Dėl įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių raidos

XVIII (1978) Z. ZINKEVICIUS DEL IVARDZIUOTINIU BUDVARDZIU RAIDOS In 1957, the author of this article published a work on the history of nominative adjectives in Lithuanian (the Russian translation was published in 1958). Since then, a couple of decades have passed, during which a considerable amount of new data has been accumulated, allowing some ideas to be further developed, this and that to be clarified. That is what this article is about. Let's start with the determination of the time when an adjective and a pronoun grow into one compound word. This is a rather complicated and difficult issue. The nominative adjectives of the Lithuanian language have retained a distinct primitive construction to this day: there are still compound words, both elements of which have their own endings, not differing or not differing until relatively recently from the corresponding inflection of the ordinary adjective and pronoun it. This can be seen from the following examples (in addition to the common language forms, older dialects or equivalents of language monuments are indicated): gerdsis = good + (j)is gen. gėrojo = good + his dat. gerdjam, gerdmjam, geramujam = gerdm < geramū(i) +jaūm< jamu(i) acc. gėrybę = good + him instr. geruoju, geruojuo = good < *geruo + jud loc. gerūjame, geramjame, geramėjame = good < *geramę + jamė < < *jamė Plural nom. good, good = good < *good + it gen. goodjjy = good + their dat. good, good for, good for you = good < good for you + you < you acc. geruosiuos = good < *geriios + juos instr. gerisiais, gerisjais = good + jais loc. gerudsiuose, geruos¢juose = geruosé < < *geruos¢ + juosė < *juos¢ Dual noun-acc. (du) geruoju, gerūojuo = (du) gerū < *gerūo + jūo(du) dat. (two) goods, goods = (two) goods + jiem(dviem) instr, (two) goods, goods = (two) goods + jīm(dviem) 7% 99 PARADIGMA OF THE FEMININE RELATIONSHIP Singular nom. gerdji < gerdji = good < *gerd + ji < ji gen. gerosios, gerdsjos = gerds + jos dat. gėrai, gėrajai = good + her acc. 良い = good + 彼女 instr. 良い = good < *良い + 彼女 < *彼女 loc. 良い = good < *良い + 彼女 < *彼女 Plural nom. gėrosios, gėrosjos = good + her gen. geriįįjų = good+her dat. gerosioms, geromsioms, geromusiomus = gerdms < geromus + joms < jomus acc. gerdsiomis, gerdmsiomis, *geromasimis = geromis < *geromis + jomis < *jomis loc. gerdsiose, gerosėjose = gerosė < *gerosė + josė < *josė Binomial nom.-acc. (two) good = (two) good < *good + they(two) dat. (dviem) gerėjom, geromjom = (dviem) gerām + jom(dviem) instr. (dviem) gerėjom, geromjom = (dviem) gerém + jom(dviem). In pronoun forms, the postposition is not added at the end of < the compound word, but is repeated ‘after the adjective and pronoun endings, as if these were two separate words, e.g., ad. s.g. m. gerdmpjamp < gerdm-pi + jam-pi, all. s.g. m. geropjop < gerd-pi + jd-pi, f. gerdspjosp < geros-pi + jos-pi, pl. gerumpjump < gerum-pi + jum-pi, etc. The pronoun has grown into a masculine adjective with not an ancient mominaling, but an antring pronominaling f lexicon, e.g., d. sg. gerd(m)jam < geram + jam, d. pl. gerie(m)siems < geriems + jiems, etc. In Slavic languages, the noun is attached to an adjective with a nominal ending, e.g. s. sl. novujemu ‘naujajam’ < novu + + jemu. Thus, the adjective and pronoun had to grow into one word in the Baltic (Lithuanian) and Slavic languages independently and at different times. Their final growth in Lithuanian must have occurred relatively late, because the endings of both substantive adjectives and the adjective and pronoun used separately are still almost not at all distant. The independence of the dots is also shown by the forms of the old writings, such as pa-jo-prasto ‘ordinary’, where the pronoun goes not after the adjective, but before it. But plg. Books of the Church not iokaltoia 258,; < ne-jo-kalto-jo 'he was not guilty' with the pronoun repeated twice. The pronunciation of the final form of the