LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, II

LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

THE DECLINE OF THE NOUN (Ų) DECLENSION

J. KAZLAUSKAS

The disappearance of the ū stem and its influence on the u stem

A distinct declensional type is formed by ū-stem nouns in the ancient Indian, Greek, and Slavic languages. In the Baltic languages, only remnants of the ū declension survive. The only word that has preserved ū-stem forms in some cases is the formerly monosyllabic žuvìs ‘fish’, whose present nominative singular was formed under the influence of other cases in place of *žūs; cf. Greek ἰχθύς¹. In Old Lithuanian texts and still today in dialects, the ū-stem genitive singular form žuvẽs² is used (Linkmenys and elsewhere); cf. Old Church Slavonic svekrъve (nom. svekrъ ‘mother-in-law’—cf. Ancient Indian śvaśrūḥ, Latin socru), Greek ἰχθύος ‘of a fish’, Ancient Indian bhuvaḥ (nom. bhūḥ ‘earth’); nominative plural—žìzves (Svedasai, Leipalingis, and elsewhere), cf. Old Church Slavonic svekrъvi, which arose in place of *svekrъve, Greek ἰχθύες, Ancient Indian bhuvaḥ; genitive plural—žuvų³ (also in the literary language), cf. Old Church Slavonic svekrъvъ, Greek ἰχθύων, Ancient Indian bhuvām. Today in many dialects the i-stem forms žuvìes, žuvys, and even žuvų are already used; the nearly extinct bruvìs,-iẽs⁴ ‘eyebrow’ also belongs to this declension (SzD 18, Tverečius). It arose, like žuvìs, in place of *brūs, gen. *bruvēs; cf. Ancient Indian bhṛūḥ ‘eyebrow’, Greek ὀφρύς, Old Church Slavonic brъvь from *bry (cf. Old Church Slavonic krъvъ ‘blood’ and Old Polish kry, Polabian kroi < kry, Kashubian kry).

No clear polysyllabic words or forms with a ū stem have survived in the Baltic languages. The plural-only pelùs may have had a ū stem; in M. Daukša’s “Postilė” it is feminine: tomìs pėlùmis⁸⁶₁₇, cf. Latvian feminine plural nominative pelus, and the dialectal form peluas, which probably arose on the model of the plural genitive *peluvuon (cf.

¹ On the formal relationship between Lithuanian žuvis and Greek ἰχθύς, see F. Specht, Die Flexion der n-Stämme im Baltisch-Slavischen und Verwandtes, KZ 59, 221, 228, 288. Here and elsewhere, Arabic numerals indicate the page of the cited source. Explanations of all abbreviations are given at the end of the article.

² Cf. gen. sg. žuvies DP 228₄₁, žuvẽs DP 523₅, zuwes PS II 248₂₁, and elsewhere. Here and elsewhere, subscripts in Arabic numerals indicate the line of the cited source.

³ Cf. gen. pl. žuvų DP 299₃₃, 379₁₆, 521₆, žuvũ DP 123₃₂, žuwu PS I 88₂₀, 370₂₅, ₂₈, ßuwu Br P I 234₁₉, 306₆, II 272₆. In the old language monuments, the grapheme ʒ (with diacritical marks) is everywhere rendered by the letter ž, the grapheme ʒ by z, and ʃ by s.

⁴ Cf. also brivai < bruvai MLLG 4, 168 (Zietela), mergelė su juodām brūvelēm (Latakiškė).

2. Kalbotyros klausimai II.

17

Old Church Slavonic svekrъvь, Greek ὀφρύων, etc.), which coincided with the genitive of u-stem nouns. The dative, instrumental, and locative plural of the ū declension have ū-stem forms in Old Church Slavonic, e.g., svekrъvamъ, svekrъvami, svekrъvachъ, which arose on the model of the plural genitive svekrъvь. In this way, the Latvian dialectal plural nominative dzirnuvās may also have arisen; cf. Old Church Slavonic žrьny ‘millstones’, Gothic -qairnus⁵. In terms of form, Latvian plural dative–instrumental pelīm, dzirnīm, ragūm⁶ could also be ū-stems; cf. the Old Indic dual dative–instrumental–ablative vadhūbhyām (singular nominative vadhūḥ ‘woman’), but these may be innovations formed on the model of the stem (avīm)⁷.

The declension of ū-stem nouns has disappeared in the Baltic languages. This was caused by the phonetic merger of certain case forms with the u-stem. The singular and plural accusatives of u- and ū-stems may have merged phonetically early on; cf. the ū-stem singular accusative Old Indic vadhūm, Greek ὀφρύν, Old Church Slavonic liuby (in the expressions liuby dėjati, prėliuby dėjati⁸), and plural accusative Old Indic vadhūḥ, Greek ὀφρύς. The corresponding Lithuanian forms must have been: singular accusative *pelūn, plural accusative *pelūs. After long vowels were shortened in tautosyllabic sequences with n and in acute word endings, the case forms in question developed into forms identical to those of the u-stem; cf. singular accusative *sūnun, plural accusative *sūnuns > sūnus. Once the most frequently alternating singular and plural accusative forms had become identical, the mixing of these stems began. In the plural nominative, the ū-stem form pelūs was generalized < *peluves; cf. Old Church Slavonic *svekrъve, Old Indic śvaśruvaḥ, Greek ϝψῡές, etc., because it better fitted the overall noun declension system; cf. plural nominatives rankās, žemės, avīs and plural accusatives rankas, žemes, avis. The old ū-stem form was ousted. It is still found today in some Lithuanian dialects. In the vicinity of Debeikiai and west of Alunta, plural nominatives lietaus, sūnaus, pietaus, gražaus, smulkaus, etc. are used⁹. The ending -aus developed from Baltic -*aves; cf. Old Church Slavonic synove, while -*aves arose in place of Indo-European -*eves; cf. Greek πῆχεες, Gothic sunjus, Old Indic sūnavah, most likely under the influence of the plural genitive *sūnavon (cf. Old Church Slavonic synovъ).

With the emergence of the disyllabic plural nominative sūnus, the plural genitive was also remodeled. Instead of *sūnavon, *sūnun was formed on the model of other stems, analogously to *vyrųon, *rankuon, *akmenuon, etc., alongside the plural nominatives vyrai, rankės, akmenės, etc. It is unlikely that the plural genitive in the Baltic proto-language could have had -*ōn, as J. Endzelīns¹⁰ assumes, since the plural nominative -aus < *aves could have arisen only under the influence of the plural genitive -*avon.

⁵ See J. Endzelīns, Latviešu valodas gramatika (hereafter — Gramatika), 449, Rīgā, 1951.

⁶ Many Indo-Europeanists hold this view; cf. J. Schmidt, Die Pluralbildungen der indogermanischen Neutra... 67, Weimar, 1889; F. Specht, Zur litauischen Nominalflexion, IF 42, 295, etc.

⁷ See J. Endzelīns, Gramatika, 448.

⁸ Cf. A. Селищев, Старославянский язык, 2, 111, Москва, 1951; H. ван-Вейк, История старославянского языка (hereafter — История...), 258, Москва, 1957.

⁹ See also MLLG 4, 426; K. Būga, Kalbos dykai, 16, Kaunas, 1909; A. Baranowski—F. Specht, Litauische Mundarten, 2, 106, Leipzig, 1922; F. Specht, Zur litauischen Nominalflexion, IF 42, 293.

¹⁰ See J. Endzelīns, Gramatika, 448.

18

The other cases were generalized on the model of the u-stem (for the singular dative, see below). The ū-stem forms were displaced by u-stem forms, which paralleled the i declension: their short stem-final u corresponded to the respective i-stem case forms; cf. singular nominative sūnus — ugnis, genitive sūnaus — *ugneis, accusative *sūnun — *ugnin, instrumental sūnumi — ugnimi, locative *sūnuo — *ugnie; plural nominative sūnūs — ugnys, dative sūnumus — ugnimus, instrumental sūnumis — ugnimis, locative sūnusu — ugnisu¹¹.

Convergence of (i)u- and (i)o-stem nouns

The u-declension was not numerous in the Indo-European languages. Consequently, it was affected by the stronger o-, ā-, and i-declension types. In Greek, u-stem nouns are found that shifted to the o-stem, cf. υἱός in Classical Greek in place of υἱύς¹². In Latin, the u-declension was strongly influenced by the o- and i-declensions¹³. In the Celtic languages it was likewise influenced by the i-declension¹⁴. In the Germanic languages, the u-declension began to disintegrate at the beginning of the historical period of the Germanic languages¹⁵, under the influence of the o-, i-, and ā-declensions. The decline of the u-declension in the Slavic languages began already in Proto-Slavic¹⁶.

The decline of the declension of u-stem nouns was caused by phonetic factors. For example, in the Slavic languages the singular nominative and accusative forms of u- and o-stems merged very early: Indo-European -us (cf. Sanskrit -uḥ, Greek -υς, Lithuanian -us, Latin -us) and -um (cf. Sanskrit -um, Greek -υν, Latin -um, Lithuanian -ų) became -ъ in Slavic. As a result of phonetic changes, the same ending also arose in the singular nominative and accusative of Slavic o-stems¹⁷. This led to the leveling of u-stem nouns and their shift to the stronger o-declension. In the oldest monuments of the Slavic languages, u-stems are often declined like o-stems, cf. singular genitive syna, dative synu, locative vьršė — ‘above’, etc. In the Slavic languages we find only traces of iu-stem nouns in the singular vocative, cf. mǫžiu, koniu, etc.¹⁸, and perhaps also in the singular dative, cf. mąževi.

In the Baltic languages, as in Slavic, and also partly in Germanic and Latin, u-stem nouns are disappearing by shifting to the o-stem. The Prussian language

¹¹ For the singular locative, plural accusative, etc., see below.

¹² See P. Chantraine, Historical Morphology of the Greek Language, 78, Moscow, 1953.

¹³ See A. Ernout, Historical Morphology of Latin, 78, Heidelberg, 1920.

¹⁴ See G. Lewis and H. Pedersen, A Concise Comparative Grammar of the Celtic Languages, 214, Moscow, 1954.

¹⁵ See E. Prokosch, Comparative Grammar of the Germanic Languages, 214, Moscow, 1954.

¹⁶ Cf. A. Meillet, The Common Slavic Language, 330, Moscow, 1951. A. Shakhmatov, Historical Morphology of the Russian Language, 20, Moscow, 1957; N. van Wijk, History..., 241.

¹⁷ Cf. A. Meillet, The Common Slavic Language, 330, Moscow, 1951; A. Shakhmatov, Historical Morphology of the Russian Language, 20, Moscow, 1957; N. van Wijk, History..., 241.

¹⁸ See K. Brugmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (hereafter Grundriss...) 2, 1, 224; W. Vondrak, Vergleichende slavische Grammatik, 2, 5, Göttingen, 1908; A. Meillet, The Common Slavic Language, 333; Selishchev, The Old Church Slavonic Language, 2, 94; F. Fortunatov, Selected Works, 2, 141, 402, Moscow, 1957; L. P. Yakubinsky, History of the Old Russian Language, 161, Moscow, 1953.

19

In the monuments, alongside u-stem forms, o-stem forms are already used as well; cf. sg. nom. sūñs — sūnus, gen. sūnãs (like deivas — dievo), acc. sūnãnan, dangãn — dangų, peckan — galvijus. In earlier monuments of Old Prussian, the u-stem is still more intact than in the last, third catechism¹⁹. The u-declension type is also disappearing in Lithuanian and Latvian. In Latvian, masculine u-stem nouns now already have an o-stem plural²⁰, while iu-stem nouns have disappeared altogether²¹. In Lithuanian, u-stem nouns are likewise disappearing, shifting to the o-stem; their o-stem plural is especially common in dialects. In the literary language, the u-declension is almost intact, whereas the plural of the iu-declension is already io-stem.

The plural, rather than the singular, is disappearing more quickly because o- and u-stems have homonymous plural case forms. Besides the genitive, the accusatives of o- and u-stem nouns have also developed into identical forms. The u-stem plural accusative sūnus developed from *sūnuñs; cf. Sanskrit sūnūn, Cretan Greek υυϝς, Gothic sununs, Old Church Slavonic syny, etc. The development of the o-stem plural accusative vilkus followed different paths in Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects. Samogitians retained the old n in the plural accusative ending for longer²². This is shown by the accusatives of pronominal forms gerūñcius < gerunsius, jūdūñcius < jūodunsius (Kuršėnai), and the Samogitian dounininkai forms baltūsius, gerūsius (Kretinga and elsewhere) < baltunsius, gerunsius, rather than *baltuosių, *geruosių, since in that case we would have here *balousius, etc.; cf. sg. instr. baltuoju < baltūoju. The plural accusative form vīrus, with a narrow u in the ending, itself indicates its recent origin, arising only after the Samogitian u-broadening rule had ceased to operate, since the Kretinga Samogitians broaden the old short u; cf. sg. nom. sūnos. The Kretinga Samogitians also broaden u < uo; cf. sg. instr. vīro < vīru < *vīruo. Consequently, for this reason too, the plural acc. vīrus cannot have developed from *vīruos. The origin of plural acc. vīrus from *vīruns is also indicated by Samogitian plural inessive forms, formed from the accusative and a postposition; cf. galūsi (Kuršėnai), viejējs (Kretinga), etc. < galuns-, viejuns-; cf. L. Ivinskis’s “Genovaitė”²³: anunse amžunse 9, 16, tunse daiktunse 38, kapunse 35, 106, namunse 17, 102, 124, 155, nuludimunse 37, nasrunse 82, kununse 94, metunse 62, 124, rumunse 10, 19, 44, 141, 162, 180, rubunse 13, tarpunsė 49, margunse 83, viduriunse 179, žodunse 121, etc.; kurjunse LChr 321₁₄, ūnsi LChr 323₃₃ (Endriejavas), etc.²⁴

In the Aukštaitian dialect, the plural accusative developed differently: vilkùs < *vilkūos (cf. gerūosius) < *vilkuons < *vilkōns; cf. Sanskrit vṛkā́ṃśa; for -ns, cf. Old Prussian deiwans, dialectal Greek ἀδελφούς, etc.²⁵. Thus, in the Aukštaitian dialect, the accusatives of o- and u-stem nouns could coincide only after *sūnuns had developed into sūnus and *vilkūos into vilkus, that is, after the shortening of long circumflex vowels

¹⁹ See R. Trautmann, Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler, 230 Göttingen, 1923.

²⁰ See J. Endzelīns, Gramatika, 443.

²¹ Cf. J. Endzelīns, Baltu valodu skaņas un formas, 73, Rīgā, 1948.

