Nike Kocijančič Pokorn: A Slovene-English Contrastive Analysis of One
Donald F. Reindl: Hierarchical Ambiguities in Copula Coordinate Structures in Slovene and Other Slavic Languages
Paul Wexler: Why There May Have Been Contacts between Slovenes and Jews before 1000 A.D.
Andreja Žele: Slovenski razvoj besedotvornih pomenov pri izglagolskih samostalnikih, posebno pri glagolniku
Aleksandr D. Duličenko: O naxodke ekzempljara izdanija Pſalter Dauidou (1566) Primoža Trubara
George Thomas: The Impact of Purism on the Development of the Slovene Standard Language
Nikolai Mikhailov: Eine slowenisch-prußische lexikalisch-mythologische Parallele: kres/kresze
Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana
A Slovene-English Contrastive Analysis of One
Slovensko-angleška kontrastivna analiza angleške besede one
Avtorica razpravlja o različnih načinih prevajanja angleške besede one, še posebno v tistih primerih, kjer slovenščina nima podobnega enobesednega ustreznika. Tako analizira tri izvirna besedila (dve angleški in eno slovensko) in pet prevodov (štiri v slovenščino in enega v angleščino). Rezultati naj bi bili v pomoč prevajalcem, ki bi tako lažje našli primerne ustreznice angleškemu one. Avtorica s pomočjo strokovne literature in različnih sodobnih slovnic najprej določi šest različnih funkcij angleškega one, in sicer one kot glavni števnik, one kot splošni osebni zaimek, one kot sestavni del nedoločnih zaimkov anyone, someone, no one in everyone, one kot za-oblika, one kot za-imek in one kot zaimek nedoločnosti. Čeprav slovenščina nima enobesednega ustreznika, ki bi lahko nadomeščal one v vseh funkcijah, lahko na osnovi analiziranih besedil znotraj posameznih funkcij pri prevajanju te besede kljub temu začrtamo določene smernice.
Pri dekodiranju, tj. prevajanju iz angleščine v slovenščino, se one kot glavni števnik ali kot prvi element v paru one-another, one-other v analiziranih besedilih večinoma prevaja s slovenskim glavnim števnikom en -a -o, eden. Opazimo palahko, da prevajalci števnik v slovenščini pogosto izpuščajo pred deli človeškega ali živalskega telesa. Pri enkodiranju, tj. prevajanju iz slovenščine v angleščino, sta prevajalca vedno uporabila števnik one kot prevedek za en, eden. Izjema so bile določene slovenske korelativne strukture (npr. od duri do duri), ki sta jih prevajalca prevedla z one-another in se tako izognila ponovitvi.
Kot slovenski prevedek splošnega osebnega zaimka onenajpogosteje najdemo zaimenski samostalnik človek. V prevodih paniso redke tudi prevodne enote s splošnim vršilcem dejanja in prenesenorabo 2. os. ednine. Pri enkodiranju splošni osebni zaimek one v izvirniku vedno ustreza zaimenskemu samostalniku človek.
One kot del nedoločnega zaimka se po navadi prevaja z ustreznim zaimkom v slovenščini. Tako se no one najpogosteje prevaja z nikalnim zaimkom nihče ali nobeden, anyone s samostalniškim poljubnostnim zaimkom kdo alikdorkoli, someone s samostalniškim nedoločnim zaimkom kdo ali nekdo ter every one s posamostaljenim pridevniškim zaimkom vsak -a -o. V prevodu iz slovenščine v angleščino naj demo en sam primer nedoločnega zaimka z one, ki ustreza zaimku nobeden v izvirniku.
V večini primerov se one kot za-oblika, in sicerone kot nadomestek za jedro samostalniške fraze, prevaja vslovenščino s pridevnikom ali posamostaljenim pridevnikom, ki pa je vedno v določni obliki. Včasih prevajalci uvedejo nov samostalnik, karkaže na to, da tradicionalnega napotka prevajalcem, naj se one vtej funkciji prevaja s posamostaljenim slovenskim pridevnikom, ni mogoče vedno upoštevati. Pri enkodiranju sta prevajalca uporabilaone v tej funkciji le štirikrat, in sicer dvakrat kot prevedek za slovenski pridevnik, dvakrat pa je bil one del njune parafraze izvirnika.
One kot nadomestek za nedoločno samostalniško frazo senajpogosteje prevaja s slovenskimi zaimki, pogosti pa so tudi prevodi s ponovitvijo samostalnika, ki ga zamenjuje one v izvirniku. Včasih pa prevajalci uvedejo tudi delni sinonim oz. parafrazo. V prevodu slovenskega besedila v angleščino prevajalca nista uporabila one vtej funkciji niti enkrat; zdi se, da se prevajalci premalo zavedajo, kako ponovitev istega samostalnika, uvedba delnega sinonima in pretirana uporaba zaimkov niso tako pogosti stilistični prijemi v angleških besedilih kot v slovenskih in da v angleških besedilih v teh primerih pogosteje najdemo v tej funkciji besedo one.
