Ona Vaičiulytė-Romančuk. „Gramatyka języka litewskiego. Wybrane zagadnienia morfologii i fleksji z ćwiczeniami“

O. Vaičiulytė-Romančuk. Lithuanian grammar. Selected issues of morphology and inflection with exercises 301 ONA VAIČIULYTĖ-ROMANČUK LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE GRAMMATICS. SELECTED ISSUES OF MORPHOLOGY AND FLECTIONS WITH EXERCISE Warszawa: Ex libris Galeria Polskiej książki Sp. z. o. o., 2006, 244 p. The author of the grammar, Ona Vaičiulytė-Romančuk (strangely, but her name is not mentioned on the cover), finished her studies in Lithuanian studies at Vilnius University. From 1985 to 1990 he worked in the Department of Contemporary Lithuanian Literary Language of the Institute of Lithuanian Language and Literature, and from 1990 to 1995 in the Department of Grammar of the Institute of Lithuanian Language. In 1994 he defended his doctoral dissertation, on the basis of which he prepared a monograph Tikriniai pavadinimai Gervėčių apylinkių dialekte (1996, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute). He currently works at the Department of General Linguistics and Baltic Studies at the University of Warsaw. Among other subjects, she teaches Lithuanian grammar and dialectology. as it is clear from the introduction and the fourth cover, the grammar is intended for a wide range of readers, both beginners and those who have an average knowledge of Lithuanian. Grammar subjects were tried to be presented as simply as possible, but without distorting the essence. The author presents her work as a compendium of Lithuanian grammar: it did not attempt to describe in detail the Lithuanian grammar system, but only to present the main, most characteristic features of the grammatical structure. didactical objectives: the main sections of grammar are completed with exercises, the answers to which are given at the end of the book. attention is drawn to the lack of Lithuanian grammar, especially teaching, in Poland. The bibliography of the reviewed grammar (in fact, the selection) contains only two Polish references: the third volume of Jan Otrębski’s grammar, published half a century ago, and the unpublished lecture material of Axel Holvoet’s descriptive grammar of the Lithuanian language. this shows the relevance of Ona Vaičiulytė-Romančuk's grammar. the material under consideration is arranged in grammar according to parts of speech. The seven parts of speech described are arranged in the following order: noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, verb, adverb and preposition. grammatical categories, pronunciation and construction of each part of the language are discussed in a sequential manner. The second 302 Language Culture | 81 sections of noun pronunciation paradigms. Grammar is practical, not theoretical, so we will not find definitions of grammatical terms or explanations of concepts (for example, what is a noun, a grammatical category, etc.). further in the review is reviewed the content of grammar. attention is drawn to the teaching methodology, advantages and disadvantages, controversial or questionable issues. 1. The first chapter of the book provides a pinch of knowledge about the Lithuanian language. Starting with the Baltic tribes and their languages, the author recalls the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela and its relationship with Lithuanian, Prussian and Jotvingian languages, presents general data on the use of Lithuanian and discusses Lithuanian dialects (indicating their distinctive features). This part, placed at the very beginning of the book, seems too complicated to an unprepared reader. the peculiarities of Lithuanian dialects would have been better discussed at the end of the book. 2. section of grammar discusses the Lithuanian alphabet and presents the most important knowledge about the phonetic structure of the Lithuanian language (vowels, consonants and diphthongs). when describing the spelling of the Lithuanian language it is incorrectly stated that it is phonetic, with elements of historical spelling (p. 11)1. The most important phonological contradictions of vowels (short: long) and consonants (hard: soft), diphthongs and diphthongs are highlighted. [ie] and [uo] are regarded as diphthongs in grammar, rather than variable vowels, as in many of the newer works published in Lithuania2. The section also contains phonetic spelling errors in Lithuanian examples (unmarked softness of some consonants in the words dzingsėti, septyni, grėbti in the transcription, [o] length in the transcription of the form brolį, etc.). 1 aleksas Girdenis considers morphological (or morphonological) as the main principle of Lithuanian spelling, and phonetic and historical principles as secondary (cf. ambrazas, ed. 11994: 20); adelė Valeckienė points out two main principles of Lithuanian spelling – phonological and phonetic and morphological or morphonological (see morkūnas, ed. 11999: 521). 