ISSN 1581-1271
Vsebina - Contents
Tom Priestly: On Derivational Productivity in Slovene with Notes on Lexical Frequency and Awareness of the Norm
Nada Šabec: Languages Change in a Contact Situation: The Case of Slovene in North America
Henning Andersen: The Western South Slavic Contrast Sn. sah-ni-ti // SC sah-nu-ti
Marc L. Greenberg: Multiple Causation in the Spread and Reversal of a Sound Change: Rhotacism in South Slavic
Nikolai Mikhailov: Die sogenannte "slowenische Homilieskizze" ("Slovenski načrt za pridigo") aus der handschriftlichen Periode der slowenischen Sprache
Grant H. Lundberg: Preliminary Report on Dialectological Fieldwork in Haloze, Slovenia
Tatjana Trampusch: Živalska frazeologija v govoru vasi Dob pri Pliberku na avstrijskem Koroškem
Marc L. Greenberg: Slovarček središkega govora (na osnovi zapisov Karla Ozvalda)
University of Alberta
On Derivational Productivity in Slovene with Notes on Lexical Frequency and Awareness of the Norm
O produktivnosti izpeljave v slovenščini s pripombami o besedni pogostnosti in zavedanju norme
Poglavitni cilj pričujoče raziskave je ugotavljanje možnosti za merjenje produktivnosti besedotvornih vzorcev oz. besedotvornih postopkov, kar očitno še ni bilo izvedeno za noben jezik. Gradivo za študijo predstavljata dva nasprotujoča si izpridevniška besedotvorna vzorca: "inhoativno" obrazilo -eti in "faktitivno" obrazilo -iti, kot npr. rjav → rjaveti 'postajati rjav' proti rjaviti 'delati rjavo'. Analiza je bila izpeljana na osnovi psihološkega testiranja, ki je bilo izvedeno v Ljubljani v letih 1993—94. L. 1993 je bilo testirano 186 dijakov in 180 dodiplomskih študentov. V nadaljevanju l. 1994 je bilo testiranje omejeno na tri skupine univerzitetnih študentov, ki jih je sestavljalo skupaj 116 oseb. Zastavljena so bila štiri vprašanja: (1) Ali se po vašem beseda nahaja v knjižni slovenščini? (2) Ali vi to besedo kdaj uporabljate? (3) Ali je ta beseda po vašem možna in razumljiva? in (4) Kako pogosto sami uporabljate to besedo? Testirani so izbirali med petimi možnostmi, ki so bile rangirane po Likertovi lestvici, in podatki so bili nato statistično obdelani. Kar zadeva produktivnost, se je izkazalo — vsaj za ta dva besedotvorna vzorca —, da jo lahko opišemo kot poševni potek, vendar v dveh različnih pomenih tega izraza. Prvi pomen je samoumeven: en postopek je lahko bolj produktiven kot drugi. Drugi pomen je ta, da t.i. "produktivna moč" lahko variira. Če vzamemo dva primera iz srednjih odgovorov na vprašanje (3), je razvidno, da je bila beseda godneti povprečno ocenjena kot skrajno "možna in razumljiva", medtem ko je bila na drugem koncu lestvice beseda plašeti ocenjena kot skorajda nemogoča. Med tema dvema skrajnostma se vrstijo vse druge vprašane besede.
Drugič, obstaja velika razlika med vrstno pogostnostjo in produktivnostjo. Na to pogosto kažejo precejšne razlike med odgovori v zvezi z isto vprašano besedo, na vprašanje (4) in druga vprašanja. Tretjič, zdi se, da nam merilo za relativno produktivnost raličnih vzorcev daje posebna formula. Ta formula je (p - u) ÷ u, pri čemer je p srednja vrednost za odgovore na vprašanje (3), u pa sredina odgovorov na vprašanje (2). Formula izraža količino, za katero odgovori na vprašanje (3) (povprečno) presegajo odgovore na vprašanje (2). Ta razlika je drugačna za dejanske besede in za izmišljene besede. Podatki iz raziskave v Ljubljani l. 1993, z uporabo omenjene formule, kažejo, da je — kot je bilo pričakovano — obrazilo -iti bolj produktivno kot -eti. Za preverjenje tega rezultata je bilo izvedeno drugo testiranje l. 1994 in rezultati so bili pritrdilni. Kljub temu so ti rezultati v več pogledih le pripravljalne narave. Priporočamo obnovitev in razširitev testiranja.
Poleg tega, je bil kot podpostopek testiranja v zvezi z vprašanjem (2) raziskan pojav "blokiranja". Čeprav rezultati niso dokončni, so zgovorni, in test lahko prilagodimo za raziskavo tega pojava.
