Results found: 2

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE

Sort By:

Limit search:

„Słowa uszczypliwe”, „słowa nieuczciwe”. Język sporów sądowych i ruska polemika

100%

Frick D.

Terminus

2010

vol. 12

issue 2(23)

15-35

This is a Polish translation of an article by David Frick entitled: 'Slowa uszczypliwe, slowa nieuczciwe: The Language of Litigation and the Ruthenian Polemic' published in: 'Essays presented to Ihor Sevcenko on his eightieth birthday by his colleagues and students' [P. Schreiner, O. Strakhov (ed.), Cambridge, Mass. 2002, 'Palaeoslavica' vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 122-138]. The author - an eminent expert in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth culture and literature - analyses the protestations of the citizens of seventeenth-century Vilnius and explores thoroughly the language of litigation of the time. Frick focuses also on the writings of Meletij Smotryc'kyj - the most outstanding seventeenth-century Orthodox polemicist. The author's analyses lead to the conclusion that special formulas and rhetorical strategies typical of the language of litigation were familiar to the Orthodox polemicist (after the Union of Brest of 1596) as well as widely used in their writings.

The problem of origin of the Lithuanian nation from the standpoint of word formation

88%

Ambrazas S.

Acta Baltico-Slavica

2006

vol. 30

61-87

The greatest part of derivational features common to Lithuanian and Latvian was inherited from Proto-Baltic. Only some of them may be ascribed to exclusive East Baltic innovations. Besides, there are differences in the realization of them. In Latvian the suffix *-u-mo- (but not the suffix *-i-mo- in the contrast to Lithuanian) was widely used in the formation of 'nomina actionis'. It is also noteworthy that the formation of Latvian 'nomina actionis' was affected most radically by the adjectival suffix *-no- rather than *-mo-. A number of East Baltic innovations (cf nominal diminatives with *-en-o, *-a-ko, *-e-ko) cover not all territory of Lithuanian, but usually the eastern part of it which is supposed to be the mother land of the Lithuanian nation. On the other hand, a number of derivational isoglosses link the Lithuanian language to Old Prussian and oppose it to Latvian, cf 'nomina collectiva' with *-i-no-; 'nomina agentis' with *-i-ko-, 'nomina attributiva' with *-in-i-ko-, *-e-no-, *-at-Uo-, *-o-lUo-; 'nomina qualitatis' with *-i-be, *-i-s-ta, *-is-ko-; diminutives with *-o-l-Uo-, *-i-s-t-Uo-. Some of these isoglosses might reflect the influence of West Baltic tribes (they were very early drawn into the processes of European civilization) upon the Lithuanian language (especially upon its western and southern dialects) in the initial stage of its development.

Refine search results

1 Acta Baltico-Slavica

1 Terminus

1 Ambrazas S.

1 Frick D.

1 2010

1 2006

Search results

„Słowa uszczypliwe”, „słowa nieuczciwe”. Język sporów sądowych i ruska polemika

The problem of origin of the Lithuanian nation from the standpoint of word formation