Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių konstrukcijos su jungiamaisiais žodžiais

LIETUVIYU LANGUAGES GRAMATINE SANDARA FE TWUVO'S TSRMOXLUARADEMITE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES PARTICIPANTS CONSTRUCTION SU IN CONJUNCTIVES V. AMBRAZAS $ 1. The complex syntactic system of the participants of the present Lithuanian language was formed and developed over many centuries, only the very ir last links of the process can be seen, to based on a relatively short period of written tradition. However, due to the uneven development of the syntactic structure ir of the language, we find a number of participle constructions inherited iš from the ancient times in the present language. Such constructions now usually occupy an isolated position, do not fit into the main types of usage, often even become certain rigid phraseologisms. o These characteristics help to distinguish syntactic archaisms, o and then, after establishing jų interrelationships, reconstruct older types of usage and tendencies of participants. In this article we want to discuss one such phenomenon, iš which occupies a rather special place in the syntactic system of participants of Lithuanian language, namely certain constructions of participants with — conjunctives. su With this name we here indicate such constructions, in which before the participant go particles, conjunctions, adverbs and other connecting words, which bind the participant ir (one extended ar with dependent words) in the personified su form of the verb (uncommon) — su other participant, half-participant). Į constructions su with conjunctives to illuminate the importance of the system development of participants first drew attention to A. Potebnia, who, in examining the corresponding Slavic sayings, cited a number of Lithuanian examples, showed the connection with the ir participants jų passing su through the forms of indirect pronoun!. Such constructions in Lithuanian have not been studied specifically. Some cases of usage, jų which occur rarely or only in certain lexically limited sentences in the present language, are more widely documented in the ancient language monuments. Therefore, when discussing these constructions, in addition to | the current See. A. A. MoreGus, Hs samucok no pycckoit rpammaruke, I—II, literary M. 1958, 222228. 43 language and dialects facty presents data from XVI—XVII c. writings?. § 2. Participant constructions with connective Words are not the same. In some of them particles, adverbs or conjunctions, going before the participant (one or with dependent words), only specify or modify its circumstantial meaning, without changing the syntactic relationships with other words. In such cases, the past participle active and the present participle passive are used. The number of words in a sentence varies. The temporal meaning of the participant or group of participating words is often specified, more clearly defined by the particles still, before, just, just, just, etc. He threw the balloon before he saw the stars. PP 322. Shout before being beaten, it won't beat. JabIRR 479. Just entering the village, they met a yellow brickle. Myk-PutR VI 117. Here again, just after returning from the foreign horses, the colt gets entangled in the net. CvR II 63. Ignotus speaks another word with restraint, and Dexny, as soon as he is touched, bursts out. Gud-GuzKIT, 302. | The meaning of the discount is often iSrySkinama before the participant connective Words and, that and, although, although and, etc. The self-defending and unrelenting primary jumped to rob the roof. LzPR II 110. There were also some who were uninvited to visit Jacobs as if with some business. Myk-PutS 94. This is why people flooded to the castle hill, leaving the house behind the door. 115 pp. 115. After an hour Anatoly was already on the top of the cone, although threatened with forks, pushed back. CvR III 35: Although they were given feed, none (of the animals) ate. CvR III 131. The comparative particles it, as, as and as, as if, as if, as if, going before the participant or the participant group of words, give the meanings of comparison, uncertainty, doubt and other modal meanings. The citizens were stubbornly keeping closer to the door. VienR V 171. The men poked out like a mushroom. St. Falled here, fell there, and stands like an eye burned. No. What are you wandering around like you've lost something? I'm sorry. It's surprising, where's that coming from? —the stranger began, as if rejoicing, as if frightened, to kiss the hand. VienR I 146. Knocking on the door, Greg escaped from the shop, as if driven by a hundred dogs. Rg 25. Quinn was running around the yard, too, like a bee-stung. CvR VIII 282. The shadows of the moon are no longer visible; the sky cleared, as if the air had opened, and the trees, as if unfolded, began to whisper more favourably to man. VienR I 175. The father, as if he had remembered something more funny, began to speak more lively. VenclR II 39. In constructions of the corresponding structure, also used bubble participants. They are opposed to participants on the basis of time and species categories. ? Examples from 18th-20th century writings, folklore collections and dialects are presented according to the spelling norms of the current literary language, but the separation of the originals is maintained. The examples of 16th—17th-century scripts are not transposed into the literary language, only the so-called “Gothic” letters are replaced with the Latin type used today. 