latvian jeb ‘or’ — from conditional to disjunctive conjunction

135

Noʀʙᴇʀᴛ Osᴛʀowsᴋɪ

Latvian jeb ‘or’ — from conditional to disjunctive conjunction1

This article presents the history of the Latvian disjunctive conjunc-tion jeb ‘or’ and analyzes its relationship with OLith. jeib ‘if ’. Jeb as a disjunctive conjunction is a result of strictly Latvian development and originates from the concessive conditionals with two counter-conditions in the protasis.

0. Introduction

Traditionally it is said that the Latvian disjunctive conjunction jeb ‘or’ arose via the shortening of jeba, the conjunction attested in Latvian grammar by Adolphi (1685) as causal (Germ. denn). Furthermore, it is said that jeb has its counterpart in the OLith. conditional conjunction jei-b. This etymology, formulated first by August Bielenstein in his Lettische Sprache (1864, 346), has been accepted by numerous other scholars such as Karulis (1992: 354) and Blinkena (2007: 153). Endzelin (1922: 826) even gives an example of jeb in irrealis, which corresponds exactly to OLith. usage of jeib (see chapter 3), cf. Jeb zināj[u]si māmul’īti, tiešām bristu pār upīti ‘wenn ich wüßte, daß es die Mutter ist, würde ich gerade über den Bach waten’2; similarly Eduard Hermann (1912: 87). The structural similarity between Lith. jeib and Latv. jeb

1 I am grateful to Nicole Nau, Axel Holvoet and Björn Wiemer for all their remarks on the draft version of this paper. Of course, all shortcomings in the article are mine.2 As Nicole Nau kindly pointed out to me, another conjunction ― kab ― is attested in High Latvian, normally used in final irrealis clauses and traditionally explained as a borrowing from Belorussian kab(y) (Blinkena 2007: 255), cf. the following example from Nau: Kab es nabejuse tik slinka, es izdūmuotu sovu volūdu. Niu es lītoju latgalīšu. ‘If I had not been so lazy (= as a child), I would have invented my own language. Now I am using Latgalian’; cf. the use of OLith. jeib in section 3. I agree with Axel Holvoet (personal communication) that such a use seems to prove the original status of kab in Latvian, its similarity to Beloruss. kab(y) being a pure coincidence.

Norbert Ostrowski

136

has also been noticed by Christian Stang (1966: 4293), but he restricts himself only to the laconic statement “Eine Bildung ähnlichen Typus wie jeib ist lett. jeb”.

The etymology presented above, although in principle cor-rect, requires some supplementation. First of all, it should be explained how the conditional conjunction jeb has become dis-junctive. Futhermore, one should account for the origin of jeb in other functions than conditional and disjunctive ones, such as concessive conditional and concessive. For lack of broader context, I must skip the origin of causal jeba. According to my knowledge jeba appears solely in the already-mentioned gram-mar by Adolphi and in the Lexicon by Stender3. This research is based on texts written by a German pastor who lived in Latvia in the 17th century, Georg Mancelius (Manzel)4. In his works, the disjunctive function of jeb prevails decidedly, like in modern Latvian, but one can also find jeb in some other contexts that are absent in contemporary Latvian.

1. Latv. jeb in writings by Mancelius — a philological analysis

ᴍᴇ (vol. 2, 108) gives some examples of jeb as a marker of protasis in conditionals, cf.:

(1) dievs neliks savu laivu grimt, glābs tuo, jeb vārdu sakuot.

‘God will not let his ship sink, he will rescue it, if (only) he says a word.’

In the examined OLatv. writings by Mancelius, the conditionals with jeb appear rarely, and it is sometimes difficult to establish whether jeb was conditional, concessive conditional (like Eng.

3 Information about Stender’s Lexicon given after Bielenstein.4 Das Haus=, Zucht= vnd Lehrbuch Jesu Syrachs (1631), Lettisch Vade mecum (1631), Lettische geistliche Lieder vnd Psalmen (1631), Die Sprüche Salomonis (1637) and Lang=gewünschte Lettische Postill I (1654). All examples have been excerpted from the electronic corpus of Old Latvian texts (www.ailab.lv/senie).

