Lietuvių kalbos bendraties konstrukcijų raida

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXIII (1995) GRAMMATICS IR LEXICOLOGY VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES BENDRATIES CONSTRUCTION RAIDA i. BENDRATIES ORIGIN IR PRIMARY MEANING 1.1.1. In modern Lithuanian, the verb is one of three basic verb forms. iš Its usage also follows the verb: ji it has verb-like inflection control, forms close syntactic combinations with personified verb forms that play the role of auxiliary words su (I have to hurry, started driving, it started getting ir dark etc.). These forms, called infinitives, are found in almost all modern Indo-European languages. In comparison with each other, the sharp į differences in forms fall into the eye, along with a great ir similarity in — verb usage. If jų we look at infinitives historically, we see that in the beginning they did not belong to the verb system, iš o į ją included in various Indo-European languages at uneven time scales. ir The infinitives of all related languages have roots of verb-subject nouns, some - (especially in older periods of development) have retained the noun-like verb endings. ir Both the stems themselves and the endings of the verbs vary greatly: out of the 14 stems identified by R. Jeffers (1975:135), only the tu and ti infinitives of the stems are present in most ide. language groups, and other strains in groups 1-3. However, the infinitives of the same root sometimes have different endings, so they do not come from the same original form. For example, the infinitives of the tu root with endings are: e.g. -ton, -twei, s.ind. - Tosir pan. In the oldest evidenced ide. In some languages (Hittite, ancient Indian) infinitives are sometimes difficult to distinguish from verb nouns — names of actions: the same forms are used as infinitives in some places, elsewhere they retain the function of nouns. 1.1.2. The Lithuanian communicative forms with -ti and -tie < *-tei have also emerged from the ti-root verb nouns — verb names (abstracts), such as mirtis, prapultis, būtis. The abstracts of these root verbs were very productive and widely used in other Eastern Baltic languages. ir Po of when the now jų prevailing action names were introduced suffix su -imas/ -ymas, the old abstract ti forms of the stem became fixed and eventually ir became infinitives. Baltic infinitives su -i (lied. pregnant, pregnant, pregnant-s, la. nest, nestis, pr. billit "to speak, to speak") ir su -ie < *-ei (lied. pregnant, pregnant-s, la. nestié-s) corresponds i to the singular dative of root nouns (-i ir *-ei can be the same dative form in apophonic variants). Thai 1 Pasak V. Ivanov's (1963:152—153), Hittite verb nouns į d Š . . . * . . . . . In ye forms su -anna virtimą infinityvais galima pastebėti lyginant istorinius 74 leidžia manyti, jog formos mifti/miFtie ir pan. kitados buvo vartojamos kaip veiksmažodinių daiktavardžių datyvai (reikšme "mirčiai"), ir tokia vartosena sudarė prielaidą išsirutulioti iš jų infinityvams. Many other related languages also tend to translate the dative of action names into infinitives. For example, out of the 700 infinitives found in the Rigveda, 600 correspond to the dative of verb nouns (Sgall 1958; Szemerėnyi 1990). 1970:298). 1.1.3. The infinitives of the Baltic languages with -ti/*-tei, formally speaking, can also be derived from the locatives of the ti root (Otrebski 1956:243; Stang 1966:447; Hamp 1985:199—202); The Slavic infinitive with -ti < *.tei is also tried to be linked to the locative (Stang ibid. 447; Vaillant 1966: 127).2 The views on the dative and locative nature of the forms are not fundamentally opposed, because the oldest ide. In the times of language development, dative forms with -i/*-ei may have coincided with adverbial forms, which were later included in the vowel paradigm and given meaning as a separate vowel —locative (Toporov 1961: 275 et seq., 285; Mažiulis 1970: 80, 128—129, 248 et seq.). This can be interpreted as F. Travniček’s (1956: 167 etc.) view of the origin of infinitives from ide. adverbs. However, this formal relationship between the dative and the locative is apparently inherited from times prior to the formation of infinitives. In both Lithuanian and other Baltic languages, infinitives have a localitive meaning. traces are hard to see. 1.1.4. In Prussian, next to the infinitive su -t (dat "to give", to drink "to say") the infinitive su-twei is widely used, e.g. datwei "to give", poutwei "to drink", westwei "to marry". It is derived from the singular dative of the tu root verb names with the ending -ei, i.e. *-tu-ei. The same origin infinitives with -tave have been found in S. Indian (cf. dhatave "to give", attave "to eat"). However, in eastern Baltic languages there are no infinitives derived from the dative of tu root nouns, and the supinum with -tų < *-tum is derived from the accusative of the other verbal singular of tu root. Thus, the Baltic languages agree on the vowel form of the verb nouns that gave rise to the infinitive, but differ in part in the stem. This suggests that the dative of verb nouns were incorporated into the verb system — and became infinitives not in the proto-Baltic, but in the independent development of those languages. For this reason, the data of the Baltic languages help to better understand the formation of the infinitive, because the connection with the original use of verb nouns has not yet completely disappeared here. : Ir other Indo-European languages, apparently, have inherited common ne invariant forms of infinitives, but common assumptions of their formation. These assumptions are syntactical, one must look — for infinitives jų in the usage. This is where internal reconstruction helps. Applying this ją method to the syntactic system of Lithuanian language, we try to distinguish the old types of communicative usage and to establish ir the structure of the tų constructions, which iš developed communicative as a separate invariant form of the verb. 2 Linguistic literature writes about ir the infinitive su -ti origin of the iš consonant -t root locator (Brugmann 1911 : 424; Endzelins 1951 : 918; Hemp 1985 : 201-202; Zinkevičiu1981 : 164). Si s's view is unbelievable simply because there are no names of stem t verbs in the Baltic languages. iš 75 1.2.1. In modern Lithuanian, communicate is usually associated with personified su verbs, meaning: the beginning of the action the end a) ar (I start working, I let myself run, I stopped walking, I stop writing), ability, b) obligation, desire, ability, effort (I can walk, we have to return, will study, tried to escape, want to leave), excess of action c) insufficiency ar (increased drinking, reduced salting) etc. ir The general here defines the content of the main verb, goes as a necessary complement, jo the subject of the verb o communicatiir ve actions coincides. Close compounds infinitives form ir su verbs meaning order, encouragement, request; prohibition, obstruction; permission, invitation, etc., only here the action of ir communication is attributed to another entity (said to be quiet, asked not to sing, forbidden to sleep, disturbed reading, allowed to walk, invited to come in). These types of constructions in Lithuanian, as in many ir other current ide. languages, are the most widespread, form the main layer of communicative usage. It is difficult to see any traces of its earlier use. ir 1.2.2. The old noun — communication — function is more pronounced in constructions where it goes with full-meaning verbs ji su (a) verbs ar with the necessary su adjective (b) is not conditioned by jų conjunctiir on indicating ar the purpose of the action ar of the subject: a) We just moved here g y v e n t i Lnkv; Female sat down to spin I15; the Ir man remained in the on a u t manor BsV 300*; b) The servant built s a u g o t BsP II 48; The Goat Found Sienop to a eat Lt III 116; Straightened the board p e r e i t i Pvn; Gryta, already spun, divides the yarn a u st DnR 125; The rod of the saw rely on PP 206.* Jau Jonas Jablonski (1935 : 30) pointed out the į fact that such a purpose-- marking communicative is by nature (by origin) a noun of verb nouns. According to its function, it corresponds to the noun forms of the noun and can be used with them to accelerate: orei (= plowing, near) žagrių neturime, cf. also: sukosi nezdelį gyvenimui- /gyventi; looking for a place to stay; brought potatoes to eat; the bed will be needed for rest/relaxation; son gifted for science/learning. The parallelism of the purpose communication and the use of the beneficiary is often seen both in dialects and in written language, cf. : Crows ben couple of myself p i e t u m s shoot DnR 241 /To Dočys couple of crows k e p t shoots himself 243. _The use of the noun in these constructions is based on the meaning of purpose (purpose), long reconstructed for the Indo-European dative, loosely linked by verbs su (Brugmann 1911 : 555 tt. ). Ta meaning was particularly characteristic of abstract verbs. Although the Lithuanian communicative has already lost its direct connection with the interjection, it has retained the original meaning of the dative in these ji cases unchanged to this day. The sources of the examples are marked with the same abbreviations as in the great ir "Lithuani- ” Li p an | language dictionary" in the third edition. : LKG I-III). y ritomeje ” Lithuanian language grammar" (V., 1965—1976, 4 . For more examples su of the infinitive of the objective, see Jablonskis 1935 : 30: 1987.4 75476; Fraenkel 1928 : 129—132; Balkevičius b) 1963 : 226—227; LKG III 76 2. BENEFICIARY WITH PARTNERSHIPS (DATIVUS CUM INFINITIVO) 2.0. Added to the system of verb forms, the Lithuanian communicative verb