Lietuvių kalbos galininko su dalyviu poziciniai modeliai

BALTU KALBUY ACTION METHOD INVESTIGATIONS LoI2 ET UV 00800 Test "Rei Me Oo KuSHE A Co-ALDB M1 JA V. EMBRACES LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES END SU PARTICIPANTS Positioned Models 0.1. Although the word order of Lithuanian is relatively loose, it is not usually ir considered a clear indicator of syntactic function, but in certain cases, for example, when distinguishing attributive and predicative word relations, it can acquire a differential meaning. The fact that attributive adjectives and participants in Lithuanian usually go before the indicative Word, in many cases allows to define their function and establish their relationships with other words. For example, the attributive compound gražus vakaras (beautiful evening) is distinguished from the predicative construction vakaras gražus (beautiful evening) only by the word order in written language. This word order is apparently based on a general tendency to use postpositionally words denoting predicate relations; on the other hand, it shows a far advanced process of significant differentiation of nominal structures. In this respect, Lithuanian differs markedly from many languages, in which attributive adjectives and participants, like predicative ones, usually follow the indicative words. The word order also plays an important role in semi-predikative constructions, i.e., in which the mutually connected words do not form the basis of the sentence. The dominant form of expression of semi-predicative relations in Lithuanian language is the participles and the semi-participles and participles close to them. The aim of this article is to examine the relationship between word order and their syntactic function in semi-predikative constructions of adjective with participant and participle (so-called accusativus cum participio- ). Those constructions, abundantly documented in ancient writings since the 16th century, are not more prominently influenced by other languages- ?, and their development can be observed throughout the period of the written tradition. This allows the role of word order in the expression of semi-predikative relations to be investigated diachronically, to see how the change of syntactic relations of the members of the construction relates to their position. 0.2.In the construction of a participle we distinguish 3 main members: verb (V), noun (N) and participle (P). All three members are part of the verb phrase. The noun and participle, linked by a semi-predicate relationship, are subordinated to the verb. For example, in the construction I see the parent-passing verb ZodZiui I see subordinated not only the noun parent, but also the participle-passing verb, because the function of none of them corresponds to the function of the whole noun and participle combination®. 1 See J. Greenberg, Universals of Language, Cambridge (Mass.), 1966, pp. 85, 100 et seq. 2 See aut., „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai- “, XI, pp. 56—57. 3 In this respect, the relationship between the noun and the participle form corresponds to an excentric relationship, see L. Bloomfield, Language, New York, 1933, p. 194; B. Bloch and G. L. Trager, Outline of Linguistic Analysis, Baltimore, 1942, p. C. Bapxynapos, Crpykrypa npocroro MPEAJIOKEHHS COBPEMEHHOro aHraHiickoro ssmka, M., 1966, pp. 39-40. 169 The order of the members of the structure is relevant in most cases. The position of P in relation to N is particularly important. For example, the construction I see a passing father we tend to interpret differently mainly because of the different position of these members: going before the noun, the participant is associated with it as an attribute and has no direct connection with the verb (of course, unless this connection is indicated by the context or intonation). The postpositional participle, on the other hand, is usually not subordinated to the noun, but relates to it in the same way as a preposition (see see: father comes). The semi-predictive function of the participant in this construction is therefore in most cases conditioned by the postposition. This is similar to the positional role of the corresponding constructions in other related languages. jo ir 1.1.0. In the present literary language, the use of the participle is already quite limited; therefore, the be participle is used here instead of the participle. This construction is most widely documented