Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 11 items for :

  • "Slavic dialects" x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All

The Slavic substratum of the Hungarian language was not uniform in a dialectical sense. Among the late Slavic dialects of the 9th century, in addition to the so-called Pannonian Slavic, also a dialect of Bulgarian character was represented not only in the southeastern peripheral areas, as it had previously been suspected, but also in some central parts of the present- day Hungarian language area. In this paper, the author provides language material for the localization of these former dialects.

Restricted access

In this paper, the author investigates the oldest Slavic borrowings to Hungarian with regard to the reconstruction of the dialectal landscape of Slavic in the Carpathian Basin at the time when the Hungarian tribes arrived here at the end of the 9th century. According to some phonetic criteria, it seems that the Hungarians found two main Slavic dialects in their new homeland: the Pannonian Slavic with mixed West and South Slavic features and the Bulgarian Slavic.

Restricted access

The paper claims that Turkish idioms attested in the Slavonic Linguistic Atlas (SLA) occur both in East Slavic and South Slavic dialects, however, with significant differences in the two groups. In the East Slavic part, they originate from Northern Turkish dialects (Tatarian, Chagatay, Chuvash, Kazakh, and others). Some of them are common throughout the whole territory and have even got incorporated into Standard Russian, while others are restricted mostly to Russian dialects. In South Slavic dialects, they originate from the Turkish Ottoman language and are usually found in Macedonian dialects, particularly in Aegean Macedonia. Historically, Turkish idioms tend to decrease in number but the lack of data from Bulgaria (stopped working on the Atlas) and from Bosnia and Herzegovina (recent war) makes an elaborate analysis of the process impossible.

Restricted access

The object of the study of contact grammar is those changes of linguistic elements that are influenced by the contact language. The clear example which belongs to the field of the Slavic-German-Hungarian contact grammar is the separable, adverbial by origin, prefixes of verbs. In some Slavic languages and dialects, this unusual phenomenon appeared during the lasting contacts with German. As seems, in Hungarian the development of the same phenomenon was also caused by German, and in turn it influenced neighboring Slavic dialects. In the present article, the author have studied the separable verbal prefixes of the Gradi šcan dialect of Croatian, have indicated their German and Hungarian equivalents and have compiled the list of the verbs with the prefixes of this sort. The analysis resulted in the conclusion that the given adverbs not only specify the meaning of the verbs but also dominate in the coining of new words and affect syntax. The research into this most interesting problem, initiated by the prominent Hungarian scholar Laszlo Hadrovics on the basis of South Slavic material, requires the more detailed examination of the Slavic linguistic area and its history.

Restricted access

The paper examines the Rusyn dialect spoken in the village of Komlóska and the surrounding region in Hungary. The ancestors of this Unitarian population moved to this area from the Counties of Sáros and Zemplén (present-day north-east Slovakia) and the northern part of the Carpathian territory (the historical Galicia) in the 17th century. This dialect shows a large number of common properties with the Subcarpathian East Slavic dialect and the Ukrainian language. Rusyns living in a Slovak as well as Hungarian ethnic and linguistic environment have been isolated from the Ukrainian lands for nearly a thousand years. As a consequence, over the centuries their dialect has obtained some specific features absent from other Slavonic dialects and languages. Literary works and a monthly newspaper in Budapest keep being published in this Rusyn dialect. Inhabitants of Komlóska are taught their mother tongue as an optional subject at school. Therefore, this Rusyn dialect can be considered a “microlanguage” used both in spoken and written form.

