Apie imperatyvo formų raidą

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES MORPHOLOGY SANDARA IR JOS RAIDA La BTU NOS TSR MOK SLU AKADEMI1IJA ABOUT IMPERATIVO FORM RAIDA D. SKURKAITE § 1. In Lithuanian dialects, there are ir two forms of the imperative in ancient writings: formantu su -k (take it, do it) ir be formant -k (fists, fists). The personal be -k singular forms 1 of the imperative are still used by the eastern Dzyugas! (Dūkšte, Ignalina, Švenčionėliai, Švenčionys, Tverečius); elsewhere only separate type forms occur, e.g.: nunėš to Alks, Antz, Stlm, imi, neši Mon, Fri, Sat, Sun, Sat, Sun im Brd, Lnkv, Pn, im, run, nest Krtn. How often are the imperative forms of be formanto -k still used Dieveniškiai, Rodūniai, Lazūnai, Gervėčiai, Apso neighborhoods. $ 2. A. Schleicher ir A. Becenberger was the first to present the personal singular forms of the Lithuanian imperative in ancient 2 writings. be -k ir jų Ir they, other ir later researchers have admitted that the part is derived from the jų optative, namely: iš o-kamieniy verbs singular person: a) graistai 2 ,,graibyk®, food, gold ret. Pn, Stim, Ds; common : Dkšt, RS, Sld, Lkm, PIS, Dglš, Ign, Tvr, Kit, Kret, Rsk, MI, Dtn, Švnč, Zbl, Ad, Dv, Aps, Grv, (the sangraziné form guldais is used here), Zt. Lz (These forms are the most common in dialects.)? b) i-kamieniy singular person of 2 verbs: ravi Dglš, Ign, Grv*, Lz, Tarminé material ! for this article collected from individual iš dialect descriptions (dissertations, diploma works, articles). Also used Lietuvos TSR Academies of Sciences The Institute of ir Lithuanian Language and Literature has collected material for the Lithuanian dialect atlas. Zr. A. Schleicher, Handbook of the Lithuanian language, Prague, 1856, p. 230 tt. (hereinafter referred to as: Manual..); A. Bezzenberger, Contributor to History of Lithuania Language, Gottingen, 1877, p. 208 tt., tt. 222 (hereinafter referred to as: Beitrige...). 3 In addition to this type of o-kamieniy verbs imperative forms are still parddz, Sildzies Grv, Bracket Klt; they are made in accordance with (i)a-kamieniy imperative forms of verbs (plg. § 5). 4 On the imperative of i-kamieniy verbs see. E. Nieminen, The Urindogermanic Exit ai of the Nominativ—Ackusativ Pluralis of the Neutrum in the Baltic Languages, Helsinki, 1922, p. 108 (hereinafter referred to as: Exit...). 5 The i-kamieniy verbs in the imperative singular of the 2nd person forms pažiūr, til, tiliė, written in Gervėčiai, are apparently also made (see footnote 3) according to the -(i)a root imperative forms. 153 wey, paweyzd SD 7, 243, gelb Vln 20,,, DP 78,,, ge¢th DP 795,, gélb DP 309,,, gėlb DK 15,,, gétb DK 1584, 45, et al. § 5. In the dialect there are very different (7)a-kamieniy verbs in the imperative singular 2 person forms, e.g.: krail, rail, apsiaii, ragaii, šūkau Dkšt, Krd, Dglš, Lkm, Klt, Ad, Tvr, Grv; shlud (and shio), dainuo Sld, Lkm, PIš, Švnč, Ad, Grv; gra, atsista, kapa Krd, Ign, Lkm, Piš, Dgiš, MI, Tvr, Ad; gi or gi, ri; parachutes Piš, MI, Dglš, Tvr, Dtn, Ad; bū, or bit, supū Lkm, Klt, Ad, MI; day, night Dtn, Ad. In our opinion, J. Kazlauskas correctly explains the origin of these forms: when some forms of the old root imperative (duo, išej) coincided with the communicative stem of the verb, the latter was used in the 2nd person singular of the imperative. In the opinion of J. Kazlauskas, with the emergence of the relationship between the imperative and indicative present