Prišli smo še do dveh drugih zaključkov, ki pa nista v zvezi z besedotvorno produktivnostjo. Nekateri kvalifikatorji, ki jih navaja SSKJ za glagole v testih, se zdijo na osnovi srednjih odgovorov na vprašanje (4) nepravilni. Ta rezultat morda velja le za subjekte testiranja, ki so večinoma stari 16 do 24 let. Menimo pa, da bi se kvalifikatorje izplačalo ponovno oceniti in, če je mogoče, tudi empirično utemeljiti. Podatki o subjektih, ki so opravili teste, so bili analizirani glede na odgovore na vprašanje (1). Izsledki te analize kažejo, da je zavedanje slovenske knjižne norme večje, če ima subjekt višjo intelektualno in/ali izobrazbeno stopnjo, če je iz osrednjih slovenskih narečnih skupin, če ima starše z višjo izobrazbo in/ali višjim družbeno-gospodarskim položajem in če je bil izšolan za večjo rabo jezika pri delu. Poleg tega se ženske bolj zavedajo norme kot moški. Ti rezultati imajo pomen za šolske učitelje slovenščine.
On Derivational Productivity in Slovene with Notes on Lexical Frequency and Awareness of the Norm
The major aim of the study reported here was to discover a way of measuring the productivity of derivative patterns or processes, a task which appears never to have been accomplished for any language before. As specific material for the study, two contrasting deadjectival verbal derivative patterns were chosen: the 'inchoative' -eti and the 'factitive' -iti, as occurring in, e.g., rjav 'brown', rjaveti 'to become brown', rjaviti 'to make (someone or something) brown.' The method involved psycholinguistic tests, administered in Ljubljana in 1993—94. The subjects for the tests in 1993 were 186 secondary and 180 post-secondary students. For the 1994 follow-up study the tests were limited to three groups of university respondents, totalling 116 in all. Cues comprised four questions: (1) Ali se po vašem beseda nahaja v knjižni slovenščini? (2) Ali vi to besedo kdaj uporabljate? (3) Ali je ta beseda po vašem možna in razumljiva? and (4) Kako pogosto sami uporabljate to besedo? Subjects selected responses on five-point Likert scales; the data were analyzed statistically. As far as productivity is concerned, there are three conclusions. First, it is clear that, at least for these derivative patterns, productivity is a "cline,'' but in two quite distinct meanings of the term. First and most obviously, one process may be synchronically more productive than another. Second, what may be called the productive strength of any one process also varies. To take just two examples from the mean responses to question (3), we see that the cue godneti was assessed, on average, as extremely "possible and understandable,'' while at the other end of the scale the cue plašeti was assessed, on average, as well nigh impossible and incomprehensible; the remaining cues are strung out along the cline in between the two.
Second, there is an enormous difference between type frequency and productivity; this is shown specifically by the often very significant differences between answers, for the same cue, to question (4) and the other questions. Third, one particular formula appears to provide a measure of the relative productivity of different patterns. This formula is expressed as (p - u) ÷ u, where p is the mean for responses to question (3) and u is the mean for responses to question (2). The formula expresses the amount by which (on average) the responses to Question 3 exceed the responses to Question 2; and this disparity, in turn, is significantly different for real words as compared with made-up words. The data from the experiments in Ljubljana in 1993 showed, using this formula in these applications, that — as hypothesized — -iti is more productive than -eti. To test this finding, a second set of tests were administered in 1994, with confirmatory results. There are however several respects in which this finding must be considered preliminary; replication and extension of the tests is urged.
In addition, the phenomenon known as 'blocking' was investigated with one sub-routine to tests involving question (2). The results, though inconclusive, are suggestive, and this test may be adapted for further investigation of this phenomenon.
Incidentally, two other conclusions, having nothing to do with derivational productivity, were reached. Several of the kvalifikatorji that are provided in the SSKJ for verbs used in the tests appear, on the evidence of mean responses to question (4), to be incorrect; this finding may only apply to the subjects in the tests, who were mostly aged between 16 and 24; but it is suggested that the kvalifikatorji deserve re-examination and, if possible, empirical justification. Finally, information collected about the subjects who did the tests was analyzed with respect to answers to question (1). A higher awareness of the norm of Standard Slovene was reported by those at a more advanced intellectual or educational level; by those who had a personal and family background based in central, rather than peripheral, dialects of Slovene; by those whose parents were better educated and of a higher socio-economic status; and by those who used, or were being trained to use, language more rather than less in their occupations. In addition, females reported a more heightened awareness of the norm than males. This has implications for teachers of the Slovene language in schools.
