Lietuvių kalbos bevardės giminės įvardžių kilmė

GRAMMATICS CATEGORIES IR JŲ RAIDA LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XVIII (1978) A. VALECKIENĖ "LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE ANONYMOUS GENERAL PRONOUNS ORIGIN 01. The genitive forms of demonstrative pronouns in Lithuanian have a specific form -ai (tai, tatai, etc.), which does not exist in other Indo-European languages. There are different opinions about this formant, but even now its origin is not clear. The above forms with the formant -ai are used not only as pronouns of the genitive but also as particles and conjunctions. Many of the names of the villages and towns in the area have different origins. It is important to note that these two forms are not identical in their origin, and that they have different functions. In addition to tai and tatai, Lithuanian dialects have more forms of the same root: ta, to, tei, te, whose use more or less corresponds to the tai, tatai forms. The identification and usage of these forms has already been written about (see author 1977:55—75- ). This is to explain their origins. FORMS WITH CONTROLS 02. Perhaps the first to try to explain the forms of the pronoun-- less genus with -ai in Lithuanian were G. H. Mahlow and J. Schmidt. the collective creators. They (Mahlow 1879: 49, 81; Schmidt 1883: 364; 1885: 391; 1889: 228—231) introduced the Lithuanian form this together with vyr. g. dg. ward. -ai (wolves), as well as the conjunction kai (e.g. kai "as") and the adjective adverb form -ai (well) from ide. anonymous. family dg. ward. - Gal. According to J. Schmidt (1889: 228—230) this form has become indifferent in relation to the number because of the analogy of the identical singular and plural forms forming the dialect. It meant both "hoc fuit" and "haec fuerunt- ", as well as It is not possible—- "hoc fieri non potest" and "haec fieri non possunt- ". J. Schmidt- 's opinion about the origin of the above-mentioned Lithuanian forms with the formant -ai had many followers at first?. Mr. Endzelynas did not accept this opinion. Discussing with A. Meillet, he (Suazeauns 1911: 138; 1916: 295, etc.) indicated that the ending of the plural noun of the Lithuanian genitive was *-4 (namon), but not -ai. J. Schmidt- ’s interpretation of the mentioned forms was completely criticized in E. Nieminen- ’s work (1922)*. 1 The main ideas of this article were presented in the author’s presentation at the 1st Baltic Linguistics Conference in Vilnius in 1975?, based on J. Schmidt, explained: 1) lit. it, when, pr. when “how” —K. Brugmannas (1890: 57; 1911: 692; 1916: 616); P. Kretschmeris (1892: 353); F. Fortunatovs (®opryratos 1895: 269—270); R. Gauthiot (1909: 356 t. t.); 2) Mr. Dg. ward. -ai (wolves) —O. Wiedemannas (1897: 64, 82); H. Hirtas (1899: 49); K. Miihlenbachas (1902/3: 238); A. Meillet (1908 / 9: 73; 1914 / 16: 81 — 82); R. Trautmannas (1910: 218) et al. * Plg. The opinion of K. Buoga and F. Specht about the work of E. Nieminen. K. Būga (1961: 684) agrees with E. Nieminen that wolves are not the plural form of the noun-adjective form of an anonymous genus. F. Spechtas (1924: 51—53), having reviewed E. Nieminen- ’s work more extensively, remains with J. Schmidt's opinions. 69 Recently, the Baltists chief g. d. ward. -ai (wolves) leads from ide. *oi (As of 1966: 66 et seq., 184; 1970: 25; Mažiulis 1970: 170), while the origin of the pronoun form of the anonymous genus is sought in Lithuanian soil. - 03. Daugelis baltistų bei indoeuropeistų (J. Endzelynas, A. Meillet, J. Otrębskis, Chr. S. Stangas ir kt.) bevardės giminės įvardžių formas tai, tatai laiko atsiradusias pagal vyr. g. vn. ward. That's right, all right. The first to draw attention to this were A. Leskienas (1903: 90—91) and W. Streitbergas (1892: 267). This explanation,—at first glance quite convincing, because the particle -ai is quite common with pronoun forms,—also has its difficulties: the dental f in the forms tatai, šitatai, toktai, etc. is difficult to explain. All those who interpret this, tatai forms made with the particle -ai, consider the first part to be the old form of the infinitive genus *ta < *tod|t. According to A. Meillet (1897/8: 135 et.t.) the form of the genitive pronoun of the genitive was formed already after the dental t fell in the Baltic languages, namely *ta (< *tod|t)+ ai, and tatai — earlier, when there was still an unfallen dental f, namely *tat (< *tod|t) + ai’. This interpretation also lacks a solid basis, since it is entirely doubtful whether the Baltic *ta < *tod[t. The material of the Baltic languages does not testify to the presence of dental # in this form. The Baltic form of the infinitive genus *ta < *tod|t is traditionally reconstructed, based on other Indo-European languages, where in addition to the infinitive genus forms of nouns with *-om, there are infinitive genus forms of pronouns with *-od, cf. s. ind. yugdm ‘jungas’ and tat ‘that’.’ It is believed that the pronoun form *ta < *tod|t was used to form the corresponding adjective forms with -a (Lithuanian: géra). Already F. Sommeris (1914: 345—346) doubted whether there has been a dental ¢ in the Lithuanian forms of the genitive of the singular (*ta, visa, žalia). Only he thought that the forms of the genitive of the noun with -a in Lithuanian are new, analogous to the corresponding forms of the ukamieno with -u (gražū), which is from ancient times*. More plausible is the opinion of S. Agrelli (1926: 21, 26)® that the Baltic, Slavic and other ides. the genitive forms with *-o are pure roots from ancient times, even older than the noun forms with *-on. Recently, this opinion has been broadly supported by V. Mažiulis (1970: 84 etc.)". An important argument for the existence of an indefinite genus form with a pure stem -a (without nasal -n or dental -7) in the Baltic languages is the existence of old Finnish borrowings with -a from the Baltic languages, e.g. suom. warm ‘bridge’ (see Ind. tirthdm,- ,brasta®- ). K. Būga (1961: 592), referring to Finnish borrowings, has indicated that instead of the Prussian ending -an (cf. pr. assaran „,lake““) for nouns of the infinitive genus, Lithuanians and Latvians had -a. However, this ending -a K. Būga also derives from ide. *-od, which came to nouns through adjectives from pronouns. Only J. Kazlauskas (1968: 124), based on Finnish borrowings with -a from the Baltic languages, concludes that the formant -a of the Lithuanian infinitive genus, as well as the Slavic -o, is a pure root from antiquity, as is -u in the corresponding forms of the u-trunk (cf. géra, gražū). Thus, based on Lithuanian language material, especially with recent research in mind, the reconstruction of the nominative form *ta < *tod|t in Baltic languages is highly doubtful. In this way, the interpretation of A. Meillet of tatai < *tat-ai etc. also loses its basis. It is characteristic that J. Endzelynas explains only the form of the pronoun of the unnamed genus this from *ta-ai. He does not explain the form at all. As an argument this < ta-ai J. Endze- + A. Meillet also considers possible, similarly kalp J. Schmidt, that *ta, *ka < *ta, *ka, cf. s. dg. ward.-gal. Ta. (See also Meillet 1902 /5: 329) 5 The corresponding ending -o of the singular noun-final forms of the Slavic infinitive genus is also explained by analogy with the corresponding forms of other roots with the pure root by S. Szoberis (1927: 570), but this analogy he transfers to the early period of the Co-Slavic languages, in this way his hypothesis is close to S. Agrellio hypothesi. * Plg. rec. B. Rosenkranz (1928: 627), where S. Agrelli’s opinion is considered convincing, and O. Hujer (1928: 354—358), where S. Agrelli’s opinion is not accepted. A. B. lecuuuxas (1947: 495—496); B. A. Siky6nnckasJlemGepr (1958: 10) ir kt * Plg. rec. Jorundur Hilmarsson (1974: 96), where one tends to think that *-on is an old ending. 