« PoprzedniaDalej »
ROUGH NOTES ON SOME
NEGLECTED LANGUAGES, AND WHAT
By LEONARD C. WHARTON.
[Circulated at the Meeting of the Philological Society on April 12, 1913.] In the following notes I have not aimed at any very formidable completeness, not even mentioning Russian, though that has had some excellent work done on it in the period. For simplicity's sake I may add that, though I have arranged the languages alphabetically, I have no desire to make pretensions to bibliographical exactness in this list.
A grammar has been published by an Albanian student of the University of Vienna in recent years which is of great value; its author's name is Pekmezi.
The most considerable etymological dictionary is that compiled by Professor Gustav Meyer, of Gratz, in the Sammlung Indogermanischer Wörterbücher. This still holds the field. BOHEMIAN.
As far as a general dictionary is concerned, there is very little sign of activity, except the increase of materials for a new edition of Jungman's Dictionary, such as the wonderful collection of proverbs published by Professor Wenceslaus Flajshans under the joint auspices of the Bohemian Francis Joseph Academy and of the firm of F. Simacek.
Two very important books on phonetics have been published recently in the proceedings of the same Academy. One, by A. Frinta, the larger work, is Modern Bohemian Pronunciation, an attempt at a systematic phonetic study of the Bohemian language, and gives a fair amount of material for comparison with Polish and Russian. It appeared in 1909. The other book was issued in 1911, and is an attempt at measuring Bohemian sounds and
syllables, by Joseph Chlumsky. It is on the basis of phonographic experiments.
Professor Gebauer's death has interrupted the appearance of the latter part of his great historical grammar.
For this language there is a great two-volume dictionary, with explanations in Russian, by A. L. Dyuvernua (Duvernois), published in 1889.
There are still, however, many words in general use which are wanting here, either owing to the rapid progress of Bulgaria or to the persistence of many words of Turkish or other non-Aryan or of other Aryan languages, for which it is mainly necessary to consult the authorities on Turkish.
CROATIAN (see Servian).
FINNISH AND FINNO-UGRIAN LANGUAGES.
The wider group is in want of a new up-to-date general etymological dictionary, but it is too early yet to speak of any substantial plans, as there is not even agreement as to how it should be arranged. A specimen of a part arranged according to a specific plan, together with a discussion of the rival claims of roots, alphabetical order, and subject order, has appeared, wherein reference was also made to the vexed question of a transcription.
Historically one can set two dictionaries arranged by roots over against each other, and can compare the field which they have in common. These are those of Joseph Budenz and Otto Donner; the former proceeds from the Hungarian, the latter from the Finnish side, and the result is that those articles which Donner wrote after seeing Budenz's views are of special interest.
But this is already ancient history, and the Finnish Literary Society and the Hungarian Academy have been splendidly diligent in the publication of dictionaries and of studies of single languages and dialects in this sphere.
The Academy published the sixth and last volume of the dictionary of Polish dialects (begun by the late Professor Jan Karlowicz) in 1911 under the editorship of Professor Jan Los. The first volume came out in 1900.
The Dictionary of the Polish Language associated with Professor Karlowicz, and begun even earlier, is now at last giving
signs of life, and may be expected to make greater progress and be finished shortly after our Society's Dictionary.
Naturally, the present situation in the Near East is as unfavourable to this as it is to the prospects of similar dictionaries in this part of the world.
The interests of dialect study are being at present energetically served by Professor K. Nitsch, who has devoted himself to the Silesian dialects of Polish.
A great service to the general study of the language has been rendered by the above-named Professor Los, who has composed a survey of the literary material in Polish.
B. Petriceicu Hasdeu reached the letter B and the word "Barbat" in the third volume of his too largely planned Etymologicum Magnum Romaniæ. A historical study formed the introduction to the fourth volume. No more has appeared, and after his death and a long delay the Roumanian Academy appointed Dr. Sextil Puscariu its editor. He is working on a much more modest scale on a plan of concurrent publication and division of labour closely resembling that of the New English Dictionary.
