Search results

1

Prasłowiański przyrostek *-tajь w świetle materiału porównawczego

100%

Witczak K. T.

LingVaria : Półrocznik Wydziału Polonistyki UJ poświęcony zagadnieniom języka i językoznawstwa

|

2017

|

issue 23

209-222

EN

The author considers anew the origin of the Slavic suffix *-tajь, taking into account new Tocharian data which feature the agentive suffix -tau (e.g. Toch. B. olyitau ‘boatman’ : Toch. AB olyi; Toch. B käryorttau ‘trader, merchant’ : karyor ‘buying, business negotiation’), as well as the iterative-frequentative feature of the verbal suffix *-teh₂- in the Indo-European languages. The iterative-frequentative aspect of the Indo-European suffix *-teh₂- is securely preserved in the Latin verbal system, cf. Lat. eō, īre ‘to go, walk, move, pass’, Gk. εἶμι ‘id.’ (< PIE. *h₁ei- ‘to go’) vs. Lat. itō, itāre (verbum iterativum vel intensivum) ‘to go, march’, Gk. ἰτητέον (adiectivum verbale) (< PIE. *h₁i-teh₂- ‘to go frequently’). It is suggested that the iterative-frequentative (and perhaps intensive) meaning of the suffix *-teh₂- was adopted from Indo-European verbal formations and introduced into a number of nominal forms, e.g. agent nouns (nomina agentis) with the (verbal) suffix *-teh₂-, e.g. PIE. *h₂erh₃-i̯e-ti ‘he ploughs’   PIE. *h₂erh₃-teh₂-i̯e-ti ‘he frequently (or constantly) ploughs’  PIE. *h₂erh₃-teh₂-s m. ‘a man who frequently (or constantly) ploughs the earth’, i.e. ‘ploughman, farmer’  PIE. dial. *h₂erh₃-teh₂-i̯o-s m. ‘id.’. The author concludes that the Proto-Indo-European archetype *h₂erh₃-teh₂-(i̯o)-s originally denoted ‘a person who frequently (or constantly) ploughs the earth’. Put differently, the Indo-European nominal suffix *-teh₂-, attested in certain agent nouns in Baltic, Greek, Slavic and Tocharian, was characterized by the iterative-frequentative aspect taken over from the corresponding verbs in *-teh₂-. The original semantic difference, reconstructible for the Indo-European proto-language, has been completely forgotten in most of the daughter languages. This is why the Ancient Greek noun ἀρότης m. ‘plougman, farmer’ (< PIE. *h₂erh₃-téh₂-s m.), which originally denoted ‘a person who frequently or constantly ploughs the earth’, seems to be fully synonymous with ἀροτήρ m. ‘plougman, farmer’ (< PIE. *h₂erh₃-tér-s m.) which originally indicated a man who is ploughing currently but not constantly. The same semantic difference must have existed in Baltic (e.g. Lith. artójas ‘ploughman, farmer’, OPruss. artoys ‘farmer’ vs. Lith. arėjas m. ‘plougman’, Latv. arẽjs m. ‘ploughman, farmer’), as well as in Slavic (e.g. Pol. rataj ‘ploughman, farmer’ vs. oracz m. ‘ploughman’).

2

The Concept of ‘Rhetoric’ in a Linguistic Perspective: Historical, Systematic, and Theoretical Aspects of Rhetoric as Formal Language Usage

88%

Haase F.-A.

