Transcription
Ilze Lokmane is Associate Professor of General Linguistics at theUniversity of Latvia, Rīga, Latvia. Her research interests relate tosyntax, morphosyntax, pragmatics, functional and cognitive grammar,modality and evidentiality, her core work is focused on Latviangrammar and the theory of pragmatics.ISBN 978-9934-18-635-6LATVIAN GRAMMARAndra Kalnača is Professor of Latvian Linguistics at the Universityof Latvia, Rīga, Latvia. Her research interests relate to morphology,morphosyntax and morphophonology, functional and cognitivegrammar, modality and evidentiality, her core work is focused onLatvian grammar and the theory of grammar.ANDRA KALNAČA, ILZE LOKMANE“Latvian Grammar” was written to make information about theLatvian language and its grammatical system more easily availablenot only within Latvia, but also beyond its borders. A moderngrammar of Latvian written in English is as important for nativespeakers of Latvian as for those who have learned Latvian as asecond language and is of great value for anyone interested in theculture and history of Latvia or the Latvian language itself. The needfor a reference grammar of Latvian written in English is especiallyimportant right now due to the existence of a large Latvian diasporacommunity abroad, particularly in English-speaking countries wherechildren and young people are educated in the language of theirhome countries rather than in Latvian. A Latvian grammar writtenin English will also be useful for those who are learning Latvian asa foreign language and wish to learn more about its grammaticalsystem and unique features so that they are able to use Latvian moreeffectively and speak it more correctly. Likewise, “Latvian Grammar”will be a useful reference and source for examples for teachers ofLatvian – both those who teach it to speakers as a school or universitysubject and those who teach it as a foreign language. Latvianalso is a rather unique combination of ancient as well as relativelynew features, which are of interest to researchers abroad and areimportant for the typological, cognitive, pragmatic, functional, andcontrastive analysis of language.ANDRA KALNAČAILZE LOKMANELATVIAN GRAMMAR
ANDRA KALNAČA, ILZE LOKMANELATVIAN GRAMMAR
ANDRA KALNAČA, ILZE LOKMANELATVIAN GRAMMARUniversity of Latvia PressRīga2021
UDK 811.174 3Ka270Andra Kalnača, Ilze Lokmane. Latvian Grammar. Rīga: University of Latvia Press, 2021,560 pages.This monograph was published in accordance with the University of Latvia Council ofthe Faculty of Humanities Decision No. 26-3/93 of 17.06.2020 and the University of LatviaCouncil of Humanities Decision No. 10 of 06.07.2020.This monograph was planned and written as part of the University of Latvia researchproject “Modern Latvian Grammar (in English)” and the State research program “Letonika –the history, languages, culture, values of Latvia” project No. 3 “Latvian language studies inthe context of 21st century science” sub-project “Latvian Grammar”.ReviewersHelle Metslang, University of TartuBonifacas Stundžia, Vilnius UniversityDaiki Horiguchi, Kyoto UniversityEditor – Uldis Balodis, University of Latvia Livonian InstituteMap of Latvian dialects – Edmundas Trumpa, University of LatviaLetter-sound correspondence in Standard Latvian – Ilze Auziņa, University of Latvia Instituteof Mathematics and Computer ScienceLayout – Andra LiepiņaCover design – Baiba Lazdiņa Andra Kalnača, Ilze Lokmane, 2021 University of Latvia, 2021https://doi.org/10.22364/latgram.2021ISBN 978-9934-18-635-6 (hardback)ISBN 978-9934-18-646-2 (PDF)
ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Abbreviations and symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Map of Latvian dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Letter-sound correspondence in Standard Latvian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8141619201. MORPHOPHONOLOGY (Andra Kalnača) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.0 Introductory remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.0.1 Allomorphs, their structure, and functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.0.2 Units of morphophonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.1 Adaptation of morphemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.1.1 Phoneme alternation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.1.2 Interference of morphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.1.3 Reduction of the word formation/inflectional stem . . . . . . .1.1.4 Interfixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.2 The morphophonological functions of vowel alternations . . . . . . . .1.2.1 Apophony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.2.2 Metaphony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2525252830313644475050542. MORPHOLOGY (Andra Kalnača) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.0 Introductory remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.0.1 Morphemics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.0.2 Word formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.0.3 Inflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.0.4 Word classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1 Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1.0 Introductory remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1.1 Declension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1.2 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1.3 Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1.4 Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1.5 Word formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2 Adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.0 Introductory remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.1 Declension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.2 Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.3 Definiteness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.4 Word formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3 Numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.4 Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.0 Introductory remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.1 Personal pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.2 The reflexive pronoun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.3 Possessive pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.4 Demonstrative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.5 Interrogative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.6 Relative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.7 Indefinite pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.8 Definite pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.9 Negative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5 Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5.0 Introductory remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5.1 Conjugation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5.2 Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5.3 Tense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5.4 Mood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5.5 Voice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5.6 Transitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5.7 Reflexive verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5.8 Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5.9 Participles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5.10 Word formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.6 Adverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.6.0 Introductory remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.6.1 Semantic groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.6.2 Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.6.3 Word formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.7 Prepositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.8 Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.9 Conjunctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.10 Interjections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402592692722812893013163163193223243303553663773. SYNTAX (Ilze Lokmane) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.0 Introductory remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.0.1 Syntactic subsystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.0.2 Syntactic relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1 The simple sentence as a mono-predicative syntactic unit . . . . . . . .3.1.1 The main features of the simple sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1.2 Predicativity as the main grammatical feature ofthe simple sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2 Formal structure of the simple sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.0 Introductory remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.1 Simple sentence patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.2 Basic sentence types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.3 Verbal sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.4 Nominal sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.5 Adverbial sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .385385385386391391391394394394402406413418
3.2.6 Simple sentence subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.7 A list of basic simple sentence patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.8 Paradigm of the simple sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.9 The secondary predicate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.10 Adjuncts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.11 Subordination in the simple sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3 The communicative structure of a simple sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.0 Introductory remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.1 Declarative sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.2 Exhortative sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.3 Interrogative sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.4 Exclamative sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.5 Optative sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4 Word order in simple sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.0 Introductory remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.1 The grammatical function of word order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.2 The communicative function of word order . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.3 The stylistic function of word order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.5 Composite sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.5.0 Introductory remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.5.1 Compound sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.5.2 Complex sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88499500500502510Final thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .534Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Subject index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Latviešu valodas gramatika. Kopsavilkums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pateicība . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .535539546553558