Latvian jeb ‘or’ — from conditional to disjunctive conjunction

137

even if) or a concessive conjunction. This indiscreteness, in the sphere of conditional and concessive sentences, has already been noticed by other scholars (cf. Harris 1988: 71), and should not be surprising in this case5. Below I present a few examples of conditionals with the conjunction jeb, which do not raise interpretative doubts and are used both in realis and irrealis:6

(2) Nhe klauſẜa tee Moſen vnd tohß Proweetes / tad tee arridſan nhe titzehß / jeb arridſan kaßlabban no Mirroņeems aukſcham czälltohß.6

‘If they hear not Moses and theprophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.’ (Luke 16,31; King James Bible)

The lack of a conditional marker before Nhe klauſẜa is a German calque, cf. Hören sie Mose und die Propheten nicht, so werden sie auch nicht gleuben, wenn jemand von den Todten auffstünde (Luther 1545). German wenn and its counterpart ja ‘if ’ in modern Latvian trans-lation allow the interpretation of jeb ‘if ’, cf.: Ja tie neklausa Mozu un praviešus, tie neticēs arī tad, ja kāds no miroņiem celtos augšām. It is also possible to read jeb as ‘even if ’. In Vulgate (Si Moysen et Prophetas non audiunt, neque si quis ex mortuis resurrexerit, credent) modus irrealis is conveyed by subjunctive imperfect after si ‘if ’ (si…resurrexerit).7

(3) Vnd jeb juhß arridſan czeeſchaht tahß Taißnibas Dehļ / tad eſẜeta juhß tomähr ſwahti.7

‘But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake,happy are ye’ (1 Peter 3, 14)

In contemporary Latvian the clause is introduced by conditional marker ja ‘if ’: Bet, ja arī jūs ciestu taisnības dēļ, svētīgi jūs esat.

5 “Within this spectrum, of course, there are clear foci, but the edges between the categoriers are blurred, facilitating as we shall see shifts of meaning on the part of the variety of connectives used with these values.” (Harris 1988: 71).6 Lettisch Vade mecum (p. 146, 9-11).7 Lettisch Vade mecum (p. 152, 17-18).

Norbert Ostrowski

138

OLatv. jeb...aridſan corresponds as a calque to Germ. ob...auch in Luther’s translation (Und ob jr auch leidet umb Gerechtigkeit willen / so seid jr doch selig). On this ground, (3) may be understood as conditional concessive or even as a concessive sentence. If one assumes the interpretation with jeb ‘even if ’ (i.e. as conditional concessive), then ‘suffering’ as a possible condition relates to modus realis. Such an analysis confirms indicative patimini in Vulgate: Sed et si patimini propter iustitiam, beati!, cf. also (17).

(4) Vnd jeb es no=eetu jums to Weetu ẜattaiſẜiet / ghribbu es tomähr attkall atteet...

‘And if I go and prepare a pla-ce for you, I want to come again.’ (John 14, 3)

Vnd ob ich hin gienge euch die Stete zu bereiten, will ich doch wider komen... (Luther 1545) Et si abiero et praeparavero vobis locum, iterum venio... (Vulgate)8

(5) Bett tas gir Nabbax / kas ſtrahda / vnd nhe ißdohdahs / vnd jeb wings mitteyahs / tad tattſchu wings gir Vbbax.8

‘The poor person toils to make a meagre living, and if ever he rests he becomes needy’ (Sirach 31,4)

Mitteyahs is a present, as confirmed by the present form auff-höret in the German translation Der ist aber Arm / der da erbeitet / deiet nicht / Vnd wenn er schon auffhöret / so ist er doch ein Bettler (Luther 1545) and requescit in Vulgate: si requiescit, inops fit (Liber Ecclesiasticus 31,4)9.

Last but not least, jeb is used unambiguously as a conjunc-tion of concessive clauses. Below is an example to which I will return shortly:

8 Lehrbuch Jesu Syrachs (p. 573, 9-10).9 Indicative in protasis and apodosis indicates modus realis.


139

(6) Jeb py mums gir dauds Ghräki / Py Deewu gir wairahk ſchälaſtibas.10

‘Although we have nu-merous sins, God has more grace.’