in 16th-17th century writings, where it is characterized by a very diverse structure with a large area of use. ir Therefore, when examining the position of its members, it is especially useful to review the data of ancient writings. XVIIn the XVII a. writings are represented all possible 6 positional models of the trinar construction, therefore, here we find Be both possible binary constructions ir (without expressN) ed models. Tų the quantitative distribution of models in the various texts is shown in the 4 table. Iš the table data shows that the construction in relation to su P the N postposition in the ancient writings only predominates, ne but constitutes about all 95%. (including binary) ir cases. Thus, the postposition of the participant is a very pronounced indicator of its semi-predikative function. 1.1.1. In the most common case, su the verb is in the first place, the noun (pronoun) in the second place, je and the po jo — participant in the third place. o VNP is the main positional model of this construction, represented in ancient writings by 84.97. of all examples. It is stylistically neutral and is not conditioned by any special characteristics of the sentence structure in the broader context. ar lei regesi Syrus killed me, so I'm dead. tu BrB I Kron 20, 12 (If I Syrians zu becoming strong LB)®. I entered the sketch. Philipa well mokeiussi rakoti BrP I 316. The mind of the human statalba dumoie | tą (295) swieta amszinai pasiliksenti MT 235—235*, (Teacher) shows with knowledge sdwo pigay accomplished and done (pokazuia | że nduka ich tacno moze bydž wypetniona) SP II 136. Jesus ssunus rises ir skielbie ye praised VEE 169, (IRe Kisses... praise them blessed LB). The exceptional position of this model is explained by the more general laws of word order in Lithuanian. The position of N after V is determined by the postposition of the objective ending in relation to the verb, typical of Lithuanian language, o P place po N — the already mentioned postposition of the predicate. Other positional models, unlike the main one, are associated with certain features of structure and meaning, so they are worth discussing separately. * Plg. D. Miiller, Studies in Modern Syntax, Winterthur, Switzerland 1957, p. 33,44; B.E. KoBaneHkKo, Hmsenntie cpejicTBa BHpaKeHus IipejiukannH, JIsBos, 1969, p. 173. ® The article uses the same abbreviations as The Lithuanian ir Language and Literature Institute prepared,,Lietuviy Language Grammar“ (I1965, II-only 1971), J. Bretkūno Bible (1579—1590) marked BrB, Postilė (1591) — BrP hymn ir (Giesmes Duchaunas, 1589) — BrGD. AbbreviatiLB on marks M. Lutetium Bibles 1549 m. authorization (Wittemberg, Hans Lufft), o W — The sixth edition of J. Vujek's Les Petites Postilles (1617). 170 1.1.2. The NVP model, the samples of which amount to 5.89, is second in frequency. In many examples, the placement of N before V is clearly motivated by the structure of the sentence. The noun here often consists of the pronoun which ending, which is the connecting word of the connective sentence and therefore begins the subordinate article. The function of the pronoun which does not allow the verb to be used at all, e.g. : iš jo po Is that the ius sunus that you say, ekla uszgimusi? BrB Jon 9, 19. The Jews who are Ambražičius S. mini teip bilgnczius DP 456,,°. Teyp skaytome ape Saulu karalu | which scripture says dweis years reigned vnt Israel SP 1 136,,. And the first voice which I heard speaking to me was a kaypo trumpet. For the same reason, the form of the pronoun kas that goes with the conjunction is also used prepositionally, e.g.: nieko notguldinedami iz¢ to ką riagimę santi duszioms' sawoms' naudingo (sic!) DP 51245. In other examples representing the NLP model, the noun members are usually also the endings of various pronouns (especially the third-person pronoun he). They refer to the concepts mentioned in the previous part of the sentence or in the previous sentence, thus linking the construction to the context. This characteristic connection of pronouns with the previous context motivates their more frequent preposition in the constructions of the participle with the participle. Dwasid flesh and blood not there |kaip' manė régite tūrinti DP 194,, (iako widžičie že ia mam W 330), t. p. ir MP 1683,. The 7545 is a 7545-seri- | es number- | ed single-engine turboprop aircraft. Dwase kitam newienam neteka | tiktai vieniems Apaschtalams Christo | Nesa tus saka Evangelista susrinkusius namūsu