Kai kurių deiktinių žodžių, intensifikatorių ir prieveiksmių kilmės klausimu

Albertas Rosinas




The systematic investigation of the subject in question makes it possible to draw the following conclusions:

1. The deictic words ve, va, vei resp. ave, ava are not reiic forms of the mystic pronouns *vas resp. *avas. In Lithuanian dialects the words ve and vei are reduced from the imperative veiz(d)ėk or veiz(d)i of the verb veiz(d)ėti “to look”, in Latvian vei is reduced from the imperative *vei(z)di resp. ve from veries (cf. vērties “to look”). The variant va has originated from ve in unstressed posi­tion. The deictic words ava, ave derive from the interjection a expressing astonishment combined with the words va or ve. The final component -skat of the form anskat “over there” (resp. taskat “there”, šiskat “here”), which is used in East Prussian Lithuanian written records, is a survival of the reduced imperative skatyk of the former verb skatyti(s) “to look”, i. e. an(a) “over there” + skat “look”, cf. anavè ← ana “over there” + vè “look” Geistarai, etc.

2. The initial components ko, ka of the intensifying words kono, kапа are not particles origi­nally, they are genitives of the pronoun kas “who”. The final components -no and -na should be interpreted as an adaptation of the Slavonic nai, cf. Russ. наихудший, Pol. najliepszy to the Lithuanian forms kо and ka. The component ka is reduced from *kā in unstressed position.

3. The components ko resp. to of the adverbs kõtik, konè, niẽko, nekõ as well as the conjunc­tion dėltõ are not particles originally, they are genitives of the pronouns kas and tas.

DOI: 10.15388/baltistica.18.1.1534

Visas tekstas: PDF

Creative Commons License
Svetainės turinį galima naudoti nekomerciniais tikslais, vadovaujantis CC-BY-NC-4.0 tarptautinės licencijos nuostatomis.