LIETUVIŲ KALBOS SINTAKSĖS TYRINĖJIMAI

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXV (1986)

ADELĖ VALECKIENĖ

THE CATEGORY OF DEFINITENESS / INDEFINITENESS AND THE PRIMARY MEANING OF PRONOMINAL ADJECTIVES

1. Morphological forms are characterized by functional heterogeneity. They can relate to other forms according to various features and constitute separate subsystems. A subsystem in which forms are opposed to other forms according to a particular feature is called a morphological category (Ellis, R. Ružička, Zawadowski, Kirchner, ZS 1962, 46, 6, 8, 39, 9; Гухман 1966, 29; Бондарко 1971, 8; 1976, 10–11, 15, 148). The category can be defined most concisely as a formally expressed feature of meaning realized by opposing members (J. Ružička, ZS 1962, 60; Щендельс 1970, 5).

Like an individual linguistic sign, a category has formal expression—forms—and semantic expression—a function. The function of a category depends on the relation among its forms. It is a relational meaning, an invariant of the concrete variant meanings of all forms in a given subsystem. Concrete variant meanings consist of a relational meaning plus context¹. The function of category forms, which emerges from the relation among the forms, is considered by representatives of various linguistic schools to merit the greatest attention from linguists. Forms, as elements of external structure, are often regarded as less important to the category. Category members may be expressed by any morphological means—synthetic (endings, suffixes), suppletive, analytical forms, auxiliary words, prosodic means, etc. (see Вандриес 1937, 77 ff.; Щерба 1957, 64; Meier 1961, 15; Докулил 1967, 11; Гак 1979, 41). It is important, however, that the category nevertheless be formally expressed, that is, that it have special categorical forms. Without formal expression in the language system, a separate morphological category cannot be distinguished. Thus morphological forms, as material linguistic acts, are also an important constituent part of a category.

The two sides of a category’s expression—formal and semantic—are inseparably connected and cannot exist without one another. A particular system of forms is necessary to realize the semantic system, and vice versa: without an established relation among forms—that is, without the semantic side—the existence of forms is meaningless.

The relation (function) among a category’s morphological forms can be established at a higher, that is, syntactic, level (in a sentence or syntactic phrase). Thus context is also an important element of a category. It is often regarded as part of the formal expression of morphological categories (Бондарко 1971, 65 ff.; Степанов

¹ The relation between invariant and variant meanings is established here on the basis of J. Kurylowicz’s (1964, 14; Курилович 1955, 74; 1965, 411 ff.) primary and secondary functions and E. Benveniste’s (Бенвенист 1974, 156–164) basic and derived meanings.

168

1975, 27). On the other hand, a context alone does not constitute the grammatical expression of a category. A category can be said to exist only when the language has acoustically distinct forms to express it (Мартине 1963, 400; Докулич 1967, 8, 11).

When distinguishing a particular category, it is important to establish whether the use of the forms constituting the subsystem is obligatory for a particular function (Докулич 1978, 109; Бондарко 1976, 12; 1978, 156 ff.). Morphological categories are characterized by the fact that their marked forms are also used where they are not required, that is, when their function is neutralized by context. On the other hand, under conditions of neutralization, the unmarked member has a broader sphere of use. In such circumstances, it is important to establish the weight of the category in a particular word class. Neutralization of the opposition between forms, being essentially a syntagmatic phenomenon, is the starting point of a category’s change. Cases of neutralization weaken the category and are decisive for its further development. Thus, in studying a category, it is important to establish the direction of its dynamic development and its relation to other categories of the same word class.

A category is not a static system. It has a center and a periphery. It is characterized by development, albeit minimal change. As in every system, phenomena arise in a category through language dynamics that fall outside the general system. Nonsystemic phenomena constitute the periphery in a language; their position in the language is weak. In studying a category, it is important to establish both what does not belong to the system and how the use of systemic and nonsystemic forms interacts, since this may affect the direction of development. On the other hand, categories of a given word class are not closed: peripheral forms from one subsystem can move into another. Consequently, the use of forms in separate subsystems often comes into contact, and some forms can replace others. This is why languages have various means of expressing the finest stylistic nuances. Nonsystemic phenomena do not destroy a language, and language always maintains systemic balance. It is important only to establish what occupies the central position in a category and what exists on its periphery.

Not all languages have the same number of categories. Moreover, the same category differs across languages in scope, sphere of use, and weight within the grammatical system. Therefore, the typological properties of languages emerge most clearly through the study of categories.

2. According to the features established for morphological categories, the category of definiteness / indefiniteness can be distinguished in Lithuanian. This subsystem consists of pronominal forms of adjectives (participles²), which relate to the corresponding simple forms. Their relation becomes apparent at the paradigmatic level. Simple and pronominal forms, in relation to one another, constitute a binary asymmetric opposition. Simple forms denote a property of an object, whereas pronominal forms, in addition to the object’s property, also indicate that the object is known, definite. Thus, pronominal forms in this subsystem are marked (+), while simple forms are unmarked (−):

² Hereafter, pronominal adjectives also means pronominal participles.

169

3.1. The defining meaning of pronominal forms is a purely relational meaning, emerging from the relationship between simple and pronominal forms. Pronominal adjectives also have a considerable number of contextual meanings, dependent on the ways these forms specifically express definiteness in Lithuanian. Pronominal adjectives are formed from simple adjectives with the enclitic postposed pronoun *jo-. However, the defining meaning of pronominal adjectives is not merely the meaning of the pronoun *jo-. Since the pronoun *jo- has now become fused with the simple adjective into a single morphological form, the adjective’s lexical meaning and the surroundings of the pronominal form are very important in defining objects. Pronominal forms usually function as attributes³ and therefore modify only nouns (like other attributes, they cannot be linked by a dependent relation to a nominal pronoun). Thus, their contextual meanings are primarily determined by the syntactic and semantic relationship between the adjective and the noun.

3.2. For an object to be defined, the pronominal adjective attached to the noun must express a distinguishing property of the object being denoted. Pronominal adjectives define objects by distinguishing them from others according to the adjective’s lexical meaning—spatial, temporal, physical, or mental properties, color, etc.—in three ways (aut. 1957, 175–183; LKG 1965, 505–508): 1) by a greater degree of the property denoted, e.g.: The large room of the Collective Farm Board (=the largest, larger than the others), where recently seed grain had been sieved and weighed, had not only been cleaned but also decorated ŠimkA 15; 2) by a property antonymous to that of another object, e.g.: In winter we will build new manor-style sheds for raising livestock, because we have a small one VaižgP I 135; 3) by some specific property that distinguishes it from others, e.g.: For a long time Šarka led the band through the Padubysys Forest, but there was still no secret path apart from the trails trampled by animals VienR IV 16.

Distinguishing properties may be classificatory. Therefore, pronominal adjectives often define an object by the same means of distinguishing objects and denote its kind, e.g.: sweet peas, weeping willow, heavy and light industry, red and white clover, etc. In Lithuanian terminology, a great many terms in various fields are formed with pronominal adjectives.

3.3. It should be noted that a simple adjective, too, distinguishes an object by virtue of its lexical meaning. The pronominal particle emphasizes that the distinguished object is known and definite, that is, it gives the adjective an individualizing function. If the utterance Put on a red dress¹ refers to a particular dress (which is red), different from other dresses (of another color), this does not yet mean that the dress is known. There are many red dresses. An object is individualized only when its distinguishing property is expressed by a pronominal adjective, that is, an utterance with a pronominal—

³ Predicative use of pronominal adjectives is rare and occurs only in sentences of a certain structure, e.g.: That road is the real one SchG 261 (see aut. 1957, 236). Pronominal adjectives tend to become nouns, especially when they refer to a defined group of people, e.g.: It is easy for an old person to lie to the young when they do not know it Ds. However, this function is also secondary for pronominal adjectives. The primary function of pronominal adjectives, like that of simple adjectives, is attributive (on primary and secondary functions, see Курилович 1962, 59 ff.).

170

tive adjective— the red dress—denotes a particular, definite object known from the context and situation.

Pronominal adjectives denoting kinds also have an individualizing function—they identify and individualize a particular, definite group of objects. Red clover differs from red clover in that the former refers to representatives of a particular, known kind of object. The difference between distinguishing and classificatory pronominal adjectives is that the former, while distinguishing an object, also individualize and specify it, whereas classificatory pronominal adjectives do not specify the object but do bear a clear mark of individualization, or definiteness.

