{"id":5870,"date":"2016-02-11T20:18:16","date_gmt":"2016-02-11T20:18:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/?p=5870"},"modified":"2016-02-11T20:18:16","modified_gmt":"2016-02-11T20:18:16","slug":"mbi-menyren-lidhore-te-foljes-ne-disa-gjuhe-indoevropiane","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/?p=5870","title":{"rendered":"MBI M\u00cbNYR\u00cbN LIDHORE T\u00cb FOLJES N\u00cb DISA GJUH\u00cb INDOEVROPIANE"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"GASHI<\/a>Msc.Sejdi M.Gashi<\/p>\n

Instituti Albanologjik-Prishtin\u00eb<\/p>\n

sejdi.iap@hotmail.com<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

MBI M\u00cbNYR\u00cbN LIDHORE T\u00cb FOLJES N\u00cb DISA\u00a0 GJUH\u00cb INDOEVROPIANE (SANSKRITISHTE, GREQISHTE, LATINISHTE, GJERMANISHTE DHE SLLAVISHTE)<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Abstrakt<\/strong>N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb punim p\u00ebr objekt studimi kemi zgjedhur \u201cM\u00ebnyr\u00ebn lidhore n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebt indoevropiane\u201d. Q\u00ebllimi i pun\u00ebs son\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb q\u00eb t\u00eb njihemi me form\u00ebn, kuptimin dhe vlerat e m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs lidhore n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebt indoevropiane. Punimin e kemi realizuar duke u mb\u00ebshtetur n\u00eb hipotezat e gjuh\u00ebtar\u00ebve t\u00eb njohur vendas dhe t\u00eb huaj, duke v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb pah p\u00ebrfundimet e nxjerra nga ta dhe duke b\u00ebr\u00eb analiz\u00eb krahasuese mes gjuh\u00ebve, pik\u00ebrisht mes sanskritishtes, greqishtes, latinishtes, sllavishtes etj. N\u00eb baz\u00eb t\u00eb asaj q\u00eb kemi hulumtuar, shum\u00eb gjuh\u00ebtar\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn lidhore e karakterizojn\u00eb me kuptime t\u00eb ndryshme, si; \u00a0d\u00ebshirore,\u00a0 e ardhme e mund\u00ebsis\u00eb, etj. Por, nd\u00ebr k\u00ebto kuptime, disa konsiderojn\u00eb se kuptimi volitiv \u00ebsht\u00eb kuptimi themelor i lidhores, si Delbr\u00fcck, Lattmann etj. Por ka\u00a0 edhe prej atyre q\u00eb nuk pajtohen me k\u00ebt\u00eb hipotez\u00eb dhe konsiderojn\u00eb se kuptimi themelor i lidhores \u00ebsht\u00eb ai prospektiv, si: Hirt, M. Br\u00fcgger etj.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Fjal\u00ebt ky\u00e7e: Gjuh\u00eb indoevropiane, m\u00ebnyra lidhore, sanskritishte, greqishte, latinishte, gjermanishte, sllavishte.<\/p>\n

On subjunctive mode of verb in several Indo-European languages (Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, German, and Slavonic)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As object of study of this paper we have chosen \u201cSubjunctive mode verb in several Indo-European languages\u201d. The aim of our research work is to become acquainted with the form, meaning and values of subjunctive mode in the abovementioned Indo-European languages. We will conduct the paper based on the hypothesis of well-known\u00a0 domestic and international linguists by highlighting their conclusions as well as providing a comparative analysis between languages, namely Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, German, and Slavonic, etc. According to our research, many linguists have characterized the subjunctive mode through different meanings such as volition, deliberative, prospective, potential, etc. In addition to this, among those meanings, some linguists argue that a volition meaning is the fundamental denotation of subjunctive mode, as Delbr\u00fcck, Lattmann, etc. Nevertheless, there are authors who disagree with the latter view and consider that the prospective one is the fundamental meaning of subjunctive mode, as Hirt, M. Br\u00fcgger, etc.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Key words: \u00a0Indo-European languages, subjunctive mode, Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, German, Slavonic.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mbi m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn lidhore t\u00eb foljes n\u00eb disa\u00a0 gjuh\u00eb indoevropiane (sanskritishte, greqishte, latinishte, gjermanishte dhe sllavishte)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Di\u00e7ka rreth m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs s\u00eb foljes<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    M\u00ebnyra e foljes paraqet m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn apo form\u00ebn e kryerjes s\u00eb nj\u00eb veprimi. Po ashtu ajo shpreh q\u00ebndrimin e fol\u00ebsit n\u00eb nj\u00ebr\u00ebn an\u00eb si dhe \u00a0q\u00ebndrimin e marr\u00eb n\u00eb drejtim t\u00eb veprimit qoft\u00eb n\u00ebse ai ose ajo pohon se veprimi \u00ebsht\u00eb i v\u00ebrtet\u00eb , q\u00eb tregon nj\u00eb d\u00ebshir\u00eb t\u00eb v\u00ebrtet\u00eb apo t\u00eb pav\u00ebrtet\u00eb, q\u00eb raporton nj\u00eb veprim t\u00eb dor\u00ebs s\u00eb dyt\u00eb, ose q\u00eb tregon nj\u00eb kusht, …nga ana tjet\u00ebr (Fortson, 2004:90). M\u00ebnyra e foljes \u00ebsht\u00eb kategoria gramatikore q\u00eb, n\u00eb krahasim me gjendjen e vjet\u00ebr t\u00eb indoevropianishtes, ka p\u00ebsuar m\u00eb shum\u00eb ndryshime n\u00eb forma dhe n\u00eb funksione… n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebt e vjetra indoevropiane gjendja \u00ebsht\u00eb mjaft e p\u00ebrzier. N\u00eb k\u00ebto gjuh\u00eb formanti gramatikor i m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs jo vet\u00ebm nuk lidhej detyrimisht me ndonj\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb caktuar, por as nuk kufizohej n\u00eb nj\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajtje t\u00eb vetme. Gjithashtu ka qen\u00eb shum\u00eb v\u00ebshtir\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktohej me sakt\u00ebsi se cili ka qen\u00eb funksioni burimor i m\u00ebnyrave t\u00eb ndryshme, – meqen\u00ebse gjuha indoevropiane karakterizohej nga m\u00ebnyra d\u00ebftore, lidhore, d\u00ebshirore dhe urdh\u00ebrore – v\u00ebshtir\u00ebsit\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb m\u00ebdha kan\u00eb qen\u00eb mes m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs lidhore dhe d\u00ebshirore (Likaj, 2005:136-137).<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Lidhorja e foljes<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      N\u00eb IE\u00a0 e m\u00ebvonshme, funksioni i \u00a0injunktivit<\/em> \u00ebsht\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb m\u00eb i pap\u00ebrshtatsh\u00ebm, pasi q\u00eb\u00a0 n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn d\u00ebftore thuajse ka dal\u00eb ngap\u00ebrdorimi, p\u00ebrve\u00e7 formave t\u00eb caktuara t\u00eb ngurosura. Nj\u00eb pjes\u00eb e madhe e funksionit t\u00eb saj t\u00eb modalitetit p\u00ebrher\u00eb e m\u00eb shum\u00eb shpreheshin nga\u00a0 injunktivi<\/em>, sikurse aoristi i injunktivit<\/em> -s-, n\u00eb shum\u00ebs, sanskritishte 1 yaus-ma ‘separate’ (i ndar\u00eb), apo Olr. -s- ‘lidhorja’ nj\u00ebj\u00ebs. 3 *t\u00e9-is ‘go’ (shkoj). Format e injunktivit<\/em> kan\u00eb qen\u00eb pjes\u00ebrisht tematike, sikurse *l\u00e9iq e-t, aor. *liq \u00e9-t, pjes\u00ebrisht atematike, sikurse n\u00eb shembujt e irlandishtes s\u00eb vjet\u00ebr, po ashtu edhe prs. nj\u00ebj\u00ebs 3, *es-t (Ved. sh. 3 san) dhe posa\u00e7\u00ebrisht aoristi i tipit t\u00eb prapashtesave -e-, -a- (J. Kerns & I. Sch\u00ebartz, 1972:24). P\u00ebr kategorin\u00eb n\u00eb fjal\u00eb, \u00c7abej jep k\u00ebt\u00eb mendim: \u201cKa edhe nj\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb q\u00eb e ka indishtja e vjet\u00ebr (sanskritishtja) e disa gjuh\u00eb t\u00eb tjera indoevropiane, q\u00eb quhet injunktiv, q\u00eb do t\u00eb ishte m\u00ebnyra e pest\u00eb. Kjo \u00ebsht\u00eb v\u00ebshtir\u00eb t\u00eb konsiderohet nj\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb e foljes indoevropiane t\u00eb hershme, \u00ebsht\u00eb di\u00e7ka midis lidhores dhe urdh\u00ebrores\u201d (\u00c7abej, fq.194). Nj\u00eb kategori tjet\u00ebr e qart\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb paraqitur nga nd\u00ebrrimi i vendeve e rr\u00ebnj\u00ebve t\u00eb caktuara t\u00eb fundit, p.sh.: *leiq \u0113-t,*leiq \u0101-t, aor. *liq \u0113-t,* apo *liq \u0101-t, sipas nj\u00eb modeli atematik, por *ese-t etj., sipas nj\u00eb modeli tematik. Kjo \u00ebsht\u00eb lidhorja IE e m\u00ebvonshme. Freskia e saj shfaq\u00ebt (1) nga mungesa e saj n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebn gjermane, armene, baltike dhe sllave dhe (2) nga fakti se kjo lejon p\u00ebrdorimin e mbaresave primare dhe sekondare, si sanskritishtja, nj\u00ebj\u00ebs 3 asa-t(i), p\u00ebrderisa n\u00eb greqishte mbaresat primare e p\u00ebrfshijn\u00eb fush\u00ebn, madje Homeri, nj\u00ebj\u00ebs, 3 \u03ad\u1fc3-\u03c3\u03b9 (\u03c3\u03b9 < *-ti). Ky p\u00ebrdorim i pjessh\u00ebm i mbaresave primare \u00ebsht\u00eb nxitur nga implikimet e koh\u00ebs s\u00eb ardhme t\u00eb funksioneve t\u00eb caktuara q\u00eb tani jan\u00eb t\u00eb ve\u00e7anta t\u00eb funksioneve t\u00eb lidhores, nj\u00eb praktik\u00eb morfologjike q\u00eb kurr\u00eb nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb gjetur n\u00eb d\u00ebshiroren e vjet\u00ebr. Kur d\u00ebftorja p\u00ebrkat\u00ebse \u00ebsht\u00eb dyfraz\u00ebshe atematike, t\u00eb gjitha vetat\u00a0 e lidhores formohen nga fraza kryesore (J. Kerns & I. Sch\u00ebartz, 1972:24). P\u00ebr lidhoren \u00ebsht\u00eb ndier nevoja qysh n\u00eb faza t\u00eb hershme t\u00eb gjuh\u00ebve i.e. p\u00ebr t\u00eb krijuar forma t\u00eb posa\u00e7me gramatikore t\u00eb dallueshme nga ato t\u00eb d\u00ebftores. N\u00eb p\u00ebrgjith\u00ebsi, pranohet q\u00eb tema e lidhores nd\u00ebrtohej nga ajo e d\u00ebftores n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet nj\u00eb elementi tem\u00ebformues, q\u00eb tek disa folje ishte -e-\/-o-,<\/em> q\u00eb shkruhej me zanoren fundore t\u00eb tem\u00ebs s\u00eb d\u00ebftores, kur kjo dilte n\u00eb zanore, si p.sh.: *ese-t (t\u00eb jet\u00eb)<\/em> p\u00ebrkundrejt d\u00ebftores *es-ti, *\u00e1\u011d\u0113-t(i)<\/em> p\u00ebrkundrejt d\u00ebftores *\u00e1\u011de-ti (b\u00ebn-vepron)<\/em> dhe pjes\u00ebrisht -\u0101-,<\/em> si p.sh.: *\u00e1\u011d\u0101-t<\/em> p\u00ebrkundrejt d\u00ebftores *\u00e1\u011de-ti<\/em> (Demiraj, 1988:867). Nga kjo q\u00eb lam\u00eb pas, pam\u00eb se lidhorja formohej me shtimin e zanores tematike n\u00eb rr\u00ebnj\u00ebn e foljes (qoft\u00eb atematike apo tematike) q\u00eb pasohet nga mbaresat primare (edhe pse n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebn Indo-Iraniane jan\u00eb p\u00ebrdorur edhe mbaresat primare edhe sekondare). Lidhoret e formuara nga foljet tematike zakonisht p\u00ebrfundojn\u00eb me t\u00eb ashtuquajturat zanore tematike t\u00eb \u2018dyfishta\u2019 ashtu si -\u0113, -\u014d, dhe -\u0101, q\u00eb jan\u00eb n\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtim me d\u00ebftoren. K\u00ebto nganj\u00ebher\u00eb quhen lidhore atematike. Klasifikimi i formave n\u00eb -\u0101, -\u0113, -\u014d, si jo \u2018atematike\u2019 \u00ebsht\u00eb plot\u00ebsisht konvencional; k\u00ebshtu p.sh.: Dahl, i konsideron ato si dy alomorfe t\u00eb rr\u00ebnj\u00ebs tematike, duke i cil\u00ebsuar si lidhore t\u00eb zanoreve t\u00eb gjata (atematike) p\u00ebrkund\u00ebr lidhores s\u00eb zanoreve t\u00eb shkurta.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Lidhorja zakonisht formohej sipas k\u00ebtyre rregullave:<\/li>\n
      2. D\u00ebftorja atematike kund\u00ebr lidhores tematike, si: n\u00eb d\u00ebftore. esmi, un\u00eb jam <\/em>senti, ata jan\u00eb<\/em>; n\u00eb lidhore es\u014d, (n\u00ebse) un\u00eb t\u00eb jem<\/em>.<\/li>\n
      3. b) D\u00ebftorja tematike kund\u00ebr lidhores me zanore t\u00eb zgjatura tematike; si n\u00eb d\u00ebftore. bh\u00e9resi, ti bart\u00eb<\/em>, lidhore. bh\u00e9r\u0113si, ti mund t\u00eb bart\u00ebsh<\/em>, (n\u00ebse)do t\u00eb bart\u00ebnit<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Sipas Meier-Br\u00fcgger-it, prapashtesa e lidhor\u00ebs -e- \u00ebsht\u00eb PIE, n\u00eb rastin e rr\u00ebnj\u00ebve verbale atematike, rregulla \u00ebsht\u00eb (kur K=Bashk\u00ebting\u00ebllore) -K+\u00f8- (rr\u00ebnja e d\u00ebftor\u00ebs),- K+eA (rr\u00ebnja e lidhores); dhe n\u00eb rastin\u00a0 e foljeve tematike rregulla \u00ebsht\u00eb -e+\u00f8- (rr\u00ebnja e d\u00ebftores), -e+e- (rr\u00ebnja e lidhores) (Meier-Br\u00fcgger, 2003:166).<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Lidhorja po ashtu mund t\u00eb formohet nga rr\u00ebnja dhe s-aoristi, ku p\u00ebrdoret shkalla e plot\u00eb e rr\u00ebnj\u00ebs s\u00eb aoristit (Fortson, 2004).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Sh\u00ebnim.<\/em> Si\u00e7 tregohet nga veta e par\u00eb lidhoret sikur Ved. kr <\/em>\u1e47<\/em>av\u0101<\/em> \u2018Un\u00eb do t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u2019, gjuha Avestan e vjet\u00ebr yaoj\u0101 <\/em>\u2018Un\u00eb do t\u00eb filloj pun\u00ebn\u2019, Gk. ph\u00e9r\u014d <\/em>\u2018le ta barti un\u00eb\u2019 dhe Lat. er\u014d <\/em>\u2018Un\u00eb do t\u00eb jem\u2019, veta e par\u00eb p\u00ebrfundonte me\u00a0 \u014d <\/em>e jo me \u2013mi (po aty).<\/p>\n