2 According to aleks Girdenis, “Concurring diphthongs [ie, uo] are usually […] considered separate phonemes (not phoneme combinations)” (ambrazas, ed. 11994: 23). In modern Lithuanian grammar they are included in the Lithuanian vowel system (ibid.); See also Girdenis 1995: 174t; morkūnas, sud. 11999: 57. O. Vaičiulytė-Romančuk. Lithuanian grammar. Selected issues of morphology and inflection with exercises 303 3. The noun section begins by emphasizing the archaic nature of Lithuanian vocabulary, giving examples of inherited nouns. subsequently, the division of nouns into actual and generic, which differs little from Polish, is examined in a relatively broad manner (pp. 24–25). from the grammatical categories of the noun, gender, number and syllable are examined. The nouns are classified by gender based on only one – the singular noun – syllable, so you have to look for additional signs to determine the gender of nouns with the ending -is. for this purpose, the final pronunciation of the singular noun of feminine nouns is used (p. 27), and the singular forms of the genitive and especially the utilitarian are not even mentioned. The respective tables of masculine and feminine nouns indicate the ending -uo for nouns of consonant roots (p. 26, also p. 30). the tradition of school grammar. However, it would be more accurate to consider the endings of the forms stone, sister, etc. as stems3 rather than ends; this would better correspond to their history and present morphological division. The so-called substantiva communia (nightingale, nonsense, meat, etc.) are not exactly called two-generic nouns (rzeczowniki dwurodzajowe) in grammar. The discussion of the number of nouns also begins with historical remarks about the former trinomial system of this category. doubts were raised by the allocation of the plural noun pietūs only to the concepts of time, and the word atostogos to the semantic group of festivals and ceremonies (p. 32). In grammar, the exclamation mark is regarded as the seventh syllable without any reservation and is indicated not only in the paradigms of nouns, but also in adjectives, numerals and some pronouns4. it is doubtful whether it was worthwhile to present all postpositional locutors in practical grammar – at least it was certainly possible to do without adhesive and aliative, and to treat the forms rudeniop, vakarop, etc. as adverbs5. as a good feature of the grammar is mentioned the discussion of the abbreviation of some verbal endings in colloquial language (pp. 33–34). The conjugation of nouns is described on the basis of the not newer and more consistent grammar of the contemporary Lithuanian language (see ambrazas, ed. 11994: 69t) and the encyclopedia of the Lithuanian language (see morkūnas, ed. 11999: 385) 3. 4 A possible compromise in this case is proposed by the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian Language: the form of the vowel is also traditionally indicated in the noun paradigms, but in the description of the vowel category it is explained that it does not indicate syntactic relations (cf. ambrazas, ed. 11994: 68). 5 By the way, in the fourth edition of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary they are presented as such (cf. keinys, ed. 42000: 665 and 906). 304 Language Culture | 81 paradigms classification according to stems, and the old school division into verbs, which is based only on the endings of one verb – the singular noun. There are several inaccuracies in this description. it is stated that the ending of the singular vowel -au must be made with the suffix -tojas in the names of professions, specialties of the first verb (p. 36), but this ending is also characteristic of the derivatives of the suffix -ėjas of the same meaning. it is asserted that the second conjugated male surnames Butvilà, Darkė, etc. in the plural are conjugated according to the first conjugation, i.e. they have the plural noun forms Butvilaaan, Dirkiaaan, etc. (p. 37). This cannot be accepted. In common language, the respective surnames have the regular forms of the second consonant, i.e. Bùtvilos, Dārkės, etc., and the above-mentioned forms of the first kind of joke are to be regarded as dialects or variants of the spoken language (possibly the coop plural) (cf. Stundžia 1981). The construction of nouns is described according to the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian. However, it is erroneously stated that in Lithuanian grammar the suffix (przyrostek) is accepted to be regarded as an adverbial suffix together with the ending (p. 40), therefore, in the entire grammar of the author, the sequence of suffixes and different endings of the genus (e.g., -el-is and -el-ė; -uk-as and -uk-ė) are considered different prefixes!6 it is stated that the derivatives of the suffixes -elis, -elė make up from one fifth to half of all deminutives of the common language (p. 40). in fact, the lower limit of their number indicated by Vincas Urbutis is two fifths (cf. ambrazas, ed. 11994: 88). At the end of the section on deminutives, an excursion on the formation of Lithuanian personal names is inserted (pp. 43–44). the construction of personal nouns could be discussed separately and not together with the construction of general nouns. The ending -ius is considered by the author as one of the most constructive endings of the category of person names (p. 45), but the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian states that “there are not many derivatives of the ending -ius belonging to this category” (ambrazas, ed. 11994: 113). far larger are the other limbs. According to Vaičiulytė-Romančuk, the names of places užemis, užjūris, užsienis, etc., as in Polish, are made from prepositional constructions (p. 49). Lithuanian linguists have a different opinion7. 