammar covers the so-called particles, that is, the adverb, preposition, conjunction, and interjection; here we also find remarks on word formation and dialects.

This grammar's section on adverbs (at least in its selection of adverbs) is very reminiscent of the corresponding sections in all the other early grammars (perhaps with the sole exception of the grammar by K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas). Thus, it is neither particularly original nor independent. The main body of the adverbs presented by G. Ostermeyer is also found in other grammars. In this respect, he is no exception.

The section on adverbs itself begins by stating that grammarians need only a small collection of adverbs, on the basis of which they can already judge other adverbs (those not included in that collection). Next, as in the other grammars discussed here, it is recalled that adverbs are divided into certain classes and that various adverbs may belong to more than one class.

Among the rarer, more interesting, or more vivid words and expressions that the author regards as adverbs, the following are worth mentioning: ſzenlink, tenlink, wienatrul ‘in one direction’ (alongside katrul), dabar/tei ‘just now’, wakar wakar ‘yesterday evening’, anday ‘not-

¹Neue Littauische Grammatik ans Licht gesetellt von Gottfried Ostermeyer, der Trempenschen Gemeine Pastore Seniore und der Königlich–Deutschen Gesellschaft zu Königsberg Ehren–Mitglied. Königsberg, 1791... (hereafter — Ost).

33

‘long ago’, pamažy, minau not ‘by no means’, arties ‘perhaps’, kai man Dievs ‘most certainly’, manęs dėl ‘because of me’ Ost 113–114. It is especially interesting that G. Ostermeyer was the first of all the early grammar authors to give somewhat greater prominence to participial adverbs, particularly those formed from passive or necessity participles, e.g.: įžąnomay, įžmanomay, regimay, būtinay, mirtinay, pripiltinay, mylėtinay, wir[linay Ost 114.

What stands out is the Lithuanian character, normativity, and correctness of almost all the adverbs given by G. Ostermeyer. Of all the adverbs, or words and expressions otherwise treated as adverbs, discussed in his etymology section on adverbs, one can say that only two are barbarisms: loſkaway ‘pleasantly, graciously’ and wiezlibay ‘politely’. Incidentally, this characteristic of the adverbs noted here is, one might say, typical of all the early Lithuanian grammars published in Prussian Lithuania. Thus, the adverb section, too, shows that the authors of the early grammars genuinely strove to improve and standardize the Lithuanian literary language, making it common to all Lithuanians.

G. Ostermeyer discusses the use of adverbs in the syntax section of his grammar. Since, like all the other early grammar authors, he classified all particles as adverbs, the discussion here in the syntax section likewise conflates the use of particles with that of certain adverbs. First, it is stated that adverbia copiae et inopiae (adverbs of abundance and lack) govern the genitive, e.g.: daug Pinigų, daugiaus Garbės, gana Žodžių, maž Dūnos, menk Proto Ost 162–163. It is further stated that Geray “hat einen Dativum” (takes, or governs, the dative). The same is said to be true of bepig, e.g.: bepig taw. Both these adverbs can also take the preposition su with an instrumental construction, e.g.: Bepig su Dūna, bile tikt Rugiu Ost 163.

All of G. Ostermeyer’s other observations on the use of adverbs are in fact nothing more than features of the use of interrogative and negative particles, or of questions and answers.

This brief overview shows that G. Ostermeyer contributed little that was new to the treatment of adverbs in his grammar, compared with the authors of other grammars.

P r e p o s i t i o n. At the very beginning of the chapter “Von den Particulis” (Ost 112), the author describes prepositions as words that acquire a function they did not previously have when placed before nouns or verbs. Clearly, this description of prepositions is neither precise nor exhaustive. Prepositions are used not only with nouns but also with pronouns; conversely, their use with verbs is possible only to a very limited extent, e.g.: before going, before setting out, until eating, until we return, and so on. This curious view of prepositions was prompted by the fact that, like the other early grammar authors, he also regarded prefixes as prepositions, dividing them all into separable (separabiles) and inseparable (inseparabiles) prepositions.