10

2. Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives

The variety of functions of OLatv. jeb relates to a path of de-velopment broadly described in the literature as: conditionals > concessive conditionals > concessives; cf. Eng. though, which even in Shakespeare’s Hamlet had a concessive conditional meaning (König & Siemund 2000: 343), and the Old English concessive conjunction þeah is related to the Goth. þau-h ‘if + also/and’ (König 1985: 7). As far as the difference between the mentioned kinds of sentences is concerned, Ekkehard König (1985: 3) writes:

Conditionals and concessives are easy to distinguish seman-tically: the former entail neither their antecedent nor their consequent, whereas the latter entail both of their compo-nent clauses. A sentences like Even though Fred is English, he speaks fluent French can only be true if both the subordinate and the main clause are true.

In other words, uttering a conditional like Jeśli pada deszcz, idę na spacer ‘If it rains, I go for a walk’ we do not maintain that it is raining and we are going for a walk. On the other hand, the sentence Chociaż pada deszcz, idę na spacer ‘Although it is raining, I am still going for a walk’ states both the facts of raining and going for a walk, which means the concessives inform us of facts, while the conditionals about hypotheses. Concessive conditionals, however, join features with conditionals and concessives, e.g. a sentence Nawet jeśli pada deszcz, idę na spacer ‘Even if it rains, I am going for a walk’ talks about the fact of going for a walk, but

10 Lettische geistliche Lieder vnd Psalmen (p. 311, 29–30).

Norbert Ostrowski

140

leaves weather in the sphere of hypothesis (i.e. it rains or not)11. König (1985: 3) describes the issue as follows: “In contrast to simple conditionals, irrelevance (concessive) conditionals relate a series of antecedent conditions to a consequent” and, in order to demonstrate this claim, he gives three examples of concessive conditionals:

(7) Whether he is right or not, we must support him.(8) However much advice you give him, he does exactly what he wants to do.(9) Even if nobody helps me, I’ll manage.

In any case, we have two or more possibilities in the protasis and for each one of them the proposition uttered in apodosis is true (König 1986: 231). Keeping this in mind, let us consider sentence (6), i.e. Jeb py mums gir dauds Ghräki / Py Deewu gir wairahk ſchälaſtibas ‘Although we have numerous sins, God has more grace’. In theory it is possible to interpret (6) as concessive conditional, i.e. ‘Even if we have numerous sins, God has more grace’. However, such a translation would be false, because it would posit that there are people who are sinless and addition-ally that they are the majority. Therefore, sentence (6) must be recognized as concessive, not conditional concessive, as it does not allow the set of possible conditions in protasis.

Concessives, unlike conditional sentences, describe situations that are atypical in comparison with general tendencies in the world (presupposition: ‘if p, then (normally) not q’). Thus there exists a dissonance between regularities observed in the world and situations expressed in concessive sentences (and concessive conditionals), i.e. usually we do not go for a walk while it rains. Generally, all oppositions between sentences in question (and

11 As pointed out to me by Björn Wiemer, the sentence Nawet jeśli pada deszcz, idę na spacer ‘Even if it rains, I am going for a walk’ can also be interpreted as a concessive one, i.e. , Pada, a ja mimo wszystko idę na spacer ‘It is raining, but in spite of that I am going for a walk’. On such cases cf. König (1986: 239–240).


141

causal ones) which have been discussed so far are presented in the diagram below (König & Siemund 2000: 342):

Hypothetical FactualHarmony conditional causalDissonance concessive conditional concessive

2.1. From conditionals to concessive conditionals

The contextual conditions under which neutralization of the opposition between sentences in question may take place, have been put forward by König in his article from 1986. One of the most frequent cases leading to cancellation of the distinction between conditionals and concessive conditionals is the situation when “a conditional protasis contains an expression marking a suitable extreme value on some scale for some propositional schema” (König 1985: 238), cf. the example given by König elsewhere:

(10) I wouldn’t marry you, if you were the last man on the earth.

An identical situation is documented in Old Latvian, cf.:12

(11) Vnd jeb tas kaweyahs ihß paſſchu Nackti / Vnd atkal ihß tam Rytam :/: Tomähr buhß mannai Śirdei (...) / Nhe iſẜamiſt neds bähdatees /12

‘And (even) if He were delayed until late at night / And again until the morning / Still my heart (…) / Would neither grieve nor despair.’

