Akcentuacijos ir vokalizmo sąryšis šiaurės vakarų panevėžiškių tarmėje

LITHUANIAN AREALINES LINGUISTICS QUESTIONS LITHUANIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES K. GARŠVA In most languages, the basis of a syllable consists of vowels, and they cannot be described correctly without first discussing the accent, because some phonetic features of the speaker are “added” to the syllable, morpheme or whole word (e.g., accent), while others belong to individual shortest sound units (phonemes and their variants). In the four sections of this article (1. Consonant pronunciation, 2. Quantity of vowels, 3. Consonants, 4. Vowel phonemes and their variants) the author attempts to synchronously distinguish the supersegmental (supersegmental, prosodic?) and segmental phenomena of one of the eastern Altay dialects — the North-West Panevėžiškis dialect — and to determine their functions in the language?. Similarly, the corresponding means of expression of other Lithuanian dialects (and literary language) should be interpreted. The thesis touches on more complex theoretical problems of phonology, on some of which the linguistic opinions differ greatly, and not all of our conclusions will be final yet. Northwest Panevėžys dialect differs from the neighboring dialects by three most important phonetic features*: 1. Characteristic distribution of vowels i, u in at least 3 positions (see below) and Ik. the translation of the vowels ę, ą and the fixed diphthongs en, efi, am, ani into the sounds ė, o and em, efi, om, on*; 2. so-called universal retraction; 3. Reduction of former short vowels. This area coincides much more with A. Baranausko,,Rytieji antraisiais“ and with the traditional dialects of Mūša river than with the northern dialects of Panevėžys (according to 1 in Lithuanian linguistics two variants of the term are used with the same meaning: prozodija and prosddija, cf. : Dictionary of International Words, Vilnius, 1969, p. 628, 624 et al. Of these, the second should be preferred because this is how the word was used in the original source — in Greek (in newer borrowings from Greek the s is usually no longer replaced, e.g., Odysseus, Poseidon ir t. t.). ? For a similar analysis, see : Boripocbi TeopHH JiKuHTBHCTHUecKOKH TeorpaduHH, TOA. pen. P. H. ABanecosa, Mocksa, 1962, p. 28—63; T. Hill, Phonemic and Prosodic Analysis in Linguistic Geography,,,- Orbis“, XII, Nr. 2, 1963, p. 449—455. —Perspausdinta: Readings in American Dialectology, New York, 1971 ir t. t. * Since the printing press does not have all the necessary characters, the article uses not phonetic but almost phonological transcription. (Phonetic transcription marks are used only where specifically referred to phonetics.) For consistent phonetic transcription and acoustic and articulatory characteristics of sounds, see : K. Garšva, Prozodija and vocalism of the North-western Panevėžiškiai, Dipl. thesis summary (machine- -readable, VVU Lithuanian Language Department), 1973, p. 24—25 (VVU Lithuanist Reading Room, D 434), * Pronounced with the diphthong accent, these diphthongs are the same as those pronounced with the main accent, e.g.: rofika „raūkos“ — rorika „rankos- “, but pantininkų ldngs „langas (langus)“ — larige „Yangai“ (not lonige), rands —rafide, žands —Zande, etc. 76 "Girdenis-Zinkevičius classification". Therefore, the northern Panevėžys residents still have to be divided into north-western and north-eastern Panevėžys residents (Biržai). The eastern border of the north-western Panevėžys dialect would correspond to the border of the pontians — pontians of the “Lietuviy Language Atlas”, only the beginning of the pontians should still be included in the borders to Mūša (Namajūnai, Saldčiai, Pasvalys). The strong-pronounced dm, dn, pontininky are translated as dm, on, occur rarely in the language (moreover, perhaps more than half of them are exceptions*), and other significant phonetic differences between the northern pantininkai and pontininkai (northwestern Panevėžys people) have not been observed. A consonant is usually described as the separation of one (pronounced) syllable of a word and its opposition to other (unpronounced) syllables. But single or consecutive single-stemmed Zodziai® can also be pronounced, so the contrast between pronounced and unpronounced syllables