pronoun, vivaja, next to the iliative, gyvénm, seems to indicate that the pronoun grew to the adjective later than the postposition of the iliative, which adhered to the Occitan form of the adjective, cf. Latvian dzivo, dzivu, Russian acusyo, Indian jivam. Thus, the final growth of the dots into one Word probably occurred already after the breakdown of the eastern Baltic linguistic unity. However, in Lithuanian dialects and old writings there are forms of the noun adjective that indicate early growth of the stems, e.g., Kuršių pamario žvejų d. sg. m. geruojdm 'good' (with nominal ending of first person singular, cf. *geruoi + jamuoi), Žemaičių gėruojuo 'good' (cf. vilku 'wolf'), many eastern Highlanders and some Žemaičių d. sg. f. bdltojai “baltajai’ (with preserved stem @ reflex, very:recently found in open syllable, cf. * baltai+ jai), perhaps -100 and the old writings g. pl. geruojų ‘geryju’ (with preserved reflex of the first dot ending *-6/n]) —if only the latter form is not Žemaičių „,dūnininkų“ hypernormalism, because best attested in Žemaičių Mažvydo and Vaišnoro writings!. : The mentioned long-lived forms are to be regarded as relict, inherited from very distant times, as are the pa-jo-plain 'ordinary' or langitjé-- it 'heavenly' type sexes, cf. It's going. *joprepositional usage of the pronoun *jo to nouns ir in the Iranian languages, especially in the Avesta (Reichelt 1909: 370 et al.). All this suggests that the growth of the adjective and pronoun into one word was not a one-time process, but took place gradually and over a very long time. Apparently, from ancient times, the forms of individual vowels or even of the whole paradigm that had grown into one word and the combinations of two words — adjective + pronoun — were used (as adjacent). It was probably a situation similar to the one we have now, for example, when using the doublets greitakėjis || speed of feet (man), kraičvežys || carrying of a coat, gaidykstė < gaidgystė || the time of cock-crowing, twenty || two dozens, eleventh || the first remains of ancient writings, abipus || abejosé pūsėse, nusiprausti || nuplaušyti savė and so on. The pronoun grew into the adjective as an enclitic. As the word grew into one, the phonetic position of the former adjective and pronoun endings changed: the adjective ending was no longer affected by the phonetic laws of the end of the word, but by those of the middle of the word, and the pronoun ending changed not according to the laws of the pronounced monosyllabic word ending, but according to those of the unpronounced polysyllabic word ending. As a result, both elements had to move away from the simple adjective and pronoun it flexion. However, this process was hindered by the example of the ordinary adjective and pronoun he, which often caused the ends of phonetically distant points to be restored to their usual positions. Due to the action of these two opposing forces, there must have been a number of adjacent forms of the same limb, showing the uneven age of the growth of the spots. One of them will survive to this day, cf. d. sg. f. baltai < *baltai + jai and baltai < bdltai + jai. As long as a compound word was used alongside an adjacent combination of two words (an adjective and a pronoun), there could be no talk of closer growth of the elements. Only after the disappearance of the adjacent two-word construction, or rather, after its definitive displacement by the “adult” one-word variant (cf. the replacement of the first remaining compound by the compound word eleventh in the old scripts), the current paradigm of nominative adjectives should have begun to form. But it was still not free from the influence of ordinary adjectives used separately and the pronoun it, which had to prevent, and partly still prevents, the ends of the verbs from moving away from the usual inflection*. When the combination of adjective and pronoun was replaced by the compound Word, we can only guess, we do not have