- So, for example, in W. Kuraszkiewicz, Gramoty halicko-wołyńskie XIV-XV wieku (Prace Polskiego Towarzystwa dla badań Europy Wschodniej i Bliskiego Wschodu), Kraków 1934, 130–131.
- For the sake of brevity I use the terms “Ukrainian” and “Polish” dialects, even for the earliest period, instead of speaking of the dialects from which Ukrainian (or Polish) developed, or of the dialects which later fused into Ukrainian (or Polish).
- T. Lehr-Spławiński, Ję;zyk polski; pochodzenie, powstanie, rozwój, Poznań 1947, 65. The question has received special treatment in J. Tarnacki's Studia porównawcze nad geografią wyrazów (Polesie-Mazowsze), Warszawa 1939, but the author has refrained from any generalizations or historical interpretation (cf. particularly p. 2).
- A. Seliščev, Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie 1. Zapadno-slavjanskie jazyki, Moscow 1941, 272.
- I. Linničenko, Vzaimnye otnošenija Rusi i Polʾši do poloviny XIV st. 1, Rusʾ i Polʾša do konca XII v., Kiev 1884, 40.
- Linničenko, 41, 198, 208. Cf. the archeological data in B. Rybakov, Remeslo drevnej Rusi, Moscow 1948, 470, 478.
- H. Paszkiewicz, Polityka ruska Kazimierza Wielkiego, Warszawa 1925, 258.
- J. Janów's attempt (Uwagi o gwarach huculskich, éladach ich stosunków z polszczyzną oraz o pierwolnej ludności Ziemi Czerwieńskiej, Sprawozdania Towarzystwa Naukowego we Lwowie 8, 59) to prove the originally Polish character of this population by an analysis of “Polish” features in the Hucul dialect is quite unconvincing.
- ŽM N P 1899 (4), 343; Očerk drevnejšego perioda istorii russkogo jazyka, Petrograd 1915, XLIV; I. Zilynsʾkyj, “Maloruskie (ukraiñskie) dialekty na mapie Moskiewskiej komisji”, Rocznik slawistyczny 9, Kraków 1930, 237.
- I have broached this question in my article “Poʾska mova v Ukrajini v XVI-XVII st.”, Ukrajina 2, 1949, 102 ff.
- Basically the same material may be found in his Kratka zgodovina slovenskega jezika 1, Ljubljana 1936, 176 ff.
- A. Brückner, Z dziejów języka polskiego, PAU 8, Kraków 1916, 121. 13 Type nǫditi—nuditi, Polish nuda—nędza, Bulgarian nudja, Slovene nuja—noja; cf. N. van Wijk, Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache, Berlin-Leipzig 1931, 142; A. Vaillant, Grammaire comparée des langues slaves 1, Lyon 1950, 45; cf. Brückner's objections in “A- und U- Doubletten im Slavischen”, ZSPh 8, 1931, 437.
- Cf. particularly the position held by Z. Stieber; see T. Milewski, “Nowe prace o pochodzeniu polskiego języka literackiego”, Pamiętnik literacki 43, 1952, 331.
- For example, E. Klich, “Pożyczki ruskie w języku polskim”, Slavia Occidentalis 8, 1929, 507, reckoned that, according to Brückner's etymological dictionary, Polish borrowed one (!) word from the East Slavic languages before the fifteenth century, ten in the fifteenth century, and sixty in the sixteenth. But even Klich, who criticizes Brückner for under-estimating East Slavic influences, assumes that lexical borrowings from the East Slavic languages begin, properly speaking, in the sixteenth century.
- K. Moszyński, Kultura ludowa Słowian 2, Kraków 1939, 1326–1329.
- A. Famincyn, Gusli, russkij narodnyj instrument, SPB 1890, 13.
- Famincyn, 65 ff.; Moszyński, 1325.
- N. Findejzen, Očerki po istorii muzyki v Rossii 1, Moscow-Leningrad 1928, 121 ff., 234.