is not necessary to understand the accent (just as the amount of a vowel is not determined by comparing it with the adjacent vowels). A single monosyllabic word with a long vowel (diphthong) cannot be pronounced without a prefix, and thus without accent, because, as many linguists believe, the Lithuanian prefixes differ clearly only in accentuated long syllables” (in our opinion, this is the strong position of prefixes). From the sentence mam kū.l' gricds laūk',,mama kūlia grūdus laukė“ it can be seen that single-stemmed words can be pronounced as well. Words composed of unequal numbers (length) of vowels (short, half-long, long) and double-vowels. Thus, the length (quantity) of Lithuanian vowels, the basic frequency (tone), as well as the quantitative and qualitative reduction of some diphthongs in the dialects of Panevėžys and Širvintos would be only additional means of accentuation, while the main means would be the intensity of the sound (loudness). The vowels of pronounced and unpronounced syllables differ slightly in the place of formation and at the same time in acoustic quality. In Lithuanian linguistic works, in addition to the strong-end and strong-start prepositions, there are still often mentioned the “,medium” and “,kirstinė” prepositions, which, in addition to the long ones, can also be found in semi-accented syllables, and the “,trumpiné preposition”, which is found only in short syllables. But in the case of the so-called short (and intermediate, transverse), “prepositional”, we are often not talking about the preposition — the accentuation of the beginning or the end of the syllable p. 16 (5 and the sudden — slow change of intensity, but only about the shortness or balance of the syllable, therefore pre5 See. Z. Zinkevičius, Lithuanian dialectology, Vilnius, 1966, p. 97—98. See also footnote). * In the Russian language this view was defended by L. Ščerba and L. Zinderis, see JI. P. 3unaep, O6mas g$oHeruka, Jleunurpag, 1960, pp. 298-300. For the attempt to criticize see. A. A. Pedopmarckuii, EoHOJIOTHUECKHe stioas, Mocksa, 1975, p. 39—41, 63—64. But plg. P.S. I'm sorry to tell you that M. Xaxa, the owner of HoweHue, has been arrested. —HoBoe B smursucTuke, Barry. 2, Mocksa, 1962, p. 250 et al. 7 H. C. Tpy6enxkoit, OchoBki dokojiorun, Mocksa, 1960, p. 223; P. Garde, L“ accent, Paris, 1968, p. 161; see also, P. Garde'as, Lietuvių kalbos kirčiavimo sistema (translated and commented by A. Girdenis)- ,,,Kalbotyra“, XXII(1), 1971, p. 94—96; J. Kazlauskas, Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika, Vilnius, 1968, p. 5; M. J. Kenstowicz, Lithuanian Phonology, University of Ulinois, 1969 (doctoral dissertation, rotaprint), p. 84; IO. C. Crenanos, OcnoBkt oGmero s3biko3nanusi, MockBa, 1975, p. 99 et al. 77 the notion of the gait is no longer necessary®. Dialectal short semi-long ir syllables, in whichthere is no ring, we mark se the accent (gravio) mark. The “short-lived” adventurousness of the Lithuanian language has begun to be proven only experimentally R. Oak blossom (1917 m. ir later), o po jo N. of Veikas, Gerulis, J. Laigonaité, A. Vaitkevičiūtė?. V. Short vowels have been studied in a different phonetic context, not based on mathematical statistics, therefore some researchers consider the “short prefix” of pronounced syllables to be similar to the firmly-beginning firmly-ending į prefix (in ir į different syllables)? ?, others only a se firm pretext.' — į The language meaning has only what is heard by the ordinary normal ear, the devices show only objective physical data o of the sound it is impossible to determine how the ear will synthesize all those characteristiir iš to cs??. Linguists who consider Lithuanian to be a morinous language also deny that short vowels have consonants, believing that they can only be pronounced unpronounced- '*. ir ir ,, The word is not present in the Latvian ir language. In all Altay dialects, the consonant can be in any position: it does not depend on the syllable order in the word, on the openness—closure of the syllable, on the vowel forming the iš syllable. ir (dual) quality, quantity, anticipation. In diphthongs, the consonant can form all nine possible combinations of contrasting short semivocals with long — syllables: — I 1) sacks ‘,sakiaūs’ — sak'3s ‘sakys’, 2) ir sa.k'os — sak'3.s; II 3) ir I'll tell — you, I'll 4) tell you. ‘iznesša’ — iznēš ‘iznēš’; III 5) vns. ward. žabos,‘frog’ (pronounced Zabds) —bus. I. III person. žabd's „žabėos“ (to glow), 6) v@ Zam ,,vežame“ — veZam “carried”, 7) ru.do rudé: — „rudėji“, 8) ir vė':žam — vaza.m; IV 9) Frogs „,‘snails’ — Zabé's ","grobes. As can be seen from iš these examples, according to the place of the accent, there are four Types of positions: I words differ only in the place of the accent (when both syllables are short or both semi-long- ), II words differ not only in the place of the accent but also in the length of the accentuated vowels (when one syllable is short, the other semi-long- ), III words differ — only in the place of the accent ne but also in the presence ir or absence of the prefix in the accentuated syllables (when one syllable is long, the other short or semi-long- ), words differ — only in the place of the IV accent but also ne in the prefixes of the accentuated vowels (when both syllables are long). In monosyllabic words (in the weak position) there is no contrast according to the accent viex tą (phonological means), the accent here exists only phonetically, and in non-monosyllabic words (in the syntagm) the accent can perform distinctive meanings (distinkty8 Pig. K. Būga, Kirčio ir priegaidės mokslas (1924), —Rinktiniai raštai, III, Vilnius, 1961, p. 21; J. Kazlauskas, min. veik.,p. 5; A. Girdenis, V. Žulys, „Trumpinė priegaidė- “,,,Kalbotyra“, XV, 1967, p. 113—116; A. Pakerys, Apie kirtį, „Kalbotyra“, XVII, 1967, p. For the first four authors, see : A. Laigonaitė, Literatūrinės lietuvių kalbos kirčiavimas, Vilnius, 1959, p. 8, 10; Lithuanian Grammar, I, Vilnius, 1965, p. 128 et al. 10 A, Laigonaitė, min. veik., p. 10. 11 V, Grinaveckis, History of the Žemaičių dialects, Vilnius, 1973, p. 98. 12 Plg. I. Lehiste, Suprasegmentals, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London (M. 1. T.), 1970, p. Fischer-- Jorgensen et al. believe that acoustic techniques are mainly needed to phonetically refine the features of language already identified by hearing: E. Fischer-- Jorgensen, What can the new techniques of acoustic phonetics contribute to linguistics?—Reports for the VIII International congress of linguists, I, Oslo, 1957, p. 88; IO. C. Crenanos, O 3aBHucHMOCTH noHATHA QOHEMBI OT TMOHATHA CJIOTA MPH CHHXPOHHOM ONHCAHHH H HCTOPHUYECKOH PEKOHCTP yKILNH, „Bonpockit s3siK03HaHHs“, 1974, Ne 5, p. 98; dar plg. A. Girdenis, V. Zulys, min. str., p. 115. 13 H. C. Tpy6enkoii, min. veik., p. 232; M. J. Kenstowicz, min. veik., p. 84. 78 vines) functions**. There are no signs of the phoneme or accent of the be external word be independence — of the self-speaking word. And neither phonemes without accents nor accents without phonemes perform their functions, although in both cases the main significance lies with phonemes. The distinctive function of meanings in phonology needs to be understood more broadly. By changing the phoneme or the place of accent, the preposition, the meaning of the word usually does not change, but the word can be distorted to complete unrecognizability. For example, if we heard the artificial word “samanas”, we would not understand what it meant: simanas or samands. In words that can be pronounced twice, the distinctive function of the accent is neutralized, e.g.: dkt. pdkrate — dkt. and vksm. pakrate,,pakratai“, dgs. viet. "Las Vegas' "Sweetheart"". deadline.com. caud. vaikdm | child "children" etc. The same accentuated and unaccentuated vowels (diphthongs) are not separate phonemes (as the linguists of the Prague Linguistic Club believed), because they are always in different positions, and the corresponding homonyms (at the segmental level) are distinguished not by changing the phoneme, but by the place of accentuation!