Sussex R., Cubberley P. The Slavic Languages

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

(98b) ‘such a kind’, ‘of what kind?’

B/C/S ta

k-av-

/ka

k-av-

Blg taka

/kaka

Sln ta

k(-

s(e)n)-

/ka

k(-

s(e)n)-ø Mac kak-ov-

/tak-ov-

Bel tak-ı

/jak-ı

Ukr tak-y

j/jak-y

j Rus tak-o

j/kak-o

Sorb tajk-i/kajk-i Pol tak-i/jak-i Slk tak-y

/ak-y

The words for who? and what? are less regular. Their definite partners are the

personal pronouns (5.5.2.3), or the neuter singular of ‘this’ or ‘that’ (5.5.2):

(99) ‘who?/what?’

B/C/S (Serb) ko`` /

sta`` B/C/S (Cr) tko`` /

sto`` Sln kdo

/ka

Mac koj/

sto Blg koj/kakvo

sto

Bel xto/c

ˇto

Ukr xto/

ˇo

Rus kto/c

ˇto

USorb

sto

sta LSorb chto/co Pol kto/co

Cz kdo/co Slk kto/c

8.6.2.2 Relative

As in English, the relative pronouns are close to the interrogatives, with a few

important exceptions, like the addition of the enclitic -zˇ in Czech and Sorbian, -r in

Slovenian and -to

in Bulgarian. The Czech jenzˇ formation, however, is now high or

formal style, and is giving way to ktery

. Most of these forms are inflexionally

adjectival (for agreement, see 6.2.2), but there is often a non-agreeing variant,

usually the interrogative pronoun:

(100) ‘who’ (declined unless marked invariable – [Inv])

B/C/S ko



i Sln kate

r-i, kdo

-r Mac koj-

, koj-

sto Blg ko

j-to

Bel jak-ı

sto [Inv] Ukr jak-y

sto [Inv] Rus koto

r-yj, kto

Sorb kotr-y-zˇ/kotar-y-zˇ,

sto

-zˇ/chto-zˇ þ USorb kizˇ, LSorb kenzˇ [Inv]

Pol kto

r-y, co [Inv] Cz kter-y

/jen-zˇ Slk ktor-y

, c

ˇo

[Inv]/[Colloq]

English grammars tend to regard the non-interrogative when (etc.) as adverbs, in

sentences like ‘I know when he rang’. Slavic grammars sometimes classify these as

relatives, which is justified on both morphological and syntactic (7.2.2.3) grounds.

8.6.2.3 Negative

Negative pronouns and adverbs are broadly formed by prefixing ni- to the inter-

rogative (not ne-, see below). For adjectival ‘no’ a different root zˇadn- is used in

West Slavic and Ukrainian, and nobe(d )n- in Slovenian:

(101a) ‘no-one’

B/C/S nı``-ko Sln nı

-kdo Blg, Mac nı

-koj

8.6 Word formation and other parts of speech 469

Bel, Ukr ni-xto

Rus ni-kto

Sorb ni-chto

Pol ni-kt Cz ni-kdo Slk ni-k, ni-kto

(101b) ‘no, none’

B/C/S nı``-kak(a)v-

Sln nobe

d(e)n-

Blg ni-kak(a

)v-

Mac ni-kak(o)v-

Bel ni-jak-ı

Ukr zˇ o

dn-yj

Rus ni-kak-o

j Sorb zˇad(y)n-

,ni-jak-i Pol

zad(e)n-

Cz zˇadn-y

Slk zˇiadn-y, ni-jaky

(101c) ‘never’ (< ‘when’)

B/C/S nı``-kad(



a) Sln ni-kda

r Blg, Mac nı

-koga

Bel ni-ko

li Ukr ni-ko

ly Rus ni-kogda

Sorb ni-hdy Pol ni-gdy Cz, Slk ni-kdy

Slavic negatives are like those of French, and require both the negative forms listed

above and a negative particle (7.1.3).

