No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Что такое «прoстая мова»?
Abstract
The “próstaja mova” is one of the written languages used by both Ukrainians and Belorussians during the 16th and 17th centuries. In this article it is argued that its name is based on a calque of German Gemeinsprache, die gemeine Sprache, a term from the Reformation age. The „prostaja mova” was based on the Ruthenian (Ukrainian and Belorussian) chancery language and developed into a literary language because of its growing polyfunctionality, its increasingly superregional character, and its stylistic variability. The norms of the “prostaja mova” were based on its common usage, not on codification. We discuss the role of Church Slavonic and Polish elements on the different levels of this language and try to show that a “prototypical” text written in the “prostaja mova” was a translation from a real or only virtual Polish text, consisting in the “Ruthenization” of its phonology and morphology and, if it was a written text, in a change of the alphabets - the lexicon and the syntax, instead, remained mainly on a Polish basis. Until the 18th century the Polish language itself had gained so much importance among the Ruthenian gentry that the “prostaja mova” had lost its main addressee and was restricted only to some homiletic and cathechetic works for the common people of the Greek-Catholic Church.
The paper deals with the semantics and the distribution of the future anterior in the 14th‒16th century official writing of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The paper focuses on the construction which comprises a perfective present form of the auxiliary be (bud-) and an l-participle. The paper takes into consideration data from more than 900 charters as well as from the Lithuanian Statute of 1588. The author claims that the future anterior in official Ruthenian is licensed by contexts with suspended assertion (conditional, disjunction, indirect question, propositional predicate, etc.). In most other cases, it is powered by iterative, habitual, or experiencer meanings, or by the multiplicity of the objects involved in the situation. In some contexts, the use of the future anterior is defined exclusively by syntactic rules, i. e., the use in the dependent clause. In this respect, the future anterior is similar to the French subjunctive and the Latin conjunctive at their later stages of grammaticalization. The future anterior in official Ruthenian may also acquire a particular discourse function, i. e., undergo pragmaticalization, which results in the ability of the future anterior to mark an indirect speech act of disproof or cancellation of what was evidenced by the opponent. Ruthenian turns out to be a unique language across Slavic and SAE to feature a widely used dubitative future anterior.
The essays gathered in this volume are devoted to different aspects of the reception of Humanism and the Renaissance in Slavic countries. They mark the beginning of a dialogue among scholars of different Slavic languages and literatures, in search of the ways in which the entire Slavic world – albeit to varying degrees – has participated from the very beginning in European cultural transformations, and not simply by sharing some characteristics of the new currents, but by building a new identity in harmony with the changes of the time. By overcoming the dominant paradigm, which sees all cultural manifestations as part of a separate ‘national’ linguistic, literary and artistic canon, this volume is intended to be the first step in outlining some ideas and suggestions in view of the creation, in the future, of an atlas that maps the relevance of Humanism and the Renaissance in the Slavic world.
The Significance of Pochaiv Religious Printings for the Understanding of the Spoken Ruthenian Language of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church Community.
The purpose of this article is to present the role of religious texts for the understanding of the spoken Ruthenian language in the former Commonwealth of the Two Nations (Rzeczpospolita). The books published by the Basilian printing house in Pochaiv during the 18th century reveal the features of the common Ukrainian language (the approximation of the articulation of [i] and [y], [u] and [y], the hardening of [t] and [d]), which support the thesis that it is a testimony of the state of the Ukrainian language of the 18th century.
Departing from received notions about Vasil’ Tjapinski as an early representative of Belarusian national enlightenment, who in translating parts of the gospel into Ruthenian endeavoured to turn over the established diglossic linguistic order in favor of the vernacular language of the people, this article is meant to principally reassess his cultural role and significance. By subjecting the foreword to his gospel edition to a close reading and aligning our reinterpretation of this key document with the actual make-up and design of his text-critical synoptic edition of the gospel texts, it is hoped to place Tjapinski in a more adequate manner than heretofore within the broader framework of cultural change brought about by the vivid dynamics of innovative protestant religious thought against the backdrop of orthodox traditionalism. We argue that Tjapinski, being socially rather conservative, aimed at the expansion of active bible interpretation beyond the narrow sphere of priests and professional theologians within his own social class of minor gentry ( szlachta ) through adopting methods of critical philology as a highly formalized and therefore reliable truth-finding device. We argue further that, in an effort to win over primarily adherents of orthodoxy, Tjapinski rather than suggesting to have Church Slavonic replaced by the Ruthenian vernacular went out of his way to reestablish Church Slavonic as the true language of the Ruthenian nation (i. e. the Ruthenian szlachta ) by arguing for the authoritativeness and reliability of the original Cyrillomethodian gospel translation, which would put the Church Slavonic gospel translation on a par with its Greek source text. His synoptic gospel edition should be appreciated as an effort at making the Church Slavonic gospel accessible through the medium of a vernacular Ruthenian translation, which accordingly ought to be seen as a gloss on the Church Slavonic original rather than as an independent text in its own right.
