Iš optatyvo istorijos

EINE Vil Ui KA L BOTY ROC SE KOL TAU SSE TM AT TV LUISE UP VEO STS Ri -< MO" Kr S "L "Ų" "AK ADEM TJ A IŠ OPTATYVO HISTORY J. Article 1. The forms of the optativus in Lithuanian dialects vary greatly. No other language has as many variants as it does the optative. The following forms of the optativus are now widely used in Lithuanian dialects: vns. | asm. would, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be, would be; vns. 2 persons. būrum, būtumei, būrumi, būrai (būtai), būtumbe, būtumbei; dgs. 1 person. būtum(e), būtumėm(e), būturumim, būtumiam, būtuūm (būtūmė), būtuūm, būtumbe, suktumbėmės; dgs. 2 persons. būtur(e), būtumėr(e), būrumit, būsūr (būtūrė), būsūr, būrūrbe, suktumbėtės; 3 person. bari, būtu, butu, bir, būtum, būtun, būrųbe, būtybi. Adding the forms of the optative found in Lithuanian writings of the 16th—17th centuries, the picture becomes even more vivid: vns. | asm. would, would have, would have been, would have been; 2 persons. būtumbei, buvumbi, buvtumei, būtum, būtumb; dgs. | asm. belong(e), belong(e), belong(e), belong(e); 2 persons. werebit(e), weremit(e), weremb, werembet; 3-person squads (bitun). $ 2. This variety of optative forms has long been of interest to researchers. The Baltic optative has been studied since the emergence of the comparative historical method. A. Sleicher?, F. Bop?, A. Becenberger- ®, J. Smith*, O. Vydemanas®, V. Poržezinskis? (his analysis is based on rich dialect and ancient 1 See. A. Schleicher, Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, 228 pp., Prague, 1856; Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, 841, Weimar, 1857. 1866. | 2 7r.F. Bopp, Comparative Grammar.- .., 3*, § 685 tt., 1861. 3 Žr, A. Bezzenberger, Contributions to the History of the Lithuanian Language.- .., 214 pp., Gottingen, 1877; Lettische Dialekt-Studien, 72 pp., Gottingen, 1885; Litauische Forschungen, pp., Gottingen, Uber die 16 39, 1882; Language of the Prussian Letten, 97 tt., Göttingen, Germany 1888; BB 26, 175 tt. 4 See. KZ, 24, 305, 1879. 8 Zr. O. Wiedemann, Das litauische Préteritum, 184 tt., StraBburg, 1891; Handbuch der litauischen Language, 111, Strasbour1897. g, $ Žr. B. K. lMopxesanuckuil, Kb HeTopun dopM cnpsikeHusi Bb GanTHHACKHX® A3biKaxb, etc., 56 Mocksa, material of 1901. 73 writing monuments), E. Berneker", J. Zubatis8, K. Brugmanas?, F. Spechtas? ?, Mr. Endzelynas! H. Pedersen! ?, Ch. Stangas! ?, V. Pizanis!4, J. Otrembskis?®, The formation of individual optative forms is often interpreted differently. Different opinions on this issue almost as much as the forms themselves. Some of them are outdated and are not sufficiently based on Lithuanian facts. Almost all authors had too little dialectological material of Lithuanian language, little knew about the spread of these forms in dialects.. § 3. All of the aforementioned scholars, except F. Bopa and V. Pizanj, have no doubt that the Lithuanian optative is composed of the supinate and the auxiliary verb -bime. Only E. Berneker, quite rightly disbelieving the idea raised by V. PorƗinski that one supin could have been used in the meaning of the optative for all three persons, speculates that in the Baltic languages the imperative with *-tod (s. ind. -tad, gr. -tw, lat. -zod, -to) form was included in the optative system, the remnants of which are in lat. 3 person. suktuo-s, lit. suktu (with the short -wu)!*. F. Bopas!" and V. Pizanis!® believe that the first component of the Lithuanian-Latvian optative was id. imperative with -zu (cf. Indo-Iranian -zų, Het. -du), which could have been used in Old Indian with a potential meaning. The second component of the optional (-bime etc.) is also subject to divergent opinions. The majority (F. Bopas, A. Šleicheris, J. Šmita, V. Poržezinskis, E. Berneker, A. Becenbergeris, O. Vydemanas, J. Zubatis) considers it to be an optional verb. K. Brugman has no doubt that the form is a preterite. Ch. ši Stan also — tends to consider her a preterite. J. Endzelynas looks at its origin alternatively, without holding the second opinion is not possible, although this opinion does not explain the presence of two stems (-bei and -bime) in one paradigmojel®. Many of the characters in the series are of Chinese origin, including the main characters, the main villain, and the main villain. Despite considerable efforts, the origin of these forms has not yet been clarified. There is no hypothesis that can be considered true. $ 4. A mandatory clause or a subjunctive? This question could not have been raised if it had not been raised recently by Mr Pisani. He supports the 7 point raised by F. Bop. E. Berneker, AfslPh, 25, 485, 1903 (review of the work of V. Poržezinskis mentioned in footnote 6). 