scholarly journals A contribution to the study of the psl *kovylъ/*kovylь ‘Stipa pennata’

2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-55
Author(s):  
Marta Bjeletic
Keyword(s):  
Common Origin ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Feather Grass ◽  
Present Tense ◽  
Derivatives Of

Contemporary etymological research is largely aimed at rethinking hitherto offered etymological solutions, especially for words that do not have a generally accepted interpretation. One of those words is PSl *kovyl? / *kovyl? ?feather-grass, Stipa pennata?, whose continuants are attested mainly in Eastern and Southern Slavic languages: Ru. kovy?, kovyl, Ukr. kovi?, kovila, Bel. kavy?, Bulg. kovil, koil, kofi l, Mac. kovil, kofi l, SCr. kovilje, Sln. kovilje. The etymological literature has drawn attention to the potential connection of PSl *kovyl? / *kovyl? with the verb *kovy?ati (s?) ?to swing, wobble, stagger?, even though this verb does not have a unanimously accepted interpretation either. This paper departs from the assumption that the phytonym and verb under consideration have a common origin, and that the prefi x *ko- is distinguished in both forms. The verb is related to PSl *v?lati, v?laj? ?to swing, swing on waves?, related to PSl *v?lna ?wave?, *valiti (s?) ?to roll?, and ultimately boils down to the IE root *?elH- ?to roll?. As among the continuants and derivatives of the PSl verb *v?lati there is a variation of the reduced vowels (-?- : -?-) at the root (cf. OCS v?lajati s? ?to oscillate (about waves)?, etc.), forms with the vocalism -?- could serve as a basis for the occurrence of the secondary ablaut *v?l- / *vyl-. Thus, from the unconfirmed prefixed form *ko-v?lati s? (a form without the prefix *v?lati s? is reconstructed!), an intense / iterative *kovyl(j)ati s? could be created in the same meaning. The variance of -ati / -jati can be explained from the original *kovylati, kovilj? (s?), with the subsequent spread of the palatal ? from the present tense stem to the infinitive stem. This also explains the variation of the palatal and non-palatal l at the end of the stem of the deverbal noun *kovyl? / *kovyl?.

scholarly journals О соотношении двух плюсквамперфектов в псковских говорах в сопоставлении с инославянским материалом

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
М. В. Ермолова ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Past Tense ◽  
Future Tense ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Subjunctive Mood ◽  
The Past ◽  
Present Tense

There are two pluperfect forms in Pskov dialects: “to be (past tense) + vši-form” and “to be (past tense) +l-form”. The first one has a resultative meaning and should be considered in the row of other perfective forms with the verb to be in the present tense, future tense and in the form of subjunctive mood. The second one has a meaning of discontinuous past. Apparently, it is a grammeme of the past tense and it is opposed to the “simple” past tense by the meaning of the irrelevance of the action to the present. There are similar systems with two pluperfect forms in other Slavic and non-Slavic languages.

scholarly journals On the relation between present and future tense in Lithuanian: Preliminary considerations in the domain of non-deictic tense use

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 387-415
Author(s):  
Björn Wiemer
Keyword(s):  
Reference Intervals ◽  
Future Tense ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
The Future ◽  
Present Tense

The article examines non-deictic uses of present and future tense in Lithuanian. Narrative use, in which reference intervals match with singular events, is distinguished from suspended propositions characterized by lack of such reference intervals (habitual, dispositional and circumstantial modal, and conditional meanings). Present tense is frequently involved in both usage domains, while the future is rare in narrative use, but overlaps with present tense in certain types of suspended propositions. Moreover, its temporal-deictic use is inherently associated with suspended propositions and “linked” to them via epistemic implicatures. This, in contrast to the present, makes the future more likely to be employed in predictions which entail an observer.The analysis is supplemented by a brief comparison with non-deictic tense use in the nonpast-domain of Slavic languages, yielding a grid of criteria that should be used in crosslinguistic studies on tense-aspect systems based on stem derivation and the feature [±bounded].