3.4. Pronominal adjectives also define an object anaphorically, that is, by referring to preceding context. When an object is mentioned for the first time, a simple adjective is used with the noun or the object is described in some other way; subsequently, a pronominal adjective is used to define the object as known. For example, first the simple adjective: A magical light appeared on a high, steep mountain. It shone like a star…; later, the pronominal adjective: not one of those climbing had yet reached the mountain’s summit or mocked the wondrous light BilR 106–109. Pronominal adjectives with a demonstrative meaning always express some individual property that differs from others. Thus, demonstrative pronominal adjectives differ from distinguishing ones only in their manner of definition and their specific usage.

4. As contextual meanings show, the definition of objects by pronominal adjectives depends not only on their relationship to simple adjectives, but also on their syntactic and semantic connection with the noun and the broader context. Consequently, in a certain context the definiteness/indefiniteness correlation, that is, “general” / “individual,” is neutralized, and a simple adjective is used instead of a pronominal adjective. Under syntagmatic conditions of neutralization, the opposition between pronominal and simple adjectives weakens, and the use of simple forms expands. The following more characteristic cases of neutralization in Lithuanian should be noted.

1) When a demonstrative adjectival pronoun precedes the adjective, either the pronominal or the simple form may be used to define the object; cf.: And then three splendid white swans appeared from among the dense trees; they flapped their wings and swam most beautifully on the water. The duckling recognized those wonderful birds Balč AP 40; It was an extraordinary little axe. Just rub it on the sore spot, and it heals… With that magic little axe, Vince was healed BorMS 47.

The meanings of demonstrative pronouns essentially correspond to those of pronominal adjectives: demonstrative pronouns with deictic meaning correspond to the distinguishing meaning of pronominal adjectives, while anaphoric demonstrative pronouns correspond to the referential meaning of pronominal adjectives. However, it is clear that one cannot conclude from this that the function of the pronominal particle *jo- corresponds to the function of the demonstrative pronoun, since context, too, is very important in defining an object. On the other hand, this correspondence of functions makes the pronominal form unnecessary if a demonstrative pronoun occurs alongside it. This explains this case of neutralization of pronominal forms.

2) When the adjective is in the superlative degree, either the pronominal or the simple form may also be used to define the object; cf.: The parents did not spoil even their youngest son, Antaniukas VienP 24; The elder daughter joyfully dances out of the waves, dancing

171

and the second one, hurries to get ready. Eglė is still the youngest, alone in the water: she washes her white face, splashing like a fish SNěrP I 256.

This case of neutralization is motivated by the overlap and convergence of the functional meanings of pronominal and superlative adjectives. A pronominal adjective defines an object by distinguishing it from others through the greatest degree of a property (see 3.2), and superlative forms denote the greatest degree of a property. Consequently, in such a context the pronominal particle also becomes redundant.

3) When an object is defined by distinguishing it according to some individual property, which the adjective denoting it sufficiently defines by its lexical meaning even without the pronominal particle. In such cases, there is also a tendency to use the simple form alongside the pronominal form, e.g.: Many representatives of the cinema art came from the fraternal (fraternal) republics rš; More than once he thought anxiously at the crossroads, searching for himself and his true (true) path BorMS 5. For this reason, and also when denoting the type of certain objects, simple rather than pronominal forms are used, e.g.: black and white bread (not the black, the white), sweet and sour milk (not the sweet, the sour) alongside sweet and bitter peppers, table salt, etc. The simple forms of adjectives with the suffixes -iškas, -a are often used to denote a type, since this suffix, like the suffix -inis, -ė, distinguishes objects by indicating their type even without a pronominal particle; cf.: Dutch cheese, milk soup, men's shirts, children's socks, etc. This case of neutralization depends entirely on the lexical meaning of the adjective and its syntactic-semantic relation to the noun it modifies.

5.1. The fact that the definition of objects by pronominal adjectives depends greatly on context results in varying degrees of definiteness. Definiteness is most pronounced when objects are individualized and specified, and the context makes clear that this is precisely that object and not another (in the cases of pronominal forms with the distinguishing and demonstrative meanings mentioned above). However, Lithuanian also has cases of weak definiteness, when an object is distinguished by a pronominal adjective but is not clearly individualized or specified. In this case, the objects are indicated as members of a certain generalized group, distinguished by some property; however, this is not an individualized class of objects, but simply objects belonging to a certain group in general (most often people and animals).

In contemporary standard Lithuanian, pronominal adjectives in the comparative, and less often in the superlative, are most commonly found when they distinguish, by virtue of the category of degree, objects characterized by a greater or greatest degree of a property. In this case, plural forms (which do not individualize) are most often used, e.g.: The last rays, having pierced the trunks of the sparse bog trees, glimmered in hollows and gently caressed the tops of the taller (= taller) spruces and pines VienR TV 28; The former Golovin Avenue was widened so much that the older (= older) houses... were either set back or completely demolished VienR VII 311; At that time he was supported by the medical assistant, the nurses, the braver (= braver) patients, and finally by everyone VienR II 141; The garden grew the finest flowers, and silver bells had been tied to the more beautiful (= more beautiful) ones BalčAP 61; Now everyone says she is the most beautiful of all the most beautiful (= most beautiful) birds BalčAP 42; They only began shouting in loud voices for the bravest

172

... but began calling for the strongest among them to come there, to cross swords with Margiris... KrevRR I 213. Cf. old writings: Death by the cross was the torment of those years for the worst of people DP 176.

Since there is no clear individualization or specification here, simple forms are also used alongside them in such cases; cf.: There were no roads or paths here, apart from those trodden by herds of aurochs, wild oxen, elk, and other larger beasts VienR IV 13 and Into those thickets wolves would drive elk, aurochs, and other larger animals VienR IV 13–14.

There are also instances of positive-degree pronominal adjectives that express a distinguishing property and denote objects as members of a certain indefinite group, without individualizing or specifying them, e.g.: All the large (= large) estates in Crimea have in fact been turned into orchards VienR VII 57; Such duels were very common among Western knights..., whereas for the Samogitians this was new, since they entrusted their cases to summoned guests or older (= older) men VienR IV 175; When there is no good (= good) [place], one must take a worse one ŽemR II 23; as a family..., having found a suitable (= suitable) tavern, they drank until evening ValPJ₂ 86.

Such cases of weak definiteness may provisionally be called relative definiteness. The meaning of pronominal adjectives in sentences of this type can be expressed by relative constructions; cf.: the lighter people → people who are lighter. Lithuanian also uses such relative constructions with the relative adverb where or the pronoun which and the simple form of the adjective, especially the comparative or superlative, cf.: Pick whichever are larger (= the larger ones) [potatoes], and leave the smaller ones Skp; Rarely did anyone have such (flails), a richer one wherever (= richer) Skp; Only big lads had such pipes, sometimes half-lads too, but those who were most nimble (= the most nimble ones) Balt; Only one or another girl, somewhat bolder (= the bolder one), having thrown her shirt over her head onto the ground, would swim like a man VencĮPU 90; women and men were travelling, the older ones (= the older ones) LKT 166; the white ones don't burn out, but those, you see, that are tall (= the tall ones), those are burning LKT 137.

There is no true definiteness or individualization here—the larger potatoes, the richer (= richer) or most nimble people are noted and distinguished in general. Cf. constructions of the same type in old writings: He had a very expensive offering for us DP 432; the people are being sent to those who are the greatest and most learned MP 11 b (cf. Specht 1932, 272).

5.2. Among cases of weak definiteness, we must distinguish pronominal adjectives used in generalized statements and proverbs. They too distinguish an object but do not individualize it. E.g.: The early (= early) crow pecks the tooth, the late (= late) the eye SLT 531; A virtuous (= virtuous) girl always ends up with a bad boy ŽemR I 121; The wicked (= wicked) woman bars her husband's way SLT 237; the quiet (= quiet) pig roots deeper ŽemR II 99.

173

Since the object denoted is not individualized, the simple form is also used in such expressions, e.g.: A good wife shows her husband the way Erž; A good plowman takes advice even from a gander GŽ; A diligent daughter spins silk even from moss Šts; All the goats jump over a crooked linden SLT 361.

In cases of weak definiteness, the object is singled out by the adjective’s lexical meaning and its relationship to the noun. Here the pronominal particle has only an emphatic function; it reinforces the singling out.