8 See J. Zubaty, IFA, 16, 55 tt, 1904. (Review of the work of V. Poržezinski mentioned in footnote 6). ? Zr. K. Brugmann, IF, 30, 348 tt., 1912; Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, 2%, 3, 513 tt. Strasbourg, 1916 (hereinafter: Grundriss). 10 See. F. Specht, Litauische Mundarten, 2, Leipzig, 1922 (see index Optativ). i See J. Endzelin, Lettische Grammatik, § 695 et seq., Riga, 1922; FBR, 15, 11, 1935; FBR, 17, 166, 1937; Latviešu valodas gramatika, § 695 et seq., Riga, 1951 (hereinafter: Grammatik). 12 Zr. H. Pedersen, Lithuanian Studies, 56, Copenhagen, 1933. 18 Zr. Ch. Stang, Das slavische und baltische Verbum, 249 pp., Oslo, 1942 (in Lithuanian: Verbum); The Lithuanian conjunction jeib and the lit.-lett. Journal of Linguistics, 18, 348 tt. ). 14 Zr. V. Pisani, The Baltic octative (conjunctive) and the treatment of Od in final syllable in Gothic and Baltic. —„Studi Baltici”, 9, 34 tt., 1952. 5 Zr. J. Otrebski, Grammar of the Lithuanian language, 3, 230 tt, Warsaw, 1956. 16 See AfslPh, 25, 486. 17 Zr. F. Bopp, min. veik., § 685. from Zr. V. Pisani, min. str., 40. 19 See J. Endzelins, Gramatika, § 695. 74 and throughout his article tries to support it with facts of Lithuanian and Latvian language. The basis of this idea is the incorrect Lithuanian and Latvian vns. Interpretation of the 3 person form with -f4 (short -#). In addition, the formation of many Lithuanian and Latvian dialectal forms of the optative is unclear. His intangible statements travel book by book, article by article to our days. iš į iš į Trump -zu Occurred here because of the special abbreviation of the optional forms. Therefore, E. Berneker's assumption that lit. -zwų, lat. -tuos originated from the imperative is not true. *-z0d. Ir let. -Tuesday (They have ~ had Viekšniai, they have had ir Šakyna), lat. -those that have arisen by analogy with other su recursive forms of verbs, because next to the ordinary recursive forms always su -x end -405 (plg. let. genus : sukuos, lat. velku : velkuos)®. As soon as the limb is bent -ty shortened į -tų, analogously to the recursive forms of other persons, a recursive form with -zuos could easily be found here too. Both these theories are a priori unreliable a simply because the imperatives su *-tu or *-t0d do not survive in Baltic languages, nor in Slavic and Germanic languages. In addition, there is no dialect of the Lithuanian language that would cause even a little doubt that its optative forms are really formed on the basis of supinating. The correct understanding of the optional form is hindered by the idea, which has been widespread since the time of V. Poržezinski, that the supinum could have been used as the optional form of all numbers and persons from the very beginning. Mr Bernecker quite rightly questioned this, because such a situation is hard to imagine. Ch. Stangas also believes that at the beginning all the forms of the optional persons and numbers were pure supins??. J. Endzelynas also supports V. Poržezinski's idea??. There is no need to rely further on this idea. § 5. Almost all the 16th—17th century Lithuanian language monuments have the optative with -b-. In the old writings and dialects of Latvian there are also preserved forms with -b5-. Thus, it can be assumed that during the common Lithuanian-Latvian epoch the optative was formed from a compound and an auxiliary verb, whose root began with a consonant 5-. This auxiliary verb, over time, grew to the opposite conjunct, and the synthetic form of the optative was formed. Over time, this auxiliary verb, as a separate personified form of the verb, disappeared and, having grown up with the conjunct, became a postposition, which lost the morphological meaning of the optative and was condemned to disappear2. The levelling of the morphological significance of this postposition was also accelerated by the 3-person form (suktų), which had no postposition in the past (see $ 16). The disappearance of the postposition was also stimulated by the optative personification system, its significantly shorter 3 person form. The 3rd person form in Baltic languages is the center of the verb. Both the Prussians, Lithuanians and Latvians have created a number of new works on its basis. The optative postposition disappeared more quickly in long multisyllabic verbs (pasivaikščiotumbime, etc.). In Eastern Dzūkian, where the optative bis used, the second component is especially rarely preserved in polysyllabic verbs. su jo *0 For lat. turns plg. J. Endzelins, Grammar, $ 705. *1 Ch. Rod, verb, 251. 2 See. J. Endzelins, Grammar, § 696. *3 For the decay of elements that have lost their morphological significance, see K. Bi ga, Selected Writings, 1, 578 etc., amounted to Z. Zinkevičius, Vilnius, 1958, Similar conclusion probably would have reached ir K. This article is about the completed article. 