          M\u00eb posht\u00eb do t\u00eb parashtrojm\u00eb nj\u00eb tabel\u00eb t\u00eb skicuar nga Robert S. P. Beekes, e cila na ofron t\u00eb dh\u00ebna p\u00ebr sistemimin e zanoreve tematike -\u0101-, -\u0113- dhe -\u014d- + mbaresa, n\u00eb paradigmen zgjedhore t\u00eb \u00a0lidhores:<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
           <\/p>\n

          Jo-tematike\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Tematike<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

          -oH<\/em><\/p>\n

          -eh1i<\/em><\/p>\n

          -e<\/em><\/p>\n

          -omom<\/em><\/p>\n

          -eth1e<\/em><\/p>\n

          -o<\/em><\/td>\n

          		Skt. \u00e1s-\u0101 (ni)<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -as (i)<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -at (i)<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -\u0101ma<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -atha<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -an<\/em><\/td>\n

          		Lat. er-\u014d<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -is<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -it<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -imus<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -itis<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -unt<\/em><\/td>\n

          		Skt. bh\u00e1v-\u0101(ni)<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -\u0101s(i)<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -\u0101t(i)<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -\u0101ma<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -\u0101tha<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -\u0101n<\/em><\/td>\n

          		Gr. skh-\u014d<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -\u0113is<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -\u0113i<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -\u014dmen<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -\u0113te<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -\u014dsi<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

           <\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Sipas Robert S. P. Beekes, lidhorja \u00ebsht\u00eb gjithmon\u00eb tematike, q\u00eb do t\u00eb thot\u00eb se ajo ka e<\/em> ose o<\/em> + mbaresat tematike. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye e<\/em> ose o<\/em> jan\u00eb dyfishuar n\u00eb foljet tematike dhe rezultati ka qen\u00eb \u0113, \u014d.<\/em> Mbase k\u00ebto forma jan\u00eb shfaqur pas PIE. N\u00eb Gatha Avastan ato ende jan\u00eb dyrrok\u00ebshe, x\u0161ay\u0101 = \/x\u0161aya\u0101l\/, hacantao = \/hacaantai\/.<\/em><\/p>\n

          \u00cbsht\u00eb habit\u00ebse q\u00eb sanskritishtja n\u00eb mbaresat e saj ka t\u00eb p\u00ebrziera n\u00eb mes vete mbaresat primare dhe ato sekondare (-ni \u00ebsht\u00eb pjesore; -\u0101, -si, -ti<\/em> dhe -tha<\/em> jan\u00eb primare, -ma<\/em> dhe\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -(a)n<\/em> jan\u00eb sekondare). Me sa duket sanskritishtja i ka marr\u00eb mbaresat sekondare (-si, -ti, pra jan\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb reja -s, -t), n\u00eb vend t\u00eb mbaresave tematike (primare), t\u00eb cilat nuk jan\u00eb ruajtur n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb gjuh\u00eb(2 + 3 nj\u00ebj\u00ebs., 1 + 3 shum\u00ebs). Greqishtja po ashtu ka shenja t\u00eb nj\u00eb situate t\u00eb till\u00eb (n\u00eb dialekte).<\/p>\n

          Lidhorja gjithmon\u00eb ka shkall\u00eb t\u00eb plot\u00eb n\u00eb rr\u00ebnj\u00eb (Skt. as-,<\/em> Lat. er-<*h1es<\/em>– n\u00eb krahasim me *h1es-\/h1s-<\/em> n\u00eb d\u00ebftore). Kjo \u00ebsht\u00eb m\u00eb e dukshme n\u00eb mes , ku sanskritishtja ka shkall\u00eb zero n\u00eb t\u00eb gjitha format, p.sh.: bru-t\u00e9<\/em>, por sub. br\u00e1v-a-te<\/em> (*mluH-\/ mleuH-).<\/em> Kjo tregon se lidhorja e mesme n\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb sekondare, dhe se lidhorja ka qen\u00eb e ndar\u00eb nga format e tjera (n\u00eb krahasim me d\u00ebshiroren). Kjo konfirmohet nga rastet, ku sistemi m\u00eb i vjet\u00ebr ka nj\u00eb lidhore aktive s\u00eb bashku me format e mesme: Skt. ind. Aor. middle a-v(u)r-i,<\/em> sub. act. v\u00e1r-a-t<\/em>, opt. middle vur-i-ta<\/em> (*uelH- \u2018to \u00ebill\u2019)<\/em><\/p>\n

          Nga sanskritishtja, ku p.sh. karati(i)<\/em> \u00ebsht\u00eb lidhore me krn\u00f3mi, <\/em>dhe nga latinishtja, me lidhoren e vjet\u00ebr tagam <\/em>af\u00ebr tang\u014d <\/em>n\u00eb t\u00eb tashmen, duket se lidhorja fillimisht \u00ebsht\u00eb formuar nga rr\u00ebnja, e jo nga e tashmja apo rr\u00ebnja e aoristit. Kjo dometh\u00ebn\u00eb se lidhorja (e m\u00ebvonshme) fillimisht ka qen\u00eb form\u00eb e pavarur (e tashmja tematike), dhe se vet\u00ebm rr\u00ebnja kishte nj\u00eb lidhore (S. P. Beekes, 1995:245-246)<\/p>\n