8.6.2.4 Specifics and indefinites

Interrogative pronouns and adverbs can be converted into specifics or indefinites

by the addition of preposed and postposed elements. Specifics correspond roughly

to English some-: somewhere, someone, etc. Indefinites are approximately like

English any-. In Slavic, however, the specifics and indefinites form a more complex

series than in English. Some descriptions claim that there are three levels of

specificity/indefiniteness:

a any-at-all (most indefinite)

b any/some (intermediate)

c some (most specific)

The (b) category, which falls between the indefinite and specific extremes, is

difficult to characterize exactly. It is supposed to express a ‘‘stronger’’ any,ora

‘‘weaker’’ some, and to correspond to ‘‘any, within a specified or implied group’’:

(102) Rus e

sli kto

-nibud

iz va

s zaxo

et pomo

‘if any/some of you want to help’

However, most descriptions are satisfied with the basic two, the ‘some’ type – used

when existence is not questioned, only identity, and the ‘any’ type – where even

existence is in doubt or only potential, and these can usually be signalled in English

by the choice of either some or any in translation. In Slavic there are often several

affix-formants for each of the semantic types. (103) shows the main prefixes and

suffixes which can be attached to the interrogative words (‘who’, ‘what’, etc.), with

470 8. Word formation

the semantic results as listed in (103a) and (103b). Some are typically found in

colloquial usage rather than written:

(103a) ‘any (at all)’, ‘ever’ (hyphen ¼ morpheme marker only; dash

(–) ¼ orthographic hyphen, # ¼ separate word, orthographic space)

B/C/S ı``-, bı

lo# Sln -(r)ko

li Blg #da e Mac #bilo, #da e

Rus –nibud

, –libo Ukr –ne

bud

, bud

-, aby

- Bel –ne

budz

, aby–

Pol -kolwiek, #ba˛ dz

Sorb -zˇkuli Cz -koli, -si Slk -kol’vek, hoc(i)-

(103b) ‘some (or other)’ (brackets ¼ ‘many a’, ‘one or two’)

B/C/S ne``-,(koje

-) Sln, Mac ne- Blg nja

-, ne-

Rus ne

-, –to,(ko

e–) Ukr de

–, –to, -s

Bel ne

-, -s

Pol -s

Sorb ne

-,(-zˇkuli)Czne

-, -si Slk nie-

8.6 Word formation and other parts of speech 471

Lexis

9.1 Patterns of lexis

‘From the point of view of lexis, all the [Slavic] languages are very like each other’

(Skalic

ka, 1966: 23). It is true that the lexicons of the Slavic languages differ

less systematically than their phonology or morphology, which are responsible

for some of the most widespread differentiating features in the Slavic lexicons, like

pleophony in East Slavic (Rus moloko

‘milk’; cf. Cz mle

ko, Blg mle

ko; 3.2.1.7)

or differing word-formation patterns (chapter 8). Nonetheless, there are major

patterns in the Slavic lexicons which show different compositions and histories,

and which affect the degree to which the languages are mutually comprehensible.

Slavic is also much less overlaid by foreign lexical borrowing than is English, where

some estimates of non-indigenous lexis ‘are well over 80%’ (Stockwell and

Minkova, 2001: 2).

Lexicology is well developed as a named field of descriptive Slavic linguistics,

and the lexicons of the Slavic languages have been intensively studied and described

over the last two centuries. Much of the research has been related, directly or

indirectly, to the question of the definition and delimitation of national languages,

together with their formation and culture (chapter 2), including lexical enrichment

and purification: the Slavs’ prescriptive approach to the regulation of their

national languages is shown in their approach to the lexicon (together with

grammar, orthoepy and orthography) in language planning and policy (11.2.3).