- For the fourteenth century a form húsli is quoted by Gebauer (Slovnik staroˇeský 1, 520).
- A special type—cf. the description in Moszyński, 1318.
- The former view is supported by the constant epithet of the gusli in the Russian byliny—jarovčaty < javorčaty—which indicates that the gusli came from regions where the sycamore grows. This has been pointed out by Famincyn, 18. (Cf. also Findejzen 71; the epithet javorove is used for the gusli in Serbian popular songs as well, although the wood of the sycamore is rarely used in making it—cf. M. Murko, Tragom srpskohrvatske narodne epike, Zagreb 1951, 324.) If we agree with Findejzen that the gusli was borrowed from Byzantium, then it follows that it must have first spread in the Ukraine. But this is a question for the music-historians to decide.
- The transition is attested by the Leksis of Lavrentij Zizanij (1596), which defines gusli as arfa, ljutnja, skrypyca, thus giving both the old meaning of a plucked instrument and the new meaning of a bowed one (cf. L. Zyzanij, Leksys, perevydav Ja. Rudnycʾkyj, 1946, 9).
- Moszyński (1325) points out that the gusli has a religious function among the Mari to the present day. We may also recall the relation of gusli-playing to witchcraft in connection with the word bojan, particularly as used in the Igorʾ Tale. Cf. K. H. Menges, The Oriental Elements in the Vocabulary of the Oldest Russian Epos The Igorʾ Tale, Supplement to Word 7, New York 1951, 16–18, and R. Jakobson, “L'Authenticité du Slovo”, Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et Slaves 8, New York 1948, 340–341.
- A special question is raised by the nomen auctoris gusljar, found in Polish also with the meaning ‘magician’, in Ukrainian and Russian with the meaning ‘gusli-player’. The difficulty lies in the fact that the word is not found in the old East Slavic texts, which have, instead, gudъcъ. And this would seem to be no accident since, in general, the suffix-ar(ъ) with (non-obligatory) palatalization of the preceding consonant apparently developed late and is really characteristic of only one group of Slavic languages—Polish, Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Slovak. In Russian it is found only in words of western origin that have come in through Ukrainian or Polish (stoljar, maljar, školjar, figljar, jubiljar). In Slovak it is not uncommon (husiar, uhliar, maliar), but much less common than in Polish and Ukrainian (cf. Slovak kominár, s klár, lichvár, zvonár, stolár, murár, kamenár; Polish kominiarz, sklarz, lichwiarz, dzwoniarz, stolarz, mularz, kamieniarz…; Ukrainian komynjar, skljar, lyxvjar, stoljar, muljar, kamenjar…). Should we not assume that Russian gusljar is a Ukrainianism or (less likely) a Polonism—as well as the only other word of not obviously foreign origin that has this suffix—dial, degtjar? The strangeness of the latter, the only non-loan word in Russian with such a suffix, as is shown by the card-file of Russian suffixes kindly put at my disposal by Mr. Clay Dawson, is evidenced by its having been replaced in the literary language by the word degtjarnik. Abundant material on the spread of the suffix 'ar in Polish is given by M. Karaś in connection with the history of the word roszarnia (J¸zyk polski 32.4, 1952, 166 ff.)
- Thus arises the question of the origin of Polish guślarz: is it an independent formation on the basis of gusła, guślić, or a later, second borrowing from Ukrainian? Here, certainly, the correct view is the first one. We cannot admit that the semantic change 'gusli-player' ‘magician’ took place later and independently, especially since gusli-playing was no longer so popular and—what is most important—the direction of cultural and linguistic influences was now from west to east. We must therefore conclude that the formally similar Ukr. husljar and Pol. guślarz (gęślarz) were constructed independently in the two languages. There is nothing improbable here: given identical roots and identical suffixes, identical derivatives may arise independently in quite normal fashion. The numerous variants given by Linde (2, 152)—guślarz, gusłharz, gusman, guzman—may even reflect vacillation in the name for a magician, but it is more likely that gusman, guzman did not completely coincide in meaning with guślarz (their meaning was rather ‘jester’) and had another origin (cf. Brückner, Søl. Etym. 164). It is curious that in Serbo-Croatian also, according to Murko 59, the word guslar has a competitor in the word guslač; the latter is common in the popular language, while the former has a more bookish character and is introduced from the literary language, where it has made its way since the nineteenth century.
