О сочетаниях с родительным падежом в современном литовском литературном языке

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, II LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA ON GENITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE Т. В. БУЛЫГИНА This article is devoted to certain questions connected with the description of the functions of the Lithuanian genitive—a case that undoubtedly presents the greatest difficulties for the researcher of case syntax (not only in Lithuanian, but also in other Indo-European languages).1) Despite the fact that this case has acquired an exceptionally wide syntactic distribution in Lithuanian,2) there is still no study devoted specifically to constructions with the genitive. As for general works concerned with the study of case syntax in 1) Many scholars have drawn attention to the difficulty of interpreting the use of the Indo-European genitive—for recent works, see, for example, A. Heintz, Genetivus w indoeuropejskim systemie przypadkowym, Warszawa, 1955, p. 5. It is no coincidence that no “general” definition of the meaning of the genitive case (in the various Indo-European languages)—from the ancient Indian grammarians [cf. the negative definition of the use of the genitive in Pāṇini’s grammar, quoted by Delbrück (“The genitive is used in all other cases”), which follows a fairly precise establishment of the generalized meaning of the other cases (see V. Delbrück, Vergl. Synt., I Th., Kap. III, I, A. Die Grundbegriffe nach der indischen Grammatik, p. 180)] to the most recent attempts in this direction—has proved satisfactory [cf., for example, the extremely abstract definition of the general meaning of the genitive in Russian by R. Jakobson (Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre, TCLP, t. 6, Prague, 1936, p. 255) and A. V. Isačenko’s objections (Грамматический строй русского языка в сопоставлении со словацким, Bratislava, 1954, p. 139); at the same time, the identification of the meanings Genetivus subjectivus and Genetivus objectivus as the only syntactic ones—that is, independent of the semantics of the components of the construction—as proposed by J. Kurylowicz in his remarkable article “Le problème du classement des cas” (BPTJ, IX, Kraków, 1949, p. 33), and following him by A. V. Isačenko (op. cit., p. 138), also does not appear to be argued with sufficient consistency (for more on this, see T. V. Bulygina, Неглагольные сочетания с родительным падежом в современном литовском литературном языке, in Славянское языкознание, Moscow, 1959, pp. 222–223)]. 2) This circumstance, cleverly illustrated some time ago by the publisher of Lithuanian folktales Orshko, who in one of his “linguistic tricks” (Sprachkunststücke) recounted an entire story using only the genitive among the oblique cases (Litauische Märchen und Erzählungen. Aus dem Volke gesammelt und in verschiedenen Dialekten besonders in der Galbraster Mundart mitgeteilt von C. Jurkschat, Heidelberg, 1898), and, especially, the fact that the syntax of the genitive in Lithuanian has preserved many features of its earliest use that have been lost in other languages, lead us to suppose that an investigation of the Lithuanian genitive could also prove useful in clarifying the nature of the genitive in other languages (Slavic languages first and foremost). 90 in Lithuanian, they not only provide an insufficiently complete description of constructions involving a single specific case (which is entirely understandable given their general nature), but also invite a number of fundamental objections—both at the general theoretical level (principles of classification; excessive subdivision resulting from failure to distinguish proper case meanings from particular meanings determined entirely by the vocabulary of the construction’s components, etc.) and in the concrete interpretation of individual uses of the genitive (the inadequacy of the term “Genitivus partitivus”; the grouping of heterogeneous types of genitive use under this heading; the unjustified application, in a number of cases, of the verb’s meaning as the basis for classifying verbal constructions with the genitive, etc.). In this article, we intend to address some of these questions using constructions with the genitive in contemporary Lithuanian literary language, without aiming, for lack of space, to provide a comprehensive systematic description of the use of this case. * * * — There can be no doubt that, when investigating the meaning of any given case, primary attention must be paid to the grammatical category of the word that occurs with it. Thus, one should undoubtedly distinguish nominal and verbal constructions as the two main types of genitive constructions, since differences in the grammatical category of the words combined with the genitive correspond to differences in the syntactic meaning of the constructions in question, that is, in the nature of the relation between their components: the adnominal genitive determines and delimits a nominal concept, expressing a variety of attributive relations, whereas the adverbal genitive most often denotes the object of an action and is thus linked to the “head word” of the construction by an objective relation. It is therefore difficult to agree, for example, with the eminent scholar of Lithuanian syntax E. Fraenkel3), who treats constructions such as, say, duoti vandens alongside constructions such as vandens stiklas (under the heading “Gen. partitivus”), separating the former from other verbal constructions and the latter from other nominal constructions. The traditional general label under which E. Fraenkel groups these two heterogeneous types of construction is not sufficient proof that the case form actually has a common meaning in constructions of both types. On the other hand, it is hardly advisable to base classification in every instance on the grammatical category of the word that occurs with the genitive. Thus, there is evidently no reason to separate verbal constructions with the genitive from constructions of this case with active participles, since the nature of the relation between the components, as 3) См. Е. F r a e n k e l, Syntax der litauischen Kasus, Kaunas, 1928. 91 just as the “meaning” of the case form (the object of the action expressed by the head word) is identical in both types of construction. It therefore seems unconvincing, for example, that Schleicher includes among constructions with adjectives and their adverbs⁴) constructions with participles formed from verbs with negation (e.g., nebōjas pinigų), or from verbs which, in their finite form as well, take a genitive object (e.g., vandēns trōkštas, smertės bijas)⁵). Likewise, it seems unjustified to separate genitive constructions with nouns denoting quantity from analogous constructions with quantitative adverbs or “substantive” numerals, on the one hand, and, on the other, to group them with constructions involving similar nouns that differ in meaning (and in form!