К. Мустейкис. „Сопоставительная морфология русского и литовского языков“

20D230 BORMOSI IR IY VARTOSENA ELE VIOWSSYT SRI MIO KS LU "AX ADEMTEII A REVIEWS K. Mycreiikuc, ConocraBurenbnas MOp$ĖOJIOTHSA PyccKOro H JIKTOBCKOro s3biKOB, Buubhioc, 1972, 288 p. This is the first morphologicir al approximation of the Russian-Lithuanian languages. Jo The essence consists of revealing the functioning of morphological categories and forms in both languages, the analysis of different means of both languages with the same grammatical meanings of identical forms with different meanings. ir The thesis is based on extensive factual material, accumulated by the author’s iš practice over long years of jo pedagogical work. bo A large part of the comparative ir facts of the illustrative material iš sų ir Lithuanian fiction, explanatory bilingual dictionarieir s. The author’s previous researches on the ir grammatical structure have also been used. Be The present ir morphological similarities of the Russian and Lithuanian languages, here are touched on individual ir issues of tų language history, part iš dialectology. ir The book is intended for students of ir Russian language literature, ir Lithuanian ir language literature and Journalism as a teaching aid. Ja also will be available for lecturers of Russian literature, sų teachers, ir compilers of Russian textbooks for schools in the Lithuanian language, etc. ir The thesis consists of iš eleven main chapters and four ir smaller chapters for introduction to other more ir general questions. Jo at the end of the concise conclusions reference list positions). The ir book reviews all variable and unvariable (28 parts of independent language, highlights the use of forms. ir jų Neither nouns nor verb conjugation are touched on in the book. Here quite well revealed both forms of language ir jų variations of meanings and use, showing tų language differencir es commonality. The author highlights a number of cases where the form of one language cannot be replaced by the corresponding form of another language, and a o broader explanation, sometimes a whole sentence, is ir needed. Perhaps the greatest merit of the author is that the comparisir on of the morphological systems of the Russian and Lithuanian languages is largely created by him himself. There is relatively little literature on this subject, which the author has quite carefully collected. So K. Musteikis had to break almost the first ice in this area, ir jo work is largely original, some language Į subjects (say, į Lithuanian adjectives, pronouns, verb category, etc.) ir here the author looks new, ir expresses his opinion. The work compares all parts of the language in a relatively detailed manner, but perhaps the richest and most complex part of both languages revealed is the verb. — By comparing the number category of both languages, the author highlights (p. 41) a significant specific feature of Russian language morphology, important for Russian language learners, that plural forms in Russian never indicate gender. A student. Lithuanian language, here will also learn that Lithuanian language both in singular and 21% 315 plural paradigms clearly distinguishes the category of gender. In the section on adjectives (p. 61 — 63) both the qualitative and syntactic differences between Russian complete and incomplete adjectives on the one hand and Lithuanian ordinary and substantive adjectives on the other are successfully compared. Here (p. 67) the essential differences of the forms of the higher degree of adjectives in Russian and Lithuanian are obviously highlighted, in Russian the forms of the higher degree are not changed, in Lithuanian they are changed; also they can be simple and jvardZiuotinés. The book shows (p. 65) that in Russian the distinction between complete and incomplete forms completely disappears, while in Lithuanian the ordinary and substantive forms clearly differ in their use. The author shows that Lithuanian verbs have many ways of expressing action, for which there are no exact equivalents in Russian (138). Although in the reviewed work the meaning and use of morphological forms and categories of Russian and Lithuanian languages are compared in a fairly detailed manner, there are also shortcomings: certain inaccuracies, irregularities, one