44 We often learn about new things, phenomena, processes, concepts before we have their names in our own language. Why does mother Etme, before sweeping the stump, water it first with cold water? SimonOBT 17. And so he sat all day, talking nothing, only blowing a great smoke from his pipe. 1723. pp. 173. Mr. Doctor, although salivating, got hot. LzPR 11 78. Fearing him as a gossip, although they were in love with him, the people called him a lord in his eyes. CvR III 159. A woman, having a little baby, had to go to work. BsMt II 198. The position of the participants and semi-participants that go with the aforementioned service words in relation to the personified verb form can be different, but the cases of preposition are significantly more common and predominant. In the constructions mentioned here, the participle nouns fully correspond in their meaning and syntactic relationships with other words to attributive predicative participles, used without conjunctives and denoting secondary action in the sentence- *. Like the latter, they are combined with the factor of the sentence, and semantically associated with the predicate. They also relate to semi-subjects in the same way as the corresponding subjects without conjunctions. Particles, adjectives and conjunctions only modify the circumstantial meaning of the participant or semi-participant, without fundamentally changing its function (e.g.: Ugnis gesinama pyksta. Nj —The fire burns and is not fueled. Sim). All this shows that here we have the usual cases of attributive-predikative use of the participants. Therefore, further on, when speaking about constructs of participants of different meaning with conjunctive words, these cases are distanced. $ 3. A separate group consists of those constructions with conjunctives, in which the participants and semi-participants correspond to the personified forms of verbs in their meaning, without having modal shades characteristic of indirect conjugation. In this sense, the participles are sometimes used with the relative pronoun who vowels, with how much, where, until, until and other connective words. Sometimes even participle constructions that go with the same conjunction have different meanings. The difference between the two types becomes clear when comparing the two-word constructions with the conjunction as. a) And why do you run away so quickly, like a malt? Slm. He's lying there, finished his work. Rdn. b) The boy will marry, get a ir boost, we can live as we have lived. 66 and op. The manor house remained as it stood, only the centre was changed. CvR III 112. Type 1 (a) in constructions, the conjunction as indicating the uncertainty of the participant's denoting action can be replaced by particles ir like, like, like and so on. ir The second type (b) in constructions, such a change is not possible, since in this case comparable actions are equally real. ir du The participant can be considered here as a personified form of the verb (combined * For more information, see: V. Ambrazas, Atributive-Predicative Use of Lithuanian Language Participants, kn. : Morphological structure of ir Lithuanian language its development (LKK VII), Vilnius, 1965, p. 47—49. 45 or of the continuous past participle) syntactic synonym (e.g.: as they lived or as they lived; as he stood or as he stood). In modern Lithuanian, such constructions are quite rare, and their structure is usually the same: after the conjunction as a narrated unexpanded past participle of the same root as the personified form of the verb going in the present tense. Bern stood there as he had always stood. Rg 42. But Baltaragis- 's grandparents lived on, the lake always washed the shore, and the mill always stood, as if it had stood, on a cliff. BorBM 3. Whoever was a fool, hastened, surrendered, and whoever is not afraid, lives as he lived. Excl. 23. The owl didn't listen to him, he screamed like a screamed one. P 43. Come on, come on, calm down, my little one!.. I'll come, we'll be as usual. 293 and 294. Tomorrow my pockets will be empty again, as before. KrévLZ 245. What are you going to do now? Let it be as it was, we'll see tomorrow. LTRn 300. The castles were the same as before. 196 pp. 196. This is also the case with the verb to be, which is used as a participle in a sentence without the personified form of the verb. Now the youngest daughter will be mine, cones as you were. JSTOR 133. Surprised, he scratched himself, and the hump was as if it had never existed. CyR V 110. Bread as if it had never been (eaten quickly). Whoa. The structures in which the participant is of a different root than the personified form of the verb are more rare. However, they have also been used in Lithuanian since the earliest written monuments, e.g.: /szmintįgieii iop ne sugrįžo kaip ketinę. DP 419 (not returned as promised W). For acceleration with constructions that include past participles, corresponding constructions with semi-participles are used, which here are also close in their meaning to the personified forms of verbs, namely present tense verbs. Everyone knows that I'm doing my best to make their huts better. ZemR II 35. The gentlemen began to roar, dance, have fun, as they thought, and so it continued until the roosters. S 1 171. Even children, — having