Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 8

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Rumuńska terminologia religijna a podziały wyznaniowe

100%
Klimkowski T.
Balcanica Posnaniensia Acta et studia
|
2020
|
vol. 27
181-194
EN
The article presents some terminological differences between various Christian denominations existing on Romanian territory, mainly between the Romanian Orthodox Church, prevalent in Romania, on the one hand and the Greek Catholic Church (the Uniats) and the Roman Catholic Church on the other. These differences are usually a result of a conscious linguistic policy of both Catholic rites and various Protestant and Neo-Protestant denominations. They are also reflected in the use of different forms of the name Jesus Christ, which exists in at least three versions. Even in the case of the same, common notions, the new denominations often introduce different terms, mainly Latin and Romance neologisms, in order to mark an external and formal difference from the Orthodox Church, whose terminology is of mostly Greek and Slavonic origin. 
PL
Artykuł przedstawia wybrane różnice terminologiczne między różnymi odłamami chrześcijaństwa występującymi na terenie Rumunii, głównie między większościowym w Rumunii prawosławiem a katolicyzmem obrządku greckiego (unici) i łacińskiego (rzymscy katolicy). Różnice te są najczęściej wynikiem świadomej polityki językowej obu odmian katolicyzmu oraz różnych denominacji protestanckich i neoprotestanckich. Przejawiają się one również w użyciu różnych form imienia ‘Jezus Chrystus’, funkcjonującego w trzech przynajmniej wersjach. Nawet w przypadku tych samych, wspólnych pojęć nowsze wyznania wprowadzają często odmienne terminy, na ogół neologizmy łacińsko-romańskie, aby w ten sposób odróżnić się również zewnętrznie i formalnie od prawosławia, stosującego terminologię głównie grecko-słowiańskiego pochodzenia. 
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Preiotarea în limba română

100%
Klimkowski T.
Studia Romanica Posnaniensia
|
2014
|
vol. 41
|
issue 2
41-57
EN
This paper analyses the phenomenon of preiotacisation in Romanian, which consists in the prothesis of a semi-consonant [j] before the initial [e]. In fact, this is only an orthographic convention, because in most cases (eu, ele, ești, e, este, eram) the initial [je] segment is a proper diphthong of different origins that is written e, instead of ie, like in other words. Preiotacisation appears only in the pronouns el, ei and in the Old Romanian pronunciation of some borrowed words. The [j]-prothesis cannot be separated from other types of prothesis attested in the spoken language. This tendency is parallel to the similar phenomenon from Slavic languages and possibly was developed under their influence.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Religious vocabulary in Aromanian compared to Romanian

100%
Klimkowski T.
Balcanica Posnaniensia Acta et studia
|
2015
|
vol. 22
|
issue 1
165-175
PL
The first layer of Aromanian Christian terminology is common for all the Balkan Romance languages. It contains a number of inherited Latin terms and some early assimilated Greek loanwords, due to the Oriental origin of Christianity. As for the later layer, the compound of terms related to ecclesiastical organisation and liturgy or to more sophisticated doctrinal concepts, the Balkan Romance languages substantially differ. In Romanian, it was formed on the basis of Slavonic (or Greek via Slavonic), which was used in the Romanian Orthodox Church by the 17th century. The liturgical language of the Aromanians was Greek (maybe except for Moscopole) and therefore, Aromanian mainly based its religious terminology on Greek, but also on Turkish and Albanian, which can be seen in the Aromanian Missal from the second half of the 18th century. In the next centuries, Aromanian religious vocabulary was strongly influenced by Romanian. The contemporary versions of religious texts, including the Bible (e.g. Caciuperi’s translations), introduce a series of Romanian terms instead of the old ones.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Particulele afirmative în limba română – perspectivă diacronică și areală

100%
Klimkowski T.
Studia Romanica Posnaniensia
|
2020
|
vol. 47
|
issue 3
79-102
EN
The present article analyses the Romanian affirmative particles from a diachronic and areal perspective in order to determine their origin. The analysis of a corpus of original literary texts and translations of religious texts as well as dictionaries and grammars from different epochs has resulted in distinguishing in Romanian the following affirmative particles: aşa (since the 16th, and especially the 17th century), ei (in the 16th century), ie (since the second half of the 18th century) and da (since the 19th century). As the last three can be put in the East European areal context, a natural explanation of their origin would be the assumption that they were borrowed respectively from Church Slavonic, German and Slavic. However, also because of the special status of affirmative particles as a part of basic vocabulary of most languages, we propose to apply to them the foothold theory inspired by Abraham’s half-open doors theory (2011). Accordingly, we believe that borrowing the particle ei from Church Slavonic could have used as a foothold the Old Romanian conjunction e (< lat. et) and the ie borrowed from German was superposed on the Romanian verbal form e ‘is’. On the other hand, the Slavic loanword da coincided with the inner semantic evolution of the Romanian forms dară ~ dar ~ da from an adversative conjunction to an affirmative particle.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Współczesne języki wołoskie