has been given verb conjugation control. Transitive verbs possess the adjective, less often the pronoun, similarly to the corresponding verb forms, e.g.: grążył dług —ordered to repay the debt, wanted to repay the debt, sent an order to repay the debt; waited for parents — asked to wait for parents, sent a request to wait for parents, etc. However, in those cases where the communicative is loosely associated with the core of the sentence and has the already mentioned meaning of purpose or goal, the object of the action it denotes is expressed not by the finite but by the beneficial, e.g.: prišilo je premalo denarja za vračilo dolga. This is the so-called construct of the dative with the participle (dative cum infinitive, hereinafter DI). According to the communication relationship with the user, this construction is as if distinct, "falling out" from the system of syntactic relations prevailing in the current language. From the point of view of internal reconstruction, this can be considered as a pretext for the assumption that we have here a syntactic archaism based on an older state of syntactic connections. Therefore, this construction is worth discussing in more detail. In order to clarify the primary structure of the DI, it is necessary to limit ourselves to the externally similar | these statements, in which the personified form of the verb forms close units with the communicative type 1.2.1. mentioned, and the beneficiary goes as a verb complement, e.g.: ordered the boy to drive, hindered/- helped people to work, advised the son to go to the doctor, forbade others to hunt, etc. plow (field) for sowing rye 2.1.1. According to the relationship with other parts of the sentence, three groups of DI constructions can be distinguished: a) DI is associated with a verb (conjunction- ): Don't talk to others to advise Sim; Please, bend, lady, bend to calm the worm Jabl; Shot in the air to blow up people Myk -Put; He couldn't earn more than to feed himself Son. DI is associated with the verb and with the noun or pronoun it controls: Atvežiau karčių tvorai tverti Vb; I'll give you a silk mop to wipe your tears tts (Jabl); Took a young virgin to take care of the children Simon. c) DI is connected only by a noun, su adjective or adjective-subject: Kamarg things to help completely deprived Simon; The wood-cutting axe is completely sharp. Srv. The most common ir prevailing are (b) group structures. Antwerp, (c) group ra constructions occur only occasionally. Already in synchronous viewing they can be considered derivatives iš (b) groups where there is only a noun connection, DI but ne su ir su the main verb. This connection usually remains when the predicate ir goes with the said implied form of the verb to be, e.g. : ar What a good skewer to roast moose BsP II 91. J. Jablonskis (1957 : 598) insightfully observed that the noun part implied here is suitable, for etc.: all mouths ar Ne (mouths fit, good, for) porridge scraping. TT This is confirmed ir by the questions that are raised in folk tales su DI msl, noun terms, e.g. : The garnets su come with a big gue iu. — Kam [i.e. for what is, is needed] that bunch? — To put money. -- What's the money for? — For meadows to buy. — Why in the meadows? — For grazing cows LT Rn 396 (for details see Toporov 1963 : 151). | Iš (a) the group examples show that the noun connection of the construction is not su necessary at all: here it simply depends DI on the main verb. The constructions of this group can also be understood as answers to questions į Where? For what purpose- ?, pg. : Why are you here, Joe? — Flaxseed (JabIRR I 598). Tarp (a) ir (b) the transitiveness of groups is easy to see: if we add a noun to the ir verb (plg. : Left s t i kl e lj, madam, to calm the worm) or a paraphrased word combination to mi describe the concept of action (e.g.: P aleidodšūv į air threatening people), we will get (b) group constructions, cf. but: In the manor, cows are being called to rise ir The bells rang in the tower to accompany the mermaid tts (JabIRR I 599). So (a) ir (b) groups are variants of the same type: connected to to the sentence nucleus by a DI verb or a su verb-dependent verb. — ir jo “-2.1.2. Although it DI is often used as the equivalent of the objective sub-sentence, it can replace far from every objective sub-sentence, and vice ne versa. It is particularly common in living ir language in cases where DI there is only one object or purpose-indicating noun (without ir communicative function). Plg. I brought a few pounds of meat for lunch/lunch to cook; People carry bricks for church/church building; The cross was erected in memory of his works JabIRR I 596 (see also Valiulytė LKG II 34 —35). = Like the noun noun, one complement is also connected to the sentence nucleus: Patiesé lentą pereiti Pvn; The rod of the saw to rest PP 206 (see 1.2.2). Even in the same sentence, the purpose or purpose can sometimes be described by the noun, and by the pronoun, and by both together. This parallelism of usage can be observed in both (a) and (b) group constructions, cf. : a) Iš at first I only plowed for barley/ sowing/ sowing barley. b) The father brought wood for the fire. The gates of the manor are wide for horses to enter. All of this shows that the sentence nucleus is DI made up of du dependent satellites extending ir from: the jo purpose (purpose) participle is also a purpose-exprir essing communicative. tį As already mentioned, the common noun itself is derived from the noun of the verb's iš action. — Thus, the discussed connections of the elements of the construction allow to see such a primary DI structure. Abbreviations: N — name (noun), V — verbum (a verb); NV = romane verbale (verbal noun), nom nominativus, dat dativus. — — tréele — denotes connection, ¢— interconnection. 78 Ndat (Nuomai =) V(-2+:N))-7 data NV For example, the construction bought horse for fields near nodes relationship can be depicted as follows: fields (I bought — a horse) Y Thus, DI directly reflects the origin of the communicative verb from the noun. According to its original structure, DI appears to be a dative duplex dependent on the sentence core. ; 2.1.3. This DI concept of the primary structure iš essentially agrees su A. Potebnia (1958: 387 etc.), F. Kuršaitis (1876: 406), J. Jablonskis (1935), later P. Trost (1958: 273), I. Marvan (1960: 10). Jablonski described DI particularly accurately, saying that here "for purpose we use a dative, one of the simple nouns, the other, now called infinitive. The noun indicates for what (30) object, for what time or for what purpose something is needed or done, and the infinitive, added to du such a dative, even better explains and ir indicates the purpose for which an object is suitable or used" (Jablonskis 1935: 30—31). By the way, F. Kuršaitis wrote only about the connection of DI with nouns, and H. Engertas (1937: 109—111, 1938: 45—56), who further developed his idea, decided that the construction is only attributive, answering the question "What is it?" and have no connection with the main verb. Linguists who later examined the DI from the cultural point of view also focused on its semantic connection with the noun in the sentence (Balčikonis 1978: 267—269; 392—393; Paulauskienė 1970: 49, etc. ; Pirochkin similarly 1986 : 188—190, ir Haudry 1968; 1977 : 104 tt. su other i.e. language perspective). However, historically linking DI only with the noun in the sentence is not possible due to the already discussed (a) group examples and the derivative nature of attributive constructions. Since it expands the core of the sentence, the verb plays the most important DI role, remains undeniable o E. Fraenkel's claim that the construction was based on sentences in which the DI is essentially ("im Grunde") dependent on the principal verb (1925 :60). 2.1.4. In the DI construction itself, taken separately, the noun pronoun ar usufruct usually denotes the object of the communicative action. Some researchers, having explained DI ir the origin of the corresponding constructions of related languages, thought that instead of the dative, the accusative, iš which was here in the beginning, was controlled by the verb noun (verbal nouns in ancient Indian and other languages usually retain the se verb-specific ir conjugation). The accusative here was replaced by the dative because of the main verb (Brugmann 1916 : 917 tt.) or action name dateimpact vo (attractions) at a time when the latter had not yet become an invariable infinitive (Schleicher 1856 : 311; Delbrück 1897 : 470; Miklosich 1874 : arimui 79 4). By replacing the concept of attraction with congruence (harmonization), W. Boeder o similarly reconstructed the relationship of elements (1980). This view: the origin is į DI contradicted only by the ne already discussed connection of the construction elements in A the nucleus of the sentence, but by the ir diversity of meaningful relationships Jų between them. The noun žio dininkas od in Lithuanian here can only mean the object of the ne communicative action, but the subject: ir RGR, I | poured milk for kittens to latch Ktk (e.g.: to make kittens bark); Tu has daughter to swallow LB 190 (e.g.: to swallow the smell); Twenty nests were installed in the forest for nesting (e.g.: that the birds cross) LKG III 173. Such constructions are ir found in ancient language monuments from the beginning of writing, e.g.: lawonus kitus ing wandeni mete szuwims walgiti Mž 427 (= so the fish eat). į other. Sometimes, the beneficiary ir indicates the circumstance of the communicative action, e.g. : Pasiémé yarn for spinning at night (e.g.: to spin at night). Each iš DI the connectisu on of the dots in the nucleus of the sentence here obvious (cf.: took for the night/ took to spinning). 