Lexicographical work on individual Slavic languages has resulted in dictionaries

of the standard languages, phraseologisms, collocations and borrowings; dialect

dictionaries (chapter 10); multilingual dictionaries, especially with Russian

and major West European languages like English, French and German; word-

frequency lists, root dictionaries and reverse-order dictionaries; in ‘grammatical’

dictionaries; and in specialized dictionaries, notably in technological areas. Before

the fall of Communism there was, however, relatively less work on non-standard

lexis in areas like socially defined slang, (e.g. student slangs) or professional

472

technolects (as opposed to terminology, which is better documented). The Slavic

linguistic regulatory and printing bodies were prudish about printing non-standard

language, though there has been more freedom since decentralization and dereg-

ulation following the fall of Communism. Significantly, before 1990 all of the

dictionaries of Russian slang, vulgar language and obscenities were published in

the West. And under Communism there was a general ideological constraint on

research related to class-based sociolinguistic lexical research (chapter 11).

With the exception of etymologically and historically oriented research, contras-

tive Slavic lexicology is less developed. We shall concentrate on a series of typical

issues where the lexis of the Slavic languages is most characteristically displayed,

without attempting to combine them under a unified descriptive approach. The

material in this chapter overlaps to some extent with word formation (chapter 8),

and with the historical evolution of Slavic (chapter 2).

9.2 Lexical composition and sources in the modern Slavic languages

The standard approach to specifying the lexical profile and content of the Slavic

languages echoes the diachronic record, and simultaneously provides a layered

categorization from the oldest to the most recent lexical developments. Oldest of all

are the words showing Indo-European origins; then those from the Common Slavic

period; then those reflecting the tripartite division into East, West and South

Slavic; then those reflecting subdivisions within these groups, where appropriate

(e.g. Czech-Slovak; Bulgarian-Macedonian; B/C/S and Slovenian); and, finally,

words specific to individual languages, especially those derived from local dialect

sources and subsequently standardized. It is then possible to take alternative

‘‘horizontal’’ views of the lexicons from the point of view of geography (the origins

of lexical borrowings), semantic fields and so on. Taken together, these views

provide a characterization of the lexical composition of each language, including

a cultural history of the languages, since they document borrowings between

individual Slavic languages and from outside Slavic.

9.2.1 Indo-European and general Slavic

A contrastive analysis of some basic lexical items (essentially those in the relevant

sections of Comrie and Corbett, 1993) gives the following:

1. of 15 basic body parts, 10 are Indo-European, 14 are shared by all

11 languages and 1 is missing in 1 language (Sorbian does not have

*sr

d-{ce ‘heart’);

9.2 Lexical composition and sources 473

2. of 9 basic colour terms, 6 are Indo-European, 5 are shared by all

languages, 3 are missing in one language each (*sin- ‘blue’ and *siv-

‘grey’ in Sorbian, and *ser- ‘grey’ in Bulgarian), and 1 is missing in

three languages (*modr- ‘blue’ in East Slavic);

3. of 12 basic kinship terms, 11 are Indo-European, 10 are shared by

all languages, 1 is missing in 2 languages (*stryj- ‘paternal uncle’ in

Russian and Sorbian) and 1 is missing in 3 languages (*ot{c- ‘father’ in

Belarusian, Ukrainian and Bulgarian).

Although these numbers are small, they show the strength of the Indo-European

base in Slavic and the common Slavic nature of the basic vocabulary.

Kopec

ny´ (1981) lists 1,990 words of common Slavic origin. Of these, 1,170 remain in

all languages, and 875 of these are structurally identical. This figure of around 2,000

items is the one most often taken as reliable, though other much larger ones have been

proposed, e.g. 9,000 by Sławski and 20,000 by Trubac

ev (from Ondrus, 1976: 299).

Lekov (1955: 102) considers that about two-thirds of the original word-stock has been

retained in the modern languages, as measured by modern dictionaries.

