ONA VAIČIULYTĖ-ROMANČUK

GRAMMAR OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE. SELECTED TOPICS IN MORPHOLOGY AND INFLECTION WITH EXERCISES

Warszawa: Ex Libris Galeria Polskiej Książki Sp. z. o. o., 2006, 244 p.

The author of the grammar, Ona Vaičiulytė-Romančuk (strangely, her surname is not given on the cover), completed her studies in Lithuanian philology at Vilnius University. From 1985 to 1990 she worked in the Contemporary Lithuanian Literary Language Department of the Institute of Lithuanian Language and Literature, and from 1990 to 1995 in the Grammar Department of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. In 1994 she defended her doctoral dissertation, on the basis of which she prepared the monograph Proper Names in the Dialect of the Gervėčiai Area (1996, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language). She currently works in the Department of General Linguistics and Baltic Studies at the University of Warsaw. Among other subjects, she teaches Lithuanian grammar and dialectology.

As becomes clear from the introduction and the back cover, the grammar is intended for a wide variety of readers, from beginners to those with an intermediate command of Lithuanian. The grammatical material has been presented as simply as possible, without distorting its substance. The author presents her work as a compendium of Lithuanian grammar: it does not attempt to provide a detailed description of the system of Lithuanian grammar, but aims only to present the principal and most characteristic features of its grammatical structure. Didactic aims have also been taken into account: the main chapters on grammar end with exercises, and their answers are provided at the end of the book. Attention is drawn to the shortage of Lithuanian grammars in Poland, especially textbooks. The bibliography of the grammar under review (which is, admittedly, selective) contains only two Polish references: the third volume of Jan Otrębski’s grammar, published half a century ago, and Axel Holvoet’s unpublished lecture notes for a descriptive grammar of Lithuanian. This illustrates the relevance of Ona Vaičiulytė-Romančuk’s grammar.

The material under consideration is organized in the grammar according to parts of speech. The seven parts of speech described are presented in the following order: noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, verb, adverb, and preposition. The grammatical categories, inflection, and derivation of each part of speech are discussed systematically. A separate chapter presents the accentuation paradigms of nominal words. The grammar is practical, not theoretical, and therefore contains no definitions of grammatical terms or explanations of concepts (for example, what a noun or a grammatical category is, and so on).

O. VAIČIULYTĖ-ROMANČUK. Gramatyka języka litewskiego. Wybrane zagadnienia morfologii i fleksji z ćwiczeniami

301

The review that follows surveys the contents of the grammar. Attention is drawn to the method of presentation, its strengths and weaknesses, and points that are debatable or questionable.

The first chapter of the book offers a small amount of information about the Lithuanian language. It begins with the Baltic tribes and their languages, recalls the Lithuanian speech of Zietela and its relationship to Lithuanian, Prussian, and Yotvingian, provides general information about the use of Lithuanian, and discusses Lithuanian dialects (indicating their distinguishing features). Placed at the very beginning of the book, this section seems excessively difficult to a reader who is not yet prepared. It would have been better to discuss the features of Lithuanian dialects at the end of the book.

1.

The book’s first chapter presents a handful of facts about the Lithuanian language. It begins with the Baltic tribes and their languages, recalls the Zietela Lithuanian dialect and its relationship to Lithuanian, Prussian, and Yotvingian, provides general information about the use of Lithuanian, and discusses Lithuanian dialects (identifying their distinguishing features). Placed at the very beginning of the book, this section seems overly complicated to a reader who is not yet prepared. It would have been better to discuss the features of Lithuanian dialects at the end of the book.

2.

The second chapter of the grammar discusses the Lithuanian alphabet and presents the most important information about the phonetic structure of the Lithuanian language (vowels, consonants, and diphthongs). In describing Lithuanian spelling, it is inaccurately stated that it is phonetic, with elements of historical spelling (p. 11)¹. The most important phonological oppositions between vowels (short: long) and consonants (hard: soft), as well as the structure of diphthongs and mixed diphthongs, are highlighted. In the grammar, [ie] and [uo] are considered diphthongs, rather than alternating vowels, as in many more recent works published in Lithuania². The chapter also contains a few errors in the phonetic transcription of Lithuanian examples (the softness of some consonants is not marked in the transcription of the words to jingle, seven, to rake; the length of [o] when transcribing the form brother, and so on).

