Galininkas su dalyviu XVI–XVII a. lietuvių kalbos paminkluose (paplitimas ir santykis su originalų konstrukcijomis)

STUDIES OF LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE GRAMMATICS LEETUV OS, TSR MOKSLŲ, AKADEMIJA ACCUSATIVUS WITH PARTICIPATE IN LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE MONUMENTS OF THE 16th—17th CENTURY (Prevalence and Relationship with Originaly Constructions) V. AMBRAZAS The traditional term of accusative with participle (accusativus cum participio) usually denotes constructions, which are formed after verbs denoting sensations, feelings, perception, knowledge, speaking, etc., by the accusative of nouns or pronouns with a conjugatable participant, e.g.: pamačiau vaiką bėgantį, girdžiu tave sugrįžusį. These structures have been recorded in many Indo-European languages, but they have changed or disappeared almost everywhere over time. In modern Lithuanian, the scope of their use has also narrowed, and the participle is in many cases replaced by a divisor!. However, in the old dialects, the participle is used very intensively. Moreover, the abundance and diversity of these constructions can be considered one of the most striking syntactic features of our ancient literature. In ancient writings, we often find the participle in circumstances in which it is hardly used in modern literary language or dialects. Here are some examples. Asch schinau Ischgelbetoghi mana giwa santi. BrP II 40. Dūk mums jeib tikketumbime je Diewo Gimdiwe Sancze. RG 576. 1999. pp. 10. "They're not going to let me go, I'm not going to let you go, I'm not going to let you go, I'm not going to let you go. SE 75. The king of Egypt was told that Shmuel had fled. BrB II Mos 14,5. Anis tiktai šitq giwdtq biesenzciq belie. DP 584,,. Asch... ludijultawe will accept MT 1212. I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to do it again. BrP 395. Ancient writings are the main, and in many cases the only source from which we can draw knowledge about the construction and use of these structures in the distant past. Therefore, their data must be carefully checked and investigated. The aim of this article is to review the prevalence of the participle in Lithuanian language monuments of the 16th and 17th centuries and to try to establish the relationship of the constructions found in them with the living language of the time. From the final constructions with participants here will be touched only those in which the participant has an attributive-predikative function; many of these constructions can be the equivalents of secondary sentences, e.g.: I see my neighbor sick and I see that my neighbor is sick. The term participle- -terminal does not apply to statements in which the participle * More about participle- -terminal constructions Zr. aut., „,„Baltistica“, IV (2), 1968, p. 192tt. About the back end with the participant see. E. Tangl, Der Accusativus und Nominativus cum Participio im Altlitauischen, Weimar, 2000, pp. 103–104. efforts have been 1928. 41 made to distance themselves from such constructions in the presentation of statistical data. However, due to the variation of the syllables in ancient scripts and other reasons, this distinction is sometimes difficult, and it is not easy to avoid subjectivity here. In general, we tried to leave aside only those examples in which the participant's backbone was undoubtedly a simple mark. The frequency of use of the final with the participant is determined by the number of constructions in one author's arc, which is equal to approximately 40,000 press marks. This number is considered an indicator of the frequency of speech structures. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the finalis with a participle is very unequally distributed in various writings. V. Falkenhan has indicated that this construction is particularly loved by J. Bretkūnas, while other authors use it less frequently*. Since J. Bretkūno writings make up the majority of all 16th-century Lithuanian language monuments, and the largest i§ jy — the manuscript of the Bible translation — is still almost unexplored, it is worthwhile to pay attention to them first of all. In J. Bretkūnas' Bible we find the construction of 1191 adjectives with a participle. On average, about 12 constructions are used in one translation arc, but they are distributed very unevenly in the various parts of the translation. Of the New Testament parts, the highest frequency is in Revelation (32:5) and