Savybinių įvardžių formos XVI a. Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės reformatų lietuviškuose raštuose

LTStraipsnyje lyginamas ir analizuojamas savybinių įvardžių formų vartojimas XVI a. Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės reformatų lietuviškuose raštuose - Merkelio Petkevičiaus Katekizme (PK, 1598) ir Jokūbo Morkūno Postilėje (MP, 1600). Atlikus tyrimą, pasakytina, kad ir PK, ir MP ryškiai vyraujančios yra nederinamosios savybinių įvardžių formos - tuo minėti šaltiniai esmingai skiriasi nuo tam pačiam raštų kalbos variantui priklausančių Mikalojaus Daukšos tekstų. Abi reformatų knygos, savybinių įvardžių vartojimu nors ir būdamos gana panašios, vis dėlto turi aiškiai matomų skirtumų. Savybinių įvardžių formų abiejuose tekstuose lyginimas perša mintį, kad labiau tikėtina, jog PK ir MP vertė ne tas pats asmuo. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Derinamosios / nederinamosios formos; Derinamosios ir nederinamosios formos; Jokūbas Morkūnas; Katekizmas; Merkelis Petkevičius; Postilė; Postpozicija; Prepozicija; Savybiniai įvardžiai; Agreed / non-agreed forms; Agreed and non-agreed forms; Catechism; Jacob Morkunas; Jokūbas Morkūnas; Merkel Petkevicius; Merkelis Petkevičius; Possessive pronouns; Postil; Postposition; Pre-position / post-position; Preposition.

ENThe Lithuanian texts by the reformers of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania of the 16th century are not a common object of research: not a single comparative research of the language used in these sources has been carried out so far. The present article compares the possessive pronoun forms used in the Lithuanian writings by the reformers of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania of the 16lh century, such as in Merkelis Petkevičius’ Katekizmas (PK, 1598) and Jokūbas Morkūnas’ Postilė (MP, 1600), analysing the inherent characteristics of the usage of possessive pronouns in these writings. In analysing the forms of possessive pronouns in PK and MP, an attempt is made to find the answer to a relevant question: did Merkelis Petkevičius contribute to the translation of Postilė? After analysing and summarising the research material, it should be noted that non- agreed forms of possessive pronouns significantly predominate PK and MP, thus the sources analysed essentially differ from Mikalojus Daukša’s texts, which belong to the same (middle) variant of language in writings, where agreed possessive pronouns predominate. The agreed forms of possessive pronouns are used in PK more often than in MP. The agreed forms of possessive pronouns of the feminine gender were not found in Postilė, while they are present in Katekizmas. In both sources, the agreed forms of possessive pronouns in plural are much rarer than in singular. The paradigm of declension of possessive pronouns is better retained in PK than in MP: the forms of all seven declensions are used.The forms of possessive pronouns in agreed and non-agreed combinations in Postilė and Katekizmas are used as post-positions as often as not. The agreed forms used as pre-positions are found in PK more often than in MP. The usage of noil-inflective forms of possessive pronouns in both of the analysed sources are characterized by the fact that the forms of possessive genitives with the ending -a are used alongside those that end with an -o. However, the forms with the ending -o in MP are used much more frequently than in PK. After comparing the usage of possessive pronoun forms in both sources, it can be concluded that that PK and MP were most likely translated by different translators. [From the publication]

• Kalbotyra / Linguistics
• Literatūrologija / Literary Studies