Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

A Note on the Balto-Slavic and Indo-European Background of the Proto-Slavic Adjective *svętъ ‘Holy’

100%

Majer M.

Studia Ceranea

|

2017

|

tom 7

139-149

EN

The standard etymological explanation of the Proto-Slavic adjective *svętъ ‘holy, saint’ – a word of extreme literary, cultural and religious importance in the Slavic world – concentrates on the formal match with Lithuanian šventas ‘id.’ and Avestan spəṇta‑ ‘life-giving, holy’ (PIE *ḱwen‑to‑, from the root *ḱwen‑). This article highlights the verbal formation seen in Latvian svinêtsvin svinẽjo ‘celebrate, venerate’, generally recognized as another reflex of the root *ḱwen‑ in Balto-Slavic, but without due attention to the formal implications. It is argued that both in Av. and in BSl. the adjective spəṇta‑/*svętъ behaves as an item participating in the so-called ‘Caland System’ (a set of arbitrary morphological alternations reconstructible for Proto-Indo-European).

2

O pochodzeniu słowiańskich i germańskich nazw pór dnia. ‘Dzień’, ‘noc’, ‘rano’, ‘wieczór’, ‘świt’ i ‘zmierzch’

100%

Maziarz M.

Język a Kultura

|

2015

|

tom 25

35-57

EN

This paper discusses the etymology of names ascribed to day, night, morning, evening, dawn, and dusk in Slavic and Germanic languages. In this work I aim to prove that the strong version of Whorf’s hypothesis is wrong — language does not determine perception and reflection. The research provided in the article gives us convincing proof. The names for morning, evening and dusk in Slavic and Germanic branches have analogical semantic motivation and all of them are connected with the meaning of ‘shining’ or ‘darkening’.

3

Ps. *ži- /živ- (~ *zvěr-) (basic lines of semantic derivation in Polish)

86%

Topolińska Z.

Rocznik Slawistyczny

|

2020

|

nr LXIX

4

Systemowe zmiany fonologiczne w języku prasłowiańskim a rozwój nosówek i jat’

86%

Pianka W.

Rocznik Slawistyczny

|

2008

|

tom 57

57-74

EN

In Slavic linguistics, it was commonly accepted from the beginning of the 19th century that the oral articulation of Old Church Slavonic nasal vowels didn’t differ from the articulation of the oral vowels o and e. This opinion was probably based on the fact that the only language that had retained nasal vowels — the Polish language — had this kind of articulation. It was believed that the Old Church Slavonic language didn’t differ much from the Proto-Slavic language, and this articulation was accepted for the reconstruction of the phonology of that language. The vowel jat’ (ě) was treated as an open e, which in some languages and dialects has developed in certain environments into a (Polish and Bulgarian), in other cases into e (this change operated also as an environmentally unconditioned one in Serbian, Macedonian, Russian and Belarusian), but also into i (in the Ukrainian language and Croatian dialects), into the diphthong ie / je (in Croatian), or has remained a distinct close phoneme (<ě> in Sorbian languages). The back nasal vowel has in most of the languages changed into u, but in some of them into o (Slovenian), into ǎ <ъ> (Bulgarian) and further into a (Macedonian). The front nasal vowel changed into e (in the remaining South Slavic languages) or into a (East Slavic languages, Upper Sorbian and initially Czech and Slovak), whereas in Lower Sorbian it merged with the jat’ reflexes. In literary Polish, (after long and short nasal vowels had merged) since the 16th century, we have reflexes articulated as e (<ę>) and o (<ą>). The views concerning the articulation of nasal vowels and jat’ begun to change under the influence of G.Y. Shevelov’s works (1964), which — based on previous borrowings of Slavic words into non-Slavic languages and vice-versa — marked a significant turning point in views on the phonology of the Late Proto-Slavic period. The dialectal materials (taken mainly form works published in connection to the Slavic Linguistic Atlas — OLA) presented in this paper enable a preliminary revision of the views concerning the realisation of Early Proto-Slavic nasal vowels and diphthongs, from which jat’ derived. In nearly the entire South Slavic area, a figures among the reflexes of the front nasal vowel and of jat’, which points to the common development of Proto-Slavic front diphthongs (containing i and nasal vowels), and therefore to an open articulation of the initial jat’. Therefore the so called jat’ umlaut (in Bulgarian or Polish) is not an umlaut, but the original pronunciation before non-palatal consonants. The parallel development of back diphthongs (containing u as well as and nasal vowels) is even more visible: in case of diphthongs containing u, on the entire area, and where the nasal diphthongs are concerned, covering the great majority of Slavic dialects and languages.

5

Rozważania nad genezą prasłowiańskiego apelatywu *smokъ

86%

Witczak K. T.