—the order of the components is at issue here), as E. Fraenkel does in his classification. A comparison of various constructions with a postpositive genitive—[cf., e.g.,…pōra sveikinimo žodžių, pōra pakštelėjimų poniai į ranką, pōra stiklų arbatos — ir sudiev (Cvirka) “…a couple of words of greeting, a couple of kisses on the lady’s hand, a couple of glasses of tea—and goodbye” (genitive with nouns); …vandēnys krinta penkis šimtus pēdų žemyn, suduždami į milijardus mažų lašelių (Cvirka) “…the water plunges down five hundred feet, breaking into billions of tiny droplets” (genitive with numerals); …ir daug daktarų paėmė daug pinigo (Cvirka) “…and many doctors took a lot of money” (genitive with adverbs); …ėjo žinios: tiek užmuštų, tiek paimtų į nelaisvę (Cvirka) “…news came in: so many killed, so many taken prisoner” (genitive with pronouns)]—shows that the meaning of the genitive case (“the name of a class or kind of things taken in a certain quantity”) does not depend on the different parts of speech to which the semantically homogeneous words that occur with it belong. At the same time, the formal distinction (the different order of the components) between genitive constructions with nouns denoting quantity, measure, and the like proves to be connected with a difference in their meaning. In constructions with a prepositive genitive (which could provisionally be called a “genitive of content”), if the noun occurring with the genitive—that is, the name of the “form”—is the main constituent, the “theme” of the utterance, while the name of the “content” is merely a necessary additional element, an attribute to the name of the “form,” then in constructions with a postpositive genitive (which could provisionally be called a “genitive of quantity”), the main element is the concept expressed by the genitive case, while the designation of quantity is less significant, functioning, as it were, as an attribu- ⁴) See A. Schleicher, Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, vol. 1, Grammatik, Prag, 1856. -Cap. V, Vom Gebrauche der Casus, § 129 (the author distributes all the material into three groups according to the grammatical category of the “head word”; besides the group mentioned above, these include constructions with nouns and constructions with verbs. This principle, however, is not followed consistently in every case). ⁵) Ibid., p. 273. 92 te (not, of course, a grammatical one) to the name of a substance (or object, etc.). To illustrate the connection between the meaning of the whole construction and the particular order of the words that form it, let us compare some examples belonging to the two types of construction under discussion. Thus, compare, for example, a construction with a postpositive genitive, such as:... prie karštų krosnių, kur lašas ištirpinto plieno iš karto persigeria per žmogaus kaulus (Cvirka),... “by the red-hot blast furnaces, where [a single; every] drop of molten steel immediately burns through a person’s body to the bone” (as the context shows, the emphasis in this construction is precisely on the quantity of the substance), or the no less characteristic:.... išseko motinoje paskutinis lašas pieno (Cvirka) “the mother’s last drop of milk ran dry,” with constructions using the same noun with a prepositive genitive:... visa dingę, išgaravę, kaip rasos lašelis (Cvirka) “...everything vanished, evaporated like a dewdrop” (literally, “a dew drop”);...į lietaus lašus (Cvirka) “into raindrops.” Compare also the following constructions with identical lexical composition:... nupirko dar gabalą žemės (Cvirka) “bought another piece of land” and išlindo auksinio rago pavidalo žemės gabalas (Cvirka) “a piece of land shaped like a golden horn appeared”—in the first construction, the noun occurring with the postpositive genitive “defines” the object denoted by the genitive in quantitative terms; in the meaning of the second construction, with a prepositive genitive and characterized by a closer connection between its components, the quantitative nuance is absent. Compare also: Dabar, girdi, aš tiek pinigų turiu, kad galėčiau dvarą nupirkti ir pulką kareivių laikyt su armotomis (Cvirka) “Now, listen, I have so much money that I could buy an estate and maintain [a whole] regiment of soldiers with cannons” (the construction emphasizes the number of soldiers, as the context also shows), and the same noun in a construction with a prepositive genitive:... kad raudonarmiečių pulkai pas mus atvažiavo (Jovaras) “...that Red Army regiments had arrived at our place.” Also instructive is a comparison of the following pairs of constructions, in which the same words have a “quantitative” or “non-quantitative” meaning depending on the position of the genitive case; cf.: Šyvis... surado eilę gerbėjų (Cvirka) “Shyvis... gained [a whole] series (that is, ‘many’) of admirers” and Krukas...nusišypsojo, praskleidęs auksinių dantų eilę (Cvirka) “Krukas...smiled, showing a row [here the noun eilė has its literal meaning] of golden teeth”; or: Šiandien pasiunčiau jums partiją tautiečių (Cvirka) “Today I sent you [a whole] batch of compatriots” and Amerikos socialistų partija (Cvirka) “the Socialist Party of America”; compare also:... skustuvą, kojines ir dar porą smulkių daiktų (Cvirka) “a razor, socks, and a couple more [that is, ‘several’] small items” and... turiu dvi eilutes, ketverias batų poras (Cvirka) “...I have two suits and four pairs of shoes.” In combination with a postpositive genitive, quantitative meaning is acquired also by nouns such as those, for example, that are generally far removed from this semantic domain but denote objects with which a certain 93 …a quantitative meaning, as in tvanac “flood,” debesys “cloud,” and the like. Compare their use with postposed and preposed genitives: … kur tvanas visokių į žmones panašių daiktų, tvanac alaso, balsų (Cvirka) “…where there was a whole flood of all sorts of human-like creatures, a flood of noise and din” (in combination with a preposed genitive, the same noun occurs in its literal meaning; compare, for example, …mirkti alyvos ir anglių tvane (Cvirka) “…to be drenched in a flood [of] oil and coal”); …siautė debesys peteliškių (Cvirka) “…whole clouds of butterflies were swirling” (in combinations of the same noun with a preposed genitive, there is no quantitative meaning; compare, for example, važiuodavo lengva mašina, skandindama dulkių debesis prie kelio dirbančius kumetčius (Marukas) “a light car would drive by, burying the farmhands working by the road in a cloud of dust”; …o žąsys girgina piaunamos — plunksnų debesėlis (Cvirka) “…and when the geese shriek under the knife—a little cloud of down”). The number of examples indicating that the meaning of a phrase depends on the order of its components could be considerably increased. However, it seems that even the relatively small number of examples cited, which attest to the special meaning of combinations of collective and quantitative nouns with a postposed genitive, confirms that it is unjustified to conflate such combinations with combinations of nouns of the same semantics with a preposed genitive (the so-called “genitive of content”). This distinction and, on the other hand, the evident commonality of meaning of the postposed genitive in combinations with semantically related nouns, adverbs, pronouns, and numerals indicate both the need to take the order of the components into account when classifying case meanings, and the advisability of basing the classification on the grammatical category of the word combined with the genitive only when such a division is functionally justified. A whole range of contentious questions arises in connection with the study of the genitive in the comparatively limited domain of its adjectival use. The bulk of verbal combinations with the genitive consists of combinations denoting an action