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

Results found: 9

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  historical syntax
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

Ale však – však ale v dějinách češtiny

100%
Naše řeč (Our Speech)
|
2013
|
vol. 96
|
issue 4
181-197
EN
The subject of this study consists of two compound connectives, „ale však“ and „však ale“, (“but however” and “however but”) which were present in older forms of the Czech language and which persisted into the National Revival era, but which were eventually rejected by modern Czech. The study focuses on the order of the two components of the connectives. The author analyzed data from secondary literature, old grammars of Czech, diachronic corpora and a private corpus of Baroque Czech texts. On the basis of this analysis, it was found that the change in the order from „ale však“ to „však ale“ took place in the 18th century (after 1710). This change is connected to the fact that 1) „ale“ began to fill non-initial positions in the clause from the 18th century onwards, and 2) „však“ was not an enclitic. The rapid spread of „však ale“ dates from the 18th century and it continued during the National Revival period. This can be viewed as evidence of the uninterrupted continuity of Standard Czech between the Baroque period and the National Revival. If Standard Czech had experienced a hiatus between these two periods – as is traditionally assumed – only the form „ale však“ would have occurred in the language of the first half of the 19th century.
PL
The article’s author turns to the example of Rozmyślanie przemyskie in order to demonstrate how transcriptions of text were affected by editors’ opinions on the Polish syntax of the 15th century. At the same time, the transcription influenced opinions of the readers. To this end, selected elements of two different transcriptions of Rozmyślanie przemyskie have been compared, namely excerpts from Chrestomatia staropolska and the equivalent excerpts from the version edited by Wacław Twardzik and Feliks Keller. Special attention has been paid to issues related to sentence delimitation in the transcription, which strongly affects the image of the 15th century Polish syntax reflected in the specific historical editions. Supplements to the text, introduced by editors and inspired by source suggestions, have also been submitted to a syntax analysis. The same holds true for conjunctions and prepositions “extracted” from the onsets or the codas of words includedin the Freiburg edition. Both editions present different pictures of the historical text’s syntax which stemmed from their editors’ varying approaches to the text. Therefore, depending on the actual edition, the reader will be provided with different answers to the following key questions revolving around Polish syntax: what type of predicate combinations prevailed?; how strong was the predicative nature of participle constructs?; how long were thesentences?
EN
The paper aims to describe the origin of the Slavic conjunction i ‘and’ and its Baltic counterpart ir ‘and; also’ (Old Prussian ir ‘also’, Lithuanian ‘and; also’, Latvian ‘and; also; even’). Common Baltic ir traces back to the former *ī-r that stems from the conflation of demonstrative pronoun (instr. sg.) *h₁i-h₁ and locative postposition -r. On the basis of Baltic data we can establish the primary character of Slavic i ‘and’ which illustrates the functional change from comitative to coordinative conjunction.
PL
Artykuł porusza problematykę specyficznej funkcji składniowej staropolskich imiesłowów nieodmiennych (part. praes. indecl./adv.). Przykłady pochodzą ze staropolskich translacji Psałterza oraz kilku innych źródeł. Analiza podstawy łacińskiej oraz staropolskich synonimów syntaktycznych, a także uwzględnienie greckich, staro-cerkiewno-słowiańskich oraz staroczeskich odpowiedników pozwala na wysnucie tezy o podmiotowej funkcji analizowanych części mowy,niedostrzeżonej wcześniej przez badaczy. Autorzy prezentują to nietypowe użycie staropolskich imiesłowów na tle krytycznego omówienia dotychczasowych opracowań, postulując jednocześnie większą ostrożność terminologiczną oraz systematyczne uwzględnianie szerszego tła słowiańskiego.
EN
The paper analyzes the curious syntactic behaviour of certain uninflected participles (part. praes. act./adv.) in Old Polish. Examples are drawn from Old Polish translations of the Book of Psalms and certain other sources. Comparing the Latin text and the Old Polish syntactical equivalents, as well as taking into account the Greek, Old Church Slavic as well as Old Czech counterparts, the authors conclude that the forms under discussion could assume the role of a subject — a fact previously unnoticed by scholars. The authors present this unusual usage of participles in Old Polish against the background of a critical analysis of previous treatments of the subject, at the same time pleading for greater terminological precision and a systematic consideration of the broader Slavic background.