2.1.5. Although both elements of DI the basic construction were dependent on the nucleus of the sentence, the central place among them, apparently, from the beginning was occupied by the noun. iš (not the action name). E. Fraenkel held the (1925 : 60; 1928 : 131) infinitive (the name of the origin verb) by — adding an epithet ("epexegetischer Zusatz") to the noun dative. Such a relationship of syntactic units, when one complements the other, but both equally depend on the third, is called apostrophic. The units associated with it each individually can replace each other, but one iš jų usually is in its meaning the main, the second supplementary, explanatory — usually goes the main ir po (Seiler 1960 : 198; Valeckians 1984 : 111). The fact that the dative of DI the noun was semantically the main in the construction is shown by its predominant preposition both in Lithuanian and in the old forms of other languages. language monuments (see Sgall 1958: 202; Kurylowicz 1964: 162). éjau lauko arti/arty 2.2.1. The primary connection of the DI elements with the main verb is also shown by the lexical limitations of the use of the construction, its dependence on the lexical meaning of the verb. When the main verb denotes movement, change of the state of the thing, change (or unchanged —like the verb to remain), the purpose is described by the utilitaristic, noble ne communico ative e.g.: I su will go to cut a small Aš hill of į yellow wheat VD I 290 (Alv); Others went out to get horses Earth; Women sat down to spin linen Vrn; Girl left home to guard (but: I left the dog to guard the house), see. LKG III 169. As in ir constructs, the su purpose can be expressed by one of the attention ir (one genitive one ar conjunctive). Old man parėjo lunch/ lunch eat/ eat The same syntactic relationships as the infinitive has the supinum used in the corresponding constructions, characteristic of Eastern Lithuanian dialects, plg. : Old man parėjo lunch/ lunch eaten/eaten The name, as the name of ir the town, is derived from the name of the former owner of the property. iš tu The names of actions 80 of this stem (abstracts) played an important role in the word-making system in the Baltic protolanguage, and only later did the abstracts of ti stem begin to predominate in the Eastern Baltic languages (S.Ambrazas 1987: 92 —93). In sentences with verbs of movement, the accusative of the abstract tu stem has initially had the meaning of the purpose of movement, which is confirmed in other ide. in languages in their early development, cf.: s.ind. with a giant indro... vasūnam date RV V 36.1. "come, Indra... to give gifts (cf.: giving)" (Jeffers 1976: 2), lat. eunt spectatum "to go see (cf.: seeing)" and so on. But the abstracts of the tu stem have long since become unproductive, their accusative has become rigid and has become an unchangeable form — supinum. The genitive of the aim, which in turn depends on the main verb, has been joined by the supin, apparently as an unchangeable form, no longer having a verb meaning. Later on, from many constructions with verbs of movement or change of state, supina was replaced by communicatis. J. Palionis (1967: 199—200; 1974) found that in the 16th and 17th centuries supinas (siekinys) was used in many Lithuanian dialects, where it was later replaced by bendratis. Since the verb nouns of the ti stem took up the dominant place among the action names later, their noun has retained the verb meaning for longer. As we have seen, communicativ still has the meaning of a noun in many functional constructions. Therefore, in the constructs of the utilitarist with the communicative is better preserved the initial state of syntactic connections? Change of syntactic relationships 2.3.1. Although the DI primary connection of the su elements with the nucleus of the sentence is still felt in many cases, the construction itself can already be used as a separate syntactic unit, denoting the purpose of the action (goal). Ji goes in ir sentences in which one utilitarist (without communication) would ar have a completely different meaning, e.g. : Friends to call waited only for the pre-full Earth; seen, what Ar a good skewer for roasting moose BsP II 91; Others promised ir the kids to let the pit be dug Apple. In such cases, the beneficiary tends to be understood as an object of communication action. However, only occasionally this affects the grammatical form of the ir construction: the noun is replaced by the usual direct adjective suffix, e.g.: ugnelę poskúšal som — navariť raňajky Aš Sch 158; Give me, God, a clear day to sow the seeds VD I 373. There are plenty of such sayings In the Notes of the Snakes of Lesser Lithuania ir For example, in the text of Deut. : They want to weave their own knitting yarn DnR 201 (see section 4.4). but Jablonskis 1957 : 598). The penetration į of the tail in the place of the beneficiary we notice already In the a. 16th-17th centuries, e.g. : Pasta tieg Bishop waldziot church Diewo SP I 22631; Nesa esch persenna esmi wira imti BrB Ruth 1,12 (that I take a man LB). į 6 “When studying the corresponding constructions in the Vedas, it is also observed that the oldest Tits retained those ins forms that later separated from verb nouns (Sgall 1958 : 209). 81 In common language, such constructions have so far replaced the irregular norm ao of verbal usage i j j ir os (plg. PPP but 78), somewhere already fluctuating, once discussed ir ; as ne (Balčikonis 1978 : 267—269; 392—393; Pupkis 1980 : 144; Šukys 1984 : 81—83; Pirochkine 1986 : 188—189). 2.3.2. As a result of the regrouping of syntactic connections, the terminal began to penetrate ir state-changing verbs. į structures dependent on movement ir 08 To be carried out by: 21 In the past, it su was often used in the dialects of the Highlands, in the writings it is paliudytas ir from 17th century, in o folklore — from the oldest records, e.g.: api atjojo an trys Ir berneliai bėrus arklius girdyt StnD 31; Mother sent me to sweep the manor Klv (VD I 333); I'm going to tie a cow Dks; He left his feet and ran to get the axe BsP I 35; Bega regiet iš heaven sends a boy S1G I 53 (see section 4.4). but LKG III 169; Pirochkine 1972 : 133). ANT However, in the writings of Donelaitis (unlike in 2.3.1. the mentioned cases), the originator of the phrase is well preserved, cf. : Trees stealing in the dark į warm side of the trek DnR 201 ir Mr. Jonas Jablonskis (1935 : 36) has pointed out that the adjective is į used when it alone could indicate the su purpose of the action ir (i.e. when there is a direct connection ir between the verb's — V.A.). When one pronoun is not possible because of the meaning of the sentence, the adjective controls the adjective (how to ir communicate ką only in the cited examples), e.g. : Attack all kissed hands to grandpa; Stankūnas ran to the lawyer with the money. According to Arnold Pirochkine, such a (1972 : 132 — 133), distinction is now made in ir some conversations (approx. "Vilnius, Jurbarkas". 2.3.3. The DI subsequent development stage is witnessed in the Latvian language. The constructions, in which the dative denotes the subject of the infinitive action, are well preserved and correspond to the Lithuanian ir ones, cf. : I wouldn't take a big wife for a vine ME IV 548, pg. : "I wouldn't let a tall wife be swayed by the winds" (see also Ozols 1967: 150). As in Lithuanian, the purpose is expressed by a single noun dative, e.g. celūs darbam "he went to work"; what I will leave in memory" (Bergmane 1959: 379; 1962: 31) and so on. That the infinitive of the object has also retained the dative meaning of the verb name in Latvian is evident from K. Mūlenbach's comparisons: Putras nav ne paost (= ne paošanai) "The soup is not even for smelling (= for smelling); Jauka bija uzskatit (= uzskatišanai) "It was nice to look at (= paziuréjimui)” and so on. (Mūlenbachs 1928: 193). On the other hand, the noun or pronoun associated with the infinitive, denoting the object of the infinitive action, in Latvian has the accusative form instead of the dative, e.g. : Došu savu kumelinu rožu darzu noecėt "I'll give my horse to make a rose garden" (Mūlenbachs 1928 : 193). The accusative is used here instead of the dative already In the a. 17th century, e.g. : „Deews darrija... Strūkdeklto us/ leelaku to Deenu waldiht/ un to masaku Spīdekli to Nakti waldiht G1B I Moza 1,16, watch out. : "God made... the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night." Nehme linnu Swahrkus winnu peewilt Judit 16,8, pag. : "began (i.e. covered with) linen skirt she deceived- ". Thus, the regrouping of syntactic links in Latvian has already replaced the Kontu Altaji and the Western Altaji south of the 82 Jonava Čekiškė Šakiai -Sintautai line. In other dialects, the suffix is used instead of the noun, which prevails in common language. There is no clear boundary between the use of the denominator and the adjective, and there are variations and parallel cases on both sides of the boundary. Most often, the noun is replaced by a suffix in constructions with the verb reikėti (3.3.) and adverbs (3.4.), in which the noun cannot be understood as a factor of the sentence. In the Žemaičių dialect the noun has survived here in several "islands" surrounded by the adjective: about Židikai, Viekšniai, Luokė, Gargždai, Papilė, Raseiniai, but also here the adjective is used next to it (especially in constructions with reikéti).!! Such a sporadic dispersion is typical of syntactic archaisms: as newer constructions spread, the old ones are not displaced immediately and usually remain in certain foci. Constructions with a noun are well preserved in Lithuanian islands surrounded