9.2.2 The lexis of the individual Slavic languages

Glottometric analyses (for example by Kotova and Janakiev, 1973, and Suprun,

1983) suggest that the closest pairs of languages are: Belarusian/Ukrainian,

Russian/Ukrainian, Polish/Ukrainian, Bulgarian/Macedonian, and Czech/Slovak

(Kotova and Janakiev, reported in Mel

nic

uk, 1986). Beyond the expected pairings

reflecting historical (and to a lesser extent geographical) proximity, Bulgarian and

Russian are notably close.

A different view of the group is gained by pursuing the extent to which individual

languages retain Proto-Slavic lexemes or are missing a common Slavic lexeme

(as above for colour terms, etc.). Kopec

ny´ (1981: 53) claims that Czech and

Slovak have retained the highest proportion of Proto-Slavic lexemes, and

Macedonian the lowest. A different count by Suprun (1983: 18, of one sample

letter (B) in Trubac

ev’s Slavic Etymological Dictionary) puts not only Czech and

Slovak, but also B/C/S and Slovenian, at the top of the retention list, but

Belarusian and Sorbian at the bottom. And a count of 300 high-frequency

lexemes (Ondrus, 1976: 300) places Slovak at the top, and then, in order, Czech,

Ukrainian, Russian and Polish. From Kopec

ny´ ’s list Mel

nic

uk (1986: 198)

grades the languages by the number of missing common lexemes (from most to

least): Macedonian, Bulgarian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, B/C/S, Russian, Slovenian,

Polish, Slovak and Czech (Sorbian missing); and by pairs of languages both

474 9. Lexis

missing the same lexeme and sharing a common replacement: Bulgarian/

Macedonian, Belarusian/Ukrainian, B/C/S/Macedonian, Russian/Belarusian,

Polish/Belarusian, Russian/Ukrainian and B/C/S/Slovenian. In each case we

note that Bulgarian and Macedonian are at the ‘‘outer’’ extreme, and Czech and

Slovak at the ‘‘inner’’. In the second case, B/C/S is closer to Macedonian than to

Slovenian, which may reflect the closer cultural history of the former two as against

the closer linguistic shapes of B/C/S and Slovenian in other respects.

In summary, Czech and Slovak appear to have best retained the Proto-Slavic

lexis, Macedonian and Bulgarian least, and the measures of lexical proximity

between languages reflect largely what one would expect from the linguistic and

other history of the group, sometimes overriding geography.

9.2.3 Slavic and non-Slavic elements

This interaction, and sometimes tension, between Slavic and non-Slavic lexis, and

between indigenous Slavic and loans from other Slavic languages, has been a major

force in the development of the Slavic languages, and in their current directions.

A well-known example of the parallel existence of Slavic and non-Slavic lexical

systems in different languages concerns the names of the months. Seven Slavic

languages adopted the month names of the Julian calendar: all of South Slavic,

together with Slovak (but not Czech), Russian (but not Ukrainian or Belarusian)

and Sorbian. Croatian has both the Julian and the Slavic names. Table 9.1 shows

the Russian (Julian) names of the months for comparison with the five Slavic

versions (exceptional Julian names within non-Julian systems are shown in bold).

Table 9.1. Names of the months

Rus Bel Ukr Pol Cz Cr

January janva

stu

dzen

sı

ˇen

styczen

leden s

jec

ˇanj

February fevra

lju

ty lju

tyj luty u

nor ve

ljac

ˇa

March mart sakavı

kbe

rezen

marzec br

ezen o

zˇujak

April apre

krasavı

k kviten

kwiecien

duben tra

vanj

May maj maj tra

ven

maj kve

ˇten

svı

banj

June iju

ˇe

rven

ˇe

rven

czerwiec c

ˇerven

panj

July iju

lı

pen

lipiec c

ervenec sr

panj

August a

vgust zˇnı

ven

rpen

sierpien

srpen ko%lovoz

September sentja

rasen

resen

wrzeszien

jan

October oktja

kastry

ˇnik

zˇ o

vten

paz

´dziernik

jen l ı%stop



November noja

listapa

d lystopa

d listopad listopad stu

denı¯

December deka

sne

zˇan hru

den

grudzien

prosinec pro

sinac

9.2 Lexical composition and sources 475

As can be seen, the Julian term for ‘May’ has intruded into Belarusian and

Polish, and Polish marzec ‘March’ is also Julian in origin. The other Slavic names

show etymologies (not all fully established, and only established ones are noted

below) reflecting various aspects of flora, fauna, climate and activity:

‘January’ cold (Bel); cutting (wind) (Ukr, Cr); icy (Cz)

‘February’ bitter (Bel, Ukr, Pol);

‘March’ birch-tree (Ukr, Cz); juice (Bel); revival (Cr)

‘April’ flower (Bel, Ukr, Pol); oak-tree (Cz); grass (Cr)

‘May’ grass (Ukr); flower (Cz); dogwood (Cr)

‘June’ red (-flower) (Bel, Ukr, Cz); worm (Pol); linden-tree (Cr )

(Note that the roots of ‘red’ and ‘worm’ are the same: c

erv-)

‘July’ linden-tree (Bel, Ukr, Pol); (second) red-flower (Cz); sickle (Cr)

‘August’ sickle (Ukr, Pol, Cz); reaping (Bel); hay-dance (Cr)

‘September’ heather (Bel, Ukr, Pol); shining (or rutting) (Cz); red/yellow (Cr)

‘October’ flax (Bel, Pol); yellow (Ukr); hunting (or rutting) (Cz);

leaf-falling (Cr)

‘November’ leaf-falling (Bel, Ukr, Pol, Cz); cold (Cr)

‘December’ snowy (Bel); hard earth (Ukr, Pol); grey (Cz, Cr)

9.2.4 Slavization and vernacularization

The Czechs and Croats in particular seek to preserve Slavic roots and words – Lencek’s

(1982) ‘ ‘Slavization’’ and ‘ ‘vernacularization’’ – in the face of competing lexis from

other countries: German (and to some extent Polish) in the case of the Czechs, and

Serbian/Serbo-Croatian, as well as German and Hungarian, in the case of the Croats.

Consider the word for ‘music’: Czech, Slovak, Sorbian, Slovenian and B/C/S

have both the Greek/Latin root muzik- and a local one, which is preferred:

(1) ‘music’

Rus, Bel, Ukr, Pol mu

zyka Blg, Mac mu

zika

Cz, Slk hudba þ muzika Sorb hudz

ba þ muzika

B/C/S gla

zba þ mu

zika Sln gla

sba þ mu

zika

The Slavicizing tendency is also found in country and city/town onomastics, with

more local instead of international names. This tendency is particularly evident in

Czech, but is also common in West Slavic and B/C/S:

(2) Austria: Cz Rakousko Slk Raku

sko

Egypt: B/C/S Mı

sı¯ r

476 9. Lexis

Regensburg: Cz R

ezno

Venice: B/C/S Mle%ci

Vienna: Cz Vı

den

Slk Vieden

B/C/S Be

Ukr Vı

den

There is an interaction here with the category of number. Polish tends to favor

pluralia tantum for the names of countries more than other Slavic languages do.

This no doubt reflects the older system of referring to countries by the plural

ethnonym, i.e. ‘the land of the Xs’, e.g. in the Old Russian Chronicle ide v o˛ gry

‘he went to the (land of the) Ugry/Ugrians’. In Polish these plural names are related

usually to the plural form of the inhabitants, without the palatalization:

(3a) ‘Hungary’: Pol We˛gry [Pl] ( We˛gier ‘a Hungarian’, Pl We˛grzy)

Blg, Mac Unga

rija Rus Ve

ngrija Ukr Uho

yna

Bel Ve

ngryja B/C/S Ma

djarsk



a and U

garsk



Sln Madzˇarska Cz, Slk Mad’arsko [Neut]

USorb Madz

arska LSorb Madjarska and Hungorska

(3b) ‘Bohemia (and Moravia)’

