Nepastebėta senųjų raštų tariamosios nuosakos forma

B A L T U K A L B Ų V E I K S M A Ž O D Ž I O T Y R I N Ė J I M A I L I E T U V O S T S R M O K S L Ų A K A D E M I J A Z. ZINKEVIČIUS AN UNNOTICED CONDITIONAL FORM IN OLD WRITINGS In one of the hymns included in the 1677 eastern Belarmino catechism, entitled in Latin “Stabat Mater dolorosa” (pp. 43—45), there are two first-person singular examples of the conditional mood that have a form ending in -tumiau, which, apparently, has not yet been brought to light or examined in Lithuanian studies. They are presented below with a broader context: O czyščiauſia wiſų mergų. Kiſt ſunkibes tawo wargų, Duok idant galetumiau², Idant vnt kriziaus kintuſio, Vnt ſunaus tawo miruſio Wiſadu atmintumiau² (44₃₀—45₁). 1. sg. galetumiau 45₁ ‘I could’ and atmintumiau 45₄, ‘I would remember’³ are the only examples of conditional forms in the hymns of this catechism. In the text of the catechism itself, the 1. sg. cond. has a different form, with -čia, namely ápturečia 12₂₃ ‘I would receive’ (the sole example). The language of the hymns also differs from that of the catechism text itself in its phonetic and morphological features⁴. There are also marked differences in spelling⁵. This indicates that they were translated by another person. Dialectological linguistic ¹ Trumpas mokslo krikščioniško surinkimas, Nuog Roberto Bellármino Kárdynolo pará-šitas. Vilnæ Typis Acad: Societatis Iesu, Anno 1677. ² Emphasis added. — Z. Z. ³ That these are indeed 1. sg. forms is shown by the quotation’s punctuation: Kád vnt ſudo paſtatitas Sunkíay buſiu ap-raiſytas (=accused; emphasis added. — Z. Z.). ⁴ For example, in place of the catechism’s a’o’, adunt ‘so that’, aų ‘for’ (preposition and prefix), priβ ‘against’, tiektay ‘only’, the hymns systematically use the variants o, idant, už, prieb, tiktay. The catechism retains the word-initial e-, whereas in the hymns it is sometimes rendered as a-, e.g., aſſunt 40₁ ‘being’, auis 53₃₁ < eius ‘having gone’. In the hymns, the diphthong au in circumflex endings is sometimes written ou, e.g., adv. Iou 39₇ ‘already’, all. sg. Annoſiouſp 45₂₅, Káyfoßouſp 45₂₆. This spelling is not found in the catechism. Loc. pl. forms in the hymns end only in -sa (all examples), while in the catechism text they vary: with -se (14 examples), -sa (15 examples), and -su (2 examples, both in prayers). ⁵ For example, in the hymns long vowels are often marked by a doubled letter: 3. praet. Eėme 41₁₁, 47₁ ‘he/she took’; 3. praes. Neė 48₅ ‘is not’, n. sg. m. weėlus 46₂₇ ‘late’, a. sg. dėeku 53₂₇ ‘(in)gratitude’, l. pl. praes. reegime 54₂₄ ‘we see’; n. pl. iuus 37₅, 41₂₀ ‘you’, g. pl. iuuſu 48₁₈ ‘your’, iuu 39₁₅, iuu 41₉ ‘their’, tuu 42₄ ‘those’, dunguu 40₁₇ ‘heavens’, warguu 44₃₁ ‘troubles’, kapuu 58₁ ‘graves’, wiſų mergų 44₃₀ ‘of all girls’; a. sg. iuu 44₁ ‘her’ (eastern dialect jū); 3. praes. iir 36₂₄, 41₁₁, 50₁₅ ‘is’, a. sg. Kurij 43₁ ‘which’, adv. Tii 41₁₉ ‘there’ (eastern dialect tī < tę). There are no such examples at all in the catechism text. However, it has d. sg. taw 13₄ ‘to you’, ſáu 9₂₀, 32₁₀ ‘to oneself’ (in the hymns only tau, ſau), and the letters з, ӡ are used (in the hymns z, ž). 183 Analysis of the features leads us to conclude that both the catechism’s translator and the hymns’ translator came from the Vilnius region, but from different speech varieties. The language and spelling of the hymns are close to those of the last seven Gospels (pp. 201–211) in the 1647 edition of “Ewangelie polskie y litewskie”⁶. It may even be suspected that both texts were translated by the same person, who also helped prepare Part II of K. Sirvydas’s “Punktai sakymų” for publication⁷. His birthplace should be sought in the environs of Vilnius, near the an//un isogloss⁸, whereas the translator of the catechism text must have come from a place farther to the north or northwest. Unfortunately, the 1. sg. form of the conditional mood does not occur in the text of the aforementioned seven Gospels. Thus, the two examples of the 1. sg. conditional mood that we are examining, with -tūmiau, are the only known examples of the 1. sg. conditional