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

Results found: 13

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  medieval lexicography
help Sort By:

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

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: muscida huba

100%
Nývlt P.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2016
|
vol. 139
|
issue 3-4
431-437
EN
The article deals with the pair muscida huba, found in several 14th- and 15th-century Latin-Czech glossaries. Its interpretation is not immediately clear, because there were two homonymous words húba in the Old Czech, the one meaning “muzzle”, the other “fungus”. Jan Gebauer, the author of the authoritative Old Czech dictionary, ascribed to the word huba paired with muscida the meaning “fungus”. On the basis of parallels from the translation of Ptolemyís Almagest written by Gerhard of Cremona in the 12th century and a Latin-Norman glossary from the 13th century, the author argues that the word actually meant “muzzle”. He also discusses the etymology of the Latin word and the route by which it found its way in Latin-Czech glossaries.
2

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: uris, orna, gar, elta, arneda

100%
Florianová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2014
|
vol. 137
|
issue 3-4
327-338
EN
Czech medieval lexicographer Claretus is the author of Glossarius that includes a chapter De languoribus containing Latin-Old Czech doublets of names of diseases. Many of these names have not yet been explained properly, if at all. The words gar, elta and arneda were already published in Latinitatis medii aevi lexicon Bohemorum, but the author offers more precise or entirely new interpretations. She has also determined the meaning of words uris and orna that have not been published yet. All these Latin words are medieval neologisms, to be found only in vocabularies, usually without any explication. The determination of the meaning of these words therefore has to be based on the overall context, the etymology and their relationship with Old Czech equivalents. The analysed examples also serve to illustrate Claretus’ ways of word formation.
3

Glosowane rozariusze łacińskie jako źródło w badaniach nad średniowieczną polszczyzną

63%
Deptuchowa E., Frodyma M.
Język Polski
|
2018
|
vol. 98
|
issue 3
84-96
PL
Celem artykułu jest prezentacja źródeł, które są podstawą naszych badań. Są to średniowieczne łacińskie słowniki z polskimi glosami, tzw. rozariusze. Gromadzimy dane dotyczące autorstwa, pochodzenia, czasu powstania, miejsca przechowywania etc. tych źródeł. Ma to służyć ukazaniu związków między rozariuszami oraz ich związków ze średniowieczną leksykografią zachodnią.
EN
The aim of this paper is a presentation of the sources on which our research is based. They are medieval Latin vocabularies with Polish glosses, the so-called “rosarii”. We collect data on the authorship, origin, chronology, place of storage etc. of these sources. This is to show the relationships between rosarii and connections with the medieval Western lexicography.
4

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: fele a furion

63%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2013
|
vol. 136
|
issue 3-4
475-486
EN
The purpose of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of two Latin zoological terms in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret both semantically and linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle or Pliny the Elder. Thomas used the Latin translation of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term ai[louro", denoting the wildcat (Felis silvestris Schreber) or the housecat (Felis silvestris cattus Linné), appears at Michael Scotus in the form furoniorum (gen. pl.), at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form furionz and at Claretus as furion; the same animal is also referred by the second analysed term feles, taken by Thomas of Cantimpré from Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis historia; it appears in the work of Claretus in the form fele.
5

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: spongius a rugana

63%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2014
|
vol. 137
|
issue 3-4
317-325
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of two Latin zoological terms in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus, especially of the word rugana that have remained obscure until present days. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle. Aristotle’s term σπόγγος, denoting different varieties of sponges, which are found throughout the Mediterranean Sea, reached the Middle Ages not only through Pliny the Elder and classical Latin name spongia, but also via translations of Aristotle into Arabic and then into Latin. Thomas used the Latin version of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. The sponge is described at Michael Scotus under the name gamen, that probably comes from the Arabic word ghajm, „cloud“, „sea sponge“; it is very likely that the word rugana that we found in medieval encyclopaedias, including those of Czech origin, is the result of deformation of the term gamen and of its connection with the preceding preposition in (misread as ru).
6

