Nepastebėta senųjų raštų tariamosios nuosakos forma

BALTU LANGBU VEIKSMAZODZIO TYRINEJIMATI LET. Us VO ISET S BR MIO: K'S'L UU AK ADE M XK. J A Z. ZINKEVICIUS HAS NOT NOTED THE FORM OF THE OLD DECLARATION IN ONE OF THE 1677 BELLARMINE ORIENTALISTIC CATECHISM? jdéty hymns, in Latin titled „Stabat Mater dolorosa“ (p. 43—45), are two examples of the I person singular of the pronoun, having a form ending in -stūau, which seems to have not been developed and investigated in Lithuanian literature so far. Below they are presented in context: čiščiaufia wiJfuū merguū. Kift Jfunkibes tawo warguū, Duok idant galetumau?, Idant ynt križiaus kintufio, Vnt funaus tawo mirufio Wifadu atmintumau® O (443,—45,). l. s.g. galetum 45, "I could" ir reminded me 45,, 'atminčiau'* are the only examples of verbal forms in the hymns of this catechism. In the text of the catechism itself sg. |, cond. has a different form, su -here, t. y. dpturecia 12,4 "I would" (the only example). But the language of the hymns is ir already different from the language of the catechism itself in its mo phonetic morphological features?. "Screenplay in ir the Script". mų ir This indicates that they were read by another person. Dialectological linguistics * Short moksto krikscioniszko compilation, Nude Roberto Bellarmino- 's Cardinal's Parchment. "Academic Society of London, 1677". * Thinned mine. - Mr. Mr. * That it really sg. 1. form, shows the continuation of the quote: When pcs fudo paphthatite "Sukiay bu fiu apraiBytas (= accused; thinned my. —Z. Z.)". * For example, instead of catechism a ‘0’, adunt ‘idant’, brain ‘uz’ (prepositioir nal), prif "before", tiektay 'only' hymns systematically use the o, variants idant, uz, prief, tiktay. In the catechism the initial eis retained, in hymns it 0 is sometimes translated as a-, e.g. d//funt 40, ‘esant’, aius 533, <eius 'I'm'. The two-vowel circumflexes are sometimes au marked ow in hymns, e.g., adv. Idu 39, ‘jaw’, all. s.g. Annošiou/p 45+, KayfoBou/p 455. There is no such mark in the Catechism. Loc. pl. form in hymns ends only -sa (all examples), o in the text of the Catechism they vary: su -se e.g.), (14 -sa (15 e.g.) and -su (2 e.g., both in pots). * For example, long vowels in hymns are often marked 3. with a double letter: praet. Eéme 411, 47, *ėmė"', 3. praes. Neér 48; "none", n. sg. m. weélus 465 "late", a. sg. day 53; ‘(pa)déka’, 1. e.g. praes. regemime 54, ‘regime’; n. pl. iuds 375, 413, "you", pl. g. dun fue 48,5 "your", iui iūu 39,5, 41, "your", you 42, "their" in "dungūu" 40;; ‘dangy’, warguū 44y,, 'war', kapuū 58, "graves- ", wi/uū merguū 44s, “all the girls”; s.g. a. iuū 44, ‘yes’ (ryt. ji); praes. 3. iir 3624, 4111, 50,5 ‘yra’, sg. a. Curium 43, ‘kuri, adv. Tii 41,, ‘ten’ (ryt. 100 mg/ day). There are no such examples in the text of the Catechism. But here it is written d. sg. rdw 13, ‘tau’, Jaw 940, 3210 "or" (in hymns only to you, fau), letters used 3, § (in hymns z, z). 183 analysis of the characteristics of the language makes both the translator of the catechism and the hymns come from Vilnius region, but both from different dialects. The language and spelling of the hymns are close to the language and spelling of the last 7 Gospels of the 1647 edition of Evangelie polskie y litewskie (pp. 201—211)?. One can even suspect that both these texts were translated by the same person, who, moreover, also contributed to the preparation of K. Sirvydas- 's "Punkty Sayings" Part II for the press." His birthplace is to be found in the vicinity of Vilnius, near an//un isophone*, and the translator of the catechism text must have come from the area further north or northwest. Unfortunately, the 1. sg. form in the text of the 7 Gospels is not used. Therefore, the two subjects of our consideration of the presumptive clause I. sg. The examples with -fumiau are the only known examples of the 1. sg. of the hymn translator's schnekt. "examples. In the entire eastern 17th-century