6 Similarly, the formants -esn-is and -esn-ė of the higher masculine and feminine gender are considered two different prefixes (see p. 58). 7 Vincas urbutis and Stasys keinys consider such nouns to be derivatives of the corresponding prepositions (cf. urbutis 1978: 220; ambrazas, ed. 11994: 146, 148; keinys 1999: 80) or words of mixed construction (cf. urbutis 1978: 290). the author’s interpretation is supported by perhaps the only antecessor Smetona (cf. 2005: 85–86). O. Vaičiulytė-Romančuk. Lithuanian grammar. Selected issues of morphology and inflection with exercises 305 4. The adjective is described with little departure from the theoretical provisions of the Modern Lithuanian Grammar. Interesting and valuable remarks about the different relationship of Lithuanian and Polish adjectives with the category of vitality (p. 56). attention is drawn to the complexity characteristic of the expression of the Polish language degree category. As with nouns, conjugation of adjectives is divided according to school practice, so we have to give two identical examples of conjugation of adjectives of the iii conjugated feminine gender (didelė and stiklinė). an inaccurate comparison of the conjugation of noun and simple adjectives: ‘Paradygmaty przymiotników zaimkowych są bardziej regularne niż przymiotników prostych’ (emphasis added – A.J., p. 67)8. The given examples of conjugation do not contain adjectives of iii conjugation (didysis, -ioji, etc.) (see Table 4, p. 210). The description of the construction of adjectives differs significantly from that given in the Modern Lithuanian Grammar. Only three (in the author’s opinion, more common) categories of prepositional verbs are selected: deminutives (zdrobnienia), derivatives denoting differences in quantity of characteristics (zmiana natężenia cechy) and derivatives denoting similarity (podobienstwo). The -ingas, -inga derivatives were included in the second category, and the -inis, -inė derivatives in the third9. Prepositional adjective construction in grammar includes only derivatives from adjectives (see ambrazas, ed. 11994: 224t). 5. In the section on plural nouns, the use of singular plural noun is provided without any reservation (p. 85)10. The word unit is described in grammar as a copulative numerals (p. 87), although it is indicated that it is used only as a noun11. The number 8 is also recorded with the coopines. Example: "The conjugation of noun forms is more uniform than that of ordinary ones" (ambrazas, ed. 11994: 185; emphasis added. – A. J.). 9 In the grammar of the contemporary Lithuanian language, the -ingas, -inga derivatives of the prefixes are assigned to the adjectives of internal characteristic (ambrazas, ed. 11994: 197t), and the -inis, -inė derivatives of the prefixes – to the distinguishing, or species adjectives (ambrazas, ed. 11994: 209t). 10 even the normative grammar of the contemporary Lithuanian language is not so strict and in common language the form vienri in such cases is considered equivalent to the principal noun vieni (cf. ambrazas, ed. 11994: 241). 11 By the way, Otrębskis considered not only the unit, but also the words presented in the grammar of the contemporary Lithuanian language as copulative numerals as copulative nouns of numerical origin (plg. 1956: 174). 306 kalBOS kultūRa | 81 dešimtis (ibid.), although the author has already presented it as a principal numerals and has delineated it (cf. p. 81). doubtful comparison of the formant -t-as, -t-a of transitive numerals with the demonstrative pronouns tàs, tà (p. 88). the inaccurate form milioninis (p. 90, 92) made from the main numerals miljonas to be regarded as a transitive numerals, because it is an adjective. 6. The grammar discusses six groups of pronouns: personal, adjective, demonstrative, interrogative, relative and indefinite. their meaning is described, the paradigms of conjugation and pronunciation are presented12. I was delighted by the section on the expression of social relations in personal pronouns. It deals with the use of pronouns you, you, that, yourself. The demonstrative pronoun tas/ta in grammar is included in the deyctic system as a distance (distance from the speaker) member (p. 99–100). It is represented graphically on the distance axis between the pronouns this/that, this/that and that/that. The explanation is illustrated by the sentence This book is white, this one is blue, and that one is yellow. this interpretation of the meaning of the pronoun this/that is not consistent with the findings of more detailed studies of its use13. In the group of indefinite pronouns, there is a contrast between reference and non-reference pronouns (zaimki referencjalne i nereferencjalne). the meaning of the corresponding pronouns is not indicated quite precisely: pronouns with the formant każnuznaczeń indicate real, but undefined objects (realnie istniejący, ale nieokreślony przedmiot), and pronouns with the formant ktoś indicate hypothetical objects (hypothetical subject)14. 