Rocznik Slawistyczny

|

2016

|

tom 65

101-115

EN

The Proto-Slavic term for ‘dragon, big winged snake’, *smokъ, cannot be explained on the basis of the native, purely Slavic vocabulary of Indo-European origin. It was suggested many years ago that the noun in question has been borrowed from a foreign source. The old hypothesis by Słuszkiewicz (1958: 211–214), according to which the Slavs borrowed it from a Germanic source (e.g. OE. snaca m. ‘snake’, E. snake ‘id.’, LG. Schnake m. ‘grass-snake’), specifi cally a Scandinavian one (see Nw. snåk m. ‘snake, viper’, Sw. snok, Dan. snog ‘id.’ < Gmc. *snēkaz m.), should be rejected for morphological and phonological reasons. The author suggests a new etymology, according to which PSl. *smokъ represents an Iranian borrowing (from Iran. *sušnaka- ‘dragon, winged snake’ via Sarmatian). The Indo-Iranian lexical data seem to confi rm this hypothesis, cf. Vedic (RV) śúṣṇa- m. ‘a serpentine demon slain by Indra’ (originally *ćúšna- ‘hisser’ in Indo- Iranian); Shughni sāɣ̌(d) f., Bajui sāw f., Roshani sāw f., Khufi sāw f., Bartangi sāwn f. ‘a big snake (in folklore), dragon’ < Iran. *sušnā- (Morgenstierne 1974: 72–73).

6

K menám priamej línie Mojmírovského domu

72%

Pukanec M.

Acta onomastica

|

2020

|

tom 61

|

nr 1

185-193

EN

This paper deals with two names of the direct Mojmir line (Great Moravia, 9th–10th century): *Mojьměrъ/*Mojьmirъ and *Svętěpъlkъ/*Svętopъlkъ. In the paper, the author analyzes three hypotheses concerning the origin of Proto-Slavic onymic elements *-měrъ/-mirъ in the Late Proto-Slavic personal name *Mojьměrъ/*Mojьmirъ > Czech-Slovak Mojmír, attested as Moimar, Moymar ʻMojmir I, ruler of Great Moraviaʼ, and Moymir, Moymarius ʻMojmir II, ruler of Great Moraviaʼ: (1) Proto-Slavic *-měrъ < Proto-Indo-European *meh1-ro- ʻglorious, greatʼ, (2) Proto-Slavic *-měrъ < Proto-Germanic, Gothic mērs ʻgloriousʼ, Proto-Slavic *-mirъ being in both cases secondary, Proto-Slavic *-mirъ < Proto-Slavic *mirъ ʻpeace, worldʼ, Proto-Slavic *-měrъ being secondary, which is rejected, as well as two hypotheses concerning the origin of the Proto-Slavic onymic element *-pъlkъ in the Late Proto-Slavic personal name *Svętěpъlkъ/*Svętopъlkъ > Czech Svatopluk, Slovak Svätopluk, attested as Szuentiepulc, Zuentibald, Zuentebald, Sfentopulch, etc. ʻSvatopluk I, ruler of Great Moraviaʼ, and Zentobolch, Zuentibald ʻSvatopluk II, prince of Great Moraviaʼ: (1) Proto-Slavic *-pъlkъ ʻregiment, crowd, etc.ʼ < Gothic or Longobardic fulk- ʻpeople, multitude, armyʼ < Proto-Indo-European *pel- ʻfill, etc.ʼ, which is more popular, (2) Proto-Slavic *-pъlkъ ʻregiment, house [= clan], etc.ʼ (cf. Old Czech meanings and Proto-Germanic fulg- ʻto followʼ) < Proto-Indo-European *plk- ʻto stand by sb.ʼ, which is more probable. After the discussion, the first personal name is reinterpreted as *Mojiměrъ < Proto-Indo-European *moios ʻmy [regiment, house]ʼ + *meh1-ro- ʻglorious, greatʼ, and the latter one as *Svętěpъlkъ/*Svętopъlkъ < Proto-Slavic *svęt ʻglorious, greatʼ (< Proto-Indo-European *ḱwen- ʻto celebrateʼ) + Proto-Slavic *-pъlkъ ʻregiment, houseʼ.

7

From Proto-Slavic into Germanic or from Germanic into Proto-Slavic? A review of controversial loanwords

72%

Noińska M. , Rychło M.

Studia Rossica Gedanensia

|

2017

|

nr 4

39-52

EN

Германские заимствования в праславянском языке были всесторонне проанализированы как западными, так и восточными учеными, однако проблема заимствований в обратном направлении получила гораздо меньше внимания, особенно среди западных ученых. Стоит отметить, что Виктор Мартынов (1963) предложил 40 заимствований и проникновений из праславянского языка в прагерманский. Среди них девять, которые считаются заимствованиями в противоположном направлении в новейшей монографии по теме авторства Саскии Пронк-Титхофф (2013). Все они включены в составленный ей список вероятных германских заимствований в праславянском языке. Цель настоящей статьи – обзор и сопоставление взглядов лингвистов на этимологию этих слов (*bljudo, *kupiti, *lěkъ, *lugъ, *lukъ, *plugъ, *pъlkъ, *skotъ, *tynъ). Авторы учитывают анализы, проведенные не только Саскией Пронк-Титхофф и Виктором Мартыновым, но и Валентином Кипарским (1934) и Збигневом Голомбом (1992). Делается попытка определить, какие из девяти слов на самом деле можно с уверенностью считать заимствованиями из германских языков в праславянский, а также какие слова могли быть заимствованы в противоположном направлении.

8

Proto-Slavic palatal consonants and Proto-Turkic vowel harmony

72%

Stachowski M.

Rocznik Slawistyczny

|

2020

|

nr LXIX

9

Rozważania nad genezą prasłowiańskiego apelatywu *smokъ

72%

Witczak K. T.

Rocznik Slawistyczny

|

2016

|

nr LXV