V članku je obravnavana zgodnja slovenščina, tj. južnoslovanski jezik v vzhodnoalpskem in zahodnopanonskem prostoru, ki se je v 11. in 12. stoletju razprostiral od Donave na severu do Jadrana na ...jugu in roba Panonske nižine na vzhodu. Prikazan je zemljepisni obseg slovanskega jezikovnega prostora v Vzhodnih Alpah, kakor se kaže predvsem v pisnih virih od konca 6. do vključno 12. stoletja. Na osnovi jezikoslovne analize v virih dokumentiranih zemljepisnih in osebnih imen so določene jezikovne lastnosti zgodnje slovenščine, in sicer v prvi vrsti v razmerju do tedaj zemljepisno stičnih slovanskih geolektov na severu (poznejši češčina in slovaščina) in jugu (poznejša čakavščina).
One of the salient morphosyntactic features of the hypothesised Central European convergence area is allegedly a simple three-tense verb system (i. e. past, present, and future) without any formal ...and semantic distinction between the different past tense forms. The simplification of the originally more complex past tense system has been claimed to be contact-induced, which is mirrored in the loss of synthetic past tense forms in the linguistic history of German and Slavic. The article verifies the hypothesis according to which the loss of the preterit (i. e. a synthetic past tense form) in Upper German caused the disappearance of synthetic past tense forms, i. e. the aorist and the imperfect, in Slavic, more specifically Slovene. First, the process of the loss of the aorist and the imperfect in three medieval Slovene texts is presented, viz. the
(c. 972–1039), the
or
(2nd half of the 14th century), and the
(end of the 15th century). Second, the use of the preterit and the perfect in the Early New High German text
(c. 1515) from the South Bavarian-Austrian speech territory, more precisely Lower Styria, is analysed. The historical linguistic analysis of the cited Slovene and German linguistic material (the latter originating from the Slovene linguistic area as well) shows that in medieval Slovene the aorist (and most probably the imperfect, too) was lost no later than by the end of the 15th century, while the formal and semantic distinction between the preterit on one hand and the perfect on the other is still preserved in Early New High German documented in the “Slovene-speaking lands” in the second decade of the 16th century. From these facts one cannot but conclude that the loss of synthetic past tense forms in Slovene could not have been influenced by (the demonstrably later) loss of the preterit in South Bavarian-Austrian German dialects, which were historically (and in some regions still are) in geographical and, consequently, sociolinguistic contact with Slovene.
V članku so obravnavani slovanskí števniki od 1 do 10 v pred kratkim odkritem latinskem rokopisu iz Heiligenkreuza iz 12. stoletja (Cod. 250), ki sta jih prva objavila in interpretirala Tadeusz ...Lewaszkiewicz in Wiesław Wydra (2021). Preko natančne zgodovinskoglasoslovne analize števnikov, katerih zapis je bil najprej interpretiran grafično in glasoslovno, je vzpostavljena osnova za genealoško jezikoslovno določitev slovanskega jezika, v katerem so bili zapisani. Ta je postavljen v kontekst tedanjega slovanskega jezika v vzhodnoalpsko-zahodnopanonskem prostoru ter le-temu zemljepisno stičnih slovanskih geolektov severno in južno od tega.
