U radu se daje kratki prikaz glavnih fonoloških i morfoloških značajki glogovničko-bilogorskoga dijalekta križevačko-podravskoga podnarječja kajkavskoga narječja.
U Fonetsko-gramatičkom nizu Općeslavenskoga lingvstičkog atlasa do sada
nije predviđen svezak za prozodiju. U ovom se radu pokazuje jedan primjer
metode za akcentuaciju, s kartom prozodijskih sustava ...hrvatskih punktova
OLA. Prikazuje se inventar i glavna distribucija prozodema u okviru riječi.
Iznose se i novije spoznaje o sustavima nekih punktova OLA.
U Reki se govori kajkavski i štokavski, i to tri idioma: kajkavski (s dvije starije i jednom novijom varijantom) te dva štokavska. Većina Hrvata govori, odnosno govorila je kajkavski, a manji dio ...govori istočnobosanskim, ijekavsko-šćakavskim dijalektom. Srbi govore novoštokavskom (i)jekavštinom („novoštakavskom”), istočnohercegovačkim dijalektom. Kajkavski govor, koji je moj rodni idiom, istražio sam za
Hrvatski jezični atlas
(punkt 37a). Iznosim pretpostavku o jeziku u Podravini prije migracija, govorim o nastanku sela te prikazujem glavne osobine govora. Osvrćem se i na susjedne govore.
People in Reka speak altogether three idioms of Kajkavian and Štokavian: one Kajkavian with three varieties and two Štokavian ones. Most Croats speak, or spoke, Kajkavian, while fewer speak the East-Bosnian Ijekavian-šćakavian dialect. Serbs speak the Neoštokavian Ijekavian („Neoštakavian”, the interrogative pronoun is
šta
) East-Herzegovinian dialect. I have reviewed the Kajkavian idiom in the monograph
Bilogorski kajkavski govori
(Kajkavian idioms of Bilogora), and the Štokavian ones in the article
Kalničko-bilogorska štokavština
(Štokavian idioms of Kalnik and Bilogora). Since the Kajkavian idiom is my native idiom, I undertook a research of it for the
Croatian language atlas
(point 37a). I make a hypothesis about a language in Podravina before migrations, I speak about how the village emerged and I present the main characteristics of the idioms. I draw parallels with the neighbouring idioms as well.
Božidar Finka bio je dijalektolog koji je veoma mnogo učinio za hrvatsku dijalektnu i jezičnu geografiju, pa bi sigurno i njemu bilo najviše stalo do toga da se što prije završi temeljni dio ...najvažnijega zadatka hrvatskoga jezikoslovlja i jedan od najvažnijih zadataka hrvatske znanosti, tj. da se istraže punktovi za Hrvatski jezični atlas. To je zadatak nacionalnoga jezikoslovlja postavljen još u 19. st. Tek nakon toga može slijediti izrada karata Atlasa.
Buzetski je dijalekt jedan je od šest čakavskih dijalekata, kako uzimamo od Brozovićeve klasifikacije čakavskoga narječja 1970. Danas se upotrebljavaju i nazivi
gornjomiranski
(Pliško) te
...buzetsko-gornjomiranski dijalekt.
Dobro je istražen i poznat. Uvodno se osvrćem na povijest istraživanja, kada se i zašto govorilo o buzetskoj
kajkavštini
(Aleksandar Belić, Mieczysław Małecki,. Fran Ramovš i Tine Logar, Josip Ribarić, Mate Hraste, Pavle Ivić, Dalibor Brozović, Božidar Finka, Petar Šimunović, Silvana Vranić i dr.). Prvi je termin 'buzetski dijalekt' u značenju u kojem se i u suvremenoj literaturi percipira upotrijebio Dalibor Brozović (1970.). Ranije su buzetski govori tretirani kao spoj čakavskoga narječja i slovenskoga jezika, kajkavskoga i čakavskoga narječja ili kao dio ekavskoga čakavskoga dijalekta. Razlikuju se dva poddijalekta, sjevernoistočni većinski i jugozapadni manjinski. Na sjeveru je veći utjecaj slovenskoga jezika, više je slovenskih značajki, a na jugu je više čakavskih karakteristika. U glavnom dijelu priloga analiziraju se osobine posebno u odnosu na kajkavsko narječje.
