Apibrėžtumo / neapibrėžtumo kategorija ir pirminė įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių reikšmė

XXV (1986) ADELĖ VALECKIENĖ THE CATEGORY OF DEFINITION- /UNDEFINITION AND THE PRIMARY MEANING OF Nominal Pronouns 1. Morphological forms are characterized by functional heterogeneity. They can relate to other forms according to various characteristics and form separate subsystems. A subsystem where one form is opposed to another by a certain feature is called a morphological category (Ellis, R. Ružička, Zawadowski, Kirchner, ZS 1962, 46, 6, 8, 39, 9; TyxmMax 1966, 29; Bonmapko 1971, 8; 1976, 10—11, 15, 148). In short, a category can be defined as a formally expressed attribute of meaning realized by opposing members (J. Ružička, ZS 1962, 60; Illexnexbe 1970, 5). As a separate sign of language, the category has a function of formal expression—forms and meaningful expression—function. The function of the category depends on the relationship of forms. It is a relative value, the invariant of all specific variant values of the forms of a given subsystem. Specific variant values consist of the relational value plus context'. The function of the category forms, which emerges from the relationship of forms, is considered by representatives of various linguistic directions the most worthy of the attention of linguists. Forms, as an element of the surface structure, are often considered less important to the category. Members of the category can be expressed by any morphological means — synthetic (ends, suffixes), suppletive, analytical forms, auxiliary Words, prosodic means, etc. (see Bamupnec 1937, 77 et seq.; Iilep6a 1957, 64; Meier 1961, 15; Įloryxias 1967, 11; I'ak 1979, 41). However, it is important that the category is formally expressed, i.e. that it has special categorical forms. In addition to the formal expression, a separate morphological category cannot be distinguished in the language system. Thus, morphological forms, as material acts of language, are also an important component of the category. The two sides of the expression of the category – the formal and the semantic – are inextricably linked and cannot exist without each other. A certain system of forms is necessary for the realization of a meaningful system, and vice versa, in the absence of a defined relationship of forms – meaningful side, the existence of forms loses its meaning. The relation (function) of the morphological forms of a category can be determined in the higher, i.e. syntactic, level (in a sentence or syntactic compound). Thus, context is also an important element of the category. It is often considered part of the formal expression of morphological categories (Bonjgapro 1971, 65 et al. ; CrenaHoB! The relation of invariant and variant values is determined here according to J. Kurytowicziaus (1964, 14; Kypunosuy 1955, 74; 1965, 411 etc.) primary and secondary functions and E. Benveniste's (BexBenxcr basic derivative values, 1974, 156—164) ir 168 1975, 27). On the other hand, a single context does not constitute a grammatical expression of a category. A category can only be spoken of when there are acoustically different forms of its representation in the language (Mapruxe 1963, 400; Hokymun 1967, 8, 11). When distinguishing a certain category, it is ar important to determine, the use of forms forming a subsystem for a certain function is necessary ( 1978, 109; Eoxnjiapro 1976, 12; 1978, 156 tt. ). Morphological categories are characterized by the fact that jy The forms of zymetas are used where they are not ir necessary, when the function is neutralized t. y. by the jy context. On the other hand, the unmarked member has a wider scope of use under neutralization conditions. In such circumstances, it is important to determine the weight of a category in a particular class of words. The neutralization of the contradiction of forms, being essentially a syntagmatic phenomenon, is the starting point of the change of iš category. Cases of neutralization weaken the category and have a decisive effect on its further development. ir Thus, when studying a category, it is important to bu determine the direction of its dynamic development and its relationship with other su categories of the same class of words. A category is not a static system. Ji has a center ir periphery. It is characterized by evolution, although the smallest change. As in every system, the dynamics of language in ir the category leads to phenomena that fall out of the general system. Non-systemic phenomena iš form the periphery of language, their position is weak. jų When studying a category, it is ir important to determine what į tą system does not include what is the interaction of systemic ir non-systemic forms of use, as this may affect the direction of development. On the other hand, separate categories of a certain class of words are not closed, the peripheral iš forms of one subsystem can pass to another. į Therefore, the use of individual subsystem forms can often replace one ir another. Because of to this, there are various ways of expressing the most subtle stylistic nuances in speech. Non-systemic phenomena do not destroy ir language, language always maintains systemic balance. It is important only to determine what in the category ma forcentric position what ir exists in the periphery. Ne all languages have the same number of categories. Be of the same category in terms of volume, scope of use and weight in the grammatical system. In this case, it is the type of language that is studied. 2. According to the above mentioned morphological categories, the category of definiteness and uncertainty can be | distinguished in Lithuanian language. Šį The subsystem consists of noun forms of adjectives (participants?) in relation to the corresponding ordinary forms. Jų the relationship emerges in the paradigmatic plane. The simple noun ir forms, when related to each other, form a binary asymmetric opposition. The simple forms indicate the characteristic of the object, o the noun, the be characteristics of the object, together indicate that the object is known, defined. So the noun forms in this subsystem are Marked (+), 0 ordinary unmarked (—): Adjective forms Ordinary Noun (>) (+) * Below —substantive adjectives mean together and substantive participants, Substantive forms usually go byZyminiu® 169 3.1 The defining meaning of noun forms is a purely relational meaning, manifested in the relation of ordinary iš noun forms. ir Adjectives also have a number of contextual meanings, depending on the specific ways of defining these forms in Lithuanian. Adjectives are formed from ordinary adjectives with the enclitic postpositional pronoun "*jo-. However, the defining meaning of nominative adjectives is not merely the