Res Rhetorica

|

2014

|

vol. 1

|

issue 1

27-45

EN

Rhetoric is commonly known as an old discipline for the persuasive usage of language in linguistic communication acts. In this article we examine the concept ‘rhetoric’ from 1. the diachronic perspective of historical linguistics showing that the concept ‘rhetoric’ is linguistically present in various Indo-European roots and exists across several language families and 2. the theoretical perspective towards the concept ‘rhetoric’ with a contemporary defi nition and model in the tradition of rhetorical theory. The historical and systematic approaches allow us to describe the features of the conceptualization of ‘rhetoric’ as the process in theory and empirical language history. The aim of this article is a formal description of the concept ‘rhetoric’ as a result of a theoretical process of this conceptualization, the rhetorization, and the historical documentation of the process of the emergence of the concept ‘rhetoric’ in natural languages. We present as the concept ‘rhetoric’ a specifi c mode of linguistic communication in ‘rhetoricized’ expressions of a natural language. Within linguistic communicative acts ‘rhetoricized language’ is a process of forming structured linguistic expressions. Based on traditional rhetorical theory we will in a case study present ‘formalization,’ ‘structuralization,’ and ‘symbolization’ as the three principle processes, which are parts of this process of rhetorization in rhetorical theory.

3

Grecki bóg Hermes i bogini wedyjska Saramā w aspekcie porównawczym

88%

Skarbek-Kazanecki J.

Collectanea Philologica

|

2017

|

issue 20

21-35

EN

Following the suggestions of nineteenth-century linguists (Max Müller, 1838, Monier-Williams, 1898) the author, basing on the linguistic and mythological comparative analysis, shows that the Greek good Hermes can be related to the Vedic goddess Sarama. The article firstly gives on overview of the different conceptions regarding the etymology of the theonym “Hermes”. The most popular and probable of them is the one proposed by Martin P. Nilsson (1949), who connects it with the greek noun ἕρμα ‘prop, support, reef, rock under water’. Some difficulties, which this hypothesis has given rise to, show that the problem of etymology of the name Hermes is long standing and unsolved. Thereafter, the author proves that etymologies of Hermes and Sarama can connect to the same Indo-European root *ser-. Also the oldest Greek and Vedic literature, primarily Homer’s poems, Homeric Hymn to Hermes and Rigvedic Hymn X. 108, demonstrates numerous similarities between both deities.

PL

-

4

Geopolitical dimension of thinking in the Albanian language supports the Euro-Atlantic integration

75%

Abedinaj B.

Academicus. International Scientific Journal

|

2015

|

issue 11

77-96

EN

This work starts with the premise that the Albanian language is one of most ancient languages in the world and stands in the root of the common trunk of the Indo-European languages. The common pre-Indo-European origin is preserved in the present Albanian language almost in the same conditions that this language was spoken 2-3 thousand years ago. Further in the work arguments are set forth regarding Albanian language priorities as a synthetic-analytic type language and the role of the Albanian language as the key in analyzing the Indo-European language system is presented. Regardless the tendencies toward analytic features the Albanian language, at the same time, preserves also useful elements from the synthetic features. Continuing, the Albanian language geopolitical positioning is presented from the point of view of the Indo-European languages differentiation and concentration in the EU context and Euro-Atlantic countries integration, supposing the conditions of each language in relation to the specific way of thinking in that language. Closing, some concrete examples are presented about where and how the different ways of thinking may be applied and harmonized, either with the synthetic or analytic domination, and a concrete example is analyzed about how Albanian language can be invested in the improvement of the Indo-European linguistic system, drawing some conclusions in this direction.

5

Rozważania nad etymologią gromu

75%

Witczak K. T.

Poradnik Językowy

|

2020

|

vol. 779

|

issue 10

9-19

EN

The Polish appellative grom m. ‘thunderclap’ (< Proto-Slavic *gromъ m. ‘thunder, thunderclap, roar of a thunder’) should be associated with Greek βρόμος m. ‘any loud noise; crackling of fi re; roar of a thunder; roaring of a storm; rage, fury’. Both these nouns derive from the Proto-Indo-European archetype *gu̯rómos m. ‘loud noise; thunder, thunderclap, roar of a thunder’ (originally nomen actionis with the meaning ‘roaring; thundering’, derived from the root *gu̯rem- ‘to roar, to thunder’, cf. Gk. βρέμω ‘to roar; to clash, ring (of arms); to shout, rage (of men)’, pol. grzmieć ‘to thunder’). The comparison of PSl. *gromъ with Gk. χρόμος m. ‘neighing or whinnying (of horse)’ is semantically doubtful.