¹ Aleksas Girdenis considers the morphological (or morphonological) principle to be the main principle of Lithuanian spelling, and the phonetic and historical principles secondary (cf. Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 20); Adelė Valeckienė identifies two main principles of Lithuanian spelling: the phonological and phonetic principle, and the morphological or morphonological principle (cf. Morkūnas, comp. ¹1999: 521).

² In Aleksas Girdenis’s view, “Diphthongs [ie, uo] are usually [...] considered to be separate phonemes (not combinations of phonemes)” (Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 23). In the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian they are included in the Lithuanian vowel system (ibid.); see also Girdenis 1995: 174f.; Morkūnas, comp. ¹1999: 57.

302

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

3.

The section on nouns begins by emphasizing the archaic character of the Lithuanian lexicon and giving examples of inherited nouns. The classification of nouns into proper and common nouns, which differs little from the Polish one, is then discussed at some length (pp. 24–25). Of the grammatical categories of nouns, gender, number, and case are examined. Nouns are classified by gender on the basis of only one case—the singular nominative—so additional criteria have to be sought to determine the gender of nouns ending in -is. For this purpose, the word-final stress of feminine nouns in the singular nominative is used (p. 27), while the singular genitive and especially dative forms are not mentioned at all. The corresponding tables for masculine and feminine nouns list the ending of consonant-stem nouns as -uo (p. 26, and also p. 30). This is justified by the tradition of school grammars. Nevertheless, it would be more accurate to regard the endings of forms such as akmuo, sesuo, and the like, not as inflectional endings but as stem-final elements³; this would better accord with their history and present-day morphemic analysis. The so-called substantiva communia (naktibalda, nenuorama, mėmė, etc.) are somewhat inaccurately called nouns of two genders in the grammar (rzeczowniki dwurodzajowe). The discussion of noun number likewise begins with historical remarks about the former three-way system of this category. Doubt was raised about assigning the plural-only noun (pluralia tantum) pietūs solely to concepts of time, and the word atostogos to the semantic group of holidays and ceremonies (p. 32). The vocative is unreservedly treated in the grammar as the seventh case and is included in the paradigms not only of nouns but also of adjectives, numerals, and some pronouns⁴. It is debatable whether all the postpositional locatives needed to be included in a practical grammar; at least the adessive and allative could certainly have been omitted, while forms such as rudeniop, vakarop, and the like could have been treated as adverbs⁵. A good feature of the grammar is its discussion of the shortening of some case endings in colloquial speech (pp. 33–34).

Noun declension is described on the basis not of the more recent and consistent Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (cf. Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 69ff.) and Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedijoje (cf. Morkūnas, comp. ¹1999: 385), where it is presented

³ This is precisely how the corresponding forms are explained, albeit inconsistently, in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (cf. Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 76).

⁴ In this case, Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika proposes a possible compromise: here, too, the vocative form is included in noun paradigms by tradition, but the description of the case category explains that it does not mark syntactic relations (cf. Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 68).

⁵ Incidentally, the fourth edition of Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno presents them in just this way (cf. Keinys, ed. ⁴2000: 665 and 906).

O. VAIČIULYTĖ-ROMANČUK. Gramatyka języka litewskiego. Wybrane zagadnienia morfologii i fleksji z ćwiczeniami 303

paradigm classification by stem endings, rather than the old-fashioned school division into declensions, which is based solely on the endings of a single case—the singular nominative. Several inaccuracies can be noted in this description. It is stated that the singular vocative ending -au is used by first-declension names of professions and occupations derived with the suffix -tojas (p. 36), but this ending is also characteristic of derivatives with the suffix -ėjas that have the same meaning. It is claimed that the surnames of men belonging to the second declension, Butvilà, Dìrkė, and the like, are declined in the plural according to the first declension, that is, with plural nominative forms Butvilaĩ, Dirkiaĩ, etc. (p. 37). This cannot be accepted. In standard language, the corresponding surnames have regular second-declension forms, that is, Bùtvilos, Dìrkės, etc., while the aforementioned first-declension forms should be regarded as dialectal or colloquial variants (perhaps collective plurals) (cf. Stundžia 1981).