the Gospel of John (20:5); followed by the Gospels of Mark (18:9) and Luke (17:1). Of the Old Testament parts, the participle participle is most often used in the Prophecy of Baruch (40), Maccabees (32,5) and Judith (24), followed by Daniel (22,5), Ezekiel and Esther (20), Samuel (18,8) and Wisdom (18,1). On the other hand, in some parts of the translation, these constructions are very rare. Most rarely they appear in the Old Testament in the Book of Proverbs (0.5), Psalms (1.6) and Chronicles (5); almost twice the average frequency is found in the books of Isaiah (6,7) and Syrah (6,9), and in the New Testament in the epistles of Paul (6,5). Knowing the sequence of translation of individual parts of the Bible, it is possible to determine how frequently the other transliterator with the participant during the translation of the Bible lasting more than 10 years. This change is shown in table 1, which shows that the frequency of spoken constructions fluctuates greatly since the beginning of the translation: in the 1579—1580 volumes between 6.5 and 32.5, in 1585 — between 0.5 and 15, in 1586 — between 4.1 and 24, in 1589 — between 5 and 32.5, and in the very last volumes in 1590 it rises again from 7.1 to 40. Thus, the finalist with the participant is very characteristic not only of the early, but also of the later period of Bretkūnas- ’s work. The statistics do not show a regular decrease or increase in its number. If we compare their use in the New Testament translated in 1579—1580 and in the Old Testament from Joshua to Nehemiah (translated in 1589), we will see that the difference in the number and frequency of constructions is not great (NT 284 and 13,3, and Joz-Neh 238 and 11,3). When he finished translating the Bible, J. Bretkūnas sometimes used these constructions even more intensively than in the first years of his work. 2 Žr. V. F alkenhahn, The translator of the Lithuanian Bible Johannes Bretke and his helpers, Königsberg and Berlin, 1941, p. 186. : Plg. V. Falkenhahn, ibid. 42 I Table 1 Frequency of adjectives with participle in the Brethren Bible | | S | sv | a | | o, o a o o. o o 2] 2 o wn = E 2 o 7 £ 2 Em šĖ iš E a | g5 ži | E. šž | i: 53 E SE 5 | gE SE Eg CE 3 SE g% [82 22 |. 2% [AB £5 |AB | | | of | Luk 17,1 Apokr 11 GG [10 157 Laisk 13 Vai Judith 24 Mak | 32,5 A 395 Pam 41 | 1589 s Job | 16 2 t || Bm 18,1 Iz 6,7 Apd a 9 Jer | 7,2 John 20,5 Jo | EN Mork 18,9 Teis | 9 Ezech | 20 15804 | Mat 10.7 Ruth | 15 Dan | 22.5 NT 132 | 1589 J | Sam. | 18,8 | 1590 { | Bar | 40 no; 12.2 million. Take it. | 7,1 Ps fe Kron | || Moz* | 10,1 ę to Ezr-Neh | 8.5 IR TER Sir | 6,9 | st | 30 | ST | 11.4 1585 Tob | 15 | | — oh Pat | 05 | | All | * This includes the 1588 edition of Genesis. The intensity of the use of the participle with the participle in certain cases can be related to the style of the translated text. It is easy to notice that more speech-related constructions occur in the places where epic narrative prevails, and less in the didactic and poetic parts. An exception could be the high frequency of these constructions in the books of Revelation, Ezekiel, Daniel and Baruch, but this is explained by the fact that there are many repetitions of very similar stereotypical constructions. For example, the construction And you will examine, me Pona (Ponu) santi with minor variations (different times, verses, sometimes different word order) is repeated 51 times in the prophecy of Ezekiel. Thus, by its distribution in the individual parts of the translation according to the style of the text, the participle with the participle approximately corresponds to the absolute beneficiary (plg. LKK V 50). The fact that the prevalence of the participle in the final part depends largely on the style of the text is confirmed by J. Bretkūno hymn, in which this construction is relatively rare. Of course, here a large part of the hymns are reprinted from Mažvydas’ hymnbook, but even in Bretkūnas’s own stoic hymns the final part with a participant is much rarer than in prose writings. To better understand the relationship of the constructions found in J. Bretkūno writings with the living language of the time, it is necessary to determine how much their use could have been influenced by the originals used by the translator; In order to clarify the influence of the originals, Bretkūn- 's Bible was compared with the 1549 Lutheran Bible edition?, which appeared about a decade later than the 1537 and 1540 editions that he himself used (they were not available to us), and with the Vulgate, * Biblia: Das ist: die gantze heilige Schrifft: Deudsch Auffs new zugericht. D. Mart. Luth. Wittenberg. Printed by Hans Lufft. 