6

Rozum i serce. Pamięć w wybranych językach indoeuropejskich

71%

Wyrwas K.

Stylistyka

|

2019

|

vol. 28

65-78

EN

The article discusses the subject of memory-related pie. etymons in Indo-European languages. In the group of dictionary data which was collected, memory is an ability of the human mind and ability located in the heart. Remembering is one of the functions of the human mind, a cognitive ability that is communicated in the Indo-European language verbs from the mental group based on the pie. etymons: *men- ‘think; mind, spirituals activities,’*(s)mer- ‘mourn, remember with sadness,’ ‘remember, think, take care,’ and *tong- ‘think, feel’. Numerous derivatives of these etymons in particular language groups referred to different features and states of mind: thinking, reflecting, contemplating, consulting, debating, remembering, experiencing sadness, grief, pleasure, kindness, gratitude, etc. Less numerous are the forms referring to remembrance based on the pie. etymon*k̑r̥ d- ‘heart’, which, according to the beliefs of ancient Greeks, is the seat of intelligence and memory, as well as of emotions. In European conceptualisations, there are also references to human characteristics, such as moral and mental strength, courage, mercy, purity of heart, pride, faith and mercy. Indo-European lexemes related to memory in their meanings and etymology show a linguistic image of how our distant ancestors understood the human phenomenon of knowledge storage. The source from which the lexemes were obtained was the etymological dictionaries of Indo-European languages.

7

Łacińskie lōrum w świetle etymologii

63%

Witczak K. T.

LingVaria : Półrocznik Wydziału Polonistyki UJ poświęcony zagadnieniom języka i językoznawstwa

|

2017

|

issue 24

185-196

EN

The traditional etymology of Lat. lōrum n. ‘strap, girdle, rein’, according to which it is related to Arm. lar ‘strick, rope, band’ and Greek (Homeric) εὔληρα, Doric αὔληρα n. pl. ‘reins’, should be rejected for phonological and morphological reasons. The present author suggests a new explanation of the Latin term in question. It derives from the Italic archetype *lōsom n. ‘strap, belt, girdle’. Close equivalents are attested in Indo-Iranian, cf. Old Indic rā́snā- f. ‘girdle’ (< IE. *lōsnā); Khotan Saka rrānä ‘belt’, Ossetic ron ‘belt, girdle’ (< Iranian *rāhnā- < IE. *lōsnā), Sogdian r’n’(kh) ‘belt’ (< Iran. *rāhnā-ka-); Wakhi ran-dáq, ran-dak ‘leather strap’ (< Iran. *rāhna-taka-). The Indo-European root *lōs- (< PIE. *leh₃s-) is also attested in Ancient Greek, cf. Gk. λῶμα n. ‘hem, fringe, border of cloths’ (< IE. *lṓs-mn̥ n.), Aeolic λῶστοι pl. ‘stitched’, ἄλωστοι pl. ‘unstitched’, εὔλωστοι pl. ‘well-vowen’ (< IE. *lōs-tó-). The author explains Latin lōrus (m.) as an innovative form created on the basis of the irregular plural lōrī, originally nom.-acc. du. n. *lōso-ī ‘two straps, two reins’ (< PIE. *leh₃so-ih₁). The loss of the dualnumber in the early pre-literary phase of the development of the Latin language caused the reinterpretation of preserved dual forms. It is emphasized that Lat. frēnum n. ‘bit, cub, bridle’ attests not only the regular plural frēna ‘reins’, but also the irregular frēnī (orig. nom.-acc. du. n.).

8

K menám priamej línie Mojmírovského domu

63%

Pukanec M.