by the Gudi language (Gervėčiai, Ramaškonys, Rodūnė, Pelesė, Varanava, Lazūnai, Zietela, etc.). In this way, the creation of the finalis is still a living process. From the 16th-century writings, it is clear that the nominative was used with the genitive also by the Highlanders of the western part of Lithuania Minor. The fact that the noun of the object remained in constructs with the conjunction was favoured by the fact that the noun of this meaning has been used since ancient times in constructions with the forms of the passive participants of the anonymous genus, e.g.: potatoes dug / cut, ropes weed, door opened and left; often with the character's nobleman: his rye is sown/séta, old forests are loved etc.!? It should be noted that the object-noun with conjunction and with the passive participle forms of the infinitive genus are used in the same eastern and southern Altay dialects. ' * Constructions with passive participle forms of the genitive are also now considered to be impersonal, so the noun that has passed as a factor is sometimes replaced by the suffix, e.g. : With a gene from tree honeys is caught Lp (aut. 1979: 206—207). In the same dialects, the noun of the object is used with the participles of the present and past tense, e.g. : Work while working winds do not care Mžk; When weaving linen, you need to wear warm clothes Brž; Where is now the horse standing Ut; That so sweater unknitted Mžš; It would be good to hire a strong worker for Kp. The object nominative could have spread here according to the example of the above-mentioned constructions with passive participants and communicative (participants, like communicative, are derived from the dative forms of the -i stem, cf. author 1962: 17 etc.; 1979: 133—134). Constructions with the verb to be 3.6 A separate group consists of the noun and communicative constructions with the verb be, the null form of which denotes the present tense. They are of two ti11 Based on answers 2. 115 bir c. 42 Those constructions are participative variants of nominal sentences such as medus gardu, more about them in aut. 1979 : 200—204; 1990 ; 200—214. For the distribution su of the active participants of constructions in anonymous forms of the genus, see. aut. 1977 : 36—38. 89 p.o. In the constructions of the first type, the ar of ar sensory perception verbs (usually — see, see, hear) is associated with a su denominator, denoting mą the ability ar to feel an object, e.g. : (for me) is/ 0 / was/will be house seen. In the second type of constructions, the communicative of various verbs is su associated with a nominative denoting the object of the action to be performed, e.g. : (me) is was /9/ going to / build a house. In both cases, communicative has a passive meaning. (for me) is/ O) / was will / house seen 3.6.1. Ši construction now mainly used in the Middle ir Western In Lithuanian dialects, but in the pronoun of fixed statements what su (what to hear; what new to hear ir etc.) occurs in ir many other places. “This indicates a greater prevalence of this type of construction in the past. The present tense form of the verb be is sometimes said in the Žemaičių dialektas, elsewhere it is usually zero. Already bottom apparently Jnv; Through the window there is a good view of the lake Pln; You've already seen the fire Lzd; Bells to be heard Prk; Snowed ditches ir few, even the highway barely known Simon (LKŽ XIII 258). For example, white apple y(r) see Skd; Already the cottages are visible Pgg; That stone was seen iš from afar Klp; Yesterday thunder was heard Ore; Už to Mouse ir Pussy will be seen Pp. Only occasionally a subject-verb is used to indicate the experiencing subject, e.g. troba Ta man buvo toli matyt iš Klp. In the written language, the construction is decreased from XVI a., e.g.: daiktu mumis neperweszlibu du regetessi WP 72. In this construction, the participle plays a similar role as the passive participle of the present tense and is sometimes used in conjunction with it even in the same speech, e.g. : Already a vadakstis of visibility //From Šimkaus kapelų karvidės visible Pkl; plg. dar. : Garden large y(r) visible Wed. In the Eastern Highland dialect, the verb often takes a recursive form instead of a communicative one, e.g. : The whole plot looks like in the palm of your hand Skdt. The fact that the denominator here has a factor function is evident from the combination with the participle conjunction, e.g. : Petruko voice was heard Rs (more Sirtautas 1971). With negative form communicative, the adjective is used instead of the denominator: žmogų nematyti Plng; fairy neb'erdėtis BsP II 70. However, unlike in the cases 3.1—3.5 discussed, the denominator is never replaced by the adjective. The construction is usually used to describe what a certain object is available for experience, e.g.: already tower to see already tower can be seen. — Therefore, ir the meaning of purpose is generally implied here, which is iš characteristic of the dative. 3.6.2. The same meaning of communicate has in the correspondiir ng Latvian constructions, most often used as a negative, e.g.: tūs reizes vilku su redzēt, dzirdet No ne ne LP VII 878 = there were no wolves ne to see, ne hear (Miilenbachs 1928 : 195). "I to couldn't see or hear wolves ( = Nebuvilkų vo ‘neither to seeing, nor to hearing).” The same constructions of the same meaning as ir in Lithuanian are attested in the ancient writings of Slavic languages, cf. s.b.s.l. : i glass dies. i ne by hearing Supr 570,18 "and the voice 90 ceased, and was not heard" (Xomosa 1980: 223)'4, s.rus. : bé v to vremja vidėti... pecals gorskaja Mosk. Letop. 290 "was at that time seen in sorrow times" (CaGenuna 1978: 404); of them are preserved in the Gudi and southern Russian dialects, for example, derevnja vidat» "village seen (Cnpuxuar 1960: 179). " * The original meaning of the infinitive is also seen by scholars in the corresponding Rigveda constructions, e.g.: tdva sparhé varna a samdrši šriyah RV 2,1,126 "in your desired color just as beauty is seen" (Sgall 1958: 221; Disterheft 1980 : 46). (me) is/@/was- /will be house built 3.7.1. In this type of constructions, the lexical expression of transitive communication is not defined, and the verb be has a modal shade of necessity. Two groups of structures can be distinguished. a) The common is associated only with the denominator and a possible (optional) time reference. The present tense form of the verb to be is usually null, the past or future - expressed. Today you gather the hay, tomorrow you reap the rye Dglš; Already i(r) again lunch cooked Trg; Morning(- j) horses grazing Psl; We're all going to get out of PnmP. So there was a family to hire Zd; And the rye was reaping; First there were such guzzies to buy Sil; The work was done by Glv. There will be this mowing, rotting near Slnt; After this rake will be Kl; That bulb plant, flax will grow Rdn; Then some day it will be manure carry, nicely clean Mžk. b) Next to the communicative nominative and the possible (optional) time reference, the subject of the communicative action is also described by the verbal noun: Rytoj mum teliokai ganyt Pnd; Mom children raise VVR; This you have to fix, this to feed the horse, this to build rye again — not a joke Jnš; Ma alone had all the work to do Zd; Why did he have to do that? ry. You will have sugary weeds tomorrow Rk; I'm gonna get it all fixed Kltn; Is it ma(n) both parents will be hot Wed. The two groups of constructions are attested from the beginning of writing, e.g. : a) So and drink wine blood ia schwentas Mt 34,17; b) Iumus will be rustus sudas at Diewa to raise, rakundas will be given to the scribe Dewa WP 85 (MLLG V 238). The data collected for the Lithuanian language atlas shows that these constructions are also used in those conversations where the verb reikėti, often with bevardis, is used.14 However, the object of sight or hearing in the same phrase is already expressed here in the communicative accusative (as in later writings of most Slavic languages), cf.: bysts vidėti junošo krassna stojęšta prėds nims Supr 187, 1—4 "a young man was seen standing before her" (Xonosa 1980 : 223). 15 The corresponding Czech construction, e.g.: hora je vidéti "the mountain is seen" (see further Pofak 1967: 82 etc.), which V. Kiparski (1969: 146) recognises as an ancient legacy, is sometimes regarded as a loan from the German language (Reiter iš 1990: 100). 1953 : 175; Timberlake 1974 : 124 tt.) or subsequent innovation (Havranek 1968 : 175—176; Dunn 1982 : 523—524). In German, ir however, the infinitive su zu, which is associated with the nominative su in spoken cases, has retained its ancient meaning of purpose (plg. Brugmann 1916 : 924), therefore the original source of the construction is apparently the same. 91 adds adjectives of the genus, already goes adjective (Trg, Žgč, Ska, Kltn, Pla, Ping, Vvr, Dr, Drb, Lnk, KI, Krp, Kv, Skdv, Nv ir kt ). They differ 3.6. from the cases of the discussed type only in the meaning of necessity, which is probably conditioned by the verb being itself, ne o jo the su purpose of the relationship ("lines are/ were/ will be used for minting? )!*. Ta the purpose value of the dative can be traced in cases where the shade of necessity is ir not felt at all, e.g. : You're just catching crows Pg; Young so beer get You're ir gonna die. (see section 4.4). but LKG III 616—617). All of this shows that the denominator here has ir had the function of factor. Dad 3.6. ir 3.7. for both types of constructs discussed, it is possible to reconstruct the same primary model of syntactic relationships (verb to be here marked by abbreviation Vsubst) Va (Not applicable) ) Nnom «—Vsubst h,! NVqat This pattern coincides with the one su established by the constructions of verbs to remain, to fit, to su fall, etc. ir and adjectives in genitive forms (see section 4.4). 