75 In the absence of the postposition of the optative, the following system of personalization of the optative must have developed in individual Lithuanian and Latvian dialects: First type Second type vns. | asm. suktumbiau (where it was formed), 2 pers. suktumbei, suktum, asm. 3 turns, dgs. 1 asm. turning, turning, 2 asm. You're a fool. I'm sucking. In addition to the new short forms, the old long forms could still be used for some time. There are traces of the second type in the Lithuanian language, see: vns. | asm. suktum (Biržai), būčium (Viekšniai, contaminated from būčiu and būtum),: 2 pers. sukrum (widely distributed), dgs. 3 asm. suktų, | asm. suktum (widely distributed), 2 asm. suktum®, nebutum- -te ChB 16,. gynotum- -te ChB 26,,. “In Latvian dialects the second type of optative is quite common- **, only here the 3rd person form with -tum has been introduced because -tum has become indifferent to persons. That is quite understandable. Such a type must have been widespread in the Žemaičių and East Prussian Highlander dialects, cf. the 3-person forms mnėštūm < neštum and nėštom < neštumi- *?, used in almost all of the Žemaičių inhabited area, and in the East Prussian Highlander posbintum, darytum- *". In Latvian dialects, the verbs suktum and sukti are used for all three persons. The same form of the optative for all persons, suktu, arose from the use of suktum in the meaning of all three persons. Near the new vns. 3 person shaped spindle pcs. 3 persons. could be used and the old suktu, plg. What do you want to do? 8, Žemaičių nėšto << neštu < neštų and nėštum < neštum. By analogy with suktum vns. The 3rd person form suktu was also used in the meaning of all persons; It was also facilitated by the fact that the form of sukru very well suited vns. | asm., corresponding to the vns of all verbs. 1 person?- ?. In Latvian dialects, it is next to vns. | person with -:ų used and vns. 2nd person with -ti, newly formed by the vns of the oir a-root verbs. 2 persons- *?. $ 6. The second type of optative (see $ 5) could be used by all Lithuanian and Latvian dialects: some — earlier, others — later. Only the Latvian language was *4 See A. Schleicher, Handbook, 229. 2% See J. Endzelins, Gramatika, § 697. #0 neštumi was created by adding the ending -i to the i-kamieniy verbs neštum (in analogy with other persons whose forms coincided with the i-kamieniy verbs), cf. therefore the still regressive form neštumis>nėštomes, which passed into iakamienas neštumias. *" A. Bezzenberger, Litauische Forschungen, footnote 39 and 1. ? *8 Ibid. #0 Unnecessarily, J. Endzelynas gives a different interpretation, based on the aforementioned idea of V. Poržezinskis, see, J. Endzelins, Gramatika, $ 698. 30 J. Endzelynas would unnecessarily try to link this -ti with the late Lithuanian -tai. The second assumption of J. Endzelynas is valuable, cf. Gramatika, 896. Latvian vns. 2 person -tib may be a contamination of -tub and -ti, as J. Endzelynas (896) thinks, but it is rather composed of -ti and later added -b-, cf. eastern Dzūkijos dgs. 2 person. existence and this Art. 82 p. 76 ir is more tolerant to the uniformity of different persons' forms. Lithuanian dialects, on the contrary, could not tolerate indifference of forms to individuals (except vns. 2 person with -zum). Therefore, the second type was reworked: vns. 2 persons. suktum, dgs. 1 3 asm. suktų, person. suktum, asm. 2 Shut up. The old postpositional forms of the optative, naturally, disappeared immediately ne iš with the emergence of the new short ones. Such a situation, when next to the new optative forms were used also the old ones, is very beautifully reflected in the publications of Kėdainiai in 1653, cf.,,Knygos Nobažnistės“ vns. 2 person. -tumbei (Nepažiev/tumbey 80) and -tum (noretum 68), “Sumos” dgs. 1 bed(s)?! (representing 13) and -tubum(e) (representing 8). A similar situation persists in the eastern Dzūkian dialects, plg. :; vns. 2 asm. sūktum || sūktum and sūktumbeis, dgs. 1 asm. sūktum || suktum ir sūktumbėmės, 2 asm. sūktūt || suktūt (newly formed) and sūktumbėrtės**- ?. Since, with the disappearance of the postposition, a new form without personal characteristics appeared, and Lithuanian could not tolerate such a situation, another new type of optative was formed by crossing the new and old long forms used side by side. In 1653, in,,Maldose Krikščioniškose“ and,,Sumoje® we have already vns. 2 person -tumei (butumey 2), formed by crossing of -zum and -tumbei, "In Sumo, the new dgs is also used. The 1st person form —tumim(e) (finaltumime 9), which is no less common than -zwnm(e) or -tumbim(- e). In the texts of K. Širvydas, vns is used. 2 persons only with -tume:, dgs. 1 person only with -zum(e) and —tumim(e- ), dgs. 2 person -tumit(e), but from these forms it is clear that if not in Širvydas- 's time (Širvydas