6.1. In Lithuanian, pronominal adjectives are used not only with a definite meaning but also with an emphatic meaning. One such case is when a pronominal adjective denotes an inherent (rather than distinctive) property of an object. Examples of this type are common in folk songs and in the writings of authors whose artistic style is closely related to them, e.g.: May you thrive, little flax plants, on the black earth (song) Pv; And the young lad rides across the level little field; will you let me, will you give me your young daughter (song) Slnt; He had not yet closed his eyes, had not dozed off in sweet sleep, when once again he heard a loud voice KrėvAP 41; The strings of the resonant kanklės have been broken SNėrR II 114; Only now, only now did I feel, did I understand why the green grass withers beneath the dark shade VenclRn 52; Oh, how we shall ride to the green meadow and let our horses graze JD 399; One after another, the children... scattered across the wide world VienR V 160.

Here pronominal adjectives function as fixed artistic epithets and are semantically equivalent to nouns: black and little earth, level and little field, young and maiden, etc., express the same ideas of blackness, levelness, and youth. The properties expressed by such pronominal adjectives are inherent in the objects denoted and are perceived by everyone as familiar. Simple forms are also possible in such cases. The pronominal form merely brings the inherent property of the object more to the fore and emphasizes it.

The inherent property expressed by pronominal adjectives may also be perceived individually by particular authors. Only from the broader context does it become clear that the property in question is not distinctive but inherent in the object denoted, e.g.: In the mountainous north of Georgia, where the ground lies covered with snow for nine months of the year, at the foot of Kazbek, on a hard-to-reach mountain summit, stood the old, wealthy monastery of Saint Nina VienR I 25; During those three months, not only Georgians traveled to the monastery of Saint Nina; people from other countries also visited it: inhabitants of distant Greece and the Balkans came there VienR I 26; Here, in the shade of deep little lakes and in the damp hollows of quiet forest streams, a great variety of trees grew and flourished VienR IV 13.

In these cases, the meaning of an inherent property is determined by the shared understanding of speaker (writer) and listener (reader). On the other hand, simple forms are also possible in these sentences. The only difference here between pronominal and simple forms is that pronominal forms emphasize the property of the object more, presupposing that northern Georgia is indeed mountainous, Greece is a distant country for us, the little lakes are deep, the streams are quiet, and so on.

Such pronominal adjectives are especially often used with proper names, which themselves have an individualizing meaning and define the objects even without a pronominal adjective, e.g.: Old Vilnius is coming alive! VenclRn 130; The cold Baltic murmurs grimly SNėrR II 538; Two hundred years ago the village of Rugeliai was built between

174

the last of the beautiful Palūgė hills Gud-GuzKIT 5. The pronominal forms are used here to suggest that Vilnius is indeed an old city, the Baltic is cold, and Palūgė is beautiful.

Depending on the reality being portrayed and on style, an author may give the properties of objects expressed by pronominal adjectives a wide variety of meanings. For example, the following pronominal adjectives in V. Krėvė’s writings: the high bridge, the great estate, the young son, the little children, the little birds, the brave lad, the wide bench, the solemn men, the old bard, the narrow path, the hard labor, and so on, denote inherent properties of objects and have a purely emphatic function, although in other contexts they may also have a definite, distinctive meaning; cf.: The lad hid the merchant’s corpse under the high bridge, and his wealth in the green grove… RR I 88; When the matchmakers rode into the great estate, the black greyhounds barked RR I 87; the young nobleman’s son flew home like an aitvaras RR I 65; But what will then happen to our mothers, to our old fathers, to our wives, to the little children RR I 203; and people, and beasts, and little birds delight and revel, listening and lending an ear to the evening song RR I 53; old grandfathers gathered, solemn men and young lads; they sat on the wide benches, behind the white tables, drank mead and ale, and attentively listened to what the old bard recounted and told RR I 145; Be quiet, trees, do not rustle your green leaves; oh, do not keep the young lads and solemn men from listening to my words RR I 189; For one who has climbed up, there is no longer any public road, nor any narrow path back down RR I 53; And those dreams exhausted and wearied the young man, tormenting him like hard labor RR I 137; — How long shall we, while young, grow old and sit by the hearth, wasting our young days without famous deeds RR I 146; Thus they all merrily caroused and, in their revelry, honored the brave lad RR I 67.

In V. Krėvė’s “Tales of Old People of the Land of Dainava,” all bridges are high, estates are large, lads are brave, deeds are famous, and so on. And the following inherent properties are emphasized: white tables, wide benches, the old bard, etc.; these also draw on the ethnographic world of ancient Lithuanian life and culture. On the other hand, when the properties highlighted are not emphasized, the same adjectives occur with the same modified nouns in the simple form as well.

6.2. Emphatic-value definite adjectives are also used to indicate abundance of a quality. In such cases, the adjective denotes a distinguishing quality, but the object is not specified; it is only emphasized that it possesses a high degree of the quality in question. Examples of this type occur more frequently in folk songs and in the writings of authors stylistically close to them, e.g.: That girl of nimble little steps (=very nimble) J; In the vastness of the wilderness, a little cloud, the horse cleared the paths (song) Ad; And he himself looked, and at my beautiful little face (song) Tvr; the little falcon flew out of its high little nest…, sang and chirped with loving little words KrėvRR I 154; oh, be quiet for a little while, listen to me, an old man, to my wise little tale, to my sorrowful little words KrėvRR I 141; She needs her hands and her nimble fingers SNėrR II 499.

Pronominal adjectives of this type can also readily be replaced by simple forms.

7. The material examined shows that in Lithuanian there exists an asymmetric opposition between pronominal and simple adjectives according to the definiteness/indefiniteness of the object-

175

the property of definiteness, but this category is not as strong or as necessary as the categories of gender, number, and case in adjectives. Since definiteness is realized not only through the pronominal form but also with the help of context (primarily the combination of a pronominal adjective with the word it modifies), the use of pronominal adjectives is not very consistent. Cases of neutralization are possible. The category of definiteness / indefiniteness is weakened especially by instances of weak definiteness, as well as by the emphatic function of pronominal forms, which can readily be replaced by simple forms. Pronominal adjectives marking weak definiteness and those serving an emphatic function are nonsystematic peripheral phenomena; their position within this category is weak.

The category of definiteness / indefiniteness is characteristic not only of adjectives but also of attributive participles. However, it is not at all possible to distinguish a category of definiteness / indefiniteness in the classes of pronouns and numerals. Although the pronominal forms of these words are used, they have a clearly emphatic character and are becoming fossilized⁴, cf.: Augin tėvas tris dukteris. Viena buvo aukšta, tėva, antra buvo trumpa, drūkta, o trečioji juodakėlė ValPJ₂ 33; Kur stabdysim laivelį, pas katrąjį kaimelį? (d.) Alv (LTR); kur žmonės… kalbėjo…, tik kas buvo jų kelintieji bočiai VaižgP I 104.

8. The defining, or determinative, function of pronominal adjectives—to mark an object as known, definite—fully corresponds to the function of definite articles in German, English, French, and other languages. Here, definite articles are opposed to indefinite articles on the same basis of definiteness / indefiniteness as pronominal adjectives are opposed to simple adjectives in Lithuanian. The specific marking of determination by pronominal adjectives is due solely to the formal expression: specifically, the pronoun *jo-, as a marker of determination, is attached to the adjective and together with it forms a single morphological form, whereas articles are auxiliary words. Thus, the marking of determination by pronominal adjectives is a matter of the morphological level, whereas its marking by definite articles is a matter of the syntactic level (cf. Гак 1979, 93; Вайнрих 1978, 373).

The determinative meaning of pronominal adjectives was noted and identified long ago in both Baltic and Old Church Slavonic; cf. the works of the earliest researchers of Lithuanian grammar—Schleicher 1856, 261; Kurschat 1876, 244 ff.; Bezzenberger 1877, 155 ff.; on Latvian, see Endzelin 1922, 453; on Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian pronominal adjectives, see Miklosich 1874, 132—133; Обнорский 1946, 110; Кульбакин 1913, 117—118.

On the basis of the defining (determinative) meaning of pronominal adjectives, it is assumed that their original function, too, was to mark a known, definite object, that is, pronominal adjectives arose as a specific instance of marking determination. F. Miklosich was the first to express this view [(1874, 132—133), and later some authors have also proposed this basis for the formation of pronominal adjectives in recent decades; see Якубинский 1952, 55 ff.; Черных 1954, 196; Кузнецов 1953, 148; Kurz 1958; 88; Mareš 1958, 95; Kosch-

⁴The pronominal forms of possessive pronouns manasis, -oji, tavasis, -oji, savasis, -oji, mūsasis, -oji, jūsasis, -oji, as their simple forms manas, -a, tavas, -a, savas, -a, mūsas, -a jūsas, -a disappear from usage, have become independent pronouns; see Valeckienė 1964, 46—47.