meaning of the pronoun *yo. Since the pronoun *jonow has grown with the simple adjective into one morphological form, the lexical meaning of the adjective and the surrounding noun form are very important for the definition of objects. so connect only to the noun ir (like other signs, ir they cannot be connected in a dependent relationship with a noun). su Thus, jų contextual meanings are primarily determined by the syntactic and semantic relationship of the adjective and the noun. 3.2. In order to define objects, it is necessary that the nominative adjective attached to the noun indicates a distinctive feature of the object. The noun adjectives define objects, distinguishing them from others according to the lexical meaning of the iš adjective —space, time, physical, mental characteristics, color, etc. —in three ways (aut. 1957, 175—183; LKG 1965, 505—508): 1) with a higher amount of the characterising feature, e.g. : The large room of the kolkhoz board, (= which is the largest, larger than už the others), where the seed grain was recently ir weighed, was only cleaned, but decorated ne ŠimkA ir 15; 2) opposite to another thing, an antonym property, e.g. : In the winter we will build new dyarisks livestock farm stables, because the existing small VaižgP I 135; 3) some specific, distinguisiš hing feature of others, e.g. : For a long time Shark led the pack Padubysio forest, o secret path, trails marked be by beasts, was not yet VienR IV 16. Distinctive characteristics may be species-specific. Therefore, often nominative adjectives, according to the same ways of distinguishing objects, when defining an object, denote a species, e.g.: sweet peas, jo willow, heavy light industry, red white clover, etc. ir ir ir In Lithuanian language terminology, a lot of terms of various specialties are made up of nominative adjectives. su 3.3, It must be said that the ir ordinary adjective distinguishes the object by its lexical meaning. The noun particle emphasizes that the distinguished object is known, defined, t. y. gives the adjective an individualizing function. If the statement Dress® in a red dress means a certain dress (which is red) different from other dresses (other colors), it does not mean that the dress is ta known. There are many red dresses. The object is individualized only when the distinguishing feature is said with jo a noun adjective, saying nount. y. su 3 In the case of adjectives, they are rarely used in sentences of ir a certain structure, e.g. : The true way SchG 261 (see section 4.4). aut. 1957, 236). Nominative adjectives tend to become nouns, especially when they refer to a generalized group of persons, e.g. : It's good to lie to young people when they don't know to Ds. However, the latter function for nominative adjectives is also secondary. The primary function of noun ir adjectives, as ordinary adjectives, is attributive (for primary ir secondary functions, see The 1962, 59 tt. ). 170 adjective “red — dress” in the form of the kinetic tin denotes a certain iš defined, contextand situation-- known object. The adjectives that denote species also have an individualization function, they indicate, individualize a certain defined group of — objects. Red clover differs from red clover in that they are representatives of a certain, known kind of thing. There is a difference ir between the distinguishable specific noun adjectives that the former, while distinguishing the object, individualize and specify, the specific noun adjectives do jį not specify the ir object, but have o a clear mark of individualization or definiteness. 3.4. The noun adjectives also define the object by anaphora, t. y. indicating the previous context. The first time an object is mentioned, the ordinary adjective is used with the noun or the object is described in another way, then the nominative adjective is o used to define those objects as known. For example, the ordinary adjective: A magical lamp appeared on a high, steep mountain. He shone like a star. ..; further adjective: another climber did nė not reach the iš top of the mountain, did not miraculously see the gojo light BilR 106—109, Adjectives with a denoting meaning always indicate an individual, distinct characteristic. In this way, the designated noun adjectives differ from the distinguishing adjectives only by the specificity of their use in the way of ir their definition. 4. As contextual meanings show, the definition of objects by nominative adjectives depends only on the relationship with ordinary ne adjectives, but on the jų syntactic and su semantic relationship with the noun in ir a broader jų context. su ir Because in a to certain context, the correlation of certainty and uncertainty, | t. y. ‘general’ | “individualu” is neutralized by ir the ordinary adjective used instead of the nominative adjective. In the context of neutralization, the use of ordinary adjectives becomes more / common. These are more typical cases of ir neutralization in Lithuanian. 1) When an adjective is accompanied by a demonstrative adjective, only the noun form, but the simple one, can be used to define the object, e.g.: Here three ne beautiful white swans appeared from ir the dense trees, they waved their Ir wings and iš floated most beautifully in the water. ir The duckling knew those wonderful birds Balč AP 40; It was an extraordinary axe. It is enough to rub it on the su sore area, ir — pagydo... Su that magic axe healed ir Vince BorMS 47. The basic meaning of demonstratiiš ve pronouns corresponds to the meaning of nominative adjectives: demonstrative pronouns of denotation correspond to the distinctive meaning of nominative adjectives, o anaphoric demonstrative pronouns — correspond to the indicative meaning of nominative adjectives. But, of course, iš to cannot be concluded that the nominal part *jofunkcija corresponds to the demonstrative pronoun function, because [Context is very important for defining an object. ir On the other hand, the corresponding function makes the noun form unnecessary if there is a demonstrative pronoun next to it. This can be ir explained by the neutralization šį of the noun forms. 2) When the adjective is of the upper case, the object can also be defined only in the noun, but in the simple form, e.g. : ne ir The parents did not ir treat the youngest son Antaniukas Dancing 24; the older wave fun, iš dancing the second, 171 ir getting ready in a hurry. The youngest spruce in the water still: white face washes, dots like fish SNėrP I 256. This case of neutralization is motivated by the coincidence and ir convergence of the functional values of substantive adjectives of the upper degree. A noun adjective defines an object by distinguishing it from others by the greatest quantity of a characteristic (see 3.2), and the superior forms denote the greatest quantity of a characteristic. In this to context, the noun particle also becomes unnecessary. 