Anthův střet s koněm a jeho odraz ve středověkých encyklopediích a glosářích

63%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2014
|
vol. 137
|
issue 1-2
7-39
EN
Aggressive and defensive behaviour of birds takes various forms and has multiple causes. Besides intraspecies and interspecies aggressivity that comes through in skirmishes taking place during wooing, defending one’s territory and food source, the attack or defence of a bird is also caused by efforts to protect its progeny or the whole community from an imminent danger. For this purpose, the birds use in particular wide array of acoustic and optical signals, partly to warn other members of the flock, partly to distract the enemy or to intimidate and chase away the intruder. Some of these aspects of birds’ behaviour were already noticed by authors of antiquity and Middle Ages; descriptions of conflicts between various bird species and of their defence against each other or against the raptors and predators from other animal classes can be found in Latin sources of the Czech Middle Ages too. In these texts, many descriptions of birds are connected with Latin names known from the works of Roman natural philosophers and encyclopaedists, and their origin and meaning were explored and ascertained satisfactorily. Other terms, however, have been not deciphered yet, and the often sketchy descriptions of the appearance and behaviour of these birds – together with sometimes obscure equivalents in the Old Czech – don’t make the identification of these Latin words any easier. The names of birds achantis and ibos, featuring in the Glossary of the 14th century lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia called Claretus, in the 15th century encyclopaedia Liber viginti arcium by Pavel Žídek, and in the 15th/16th century Vocabularius dictus Lactifer by a Franciscan preacher Iohannes Aquensis, have so far belonged to similarly unclear words. Whereas the term achantis has been described and determined to a degree in the Dictionary of Medieval Latin in Czech Lands, the word ibos has still been lacking any explanation whatsoever. During a closer examination of these terms it turned out that both have a rich history: they got to the medieval works by different ways from ancient treatises where they denote one and the same bird that was called ανθος in Greek. The name of this bird is preserved in two works of antiquity: in the Metamorphoses written by a mythographer Antoninus Liberalis, and in the zoological treatise Historia animalium written by Aristotle. In both of these tracts, the main topic is the hostility between the bird ανθος and the horse, resulting either in chasing away of one or another from the meadow they both feed on, or in a death of one or another. From Aristotle, this name made its way to Middle Ages through two different ways and in two completely different forms. The first way led through the Plinius Maior who latinised the term into anthus. Plinius’s work was a source for a medieval encyclopaedist Thomas of Cantimpré who, however, mistakenly connected the description of this bird with the name of acanthis denoting the goldfinch. The other way led through the translation of Aristotle’s treatise from Greek to Arabic, and then from Arabic into Latin by Michael Scotus. Here the name of the bird appears in the form of ibos and iboz that originated possibly during the transcription of the Greek term into Arabic and then into Latin. The purpose of this paper is not only to search for the origin of the word iboz but also to identify the bird who was called ανθος and iboz. Besides the traditional determination of the Greek name as the Cattle Egret or the Yellow Wagtail, the paper proposes a third possible identification – the Lapwing. Nevertheless, mediaeval authors surely didn’t know which birds were denoted by Latin variants achantis and iboz. The uncertainty of the Czech lexicographers is evidenced by the Czech equivalent konystrass (“horse-intimidator”), obscure Czech word komur (or konur) and a loan word ybozek that were used to translate the Latin names.
7

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: abareno a kiloka

63%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2013
|
vol. 136
|
issue 1-2
223-235
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of two Latin zoological terms in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin translation of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term αθερίνη, denoting a mediterranean fish sand smelt (Atherina hepsetus Linné), appears at Michael Scotus as abereni and abarino, at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form abarenon and at Claretus in the form abareno; Aristotle’s term ακαλήφη, used by Aristotle to describe a sea anemone (probably Actinia equina Linné), appears at Michael Scotus as akaleki, at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form kylok and by Claretus in the form kiloka.
8