176

mieder 1962, 410; Safarewicz 1969, 443–444; Kuryłowicz 1969, 444 tt.; Vraci(u) 1977, 44.

According to this view, the postpositive pronoun *io- gives pronominal adjectives their determinative meaning; etymologically, it was anaphoric and had a demonstrative meaning, like articles in other languages⁵ (see Miklosich 1874, 125; Лескин 1890, 87; Vondrák 1912, 470; 1908, 113; Hirt 1934, 166; Якубинский 1952, 54; Черных 1954, 196; Кузнецов 1953, 148; Отрębski 1956, 121; Safarewicz 1969, 444; Kuryłowicz 1968, 444; Vraci(u) 1977, 44; among Lithuanian authors, Rosinas 1975, 168)⁶. Thus, not only semantically but also formally—in terms of origin—the pronominal particle corresponds to the definite articles of Germanic and Romance languages, which likewise derive from demonstrative anaphoric pronouns, that is, words of the same group: German der, die, das, English the from the pronominal stem *so / *to, while the Romance forms—French le, la, Italian il (lo), la, Spanish el, la, and others—derive from the Latin demonstrative pronoun ille, illa ‘that (masculine), that (feminine)’. The stem *to is also found in the Bulgarian postpositive article -та, -то, -ът (-ят), cf.: момче ‘boy’, момчето ‘boy (marked, definite)’⁷. The Albanian postpositive formant -tē / -t and the article of the same origin t(ë), used with nouns to mark ‘the category of definite mass’, are also associated with the same stem *to / *te (see Десницкая 1977, 275–293; 1978, 109 ff.).

According to the theory of the determinative origin of pronominal adjectives, these forms arose for the same reason and at the same time as articles in other languages⁸; in other words, pronominal forms in the Baltic and Slavic languages are an innovation dating back to the Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic periods.

9. Many researchers disagree with the theory of the determinative origin of pronominal adjectives and explain their original meaning differently (see below). This theory first raises doubts because pronominal adjectives are used very inconsistently to mark a known, definite object in both Baltic and Old Church Slavonic. In contemporary Lithuanian there are many examples of pronominal forms being used where there is no clear definiteness. Their use is especially inconsistent when a property is emphasized, implying that it is indeed characteristic of the object being denoted or—

⁵ In the view of some authors, the pronoun *io- in the pronominal forms of Baltic and Slavic languages was etymologically related to the demonstrative *i-, being its derivative or modification (see Brugmann 1908, 49; 1911, 331; Поржезинский 1916, 93–94).

⁶Some researchers consider the pronoun *io- demonstrative, but explain the original meaning of pronominal adjectives differently; see Истрина 1919, 53, cf. § 11.

⁷ Kai kurie autoriai (pvz., Аракин 1979, 124) su bulgarų postpoziciniu artikeliu gretina rusų -то tokio tipo pasakymuose: Хорошо seno-то? какой-то, какая-то, какое-то. Tačiau čia -то turi tik pabrėžiamąją postpozicinės dalelytės funkciją, neatitinkančią artikelio funkcijos. Pabrėžiamoji rus. -то dalelytės reikšmė yra senesnė už artikelio funkciją.

⁸As researchers note, the definite article in the Germanic languages began to develop from anaphoric pronouns during the period when Proto-Germanic split into the separate Old Germanic dialects, and its formation was completed independently in the individual Germanic languages; see Московская, СГГЯ 1963, 325. The development of the indefinite article from the indefinite pronoun meaning ‘one’ belongs to a later period: in the oldest Germanic dialects such cases are only sporadic and, moreover, are purely lexical and not grammaticalized; see ibid., p. 330. Thus, the category of definiteness / indefiniteness completed its development independently in the individual Germanic languages and at a comparatively late period.

177

also when the generalised objects are singled out without being individualised (see 5. 1, 2; 6. 1, 2).

The use of pronominal and simple adjectives is even more inconsistent in old Lithuanian writings. Here pronominal forms are often used when there is no definiteness, and only a characteristic feature or an abundance of features is emphasised, e.g.: patįs yra ir liekts”, wissadàs piktątę kaimene DP 88; būwo nusiųsti kaip āwis tarp smarkiųjų wilkų DP 213; Noe pati aschma, pagalei tawa didzoia Sussimilima, palaikei Mž 103; O ant’ marų bus girdēti vīzmai ir staugimai bāisūs, ir rinkimai di- džiujų wīlnių DP 14.

In such contexts, both pronominal and simple forms are often used, cf.: Tad’ kaipó mote geróii wirui sawám’ tarnāuia ne drin’ kokiós sawós įpacīos naūdós DP 561; kaip’ pagērbta ir gerá mote ne drin’ ko kito grāžinas ir rēdos, tiektaí idant’ įsiketų akimus wīro sawo DP 561; gērasis Piemų pralidi awis sawās ir izstaidinēie ies DP 247; Piemų gēras eit pirm’ awių sawų DP 247.

Dėl latvių kalbos įvardžiuotinių formų nenuoseklaus vartojimo plg. Gāters 1959.

On the other hand, the data presented show that the determinative meaning of pronominal adjectives and the degree of determination are governed not only by the pronoun, but above all by the syntactic-semantic combination of the adjective and the word it modifies, as well as by the broader context. The context singles out and indicates the object; the pronominal particle merely emphasises that singling out and indication. The pronominal adjective also has an emphatic meaning when there is no singling out or indication, and only a characteristic feature of the object—known or merely presupposed to be known—is emphasised.

Thus, Lithuanian data do not support the explanation that the primary meaning of pronominal adjectives was determinative and that this meaning was caused by the anaphoric pronoun *jo-. The obvious contradiction in this explanation is that the anaphoric meaning of the pronoun *jo- is supported by the determinative meaning of pronominal adjectives, which in turn is regarded as primary because of the anaphoric meaning of the pronoun *jo-.

The view that the determinative meaning of pronominal adjectives was primary in the Baltic and Slavic languages had also been criticised earlier; see Hermann 1912, 90 (n.); Истрина 1917, 33—62; Руднев 1957, 201, 209.

10. Many scholars hold that the pronoun attached to the adjective was originally relative rather than anaphoric (see Delbrück 1893, 433; Hermann 1912, 90; 1912 (a), 243 ff.; 330; 1926, 11; Specht 1926, 90; 1932, 272; Meie 1951, 358⁹; Schwyzer 1936, 150 f.; Fraenkel 1947, 16; 1950, 81 f.; Endzelin 1922, 344; Endzelīns 1951, 466; 1957, 138; Эндзелин 1953, 74; Zinkevičius 1957, 11). The relative origin of this pronoun is confirmed by the relative pronouns with the stem *jo- used in other Indo-European languages (see below).

If the pronoun *jo- is originally relative, what, then, was the basis for the formation of pronominal adjectives, and what was their primary meaning? Many scholars have addressed this question.

⁹ Plg. A. Meillet ankstesnę nuomonę, kad *jo- yra anaforinis įvardis (Meie 1938, 334).

178

A considerable number of authors hold the opinion that the original meaning of pronominal adjectives was emphatic. Thus, pronominal adjectives are originally emphatic formations, created to emphasize the entity being designated. This view is generally supported by examples of pronominal adjectives with emphatic meaning in Lithuanian and by their inconsistent use (see Hermann 1912, 90; Fraenkel 1947, 16; 1950, 120 ff.; especially Arumaa 1952, 163 ff.).

In the earliest Lithuanian grammars, pronominal forms are explicitly called “adjectiva emphatica”, “compositum emphaticum” — see Klein 1653, 25 ff.; Schultzen 1673, 23 ff.; Haack 1730, 268; Ostermeyer 1791, 38 ff. A. Senn (1929, 127 ff., 134 f.) also regards Lithuanian pronominal forms as emphatic. For the emphatic use of Latvian pronominal forms, see Gāters 1959, 137; Тулдава 1973.

Explaining pronominal adjectives as originally emphatic?

11. Baltic and Slavic pronominal adjectives have long been compared with constructions in Indo-Iranian and Greek formed with the same pronoun *jo- (see Meillet 1902–1905, 202; Мейе 1951, 358; Hermann 1912 a, 330, 243 ff.; 1912, 90 ff.; Specht 1932, 273; Wackernagel, Debrunner 1930, 554 ff.; Schwyzer 1936, 151; Fraenkel 1950, 82 f.; Seiler 1960, 204 ff.; Бенвенист 1974, 235; Balázs 1973, 73), e.g.: OInd. viśve marūto ye saháśaḥ “all the Maruts who are most powerful”; Av. daēvō yō apadōšō “the demon who is Apaosha”; Hom. Gr. Τεῦκρος ὃς ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν “Teucer, who is the best of the Achaeans,” and so forth.