abandoned the patcher, will penetrate, as they can, through the adults. SRagR III 72. The survivors fled as far as they could, but none of them managed to escape the plague. ValZV I 173. Let him speak to himself as he pleases: the olive tree is more pleasing to me because of its fruit. vų DaukRR 316. Such semi-participatory constructions in the present Lithuanian language are obsolete and unproductive. The semi-participants in them are usually made from modal verbs (to be able, to be able to, to be able to, to want, etc.). In dialects, there are also constructions in which the semi-participle and the personified form of the verb have a common root, e.g. : Work as you work, it will turn o out that the master does not like you. Run. In the old Lithuanian language, and partly in some present-- day dialects, with a similar meaning as semi-participants, the present tense forms of the noun of the active participants are used. Such use of present tense active participants instead of present tense 46 semi-participants shows the archaic nature of these obsolete, lexically limited constructions (cf. P. Skardžius, APh VI 102—103). Tenutek anos, as norinczes, only te nutek Giminespi Tlemes sawa Tiewo. BrB IV Moz 36 (as it jnen fehlt LB). So we saw how powerful the szitát that we szweczeme from the reception brągsintumbime. DP 617,,. And so wissa wéikia tiéég and wiena Dwasid | iždalįdama kiekwienam kai p norinti. DP 26ly (distributes to everyone even if he wants W). It is the last of the two major bridges to be completed (the other being the bridge over the Great Lakes). SP I 14624. Tuoiaus kayp primanus ieszko waystitoiu (as he can). SP I 247.3. We named it the Kayp Remind Ritiemus Trail. AK 11. Wladystaus... steigy kap imanus susybendrauty su Letuwos- ... gymyny. DD 142. Do with the hay as you know best. Grg. The passive participants of the present and past tense in constructions with a meaning similar to that of the personified forms of verbs have a much less frequent meaning and also only in certain objectified sentences. In the case of a residential building, it is possible to use a staircase. DaukB 74. Do as you like. Grg. The same thing has happened with the Lithuanian people, that the world was still as supposed. DaukB 122. What his subordination—he will never do as ordered. Skd. (Plg. 13 And after three days the man came to the king, as he was commanded. LKZ VII 430.) Of the same type as the constructs with how discussed here, there are also most participle constructions with the relative pronoun who verbs, with the adverbs where, how much, when, with the conjunctions until, until and similar connective words. In these constructions, the participants of the past participle also relate to the semi-participles, alongside which the nouns of the present participle are used in dialects and old writings. The subject of the action of the participle and personified verb forms coincides. Constructions with past participle active participants $ 4. In the case of the relative pronoun, the verb is usually the final part of the verb. Everyone in the farm told their neighbors what they had heard. Myk-PutS 47. And when she awoke, she told him what she had done. SRagR III 111. Then, when they came home, they didn’t tell Eglė what they had done. LTt III 299. When all three sons and the old woman tried to squeeze back the old Dirda's hand, he did not give up, he did not let go of anything he had seized. BaltPV I 276. It's a good girl, but she's just caught a sting. Cf. He's a sharp eye, not a quiet foresight. ką Alif Lam Mim. We also find corresponding constructions in the ancient monuments of our language, cf. : You eat what you can't eat and you grow what you can't grow. VEE 186. He'll just tell you what he's done. DP 122, (let the sinner confess what he has done W 211). Piktadeia pasisako ku padaris (wyzna co vezynit). SP I 24994. 47 In contemporary Lithuanian, constructs of past participles with the relative pronoun who suffix are quite productive. Only a few such constructions, especially those in which the root of the participle and the personified verb form coincide, are used as certain phraseologisms (e.g.: Do what you have not done. SRagR III 68). Most of them do not have any distinctive features of irazeological stabbing. The participant in them often goes with dependent words as well. The men would twist bands, draw ropes, reins, break the bales and tell what they had seen or heard in the slaughter. Vienna 63. That's it! I say what I have heard with my ears and seen with my eyes. LzPR II 83. I was silent, although I still did not realize what I had done so wrong. BaltPV 1 344. The greater freedom and productivity of such constructions can be explained by analogy with the corresponding secondary sentences, in which the participle is in the conjugated form of the past tense (e.g., told what they had seen or heard). A large number of constructions with kg and past participle participants are understood in current language as such side sentences with zero conjunction. The constructs of the active participants of the past tense with the relative pronoun nominative occur only in very rare cases (cf.: Budes kas nebuves —netikiu tuo! In addition to the older ones, there are also new ones with a more modern design. Everyone, even though they were still small, felt what they had lost. 389 and 390. So now, brother, you'll hear