Žodžio ir žodžių junginio neigimas sakinyje

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS SINTAKSĖS TYRINĖJIMAI LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXV (1986) ELENA OGINSKIENĖ NEGATION OF A WORD AND WORD GROUP IN A SENTENCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS § 1. Negation of a word or word group in a sentence (Russian частное отрицание, German Wortnegation), as compared with sentence negation (Russian общее отрицание, German Satznegation), has been studied much less, although linguists have distinguished these types of negation for quite some time (Булах 1962, 7–8). Negation of a word or word group in a sentence has received less attention, apparently because its expression is much more universal and less varied across different languages. § 2. It is often claimed that in sentences containing a negative word or word group, negation is not associated with the predicate, or, more precisely, does not affect the predicative relation (Кулагиин 1956, 335; Галкина-Федорук, Горшкова, Шанский 1958, 15; Булах 1962, 232; Кочетков 1963, 98–99; Минкин 1963, 11–12; Мамедов 1967, 6; Горкина 1971, 13–15; Лобанова 1971, 41; Ференец 1972, 7–8; Багаева 1978, 3). In contemporary standard Lithuanian, negation can negate words or word groups functioning as the subject or as secondary sentence constituents and semantic components of a compound predicate¹; it can also negate semantically incomplete words, which by tradition are not included in the structure of sentence constituents. At first glance, this definition seems impeccable, but it does not reveal the essence of negation of a word or word group in a sentence. The difference between negation of the predicate and negation of other sentence constituents, which coincides with the distinction between the types of negation mentioned above, was explained more fully by A. Peshkovsky. He pointed out that the relation of the predicate to another sentence constituent is quite different from the relation of another sentence constituent to the predicate (Пешковский 1956, 388–389); cf.: I am not reading a book and It is not I who am reading a book; I am reading not a book. In the first case, the predicate (and thus the sentence) is negated, whereas in the second, a particular sentence constituent linked to an affirmative predicate is negated (in the examples, the subject and the object). And when we negate a sentence constituent linked to a predicate in an affirmative form, we also state that another sentence constituent of the same type is linked to the predicate (Кочетков 1963, 98–99). The latter may be expressed in the sentence or merely implied, e.g.: It is not Jonas but Petras who is writing a letter; It is not Jonas who is writing a letter; Jonas is writing not a letter but a report; Jonas is writing not a letter. § 3. In terms of its relation to the predicate, the attribute is distinctive. Because it combines with nouns, it is not directly linked to the predicate. For this reason, it is proposed that negation of the attribute not 1Sentence constituents here are understood as in the academic “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” (1976, 279–566). 190 išskirti į kitą žodžio neigimo porūšį (Булах 1962, 236–237; Андрейчикова 1975, 7). Pažymėtina, kad neigiant pažyminį tik iš dalies ribojamas jo pažymimosios sakinio dalies – veiksnio, papildinio, aplinkybių – santykis su tariniu, pvz.: Jis rašė ne raudonu, o mėlynu rašalu. (Plg.: Jis rašė ne rašalu.) There is no doubt that the syntactic position of an attribute differs from that of sentence constituents directly related to the predicate. An attribute can be regarded as a sentence constituent only by tradition. However, when speaking generally about the negation of a word or phrase in a sentence, we believe that there is no need to distinguish the negation of words functioning as attributes as a separate subtype. The difference in the negation of words functioning as attributes is not associated with any new type of variety, but depends on the specifics of the syntactic relation between the negated word and the predicate. § 4. The negation of a word or phrase differs from sentence negation at the level of the scope of negation, namely, in cases of word or phrase negation and sentence negation, the negative particle functions at different syntactic levels. In sentences with a negated word or phrase, the negative particle functions at the sub-sentential level of the syntactic phrase, or syntagma, whereas in negative sentences it functions at the level of the sentence paradigm (Айзенштадт 1955, 16 и 31; Камшилова 1975, 37). When associated with a particular word or phrase at the syntagma level, the negative particle negates only that word or phrase, while the sentence as a whole retains an affirmative meaning2. This essential feature makes it possible to distinguish the aforementioned types of negation, even though their formal expression may coincide in some languages (e.g., English, French, German) (Минкин 1963, 11–12; Топорова 1978, 63). In contemporary standard Lithuanian, word or phrase negation has distinctive formal features (the position of the negative particle in the sentence and its being written separately from the negated word or phrase). § 5. Word or phrase negation is less universal than sentence negation (Панфилов 1982, 36–49). Sentence negation is a phenomenon of both the syntactic structure of a sentence and the logical structure of the proposition expressed by that sentence. Word or phrase negation, by contrast, pertains only to the syntactic articulation of the sentence3. § 6. In a sentence with a negated word or phrase, negation is focused on one particular case that is logically singled out in the utterance. Such sentences may be regarded as abbreviated forms of affirmative and negative sentences describing the same situation (Кржижкова 1969, 203–204; Падучева 1974, 145): Jonas reads a book + Jonas does not read a newspaper = Jonas reads not a newspaper but a book. Sentences with a negated word or phrase are probably a later historical development in language, arising through abbreviation; however, they now serve a specific purpose in language—they denote situations different from those denoted by negative sentences—and have a distinct structure. From a syntactic point of view, these sentences may constitute a separate type of negation. They are, as it were, an intermediate link between affirmative and negative sentences. 2Nevertheless, such sentences cannot be called wholly affirmative, since they contain a negated word or phrase (Balčikonis 1982, 134–135; cf. also Оплова 1973, 24–25). We therefore simply call them sentences with a negated word or phrase. 3In more recent theoretical works in the philosophical tradition, where logical and grammatical negation are regarded as a single, inseparable category, the division of negation into traditional types is criticized primarily because it does not correspond to the classification of negation in formal logic (see Панфилов 1982, 36–49; Бондаренко 1983, 141–191). 191 § 7. The heterogeneity of negation is also demonstrated by the structural analysis of the functions of the negative particle presented by I. Boguslavsky (Богуславский 1982, 63—76). Comparing the functions of negative particles in neutral and contrastive contexts—which essentially correspond to the syntactically distinguished functions of sentence negation and word or phrase negation—the author concludes that the negative particles here have different scopes and fundamentally differ from one another (a total of 17 communicative, semantic, syntactic, and combinability distinctions are identified). § 8. The expression of the type of word or phrase negation is fairly uniform in contemporary standard Lithuanian. It is expressed, one might say, by a single syntactic means—the negative particle ne. In certain cases, the negative particle ne can also perform the function of word negation when used with finite verb forms expressing a predicative relation, that is, with the predicate (see aut. 1984b, 31—36; cf. also: Кочетков 1963, 99—100; Орлова 1973, 25). Therefore, when distinguishing types of negation, it is not sufficient to consider formally only which sentence constituents are negated by the negative particle. DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF THE NEGATION OF A WORD AND A WORD GROUP CONTRASTIVE MEANING § 9. The negation of a word or word group is negation while asserting something. Therefore, the principal feature of the negation of a word or word group, more or less characteristic of various languages (cf. Кочетков 1963, 98—101; Орлова 1973, 24—25; Минкин 1963, 12; Heinemann, Wiktorowicz 1978, 101; Бараева 1978, 5), is contrastive meaning, which is most clearly realized through contrast (the sentence is extended by another affirmative word or word group occupying the same syntactic position) and intonation. Such contrastive juxtaposition is not characteristic of sentence negation. On the basis of this feature, sentence negation may also be called non-contrastive, or neutral, negation, while the negation of a word or word group may be called contrastive negation. Since contrastive meaning is the most characteristic feature of the negation of a word or word group, it is sometimes used to define the nature of this type of negation. For example, N. Bulach (1962, 319) considers contrast to be the principal distinguishing feature of the negation of a word or word group. § 10. The retrospective or prospective relation of negation to affirmation, acknowledged by many linguists (Топорова 1978, 68), takes on a concrete form of expression in the case of the negation of a word or word group. The negation of a word or word group requires an affirmative word or word group, linked by a contrastive relation to the negative word or word group in the sentence and occupying the same syntactic position, according to N. Arutiunova (1976, 215), because in this case the existence of the object of the action expressed by the predicate (as well as of the subject or circumstances. — E. O.) is not denied in general. She notes that, for example, in the sentence Я дал деньги не Петру the meaning of the affirmative-form verb давать implies that there is a recipient of the money. Thus, sentences containing a negative word or word group often include a corresponding affirmative word or word group that forms a contrast with the negative one (cf. Галкина-Федорук, Горшкова, 192 Шанский 1958, 15–16; Богуславский 1982, 64). Tokiais atvejais neiginys išlaiko pačią gryniausią neigimo reikšmę (Ковалев 1941, 31). Sentences containing contrasts between negative and affirmative words or word groups not only negate something, but also affirm something. Because of this feature, some researchers classify them as negative-affirmative sentences (e.g., Озерова 1973, 17), or simply emphasize their affirmative character in comparison with negative sentences (Шендельс 1959, 133). § 11. According to L. Minkin (1965, 127), a negative word or word group may be considered redundant—it does not increase the direct information conveyed by the sentence at all. What, then, is the purpose of negating a word or word group? Typically, the negative word or word group (the negative member of the contrast) denotes what would be expected from the context, situation, information available, or what is customary, while the affirmative word or word group contrasted with it (the affirmative member of the contrast) denotes something unusual, accidental, undesirable, or sometimes even scarcely possible. Negation of a word or word group may also be used to contradict the interlocutor’s opinion. Therefore, as