Acta onomastica

|

2020

|

vol. 61

|

issue 1

185-193

EN

This paper deals with two names of the direct Mojmir line (Great Moravia, 9th–10th century): *Mojьměrъ/*Mojьmirъ and *Svętěpъlkъ/*Svętopъlkъ. In the paper, the author analyzes three hypotheses concerning the origin of Proto-Slavic onymic elements *-měrъ/-mirъ in the Late Proto-Slavic personal name *Mojьměrъ/*Mojьmirъ > Czech-Slovak Mojmír, attested as Moimar, Moymar ʻMojmir I, ruler of Great Moraviaʼ, and Moymir, Moymarius ʻMojmir II, ruler of Great Moraviaʼ: (1) Proto-Slavic *-měrъ < Proto-Indo-European *meh1-ro- ʻglorious, greatʼ, (2) Proto-Slavic *-měrъ < Proto-Germanic, Gothic mērs ʻgloriousʼ, Proto-Slavic *-mirъ being in both cases secondary, Proto-Slavic *-mirъ < Proto-Slavic *mirъ ʻpeace, worldʼ, Proto-Slavic *-měrъ being secondary, which is rejected, as well as two hypotheses concerning the origin of the Proto-Slavic onymic element *-pъlkъ in the Late Proto-Slavic personal name *Svętěpъlkъ/*Svętopъlkъ > Czech Svatopluk, Slovak Svätopluk, attested as Szuentiepulc, Zuentibald, Zuentebald, Sfentopulch, etc. ʻSvatopluk I, ruler of Great Moraviaʼ, and Zentobolch, Zuentibald ʻSvatopluk II, prince of Great Moraviaʼ: (1) Proto-Slavic *-pъlkъ ʻregiment, crowd, etc.ʼ < Gothic or Longobardic fulk- ʻpeople, multitude, armyʼ < Proto-Indo-European *pel- ʻfill, etc.ʼ, which is more popular, (2) Proto-Slavic *-pъlkъ ʻregiment, house [= clan], etc.ʼ (cf. Old Czech meanings and Proto-Germanic fulg- ʻto followʼ) < Proto-Indo-European *plk- ʻto stand by sb.ʼ, which is more probable. After the discussion, the first personal name is reinterpreted as *Mojiměrъ < Proto-Indo-European *moios ʻmy [regiment, house]ʼ + *meh1-ro- ʻglorious, greatʼ, and the latter one as *Svętěpъlkъ/*Svętopъlkъ < Proto-Slavic *svęt ʻglorious, greatʼ (< Proto-Indo-European *ḱwen- ʻto celebrateʼ) + Proto-Slavic *-pъlkъ ʻregiment, houseʼ.

9

Wyjątkowy bałkanizm anatolijskiego pochodzenia

63%

Kaczyńska E., Witczak K. T.

Prace Językoznawcze

|

2017

|

issue XIX/3

53-69

EN

The paper discusses the origin of one of the modern balkanisms, attested in most Balkan languages, cf. Mod. Gk. κουμάσι n. ‘kennel (for a dog); hencoop’, dial. (Cretan) κούμος m. (o-stem) ‘id.’; Alb. kumác m. ‘enclosure for small domestic animals: coop, cote; dog kennel; pig pen, sty’ and qyméz m. ‘chicken coop, dovecote’; Arom. cumás ‘hencoop’; Turk. kümes ‘poultryhouse; coop, hut’, also küm ‘id.’. The Turkish origin of the above-mentioned bunch, suggested by Gustav Meyer (1891/1982: 229) and Wanda Budziszewska (1983: 84), should be excluded for chronological problems. The Greek appellative appears as early as in the lexicon of Hesychius of Alexandria, created by the end of 5th century AD, cf. κουμάσιον· τὸ τῶν ὀρνίθων οἴκημα. It is finally suggested that Mod. Gk. κούμος, Turk. küm and Bulg. dial. кумà represent an ancient borrowing from Anatolian *ḫaumaš c. (o-stem), cf. Hitt. ḫūmmaš c. ‘stable, stall, sty’, whereas Ancient Greek κουμάσιον, Mod. Gk. κουμάσι and its Balkan equivalents (cf. Turk. kümes, Alb. kumác, Arom. cumás) derive from the diminutive form *ḫaumati- in Anatolian, cf. Luw. ḫūmmati- ‘stable’.

