Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

Theory and Empiricism in Slavonic Diachronic Linguistics eory and Empiricism

Theory and Empiricism in Slavonic Diachronic Linguistics eory and Empiricism in Slavonic Diachronic Linguistics Nakladatelství Lidové noviny Praha 2012 Edited by Ilona Janyšková & Helena Karlíková The present volume was prepared with the support of a grant from the Czech Science Foundation “Theory and Empiricism in Slavonic Diachronic Linguistics” (Nr. P406/10/1346). Studia etymologica Brunensia 15 Eds. Ilona Janyšková & Helena Karlíková Reviewed by Radoslav Večerka and Stefan Michael Newerkla © Ilona Janyšková, Helena Karlíková ISBN 978-80-7422-185-9 Table of contents Table of contents / 5 Introduction / 11 Etymology: eory and practice Марта Бјелетић Этимологизация „словообразовательных гапаксов“ (на примере с.-хорв. разговетан ‘внятный, ясный, понятный’) / 15 Todor At. Todorov eorie und Praxis. Zur Etymologie der bulgarischen Wörter гъгрèц, гъгрùца, джѝджи, кля̀кам (perf. клèкна), клек, клèка, цùнцарин, цùнцар, ц̀ нцър u.a. / 27 Милада Гомолкова, Штепан Шимек Реконструк ция формального вида старочешских слов как этимологическая проблема / 37 Сергей А. Мызников: Трансформационные изменения диалектного слова в свете этимологических исследований / 51 Corinna Leschber Die Etymologisierung von süd slavischen Slangwörtern / 61 Jadwiga Waniakowa e origin of Slavic dialectal plant names / 69 Metka Furlan Proto-Slavic *laloka and *oskъrda in Slovenian dialect mill terminology: Deviation of the phonemic composition of a lexeme / 79 1 Miloslava Vajdlová Zu den gegenseitigen Beziehungen der Verben doutnati‚ tutlati‚ tutnati / 89 Жанна Ж. Варбот О возможных дополнениях и коррективах к некоторым праславянским реконструкциям и этимологиям на базе русской диалектной лексики / 97 Aleksandar Loma, Jasna Vlajić-Popović e Common Slavic *gotovъ reconsidered / 103 Marija Vučković Etymology and pragmatics: Serbian šunela ‘quiet, silence’ / 113 Татьяна В. Шалаева К этимологии и.-е. *l̆no- (праслав. *lьnъ ‘лен; Linum usitatissimum L.’) / 121 Maja Kalezić S.-Cr. odoljen ‘Valeriana celtica’ (An etymological note) / 127 Pavla Valčáková Czech slonbidlo / 143 Ilona Janyšková К названиям хвоста в старославянском языке / 147 Alenka Šivic-Dular: Slavic denominations for ‘Vespertilio’ / 155 Lexicon and semantics: Reconstructions and developments Мариола Якубович Практика и идеи семантической реконструкции / 173 Любовь В. Куркина Историко-этимологический ана лиз семантики древнерусских слов с затемненной внутренней формой / 181 Jiří Rejzek Lexical contamination – deﬁ nition, typology, application / 191 2 Светлана М. Толстая Этимология и семантическая типология: еще раз о любви / 199 Petr Nejedlý e place and function of taboo appellations in Old Czech / 219 Martin Pukanec Semantic shi@ s in Slavonic moral words / 227 Stefan Stojanović Further on the homeland of Slavs in the light of names of some trees (elms, poplars and the aspen, and maples) / 235 Ulrich 7 eißen Kräuter des Zaubers, der Täu schung und des Vergessens. Zur Kulturgeschichte und Etymologie slawischer Namen für psychoaktive Pﬂ anzen (Mohn, Bilsenkraut, Hanf) / 243 Kateřina Voleková Zum alG schechischen Adjektiv des Typs -ují / 253 Vida Vukoja Stems and concepts through language systems and time (love, hatred, desire, will and abomination) / 263 Елена Л. Березович «Соломенная вдова»: семантико-мотивационный и лингвогенетический аспект / 277 Rainer Eckert Verformungen von Komponenten phraseologischer Wendungen als Ergebnis ihrer Idiomatisierung / 301 Language contact: Lexical and other Христина Дейкова Лингвистическая контакто ло гия и этимологическая практика (дополнение к „Болгарскому этимологическому словарю“) / 309 3 Dessislava Borissova Several Turkish loan-words in the Bulgarian and the Serbo-Croatian languages – Bulg. xac¹, xac², xac³ / S.-C. has; Bulg. xacoл / S.-C. acaл / 321 Snežana Petrović Scr. неимар ‘chief architect’ – a Turkish word in Slavic guise? / 327 Václav Blažek e Slavic deity *Stribogъ in the perspective of Indo-Iranian etymology / 335 Sorin Paliga e ‘trichotomical’ character of Proto-Slavic and the long-debated issue of the oldest Slavic borrowings in Romanian / 347 Vít Boček A note on prehistoric language contact or What Slavic studies can learn from Uralic studies / 365 Bohumil Vykypěl Slavonic articles in areal context: a contribution to explicative contrastive linguistics / 377 Katja Brankačkec Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt. Reaktionen des Sorbischen auf Veränderungen in der deutschen verbalen Wortbildung / 385 Grammaticalization and grammar: Nova et vetera Junichi Toyota Etymology in relation to the con ceptualisation of time: -s for past and future tense / 401 Jasmina Grković-Major On the development of the future tense in Old Serbian: groundwork / 413 Gabriela Múcsková e category of deﬁ niteness in