singular 2-person forms, in addition to the forms bū, riesutaii, etc., according to the indicative 2-person forms būni, riešutduni, etc., the forms šludj (šhioj, šlūoj), mehioj Lkm, PIS, Dglš, Tvr, Dtn, Ad, Grv, Lz, griatin, šūkaun Krd, Lkm, PI§, Klt, stėj (stoj), joj, kapėj Lkm, Ign, PIš, Dglš, Dtn, Tvr, Ad, Lz, Aps, būn (būn), griūn Lkm,Klt, Ign. In addition to the forms stoj, šluoj, there are bij, griūj, siūj PIS, Lkm, Tvr, Dtn, Ad. § 6. The plural in the 2nd person may also have the forms of the Radical, optative and contaminative imperative!?. In the return forms of this person, the return particle may be before or after the person's ending, e.g. : Sukuojtes, keltės Ad, šiletės „šildykitės“, gultės Grv, gulties Dtn, MI, liautés, liauniétés,liaukités* Dglš, sėditės, klojitiės Lz, džiaugtės, džiaugičtės Tvr and kelieste Ad, liauniėste Dgls, džiaugiéste Tvr. These regressive forms are often used in the dialects of Adutiškis, Daugėliškis, Mielagėnai and Tverečius when ordering two or three persons; when commanding a larger number of persons, the plural 2 person ending is doubled, e.g.: džiauktėtės M1, Tvr, keltėtės Dglš, kelt@tes Ad, and keltéste Dglš?*. § 7. In Lithuania, the imperative (with or without the formant -k) plural 1st person may be used in the form of the indicative present tense plural 1st person (gdudom "let's catch", vėzam "let's carry"). The use of indicative forms in the 1st person plural of the imperative and the rare imperative forms of this person!® suggest that the 1st person plural imperative forms are of later origin than the singular and plural 2nd person imperative forms. For a long time the imperative plural in the 1st person was probably in the injunctive form, cf. the indicative forms of the athematic verb eiti, used in the 1st person of the imperative plural: eima, eima Prg, eimė, a(i)mė Grš, Vlkv, eimė Jrb, aimė Raud, Knv, Rgv, Kp, Pl, ai(i)mé Lkm, amė Dglš, Tvr, Ad, a(i)ma Zt, etc., cf. the 1st person of the binary forms aiva Raud, VI, Vikv, eiva Jrb, Grš. 18 See J. Kazlauskas, Aus optatyvo istorijos, LKK, t. 4, Vilnius, 1961, p. 82—83: '4 For examples see. J. Kardelytė, LKK, vol. 1, p. 186. It is only necessary to note that the author’s statement that the two-syllable imperative plural 2 person forms are pronounced only at the ending seems to be unfounded, cf. dvėste, Idite „leiskite“, ricte, landzte (and kemštė), lipte, gente, šūkte (and lantė) Tvr. 5 See ir J. Otrebski, Wschodniolitewskie narzecze twereckie, I, Krakéw, 1934, p. 385. | 16 E.g., rare forms of the imperative without -k plural 1st person: gūnaime, kraūme, —grébme,- grébkime“, vakardojme Ml, Ad, rasaime, tilime, pašūkme, siedziémés Tvr,. eat Svné, leidme, ragaunme, stataime Aps. 155 § 8. The 1st-person plural form of the imperative with the ending -me in some eastern Dzūkian dialects denotes a command applied to two persons — the listener and the commander (e.g., amé, padėsi veži.ma nukrdut). By adding the ending -te to this form, the command applies to many persons (bdbos, améte rit vūogaut). The ending -te, which gives the form the plural meaning, is added here in the 2nd person plural. § 9. Now, in the 3rd person (permissive) forms of the imperative, the particles te, tegu(l), testa, lai, laigul, etc. are usually used. The origin of the re is still unclear. A. Becenberger identified it with the deyctive particle fe, usually used with verbs (Kodelei tu man tiktai wiena burta... tadawei BB Joz 17, 14, Schitie pafkucziaufieghi wiena hadina te dirba. BB Mt 20, 12, Jauniaufis tebera pas mufu Tiewa BB 1 Moz 42, 13)". Similarly explain J. Endzelynas and J. Otrembskis?