The Old Church Slavonic word
‘box, coffin’ can be derived from Protobulgarian *
, a synonymous form of the related Turkic word
‘id.’ which in turn was the source of Hung.
‘coffin’. The Church Slavonic and the Hungarian words came from different Turkic dialects and were borrowed into the respective languages under different geographical and chronological circumstances, though both of them can be considered ancient, pre-ninth-century loanwords.
The paper claims that in Old Church Slavonic documents imperfect forms undergo processes of transfer and congruence, their full forms being ousted by shortened forms of the imperfect. The history of imperfect forms is well reflected in the Codex Suprasliensis on the one hand, and Savvina Kniga on the other. Classical documents and material from the Codex Assemanianus are studied insufficiently regarding shortened and full imperfect forms. The present paper intends to examine the correlation of shortened and full imperfect forms as well as to reveal the morphological peculiarities of the imperfect in the Codex Assemanianus with respect to the significance of this document in the history of Old Church Slavonic gospel translations.
languages, followed a different path of aspectual development than the East or the West Slavic ones. In several modern South Slavic languages, though to varying degrees, many tenses of the preterit, also known to OldChurchSlavonic, have been preserved
In 1688, the inhabitants of Catholic towns and territories in Bulgaria rebelled against the Turks. A part of these people settled in the Bánát area in Hungary. They were allowed to found schools and print books in Bulgarian. These books were published first in the Latin alphabet in complex-letter Hungarian and Kajkavian Croatian orthography, then in diacritical Croatian spelling. Their historical significance is manifested by the fact that the authors of these books gave the local Bulgarian dialect literary status and, showing an example to follow, moved away from the conservative Cyrillic-letter Old Church Slavonic which had been in use for centuries and largely departed from the vernacular.
In Croatian linguistics, the pre-standard periods of the Croatian language are usually divided into three phases. The first phase comprises the period from the beginnings of literacy (11th century) until the end of the 15th century, and it is characterised by the usage of three distinct scripts (Glagolitic, Cyrillic, and Latin) and by an interesting coexistence of Old Church Slavonic and Old Croatian elements. The second phase covers the 16th century, when the historical circumstances abated many of the accomplishments of the previous literary and language development, its continuity being undermined but not suspended. In the third phase (throughout the 17th century and in the first half of the 18th century), processes leading to the formation of the all-Croatian standard language were strengthened: linguistic works, lexico¬graphical in particular, indicate a growing interest in linguistic issues. The paper retraces the processes of selecting particular language solutions as well as their spreading (both functional and territorial).
On the basis of Croato-Glagolitic documents found in Hungary and parts of Ivan Bercic's fragments, the paper intends to describe the effect Latin texts had on Old Church Slavonic texts in Croatian edition translated from Latin. This impact can be characterized as 1) external (on the outward appearance of the codex sheet, especially on the shape of letters) or 2) linguistic (on the vocabulary, grammar, and style). In terms of the way this influence is exerted, one can distinguish between 1) direct (individual) influence (the impact of a certain passage on the corresponding part of the translated text) or 2) indirect (cumulative) influence (a joint effect of identical phenomena-occurring in various Latin texts-on several Croato-Glagolitic passages, independently of the given passage). Direct influence is exemplified by identical initials, most cases of poetic usage of synonyms, in grammar by participium instans, and negative direct influence is apparent when a passage of the Bible is translated incorrectly. Cumulative influence is present in most initials taken from Latin, in poetic usage of synonyms beyond the given Latin text, and in the recurring use of Latin liturgical terms and their calques in the rubrics. The impact of the Latin original has a mainly positive and enriching character. At the same time, harmful effects are quite rare.
Emil Baleczky (his pseudonyms: E. Latorchanin, O. Vyshchak, and his cryptonym: E. A.) is one of the most prominent personalities in the history of Ukrainian studies in Hungary in the twentieth century. His main scientific interests include Transcarpathian dialectology and historical lexicology of the Ukrainian language.
The second stage of the scientist's professional carrier is connected with the University of Budapest, where in 1951, Emil Baleczky was appointed head of the Department of the Russian Language at the Institute of Foreign Languages, and at the same time assistant professor of the Russian Institute at the University.
Among the scientific interests of Emil Baleczky was the investigation of lexical units commonly used in Transcarpathia, first of all, in terms of their etymology. Among the achievements of the researcher, special attention must be paid to Emil Baleczky's attempt to determine the origin of some borrowed words, including those originally Slavic, which are common in the Carpathian Ukrainian dialects.
Emil Baleczky performed a deep etymological and lingual-geographical analysis of the word урик, урюк, орек in the Ukrainian language, that of the word дюг widespread in Precarpathian Ukrainian, Polish, and Slovakian dialects, and also that of the noun kert in Transcarpathian Ukrainian dialects. The author devoted a separate paper to the study of the origin of dialecticisms like фотляк, csulka ~ csurka, бôшн’ак, булґар’, валах, ґириґ, тôўт, and циганин, investigated the etymology of the terms of national dishes widespread in Carpathian Ukrainian dialects, in particular of the token бáник. He considered the role of the Old Church Slavonic language in the history of the Carpathian Ukrainian dialects.
According to his contemporaries, it is known that Emil Baleczky did not maintain official connections with the Soviet Transcarpathians but was surprisingly well-informed about the scientific processes in his native land. He analyzed the works contained in the two editions of the Dialectological Collection of Uzhgorod State University. In addition to examining the issues raised, Baleczky complemented, specified, and sometimes criticized the achievements of his colleagues, which indicates his deep knowledge of Transcarpathian Ukrainian dialectology.
Thus, we can state that Emil Baleczky's works testify the high professionalism of the author, his profound knowledge in the field of synchronic and diachronic dialectology. The love of Transcarpathian dialects inspired the researcher to study them thoroughly as well as to present the research results to the general public of Slavists. The main area of Emil Baleczky's scientific interest until the end of his life was Ukrainian linguistics, particularly Transcarpathian Ukrainian dialectology.
The aim of this paper is to present the Emil Baleczky's achievements in the field of Transcarpathian Ukrainian dialectology, focusing on the period from 1957 to 1979.
regions was not Latin but OldChurchSlavonic. However, the difference between Hungarian and Romanian literature is significant in that while Romanian literary historians (e.g. Nicolae Manolescu, Ion Negoițescu) do not mention the Slavonic period of
local church (see Groza 2018). The term hram (pl. hramuri ), which derives from the OldChurchSlavonic храмъ/xramŭ , is also used in the Romanian language but has three meanings; the church service, the patron saint of the church, or the parish fair