could avoid forms with -bime, -bite for reasons of standardization), then somewhat earlier in Širvydas- 's dialect the optative with -bei, -bime, -bite was used. In the above-mentioned eastern Dzūkian dialects, crossing forms are also used, e.g.: vns. 2 persons. spinning next to spinning and spinning, dgs. 1 person. swing next to swing and swing, 2 persons. swing next to swing. In addition, there is a cross-sectional view of the DG's work. 1 person form with -tumim and in the same dialects quite common dgs. 2 pers. form with -tumit. The Landscapes of the DDR. The 1st person with -tumam is much more common than with -zumim and has an ia-root, as do the i-root verbs, which have gone over to:a-roots (see tyliam). In the Žemaičių dialektas, i-kamieniy verbs can also be used as examples of the optional vns. | asm., cf. being (Viekšniai et al.). ir 3 .e dgs. 1 asm. got by we go, we carried ir t. t. 3 There are many eastern dialects of Dzūki. facts to the author provided J. Kardelytė. Part taken iš Some of Vilnius University students' diploma works, the author himself collected in the vicinity of Palūšė. 77 It is the result of a ir cross-breeding. 2 asm. The form suktumei next to suktum is widely used by Žemaičių mudininkai of almost all the Highlanders, ir except the Dzūkai. Crossing turns turns, found vns. ir 2 asm. suktumi® (sing. suktumis), common in the Žemaičių dounininkų dialects. $ 7. If dgs. | person su -tumime has arisen by crossing, it is quite reasonable to ask, could not form ar ir -rumem(e) to be crossing -tumbéme ir - you. Dgs. 1 asm. su -tumém(e) widespread almost all over Lietuvos In the territory of the USSR, except for a large part of the Žemaičių dounininkai, the Dzukian ir pre-Dzukian. Somewhere only one is ji used, elsewhere it is used alongside su -tum (pazanavykio kapsai®®, Dotnuva, Palomenė, Baisogala, Alunta, Kupiškis, Lyduokiai, Raguva, Skapiškis, Svėdasai, Troškūnai, Gerviniai and others). It could also be a new form of -tumém(- e), formed from é-kaminio past participle dgs. 1 person. example for vns. 2nd person -tumei, whose form in the ending -e7 coincided with the past tense 2nd person form® (see § 10). But there are Lithuanian dialects where vns. 2 persons have -tum, and dgs. 1 person. - we (we) (Alunta, Dusetos, Pašvitinys, Pandėlys, Palomenė, Biržai and others). Of course, the form with -tumei could have disappeared in them, as dgs has disappeared in some dialects. 1 person form with -zum, but it could not have been formed. Here, most likely, the form -tumėme is the result of the crossing of the forms -tumbėme and -tum. The -bé was common in the plural, as shown by the dgs in Latvian. 1 person. celtubem, celtubemes, dgs. 2 persons. butuber- ®®. In Eastern Dzukian dialects, similar forms of the optative are used: vns. 1 asm. sukedbe, sukedbe, 2 asm. sūktumibeis, asm. 3 suki], dgs. 1 asm. succumbed, 2 asm. succumbed. J. Endzelynas perfectly sensed that Lithuanian būrumėm may have come from būrumbėm, Latin byutumem from *būtumbėm or būtubėm- *", but their appearance was explained by incredible disassembly. In fact, our forms with -tumēm, as with -tumim, may have been derived by crossing from the coexisting -zum and -tumbéme. Of course, it would be wrong to assume that wherever they are used, the forms with -tumėm as well as 8 suktumi in those dialects have a narrow -i, derived from -I; apparently influenced by the action of others. (air i-trunk) pcs. 2 person form with -i <-iL 3 Zr. J. Senkus, Lietuvos TSR MA Darbai, Series A, 2 (5), 133, 1958. 35 Ch, Stangas believes that in many dialects -tus was perceived as the stem of the optative, to which the endings of the present or past tense were attached. The forms with -tumei, -tumi, -tuméme, -tumime, see. Ch. Stang, Verbum, 250. But as the previous analysis of the occurrence of -tumime showed, such a phenomenon could hardly have occurred, see $ 6. In other words -tuméme appearance is explained by J. Otrembskis, see. J. Otrębski, Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, 3, 233. % Later these forms together with the é-stems of verbs could turn into a-stems, cf. sarrgathubam, see J. Endzelins, Gramatika, $ 696. The short -u-(celtubem) may have come from the influence of 3-person celtu, see. J. Endzelins, ibid. In a similar way, i.e. on the basis of 3 persons, very rare forms found in Daukšos Postila may have arisen: daritųbit 49927, estybit 499ss, giartųbit 49938 and others. In some Latvian dialects, from the celtubem type forms, after the postposition disappeared due to the loss of morphological meaning, the optative celtu may have appeared (see also $ 5). : 37 Zr. J. Endzelins, FBR, 15 11, appeared. It should 78 not be forgotten that the form with -rumém may have appeared in many places in place of the form -tumim(e- ), which has arisen