®. The consonant belongs to a longer unit than the phoneme — the syllable, i.e., not to the segmental, but to the supersegmental level. If the number of phonemes in the same context can be considerable (e.g.: sak'as,,sakiaūs“, sėk'as,,sukiaūs“, sū.k'os „,sūkins“, siek'os „Siekiaūs“), there could be no more prosodems of the accent than there are syllables in the word (but otherwise in the Altai dialect and in polysyllabic words a significant accent usually occurs in no more than two syllables), the inventory of prosodems would be „,accent in the first syllable of the word“, „accent in the second syllable“, „accent in the third syllable“ and so on. Since the language consists mainly of twoand three-syllable words, and the north-western Panevėžys dialect speakers have usually shifted the accent from the final syllable to the first and second syllables, according to the place of the accent in this dialect, the opposition of the first and second syllables is most common, less frequently of one syllable. — iš jų ir opposition of the third syllable. (The number of prosodems of the first syllables of the word ir increased in the dialect of the second, third, etc. on account of syllable prosomes.) In nouns, where the consonant is usually detracted from the syllable itself, which is į tą the main consonant, the consonant distinguishes only small homoforms of different Words, and no longer distinguishes the forms of the same word, e.g.: daf'žinės' „,datžinės“ —daf'žinės" ‘,garžinės’. *'4 Some linguists believe that in free-dialectal languages the main function of accent is distinctive, others that it is culminative, and others that it is only (1), contrastive. — (2), — (or culminating) e.g. : 1) II. C. (3), Kysueuos, K sonpocy o tononornn yaapenns (1948), —A. A, Pedopmarckuii, ncropun orevectsennoii doniorun, Mocksa, H3 1970, p. 360, 366; JI. P. 3unaep, min. ill., p. 299, 302-304; P. H. ABanecos, Pycckasi JutepaTypHast H AuaJjexTHas DOHETHKA, Mocksa, 1974, p. 85, 100; A. A. Pedpopmatckuii, min. ill., p. 31; P. Kratochvil, Tone in Chinese (1968), — ed. E. C. Fudge, Phonology, Penguin Books, 1973, p. 347, 348; I. Folding, min. ill., p. 147, 148; 2) C. K. IllaymMan, TIpo6aemsl Teopetnueckoii donoturun, Mocksa, 1962, p. 59; H. Pilch, Phonem theory, Basel I, — New — York, 1964, p. 101 —102; iš See also p. H. C. Tpy6Geuxoii, min. ill., p. 38, 230—231, 238; 3) A. Martinet, Accent et tons, Miscellanea Phonetica, II, London, 1954, p. 13—24; P. Garde, Principles of the Synchronic Description of Stress (1967), — ed. E. C. Fudge, Phonology, 1973, p. 310-311. '* R. Avanesovas, V. Vaitkevičiūtė ir and others ta prove it differently. According to them, for example, the words sak'2s sak’)s, ir differing only in the place of the accent, segmentally differ in one or two signs: only in that iš the vowel of ne the first o word is pronounced, ne of the second not, but in that the vowel of the first word is not a pronounced, of the second — is pronounced, cf. : ir 2 — P. H. ABrequencyB, min veik.,p 101—102; V. Vaitkevičiūtė, Vowel diphthongs of Lithuanian literary language, LKK, 1V, ir 1961, p. 21. However, this can only be done if we consider the accent as a sign of individual vowel phonemes, cf. : II. 1998-1999 C. Ky3neuosB, min. p., p. 361-362. 79, 2. BALLS In dialect, there is a clear distinction between long, semi-long and short vowels (there is a three-length system), but one vowel can have no more than two phonological degrees of length. In the accentuated (strong) position, the upper and lower rising vowels form an opposition (I) according to quantity, and the middle rising vowels do not form an opposition (II): I 1. Vowels i, i., u*, u. are long and semi-long (see examples below); 2. vowels e', e, (e, e), a“, a are long and short; IT 3. Vowels ė" (e), o" are pronounced only long; 4. The vowels ¢ (3), 9 are only short. The position of the short vowels e, e, 9, a in the vowel system can be interpreted in two or even three ways: 1) according to the qualitative similarity, they could be associated with the long ė', e*, o", a’, 2) according to the alternation in the same morpheme with the vowels i., e“, u., a', the sounds €, e, 0, a could be considered positional variants of these vowels, 3) or the short e, 9 could not be assigned to either of them and be considered independent phonemes. Vowels g, 9 alternate in the same morpheme not with vowels ė“, o* (as long and short e, a do with each other), but with vowels i., u., e.g.: s'kėr' „,separiū, skiri“ — s'ki.r' „separates- “, s'kė'r' „,skėrį“; kor’,,kuriū, kuri“ —kū.r' „,creating, kor’, kori“, so with long vowels can be associated only vowels e, a. Short e, e, 9, a vowels i., e“, u., a’ positional variants could be considered only if we introduced into the dialect two types of accents categoryl®, corresponding to the diachronic