The Proto-East-Slavic Change of Initial je- to o- and Similar Developments in the Other Slavic Languages

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Slavic Languages

scholarly journals ‘Knowing How’ in Slovene: Treading the Other Path

Slovene ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Sonnenhauser
Keyword(s):  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Peculiar Feature ◽  
Linguistic Expression ◽  
Knowing How ◽  
Know How ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Modal Verb ◽  
Contemporary Standard

For the linguistic expression of the concept of knowledge, the Slavic languages use verbs deriving from the Indo-European roots *ĝnō and *ṷei̭d. They differ in terms of the availability of both types of verbs in the contemporary standard languages and in terms of their semantic range. As will be shown in this paper, these differences are interesting not only from a language-specific lexicological point of view, but also in the context of the intersection of lexicon and grammar. Covering the domain of ‘knowing how,’ the *ĝnō-based verb in Slovene (znati) has been extending into the domain of possibility and, on this basis, developing into a modal verb. While this development is not surprising from a typological point of view, it is remarkable from a Slavic perspective, since this particular grammaticalisation path towards possibility is otherwise unknown to Slavic. This peculiar feature of Slovene, which most probably relates to its long-lasting and intensive contact with German, is illustrated in the present paper by comparing Slovene to Russian on the basis of three main questions: 1) the semantic range of vedeti / vedatʹ and znati / znatʹ, 2) the lexicalisation of ‘know how,’ and 3) the relation between knowledge, ability, and possibility. The focus is on contemporary Slovene and Russian, leaving a detailed diachronic investigation and the further embedding into a larger Slavic and areal perspective for future analyses.

scholarly journals Herrscherschaft and herrschersuffix in Central-East European languages

Linguistica ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-18
Author(s):  
Sorin Paliga
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ages ◽  
Unknown Origin ◽  
The Other ◽  
Early Middle Ages ◽  
East European ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
European Languages ◽  
Local Leader ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
Large Distribution

The paper resumes a topic the author approached in severa[ instances beginning with 1987: some specific terms referring to the semantic sphere Herrscherschafi. In Romanian, ban, jupîn, stăpîn and probably also cioban reflect the indigenous Thracian substratum; these forms also reflect the archaic Indo-European Herrschersujfzx -n-. In Slavic, their equivalent forms ban, župan and stopan reflect either a Late Thracian or (Proto-)Romanian influence. Equally Rom. vătaf reflects the substratum influence, whereas Slavic vatah, vatak, vataš reflects the same borrowing. On the other hand, Slavic gospodƄ, belongs to the archaic Proto-Slavic core elements, while cěsaŕƄ, reflect a Germanic influence. Finally, Rom. boier is an East-Romance innovation derived from bou 'ox' and initially meant 'owner of cattle = rich man', a traditional association between cattle-owners and richness. The word had a large distribution from the early Middle Ages until late in the 20th century.In a paper written some 15 years ago (Paliga 1987, in Linguistica, Ljubljana) 1 dared suggest that a series of Romanian and Slavic terms referring to social and political organisation, specifically ban (1) 'master, local leader' and (2) 'coin, money' (2nd sense derived from the lst one),jupîn (formerly giupîn) 'a master', 'a master, a lord', cioban 'a shepherd', rather reflect a compact etymological group of Pre-Romance and Pre-Slavic origin (including cioban, incorrectly considered a Turkish influence, seemingly starting from the erroneous, but largely spread hypothesis that intervocalic -b- in Romanian would rather suggest a newer origin 1 ). To these, on another occasion, I added the form vătaf,vătah (also with parallels in some Slavic languages, Paliga 1996: 34-36) and on another occasion 1 analysed the form boier, also spread in many neighbouring languages, which has often been considered either of unknown origin or again of Turkic (not Turkish, i.e. Ottoman) origin (Paliga 1990; see also our main studies gathered together in a single volume, Paliga 1999).