F. Popov (1969, 81–83) points out, the semantic relations between the negative and affirmative components of coordinate constructions convey not only opposition (negation and affirmation), but often also acquire additional modal meanings and expressive nuances. Quite a few linguists view negation in general as an emotional-emphatic category. Negation of a word or word group realizes one of the principal emphatic functions characteristic of negation—the function of contrastive affirmation. This function means that a negative word or word group does not become superfluous in the sentence after all; it most often specifies and highlights the sentence’s focal content and extends the expressive resources of speech. This, it seems, is the specific purpose of negating a word or word group, since omitting the negative element from a sentence makes the affirmation much less emphatic and weakens its expressiveness, cf.: We live not in the city, but in the country and We live in the country. § 12. In sentences of contemporary standard Lithuanian containing a contrast between negative and affirmative words or word groups, the negative member may occur either after or before the affirmative member. This depends on what the focus is on, what is being contradicted, and what is known to the sentence’s author first. Only there it is not cuckoos, but nightingales, that are tearing themselves to pieces. MikelHL 215. I am speaking not with you, but with the lady. KrėvRR II 93. I think it is not some trifle they bring back, but news of which winds are clouding people’s minds. KrėvRR II 84. The two of them went not along the main street, but along the old path (trš). We love our homeland through deeds, not words. SNėrR I 237. [Tai] This will teach us to pursue one goal at a time, not ten. ŽitMNK 167. Towels (= the towel) should be kept in the towel cupboard (= the towel closet), not dragged around from corner to corner. Krok (LKŽ, I 13). He lives by another’s wits, not his own. KrėvPP III 26. § 13. To strengthen the effect, a group of several homogeneous elements that are similar or related to one another may be contrasted. I found not a daughter, not my own child, but a judge. MikelLL 590. For the woman’s feast they prepared not poultry, nor did they roast game—they boiled black tar, hot water. Yet it was neither tender feeling nor respect that seized her heart, 193 but still resentment. MarcR I 510. It was not the blood of the wicked crusaders that was shed, but that of the young lad, only that of his grey horse. LVP 149. They had only to [...] tie up the antiques dealer and gag him, not kill him. P 1982 1 108. In general, the opposition of words or phrases in an expanded form is much more vivid. Synonymy is used more extensively to express the components of opposition that differ less from one another. § 14. Grammatically, opposition is expressed by adversative conjunctions, and therefore they are often regarded as a formal, though not the sole, marker of the negation of a word or phrase (cf. Иванова 1968, 22—26). Adversative conjunctions can also connect words or phrases denoting compatible qualities. In this case, the negator most often functions as a negative prefix, forming a negative lexeme, and does not negate the word or phrase. Used with such words or phrases, adversative conjunctions do not separate them but connect them. For example: The girl was unattractive but kind. He spoke not loudly but interestingly. On the other hand, oppositions between negative and positive words or phrases may occur without conjunctions, for example: That was in the old days, not now (KrėvRR II 183). Although an opposition between a negative and a positive word or phrase may lack a conjunction, conjunctional oppositions are used much more frequently. The following adversative conjunctions are most commonly used in sentences with a negative word or phrase: but, yet, only. Each gives the adversative relation between negative and positive words or phrases a different nuance. § 15. Opposition is expressed most clearly by the conjunction but, since it emphasizes more strongly the difference between the concepts and phenomena expressed by the contrasted words (Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1971, 666). By the way, I wrote this humorous sketch not for humor enthusiasts, but for grumblers. ZabA 71. This is not a market, but a government office. KIAAP 192. The next time, too, we had to hurry away from the fence, but not into the apple tree—into the lilac bush. One must forget the bad, not the good. Paukšt(P 1982 7 18). Apparently, the person who lived here had sheltered from the wind, not from another person. KIAAP 68. The little one’s horns should have been twisted then, not now (= now). Erž(LKŽ XI 26). He was used to looking far ahead through the horse’s ears, not right here, down below. Aput(P 1978 6 57). One must seek deeper truths, not chase after effects! GrušS 318. § 16. The second most frequently used conjunction is but. It often marks an adversative relation with a nuance of unexpectedness, especially when the positive member of the opposition follows the negative one. Suddenly it was no longer resentment that pierced Korduš’s heart, but compassion. MarcR I 228. You are no father, but a heartless beast. KrėvRR II 36. I live not far away, but high up… UrnP 132. The cow’s milk is not in the horns (= horns), but in the barn. Sd(LKŽ XI 23). I was the first knight of your heart, but not the true one. Nearby stood a tallish brick wall. An insurmountable obstacle for a motorcycle, but not for Andrius! ZabA 290. Clever in another’s trouble, but not in one’s own. KrėvPP III 141. § 17. The conjunction only (tai) is also used to mark an adversative relation in sentences with a negative word or phrase. When contrasting negative and positive words or phrases, it retains to some extent the meaning of an focusing particle— 194 me (Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1971, 668). Todėl su jungtuku tik (tai) einančio žodžio ar žodžių junginio priešinimas dažnai įgauna išskiriamąjį atspalvį. Tas atspalvis dar labiau išryškėja vartojant tik (tai) su jungtukais o, bet. Jungtuko vieta sakinyje pastovesnė – žymiai dažniau eina su teigiamuoju priešpriešos nariu. That was not love, only an adventure. MarcR I 339. You were born not for hunting, nor did you grow up for hunting, but for the benefit of your dear homeland. LVP 140. Old Kiaupša […] did not conceal it, but merely forgot to mention Tilnukas. MikelLL 205. Many medicines should not be taken just any time, but only after a meal. In certain cases, the conjunction’s restrictive meaning even takes precedence, e.g.: Everyone may betray you, just not you GrušŠ 86. Special negative contrastive elements are used to emphasize the exclusion of the positive contrastive member: no one (at all) else, nowhere (at all) else, no other way. In such contrasts, the conjunction only (that) is often used with the particle as, which, forming a combination with it, in turn strengthens the restrictive meaning conveyed by this conjunction. This will be the work not of someone else, but only of some sauce-making rascals. MikelHL 399. You are mighty by nothing other than the ruler’s wisdom. GrušŠ 77. And now, caught by Laurynas, he looked nowhere else but down. BaltPV II 146–147. Jondas lies nowhere else but in the Valdaknų suburbs. LVP 361. When the aforementioned negative contrastive elements are linked to the positive ones by the conjunction but, the word as or intonation alone, the exclusion of the positive member is weakened; compare: After all, it was none other than some newspapers that turned Česus’s head Daut(P 1978 10 76); Fate, old man, is nothing other than the passions hidden within a person Jac(P 1978 10 43); Apparently, he loses everything at cards—no other way… Daut(P 1978 8 87); [The poplar] someone planted it here, no other way SadG 30–31. § 18. Most often, the meanings of the contrastive members contradict one another. Occasionally, they may partly overlap. The conjunction however (most often with the particle at least⟧) is used to express a relationship between meanings that partly overlap but are contrasted with one another by a word or phrase. In this case, the contrast indicated is the weakest. And although this is not yet “inpatient treatment” […], still at least a “resort” (tsp.). § 19. The contrastive relationship is more strongly emphasized in sentences with two conjunctions, one accompanying the negative contrastive member and the other the positive one, e.g.: His head would ache, but not ours—only those whose hearts beat with fear KrėvRR II 105; She gave me a gift, just not a tablecloth but a towel. § 20. Contrasts may occur without conjunctions. In that case, the contrastive relationship between negative and positive words or phrases is expressed solely through intonation. The fisherman said this already not to Gediminas, but to himself, sinking once more into his misfortune. KLAAp 117. “Not a stranger,” your sister said. Paukšt(P 1982 7 13). A person does this not out of malice—but out of envy LVP 232. He got drunk on misfortune, not mead! KrėvRR II 89. Real women, not noblewomen!.. KrėvRR II 30. Giants built it, not people. LVP 138. But we organize life according to rules, not exceptions… GrušŠ 145. 195 § 21. Instead of conjunctions, words functioning as certain sentence constituents may be repeated with a negative and a positive member of the contrast, but this does not further intensify the adversative relation. I’m not a galosh at all, I love... ZabA 13. We are not evil spirits, we are honorable birds, LVP 465. I am probably not here for myself—I am probably here for someone else. MarcinkGŠP 87. This is not our little sister, this is a witchy old woman Prng(LKŽ XI 20). Men, this is not an army, these are marauders. MiškŽG 46. The particle tai, used only with the positive member of a contrast, connects the contrasted words through a concessive or conditional relation. Not by that road, then by another. GranMV 70. For those going downstream, not this one, then that one—it happens all the time. MarcR I 555. § 22. Adversative conjunctions are often used in a connective sense (especially but, only (that)) with words functioning as certain homogeneous sentence constituents, one of which contains a negative marker. In that case, as already mentioned (see § 14), the negative marker does not negate the word but functions as its prefix. The man was not reprehensible, but tough. MiškŽG 106. Below was a small pile of yellowish boards, but they were already useless. ŽitMNK 48. A small but handsome-looking band of horsemen [rebels]. Myk-Put. Well made, but unpleasantly cooked. KrėvPP III 67. When the meanings of words exclude one another, they are linked by an adversative relation; when they do not exclude one another, by a connective relation. However, when clarifying replies, even in the latter case an adversative juxtaposition is needed, e.g.: Father’s face was not angry, but only sad and serious (LVP 614); I am only beautiful, but not good GrušŠ 393; I live not far away, but high up... (UrnP 132). When a word containing a negative marker is used with adverbs expressing intensity, an adversative relation with a positive word is impossible; compare: Father’s face was completely un-angry, but only sad and serious; I am truly beautiful, but very bad; I live extremely nearby, but high up. § 23. Often, in sentences with a negative word or phrase, there is no positive member of the contrast. An exception is the negation of a predicate or one of its constituents (especially the first) when set in opposition. In some cases the positive member of the contrast is inferred from the context