category mainly the digressive accent. — ir But, thinking synchronously, we “don’t know” which pitch is main, which is distracting, hearing, as auditory experiments o iš show, these pitches are now very little distinguished, the observed differences can be marked only by prepositions. jų Be to, only ne the long, but the short ir (longitudinal) vowels can be pronounced with both a main and a digressive accent. In the position of the main accent semi-long i., u. can be in any syllable of the word, vowels o e, e, 9, a accented short remains mostly in the final syllable of the word", but occurs in syllables ir further from the end of the word (not only in verbs derived from iš adjectives, e.g., frēp'teleje „,träptelėjo“, iš in words derived from other languages, plg., lat'vej „‘Latvija’, but in some parts of the ir dialect in the upper-degree suffix of adjectives -ēsnis, — -ė ir t. t.). If the short vowels are accentuated with the main accent, they are mostly retained only in the final syllable, but if they are accentuated with the diphthong accent, they are retained only in the final, but second syllable from ne the end, and the shortness is often no ir longer retained in the further forward syllables. o į jų On the votes ¢, 9 dependence the final answer is given by the fact that unpronounced vowels i — ¢, u — g are free variants®®, therefore in the ir accented position (where * A. Girdenis, V. Zulys, rec. J. Kazlauskas, Historical grammar of Lithuanian language, Vilnius, 1968, 414 p., ‘Baltistica’, VIII(2), 1972, p. 199. '" For more examples, see E. Some features of this site may not work without it. LKK, V, p. 148—150, '® Vowels f, u in any pre-vowel non-vowel ir post-vowel syllable (both closed and open) before any vowel (both absolute and non-absolute word beginnings) in most dialects even in the same word (and in a to person's own utterance) can be distributed, ir not distributed. ir , 80 „the opposition of these vowels is no longer neutralized) the vowels e, ¢ should be considered as short variants of the vowels i., u. The vowels e, a, as well as the long e, a" are independent phonemes. In dialect, there is an opposition of long — semilong or long — short vowels in the same accented position (neutralized only in the final open syllable), and the number of vowels would be a differential mark belonging to the phonemes?*?*?. Vowels that can be pronounced only long (ē', 0") or only short (g, 9) do not have a correlation between length and shortness. (Based only on the vowels ė', 0*, abbreviated in the unpronounced syllable, the quantity could also be assigned to the supersegmental level.) Before the long —semilong i', i., u', u., in minimal pairs are distinguished only words with different meanings, e.g.: ski‘la „,hole“ —ski.la „skilo“, mis „Mūša“ —mū.š „„mūša““ and so on, so that these vowels maintain the same quantity when pronounced. The long and short phonemes e, e, a', a, on the other hand, usually distinguish the forms of the same word (which are the most common), and much less often — different words, e.g.: ke'l' ",raises, raises, raises" —kel’ ",way, way". In accentuation, all short vowels in the same position may occasionally be extended to almost semi-vowels (especially when the syllable is emphasized for intonation), but the meaning of the word remains unchanged. Such elongated vowels can be regarded as optional variants of short phonemes, sometimes having a stylistic significance (similarly, the former long vowels i', ė', u', o" are very rarely pronounced short but semi-long in unpronounced syllables, are optional variants of short positional variants, e.g.: gi.vi'bės' "beings", bū.vo.m "we were", etc.). In unaccented syllables, all dialect vowels are usually only short: opposition is neutralized by quantity. The long and short vowels of Lithuanian are interpreted in two ways in linguistics: some linguists consider them separate phonemes, while others believe that the long vowels are double compounds of two identical short phonemes (mors) and thus attribute the differences in quantity not to the vowels, but to the syllable (mostly as prosodic signs). The first opinion is expressed in almost all works on language written in Lithuania (although their authors, except V. Vaitkevičiūtė, A. Girdenis, A. Pakerius and others, do not yet