Univerza v Mariboru
Language Change in a Contact Situation: The Case of Slovene in North America
Jezikovna sprememba v stiku: slovenščina v Severni Ameriki
Avtorica opisuje jezikovno stanje med izseljenci slovenskega rodu v ZDA in Kanadi. Zaradi geografske ločenosti od Slovenije, še zlasti pa zaradi izredno močnega vpliva pragmatično dominantnega angleškega jezika, doživlja slovenščina v tem okolju zelo specifičen razvoj.
Analizira podatke, zbrane v empirični raziskavi (posnetke intervjujev z informanti), da bi ugotovila morebitne spremembe, ki so nastale v jeziku kot posledica stika z angleščino. Te srečamo v vseh zvrsteh dvojezičnega diskurza (sposojanje, kodno preklapljanje, enojezični slovenski deli diskurza) in na različnih jezikovnih ravninah od glasoslovja do pomenoslovja in pragmatike. Najizraziteje se angleški vpliv kaže v oblikoslovju, kjer prihaja do poenostavljanja, posploševanja in opuščanja slovenskih sklanjatvenih vzorcev, in v skladnji, kjer postaja besedni vrstni red vedno bolj podoben angleškemu.
Na povedni ravni je za prikazane strukture značilen kombinirani matrični ali osnovni jezik, zaznamovan s tipičnimi lastnostmi iz obeh jezikov. Pričakovali bi razvoj v smeri tako imenovanega preobrata matričnega jezika, vendar je proces prekinjen zaradi izredno hitrega jezikovnega premika od slovenščine k angleščini. Premik se izvrši v toku le treh generacij pri predvojnih priseljencih, pri povojnih pa še hitreje. Izrazito začasen in nestalen značaj slovenščine, ki se govori v tem okolju, nam onemogoča postuliranje strogih strukturalnih omejitev jezikovne rabe. Gre za specifično varianto slovenščine, ki zaradi možnega odkrivanja vpogledov v mehanizme jezikovnih sprememb nedvomno zasluži vso pozornost raziskovalcev tudi v prihodnje.
Language Change in a Contact Situation: The Case of Slovene in North America
The article discusses the linguistic situation among immigrants of Slovene descent in the United States of America and Canada. Owing to the geographic distance between Slovenia and the host country and particularly to the very strong influence of the pragmatically dominant English, Slovene there is undergoing a very specific kind of development.
Data collected through empirical research (interview excerpts) are analyzed in order to identify contact-motivated changes of Slovene. These are encountered in all types of bilingual discourse (borrowing, code switching, English-influenced monolingual Slovene) and on different linguistic levels from phonology to semantics and pragmatics. The most salient areas of English linguistic impact, however, are morphology with its simplification, regularization and/or even deletion of Slovene inflectional system, and syntax with its gradual adoption of English-like SVO word order patterns.
On a sentence level these kinds of structures constitute what could be termed a composite matrix language, made up from the features of both languages. Development, though, stops short of the so-called matrix language turnover (MLT), because it is interrupted by a very rapid process of language shift from Slovene to English. This has been accomplished in the course of three generations in the case of pre-war immigrants and even faster in the case of post-war ones. The variety of Slovene in this particular context is therefore of a very temporary and unstable nature and defies the postulation of rigid structural constraints on it. It nevertheless represents a distinct contact variety of Slovene well worth further research because of the likely insights into the language change mechanisms that it may provide.