The account of noun formation follows Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. However, it is incorrectly stated that Lithuanian grammars conventionally treat the suffix (przy-rostek) as a derivational suffix together with the ending (p. 40). Consequently, throughout the grammar the author herself treats suffixes and sequences of endings for different genders (e.g., -el-is and -el-ė; -uk-as and -uk-ė) as different suffixes.⁶ A few more comments on noun formation. It is stated that derivatives with the suffixes -elis, -elė make up between one fifth and half of all standard-language diminutives (p. 40). In fact, the lower bound of their proportion given by Vincas Urbutis is two fifths (cf. Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 88). A digression on the formation of Lithuanian personal names is inserted at the end of the section on diminutives (pp. 43–44). The formation of personal names could have been discussed separately rather than alongside common nouns. The ending -ius is considered by the author one of the most productive derivational endings in the category of agent nouns (p. 45), but Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje states that “there are not many derivatives with the ending -ius belonging to this category” (Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 113). Other endings are much more productive. According to Vaičiulytė-Romančuk, place names such as požemis, užjūris, už-sienis, and the like, are formed from prepositional constructions, as in Polish (p. 49). A different view prevails in Lithuanian linguistics⁷.

⁶ Similarly, the masculine and feminine formants of the comparative degree -esn-is and -esn-ė are treated as two different suffixes (cf. p. 58).

⁷ Vincas Urbutis and Stasys Keinys treat such nouns as derivatives formed with the corresponding prefixes (cf. Urbutis 1978: 220; Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 146, 148; Keinys 1999: 80) or as words formed by mixed derivation (cf. Urbutis 1978: 290). Antanas Smetona may be the sole scholar to support the author’s interpretation (cf. 2005: 85–86).

304

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

4.

The adjective is described without departing much from the theoretical provisions of Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikos. The observations on the differing relationship between inflection of adjectives in Lithuanian and Polish and the category of animacy are interesting and valuable (p. 56). Attention is drawn to the suppletivity characteristic of the expression of the category of degree in Polish.

As with nouns, adjective declensions are classified according to school practice, so two identical examples of the declension of feminine adjectives in the third declension have to be given (didelė and stiklinė). The declension of pronominal and simple adjectives is compared inaccurately: “Paradigmaty przymiotników zaimkowych są bardziej regularne niż przymiotników prostych” (emphasis mine. – A. J., p. 67)⁸. The declension examples provided do not include adjectives of the third declension (didysis, –ioji, etc.) (cf. Table 4, p. 210).

The description of adjective formation differs considerably from that presented in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje. Only three categories of suffixal formation (those more frequent, in the author’s view) are selected: diminutives (zdrobnienia), formations expressing differences in the degree of a quality (zmiana natężenia cechy), and similarity (podobienstwo). Derivatives with the suffixes –ingas, –inga belong to the second category, while those with the suffixes –inis, –inė belong to the third⁹. In the grammar, prefixal adjective formation covers only derivatives from adjectives (cf. Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 224ff.).

5.

In the section on numerals, the use of the multiplicative numeral vieneri with pluralia tantum nouns is asserted without any qualifications (p. 85)¹⁰. The word vienetas is described in the grammar as a collective numeral (p. 87), although it is also noted that it is used only as a noun¹¹. The numeral also listed among the collective numerals

⁸Cf.: “The declension of pronominal forms is more uniform than that of simple forms” (Ambrazas, ed. ¹994: 185; emphasis mine. – A. J.).

⁹In Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje, derivatives with the suffixes –ingas, –inga are classified as adjectives denoting an inherent quality (Ambrazas, ed. ¹994: 197ff.), while derivatives with the suffixes –inis, –inė are classified as distinguishing or classifying adjectives (Ambrazas, ed. ¹994: 209ff.).

¹⁰Even the prescriptive Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika is not so strict, and in standard language it considers the form vieneri in such cases equivalent to the cardinal numeral vieni (cf. Ambrazas, ed. ¹994: 241).