another’s factual circumference. In our opinion, the least benefit to the reader of the book will come from finding at the beginning of almost every chapter historical data on one or another part or category of language presented in a comparative way. For example, when explaining the category of the verb in Russian (p. 125 et seq.), the history of the formation of the verb is discussed extensively, starting with Old Russian. However, that story is basically taken from the existing literature and serves little to the rapprochement of Russian and Lithuanian factors. The analysis of the category of the verb in Lithuanian language is somewhat shabby and fragmentary. Regarding the construction of Lithuanian verbs, it is only said that:,,... cJi0oB006pa30BaTeJibHbIe CpejįcTBa B CHCTEMe JIHTOBCKOTO rNIaroJia no CBOeMYy (rarely our) HCINOJIb3Y1OTCSH JIS BUIOBOIO IIpOTHBOTMOCTABJIEHHA raaosios* (p. 129). Sometimes the impression is given that the category of Lithuanian verbs is somewhat stretched to Russian verbs: it is not emphasized that the greater part of Lithuanian verbs are univocal, that Lithuanian verbs do not form exactly the same pairs as Russian verbs, that Lithuanian verbs of course are usually distinguished from verbs of event not by the morphological forms of those verbs, but by the nature of the action they represent, the duration of the action, the course, the limitation, etc. The section,,Badvardziy’s origin” (p. 58—61) does not give much for comparisons, where mainly are repeated statements of special works about the possible origin of the adjective from the noun. The section on the category of state (pp. 241—249), which deals with the latter, does not contribute much to the comparison of adjectives of the genitive in Russian and Lithuanian, because it does not address the differences between adjectives of the genitive in Russian and how they coincide with adjectives of the genitive in Lithuanian. Some of the statements in the book about Lithuanian language do not correspond to reality and need to be corrected. On page 63 it is stated that,,[I[Ipocrbile npusarare- /bHbIE JHTOBCKOrO S13bIKA H3MEHSAIOTCA Mo HME HO MY (iSretinta ours); should read —MecrToHMeHOMY Turny.’ P. 42 incorrectly states that,,Bo Bcex uerbipex THriaX CKJIOHeHHA (KpoMe nepBoro) B TBOPHTEJILHOM IA JĮE*KE MHOXKECTBEHHOTO UKHCJIA Bee CJIOBA OKAHUKBAIOTCA Ha -mis, Cp. : hands —pyKamH, eyes —riaasaMH, sons —CbhIHOBLAMH; seserimis — cecrpaMH, akmenimis —KAMHAMH H JIp., a pOojĮ onpeje/siercsl no KOHeUuUHbIM 3ByKam OCHOBHI” (rarely used). The latter rule does not apply to words of the i and consonant roots, because the forms of both genus of these roots have the same stem vowel, e.g.: vagimis pirtimis, sėmenimis dukterimis. 316 tą ir ir P. 71 for all the superior forms are given the compounds that are not used at all in Lithuanian: pats laimingas, pats linksmas, pats gražus, pats įdomus. Among the qualitative adjectives that do not have degree forms, adjectives such as bare, deaf, ir etc. are mentioned. (p. 66): However, the bare meaning of nicht can be graded, because one person may have more of these characteristics, the other less. In Lithuanian language, deaf is graded. ir P. 67 the presentation of a certainly untypical for the Lithuanian language form of the su surname with a suffix of the highest degree of adjectives, e.g., Žebriūniausias instead of Žebriūnas, very randomly occurring (the writer’s quickest invention) only once in one work of fiction. However, the iš author of this fact makes a far-reaching conclusion that,,/lanHoe sB1enne, n0-BHAHMOMY, CJIejįyeT CUHTATb elle UUHHMM (DAKTOM, CBHJIETEJIbCTBYJOLLHM O TOM, UTO HMEHA NNpHJIaraTeJibHbIe H HMEHA CYmecTBHTeJIbHbIe BOCXOAAT K OJIHOH HepacuJieHeHHOH KaTerOpHH HMeEHH, CVINECTBOBaBILEH B ĮAJIEKOM TIpOlLuJIOM’.’ Comparing the former ir forms of the Russian and Lithuanian languages ( p. 141—148), The author correctly emphasizes the past tense of Lithuanian language, recognizing it as a specific feature of only one Lithuanian language (p. 141). The specificity of this time would be even better highlighted if the book would say that its forms are typical for both repetitive and repetitive verbs and participants, e.g.: rašyti —rašydavo —rašydavęs; write —wrote —wrote. This, possibly, would have helped the author to decide whether it is appropriate to compare the past tense of Lithuanian repetitive verbs with the past tense of Russian repetitive verbs, e.g.: rašydavau —nucbiean1, perrašydavau —nepenucsieaa (p. 141). All dictionaries translate the verbs nucoieams, nepenucbieamo into Lithuanian with repetitive verbs rasinéti, perspelinėti. Thus nucbieaA, nepenucbieaA translative wrote, rewrote, and wrote, rewrote —maybe, construction with the adverb evacmo, e.g.: wrote —nucaa, wrote —4acmo nucaa, rasinéjau —nucbhiea1A, wrote —wacmo nuchieaA, read —wumaswud, read —4acmo wumaswiud, readinéjes —t= motieaeiuui, readínadavęs —wacmo subueasiuniū (see readydaves, readinéjes and readinėdavęs) and so on. In doing so, the possible object would be more prominent in the past tense functions, without associating them with repetitive verbs of the Russian language. In addition, the book should show the significant difference between Lithuanian pairs such as degė (rope) and degdavo (uacro rope). Now in the book these two different forms are translated with the same word 2opea (p. 145). The past tense of each group of verbs in this case can only be compared with the past tense of the verbs of the same group (e.g.: rašydavau: rašiau; rašinėdavau: rašinėjau; rašydavęs: rašęs; rašinėdavęs: rašinėjęs), and the comparison of different tenses of verbs of different groups, in our opinion, could hardly be successful (cf. rašydavau and nucbieaA = I wrote, rewrote and nepenucbieaA = I rewrote, but after all, I wrote and I wrote or rewrote and rewrote is not the same). The fact that in fact the comparison of different tenses of different groups of verbs is not fruitful is reflected in the book. Here we read: "Cnoco6 NOBTOPSAEMOCTH AGHCTBHSI B PYCCKOM SH13bIKE MOXKHO Ha3BaTb rpammaTHYECKHM H a6coMmoTHBLIM. | paMMATHUECKHM OH SIBASI@TCSI NOTOMY, UTO OpraHHYeCKH CBfi3aH ¢ KareropHeli BHAA... AGCOMOTHBIM... NOTOMY, YTO NPOXOAHT Uepes Bce rJiaroJisHbIe popmbl...* Ir:,,Hapsijly ¢ 3THM OT Kax oro rJaarosa JIHTOB317 'CKOro fI3biKa MOXHO 06pa30BaTb 0co6yio (opMy MNpOLIEAIEro MHOrOKPaTHOro BpemMeHH, KOTOpasi NPOTHBONOCTABJSAETCS npoieAwemMy oaHokpatHomy (p. 147). So, one conclusion goes to yourself, the — second to yourself. They are both separately correct, but not mutually contradictory. ir The first conclusion, to, be applies perfectly to Lithuanian repetitive verbs, ir whose repetition of action is also grammatically absolute. ir į Speaking about the differences in the forms of the past tense of the ir Lithuanian language, the author mistakenly claims that at HHIA ,,... MEX (Y HHMH B HAJIHUHH cydhurca -davnpoB we mem MHorokpatHomTM (144 g. footnote). In fact, the difference between these forms is not only the suffix -dav-; they are both made of different forms: the past tense of communicative rašy-ti rašy-davo, the past participle form is independent, one of the iš three main — forms of the : verb in o Lithuanian language iš ir p. 203, which reads as follows: ,,Buijessiioresi B 310M OTHONIEHHH NpHYacTHsl, OGpa30BaHHbIe OT FJIaroJIOB BTOpOro CNpsSxeHHA HACTO Aero BpeveHH (thinned ours). Onn HveIoT o0coGhil popmanT: loving (JuoOamni) H mylėsigs, cp. : writing (nunrymaū) H rašysiąs’. Iš quotes it seems that the ir participant's future form love is composed of the iš present tense. Examining the form of Lithuanian nominative adjectives, the author too categorically states that „B pste nagexHsix (opm npocroe npuiaratesbHOe H MECTOHMEH#HE BBICTYNAIOT KAK CAMOCTOSITEJIbHbIE DOopMtI (p. 63)“. O iš the real jsubstantive adjectives are one į form grown specific derivatives with double su endings, whose noun he, forms are now similar to ji ia, stem endings’. į io On page 102, the story carelessly states that,,Hapsay c¢ 32CTBIBLIHMH ¢opuanH POAHTENBHOTO naljexa mia, tua, sua B PEAKHX CJYYasiX BO3MOXHO ynorpebrenue H apyrux opm. Hemp. : he always went somewhere with people, usually not for his own business..- .