Introduction“Latvian Grammar” was written to make information about the Latvian languageand its grammatical system more easily available not only within Latvia, but alsobeyond its borders. Language is one of the most important parts of culture, history,and everyday life. Language is used by everyone and as a result many people acrossall walks of life are deeply interested in it. A modern grammar of Latvian written inEnglish is as important for native speakers of Latvian as for those who have learnedLatvian as a second language and also is of great value for anyone interested inthe culture and history of Latvia or the Latvian language itself.The need for a reference grammar of Latvian written in English is especiallyimportant right now due to the existence of a large Latvian diaspora communityabroad, particularly in English-speaking countries where children and young peopleare educated in the language of their home countries rather than in Latvian. For thatreason, information about Latvia as well as Latvian language, literature, and cultureis most often sought out in English or in some other language besides Latvian.A Latvian grammar written in English will also be useful for those who arelearning Latvian as a foreign language and wish to learn more about its grammaticalsystem and unique features so that they are able to use Latvian more effectively andspeak it more correctly. Likewise, “Latvian grammar” will be a useful referenceand source for examples for teachers of Latvian – both those who teach it to speakersas a school or university subject and those who teach it as a foreign language.There is also considerable demand among linguists abroad for a systematic anddependable description of Latvian written by native speakers of Latvian. Latvian isa rather unique combination of ancient as well as relatively new features, which areof interest to researchers abroad and are important for the typological, cognitive,pragmatic, functional, and contrastive analysis of language. Examples we canmention here include the debitive mood and verb conjugation system in general;how various aspectual meanings are expressed; constructions involving the dative,genitive, and nominative cases; sound changes in word formation and inflection.Latvian belongs to the Baltic group of the Indo-European language family.This group also contains Lithuanian and the extinct Old Prussian language.Rudzīte (1993: 4) observes: “Modern-day Latvian formed as a result of the mergerof several languages spoken by Baltic tribes known to us from historical records:8
the Latgalians or Latvians, Selonians, Semigallians as well as the Curonians whohad their own language until the 16th century.” Much as in Lithuanian, Latvian alsopreserves various archaic lexical, phonetic, and grammatical features, which canbe traced back to Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Baltic. From a language typologyperspective, Latvian has a classic Indo-European (Baltic) system with diversegrammatical inflection and extensive word formation. However, due to areal andhistorical reasons, Latvian grammar also displays some features more like thosefound in the Finno-Ugric languages.Latvian is the official language of the Republic of Latvia. When Latvia joinedthe European Union in 2004, Latvian also became an official language of the EuropeanUnion. There are approximately 1.5 million native speakers of Latvian. Of these,1.38 million live in Latvia, the rest live in the United States, Australia, Canada,the United Kingdom, Germany, Lithuania, Estonia, Sweden, Russia, and othercountries. Latvian is spoken as a second language by approximately 500,000 peopleof other ethnicities. (Latvian population statistics are available from the LatvianLanguage Agency at: https://valoda.lv/valsts-valoda/).Latvian is divided into three dialects: The Central dialect (also Middle dialect),Livonic dialect (also Livonian dialect, Livonian influenced dialect, Livonianizeddialect), and High Latvian dialect (Vanags 2018: 27, see also “Map of Latviandialects”). The Central dialect is spoken in central Vidzeme (the Vidzeme Centralsubdialects), Zemgale (the Semigallic subdialects), and in southern Courland orKurzeme (the Curonic subdialects). The Standard Latvian developed primarily basedon the Vidzeme Central and Semigallic subdialects. The Livonic dialect is spoken innorthwestern Vidzeme (the Vidzeme Livonic subdialects) and in northern Courland(the Kurzeme Livonic subdialects or the Tamian subdialects). A part of the Latviansliving in these regions are descendants of the Finnic-speaking Livonians whopreserved features of the Livonian language as they transitioned to speaking Latvian;as a result, a unique variety of Latvian developed over time – the Livonic dialect.The High Latvian dialect is spoken in eastern Vidzeme, Sēlija (also called Augšzemein Latvian), and Latgale. It is divided into the Selonic subdialects (spoken in Sēlijaand Vidzeme near Ērgļi, Koknese, Pļaviņas, and Madona) and Latgalic subdialects(spoken in Latgale and eastern Vidzeme) (Vanags op. cit.). Standard Latgalian –a historical