In view of the fact that aspectual systems of verbs (“verbal aspect”) in Lithuanian and Russian were traditionally interpreted from the same perspective, I believe that it is worth comparing the expressions of <habituality> in Lithuanian and Russian parallel texts and focusing on their differences in order to define the proper functions of the past habitual tense in Lithuanian. Consequently, I will show that this past tense has multiple functions as habituals in discourse and should not be regarded as a “iterative” tense functioning as a “imperfectivizing”
means in Lithuanian aspectual system.
In Russian, where only the past forms of imperfective verbs are used in order to express <habituality>, the reference to taxis relation in each micro-situation depends mainly on the lexical telic/atelic meaning of the verbs.13 Whereas, in Lithuanian, <habituality> can be expressed by both past tenses; however, as regards telic verbs that have atelic counterpart or atelic verbs including stative verbs, there are also cases when the past habitual forms not combined with the habitual adverbials are even more dominantly used. The major difference in the functions is that the simple past tense generally expresses <habituality> only at the level of the macro-situation, whereas the past habitual tense also serves to express the aspectual opposition in the micro-situations that build the inner structure of a macro-situation. In this sense, the past habitual tense has multiple aspectual func- tions that comprise both the characteristic features of a habitual macro-situation and the individual features of micro-situations that constitute the macro-situation.
13 In Russian, the present forms of perfective/imperfective verbs are also sometimes used in order to more clearly reveal the aspectual <perfective/imperfective> opposition in each micro- situation that constitutes a habitual macro-situation. However, note that for perfective verbs, this is a highly marked case, and it requires irregular repetition and predominantly occurs with chains of events (not for single events). As lexical marker byvalo ‘used to be’ or byvaet ‘happens’
are often used in this case.
In comparing the following Russian and Lithuanian parallel texts, examples (18) and (19), which are constructed by the native consultants and the author of this chapter, in Russian, in both cases the past forms of imperfective verbs are used in order to express <habituality>, the taxis relations in each micro-situation are referred to by the lexical telic meaning (18) or atelic meaning (19) of verbs. In Lithuanian, however, both telic verbs (18) and atelic verbs (19) in the past habitual forms are used to reveal how taxis relation is built in each micro-situation that constitutes a habitual macro-situation. In these cases, the past habitual forms generally are not replaced by the simple past forms. This might be the reason why the past habitual forms most often appear repeatedly like a chain in texts.
(18) Russ.
Ran’še, kogda on ži-l odin,
previously when he.nom live-pst(m.sg) one(nom.sg.m) vstava-l rano, prixodi-l k nam,
get.up-pst(m.sg) early come-pst(m.sg) to we.dat
vypiva-l dva stakan-a molok-a
drink.up-pst(m.sg) two glass-gen.sg milk-gen.sg pered zavtrak-om.
before breakfast-ins.sg Lith.
Anksčiau, kai j-is gyven-o vien-as, previously when he-nom live-pst.3 one-nom.sg.m at-si-kel-dav-o anksti, atei-dav-o pas mus, prf-refl-get.up-hab-pst.3 early come-hab-pst.3 to we.acc iš-ger-dav-o dvi stiklin-es pien-o
prf-drink-hab-pst.3 two glass-acc.pl milk-gen.sg prieš pusryči-us.
before breakfast-acc.pl
‘Previously, when he lived alone, he used to get up early, come to our place and drink up two glasses of milk before breakfast.’
(19) Russ.
Ran’še, kogda on čita-l skazk-i,
previously when he.nom read-pst(m.sg) fairy.tale-acc.pl my side-l-i i sluša-l-i.
we.nom sit-pst-pl and listen-pst-pl Vs-e ego ljubi-l-i.
all-nom.pl he.acc love-pst-pl
Lith.
Anksčiau, kai j-is skaity-dav-o pasak-as, previously when he-nom read-hab-pst.3 fairy.tales-acc.pl mes sėdė-dav-ome ir klausy-dav-ome.
we.nom sit-hab-pst.1pl and listen-hab-pst.1pl Vis-i j-į mylėj-o.
all-nom.pl.m he-acc love-pst.3
‘When he used to read (would be reading) fairy tales, usually we would be sitting and be listening. Everyone loved him.’
From the fact that there are many examples of this type of usage of past habitual forms even in texts translated from other languages that have no such special type of past tense, one can suppose that it is an important function of past habitual tense in Lithuanian. In contrast, in Russian the general past forms are usually used to express the same content (see 20; Russian and Lithuanian texts from A. Saint-Exupéry’s The Little Prince [Le Petit Prince] translated from French).
(20) Russ. Kogda ja vstrečal vzroslogo, kotoryj kazalsja mne razumnej i ponjatlivej drugix, ja pokazyval emu svoj risunok №1 – ja ego soxranil i vsegda nosil s soboju. Ja xotel znat’, vpravdu li ėtot čelovek čto-to ponimaet. No vse oni otvečali mne: ôĖto šljapaằ. I ja uže ne govoril s nimi […] Ja primenjalsja k ix ponjatijam. Ja govoril s nimi ob igre v bridž […] I vzroslye byli očen’ dovol’ny, čto poznakomilis’s takim zdravomysljaščim čelovekom.
Lith. Kai sutik-dav-au suaugusį žmogų, kuris man atrody-dav-o bent kiek aiškesnio proto, ištir-dav-au jį savo piešiniu Nr.1, kurį buvau
pasilikęs iš vaikystės. Norė-dav-au pasižiūrėti, ar tas žmogus tikrai ką supranta. Bet jis man visada atsaky-dav-o: „Čia skrybėlė“. Tada su juo nešnekė-dav-au […] Prisitaiky-dav-au prie jo. Kalbė-dav-au su juo apie bridžą […] Ir tas suaugęs žmogus bū-dav-o labai patenkin- tas, kad susipažino su tokiu protingu asmeniu.
‘Whenever I met one of them who seemed to me at all clear-sighted, I tried the experiment of showing him my Drawing Number One, which I have always kept. I would try to find out, so, if this was a person of true under- standing. But, however it was, he, or she, would always say: “That is a hat”.
Then I would never talk to that person […] I would bring myself down to his level. I would talk to him about bridge […] And the grown-up would be greatly pleased to have met such a sensible man.’
All verb forms indicated by boldface in example (20) have been translated from the imperfect in French by the general past forms of imperfective verbs in Russian, while they are translated by the past habitual forms in Lithuanian. There are many examples of this type of difference between Russian and Lithuanian in translated texts.