- Povestʾ vremennyx let, podgotovka teksta D. Lixačeva pod red. V. Adrianovoj-Perete, Moscow-Leningrad 1950, 114.
- Among the Serbs and Croatians, where the gusli has a completely different form and character, gusli-playing is quite without ritual-magic significance. Yet in a few details it is still possible to see relics of an older function of the instrument. Such is the gusli-playing at the so-called moba—assistance given to neighbors in agricultural work, often on holidays; or gusli-playing on the occasion of the death of some member of the family (Murko 358, 359). The marking of the gusli with the sign of the cross (Murko 334) and the seating of the player beneath the icons (Murko 368) may reflect a Christianization of older religious-magical functions of gusli-playing and gusli-players. It is curious that in speaking of an extremely poor and wretched hut the expression “gusle su prodali” is used in Serbo-Croatian; the expression need not refer merely to material conditions.
- Bulgarian grub, grubja clearly has another origin. We cannot agree with Sławski, 260, that this is the same word.
- The Bulgarian dialectal forms in u, which Slawski, 277, takes uncritically from Načov's article, 490, have a different meaning and origin. In general, Načov's material must be used with great caution.
- Examples of secondary nasalization are między, tęskny, mięszać, mięszkać, drążyć, sędziwy, szczęka, paszczęka, rzemięślnik, pętlica, krępować, pielęgnować, nadwerężyć. Separate consideration must be given to wnęk, where we find, not simply nasalization of a vowel already present, but substitution of ę for u. The substitution of pieczęć for pieczać is also typical. It is not hard to find for almost all these words a root of related meaning with a nasal vowel, which may have played an influencing role—cf. tęskny-tęż(eć), mięszać—mięk-?, drążyé-drąg, sędziwy-sędz (ia), szczęka-szczęl, pętlica-pęt(o). The semantic connections are sometimes quite clear (pętlica-pęto), sometimes remote, but contaminations are of course always possible, even between words that are fairly distant semantically. H. Ułaszyn (“O pewnej kategorji wtórnej nazalizacji w języku polskim”, Symb. Gram. Bozw. 2, 399) has collected some hundred examples of secondary nasalization. For sixty-five he finds purely phonetic explanations, and for thirty-five an influence of phonetically similar roots.
- Sławski attempted to show that out of the fifty-six cases of doublets admitted by him, thirty-four are based on an original u and the ǫ is secondary (passim, especially 286 ff.), but his attempt was mostly unsuccessful; the material that he collected admits of the opposite interpretation, and in general Lehr-Spławiński's statement (op. cit., 381) still holds “dass im Grossen und Ganzen die ursprünglich nasalierten Basen starkes Uebergewicht über die nichtnasalierten haben.”
- Cf. J. Łoś, Krótka gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego, Lwów 1927, 62.
- J. Rozwadowski, “Historyczna fonetyka czyli glosownia języka polskiego” Język polski i jego historja 1 (Encykl. Polska 2), Kraków 1915, 405. It is not impossible that in serce an independent phonetic development has taken place—the hardening of the dental s before a syllable with the hard dental c; but parallels in other words would be necessary to confirm such an hypothesis.
- I. Panʾkevyč, Ukrajinsʾki hovory Pidkarpatsʾkoji Rusy i sumeˇznyx oblastej, Prague 1938, 157 (also čerlenyj); O. Brok, “Ugrorusskoe nareče sela Ubli”, Issl, po russk. jaz. 2:1, SPB 1900, 43.
- Nosovič, Slovaʾ belorusskogo narečija, 697, 699.
