SUMMARY
SummaryDenominative verbs in -eti, -eja are predominantly inchoative in Modern Lithuanian (senéti, -éja ‘to become old’ : se~nas ‘old’, akmenéti, -éja ‘to harden, to turn into stone’ : akmuo~, -eñs ‘stone’). There is a relatively small group of synchronically or diachronically analyzable denominatives in -eti which have stative meaning. I have tried to compile a preliminary list of these verbs from the electronic edition of Dabartines lietuviu kalbos žodynas (Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian, 2003, DŽ5). The present stem of denominative statives in -eti varies and can be one of the following four: (1) ja-stem in -e-ja (gars-é-ti, gars-é-ja ‘is known, famous’ : garsu`s ‘known, famous’), (2) i-stem (šykšt-é-ti, šy~kšt-i ‘is stingy’ : šykštu`s ‘stingy’), (3) i-stem plus reflexive marker (bjaur-é-ti-s, bjau~r-i-si ‘be disgusted’ : bjauru`s ‘disgusting’), (4) a-stem (vert-é-ti, ver~t-a ‘to be worth’ : ver~ta ‘it is worth’). I have used a frequency dictionary (DDRKŽ, 1998) to separate rare and dialectal cases from the verbs of the main lexicon of Modern Lithuanian (henceforth “rare list” and „main list“).The main list of type 1 (-eja) includes garséti : garsu`s ‘to be known, famous’ and malonéti ‘to be kind’ : malonu`s ‘kind’. Rare or dialectal are badéti ‘to starve’ : ba~das ‘starvation’ (= Modern Lithuanian badáuti), dagéti ‘(figurative) to be prickly, biting’ : dagu`s ‘prickly, biting’ (cf. also dagy~s ‘thistle’), ganéti ‘to be enough’ : gana` ‘enough’ (cf. OCS gone?ti, gone?jet?), gardéti ‘to be delicious, tasty’ : gardu`s ‘delicious, tasty’, grožéti ‘to be nice, beautiful’ : gražu`s ‘nice, beautiful’, gro~žis ‘beauty’, padorétis ‘to dear, to consider appropriate (of clothing, behaviour)’ : padoru`s ‘appropriate, decent’, skanéti ‘to be delicious, tasty’ : skanu`s ‘delicious, tasty’.Type 2 (i-stem) posits some problems, because it is not always easy to prove the denominative origin of some verbs. The synchronic interpretation is usually obscured by the general tendency of Modern Lithuanian to derive deverbative u-stem adjectives from primary or secondary (the so called „mixed type“ which includes presents in -a, -ia, -i and -o beside suffixed infinitive stems) verbs. The main list of less problematic cases of type 2 includes gailéti, gai~l-i ‘to feel sorry, pity’ : gai~la ‘(impers.) it is a pity’, myléti, my´l-i : dial., Old Lithuanian my´las (cf. Latvian mi~le^t : mils, mi~lš, Old Prussian milijt : mijls, Bulgarian ?????, Macedonian ????? beside common Slavic *mil?), šykštéti, šy~kšti-i ‘to be stingy’ : šykštu`s ‘stingy’, viešéti, vie~š-i ‘to be on a visit’ : (rare, archaic) vie~šis, -y~s ‘guest’ (cf. Latvian vie^se^t(ies)2 : vi`esis). Problematic (at least from the synchronic point of view) cases can be exemplified by tyléti, ty~l-i and tingéti, ti`ng-i. The first one could be deverbative in origin if we accept the comparative evidence from Slavic (OCS t?le?ti ‘modern, vergehen’), Germanic (Gothic þulan, -aiþ ‘ertragen, dulden’) and Celtic (Old Irish -tuili ‘schläft’). The second one could be denominative if Lithuanian tingu`s is considered archaic based on correspondences in Slavic (*teg?k?, cf. OCS oteg?citi, -ati; note also prefixed inchoative *-e- verb otežati ‘to become burdened’) and Germanic (Old Icelandic þungr). The list of rare verbs includes non-problematic skonéti, sko~n-i, skométi, sko~m-i ‘to be delicious, tasty’ (: sko~nis, sko~mas ‘taste’), a lengthened grade deverbative goréti, go~r-i ‘to experience a bitter taste’ (beside garéti, ga~r-i), an etymologically unclear spuléti, spu`l-i (denominative derivation could be implied by the existence of goru`s, spulu`s, but note the aforementioned general tendency to form deverbative adjectives in Modern Lithuanian) and skardéti, skar~d-i ‘to echo, to sound’ (related to the family of kerd-/kird- verbs or simply denominative beside skardu`s ‘sonorous’).Type 3 (i-stem plus reflexive marker) covers a group of verbs expressing a certain attitude or evaluation and can be paraphrased as ‘to consider something / someone (or a situation in general) to have the quality of the base adjective or noun’, cf.: jis šly~kšt-i-si (inf. šlykštétis) tuo valgiu ‘he considers that dish disgusting’ (: šlykštu`s ‘disgusting’). Type 3 is almost unproblematic, because the possibility of deverbative formation of adjectives is blocked semantically in most of the cases. There is no model of adjective formation in Lithuanian which could be paraphrased as ‘the one who / which is evaluated by the activity of the speaker described by the base verb’ (vs. productive model of ‘the one who / which verbs’, e. g. pavydu?s ‘the one who envies’ : pavydéti, pavy´di ‘envy’, but šlykštu`s ? ‘the one which is disgusted at’). Lithuanian drovétis, dro~v-i-si ‘to be shy’ also belongs to type 3 because of its morphology, but is probably to be analyzed as a deverbative formation with root vowel lengthening (cf. Latvian druve^tie^s ‘erschrecken, sich fürchten’, drude^t ‘zittern’).Type 4 (a-stem) has only one verb in standard Modern Lithuanian: vertéti ‘(impers.) to be worth’ : ver~ta ‘it is worth’. Some other verbs based on predicatively used neuter adjective forms or nouns could have probably belonged to this type (cf. ganéti, -éja : gana`, gailéti, gai~l-i : gai~la), if their nominal ending was reinterpreted as a 3rd present indicative (cf. the deverbative type tekéti, te~ka), but was later substituted by stems in -i- and -e-ja.My main conclusion is that denominative statives in -eti are an unproductive derivational category in Modern Lithuanian. It is still possible to identify some isolated groups characterized by presents in -e-ja, -i, -i-si or -a. Predominant inchoative semantics of Lithuanian denominatives in -eti is probably to be considered an innovation. As inchoatives in -eti, -eja started to gain ground, at least some statives adopted i-stem presents (a typical feature of deverbative statives). If Indo-European formations in *-eh1- primarily had presents in *-eh1-i?e/o- (as argued by Jasanoff 200212003, 147; cf. reconstructions of athematic inflection *-eh1-ti by Watkins 1971, 83; Jasanof f 1978, 124; Ruijgh 2004, 56 and zero-grade suffix in *-e-h1-ie/o- suggested by Rasmussen 1993, 481 and Hardarson 1998, 337), the more archaic morphology was taken over by the dominating inchoative type in Lithuanian, while the possibly archaic stative type lost the morphological uniformity of the present stem and drifted towards deverbative i-presents. Many of the latter ones became derivationally obscure as verbs in -eti, -i can be considered as bases for the productive formation of deverbative u-stem adjectives in Modern Lithuanian. The space left by (formerly productive?) statives in -eti was taken over by new denominative suffixes, cf.: gudr-áuti ‘to act using tricks’ : gudru`s ‘clever, cunning’, draug-áuti ‘to be friends’ : drau~gas ‘friend’, balt-úoti ‘to be white’ : báltas ‘white’, šnip-inéti ‘to spy’: šni`pas ‘spy’.