Daiktavardžių (i)u linksniavimo nykimas

LTETUVIU “K ALBOTYROS. K LAU S I M A I, II L' TET UVOS TSR SCIENCE ACADEMY NOUN (IU) LINKSNING EXTINCTION J. KAZLAUSKAS # trunk disappearanir jo ce impact on u the trunk Separate type of branching #-stem nouns form in ancient indy, Greek Slavic languages. ir In the Baltic languages we have # remnants of conjugation. The only word that survived #-stame forms of some verbs, is a former monosyllabic fish, whose present singular Noun is formed by the influence of other verbs in place *mortgage, cf. Article 10 tydūg!. In the old monuments of the Lithuanian ir language, the singular noun form #-kamiené is now used in dialects Zuvés® (P.P., pp. ir 10). sen. sl. mother-in-law (var. In-laws — anyta, plg. Indian swasrih, lat. socrus), gr. tyYd6o4 —fish, sen. indy bhuvah (var. bhith earth); — plural denominator shives — (Svedasai, Leipalingis ir kt.), plg. sen. sl. swekrovi, originated in place of *svekrove, gr. tyVd05ę, ancient Indian bhuvah; plural noun —fiš (also in literary language), cf. sen. sl. in-law, gr. Įyd6wYv, sen. Indian bhuvam. In many dialects, the i-stamp forms of fish, žūvys, and even žviūį are now used. i has a squeal and the almost extinct bruvis,-iės* eyebrow — (SzD 18, Tverečius), appeared as a fish, ir instead of *brūs, kilm. *bruves, cf. ancient Indian bhrūhk —ankle, gr. īkpos, ancient sl. brovo from *bry (cf. Old Slavic krovo—blood and Old Polish kry, Polabic kroi< kry, Kashubian kry). There are no clear multisyllabic words and forms of the # root in Baltic languages. # the trunk could have had the plural pelės, which in M. Daukšos,,Postila““ is of feminine gender: tomis pelumis8?,,, cf. lat. mot. g. dgs. ward. peles, and dialect pelevas, which appeared, perhaps, according to dgs. kilm. *peluvuon (cf. 1 For the formal relationship between lit. žuvis and gr. 23 see F. Specht, The inflection of the n-vowel in Baltic Slavic and related languages, KZ 59, 221, 228, 288. Here and elsewhere, Arabic numerals indicate the page of the cited source. All abbreviations are explained at the end of the article. 2 Plg. vns, kilm. Fishes DP 2285, Fish DP 523,, zuwes PS II 248,, ir kt Here and elsewhere Lower Arabic numerals indicate the line of the cited source. * Plg. dgs. kilm. Fish DP 299, 379,,, 521; Zuwte DP 1233, next PS I 88, 31055, 55, Suwu Br P I 234,,, 306,, II 272,. Graphem of ancient language monuments 3, (with Diacritic Marks) everywhere transmitted by letter ž, graphema 3 — zir f — s. * Plg. still brivai < bruvai MLLG 4, 168 (Zietela), virgin black su brivelém (Latakia). 2. Speech questions II. 1998-1999 17 sen. sl. in the mother-in-law, gr. ¢gpiwy ir et al.), which coincided with su 4 root noun pronoun. The d-root forms have the plural noun of conjugation, the subordinate placeholder sen. ir sl. in the language, e.g., svekrovamte, svekrovami, svekrtvacho, arising from dgs. kilm. swekrdvs. In this way, the DGS of Latvian ir dialects could have emerged. ward. mills, cf. sen. sl. žrony— girnos, Goths -gairnus®. In terms of form, ū-stams could be lat. ir dgs. servile — servant in the fields, mills, ragus*, plg. sen. the Indian double noun ablative vadhūbhyam — (v.s. ward. vadhith — woman), but they may be new creations, forming the trunk i (to the sheep) example". ū the conjugation of root nouns in Baltic languages has disappeared. This was due to the phonetic overlap of some funny forms with the su # trunk. Early phonetically, the singular plural x ir # endings of stems could ir coincide, pgl. # unit per stem gal. sen. Indian vadhūm, gr. ėypdv, sen. sl. liuby (in the proverb luby déiati, prėliuby déiati®), dgs. gal. 1991. Indians, Indians. The corresponding Lithuanian forms should have been: vns. gal. *pelūn, dgs. gal. *pelids. As the long vowels in folksyllabic compounds were shortened to acute word endings, the su » ir spoken vowel forms evolved into identical forms with the u stem, cf. vns. gal. *son, dgs. gal. *son's > sinus. In addition to the most commonly used forms of the ir singular and plural infinitives, these stems have been mixed. The plural denominator was generalized #-stove shape mice < * pollen, plg. sen. sl. *sweekrove, son. Indian svasruvah, gr. iydgs¢ et al., ir because it corresponded ji better to the whole system of noun conjugation, cf. dgs. ward. rankds, land, sheep ir dgs. gal. hands, land, sheep. The old u-shaped chimney was displaced. It is still used in ji some Lithuanian dialects. Debeikiai neighborhir į ood west of Aluntos used dgs. ward. rain, "son, lunch, nice, small ir etc? Limb -out of white iš -*birds, plg. sen.sl. synove, o: -*aves appeared instead of ide. - *eves, plg. Article 10 mye, gothic sunjus, sen. ind. s@navah, probably dgs. kilm. *exposed to sonavuon (plg. sen. sl. synov®). After the two-syllable plural nominative sons appeared, the plural originator ir was rearranged. On the spot *sūnavuon was formed by the example of vo other stems *sūnuon analogously to *vyruon, ir *rankuon, *akmenuon etc. at dgs. ward. men, rankds, stones, etc. It is hardly possible that the plural origin could have -*vomn in the Baltic language, as J. Endzelynas suggests, because dgs. ward. -aus <*aves could only appear in dgs. kilm. - * under the influence of avon. 5 See. J. Endzelins, * Latviešu valodas gramatika (hereinafter —Gramatika), 449, Riga, 6 This is also the opinion of many Indo-Europeanists, cf. J. Schmidt, Die Pluralbildungen der indogermanischen Neutra... 67, Weimar, 1889; F. Specht, Zur litauischen Nominalflexion, 1951. IF 42, 295 ir kt 7 See. J. Endzelins, Gramatika, 448. 8 Plg, Ceanmes, A. CrapocaBsticknfli siabik, 2, 111, Mockea, 1951; H. Ban-Beiik, Heropua crapocJaBaHckKoro sssika (hereinafter —Hcropus- ...), 258, Mocksa, 1957. ® Pig, also MLLG 4, 426; K. Būga, Language matters, 16, Kaunas, 1909; A. Baranowski—F. Specht, Litauische Mundarten, 2, 106, Leipzig, 1922; F. Specht, Zur litauischen Nominalfl:xion, IF 42, 293. 10 Zr. J. Endzelins, Gramatika, 448. 18 Other humors were summarized « by the example of the trunk (about pcs. caud. see. (see below). The #i-kamienés forms were displaced by u-kamieniy, which formed a parallel to the inflection, corresponding with their short stem end to the i corresponding stem inflections, cf.: vns. # i ward. son fire, — origin. son - *uoneis, gal. *sun — *ognin, in. Sons of — Fire, loc. *son — *ugnie, dgs vard. sons of — fire, naud. sons of — fire, in. son of — fire, place son of fire. — (i) uw ir (i) root noun o convergence The conjugation u type in Indo-European languages was not abundant, so it was subject to stronger to conjugation types. 0, 4, 7 In the Greek language occurko x root nouns that have passed the į o root, plg. classical Greek era vig instead of vis. In Latin, the verb is u strongly influenced by the verb!®., in o ir i Celtic languages it was also influenced by the verb!?. In Germanic languages, the type of : conjugation began to deteriorate u at the beginning of the historical period of Germanic languages, o, 7 ir d We're joking. The decline of Slavic dialects began in the Slavic pro-calbé’®. u the declination of root nouns is caused by phonetic reasons. For example, in the Slavic languages the forms of the singular nouns and adjectives of the u and o stems coincided very early: ide. -us (see Ancient Indian -uf, Greek -ug, Lithuanian -us, Latin -us) and -um (see Ancient Indian -um, Greek, -vy, Latin, -um, Lithuanian -ų) became -3 in Slavic. Same limb! phonetic changes have also occurred in the nominative and adjective of the singular of the Slavic root o! ", This caused the leveling of the root nouns, their transition | stronger 0 conjugation. In the oldest Slavic monuments, u-stems are often conjugated according to o-stems, cf. vns. kilm. syna, naud. Son, you know. versé —top, etc., in Slavic languages we find only traces of nouns of stem ies in singular Sauksmininke, cf. mgžiu, koniu, etc.18, or perhaps in singular nuudinke, cf. mąževi. In the Baltic languages, as in the Slavic languages, and in part in the Germanic and Latin languages, the root nouns « disappear, passing to the o root. Prussian languages 11 About vns. viet., dgs. gal. and others, see below. 