“ The quotation may sometimes give the wrong impression that the pronoun is not the pronoun of the conjugated pronoun, but the pronoun of the invariant pronoun. After all, Lithuanian has two characteristic pronouns of the same roots — the invariant mano, tavo, savo and the variable manas, tavo, savęs. In addition, the form of the unchangeable pronouns mano, tavo, savo clearly differs from the variable pronoun form of the singular noun root manas tavo, savas in its vowel quantity and suffix —mano, tavo, savo and mano, tavo, savo (see mūnojo, tūvojo, sūvojo). The author goes on to state that “Korjja K mecTomveHwio savas —ceod NPHCOGAHHACTCS OTPHIIATE/IbHASA YaCTHIA ne-, OHO MOJyYaeT 3HaueHHe NpHJaraTEeJIbHOTO H, KaK npaBuJjio, He ynorpebasiercs (iSretinta our) B pOAHTE/bHOM najexe”. In fact, the pronoun nesavas, which has acquired the meaning of an adjective, has not only the noun vowel, but also the entire singular and plural paradigm of its masculine and feminine gender?®. The author is unwilling to acknowledge (p. 63) the conventionally distinguished highest degree of all adjectives in Lithuanian grammar, which, being the strengthened highest degree, in fact shows the greatest amount of property of the object and distinguishes the marked object from the others. Lithuanian plural nouns, without emphasizing their different meanings, without any explanations and reservations in the book artificially mixed into one and Russian 1 Pig. The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, I, Vilnius, 1965, p. 493. * See. there, language example to call p. 675—676. 318 the general coGupareJisHbie In the name of the Lord (p. 89), Such numerical approximation does not give anything and, in our understanding, is unjustifiable in scientific work. Nouns evenings, nights, evening, outdoors (p. 237) ir noun compounds du times, times, du six times, six times (p. 239) the author assigns to adverbs, although in Lithuanian language such function does not perform jų nė alone. The book always ne selects suitable Lithuanian language examples for comparison. P. 42 In order to demonstrate that in Russian-Lithuanian ir languages the place of the accent can sometimes be a distinctive sign of the noun number, the author, alongside Russian examples baa, 6daa,..., Gaasi, Gande..., where the singular forms have an accent at the root, at the plural ending, presents the paradigm of the word langas, whose plural ending contradicts this rule. — For the to author here immediately makes the misleading conclusion ,,...570 that siB/IeKHe He HMEeeT NOCJIeJąjOBaTeJibHOTO XapaKTepa". If this alignment is selected ne III, o IV accent word, say I/gukas, would not have been used, because all the plural forms of this word have an accent at the ending. The book contains Lithuanian language matters that are not fully covered. P. 65 it is stated that the nominative adjectives of the Lithuanian language are used, Kak npaBuJio, TOABKO (iSrenta our) ,,B poJiH Onpe/teJieHHai“, but Lithuanian grammar indicates cases where they go consonant?, Sometimes the book shows too little too weakly analyzed ir morphological differences of the related parts of the language. ir Lithuanian, for example, unlike Russian, has a quite independent, rather abundant part of the speech. The ir outliers are formed by various means of production su (adverbs, root vowel changes, prepositions, etc.), ir because of which the ko meaning of the pronoun ir sometimes changes (plg. tick tick, ir tick tick, tick tick). ir Tų things in this work do not find. The author assigned the singulars to the verbs in the book without any motivation: , Hau npejicTaB/ISeTCA, UTO CJIOBa THOn a joke, HECMOTPSA Ha HX IIpOHCXOXJĮEHHE, MOXHO Ha3BaTb yCeueHHLIMH IrViaroJiaMH (p. 197)“. Su with such a treatment of Lithuanian language outliers ar Baltists can hardly agree. It was simply possible to compare it with Russian equivalents su (though in small ir numbers) jo without attaching to the verb. On the contrary, jį except as a separate part of the language, it was better to show the specificity jo and richness of Lithuanian language. Iš on the other hand hardly ar justified in Lithuanian language by the author separated independent language part category of — state, to which are assigned all adjectives of the non-noun genus some other separate ir words (shame, time, suffering...). After all, these Words do not form a unified system among themselves, they are ir perfectly suited to different parts of the language: some can be conjugated, altered by jų numbers, have a category of gender, others are graded. Nevertheless, į the book even examines the