140 research outputs found
Baltic context of some Estonian periphrastic causative constructions
No full textI discuss 4 Estonian periphrastic causative constructions based on laskma, andma, panema, and sundima with respect to semantic shift from non-causative to causative use. These constructions have parallels in Baltic, and I suggest that laskma belongs to the largest area of development, ‘release’ > ‘let’, attested in many Finno-Ugric and Indo-European languages, notably, in Germanic, Baltic, and to some extent, Slavic. The verb andma, which evolved as ‘give’ > ‘let’ (> ‘be possible’), belongs to a smaller area of similar changes that occurred in Finnic, Baltic, and Slavic, while panema as ‘put’ > ‘make’ belongs to the smallest area (some Finnic and some Baltic languages). The verb sundima, as a Slavic loan, has parallel borrowings in a number of Finnic and Baltic languages, but only in Estonian has the causative use of this predicate developed.Kokkuvõte. Jurgis Pakerys: Mõnede eesti keele perifrastiliste kausatiivkonstruktsioonide balti kontekst. Artiklis võetakse verbide laskma, andma, panema ja sundima näitel vaatluse alla eesti keele perifrastiline kausatiivkonstruktsioon. Autor keskendub verbide tähendusnihetele mittekausatiivsest kasutusest kausatiivse suunas. Konstruktsioonidel on vasted balti keeltes. Autori hinnangul kuulub verb laskma (‘lahti laskma’ > ‘laskma’) suurimasse muutusalasse, s.t seda leidub paljudes soome-ugri ja indoeuroopa keeltes, sh germaani, balti, mingil määral ka slaavi keeltes. Verb andma, mis on läbi teinud arengu ‘andma’ > ‘laskma’(>‘võimalik olema’), kuulub väiksemasse läänemeresoome, balti ja slaavi keeltes toimunud sarnaste muutuste areaali. Verb panema (‘panema’ > ‘sundima’) kuulub kõige väiksemasse muutusalasse, esinedes vaid mõnes läänemeresoome ja balti keeles. Verbil sundima on slaavi laenuna vasteid mitmes läänemeresoome ja balti keeles, kuid kausatiivne kasutus on sel predikaadil välja kujunenud vaid eesti keeles.Märksõnad: perifrastilised kausatiivkonstruktsioonid; faktitiivsed kausatiivkonstruktsioonid; permissiivsed kausatiivkonstruktsioonid; läänemeresoome keeled; balti keeled; Balti areaal</jats:p
Latvian secondary verbs based on sta- presents.
No full textIn an earlier paper (Pakerys 2007), I presented a number of Lithuanian secondary verbal formations which are based on sta-presents, cf.: vargst-áuti ‘to live in trouble, to have difficulties’, rūkst-ėti ‘to emit smoke’, linkst-úoti ‘to bend (intr.)’ beside va-g-st-a ‘lives in poverty, takes trouble’, r-k-st-a ‘emits smoke’, liñk-st-a ‘bends (intr.)’, etc. I suggested that these formations could support the hypothesis which claims that the Lithuanian and Latvian iterative suffix -stī- arose due to the reanalysis of formations in -ī-t(i) originally based on present stems in -sta (cf. competing denominative hypothesis which similarly proposes the reanalysis of formations in -ī-t(i) which were originally based on nominal stems in -st-). In this paper, I tried to answer the question if secondary verbs based on sta-presents are an exclusively Lithuanian phenomenon, or if they can be also found in Latvian. The data presented here were excerpted from the electronic edition of “Latviešu valodas vārdnīca” by Mülenbachs and Endzelīns (http://www.ailab.lv/MEV, accessed on 2007—2009) by searching for the verbs ending in -stāt(ies), -stēt(ies), -stīt(ies), -stināt(ies), and -stuot(ies). The main findings can be summarized as follows
Studies in Baltic and other languages