          Sanskritishtja- Funksionet lidhore t\u00eb injunktivit<\/em>, n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebn vedik jan\u00eb t\u00eb zakonshme. \u00cbhitney i ka quajtur k\u00ebto \u2018lidhore t\u00eb pasakta\u2019, nj\u00eb em\u00ebrim i duhur p\u00ebrshkrues p\u00ebr at\u00eb koh\u00eb. Lidhore t\u00eb dalluara morfologjikisht jan\u00eb mjaft t\u00eb zakonshme n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebn vedik; ato q\u00eb korrespondojn\u00eb me d\u00ebftoret atematike q\u00eb shpesh tregojn\u00eb lidhore t\u00eb rr\u00ebnj\u00ebs fundore -\u0101- jo vet\u00ebm n\u00eb nj\u00ebj\u00ebs 1, du. 1, shum\u00ebs 1 (kur d\u00ebftoret tematike i kan\u00eb po ashtu ato), por gjithashtu edhe n\u00eb veta t\u00eb tjera, pas tipit -\u0113-,-\u0101- t\u00eb IE, sikur nj\u00ebj\u00ebs 2 \u00e1y\u0101-s, nj\u00ebj\u00ebs 3 \u00e1y\u0101-t, pas tipit t\u00eb lidhores q\u00eb zakonisht korrespondon me d\u00ebftoret tematike. Lidhoret nga rr\u00ebnj\u00ebt e jo tanishme ndodhin n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebn vedik t\u00eb hershme, cf, aor, lidhore, nj\u00ebj\u00ebs, 3 nesa(i) p\u00ebrve\u00e7 asaj t\u00eb pazgjeruar + injunktivi <\/em>nais; pf., lidhorja, nj\u00ebj\u00ebs 3 c\u0101k\u00e1nat, vav\u00e1rtati p\u00ebrve\u00e7 pf., d\u00ebftorja, cakana, vav\u00e1rta; e ardhmja, lidhore, nj\u00ebj\u00ebs, 2 (e izoluar) kari\u1e63yas p\u00ebrve\u00e7 t\u00eb ardhmes, d\u00ebftore, kari\u1e63y\u00e1si.<\/p>\n

          Greqishte- Sikurse n\u00eb sanskritishten vedik, greqishtja homerike shfaq disa lidhore me zanore t\u00eb shkurta n\u00eb aorist dhe rr\u00ebnj\u00eb t\u00eb perfektit, por nga koh\u00ebrat Atiko-Ionike tipi -\u0113- i z\u00ebvend\u00ebson ato, k\u00ebshtu q\u00eb lidhorja e aoristit Homerian, shum\u00ebs, 1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd: Att. \u03b8\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd Rr\u00ebnja e fundit\u00a0 -\u0113-, megjith\u00ebse ka qen\u00eb ndryshuar p\u00ebr t\u2019u b\u00ebr\u00eb\u00a0\u00a0 -\u1fc3- n\u00eb nj\u00ebj\u00ebs 2. 3. dhe -\u03c9- n\u00eb nj\u00ebj\u00ebs 1, pl. 1 dhe shum\u00ebs 3 p\u00ebr t\u2019iu p\u00ebrshtatur p\u00ebrpjestimit t\u00eb -\u03b5\u03b9-,\u00a0 -\u03b5- dhe -\u03bf\/-\u03c9 n\u00eb d\u00ebftoren e s\u00eb tashmes tematike.<\/p>\n

          Latinishte.\u00a0 Tipi i lidhores tematike (q\u00eb korrespondon me d\u00ebftoren atematike), mbijeton n\u00eb pak forma, e limituar p\u00ebr nga funksioni dhe e njohur si d\u00ebftore e s\u00eb ardhmes, sikur nj\u00ebj\u00ebsi 2 *ese-s > eri-s, etj, ashtu sikurse edhe kategoria e prejardhur, perfekti i s\u00eb ardhmes, nj\u00ebj\u00ebs 2 cecineri-s. Ndodhen t\u00eb dy llojet atematike, -\u0113- dhe -\u0101 – lloji -\u0113- ndodhet n\u00eb lidhoren e s\u00eb tashmes t\u00eb zgjedhimit t\u00eb par\u00eb, sikur nj\u00ebj\u00ebsi 2 ame-s (p\u00ebrndryshe von\u00eb Planta, Kieckers dhe t\u00eb tjer\u00ebt e shohin k\u00ebt\u00eb si d\u00ebshirore) sikurse edhe n\u00eb aoristin -s- (q\u00eb ndryshon shum\u00eb nga rr\u00ebnja e s\u00eb ardhmes) duke krijuar lidhoren e pakryer, nj\u00ebj\u00ebs. 2 ess\u0113-s, veher\u0113-s, etj. e kryera e unifikuar dhe rr\u00ebnj\u00ebt e aoristit krijojn\u00eb \u2018t\u00eb kryer\u00ebn e plot\u00eb t\u00eb lidhores\u2019, nj\u00ebj\u00ebs 2 fuiss\u0113-s, ceciniss\u0113-s. K\u00ebto rr\u00ebnj\u00eb po ashtu ndodhen n\u00eb d\u00ebftoren e s\u00eb ardhmes s\u00eb rikategorizuar t\u00eb zgjedhimit t\u00eb III dhe IV, sikurse nj. 2 can\u0113-s, IV nj. 2 veni\u0113-s, sh. 1 -\u0113mus (ruajtja e -\u0113- n\u00eb veten e par\u00eb dhe t\u00eb tret\u00eb shum\u00ebs \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb arkaiz\u00ebm n\u00eb krahasim me ndryshimin e greqishtes n\u00eb -\u03c9-). Lidhorja me -a- mbetet n\u00eb t\u00eb tashmen e zgjedhimit t\u00eb II, III, IV (nj. 2 veh\u0101-s, etj.) gjithashtu ndodhet n\u00eb veten e par\u00eb nj\u00ebj\u00ebs t\u00eb d\u00ebftores \u2018s\u00eb ardhme t\u00eb rikategorizuar\u2019 t\u00eb zgjedhimeve III dhe IV, sikurse n\u00eb nj\u00ebj\u00ebsin e vetes s\u00eb par\u00eb veha-m (sigurisht se mund t\u00eb jet\u00eb form\u00eb e nj\u00ebjt\u00eb me lidhoren e s\u00eb tashmes). Disa lidhore t\u00eb s\u00eb tashmes dhe lidhoret t\u00eb s\u00eb kryer\u00ebs jan\u00eb d\u00ebshirore i.e. Disa lidhore t\u00eb aoristit me -\u0101- kan\u00eb mbijetuar n\u00eb latinishten e vjet\u00ebr advent-a-t, attig-a-t, t\u00eb ndryshuara n\u00eb latinishten e vjet\u00ebr adveniat, attingat, k\u00ebshtu q\u00eb i p\u00ebrkasin sistemit t\u00eb tyre t\u00eb s\u00eb tashmes.<\/p>\n

          Italishte. Gjendja duket t\u00eb jet\u00eb e nj\u00ebjt\u00eb sikurse n\u00eb latinishte, edhe pse jan\u00eb vet\u00ebm disa forma. Zgjedhimi i par\u00eb i lidhores t\u00eb s\u00eb tashmes n\u00eb Oscan, duket se e paraqet -\u0101-\u0113- m\u00eb arkaike se -\u0113- n\u00eb latinishte. Lidhoret e s\u00eb tashmes e zgjedhimit t\u00eb II dhe IV e kan\u00eb rr\u00ebnj\u00ebn p\u00ebrfundimtare me -\u0101- si n\u00eb latinishte. Format e lidhores t\u00eb foljes \u2018to be\u2019 (\u2018jam\u2019) jan\u00eb d\u00ebshirore, sikurse n\u00eb latinishte. Lidhoret e aoristit me -s- jan\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb d\u00ebftore t\u00eb s\u00eb ardhmes si *bruse-t >Osc., Umb. fust \u2018erit<\/em>\u2019…<\/p>\n

          Irlandishte e vjet\u00ebr. Lidhorja me -a- e rr\u00ebnj\u00ebve tematike (as sg. 3\u00a0 bera: prs. ind. beir < *bheret) dhe rr\u00ebnj\u00ebve t\u00eb aoristit jo sigmatik (si nj. 3 gaba prs. ind. *ghabhet > gaib) s\u00eb bashku formojn\u00eb lidhoren e s\u00eb tashmes. Ato t\u00eb tipit t\u00eb m\u00ebvonsh\u00ebm p\u00ebrfshijn\u00eb nj\u00eb kategori t\u00eb ve\u00e7uar, ashtu si dhe lidhoret me \u2013s-, q\u00eb jan\u00eb ruajtur si injuctive, edhe pse t\u00eb tematizuara e prandaj jan\u00eb lidhore n\u00eb veta t\u00eb caktuara, si injunktiv, nj\u00ebj\u00ebs, 3 *-(s)teigh-s-t > t\u00e9, por shum\u00ebsi 3 *-(s)teigh-so-nt > tiasat. T\u00eb dyja kan\u00eb lidhore neologjike t\u00eb s\u00eb pakryer\u00ebs q\u00eb jan\u00eb formuar pas d\u00ebftoreve t\u00eb s\u00eb pakryer\u00ebs n\u00eb irlandishten e vjet\u00ebr, q\u00eb kan\u00eb nj\u00eb origjin\u00eb t\u00eb paqart\u00eb si nj\u00ebj\u00ebsi, 3 berad, b\u00f3sad. P\u00ebr derisa edhe lidhoret me -\u0113- edhe ato me -\u0101- gjenden n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebn italiane dhe mbase edhe n\u00eb sanskritishte dhe vet\u00ebm -\u0113- ndodhet n\u00eb greqishte (me ndryshime t\u00eb m\u00ebvonshme t\u00eb m\u00ebdha), dhe vet\u00ebm -\u0101- ndodhet n\u00eb irlandishten e vjet\u00ebr.<\/p>\n

          Tokarishte. Ndodhen lidhoret me -\u0101- sikur \u00cbT nj\u00ebj\u00ebs, 3, kategoria V k\u0101rsa-m; prs, d\u00ebftore, nj\u00ebj\u00ebs, 3 k\u04d3rsanam (kategoria VI), por po ashtu kishte lidhore t\u00eb klas\u00ebs V t\u00eb foljeve t\u00eb tjera t\u00eb qe marrin format e k\u00ebsaj lidhoreje. N\u00eb disa raste ka ekzistuar praktika e p\u00ebrdorimit t\u00eb s\u00eb tashmes t\u00eb nj\u00eb kategorie si d\u00ebftore dhe lidhores apo aoristit pothuajse \u00e7do kategorie tjet\u00ebr, me apo pa justifikime historike si lidhore, prandaj ndodhin shum\u00eb bashk\u00ebdyzime t\u00eb papritshme. Mbaresat vetore p\u00ebr t\u00eb dy m\u00ebnyrat jan\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjta n\u00eb secilin dialekt, tokarian lindor (A) dhe per\u00ebndimor (B).\u00a0 Lidhorja me -\u0113- nuk duket q\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb paraqitur, por disa tematika t\u00eb njohura (kategoria III) nka-t\u0101r : act. prs. nj\u00ebj\u00ebs. 3 (class VIII) nk\u04d3-s.<\/p>\n