²² In general, Samogitians retain the old word-final consonants n, m for longer; cf. plural genitives with stressed endings: sūnūn, sūnūm (Kartena), etc.

²³ L. Iwinskis, Genawėje pasaka viena tarp gražiausių..., Wilnuje, 1858.

²⁴ See also F. Kurschat, Grammatik der litauischen Sprache, 150, Halle, 1876; A. Schleicher, Litauische Grammatik, 176, Praga, 1856.

²⁵ Cf. И. Эндзелинъ, Славяно-балтийские этюды, 167, Харьковъ, 1911.

20

of final-word vowels and the diphthongs ie, uo, o in the Samogitian dialect *vilkuons — into *vilkūns.

In K. Būga’s view, the shortening of acute-stress endings in Lithuanian did not occur before the 12th–13th centuries.²⁶ The merger of frequently used plural accusative forms caused the entire plural of the u-stem to shift to the o-stem. The o-stem plural affected the u-stem singular. The merger of the nominative-accusative forms of the dual in the o- and u-stems, for the same reasons, also contributed significantly to the decline of the u-stem; cf. *vilkūo (Gk. ἀδελφώ, Old Indic vrkā(u), Old Church Slavonic ducha) > vilkū and *šūnū (Old Indic sūnu, Old Church Slavonic syny) > šūnu. It is possible that there were somewhat more u-stem nouns in the past, but they all became o-stems. This happened with pėkas ‘livestock’ and kvailys ‘fool’ (Švenčionys); and manašis pėkas (= ‘livestock’) ne smekas (= ‘dragon’)²⁷. The u-stem ledus must also have been used more widely in the past instead of the usual ledas; cf. ledus (Lazūnai), gen. sg. led aus TD VII 173, 174 (Seliniai, Baičiai; Klaipėda region), Latvian ledus, Old Church Slavonic ledъ²⁸ (an o-stem with u-stem forms). Perhaps rytas ‘morning’ was also a u-stem; cf. dialectal Latvian rītus, but because it was frequently used alongside vakaras ‘evening’ (cf. rytas vakaras ‘morning and evening’), it could easily have become an o-stem.

Today there are few u-stem nouns in Lithuanian. A considerable number are widely used, very old Lithuanian words, with cognates in other Indo-European languages, e.g., sūnus ‘son’, cf. Old Church Slavonic synъ, Gothic sunus, Old Indic sūnuḥ, Avestan hūnu, etc.; medus ‘honey’, cf. Latvian medus, Old Prussian meddo < *medu, Old Church Slavonic medъ, Greek μέθυ ‘intoxicating drink’, Old High German metu ‘mead’, Old Indic madhu ‘honey, intoxicating drink’, etc.; vidus ‘inside’, cf. Latvian vidus, Old English widu ‘forest’, Old High German witu ‘forest’, etc.; viršus ‘top’, cf. Latvian virsus, Old Church Slavonic vrьchъ (with the instrumental singular locative vrьchu ‘above’), etc.; perhaps alus ‘beer’²⁹, cf. Latvian alus, Old Prussian alu ‘mead’, Old Church Slavonic olъ, etc.; dangus ‘sky’, cf. Old Prussian dangus; lietus ‘rain’, cf. Latvian lietus; and other borrowed words, e.g., midus ‘mead’³⁰, cukrus ‘sugar’³¹, turgus ‘market’, etc. Others are old u-stem nouns that are now disappearing, e.g., pėkus (Zietela, Žasečiai), cf. Old Prussian pecku, Gothic faihu, Old Indic paśu, Avestan pasu-, Latin pecū, etc. In 16th-century texts pėkus is still common, e.g., nom. sg. pėkus BrP I 224₂₃, pėkus Br P II 464₉, BrB (frequently), pėkus SzD 32, pėkus DP 350₃₁, pėkus DP 349₄₀; gen. sg. pėkaus BrP II 194₁₄, E 13₁₀–₁₁, BrB (frequently), pėkaus DP 428₁₈, pėkaus DP 290₄₀; acc. sg. pėku BrP I 93₁₉, pėku DP 307₁; instr. sg.

²⁶ Žr. K. Būga, Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, I sąs., XXXIII, Kaunas, 1924. Kad XII — XIII a. lietuviai būtų išlaikę ilguosius tvirta pradžius žodžio galo balsius, K. Būgos manymu, rodo iš sen. rusų kalbos pasiskolinti žodžiai storasta, gromata, muka ir muilas (rusų моло), vynas (rusų вино), dyvas (rusų диво). Jeigu lietuvių kalboje tada tvirtapradžiai žodžio galo balsiai būtų sutrumpėję, tai turėtume *muila, *vyna, *dyva, kaip ištariami XIV — XV aa. skoliniai pekla (lenkų piekło), prova (lenkų prawo) ir kt.

²⁷ See J. Būtenas, Švietimo darbas, 48, 1930.

²⁸ See H. Bahr-Bejk, История..., 244; E. Fraenkel, BS 2, 248; KZ 61, 272.

²⁹ See E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (hereafter — Wörterbuch), 8 et seq., Göttingen, 1955.

³⁰ See E. Fraenkel, Wörterbuch, 446; K. Būga, Kalba ir senovė, 65, 218, Kaunas, 1922; P. Skardžius, Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, 55, Vilnius, 1943.

³¹ See E. Fraenkel, Wörterbuch, 70.

21

pēkumì E 15₉, BrB (often), pēkumì DP 40₄₇, etc. An old noun pelūs (Kupiškis, Dusetos, etc.), cf. Latvian pelus (alongside pelavas), Prussian pelvo, Ukrainian polóva, Czech plural pléva, etc.; it too is now disappearing. In sixteenth-century texts it was still used, cf. plural nominative pelus BrP I 119₂₇, plural instrumental pelumis DP 86₁₇, pelumis PS I 82₂₉, etc. In some dialects it was replaced by the o-stem pelai (Nemajūnai, etc.).

The fourth group—used only in isolated dialects—includes, for example, badūs — badger (Leipalingis), šeškūs (Jieznas, Nemajūnai, Kvėdarna, etc.), šeškus (Dusetos), sniegūs (Lazūnai; perhaps formed under the influence of ledus ‘ice’)³², stogus (Biržai, judging from the singular genitive stōgos = stog aus), opšrūs — badger, gelčkūs — yellow cat, jūočkus, kurčkus — deaf, dvāskus — a dried-up person, dribkus — a fat person, pliūrp-kus — chatterbox (Jurbarkas), and so on.

The iu stem is more numerous in Lithuanian³³. Some of its representatives may likewise have passed into the io stem long ago. For example, from the point of view of its formation, žvej as may be an old iu-stem, cf. Lithuanian žvejas: žveja, Samogitian žveju — ‘I fish’, and Old Indic mṛgayuḥ — ‘hunter’: mṛgayā — ‘hunt’; mṛgayate — ‘hunts’. iu-stem may also have been the older stem of vėjas³⁴, cf. singular locative vėjuje, singular vocative vėjau, Old Indic vāyuḥ — ‘wind’.

Development of the singular dative

The present-day Lithuanian singular dative form of u-stem nouns, sūnui, is explained by linguists in very different ways. Some derive it from Indo-European -*evai or -*evei, cf. Old Indic sunave, Old Church Slavonic synovï³⁵; others derive it from *sūnvai, *sūnu-vai, *sūnuvei³⁶. However, it is hardly possible for any of these archetypes to have developed phonetically into sūnui. *sūnvai, -ei could have yielded only *sūnovie, with circumflex -ie; *sūnuvei could have yielded only *sūnuvie. The development *-uvie > *uie > -ui can hardly have occurred. Even supposing it could have, the Samogitian dative *sūnuo and the Gervėčiai sūnuo remain unexplained, since their -uo could not possibly have arisen by the route described.

In N. van Wijk’s view³⁷, the singular dative sūnui arose by adding the ending -i to the stem, on the model of other stems: galvā > galvai ‘to the head’, žemēi žemei ‘to the earth’, *šird(s)i širdi ‘to the heart’; consequently, likewise sūnus: sūnui. In that case, the above-mentioned datives sūnuo again remain unexplained. The Samogitian *sūnuo (dounininkai sūnou, dūnininkai sūnū) and Gervėčiai sūnuo are identical to the dative of the o stem, vaikuo, and undoubtedly arose in the u stem from the o stem, replacing the old u-stem dative forms, traces of which are unattested in the Baltic languages. The o stem will also have supplied

³² See E. Fraenkel, Das im Wilnagebi͡e gesprochene Litauisch BS 2, 48.

³³ See P. Skardžius, work cited above, 76 ff.

³⁴ See J. F. Lohmann, Lithuanian žvejas ‘fisherman’, žveja ‘fishing’=ai. mṛgayuḥ ‘hunter’, mṛgayā ‘hunt’. KZ 57, 241.

³⁵ See J. Schmidt, Die Pluralbildungen der indogermanischen Neutra... 67, Weimar, 1889. O. Wiedemann, Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, 31, 61, Straßburg, 1897.

³⁶ See A. Leskien, Die Bildung der Nomina im Litauischen, 91, Leipzig, 1891. A. Baranowski—F. Specht, Litauische Mundarten, 2, 174. F. Specht, IF 42, 295.

³⁷ See ZfslPh 12, 248.

22

the dative forms of the Aukštaitian dialects with -uⁱ³⁸, -a. The singular dative, being a case used rather rarely, quickly succumbs to the influence of other stems; compare the more rapid disappearance of the old singular dative forms of i-stems, the more rapid loss of the plural dative than the instrumental in u-stem adjectives, and the influence of noun declension on the adjective dative: balui, gerui (Svedasai)³⁹.

Development of the singular instrumental

The old singular instrumental form sūnumi, cf. Old Church Slavonic synъmь, Latvian su-, and the adverbialized instrumental virsum, has survived unevenly in old Lithuanian texts. In some of them, e.g., the writings of M. Daukša and K. Širvydas, only u-stem singular instrumental forms of nouns are used. The strength of the u-stem singular instrumental in the 16th century is shown by the fact that some old texts still have it in u-stem adjectives as well. Such adjectives are especially abundant in M. Daukša’s “Postilė”: apžkrimi 476₃₆, apvalumi 365₅₁, 367₃₆, báisumi 3₁₀, 10₄₀, 94₂₁, 165₃₁, 169₂₈, 384₅₂, 391₁₄, 424₅₁, 477₄₇, biaurumi 482₂₇–₂₈, brágumi 146₂, 182₂₂, 240₁₄, 291₁₇, 429₁₀, 479₉, 553₃₈, 572₄₉, brūgumi 481₂₇, būdrumi 392₃₁, 554₄₄, 35₃₅, dósnumi 84₂₄, 298₂₁, 511₁₈, gáilumi 302₂₇, gąstumi 355₂₈–₂₉, gáusumi 147₄₃, 358₇, 563₂₃, graudumi 177₃₂, 476₃₈, grúbumi 90₄₀, imánumi 161₁, kàntrumi 9₁₆, 178₂₅, kàrtumi 285₂₉, láimumi 86₁₇, 200₄₀, 273₃₉, 349₄₇, 590₃₀, 616₃₂, łapumi 406₃₃, 501₆, lagwumi 219₂₀, ligumi 40₃₃, 79₂₁, 150₄₆, 170₂₅, 244₃₉, 249₃₅, 261₃₄–₃₅, 434₁₃, 438₂₄,₂₆, 448₈, 470₄₀, 482₂₇,₃₇, 517₁₃, lóbumi 355₂₉, malonumi 171₁₉, 250₃₆,₃₇, 347₂₄, 368₃₄–₃₅, 424₅₀, 617₂₁, méilumi 96₂₃, 358₂₉, méilingumi 406₃₄, 389₃₃, méitaširdumi 434₈, métaširdumi 587₂₂, nóbažnumi 609₄₁, paktusnumi 103₁₁, 186₅₁, 210₁₂, 256, 264₁₁–₁₂, 328₄₄, 365₂₄, 465₃, 482₃₈, 501₁, 419₂₆, padórumi 160₃₃, 161₂, patógumi 362₃₄, 407₈, 467₃₄, 478₃₉, 482₃₀, 490₄₃, 495₃₆, pigumi 90₃₉, 264₃₅, 455₄₂, planumi 90₃₀, 270₅, 274₃₄, priežumi 608₈, prįzwalumi 255₂₃, pìtlumi 533₄, rómum 84₂₄, 398₄₄, 422₁₃, 424₅₀, 437₂₃–₂₄, saldumi 101₄, sargumi 35₃₅, skáistumi 332₄₂, smárkumi 62₄₇, 168₄₆, 174₂₇, 191₄₈, 361₄–₅, 384₅₁, stiprumi 234₆, 31₅₃, 277₂₄, 334₁₉, 350₈, 448₃₃, 543₁₈, 607₂, staigumi 499₉, síkumi 191₄₉, 512₁₂, bąkumi 594₆, žviesumi 66₄₂, 152₃₃, 560₃₉, 594₆, tąkumi 367₂₈, teisumi 84₃₇, 120₄₀, 161₄₉, 168₄₆, 171₅, 284₃₉, 310₄₀, 348₂₃, 366₉ (twice), 371₂₇, 424₅₁, 434₈,₂₄₅, 352₃₈, 359₄₁, 393₂₄, 543₁₅, 607₁₉, tiésumi 483₂₂, weikumi 3₁₉, 237₁₄, 15₄₃, žimumi 178₁₉, 355₂₈. No io-stem adjective singular instrumental forms were found here. K. Širvydas’s writings likewise use u-stem forms teysum PS I 25₂₀, teysumi PS I 327₁₆, sotumi PS I 379₂₂, klausumi PS II 216₂₈, 217₇, alongside brungu PS II 214₂₄, brungiu PS I 227₄, II 100₇, 207₄, ipatu PS I 116₁₅, II 137₂₉, 164₅, meylu PS I 37₂₁, 71₁₇, smuku PS I 309₈, žimu PS I 98₂,₂₄₂, gilu PS II 153₁, skalsu PS II 208₁₉, 210₂₃, gausu PS II 210₂₂, plačiu PS I 305₇, tunkiu PS I 360₈, patogiu PS II 87₂₅. They are also common in the 1600 “Margarita Teologika”:

³⁸ Cf. K. Brugmann, Grundriss..., 112, 605.

³⁹ In some Lithuanian dialects (Pandėlys, Kupreliškiai, etc.), singular dative forms dangum, sūnum, medum, turgum, karalum, šaučum, etc. are used. These are instrumental forms used with dative meaning.