®. Dalelyté te, grown up with the verb, can still be used as a separate ZodZiu. Even in ancient writings, in sentences with several 3rd person imperative forms, te usually only precedes the first verb, e.g. : Czia te dūdie wiens wienam Wenciawonés Zėdus o Klebonas fudedde abejū define Ranką Daw Pam 9, Te ne lipa ing namus ney ineina Bt 13, 15. In the old scriptures the particle gi is used with fe, e.g.: tėgistow BB 2 Krn 1, 9, tegiweifd BB 1 Mos 43, 33, tégi parod (next to te parodig), tėgi ne regis DP 264,,, tegi éssi DP 433,. In ancient writings there are also examples where the fe vowel of the particle contracts with the first vowel of the verb or its prefix, e.g.: totey "to come" KN 264, totliektiš "to lag behind" DP 705, tėssi "teesie" DP 51,,, tė/si DP 82543, 194;, 2574. The particle of return is usually between te (ta) and the verb root, e.g.: tesidėd DP,,, tefifkiria BB 1 PvP 7, 15, tesided AK 42, || tesispardai Jrb, tesisuk Grdz, tesiZi.nai Sl, Sv, PIS, tesizi.no Uog, Plv, tesiži.na Pnm, Ad, tasipraiisia Skp, tasdarai Rms, tesiZinai Tvr. In some dialects, the forms of this kind of sangrazZo have a particle at the end, e.g.: tépefas Krtn, temdkais Lkv, teganas Gerv, té.siuvas Ds. § 11. Much more often than with fe, the verb form with fegu is used for the 3rd person imperative! (tagul) or with its shorter form tegu (tagu), e.g.: tegul duga Smn, Lp, Glv, Bgs, PI§, Ad, Ds, tégul būn Kal, Pgr, tegūl nėš Erz, Všk, tegul dūro Pgr, Grdž, Vs, tėgul dr Sl, Pkp, tegul’ lekia Žsl, Kš, tegūl dūro Knv, tėgul kūs Pš, Škn, tagūl eina Plv, Pnd, Dbk, tegūl tili Kp, Skp, Sv, Ktk, tegul sū.kas Aln and teg nėša Gršk, Smn, Vs, Lp, Knv, tegū būn, teg atimie Jrb, Grdž, tagū mokos Krtn, Lkv, tegū sūko Vk§, Kal, Erž, Gerv, tégu dirb ret. Brž, let wash Glv, Aln, Ktk, Ad, then flash Kp, Skp and so on. '® 17 See A. Bezzenberger, Contributions..., p. 211. Once fe was even used with an adjective: fegaliaufioioie priwartije BB Ez 40, 20 (cf. modern examples: Once I was there. He still lives there, see J. Otrebski, Gramatyka..., p. 368). 8 See. J. Endzelynas, Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos, Vilnius, 1957, p. 191; J. Otrebski, Gramatyka..., p. 368. 19 The particulate fegul is used alongside fe in old writings. Only in J. Chilinski's Bible and Wolfenbüttel's Postilla it seems not to be found, see. A. Bezzenberger, Studien ūber die Sprache des preussischen Enchiridions, KZ, t. 41, Gėttingen, 1907, p. 112 et seq. (hereinafter: KZ, t. 41). On the contrary, fegul is used particularly frequently in K. Širvitas’ writings: with fe in the “Points of Sayings” only one form of fe for hearing is found 3381, (F. Specht, Syrwids Leben und Schriften..., p. 42). 156 In Eastern Dzūkian dialects there are also the particles festa, su testdu, e.g.: testa eina Knv, test lick Ad, test silks Tvr, testdu pūravi ‘tegul paravi’ Ad. F. Kuršaitis** may have considered the existence of the verb gulėti permissive? !. A. Becquerel saw particles here, gu ir the compound. The interrogatgu ive particle of this compound, found in ir other words, e.g.: jeżeli, neże, lai correspono ding to the Prussian lai (plg. Boole "to be", chili ,teeina, kad eitų“), Lithuanian Latvian lai, ir used in imperative forms. su Tą A. Becenberger's opinion, which was later supported by other ir linguists, was