{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.052070263488080304, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02258469259723965, 'mean_word_length': 5.206225680933852, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Grammaticalization of the Lithuanian comparative -jau(s)

Abstract When analysing Old Lithuanian texts from the 16th and the first half of the 17th century, one can notice that comparatives with the -jaussuffix tend to appear in comparative constructions with connectives containing negation, e.g. Bet eschdaugiaus dirbau / neig kursai isch yũ‘but I laboured more abundantly than they all’ (VEE 102: 16-17; 1 Corinthians 15: 10). This is the “particle comparative” in Stassen’s terms (1985; 2001). On the other hand, authors avoided comparatives with the -jaus suffix in other types of comparative constructions (with the preposition užand the genitive). Philological and etymological analysis of neg(i)and nei(gi)‘than’ shows that these connectives developed out of former sentence negations. This sheds some light on the syntactic environment in which the grammaticalization of the comparative suffix -jausoccurred. The Lithuanian comparative suffix -jaũ (OLith. -jau-s, e.g. geriaus‘better’) goes back to the postposed focus particle -jaũ, which functions as a marker of emphatic assertion of identity (König 1991). The primary contrastive function of the ‑jau-ssuffix can be compared to Ancient Greek -τερος (Sanskrit -taraḥ) in such usages as δεξίτερος ‘right(-hand)’. The grammaticalization of the focus marker jau(s)has occurred in sentences consisting of juxtaposed and contrasted clauses - the “conjoined comparative” in Stassen’s terms (1985: 38, 44), and in these sentences, -jausfilled the role of pragmatic marker and focalizer, emphasizing one of two compared, oppositional items.