Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2024
The article examines the origin and functional development of the Slavic conjunction ače 'if; alt... more The article examines the origin and functional development of the Slavic conjunction ače 'if; although' (OPol. acz). The marker of the protasis in conditional clauses was the enclitic *-če, which continues the function of IE *-kwe 'and; if '. Thus, Sl. *-če 'if ' is an archaism and may be compared with corresponding forms in Indo-Iranian, Hittite, and Latin. The concessive ače 'although' evolved from conditional concessive clauses. The proposed interpretation also sheds light on the genesis of OCz. leč 'if only'.
The aim of the article is to answer the question why the concessive conjunction aczkolwiek (from ... more The aim of the article is to answer the question why the concessive conjunction aczkolwiek (from Old Pol. acz ‘if; though’) looks like an indefinite pronoun, e.g. cokolwiek ‘whatever’. In other words, what do condition, concession, and indefiniteness have in common? Universal concessive conditionals that combine some features of conditional and concessive sentences were used as the starting point.
Baltic abstracts in -ība (e.g. Lith. dial. gyvýba ‘life’ / Latv. dzīvība ‘life’) are built on the... more Baltic abstracts in -ība (e.g. Lith. dial. gyvýba ‘life’ / Latv. dzīvība ‘life’) are built on the basis of the old abstract formations in *-ī < IDE *-ih2, acc.sg. *-ijan. From the acc.sg. *-ijan, a new nom.sg. was formed in *-ijā, which supplanted the inherited nom.sg. *-ī. This, in turn, led to the merger of three different categories of derivatives: adjectival abstracts in *-ī (=> *-ijā), adjectival abstracts in *-ijā, and deverbal abstracts in *-ijā. In the current Lithuanian language, all these types are continued by adjectival abstracts in -ė (e.g. Lith. méilė ‘love’) and deverbal abstracts in -ė (e.g. Lith. myn ‘a time of flax crushing’).
Lithuanian dabar̃ 'now' comes from the illative of the continuative adverb dãbar 'still, yet'; sc... more Lithuanian dabar̃ 'now' comes from the illative of the continuative adverb dãbar 'still, yet'; schematically: dãbar 'still, yet' → illative *dabar- > *dabarà > dabar̃ 'now'. Change in accentuation visible in dãbar 'still, yet' vs. dabar̃ 'now' brings to mind a similar process in illative forms, e.g. acc.sg. *mìškan → ill.sg. *miškan- > dial. miškanà > ill.sg. miškañ. The primary illative *dabar- is preserved in the dialectal dabarõs 'now', which is traced back to a contraction of *dabar-à-es. The postposition *-es is a mark of the enclitic verb esti 'is'. The shift of accent like between dãbar 'still, yet' and dial. dabarõs 'now' can also be observed in a few other adverbs, e.g. *pa gãli (cf. OLith. ik' gâli 'to the end') → pagaliõs 'in the end'.
Relative pronouns i-/je- and restrictive particle -le became conflated in concessive conditionals... more Relative pronouns i-/je- and restrictive particle -le became conflated in concessive conditionals (e.g. No matter how much financial support we get, we will go ahead with our project). This syntactic environment explains why Old Polish ile functioned in the oldest Polish texts as an indefinite pronoun ‘no matter how much’ (a so--called free choice determiner). The present paper aims to show in which way the historical syntax may enrich our knowledge on etymology and language changes.
Primārā salīdzināmā konstrukcija 17. gadsimta latviešu valodā ir bijusi konstrukcija ar saikli ne... more Primārā salīdzināmā konstrukcija 17. gadsimta latviešu valodā ir bijusi konstrukcija ar saikli nekā, kas Stasena terminoloģijā tipoloģiski reprezentē tā saukto savienoto komparatīvu (angl. conjoined comparative, Stassen 1985). Tas atbilst stāvoklim 16. gadsimta lietuviešu valodā, kur kā primārās nevienlīdzības salīdzināmās konstrukcijas (COI) lietotas konstrukcijas ar saikļiem, kas ietver noliegumu: neg(i), nei(gi), neng, nekaip, net, nent ‘nekā’ (Ostrowski 2018).