One kot za-imek, tj. kadar pomeni oseba' oz. v množini ljudje', v slovenščini postane poudarjen osebni zaimek, pogosto pa gaprevajalci tudi parafrazirajo. V prevodu v angleščino one v tejfunkciji ustreza poudarjenemu kazalnemu zaimku.
One kot zaimek nedoločnosti se pojavi le pri enkodiranju, in sicer vedno v po menu neki -a -o .
Tako one v funkciji glavnega števnika, splošnega osebnega zaimka, nedoločnega zaimka, za-imka in zaimka nedoločnosti prevajalcem izslovenščine in vanjo ne povzroča resnejših težav, kar pa ne velja zaone v funkciji za-oblike, saj pri dekodiranju kot prevedek nemoremo vedno uporabiti posamostaljenega pridevnika. Poleg tega se zdi, dase prevajalci pri prevajanju v slovenščino premalo zavedajo pogostnosti uporabe tega kohezivnega elementa v angleščini, saj one v tejfunkciji v prevodih zasledimo precej redko.
A Slovene-English Contrastive Analysis of One
The author discusses various means of translating the English wordone, particularly in those instances where Slovene does not have a one-word equivalent. Three original texts are treated (one English and two Slovene) and five translations (four into Slovene and one into English). The results are intended to help translators more easily find appropriate equivalents to English one. With the aid of linguistic literature and various modern grammars, the author defines six distinct functions ofEnglish one: as a cardinal numeral, as a generic person, as acomponent of an indefinite pronoun (anyone, someone, noone, every one), as a nominal substitute, as a pro-noun, and asa pronoun of indefinite unity.
Although Slovene lacks a one-word equivalent in all these functions, one can on the basis of the textual analysis propose for each of the functions certain guidelines for translation.
In decoding, i.e., translating from English to Slovene one as a cardinal numeral or as the first element in the pair one-another, one-other in the analyzed texts is usually translated with the Slovene cardinal numeral en -a -o, eden. It is also observed that translators frequently leave out the numeral before body parts of animate beings. In encoding, i.e., translating from Slovene to English, the translators consistently used the numeral one as atranslation of en, eden. The exceptions were certain Slovenecorrelative structures (e.g., od duri do duri from door todoor'), which the translators translated by one-another and thus avoided repetition.
As a Slovene translation of the generic personal pronoun one the pronominal noun človek is usually found. In translations there are often units of translation with the impersonal verb form withse and metaphorical use of the second person singular. In encoding, the generic personal pronoun one in the original always corresponds to the pronominal noun človek.
One as a part of an indefinite pronoun is usually translated with the appropriate pronoun in Slovene. Thus no oneis translated by the negative pronoun nihče or nobeden;any one by the pronouns kdo or kdorkoli;someone by the pronouns kdo or nekdo; and everyone by the substantivized adjectival pronoun vsak -a-o. In translation from Slovene into English there was only one example of an indefinite pronoun one as an equivalent tonobeden in the original.
In the majority of examples where one stands as a nominal substitute for the head of a nominal phrase, Slovene employs a substantivized adjective, which is al ways in the definite form.Occasionally translators introduce a new noun, which indicates that thetraditional advice to translators about using a substantivized Slovene adjective in this function for English one is not always valid. In encoding the translators used one in this function only fourtimes: twice as a translation of a Slovene adjective, twice onewas their paraphrase of the original.
One as a substitute for an indefinite nominal phrase isusually translated by Slovene pronouns; translations with a repeatednoun as a substitute for one are also frequently enountered. Sometimes translators introduce a near synonym or paraphrase. In the translations from Slovene to English, one was not used in this function even once. Apparently translators are not very aware that the repetition of a noun, the introduction of a near synonym and the excessive use of pronouns are not such frequent stylistic devices in English texts as they are in Slovene; nor that in English texts in thisfunction the word one is usually found.
One as a pro-noun, i.e., in the meaning 'person' or 'people', in Slovene becomes an emphasized personal pronoun, and translators frequently paraphrase it as such. In the translation into English one in this function corresponds to an emphasized demonstrative pronoun.
One as a pronoun of indefinite unity occurs only in encoding and always in the meaning neki -a -o a certain one, some'.
Thus one in the function of a cardinal numeral, a generic person, an indefinite pronoun, a pro-noun, and a pronoun of indefinite unity do not cause particular problems for translators from English toSlovene. This is not true for one in the function of a nominal substitute, since in decoding a substantivized adjective cannot always be used as a translation. Besides this, it seems that translators translating from English to Slovene are relatively unaware of the frequency of the use of this cohesive element in English, as one in this function in translation is rarely encountered.
Donald F. Reindl
Indiana University, Bloomington
Hierarchical Ambiguities in Copula Coordinate Structures in Slovene and Other Slavic Languages
Hierarhične dvoumnosti v vezalnih prirednih strukturah v slovenščini in drugih slovanskih jezikih
Lastnosti prirednosti so vroča tema v sodobni lingvistiki. Mnogi problemi, ki so še danes v ospredju jezikoslovnega raziskovanja, so pritegovali pozornost avtorjev že v času antike. Tako že Aristotel in Dionizij Traški razpravljata o derivaciji in članstvu v prirednih strukturah. V tem stoletju najdemo podobno razpravljanje v delih Bloomfielda in Chomskega.