by contamination of forms with -tum and -tumbime. By equalizing the personification of the optative, -tumim could be reused as an example of é&kamieno past tense forms because vns. 2 person -tumei (occurred by contamination of -zum and -tumbei) coincided with čkamieno vns. 2 persons - no. In addition, in some places -rumėm may have come from neighboring dialects, e.g. Dzūkiškas forms with -zau, -to spread in the Poddzūkiškas kapsų dialect, where they are used alongside forms with -čiau, -tum, -tumei’s. § 8. Mažvydas also mentions another type of optative, with -bine only in plural, but also in singular: vns. 2 pers. drums, 3 pers. drumsticks, dgs. 1 asm. Nehemiah, 2 asm. Nehemiah. The Land of the Dead. 2 person. turtles resulting from crossing turtles and turtles (see § 6). That Mažvydo vns. 2 persons have had -bez, shown vns. 1 person. issakitumbiau Mz 521. § 9. In the old Lithuanian language monuments (in the writings of B. Vilentas, J. Bretkinas, M. Daukša, S. VaiSnoras, M. Petkevičius, in the Catechism of 1605, in the publications of Kėdainiai in 1653) we have a third type of optative: vns. 2 persons. wouldmbei, 3 persons. squads, dgs. | personal buzz; 2 persons werembite. $ 10. Of the last three types, the oldest is the last, because it has preserved the old ide. the change of the vowels of the athematic optative: in singular *-(7)jé degreenj, in plural -7 degree, cf. s. lat. siém, siés, siét, stmus, sitis, sint. *-bime, *-bite abbreviated to -bime, -bite either because of the inclined position, or because of the influence of i~kamieniy verbs*?, Ch. Stango's idea that bûmbe:, bûmbiau was formed as an example of é-stem verbs*?, is completely unreliable already because the form bûmbei is common in almost all ancient monuments, and with é-stem verbs the personification of the optative could not have anything in common (rather it would be affected by the es. time of the stem verbs), if we follow Ch. Stango's view is that -bime is an old preterite. Furthermore, it remains unclear why the é-trunk limbs were inherited only by vns. 2 and 1 persons, and the plural remained untouched by their influence. Most doubts about whether -bime is of optative origin arise from the fact that the Lithuanian language, having eliminated the vowel change in the personification of athematic verbs, could hardly have retained the old Indo-European vowel change in the personification of the verb -bioptative. But the beginning of the formation of our new optional course goes back to old times, even to the times of the common Lithuanian-Latvian epoch. It should be assumed, together with J. Endzelynas, that the optative was formed when the end of the word ir *-m has not yet been translat38 ed See. J. Senkus, min. veik, 389 133. See J. Endzelins, Gramatika, § 683; Ch. Stang, Verbum, 198. 40 Zr. Ch. Stang, Verbum, 250. 79 i -n, because, on the contrary, -unwould have turned į @- (plg. top < *tanpa), we ir should not have Latvian dialect forms suktut (see section 4.4). $ 5). Ir Prussian, ir Lithuanian language monuments are recorded only in the 16th century — rather late language, and in them we still find traces of the old change, cf. esti and participle santyji, eiti ‘going’ and participle dgs. ward. entis, participle ent < *yesterday (plg. s. Indian yanr)? !. See. but § 14. Of course, it might be thought that in some Lithuanian and Latvian dialects the vowel change was equalized in the optative at a time when bwas not grown up supinu su (plg. s. ind. dgs. syama, dadhyama, gr. einpey instead of sipev, lot. sim instead of siém). This would be contradicted by ir Comparison of a. the facts of Lithuanian dialects of the 16th century with the facts of today’s dialects (in ancient monuments we have forms with -zumbim(e), -tumbir(e); -tumim(e), -tumir(e), and today in Lithuanian dialects the most common forms are those with -zumém, -tumét). Thus, the alignment of the optative system of personal endings, its adaptation to the verb personification system, took place quite late. In some dialects, this occurred before the postposition disappeared, e.g. Mažvydo vns. 2 person. būtumbi, eastern Dzūkijos dgs 1 person. suktumbėmės (and lat. celtubem), in other already postposition disappearance contamination forms formation. The process of equalization of the optative personification in dialects took place in two directions: in one case, its basis was constituted by plural forms that coincided with the es of — the:-stem po verb. time in the ir corresponding forms (be-time=—ty-time), elsewhere —vns. 2 asm. form overlappisu ng with the corresponding past tense form of é-stem (being-ei or being-ei==being-ei). In some dialects, vns has also appeared as an example of present-time personification of i-stem verbs. 