or clear from the situation, and repeating it would be redundant; in others, it is indefinite or unknown, or one does not wish to state it—that is, the positive form of the word accompanying the negative is simply contradicted. The adversative relation between a negative word or phrase and an unstated positive member of the contrast, expressed through intonation alone, is weaker; consequently, the expressiveness of the negation of the word or phrase is also reduced. It is not from them (the evil ones) that we guard the castle. The Teutonic knights are more fearsome; they may come upon us not only at night but also by day. LVP 320. It is not from this day that she has been visiting us. We have been together everywhere since childhood. KrėvRR II 76. We did not ride here to quarrel. KrėvRR II 87. It is not years that make a person old. MarcR I 286. I am not speaking to you. MikelHL 382. But not everyone thinks so. KrėvRR II 78. Life does not always bring joy... KrėvRR II 31. This quality was cultivated by [...] no ordinary windiness. ZabA 112. In ancient times, thinking was valued no less than work. LVP 463. During the day, not yet 196 that way, in an individual manner. ŽitMNK 13. How interesting. Not like everyone else at all. Aput(P 1978 6 101). I did not understand at once what kind of city it was. KIAAP 34. § 24. A negative particle that forms part of a compound word or a phrase, or functions as a prefix, does not negate the word or phrase. In orienteering, you will accomplish very little if you do not think (colloq.). He will come back, not knowing where to put it. TreinLJ 43. The apple-tree grafts [scions] took root less than well. Ls(LKŽ XI 13). He came from no good. BaltPV II 14. No, Adam Venckus thought, a day off tomorrow will not be out of place. KIAAP 177. Misfortune teaches the clever, but ruins the fool. KrėvPP III 142. The heights of feeling are speechless. MarcinkDD 118. In this respect, we have truly accomplished a great deal (colloq.). I think that the person working feels not so well (colloq.). THE POSITION OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLE IN THE SENTENCE § 25. Besides the contrastive meaning, which, as we have seen, is often conveyed by intonation alone, negation of a word or phrase can also be distinguished by the position of the negative particle in the sentence. This criterion, too, cannot be applied in every case. In negative sentences, the negative particle always occurs with the predicate⁴, whereas when a word or phrase is negated, it occurs with the word or phrase being negated. For example: His father did not beat him (SimonR IV 164) is a negative sentence; Not his father beat him, His father beat not him are sentences with a negated word. When a phrase is negated, the negative particle occurs at the beginning of the word group. In this case, both members of the contrast are most often expressed in the sentence (a). Without a stated or at least clearly implied positive counterpart, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether only the word following the negative particle is negated, or that word together with others (b). a) One must seek deeper truths, not chase after facts! GrušS 318. A beautiful maiden is dressed not in store-bought shirts, but in homespun linen. KrėvPP III 73. Now along the road go and ride not solitary people, but whole crowds of them. BaltR I 50. For, God rest him, Mr. Petras’s grandfather spent his whole life not in aristocrats’ halls, but on a coachman’s seat ZabA 119. When Kasakauskas wrote his grammar, he had in mind not any one Samogitian dialect, but the Lithuanian language in general. SabLKTI 22. It is not one young head that comes up with everything, but several old ones. KrėvRR II 168. b) in fact, it was not the new houses that concerned him. PocLM 51. Their rubles are not to be spent on foolish pranks. Jac(P 1978 11 61). It is impossible to differentiate by position the functions of a negative particle occurring with the predicate. This is apparently why a negative particle that does not negate the sentence occurs only with such coordinated predicates as stand in a contrastive relationship in the sentence with predicates in the affirmative form. Not a whip, please. BaltPV II 237. I am no longer walking, but simply swimming through the thickened evening air. ŽitMNK 235. Around the room he did not walk, but simply ran about at a full sprint. BalčŠS 131. 4 Apie neiginio vietą tarinyje žr. aut. 1984a, 97—107. 197 § 26. In written language, another formal feature characteristic of Lithuanian helps distinguish cases in which a word or phrase is negated: the negative particle is written separately from the word it negates (Lietuvių kalbos rašyba ir skyryba 1976, 71–82). An exception is the separately written negative particle in expressions that do not negate a word or phrase, for example: But there’s nothing much there either (ŽitMNK 206); Ului didn’t fare much better either (SajPM 74); It’s not so easy to catch Vaidas (Jac); Well, there won’t be much coming of this anyway (LVP 124); I’m working, you little toad, where else would you go (BubnVD 268); He looked inside the cup. “Not too much,” he said, shaking his head (LVP 76); Bružas will somehow be taken back to the cottage (Gran). Phrases forming such expressions may lack a phraseological connection. In that case, their components retain their literal meaning, and the negative particle performs the function of negating a word, for example: I’m not like you (cf.: I’m not all that good); That’s not how I imagine married life... (Daut(P 1978 10 71) (cf.: It’s not so easy to imagine married life). § 27. In spoken language, special phonetic means help convey the negation of a word or phrase. Usually, the word or phrase following the negative particle is pronounced more emphatically (it bears the logical stress), and the pause that follows creates a contrastive intonation. Depending on the situation, the affirmative counterpart in the contrast may sometimes be more strongly emphasized. I’m not talking | to you, but to the lady. KrėvRR II 93. Not with a fork |—with a knife he puts the roasted potatoes into his mouth. P 1982 I 47. But it’s not for you | to understand. GrušS 367. In the old days it was like that, but not now. KrėvRR II 105. When the negative particle negates a sentence, or occurs as a prefix in affirmative sentences and forms part of an expression, the word or phrase accompanying or following it is not pronounced more emphatically. NEGATION OF WORDS AND PHRASES FUNCTIONING AS SENTENCE CONSTITUENTS OR THEIR COMPONENTS § 28. Words or phrases functioning as sentence constituents or their components may be negated. Although these words or phrases are most often negated in affirmative sentences, this is not a necessary condition. Both types of negation may function independently in the same sentence; that is, words or phrases may also be negated in negative sentences, for example: Forgive me, but I can’t not be an actress—I’ve forgotten how (tsp.); It isn’t some voice of conscience that stops him from making a fine curl—he’s simply too lazy (Jac). Most often, the negated words or phrases function as subjects, objects, attributes, or adverbials. In such cases, negation is associated with the bearer of a property or with other components of the situation expressed by the sentence (Мамедов 1967, 6–9; Лобанова 1971, 41; Багаева 1978, 3; Ляпон 1979, 206). Contrastive negation of the predicate is much less common (cf. Кочетков 1963, 99–100; Орлова 1973, 25). Without negating the sentence, only a finite verb form that has an expressed affirmative counterpart in the contrast can be negated. Words or phrases functioning as semantic components of a compound predicate may lack an expressed affirmative counterpart in the contrast5. 5 Plačiau apie priešinamąjį tarinio neigimą žr. aut. 1984b, 31–36. 198 § 29. Negation of words or phrases functioning as subjects and secondary sentence constituents can only be contrastive and is easy to distinguish from sentence negation. The position of the negative particle shows which word or phrase is negated. (In a sentence, the negative particle precedes the negated word or phrase.) An expressed affirmative counterpart in the contrast is not necessary for words or phrases that occupy the syntactic position of a negated subject or secondary sentence constituent, since it is usually implied by the affirmative form of the predicate. Of course, without an expressed affirmative counterpart, the meaning of negation is weaker, sometimes considerably attenuated. When the negative particle is often used with words of a particular lexical meaning, the whole expression tends to become fixed, for example: not on time, not in vain. It is not always easy to distinguish whether the negative particle negates a word or functions as a prefix, especially with certain words commonly used as subjects and secondary sentence constituents. Therefore, in some cases, an affirmative counterpart in the contrast is also needed to make clear the negation of words functioning as subjects and secondary sentence constituents. Words or phrases functioning as sentence constituents directly related to the predicate—subjects, objects, adverbials, and predicative attributes—are usually negated in affirmative sentences. In such cases, an expressed affirmative counterpart in the contrast is not necessary, though it is often present. By then, it was no longer trucks driving there, but tanks. PocLM 22. It’s not just me—there are many like that. LVP 553. We need new talents, not new currents. PaukštDAJ 154. He’s greedy toward everyone, just not himself. KrėvPP III 61. I could have given you my life, not a person. GrušS 52. He’ll chirp not in a cage, but by your window. LVP 317. Not just today, she often looked toward that little side. LVP 145. He looks old-fashioned, but not tearful. MikelLL 433. He’ll do it not of his own will, but under the pressure of some complex of interwoven causes. Jac(P 1978 10 58). I came not to sell, but to buy. P 1982 1 105. We learn not for school, but for life. PaukštDAJ 122. Most words have not one meaning, but several, a dozen or so, even dozens. PikčŽI 51. The little aunt came back from America not just any old way, but by car. MikelLL 543. Words with a generalized meaning more often lack an expressed affirmative counterpart in the contrast. In addition, this may depend on subjective circumstances, for example, on the information the author of the sentence possesses or wishes to convey. Not everyone rejoiced at the good fortune of the nobleman Kirklys. LVP 142. Not everyone succeeds in deceiving the clever and teaching the foolish. KrėvPP III 142. Dear father, dear heart, this is for you, for you; you raised your son not for yourself, not for yourself. LTRn 120. Striukis had lost his way more than once. LVP 536. I didn’t fly here for that at all. BalčŠS 16. An attributive modifier relates indirectly to the predicate (through the sentence constituent it modifies). Its negation affects the phrase linked by subordination, correspondingly modifying the content of the sentence constituent related to the predicate. Thus, a sentence constituent containing a negated modifier functions affirmatively in the sentence. In this case, the direct scope of negation does not extend beyond the phrase. Formally, the negation of a word or phrase functioning as an attributive modifier does not differ from the expression of negation in words or phrases functioning as other sentence constituents: a negated word or phrase functioning as this modifier may or may not have an affirmative counterpart in the contrast. An expressed affirmative counterpart in the contrast 199 The final member