PL EN


2006 | 30 | 61-87
Article title

The problem of origin of the Lithuanian nation from the standpoint of word formation

Authors
Title variants
Languages of publication
LT
Abstracts
EN
The greatest part of derivational features common to Lithuanian and Latvian was inherited from Proto-Baltic. Only some of them may be ascribed to exclusive East Baltic innovations. Besides, there are differences in the realization of them. In Latvian the suffix *-u-mo- (but not the suffix *-i-mo- in the contrast to Lithuanian) was widely used in the formation of 'nomina actionis'. It is also noteworthy that the formation of Latvian 'nomina actionis' was affected most radically by the adjectival suffix *-no- rather than *-mo-. A number of East Baltic innovations (cf nominal diminatives with *-en-o, *-a-ko, *-e-ko) cover not all territory of Lithuanian, but usually the eastern part of it which is supposed to be the mother land of the Lithuanian nation. On the other hand, a number of derivational isoglosses link the Lithuanian language to Old Prussian and oppose it to Latvian, cf 'nomina collectiva' with *-i-no-; 'nomina agentis' with *-i-ko-, 'nomina attributiva' with *-in-i-ko-, *-e-no-, *-at-Uo-, *-o-lUo-; 'nomina qualitatis' with *-i-be, *-i-s-ta, *-is-ko-; diminutives with *-o-l-Uo-, *-i-s-t-Uo-. Some of these isoglosses might reflect the influence of West Baltic tribes (they were very early drawn into the processes of European civilization) upon the Lithuanian language (especially upon its western and southern dialects) in the initial stage of its development.
Year
Volume
30
Pages
61-87
Physical description
Document type
ARTICLE
Contributors
  • S. Ambrazas, Lithuanian Language Institute, P. Vileisio g. 5, LT-10308, Vilnius, Lithuania
References
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
CEJSH db identifier
07PLAAAA02134507
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.231949eb-6bbc-3e63-a1f0-d39b7ae2a402
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.