23

teisami 61ᵇ, 78ᵇ, 79ᵃ, 84ᵃ, 88ᵇ, 264ᵃ, ischkumi 111ᵇ, 204ᵇ, 208ᵇ, APM 27ᵇ, 27ᵇ, netsiumi 79ᵃ, matczami 113, macsnumi 117ᵇ alongside ischku 112ᵇ, 133ᵃ, stipru 72ᵃ, 98ᵃ. They are found rarely in other old texts; cf.: 1) J. Bretkūnas’s “Biblija”: gražumi Gen. 24, kitum Pred 9, ligumi Jes. Sir 13, teisami Hiob 32; 2) M. Petkevičius’s catechism: biaurum 53₁₈, cistumi 62, neteysum 86, teysumi 62; 3) D. Klein’s writings: baisumi KIM 35, brangumi KIM 114, 178, įpkumi KIG 130. M. Mažvydas, B. Vilentas, and J. Bretkūnas in the “Postilė” do not use u-stem adjective singular instrumental forms at all.

However, in some old written monuments we already find u-stem nouns with an instrumental form analogous to that of o-stem nouns. This form is used in 1) M. Mažvydas’s writings: sunu 45₁₅, žmogų 166₁₈, 153₄, 192₁₀, 204₇, 441₉; 2) B. Vilentas’s writings: sunu E 12,27₁₃ (alongside sunumi (6 times)), Jesu EE 202₁₄ (alongside Jesumi), Christu EE 208₄–₅, 211₁₄ (alongside Christumi); 3) J. Bretkūnas’s “Postilė”: žmogų I 157₂₁, sunu II 88₄, Jesu Kristu II 138₄ (alongside u-stem forms); 4) M. Petkevičius’s catechism: sunu 176₁₉ (alongside sunum 198, 113₂, 215, 226, sunumi 253). A similar situation occurs with the iu-stem singular instrumental, whose form in -iu is rare in old texts; cf. karalu EE 14₇ (alongside karalumi (7 times)), kripu E 33₉, pakau Mž 225₄, sanariu EE 51, sanariu MT 150ᵃ (alongside sanariumi MT 155ᵃ), su schitu bagotiru BrP II 197, su bagotiriu BrP II 200, liekariu BrP I 190 (cf. singular genitive liekoriaus 191), su Lazaru BrP II 200, didziu neprieteliu BrP II 248.

In later writings these instrumental forms occur more often. In M. Olševskis’s 1753 “Broma,” we find alėju 130, 142, likzvoriu 152, neprietelu 212, pleščių, poteru 154 (alongside u-stem forms; cf. ploščiami 69, etc.). J. Jaknavičius’s 1752 “Evangelie polskie i litewskie” has karalu 4 (alongside karalum 51).

They are especially common in Samogitian writings; cf. 1) the 1787 “Živatas”: ciesoriu 179, križiu 218, 221 (alongside the very common križiumi), karalu 189, 190, 192 (twice), 232 (alongside karalumi), kupčiu 132, dangų 32 (twice), Ložoriu 109, prietelu 134, 212, sekretoriu 290, sunu 37, 130, 165 (twice), 234, 252, 288, 296 (alongside the common sunumi), žmogų 304 (alongside the common žmogumi, žvyrssumi); 2) the 1790 “Balso širdies”: sunu 262₅ (alongside sunumi 9, 196₁₁), žmogų 120₈ (alongside žmogumi 257, žmogum 246).

In S. Daukantas’s and M. Valančius’s writings, the overwhelming majority of instrumentals are forms in -(i)u; cf. 1) M. Valančius’s “Istorija”: karalu 75 (twice), 76 (three times), 82, 85, 87, 123, 127, prietelu 114, medu 24, sunu 23, 27; 2) M. Valančius’s “Žemaičių vyskupystė”: popiežiu 46, 120, prokuratoriu 137, sekretoriu 147, sunu 73, 125, wirszu 80, 90 (alongside the rare karalumi 21, etc.); 3) M. Valančius’s “Živatas”: karalu 100, 150, 151, 172, 223, križiu 99, 186, 242, kupčiu 235, ciecoriu 7, 19, 158, 196, 203, litu 29, Messiosziu 183, 225, 256, popiežiu 59, 63 (twice), 153, 156, 171, 176, 201, 219, sunu 93, 174, 211, 243, 270, wirszu 49, 125, 153, 211, žmogų 131, šalnieriu 188 (twice), 200, 221 (alongside the rare žmogumi 69, etc.); 4) S. Daukantas’s “Būdas”: aló 27, 61, qmžio 163, gaspadorio 63, 53, 159, 160, karaló 159, karalió 230, medó 61,

24

midõ 56, 61, skajtlò 34, wirszò 56, 106, 128, 196, wirszù 195, žmógu 160, nebėžmógo 238, doró žmógo 8, 64 (beside the rare litumi 191, etc.).

In dialect texts recorded by A. Baranauskas⁴⁰ we also find instrumental forms in -i(u) of (i)u-stem nouns, cf. dideliu kùpczu 314₃ (Batakiai), sò weinu kùpczu 343₂₇ (Darbenai), budams kòpczò 350₁₁ (Viekšniai), sò žalmiėrò 350₂₁ (Viekšniai), kùpczu 354₂ (Tirkšliai) sù rozòncu 369₂₉ (Kartenai), pastósio gaspadòriò 380₁₃ (Laižuva), noris būtė gaspadòriò 380₁₉, būte žalmiėrio 381₅ (Laižuva), bõwa dorniò wadinams 396₁₉ (Salantai), swiets dòrniò wadın 400₇ (Salantai), sositkti sù kūkóriu 383₅ (Grinteliškė), sù kūkóriu 383₂₈ (Grinteliškė), sò karàl 131₂₉, 132₁₀ (Klovainiai), sò gaspadòr’ 141₅₆₇ (Pakruojis), būwa didž bagòcz (Pušalotas), su sawa tavòrczu (Kruopiai), su karàlu 270₂₅ (Pakapė), sù karàlu 184 (Joniškis), 198₁₇ (Krakės), karàlù 199₁₀ (Krakės), pò pàczu 200₂, 204₂₂ (Grinkiškis), su kraùczu 207₃₂ (Pagiriai), būt kùpczù 210₃₄, kùpczù 211₃ (Pagiriai), tókìu bagòczù 211₂₀ (Pagiriai), manì karàlì statyt’ 217₂₇ (Naujamiestis), nèprietelì 215₂₅ (Šeduva), pakàju 116₂₉ (Papilė), iszėjė su suno 351₁ (Viekšniai), su sūnu (Kriukai), sò sūn 141₆₇ (Pakruojis), sunì 81₂₄ (Vabalninkas), súni 88₆ (Biržai), su liėtu 266₂₁ (Radviliškis), žmógu 354₅ (Tirkšliai), žmógu 356₂₀ (Telšiai).

Nowadays a large part of the Samogitian dialect (all Dounininkai and others) uses only the latter instrumental forms, cf. kàralo, tòrgo, sūno, vėršo (Kretinga, Sėleniai, Salantai, Mosėdis, etc.). The singular instrumental forms of the u-stem are still used in some Dūnininkai subdialects bordering the Aukštaitians, cf. kėrdžome, sūnome (Laukuva dialect), rãčum, sūnūm (Pagramantis dialect)⁴¹, sūnum (Šaukėnai), alum (Eržvilkas), ūmžum, spīt̄lum, sūnum, dungum (Kuršėnai), etc.

In the eastern and central Aukštaitian and Dzūkian dialects, both forms (with -(i)um and -(i)u) are often used alongside one another, cf. turgum||turgù, sūnum||sūnù, pūodzum||pūo-dzù (Linkmenys), sūnu||sūnum, madù||madùm (Skapiškis), sūn||sununù, tùrg, žmòg||žmògum, vòlì||vòlìnum (Biržai), sūnu, alum, medum, sùkčù (Gelvonai), sū-nu||sununù, liėtu||liėtum, medum, dungum (Palomenė), sūnu||sununù, alù||alùm, medù||medùm, dùngu||dungum (Raguva), tùrgu, liėtu, skìru (Palėvenė), etc. In the subdialects of the Mūša basin, instrumentals in -um are no longer found, cf. tòrg, sūn, vòrš, pėč, ãmž (Pašvitinys, Vaškai, Šeduva, etc.).

The singular instrumental form of the u-stem has been best preserved in the western Aukštaitian dialect.

Some linguists⁴² attempt to connect the singular instrumental in -u of Lithuanian u-stem nouns with Avestan -ī. But this form is readily explained as an innovation that arose on the model of the singular instrumental of the o-stem. The shift of the plural of the u-stem to the o-stem also brought about the decline of the singular of the u-stem. Words such as alus, medus, which have no plural, retain the u-stem singular instrumental form longer in the dialects as well. The singular instrumentals in -u are not attested in large numbers in the monuments of our old language

⁴⁰ See A. Baranowski — F. Specht, Litauische Mundarten, 1, Leipzig, 1920.

⁴¹ See P. Jonikas, Pagramančio tarmė, 46, Kaunas, 1939.

⁴² See A. Baranowski — F. Specht, Litauische Mundarten, 2, 76.

25

of ancient origin, since the convergence of the u- and o-stems took place before the beginning of our written tradition. In old monuments we also find singular instrumental forms of the (i)o-stem formed on the model of the u-stem, cf. Dievumi PK 12₁₉, 28₂₀–₂₁, 240 (alongside Dievu), kraujumi MT 99₅–₆, 120ᵇ, 130ᵇ, 152ᵇ, 153ᵃ, 158ᵃ, 166ᵃ, 203ᵃ, 207ᵇ, 250ᵃ, 251ᵇ, 122ᵇ (twice), 158ᵇ, APM 3ᵇ32ᵃ, Ponum PK 110, 112 (alongside Ponu), Brolumi K1 M 70₁₂. We also find such innovations in later written sources, cf. tuomi ponu wel ponumi Univ. 5; Dievwm Jass P I 110₂₇, tiewum Jass P I 28₇, Tewumi Jass P I 176₁₈, etc., broliomi DB 161, ežerum ŽW 134, Diewumi ŽS 78 (twice), su wiskupum ŽW 74, etc.

Thus, there is no basis for comparing the Lithuanian u-stem singular instrumental in -u with the Avestan instrumental in -ū. The Latvian singular instrumental in -u can likewise readily be explained as an innovation⁴³.

In the singular, the u-stem was strongly influenced by the o-stem in the instrumental, but not in another case (apart from the dative), because the new instrumentals in -u fit better with the overall declensional system of Lithuanian nouns; cf. singular instrumental sūnu and singular accusative sūnų, singular instrumental ranka, žeme, širdžia, vaiku and singular accusative ranką, širdį, žemę, vaiką.

Development of the singular locative

Today, in almost all Lithuanian dialects except Samogitian, the u-stem singular locative has forms such as turguj, viršuj, etc. These have evolved from the longer forms turguje, viršuje. This form is used throughout M. Daukša’s “Postilė,” cf. daguie 195₄₄, dąguie 203₃₉, 255₄₂, 548₂₃, dąnguie 253₂₀, dąnguie 222₂₉, dąguia 470₁₉, pakāuie 543₁₁, tūrguie 220₄₂, tūrguie 92₃₉, widuie 293₁₈, etc., and in the 1600 “Margarita Theologica,” cf. sunuie 2ᵇ, 12ᵇ, 14ᵇ, etc. (about 90 such locative forms in all). However, shortened forms are already found alongside the long forms in monuments of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Of the 22 singular locatives in M. Daukša’s 1595 catechism, only one still has a shortened form: dągui 61₂₉. In Bretkūnas’s writings, although the long forms are still more frequent, shortened ones also occur often, cf. danguie BrP I 10, 21, 312, 345 and dangui BrP I 61, 10, 411, etc. Here, only the adverbialized locatives widui, wirschui have shortened forms more often. The long forms are more frequent in D. Klein’s “Prayer Books,” while the shortened forms are already used more often in the “New Hymn Books” (apparently in many cases for metrical reasons). In M. Mažvydas’s writings, shortened forms are more frequent, cf. dangui (about 17 times), dangugi (twice), danguie (once), and so on. Only shortened forms are used in M. Petkevičius’s 1598 catechism and in K. Sirvydas’s “Punktai sakymų.” Shortened forms are also more frequent in the 1653 Kėdainiai publications.

All this shows that the locative form began to shorten quite early, before the beginning of our written tradition. Shortening occurred at different times in the various Lithuanian dialects and is not a regular phonetic change, but a change driven by the declensional system: since the most frequently used cases had one fewer syllable, the singular locative, and also the instrumental, gradually came into line with them, dropping the short final vowels e and i.

⁴³ Cf. J. Endzelins, Gramatika, 444.

26

The origin of the locative danguje is explained in various ways. F. Specht regards this form as an innovation, formed by analogy with ū-stem forms: -ūmi: -umi, -ūmus: -umus, -ūmis: -umis, -ūset -use; thus -uje may have arisen alongside -ūje⁴⁴. However, there are no clear traces of these ū-stem cases in Lithuanian, and the form in -ūje apparently occurs nowhere today in Lithuanian dialects⁴⁵. In N. van Wijk’s view, this form most likely arose by analogy with the dative in -ui, according to the proportion *mergai: *mergaien = sūnui: x⁴⁶. In that case, the question arises why no locative *namuje was formed alongside the singular dative namui.