Schleicher, Čelakovský, and the Family-Tree Diagram

1975 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. M. S. Priestly
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Family Tree ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Family ◽  
Tree Diagram ◽  
History Of Linguistics ◽  
History Of ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
And Linguistics

Summary The first family-tree diagram in August Schleicher’s (1821–68) published work appeared in 1853, seven years after his first printed discussion of the family-tree concept. In 1853 there also appeared Čteni o srovnavaci mluvnici slovanské by the Czech scholar František Ladislav Čelakovský (1799–1852); this book also contained a family-tree diagram. Since Čelakovský and Schleicher were contemporaries in Prague for over two years, their interrelationship is of interest: was this rivalry of collaboration? At first sight, a coincidence seems improbable. In the available work on and by Schleicher, Čelakovský is never mentioned; in the writings on and by Čelakovský, Schleicher’s name is never linked to his. However, the two had very many common interests. Apart from being colleagues at Charles University, they shared the same friends and enemies, were both interested in music and botany, and so on. Moreover, both were working on Slavic Historical Linguistics during the period in question. On the other hand, their personalities were such that the possibility of a mutual antipathy must not be excluded. Given the background to Čelakovský’s life and work, including the legends of the common origin of the Slavs and the obviously close interrelationships of the Slavic languages; the burgeoning of interest in Slavic history and linguistics, and in Panslavicism; the popularity of genealogy; and the developments in classificatory techniques along natural scientific lines, it is argued that Čela-kovský’s depiction of a family-tree for the Slavic languages could be quite naturally expected from him at this point in time, without any influence from Schleicher. On the other hand, Schleicher’s first family-tree diagrams were the next logical step in his own development. Moreover, the actual form of the diagrams in question suggests that they may indeed have been developed independently. This puzzle in the history of linguistics remains unsolved: collaboration, rivalry, and coincidence are all possible.

scholarly journals Historicodogmatic Treatise by Elias Meniates and its 18th-century Serbian Translators from Greek

Slovene ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dzhamilia N. Ramazanova
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Final Stage ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Russian Translation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Translation ◽  
The One ◽  
Catholic Churches

The article discusses the history of translation by the 18th-century Serbian translators of the Greek treatise “Πέτρα σκανδάλου” (“Rock of Offence”) written by the theologian and preacher Elias Meniates (1667–1714) in which he deals with the causes of interconfessional polemic between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. The history of these translations is placed within the context of interest in Meniates’ works, evidenced in Europe and in the Christian East throughout the 18th century. The vivid style and argumentation of Meniates inspired Stefan Pisarev, inter alia, to translate “Πέτρα σκανδάλου” into Russian, which he did in 1744. In the focus of our research are manuscripts stored in several Serbian libraries and archive collections, namely, manuscripts of “Πέτρα σκανδάλου” translations made by Jovan Mladenović (in 1742) and Vićentije Rakić (in 1797/98). In the study we present, the biographies of the two authors of these unpublished translations are traced and defined more accurately. At the final stage of the study, we correlate the historical settings and probable reasons motivating Mladenović and Rakić to make the Serbian translations of the Greek treatise “Πέτρα σκανδάλου”, on the one hand, and the factors leading to the emergence of a Russian translation of the same treatise by Pisarev, on the other. As believed by the author of this article, the aforementioned translations will serve as a valuable linguistic source for historians of Slavic languages and letters in their comparative studies.

scholarly journals Беларуская лінгвістычная тэрміналогія: праблемы фіксацыі і функцыянавання

2014 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 259-276
Author(s):  
Яўгенiя [IAŭheniia] Волкава [Volkava]
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Indefinite Article ◽  
Educational Literature ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
History Of ◽  
Indefinite Pronoun ◽  
The One