Identificirati je mogoče nekaj vrst priredja. Vezalno priredje, ki izraža pomen 'in' s priredjem (dostavljanje tipa A B), sestavljanjem (spojitev tipa A B) in vezanjem (besedno povezovanje z veznikom tipa A in B), je glavna tema članka.Priredje in vezanje sta najpogostejša mehanizma prirednosti v slovanskih jezikih. Po van Oirsouwu je vezanje mogoče deliti na zaporedno, identično, hkratno in naključno. Vse štiri vrste seuporabljajo v slovanskih jezikih z večjo ali manjšo stopnjo besedne različnosti.
Dvoumnost v teh vezalnih prirednih strukturah je funkcionalna,odnosna ali hierarhična. Nekateri avtorji so pokazali besednorazdvoumljenje teh dvoumnosti za klasične jezike, npr. staroperzijščino, latinščino, grščino in sanskrt. Čeprav se domneva, da današnji indoevropski jeziki takih struktur besedno nerazdvoumljajo več, nekateri slovanski jeziki vendarle lahko besedno razlikujejo članstvo na višji in nižji ravni v prirednih strukturah.
Slovenščina je v tem pogledu posebno bogata, saj ima tri vezalne veznike: ter, in, pa. Ti izražajo članstvo vprirednih strukturah od strukturno najvišjega do najnižjega, čeprav vnjihovi rabi obstajajo stilistične omejitve. Drugi slovanski jeziki sov zmožnosti, da bi besedno razdvoumili priredne strukture, bolj omejeni.
Slovenščina in nekateri drugi slovanski jeziki imajo za izražanje prirednosti na še nižji ravni dodatni mehanizem s predlogom z(s), npr. midva s Petrom. Vendar v različnih slovanskih jezikih opazimo variacije v slovničnosti in številu udeležencev v teh strukturah. Zlasti slovenščina je v rabi priredja s predlogom z(s) bolj omejena kot ruščina.
Hierarchical Ambiguities in Copula Coordinate Structures in Slovene and Other Slavic Languages
The nature of coordination is a current topic of debate in linguistic research. Many of the issues being discussed today, including derivation and constituency in coordinate structures, were debated by earlier writers, such as Aristotle and Dionysius Thrax, and have been paralleled in this century by linguists such as Bloomfield and Chomsky.
A number of coordination types are recognized. Copulativecoordination, expressing and' is achieved through parataxis (juxtaposition of the type A B), composition (fusion of the type A B) and conjunction (lexical linkage of the type A andB), is the focus of this article. Parataxis and conjunction arethe most frequently employed coordinate mechanisms in the Slavic languages. This latter can be subdivided, à la van Oirsouw, intoordered, identity, concomitant and coincidental conjunction. All four types occur in Slavic with varying degrees of lexical distinction.
Ambiguity in these copula coordinate structures is functional, relational or hierarchical. Lexical disambiguation of these ambiguitieshas been demonstrated or posited for classical languages such as OldPersian, Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. Although it has been assumed that the modern Indo-European languages no longer lexically disambiguate such constructions, some Slavic languages are able lexically to differentiate higher- and lower-level constituency within coordinate structures.
Slovene is particularly capable in this regard, employing three copulative conjunctions: ter, in and pa. These express structurally highest to lowest constituency in coordinate structures,although there are stylistic limitations on their use. Other Slavic languages are more limited in their ability lexically to disambiguate coordinate structures.
A further coordination mechanism, expressed with the prepositionz (s) (e.g., midva s Petrom), can express yet alower level of coordination in Slovene and some other Slavic languages.However, there is cross-linguistic variation in the grammaticality and number of participants of these constructions. In particular, Slovene is more limited than Russian in its use of coordination with thepreposition z (s).
Rada Cossutta
Visoka šola modernih jezikov za tolmače in prevajalce, Univerza v Trstu
Romanske izposojenke v poljedelski terminologiji Slovenske Istre
Za svojo doktorsko disertacijo z naslovom Poljedelska in vinogradniška terminologija v govorih Slovenske Istre je avtorica vletih 1988 -- 90 pod mentorstvom prof. Logarja izvedla terensko raziskavov 10 raziskovalnih točkah, enakomerno pokrivajočih ozemlje vse Slovenske Istre (1. Malija; 2. Padna; 3. Krkavče; 4. Gažon; 5. Šmarje;6. Koštabona; 7. Pomjan; 8. Boršt; 9. Marezige; 10. Trebeše). Z vidika izrazja različnih kmetijskih panog je obsežno gradivo razdelila na 7 poglavij (I. Kmečko orodje, pridelki, delo na polju in v hlevu; II. Navrtu in v sadovnjaku; III. Vinogradništvo; IV. Nekatere rastline in drevesa in opravila z njimi; V. Reja živali; VI. Čebelarstvo; VII.Oljarstvo) in ga nato etimološko utemeljila. Prispevek je kratek povzetek prvega poglavja, v katerem avtorica obravnava romanizme v izrazju za kmečko orodje in skuša ugotoviti, iz katerega od sosednjih romanskih narečij oz. knjižnega italijanskega jezika so bili prevzeti. Pri razčlembi romanskih izposojenk ugotavlja
Znak * označuje posebno kategorijo romanizmov, in sicer izvedenke s slov. predponami, priponami in končnicami, številka, kije navedena pred romanizmom, pa zaporedje raziskovalnih točk;številka pred posameznimi vprašanji je zaporedna številka vprašalnice, ki sem jo izdelala za to raziskavo na podlagi različnih vprašalnic. več plasti: istrskoitalijansko in tržaško italijansko plast, ki sta najbolje zastopani in ju avtorica uokvirja v širšibeneški areal; furlansko plast, ki sega od srednjeveške donovoveške; italijansko plast, v katero uvršča izraze, ki soneposredno prevzeti iz knjižne italijanščine. Sporadičen je primer dalmatinsko hrvaške izposojenke, medtem ko je popolnoma odsotna latinska plast, ki jo je avtorica zasledila v izrazju drugih kmetijskih panog. Razprava skuša tako začrtati tokove istrske romanizacije, ki so v različnih obdobjih vplivali na narečno diferenciacijo tega dela slovenskega ozemlja.