rightly criticized by E. Sisters? ?. Reasonable, it seems, is E. Herman's guess is that it may be of non-phonetic origin. iš $ 12. Since the particle /ai used only in northern Lithuanian dialects (for a long time it was believed that only in Žemaičių dialects??), was considered ji Kurzeme or Latvism®. K. In the case of a partition, if the partition has a partition, ir then the partition has a partition. chiles, guatilas „tenori“, supposed ją to be of non-Latvian origin?5, Because of the particle There are two opinions about the origin of /ai. Some linguists Latvian af, Lithuanian lai time verb (latviešu laist, lietuviešu "The Old Imperative- ". ?. They are based on the corresponding Slavic particles instead of the form laid used in Latvian old ir writings (Russian). nycmo (from nycmumo), nyckaii (from nyckams), polk. niech, niechai, ukr. nexaii, baltar. Kaxaii), which are also old imperatives. This view was not shared by A. Becenberger ir K. Bow; the laid found in the ancient scriptures they held the appearance of iš /di ir postposition da? ". The latter interpret- * ation, Zr. F. Course chat, grammar of Lithuanian English language, Hall, 1876, p. 372 ($ 1369). ?! Similarly, fesfa is considered to be the permissive form of the verb stand. J. Zubaty, IF, t. 4, p. 474. # E. Herm nn, a Lithuanian Studies, Berlin, Germany 1926, p. 255 tt. # F. Kuršaitis (Zr. F. Kurschat, Grammatik.., p. 301, § 1160) stated that lai used in Klaipeda ir In the east, o the mountains are flat. K. Būga (zr. K. B ūga, Language little things, “Educatio3—4, nal work”, Kaunas, 1921, p. 47) indicates that lai is used Skuode, Mosėdis, Alsėdžiai, Rietava, Kvėdarna. It may be added that lai (or lei) is also found in Kretinga (lai eit), Viekšniai (lei miliė), Kalnalis (lai skaito), Sėleniuose (lai dirb), Kuršėnuose (lei norie, ret. lai einie), Sakinėje (lai būnie, lei dirb), Šiauliai, Pakapė (for dr’), Steigviliuose (lei kabalitioj), Biržuose (lease buy), Pabiržėje (let go), Svėdasuose (Lai Gu Li) # Plg. J. Endzelins, Grammar and..., § 694. % Zr. K. Bouga, Cnassno-Gaaruiickne aTHMOJIOTHH, Selected Writings, Vilnius, 2002. I, 1958 p. 452—453. (hereinafter referred to as: RR, I). % Zr A. Bielenstein, Die latvische Sprache.- ., p. 164, 208, 365; J. Zubaty, Uber die so genannten Flickvokale des latvischen Volksliedes; 19, Prague, 1855, p. 13; ibid., IF, vol. 6, p. 294; J. Endzelin, Lettische Miszellen, KZ, vol. 42, Göttingen, 1909, p. 375; ibid., Gramatika., § 690; ibid., Kritische Anzeiger, AfslPh, vol. 32, Berlin, 1911, p. 295. E. Fraenkel, BS, II, p. 64; to paties, Lithuanian etymological dictionary, Géttingen, 1955, p. 328 tt. ; Chr. S. Stang, The Slavic and Baltic Verbum, Oslo, 1942, p. 245 (toliau: Verbum..- ); J. Otrebski, Gramatyka...,, III, p. 365. Neither of the two views on the origin of lai mentioned in the article was shared by Brugman, Trautmann, Bernecker and others (cf. K. Brugmann, Slavisch li und lettisch lai, IF, t. 15, Strasbourg, 1903—1904, p. 380 (hereinafter: IF, t. 15); to paties, Grundriss.., II, 3, p. 974; A. Trautm ann, Altpreussische Sprachdenkmiler, p. 285; E. Berneker, Slavisches etymologisches Wėrterbuch, I, Heidelberg, 1913, p. 716, 698; F. Solmsen, KZ, t. 44, p. 184. Ta. Bezzenberger, KZ, vol. 41, p. 122; K. Būga, RR, I, pp. 452-454. » to 157 which was subsequently endorsed by E. Niinistö,- *? seems to be more accurate?