HISTORICAL GRAMMAR OF OLD PRUSSIAN

86
V. Maþiulis
* 212. Note. 1 pers. pl. giwammai, l`ikumai, turrimai etc., 2 pers.
pl. turriti etc., beside 3 pers. giwa, l`iku etc., could be comprehended as if
derived from the 3rd person. Due to this reason such innovations could
arise as 1 pers. pl. wîrstmai ‘we become’ (: 3 pers. wîrst), dînkaumai ‘we
thank’, massimai ‘we can’ (: 3 pers. massi), grîkimai ‘we sin’ (: 3 pers.
grîki-si), schlûsimai ‘we serve’, waiti`mai ‘we speak’ (: 3 pers. en-waitia),
druwçmai ‘we believe’ (: 3 pers. druwç), seggçmai ‘we do’ (: 3 pers. seggç),
etwçrpimai ‘we forgive’ (: 1 pers. = 3 pers. etwerpe), girrimai ‘we praise’
etc.; cf. Endzelîns SV 106 .
Tense and mood
* 213. In the language of the Catechisms present, past and future
tenses are attested, as well as 2 numbers: singular and plural. The form of
the 3rd person is often used in the meaning of the 1st and the 2nd person
in singular, e.g.: as drowe (I), es drowy (II), as druwç (III) ‘I believe’,
thou tur (I), tou tur (II) ‘thou shalt’. This seems to be a fault of translators
(Endzelîns SV 102 f.), but possibly not only theirs (cf. Maþiulis Baltistica
I Priedas, 95–100). An authentic form of the 1st person is that of the verb
‘to be’ (see * 205 ff.); for 2 sg. -si, -sei, -sai see * 208 94 .
94 Having in mind Prussian and Slavic isomorphism (cf. ftn. 79), one really could expect an
inflection 2 sg. *-sei, ‘borrowed’ from the athematic paradigm, as this possibly took place in
Slavic (*-sei, not the “primary” *-si!). However forms without this -sei (cf. gîwu III 85 14 beside
gîwasi III 95 3 ) are also attested. What “translators” could then make such terrible mistakes? Who
can believe that priest Abel Will did not know how to say corresponding verbs in the 2nd person
or even in the 1st person singular? The formulas of Matrimony As imma ti[e]n III 107 15 ‘I take
thee’, and of Baptism As Crixtia tien III 129 10 ‘I baptize thee’, were used by priests throughout all
Prusa (Baltic Prussia), first translated by native-speaking “tolkers”. Such “tolker” was also Paul
Megott, helper of A. Will (P. Megott could not made primitive mistakes but A. Will was a translator,
not “translators”). No doubt, 1st sg. (as if the 3rd person) imma, crixtia are authentic forms.
In referred article (Baltistica I Priedas 101) V. Maþiulis says: “when in occasional instances an
athematic -s(e)i was added, arose Pr. 2 sg. -a + s(e)i > -a-s(e)i, cf. Pr. giw-a-ssi”. An
explanation of Pr. 1 sg. (as if the 3rd person) -a is given by V. Maþiulis in BS 22: this was
regular ending of barytone verbs, in which Balt. 1 sg. *-ô > Pr. *-¯É > Pr. (Cat.) > -a. As in other
instances, barytone, not oxytone, allomorphs were generalized in Prussian. Thus the a-stem
form of the 1st person in singular was identic with that of the 3rd person in the `-stem present
and in the `-stem preterite. This supported the a-stem 3 pers. pr. *- ‹a after the shortening of the
final vowels and prevented the latter from disappearing. As a result, wide processes of neutralization
and decline of inflectional oppositions between persons and tenses took place in the
said dialects. A need of analytism appeared (cf. www.eidem.lt/dialangn.htm). Cf. also ftn.
114. – L.P.