Romance Borrowing in the Agricultural Terminology of Slovene Istria
For her doctoral dissertation entitled Agricultural andViticultural Terminology in the Dialects of Slovene Istria, theauthor (in 1988 -- 90 under the mentorship of Prof. Tine Logar) conducted a field investigation of ten localities, equally distributed over the entire region of Slovene Istria (1. Malija; 2.Padna; 3. Krkavče; 4. Gažon; 5. Šmarje; 6. Koštabona; 7. Pomjan; 8.Boršt; 9. Marezige; 10. Trebeše). The copious material is divided into seven chapters covering various aspects of agriculture (I.Tools, crops, work in the fields and in the barn; II. Garden and orchard; III. Viticulture; IV. Certain plans and trees and operationsconnected with them; V. Animal husbandry; VI. Beekeeping; VII. Oil production), which are then treated etymologically. The paper is a short summary of the first chapter of the dissertation, in which theauthor treats Romance borrowings in the terminology for agricultural tools and attempts to discover from which form of Romance -- whether from neighboring Romance dialects or standard Italian -- a given term was borrowed. The analysis of Romance borrowings reveals several layers: an Istrian Italian and Trieste Italian layer, which is mostfrequently attested and which is placed in the framework of a widerVenetian areal; a Friulian layer, which extends from the medieval to the modern period; an Italian layer, which includes terms that aretaken directly from standard Italian. Occasionally one finds also Dalmatian Croatian borrowings. However, there is no trace of a Latin layer, which the author has observed in the terminology of other branches of agriculture. Thus the study attempts to reveal of the paths of Istrian Romanization and to delineate the linguistic geography of this Slovene territory.
Paul Wexler
Tel-Aviv University
Why There May Have Been Contacts between Slovenes and Jews before 1000 A.D.
Zakaj je možno, da so obstajali stiki med Slovenci in Židi pred l.1000 n. š.
Običajno se domneva, da so se Židje do konca prvega tisočletjaselili iz Sredozemlja prek severne Francije in Italije na Bavarsko inv Porenje. Judaizirana nemška narečja (znana kot jidiš) naj bi seoblikovala, ko so ti romansko govoreči Židje prevzeli nemška narečja.Tako se jidiš običajno pojmuje kot judaizirana oblika visokonemških narečij. V prispevku je pokazano, kako jezikoslovni dokazi omogočajo vzpostavitev nove teorije o selitvi Židov (tako palestinskih emigrantov kot domorodnih evropskih spreobrnjencev), namreč da so sedo poznega prvega tisočletja n.|š. prek Balkana selili na dvojezična lužiškosrbsko govoreča ozemlja. S tega stališča bi morali jidiš oblikovati balkanski židovski emigranti, ki so govorili enega ali več balkanskih jezikov: romansko, grško in/ali južnoslovansko. V nasprotju z običajnim pojmovanjem je na jidiš najbolje gledati kot na narečje lužiščine, ki je bilo naposled preleksikalizirano s srednjevisokonemškim besedjem (kar je na koncu imelo za posledico slovanski jezik s prevladujočim nemškim besediščem). Prispevek poudarja dokaze, ki izhajajo s slovenskega ozemlja.
Why There May Have Been Contacts between Slovenes and Jews before 1000 A.D.
The traditional view of Jewish settlement history in Europe posits migrations from the Mediterranean region through northern France and Italy into Bavaria and the Rhineland by the end of the first millennium. The Judaized dialects of German (known as Yiddish) were allegedly created when these Romance-speaking Jews switched toregional German dialects. Yiddish has traditionally been defined asa Judaized form of High German dialects. This paper will demonstrate how linguistic evidence allows us to postulate an innovative theory about the migration of Jews (both Palestinian emigres and indigenous European converts) -- namely, through the Balkans into the bilingual Sorbo-German lands by the late first millennium A.D. In this view, Yiddish was created by Balkan Jewish emigres speaking one or more Balkan languages: Romance, Greek and/or South Slavic. Contrary to the common view, Yiddish is best seen as a dialect of Sorbian which eventually became relexified to Middle High German (thus resulting in a Slavic language with an overwhelming German vocabulary). The article specifically emphasizes evidence from the Slovene territory.