70 lynas (1913/14: 125; 1957; 152) indicates the fact that according to the often used tasai, the form of the genitive pronoun that was formed, but the genitive pronoun *kai was not formed, because there was no form *kasai. However, the fact that Lithuanian does not have a regular form of the genitive pronoun when next to it, the reasons will probably be not adjective analogy, but functional. This function has simply become the function of the masculine form of the pronoun what, which, respectively, as that, that, that, that. (For more details see author 1974: 69—73.) J. Otrebski and Chr. S. Stangas interprets the forms here and there differently. J. Otrebskis (1956: 150) derives this form from *ta-ai as J. Endzelynas, and in the form tatai he sees a repetition of *ta-ta-ai. Chr. S. Stangas (1966: 232—233; 235; 241—242) explains tatai, as well as koktai, toktai, antai forming with -aiiš *tat-ai, *kokit-ai, *tokit-ai, *anat-ai as A. Meillet, and this time contracted from tatai as E. Nieminenas (about this contraction see below). Such different interpretations of similar forms are also questionable. E. Niemeninen (1922: 40), who also derives the Baltic *fa from *fod, criticizes this, as well as the interpretation of the formation of the forms with the particle -ai according to tasai, gerasai, based on the lack of correspondence of the functions of these forms. The particulate -ai usually contributes to the masculine singular nominative forms of pronouns, giving them the function of denoting the nominative forms, whereas the forms of the genitive pronouns did not require such denotation. The functional argument raised by E. Nieminen, criticizing the interpretation of the -ai forms of the mentioned forms, is not very strong, because the forms of the demonstrative pronouns with -ai: tasai, Sitasai, etc. have no clear deytive separation meaning and, moreover, the particle -ai contributes to the personal pronouns fujai, jisai, etc. The weakest point of the interpretation of the mentioned forms with -ai is that, in interpreting the form tatai in this way, one has to rely on the unproven form with dental f. 04 in the Baltic languages. The form tatai was also divided into fa-tai. K. Brugmann (1911: 346) and K. Būga (Byra 1912: 33) compare this form, divided into fa-tai, with sl. *fsf9 > Russian VAT. The form is also divided into fa-tas by E. Niemeninen (1922: 44, 46, 47). The first part of this form is traditionally considered by E. Niemeninen to be the form of the adjective *ta < *tod. The particle that joins this form is this (German "so" or locally meaning German "da, dort" from mot. g. vn. locative *t4i), similarly as -ai to tasai. The difference between tas-ai and ta-tai is only that the consonant-ending form tas has been reinforced with -ai, and the vowel-ending *ta—with a particle to avoid this gap. The division of the form tatai into ta-tai, in our understanding, is the most appropriate. Only the interpretation of the first part of this form *f@ < fod is unacceptable. According to E. Nieminen, the reason for the formation of the form tatai is unclear. This form is considered by E. Nieminenas (1922: 32—35, 43) as new, arising from this only in the historical period of the Lithuanian language. He bases this conclusion (Nieminen 1922: 49, 52) on the fact that in the first monuments of the Lithuanian language this form is either not used at all,—there is only tatai (M. Mažvydas),—or used relatively rarely next to tatai (J. Bretkūnas, B. Vilentas). This form is used more frequently in later sources (M. Daukša and others) and is predominant in the writings of K. Sirvydas. The form to was reworked from tatai due to the equalization of the number of syllables according to the monosyllabic tas paradigm. In colloquial language, tatai was too long and therefore abstracted to it. Since E. Nieminen- ’s fai interpretation of the form of the pronoun of the anonymous genus is supported by detailed analysis of the facts of ancient writings, it was adopted by Chr. S. Stangas (1966: 232, 242). From E. Nieminen’s analysis of ancient writings, in our view, different conclusions should be drawn. After examining the dialectal material, it turned out that now only Žemaičiai use tatai, Vysokiai do not have this form, while fai is widely known in Vysokiai, and Žemaičiai, except in Raseiniai, are not used (see author's 1977 maps). The dialectal differentiation of these forms corresponds to the use of these forms in ancient writings. In those monuments that have more or less Žemaičių elements, this form is not used or is rare (M. Mažvydas, B. Vilentas, J. Bretkūnas, S. Vaišnoras), in those monuments that are written on the basis of the Highland dialect, fai is common next to fatai or predominant 71 o (K. "Silver, Silver, M. Silver". M. Thus, the distribution of the forms in the ancient writings must be linked to the dialectal differentiation of these su forms, the chronology of the appearance of the writings. o ne su tų The same opinions are ir F. Spechtas (1924: 51), reviewed E. No work. According to the old writings, it is not possible to prove that lit. if it appeared later than this, Nieminen's opinion about E. it as contractions loses ground. But that fai took over, iš o iš usage is displaced in the current literary language, doubtless, the better be belief of fai form to other single-stemmed forms of indefinite reference, in which fai forms the paradigm: vard. su tai, tas, kilm. to, naud. That's it, gal. tą, inn. That, that, that. tame (for details see aut. 1974: 61). 05. Unlike the pronoun of the infinitive, this is explained by the particle and the conjunction this. The latter form iš leads to mot. g. vn. loc. *it is like when < *g“4ai. The beginning of such an interpretation was given by F. Solmsen who, (1911: 189—190), while criticizing J. Schmidt, "Neutrum* theory, lit. kai, pr. and "as", respectively ir the adverb form -ai (long) gretino sus. sl. cė (a cē, cci) and -ė (dobrė) ir derived from iš the feminine singular locus. Iš 100 mg/ day F. Solmsen- 's opinion was criticized R. Trautman (1920: 251 —252), raising these forms of the datative of ir the corresponding forms (F. The 1996-1997 season saw the club losing a single match (to the Clydesdale Lions). It's a tdi. ir However, F. Solmsen's opinion was confirmed when J. The (1922: 467) Latvian language is spoken in Latvia. In Latvian there is vn. viet. this adverbs ir (in the Altay dialect) this, when (with a pushing suffix), this is the best ir proof that these adverbs are a single-origin female genus stem vn. su ūloc. *or (plg. let. toj-ė), *q* ai (Nieminen 1922: 42—43), of which -ai was pronounced su acute (Quazenuns 1916: 309). Lat. height. it, when corresponds to lit. kai?, pr. Kai? (Endzelynas 1957: 209) ir let. this is the function of the particle and the switch (Nieminen 1922: 41). There is no doubt that these forms are pro-Baltic in the singular locatio of their female ir ancestral genus me su (plg. Rosinas 1967: — 177). However, until now no one has tried to directly su associate the above-mentioned singular locus with the Lithuanian pronoun this. J. Endzelynas ir E. Nieminenas (according to the latter ir Chr. S. Stangas), considering the particle of the Balts, the ar conjunction adverb to that, whereas in the old forms of the singular locative, the noun of an anonymous genus to that was considered of another origin — a new analogous form (see above). On the other hand, E. Niemeninen, in (1922: 47), be his interpretation of this as a iš contraction, mentions in one place the possibility ir that lit. fai the function of an anonymous genus pronoun could also have received ir iš locally significant particles this (This is the star's position in su the constellation.) *,,da“), similar to angl. There, Dan. bei norv. der, which now perform the function of the subject. Ši E. Nieminen- ’s hint, in our view, is the closest to the truth. But more broadly these ideas E. They didn't mean anything. Based on analogies in other languages, he does not directly link the pronoun of the indefinite genus to with the particle and the conjunction to (the latter he interprets as German ",so"). In our understanding, it is not impossible that in Lithuanian language this particle and the conjunctiir on this pronoun of the infinitive genus are of the same origin, i.e. iš origin related to su the same mot. g. vn. end. *Shit. In order to prove this, it is first necessary to explain where this origin is based on mot. g. vn. end. *to and as a form to, without a particle and a conjunction, could have received the function of an anonymous pronoun. 06.As is known, the *d/e stem was not originally an indicator of the feminine gender (this meaning it received later, when the division male: female: anonymous gender took place), but had an abstract and collective meaning (Brugmann 1908: 8 For the relationship of the language of Lithuanian ancient monuments with the corresponding dialects of Lithuanian, see J. Palionis (1967: 51 t.t.). ? E. Niemeninen (1922: 20-21), according to him and Chr. S. Stangas (1966: 287), lietuv. kai laiko naują formą vietoj kaip vėl based on the use of these forms in ancient Lithuanian monuments. 10 Chr, S. Stangas pr. kai veda iš *kai (1966: 287). 72 70; 1911: 286; 1922: 361—362), cf. the collective meanings of this stem: herd, manta, nation, etc. ir Collective meanings were also by nature ide. nominative-adjective plural forms of the infinitive genus with *-4 (Greek prijoa next to pmpot, Latin loca next to loci), used with the singular forms of the predicate. On the relationship of these forms with other forms, there are different opinions. J. Schmidtas (1889: 12, 37), the first to raise the plural nominative-adjective forms of the nominative genus with *-4 as ide. collective, considered them identical with the feminine singular noun forms having the same *-4. Already N. van Wijk (1902: 12—13) pointed out that the plural nominative-adjective forms of the collectively meaningful nominative gender were before the feminine gender su *-@ *4th/*e stem class formation. A. Meillet (1908: 257—258, 261) plural nominative-adjective forms of an anonymous genus su *-4 time identical su forms of the singular noun-adjective of the genitive of the pronoun. Convincing is Chr. The hypothesis of S. Stango (1970: 18 et seq.) that the plural nominative-- adjective forms of anonymous genus with *-4 initially formed a separate category — the collective (genus collectivum, 4collectivum- ), which in the system of genus (nominal classes) was opposed to the non-collective (before the formation of the system of genus “masculine: feminine: anonymous genus”). Recently, W. P. Lehmann (1958: 189 et seq.), based on the theory of laryngeals, passed the European form with short vowel and laryngeal, from which developed the form with *-4 (later mot. g. vn. noun. and bev. g. dg. noun.