3.2.1.) ir differs only in the expression of the taring. 3.7.2. This is a list of Latvian dialects: Kungam tei ir meizitė st (GROANS) "for gentlemta en to eat bread" (Endzelin 1951 : 554). Also, the nominative is used here in relatively new forms su of the debitive, for which the infinitive provided the basis, e.g.: man jūėd sausa maize "I (need) to eat dry bread" (ibid 972 —973). However, in most cases the nominative is replaced by the communicative accusative, e.g.: man bija ta šo lietu iesakt "it was so that I started this thing" (Mūlenbachs 1928: 173 —174); Tev bij nemt reed meitu BW 15142 "you were to take reed daughter"; 15307 "how will I break the mud” (Ozols 1961: 96—97; 1967: 182). The accusative is already widely used in old Latvian writings, e.g. : Man bij grahmatu rakstiht Stender Gr 8165 "I was writing a book"; No ta buhs tew to sinnaht G1B NT Praef. "By this you will know it." The corresponding Old Russian sayings with nominative are extensively and many times examined, cf. : Takova pravda ouzęti Rousinou or Rizė Smol. Gr. 1229 "such right to take a Ruthenian in Riga" (i.e., such right a Ruthenian must have in Riga, cf. already Ilore6ua recently 1958 : 405 : 407); J. Stepanov convincingly jų demonstrated the historical su connection of Lithuanian-Latviir an language constructions (1984 : 132—136). These structures are important. in Hindi, where The modality of the verb meaning "to be" is usually emphasized in the optional imperative form, the ar nominative has a clear factor function, the infinitive has a dative purpose, e.g.: o apo bhavantu — pitdye RV 10,9,4 16 ‘Plg. Brugmann 1916 : 925. Pasak R. Mrazek's (1963 : 113 — 114), dative's purpose meaning had been transferrį ed verb It's been ir a long time. Church Slavic Ral: os construction: mané bčaše stradati "Me BrLinano, npuHANNENRANO CTPANAHME mr srpanaru + Somewhat differently explains J. Stepanovas ot : 133) while keeping the ss necessary] fel It is one of the oldest, inherited iš factors of the Indo-European language community. 92 "let the waters be for drinking" (Sgall 1958: 221); similarly in the Hittite language (Disterheft 1980: 165—166). It should be noted that in other related languages (Latin, Greek, Germanic) in the old periods of their development, the modal meanings of possibility, necessity, etc. were used in constructions of noun-origin forms, which were later replaced by newer modal verbs. In Slavic languages, modal verbs and adverbs of these meanings are also relatively new, having been established mainly during the written tradition. Meanwhile, the discussed sentences with dative communicative origin represent a very ancient way of expressing modality, inherited from the Indo-European language community. 3.7.3. Further development of the design, apparently, took place in the same direction as in other cases already discussed. The general, having lost its connection with the conjugation paradigm and becoming an unchangeable verb form, became the grammatical center of the sentence — a conditional having a modal meaning of possibility or necessity (its basis — the purpose meaning of the dative). The construction was meaningful as impersonal and the noun was linked to the communicative as the object of the action of its marking. Thus, the following model of syntactic relationships of impersonal communicative sentences was formed:; (Stop) (Vsubst) =—) Inf nom/acc N Since the noun is not an object-specific vowel, it is quite understandable that instead of it, the adjective has been used: Tomorrow I will rake hay, you will pasture horses, and with the communicative verbs that control a nobleman — a nobleman: already we will not want, etc. Ko ir The suffix instead of the denominator is deprecated from 16th ed., ed. : Tada buwa taw dūti mana pinnigus Meninikamus BrB With wissiems 25,27; krikšezonims iki gala swieto will be wargus regeti BrP II 78,2 (see section 4.4). Palionis 1972 : 126). Necessity and possibility infinitive constructions with verb "being" transformation into ir beasmenémis nominative change into infinitive controlled accusative long ne observed only in (3.7.2), Latvian but in ir other related languages: Slavic, German, Greek, Latin (Brugmann 1916 : 925—926; ITore6us 1958 : 391-398). Nevertheless, in Lithuanian the noun here remained much better than in constructions with other verbs only in dialects su ir — ne (see section 4.4). 3.7.1), but in ir common language (LKG III 616—617). Ypač gerai vardininką išlaikė apstabarėję pasakymai įvardžiu kas, su paliudyti nuo XVI a. (plg. what to do BrB II Moz 36,7) ir currently still used in various parts of the Lithuanian dialect area, even where in other cases we find only the final, e.g. : ir What can we say now Lkm; There's nothing to add to a horse Lbv; There is something to sell Psv; Will Ar there be anything to eat? Filter; What will we do? Ss; Nothing to do Pg; There's nothing to talk about Vlkv, Ss. 93 Such a sporadic distribution also indicates the relative nature of these structures. (for me) is/ O / was / gonna go 3.8.1. The interjection of intransitive su verbs with the verb to be also forms impersonal constructions of other modal ir meanings of necessity. They are now most commonly used as a su communicative noun in the null form of the verb to be: ir A. Ua Bt ; Shut up, you stink! BsP I 264; Living to live, dead to rest! KrêvPP III 14; John's going į through the woods Gr; I can't scream, I can't swim Skr (see section 4.4). but LKG III 36—37; 616—617). : Aid ‘stai In dialects, folklore occurs ir constructiosu ns expressed (especially past ir future tense) connection. They are used by the su beneficiary of the entity (a) ir be yes (b): 3a TY a) Who yr(a) feed, if not drive Pvn; Maybe from God's girl yr in the girdle to cockroach NS 270; My daughter, my young lady, it was for you uz BsO 215; If he will be healed, he will be healed, if he will die, he will die o Tj (LKZ, I 1216); LE b) O it was a lot to take away Kt&; It was atjot, broluzéls, yesterday's party LTRn 90; As I got off the horse, was not called, as I ate shallow, was not į planted JV 683. Such constructions have been witnessed from 16th century, especially In Bretkūnas' writings, e.g. : a) Nesa iam buwa sawa Stay in Walnistes BrB IV Moz will 35,28; then be... I'm dead. I Moz 44, 31; We'd have fallen, I'm gonna go Diewas negelbetu BrP II 53. b) Er such a threat Mothers would not be war? 1972) 1910 – Paavo Väyrynen, Finnish politician (d. 3.8.2. The corresponding constructions with the null or expressed form of the verb but: are also used in Latvian, e.g.: balinam kara iet Spr. 271 "brother to go to war"; brist bij man, vaj nebrist BW 9416 "to break was to me or not to break” (Ozols 1961: 96 —97); You shall not steal. ME I 359 (see also Endzelins 1951: 994). It is based on the original novel, The Ploughman. : Woj tu sinnaji /kurrū Laika tew bij peedzimt G1B, Hiob 38, 21 "Did you know when you were born?" kohl buhs me... eet Ps 42,10 "Why shall I go. "!" In Slavic languages, the personified forms of "being" with infinitive form form impersonal constructions from the oldest writings, cf. s.b. sl. bysto odie in shame Ostr Luk 16, 22 "was to die to the poor"; s.rus. mi budets now poetic Ip. 130 "I'll be riding now" (Ilore6ns 1958 : 392—393); s.check. tu sė name (jest) s ciesašem sniti Dal 81 "here we are (is) king su to sleep" (Pofak 1967: 21). In other Indo-European languages, the corresponding constructions are also partial necessities, ta possibilities, etc. ir values, e.g. gr. otk got Au Keoviwv paxsodai p 193 "but there is (= no prohibition, no need) i That's it. "analytic debitive" (older už morphologi K J iš of old Latvian grammar see. Ey 1965 : 92, 908, 252." su j4-)in jo examples 94 with Zeus Cronus to fight"; The fruit is a oval-flavored berry. Coron. 40 "to enjoy flowers through the nose (= smelling) is (= must)"; sen.vok. za petonne ist Hymn. 17.1 "to pray is (= must)" (Brugmann 1916: 925—926). 3.8.3. The facts mentioned here and in 3.7.1. confirm the previously expressed opinion that the Lithuanian and Latvian communicative constructions with the expressed form of the verb be are a common legacy of antiquity (Palionis 1972: 128). Raising them from structures without a joint is not a foundation. Although in some Slavic languages (e.g., Czech, see Pofak 1967: 18, 39 etc., 122) an increase in the productivity of the conjunction has been observed at certain stages of development, constructions without a conjunction have also been absent in the eastern Baltic and Slavic languages since the beginning of writing. In the past, they probably functioned as variants of the same constructions with the null present tense form, and later (with the disappearance of the constructions with the past and future tense being) were generalized as a separate type of communicative sentences (Lithuanian: Tau važiuot!; Latin: Kurp ir mums bėgt? Russian: Bam nmaaturs "pay you" etc.). 