Ukrainian dialects

West Polesian is an understudied Eastern Slavonic variety spoken between Belarus, Ukraine and Poland. The speech community has been geographically isolated for centuries, contributing to the preservation of older forms of Slavonic, but also the development of innovations. Nowadays it is surrounded by several closely related and standardised varieties that cause interference. This work provides a typological approach to the particularities that distinguish West Polesian morphology and syntax from its neighbours. Besides documenting and describing the morphology and syntax, I deal with theoretical questions that arise in the light of the data collected through fieldwork. I devote most of my attention to three phenomena. The first one is the adnumerative form, a morphosyntactic form that only appears when a noun is headed by specific numerals. I start by describing numerals and numeral phrases in West Polesian, and I narrow the focus to the interactions with nouns. The morphosyntactic nature of the adnumerative is complicated: it displays properties of both case and number values, but neither of them fully. Using insights from Canonical Typology I give an analysis of its morphology, syntax and the canonical behaviour of features and values. The second one is suppletion, which
strongly characterises the adnumerative cells of the noun paradigms. I use the suppletive nouns ‘year’ and ‘person’ to see what they can teach us about suppletion in general. Still within the framework of Canonical Typology, I show how these nouns approach the canonical instance of suppletion and how they have the most complex paradigms in the
Slavonic family. And the third one is the surpassingly large inventory of constructions West Polesian has developed to express futurity. I evaluate whether they are all legitimate (i.e. grammaticalised) constructions; and if so, what is their origin and relation to other future tense constructions in Europe.

The linguonym "Carpatho-Rusyn" refers to a group of East Slavic dialects used in Subcarpathian Rusˈ (found within Ukraine, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, and north-central Romania). One commonly distinguishes three regional variants of Carpatho-Rusyn, namely, Transcarpathian (Subcarpathian) Rusyn in Ukraine, Slovakian (Prešov) Rusyn in East Slovakia, and Lemko Rusyn in Poland. Genetically, Carpatho-Rusyn belongs to the southwestern Ukrainian dialect system. This is why the presence of features shared with the adjacent West Slavic, Romanian, and Hungarian does not change the East Slavic foundations of (the variants of) Carpatho-Rusyn. In view of their low level of codification and its predominant use in the countryside, the variants of Carpatho-Rusyn can be seen as regional groups of rural southwestern Ukrainian dialects found in the process of their codification.

Ukrainianists and Belarusianists traditionally assumed that “Ukrainian” and “Belarusian” authors of the middle period of the East Slavic language history wrote essentially in their own respective mother tongues or even native dialects; linguistic features belonging to dialects of the other of the two modern nations were regarded as “foreign” influences due to the close political and cultural ties between “Ukrainians” and “Belarusians”. Nowadays more and more scholars come to acknowledge the existence at that time of a common Ruthenian literary standard. However, the relationship between this standard variety and the diversity of the Ruthenian dialects is still rather unclear. As the Ruthenian questione della lingua, i.e. the problem of choosing a dialect basis for the standard variety, was never discussed explicitly (mainly because of the overwhelming importance of Polish and Church Slavonic in the Ruthenian metalinguistic discourse), the role of intermediate dialects (e.g. Polissian), dialect mixing (e.g. Vilna and Galicia), the acceptability of individual dialect features, and linguistic conservatism (e.g. in orthography) for the standardization of Ruthenian remain to be thoroughly evaluated. This is what this paper tries to do.

The last quarter of the18th c. and the first part of the 19th century are fundamental for the development of the ‘new’ Ukrainian literary language.
A correct interpretation of the historic-linguistic facts that led to the emergence of modern Ukrainian, e.g. the interaction of the dialectal substratum with the Ukrainian literary language(s), is also essential to appraise contemporary language variation and phenomena like Suržyk.
This article draws attention to the relationship existing between the formation of the ‘new’ Ukrainian literary language on its vernacular base and the role south-eastern dialects played in this crucial period. Specific dialectal features, typical of the Ukrainian literary works of the late 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, are also examined.

After the incorporation of the Western Ukrainian lands, the Soviet language policy in corpus planning was aimed at levelling out the features of the Western Ukrainian language variety. This line was implemented under the slogan of struggle against dialectalisms in the language of schoolchildren, in belles-lettres and in translations. A directive to employ only a limited corpus of the local units from the Western Ukrainian dialect was also applied in lexicographical practice.

The dialect is the vivid evidence of the preserved Slavic Western European Area Language of the Pan-Slavic source that might have been originated from the Balkan Slavic Proto-Language: some specific Grammar features support that idea.
The Grammar System of the ULSD/WLRUD (Ukrainian Lower San Dialect) less Eastern European and, mainly, Western European.
The ULSD is known for its tasteful shortenings, phrases and sayings, as well as Folklore mutual to the Lemkos, Rutheninas, or Rousins.
The Explanations are given in English, but the translation of the lexical units is provided both in Polish (as it is the closest to Polish-and-Ukrainian languages Colloquial Variant of Ukrainian), Ukrainian (as it is a part of the Ukrainian-and-Belorus Substratum, and Italian – for the purposes of research/translation or practical mastering of the dialect.
THE MOST PROMINENT FEATURES of the ULSD/WLRUD are thought to be very much the same as in other Western Ukrainian dialects, as can be seen from the table below:

THE UKRAINIAN ENCLAVE IN BOSNIA AND HERCEGOVINA:
THE FIELD RESEARCH OF THE LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

The Ukrainian Diaspora in Bosnia and Hercegovina represents an extremely interesting phenomenon among the Slavic migrant communities because they live in linguistic and religious enclave. The Ukrainians begin to settle on the Balkan Peninsula in the 19th century from Halyčyna. We don’t have precise data on the number of Ukrainians in Bosnia and Hercegovina. Unfortunately, this data are not available. The Ukrainian settlements are located in the communities of Prnjavor,
Prijedor, Laktaši, Banja Luka and to a lesser extent in the communities of Čelinac, Bosanska Gradiška, Srbac and Derventa. Among the publications devoted to Ukrainians in the Republika Srpska, there are no works on linguistics and folk culture. The researchers mainly investigate the historical aspect of migration. In order to fill the gap in 2016 a field research of Ukrainians living in communities of Banja Luka, Prijedor and Prnjavor was conducted. We used the method of semistructured
interviews and conducted interviews with 16 informants in Ukrainian and Serbian languages. During the interviews we spoke with interlocutors on the ethno-linguistic (Christmas, Easter, Midsummer) and sociolinguistic topics (the study of the Serbian language, the use of the Ukrainian language in everyday communication, the transmission of the language to the younger generation). The Ukrainian names of holidays and ceremonies were registered, for example, the Baptism of Jesus (ijordáns’k’i s”v’áta, jordán). Special attention was paid to the perception of the
traditions of the Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks among the Ukrainian community. The analysis will allow to conclude on the preservation of the national culture and Ukrainian language.

This paper addresses grammaticalization of the preterit and future auxiliary clitics derived from the verbs 'to be' and 'to take' in Southwest Ukrainian in comparison with North and Southeast Ukrainian, and the adja-­‐‑ cent western and eastern Slavic dialects. It posits a parallel grammaticaliza-­‐‑ tion of such auxiliaries in the aspect of retrospection (preterit) and the aspect of prospection (future), although with different results in various Ukrainian dialects. Unlike the Polish auxiliaries that turned into person-­‐‑ number markers, the preterit auxiliary clitics are not fully degrammaticalized in Southwest Ukrainian and are altogether absent from North and Southeast Ukrainian. The auxiliary clitics used in the de-­‐‑ inceptive future derived from the periphrastic formation with the auxiliary 'to take' were undergoing grammaticalization along the clitic continuum postulated in the paper for the Ukrainian-­‐‑speaking territories. The term 'synthetic future' in Modern Ukrainian for formations like čytatymu 'I will read' is misleading, since the grammaticalization of the auxiliary did not run to completion. This explains its loose integration with the infinitive and the de-­‐‑ inceptive interpretation of the synthetic future 'I will [begin] to read' as compared to the analytic future formation ja budu čytaty 'I will read' in all the major Ukrainian dialects.

The article handles the formations with a suffix -nt- (nouns and proper names) in Ukrainian. The attested forms are described; further more, an explanation for their development and origin is proposed. Some diachronic aspects of the problematic which those forms present are also tackled.

After endeavouring to examine the grammatical descriptions published in the literature to date and to reconstruct the sound system of the south-western dialect of Karaim as it was presented in the literature, it can certainly be concluded that the matter is far from clear. This is for the simple reason that these works contradict each other at various points. The reason for such discrepancies should be sought in the historical and linguistic backgrounds of the two main centres of the south-western Karaim population, i.e. Lutsk and Halich. Even though these two centres were always in close communication with one another, and the language that was spoken in them originates beyond any doubt from one common root, they remained for centuries under slightly different linguistic influences as a result of the Slavonic languages surrounding them. The present paper aims to present and, where possible, clarify the differences which follow from the studies on the Karaim sound system we have at our disposal. An attempt is also made to identify some differences between the Lutsk and Halich subdialects of south-western Karaim, and explain their origin. Since the grammatical descriptions we are dealing with here and the written sources we are able to work with concern the end of the first half of the 19th century at the earliest, the time scale of our interest is limited to the second half of the 19th and the first four decades of the 20th century.

Magocsi, Paul Robert. Let’s Speak Rusyn. Бісїдуйме по русинськы. Bisyiduime
po rusyn’skŷ. Prešov Region edition, revised and expanded. Illustrations
by Fedor Vico. Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center and Academy of Rusyn
Culture in the Slovak Republic, New York and Prešov, 2015. xi + 115 pp.
Maps. Illustrations. $15.00 (paperback).
Magocsi, Paul Robert. Let’s Speak Rusyn. Говорьме по русинськы. Hovor’me
po rusyn’skŷ. Transcarpathian Region edition, revised and expanded.
Illustrations by Fedor Vico. Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center, New York,
2017. xi + 115 pp. Maps. Illustrations. $15.00 (paperback).
Magocsi, Paul Robert. Let’s Speak Lemko Rusyn. Бесідуйме по лемківскы.
Besiduime po lemkivskŷ. Lemko Region edition. Illustrations by Fedor
Vico. Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center, New York, 2018. xi + 115 pp.
Maps. Illustrations. $15.00 (paperback).