-fin.), from origin also considers the collective meaning form. Before the extinction of the laryngeals, the mentioned early Indo-European form formed a symmetrical system with other consonant-ending forms: with the -s form (later the masculine singular noun), which had the meaning of an individual active object from its origin, and with the -m form (later the masculine singular noun gal. and feminine singular noun-gal.), which had the meaning of an action result and an inactive object from its origin." If the forms with *-4 formed a separate class of nouns of collective meaning, then the corresponding attributive classes (of demonstrative pronouns and adjectives) were also developed, because congruence had a special significance for the development of the family system. This is pointed out by many researchers (see Pedersen 1913: 68; Lehmann 1958: 194 etc.). Chr. S. Stangas (1970: 16 et seq.), based on congruence, next to vn. ward. ex. g. *newos, *so; mot. g. *newd, *sa, bev. g. *newom, *tot|d, reconstructs the fourth attribute class with vn. ward. *newd, *ta. The latter forms were combined with the plural nominative-adjective forms of the nominative genus with *-a, which were originally singular forms of collective meaning. Thus, the noun root *ta/|*te (unlike the present verb *s4) was also of collective origin, meaning "an undifferentiated collection, an undifferentiated continuum- ", as in modern German. Bev. g. ‘that’. 07. has long been observed ide. in languages noun *-(in)ū root (*ia, *:4) adverbs with adverbial vowel (instrumental, ablative, locative-dative) noun endings. In 1908, Brugmann (1908: 63) considered these adverbs to be substantive forms of the genitive of the pronoun. Chr. S. Stangas (1970: 25) derives them from trunks of collective significance. The collective root could also have been the form *tči (with the noun singular local ending -i'?), which is associated with the Lithuanian particle and the conjunction tai and Latvian augst. adverbs it, the basis. Chr. S. Stangas (1970: 25) also reconstructs the idea. the collective meaning *t4| *te stem adverb *ti, but lit. it is not connected with it, because according to E. Nieminen it takes a new form (see 04). After the disappearance of the collector as a separate category, during the regrouping in the family system, the female genitive forms of the *t4 stem of collective meaning 11 Of the old scholars, G. H. Miiller (1898: 312) was one of the first, based on K. Brugmann, to distinguish the forms with *-a from the class of abstract forms of the time of origin and to oppose them to the forms of concrete meaning with -s. date-place. the ending -i (< *-i) is of pre-Indo-- European origin, see 1970: 145–146. 73 the value of. Therefore, the same form *to forms lit. mot. g. vn. viet. toje (< *tai + *.¢n) base, as well as lat. augst. it is an adverb and in literary Latvian a feminine singular pronoun. Taking into account that the singular locativ in the Baltic and Indo-European languages in general was a non-paradigmatic form (TonoposB 1961: 285, 298—299), the Lithuanian particle and the conjunction to and the Latvian highland adverbs to could be even older than the corresponding feminine singular locativ forms, i.e., the aforementioned forms could have developed earlier than the singular locativ became a paradigmatic vowel. 08. In explaining its origin, it is necessary to mention the hypothesis recently postulated by V. Georgiev (1965: 81 et seq.; 1974; 1975: 3—9), according to which the *4 stem is derived from the older one with the diphthong *eH,y, which was also of collective meaning, due to sandhi. V. Georgiev sees *-ay-< *eH,y stem reflex in many ide. forms, among others and lit. mot. g. vn. viet. toj-ė, pr. mot. g. vn. ward. quai. W. R. Schmalstiegas (1973: 101, 143, etc.) explains the change of the stem phonetically: before the consonant the diphthong of the word became a long vowel (*-ay-> *-g), while before the vowel it remained intact: W. R. Schmalstiegas sees an additional distribution in the *akamieno paradigm: the stem *-gy before the vowel endings and *-4before the consonants. It's a separate idea. There are many forms with -ayin the *4trunk paradigm, which would be convenient to interpret, assuming *eH,y-> *4trunk (Rasmussen 1973: 90 et al.). However, so far the *4-< *eH, expression is only an unmeasured hypothesis (Szemerėnyi 1970: 173). Therefore, we here remain at the old *4-< *eH,stame interpretation and consider the form mentioned by the Balts to be of collective meaning *7a stem and vn. end. - and the compound. 09. When we associate the lit. particle and the conjunction fai with the ancient form of collective meaning *tai (as well as the mot. g. vn. viet. toj-ė), we must all the more associate with this form the genitive noun fai, because it still has a generalized, or kollektiving, meaning. In order to demonstrate this, we have to briefly touch on the functions of the pronoun that in the genitive and indicate the relationship by which they contrast with the forms of the masculine and feminine gender. In Lithuanian, the pronoun fai is the only prominent form of the infinitive gender, which is opposed in the same syntactic position to the corresponding forms of the masculine and feminine gender*?. The masculine and feminine gender forms tas, ta They are used in two ways: 1) substantively — in the position of a noun and 2) attributively — in the position of an adjective. In the case of the genitive form, it is used only substantively — in the position of a noun. Therefore, the contrast of the masculine, feminine (on the one hand) and anonymous gender (on the other hand) is possible only in the substantive position. The forms specified in this position are semantically opposed as follows: a) the masculine and feminine gender forms tas, ta (their function is the same) indicate specific, individualized objects (often persons); their antecedents are usually singular nouns; b) the genitive form fai of an indefinite noun refers to phenomena, actions or objects in a general, unspecific way; their and antecedents are usually not individual nouns, but whole sentences or even larger passages of text. For example: : a) All the money went to his son, and he lived a happy life. BalčAP 199. He (the Prophet) did not answer anything, only poured a whip over the mare, that it even jumped down the road. Myk-PutS19. They were all wearing shoes, but only until they left the church. ValPJ b) 30. Here he remembered that the matter had not yet been discussed with Darata herself, but that could not change the blacksmith's intentions. VenclR III 108. Mycodem's mine was so foolish, * that even a picture of it write... This (= that the mine was foolish) finished convincing Vizgirdas when the hour of his destruction came. 201 and Vol. 1? The corresponding forms of adjectives and adjectives (maZa, gėra) are usually used in a completely different position than the masculine and feminine forms of the corresponding words, cf. : The child is good ir It's good for the kid. 74 The generalized, or collective, meaning of the form fai is particularly pronounced in cases where it refers to several objects of a similar kind as the whole of objects of a certain sphere. For example: : What good is it that, besides all this, the barn is full of grain, bacon, flax, wool? For him, it's nothing, but for Ans, it's temptation, jealousy. 74 and op. She could not imagine the fullness of happiness and awe without a cringing baby, a loving husband, her cozy corner of the home. It is the primary link of human existence. KubSNL 314. Thus, the Lithuanian genitive form of the noun has retained a generalized, or collective, meaning, according to which it is opposed to the masculine and feminine genitive forms that, that, which have a non-collective, specific, individual meaning. 10. The comparison of their functions shows that there is no insurmountable boundary ir between the particle and the conjunctive rai of the genitive pronoun and that they may have the same origin. The genitive form fai is used substantively in the position of the noun or suffix of nouns as an anaphoric pronoun — generalizing what was previously mentioned or said immediately after that form. He talked to me as su an adult, which was su very ir pleasant. VenclPU 436. Adamuk didn't fully understaką gi nd, that means— he's not your uncle anymore. VaižgRR I 154. You laid the foundatio ons for a sauna, jų you want to build a church on it! Who can do that? ŽemR I 50. The particle and the conjunction fgi often go at the beginning of the sentence, the dot ar phrase, often with other particles, su conjunctions and adverbs forming initial ar groups, ; — So you're not walking nė today? — I'm telling you. — Peter stood up. — It's a godfather. PaukštAK 154. — Ar you're already walking į the field close? — That's... I ploughed yesterday — afternoon, and it's gone. — So maybe you were singing while he was there? — That's me. Birds. 