mood in the hymns’ translator’s speech variety. In the entire eastern Lithuanian written tradition of the seventeenth century⁹, only 29 examples of the 1. sg. conditional mood have been found. Most of them (as many as 22) end in -čia; examples with the historically related formant -čio rank second (4 have been found). Thus, reflexes of *-tiā make up as much as 90% of all examples. Apparently, forms of this type predominated in the environs of Vilnius in the mid-seventeenth century. The exceptions are the two examples from the hymns in the Belarmino catechism that we are examining, and the single 1. sg. cond. example in the 1605 catechism, ne nufidetumbiau56₂ ‘I would not sin’. The latter example is chronologically the oldest, since the 1. sg. cond. form does not occur in earlier monuments of the eastern written tradition. It must be noted that the 1. sg. cond. form with -tūmiau was used very rarely in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Lithuanian (not only in the East Aukštaitian dialect). Besides the cited example from the 1605 eastern catechism, apparently only one other example is known, from western Lithuania (Mažvydas’s writings), namely, įįsakītumbiau Mž 521₁₈ ‘I would command’. As a rule, sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts use forms of the -čia // -čio type throughout, alongside the less common variant -čiau, found at that time only in writings by authors from western Lithuania, such as J. Bretkūnas (alongside -čia, -čio), D. Kleinas (alongside -čia), and S. M. Slavočinskis (-čiau only)¹⁰. The ending -tūmiau in the examples from the Belarmino catechism hymns under examination should be derived from the older -tūmbiau, with the labial consonant b disappearing after the labial nasal m. Such assimilatory loss of one of two adjacent labial consonants is not uncommon in Lithuanian, e.g., kam̃lỹs Žasliai, Palomenė, Gelvonai, Tauragnai, Kuktiškės, Lazūnai < kam̃blỹs ‘thick part of a plant stem’, ad. sg. támp // tám, baltámp // baltám Lazūnai, Zietela, all. pl. vilkum̃p // vilkum̃ Lazūnai, àmėtė Dieveniškės 6 See Z. Zinkevičius, “On the genesis and language of K. Sirvydas’s ‘Punktai sakymų’.” – Baltistica, VII(2), 1971, pp. 160–161. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid., p. 166. 9 A list of its surviving monuments is given in the article “The eastern Lithuanian written language of the seventeenth century, its origin and disappearance,” – Baltistica, VIII(1), 1972, pp. 80–82. 10 This fact alone demonstrates the untenability of J. Kazlauskis’s hypothesis that -čia originated from -čiau (LKK, IV, p. 84; Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika, V., 1968, p. 400; A. Girdenis attempts to support it, Baltistica, IV, pp. 143–144); see also Chr. S. Stang, Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen, Oslo–Bergen–Tromsö, 1966, p. 432¹; 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. 125. It also undermines J. Otrębski’s hypothesis (J. Otrębski, Gramatyka języku litewskiego, III, Warszawa, 1956, p. 233), which likewise regards forms with -čiau as older than those with -čia. 184 ‘threw down’, klìmtì Šakýna, Palómenė, Dùsmenys, Dievēniškės Žietela (> kliùmti), K. Sirvydas’s Dictionarium5 132 ‘to sink’, kùmti Šakýna < kūmpti, ‘to bend’, tem̃ti|| tem̃pti Kalnalis, Samogitian kõ˙ms Plungė, Telšiai ‘corner’, kù˙ms in the same places ‘crooked’, trù˙ms Plungė ‘short’, 3rd pers. pres. sušlò˙m Grūšlaukis ‘gets wet’; avadãi Rudami- nà ‘fences’, averždo Pelėšà ‘turns over’, avìrto Dievēniškės, Gervėčiai ‘turned over’, apinýš < apvinýš and so on.11 Thus b also disappeared in forms of the other persons of the conditional: 2nd sg. eitumbei > eitumei, 1st pl. eitumbime > eitumime, 2nd pl. eitumbite > eitumite, 1st dual eitumbiva > eitumiva, 2nd dual eitumbita > eitumita. In Eastern 17th-century writing, forms of the other persons of the conditional mood retaining b are also found only in the 1605 catechism (twenty examples of 1st pl.; forms of the other persons are not used). In other, later texts (there are no examples at all in earlier ones), only variants of this type without b occur: 2nd sg. eitumei