No full textPreface -- Tabula gratulatoria -- List of selected publications by Axel Holvoet -- Is Lithuanian a polysynthetic language? / Peter Arkadiev -- Connective negation and negative concord in Balto-Slavic / Johan van der Auwera, Motoki Nomachi and Olga Krasnoukhova -- Adjacent vs. separated placement of preposition and noun as a factor in noun inflection: The cases of Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian pazuho ‘armpit’ / Wayles Browne -- Curatives in the Old-Lithuanian Bible translations / Paweł Brudzyński -- Towards a source-oriented approach to typological universals / Sonia Cristofaro -- A deontic possibility modal in Latvian: Personal vs. impersonal uses in a corpus / Anna Daugavet -- Notes on three Proto-Slavic borrowings / Rick Derksen -- Латышские глаголы на '-ēt': семантика vs. спряжение / Анжелика Дубасова -- Realizations of deonticity in Lithuanian: The case of particles / Erika Jasionytė-Mikučionienė and Anna Ruskan -- A note on epistemic and effective meanings of the Polish perfective and imperfective / Agata Kochańska -- Независимо используемый дательный падеж в литовском, русском и словенском языках: некоторые замечания к сопоставительному анализу / Елена Коницкая -- Modalities of case assignment: The view from Lithuanian / James E. Lavine -- When one is singular: Notes on zero-person constructions in Latvian / Nicole Nau -- Obligatory features of Lithuanian verbal inflection classes / Jurgis Pakerys -- A peculiar Lithuanian particle 'mat' or 'Mat ją bala, irgi mat dalelytė!' / Vladimir Panov and Ringailė Trakymaitė -- The submerged genitive in Old Prussian / Daniel Petit -- Русское 'чуть': загадки грамматикализации / Владимир Плунгян, Екатерина Рахилина, Милослава Орехова -- The origin of nasality in Macedonian dialects / Irena Sawicka -- Old Lithuanian 'plęšti' / Wojciech Smoczyński -- Lithuanian reflexive-based impersonals with accusative objects / Birutė Spraunienė and Vaiva Žeimantienė -- Louis Hjelmslev and the Baltic countries / Bohumil Vykypěl -- Zum Verhältnis zwischen Präsens und Futur im Litauischen: Präliminaria im Bereich sprechzeitenthobener Propositionen / Björn Wiemer -- Differential Source Marking in the languages of Europe / Natalia Zaika -- When the search domain is back region in Baltic: The Latvian 'aiz' as compared to the Lithuanian 'už' / Eglė Žilinskaitė and Inesa Šeškauskienė.Preface We dedicate this volume to Axel Holvoet, a talented linguist, a distinguished professor of Vilnius University, Honorary Doctor of the University of Latvia, a recipient of the Gold Cross of Merit of Poland, a member of the Academia Europaea, a teacher, a colleague and a friend. He is best characterised by three things: first, by his passion for Baltic and general linguistics, second, by his dedication to students, colleagues and friends, and third, by his role in Academia Salensis, a gem of academic excellence and a place of attraction to many linguists. In January 2021 Axel Holvoet celebrated his 65th birthday. He started his career as a linguist after graduating from the Department of Slavic languages and literatures at Ghent University in 1977, then moving to Poland and working mainly as a scholar of Slavic. He defended his PhD thesis on grammatical aspect in Polish in 1983 and began working at the Institute of Slavonic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences. In 1991 he defended his habilitation thesis on transitivity and clause structure in Polish. His growing interest in the Baltic languages in the mid-eighties of the 20th century was a primary motive for him to learn first Latvian and later Lithuanian. In 1988 he started teaching Baltic linguistics at the University of Warsaw. In 1998 he moved to Lithuania; there he worked at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and then at Vilnius University, where he has been teaching and doing research until now. His main subjects include trends in contemporary linguistics, syntax, language typology, and grammatical theory. [...