1549. 43 The text of the Old Testament is presented according to the edition of 1539* and the New Testament according to E. Nestlg®. Since the technique of Bretkūn- ’s Bible translation and its relationship with the originals have not been studied so far, it is necessary to touch on a few more general questions. As is known, J. Bretkūnas began translating the Bible from Latin and, judging by the inscription in the manuscript, in 1579 he translated the entire Gospel of Luke in a month. Comparison of the texts clearly shows that this part is indeed a translation from the Vulgate. This is shown from the very beginning by the many places where Bretkūn- ’s text corresponds literally to the Vulgate and differs from the Lutheran version (e.g., cf. 1, 2, 4, 6, 14, 17, 18, 19, 23, 37,43,44, 46,48, 54, 62, 63,2, 8,9, etc.). However, from some passages it can be concluded that Bretkūnas also had Luther's text at hand when translating and used it. There are sentences that are much closer to the Lutheran version than to the Vulgate, and probably could not have been translated simply from the latter, cf. : Ne prafikite pluralia nej padarita ira (above: prisiata ira dūti). 3:13 - Nothing is larger than what is constituted by you, faceatis. —Do not feed more | than is set. The use of Luther's text is also shown in the lexicon: (Gwaltu) (above: Niewalios) ne wienam ne darikite, (evil) nei ne tiesas. 3,14 —Neminem concutiatis, neque calumniam faciatis.- —Thut niemand gewalt noch vnrecht. Probably, the suggested ecce translation of the German text is weisdek (1,31 et seq.) or dabakes (1,36), cf. vok. sihe. Apparently, Bretkin used to look at the German text when it was difficult to translate a sentence from Latin because of phraseologisms, constructions that were unusual for Lithuanian or similar reasons; in this regard also cf. : Weisdek, neschcze busi 1,31 —ecce concipies in utero —behold, you will conceive. In addition, according to the Lutheran Bible, Bretkūn divided the translated text into paragraphs. But the main source from which entire pages of the Gospel of Luke are translated is undoubtedly the Vulgate. In the autumn of the same year, Bretkūnas began translating Paul's letters, initially also trying to rely on the Vulgate, but he translated only the first paragraphs (Rom 1:1-3) from it and changed the basis of the translation from there. On the same page after a small space with the inscription Ve/sic: repeated the same text already translated from the Luther Bible; Later pages of the epistles and other parts of the New Testament were translated from it. to In the translation of other parts of the New Testament, the Vulgate was Bretkūnas' only aid. The spirit and letter of the German original are clearly felt everywhere. Only occasionally does the translator deviate from the Lutheran version and formulate the sentence according to the Vulgate, e.g. : Prarakas sawo tiewischkeie garbes ne tur Jon 4,44 —ein Prophet daheim nichts gilt —propheta in sua patria honorem non habet; Wieschpatie, lei miekt, bus sweiks Jon 11,13 —Herr, schleft er | so wirds besser mit jm —Domine, si dormit, salvis erit; John 4:46-47, "Cana in Galilee." The Vulgate text apparently helped Bretkin to translate such sentences with phraseologisms as: Nesa will be, as (above: iog) Herod tha Bernelius ieschkos on the execution Mat 2:14 For it was near that Herod should seek the child, to bring it to him, or, Nesa iu nebebuwa Mat 2,18 For it was done with them, guia non sunt; John 11:35-36 "And Jesus' eyes were opened, and he laughed." However, the individual sentences that were not translated directly from Luther are merely small islands in a whole stream of paragraphs whose German base of translation is unquestionable. Similarly, the Old Testament* was translated from German, only occasionally using Latin, Greek and Hebrew texts. In late Latin, from which J. Bretkūnas translated the Gospel of Luke, the accusative participle (accusativus cum participio) is used quite often. Therefore, first of all, attention should be paid to the relationship of the translator’s constructions of the participle with the participle * Biblia sacra Vvlgatae editionis Sixti Ovinti pont. max. ivssv recognita atque edita Romae... MDXCIII. \ * The New Testament in Greek and Latin, a short text with critical apparatus from editions and manuscript books collected and printed by Eberhard Nestle, Stuttgart, *1921. 