Andreja Žele
Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana
Slovenski razvoj besedotvornih pomenov pri izglagolskih samostalnikih, posebno pri glagolniku
Glagolnik z besedotvornim pomenom dejanja (De) je kot izglagolsko tvorjenko med glagolske oblike uvrščal že A. Bohorič in ga poimenoval glagolje. Zastranitev besedotvorne problematike pomeni obravnava izglagolskih tvorjenk glede na spol pri M. Pohlinu in O.Gutsmanu. Vendar tolikokrat ponovljeni spol kot delitvenomerilo tvorjenk dokazuje in opravičuje obstoj skladenjske podstave tvorjenke z izraženim spolom - tako skladenjska podstava predstavlja vmesno slovnično pretvorbeno stopnjo med tvorjenko in njeno pomensko razlago.
Pravi začetek besedotvorja je pri V. Vodniku, ki je opisnopredstavil besedotvorne pomene izglagolskih tvorjenk. Nadaljnji razvoj besedotvorja je opazen pri P. Dajnku in F. Metelku. Slednjise je zgledoval po J. Dobrovskem. Pri P. Dajnku pa prvič zasledimo poimenovanje za besedotvorno vrsto izpeljava -- Ableitung.
F. Levstik je obravnaval glagolnik s stališča jezikovne norme in ga poimenoval glagolšček ali tudi glagolsko ime, ki naj bi v stavkih nadomeščalo nedoločnik.
F. Miklošič je besedotvorje postavil kot samostojno problemskopodročje. Pri njegovih razčlembah tvorjenk stopa v ospredje razmerjepomen : oblika. Zobsežnim številom priponskih obrazil je Miklošič predstavil vsebesedotvorne pomene z možnimi metonimičnimi pomenskimi premikitvorjenk, posredno pa je opozoril na povezavo besedotvorja inskladnje in na njuno medsebojno odvisnost. To pa so že zametkiskladenjskega besedotvorja.
Na tvorbene posebnosti glagolnika in tudi drugih izglagolskihsamostalnikov s stališča glagolskega vida in glagolske(ne)prehodnosti so opozorili R. Perušek, A. Breznik in A. Bajec;slednji je priponska obrazila razvrstil v 24 t. i. pomenskih skupin.
Današnje raziskave J. Toporišiča in A. Vidovič Muhe patemeljijo predvsem na vzročno-posledičnem razmerju med skladnjo inbesedotvorjem in odpirajo možnosti za nadaljnje raziskave na področjuslovenskega besedotvorja.
The Slovene Development of Meanings in Deverbal Nouns,with Particular Reference to the Verbal Noun
The verbal noun with the word-formational meaning of Action (De)as an ordinary substantival derivative from a verb by suffixation wasclassifed as early as A. Bohorič, who used the term glagolje. Acertain stagnation and deviation from progress toward a theory of word-formation is the treatment of substantival derivatives based on genderby M. Pohlin and O. Gutsman. Nevertheless, the fact that gender as a distributional criterion of a complex word is such a recurrent feature also demonstrates the importance of the syntactic base with expressed gender -- so the syntactic base represents an intermediate grammatical transformational phase between a complex word and its semantic base.
The true beginning of Slovene word-formation is represented by V.Vodnik with the description of word-formational meanings ofsubstantival derivatives from verbs. Further developments in word-formation are observed in Dajnko's and Metelko's grammars. F. Metelko had taken J. Dobrovsk as a model, and P. Dajnko introduced the termAbleitung for ordinary derivation by suffixation.
A normative view of the treatment of the verbal noun is represented byF. Levstik with the terms glagolšček or glagolsko ime,which may substitute for the infinitive.
Slovene word-formation was recognized as an independent linguistic field by F. Miklošič. His theory of word-formation revealedthe relationship meaning : form. A comprehensive inventory of suffixal formants represents all word-formational meanings, including the possible metonymic meaning shifts of derivatives. Miklošič hadalso pointed out of the relationship between word-formation andsyntax, and thus to him we may ascribe the concept of syntactic word-formation.
The formational peculiarities of verbal nouns and of otherssubstantival derivatives with respect to verbal aspect and(in)transitive verbs are presented by R. Perušek, A. Breznik and A.Bajec. Finally, all suffixal formants are classified in twenty-fourgroups.
Today the research of J. Toporišič and A. Vidovič Muha are based on the cause and effect relationship between syntax and word-formation and their research opens new possibilities for further research in Slovene word-formation theory.