what you haven't heard... I feel sorry for you. 103. In spring... a man doesn't rush out of the forge, for a long time digging through all the RiSenes, looking for what he hasn't found, until he finally finds it. BaltPV I 212. § 5. Constructions with where (from where), how much, when, until and other connective words are not productive in contemporary Lithuanian. He cuts (Misiulis), shears, shovels... he carries it on the night roads wherever he agrees. KrävRg 167. Or we were late, or we didn't know where to get on the tram. ZemR IV 89. "Go," he said, "where you came from!" Grey. Give it back where you got it! CvR IX 54. Not as much he can as he is famous. Srv. Only now do we realize how far we have come. CvR II 22. He lay there for a while and fell asleep. LKŽ V 743. I can't remember when I've caught a fish. LTt 111 377. When he entered the chamber, he couldn't remember when he had been there. 169 and op. Don't rejoice until you've caught it, you can still escape. Yes (LKZ I 592). Lukošius.- .. had three daughters and two sons, all of whom died young. SRagR II 225-226. Others... many of them were suspected by strangers before they became Christians. DaukB 93. In many of these types of constructions, as in the corresponding sentences with the pronoun who verbs, the past participle participants are now understood as equivalents of the conjugated participle verb forms, cf. : They went where they were going. BsMt II 238. —Gužutis flies where he didn’t intend to. 48 In J. Bretkūnas' Bible translation, constructions with till most often translate the original secondary sentences with biB or ėhe. to And Lord... will neither last nor suffer any longer. Until the wicked... the streans will be destroyed, and the nuggets will recover. Sir 35, 23 (until he binds the loins of the unmerciful, and turns his face toward them.) I'm going to see you, I'm going to see you, I'm going to see you. IV Moz 21 (until we pass through your borders LB). Nesa tassai Wirs nepakaios (nerims) ikki sche diena atlikens (ischtaisens). Ruth 3, 18 (he brings then today to the end LB)". In the old writings the past participle constructs with where (from where), before than are also used; even, even before. Let him show us the way out. DP 460 (from where W went) Anis... bus ischpustiti, pirm nei nubreden (Ik ne nubrende). BrB Sir 41 (before it ripens LB). Esch mana Neprietelius Wisiu and anus ischpustisiu. Nei sugrinschiu, net ios uszmusches BrB II Sam 22, 38 (until I took her LB). If you don't want to go to the hospital, don't go to the hospital, don't go to the hospital. Michala Saulo Dukteri BrB II Sam 3,13 (that you do not see my face [you bring but to me | Michal LB]). Don't judge me, even before I hear from you. BrB Sir 10 (ehe die du Sache zuuor erkennest LB). The constructions with even, even before, as well as the corresponding secondary sentences, which indicate the limit of the main action, eventually completely disappeared, and they no longer occur in the present Lithuanian language. In conjunction, the particle even now usually has a distinguishing and emphasizing meaning and is not used to denote restrictive relationships. Constructions with semi-participants § 6. In the case of relative pronouns with semi-participants, the adjective is also most often used, less often the adjective and the noun. If you don't know, I'll tell you briefly what I can about ZemR II 351. Say what you know. 279 and 279a. He has nothing to do, he carves something by holding it. Ms. She would squeal in her eyes as soon as she grabbed it. SimonVK I 199. Wherever such a storm enters, it echoes in greeting. ką Jž. Ask if you ko want. GM 18. This is how the neighbors cared for the old Balsine, as much as they can. Myk-PutR VI 103. Bernel treated the bird, treated ir the lesino jį as much as he could. ir TMPs 113. Similarly, as with the relative pronoun who verbs, the semi-participants go to other conjunctives ir su (where, how much, ir until etc.). Walk wherever you want, find only ko the right one. ValTK 108. As the old Maceikis tells, he was in the Turkish war, like in Saudi, punching people alive wherever they attacked. ZemR III 74. But I can't find the money, although I'm looking for where to stop and follow Saliamutė just as * Plg. : Man because ans neilses, even finish szqdien that dayktą. Ch. (Volte 100). 4, Grammar of the Lithuanian language 49 if I can. BaltPV I 205—206. Bobs gets scared, hurrying a little bit. ŽemR II 328. My friend, who has cattle, runs away with a bit of annoyance. CvR II 52. Gander threw the pig running ir as far as he could. LTt III 228. The wolf remembered Wednesday without delay—he eats meat when he gets it. LTRn 284. Anas never hurry to work even now, fields arinéja — whenever he ir remembers. Ob. Having your own when — you want, getting another when you — receive. Ppr. 130. Let us talk, my son, while we are young. Lieutenant. The boy was almost unconscious. JablRR I 324. Emém drink until you get drunk. JablRR II 351. They were worn only until the church of iSeidamys. iš ValPJ 21. § 7. Most of these constructions have a circumstantial connotation, which is determined by the general tendencies of semi-participle usage in contemporary Lithuanian language. For example, in the sentence For a few days Kasiulienė still complained to her son, her neighbor, who she had just met (KrévSP 210). Instead of the relative pronoun with the particle (just) we can use a noun (e.g., people, acquaintances) and get the usual semi-participle construction denoting secondary action. The significance of circumstance is particularly prominent in the constructions that follow the form of the complement, explaining the nature of the main action. However, although they have a shade of circumstantial meaning, semi-participants in constructions with conjunctives function together as equivalents of personified verb forms, e.g.: (Frog) began to pull her fur as much as she could. PP 13.