BrP II 141. Kita wel rasi isch pratos pawarguses gimines uszgimisi ir BrP II 276". In the context of su the previous connection, the combinations ir of demonstrative pronouns with nouns are used prepositionally, e.g. : Sir... Buwa thing. Schitai panna bus niesczia... At shitta panna Maria| saka Lukoschus | buwuse isch namu... Dowido BrP I 334. Dide nūdemais buwa geda Moterischkei... ne to be honest... Such a woman Szidai tara as God's Curse BrP II 263. Ta smog sakom Welino obsessed kunischkai | courses... ira sunkei mucziams BrP LI 280. It is used for N stylistic ir reasons. In an unusual position, it is more emphasized, highlighted. In verse texts, the preposition is sometimes determined by jo rhythmic and rhyming needs. ir After all, four Wirus palaidus regiu Vgnije waikschczoienczius BrB Dan 3,25 (original otherwise: I see four Manner lo 8 im Fewer walks LB). O as Saulas Dowida regeia ischenti prisch The Philistine, speaks the truth BrB I Sam. 17,55 (However, since Saul Dauid saw go out LB). Berneli thinai atrade suwistita bei prakarte lying | ne usztil anu... Szodziu BrP I 96. Bernéli sake grdtuji The memory card has been inserted RG 18,. ...Of course we wouldn't be able to transfer Mz 563 (GCh II) if we were equipped with such accessories. In the translations, the beginning of the construction may have been postponed in N some places due to the influence of the original language. i ir For M. example, Daukšos ir Anonymous 1600 m. in the se bedalmost all The word order of the examples representing the NDP model is the same as in the corresponding J. Vujeko ir M. In the places of Ray's posts. ® Similarly also DP 32, 3421, 37431. ? Similarly still BrP II 97, 248, I 161, 302—303 ir kt 171 So The NLP model in the ancient scriptures is inverse. It is usually associated with the structure of the sentence and the wider context, or is stylistically marked. 1.1.3. Model NPV third — by frequency (4,2%). It is usually used when the N-P combination is to be emphasized or to be linked to the previous sentence, the focus of the sentence or some part of it. The inverse nature of this model is determined by the already mentioned tendency of Lithuanian language to move object verbs or constructions after the verb. ...Must go to worship Christ... attached. O Pona musu... nepasssilikussi szemeie | nei patreschimo alba pagedimo regeiusi | Bet... isch numirusiu prissikielusi | tatai isch schiu Scheschiu daiktu tikrai szinam BrP 11 7. And those who saw him doing so, like the market of Malkai, were called BrB IV Mos 15 (Und die in drob funden hatten | da er holtz las LB). Liepe idant Hetmona... Ant Ziames dtdnti Ghiemus dpisakitu KN 1395. S. Powilas... wissa pilnibe Deiwistes kunischkai ingiwenancze mokin MT 27, Rejected is Aristotle's | and other Philosophu's errors | which Holy nig amszu buwussi said | and amszinai remains stepina MT 46,,. Sometimes the model NPV is also determined by the verb's connection with subsequent constructions, e.g. : Szmones isch pradzio Swieto sirguses | ir dabar serganczes | kosznas szinna | netiktai isch ludimo raschto | bet ir isch koszno paties pertrynio BrP II 459; thus the great distance of the P and N combination from V is avoided. The connection of the first-place N with the previous context is also shown by the demonstrative pronouns that go with the noun, e.g. : But coming in a bad and ubagischku way... Nesa considered first time coming | teipo pawargusi wants Schwenti Prarakai... pranesche buwa BrP 1 8—9. Anįs tiektai szitą giwdtq bisencziq tiki DP 58443, (only there žywot byc¢ believe W 995). But to the Lithuanians, the cossanic sakita |asch neszinnau BrP II 517. The positioning of the noun member at the beginning of the construction may be conditioned by the sentence structure, for example in questioning sentences or in sentences having the form of an indirect question. What do you say about me? 1899) 1981 – John B. Brown, American actor (b. And who thought santi (465) sdkote? 