7 Po Luko ev. vertimo: Isch latinischko perguldita... Incepi vertere 6. die Martij Et absolui 30. March. 8 Zr. A. Bezzenberger, Contributions to the History of the Lithuanian Language, Göttingen, 1877, p. XVII; aut., LKK V, 1962, p. 37. 44 with the corresponding places in the Latin text. Table 2 shows what statements of the Vulgate J. Bretkūnas translated with the participle in the postposition. Table 2 Relationship of the translation of the Gospel of Luke with the Vulgate | | | and Shared Folg EN po other | a1 PO roger Su po find | actiona- | Number pan. | words a | | | Accusativus cum participio 11 | 15 = 96 , cum infinitivo | TE gh I alga 17 cum adjectivo —| = | | 1 Subordinate sentences quod su = |m | 3 3 2 » Su quia, quoniam ir kt. — | — | | 9 = i Lh NE 15 | 15:51] 19 49 | | The table shows that the Latin accusative cum participio makes up more than half of all the corresponding Latin verbs with a participle. However, in all such cases, the participle with the participle goes after the verbs vidieť, počuť, nájsť, etc., which control the participle. In such constructions, the direct control links between the verb and the noun (pronoun) ending are not broken, and the ending can be considered the object of the verb, e.g. 12:54 When he saw the cloud from the east, he said, "Stand." 18:36 And as he heard the multitude coming, he questioned them. As you enter you will find waika asliczas pririschta 19,30 —introeuntes invenietis pullum asinae alligatum. ~ Constructions that follow sakáť, vedieť and other verbs and are linked to them only by phrase control (like explanatory subjunctive sentences), the Latin text accusativus cum participio is not translated. Bretkūnas usually used them to translate accusative cum infinitive or secondary sentences, e.g. : A ius ka mane satin sakat? 20 But you, who do you say that I am? Because iaucziu maze nog meęs ischeiuse 8:46 —nam ego novi virtutem de exiisse. 1:22 And they knew that they had seen a vision in the temple. 524: Ut autem sciatis quia Filius hominis habet potestatem in terra. – "Therefore know that the Son of Man has power on earth." Such independent constructions of the participle in Bretkūnas’ translation were not at all exemplified in the Latin original, and he could not directly influence their use. In general, in these cases, the accusative cum participio is not typical of Latin, but the accusative cum infinitivo is used instead. Meanwhile, just such independent constructions of the final with the participant me 45 abundance and diversity are prominent Bretkūnir as is a feature of the language of many other of our ancient authors. The extent to which the Latin original could have influenced su the use of the iš participle in Latin is not difficult to verify by the differential ir method. For this purpose, we 2 will compare the data in su the table with the data we obtain by comparing su Vulgate constructions used in other parts of the iš New Testament in German. 3 table Relationship of other parts of the New Testament translation su Vulgata | Rear end with participant in | Bend Vulg po žiūrėti, girrasti, po kity rin po dėti pan. | ir | 2000/ 12/ 11 3 i | Accusativus cum participio | 97 20 | 2 119 5 ,» infinitivo 9 — 22 31 ie ,» adjective _ | || || 2 4 Greeting sentencsu es quod | 3 = 11 14 js „ su quia, guoniam ir kt. | 7 — 38 45 The comparison of | 12 1 | 8 21 | 129 22 53 234 | | : Iš the other construction clearly shows that in both cases the ratio of Lithuanian constructions to the Latin su accusative cum participio is almost the same. The Gospel of Luke acc. c. part. constitutes about 5394 the equivalents su of all the end o participant, in the remaining parts —50.99,. Analog and their distribution by types of construction: Latin acc. c. part. usually corresponds to those constructions, in which the participle goes after the verbs videti, girti, rasti, etc. and can be considered their object, and only in exceptional cases — independent participle-- participle constructions after other verbs. This confirms once again that the Latin accusativus cum participio did not have a noticeable influence on the use of Lithuanian participle-- constructs in the Gospel of Luke. In both cases, the relationship of Lithuanian constructions with accusative cum infinitive and secondary sentences is somewhat different. The Gospel of