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


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

- "


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\


4/9


5/9


6/9


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


8/9

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 : . ~ , ~ ~ ·


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

Documents

A Balkanism in Central Europe Realis vs. Irrealis in Subordinate Clauses in Prekmurje Slovene 2011