          Lidhoret neologjike. (I) Armenishtja. Lidhorja e s\u00eb tashmes e kategoris\u00eb 1 \u00ebsht\u00eb beri-\u00e7-em dhe duket nj\u00eb zgjerim i d\u00ebshirores *bheroi- ( > *-ye-, > *-\u0113-) apo rr\u00ebnj\u00ebs s\u00eb lidhores me -\u0113-\u00a0 *bher\u0113-, dhe \u00ebill (do t\u00eb), Arm. beri-. K\u00ebsaj i shtohet\u00a0 *-sk(e)- nj\u00eb n\u00ebnleksem\u00eb (edhe pse e mbijetuar me *-ie- si Armenishtja\u00a0 *-\u00e7e- n\u00eb prs. nj\u00ebj\u00ebs, 1 kar\u00e7i-m : aoristi, kareay) q\u00eb b\u00ebhet nj\u00ebsi gramatikore e m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs n\u00eb armenishte (kryer\u00ebse e pun\u00ebve morfologjike, pasi q\u00eb gjendet si nj\u00ebsi gramatikore n\u00eb shum\u00eb kategori t\u00eb tjera t\u00eb ndryshme). Pastaj merr format sikurse d\u00ebftorja e s\u00eb tashmes bashk\u00ebvepruese. bere-m, bere-s, etj, si lidhorja beri\u00e7-em, beri-\u00e7-es, etj. Nga kjo shk\u00ebputet -i\u00e7em, i\u00e7es si lidhore e em ‘I am’ (Un\u00eb jam), (edhe pse kjo mund t\u00eb jet\u00eb ndryshim i *e\u00e7em, cf, latinishte e vjet\u00ebr e izoluar, nj\u00ebj\u00ebsi i s\u00eb ardhmes, 3 escit ‘erit’, shum\u00ebs, 3 escund ‘erund’). Kjo form\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb paralele n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb analogjike edhe pse jo shum\u00eb simetrike edhe n\u00eb zgjedhimet e tjera po ashtu: pas, d\u00ebftore berim, beris, etj., lidhore beri\u00e7im, beri\u00e7is, etj. III akt. lam. las, etj.: lidhore lay\u00e7em, ly\u00e7es, etj. IV akt. helum, helus, etj.: lidhore helu\u00e7um, helu\u00e7us, etj. Lidhorja e aoristit tregon zgjerime t\u00eb ngjashme edhe t\u00eb rr\u00ebnj\u00ebs edhe t\u00eb -\u00e7-, aorist i rr\u00ebnj\u00ebs, act, i d\u00ebftores nj\u00ebj\u00ebs 1 hani: lidhorja. hani-\u00e7; pass. hanay: lidhorja, hanay-\u00e7; aorist. act. sire\u00e7i: lidhorja. sire\u00e7i-\u00e7 (2), shqip. T\u00eb gjitha format e lidhores paraqiten me pjes\u00ebz\u00ebn t\u00eb. Format jan\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjta m\u00eb d\u00ebforen p\u00ebrve\u00e7 n\u00eb nj\u00ebj\u00ebs 2, 3. Nga t\u00eb tri zgjedhimet e rregullta, shih shembujt e m\u00ebposht\u00ebm: (J. Kerns & I. Sch\u00ebartz, 1972:24-25).<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
          \u00a0<\/em><\/td>\nI<\/em><\/td>\nII<\/em><\/td>\nIII<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nIndic.<\/td>\nSbj.<\/td>\nIndic.<\/td>\nSbj.<\/td>\nIndic.<\/td>\nSbj.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          nj. 2<\/td>\npunon<\/td>\npun\u00f3jsh<\/td>\nrrit<\/td>\nrrisish<\/td>\nPrish<\/td>\nprishish<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          nj. 3<\/td>\n<\/td>\npunoj\u00eb<\/td>\n<\/td>\nrrisi<\/td>\n<\/td>\nprishi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

           <\/p>\n

          III. Funksioni i m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs lidhores<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Shum\u00eb studiues jan\u00eb \u00a0kan\u00eb trajtuar aspektin \u00a0kuptimor dhe funksional t\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs lidhore. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb drejtim,\u00a0 v\u00ebshtrimi i tyre nuk ishte i nj\u00ebjt\u00eb. Vl\u00ebr\u00ebsimet e tyre silleshin thuajse \u00a0n\u00ebp\u00ebr t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtat koncepte si d\u00ebshior\u00eb, mund\u00ebsi, <\/em>etj. Disa prej studiuesve\u00a0 t\u00eb njohur q\u00eb jan\u00eb marr\u00eb me k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje jan\u00eb: Delbr\u00fcck, Brugmann, Lattmann, Hirt, Gonda etj. Mendimet e t\u00eb cil\u00ebve do t\u2019i shtrojm\u00eb m\u00eb posht\u00eb n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb pranueshme dhe kund\u00ebrshtuese mes tyre.<\/p>\n

          Teoria e m\u00ebnyrave t\u00eb foljes n\u00eb indoevropianishte, e nxjerr\u00eb nga Delbr\u00fcck, mb\u00ebshtetet nga \u00a0edhe nga\u00a0 disa gjuh\u00ebtar\u00eb t\u00eb tjer\u00eb, por ka edhe prej atyre q\u00eb e \u00a0kontestojn\u00eb\u00a0 teorin\u00eb e Delbr\u00fcck-ut, si fjala vjen: \u00a0Lattmann, Hirt, Brugmann etj.<\/p>\n

          Delbr\u00fcck, p\u00ebr nocionet themelore (Ai. Syntax<\/em> 1888 p. 302), – \u201cLidhore\u201d, \u201cD\u00ebshirore\u201d mendon se: – m\u00ebnyra lidhore shpreh vullnet, nd\u00ebrsa m\u00ebnyra d\u00ebshirore shpreh\u00a0 d\u00ebshir\u00eb. \u00cbsht\u00eb me r\u00ebnd\u00ebsi t\u00eb theksohet se vullneti apo d\u00ebshira duhet t\u00eb jen\u00eb t\u00eb fol\u00ebsit dhe jo t\u00eb subjektit, apo th\u00ebn\u00eb m\u00eb sakt\u00ebsisht vullneti apo d\u00ebshira t\u00eb jen\u00eb t\u00eb personit q\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga rasa em\u00ebrore. D\u00ebshira e subjektit fillimisht \u00ebsht\u00eb shprehur p\u00ebrmes formave foljore t\u00eb prejardhura. Lattmann, p\u00ebrfundon se lidhorja n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebt indoevropiane kishte dy funksione: t\u00eb mund\u00ebsis\u00eb (potencial) dhe t\u00eb urdh\u00ebrores (volitive), nd\u00ebr k\u00ebto dy funksione, sipas tij funksioni kryesor i saj ishte ai i mund\u00ebsis\u00eb, kurse p\u00ebr volitivin konsideronte se ka dal\u00eb nga ai i mund\u00ebsis\u00eb. Lattmann, kund\u00ebrshton pjes\u00ebrisht p\u00ebrfundimet e Delbr\u00fcck-ut sa i p\u00ebrket lidhores. Duke e njohur p\u00ebrdorimin e volitivit, ai e hedh posht\u00eb p\u00ebrdorimin e s\u00eb ardhmes. Sipas tij lidhorja \u00ebsht\u00eb pjes\u00ebrisht volitiv, pjes\u00ebrisht \u00ebsht\u00eb potencial. Kurse sipas Hirt-it, Idg. Gran. VI, 271v<\/em>, q\u00eb na ofron t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt\u00ebn e asaj q\u00eb shtruam nga Lattmann kuptimi zanafill\u00ebs, nga i cili jan\u00eb zhvilluar kuptimet e tjera t\u00eb lidhores, ka qen\u00eb kuptimi prospektiv, d.m.th. kuptimi i s\u00eb ardhmes. Gonda, p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilin karakteristika e lidhores \u00ebsht\u00eb \u2018vizualizmi\u2019, mendimin e Hirtit, q\u00eb e nxori p\u00ebr lidhoren, e sheh si p\u00ebrpjekje \u00a0t\u00eb kot\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb treguar se doktrina e Delbr\u00fcck-ut duhet t\u00eb z\u00ebvend\u00ebsohet nga hipoteza se lidhorja fillimisht ishte e ardhme (Gonda, 1971:124-125).<\/p>\n

          Sipas Hahnit, kurr\u00eb nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb pajtimi i duhur n\u00eb lidhje me kuptimin origjinal t\u00eb k\u00ebtyre dy kategorive modale, edhe pse pik\u00ebpamja e Delbr\u00fcck se m\u00ebnyra d\u00ebshirore ka shprehur “s\u00eb pari d\u00ebshir\u00eb (s\u00eb dyti mund\u00ebsi)” dhe lidhorja “s\u00eb pari vullnet (s\u00eb dyti t\u00eb ardhmen)” (Hahn 1953:138).<\/p>\n