any more precise data. However, the closer growth of the two stems, or the distance of their ends from the usual flexion, probably had to occur late, probably after the breakup of the Eastern Baltic linguistic unity. This closer growth of the points was meant in my work published 20 years ago, where I talked about the late addition of a pronoun to an adjective. The long and complicated process of this growth was not discussed in the work, its early beginning was not emphasized (there are only hints). Most of the talk has been about the end of that process, as if it were a one-off act. This is, of course, inaccurate and adjustable. 1, pg. The hypernormalism of Mažvydo writings (quoted from a photographic publication of 1922) būti 23713 "be", būk 2511, "būk', Nifiunte 164, "nusiuntė", grapūfis 199; 'beautiful', mūs 224, 'us', priegimims 179, "prigimimas", fiedi 220, 'Zydi' and others, alongside the regular forms of "duoninis", e.g., duk 88, "duok", dukem 92,, "lets give", duna 137, 'duona', branguiju 87, 'dear', reifchmeruta Maie ftota 85, 'unmeasured majesty- ', Menu 176,; "mėnuo", Piemu 180, 'piemuo', prapules 256, 'prapuoles', wandu 233; "vanduo" and others. There are even more such examples in Vai$noras,,Zemciuga teolcgiSka*, who came from the Varniai area. * The exception is the modern Žemaičių dialect, which does not have the pronoun jis (use aiis ‘he’, f. ana ji"). In it, nominative adjectives are treated as solid (not composite) Zcdzis, distinguishing from other adjectives in meaning and longer endings (formes vienu smūgiu ilgesnės). 101 In 1972 J. Kazlauskas published an article “The development of nominative adjectives in the Baltic languages”*, in which he, similarly to my work from 1957, understood the growth of adjectives as a one-time act. The only difference is that J. Kazlauskas recorded not the end of this process, but the beginning, therefore the same growth was moved to very old times. One of the methodological assumptions of such behavior was the denial of the influence of the pronoun on the second accent (the influence of the adjective on the development of the first accent is recognized) and the general attempt to replace the dynamic process of growth with a static one. Such an approach cannot be justified because it is contradicted by the actual linguistic data. It is sufficient to point out that even today there are many noun forms in dialects, which clearly show the alignment of accents with ordinary adjectives and pronoun genders, e.g. a) n. sg. m. didisai Svėdasai, Skapiškis ‘great’, baltėsnisei Adūtiškis ‘whiter’ (cf. didis, baltésnis), i. sg. m. geruomsiu* Linkmenys, Daugėliškis 'good' (cf. geruom "good"), loc. sg. f. gerdijoi Gervėčiai "gerojoje' (cf. gerdi "geroje- "), i. pl. f. gerumsiom Šiauliai "gerosiomis' (cf. gerums || gerum "geromis*"), optional pronunciation of Pagramančio šnektas (and at least some of the former East Prussian Lithuanian šnektas) i. sg. m. white “balttioju’ next to good, f. baltąja (bdltainia) “baltąja’ next to gerdja (gerdinia- ), a. pl. m. baltuosius (baltuosius) “baltūosius’ next to good (geriisius), f. baltąsias “baltdsias’ next to good (cf. i. sg. m. baltu next to geri, f. balta next to gera, a. pl. m. baltus next to gerūs, f. baltas next to geras); (b) n.o.s. f. raibéjy Pūnskas ‘raiboji’ (in a folk song, cf. jy ji’), i. sg. m. gerūojuom Daugėliškis “geruoju' (cf. juom “juo’), many western (partly and eastern) Altai i. sg. m. gerūojuo "the good one", n. pl. m. geriejie "the good ones", a. pl. m. geriosiuos "the good ones" (cf. juo, jie, juos), Southern Highlands n.sg.f. Gerdjo "gerji',i. s.g. 2000. pp. 13. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (PDF). "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (PDF). "The Good, the Ugly and the Ugly" (PDF). f. gerdsjos "good", n. pl. f. gėrosjos "good', a. pl. f. gerdsjas “good’, i. pl. m. gerisijais “good’ with optionally retained jote (cf. jos, jas, jais). But plg. "Positioning". ss.gov.sg. 43;,„ < primanėjime ‘in the first’ (next to iimé 519,, < jimė ‘in’). In the end, the accent, usually the second, began to apply not only to the adjective or pronoun, but also to the noun conjugation in general. This is where the dialectal forms such as g. sg. m. skadaiisiaus Padovinis Lt I 260, “skaudžiojo*, i. sg. m. geriiojum Simnas, Kaltanėnai "good" (cf. sūnum < sūnumi), 1. sg. 2000: "The Long Way Home" (feat. m. gėruojuo “good man” (cf. vyru vyrui), n. pl. m. geriejai “good men” (cf. broliai), d. pl. m. geriesiams “good men” (plg. broliams), loc. sg. m. geramėje or geramėjė, geraméjuo “in the good’ (cf. miškė, molė “in the moth”, turguo “in the market’), loc. sg. 1999. pp. 14. "G.E.M.E.- R.S.E.R.S.- E.R.S.E.R.- S.E.R.S.E.- R.S.E.R.S.- E.R.S.E.R.- S.E.R.S.". m. gerd(m)jui gerajam"' (cf. vyrui), eastern Vysoké Tatry Vilniškiai n. pl. m. geriesies || geriesys "gerieji' (cf. akies || ūkys, anies || anys "jie'*) and others. It should be noted that forms of this type are mostly quite new. Only two of them are recorded in ancient writings: d. sg. m. with the ending -ui (e.g., near BrP II 201,53 < near “near’) and loc sg. m. with -amęeęje (e.g., amszinameie MT 10ag “amzinajame”). There are no others at all. It is also possible that the ending -a n. sg. is of this origin. f. in the form improves “good” (cf. good, branch)*, which is now used in the western and eastern parts of the Lithuanian language area, in two non-connecting areas®. But it may also be a deeply ancient archaism (cf. Slavic novaja "new") with the original pronoun ending preserved, cf. Greek f) "kuri', s. indy ya ji, kuri'". The form improves in the old writings, whose authors came from the areas indicated. It is used even by Slavočinski (1646). 3 The author wrote it about 1960—1961 and gave the manuscript to his collaborators to read. The article was not published because of criticism. Published after the author's death. * From geruomju with s instead of ito after m according to d. pl. m. good "good". Plg. d. sg. m. geramsiam "gerajam- ". 5 Zr. Stang 1929: 127; 1966: 273; Gerullis —Stangas 1933: 42. * Areas discussed in more detail in aut. 1966: 288—09. 7 See also. Endzelins 1948: 153 (1957: 139; 1971: 177); Bezzenberger 1877: 156. 102 in the hymnal, although now in the author’s (translator’s) talk about Nemakščiai — Vidūklė there is only the good type (aut. 1974: 165—6). The 16th-century place names in documents collected by J. Sprūgis also show that there were formerly gerdja-type forms in this region, cf. Judes — HHBa B BujtykjieB. Boss. (Cnpornc 1888: 94). In dialects, the form dobraji is generally found where there is a pronoun form ji, and it improves where there is ana ‘ji’ (aut. 1966: 289). So doublets improve || good can be later adapted to ana || she. In Lithuanian dialects, a tendency has been observed to eliminate the inflection of the first case, introducing the stem a or the stem o of masculine adjectives in the whole paradigm or at least in part of it. For example, the Southern Highlanders, who mainly use nominative adjectives only to name animals (e.g. cows, pigs, horses), use the verb: margėj "margoji', margėjos || margėsios, margojai, mdrgojq || margąją, mdrgoja "margąja', plural mdrgojos || mdrgosios, margūjų, margėjom(i) || margosiom(i) (dat. and instr.), mdrgojas (there are no local forms). Here sometimes (sporadically) o is also introduced into the masculine paradigm, even in place names, e.g., Aukštėjis Pinskas or Aukštojis Lazdijai (mountain name). In the paradigm of masculine noun adjectives, the stem a becomes dominant, e.g., the names of lakes Baltajis, Jūodajis, ligajis (cf. baltėjis "white" Gimtoji kalba, 1936, 34)?. Sporadically @ occurs even in feminine forms, cf. folk song phrase per girelas, per tamsiajas, per pievelas, per žaliai Merkinė (here we would expect žaliąsias > žaliussias or žalias). In dialects where nominative adjectives do not disappear, the stems a and o are introduced less frequently