and its object, that is, having a meaning corresponding to that of combinations of transitive verbs with the accusative. In some combinations, the occurrence of the genitive is determined by the semantics of verbs that always combine with this case, whereas in others the verb in the construction may also combine with the accusative. Naturally, in establishing the specific meaning of the genitive, these latter combinations, directly opposed to constructions with the accusative, are of particular interest. The meaning revealed by comparing combinations with the two cases that are identical in lexical composition (having identical “lexical content”) is evident, and will be the specifically “grammatical— 94 tic6 meaning, inherent in the case form itself, entirely free from the influence of the “semantic load” of the components of the combination. It is precisely when the two types of combinations can be directly contrasted (i.e., when, in combination with one and the same verb, either case of one and the same noun can occur) that the formal distinction between the accusative and genitive cases is syntactically significant. The realization of this possibility is constrained by the noun denoting the object of the verbal action: the contrast in question concerns verbal combinations with nouns united by the general meaning of “non-objecthood,” “substance,” or “spatial indefiniteness” (i.e., with material, collective, and abstract nouns, as well as plural nouns denoting a “spatially indefinite” collection of objects). As for the verbs that can occur in the combinations under consideration, they do not form any homogeneous semantic group; any transitive verb may serve as the “head word,” provided its meaning does not necessarily entail a connection with an “individual,” “spatially bounded” object of a definite volume. The possibility of identifying entire groups of combinations with lexically homogeneous verbs is explained solely by the fact that some verbs naturally combine with particular objects; for example, the high frequency of verbs denoting eating and drinking in these combinations is due to the fact that foodstuffs are often denoted by material nouns. Yet combinations of these verbs with the genitive of material nouns differ in no essential respect from corresponding combinations containing any other transitive verb. It therefore seems wholly unjustified to make the occurrence of the genitive invariably dependent on particular verbs, as E. Fraenkel does, for example. In the work cited above, he treats separately the genitive with verbs meaning “to eat, drink of something” (“von etwas essen, trinken”) and with verbs meaning “to give someone a share in something, to gain, obtain something” (“jmd. an etw. Anteil geben etw. gewinnen, erlangen”)⁸) (thus distinguishing cases such as “walgiti duonas”—p. 43—from cases such as “kur gaut pinigų”—p. 44), while at the same time grouping combinations with these verbs together with combinations containing verbs meaning “to fill, load full, etc., with something” (“anfüllen, volladen usw. mit etw.”)—p. 44 (that is, pripildyti and the like), and verbs expressing the subject’s satisfaction with an action: “sich satt 6) We use the expression of Prof. A. V. Isačenko (The Grammatical Structure of Russian in Comparison with Slovak, Bratislava, 1954, p. 136), who employs it in connection with the thesis that the “syntactic” and “non-syntactic” (“adverbial”) meanings of case must be distinguished, though, unfortunately, without defining the conditions of maximum “freedom from semantic load.” 7) The meaning of these perhaps not entirely successful terms, which we are nevertheless at a loss to replace, is explained in A. I. Thomson’s work “On the Syntax and Semasiology of the Russian Language,” Odessa, 1903, pp. 36 ff. 8) As these section titles show, E. Fraenkel attributes the meaning of an action encompassing an object only in part (and without justification) to the verb itself. 95 “... eat, drink one’s fill” — p. 44 (i.e., priesti, apsigerti, and the like); the verbs genügen, hinreichen, ermangeln, bedürfen — p. 45 (i.e., for example, pakakti, užtekti, netekti, and the like; reikėti, reikalauti, and the like) — that is, verbs whose meaning genuinely determines the use of the genitive case, are placed in one group, “Gen. part. bei bestimmten, meist trans. Verben” (emphasis ours — T. B.). In view of what has been said, it seems advisable to base the classification of the combinations under consideration on the meaning of the noun appearing in the genitive case (within the resulting groups, combinations with verbs of similar meaning may, for convenience of presentation, be arranged together). Combinations with mass nouns. Unlike spatially bounded designations, which refer to a definite quantity of items and, in combination with transitive verbs, always occur in the accusative case, mass nouns (and the like), when denoting the object of an action expressed by a transitive verb, are often used in the genitive case. As has already been noted, the possibility of mass nouns combining with the genitive case is generally not associated with any particular groups of verbs, except insofar as it is naturally limited by the real possibility of connecting certain actions with a particular group of objects denoted by mass nouns. It is also natural that the most common combinations are those with verbs denoting actions with which the objects in question are connected by their very nature. These include, for example, combinations with the verbs valgyti “to eat,” gerti “to drink,” srėbti “to sup,” and the like; for example, Parėjusį pavalge šiltų, nuo pusryčio likusių batvinių, pasrėbė rūgusio pieno (Vienuolis) “On returning, she ate some warm beet soup left over from breakfast and had some sour milk”; virti “to boil,” kepti “to bake,” daryti (in the sense “to prepare food”); for example, Vieni, sukūrę žemėje ugnį, verda valgio, kepa šašlykų (Vienuolis) “Some, having kindled a fire on the ground, cook food (gen.), grill shashlik (gen.)”; as well as with verbs denoting “universal” actions—in the sense that they are directed toward various objects: duoti “to give,” skolinti “to lend,” siūlyti “to offer”; for example, Jonai, duok jodo, duok vat os (Vienuolis) “Jonas, give me some iodine, give me some cotton”; „...gal man paskolinsi duonos? (Jasiukaitis), “...perhaps you could lend me some bread?”; Vienas net siūlė tabako (Cvirka) “One even offered some tobacco”; imti “to take,” gauti “to get,” gabenti “to transport,” pirkti “to buy”; for example, Keisk pavardę, kartą tu gauni žemės (Cvirka) “Change your surname, since you’re getting some land (gen.)”; Ir paėmė likerio (Cvirka) “And they took some liqueur”;...nors patys sau turėjome gabenti duonos iš tolimesnių kraštų (Vienuolis), “...although we ourselves had to transport some bread for ourselves from more distant regions”;...pirmiausia nutarėm nusipirkti cukrinių avinėlių (Cvirka) “...first of all, we decided to buy some sugar lambs”; nešti “to carry,” vežti “to transport,” and the like; for example, Moterys tetai atnešdavo skerstuvių, miltų, sviesto, sūrio, o pačios išsinešdavo sėklų ir žolelių (Cvirka) “The women brought their aunt some meat, flour, butter, and cheese, while taking away seeds and herbs themselves”; atsivežė jis daug knygų, mikroskopą ir šiaip įvairios mokslo medžiagos (Jurgi- 96 nas) “he brought along many books, a microscope, and various