A number of disparate onomastic phenomena occurring in northwestern Iberia have long puzzled scholars: the abundance of Arabic personal names in early medieval Christian communities, often fossilised as place–names; the extraordinarily profuse Romance toponym Quintana; and a surprisingly high number of hypothetical Amazigh (i.e. Berber) demonyms. In this paper we argue that these seemingly disparate onomastic phenomena can all be explained if it is accepted that following the Islamic invasion of Iberia in 711, the Amazigh settlers of the Northwest were at least partially latinophone. The internal history of the Maghreb suggests this would have been the case at least in the sense of Latin as a lingua franca, a situation which the speed and superficiality of the Islamic conquest of said region would have been unlikely to have altered significantly. In this context, all of the puzzling onomastic elements encountered in the Northwest fall into place as the result of the conquest and settlement of a Romance– speaking region by Romance–speaking incomers bearing Arabic personal names but retaining their indigenous tribal affiliations and logically choosing to interact with the autochthonous population in the lan-guage they all shared.
While it has long been noted that Chinese Buddhist translations contain many new lexical and syntactic elements that were created due to the contact between Indic and Chinese languages during the translation process, few attempts have been made to systematically explore the major mechanisms of such contact-induced creations. This paper examines six mechanisms of contact-induced lexical creations and three mechanisms of contact-induced syntactic creations in Chinese Buddhist translations. All of these mechanisms have parallels in non-Sinitic language contacts. The parallels demonstrate that Chinese Buddhist translations and non-Sinitic language contacts show striking similarities in the ways in which they brought about new lexical and syntactic elements.
This paper examines the historical events and the linguistic consequences of a number of migratory movements from Italy to Southern European and Mediterranean countries between the end of the 17th century and the first few decades of the 18th century. Such directions and destinations are lesser known than those migrations generally associated “historically” with Italian emigration (North and South America, and, more recently, Northern Europe and Australia); nevertheless, the linguistic heritage of such movements is still very much alive or else has become extinct in only very recent times. Those who migrated from Veneto and Trentino to the Balcans, from Puglia to Crimea, the Sicilians who emigrated to Tunisia, the Piedmontese who went to province, the Ligurians who moved to various locations from Gibraltar to the Black Sea, all gave birth to small linguistic communities, to real dialectal
, to important phenomena of mixing codes and lexical borrowing from the local languages. An overall picture will be built up in order to evaluate the importance of these phenomena and to posit a series of hypotheses of a sociolinguistic and political nature.
In the present study, the principles of nomination of sacrum are analysed on the basis of linguistic and cultural data. The os sacrum has been considered sacred as a nidus for resurrection since antiquity. Its names are motivated by the meaning ‘cross’ in Slavic, Germanic, and Hungarian. In Slavic texts, this image appeared in the 16th century. This late use allows us to see it as a semantic calque of German Kreuz but the first known occurrence in German was attested in the 17th century.
The aim of the present paper is to analyze how pseudo-English loanwords are registered in modern lexicography. This is a rather new and quickly developing research field in European linguistics, however, in Russia, it has received hardly any attention so far. These lexical items are usually treated as real English borrowings in Russian dictionaries, despite the fact that they are not used in the source language in the form they are presented by lexicographers. It is also pointed out in the paper that some pseudo-Anglicisms have been transferred into Russian through one of the main intermediary languages of Europe (French or German).
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.
This paper deals with two ways of expressing possessive relationships, their morphological make-up and the possible circumstances of their emergence. One of these is the habitive construction (`X has Y'), whereas the other is the attributive possessive construction (`X's Y, the Y of X'). The former is a clause, whereas the latter is a phrase. It will be argued that both types of constructions may have emerged in the Uralic languages without the contribution of any foreign influence, but as far as the retention of the latter is concerned, foreign influence may have had a role in it in Uralic languages that were engaged in intensive Uralic--Turkic linguistic contacts.