12 Zr. II. 1998-1999 Il auTpen, Heropuueckas MopėiojJiorns rpueckoro si3bika, 78, Mockea, 1953, 13 See A, Ernout, Historische Formenlehre des Lateinischen, 78, Heidelberg, 1920. 14 See I. Jibionc u X. [legepcen, Kparkas cpaBuHTe/IbHAas rpaMMATHKA KėelibICKHX #3blKoB, 214, MockrBa, 1954. from See, D, II p ok ow, CpaBuureibHasi rpaMMaTHKA TeDpMAHCKHX S13bIKOB, 214, Mockea, 1954, 16 Plg. A. Meiie, O0wecnapsnckuit s35K, 330, MockBa, 1951. A. IlaxmMaroB, Heropuueckas MopdoJiorusi pycckoro s3bika, 20, MockBa, 1957; H. Bau-Beiik, HeropHua..., 241. 17 Plg, A. Meiie, OGuecnaBsuckuii s3bika, 330, Mocka, 1951; A. IllaxmMaToB, Heropuueckas MopdboJiorua pycckoro s3bika, 20, Mocka, 1957; H. Ba u-Beiik, Heropua..., 18 See K. Brugmann, Basic outline of 241. the comparative grammar of the Indo-European languages (hereinafter referred to as Floor plan...) 2, 1, 224; W. Vondrak, Comparative Slavic Grammar, 2, 5, Gottingen, 1908; A. Meiie, ObmecnaBauckuil s3biK, Ceannmes, 333; Crapocnapsnckuil ssbik, 2, 94; O. ®oprynartosn, Usbpanusie TpyAbi, 2, 141, 402, Mocksa, 1957; JI. It. SIkyOGuucKkuii, Hcropus apeBHepycckoro s3biKa, Mocksa, 161, in monuments 1953. 19 — i besides the u-stem forms are used already o-stems, e.g. ir vns. ward. son of a — son, kilm. soun (as god of god), — maybe. sotinan, dangan — sky, peckan — cattle. In earlier Prussian monuments the trunk is # even healthier than in the last third catechism." u the type of conjugation is ir disappearing in Lithuanian and Latvian languages. In Latvian, now the masculine u-stem nouns have already o-kamieng plural®, ių-stem nouns completely disappeared? !. o In Lithuanian, u-root nouns also disappear, passing to o-root; particularly often in dialects is found o-kaminė į plural. In literary language, conjugation is almost healthy, jų conjugation plural already u o iu :0-kamienė. Plural, o ne singular, rather disappears because o ir w trunks have homonymous plural amusing forms. Be the į adjective, identical forms o ir u emerged from the ends of the stem nouns. » trunk dgs. gal. son came out iš *son, cf. sen. indy seniin, gr. Fuck. utuvę, got. Son of a bitch. sl. syny kt. ir o trunk dgs. gal. The development path of wolves was different in the Žemaičių ir aukštaičių dialects. 2000: The 2000-year-old bridge over the Old n River. This is shown by the finals of the noun genders gerdncius <.gerunsius, jūdūncius juodunsius < (Kuršėnai), balrūsius of the Žemaičių dounininkai, geriisius (Kretinga, etc.) ir < baltus, gerunsius, O ne iš baltuosius, geruosius, because in this case we would have here* baltus, etc., cf. ir vns. in. white < with white. The very form of the plural ending virus in the narrow end shows its su recent origin, # the appearance after the Žemaitiškas spreading law has ceased to work, because the Žemaitiškiai of Kretinga u spread the old short one, cf. w vns. ward. sons. "Placeholder | name= is empty ir (help)" (PDF). vns. in. viro<viru<*viruo. So, for ir dgs. to gal. virus can not be originated iš *turns around. Dgs. gal. virus origin iš *viruns shows ir The local form of the plural of Zemaičiai, formed by the final postposition, iš plg. ir finished (Kuršėnai), viejuos (Kretinga) ir kt. <galuns-, Viejuns-, plg. L. Ivinskii "Genovaites"? **: anunse wieczunse tunse dajktunse 9, 16, kapunse 38, 35, 106, namunse 17, 102, 124, 155, nuludimunse 37, nasrunse 82, kununse 94, merunse 62, 124, Romanian 10, 19, 44, 141, 162, 180, 13, 49, 83, 179, 121 ir kt., circle LChr 3214, wynsi LChr 323,, (Endriejavas) ir and others. * In the Aukštaičių dialect, the development of the plural final form took place differently: vVilkits <*blinks (plg. gerdosius)<*vilkiions <*vilkons, plg. sen. indus vykamšča, because of -ns plg. pr. deiwans, gr. dial. ėdeipovę ir kt.25, Thus, in the Altai dialect the ends of the o it u stem nouns could coincide only *son of iSriedéjus į son ir *wolves after į wolves, i.e. shortening of the long solid roots See 19 R. Trautman n, The old Prussian Sprachdenkmūler, 230 Gottingen, See 1923, 20 also Endzelins, J. Grammar, 443. 21 plg, J. Endzelins, Baltu valodu sugas un formas, 73, Riga, 1948. 22 In general, Samogitians keep the old word-end consonants longer m, m, plg. dgs. kilm. su with consonants: sūniūn, sunim (Kartena) ir kt. 23 I, Iwinskis, Genawejte pasaka wiena tarp gražiausiu..., Vilniuje, 1858. 24 7r but F. Course chat, grammar of Lithuanian English 150, language, Hall, 1876; A. Schleicher, Lithuanian Grammatik, 176, Prague, Czech Republic 1856. 26 E.g., dupseaunns, H. CrasaHo-Gaaruiickue stiogsl, Xapokoss, for the vowels at 167, the end of the word 1911. 20 diftongs ie, uo, in the Žemaičių dialect *vilkiions ir o — i *wolf. Tvirtapradziy shortening of extremities in Lithuanian language, K. Biigos nuorhone, occurred ne earlier than XII — XIII a. ** The overlapping of the frequently used plural forms of the ending caused the entire root u plural to pass to the stem. į o o-kamiené plural acted on the stem singular. A significant uz effect on the decay of the trunk had u ir 0 ir « the coincidence of the forms of the substantive-adjective of the plural of tų the roots for the same reasons, cf. *wolf (gr. ėde)poė, sen. indian orkd(u), sen. sl. ducha)>wolkū ir *son* (sen. Indy's son, Sen. sl. syny) >siluu. It is possible that we used to have a little uz more stem nouns, but they have completely become o-stems. So it is happening pecascattle, su fool (Svetcionys); my baker ir ( = bovine) ne sm€kas ( = smakas)?". In the past, it was used as a substitute for ice cream. ir ice (Lazūnai), vns. kilm. ice TD VII 173, 174 (Sėlinai, Baičiai; Klaipėdos kr.), lat. Ice, old man. sl. leds (0-stem in su u-stem forms). Perhaps, u-stem was morning, ir cf. lat. dialectal rhythm, but it due to frequent use next to the evening (plg. morning evening) could easily turn into o-stame. There are not many root nouns in vw Lithuanian today. Many of them are widely used, very old Lithuanian jy words with equivalents in other Indo-European languages, e.g. sūnus, plg. sen. sl. syns, gothic son, sen. Indian son, av. hūnu kt. ; ir honey, plg. lat. honey, pr. meddo<*medu, sen. sl. meds, gr. pédv — intoxicating drink, sen. vok. height. metu-midus; sen. Indian madhu-honey, intoxicating drinks, etc. ; middle, cf. lat. middle, old. English widu — forest, sen. vok. height. wiru — forest ir etc. ; top, cf. lat. virus, sen. sl. vrbcho (supriev. vns. viet. vrschu— at the ir top) etc.: galbūt, alus**, cf. lat. beer, pr. alu midus, — sen. sl. olo kt. ; ir sky, plg. pr. the sky; rain, plg. lat. rain, other jų borrowed words, e.g. midus®, ir cukrus®, turgus, etc. Third old — u-stem nouns, only today almost disappeared, e.g. pėkus (Zietela, Žąsečiai), plg. pr. pecku, gothic faihu, sen. Indian passport, av. Pass, lot. pecūt et ir al. In 16th a. century monuments pekus is still common, e.g. vns. ward. pekus BrP I 22445, pekus Br P II 464,, BrB(knows), pekus SzD 32, pékus DP 350, pekus DP 349, vns. kilm. BrP II 194,,, E 13,,-,;, BrB (frequently), BrP II 194,,, E 13,,-,;, BrB (frequently), BrP II 194,,, E 13,,-,;, BrB (frequen428,, tly), BrP II 194,,, E 13,,-,;, BrB (frequently), BrP II 194,,, E 13,,-,;, BrB (frequently), BrP II 194,,, E 13,,-,;, BrB (frequently), BrP II 194,,, E 13,,-,;, BrB (frequently), BrP II 194,,, E 13,,-,;, BrB (frequently), BrP II 194,,, E 13,,-,;, BrB (frequently), BrP II 194,,, E 13,,-,;, BrB (frequently), BrP II 194,,, E 13,,-,;, BrB (frequently), BrP II 194,,, E 13,,-,;, BrB (frequently), BrP II 194,,, E 13,,-,;, BrB (frequently), BrP II 194,,, E 13,,-,;, BrB (frequently), DP 290,,, vns. gal. peku BrP I 93,4, Bakery DP 307, vns. in. 26 See, K. Būga, Dictionary of Lithuanian Language, I sgs., XXXIII, Kaunas, 1924. According to K. Buga, the words storasta, gromata, mūka and muilas (rusy Mein0), vynas (rusy eunxo), dyvas (rusy Ouso), borrowed from the Old Russian language, show that the Lithuanians of the 12th—13th centuries had preserved the long tvirtapradZius vowels at the end of the word. If in Lithuanian the vowels at the end of the word had been shortened at the firm beginning, then we would have *muila, *vyna, *dyva, as pronounced in XIV —XV aa. debtors pekla (Polish pieklo), prova (Polish prawo) etc. 27 See J. Būtėnas, Educational Work, 48, 1930. 