Search Results
the Hungarian borrowings in the language and traditional folk culture of the rural population of the Burgenland Croats in the territory of Hungary and Slovakia. Hungarian cultural and linguistic borrowings in Burgenland's folk traditions
Cabases, F. — Pascual, P. — Vallés, J. (2007): The Effectiveness of Institutional Borrowing Restrictions: Empirical Evidence from Spanish Municipalities. Public Choice , 131(3–4): 293–313. Vallés J
. Winter , Werner 1961 . ‘ Lexical Interchange between ‘Tocharian’ A and B.’ Journal of the American Oriental Society 81 / 3 : 271 – 280 . Winter , Werner 1962 . ‘ Further Evidence of Inter-Tocharian Lexical Borrowing.’ Journal of the American
Jovan Sterija Popović (1806–1856) is considered to be the creator of original Serbian comedy. All his life Sterija remained faithful to tradition and to his Vojvodinian speech—Serbian language coloured with localisms and words of foreign origin. He even publicly opposed Vuk Karadzić’s insisting on easthercegovinian dialect becoming the base of Serbian literature language. In his comedy Rodoljupci that depicts the period of the Hungarian revolution in Vojvodina 1848, people of Serbian nationality use plenty of Hungarian words adopting them into Serbian with often comic changes of their phonetic or morphemic characteristic, and using rules which are in use to this date. Serbian surnames can be found as translated literally into Hungarian, even whole Serbian sentences into that language. Therefore, considering the popularity of J. St. Popović’s work to these days, one can claim that he has without doubt played an important role in establishing the practise of borrowing and adjusting the words from Hungarian into Serbian language.
The aim of this study is to analyze the main tendencies prevailing in the orthographic, phonological, morphological as well as semantic adaptation of loanwords of English origin that entered the Russian language in the past two and a half decades, i.e. between the mid-1980s and now. Fully adapted English borrowings are excluded from the analysis, the aim of which is to give a detailed account of the dynamics of the borrowing process and ways in which borrowing mechanisms work. In addition to the linguistic description of the data, it is essential to discuss the role of monolingual and bilingual speakers in borrowing (the social background that initiates and determines the adoption of English loanwords), along with the sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic aspects of the process. The latter include the description of motivations (i.e. which non-linguistic factors affect and explain the influx of elements of English origin). The main emphasis of the paper is on the linguistic analysis of English borrowings in a contact linguistic and lexicological framework.
Cultural borrowing between the English and Slavic languages in the last one hundred years, and especially in the latter half of the twentieth century was mostly a unidirectional process with the English as the source and Slavic languages as the target. This paper is an attempt to fill this void in examining the other direction of lexical transfer between English and Slavic languages. The following general conclusions can be drawn from the analysis: a) Lexical and cultural influence from subordinate to dominant language is by and large limited to the culture-bound items. Borrowed vocabulary items remain marginal in the overall English vocabulary. Several exceptions from this trend, i.e., the words which have made it to the core of the English vocabulary, are result of the butterfly effect and cannot be accounted for by some general trend; b) Lexical influence of each particular language is directly proportionate to language size. Exceptions from this general trend occur, as demonstrated by East Slavic languages, when one Slavic language clearly dominates others; c) The timeline of borrowing is directly proportionate with the growth and deepening of international communication networks in the nineteenth and in particular twentieth centuries.
The article looks into the issue of the integration of loanwords appertaining to the financial lexis of the Russian language. Due to an overwhelming number of borrowings in the professional vocabulary of bank workers, the prevalence of anglicisms over Russian words in their written and verbal speech cannot go unnoticed. However, given a generally low level of bank workers’ English language competence, this situation leads to peculiar, nonstandard adaptation of anglicisms at all language levels. Accordingly, the article presents the possible ways anglicisms integrate into the Russian language, and examines the native speakers’ attitude to borrowed words and their preferences in using anglicisms. Furthermore, the authors have identified the main reasons why the speakers frequently resort to anglicisms and the degree of semantic awareness behind their choice. The most commonly-used borrowed terms have also been singled out.
In the article, the author examines the characteristic features of epic fairy-tale of the two largest ethnic groups of Ukrainian Carpathians, i.e. Ukrainians and Hungarians. The folklore of the region has its own peculiarities. The natural and geographical features of the region, trades and crafts, in particular shepherd culture, historical events, entrance to different states are represented in the folklore. At the same time, the fairy-tale tradition of the region has its own ethnolocal specification, includes various linguistic and folklore dialects, the emergence of which was also influenced by other ethnic (Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, Slovakian, Gypsy, etc.) borrowings which were adapted to withstand local forms.
Summary
This paper discusses challenges Latvian terminology has to encounter at the beginning of the new millennium and the ways of resolving these problems.
As Latvian was proclaimed a state language in 1988 by the State Language Law, it had to face several challenges. First, Latvian terminology had to be established to serve Latvian as state language. Second, all specific subject fields had to be provided with proper terms in Latvian. This necessity required a rather quick term coining in every area of everyday life: juridical, economic, social, medical, technological, cultural and other fields. During the last two decades more than 60 dictionaries containing the terminology of different domains have been published and voluminous databases have been created.
After joining the European Union Latvian acquired the same rights and obligations as other EU languages possess. The EU juridical documentation, regulations, instructions and guidelines need Latvian equivalents, new terms had to be coined at a high speed. For creating terms of new concepts we can use words of the national language, coin new words or borrow some terms of other languages; E. Drezen, Latvian terminologist and interlinguist had postulated that terms of national languages are often better perceptible than borrowings from other languages.
The last but not the least challenge is finding agreement about methods and algorithms for data exchange; the main goal is to provide the common user with the necessary information about a needed concept and to enhance effective professional communication. Experience from developing explanatory term dictionaries and ways of extended data exchange is considered.
The present paper examines the origin of two Tocharian animal names, assuming that they were borrowed from an oriental source. The Common Tocharian term for ‘poisonous snake, viper’ (Toch. A ārṣal, B arṣāklo) reproduces exactly the Turkic name *arsala:n ‘lion’, whereas the Tocharian B partākto ‘camel’ seems to represent a loanword from East Iranian *pardāk(u)-tā (pl.) ‘leopards’ (perhaps created by a contamination with Altaic *aktan- ‘a castrated animal’). The phonetic aspects of both derivations are unquestionable. The semantic differences may be explained by the fact that Proto-Tocharians borrowed names of two unknown exotic animals and later they wrongly identified the word with different animals, transferring the Turkish name for ‘lion’ into ‘poisonous snake, viper’ and the Iranian name for ‘leopard’ into ‘camel’. The same process is perfectly attested in Slavonic (e.g. Polish słoń ‘elephant’ < Turkish (dial.) aslan ‘lion’; Pol. wielbłąd ‘camel’ < Greek elephas, -antos ‘elephant’) and many other languages.