10

Wyjątkowy bałkanizm anatolijskiego pochodzenia

63%

Kaczyńska E., Witczak K.

Prace Językoznawcze

|

2017

|

issue XIX/4

53-69

EN

The paper discusses the origin of one of the modern balkanisms, attested in most Balkan languages, cf. Mod. Gk. κουμάσι n. ‘kennel (for a dog); hencoop’, dial. (Cretan) κούμος m. (o-stem) ‘id.’; Alb. kumác m. ‘enclosure for small domestic animals: coop, cote; dog kennel; pig pen, sty’ and qyméz m. ‘chicken coop, dovecote’; Arom. cumás ‘hencoop’; Turk. kümes ‘poultryhouse; coop, hut’, also küm ‘id.’. The Turkish origin of the above-mentioned bunch, suggested by Gustav Meyer (1891/1982: 229) and Wanda Budziszewska (1983: 84), should be excluded for chronological problems. The Greek appellative appears as early as in the lexicon of Hesychius of Alexandria, created by the end of 5th century AD, cf. κουμάσιον· τὸ τῶν ὀρνίθων οἴκημα. It is finally suggested that Mod. Gk. κούμος, Turk. küm and Bulg. dial. кумà represent an ancient borrowing from Anatolian *ḫaumaš c. (o-stem), cf. Hitt. ḫūmmaš c. ‘stable, stall, sty’, whereas Ancient Greek κουμάσιον, Mod. Gk. κουμάσι and its Balkan equivalents (cf. Turk. kümes, Alb. kumác, Arom. cumás) derive from the diminutive form *ḫaumati- in Anatolian, cf. Luw. ḫūmmati- ‘stable’.

11

K jedné kapitole z dějin jazykovědy. Příspěvek k 150. výročí úmrtí srovnávacího jazykovědce Augusta Schleichera

51%

Vodrážková L.

Časopis pro moderní filologii (Journal for Modern Philology)

|

2018

|

vol. 100

|

issue 1

111-119

EN

The article concerns the history of linguistics in the 19th century, in particular August Schleicher’s place in the history of linguistics and his scholarly heritage for linguistics in the 20th century, recalling that he was the founder of a method still characteristic of comparative linguistics today. The report describes the theory and methodology of this German representative of comparative linguistics, presenting Schleicher’s research, which was influenced by Darwin’s Origin of Species and by Hegel’s philosophy. In Prague (1850–1857) Schleicher worked intensively on the synchronic and historical grammar of Old Church Slavonic (1852) and of Lithuanian (1856–1857). In Jena (1857–1868) he wrote one of the major syntheses of comparative and historical grammar of the Indo-European languages — his Compendium der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft der indogermanischen Sprachen (Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages, 1861–1862) in which he postulated the first historical and comparative phonology of the Indo-European languages, which depends on the regularity, or “universal validity”, of the rules of sound change, or “sound laws”, and consolidated the large number of phonological and morphological descriptions of individual Indo-European languages into the unified system of a reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language; Schleicher then represented the inter-relationships of the Indo-European languages in the form of a genealogical tree diagram (Stammbaum).

12

Considerations of the origin of the Armenian term gom ‘stable, stall, pigsty’

51%

Witczak K. T.