It has traditionally been assumed that the oral preaching practice of the Orthodox Church in Poland at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries was brought to life by external and mainly Catholic influences. The present article attempts to rethink these influences and offer an explanation not in terms of "mechanical" borrowings and a succumbing of Orthodox theology to Western influences (the concept of "pseudomorphosis" articulated by G. Florovsky), but rather in terms of a creative response to the external confessional challenges of the epoch (the concept of "polymorphism" proposed by G. B. Bercoff). Examples of such a reception are the sample sermons on the church sacraments and funeral sermons included as an annex to Orthodox rituals. Published for the first time in the Vilnius edition in 1621, texts of this kind were legitimized by Metropolitan of Kiev Piotr Mogila in his Euhologion of 1646. Instructive ser mons from the Polish version of the Roman Ritual, which go back to the 16th-century teachings on the church sacraments by S. Karnkowski, M. Kromer, and H. Powodowski, were used as models for these Orthodox sample sermons. Although the idea to in corporate such sample sermons in Orthodox rituals was inspired by the Polish tradition, this does not mean that the Orthodox authors also borrowed the in struction texts from the Catholic rituals. As an example of borrowings, the article analyzes the "Kazanie na pogrebe" from the Vilnius Ritual, 1621. Textual analysis of the given sermon shows its compositional and, partially, even its substantial dependence on a sermon written by a Polish Dominican, W. Laudanski (1617), and also its familiarity with Augustine's theological legacy, which was available only in Latin editions.
This paper presents an attempt at the attribution of one of the oldest Tatar manuscripts, housed at the St Petersburg University library under signatura 893, with an eye to assessing the possible impact of Ukrainian on early Lithuanian Tatar writings. As a result of the linguistic analysis of an excerpt, first published in 1857 by Muchlinskij and newly transcribed by the author, as well as of some other early Tatar texts, their language is identified as a Polissian vernacular koine, as compared with the 'supradialectal' prostaja mova, which was used as a standard language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
Bridget Drinka has recently revived an areal interpretation of the European periphrastic perfect diffusing from the Romance languages via German to Slavic, including North Russian. Based on the material from Slavic and Baltic languages, a totally different developmental vista of the be-possessive construction is offered in this paper. A special emphasis is made on a scale of the agenthood as posited both for Proto-Indo- European (PIE) and certain Slavic dialects. Along with an independent appearance of the accusative (or of a functionally equivalent genitive) in the be-possessive construction both in East Slavic and Lithuanian, this scale testifies to the indigenous ergative alignment, which is manifested dialectally and discourse-pragmatically in these languages. As a result, a distinction is drawn between different categories, i. e., the Western European possessive perfect, which is paralleled in the New Slavic perfect, and the northern Russian possessive resultative.
In this paper, Lithuanian impersonals are explored in comparison with corresponding Polish, Ukrainian, and Belarusian constructions. Special emphasis is placed on the historical substitution of the nominative by the accusative case in Lithuanian. Contrary to Holvoet who has recently postulated a "natural shift" from an agreeing passive construction with the neuter passive participle towards an impersonal construction in both Lithuanian and Polish, dialectal and diachronic evidence is cited to refute this claim. Subsequently, partial introduction of the accusative case marking in some (High) Lithuanian dialects, as well as in literary Lithuanian, is related primarily to heavy Polish adstratum interference throughout the Polish-Lithuanian Union (1569-1795).
According to Andrej Anatol´evic Zaliznjak, the evidence for the particle toas a “relativizator”, as it is encountered in Old East Slavic texts and in particular in the Novgorod birch bark documents merely up to the first half of the 13th century, can be used as a more or less irrefutable argument for the authenticity of the Igor's tale, where it appears once in connection with kotoryj. As linguistic knowledge about the usage of to as a “relativizator”in East Slavic has been acquired only recently, no falsificator would have allegedly been able to use kotoryj to perfectly in accordance with pre-1250 Old East Slavic syntax. A comparative view, however, as it was once initiated, but then abandoned by Zaliznjak (1981) himself, demonstrates that to as an enforcing particle and also to as a “relativizator”in particular has been widely used in other Slavonic languages. Który to as such is known to Old, Middle and Modern Polish, as well as to Middle Ruthenian. Therefore, those who believe that there are polonisms in the Igor's tale, which prove it to be a falsification, could also use the evidence of kotoryj to in the Igor's tale as an argument for their own purposes. The significance of the “relativizator”to, thus, seems to be limited. Analogically, the same holds true for some other syntactic arguments put forward by the Moscow linguist in his latest book, namely as regards the enclitic elements in the Igor's tale.