scientific materials”; turėti “to have”; for example, Džiaukis duonos turinti, ne sviesto (Žemaitė) “Be glad that you have some bread (gen.), not butter (gen.).” However, combinations with other verbs are also widely used, for example: Kad nesukiršintų pagonių dievų, nežymiai numesdavo jiems valgio ir kryžiuočiai (Vienuolis) “So as not to anger the pagan gods, even the Teutonic Knights would surreptitiously throw them some food”; „…švirnул вверх илу“; Dažnai jam motina įrišdavo į skarutę kiaušinių, vilnos, kartais tekdavo nunėšti kiaulės šerių arba senų skudurų (Cvirka) “His mother often tied some eggs and wool up for him in a kerchief; sometimes he had to carry off some pig bristles or old rags (gen.)”; „…jeigu meškai duoti pauostyti tabako… (Cvirka) “...if you give the bear some tobacco to smell...”; žemės žada, pinigų (Gudaitis-Guzevičius) “He promises some land, some money...”; „…kuris jau iš anksto buvo sėklos pažadėjęs (Baltušis) “...who had already promised some seeds in advance”; Dirgelevičius … iš spintos ištraukė … krupniko (Cvirka) “Dirgelevičius... took some krupnik out of the cupboard” (gen.); Pasodino vyrą berniuką prie stalo, surado jam popieriaus (Cvirka) “The men seated the boy at the table and found him some paper...” [cf. the combination with a “concrete” object: Mokytojas, ruoše profesoriaus popieriaus lapą (Acc.) … (Cvirka) “The teacher, having prepared a sheet of paper (acc.) for the professor...”]; „…įtraukiau oro ir taip pat – panėriau (Cvirka) “I drew in some air and also—dived”; pasiuntęs keletą skrybėlių ir kondensuoto pieno … (Cvirka) “having sent several hats and some condensed milk...”; Tėvas paliko grašio, paliko pilnus aruodus grūdo ir saliamonišką pamokymą, kaip gyventi ir turtus krauti (Cvirka) “Father left a few pennies, left full granaries of grain and a Solomonic lesson on how to live and amass wealth”; Rašo vis laiškus, įdeda vis pinigo (Cvirka) “He keeps writing letters, always putting some money in them (gen.)”; Šviesusis konjako ir sūrio įsidėjęs (Cvirka) “The Bright One took some cognac and cheese along,” and many others. A comparison of the combinations under consideration with the corresponding accusative constructions reveals a difference in their meanings, consisting in how the objects are represented, contrasted in terms of definiteness–indefiniteness, or “concreteness”–“materiality” (the latter terms are highly conventional)9. Thus, the genitive is used for the designation of an object represented as “indefinite,” non-individualized, and attracting attention not through 9) It is interesting that a similar phenomenon is observed in other, unrelated languages that lack an article. Cf., for example, the contrast between the accusative and the partitive in expressing “specificity” in Finnish: in some cases the accusative can express the definiteness of a direct object, while the partitive expresses its indefiniteness. Here, too, the contrast applies only to mass, collective, and abstract nouns—or words in the plural form—see L. Hakulinen, The Development and Structure of the Finnish Language (Russian translation), part II—Lexicology and Syntax, Moscow, 1955, p. 189. 7. Kalbotyros klausimai II. 97 from the point of view of form, but from the point of view of content, whereas the name of an individually defined (“spatially bounded,” in A. I. Thomson’s terminology) object appears in analogous constructions in the accusative case. Compare, for example, the following constructions: Antrą kalėjimo dieną jam atnešė butelį pieno ir duonos (Cvirka) “On the second day of his imprisonment they brought him a bottle of milk and some bread”; a few sentences later, the same object is denoted by the accusative case: Rytą jis suvalgė duoną (Acc.), išgėrė butelį pieno ir visą dieną iš šiaudų kažką pynė (Cvirka) “In the morning he ate [the bread that had been brought], drank a bottle of milk, and spent the whole day weaving something from straw”; or: Imkite, kunigėli, dešros (Cvirka) “Take some sausage, Father [the priest]…”—compare the construction with the accusative case of the same noun, denoting an individually defined object: man teko viename jūsų salūne užsisakyti dešrą (Acc.), kurią perpiovus, išėjo oras (Cvirka) “…I happened to order a sausage in one of your saloons, and when it was cut open, air came out”—compare this last example with the construction of the same verb with the genitive case of an “indefinitely conceived” object: Kasdien valgiau gardžių pietų, iš vakaro galėdavau užsisakyti mėgiamų buljonų, pudingų, saldumynų (Vienuolis) “Every day I ate delicious meals (literally, ‘of delicious meals’); in the evening I could order (literally) my favorite broths, puddings, and sweets…”; Antanėlis gauna šokolado (Cvirka) “Antanėlis gets chocolate [literally, ‘of chocolate’]”—compare the construction with the accusative case of the same noun, naming a specific action directed at a definite, “object-like” object: Antanėlis krūptelė, šokoladas nukrinta ant grindų, Kvintetas pakreipia taškuotą galvą, apuosto šokoladą (Acc.) ir netrukus taip pat užsimerkia (Cvirka) “Antanėlis startles, the chocolate falls to the floor, Kvintetas turns his spotted head, sniffs the chocolate, and soon closes his eyes again.” Compare the opposition between the genitive of a “substance-like,” indefinitely conceived object and the accusative of an “object-like” object (expressed by the same substantivized adjective) in one sentence: …atnešė man karčiosios ir ėmė prašyti, kad papasakočiau, o aš išverčiau ant žemės karčiąją (Acc.) ir sakau …(Cvirka) “…they brought me some bitter [drink] and began asking me to tell them, but I poured the bitter [drink] onto the ground and said…”; …Jocius … tik šviežio alaus į stiklinę pylė ir kiaulieną (Acc.) artyn stūmė (Baltušis) “…Jocius … only poured fresh beer into the glass and pushed the pork closer”—compare the first cited construction of the verb pilti with the genitive of a “substance-like” object with a construction of the same verb with the accusative of a “definite,” “object-conceived” object (also expressed by a noun denoting a substance): Pildamas kavą, oberleitenantas Grifelis pranešė, kad tai tikra kava ir tikras rusų likeris (Cvirka) “As he poured the [served] coffee, Oberleutnant Grifelis announced that it was real coffee and real Russian liqueur”; with the second cited construction, naming an action directed at an “object-like” object, compare the construction with the genitive of the same noun: …atnešiau kiaulienos prie raumenukų, išvi- 98 rinau (Cvirka) “…I brought some pork later and cooked it”; Jei tik šiandien gausiu pinigų, tai kitą sekmadienį ir brauksiu sau į Ameriką (Vienuolis) “If only I get some money today, then next Sunday I’ll set off for America”—compare the sentence below, where the same object (that is, the money that will be sent), conceived as “individually defined,” is expressed by the accusative case: Pinigus (Acc.) tuo tarpu paduosiu paturėti Juozaponienei (Vienuolis) “I’ll give the money to Juozaponienė to keep for the time being”; or similar examples: — Duok pinigų, eisiu gerti. — Kur aš imsiu pinigų? (Jasiukaitis) — “Give me some money; I’m going to drink. — Where am I supposed to get money?” and... jei senis mirs, aš paimsiu jo pinigus (Acc.) (Cvirka) “…if the old man dies, I’ll take his money.” Constructions with plural nouns. The particular conception of an object that gives rise to the genitive case may also be associated, as