variety of Latvian – has existed since the 18th century and is based onthe subdialects spoken in southern Latgale (Leikuma, Andronovs 2018: 28–30).The first written texts (primarily of a Christian religious nature – bothLutheran and Catholic) date to the 16th century. The language in these is based onthe Latvian spoken in Rīga and their spelling is based on the Middle Low Germanwritten tradition. The authors of these texts were ethnic German clergymen(Vanags 2018: 27). In subsequent centuries, the orthography used in Latvian textscontinued to be improved and was based on the language varieties of the CentralDialect. Over time, the content of Latvian texts expanded from being exclusivelyreligious and began to include material from other secular genres: dictionaries,grammars, literary and popular scientific works, practical texts, and so on9
(Vanags op. cit.). The translation of the Bible into Latvian by Johann Ernst Glück(first published 1685–1694, published again in 1739) had a significant role inthe development and standardization of the Latvian written language. Beginningin the mid-19 th century, the number of texts written by ethnic Latvian authorson a wide variety of topics rapidly increased and this was especially evident inthe writing of new works of fiction in Latvian. It should be noted that independentof the subjects they wrote about, all ethnic Latvian authors from this period paidspecial attention to the cultivation and standardization of written Latvian as wellas the orthography they used for writing it. This tradition survives in a majorityof genres up to the present day.The orthography currently used to write Latvian (Latin script supplementedwith diacritical marks indicating vowel length, palatalized consonants, and certainsibilants, see also “Letter-sound correspondence in Standard Latvian”) is based onthe principles adopted in 1908 by the Orthography Commission of the Rīga LatvianSociety’s Knowledge Commission.The history of Latvian grammars begins in the 17th century. The first Latviangrammar is “Manuductio ad linguam Lettonicam facilis & certa. Riga 1644” byJohann Georg Rehehusen. This grammar is followed by a string of others at the endof the 17th century and throughout the 18th century. The most significant andextensive of these is “Lettische Grammatik” (1783) by Gothard Friedrich Stender.The period defined by grammars written by German authors ends in the 1860s withthe publication of “Die Lettische Sprache nach ihren Lauten und Formen erklärendund vergleichend dargestellt” (in two volumes; 1863–1864) by August Bielenstein.This grammar was the first scientific grammar of Latvian and utilized the linguisticanalysis of that time. It is still considered one of the most important grammaticaldescriptions of Latvian ever published (for more on this see Kļaviņa 2008). Beginningin the second half of the 19th century and the early 20th century, a number ofgrammars and other grammatical descriptions of Latvian written by Latvian authorsappeared in print. The most important of these include “Latviešu valodas mācība”by Andrejs Stērste (this was the first scientific grammar written in Latvian and waspublished as 3 volumes in 1879–1880), “Teikums” (1898) by Kārlis Mühlenbachs, and“Latviešu gramatika” and “Latviešu valodas mācība” (both published in 1907) byJānis Endzelīns and Kārlis Mühlenbachs.Grammatical descriptions written in other languages during the 20th andst21 centuries are either quite old (e.g., “Lettische Grammatik” (1922) by JānisEndzelīns) or the authors of these materials are not native Latvian speakers and fora variety of reasons they only include a selection of topics in their descriptions ofLatvian. (e.g., “A Short Grammar of Latvian” by Terje Mathiassen (1997), “Latvian”by Nicole Nau (1998), “Lettische Grammatik” by Jan Henrik Holst (2001)). A numberof Latvian grammars are intended to be used as learning materials for non-Latvianswho do not have much existing knowledge of Latvian language or culture (e.g.,“A Grammar of Modern Latvian” by Trevor Fennell, Henry Gelsen (1980), “CompleteLatvian” by Terēze Svilane Bartholomew (2011), “Latvian. An Essential Grammar”10
by Dace Prauliņš (2012)). Several studies on various aspects of Latvian grammar arewritten from the perspective of Baltic, theoretical, typological, or areal linguistics(e.g., Holvoet 2001, 2007 as well as the the article collections Nau, Ostrowski 2010;Holvoet, Nau 2014b, 2015, 2016; Arkadiev, Holvoet, Wiemer 2015).The most recent reference grammar of Latvian to be written in Latvian,“Latviešu valodas gramatika” (Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds), was published in2013 (republished in 2015) and edited by Daina Nītiņa and Juris Grigorjevs. It isa collection of studies whose authors represent various theoretical perspectives(the authors of the grammar include: Ilze Auziņa, Dace Markus, Juris Grigorjevs,Inese Indričāne, Anna Vulāne, Daina Nītiņa, Gunta Smiltniece, Ieva Breņķe, BaibaSaulīte, Linda Lauze, Andra Kalnača, and Ilze Lokmane). This grammar bringstogether the research experience of the late 20th and early 21st centuries and servesas a good foundation for further studies focusing on Latvian grammar and phonetics.The morphophonology and verb sections (except for the description of participles)in this grammar were written by Andra Kalnača, the section on simple sentencesyntax – by Ilze Lokmane.The next task was writing a reference grammar of Latvian in English. “LatvianGrammar”, written by Andra Kalnača