„Bajoras, rašantis lietuviškai“, arba kalbos ir tautinės tapatybės ryšys ankstyvojoje Mečislovo Davainio- Silvestraičio publicistikoje

Author(s): Olga Mastianica / Language(s): Lithuanian / Issue: 15/2013

For Lithuanian scholars Mečislovas Davainis-Silvestraitis (1849–1919) is known as a poet, a folklorist, and a book-carrier. We can often see such kind of an image constructed in popular media on occasions of commemorative events for Davainis-Silvestraitis. In historical literature, however, fragmentary biographical studies of Davainis-Silvestraitis were shaping a different image of a Lithuanian nobleman participating in the modern nation formation process. Davainis-Silvestraitis’ Polish publications in newspapers Litwa (“Lithuania”, 1908–1914) and Lud (“People”, 1912–1913) suggested that he did not consider language a primary condition of one’s national identity; besides, he concurrently discussed other elements thereof as well. But he began his publicist career in the newspaper Auszra (“Dawn”), and that was the environment in which the Lithuanian language functioned as a means of molding national identity. During the period of ban on Latin letters for Lithuanian Davainis-Silvestraitis became one of the rare examples of “a nobleman, who wrote in Lithuanian,” who composed schemes of integration of nobility into the modern Lithuanian nation, who structured strategies to return symbolism of the Lithuanian statehood to the modern city of Vilnius, and who actively discussed language connection to national identity.

Лaбиализация финно-угорского *a в марийском языке

Author(s): Pavel Želtov / Language(s): Russian / Issue: 4/2015

The article analyses the origin of the common Mari o (occurring in the Hill, North-Western, Meadow and Eastern Mari dialects), which corresponds to the Mordvin and Finnic а in common Finno-Ugric and genuine Mari words, as well as the opposition of the Hill and North-Western Mari а ~ Meadow and Eastern Mari o which manifests itself mostly in borrowings from the Bulgar-Chuvash language and partly in some borrowings from the Tatar language. It is concluded that the process of transformation of the Finnic-Volgaic *a into the common Mari o (~ Mordvin а) must be distinguished from the development of the а ~ o opposition in certain Turkic loanwords used in Mari dialects, which is a later process. Nevertheless, the ­oppo­sition of а ~ o in Mari dialects, despite being mainly manifested in Turkic loanwords, is not directly linked either with the possible opposition of а ~ o/ô/u in Bulgar dialects or with the opposition а ~ a° between Mishar and Kazan Tatar dialects. This is proved by the manifestation of the opposition а ~ o in those Chuvash loanwords occurring in Mari dialects, which could not originally have had it.

Наградени учени

Author(s): Editorial Board Bulgarica / Language(s): Bulgarian / Issue: 24/2012

Незамеченные семантические полонизмы в приказном языке Московского государства

Author(s): Liudmila Pavlovna Garbul / Language(s): Russian / Issue: 61/2016

This article examines the history of the following words found in the 17th c. Musco¬vite State diplomatic correspondence: nasaditi ‘appoint, nominate; invest with author¬ity’, nasaditisja ‘put smb. hostilely, with enmity against smth.; be up in arms (against); threaten, imperil’, nužnyj ‘poor, beggarly, squalid, miserable; meagre, scanty; bad, nasty’, oprava ‘repair(s), repairing; restoration, renewal; improvement’, pobrati ‘take away, be¬reave of; take possession of, seize’, privernuti ‘return, restore, recover’, strašlivyj ‘ter-rible, frightful, horrific’, sumnen’e ‘conscience’, teplica (-y) ‘a locality with hot springs; pl. health resort with hot springs’.The author argues that these words, in the meanings provided above, are probably semantic calques from Polish in the Russian written language of the 16th and 17th centu¬ries, which were borrowed likely through mediation of the written language of the Great Duchy of Lithuania, with the exception of nasaditi.

Новая английская конструкция типа [N [N]] в славянских языках и причины ее отсутсвия в балтийских языках

Author(s): Cynthia M. Vakareliyska / Language(s): English / Issue: 56 (2)/2011

Наряду с потоком английских лексических заимствований, хлынувшим в славян¬ские языки после 1990 г., в них появилось не свойственное славянским языкам явле¬ние — атрибутивные словосочетания, в которых определяемому имени существи¬тельному предшествует определяющее имя существительное, подобное английской конструкции типа [N [N]], ср. jazz singer и action figure. В этой конструкции, заим¬ствованной независимо друг от друга всеми славянскими языками, определяемое имя представляет собой субстантив — заимствование, вошедшее в язык ранее и, как правило, не через английский язык, а определяющим существительным являет¬ся английский субстантив в нетрансформированной английской морфологической форме, без суффикса, переводящего субстантив в прилагательное, и без окончания, напр.: болг. джаз певец или екшън фигура. Такие определительные конструкции довольно частотны и продуктивны, несмотря на то, что отсутствие прилагательного и флексии в определительной конструкции со вторым определяемым словом пред¬ставляет собой значительное нарушение основных славянских морфологических и морфосинтаксических правил. В статье предлагаются объяснения (с учетом исто-рической перспективы) того факта, что болгарский (и, вероятно, македонский) язык опережает другие славянские языки по частотности и продуктивности рассматрива¬емой конструкции, а также когнитивные основания, по которым славянские языки эту конструкцию допускают, несмотря на трудности усвоения. Обращается внима¬ние на отличие в этом отношении родственных современных балтийских языков.