Luke acc. c. inf. consists of |34,69, equivalents of Lithuanian constructions, and in other parts of the New Testament translation — only 13,294; on the other hand, the secondary sentences with quod, quia, guoniam and other conjunctions are more than twice as frequent in them (10,2% in the Gospel of Luke and 25%, in other parts). The Latin accusative cum infinitive constructions were closer to the Lithuanian participle than the secondary sentences, so they could indirectly stimulate the use of participle in the Latin text. Only this promotional acc. c. inf. could only be very minor. After all, in the Gospel of Luke, translated from Latin, the frequency of a participle with a participle is lower than in the Gospels of John or Mark, translated from German. (20,5: 18,9), not to mention the Apocalypse or such parts of the Old Testament as the Maccabees. There 46 is absolutely no basis to talk about any acc. c. inf. influence on the structure or usage of Lithuanian constructions. In order to determine which German language constructions J. Bretkūnas translated with a participle, the Old Testament books of the Bretkūnas Bible from Joshua to Nehemiah included, which were printed in 1589 and correspond to the New Testament in their volume (approximately 13 aut. 1.), were compared with the German original. The approximation data are given in the table. 4 4 table relation of the Joshua-Nehemiah books translation to the Lutheran Bible Endnote with participLB po ant in Common po see, hear-| Do find, count number | put and so on | remain and so on words || Accusativus cum participio | 3 2 —5 3 „Anfinitivo | 26 5 —31 Subordinate sentences daB su | 86 1 1 pA] I Other secondary sentences | 3 3 SE LT Conjunctive sentences | —-—9 | 9 Other constructions | | al shee 99 1 | 128 | 238 Except for some rear end constructions part. su perf. pass. (e. g. : regeia Kuna ant Road damaged 1 Kar 13,25 — Did they see the Leichnam in den Weg geworffen), the German text did not contain any sentences that corresponded to the structure of the Lithuanian su final participle. He was the closest to the accusative cum infinitive construction. However, the ją final participle su rarely corresponds to the ir participle when it goes po with verbs see, hear, find, etc., with which it can be ir connected by su control links, e.g. : Esch-sur- -Alzette Deiwius uszkapanczius isch szemes 1 Sam. 28,14 — I see Gods rise up from the earth. As when you heard a voice worshipping diekawoientj ir II Kron 5,13 — as one hears a voice praising and zu thanking. zu Rada anis Dagona on weido lying on eyes I Sam. 5,3 — found them Dagon auff his andlitz lie auff the erden. Thus, the ratio of Lithuanian constructions of the Latin su German text ir accusativus cum infinitivo is different: the Latin language acc. c. inf. corresponds most often to completely independent participle constructions, in German those in which the participle can still be the object of verbs (such su constructions are often o translated in the Gospel of — Luke as Latin acc. c. part.). This is explained by different acc. c. inf. usage in the languages mentioned: in Latin this construction is much more independent, and in German it is closely related to verbs with a certain lexical meaning that control the final. As we can see, J. Bretkūnas felt this difference and chose different means of language in both cases. Considering the translation technique of the time, this shows a very subtle sense of language by the translator. 47 In independent constructions of the participle with the participle, in which the control relationship between the verb and the participle is no longer visible, J. Bretkūnas mostly translated German secondary sentences, especially with the conjunction dap. Ghis sawa looked up, and saw Wira prisch sawe standing. Joz 5,13 — vnd was war that one man against jm hour. Tadda regeia wissas szmones, ghi Maischa apaczoie ant Kuno turinti 11 Kar 6,30 —Then all the people saw that he was wearing sackcloth on the front of his body. Bei Wiriausieghi neszinnoia, mane kur @ijusi nei ka weikenti. Neh 2,16 — And the princes knew not where I went, nor what I did. Some of the constructs of the participle with the participle correspond to the original and unconjugated sentences after the verbs of the analyzing meaning, e.g. : Nesa anis tars, mus nog ių beganczius, kaip pirm Joz 8,6 —For they will remember|wir fliehen fur jnen|as before hin. 20:28 I am the LORD. Bretkūnas sometimes translated other German constructions with a participle, departing from the original letter, for example: leiregesi Syrus mane apgalinczius, tadda tu man paschok 1 Kron 20,12 — Wenn mir die Syren zu starck werden|- so kom mir zu huelff (Si vicerit me Syrus...). Er wants schechuli deschimti trapu (parast. schinksniy) distant aisentj (corrected 1 iog scheschiilis.... go) alba deschimti trapu (paraSt. pakopu), back? 11 Kar 20,9, "Shall the shadow go forward by steps, or go back by steps?" (show out ascended umbra...). Ach welcziau Pona sawa essenti pas pranascha Samariaie 11 Kar 5,3 — Oh that my lord were with the prophet in Samaria (Utinam fuisset dominus.