3) When an object is defined, distinguishing jį by some individual characteristic, which the adjective and without the noun part sufficiently defines the object in its lexical meaning. In such cases, the ordinary form is also used next to the noun, e.g. : ir Many representatives of the film art came iš to the fraternal (brotherly) republics rs; once Ne worried thought at a crossroads, self his ir true in search of the (true) way BorMS 5. For this reason, as well as to indicate the kind of some objects, the simple forms of jvardZiuotinés are used, e.g. juone o da ir white bread (not black, white), sweet ir sour milk (not sweet, sour) next to sweet bitter ir pepper, table salt, etc. ir Common suffixes used to denote species -iškas, -a adjectives of the simple form, because the ši suffix, as a suffix ir -inis, -ė, distinguishes objects by denoting kind jų ir be noun particles, e.g.: Dutch cheese, milk soup, men's shirts, children's socks, etc. ir This case of neutralization depends purely on the lexical meaning of the adjective and the syntactic-semantic relationship with the demonstrative noun. jo sū 5.1. Ta the fact that the definition of objects by nominative adjectives depends heavily on the context, leads to unequal degrees of definition. The clearest definition is when objects are individualized and specificated by the context clear that it is precisely the object, ir iš o ne other (in the above-mentioned cases of ir use of distinguishing noun forms). However, in Lithuanian there are cases of weak definition, when the object is ir distinguished by a noun adjective, but not clearly individualized, not concreted. In this case, the objects are referred to as representatives of a certain generalized group, distinguished by some characteristic, but it is not an individualized type of objects, only objects of a certain group in general (mostly persons ir alive). In modern Lithuanian literary language, this type of adjectives of the higher, less frequently of the highest degree, which distinguishes other objects with a greater maximum amount of characteristics according to the grade iš category, is most common. ar In this case, the most commonly used plural forms (non-individualizing), e.g. : The last rays, breaking through the trunks of rare raist trees, shone in the dunes, gently stroking the tops of the higher (which ir are higher) spruces and pines (= VienR IV 28; Former Golovin avenue is so wide that the older (which is older) (= houses... left either distracted backwards, or completely destroyed VienR VII At this 311; time he was supported by the paramedic, nurses, the bravest who (= bravest) patients finally all ir VienR II 141; In the garden grew the most ir beautiful flowers, to (= the more beautiful which are more beautiful) were tied silver bells BalčAP 61; Now everyone says that the most ji beautiful of iš all the most beautiful (= who are the most beautiful) birds BalčAP 42; Only began to shout in loud voices bold172 they only began to call the strongest, who were among them, to come here, to fight with Margiris with sharp swords... KrėvRR I 213. According to ancient writings: Death criseus būwo anit met kanczia pikczéusiuiy people kū DP 176. Since there is no clear individualization and specification here, they are equally alongside each other. In some cases, simple forms are used, e.g. ir : There were no roads here, except those that were made by herds of deer, bulls, ar moose and other larger animals VienR IV 13 and In those lean wolves overtook deer, bulls and other larger animals VienR IV 13—14, There are ir adjectives of the non-comparative degree, which denote distinctive features of objects as ir representatives of a certain undefined group. without individualizing them, without specifying them, e.g. : All great (= which are great) Crimean manors are just turned into orchards VienR VII 57; For Western knights such duels were very common..., and for the Zemgalians it was a novelty, because they would entrust their affairs to the knights or the elders who were older) men (= VienR IV 175; When there is no good (= that is good) [places], must stand ir į worse ŽemR II 23; family..., fucked the į right which (= right) tavern, drank till night ValPJ, 86. Such cases of weak certainty can conditionally be called relative certainty. The meaning of the noun adjectives in such sentences can be described by relative constructions, e.g.: brighter people who are brighter people. — ni In Lithuanian, such relative ir constructions are used with the relative adverb where su with the pronoun which, ar -i ir adjective in the simple form, especially in the higher or supreme degree, cf. : Collect the bigger ones (= bigger snow) [potatoeo s], keep the smaller ones Skp; Rarely did anyone have a flow (sows), older kur (= older) Skp; Only big boys had such pipes, sometimes: and half-boys, but already where the most apsukrūsi (= the most agile) Balt; Only one other girl where more courageous (= more courageous- ), over her head threw on the ground scarves, floated like a man VenclPU 90; women drove, men where old already (= older) LKT 166; the white notrynės do not burn, and those, you see, where high (= high), those yr burning LKT 137. There is no real determination, individualization here — it is marked and distinguished: larger potatoes, the wealthier the richer) or agile people. (= Plg. of the same type of old writings constructions: Jissdi for us afiérq kurid bragéusią turéi DP 432; sent in faith iop people some of the greatest and most learned MP 11 b (see Specht 1932, 272). 5.2 To the cases of weak definiteness one must distinguish such substantive adverbs, which are used in generalized type of statements, patarlése. They also distinguish the object, but do not individualize it. For example: : The early (= which is early) crow grinds its teeth, the late (= which is late) eye SLT 531; Always the decent (= which is decent) girl has to go to the bad child ZemR I 121; The evil (= which is evil) mother prevents the husband from going SLT 237; the silent (= which is silent) pig gnaws the root deeper ZemR II 99. 173 Since the object is not individualized, the simple form is used in such statements, e.g. : A good mother shows her husband the way Erž; Good plough and goose paaria Gž; The worker's daughter and from the chimneys she spinns silk. All the goats are jumping on SLT 361. In cases of weak definition, the object is distinguished by the lexical meaning of the adjective and its relationship with the noun. The noun particle here has only an emphasis function, it reinforces the separation. 