*?. For, in Russian nycme, nyckaii are clearly of later origin: in Old Russian their place was occupied by the particle da (which changed forms without a particle). In Latvian, the 3rd person imperative is used only with lai. It is doubtful that the imperative form /ai became a particle in very ancient times (as, for example, the Slavic particles mentioned above may have changed later). § 13. 3-person forms of the imperative of o-stem verbs with the ending -ai of the old optative occur, although rather rarely, in the dialects of the Žemaičiai, Western and Eastern Highlanders, e.g.: tardsai, tamokais Lkv, tegūnai Vds, terédai Prg, tesūkai Sl, tesispardai, tegu suvdlgai Jrb, Grdž, tesižinai Grl, tedūrai PIS, Dglš, Tvr, Dtn, Ad, tadūrai Rš, tesiži.nai ret. Sv, Ktk. Forms of the older imperative are now used in verbs of other stems, e.g. leimiliė "let love", leibūniė, tevežiė Vkš, tenesi, teprausis Gerv, tanešie, taaūdie Lkv, tebūnie, težiūriė Pgr, tegulie, teguli, tedirbi ret. Kps, Vlkv, keep running, let them take Jrb, testvi, ret. 10:00 a.m., tests, tennis. Pnm, testa, testdu, temiék, tevažiūoj PI, testovi, tepriraii, teišmok, tegiéd Dglš, Tvr, testa, tei „tegul eina“, testdu, tepadali, teguli Ad. § 14. Most often, the 3rd person imperative is used in the 3rd person indicative present tense with a particle (te, teg(!), testa, lai, etc.). These forms are used throughout Lithuania and are abundant in ancient writings. In some dialects, the 3rd person of the imperative can also be expressed in the 3rd person of the indicative future tense, e.g.: tėgu pamatis Gerv, lai būs Skn, tegul važiuos, tegū pavalgis Lp, testa ateis Knv, cf. will be SP I 2593, 664, 15213, let not be SP II 100,,, let be SE 276; let be pdstatitus KN 25. The 3rd person of the imperative can also be expressed in the form of a pronoun with a particle: testa ateit. $ 15. As we have seen, the 3rd person of the imperative differs from the other persons of the imperative by the presence of a certain particle and the use of indicative forms. There is reason to believe that the 3rd person imperative forms are of later origin than the 2nd person singular and plural forms. For a long time, the indicative forms of the 3rd person imperative were used in Lithuanian and Latvian (see the stable phrases rduna tave giltinė, Latvian parauj vinu Jupis)*?. Later, the 2nd-person forms of the imperative took over their place, cf. dies duo tau**, trduk tave kelmai "let the stems pull you", suk tave šūbagas Krtn, rdu(k) aną pikis "let it end", trduk jums pardliai, trėnk tave perkūnas Škn*? and old writings neded 28 According to E. Nieminen, the particle lai may have come from */ai or *lai (E. Nieminen, Ausgang.- ., p. 112 etc.). 29 Cf. lit. lai, lat. lai, Prussian -lai comparison with Russian au (see A. Leskien, Die Deklination im Slavisch-- Litauischen und Germanischen, Leipzig, 1876, p. 49; F. Sol ms en, KZ, t. 44, p. 184; W. Vondrak, Vergleichende Slavische Grammatik, II, Gottingen, 1928, p. 288; K. Brugmann, IF, t. 15, p. 380; K. Būga; RR, I, p. 452—453; E. Nieminen, Ausgang.- ., p. 113. 380 Zr. J. Endzelins, Gramatika., § 694; J. Endzelynas, Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos..., p. 191 (§ 398). 81 See J. Endzelins, Gramatika..., § 694. 