A Balkanism in Central Europe Realis vs. Irrealis in Subordinate Clauses in Prekmurje Slovene 2011
Transcript of A Balkanism in Central Europe Realis vs. Irrealis in Subordinate Clauses in Prekmurje Slovene 2011
-
8/18/2019 A Balkanism in Central Europe Realis vs. Irrealis in Subordinate Clauses in Prekmurje Slovene 2011
1/9
U s p o ř á d a l i
PhDr. Z b y n ě k Holub, Pb.D., Mgr.
Ing
Roman S u k a č , Ph.D.
Recenzenti
Prof. RNDr. Václav Blažek, CSc.
PhDr. O n d ř e j
Š e f č í k
Ph.D.
ISBN
978-80-7248-773-8
Obsah
Úvod ................................. ........................... ............. ............................6
Dialekty nebo mikrojazyky? ......................................
..........................7
A Balkanism in Central Europe? Realis vs. irrealis
in subordinate clauses in Prekrnurje Slovene ............................................8
Marc L reenberg
Leopold Geitler s Contribution to Lithuanian dialectology:
geolinguistic aspect .................................................................................19
Danguo/e Milculeniene
Kashubian as language and dialect in view of early
northern West Slavic isoglosses ............................................ ....... ........... 28
omasz Wisniewski
Obecné otázky dialektologie metodologie a mezioborové
vzt hy ............................................... ................................................
40
Zmeny v stavbe, vývine a fungovaní n á r e č i a v s ú č a s n e j
jazykovej situácii (na príklade spišského
n á r e č i a
.... ....
............ ........
41
Gabriela Múcslcová
Sociolingvistické otázky n á r e č o v é h o výskumu
na strednom Slovensku ................................................................ .......... . 56
Tomáš Bánilc
S o u č a s n ý stav n á ř e č í na jihovýchodním l z e ň s k u a ř i p r a v o v a n ý
výzkum mluvy mládeže v
z á p a d o č e s k é m
p o h r a n i č í
...............................70
Jana Nová
S o u č a s n ý dialektologický
výzkum ........ ........ .............. .......... ............... 78
Regionální n á ř e č n í slovník a problémy jeho zpracování
(na materiálu z Podkrkonoší) .... .......................................... ................ 79
Jarmila Bachmannová
-
8/18/2019 A Balkanism in Central Europe Realis vs. Irrealis in Subordinate Clauses in Prekmurje Slovene 2011
2/9
Sl
'k I ký h . v • k 88
vm s ovens c narec a narecovy orpus ......................................
Katarína Balleková
Selected issues from research
on
evaluative vocabulary
in local dialects (on the basis of he dictionary ofthe local dialect
ofZakopane and the area by Juliusz Zborowski).................................... 94
Monika Bulawa
K v ě c n ě významovému zpracování slovní zásoby v n á ř e č n í c h
slovnících ................................................ ........................................... 106
Hana G o l á ň o v á
The Lithuanian dialects nowadays: changes and their causes .............. 116
Asta Leskauskaite
Místní a pomístní jména z Č e s k é h o koutku v n á ř e č í a mimo
n á ř e č Í . . .
124
Jaroslaw Ma/icki
Dialectal and ethnographical regions of Lithuania: affinities and
differences .... ...................................................................................... 136
Violeta Mei/iiinaite
J a z y k o v ě z e m ě p i s n é
aspekty mluvených k o r p u s ů Č e s k é
národního korpusu .......................................................... ....... ........... 144
Martina W a c a w i č o v á
Specifické otázky dialektologie ..................................... ............ ......... 156
Nadnárodní jazykové atlasy a e s k á dialektologie ............................ 157
artina lreinová
Onymický a dialektový areál: paralelnost i d e n t i č n o s t ? .......... ......... 164
Stanislava Kloferová
K n ě k o l i k a n á ř e č n í m pojmenováním
ž i v o č i c h ů
v pomístních jménech ................................. .... ............................ . 173
Hana
K o n e č n á
K jazykové situaci na pomezí č e s k é h o , polského a
ů v o d n í h o
pruského Slezska (na modelu tzv prajzského
n á ř e č í
v obci
Chuchelná) .............................
........................................................ 182
Petra Neubertová
Z b y n ě k
Holub
Sotak prosody reconsidered (Part one).................................................. I92
Joseph Schallerl
K problematice
n á ř e č n í
terminologie .................................................... 209
Jarmila Vojtová
Z á v ě r e m ...... . ....... , ...... .... ................................................................. 216
Summary ............... . ........ .................
........ ......... .................
............