Elisabeth Seitz
Universität Tübingen
>>Wäre doch Truber ein Kroat gewesen!<< Slovenische Variationen ber das Thema einer gesamtsdslavischen Schriftsprache von der Reformation bis zum Neoillyrismus
>>Ko bi le bil Trubar Hrvat!<<Slovenske variacije na temoskupni južnoslovanski jezik od reformacije do neoilirizma
Kadar koli so se slovenski intelektualci odločali o temeljnih vprašanjih knjižnega jezika, se je vnela večletna srdita razprava, vkateri so vedno prevladali nasprotniki vzpostavitve enotnega južnoslovanskega knjižnega jezika. Težnje k (ponovni) jezikovni enotnosti južnih Slovanov (razen Bolgarov) so se pojavile v reformaciji, v obdobju ilirizma in neoilirizma. V 16. stoletju naj biskupni knjižni jezik temeljil na enem od narečij in tako omogočil razširjati protestantizem tudi med neizobraženim ljudstvom. Cilj ilirizma je bila vzpostavitev skupnega južnoslovanskega knjižnega jezika umetniške književnosti, temelječega na skupnih značilnostihvečine južnoslovanskih idiomov, z namenom, da se z enotno književnostjovseh južnih Slovanov (v nekaterih poskusih vseh Slovanov) ustvarienovit narod. V neolirizmu naj bi skupni južnoslovanski jezik, ki najbi po razpadu Avstro-Ogrske postal državni jezik, služil utrjevanjuzavesti pripadnosti isti državi. Slovenska duhovščina, pisatelji inintelektualci ideji o skupnem južnoslovanskem jeziku večinoma niso bilinaklonjeni. Medtem ko so v 16. stol. Sebastijan Krelj, v 19. StankoVraz in Matija Majar-Ziljski ter v 20. Fran Ilešič zagovarjali približevanje slovenskega jezika hrvaškemu, so v istih obdobjih drugi,predvsem Primož Trubar, Jernej Kopitar, France Prešeren in Ivan Cankarvztrajali, da se slovenski knjižni jezik razvija le v okviru danosti,ki mu jih nudi njegova narečna osnova. Le-ti so prevladali v vsakem odnavedenih poskusov, da bi se ustvaril širši skupni knjižni jezik.Danes, proti koncu 20. stol., ima slovenščina v Sloveniji prvič vzgodovini resnično veljavo na vseh področjih zasebnega in javnegaživljenja.
"If Only Truber Had Been a Croat!" Slovene Variations on the Theme of a Common Slavic Literary Languagefrom the Reformation to the Neo-Illyrian Period
Whenever leading Slovene intellectuals were in the position todecide about a large-scale solution to the literary language question,there was to be a fierce debate for several years, with the minimalist view eventually prevailing. Representatives of three differently motivated movements, the Reformation, Illyrism and Neo-Illyrism, triedto restore the linguistic unity among the South Slavs (mostly excluding the Bulgarians from the start). Accordingly, the literary language forall South Slavs was to be based either on one of the regional dialects, aiming for a wider reading public in order to spread the reformationdoctrine also among the uneducated, or it was to be the language ofsophisticated literature, based on lexical and morphological featurescommon to most South Slavic dialects, in order to create a nation bycreating a national literature for all South Slavs (or, sometimes even wider, for all Slavs). In the third period, in the Neo-Illyrist movement, the idea was to create a common literary language for the useof all inhabitants of a Yugoslav state after the dissolution of theHabsburg Monarchy: the identification of its citizens with their statewas to be strengthened by linguistic unity. The Slovenian clergy's,writers' and intellectuals' attitudes towards suggestions for a commonSouth Slavic literary language, the topic of discussion in the presentpaper, appear to be mostly rather skeptical than friendly, and, whilethere were among the Slovenes men like Sebastian Krelj in the 16th, Stanko Vraz and Matija Majar-Ziljski in the 19th and Fran Ilešič in the20th century, who played the parts of protagonists of a wider conceptof literary language, fusing the Slovene and the Croatian dialectalbasis, there were others who took a minimalist point of view at least as decidedly, accepting nothing outside the Slovene dialects as a basisfor a literary language used by Slovenes. The best known among themwere Primus Truber, Jernej Kopitar, France Prešeren and Ivan Cankar,and it was their minimalist notion of the Slovene literary languagethat each time prevailed in the end. Now, at the end of the 20th century, the Slovene literary language is, for the first time in history, on its way towards validity in all fields of private and public life in the Republic of Slovenia.
Aleksandr D. Duličenko
Tartu Ülikool
O naxodke ekzempljara izdanija Pſalter Dauidou
(1566) Primoža TrubaraO najdbi primerka Trubarjevega Davidovega psaltra (1566) v knjižnici Univerze v Tartuju
Poleti 1990 se je v knjižnici Univerze v Tartuju, v zbirkiBibliotheca Bergmannae No 255, našel izvod Trubarjevega Davidovega psaltra. Knjiga je prišla v Tartu leta 1796 iz knjižnice Johannesa Breitkopfa iz Leipziga. To je dvanajsti znani ohranjeniizvod te Trubarjeve knjige. Članek prinaša podroben prikaztartujskega izvoda in tako omogoča primerjavo z drugimi.