6.1. In Lithuanian, nominative adjectives are used not only in the defining but also in the emphasizing sense. One such case is when a noun adjective denotes a characteristic (not distinguishing) feature of an object. Examples of this type are common in folk songs and in the writings of writers closely related to them in their artistic stylistics, e.g. : Close up, linelets, on the black earth (d.) Pv; And the boy comes through the plain field, will you let or give the young girl (d.) Slnt; He had not yet closed his eyes, he had not yet fallen asleep in his sweet sleep, when he heard again the great voice KrėvAP 41; The strings of the horns were broken SNėrR II 114; Only now, only now I felt, I understood why the green grass under the dark shadows is growing VenclRn 52; And as we will take the green ribbon, we will pasture the horses JD 399; One after another the children... dispersed around the wide world VienR V 160. Here the nominative adjectives are constant artistic epithets and their semantics are equal to nouns: black and earthy, smooth and grey, young and virgin, etc. mean the same idea of blackness, smoothness, youth. These types of adjectives are commonly used to describe things that are known to all people. In such cases, simple forms are also possible. The noun form only highlights, emphasizes the characteristic feature of the object. The characteristic feature of the object expressed by nominative adjectives can also be perceived individually by individual authors. It is only from the wider context that it becomes clear that the spoken feature is not distinctive, but characteristic of the marked object, e.g. : In the mountainous north of Georgia, where the land is covered with snow nine months a year, on the difficult to reach mountain top, at the foot of Kazbek, stood an old rich monastery of St. Nina VienR I 25; During those three months not only Georgians went to the monastery of St. Nina, but people from other countries also visited it: even the inhabitants of distant Greece and the Balkans came VienR I 26; Here, in the shadows of deep lakes and in the floodplains of silent forest streams, various trees of all kinds grew VienR IV 13. In these cases, the meaning of the characteristic feature is conditioned by the same understanding of the speaker (writer) and the listener (reader). On the other hand, simple forms are also possible in these sentences. The only difference between noun and ordinary forms in this case is that noun forms emphasize more the particularity of the object, assuming that the north of Georgia is really mountainous, and Greece — a far country for us, lakes — deep, streams — quiet, and so on. Especially often such nominative adjectives are used with proper names, which have an individualizing meaning and themselves, in addition to the nominative adjective, define objects, e.g. : Old Vilnius is coming to life! VenclRn 130; Cellars murma Baltija šaltoji SNėrR II 538; Two hundred years ago Rugelių village was built among the last hills of beautiful 174 Palūgė Gud-GuzKIT The 5. noun forms are used here to suggest that Vilnius is really an old city, the Baltic is — cold, o Palanga is beautiful. Depending on the style of the depicted reality, the author can ir give very different meaning to the characteristics of objects expressed by nominative adjectives. For example, such noun adjectives V. In the writings of Krėvė: high bridge, big manor, young son, little children, little birds, brave boy, wide bench, serious men, old vagabond, narrow path, hard work, etc. ir has a pure emphasis function, although in ir other contexts it may have defining distinctive meanings, e.g. : ir The boy hid the merchant- 's body in po the high bridge, o jo richness — in the green... RR I 88; When the i fingers were į eating the great manor, black kurts were slaying RR I 87; the kite flew home the young son of the baron RR I 65; But what will happen then to our mothers, grandparents, su wives, little children? su People, beasts, little birds are su enjoying su themselves, listening to the RR 1203; ir evening song ir ir RR I 53; gathered old grandparents, serious ir men young boys, sat on wide jų benches, white už scones, mushrooms, beer drank, listened, porino told old ką vaidila RR I 145; Shut up, trees, don't spit on green leaves, or hinder the young boys serious men from listening to ir my words RR I 189; O after climbing there is no longer a public path, nor a narrow track jo back down RR I 53; Ir dreams those tired nuilsino young she, nukamavo like hard sis work uRR I 137; — Ar long we young dilésim, at the furnace sédésim, gaisim young days of famous marches be RR I 146; So happily all were laughing ir laughing brave boy adored RR I 67. V. Krėvės “In the legends of the old people of the country of Dainava” all bridges are high, manors are big, boys are brave, hikes are famous ir t. t. O such characteristic features are emphasized: white crampons, wide benches, old vaidila, etc. ir is based on ir the ethnographic world of ancient Lithuanian life and culture. On the other hand, without emphasizing the highlighted characteristics, the same adjectives are used side by side with the same su denoting words in the simple form. ir 6.2. Adjectives of emphasis are used to indicate the abundance of a property. In ir such cases, the adjective denotes a distinctive feature, but the object is not defined, only emphasized that it has a large amount of the distinctive feature. This type of examples are more commonly found in folk ir songs in their stylistics close to them in the writings of Ta writers, e.g.: merga (= ijliinių žingsnelių labai eiklių) J; Ažudūmo didyja dūmelė, išgaišino žirgelis keletą (d.) Name; That he himself dabbled, that my pale face in jų (d.) Tvr; flew out a little bird of a high iš nest..., whispered, whispered with loving words KrévRR or you shut up I 154; for an hour, listen to me old, my whispering tales, grievous words KrévRR I 141; It is necessary for the hands of her and her nimble fingers SNėrR II 499. This kind of nominative adjectives can also be easily replaced by ordinary adjectives. 