220
Liter
atura
................. ....... ............................ ................... ............ 222
Adresy a u t o r ů ........................................................... ...........................243
. , ~ , ,
-.'
, .• "i"
..
.
: ' ., J ' ; ' ~ ' :i
- "
-
8/18/2019 A Balkanism in Central Europe Realis vs. Irrealis in Subordinate Clauses in Prekmurje Slovene 2011
3/9
Úvod
Vážení
č t e n á ř i
vážené o l e g y n ě vážení kolegové,
soubor statí, který otvíráte, charakterizuje mnohé rysy s o u č a s n
dialektologie slovanských a z y k ů .
V i d ě n o
úhlem geografickým - lze zjistit, že dialekty slovanských
j a z y k ů - jako jeden ze z d r o j ů poznáni a pochopení stavu s o u č a s n é h o - zajímají
stále nejen Slovany samy, ale že z ů s t á v a j í s t ř e d e m zájmu mnohých s l a v i s t ů
z a h r a n i č n í c h , dokonce i mimoevropských.
V i d ě n o
pohledem dialektografickým - ukazuje se, že i po vydání
obdivuhodného souborného díla o dialektech č š t i n y po vydání Č e s k é h o
jazykového atlasu,
z ů s t á v á
mnohé, co je
p o t ř e b a
zaznamenat, popsat
a vyhodnotit.
Z a s v ě c e n ý m
je p a t r n ě z b y t e č n é
z d ů r a z ň o v a t ,
že dialekt je živý,
b y ť
se to zdá v d o b ě masivní globalizace t é m ě ř všech ů r o v n í s p o l e č e n s k é h o
života t é m ě ř
n e u v ě ř i t e l n é .
Dialekt je
s o u č á s t í
života,
je č a s t o
dokonce
podmínkou života tam, kde jsou jiné sociokulturní determinanty, ty, jež posilují
v ě d o m í identity č l o v ě k a , oslabené.
V i d ě n o úhlem badatelským - je ř e j m é , že na rozdil od generací
p ř e d c h o z í c h má dialektolog k dispozici mnohem s p o l e h l i v ě j š í , obsáhlejší,
v a r i a b i l n ě j š í technické p r o s t ř e d k y j k pro snimání výchozího textového
lépe - ř e č o v é h o materiálu, tak pro jeho zpracování. Elektronícký z p ů s o b
zachování dat umožní kvantitativní charakteristiky zdokonalovat a z p ř e s ň o v a t
o
s t u p n ě
o n ě m ž nebylo j e š t ě v nedávné minulosti
v ů b e c
možné uvažovat,
kvalitativní metody tak mohou být ve svých východiscích v y d a t n ě posíleny.
Ukazuje se, že komplexni analýza ř e č o v ý c h p r o j e v ů je jednou z cest,
kterou se snad moderní dialektologie m ů ž e vydat. Ř e č je r o s t ř e d í m k myšlení,
p r o s t ř e d í m
pro život. Zdá se, že je nutné zabývat se nejen tím, za jakých
podmínek a do jaké miry se struktura dialektu a jeho výrazové formy
uchovávají neuchovávají, ale zejména tim, jak dialektové výrazové postupy
a p r o s t ř e d k y v r ů s t a j í do p r o m ě n l i v ý c h ú t v a r ů t v o ř í c í c h pásmo mezi dialekty
interdialekty a spisovným j zykem, j k se chovají k cizím v l i v ů m
j k se
p ů s o b u j í
novým k o m u n i k a č n í m n á r o k ů m .
va Hoflerová
6
Dialekty nebo mikrojazyky
\ i
~ ~ , ' · ~ H ...
, . tV\
-
8/18/2019 A Balkanism in Central Europe Realis vs. Irrealis in Subordinate Clauses in Prekmurje Slovene 2011
4/9
-
8/18/2019 A Balkanism in Central Europe Realis vs. Irrealis in Subordinate Clauses in Prekmurje Slovene 2011
5/9
-
8/18/2019 A Balkanism in Central Europe Realis vs. Irrealis in Subordinate Clauses in Prekmurje Slovene 2011
6/9
-
8/18/2019 A Balkanism in Central Europe Realis vs. Irrealis in Subordinate Clauses in Prekmurje Slovene 2011
7/9
Towards an explanation
The situation elaborated for PKM should not surprise us, as it is clear from
the wider Slavie eontext that the particle da started out
its
life as a marker of
optative propositions,
as
in ex. (15):
15) vbdite i mofite S? da ne vbnidete Vb napastb
'Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation.'