3? Plg. rus, OrcoxHu Te0ūū A3bIK. 158 (Karalius tho neded [chirdiefp BB 2 Sam 19, 19), atmete „te atmeta“ BP 26,,%. The fact that the $ 2 mentioned forms derived from the optative were used instead of the non-paradigmatic (injunctive or other) 3rd person forms of the imperative may have helped them to take hold of this meaning. When the 3rd person ending *+ (*darai-t) fell, the forms *darai(s) and *darai(t) were not distinguished. Therefore, together with them, the particle fe (and elsewhere, perhaps, from the beginning and everywhere (?) lai) was used to indicate the 3rd person of the imperative. This particle had to specify the 3rd person of the imperative. It was later replaced by the more abstract forms of the imperative tegul, testa, laigul, etc. They could also be used alongside the older 3rd person form of the imperative with the particle fe, cf. fegul tedūmoi DP 2215, tegul" te dūdies DK 120,, (in the edition of E. Zitiga), kožnas tegul paties fawo darbą tadatiria Bt PvG 6, 4, o tegul tenudalijja Bt PvG 6, 6, tegul tedaro taipo KIG 521%, § 16. In the 3rd person imperative, the word for "himself" may be used, which weakens the meaning of the command, e.g.: fegū sau rėkauna Tvr, tegul sau nė.šas Pnm. A. Bruckner considers this form of the Merkinė dialect (tegul sau eina) to be a Slavic value (compare Polish niech sobie idzie)**. However, in Lithuanian dialects the imperative fesžinai, tesižino is very often used (see § 9). In many places (Raguva, Palėvenė, Svėdasai, Alanta, Kuktiškės, etc.) only this form of the particle fe remains next to the fegul, tegu used in all other cases. The particle te in the form tesižinai, tesižino remained, as it seems, because of the return particle, which highlights the shade of permission: tesižino =tegul sau žinosi. Therefore, the use of the 3rd person imperative form for myself should perhaps be considered to have arisen independently of the analogous Polish niech sobie idzie. § 17. How did the imperative with the formant -k appear in Lithuanian? A variety of orders of magnitude. certain particles can be emphasized**. These particles can sometimes turn into real flexions (e.g. in Greek and Sanskrit -dhi). Similarly, perhaps the Lithuanian imperative formant -k has also appeared. What shade of meaning did the particle -k give to the imperative form? In the opinion of J. Otrembski®, forms with -k could have meant a softened order (which is why the future tense meaning of ju has arisen: softened order does not require quick execution). But this opinion seems unfounded—if the old imperative meant a strict command, it is incomprehensible why it had to disappear. As already mentioned, in Lithuanian some forms of the imperative disappeared, and new forms were used in their place. The imperative of optative origin did not replace all the previous forms of the imperative. Some of these forms have evolved into the indicative present tense 2 person forms (cf. $ 5). The new particle, apparently, had the purpose to strengthen the meaning of the command and at the same time to distinguish more some forms of the imperative 2 person from the indicative present tense 2 person forms. 33 If these are not values, as perhaps is the case in M. Daukša's Catechism: kiu mūmus duok' Wieszpatie (Ktore nam day Panie) (in E. Zitigo's edition 86g). 34 Pig. F. Kurschat, Grammatik.., p. 301 (§ 1160), 372 (§ 1369). In addition to the forms tegūl pasiliėkt, teit, tegūl eit can be said and fégul tepaziliėkt, tegul teit, tegui teina. 35 Zr. A. Briickner, Litu-slavic Studies, I, Weimar, Germany 1877, p. 164. 36 PDvz., gr. dye, ge'os, lot. age agedum (reinforced urge), lot. or six (=if still) (weakening the prompt), see K. Brugmann, Grundriss.., II 3, § 717. 