The old Lithuanian singular locative form is generally clarified by the singular adessive. The u-stem singular adessive forms are still abundantly used in old Lithuanian monuments. They are particularly numerous in M. Daukša’s writings, cf. Jésup DP 483₁₆, DK 81₂, altōriup DP 296₁₀, 443₃₅, 539₅₁, 547₃₄, 551₁₃, Esaiofiup, Isaiofiup DP 14₁₃, 109₁₉,₂₉, 253₄₁, 257₄₁, 259₃₁, 260₄₂, 261₄₅, 620₄₆, Christup DP 327₂₈, 348₉, 540₁₀, 615₁₂, DK 101₁₇, 81₂, Jeremiófiup DP 60₄,₁₁, 208₂₅, 508₁₉, Ambraziejiup DP 369₃₃, Kaiphojiup DP 167₂₁, 169₄₈, karātup DP 237₄, Lukojiup DP 6₃, 12₃₂, 18₄₀, 25₂₃, 81₈, 101₄₄, 141₂₉,₃₂, 193₂₁, 211₂₄, 274₇, 287₃₅, 293₁₄, 373₃₂, 391₈, 426₂₉, 437₃₉, 461₃, 470₅₀, 476₃, 488₁₄, 491₄₁, 495₁₃, 552₂, 556₃₀, 562₁₆, 571₃, 618₈, Mōrkup DP 75₃₇, 100₂₇, 142₄₆, 347₂₇, Neemiófiup DP 340₂₈, sunup DP 355₃₀, 442₁₈, sunup sawap DK 58₂, 59₁₀, Tobiōfiup DP 108₂₆ 196₂, 214₅₂, tānciup DP 440₁₅, žmōgup DP 255₃₅, 287₉, 315₂₉, 322₂₈, 327₂₇, 344₅₁, 371₄₂, 477₁₈. Such adessive forms also occur in other old monuments, cf. 1) in M. Mažvydas’s writings: Matheupi 23₄, 24₉, Markupi 24₁₄, 2) in B. Viento’s writings: Mottheupi E 24₈, Marcupi E 25₁, 3) in M. Petkevičius’s catechism: sunup tawo milampe 198, sunup 30, 4) in the 1600 “Margarita Theologica”: Lukoschup 156₆, Morkup 123₄, 5) in the 1605 anonymous catechism: mietup sunup 59₁₁, 6) in the 1653 “Suma”: sunup 129₃₀, sunup sawampi 137₂–₃, tamp’ žmōgup’ 257, 7) in the 1653 “Christian Prayers”: sunup savo milamp’ 62, sunup savo numiletamp 33, etc. Judging from the singular adessive forms žmogur, etc., used today in the vicinity of Gervėčiai⁴⁷, the ending -up of the adessive forms in old linguistic monuments must have been pronounced short⁴⁸. The adessive žmōgup, like the inessive žmoguje, should have been formed from the old locative *žmāgu and a postposition. Could a locative *žmāgu have existed at some time in the Baltic languages?

The Samogitian dialect has preserved the old singular locative of u-stem nouns, derived from Proto-Indo-European *-ō(ž); cf. Old Church Slavonic synu, Old Indian sūnau, and Samogitian *turg uoje (dounininkai torgou and dūnininkai tōrgū). This form is used in S. Daukantas’s “Būdas,” cf. amžiuonie (frequently), danguouie 81, 91, 82, 102.

⁴⁴ See F. Specht, Zur litauischen Nominalflexion, IF 42, 295. Earlier, see Lit. Mundarten, 2, 97, Specht regarded the ending -uje as wholly obscure: “völlig unklarbar bleibt nur die Kürze in dem Loc. Sg. der u-Stämme”.

⁴⁵ It is true that F. Kuršaitis gives locatives in -ūje in his grammar. J. Jablonskis gives them too; see Ryg iškių Jonas, Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 24, Vilnius, 1922.

⁴⁶ See ZfslPh 12, 250.

⁴⁷ See A. Laigonaitė, Pašalio vietininkai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje. Kai kurie lietuvių kalbos gramatikos klausimai (Straipsnių rinkinys), 26, Vilnius, 1957.

⁴⁸ F. Specht, see Litauische Mundarten, 2, 96 and IF 42, 295, incorrectly considers it possible to regard -up as long. N. van Wijk takes the correct position in treating -up as short; see ZfslPh 12, 249.

27

(2 times), 174, 199, dagoji 99, klosztoriuje 27, pakajuje 102, 160, Paryžiuje 239, walstiuoje 167, Wilniouie 103, 242, 231, Wilniouji 70, in M. Valančius’s “Živatai”: danguoje 44, 65, danguoj 192, in L. Ivinskis’s “Genovaitė”: danguoje 107, 110, 129⁴⁹, etc. The Latvian Aukšzemnieki dialect also has locative forms in -uo⁵⁰. Thus the old Baltic singular locative form of the u-stem is *sūnuo. With a postposition attached to it, the form *sūnuoje arose, which, through shortening, developed into Latvian Augšz. sūnuo and Lithuanian Žem. *sūnuo.

The u-stem locative had an acute ending. This is shown by the present-day stress patterns in the Slavic languages; compare Russian саду (gen. sg. сада), берегу (gen. sg. берега), Serbian саду (gen. sg. сада), etc. ⁵¹ The Baltic singular locative, too, must have been *sūnuo. After the postposition was attached, the falling-tone uo could not be shortened: thus Žem. *sūnuo < *sūnuoje arose. Alongside the postpositional form *sūnuoje, the non-postpositional *sūnūo may also have existed for some time; as long falling-tone vowels shortened at the end of a word, it must have developed into *sūnu. That non-postpositional forms could also exist alongside postpositional locatives is shown by the u-stem plural locative forms in Lithuanian dialects⁵². Moreover, the fusion of the postposition with the word itself did not take place all at once, but was a complex process that probably lasted quite a long time, much as the process by which a simple adjective fused with a pronoun to form a single word—a pronominal adjective—was also complex⁵³. Following the example of locatives in other stem classes, the form *sūnu apparently also changed to sūnuje. This form became established in the Aukštaitian dialects, since its short stem-final u fitted well there with the singular illative sūnuna and the i-stem singular locative avyje. If so, there is no need to explain the singular adessive sūnup as having arisen under the influence of consonant declension⁵⁴. It may have developed from the locative *sūnu with a postposition attached, or have been newly formed on the pattern of the inessive sūnuje and illative sūnuna.

The u-stem singular locative is a fairly stable case. The singular locative is most often used with the words vidus ‘inside’ and viršus ‘top’; the singular locative is also used fairly often with words such as dangus ‘sky’, medus ‘honey’, etc. For this reason, locatives that shifted to the o-stem are less common. In old texts, o-stem forms are almost never used⁵⁵; compare only mieliausiami suni sawo PS II 206₈, dangie KnN 18₁₉

⁴⁹ Of course, all these forms are hypercorrections. In the nineteenth century, the Samogitians had undoubtedly shortened the locatives.

⁵⁰ See J. Endzelins, Gramatika, 444.

⁵¹ See А. Шахматов, Историческая морфология русского языка, 250; А. Мейе, Общеславянский язык, 332; H. Hirt, Indogermanische Grammatik, 5, 146, Heidelberg, 1929.

⁵² See p. 37, etc.

⁵³ See Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių kalbos įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių istorijos bruožai, 5 ff. Vilnius, 1957.

⁵⁴ See N. van Wijk, Die pronominalen Adessivformen des Altlitauischen, APh 4, 47; ZfslPh 12,249.

⁵⁵ Old texts also occasionally contain singular locatives of u-stem adjectives; compare 1) M. Daukša’s “Postilė”: ajbkume 596₆, apgalame 134₇, bragume 197₄₅, laimume 353₈₃, 573₂₆, bwiesume 596₆, wėikume 582₅₃; 2) the 1600 “Margaritos Teologikos”: baisume sturme 249ₐ; 3) M. Petkevičius’s catechism: sunkum trofškume 65₁, sunkume gundime 141; 4) J. Bretkūnas’s writings: brangume (in the margin, instead of brangeme in the text) Judic 5, gilume Ps 69, Drach 32, gražume Ps 45, ligume (corrected from -ame) Luk 23, ligume prafšuidime BrP I 390₁₅, stiprume (corrected to stiprame) Ps 31; 5) D. Klein’s writings: brangume czese KIG 384, sunkume uriede KIM 4.

28

and the adessive suniep Su 133₁₀⁵⁶. In contemporary Lithuanian dialects, even the inessive often has an o-stem form. In the texts collected by A. Baranauskas we find: dungį 74₂₄ (Vabalninkas), sodžį 81₇ (Vabalninkas), pakūjį 98₁₇ (Krinčinas), Vilni 109₅ (Subačius). Samogitians often use o-stem forms alongside older u-stem forms, cf. veršė, šūnė (Šelniai, Mosėdis, etc.). In Aukštaitian dialects, especially Northern Aukštaitian, o-stem forms are also used: turgį, liėti (Palėvenė), tūrgi, dūngį (Raguva), turgį|turgų (Skapiškis), cūkri (Gelvonai), tōrgį||tōrgu, sōdž||sōdžu (Šeduva), tōrgį, šūnį, verš (as well as vīr) (Pašvitinys, Vaškai), and so on.

In old texts we find o- and io-stem nouns with u-stem forms: Diewui este priglausti Mž 188₁₇, diewuie BrB Colos 3, Diewuie BrB Thes 1₂, 2 Thes 1, Juda 1, Diewui (perhaps vocative) MT 17ᵃ, Ponnie BrB Joel 2, Sach 10, Jes 61, Tewuie MT 39ᵃ, Tiewuie BrB 1 Thes 1₃, 2 Thes 1, 1 Josan 2, Juda 1. Inessives of the o-stem formed on the model of the u-stem are also found in later writings, cf. Diewuje Jass P I 164₄ and so on, diewuje GN Matth 27, 43, Joh 3, 21, kialuje GN Mork 10, 32, 35 (alongside kialieje), kraujuje, mieguje GN Luk 22, 20, Matth 1, 20, pilwuje GN Matth 12, 40, tewuje GN Joh 10, 38, 14₁₀, 11, 20, and so on. Some may have been formed according to the u-stem because the inessives of personal names are not uncommon (cf. dieve, pone, etc.), and the inessive danguje is frequent in old texts; others may have arisen in particular dialects alongside longer inessive forms in -je of other stems (ā, ē, ī), cf. miškui, ąžuolui, sviestui (Pandėlys).

Singular vocative

The singular vocative of the (i)u-stem, sūnau, kerdžiau, cf. Old Church Slavonic synu, męžiu, Old Indian sūno, also influenced the singular vocative of some Lithuanian io-stem nouns. In Lithuanian, such an iu-stem singular vocative is found in nomina agentis with the suffixes -tojas, -ėjas. Already in 16th–17th-century Lithuanian monuments, io-stem singular vocative forms of these nouns are rare, cf. Gelbetoje KIG 530 (twice), 531, atpirkėie DK 132₂₈, ižganitoie DK 132₂₈, ižganitoie DP 157₃₁, Mokitoie DP 287₄₄, skaititoie DP 467₁₆, and so on.⁵⁷ Vocatives with -au are much more frequent here, cf. M. Mažvydas: atpirktojau 425₁₈, 553₅, atpirktoyau 152₅, atpirktoiau 175₇, Apgintoiau 483₂, gelbetouau 565₂, 566₁₅–₁₆, 566₄, giebetouau 426₂₃, moki-toiau 426₁, 419₁₀, Sutwertoi au 175₅; J. Bretkūnas: tirtai au BrP I 415, and so on; M. Daukša: atgīditaie u DK 139₁₆₉, Daritoiau DK 123₂₃, Giditoieau DK 128₂₃, Izganitoiau DK 127₂₀, mitetoieau DK 149₁₂, Sutwėréieau DK 139₁₆, and so on; M. Petkevičius: atgaywintoi au 222, abgineiau 117₃, atpirkiejau 203, Gintoiau 37, gialbetoiau 146, rupintoiau 54, Sutwereiau 144, and so on; D. Kleinas: Apgin-

⁵⁶ In Gervėčiai, Lazūnai, and Zietela, o-stem singular adessive forms are now more common, cf. sūniek (Gervėčiai), and so on; see A. Laigonaite, Pašalio vietininkai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje. Kai kurie lietuvių kalbos gramatikos klausimai (straipsnių rinkinys), 26.

⁵⁷ For the corresponding Latvian vocatives mācītāj, kalēj see J. Endzelīns, Gramatika, 398, and so on.

29

toiau KIM 76, KIG 62, Atpirkto jau KIM 73, KIG 1, 396, 596, 617, Gelbėto jau KIM 111, 122, KIG 45, 98, Išganyto jau KIM 31, 29, 58, 111, 116, 88, KIG 63, 393, Išlaikyto jau KIM 77, Linksminto jau KIG 426 (twice), Pérgaleto jau KIM 51, 52, and so on.

Why did the singular vocative of the vanishing iu-stem influence io-stem nouns? The singular vocative of the (i)u-stem is generally well preserved; o-stem forms are rare but do occur, cf. sunai KIG 339, žmãge (Tverečius), sūn, sūne (= ai, Linkuva). There are very many iu-stem nouns, most commonly denoting nomina agentis and animate beings, cf. basius, bedžius, dainius, bambalius, išminčius, juodžius, drignius — a restless person, driskius, druskius — a lover of salt, duonius, ėdalius, galvočius, kerdžius, kuprius, kušlius, murzius, purvius, seilius, sermėgius, skarmalius, raganius, skurdžius, slunkius, snarglius, sukčius, terlius, and so on.⁵⁸ The old vocative of nouns with the suffixes -tojas, -ėjas may have been confused with the feminine vocative in -toja, -ėja, cf. mokytoje and mokytoje (<-a)⁵⁹. To avoid homonymy, the old masculine vocative may have been replaced by the frequently used iu-stem vocative form. For analogous reasons, the iu-stem form also replaced the vocative of io-stem nouns in the Slavic languages.⁶⁰

From these nouns, the iu-stem vocative form may also have spread to other io-stem nouns, cf. the folk-song forms dievuliau, tėvuliau, brołiau⁶¹, bróło (Linkuva), berniãlio (= iau) L Chr 339₈ (Pumpėnai), biarnužėlio L Chr 347₃₉, 348₂₀, biarniãlio L Chr 348₁₁, 349₁ (Naujamiestis), ožio (= iau) alongside oži, oži (Raguva), vélni au (Alunta).⁶²

Development of the plural nominative

In old monuments of the Lithuanian language, nouns with a iu stem still also have a iu-stem plural nominative form. In K. Širvydas’s “Punktai sakymų,” karalius, gėrius, ceklerius, neprietelius, prietelius, valsčius, etc. have only the iu-stem plural nominative form: ceklerius PS II 159₇, gierius PS I 301₄₂, II 106₁₂, karalus PS I 167₁₉, 253₁₇, II 99₈, 147₆,₈, 150₉, 202₁₅, neprietelus PS II 222₂₄–₂₅, 230₃,₃₃, walscius PS I 301₂₂, prietelus PS II 6₁₅, Wilnius PS I 50₆, zie gorius PS I 184₂₈. Only the plural nominative senotariey PS II 161₂₀, sunariey PS II 228₃ have io-stem forms. In M. Daukša’s “Postilė,” iu-stem plural nominative forms are likewise used: sūkas Adwersō-

⁵⁸ Cf. P. Skardžius, cited work, 76 et seq.

⁵⁹ Cf. F. Sommer, Der litauische Vokativ brolau und Verwandtes, IF 42, 324; E. Fraenkel, KZ 61, 271.

⁶⁰ See A. Шахматов, Историческая грамматика русского языка, 23.

⁶¹ See Rygiškių Jonas, Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 19.