It
is
generally assumed hat in BCS and Slovene da spread from potential to
assertive (indicative) propositions as its modal semantics weakened (Grickat
1975: 73- 78). It
is
thought that the spread progressed from west to east, a
process that Grickat terms a 'Balkanism in regression' ibid.: 74), presumably
on the basis
of
the attestations of this usage in the early eleventh century
Freising Folia, as in ex. (16):
(16)
Tase uueruiu u og uzemogoki,
i
u iega Zin, i u Zuue ti Duh, da ta
Iri
imena edin og
... (FF III)
I
also believe in God almighty and his Son and in the Holy Ghost that
these three names are one God
...
On the other hand, the complementizer
ka
originates in a lative or
instrumental pronominal form IE
*kweh, ,
cognate with Latin
qua in
what
manner' (Snoj 1996: 190- 191; Sihler 1995: 268).4 lndeed, the sense
in
what
manner'
is
included in the semantic range
of
Prekmurje pronominal
kil
The
form
is
attested with various semantie developments, as in exx. (17) and (18):
(17)
ka ta idziesz ([Polish dialect]
K o p e č n ý
1980: 325)
'where are you going',
18) ka srno
to
č u / i taka go kazvame ([Bg] K o p e č n ý 1980: 325)
as
we heard it, so we tell
It is moreover presumed to be the basis for the formation
of
the Slovene and
Kajkavian pronoun
kaj
w h a ť
*ka-jb
(Snoj 1996). The relic form
ko,
glossed
as 'what',
is
also found in Carinthian Slovene fossilized phrases (19):
(19)
Kopa
je
Ko
pa
b(-? Ko
pa
sa rekli?
(Zdovc 1972: 109)F'
What
is i t ? / W h a ť s the matter?', 'What will happen?', So what did
they say?'
which have direct correlates in Prekmurje,
cf.
4
As Sihler points
out, it
is impossible to determine whether
Lat.
quá
and,
consequently, Slavie
*ka )
continue the lE instrumental or ablative,
as
both have the
same reflex
n
the desinence (loe. cit.).
5 The peculiarities of Zdovc's transcription are preserved here.
14
(20)
kll gé?
( M u k i č 2005: 143)
'What
is
i t ? / W h a ť s the malter?'
However, in contrast to Carinthian, in Prekmurje Slovene (stressed)
pronominal ka is the normal form for w h a ť . There is good reason to think that
his is the identical form in both Carinthian and Prekmurje Sloven.
As
I have
pointed out in Greenberg 2000, rounded *a was preserved longer in Carinthian
and Pannonian dialects
of
Slovene, at least until post jer-fall, as these two areas
failed to merge strong jers with tbe reflect of
*a:
.
6
Figure
3. Carinthian, Pannonian vs. Standard
(Central)
jer reflexe s
Common Slavie
Carinthian
annonian
den den
*makb
mak mak
Synthesis and conclusion
Common Slavie inheritance
• Subordination with participles (dative absolute, etc.)
Standard
Slovene
dan
mak
• Competition with subordination strategies with complementizers, some
innovative *že "focus, relativizing', *da 'optative', *koda 'temporal',
* k b d ě 'locative' ..
Early Slovene, Kajkavian
• Reinterpretation
of
lative oka 'whither'
-->
'what-NOM/ACC'
Early Northeastern
Slovene
(Carinthian, Pannonian)
• Reinterpretation of construction transitive --> pseudo-intransitive
6 This interpretation differs from Zdovc 's loc. cit.), who assumes that the fonn is
derived from an earlier *kó, though points out that this instance
of
final stressed
o
is unique (31). The development becomes understandable if one assumes that the
form derives from *ká and that labialized *a was inherited rather than innovative
(Greenberg 2000: 113).
15
-
8/18/2019 A Balkanism in Central Europe Realis vs. Irrealis in Subordinate Clauses in Prekmurje Slovene 2011
8/9
Vidimb
V i ď > ? )
ka
d ě l a j e š i .
Vidimb
V i ď >?), k l a j e š i
see-I-SO-PRES what-ACC do-2-
>
see-I-so COMP do-2-s0-PRES
SO-PRES
I see what you are doing.
South Slavie
I see that you are doing (something), i.e.,
working
• Reinterpretation
of
da-elauses from optative general
subordinationleomplementation
• Spread
of
da-clause innovation fails to affeet NE Slovene, whieh had
already developed general subordination
Prekmurje Slovene with respeet to eomplex eonstruetions belongs to
a type that
is
divergent from Slovene and BCS, but also includes eomplexities
that have been attributed to the Balkan
Sprachbund.