Of course, there are differences between Baltic and Slavic pronominal adjectives and the Indo-Iranian constructions mentioned above. In Indo-Iranian constructions, the pronoun *jo- generally comes after the noun and before the adjective. It is also used with nouns without an adjective. J. Endzelin particularly emphasized these differences in arguing for the specific function of Baltic-Slavic pronominal adjectives (see Эндзелин 1911, 131 f.; 1953, 74 f.).

On the other hand, in early Lithuanian texts there are pronominal forms of prefixed participles and adjectives with the pronoun *jo- preceding the adjective, e.g.: ne iam turinčiam BP II 241; ne jokaltoiā KN 258 (the pronoun is repeated twice: before and after the adjective; for further examples see Būga 1930, 66; Zinkevičius 1957, 7 f.). Lithuanian also has adjective formation with the same pronoun *jo- from genitive plural or locative singular forms of nouns, where the pronoun has a clear relative meaning, e.g.: téwo dąguǐeio DP 99 (cf. Téwo māno, kursāi yra dąguǐe DP 99); dáiktu... žemėjeju DP 7; mūsišis “which is ours,” prūsaičǐjis = “which is of the Prūsaičiai” (Kurschat 1876, 98); see Specht 1926, 89 f.; cf. Skardžius 1943, 67, where the parallel between these formations and pronominal forms is rejected.

Old Indic also has examples in which the pronoun *jo- follows the adjective: sá rātri pāritakmyā yā “that night, traversable (wandering), which” (Wackernagel, Debrunner 1930, 557; Porzig 1923, 214). Thus, the differences noted between Baltic and Slavic pronominal adjectives and Indo-Iranian nominal constructions with the pronoun *jo- are not fundamental. They can be explained by relative chronology.

12. B. Delbrück (1900, 303 f.), one of the first to point out the above-mentioned constructions with the pronoun *jo- in Old Indic and Avestan, thought them to be verbless (nominal) relative clauses that had developed from genuine relative clauses. K. Brugmann (1904, 659) held the same view. Only later did W. Porzig (1923, 214, 289–291, 297, 300), who studied these constructions in Old Indic (the Rigveda), conclude that they were not relative clauses but sentence constituents (appositions), and that they were older than relative clauses containing verbs. J. Wackernagel likewise considers these constructions in Old Indic to be noun appositions (see Wackernagel, Debrunner 1930, 536). J. Gonda’s study (1954, 1–41) is important to resolving this question: drawing on extensive material from non-Indo-European and Indo-European languages, it convincingly demonstrates that nominal relative groups with *jo- are relatively independent and have an isolating, identifying function of an emphatic nature. That constructions with *jo- are not relative clauses and

180

yra senesnės už pastaruosius, galutinai įrodė E. Benvenistas (žr. Бенвенист 1974, 227, 236 tt.), gretindamas minėtąsias indoiranėnų bei graikų konstrukcijas su atitinkamomis neindoeuropiečių kalbų konstrukcijomis, prisijungusiomis prie daiktavardžių ne kaip reliatyvinis sakinys, bet kaip apozicija. Tokios pat nuomonės yra H. Seileris (1960, 203) ir G. Gren-Eklund (1978, 55, 57 t.).

13. Lithuanian data show that attributive adjectives with pronominal endings were also originally appositional constructions. In Lithuanian, especially in folk songs and in texts close to them in artistic style, such adjectives occur after the word they modify, often with other repeated words, especially with second-person personal pronouns, the genitives of personal and reflexive pronouns (mano, tavo, savo, jo, jos), demonstrative pronouns, prepositions, interjections, and repeated predicate groups. Such groups containing attributive adjectives with pronominal endings are often used in forms of address, e.g.: Tu užuole, tu žaliasai, nestovėkie prie kelelio DD 52; Tu girala, tu žalioji, kodėl žiemą nežalioji DD 155; Jūs skryneles, jūs margosios, daugiau jūsų nedangsysiu DD 140; Oi jūs rūtėlės mano, oi jūs žaliosios mano DD 124; Berneli mano, jaunasai mano, liepk vesti atgal širmuosius žirgelius KrėvRR I 98; Mano rašteliai, o vyvingrieji, saulei kaitinant, dar pablizgėste! RD 40; Oi dukralės, oi jaunosios, turit senų motulį DD 170; Bėk, žirgeli, bėk bėrsai DD 90; Vai, nutilkite, vėjeliai, nepūskite, šiaurieji KrėvRR I 206.

Corresponding constructions with attributive adjectives with pronominal endings have also been preserved in other contexts (not forms of address), e.g.: Tavo viršūnėn, tavo tankiojon, vis degulė kukavo DD 148; Lakštingalė paukštelė tai tavo mergelė, jos sparneliai, jos eiklieji, tai baltos rankelės (d.) Vlk; Už jūrų marių, už mėlynųjų, kaitroji ugnelė ty kūrinosi DD 26; krito piktas priešas nuo eiklaus žirgo po kanopėlėmis ant juodos žemelės, ant drėgnosios KrėvRR I 211; bernužėliai grąžino žirgelius atgalio, varė širmuosius atgalio KrėvRR I 149; Dunda bilda skrynelės, dunda bilda margosios DD 57; Slūkso kaselės, slūkso geltonosios JD 610; Tai verkė mergelė, tai verkė jaunoji, verkė mergelė, verkė jaunoji, skundzas sanai motulai DD 43; Ak, be padangių, be mėlynųjų sunku sunku SNėrR I 37.

Attributive adjectives with pronominal endings also occur after personal pronouns in post-nominal position, e.g.: Testa būna, kas bus, aš už tavęs jaunojo tekėsiu… KrėvRR I 92; Ar tu nematei, ar nepastebėjai: miglose kėlės šviesi saulelė, kai tu balnoji ristą žirgelį, tamsiu ji apsiniaukė juodu debesėliu, kai tu jaunasis sėdai balnelin KrėvRR I 147.

In constructions of the type indicated, the definite adjective is isolated from the noun. Repeated words further heighten its isolation. Together with repeated words, especially pronouns, the definite adjective emphatically marks the object once again by newly describing it. Here the definite adjective is not an attribute of the noun. In the sentence, it occupies the same position as the noun with which it agrees, and relates in the same way to the sentence constituent they share. Thus, in terms of the syntactic relation, the definite adjective here is an apposition to the noun, additionally identifying the object denoted by the noun. Together with repeated words, it forms a rhythmically and intonationally isolated appositive group. That the definite adjective here syntactically corresponds to a noun-

8. 120

181

testified to by constructions in which a noun close in meaning to the word being modified is used instead of an attributive adjective with a pronominal ending, e.g.:

Už ažarėlio, už vandenėlio, rinko mergelė dribnas vuogelas DD 58; Išaisiu motula, išaisiu, šir dela, su vienu d zienu, su adynėli DD 43; Oi tu mergela jaunoji, tu lelijėla baltoji DD 99.

In such cases, simple adjectives do not have an emphatic identifying or isolating function, e.g.: A-d, a-a, vaikeli, mažas, nedideli VD 45; Čičiu liliu, sūnaitėli, tu mano mažiausias VD 62. Here the simple adjective forms, although they follow the word they modify, have a predicative nuance.

The constructions described above with attributive adjectives with pronominal endings can be paraphrased as follows: Jos sparneliai, jos eiklieji ⇒ *jos sparneliai, jos eiklius kurie. From a syntactic point of view, the transformed construction corresponds entirely to Indo-Iranian constructions in which a pronoun occupies the noun’s position and functions as an apposition: it identifies once again the same entity as the noun being modified. In this connection, J. Kuryłowicz’s statement is worth recalling (see Курилович 1962, 206), that “forms such as Slavic slěpъ-jь ‘the blind one’ are constructions equivalent to nouns, since genetically jь is a substantival pronoun modified by an adjective”.

