Syntagmas in Croatian have been discussed in three Croatian grammars. In the first two, little attention was paid to them, while the third grammar gives a detailed but rather complicated description of syntagmas. In the latter analysis, several incompatible aspects are mixed, some linguistic factors contradict each other and a number of phenomena are simply ignored by the authors. In this paper, therefore, collocations of words are described in the theoretical framework of dependency grammars. In accordance with this, the term “phrase” is used throughout this work. I included several collocations that have been ignored by all the other researchers. The coherent analysis relies exclusively on linguistic criteria, other (semantic or syntactic) aspects are not taken into account. The description of these collocations is based on dependency connections between words. In order to illustrate this, the present paper discusses the noun phrase in full detail.
Historical lexicography and etymology fail to examine the validity of words in old dictionaries. This gap is attempted to be filled up with the present study on the five-language dictionary (Latin–Italian–German–Croatian–Hungarian) published in 1595 and compiled by a Croatian author Faust Vrančić. In the paper, seven criteria are used. The analyzed words are equivalent to Latin nouns and adjectives. The Latin lexemes comprise more than half of the entries, which is a substantial sample to draw general conclusions. It is pointed out in the study that the dictionary provided help primarily in understanding Latin texts. It may have been to the greatest use of speakers of the four (non-Latin) vulgar languages with mother-tongue competence or those who were familiar with them. The dictionary seems not to have been adequate in all cases for those interested in these languages to enlarge their vocabulary.
The five-language dictionary of Faust Vrančić is the first one which includes separate Croatian word entries. As in the sixteenth century there was no standard Croatian orthography, that of Faust Vrančić is worth studying because the dictionaries influenced the orthography of their users. In the present article, the author examines eight letters signifying consonants. For these letters, there cannot be any precedent in the phonetic and orthographic system of Latin. First of all, the graphics of the letters is presented and the graphemes of Hungarian origin are identified. These latter can be divided into two groups: firstly, the letters loaned by Vrančić from Hungarian-language writings directly, and secondly, those which, although being of Hungarian origin, were taken from the Kaikavian Croatian books printed before the publication of the dictionary. Contrary to the opinion widespread in Croatian scholarly literature, for his work Vrančić did not invent any new letter but consciously selected graphemes extant in other languages.
Historical lexicography and history of words fail to examine the validity of the words in old dictionaries. This gap is attempted to be filled up with this present study on the five-language dictionary (Latin, Italian, German, Croatian, and Hungarian) compiled by Faust Vrančić, a Croatian author, published in 1595, which is analysed by seven criteria. The words analysed are equivalent to Latin nouns and adjectives. The Latin lexemes comprise more than half of the entries, which is a substantial sample to draw general conclusions. It is pointed out in the study that the dictionary provided help primarily in understanding Latin texts. It may have been to the greatest use of speakers of the four (non-Latin) vulgar languages at mother-tongue competence or those who were familiar with them. The dictionary seems not to have been adequate in all cases for those interested in these languages to enlarge their vocabulary.
This paper analyzes Hungarian–Croatian equivalents in Vrančić’s dictionary. It concludes that Vrančić did not know the Croatian equivalents of some of the Latin words, so he created new words on the pattern of the corresponding Hungarian lexemes. His expressions can be classified as various types of loanshifts. It is only his loan translations that prove to be correct, his suggestions are usually wrong either in semantic or functional aspects. The given examples also cast light on the fact that Vrančić is confident, he does not hesitate to create new words and he is ready to ignore some of the rules of word formation as well.
In the 18th century, 23 plays of Molière’s were translated into Croatian in Dubrovnik/Ragusa. They were the first Molière translations in a Slavonic-speaking area. Despite the fact that the language of the translations is Croatian, there are several parts in the text which are in Italian. The paper aims at analyzing the role of some longer parts of texts (such as a full-length dialogue, a group of sentences, main clauses, subordinate clauses, and phrases) in Italian in the play Monsieur de Pourceaugnac/Jovadin. The Italian textual elements reflect the world of trade in the Mediterranean and the world of law and medicine in Dubrovnik/Ragusa.
The Croatian Faust Vrančić published a five-language dictionary (Latin–Italian–German–Croatian–Hungarian) in the year 1595. This study examines to what extent the author knew these languages, apart from Latin. Not only does it scrutinise the knowledge of words of Vrančić but it also restores his awareness of the rules of the different languages, relying us several linguistic data. Vrančić must have had an excellent and active command of all the four languages, as the study finds it. The only difference in his awareness of languages can merely be pointed out in his vocabulary, concerning each. He knew the Hungarian language best and the Croatian language least. It can also be pointed out that the author was very resourceful in the field of lexicography.
Following K. Schumann's classification, the paper establishes 8 of the 23 possible types of loan translations and semantic loans in the Renaissance Croatian drama. At the same time, two new types of calquing are also identified: “Lehngebrauch der Rektionen von Verben und Substantiven” and “syntaktische Lehngebrauch der Rektionen der Lehnwörter”. In using loan translations or semantic loans the authors' individual choice is for the lexical types, while in terms of syntactic loans the widespread and generally accepted forms are preferred.
The present paper is a narrower cross-section of the very rich contribution to Croatistics by the Hungarian linguist László Hadrovics (1910–1996). It presents the findings of his research entailing the contact between the Hungarian and the Croatian languages, the Croatian literary language in Burgenland (former Western Hungary) as well as his findings in etymological studies. Hadrovics was a prominent, internationally acknowledged linguist of his time. His great achievements are marked by the richness in data and by the numerous novel methodological approaches applied in his monograph on the words of Hungarian origin in the Serbo-Croatian language. His book served as a pattern to a great number of successive publications. His work on the Croatian literary language in Burgenland, among others, publishes its first dictionary of this kind. As far as his etymological studies are concerned, the renewal of his research methods is of prominent interest. Hadrovics broke up with the practice of earlier etymological research which was based on using dictionary entries. The author went back to the sources themselves, which yielded much more reliable results. With his new approach, he gained outstanding results, even on an international level.