The asynchronous VN-reflexes (Bulaestian /ч’iндреǐ/
‘generous’ presents a clear example) in the Ukrainian dialects were in depth considered by P. E. Hritsenko and were clearly explained as a “phonetic polonism”. Well, the question is when and how this phenomena appeared in the Bulaestian dialect? We should consider the following facts here: 1) in general, polonisms are presented in the Bulaestian dialect by some early examples mainly; 2) the great part of polonisms known in other Ukrainian dialects are absent in the Bulaestian one; 3) Polish szczodry ‘generous’ do not demonstrate any VN-reflex; 4) we see some analogies (шандрий, чандрий) in some other south-western Ukrainian dialects; 5) it is unlikely that these analogies appeared independently at all (at least that concerns the forms чандрий and чeндрий); 6) anyway, it is obviously impossible to get the Bulaestian variant neither from чандрий (conversely, чандрий appeared as a result of /e/ to /a/ transition from чeндрий), nor, more over, from шандрий (as it  demonstrates, in addition, a loss of /ч/ from the initial /шч/).
So, the phonetic form /ч’iндреǐ/ is an archaic one and
reflects some early times of ethnic and linguistic history of Bulaestians.

Key words: VN-reflexes, dialectology, ethnology, history, Ukrainians, Moldova, Middle Ages

Positions of accomodation and vocal harmony in Transcarpathian Sinevir dialect
The article deals with positons of raising of vowels e, o and і for the space of word according to next palatal and labial conditions in Transcarpathian Sinevir dialect. The dialect data was recorded during expeditions in 1993–2009.

To the best of our knowledge, the present paper is the first to analyse the Ukrainian language within the framework of perceptual dialectology. It is based on a questionnaire conducted in Chernivtsi, in which students of English and Ukrainian philologies were given a map of Ukraine with nineteen major cities marked on it, and asked to indicate regions “where people speak differently”. Analysis of their answers reveals certain peculiarities in their perception of dialectal differences within Ukrainian, but also suggests that those differences were viewed as secondary to the degree of prevalence of Russian in various regions. The paper is divided into four sections. The first section briefly introduces the main concepts and achievements of perceptual dialectology, a sociolinguistic paradigm introduced by D.R. Preston in 1980s and 1990s, whose interest lies primarily in how non-linguists perceive various dialects and differences between them. Also mentioned is the technical side of the draw-a-map method employed in the present paper, together with references to fuller descriptions. The second section presents the questionnaire that was used to collect the data, as well as the social profile of the interviewed group. Almost all of the 90 interviewees were women younger than 30, students, the majority born and raised either in the Chernivtsi or in the Ivano-Frankivsk oblast. Nearly a half has completed a course in Ukrainian dialectology. The third section presents and discusses the results of our research. A comparison of the map compiled from individual questionnaires, with a map of dialectal boundaries in Ukraine, as well as with the distribution of Ukrainian vs Russian speakers, suggests that the interviewees attached considerably more weight to the latter distinction – although exceptions are also clearly visible. Most answers follow fairly closely one of five patterns; the choice of the pattern, or how closely it was followed, does not correlate with the place of birth or any other social characteristic of the interviewees. It can also be observed that several cities have a strong tendency to be marked, or not marked, together; interestingly, all lie in the east of Ukraine. The completion of a course of Ukrainian dialectology appears to have had little impact on the answer. Lastly, the fourth section contains a brief summary together with conclusions for future research.

West Polesian is an understudied Eastern Slavonic variety spoken between Belarus, Ukraine and Poland. The speech community has been geographically isolated for centuries, contributing to the preservation of older forms of Slavonic, but also the development of innovations. Nowadays it is surrounded by several closely related and standardised varieties that cause interference. This work provides a typological approach to the particularities that distinguish West Polesian morphology and syntax from its neighbours. Besides documenting and describing the morphology and syntax, I deal with theoretical questions that arise in the light of the data collected through fieldwork. I devote most of my attention to three phenomena. The first one is the adnumerative form, a morphosyntactic form that only appears when a noun is headed by specific numerals. I start by describing numerals and numeral phrases in West Polesian, and I narrow the focus to the interactions with nouns. The morphosyntactic ...

Целью статьи является междисциплинарное рассмотрение украинского «частувати» в более широком контексте. Отталкиваясь от сопоставления украинского «частувати» 'угощать', и румынского «a cinsti» 'угощать (вином); пить вино', рассматривается группа славянских заимствований с не-этимологическим /н/ в румынском языке. Румынское «a cinsti» свидетельствует о позднепраславянском времени возникновения семантической связи между «честь» и «угощение». Можно полагать, что украинское «частувати» и польское «częstowac» возникают в целом самостоятельно друг от друга, равно как и от румынского «a cinsti». Ключевые слова: славяно-румынские взаимодействия, лексические заимствования, украинские диалекты, этническая история, лингвистика, археология, междисциплинарные исследования, формирование румынского языка и этноса.