Here are the separable prepositions: anápus, anót, ant, apie, aplink, arty, aurė, be, dėl, gale, į, iki, įž, įžilgay, laukė, link, lyg, sulyg, nū, pagal, pas, paſkųy, per, pirm, po, pri, prie, prieg, prieſz, po, ſu, ſzallė, paſzalį, tarp, ties, už, widuy’.

The author astutely observes further that some of these prepositions are nouns (Nomina) that have acquired a prepositional meaning, e.g.: laukė Mieſto ‘outside the town’, ſzallė kalno; while others are adverbs used prepositionally, e.g.: aplink, arty, paſkųy, widuy, anǫžal.

And here are the inseparable prepositions: ap, api, at, par, pra, da, pa, ſa, pi, and n or na. In fact, these are heterogeneous elements—prefixes and postpositions. The author does not forget the prefix of Slavic origin da, which he

34

derives it from Polish *do*, but is entirely mistaken par is derived from per, ſą — from su, and so on.

In the syntax section “Von den Praepositionibus” (165—173), the so-called governing prepositions are set out according to the cases with which they are used.

1. With the genitive: anapus, anąſzal (anapus Girrôs, anąſzal Uppės); anôt (anôt Têwo); ant (ant Kalno, ant Garbės ‘for the sake of honor’, ant Wandenų), arty (artų Kiemó ‘of the village’); aurė (aurė Girrôs ‘by the forest’); be (be Piningų, be Kriſtaus nierą išzganymo, be jokiós mano Kaltybės, taip pat be wiſſós...); dėl, dėley (dėl Diewo, dėl Teiſybės, taip pat Garbės dėl, manęs dėl); iš (iš Priſzakio, iš Mieſto, iš jaunų Dienų, iš jo girdėjau); išilgai (išilgai Kiemo); laukė (lauke Mieſto ‘outside the town’); nù, nùg (nù jo gawau, nù Kalno, nù Mieſto, nù ſawęs); pirm (pirm manęs, pirm Saulės Užtekėjimo, pirm Smerčio, cf.: pirm Saulei užtekant); pri (pri manęs, pri Momôs), prie, prieg (prie Sudžiôs, prie Ežero); ſzallė, paſzalių (Szallė tawęs, paſzalių Mieſto); tarp (tarp Pulko, tarp dwėjų Kalnų); widuj’ (widuj’ Nakties).

The prepositional use of the particle (or adverb) aurė is strange and doubtful here.

2. With the dative: lyg ‘like, as’ (lyg Diewui; tai ne lyg jo Noſei; lyg Wandenų plaukti). Such prepositional use of the word lyg is now wholly unusual and difficult to justify. Could the particle lyg have been mistaken here for a preposition?

3. With the accusative: apie (Moizeſzus apie manę raſze); aplink (aplink Mieſtą); į, in (neėjo į Kiemą ‘village’, į Pakajų įſidit ‘to be satisfied’, eilė ing Artimą, Krikſztits į Kriſtų, tikiu į Diewų, tai jam ne į Duſzę ‘not to his taste’. pas (pas jj, atėjo pas manę, pas Kelg ‘on the road’); paſkui (paſkui ji); per (per Naktį, per Miſzą, per Tiltą, daryſi per mano Maldą, per Durną ji laiko, per Newalę ‘by force’); prieſz (prieſz Weliną karauti, prieſz Wyraunſybę patogyę ‘decently’ behave, prieſz Rugių ‘harvest time’, prieſz mirſztant); pro, pra (pro Wartus, pro tawę ‘to you’ tas Walgiſ, pro Diewą melſt, pra ſzali eiti).

The expressions pro Diewą melſt ‘to ask God’ and pro tawę ‘to you’ tas Walgiſ are also unusual.

4. With the instrumental: ſu (ſu manim, ſu Diewu ‘may God protect you’); ſulyg (ſulyg Diena), ties (ties Buttu ‘houses’, ties Jezaus Kryžum’ gullėt).

