As it is generally accepted by main researchers in the field of Slavic loanwords of the Hungarian language, practically no East Slavic influence can be detected on the oldest layer of the Slavic borrowings. New etymologies established in some cases reflect East Slavic pleophony, and the analysis of well-known Slavic loanwords with TorT, TolT, TerT, TelT can give a new look at the whole body of Slavic borrowings. Pleophony seems one of the main criteria to establish an opposition between East Slavic loanwords on the one hand and South and West Slavic borrowings on the other. The material of our research requires a new classification in the corpus of Slavic loanwords in Hungarian.
Most typically, the integration of inter-Slavic loanwords functions on the morphological, not on the phonological level, provided that the morphemes are etymologically transparent from an inter-Slavic perspective. Therefore, a philological approach offers the most important criteria for establishing which words can most probably be regarded as inter-Slavic loans. If a word is testified for the first time exclusively in translations from another Slavic language or in texts that were written by authors who were well acquainted with Polish, Ukrainian, or Belarusian, it is most likely to be a loan. In this article, the words
‘kind’ are analyzed in order to demonstrate some typical characteristics of Polish loans in Russian.
The use of phonetic and semantic criteria in solution of controversial problems of loanword reconstruction is discussed on the example of such words as mētelis ‘coat, cloak’, miers ‘silence; peace; harmony; end; termination of something’, which are traditionally referred to the oldest Slavic loanwords in Latvian. In the language of the East Slavs (Old Russian language), the word МАТЕЛЬ [m’at’el’] as a Germanism was borrowed before the loss of nasals but in Latvian the word mētelis as a Slavic loanword was transferred later, at a time when the loss of nasals had already begun. This is indicated by the nature of phonetic substitution when the stage of sequential phonetic evolution of the East Slavic nasal sound was reflected. The use of a phonetic (accentologic) criterion during the historical reconstruction of Latvian miers as a possible loanword allows us to attribute the borrowing of this word to the same historical period of contacts when the borrowing of Latvian mētelis took place, but also makes us reconsider the status of this lexeme as a loanword and makes us assume Latvian miers and Slavic *mirъ to be a common Balto-Slavic lexeme. The original denotative meaning of Latvian mētelis reflects the specific features of the realia and was associated with the meaning of the corresponding word in the source language. Latvian mētelis initially meant ‘cape’. The meaning ‘peace as the absence of war, concluded on the basis of the contract; peace as a result of the termination of a certain state’ contributed to the development of abstract meanings of Slavic *mirъ as well as Latvian miers ‘peace, harmony’. In the semantics of the Latvian word (‘peace, end, the termination of something’), the initial (authentic) meaning is exhibited.
This paper aims at giving an overview of the main traditional tendencies and new trends in historical Slavic linguistics in Hungary. Traditionally, since the end of the 19th century, the main goal of investigations has been the interpretation of the Slavic linguistic and cultural influence on the Hungarian language and culture, having continuously been present in the Carpathian basin for more than a thousand year. The language contacts resulted in a vast number of lexical borrowings, calques, and toponyms of Slavic origin in Hungarian, and also in the appearance of Church Slavonic written sources of local redaction. The author describes the process of the methodological progress in the research of these areas and presents the most important results. Since the 1990’s, new trends have emerged in historical Slavic linguistics in Hungary that can be identified as the application of methods and frameworks of areal and theoretical (cognitive and generative) linguistics, which makes the renewal of this discipline possible.
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.
neighbouring Finno-Ugric and Slavic languages, as well as on Finno-Ugric and Slavicloanwords in Chuvash, combined with the historical reconstruction of Chuvash. Klára Agyagási studied Turkology under András Róna-Tas and specialized in Chuvash studies, although