morphological features of this category (p. 243—246), semantic groups of its words (p. 246), its syntactic function (p. 246—249) ir also presents the category of adjectives of the adjectives of the adjectives of the adjectives (p. 242—243): .,...u peamer (sBJSIOULHICA HOCHTEJIEM KAKOTO-TO KAauecTBa) — OTBJIEUEHHOC KauecTBO (KOTOpoe NNpHrHCbIBaeTCOS NPeAMETY) —> COCTOSAHHE (KOTOPO€ MBICJIHTCHA B HECBA3H C KAKHM Jan6o npexaver)”. However, all this is not scientifically justified, there are no common formal characteristics to o distinguish the category of state. Therefore, in our opinion, at least the question of the category of the state of Lithuanian language is seriously suspended in the air in the book. 3 See. Ibid. p. 512. 319 Iš of individual forms in the Russian Lithuanian ir languages mentioned compound forms of Lithuanian verbs, which now do not have Russian language. Because of this to form, as an independent category of Lithuanian verbs, they are not examined separately in the book. It is true that they are mentioned a little bit, when talking about the actor, the participants, the traces. But the whole specificity of these forms (their meaning, making or use) remained ir unrevealed. On the other hand, doubtful, correct forms read I would have read to translate at ar the same ir 4"umaA Ooh. The latter translation, in our opinion, is suitable only for the form I would have o read, the form I would have read to reveal the ar ne specifics would be better suited literal translation £ Obie From wumaeswud. After all, I would have read it in ir Lithuanian, it would have been the same. ne Among the compound forms of the verbal noun in Lithuanian there are the forms ir were beskaitęs, were beskaitęs, were read, but one nė jų ir in the chapter of the epistle. The Lithuanian language attribute is assigned to the adverb in the book, jo without further explanation (p. 239—240). In addition jo to the examples, the book contains ir some remains of the Russian dialect, e.g.: cmodms cmoum (p. 239), plg. stand, but they are not compared to each other. P. 129, 134 it is stated that the Lithuanian verb pranešti had the meaning cooGujumo, but this is not entirely accurate, because it can still mean ir r poxecmu (MumO). P. 189 it is written that being can only have the synthetic permissive form teesie, but in Lithuanian literary language the analytical form tegul būna is actually widely iš used. ir In some cases, the author relies on examples from only one language. In this case, the comparative ir character of the book disappears. This applies to the forms of intransitive verbs of passive iš participants (p. 174), about Russian language TBOpHTeJisHbili AareHTHBHOTO JONoJIHeHHSA (p. 175), about the forms of the Russian imperative pronoun Mepaku, noaywad (p. 188) ir kt Although the book has a number of ir shortcomings, it still gives a fairly complete picture of the ji comparative morphology of the Russian-Lithuanian ir languages. When reading ir and studying it, it is impossible not to see the fruits of the author’s ir work, which are significant for Slavic-Baltic comparative ir linguistics. Iš in fact, it is a fairly good beginning of a great significant work that will lay the foundations for further research in that area. Už this book, no doubt, be will be grateful K. Students, translators, press workers and everyone who is interested in the usage of Russian-Lithuanian morphology. ir ir E. Grinaveckienė Banro-ciaBsanckai c6opuuk, Mocksa, 1972, 424 p. (orB. head. B. H. Tonopos). USSR Academies of Sciences The Institute ir of Slavic Balkan Studies has published a bu stamwerk ,,Balty-slavy collection“. It published fifteen articles and three reviews. ir Most of the articles focus on Baltic issues, but a significant number are simply 0 Lithuanianist. jų The interlinguistic nature of the collection is determined by the larger half (eight to iš fifteen) articles devoted to the relations and contacts of Baltic-Slavic languages. The book begins Z. Article by Zinkevičius "On the development of Baltic vocalism" (p. 5—14). In this article the author seeks new arguments to confirm that the white ,,prokalbéj“ former short long ir vowel a (*a, a). For example, it was said that the short vowel of the Balts was best preserved in mixed *o diphthongs 320