The Lithuanian-Latvian illative was formed from the IE accusativus directivus and the local postp... more The Lithuanian-Latvian illative was formed from the IE accusativus directivus and the local postposition *-ā́. Traces of the postponed *-ā́ have been preserved in yrà ‘is, are; OLith. there is, there are’ < *ī-r-ā́, and Lith. čià ‘here’ < *tj-ā́. Typologically, the Baltic illative can be compared to Greek derivatives with -δε, e.g. οἴκα-δε ‘homewards; at home’. As for the origin of the postponed *-ā́, two hypotheses can be formulated: 1. *-ā́ comes from the IE allative postposition *-eh₂ (see Hajnal 1992); 2. *-ā́ boils down to the instr. sg. of the anaphoric pronoun *h₁o-h₁. The primary illative plural ended in -s-ā́, e.g. OLith. (debesisa) ‘into heaven’. The postposition -na, which can be found e.g. in the ill. pl. miškúosna ‘into forests’, is an innovation resulting from reanalysis of the acc. sg. *-n + *-ā́ → *-nā́. The neutralisation of the privative opposition inessive : illative originally comprised an area much larger than today’s and included the West Aukštaitian dial...
The name of the village Sundythen (Pol. Sędyty), located within the boundaries of today’s Olsztyn... more The name of the village Sundythen (Pol. Sędyty), located within the boundaries of today’s Olsztyn, comes from the Old Prussian personal name Sundith, which is a shortened form of compound names with the first component Sund-. Such names are well preserved in Polish, cf. Sędzi-mir, Sędzi-woj, Sędzi-sław, *Sando-mirъ. The short name Sundith was formed with the Baltic suffix -it. Polish names Sędz-ic, Sęd-ek can be cited as a parallel. As for the morphological structure of the name Sundyth-en, it can be compared with Polish Sędzic-e (the village located in the vicinity of Sieradz). The postulated development is summarized as follows: The compound name with the first element Sund- (cf. Pol. Sędzi-mir) → the short name Sund-ith (cf. Pol. Sędz-ic) → the name of the village Sundyth-en (cf. Pol. Sędzic-e).
OCS kolěno ‘knee; tribe, generation’ (cf. Polish pokolenie ‘generation’) and Lith kẽlis ‘knee; ... more OCS kolěno ‘knee; tribe, generation’ (cf. Polish pokolenie ‘generation’) and Lith kẽlis ‘knee; joint in a plant; tribe; degree of kinship’ come from old adjectives with possessive suffixes (-ěn- in Slavic and -ija- in Baltic). Their primary meaning was ‘a joint in the body’ (*‘a rotating part of the body’). Both were formed from nouns with the meaning ‘wheel’ (OCS kolo, kolese ‘wheel’, Old Prussian kelan ‘wheel’, Latvian duceles ‘chaise’; IDE *kwelh1- ‘to turn, to rotate’). The hypothesis proposed in this paper explains the semantic relationship between Slav. kolěno ‘knee; tribe, generation’ and Proto-Slav. *kel-nŭ- > *čelnŭ- > Slovenian člèn // Serbo-Croatian člȃn ‘joint; ankle, talus’. Assuming that the meaning ‘joint’ was the original one, OCS kolěno ‘tribe, generation’ and Lith kẽlis ‘degree in relationship; tribe’ can be interpreted as old terms of customary law in the field of succession. The counting of kinship by enumeration of body parts from the head to the middle fingernail has been preserved in Middle Low German customary law, so-called “Sachsenspiegel”. The hypothesis is supported by numerous parallels: Lith. sąnarys ‘a joint in the body; (OLith ) ‘generation’, Lith. stráipsnis ‘body part; (OLith.) generation’, OPr. streipstan ‘body part; generation’, Middle High German Gelied ‘body part; generation’, and Middle Low German lede ‘a joint in the body; body part; degree of kinship’.