Prace Językoznawcze

|

2020

|

issue XXII/4

237–252

PL

Autor dowodzi, że silne argumenty fonologiczne i semantyczne nie pozwalają zestawić ormiańskiego wyrazu gom ‘obora, stajnia, chlew’ ze staronordyckim leksemem gammi ‘lapońska chata, ziemianka’. Pierwszy z powyższych terminów reprezentuje bowiem prastare zapożyczenie ze źródła anatolijskiego, por. het. ḫūmmaš c. ‘obora, stajnia, chlew’, luw. ḫūmmaš c. ‘chlew’ (< anat. *ḫaumaš < pie. *h2óu̯mos), drugi natomiast jest oczywistą kopią lapońskiego apelatywu gammi ‘ziemianka zbudowana z torfu’, który sprowadza się ostatecznie do fińskopermskiej praformy *kȣmɜ ‘spichlerz, spiżarnia’. W językach kaukaskich spotykamy dwie wiązki leksykalne wykazujące odmienne, możliwe do oddzielenia znaczenia ‘obora, stajnia, owczarnia, chlew’ vs. ‘spichlerz, spiżarnia’. Pierwsza wiązka, zapożyczona z leksyki anatolijskiej (za pośrednictwem ormiańskim), została udokumentowana przez gruz. gomi ‘chlew’ i orm. gom ‘obora, stajnia, chlew’. Niektórzy lingwiści błędnie kojarzyli z nią inną grupę wyrazów, poświadczoną m.in. w języku swańskim, kabardyńskim, adygejskim, inguskim i czeczeńskim (por. sw. gwem ‘spiżarnia’; kabard. gwän ‘skrzynia na ziarno, skład zboża’, adyg. kon ‘rozszerzający się ku górze pleciony spichlerz, oblepiony z zewnątrz gliną i pokryty słomą’; ing. ḳe, obl. ḳeno ‘spichlerz’; czecz. č̣ȫ, obl. č̣ȫna- ‘skład ziarna, spichlerz’). Moim zdaniem, powyższe wyrazy kaukaskie są ugrofińskimi zapożyczeniami, dokonanymi za pośrednictwem osetyńskiego gom, gon, gondan ‘skrzynia na zboże, spichlerz, spichrz’, por. ostiackie kȯ̆m ‘spichlerz, spiżarnia’ < fińskoperm. *kȣmɜ ‘ts.’).

EN

The author pursues an argument that the Armenian word gom (‘stable, stall, pigsty’) cannot be related to Old Norse gammi (‘Saami hut, dug-out’) for both phonological and semantic reasons. Rather, the former noun represents an ancient borrowing from an Anatolian source (cf. Hittite ḫūmmaš c. ‘stable, stall, sty’, Luwian ḫūmmaš c. ‘pigsty’ < PIE. *h2óu̯mos), whereas the latter one seems to be a Finno-Ugric loanword (via the Northern Saami appellative gammi, which derives from the Finno-Permic archetype *kȣmɜ ‘granary, pantry’). Furthermore, the modern Caucasian languages attest lexical data with two different (and easily separable) meanings: ‘stable, stall, sty’ vs. ‘granary, pantry’. The former group, documented e.g. by Georgian gomi ‘pigsty’, is evidently of Anatolian origin (via Armenian gom). On the other hand, the Caucasian terms for ‘granary, pantry’ (e.g. Svan gwem ‘cupboard, pantry, larder’, Kabardian gwän ‘chest for corn, grain-store’, Ad. kon ‘upward widening woven granary, covered on the outside with clay and covered with straw’, Ingush ḳe, obl. ḳeno ‘granary’, Chechen čọ̈̄ , obl. čọ̈̄ na- ‘store for grain, granary’ etc.), wrongly linked to the aforementioned words for ‘stable, stall, pigsty’ by some linguists, should be treated as borrowings of Finno-Ugric origin (via Ossetic gom, gon, gondan ‘box for grain, granary’ ← Ostyak kȯ̆m ‘granary, pantry’ vel sim. < Finno-Permic *kȣmɜ ‘id.’).

13

Praindoeuropejski rdzeń *h2engh- ‘krzywić się, kręcić, wić się’ oraz inne rdzenie fonetycznie i semantycznie zbliżone w apelatywach i nazwach rzek na obszarze germańskim, bałtyckim i słowiańskim

38%

Biolik M., Duma J.