37 See. J. Otrebski, Gramatyka.., III, p. 226 (§ 504). : 159 In dialects, the relationship between the imperative and indicative future tense forms can be observed: the 1st person of the imperative plural without -k (and 3rd, cf. § 14) can be expressed in the indicative future tense form (cf. nėšma „neškime“ Lkv, pasdalisma „,pasidalysim“ Skp); In some dialects, the 1st person plural forms of the imperative with -k are formed according to the future tense forms of the indicative (see § 21)%. Two of the 100-year-- old trees in the park are also listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, it might be reasonable to assume that there were two imperative tenses in other conversations for some time. $ 18. Both in dialects and in ancient writings, the 2nd person singular forms of the imperative are usually ending in -k. They can end*? : -i: suki ret. Gršk, Plv; help Sb, see BM I 104, gulki, palaukig Zt; -ie: turn Smn, Jrb, do Lp, Ršk, Grv, turn back Dglš, Tvr, Švnč, don't sit Lz; -a: väskia Knv, baika, "baik" Kp; -ai: sakikai Krtn®, tilėkai Ds, pa-gi-kinkkai VoL 4905, pa-gi-žjūrėkai VoL 490,, palaukai The Tales 364,,,, of VoL VoL 36654. In modern dialects, the 2nd person singular imperative regressive forms usually end in -is, e.g.: néskis, juokis Ms, Vkš, Gerv, Jrb, KzR, Prn, sū.kis Rk, Sv, Tršk, Pnd, Ktk, Mlt, etc. Gana retos yra sangrąžinės formos su -ies, pvz.: juokies ret. Grš, Vlkv, nėškies Jrb, lidukies Dglš, Ršk, Tvr, or with -ias, e.g. kiskias Vks, Trk, rotating Kal, pregnant Lkv, lifts Cross. $ 19. How the whole particle looked, turned into the imperative formant -k, is difficult to say. A. Schleicher and K. Brugmann (later similarly achieved by Ch. Stangas and J. Otrembskis) thought that there was a particle k*?. V. PorZezinskis® proved that there were two particles —ki kie. ir F. Solmsen** thought he could be ko ar ka. The origin of the -k formant has been interpreted differently. Almost all linguists*® associate this form with the Slavic particle xa. In Russian, this particle is used with verbs % In addition, it is possible to guess the paradigm of personification of the imperative with -k (go(i), go-i-me, go-i-te...) formed by the personification of the future tense (go, we go...), plg. § 19. 39 Zr. J. Aleksandravičius, Kretinga dialect verb, Vilnius State Pedagogical Institute, 1959, p. 117, etc. (about some of these forms see J. Aleksandravičius, Kretinga dialect verb, Vilnius State Pedagogical Institute, 1959, p. 41 (see footnote). *0 For examples in ancient scriptures, see A. Bezzenberger, Beirut, p. 220 tt; B. K. ITopxesnncki it, ucropin, Kb p. 22 tt. 41 In the Kretinga dialect these forms have the imperative present tense meaning (see J. Aleksandravičius, min. veik., 117 et seq.). -ai here is probably a particle, used with other verb forms, e.g.: reikai "must", eitai "goes", reiksai "will have to", ėsai "will be" Krtn. Si cannot be a residue of the optative imperative, because it has the form of the a stem (as we have seen, and the imperatives of the a stems do not tend to mix). 2 A. Schleicher, Handbuch.., p. 230; K. Brugma nn, Grundriss..., II, 3, p. 957, § 889; J. Otrebski, Gramatyka.., p. 226; Ch. S. Stang, Verbum.., p. 248. 4 B. K. Nop xesunckii, Kv ucropin...- ,, p. 34. “4 F. Solmsen, Etymologien. 1. Slav. xa, xo, greek. x&, xe(v), KZ, t. 35, 1899, p. 463 tt. (hereinafter referred to as KZ, p. 35). 4 Zr. 42–44 iSnaSos mentioned literature, also lg. F. Miklosich, Comparative Grammar of the Slavic Languages, IV, Vienna, 1 1867, p. 798. 