7. The examined material shows that in Lithuanian language there exists asymmetric opposition of ir nominative ordinary adjectives according to the indefiniteness of the | definiteness 175 of the object, only this category is not very strong and necessary as the category of adjectives of gender, number and verb. Since the definition is realized not only in the noun form, but also with the help of the context (primarily by the combination of the noun adjective with the denoting word), the use of noun adjectives is not very consistent. Possible cases of neutralization. In particular, the category of definiteness | uncertainty is weakened by cases of weak definiteness, as well as by the emphasis function of named forms, when these forms can easily be replaced by ordinary ones. Weakly defining and emphasizing nominative adjectives are non-systematic peripheral phenomena, their position in this category is weak. The category of definiteness | uncertainty is characteristic not only of adjectives but also of attributive participants. However, it is not possible to distinguish the category of definiteness | indefiniteness in the classes of pronouns and numerals. The noun forms of these words are still used, but they have a clear accentuating character and are idolizing*, cf. : Raisin father three daughters. One was tall, teva, the second was short, drunk, and the third black ValPY, 33; Where will we stop the boat, at every village? (d.) Alv (LTR); where people... spoke..., only what was their lifting boots VaižgP I 104. The defining, or determinative, function of the adjectives, which is to denote a thing as known, as definite, corresponds entirely to the function of the designative articles in German, English, French, and other languages. Here, the definite articles are opposed to the indefinite articles according to the same definiteness/- indefiniteness poZymi as the nominative adjectives for the ordinary in Lithuanian. Specific notation of determination by nominative adjectives is only due to the formal expression, namely because the pronoun *jo-, as the Notator of determination, is connected to the adjective and together with it forms one morphological form, and articles are auxiliary words. "Therefore, determination is a matter of the morphological level, 0 with designative adjectives, and syntactic level with designative articles (see T'ax 1979, 93; Baiūupux 1978, 373). The determining meaning of substantive adjectives has long been observed and indicated both in the Baltic and Old Slavic languages, cf. from the first researchers of Lithuanian grammar — Schleicher 1856, 261; Kurschat 1876, 244, etc. ; Bezzenberger 1877, 155 t.; on the Latvian language Zr. Endzelin 1922, 453; on the Old Slavic and Old Russian ivardZiuotiniy adjectives —Miklosich 1874, 132-133; OGropckuii 1946, 110; Kyms6axu 1913, 117-118. Based on the defining (determinative) meaning of jvardZiuotiniy adjectives, it is believed that the primary function of jvard¥iuotiniy adjectives was the marking of a known, defined thing, i.e. nominative adjectives arose as a specific case of determination marking. The first to express this opinion was F. Miklosichas |(1874, 132—133), and later such a basis for the formation of possessive adjectives is indicated by some authors and in recent decades, see Sixy6nHerxnū 1952, 55 t.: "Uepxsix 1954, 196; Kysuenos 1953, 148; Kurz 1958; 88; Mareš 1958, 95; Kosch4 The possessive forms of possessive pronouns manasis, -oji, tavasis, -oji, savasis, -oji, mūsinis, --oji, jūsųsis, -oji, disappearing from use to their ordinary forms manas, -a, tavas, -a, savas, -a, „mūsas, -a jūsas, -a, have become independent pronouns, see. Valeckienė 1964, 46—47, 176 liai themselves as sayyte says ZemR I 199; The last words to the master himself seem like a distant echo CvR IX 253; The children of Sabaliauskį as all have a — white father Nvn; Fans alone — Katra was insulted, others... only shrugged ZemR 171. Everywhere here the noun po makes a pause, the pronoun goes ir in the noun position repeatedly indicating the designative object. According to syntactic relationships in these sentences paukšteliai patys, Sabaliauskų vaikai visi and others correspond to the model jie patys, jie visi, where pronouns are also related by an oppositional relationship. This is used in other applications. ir languages, e.g. s. height. su 3 personal pronoun: där sällbe hėrre ėr were ein Lohnoisere „he himself was one of the Lohnoisere“ (Paul 1956, 123—124). In the Balkan languages, short, unpronounced forms of personal pronouns are used after the noun in the same syntactic position, again indicating the designative object, e.g., bulg. : Tozasa a3 He 3HAex, ue Jaumo6e 20 HAMawie 6 napodkama OuOnuomexa "Then I did not know that Zaimovo was not in the folk library" (Jioramas 1978, 29). Many examples where a noun is followed by a personal or demonstrative pronoun in the same syntactic position are given from non-Indo-European languages by J. Balazs (1973, 67, etc.) Similar constructions, where a pronoun is followed by a noun in an apostrophe (alone or with an adjective- ), formed the basis for the emergence of nominative adjectives. 15. Many scholars, having studied the above-mentioned constructions of Indo-Iranian languages, point out that the relative pronoun *jo-cia has an article-like meaning, different from the true relative, or correlative, meaning. B. Delbrück (1900, 303 et seq.) and K. Brugmann (1904, 659) considered this function of the pronoun *jo as new, evolved from the actual relative meaning, but later authors, especially in the last decades J. Gonda (1954, 18, 22) and E. Benvenisto (Beusenuct 1974, 238) clearly proved that the function of *in no way the “phrase’s includer” or “determinant” is primary and that the relative (correlational) meaning of this pronoun evolved from it. The fact that *jopronoun is not purely relative in origin, but that its meaning is related to an anaphoric pronoun has been pointed out by several scholars in recent times (see HMBanos 1958, 41; I'yxmaH, CITA 1963, 330; Szemerényi 1970, 194; Watkins 1962, 16); In particular, it is based on the fact that in the Hittite and Tocharian languages *jokamien has conjunctive enclitic particles (het. ja "and", toch. A yo "and"), etymologically related to this pronoun. On the other hand, the determining function of *join in the above-mentioned type of construction does not correspond to the function of the actual designative article, which has evolved from demonstrative pronouns in the new Romance and Germanic languages. The fact that in Indo-Iranian constructions the pronoun *jone means definiteness has already been pointed out by J. Endzelynas (Jnyzerux 1953, 74—75), B. Rosenkranzas (1958, 97). Recently, J. Gonda (1954, 18; 1959, 25) convincingly proved that this pronoun, not being purely relative by nature, is not identical with an anaphoric pronoun either. It, as a “phrase activator”, had the function of isolation, separation, emphasis, cf. Balazs (1973, 73), where this pronoun is considered a situator in the above-mentioned constructions, additionally, emphasizing and identifying the above-mentioned object. In such Lithuanian constructions, its wings, its transitive noun forms Ziuotinés also do not have the true defining function, they emphasize, again > 183 indicate the designated object, jo highlighting a characteristic, known feature. The same in Latvian ir (Gutter 1959, 142). That pronoun *youroriginally iš had no clear determinative meaning, it shows that the mentioned noun constructions ir with the pronoun *your in Indo-Iranian and Greek typologically su correspond to noun constructions with another relative kų pronoun su *k“o | *k“i, found in the ir Hittite Latin languages, e.g., het. Kuish: Shallayashkan DINGIRMEŠ - I'm a scarf. “(among) great gods who is great”; lot. who: who patres who conscripti ‘(p.) whose parents (senators) who are elected” (see section 4.4). BenBenucr 1974, 236 t.) Relative adverbs of su corresponding constructions where ir occurs in Lithuanian (see section 4.4). 