⁶² The singular vocative brolau, which is already used in 16th-century monuments, see BrP II 156, 245, 291, 294, 489, alongside broli BrP I 313, 284, 166, 262, II 292, etc., was probably formed on the model of sūnau, see Sommer, IF 42, 323 et seq.; E. Fraenkel, KZ 54, 291. The vocative duk tau was formed analogously to the kinship terms mentioned; cf.: O dūktau, dūktau, dukrele JLD 877₁₆, Vincau (Leipalingis); following the example of broliau, dievuliau, etc., širdžiau arose; cf. Patė manų, širdžiau manų JLD 495₁. On gaidau, frequently found in Donelaitis’s writings, see E. Fraenkel, Wörterbuch, 128.

30

rių 139₁₉, patį Adwersōrius 193₁₀, Adwersōrius klepōcie 193₄₉; blūżnierius prakeikti 345₂₁, kiti blūżnierius 444₁₆, tie blūżnierius 469₄₆, blūżnierius… kurie netiki 232₂₂–₂₃; jaunieji blūżnierius 239₄₁, didieji Ciēsorius 323₃₁₂, wissi draugia Karālųs ir Ciēsorius 15₁₀–₁₁, stiebai, arba filōrius 14₃₀, falpius, wīlei 276₅₃₂, kiti paklaidunai kacierius 44₂₁, kaciērius… uβmuβineia 246₂₃, tegi nenaikin kaciērius galβes 255₂₃; kiti karālus 3₇, 4₁, karālus 4₆, karālus ir didieji kunigaikβczey 59₁₃, Karālus Tharso ir Sātos 59₁₄, βitie karālus 62₄₃, aniē βwentiei karālus 323₁₃, aniē didieji… karālus 323₂₁–₂₂, Tris karālus 409₁₆–₁₇, muczelnikai yra labesneis neg Karālus 539₂₁–₂₂, Karālus ir kunigāikβczei 539₂₂, Karālus Kunigāikβczei 208₂₃, wissi draugia Karālus ir Ciēsorius 15₁₀–₁₁, prāmāpai ir karālus 321₄₄, wissi karālus 504₁, trys Karālus 62₄₂, karālus Arābų ir Sabos 59₁₅, karālus 59₁₈, piktāβirdżei karālus 99₅₁, tris karālus 266₅₀, Karālys żemēs 203₃₉, kiti Karālys 212₉, βwenti karalus 503₃₂, βitie Karālys 59₂₀; gentes arba prietelus 382₃₄, nekurie prietelus 485₃₃, brōlei ir prietelus io 229₄₂, βwętieji, o prietelus 343₃₀, aniē didieji prietelus 222₄₅, o neprietelus regēdami 155₁₃, pikti Popieżius 505₇₂, nekurie pōpieżius 50₄₈, tancius yra tūli 71₃₂, tancius, pūtos 472₅₃; sanarīus… rūpinas wieni apē kitūs 547₄₉, wissi sanarius 548₁, kiti sanarius 559₃₀, 568₄₈, mes sanarius 145₄₃, mes sanarius io 604₄₇, sanarius yra Bākos 606₁₅, kur galwā, ten ir sanarius bus 229₄₁, auglus sanārus 306₃₁, kiti sanarius 109₂₂; ney panāczey, ney reteżius 18₂₄–₂₅; kiti skaiczius 611₃₆, sakramentōrius 343₁₅–₁₆, wisi ir czebatōrius ir siūwike 142₃, evekutatai ir βeforius 156₃, eikwotoiei arba βeforius 388₃₇, paloczīus 448₂₇, priwadzieie sektōrius 84₄₂, o βio mēto sektorius wel’ tiki 344₂₂, kiti sektōrius 219₂₇, ne iβtikimēii Thambōbius 402₄₇–₄₈; wissi wīlus 125₅₀, wīlys ir papikcinimai 373₁₁, kokie waisius 513₉, yra wertus waisius nūżaminimo 513₂₁, pikti wāisius 285₂₉; żolnierius ne karunawōie 153₃₄, aniē βarwinikai żalnierius 156₅₀, żalnierius io, kuriē 181₃₇, żalnierius ii nukriżewōio 172₁₂, żalnierius tatāi padare 172₂₀, żalnierius priejidamēs 172₂₁, żalnierius stōras tos 168₇, of io-stem nouns M. Daukša uses only a few iu-stem plural nominative forms: Tātōrei 51₃₈, Totōrei 467₆, Totōrei 572₃₈–₃₉, sanariei 8₉, sanarei 527₁₃, 572₄₇, 229₄₇–₄₈, wīlei 276₅₃, wilai 301₃₂, wilai 324₃₅. Only iu-stem plural nominative forms are used in M. Petkevičius’s 1598 catechism: (ne) prietelius 67₁₄, 87₂₀, 88, 89₁₀, 99, 162₅, ricierus 86, stalcius 92. The iu-stem plural nominative is well preserved in J. Morkūnas’s “Postilė,” where the nominatives bagočius, karaliūs, neprietelūs, prietelīs, ricielūs, sanariūs, sūnelūs, šeforiūs, vaysiūs are frequently used.

In other 16th-century monuments of the Lithuanian language, io-stem plural nominative forms are more frequent than iu-stem ones. In the writings of the author of the first Lithuanian book, the iu-stem plural nominative is rare: Nu todel Karalius permanikiet 506₁₆, susstoiose karalus žemes ir kungai 505₁₈, neprietelus 515₁₂, 63. Mažvydas generally uses io-stem forms: karalei 195₁₇, 223₇, 289₇, 292₆, 474₉, neprietelei 287₃, 397₄–₅, 398₅, 401₁₆, 471₇, 473₆–₇, 514₇, 530₁₃, prietelei 97₉, 106₁₁, 469₁₈. In B. Vilentas’s writings, alongside io-stem plural nominatives: karalei (2 occurrences), kodzei (1 occurrence), (ne)prietelei (3 occurrences), reteżei (1 occurrence), šeforei.

⁶³The latter example may also be a iu-stem singular nominative.

31

(1 occurrence) forms of the iu stem are still used as well: Švėkšna forms Karalus EE 176^16–17, Balnierius EE 214⁵, 216^9–10, 217², 220², szalnierius EE 216¹. In J. Bretkūnas’s writings, the iu-stem nominative plural form is also represented only sparsely. In the “Postilė,” alongside the much more numerous io-stem forms karalei (11 occurrences), kodžei II 72⁷, prietelei (6 occurrences), retežei PI 280²¹, sanarei (3 occurrences), žalnierei or želnierei (11 occurrences), there are also iu-stem forms: karalius P I 60¹⁰², geri prietelius P I 75²⁴, II 195²⁷, 343⁸, schipporus P I 201¹¹. In J. Bretkūnas’s translation of the “Bible,” the io-stem forms are frequently used: karalei, kupčei, prietelei, nepriete-lei, ricerei, ricerai, sanerei, žel­nerei. However, we also find here iu-stem forms: karalius, kupčius, dumčius, baius, plaščius, (ne)prietelus, puikorius, liekorius, ricier(i)us, strėlčius, šiparus, šippor(i)us, rubežus, valsčius, žėlnerus, žalnerus. In the “Bible,” -ius is quite often corrected to -ei. The io-stem forms also predominate in the 1600 “Margarita Theologica”: karalei (about 5 occurrences), (ne)prietelei 103^b, 209^a, 249^a, rubežei 217^a,b, sanarei 106^a, 215^b, alongside iu-stem forms popiežus APM 38^b, waisius 127^b, mažesnieghi waisius 158^b, 159^18,19.

In later seventeenth-century Lithuanian texts, the iu-stem nominative plural form is still used, though very rarely. It is best preserved in the 1653 “Knyga nobąžnystės”: Bagočius žiames 18¹⁵, karalus 30⁹, 119^b, (ne)prietelus 8^b30^{, 19, 20, 23}, 26, 148, 200^b, alongside the io-stem forms (ne)prieteliay 25^b, 44^a, žalnierey 158. In the 1653 “Maldos krikščioniškos,” only one iu-stem form occurs: prietelus 45. Only one iu-stem nominative plural form is also found in the 1653 “Suma”: waisius pakutos gausus. Tuos tada vaisius … 15²⁴. The io-stem forms are already used here: bluźnieriay Su 121, kāraley Su 203, neprietelay Su 73, 179, 216, prietelay Su 178, sanariay MKr6, 34, sanariay Su 83, 164, źolnieriay Su 258, źalnieriay Su 259, 261 (3 occurrences), 263. D. Klein’s “Maldų knygelės” also still contains iu-stem nominative plural forms: Dumczus Rotininkai 16¹⁷, koceras ir kleidunai 13²⁰, wissos tos naudos bey waisus 55, although io-stem forms are generally used here: karalei 127, neprietelei 47, 57, 86, neprietelei 89, prietelei 131. iu-stem nominative plurals are also found in D. Klein’s “Naujosė giesmių knygose”: Jog neprietelus neigi peklos nasrai Ne yweike mus 205, waisus žėmiški 449⁷, though io-stem forms are also normally used here: Karālei 30, 43, 62, 461, néprietelei 357, prietelei 287, 289, 523, sanarei 193, žalnėrai 85⁶⁴.

The nominative plural inflection of the u stem remains intact in old sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Lithuanian texts: ssunus EE 57²⁸, sunus PK 189, DP 83²⁰, BrP II 187¹⁰, 436, BrB 191, 2 Cor 6, 2 Luc 2, sunus Ischm 9, Tob 14, 1 Makk 1, Chron 9, 2 Chron 31, Jes 60, Jerem 11, 35, Hiob 1, Ezech 23, etc., pelus BrP I 119^26,27, Su 39, pealus Su 43¹⁵, vietus MKr 44. The u-stem nominative plural also survives in later writings: sunus O Br 3, JE 28, 106. Even in works written on the basis of the Samogitian dialect in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, some u-stem nominative plurals have been preserved. The nominative plural sunus 89 occurs in P. Klimavičius’s 1767 “Pavinastysė.” In the Samogitian “Živatas” of 1787, we also find u-stem nominative plurals.

⁶⁴ It is unclear whether these are nominative plural or singular forms: Kaip nor žalnerus daro 462, Jeib mus nepriete-lus Buklystemis neraudintu 171, Kada néprietelus skusis ant musu 136.

32

the nominative sumus 121. In the 1790 “Balsas širdies,” alongside sunay 158₁₂ and pelav 111₆, we also find sumus 147₇. In S. Daukantas’s “Būdė,” alongside the o-stem form wisrenije sunay 179, the u-stem form is also used: Didije sunus 179₂, Tij sunus 162. J. Rupeika’s “Jonas iš Svisločės” has sunus 176 in addition to sunay 160. M. Valančius’s “Žemaičių vyskupystė” likewise still attests the u-stem plural nominative form: dideli litus 20. In M. Valančius’s “Istorija” and “Živatai,” only o-stem forms are already used⁶⁵.

Today the u-stem nominative plural has completely disappeared in the Samogitian dialect; u-stem forms are still used only in the southern part of the Samogitian dialect⁶⁶. The u-stem nominative plural form is also disappearing in other Lithuanian dialects. In the Dzūkian and eastern Aukštaitian dialects, o-stem forms are generally used: sūnai, turgai, lietai, viršai⁶⁷ (Leipalingis, Merkinė, Varėna, Linkmenys), sūnai (Tverečius), sūnai, turgai, viršai (Skapiškis), sūnė, dungė (Raguva), sūnai (Gelvonai), sūnai, lietai, pietai, viršai (Palomenė), sūnai, turgai, lietai (Palėvenė), sūnai (Šakyna), lōfige (Šeduva), etc. Alongside o-stem forms, u-stem forms are also still used in the dialects: sūnus||sūne (Biržai), piētōs||piēte, lietōs||liete, sūnōs||sūne, mēdōs||mēde (Pašvitinys). The western southern Aukštaitians have preserved the u-stem nominative plural form best, although they too often use o-stem forms alongside it; cf. viršus||viršai, sūnūs||sūnai, piētūs||piētai, lytūs||lytai (Kybartai, Vilkaviškis, Jurbarkas).

Development of the dative plural

The old ending of the dative plural in the (i)u stem is -(i)um(u)s; cf. Old Church Slavonic synъmъ. In old Lithuanian language monuments, this form is also still found in the dative of the iu stem. K. Sirvydas uses only iu-stem forms of the dative plural: karalums PS I 135₃, 195₂, 214₂, 234₂, 262₃, 134₄, karalums patiemus PS I 134₃₂, neprietelumus PS I 185₁₁, II 112₂₉, 132₁₉, neprietelumus PS I 347₁. K. Sirvydas does not yet use io-stem forms of the dative plural. In M. Daukša’s “Postilė,” iu-stem forms of the dative plural are also almost exclusive: trimus karalūlums 62₂₇–₂₈, perlaidžia karalūlums 70₂₃, širdes žalnieriumus priūaga 107₁₆, tiēmus žalnieriumus 157₂₄, kaciēriumus atsakit 119₃₄, iumus kaip priētelumus 223₃₂, priētelumus saviemus 417₃₆, Pōpiežiumus... grinēmus 459₂₆, ik˙ pastariausiemus rubēžtumus 604₁₆, padā-

⁶⁵ O-stem forms of the adjective nominative plural are also found in 18th–19th-century Samogitian writings; cf. 1) the 1787 “Živatas”: biaury 311, kantry 328, stypry 187; 2) J. Rupeika’s “Jono iš Svisločės”: graži 225, stipri 188, rami 178; 3) S. Daukantas’s “Būdas”: apali 189, drousi 63, 72, 197, iwajri 11, 208, garsī 117, kantri 3, 63, maloni 63, ligi 36, narsi 3, 63, 115, plati 76, skajsti 133, smarki 79, 155, stipri 115, stambi 33, smolki 74, tanki 76, 77, wejkli 43, tajki 63, nożmi 79; 4) M. Valančius’s “Živatas”: bajsi 38, 174, nebragi 58, daili 105, iwajri 213, dransi 220, maloni 6, padori 167, stipri 28, plati 8; 5) L. Ivinskis’s “Genovaitė”: apwali 73, maloni 72, stati 176. Some of these may be old o-stem adjectives.

⁶⁶ See P. Jonikas, Pagranančio tarmė, 46.

⁶⁷ See K. Morkūnas and A. Vidugiris, Kai kurie šiaurės rytų Lietuvos tarmių bruožai. Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai, A, 2, 181 (1957).