          Brugmann, v\u00eb n\u00eb dyshim mendimin e Delbr\u00fcck-ut, duke th\u00ebn\u00eb se \u00ebsht\u00eb v\u00ebshtir\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktohet kuptimi themelor i k\u00ebsaj m\u00ebnyre. Brugmann n\u00eb dallim nga Delbr\u00fcck, ka dalluar tri kuptime t\u00eb lidhores: kuptimin volitiv<\/em> ose voluntativ<\/em>, t\u00eb shprehurit e vullnetit t\u00eb fol\u00ebsit; deliberativ<\/em>, pyetje p\u00ebr veprimet q\u00eb priten t\u00eb kryhen, por me ngjyrime zem\u00ebrimi dhe prospektiv<\/em>, d.m.th. t\u00eb parashikosh di\u00e7ka p\u00ebr t\u00eb ardhmen. Si Delbr\u00fcck ashtu dhe Brugmann v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb pah kuptimin volitiv t\u00eb lidhores, por Brugmann shkon m\u00eb larg se Delbr\u00fcck, duke njohur kuptimin deliberativ si karakteristik kuptimore t\u00eb lidhores n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebt indoevropiane dhe duke mos e ngritur nj\u00ebrin kuptim mbi tjetrin (volitiv, deliberativ dhe prospektiv). Sipas Bennett, v\u00ebshtir\u00eb se mund te ket\u00eb ndonj\u00eb dyshim n\u00eb lidhje me korrekt\u00ebsin\u00eb e k\u00ebtij p\u00ebrfundimi t\u00eb nxjerr\u00eb nga Brugmann. \u00c7\u00ebshtja e vetme \u00ebsht\u00eb se a duhet t\u00eb konsiderohet p\u00ebrdorimi deliberativ si njohje e pavarur, apo vet\u00ebm t\u00eb konsiderohet si n\u00ebnlloj i volitivit. Deliberativi gjendet n\u00eb Sanskritishte, Greqishte, Latinishte dhe n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebt Gjermanike (m\u00eb von\u00eb vet\u00ebm si funksion i formave t\u00eb d\u00ebshirores); por ky p\u00ebrdorim edhe pse i.e., me sa duket \u00ebsht\u00eb zhvilluar nga volitivi (E. Bennett, 1982:153). P\u00ebrve\u00e7 gjuh\u00ebve q\u00eb karakterizohen nga kuptimi deliberativ i lidhores, t\u00eb cituara nga E. Bennett, Demiraj citon edhe gjuh\u00ebt sllave, rumune dhe shqipe.<\/p>\n

          Demiraj, pajtohet me mendimin e Brugmann-it duke th\u00ebn\u00eb: \u201c…nuk mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktohet me siguri se cili ka qen\u00eb kuptimi burimor i k\u00ebsaj m\u00ebnyre n\u00eb indoevropianishte dhe n\u00eb \u00e7\u2019faza zhvillimi t\u00eb gjuh\u00ebve i.e. ajo ka marr\u00eb edhe kuptime t\u00eb tjera… \u2013 mendim ky q\u00eb p\u00ebrkon, pjes\u00ebrisht, me t\u00eb Brugmann-it \u2013 N\u00eb rast se n\u00eb krye t\u00eb her\u00ebs ajo \u00ebsht\u00eb p\u00ebrdorur me kuptim volitiv a voluntativ, si\u00e7 mendojn\u00eb disa gjuh\u00ebtar\u00eb, at\u00ebher\u00eb n\u00eb zanafill\u00eb ajo \u00ebsht\u00eb karakterizuar nga kuptimi modal i d\u00ebshirueshm\u00ebris\u00eb apo i vullnetit\u201d (Demiraj, 1988:866). Kurse kuptimet e tjera q\u00eb shpreh\u00eb m\u00ebnyra lidhore si t\u00eb mundshm\u00ebris\u00eb e t\u00eb detyrueshm\u00ebris\u00eb, sipas tij, do t\u00eb dilnin diakronikisht dyt\u00ebsore. Por nuk e p\u00ebrjashton mund\u00ebsin\u00eb e zhvillimit t\u00eb modalitetit t\u00eb mundshm\u00ebris\u00eb nga ai i d\u00ebshirueshm\u00ebris\u00eb. Demiraj k\u00ebt\u00eb e arsyeton duke th\u00ebn\u00eb: \u201c…nj\u00eb veprim i d\u00ebshiruesh\u00ebm nga ana e fol\u00ebsit, rregullisht, nuk i kap\u00ebrcen caqet e mundshm\u00ebris\u00eb. Anasjelltas, nj\u00eb veprim i mundsh\u00ebm nuk e p\u00ebrjashton kuptimin modal t\u00eb d\u00ebshir\u00ebs, k\u00ebshtu q\u00eb ky i fundit mund t\u00eb zhvillohej gjithashtu fare natyrsh\u00ebm nga i pari\u201d (po aty). Bazuar n\u00eb at\u00eb q\u00eb u thekua m\u00eb lart\u00eb, te Demiraj nuk paraqitet ndonj\u00eb mendim i prer\u00eb n\u00ebse ky apo ai kuptim i lidhores \u00ebsht\u00eb themelor, por q\u00ebndrimi i tij \u00ebsht\u00eb kritik dhe q\u00ebndron n\u00eb mes t\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimeve t\u00eb Delbr\u00fcck-ut dhe t\u00eb Lattmann-it, q\u00eb kan\u00eb nxjerr\u00eb p\u00ebr lidhoren.<\/p>\n

          Edhe Mendoza, sikurse Brugmann v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb pah kuptimin volitiv, deliberativ<\/em> dhe prospektiv<\/em> t\u00eb lidhores, por p\u00ebr dallim nga Brugmann, ai i jep p\u00ebrpar\u00ebsi t\u00eb shprehurit t\u00eb s\u00eb ardhmes p\u00ebrmes lidhores, duke th\u00ebn\u00eb: \u201cLidhorja, e cila fillimisht tregon t\u00eb ardhmen, ka tre funksione kryesore\u201d Mendoza (1998):<\/p>\n

          N\u00eb funksionin e saj voluntativ, kjo tregon vullnetin e fol\u00ebsit\u00a0; as Gk.\u00a0m\u1e17p\u014d\u00a0eke\u00eese\u00a0\u00ed\u014dmen<\/span><\/em>\u00a0lit. \u2018not-yet there-to\u00a0\u00ebe-should-go<\/span>\u2019; Ved.\u00a0s\u00e1 dev<\/em>\uf6f9<\/em>n \u00e9h\u00e1\u00a0vaksati<\/span><\/em>lit.\u00a0<\/em>\u2018(that) he the-gods here\u00a0should-bring<\/span>\u2019.<\/p>\n

          N\u00eb funksionin e saj deliberativ, ajo tregon\u00a0 zem\u00ebrimin e fol\u00ebsit; as, Gk.\u00a0p<\/em>\u0113\u0311<\/em>i g\u00e0r\u2026<\/em>\u00a0\u00ed\u014d<\/span><\/em>\u00a0lit. \u2018\u00ebhere-to, then\u2026I-shall-go<\/span>?\u2019; Ved.\u00a0kath<\/em>\uf6f9<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>mah\u00e9 rudr\u00edy\u0101ya brav\u0101ma<\/span><\/em>\u00a0lit. \u2018ho\u00eb from-the-great-court of-Rudra\u00a0\u00ebe-shall-talk<\/span>?<\/p>\n

          N\u00eb funksionin e saj t\u00eb s\u00eb prospektiv, ajo sh\u00ebrben p\u00ebr t\u00eb shprehur gj\u00ebrat q\u00eb ndodhin n\u00eb t\u00eb ardhm\u00ebn\u00a0; as, Gk.\u00a0ei de\u2019 ke m<\/em>\u0113\u0300<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>d\u1e53\u014dsin, eg<\/em>\u014d\u0300<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>d\u00e9 ken autos\u00a0h\u00e9l\u014dmai<\/span><\/em>\u00a0\u2018if Ptc. Ptc. they-give not (to me), I Ptc. Ptc. myself\u00a0\u00ebill-take<\/span>\u00a0(it)\u2019 .<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

            \n
          1. B\u00fcgger v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb pah dy funksionet e lidhores, at\u00eb t\u00eb s\u00eb ardhmes dhe at\u00eb volitiv, si Delbr\u00fcck, por p\u00ebrs\u00ebri nuk gjejm\u00eb p\u00ebrfundime t\u00eb nj\u00ebjta mes k\u00ebtyre dy gjuh\u00ebtar\u00ebve, sepse si\u00e7 cituam m\u00eb lart p\u00ebr Delbr\u00fcck-un kuptimi themelor i lidhores \u00ebsht\u00eb ai volitiv, kurse M. B\u00fcgger me sa kemi arritur ta kuptojm\u00eb i jep p\u00ebrpar\u00ebsi s\u00eb ardhmes mandej citon dy funksionet e tjera t\u00eb saj si: volitiv, prospektiv. N\u00eb vijim do ta parashtrojm\u00eb \u00e7far\u00eb na ka ofruar M. B\u00fcgger p\u00ebr lidhoren: \u201cLidhorja e tregon t\u00eb ardhmen dhe ka dy funksione: p\u00ebr nga funksioni i saj prospektiv, lidhorja sh\u00ebrben p\u00ebr t\u00eb shprehur gj\u00ebra q\u00eb ndodhin n\u00eb t\u00eb ardhmen, p\u00ebrderisa p\u00ebr nga funksioni i saj voluntativ, lidhorja tregon vullnetin e fol\u00ebsit. Lidhorja p\u00ebrdoret p\u00ebr t\u00eb shprehur vullnetin e fol\u00ebsit kur ai konsideron se ai mund t\u00eb kryej\u00eb veprimin e menduar. Shprehja e vullnetit n\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb ngusht\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb i mundur vet\u00ebm kur fol\u00ebsi ka ndikim t\u00eb drejt\u00ebp\u00ebrdrejt\u00eb n\u00eb ngjarje, k\u00ebshtu q\u00eb ajo q\u00eb d\u00ebshirohet mund edhe t\u00eb realizohet. Kjo do t\u00eb thot\u00eb se shprehja reale e vullnetit mund t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb vet\u00ebn e par\u00eb nj\u00ebj\u00ebs. N\u00ebse lidhorja e vet\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb merret si k\u00ebrkes\u00eb q\u00eb b\u00ebhet nga dikush, at\u00ebher\u00eb lidhja me lidhoren e vet\u00ebs s\u00eb dyt\u00eb dhe t\u00eb tret\u00eb meq\u00eb rast fol\u00ebsi nuk ka ndikim t\u00eb drejt\u00ebp\u00ebrdrejt\u00eb n\u00eb realizimin e veprimit verbal, k\u00ebshtu q\u00eb deklarata mund t\u00eb kuptohet vet\u00ebm si k\u00ebrkes\u00eb. Nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrlidhje tjet\u00ebr mund t\u00eb b\u00ebhet me vet\u00ebn e par\u00eb shum\u00eb, m\u00eb an\u00eb t\u00eb s\u00eb cil\u00ebs fol\u00ebsi e komunikon vullnetin e tij, dhe n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn koh\u00eb b\u00ebn\u00eb k\u00ebrkes\u00eb. (Meier-Br\u00fcgger, 2003:257-258).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Shembuj: <\/strong><\/p>\n