28 Zr. H. Ban-Beii k, Hcropus.- .., 244; E. Fraenkel, BS 2, 248; KZ 61, 272. 29 Zr. E. Fraenkel, Lithuanian etymological dictionary (toliau —Wortschatz), 8 ir See, E. Fraenkel, 1955. Worterbuch, 446; K. Būga, Language and antiquity, 65, 218, Kaunas, 1998, p. 1922; P. Skardžius, Lithuanian word making, Vilnius, 31 55, Zr. E. 1943. Fraenkel, Wėrterbuch, 70. 21 pekumi E 155, BrB (common- ), pekumi DP 40,, and others. Old noun pelils (Kupiškis, Dusetos and others), cf. lat. pelus (near pelavas), pr. pelvo, ukr. Poldva, Czech dgs. pléva et al., as well as beiSnykstas. In the 16th century, it is still used, see dgs. ward. pelus BrP I 119,,, dgs. in. those with DP 8614, PS I 82, etc. In some dialects, it has been replaced by the o-stem pelai (Nemajūnai, etc.). ir Fourth —used only in individual conversations, e.g. badus —badas (Leipalingis), ferškūs (Jieznas, Nemajūnai, Kvėdarna, etc.), šėškus (Dusetos- ), sniegūs (Lazūnai; perhaps arising due to the influence of ice)®?, stogus (Biržai, judging from the vns. origin stogos = roof), opšrės —barsukas, gel¢kus —yellow cat, jitockus, kufékus —deaf, dvdskus —dry, dribkus —drib, pliufp- %us —plepys (Jurbarkas), etc. The most abundant in Lithuanian is:4 kamienas®®. Some of its representatives might have also long passed į :0 A stone. For example, the fisherman may be an old su-stame, cf. lit. Fisherman; Fishing, fishing. Fveju — hunting and sen. indy mrgayuh — hunter: mygayd — hunting; mygayate — hunting. iu-stame could also have been v&as®, cf. vns. viet. in the wind, pcs. tablespoons wind, sen. indy vayuh —wind. Evolution of the single beneficiary The current Lithuanian « stem noun singular noun form to son is interpreted very differently by linguists. Some of them are from the IRA. -*evai or -*evei, cf. the ancient Indian sunave, sen. sl. synovi®, others from *sūnvai, *siinuvai, *sinuvei®- ®. However, the phonetic evolution of all these archetypes into siinui is hardly possible, From *sūnvai, -ei could only rise *sūnvie with circumflex -ie, *sūnuvei could only give *sūnyvie. The pronunciation *-uvie> -*uie> -ui could hardly have been. The reasons for this remain unclear, and the cause of the earthquake remains unclear. *sūnyo, the son of Gervėčiai, who could not in any way have come from the above mentioned path. According to N. van Vijk®’, the singular noun for the son arose by adding the ending head head to the trunk, following the example of other trunks: galvai, -:: žemė; > earth, *heart(s); heart, therefore, and son; Son. In this case, again remains unclear the aforementioned beneficiaries son. The sons of the king, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings, the sons of the kings. vaikuo and, no doubt, arising u stuene from 0 stuene in place of the old u-stuene naud. 32 See, E, Fraenkel, Das im Wilnagebiste gesprochene Litauisch BS 2, 48. 3 See. P. Skardžius, min. veik., 76 et seq. : 34 Zr. J. F. L o h mann, Lit. #vejas-Fischer, Zveja-Fischgang=ai. Mrgayuh-jiger mrgaya-hunt. KZ 57, 241. © 9% Žr, J. Schmidt, Die Plural forms of the Indo-European Neutra... 67, Weimar, 1889. O. Wiedemann, Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, 31, 61, Strasbourg, 1897. 3 Žr, A. Leskien, The Formation of the Nomina in Lithuanian, 91, Leipzig, 1891. A. Baranowski—F. Specht, Lithuanian dialects, 2, 174. F. Specht, IF 42, 295. 37 Zr. ZfsIPh 12, 248. 22 aukštaičių naud. with -ui%, -u. The singular noun, as a relatively rarely used vowel, quickly yields to the influence of other stems, cf. the old vns of stem 7. caud. form faster decay, » stem adjectives dgs. caud. faster decay than the noun, influence of noun conjugation on the adjective noun: baltui, gerui (Swedish). The evolution of the singular inaginnik The old singular form of the noun siinumi, cf. sen. sl. synomb, lat, overlapping in the upper part of the head, in ancient Lithuanian monuments preserved unevenly. In some of them, for example, the writings of M. Daukša and K. Širvydas, only the singular noun possessive forms of the u-stem are used. strength of w-stem singular noun form XVI shows a. that in some old monuments there are still adjectives with the u-root. ją ir These adjectives are particularly abundant in M. Daukšos "Postila- ": aiBkimi 476.4, apwalumi 36551, 367.4, bdisimi 3195 10405 94315 165315 16953, 38455, 39114, 424515 471743, biaurumi 482. 4, brggumi 1465, 18255, 240,,, 29113, 42919, 479, 55345, 57249, brigumi 481,,, býtrumi 39231, 5544, 3535, dosnumi 84y,, 51lis, 298951, gdailumi gāstumi 302,,, 355,509, gdusumi 14,3, 3583, 5634, graudumi 17735, 4765, gribumi 90, imanami 161,, kdntrumi 9.4, 17825, kartumi 2855, ldimumi 860143, 2004, 27359, 349,,, 59050, 61633, žapumi 40633, 50145, lagwumi 2195,, ligumi 4053, 79915 150, 170555 24439, 24935, 26154505, 43413, 43854506, 4485, 47049, 482333,, mailumi 96,5, 358.9, méilingumi 4064,, 389.5, meilalirdumi 434, miela3irdumi 587,,, ndbažnumi 6094, paklusnumi 103,,, 1865, 21015, 256, 2641-10» 3284, 36554, 465,, 4824, 501,, 419, paddrumi 160, 161, patdgumi 362,,, 407, 467, 478.9, 48245, 49045, 49535, pigumi 90,9, 26435, 455,,, plarumi 90,5, 270, 274,,, prieumi 608g, priwalumi 255,35, piitlumi 533,, romum 84,,, 398, 422,, 424; 437,594 saldumi 101, sargumi 3545, skdistumi 332,,, smdarkumi 62,;, 168, 17455 19145, 361,_;, 398, 422,, 424;,, stiprumi 2345, skdistumi 332,,, smdarkumi 62,;, 168, 17455 19145, 361,_;, 394;,, stiprumi 84 5, 1204, 161,, 168455 171; 28455, 310,, 348,35, 366, (2kartus- ), 371,, 424; 4344. 35235, 359, 393, 543; 60715, tiésumi 483,,, wéikumi 3,9, 23715, 154, Fimumi 178.4, 355,. to-kamienés adjectives in the singular form of jnagininko were not found here. K. Širvydas' writings also use the y-stem forms teysum PS I 25, teysumi PS I 3275 sotumi PS I 379,,, klausumi PS II 2165,, 217,, beside brungu PS II 214,,, brungiu PS I 227,, II 100,, 207,, ipatu PS I 116;,, II 13755, 1645, meylu PS I 3754, Tli3, smutku PS I 3095, Zimu PS 1 98,,,,, gilu PS II 153;, skalsu PS II 208,,, 2105,, gausu PS II 210,,, plačiu PS I 305,, tunkiu PS I 360s, patogiu PS II 87,;. 