Henning Andersen
University of California, Los Angeles
O zahodnojužnoslovanskem nasprotju sln. sah-ni-ti // sh. sah-nu-ti
Prispevek na novo ocenjuje tradicionalno razlago za "svojevrsten razvoj" praslovanskih glagolov II. razreda z aoristno in/ali nedoločniško pripono -n<nasal-o>-, ki so izpričani v scsl. kot sъxn<nasal-o>ti 'sahniti', pol. schnąć, rus. soxnut', sh. sahnuti, vendar v sln. kot sahniti. Običajno se ta posebni razvoj v slovenščini razlaga kot preprosta analogija z glagoli IV. razreda, npr. braniti. V toku te nove ocene avtor kaže, da se "svojevrsten razvoj" — takoj ko je na novo prikazan — ujema s podatki iz drugih slovanskih jezikov. Namesto da bi izhajal iz domneve, da je pripona -niizpodrinila -n<nazalni-o>-, avtor dokazuje, da je smiselno izhajati iz praslovanske razlike -n<nazalni-o>// -ny(< zgodnjepraslovansko inovativno *-nū -n// arhaično *-nū -), ki je po vsej verjetnosti iz časa pred slovanskimi selitvami. Ti različni obliki sta lahko povzročili variacijo, ki je izpričana v sodobnih slovanskih jezikih. Variacija je potovala s Slovani, ki so kolonizirali zahodnojužnoslovansko in zahodnoslovansko ozemlje med 5. in 8. stoletjem; zaradi variacije je v naslednjih stoletjih nastalo tekmovanje med dvema različnima oblikama. Ti rezultati se dobro ujemajo z rezultati novejših raziskav, ki so določile poglavitne smeri selitve Slovanov, ki so bile po Donavi v Panonijo in Norik, navzgor po Moravi do zgornje Šlezije, prek češke nižine in po soteski Labe do Češkega rudogorja v Zgornji Lužici; nadalje navzdol po Labi do vzhodne meje kasnejše kneževine Hannover in po bregovih spodnje Labe. Miselno potujoč po teh poteh v obratni smeri, avtor predlaga, da je zgodnjepraslovanska oblika *-nū bila morda značilna za nekdanja narečja na ozemlju današnjih vzhodnih Slovanov. To verjetno sorazmerno majhno področje je bilo že zdavnaj na novo poseljeno z govorci narečij z obliko *-n<nasal-o>-.
The Western South Slavic Contrast Sn. sah-ni-ti // SC sah-nu-ti
The paper reexamines the traditional explanation for the "idiosyncratic development'' of the Common Slavic Class II verbs with the aorist and/or infinitive suffix -n<nasal-o>-, attested in OCS sъxn<nasal-o>ti 'dry', P schnąć, R soxnut', SC sahnuti, but in Slovenian as sahniti. The peculiarity that gave rise to this development in Slovenian is generally thought to be simple analogy with the Class IV verbs, e.g., braniti 'defend'. In the course of this reexamination, the author shows how the "idiosyncratic development,'' once restated, fits in with data from other Slavic languages. Rather than proceeding from the assumption that the -n<nasal-o>type was replaced by -ni-, the author demonstrates that it is reasonable to depart from a Common Slavic dialect difference -n<nasal-o>// -ny(< Early Common Slavic innovative *-nū -n// archaic *-nū -), which probably had its origin in the period before the Slavic Migrations. These by-forms could thus have given rise to the variation that is found in the modern Slavic dialects. This variation was transported with the Slavs who colonized the Western South Slavic and West Slavic territories in the 400—700s and in turn gave rise to sociolinguistic competition between the alternatives in the following centuries. These findings are shown to correlate well with recent advances in the identification of the major routes of migration taken by the Slavs, which progressed up the Danube, into Pannonia and Noricum, up the Morava to Upper Silesia, across the Bohemian Basin and through the Elbe River Gorge to the Ore Mountains in Upper Lusatia; then beyond, down the Elbe to the eastern border regions of the later principality of Hannover and along the banks of the lower Elbe. Working back from these routes, the author suggests that the Early Common Slavic *-nū forms may have characterized dialects somewhere in the present-day East Slavic language area, probably a relatively small region long since repopulated with speakers of *-n<nasal-o>dialects.
University of Kansas
Multiple Causation in the Spread and Reversal of a Sound Change: Rhotacism in South Slavic
Različni vzroki za širitev in umik fonetične spremembe: rotacizem v južnoslovanskih jezikih
Prispevek obravnava spremembo ž > r ("rotacizem") v južnoslovanskih jezikih, kot se najde npr. v sedanjiku glagola *može(tъ) > sln. mó.re, hrv./bos. nar. mo"re, v oziralnih veznikih (*kako ž(e) > sln. kakor), v različnih prislovnih tvorbah, npr. (*bože > bore), v nekaterih sln., hrv./bos. narečjih tudi v sedanjiku glagola (*gъnati :) *žene(tъ) > rene. Izvor te spremembe je različno obravnavan kot fonetična ali oblikoslovna (analogna) sprememba, vendar pa nobena od razlag ne pojasnjuje omejene uresničitve spremembe (tj., sprememba je omejena na majhno število leksemov in slovničnih kategorij) in zelo različnih arealov spremembe v vsakem posameznem primeru, v katerem je do nje prišlo. V pričujočem prispevku se dokazuje, da je izvor spremembe fonetičen in da izhaja iz težnje, ki podpira razločevalne lastnosti pri samoglasnikih (za razliko od severnoslovanskih razvojev), kar je teza, ki se navezuje na predvojno Isačenkovo razpravo. Vseeno pa se da širitev spremembe in njen umik delno razložiti z oblikoslovnimi dejavniki. Eden od dejavnikov je ta, da stalno okolje (npr. sedanjik morem, moreš ...) vspodbuja njeno širitev, v nasprotju s spremenljivimi okolji (-žene/-rene), ki so povzročila njen umik ali zaustavitev. Drugi dejavnik je širitev -r-ja kot produktivnega oziralnega veznika in časovnega znaka po modelu oblik *kъte/o-roz. veče-r. Zdi se, da je pri medmetu borme dodatno vlogo pri ohranjanju oblike z -rigrala tabuiranost. Umik spremembe v štokavščini je imel lahko stilistične vzroke, saj so bile oblike z -r v nasprotju z oblikami z ž(e) občutene kot izrazito zahodne, katoliške. Ta opažanja izhajajo iz dejstva, da oblike z -r izginevajo prav v tistih primerih, v katerih so bile produktivne v čakavščini, kajkavščini in slovenščini, tj. v oziralnih veznikih in časovnih prislovih. In ne nazadnje, najbolje so ohranjene oblike, ki predstavljajo semantične inovacije, npr. morati, jer, in to celo v štokavščini, kjer so oblike z -rleksikalizirane.