3. Kalbotyros klausimai II.

33

re rubežiumis tawiėmus pakāiu 487₃₀. io-stem forms are rare in M. Daukša’s “Postilė”: gimditoiemus... or prietel emus 519₄₈, dāro karālamus 4₅, ne karālamus 41₂₄, kitiėmus... sanariamus 559₂₉. In J. Morkūnas’s “Postilė,” iu-stem forms are also considerably more frequent: iu-stem forms: šeforium(u)s (frequent), bagočiumis (frequent), sanarium(u)s (frequent), neprietelum(u)s (frequent), karaliumus 322ᵇ, sanariumis 160ᵃ₂–₃, tazvoribiumus 257ᵇ₄₂–₄₃, augliumis III 74ᵃ, ciesorium s III 31ᵃ. io-stem forms are rarer here: sanariamus 277ᵇ, III 12ᵇ, neprieteliams⁶⁸ 12ᵇ, 23ᵃ, prietelems 162ᵇ₁₁, rubežiamus 346ᵃ, šef oriamus 127ᵇ, 306ᵇ.

In other sixteenth- and seventeenth-century monuments of the Lithuanian language, the plural dative form of the o stem predominates. In M. Mažvydas’s writings, we find only one plural dative with the u stem, kocerums 233₅. The datives of other words here are already o-stem forms: karalems 557₁₁, neprietelems 337₅. In J. Bretkūnas’s writings, plural dative forms with the u stem are likewise rare. Not a single u-stem form was found in the “Postilė.” Only o-stem forms are used here: karalems, neprietelems, prietelems, žalnerems, etc. In the “Biblija,” alongside the frequent o-stem datives karaliams, prietelems, neprietelems, želnerems, etc., u-stem forms also occur: karaliums Apok 16₁₂, prietelums Ps 127₃. In some places, u-stem forms here are corrected to o-stem forms; for example, karaliums Ps 144₁₀ was corrected to karaliams, prietelums Esth 6—i, and prieteliams, žalnierums Matth 28—i to žalnerams. One plural dative form with the u stem is also found in D. Klein’s “Maldų knygelės”: rubežums 127₁₇.

Not a single plural dative form with the u stem was found in M. Petkevičius’s catechism, M. Daukša’s 1595 catechism, B. Vilentas’s writings, the 1600 “Margarita Teologika,” or the anonymous catechism of 1605. Only o-stem forms are used here; cf. karalams MT 218ᵃ, karaliams PK 134, neprietelems MT 212ᵇ, sanariams MT 138ᵃ, prieteliamus PK Spr 49, prietelamus DK 61₂₆, prietelamus AK 61₂₇. The 1653 Kėdainiai publications likewise use only o-stem forms: karaliams Su 25, 28, 32, 35, 37, (ne)prieteliar(u)s KnN 8ᵇ, 65, 76ᵃ, 241, MKr 61, Su 156, 198, 210.

The plural dative of the u stem is rarely attested in old Lithuanian-language monuments. No examples of this dative are found in B. Vilentas’s writings; Part II of J. Bretkūnas’s “Postilė”; the 1600 “Margarita Teologika”; the anonymous catechism of 1605; the 1653 “Maldos krikščioniškos”; the 1653 “Suma”; or D. Klein’s “Maldų knygelės.” In other sixteenth- and seventeenth-century writings examined, the plural dative of the u stem still has the old u-stem inflection; cf. sunūmus DP I₃₀, 175₃₃, DK 79₂₉, KnN79₂₉, sunumus KnN 228₂₇, PK 21, sunums Mž 65₁₄, PK 209, BrP I 144₂₅, KIG 332. In M. Daukša’s “Postilė,” adjectives of the u stem, too, retain the u-stem form: budrumis 41₂₇, 55₄₅, tapumis 601₄₆, 615₄, meilabirdumis 340₅, priešburnus 573₃₄, pūtlumus 433₃₂, būviesāmus 226₂₆, 403₁₅, tamsumus 156₄₉ (alongside biauriemus 495₃₆, kantriemus 448₃₀, paklusniemus 175₃₄, 533₅–₆, teisiemus 2₂₃).

Only J. Bretkūnas’s “Bible” already uses plural dative forms with the o stem as well—alongside the frequent u-stem form sunums BrB 18, 127, 128, 132,

⁶⁸ Cf. singular accusative neprieteli 153ᵇ, 172ᵃ.

34

134, 148, 187, 1 Makk 1, Jerem 29, 2 Chron 13, etc. Here the o-stem sunamus is used in BrB 143, Esra 9, Neh 13, sunams in Neh 13, sunams in Jes 66, etc.

Today, in Lithuanian dialects, o-stem plural dative forms are already more common. In the Samogitian dialect, only these are used. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, apparently, u-stem plural dative forms were still used by Samogitians. The Samogitian 1787 “Živatas” still has u-stem plural dative forms, cf. sunums 298. They are used in “Būdė” alongside o-stem forms, e.g., sunams 13, and by Daukantas: sunóms 176, lytums 14. Today they are still known in the southern part of the Samogitian dialect⁶⁹.

Dzūkai and Eastern Aukštaitians most often use o-stem forms: sūnām || sūnāmī (Leipalingis), turgām, sūnām, viršām (Linkmenys, Varėna, Merkinė), sūnām (Tverečius), sūnām, dungām (Raguva), sūnām, lietām, pietām (Palomenė), sūnām (Gelvonai), turgóm, lietóm (= turgám, lietám) (Palėvenė), sūnām (Debeikiai), sūnām, viršām, pietām (Šiauliai), sūnām (Šakyna), turgám (Sėduva), etc. In some subdialects, alongside o-stem plural dative forms, u-stem forms are also used: turgóm, viršóm, but sūnóm || sūnūm (Skapiškis), turgám, sūnūm || sūnām (Biržai), lietem || lietom, pietem || pietom, sūnem || sūnom, medem || mēdom (Pašvitinys), pietūm || pietām (Svedasai), pietūm || pietām (Šeduva), etc.

As in the nominative, the western southern Aukštaitian dialect has best preserved the u-stem inflection in this case, cf. viršům, vidům, pietům, sūnům (Kybartai, Vilkaviškis, Naumiestis, Jurbarkas).

Development of the plural instrumental

The old plural instrumental ending of the (i)u-stem is -(i)umis, cf. Old Church Slavonic synǫmi. Old iu-stem plural instrumental forms are still used in early Lithuanian-language texts. K. Širvydas uses only these: bus karalums PS I 135₁₂, karalumis PS I 167₆, 221₃₂, II 150₇–₈, gierumis PS II 100₃₀, pahonczumis PS II 202₂₃, neprietelumis PS II 166₁₉–₂₀, 259₄–₅, prietelumis PS I 157₁₇–₁₈, II 8₅, sunarumis PS I 125₁₀, 294₂₉. There are no io-stem forms in “Punktuose sakymų.” M. Daukša’s “Postilė” also uses iu-stem plural instrumental forms: Wądinas Elióßiumis 19₂₄, karálumis would have been 59₂₂, bū karálumis 59₂₃, prieg karálumis stoweio 59₂₅, trimis karalumis wadina 59₂₈, iūs karálumis wadina 59₃₃, tikrāiséis Karálumis 167₂₄, ne duksėtus karálumis 223₄₀, Bwentieji bus karalumis 491₁₇, bū Ciesoriūmis Rimo 459₂₄, girumis kokiais... 439₃₁, ēssa neprietelumis 164₃₅, buvo neprietelumis 167₁₀, budami ne prietelumis 343₄₈, anīs yra neprietelumis 384₈–₉, tápę est’ prietelumis 164₂₃–₂₄, nor būt prietelumis 175₉, prietélumis... tur būt algōti 343₃₀–₃₁, žinomais rubežiumis yra 611₄₃, retėžiumis ir wirwemis rāibioio 157₈, retėžiumis... suriḅimais 508₁₈, wissais sanariumis 153₃₈, wissais sanariumis 442₉, su sanariumis sawáis 229₉, kitáis sanariumis 320₅, Essmē sanariumis 453₄₇, būdami sanariumis 578₄₁, wissais sanariumis 145₂₅, giwais sanariumis 132₄₁, 183₄₉, wienais sanariumis 529₂₉, yra teipaeg sanariumis 547₄₈, praminti sanariumis 606₁₉, essme beforiumis 309₅, Wikariumis sawáis 203₁₃. In M. Daukša’s “Postilė,” only one io-stem plural instrumental occurs: sanareis 223₈. Well

⁶⁹ Cf. P. Jonikas, Pagramančio tarmė, 46.

35

the plural instrumental with the iu stem is preserved in J. Morkūnas’s “Postil”: augliumis (often), bagočiumis ₃₇₅^b, giriumis III 47^a, elsewhere Lozoriomis 241^b, potereliumis 196^b, prieteliumis (often), poteriumis 310^b, sanariumis (often), razbaiumis 266^a₁₈, skayčiumis 379^a, vaisiumis 276^b, šef(f)oriumis (often), viliumis (often).

We also find iu-stem plural instrumental forms in those texts that use only io-stem plural dative forms. For example, in B. Vilentas’s writings we still find one iu-stem form, neprietelumis EE 209₂₄, alongside io-stem prieteleis EE 209₂₃ (dual instrumental dwiem reteßem EE 163₁₇). M. Petkevičius’s catechism also preserves iu-stem plural instrumental forms: aleiums 51₇–₈, sanariumis 193₂₁, 219₆–₇. In the 1600 “Margaritoje Teologikoje,” where the plural dative has also entirely shifted to the io-stem, we find the following iu-stem plural instrumental forms: karalumis APM 16₁₀, su neprietelumis 208₈–₆, su reteßumis 262₈, sanariumis 103₂₂, alongside io-stem sanareis 104₄₂₂, 158₈₁₉ (cf. singular genitive sanariaus 138₈–₁₀).

No iu-stem plural instrumental forms have been found in M. Mažvydas’s writings or J. Bretkūnas’s “Postilė.” In J. Bretkūnas’s “Biblija,” apparently only one iu-stem plural instrumental occurs: rubežiumis Prov 8₂₇. The forms used here are already io-stem forms: karaleis, neprieteleis, prieteleis, rubežeis, stalč eis, sanareis, žel nereis, želnerais, spiegoreis, strelč eis, kupč eis, plašč eis, retežeis.

Among later seventeenth-century texts, the 1653 “Suma” still has an iu-stem plural instrumental, po križiums 105₅₂ (alongside prietelays 124, neprietelays 137 (twice)), as does D. Klein’s “Maldų knygelė”: kryžumis 40 (alongside prieteleis 76, neprieteleis 44).

The u-stem plural instrumental is rarely used in early Lithuanian-language texts: pietumis BrP I 232₁₀₉, after prievaizdum is EE 25, Pietumis AK 159₈, sunumis DK 80₃₃, 95₂, 103₂₆, PK 17, 201, 215, MT 127ᵇ, Su 138₄, 138, 282, 288, OBr 112, 131, 138, 228 (twice), 237, Su ssun umis EE 172₁₇, litumis BŠ 153₅. The u-stem adjectival plural instrumental is abundantly represented in early Lithuanian-language texts. In M. Daukša’s “Postilė,” the u-stem adjectival plural instrumental form predominates: baisumis 412₂₇, 508₂₁–₂₂, 526₂₃, biaurumis 373₄₁, 428₁₁, bragumis 185₁₅–₁₆, budrumis 555₅₃, 556₈, dárgumis 169₄₆, dósnumis 286₂₃, drasumis 478₄₀, 613₃₆, gardumis 558₁, gražumis 25₆, 303₁₅, kántrumis 243₄₀, 299₁₅, 413₃₄, láimumis 273₃₆, 390₁₃, 533₁₂, katrumis 523₃₄₅, ligumis 25₃₇, 291₁₆, 611₃, malonumis 600₂₂, mėtilafirdumis 284₁, 8, 31₃, 313₃₄, mėtilg umis 409₁₄–₁₅, nemeil gumis 409₄₃–₄₄, mėtilumis 53₈, 359₂₂–₂₃, 429₉, 463₄₁–₂, 464₁, 497₂₅, 52₃₈, 256₁, nemėilumis 356₁₈, paklusnumis 66₄₀,₅₃, 205₂₂,₂₇,₂₉, 380₃₆, 383₅₂, 416₁₄, 523₃₅, patógumis 67₁, 340₇, 425₄₅, 554₃₇, primanumis 109₆, 191₂–₃, 216₂₉,₄₀, 218₁, 385₂₈, 389₂₆, 492₅₄, róm umis 209₃₃, 243₄₀, 299₁₅, 413₃₄–₃₅, 535₃, 624₃, saldum is 365₈–₉, sángumis 622₄₀, stiprumis 447₂₇, 497₂₅, strópumis 434₇, 447₂₇, švėlnumis 302₉, įtakumis 9₁₁, téisumis 3₃₆, 192₃₆, 285₄₁, žimumis 185₃₅. The io-stem plural instrumental form is rare in M. Daukša’s “Postilė”: brągeis 21₁₀, 182₄₁, 270₁₈, bukleis 254₄₂, įbkreis 362₄₅, švėlniais 21₁₀, švieseys 17₂₅, 205₅, 216₅₁. K. Širvydas’s “Punktuose sakymų” also still has u-stem adjectival plural instrumental forms: biaurumis PS I 257₁, brungumis PS I 186₂₃,

36

366₁₇, nepatogumis PS II 176₁₆, neteysumis PS I 167₁₃, teysumis PS I 152₁₉, II 224₂₁, alongside the io-stem brungieys PS I 217₁₅, sunkieys PS I 60₁₅, 200₂₀, 226₁₃, II 152₂₅, baysieys PS I 83₇, biaurieys PS II 50₄, gražieys PS I 257₁₆, II 129₁,₂₇, 186₂₄, smalšėys PS I 212₂₅, smarkieys PS II 19₂₀, 219₂₆. In other monuments, the u-stem instrumental plural form of adjectives is poorly preserved. It is not used at all in the writings of M. Mažvydas and B. Vilentas, or in J. Bretkūnas’s “Postilė.” We still find its remnants in 1) M. Petkevičius’s catechism: teysumis 120₅–₆₃; 2) M. Daukša’s 1595 catechism: gražumis 54₂₄; 3) the 1600 “Margaritoje Teologikoje”: teisumis 83₄, 85₄, 86₁, 88₄, 53ᵇ, paklusnumis 50ᵇ; 4) the anonymous 1605 catechism: skaudumis 80₆; 5) D. Klein’s “Maldų knygelėse”: daygumis 48; 6) D. Klein’s “Naujose giesmių knygose”: kytrumis 156, 157. Today, this form seems to occur nowhere in Lithuanian dialects.

