Slavic Philology

Temčinas S., Какой польский печатный Коран перевел в московском Посольском приказе С.Ф. Чижинский в 1683 году: К рецепции произведений Иоанникия Галятовского, in Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Łapicz Cz., Miškinienė G. (eds.), Tatarskie dziedzictwo kulturowe: Historia. Literatura. Sztuka, Toruń, 2018, s. 67–76.

The article illustrates the main transformations that occurred in the Russian language standard in the period following the October Revolution, particularly in the years between 1917 and the end of the 1920s. Special attention is devoted to the spontaneous changes that took place in the language as a consequence of the rise of new social classes, on the one hand, and the linguistic policy, not always consistent and consequent, led by Bolshevik exponents but also supported by the most authoritative linguists of the time, on the other. The dynamics taken into consideration are framed in a sociolinguistic perspective and compared with the linguistic development of other periods of great change in Russian history and culture, in particular the 18th century and the post-Soviet period.

Темчин С.Ю., Общий элемент двух рассказов о женах князя Владимира: византийской принцессе Анне и полоцкой княжне Рогнеде, in Макаров Н.А., Назаренко А.В. (ред.), Русь эпохи Владимира Великого: государство, церковь, культура. Материалы Международной научной конференции в память тысячелетия кончины святого равноапостольного князя Владимира и мученического подвига святых князей Бориса и Глеба (Москва, 14–16 октября 2015 г.), Москва–Вологда, 2017, с. 294–307.

The paper deals with the origin and development of the scientific discourse about the Belarusian language in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. The following topics are discussed:
1. The identification of Belarusian after the acquaintance of Russian scholars with Belarusian and Ukrainian literary monuments. M. Kachenovsky, V. Sopikov, E. Bolkhovitinov, S. -B. Linde,  K. Kalajdovich, N. Grech, N. Bakhtin. The language of some Belarusian and Ukrainian monuments was called Belarusian in the Moscow state even back in the 17th century; employees of the Posolsky prikaz in Moscow widely used the term “Belarusian writing”. The use of the term ‘the Belarusian language’ in the early 19th century as a common name for the language used in medieval Belarusian and Ukrainian monuments had serious consequences. On the one hand, the attention of Russian scholars was drawn to the old nature of Belarusian. On the other hand, the written Belarusian was qualified as based on linguistically varied sources at that time. In the first quarter of the 19th century indications on “mixed” character of Belarusian were a part of philological reflection about layers of borrowings in Belarusian rather than had estimating nature.
2. The oral Belarusian language learning. K. Kalajdovich, Z. Dalenha-Chadakoŭski (Dolega-Chodakowski).
3. Attempts to refuse the term ‘Belarusian’. P. Keppen, J. Lelewel, M. Kachenovsky, E. Bolkhovitinov. Reasons of disapproval of the term ‘Belarusian’. The prevalence of terms like ‘Lithuanian-Ruthenian’, ‘Polish-Ruthenian’.
4. The use of glottonyms: руский, руський (руськой), język ruski, белорусский (белорусской), кривичский, руско-кривицкий, литовско-руский, польско-руский, польско-славянский, литовский, rusko-litewski, rusko-polski etc.
5. The fixing of the term ‘русский язык’ meaning. F. Bulgarin (Bułharyn).
6. Glorification tendencies of Belarusian. K. Kalajdovich, O. Senkovsky, D. Yazykov, P. Špileŭski (Shpilevsky). The qualification of Belarusian as some stage in the development of proto-Slavic language or some previous stage in the development of Russian. The corresponding mythology was based on poor knowledge of that time in the area of comparative and historic linguistics and the written heritage of the Eastern Slavs. It was also due to the awareness that the standard Russian was formed comparatively late.
7. The understanding of the Belarusian language as a “mixed” one. N. Polevoj, F. Bulgarin (Bułharyn), N. Grech, O. Bodyansky. The indications on the “mixed” nature of the Old Belarusian language were shifted gradually from the level of historic and linguistic reflections to the level of sociolinguistic generalizations and later turned into the general scornful evaluation of Belarusian.