Lo sloveno Sekli, Matej
Linguistik online,
06/2024, Letnik:
130, Številka:
6
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
The article offers an overview of Slovene in the region Friuli-Venezia Giulia (Friulian: Friûl-Vignesie Julie, Slovene: Furlanija – Julijska krajina, German: Friaul-Julisch Venetien) in the ...north-easternmost part of Italy, where Slovene is present in its historical linguistic setting alongside the Italian-Slovene national border. In fact, the presence of the Slavic linguistic element which eventually developed into Slovene in that territory dates back to the period of the settlement of Slavic populations in that area in the second half of the 6th century AD. From the viewpoint of linguistic genealogy, Slovene dialects in Friuli-Venezia Giulia unambiguously form part of the Slovene dialect continuum. From a sociolinguistic point of view, Slovene was officially recognised as a minority language by the Italian Republic by the language protection act for the historical linguistic minorities in Italy in 1999. However, the actual level of legal protection and the “health” of Slovene in the Italian minority context differs from region to region. The actual state of affairs depends predominantly on the availability of public education in Slovene and, consequently, its official use in formal contexts. In the Provinces of Trieste/Trst and Gorizia/Gorica, where Slovene is used as the teaching language in Slovene monolingual education up to the university level (i.e. 13 years of education from 1946), intergenerational transmission of Slovene as the mother tongue can be observed, with a balanced use of different linguistic varieties: the use of dialect or other substandard varieties in informal contexts and Standard Slovene (alongside Italian) in formal contexts. On the contrary, in the Province of Udine/Videm, the situation is significantly more complex. In those regions where at least elementary Italian-Slovene bilingual education also exists in Standard Slovene, it is the local Slovene dialects as well as Standard Slovene that are used in public. This is the case of the Natisone/Nadiža Valleys, where starting in 1984 a five-year bilingual schooling system was implemented, extended to eight years in 2008. In stark contrast to that, the Torre/Ter Valleys and the Resia/Rezija Valley, where Standard Slovene is absent from the educational system, witness very limited public representation of local Slovene dialects and/or Standard Slovene, which is more or less characterised by occasional use. The last part of the contribution provides a case study illustrating in more detail the role of Slovene in the Val Canale (Slovene: Kanalska dolina, German: Kanaltal, Friulian: Val Cjanâl).
The contribution aims to illustrate the framework of genealogical linguistic classification of Slavic/Slavonic languages and their dialect macro-areas as mirrored in the standard comprehensive ...surveys presenting geographical linguistic variation of Slavic. First, the theory and the methodology of the three main branches of linguistic science are presented, viz. genealogical (or genetic) linguistics, typological linguistics, and sociolinguistics, as well as the genealogical and the sociolinguistic classification of the Slavic languages. Second, the linguistic criteria of linguistic genealogy are discussed, whereby the extra-linguistic factors current in some other classifications are critically assessed using the examples from Slavic. Finally, a few case studies in the genealogical linguistic interpretation of Slavic are adduced, namely the dialectal delimitation of Eastern South Slavic (i.e. Macedonian vs. Bulgarian), Central South Slavic as a linguistic area, East Slavic languages, Kashubian in relation to Polish, and Sorbian in the context of West Slavic .
Aufgrund der relativen und absoluten Chronologie der Lautveränderungen sowohl im bair. Alt- und Mittelhochdeutschen als auch im Urslawischen, Alpenslawischen und Frühslowenischen kann man für die ...(bair.-)ahd. und (bair.-)mhd. Lehnwörter im (dialektalen und Schrift-)Slowenischen, die die deutschen oder slawischen diagnostischen phonetischen Eigenschaften aufweisen, eine ziemlich präzise relative und absolute Chronologie der Entlehnungszeit festlegen. Für die Bestimmung der präziseren Entlehnungszeit der (bair.-)ahd. Lehnwörter im Slowenischen sind einige (bair.-)ahd. Lautveränderungen um ca. 750, 770 und 1050 wie auch einige späturslawische Lautveränderungen um ca. 800 von großer Bedeutung. Für die Bestimmung des genaueren Zeitpunktes der Entlehnung von (bair.-)mhd. Lehnwörtern im Slowenischen sind einige (bair.-)mhd. Lautveränderungen um ca. 1050, 1100, 1200 und 1250 bedeutsam.
V članku je obravnavan izvor pridevnikov na -ov/-ev iz samostalnikov ženskega spola v slovenščini. Prikazani so nastanek in prvotni besedotvorni pomen praslovanské izsamostalniške pridevniške pripone ...*-ov-ъ/*-ev-ъ ter vrste pomenov pridevnikov na -ov/-ev v slovenščini, in sicer glede na slovarski pomen samostalnikov v jedru zložene samostalniške besedne zveze, ki jih ti pridevniki pomensko določajo.