Multiple Causation in the Spread and Reversal of a Sound Change: Rhotacism in South Slavic
The paper treats the change ž > r ("rhotacism'') in the South Slavic languages, such as that, e.g., found in the present tense of the verb *mòže(tъ) > Sn mó.re, Cr/Bs dialect mo"re; complementizers, e.g., *kako ž(e) > Sn kakor; in various adverbial formations, e.g., *bože > bore; and, in some Sn and Cr/Bs dialects, the present tense of the verb (*gъnati:) *žene(tъ) > rene. The origin of the change has been treated variously as a phonetic or a morphological (analogical) change, though neither explanation can account for the limited realization of the change (i.e., it is restricted to a small number of lexical items and grammatical categories) and the vastly differing areals of the change for each item in which it occurs. The present paper argues that the origin of the change is phonetic and follows from a tendency to favor vocalic distinctive features (in contrast to N-Sl developments), a notion that goes back to a pre-War paper by Isačenko. Nevertheless, the spread of the change, and its reversal, can be partially explained by morphological factors. One factor is that uniform environments (e.g., the present tense morem, moreš...) favor its spread vs. alternating environments (-žene/-rene) which have reversed or inhibited it. Another factor is support for the spread of -r as a productive complementizer and temporal marker on the models of metanalyzed forms *kъte/o-r'which' and *veče-r 'evening', respectively. Taboo seems to play an additional role in preserving r-forms in the interjection borme 'my God!'. The reversal of the change in Štokavian may have been due to stylistic considerations, where r-forms were felt to be distinctly western, Catholic, in contrast to ž(e) forms. This observations follows from the fact that r-forms disappear in Štokavian in precisely the forms in which they were productive in Čakavian, Kajkavian and Slovene, namely, the complementizers and temporal adverbs. Finally, those forms which represent semantic innovations, such as morati 'must', jer 'for, because' are best preserved, even in Štokavian, where the r-forms are lexicalized as such.
Università di Udine
Tako imenovani Načrt za pridigo iz rokopisne dobe slovenščine
V članku avtor ponuja kritično izdajo tako imenovanega slovenskega Načrta za pridigo — sedmih rokopisnih vrstic v slovenščini, ki so bile napisane verjetno na začetku 16. stoletja. Sledijo fonetični prepis, prevoda v slovenski in nemški jezik, komentarji, opis jezika spomenika in kazalo oblik.
The Slovene "Sketch for a Sermon'' from the Manuscript Era of Slovene
The author offers a critical edition of the "Slovene Sketch for a Sermon,'' i.e., seven manuscript lines in Slovene probably written at the beginning of the 16th century. A phonetic transcription, Slovene and German translations, commentary, linguistic description of the document and an index of forms follow.
University of Kansas
Preliminary Report on Dialectological Fieldwork in Haloze, Slovenia
Uvodno poročilo o dialektološkem terenskem delu v Halozah
Slovenščina je eden od najmanjših slovanskih jezikov. Govori jo malo več kot dva milijona ljudi, vendar je njen narečni zemljevid eden najbolj zapletenih in razčlenjenih v Evropi. Kljub težavam pri dokumentiranju in razčlenjevanju takega raznovrstnega narečnega sistema, je večina delov, ki sestavljajo to zapleteno celoto, že zbranih (Ramovš 1935, Rigler 1963). Vseeno pa so v slovenski narečni podobi še nekatere vrzeli, za katere je vzrok bodisi v pomanjkanju podatkov ali v nezanesljivih opisih. Ena od teh vrzeli so govori Haloz, majhnega, gričevnatega področja ob slovenski vzhodni meji. Pričujoča razprava prinaša osnovni fonološki opis dveh značilnih haloških govorov, enega iz vzhodnega (Gorenjski Vrh) in enega iz osrednjega dela (Belavšek). Te podatke je avtor uporabil v kratki obravnavi zgodovinskega izvora teh narečnih sistemov.