already noted, with a plurality of separate things or persons. To characterize the object of an action in constructions of this group, the term “indefinite conception” is more appropriate than “substance-like.” This “indefiniteness” in the conception of the object becomes clear when the constructions in question are compared with corresponding constructions in the accusative case—compare, for example, the following constructions with the verb turėti “to have”: Pasakykite, Frankai, ar jūs turite ten karvių, avių (Cvirka) “Tell me, Frank, do you have cows and sheep there…?” and: Frankas pradėjo pasakot apie tai, kokius arklius (Acc.) ir kokią karietą jis namie turėjo (Cvirka) “Frank began telling them what horses (acc.) and what carriage he had at home”—here the horses are already definite (kokius jis namie turėjo), and the conception of the object differs in these two examples. Compare also:...gražių namų turite ir savo polismenų (Acc.) (Cvirka) “…you have beautiful houses (gen.) and your own policemen (acc.)”; and: Mačiau, turite savo saliūnus, mokyklas ir bažnyčias (Cvirka) “I see you have your own saloons, schools, and churches (acc.)”; or an even clearer opposition in terms of “definiteness–indefiniteness”: Kiekvienas... turėjęs visokių sumanymų (Cvirka) “…everyone had all sorts of ideas (gen.)” and:...kiekvienas turėjo savo planus (Acc.) (Cvirka) “…everyone had their own [specific] plans (acc.).” Compare also the following opposition between the genitive and accusative cases in constructions with identical “lexical content”: Keistų jis turėjo būdo ypatybių (Cvirka) “He had strange traits of character” (literally, “Strange traits of character he had”) and:... jis turėjo savų nuostabių tėvų visas gerąsias ypatybes (Acc.) (Cvirka) “…he had within himself all the good qualities of his own remarkable parents.” Or—an opposition between definite and indefinite objects, expressed respectively by the accusative and genitive cases and associated with one and the same verb:... o kitus išvarge knechtai naktį išmesdavo į krantą ir palikdavo nepalaidoję, tik pasiimdavo sau jų ginklus (Acc.), drabužius (Acc.) ir šiaip geresnių daiktų (Gen.) (Vienuolis) “…and the exhausted servants would throw the others onto the shore at night and leave them unburied, taking only their weapons (acc.), clothes (acc.), and other better things (gen.) for themselves.” 99 they took for themselves their weapons (Acc.), clothing (Acc.), and some better things (Gen.).« Cf. also the following combinations of the genitive and accusative cases of one and the same noun with different verbs, in which the presence of one case or the other is explained, of course, not by the different nature of the actions, but by the different conception of the objects: Be to, mūsų ordino didysis magistras, kilnusis brolis Konradas Valenrodas, siunčia jūsų dukrai … savo palaimą ir dovanų (Gen.). — Ir riteris Griežė … perdavė savo kalaviją vienam tarnui, o iš kito … paėmė kunigaikštytei dovanas (Acc.)— пауксuotą dėžutę, kurioje buvo gražiausių gintarų eilutė ir aukso diadema galvai papuošti. Vėl, žengęs du žingsnius į priekį, priklaupė ir įteikė kunigaikštytei dovanas (Acc.) (Vienuolis) “Besides, the grand master of our order, the noble brother Konrad Wallenrod, sends your daughter… his blessing and gifts (Gen.)” — “And the knight Griežė handed his sword to one servant, and with both hands took from another gifts (Acc.) for the princess—a gilded casket containing a string of beautiful amber beads and a golden diadem to adorn her head. Again, taking two steps forward, he knelt and presented the princess with gifts (Acc.).” Or a similar contrast in the sentence: Abu broliai siunčia per jį motinai ir seseriai labai dienų ir geriausių linkėjimų (Vienuolis) “Both brothers sent through him greetings to their mother and sister (literally, ‘good days’) and their best wishes (Gen.)” — cf. the accusative further on: Bet progos prieiti prie bajorienės ir jos dukros ir perduoti sūnų ir brolių linkėjimus (Acc.) riteriui vis nebuvo (Vienuolis) “But the knight still had no opportunity to approach the noblewoman and her daughter and convey the wishes (Acc.) of their sons and brothers to them.” Given the boundless variety of meanings of nouns denoting the object of an action in combinations of this type (the sole feature they have in common is their characteristic “plurality”), it is impossible to identify any specific group of verbs most commonly used in these combinations. An examination of the most numerous of the verbal genitive constructions—combinations with the genitive case of plural nouns (we omit examples for lack of space)—most clearly demonstrates the invalidity of attempts to link the occurrence of the genitive case of the “object” to the meaning of the verb itself. Combinations with nouns of abstract meaning. As already noted, the opposition between an “indefinite” and a “definite” conception of the object also operates among nouns of abstract meaning, which resemble material nouns in their “non-object-like” and “formless” character. Cf., for example, the following combinations with identical lexical composition: Prasidėjo gyvenimas, fabrikai peripildyti užsakymų, kas nori — šiandien gali gauti darbo (Gen.) (Cvirka) “Life began; the factories are overflowing with orders; whoever wants to can get [some] work (Gen.) today” and: Gudaitis Pranuką nuvedė, ir jis gavo darbą (Acc.) lentpjūvėje. 100 Tokį darbą (Acc.) galėjo gauti kiekvienas naujokas… Pranas įsijungė į tą naują darbą. Jis pataikė labai geru laiku gauti darbą (Acc.) lentpjūvėje… (Cvirka) “Gudaitis led Pranukas away, and he got work (Acc.) at the sawmill. Any newcomer could get such work (Acc.)… Pranas became involved in that new work. He happened to get [that] work (Acc.) at the sawmill at just the right time” (Cvirka). Cf. also: Jeigu turėčiau laisvo laiko… (Cvirka) “If I had some free time…” (literally, “If I had free time (Gen.)…”), …kartais, turėdamas laiko … (Cvirka) “…sometimes, having time (Gen.)…” and: Žmonių gyvenimas buvo toks pat: visi jie ėjo, skubėjo, bet kiekvienas rodė savąjį laiką (Cvirka) “People’s lives were just the same: they all walked and hurried, but each showed their own time (Acc.).” The combinations being compared contain different verbs; however, the verbal component of the last combination (with the accusative) can also, when the object is conceived of as “indefinite,” combine with the genitive of an abstract noun, for example: Visi buvusieji Dūdos stalo draugai Meilutei akyse rodė rimto susirūpinimo jos vyro likimu (Cvirka) “All of Dūda’s former drinking companions showed Meilutė serious concern (Gen.) for her husband’s fate”; Kartais jis parodydavo didžiausio užsispyrimo (Cvirka) “Sometimes he displayed the greatest stubbornness (Gen.)”; and so on. Cf. also the semantically similar combinations turėti reikšmės, turėti svarbos, turėti svorio “to have weight, significance,” which contain the genitive of an abstract noun, and contrast with combinations of the same verb and the accusative of the noun reikšmę “meaning,” used in a specialized (linguistic) sense, in terms of the “conception” of the object: Ypatingai didelės svarbos turėjo Kruko įtraukimas į šį darbą (Cvirka) “The involvement of Krukas in this work was of particularly great importance (Gen.)”; Vis dėlto miestas turėjo savo reikšmės ir svorio jau vien dėl to, kad jis buvo apskrities miestas (Cvirka) “Nevertheless, the town had [some] significance (Gen.) and weight (Gen.), if only because it was the county seat”; and: Taip žodis „buožė“ lietuvių kalboje turi ir socialinę reikšmę (Acc.) — reiškia buvusios kaimo išnaudotojų, kapitalistų atstovą “Thus, in Lithuanian the word buožė also has a social meaning (Acc.)