2asm. In other dialects, the past personification of the č-stame occurred as dgs. 1asm. turning 2 around, asm. You're a fool, dgs. | asm. were, 2 asm. you would. Thus, the postposition of the optative had to be transformed into the old form of the fūfoptative of the stem: *5h(v)iyč-> *bjė->*b8: and *bh(v)i->*bi-. Those who believe that this is a preterite, rather than an optative, rely on ancient Lithuanian monuments and dialects bi(i) “buvo? and lat. bijų ‘I was’, because the change of meaning optative—>preteritum is more difficult to explain than optative preteritum. —> But the biversion of the Lithuanian-Latvian optative into a preteritum is not difficult to understand. For the personification of the optative *bhūvienakaitas had to coincide with the preterite bé-, cf. 4abė (Lithuanian Mundarten I 154), pr. be, bei (extended -1), s. sl. bė (aorist, used in the imperfect), personification. As a result, with the decline of the old optative, the trunk could easily acquire a preteritory significance. Later this verb vns. The 3rd person form could have been derived from the athematic verbs es. 3rd person ending -::**, because it was necessary to avoid the monosyllabic form, and in Baltic languages the distinction between "primary" and "secondary" person endings had disappeared. In the Latvian language, bibuvo is extended by the secondary -jč. $ 11. Greičiausiai, preteritum *béhas remained in the conjunction but in the ir noun any who, r. lit. bėt kas (K. Būga Aist. stud. 56). Vns. 3rd person *bč, like *bi, could be extended with the present tense ending -zi. The following sentences show that we have a *bėti remainder: There was a lot to do here! “he did not have to bend; Why should anyone fold? *; Žr, Fraenkel, Linguistic, especially syntactical examination of the 4 Calvinist E. Lithuanian Catechism of Malcher Pietkiewicz of 1598, 28, Gėttingen,1947, Žr. 42 Ch. Rod, verb, 198; E, Fraenkel, ZfslPh, 20, § 61, 1950. 80 There was something here to ask for! “no need to ask him, who is here to ask anything- !" (Birštonas, Palūšė). The verbs was to whom, was to what in the above sentences are as if on the way to the meaning of the pronoun any who. In some dialects, the conjunction because is used but to mean to take away no géslibes me?, plg.: būdamis isztižusis lapumusi netiktay kitū, nes nie sawes nebgalieię paDB 237. In general, because and any nuances of meanings are close. The etymology of the conjunction nes was explained by J. Endzelynas- ®: nes derived from *neest(i) (cf. sl. je next to jesto), used as a question to which we would expect an affirmative answer, cf. fr. n’est-ce pas? If nes <*neest(i), then ber may be derived from *bērt:. In the prolific position, *béri has been shortened to ber, and in the eastern Highlands the long ė in the noun has remained somewhat due to the fact that bér has retained the accent." So we also had an aorist *bégreta aoristo b#*S, cf. s. ind. abhūt, gr. Zu, s. l. by, as the Slavs have an aorist by next to the aorist bė. If there is still something that has arisen in the way just described, it is highly doubtful whether the first component of the pronoun by is borrowed from Polish??. It could have been formed in a similar way as dé kas, from the root *bhūoptative (perhaps now used in the sense of preterite) even before *b7 had become bi. The optional can also be the first component of the pronoun in the following sentences: « Bet komu tu pamačyt! “no need to help anyone to help anyone! ; Nothing to ask for! “there is no need to ask anyone for anything” (Birštonas). Only ba: here is ambiguous: in this dialect it can come from both beentrų and būra, cf. There was something to ask for! (Pali). This question requires special study. § 12. The longest surviving forms of the stem *5hūoptative are the 3-person forms be and bi. be < *b8 (cf. eastern Dzūkian vns. 2 person. praustumbe and praustumbės) is stem *bhūoptative vns. 3 person form, 0 may be his dgs. 3asm. form: bi <<*bi<bint (see -be and -bi used for the same purpose in Apse, see below). As modal particles they could be used for quite a long time. With the modal particle be, which gives the action a shade of unreality, we have also formed the so-called enriched initial present tense: I was leaving the house, but guests were approaching, and I stayed at home; and I was coming out of the house, but it began to rain heavily, and I had to stay at home; had been looking for that knife, but look — the worm and gone*8. Later, the particle be lost this modal connotation, and became a simple prefix be-, cf. We were sowing, it began to rain —and we sowed*?. With such a modal particle be or bi the eastern Dzūki have formed an optativus, used alongside the optativus of the old form, cf.: 48 See. E. Fraenkel, KZ, 60, 237 pp., 1933. 4 See. J. Endzelins, IMM, 2, 122, 1927. He was supported by F. Špecht, see. KZ, 57, 281 and E. Frenkelis, see. KZ, 60, 237, 1933. 