talk about phonemes), the second opinion is held by Western structuralists since the time of N. Trubeckojus®. The fact that long vowels must consist of two parts is proved by the fact that in Lithuanian not only in diphthongs and mixed diphthongs, but also in long vowels, there are two types of accents (prefixes) according to quality: the beginning and the end of the long syllable sound differ phonetically significantly. Therefore, long vowels, like dif19 Some suggest that the notion of tension covers both qualitative and quantitative differences in vowels, see. : A. Pakerys, Phonetic basis of the opposition of long and short vowels in the Lithuanian common language, — III Baltic Linguistics Conference, 25-27 September 1975, Thesis of the papers, Vilnius, p. 42 et al. In the common language of Lithuania, quantity belongs to certain morphemes, see. P. Garde, min. action, p. 160, or P. Garde, min. translation, p. 94. 10 H. C. Tpy6euxkoit (1939), min. veik., p. 213, 214, 223, 224, 240; G. L. Trager, The Theory of Accentual Systems, —L. Spier, A. I. Hallowell, and S. S. Newman (Eds.), Language, Culture, and Personality, Menasha, 1941, p. 139, 140; C. F. E. Heeschen, Einfiehrung in die Grundprobleme der generativen Phonologie mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der litauischen Phonologie (doctoral dissertation), Bonn, 1968, p. 234, 252; M. J. Kenstowicz, min. veik., p. 84, 85, 107, Tongai, turį sudaryti iš dviejų dalių 132 ir kt 6. Užs. No. 1026 81 iš (blackberries). But now it is less known to foreigners that in the eastern Highland ir dialects of Lithuanian (similarly as in the literary language?!) the prefixes in long vowels do not have such a phonetic ir meaning as in diphthongs, so long vowels cannot be fully equated with diphthongs. There are no short vowels in the accented position i, ė, u, 0 (ė ir o only occurs in international Zodiacs) cannot explain which two ir components are the long i“, ė*,. iš u', Our 0°. dialects ,,in the Sudeten ir prepositions, also after the disappearance of For a consonant in the middle of a syllable, the vowels next to each other can be kept intact”*2,. į (more į often the long one, ne į the short o one), it, according to P. Kuznetsov, a complete proof that long vowels can be independent phonemes**. 3. ACCESSORIES Lithuanian accent is tonic ne (musical) like, for example, Chinese, but dynamic (quantity plays an auxiliary role). In many dialects, the first component of a strong-started doublet is pronounced, the second component of — a strong-end is lengthened to about half-length, the second point is short; even in o literary language ,,the constituent sounds of unpronounced syllables are slightly shorter than those of pronounced syllables”**. Qualitative quantitative ir vowels (especially non-accent) can only change due to dynamic, due to tonal o ne accent**. Iš hearing. north-western panevėžiečiai distinguish (as they themselves indicated) mainly by sound length intensity. ir In polytonic languages, pronouns can be only tone, but ne intensity pronouns, then the distinctive ir features are a sudden o slow change jų in intensity — ir t. t.**. Recent instrumental experiments have shown that the main tone (decrease in tone and intensity — rise in syllable) is not a differential feature of Lithuanian whims*". 21 A, Laigonaitė, min. veik., p. 20; Lithuanian Grammar, I, p. 128. 22 7. Zinkevičius, min. veik., p. 124 and others 23 IĮ, C. Kysnenos, O gonojiornueckofi cucreme cep6oxopBarckKOoro si3biKa (1948), — A. A. Pedopmarckui, H3 ucropuu orevectsenHoil doKojioruun, p. 344. “But that could now perhaps be explained as a juncture. The Lithuanian language is not morphic, but syllabic. A. Martinė, P. Gardas, cf. : A. Martinet, min. action, p. 13; P. Garde, min. action, p. 165, or P. Garde, min. translation, p. 96. 24 Grammar of the Lithuanian language, I, p. 129—137; A. Ilakepuc, T. Ilnakynosa, 51. Yp6eaene, OTHOCHTEJIbHAS JĮŪJIHTEJIbHOCTb ĮHOTOHTOB JMTOBCKOro s3bika, —Garsai, priegaidé, intonacija, Vilnius, 1972, p. 14—17, 36; J. Kazlauskas, min. veik., p. 8—9; H.C. Tpy6euxoii, min. veik., p. 240 and others. 25 A, Meiie, BBejnenne B CpPaBHHTE/- bHOE H3YUeHHe HHJOEBpoOneiicKuX S3bIKOB, MockBa — Jlenaurpajs, 1938, p. 164. 26 A. C. Jlu6epman, CjnoroBas akueHTyalKsi KeTCKOTO si3biKA, —JIMHrBHCTHUECKHE nccJegoBanns, Jleaunrpan, 1970, p. 378. 