Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Неясные слова в Matepiaлах до словника писемної та книжної української мови XV-XVIII cт. Е. Тимченко

100%

Fałowski A.

|

tom 124

PL

В 2002-2003 гг. через сто лет после своего возникновения вышел в свет первый вполне научный исторический словарь украинского языка Матеріали до словника писемної та книжної української мови XV-XVIII ст. Словарь был готов к изданию уже в 1904 г. и охватывал 12-13 тысяч заглавных слов. В качестве источников Е. Тимченко использовал 34 памятника украинского яэыка XV-XVIII вв.Внимательное ознакомление со словарем позволило мне обратить внимание на довольно частые случаи, когда автор словаря или его современные издатели и редакторы не смогли однозначно установить правильное значение данного слова (поэтому они ставят после него вопросительный знак), или - значительно реже - не сумели верно воспроизвести его фонетико-морфологическую структуру, не говоря уже о том, что во многих случаях вообще отсутствуют какие-либо семантические комментарии.Предметом настоящей статья является попытка рассмотреть 204 заглавных слова, исследуемого словаря, которые оказались слишком трудными для объяснения и заодно проверить, действительно ли можна считать их темными и непонятными, или все-таки существует возможность лишить их клейма таинственности и непонятности.Результаты кропотливых поисков в словарях восточнославянских и польского языков оказались довольно удовлетворительными. Мне удалось дать правильное толкование значения (иногда структуры) 126 слов. Кроме того, я пришел к выводу, что еще 22 сомнительных слова можна признать правильно объясненными автором (издателями) словаря, хотя они не фиксируются доступными лексикографическими источниками. Лишь 56 лексических единиц не подлежат однозначной интерпретации в свете имеющихся данных. Среди них находятся такие семанитческие группы, как: термины, относящиеся к сапожному ремеслу (затирачка, смольщина, стирачъ, топка, цинаксаръ) и названия разного рода налогов и повинностей (лядкира, отправчое, повивачное, повћчщына, погребщина, покабанщина, покаранщина, присадное). Есть основания утверждать, что некоторые слова, принадлежащие к этой группе, были неправильно прочитаны автором словаря (нпр. крошвниця, кутка, удъ, ядровиця).Следует ожидать, что дальнейшие исследования и поиски должны в значительной степени уменьшить число темных и загадочных слов в „Материалах" Е. Тимченко.

2

The East-Slavonic sorok ‘40’ revisited

100%

Fałowski A.

|

EN

None of the hitherto proposed attempts at explaining the origin of the East-Slavonic numeral sorok ‘40’, is satisfactory. This refers almost equally to those propositions that derive it from Greek (F. Miklosich, A. Brückner, V. Jagić), Turkish (O.N. Trubačëv) or from Old Norse (M. Vasmer). The author of the current article puts forward a yet another solution, this time pointing to the Ugro-Finnic languages. As the basis of the borrowing, the Udmurt proto-form *śor-ku/*sor-ku is advanced, which was adapted to *sork > sorok on the East-Slavonic ground. A possible semantic evolution leads from ‘marten pelt(s)’ > ‘a bundle of pelts’ > ‘a bundle of pelts of forty pieces (as many as was needed to sew one fur-lined overcoat’ > ‘a numerical unit (measure) used in trade’ to ‘a stand-alone number 40’. The proposed etymology corresponds well with the context of Ugro-Finnic – East-Slavonic linguistic and extralinguistic contacts.

3

Czy bachur/bachor przybył do Polski ze Wschodu?

100%

Fałowski A.

LingVaria : Półrocznik Wydziału Polonistyki UJ poświęcony zagadnieniom języka i językoznawstwa

|

2010

|

nr 2(10)