Restricted access
Studia Slavica
Authors:
István Nyomárkay
,
András Zoltán
,
István Fried
,
Johannes Reinhart
,
István Lukács
,
Ágnes Dukkon
,
György Eisemann
,
Zsuzsa Kalafatics
, and
Danuše Kšicová

Király Péter, A kelet-közép-európai helyesírások és irodalmi nyelvek alakulása. A Budai Egyetemi Nyomda kiadványainak tanulságai, 1777-1848 (Dimensiones Culturales et Urbariales Regni Hungariae 3). Nyíregyháza, 2003. 667 S. ( Nyomárkay, I.); Ronald O. Richards, The Pannonian Slavic Dialect of the Common Slavic Proto-Language: The View from Old Hungarian. Los Angeles: University of California, Program in Indo-European Studies, 2003 (= UCLA Indo-European Studies, vol. 2), 234 p. ( ?????? ? .); Oberungarn (Slowakei) in der Wiener Zeitschriften des Vormärz ( 1805-1848 ) . Blicke auf eine Kulturlandschaft der Vormoderne. Versuch einer kritischen Bestandaufnahme der Beiträge über die historische Region und ihre kulturellen Verbindungen zu Wien. Hg. Gertraud Marinelli-König. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004. 780 S. (????, ?.) ; Vladimir Gvozden, Jovan Ducic putopisac. Ogled iz imagologije. Novi Sad: Svetovi, 2003. 287 p. (????, ?.) ; Slavomir Sambunjak, Jezik i stil hrvatskih glagoljskih prenja. (Književni krug. Biblioteka znanstvenih djela 107.) Split, 2000. 450 S. (Reinhart, J.); Lokös István, Nemzettudat és regény [Nacionalna svijest i roman]. Debrecen, 2004. 500 p. (Lukács, I.); ?. ?. ??????, ?????? ???????? ????????? ? ????? ? ???????? ???? ?????. ??? ?????????. ??????: «?????», 2003. 909 ???. (??????, ?.) ; ??????? ?????????-????, ???? ????????? ?????????????? ? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? (??? ???). (Vorträge und Abhandlungen zur Slavistik, 46. Hrsg. von P. Thiergen.) München: Verlag Otto Sagner, 2004. 130 S. (Dukkon, Á-); Ösvények Turgenyev és Dosztojevszkij muvészi világához(Szövegelemzés, irodalomelmélet). Párbeszéd-kötetek 1. Szerk. Kroó Katalin. Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, 2004. 250 p. ( ??????? ?.) ; Szoke Katalin, Álommúzeum. Írások a XX. századi orosz irodalomról. Budapest: Gondolat, 2003. ( ?????????, ?.); Mária Gyöngyösi, A. Blok und die deutsche Kultur. Novalis, Heine, Nietzsche, Wagner. Vergleichende Studien zu den Slavischen Sprachen und Literaturen, Band 9. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, Europäisher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2004. 145 p. (Kšicová,D.);

Restricted access

Izmail Ivanovič Sreznevskij was born in Yaroslavl´ in 1812. The family moved to Khar´kov, when Izmail’s father was given a post at the University. He startet his studies at the University of Khar´kov. However, in 1838 his PhD dissertation was rejected. This fact played an important role in his further academic career. At the instigation of the Russian ministery of education Sreznevskij was sent to the Slavic countries outside Russia in order to prepare himself for the position of a professor of the recently founded chair of the History and literature of the Slavic dialects. His travels lasted from 1839 to 1842. He visited Prussia, Saxonia, Bohemia, Moravia, Lusatia, Austria, Venetia, Croatia, Slavonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Carniola (Kranj), Carinthia, Hungary, Galicia, and Poland. In Prague Sreznevskij met the most outstanding Slavists and writers like Šafářík, Hanka, Čelakovský, Palacký, Jungmann, and others. In Vienna he was especially impressed by Vuk Karadžić, and it was Sreznevskij who was to write Vuk’s first biography. He spent a short time in Graz where the first chair of the Slovenian language existed. In Zagreb he met the most outstanding representatives of the Illyrian movement. In Carinthia and other Slovenian areas his field work resulted in the first description of the Slovene dialects.

Restricted access

The present paper deals with the functioning of phraseological comparative constructions with biblical characters in dialects of East, West, and South Slavic languages. The charac- ters of the Holy Scripture include not only the nameless and named heroes of the Bible but also the Creator himself as well as supernatural beings that serve or oppose the Creator. The description involves comparative phraseological units with an adjective that derives from a character of the Bible. Most of the analyzed Slavic dialectal phraseological units are fixed in dictionaries.