3.8.4. The constructions with intransitive verbs are as impersonal (i.e. they do not have a syntactic position of the factor) as with transitive verbs, which control the finalis, e.g.: (tomorrow) I shall reap and (tomorrow) I shall reap barley. The latter probably only began to be used when the communicative language departed from the paradigm of noun conjugation (see 3.7.3). The opposition of transitive and intransitive verbs in most cases is neither strict nor primary in general. Thus, the constructions I (is, was...) to reap and I (is, was...) to reap barley can be treated equally from a historical point of view and assigned to that period of development when sentences with being and communicativeness were meaningful as impersonal due to the regrouping of syntactic relationships (see Brugmann 1916: 925—926). To consider the construction (is, was...) mowing as a primary, paradigmatically independent nominal sentence (yes Večerka 1973: 303; Crenanos 1984: 132—133) is hindered by the fact that in this case it is difficult to explain the primary meaning of the verb in the infinitive form and to semantically motivate the structure of the construction. Syntactically impersonal constructions with infinitive, apparently, could only form after the infinitive itself became a separate verb form. 3.8.5. Thus, the original model of communicative sentences with the verb to be form (expressed or null) probably had a factor denominator: the house is (Or /was /will) be seen /built. The structure of this construction is motivated by the same dative meaning of the verb noun, which is reconstructed in the previously discussed constructions with the verbs to remain, to fit, etc. and the adjective in the forms of the infinitive genus. (as ir 1.—2. in the cases studied). In most cases, the subject-verb nominative was later replaced by a communicative-dependent verbal form (usually a suffix). However, in the Baltic and partly Slavic languages, the noun remained partly in impersonal constructions, where it acquired an objective meaning. iš ir To remain vad. The 'objective nominative' was apparently ne helped here only by internal, but ir certain external conditions, which are worth mentioning separately. 95 The "Object Nomenclature" Problem 3.9.1. The use of the object nominative in impersonal sentences is found in a fairly large area of local dialects that ir communicate with each other. Be Lithuanian, Latvian, ir Russian northern dialects and a large triangle approximately between Pskov-Smolensko-Vologda, į tą the range includes western Finn Ir (Estonian, Finnish) language. In the last vad. accusative II, coinciding with the su nominative, regularly used instead of the usual accusative to indicate the object in I impersonal sentences with communicative, participle, as su well as in impersonal adverbial sentences se (plg. : suom. he built a sauna “he needed to build a sauna”). The proximity of these constructions to the ir eastern Belarusian Russian k. "objective nominative” discussed He suggested to (1960; 1969); V. Kiparskis that contact with the West Finnish languages may have helped to su preserve the anciently inherited nominative infinitive constructions in iš the adjacent East Baltic Russian su languages. I8 ir B. Larin tų explained the relationship of the structures as follows: "objective nominative” is a remnant of non-accusative sentence structure, inherited from a long-extinct iš "pamari" language — of the common substratum of eastern ir Baltic, northern Slavic and western Finnish languages (Jlapun 1963; for criticism of this view see. Jacobsson 1964 ; 75; Veenker 1967 : 126; Kiparsky 1969 : 145). The hypothesis of the direct borrowing of iš the construction in Finnish languages was presented in a special study Timberlake (1974). Jo believes that Lithuanian, ir Latvian, and Northern Russian dialects have borrowed a syntactic rule from the West Finnish languages, according to iš which the object of action in impersonal sentences is represented by the accusative, nominative. ne o Such expression of the object in the example of Finnish languages was realized in sentences, in which there is no position of the factor, therefore there is no contradiction between the function of ir the object of the nominative form characteristic of the factor. ir (Timberlake 1974 : 2—3, 152). Timberlake considers the constructions of ancient Indian, Germanic and other languages, in which the infinitive object is represented by the nominative in personal (i.e. having the position of the factor) sentences, to be of a completely different type, unlike the "object nominative" of eastern Baltic and northern Russian languages. Also strictly separated from the house is (was) seen cases with their ide. equivalents. The author has not noticed the closeness of the latter to the constructions of the type namai yra (buvo) statyti (see 3.7.1—3.7.3), as well as the parallel use of sentences in Lithuanian and Latvian with conjugable and inconjugable forms of adjectives (see: medus gardus/gardu valgyti 3.2.1, etc.), their paradigmatic relationship with personal (i.e. having the position of a factor) sentences of the type medus gardus/gardu. The borrowing (133 hypothesis is based on the belief that the object nominative in Lithuanian and Latvian is synchronously motivated and regular in impersonal sentences, etc., 154). Iš In fact, as already mentioned, it is pushed here by the accusative of usage of synchronicališ ly motivated equivalents, the distribution in su Lithuanian o jo dialects has characteristic features of syntactic relics. 3.9.2. In Latvian dialects, which are closely related to the Estonian su language area, the nominative infinitive is used much less su frequently than in Northern, eastern and ir southern dialects of Lithuanian. According to the Latvian dialectological 18 => : Some scholars consider the construction of the western Finnish itself to be an evolved iš purpose of the subject nominative. su Hakulinen 1960 246. 96 According to the data collected for the atlas'?, in the intersection of Latvian — Estonian dialects, the object nominative with the communicative is only found in a few places: in the northernmost corner — in Ydaus, Ypikių and Cirgalių dialects. From the northern part of the internal dialect, constructions of the type akminš grūti kustinat "stone hard (i.e. difficult) to move" are still recorded in the neighborhoods of Biržuliai, Bauniai, Jaunburtniekai, Kuscėnai, Katarai, Duntė, separated from each other by the accusative. Somewhat more common constructions of the above-mentioned type are found in the western part of Kurzeme (in the dialects of Pope, Vents, Zauva, Talsu-Edala, Saldaus, Duobele), sporadically —like in the Žemaičių dialect of Lithuanian language—they are also found in other parts of Kurzeme (in the dialects of Laize, Lybagai, Kandava, Engure, Irlava, Rankiai); besides, here is recorded and vajag /gribas malka skaldit "need/wants to split wood” kind of statements. In the winter dialect conversations?! both types of structures have also been found only in individual fireplaces (Ciecerė, Jėkabnieki, Jaunsvirlaukė); most of them —in those places where the Latvian language area borders with the northern Lithuanian dialects that use the corresponding construction (south of Rezekne, as well as in the dialects of Ezere, Bēne, Yslyce, Kaplava). In much broader sections of the Ziemgali internal dialect (about Duobele, Jelgava, Bauska, etc.) the nominative is used with the debitive forms (jūiet plaut siens "it is necessary to go mow hay" and so on). On the other hand, in the large area of the Vīksne dialect, the nominative with infinitive is present only in a few "islands": in Grašų-Krauklių, around Sėrena, in the vicinity of Dignaja, Varkava, Kaunata-Pilda and in the dialects of Kraslava and Aknystė, on the border of Lithuanian and Latvian languages (Ancitis 1977: 264—265); by the way, here also the nominative is more often with the debitive than with the infinitive without jū-. The dispersion of the structure’s foci suggests that it was previously widespread in a large part of the Latvian language area, and is now much more decreased than in Lithuanian. This also supports the view that the nominative in this construction is a common syntactic archaism. The Latvian nominative with infinitive differs from Lithuanian in some innovative features. Except in rare cases with variable adjectives (saulite silta hildities tipo, see. ji 3.2.1.), communication constructions here are impersonal, and the nominative has the function of a direct complement. Since the adjective infinitive in Latvian has disappeared in constructions, the singular has been replaced by the adverbs ir su (mild) "easy", hard "hardly", vajag(a) "need", briv "galima" ir pan., plg. not easy bags to carry "nelengvai (=nelengva) maišai nešt"), the connection in personal su sentences, still felt in Lithuanian (darbas sunku etc.), is broken here. ir Thus, the nominative form in Latvian has already lost its syntactic motivation, the nominative has become a true object verb. Apparently, this was the most important reason why it was replaced on a larger scale in Latvian by the usual object dialect in 19 They are preserved in Riga, in the Department of Dialectology of the Latvian Language Institute. The author is grateful to the management of the Institute for the opportunity to use them. uz The ir following is based on the į answers to questions 270, 272, 276, 277, 280 of the Latvian language atlas data collection program (Latviešu valodas dialektoloģijas atlanta vakSanas programma. Riga, p. 1954, 90—93). The names of Latvian dialects are presented according to Mr. 1964 : 408 —409. or — Rudzite indictment. It has been better preserved only in constructions su of a new form of the debitive, which has a special place in the Latvian language system. . Wii 3.9.3. The Kodél nominative su infinitive, long lost in other related languages, has remained until now in the adjacent dialects of ir Eastern Baltic Russian, best explained by the already mentioned Kiparski's hypothesis about the conservative influence of Western Finnish languages. Contact in su Western Finnish languages, apparently, helped to preserve that syntactic archaism by ir giving an example of jį re-meaning in the same way as the object nominative in — an impersonal sentence. This was