The syntactic correspondence between the constructions described above in Lithuanian and Indo-Iranian bears witness to attributive adjectives with pronominal endings having developed from constructions of the same type. Importantly, in both Lithuanian and Indo-Iranian constructions, the pronoun with the adjective followed the noun and additionally identified and characterized the entity it denoted. The pronominal forms developed (in Baltic and Slavic) from such isolated adjective–pronoun combinations, in which the pronoun’s usual position was after the adjective. In this position, the pronoun became an enclitic and fused with the adjective. In contrast, in the corresponding Indo-Iranian and Greek constructions, the pronoun *jo- followed the noun but usually preceded the adjective, and therefore did not fuse with it into a single form. Moreover, the Indo-Iranian constructions mentioned above are also used without an adjective.

14. Constructions in which a pronoun follows the noun as an apposition are fairly common in Indo-European languages. Lithuanian has many such constructions in which a pronoun repeated after the noun in the same appositional position emphatically identifies the referent once again. For example, in various dialects the pronouns jis, ji: O tas vilkas nepavjerdamas bėga jisai žiūrėt LB 257; O tas raganius, kad išbudo, tai jis supyko labai LB 247; O karvės, kai šilta, tai jos sugula Vlč (LKT 188); Tikai vienas tavo mielas tai jis jaunas tykiai joja DD 52.

The pronouns jis, ji, tas, ta likewise occur as post-nominal appositions in the same position in this type of sentence in contemporary standard Lithuanian, e.g.: Vežėjas Pranciškus — tas tai nė pono nebijo! Myk-PutS I 290; Ančių — tų begalinės minios užplūdo ŽemR I 80; Valdovų laimė — ji visai kitokia MarcinkM 112.

For greater emphasis, the particle ir ‘also’ is added before the pronoun, e.g.: Net šimtametės senutės ir tos ėjo pasėdėti lauke Balč AP273; net gyvuliai ir tie nusigando KrėvŠP 139—140; Višta Gudeliuose ir ta du sykiu ant dienos (= per dieną) deda PietRR 240.

The corresponding position in Lithuanian can also be occupied by the pronouns pats, -i, visas -a, vienas, -a, kitas, -a, etc., e.g.: visas pasaulis jį patį kaltina, pagaliau paukšte-

182

themselves seem to say, ŽemR I 199; The last words seem to the master himself like a distant echo, CvR IX 253; All the Sabaliauskas children take after their father—bali Nvn; The supporters—some criticized Katrė, while others... merely shrugged their shoulders, ŽemR I 71.

Everywhere here there is a pause after the noun, and the pronoun occupies the noun’s position, referring once again to the designated object. In terms of syntactic relations, paukšteliai patys, Sabaliauskų vaikai visi, and the like, correspond in these sentences to the pattern jie patys, jie visi, where the pronouns likewise stand in an appositional relation.

Constructions of this kind are also used in other Indo-European languages, for example, Old High German with a third-person pronoun: dēr sēlbe hērre ēr wære ein Lohnoisære “the lord himself, he was one of the Lohnoisers” (Paul 1956, 123–124). In Balkan languages, short, unstressed forms of personal pronouns are used after the noun in the same syntactic position, referring once again to the designated object; for example, Bulgarian: Тогава аз не знаех, че Заимов го нямаше в народната библиотека “Then I did not know that Zaimov was not there in the public library” (Лопашов 1978, 29). J. Balázsas (1973, 67 ff.) gives many examples from non-Indo-European languages in which a personal or demonstrative pronoun follows the noun in the same syntactic position.

Constructions of the same kind, in which a pronoun follows the noun in apposition (alone or with an adjective), formed the basis for the emergence of pronominal adjectives.

15. Many scholars who have studied the aforementioned Indo-Iranian constructions note that the relative pronoun *jo- has an article-like meaning here, distinct from its proper relative, or correlative, meaning. B. Delbrück (1900, 303 ff.) and K. Brugmann (1904, 659) regarded this function of the pronoun *jo- as a novel one, developed from its proper relative meaning; however, later authors, especially J. Gonda (1954, 18, 22) and E. Benveniste (Бенвенист 1974, 238) in recent decades, have clearly demonstrated that the function of *jo- as a “phrase includer,” or “determiner,” is primary, and that the relative (correlative) meaning of this pronoun developed from it. That the pronoun *jo- was not originally a purely relative pronoun, but was related in meaning to the anaphoric pronoun, has recently been noted by a number of scholars (see Иванов 1958, 41; Тухман, СГЯ 1963, 330; Szemerényi 1970, 194; Watkins 1962, 16). Particular attention has been drawn to the fact that in Hittite and Tocharian, the stem *jo- occurs in connective enclitic particles (Hittite ia “and,” Tocharian A yo “and”), etymologically related to this pronoun.

On the other hand, the determinative function of the pronoun *jo- in the constructions of the type described does not correspond to the function of a true definite article, which developed from demonstrative pronouns in the modern Romance and Germanic languages. J. Endzelin (Эндзелин 1953, 74–75) and B. Rosenkranz (1958, 97) have already noted that in Indo-Iranian constructions the pronoun *jo- does not express definiteness. More recently, J. Gonda (1954, 18; 1959, 25) convincingly demonstrated that, though this pronoun is not inherently purely relative, neither is it identical to the anaphoric pronoun. As a “phrase includer,” it had a function of isolation, distinction, and emphasis; compare also Balázs (1973, 73), who regards this pronoun in the constructions in question as a situator that additionally and emphatically points to and identifies an object mentioned earlier.

In Lithuanian constructions such as jos sparneliai, jos eiklieji, the pronominal forms likewise do not have a true definiteness function; they emphasize and refer once again to the designated object,

8*

183

highlighting its characteristic, familiar feature. The same is true in Latvian (Gāters 1959, 142).

That the pronoun *jo- originally lacked a clear determinative meaning is also shown by the fact that the aforementioned nominal constructions with the pronoun *jo- in Indo-Iranian and Greek typologically correspond to nominal constructions with another relative pronoun, *kʷo / *kʷi, found in Hittite and Latin; for example, Hittite kuiš: šallayaškan DINGIR^MES-aš kuiš šaliliš “(among) the great gods, which great one”; Latin qui: qui patres qui conscripti “(lit.) which fathers (senators), which enrolled ones” (see Бенвенист 1974, 236 ff.).

Corresponding constructions with the relative adverb kur are also found in Lithuanian (see 5.1). Here, too, they do not have a true determinative meaning and serve in place of pronominal adjectives with weak definiteness.

Thus the pronoun *jo- originally had a certain shade of anaphoric meaning, but it was not a true anaphoric demonstrative pronoun. The relative pronoun *jo- could acquire this shade of anaphoric meaning when, together with an adjective, it stood in apposition in the same position as the noun, emphatically referring once again to the same object as the head noun. The anaphoric nuance of this pronoun was determined by its syntactic position. In other cases, outside constructions of the type described, the pronoun *jo- does not have an anaphoric nuance. Thus the pronoun *jo-, from which the Baltic and Slavic pronominal forms were formed, is neither purely relative nor truly anaphoric. It is therefore futile to argue over whether this pronoun is anaphoric or relative.

16. Once the morphological forms of pronominal adjectives had arisen from appositional phrases, their original meaning—to emphasize and refer once again to the designated object—became directly dependent on the syntactic-semantic relationship between adjective and noun, as well as on the broader context. Pronominal adjectives denoting a characteristic feature of an object retained their purely emphatic meaning, whereas pronominal adjectives expressing a distinguishing feature of an object developed a definite meaning. An adjective with a distinguishing meaning singles out an object even without a pronominal particle, but the pronominal particle strengthens this distinction, indicating the object as familiar and definite (see the methods of distinction in 3.2).

It should be said that there is no strict boundary between the emphatic and definite meanings of pronominal adjectives. The same pronominal adjectives with the same head words have an emphatic meaning in one context (denoting a characteristic feature of an object), but a definite meaning in another (denoting a distinguishing feature of an object). This depends on the broader context. For example, in the following sentences the pronominal adjectives have an emphatic meaning:

Here, on the surfaces of deep little lakes and on the banks of quiet forest streams, all manner of trees grew and flourished VienR IV 13; The black ones will perish by the plague, whoever wants to take our freedom away SNėrR I 330 (see also 6.1).

In another context, these pronominal adjectives could have a definite function with the same head word. Thus, the transition from the emphatic to the definite meaning of pronominal adjectives is not difficult. The diachronic development of pronominal adjectives proceeded from emphatic meaning toward greater definiteness and individualization, passing through cases of weak definiteness in which pronominal adjectives—

184

The objects are distinguished, but not defined or individualized. It is no coincidence that examples of this type are abundant in proverbs and generalized sayings, reflecting an older layer of the use of pronominalized forms (see 5.2). Examples of this usage also confirm the originally non-strictly determinative meaning of the pronoun *jo-, cf.: the quiet (= one that is quiet) pig roots deeper. The fact that emphatic pronominalized adjectives (denoting a characteristic feature or an abundance of a feature) are primary is also evidenced by their use in folk songs as fixed, fossilized expressions (see 6. 1, 2).