100%
Klimkowski T.
Balcanica Posnaniensia Acta et studia
|
2021
|
vol. 28
|
issue 1
363-394
EN
The article discusses three issues regarding the present situation of the Vlach languages spoken by Balkan Vlachs. The first one is the linguistic status of Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Aromanian (dialect or language) and, respectively, their relation to the Romanian language. On the basis of Kloss’ theory (1967) of Abstand and Ausbau languages, we consider them to be separate Vlach (Balkan Romance) languages. Consequently, the second issue we deal with is the terminology related to these languages and their internal classification. Examining the terms that are currently used, we recommend the forms Vlashki/Zheyanski, (Meglen) Vlach and Armanian (as the native names of the languages) instead of the traditional names Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Aromanian, and also a new term Ramanian for a Vlach variety usually considered to be part of Armanian. As for the third issue, i.e. the spelling systems of the contemporary Vlach languages, we present both traditional and more progressive systems, especially with regard to Armanian and Ramanian.
PL
Artykuł omawia trzy kwestie dotyczące obecnej sytuacji języków wołoskich używanych przez Wołochów bałkańskich. Pierwsza z nich to językowy status istrorumuńskiego, meglenorumuńskiego i arumuńskiego (dialekt / język), a tym samym ich stosunek do języka rumuńskiego. W oparciu o teorię Klossa (1967) (języki typu Abstand i Ausbau) uważamy je za osobne języki wołoskie (bałkanoromańskie). W związku z tym kolejną kwestią, jaką poruszamy, jest terminologia związana z tymi językami oraz ich wewnętrzna klasyfikacja. W wyniku analizy używanych obecnie terminów zalecamy formy właski i żejański, właski (megleński) i armuński (jako rodzime określenia odnośnych języków) zamiast tradycyjnych nazw istrorumuński, meglenorumuński i arumuński, jak również nowy termin remeński dla odmiany wołoskiego uważanej na ogół za część armuńskiego. Jeśli chodzi o trzecią kwestię, tj. systemy zapisu współczesnych języków wołoskich, przedstawiamy zarówno tradycyjne, jak i bardziej postępowe systemy, zwłaszcza w odniesieniu do armuńskiego i remeńskiego.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Dziedzictwo greckie w języku rumuńskim i arumuńskim

100%
Klimkowski T.
Balcanica Posnaniensia Acta et studia
|
2012
|
vol. 19
19-30
EN
This article analyses the Greek influence upon two major Balkan Romance languages, Romanian and Aromanian (the most affected, as it seems, by this influence, historically, like Romanian, and also contemporarily, like Aromanian). In Romanian, for the period of the strongest Greek impact, the Greek lexicon is estimated to be over 10%, but in the contemporary language, the words of Greek origin represent only 2%. In Aromanian, due to its constant contact with Modern Greek (especially in Greece), Greek borrowings are extremely common, expressing not only abstract and specialized terminology, but also many notions of everyday life. Besides the Greek elements in Romanian and Aromanian vocabulary, we notice a number of phonetic, phonological, morphological and syntactic features of Greek origin, either obvious or potential. They appear especially in Aromanian, which borrowed some Greek phonemes and morphemes (both inflectional and derivational) and also adopted, more constantly than Romanian, some syntactic constructions, possibly of Greek origin.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Rumuńscy Arumuni i ich język

100%
Klimkowski T.
Balcanica Posnaniensia Acta et studia
|
2012
|
vol. 19
7-17
EN
Until 1913, all Aromanians lived in the same state i.e. the Ottoman Empire, on equal terms with the other non-Muslim subjects of the sultan. After the Balkan wars, they did not succeed in forming their own state and they became separated by the new borders of the four countries: Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania. That quickly led to ethnic and linguistic tensions, especially in Greece, which continued its policy of forced assimilation of the Vlachs. The mass emigration to Romania, considered by many Vlachs as their only real homeland – first to the Southern and then to the Northern Dobruja – saved them from persecutions but did not protect their ethnic, linguistic and cultural distinctness from assimilation. After having settled in Romania, Aromanians adopted the Romanian identity and language according to the theory that they represented a part of the Romanian nation and their language – a dialect of Romanian. This traditional, pro-Romanian point of view was the only and official one for a half century, until the late 1970s. It still subsists but competes now with a new, opposite point of view, considered and named a “separatist” one. This new point of view envisages the Aromanians to be a separate nation with a distinct language and requires their recognition as a minority group on behalf of the Romanian authorities. Regarding the linguistic aspect, the Aromanian language used in Romania is strongly influenced by Romanian, both lexically and gramatically. For the Aromanian language, Romanian represents a source of modern life or abstract vocabulary and a model of morphosyntactic structures. As for the linguistic analysis in our present study, it is based on Aromanian-language articles and literary works, translated or original, written by Aromanian intellectuals from Romania (some of whom subsequently having emigrated in the meantime and lived in other countries).
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Traducerea unei formule de salut biblice în română și polonă, în context romanic și slav

100%
Klimkowski T.
Studia Romanica Posnaniensia
|
2023
|
vol. 50
|
issue 4
17-33
EN
The purpose of this article is to compare the different variants of the translation of the verse from Luke, 1:28 (the angelic salutation) into Romanian and Polish, and the modern versions of the prayer based on this passage. The analysis reveals the innovative character of the newer biblical translations, especially in the case of the Protestant versions, while the text of the Hail Mary prayer and its Eastern counterpart used by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches respectively preserves the traditional formula. At the same time,this leads to semantic differences between the Romanian and Polish variants of this formula, due to the Greek and Church Slavonic model in the case of Romanian and the Latin model in the case of Polish. The linking element between the two languages is the formula used in the Polish Orthodox text, which follows the tradition of the Church Slavonic language and thus coincides with the Romanian version, having a literal meaning of ‘rejoice’, even though functionally it should be interpreted as a greeting.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.