Lithuanian literature? find only 29 pronouns l. sg. examples. Most of them (even 22) end in -¢ia, the second place is taken by examples with the same origin formant -čio (4 were found). In this way, *-tju representatives make up as many as 9094 of all examples. Apparently, in the middle of the 17th century, this type of form prevailed in the Vilnius area. The exceptions are the two examples of hymns in the Bellarmine Catechism that we are considering and the only 1. sg. in the 1605 Catechism. cond. example not nufidetumbiau 56,, “I would not sin’. The latter example is chronologically the oldest, since in earlier Eastern writing monuments 1. sg. cond. form not used. It must be stated that 1. sg. cond. The form with -tumbiau was very rarely used in the Lithuanian language of the 16th — 17th centuries (not only in the eastern Altay dialect). In addition to the above example of the Eastern Catechism of 1605, there seems to be only one other example from western Lithuania (Mažvydas’ writings), namely, i//akitumbiau Mz 52118 “every time I did”. In the 16th and 17th century writings, the -čia || -čio type forms are generally used in addition to the rarer variant -čiau, which occurred at that time only in the writings of authors from western Lithuania, e.g. J. Bretkūnas (beside -čia, -čio), D. Kleinas (beside --čia), S. M. Slavočinskis (only -čiau)??. The ending -tūu of the examining examples of the Bellarmine Catechism hymns is derived from the older -tumbiau, after the disappearance of the labial consonant b after the labial nasal m. Such assimilation of one of the adjacent labial consonants is not uncommon in Lithuanian, e.g., kamlys Žasliai, Palėmenė, Gėlvonai, Tauragnai, Kūktiškės, Lazūnai < kambljs "plant trunk drūtgalis', ad. s.g. tamp || tam, baltamp || baltam Lazūnai, Zietela, all. pl. vilkump || vilkum Lazūnai, ameté Dievėniškės 6 See Z. Zinkevičius, On the Genesis and Language of the “Punkty Sayings” of K. Sirvydas, —Baltistica, VII(2), 1971, p. 160—161. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid., p. 166. * The list of its surviving monuments is presented in the article,,- RytiSkoji XVII a. lietuvių raštų kalba, jos kilmė ir išnykimas“, —Baltistica, VIII(1), 1972, p. 80—82. 10 This fact alone shows the unfoundedness of J. Kazlauskas’ hypothesis about the origin of -čia from -čiau (LKK, IV, p. 84; Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika, V., 1968, p. 400; it is tried to be supported by A. Girdenis, Baltistica, IV, p. Chr. S. Stang, Comparative Grammar of the Baltic Languages, Oslo—Bergen—Tromsė, 1966, p. 432*; Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, V., 1966, p. 364; G. B. Ford, Jr., The Origin of the Lithuanian First Person Singular Optative (Conditional or Subjunctive), —Donum Balticum, Stockholm, 1970, p. He also debunks the hypothesis of J. Otrebski (J. Otrebski, Gramatyka jezyku litewskiego, III, Warszawa, 1956, p. 233), in which forms with -čiau are also considered older than those with -čia. 184 *apmetė', klimti Šakyna, Palėmenė, Dūsmenys, Dievėniškės Zietela (> kliumti), K. Sirvydo Dictionarium® 132 ‘klimpti’, kuti Šakyna < kurnpti, "linkti', terūti]| pull Kalndlis, zem. ko'ms Plūgė, Telšiai ‘angle’, kii'ms there ‘angle’, trū*ms Plough ‘trumpas’, 3. praes. I'm dry. Grūšlaukis 'sušlampa'; avadai Rudamina 'borders', averzdo Pelesa 'turns over', avifto Dievėniškės, Gervėčiai 'turned over', apinys < apvinys and others. ** Thus b disappeared in other person forms of the pronoun: 2. sg. eitumbei > eitumei, 1. pl. eitumbime > eitumime, 2. pl. eitumbite > eitumite, 1. du. eitumbiva > eitumiva, 2nd du. eitumbita > eitumita. In Eastern 17th-century writing, the pronoun forms of other persons with the preserved b also have only the Catechism of 1605 (twenty |. pl. examples, the forms of other persons are not used). In other, later writings (earlier ones have no examples at all) there are only variants of these types without b: 2. sg. eitumei