The starting point for our considerations on the development of the Baltic preterite is the Old L... more The starting point for our considerations on the development of the Baltic preterite is the Old Lithuanian preterite <ischtirra> /ištira:/ 'found out', etymologically connected to týrė 'examined'. In form, /ištira:/ and týrė match the Old Church Slavonic otьre (thematic aorist) and trь (sigmatic aorist). This, in turn, is an argument for the hypothesis proposed by Daniel Pe t i t (2004) on the origin of the lengthening in the Baltic preterite. The second part of this paper discusses the traces of a coexistence of inflected aspect (based on the contrast of the past tenses of aorist : imperfect) and derivational aspect (based on the opposition of perfective : imperfective) in Lithuanian.
When analysing Old Lithuanian texts from the 16th and the first half of the 17th century, one can... more When analysing Old Lithuanian texts from the 16th and the first half of the 17th century, one can notice that comparatives with the -jaus suffix tend to appear in comparative constructions with connectives containing negation, e.g. Bet esch daugiaus dirbau / neig kursai isch yũ ‘but I laboured more abundantly than they all’ (VEE 102: 16–17; 1 Corinthians 15: 10). This is the „particle comparative”in Stassen’s terms (1985; 2001). On the other hand, authors avoided comparatives with the -jaus suffix in other types of comparative constructions (with the preposition už and the genitive). Philological and etymological analysis of neg(i) and nei(gi) ‘than’ shows that these connectives developed out of former sentence negations. This sheds some light on the syntactic environment in which the grammaticalization of the comparative suffix -jaus occurred. The Lithuanian comparative suffix -jaũ (OLith. -jau-s, e.g. geriaus ‘better’) goes back to the postposed focus particle -jaũ, which functions as a marker of emphatic assertion of identity (König 1991). The primary contrastive function of the ‑jau-s suffix can be compared to Ancient Greek -τερος (Sanskrit -taraḥ) in such usages as δεξίτερος ‘right(-hand)’. The grammaticalization of the focus marker jau(s) has occurred in sentences consisting of juxtaposed and contrasted clauses – the “conjoined comparative” in Stassen’s terms (1985: 38, 44), and in these sentences, -jaus filled the role of pragmatic marker and focalizer, emphasizing one of two compared, oppositional items.
This paper aims to describe the origin of the Baltic *īr ‘there is / are; is / are’ that appears... more This paper aims to describe the origin of the Baltic *īr ‘there is / are; is / are’ that appears to be due to the conflation of demonstrative pronoun *ī (< instr. sg. *h1ih1) and two postpositions: -r- (cf. OIcel. Þa-r ‘there’) and -ā. The latter comes from abl. sg. of the IE demonstrative pronoun *h1e/o-. The presented analysis sheds some light on the etymology of the Lithuanian conjunction ir ‘and’ and Slavonic i ‘and’ (< *ī < instr. sg. *h1i-h1).
Productivity of the Lithuanian conjunction beĩ ‘and’, marker of so called „natural coordination”,... more Productivity of the Lithuanian conjunction beĩ ‘and’, marker of so called „natural coordination”, is strictly connected to the area of Lithuania Minor (former East Prussia). Moving eastward, the frequency of beĩ reduces dramatically. As for its etymology, Lithuanian beĩ comes from conflation of the common Baltic conjunction bè ‘and’ and an additive particle ir ‘also’. The conflated form *beir has been further reduced to beĩ in accordance with Lithuanian phonotactic rules that do not tolerate group VRR (V = Vocal, R = Resonant). There are some traces that suggest that Lithuanian beĩ ‘and’ came into existence in the bilingual, Old Prussian-Lithuanian environment.
Folia Scandinavica Posnaniensia 20 (2016), 175-179
This paper aims to describe the origin of the... more Folia Scandinavica Posnaniensia 20 (2016), 175-179
This paper aims to describe the origin of the Lithuanian discontinuatives nebe- / jau nebe- ‘no more, no longer’. In van der Auwera’s terms they represent the so-called ‘still’ discontinuatives, i.e. they consist of a continuative morpheme -be- and negation ne-. In Old Lithuanian texts (16th century) their productivity is strictly connected to the area of Lithuania Minor (former East Prussia). Both variants (i.e. nebe- / jau nebe- ‘no more, no longer’) have structural counterparts in German, which seems to suggest that nebe- and jau nebe- have come into being under influence of German.