Роль Словообразовательных Формантов В Сохранении Сакрального Смысла Церковнославянизмов В Русском Языке

2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 512-526
Author(s):  
Елена Васильевна Петрухина
Keyword(s):  
Word Formation ◽  
Religious Discourse ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Language Community ◽  
Specific Process ◽  
Ordinary Life ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
History Of ◽  
Derivatives Of ◽  
The Church

Abstract The author of the article applies synchronic and diachronic approach to describe consistent patterns in Russian word formation, when the facts in contemporary Russian are explained with due regard to the history of their development and formation. The research focuses on commonly used derivatives of the Church Slavic, which have not lost their sacred meaning despite the general secularization beyond religious discourse of evangelic lexis in Russian (as well as in other Slavic languages). The preservation of the sacred meaning is influenced by a specific process of differentiation between the sacred and the secular by means of word­building formants in cognate synonyms (for example, Рождество [‘Christmas’]/рождение [‘birth’]; житие [‘the life (of a saint)’]/житье [‘ordinary life’]; Воскресение [‘Resurrection’]/воскресенье [‘Sunday’]; искупить [‘to redeem’], Искупитель [‘the Redeemer’]/выкупить [‘to buy out’] etc.). The last section of the article considers the process of semantic specification in diachrony of originally synonymic cognate derivatives like живот [‘belly’], житие [‘the life (of a saint)’], жизнь [‘life’], which has led to a complete change of the semantics of the lexeme живот [‘belly’] (a gradual strengthening of its physical component has led to the modern meaning ‘belly, part of body’) and the prevalence of the word жизнь (with its Old Slavonic suffix ­знь). The latter, having absorbed the “life­related” semantic of lexemes живот ‘belly’ and житие ‘the life (of a saint)’, expresses all aspects of its understanding and interpretation by the contemporary language community. The author assumes that this process could also have been influenced by the general correlation between the Church Slavonicisms (both elevated and general denominations) and native Russian words (both concrete and ordinary denominations) in Russian. Word­building formants play a significant role in the differentiation of the sacred and the secular (and preserving the sacred) when the religious lexicon of the Church Slavonic origin enters the modern Russian language.

scholarly journals Аб магчымым уплыве грэцкай мовы на развіццё дзеепрыметнікаў залежнага стану цяперашняга часу ў славянскіх мовах

2021 ◽  
pp. 165-175
Author(s):  
Анатоль Багдзевіч
Keyword(s):  
19Th Century ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Greek Language ◽  
Grammatical Category ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Present Tense ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
The Voice ◽  
The Russian Language

The passive participles of the present tense have been actively used only in Russian out of all Slavic languages since the 19th century and are a grammatical category that is not accepted by all native speakers of the standard Belarusian language as a normative one. During the development of Slavic languages, it has been experiencing two opposite tendencies: decline and revival. The article examines extralinguistic and intralinguistic factors that could have influenced the development of this verb form in a number of Slavic languages. According to the author, the bilingual Slavic-Greek consciousness of the creators of Slavic writing could have influenced the strengthening of these forms in the Russian language. The article analyzes possible connections of the Slavic participles of the present tense with the medial and passive participles of the Greek language in the light of their common origin from the Indo-European participle, as well as the process of development of participles during the restructuring of the voice category and in connection with the development of the aspect category.

The etymology of ‘king’ in Soviet Turkic languages

1967 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-36
Author(s):  
P. M. Austin
Keyword(s):  
Common Origin ◽  
The South ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Turkic Languages

In the modern turkic languages there are three words for a non-Muslim, European monarch: kral, kiral, korol. Obviously these words have the same common origin. This paper is an attempt at an explanation of the etymology of the last.Kral is the term for “king” common to all the South Slavic languages. Although it is not attested in the canon of Old Church Slavonic, it must have been borrowed early enough from the Prankish root karl—that is, Charlemagne—to allow it to undergo the changes common to all roots of the type TorT. The language known as Turkish or Osmanli borrowed this root from the conquered Balkan Slavs to denote a non-Muslim monarch.

scholarly journals Comparing Tense Systems: the Primacy of the Pres/Past Opposition

Nordlyd ◽  
10.7557/12.51 ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Borik ◽  
Paz González ◽  
Henk Verkuyl
Keyword(s):  
Binary System ◽  
Ternary System ◽  
Future Tense ◽  
Tense And Aspect ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Empirically Supported ◽  
Verb Forms ◽  
Present Tense ◽  
Set Up

A way of improving on the description of the English tense system in Reichenbach [1947] is achieved by changing its matrix 3x3 design into a 2x2x2 set up, formed by 3 basic oppositions: <ol> <li>present vs. past</li> <li>synchronous vs. posterior</li> <li>incompleted vs. completed action</li> </ol> The advantages of the binary system over the Reichenbachian ternary system are the following: <ol> <li>the binary system is completely compositional;</li> <li>there is no tripartition between Past, Present and Future, but only the basic opposition between Past and Present remains. As we intend to show later, this is empirically supported by the Russian and Polish data;</li> <li>some concrete problems, for instance, the ambiguity of past perfect with temporal adverbials or more then one configuration for the same tense form [Future Perfect [will have written] or Past Future tense [would write]] do not arise.</li> </ol> The binary system can be naturally extended to apply for the tense systems of different groups of languages. Along with Germanic, we will consider two more groups of languages: Romance [e.g., French and Spanish] and Slavic [e.g., Russian and Polish]. The binary system, we will show, has the potential to be extended in order to capture the Romance data or shrunk to account for the Slavic data. The connection between tense and aspect, especially in Slavic languages is also described in this paper. Both temporal and aspectual differences in Slavic can be essentially captured by the same mechanism provided by the binary system. Some empirical facts, like, for instance, the absence of the present tense interpretation with perfective verb forms, will fall out naturally.