particularly favourable conditiopo VI ns a., when the eastern Baltic tribes, having passed They spread far into the western parts of the į inhabited world. Over the course of several centuries, the dialects of present-day Latvia diverged from Lithuanian. Since the infinitive su -ti/ *-tei then, apparently, had already separated from the paradigm of iš noun conjugation, the change of syntactic relationships within the construction could have begun, the embryos of the "object nominative" could have appeared. Just VII-VIII East a. Slavic dialects established themselves in a large territory between Kijevo ir Naugardo. Intensive Slavificatiir on of the Finno-Baltic took place in the area of present-day northern dialects of Russian. Thus, contact with the West su Finnic languages may have had iš a similar effect on the construction of the Russian language inherited from the Slavs as on kį the Baltic. It is noteworthy that in the oldest northern In Russian scripts, the nominative forms the same infinitive constructions as in eastern su Baltic languages. It was later introduced to ir su in personified verb forms (awa numss naaueawm, cf. : "the cup pours the drink”), the o construction itself acquired a peculiar direction of development, connected su with processes characteristic of Slavic languages: — syncretism of nominative accusative ir forms with — morphologization of the living dead genus (Timberlake 1974: 104—116; >KypasjieB 1984). In the western dialects of Russian (in the Pskov-Smolensk-Vologda triangle) the nominative with infinitive was apparently supported by the Baltic substrate. The role of the Lithuanian language is shown by the fact that the 14th-17th century construction is attested in documents with the characteristics of the Gudi language, written in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania — in Polotsk, Trakai, Vilnius (Dunn 1982: 517). It is still frequently used by the Gudi schnekts, who have recently established themselves in the area of the Lithuanian language (in Pelesa, Varanasi, etc., see Cynnuux 1982: 246—247). Meanwhile, in the southern East Slavic dialects (in present-day southern Russia and Ukraine) the construction with the nominative disappeared, apparently, even before the beginning of writing, and in the 17th-century writings of this area there are only remnants of it (in some places activated by the prestige of the Moscow clerical language). 3.9.4. The history su of the nominative infinitive is no exception. Intensive contacts in West su Finnish po V-VI a. helped to preserve the eastern Baltic se ir for other archaic constructions: nominative in su adjective forms (ropes are pulled, doors are opened), as well as to the taring participants, summarized by the modal meaning of the indirect sentence (aut. 1977; 1979 : 213—218; 1985; 1990 : 228—235). Contacts with vakafinas from much earlier times helped to su preserve in the ry Baltic languages the ancient constructions of verbs with postpositions, called postpositional locutors su (aut. 1985 : 191—193). In all the above mentioned cases we see inherited Indo-European sentence structures «struktū: ir ras, which the eastern Balts retained in a new 98 meaning according to the West Finnish languages. The interrelationship and approximate direction of development of the types of communicative use indicated here can be schematically marked as follows: (5) — (6); (2) — (T); (3a), (4a) - (8); (1), (8 b) — (9 (a) (8b), (9a,c) — (10a); (9b) - (10b); (8a), (9¢) —(11); (9 a, c) - (12). The discussed processes of the development of the general constructs have clear counterparts in other Indo-European (and not only Indo-European) languages (except for the present Balkan languages, where infinitives disappeared due to specific circumstances of that area). This shows a typologically common direction of development and a tendency to use and meaning in a similar way the unchangeable forms that emerged from the verb nouns in the syntactic structure of the language. A characteristic of Lithuanian language is that, alongside the newer types of communicative usage, the primary, ancient constructions have been well preserved, from which the form of communication itself has emerged. In this respect, Lithuanian differs markedly from other modern languages and provides important data for the reconstruction of the Indo-European syntactic system. ASpr BrB Biblia BrP BW DnR EEv GIB JablRR KGr KPP LKG LKZ ME MLLG MLLVG RV GIS SUTRUMPININMAI Old Latvian language monuments in facsimile prints. Hrsg. A.Gūnther. Bd 1-2. Heidelberg, 1929. ditas per Jana Bretkuna... Karaliacziuie (1579—1590) (cited tatai esti Wissas Schwentas Raschtas Lietuwischkai pergulfrom a photocopy of the manuscript). Postilla tatai esti Short and poor translation of the Gospel... By Jan Bretkuna... the King... 1591. Barons Kr. and Wissendorffs H. Latwju songs. P.1-6. Jelgava and Petrograd, 1894—1915. Evangelia... Ex Latino in Lothavicum idioma translata. Per R.P. Georgium Elger... Wilnae... 1671 (= ASpr I 22—242). Ta Swehta Grahmata Jeb Deewa Swehtais Wahrds... Riga... 1685—1689 (E.Glick's translation of the Bible). J.Jablonskis. Selected Writings. South. K.Donelaitis. Found. V., 1957. J.Palionis. T.1-2. V., Grammar of the Lithuanian language by Dr. Friedrich Kurschat. Halle a.S., 1876. 1957—1959. Language practice tips. South. A.Pupkis. V., 1985. Grammar of the Lithuanian language. Red. K.Ulvydas. T.1—3, V., Dictionary of 1965—1976. Lithuanian Language. V.1-15. V., 1941-1991. K. Mūlenbachs, J.Endzelins. The Latvian language. P.1-4. Riga, 1923-1932. Bulletin of the American Psychological Association. Bd.1-6. eidelberg, 1883—1912. Grammar of the modern Latvian literary language. P.1-2. Riga, Rigveda Samhita. Hrsg. F.M. 1959—1962. Muiiller, 1887. Hymns were very Catholic prayers. Author Salomo105 ne Mozerka Slawoczynski... Wilnae... 1646 (Photogr. I'm sorry. : S.M.Slavočinskis. Hymns. Par. J.Lebedys. V., supra 1958.). to Cynpacnbckas pyxonucs. Man. C.CesepbaHOB. CIl16., 1904. VD I — Lithuanian Folk Songs. Wedding songs. T.1. V., Other 1983.. sources abbreviations same as LKŽ ir LKG. Literature l. Ambrazas S. Historical change of the abstract forms of verbs. — Lithuanian Linguistics. T. 26, 1987, p. 88— 95. | į 2 Ambrazas V. Absolute beneficiary XVI—XVII in a. Lithuanian Language Monuments. — Lithuanian Linguistics. T. 5, 1962, p. 3—146. 3. Ambrazas V. The origin of the name is a controversiir al issue. — Lithuanian Linguistics. T. 17, 1977, p. 7—54. ' iia 4. Ambrazas V. Participle of the nominatisu ve in Lithuanian (nominativus cum participio) structure ir development. — Lithuanian Linguistics. T. 18, 1978, p. 7—67. 5. Ambrazas V. Historical Syntax of Lithuanian Language Participants. V., 6. 1979. Ambrazas V. The Indo-European Base of the Dativus and Nominative with infinitive im Baltic. — Indo-European languages Research. Bd. 92, 1987, S.203-219, T. Braces V. Cpaenumessnwil cunmaxcuc npunacmuil 6aamulcxuz aswxos/ Comparative Syntax of the Baltic Participles. V., 1990. 8. Ancitis K. The origin of acne. Riga, 9. 1977. Baléikonis J. Selected Writings. T.1. V., 1978. 10. Balkeviéius J. Current Lithuanian language syntax. V., 1963. 11. Benveniste P. The Avestan infinitives. Paris, 12. 1935. Bergmane A. Indefinite verb (Infinitive- ). —Grammar of modern Latvian literary language. S.1. Riga, 1959, pp. 630-632. 13. Behaghel O. German syntax. Heidelberg, 1924. 14. Boed er W. On the reconstruction of infinitive constructions in Indo-European languages. —Linguistic Reconstruction and Indo-European Syntax, ed. P. Ramat et al. Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 207–224. 15. Bru gm ann K. The comparative grammar of the Indo-European languages. Bd.2., T.1. Strasbourg, 1906; Bd. 2., T.2. Strasbourg, 16. Delbrūck B. Altindische Syntax. Halle, 1888. 17. Del b rack B. Comparative Syntax of the Indo-European Languages. Bd. 2. Strasbourg, 1897. 18. Disterheft D. The Syntactic Development of the Infinitive in IndoEuropean. Columbus. Ohio, 1980. 19. Dunn J.A. The Nominative and Infinitive Construction in the Slavonic Languages. — Slavonic and East European Review. V. 60, N. 4, 1982, p. 500—527. 20. Endzelins J. Grammar of the Latvian language. Riga, 1951. 3 E ng are H. Syntactic Studies. — Archivum Philologicum. T. 6, 1937, p. -122. 2k Ea done H. Syntactic Studies. — Archivum Philologicum. T. 7, 1938, p. 45-56. 3 Slr simple E. To the baltoslavian Grammar. KZ, Bd. 53, 1925, Hf. 1, 24. Fraenkel E. Syntax of Lithuanian Case, K. 1928. Wu Gebauer J. Historical Dictionary of the Irish Language, d. 4. A song. Prague, 243250 a hn A. Some Hittite Sanskrit Parallels. — Language. Vol. 29, 1953, p. 27. Hahn A. Verbal Nouns and Adjectives i i š guage. Vol. 42, 1966, pp. 378-398. Jectives in Some Ancient Languages. Lan 28. H amp E.P. Baltic Infinitives and Verbal N . — Li same Inst The 1981 Convention. Chicago. III, 1985.p. ounces. 5 Lituanistikos Institute 106 29. Haudry J. The double uses of the dative and the function of the Indo-European dative. —Bulletin of the Society of Linguistics. T. 63, 1968, 1, pp. 141-159. 30 Haudry J. The use of cases in Vedic. Lyon, 1977. Havranek B. The Old Russian personal construction of fish hunting and its analogues in the North Russian nafre¹ich. —Bulletin of the State of the Russian Self. a lit., 12, pp. 169-176. 322. Hof mann J.B. —Szantyr A. Latin syntax and stylistics. Miinchen, 33. "Jablonski J. Jablonski's Writings- ". T. 4/Red. J.Baléikonis. 34, Kaunas. Jablonskis J. 1972. Selected Writings. T.1/Sud. J.Palionis. V., 1957. 35. Jacobsson G. On the 1935. question of the nominative as a case of the direct object in Slavic. —Lingua viget, in hon. V.Kiparsky. Helsinki, 1964, pp. 71–82. 