—it denotes a representative of the former rural exploiters, the capitalists”; Taip, kai kurie žodžiai turi siaurą, specialią reikšmę (Acc.) “Thus, some words have a narrow, specialized meaning (Acc.).” In the phraseological combination “to make an impression” (literally, “to do an impression”), the nominal component usually appears in the genitive case, for example: …mergaičių gražumas padarė atvažiavusiems įspūdžio (Vienuolis) “…the beauty of the girls made [some] impression (Gen.) on those who had arrived”; Tai darė įspūdžio, lyg užantyje tebūtų buvus tuštuma, ne kūnas (Vaižgantas) “This made an impression (Gen.), as if there had been nothing in the bosom but emptiness, not a body”; the same component, specified by a modifier, is more often put in the accusative, for example: Jie urąč nemalonų darė įspūdį (Acc.) savo barbarišku vaizdu kultūringame dvare (Vaiž- 101 (Gantas) “They made an especially unpleasant impression (Acc.) with their barbaric appearance in a cultured manor”; Bet maskviškių darbo kultūra, aukšta tekintojų kvalifikacija jam padarė gilų įspūdį (Acc.) (Dovydaitis) “But the work culture of the Muscovites and the high qualifications of the turners made a deep impression (Acc.) on him”; especially in cases such as: Severiutė tauškė plepėjo... ir nepasidomėjo, kokį įspūdį (Acc.) daro savo pasaka (Vaižgantas) “Severiutė chattered and babbled... and did not even wonder what impression (Acc.) her story was making”; Biržai visai kitaip šnekas, neg eglūnai ir pušynai. Kitokį ir įspūdį (Acc.) daro (Vaižgantas) “The clearings speak to one another quite differently from the spruce and pine woods. They also make a different impression (Acc.)”¹⁰. The range of verbs used in the combinations under consideration is naturally limited by the meaning of the nominal component. Combinations of the genitive case of an abstract noun with the verbs teikti, suteikti “to provide, render, grant, bring,” and the like, are widely used to denote the result of what is the subject of the action expressed by the verbal component; for example:...jausmas, kad esu gyvas, matau daiktus ir girdžiu už lango vėją, man teikė neapsakomo džiaugsmo (Cvirka) “...the feeling that I was alive, saw everything, and heard the wind outside the window brought me inexpressible joy (Gen.)”; Ir tokia malonia ir reikalinga jam buvo seselės priežiūra, jog užtekdavo vieno jos pamatymo, jos vieno žodžio — kad suteiktų jam energijos ir gyvumo (Vienuolis) “And his sister’s care was so pleasant and necessary to him that one glimpse of her, one word from her, was enough to give him energy (Gen.) and vitality (Gen.)”; Nepasakysiu, kad visa tai man teikė didelio malonumo (Cvirka) “I would not say that all this gave me great pleasure (Gen.),” and analogous combinations with the even broader-meaning verbs daryti, sudaryti “to make,” duoti “to give,” for example: Tai davė ir jam narsumo į viską šalčiau žiūrėti ir laukti šviesesnės ateities (Vienuolis) “This, too, gave him the courage to look at everything more coolly and await a brighter future”;...tie kraštai tik sudarys rūpesčio (Vienuolis) “...those lands will only cause trouble (sg.)”; O tai sarmatos padarė, gyvačiukė! (Vienuolis) “Well, you’ve made a fool of me, you little viper!” (literally, “made shame”), and so on. Among combinations with this meaning, a number of fixed idiomatic expressions stand out, for example įvaryti baimės “to strike fear”: kariai nešiojo ant ieties Karigailos Kazimiero galvą ir rodė ją, kad įvarytų baimės kitiems gyventojams (Vienuolis) “the warriors carried... the head of Kazimieras Karigaila on a spear and showed it in order to strike fear into the other resi- 10)The same is observed with regard to the previously mentioned combination “to have significance,” whose nominal component, when modified, often occurs in the accusative case; for example: Gramatika, kaip mokymo dalykas, turi didelę praktinę reikšmę “Grammar, as a subject of study, has great practical significance (Acc.)”; Jau iš šių teiginių numanu, kokią didžiulę reikšmę turi kalbos mokymas “These statements already make it clear how enormous a significance (Acc.) language teaching has.” 102 dents”; …visi pasijuto galį įvaryti baimės savo ponams (Cvirka) “...everyone felt capable of inspiring fear (Gen.) in their masters”; the previously mentioned padaryti įspūdžio “to make [some] impression,” and some others. The genitive case of abstract nouns denoting an emotion, attitude, or personal quality accordingly combines with verbs meaning “to express, show, manifest”—reikšti, rodyti, and the like; for example: Vytautas reiškė jiems pasigailėjimo (Vienuolis) “Vytautas expressed pity (Gen.) for them,” and the like. (Examples of combinations with rodyti, parodyti are given above, on p. 101.) One may also note combinations with the verbs gauti, įsigyti “to get, acquire,” and the like, which are more varied in the meaning of their nominal component and in their overall meaning, and especially common combinations with the verb turėti “to have”: …kad naujos pagalbos gautų (Baltušis) “...so that he might receive further help”; …po pietų ji įgaudavo pilko atspalvio (Cvirka) “...after lunch it took on a grayish hue (Gen.)”; …jeigu jie nori įsigyti aukščiausiojo malonės (Cvirka) “...if they want to obtain the favor (Gen.) of the Almighty”; …jis užsitarnavo didelės ir sunkios atgailos (Cvirka) “...he deserved a great and severe punishment (Gen.),” and so on. Su žmonėmis, domėne, jeigu turi reikalo—niekai (Cvirka) “If you have dealings (Gen.) with people, well—nothing to it”; kol turėjo sveikatos… (Jasiukaitis) “As long as he had his health… (Gen.)”; …mes su tavim kalbos turim (Vienuolis) “...you and I have a conversation” (literally, “we have” + Gen.); o namie, žinai, dar ruo šos turi (Vienuolis) “and at home, you know, you still have cleaning to do” (literally, “you have cleaning”), and so on. Cf. also combinations with other verbs that do not form distinct structural-semantic groups: Ji įneša į kalbą tikslumo ir aiškumo, padeda sutaupyti energijos bei laiko kaip kalbančiam, taip klausančiam. “It (the norm) introduces expediency (Gen.) and clarity (Gen.) into language, and helps both speaker and listener save energy (Gen.) and time (Gen.); Greta vykusios charakteristikos, meistriškos replikos, siužetinio posūkio, randame naivumo, tuščiažodžiavimo… (Šimkus) “Alongside a successful characterization, a masterful retort, and a plot twist, we also find naïveté (Gen.) and verbiage (Gen.); …ji į gryną … teisybę pirmą kartą per visą savo amžių įmaišė melo (Vaižgantas) “...for the first time in her life she mixed lies into the pure... truth”; …jog gyvenime yra svarbesnių reikalų, kurių svarstymams reikėtų pašvęsti laiko (Mizara); “...that there are more important matters in life, the consideration of which ought to be devoted time (Gen.)”; …ji paskui, jei matys reikalo, atitinkamai atsakys (Mizara); “...she will then, if she sees a need (that is, considers it necessary), respond accordingly.” Thus, the interpretation of the meaning of the genitive case in combinations such as those discussed above appears to reflect the nature of this case’s use more adequately