¹¹Incidentally, Otrębski regarded not only vienetą but also the words listed as collective numerals in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikos as collective nouns of numeral origin (cf. 1956: 174).

O. VAIČIULYTĖ-ROMANČUK. Gramatyka języka litewskiego. Wybrane zagadnienia morfologii i fleksji z ćwiczeniami

305

dozen (ibid.), although the author had already presented and declined it as a cardinal numeral (cf. p. 81). The comparison of the ordinal numeral derivational formant -t-as, -t-a with the demonstrative pronouns tàs, tà (p. 88) is questionable. It is inaccurate to regard the form millionth (pp. 90, 92), derived from the cardinal numeral million, as an ordinal numeral, since it is an adjective.

6.

The grammar discusses six groups of pronouns: personal, possessive, demonstrative, interrogative, relative, and indefinite. Their meanings are described, and their declension and accentuation paradigms are provided¹². The section surveying the expression of social relations through personal pronouns was a welcome addition. It discusses the use of the pronouns tu, jūs, tamsta, pats/pati. In the grammar, the demonstrative pronoun tas/ta is included in the deictic system as the member marking distance (distance from the speaker) (pp. 99–100). On the distance axis, it is shown graphically between the pronouns šis/ši, šitas/šita and anas/ana. The explanation is illustrated by the sentence Ši knyga yra balta, ta mėlyna, o ana geltona. This interpretation of the meaning of the pronoun tas/ta does not accord with the findings of more detailed studies of its usage¹³. Within the group of indefinite pronouns, a distinction is made between referential and non-referential pronouns (zaimki referencjalne i niereferencjalne). The meanings of the respective pronouns are not stated quite accurately: pronouns with the formant kaž- refer to things that actually exist but are unspecified (realnie istniejący, ale nieokreślony przedmiot), whereas pronouns with nors refer to hypothetical things (przedmiot hipotetyczny)¹⁴.

7.

The accentuation of nominal words is examined in a separate, seventh chapter of the book. It first recalls some general matters concerning Lithuanian accentuation and its notation. There was no need to do this: the grammar is not so

¹² The vocative forms are unjustifiably included in the paradigms of the demonstrative pronouns tas, toks; cf. “pronouns have no vocative, since they do not generally serve as forms of address” (Ambrazas, ed. ¹994: 256).

¹³ Cf.: “the pronoun tas is indifferent to distance: it can refer both to a nearby and to a distant object” (Rosinas 1996: 59); “Tas, ta is a neutral member. It can refer to an object that is either closer to or farther from the speaker” (Ambrazas, ed. ¹994: 263).

¹⁴ A. Rosino nuomone, „įvardžiai su nors yra neutralūs egzistavimui“ (Rosinas 1996: 116).

306

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

so extensive that, when necessary, one can easily consult the phonetics chapter. Lithuanian accentuation is described as morphological—the position of the accent depends on the morphemic composition of a word. This is a more recent conception of the Lithuanian accentuation system (cf. Stundžia 1995; Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 49). Nevertheless, for the practical description of nominal accentuation, the traditional model of four accentuation paradigms had to be adopted. Only one example is given for the fourth nominal accentuation paradigm (p. 113), the noun vaikas, which, as it happens, illustrates all the exceptions to the accentuation pattern presented...

8.

The extensive chapter on the verb begins with a brief overview of the Lithuanian verb system. It then examines transitivity, reflexivity, and voice, which, as in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje, are not considered grammatical categories. Transitivity is treated as a property of the verb, rather than of the sentence or even discourse (cf. Hopper, Thompson 1980). In the account of transitivity marking, verbs whose forms do not distinguish transitivity meanings (which depend on context) are contrasted with verbs that do distinguish them. The latter are divided into three groups: the first comprises verbs whose transitivity opposition is marked by a change in the root vowel; the second, verbs whose transitivity is marked by causative and curative suffixes; and the third, verbs whose intransitivity is marked by reflexivity. This classification is adopted from Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikos (cf. Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 83–288). It somewhat simplifies the picture of the category of transitivity, since it does not include verbs that cannot express a transitivity opposition at all (būti, atrodyti, gulėti, etc.). Reflexivity is included in the category of transitivity and becomes merely a means of expressing intransitivity¹⁵. Nevertheless, reflexive forms are also discussed separately in the grammar. The interaction of reflexivity with root-vowel alternation is illustrated by kelti: kilti: keltis (p. 119). The differences in meaning between the latter two intransitive forms are left unexplained: both are said to denote a state or a spontaneous action. It is not explained that reflexivity with a dative meaning does not change the transitivity of the verb (cf. Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 288). Well highlighted are the Lith-

