The article studies and glosses a Ṭabari-Persian versified vocabulary (
) composed in 1848 by Amir Timur Qajar. The subject language, Ṭabari, also called Māzandarāni, is spoken in the Caspian province of Māzandarān in northern Iran and has been subjected to an enormous Persian influence in modern times. The
provides a unique opportunity to study the linguistic developments of Ṭabari, more particularly so because the three oldest manuscripts of the
are written in different dialects of the language. An attempt is made here to identify these dialects and their diachronic developments through a comparative phonological analysis.
The point of departure of this paper is that it is both timely and imperative to renew the traditional systemic approach to historical linguistics primarily focusing on Ancient Hungarian and Old Hungarian and supplement it with usage-centred research based on Middle Hungarian sources (like records of evidence in witchcraft trials). One possible way of doing that is offered by historical (socio)pragmatics, a line of study little known at present within Hungarian linguistics. Although a systematic application of (synchronically tried-and-true, all but classical) pragmatic theories and methods to historical material may come up against unforeseeable or even unresolvable difficulties, such „experimentation” is a promising enterprise: the pragmatic point of view and the theories built on it may provide historical investigations with a framework that can not only be expected to yield new conclusions but also to throw new light upon familiar facts of language history. The title of this paper raises two questions: 1. Is a new approach to the study of the history of Hungarian needed at all? and 2. What is historical sociopragmatics? In what follows, I will try to answer both questions in that order.
These two letters and two inventories preserved in the rich heritage of Anton Hodinka in the manuscript depository of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Library present an exciting picture of the everyday life of the 18th century. Nevertheless, I find these documents valuable not because of this fact but due to their vocabulary which reflects the Rusyn language adequately. These original sources are the splendid illustrations of the Rusyn language wordstock used in everyday life of that period. Therefore I have not spared myself to copy, study and publish the manuscripts in question because I should like to contribute to enriching the Rusyn language history. As a matter of fact the Rusyn language of the 18th century reflects the synthesis of three elements: the Church Slavonic liturgy language, the Old Ukrainian language and the living folk language. The formation and unification of the literary language norm, which was not regulated by grammars and dictionaries, was greatly influenced by the bishop's office documents due to the great authority and prestige of the church in the region. The three above-mentioned elements of the Rusyn literary language of the 18th century can be revealed in all language layers (phonetical, morphological, syntactical, lexical, semantical). I shall give several examples on the elements of the Rusyn folk language.
Ergün, Mustafa (1982): Emrullah Efendi: Hayatı, Görüşleri, Çalışmaları (Emrullah Efendi: his life, opinions, works).
Ankara Üniversitesi Dil Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi
(Journal of the Faculty of Languages, History and Geography of the Ankara
Carpathian Basin in 895 are an important source for reconstructing the languagehistory of this group of Turkic languages in the period between the fifth and ninth centuries. 1 The reconstruction of the history of Chuvash rests on Turkic loanwords in