than the traditional understanding, according to which combinations of definite 103 Verbs with the genitive case express an action encompassing part of the object named by the nominal component. An analysis of the corresponding constructions in modern Lithuanian shows that in the overwhelming majority of cases there is no basis for attributing the indicated meaning to the genitive case. A combination such as, for example, Duok pinigų, eisiu gerti “Give me some money, I’ll go and drink” does not at all express an order to give part of the money available to the addressee. The particular representation of the object that we have designated as “indefiniteness” consists precisely in its not being considered in relation to any particular “whole.”11) Nevertheless, the traditional definition of the meaning of the genitive in adverbal use could be interpreted in such a way that it would not contradict, but rather accord with, the understanding presented above. The difference between material and collective nouns serving as the nominal component in the combinations under consideration (as well as, in certain cases, plural nouns) and count nouns denoting concrete, individual members of the corresponding class of objects is that the former are generic designations of the entire naturally occurring mass of a substance or of the whole class of objects to which the corresponding concept may apply. Naturally, such an object cannot be subjected in its entirety to any specific action, and, consequently, the meaning of the genitive in these combinations is to name an object, part of which is subjected to the action. It is easy to see that this interpretation turns the traditional definition of the meaning of the adverbal genitive into merely a more complex version of the understanding of the nature of this case’s use advanced in this study. The notion of an “indefinite representation” of the object seems here—despite the provisional nature of the label—more appropriate than the traditional term “Genetivus partitivus,” to which A. I. Thomson objected decisively. The principal significance of his works addressing this question, however, lies not in an attempt to replace an inadequate term with new ones (“material,” “count” object), but in the clear identification among verb combinations with the genitive of those combinations in which the case of the object is determined by its connection with particular verbs. In establishing the meaning inherent in the case form itself, independently of the influence of the verb component’s semantics, it is extremely important to distinguish combinations such as those considered above from constructions in which the occurrence of the genitive is predetermined by the fact that the verb combined with it belongs to a more or less restricted group. 11) In some cases, a nuance of the object’s partial subjection to the action is indeed present in combinations of the type under consideration, but it depends entirely on the semantics of the verb component; compare, for example, combinations with the verb ragauti “to taste.” Compare also combinations with prefixed verbs, discussed below. 104 The following groups can be distinguished among combinations of the second type: 1. Combinations containing derived middle- and active-voice verbs, formed from the corresponding transitive verbs with the prefixes pri-, ap-, at-, už-, which express, among other things, the subject’s satisfaction with the action (mainly middle-voice verbs), the completeness or exhaustion of the action (ap-, pri-), or the partial nature of the action at-, pri-, už-). These verbs express an action predominantly or exclusively associated with an “indefinite,” “materially conceived” object (these prefixes introduce this nuance into the meaning of the verb). Consequently, the object of these verbs may be expressed by the genitive of a “material” noun (e.g., …jūs ten, bošai, kiaulienos priede ir alaus prigėrė (Cvirka) “…you there, Boshi, gorged yourselves on pork and drank your fill of beer”), an abstract noun (e.g., …kalbos, kurios dvasios prisisiunkė iš Lietuvos himno (Cvirka) “…the language, whose spirit he imbibed from the Lithuanian anthem”), or a plural count noun (e.g., …prisiskaitysi tu savo knygų (Jasiukaitis) “…you’ll read your fill of your books”). 2. The second group of combinations of the second type includes constructions with verbs belonging to certain lexical groups (so-called verbs of “mental and physical striving,” verbs of “request and question,” verbs of “negative emotions,” verbs with “removal” semantics, verbs of prolonged sensory perception, verbs of “lack and deprivation,” etc.). The “scope of influence” of such verbs is broader than that of the verbs in the preceding group, since the action they express is not associated with any particular representation of the object; thus, with them, the genitive may occur with “material” or abstract nouns as well as “count” nouns, and with pronouns. Compare, for example: — Hello — rikteлеjо Франкас jam, — nori kavos? (Cvirka) “Hello,” Frank shouted to him, “would you like some coffee (genitive)?” and: — Nori puoduko kavos? “Would you like a little cup (genitive) of coffee?”; Žuvis … gilumos ieško, o žmogus — gerumos (Gud.-Guzevičius) “Fish … seek the depths, while people seek goodness”; …ir todėl jam reiksia pačios (Cvirka) “…and therefore he needs a wife” (literally, “…a wife is needed by him”); …visados pakakdavo jo kompanijai pralinksminti (Cvirka) “…there was always enough of him to cheer up the company”¹²). 3. Finally, the third group of combinations of the second type comprises combinations of the genitive with verbs that are negated. Unlike combinations in the first two groups, these combinations have “univer- 12)The last two examples show the untenability of E. Fraenkel’s interpretation of the genitive with verbs of “need, lack, deprivation” and with verbs expressing “sufficiency” as a Genitiv’a partitiv’a (see cited work, p. 45, §43)—regardless of whether this term is understood in terms of partiality or of the indefiniteness of the object. Clearly, when the genitive is used with a singular “count” noun or a pronoun, the notion of an object undergoing the action only in some part of itself (or even of an “indefinite” object, in the case of a pronoun) is entirely untenable. 105 a “salient” character: verbs and nouns of any lexical meaning may enter into their composition (e.g., Jis nebedarinėjo deg lės, nemetė žarnų ir likučių varnoms, nepūtė pūslės (Cvirka) “He no longer gutted the perch, did not throw the remains of the intestines or the tail to the crows, did not blow up the bladder…”; Ar negirdėjai ten kaimenės bliaunant (instead of Acc. cum part.), laukuose prunkščiančio arklio, o kalvose siaudžiančio javo? (Cvirka) “Did you not hear there the lowing of the herd (genitive with a participle), the snorting of a horse in the fields, and the rustling of grain on the hills?” etc.). * * * The meanings expressed by combinations of the second type are usually distinguished as special meanings of the genitive case, and these combinations are considered alongside combinations of the first type (sometimes under the same heading). Thus, for example, the outstanding Lithuanian linguist J. Jablonskis, in his interesting book, rich in material, “Cases and Prepositions: Their Use in Our Language”13, distinguishes, alongside the “genitive of indefiniteness or part” (see §19, which