The description of comparative phraseological units (if possible) is carried out from the positions of structural and semantic modelling, which allows to identify the lexical variation of components in the dialects of the same language or in various languages. In some cases, the paper includes areal characteristics of comparative constructions. For this purpose, the author shows their parallels in other linguistic and dialect regions. As a result, the paper reveals both structural and semantic biblical universals and phraseological units with national specificity, i.e. similes that have no equivalents (literary or non-Slavic). There are units that are specific for some regions, for example, phraseological units containing microtoponyms such as geographical objects that are not widely known. The national and regional identity is manifested both at the level of figurative basis and at the level of non- equivalent comparativism since some subjects can be active in one language, while they are peripheral or lacunary in another one.

In some cases, phraseological units are provided with cultural, historical, and etymol- ogical comments which reveal not only the biblical and religious roots but also reflect the ancient mythological representations of the Slavs. The author gives an explanation to the meaning of similes and their components.

The Old and New Testaments are a common element of the spiritual culture of Chris- tians so the comparison reveals the similarity and repetition of comparative units, directly or indirectly related to the names of the characters of the Bible, or structural and semantic models in a particular area. At the same time, the phraseological units genetically ascending to the Bible show a quite large differentiation, demonstrating the peculiarity of the recep- tion of biblical images by the Slavs, the unequal interest in them. Although the very name of the biblical character is often international, set similes containing it are not always the same. This is usually the case for pseudo-biblical phraseological units that have no direct links to the character of the Bible; they are usually inherent in folk speech and are often jokingly ironic. This is particularly evident in dialects.

Restricted access

З історії лінгвоукраїністики в Угорщині (мовознавча діяльність Ласлова Чопея)

From the History of Ukrainian Linguistics in Hungary (László Csopey’s Works on Linguistics)

Studia Slavica
Author:
Єлизавета Барань

Вивчення українського мовознавства в Угорщині має давню історію. Увага дослідників зосереджу-валася насамперед на питаннях синхронної та діахронної діалектології, зокрема закарпатської, про-блемах українсько-угорських міжмовних контактів. Ім’я Ласлова Чопея в українській лексикографії відоме насамперед як укладача «Русько-мадярського словаря» (Будапешт, 1883).

У статті проаналізовано статтю «Magyar szók a rutén nyelvben» (Угорські слова в руській мові) та реєстр «Русько-мадярського словаря», подано етимологію слів, які з погляду їх первинного похо-дження були спірними, зіставлено різні оцінки словника мовознавцями з часу його появи до сього-дення.

Ласлов (Василь) Чопей (уг. Csopey / Csopei László) – угорський педагог, перекладач, мовознавець. В енциклопедії «Українська мова» написано: «Ласлов (Василь) Чопей – український мовознавець; писав мовою дуже близькою до закарпатського народного мовлення центральної частини краю». Ю. Шевельов доповнює: «Чопей Василь – педагог, упорядник підручників для народних шкіл Закар-паття (1881–1890)».

Угорський славіст Аттіла Голлош зі вступною статтею Іштвана Удварі підготував до видання уза-гальнювальну працю «Csopey László élete és művei» (Життя і праці Ласло Чопея). А. Голлош уклав бі-бліографію праць Л. Чопея, класифікувавши їх за такими галузями: літературознавство, етнографія, мовознавство, переклади, фахова література, підручники для русинських шкіл, природознавство, експедиції, виставки, поштова скринька, статистика, рецензії, лекції в Малій Академії, редакторська робота, листування. На прохання міністерства Л. Чопей уклав та переклав вісім підручників для народних шкіл.

З появою статті «Magyar szók a rutén nyelvben» (Угорські слова в руській мові), опублікованій у 1881 році, Ласло Чопей розпочав дослідження угорсько-слов’янських мовних зв’язків. Працю Чо-пея можна вважати першою у дослідженні угорських лексичних запозичень в українських говорах сучасної території Закарпаття. У своїй статті, написаній на науковому рівні свого часу, автор пе-рерахував відомі йому угорські лексичні елементи березької говірки, вказав на фонетичні зміни, які відбулися на українському мовному ґрунті, подав тематичну класифікацію, указавши, по суті, напрямки подальших досліджень.