PS (8)12, BK (1), Ev (8), eitum AgP (2), 1st pl. eitumime PS II (10), eitume refl. -ės PS I (22), PS II (10), BK (18), Ev (1), eitum BK (3), refl. -tumėmos BK (1), 2nd pl. eitumite PS (19), Ev (18), eitumėte Ev (113)14. Thus, in the second half of the 17th century, forms with b had apparently already been practically displaced from usage by newer variants without b, not only in the dialects of the translator of the hymns in Belarmino’s catechism, but also those of other Eastern Lithuanian writers15. Therefore, instead of the expected 1st sg. form with -tumbiau, in the hymns of Belarmino’s catechism we find -tumiau16. The data presented above show that, in the period before the first Lithuanian texts appeared, the Lithuanian language had a suppletive conditional paradigm in which the 1st sg. had a form of different formation, *-tjā, whereas the forms of the other persons were formed from the supine with the endings -bei, -bimė, -bitė, -bivā, -bitā. The 1st sg. form supine + -biau, found very rarely in old written sources, whose continuations may be considered to include both examples examined from the hymns in Belarminas’s catechism, could have been formed on the model of the 1st pl. and other persons. Perhaps the form suktum ‘I would turn’17, now found locally in eastern Aukštaitian dialects, should be regarded as its remnant (?). Prier note. While preparing the publication for print, J. Palionis’s article appeared on the early-18th-century manuscript “Contiones Litvanicae,” which had not previously been studied by linguists (Kalbotyra, XXIII, 1, pp. 35—47). In addition to 1st sg. cond. forms with -tau, -čia, the article’s author provides several examples with -tumiau (ibid., 40). In J. Palionis’s view, the manuscript’s author was a south-eastern Aukštaitian from the Vilnius area. This, then, merely confirms the reasoning presented above concerning the development of 1st sg. cond. forms in Vil- 11 For more examples, see Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, pp. 179, 183, 187. 12 Abbreviations: PS — K. Sirvydas’s „Punktai sakymų“, BK — Belarminas’s catechism (excluding hymns), Ev — J. Jaknavičius’s 1647 edition of the Gospels, AgP — the 1616 edition of „Agenda parva“. There are no examples in other eastern Lithuanian written monuments of the period. The number of examples in the texts is given in parentheses after each abbreviation. 13 At the end of the book, that is, in the last 7 Gospels. 14 There are no dual examples at all. 15 In other parts of eastern Lithuania, these forms must still have been in active use at that time, since the formant -b- is still found here and there in the Vilnius region, especially in its northern part; see Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, pp. 364—366. 16 At that time, the pronunciation was probably -tumjau (or -tumbjau). After all labial consonants, jot is still preserved in many places in eastern Lithuania, at least optionally; see Z. Zinkevičius, ibid., pp. 187—188. 17 Z. Zinkevičius, ibid., p. 364. 185 in the dialects of the Vilnius region. The variant with -tau, first recorded in this manuscript, is now characteristic of the area south and southwest of Vilnius (approximately as far as the Punia–Rūdiškės–Ashmyany line). 3. ЗИНКЯВИЧЮС A CONDITIONAL MOOD FORM IN OLD LITHUANIAN TEXTS OVERLOOKED BY RESEARCHERS Abstract In one of the songs printed in the East Lithuanian translation of Bellarmine’s catechism, published in 1677, there are two examples of the 1st person singular conditional mood form ending in -tımiau. This form developed from an older one ending in -timbiau, which at the beginning of the 17th century was used in the dialects of the East Lithuanian subdialect alongside the predominant form ending in -čia. The article also addresses several more general questions in the study of East Lithuanian texts; for example, it provides statistics on the use of individual variants of conditional mood forms and establishes that the songs’ author was not the catechism’s translator but another person, whose native dialect should be sought somewhere in the vicinity of Vilnius, near the an||un isophone.