5. With the genitive and dative: įkki (įkki galo, įkki ſzios Dienos, also ſzei Dienai, įkki Mieſto, also Mieſtui; cf.: įkki ateinant, ateiſent).

6. With the genitive and accusative: link, linkay (Szaurù link ‘toward the north’, Pietų link; cf.: Dangun’ link, aukſtyn link, žemyn link); pagal (pagal Raſto ir Raſtą, pagal Kriſtupą ‘after Kristupas’ gimme Kubas); už (už Girrôs, už Angôs ſtow; užritto Akmenį už Angą Grabo, Kriſtus kentėjo už mus).

The expression užritto Akmenį už Angą ‘rolled the stone over the opening’ is now entirely unusual.

7. With four cases, but with different meanings: po (po Welykų, po mažam ‘soon’, po deſzinei, but also po deſzinės, po ſawam geriau ‘better by oneself’, po wiſſą Swietą, ėmė po Graſzi, po Pelną ‘to pay according to merit’, po Dangum, po Swietu užaugęs — said of an orphan). Cf.: Po Akų, po Akim’, po Akimis.

The so-called inseparable prepositions pi and na are classified as such. The former (pi) is attached to the genitive of nouns and pronouns (Sudopį ‘before the court’, Kryžauspį ‘at the cross’, deſzineſpi ‘on the right’, Diewopi ſzaukti, manęspi atėjo ‘came to me’, muſumpi, juſumpi. The author also indicates the following forms found in written texts: gerampį, ſaldumpi, Diewipi, which are not as

35

are popular, as in prie Diewo, pri manęs, pri tawęs. The second (na) is added to the accusative (Dangų’ gabentas, Miėstąn’ nuėjo). But here, too, it is said more often: į Dangų, į Miėstą. Cf.: geryn, didyn, mažyn, šenyn, aukštyn ‘to go for the better, to increase, to decrease, this way, upward’.

The author calls verbal and nominal prefixes Praepostiones in Compositione, correctly noting that they change the meaning of the word to which they are attached, e.g.: įkrėju — apįkrėju ‘I wrap around’, jūkšu — apjūkšu, verkiu — apverkiu, šiaučiu — atšiaučiu, dūmi — atdūmi; further cf.: atganyti, atkeįti, įpūlu, įįgyvenu ‘I establish myself on a farm’, įįžgyvenu, nužengti, pakreikti, pagūkti, pinti, pagarbenti, perkrėkti, prilyginti, Priešginys ‘one who opposes’, pramanyti, Šakaliny̆s ‘fellow prisoner’, Santėwonis ‘co-heir’, sudžūti, šuarti, užrakinti, užsiimūršti, užsigauti.

Having surveyed prefixed words, the author identifies the following advantage of Lithuanian: what a German says in many words, a Lithuanian can express in one syllable (understand: a prefix). Sometimes the meaning of a prefixed word differs greatly from that of the simple form; cf.: dūmi ‘I give’ and apdūmi ‘I poison’, pardūmi, įzdūmi; demi ‘I put’ and nudėmi ‘I commit an offense’, sėkiu (= siekiu) and prišėkiu ‘I accept an oath’. Also interesting is the author's observation that prefixed and unprefixed words often have nearly the same meaning, e.g.: kalbinu and užkalbinu; especially pa does not alter the meanings of verbs. Of course, this observation is not precise, just as it is inaccurate to claim that there are prefixed words (Composita) with different, almost opposite meanings, e.g.: atleisti ‘to release’ and ‘to forgive (a transgression)’, prigauti ‘to reach’ and ‘to deceive’. The author calls the words įžpažįstu, įžpa]akoju, užpakawojų, užprįjekiu Decomposita.

By treating prefixes as prepositions, the author was one of the first Lithuanian scholars to explain the meanings of prefixed words, sometimes conflating them, but often demonstrating the insight characteristic of a good Lithuanian scholar.