According to Andrej Anatol´evic Zaliznjak, the evidence for the particle toas a “relativizator”, as it is encountered in Old East Slavic texts and in particular in the Novgorod birch bark documents merely up to the first half of the 13th century, can be used as a more or less irrefutable argument for the authenticity of the Igor's tale, where it appears once in connection with kotoryj. As linguistic knowledge about the usage of to as a “relativizator”in East Slavic has been acquired only recently, no falsificator would have allegedly been able to use kotoryj to perfectly in accordance with pre-1250 Old East Slavic syntax. A comparative view, however, as it was once initiated, but then abandoned by Zaliznjak (1981) himself, demonstrates that to as an enforcing particle and also to as a “relativizator”in particular has been widely used in other Slavonic languages. Który to as such is known to Old, Middle and Modern Polish, as well as to Middle Ruthenian. Therefore, those who believe that there are polonisms in the Igor's tale, which prove it to be a falsification, could also use the evidence of kotoryj to in the Igor's tale as an argument for their own purposes. The significance of the “relativizator”to, thus, seems to be limited. Analogically, the same holds true for some other syntactic arguments put forward by the Moscow linguist in his latest book, namely as regards the enclitic elements in the Igor's tale.
The Middle Ruthenian (Middle Belarusian and Middle Ukrainian) period is an important stage in the development of the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. It is characterized by several significant innovations on all linguistic levels. Of utmost significance is the broad functionality of Middle Ruthenian as a literary language, particularly beginning from the second half of the 16th up to the middle of the 17th century.
The article examines the history of the following words found in diplomatic correspondence of Muscovite Russia of the 17th century: vstupan'e 'entry (into); come into smth. (administration, possession); accession to the throne', vygubiti 'kill; exterminate, extirpate; destroy', vyznan´e 'confession; confirmation, evidence', vymogati, vymoci 'extort (from)', vypucen´e 'release; liberation,', vysvobo?(d)en'e 'liberation; discharge', vysluchati 'listen (to)'. The author aims at proving that these intraslavonic derivates are interslavonic borrowings/loanwords in the written Russian language of the second half of the 16th and 17th centuries. The article contains facts proving these words to be Polonisms in the Russian language and “prostaja mova”, the latter, in the author's opinion, appeared to be the mediator when these words were being borrowed by the Russian language. The materials of the article considerably specify the chronology of vstupan´e, vymogati, vymoci, vypucen´e in the Russian written language...
A variety of names are traditionally used to refer to the literary language as cultivated by the Belarusians and Ukrainians in the late Middle Ages. It is maintained that the emergence of the term prostaja mova/prostyj jazykъ was brought about by the (German) Reformation in the Polish Kingdom and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Based on a comparative analysis of the names of the prostaja mova attested in Ruthenian, Polish, and Lithuanian writings, the author surmises that the coinage and the use of the corresponding terms was primarily determined by the revival of the indigenous “linguistic democratism” dating back to the time of Constantine and Methodius.
Фрик 1994 - D. A. FRICK "Foolish Rus
- Sofia
/3^) 210-248. Хрестоматия 1952 - A. И. Бшецький Хрестомаття давньо! украшськсп лггератури
- Kasijan Sakovyc
Мороз 1994 - A K. Мароз Летаписн: Беларуская мова 1994
- I К Бшодад
Исаевич 1996 - Я. 1саевич Освггнш рух в Украши XVII ст.: схвдна традивдя i захадт
- Xviii
III: Belorassian). Витковский 1964 - W. WITKOWSKI Fonetyka leksykonu Pamvy Beryndy
- G Y Shevelov
Шевелев 1979 - G. Y. SHEVEWV, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language
- Кшв Словопокажчик
Мозер 1995 -M. MOSER Anmerkungen zur prosta mova: Slavia 19
- Lille Blanche
Мнцько 1990 - /. 3. Мицько Острозька слов'яно-греко-латинська академ1я
- Charakteristik Sprachlichen
Соболенко 1988 - Э. Р. Сабаленка Беларусн: Скорина
- V П Шамякш
Целунова 1997-1998 - Е. А. Целунова Культурная и язьжовая ситуация Великого
- Р М Цейтлин
- Р Вечерка
- Э Благова
Струминский 1984-5. STRUMINSKI The Language Question in the Ukrainian Lands before the
- Минск Скис