Hist. Sprachforsch. 126, 296-308
The Lithuanian comparative suffix -iaũ(s), e.g. OLith. geriaus ‘... more Hist. Sprachforsch. 126, 296-308 The Lithuanian comparative suffix -iaũ(s), e.g. OLith. geriaus ‘better’ / Modern Lith. geriaũ, has risen from a postpositive contrastive focus particle -jaũ used in the function of ‘emphatic assertion of identity’ (see König 1991). A final consonant /-s/ in -iaũ-s is an etymologically heterogeneous element, appearing optionally in such lexemes as Lith. dial. nèt-s ‘even’ : nèt ‘even’ < OLith. ne-te, OLith. tačiau-s ‘however, but’ : tačiaũ ‘however, but’ < tat ‘this, that’ + -jaũ, OLith. tuojau-s ‘at soon, once’ : tuojaũ < tuo + -jaũ. The primary contrastive function of the suffix -iau-s can be compared to Old Greek -τερος in such uses as δεξίτερος ‘right(-hand)’, emphatic non-σκαιός ‘left(-hand)’.
Contributions to Morphology and Syntax. Proceedings of the 4th Greifswald University Conference o... more Contributions to Morphology and Syntax. Proceedings of the 4th Greifswald University Conference on Baltic Languages. Edited by Artūras Judžentis & Stephan Kessler. Logos Verlag, Berlin 2015, pp. 201–215
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2024
The article examines the origin and functional development of the Slavic conjunction ače 'if; alt... more The article examines the origin and functional development of the Slavic conjunction ače 'if; although' (OPol. acz). The marker of the protasis in conditional clauses was the enclitic *-če, which continues the function of IE *-kwe 'and; if '. Thus, Sl. *-če 'if ' is an archaism and may be compared with corresponding forms in Indo-Iranian, Hittite, and Latin. The concessive ače 'although' evolved from conditional concessive clauses. The proposed interpretation also sheds light on the genesis of OCz. leč 'if only'.
The aim of the article is to answer the question why the concessive conjunction aczkolwiek (from ... more The aim of the article is to answer the question why the concessive conjunction aczkolwiek (from Old Pol. acz ‘if; though’) looks like an indefinite pronoun, e.g. cokolwiek ‘whatever’. In other words, what do condition, concession, and indefiniteness have in common? Universal concessive conditionals that combine some features of conditional and concessive sentences were used as the starting point.
Baltic abstracts in -ība (e.g. Lith. dial. gyvýba ‘life’ / Latv. dzīvība ‘life’) are built on the... more Baltic abstracts in -ība (e.g. Lith. dial. gyvýba ‘life’ / Latv. dzīvība ‘life’) are built on the basis of the old abstract formations in *-ī < IDE *-ih2, acc.sg. *-ijan. From the acc.sg. *-ijan, a new nom.sg. was formed in *-ijā, which supplanted the inherited nom.sg. *-ī. This, in turn, led to the merger of three different categories of derivatives: adjectival abstracts in *-ī (=> *-ijā), adjectival abstracts in *-ijā, and deverbal abstracts in *-ijā. In the current Lithuanian language, all these types are continued by adjectival abstracts in -ė (e.g. Lith. méilė ‘love’) and deverbal abstracts in -ė (e.g. Lith. myn ‘a time of flax crushing’).