Esamojo laiko formantas <em>-st-</em> išvestiniuose latvių kalbos veiksmažodžiuose
No full textLatvian secondary verbs based on sta-presentsSummaryIn an earlier paper (Pakerys 2007), I presented a number of Lithuanian secondary verbal formations which are based on sta-presents, cf.: vargst‑áuti ‘to live in trouble, to have difficulties’, rūkst‑ė́ti ‘to emit smoke’, linkst‑úoti ‘to bend (intr.)’ beside var̃g‑st‑a ‘lives in poverty, takes trouble’, rū̃k‑st‑a ‘emits smoke’, liñk‑st‑a ‘bends (intr.)’, etc. I suggested that these formations could support the hypothesis which claims that the Lithuanian and Latvian iterative suffix -stī- arose due to the reanalysis of formations in -ī‑t(i) originally based on present stems in -sta (cf. competing denominative hypothesis which similarly proposes the reanalysis of formations in -ī‑t(i) which were originally based on nominal stems in -st-).In this paper, I tried to answer the question if secondary verbs based on sta‑presents are an exclusively Lithuanian phenomenon, or if they can be also found in Latvian. The data presented here were excerpted from the electronic edition of “Latviešu valodas vārdnīca” by Mülenbachs and Endzelīns (http://www.ailab.lv/MEV, accessed on 2007—2009) by searching for the verbs ending in ‑stāt(ies), -stēt(ies), -stīt(ies), ‑stināt(ies), and ‑stuot(ies). The main findings can be summarized as follows.The secondary verbal formations based on sta‑presents are also possible in Latvian, but they are very rare and non-regular, just as the Lithuanian ones. These formations belong to a broader group of (non-regular) nominal and verbal derivatives based on the present stems characterized by certain formatives or root vocalism. The closest parallel for the verbal formations which include the present formative -st- can be found in some adjectives in -īgs, cf.: birst‑īgs ‘friable’, (ne)mir̃st‑îgs ‘(im)mortal’ beside bir̃‑st‑u ‘I fall (of small objects)’, (ne)mir̃‑st‑u ‘I (do not) die’, etc. (Blinkena 1984).As far as specific verbal suffixes are concerned, the number of examples and their interpretation varies. To start with, I was unable to find any formations ending in ‑stāt or ‑stuot which would be based on sta‑presents. On the other hand, it is worth noting that an independent suffix -stāt is possible in two formations, cf. je̦m̃‑stâ‑t ‘wiederholt nehmen; to take repeatedly’ beside je̦mu, jẽmu, jem̃t ‘nehmen; to take’ and žã‑stâ‑tiês ‘gähnen; to yawn’ beside Lith. žióti(s) (-ja(si)) ‘to open (one’s mouth)’. These examples possibly reflect a well-known variation of present stems in *‑ā and *‑āja, cf. Lith. mė́tyti, mė́to beside (rare) mė́toti, mė́toja, Latv. mę̃tât, mę̃tãju, OCS mětati, mětajǫ, etc. Some verbs ending in -stuot have primary counterparts with present sta-stems, but these formations are most probably just some variants alongside verbs in -stīt. So just as there is lakstuôt ‘springen; to jump’ beside lakstît ‘idem’, one finds cīkstuôtiês ‘kämpfen, ringen; to fight’ beside cīkstîtiês ‘idem’ and the primary verb cīk‑st‑uôs, cijuos, cīties ‘idem’.The development of some verbs ending in -stēt was already described by Endzelīns (1951, 761). He suggested that in a number of cases, the present stem formative -st- was reanalyzed as a part of the lexical stem and the suffix -ē‑ was introduced in the infinitive and the preterit stems, cf. drì(k)st‑êt, drì(k)st‑u, drì(k)st‑ẽju ‘dürfen, wagen, sich unterstehen; to be allowed, to dare’ alongside Lithuanian drį̃s‑ti, drį̃{s}‑sta, drį̃s‑o ‘to dare’. Therefore, these cases also illustrate the possibility to create verbs on the basis of present stems in -sta, but they have to be regarded as a certain reshaping of the same words rather than a derivation (i.e. the formation of new lexical items with certain derivational meaning beside their base words). The only possible iterative formations (not mentioned in Endzelīn’s list) are tupst‑êtiês ‘sich wiederholt hinhokken; to squat down (intr.) repeatedly’ beside tup‑st‑u(ôs) (tupju(ôs), tūpu(ôs) are also attested), tupu(ôs), tupt(iês) ‘(sich nieder)hocken; to squat down (intr.)’ and sprãkst‑êt (spārgst‑êt) ‘mit Knall bersten; to crackle, to sputter’ alongside sprâg‑st‑u, sprâgu, sprâgt ‘bersten, platzen; to burst’ (already mentioned by Leskien 1902/1903, 172).There are 5 verbs ending in -stināt which are based on sta‑presents. All of them have causative meaning, cf.: ir̃st‑inât ‘auftrennen (eine Naht); to undo (a