465–466 (who may have been the author of W 776). The 1988-89 season saw the team finish eighth in the NHL with a record of 28,852 points. However, when bringing the noun forward, the model NVP is more often chosen. Sometimes the position of NPV is determined by the need for symmetrical arrangement of sentence parts, e.g. : You Maria first Angelo nei regeiusi |nei ghi speaking heardeiusi | manens delei and delei mana kalbeghimo issigandai. BrP 1 336. When the guard awoke, and the prison doors were opened, he drew his sword. Acts 17:27 In the old writings the pattern of NPV is distributed very unevenly: (cf.: 194 BrB, 49, BrP and 119, DP, 209, SE, 2294 MT). The higher frequency of this pattern in some places can be explained in part by the stimulating influence of the originals. For example, it is the most common in Vaišnorov’s translation of Zemchuga from Latin, where the postposition of the verb after accusativus cum infinitivo (as in general after objective constructions) is very common. The examples of the NPV model in M. Daukša’s Postila mostly correspond to the constructions of the Polish original in word order. Of course, this is far from indicating the borrowing nature of this model. 172 + In all three models discussed so far, P goes after N. Cases with a participle preposition make up only 3.29 of all examples. They are worthy of attention mainly because the participant, having a semi-predicative function, here occupies a position characteristic of the attributive word. 1.1.4. The VPN model is documented in many 16th-17th century writings. Although it is rare, it is represented by constructions with forms of both species and participants of different times. a) Ghis... rasche Hoitmanump, idant anis iopi ateitų, tadda norinti sawe demus dide Salary and Gifts dūti BrB Mak 16, 19. I never expected to have so many evil Vin 6—7. We have to... accept... kuna and blood | as we see, this is a true krikshezonis BrP II 414. b) Darikem teipo |as schicze regim dariusius schus Customsmen and great sieschnikus BrP II 225. He was a member of the 1982–83 NHL Entry Draft, and was drafted in the 48th round by the Washington Redskins. c) Where will you play private sex games? MT 253. Szinnut after two days busenczes Welikas BrP Ip 356. Tale and prophecy Angels...- wissada on the eyes... busenczes (90) and staying people. BrP 1 90—91. d) We believed strongly | we returned the rightfully pardoned wissus greeks BrP I 263. The courses then nektiki saw a blowing remission in Greek MT 13844. "Gid | be darbu isch neischmierūtos mielaschirdingistes Diewa adleidczemus griekus MT 72*"; 4. e) When Salna heard of Holofernes, she cut off his head BrB Judit 15, 1. Maihieius... rascha| Porop Kristauspi atneschta wira serganti koululiga. BrP II 454. Ira wirwes... Ape kurids raszo S. Petras ir sako iomis surisztus piktus Anielus aba welinin (powiada- ... związane byc zte anioty) SP I 373,;. In some cases the semi-predikative function of the participle emerges from its relation to N. For example, in most of the examples (a) and (b) the participle goes before pronouns or combinations of pronouns and nouns with which the attributive notation is not usually used. The semi-predicative function is also shown by the relation of V to N: the noun cannot be considered the direct object of the verb (constructions *wrote himself, *believe himself, *see customsmen, *report people, etc. in the quoted sentences are semantically impossible). Thus, V is here connected with both N and P, and such a connection would be impossible if there were an attribute relationship between N and P. The semi-predictive P function is quite obvious in examples where it is the participant of the verb to be, e.g. : Toliaus moko Ianas tie wienoie Davistie sanczes tris personas. BrP II 238 Rasztas.- .. sako negalinti sunti dayktu | adunt kas... iszmonitu SP I 210,.. But I know dsz santi tawe not a small greeribiu KN 265,,. "The 100-year-- old castle of the Habsburgs, 1717-18". Thus, in the aforementioned cases, the syntactic function of the prepositional P remains sufficiently defined. Meanwhile, the position of P immediately after V allows to emphasize their semantic connection, to more closely link their actions. This is the first time that the team has played in the P-League, and not in the Premier League. Sometimes the effect of the whole sentence structure is also evident, for example, when the N is associated with the secondary point of the connective sentence, and the postpositionally used participant should be moved behind it, to the end of the sentence (e.g.: Kaip tatai tankei girdim kalbanczes tas szmones | kurios delei pikto kakio darbo | gadinamas ira BrP II 437), or when the participant is encouraged to use before N the already said and associated with that participant 173 circumstantial or objective constructions (e.g.: Kristus... ischroda | ikki swieto galo busenczius bei gerus bei piktus krikschezonisteie BrP I 24). When P goes before N, which can be the