is more necessary in cases where it is more customary to use the negator as a prefix with words functioning as modifiers. The person’s face, no longer greenish but rosy, would light up with a smile. KIAAP 36. The author chose precisely this topic, and not another (colloquial). The marsh […] belonged not so much to the master as to the frogs and birds. MartL 128. This is the board’s invention, not mine. ŽitMNK 39. [“Universitas lingvarum Litvaniae”] the basis is no longer the East Prussian dialect. SabLKTI 20. He lives as though he were not of his own age. KrėvPP III 23. And surely not all mistakes can be corrected. PocLM 70. When I am among people, I hear all sorts of things. MikelLL 220. FEATURES OF NEGATION RELATED TO THE PECULIARITIES OF NEGATIVE WORDS § 30. Negation of words or word groups functioning as various sentence constituents is very similar. The particular features of their negation are related to the word being negated, and to its lexical and usage properties in combination with the negator. In a sentence, a negator can occur with various parts of speech, but it does not always retain a sufficiently distinct meaning of word negation. Words are negated more distinctly if they have a concrete meaning (a), do not form a conventional combination with the negator (b), or are words with which the negator is not used as a prefix (c). In these cases, the negated words are contrasted with their positive counterparts, whether or not the positive member of the contrast is expressed in the sentence. § 31. With words to which it is not normally attached as a prefix, the negator more often lacks a positive counterpart. Only in certain cases does the negator form fixed combinations with some of these words, which tend to become phraseologically fossilized, e.g.: not jokingly, not on time, not the last, not empty-handed, not in vain, out of place, and so on. In these, the meaning of negation is weakened, because the negator here partly becomes part of a new lexical unit. I get seriously frightened. ŽitMNK 121. The stool … will fall apart and break at quite the wrong time. ZabA 46. Nor does the desire to please and distinguish oneself play the least role in that process. MikelHL 361. I will not greet them empty-handed. KIAAP 17. It was not without reason that warning bonfires burned in the west on a late autumn night. LVP 323. Her giggling was out of place. ŽitMNK 89. The weakened meaning of negation is also indicated by the fact that the negator is sometimes written together with some of the words mentioned above, e.g.: Algirdas Šaknys got seriously to work. MikelLL 546; As if on purpose, Gudjonis had a falling-out at the wrong time. MartL 130. § 32. The negator used with adjectives, adjectival words, or corresponding adverbs—which normally combine with the negator to form words with a different meaning—has a negating function only when a positive counterpart is expressed. In such cases, the contrasting meaning may be indicated by positive subordinate clauses or comparative expressions. 200 Kintama was a hunter. […] Not an ordinary hunter, of whom there had always been plenty in this region (tsp.). All around, everything is green and beautiful; the sun warmly shines — it is no longer cramped, no longer dark, as it was in the nest. LVP 229. In other cases, it is difficult to distinguish a negative particle that has a negating function from a negative prefix. I was not sad. The woman sang not at full voice. Daut(P 1978 10 70). The distances grew no longer clear. GranMV 68. You won’t get much by doing that. PocLM 162. They had been feeding them for a long time and urging us too, but we did not rush at the grain very eagerly. LVP 231. To avoid confusion, there has recently been a tendency to use a negative prefix in similar cases. The enthusiasm was extraordinary. MikelLL 551. In the history of our onomastic research, this is an exceptional book. P 1978 10 173. She is a kind woman. KrėvRR II 44. There will be few grains among all that chaff. MikelLL 524. The treated horse is not far from the mare. KrėvPP III 12. The negative particle is always a prefix when the word it accompanies denotes a particular kind. In this case it cannot express negation, so writing the negative particle separately here is an error, for example: The drabness of the literary pages […] wafts from our non-literary (=nonliterary), and often also literary, press (tsp.); Courts are of two kinds: friendly and not friendly (=unfriendly) (tsp.); Non-students also used to attend her meetings (=nonstudents) (BūtŽKP 25). § 33. With an adjective and the comparative forms of adverbs of manner, the negative particle most often negates the word itself. In this case, it is usually not some attribute that is negated, but rather its greater (lesser) degree and quantity in relation to a particular standard. That standard may be expressed by comparative phrases, by constructions with the prepositions už, per, or it may be implied. In meaning, it corresponds to the positive member of the opposition. So I sent, I remember, three poems and three prose sketches, very short ones, no longer than a page and a half each. PaukštDAJ 138. Sabaliūnas loved little children no less than bees. BilR₁ I 184. My bones ache no less than they do from corvée labor. Myk-PutR VI 400. Once I met him in the street with his wife—a woman as tall and thin as he was, and no younger than him. PaukštDAJ 125. In ancient times, thinking was valued no less than work. LVP 463. Mikas works no worse than the medical orderly. ŽitMNK 163. I can’t say for sure, but no more than four shots, I think [I took]. PietRR 79. He resolved to grow a crop no smaller either (tsp.). And here, too, no whiter cakes await. LVP 424. Lukošiūnas’s Petras also woke in no better mood. KrėvRg 207. They, too, would fare no worse. MikelHL 296. The negative particle is used with a more emphatic adversative force with comparative adverbs, which, without an explicit comparison, emphasize the categorical force of the quantity specifically stated in the sentence. Incidentally, adversative conjunctions are also possible in this case. 201 It would take only two or three, and no more. PaukštDAJ 12. Thus half a spoonful of butter could have been worth a penny, no more, while all the damage done was worth a grivna, no more. VaižgDD₁ 86. I will wait a week, no longer. KLAAP 207. § 34. The negation of superlative adjectives and adverbs also bears a certain resemblance to the negation of comparative adjectives and adverbs. However, the former are used with a comparative meaning without specifying a qualitative or quantitative standard for the property. Apparently, for this reason, negation with superlative adjectives or adverbs is characteristically weaker. He was not the eldest in the family. I aroused in him feelings that were not the worst (tsp.). The land was not the nearest. BalčŠS 54. They did not act in the cleverest way. Negation is always used with superlative forms when the particle per intervenes before them. In this case, however, it does not negate the words mentioned, but combines with them to form expressions denoting a moderate or restrained degree or amount of a particular property. The soil was soil, not the very best, but soil. MartL 128. I did not visit her very often. PaukštDAJ 173. The tits, scented by their enemies, have not too many (tsp.). § 35. Negation gives a similar meaning to combinations of the particle per with comparative adjectives or adverbs when they are used without a positive counterpart, e.g.: The ladies promptly tossed aside the kitchen aprons and not-too-clean caps (BalčŠS 130); I had read this book not too long ago. § 36. With comparative and superlative forms of adjectives or adverbs derived from non-comparative forms containing the prefix ne-, negation is likewise used as a prefix. In such cases, superlative forms do not express comparison. I have not yet eaten less tasty apples. LKRS 74. He feels even less comfortable. MikelLL 402. You are spreading the most untrue rumors. He behaved more disgracefully than anyone. And the land, apparently, is not the worst. Myk-PutS₁ 50. Even now, judging by your clothes and hat, you must be living not too badly. BalčŠS 150. At present, by comparison, there is not much we can gain. LKRS 79. § 37. When negated comparative or superlative adjectives or adverbs are contrasted with positive forms, negation has a clear word-negating function. The work is expected to be no easier than before—it will be harder. MiežA 77. He sought not the easiest, but the most appealing job. And the other line should be drawn not more diagonally, but more straight. § 38. The negation of words with indefinite or generalized meaning is considerably weaker. Because of their indefiniteness, they are often difficult to associate with positive counterparts in an opposition. All this blurs the meaning of negation. Owing to the frequent use of the negative particle with certain words, their combinations tend to become fixed and turn into lexemes with new meanings. § 39. Negation does not have a clear negative force when used with the indefinite pronouns kiekvienas, -a, vienas, -a (it can also be used as a numeral), visas, -a, viskas or in combinations of personal pronouns with the pronoun vienas, -a (aš vienas, jie vieni...). This explai- 202 This is clearly evident from sentences in which, in one, the negator negates a constituent expressed by a personal pronoun, and in the other, a constituent expressed by a personal pronoun together with the pronoun vienas, -a: Ne jie tokie pasėdūs buvo ir Ne jie vieni tokie pasėdūs buvo (LVP 228). In the latter sentence, the contrasted elements are related not by difference but only by specification. Contrasts of a similar kind also occur when sentence constituents are negated, if the constituents are expressed by the aforementioned indefinite pronouns used on their own. And more than one rode off, but with an old matchmaker. LVP 146. It was not only you; they summoned everyone. LVP 313. And first of all, it was not the whole face but the eyes that startled her. Perhaps not everyone, perhaps a few, but it did happen. PP-79 48. Of course, not everything, but some of it was accepted. PocLM 106. Not everyone succeeds in outwitting the clever and teaching the fool. KrėvPP III 142. Not one woman was left behind, as she chased after men. Vikv(LKŽ VIII 32). Together, it [the novella] is a good school for more than one novelist (tsp.). It was not I alone who decided. Daut (P 1978 10 75). Not all means are suitable for a worthy purpose. KrėvPP III 68. As if the violet vapor had not all returned to the cracks in the earth. KIAAP 21. You don’t need to know everything, my dear… Jac(P 1978 11 13). Contrasts linked by a relation of specification are less marked. Among other things, this factor also weakens the force of negation. § 40. The force of negation is attenuated when the negator occurs with corresponding pronominal adverbs, e.g.: visai, visiškai, visada (visuomet); or before combinations of the words vienas, -a, pirmas, -a with nouns, especially kartas, sykis, diena, metai, vieta. (The nouns kartas, sykis are more commonly used on their own with the meaning ‘occasion’.) Sigita, it seems, did not quite believe Roko’s words. LVP 436. It has not warmed up completely yet. Time is not always measured in hours, days, or years. MarcR I 365. Not always, but sometimes they managed to listen to Bach again. JacP 1978 11 154). Joniukas now does not always go even on Sundays. MikelLL 112. Čepkus cooked fish soup for guests more than once. PocLM 94. But our land […] has risen from the ashes before. PaukštDAJ 128. Oh, Merkinė has been taken by enemies more than once; more than once they have tried to demolish its stone walls. LVP 139. Dainius, too, bought all sorts of trinkets more than once. BubnVD 315. Surely you have pitied me more than once, and perhaps even despised me. Jac(P 1978 10 23). After all, we buy them for more than one day (tsp.). This is a huge undertaking spanning more than one year (tsp.). It isn’t the first year at the sanatorium. P 1975 7 95. On the contrary, that same work of hers would be written at different times, in different places, and even on several little scraps of paper. PaukštDAJ 185. The adverbs visai, visiškai are very often used with adjectives, adjectival words, or adverbs. Because of the aforementioned adverbs’ lack of an independent syntactic function, the negator used with them (cf. Dar ne visai išaušo ir Dar buvo ne visai šviesu) can be said to lose almost all its negating force and to become a component of a lexeme expressing a certain degree of intensity. After buying the medicine, I returned not entirely satisfied. PaukštDAJ 101. That lad has not gone through a very good school of life. PocLM 139. Grandmother had not quite dried her [Antanuka] off properly yet. LVP 158. Apparently, he had a not particularly pleasant dream. ZabA 119. 