Izvor samoglasniških fonemov govora vasi Belavšek se najde v Riglerjevem splošnem panonskem sistemu (1963: 43), temelječem na sovpadih, ki jih ta sistem predpostavlja (ei < *ĕ; e < *e, *ę, *<polglasnik>). Najzanimivejši sovpadi so sovpadi sprednjih samoglasnikov. Tu so sovpadli refleksi dolgih *e, *ę in *<polglasnik>. To je razvidno iz današnjih osrednjehaloških govorov. Dolgi *e, *ę in *<polglasnik> so vsi dali e.:. V Riglerjevem panonskem sistemu je dolgi jat dvoglasnik s padajočo zvočnostjo; v današnjem govoru Belavška je refleks cirkumlektiranega jata ä:i. Tudi zadnji samoglasniki odražajo tipične panonske procese. Refleksa dolgega *o in *<nazalni-o> sta sovpadla v o:u in *l˚ je nadomestil *u, ki se je pomaknil naprej.
V samoglasniškem sistemu Gorenjskega Vrha je nekaj pomembnih razlik. Dejansko sta refleksa psl. dolgega *ĕ in dolgega *<polglasnik> v celotnem vzhodnem delu Haloz sovpadla. Združila sta se v samoglasnik, ki se razlikuje od drugih e-jevskih samoglasnikov. V govoru Gorenjskega Vrha sta dolga *ĕ in *<polglasnik> dala e.:, medtem ko sta dolga *ę in *e sovpadla v e:. To je pomembno. Če namreč domnevamo isti izvor za samoglasniška sistema osrednjih in vzhodnih Haloz, tj. panonski izvor, potem moramo predpostavljati, da so v vzhodnih Halozah refleksi psl. *e, *ę in *<polglasnik> zgodaj sovpadli, da so vsi imeli refleks, ki se je razlikoval od *ĕ, vendar se je *<polglasnik> kasneje oddaljil od tega razvoja in sovpadel z *ĕ. To se zdi zelo malo verjetno. S tega stališča je veliko manj problematično izvajati samoglasniški sistem vzhodnih Haloz iz skupne kajkavske osnove, ki jo je predlagal Vermeer v svoji razpravi iz l. 1983 o razvoju kajkavskega samoglasniškega sistema (456). <186> 4,39=35. <186> 4,39=92.
Pomemben podatek, ki izhaja iz te raziskave dveh haloških govorov, je, da haloško narečje notranje ni tako enotno, kot se je mislilo doslej. Trem notranjim izoglosam Zorkove (1. enoglasniški/dvoglasniški samoglasniški sistem, 2. kolikostna nasprotja in 3. možna tonemska nasprotja) je treba dodati še 4. pomik cirkumfleksa / delni pomik, 5. sovpad refleksov jata in polglasnika; in 6. razvoj novih dvoglasnikov, podobnih tistim, ki se najdejo v zahodnohaloških govorih. Možno je, da zemljepisno pokrajina Haloze ne predstavlja enotnega narečnega področja, ampak prostor, kjer se stikajo štajerski (zahodne Haloze), panonski (osrednje Haloze) in kajkavski (vzhodne Haloze) govori.
Preliminary Report on Dialectological Fieldwork in Haloze, Slovenia
The Slovene language is one of the smallest of the Slavic family. It is spoken by somewhat more than two million people, and yet it has one of the most complex and variegated dialect maps in Europe. Notwithstanding the difficulties involved in documenting and analyzing such a diverse dialect system, most of the major pieces to this puzzle are in place (Ramovš 1935, Rigler 1963). Still, there are some holes in the Slovene dialect picture which are the result of either a lack of information or unreliable descriptions. One such gap is the dialect area of Haloze, a small, hilly region on Slovenia's eastern border. This paper provides a basic phonemic description of two representative Haloze village dialects, one from the east, Gorenjski Vrh, and one from the center, Belavšek. This data is then used in a brief discussion of the historical provenience of these dialect systems.