and Ilze Lokmane, is a scientific study byboth authors written in 2014–2018. In addition, this grammar has differences from“Latviešu valodas gramatika” published in 2013:1) a Latvian grammar in English has a different target audience, which alsomeans that its description of language features and its focus as well as itsselected examples differ from those in a grammar written for a Latvianspeaking audience (the examples in a grammar written for English speakersare more oriented towards a precise illustration of the features and otherinformation being described);2) the description of the Latvian grammatical system has been written usingmodern grammatical terminology and according to the linguistic traditionsof Western Europe and North America (see “Subject index”, which givesthe corresponding Latvian grammatical concept in parentheses after eachEnglish-language term).If there exists a difference of opinion in the linguistic literature regardinga particular aspect of Latvian grammar, then in individual cases these differingviews are mentioned in “Latvian Grammar”; however, due to the limitations on spacein this grammar and, especially, due to its stated aims, these views are not examinedin detail. Still, the authors have endeavored to show, which view they adopt in thiswork and the reasons for their choice. Issues connected with the standardization ofgrammar are not examined in this volume; however, in individual cases the useof a form or construction in conversational language or where its use deviates fromthe literary language may be discussed along with the reasons for these uses.Both authors of this grammar are professors at the University of Latvia Faculty ofHumanities and have taught courses on grammar as well as on a wide range of otheraspects of linguistics. They also are the authors of studies on Latvian morphology,11
morphophonology, syntax, morphosyntax, and other synchronic and general linguistictopics. The scientific research of Andra Kalnača and Ilze Lokmane, as well as workwith their students and supervision of their students’ baccalaureate, master’s, anddoctoral work, has allowed the authors to accrue knowledge on grammatical systemsand their fundamental characteristics as well as gain experience in examining issuesrelating to grammar.“Latvian Grammar” is a descriptive and synchronic grammar of Standard Latvian(with a few exceptions in the morphophonology section describing sound changesin Latvian). It is based primarily on the Latvian linguistic traditions for describingthe grammatical system of Latvian developed during the 20th and 21st centuries (e.g.,Endzelīns 1922, 1951; Ahero et al. 1959, 1962; Kārkliņš 1974, 1976; Freimane 1985,2008; Ceplītis, Rozenbergs, Valdmanis 1989; Gāters 1993; Kalme, Smiltniece 2001;Nītiņa 2001; Paegle 2003; Beitiņa 2009; Soida 2009; Nītiņa, Grigorjevs 2013).This grammar is divided into three sections: morphophonology, morphology,syntax. To explain various sound changes relating to word formation and inflection,their historical origins are also detailed in the morphophonology section. Wordformation is not described in a separate chapter as has been the tradition in otherLatvian grammars (see, for example, Ahero et al. 1959; Nītiņa, Grigorjevs 2013).Instead, information on word formation can be found in special sections at the endof the noun, adjective, verb, and other word class descriptions in the morphologysection. The introductory portion of the morphology section (Section 2.0.2) includesnot only a description of morphemics, inflectional principles, and word types, butalso provides general information regarding word formation methods, means, andtypes. In the syntax section, attention is primarily given to a structural and partiallya functional description of the simple sentence. The composite sentence is mainly seenas a combination of several predicative units (clauses) into a single communicativewhole, therefore, attention is given to the unique structural features of the units(clauses) as well as their semantic relations.The examples used in the grammar are also primarily synchronic. Sourcesused include examples from “Līdzsvarotais mūsdienu latviešu valodas tekstukorpuss 2018” (The Balanced Corpus of Modern Latvian 2018; available at http://www.korpuss.lv/id/LVK2018; examples marked with C) as well as from various massmedia sources (print as well as online media), online discussion groups, Latvianliterature (generally from the 1970s), and individual folklore and other examples.In some cases, the internet search engine google.lv was used as well as data fromthe “Latvian Web Corpus (lvTenTen) (Ten Ten Corpus Family)”, available at s/; examples marked with CW). Due tolimitations on space and also to avoid including information which does not pertainto the particular features of Latvian being illustrated, examples are shortened oradapted as necessary (this is not noted in the body of the text in any particular way,with the exception of the section on the composite sentence where the omission ofone or several units (clauses) is shown in the Latvian text with a double dot (.)).The analysis of these examples is not based on a frequency analysis o
LATVIAN GRAMMAR ANDRA KALNAČA ILZE LOKMANE ISBN 978-9934-18-635-6 LATVIAN GRAMMAR ANDRA KALNAČA, ILZE LOKMANE "Latvian Grammar" was written to make information about the Latvian language and its grammatical system more easily available not only within Latvia, but also beyond its borders. . ISBN 978-9934-18-646-2 (PDF) Contents