PL
Artykuł porusza problematykę nietypowej funkcji biernej staropolskich czynnych imiesłowów nieodmiennych (part. praes. indecl.), nawiązując do poświęconego temu zagadnieniu artykułu A. Grybosiowej i W. Twardzika, opublikowanego w 1975 roku. Przykłady pochodzą ze średniowiecznych i renesansowych zabytków staropolskich («Rozmyślanie przemyskie», tzw. «Ortyle Maciejowskiego», «Żywot Pana Jezu Krysta» Baltazara Opeca) i prezentują trzy dotychczas nieznane zdania z przedmiotowym użyciem imiesłowów. Omówienie dostarcza ponadto dodatkowych argumentów interpretacyjnych, potwierdzających tezę o biernym znaczeniu nieodmiennych imiesłowów czynnych.
EN
The paper analyzes the curious syntactic behaviour of certain uninflected participles (part. praes. indecl.) in Old Polish, drawing on A. Grybosiowa and W. Twardzik’s 1975 article devoted to the same subject. Examples stemming from medieval and Renaissance Old Polish texts (Rozmyślanie przemyskie, the socalled Ortyle Maciejowskiego, Baltazar Opec’s Żywot Pana Jezu Krysta) present some previously unknown sentences displaying participles with object value. In addition, the study supplies further interpretational arguments confirming the hypothesis about the passive meaning of uninflected active participles.
PL
Artykuł jest poświęcony zmianom średniopolskiej konstrukcji składniowej, w której forma M lp. r.ż. przymiotnika występowała w funkcji predykatywnej. Badania przeprowadzone na danych korpusowych miały na celu prześledzenie procesu, który prowadził do przekształcenia form przymiotników w czasowniki niewłaściwe (werbizacja). Analizą zostało objętych sześć najbardziej popularnych w XVII i XVIII wieku predykatywnych form przymiotnikowych: MOŻNA, NIEMOŻNA, NIEPODOBNA, WIELKA, PEWNA i SŁUSZNA. Podczas gdy pierwsze trzy z nich zmieniły swój gramatyczny status, w wypadku pozostałych proces werbizacji został zahamowany. Rozstrzygający pod tym względem był okres  drugiej połowy XVIII i pierwszej połowy XIX wieku.
EN
The article is devoted to the changes in the Middle Polish syntactic construction in which the predicative function was performed by the nominative, singular, feminine form of the adjective. The research carried out on the corpus data was aimed at tracing the process that led to the transformation of those adjectival forms into defective verbs (verbization). The analysis covers six predicative adjectival forms most popular in the 17th and 18th centuries: MOŻNA ‛it is possible’, NIEMOŻNA ‛it is impossible’, NIEPODOBNA ‛it is impossible’, WIELKA ‛it is great’, PEWNA ‛it is certain’ and SŁUSZNA ‛it is right’. The first three of them changed their grammatical status, whereas for the rest the verbization process stopped. The 2nd half of the 18th century and the 1st half of the 19th century were decisive in this respect.
IT
In questo contributo affrontiamo i costrutti formati da “nome + da + infinito”, p. es. macchina da scrivere, macchina da cucire e altri. Nel corso del Novecento, espressioni come quelle appena menzionate sono state giudicate sbagliate da una certa tradizione grammaticale; al loro posto, secondo questi grammatici, si sarebbero dovuti usare i costrutti concorrenti formati con la preposizione “per”, cioè macchina per scrivere, macchina per cucire ecc. Questa posizione ha influenzato almeno una generazione di discenti ed è stata contestata dagli storici della lingua, i quali hanno mostrato che le forme con la preposizione “da” sono ben attestate fin dall’italiano antico, p. es. tavolo da giocare, armi da combattere, pancha da sedere, cane da combattere. Ciò che finora non è stato fatto è cercare una spiegazione in termini linguistici di questa apparente contraddizione. La soluzione può essere trovata prendendo in considerazione una rianalisi sintattica che si è verificata nel passaggio dall’italiano antico all’italiano contemporaneo. Tale rianalisi interessa il fenomeno della transitività: mentre nell’italiano antico il ruolo sintattico del nome che regge “da + infinito” non aveva nessuna rilevanza nella formazione del costrutto, nell’italiano contemporaneo tale nome deve corrispondere al complemento diretto del verbo all’infinito (p. es. libro da leggere, cf. leggere il libro, ma *coltello da tagliare, cf. *tagliare il coltello). Forme come macchina da scrivere sono sopravvissute alla restrizione in quanto polirematizzate, pertanto avvertite come unità non separabili.