As can be seen from Daukša’s writings, the u-stem instrumental plural form of adjectives was still strong in some Lithuanian dialects in the 16th century. Naturally, the u-stem instrumental plural form of nouns must also have been strong. Nouns with an o-stem instrumental plural form are found only in J. Bretkūnas’s “Bible.” Alongside Pietumis Jes 59 and elsewhere, here we find sunais III Chron 26₄₄,₄₆,₄₈,₅₀,₅₁,₅₂–₅₃,₅₄,₅₆,₅₈,₆₀,₆₂,₆₄,₆₆,₆₈,₇₀,₇₂,₇₄,₇₆,₇₈,₈₁,₈₃,₈₅,₈₈; Esra 8₅₅,₅₈, sunais Neh 10, sunais Jerem 35 (corrected to sunumis).

Today the u-stem instrumental plural form has completely disappeared from the Samogitian dialect. Only in its southern part are u-stem forms still used. In 1767, P. Klimavičius’s “Pavinyastysė” still preserves the u-stem instrumental plural, cf. sunumis 17, 105, 113. The Samogitian “Žyvatas” of 1787 likewise uses the u-stem instrumental plural sunumis 63, 298, 327. In M. Valančius’s “Istorija,” o-stem forms are already used: su wisajs sunajs 45, su septinėjs sunajs 116, sunajs 73.

The Dzūkians and eastern Aukštaitians also use o-stem forms: sūnais, turgais, pietais (Leipalingis, Varėna, Merkinė, Linkmenys)⁷⁰, turgais, sūnais, viršais (Skapiškis, Svėdasai, Gelvonai, Šakyna), sūnais, lietais, pietais (Palomenė), sūnės, dungės (Raguva), torgės, sūnės, žoršės (Pašvitinys), torgės (Šeduva), and so on. Alongside o-stem forms, in some local dialects we still also find u-stem forms: sūnės || sūnųm (Biržai), and so on.

The u-stem instrumental plural form is most firmly maintained in the southern dialect of the western Aukštaitians, cf. viršum, vidum, pietum (Kybartai, Vilkaviškis, Jurbarkas, and elsewhere). But even here o-stem forms are often already used alongside it, cf. sunumis || sūnais (Pazanavykys Kapsai).

Development of the plural locative

The old plural locative forms of the u stem, *sūnusu, cf. Old Church Slavonic synъchъ, Old Indic sūnusu, have not been attested either in the old Lithuanian texts examined or, apparently, in the dialects. About its existence in Lithuanian ga-

⁷⁰ Cf. also J. Otrębski, Wschodnio-litewskie narzecze Twereckie 1, 244, Kraków, 1934.

37

This can be inferred only from the plural inessive forms sūnuose, viduse, pietuse, still used by the Western Aukštaitian dialects (the Zanavykai of the Pažanavys area, Jurbarkas, etc.). As adverbialized forms, these inessives are also found in other Lithuanian dialects, e.g., a tik nebūsi pietuse arklių paršėres (= at midday) (Šakyna), pėtusi buvo užėjęs (Gelvonai). The forms in M. Daukša’s writings daguse DP 516₁₄, 532₁₅,₂₈, DK 44₂₆, 46₂₃, daguse DP 301₂, 516₁₃–₁₄, 525₁₄–₃₁, dagusia DP 521₂₇, 466₁,₉,₁₀, dagusė DP 187₄₂, 252₁₁ probably represent such forms as well. The consistent spelling -usė leaves no doubt that this form has a u-stem = danguse or dangūse, since M. Daukša’s spelling does not indicate how it was pronounced—with a long or short -u-. Since M. Daukša wrote in the Central Aukštaitian dialect, it is more reliable to regard this form as pronounced with a short u, hence danguse. The inessive dangūse may have arisen in the following way. Alongside the old Indo-European plural inessive form *dangusu, the new postpositional plural inessive form dangūse< was formed from the plural accusative *danguns and a postposition. Over time, the two inessive forms *dangusu and dangūse, used side by side without any difference in meaning, may have merged through contamination into the single form danguse. The short -u- may also have arisen here through harmony with other plural cases, cf. sūnumis, sūnumus, etc.

The postpositional plural inessive form has formally survived to the present day in the Samogitian dialect, cf. tōrgūse, kėrdžūse (Laukuva), turgūsi, turgūš, imžūsi, imžūš, etc., since here, owing to the particular course of Samogitian phonological development, it coincided with the plural inessive of the o-stem, cf. turgūse < turgunse and galūse < galunse < *galunse. Remnants of this inessive are also found in some Eastern Aukštaitian dialects. In the vicinity of Biržai, the plural inessive pietūs < *pietunse is still used. According to K. Būga⁷¹, the older generation of the Dusetos dialect speakers in his time still said pelūs, pietūs.

The form dangūsu may have been used in some dialects. M. Mažvydas most likely used this form as well: dangusu 23₆, 36₁₁, 506₄–₅, 532₁₀, dagusu 222₁₅. Admittedly, M. Mažvydas’s spelling does not allow us to determine whether dangusu or dangūsu was the pronunciation. However, neither in other old monuments nor, it seems, in Lithuanian dialects do we find clear examples of a form with -usu. On the other hand, M. Mažvydas also spells the plural inessives of (i)o-stems in the same way: darbusu 319₁₃, 591₉, namusu 414₁₄, 460₃, 534₁₃–₁₄, 536₇, hukiusu 8₁₅, kieliusu 524₂, etc., and the latter could only have been pronounced namūsu, ūkiūsu, keliūsu, cf. modern Samogitian inessives: galūs, beržūs (Sėleniai, Kretinga), darūse, laukūse (Laukuva), raštūsi, raštūš, galūsi, galūš (Kuršėnai). A reflex of the form namūsu may be the northwestern Donininkai form namūs, galūs (with a hard word-final s). It appears to have arisen through contamination of the older o-stem plural inessive form -su with the newer postpositional form galūse < *galuns+ postposition⁷². M. Mažvydas’s dangusu should therefore also be read as dangūsu. Formally, dangūsu could be regarded as the plural inessive of a ū-stem, cf. Old Indic Vedic tanīṣu. But since the survival of ū-stem forms in Lithuanian is doubtful, it most likely arose through contamination of the old plural inessive dangusu and the new postpositional form dangūse (< *danguns+ postposition), or under the influence of the plural instrumental dangūsna (< *danguns+ na). The illative and ine-

⁷¹ See K. Būga, Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, vol. I, fasc. XXVIII.

⁷² Cf. J. Endzelīns, Gramatika, 408.

38

ssive influenced one another in the development of the Lithuanian language, cf. illative forms: namuosun, laukuosen, laukuosnu, laukuosne, laukuosin, which arose under the influence of the inessives namuosu, laukuose. Under the influence of the illative, the Eastern Dzūkian plural inessive of i-stems, akysù, širdysù (Linkmenys, Dotinėnai, Tverečius, etc.), may also have arisen. In the Linkmenys dialect, the old i-stem plural inessives akisù, širdisù are also still used. That the forms with long y here (akysu, etc.) arose under the influence of the illative akysna (<*akins+na), alongside the forms, rather than through contamination of akisu and akyse, as J. Endzelynas⁷³ thinks, is shown by the fact that postpositional plural inessives are entirely absent here and were probably never used. The o-stem inessive laukuosu, miškuosu, in place of the older inessive corresponding to Old Church Slavonic vlъčехъ and Old Indic vr̥kēṣu, may likewise have arisen among the Eastern Dzūkians only under the influence of the illative laukuosna, miškuosna. The influence of the illative on the inessive is also demonstrated by the fact that in those dialects where the illative is not a separate case, e.g. in Western Aukštaitian speech, the plural inessive likewise has the forms akise, širdise (with short i). The forms laukuosa, širdisa, often used by B. Vilentas, J. Bretkūnas, S. Vaišnoras, and D. Kleinas alongside the inessive forms laukuose, širdise, could only have arisen under the influence of the illative.

The u-stem plural inessive form, being rarely used, was replaced early by the o-stem form. J. Bretkūnas’s “Postilė” and K. Širvydas’s “Punktai sakymų” contain not a single instance of a u-stem plural inessive. The iu-stem plural inessives found in these works already have an (i)o-stem form, cf. rubėsosu BrP II 106, rubėsusu BrP II 105₁₇, sunariuose PS I 109₁₃, II 199₁₈. The plural inessive dangùsu in J. Bretkūnas’s “Biblija” (Apoc 5, Kosn 5), dangùsu (Chron 30), dangùsa (Amos 9), etc.; dangùsu 263₁₇ in the 1600 “Margaritos Teologika”; and dungùsū 43₃₃, 48₆, dunguosu 44₂₇, 46₂₃ in the 1605 anonymous catechism point to the early disappearance of the u-stem plural inessive form. In other old Lithuanian-language monuments examined, postpositional forms often likewise already have an (i)o-stem inflection, cf. dagùse DK 43₃₂, dagùsē DK 85₅, nepakaiose PK 137₁₄, sanariuose PK 193, sumuose PK 107₂₀, danguose Su 143, 186, 104, 272₁₂, MKr 31, rubežiuose Su 270, sanariuose MKr 7. The first Lithuanian grammar also gives (i)o-stem forms (pp. 30—51)⁷⁴. In the Eastern Dzūkian dialects (around Linkmenys, etc.), where the old Indo-European plural inessive ending -su has been preserved, u-stem nouns also have an o-stem plural inessive: turguosu, sūnuosu.

Only o-stem forms are now used in the Aukštaitian dialects, cf. sūnuosa, pietuosa (Leipalingis), sūnuose, pietuose (Palomenė), pietuōse (Nemajūnai), sūnuōse, tū́rguose, pietuōse (Garliava), pietuōs (Svėdasai), tū́rguos (Dotinėnai, Alunta), tū́rguos, sūnuōs, viršūos (Skapiškis, Palėvenė, Raguva, Biržai), dunguōs (Raguva), pietuōsi (Gelvonai), sūnuōs, tū́rguos (Šiauliai, Šakyna), tōrgos, sūnos (Mūša river basin). Even in dialects where forms such as pietuse are still used—for example, among the Zanavykai of the Pažanavys area and in the Jurbarkas dialect—o-stem forms are more common: tū́rguos (Jurbarkas), sūnuose, sūnūs (Zanavykai of the Pažanavys area).

⁷³ See J. Endzelīns, Gramatika, 436.

⁷⁴ Other Lithuanian grammars also give o-stem forms, cf. G. Ostermejeris’s—p. 25, P. Ruigys’s—p. 42, K. Milk aus’s—p. 37, F. Hako’s—p. 253, Universitas—p. 11.

39

Faster decline of the iu-stem plural

In the 16th–17th centuries, the iu-stem plural was still strong in some dialects. This is evident from the writings of K. Širvydas, M. Daukša, and J. Morkūnas, in which the iu-stem plural was still, one might say, entirely intact. All the other old monuments record a clear decline of the iu-stem plural. The iu-stem plural nominative is better preserved in them; the other cases have mostly already shifted to the io stem.

The first Lithuanian grammar⁷⁵ presents the iu-stem plural, cf.: N. waisus, G. waisių, D. waisums, Ac. waisus, Ab. waisumis.

D. Klein notes in his “Compendium” (pp. 31–32): “The words Karalus, Prietėlus, Podžus, Kerdžus are declined correctly by many Lithuanians (and also Samogitians), since they also use the following forms in the plural nominative: tie Karalus, trys Karálus, tie Podžus, tie Kerdžus, etc. Elsewhere, especially in Greater Lithuania and our Prussia, the plural of this declension is the same as that of the first declension: Karalei, Podžei, Prietelei; Karalų, Podžų, Prietelų; Karalėms, Podžėms, Prietėlems, etc.”⁷⁶ D. Klein’s remark shows that at that time (the mid-17th century) the iu-stem plural, especially the plural nominative, was still frequently used.

The iu-stem plural paradigm is also given in F. Haack’s grammar (p. 253), P. Ruhig’s grammar (p. 32), and K. Milkus’s grammar (p. 37). K. Milkus (p. 37) indicates that the plural of some nouns of this stem, most often those denoting a person or occupation (eine Person oder Amt), is declined according to the first declension. On p. 25 of his grammar, G. Ostermeyer also assigns u-declension nouns to this class, including iu-stem nouns (Waisùs, Kérdžius, Kárpius, Karálus, Pavõjus, Razbãjus, Prietėlus), noting (p. 26) that some of them, those denoting an occupation (Amt, Verrichtung, Handthierung), have a plural in the io stem (Karalei, Kerdžei). The iu-stem plural of individual words is also attested in some 19th-century grammars (see A. Schleicher’s grammar, p. 190⁷⁷, Beker – § 4, Šykop – p. 16, Pajevskis-Gylys – p. 21). Consequently, it may be assumed that the inflections of the iu-stem plural survived in some dialects even in the 19th century. In 19th-century Samogitian writings, we already find only the adverbialized instrumental plural iu stem form kryžiùmis, cf. yr križiùmis pule ant žiemes ŽP 162, križiomis szien ir ten sulankstiti JS 98. Such an adverbialized instrumental is recorded by K. Jaunius (see p. 107 of his grammar) and J. Jablonskis (see p. 24 of his 1922 grammar).

The iu-stem plural is now not found in the dialects, except in the nominative of a few words, e.g. sodžius (Suv. Kalvarija). It is now difficult to ascertain why the iu-stem plural declined more rapidly than the u-stem plural. Most likely

⁷⁵ 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 |including the Samogitians|, for they also say in the plural nominative: tie Karalus |trys Karalus| tie Podžus| tie Kerdžus, etc. But others, especially the Greater Lithuanians and also our Prussians, inflect the plurals just like nouns of the first declension: Karalei |Podžei| Prietelei. Karalų |Podžų| Prietelų. Karalėms |Podžėms| Prietelėms, etc.”

⁷⁷ A. Schleicher, while asserting that nouns ending in -jus, -ius (ozus džus) have an io-stem plural, notes: “the others, e.g. waisius, can also remain faithful to the u-declension in the plural”.