5.1). They also have no real determining meaning here, replacing nominal adjectives of weak definition. ir Thus, the pronoun *jo originally had a certain anaphoric connotation, but was not a true anaphoric demonstrative pronoun. Anaphoric meaning shade relative. the pronoun *jogalėjo was acquired by going with the adjective opozicija in the same position as the noun Ziui and again emphasizing the same object as the demonstrative noun. The shade of the anaphoric meaning of this pronoun is determined by its syntactic position. In other cases, not in the specified type of construction, the pronoun *joanaphoric meaning has no shade. Thus, the pronoun *jo-, with which the Baltic and Slavic noun forms were formed, is neither purely relative nor true anaphoric. It is unclear whether this is a functional or a relative term. After the morphological forms of nominative adjectives were formed from apostrophic compounds, their original meaning — to emphasize, to indicate the designated object once more — became directly dependent on the syntactic-semantic combination of the adjective and noun and on the wider context. Adjectives denoting a characteristic feature of an object have retained a purely emphasizing meaning, while adjectives denoting a distinguishing feature of an object have developed a defining meaning. An adjective with a distinguishing meaning distinguishes an object even without the noun, but the noun reinforces the distinction, indicates that object as known, defined (see. 3.2). It should be said that there is no strict boundary between adjectives with an emphasis and defining adjectives. The same nominative adjectives with the same denoting ZodZi in one context have an emphasizing meaning (denoting a characteristic feature of the object), and in the other — a defining meaning (denoting a distinguishing feature of the object). It depends on the wider context. For example, in the following sentences, nominative adjectives have an emphasizing meaning: Here, in the shadows of deep lakes and in the floodplains of silent forests, grew and flourished a variety of trees VienR IV 13; By the Black Death let those die who want to take away our freedom SNėrR I 330 (see also 6.1). In another context with the same designative, these nominative adjectives could have a defining function. Thus, the transition from the emphasis to the defining meaning of nominative adjectives is not difficult. The dynamic development of nominative adjectives went from the emphasizing meaning to greater definition, individualization through cases of weak definition, when objects are distinguished by nominative adjectives, but are not defined, not individualized. It is no coincidence that examples of this type are abundant in proverbs, generalized statements, reflecting the older layer of use of noun forms 184 (see section 4.4). 5.2). Examples of such use pa" confirm the ir pronoun *no origin, not iš strictly determinative meaning, e.g.: the quiet pig) pig knees the root deeper. (= That noun adjectives with an emphasis (indicating a characteristic feature or abundance of a feature) are primary, testify ir jų use in folk songs as constant fixed statements (Zr. 6. 1,2). 17. In the southern Lithuanian dialects, especially in the southern parts of the western ir Dzūkijos and eastern Central Altai, nominative adjectives are not used in the defining sense. Here we usually find the noun adjectives that have been preserved in folk songs with an emphasis. This use of nominative adjectives is probably new and archaic. ne o In these dialects, nominative adjectives have not developed a defining meaning. This meaning was given here to noun but other forms ne of adjectives, usually minor adjectives, various other derivatives of adjectives in the ending su -is, -ė, e.g. : Where's my sharp sharp) (= knife? Rdm; Big big) bulbs for (= myself, small small) pigs (= Lp; White-ta- (= iled chicken Rdm; Good (= good) end up Lzd; Where are my striped pants? (= Rdm. 18. It is characteristic that the | category of uncertainty of certainty has evolved only adjectives, part of iš inaction. participants who have specific lexical meanings ir could distinguish and help define objects. In addition, the ir pronouns of the numerals, ir although they have nominative forms, did not form the / category of definiteness indefiniteness, t. y. the nominative forms of the ir pronouns of the numerals in Lithuanian remained of an emphasis character. 19, If noun adjectives have evolved into syntactic (apozitional) constructions, parallel to Indo-Iranian and iš Greek constructions in the same pronoun su *jo-, it dates back to the jų common Indo-European epoch. Thus, in the Baltic Slavic languages, ir nominative adjectives (morphological forms) galéio developed independently of syntactic constructions iš as a parallel phenomenon, having its origin in the early antiquity (plg. Zinkevičius 1957, 13; 1978, 100; The name of 1972, 73). Iš the village, although of ir the same origin, has several differences. ir Slavic languages are characterized by very rapidly merged ir nominal adjective pronoun jų flexion, rapid meaning (different from ordinary adjectives) nivelation, generalization of the use of ordinary adjectives ir with nouns according to syntactic function, decay of ordinary forms, the adoption of nouns (in Lithuanian, the inverse occurs, noun forms disappear), etc. — ir In the Baltic languages? ?, especially in Lithuanian, this form is both formally and meaningfully numerous “transparent- ”, which in many places still retain traces of the original jų development, can explain the ir past evolution of the nominative adjectives of Slavic languages. '* There are substantive forms recorded in Prussian language monuments, but so few that iš jų judging about jų meanings and usage is difficult. 185 LITTERACY Arumaa P. Zur Role of the Particles in of Lithuanian Declination. — Studies Baltic. 