Prace Językoznawcze

|

2020

|

issue XXII/2

5–22

PL

Celem artykułu jest próba analizy etymologicznej wybranych nazw wodnych, przede wszystkim rzecznych, powiązanych etymologicznie z praindoeuropejskim rdzeniem *h2engh-/*h2gh- ‘krzywić, kręcić, wić się’ wraz z podobnymi fonetycznie i semantycznie innymi rdzeniami, które zostały utrwalone w apelatywach i nazwach rzek na obszarze germańskim, bałtyckim i słowiańskim. Mogły one powstawać w okresie przemieszczania się słabo jeszcze zróżnicowanych językowo praindoeuropejskich grup etnicznych. Przedstawiono najbardziej prawdopodobne etymologie nazw rzek takich jak: Angerbach, Angelbach, Unkenbach, Węgorapa, Wągra, Wiar itp. na szerszym tle apelatywnym i proprialnym. Wykazano, że w sferze apelatywnej rdzeń *h2engh- i rdzenie podobne, np. *h2enk- ‘krzywy, wygięty’, *eng- ‘unikać, omijać, uchylać się, wykręcać się’ znajdują poświadczenia także w wyrazach pospolitych na terenach, gdzie używano języków słowiańskich, bałtyckich i germańskich, a także w grece i innych językach indoeuropejskich. W artykule przyjęto metodologie wypracowane w ramach strukturalizmu, wychodząc z założeń przyjętych na gruncie niemieckim, że stare nazwy wodne nie należą do żadnego ze współczesnych języków indoeuropejskich, zostały utworzone przed rozwojem historycznych języków poświadczonych na danym obszarze w pierwszym tysiącleciu n.e.

EN

The article attempts to perform an etymological analysis of selected water names, mainly river names, etymologically related to the pre-Indo-European core *h2engh- /*h2gh- ‘curl, twist, wind’ and with other phonetically and semantically similar cores, e.g. *h2enk ‘to turn around, wind, bend’, *eng- ‘bypass’ etc. They were recorded in appellatives and river names in the Germanic, Baltic and Slavic territories. They could have been formed during the period of the movement of pre-Indo-European ethnic groups which were poorly linguistically differentiated. The article presents the most probable etymologies of the names of rivers such as: Angerbach, Angelbach, Unkenbach, Węgorapa, Wągra, Wiar etc. against a broader appellative and proprial background. It has been determined that in the appellative sphere, the core *h2engh- and similar cores, e.g. *h2enk- ‘crooked, bent’, *eng- ‘avoid, bypass, evade, twist’ are also found in common words in the areas were not only Slavic, Baltic and Germanic, but also Greek and other Indo-European languages were used. This article adopts methodologies developed within structuralism, based on the assumptions adopted in Germany that the old water names do not belong to any of the modern Indo-European languages and were created before the development of historical languages found in a given area in the first millennium AD.

14

Аб магчымым уплыве грэцкай мовы на развіццё дзеепрыметнікаў залежнага стану цяперашняга часу ў славянскіх мовах

38%

Багдзевіч А.

Acta Albaruthenica

|

2021

|

vol. 21

165-175

PL

Imiesłowy bierne czasu teraźniejszego, które ze wszystkich języków słowiańskich były aktywnie używane tylko w języku rosyjskim od XIX wieku i są kategorią gramatyczną, która nie jest akceptowana przez wszystkich rodzimych użytkowników białoruskiego języka literackiego jako normatywna, doświadczają dwóch przeciwstawnych tendencji w rozwoju języków słowiańskich: schyłku i odrodzenia. W artykule omówiono czynniki pozajęzykowe i intralingwistyczne, które mogły wpłynąć na rozwój tej formy imiesłowa w wielu językach sło-wiańskich. Zdaniem autora dwujęzyczna świadomość słowiańsko-grecka twórców pisma słowiańskiego mogła wpłynąć na utrwalenie form w języku rosyjskim. Możliwe związki imiesłowów słowiańskich czasu teraźniejszego z imiesłowami przyśrodkowymi i biernymi języka greckiego w świetle ich wspólnego pochodzenia z imiesłowu indoeuropejskiego, procesu rozwoju imiesłowów podczas przekształcenia kategorii strony i w związku z rozwojem kategorii aspektu są analizowane w niniejszej publikacji.