The analysis of Old Romance geographical names in early South Slavic confirms that the majority of late Proto-Slavic sound changes were still operative in the period of the earliest Old ...Romance-Slavic language contacts in the Balkan Peninsula and eastern Alps from the second half of the 6th century and the beginning of the 7th century onwards. Phonetic substitutions of the type Rom. *kE, *gE → Sl. *c, *ʒ (Balk. Rom. *Kersu → Sl. *Cersъ, Balk. Rom. *Gīla → Sl. *Ʒiĺa) and Rom. *auC → Sl. *ovC (Balk. Rom. *Laurentiu > *Laurenču → Sl. *Lovręčь) point to the fact that the first palatalization of velars as well as the monophthongization of the inherited diphthongs were no longer among the ongoing processes. All other late Proto-Slavic sound changes were either still operative or only took place after the borrowing. This is confirmed by the relative chronology of the following set of Romance-Slavic correspondences: simplification of consonant clusters: Rom. *ps → Sl. *s (Balk. Rom. *Apsaru → Sl. *Osorъ), development of prothetic consonants: Rom. *ū- → Sl. *uū- > *vy- (Alp. Rom. *Ūdẹnu → Sl. *(V)ydьnъ), simplification of j-clusters: Rom. *Ci → Sl. *Cʹ (Balk. Rom. *Arsia → Sl. *Orša), delabialization of *o after *r: Rom. *ro → Sl. *ry > *ri (Rom. *Roma → Sl. *Rymъ > *Rimъ), second regressive palatalization of velars (see above Sl. *Cersъ, *Ʒiĺa), rise of nasal vowels: Rom. *ENC, *ONC → Sl. *ęC, *ǫC (Balk. Rom. *Parentiu > *Parenču → Sl. *Poręčь, Balk. Rom. *Karantānu → Sl. *Korǫtanъ), progressive palatalization of velars: Rom. *Ek, *Eg → Sl. *c, *ʒ (Balk. Rom. *Longātẹku → Sl. *Lǫgatьcь), delabialization of *ū1 > *y: Rom. *ū/*o → Sl. *y (Balk. Rom. *Allūviu → Sl. *Olybъ), labialization of *a > *o: Rom. *a → Sl. *o (Balk. Rom. *Kapra → Sl. *Koprъ), vowel reduction of *i, *u > *ь, *ъ: Rom. *ẹ, *ọ → Sl. *ь, *ъ (Balk. Rom. *Kọrẹku → Sl. *Kъrьkъ, Balk. Rom. *Tọrre → Sl. *Tъrъ).
The article presents various hypotheses on the origin of the language of the so-called Freising Fragments (Slovene Brižinski/Freisinški spomeniki, Latin Monumenta Frisingensia = MF), three Slavic ...texts written c. 972–1039, which are critically assessed from the viewpoint of the theory and methodology of historical linguistics. In fact, the arguments in favour of the various genealogical linguistic attributions of the Slavic language of these High Medieval manuscript texts are very heterogeneous, i.e. historical, palaeographic, textual, and historical linguistic. However, the genealogical linguistic or dialectological attribution of any linguistic system is possible only on the basis of historical linguistic analysis of the latter. In doing this, linguistic criteria are prioritized following a “bottom-up” principle, i.e. phonetics/phonology, morphology, syntax, and vocabulary.
V prispevku so prikazane ter s stališča teorije in metodologije zgodovinskega jezikoslovja kritično ovrednotene različne hipoteze o izvoru jezika t. i. Brižinskih (tudi Freisinških) spomenikov, treh slovanskih besedil, zapisanih v obdobju 972–1039. Argumenti v podporo raznih genealoških jezikoslovnih opredelitev slovanskega jezika tega visokosrednjeveškega rokopisnega spomenika so namreč zelo raznorodni (zgodovinski, paleografski, tekstološki, zgodovinskojezikoslovni). Določitev genealoške pripadnosti, tj. narečne osnove, poljubnega jezikovnega sistema pa je možna samo na osnovi zgodovinskojezikoslovne analize jezikovnih lastnosti slednjega, in sicer si po principu »od spodaj navzgor« po relevantnosti sledijo glasoslovno, oblikoslovno, skladenjsko in besedoslovno merilo.
PDF