Pretty frequently in OLatv. texts the way of expressing con-cessive conditionals was the combination of jeb ‘if ’ with the ad-ditive particle arīdzan ‘too, also’, cf. (2) and (3). Underlying this expression is Germ. wenn auch / ob auch, cf. (2) and (3).

The concessive conjunction jebšu ‘although’, very common in

12 Lettische geistliche Lieder vnd Psalmen (p. 311, 22–25).

Norbert Ostrowski

142

older Latvian writings, is traditionally explained as a result of the conflation of jeb with the scalar additive particle šu ‘selbst, sogar, auch’13, cf.:

(12) kad man tiks, es aiziešu šu pie vīžu valkātāja (ᴍᴇ, t. 4)

‘if it so pleases me, I will marry even a down-and-out.’

In this way, jebšu etymologically means the same as Eng. even if, cf. (9). Admittedly, jebšu appears first as a concessive conjunc-tion, but in example (13) it seems to be a marker of protasis of concessive conditional:14

(13) vnd nhe ẜayämm / jebẜhe tu ghann eeſchkinkoht ghribbätu.14

‘and does not consent / though you may give him many gifts.’ (Proverbs 6, 35)

Cf. the German version: Vnd sihet kein Person an / die da versüne / vnd nimpts nicht an / ob du viel schencken woltest (Luther, 1545) and the modern Latvian translation with pat ja ‘even if ’: Un neraugās ne pēc viena, kas varētu būt par samierinātāju un izlīdzinātāju, un negribēs neko no tavas puses pieņemt, pat ja tu daudz viņam gribētu dāvināt.

The conditions under which jebšu was reinterpreted as a concessive conjunction are still unclear. The possible contexts of such a change have been established by König (1986: 239-240).

2.2. On the origin of the disjunctive jeb

The disjunctive conjunction jeb ‘or’ had concessive condition-als as a starting point. For the sake of convenience, let us be reminded that “In contrast to simple conditionals, irrelevance (concessive) conditionals relate a series of antecedent conditions to a consequent” (König 1985: 3), e.g.:

13 On this kind of particles cf. Grochowski (1983; 1986); König (1991: 68ff.).14 Die Sprüche Salomonis (p. 20, 13).


143

(14) Whether he is right or not, we must support him.

In the protasis of (14) there are two counterconditions, which allows König (1986: 232) to analyse (14) as follows:

(15) If p, then q and if ~p, then q ≡ Whether p or ~p, q.

As König notices further, this analysis is confirmed by the oc-currence of similar structures in Latin sīve ... sīve ‘whether ... or’ (sī ‘if ’) and Finnish jos ... tai (jos ‘if ’). To these Latin and Finnish testimonies one can even add Old Latvian evidence, cf.:15

(16) tapehtz / jeb mehß dſiewojam / jeb mirrſtam / tad peedärram mehß tam Kungham.15

‘Therefore whether we live, or die, we belong to God.’

Sentences of this very kind, with two counterconditions in the protasis, were a point of departure for development of disjunc-tive jeb in contemporary Latvian. The brilliant parallel for such a scenario is provided by Latin sīve ‘or’, coming from the conflation of conditional connective sī ‘if ’ and ɪᴇ. disjunctive particle -ve. Also Lat. sīve ‘or’ arose in conditionals with two countercondi-tions in the protasis, and the disjunctive particle -ve at the be-ginning was added only to mark the sī introducing the second condition. The stage sī ― sīve ‘or ― or’ has even been preserved in writings by Plautus. Later, sī ― sīve ‘or ― or’ is replaced by sīve ― sīve ‘or ― or’ (Safarewicz 1950: 198f.).

2.3. jeb on the background of the Lithuanian conditional connectives jei and jeib

The development of Latv. jeb analyzed above finds its counterpart in the history of Lithuanian conditional conjunctions jei and jeib.