Lithuanian dabar̃ 'now' comes from the illative of the continuative adverb dãbar 'still, yet'; sc... more Lithuanian dabar̃ 'now' comes from the illative of the continuative adverb dãbar 'still, yet'; schematically: dãbar 'still, yet' → illative *dabar- > *dabarà > dabar̃ 'now'. Change in accentuation visible in dãbar 'still, yet' vs. dabar̃ 'now' brings to mind a similar process in illative forms, e.g. acc.sg. *mìškan → ill.sg. *miškan- > dial. miškanà > ill.sg. miškañ. The primary illative *dabar- is preserved in the dialectal dabarõs 'now', which is traced back to a contraction of *dabar-à-es. The postposition *-es is a mark of the enclitic verb esti 'is'. The shift of accent like between dãbar 'still, yet' and dial. dabarõs 'now' can also be observed in a few other adverbs, e.g. *pa gãli (cf. OLith. ik' gâli 'to the end') → pagaliõs 'in the end'.
Relative pronouns i-/je- and restrictive particle -le became conflated in concessive conditionals... more Relative pronouns i-/je- and restrictive particle -le became conflated in concessive conditionals (e.g. No matter how much financial support we get, we will go ahead with our project). This syntactic environment explains why Old Polish ile functioned in the oldest Polish texts as an indefinite pronoun ‘no matter how much’ (a so--called free choice determiner). The present paper aims to show in which way the historical syntax may enrich our knowledge on etymology and language changes.
Primārā salīdzināmā konstrukcija 17. gadsimta latviešu valodā ir bijusi konstrukcija ar saikli ne... more Primārā salīdzināmā konstrukcija 17. gadsimta latviešu valodā ir bijusi konstrukcija ar saikli nekā, kas Stasena terminoloģijā tipoloģiski reprezentē tā saukto savienoto komparatīvu (angl. conjoined comparative, Stassen 1985). Tas atbilst stāvoklim 16. gadsimta lietuviešu valodā, kur kā primārās nevienlīdzības salīdzināmās konstrukcijas (COI) lietotas konstrukcijas ar saikļiem, kas ietver noliegumu: neg(i), nei(gi), neng, nekaip, net, nent ‘nekā’ (Ostrowski 2018).
The Lithuanian-Latvian illative was formed from the IE accusativus directivus and the local postp... more The Lithuanian-Latvian illative was formed from the IE accusativus directivus and the local postposition *-ā́. Traces of the postponed *-ā́ have been preserved in yrà ‘is, are; OLith. there is, there are’ < *ī-r-ā́, and Lith. čià ‘here’ < *tj-ā́. Typologically, the Baltic illative can be compared to Greek derivatives with -δε, e.g. οἴκα-δε ‘homewards; at home’. As for the origin of the postponed *-ā́, two hypotheses can be formulated: 1. *-ā́ comes from the IE allative postposition *-eh₂ (see Hajnal 1992); 2. *-ā́ boils down to the instr. sg. of the anaphoric pronoun *h₁o-h₁. The primary illative plural ended in -s-ā́, e.g. OLith. (debesisa) ‘into heaven’. The postposition -na, which can be found e.g. in the ill. pl. miškúosna ‘into forests’, is an innovation resulting from reanalysis of the acc. sg. *-n + *-ā́ → *-nā́. The neutralisation of the privative opposition inessive : illative originally comprised an area much larger than today’s and included the West Aukštaitian dial...
The name of the village Sundythen (Pol. Sędyty), located within the boundaries of today’s Olsztyn... more The name of the village Sundythen (Pol. Sędyty), located within the boundaries of today’s Olsztyn, comes from the Old Prussian personal name Sundith, which is a shortened form of compound names with the first component Sund-. Such names are well preserved in Polish, cf. Sędzi-mir, Sędzi-woj, Sędzi-sław, *Sando-mirъ. The short name Sundith was formed with the Baltic suffix -it. Polish names Sędz-ic, Sęd-ek can be cited as a parallel. As for the morphological structure of the name Sundyth-en, it can be compared with Polish Sędzic-e (the village located in the vicinity of Sieradz). The postulated development is summarized as follows: The compound name with the first element Sund- (cf. Pol. Sędzi-mir) → the short name Sund-ith (cf. Pol. Sędz-ic) → the name of the village Sundyth-en (cf. Pol. Sędzic-e).