17. In the southern dialects of Lithuanian, especially in the southern parts of the Western Dzūkian, Eastern Aukštaitian, and Central Aukštaitian dialects, pronominalized adjectives are not used with a definite meaning. Here, pronominalized adjectives are generally found preserved in folk songs with an emphatic meaning. This usage of pronominalized adjectives is probably not recent, but archaic. In these dialects, pronominalized adjectives did not develop a definite meaning. This meaning was assumed here not by pronominalized forms, but by other adjective forms, usually diminutive adjectives and various other adjective derivatives ending in -is, -ė, e.g.: Where is my sharp one (= the sharp) knife? Rdm; We take the big ones (= the big ones) for ourselves, the little ones (= the little ones) for the pigs Lp; The White one (= the white) hen Rdm; The good one (= the good) end upwards Lzd; Where are my striped (= the striped) trousers? Rdm.

18. It is characteristic that the category of definiteness/indefiniteness developed only in adjectives and, in part, in passive participles, which have specific lexical meanings and could use them to distinguish and help define objects. Numerals and pronouns, although they have pronominalized forms, did not form a category of definiteness/indefiniteness; that is, the pronominalized forms of numerals and pronouns in Lithuanian remained emphatic in nature.

19. If pronominalized adjectives developed from syntactic (appositional) constructions parallel to Indo-Iranian and Greek constructions with the same pronoun *jo-, their origins go back to the common Indo-European period. Thus, in the Baltic and Slavic languages, pronominalized adjectives (morphological forms) could have developed independently from syntactic constructions as a parallel phenomenon whose beginnings lie in the distant past (cf. Zinkevičius 1957, 13; 1978, 100; Kazlauskas 1972, 73). In fact, Baltic and Slavic pronominalized adjectives, although they are of the same origin, also have considerable differences. Slavic languages are characterized by the very rapid merging of the nominal inflections of adjectives and pronouns, the rapid leveling of their meanings (unlike those of simple adjectives), the generalization of the use of pronominalized and simple adjectives according to syntactic function, the disappearance of simple forms, and the predominance of pronominalized forms (in Lithuanian, the reverse is true—the pronominalized forms are disappearing), among other developments. In Baltic languages¹⁰, especially Lithuanian, these forms are much “more transparent” both formally and semantically, having preserved in many places traces of their original development, and can help explain the past development of pronominalized adjectives in Slavic languages.

¹⁰ In monuments of the Prussian language, some pronominalized forms are attested, but so few that it is difficult to draw conclusions from them about their meaning and usage.

185

LITERATŪRA

Arumaa P. Zur Rolle der Partikel in der litauischen Deklination. – Studi Baltici. 1952, 9, N. S. 1, p. 163–172.

Balázs J. Funktionswerte der Pronominalität. – Budapest, 1973.

Bezzenberger A. Beiträge zur Geschichte der litauischen Sprache auf Grund litauischer Texte des XVI. und des XVII. Jahrhunderts. – Göttingen, 1877.

Brugmann K. Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. – Strassburg, 1904.

Brugmann K. Pronominale Bildungen der indogermanischen Sprachen. – Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch–Historische Klasse. Leipzig, 1908, Bd. 60, 1, S. 11–84.

Brugmann K. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. – Strassburg, 1911, Bd. 2, T. 2.

Delbrück B. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. – Strassburg, 1893, T. 1; 1897, T. 2; 1900, T. 3.

Dost’al J. [Ответы на вопросы]. – В кн.: Сборник ответов на вопросы по языкознанию (к IV Международному съезду славистов). М., 1958.

Endzelin J. Lettische Grammatik. – Riga, 1922.

Endzelins J. Latviešu valodas gramatika. – Riga, 1951.

Endzelynas J. Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos. – V., 1957.

Fraenkel E. Sprachliche, besonders syntaktische Untersuchung des kalvinistischen litauischen Katechismus des M. Pietkiewicz von 1598. – Göttingen, 1947.

Fraenkel E. Die baltischen Sprachen. – Heidelberg, 1950.

Gāters A. Das bestimmte Adjektiv im Baltischen. – KZ. 1959, Bd. 76, H. 1/2, S. 136–159.

Gonda J. The Original Character of the Indo-European Relative Pronoun jo-. – Lingua. 1954, vol. 4, p. 1–41.

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 Upaniṣads. – Uppsala, 1978.

Haack F. Vocablariivm Litthvanico-Germanicvm et Germanico-Litthvanicvm …; Nebst einem Anhang einer kurtzgefaszten Litthauischen Grammatic … – Halle, (1730).

Hermann E. Über die Entwicklung der litauischen Konjunktionalsätze. – Jena, 1912.

Hermann E. Griechische Forschungen. – Leipzig–Berlin, 1912 (a), 1.

Hermann E. Litauische Studien. – Berlin, 1926.

Hirt H. Indogermanische Grammatik. – Heidelberg, 1934, T. 6.

Kazlauskas J. Įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių raida baltų kalbose. – Kalbotyra, 1972, 24 (1), p. 57–74.

Klein D. Grammatica Litvanica …. – Regiomonti …, 1653.

Koschmieder E. Primäre und sekundäre Funktionen. – Die Welt der Slawen. 1962, N 7, H. 4, S. 408–422.

Kurylowicz J. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. – Heidelberg, 1964.

Kurylowicz J. Indogermanische Grammatik. – Heidelberg, 1968, Bd. 2.

Kurylowicz J. Fleksja przymiotnika w bałtyckim a słowiańskim. – Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń Komisji Naukowych. Polska Akademia Nauk. Oddział w Krakowie, 1969, t. 12, 2, s. 444–447.

Kurschat E. Grammatik der littauischen Sprache. – Halle, 1876.

Kurz J. [Ответы на вопросы]. – В кн.: Сборник ответов по языкознанию (к IV Международному съезду славистов). М., 1958, с. 86–90.

Lietuvių kalbos gramatika / vyr. red. K. Ulvydas. – V., 1965, 1.

Mares F. V. [Ответы на вопросы]. – В кн.: Сборник ответов на вопросы по языкознанию (к IV Международному съезду славистов). М., 1958, с. 93–95.

Meier G. F. Das Zéro-Problem in der Linguistik. – Berlin, 1961.

Meillet A. Études sur L’Étymologie et Le Vocabulaire du Vieux Slave. 2 ed. – Paris, 1902–1905.

186

Miklosich F. Vergleichende Syntax der slavischen Sprachen. — Wien, 1874.

Ostermeyer G. Neue littauische Grammatik ans Licht gestellt […]. — Königsberg, 1791.

Otrębski J. Gramatika języka litewskiego. — Warszawa, 1956, 3.

Paul H. Deutsche Grammatik, Bd. 3, T. 4: Syntax. — Halle (Saale), 1956.

Porzig W. Die Hypotaxe im Rigveda. — IF. 1923, Bd. 41, S. 210–303.

Rosenkranz B. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des bestimmten Adjektivs des Baltischen und Slavischen. — Die Welt der Slaven. 1958, 3, H. 2, S. 97–100.

Rosinas A. Ar baltų *i- *jo- resp. *i- *jā- kamienai buvo reliatyviniai? — Baltistica. 1975, t. 11(2), p. 165–170.

Safarewicz J. Uwagi o zaimkowej postaci przymiotnika w języku litewskim. — Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń Komisji Naukowych. Polska Akademia Nauk. Oddział w Krakowie, 1969, t. 12, 2, s. 443–444.

Schleicher A. Littauische Grammatik. — Prag 1856, 1.

Schultzen T. Compendium Gramaticae Lythavicae. — Regiomonti, 1673.

Schwyzer E. Die nominale Determination in den indogermanischen Sprachen. — KZ. 1936, Bd. 63, H. 3/4, S. 145–167.

Seiler H. Relativsatz, Attribut und Apposition. — Wiesbaden, 1960.

Senn A. Kleine litauische Sprachlehre. — Heidelberg, 1929.

Senn A. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. — Heidelberg, 1966, 1.

Skardžius P. Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. — V., 1943.

Specht F. Zur Bedeutung des Nasalvokals bei Daukša. — „Tauta ir žodis“, 1926, 4, S. 84–100.

Specht F. Die Flexion der n-Stämme im Baltisch-Slavischen und Verwandtes. — KZ. 1932, Bd. 59, S. 213–298.