Translated Literature from Slavic Languages into Italian. II. The Old Russian Tradition: A Bibliographical Survey. – The present paper illustrates in extended form the materials discussed in the previous essay. In the index is collected a large, although not complete, selection of Old Russian texts dating back to the 11th-17th centuries and translated into Italian during the period between the second half of the 18th century and the present day. The texts are organized by literary genres: I. annalistics, historiography; II. narrative, epic, historical-legendary texts; III. apocrypha; IV. travel literature; V. hagiography, homiletics, hymnography; V. didactic and parenetic works; VII. polemics; VIII. legal compilations; IX. official correspondence; X. epistolography on birch bark. All texts are recorded in alphabetical order, according to the title used in scholarly literature and registered, e.g., in the Slovar’ knižnikov i knižnosti Drevnej Rusi; an exception has been made for the texts on birch bark, which are cited with the progressive numbering of the series Novgorodskie berestjanye gramoty (voll. I-XII). The entries are structured as follows: each text is marked with its original title, date of composition (real or presumed) and its relative lemma in the Slovar’ knižnikov or other similar repertoire; all Italian versions have been recorded in chronological order, under the title given by translators and distinguished between full and partial versions (the latter recognizable at a glance, being reported in a smaller font); finally, each translation is identified, with some exceptions, by the name of translator and year of publication.

"This special issue of Comparative Literature Studies brings together talks, some extensively revised, others virtually unchanged, that were delivered at a conference entitled "What is Philology?" The gathering took place on Saturday, March 19, 1988 at Harvard University under the aegis of the Center for Literary and Cultural Studies. The depth and breadth of interest in the conference was deeply gratifying. I had not experienced another occasion when so many scholars from different language and literature departments gathered at Harvard, and I hope that publishing the proceedings will benefit a larger community outside the University.

By way of introduction I will describe how the event originated. My description will explore a few of the reasons why an interdisciplinary conference of a dozen speakers and respondents attracted an audience of more than two hundred, and why a topic that 'may sound rarefied drew participants whose main fields of research and teaching interests ran the gamut from the most ancient Indo-European languages to the most recent African American literature. In short, I will offer tentative explanations for the urgency of the topic to students, professors, and independent scholars who engage in philology, linguistics, literary history, literary criticism, and literary theory."

In article, an analyse of ethnonyms included in so called Bavarian Geographer, a historical source from 9th – early 10th century, is given. Actual state of scientific research on tribal names is summarized, latinized transcritions of the proper names are analyzed and previous etymological interpretations are verified. Also there are some new etymological interpretations of a few demonyms and topo-ethnonyms. Analysis of proper names revealed that there are names of Slavic, Paleobalkan, Celtic, German, Baltic and Oriental origin.

Nazarii A. Nazarov. The Ukrainian etymological lexicography: theory, history, and practice. – Manuscript.
Dissertation for obtaining the scientific degree of candidate of philology, specialty 10.02.01 – the Ukrainian language. – Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University of Ministry of education and science of Ukraine, 2016.

The present study explores factors that influenced Ukrainian practice of
compiling etymological dictionaries in diachronic and synchronic aspects, its
connection with the wider cultural context. Regularity of the consequence of the stages
of lexicography, etymological lexicography included, is demonstrated and its
connection with establishing national state is showed.
The present study is aimed at metalinguistic analysis of Ukrainian and
European etymological lexicography methodological basis. Its main goal is to
explicate interdependencies between ideology (cultural, religious or scientific