1952, 9, N. S. 1, p. 163—172. Balsh J. Function values of Pronominality. — Budapest, 1973. Bezzenberger street A. Contribute to History of Lithuania Language on Ground Lithuanian Text of the XVI. and the XVII. Jahrhunderts. — Göttingen, 1877. Brugmann K. Short comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages. — Strasbourg, 1904. Brugmann K. Pronoun Formations of the Indo-European Languages. — Reports on the Negotiations of the Koniglich Séchsischen Society of Sciences zu Leipzig, philological— Historical Great. Leipzig, 1908, Bd. 60, 1, S. 11-84. Brugmann K. Floor plan of the comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages. — Strasbourg, 1911, Bd. 2, T. 2. Delbriick B. Comparative Syntax of the Indo-European Languages. — Strasbourg, 1893, T. 1; 1897, T. 2; 1900, T. 3. Dost'al J. [OrBerbr Ha Bornpocki]. — B Kâf, Hâ. : COOpPHEHK OTBETOB HA BOMPOCHI MO A3KO3HAHHIO (x IV MexnynapomHoMy Cbe3jny crasucros). M., 1958. Endzelin J. Latvian Grammar. — Riga, 1922. Endzelins J. Grammar of the Latvian language. — Riga, 1951. Endzelynas street J. The sounds of Baltic ir languages form. — V., 1957. Fraenkel E. Linguistic, especially syntactical examination of the Calvinist Lithuanian Catechism of the M. Pietkiewicz von 1598. — Göttingen, 1947. Fraenkel E. The Baltic States Languages. — Heidelberg, 1950. Gaiters A. The determined Adjective im Baltic. — KZ. 1959, Bd. 76, H. 1/2, S. 136—159. Gonda J. The Original Character of the Indo-European Relative Pronoun įo-. — Tongue. 1954, vol. 4, p. 1—41. į Gonda J. Amplified Sentences and Similar Structures.— In: Four Studies in the Language of the Veda. — s. Gravenhage, 1959. Gren-Eklund G. A Study of Nominal Sentences in the Oldest Upanisads. — Uppsala, 1978. Haack F. Vocabvlarivm Litthvanico-Germanicvm et Germanic-Lithvanicvm ...; Next to a Annex to a brief Lithuanian Grammatic ... — Halle, (1730). Hermann E. Uber die Development of Lithuanian Conjunctive seats. — Jena, 1912. Hermann E. Greek Research. — Leipzig— Berlin, 1912 (a), 1. Hermann E. Lithuanians Studies. — Berlin, 1926. Hirt H. Indo-European languages Grammar. — Heidelberg, 1934, T. 6. Kazlauskas J. IvarZiuotiniy adjectives in Baltic languages. — Linguistics, 1972, 24 (1), p. 57-74. Klein D. Grammatica Litvanica ... . — Regiomonti ..., 1653. Koschmieder E. Primary and secondary Functions. — Die World of Slavs. 1962, N 7, H. 4, S. 408-422. Kurylowicz J. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. — Heidelberg, 1964. Kurylowicz J. Indo-European languages Grammar. — Heidelberg, 1968, Bd. 2. Kurylowicz J. Inflection of the w adjective a Baltic stowianskim. — Reports z Possedzefi Commission Scientific. Poland Academy Nauk. Branch w Kraków, 1969, t. 12, 2, s. 444-447. Kurshat F. Grammar of Lithuanian Language. — Halle, 1876. short J. [Otsersi Ha Bonpocki]. — B xx. : COopHHk OTBeTOB Ito £35IKO3HaHHIO (K IV MexNymapojmoMy Che3lly CiaBHocTOB). M., 1958, c. 86—90. English Grammar v. / red. K. Ulvydas. — V., 1965, 1. Mareš F. V. [Orperst Ha sonpockl]. — B xu. : COOpPHHK OTBETOB HA BOMPOCH! NO s35IKOapammio (K IV MexnynapoaHoMy che3ay cJiaBucroB). M. , 1958, c. 93-95. Meier G. F. Das Zero problem in of Linguistics. — Berlin, 1961. Meillet A. Studies on Etymology et Le Vocabulary du Old Slave. 2 ed. — Paris, 1902— 1905. 186 Miklosich F. Comparative Syntax of the Slavic Languages. — Vienna, 1874, — Ostermeyer G. New Lithuanian Litas Grammar ans Light set [...]. — Kėnigsberg, 1791. Otrębski J. Grammar of the Lithuanian language. — Warsaw, Poland 1956, 3. Paul H. German Grammatik, Bd. 3, T. 4: Syntax. — Halle (Saale), 1956. Porzig W. Die Hypotax im Rigveda. — JF. 1923, Bd. 41, S. 210-303. Rosary B. Zur Origin of the particular Adjectives of Baltic and Slavic. — Die World of Slave. 1958, 3, H. 2, S. 97— 100. Rosinas A. Ar white *I-- *joresp. *I-- *cuttimes were relative ? — Baltistica. 1975, t. 11(2), p. 165-170, Safarewicz J. Notes on the o pronoun form of adjectives in w Lithuanian. — Reports z Posiedzen Commission Scientific. Poland Academy Nauk. Branch w Kraków, 1969, t. 12, 2, Ss. 443-444. Schleicher A. Lithuanians Grammar. — Prague, 1856, 1. Schultzen T. Compendium Gramaticae Lithvanicae. — Regiomonti, 1673. Canton of Schwyz E. The nominal Determination in the Indo-European [Languages. — KZ. 1936, Bd. 63, H. 3/4, S. 145-167. Seiler H. Relative proposition, attribute and Apposition. — Wiesbaden, 1960. Senn A. Little Lithuanian Linguistics. — Heidelberg, 1929. Senn A. Handbook of Lithuanian Language. — Heidelberg, 1966, 1. Skardžius P. Lithuanian language word formation. — V., 1943, woodpecker F. Zur Meaning of the Nasal vowels Daukša. — "The ir word of the nation", 1926, 4, S. 84 — 100. Specht F. Die Inflection of the n-voice im Baltic Slavic and Verwandtes. — KZ. 1932, Bd. 59, S. 213-298. Szemerényi O. Einfithrung in the comparative Linguistics. — Darmstadt, 1970. Urbutis V. Theory of word formation. — V., 1978. Wackernagel J., Debrunner A. Ancient Indian Grammar. — Göttingen, 1929, Bd. 3, T. 1; 1930, Bd. 3, T. 2. Valeckians A. The use of adjectives in present-day Lithuanian. — Kn. : Literature ir speaks. V., 1957, 2, p. 159-355. Valeckians A. For the independence of jvardZiuotiniy pronouns. — Language culture, 1964, 7, p. 46-47. Watkins C. Preliminaries to a Historical and Comparative Analysis of the Syntax of the ‘Old Irish Verb. — Celtica, 1962, vol. 6, p. 1—49. Wissemann H. To the nominal Determination. — IF. 1957, Bd. 63, H. 1, S. 61-78. Vondrdk W. Comparative Slavic Grammar. — Géttingen, 1908, 2. Vondrak W. Old Church Slavic Grammar, 2 ed. — Berlin, 1912. Vraciu A. Die Position of the Baltoslavic among the Indo-European languages including the Languages of the Balkans. — Linguistics Balkanic. 1977, 20, 3, p. 21 — 46; 1977 (a), 20, 4, p. 37-58. Zinkevičius Z. The history of jvardziuotiniy adjectives in Lithuanian language. — V., 1957. Zinkevičius Z. On the development of nominative adjectives. — Kn. : Lithuanian Linguistics. V., 1978, 18, p. 99—105. Signs and System of Language: Publication of the 1. International Symposions von 29. 9 bis 2. 10 1959 in Erfurt / Herausg. Hintzer F., Meier G. F., Seidel E., Steinitz W— Berlin, 1962 Germany (ZS) Apakun B. HIM. CpaBHHre)ibHas THITONOTHS AHTJIMHŪCKOTO H PYCCKOTO S3bIKOB. — JI., 1979, Bensenncr D. Obruitas jmarsucTuka. —M., 1974, Bounaapko A. 5. Teopust MopdOojzoruueckux Careropait. — JI., 1976. Bounnapko A. B. I'maTiyeckast KaTeropust H KOHTEKCT. — JI., 1971. Bonnapko A. B. IIpHHIAIE! OMMCAHAS KATEIOPHATBHBIX 3HAYCHHH MODOOJIOTHHECKHX dopM B COBPEMEHHBIX CJIABAHCKHX s35bIKAX, — B KH. : CnassHCKOe si3bIKO3Hanme: VIII MEXJIYHA DOJIHBIN 187 cbe31 CitaBHcTOB (3arpe6, JiroGjsina, ceHrT46ps 1978 r.) / Pen. xone. B. Mr. Bopkosckwit, O. M. TpyGages, C. B. Bepanrreita, H. H. Tozicroit. M., 1978, ¢, 58—75. Baiinpux X. Tekcrosast OdyKkuas Opauny3ckoro apTukis. — Hosoe B 3apyGexHoHt THIBACTure. M., Bei. 1978, 8, c. 370—387. Bannpuec X. Si351xK. — M., Tax 1973. B. I". Teopernyeckas rpaMMaTrura (Mrs. S351K2. — M., 1979. Tyxman Mr. M. O exuHHIEAX COMOCTABHTENHHO-THIIOIOrHYECKOro aHaJIH3a Tpa MMATH4eCKHX CHCTEM PpOJICTBEHHBIX S3BIKOB. — B KH. : CTpyKTYpHO-THIOJIOTH4eCKOe OMHCAHHE COBPEMEHHBIX TEDMAHCKHX s3sikos / Ors. head. B. H. Spuesa. M., 1966, c. 22—23. Jlecannkas A. B. 