194. — Aš I don't want bread. — Thai ko — You want some panties? Bird, see 6.— Ar what you are! It's just to insert į the earth, and o enough, what is the mass? ŽemR I 147. — Aš I don't have time to su talk to you anymore. Ir as tall as you. Did you — hear what? Na then you will hear me. SruogR II 141. Only there, in the aura, where there is sand, they ir planted reptiles ir and sowed rye. SimonR I 213. ia it, going at the beginning of the sentence ar phrase, kind of connects the phrase, sentence in tą the previous context, is like su a catalyst. Su such particles are more ir convenient to start a new phrase. Especially this is characteristic of spoken language, dialogue. The connecting function of particles is particularly pronounced in cases where the new sentence started with these particles is connected in the previous context by causal and su explanatory links? ?, . — Ana, you're walking į around the church. Then ask God for once to stop doing the world such fools as you. Stock Sviestavicius. VaizgP I 106. — O tu Are you still proud? It's no longer crazy as hell! nė ZemR I 175. Aš I stood up iš from my seat I went ir to the į next sitting friend. That's what happened to me. VaižgP I 96. Thus, such connecting particles, which play the role of catalysts, are quite easy to approach the anaphoric pronouns, which also indicate the previous context, especially to the anaphoric pronouns of the genitive į form, whose indication is very general, unspecific. In Lithuanian, there are not rare transitional cases when the particle to approaches the pronoun of the anonymous genus fai — ji does not occupy the position ar of the noun's final nominative, i.e. do not perform the syntactic function of pronouns, but have such a indicative meaning as anaphoric pronouns (indicate a previous context or situation). For example: : The wind is blowing, the axe is banging, it says: ji "That's my dad cutting firewood." Auk (LKT 362). One night, the whole hotel is in motion. Iš 100 mg/ day Alfonso thought that it was, as usual, someone from the higher soldiers iš came. jų In certain '4 contexts, this form is a developed function of the switch, e.g. : ir The first thing that died was a worm. Kbl (LKT 107). If you have such a voice, you must have ir such a heart. Birds. 169. When he returned, he would bring some new idea, sometimes to plant bulbs in ne time, sometimes to plough them constantly. ir VaižgP 1 84—85 (for details see aut. 1977). 15 K 177. Thousands of bites start to squeak. It's like millions to Napali. — But when he began to follow, where they made such a loud noise when they ir stopped, he saw nothing. Ir it begins to seem to him that it's not the animals ne that squeak, only the earth itself sounds... VaizgP I 222. Such transitional cases clearly show that, in certain contexts, it is quite easy for the indicative particle fai to acquire the meaning of an anaphoric pronoun in the genitive form. 11. It is unclear when it was established as a pronoun of an anonymous family. In Lithuanian dialects, this form is used quite widely, but usually has the function of a particle and a conjunction. The latter function is widespread in the whole area of the Altai dialect, except for Panevėžys, and is also known to the Žemaičiai of Raseiniai. The ji form of the pronoun function of the unspecified noun is rare in these dialects. ji It is more common in ji highland dialects, but also more common in transitional cases. It is characteristic that other forms corresponding to this form of the Žemaičių ta, ir Panevėžio fe, te, — ti — also used as particles and conjunctions. They have only the potential to become pronouns of an anonymous genus. However, iš to yet it is not possible to conclude that this function of an anonymous genus pronoun is very late. The function of the genitive of the singular is not widely established simply because this function in Lithuanian dialects, as in Latvian, has been established in the masculine gender vn. ir ward. ir vn. gal. the forms tas, tą, in the position of the nominative or adjective of nouns, respectively. Only in Lithuanian literary language, apparently, due to greater reliance on the entire grammatical system, the function of the pronoun of the genitive of the infinitive has become more established. o ne that, that, see aut. 1974:58 (table 2), 62 (table 3). The same works as lit. fai found in Prussian language monuments when (next to ka, kan), used 3 times in the final position of the genitive pronoun: When is Bill's daily gate? ,,What does it mean daily Brodt?" Ench 37,,. Tit daiti teinu erainesmu, kai ioūs skellūnts asai ,,Therefore give to nu everyone what you jr owe“ Ench bhe 5753. waiditi kai erains, labban segge, stan wirst tans pogauuns,,Vnd knows what a man does good, that he will receive“ Ench 61; (Trautmann 1910 : 267, Nieminen 1922 : 14, Schmalstieg 1974 : 135), plg. Endzelin (1944 : 124-125), who, keeping lit. fai new form ta-ai, iš together pr. ir when time is not real, written with -i instead of -n (kan). In Lithuanian dialects, the function of the genitive in the final position is also sometimes found, e.g. : For when you beat him? 361 pp. (in German). It may be an analogous form according to that, but it may also be old, according to the linguist B. Savukynas, it is used in this dialect by older people next to what (dialect ki). It is possible that the forms with -ai (that, when) already had the prerequisites for obtaining the function of a pronoun of the genitive in the pre-Baltic era. The fact that in Lithuanian forms of pronouns with -ai have been established, in Prussian — forms with pure stem (ka, sta, see Endzelin 1944: 111, 123), while in Latvian there are no special forms of pronouns with -ai at all, lies not in the forms themselves, but in the grammatical systems of those languages. 12. As mentioned earlier (see 04), it is also appropriate to divide the form into fa-tai. The second part of this form is probably the same particle fai as discussed earlier. It is unclear what the origin of the first part of this form was. E. Nieminen (1922: 44) indicates that the particle to joined to the old form of the anonymous genus *ta < *tod. Latin. tu-tu? * E. Niemeninen (1922: 46) also explains as bev. Mr. vn. ward.-gal. *ta (< *tod) +lok. *you. Such an interpretation would be acceptable if it were absolutely certain that in Lithuanian and Latvian there was an anonymous pronoun *ta, when tatai was formed. The form *ta is reconstructed in Lithuanian and Latvian according to pr. sta, sl. and the forms of Lithuanian adjectives with -a (good) (Mažiulis 1970: 85). This was not the first time that the building was damaged, as it was rebuilt in 1999. From only15 K. Miilenbach —J. In the Endzelyno dictionary (1932: 120) this form is treated as repeated ta ta (written separately). 76 the mentioned form is the basis for identifying ta (see section 4.4). 17). However, in the Zemaičiai language, this pronoun does not have the function of a pronoun, it is used only as a particle and a conjunction. The same form is used in Latvian, but it is also used only as a particle and a conjunction. U.S. ta, lat. ta is in full accordance with the Hittite ta-, which is also used as a connecting particle at the beginning of the sentence and has no pronoun function in the genitive of the singular. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that lit. žem. and lat. ta, as in het. ta-, from origin were old particles and did not have the function of an anonymous genus, although etymologically they are probably related to the pronouns of an anonymous genus of other languages, cf. p. to (see 17). On the other hand, if Lithuanian-Latvian had had the function of a pronoun of an anonymous genus, it is not clear why it would have lost ir this fa function. J. Schmidtas (1889: 229) explained the disappearance of the genitive pronoun *ta in Lithuanian because of the overlap of that form with the feminine genitive vn. ward. fa < *td after acute limb shortening. But the Latvian feminine singular noun form is in the long -ū (ta), and the pronoun form of the su genitive *ta is not present here either. Finally, that, that now in Lithuanian Latvian languages has the meaning of the genitive gender, although there are also masculine forms. ir ir Thus, the coincidence of forms is not a prerequisite for one iš jų disappear if they are used differently. Su the same control -¢ (ide. *-0) are given the forms of the Prussian pronouns sta, ka. True, J. Endzelynas (1944: 116) doubted ar that this is true, because it happens rarely (and only at the beginning of the sentence!) next to star. It is widely used. The functions of the Prussian forms mentioned are not extensively studied. On the other hand, the forms with -a of the Prussian nominative pronouns could have been (as in Slavic and other languages), and in Lithuanian and Latvian the corresponding forms su -a ta function might ir not be (as the Hittites). It depends on the entire grammatical system of the language. With the above in mind, let. tatai daryba iš adjective forms *fa su particle is doubtful. In our understanding, a more reliable interpretation of the fatai form would be iš two particles. Having a particle td ir or, iš jų could have formed ir thus. This idea is supported by the fact that in Lithuanian there are many such structuriš es with ar two more particles. Pvz.: ana-va: Anava kiškis bėga. Long. ana-ve: Anave and he comes. Ms. be-ne : You tu must've seen it. JNSH. beta-ta-g* : Betag is needed here, in order for all roles to be fulfilled. DP 30. beta-tai : Id kožnas, kursai believe, neprapulty, betai eternal žyvatą should. SE 129. be-tai-g : You've been so badly hurt ir that you can't take revenge. DP 37. tai-gi : So you don't know. I'm sorry. ta-pat i: I don't work, I do) I do it (= all at aš home. Ps. only ir others. (For more examples see. further to the respective forms.) The beginning (impulse) of the formation of ir such words, as well as of tatai, could have been given by certain ir syntactic complexes of two more particles, conjunctions and adverbs, ar which are still used today and which start the sentence. : iš ar It's no longer a joke if the leg swells. Drg. When the cranberries..., it na tė (=there) snakes it is. Shh (LKT 159). Doe ir pierced [fish] net out, so ir that's what vė [high]. Kk (LKT 188). Nu He's already agreed, he's already drunk the bottle. Pvk (LKT 181). Nu I don't remember where they aš were taken. Ktč (LKT 167). To be fittings, you don't ka need to tie — va then it would be a living thing. (LKT 164). In Lithuanian, there are reduplicatively formed particles and adverbs with a repeated demonstrative root. The su stem consonant remains the same in both parts, the vowels can change. o For example: : 16 Iš here abbreviated but. That but is not beti iš (yes says J. Otrebski 1956: 360), shows the Dzukian su but iSlaikytu healthy 7 (Zinkevičius 1966: 436). 77 2) Derivatives su -ja, -ia: anxiety "he" (O ansja himself raised and went home with his own. Ch Mt 9, 7; kiekaja “how much” Lel (see section 4.4). How 28); much is that? * "same, the same" Ds, Skp (for more information, see 18); cup "as well, the same, just, with that beginning, that already, so, so much, as" (Anas tasia educated. Dgč. So I'll go. aš Tasia march will be. Up. Put your ir written letter in an envelope and send — it. Pnd. Tasia ką gives me — ar chicken, ar cock. Ds. Tasia (=that you have already) started, ir then stop. Tvr. Tasia ėjus, tasia nėjus. Rz. Tasia paritus, tasia pastačius (fat man). I'm sorry. Ir from Dust, we're ir miles away. Smal. The mercenary is a bird of God: wherever he went, he fell flat. Balt PV 1152. Jį ar I'm not ar sure. I'm — not sure. Yes, I do. That's the same horse we're riding. Ds); Tapes ‘teip’ Ds; tiekaja ‘as much’ Ut (Zr. tieka vis 28); toja "the same, the same" Ds, Slk (becauseZr. 31)*. 3) Derivatives su -ja-, -ia-: kayak "something" SD 121 (because of Zr. 22). In old writings -ja-g(i), -ia-g(i) is added as a postposition to the demonstrative pronouns tas, -a, anas, -a ir kt all the funny, e.g. : Tasiag time DP 27; tamejag kine DP 584; tieiag the same joints ižg DP 8; thosejag edges DP 59; su Tajagi merga DK 20; anosiag days (vn. kilm.) DP 268; similar output of DP 33. Form ka 21. Form ka < *q%o used in Lithuanian dialects as a conjunct meaningme "that" ir as a particle, e.g. : It's too ka sweet for me, it doesn't taste anymore. Pd. Aš I told you, it's ka raining outside. Jrb. Ka You don't listen, so aš I'll peel it. Grz. The thief ka robs, the walls are left, the fire vo visits ka nothing — to bleek. Plt. Svotuky little one, you got a lot of fat? — Ni ka daugel, ni ka too little. JV 536 (LKŽ V 8). Conjunction used in Latvian literary language ka ‘that’, which A. Bielenstein (1863 : 396) ir J. The name (1951: 541) also refers to the family of the same name. ward.-gal. form corresponding to pr. Fuck you. The form ka of the genitive pronoun function is given P. Ruhigo (1747 : i 57): Ka What's going on? “What was that?” It's ar unclear, ka there's a real one ar here, just a proofreading error instead of what. E. Nieminenas (1922: 50) -ka explains as a form of an anonymous genus M. Daukšos Nothing in the form of a postill: Nes'! tatdi bilot ner’ niéka kito tiektdi W. Chriftų pramint piemenimi, bet famdinįkū In ne this example, nieka may (208). be a proofreading error instead of vyr. g. vn. ward. nobody, cf. otherwise used nér nothing else: moterifte nothing else, nė ft tiektdi... DP 69. wifsos noodles... nę est no one else... DP 8. What no one else ner' tiektay meldy regimieii. DP 59. Plg. in the positive sentence vn. ward. otherwise: Now yr something else. DP 9; vn. gal. ką kito: death... ką other things. DP 30. In the position of the adjective, the form of the infinitive genitive nika is preserved in dialects in certain sentences, e.g. : It's nothing. Please. If it were the chief. g. vn. gal. form, would be instead of the rear -a eastern highlander long -# iš tautosyllabic - One. 21 These forms - Yeah. K. Būga (1961: 448) also leads to the pronoun iš root *yo-, as noun- *tic ir adjectives - Yeah. (drying out). 22 All of the (1969: 14) characters, su including the main character, are in the form of a single-word verbs. 28 7. Zinkevičius (1966: 438) let. ka time summarized from that kat ar position before 7; "E. Hermannas (1912: 76, 79) lat. ka identifies lit. su and (from exp. date-place. ). 84 22. Su particle in the ka same way as that, ja, is made up of various su compound forms, which also usually go with particles, conjunctions, adverbs, sometimes pronouns. a) Like then (see section 4.4). 18), the same deeds are when (abbreviated kad) and variants: jo kadai Ds, Svn, kaddi Kv, Pgr, plg. kadai kas, kadai kada, kadai kadė, kadai kadziy etc. ir (LKZ V 41). Plg. still the to same squad kaddise DKS, juniper Ktv ir ju Variants: kaddinc Brsl, kaddis Mrp, kaddis¢ia Rdm, kadais¢ia Vdš kt. ir Probably the same relatives are the kadamngi ir (with subheading -gi) ir jo variants: since DP 225, kadangel MT 98 (for cf. -1 tol, tole, toleg, see 31). b) Old structures of the same species are probably particles of hemp Uv can ir (particle ka su particletémis na, no), e.g. : I've written the words, my dear. TDr IV 2. She began to sew the finest drapery of kana. Tvr, plg.: kana kada, kana kaip, kana kas, kana keli, etc. LKZ V 193. Half kane (=kone) I said the word, he ir understood. J. Where did you grow up, my daughter, kané (=that not) with your mother? Ds, e.g.: kane kas, kane koks, -ia and others. LKZ V 207. Plg. more of the same meaning kayak SD 121 (su - place -na-, -ne-, zr. 20) ir kono, Zr. 33. The corresponding derivatives are s. ind. kd$ cana, kad cana (Specht 1932: 271)%. c) Like i$ when it is made up as, so ka probably makes up kap “as”, used in many dialects (Zt, Nč, Vrn, Brt, Tvr, Vlkv), e.g. : Where does your brother live? Klvr. If you're with me, I'm with you. Lp. Pg. tep (39), teip (47), keip (51). He was born into a noble family. ward.-gal. *ka < *g“od su postposition -po J. Schmidtas (1889: 230)? *, d) With the same form -kay is formed in the old scriptures: anskat „antei“ (Anskat came to Sunamitienė, BB 2 Kings 4, 25); taskat “here” (Taskat is your son. MZ 447); See t. p.’ BP I 84. 1961: 448; 1958: 447) also distinguishes -kain this type of derivatives: tas- -ka-t, šis-ka-t, ans-ka-t- *?. See also the same type of constructs: taskajau, takajau „,tasiau, tajau“ N, tankajėg (We now eat tankajėg, we do not sell anything (= we make as much as we eat). Erz. Form ana 23. Form ana (< *ono) occurs as a particle function, e.g. : There, on the hill, there is a small house. Al. Anna, she's coming! Lp. With an(a) is formed a plural of particles, e.g.: anakur “anyway where” Vlkv, Kt, Gs (Seeks, does not see —anakur, take Grz); anava "antai" Gs, Ilg (Anava ta Saké. Kps); anavé ‘t. p.’ (Anavé and he comes. Gs); anavat,,- antai, aure“ (Anavat da he here will teach me! Gs); anauré “here, for example where” (Anauré when I went to the neighbor- ’s house, that it started to rain! Sd. Anauré where our horses are. Jz); anauriai ‘t. p.’ Jnšk; anaiiriais- ,,t. p.’ Jnsk. Form this 24. The form šia (< *ko) occurs in dialects and old writings as an adverb meaning "here", e.g. : Go this way. Grl (LB 219). Sudiev, boy, give me this ring. JD 558. Give me this. I'm sorry. g 24 F, Spechtas considers kana (s. ind. cana) to have originated from vn. of the inner thigh. E. Fraenkelis (1935: 54 et seq.) criticizes the connection of these forms with vn. innagininku and lit. kana kas, denying the connection of this form with s. ind. kds$ cana, leads from vn. i.e. Zinkevičius (1966: 439). 