PS (8)**, BK (1), Ev-(8), eitum AgP (2), 1. pl. eitumime PS II (10), eitume, refl. -es PS 1 (22), PS II (10), BK (18), Ev (1), eitum BK (3), refl. -tumėmos BK (1), 2. pl. eitumite PS (19), Ev (18), eituméte Ev (1**)**, Thus, in the second half of the 17th century, not only in the conversations of the translator of the catechism hymns of Bellarmine, but also in those of other creators of oriental writing, the forms with b were already, apparently, practically expelled from the use of newer variants besides 55, Therefore, instead of them, the expected |. s.g. forms with -tumbiau in the hymns of the Bellarmine Catechism we find -tumiau'®. The data presented above show that in the era before the appearance of the first writings in Lithuanian there was a complementary paradigm of the pronoun, in which 1. sg. had a different form of action *-#ja@, whereas the forms of other persons were made from a suffix with endings -bei, -bime, -bitė, -biva, -bitū. It is rarely found in old writings. s.g. The form siegnis +-biau, of which both the examined examples of Bellarmin’s catechism hymns are a continuation, could be made after the example of I. pl. and others. Perhaps, its support (?) is considered now in the Eastern Highlands colloquials in places found form suktut “sukčiau?! ", Addiction. During the preparation of the publication for the press, J. Palionis published an article about a manuscript from the beginning of the 18th century,.Contiones Litvanicae“ (Kalbotyra, XXIII, 1, pp. 35—47), which has not yet been examined by linguists. cond. forms with -fau, -here gives some examples with -tūjau (ibid., 40). The author of the manuscript, according to J. Palionis, was a former southeastern highlander from Vilnius. Thus, this only confirms the above reasoning about 1. sg. cond. the development of forms © 1 For more examples see Z. Zinkevičius, Lithuanian dialectology, p. 179, 183, 187. 12 Santrupos: PS —K. Sirvydo „Points of sayings“, BK —Belarmino Catechism (without hymns), Ev —J. The 1647 edition of Jaknavičius' Gospels, AgP —"Agenda parva" 1616 edition. There are no other examples in the Eastern writings of that time. After the abbreviation, the number of specimens found is indicated in parentheses. 13 at the end of the book, i.e. the last 7 Gospels. 14 There are no examples of binary numbers at all. 15 Elsewhere in eastern Lithuania they must have been still in live use at that time, because in places in the Vilnius region, especially in the northern part, the formant -damas is still ripe, see. Z. Zinkevičius, Lithuanian dialectology, p. 364 —366. 1 At that time, most likely, it was pronounced -tumjau (or -tumbjau). After all the labial consonants in eastern Lithuania and now still in many places the yode is retained (at least optionally), see. Z. Zinkevičius, ibid., pp. 187-188. 17 Z, Žinkevičius, ibid., p. 364. 185 in the dialects of the region. The variant with -fau, recorded earliest in this manuscript, is now typical of the area south and southwest of Vilnius (approximately to Punids — Rūdiškių — ASmends line). 3. SBHHKABHYIOC HE 3AMEYEHHAS MCCJIEAOBATEJISIMH ®OPMA YCJIOBHOIro HAKJIOHEHHSI B IPEBHHX JIHTOBCKHX MAMATHHKAX Pe3rome B ojo H3 neced, HaneyaTaHHbIX B H3JaHHOM B 1677 r. BOCTOUHOJIHTOBCKOM NnepeBojįe KaTexH3Hca BejirapMuHa, HMEPOTCHA ABa npHMepa OOopMbI | Jika ejJį. 4. VCJIOBHOTO HaAKJIOHEHHA Ha -tumau. Jlauuas įdopMa Bo3HHKJIa H3 Čojiee peBHeli Ha -tumbiau, KOTOpas B Hauase XVII Beka ynoTpeOjJiaJiaCb B TOBOpaX BOCTOYHOJIHTOBCKOTO HapeuHA Haps/Įy C TIpeoOjragaboleli dopMoNH Ha -Here. B crarbe Take 3aTparHBaIOTCHA HeKOTODpbIe GoJsiee OOIHe BOMPOCH HCCJIEJJOBAHHA BOCTOUHOJIHTOBCKHX NMaMATHHKOB, HANp., JAaeTCS CTaTHCTHKA VINIOTpeOJIEHHS OT/EJIbHbIX BapHaHTOB (opm VCJIOBHOTO HAKJIOHEHHA, VCTAaHAB/IHBaeTCA, UTO aBTOPOM IeCceH ČblJI He TNepeBOjįuHK KaTeXH3HCA, a ppyroe JHUO, POAHOI roBOp KOTOporo CJIeJjyeT HCKaTh Iie-T0 B OkpecTHOCTSAxX BujJibuioca, HeJtazerko OT anljun u3ogoHbL.