Szemerényi O. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. — Darmstadt, 1970.

Urbutis V. Žodžių darybos teorija. — V., 1978.

Wackernagel J., Debrunner A. Altindische Grammatik. — Göttingen, 1929, Bd. 3, T. 1; 1930, Bd. 3, T. 2.

Valeckienė A. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių vartojimas. — Kn.: Literatūra ir kalba. V., 1957, 2, p. 159–355.

Valeckienė A. Dėl įvardžiuotinių savybinių įvardžių savarankiškumo. — Kalbos kultūra, 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. Zur nominalen Determination. — IF. 1957, Bd. 63, H. 1, S. 61–78.

Vondrák W. Vergleichende slavische Grammatik. — Göttingen, 1908, 2.

Vondrák W. Altkirchenslavische Grammatik, 2 Aufl. — Berlin, 1912.

Vraciu A. Die Stellung des Baltoslavischen unter den indoeuropäischen Sprachen einschließlich der Sprachen des Balkans. — Linguistique Balkanique. 1977, 20, 3, p. 21–46; 1977 (a), 20, 4, p. 37–58.

Zinkevičius Z. Lietuvių kalbos įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių istorijos bruožai. — V., 1957.

Zinkevičius Z. Dėl įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių raidos. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. V., 1978, 18, p. 99–105.

Zeichen und System der Sprache: Veröffentlichung des 1. Internationalen Symposions von 29. 9 bis 2. 10 1959 in Erfurt / Herausg. Hintzer F., Meier G. F., Seidel E., Steinitz W. — Berlin, 1962 (ZS)

Аракин В. Д. Сравнительная типология английского и русского языков. — Л., 1979.

Бенвенист Э. Общая лингвистика. — М., 1974.

Бондарко А. Б. Теория морфологических категорий. — Л., 1976.

Бондарко А. В. Грамматическая категория и контекст. — Л., 1971.

Бондарко А. В. Принципы описания категориальных значений морфологических форм в современных славянских языках. — В кн.: Славянское языкознание: VIII международный

187

съезд славистов (Загреб, Любляна, сентябрь 1978 г.) / Ред. кол. В. И. Борковский, О. И. Трубачев, С. Б. Бернштейн, Н. И. Толстой. М., 1978, с. 58—75.

Вайнрих X. Текстовая функция французского артикля. — Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. М., 1978, вып. 8, с. 370—387.

Вандриес Ж. Язык. — М., 1973.

Гак В. Г. Теоретическая грамматика французского языка. — М., 1979.

Гухман М. М. О единицах сопоставительно-типологического анализа грамматических систем родственных языков. — В кн.: Структурно-типологическое описание современных германских языков / Отв. ред. В. Н. Ярцева. М., 1966, с. 22—23.

Десницкая А. В. „Средний род“ или категория „определенной массы?“ — В кн.: Балканский лингвистический сборник / Отв. ред. Т. В. Цивьян. М., 1977, с. 275—293.

Десницкая А. В. К изучению ранних периодов истории албанского языка. — В кн.: Проблемы общего и германского языкознания / Ред. Э. М. Медникова и др. М., 1978, с. 103—115.

Докулил М. К вопросу о морфологических противопоставлениях (критика теории бинарных корреляций в морфологии чешского языка). — В кн.: Языкознание в Чехословакии / Ред. А. Г. Широкова. М., 1978, с. 88—118.

Докулил М. К вопросу о морфологической категории. — ВЯ, 1967, № 6, с. 3—16.

Иванов Вяч. В. Типология и сравнительно-историческое языкознание. — ВЯ, 1958, № 5, с. 34—42.

Истрина Е. Употребление именных и местоименных форм имен прилагательных в Синодальном списке I Новгородской летописи. — Известия отделения русского языка и словесности российской АН. Пг., 1919, т. 23, кн. 1, с. 33—62.

Кузнецов П. С. Историческая грамматика русского языка: Морфология. — М., 1953.

Кульбакин С. М. Древне-церковно-славянский язык. 2-е изд. — Харьков, 1913.

Курилович Е. Заметки о значении слова. — ВЯ, 1955, № 3, с. 73—81.

Курилович Е. Очерки по лингвистике. — М., 1962.

Курилович Е. О методах внутренней реконструкции. — В кн.: Новое в лингвистике. М., 1965, вып. 4, с. 400—433.

Лескин А. Грамматика старославянского языка. — М., 1890.

Лопашов Ю. А. Местоименные повторы дополнения в балканских языках. — Л., 1978.

Мартине А. Основы общей лингвистики. — В кн.: Новое в лингвистике. М., 1963, вып. 3, с. 366—566.

Мейе А. Введение в сравнительное изучение индоевропейских языков. — М.—Л., 1938.

Мейе А. Общеславянский язык. — М., 1951.

Обнорский С. П. Очерки по истории русского литературного языка старшего периода. — М.—Л., 1946.

Поржезинский В. К. Сравнительная грамматика славянских языков. 2-е изд. — М., 1916, вып. 1.

Сравнительная грамматика германских языков / Отв. ред. М. М. Гухман. — М., 1963, т. 3.

Руднев А. Г. Внутренние закономерности употребления именных и местоименных прилагательных в древнерусском языке. — Slavia, 1957, roč. 26, seš. 2, с. 192—211.

Селищев А. М. Старославянский язык. — М., 1952, ч. 2.

Степанов Ю. С. Методы и принципы современной лингвистики. — М., 1975.

Тулдава Ю. О развитии категории определенности в латышском языке (на материале текстов XVI—XVIII веков). — В кн.: Балтийские языки и их взаимосвязи со славянскими, финно-угорскими и германскими языками: Тез. докл. науч. конф., посвящ. 100-летию со дня рожд. акад. Я. Эндзелина. Рига, 1973.

Шахматов А. А. Синтаксис русского языка. 2-е изд. — Л., 1941.

Шендельс Е. И. Многозначность и синонимия в грамматике. — М., 1970.

Щерба Л. В. Избранные работы по русскому языку. — М., 1957.

188

Черных П. Я. Историческая грамматика русского языка. — М., 1954.

Эндзелин И. Славяно-балтийские этюды. — Харьков, 1911.

Эндзелин Я. М. Древнейшие славяно-балтийские языковые связи. — Тр. Ин-т яз. и лит-ры АН ЛатвССР. Рига, 1953, № 2, с. 67—82.

Якубинский Л. П. Из истории имени прилагательного. — Ин-т языкознания: Доклады и сообщения. М., 1952, № 1, с. 52—60.

А. ВАЛЕЦКЕНЕ

КАТЕГОРИЯ ОПРЕДЕЛЕННОСТИ / НЕОПРЕДЕЛЕННОСТИ И ПЕРВОНАЧАЛЬНОЕ ЗНАЧЕНИЕ МЕСТОИМЕННЫХ ФОРМ ИМЕН ПРИЛАГАТЕЛЬНЫХ

Резюме

Автор выделяет в литовском языке категорию определенности / неопределенности, в основе которой лежит противопоставление функций простых и местоименных форм прилагательных и страдательных причастий с несколькими разновидностями нейтрализации. Однако из этой системы выпадают местоименные прилагательные, имеющие функцию эмфатического характера; на грани данной категории находятся местоименные формы, обладающие слабо выраженным значением определенности.

Автор приходит к заключению, что местоименные прилагательные балтийских и славянских языков возникли от таких синтаксических конструкций, в которых местоимение *jo- с прилагательным выступало в составе аппозитивного оборота после существительного в той же позиции и повторно указывало на определяемый предмет. Таким образом, первоначальной функцией местоименных прилагательных был эмфазис определяемого предмета путем повторного указания. Значение определенности местоименных форм является вторичным, развившимся от эмфатической их функции. Отсутствие местоименных прилагательных со значением определенности в юго-западных говорах литовского языка объясняется автором как явление, отражающее более древний слой развития местоименных прилагательных. Местоименные формы местоимений и числительных в литовском языке также до сих пор носят эмфатический характер и не обладают значением определенности.

По своему образованию и первоначальному значению местоименные формы (вместе с определяемым существительным) в балтийских и славянских языках представляют собой параллель с соответствующими конструкциями того же местоимения *jo- индо-иранских и греческого языков. Автор полагает, что местоименные прилагательные, чьи истоки находятся в глубокой древности, могли произойти от вышеупомянутых конструкций в балтийских и славянских языках как параллельное явление.

A. VALECKIENĖ

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 *jo- with 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