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: ypnapus, vipperus a rais

63%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2018
|
vol. 141
|
issue 3-4
487–503
EN
The material of the Latinitatis medii aevi lexicon Bohemorum includes the terms ypnapus, vipera and rais, preserved, like dozens of other zoological names, in the Glossary written by the fourteenth-century lexicographer Bartholomaeus of Chlumec. Although the creatures denoted by these names belong to different animal classes and the words are found in two separate chapters of the Glossary, Claretus’ Czech equivalents (ohltan, ohltnik and ohlta) are derived from the same stem. The main aim of this article is to identify the origins and meanings of the Latin terms, in all probability borrowed by Claretus from Thomas of Cantimpré’s encyclopaedia, and explore the motives behind the creation of the three Czech equivalents.
9

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: asalus a achilon

63%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2016
|
vol. 139
|
issue 1-2
189-205
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of two Latin zoological terms in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and the Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works mention names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret semantically as well as linguistically, and their Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which, according to Thomas, is to be derived from Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin version of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium, translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differences between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term αισάλων, denoting a species of a bird of prey (not certainly identified), reached the Middle Ages not only through Pliny the Elder and classical Latin name aesalon, which occurs as asalon in Thomas of Cantimpré’s encyclopaedia and as asalus in Claretus’ Glossary, but also via translations of Aristotle into Arabic and then into Latin in the form achilon, which occurs in one manuscript of the National museum in Prague.
10

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: albirus

63%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2014
|
vol. 137
|
issue 1-2
111-119
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of one Latin zoological term in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin translation of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term Ἀχιλλειον (σπόγγος), denoting a fine quality of sponge called the “elephant ear” (Spongia officinalis var. lamella Schulze), appears at Michael Scotus as albuz, at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form of albirez and at Claretus in the form of albirus and albinus.
11
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wokabularz trydencki jako przykład leksykografii średniowiecznej

63%
Kaczyńska B.
Studia Źródłoznawcze. Commentationes
|
2019
|
vol. 57
PL
Tematem artykułu jest wokabularz trydencki jako przykład leksykografii średniowiecznej na ziemiach polskich. Przedstawiona została analiza słownictwa zawartego w wokabularzu, jego makrostruktura, źródła i geneza. Omówiono związki słownika z formularzem trydenckim, w którym został zapisany, a także możliwe powiązania z postacią księcia i biskupa Aleksandra mazowieckiego oraz członkami jego świty. Podjęto próbę określenia prawdopodobnego celu powstania i funkcji wokabularza.
EN
The article’s subject is the vocabulary of Trento as an example of medieval lexicography in Poland. It presents the analysis of the vocabulary’s linguistic material, its macrostructure, sources and origin, discussing the dictionary’s relation to the formulary of Trento, in which it was written, as well as possible connections to Prince and Bishop Alexander of Mazovia and members of his suite. The author attempts to determine the vocabulary’s probable aim and function.
12

From the Dictionary of Medieval Latin in Czech Lands: gracocenderius

63%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2017
|
vol. 140
|
issue 3-4
455-470
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of one Latin zoological term transmitted in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and the Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals which mediaeval authors became acquainted with through Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin translation of Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differences between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term (genitive plural) κορακοειδων from the phrase το των κορακοειδων ορνίθων γένος, „the birds of the raven group“, appears at Michael Scotus as cracocenderon, at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form gracocenderon and at Claretus in the form gracocenderius. The meaning of the name remained hidden to medieval encyclopedists and lexicographers, and illustrators of Thomas’ encyclopaedia and related works were apparently also at a loss as to the looks of the chaste bird: each took a different approach, which resulted in very divergent visual interpretations.
13

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: fatator a fetix

63%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2012
|
vol. 135
|
issue 3-4
405-413
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify origin and meaning of two Latin names of birds, fatator (probably the blackbird) and fetix (probably the swallow), in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin translation from Arabic made by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified.
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.