direct object of V, the semi-predikative function of the participant is not more clearly differentiated and usually only emerges from the meaning of the sentence (a). As in the above-mentioned constructions, it can be emphasized by the fact that P is used not directly before N, but before its nominal signs (b). Between V and P is sometimes said the object of the P-marked action (c). a) And the Son of Man came into the clouds of heaven (Matt 24:30). And todrin sakos Ionas S. regieiš eiūti pragaru paskui smerti (widzat piekio idące za šmiercią) SP II 4245. b) Iszwido Ponas dtdianczius tutus bludus MP 17954 (you will see other various errors of RP 121). Anqgi hadinin returned ing Jerusalem and found the eleven assembled SE8444. Ižsirinkimas...liginasi raszty karioney | which you will find mentioned wisokius guns kariones (in which you will find mention of all kinds of oreza) SP I 13,. ¢) We have to...accept...his kuna and blood |as we see him doing it as a true Christian BrP 11 414. The remaining two ternary models with the participant preposition are completely unproductive. The relationship between this and the model VPN is about the same as the relationship between the inverse postpositional participant model and the typical (VNP). Here we see even a double inversion: both the participle (prepoziciné) and the verb (terminal or jterptiné) are inverted. 1.1.5. The model is represented only by individual constructions in the old PNV writings. Boulu ligga serganti szmogu [ta kalbam kurio kaulai | koiu alba ranku didei gel BrP 1 188. Who's redd's Lawona | Prastyra? If you were dead, you wouldn't say it. RG 539,,. That he may wake up without waiting, and find you asleep Mark 13:36. Pagulditus piktam | mus wisus regieiay KN 227,. 1071–1074) and the 1074–1076 reigns of his son, the 1076–1077 reigns of his son, the 1077–1079 reigns of his son, and the 1079–1081 reigns of his son. 1.1.6. The following examples of the model VAT are found in all the texts examined: Ape schita... Geribe... reiktu... misliti ir niekada isch schirdies sawa neischleisti | kaip tatai dariusi regim |netiktai ana schwenta Karaliu Dowida BrP 1 236. O terp Krikscioniu ne suskaytitus regime neturelus (not counted number I see | who sq vbodzy | and nothing maycy) SP 11 2103. The 141st Infantry Battalion is based at the 141st Infantry Battalion Field. 1.1.7. In addition to the discussed trinariy constructions, the ancient writings sometimes contain binary constructions consisting only of V and P. In such cases, N is usually implied from the previous part of the sentence, the previous sentence or the context. Therefore, binary constructions do not constitute a separate type of end member with a participant, but are considered elliptical variants of the aforementioned triangular models. In these, the verb also usually goes before the participle (VP), e.g. : And when Jesus came, he was seen, (as in the example) I took the dead (from the dead) Bone I did not break BrB John 19, 33. I don't know what to do, I don't know what to do, I don't know what to do, I don't know what to do, I don't know what to do, I don't know what to do, I don't know what to do, I don't know what to do, I don't know what to do, I don't know what to do. Ius Tarnay ij pažinkite |...kayp dabar regit 8 Similar DP 473,,, VEE 66,,; The word order is probably determined by the Latin construction beatam te dicunt. 174 Teyp weliszwisit dtdnti CN 16613-3,’. You hear the catband. It is not known whether the 129th was a 129th or a 129th-130th. For that (writing) bito dweis buwusi years karalum Sauli | iszmano gieray and szwyntay wieszpatawusi according to Diewo will SP I 1365,. (Human) 6. Nežino ape... atmetimu vmžinon paskundon del nusideimu |kuriuose regi Diewas numiršt i be gayleimo ažu iuos (Widzi Bog że wmrze bez pokuty) SP I 116;5. Only in one place in J. Bretkūno Postilés, already discussed by E. Tanglio®, the participle end indicates an action without a clearly defined actor: Lepsas reta karta girdim Prusu szemieie apsirgusi BrP I 188. From the context, only the noun of general meaning person can be reconstructed here. However, this use of the participle is not typical for Bretkūnas or other 16th-17th century authors. In the absence of a defined actor, constructs with participles are more common (see 2.1.). Only the following 5 examples of binary constructions with the participle preposition (PV) have been found in ancient writings: Todelei kada regim szmogu mirschtanti | alba