Традиційно вважається, що українсько-угорська словникова справа бере свій початок від другої половини ХІХ ст. із появою «Русько-мадярського словаря» Ласлова Чопея. Словник високо оцінила Угорська королівська академія наук – автор отримав премію Фекешгазія. Словниковий реєстр нараховує 20 тисяч вокабул і відображає лексичний склад добре відомих укладачеві закарпатських східнослов’янських говорів.

Проживаючи далеко від україномовної території, у кінці ХІХ ст. наголошував на самостійності української мови, відстоював право на її розвиток і функціювання.

Вважаємо, що словник є цінною лексикографічною працею, а його автора можемо вважати осно-воположником українсько-угорської лексикографії. Доробок Л. Чопея і сьогодні може стати в при-годі лексикологам, діалектологам, історикам мови, а також дослідникам міжмовних та діалектних контактів, а його результати формують основу для нових наукових розробок.

The investigation of Ukrainian linguistics in Hungary has a long history. The researchers in this field have focused mainly on issues of synchronic and diachronic dialectology, in particular Transcarpathian, as well as the problems of Ukrainian–Hungarian interlingual contacts. László Csopey’s name is first known in Ukrainian lexicography as the compiler of the Ruthenian–Hungarian Dictionary (Budapest, 1883). We have analyzed the paper Hungarian words in the Ruthenian language and the register of the RuthenianHungarian dictionary in order to present the etymology of words that are controversial in terms of their origin and aimed to compare various assessments of the dictionary by linguists from the time of its appearance to the present.

László Csopey was a Hungarian teacher, translator, and linguist. In the encyclopaedia of the Ukrainian language, he is described as follows: “László (Vasyl) Csopey – a Ukrainian linguist; he wrote in the language which is very close to the Transcarpathian folk language of the central part of the region”. Yurii Shevelyov adds: “Vasyl Csopey is a teacher, compiler of textbooks for public schools of Transcarpathia (1881–1890)”.

In 2004, the Hungarian Slavist Attila Hollós prepared for publication the generalized work László Csopeys life and works with an introductory paper by István Udvari. At the request of the Ministry of Education, László Csopey compiled and translated eight textbooks for public schools. He began to investigate Hungarian–Slavic language contacts and published the paper Hungarian words in the Ruthenian language in 1881. The paper can be considered the first in the field of investigation of Hungarian lexical borrowings in the Ukrainian dialects on the territory of present-day Transcarpathia. In his paper, the author has listed all the Hungarian lexical elements of the Bereg dialect known to him, pointed out the phonetic changes that took place in the Ukrainian language, and gave a thematic classification indicating, in fact, areas for further research.

It is traditionally believed that the Ukrainian–Hungarian dictionary publication dates back to the second half of the nineteenth century with the appearance of RuthenianHungarian Dictionary by László Csopey. The dictionary was highly praised by the Hungarian Royal Academy of Sciences and the author received the Fekésházi Prize. The dictionary register has 20,000 entries and reflects the lexical composition of the Transcarpathian East Slavic dialects well-known to the compiler. Living far from the Ukrainian-speaking area in the late nineteenth century, László Csopey emphasized the independence of the Ukrainian language, defended the right to its development and functioning.

We believe that the analyzed dictionary is a valuable lexicographical work, and its author is considered the founder of Ukrainian–Hungarian lexicography. László Csopey’s work is still relevant up to now and it can be used by lexicologists, dialectologists, language historians as well as specialists in interlingual and interdialectical contacts, and its results form the basis for further research in these fields of linguistics.

Restricted access

traditional folk culture in inseparable connection with the corresponding extralinguistic context. Moscow ethnolinguistics as a special branch of scholarship within the wider framework of linguistics is based on Slavic dialect data, both linguistic and ethno

Restricted access