25 E.g., the traditional interpretation that kap may have been irregularly abbreviated from kā (Nieminen 1922: 24; Otrebski 1934: 452 etc.; Skardžius 1937: 212; Fraenkel 1962: 199; Zinkevičius 1966: 411). 26 J. Endzelynas (1911: 291) distinguishes -skat in these derivatives, linking it to the Latin skatit. 85 In this case, it is the faith that strengthens. DP 550. Climb up this staircase. BB 2 Mos 24, 1. This one. SD 236. Put your finger in your this. House 68. Apparently, here and here differed in meaning in the past, because they are used together, e.g. : When the king's letter arrived, the bishop atpešė this here pieces, or šmotus, wealth rods. ValZ 114. With this there are compound adverbs and prepositions, e.g.: šiada Km, Ds, Krš (see then, when); Siadai MZ; šialinkiaū (Their beets were sown in šialinkiaū. Jnš); šišia „šičia“ (Got šišia through the hip. V1. That's where she is. R102. There is nothing else but the house of God, and this is the door (opening, gate) of heaven. BB 1 Mos 28, The finished form 17). This form, unlike other -a forms with the root of demonstrative pronouns, occurs in the eastern Highland dialects as a pronoun of the genitive of the infinitive, e.g. : I didn't know anything about this. Kp. I couldn't get out of the bakery with this. BsP II 219. Form here 26. The form here (< *tio) is used as an adverb and as a particle and repetitive conjunction, e.g. :: it was helped. Please. What happened here? Alif Lam Mim. Like a well of water: draw here, here is full. Lp. E.g. here with various postpositional particles: here too (Iz here too many such. DP 510); ciajau (Veselija already ciajau. Nm); hereinafter Kp; chaandi Ynk (Put the chaandi money. Er); Chianaikos Grv; Chinese Krd; Er cyanide; Rdm of chianites; Chinaya (Chianaya ghanensis Marc.); chianūjonais Jnšk; iandjos Er. (For the particle na, nai see 53.) With here is made icja (see itas, -a), e.g. : Itos viesnelés ičia nebūna. DgIS. Form goes 27. As in other ideas. in other languages, so also Lithuanian va (< *vo) has only the meaning of a demonstrative particle (cf. sk. va, i-va, rus. 3 -ba, serb. ė-vo, see Būga 1959: 46— 47). See also particles formed with va: vagi Skp, vakur Skp, varékur Tvr, anava, Gs (for reference 23). In dialects, the particle va is often added to demonstrative pronouns: va tas, va ta, va šitas, va šita, etc. 28. In addition to the above, in Lithuanian language with the same formant -a is also used: tieka;,tiek“ (Man tai tieka pernius į sieną bert, tieka poterius kalbėt. Grz. Delto naktis tieka šalta. Ds, cf. vis tieka Ds) and forms formed with it: tiekaja (I work with tiekaja, like Bronius. Ut) (for -ja see 20); vis tiekaja (Vistiekaja we still horses exchange. Sdk); tiekajau (Other unsuccessful gaspadoriai tiekajau there gano. Don). kieka „how much“ (How much money did you give me? Slm) and the form formed with it: kiekaja (How many eggs did the hens lay? Lel.). katra: katra kadė „kažkiek“ (I already had katra k ad é, as pancakes in my mouth. 414) (p. what „how, what“ (What is here now door, that creaks. Trgn. What happened to you that you started whistling? Trgn. I don't know what's out there. Skr. different “otherwise” (To turn it into something different, the manors are gathered again. Skr.). 86 unified “so far” Lz, cf. katra (In our case it is single, —jaunikis or jaunas. Two). 29. All the above forms with the formant -g are pure roots of demonstrative, relative-- interrogative and other pronouns. As can be seen from the examples, these forms are usually used as particles, conjunctions, adverbs. The function of the pronouns of the infinitive form -a is not characteristic. Of all the demonstrative pronouns, only the form šita has the function of an infinitive genus in individual dialects, where šiti is used next to it. In addition, with the formant -d are widely used forms of adjectives close to adjectives of non-noun pronouns all, one, another. *" Somewhat close to the pronouns of the singular gender are the forms taja, tasia, toja, tavien, "the same, as well", kokia "as, what". But the meaning of these forms only approaches the meaning of the pronouns of the genitive only in a certain context, so the meaning is contextual. Until now, many of the raised forms of demonstrative and questioning-relative pronouns with the formant -a have been treated as consolidated forms of pronouns of the unspecified genus, but they hardly ever had the function of pronouns of the unspecified genus at all. The function of a connecting particle or adverb was probably old for these forms. Among other things, this is confirmed by the many compound forms, the constituent elements of which are the forms mentioned. Only by treating them as connecting particles or adverbs from ancient times, it is possible to reasonably explain the construction of the raised compound forms (tada, kada, šiada, nors, kadangi, ant, bet, kana, anskat, tdja, tasia, toja, etc.). The origins of word formation of this type are probably more ancient than the formation of adverbial verbs (infinitive, iliative), with which some of the above mentioned forms were associated. For example, the particle kana probably does not come from the iliative, but the iliative itself can be formed with the same particle -n(a), e.g.: miška-n(a), galva-n(a), žemė-n(a), pili-n(a) and so on. * FORMS WITH FORMANTU -o Form to 30. In Lithuanian dialects the form to (< *#d with extended -4 as bev. g. dg. vard.-gal. *-4) occurs. The change of the short *-o, as well as *-i, *-u (ideologically unsubstantiated genus roots) and the long *-4, as well as *-i, *-ū (ideologically collective meaning roots) is of Indo-European origin (Kurytowicz 1968: 315). It has long been stated that bev. g. dg. ward.-gal. *-d is preserved in Lithuanian in individual words, e.g.: namo, namon (Dunsenmub 1916: 300), ko-ks, to-ks, jo-ks, viso-ks, etc. (Meillet 1902 /5: 329; Stang 1970: 20), keturiolika... devyniasdešimt (Mažiulis 1965: 620) and others. The form of this used particle function is the same as fa, e.g. : Anna seems to want to marry him. J. That's how you got up this morning. Jrb. However, unlike ta, the form fo corresponds in some sentences to this and that in the meaning of an indefinite pronoun, although it is also close to an adverb, e.g. : That and yr that you were not. Dglsh. He doesn't care anymore. Please. It's not that: they don't split out of anger. Trgn. Plg. All that one (=all that). Ds. There is also the form tonai (with the postposition -nai): One only is evil on the light, and tonai is this Greek. SD 133. Plg. lat. to: Kad es to būtu finajis,,- wenn ich das gewusst hūtte“ (Bilenstein 1863: 399). 31. With this there are compound forms, formed in the same way as with that. Usually, such compound forms go with adverbs. For example:?7 Without wanting to deviate from the subject, this article does not touch on the whole, one, or other use of forms. *8 Old writings pn. it. name-ne next to name-na can also be with the parallel particle -ne, cf. 38 etc. (Plg. Zinkevičius 1966: 213.) 87 with that "so much, so much, so much" (Toja štazda šersi, toja pagaliu, vse to isto sopenje. Ds. That length, that diameter. Ds. I've been waiting for that for a long time. Out. His grandmother was angry. Out. I heard about it. Nmč (Ball). So da not tėja (=not anyway)? St. (Bug). It's still a little bit of Lithuanian. Aps. You can talk as much as you want, I don't care. Ktk. I'm still struggling with it. Out. It's the same whether you take me to town today or tomorrow. Ds (for -see 20); tojag "as well" (tojag mokę est (Cyprion, Origen). DP 540); group Gs; edit; uniform, -i; Topaliovos (Topaliovos barasi. Tat); tétieko „vis tik“ (When the oats are already swallowing, they will suris me totieko. Tvr); totiekos „tik“ (First you didn’t, then now you won’t get totiekos. Ds); tovienio „,dažnai“ (He comes to Kazlų Rūda tovienio. KzR). This type of construction also includes tél, 16!’ (also kol, kél’, soil, soil) and their variants: t0lei Nm; in winter Nm, Rm, in winter Tvr; until winter PnmŽ; télig Grl. They will be formed from a particle £f0*? and particles -le, -li, -lei, cf. lat. lai „go“, lit. a-lidi vienas, namė-lei, namé-lio, li-gi (Būga F 7-2: 31-40). The possible object, not the originator, but the particle ro is in the derivatives tegento, delto * "but, nevertheless". The variants with -tai(s) instead of -to would also show that it is not the origin: dėltai Rm, deltai Skp, Dsn, dėltais Er. In this case, the first element of dėl-, del-(also the prepositional dél, del, cf. variants dėlei Pgg, deleig DP 328, dėles BB1Moz 38, 29, delgi Ds, delia KN 19, delig DP 315; LKŽ II 390 etc.) should be associated with the anaphoric pronoun *do | *de (e.g. din, digi, delli TonopoB 1975: 327, 335, 341 etc.), as mentioned above ta-da, ka-da (see 18), and with the inclined particle -lei, -le, «li, lat. lai (as in tol, tolei), which in many languages had a posesyving meaning (cf. het. app-el-, sound. -li (adverbs with -/i as a substitute for the genitive) TonoposB 1975: 327). The same form is also without -/, e.g.: jos dé "because of her" Jrk 44 (Zinkevičius 1966: 393), cf. also kod "why" J, Rs, Trs, kodé Skr, Jrb, kédé Klvr, Dkš, kėdi Kair (LKZ VI 285 et seq.), déké,,dél ko" End, Sint (LKZ II 388), hardly abbreviations, cf. also without -I formant Latin labad,,dél* (because of the latter, cf. lit. vislab "everything" from visa laba), cf. also vice versa —adjective without de-, désu -I’, e.g.: kol’, "why". In Lithuanian, there are more forms that have the functions of part and preposition together, e.g. be (Be nesergi? and be jo), ant (Ant ir atjoja šimtas brolelių (d.) ir ant stalo) and so on.