¹⁵ These forms are explained similarly in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (cf. Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 287–288). Lithuanian reflexive verb forms may also be interpreted differently: they may be included in the category of voice and treated as a means of expressing the middle voice (see Holvoet, Semėnienė 2004).

O. VAIČIULYTĖ-ROMANČUK. Gramatyką języka litewskiego. Wybrane zagadnienia morfologii i fleksji z ćwiczeniami 307

The differences in the meanings of the passive voice of reflexive verbs in Lithuanian and Polish (man nesimiega: nie mogę zasnąć, etc.).

The other grammatical categories of the verb—tense, person, and number—are not examined separately, but are only briefly surveyed in the description of verb conjugation.

Third-person forms of the imperative mood teeinie, tesimokai, etc., are treated as special permissive forms with an optative meaning (pp. 150–151)¹⁶. Forms (tepasako) and constructions (tegul pasako) expressing a command are presented not as indirect speech (cf. Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 306), but as means of expressing the imperative mood. In discussing voice, it is stated that every active-voice form of verbs (and participles) has a passive-voice counterpart (p. 156)¹⁷. Prefixed reflexive verbs form voice oppositions in much the same way as non-reflexive verbs, whereas non-prefixed reflexive verbs are opposed to compound non-reflexive passive forms, e.g.: Ramunė šukuojasi plaukus: Plaukai yra Ramunės šukuojami (p. 158)¹⁸. The account of how reflexive verb forms are derived is questionable¹⁹: it is stated that the reflexive suffix -si- has the variant -is/-s, yet the derivation of forms such as gydytis, suktis is explained as the elimination of one vowel i in the resulting geminates: *gydyti-is → gydytis (p. 159)²⁰.

The grammar goes on to examine participial forms. Their verbal and adjectival properties are indicated. Diachronic remarks on archaic and newer Lithuanian participial forms are also included. Consistently descri-

¹⁶ They have already Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje been characterized as obsolescent and archaic (Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 305, 309). In the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (http://donelaitis.vdu.lt), the author of this review found seven instances of the first form and did not find a single (!) instance of the second.

¹⁷ Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje explains that one active-voice form may have several passive-voice counterparts, and vice versa (Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 320ff.). The relation between active and passive voice is explained similarly by Holvoet and Semėnienė (2004), but they regard the voice opposition as merely semantic and as not constituting an inflectional category.

¹⁸ Cf.: “they are replaced by neuter reflexive forms or masculine or feminine non-reflexive forms” (Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 325).

¹⁹ It is divided up without justification: the subjunctive and imperative moods are treated together with their corresponding non-reflexive forms, while the indicative mood is treated separately, after all the other moods have been discussed. Repetitions have not been avoided; for example, vowel alternation before the reflexive suffix is discussed both on p. 159 and on pp. 160–161 (a second time).

²⁰ The derivation of such forms is explained much more simply in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje: “Infinitives of non-prefixed verbs attach the short variant -s of this format [-s(i)] to the infinitive suffix: prausti – prausti-s...” (Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 383).