Blg, Mac, Rus, Ukr C

xija Bel C

xija Sorb C

eska

Cz Slk C

echy Pol Czechy (and Morawy) Sorb C

echi

9.3 Coexistent lexical strata

Languages may have multiple lexical layers, either Slavic and non-Slavic, or two

different Slavic layers. Examples of the first are B/C/S (9.3.2) and Bulgarian (9.3.3),

and of the second East Slavic, and particularly Russian, which shows clear influ-

ence from South Slavic in lexis borrowed from and through the Orthodox Church,

parallel to native Russian words (9.3.1).

9.3.1 Russian: Church Slavonic and Russian

Russian is an archetypal example of the coexistence of two lexical layers in certain

areas of the vocabulary. The historical development of Russian parallel to Church

Slavonic (2.3.1) resulted in both a partial Russianization of Church Slavonic, and

the importation into Russian of significant numbers of words, particularly in the

spheres of religion and abstract concepts. These terms were not naturalized, as in

Ukrainian or Belarusian, but tended to remain in their original phonological form.

As a result, there are numerous words which phonologically, morphologically or

lexically bear a non-native Russian imprint in the modern language.

9.3 Coexistent lexical strata 477

Typical indications of Church Slavonic origins include the s

t/zˇd reflexes of

Proto-Slavic tj/dj (4a) or the South Slavic CraC shape in place of East Slavic

pleophony (4b) (see 1.3.1.7, 3.2). Where two terms exist side by side the South

Slavic, Church-related term will be higher in stylistic register, and usually more

abstract (the contrasting features are bolded):

(4a) Rus prosvetı

(1) ‘to illuminate’ (2) ‘to enlighten’

1Sg: (1) prosvec

(2) prosves

(4b) Rus ‘town’: neutral: go

rod high, poetic: grad

‘milk’: neutral: moloko

calque: mlekopita

jus

ee ‘mammal’

Rus ro

vnyj ‘even, level’ ra

vnyj ‘equal’

In other cases, Church Slavonic forms have become neutral, at least in Russian:

present participles now all have the Church Slavonic suffix shape -s

ˇ-

in place of

the Old Russian (¼ Common East Slavic) shape -c

-, still seen in adjectives:

Rus gorja

ij ‘burning’ vs gorja

ij ‘hot’, cf. gore

‘to burn’ (8.4.3). Or the man’s

name Vladı

mir (with non-pleophonic shape) has the hypocoristic pleophonic form

Volo

dja. The Ukrainian and Belarusian forms of the full name have the East Slavic

shape: Ukr Volody

myr.

Such Church Slavonic forms are uncommon in Ukrainian, and even more so in

Belarusian:

(5) Ukr Pres Part: kiplja

yj ‘boiling’ (Rus kipja

ij)

Ukr prosvity

ty ‘to enlighten’ [Prfv]: [Imprfv] prosvis

‘to illuminate’: [Imprfv] prosvı

uvaty

9.3.2 B/C/S: Slavic and non-Slavic

B/C/S is in the unique situation of having a fairly homogeneous phonology, morphol-

ogy and syntax, certainly to the level of mutual comprehensibility between its three

variants. But it also shows some diametrically opposed lexical differences which reflect

underlying cultural, religious and intellectual attitudes. The actual volume of lexis

affected is not large, and speakers of each variant are usually aware of the existence,

and nature, of alternative forms in the other standard variants of the language.

In broad terms, Serbian follows the pattern of the religiously Orthodox languages,

and borrows openly from Greek, other Slavic, Turkish and European sources.

Croatian, like Slovenian and Czech and to a lesser extent Slovak, often prefers to use

indigenous lexical material where possible, and so tends less to favour direct borrow-

ing. Similar sentiments were expressed during the ‘‘Slavophiles vs Westernizers’ ’ con-

troversy in the history of Russian (2.3.1). There the Westernizers’ view prevailed in

478 9. Lexis