The origin of the vocalic phonemes of Belavšek can be found in Rigler's common Pannonian system (1963: 43), based on the mergers which that system presupposes, (ei < *ĕ; e < *e, *ę, *<schwa>). The mergers that are the most interesting here are those in the front of the vowel system. Here there was a merger of the reflexes of long *e, *ę and *<schwa>. This can be seen in the contemporary dialects of central Haloze. Long *e, *ę and *<schwa> all give e.:. In Rigler's Pannonian system the long *ĕ is a diphthong with falling sonority, and in Belavšek today the reflex of the circumflected jat is ä:i. The back of the vocalic system also reflects processes common to Pannonian dialects. The reflexes of long *o and *<nasal-o> merged in o:u, and *l˚ replaced *u, which had fronted.
The vocalic system of Gorenjski Vrh is different in several important ways. In fact all over the east of Haloze the reflexes of PSl. long *ĕ and long *<schwa> have merged. They have combined into a vowel distinct from the other e-like vowels. In Gorenjski Vrh long *ĕ and *<schwa> give e.:, and long *ę and *e have merged in e:. This is significant because, if we were to assume the same provenience for the vocalic systems of eastern and central Haloze, in other words a Pannonian provenience, we would need to assume that at an early stage in eastern Haloze the reflexes of the PSl. *e, *ę and *<schwa> merged, all of which had a reflex distinct from *ĕ, but later *<schwa> diverged from these and merged with *ĕ. This is impossible. Keeping that in mind, it is much less problematic to derive the vocalic system of eastern Haloze from a Common Kajkavian base like the one proposed by Vermeer in his 1983 discussion of the development of the Kajkavian vocalic system (456).
One important bit of information that arises from this examination of two Haloze village dialects is that Haloze is not as internally uniform as was thought. To Zorko's three internal isoglosses, (1) diphthongal/monophthongal vocalic system, (2) quantity oppositions and (3) possible tonemic oppositions, we must add (4) circumflex advancement/partial advancement, (5) merger of the reflexes of the jat and the jers and (6) development of new diphthongs such as those found in western Haloze. It may be that the geographic region of Haloze does not represent one uniform dialect area, but rather the place where Styrian (western Haloze), Pannonian (central Haloze) and Kajkavian (eastern Haloze) meet.
Slovenski narodopisni inštitut Urban Jarnik, Celovec
Živalska frazeologija v govoru vasi Dob pri Pliberku na avstrijskem Koroškem
Prispevek prikazuje pomenske razlike, podobnosti in enakosti med frazeološkimi enotami z živalskimi poimenovanji v sestavi, kakor jih uporabljajo govorci vzhodnopodjunskega narečja v vsakdanji govorici, in knjižnimi, normiranimi živalskimi frazeološkimi enotami, kakor jih najdemo v slovarjih in zbirkah pregovorov in rekov.
Pri obravnavi gradiva se avtorica s pridržkom odloča za t. i. frazeologijo v širšem smislu, ki vključuje stavčne pregovore in reke, pomensko nepretvorjenih frazeoloških sestav ne upošteva. Poudarek prispevka je na prikazovanju aktualnih pomenov, v katerih narečni govorci uporabljajo živalske frazeološke enote. Podlago za pričujočo študijo je tvorila terenska raziskava, pri kateri je avtorica spraševala 18 informatorjev. Pri poznavanju frazeoloških enot spol anketirancev ni igral vloge, starost pa. Potrjena je bila domneva, da poznajo mlajši govorci manj frazeoloških enot kot starejši. Na splošno se zdi, da so spraševane živalske frazeološke enote relativno na danem področju dobro znane.
Glede na pomenska razmerja med narečnimi in knjižnimi frazeološkimi enotami z živalskimi poimenovanji v sestavi ugotavlja avtorica, da se le-te večinoma popolnoma ali vsaj zelo ujemajo. Nadalje se je izkazalo, da je pri aktualizaciji v govoru uporabljanje frazeoloških enot bolj podvrženo variiranju kot v knjižnem jeziku. Pri raziskavi na terenu so narečni govorci avtorici narekovali tudi frazeološke enote, katerim v knjižni slovenščini ni našla ustreznic. Avtorica to pojmuje kot znak in dokaz za živost narečja.
Animal Phraseology in the Dialect of Dob pri Pliberku (Aich im Jauntal) in Carinthia, Austria
The paper demonstrates the semantic similarities, differences, and identity among phraseological units containing animal names in their structure, as employed in everyday speech by speakers of the eastern Podjuna dialect of Slovene in comparison with those of literary, normalized Slovene animal phraseology as found in dictionaries and collections of proverbs and sayings.