- ..). Bretkūnas could have translated these statements, as well as the above-mentioned secondary and non-conjunctive sentences, correctly and more closely following the original, without departing from it. After all, in addition to the participle, the Lithuanian language of that time used extensively auxiliary sentences with the conjunction that, unconjugated sentences and other constructions corresponding to the German text, which are abundant in Bretkūnas’s translation. It was the original, the sacred text, which, according to the principles of the time, had to be translated as accurately as possible, “verbum verbo”, that prompted the choice. The German original not only did not stimulate, but, on the contrary, severely inhibited the consumption of the final with the participant. And yet Bretkūnas, overcoming the draw of the original, often translated various completely different syntactic means with a participle. This can only be explained by the very high richness of this construction in the language of the translator himself. The productivity of the finalist with a participant is even more evident in Bretkūnas’ Postila (1589), in which we find an average of 37.8 constructions in one author’s arch, and 719 in both volumes. Their structure and usage are similar to those found in the Bible translations. However, their average frequency here is more than twice as high as in the Bible, and exceeds the rates ir even in those parts of the Bible where the participle is used very frequently (e.g., Mak, Apr, Dan, Jon, etc.). How can this difference be explained? 48 The postilla was written at a time when the entire New Testament ir Part Old Testament books (Ps, Sir, Tob, Pat, Apokr, Judith, Pam, Ishm)?. There is no particular su increase in the use of the final participle in later parts of the translation, su compared to those translated up to 1900, so 1588 chronology-related factors su (e. g. : habit of constantly using some constructions in certain circumstances, automation of use, standardization) jų could not have a greater significance here. However, in writing Posthumously, Bretkūn was less constrained by the sources he used. Nors The relationship su of the postilla with them has not o ir been studied so far, the sources themselves are not available to us, but the very nature of the text leads us to believe that Postilla is a compilation, at least in part iš original work. Many of the parts of the book dedicated to Lithuanian peasants ir concernijų ng household, customs, diseases and be disasters, doubtless, were written by the author himself. Bretkūno, elsewhere again, apparently, freely recounted used,,Zymiausiu theologians comments“. Less constrained by the originals, Bretkūnas was able to use his usual means of language more freely, including various participle constructions. For example, the absolute beneficiary is jų found much ir more frequently here than in the Bible translation (cf. In CCC V, this can be said of the participatory groups of words in conjunctives, semi-participants, etc., which are equivalents of secondary sentences. 51—3532); ir su ir constructions. Thus, the high productivity of su the participle here is a lawful phenomenon related to the whole system of participle forms and, apparently, based on the tendencies of living language. In order to explain the frequent use of the participle in J. Bretkūn's prose writings, Falkenhan has suggested that the author may have been inspired by the Old Prussian language, which he learned from mazens'®. The use of the participle sen. V. in the Prussian language we know nothing certain. In the remaining sen. In Prussian writings such constructions are not recorded, although participative constructions are sometimes used to translate German sayings with communicative. We could guess that Bretkūnas