27 A. Laigonaitė, Jl lietuvių kalbos diacitos ir priegaidės supratimo,,,- Kalbotyra“, I, 1958, p. 71—100; A. Pakerys, Dabartinės lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos dvibalsių pagrindinio tono (F,) moduliacija,,- ,Kalbotyra“, XVII, 1967, p. 15; A. Girdenis, A. Pupkis, Pietinių vakarų aukštaičių priegaidės (prozodiniai požymiai), —Eksperimentinė ir praktinė fonetika, Vilnius, 1974, p. 125 (see also an overview of the dual understanding of prepositions that goes back to K. Jaunius and F. Kuršaitis, | p. 107—108); A. Girdenis, Prozodinés priegaidžių ypatybės šiaurės žemaičių dialekte (Trukmė, | pagrindinis tonas, intensyvumas), there, p. 198, In the North-West Panevėžys dialect, there are, it seems, even six pre-vowels, which, according to the decreasing amount of sound and, it seems, according to the increasing effort of pronunciation, could be written roughly as follows: tvirtagalė secondary middle middle strong beginning secondary crossing crossing 82 iš (~), (*), (%), ('), (**), (*)**. The first, second, third, and fourth rows are the main ir rows, and the second, third, and fifth rows are the secondary o rows. Both cross prepositions occur in a syllable with a strong initial preposition, and both middle prepositions in a syllable with a — strong final preposition. Secondary prepositions occur only diachronically in the final syllable (plg. : v'o/kdava “vilkdavo”, valka ‘wolf’, v'olks „vilks“), so they are variants of the strong-vowel pronoun (allophones). The prefixes of the main diphthong, like ir some vowels of different quantities, could ir diachronically be in an additional distribution. In diphthongs, the prefixes may emphasize the first and second components: in the first case, only the strong-beginning prefix ir (acute) is ir present, and the second is emphasized by all other circumflex variants of the prefix. The strong position of consonants is in accented o sounds of different quality (double, except ie, uo), the weak position in — accented sounds of the same quality (vowels, including the second component of doubles) in all long unaccented syllables: here the contrast of consonants can potentially vary — ir ir (and have an additional phonological meaning), but may not differ altogether, in Lithuanian there are only two strong accept-. acute — circumflex®, ir The number of minimum pairs in individual consonants is su very variable. In dialect, there is mainly an opposition of the middle preposition of the homonyms su — (about 1200 couples, II ir IV accentuated nouns), e.g. vns. ward. p'of'šts ,,pifStas® — dgs. gal. p'ofsts ‘fingers’. Minimum pairs of su rigid-braid- — ed cross-linking is about 500 (III accent nouns), e.g.: pėš'č'os „,pėsčios“ — pėš'č'os ‘foot’. Thus, prepositions can mainly distinguito sh the forms of the word itself. The oppositions of all other whims in the same context are rare, because they separate only individual words (with different meanings). Couples of su strong-brai- — ned strong-brained would be about 60, o for the remaining possible oppositions of consonants there are only about 10 homonyms (and this is mostly with diphthongs), cf.: nekaltos —nekaltos nekaltos — 'nek'fa'itos' — innocent ‘neglect’ means: Idukki fields — time ,,laiikas“ —laiūks „Jlaūks“ —laūks „jlaukūs“ and so on. Some linguists attribute the prefixes of Lithuanian Serbo-Croatian languages to phonemes ar (J. Dambrauskaitė; N. Trubeckojus, A. Isachenka, J. Treiger), others tend to Ne Linguists living in Lithuania still believe that they are the present languages. interjection has retained the Indo-European tone, e.g. : P. Guard, min. ill., p. 160—165; P. Skardžius, Lithuanian pronunciation, Chicago, 1968, p. 11—12; C. F. E. Heeschen, min. ill., p. 190— 283; M. J. Kenstowicz, min. veik.,p 82t. ; T. M. Lightner, Problems in the theory of Phonology, I, Edmonton, 1972,p.390—391; P. MH. ABanecos, min. veik.,p 83; A. A. Pepopmarckufi, min. ill., p. 43; IO. C. Crenauos, min. ill., p. 99 ir kt į * In the absence of signs, the cross preposition is given a different phonetic content here. See also stirring. : A. Girdenis, A. Rosinas, rec. V. Grinaveckis, History of Žemaičių dialects (Phonetics), Vilnius, 1973, 370 p.,,‘Baltistica’, X(2), 1974, p. 192; G. Gerullis, Lithuanian Dialect studies, Leipzig, 1930, p. XLVII, t.; 55 K. 