3 Plg, K. Brugmann, floor plan..., 112, 605, 3 In some dialects of Lithuanian (Pandėlys, Kupreliškiai, etc.) ir consumed units, naud. dangum; sūnum, medum, turgum, karalum, Taučum ir kt, This is the form of inagininko, var=tojama naud, meaning, 23 teisumi 61°, 780, 793, 843, 889, 2643, ischkumi 111°, 204°, 208°, APM 27%, 27°, netisumi 798, matczumi 113, macznumi 117° greta ischku 112°, 133a, stipru 722, 98%. They are rarely found in other ancient monuments, e.g. : 1) J. Bretkūno "Bible" beauty Gen. 24, kitvum Pred 9, diseases Jes. Sir 13, teisumi Hiob 32, 2) M. Petkevičius' Catechism biaurdm 53.5, cistumi 62, neteysum teysumi 86, 62, 3) D. The Horror of Klein's Writings KIM 35, dragumi KIM 114, 178, iBkumi KIG 130. M. Mažvydas, B. Vilentas and J. Bretkūnas do not use the singular noun forms of u-stem adjectives at all in “Postila”. However, in some ancient writings we already encounter w-root nouns with a possessive form analogous to 0-root nouns. This form is used 1) in M. Mažvydo writings: sunu 45,5, Bmogu 16618, 153,, 192,5, 204;, 441, 2) in B. Vilento writings: sunu E 12,27,, (next to suni (6 times), Jesu EE 202,, (next to Jesumi), Christu EE 20845, (next to 211,, Christumi), 3) J. Bretkūno "Postilėje" fSmogu I 1575,, sunu II 88,, Jesu Kristu II 138, (along with u-stame forms), 4) M. Petkevičius's catechism sunu 1764, (along with sunum 198, 113,, 215, 226, suni 253). An analogous situation is:u-stem singular noun, whose form with -ių is rare in ancient monuments, cf. karalu EE 14; (near karalumi (7 times), kribu E 33,, pakaiu Mz 225,, sanariu EE 51, sanariu MT 150% (near sanariumi MT 1553), with schitu bagotiru BrP II 197, with bagotiriu BrP II 200, lickariu BrP I 190 (cf. vns. kilm. lektorio 191), with Lazaru BrP II 200, didziu neprieteliu BrP II 248. In later writings, the latter forms of njaganik are more frequent. In 1753 M. Olshevsky’s “Broma” contains oils 130, 142, liqueurs 152, neprieteles 212, ploséi, pots 154 (next to u-stame, cf. ploséi 69 and others). In 1752, J. Jaknavičius’ “Evangelie polskie i litevskie” has karalu 4 (alongside karalum 51). They are particularly common in the Žemaičių writings, cf. 1) 1787 „Živato“: cesoriu 179, krišių 218, 221 (next to the very common križšiumi), karalu 189, 190, 192 (2 times), 232 (next to karalumi), kupciu 132, dangu 32 (2 times), Lazoriu 109, prietelu 134, 212, sekretoriu 290, sunu 37, 130, 165 (2 times), 234, 252, 288, 296 (next to the common suni), žmogu 304 (next to the common žmogumi, wyrszumi- ), 2) 1790 „Balso širdies“: sunų 262; (next to suni 9, 196,,), žmogu 120, (next to žmogumi 257, žmogum 246). In the writings of S. Daukanto and M. Valančiaus, the absolute majority of inagininky forms consist of -(i)ų, cf. 1) M. Valančiaus „Istorijos“: karalu 75 (2 times), 76 (3 times), 82, 85, 87, 123, 127, prietelu 114, medu 24, sunu 23, 27; 2) M. Valančiaus „Žemaičių vyskupystės“: popiežių 46, 120, prokuratoriu 137, sekretoriu 147, sunu 73, 125, wirszu 80, 90 (alongside rare karalumi 21 and others); 3) M. Valančius- ’s “Živatų”: karalu 100, 150, 151, 172, 223, krišiu 99, 186, 242, kupeziu 235, ciecoriu 7, 19, 158, 196, 203, litų 29, Messiosziu 183, 225, 256, popiežiu 59, 63 (2 times), 153, 156, 171, 176, 201, 219, sunu 93, 174, 211, 243, 270, wirszu 49, 125, 153, 211, žmogu 131, žalnieriu 188 (2 times), 200, 221 (alongside rare žmogumi 69 and others); 4) S. Daukanto „Būdo“: ald 27, 61, ąmžid 163, gaspadorid 63, 53, 159, 160, karald 159, karalid 230, medo 61, skajtld wirsz0 24. midd 56, 61, 34, 56, 106, 128, 196, I'm not a 195, good man. 160, 238, 8, 64 (alongside rare litai) 191 ir kt ). A. In Baranauskas' dialect texts** we also encounter (f)u root noun conjugators su -i(u), plg. big cock 314; (Batakiai- ), weinu sd kapczu 343,; (Darbėnai), budams kopczd 350,, (Viekšniai). sė Zalniério 350, (Viekšniai), kupczu 354, (Tirkšliai) sit rozénczu 3695, (Karténai), pastésio gaspaddrio 380;; (Licking) I wanted to be in the 38019, gaspadéri apartment Zalnierio 3815 (Licking), bowa dorniē wadinams 396, (Salantai), sweet dornio wadin 400, (Salantai), socialize su k#@tkdriu 383; (Grinteliske), su with a doughnut 38393 (Grinteli), so karaal 13155, 132), (Clowns), sd gaspaddr' 1415,5,, (Pakruojis), būwa didZ bagdcz (Pušalotas), su sawa tavéfču (Kruopiai), su sword 270,; (Tombstsu one), King 184 (Joniškis), 198,; (Krakė), king 199,, (Kraké), paczu pd 200, 204,, (Grinkiškis), su kradczu 207, (Pagiriai), be kupczu 210,,, kupczi 211, (Pagiriai), tėkiū bagdczu 211, (Pagiriai), my king to build” 217,, (New Town), néprieteli 21545 (Grey), backyard 116, (Papilė), isz8je su sumo 351, (Viekšniai), su son (Ravens), sd see 141g, (Pakruojis), dog 81,4 (Freeman), sini 88; (Biržai), su cast 266, (Radviliškis), žmogu 354, (Tirkšliai), #mégu 356, (Telšiai). Now a large part of the Žemaičių dialektas (all dounininkai ir etc.) It uses only the last form of the noun, plg. king's, son's, son's, son's, son's (Kretinga, Sėleniai, Salantai, Mosėdis and others). u-stone vns. in. forms are still used _ in some dialects in Snektos, not bordering with Altaičiai, e.g. kėrdžome, stinome (Laukuva dialect), "račum, sūnum (Pagramanto dialect)“, sitnum (Šaukėnai- ), alum (Eržvilkas), umgum, spitlum, sinum, dusigum (Kuršėnai) etc. ir In the dialects of Aukštaičiai, Eastern, Middle and Dzūkijos, both forms are often used (su-(i Jum and -(i)u), e.g. turgum||turgū, sūnum || sina, piiodzum || ptiodzu (Linkmenys), sūnų || sūnum, madu || madum (Skapiškis), sūn || sunum, turg, cilvēk||žmogum, vilfi||vilium (Biržai), sūnu, alum, medum, sūkču. (Gelvonai), sinu||sunum, liėtų || lietum, medui, dungum (Palomenė), sunu || sunum, alū || alum, medū ||medum, dungu || dungunmi (Raguva), tufgu, liėtu, skitu (Palėvenė) and others. In the dialects of the Mūšos river valley, the suffixes with -wm are no longer agreeable, e.g. tofg, sin, VOFš, pėč, dmž (Pašvitinys, Vaškai, Šeduva, etc.). It is the best-preserved of the three remaining pieces in the West Highlands. Some linguists?*? Lithuanian u-trunk nouns vns. in. su -u tries to connect with av. -# But this form is easily explained as a new form of o root vns. in. example. The transition of the plural of the y stem to the o stem caused the decline of the singular of the u-stem. The words beer, honey, which are not used in the plural, retain the u-root vns longer in dialects. ir in. form. The Old Testament in Our Language. in. with -u does not show their large © See A. Baranowski —F. Specht, Lithuanian dialects, 1, Leipzig, 1920. 4 See. P. Ionian, Pagramantis dialect, 46, Kaunas, 42 1939. See. A. Baranowski —F. S pecht, Lithuanian dialects, 2, 76. 25 (1 once) still used iu-stem ir genders: swietischki Karalus EE 1764-14, Palnierius BE 2145, 2164-1, 217,, 220, szalnierius EE 216,. J. In Bretkūnas' writings, the plural form of the iu-kamiené nominative is also represented weakly. ,,Postiléje* next to the much more abundant io-trunk genders of the queen (11 generations), kodžei II T2,, for the (6 pre-joint times), for the retainer PI 280,,, sanarei (3 times), žalnierei or šelnierei (11 times) are used iu-strains ir king good pretelius P I 60, P I 75,5, II 19545, 343, Schipparus PI 201,,. J. In Bretkūnas' Bible translation, the io-kamienés genders are often used for karalei, kupcei, prietelei, neprietelei, ricerei, ricerai, sanerei, Zelnerei. However, we also meet here the iu-stem ir forms kings, kupčiai, dumdius, baius, plaščiai, (not) prietelus, puikorius, liekorius, ricier(i)us, strelčius, šiparus, Sippor(i)us, rubežus, valsčius, želnerus, žalnerus. Frequency "In the Bible" -ius corrected į -No. 1600 m. "In Margarita Theologically, the io-stem forms also prevail: karalei (about 5 times), (not)prietelei 103Y, 2092, 2492, rybežšei 2172**, sanarei 1063, 2159 next to iu-stems popes APM waisius 38°, mafesnieghi 127°, waisius 158°, 1592; 14. In later In the a. 17th-century Lithuanian language, the plural form iu-kamiené is still used, although very rarely. ir The best ji preserved 1653 m. "In the Book of the Church": Bagočius ziemmes 1815, karalus 302, 119°, (ne)prietelus 8%, 19g, 20, 23,,, 26, 148, 200? next to io-stame (non)prieteliay 25°, 443, žalnierey 158. 1653 m. In,,Christian prayers“ only one iu-kaminė form is used: prietelus 45. Only one iu-stem plural denominator found ma ir 1653 m. "Sumoje": waisius pakutos gausus. Those then waisius... 