193-197

EN

The article is a voice in a dispute begun by R. Rosół (W sprawie etymologii rzeczownika bachor [On the etymology of the noun bachor ], „Język Polski” LXXXIX, 2009, issue 4−5) and continued by Marek Stachowski (Kilka uwag o kwestii żydowskich i słowiańskich źródeł polskiego bachor [On some possible Jewish and Slavonic sources of the Polish word bachor). The author is prone to accept an affi rma tive answer to the question in the title. Studying the history of the word bachor/bachur in East- -Slavic languages meaning child, Jewish child, Jewish youth, young Jew, he fi nds that old western- Ruthenian writings (16th−18th centuries) as well as lexicographic sources (19th−20th centuries) offer a wealth of examples of the lexeme in question in a number of forms and semantic-stylistic variants. This testifi es to its active and expansive status in East-Slavic territory (except Russia). That bachor/bachur is an East-Slavic import into Polish is suggested by the following arguments: a) earlier chronology of the word and its derivatives in western-Ruthenian texts than in Polish, meaning Jewish boy, youth; b) the existence of three phonetic variants found in old western-Ruthenian texts: бахуръ, бахоръ, бехуръ against two in Polish: bachur, bachor; c) its much greater derivational activity in East-Slavic languages, cf. Ukr. derivatives: бахурчик, бáхурка, бaхурн’я, бахурувáти, бахурувáтий, бахурчá, бахурн’ятський, Belorus. бáхурка, бахуравáць, бáхурoк, бáхурство; Pol. bachorzę, bachorzy, bachorek, bachoro, bachorzec (the last three forms confi rmed in Słownik gwar polskich [Dictionary of Polish dialects] I: 244–249); d) the word’s richer range of senses in western- -Ruthenian languages (including metaphorical senses) than in Polish, cf. Belorus.-Ukr.: young Jew, boy; urchin; child, Jewish child; bastard; womanizer, fl irter, lover; pot-bellied person; uncastrated hog; incubated chicken; small pillow, Pol. ‘ill-behaved child, brat; Jewish child; illegitimate child; boy, Jewish youth; ordinary stickball player; young hog’. Considering the reasons for the peculiar variance of bachor/bachur both in initial (ba-|| be-) and fi nal positions (-ur || -or), the author concludes that when eastern Slavs borrowed it from Yiddish, the word meaning ‘youth; Jewish child’ fell on favorable ground in homonymic words of Slavic origin. Listed in dictionaries of proto-Slavic, those included: *bachorъ 1 : *bachorь : *bachurъ ‘something swollen, rounded, spherical; belly; stomach in ruminants’, and *bachorъ 2. south-eastern dial. ‘wizard, sorcerer’.

4

Maloizvestnyj rukopisnyj vostochnoslavjanskij slovar XVIII veka

100%

Fałowski A.

Rocznik Slawistyczny

|

2012

|

tom 61

16-23

EN

The article deals with the handwritten dictionary from the first half of the 18th century, which is kept in the department of manuscripts in the Jagiellonian Library (Ms. Slav. Qu.28 Lexicon slavo-rutenicum). To some extent its title is erroneous. Actually, it is a trilingual East Slavic–Latin–German dictionary – which was not finished, as it had been compiled only till the end of the letter “o”. It consists of 746 pages in the quarto format. S. Strojew recognized Mathurina Veyssière de La Croze (1661-1739) as the author of the dictionary; he was a French orientalist and polyglot, who worked in the Royal Library of Berlin. In the dictionary, East Slavic material is mostly represented by the Church Slavonic language and there are also a lot of Western Ruthenian (Old Ukrainian) words. First of all, the author of this article pays attention to the lexis of the Russian language of that period, in particular to the common words and phrases which still exist nowadays without any changes (for example, блядка, блядун, выблядок, выхухоль, ведьма, вязига, гагара, дышло, задница, лодыжка, лютик, обезьяна, оглобли, оладьи, отек, отпуск, очень), and also to dialect words, which are used just in some restricted areas and have been registered only in the dialect dictionaries of Russian language (for example, байка, байник, балушка, балушник, берсень, борозна, ботник, буга, варадомаи, воробец, воспа). This lexis was systematized and characterized from the viewpoint of restricted areas and analyzed on the base of W. Dahl’s dictionary and the multivolume “Dictionary of Russian Dialects” (“Словарь русских народных говоров”). The compiled list of such words consists of 115 units (letters a-o). The last part of the article is dedicated to the sources of the material (dictionaries and texts), used by the putative author for his lexicon.

5

Nieznany rękopiśmienny słownik wschodniosłowiański (Lexicon slavo-rutenicum) z początku XVIII wieku

100%

Fałowski A.

Slavica Wratislaviensia

|

2014

|

tom 159

91 - 100

EN

The article deals with the handwritten dictionary from the first part of the 18th century, which is kept in the department of manuscripts in the Jagiellonian Library (Ms. Slav. Qu.28 Lexicon slavo-rutenicum). To some extent its title is erroneous. Actually it is a trilingual dictionary-East Slavic-Latin-German, that is not finished as it has been compiled only till the end of letter „o”. It consists of 746 pages of quarto format. S. Stroyev recognized that the author of the dictionary is Mathurina Veyssière de La Croze (1661–1739), the French orientalist and polyglot, who worked in the Royal Library of Berlin. In the dictionary East Slavic material is mostly represented by Church Slavonic Language and also there are alot of Western Ruthenian (Old Ukrainian) words. The author of this article pays attention mainly to the lexis of Russian language of that period, inparticular to the widespread words and phrases, which exist till now without any changes (for example, блядка, блядун, выблядок, выхухоль, ведьма, вязига, гагара, дышло, задница, лодыжка, лютик, обезьяна, оглобли, оладьи, отек, отпуск, очень), and also to dialect words, which are used just in some land areas and have been fixed only in the dialect dictionaries of Russian language (for example, байка, байник, балушка, балушник, берсень, борозна, ботник, буга, варадомаи, воробец, воспа). This lexis was systematized and characterized from the viewpoint of land area and analyzed on the base of the dictionary of W. Dahl and the multivolume Dictionary of Russian Dialects (Словарь русских народных говоров). The analyzed lexis was quantitatively limited — just letters г-к. The last part of the article is dedicated to the sources of material, used by the putative author for his dictionary.