scholarly journals Form, its meaning, and dictionary entries

2015 ◽  
pp. 133-143
Author(s):  
Violetta Koseska-Toszewa
Keyword(s):  
Specific Form ◽  
Definite Article ◽  
Dictionary Entry ◽  
Language Form ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Present Tense ◽  
Logical Structures ◽  
Traditional Grammar ◽  
Grammar Form

Form, its meaning, and dictionary entriesAs we know, a language form is a unit which plays a specific form in the language, e.g. a semantic or syntactical one. We establish the function of a form based on its use (occurrence), i.e. its relation with the meanings of other forms in speech or in a text. The meaning of a form is the value of its function. In the traditional grammar, form is opposed to its meaning. However, various grammar schools have big problems with distinguishingbetween a form and its function. For example, the present tense form has a number of basic temporal meanings in Bulgarian as well as in Polish and Russian, and in none of those languages this is only the present time, (see past, future and habituality expressed using the present tense form). It is a big mistake not to distinguish between the meanings of article in article languages. For example, in Bulgarian the same form of article canexpress both uniqueness and universality (or, respectively: definiteness and indefiniteness). In the quoted book (Koseska-Toszewa 1982), I put forward a hypothesis on the development of the meaning of Bulgarian article. In my opinion, initially the article expressed uniqueness of an element (object), and then started to express also uniqueness of a set, which later, due to equalling two completely different semantically-logical structures, i.e. structures with universal and unique quantification, lead to a homonymy and to the article expressing also universality, i.e. indefiniteness. Similarly in English, French, Rumanian or Albanian, where the same form of article can express either uniqueness or universality. This proves that the above homonymy is of a general rather than typological (e.g. Balkan) character. Naturally, in the above languages the definite article form can also express uniqueness of an object or a set, so it also expresses definiteness. Ambiguity of the definite article form is a phenomenon exceeding the area of Balkan languages, and the only Balkanism is the position of the article — speaking more precisely,its postpositiveness (postpositive position). However, that position gives us no right to treat it differently than the English or French article. In Bulgarian, Rumanian and Albanian the postpositive article is written together with the name its concerns, but it is neither a unit belonging to the root of the word nor the ending of the word.The above observations, based first of all on the semantically-logical aspects of the definiteness category, have been confirmed by the language material from the Suprasl Code, where Bulgarian article does not occur in universally quantified nominal structures, but in uniquely quantified nominal expressions, denoting satisfaction of the predicate either by one element of the sentence or by the whole set treated as the only one.It is worth stressing that distinguishing between the form and its meaning in comparing the material 6 languages belonging to three different groups of Slavic languages (as is the case in the MONDILEX Project) will allow us to avoid numeorus substantiva mistakes and erroneous conclusions. Hence dictionary entries should be verified and made uniform in that respect before they are “digitalized”... Distinction between the form and its meaning in a dictionary entry is fully possible, as shown by works of Z. Saloni (2002) and A.Przepiórkowski (2008).

scholarly journals Lithuanian Slang Adverbs of Slavic Origin

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1/2) ◽  
pp. 52-71
Author(s):  
Robertas Kudirka ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Morphological Features ◽  
Language System ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
System Variability ◽  
Inflectional Paradigms ◽  
Derivatives Of ◽  
Morphological Patterns

The article morphologically analyzes Lithuanian slang adverbs (215) of Slavic origin (mostly from Russian, sometimes from Polish and Belarusian), selected from Dictionary of Lithuanian Slang and Nonnormative Lexicon. There are four types of adverbs selected for analysis: hybrid derivatives of the suffix -ai from suffixal and nonsuffixal adjectives, adverbs without formants, and adverbialized word combinations. The aim of the analysis is to identify systematic morphological patterns and adaptive features. The analysis has shown that in Lithuanian slang Slavic adverbs are adapted phonetically and orthographically according to the principle of substitution of foreign phonemes as close as possible to their own. The Slavic slang lexicon tends to copy derivative models and integrate them into and inflectional paradigms of Lithuanian: morphological features are inherited from Slavic languages and specifically transformed in the Lithuanian language system; variability in borrowed slang appears due to spontaneous adaptation to language recipient features.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document