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

Results found: 12

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
Content available remote

Łacińskie lōrum w świetle etymologii

100%
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.).
2
Content available remote

Zagadnienie ugrofińskiego substratu w językach bałtyckich

100%
Witczak K. T.
Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego
|
2019
|
vol. 75
195-210
PL
Celem tego artykułu jest przegląd 10 argumentów, przytoczonych przez Witolda Mańczaka, które mają świadczyć o obecności substratu ugrofińskiego w językach bałtyckich, a także prezentacja uwag krytycznych zgłoszonych przez Jana Henrika Holsta. Autor omawia szczegółowo wszystkie problematyczne kwestie i wyraża własne stanowisko w powyższej dyskusji.
EN
The aim of the paper is to review Witold Mańczak’s ten arguments supporting the hypothesis on the existence of a Finno-Ugric substratum in Baltic languages, as well as to discuss Jan Henrik Holst’s critical remarks on the matter. The present author discusses all the problematic issues and presents his own position.
3

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

100%
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.’).
4
Content available remote

Rozważania nad genezą prasłowiańskiego apelatywu *smokъ

100%
Witczak K. T.
Rocznik Slawistyczny
|
2016
|
vol. 65
101-115
EN
The Proto-Slavic term for ‘dragon, big winged snake’, *smokъ, cannot be explained on the basis of the native, purely Slavic vocabulary of Indo-European origin. It was suggested many years ago that the noun in question has been borrowed from a foreign source. The old hypothesis by Słuszkiewicz (1958: 211–214), according to which the Slavs borrowed it from a Germanic source (e.g. OE. snaca m. ‘snake’, E. snake ‘id.’, LG. Schnake m. ‘grass-snake’), specifi cally a Scandinavian one (see Nw. snåk m. ‘snake, viper’, Sw. snok, Dan. snog ‘id.’ < Gmc. *snēkaz m.), should be rejected for morphological and phonological reasons. The author suggests a new etymology, according to which PSl. *smokъ represents an Iranian borrowing (from Iran. *sušnaka- ‘dragon, winged snake’ via Sarmatian). The Indo-Iranian lexical data seem to confi rm this hypothesis, cf. Vedic (RV) śúṣṇa- m. ‘a serpentine demon slain by Indra’ (originally *ćúšna- ‘hisser’ in Indo- Iranian); Shughni sāɣ̌(d) f., Bajui sāw f., Roshani sāw f., Khufi sāw f., Bartangi sāwn f. ‘a big snake (in folklore), dragon’ < Iran. *sušnā- (Morgenstierne 1974: 72–73).
5
Content available remote

Ugrofinizmy w języku staropruskim

100%
Witczak K. T.
Przegląd Wschodnioeuropejski
|
2021
|
vol. 1
237-250
EN
The paper discusses 9 Old Prussian words suspected of being borrowed from a Finno-Ugric source. The following words are verified as Finno-Ugricisms: OPrus. jūrī ‘sea’ (← FV. *järwä ‘lake, sea’); OPrus. kadegis ‘juniper’ (← BF. *kataŋa ‘id.’ ← Ur. *kača ‘resin’); OPrus. kaywe ‘mare’ (← BF. *keewe ‘female horse or reindeer’ < Ur. *kewe ‘female animal’); OPrus. kērdan ‘time’ (← FV. *kerta ‘succession, order, time’); OPrus. *palwe in toponymy (← FU. *palγɜ ‘village’); OPrus. *salavō ‘island’ (← FU. *sala-wɜ ‘island; dry place in the swamp’ < Ur. *sala); OPrus. sylecke ‘Baltic herring’ (← BF. *silakka ‘id.’ ← Ur. śilä ‘fat’); OPrus. wargien ‘copper’ (← FU. *würγɜnɜ ‘id.’).
6
Content available remote

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’).
7
Content available remote

Etniczny charakter Epirotów i Macedończyków

100%
Witczak K. T.
LingVaria : Półrocznik Wydziału Polonistyki UJ poświęcony zagadnieniom języka i językoznawstwa
|
2018
|
issue 25
37-51
EN
The inhabitants of Epirus and Macedonia were treated as “barbarians” by ancient Greeks (so Hecataeus of Miletus, Herodotus, Thucydides, Ps.-Scylax, Ps.-Scymnus, Strabo, and others). According to Plutarch (Pyrrhus I 3), the intensive hellenization of Epirus started with Tharrypas’ reign in the end of fifth century BC. According to Strabo (VII 7.8), ancient Epirotes and Macedonians spoke the same language but some of them were bilingual. This means that the original language of Epirotes and Macedonians was non-Greek, but they used Greek in the capacity of the international language of the East Mediterranean area. Numerous preserved glosses demonstrate an Indo-European (and non-Greek) origin of Epirotes and Macedonians.
8