It may be noted that Dr. Puscariu had already done a small etymological dictionary of one of the chief sources of the Roumanian language and a study of one of its most obscure dialects.
The great Croato-Servian dictionary published by the South Slavonian Academy at Agram was begun by Guro Danicic in 1880 and is still in course of publication. The sixth volume appeared recently. Presumably when this is completed a student of Servian will only need this and a reprint of the Servian dictionary (in Cyrillic" type) of Karadzic to be completely equipped, apart from grammar. Some day, perhaps, a complete re-handling of the whole from the Eastern Servian standpoint will be needed.
FURTHER ROUGH NOTES ON NEGLECTED
A SEQUEL TO THE PAPER IN APRIL, 1913.
By LEONARD C. WHARTON.
[Circulated at a Meeting of the Philological Society in September, 1913.] WHAT I said about the modest pretensions of the paper written by me for the April meeting applies here. In some cases I have added to the information contained there, and a reference to it is implied.
See below, Romance Languages.
Dialects.-Much work has been done on this subject, and I can only put in rough geographical order what I have noted in this
L. J. Dušek has studied the verbs in the Bohemian (Slavonic) dialects generally, especially in the Sitzungsberichte of the Philosophical Class of the Bohemian Royal Society for 1890-1. Then the late Professor V. E. Mourek did a useful study of the fourteenth century German dialect of Prague, in the same Sitzungsberichte, 1901. The Upper Ostrau dialect in Silesia has been studied (1899) by J. Loris, who aims at correcting the chauvinism of Bohemians and Poles alike in this connexion. He compares the Slovak and Polish dialects there, on the latter of which Professor Nitsch is now the authority. The Hanák dialect was dealt with by A. Lisický in 1897, but I have not seen the paper. The southern dialects have been specially dealt with by L. J. Dušek. Some Moravian dialects have been dealt with respectively by A. Kašík and I. Hošek.
This language, whose nature and the meaning of inscriptions. and records in it have been such a long-standing puzzle, is again winning special attention and study. Priority for many reasons belongs to Professor Jules Martha, of Paris, who has devoted
Phil. Trans. 1911.
a whole book to the problem, in which he gives the text and a quite probable translation of a large number of monuments of the language. From the accompanying grammatical comments it is clear that M. Martha has a very strong claim to have solved the problem-provisionally at least-and to have introduced a new member to the Finno-Ugrian group of languages. On the other hand, Mr. Lattes is engaged on a further effort to prove its Latin affinities on the basis of analogies in Oscan and Umbrian soundchanges.
K. Grotenfelt has published a very important collection of historical documents, which are useful materials for the language.
ROMANCE PHILOLOGY IN EASTERN EUROPE.
F. G. Mohl has studied the Low Latin dialects and their products in Albanian and Roumanian. The annual report of the Roumanian Institute at Leipzig is very valuable in this connexion.
The most comprehensive study of this Aryan language is by F. Miklosich in twelve parts and four Beiträge in the Denkschriften of the Vienna Academy, Philosophic-Historical Class, viz., on the Slavonic elements introduced, vol. xxi; grammars and vocabularies, vols. xxii-iii; specimens and tales, vols. xxiii, xxv; glossary (Bucovina), vol. xxv; on Galician, Sermian, and Servian dialects and wordZigeuner' in vol. xxvi; a comparison of dialects and index in vols. xxvi-vii; systematic Lautlehre and Stammbildungslehre and word formation in vols. xxx-i, where also bibliographies, contents of Abhandlungen and Beiträge, and syntax.
There are a large number of things to be reported here, but I wish first to mention a contribution on Russian phonetics by the late Professor Henry Sweet in the first volume of our Transactions, which may be regarded as a starting-point. The most important question in the study of Russian for speaking and understanding speech is the accent, and so I put it first. Josef Kolář has published several useful studies on this in Bohemian from 1900 to 1903. Then Professors Boyer and Mazon have done good work in more recent years in Paris; V. Th. Chernuishev has published two useful short works on the Russian accent and its relation to pronunciation (1908, 1912), in accordance with the views of the