- D. Šeludʾko, “Nimecʾki elementy v ukrajinsʾkij movi”, Zbirnyk Komisiji dlja dosli- džennja istoriji ukrajinsʾkoji movy 1, Kiev 1931, 41.
- Cf., for example, K. Nitsch, TCLP 4, 1931, 303; I. Zilynsʾkyj, “Vzajemovidnosyny miži ukrajinsʾkoju ta polʾsʾkoju movoju”, ZNTŠ 155, 205; Milewski 329. In my opinion, S. Urbańczyk (“Z zagadnień staropolskich”, Język polski 32, 1952, 102 ff.) makes a weak defense of this thesis when he tries to prove a conscious imitation of Ukrainian pronunciation, analogous to Polish imitation of Czech. In the period when å was eliminated the Ukrainian language was no longer in a position of prestige, and the essence of the change consisted in a completely unconscious simplification of the Polish system of vowel alternation under the influence of linguistic habits introduced into Polish by the szlachta of Ukrainian origin.
- O. Kurylo, “Sproba pojasnyty proces zminy o, e v novyx zakrytyx skladax u pivdennij hrupi ukrajinsʾkyx dijalektiv” (Zb. IFV VU AN 80), Kiev 1928, especially 55–68.
- Kuraszkiewicz, Gramoty 78.
- K. Nitsch, “Dialekty języka polskiego”, Język polski i jego historja 2, Kraków 1915, 257.
- I leave aside the nasal vowels, not only because they have been to a large degree eliminated in the Little Polish dialects, but also because even where they have been retained they represent only a supplement to the system, and not an essential alteration.
- Nitsch, Dialekty passim, especially 325.
- O. Kurylo, “Pro nezaležnu vid naholosu zminu a po mʾjakix konsonantax ta po i v ukrajinsʾkix dijalektax”, Ukrajinsʾkyj dijalektolohicnyj zbirnyk 2, Kiev 1929.
- Cf. the observations of K. Dejna, who apparently did not know Kurylo's study, on the dialects of the Ternopol region, confirming the explanation here offered (Język polski 28, 1948, 77).
- K. Nitsch, “Z historji narzecza małopolskiego”, Symbolae Grammaticae in honorem I. Bozwadowski 2, Kraków 1928, 456.
- Ibid., 465.
- W. Kuraszkiewicz, Oboczność -‘ev- / -’ov- w dawnej polszczyźnie i w dzisiejszych gwarach (Prace Wrocławskiego Tow. Naukowego), Wrocław 1951, 25, passim.
- Kuraszkiewicz, Oboczność 13.
- V. Demʾjančuk, “Morfolohija ukrajinsʾkyx hramot XIV-ho i peršoji polovyny XV-ho viku”, Zap. IFV VU AN 16, Kiev 1928, 81.
- And in explaining the exceptions with e in the Polish literary language—królewicz, królewna (cf. królowa, królować)—one should weigh the possibility of Ukrainian influence. It is interesting that Russian koroleva, instead of the expected korolëva, is apparently a Ukrainianism, although, of course, from a later period.
- Kuraszkiewicz, Gramoty 95.
- Cf. W. Taszycki, Dawność tzw. mazurzeniaw języku polskim, Warszawa 1948; K. Nitsch, “Granice mazurzenia w świetle Polski plemiennej”, Biuletyn Polskiego Tow. Językoznawczego 10, Kraków 1950.
- Mileski 321.
- As one of the harbingers of such an investigation we may name the article by K. Nitsch, “Póki i nim” in his book Studia z historii polskiego slownictwa (RWF PAU 67:6, Kraków 1948). Nitsch makes no special attempt to demonstrate Ukrainian-Polish interaction, but his very data lead him to set up important old common features. Thus he accepts the connection of the conjunction póki with Red Rusɔ. Strangely enough, he was unaware of Ukrainian conjunctions of the type pokilɔ—otherwise, in treating this “typically Little Polish conjunction” (p. 54), he would have been able to establish connections with Ukrainian territories!
WORD
Volume 8, 1952 - Issue 4: Slavic Word No. 1