Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Authors
  • Keywords
  • Date
  • Type

Search results

Number of results: 4
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The origin of Proto-Slavic palatal(ized) consonants has interested many linguists. Some of them have tried to connect palatality and velarity of Slavic consonants with the influence of Turkic consonant palatalization or velarization dependent on vowel harmony. This paper is a first study allowing for Turkological point of view and striving to show that there still are many doubts about the Proto- -Turkic influence on Proto-Slavic.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Marek Stachowski
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Jagiellonian University, Institute of Slavonic Studies, Kraków, Poland
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Slavic‑Turkish linguistic relations are generally only discussed unilaterally, focusing on the Turkish influence on Slavic and neglecting the opposite direction. Thus far, no more than two relatively extensive essays (the larger one counting 44 pages) have been devoted to Slavic loanwords in Turkish. The present paper aims to outline the state of research on this topic. It begins with a comparison of the two essays, then it examines several of somewhat atypical words, as well as a handful of suffixes, and it closes with a very brief presentation of the Slavic influence on case government of Gagauz verbs.
Go to article

Bibliography

Dybo A. V., 2000, Turkic Languages and Slavic, „Encyclopedia of Slavic Languages and Linguistics Online”, ed. Marc L. Greenberg, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-6229_ESLO_COM_032504, (dostęp 10.08.2020).
Foy K., 1898, Der Purismus bei den Osmanen, „Mittheilungen des Seminars für orientalische Sprachen an der königlichen Friedrich Wilhelms‑Universität zu Berlin. 2. Abt.”, vol. 1, S. 20–55.
Gülsevin G., 2009, Rumeli Türkçesi çerçevesinde Türk ve Balkan dillerinin etkileşimi, „Turkish Studies”, vol. 4, s. 48–64.
Gülsevin G., 2017, XVII. yüzyıl Batı Rumeli Türkçesi ağızları, Ankara.
Hazai G., 1961, Remarques sur les rapports des langues slaves des Balkans avec le turc‑osmanli, „Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae”, vol. 7, pp. 97–138.
KEWT = Stachowski M., 2019a.
Kowalski T., 1933, Les Turcs et la langue turque de la Bulgarie du Nord‑Est, Kraków.
Meninski F. à Mesgnien, 1680, Thesaurus Linguarum Orientalium, Viennae.
Miklosich F., 1889, Die slavischen, magyarischen und rumunischen Elemente im türkischen Sprachschatze, Wien.
Rocchi L., 2014, I repertori lessicali turco‑ottomani di Giovan Battista Montalbano (1630 ca.), Trieste.
Rusek J., 1997, O nazwach kapusty (Brassica oleracea) w językach słowiańskich, „Rocznik Slawistyczny”, t. 50, s. 53–61.
Sawicka I., (w druku), Rozważania o tureckich sufiksach w języku macedońskim.
Stachowski K., 2008, Names of cereals in the Turkic languages, Kraków.
Stachowski K., 2009, The discussion on consonant harmony in Northwestern Karaim, „Türkbilig”, vol. 18, pp. 158–193.
Stachowski M., 2016, Case shifts and case syncretism in Gagauz in the context of Bulgarian patterns, „Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları”, vol. 26/2, pp. 265–275.
Stachowski M., 2019a, Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch der türkischen Sprache, Kraków.
Stachowski M., 2019b, Slavic languages in contact, 2: Are there Ottoman Turkish loanwords in the Balkan Slavic languages?, „Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis”, vol. 136, pp. 99–105.
Tietze A., 1957, Slavische Lehnwörter in der türkischen Volkssprache, „Oriens”, vol. 10, S. 1–47.
Tietze A., 1999, Wörterbuch der griechischen, slavischen, arabischen und persischen Lehnwörter im Anatolischen Türkisch, İstanbul.
Yüksel Z., 1989, Polatlı Kırım Türkçesi ağzı, Ankara.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Marek Stachowski
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Kraków
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Nowadays Hebrew is the main official language spoken in Israel (beside Arabic and English) and lingua franca of Jews living in the diaspora. It has undergone some significant changes and has been exposed to influences from other languages throughout all the stages of its development – since the Biblical times, through the Babylonian exile, the Middle Ages, the Haskala period, its revival in the 19th century, till the modern times. Despite not being used for every-day conversation for more than two thousand years, Hebrew kept developing in literature (mostly liturgical) due to its constant contact with numerous languages that were spoken by Jews: Aramaic, Arabic, Ladino, Yiddish and others. Nowadays it is developing dynamically and, as some authors claim, is losing its Semitic nature – although the grammar is still based mainly on Ancient Hebrew, numerous foreign lexical, syntactical and phonological influences may easily be observed in Modern Hebrew. This paper is an attempt to explain the reason for such diversity of influences in Hebrew, with special focus on Israeli Hebrew. Some examples of foreign components in the colloquial language will be presented, mostly of Yiddish, Russian and Arabic origin.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Angelika Adamczyk
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This paper is based on examining a limited number of Arab–Berber sources whose main objective is to highlight that the Muslim West (Maghreb – al-Andalus) constituted a multilingual geographical space. First, I will look at the question of the Almoravids and the mastery of languages in a context of power. Then, I will raise the question of the linguistic skills of the sovereigns in al-Andalus. After this, I will give some details on the Berber language in the Marinid Maghreb. Finally, I will propose some brief conclusions of a provisional nature, emphasizing the interest of the study of linguistic uses and cultural contacts in the Muslim West in the Middle Ages.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Mohamed Meouak
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. University of Cádiz, Spain

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more