—(The wolf) breathed and opened his mouth as much as he could. PP 28. In the sense of the personified verb forms without circumstance, the half-participants of the shade with the relative pronoun kas forms are used rarely and are not characteristic of the current literary language, cf. : Don't cry, parents, you don't know what you're thinking. LB 258. Also, only occasionally are dialectal emphatic constructions used, in which the semi-participle goes with the verb of the same root. Whatever you do, see how it ends. Sln. Break, girls, what you break, don't break the top. NS 210. Go straight wherever you go, do not turn anywhere. 772) (c. The king is driving from where he is driving. : Ms. But what being, one way today is deistina, that the Lithuanian language knowers gather all the remains still remaining. DaukB 136. This type of construction is also associated with such phraseologisms without the personified form of the verb: Who being, that man many baptized Czechs. DD 41. Gediminas went to the castle without fear of fire. MLLG III 309. Su the conjunction to half-participants in the current Lithuanian language goes very rarely. Ancient writings, especially J. Bretkūno Bible translation, the data show that In the 16th century they were more productive. 5 In the old translated writings this is also shown by comparison with the originals, cf. : Eija katrul galedami. I Sam 23, 13. —Walked wherever they knew. LB. 50 i _ Schiteip goes to boohwi girlfriend, ikki coming ing Bethlehem. Rut 1, 19 (until they came to Bethlehem LB). People... cry, they can't cry anymore. I Sam 30, 4 (wept until they knew no more to weep LB). Ghis eidams prarakawa, ikki ischkakdams ing Naioth Rama. 1 Sam. 19,23 (foretold | until came er gen Naioth in Rama LB). Schitais tu Syrus dursi, ikki annus (ios) ischpustidams. I Kar 22,11 (wirstu... thrust until | you rejoice du LB). Nesa Joab passeth thine sheschis Manasses and all Israel, neither us zmuschdams wissa Virischki kas Edome buwa. I Kar 11,16 (bleib... until he cut off all that was male in Edom LB). Bei Judas amuses ios wissu way, ikki anus (ios) ischwesdams ing Judea I Mak 5,53 (freezes her... until they er in the land Judea brought LB). Constructions with present tense active participants § 8. The present tense forms of the noun with jungia: maisi words are now used only in dialects, and occasionally in fiction. Most of the time they are not free and only appear in sentences of a certain lexical composition. In ancient writings, constructions ir with some conjunctive words are used much more widely. In the case of ir the relative pronoun, what form in these constructions usually goes the final. : Įkandin began to ji show in practice, ką teaching LzPR 11470. (Zemaičiai) showed what they can do. ValZV 152. I would show it to them, I knew it. kq VenclPU 100. Work as ką hard as you can. ValTK 22. Fisherman Šeškutis himself does not know what he is talking about. CvR IX 122. When you're high, you don't know what you're up to. ZemR II 443. She's... working little realized working, ką asked did not know answerinką g. CvR III 40. You're... You don't know what you're doing. ValVK 3. Don't be such a sheephead, watch what you do. Skr. We're not ką going to an plant. Jrk 25. Ir do it, ką poor man! Nm. The lexical composition of both the participle and the personified forms of the verb is limited here: except in cases where the root of the personified form of the participle verb coincides, the verbs denoting perception and ir display are most commonly used as adverbs ir (verba percipiendi et demonstrandi), the participant making iš modal, adverbial or verbal verbs (verba faciendi et dicendi). Some of these constructions, iš such as doryk darąs, have become quite rigid and have ką lost their literal meaning: ir Only some of the present tense su constructs have synonymous constructs as half-participants, e.g. : su Work as ką you can ir Work while ką you can. In many jų cases, we could not replace a participant with a semi-participant at all. Unlike the semi-participants, the present tense active participants here have no circumstance meaning at all and act as full-fledged equivalents ir of present tense verbs, cf. : His eyes were filled, he didn't know ką what to do. 4 51 $ 16. Summarizing the presented material, it can be said that in constructions with conjunctives where, how much, when, until, until, etc., the participants have the following specific features of usage: a) The participle forms in these constructions relate to the semi-participles, which have a similar meaning in the old scripts, and sometimes in dialects the present tense active participants are still used. b) When transforming a participle construction into a verb, the participant or semi-participant can be replaced by the personified form of the verb, without changing the grammatical form, position and