6

Z polskich drobiazgów słownikowych Tadeusza Szymańskiego: japa

100%

Fałowski A.

Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Linguistica

|

2023

|

nr 18

73-78

EN

The article deals with the Polish dialectal word japa, which was the subject of interest of T. Szymanski. It presents a point in the discussion concerning the etymology of the mentioned dialectal word. The author has come to the following conclusions: 1) it is necessary to consider separately etymologically the Proto‑Slavic *ěpa ‘a growth on a tree, a swollen place on the body’ and the Polish and Belorussian dialectal word japa which means ‘mouth; a large hole’, 2) it is unlikely to be a word derived from a child language, 3) the Serbian and Croatian items should be considered as etymologically identical to the Polish and East Slavic ones, 4) japa ‘mouth, map, etc.’ is close to ziapa with the same meaning, 5) the form with onset ja- (japa) is a result of changing word structure, 6) regional spreading of the Polish dialectal words japa and ziapa could indicate on their Ruthenian roots, 7) it is difficult to establish conclusively whether German word forms japen, jappen which mean ‘to open one’s mouth; to catch, grasp with one’s mouth’ have played any part in this process.

7

Z etymologii polskiej (2): rozgardiasz

100%

Fałowski A.

Slavia Occidentalis

|

2023

|

nr 80/1

43-54

EN

The article is devoted to the word rozgardiasz (hurly-burly) well-known in general Polish. Its chronology, semantic development, geography, and etymology are presented in a detailed and systematic way. It has been recognised as a Polish-Latin hybrid and a manifestation of the word-forming invention of Jan Mączyński, the author of the Latin-Polish Dictionary from 1564. The word’s forming structure and etymology are not entirely clear. In all probability, three constituent elements can be identified: *roz- +-gard- + -‘as(z), where the initial segment roz- should be interpreted as a prefix with the meaning ‘to break with something, to depart from something, to negate something’, the central segment -gard- can be referred, most likely, to garda [guard], gardość, gardać, gardzić [to despise], hardy [impertinent], hardość [impertinence] etc., with a lexical meaning ‘splendour, superfluity, debauchery, choosiness in eating and drinking’. Most problematic is the interpretation of the final component -‘as(z) which seems to be a nonnative element, probably Latin. This is indicated by the graphic combination -dia-, alien to the Polish language and characteristic of Latin, assimilated on Polish soil as -dyja-, i.e. rozgardyja(s), cf. dialectal rozgardyjo, ozgardyja, ṷozgardyjo, etc. In Latin, -as is the acc. ending of pl. of feminine nouns like discordia, lūxuria, pl. dēliciae, epulae, īnsidiae, cf. Latin discordias prōdūcere (discordia ‘discord, feud’), dēlicias facere (dēliciae pl. ‘sensual pleasures, amusements, amusements, superfluities, delights,enjoyments’), alicuie pulas dare, oculis epulas dare (epulae pl. ‘dishes, dishes; feast, feast’), īnsidias struere (īnsidiae’ intrigues, scheming, deceit’). In the phrase rozgardias(z) stroić, the noun occurs in the accusative. If we assume that this is a copy of the Latin acc. pl. of feminine nouns, then the literal meaning of the conjunction r. stroić should be interpreted as a repeated, recurring activity, i.e. ‘to arrange sensual delights, debauched amusements, games, frolics, luxuries, pleasures; to hold feasts, debauchedand sumptuous feasts, with an abundance of exquisite and fanciful food, an excess of the finest liquors and the presence of other carnal pleasures’. This corresponds semantically with the synonymous verbs używać, bonować cited by J. Mączyński. It would also have to be assumed that over time, the acc. pl. of a feminine noun abstracted from the substantive-verbal construction as a masculine noun and began to live its own life. This conception of the genesis of the lexeme in question, although very attractive and internally coherent, is, however, unable to transcend the limits of an academic hypothesis.