relation to the lexical and grammatical development of the Slovak language / 423 4 František Martínek Die Grammatikalisierung des Ausdrucks buď im AlG schechischen / 435 Phonology and graphemics: eory and practice Juhani Nuorluoto Towards sound change in Slavic: the rise and decline of the correlation in timbre / 449 Siniša Habijanec An example of the circulus vitiosus in diachronic linguistics: Pauliny’s theory on the origin of the Rhythmic Law / 465 Виктор П. Шульгач О фoнетичеcкoм пеpеxoде л’ > й и егo учете в пpoцеccе этимoлoгизaции cлaвянcкoй лекcики / 473 Vladimír Šaur Теория и эмпирия в объяснениях спорных орфографических явлений / 483 5 sorin paliga: the ‘trichotomical’ character of proto-slavic and the long-debated issue of the oldest slavic borrowings in romanian Abstract: On the occasion of the International Congress of Slavists in Ljubljana, Aleksandar Loma, University of Belgrade, analysed Proto-Slavic as a dichotomical summum (or ‘blend- ing’) of Balto-Slavic (Proto-Slavic A) and West Iranic (Proto-Slavic B). His study, combined with recent data, as presented also in our book Linguistics and Archaeology of Early Slavs. Another View from the Lower Danube (in Romanian, wriG en together with archaeologist Eugen Silviu Teodor) lead to the conclusion that what is currently labelled ‘Proto-Slavic’ must have had, in fact, three satem basic components: Balto-Slavic (stratum A, the most numerous), West Iranic (stratum B) and North racian (or North Dacian, stratum C). Germanic, Ugro- -Fin nic and Romance inﬂ uences may be also determined via forensic analysis (strata D, E and F). One consequence, delicately avoided during the last years, refers to the issue of the oldest Slavic borrowings in Romanian, traditionally dated as back as 6th or 7th centuries A.D. Al- ready in 1971, Gh. Mihăilă, in a study now almost forgoG en, proved that oldest Slavic borrow- ings in Romanian cannot be dated earlier than 12th century. is leads to many uncomfortable aspects, as the diﬀ erence of approximately 5 centuries is not exactly a minor detail, on the contrary, it aﬀ ects the very understanding of the historical and ethno-cultural events of the second half of the ﬁ rst millennium. ere are also major implications in deﬁ ning and un- derstanding the substratum elements in Romanian. Keywords: Balto-Slavic, ethnogenesis, gloG ogenesis, Iranic, Romanian-Slavic relations, Sclaveni, Southeast Europe, substratum. Introduction e problem of the earliest Slavic borrowings in Romanian has long been a constant preoccupation of many linguists and philologists, beginning with the 19th century through the beginning of the 3rd millennium. e problem seems self-evident: there must be a (consistent) set of Slavic elements in Romanian, and some of them must be ‘early borrowings’. e issue seems simple and logi- cal. In reality, it has many caveats. First of all, deﬁ ning what is the meaning of ‘early Slavic borrowing’? Does it really mean ‘5th–7th century C.E.¹’, as many linguists suggest? (e.g. RoseG i, who was a particularly inﬂ uential linguist of the post-war period; but not only RoseG i). Curiously, this view was adopted by Duridanov (1991), other- wise known mainly as a good thracologist, and an analyst of the substratum elements in southeast Europe. e suggested list includes (very) debatable examples, none etymologically clear and, for sure, none such an early bor- rowing as suggested. 1 As usual in the English texts of the last years, I use C.E. for Common Era (instead of A.D.), and B.C.E = Before Common Era, instead of B.C. 348 Paliga Secondly, deﬁ ning ‘Slavic’ in the period 6th to 9th century C.E. is not so easy as it may seem. I extensively developed on this topic in a recent book, wriG en in partnership with an archaeologist (Paliga–Teodor 2009). It is now clear that the post-classical term Sclavenus, pl. Sclaveni, Sklavenoi, some time later colloquial Sclavus, Sclavi, which turned to be a particularly successful term in many languages, and also in Arabic, cannot be entirely identiﬁ ed with Slavic in the modern sense of the term, even if – we may be fairly certain – most of the speakers deﬁ ned as Sclaveni, Sklavenoi represented the precursors of the group later known as Slavs, Slověne. But, at mid-6th century C.E., and some time a@ erwards, things were not so simple to explain. e peculiar meaning of Sclavenus was remarkably analysed by Pauliny (1999) in the Arab docu- ments. At that time, the meaning of Sclavenus, colloquial Sclavus in the Arab world can be hardly accepted as an ethnic name, given its peculiar meaning (see below). irdly, but not at all unimportant, it is crucial to have a historical, social and linguistic tableau of what happened in those historical times. It is no secret that every historical age has its own vision of the past. We are still close to the Romantic period, with its uploads/s3/ paliga-2012-seb-15-libre.pdf