brings together combinations of both the first and second types), the “genitive of fullness or plurality” (§18, which includes, among others, verbal combinations), the “genitive of purpose,” by means of which “the object sought or desired” is denoted (§21), the “genitive of lack or absence,” by which we designate what we lack or need, what is missing, “what we do not have” (§22), the “genitive of negation” (§23), and the “genitive of separation, etc.” (§29). Indeed, all these meanings can be observed in the corresponding combinations. Thus, in the combinations we have assigned to the first group, the nuance of “fullness or plurality” of the object, on the one hand, and, conversely, of “partiality of the object,” on the other, is quite clear. Compare, for example, such combinations as “... prisirašiau popierėlių… kad man tuomet kas dešinę nukirstų! (Cvirka) “… I wrote down a whole lot of little papers…, as if someone had cut off my right hand then!”; … prisigaudė žuvies (Cvirka) “… caught fish,” and such as: Valdovas atsigerė midaus (Cvirka) “The ruler… drank some mead”; Atsilauždami sau duonos, gulėjusios čia pat, ją užgerdavo jie iš didelio butelio (Cvirka) “Breaking off some bread for themselves, which lay right there, they washed it down from a large bottle.” There is, however, no basis for attributing one or another nuance to the meaning of the case form itself, since it is contained in the semantics of the verbal component, always combining specifically with the genitive-case name of the object, and since the combinations examined are not, therefore, contrasted with combinations of the same verbs in some other case (e.g., the accusative), in which this nuance would be absent. The same can justifiably be said of combinations of the second group. Compare, for example, combinations with verbs expressing “spiritual striving,” 13 J. Jablonskis, Linksniai ir prielinksniai, Jų vartojimas mūsų kalboje, Kaunas, 1928. 106 in which the genitive case seems to have the meaning of “the object sought or desired,” on the one hand, and combinations with verbs expressing the opposite emotional states, whose nominal component, if one were to be consistent, would have to be understood as expressing “an object avoided, fear-inspiring, or undesirable,” on the other: Kokių tu čia kliaučių ieškai? — Aš ne kliaučių ieškau, o teisybės (Vienuolis) “What snags are you looking for here? — I’m not looking for snags, but for justice”; … kiekvienas laukia pirmojo kliento, kaip laukia jaunavedžių pora savo pirmojo vaisiaus (Cvirka) “… everyone awaits the first client, just as a newlywed couple awaits their first child”; … norėjo viso tėvo ūkio vyresnysis (Vienuolis) “… the eldest wanted [to obtain] the whole of his father’s farm (genitive case)”; … jaunikliai vengė jo ir šalinəsi (Cvirka) “… the young ones avoided and kept away from him”; … bijojo žąsino, bijojo plačiųjų laukų tylos, bijojo ir svetimų žmonių (Vienuolis) “… she feared the gander, feared the silence of the wide fields, and feared strangers too.” Or combinations like those Jablonskis cites under the heading “genitive of lack or absence”: Čia reikėjo ir drąsos, ir greitumo, ir sumanumo (Vienuolis) “Here both courage and speed and resourcefulness were needed”; Ūkis stokojo arklių ir įrankių (Avyžius) “The farm lacked horses and tools”; Stigo visur žmonių, trūko rankų (Cvirka) “There was a shortage of people everywhere; there were not enough hands”; and combinations with the opposite meaning: …užtenka ir kitų pasityčiojimų (Jasiukaitis) “… there are enough other taunts too”; …užteks ir dešimties kapeikų (Jasiukaitis) “… ten kopecks will be enough too”; Pakako akimirkos, kad tas veidas…pasiliko mano akyse (Cvirka) “A single moment was enough for that face…to remain in my eyes”; Tuomet pakakdavo mažučio žodelio, šypsnio, juoko (Cvirka) “Then one little word, a smile, a laugh was enough.” It is quite clear that the difference in meaning between the corresponding “opposite” groups of combinations is explained not by any contradiction between nuances inherent in the meaning of the genitive, but by the difference in the semantics of the verbs making up the combinations. Likewise, one could discern in the genitive form itself the meaning of an object not undergoing an action in combinations of the third group only if it were possible for a negated verb to combine with some other case (e.g., the accusative) in which the corresponding meaning would be absent (or if the genitive could denote an object not undergoing an action in combination with verbs without negation). Analysis of combinations of the second type leads to the conclusion that the genitive case expresses here only the general meaning of the object of an action, while the particular nuances present in one combination or another are determined entirely by the meaning of the verbal component. Thus, the meaning of the genitive case with verbs of certain groups (more or less restricted) proves identical to that of the accusative case. At the same time, the accusative case cannot, 107 as a rule, occur in the same “syntactic environment” (i.e., in combination with the same verbs) as the genitive case. Using the terminology of phonological research, one may say that the genitive case stands in “complementary distribution” (or “complementary distribution”) with respect to the accusative. These two circumstances (the functional identity of the two cases mentioned and the fact of “complementary distribution”) are sufficient to recognize the genitive case in combinations of the second type as a positional (combinatory) variant14 of the accusative. The polysemy of the genitive case adjective thus proves to be illusory. All that has been said should not be understood to mean that combinations in which the occurrence of a given case is determined by the membership of the main component in a group that is lexically restricted to some degree seem to us an object unworthy of the attention of a researcher of case syntax. On the contrary, just as in describing the phonological system of a language it is necessary to provide a careful description of all variants of a phoneme in their full concrete diversity and to determine precisely all the positions in which one or another combinatory variant may occur, so too, in investigating the syntax of a particular case, especially the genitive, a comprehensive description of all particular uses of the case form and identification of the conditions of its functioning are necessary. Strong objections are, however, raised by the widespread undifferentiated treatment of “free” combinations and those lexically restricted by the main component, as well as by the (sometimes related) identification of an arbitrary number of “meanings” supposedly inherent in the case form. 14 As is evident from what has been said, this term, borrowed from phonology, is used here in a different sense from that given to it by R. Jakobson in his well-known work on the Russian case system (TCLP, 6), where he distinguishes the “general meaning” of a case and the “combinatory variants” of this meaning. In this form, the appeal to the terminological arsenal of phonology does not seem fruitful, since the corresponding phonological concept (functionally identical but formally different elements) does not at all constitute a strict analogy with its syntactic reinterpretation—as it seems to us, unlike the comparison—proposed in this article.