In the treatment of the material the author has, with some reservation, included phraseology in a wide sense, i.e., sentential proverbs and sayings, but not semantically untransformed phraseological structures. The study is based on fieldwork conducted by the author with eighteen native informants. Knowledge of the phraseological units, it turns out, was not conditioned by gender, but by age. The assumption that younger speakers know fewer phraseological units than older speakers was confirmed. In general, it appears that the phraseological units about which the informants were asked are relatively well-known in this area.
With respect to the semantic relationship between dialectal and standard phraseological units with animal names in their structure, the author finds that these mostly agree completely, or at least to a very high degree. Further, it seems that when used in actual speech, the phraseological units are more likely to vary than in the standard language. In the fieldwork, the author also elicited from dialect speakers phraseological units that have no equivalents in the standard language. The author takes this as evidence of the vitality of the dialect.
University of Kansas
Slovarček središkega govora (na osnovi zapisov Karla Ozvalda)
Glossary of the Microdialect of Središče ob Dravi (Based on the Descriptions of Karol Ozvald)
The present contribution gives a glossary of all of the attested forms in four works by Karol Ozvald (3 of which remain unpublished), written between 1895 and 1904, describing the phonetics, morphology, and lexicon of the dialect of the microdialect of Središče (ob Dravi), a dialect of Prlekija (Pannonian dialect group). As such, this represents the first publication of a work giving detailed lexicographical and phonological information on a Prlekija microdialect. Brief synchronic and diachronic sketches of the phonology of the microdialect, as well as a description of the principles on which the glossary was compiled, are also given. These are based on earlier analyses of the dialect by the compiler of the glossary. The dialect is in most ways typical of the Pannonian group, and Prlekija in particular, in contrasting short and long-stressed vowels. Diphthongs are absent, as the dialect has undergone the monophthongization of relatively recent date, thus, for example, both bre^.g 'hill, embankment' (< *brĕ^gъ) and šte^. 'count!' 2nd sg. imperative (< *čьtĕjь) contain the same vowel phoneme. Consequently, the dialect is rich in vocalic contrasts, particular among the front vowels (long: /î, ê./, [ê], /ê,, â˚/, [â], /ô., û, r^˚/; short: /i˚", ä", a", u", r"˚/; unstressed: /i˚, e., ä, o, u˚, r˚/). With regard to accentual innovations, Središče has carried through a restricted variety of the forward shift of the Common Slavic falling tone, such that it is realized only if the second syllable is closed (e.g., golo^.b 'pigeon', väčęr 'evening' < *go"l<nasal-o>bь, *ve"čerъ); otherwise, the place of stress as well as the Common Slavic vowel quantity remain unchanged (e.g., me^so 'meat', o"ko 'eye' < *mêso, *o"ko).
Slovarček središkega govora (na osnovi zapisov Karla Ozvalda)
Pričujoči prispevek podaja slovarček vseh izpričanih oblik v štirih razpravah Karla Ozvalda (od katerih so tri neobjavljene), datiranih od 1895 do 1904, ki vsebujejo opis glasoslovja, oblikoslovja in besedišča govora Središča (ob Dravi) v Prlekiji (panonska skupina). Kot tak je prispevek prva objava kakega dela, ki vsebuje podrobne podatke o besedišču in fonologiji kakega prleškega govora. Prispevek prinaša tudi kratek sinhroni in diahroni oris fonologije središkega govora ter opis načel, po katerih je bil slovarček sestavljen. To dvoje temelji na analizah govora, ki jih je sestavljalec slovarčka predhodno opravil. Govor je v večini pogledov značilen predstavnik panonske skupine in še posebej prleškega narečja, zlasti kar zadeva nasprotje med kratkimi in dolgimi naglašenimi samoglasniki. Diftongov nima, ker je govor doživel precej pozno monoftongizacijo, tako da npr. brê.g (< *brĕgъ) in štê. 'štej!' (< *čьtĕjь) 2. os. ed. vsebujeta isti samoglasniški fonem. Zato pa ima veliko samoglasniških nasprotij, zlasti med sprednjimi samoglasniki (dolgi: /î, ê./, [ê], /ê,, â˚/, [â], /ô., ô, r^˚/; kratki: /i"˚, ä", a", u", r"˚/; nenaglašeni: /i˚, e., ä, o, u˚, r˚/). Pri naglasnih inovacijah je središki govor izvedel omejeno različico pomika praslovanskega cirkumfleksa, do katerega je prišlo samo v primerih, ko je bil drugi zlog zaprt (npr. golô.b, väčęr < *go"l<nasal-o>bь, *ve"čerъ); v drugih primerih pa sta mesto naglasa in praslovanska kolikost samoglasnika ostala nespremenjena (npr. mêso < *mêso, o"ko < *o"ko).