interrelationships of the other elements of the construction. $ 17. The first characteristic (a) links the participants used in the constructions examined here with attributive-predikative participants, which are opposed to the semi-participants on the basis of time and kind meanings, cf. LKMS (LKK VII) 56-64. For example, the constructions I go where I want and I go where I want relate to each other in the same way as I go where I want and I go where I want. In this respect, the two first constructions are of the same type and differ only in the time and the action meaning of the participle and semi-participle forms used in them (the participle of the past participle denotes the previous action, the semi-participle — the simultaneous one). However, in the second construction (I go wherever I want) the participant can also be considered as a past participle with a zero conjunction (see: I go wherever I want). In the meantime, the semi-participative construction has no connection with the system of cumulative perfect tense. Thus, the construction with the past participle and the semi-participle, being the same structure, in the present language relates differently to other types of participatory usage. The contraposition of the active participants of the present tense on the basis of the meaning of time (usually also of the verb) is sometimes partly levelled due to the stagnation of constructions with conjunctives. For example, this is often the case when the participle (semi-participle) and the personified form of the verb have a common root, cf. such statements as go where you have gone (going), do what you have not done (doing), etc. Furthermore, not all constructions can use both the semi-participle and the past participle form of the nominative. In constructions with, the past participle is used almost exclusively instead of the present participle, and the very rare present participle is almost identical in meaning. $ 18. The second feature (b) links the participants following the conjunctives with the predicative participants, which form the constructed tenses and the indirect modus (modus relativus). The use of the present and future tense nominative forms also shows the connection with predicative use (see section 4.4). $ 13). The greater su predicativity of constructions with present tense active participants in the old writings, their stagnation and decay in the present language suggest that the semi-participant took hold here later and, probably, as an example of constructions with attributive-- predikative function. Before the introduction of semi-participants instead of the present tense nominative of the active participants, constructions with conjunctives had to be even more related to the predicative use of the participants. 58 In the constructs discussed so far, the subject of the participant (semi-participant) and the personified verb form that passes in predicate is identical. But this is not always the case. The subject of the participle forms of the participle and other conjunctives after the relative pronoun may be different than the subject of the personified verb forms. The connections of such constructions with the predicative use of the participants are particularly close. And the old king's mother heard the sound of the baby, and by the names she knew who they were. Jrk 86. When asked by a stranger on the road, he said he was ir hungry. (104), ko Jrk 104— 105. The priest asked what I was teaching. 132. For each other (tribes) asked how she lived ji there in the su shadows. LTt III 299. Goes where the executioner has ordered (does not obey). Dr. Don't stick your nails where they burn. Grv. All dyvias, where iš jį (Queen) familiar. The 114. farmer to asked the man where he was going. TDr III 55. The unrelenting one urges the jo skin to move forward as much as he can. Jrk In these 32. constructions, the participants cannot be opposed to the semi-participants at all. Use verbs po denoting ar speech, sensation, perception (verba dicendi et percipiendi), they are to be compared su with the participants of indirect narrative forms, which convey the content of a foreign language or tell things that are precisely known, ne doubted, cf. : Then I found out that there were some red poles on the north side, ir iš jų the key. SimonOBT 87. He told me about the madness of making ji children fall in love. CvR III 200. From the point of view of contemporary language, participants su acting as different subjects in constructions differ in their clear predicative ne function from the participants discussed above, used in constructions as identical subjects, which occupy su an intermediate position between attributive predicative and predicative usage. ir However, this difference is probably not primary. Before the introduction of the semi-participant forms, the meaning of the participansu ts in the ir constructions of identical different iš subjects could not be fundamentally different. In both cases, they were used to indicate a subordinate action when su they were in the personified form of the verb. § 19. Some constructions with su conjunctives and identical subject can be related ir su what. “nominativus cum participio” constructions, especially when the participle of the relative pronoun goes verba dicendi percipiendi su po et (e.g.: he said he had seen his father ir he said, having ką seen). In such cases, the relative pronoun can be considered as ką the object of the participant's action, similarly as a noun to any other noun, a conjunction where it is compared with ar adverbs used in nominativus cum participio constructions, etc. '3 Here are some more examples: su ir 3 In this case, the rune R. corresponds to the arrow. Slavic constructions with relative su pronouns (e. g. : sams védéase Coto bo chote setvoriti „because he himself knew he wanted to ką do“) in certain nominative cum participle relative pronoun variants, cf. be védéase chotę setvoriti "knew he wanted to do", the same initial structure (same as Output structure), žr, Rūžička, The R. syntactic System of Old Church Slavic Participles and sein Verhiltnis zum Greek cuisine, Berlin, 1963, p. 195—196. 