C o n j u n c t i o n. The description of the conjunction is especially interesting: it states that words belonging to this part of speech affect the periodic structure of speech and, according to their functions, fall into certain types, namely: 1. connective (ir, irgi, bey, taipojeg ‘also’), 2. disjunctive (ar ar, ar arba, būk būk, ney ney), 3. explanatory (būtent, įdant), 4. conditional (jey, jeygi, jeygu, kai, kad, jey ne, kittai p, pirm, pirm neng), 5. adversative (o, bet, tacz, taczau, bettaig, tikt, tiktau), 6. concessive (kacz, kaczeig, norint, ney, kad ir), 7. causal (nės, nėla, nėsang, kadang, jėib, įdant, jeng, kad, jog), 8. inferential (kodėl, todėl, todrin, tai), 9. relational (prietąm, potam, toliaus, galausey, paškiau[ey]) Ost 117–118.

The author's observation that some of these conjunctions can function as adverbs when they are more closely connected with the verb than with the sentence as a whole is very interesting and perceptive. As in other early grammars, there are entirely foreign or not entirely Lithuanian, as well as older, words (kacz, kaczeig, nės, nėlang, etc.).

The section “Syntaxis Conjunctionum” (Ost 173–178) provides numerous examples and rules for the use of conjunctions; these are, of course, often of very questionable accuracy, and at times the author playfully qualifies or restricts them. For instance, it is said that o occurs at the beginning of a period, whereas bet, alle occurs in the middle of a sentence. However, the author adds, the Bible very frequently deviates from this rule. Therefore, perhaps the most accurate approach here would be to present the material illustrating the use of conjunctions, pausing only to consider the author's more interesting and original ideas.

Tėwo bey Momos Kudikis; Momos, ne Tėwo Weiſle; mulių tawe, ir wis milėlu; ar werkia, ar įukia; Die wus Swietą sutwere ir įšlaiko; O apie dewintą adyną łzaukė Jezus: Eli; O Jezus łzaukdamas didžiu Balſu įzleido Dwaſę; tai wiſſiems ant naudos, bet man labjausſey; ſawo darbą tykray pradėjo, alle

36

[z]ikart ne laimėjo; whether [žeip, or so; whether young, whether [ens; neither [zis, nor he; if God is for us, who can be against us?; if God had not been with us, our enemies would surely have devoured us; if someone is not born again, he will not see the Kingdom of God; although God condemns the world, nevertheless it does not fear him; although the world should collapse, only the Kingdom of God will not collapse; even if something were somehow difficult; I will not agree with him, even if someone were to torture me somehow; God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son; God gave his Son so that he might judge the world; it is already understood that he will not recover from that illness.

Here the author recalls that in former times jog and kad were used interchangeably; today, he says, only kad is used, and it is often omitted, with a participle used instead of the verb in the imperative: girdėjau, jog [weiks e[ęs; žadėjo, kad [zendien mus atlanky[ęs; Jožepas [ake, wiens i[z jų turis Namų kelauti, ir jaunau[į [awo Brolį pargabenti; i[z to galė[ęs numanyti, ar jie Spėgai e[ę; džiaugias [awo Kaimyną prigawęs; idant ne pakly[cžiau, jis man Wadą dawe; jeib tą Mokslą i[zmanytum’, mums wi[lką gražey i[zgulde; graudenà jus, idant Diewui wiernay [lužikite; aža ‘even, so that’ Akis jam apmarko ‘his eyes grow dim’; aža Žeme padrebėjo (= padrebėjo); pirmeng mir[ų ir pirm man mir[tant; ikki ateis ir atei[ęs, jam atei[ent.

The author goes on to explain, in a curious but interesting way, that when there are two verbs, the conjunction ir is often omitted and one of the verbs is replaced by a participle or half-participle: bėgdamas pūlė; atėjo mel[damis; privalgęs gultėjo; newiermay pa[ielgdamas nů Urėdo ‘service’ atstatytas tape; newienay pa[ielgiančio Urėdas kittam teko; newiermay pa[ielgiančiam Urėdą atėmė; newiermay pa[ielgiantį nů Urėdo atstate.