here was influenced by the Old Prussian language, if the frequent use of the participle with the participle were specific! a distinctive feature of Bretkūno language, foreign to other authors. However, after examining other writings of the time, we see that this is not the case. In terms of his language characteristics, B. Vilentas is close to Bretkūnas, whose excerpts, so-called perikopes, of the “Evangelii et epistolae” (1579) are included in Bretkūnas’ Postilla without any significant changes. Although the volume of B. Vilento’s writings is small and the examples of the participle with the participle are much fewer, the frequency of their use (12.8) in “Evangelii et epistolae” almost equals that of Bretkūno’s New Testament translation (13.3) and slightly exceeds that of the whole Bible translation (12). Thus, in translating parts of the New Testament, both authors used the participle participle with approximately the same intensity. su This coincidence is all the more significant because both B. Wilentas and J. Bretkūnas translated from the same source — Luther’s Bible. B. The ratio of Wilens used constructions to the su original is shown in the 5 table. ; * Plg. V. Falkenhahn, min. ill., p. 97 tt. 10 Zr. V. Falkenhahn, min. ill., p. 187. 4. Lithuanian grammar studies cannot be 49 linked, correspond to secondary sentences (usually su iz — 5 e.g.) ir acc. c. inf. (4, compatibili4 ty is unclear). For example: : O nu ghi regi teip nuwdrgintq teip screwdriver now sees so | undressed so bleeding 1533, — d go | RP 1052, Sakie ghi giwa santi 164%, — powyedzieli | iz iest Zyw RP 111. Gentlemen... kdlbeimq... tq kdip g hi between swaw santi iszmdnitu III 31%, — so that go they v could understand each other. RP 3002. Almost all of the self-contained constructions of Skesnés Carrot Postilés are found in the perikope, which are taken iš B. Vilento The Gospel ir Epistles only ir edited by the translator**. How often the participle is su used Chylinskio In the Bible (although here it goes only for verbs that directly control the po final part regéti, girdėti, rasti etc.) ir ir "In the Book of the Church" (1653), o The frequency (1653) jo of the "sum of the (8,4) gospels" is even higher than ,,In Points of Sayings“. The Sum of the Gospels differs from other iš Reformed writings only in the much more ne frequent use of these constructions, but in the fact that most of them are independent, not ir linked by verbs, e.g. jų (33 iš 59) su : Isz second wel szalies know knowing | ne Diewo bat welnio science being 73. What mili ką tay tiktay does with tiki ghi pūmegsianti | 124. Dowidas... saka | grounds she planted on the mountain 242 —243. When looking at the distribution of the participle in the 16th-17th century monuments of the language, it can be observed that it is related to the dialect of the authors. su Most ši often the construction is used in the writings of authors from the western Highland and Žemaitija dialects (J. Bretkūnas, B. Vilentas, S. Vaišnoras) and in general in the old literature of Lesser Lithuania, which from the very beginning was created on the basis of the western Highland dialect. Later larger works published here (e.g., S. Bytneri’s New Testament of 1701, J. Quant’s Bible of 1755 and even the Bible of 1823) do not fall short of J. Bretkūnas’s writings in the abundance and variety of the use of the participle in the final part, and some even surpass them. For example, in the 1823 Bible book of Acts of the Apostles we find 58 final constructs with participants and 15 —with participants (most of them —completely independent), so the frequency of the final with participant (21.4) here is significantly higher than in the same Bretkūnas Bible book (14), not counting even the mentioned participative constructions. It is also used extensively by authors from the eastern Highlands. In writings based on the dialects of the central and northern Highlands, this construction is more rare, although in some of them (e.g., in the Sum of the Gospels) their frequency curve again rises sharply. -If we now look at the dialects of the present Lithuanian language, we will see a quite similar picture. The most commonly used spoken construction is used by the Žemaites and the Western Highlanders, but instead of the participle final here we find much more often unconjugated forms —pacients. In the eastern Highlands (especially in folklore) this construction is still quite popular, although it is rarer and already tends to become stubborn, in the middle Highlands dialects it is rare or not used at all. Especially the consumption of this design intensifies 18 Both copies of Morkūno Postila, which are in the VVU Manuscripts Department, are missing the last 46 pages. Their details are unknown to the author. 