7. Pronunciation of nouns is discussed in a separate, seventh, chapter of the book. In particular, it recalls some general issues of Lithuanian pronunciation and its notation. 12 The demonstrative pronouns tas, toks in the paradigms are unreasonably indicated as well as the forms of the vowel, cf.: „pronouns have no vowel, because they usually do not go in appellations“ (ambrazas, ed. 11994: 256). 13 E.g.: “the pronoun tas is indifferent to distance: it can indicate both a near and a distant object” (Rosinas 1996: 59); “That, that is a neutral member. It can indicate an object that is more or less distant from the speaker” (ambrazas, ed. 11994: 263). In the 14th century, Rosinas believed that "pronouns with though are neutral to existence" (Rosinas 1996: 116). O. Vaičiulytė-Romančuk. Gramatyka języka litewskiego. Wybrane zagadnienia morphologii i fleksji z ćwiczeniami 307 didelė, – if necessary, it is not difficult to turn to the phonetics section. Lithuanian pronunciation is described as morphological – the place of accent depends on the morphological composition of the word. This is a newer conception of the pronunciation system of the Lithuanian language (see Stundžia 1995; ambrazas, ed. 11994: 49). However, for the practical description of the pronunciation of nouns, the traditional model of four pronunciation paradigms had to be chosen. from the fourth paradigm of noun pronunciation (p. 113) only one example is given (the noun vaikas), which deliberately illustrates all the exceptions to the presented pronunciation scheme… 8. The large verb section begins with a brief overview of the Lithuanian verb system. Transitivity, conjugation and verb are further examined, which, like in Modern Lithuanian Grammar, are not considered as grammatical categories. transitivity is considered to be a feature of the verb, not of the sentence or even of the discourse (cf. Hopper, thompson 1980). In the case of transitive verbs, the verbs whose form does not distinguish between transitive meanings (they depend on the context) are opposed to the verbs that distinguish them. The latter are divided into three groups: the first group includes verbs, the opposite of transitiveness of which is marked by the change of root vowels; The second group includes verbs whose transitivity is indicated by causative and curative prepositions, and the third group includes verbs whose intransitivity is indicated by conjugation. This classification is taken from the Contemporary Lithuanian Grammar (see ambrazas, ed. 11994: 83–288). It somewhat simplifies the picture of the category of transitivity, because it does not include verbs that cannot indicate the opposite of transitivity at all (to be, to look, to lie, etc.). Return is included in the category of transitivity and becomes only a means of expressing intransitivity15. However, the recursive forms are also discussed separately in grammar. The interaction of consonants with the change of root vowels is shown: kelti: kilti: keltis (p. 119). The differences in meaning of the latter two intransitive forms remained unclear: they both denote a state or a spontaneous action. it is not explained that the meaning of the beneficiary to have returns does not change the transitiveness of the verb (see ambrazas, ed. 11994: 288). The same forms are also explained in the Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (see ambrazas, ed. 11994: 287–288). There is also a different interpretation of the recursive forms of Lithuanian verbs – they can be included in the category of species and considered as a means of medium expression (see Holvoet, Semėnienė 2004). 308 Language Culture | 81 Differences in the meaning of passive forms of conjugative verbs in Lithuanian and Polish (man nesmiega: nie mogę zasnąć, etc.). other grammatical categories of the verb – time, person, number – are not examined separately, but only briefly reviewed when describing the personification of verbs. the 3rd person forms of the imperative clause teeinie, tesimokai, etc. are considered special forms of the permissive with a desirable meaning (p. 150– 151)16. imperative forms (tepasako) and constructions (tegul pasako) are presented not as direct (cf. ambrazas, ed. 11994: 306), but as means of expressing the imperative narrative. when discussing the kind, it is stated that each form of the active kind of verbs (and participants) has