The author’s following rules are especially interesting. If the second part of a period (clause) speaks of something else, then in the first part the nominative changes to the dative, and the participle to a gerund (converb): mums priwalg jus, atkelawo Swečiai; jam dar bekalbant, [ztay Judo[zus atėjo; but if both parts speak of the same thing, such a construction is impossible: instead of Jokubui matant, kad Jawai..., tarė he must say: Jokubas matydamas... tarė; instead of jiems parėjus — Jožepas jus įkalbino it must be: jus parėju[us Jožepas įkalbino.

Having derived this rule, the author says that errors of this kind abound in printed books. Thus, G. Ostermeyer emerges not only as one of our earliest grammarians, but also as one of the first stylists and correctors of literary language. He should also be mentioned as an excellent comparer of Lithuanian with other languages, for example Latin, which he knew well. Here is what he says: “Just as Latin quod and ut often omits and then uses the accusative with the infinitive, so too does the Lithuanian, except that instead of the infinitive he uses a gerund or the accusative of a participle,” e.g.: žinome Diewą Swietą [utwerus, arba [utweru[į; tikiu cze e[ant, arba e[antį, Griekų Atleidimą.

The author illustrates the omission of the conjunction kad with examples such as these as well: jie i[zpažino, Swečes ir Ateiwjeis e[ą ant Žemės; Diewe dūk mažų gimt, didžių augt; man reik [kupam ‘thrifty’ buti; ne pawydėk jam link[mam buti; Waikams pareitis paklu[nėms buti; Diewe dūk jums naują Mėta [weikiems [ulaukti. He ends the whole section on the syntax of conjunctions by correcting the sentence tu dėsi jį pra[totą būti as follows: tu dė[į jam pra[totam buti.

I n t e r j e c t i o n s. As many as 14 groups of this part of speech are distinguished here, that is, more than in any of the first six grammars. They are: 1. exclamations (O! ak! Ach, brak[z! — if someone falls and makes a thud), 2. endearments (mielul, auk[ut), 3. encouragement (ben, bent), 4. laughter (à à à), 5. stopping (stuy!), 6. indignation (czai! pui! beda!), 7. pain (ay, ak, dėja, ay man,

37

bėda), 8. wishing (Įzlowėk!), 9. astonishment (tataigi!), 10. admonishing (à, bà), 11. action (ui, ū, ui), 12. threat (nù, Įzukštu, minau), 13. giving (te ‘take’), 14. silencing (titjz, ticż, cit, pſt, st) Ost 118.

At the end of the chapter, the author says that he has not provided German equivalents everywhere because some Lithuanian interjections are pure sounds, while no equivalents can be found in German for others. In fact, among the words listed above, only one can be understood as denoting a sound—brakſz. But this is not an interjection; it is a true ideophone. Thus G. Ostermeyer was the first among all creators of Lithuanian grammars to identify a clear ideophone, even though he classified it as an interjection. This is also confirmed by his remark that Lithuanians have more such words and sounds, which they insert into speech to express affect, surprise, and the like, and that they can be learned, if one wishes, only by associating with Lithuanians (Ost 119). In other words, this remark too emphasizes sounds, and an ideophone is precisely not a word caused by human affect, but an imitation of sounds caused by the environment and natural phenomena (brakšt, trākšt, keberiókšt, etc.). At any rate, in the history of Lithuanian grammar G. Ostermeyer was the first to grasp more clearly the essence of the ideophone, though he did not yet regard it as a separate part of speech.