*? On the other hand, later, from the preposition dä/, del and its controlled noun could form dél to, del to, because, todel (also because of what, why, kodel). In addition, corresponding verbs with the same formant -o (* < di) exist in more forms from the roots of demonstrative and interrogative-relative pronouns. Form ko 32. The form ko (< *qua) is used as a particle or a conjunction, e.g.: And I, luckily, won. Jrk 36. What a goodness! Ds. Choose the best rake. Kt. Hungry birds often uZlenda pesli za očima and, co (= instead of sharing with the birds, eat everything themselves. Blv. (Ibid., pp. 279). , 33. A particle of what forms with other particles broken particles or adverbs, e.g.: konė „vai ne“ Erž (Pamatė, atlek beždžionė, bent jau kaip marelė didumo. BM 156); kono (Plant a garden with the most dense kono. TZ I 209; cf. kana 22 b); kotik,,va ne“ (I didn’t cut your leg. Kair); 29 That this type of structure f0is bev. g. dg. ward.-gal. *-¢rd see. Stang (1970: 19). Plg. Zinkevičius (1966: 125), that tél until can be reduced from because, why. 30 Plg, previous lit. dėl, del, lat. dé], s. sl. dėlja, dėljoma „,dėl“ interpretations, associating them with nouns and adjectives: s. sl. dėlo, lit. art; dėti, padlys (Qunzeanns 1905 | 6: 82—83, Berneker 1908: 195—196, Trautmann 1923: 48, Walde 1930: 829, Pokorny 1949: 238, Fraenkel 1962: 87, ®acmep 1964: 497). In this case, the unsuccessful interpretations of the final forms -ei, -i, -e as noun endings always remained. 88 little “just, kotik” Pc; neko „negu“ (Son writes better than é tėvas. Kv); néko „sword” (Néko to herself that girl. Ykš); nobody (nobody's man (= half the trouble) Skp). In the same way as tél, tél’ (see 31), kél is formed “until some time” with its variants: kdla Krok; Kola Prng; kėlaig Zt; when Vvs; their blade Lz; time lag Zt; kolak Žž; round CZK; colleague J; you have Vikv; Mrk college; railway Švnč:; koleik Rm: koleis Skr; Ar collector; kélik J, koldi J, § (LkZ VI 313); as well as until" "because" Mrs, Skdt, Trgn, Ut; kél’gi ‘t. p.’ Out, Rk, JZ. Form of this 34. Similarly to fo, in the same dialects a function close to the j-noun of this infinitive genus occurs, e.g. : This is why they are not going anywhere: they have nothing to wear. Trgn. One's troubles, another- 's troubles: that's how the mochi ends. Trgn. This and yr that they do not know. I'm sorry. With the form šito and the particles -/ai, -lei are made the adverbs šitol, Sitol’ Skp; šitolai, šitolei “until that time, until that place” (Šitolai išgerk (until that place). Ds. Oh, you haven't eaten so far! Kps). Form in 35. The form vo (< *va) is used as a particle, e.g. : What's up there? Ds. There is an ana vo (store). Rtn. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Dsn. This is why Trakai has been famous to us since ancient times, because the kings of our fathers lived here. Gmž. With vo is made: vogi (Atbégo vogi basi. Sch 67); troops Kv; also a particle barely. 36. corresponding forms of other pronouns with the formant -o can be found in various compounds, which are also used as particles, conjunctions, adverbs. For example: :; Ja < *ia): jolygus, -i „tolygus“ (Sergėkitės jolygios palaidos. Rp (LKŽ IV 355). With it is also most likely formed the conjunction jdg, which is also used as a particle, e.g. : I am not thrown out of the trunk either. M. Plg. jog variants: jégei BM 87; jogeis J; Jogel Val (LKŽ IV 352). It is also thought to have come from the pronoun root *jotaip J. Endzelynas (1957: ano-(< *ona): anot with its variants: andte K; marked K; seasonal Trgn, Lkm; andts Mrs. 229)32, this-(< *ka): so far, so far", Siolai Skp; šišio „„Šičia“ (: Now da šišio I will have a job. Jrk 138. šišiontės ‘t. p.’’ Dov; shish kebab, etc. p.’ Jdr; plg. the noun šišioks, -ia Slnt; This one, -ia Als. čio-(< *tja): čion "here" (If there is no place, sit down, Gs); here Brsl, Skp; chiond Gs; where K is where: Š hereinafter DP 384; hereinafter Lz; thiodine Lkm; VD 358; GZ, Brt; this Rod; Sd; hereinafter Svnč; chiontais Klp; chioni Str; chionuis Sil; Here you are, Vlkv. 37. The above-mentioned forms with the formant -o are the extended roots of demonstrative and relative pronouns (*-4). As with the forms with the formant -a, the forms with -0 are usually used as particles, conjunctions, adverbs. The name of the family is derived from this. *1 That vo is not a Slavic loanword and belongs to the demonstrative pronoun root *vas „anas“ see. 1959: 46–47; 1961: 826). 1962) 1919 – George W. Bush, U.S. President (d. nobleman (from origin ablative) or noblewoman. 89 Forms with the formative -o, like the above-mentioned forms with the formative -a, probably had particle or adverb meanings from ancient times. Their coincidence with the nobleman is formal. The function of the particle of the formant -o derivatives could have been from the period when neither the original itself was formed, when the formant -o forms were combined with other particles or independent words, various compound particles, conjunctions, adverbs were formed. The following words probably also belong to this type of construction: tél, tol’, amíg, amíg, eddig, ez", šitol, Sitol’, delto, azért, „anyway, but“, hogy, csak, itt, stb. FORM SU FORMANTU -e Form te 38. In Lithuanian, the particle fe (giving ka) is used quite widely, e.g. : Dad — take it. Ms. Daddy, if you want. Lp. That's it. Dv. Here, hold the horse, here, hold the horseshoes. JD 445. So this and this... take it. LB 183. In addition, fepride is used as a prefix corresponding to initial particles in permissive forms, such as tėneša. The same form may be found in the dialects of Panevėžys and nearby dialects fe, fe, ti (short vowels, narrowing increases from north to south), if the latter are not phonetically derived from to, tei (aut. 1977: 60 —62). In their use, fe, te, ti in Panevėžys completely correspond to the particles and conjunctions to, to, to, to, e.g. : Well, I was there for three years. 239 (Lt. Col.) But my father, they said, was bitten (by a snake). Bsg (LKT 219). I'm afraid of those bulls. (1599). The corresponding form is in Latvian, e.g. : Here it is! To now at! so iss, so spirit. Behold, there were seven sisters to you. Here you are, driving through the house. LV IV 151. It has been a long time since I've been in contact with him. *to | *te (Brugmann 1911: 346); also associated with the root of this pronoun in the fepermissive forms (Būga F 7—2: 32; HBanoB 1965: 233). The same origins would also be found in the forms mentioned by the people of Panevėžys and the Latvian te (Endzelin 1922: 478). It is possible that the White te has preserved the *to | *te stem *e vocalism. 1970) 1920 – Ko-I: ke-li, Chinese poet (d. 39. Fe is used to form compound words, mostly particles, e.g.: tegi “let” (Tegi pokaz to prajevais, DP 205); tejau „that’s it“ (Tejaii yes, better to die than to lie in bed for a year. Pvn (VitZ 394); teté "te imkit" Dglš (repeated te-tfe); plg. tękit „take“ (take these apples, etc.). Note K (abbreviated as anot, see 36); first “first” Sv (Būga F 7—2: 60); net ‘met’ PK 98, DP 416 (abbreviated net, cf. net, see 18). As from this is made so, so from te can be made rep "yes", used in many dialects (Lp, Dkš, Brt, Krt, Azr, Pns). Fečiau (Jabl RR I 536) with *e vowelism (cf. Zinkevičius 1966: 441) is also a member of this group. * The root te from the forms fep, tečiau also distinguishes F. Spechtas (1932: 270)%3, In addition to the form fe, there are more forms with the same formant -e from the roots of demonstrative and relative pronouns. | Form 40. The form še (< *ke), like te, is used as a particle when giving something. For example: : Here you go. Sk. Here's something else I brought. Vjg. Here's something. Yks. That's how they're doing now. Psh. Here's what you want! Why didn't you tell me first?! Alif Lam Mim. Šė kad nori, sugrįžo 3 P. Skardžius (1937: 212), according to him also E. Fraenkelis (1962: 1051) explains the rep form (as well as kap, see 22°) by abbreviation via #ép from feip, and the latter from tak. 90 . Without anything. Please. This year we said that when the summer comes, it will be baked, and now we are about to freeze. Slm. Here you go, dog, nine. Kp. The phrases Še and te are formed from Šete "imkit" Vlkv, Dglš. E.g., „take“ („take, children, a cake“); eik-she, eik-she-nai Skp (abbreviated Sen); go-she-she-kita Jrb. Form of Shite 41. The form šite is known as a particle and as an adverb (see šitei, see 49). Pyz. : This rope, we'll tie him up. Arm. Here is Abraham hanging with Sarah his wife. BB 1 Mos 25. From a small shite (=this way) used. Dglsh. When did you lose this riot? Sld. You're late, Site? Aps. Plg. šiteva (Siteva is standing in awe. Step). Form ite 42. Form ite (plg. itas, -d) used as Site adverb function, e.g. : Can I get a stove? A ite, a va it. OG 428. We often get hurt. Ad. Form ve 43. Be wa, wo, vei, there is a smaller part of ve, e.g.: I've been there Ve for four weeks. — Jd. Vė like a dog Rope. St. Vė this master of the road. Brt. Vė Look at į me. LK. This way, this way, da ir ve as they sow poppy seeds. (d.) Kps. Pg.: anavė ( There he ir comes. Gs); again Ms. 44. Su control -e has forms iš *is a stone, e.g., postpositiosu nal particle -g-: force Ds, Ppl, force VI, Sauk (Zinkevičius 1966: 437). Su -it's made up of a particle, by the way. The same action as tep is still visép Sn (Big). 