BE

Дзеепрыметнікі залежнага стану цяперашняга часу, якія з усіх славянскіх моў актыўны ўжытак знайшлі толькі ў рускай мове з ХІХ стагоддзя і з’яўляюцца граматычнай катэгорыяй, якая прымаецца не ўсімі носьбітамі беларускай літаратурнай мовы як нарматыўная, на працягу развіцця славянскіх моў зведваюць дзве супрацьлеглыя тэндэнцыі: заняпад і актывіза-цыю. У артыкуле разглядаюцца экстралінгвістычныя і інтралінгвістычныя фактары, што маглі паўплываць на развіццё дадзенай дзеяслоўнай формы ў шэрагу славянскіх моў. На думку аўтара, актывізацыя форм у рускай мове магла адбывацца пад уплывам білінгвальнай славяна-грэцкай свядомасці стваральнікаў славянскай пісьмовасці. Аналізуюцца магчымыя сувязі славянскіх дзеепрыметнікаў залежнага стану цяперашняга часу з медыяльнымі і пасіўнымі дзеепрыметнікамі грэцкай мовы ў святле іх агульнага паходжання з індаеўрапейскага дзеепрыметніка, разглядаецца працэс развіцця дзеепрыметнікаў у ходзе перабудовы катэгорыі стану славянскіх дзеепрыметнікаў і ў сувязі з развіццём катэгорыі трывання.

EN

The passive participles of the present tense have been actively used only in Russian out of all Slavic languages since the 19th century and are a grammatical category that is not accepted by all native speakers of the standard Belarusian language as a normative one. During the development of Slavic languages, it has been experiencing two opposite tendencies: decline and revival. The article examines extralinguistic and intralinguistic factors that could have influenced the development of this verb form in a number of Slavic languages. According to the author, the bilingual Slavic-Greek consciousness of the creators of Slavic writing could have influenced the strengthening of these forms in the Russian language. The article analyzes possible connections of the Slavic participles of the present tense with the medial and passive participles of the Greek language in the light of their common origin from the Indo-European participle, as well as the process of development of participles during the restructuring of the voice category and in connection with the development of the aspect category.

Refine search results

Prasłowiański przyrostek *-tajь w świetle materiału porównawczego

The Concept of ‘Rhetoric’ in a Linguistic Perspective: Historical, Systematic, and Theoretical Aspects of Rhetoric as Formal Language Usage

Grecki bóg Hermes i bogini wedyjska Saramā w aspekcie porównawczym

Geopolitical dimension of thinking in the Albanian language supports the Euro-Atlantic integration

Rozważania nad etymologią gromu

Rozum i serce. Pamięć w wybranych językach indoeuropejskich

Łacińskie lōrum w świetle etymologii

K menám priamej línie Mojmírovského domu

Wyjątkowy bałkanizm anatolijskiego pochodzenia

Wyjątkowy bałkanizm anatolijskiego pochodzenia

K jedné kapitole z dějin jazykovědy. Příspěvek k 150. výročí úmrtí srovnávacího jazykovědce Augusta Schleichera

Considerations of the origin of the Armenian term gom ‘stable, stall, pigsty’

Praindoeuropejski rdzeń *h2engh- ‘krzywić się, kręcić, wić się’ oraz inne rdzenie fonetycznie i semantycznie zbliżone w apelatywach i nazwach rzek na obszarze germańskim, bałtyckim i słowiańskim

Аб магчымым уплыве грэцкай мовы на развіццё дзеепрыметнікаў залежнага стану цяперашняга часу ў славянскіх мовах