OCS kolěno ‘knee; tribe, generation’ (cf. Polish pokolenie ‘generation’) and Lith kẽlis ‘knee; ... more OCS kolěno ‘knee; tribe, generation’ (cf. Polish pokolenie ‘generation’) and Lith kẽlis ‘knee; joint in a plant; tribe; degree of kinship’ come from old adjectives with possessive suffixes (-ěn- in Slavic and -ija- in Baltic). Their primary meaning was ‘a joint in the body’ (*‘a rotating part of the body’). Both were formed from nouns with the meaning ‘wheel’ (OCS kolo, kolese ‘wheel’, Old Prussian kelan ‘wheel’, Latvian duceles ‘chaise’; IDE *kwelh1- ‘to turn, to rotate’). The hypothesis proposed in this paper explains the semantic relationship between Slav. kolěno ‘knee; tribe, generation’ and Proto-Slav. *kel-nŭ- > *čelnŭ- > Slovenian člèn // Serbo-Croatian člȃn ‘joint; ankle, talus’. Assuming that the meaning ‘joint’ was the original one, OCS kolěno ‘tribe, generation’ and Lith kẽlis ‘degree in relationship; tribe’ can be interpreted as old terms of customary law in the field of succession. The counting of kinship by enumeration of body parts from the head to the middle fingernail has been preserved in Middle Low German customary law, so-called “Sachsenspiegel”. The hypothesis is supported by numerous parallels: Lith. sąnarys ‘a joint in the body; (OLith ) ‘generation’, Lith. stráipsnis ‘body part; (OLith.) generation’, OPr. streipstan ‘body part; generation’, Middle High German Gelied ‘body part; generation’, and Middle Low German lede ‘a joint in the body; body part; degree of kinship’.
The starting point for our considerations on the development of the Baltic preterite is the Old L... more The starting point for our considerations on the development of the Baltic preterite is the Old Lithuanian preterite <ischtirra> /ištira:/ 'found out', etymologically connected to týrė 'examined'. In form, /ištira:/ and týrė match the Old Church Slavonic otьre (thematic aorist) and trь (sigmatic aorist). This, in turn, is an argument for the hypothesis proposed by Daniel Pe t i t (2004) on the origin of the lengthening in the Baltic preterite. The second part of this paper discusses the traces of a coexistence of inflected aspect (based on the contrast of the past tenses of aorist : imperfect) and derivational aspect (based on the opposition of perfective : imperfective) in Lithuanian.
When analysing Old Lithuanian texts from the 16th and the first half of the 17th century, one can... more When analysing Old Lithuanian texts from the 16th and the first half of the 17th century, one can notice that comparatives with the -jaus suffix tend to appear in comparative constructions with connectives containing negation, e.g. Bet esch daugiaus dirbau / neig kursai isch yũ ‘but I laboured more abundantly than they all’ (VEE 102: 16–17; 1 Corinthians 15: 10). This is the „particle comparative”in Stassen’s terms (1985; 2001). On the other hand, authors avoided comparatives with the -jaus suffix in other types of comparative constructions (with the preposition už and the genitive). Philological and etymological analysis of neg(i) and nei(gi) ‘than’ shows that these connectives developed out of former sentence negations. This sheds some light on the syntactic environment in which the grammaticalization of the comparative suffix -jaus occurred. The Lithuanian comparative suffix -jaũ (OLith. -jau-s, e.g. geriaus ‘better’) goes back to the postposed focus particle -jaũ, which functions as a marker of emphatic assertion of identity (König 1991). The primary contrastive function of the ‑jau-s suffix can be compared to Ancient Greek -τερος (Sanskrit -taraḥ) in such usages as δεξίτερος ‘right(-hand)’. The grammaticalization of the focus marker jau(s) has occurred in sentences consisting of juxtaposed and contrasted clauses – the “conjoined comparative” in Stassen’s terms (1985: 38, 44), and in these sentences, -jaus filled the role of pragmatic marker and focalizer, emphasizing one of two compared, oppositional items.