203 § 41. It is also customary to use the negative particle with the pronouns whoever, someone, who knows who, anyone; such, what kind of, some kind of, who knows what kind of, any kind of and the adverbs any way; how much, some amount, who knows how much; where; anyhow, so, in this way; so much, however, but its functions are not the same with all these words. 1. The negative particle always retains the function of negating a word in the combinations not just anyone, not just any, not just any way, not just anyhow, not in this way. They may have explicit affirmative contrasting counterparts. At needlework [bringing the needle up in the middle of a stitch] not just anyone knows how to sew. Up(LKŽ₁, I 18). And we generously let the whole house with the attic to just anyone. PP-79 214. Not just any person can do that job. I’d drag him out of the house with the militia—not just any way (colloq.). You can’t just hand it to him any old way. Gs(LKŽ₁, I 787). And the paint colors were chosen not just anyhow, but with discernment… MartL 305. This is not just an ordinary morning. Aput(P 1978 6 95). He did not want to speak this way. MarcR I 383. 2. When used with the pronoun such and the adverbs so, so much (not such, not so, not so much), the negative particle can have different functions. When these words are directly associated with nouns or verbs, the negative particle usually has a certain negating function, although it is not very pronounced. He wanted […] to see not such a meeting. MarcR I 383. He expected a different kind of assistant from you. Something always goes wrong. MartL 174. The others suffered less. LVP 354. Near Kalpokas’s yard, Petriukas no longer cracks his whip as much. KrevŠP 193. When the words such, so, so much are associated with adjectives or adverbs, the negative particle does not so much negate them as form with them combinations expressing an indefinite degree or quantity. In other words, in this case the negative particle has an intermediary function between negation and imparting a new meaning, with the latter predominating. They left less important jobs to the others. Aput(P 1978 6 69). Not so long ago, Lithuania’s largely illiterate countryside was still the foremost guardian of our linguistic heritage. KKult 31 7. But apparently it was not so easy for Saulius to take advantage of this sincere advice. Poc LM 250. They still write short stories today, though not so many (colloq.). The predominance of the new-meaning function is further strengthened by the particle already, often attached in this position to the words mentioned above and emphasizing the incompleteness of a particular quality. And that happiness was not all that small. P 1982 1 120. She was not all that upset about the fate of the animals put behind bars. LVP 245. At last, I can devote not all that much time to this creative work, either. Jac(P 1978 11 14). And you yourself earn not all that little. In turn, the negating function is strengthened by an affirmative contrasting counterpart expressed in the sentence. Without a doubt, it was the same face, only not so spiritualized, but simply stony. MikelGYM 25. Grumblers still turn up in our lives—not so very often, but they do. ZabA 70. 3. Pronouns and adverbs with the negative particle nobody (not someone, not who knows who), no good (not some kind of, not who knows what kind of), not much (not some amount, not who knows how much) primarily indicate the degree of value or the quantity of something. The negating function in these combi- 204 … is also weak. The negative particle can even completely lose this force, forming new lexemes meaning “small; poor; little” (Lietuvių kalbos rašyba ir skyryba 1976, 77 and 81). The inconsistent spelling of the negative particle with the pronouns and adverbs mentioned does not always distinguish its functions. Perhaps the others aren’t cold even without firing up the boiler, while for Kristina, even with it lit, things are not so good. MartL 188. I’m not asking for much. MarcR I 214. In orienteering, you won’t accomplish much without thinking (tsp.). He led his family out for the night to an old cave not fit for anyone. PietRR 300. Ulis was not doing much better either. SajPM 74. That barely trodden path stretched far, winding along the fields, hardly to be seen. SadG 120. My health was not very good either. PaukštDAJ 265. And everyone was in a rather poor mood. VienR I 235. Ragulkos are fish of not very good flavor. Kpč(LKŽ XI 40). He had little land, but many bees. BilR I 183. At the time, we sensed little of the book’s artistic depth. PaukštDAJ 137. There is not much time left anymore. MikelGYM 50. The negative particle often gives a new meaning to the adverbs where, when, how. I’m working, dear, you won’t disappear anywhere. BubnVD 268. Come by sometime. LKG II 555. On a long journey, a horse runs poorly without a saddle blanket. Antz(LKŽ I 11). 4. The pronouns what kind, -a, such, -a can be components of a multiword expression. (Such cases can be identified only by comparing both members of the opposition—the negative and the affirmative.) The negative particle preceding the pronouns negates the entire expression (it has a negative meaning). Here is Kregždė from Byčiai, not some gentleman from New York. BaltSKVD II 61. The younger daughter of the neighbors who live across the lake is no mischievous little girl, but a fully grown young woman. Baltr(P 1978 8 67). Ah, with your good looks you’ll get a better husband—not such a drunkard. SimonR I 276. USE OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLE BEFORE SEMANTICALLY INCOMPLETE WORDS § 42. In a sentence, the negative particle may precede prepositions, correlative words in comparative expressions, and the conjunction as. The functions of the negative particle with these words may also differ. When semantically incomplete words are negated, the effect of the negative particle on the meaning of the sentence is even smaller: it is not the word serving as a sentence constituent, or as one of its components, that is negated, but only its relation to other words or the way in which they are connected. NEGATION OF PREPOSITIONS AND PREPOSITIONAL CONSTRUCTIONS § 43. A negative particle before prepositional constructions may negate only the preposition (a) or the entire construction (b). This can be determined by comparing the negative member of the contrast with the positive one. In the case of preposition negation, prepositional constructions are contrasted that consist of different prepositions combined with the inflected forms of the same word. It was every lover’s way to gather everything close to himself, as people say: always into life, not out of life. LVP 77. Whoever goes into the cottage does not come out of the cottage. MarcR I 362. 205 When an entire prepositional construction is negated, the contrasted constructions may contain the same prepositions or differ from one another in their prepositions as well. I am not talking about myself, but about others. KrėvRR II 156. He led us not into his own room, but into the rectory’s sitting room. PaukštDAJ 113. A person does this not out of malice, but out of envy. LVP 232. Whack, whack, the whip cuts—not through the air, but across bare flesh (dial.). After all, they were attached not to some abstract generation, but to like-minded people. PP-79 109. He swept the stuck-on crumbs not onto the diners’ laps, nor even onto the floor, but into a tray brought expressly for the purpose. ZabA 47. I even close my eyes, but not because of the sound; out of terror. ŽitMNK 47. § 44. An entire prepositional construction may also be negated without an explicitly stated positive member of the contrast. In that case, as mentioned earlier, the force of negation is weaker. The degree of negation, in turn, also depends on the usage characteristics of prepositional constructions. The negative particle has a more pronounced negative force when it negates free, non-fossilized prepositional constructions. The green wine of joy is not on your table. DegSN 44. The speech will not be about official business. PocLM 113. They took a taxi not because they were inclined toward luxury. ZabA 121. The daughter did not take after her mother at all. MikelGYM 148. It does not depend on me. MikulDND 71. And this bus was not running according to the timetable. Balt SKVD II 209. And I shed blood not for gold. MikelGYM 279. With fossilized prepositional constructions, the negative particle lends certain new shades of meaning, and its negative force is considerably weakened. This is especially characteristic of prepositional constructions that are customarily used only with a negative particle. Of course, you are no coward. KrėvRR II 150. He has not yet fully grasped the words he heard. PocLM 17. Andriukas did not agree right away. LVP 316. He did not become like this in a single day. UrnP 148. They live beyond their means. He is not weeping like that for nothing (dial.). She did not shine above the castle as a good omen. LVP 321. It would not be amiss to wash up a little after the journey. MikelGYM 153. Without an expressed positive member of the contrast, the negative particle is generally used with constructions containing the preposition be ‘without’. Their negation is quite distinctive. Here the negative particle is associated only with the preposition, yet even with it, it does not express contrast. The interaction between the similar negative meanings of the negative particle ne and the preposition be gives rise to an affirmative meaning. It differs from straightforward affirmation in being less categorical. The negative particle is used with a construction containing the preposition be when a non-categorical, weakened affirmation is needed—when something cannot be affirmed without certain qualifications that do not outweigh the negation. It was not without his efforts that I, too, got out of the office. MikelHL 306. Though not without eccentricities, he is a sensible man. MikelLL 64. And surely the war is not without purpose. MarcR I 385. Some constructions with the preposition be used with a negative particle have become fossilized and turned into patterns with generalized meanings, for example: not without reason, not without foundation, not without it. 206 It was not for nothing that my best friends were books about Robinson Crusoe, scalp hunters, headless horsemen, and all sorts of other things. CvR II 47. My father-in-law did not go there for nothing. BubnNRŽ 