40

The decline of the iu stem was accelerated by the fact that nouns with iu and io stems and identical meanings could be used side by side, cf. mojus-mojimas R II 403, KW 460 and mojis RI 89, KW 260, myrius-mirtis and myris MLLG I 229, gėrius-gražybė PS I 380 and gėris, etc.⁷⁸. In our old monuments, where remnants of the iu-stem plural are found, nouns with iu and io stems likewise occur side by side, cf. 1) the nominative singular karalis 210₃–₄, nepretelis 530₁₁, 478₁₂ in the writings of M. Mažvydas; the accusative singular neprieteli 101₇, 398₃, neprietelį 518₉–₁₀, neprieteli 411₄; the vocative singular neprieteli 53₁, neprieteli 223₂, etc., alongside the accusative singular neprietelu 581₄, etc. 2) the nominative singular neprietelis EE 35₁₀, 39, E 54 and neprietelus EE 39 in the writings of B. Vilentas; 3) the nominative singular neprietelius and accusative singular neprieteli P I 297₂₁, 249₁₄–₁₅, 279, II 220, 221 (twice), 248, prieteli P II 415 (twice), the accusative singular Lozaru P II 191 (twice), 332 and Lazari P I 351 (three times), 261, II 178, 198 (twice), 522 in J. Bretkūnas’s *Postilė*; the accusative singular Karali 2Makk 4, Chron 4, Ravd 2 and karaliu Chron 20, 2 Chron 1, karaliu Chron 26, etc.; the accusative singular Neprieteli Matth 10, Jud 13, 2 Makk 3, 14, etc., and neprieteliu Tob 8, Jerem 30 (corrected to neprieteli), etc., in J. Bretkūnas’s *Bible*; 4) sanarius DP 48, 109, etc., and sanaris Mž 586₁₀, E14, 15, 17, sannaris BrP I, 128, 189, 238, BrBCor 12 (three times), etc.

For some nouns with an io stem, whose vocative singular in -au is often used, the singular may have been newly formed on the model of the iu stem; cf. the forms frequently found in Lithuanian dialects: artojus, mokytojus, snaudalius, išganytojus, etc.⁷⁹ In this way, a new word group may have arisen, with an iu-stem singular and an io-stem plural.

Further decline of (i)u declension in Lithuanian dialects

In some Lithuanian dialects, because of their specific phonological development, the declensions of (i)u- and (i)o-stem nouns have become even more similar. In Eastern Aukštaitian and Dzūkian varieties, the forms of the accusative singular in o- and u-stem declensions merged as a result of an >a changing to un >ū, a change already recorded in the anonymous catechism of 1605 and in the writings of K. Sirvydas; cf. vaikų <*vaikan and sūnų. Consequently, the decline of the u stem accelerated here. In some varieties, even the nominative singular already has an o-stem inflection, cf. sūnas, ālas, medas (alongside alus, medus, etc.) (Gelvonai, Bagaslaviškis, etc.), as does the nominative ralas.

In the Aukštaitian varieties of the Mūša river basin, word-final shortening is characteristic. Short word-final vowels are lost here. The short word-final u is also lost. As a result, the nominative singular of o- and u-stem nouns has merged here, cf. sūns, turgs, žmōgs (Biržai), tōrgs, sūns, vōr’s, lietes, žmōgs, med’s, āls (Pašvitinys, Šeduva, etc.). Other u-stem noun cases are often analogically remodeled on the o-stem pattern, like the nominative, cf. the genitive tōrga, sūna (Pašvitinys), etc.

⁷⁸ Cf. P. Skardžius, op. cit., pp. 79–80.

⁷⁹ See P. Jonikas, op. cit., 47.

41

In other Eastern Aukštaitian dialects, where short word-final vowels have not yet been lost, they are heavily reduced and barely audible. The reduction of word-final u and a has the same outcome here, cf. sūnõs, dungõs, alõs, and miškõs, stalõs, etc. (Ramygalą, Raguvą, etc.). Consequently, the singular of u-stem nouns here too is often already declined like that of o-stem nouns.

In the Samogitian dialect, the phonological development also accelerated the decline of the u stem. When shortening word endings, Samogitians never drop short u, but only broaden it, turning it into o; cf. šīnõs, tõrgos, vẽdos, mẽdos, etc. In some Samogitian varieties, the nominative singular form of u-stem nouns merged with the nominative singular of those o-stem nouns that retained their unshortened word ending because dropping short a would create a difficult-to-pronounce consonant cluster; cf. dãržos, gūžos, kãklos, miẽšlos, džãukšmos, etc. Moreover, in much of the Samogitian dialect, except for the northwest and southern fringe, the accusative singular forms of o- and u-stem nouns coincide, because the diphthong an became on here; cf. the accusative singular lauko < *laukon < *laukan, and u changing to o through u, cf. the accusative singular sūno, veršo, etc. This merger of the nominative and accusative singular forms greatly accelerated the decline of the u-stem singular.

The decline of iu-stem nouns in the dialects is even faster than that of u-stem nouns. In some Eastern Aukštaitian dialects, this was caused solely by phonetic factors, namely, the change of fronted u(iu) to i; cf. the accusative plural svečis < svečius. Consequently, the iu-stem nominative singular in -ius changed here into a form identical to the io-stem nominative singular; cf. vãisis, sūkčis, spiẽčis, karãlis (Raguva, Gėlvonai, Vabalninkas, etc.). The nominatives recorded in texts collected by Baranauskas⁸⁰ most likely arose for phonetic reasons: karalis 196₁₅,₁₇,₁₈,₂₀ (Krekenava), sziaucz’is 205₇,₈ (Pagiriai), kriaucz’is 205₆,₈ (Pagiriai); accusative singular karali 196₁₅ (Krekenava), karali 197₁₃,₂₀ (Krekenava), kriauczi 207₅ (Pagiriai), pakaji 207₂₂,₂₄ (Pagiriai), kryži 212₈,₁₄,₁₆ (Pagiriai).

In Eastern Aukštaitian varieties, for example around Palomenė, Palėvenė, and elsewhere, the iu-stem singular has almost completely disappeared, although there is no such change of iu to i here and the iu declension has not become any more similar to the io declension than in other dialects. Apparently, the process by which the iu stem merged into the io stem simply proceeded more rapidly here. The nominative singular forms used here include skỹris, bãlis, kriaučis, šiaučis, etc. Other cases likewise have io-stem endings: the singular of iu-stem nouns has almost completely disappeared also in the Gervėčiai and Zietela areas within the territory of the Byelorussian SSR; cf. the nominative singular karalis, bočis, šiaučis.

The singular of iu-stem nouns with io-stem forms is also frequently found among the Samogitians, e.g. kerd is, karalis (Kretinga), karalis 392₁₆,₁₈,₂₀,₂₂ (Šėta), lokajis 392₁₇ (Šėta).

Conclusions

The u-declension is disappearing in Lithuanian, as in the other Baltic and Indo-European languages. Nouns of the ū-declension disappeared early. Particularly diminished is

⁸⁰ See A. Baranowski – F. Specht, Litauische Mundarten, 1.

42

The plural of (i)u-stem nouns, which for phonetic reasons early acquired the same accusative form as the plural of (i)o-stems. Its decline was accelerated by the genitive plural forms, which were identical to those of (i)o-stems, as well as by the nominative-accusative dual forms. Forms of the u-stem. Examples of u-stem nouns whose plurals shifted to the o-stem are found as early as the 16th-century Lithuanian written monuments (in the writings of J. Bretkūnas). The plural locative shifted to the o-stem early. On the whole, however, the u-declension was still quite strong in the 16th century. Even u-stem adjectives here often retained u-stem forms of the singular instrumental and plural instrumental, and, more rarely, of the singular locative and plural dative. Today the u-declension has survived to varying degrees in Lithuanian dialects. It is best preserved in the western Aukštaitian dialect. It is most diminished in Samogitian, as well as in the eastern Aukštaitian and Dzūkian dialects.

The singular of the (i)u-stem is also disappearing. Here, the dative has been most affected by the influence of the (i)o-stem: we have no traces at all of its old (i)u-stem forms in the Baltic languages. The singular instrumental has also been affected; its (i)o-stem forms are found as early as the 16th-century Lithuanian written monuments (in the writings of M. Mažvydas, B. Vilentas, M. Petkevičius, and others).

The plural of the iu-stem declined even faster than that of the u-stem because 1) nouns of the io- and iu-stems with the same meaning may have been used alongside one another from early on; 2) a new group of words, with an iu-stem singular and an io-stem plural, may have arisen on the model of the newly developed singular vocative in -iau of certain io-stem words.

The plural of the iu-stem, now almost entirely unattested in Lithuanian dialects, was still in use in 16th–17th-century written monuments. The iu-stem plural nominative and instrumental are best preserved here, as frequently used cases; the dative is weakly preserved, while the iu-stem locative has already shifted entirely to the io-stem.

Judging from the old Lithuanian written monuments, the iu-stem plural was best preserved in the 16th–17th centuries in the central and eastern Aukštaitian dialects (M. Daukša, K. Širvydas, M. Petkevičius, J. Morkūnas), and was weakly preserved in the western Lithuanian dialects (M. Mažvydas, B. Vilentas, J. Bretkūnas, D. Kleinas, and others). Grammars as late as the 19th century still record the iu-stem plural of some nouns.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AK—(1605 m. anoniminis katekizmas.) Katechismas Aba Pamokimas... Vntrukart išspaus tas Wilniuy 1605. Cituojama pagal E. Sittig, Der polnische Katechismus des Ledezma und die litauischen Katechismen des Daug sza und des Anonymus vom Jahre 1605, Göttingen, 1929.

APh—Philological Archive, I—VIII, Kaunas (1930—1939).

APM—On the pope’s meadow (bound together with MT).

av.—Avestan.

augšz.—Latvian augšzemnieku.

43

BrB—The Bible, that is, all the Holy Scriptures translated into Lithuanian by Jonas Bretkūnas, pastor of Lithuania in Königsberg (1579—1590), vols. I—VIII.

BrP—Postilla... By Jonas Bretkūnas, pastor of Lithuania in Königsberg... 1591 (parts I—II).

BS—Balticoslavica, I—III, Vilnius (1933—1938).

BŠ—Balsas sirdies... Wilniuy, 1790.

DB—S. Daukantas, Budą senowęs Lëtuwių Kalnienų ir Žamajtių iszrasze... Jokyb’s Laukys, Petropļie, 1845.

dgs.—plural.

DK—Catechism, or the teaching required of every Christian... by the priest Mikalojus Daugša... Vilnius, 1595. Cited according to E. Sittig’s 1929 edition.

DP—Postilla Catholica... Per Kuniga Mikalojv D a v k s z a... Wilniui 1599. Naudotasi 1926 m. fotografuotinio leidimu.

E—Enchiridion, a small catechism... by Baltramiejus Vilentas... Printed in Königsberg... Year M. D. LXXIX.

EE—Gospels and Epistles... by Baltramiejus Vilentas... Königsberg... Year M. D. LXXIX.

GN—The New Testament of Jesus Christ... by Jozapas Arnulpas Kunigaikštis Giedraitis, Bishop of Samogitia, Vilnius, 1816.

gal.—accusative.

gr.—Greek.

ide.—Indo-European.

IF—Indogermanische Forschungen, Strasbourg.

inag.—instrumental.

JE—Ewangelie polskie y lietewskie..., Wilno, 1752.

JLD—Lithuanian Songs Recorded by Antanas Jurškevičę, Volumes I—III, Kazan, 1880—1882. Cited by song numbers.

JS—J. Rupeika, Jonas isz Swisloczes..., Wilniuje, 1823.

Jass P—Pamokslay... par kunegu Rapolu Jassykiewicze, I—II dalys, Wilna, 1855, 1857.

kilm.—genitive.

KIG—D. Klein. Nawjos Giesmju Knigos..., Karalauczuje, 1705.

KIM—D. Klein, New Prayer Books Necessary for Worship and Beneficial to Souls..., Königsberg, 1704,

KnN—Kniga Nobaznistes Krikščioniszkos..., Kiedaynise, 1653.

KW—Litauisch-deutsches Wörterbuch von Fr. Kurschat, Halle, 1883.

KZ—Journal of Comparative Linguistics, Göttingen.

lat.—Latvian.

LChr—E. Volteris, Lietùviška chrestomatija, Санктпетербургъ, 1904.

lot.—Latin.

MKr—Maldos Krikščioniszkos..., Kiedaynise, 1653.

MLLG—Mitteilungen der Litauischen Litterarischen Gesellschaft, Heidelberg (1883—1912) (I—VI).

MT—Margarita Theologica... Per Simona Waischnora..., Karalauczui, 1600.

Mž—M. Mažvydas, The Oldest Monuments of the Lithuanian Language up to 1570. Prepared for publication by J. Gerullis, Kaunas, 1922.

OBr—M. Olševskis, Broma atwerta ing wiecznasti..., Wilniuj, 1753.

PK—M. Petkevičius’s catechism. Cited from J. Balčikonis’s 1939 phototype edition.

pr.—Prussian.

PS—K. Šyrwids, Punktay sakimu (Punkty kazań). Teil I—1629, II—1644..., Göttingen, 1929.

R—Lithuanian-German and German-Lithuanian Lexicon... by Philipp Ruhig, Königsberg, 1747.

44

Old English—Old English.

Old Indian—Old Indian.

Old Slavonic—Old Slavic.

Su—Summa Aba Trumpas išguldimas Ewangeliv...; Kiedaynise... 1653.

Old High German—Old High German.

SzD—Dictionarium trium linguarum..., Quinta editio, Vilnae, 1713.

voc.—vocative.

TD—Tautosakos darbai, I-VII, Kaunas (1935—1940).

Ukr.—Ukrainian.

Univ.—Universitas Linguarum Litvaniae... Vilnae, 1737.

nom.—nominative.

loc.—locative.

sg.—singular.

Sam.—Samogitian.

ZfslPh—Journal of Slavic Philology.

ŽP—Žiwatas Pona..., aprašzitas Metusy Pona 1753, y druka Paduotas..., Suprasław... Metusy Pona 1787.

ŽS—Žiwatay szwętụ..., Wilniuj, 1858.

ŽW—Žemajtiu wiskupiste, Aprasze K. Motiejus Wolonczewskis, dalis I, Wilniuj, 1848.

Note: the pitch accent of the long vowels and diphthongs ie, uo in the Eastern Aukštaitian dialect is marked, as in the Central dialect, with the sign s.

THE PROCESS OF UNIFICATION OF DECLENSIONS OF NOUNS WITH STEMS IN -(i)u AND STEMS IN -(i)o.

И. И. КАЗЛАУСКАС

Abstract

Drawing on extensive material collected from ancient texts and modern dialects of the Lithuanian language, the author investigates the development of the declension of nouns with stems in -(i)u. The article identifies the causes of the disappearance of the declension of nouns with stems in -ū and examines the unification of the declension of nouns with stems in -(i)u with that of nouns with stems in -(i)o. The transition of plural nouns with stems in -(i)u into the class of nouns with stems in -(i)o, and the influence of the singular forms of nouns with stems in -(i)o on nouns with stems in -(i)u, are investigated historically, from Old Lithuanian to their modern state in the dialects. The author also attempts to explain the origin of some noun case forms in -(i)u that have not yet been clarified, e.g. the singular locative sūnije, and others.