This grammar also contains a section entitled “Syntaxis Interjectionum” (Ost 178—179). It states that interjections govern neither cases nor moods, but that cases or verbs may be used alongside them, e.g.: ak Bėda!, ak aſz bėdnas!, ak man bėdnam! ak manę bėdną!, o Kriſtau!, ak mans Diewe!, ak ramdikis!, ak ne melók!, ak czedik!, bėda taw!, bėda ſu Wyru ‘away with the man, I don’t need him’, ay man! ‘woe is me’, ſzlowėk taw ‘be well!’, ſzukſztu jums ‘no, forbidden!’, tè Kudikį, ticż Waike!, ſtuy Brolau!, ben girdėkit ‘please listen’.

Of course, not everything presented in the grammar is an interjection. As mentioned, brakſz is an unmistakable ideophone; mielul, aukſut are rather modal words than interjections; tataigi and te are particles. Nevertheless, the great majority are genuine interjections, arranged with remarkable care according to their meanings. The originality and independence of the interjections section, as well as its Lithuanian character, are also striking.

VI. K.G. Mielcke, “Fundamental Principles of Lithuanian Grammar”¹

A d v e r b. As indicated on the title page, K.G. Mielcke took P.F. Ruhig’s grammar as the basis for this grammar, but substantially expanded it, adding a great deal and making corrections. However, at least the adverb section differs relatively little from P.F. Ruhig’s grammar. The very titles of the sections on indeclinable, or secondary (Nebenwörter), parts of speech and on the adverb are already

¹ Fundamental Principles of Lithuanian Grammar, in which the grammar formerly published by the younger Ruhig has indeed been taken as the basis, but has been improved and enlarged with substantial additions and new elaborations by Christian Gottlieb Mielcke, cantor in Pillkallen. Königsberg, 1800 (hereafter — Milk).

38

identical in both grammars, namely: “Sixth Section. On the Number and Variety of the Particles, or Recensio Particularum... §83. I. On Adverbs”. This exact correspondence even in the headings and paragraphs clearly shows that K.G. Mielcke copied from P.F. Ruhig’s grammar. The adverb section itself, “On Adverbs,” begins with exactly the same words, and the page devoted to the functions of adverbs is copied verbatim from P.F. Ruhig’s grammar.

Toliau visiškai ta pačia eilės tvarka ir tais pačiais lotyniškais pavadinimais išdėstyti 23 prieveiksmių semantiniai skyreliai, kurių tik penki vienu kitu ž_cžiu skiriasi nuo P.F.Ruigio gramatikos atitinkamų skyrelių. Pagaliau ir tų penkių nutolimas nuo atitinkamų P.F.Ruigio gramatikos skyrelių yra minimalus. Štai, pavyzdžiui, K.G.Milkaus gramatikoje laiko (temporis) prieveiksmių skyrelis papildytas vienu prieveiksmiu — Tolydziau, kuris į vokiečių kalbą išverstas žodžiu sogleich (?); kokybės (qualitatis) prieveiksmių skyrelis papildytas vieninteliu žodžiu Stropěy, priesaikos bei patvirtinimo (jurandi) prieveiksmių skyrelis — žodžiais Diewaži, Diewažigi ir pagaliau eilės prieveiksmių skyrelis — žodžiais Nū atay, paeĭluy.

It should also be added here that, in the syntax section of his grammar, §116 (III. On the government of adverbs), P.F. Ruhig states that adverbs govern the genitive (Lauke Butto, Widduj’ Miesto; Ganà Žodžių, Ap[z]cziey Lobjų, Maž Dūnòs, Menkay I[z]minties. K. Mielcke copied that entire paragraph verbatim.

Incidentally, even the spelling in the two grammars mentioned here is, one might say, almost identical. Where they do differ, it is only in some minor detail. For example, P.F. Ruhig writes Ypacėy, whereas K.G. Mielcke writes Ypacziey. But neither author uses the marking of the sound č consistently: in many places their spellings are completely identical.