61. It seemed to him, not without reason, that not every cook could compare with him. Bal芊 112. Of course, not without someone getting their hands on the kamisoris, too. ŽemR II 16. NEGATION OF CORRELATIVE WORDS AND COMPARATIVE EXPRESSIONS § 45. Negation has a clear negative meaning when placed before the pronoun toks, -ia (‘such’) and the adverbs taip (‘so’), tiek (‘as much/many’), when they function as correlative words in sentences with comparative expressions (for their negation as sentence constituents, see § 41, 2). The visible herds of cows are not like the ones in Benutis’s meadow. Aput(P 1978 6 66). Kaunas was not then what it is now. Paukšt DAJ 26. No, Petras was nevertheless not like Jonas, and not like everyone else. LVP 371. I feel I am doing it not as I should. MarcR I 286. Last night I tapped on the hive log—not buzzing as it does before a swarm. Myk-PutR VI 425. When he returns home again, he will have to live differently from the way he has lived until now. MikelGYM 235. He walks not as nimbly as he could. Aput(P 1978 6 86). The cows no longer give as much milk as before. MarcR I 237. Still, I am probably not as changed as you are. Myk-PutR III 156. When the comparative form emphasizes only some qualitative or quantitative difference between the things being compared, the negative words taip (‘so’), tiek (‘as much/many’) do not negate; instead, together with them, negation indicates a certain degree or quantity (usually less than that expressed by the second coordinate sentence constituent). The silk kerchief could not flutter as much as she did for me, her lad. LTt 231. However, I cared less about the horses than about the spells of a summer night. VienR VI 560. This time the lady was less surprised than offended. ZabA 265. Mikelis Dujonis was also a handsome man—and perhaps not so much handsome as interesting. SimonoBT 149. The temporary capital seemed less peaceful than foreign. MikelLL 587. It was not so much the hardship as everyone’s exclamations. Ds(LKŽ I 35). § 46. In comparative expressions with correlative words, the conjunction kaip (‘as/like’) is not used with negation. Negation may precede it only in comparisons without correlative words (a), and when the positive member of the contrast is itself a comparative expression (b). a) You are behaving not at all like a brother! PocLM 150. That’s more interesting. Still, not like everyone else. Aput(P 1978 6 101). And how lovely it is here! Not like our cottage! KrėvRR II 87. Only his apartment was unlike ours—large, with four rooms. BaltSKVD I 196. b) We live not as we wish, but as we can. KrėvPP III 25. He took my outburst as sympathy, and not as a lack of tact... PaukštDAJ 89. * * * § 47. The negative particle ne is an obligatory component of the correlative conjunctions ne tik (tai)… bet ir (‘not only … but also’), ne vien… bet ir (‘not merely … but also’). It negates the words that form the first part of these conjunctions. This is a special kind of negation: it is not based on the opposition characteristic of word negation. The two parts of the correlative conjunctions are linked to each other by coordination, and the same relationship links the words or phrases they join. 207 Synonymous conjunctions not only... but also, not just... but also, while having the form of word negation, retain an entirely affirmative meaning—they link restricted cases with additional ones6. Here, the meaning of negation is neutralized by the particles that follow it, only, just, which lend an exclusive nuance. He not only did not close his eyes, but also did not make a sound. UrnP 71. They would have learned not only to read, but also to write. LVP 124. At such a time, no one would have dared not only to chase us, but even to stir. LVP 595. And, after all, greenery is not only beautiful, but also healthy (colloq.). And he behaved rudely not only toward his father, but also toward his teachers. LVP 581. Nowadays, we can no longer decorate only a horse, but also a sheep or geese... PietRR 212. Among other things, translators as well as writers of original works face these difficulties (colloq.). The second part of the conjunctions may be but, and, or whereas. Often the second part is omitted altogether. This variation in conjunctions makes it possible to convey different shades of meaning and expressiveness. The contrast between the things being linked and the nuance of unexpectedness are stronger when the second part of the conjunction is but or is omitted altogether. Other cases are more neutral. Yes, I not only understand you, but see right through you. Grušk 258. He is not merely not a brother, but a true enemy. MarcR I 635. It is not only he who has light; everyone does, thanks to his shawl. SlėnŠLP 112. Soon they will start pulling not only our horses, but even our hats off our heads... VienR VI 451. Many situations may seem not only unusual, but also contrary to the truth. P 1978 8 151. Our novels have become more topical. However, this is not so much the topicality of their themes as of their problems (colloq.). I can no longer not only speak, but even breathe. VaizgMG 48. It was not only women and children they put to sleep, but also large, strong men. LVP 396–397. And he will defend not only the lives of princes, but the freedom and glory of the whole country. LVP 183. § 48. When only the first part of the conjunctions not only (that), not just is used, the unexpectedness of the linked elements is emphasized still more by inverted word order. This concerns everyone, not only the Komsomol members. LVP 545. I will not leave even grass, let alone a tree, anywhere in the swamp. KrėvRR II 120. Even in those days people had to live, not merely fight for an idea. Jac(P 1978 10 50). In our press […] there is too little saturation of profound thought with the fundamental propositions of Marxist-Leninist science and with the militant scientific spirit of the communist worldview—precisely its spirit, not merely quotations (colloq.). The second part of a conjunction may be left unstated, as may the sentence constituent it links. Often the latter has no specific content that can be inferred. As a result, the connective function of the expressed part of the conjunction (not only (that), not just) is considerably weakened. Having become independent, the expressions not only (that), not just are used with the meaning of negation characteristic of the corresponding particles: what is being said is that the thing expressed by the sentence constituent accompanying them is not an exception. 6Conjunctions with similar functional properties are also characteristic of other languages (cf.: Киселева 1967, 114—128; Камшилова 1975, 25—27; Булах 1962, 256—257). 208 You are talented, and—don’t think—I'm not the only one who finds you attractive. SajDŠ 10. But it was healthy not only for the eyes. LVP 371. However, Peter’s nighttime rides did not leave only the owner without peace. LVP 375. Sparrows are useful not only by feeding during the day. LVP 232. There is more than sand on the seabed (proverb). The coordinative function of the conjunctions not only (that) … but also, not merely … but also and their variants is incompatible with adversative meaning. Thus, predicates used with these conjunctions can only be negated in a non-adversative way, for example: But the punt is light, insatiable: it is constantly moving, bustling, lurching from side to side, rearing up. And it not only does not become heavier (=does not get heavier), but keeps demanding work ever more persistently. MikelHL 304. EMPHATIC DEVICES FOR NEGATING A WORD OR WORD GROUP § 49. The expressiveness of negation of a word or word group is usually provided by adversative meaning (especially when the positive member of the contrast is stated). This is its distinguishing feature. However, emphatic devices characteristic of sentence negation may also be used to negate a word or word group. The latter occur more often when a word or word group is negated without an expressed positive member. Adverbs by no means, far from underscore the categorical force of negation of a word or word group, as of a sentence; when combined with a negative, they lend the negation it expresses certain modal-expressive shades of meaning. In addition, these adverbs make the negation more vivid and intensify its effect. His face concealed something more like a greedy little spark of hope, but by no means a desire to joke. P 1982 1 106. It is not mere curiosity, and by no means envy, that draws them toward them (proverb). He will put on a white coat right over a not very clean, by no means festive jacket. MartL 145. However, it is by no means always sensible to confront nature head-on in an effort to tame it (proverb). In this image of memory, everything depended far from on external trappings. P 1978 10 12. For, far from everyone rushes to recount their biography as soon as they have said hello. ZabA 245. The correlation of aspectual forms encompasses far from all verbs. LKM 137. These adverbs are also used with a negative which, in combination with the relevant words (see § 41, 2), vaguely indicates a certain degree or quantity of a property, or functions as a word prefix. They then color the semantics of the new lexemes with analogous nuances. And this work was far from so dangerous. MikelHL 370. What will flash before your eyes will not be soles torn loose, but multicolored sparks, for with your round nape you will slam into an anything-but-round edge of the partition. ZabA 46. The degree of archaism among the peripheral Baltic proto-language dialects was far from uniform. Mažl PTK 9. [They] begin a conversation about things that are far from funny (proverb). When a negative is used with adjectives or adjectival adverbs, the adverbs by no means, far from do not help differentiate its functions. However, when used with these adverbs, it more often has an adversative-negation function than without them (cf. § 32). 