numirusi girdesim | tadda nekaltikem Diewa BrP II 411. This kind of backward thing is not allowed by those | who...believe| Christu sedinti... and with their own blood and bones they will surely be saved by the Sacrament of the Eucharist. MT (PM) 32.5. The souls are not in our sight | but tinay essunčiu numanome iz weykatu (Lech tam bedgcey dochodzim) SP 1 97. "I'm Not Dead, I'm Not Dead, I'm Not Dead, I'm Not Dead, I'm Not Dead". At the opening of my already Duskénanti I see RG 568 —569. The omitted N in all examples is easily reconstructed from the same sentence in which the concept it denotes is expressed by a suffix or another syllable; The N ellipse is for stylistic reasons (to avoid repeating the same word). 1.1.8. The order of the members of the adjective with the participle varies more in those sources where this construction is generally rarer, less used. For example, in the Book of the Church, where it is relatively rare (less than 3 cases in the book), the more common word order is a minority (4:12, i.e. 25 94), similarly in the Enchiridion of Wilen (3:4). Even the model VPN with the participle preposition has more examples in the Book of the Church than the typical VNP. In the hymns of J. Richter and S. M. Slavočinski there are as many inverse examples as there are typical ones. The percentage of inverse constructions in the writings of M. Daukša, M. Mažvydas, M. Petkevičius is also significantly higher than the general percentage. In contrast, in sources where the participle is used extensively, the position of its members is much more stable. In J. Bretkūnas’ Postilas, the model of the GNP amounts to 87,945, and in the Bible translation — even 93.8 9, of all cases (in the Old Testament translation the percentage is even higher). Slightly different in this respect is Vaišnoras’ Zemčiūga, in which the percentage of ordinary order (OOR) examples is lower than the average (71%), but this is partly explained by the activity of the NPV model related to the influence of the Latin original. All this suggests that there is a certain relationship between the prevalence of the structure and the stability of its positional model. The more common the structure, the more stable the order of its members, and vice versa. It is possible that the positional stability of the members of the adjective with the participle was positively influenced by the standardization of this construction in the literary language. * E. Tangl, Der Accusativus and Nominativ cum Participio im Old Lithuanian, Weimar, 1928, p. 47. 175 1.1.9. The overview of the discussed positional models shows that the variation of the order of the final and participant members is mainly determined by the relationship of the construction with the whole sentence or wider context and stylistic motives. The lexical and morphological characteristics of the members are not directly related to their order. Therefore, in the tables, when summarizing the distribution of positional models, constructions according to the lexical meaning of the verb or morphological groups of participants are not further divided. However, on closer inspection, it can be seen that with certain verbs, for example, find, want, cases of inverse word order (especially NVP) are more common. For example, constructions with the verb žemčiūga in Vaišnoras’ Zemčiūga are mostly inverse (7 examples in NVP and only 3 in VNP). Of the 20 constructions with the verb rasti used in J. Bretkūnas’s Postila, 10 have the inverse order of the members. In J. Bretkūno Bible New Testament translation the percentage of corresponding inverse constructions is lower (289), but far exceeds the general (1594); it is similar in the Gospels and Epistles of B. Vilentas (219%); on the other hand, in the Old Testament translation of the same J. Bretkūnas it is quite small (about 3%). In the 1600 postilla of M. Daukša and the anonymous postilla of 1600 with the verb, the cases of inversion are found more frequently than with other verbs (DP —449,, MP —6694), only in almost all the examples the word order is the same as in the corresponding places of the originals, so their influence can be explained. Although the data vary, they clearly show a lower positional stability of the constructions with the aforementioned verbs. Constructions in which N can be regarded as the direct object of V (mostly with verbs vidi, regėti, išvysti, rasti, etc.) in the ancient scripts make up about 21.4% of all examples of a