seam) : ir̃‑st‑u, iru, ir̃t ‘sich auf‑, lostrennen, sich bröckeln; to disintegrate’; kalst‑inât ‘hungern lassen; to make starve’ : kàl{t}‑st‑u, kàltu, kàlst ‘mager werden, verkommen; to grow weaker, thinner’; pĩkst‑inât ‘zörgen, zum Zorne reisen; to make anger’ : pîk‑st‑u, pîku, pîkt ‘zornig, böse werden; to become angry’; sprāgst‑inât ‘aufplatzen machen; to make burst’ : sprâg‑st‑u, sprâgu, sprâgt ‘bersten, platzen; to burst’; pazīst‑inât ‘bekannt machen; to acquaint’ : pazĩ‑st‑u, pazinu, pazĩt ‘erkennen; to know, to be acquainted’. In all cases the present stems of the base verbs have no variants, so these examples have to be regarded as quite reliable.The interpretation of verbs ending in -stīt is rather complicated. The iterative suffix -stīt is itself quite productive, and the fact that some base verbs have present sta‑stems could be just a coincidence. However some formations have causative meaning which is not typical for the suffix -stīt. Therefore, these verbs have to be derivations in -īt based on the present stems in -sta, cf. gul̃st‑ît ‘niederlegen; to lay, to put down’ : gul‑st‑u (also guļu), gulu (also gūlu), gul̃t ‘sich lagern; lie down’; līkst‑ît ‘to sway, to rock’ : lìk‑st‑u, lìku, lìkt ‘sich biegen, krumm werden; to bend’; ìetupst‑ît ‘nachlässig hineinsetzen; to put in carelessly’ : *ìetup‑st‑u (the prefixed stem in -sta is not attested in the dictionary, but cf. tup‑st‑u beside tupju, tūpu), ìetupu, ìetupt ‘sich hineinhocken, sich herein‑, hineinsetzen; to squat into’.In conclusion, the data presented here and in Pakerys 2007 show that both Latvian and Lithuanian have some deverbative formations based on the present stems in -sta. There seem to be no reliable examples of common East Baltic formations of this type (cf. only Latvian rim̂stît‑iês2 ‘wiederholt still od. ruhig werden; to calm down (intr.)’ beside Lithuanian nu‑rìmstyti ‘to calm down (trans.)’), but the possibility to use the present stems with certain formatives as the base of derivation is clearly shared by both languages. These formations support the deverbative hypothesis of the origin of the Lithuanian and Latvian iterative suffix -stī-, but it also does not imply that the denominative hypothesis has to be rejected.</p
Some Lithuanian suffixed verbs derived from the present stems with -n-.
No full textThe paper discusses suffixed Lithuanian verbs derived from the bases with infixal or suffixal -n-. The most solid examples are the ones containing šąl- ‘get chilly, cool off’ with former infix (*ša-n-l-), e.g., šą́l-au-ti, šąl-én-ti ‘get chilly little by little’, and suffix -n-, e.g., at-ein-inė́-ti ‘come (iterative/imperfective)’ ← at-eĩ-n-a ‘come(s)’. The infix of the base can be also seen in brand-ìn-ti ‘make ford’, -bund-in-ti ‘awaken (tr.)’, (pra-si-)bund-inė́-ti ‘wake up from time to time’ ← bre-ñ-d-a ‘ford(s)’, -bu-ñ-d-a ‘wake(s) up (itr.)’. However, there are cases when /n/ may be occasionally inserted before /d/ (= Dzūkian /d͡z/) that is followed by a suffixal syllable containing /n/, as in (pra-)bu-n-dinė́-ti ‘subsist, live’ and -važiuo-n-dinė́-ti ‘drive from time to time’ found alongside the main variants without n-insertion: bū-dinė́-ti, važiuo-dinė́-ti
Canonical and non-canonical conversion in Baltic /
No full textCanonical and non-canonical conversion in Latvian and Lithuanian (Baltic, Indo-European) is discussed by applying the following criteria: (A) identity of form, (B) word-class change, and (C) the absence of dedicated derivational affixes. The absolute identity of form and the realization of (B) and (C) are found in the conversion of non-inflecting word classes, and deviations from that canon are seen in the word-class changing and word-class retaining conversion of inflecting words. They obligatorily change their inflection patterns and their base stems are optionally affected by vowel, consonant, and tone alternations as well as by truncation. The inflection patterns are altered in two ways: paradigm assignment (mostly replacement of the paradigm of the input with that of the output) and paradigm adjustment (mostly restriction of the paradigm when the output has fewer paradigm cells than the input). It is agreed with Štekauer, Valera and Körtvélyessy (2012) that due to criterion (C), conversion can be classified alongside other non-concatenative word-formation processes
Suffixsed estonian and lithuanian language word-formation (estonian\u98\u98 – lithuanian dictionary based).