EN
In this paper, we deal with constructions featuring a noun followed by “da + infinitive”, such as macchina da scrivere and macchina da cucire. During the 20th century, such phrases were considered wrong by some grammarians; the rule that grammarians proposed instead was to modify such constructions by replacing the preposition da with the preposition per, as in macchina per scrivere and macchina per cucire. As a matter of fact, this prescription influenced at least one generation of students, as can be seen in posts and discussions found on websites and in grammar questions addressed to linguists. Historical linguists reject such a prescription, showing that constructions with da frequently are found in Old Italian texts, as in tavolo da giocare, armi da combattere, pancha da sedere, and cane da combattere. Until now, there have been no attempts to provide a linguistic explanation of the state of things. The apparent contradiction can be solved if one takes into account a syntactic re-analysis that took place within the transition from Old to Modern Italian: the syntactic role of the name preceding “da + infinitive” has no relevance in Old Italian; on the contrary, in Modern Italian, the name must correspond to the direct object of the infinitive (i.e., libro da leggere, cf. leggere il libro, but *coltello da tagliare, cf. *tagliare il coltello). Phrases like macchina da scrivere were not affected by such a restriction, as they are phrasemes, hence perceived as a unity.
Język Polski
|
2022
|
vol. 102
|
issue 2
32-39
EN
Relative pronouns i- / je- and restrictive particle -le became conflated in concessive conditionals (e.g. No matter how much financial support we get, we will go ahead with our project). This syntactic environment explains, why Old Polish ile functioned in the oldest Polish texts as indefinite pronoun ‘no matter how much’ (so-called free choice determiner). The present paper aims to show, in which way the historical syntax may enrich our knowledge on etymology and language changes.
PL
Fuzja zaimków względnych i- / je- z partykułą restryktywną -le nastąpiła w zdaniach warunkowo-koncesywnych (np. ang. No matter how much financial support we get, we will go ahead with our project ‘Będziemy kontynuować projekt niezależnie od tego, jakie wsparcie finansowe otrzymamy’). Ten typ zdań wyjaśnia, dlaczego w staropolszczyźnie ile funkcjonowało jako zaimek nieokreślony ‘cokolwiek’. Niniejszy artykuł ma na celu pokazanie, w jaki sposób składnia historyczna może wzbogacić wiedzę na temat etymologii i zmian językowych.
EN
Article reflects selected syntactic differences in the two transcriptions of “Rozmyślanie przemyskie” and attempt to answer the question of how to change the image of Old Polish syntax depending on the transcription. RP is a comprehensive, medieval apocrypha. In view of the fact that this text comes from the Old Polish, and for her there is not enough text credentials, researchers often use it as a source of knowledge about inflection, vocabulary or syntax of the fifteenth-century Polish. In the studies on the history of syntax there are many examples of RP to be an illustration of syntactic phenomena Old Polish period. They are cited as transcription, which - as it turns out - is a form of presentation of the text is different from the original: publisher transcription must make arbitrary decisions that are syntax.
PL
Artykuł ma na celu zobrazowanie wybranych różnic składniowych w dwóch transkrypcjach „Rozmyślania przemyskiego” („Chrestomatii staropolskiej” i tzw. wydania fryburskiego) i próbę odpowiedzi na pytanie: jak zmienia się obraz składni staropolskiej w zależności od transkrypcji, po którą sięgnie badacz. RP to obszerny, średniowieczny apokryf. W związku z tym, że zabytek ten pochodzi z tego okresu rozwoju polszczyzny, dla którego istnieje niewiele poświadczeń tekstowych, badacze często korzystają z niego, jako ze źródła wiedzy na temat fleksji, leksyki czy też składni XV-wiecznej polszczyzny. W opracowaniach na temat historii składni pojawia się wiele przykładów z RP, które mają być ilustracją zjawisk składniowych epoki staropolskiej. Przytaczane są one w postaci transkrypcji, która – jak się okazuje – jest formą prezentacji tekstu znacznie już przetworzoną w stosunku do oryginału: wydawca transkrypcji musi podjąć arbitralne decyzje, które mają charakter składniowy.
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.