This paper aims to describe the origin of the Baltic *īr ‘there is / are; is / are’ that appears... more This paper aims to describe the origin of the Baltic *īr ‘there is / are; is / are’ that appears to be due to the conflation of demonstrative pronoun *ī (< instr. sg. *h1ih1) and two postpositions: -r- (cf. OIcel. Þa-r ‘there’) and -ā. The latter comes from abl. sg. of the IE demonstrative pronoun *h1e/o-. The presented analysis sheds some light on the etymology of the Lithuanian conjunction ir ‘and’ and Slavonic i ‘and’ (< *ī < instr. sg. *h1i-h1).
Productivity of the Lithuanian conjunction beĩ ‘and’, marker of so called „natural coordination”,... more Productivity of the Lithuanian conjunction beĩ ‘and’, marker of so called „natural coordination”, is strictly connected to the area of Lithuania Minor (former East Prussia). Moving eastward, the frequency of beĩ reduces dramatically. As for its etymology, Lithuanian beĩ comes from conflation of the common Baltic conjunction bè ‘and’ and an additive particle ir ‘also’. The conflated form *beir has been further reduced to beĩ in accordance with Lithuanian phonotactic rules that do not tolerate group VRR (V = Vocal, R = Resonant). There are some traces that suggest that Lithuanian beĩ ‘and’ came into existence in the bilingual, Old Prussian-Lithuanian environment.
Folia Scandinavica Posnaniensia 20 (2016), 175-179
This paper aims to describe the origin of the... more Folia Scandinavica Posnaniensia 20 (2016), 175-179
This paper aims to describe the origin of the Lithuanian discontinuatives nebe- / jau nebe- ‘no more, no longer’. In van der Auwera’s terms they represent the so-called ‘still’ discontinuatives, i.e. they consist of a continuative morpheme -be- and negation ne-. In Old Lithuanian texts (16th century) their productivity is strictly connected to the area of Lithuania Minor (former East Prussia). Both variants (i.e. nebe- / jau nebe- ‘no more, no longer’) have structural counterparts in German, which seems to suggest that nebe- and jau nebe- have come into being under influence of German.
Hist. Sprachforsch. 126, 296-308
The Lithuanian comparative suffix -iaũ(s), e.g. OLith. geriaus ‘... more Hist. Sprachforsch. 126, 296-308 The Lithuanian comparative suffix -iaũ(s), e.g. OLith. geriaus ‘better’ / Modern Lith. geriaũ, has risen from a postpositive contrastive focus particle -jaũ used in the function of ‘emphatic assertion of identity’ (see König 1991). A final consonant /-s/ in -iaũ-s is an etymologically heterogeneous element, appearing optionally in such lexemes as Lith. dial. nèt-s ‘even’ : nèt ‘even’ < OLith. ne-te, OLith. tačiau-s ‘however, but’ : tačiaũ ‘however, but’ < tat ‘this, that’ + -jaũ, OLith. tuojau-s ‘at soon, once’ : tuojaũ < tuo + -jaũ. The primary contrastive function of the suffix -iau-s can be compared to Old Greek -τερος in such uses as δεξίτερος ‘right(-hand)’, emphatic non-σκαιός ‘left(-hand)’.
Contributions to Morphology and Syntax. Proceedings of the 4th Greifswald University Conference o... more Contributions to Morphology and Syntax. Proceedings of the 4th Greifswald University Conference on Baltic Languages. Edited by Artūras Judžentis & Stephan Kessler. Logos Verlag, Berlin 2015, pp. 201–215
Uploads
Papers by Norbert Ostrowski
abstracts in -ė (e.g. Lith. méilė ‘love’) and deverbal abstracts in -ė (e.g. Lith. myn ‘a time of flax crushing’).
kur kā primārās nevienlīdzības salīdzināmās konstrukcijas (COI) lietotas konstrukcijas ar saikļiem, kas ietver noliegumu: neg(i), nei(gi), neng, nekaip, net, nent ‘nekā’ (Ostrowski 2018).