Kot poroča B. Berčič (1968), je bilo doslej znanih 11 ohranjenihizvodov te knjige: štirje v Sloveniji, trije v Nemčiji, dva v Švici,eden na Češkem in eden na Slovaškem. Poleti 1990 smo v znanstveni knjižnici Univerze v Tartuju odkrili dvanajstega. Knjiga je dobro ohranjena. Pogled v knjižnični arhiv nam pove, da je ni nihče uporabljal. Knjiga nosi signaturo Bibliotheca Bergmannae No255 in se nahaja v rokopisnem oddelku. Iz zaznamka na naslovnici je razvidno, da je prispela v Tartu leta 1796 iz knjižnice Johannesa Breitkopfa iz Leipziga. Članek podaja podroben opis tartujskegaizvoda: poleg polnega naslova so opisani tudi drugi njegovi deli -- njihovi začetki in konci -- , tako da omogoča primerjavo s preostalimi enajstimi ohranjenimi izvodi.
Poleg omenjenega Davidovega psaltra smo v knjižnici Tartujske univerze odkrili še izvod v cirilici natisnjene knjige Artikuli (1562), ki sta jo prevedla hrvaška protestanta Stipan Konzul in Anton Dalmatin.
On the Discovery of a copy of Trubar's Pſalter Dauidou (1566) in the Tartu University Library
In the summer of 1990 a copy of Trubar's Pſalter Dauidou was discovered among the library resources of Tartu University in the collection Bibliotheca Bergmannae No 255. This copy came to Tartu in 1796 from the collection of Johannes Breitkopf of Leipzig. This is the twelfth known copy of Trubar's book. The present paper gives a detailed description of the Tartu copy to compare with the texts of the otherextant copies.
According to B. Berčič (1968), there are 11 copies of the Pſalter Dauidou' by Primož Trubar (four copies in Slovenia, three inGermany, two in Switzerland, one in Slovakia, one in the Czech Republic). In the summer of 1990 we discovered the twelfth copy in the Tartu University Scientific Library. The book is well preserved. The registration list reveals that the book has never been checked out. This refers to the collection Bibliotheca Bergmannae No 255 (which is now in the Department of Manuscripts). According to a note made onthe title page the book came from the Johannes Breitkopf collection in1796. The article gives a detailed description of the copy: besides its full name, all parts are described with their beginnings and ends, so that it is possible to compare the texts of the Tartu copy with the other eleven extant copies and identify whether or not there are some textual differences between them.
With regard to South Slavic Protestant editions of the 16th century, aside from the Pſalter Dauidou, a Cyrillic copy of the Artikuli (1562), translated by the Croatian Protestants Stipan Konzul and Anton Dalmatin, was also discovered.
George Thomas
McMaster University, Hamilton
The Impact of Purism on the Development of the Slovene Standard Language
Vpliv purizma na razvoj slovenskega knjižnega jezika
V zgodovini slovenskega knjižnega jezika je purizem igral pomembno vlogo. Usmerjen je bil tako proti zunanjim kot proti notranjim dejavnikom, ki so ogrožali jezik. Od zunanjih sta bila predvsem nemščina, ki je kot dominantni jezik srednje Evrope imela velik vplivna slovenščino na vseh jezikovnih ravninah, in srbohrvaščina, ki je bila dejansko sredstvo mednacionalnega sporazumevanja v bivši Jugoslaviji. Ksenofobični purizem je izločil iz knjižnega jezika večino nemških izposojenk in jih nadomestil z izposojenkami iz drugih slovanskih jezikov in kalki. Ker je glavnina nemških izposojenk ostalav pogovornem jeziku, se je knjižni jezik oddaljil od pogovornega. Podrugi strani pa je bil poskus izločanja številnih skladenjskih in frazeoloških kalkov iz jezika na splošno neuspešen, vsaj s praktičnega stališča. Kljub temu pa je puristični odziv na te prikrite vplive odigral pomembno simbolično vlogo s tem, da je utrdil slovensko jezikovno identiteto v zavesti slovenske jezikovne skupnosti. Besedje iz srbohrvaščine pa je povzročalo posebne zagate slovenskim puristom, ker je v 19. stol. hrvaščina dajala slovenščini sprejemljiva nadomestila za mednarodno in nemško abstraktno besedišče. Pri tem pa jebilo zaradi skupnega položaja v Jugoslaviji in izvorne bližine slovenščine in srbohrvaščine v praksi pogosto težko z gotovostjo razlikovati slovensko gradivo od srbohrvaškega. Zato je sistematično in nepristransko identificiranje tega gradiva ostalo naloga, s katero semorajo slovenski jezikoslovci soočiti v obdobju politične samostojnosti. Kar zadeva notranji razvoj, so puristi včasih skušali arhaizirati in slovanizirati pravopis in oblikoslovje knjižnega jezika.To je v določenih jezikoslovnih krogih pospeševalo vzdušje hiperkorektnosti in pikolovstva. Po drugi plati pa je struja narodoslovnega purizma, ki se začenja z vplivno osebnostjo Jerneja Kopitarja, služila kot protiutež arhaizaciji in slovanizaciji, ker je utemeljevala normo knjižne slovenščine na sodobnih narečjih. To osvetljuje dejstvo, da puristično poseganje v knjižno slovenščino lahkov glavnem označimo kot zmerno in neobremenjeno s skrajnostmi. Vendar jeprav tako jasno, da bo puristični spor, ki se vleče od obdobij Trubarja, Kopitarja, Čopa in Prešerna do danes, ostal pomemben dejavnik tudi v času, ko se določa vloga slovenskega knjižnega jezika na novem družbeno-političnem prizorišču slovenskega jezikovnega področja.