15 Lettische Postill I (p. 438, 18).

Norbert Ostrowski

144

As it appears from Lithuanian data collected by Ambrazas (2006: 463ff.) from the 16th and the first half of the 17th century, jei and jeib (nowadays not used anymore) occurred also in other functions, not only as conditional markers. What is even more interesting, is that nowhere but in dialects have any of these functions survived in contemporary Lithuanian, where the pre-dominant conditional conjunction is jei(gu)16.1) Lith. jei / jeib in concessive conditionals and concessives:

(17) Ir iey kentetumbit delei teisibes / tacziau este ischganiti ᴠᴇᴇ 91, 5, cf. (3).

‘And though you would suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are saved’ (1 Peter 3, 14)

Germ. Und ob ihr auch leidet um Gerechtigkeit willen, so seid ihr doch selig.

2) As disjunctive conjunction (cf. Latv. jeb ‘or’)17:

(18) kuo ira tasay kuri sudiia sudżia / iey gintis io / iey pażistamas ꜱᴘ I 11.16–19.

‘(if) the one who is judged by the judge is either his relative or acquaintance.’

OPol. ieśli ten / którego sądźi sędżia / iest przyiaćiel / iesli znajomy.

3) As causal conjunction (cf. OLatv. hapax jeba ‘denn’):

(19) Klausikiet tu kure wiresny ira (...) iei wenok ane iaut usz duszas iusu ᴍž 31.2–3.

‘Obey those who are superiors (…), as they look after your souls’

Lat. et concedite, siquidem illi vigilant pro animabus vestris.

Rarely in Old Latvian was a concessive connective jebšu used as a causal conjunction, cf.:

16 Nowadays the concessive function is performed by nors ‘though, although’.17 The examples of disjunctive jei in Lith. dialects are given by Drotvinas (1967: 60).


145

(20) Kad töw /O Zillwäka Bährns / taß Kungs Jᴇſus arridſan ko pawehļ / nhe runna winjam prettie / jebſche tu wiſẜas Leetas nhe prohti /18

‘When, Oh child of man, the Lord Jesus commands so-mething of you, do not speak against him, as you do not un-derstand all things.’

18

(20) shows the possibility of semantic change concessive > causal conective, the reverse direction to the one postulated by König & Siemund (2000: 346) as unidirectional causal > concessive19. On the grounds of (20) it is thinkable that also OLith. jei in (19) and OLatv. hapax jeba ‘denn’ may be explained departing from concessive usage of jei (17) and jeb (6).

Also, the usage of jeib in final clauses (still present in the 19th century) was very frequent, though it lacks a parallel in Latvian (cf. also Holvoet, this volume):

(21) tada atwere ghis yũ ischminti, ieib ghie ischmanitu raschta ᴠᴇᴇ 62.5–6.

‘Then opened he their under-standing, in order that they might understand the scrip-tures.’ (Luke 24, 45)

Germ. Da öffenet er jnen das verstentnis / das sie die Schrifft vers-tunden. (Luther, 1545)

Similarly, without counterpart in Latvian, jei may be encoun-tered in indirect questions in Old Lithuanian texts and Lithuanian dialects, e.g.:

(22) Potam teperklausa ghissai (...). Ir iei tur ghissai Warda (ᴍž 119.14–18).

‘Afterwards let him ask (…). And if (he) has a name’

Germ. Und ob es ein Namen habe (Ambrazas 2006: 464)20.

18 Lettische Postill I (p. 9, 29–31).19 “Our third observation relates to a frequent, but very surprising pattern of semantic change. Causal connectives may develop into concessive ones, even though the reverse direction has not been attested”.20 Cf. Drotvinas (1967: 60).

Norbert Ostrowski

146

Parallels in other languages are numerous, cf. French si, German ob, English (e.g. I don’t know whether/if he’s at home) and many others (cf. Haiman 1978: 570).