15,,. Here used already :o-trunk spleeny kdraley Su 121, Su 203, neprietelay Su 73, 179, 216, prietelay Su 178, sanariay MKr6, 34, sanariay Su 83, 164, zolnieriay Su 258, =zalnieriay Su 259, 261 (3 times), 263. D. Kleino „The Prayer Book® also finds iu-stame plural noun genders: Dumczus Rotininkai 16,,, kocerus and Kleidunai 13,5, wissos tos naudos bey waisus 55, although otherwise io-stames are used here: karalei 127, neprietelei 47, 57, 86, neprietelei 89, prietelei 131. We agree with some plural nouns and with D. Klein's "New Songs"": Jog neprietelus neigi peklos nasrai Ne yweike mus 205, waisus žėmiški 449,, nors Here, too, the:io-stem genders are usually used: Karalei 30, 43, 62, 461, néprietelei 357, prietelei 287, 289, 523, sanarei 193, Zalnérai 859*. u stem plural denominator flexion in the old XVI —XVII aa. In Lithuanian language monuments, it has survived intact: ssunus EE 5755, sunius PK 189, DP 83,,, BrP II 187,, 436, BrB 191, 2 Cor 6, 2 Luc 2, sunius Ischm 9, Tob 14, 1 Mack 1, Chron 9, 2 Chron 31, Jes 60, Jerem 11, 35, Hiob 1, Ezech 23 and others, pelus BrP I 119, 5, Su 39, pealus Su 435, lietus MKr 44. u-stem plural noun survived in later writings: sunius O Br 3, JE 28, 106, Net XVIII—XIX aa. In the works written on the basis of the Žemaičių dialektas there are still surviving y-stame plural nouns. In 1767 P. Klimavičius,,Pavinastyse® used the plural noun sunius 89. Žemaitiškajame 1787 m. The 64-bit version is also known as the 64-bit DOS. ar vns. vard, is: Kaip nor Zalnerus daro 462, Jeib mus neprietelus Buklystemis neraudintu 171, Kada néprietelus skusis ant.nusu 136. 32 Vardininka sunus 121, 1790 m. ,,Voice of the heart““ next to 158,,, sunay 111; pelay we have ir another son 147,, S. Daukanto „In „Būde“ next to the o-stone form, there is also used 179 the u-stone: ir Big son. 179,, Tij sunus 162. J. Rupeikos 'Jonas iš Snickers" next to sunay has 160 another sunus ir 176. M. Valančiaus's "Žemaičių vyskupystė" also knows the u-stem plural form of the denominator: dideli litus 20. M. Valančiaus "In the history ir In „Živatuose““ only the o-kamienés forms are used**, Now in the Žemaičių dialect the u-kamienis plural noun has completely disappeared; only in the southern part of the Samogitian dialect are still used u-kamienés forms®. U-kamienė disappears in the plural form of the noun and in other Lithuanian dialects. In the ir dialects of the Dzūkų eastern Highlanders, o-stem forms are usually used: sūnai, turgai, lietai, vir$ai®® (Leipalingis, Merkinė, Varėna, Linkmenys), sūnai (Tverečius), sons, markets, tops (Skapiškis), son, dungeon (Raguva), sūnai (Gelvonai), sūnai, lietai, pietai, viršai (Palomenė), sūnai, turgai, lietai (Palėvenė), sūnai (Šakyna), rofge (Šeduva) and so on. In addition to the o-stame forms, the u-stame forms are also used in dialects: sunus|| suns (Biržai), pietos || prete, lietuvas || liete, siinos|| sūne, mėdos||mėds (Pašvitinys- ). The best-preserved y-stem plural form of the noun is that of the western Altay people, although they also often use o-stem forms alongside, cf. vifšūs||viršai, sūnūs||sūnai, pietils|| pietai, lytūs||lytai (Kybartai, Vilkaviškis, Jurbarkas). The old ending of the plural noun of the root (i)u is -(i)um(u)s, cf. sen. sl. synomeo. This form is also found in the old Lithuanian language monuments in the iw root noun. K. Širvydas uses only iu-stem plural noun genders: karalums PS I 135,, 1955, 214,, 234,, 262,, 134,, karalums patiemus PS I 134,,, néprietelumus PS I 185,1, II 11249, 13215, neprietelumus PS I 347,. io-stame plural noun genders K. Širvydas does not use yet, in M. Daukša's "Postila":ų- -stame plural noun forms are also almost the only ones: trimus kardlumus 6254-23, pėrlaidzia kardlumus 7053, Birdés Zalnieriumus priauga 107,,, tiėmus Zalniériumus 1575,, kaciériumus atsakit 119,,, iumus as pridtelumus 223,,, priėtelumus sawiemus 4174, Popiežiumus... griniémus 459,,, ik' paskutiniųiemus rubėšiumus 604, pada85 o-stame plural noun forms XVIII—XIX aa, in Žemaičių raštuose it also has adjective plural noun, cf. 1) 1787 "Živato": biaury 225, stipri 188, rami 178, 3) S. Daukanto ",,Būdo"": apali 189, drousi 63, 72, 197, iwajri 11, 208, garsi 117, kantri 3, 63, maloni. 63, ligi 36, narsi 3, 63, 115, plati 76, skajsti 133, smarki 79, 155, stipri 115, stambi 33, smolki T4, tanki 76, 71, wejkli 43, tajki 63, nožmi 79, 4) M. Valančiaus,- ,Zivatu‘: bajsi 38, 174, nebrągi 58, dajli 105, iwajri 213, dransi 220, maloni 6, padori 167, stipri 28, plati 8, 5) L, Ivinskio „Genovaitės““t apwali 13, maloni 72, stati 176, Some may be old stem jų adjectives, Zr. o 8 P, Ionian, Pagramantis dialect, 6! 46. See. K. Morkūnas and A. Vidugiris, Some characteristics of the dialects of north-eastern Lithuania. Lietuvos TSR The Academy of Sciences, A, 2, 181 (1957). 3. 487,.:0-stammenės lytys M. II, 33 Daukšos s,Postilėje““ retos: gimditoiemus... arba pridtelemus 51945, daro kardlamus 45 ne kardlamus 4l,,, kitiėmus... sanariamus 559,. In J. Morkūnas’ “Postilėje” there are also much more common forms with-stem: Seforium(u)s (frequent), bagočiumis (frequent), sanarium(u)s (frequent), neprietelum(u)s (frequent), karaliumus 322°, sanariumis 160%,_,, taworifiumus 257919-43, augliumis III 743, ciesoriums III 312, io-stame forms rarer: sanariamus277°, III 12°, neprieteliams®® 12°, 233, prietelems 162%, rubežiamus 3463, šeforiamus 1278, 306°. In other XVI—XVII a. in Lithuanian language monuments:io-- kamienė plural noun form prevails. M. In Mažvydas' writings we find only the singular-stame plural na beneficiary kocerums 233,. Other word users here are already io-stameniai: karalems neprietelems 557,,, 3375. J. In the Bretkūn scripts, the plural form of the noun ių-stamenė is also rare. There is no single nė gender of the iu-stem in Postila. Only the following are used here: :0-stame forms: karalems, neprietelems, prietelems, žalnerems, etc. In the “Bible” besides common iokamienių servants karaliams, prierelems, neprietelems, Želnerems, etc. ir still occurs fu-trunk genders: king Apok 1613, pretelums Ps 1273. In some places the iu-stem forms are corrected here to io-stems, e.g. karaliums Ps 1444, corrected to karaliams, prietelums Esth 6 —1 prieteliams, žalnierums Matth 28 — to Zalnerams. One form of the plural noun iu-kamien¢ is also used in D. Klein’s „Maldų knygelése*: rubezums 12714. There is not found any plural form of the iu-stame in the Catechism of M. Petkevičius, in the Catechism of M. Daukša in 1595, in the writings of B. Vilentas in 1600, in “Margarita Teologika”, in the anonymous Catechism of 1605. Only io-stem forms are used here, cf. karalams MT 2183, karaliams PK 134, neprietelams sanariams MT 212°, MT 1383, prefilled PK Spr 49, renewable DK 615, pritelamus AK 613, 1653 m. In the publications of Kėdainiai only the genders of the io-stem are used: karaliams Su 25, 28, 32, 35, 37, (ne)prieteliam(u)s KnN 8b 65, 762, 241, MKr 61, Su 156, 198, 210. B. in the writings of Wilens; We do not have any examples of this servant in J. Bretkūno- ,,Postilés* II d., 1600,,Margarita Teologika- ®, 1605, anonymous catechism, 1653,,Pradose christiane“, 1653,,Sumoje®, 1653, D. Kleino,,Pradų knygelės- ““. In the 16th and 17th centuries a. in the writings the plural of the root u still has the old u-root inflection, e.g. sunimus DP 155, 17533, DK 7953, KnN1795,, sunumus KnN 228, PK 21, sunums Mz 65;,, PK 209, BrP I 144, KIG 332. In M. Daukša’s “Postila”” also the “ stem adjectives have retained the u-stem form: budrumis 41,7, 55445, tapumis 60145, 615,, meilafirdumis 3405, priéfumus 57334, pūtlumus 434,,, PBwiestimus 22645, 40315, tamsumus 156,49 (greta biauriemus 4954, kantriemus paklusniemus teisiemus 448, 17534, 5335_¢, 2,3). Only in J. Bretkūno,- ,Biblija® are used now and o-stame plural noun forms alongside the — frequent u-stame BrB 18, 127, 128, 132, 68 Plg, vns. gal. neprieteli 153%, 1727, used here 34 134, 148, 187, 1 Makk 1, Jerem 29, 2 Chron 13 ir kt 0-ca-. mienis sunamus BrB 143, Ezra 9, Neh 13, sunams Neh 13, sunams Yes 66 ir kt In the Lithuanian dialects, the plural forms of the noun o-kamienés are now more common. In the local dialect they are used only. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the use of the plural form of the noun u-stame was still used by the Žemaites. In 1787, there were 177,000 people living in the town, including the 177,000 inhabitants of the village of Băișoara. severity 298. They consume them “Būde” next to o-kamieniy, e.g., sunams 13, and Daukantas: sundms 176, lytumas 14. Today they are still known in the southern part of the Žemaičių dialektas®. Dzūkai and eastern Highlanders use mostly o-stem forms: sūndm || sūnami (Leipalingis), turgdm, sūnam, virfdm (Linkmenys, Varėna, Merkinė), sūnam (Tverečius), sūndm, dungdm (Raguva), sūndm, lietam, pietam (Palomenė), sūnam (Gelvonai), turgdm, lierdm (= to market, to rain) (Palėvenė), sūndm (Debeikiai), sūndm, viršdm, pietam (Šiauliai), sūnam (Šakyna), turgdm (Šeduva) and others. In addition to o-kamieniy, the w-kamienia are also used in some conversations: turgdm, viršėm, bet sūndm||sūnum (Skapiškis), turgdm, sū- -nūmijsūnam (Biržai), lietem || lietom, pietem || pietom; 1999) 2000 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2001 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2002 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2003 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2004 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2005 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2006 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2007 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2008 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2009 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2010 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2011 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2012 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2013 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2014 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2015 – The Sunshine of Your Love 2015 As in the noun, the best preserved u-stame¢ inflection in this dialect is: Vysočany Western Southern dialect, cf. viršūm, ovidum, pietūm, sūnēm (Kybartai, Vilkaviškis, Naumiestis, Jurbarkas). Evolution of the plural noun The old plural noun ending of the (i)u-stem is -(i)umis, cf. sen. sl. synonyms. The old plural forms of ių stem are still used in ancient Lithuanian language monuments. K. Širvydas tik jas ir vartoja: bus karalums PS I 135,,, karalumis PS I 1675, 22135, II 15045, gieriumis PS II 1005,, pahonczumis PS II 2025,, neprietelumis PS II 16019-9» 2594—-5, prietelumis PS I 15714-1g, II 85, sunariumis PS I 125;,, 294,,.,,Punktuose sakymų“ 1:10-kamienių lyčių nėra. Wadinas ElidBiumis 19,,, kardlumis butų būwę 59,,, bū kardlumis 59,4, prieg kardlumis stoweio 59,;, trimis karalumis wadina 5953, iūs kardlumis wadina 59,,, tikraisęis Kardlumis 16754, ne duksėtus kardlumis 223, Bwentieii bus karalumis 491,,, bū Ciesoriūmis Rimo 459,,, girumis kokiais... 439;,, ėssa nepriételumis 164,;, buwo nepriėtęlumis 167,, budami ne priételumis 343.5, anis yra nepriételumis 3845_o, tapę est’ priételumis 16433, nor būt priételumis 1754, priétélumis- ... tur būt algdti 3434, _g, Zinomais rubefiumis yra 6114, retéfiumis ir wirwemis rdiffioio 157g, priétélumis- ... surifiimais 508,q, wissais sqnariumis 153.4, wissais sqnariumis 442, su sqnariumis sawais 229,, kitais sqnariumis 320;,, giwais sanariumis 1324, 183,,, wienais sanariumis 529;,, yra teipeg sqnariumis 547,, praminti sanariumis 606.9, essme feforiumis 309;, Wikariumis sawiis 203,,. M. Daukša,,Postilé* uses only one io-stem plural noun sanareis 223;. Good 8 Plg, P, Ionian, Pagramantis dialect, 46. 35 išlikęs ių-kamienis daugiskaitos įnagininkas J. Morkūno „Postilėje““: augliumis (dažnai), bagočiumis 375°, giriumis III other 473, Lozoriumis 241%, potereliumis 196P?, prieteliumis (often), poteriumis 310°, sanariumis (often), razbaiumis 26615, skayčiumis 3793, vaisiumis 276%, šef(f)oriumis (often), viliumis (often). iu-stame plural genitive genders we find in those ir monuments where only :0-root plural noun forms. For example, B. in Wilens writings we find one more iu-stem form with imperfects next to io-stem EE 2095, prefixes EE 2095, (i.e. J.N. diem retefem EE 163;,). M. Petkevičius' catechism also There are surviving genders of the su-kamieniy plural noun: aleiums 51,_g, sanariumis 193,;, 21944. 1600 m "In Margarita In the Theological Dictionary, where the plural noun has also already passed the io-root, we į find these iu-root me genders of the plural noun: karalumis APM 164,, su neretelumis 2088—¢, su retefumis 2623, sanarumis 10353, greta io-stamenių sanareis 1043,, 1589, (plg. vns. kilm. sanarius 1383-4). No plural noun forms found for ių-stame M. In the writings of Mažvydas ir J. Bretkūno "Poster". J. In Bretkūnas's "Bible" we meet, it seems, only one iu-stem plural noun rubežiumis Prov 8, The forms of the io-stem are used here: karaleis, neprieteleis, prieteleis, rubezeis, stalčeis, sanareis, šelnereis, Zelnerais, spiegoreis, strelčeis, kupčeis, plaščeis, retežeis. Iš subsequent XVII a. monuments iu-stame plural possessor has still 1653 m. ‘Amount’ po Rkrishium 105,, (next to prietelays 124, neprietelays 137 (2 times) ir D. Kleino "Prayer Booklets": cross 40 (next to priételeis 76, neprieteleis 44). u stem plural conjugator rarely Used in ancient monuments of our language: pietumis BrP I 2321,, po Priwaisdumis EE 25, South AK 159,, sunset DK 8033, 955, 1035, PK 17, 201, 215, MT 127°, Su 138,, 138, 282, 288, OBr 112, 131, 138, 228 (2 100 237, Su times), in dogs EE 172; litumis BS 153;. In the old monuments of our language, the substantive plural of stem adjectives is # abundantly represented. M. In Daukšos "Postile"" the plural possessive form of u-kamiené adjectives prevails: baisumis 41257, 508, 99, 52623, biaurumis 3734,, 42811, bragumis 185,5_4 budrymis 55555, 556g, ddrgumis 169, ddsnumis 2803, drasumis 478, 613g, delicious in 558,, graphum 25g, 3035, kdntrumis 24319, 29915, 41334, tdimumis 273: 390.5, 5330 catrumis 523, legumis 2533, 29115, 6113, pleasures 60055, méilafirdumis 284, g, 315 31334, mėilįgumis 40914.-1,, nemeiligumis 409413.-44,, mėilumis 53g, 35933—a3, with 4293, 4631-32, 46415 49755, 52335 2561, unintention3561, al submissions 66455 20559 9709, 3803 38353, 4161 52335, patdgumis 6715 340,, 42545, 554355, primanumis 109g, 19133, 21659495 2181, 38523, 389%: 492,,, rémymis 20933, 2434, 29915, 41335 535; 6243, sweetne3653-9 ss 622, sargumis strength 44753, 497,, stropumis 434y,, 44733, Pwélnumis 302, tąkumis 913, teisumis 335, 19235, 2854, žimumis 18535. io-kamiené plural noun form M. Daukšos Postilėje" rare: brūgeis 2115, 1824, 27014, bukleis 25449, ifkeis 36245, Pwelnidis 211, Pwieseys 1735, 2055, 2165. K. Širvydo In the “points of sayings” we also find w-kamieniy plural possessive forms of adjectives: biaurumis brungumis in anonymous PS I 257,, catechism PS I 18653, 36 3661, discomfort PS II 176;,, neteysumis PS I 16713, teysumis PS I 1524, II 224,, next to io-stame brungieys PS I 2175, sunkieys PS I 60,5, 20059, 22613, II 1525,, baysieys PS I 83, biaurieys PS II 50,, grazieys PS I 257, II 129, 07, 18654, smalščieys PS I 21255, smarkieys PS II 194, 21954. In other monuments, the plural noun form of u-kamiené adjectives remains weak. In the writings of M. Mažvydas, B. Vilentas, J. Bretkūnas’ Postila, it is not used at all. There are 11 subspecies of the species: R. c. philippensis: the Philippines. 