S. lie. adesyvo ir aliatyvo neutralizacijos klausimu

LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Vietininkas; Adesyvas; Inesyvas; Senieji raštai; Locative cases; Adessive; Allative; Old Lithuanian.

ENThe paper mainly deals with two of the four postpositional locative cases in the old Lithuanian language – the allative and the adessive – and their semantic interrelation. The former case was created by attaching the postposition *pie ‘near, by’ to the genitive (e. g. miškó-pi ‘to the forest’, miškum-pi ‘to the forests’) while the singular forms of the latter have two interpretations of their origin. According to the traditional view, the singular forms of the adessive were created by adding the postposition *pie to the old locative form (Stang 1966, 182; Kazlauskas 1968, 160; Zinkevičius 1982, 22). However, Rosinas suggests that they were formed from the dative and the same postposition *pie. Rosinas asserts that his theory of the origin of adessive is confirmed by syntactic constructions, cf. sėdėti prieg skomiai ‘to sit at the table’, where preposition governs the dative case, and sėdėti skomiaip ‘idem’, where the basis of the adessive skomiaip is thought to be the dative (Rosinas 1995, 64; 2000, 174; 2001, 144). According to Rosinas, the formation of the allative validates the symmetry of syntactic and analytic forms as well, cf. bėgti prie miško (gen. sg.) and bėgti miškop (allat. sg.) ‘to run to the forest’. Having accepted the dative as the basis for the singular forms of the adessive, Rosinas explains that the neutralization of the adessive and the allative was determined by the change of the functions of prepositional constructions prieg + gen. and prieg + dat. (Rosinas 2000; 2001, 136-152). The construction prieg + gen. had the original allative meaning and was used with verbs denoting motion.As it gradually moved to the contexts with the verbs denoting state ("kurié su mumis prieġ tosiaġ skomios sêdi 35235" - "those who sit at the table with us"), the allative case also occurred in static contexts and moved into the semantic field of the adessive (and the dative). In summary, Rosinas considers the adessive and the dative morphologically and semantically close, while the allative acquires some of the functions of the adessive after semantic changes of the construction prieg + gen. Rosinas substantiates the neutralization of the adessive and the allative with the following contexts: usage of both cases denoting addressee; occurrence with the verbs turėti ‘have’ and būti ‘be’ and the allative governed by the verb prilyginti ‘compare’ denoting standard for comparison. The examination of the above-mentioned contexts proves that none of them can be regarded as instances of neutralization of the allative and the adessive. Both cases retain different meanings: it is obvious from both the semantics of the spatial cases and the Polish equivalents of the Lithuanian examples. The interchangeability of the adessive and allative is possible with the verbs sėsti(s) ‘sit down’, stoti(s) ‘stand up’, gulti(s) ‘lie down’, pulti ‘fall upon’, dėti ‘put’, cf. pulti kojosemp ‘to fall at one’s legs’ / pulti kojump ‘to fall to one’s legs’. Nevertheless, they are not confused in these contexts. The choice of the case depends on the focus of attention: in the utterance with the adessive the location of the moved Figure is highlighted while the goal of the Figure’s motion is emphasized in the utterance with the allative. It is claimed that the allative is semantically highly related to the dative.Such a phenomenon is very common crosslinguistically and is observed also in old Lithuanian when denoting not only goal of motion, but also addressee, emotional target, purpose, recipient, standard for comparison and possessor. On the contrary, the interrelation of the adessive and the allative (and dative) cannot be proved semantically. The semantic incompatibility of the adessive and the dative casts doubts on the dative as the etymological basis of the adessive as well. [From the publication]