The claim here is
of
eourse
not that Prekmwj e belongs
to
the Balkan
Sprachbund,
but that it both reflects an
earlier stage
of
the spread
of da
from irrealis to realis that otherwise is refleeted
in Slovene and BCS as well as had its own partieular development
of a eontrast between temporal da and realis ka .
t
is thus a divergent type that
is
worth ineluding in the typology
of
Slavie subordination. In historical
perspective, Prekmurje Slovene shows us a peripheral ease that indieates
eomplexities that have disappeared in the more innovative center.
Abbreviations
ACC
= aecusative;
AUX
= auxiliary verb; Bg = Bulgarian; COMP
eomplementizer;
COND
= eonditional;
DAT
= dative; dial. = dialeet; F
feminine; FF = Freising Folia = Bernik et al. 1993; FUT = future; IMP =
imperative;
IMPF
= imperfective; M= maseuline; N = neuter; OCS = Old Chureh
Slavie (quoted from Blagova et
al.
1994);
PF =
perfeetive; PKM
=
Prekmurje
Slovene (prekmurje Slovene);
PL
=
plural ; Po
=
Polish; Ro
=
Romanian ;
SO
=
singular;
REFL =
reflexive;
SS =
Standard Slovene;
VN = Vend nyelvtan =
Pável
1942
References
AMMANN Andreas and Johan VAN DER AUWERA. Complementizer
He;ded Main Clauses for Volitional Moods in the Languages
of
South
Eastern Europe. Olga Mišeska
TOMlé
ed.
Balkan Syntax nd
16
Semantics (Linguistik Aktue/llLinguistics Today, v.
67
),
pp. 293- 314.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004.
BLAGOVA, E.,
et
al.
Staroslavjanskij slovar po rukopis m X vekov) .
Moseow: Russkij jazyk, 1994.
BERNIK, France,
et
al., eds.
Brižinski spomeniki. Z n a n s l v e n o k r i t i č n a izdaja.
Ljubljana: SAZU, 1993.
GREENBERG, Mare
L.
Ágost Pável's Prekmurje Slovene Grammar.
S l a v i s t i č n a
revija
37, 1989,
pp.
353- 364.
GREENBERG, Mare
L.
Glasoslovni opis reh prekmurskih govorov in
komentar k zgodovinskemu glasoslovju in oblikoglasju prekmurskega
n a r e č j a .
S l a v i t i č n a
revija. 41,1993, 4, pp. 465-487
GREENBERG, Mare
L. A Historical Phonology oj the Slovene Language =
Historical Phonology oj the Slavic Languages,
13). Heidelberg:
C.
Winter Universitatsverlag, 2000.
GREENBERG, Mare L. The Pannonian Slavie Dialect of the Common Slavie
Proto-Language. Canadian Slavonic Papers, XLVI, 2004, 1- 2, pp.
213- 220.
GREENBERG, Mare
L. Dialect Variation along the Mura. Croatica et Slavica
Iadertina I, 2005, pp. 107- 124.
GREENBERG, Mare
L.
The Slovene Sound System Through Time.
S l a v i s t i
revija, 54, 2006, (Posebna številka: Slovensko jezikoslovje danes /
Slovenian Linguistics Today), pp. 535- 543.
GREENBERG, Mare L. A Short ReJerence Grammar oj Slovene (= LlNCOM
Studies
in
Slavie Linguistics 30). Munieh: Lineom, 2008.
GRlCKAT, Irena. Studije iz istorije srpskohrvatskogjezika. Belgrade: Narodna
biblioteka S. R. Srbije, 1975.
K O P E Č N Ý , František et al. Etimologický slovník slovanských j a z y k ů Slova
gramatická a zájmena, sv.
2.
Spojky, č á s t i zájmena a zájmenna
adverbia.
Prague:
Č S A V ,
1980.
M U K I Č , Franeek. Porabsko-knjižnoslovensko-madžarski slovar. Szombathely:
Zveza Sloveneev na Madžarskem, 2005.
NEWMARK, Leonard, Philip HUBBARD and Peter PRIFTI. Standard
Albanian. A ReJerence Grammar Jar Students. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1982.
NOONAN, Michael. 1985. Complementation. Timothy SHOPEN,
ed.
Language Typology and Syntactic Description.
Vol.
II. Complex
Constructions, pp. 42-140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NOVAK, Vilko. Slovar stare knjižne
p r e k r n u r š č i n e .
Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU,
2007.
PAVEL, Avgust (PÁVEL Ágost). Vend s z i i v e g g y ť i j t e m é n y s az eddigi
g y ť i j t é s e k
tiirténete. Nyelvtudomány 6, 1917,
3,
pp.