160 imperative ir conjunctive, e.g., pacckancu-«a, A09KUCb-KO, nočiuiko, noneiūKo, noėJdėmy-Ko, nocmoumy-ko, Lithuanian imperative plural endings are -kime, -kite (o ne *-mek(i), *-tek(i)). Similar particle infection was observed in Russian In the Yaroslavl dialect, noanokame is — often spoken. (instead of noawome-xa) ir in the song 65:20natikame*?, As you can see, Lithuanian Kir Slavic -The connection is correctly observed. Continue K. Brugman in Lithuanian -k (as ir s. Indian who, who, av. kam, gr. xēV, xē, xd, dor. xd ir sen. Slavic K9, Russian «xo, ka) mano kilus ide. iš pronouns *guom, *quem, *gua, V. Poržezin- — skis — iš It's going. pronouns with roots**qui lit. (> ki), *god liet. (> -kie). A. Sleicheris*® particle -k gretino su p, po (e.g., yes, sen. so, otherwise, as, descended iš from that, other, ka stems)? ?. Similar to my ir E. Frenkel; it imperative formsieja Lithuanian ta -k language su postposition pi? ?. A whole new idea raised V. Toporovas ir O. Trubačiovas*! Jų believes that the ir Lithuanian-Russian su -k imperative was formed on the basis of the Finnish-Ugric imperative with the formant -ka. $ 20. To what forms the particle is attached -k? A. In K. Schleicher'- s, ta Brugman's view, the į particle is stuck in the type give, take imperative forms. But give, take are the forms of the present-- time trunk. For to A. Schleicher believed that the particle was stuck in those į forms whose present-time communicir ative stems coincided. So next to the old imperative save (v.s. 1 asm. ), yellowish (v.s. 2 asm.) the new gelbki, save (later save, save). Ch. Stangas (and J. Otrembski) believes that the imperative forms su -k the basis was the form of the root imperative, like ei*?. Dalytes -k, apparently later joined to forms that had a consonant at the end (p, š ar kt ). In some dialects, ir the formant in 2 the imperative -k person is sometimes not pronounced jį if a consonant precedes it, e.g. nepil(k), paim(k), kirp(k) (but drink) Jrb (In Jurbarkk as dialect, all consonanpo ts can be dropped here, only r po remains); m.s(k), h.p(k), n.s(k) Sv, atne.š(k) Plvn, atkims(k) Kp, he'll take the hay, he'll kill the chicken Dbk. '§ 21. The personal su -k plural forms 1 of the imperative may have an ending in some | Highland dialects -ium, plg. Run around. Dks, NŪt, VIč, nėščium, nėščiumėme Prn, eikium Mrk, Prl, kėlkium, kélkiums, kėlkiumėms Hello, you. lekium Plyn, duokium, dhiokiums, praūskiums biežn. Pnm, vė.škium, vė.škium(ė)s, vė.škiumėms Sv, % Plg F. Solmsen, KZ, t. 35, p. 463 et seq. #7 There are different ir opinions among linguists. H. Osthoff, perfect, p. 355; A. Bezzenber ger, Beitrige., 217 tt; F. Solmsen, KZ, t. 35, 463 tt. 48 Zr. A. Schleicher, Handbuch... p. 231. * E.g. also Slavic pronouns: rus, mwé-ka, re6é-xa (forms found in Russian verbs), sr. Febe-ka "tau", naske "mus", vaske "jus", bulg. azika, azka "I", meneka "me", tebeka "you". 5 Zr. E. Fraenkel, BS, II, p. 41 tt. 5 Zr. B. H. Tonopos x O. H. Tpy6aués, JIHHrBHCTHUECKHI aHAMH3 THApoHKHMOB Bepxuero IlojuenpoBba, Mocksa, 1962, pp. 249-250. 52 This is particularly confirmed by the form aik, which in Daugėliškis and Tverečius denotes both the present and the future tense of the imperative. 58 Plg. dar iszmūszkium (ir ataddokimem) Sb, išmūškium, eikium, žr. F. Specht, Lithuanian dialects, collected by A. Baranowski, II, Leipzig, 1922, p. 193. 11. Morphological structure of Lithuanian language and its development 161