36. Jeffers R. Remarks on Indo-European Infinitives. —Languauge, Vol. 51, N.1, 1975, p. 133—148. 37. Jeffers R. Syntactic Change and Syntactic Reconstruction. —Current Progress in Historical Linguistics/Ed. Christie W. Amsterdam, 1976, pp. 155-157, 38. Kiparsky V. Uber the nominative object of the infinitive. —Journal of Slavic Philology, Vol. 28, 1960, pp. 333—342. 163—166. 39. Kiparsky V. The nominative object of the infinitive in Slavic, Baltic and Baltic Finnic. "Baltistica." T. 5(2), 1969, pp. 141-148. 40. Krause W. Thomas W. Tocharian Elementary Book. Bd.1. Cambridge University Press, 1960. 41. Kurylowicz J. The Inflectional Categories of Indo—European. Heidelberg, 1964. 42. La Roche J. Homeric Investigations, Vol. 2, T.1. The Infinitive in Homer. Leipzig, 1893. 43. The 7. Old Slavic Grammar. Lviv, Warsaw, Krakow, 1922. 44. Macdonell A.A. A Vedic Grammar for Students. London, 1955. 45. Mar van J. Verbum infinitum e 6aamuiicxur s3mxaz u ezo omnowmenue x caasancxomy cocmosnurw. —Slavia Pragensia, 1960, N22, pp. 7—15. 46. Maziulis V. Relations between the Baltic and other Indo-European languages (declination). V., 47. 1970. Miklosich F. Comparative grammar of the Slavic languages. Bd. Vienna, 1874. 48. Mulenbachs K. Syntakse jeb teikuma maciba. —Latvian grammar written by J. Endzelin and K. Mūlenbach. Riga, 1928, pp. 112–281. 49. Os e F. Supinum and Infinitive in Hittite. MVAeG, Bd. 47, T.1. Leipzig, 1944. 50.0trebski J. Grammar of Lithuanian language. T.3. Warsaw, 1956. 51.0 zo ls A. The language of Latvian folk songs. Riga, 1961. 52. 0 z ols A. Old Latvian written language. Riga, 1965. 53. Oz ols A. Raksti valodnieciba. Riga, 1967. Palionis J. Literary language of Lithuania in the 16th—17th centuries. 55. Palionis J. On a type of infinitive sentence in Lithuanian. — Baltistica, Appendix 1, 1972, pp. 125-130. 56. Palionis J. Use of Supina in Lithuanian writing monuments of the 16th—17th centuries. Baltistica. T. 10 (2), 1974, p. 143—148. 57. Palmaitis L. On the non-nominative past of the Baltic languages. Baltistica, Appendix 2, 1977, pp. 114-123. 58. Paulauskienė A. Usefulness of purpose or objective with associative. —Theory and practice of language culture. Notebook of the Lithuanian language section N 5 (18), 1970, p. 49—53. 59. Piročkinas A. J. Jablonskis about the noun with the verb. — [Language- ]. T. 22(1), 1972, p. 61—70. 60. Piročkinas A. Jono Jablonski's corrections. K., 1986. 61. Pof ak J. The development of v infinitives is also honorable. — Minutes Univ. Carolinae, Philol. 16. Prague, 1967. 107 2: P small A. Basics of language culture. V., 1980. J : 63. R o P t er N. Die deutschen ohnubersetzungen im Czech. Berlin, Wiesbaden, 1953. "we i 64. Renou L. Sanskrit monographs, t. 2. Le suffix - You. et la constitution of infinitives en -toh, -tave, -tum. Paris, 1937. pra 65. Rudzite M. Latvian dialectology. Riga į t 7 66. Schlachter W. Work on structural Grammar. Minchen, 1968. ; ; 67. Schleicher A. Lithuanians Grammar. Prague, 68. 1856. Schmalstieg W.R. A Lithuanian Historical Syntax. Columbus, Ohio, USA 1988. ot | 69. Seiler H. Relative proposition, attribute and Apposition. Wiesbaden, 1960. 70. Sg all P. Die Infinitive im Rgveda. — Minutes Univ. Carolinae, Philol. 2, 1958, S. 137—268. T, Fury 3 Tl. Sirtautas V. Constructions have been seen, heard... structure. — Linguistics. T. 22(1), 1971, p. 71-79. 14. 72. S tang ChrS. Comparative Grammar of the Baltic Languages. Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø, 1966. in: | 73. Szemerényi O. in Introduction of the comparative Linguistics. Darmstadt, Germany 1970. 74. Suk ys J. Use of ir Linksniy prielinksniy. K., 1984. 75. Timberlake A. The Nominative Object in Slavic, Baltic, and West Finnic. Slavic Articles, 82. Munich, Germany 1974. 76. Travniéek F. Historickd gramatica 3. ceska, Skladba. Prague, 1956. 77. Trost P. Infinitive v of litevitiné. — Studies of ze Slavic Linguistics. Prague, 1958, p. 271—274. 2 78. Vaillant A. Comparative grammar of Slavic languages. T. 2. Lyon-Paris, 79. A. 1966. Valeckiene The grammar system of Lithuanian language. Family category. V., 1984. 80. Vecerka R. On the development of modal constructions in Slavic languages. "Otazky- 's Slavonic Syntax, r. 3". Brown 1973, pp. 303–306. 81. Veenker VW. The Question of the Finno-Ugric Substrate in the Russian Language. Bloomington, 1967. 192 22 Vondr and VW. Comparative Slavic Grammar, Vol.2. Gottingen, 83. Wickman B. The Form of the Object in the Uralic Languages. Uppsala, 84. Zinkevicius Z. 1955. Historical grammar of Lithuanian language. T.2. V., 1981. 85. Jlea K oBa M. ®ynkuuoHaseH passofi Ha KHHOHHHTHBA B CbpOGOX- 'bpBATCKH s35I1IK. Codgus, 1982. 86. 2K y pa 8 because B.K. Nominative with infinitive c Touku 3peHus mopdonoruvecko#t Hetrpanusauuu. — Baltistica. T. 20(2), 1984, p. 119-125. 87. Ua nor Bau.Be. K Tunosioruu HHOHHHTHBA B GAJIKAHCKHX A3BIKAX. — CnaBanckoe xn 6ankaHckoe 3bIKO3HaAHMe. Mocksa, 1976, c. 216— 230. 88. Jia pun B.A. O6 I'm not a cnasano-6anTo-punckot usornocce. Lithuanian Linguistics. T. 6, 1963, p. 87—107. aa, Ilore6na A.A. H3 sanucok no pycckoft rpammaTuke., T. 1—2. Mocksa, 90. Ca 6e xn xa AM. KocTkuchuns C HMEHHTeJIbHEIM I'm sorry, I'm sorry. — McTopuyeckas rpaMMaTHKA pycckoro sssika. CunuTrarcuce. Ilpocroe npenjioxenxe. Pen. B.H.Boproscrkuit. Mocksa, 1978, c. 403—416. 91. Cnpunuakr S.A. Ouepk pyccKoro HCTOPHYECKOro CHHTAKCHCA (npocToe npennoxxeuue). Kues, 1960. 92. CT one nose l0.C. Oopor semas narams Hu ero I'm not sure. I'm not sure. — gai all ra cep.jinuT. H a3. T. 62(2), 1984, c. 128—143. 93. IT omo pos B.H. Us obnactu 6anmToO-cJiaBaHCKH . — Lithuanian Linguistics. T. 6, 1963, p. 149— 176. RCALKAORRER Funan 94. X o no Ba K.WU. Ilpocroe mpeanoxenne B CTAPOCJ/IABAHCKOM s351K6e. MockBa, 1980. 108 THE SYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN LITHUANIAN Summary Differences between infinitive stems in Lithuanian-Latvian and Prussian alongside with the genetic identity of dative singular flexion permit to assume that the infinitive was isolated from the paradigm of verbal abstracts and included into the verbal system after the split of Common Baltic. Because of a comparatively late differentiation of the infinitive and the conservative nature of the syntactic system, Lithuanian has preserved the ancient use of pre-infinitival forms better than the majority of other contemporary Indo-European languages. By means of internal reconstruction and comparative analysis the main stages in the syntactic development of the infinitive are distinguished and presented in the form of patterns and schemes of syntactic relations. The oldest stage is represented by patterns in which the dative of tistem verbal abstract with the ending -i/* ei is a predicate of an imbedded purpose clause. Its use with another (nominal) dative of purpose or destination gave rise to dative with the infinitive. In many utterances still in use in contemporary Lithuanian dialects, both members of this construction have retained the original dative meaning, relation to the main verb and possibility of separate use, e.g. ariau lauką rugiams sėti "I ploughed the field to sow rye" (lit. : "for rye for sow”), cf.: ariau rugiams "I ploughed for rye” and ariau set: ”1 ploughed for sowing”. The nominative with the infinitive after verbs like tekti “fall to”, likti “remain, be left”, rūpėti “concern” and predicative adjectives (especially in neutral form) is based on the same ancient use of the verbal abstract dative expressing purpose, e.g. laukas liko arti “field remained to plough (for ploughing)”; medus gardu/gardus valgyti "honey is tasty to eat (for eating)”. As a result of internal re-analysis, the subject nominative has been reinterpreted as object and replaced by the accusative in many clauses turned syntactically impersonal: gardu/liko/reikia valgyti medų “it is nice/remains/necessary to eat honey”. Contacts with West Finnic languages (especially after the 5th ¢. AD) can be regarded as a favourable condition for preserving the object nominative with the infinitive in some Lithuanian, Latvian and North-West Russian dialects. The subject nominative in its original function is retained after the verb būti (often in zero form) in clauses denoting content of perception (namai O matyti "the house is to be seen”) and necessity (namai bus statyti "the house is (lit.: will be) to build”). The subsequent syntactic development of the infinitive already separated from the verbal noun (as an uninflected verbal form) is reflected in personal clauses with modal, phasal and other verbs: jis nori/turi/praso/leidzia grįžti "he wants/must/ begs/allows to return”, jie pradéjo/baige statyti "they began/finished building (lit.: to build)”. The existence of such patterns in many relative languages (sometimes regarded as inherited from protolanguage) is considered here to be a result of typologically determined tendencies in the use of impersonal (uninflected) verbal forms. The transfer of modal and phasal meaning to the infinitive itself has determined its use as an equivalent of imperative and some other finite verb forms in emphatic speech, e.g. Get up! "stand up!"; Sūnus bégt, tėvas vytis “The son took to his heels (lit.: to run), the father after him (lit.: to pursue)”. Secondary nominalization of the infinitive in the accusative or nominative position, attested in many related langhiiges, still its rudimentary stage is on in Lithuanian. he syntactic development of the infinitive in Lithuanian has been influenced by its interrelations with supine. The supine (originally the accusative singular of tustem verbal nouns) lost its case meaning earlier and was replaced by the infinitive in many clauses with verbs denoting motion and similar processes. 109