The Impact of Purism on the Development of the Slovene Standard Language
Purism has played a significant role throughout the history of written Slovene. It has been directed at both external and internal threats to the language. Chief among the former have been German, the dominant language of the region, which has influenced the Slovene vernacular at all linguistic levels, and Serbo-Croatian, which served asthe de-facto idiom of inter-ethnic communication in the former Yugoslavia. Xenophobic purism has succeeded in removing most German loanwords from the standard language and replacing them with loanwords from other Slavic languages and calques. Inasmuch as the majority of the German loanwords have been retained in the spoken vernacular this has had the net effect of distancing the standard language from the respective vernacular. On the other hand, the attempt to remove the numerous syntactic and phraseological calques based on German models hasbeen generally unsuccessful in practical terms. However, the puristic reaction to these covert influences has served an important symbolic function in emphasizing a sense of Slovene linguistic identity in the linguistic consciousness of the Slovene speech community. Serbo-Croatian lexical elements, on the other hand, have posed a particularly intractable problem for Slovene purists. This was primarily because in the nineteenth century the Croatian abstract lexicon played a major part in providing standard Slovene with acceptable replacements for internationalisms and Germanisms. Secondly, because of a common involvement in Yugoslavia and the close genetic relationship between Slovene and SerboCroatian it was often difficult in practice to identify Serbo-Croatian material in Slovene with any degree of certainty. Indeed, a systematic, dispassionate identification of such material remains asone of the many tasks confronting Slovene scholarship in the years of political independence. Internally, purists have at various times attempted to archaize and Slavicize the orthography and morphology ofthe standard language. This has fostered a spirit of hypercorrection and pendantry in some Slovene linguistic circles. On the other hand, the strain of ethnographic purism, which goes back to the seminal figure of Jernej Kopitar, has served as an antidote to both archaization and Slavization of Slovene by seeking justification for the norms ofstandard Slovene in the contemporary dialects. This helps to explain why puristic intervention in standard Slovene can be generally characterized as moderate and free of excesses. Nevertheless, it is equally clear that the puristic debate, which has resounded in the times of Trubar, Kopitar, Čop, and Prešeren right down to the present day, will continue to be a significant factor as the Slovene standard language seeks to define its role on the new socio-political stage of the Slovene-speaking territory.
Nikolai Mikhailov
Università di Pisa
Eine slowenisch-prußische lexikalisch-mythologische Parallele: kres/kresze
Slovensko-pruska leksikalno-mitološka vzporednica:kres/kresze
V treh nemških virih iz 15. stol., ki se nanašajo na baltske (v glavnem pruske) poganske šege, je omenjen Kresze neki poganskipraznik (drugi dve obliki sta keyse, krysze). Obliko tebesede in njen pomen lahko primerjamo s slovanskim *kre krůs+ in torej s slovenskim kręs 'ogenj pred 24. junijem', kar prvotno pomeni tudi poganski praznik. Etimologija Kresze ni popolnoma jasna, ker je prvotna baltska beseda morala imeti drugo obliko. Navadna hipoteza nudi rešitev, da je prus. Kresze zelo zgodnja slovanska (staropoljska?) izposojenka. Poleg nje obstajata še dve hipotezi, ki sta verjetno manj zanesljivi, toda nista bili popolnoma zavrnjeni.
Paralela kresze / kres je zanimiva predvsem na mitološko-ritualni ravni. Lahko domnevamo, da prusko kresze odgovarja slovenskemu poganskemu ritualu kręs, kresovanje. Taka paralela lahko dokazuje prvotno sakralnost elementa *kres na vsem baltsko-slovanskem območju, poleg tega potrjuje tudi arhaičnost slovenščine, v kateri je podstava kres- ohranila več prvotnih pomenov, kakor v drugih slovanskih jezikih.
In three 15th-century German sources concerning certainly Baltic (chiefly Prussian) pagan customs, the term Kresze 'a pagan feast' is mentioned (the other two forms mentioned are keyse, krysze). This form is comparable to the Slavic *krůs+ and also with the Slovene kręs 'ogenj pred 24. junijem', which means primarily a pagan feast. The etymology is not fully clear, because the ancient Baltic word must have had an other form. The traditional hypothesis considers the Prussian Kresze as an earlier Slavic (Old-Polish?) lexeme. Two other etymological explanations of this word are less certain, but they have never been definitively refuted.
The parallel kresze / kręs is interesting especially on a mythological and ritual level. We may assume that the Prussian kresze corresponds to the Slovene pagan ritual kręs, kresovánje. Such a parallel would prove the primary sacred character of the stem *kres for all the Balto-Slavic area and confirm the theory that the Slovene form is archaic, where the stem *kres has maintained more of its primary meanings than in other Slavic languages.