209 Temperamental, by no means Nordic improvisation—perhaps the most appealing trait of the people of Tallinn (tsp.). Of course, his preparation for teaching literature was far from perfect. MK 1979 2 9. This trait was cultivated by far from ordinary frivolity. ZabA 112. It seems that when the adverbs anaiptol, toli gražu are used, negation can also negate adjectives and adjectival adverbs that are linked in the sentence to a contrasting positive counterpart by a coordinate relation. (Without emphatic devices, negation in an analogous position is usually expressed by a prefix; see § 22.) The realities of the village fields […] are becoming particularly concrete, but by no means unambiguous (tsp.). She treats her soberly, but by no means coldly (tsp.). Later, as it happened, the young people also got more substantial roles, but ones far from being leading roles (tsp.). § 50. Similarly, the word combination jokiu būdu, which has a synonymous meaning, also emphasizes the categorical force of negation. [There would be] a genuine decision, by no means a temporary one, the only one for a lifetime. JacP 1978 11 66). § 51. The negation of a negated word that occurs as the nominal part of the predicate without a copula is reinforced by the ironically used adjective anoks, -ia. What kind of worker are you here—just wagging your tongue. Žem R I 90. The negative adverb nė kiek is used to indicate the categorical force of negation with comparative adjectives and adverbs. He was not even a little bigger than you. A newspaper of one’s own is no less necessary than in those postwar years (tsp.). § 52. Some specifying particles can be closely associated with the negation ne, forming with it compound and complex particles, e.g.: vos ne, kone (kuone), mažne. They nuance the negation of a word or word combination expressed by the negative particle in a direction opposite to categorical force—they indicate that only a little is lacking for the negative word or word combination to be assertable. Thus, negation expressed by a specifying particle as a component lies very close to the boundary of assertion. And soon he was almost running flat out to the barn. PocLM 24. Sometimes it was almost too much to bear. PaukštDAJ 124. We see the butchers almost every day. ZabA 136. He clicked his teeth and looked at her almost angrily. MikelGYM 214. He walks along, almost sweeping the ground with his belly. Mikel(P 1978 5 92). Half of the entire Užuožeriai village lane was summoned to court as witnesses. VienI 215. His bushes and meadows stretched along the Siaubūnas stream for almost a mile and a half. VaižgP₂ I 326. Almost two miles of road. ŽemR IV 344. § 53. Besides the usual ne, negation of a word or word combination can be expressed by the negative conjunction nei…nei. It is used to negate two or more words or word combinations in sentences with a positive predicate. This device does not increase the effectiveness of negation; it merely additionally indicates a certain interrelationship (usually similarity) between the negative words or word combinations. We dug slowly, since everything that remained was neither earth nor sand, but some fragments of insanely hard rock. Kl AAP 23. Neither am I a drunkard, nor pa- 210 a young ploughman, only a father’s little son, a tiller of the soil. LTRn 78. He was neither my brother nor any kind of relative, and what a pity—that’s all. BaltSKVD II 20. The emphatic means of negation reviewed express varying degrees of negation of a word or phrase and reflect the speaker’s evaluative attitude. Conclusions 1. In contemporary standard Lithuanian, as in other languages, a negative particle can negate not only an entire sentence but also an individual word or phrase within it. Typically, it performs the latter function when used with words or phrases serving as the subject, secondary sentence constituents, or lexical components of a compound predicate, as well as with function words that are not incorporated into the structure of sentence constituents—that is, when it does not affect the predicative relation. 2. The expression of the negation of a word or phrase is fairly uniform. To express it, one syntactic device is used, one might say—the negative particle ne. In a sentence, the negative particle always occurs with the word or phrase it negates and is written separately from it. This shows that word or phrase negation is distinguished from sentence negation by formal features as well. 3. In certain cases, the negative particle can also function to negate a word when it occurs with finite verb forms expressing a predicative relation, that is, with the predicate. Therefore, syntactic positions of the negated words alone are not sufficient for distinguishing types of negation. 4. The principal feature of the negation of a word or phrase is its contrastive meaning, most clearly realized in the form of opposition (the sentence is expanded by another affirmative word or phrase occupying the same syntactic position). On the basis of this feature, the negation of a word or phrase may also be called contrastive negation. Grammatically, opposition is expressed by adversative conjunctions, of which the most commonly used are o, bet, tik. Each of them lends a different nuance to the adversative relation: o—greater difference, bet—unexpectedness, tik—exclusion. In spoken language, a special contrastive intonation helps convey the negation of a word or phrase. 5. In sentences with an opposition between negative and affirmative words or phrases, the negative member may come before or after the affirmative one. This depends on what the focus is on, what is being contradicted, and what is known to the author of the sentence first. 6. Sentences containing a negative word or phrase often lack an affirmative member of the opposition. An exception is the negation of words serving as the predicate or as one of its components (especially the first). In some cases, the affirmative member of the opposition is implied; in others, it may be indefinite, unknown, or something the speaker does not wish to say. When the contrastive relation between a negative word or phrase and an unspoken affirmative member of the opposition is expressed through intonation alone, it is weaker, and the negation of the word or phrase is less emphatic. 7. Words or phrases are most often negated in affirmative sentences, but they can also be negated in negative sentences, e.g.: It is not he, but I who do not have this book. 211 In the latter case, both types of negation function independently in the same sentence. 8. Differences in the prominence of the negation of words or word combinations in a sentence depend not on their syntactic position, but on the lexical and usage characteristics of the words themselves that are being negated. The negation is more prominent for words that a) have a concrete meaning, b) do not form a conventional combination with the negative particle, or c) are not used with the negative particle as a prefix. In these cases, the negated words are contrasted with positive ones, whether or not the positive member of the contrast is present in the sentence. 9. When negating adjectives, adjectival words, and the corresponding adverbs with which the negative particle is usually used as a prefix, the positive member of the contrast must be stated in the sentence. An exception is the negation of comparative and superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs that do not have the prefix ne. (In other cases, it is difficult to distinguish a negative particle that functions as negation from a negative prefix; therefore, recently there has been a tendency to use negative prefixes in similar cases.) 10. The negation of words with an indefinite or generalizing meaning is considerably weaker, e.g.: each, one, anything, any, always, any way, just (so). Because of their indefiniteness, it is often difficult to relate them to positive members of a contrast. This also makes the meaning of negation less distinct. Some words of this type, e.g.: such, so, so much, are often associated with adjectives and adverbs in a sentence. In this case, the negative particle forms combinations with them that express an indefinite degree or quantity. Here the negative particle has an intermediate function between negation and imparting a new meaning, with the latter predominating. It indicates the degree or quantity of some property more than it negates, and is used with the words what, what kind, where, when, how, how much. 11. In a sentence, the negative particle can negate function words—prepositions and the correlative words in comparative expressions. The negative particle is an essential component of the paired conjunctions not only… but also, not just… but also. It negates the first part of these conjunctions in a distinctive way, since this negation is not based on the contrast characteristic of word negation. The two parts of the paired conjunctions and the words or word combinations they connect are linked to one another by coordination. 12. Various emphatic devices are used to indicate the degree of negation of a word or word combination. The adverbs not at all, by no means, the adjective no such, the phrase by no means, and the like emphasize the categorical force of negation. Some restrictive particles, which combine with the negative particle to form compound and complex particles, nuance negation in the opposite direction, softening its categorical force; for example: barely, almost, nearly. ADDITIONAL ABBREVIATIONS Aput — the writings of Juozas Aputis. Bal芊 — Haufas V. Šaltoji širdis / Vertė Balčikonis J. — V., 1977. Baltr — the writings of Aleksas Baltrūnas. BubnNRŽ — Bubnys V. Nesėtų rugių žydėjimas. — V., 1976. BūtŽKP — Būtėnas J. Žmonės, kuriuos pažinau. — V., 1978. Daut — the writings of Vladas Dautartas. 212 DegSN – Degutytė J. Tarp saulės ir netekties. – V., 1980. Gran – the writings of Romualdas Granauskas. GranMV – Granauskas R. Medžių viršūnės. – V., 1969. GrušŠ – Grušas J. Švitrigaila. – V., 1976. Jac – the writings of Leonidas Jacinevičius. KlAAP – Klimas R. Atostogos po Aukštaitijos pilnatimi. – V., 1976. KrėvRR – Krėvė V. Selected writings. – V., 1982, vols. 1–3. LKM – Lietuvių kalbos morfologija. – V., 1976. LKRS – Lietuvių kalbos rašyba ir skyryba. – V., 1976. LVP – Lietuvių vaikų proza. – V., 1977. MarcinkDD – Marcinkevičius Just. Diary without Dates. – V., 1981. MarcinkGŠP – Marcinkevičius Just. Gyvenimo švelnus prisilietimas. – V., 1978. MartL – Martinkus V. Drops. – V., 1980. MažLPTK – Mažiulis V. Pasaulio tautų kalbos. – V., 1979. MiežA – Mieželaitis E. Autoportretas. Aviaeskizai. – V., 1962. Mikel – the writings of Jonas Mikelinskas. MikelGYM – Mikelinskas J. Genys yra margas... – V., 1976. MikelHL – Mikelinskas J. Freedom Beyond the Horizon. – V., 1978. MikelLL – Mikelinskas J. Kur lygūs laukai. – V., 1981. Myk-PutS₁ – Mykolaitis-Putinas V. The Rebels. – K., 1979. MikulDND – Mikulėnaitė E. Day, Night, Day. – V., 1976. MiškŽG – Miškinis A. Žaliaduonių gegužė. – V., 1977. MK – Our Language (periodical). P – Victory (magazine). Paukšt – the writings of Juozas Paukštelis. PaukštDAJ – Paukštelis J. I Often Remember Them. – V., 1979. PietRR – Pietaris V. Rinktiniai raštai. – V., 1973. PikčŽI – Pikčilingis J. Žodžio interviu. – V., 1982. PocLM – Pocius A. Per laukus iki miesto. – V., 1979. PP-79 – Spring of Poetry. – V., 1979. SabLKTI – Sabaliauskas A. History of Lithuanian Linguistic Research (up to 1940). – V., 1979. SadG – Sadauskas R. Kindness. – V., 1979. SajDŠ – Saja K. Dilgelių šilkas. – V., 1972. SajPM – Saja K. Po to, kai pavirto medžiais. – V., 1976. SlńŠLP – Slančiauskas M. Šiaurės Lietuvos pasakos. – V., 1974. TreinLJ – Treinys P. Laumės juosta. – V., 1976. UrnP – Urnevičiūtė D. The Pagan Woman. – V., 1975. VienI₁ – Vienuolis A. The Stepdaughter. – V., 1975. VaižgMG – Vaižgantas. Mikutis gamtininkas. – V., 1972. ZabA – Zabielskas A. Open-Hearted. – V., 1978. ŽitMNK – Žitinskas R. Mūsų nerimo keliai. – V., 1972. LITERATŪRA Balčikonis J. Rinktiniai raštai. – V., 1982, t. 2. Heinemann W., Wiktorowicz J. Zur Negierung im Deutschen und Polnischen. – Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 1978, 2, S. 100–104. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. – V., 1971, t. 2; 1976, t. 3. Lietuvių kalbos rašyba ir skyryba. – V., 1976. 9. 