161
-
187
PAVEL, Avgust (pÁ VEL Ágos
t).
Vend s z i i v e g g y ť i j t e m é n y s az eddigi
g y ť i j t é s e k
tiirténete (folytatás és vége). Nyelvtudomány 6,
1918 4
pp.
263 - 282.
17
. .
. : . v ~ : : : , J ú : . ~ , ~ ~ ·
-
8/18/2019 A Balkanism in Central Europe Realis vs. Irrealis in Subordinate Clauses in Prekmurje Slovene 2011
9/9
PAVEL, Avgust (PÁVEL Ágost). Vend nyelvtan. Unpublished ms.,
Vashidegkut (Cankova) and Szombathely, 1942.
SCATTON, Ernest.
A ReJerence Grammar
oj
Modern Bulgarian.
Columbus:
Slavica, 1984.
SIHLER, Andrew L New Comparative Grammar oj Greek and Latin. New .
York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
SNOJ, Marko. Kaj je kaj? Š k r a b č e v a misel JI Zbornik s simpozija 96, pp. 187-
192. Nova gorica:
F r a n č i š k a n s k i
samostan Kostanjevica, 1996.
SNOJ, Marko. Slovenski etimološki slovar. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2003.
TEMLIN, Franc. Mali Katechismus dr Martina Luthra [Facsimile edition].
Murska Sobota: Pomurska založba, 1715 [1986].
ZOOVC, Paul.
Die Mundart des siid6stlichen Jauntales in Kiirnten. Lautlehre
un Akzent der Mundart der Poljanci
(=
Schriften der
Balkankommission Linguistische Abteilung
XX). Vienna: ÓAW, 1972.
18
Leopold Geitler s Contribution to Lithuanian dialectology:
geolinguistic aspect
D a n g u o l ě
M i k u l ě n i e n ě
Ab tr.cI
The article reviews the research into the Lithuanian language by the Czech linguist
Leopold Geitler. Hi, 1873 trip to the are. the Lithuanian language, which was under
Imperial Russia
at
the time is dealt with. Judging
y
a reconstructed itinerary Geitler
was most o
aH
interested in the border o the tW main dialects o the Lithuanian
language, the Aukštaitian and Žemaitian. From the present point o view, Geitler was
interested in those Aukštaitian dialects that were most removed from the Lithuanian
dialects o
Eastem Prussia
and
written Lithuanian
o that
tirne. Therefore in Lithuanian
linguistics
he is
first o a rnentioned
as
a
researcher into
the
Lithuanian
dialects.
Keywords
geolinguistics, Lithuanian dialectology, Leopold
Geit1er
Lithuanian dialects.
O
Leopold Oeitler (1847- 1885) is little known in the history
of
Lithuanian
linguistics. In Lithuanian encyclopaedias (LKE 184, VLE 491) he is introduced
as a Czech linguist of the second
half
of the n.ineteenth century, who visited
Litbuan.ia and published texts in the dialects of Endriejavas, Zarasai, Šiauliai,
and Panevéžys surroundings. He also published excerpts from the first
Lithuanian book and was tbe first to publish the poem A n y k š č i l J šilelis (The
Orove
of
A n y k š č i a i
by
tbe poet Antanas Baranauskas (Oeitler 1875). This
especially deserves attention as the publication appeared at tbc time
of
the ban
of Lithuanian press in the Latin letters in the area under Russia s jurisdiction
(1864-1904) (for more see
Z i n k e v i č i u s
1990: 64- 109, 1996:
259-262
Palionis
1995: 224- 226, Oini 2000: 344-347).
Altbough Oeitler wrote a work on dialectology (Geitler 1884; 1885 ), whi1e
evaluating Oeitler s contribution to Lithuanian linguistics the com monly
accepted opinion is that because of the mistakes and inaccuracies and a
mechanical link
of
facts of the Lithuanian language to the history
of
tbe Slav
languages today this work does not have any greater value (Sabaliauskas
1979: 145). This evaluation rnay be too categorical and should be applied first
and foremost to the first attempts in Lithuanian phonolog y (Oeitler 1873).
What is the real situation? Rcsearch carried out by contemporary
geolinguistic methods enables us to rnake Oeitler s contribution and importance
to the history
of
Litbuanian lingu istics, first
of
all, dialecto10gy, more accurate.
1.
Oeitler s research into thc Lithuanian language coincided with interest in
the Lithuanian dialects, whic h grew in the second half
of
the nineteenth century.
The appearance of grammars
by
August Schleicher (Schleicher 1856) and
Fridrich Kuršaitis (Kurschat 1876) can be considered the beginning
of
a more
19