'apurBa, Bocripusithe C/10roBeIX aKIeHTOB JHTOBCKOrO S3HIKa B MOJHApeYHH CeBepo-3anajHbiX nanssexues, , Lietuvos TSR The Journal of the American A Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1977, p. 119-128. and; ** A. Girdenis, Prosodic characteristics of interjections in the Northern Samogitian dialect (Duration, main tone, intensity), ibid., p. 160; J. 10. Kazlauskas, min. ill., p. 6. 6* 83 consider morphemar es as word features (L. Jelmslevas, V. Vaitkevičiūtė, P. Gardas; P. Kuznetsov, A. Reformatsky)? ?. Prepositions, as ir conjugations, are attributed to the whole word mainly because it is believed that the opposition of prepositions is maintained only in one (pronounced) syllable of the word. But, one, in unpronounced syllables for the casualties (just as for the number of ir vowels) may be a weak position, secondly, in the dialects of the present Lithuanian language unpronounced syllables also have a certain difference in accents*!. In Lithuanian, the opposition of whims requires a consonant, but a long syllable, so that whim oppositions that depend on the number of vowels could be assigned to the same segmental or ne supersegmental level. ir — — If we consider quantity as a supersegmental phoneme (according to the usual American analysis) or the diphthong long vowels forming the basis of a single ir syllable, we would divide the short vowels į du (as does New Prague school of ir glossematics), at the same time the ir prepositions would have to be assigned to the supersegmental level**?. The belonging of adjectives to a syllable would be particularly supported by the fact that, apparently, in all polytonic languages they are continued on the syllable-terminating consonant** (in ir the doublet). Be of which, Lithuanian prepositions depend ne only on the length of the syllable, but on the ir openness jo of the — closure (prosodic characteristics of the word). For example, in me the open-pronounced syllable of the north-western Panevėžys u. vowels i., the iš preposition has no preposition at all (A. In this case, ir the vowels "a" and "e" are not pronounced, but the vowels "a" and "e" are o pronounced. The a opposition of consonants occurs only when these vowels form a compound with another vowel su (diphthong) or su consonants /, r, m, n (mixed diphthong). In terms of quantity, ir diphthongs are different sounds than the components that make them up, so both ir diphthongs to and mixed diphthongs could be phonetically interpreted the same, although the latter, as diphthongs wi, ai, both components can only be replaced by other sounds ir ne (plg. Ik rise, build, raise, forge, create, bitter, etc. ), — but can remain in ir different syllables ir (before the vowel the diphthong breaks down į into constituent phonetic elements). 4. VOCAL PHONEMES AND THEIR VARIATIONS A pronounced syllable may contain all diphthongs and the following vowels: i“, i., ė*, e; e, e @,@ U“, u,E, 0, 0, d, a, a. Vowels «', @ occur only between soft and hard 30 P. Garde'as, min. translation, p. 94; V. Vaitkevičiūtė, min. str., p. 22; II. C. KyaHenoB, O doHojiornuecKoH cHcTeMe cep6oXOpBaTCKOrO S3bIKa, —ibid., p. 338—342; A. A. PedbopmaTckuit, min. verb., p. 43—46 (other authors are also reviewed in the aforementioned works). See also second opinion. K. L. Pike, Tone languages, Ann Arbor, 1957, pp. 3-5 et al. 3 Plg. A. Pakerys, Apie kirtį,,,Kalbotyra®, XVII, 1967, p. 133; A. T'upaenuc, 3arajuoJIATOBCKHE H ĮpeBHenpyCCKHe CJIOTOBbIe aKLEHThI, —DBasTuiickue 53bIKH H HX B3aHMOCBSI3H CO CJIABAHCKHMH, (DHHHO-YyTOpCKHMH H TepMAHCKHMH S3bIKaMH. Te3HCcbi JIOKJIAJIOB HAYyuUHOH KOHŪepennuu, Pura, 1973, pp. 71-75. —The majority of linguists believe that the unpronunciated syllables of the Altay dialect usually have only a strong prefix, see. : A. Pakerys, Tvirtapradžių ir tvirtagalių dvigarsių spektras, —ibid., p. 149 (footnote 8). # For an overview of the phonemic problem of diphthongs, quantities and consonants, see : K. Togeby, Phonotactics (1971), —ed. E. C. Fudge, Phonology, 1973, pp. 291-296; I. Lehiste, min. veik., pp. 43-53, 84-95. But plg. W. Smoczynski, Some Problems of Lithuanian Phonology, —III sa« junginė baltų kalbotyros konferencija, Vilnius, 1975, p. 58—60. 3 JI. P. 3un pep, min. veik., p. 304; so thinks doc. A. Girdenis. 84