The compound name with the first element Sund- (cf. Pol. Sędzi-mir) → the short name Sund-ith (cf. Pol. Sędz-ic) → the name of the village Sundyth-en (cf. Pol. Sędzic-e).
etymology of the Lithuanian conjunction ir ‘and’ and Slavonic i ‘and’ (< *ī < instr. sg. *h1i-h1).
environment.
This paper aims to describe the origin of the Lithuanian discontinuatives nebe- / jau nebe- ‘no more, no longer’. In van der Auwera’s terms they represent the so-called ‘still’ discontinuatives, i.e. they consist of a continuative morpheme -be- and negation ne-. In Old Lithuanian texts (16th century) their productivity is strictly connected to the area of Lithuania Minor (former East Prussia). Both variants (i.e. nebe- / jau nebe- ‘no more, no longer’) have structural counterparts in German,
which seems to suggest that nebe- and jau nebe- have come into being under influence of German.
The Lithuanian comparative suffix -iaũ(s), e.g. OLith. geriaus ‘better’ / Modern Lith. geriaũ, has risen from a postpositive contrastive focus particle -jaũ used in the function of ‘emphatic assertion of identity’ (see König 1991). A final consonant /-s/ in -iaũ-s is an etymologically heterogeneous element, appearing optionally in such lexemes as Lith. dial. nèt-s ‘even’ : nèt ‘even’ < OLith. ne-te, OLith. tačiau-s ‘however, but’ : tačiaũ ‘however, but’ < tat ‘this, that’ + -jaũ, OLith. tuojau-s ‘at soon, once’ : tuojaũ < tuo + -jaũ. The primary contrastive function of the suffix -iau-s can be compared to Old Greek -τερος in such uses as δεξίτερος ‘right(-hand)’, emphatic non-σκαιός ‘left(-hand)’.
abstracts in -ė (e.g. Lith. méilė ‘love’) and deverbal abstracts in -ė (e.g. Lith. myn ‘a time of flax crushing’).
kur kā primārās nevienlīdzības salīdzināmās konstrukcijas (COI) lietotas konstrukcijas ar saikļiem, kas ietver noliegumu: neg(i), nei(gi), neng, nekaip, net, nent ‘nekā’ (Ostrowski 2018).
The compound name with the first element Sund- (cf. Pol. Sędzi-mir) → the short name Sund-ith (cf. Pol. Sędz-ic) → the name of the village Sundyth-en (cf. Pol. Sędzic-e).
etymology of the Lithuanian conjunction ir ‘and’ and Slavonic i ‘and’ (< *ī < instr. sg. *h1i-h1).
environment.
This paper aims to describe the origin of the Lithuanian discontinuatives nebe- / jau nebe- ‘no more, no longer’. In van der Auwera’s terms they represent the so-called ‘still’ discontinuatives, i.e. they consist of a continuative morpheme -be- and negation ne-. In Old Lithuanian texts (16th century) their productivity is strictly connected to the area of Lithuania Minor (former East Prussia). Both variants (i.e. nebe- / jau nebe- ‘no more, no longer’) have structural counterparts in German,
which seems to suggest that nebe- and jau nebe- have come into being under influence of German.
The Lithuanian comparative suffix -iaũ(s), e.g. OLith. geriaus ‘better’ / Modern Lith. geriaũ, has risen from a postpositive contrastive focus particle -jaũ used in the function of ‘emphatic assertion of identity’ (see König 1991). A final consonant /-s/ in -iaũ-s is an etymologically heterogeneous element, appearing optionally in such lexemes as Lith. dial. nèt-s ‘even’ : nèt ‘even’ < OLith. ne-te, OLith. tačiau-s ‘however, but’ : tačiaũ ‘however, but’ < tat ‘this, that’ + -jaũ, OLith. tuojau-s ‘at soon, once’ : tuojaũ < tuo + -jaũ. The primary contrastive function of the suffix -iau-s can be compared to Old Greek -τερος in such uses as δεξίτερος ‘right(-hand)’, emphatic non-σκαιός ‘left(-hand)’.