Lietuvių kalbos bendraties konsturkcijų raida

LT1. 1. 1. Bendratis dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje yra viena iš trijų pagrindinių veiksmažodžio formų. Savo vartosena ji irgi šliejasi prie veiksmažodžio: turi veiksmažodinį linksnių valdymą, sudaro glaudžius sintaksinius junginius su asmenuojamomis veiksmažodžio formomis, atliekančiomis pagalbinių žodžių vaidmenį (turiu skubėti, pradėjo važiuoti, ėmė temti ir pan.). Tokių formų, vadinamų infinityvais, randame beveik visose dabartinėse indoeuropiečių kalbose. Gretinant jas tarpusavyje krinta į akis ryškūs formų skirtumai ir kartu - didelis jų veiksmažodinės vartosenos panašumas. Patyrinėjus infinityvus istoriškai matyti, kad iš pradžių jie nepriklausė veiksmažodžio sistemai, o buvo į ją įtraukti įvairiose indoeuropiečių kalbose nevienodu metu ir mąstu. Visų giminiškų kalbų infinityvai turi veiksmažodinių daiktavardžių kamienus, kai kurie (ypač senesniais raidos laikotarpiais) yra išlaikę ir daiktavardžiams būdingas linksnių galūnes. [Iš teksto, p. 74].

ENDifferences between infinitive stems in Lithuanian-Latvian and Prussian alongside with the genetic identity of dative singular flexion permit to assume that the infinitive was isolated from the paradigm of verbal abstracts and included into the verbal system after the split of Common Baltic. Because of a comparatively late differentiation of the infinitive and the conservative nature of the syntactic system, Lithuanian has preserved the ancient use of pre-infinitival forms better than the majority of other contemporary Indo-European languages. By means of internal reconstruction and comparative analysis the main stages in the syntactic development of the infinitive are distinguished and presented in the form of patterns and schemes of syntactic relations. The oldest stage is represented by patterns in which the dative of ti- stem verbal abstract with the ending -i/*ei is a predicate of an imbedded purpose clause. Its use with another (nominal) dative of purpose or destination gave rise to dative with the infinitive. In many utterances still in use in contemporary Lithuanian dialects, both members of this construction have retained the original dative meaning, relation to the main verb and posibility of separate use, e.g. ariau lauką rugiams sėti ”I ploughed the field to sow rye” (lit.: ”for rye for sow”), cf.: ariau rugiams ”I ploughed for rye” and ariau sėti ”I ploughed for sowing”. The nominative with the infinitive after verbs like tekti ”fall to”, likti ”remain, be left”, rūpėti ”concern” and predicative adjectives (especially in neutral form) is based on the same ancient use of the verbal abstract dative expressing purpose, e.g. laukas liko arti ”field remained to plough (for ploughing)” ; medus gardu/gardus valgyti "honey is tasty to eat (for eating)”.As a result of internal reanalysis, the subject nominative has been reinterpreted as object and replaced by the accusative in many clauses turned syntactically impersonal: gardu/liko/reikia valgyti medų ”it is nice/remains/necessary to eat honey”. Contacts with West Finnic languages (especially after the 5th c. AD) can be regarded as a favourable condition for preserving the object nominative with the infinitive in some Lithuanian, Latvian and North-West Russian dialects. The subject nominative in its original function is retained after the verb būti (often in zero form) in clauses denoting content of perception (namai ø matyti ”the house is to be seen”) and necessity (namai bus statyti ”the house is (lit.: will be) to build”. The subsequent syntactic development of the infinitive already separated from the verbal noun (as an uninflected verbal form) is reflected in personal clauses with modal, phasal and other verbs: jis nori/turi/prašo/leidžia grįžti "he wants/must/begs/allows to return”, jie pradėjo/baigė statyti ”they began/finished building (lit.: to build)”. The existence of such patterns in many relative languages (sometimes regarded as inherited from protolanguage) is considered here to be a result of typologically determined tendencies in the use of impersonal (uninflected) verbal forms. The transfer of modal and phasal meaning to the infinitive itself has determined its use as an equivalent of imperative and some other finite verb forms in emphatic speech, e.g. Keltis! ”stand up!”; Sūnus bėgt, tėvas vytis ”The son took to his heels (lit.: to run), the father after him (lit.: to pursue)”. Secondary nominalization of the infinitive in the accusative or nominative position, attested in many related languages, is still on its rudimentary stage in Lithuanian.The syntactic development of the infinitive in Lithuanian has been influenced by its interrelations with supine. The supine (originally the accusative singular of tu-stem verbal nouns) lost its case meaning earlier and was replaced by the infinitive in many clauses with verbs denoting motion and similar processes.