in place of the endings of the first case. There is only one other form of individual dialects or slangs, for example, a) northern panevėžiškių g. sg. m. gérajo® "gerojo- ", a. sg. m. gėrajį“ “geraji’, f. gérajq "gerąją', about Žeimėlis and dat., instr. pl. m. gėrajiem "geriesiems; gerisiais’ (may be latvism), Svėdasū šnektosi. s.g. m. gerdjuo (next to geriiojuo) "good"; b) some of the Žemaites (Rietavas, Tirkšliai, Viekšniai, Kuršėnai, KarkI€nai...) and the Altaites (Kafsakiškis, Skapiškis...) spoke i.sg. f. gerdja "good", sometimes and a. sg. f. drinker "good", m. drinker "good" (Karklėnai, Kafsakiškis, Skapiškis...), neti. s.g. m. gerdju "good", ill. sg. m. gerdjan “gerajan’ (e.g., Skapiškis), elsewhere dat. s.g. m. gerdjam Ceikiniai, gérojui Šakyna, Zagiré, gérojui Laiikuva ‘good’. There are cases of a, u, ifa > i, i, etc. kamiengaliy confusion (especially often in the area, where jvarZuotiniai adjectives disappear), e.g., didasai Svėdasai “big’ (compare mazasai “small’), baltujis Eriškiai (such a fish; instead of *baltusis, compare platisis), mažysai Linkuva, Ukmergė, Lazūnai "small" (compare didjsai "big"), f. žalyja Tverėčius "green" (compare platyja "wide") and others. But plg. Many posts first/is 60,, "first’ (if not a typo). In the case of substantive adjectives, sometimes sporadically, the forms of other vowels are made simply from the noun, e.g. a) g. sg. m. great Birštonas “great’ (from great “great’), calm Valkininkai ‘calm’ (cf. calm), a. sg. m. pirmsį Gėlvonai “first’ (cf. pirmasis),i. pl.m. Valkininkai “heavy’ (cf. sunkūsis) and others. ; b) žaliejis "green", žaliejo "Green", žaliejui "green", žaliejį "green", Zalieju "green"... (Gėlvonai; cf. n. pl. m. žalieji) and others. "2. It is also the home of the 2000–01 NHL Entry Draft. m. gerdojum (gerudjum), f. 8 And in Ignalina district (where nominative adjectives do not disappear) there is a lake Baltūjis. It is named after the Red River. Zeimelio šnektos (near Latvia) baltajis > baltaj's “white” may be a result of Latvian influence. Not quite clear Priekulė neighborhood form baltais "white", possibly derived from baltais's (in dialect very strong reduction of extremities) < bdltaisis, hypernormalism instead of Žemaičių bdltasis, cf. The form of Daukanto writings first "first" (Pamokimas ape auginimą taboku, St. Petersburg, 1847, 9) and below. vdks < child. * Can be biiti gėradbecause of the dialectal form of the ordinary adjective gėra < *gera ‘good’ influence. 10 Did the ending *-anjin, *-anjan lose one n in ancient times because of assimilation? Plg. d. sg. m. white > white. 11 For further examples, see aut. 1966: 282-284. 103 geriejim (geričjim), made up of iš n.-acc. m. good, f. goods su formantu m. The forms made by iš other linguices are much less common, for example, the n. southern Žemaičių pl. m. large ‘didžieji’ ir n. s.g. m. large "great" (plg. The d. Great (pl. m. 100 mg/ day Baltistica VIII 164 instead of them (plg. (see Table 1). Other reworkings of noun forms in present-day dialects have been discussed in some detail (aut. 1957; 1966: §§ 442—481). Explanation of the current developmental trends in the dialects can provide some data to shed light on the history of nominative adjectives in other Baltic languages, especially Latvian. Slavists should be interested in them, ir because such similar phenomena, ar which are taking place in Lithuanian dialects now, have occurred in Slavic languages in prehistoric times. LITTERACY Bezzenberger A. Contribute to History of Lithuania Language. Gottingen, 1877. Endzelins J. Sound forms of the un Belarusian language. Riga, 1948. Endzelynas street J. White language sounds ir form. V., 1957. Endzelins J. Comparative phonology and morphology of the Baltic languages, transl. by W. R. Schmalstieg and B. Jégers. The Hague, 1971. Paris, Gerullis J., Stang'as Chr. Lithuanian fishermen's dialect Prussia. K., 1933. Kazlauskas J: The development of JvardZiuotiniy adjectives in Baltic