45 E, Frenkel unnecessarily thinks that beat has a long ė because of by influence, see. ZfslPh, 20, $60. 46 For more bū information, see F. Specht, KZ, 59, 58; 62, 142. 4 This is the view of E. Frenkel, cf. E. Fraenkel, Lithuanian etymological dictionary, Gėttingen, 42, tt, 48 p. J. 1955 Jablonskis, Selected Writings, 1, 311, 316, compiled by J. Palionis, Vilnius, 1957. 49 See. Ibid. 316. 6. Language questions, IV : 81 ~ In this sense, it was more likely to have been su an opponent than a supporter. In some secondary object-context sentences, where the main sentence had verbum movendi, the supinum could have iš been used in the past, cf. : He went to the market to buy pigs. (purchased). He went out to get the horse (parallels). She went to the neighbor to bring milk (Palūšė). In other sentences of the same type, where the verbum movendi was not present in the main sentence, the optional could be used, for example, *ksim bread, że oni jedzą. In this case, the optative could easily be replaced by supines because of the analogy su with the original sentences. In such a case, the phrase could have an optional meaning. ir Maybe that's why the new 3 optional person. the form iš of the old is pure supin. True, Ch. Stan believes that ir -supino 3 asm. has had bi, but it was used with a conjunction, eventually because of its short form became enclitic, grew into a conjunction, that is, for some time it was said: jeib žinotų: jei žinotumbime, until finally su jeib became a conjunction- ?. It could be. But first of all, in the dialect mentioned above, where the conjunction jép= jėib is used, no one will say *jep knew, would o come, only if knew, would come. Ši construction is archaic. Secondly, it remains unclear why in other persons -bime, -bite is in an enclitic position. After all, the verb *bh#ioptativ had to have a free place in the sentence, just like it had in the Slavic languages. See, in antiquity asm. 3 went pure supin. Later somewhere in the example of other persons ir 3 asm. supine became optional su bi ar be. But since it was not needed here, it could quickly grow into a switch. Thus, most likely, in the su beginning we had: * if bime knew, and * if knew bime, * if bite knew, and * if knew bite. * if you knew. Later, somewhere it could be found: * if bime knew, and * if knew bime, * if bite knew, and * if knew bite, * if bi knew. * Yeah, you know. Later on, the optional meaning of *bime weakened and more and more of its weight was taken over by the supines. The third person did not need the ending, because the other verbs asm. ir 3 shape had no limbs. As a result of the language's requirement to assign the person's endings to other persons, the enclitic position of the bhūoptative was generalized, and the supin grew with it into one form. The third person. form be, bi grew up with a switch. Abbreviations AfslPh —Archiv fiir slavische Philologie, Berlin, 1876 et seq. BB —Contributions to the Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen, Göttingen, 1877—1906. 70 Zr. Ch. Rod, min. size, 353, 88 | EEE ET — si ——— BGLS —A. Bezzenberger, Contributions to the History of the Lithuanian Language- ..., Göttingen, 1885. ChB —Lithuanian Bible Chylinski, New Testament. Volume II, edited by Czestaw Kudzinowski—Jan Otrebski, Poznan, 1958. DP —Postilla Catholica- ... Per Kuniga Mikaloiv Davksza. Wilmington 1599. It was published in 1926. FBR — Articles of the Philologists’ Society, Riga, 1921 etc. IF —Indogermanische Forschungen, StraBburg, 1892 tt. IFA —Anzeiger für indogermanische Sprachund Altertumskunde, Supplement to the Indo-European Researches, Strasbourg, 1892 tt. IMM — Ministry of Education. KIM —D, Klein, Naujos Labbay priwalingos... Maldu knygeles- ...,, 1704. Karalauczuie, KZ —Journal for Comparative Linguistic Research on the Indo-European Languages, 1852 tt. Mz —M. Mažvydas, The oldest monuments of Lithuanian language up to 1570, Kaunas, 1922. ZfslPh —Journal of Slavic Philology. H3 MCTOPHH ONTATUBA H. H. KA3JIAYCKAC Pearome O6pasoBanHne JIHTOBCKO- -JIATbINICKOTO ONTAaTHBA JO CHX IIOp He BHIsICHeHO. CnopHkIM SIBJIS1eTCH1 BOMpPOC, YTO TpeAcTaB/- iser COGORH BTOpofA KOMMOHEHT (OopM OnTAaTHBA —ONTATHB HJIH NpPEeTepUT OCHOBH *bhii-, He Bnosne SICHO, 4TO MNpe/CTaBisier €000# NepBLIH KOMIOHEHT —CYNHH HJIH UMOepaTHB (mocsie mosiBiienus CTaTbH B. Ilusanm). He scHo, kak H nouemy cynus Mor OBITh BTAHYT B CHCTEMy oONTaTHBAa. Pasgensiorcsi MHEHHS YUYEHBIX H HacueT MPOMCXOXKJEHHs OTHAeJNbHBIX AHaJIeKTHhIX (opm onratuBa. OcobeHHO He CHO NpoucxoxaeHne ¢opMmel l-ro Ji. no. u. (Ha -Giau, -¢ig). THM BONIpOCAM H TOCBfllleHA HacTosllast CTATbS. B crarbe J0KasaHO, YTO HET OCHOBAHHSI COMHEeBATbCS B TOM, YTO TepBbIM KOMIIOHEHTOM OriTaTHBA SABJISEeTCS CyrIHH. BTOpHIM KoMmoHeHTOM ¢opM ONTaTHBA SIBJSIETCS ONTATHB, a He NPETEPUT OCHOBH *bhii-MOTOMY, YTO 1) Ha 3TO yKasbiBaeT 3HAUueHHe NOCTIO3HLUHU ONTATHBA H YepeloBaHHe IjacHBX (-bei: -bime), 0ObscHHTb KOTOPOe HHaye Ge3 HATSIKKHU He BO3MOXKHO H HeT HyX/IBbl, TaK Kak B CBOeOOpa3HOM CIpSKEHHH ONTATHBA 3TO YepenoBaHHe MOIVIO OCTaThCsl AO IO3JHEro BpeMeHH; 2) onraTHBHas OCHOBA *bi- (<*bt-) MorJia Jierko npHoOpecTH 3HaueHHe nperepura, u60 (DOpMEI el. 4. aToKh OcHOBH (*bé<*bjé) coBmanu c TeMH Ke ¢dopmMaMu nperepura be-, Cp. JIUT. AuaJ. niabé 'HeObI1', NnpycceK. be, bei, cT.