45. The above form controllisu ng -e indicates that, be *o (forms of *4) prolonged vocalism, are preserved in Lithuanian language particles, adverbs, conjunctions vocalism. ir su *e These forms are explained by analogy with the correspond- *o ing forms of vocalism (tep by teip so) can't. ir FORMS SU FORMANTU - No. Fei Shape 46. Ta with the same function as this, the form tei is used in ir individual dialects in ancient writings. Ne everywhere this form can be identified tei. Somewhere ji phonetically has occurred this iš (see section 4.4). Nieminen 1922: 35; In some 1968: 114; 1975: 26, 60). Be places, such as the northern and central parts of the United States, it is used as a place name. These dialects ir probably do not have this identifiable tei ji iš ir (see section 4.4). Vitkauskas 1976: 394). The form tei(p) considers different from it(p) also E. Nieminenas (1922: 41), F. Spechtas (1924: 48—53), Chr. S. Stangas (1966: 287). The corresponding forms are lat. tei-tan ‘here’, pr. tei-nu ‘now’. R. Trautmannas (1910: 447) ir Vondrakas (1928: 462) compares liet. tea su s. sl. you, got. Pei. Tei is probably composed as this vn. su loc. -i (Endzelin 1922: 467 — 468). E. Nieminenas ir Chr. S. This is the form of *to | *te 91 trunk vn. lokatyvu, o F. Spechtas —*tjokamieno vn. location. It is possible that the whites next to *-4 | *e trunk vn. of the locative it, was and *o | *e of the stem vn. locative tei (with *e vowel). The form tei, like to, usually serves as a particle and a conjunction in dialects. Muna cow gives you a lot of milk. Klm. (LKT 107). I'm telling you, take the onions and eat them whole. Vg. And you don't all come to him to fuck. Pgg. He's better than hell, we can live together. Rdn (LKT 74). I asked my mom to offer me a shirt as soon as possible. Stack. The i form also occurs as an adverb meaning "yes", e.g. : Who's going to go so far? Vjg. A day here, a day there, a day there, you live, and well. Jrb. 47. As from this is formed so, from te —tep, so from tei is formed teip®®, used in many dialects (cf.: Ape tay teyp Diewas bilo. SP I 151), cf. teipoja Ds (for -ja see 20); plg. still teijau (The second year again teijau did. Jrk). There are more forms of the same verbs as tei from the roots of demonstrative, questioning, relative and other pronouns. Form if 48. The forms of the verbs are: 1) I'm in the house. a locality (Fraenkel 1962: 192). This form has become the function of the switch in Lithuanian literary language. See variants with postpositional particles -b-, -g-: jėib35 Grl; jeib LB 48; këba KzR, Rm; jeiba Kp; jeibé S; jeibeg Mz 187; jëben KlvrZ; jeibént BZ 468; jëbent Grg; Kébéentais Sint; jéibo Sd; jéibom Grz; jëbos Grž; kbu Pc; kn3k; cf. jeib what Kv, jeib how Uzv, jeib where Dauk; jeibi if J; jeig Vaizg; K, Kps; jeigum Skp; LKZ IV 336-337). The word is used in the same way as in the English word "like" or "likes". : I live like other people. Kv. He's the same as you. Angry. With the same form if formed: jėik (Jéik swept the grain. Slv); jekiekvienas, -a Slv (see aliai vienas, -a); jeiné „maybe“ (You have to go jeinė paveizėti, what there yr. Pln). Form šitei 49, Form šitei is used in some eastern Highland dialects as an adverb, e.g.i It wasn't like this before, was it? Smal. Don't wear this, you'll freeze. Ds. Where you're not sick, this one works. Myth. From šitei is formed šiteip, cf. more forms with -eip(os) (see 51). Shape way 50. In addition to va, vo, ve, there is also the particle véi Grl, K, MZ 439, SD 7, BūgRR I 328; 11 46; III 817. For example: : Hey, people, you're the ones who work. RD 189. But see what he did. Dauk. What is this? I, 65. Well, grandchild, look, there's a fighting pijokq. LB 171. You've got such a great mouthpiece... no, Mr. Doctor (I got it). BsP I 87. 51. With the formant -ei(p-) there are also the following forms: keip, keipds Kp; kiteip Alv; kiteipé Bt Mr 9, 29; kiteipds Ds, Skp (LKZ V 904); anei ‘mei’ Gr, Vb; aneip Grg; 3 Cf. the traditional opinion that teip from so according to so (Leskien 1919: 176; Būga 1958: 102; Skardžius 1937: 212; Fraenkel 1962: 1051; Zinkevičius 1966: 411). This analogy has already been previously pointed out as doubtful, because it is used less often than teip (Nieminen 1922: 28-29; Stang 1966: 287). 35 On the option if-b Zr. Stang (1970: 153). 92 vis-à-vis Šts; vienip (Zinkevičius 1966: 411). For example, if (s) "as well" as "as well as". Forms Sei, Seip = this way, that way, See 15, 16. As the material shows, next to the forms with the formant -agi, there are forms with the formant -ei, just as next to the forms with the formant -a there are forms with the formant -e. Thus the forms teip, keip, etc., which were derived from so, as, etc., must be regarded as parallel verbs. Postpositional particle -ei, added to various forms of pronouns (ašei), eastern Altay Utenians as nominative adjectives vyr. g. vn. ward. formant (gerasei), also probably unprocessed from -ai (ašei after tujei), but also parallel verbs next to -ai, cf. also particle -nai (see 53). Forms with the formative -ei also usually have the functions of a particle, a conjunction, an adverb. 53. The material presented shows that in Lithuanian there were parallel forms with the formants -ai, -a, -e, -ei from the demonstrative and questioning-relative, and sometimes also other pronoun roots (tai, ta, to, te, tei; šitai, šita, šito, Site, §itei, etc.). In the past, they had the function of a particle and a conjunction or adverb. Some of these forms have also acquired the function of a pronoun of an anonymous family. The same works are probably the particles: na, no, ne, nei and ba, bo, be, bei. Partlyté -nai is now usually interpreted as a generalization of those laying forms that had -n (vn. gal., vn. in., dg. kilm.) + ai. The beginning of this interpretation was given by P. Arumaa (1933: 13 et seq.). Other particles -na, -no are then interpreted as -nai processing (Zinkevičius 1966: 432 et seq.). However, parallel derivatives with -na, -no next to derivatives with -nai and derivatives with two particles indicate that -no, -na next to -nai will most likely be independent parallel particles with the above-mentioned formants. cia-nai, cia-nai-no-s, cia-na-ja, cia-na-jo-nai-s; Chio-nai, Chio-nai-no-s, Chio-nai-s, Chio-na-ya and others. Formant -s Added here according to the forms of other adverbs (see Ulvydas 1974:17—18). The other forms of the pronoun are: vn. ward. jisai-no, jisai-no-s, jisai-nainos; GENERAL REMARKS The pronoun to and the particle and the conjunction to of the infinitive genus are closely related in their functions and may have the same origin. The form tai is proto-Baltic, probably evolved from *tai (the collective root *t3-| *tesu vardaZodine vn. lok. ending -i). With the same formant -gi, other noun forms are used as adverbs and particles: anai, kai, šiai, kiekai, tiekai, visai, vienai, kitai, etc. Only later, unlike adjective adverbs, the postposition -p(o-s) was added to these forms: anaip(o-s), kaip(o-s), etc. In addition to the function of a pronoun in the nominative and adjective positions, the formant -ai could also be added to the senior g. vn. ward. fas-ai (according to the latter to the nominative adjectives of the corresponding verb gėrasai) and other forms, as well as in the mot. g. paradigm. Similarly, according to that, that, that, that, that, of which - pure part of the stem, were formed forms with a generalized particle -that: this-that, that-that, that-that, that-that; an-that, sh-that, how-that, so-that, etc. All of them, except for the last three, have the meaning of an anonymous pronoun. From the same roots of demonstrative and question-relative pronouns forms with vowel forms -a, -o, -e (ta, to, te; šita, šito, Site, etc.) are formed, which are probably pure roots: -a < *-0; -0 < *-g (elongated stem as in verb g. dg. noun-final *-4, Latin loca next to loci), -e < *-e (probably retained *e vowelism). These forms are adverbs and particles from ancient times. Only some of them have the meaning of a pronoun of an impersonal genus (this, that, that). The form ta in Lithuanian language has not developed the function of a pronoun of the genitive of the genitive, it has been a connecting particle since ancient times (cf. Hittite ta-). 93