'Cpemauii poz' win KareropHs ‘OrrpejteJieHHOŠ Maccbi?" — B xH. : banKaHCKHit JIHMHTBHCTHUeCKHi cGopruk / Ors. head. T. B. Lassa. M., 1977, c. 275—293. Įlecanuxas A. B. K u3ydYeHHio paHHHX MEPHOIOB HCTOpHH anbanckoro s35IKA. — B KH. : I'm sorry, I'm sorry. H | Pen. D. M. Mejmurosa H 1p. M., 1978, c. 103—115. Joxyana M. K sompocy 0 MopdÉojiornuecKHX MPOTHBOMOCTAB/IEHHAX (KPHTHKA TEOpHH Oh! HAPHBIX CODDpEJISIOKIĖ B MOPHOIOrHH YemICKOro f3bika). — B Kâf, Hâ. : S[3biko3Hanue B YexocitoBakuu | Pex. A. I'm. It's a illnpokosa. M., 1978, c. 88—118. Joxyaua M. K Bonpocy o Mopdhonoruyeckoit xareropun. — BA, 1967, Mo 6, c. 3—16. Hsanos Smell. B. Tanonoras H cpaBHHTe/IbHO-HCTOpH4UeCKOe S3bIKO3HaHHe. — BS, 1958, Ne 5, c. 34—42. Herpuma E. YriorpeGrxenue HMeHHbIX HM MECTOMMEHHBIX (OPM HMEH I'm sorry, I'm sorry. B CHuHOojajibHOM cruske I Hosropoackoit I'm a year-old. — M3BecTHs I'm sorry, I'm sorry. H CJIOBecHOCTH poccmiickoit Ah. Ilr., 1919, T. 23, xx. 1, c. 33—62. Ky3uenos II. 1998-1999 C. Vcropuueckas rpaMMaTHKa pycckoro s35IiKa: Mopdonor. — M., Kyms6axun 1953. ĮĮpeBge-U16pKOBHO-CJIABSHCKHH C. M. A3bIK. 2nd M3. — XapbKoB, 1913. Kypuaosuu E. P. 3amarkn O 3Have a thing. — BS, 1955, Ne 3, c. 73-81. Kypuaosuu E. Ouepku no manrsucrTake. — M., from 1962. Kypuaosna E. O Meromax I'm sorry, I'm sorry. — B Toggle the color of the text. : HoBoe B JIMHIBHCTHKE. M., sui. 1965, 4, c. 400-433. Jleckun A. I'm sorry. CTApOC/IaBSHCKOrO sabika. — M., 1890. Jlonamos IO. A. MecroxMeHHbiec IIOBTODbI ĮOINOJIHEeHHA B Gankanckux S3bIKAX. — JI,, 1978. Maprane A. OcoBki obuteit JmuurBucTHKH, — B ki. : HoBoe B JmusrskecTare, M., sbi. 1963, 3, c. 366— 566. Meiie A. Beenenne B cpaBHHTeJIbHOe M3YYCHHE HHIOEBPONEHCKHX H3BIKOB. — M. JI., Meiie 1938. A. Obutecnassuckuit s351K. — M., 1951. O6Gnopcexuii C. II. 1998-1999 O4epk# 110 HCTOPHH pyccKoro JMTEPATYPHOrO s3bIKa CTapuiero nepHoma. — M.—JI., 1946. INopxesnnckmii B. K. CpaBaHTeNbHAS IPDAMMATHKA CIABAHCKHX S503bIKOB, 2nd w31. — M., 1916, swim. 1. Cpasnaresponda 8 IPAMMATHKA TEDMAHCKHX s535IKOB / Ors. head. M. M. I'yxmau. — M., T>3, 1963, Pyanes A. I". BuyrpeHHne 3aKOHOMEPHOCTH yrnotpebiieHus WMEHHBIX H MECTOHMMEHHBIX HDHJIATATEJILHLIX B I'm sorry, I'm sorry. — Slavia, 1957, rock. 26, Six. 2, c. 192-211. Ceanmes A. M. Crapociassackuit s351K. — M., 1952, 4. 2. Crenanos IO. C. Merojisi H MPHHIAIEI COBPEMEHHOM JIMHTBHCTHKH. — M., 1975. Tyanasa - Yes. O pa3ssuTHE KaTeropHH ONPEJEICHHOCTH B JATHIICKOM A3bIc (or MarepmaJIe Texcros XVIXVIII sexes). — B rn. : Baitruickne A3bIKH H HX B3AaHMOCBA3H CO C/IABIHCKHMM, (GHHEHO-YIOPCKAMH H TEDMAHCKHMH si3bika: Te3. JIOKJI. Hey. koud., mocB. 100-neTHio co MHA pox. will. JI. Guys. Para, 1973. Mlaxmaros A. A. It's a good idea. 2nd Wan. — JI., 1941. Mennemse E. V. MHOrO3HAYHOCTh H CHHOHMMES B Suffering from M.A.T.H.C.E. — M., Illepča 1970. JI. B. I'm a little bit of a MO biker. — M., 1957. 188 Uepusix II. 1998-1999 $I. I'm going to take you to the library. — M., 1954. Ounseann WU. Cnassno-6anrilickie ations. — Xapekos, 1911. Oupzeaun Yes. M. I'm not a craps player. CBS3H. — Tp. US-T 53. 1 mur-pei AH JIateCCP. Pure, 1953, Ne 2, c. 67—82. SAxyounckuii JI. II. 1998-1999 V3 ucropnn HMEHH npujiaraTeJibHOro. — UH-T s35IKO3HAHHA: J[OKJIAJIbI Hu coobmenusa. M., 1952, Ne 1, c. 52—60. A. BAJIELIKEHE KATETOPHS OIIPE/ĮEJIEHHOCTH | HEOIPEJIEJIEHHOCTH H IIEPBOHAUAJIbHOE 3HAYEHUME MECTOHMEHHbIX ®OPM MMEH IIPHJIAT ATEJIbHbIX Pe3iomMe ABTOp BbVIeJIfET B JIMTOBCKOM S3LIKE CATEGORY OIpEIeIeHHOCTH | HEOIpejICNEHHOCTH, B OCHOBE KOTODOI JIEXHT IIpOTHBOINOCTABJIEKHE (OYKKIMŪ IDpOCTLIX H MECTOHMEHHEIX (JOpM TIDHJiaraTeJIbHbIX H CTpalįaTejIbHbIX IIpH4aCTHHŪ C HEeCKOJIbKHMH DA3HOBH/IHOCTSAMH HeHTpaJIH3AIHH. Ojimarko H3 TOM CHCTEMBI BBHIIAJAIOT MeCTOHMEHHbIC IPHJIaraTeJISHELIE, HMEIONIHEe OyYBKIMIO SM(aTHYECKOrO XapakTepa; HA ITpaHH JAHHOH CATEGORY HAXOJSTCA MEeCTOHMEHHbIE (OPMBI, obnamaronse cabo BHIPAKEHHBIM 3HAYCHHEM ONDeJIeJIEHHOCTH. ABTOp UPHXOMHT K 3aKJIIOYEHHIO, YTO MECTOMMEHHBIC I'm sorry, I'm sorry. GaJITHHŪCKHX H CJIaBSHCKHX S3bIKOB BO3HHKJIH OT TaKHX CHHTAKCHYECKUX KOHCTPYKIM, B KOTODHIX MECTOMMEHHE *jo-¢ IIpHJIaraTeJIbHbIM BbICTYMAJIO B COCTABE AIMO3HTHBHOTro 000POTA IrOCJIE CYIiECTBHTEILHOTO B TOM Xe ITO3HIHA H IIOBTOPHO YKA35IBAJIO Ha ONpemensieMsiil ItpejiMeT. Takum o6pa3oM, nepsoHa4aJIbHOH (QyHKIMEH MeCTOMMEHHBIX IpHJIaraTEJILHEIX GbUT 2MĖAa3HC ompenenseMoOro mpeaMera IyTeM MOBTOPHOIO YKa3aHHs. 3HAYEHHE ONPEIeIeHHOCTH MECTOMMEHHBIX (DODM SABJIsIETCS BTODHYHBIM, pa3BHBINHMCA OT sMbaTudeckoit ux Gyuxuun. OTCYTCTBHE MECTOMMEHHBIX NPHJIATATENbLHBIX CO 3HAYCHHEM OIIPEJICTICHHOCTH B IOr0-3alla IHBIX TOBOPAX JIATOBCKOI'O A3bIKA OO BACHAETCS a BTOPOM Kak siBJieHHe, oTpaxarouiee Oosiee JIpEBHHH CIO Pa3BHTHS MECTOMMEHHBLIX IpHIaraTeJIbHEIX. MecronMeHnHbie ()OpMbLI MECTOMMEHWI H YHCIIHTENBHLIX B JIATOBCKOM S3bIKE TaKkKe IO CHX HOD HOCAT sMbaTnyecknit XapakTep H He OOJIAJNAIOT 3HAYEHUEM ONDpeEJIEJIEHHOCTH. ITo cBoeMy 06pa30BaHHiO H NMEPBOHAYATLHOMY 3HAYEHHIO MECTOMMEHHbIe (OpMEI (BMecTe C Onpe/ieNAeMbIM CYMIeCTBHTEJIbHLIM) B OAJITHŪCKHX H CJIABARCKHX S3bIKaX MpeACTaBisioT coboit mapajuieslb ¢ COOTBETCTBYIONIHMH KOHCTDYKIKAMH TOTO XC MECTOHMEHHA *jo-MHIOMPAHCKHX H rpuecKOoro; 53bIKOB, ABTODp IojiaraeT, YTO MECTOMMEHHBIE ODpHJIATraTeJILHbICE, YLH HCTOKH HaXOHATCH B ryryOOKON ĮIDEBHOCTH, MOTIMIH IIpOH3OHTH OT BEILICYIOMAHYTELIX KOHCTDpYKIIKŪ B GanThiicKHX M CJIABSHCKHX SB3LIKAX Kak IIapaJUIejJIbHOC SIBJICHHE. A. VALECKIENE THE CATEGORY OF DEFINITENESS | INDEFINITENESS AND THE ORIGINAL FUNCTION OF THE DEFINITE ADJECTIVES Summary An attempt is made to establish in Lithuanian the category of definiteness /indefiniteness whose realisation is the opposition between definite and indefinite adjectives and passive participles with some neutralizations of marked forms. The author concludes that the definite adjectives in Baltic and Slavic have been derived from syntactical constructions, whose pronoun *jowith the adjective, following the noun, constituted the apposition group and referred once again to the same object, as the noun, modified by the adjective. Thus the original function of the definite adjectives was to emphasize the object, once again referring to it. The function of definiteness for these forms is secondary, and has developed from the emphatic function. The conclusion is drawn that by their formation and original function the definite adjectives (along with nouns) are parallel to the corresponding constructions in Old Indo-Iranian and Greek. Having roots in the old times the definite adjectives might have been evolved from the above mentioned constructions in Baltic and Slavic as a parallel phenomenon. 189