The dialect from Buzet is one of the six Čakavian dialects, based on the 1970 Čakavian dialect classification by Brozović. The names
gornjomiranski
(Pliško) and
buzetsko-gornjomiranski dijalekt
are also used today. This dialect has been thoroughly researched and is well known. There is an introduction on the research history; when and why the Kajkavian dialect from Buzet had been researched (by Aleksandar Belić, Mieczysław Małecki, Fran Ramovš and Tin Logar, Josip Ribarić, Mate Hraste, Pavle Ivić, Dalibor Brozović, Božidar Finka, Petar Šimunović, Silvana Vranić and others). The term „buzetski dijalekt“ with the same meaning as precepted in contemporary literature was first used by Dalibor Brozović (1970). Previously, the Buzet dialects had been treated as a combination of the Čakavian dialect with the Slovenian language, the Kajkavian dialect with the Čakavian dialect, or as a part of the Ekavian Čakavian dialect. There are two subdialects: the Northeast major dialect, and the Southwest minor dialect. There is greater influence of the Slovenian language in the North with major Slovenian characteristics, and there are more Čakavian characteristics in the South. The basic part of the paper gives an analysis of the dialect’s characteristics, mainly in respect to the Kajkavian dialect.
Rad je uvod u
proučavanje jezika koprivničkih zapisnika. Da bi se moglo bolje suditi o jeziku zapisnika, najprije se ukratko
prikazuje jezično, dijalektno stanje na širem koprivničkom području i ...donose se
stariji zapisi jezika, većinom toponima, s toga područja. Iznosi se pretpostavka o gradskom govoru Koprivnice. Daje se osvrt na metodologiju objavljivanja. Na temelju reprezentativnoga uzorka iz knjige
„
Zapisnici
poglavarstva
Grada
Koprivnice
1698-1702. Knjiga
prva
“,
koju je priredila Karmen Levačić, prikazuju se osnovne jezične,
grafijske i pravopisne značajke teksta. Pisari, bilježnici, zapisničari koji su pisali zapisnike
bili su obrazovani ljudi i služili su
se latinskim jezikom, a samo su iskaze drugih, npr. optuženih,
prenosili kako su bili izgovoreni, naravno, fonološki približno tako. Zapisničari
su znali sigurno i kajkavski književni jezik, hrvatski standard s kajkavskom
osnovicom. Mogli su biti ne samo kajkavci (a i kajkavsko je područje veliko s
raznolikim govorima) nego i štokavci, ima ih i u blizini Koprivnice, ali mogli
su, službom, doći i iz drugih krajeva, pa su mogli nehotice zapisati i osobine svojega rodnoga idioma. Koprivnica
je, iako mali grad, imala, kao i danas, svoju varijantu književnoga jezika, a imala
je i kajkavski interdijalekt, koine,
kojim su se ljudi iz okolice u Koprivnici više-manje međusobno sporazumijevali.
Uz pretežno kajkavsku strukturu hrvatskih zapisa nalazimo
i nekajkavske likove riječi.
Primjera ima već u najstarijim zapisima iz 1639. godine,
npr. to su riječi u kojima dolazi vokal
a
na mjestu staroga poluglasa
umjesto
e
,
koji je redovan
(kao
danas – denes
).
The paper is an introduction to the studies of the language used in the town of Koprivnica records. In order to be able to judge more comprehensively about the records’ language, a brief description is given of the language and dialectal situation in the wider Koprivnica area, showing some older records, mainly of toponyms from the said area. A hypothesis is given on the Koprivnica town speech.
A reference is made as to the publishing methodology.
The basic linguistic, graphic and orthographic characteristics of the text are shown on basis of a representative sample taken from the book
Zapisnici poglavarstva Grada Koprivnice 1698 – 1702. Knjiga prva
(Koprivnica Town Hall Government Records from 1698 – 1702, Book One) edited by Karmen Levačić. Scriveners, clerks, and recorders writing the records were educated people who knew Latin, and they only conveyed statements of other persons (of those who were accused, for example) in the manner they were spoken, to be phonologically similar to the spoken word. The scriveners surely knew the Kajkavian literature language as well, the Croatian standard language with a Kajkavian base. They could have been not only Kajkavians (although the Kajkavian area is vast enough with various vernacular), but also Štokavians (there are some living in the vicinity of Koprivnica), or they could have been those seeking employment and coming from other areas so they could have unintentionally recorded characteristics of their own idiom.
Although Koprivnica is a small town, it had its own variation of the literature language, the same as today, and it also had the Kajkavian interdialect, Koine, more or less used for communication by people from the Koprivnica area.
Along with the mainly Kajkavian structure in the Croatian records, there are also non-Kajkavian word examples. There are examples present as far back as in the oldest records dating from 1639. For example, they are words where the vowel a comes into the position of the old semivowel instead of e, regularly (for example, "
danas – denes
").