Afrykańskie pochodzenie łacińskiej nazwy żyrafy

63%
Morta K., Witczak K. T.
Prace Językoznawcze
|
2017
|
issue XIX/2
127-140
EN
The Latin name for ‘giraffe’, nabus, belongs to words of unknown origin and unclear etymology. As giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.) represents an African ungulate mammal, living in savannas, grasslands and open woodlands south of Sahara, researchers suggested that the Latin term nabus must have been borrowed from an African source. However, there is no similar name for ‘giraffe’ in modern languages of North, West, Central or East Africa. Phonetically similar terms are attested only in the area of South Africa, namely in three different subgroups of the Central Khoisan family, e.g. Nama !nai-b; !nae-b ‘giraffe’, Korana (!Ora) !nai-b ‘id.’ (< Proto-Khoekhoe *ɳ!ai-b ‘giraffe’); Kxoe (Hukwe) ŋgábė ‘giraffe’, //Ani ɳ!ábè, Buga ŋgábè, G|anda ŋgábè, Naro ɳ!nábé; n!ábé, G|wi ɳ!ábè; ng!abe, G//ana ŋábì; ngabe, #Haba ɳ!ĩ̂bé ‘id.’ (< Proto-West-Tsu-Khwe *ɳ!ábè ‘giraffe’); |Xaise ŋgábè ‘giraffe’, Deti ŋábè, Cara ŋgábè, Ts’ixa ŋgábè, Danisi ŋgábé, Kua ŋgábè, Tsua gábè, Hietshware gabee, Sehura gnabe, Mohissa $aing (< Proto-East-Tsu-Khwe *ŋábè ‘giraffe’). The present authors believe that the ultimate source of borrowing seems to be the Central Khoisan languages spoken in South Africa. As no direct contact between the Romans and the Khoisan people was possible, it is probable that the loanword in question was transferred into Latin by medium of a North African language and/or Ancient Greek. Geographical works of Juba II (ca. 53 BC – 23 AD), the king of Numidia and Mauretania, written in Greek, could hardly be a possible literary source, though Pliny the Elder refers to him as an authority more than 60 times. The dating of the mosaic and epigraphical data from Praeneste (ca. 108 BC) documents an earlier existence of the word nabus (Ancient Greek ναβοῦς) in the Greek-Latin language world. The borrowing must have been adopted in Ancient Greek (and perhaps in Latin) not later than the half of the II century BC, probably by the mediation of the Ptolemaic court or some Greeks living in the Ptolemaic Egypt.
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

[recenzja:] Ranko Matasović, Slavic Nominal Word-Formation. Proto-Indo-European Origins and Historical Development

63%
Witczak K. T., Zarębski R.
Język Polski
|
2017
|
vol. 97
|
issue 4
109-114
11

Rozważania o nazwach bałtyckich fok

63%
Sadziński W., Witczak K. T.
Pomorania Antiqua
|
2016
|
vol. Tom XXV
s. 49-66
EN
Lexical data demonstrate that no common term for ‘seal’ was attested in the Indo-European protolanguage, thus it is suggested that the Indo-European people originally knew no kind of seal. Also the Uralic tribes, living in their putative homeland, were hardly acquainted with seals. The north-west groups of the Indo-Europeans and the northern tribes of Uralic origin, which have gradually settled down on shores of the Baltic Sea, the Northern Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, as well as the Arctic Ocean, introduced a number of innovative appellatives. Only the Slavs are deprived a common term for ‘seal’. It documents that the Slavic population have settled down relatively late on shores of the Baltic Sea. The East Balts use the common appellative *rōnjas m. ‘harbor seal, Phoca vitulina L.’, the Germanic tribes have one common name for ‘seal’ (Gmc. *selxaz m.) and two dialectal ones (West Gmc. *rubjō f. ‘seal’, North Gmc. *kōpaz m. ‘id.’), whereas the Insular Celts possess the common term *rōnos m. ‘seal’. On the other hand, the appellative *šülke ‘harbor seal’ is securely attested in the Balto-Finnic languages. The present authors discuss the origin of numerous terms for ‘seal’ attested in the Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Celtic, Balto-Finnic and Saami languages, as well as a suggested relation between Gmc. *selxaz m. ‘harbor seal’ and Balto-Finnic *šülke ‘id.’. They agree with the traditional opinion that the Balto-Finnic term for ‘seal’ represents a borrowing from a Germanic source.
12
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wstęp

63%
Lipiński D., Witczak K. T., Kopernika U. M., Łódzki U., Dawid Lipiński. Doktorant przy Katedrze Filologii Klasycznej UMK z. j. t. z. I. J. P. Z. m. l. i. i. s. w., dawid.t.lipinski@gmail.com
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Studia Indogermanica Lodziensia. Supplementary Series
|
2015
|
vol. 4
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.