3. Latv. jeb / OLith. jeib and the Baltic subjunctive

The analysis of Latv. jeb put forward here is an argument in favour of the old etymology of August Bielenstein (cf. “Intro-duction”). The lack of diphthong in Latv. jeb is explained by Albertas Rosinas (1988: 220) as a result of monophthongisation in such compounds as jebkas ‘anyone’, jebkurš ‘whichever’, i.e., *jeib kas > *jēb kas > jebkas, cf. Lith. dial. jeib kas ‘anyone’, jeib kuris ‘whichever’. The further development has not been described. The Proto-Latvian *jei-b reconstructed in this way comprised conditional conjunction identical with Lith. jei ‘if ’, following a primary loc. sg. of ɪᴇ. relative pronoun *(H)yo- (Hermann 1912: 92; Fraenkel 1962: 192)21. If, however, the function of a conditional conjunction, as in Latvian, has been carried out by ja ‘if ’22 ever since the first texts, the following process seems to be more probable:

*ja-be > *je-be (regressive assimilation) > jeb

As for the -b, it continues the old preterit *bijā ‘was’, still re-tained in Latv. bija ‘was’ (Smoczyński 2001) which phonetically eroded and, as a clitic, occupied the position in a sentence in accordance with Wackernagel’s law. According to Stang’s hypoth-esis (1966: 430) in Proto-Baltic the auxiliary verb in combination

21 The existence of a relative pronoun *yo- in Proto-Baltic is confirmed by the Latvian debitive, which continues infinitival relative clauses such as *nav zirga juo ecēt ‘no horse to harrow with, i.e., for harrowing’, comparable to contemporary relative clauses with the pronoun *kʷo-, e.g. Nopirku zirgu, ar ko laukus art ‘I bought a horse to plough the fields with’ (Holvoet 2000; 2001, 9–27).22 Latv. ja ‘if ’ traces back to the IE neuter form *(H)yod (Karulis 1992: 348f.) As a parallel for such a development one may name OInd. yádi ‘if ’, the conditional conjunction ori-ginating from the relative pronoun ya- (Mayrhofer 1996: 390; 397).


147

with a part. prt. act. served as subjunctive. The remains of such a stage were preserved in Old Lithuanian, e.g.:

(23) Jei-b mums bernelis negimes / if 1ᴘʟ.ᴅᴀᴛ child ɴᴇԍ:be-born:ᴘᴀʀᴛ.ᴘʀᴛ.ᴀcᴛbutu wisas Swiets prapules.be:ꜱᴜʙ.3 whole world perish:ᴘᴀʀᴛ.ᴘʀᴛ.ᴀcᴛ‘Had not this child been born to us, the whole world would have perished’

As for its structure, the Baltic subjunctive relates to the Old Church Slavonic one, cf.:

(24) ašte ne bimь prišьlъ if not ᴠᴇʀʙ.ᴀᴜⅹ.1ꜱԍ come:ᴘᴀʀᴛ.ᴘʀᴛ.ᴀcᴛ‘if I had not come’

This view has also been accepted by other scholars (Kazlauskas 1968/2000: 401ff.; Holvoet 2002, cf. also Holvoet, this volume). Jeb is a reminder of these relationships in the Latvian language.

This raises the question which vowel followed -b. Generally -b is traced back to *-bi on the grounds of the OLith. subjunctive forms būtum-bi-me ‘I wish we could be’23, cf. also OLith. (and dial.) bi-ti ‘was’24. But the forms of OLatv. subjunctive būtu-be-m and Lith. dial. sùktum͂-bė-mės ‘I wish we could turn’ (Kazlauskas 2000: 397) remain problematic. Most likely we have to work with different developments of the preterit *bijā:

(1) *bijā > *bjā > *bjē > -bē (cf. Lith. dial. sùktum͂bėmės) > -be (Latvian and a part of Lith. dialects),(2) *bijā > -bi (remaining Lith. area).But the conditions for such a different development remain

unclear.

23 būtum- is a supine introduced instead of the part. prt. act. in purpose clauses, cf. Stang (1966: 430), Holvoet (2007 and this volume).24 As to its origin, -ti in bi-ti is the enclitic form of a personal pronoun in the function of a dativus ethicus, i. e., bi-ti corresponds to Pol. był ci (Ostrowski 2008, 463f.)