22

narrative) and etymologizing patterns in etymological dictionaries, to reveal
reflexes of different scientific epochs in the present state of Ukrainian etymology.
Before etymological dictionary as distinctive genre of linguistic research
appeared, both lexicography and etymology have passed through several
evolutionary stages that coincided with changing of epistemes (according to
Michel Foucault), both having their origins in mythological view on the word as
magical force. Especially strong ties tied Byzantine and Byzantine-oriented
countries’ (such as Ukraine before XIX c.) lexicography and etymology with sacral
sphere. Both first Byzantine (e.g. Suda) and Ukrainian (e.g. that of P. Berynda)
dictionaries bore catechetical functions as well as first etymologizing practices of
these areas belonged to folklore rooted figura etymologica or ‘folk etymology’.
Ukrainian etymology in XIX c. combined results of comparative method
with focus on the inner form of a word (elaborated by O.O. Potebnya), that was
possible due to special attention to the language awareness immanent to folklore
(both O.O. Potebnya and P.Ya. Lukashevych were both linguists and folklorists).
Classical Indo-European etymological dictionaries did not succeed in
handling problem of heterogeneity of the languages they studied because of
methodological biases against material beyond Indo-European range. The
etymologists from the Slavic countries (S. Mladenov, V. Machek, O. Trubachev)
developed their own methodological approach concentrated on the heterogeneity of
the lexicon. Ukrainian school of etymological research (O.S. Melnychuk,
V.T. Kolomiyets, O.B. Tkachenko, A.P. Nepokupnyi etc.) elaborated these
problematic issues mainly ignored in other spheres of Indo-European studies, so
their results have meaning beyond the range of the Ukrainian studies.

In the context of etymological dictionaries of Slavic and other Indo-
European languages, compiled in XVII-XXI c., characteristic features of Ukrainian

etymological dictionaries is showed. Ukrainian etymological lexicography
(especially its monumental work ‘Etymological dictionary of the Ukrainian
language’ directed by acad. O.S. Melnychuk) combined positive aspects of the
methodological approaches developed in the classical Indo-European studies (keen
attention to phonetic correspondences) with innovations of the Slavic and
Ukrainian etymological schools (attention to pre- and non-Indo-European elements
in the lexicon). Also cultural role of the Ukrainian etymological lexicography
cannot be denied: the ‘Etymological dictionary of the Ukrainian language’
received world-wide appraisal of the linguists and augmented cultural prestige of
the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian studies.
Key words: Ukrainian lexicography, etymology, etymological dictionary,
etymologically unclear lexicon, vocabulary

Камена књига предака : (о натписима са надгробних споменика западне Србије) / Радојко Николић. - 2. допуњено изд. - Чачак : Народни музеј Чачак, 2018 (Чачак : Артера). - 399 стр. : илустр. ; 24 cm

Тираж 300. - Стр. 7-18: Плави хоризонти Радојка Николића: од микроисторије до социјалне антропологије / Милош Тимотијевић. - Стр. 19-23: Значајан вуковски подухват / Драгиша Витошевић. - Радојко Николић: стр. 397. - Напомене и библиографске референце уз текст. - Регистар.

ISBN 978-86-84067-63-2
821.163.41-193.6:398
003.071=163.41"18/19"
726.82(497.11-15)"18/19"

COBISS.SR-ID 261062156

The paper discusses the accent of kako ‘how’, tako ‘thus’, ovako ‘this way’, onako ‘that way’ and some other related words (like nikako ‘no way’, nekako ‘somehow’) primarily in Štokavian and Čakavian from a dialectological (including standard-dialect sources) and historical perspective (going back to Common Slavic). The alternation kȁko ‘how’ — kàko ̮ je < kakȍ ̮ je ‘how is’ is discussed in some detail.

This study presents an analysis about the rain-making ritual from Romania, called Paparuda, performed in the spring and in times of severe drought. The ritual is common also in the Slavic folklore, with the same structure. In this study, I will try to demonstrate that the origin of the rain-making ritual Paparuda/Dodola is Thracian, and South Slavic tribes from Balkans adopted the ritual from the Thracians. The ritual is present almost in the entire Balkan Peninsula, especially in the area inhabited by Slavs, which was Thracian before the Slavic migration from 6th century.