Перевод библейских, а также коранических названий священных книг в письменных памятниках татар Великого княжества Литовского и польских переводах Библии и Корана

Author(s): Joanna Kulwicka-Kaminska / Language(s): Russian / Issue: 2/2011

The purpose of this analysis is to present the manner of translating the titles of holy books from Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic by Polish and Lithuanian Tartars and by Polish translators of the Bible and the Quran. It also attempts to define the scope and the nature of relations between the translations of the Bible and the Quran and to present the picture of the books in question on the basis of selected source texts. The source texts vary in terms of form and origin and the vocabulary was excerpted from such materials as historical writings of the Polish and Lithuanian Tartars (the texts were written in Arabic and required transcription and transliteration) as well as translations of the Quran into Polish. The words were also selected from the translations of the Bible (16th-century, 17th-century, and contemporary versions).

Политическая/национальная/конфессиональная/ языковая карта Восточной Европы: история и современность

Author(s): N. N. Zapolskaja,Arina Mihaylenko / Language(s): Russian / Issue: 57 (2)/2012

5–9 ноября 2012 года в Вильнюсе и в Супрасле прошел международный научно-образовательный семинар Политическая/национальная/конфессиональная/языковая карта Восточной Европы: история и современность. Проведение семинара стало возможным в результате совместной работы славистов Института славяноведения РАН, Вильнюсского университета, Супрасльской aкадемии, фонда “Российско-польский центр диалога и согласия” и научно-издательского центра “Индрик”; поддержку семинару оказало Посольство Российской Федерации в Литовской республике.

Роль словарей предметных рубрик в систематизации и развитии современной терминографии

Author(s): Vyacheslav Shcherbin / Language(s): Russian / Issue: 23/2016

The practice of development and use of auxiliary indices (dictionaries of subject entries, alphabetic, subject and systemic indices, etc.) are considered in the article. The rationale of using such a term as словарь предметных рубрик (dictionaries of subject entries) for naming existing practical classifications of terminological dictionaries is substantiated. The history of formation and development of such type of reference books as auxiliary indices is traced. The opportunities of their use for systematization of terminological funds of national languages are defined. The comparative analysis of dictionaries of subject entries, compiled by terminographers of Belarus, Lithuania and Ukraine, is presented. A combined register of subject entries used by Belarusian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian terminographers in bibliographical indices of terminological dictionaries has been formed. Congruent priorities of Belarus, Lithuania and Ukraine in the field of terminography are pinpointed.

Сводный каталог кириллических рукописных книг, хранящихся в Литве: Предварительные материалы

Author(s): Nadezhda Morozova / Language(s): Russian / Issue: 61/2016

The catalogue was prepared in 2008–2011, within the framework of the research project Lithuanica: Literary Heritage of the Ethnoconfessional Minorities of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Part II, funded by the Research Council of Lithuania (contract LIT–1–39). The paper provides brief information about all the Cyrillic manuscripts preserved in the libraries and museums of Lithuania. The catalogue is built on the database principle and includes the following fields: 1) title of the manuscript; 2) keeping place; 3) signature; 4) dating; 5) size; 6) storage; 7) provenance. The database contains information about 426 Cyrillic manuscripts: 419 of the manuscripts are kept in Vilnius, 6 books are found in the Biržai Region Museum Sėla and 1 — in the Rokiškis Region Museum. The collected data about the Cyrillic manuscripts preserved in the libraries and museums of Lithuania suggest that Lithuania has the biggest collection of these artifacts among the Baltic States.

Славянизмы в литовских диалектных словарях

Author(s): Vilija Sakalauskiene / Language(s): Russian / Issue: 39/2015

"This arcticle discusses dialect dictionaries where words are recorded either from living language or from other, written sources of dialect. Up to now, ten Lithuanian dialect dictioniaries have been published and five are being compiled. Dialect changes along with our everyday life. A lot of words from the old dialect are being forgotten. Those words are no longer being used in the common language as well as in other dialects. In addition, some words gain new meanings. The same processes apply to loanwords which are used in dialects and are included in dialect dictionaries. Thee lexical system of a dialect dictionary shows the functioning of loanwords and their relationship with the words of the common language. The majority of Lithuanian loanwords are Slavisms, used in those dialects which have had a direct contact with Slavic languages, such as Polish, Belarusian or Russian. Slavisms and loanwords from other languages are marked variously in different dictionaries. In one of them, shortened language names are written in parentheses after the entry, which indicates that it is a word of foreign origin. Other dictionaries simply indicate Slavisms or additionally present the foreign equivalent from which they originate.

Укишкасис календорюс 1902 метамс ir Пасака апе жувиника ир жувеле: rengėjo problema

Author(s): Aurelija Tamošiunaite / Language(s): Lithuanian / Issue: 13/2011

The article deals with the linguistic and orthographic issues of two 1902 Lithuanian texts in Cyrillic (Укишкасис календорюс 1902 метамс [‘Farmers’ Calendar for 1902’; Ук] and Aleksandr Pushkin’s Пасака апе жувиника ир жувеле [‘Tale of a Fisherman and a Little Fish’; ПаЖЖ ]). Various bibliographical sources refer to Juozas Grabauskas as the author of these two publications. However, contradicting accounts, especially regarding the authorship of Пажж, suggest that there might have been two different authors involved. This hypothesis was tested in the article. Orthographical analysis revealed that the texts were prepared using different models of Lithuanian Cyrillic. This implies that there were two separate individuals who transcribed (prepared) these texts in Lithuanian Cyrillic. Both authors modified the Russian Cyrillic alphabet; the modifications, however, were different: the author of Ук introduced the graphemes <é> for [·] and for [j], while the author of Пажж used graphemes <ў> and <>, and marked the sound [j] with the grapheme . The language of both texts was strongly influenced by the norms of the developing Standard Lithuanian, more specifically by the norms of Литовская грамматика (‘Lithuanian Grammar’; Лг), which was published in Russian in 1891 and was widely used in most of the Suvalkai province schools of the time.