-ca. bb. MopanbHylo uacTHLY -be<-*bé, npH NMOMOIIM KOTOPOH B BOCTOUHOA3YKCKHX TOBOpaX Mo89 Ker OhiThb 06pa30BaH ONTATUB, CJlejltyeT CUHTATb OCTAaTKOM (opMbl 3-TO JI. He. ų. ONTaTHBa OCHOBkhI *bhii-, a wyacTHUy -bi, B HeKOTOpbIX roBopax HCNOJIb30BAHHYIO [JI TOK Ke IeJH Hapsaay €C -be, —HaBepHOe, OCTaTKOM ¢opMBI 3-TO JI. MHOX. 4. (-bi<*-bi<- *-bint). OnrarHB OcHOBbI *bhii-N0JKeH Obl CPAaCTH C CYMHHOM B OJIHO CJIOBO He M03Xe yeM B JIHTOBCKO-JATHIIICKOH 3noxe. Bce aBTropy H3BecTHbIe AHaJeKTHble GopMbl 2-r0 Ji. 060HX uucesa H 1-ro Ji. MHOXK. Y. OnTATHBA JIHTOBCKOTO sI3bIKa BOCXOASAAT K 3TOH CJIOXKHOH (opmMme. Ilox Bausuuem ¢opmel 3-ro Ji. (be), HUKOTAA He HMEBINeH MOCTNO3HIHH, TOCTMO3HLUSA, B KOTOPYIO NPEBpPATHJICS ONTAaTHB OCHOBbI *bhi-, moTepssia MopgoJiorHyeckoe 3HaueHHe H CTajla Hcue3aTh. Tak Hapsiay € JIOJITHMH MNOCTNO3HIMOHHBIMH (OpMaMH NMOSIBHJIHCb H KpaTKHe (cp. Anand. 2-e Ji. ex. 4. suktum || sūktumbeis, 1-e Ji. MHOXK. 4. sūktum || siktumbémeés). DTOT HOBhHIH THIN ONTAaTHBA Ha -tum ynortpebJsercs B AHaJEKTaX JIATbILICKOro 3bIKa (3gech H 3-e Ji. HMeeT GopMy Ha -fum, Tak Kak OHA crajia HHAHGD- ¢epeHTHO# MO OTHONIEHHIO K JHUaM). S1icHbie OCTaTKH H CJelbl ero coxpaHHJIHCb B JIMTOBCKHX rosopax (cp. xorsa l-e J. en. yu. 2-e Ji. He. Ooo. Shut up, it's Ji. MHOX. 4th turn, 2nd Ji. MHOXK. 4. suktum win suktut (HoBooOpa3oBaHue BMecTo suktum, nox BJIKAHHeM ApPYrux ¢opm 2-oro Ji. riarosa), 3-e Ji. 04s BceX JIHŲ IIO CBOEMY NMPOHCXOXKAEHHIO MOXKeT OkITb dOopMoH 3-ro J., HauaTOH YnoTpeOJISTb AJ BCeX JIHL MO aHaJIOTHH ¢ suktum (unu BO3HHKJA OT suktubem... B CBS3H C H3Ue3HOBEHHEM IO MODGĖoJIOTHUECKHM MNpPHYHHAM TMOCTHOO3HHUKHH -bem...). Ilon BO3neficTBHEM CHCTEMbI OKOHUYaHHH CNpPSKEHHS IMNIaroJia BO MHOIHX JIMTOBCKHX TOBOpaX MyTeM CKpelleHHs COKpallleHHBIX H AOJITHX MOCTIO3HLHOHHBIX ¢opM chopMHpOBaJICA elle ONHH THN ONTATHBA, Hanp. 2nd Ji. He. u. -tumei (oT psaoM ynorpebssieMblX -tumbei H -tum), -tumi (oT -tumbi H-tum), 1-e Ji. MHOXK. 4. -ftumim (oT -tumbim Hu -tum), -tumém (oT -tumbém H -tum) x T. A. Ha Tako#i nyTb ckpelieHusi SCHO YyKa3biBaioT KepnafiHckue u3nanua 1653 r., cp. 3gece ofgHOBpeMeHHO ynorpebJjsieMble (opMmbl 1-ro JI. MHOX. 4. Ha -fum(e), -tumbim(e) u -tumim(e). BripaBHHBaHHEe CHCTeMbi OKOHUAHHA ONTATHBA B JIHTOBCKHX TOBOpax TIOLIJIO IO JABYM HANpaBJIeHHAM: B OJHHX OHA BbipaBHHBAJIaCb Ha OCHOBe 2-ro J. ef. 4. Mo NPHMepPY CHPSKEHHs IJIaroJbHBIX OCHOB Ha -ė, B ApYTHX —Ha OCHOBe (OPM MHOMKECTBEHHOrO YHCJa MO NPHMepPY CHpsKeHHA OCHOB Ha - I. It's over, it's over, it's over. AKYTHPOBAHHOe OKOHYaHHe OOBACHSETCS TeM, YTO yAapeHHe MOA BJIHAKHHeM bitd OTTATHBAJIOCb Ha KOHEI[CJIOBA TOT/la, KOrja sICHO BbITOBADpHBAJIaCb aKyTHpOBaHHafi HHTOHAIHA TOCJEeyAapHbIX CJIOTOB. : Bapunautel OopMEI 1-ro Ji. no. Ooo. Ha -Ch, -Chio, -Chiau OGBACHSAIOTCH Kak HOBOOGpasoBaHHs, BOCXOAfAlIMe K -Chia, -Chia MOIJIO NPOU3OHTH OT *-tjdu, KOTOpOe MOIJIO COKpaTHTbC; B *-tja BMecTe C JIpyTHMH aKyTHPOBAHHBIMH ĮOJITHMH 3BYKaMH BBHAY TOro, 4ro (dOpMaM ONTAaTHBA CBOHCTBEHO He3a- -— ss "KOHHOe cokpallenne (cp. bat<biity, būč<būčia nu pg.)". Popma Ha *-tjdu o6+bacHseTCA KaK 90 INpeo6pasoBanHas dopMa aTeMaTHYeCKOro OnTATHBA (cp. Ap.-MHA. iyam, Ap.-JIaT. siém u Ap. ), T. e. *likjem>*likjėo (*liquor) > I left 'octancsi Ghki'. Kak XOpOLIO COOTBETCTBYIOILIAS CHCTEMY CIpsiKeHHS HOBOTO ONTAaTHBA, OHA pacnpocTpaHHJIaCb Ha Bce rJIaroJIbi. [log BJIHAHHeM (opMbl APYruX Jiuų (liktumbei u T. 1.) OHa moJyuuaa -t-, T. e. *likjau>- *liktjau. Uro ¢opma Ha -¢-MOXKeT GkITb ONTATHBHOTO NPOHCXOMKJEHHS, CBHIETE/- ILCTBYET H TO, YTO K Hell He NPHCOENMHHJICS ONTATHB OCHOBHI *bhii-. INosiBnienne cynuHa B CHCTEMe ONTATHBA TeCHO CBA3aHO C H3MeHeHHEM 3HaveHHs JApeBHero OnTATHBA. Ūyjįs mo JLAHHbIM JPEBHHUX MaMSTHHKOB H HEKOTOPHIX TOBOpOB JIHTOBCKOrO $I3blKa, B JIHTOBCKO-JIATbINICKOM, KaK H B HEKOTOPBIX APYTHX HHAOEBPOINEHCKHX 53bIKAX, MOT CYyLIECTBOBATH CJIOXKHEIH nperepHT ornraTHBA, 06pa30BaHHBLIN H3 NMPHYACTHS H ONTATHBA OCHOBHI *bhil-. Ilpn u3MeHeHWHM 3HaueHHS JDEBHEr0 ONTATHBA, 3TH MpPETEPUTHBIE (OPMEI BBHJy CBOEro MPETEePUTHOrO 3HaueHHS He MOIJIM 3aMeHHTb ero. IlosTomy npHuacTHe B 3THX (popMax MOT 3aMeHHTb CYNHH, Kak HHAubdepeHTHAS TO OTHOLLEHHI0 KO BpeMeHH rIuiarosibHass ¢opma. OnraTuBHOE 3HAUEHHE CYITHH MOT NpHOOpecTH B HEKOTOPHIX NMPHAATOUHBIX NPEJIOKEHUSX.