No full textSuffixed word building in Lithuanian and Estonian language is one of the main ways of word formation. The aim of this project is to establish which Estonian suffixes derivatives meet the Lithuanian language suffix. The study material consists of 314 Estonian suffixed noun derivatives, 87 suffixed adjective derivatives and 46 suffixed verb derivatives and their translations into Lithuanian language. The analysis of ‘Estonian – Lithuanian dictionary’ (2015, Tiina Kattel, Giedrė Priks, Reda Šmitaitė) showed that 14 Lithuanian language suffixes correspond to 9 Estonian suffixed noun derivatives, 9 Lithuanian language suffixes correspond to 5 Estonian suffixed adjective derivatives and 6 of the Lithuanian language suffixes correspond to 10 Estonian suffixed verb derivatives. Most matches of suffixes in noun derivatives of Lithuanian language would be suffix -imas/-ymas (equivalent to 4 Estonian suffixes), but it is Estonian suffix -us (equivalent to 6 Lithuanian suffixes) that has the most matches of Lithuanian suffixes. Most matches of Estonian suffixes in adjective derivatives would be Lithuanian suffixes such as -ingas, -a (equivalent to 5 suffixes of Estonian language), but the absolute most matches of Lithuanian suffixes to have is an Estonian suffix -ne (equivalent to 8 Lithuanian suffixes). Lithuanian language suffix -inti (equivalent to 6 Estonian suffixes) has the most matches to suffixes of Estonian verbal derivatives, but the most Lithuanian matches of suffixes to have would be Estonian suffix -sta- (equivalent to 5 Lithuanian suffixes)
Obligatory features of Lithuanian verbal inflection classes
No full textLithuanian verbal inflection classes are defined by tense suffixes, stem‑forming affixes, vowel and consonant alternations, and accentuation patterns. I make a distinction between obligatory features that are relevant for every verb and non‑obligatory features that characterize only part of the verbs. I argue that the obligatory features are the present and the past tense suffixes combined with mobile and immobile accentuation patterns, while the rest of the features are optional. When only the obligatory features are taken into account, three types of the present tense (‑a‑, ‑i‑, ‑o‑) and two types of the past tense (‑ė‑, ‑o‑) suffixes are found in five combinations (‑a‑/‑ė‑, ‑a‑/‑o‑, ‑i‑/‑o‑, ‑o‑/‑ė‑, ‑o‑/‑o‑) with further variants defined by two types of mobile and one type of immobile accentuation, resulting in eighteen suffixal‑accentual combinations in standard Lithuanian. The combinations of features characterizing the present and the past stems support the view of inflection classes as classes of stems rather than of lexemes (Stump 2016)
On the development of past habitual from iterative in Lithuanian
No full textLithuanian has regular past habitual forms with the suffix -dav-, which can be explained as an originally iterative suffix -dau- restricted to the past tense (Fraenkel 1936). Dialectal and Old Lithuanian, in addition to -dav-, also feature habituals with the suffixes -lav- and -dlav-, which could have followed the same path of development (Fraenkel 1936), as evidenced by a number of diverse languages (Bybee et al. 1994). Using an electronic edition of Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (The Dictionary of Lithuanian) as the data source, a limited number of possible iteratives with -dau- and other related suffixes were found, which has led to two main conclusions. (1) Habituals were restricted to the past tense before the appearance of the first written Lithuanian texts (mid-16th c.) and the present and the infinitive stems went out of use. If this had not been the case, more corresponding verbal formations should have remained. (2) Iteratives with the habitual-to-be suffixes had to be productive to some extent in the dialects, which grammaticalized them as past habituals. If these formations had been productive in all dialects of Lithuanian, more iteratives should have been found in the areas that did not grammaticalize them as past habituals. It is also suggested that the form-frequency correspondence principle (Haspelmath 2008, 2014, 2017) should have operated in the formation of the Lithuanian habitual. Longer suffixes were chosen to mark habitual situations as a less frequent subtype of iterative situations and habitual forms were restricted to the past tense because habituality is one of the default (more frequent) readings of the present and hence the habituals in the past tend to be marked explicitly (Bybee et al. 1994).</p
- …