308

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

The discussion includes the inflection and accentuation of active and passive participle tense forms, as well as notes on the more frequent use of certain participial forms. Necessity participles are discussed separately, as are the reflexive and pronominalized participle forms, which are used very rarely in present-day language²¹. It is unjustified to derive all active past-tense plural participles (even masculine ones!) from the corresponding non-pronominalized feminine forms: “from the participle stem of the feminine gender, for example: dirbusi [...] → dirbusieji [...], dirbusiosios [...]” (p. 183)²². The grammar clearly highlights the differences in the use of the half-participle and the adverbial participle. The overview of non-finite verb forms concludes with sections on the supine and the adverbial verb form būdinys. It is questionable whether a practical grammar of present-day Lithuanian of limited scope needed to explain the formation, meaning, and use of the supine²³. The grammar treats būdinys as a verb form rather than an adverb (cf. Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 413). This decision is also questionable both as regards the meaning of būdinys forms and their clearly defined sphere of use; it is unjustifiable from a methodological point of view as well. The verb chapter concludes with a discussion of word formation. The word classes that serve as bases for derivation, the vowel alternation in the root that may accompany derivation, and derivational formatives are briefly surveyed. The discussion of relatively rare suffixed duratives (aušėti, brydoti, glūdoti and the like) raised doubts (p. 190).

9.

The author defines the adverb as an invariable part of speech, but notes that many adverbs have degrees of comparison. Is the comparison of adverbs considered inflection or derivation? Since the grammar discusses it separately from derivation, one may assume that it is not considered derivation. Does this mean that most adverbs inflect for degree?²⁴

²¹ The Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (http://donelaitis.vdu.lt) yields not a single instance of the use of any of the reflexive forms raššis and rašysiąsis or the pronominalized form dirbusiosios given in the grammar.

²² Cf.: “The pronominal formative is attached to the long masculine singular nominative forms, whose ending vowel is lengthened: [...] past tense active participle dirbusys-is, tylėjusys-is, raši usys-is [...]” (Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 367).

²³ The author herself draws attention to the dialectal nature of this form and indicates its standard-language equivalent—the infinitive (p. 187).

²⁴ The grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language sidesteps the problem: it defines the adverb as “an independent, indeclinable and non-conjugated part of speech” (Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 410).

O. VAIČIULYTĖ-ROMANČUK. Gramatyka języka litewskiego. Wybrane zagadnienia morfologii i fleksji z ćwiczeniami 309

In discussing adverb formation, -ai and -iai are presented as separate suffixes (also in the appendices, p. 233), while -aip and -iaip are treated as variants of a single suffix; the variant -iui of the suffix -ui is not mentioned at all (cf. pramaišiui, pasroviui). It is questionable whether the list of adverbialized prepositional constructions (p. 200) needed to include the rarely used example ligi laikui. The grammar separately identifies a small group of adverbs derived from old locative forms of nouns (p. 199). Alongside the others, it gives namõ, derived from namõn, and namiẽ, derived from namiẽp (which should be namiép). The historical explanation of these forms is unnecessary; moreover, it raises serious doubts²⁵.

Adverbial degree forms are derived from the stem of the positive degree (it would be more accurate to say they are derived from the base)²⁶. For adverbs that are morphologically unanalyzable, it is proposed that the superlative forms be formed with the suffix -iausia: daug > daugiausia, pirmà > pirmiausia (p. 201). The grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language contains a similar proposal (Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 417), but limits it to a few specific words (daugiausia, pirmiausia, pirmučiausia). It is inaccurate to apply this in every case to morphologically unanalyzable base forms (cf. anksti: anksčiausiai and many others); moreover, the rule formulated by these linguists does not correspond to actual usage²⁷.

10.

Prepositions are classified as primary and secondary, simple and compound; rare cases of postpositions (dėka, dėlei, link, vietoj) and prepositional government are discussed. As in other cases, the historical distinction between primary and secondary prepositions has given rise to doubts. It is certainly useful to compare some prepositions with the corresponding prefixes (įėjau į kambarį, išėjau iš salės), but a historical underpinning is not necessary for this. In all the examples, the prepositions are marked with a stress accent. This was unnecessary, since it distorts the phrase stress and sentence intonation.

²⁵ Kazimieras Būga considered the form namõ an adverbialized genitive and derived namon (with an added -n) from it (Zinkevičius, ed. 1959: 183). The form namie is also explained in various ways: some consider it an old (non-postpositional) locative (cf. Zinkevičius 1980: 209).