              \n
            1. a) 1 sg.: Plautus Bacchides 1049 quod perdundumsi properem perdere<\/em> \u201c\u00ebhat may be lost, I \u00ebill\/vant to hurry up and lose\u201d; v 296 \u03ac\u03bb\u03bb \u03ac\u03b3\u03b5 \u03bf\u03af \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03ad\u03b3\u03ce \u03b4\u03ce \u03be\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03bd \u201cthus I \u00ebill\/vant to give a gift of \u00ebelcome also to him\u201d; RV 10, 39, 5 pur\u0101n\u0101 v\u0101m v\u012bry\u0101 pr\u0101 brav\u0101 j\u00e1ne <\/em>\u201cyour earlier heroic deeds I \u00ebill\/vant to announce to all people\u201d; RV 6,59,1 pr\u00e1 n\u00fa voc\u0101 sut\u00e9su v\u0101m \u201cOn the occasion of the pressing, I thus \u00ebill\/vant to announce the heroic deeds of both of you.\u201d<\/li>\n
            2. b) pl.: \u03a9 601 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b4\u03cc\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u201cno\u00eb \u00ebe \u00ebill\/vant to think about the meal\u201d; RV 5, 51, 12 svast\u03acye v\u0101y\u00fam \u00fapa brav\u0101mahai <\/em>\u201c\u00cbe \u00ebill\/vant to call to V\u0101yu for the sake of \u00ebelfare.\u201d<\/li>\n
            3. c) 2 nd<\/sup> person: Plautus, Mostellaria<\/em>, 388 taceas \u201cyou should remain silent\u201d; RV 4, 31, 3 abh\u012b s\u00fa nah s\u03ackh\u012bn\u0101 avit\u0101 jaritrn\u0101m satam bhav\u0101si \u016btibhih <\/em>\u201cyou, oh helper of the singer\u2019s friends, \u00ebill\/should protect us \u00ebell \u00ebith a hundred helps.\u201d<\/li>\n
            4. d) 3 rd<\/sup> person: Plautus, Captivi 115 sed uti adserventur magna diligentia<\/em> \u201cbut they should be guarded \u00ebith great care\u201d; H 197 \u03bf\u03cd\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03b2\u03af\u03b7 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03ad\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03ac\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03af\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u201cFor none \u00ebill\/should force me to leave against my o\u00ebn \u00ebill\u201d; H 87 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03ca\u03c0\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03cc\u03c8\u03b9\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u201cand one day, even one of the descendants \u00ebill say\u201d; RV 8, 1, 22 s\u03ac sunvat\u00e9 ca stuvat\u00e9 ca r\u0101sate<\/em> \u201c \u00ebho \u00ebill\/ should give both to him \u00ebho presses, and to him \u00ebho prizes\u201d; RV 10, 81, 7 s\u00e1 no v\u03af\u015bv\u0101ni h\u00e1van\u0101ni josad<\/em> \u201cThat man \u00ebill\/should be friendly and take receipt of all our sacrifices.\u201d (po aty)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

              Mes Mendoz-\u00ebs dhe M. Br\u00fcgger-it, gjejm\u00eb p\u00ebrkim mendimesh, pik\u00ebrisht n\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktimin e funksioneve t\u00eb lidhores, p\u00ebrve\u00e7 funksionit deliberativ, t\u00eb cilin nuk e gjejm\u00eb te M. Br\u00fcgger.<\/p>\n

              Sipas Mutzbauer-it, kuptimi themelor i lidhores \u00ebsht\u00eb q\u00ebndrimi i pritjes (s\u00eb ardhmes), kurse kuptimet e tjera, sipas tij, rrjedhin nga ky kuptim. Mutzbauer pajtohet edhe me at\u00eb se m\u00ebnyra lidhore tregon parashikim, p\u00ebrve\u00e7 k\u00ebsaj ai e b\u00ebn nj\u00eb dallim n\u00eb mes \u201cparashikimit\u201d dhe \u201cpritjes\u201d. \u201cParashikimi e trajton t\u00eb ardhmen sikur ajo t\u00eb ishte e tashme, kurse lidhorja e s\u00eb ardhmes \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb \u201curdh\u00ebrore e humbur\u201d.<\/p>\n

              III. 1. Funksioni volitiv i lidhores<\/p>\n

              Kuptimi volitiv i lidhores ndeshet n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebt i.e., del n\u00eb fjalit\u00eb urdh\u00ebrore dhe d\u00ebshirore, n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet t\u00eb cilave fol\u00ebsi e shpreh vullnetin e tij n\u00eb form\u00eb nxitjeje a urdhri, p\u00ebrkat\u00ebsisht n\u00eb form\u00eb urimi a mallkimi (Demiraj,1988:872).<\/p>\n

              Kuptimi volitiv i lidhores n\u00eb disa gjuh\u00eb indoevropiane, si:<\/p>\n

              Sanskritishte – Volitiv<\/em>.- n\u00eb p\u00ebrdorimin e saj volitiv lidhorja ne sanskritishte paraqitet n\u00eb shprehjet si,\u00a0 I am resolved to be a disciple of Brahma; \u2018Un\u00eb jam i vendosur t\u00eb jem apostull i Brahmas;\u2019 \u2018\u00ebe are resolved to find\u2019; \u2018ne jemi t\u00eb vendosur t\u00eb gjejm\u00eb;\u2019 \u2018let us confer together;\u2019 \u2018le t\u00eb diskutojm\u00eb s\u00eb bashku;\u2019 \u2018mount the chariot;\u2019 \u2018listen to my \u00ebords;\u2019 \u2018d\u00ebgjoj fjal\u00ebt e mia;\u2019 mohore: \u2018smite us not in the battle;\u2019 \u2018mos na goditni n\u00eb betej\u00eb;\u2019 \u2018fear not;\u2019 mos ke frik\u00eb.<\/p>\n

              E ardhmja. <\/em>N\u00eb p\u00ebrdorimin e s\u00eb ardhmes, lidhorja e sanskritisht\u00ebs paraqitet n\u00eb shprehjet si \u2018you \u00ebill please me\u2019 ti do t\u00eb m\u00eb k\u00ebnaq\u00ebsh\u2019 \u2018the red of the morning \u00ebill appear;\u2019 m\u00ebngjesi i kuq\u00ebrrem\u00eb do t\u00eb shfaqet;\u2019 pyet\u00ebse: \u2018\u00ebho \u00ebill give it to you\u2019; \u2018kush do t\u00eb jep k\u00ebt\u00eb ty?\u2019<\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

              Greqishte. Volitiv<\/em>. N\u00eb greqishte p\u00ebrdorimet e volutivit pohues jan\u00eb t\u00eb kufizuara pothuasje vet\u00ebm n\u00eb vet\u00ebn e par\u00eb, p.sh.: \u03ad\u03b3\u03ce \u03b4\u03ce \u03be\u03ad\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u2018I am determined to give him a guest-present\u2019, \u2018un\u00eb kam vendosur q\u00eb t\u2019i jap atij nj\u00eb dhurat\u00eb mysafirit,\u2019 apo \u2018let me give him\u2019, \u2018le t\u2019ja jap atij\u2019 \u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 \u0424\u03c1\u03b1\u03b6\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u2018let us consider\u2019, \u2018le ta mendojm\u00eb\u2019. Mohore \u03bc\u03ae \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 ; \u03bc\u03ae \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2.<\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

              Latinishte. P\u00ebrdorimet volitive jan\u00eb t\u00eb paraqitura mir\u00eb n\u00eb fjalit\u00eb nxit\u00ebse, n\u00eb urdh\u00ebrore dhe n\u00eb ndalesa. P\u00ebrdorimet e s\u00eb ardhmes jan\u00eb zhdukur, p\u00ebrve\u00e7 deri n\u00eb nj\u00eb mas\u00eb kur ato shfaq\u00ebn n\u00eb d\u00ebftoren e s\u00eb ardhmes in \u2013am (regam, audiam, etc.)<\/em>, dhe n\u00eb d\u00ebftoren e s\u00eb kryer\u00ebs t\u00eb s\u00eb ardhmes. P\u00ebr nga origjina k\u00ebto kan\u00eb qen\u00eb lidhore.<\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

              Gjermanishte. N\u00eb gjuh\u00ebt gjermanike, format e lidhores jan\u00eb zhdukur, por funksionet e lidhores (volitivi dhe e ardhmja) jan\u00eb shnd\u00ebrruar n\u00eb d\u00ebshirore, si n\u00eb \u2018let us make here three tabernacles;\u2019 \u2018le t\u2019i nd\u00ebrtojm\u00eb kat\u00ebr tenda k\u00ebtu\u2019, \u2018be kindly dosposed\u2019, \u2018t\u00eb jesh i rregulluar mir\u00eb\u2019; \u2018lie not\u2019, \u2018mos g\u00ebnje\u2019.<\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

              Sllavishte. N\u00eb gjuh\u00ebt sllave po ashtu forma e lidhores \u00ebsht\u00eb zhdukur, por sikurse n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebt gjermanike, jan\u00eb gjetur shenja t\u00eb p\u00ebrdorimit volitiv n\u00eb d\u00ebshirore. (E. Bennett, 1982:152-153).<\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

              III. 2. Funksioni deliberativ i lidhores<\/strong><\/p>\n

              \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

              Pasi emri n\u00ebnkupton pyetje reale pritet p\u00ebrgjigje q\u00eb ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me nj\u00eb pyetje reale. N\u00eb prezantimin e fol\u00ebsit ka pasiguri n\u00eb lidhje me p\u00ebrgjigjen. Ndryshe nga pohorja pyet\u00ebse, ajo nuk k\u00ebrkon nj\u00eb pyetje p\u00ebr v\u00ebrtet\u00ebsin\u00eb, por p\u00ebr mund\u00ebsi, ndihmesa, vendndodhje etj.<\/p>\n

              Me fjal\u00eb t\u00eb tjera, nuk pyetet \u00c7far\u00eb?, apo Pse?, por Si?, N\u00ebse?, Ku?\u00a0 Nganj\u00ebher\u00eb mund t\u00eb b\u00ebhen pyetje p\u00ebr obligim moral, si pyetje retorike, por n\u00eb nj\u00eb rast t\u00eb till\u00eb, p\u00ebrgjigjja e pritur \u00ebsht\u00eb e pasigurt (B. \u00cballace, 1997:466). Sipas Fiedler-it \u201cN\u00eb fjalit\u00eb deliberative fol\u00ebsi pyet p\u00ebr mendimin e partnerit me t\u00eb cilin bisedon, pa v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb dukje mendimin e vet, por me koniuktivin polemik (shpeshher\u00eb n\u00eb kuadrin e pyetjeve retorike) v\u00ebrtet ai d\u00ebshiron gjithashtu t\u00eb njoh\u00eb mendimin e huaj; por q\u00eb n\u00eb fillim ai jep t\u00eb kuptohet se k\u00ebt\u00eb mendim t\u00eb huaj ai e refuzon.\u201d (Fiedler, Gj. Alb. V-1975-f.32, cit, nga Demiraj, f.873).<\/p>\n