120 213 Oginskienė E. Dabartinės lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos vientisinių konstatuojamųjų sakinių neigimas neiginiu ne. – Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. A serija, 1984 (a), t. 1(86), p. 97–107. Oginskienė E. Priešinamasis tarinio neigimas. – Kalbos kultūra. V., 1984 (b), sąs. 46, p. 31–37. Айзенштадт Э. И. Классификация типов отрицания в современном английском языке. К вопросу об эмфазе отрицания в современном английском языке. – Уч. зап. Московск. област. пед. ин-та. М., 1955, т. 31, вып. 1, с. 3–30; 31–41. Андрейчикова М. В. Категория отрицания в языке ранненоверхненемецкого периода (на материале памятников XIV–XVII вв.): Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – Минск, 1975. Арутюнова Н. Д. Предложение и его смысл. – М., 1976. Багаева Л. К. Вариативность частного отрицания в разносистемных языках (на материале английского и осетинского языков). – В кн.: Вариативность единиц разных уровней языковой структуры. Орджоникидзе, 1978, с. 3–7. Богуславский И. М. Отрицание и противопоставление. – В кн.: Проблемы структурной лингвистики – 1980. М., 1982, с. 63–76. Бондаренко В. Н. Отрицание как логико-грамматическая категория. – М., 1983. Булах Н. А. Средства отрицания в немецком литературном языке. – Уч. зап. Ярославск. пед. ин-та. Ярославль, 1962, вып. 57. Горкина Н. С. Отрицательные предложения с однородными членами в современном английском языке: Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1971. Галкина-Федорук Е. М., Горшкова К. В., Шанский Н. М. Современный русский язык. Синтаксис. – М., 1958. Иванова В. Ф. Мнимое и истинное отрицание при противопоставлении. – В кн.: Материалы XII межвузовской зональной конференции языковедов Среднего и Нижнего Поволжья (20–23 мая 1968 г.): Краткие доклады. Мелекесс, 1968, с. 22–26. Камшилова Р. И. Грамматико-стилистический анализ предложения с синтаксическим противопоставлением „отрицание-утверждение“: Дис. … канд. филол. наук. – Челябинск, 1975. Киселева Н. М. Парные союзы с компонентом не только в современном русском языке. – Уч. зап. МПИ им. Ленина. М., 1967, № 264, с. 114–128. Ковалев П. К. Категориальное и функциональное значение частицы не. – Русский язык в школе, 1941, № 1, с. 30–35. Кочетков А. К. Выражение отрицания в современном русском языке. – В кн.: Вопросы синтаксиса и стилистики русского литературного языка: Тр. III–IV конф. кафедр рус. яз. пед. ин-тов Поволжья (1959–1960). Куйбышев, 1963, с. 98–115. Кржижкова Е. Заметки о месте негации в языковой структуре. – В кн.: Единицы разных уровней грамматического строя языка и их взаимодействие. М., 1969, с. 187–205. Кулагин А. Ф. Частица „не“ и приставка „не“ в современном русском языке. – Уч. зап. Ульяновск. гос. пед. ин-та им. И. Н. Ульянова. Ульяновск, 1956, вып. 8, с. 327–351. Лобанова Н. А. Вопросительные и отрицательные предложения в русском языке. – М., 1971. Ляпон М. В. Взаимодействие категорий отрицания и ирреальности в тексте. – В кн.: Синтаксис текста. М., 1979, с. 204–213. Мамедов Б. Р. Категория отрицания в современном английском и азербайджанском языках: Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – Баку, 1967. Минкин Л. М. Категория отрицания в современном французском языке: Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – Л., 1963. Минкин Л. М. Значение категории отрицания в связи с коммуникативным членением предложения. – В кн.: Проблемы синхронного изучения грамматического строя языка: Тез. докл. и сообщ. М., 1965, с. 126–127. 214 Озерова Н. Г. Средства выражения отрицания в современном русском и украинском литературных языках: Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – Киев, 1973. Орлова М. Н. К вопросу об отрицательных предложениях. – В кн.: Современные проблемы русского языка и методики его преподавания в вузе и школе. Саратов, 1972, с. 170–174. Орлова М. Н. О лингвистической сущности отрицания и типах отрицательных предложений в русском языке. – Уч. зап. Башкирск. гос. ун-та им. 40-летия Октября, вып. 75. Сер. филол. наук, № 25. Синтаксис и интонация. Уфа, 1973, вып. 2, с. 19–26. Падучева Е. В. О семантике синтаксиса. – М., 1974. Панфилов М. Н. Отрицание и его роль в конституировании структуры простого предложения и суждения. – ВЯ, 1982, № 2, с. 36–49. Пешковский А. М. Русский синтаксис в научном освещении. – М., 1956. Попов Ф. В. О семантико-стилистических особенностях сочинительных сочетаний с союзом „а“ (при отрицании). – Изв. Воронежск. гос. пед. ин-та. Воронеж, 1969, т. 68, с. 81–83. Торопова Н. А. Отрицаемый член предложения в немецком языке (на материале частицы nicht). – В кн.: Теория и методика преподавания германских языков. Куйбышев, 1978, с. 59–66. Торопова Н. А. Положительный противочлен отрицания nicht в современном немецком языке (пресуппозиция отрицаний). – Филол. науки, 1978, № 2, с. 68–77. Ференец С. А. Грамматическая категория отрицания в современном испанском языке; Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1972. Шендец Е. И. Отрицание как лингвистическое понятие (на материале немецкого языка). – Уч. зап. I МГПИИЯ. М., 1959, т. 19, с. 125–142. Э. ОГИНСКЕНЕ ЧАСТНОЕ ОТРИЦАНИЕ Резюме В современном литовском языке частный характер обычно имеет отрицание, употребляемое со словами или словосочетаниями, занимающими в предложении место подлежащего, второстепенных членов или знаменательных частей составного сказуемого, а также с невключаемыми в структуру членов предложения незнаменательными словами, т.е. тогда, когда оно не имеет связи с предикативным признаком. Для выражения частного отрицания употребляется отрицание не „не“. Оно в предложении всегда стоит непосредственно перед тем словом или словосочетанием, которые отрицает, и пишется отдельно от них. Следовательно, между общим и частным отрицанием имеются формальные различия. Функцию частного отрицания может иметь отрицание и при сказуемом, выражающем предикативный признак, или при спрягаемой его части, если они в предложении соотносятся с утвердительным противочленом. Поэтому при различии видов отрицания недостаточно только принимать во внимание синтаксические позиции слов, к которым относится отрицание. Основным признаком частного отрицания является противительное значение, которое самым ярким образом выражается при противопоставлении (предложение распространяется утвердительным, аналогичную позицию занимающим словом или словосочетанием). На основании этого признака частное отрицание можно еще называть противопоставительным отрицанием. Грамматически противопоставление выражается при помощи противительных союзов, из которых чаще всего употребляются о „а“, bet „но“, tik „только“. Каждый из них придает противопоставительному отношению различные оттенки: o – большего различия, bet – неожиданности, tik – исключения. 9° 215 В разговорной речи выразить частное отрицание помогает интонация противоречия. В предложениях с противопоставлением отрицательный его член может стоять впереди или после утвердительного. Это зависит от того, на что обращено больше внимания, что в данной ситуации более актуально или в первую очередь известно автору предложения. Довольно часто в частноотрицательных предложениях утвердительный противочлен вообще отсутствует. Исключение составляют случаи, когда отрицается сказуемое или его часть (особенно спрягаемая). Утвердительный противочлен в одних случаях легко подразумевается, в других может быть неопределенным, неизвестным или сознательно опускается. Противительное отношение с отсутствующим утвердительным противочленом, выраженное только интонацией, становится более слабым, а само отрицание — менее экспрессивным. Частное отрицание обычно употребляется в утвердительных предложениях, однако может самостоятельно выступать и в отрицательных, напр.: Ne jis, bet aš neturiu šitos knygos „Не он, а я не имею этой книги“. Различия в отчетливости частного отрицания зависят не от синтаксической позиции отрицаемых слов или словосочетаний в предложении, а от лексических и функциональных особенностей самих отрицаемых слов или словосочетаний. Отчетливее отрицаются те слова, которые а) имеют конкретное значение, б) с отрицанием не образуют обычного оборота или в) с которыми отрицание не употребляется в роли приставки. Отрицаемые слова в этих случаях противопоставляются утвердительным, независимо от того, имеется в предложении утвердительный противочлен или нет. При отрицании имен прилагательных, прилагательных слов и соответствующих наречий, с которыми отрицание обычно употребляется как приставка, в предложении должен быть выражен утвердительный противочлен. Исключение составляет отрицание форм сравнительной и превосходной степени имен прилагательных и наречий, не имеющих приставки не- „не-“. (В других случаях трудно отличить отрицание от отрицательной приставки, поэтому в настоящее время предпочитается в подобных случаях употребление отрицательной приставки.) Гораздо слабее отрицаются слова, имеющие неопределенное или обобщенное значение, напр.: kiekvienas, -a „каждый, -ая“, vienas, -a „один, одна“, visas, -a „весь, вся, все“, bet kas „любой, -ая“, bet koks, -ia „то же“, visada „всегда“, bet kaip „как угодно“, šiaip (sau)„так (себе)“. Из-за неопределенности часто трудно их отрицание соотносить с утвердительным противочленом. Это тоже ослабляет значение частного отрицания. Часть слов данного типа, напр.: toks, -ia „такой, -ая“, taip „так“, tiek „столько“, в предложении часто сочетается с прилагательными и наречиями. В этих случаях отрицание с ними образуют сочетания, имеющие значение умеренной степени качества или умеренного количества. Для отрицания здесь характерна промежуточная функция между отрицанием и образованием новой лексической единицы (с переводом последнего). Не столько отрицает, сколько обозначает качество или количество определенных предметов в умеренной степени и отрицание, употребляемое со словами kas „кто, что“, koks, -ia „какой, -ая“, kur „где“, kada „когда“, kaip „как“, kiek „сколько“. В предложении можно отрицать и неполнозначные слова — предлоги, соотносительные слова сравнительных оборотов. Отрицание, входящее в состав парных союзов ne tik… bet ir „не только… но и“, ne vien… bet ir „то же“, своеобразно отрицает первую часть этих союзов, потому что в данном случае нет для частного отрицания характерного противопоставления. Обе части парных союзов и соединяемые ими слова или словосочетания соотносятся между собой соединительной связью. Для усиления или ослабления частного отрицания употребляются разные эмфатические средства. Категоричность отрицания подчеркивается наречиями anaiptol „отнюдь“, toli gražu „далеко“, словосочетанием jokiu būdu „никоим образом“ и под. В противоположном направлении нюансируют отрицание некоторые уточнительные частицы, образующие с отрицанием сочетания и сращения, напр.: vos ne „чуть не“, ko ne „то же“, mažne „то же“. 216 E. OGINSKIENĖ WORTNEGATION Zusammenfassung In litauischer Gegenwartssprache, wie in anderen Sprachen, kann man nicht nur den ganzen Satz, sondern auch das einzelne Wort oder einzelne Konstruktion negieren. Die Bedeutung der Wortnegation bekommt meistens das Negationswort ne „nicht“ im Gebrauch mit den Wörtern oder Konstruktionen, die nominale Satzglieder, bedeutungsvolle Teile des zusammengesetzten Prädikats oder kleinere Teile als Satzglieder bezeichnen. In diesen Fällen bleibt der Satz bejahend. Bei der Wortnegation steht erwähntes Negationswort im Satz immer unmittelbar bei dem zu verneinenden Wort oder zu verneinender Konstruktion und wird von ihnen einzeln geschrieben. Das zeigt, daß die Wortnegation und die Satznegation voneinander mit Hilfe der formellen Besonderheiten abgegrenzt werden können. Zuweilen kann das die Prädikation bezeichnende Wort negieren. Deshalb ist für die Abgrenzung Satz- und Wortnegation voneinander nicht genügend nur syntaktische Positionen der negierenden Wörter zu beachten. Die Hauptbesonderheit der Wortnegation ist die Kontrastivität, die am krassesten durch einen Gegensatz ausgedrückt wird. In der mündlichen Rede besteht auch die Möglichkeit jedes Wort oder jede Konstruktion durch intonatorische Mittel zu negieren. Nicht selten treffen sich die Sätze mit zu negierendem Wort oder zu negierender Konstruktion ohne ihr positives gegensätzliches Glied, mit Ausnahme der Fällen, wenn die Prädikation bezeichnende Wörter negiert werden. In diesem Zusammenhang ist hier die entgegengestellte Bedeutung schwächer und die Wortnegation nicht so expressiv. Es ist außerdem zuweilen schwierig ohne positives Glied des Gegensatzes das Negationswort ne „nicht“ von solchem Präfix ne- „un-“ abzugrenzen. Die Deutlichkeitsunterschiede der Wortnegation hängen nicht von syntaktischen Positionen aber von lexikalischen und gebräuchlichen Besonderheiten der zu negierenden Wörter oder Konstruktionen ab. Für Ausdruck der Wortnegationsstufe werden verschiedene emphatische Mittel gebraucht, zum Beispiel: anaiptol, toli gražu „bei weitem“, vos „kaum“ und andere.