Norbert Ostrowski

148

Abbreviations

ᴀᴄᴛ ― active, ᴅᴀᴛ ― dative, ɴᴇԍ ― negation, ᴘᴀʀᴛ ― particip, ᴘʟ ― plu-ral, ᴘʀᴛ ― preterite, ꜱԍ ― singular, ꜱᴜʙ ― subjunctive, ᴠᴇʀʙ.ᴀᴜⅹ ― auxi-liary verb

References

Aᴍʙʀᴀzᴀs, Vʏᴛᴀᴜᴛᴀs. 2006. Lietuvių kalbos istorinė sintaksė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Bībele. Vecās un Jaunās Derības svētie raksti. Rīga: Latvijas Bībeles biedrība, 1993.

Bɪᴇʟᴇɴsᴛᴇɪɴ, Aᴜԍᴜsᴛ. 1864. Die lettische Sprache nach ihren Lauten und For-men erklärend und vergleichend dargestellt. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmler’s Verlagsbuchhandlung. [Reprint: Zentralantiquariat der ᴅᴅʀ, Leipzig 1972].

Bʟɪɴᴋᴇɴᴀ, Aɪɴᴀ. 2007. Konjunkcija (saiklis). In: Koʀɴᴇʟ̄ɪᴊᴀ Poᴋʀoᴛɴɪᴇcᴇ, ed., Latviešu literārās valodas morfoloģiskās sistēmas attīstība. Nelokāmās vārdšķiras. Rīga: Latvijas universitāte. Latviešu valodas institūts, 100–309.

Dʀoᴛvɪɴᴀs, Lᴇoɴᴀʀᴅᴀs. 1967. K voprosu o svjazi voprositel’nych i uslov-nych konstrukcij v drevnelitovskom jazyke. Baltistica 39:1, 57–60.

Eɴᴅzᴇʟɪɴ, Jᴀɴ. 1922. Lettische Grammatik. Riga: Kommissionsverlag A. Gul-bis.

Fʀᴀᴇɴᴋᴇʟ, Eʀɴsᴛ. 1962. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Vol. 1. Hei-delberg: Carl Winter.

Gʀocʜowsᴋɪ, Mᴀcɪᴇᴊ. 1983. Wpływ partykuły nawet na strukturę te ma-tycz no-rematyczną zdania. Z polskich studiów slawistycznych, seria vi. Warszawa: ᴘᴡɴ, 121–130.

Gʀocʜowsᴋɪ, Mᴀcɪᴇᴊ. 1986. Polskie partykuły. Składnia, semantyka, leksy-kografia. Wrocław etc.: Ossolineum. (Prace Instytutu Języka Polskie-go, 62.)

Hᴀɪᴍᴀɴ, Joʜɴ. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54:4, 564–589.Hᴀʀʀɪs, Mᴀʀᴛɪɴ. 1988. Concessive clauses in English and Romance. In:

Joʜɴ Hᴀɪᴍᴀɴ & Sᴀɴᴅʀᴀ A. Tʜoᴍᴘsoɴ, eds., Clause Combining in Gram-


149

mar and Discourse. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish-ing Company, 71–99.

Hᴇʀᴍᴀɴɴ, Eᴅᴜᴀʀᴅ. 1912. Über die Entwicklung der litauischen Konjunktional-sätze. Jena: Fromannsche Buchdruckerei (Hermann Pohle).

Hoʟvoᴇᴛ, Axᴇʟ. 2000. Lietuvių dativus cum infinitivo ir latvių infinityviniai santykiniai sakiniai. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 42, 105–113.

Hoʟvoᴇᴛ, Axᴇʟ. 2001. Studies in the Latvian Verb. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. (Baltica Varsoviensia, 4.)

Hoʟvoᴇᴛ, Axᴇʟ. 2002. Notes on the development of the Lithuanian and Latvian conditional. Linguistica Baltica 10, 39–50.

Kᴀʀᴜʟɪs, Koɴsᴛᴀɴᴛɪɴ̄s. 1992. Latviešu etimiloģijas vārdnīca. Vol. 1. Rīga: Avots.Kᴀzʟᴀᴜsᴋᴀs, Joɴᴀs. 1968/2000. Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. Vilnius:

Mintis. [Reprint: Joɴᴀs Kᴀzʟᴀᴜsᴋᴀs, Rinktiniai raštai, sudarė Aʟʙᴇʀᴛᴀs Rosɪɴᴀs. Vol. 1. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2000].