1205_¢, 2) 1595 in M. Daukšos Catechism: grazumis 5443,, 3) 1600 in,,Margaritoje Teologikoje“: zeisumis 834, 854, 863, 882, 53°, paklusnumis 50°, 4) 1605 in. skaudumis 804 5) in D. Klein’s “Maldų knygelėje: daygumis 48, 6) in D. Klein’s “Naujos giesmių knygos”: kytrumis 156, 157. This form of the word is no longer used in the Lithuanian language. As can be seen from Daukša’s writings, the u-kaminė form of the plural of adjectives was still strong in some Lithuanian dialects in the 16th century. Stipti, Of course, there must have been an y-stem plural noun form. Noun, plural inagininke having o-stem form, we meet only in J. Bretkūno „Biblija““., Near Pietumi Jes 59 and others here we have sunais III Chron 26,44,46,48,50,51,52—53,54,56,58- ,60,62,64,66,68,- 70,72,74,76,78,31,83,85 88° Ezra 85:55, sons of Neh 10, sons of Jerem 35 (corrected to sons). In the present time, the u-kamiené plural form of inagininko has completely disappeared in the Zemgalių dialect. Only in the southern part are still used u-kamienés forms. 1767. In P. Klimavičius' "Pavinastyse" the y-stem plural noun is still preserved, cf. suniui 17, 105, 113. In 1787, the Žemaičių „Živate“ also uses the u-stem of the plural Įnagininkas sunius 63, 298, 327, in M. Valančiaus „Istorija“ the o-stem forms are already used: su wisajs sunajs 45, su septinejs sunajs 116, sunajs 73. Dzūkai and eastern Highlanders also use e-stame forms: sūnais, turgais, pietais (Leipalingis, Varėna, Merkinė, Linkmenys)*"?, turgais, sūnais, viršais (Skapiškis, Svėdasai, Gelvonai, Šakyna), sūnais, lietais, pietais (Palomenė), sūnės, dungės (Raguva), rofges, siūlnes, vofses (Pašvitinys), fofges (Šeduva) and others. In addition to o-kamieniy, we also find y-kamieniy forms in some conversations: sūnės||sūnuūm (Biržai) and others. The strongest u-kamienė form of the plural noun is preserved in the dialect of the Western Southern Highlands, cf. viršum, vidum, pietum (Kybartai, Vilkaviškis, Jurbarkas, etc.). But here too, the already o-stemmed forms are often used alongside, e.g., suni||sūnai (post-event caps). The evolution of the plural locutor The local form of the old # stem plural *sūnusų, cf. sen. sl. synochos, the sons of ancient Indians, is not found in the reviewed ancient monuments of Lithuanian language, nor, apparently, in dialects. About its presence in the Lithuanian language can be "0 Plg, gift of J. Otrębski, East-Lithuanian pronouns Twereckie 1, 244, Krakéw, 1934, 37 lima to solve only in the many local iš sons, inside, south, still used by the westerners of Aukštaitija (pazanavykio mų kapsai, Jurbarkas etc.). ir As the subordinate sexes the latter locals still In other ir dialects of Lithuanian, for example, tik nebūsi a piėtuse arklių porėres per pietus) (= (Root), petusi buva užėjis (Gelvani). Such forms must be represented by ir M. Lots of patterns 'dąguse DP 51615, 532,505) DK 4435, 4653, daguse DP 3015, 51613-14, 5254-5, dagusia DP 521a3, 466,419 dągusė DP 187435, 252,;. The correct spelling of -use leaves no doubt that this form is wu-kamiené = in the skies or skliautuose, because M. Daukšos spelling does not show how it was pronounced —with the long or with the short - = and-. Whereas: M. Daukša wrote in the Altai medieval dialect, and it is more reliable to hold this form as spoken in su the short u, so nebese. The placeholder in the sky could have appeared like this. Next to the old Indo-European plural local form *dangusu formed the new postpositional plural form of the pronoun dangūse< dgs. gal. *postpositioir ns of heaven. There are be two forms of localis used next to each other without any difference in meaning *heavenly ir in the heavens could eventually by contamination give one form in the heavens. Short -učia could have arisen because of harmony with other dgs. linksniais, plg. sūnumis, sūnumus and so on The postpositional plural form of the locality is formally preserved today in the Zemgalian dialect, plg. torgūse, kėrdžūse (Laukuva), turgisi, turgūs, umžūsi, ūmžūs (Kuršėnai) and others, because it coincided here with the development of the special Samogitian phonetics su o root plural locus, cf. markets <turgunse ir galiise <galunse <*galuonse. In some eastern Highland dialects, we also encounter the remains of this native. In the south, the area is also known as the "South Bank". According to K. Būga, "* the older generation of Dusetos people still spoke pellis, pietus in his time. In some dialects it may have been used in the form ciūnūsu. This form is most likely used by ir M. Mažvydas: it's sky 238, 30115 50645, 5321, dagusu 222;,. True, iš M. The spelling of Mažvydas cannot be judged ar as it was pronounced in the heavenly heavens. "However, neither in other ancient monuments nor, apparently, in Lithuanian dialects we find clear examples of the form with -usu. On the other hand, M. Mažvydas and (i)o stem plural localities writes as well: darbusu 3195, 591g, namusu 41414, 4603, 53443-1p, 53609, hukiusu 8,5, kielusu 524, etc., and the latter could only be pronounced namilsų, ikiūsu, kelitisu, cf. current localities in Žemaitija: galūs, beržūs (Séleniai, Kretinga), daržūse, laukūse (Laukuva), raštūsi, raštūs, galūsi, gals (Kuršėnai). The form namiisu reflex may be the northwestern downer namī, galls (with the hard s at the end of the word). Ji apparently from contamination of the older stem plural local o information ko -with the su new postpositional form at the ends < *final -+- postposition**. Therefore, M. Mažvydo dangus should be read dangus. Formally, the heaven could be considered the local form of the plural of the stem, e.g. # sen. Indian Vedic tanūsu. But since the survival of #-kamieniy forms in Lithuanian is doubtful, it probably arose by contamination of the old plural native dangusu ji with the new postpositional danguose danguns postposition) under the influence of the plural iliative dangūsna ir (<*danguns-na). The iliac and in- (<* -- ar "1 Zr. K. "Lietuvių kalbos žodynas- ". ; I XXVIII. ? ? For example, J. Endzelins, Gramatika, 408, 38 syvas influenced each other in the development of the Lithuanian language, cf. the iliative forms: namuosun, laukuosen, laukuosnu, laukuosne, laukuosin, formed by the influence of the inesive namuosu, laukuose. The influence of the Iliatic may have also influenced the Eastern Dzūki:; pronoun of the plural of the stem. eyes#, hearts (Linkmenys, Dotinénai, Tverečius and others). The old DGS stems are still used ir in the i Linkmen dialect. viet. akistt, širdisū, That here alongside used forms longuoju su y (eye etc.) ir the occurrence of the iliative akysna akins na) (<* in the effect of + contaminating okusu akyse, as o ne J. Endzelynas** believes, shows ir that the plural postpositional inestives are not used here at all and were hardly ever used. o trunk inesyvus laukuosu, miškuosu in place of the older local representative of the sen. sl. In addition to the vltcėcht and the old Indian vykėsu, in the eastern Dzūki also could only appear the iliative laukąsna, miškuosna. The influence of the iliative on the inessive is also shown by the fact that in dialects where the iliative does not form a separate syllable, such as in the West Highland dialects, and in the plural, the pronoun has the forms okuje, srce (with the short 7). The influence of the iliative could only have caused the appearance of the inessive forms laukuosa, širdisa, which are often used by B. Vilentas, J. Bretkūnas, S. Vaišnoras, D. Klein. : the u-stem of the plural local form, as rarely used, was early replaced by the o-stem. In J. Bretkūnas’s “Postila” and K. Širvydas’s “Punktai” there is no use of the plural localising of the wu-stem. In these monuments, the iu-stem plural localities already have the (i)o-stem form, cf. rubefosu BrP II 106, rubefusu BrP II 105,;, in the conjunctions PS I 109.5, II 199,45. J. Bretkūno „Biblijos“ plural placeholder dangusu Apoc 5, Kosn 5, dangiisu Chron 30, dangisa Amos 9 and others, 1600 „Margaritos Teologikos“ dangusu 263, 1605 anonymous catechism dungust 43,5, 484, dunguosu 44,,;, 4633 indicate an early u-stem plural place-. the disappearance of the plasterer's shape. In other reviewed ancient