56 100 mg/ day. The north-western highlands are inhabited by the East Prussians. This is evident from the folklore written by C. Jurkšaitis, V. Kalvaitis and other collectors in the area of these dialects, where the spoken construction is found on every page. Thus, the area of the greatest prevalence of a participle with a participle coincides with the area of intensive use of the absolute participle (cf. CCC V 51 etc.) and other archaic participle constructions. Conclusions 1. The participle is recorded in all the most important 16th-17th century language monuments and is used there much more intensively than in the present Lithuanian language. This construction is the most productive of the authors representing the western Highland and Zemgale dialects — J. Bretkūnas, B. Vilentas, S. Vaišnoras —in prose writings. 2. comparison of the translations of J. Bretkūnas, B. Vilentas, M. Daukša, J. Jaknavičius and other authors with the originals shows that the participle in the former Lithuanian literature is used independently of the influence of other languages. The authors used this construction mostly to translate the German, Latin and Polish originals of secondary sentences, accusativus cum infinitivo and only in certain cases — accusativus cum participio. The Latin originals only stimulated somewhere, and the German and Polish generally restrained the use of the participle with the adjective. The use of the participle in the Old Lithuanian literary language is based on the living language, and its distribution in various texts reflects the tendencies of the dialects of the time. BUHUTEJIbHBIA C NPHYACTHEM B NMAMATHHKAX JIMTOBCKOI'O $A3bIKA XVI—XVII BB. (Pacnpocrpanenne HW OTHOmIEHHE K OGOpoTaM OpurHHAJIOB) B. AMBPA3AC Pe310ome BunurejibHbiH €C npnhuacrHeM (aceusativus cum participio) B ApeBHeJIMTOBCKOH NKHCbMEeHHOCTH OTJIHYAeTCH INHpOKOH cĖdOepoli npuMeHeHHs H ČOJIbINOK INpOjJIYKTHBHocTbIO. B cTaTbe paccmarpuBaeTcsl pacnpocTpaHeHHe aTOH KOHCTDpYKIMMH TOUYTH BO BCeX JIOCTYINHBbIX JIS HCCJIeJIJOBAHHSI NaMSTHHKAX XVI —XVII BB. (Kpome cJ10-Bapeli) C yueTOM OTHOLIEHHSI IIEPEBOJIHbIX TEKCTOB K HEMEIIKHM, IIOJIbCKHM H JIATHHCKUM OpurHHajJIAM. Ha ocHoBe cTaTHCTHYECKOTO aHaJIH32a KOHCTPYKIMH, MyTeM MOJHOro BbIOopa ¥3BJICYEHHBIX U3 JIPEBHEJIMTOBCKUX NAMSITHHKOB, YCTAHOBJIEHO, UTO BHHHTEJIbHBIH Cc ApuuyacTHeM GOJiblile BCero XapakTepeH IJsi TeX aBTOPOB, KOTODpbIe SIBJSIOTCH nNpejicTaBHTeJIAMH 3allaJHO-aYKIITAHTCKOTO HM XKsaMaiTckoro Hapeunuh (H. BperKyHaca, B. Busenraca, C. Bašnimopaca). Odbjnacrb Han60J1b111- €TO paciipocTpaHeHHS5 STON KOHCTPYKIMH NpHMepHO COBNajiaeT ¢ OOJIaCTbIO HHTEHCHBHOTO NPHMEHEeHHS JaTeNbHOTO CAMOCTOSITEJIBHOTO H JIPYTHX apXauyeCKHX IIpHUACTHbIX KOHCTPYKHi, a B COBPEMEHHOM f3blke —H C 00J1aCThIO PACMpOCTPAHEHHS] BHHHTeJIbHOTO C Jleenpuy acTHeM. 57 ConocraBjiekHe ¢ OpHTHHAJIAMH TMepeBO/ĮHbiX TeKCTOB (pykonucu BuOjinn H. Bperkynaca, [Noctua M. Jlaykum, aHonumuoii Ilocrajijibi 1600 r., nepesoAo B. Bunenraca, H. SikuaBnuuroca H Jp.) noka3ajiO, UTO BHHHTeJIbHbIH C MpHuacTHeM B. IDEBHEJINTOBCKOM MHCbMEHHOCTH He 3aBHCHT OT BJIHSHHS ĮIpyTHX S13bIKOB. Hallie Bcero TOK KOHCTpYKIIKHER No. TCS HeMEIKHE, IOJIbCKHE H JIaTHHCKHe NpHjaTOUKbIe NpelijioxkeHH5;. HekoTopbiM KOHCTDYKUKHAM, CBSI3aHHBIM C I'JiaroJlaMH OTHOLIEHHSIMH TNpPSIMOTO YMpaBJ/IeHHsl, B JIATHHCKUX OpHTHHAJIAX COOTBETCTBYET accusative participle, O{HaKo Js 6oJiee CBOGOJIHOTO IIpDHMEHeHHA BHHHTEJIBHOTO C NPHYACTHEM 3TOT OGopoT HE OKas3aJl 3aMeTHOro BJiMsiHHS. B andPeBOJIaX € The accusative is used with the infinitive. Ilojibekne ¥ HeMelKHe OpHTHHaJibl, HA060POT, MPENSITCTBOBAJM NPOHHKHOBEHHIO BHHHTE/JBHOTO C MPHYACTHEM B nepeBoJHbe Tpyjibi. HYacTOTHOCTL ynoTpeGJieHHsi BHHHTEJIbHOTO C MPHYACTHEM B OpHTHHAJIbHbIX TPYZAax OOBIYHO Bblilie, YeM B MepeBOJAX TOTO Ke aBTopa (cp. orTKOnIeHHe 3 :1 B [loctuane u Bubann YU. Bperkynaca). Illupokoe yrioTpe6jieHHe BHHHTeJIbHOTO C IPHYACTHEM B JIDeBHETHTOBCKHX TEKCTax OCHOBAHO Ha JKHBOH peuH H OTpa)kaeT AHAJIEKTHbIE OCOOEHHOCTH JIHTOBCKOTO i3blKa HCCJIEyeMOTo MepHoja. It's time to get to know them! NepeBOAHBIX TEKCTOB C OpHTHHajiaMH H CTATHCTHKA pacnpoCTpaHeHHsi HCCJeAyeMbiX KOHCTPYKLHH H3JI0XKeHO B TaOjJiKiax Ne 1—7.