Belarusian linguistic terminology: some problems of functioning and fixationThe article considers functioning and fixation of the Belarusian linguistic terminology. Scientific papers, textbooks for schools and universities, terminological and general­purpose dictionaries are under consideration.Brief excursus on the history of the Belarusian linguistics showed the diversity and randomness of the terms creation processes. Contradictions in the views of linguists on the development of the Belarusian linguistics and terminology were revealed: on the one hand, the orientation on Russian terminological system, on the other hand there is an intention to turn terminology to the national direction. Simultaneously internationalization of terminology, the process typical for other Slavic languages, occurs.This article demonstrates inconsistencies in the use of Belarusian terms indefinite pronoun and definite/indefinite article (and some other terms) in scientific, educational literature and in various dictionaries.The article argues that Russian terminological system prevails in education and subsequently affects the discourse of Belarusian linguistics.The author believes that another problem of Belarusian terminology is a relatively small amount of a Belarusian linguistics discourse and limited subjects of studies, which does not allow to settle the terms.In these difficult circumstances, an appeal to the experience of other Slavic languages with a more developed system of terminology and with an extensive linguistic discourse can help.

scholarly journals Subordinate Unless-Clauses

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 473-504
Author(s):  
Gašper Ilc ◽  
Irena Zovko-Dinković
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Semantics And Pragmatics ◽  
Npi Licensing

The complex subordinator unless (Cr. osim ako; Sl. razen če) introduces subordinate conditional clauses carrying exceptive meaning. It is usually assumed that unless-clauses are akin to (and replaceable by) negative if-conditional clauses, with the choice of one over the other being governed by semantic and pragmatic factors. This paper investigates subordinate unless-clauses in Croatian and Slovenian in comparison to English, primarily with regard to their interpretation, the possibility of expressing hypothetical and factual meanings, and the (non-)occurrence of pleonastic negation. Based on the data collected from referential corpora of Croatian, Slovenian and English we aim to establish not only the similarities that exist regarding unless-clauses across the three languages, but also some significant differences: as opposed to Croatian and Slovenian, English unless-clauses rarely/ /untypically express hypothetical meanings. As for the occurrence of pleonastic negation in unless-clauses, it never appears in English while in Croatian and Slovenian it is common but completely optional, with Slovenian displaying both properties of pleonastic negation – the assignment of the genitive of negation and no licensing of strong NPIs – and Croatian only one (no strong NPI licensing). Even though unless-clauses in both Slavic languages display very similar properties, their distribution with regard to negation is to some extent different: affirmative unless-clauses are more frequent in Slovenian than in Croatian, while the number of those with overt pleonastic negation is significantly smaller. We conclude that unless-clauses are an example par excellence of the fine-grained interplay of syntax, semantics and pragmatics, which primarily mediates the speaker’s communicative needs and intentions.

scholarly journals Einige Fragen der Aktionsart- und Aspektfunktion im Sprachvergleich

2018 ◽  
pp. 91-108
Author(s):  
Michail L. Kotin
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Present Perfect ◽  
Grammatical Form ◽  
Lexical Aspect ◽  
Grammatical Aspect ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Special Means ◽  
Viewpoint Aspect ◽  
The One

The contribution deals with selected questions of the interaction between the so called “lexical aspect” (the opposition between telicity and atelicity) and the grammatical aspect (or so called “viewpoint”- aspect, i.e. the opposition between perfectivity and imperfectivity) in the languages with and without the overtly encoded aspect. The striking point of the analysis is the “complexive” meaning of aspectual forms and constructions involving lexical atelicity by indicating durativity or iterativity, on the one hand, and grammatical perfectivity by indicating the complexive perspective of the verbal action on the other. This type of aspectuality was a special feature of verbal systems with the aorist category. My claim is, thus, that the contemporary English has a special grammatical form of the “complexive aorist”, i.e. the form of Present Perfect Progressive. The Slavic languages encode this function by using the – unmarked – imperfective forms of the verbs, whereas German uses special means of encoding the very same function on the whole-clause level, such as adverbials or definite vs. indefinite or zero article.

scholarly journals Slavic languages in contact: Turkish -ı- > Serbian, Croatian -r-

2020 ◽  
pp. 49-55
Author(s):  
Marek Stachowski
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Languages In Contact ◽  
Full Explanation

Even though there is no sonantic r̥ in Turkish, some Croatian and Serbian reflexes of Turkish loanwords display an r̥. Such examples form two typologically different groups. One of them can be explained by a purely Slavic phonological proportion. The other group, however, can only be characterised in terms of Turkish phonetics, but its full explanation escapes our analyses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document