59 Kastis also told us who he is. SRagR III 82. The boy went to the sun and told her why he had come. LTt III 348. Here, in their own spheres, everyone wants to show what they can, what they know. Myk-PutS 68. Don't tell me what you heard. 220 and op. You see, they're drunk... they don't know what they're doing. ZemR III 123. When you get the earphone, you'll remember where you heard it. Klvr. He didn't even say where he was going! ZemR IV 116. The young man said where he was from. LTt III 290. However, there is a fundamental difference between such constructions with conjunctives and nominativus cum participio in contemporary Lithuanian. A construction with a conjunction can be transformed into a verb by using a verb of the same tense instead of the participant and without changing the other elements of the construction altogether (e.g. said what he saw). Accordingly, when transforming the nominative cum participle construction, the conjunction that or that should be used (e.g., said that he saw). From this comparison it is clear that in constructions with conjunctives the relationship between the participant and the personified verb form is indirect, intermediate. Meanwhile, in nominativus cum participio constructions, the participant forms a close syntactic- -semantic connection with the personified form of the verb, enters the predicative center of the sentence and has no correlational relationships with the semi-participants. Finally, only a small number of constructions with relative pronouns and other conjunctives can be compared with nominativus cum participio constructions in general. § 20. Thus, constructions with conjunctive words, due to their specific characteristics, do not completely fit into any of the types of usage of the participants of the current language bidingy. Their function in the present Lithuanian sentence is in many cases undefined and fluctuating. Constructions with semi-participants, which have circumstantial nuances, blend with other semi-participants and participants, which denote circumstances, and are usually interpreted as secondary parts of the sentence. Meanwhile, most of the constructions with past participle actives and present and past participle passives, although related to semi-participative constructions by correlational links, are woven to the secondary sentences, whose predicate goes through the forms of the conjugated accomplished tenses'*. It should be noted that only those constructions, which can be linked to the mentioned types of use of semi-participants and participants, are more abundant, more diverse in their lexical composition and possibilities of expansion in the present language. All the others, and especially the constructions with the present tense actors, are unproductive. The participant in them usually goes alone, without dependent words, as in many other cases of ancient usage. Unable to compete with the secondary sentences, these constructions are stagnating and disappearing in contemporary language. That the stammering had begun long ago, apparently from a relationship turned into an indefinite pronoun4 Due to the functional uncertainty of constructions with conjunctive words, their punctuation in contemporary Lithuanian also varies greatly. Unexpanded semiparticiple constructions are considered circumstances and are usually not distinguished. The corresponding constructions with the active participants of the past participle are more often separated by commas because of the analogy with the pronoun nio kas norės, whose lexicalization process can still be seen in the old writings; plg. 60 su I'm sorry, I'm sorry, ko I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. DP 236;7 (Please, do you co want W).— wilku walia Ta ira awis gauditi ischtreieniJir kaip norins sudraskiti. | BrP II 604. In other constructions, the ir participants are made iš semi-participants of verbs of rather limited lexical meaning, among which the verbs could predominate; possible (remind), have etc. ir (plg. such constructions as what, with what, as, as far as possible, possible, possible; could, being + able, having been able'*). All this shows that the constructs of the participants with su connective Words form a certain relative, isolated layer in the syntactic system of the current Lithuanian language. The ancientness of Lithuanian su constructions with connective words is evidenced by ir their equivalents in other related languages. In their structure, these constructions correspond to the statements found in the old Slavic language monuments with the conjunctive su words kefo, čoto, česo, ideže, joduZe, egože etc., although they differ from the latter in greater ir variety of forms of ir participants and usage. (plg. : o našichs ne bysto,kto i věsto prinies Lavr 168 “there will be no one bringing news ir about us”; ne chilled sę peppercorns Mar Marc 10,38 "do not ko know the request"; The land of the ne sea Ass Mat 25,26 "I'm piating where I'm not ir sitting" and so on. ). A. Potebnia, after examining such Slavic language constructions and comparing them with ir Lithuanian ones, concluded su that they show greater predicativeness of the participants in the ancient type sentence!