This paper deals with the role of Greek, Latin and Hebrew loanwords in the history of Church Slavonic. Their number was fluctuating in the course of centuries which can be attributed to political rather than theological or linguistic considerations.The number and role of loanwords in the modern variant of Liturgical Church Slavonic is still considerable. In modern vernacular Slavic (Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Bulgarian, Serbian and Croatian) the majority of them are substituted with native words.
On the basis of Pleteršnik's dictionary and dialectal lexical material collected in his native village of Beltince, Franc Novak compiled a dictionary containing about 8,000 entries. His work was later completed and edited by Vilko Novak. This dialectal dictionary includes a significant number of Hungarian loanwords, lexical elements transferred into the Beltince dialect through Hungarian as an intermediary language, as well as loan translations and words based on a Hungarian model. The present paper describes this lexical material, also discussing problems of phonetic and morphological adaptation these transferred elements undergo. The population of the Porabje region in Slovenia has lived in the natural neighbourhood of Hungarians for centuries. The Beltince dictionary yields a linguistic documentation for this coexistence, contributing not only to research in Slovenian dialectology but also Hungarian-Slovenian language contacts.
to appear. Stress in windows: Language typology and factorial typology. To be published in: Lingua.
Kang, Yoonjung 2011. Loanword phonology. In: Marc van Oostendorp — Colin Ewen — Elizabeth Hume — Keren Rice (eds
( 2013 ): Old Turkic Loanwords in the Khitan Language . In: Şirin , U. H. – Gül , B. (eds): Yalɪm Kaya Bitigi. Osman Fikri Setkaya Armağanı . Ankara , Türk Kültürünü Araştɪrma Enstitüsü , pp. 621 – 625
In this study the autor provides a survey on the interaction between English and the Latin, French, Italian, Spanish and Potuguese is analyses chronologically, with a special regard to the phonological modifications of loan-words.
The article examines the origin of the following words found in the diplomatic correspondence of Muscovite Russia of the 17th century: взглядъ ‘point of view; standpoint; opinion; appraisal’ (мѣ ти взглядъ ‘consider, take into consideration’), выполняти ‘implement, fulfil, carry out‘, высвобожати ‘free, liberate’, дал(ь)ший ‘further, subsequent’, доведенье ‘argument; proving, proof, substantiation’, догажати, догодити ‘please; oblige; play up to’, додавати ‘add to, give’, доложити ‘add to; supplement with’, and допомогати ‘help, assist, aid’. The paper retraces their further fate in Russian and other East Slavonic languages as well as in the Polish language. The author aims at proving that these intra-Slavonic derivates are inter-Slavonic lexical loanwords (Polonisms) in the Russian language. It is also stated that the word высвобожати probably is a loanword from the written language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Russian written language of the 17th century.
This paper presents the first attempt at explaining Russian hippologic names. In the study, the author describes the semantic characteristics of horse colour terms and gives the etymologic definitions of the most important Proto-Slavic lexical elements as well as loanwords. The analysis is supplemented by a list of some 70 horse colour terms and more than 150 derivatives existing in the Russian language and usage.
This article presents eighteen glosses and emendations borrowed from Turkic dialects into the Slavonic-Russian Pentateuch edited according to the Hebrew Masoretic Text (in manuscripts from the 15th–16th centuries). The first group of these words — including proper names — has Arabic or Persian origins; they came into East Slavonic with obvious Turkic mediation (Skandryja ‘Alexandria’, Bagadad ‘Baghdad’, Misurʹ ‘Egypt’, Šam ‘Damascus’, Isup ‘Joseph’, sturlabʹ ‘astrolabe’, soltan ‘sultan’, olmas ‘diamond’, ambar ‘ambergris’, and brynec ‘rice’). The second group is proper Turkic: saigak ‘saiga antelope’, ošak ‘donkey’, katyrʹ ‘mule’, kirpič ‘brick’, talmač ‘interpreter’, čalma ‘turban’, and saranča ‘locust’. The author agrees with the hypothesis that this glossing/emendation was made for the East Slavonic Judaizers. Furthermore, the author suggests that there was participation of a group of merchants interested in a new and mysterious knowledge promulgated by learned rabbis.