participle (587 out of 2748). Among them, cases with verb interposition (VIP) occur much more often than elsewhere (about 1194). Apparently, the unbleached control relationship between V and N weakened the predicate relationship between N and P, which created more favourable conditions for V interposition. Frequency indicators of other positional models differ little from the general ones (VNP —81945, NPV —49, VPN —1.5%, PNV —0.89%, PVN —0.1994 and VP —1.194), and the percentage of all inverse constructions (9%) is also only slightly higher than the general one. Thus, the position of the members of both types of a posteriori with a participant in the 16th - 17th centuries was not clearly differentiated. When comparing the data of the old writings discussed here with the current ones, we see that the condition of the participle with the participle has changed considerably. 1.2.0. At present, the participle is used in literary language only when N can be regarded as the direct object of V. Other constructions have become archaisms and are only used for special stylistic purposes. The area of use of the adjective with the participle itself (usually fiction, folklore) is also very narrowed. The positional models of the present tense with the participle in contemporary Lithuanian were determined based on 1000 examples collected mainly from fiction and folklore. The relationship between them is shown in Table 1. 1.2.1. After reviewing the current data, the first thing that falls into the eye is the greatly increased productivity of constructions with the participant preposition. The pattern VPN here accounts for as much as 16% of all examples, compared to 2.79 in the old scriptures, i.e. it is more than 5 times more common. Here are some more typical examples: 176 a) It was already evening when The pope saw coming a track from Jakūbavos Alena's father VnA 18. In a very beautiful garden saw a ji young man walking Lt III 290. He went out into the field and heard the birds singing beautifully Sd (MLLG II 418). In the morning he discovers a ruined cottage LKŽ 1655. Now, Jonah, go shopping. There you'll find a lying witch Lt III 389. b) The son, seeing his father very upset... requested Lt III 211. The father was frightened when he saw such gentlemen entering Lt III 345. ¢) Seeing me rise early, as usual, my mother asked me: sė VencIPU 47. When they saw the driving ją (plague goddess) through the village, ran off the road MLLG II 62. l table Order of members of participatory structure in current language Positional model Number of structures | % VNP 795 | 79,5 VPN 140 14 NPV 10 || NVP 50 5 VP 5 | 0,5 Modeling The higher productivity of VPN is probably related to the changed su position of the structure itself in the system of syntactic tools. As the sphere of the final participle usage narrows, su attributive compounds seem to be increasingly jo affecting the tendency of the member order. Since the indirect participles now usually go before nouns, they are more often used pronominally in cases where the participant is associated with a noun, ir ir su ir su with the verb drauge. Meanwhile, pronouns to sū which participants, as adjectives, are not attributiveir ly connected, usually P retain a postpositional position. Examples Against Pronouns su P (c) occurs very rarely. , Semi-predikative participle function In VPN model constructions, nouns in total su are weaker iš felt. The ability to understand the participant as an attribute disappears only when the noun is preceded by pronouns ar ar (b). 1.2.2. Other inverse construction models are currently represented somewhat less frequently than XVI — In the 17th century, o some of them were iš completely overlooked. Therefore, the main The ratio of the VNP model to others, su which can be considered as an indicator of the positional stability of the structure, decreased relatively slightly (only about 794). 2.1.0. Be Participle end, in the constructions under consideration here is used the unconjugated participle form dalyvis. It is worth looking — at how the inclusion of a participant in this construction affects the į position of its members. In the majority of cases XVI — The participle a. form of the 17th-century writings is not yet very common: it is found only in all ji constructions, some 13,59, authors o (for J. example, Bretkūno) writings — only 3,1%,. The su relationship between the positional models as constructive factors is shown in the 2 table. | 12. 902 177