              Shembuj:<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. \u03bc\u03ae \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc \u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af \u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03c5<\/span>;<\/span> \u03ae \u03c4\u03af \u03c0\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03c5<\/span>; \u03ae \u03c4\u03af \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1<\/span>.<\/span> (\u00cballace B., f. 466)<\/li>\n
              2. \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03ce \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd<\/span> \u03b4\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bd. (po aty, f.466)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Gk.\u00a0p<\/em>\u0113\u0311<\/em>i g\u00e0r\u2026<\/em>\u00a0\u00ed\u014d<\/span><\/em>\u00a0(Mendoza)<\/p>\n

                Gr. e vj.: ti poi\u014d; <\/em>(Demiraj, f.873)<\/p>\n

                Gr. e re: na gr\u00e1ph\u014d k\u00e1the m\u00eara s tus dik\u00fas mu <\/em>(po aty, f.873)<\/p>\n

                1.Edhe pse duket se pyetja ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me nj\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajtje specifike, lidhorja flet p\u00ebr di\u00e7ka tjet\u00ebr. Lidhorja shpreh dyshimin se a do t\u00eb ket\u00eb ushqim, pije apo veshmbathje. 2. Pyetja k\u00ebtu ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb m\u00eb mund\u00ebsin\u00eb. Nx\u00ebn\u00ebsit ne thelb po pyesin se si mendoni q\u00eb ne ti ushqejm\u00eb k\u00ebta njer\u00ebz?\u00a0 Edhe kjo po ashtu \u00ebsht\u00eb deliberative. (B. \u00cballace, 1997:466).<\/p>\n

                 <\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. P\u00ebrqasja mes m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs lidhore dhe m\u00ebnyrave t\u00eb tjera<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                   <\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. 1. M\u00ebnyra lidhore dhe d\u00ebshirore<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Af\u00ebrsia e lidhjes nd\u00ebrmjet lidhores dhe d\u00ebshirores pasqyrohet n\u00eb Sanskritishte. Lidhorja dhe d\u00ebshirorja shkojn\u00eb paralel me nj\u00ebra tjetr\u00ebn n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebn m\u00eb t\u00eb vjet\u00ebr, n\u00eb p\u00ebrdorimin e tyre n\u00eb fjali t\u00eb pavarura, dhe v\u00ebshtir\u00eb se mund t\u00eb dallohen n\u00eb fjali t\u00eb varura.<\/p>\n

                    Sipas Gilis, dometh\u00ebnia origjinale e k\u00ebtyre m\u00ebnyrave dhe historia e zhvillimit t\u00eb tyre \u00ebsht\u00eb shum\u00eb e v\u00ebshtir\u00eb nd\u00ebr shum\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje t\u00eb bezdisshme t\u00eb sintaks\u00ebs krahasimtare\u201d. \u00cbsht\u00eb e v\u00ebrtet\u00eb se n\u00eb greqishte lidhorja i referohet vet\u00ebm s\u00eb ardhmes, p\u00ebrderisa d\u00ebshirorja nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb e lidhur me asnj\u00eb sfer\u00eb. Por lidhorja zakonisht \u00ebsht\u00eb e ardhme sikurse n\u00eb \u201cshould\u201d (duhet), \u201ccould\u201d (kam mundur), etj. P\u00ebrdorimi i lidhores ka qen\u00eb m\u00eb i madh n\u00eb koh\u00ebn e Homerit se sa m\u00eb von\u00eb. Lidhorja e pavarur n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti p\u00ebrdorej m\u00eb lirsh\u00ebm n\u00eb epik\u00eb se sa n\u00eb Atik\u00eb. N\u00eb greqishten moderne lidhorja jo vet\u00ebm q\u00eb e ka zhvendosur d\u00ebshiroren por edhe t\u00eb ardhmen, dhe pothuajse ka hyr\u00eb brenda fjalive n\u00ebnrendit\u00ebse (Thumb, Handb<\/em>., pp. 115, 126). E ardhmja ind. n\u00eb greqishten moderne \u00ebsht\u00eb qa, (qana), dhe lidhore. G. Hamilton, e mbithekson k\u00ebt\u00eb duke th\u00ebn\u00eb: \u201ckjo lidere e m\u00ebnyrave, e cila q\u00ebndron absolute dhe e vetme, i ka t\u00eb gjitha m\u00ebnyrat e tjera q\u00eb var\u00ebn nga ajo\u201d. \u00cbsht\u00eb e mundur q\u00eb fillimisht k\u00ebto dy m\u00ebnyra jan\u00eb p\u00ebrdorur t\u00eb pandara. Vandacle, sjell prova p\u00ebr nj\u00eb dallim t\u00eb madh nd\u00ebrmjet t\u00eb dy m\u00ebnyrave, por si nuk tregon se \u00e7far\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb ky dallim. Jan\u00eb zhvilluar ve\u00e7ori p\u00ebrtej dyshimeve n\u00eb p\u00ebrdorimin e tanish\u00ebm, por ato nuk jan\u00eb dallime t\u00eb m\u00ebdha. Gjuha iraniane, sanskritishte dhe greqishte jan\u00eb t\u00eb vetmet gjuh\u00eb q\u00eb e kan\u00eb pasur edhe lidhoren edhe d\u00ebshiroren (A. T. Robertson. 1923:925-926). Brugmann, k\u00ebto dy kategori i percepton si rind\u00ebrtime tradicionale t\u00eb Proto-Indoevropianishtes, t\u00eb cilat i ka njohur si kategori t\u00eb pavarura gjuh\u00ebsore. Ai pavar\u00ebsin\u00eb e k\u00ebtyre m\u00ebnyrave e dallonte duke u nisur nga struktura apo ta quajm\u00eb forma e tyre, pa mohuar faktin e p\u00ebrzierjes s\u00eb k\u00ebtyre m\u00ebnyrave n\u00eb disa gjuh\u00eb i.e. \u201cD\u00ebshirorja (optativi) i.e. dallohej morfologjikisht nga m\u00ebnyrat e tjera n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet formave t\u00eb saj t\u00eb posa\u00e7me, q\u00eb dilnin me -(i)\u1e2de-: -i-<\/em> dhe -(i)i-,<\/em> si p.sh. s-(i) ie-t<\/em> \u201cqoft\u00eb\u201d, s-i-te \u201cqofshi\u201d<\/em> etj. Por n\u00eb shumic\u00ebn e gjuh\u00ebve i.e kjo m\u00ebnyr\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb p\u00ebrzier q\u00eb n\u00eb koh\u00eb t\u00eb hershme me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn lidhore. \u201cVet\u00ebm arishtja [=dega ariane] dhe greqishtja, sidomos greqishtja, i kan\u00eb ruajtur t\u00eb dalluara nga nj\u00ebra-tjetra lidhoren e lasht\u00eb indoevropiane dhe d\u00ebshiroren e lasht\u00eb indoevropiane dhe k\u00ebshtu k\u00ebto dy deg\u00eb gjuh\u00ebsore sh\u00ebrbejn\u00eb si udh\u00ebtreguesit m\u00eb kryesor\u00eb p\u00ebr p\u00ebrcaktimin e prehistoris\u00eb s\u00eb k\u00ebtyre dy m\u00ebnyrave n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebt e tjera indoevropiane\u201d (Brugmann, Grundriss, II, 3, 518,835, cit. nga Demiraj, f.707).<\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. 2. M\u00ebnyra lidhore dhe urdh\u00ebrore<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      M\u00ebnyra urdh\u00ebrore p\u00ebrdoret p\u00ebr t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb urdhra, ashtu si\u00e7 tregon vet emri i saj. N\u00eb fjalin\u00eb “Brush your teeth before bedtime,” <\/em>“Laj dh\u00ebmb\u00ebt tuaj para gjumit”, folja \u00ebsht\u00eb n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn urdh\u00ebrore. Duhet t\u00eb theksohet k\u00ebtu se n\u00eb shumic\u00ebn e gjuh\u00ebve indoevropiane ka m\u00ebnyra t\u00eb tjera p\u00ebr t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nj\u00eb urdh\u00ebr, pik\u00ebrisht lidhorja (sikur\u00a0 kur themi, “You must brush your teeth before bedtime”)<\/em> (“Duhet t\u2019i lash dh\u00ebmb\u00ebt para gjumit”), por m\u00ebnyra urdh\u00ebrore \u00ebsht\u00eb m\u00ebnyra m\u00eb themelore p\u00ebr t\u00eb shprehur urdh\u00ebr. N\u00eb latinisht, sikurse n\u00eb anglisht, ka forma t\u00eb urdh\u00ebrores vet\u00ebm p\u00ebr vet\u00ebn e dyt\u00eb (nj\u00ebj\u00ebs apo shum\u00ebs), pasi q\u00eb n\u00eb gjuh\u00eb ideja e urdh\u00ebrores n\u00ebnkupton se atyre t\u00eb cil\u00ebve nj\u00eb person u jep urdh\u00ebr jan\u00eb po ashtu ata t\u00eb cil\u00ebve dikush u flet apo u shkruan. N\u00ebse dikush d\u00ebshiron t\u00eb jap\u00eb nj\u00eb urdh\u00ebr n\u00eb vet\u00ebn e tret\u00eb n\u00eb latinisht, apo n\u00eb vet\u00ebn e par\u00eb n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebn greke ose latine (“let me do this”) or (“let us do this”)<\/em> (“m\u00eb lejoni ta b\u00ebj\u00eb<\/span> k\u00ebt\u00eb”) ose (“le ta b\u00ebjm\u00eb<\/span> k\u00ebt\u00eb”), at\u00ebher\u00eb\u00a0 p\u00ebrdoret m\u00ebnyra lidhore n\u00eb vend t\u00eb asaj urdh\u00ebrore (Fairbairn, 2011:103).<\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. 3. 1. Pse lidhorja p\u00ebrdoret n\u00eb vend t\u00eb d\u00ebshirores dhe urdh\u00ebrores<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        Brugmann, duke u nisur nga modaliteti i m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs d\u00ebshirore dhe urdh\u00ebrore mendon: \u201cn\u00eb t\u00eb v\u00ebrtet\u00eb, me an\u00eb t\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs d\u00ebshirore dhe urdh\u00ebrore em\u00ebrtohen veprime, kryerja e t\u00eb cilave, n\u00eb \u00e7astin e ligj\u00ebrimit ose pas tij, objektivisht nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb e sigurt\u00eb por vet\u00ebm e mundshme. Ky fakt, mendoj, e ka b\u00ebr\u00eb t\u00eb mundur p\u00ebrdorimin e s\u00eb tashmes s\u00eb lidhores me kuptim modal t\u00eb d\u00ebshirores dhe t\u00eb urdh\u00ebrores si edhe zhdukjen e hershme t\u00eb d\u00ebshirores n\u00eb shumic\u00ebn e gjuh\u00ebve i.e.\u201d (Brugmann, Grundriss, II, 3, 563, cit. nga Demiraj,f.707). Demiraj, shprehet duke p\u00ebrcaktuar koh\u00ebn e foljes n\u00eb lidhore: … format e s\u00eb tashmes s\u00eb lidhores t\u00eb p\u00ebrdorura me vler\u00ebn e m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs d\u00ebshirore, p\u00ebrkat\u00ebsisht urdh\u00ebrore, me t\u00eb drejt\u00eb nuk trajtohen si forma homonimike t\u00eb k\u00ebtyre dy m\u00ebnyrave (Demiraj, 1988:704).<\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. 4. M\u00ebnyra lidhore dhe d\u00ebftore<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          Sipas A. Scherer (1969), “lidhorja nxjerr p\u00ebrfundimin nga nj\u00eb situat\u00eb e caktuar. Prandaj lidhorja tregon gjendjen e pun\u00ebve, e cila sipas fakteve p\u00ebrkat\u00ebse, mund t\u00eb pranohen si faktike, nd\u00ebrsa d\u00ebftorja tregon se \u00e7far\u00eb fol\u00ebsi di (ose beson se di), ose e pohon si nj\u00eb fakt\u201d. Nga pik\u00ebpamja e subjektit, ngjarja ndodh n\u00eb t\u00eb v\u00ebrtet\u00eb. Ose, n\u00eb rastin e nj\u00eb pyetje, q\u00ebllimi \u00ebsht\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb pyetje p\u00ebrderisa ngjarja ndodh n\u00eb t\u00eb v\u00ebrtet\u00eb. P\u00ebr shembull, dikush mund t\u00eb thot\u00eb, “Lauren is a great latin teacher,” or one may ask, “Is Lauren a great teacher?” “Laureni \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb m\u00ebsues i mrekulluesh\u00ebm i latinishtes”, ose mund t\u00eb shtrohet pyetja, “A \u00ebsht\u00eb Lauren nj\u00eb m\u00ebsues i mrekulluesh\u00ebm? “N\u00eb t\u00eb dyja rastet folja “\u00ebsht\u00eb” \u00ebsht\u00eb n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn d\u00ebftore (Fairbairn, 2011:103).<\/p>\n