The fact that the authors of all the grammars discussed here drew extensively on one another’s work, often simply copying even the illustrative examples, is most clearly shown by the following. The small group of adverbs of place, designated in Latin as “ad locum,” consists in all those grammars (except the grammar by K. Sapūnas and T. Schulz) almost exclusively of these adverbs: Szū Dāiktu, Anū Dāiktu, Niekuatru Dāiktu, Tieſog, Tieſogie, (Tieſam) Milk 148. The only difference here is that in some grammars these adverbs are spelled differently: in some places with capital letters, elsewhere with lowercase letters, and so on. This fact alone clearly shows that the adverbs listed here are nothing other than a verbatim repetition of the adverbs in D. Klein’s “ad locum” group; compare: [zū daiktu, anū daiktu, niekatru daiktu... tieſog, tieſogie... Tieſam G 134.

As this brief survey shows, the adverb section of K.G. Mielcke’s grammar differs very little from the corresponding section in P.F. Ruhig’s grammar. More or less the same could be said of K.G. Mielcke’s grammar as a whole.

P r e p o s i t i o n. This section of K.G. Mielcke’s grammar, too, is copied practically verbatim from P.F. Ruhig’s grammar, except for one note, which states that there are various adverbs and nouns that are used as prepositions and govern the genitive, but are not true prepositions, e.g.: annapus, anna[z]al, lauke, widduj’ and so on; they take the genitive after them according to the familiar rule: if two nouns of different meanings occur together, one of them takes the genitive form, e.g.: annapus Kiemo, anna[z]al Uppės, lauke Rubežaus, Szalle Kalno,

39

Widduj’ Lauko. But that remark and rule by K. G. Milkus are neither entirely original nor sufficiently precise: the prepositions mentioned here, or words used prepositionally, as well as their combinations with genitives, occur in other old grammars too, while of two different-meaning nouns used together, one need not necessarily take the genitive form, e.g.: autumn in the forest, sea in autumn, and so on.

Thus, the preposition chapter of this grammar was copied verbatim from P. F. Ruigys’s grammar, while the sole added remark and rule essentially do nothing to supplement or correct it. Incidentally, the subsection on preposition syntax is also exactly the same as in P. F. Ruigys’s grammar.

J u n g t u k o i r j a u s t u k o chapters, too, were not written by K. G. Milkus but copied word for word from P. F. Ruigys’s grammar. The only small novelty here is that K. G. Milkus adds an eleventh group to the Latin list of interjection group names, with illustrations, but gives it no name, writing only: XI. Szmukſzt and explaining in German, “wenn etwas entzvey gehet, herab glitscht, wegkommt”. But this is no longer an interjection; it is a true onomatopoeic word, which the author could no longer assign to any interjection group and for which he could find no Latin name for the new group he had added. Incidentally, the onomatopoeic word Szmurkſzt, classified by K. G. Milkus as an interjection, is the second onomatopoeic word in succession to enter a grammar, alongside barkſz., previously classified as an interjection by G. Ostermeyer. This shows both the difficult path of the onomatopoeic word into an old Lithuanian grammar based on classical grammatical principles and the challenging development of grammatical thought.

In closing the discussion of the invariable parts of speech in the six earliest Lithuanian grammars considered here, we may also draw some more general conclusions.

1. The appearance of at least six or seven grammars (including D. Klein’s “Compendium”) in Prussian Lithuania within less than a century indicates a lively Lithuanian scholarly movement and concern for the development of the Lithuanian language, the advancement of its culture, and its study and teaching.

2. The appearance of D. Klein’s grammars must be regarded as the greatest event and achievement in the history of Lithuanian grammar. His “Grammatica Litvanica” was like a landmark, reminding Lithuanian intellectuals of the need to cultivate spoken and written language, and linguists of the need to study Lithuanian. None of the authors of the other later grammars mentioned here could do without his grammatical works.