Köɴɪԍ, Eᴋᴋᴇʜᴀʀᴅ. 1985. On the history of concessive connectives in Eng-lish. Diachronic and synchronic evidence. Lingua 66, 1–19.

Köɴɪԍ, Eᴋᴋᴇʜᴀʀᴅ. 1986. Conditionals, concesive conditionals and con-cessives: Areas of contrast, overlap and neutralization. In: Eʟɪzᴀʙᴇᴛʜ Cʟoss Tʀᴀᴜԍoᴛᴛ, Aʟɪcᴇ ᴛᴇʀ Mᴇᴜʟᴇɴ, Jᴜᴅʏ Sɴɪᴛzᴇʀ Rᴇɪʟʟʏ, Cʜᴀʀʟᴇs A. Fᴇʀԍᴜssoɴ, eds., On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 220–246.

Köɴɪԍ, Eᴋᴋᴇʜᴀʀᴅ. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles. A Comparative Per-spective. London and New York: Routledge.

Köɴɪԍ, Eᴋᴋᴇʜᴀʀᴅ & Pᴇᴛᴇʀ Sɪᴇᴍᴜɴᴅ. 2000. Causal and concessive claus-es: Formal and semantic relations. In: Eʟɪzᴀʙᴇᴛʜ Coᴜᴘᴇʀ-Kᴜʜʟᴇɴ & Bᴇʀɴᴅ Koʀᴛᴍᴀɴɴ, eds., Cause ― Condition ― Concession ― Contrast. Cog-nitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 341–360. (Topics in English Linguistics, 33.)

Mᴀʏʀʜoꜰᴇʀ, Mᴀɴꜰʀᴇᴅ. 1996. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Vol. 2. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

ᴍᴇ = Mᴜ̈ʜʟᴇɴʙᴀcʜs, Kᴀʀʟ. 1923–1932. Latviešu valodas vārdnīca / Lettisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. Redigiert, ergänzt und fortgesetzt von J[ānis] Endzelīns. Vols. i–iv. Rīga: Izglītības ministrija.

Norbert Ostrowski

150

ᴍž = Mᴀžvʏᴅᴀs, Mᴀʀᴛʏɴᴀs. 1547–1570. Katekizmas ir kiti raštai. Ed. by Gɪᴇᴅʀɪᴜs Sᴜʙᴀčɪᴜs. 1995. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

Osᴛʀowsᴋɪ, Noʀʙᴇʀᴛ. 2008. Istorinės morfologijos ir sintaksės mažmožiai (Miszellen der historischen Morphologie und Syntax). Baltistica 43:3, 463–473.

ᴘs = Sɪʀvʏᴅᴀs, Koɴsᴛᴀɴᴛɪɴᴀs. 1629–1644. Punktay sakimu. Vilnius. In: Fʀᴀɴz Sᴘᴇcʜᴛ, ed., 1929. Šyrwids Punktay sakimu (Punkty kazań). Teil I: 1629, Teil II: 1644 litauisch und polnisch mit kurzer grammatischer Einlei-tung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Rosɪɴᴀs, Aʟʙᴇʀᴛᴀs. 1988. Baltų kalbų įvardžiai. Vilnius: Mokslas.Sᴀꜰᴀʀᴇwɪcz, Jᴀɴ. 1950. Gramatyka historyczna języka łacińskiego. Składnia.

Warszawa: Państwowe Zakłady Wydawnictw Szkolnych.Sᴍoczʏɴ́sᴋɪ, Woᴊcɪᴇcʜ. 2001. Geneza starolitewskiego conditionalis na

-biau, -bei, -bi-. In: Woᴊcɪᴇcʜ Sᴍoczʏɴ́sᴋɪ, Język litewski w perspektywie porównawczej. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 224–229.

Sᴛᴀɴԍ, Cʜʀɪsᴛɪᴀɴ S. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo etc.: Universitetsvorlaget.

ᴠᴇᴇ = Bᴀʟᴛʀᴀᴍɪᴇᴊᴜs Wɪʟʟᴇɴᴛᴀs. 1579. Euangelias bei Epistolas. Karalauczus.

Corpus of Old Latvian texts at www.ailab.lv/senie

latvian jeb ‘or’ — from conditional to disjunctive conjunction

Documents