®, A. This conclusion has been iš substantially confirmed by later researchers of the participle system of Slavic languages, only the predicativity of the participles is no longer identified with proximity to verbs, on the su contrary, it is based on noun nature!" o, jy The verbs of the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of su the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of su the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of ir the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of the verbs of the verbs. with conjunctive words can also be explained historically as relics of the predicative function of the participants. Most likely, they are inherited from the period when the attributive-predikative use iš to of the participants was not yet formed. ir ar su relative pronouns and adverbs, in the sentence had the function of a noun. Later, when the participants of be the conjunctives were subordinated to the personified form of the verb, they became secondary parts of the sentence, in the constructions of conjunctives they retained a more independent su meaning. Ją The syntactic-semantic function of the adverbs of the pronouns in the conjunctives themselves, the ar analogy with secondary conjunctive sentences, helped to su preserve. In particular, the separation of rare constructions su of present tense actives with passive participants of ir both tense is not established. This variation is reflected in the examples ir presented in the article, which retain the separation of the originals. '5 It is noteworthy that even next ir to these exaggerated statements already In the 16th–17th a. centuries, secondary sentences of corresponding meaning were used in personified verb su forms, cf. : Bet tha We have to expand our mouths a little bit. BrP I 28,,. Garbin wieszpdti.. Soul kayp primand. GIS I 20. * A. A. 6, op. cit. p. 208—228, particularly p. 221. "Zr. F. Travniček, MHistorical grammar &eska, III, Prague, Czech Republic 1956, p. 123 tt; R. Večerka, Ke genesis of Slavic constructions of participia praes. act. I, „Proceedings of the Faculty of Philosophy Brnėnskė university“, A (1959), p. 40; R. The Rose, op. cit., p. 200. 61 kiniais ir ta the fact that there was no indirect connection ir between the personified form of the verb of the participant here. Many of these structures were eventually replaced by secondary sentences, and some of them became fixed and adhered to the types of usage of other o participants. ir NMPUYACTHBIE KOHCTPYKIULHH C COIO3HbIMH TREATMENT B JIMTOBCKOM $I3bIKE B. AMBPA3AC I'm sorry, B I'm sorry. KOHCTPYKUHIl, B KOTOPHIX NPHYACTHe NPHCOENHHSAETCS K JIHYHON OopMe pink, HMelollell TOXKAECTBEHHbI CYObEKT AeHCTBHS, MOCPEACTBOM pa3HbIX najiexel OTHOCHTejIbHOTO MECTOHMeHHs Kas «KTO» H JpyTHX COIO3HbIX CJIOB (where «rue», when «xorma», as «kak», how much ‘CKOJIbKO, HacKoJIbKO’, two ‘mocha’ H T. m.). [To cBoeit (YHKIHH NPHYACTHS 3/1€Ch 3aHHMAIOT NPOMEXKYTOUHOE MOJOMKEHHE MeXy ATDHOYTHBHOnpejtuKATHBHbIMH H I'm sorry, I'm sorry. C OHOH CTOPOHBI, OHH MPOTHBOMOCTABJSIOTCA MOJYNPHYACTHAM, Hanp. : I go wherever I want (PANED) "upy, rae xouy." C APYroii CTOPOHbI, OHH BBICTYNAOT KaK CHHTAKCHUECKHE CHHOHHMBI JIHUYHBIX (OPM raaoJa. IlosroMy npuuacTHble KOHCTPYKUHMH C COIO3HBIMH CJOBAMH 00/1aJalOT BO3MOXKHOCTLIO TpacdopMaunH B COOTBETCTBYIOUIHE TIVIAarOJIbHble NyTeM 3aMeHbl NPHYACTHS JIHYHOM (opMoil rjarojia, NpHYEM OCTaJbHble KOMMOHEHTHI KOHCTPYKIHH ocTaioTcs Ges usMenenus (cp. : good, ką good, wu good, ką good, good «konuaii, uto mauan»). Fixed ¢ noobynphuacTHAMH B 3THX KOHCTPYKUHSAX (CAUTION B YOU'RE OUT OF THE BOX. TaMSTHHKAX) yes VYNOTDSOJISIOTCA (opMbl HMEHHTeJIbHOTO Najexa JAeHCTBHTEJbHLIX NMPHYACTHA HACTOSILEro BpeMeHH (Hamp. : work as ką you can (if possible) ‘paboraii, 4TO MOXKeNIb"). CrpykrypHo-ceMaHTHUeCKHH aHAJH3 NPHYACTHBIX KOHCTpYKIIHKA C COIO3HBIMH CJIOBaMH HpHBOJIHT K 3akJ/ioueHHI0 06 ux apxauueckom XxapakTepe. Ha sro Thank you so much. H30JIHPOBAHHOE TI0JIOKEHHE STHX COOKING RUBBERS B CHHTAKCHUECKOH CHCTEMe COBPEMEeHHOTro JIKTOBCKOTO A3blKa, HX MOCTeNeHHOe OTMHpaHHe H NpeBpallleHHe B 3acCTbIBINHē 06OPOTHI, a TaKxe SpKHe COOTBETCTBHSI B JIDEBHEHIUHMX NAMATHHKAX CJIABAHCKHX SI3LIKOB (THnma ne cools sg "Ceso prosęszta". OcoGeHHOCTH 3THX KOHCTPYKUHH OObscH5IOTCA ApeBHell Oynkuneit NpHYacTHA Sister. HOMHHaJbHOro mpejaukara. Ilotians Toro, Kak npHuacTHA Ge3 COIO3HBIX CJIOB GbI/IM MOAUYHHEHBI JIHUKOR (opMe Trjarojia, CTAJIH BTOPOCTENEHHBIMH WIEHAMH MpellJIOXECHHS, B KOHCTPYKIHSIX C COIO3HBIMH C/IOBAMH OHH COXDpaHHJIH CBOIO MpPeIHKATHBHOCTb. TOMY Croco6CTBOBAJIO OTCYTCTBHE HEMOCPEJCTBEHHOH CBfA3H C¢ JH4YHOH (GOpMOfi rsarosa, CHHTAKCHYECKO-CeMaHTHYECKas (YHKIHS COIO3HbIX CJIOB H AHAJIOTHS C NPHAATOYHBIMH MpeaoxKeHHSIMH, KOTOpble C TeyeHHeM BpeMeHH 3aMeHHJIH GOJIbLIYI0 YacTh 3THX KOHCTPYKUHIL. 62