²⁶ The Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian does not rule out the possibility that superlative adverbs are derived from adjectives of the same degree: “one can speak not of the suffix -iausiai, but of -iai” (Ambrazas, ed. ¹1994: 417).

²⁷ According to data from the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian (http://donelaitis.vdu.lt), the forms daugiausiai, pirmiausiai are widely used in written (in many cases, edited!) language, though less frequently than the recommended forms daugiausia, pirmiausia.

310

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

11.

The appendices contain 35 tables of inflection and word-form formation for various parts of speech. Although some merely repeat paradigms found in the relevant chapters, gathering them in one place makes them easier to find and genuinely useful. The information in the tables should not differ from that set out in the grammar itself. Unfortunately, this is the case in the first table (pp. 206–207). In the table, the nominative singular endings for masculine and feminine nouns of the fifth declension are zero, whereas the grammar, following the traditional interpretation, gives the ending -uo (pp. 26 and 30). In the grammar, numerals are examined first, followed by pronouns; in the tables the order is reversed: the inflection of pronouns is summarized first, followed by that of numerals. In the nineteenth table (p. 225), as in other cases, the i marking softness should be indicated with the ending, not with the future-tense suffix (i.e. –si-uo-si), as –s-iuo–si. In the second-person future form in this table, the softness marker should be omitted altogether. Table 34 (p. 233) surveys the forms of simple and reflexive, not pronominal, half-participles, as stated.

12.

All Lithuanian examples in the grammar have been carefully marked for stress. This has been done well; there are only a few minor errors: Mėnuō (p. 42) should be Mėnuo; namięp (p. 199) should be namiep. There are also very few typographical errors (perhaps only formy on p. 150 should be formy, stopień wyższs on p. 201 should be stopień wyższy). It is good that Polish terms are in most cases accompanied by their Lithuanian equivalents. An index of Lithuanian terms would have been useful at the end of the grammar.

In closing this review, it should be said that the grammar prepared by Ona Vaičiulytė-Romančuk conveys the phonological and morphological structure of Lithuanian well. The theoretical foundations of the grammar are moderately conservative. It is systematic, consistent, and clear; it seems possible to find everything one would normally look for in grammars of this kind, and even a few superfluous details. What is most lacking is an account of the fundamentals of syntax. The grammar reviewed fulfills its purpose: it will be a useful textbook of Lithuanian for Polish-speaking and Polish-reading students, not only in Poland but also in Lithuania. I hope that the observations made in this review will be useful to the author in preparing future editions of the grammar.

O. VAIČIULYTĖ-ROMANČIUK. Gramatyka języka litewskiego. Wybrane zagadnienia morfologii i fleksji z ćwiczeniami

311

LITERATŪRA

Ambrazas V., red. ¹1994: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Girdenis A. 1995: Teoriniai fonologijos pagrindai, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Holvoet A., Semėnienė L. 2004: Rūšies kategorija: mediumas ir pasyvas. – Holvoet A., Semėnienė L., red. Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas [Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 2], 35–60.

Hopper P. J., Thompson S. A. 1980: Transitivity in grammar and discourse. – Language 56, 251–299.

Keinys S. 1999: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla.

Keinys S., red. ⁴2000: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Morkūnas K., sud. ¹1999: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Otrębski J. 1956: Gramatyka języka litewskiego 3. Nauka o formach, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Rosinas A. 1996: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Smetona A. 2005: Pagrindinių darybos būdų skyrimo klausimu. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 52, 83–89.

Stundžia B. 1981: Daugiskaitiniai asmenvardiniai oikonimai ir jų reikšmė linksniavimo bei kirčiavimo sistemų rekonstrukcijai. – Lietuvių onomastikos tyrinėjimai // Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 21, 185–198.

Stundžia B. 1995: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos kirčiavimo sistema, Vilniaus universitetas.

Urb utis V. 1978: Žodžių darybos teorija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Žulys V. 1969: Vadinamųjų nekaitomųjų įvardžių vieta lietuvių kalbos gramatinėje sistemoje. – Baltistica 5(2), 167–177.

Gauta 2008 08 26

ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS

Vilniaus universitetas

Universiteto g. 5, LT-01513 Vilnius

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

312

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81