123 Refleksyviojo posesyvumo
raiðka Mikalojaus Daukðos
Postilës perikopëse
WPm - JAKUB WUJEK, Postylla Katolicka mniejsza (keturi leidimai:
1
1579,
2
1582,
3
1590,
4
1596).
Z
INKEVIÈIUS, ZIGMAS, 1957: Lietuviø kalbos ávardþiuotiniø bûdvardþiø istorijos bruoþai,
Vilnius: Valstybinë politinës ir mokslinës literatûros leidykla.
Z INKEVIÈIUS, ZIGMAS, 1966: Lietuviø dialektologija, Vilnius: Mintis.
Ã
ÅÍÞØÅÍÅ, ÝÌÌÀ, 1984: Ïîñåññèâíîñòü è òðàíçèòèâíûå ðåôëåêñèâû â ëèòîâñêîì
ÿçûêå, Áàëòî-ñëàâÿíñêèå èññëåäîâàíèÿ, 1983, Ìîñêâà: Íàóêà, 95101.
Êàòåãîðèÿ ïîñåññèâíîñòè â ñëàâÿíñêèõ è áàëêàíñêèõ ÿçûêàõ, Ìîñêâà: Íàóêà, 1989.
Ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêèé ýíöèêëîïåäè÷åñêèé ñëîâàðü, ãëàâíûé ðåäàêòîð Âèêòîðèÿ ßðöåâà,
Ìîñêâà: Ñîâåòñêàÿ ýíöèêëîïåäèÿ, 1990.
Ì
ÀÐÒÈÍÅ, ÀÍÄÐÅ, 1963: Îñíîâû îáùåé ëèíãâèñòèêè, Íîâîå â ëèíãâèñòèêå 3, Ìîñê-
âà: Èíîñòðàííàÿ ëèòåðàòóðà, 366566.
Í ÈÊÎËÀÅÂÀ, ÒÀÒÜßÍÀ, 1986: Ñòðóêòóðèðîâàíèå ñèòóàöèè îòðàæåíèå ÿçûêîâîãî
ìåíòàëèòåòà (ñòàðîñëàâÿíñêèé è ãðå÷åñêèé åâàíãåëüñêèå òåêñòû), Áàëêàíû â êîí-
òåêñòå Ñðåäèçåìíîìîðüÿ. Ïðîáëåìû ðåêîíñòðóêöèè ÿçûêà è êóëüòóðû: Òåçèñû è ïðåä-
âàðèòåëüíûå ìàòåðèàëû ê ñèìïîçèóìó, Ìîñêâà: Èíñòèòóò ñëàâÿíîâåäåíèÿ è áàë-
êàíèñòèêè ÀÍ ÑÑÑÐ, 104107.
Bronius Maskuliûnas
REFLEXIVE POSSESSIVE MARKERS IN THE PERICOPES
OF MIKALOJUS DAUKÐAS POSTIL
Summary
The article gives an analysis of the constructions with reflexive possessive markers in
the pericopes of Daukðas Postil and of the corresponding constructions in the third edition
of Wujeks Postil. In those cases where different constructions are found in Daukða and
in the third edition of Wujek, other versions of Wujeks Postil prior to the publication of
Daukðas text (viz., the 1st, 2nd and 4th editions) were consulted. The analysis of reflexive
possessive markers confirms the assumption, already formulated before, that in transla-
ting the pericopes Daukða sometimes diverged from Wujeks text and had recourse to
alternative constructions. Such instances are, however, quite rare. Out of a number of
more than 250 constructions with reflexive possessive markers, only some seven per cent
showed divergences.
A comparison of those places where Daukða and Wujek have divergent constructions
with subsidiary sources shows that in such instances Daukðas renderings usually coincide
with Vilentas Euangelijos bei Epistolos, or they are individual creations. Direct influence of
the Vulgate on the constructions in question can only be observed in rare instances.
The predominant reflexive possessive markers in Daukðas pericopes are pronominal.
Both authors, Daukða and Wujek, show a strong predilection for a type of pronominal
reflexive marking that is, in fact, uncharacteristic of Lithuanian as well as of Polish, viz.,
Kommentare zu diesen Handbüchern