languages. — ,,Kalbotyra®, 1972, t. XXIV (1), p. 57-74. Reichelt H. Awestic Elementary book. Heidelberg, 1909. Stang Chr. S. Die Language of Lithuanian Catechism of Mažvydas. Oslo, Stang 1929. Chr. Comparative Grammar of the Baltic Language. Oslo—Bergen—Tromso, 1966. Zinkevičius Z. The history of jvardZiuotiniy adjectives in Lithuanian language. V., 1957. Zinkevičius Z. Lithuanian dialectology. V., 1966. Zinkevičius Z. S. M. "Slavonija" (in (1646 Croatian). language. — Kn. : Word forms ir jų vartosena (Lithuanian Language Studies t. Issues, XV). V., 1974, p. 137—170. Cnporuc H. Yes. Teorpaduueckuii caoBapb Monkeys XVI croaerus. BujibHa, 1888. 3unxkesuuioc 3. II. 1998-1999 Hekotopia Bonpocsl 06pa30BaHH5; MECTOHMEHHbIX INpHJIaraTeJIbHbIX B JIHI'm sick. — "Boripockhi caaBsiHCKOro si3bIKO3HaHHS", 1958, sein. 3. c. 50—100. 3. BUHKABHUYIOC K HCTOPHH MECTOMMEHHBIX NMPHJIATATEJIbHbBIX Pe3iome Ilaiores yrouHeHHS H DRINKING WATER K KHHTE aBTOpa „Features of nominative adjectives in Lithuanian language“ (Buasnioc, 1957; pycckuil cokpamennslii rnepeBojį B BCST, Br. 1958, 3). VerananpjiuBaercs, uTO cpacraHHe NpujiaraTeJIbHOTO H MecTOHMeEHHS it (XK.p. (ji) B oJKHO CJIOXKHOE Chibo Chiyo HE OJHOKPATHBIM SIB/IEHHEM, a MNPOHCXOAH/IO IIOCTEINeHHO H B O4YeHb NpoJIOJDKHTE/ILHOE BpeMsi, Tak KaK JAaHHOMY Mpoieccy MpensiTCTBOBaJO BJIKAHHe NPOCTOro npHJjarare; IbHOrO H MECTOHMeHHs it (ji) ofa Ha COMIOHEHTa MECTOHMEHHOro I'm sorry, I'm sorry. IloBHHMOMY, B ĮpeBHOCTH Hapsilly C NajexXHbIMH (DOcMAMH, NpejcTABJISIOLMJHMH CJIOXKHOE CJIOBO, ynoTpeGOJs1jiHCb TaKXe BapHaHTbI, COCTOSiBINHe H3 COYETaHHs JBYX CJIOB, T.e. TIpHJIalraTejibHOTO H MeCTOHMeHHs. B JIHTOBCKHX JHMaJeKTaX COXDAHHJIKCb MeCTOHMEHHbICč (DOpMbI, CBH[ETEJIbCTBYIOIIIHE O HEOJIHOBDpEeMEHHOM CpacTaHHH, HAMP., AAT. II. 1998-1999 eg. 4. M. p. geruojam wu gerdmjam (B NepBOM clyuyae MeCTOHMeHHe TMPHCOeAHHHJIOCh K TIpHJIAaraTeJIbHOMY C HOMHHAJIbHbIM OKOHUAHHeM, BO BTOPOM — K TpHJIaraTe/bHOMY, HMEIOIeMy Yxe NPOHOMHHAJbHYIO OJIeKcnio), 'x.p. Drinking ui geray (cp. *good + for her u good for + her). Tlponecc cpacranusi GopM npHJiaraTeJibHOTro H MeCTOH MeHHS B OJĮHO CJIOKHOE CJIOBO HayaJ/ics Ele B TJIyOOKONH JpPeBHOCTH, a 3aBepLIHJICS CpaBHHTeJIbHO NO3JIHO, TIO BCeil BeposTHOCTH, yxKe nocjie patriajja BOCTO4KHO-GaJITHHCKOTO S13bIKOBOTO ej|HHCTBA. B crarbe Take advantage of the opportunity. MecToHMEHHbIX (DODM B COBPEMEHHBIX JIHTOBCKHX JHaJIeKTaX, B TOM UHCJIe PRODUCT K JIHKBHAAUHH (uieKkcHH NnepBoro A COMMISSARY. H3yueHHe yKa3aHHbIX NpOLECCoB, M0 y6ex AeHHIO aBTopa, JĮOJIXXHO CINOCOOCTBOBATb OCBELIEHHIO HCTODHH MeCTOHMEHHbIX INpHJIAaraTeJIbHbIX B CJIABAHCKHX f3bIKAX, TaK Sister. Te MPOLEeCChl, KOTOPbIe MPOUCXOAAT B COBPEMEHHBIX JIMTOBCKHX I'm sorry, I'm B sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. 104 Z. ZINKEVIČIUS CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF PRONOMINAL ADJECTIVES IN LITHUANIAN This paper An is an is attempt to made to revise and supplement the author's study „Lietuvių kalbos jvardziuotiniy būdvardžių istorijos bruožai“ (Vilnius, 1957). 2008). of (fem. ji) is assumed to have been long a and gradual process rather than single a change. In ancient times alongside with inflected forms as compound words there also may have occurred variants consisting two-word combinations of the adjective — and the pronoun. The process the merger of the components of must have begun ancient times and completed comparatively in late, most probably after the disintegration the of East Baltic linguistic unity. The article also deals with certain peculiarities the further development pronominal of forms the dialects modern of in of Lithuanian as well with as the tendency eliminate to the inflection the first of component. The author hopes that the investigation these processes of can shed some light the history pronominal adjectives on of in Slavic, the as changes that are observed modern Lithuanian in dialects could have taken place similarly in Slavic in prehistoric times.