Even more than two hundred years after D. Klein’s first grammar appeared, A. Schleicher—whom F. Kurschat called a hero of linguistics (“Schl. war ein Heros auf dem Gebiete der Sprachwissenschaft”¹)—when writing his “Litauische Grammatik,” made use not only of the newly published P. F. Ruigys grammar issued by K. G. Milkus, the grammar by K. Sapūnas and T. Šulcas, and the works of other linguists, but also of both of D. Klein’s grammars (Latin and German), although in his (A. Schleicher’s) view Klein’s works had to be used with particular caution, since he often treats the language like a schoolmaster (“da er die Sprache nicht selten schulmeistert”)².

¹ F.Kurschat, Grammatik der littauischen Sprache, Halle, 1876, VI psl.

² A.Schleicher, Litauische Grammatik, Prag, 1856, X—XI psl.

40

3. Compared with other seventeenth-century authors of Lithuanian books, D. Klein’s grammar stands out for the Lithuanian character, purity, and normativity of its examples: it contains very few barbarisms and dialectal forms. The Lithuanian material in that grammar is based on the dialect of the Prussian Lithuanians, which is very close to the Southwestern Aukštaitian dialect, which in turn provided the basis for the modern Lithuanian literary language.

4. The choice of Latin or German for writing these grammars was determined less by their intended readership—the intellectuals of seventeenth-century Prussian Lithuania, primarily clergy and young people studying theology—than by the fact that Lithuanian grammatical terminology did not yet exist at all. Creating it would have been an insurmountable task for the authors of the first grammars, since developing grammatical terminology requires decades of work.

5. The grammar’s authors made highly creative use of seventeenth-century grammars of other languages, especially the traditional classical grammars of Latin, which helped them present a concise and concrete picture of Lithuanian grammatical categories.

6. Their understanding of the invariable parts of speech and stylistic nuances, their ability to express them in Latin or German, their recognition of the need for norms, and their comparison of certain Lithuanian linguistic facts with those of Latin and Ancient Greek show that the authors of our first grammars were excellent scholars of their native and classical languages, and well-prepared linguists.

7. Reading through the first Lithuanian grammars today naturally raises the question of why they were all created in Prussian Lithuania and published in Königsberg rather than in Lithuania Major, where the majority of Lithuanians have lived in a compact area for centuries. The answer can only be repeated, since it has already been given by more than one researcher. As the German authorities pursued the intensive Germanization of Lithuanians, they were chiefly concerned with winning them over through the church, by spreading Protestantism in their native language. This required Lithuanian texts, a spoken and written standard language, and, of course, Lithuanian grammars as well. At the same time, however, one must also remember the significance of Protestantism for Lithuanian culture and its progressive character.

UNINFLECTED PARTS OF SPEECH IN THE FIRST LITHUANIAN GRAMMARS

Abstract

Between 1653 and 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. Sapūnas and T. Schultz (1673), ”Anhang einer kurzgefassten Litthauischen Grammatik” by F. Haack (1730), ”Anfangsgründe einer Litthauischen Grammatik” by P. F. Ruhig (1747), ”Neue Litthauische Grammatik” by G. Ostermeyer (1791), and ”Anfangsgründe einer Litthauischen Sprach—Lehre” by Ch. G. Mielcke (1800).

The article discusses the treatment of uninflected parts of speech in these grammars. The most important of them is ”Grammatica Litvanica” by D. Klein, which laid the foundations for all the other grammars mentioned above. The treatment of uninflected parts of speech in all these grammars is strongly oriented toward the classical grammar of the Latin language. The authors of the first Lithuanian grammars keenly perceived the semantic and stylistic nuances of Lithuanian adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections, and demonstrated an outstanding ability to express them in Latin or German.

41

Comparing Lithuanian linguistic material with facts from Latin, Ancient Greek, and German reveals the authors’ outstanding abilities and knowledge in the field of the Lithuanian language, as well as German and classical linguistics.

All these grammars were written in Prussian Lithuania, where the government sought to bind the Lithuanians to itself through the Protestant Church. This required Lithuanian religious texts, a Lithuanian literary language, and Lithuanian grammars. At the same time, one should also recall the progressive role of Protestantism in the history of Lithuanian writing.

42