monuments of the Lithuanian language postpositional forms often also have already (:)o-stem inflection, cf. dągūse DK 4355, daguse DK 855, nepakaiuose PK 137,,, sanariuose PK 193, sunuose PK 107, danguose Su 143, 186, 104, 272,,, MKr 31, rubeziuose Su 270, sandžiuose MKr 7. The first Lithuanian grammar also presents already (#)o-root forms (pp. 30—51)**. In the Eastern Dzūkų 3nektos (about Linkmenai and others), where the old Indo-European plural locus ending -su, u is preserved, the root nouns also have the o-root plural locus turguosu, sūnuosu. In the Aukštaičių dialects, only the o-stame forms are now used, e.g. sūnuosa, pietuosa (Leipalingis), sūnuose, pietuose (Palomenė), pietudse (Nemajūnai), sūnuose, turguose, pietudse (Garliava), pietiios (Svėdasai), turguos (Dotinėnai, Alunta), tufguos, sūnūos, viršitos (Skapiškis, Palėvenė, Raguva, Biržai), dungiios (Raguva), pietitosi (Gelvonai), sūnitos, tūrguos (Šiauliai, Šakyna), rofgas, sunos (Mūšos upynas). Even in colloquial languages, such as in the Pazanavykio kapsai and in the Jurbarkas dialect, where the southern forms are still used, the o-trunk genders are more frequently used: tufguos (Jurbarkas), sūnuosė, sūnuos (Pazanavykio kapsai). © ® See, J. Endzelins, Grammar, 436. "4 p-stem forms are also presented in other Lithuanian grammar, p.g. G. Ostermejerio —25 psl., P. Ruigio —42 psl., K. Milkaus —37 psl., F. Hako —253 psl. University —11 psl. 39 Faster decline of the plural stem of ies XVI —XVII aa. The plural of the root iu was still strong in some dialects. This can be seen from the writings of K.Širvydas, M.Daukša, J.Morkūnas, where the plural of the stem iu is still, it can be said, completely intact. All other ancient monuments record a clear decline of the plural of the root ĭ. The ių-root plural noun is somewhat better preserved in them, the other consonants have usually already moved to the io-root. The first Lithuanian grammar?- TM presents the su-kamiené plural, plg. : N. waisus, G. waisiū, D. waisums, Ac. waisus, Ab. waisumis. D. Klein in his Kompendium® (p. 31-32) notes: “The words Kardlus, Prietelus, Podžus, Kerdžus are spelled correctly by many Lithuanians (and also by the Žemaites), because their plural noun is said: tie Karalus, trys Kardlus, tie Podžus, tie Kerdžus, etc., etc., elsewhere, especially in Greater Lithuania and our Prussia, the plural of this spelling is the same as that of the first spelling: Karalei, Podžei, Prietelei; Karalū, Podžu, Prietelūs Kardlems, Podžems, Prietelems, etc. "6““. From this Klein’s remark it is clear that at that time (in the middle of the 17th century) the iy-kaminė plural, especially the plural nominative, was still frequently used. ; The iu-root plural paradigm is also presented in the grammar of F. Hak (253 p.), P. Ruigis (32 p.), K. Milkas (37 p.). K. Milkus (p. 37) indicates that some nouns of this root, most often denoting a person or occupation (eine Person oder Amt), are conjugated in the plural according to the first conjugation. G. Ostermeier on page 25 of the grammar also assigns to the u conjugation the nouns with a root (Waisus, Kėrdzius, Kūrpjus, Kardlus, Pawdjus, Razbdjus, Prietelus), noting (page 26) that some of them, denoting occupation (Amt, Verrichtung, Flandthierung), have a plural with an io-root (Karalei, Kerdžiei). The iu-root plural of individual words is still known in some of the 19th century. grammar (see A.Schleicher- ’s grammar, p. 190.”?, Bekeris —§ 4, Sykopos—p. 16, Pajevskis-Gylis —p. 21). In the 19th century, it was believed that there was a large number of skeletons in the area. In the 19th century Samogitian writings we find the already subordinate plural noun of the stem krySiumis, cf. su yr križiumis fell on winter ZP 162, cribs szien and there folded JS 98. Such a suprieveiksméjusj jnagininka is recorded by K. Jaunius (see page 107 of his grammar) and J. Jablonskis (see page 24 of his 1922 grammar). The plural of the iu stem is now inconsistent in dialects, except for the noun of one other word, e.g., sodžiūs (Suv. Kalvarija). It is difficult now to trace the reasons why the plural with stem disappeared faster than u stem. Most likely % See D. Klein, Gramatica Litvanica.., 50, Regiomonti. 1653. 76 The words Karalus a king |Prietelus a friend| Podžus a potter |Kerdžus a shepherd] are regularly declined by many Lithuanians |also the Samaites; because they also in Pl, N. say: tie Karalus |trys Karalus| tie PodZus| tie Kerdžus etc. but of another linsonderheit den Grofilitauen auch unsern Preussischen| werden die Plurales Numeri flectiret gleich wie die Nomina der ersten Declination: Karalei |Podzei| Prietelei, Karalū |Podžū| Prietelū, Kardlems |Pod%ems| Prietelems etc. 77 A. Sleicheris, claiming that nouns with -jus, -ius (czus dZus) have io-kamienę deugiskaita, notes: „die andern, z, b, vaisius, können auch im Plural der u-decl, treu bleiben““, the demise of the iu-kamieno was accelerated by the fact that the equivalent iu and i0 stem nouns could be used side by side, cf. mojus-mojimas R II 403, KW 460 and mojis RI 89, KW 260, myrius-death and myris MLLG I 229, gėrius-gražybė PS I 380 and gėris and others". In our old monuments where we meet; 1) M, Mažvydo raštų singular nominative karalius 2103.,, neprietelis 530,,, 478,,, singular 40 adjective neprieteli neprietelij neprieteli singular pronoun nmeprieteli 53,, neprieteli 223, and so on, next to singular adjective nmeprietelu 581, and so on. 2) B. Vilento raštų singular nominative neprietelis EE 35,,,39, E 54 and neprietelus EE 39, 3) J, Bretkūno,,- Postilės“ singular nominative nmeprietelius and singular adjective neprieteli P I 2975 2494-15, 279, II 220, 221 (2 times), 248, prietel; P II 415 (2 times), singular suffix Lazaru P II 191 (2 times), 332 and Lazari P I 351 (3 times), 261, II 178, 198 (2 times), 522, J. Bretkūno „Biblijos“ singular suffix Karali 2Makk 4, Chron 4, Ravd 2 and karaliu Chron 20, 2 Chron 1, karaliu Chron 26 et al., singular suffix Neprieteli Marth 10, Jud 13, 2 Makk 3, 14 et al. and neprieteliu Tob 8, Jerem 30 (correct101,, 3985, ed to 51831, meprieteli) 411,, et al. 4) sanarius DP 48, 109 et al. and sanarius Mz 586, El4, 15, 17, sanarius BrP I, 128, 189, 238, BrBCor 12 (3 times) et al. The singular of some 70 root nouns, whose singulars $auksmininkas with -au are often used, could have been formed newly according to the root r, cf. artojus, mokytojus, snaudaliai, išganytojus, etc., which are often found in Lithuanian dialects.” In this way, a new group of words could have been formed, combining the singular with-root and the plural io-root. In some dialects of the Lithuanian language, the conjugation of the nouns (i)u and (i)okamieno has come closer to one another due to the specific development of their phonetics. In Eastern Altays and Dzūkijos dialects, due to the transformation of an> ą into un> ų, which is recorded in an anonymous catechism of 1605 and in the writings of K. Širvydas, the singular final forms of the verbs o and « coincided, cf. vaikų <*vaikan and sūnų. As a result, the deforestation has accelerated here. In some dialects, even the singular noun has already an o-stem inflection, e.g. sunas, dlas, mėdas (next to alus, medus, etc.) (Gelvonai, Bagaslaviškis, etc.), as does the noun ratas. The highest point of the hill is a short slope. The short vowels of the word end are dropped here The short word end wu is also dropped. Therefore, the o and the # root singular noun here coincide. plg. sins, tuigs, žmogus (Biržai), tofgs, siins, voFs, liėts, žmogus, mėds, als (Pašvitinys, Šeduva and others). Other # root noun verbs analogously to the noun often also take the o root form, e.g. kilmininka tofga, sina (Pašvitinys) etc. 1 Cf. P. Skardžius, min. veik., 79—80 psl, 79 See P. Jonikas, min, veik., 47. 4)