Ovo je prethodno
priopćenje o temi, koja je vrlo opsežna i slojevita, o kojoj će trebati
izraditi više radova, a najbolje bi bilo izraditi barem 1-2 disertacije. To je hrvatska mikrotoponimijia u ...Mađarskoj, i to u
Pomurju (Županija Zala), u Podravini
(Županija Šomođ – Somogy), te mikrotoponimija gradišćanskih kajkavaca, na
Nežiderskom / Niuzaljskom jezeru (Neusiedler See, Fertő tó) na sjeverozapadu
Mađarske (Đursko-mošonsko-šopronska županija – Győr-Moson-Sopron megye). U Pomurju je desetak sela, od kojih neka imaju
većinom hrvatska imena. gdje hrvatski govori pripadaju međimurskom dijalektu, i
to donjem (istočnom) poddijalektu. Uz austrijski granicu dva su kajkavska sela
(Homok / Umok i Vedešin / Hedešin), koja pripadaju gradišćanskohrvatskom krugu. Bez obzira na porijeklo, već je Ivšić pokazao da je velika sličnost tih
govora s međimurskima.
To je hrvatska kajkavska mikrotoponimija
u Mađarskoj, koje ima nešto i u
Podravini, gdje je većinom štokavska. Kad se obrađuje mikrotoponimija pojedinih sela u Podravlju, treba
obraditi svu, bez obzira je li kajkavska ili štokavska.
This is a preview to a very extensive and multi-layered matter. Several works should be elaborated on this subject, best of all covered by at least one to two dissertations. It is about the Croatian microtoponymy in Hungary,i.e. in Pomurje (Zala County), in Podravina (Somogy County), and the microtoponymy of the Burgenland Kajkavian-speaking inhabitants living by the Neusiedler/Fertő tó Lake, and in northwest Hungary- Győr-Moson-Sopron County. There are some ten villages in Pomurje where in some the majority have Croatian names, and the Croatian speeches fall into the Međimurean dialect, i.e. into the lower (eastern) subdialect. There are two villages by the Austrian border where Kajkavian is spoken (Homok/Umok and Vedešin/Hedešin), belonging to the Croatian Burgenland circle. Regardless of descent, it has been some time now that Ivšić had demonstrated the great similarity between these tongues in comparison to the Međimurean ones. This is the Kajkavian Croatian microtoponymy in Hungary. There is some in Podravina as well, where it is mainly Shtokavian. When the mycrotoponymy of some Podravlje villages is analysed, all should be considered, regardless of whether it is Kajkavian or Shtokavian.
Ivo Frangeš believed that the three most important works in Croatian literature are Judita by Marko Marulić, Smrt Smail-age Čengića by Ivan Mažuranić and Balade Petrice Kerempuha by Miroslav Krleža. ...All three works are written in verse, they belong to different literary periods, and the fact that all three dialects of the Croatian language are represented in them in their own specific way is of crucial importance. They differ in the fact that the first two – Marulić’s ‘Čakavian’ and Mažuranić’s ‘Štokavian’ – are written in the standard language, albeit based on different dialects, of the period in which they were created, while the third belongs to dialectal literature specific for Krleža’s Kajkavian idiom. After conducting a detailed analysis of Croatian dialectal literature between the two world wars, Frangeš was among the first theoreticians since Brozović who dealt with the theoretical issue of dialect in Croatian literature after the World War II in the new Yugoslavia (1970). In his Povijest he presented Kajkavian writers, both non-dialectal (those who wrote in the standard language based on the Kajkavian dialect) and dialectal. The authors he wrote about include Habdelić and Brezovački, who belonged to the period of old Kajkavian literature, and the authors who belonged to the Ozalj literary-linguistic circle – Zrinski and Frankopan. In the part of the book dedicated to Modernism he included a chapter titled Rascvat dijalektalne poezije (Flourish of dialectal poetry). In it he singles out the following Kajkavian dialectal writers: Domjanić, Galović, Miškina and Goran. Quite conspicuously, Frangeš did not include any authors of Štokavian dialectal poetry. Starting from the artistic value and the position an author occupies in Croatian literature, regardless of language and literary expression, Frangeš assigns equal importance to authors who wrote in standard languages (those based on the Štokavian dialect, as well as those based on other dialects – Čakavian and Kajkavian) and those who belong to dialectal literature. Although his evaluations of some of the dialectal authors differ from those given by other historians of literature it is important to emphasise them precisely because they speak of dialectal works.
PDF
