| Abstract [eng] |
The article analyzes the diminutives (more precisely, melioratives) of L. Rėza's printed collection of songs (RDP, 1825) and its manuscripts (RDR). The study revealed the following key patterns: 1. Diminutive suffixes in the sources studied, and in folk songs in general, function as melioratives. The suffixes -el-/-ėl- (the most productive and prototypical), the unproductive -ul-, -(i)ut-, and the pleonastic -ul-ėl-, -(i)ut-ėl- are considered interdialectal. The following diminutive suffixes can be attributed to the western area of Lithuanian dialects: productive or semi-productive -a(i)t-, -yt-, -už-, semi-productive or unproductive -uk-, -ik- f., and pleonastic -už-at- and -už-yt-. Interdialectal and dialectal suffix combinations are also found. 2. In both RDP and RDR, about two-fifths of lexemes are used only in the diminutive form, and more than one-fifth are used in both the diminutive and non-diminutive forms. About a quarter of lexemes do not have diminutive forms. Thus, in folk songs, where diminutives are particularly common, their derivatives are not formed from every noun. 3. No clear lexical-semantic distribution between diminutive and non-diminutive nouns has been established, but certain tendencies can be observed. For example, words related to love and marriage, terms of close kinship, and nouns denoting things important to the daily life and material well-being of peasants tend to be used in the diminutive form. 4. Most of the noun forms used are diminutive forms. Having established that the token frequency of these forms is almost ten times higher in the songs stored in the archive, it can be assumed that Rėza edited the song texts selected for publication, in some cases replacing diminutive forms with non-diminutive ones. 5. Among the interdialectal suffixes, the prototypical -el-/-ėl- predominates, while the use of the main dialectal suffixes -at-, -yt-, and -už- slightly outweighs the use of forms with the suffix -el-/-ėl-, so the use of forms with dialectal and interdialectal suffixes is almost balanced in both sources. The token frequency of forms with the aforementioned (semi)-productive dialectal suffixes differs slightly in the sources, while the use of forms with the unproductive dialectal suffixes -uk- and -ik- is about four times more frequent in RDR than in RDP. If this was determined not only by dialectal differences, but at least in part by editing, it would become clear which dialectal suffixes L. Rėza preferred. 6. Most nouns, especially in RDP, are used with a single diminutive suffix, most often interdialectal -el-/-ėl-. There are far fewer words used only with the western area suffixes -at- or -už-, and only a few with -yt-, -uk-, -ik-. 7. About one-fifth of the diminutives used with two different suffixes are found in both sources. An even smaller proportion are words used with three different suffixes, and only a few are used with four to seven different diminutive suffixes. The diminutives with the highest degree of derivational “valency” are related to the themes of love, pleasant human relationships, harmonious family life, and close kinship, so their exceptional meliorative use is understandable. |