                          Rezultate<\/strong><\/p>\n

                          Ne me k\u00ebt\u00eb punim jemi munduar sadopak ta pasqyrojm\u00eb, pun\u00ebn hulumtuese t\u00eb gjuh\u00ebtar\u00ebve t\u00eb m\u00ebparsh\u00ebm dhe \u00e7far\u00eb e ka karakterizuar lidhoren sipas tyre, si n\u00eb aspektin formal dhe n\u00eb at\u00eb funksional. Nga ajo q\u00eb shtruam m\u00eb lart pam\u00eb se gjuh\u00ebtar\u00ebt kan\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb konkluzione t\u00eb ndryshme p\u00ebr lidhoren. V\u00ebshtrimin n\u00eb nj\u00eb pik\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrbashk\u00ebt nga ta, e v\u00ebm\u00eb re n\u00eb dallimin e zanoreve tematike t\u00eb lidhores -e-\/-o- <\/em>dhe -a-.<\/em> Kurse p\u00ebr pik\u00ebpamjen funksionale t\u00eb saj, kemi hasur n\u00eb konkluzione t\u00eb ndryshme dhe kritike.<\/p>\n

                          Disa karakteristika:<\/p>\n

                          Tema e lidhores nd\u00ebrtohej nga ajo e d\u00ebftores n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet nj\u00eb elementi tem\u00ebformues, q\u00eb tek disa folje ishte -e-\/-o- <\/em>dhe -a-.<\/em><\/p>\n

                           <\/p>\n

                          Morfologjikisht lidhorja dallonte nga d\u00ebftorja n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet elementit tem\u00ebformues, si: \u0113, \u014d dhe \u0101; p.sh.: *ese-t (t\u00eb jet\u00eb)<\/em> p\u00ebrkundrejt d\u00ebftores *es-ti, *\u00e1\u011d\u0113-t(i)<\/em> p\u00ebrkundrejt d\u00ebftores *\u00e1\u011de-ti (b\u00ebn-vepron)<\/em> dhe pjes\u00ebrisht -\u0101-,<\/em> si p.sh.: *\u00e1\u011d\u0101-t<\/em> p\u00ebrkundrejt d\u00ebftores *\u00e1\u011de-ti<\/em>.<\/p>\n

                           <\/p>\n

                          Edhe n\u00eb raport me d\u00ebshiroren, t\u00eb dy m\u00ebnyrat kan\u00eb pasur forma t\u00eb ndryshme, d.m.th. d\u00ebshirorja p\u00ebr kund\u00ebr lidhores ka dal\u00eb me k\u00ebto elemente: -(i)\u1e2de-: -i-<\/em> dhe -(i)i-,<\/em> si p.sh. s-(i) ie-t<\/em> \u201cqoft\u00eb\u201d, s-i-te \u201cqofshi\u201d etj.<\/em><\/p>\n

                          \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

                          N\u00eb aspektin kuptimor lidhoren e karakterizonte kuptimi volitiv, deliberativ, prospektiv, potencial. Nd\u00ebr k\u00ebto kuptime n\u00eb t\u00eb shumt\u00ebn e rasteve kemi hasur n\u00eb gjuh\u00ebtar\u00eb, t\u00eb cil\u00ebt e merrnin n\u00eb thumb ja kuptimin volitiv, ja prospektiv si kuptim themelor t\u00eb lidhores.<\/p>\n

                          Shenjat<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
                          ><\/td>\n=<\/td>\nKa kaluar fonetikisht<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          <<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nKa dal\u00eb fonetikisht<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          *<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nForm\u00eb e supozuar<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          \/<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nKund\u00ebrv\u00ebnie<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          \u0335<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nZanore e gjat\u00eb<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          \u030c<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nZanore hundore<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          \u032f<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nGjysm\u00ebzanore<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          \u02f3<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nSonante rrokjeformuese<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          \u02f5 \u02f6<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nThonj\u00ebzat<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          \u02f8<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nDypikat<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          ;<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nPik\u00ebpresja<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          <\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          Terma gjuh\u00ebsor\u00eb<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          Sbj.<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nSubjunktivi (lidhorja)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          Ind.<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nIndikativi (d\u00ebftorja)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          Opt.<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nOptativi (d\u00ebshirorja)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          Nj.<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nNj\u00ebj\u00ebs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          Sh.<\/p>\n

                          Aor.<\/p>\n

                          Akt.<\/td>\n

                          		=<\/p>\n

                          =<\/p>\n

                          =<\/td>\n

                          		Shum\u00ebs<\/p>\n

                          Aoristi (e kryera e thjesht\u00eb)<\/p>\n

                          Aktiv (veprore)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

                          <\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          Gjuh\u00eb dhe dialekte<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          Lat.<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nLatinisht<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          Skt.<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nSanskritisht<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          Gr.<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nGreqisht<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          Prs.<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nPersisht<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          PIE<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nParaindoevropian<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          i.e.<\/td>\n=<\/td>\nIndoevropian<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                          Osc.<\/p>\n

                          Arm.<\/p>\n

                          Ved.<\/p>\n

                           <\/td>\n

                          		=<\/p>\n

                          =<\/p>\n

                          =<\/td>\n

                          		Oscan<\/p>\n

                          Armenisht<\/p>\n

                          Vedik<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                           <\/p>\n

                          BIBLIOGRAFIA<\/strong><\/p>\n

                           <\/p>\n

                            \n
                          1. Adrados, Francisco R., Bernab\u00e9, Alberto, Mendoza, Julia, Manual de ling\u00fc\u00edstica indoeuropea III, Ediciones Cl\u00e1sicas, 1998.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                             <\/p>\n

                              \n
                            1. Demiraj, Shaban, Gramatika historike e gjuh\u00ebs shqipe, Rilindja, Prishtin\u00eb1988.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                               <\/p>\n

                                \n
                              1. E. Bennett ,Charles ,Syntax of Early Latin I-II, 1982.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                 <\/p>\n

                                  \n
                                1. Fairbairn, Donald, Understanding Language: A Guide for Beginning Students of Greek and Latin…, 2011.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                   <\/p>\n

                                  5 .Gonda, Jan Die indischen sprachen, E. J. Brill, Leiden-K\u00f6ln, 1971.<\/p>\n

                                   <\/p>\n

                                  6.Kerns, J. Alexander, Isadore Schwartz , Benjamin, A Sketch of the Indo-European Finite Verb, Printed in the Netherlands, 1972.<\/p>\n

                                   <\/p>\n

                                    \n
                                  1. Likaj, Ethem , Fleksioni indoevropian, Tiran\u00eb, 2005.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                     <\/p>\n

                                    8.Meier-Br\u00fcgger, Fritz,\u00a0 Michael, Matthias, Mayrhofer, Manfred, Indo-European Linguistics, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003.<\/p>\n

                                     <\/p>\n

                                    9.Quiles, Carlos & Lopez-Menchero, Fernando , A grammar of Modern Indo-European, Spain, 2011.<\/p>\n

                                     <\/p>\n

                                      \n
                                    1. Robertson, A. T, A grammar of the Greek new testament, 1923.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                       <\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      1. S.P. Beekes, Robert, Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An introduction. Second edition, 1995.<\/li>\n
                                      2. Shields, K. A history of Indo-European Verb Morphology, Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1992.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                         <\/p>\n

                                          \n
                                        1. Wallace, B. Daniel, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan , 1997.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                           <\/p>\n

                                            \n
                                          1. W. Fortson, Benjamin IV , Indo-European Language and Culture, Blackwell Poblishing, 2004.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                             <\/p>\n

                                            Sejdi M.Gashi, PhD kandidat<\/em><\/p>\n

                                            Instituti Albanologjik- Prishtin\u00eb<\/em><\/p>\n

                                            www. institutialbanologjik.com<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

                                            Mob: +377 (0)44 462-890
                                            \ne-mail:\u00a0                                            sejdi.iap@hotmail.com<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

                                             <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                            Msc.Sejdi M.Gashi Instituti Albanologjik-Prishtin\u00eb sejdi.iap@hotmail.com   MBI M\u00cbNYR\u00cbN LIDHORE T\u00cb FOLJES N\u00cb DISA\u00a0 GJUH\u00cb INDOEVROPIANE (SANSKRITISHTE, GREQISHTE, LATINISHTE, GJERMANISHTE DHE SLLAVISHTE) \u00a0 Abstrakt<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5871,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5870","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-kritike"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5870","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5870"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5870\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5872,"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5870\/revisions\/5872"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/5871"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5870"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5870"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5870"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}