an equivalent of the passive kind (p. 156)17. In addition, the non-recursive prepositional verbs are opposed to the non-recursive prepositional verbs by the non-recursive compound forms of the passive kind, e.g. : Ramunė combs her hair: The hair is combed by Ramunė (p. 158)18. doubtful interpretation of the construction of the returning verb forms19: it is stated that the returning suffix -si has the variant -is/-s, but the construction of such forms as gydytis, suktis is explained in geminates formed by elimination of one vowel i: *gýdyti-is → gýdytis (p. 159)20. the participle forms discussed in the following grammar. their verb and adjective qualities are indicated. not without diachronic remarks about or taxonic and new forms of Lithuanian language participants. nuosekliai apra16 They are already described in Modern Lithuanian Grammar as dying, ancient (ambrazas, ed. 11994: 305, 309). The author of this review has found seven cases of the first form in the text of contemporary Lithuanian language (http://donelaitis.vdu.lt) and not one (!) case of the second form. 17 The grammar of contemporary Lithuanian explains that one form of the active kind can have several forms of the passive kind and vice versa (ambrazas, ed. 11994: 320t). Similarly, Holvoet and Semėniene (2004) explain the relationship between active and passive species, but the species antagonism seems to be only semantic and does not form a category of change. 18 E.g.: “it is replaced by the conjugated forms of the anonymous genus or the non-conjugated forms of the masculine or feminine genus” (ambrazas, ed. 11994: 325). 19 It is unreasonably divided: the verbal and imperative verbs, together with the corresponding non-recursive forms, and the direct verbs separately, after all the other verbs have been considered. repetitions were not avoided, for example, the change of vowels before the preposition of return is discussed both on pp. 159 and pp. 160–161 (for the second time). 20 A much simpler explanation of the formation of such forms is given in Modern Lithuanian Grammar: “the communicants of non-prepositional verbs attach the short variant of this formant [-s(i)] -s to the communicative suffix: praũsti – praũsti-s…” (ambrazas, ed. 11994: 383). O. Vaičiulytė-Romančuk. Gramatyka języka litewskiego. Wybrane zagadnienia morphologii i fleksji z ćwiczeniami 309 works on the conjugation and pronunciation of active and passive participle forms, there are remarks about the more frequent use of some participle forms. the participants of necessity are discussed separately, as well as the recidivistic and nominative forms of participants, which are used very rarely in contemporary language21. it is unjustified to take all active past participles of the plural (even of the masculine gender!) from the corresponding unnounified forms of the feminine gender: „od tematu imiesłowu rodzaju żeńskiego, na przykład: dorbusi […] → dorbusieji […], dorbusiosios […]“ (p. 183)22. In grammar, the differences between the semi-participle and the participle are well highlighted. The overview of the non-personal forms of the verb ends with the sections on the intended and characteristic. It is doubtful whether the translator could explain the construction, meaning and usage of the verb supin in a practical grammar of the contemporary Lithuanian language23. In grammar, the adjective is considered to be a verb form, not an adverb (cf. ambrazas, ed. 11994: 413). This decision is also questionable, both in terms of the characteristic meaning of the trade marks and the defined scope of their use, and it is unjustified in terms of methodology. The chapter ends with a discussion of the work. brief overview of the basic language parts of the verb, the change of root vowels that may accompany the verb, the formants of the verb. doubts were raised by the examination of relatively rare adverbial duratives (aušėti, brodoti, glūdoti, etc.) (p. 190). 9. The author defines the adverb as an invariable part of the language, but states that many adverbs are graded. what – a change or a change – is considered the gradation of adverbs? Since it is treated separately from the action in grammar, it is possible to assume that it is not considered an action. So, most adverbs change in degrees?24 21 The textbook of contemporary Lithuanian language (http://donelaitis.vdu.lt) does not give any case of the use of the recursive forms rašąsis and rašysisis or the noun form of the active form presented in the grammar. 22 E.g.: “The noun formant is joined to the long forms of the masculine singular noun, whose ending vowel is elongated: […] biti. k. l. drbusys-is, tyljusys-is, rãšiusys-is […]” (Ambrazas, ed. 1994: 367). 23 The author herself draws attention to the dialectal nature of this form and indicates its substitute in common language – bendratys (p. 187). 24 The problem has been avoided in the grammar of contemporary Lithuanian: adverbs are defined as “non-syllable and non-personalized independent parts of speech” (ambrazas, ed. 11994: 410).