Boris T
Poznat
- Poruka
- 7.216
Ево критичког прегледа Палиге из 2015. године - прочитао сам га пре извесног времена - али то је само на чешком, ево и енглеског превода.
Међутим, нисам превео све, само најважнији део
prof. PhDr. Radoslav Večerka, DrSc., Dr.h.c : Filozofické fakultě MU v Brne
doc. Mgr. Martin Pukanec, Ph.D.: Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre
Paliga
In a large number of monographic texts (Paliga 1999, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, Paliga, Teodor 2009) and other articles (Paliga 2001, 2010, 2012), Sorin Paliga develops a theory in which language contact plays a crucial role for the development of languages. Conceptually, this theory is very similar to the one introduced by Martynov: the lexical level of language is solely taken into account. Like Martynov, Paliga is primarily an etymologist, examining the diversity of origins of different layers of language vocabulary. Unlike Martynov, however, he investigates language contact effects by reviewing only lexical aspects but not basic grammar terms. The author also does not comment on the principles of historical-comparative linguistics in general, nor does he explicitly present their possible implications. The mainline of Paliga's concept describes the Proto-Slavic as a kind of amalgam ("blending") of three different Indo-European linguistic units of a satemic nature.
There are several fundamental remarks we need to make with regard to the author's concept. First of all, the question is whether the origin of a language can be explained by mixing different language units on the basis of taking into account only lexical material. It is not clear how the structural planes of the emerging language developed in the presumed time of the formation of Proto-Slavic: was it an analogous development in lexical aspect, ie the mixing of different dialectical systems ? Was the contribution of the individual parts equally comparable or did some play a crucial role? In general, it should be noted that the emergence of a new language by mixing other languages probably takes place as a rule at the point of contact and by blending of only two languages ( known cases of blending two languages in classical cases such as Media Lengua or Michif). As far as we know, mixing three languages at the same time has never been considered, or there are no known examples of such a phenomenon. The author's concept would be a mixture of three significantly close languages of the same common origin, which - if interpreted pessimistically - makes it difficult to find a specific case of origin for one of the three and - if interpreted optimistically, with little to no conditions - averts the question on origin since it can be said that the grammatical and phonological systems of the three units are more or less the same anyway. A little surprisingly, we find references of phonological influences on Slavic, in the author's study of proto-Romanian effects on Proto-Slavic. Here, however, it is more of a survey of phonetic substitutions, and a question of which Slavic phonemes were adapted to the individual vowels of the source Romanian words when using a Romance lexicon - a method called "loan phonology" in today's terms which actually represents a pure lexical study..
Even if we can somehow agree that a new language can be created by mixing only lexical elements, the quantitative proportion of the individual components should be specified, at least in a pre-defined framework. As for the Iranian component, the author borrows from A. Loma's works on Iranian influence on Slavic, and these sets represent the maximum concept, assuming a few dozen words of Iranian origin in Slavic. As for the Thracian component, Paliga gives more precise numbers only for the accounted Thracian substrate influences on Romanian (specifically Paliga assumes 1420 words containing 300 basic roots). In the case of Slavic, the author explicitly declares only a few of the hundreds basic roots of Proto-Slavic to be of Thracian origin. Otherwise, the author focuses on the discovery of Thracian traces, especially in the Slavic sphere of proper names, specifically local toponyms and personal names in the territory of today's Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, but also in the Czech and Slovakia. In addition to the Thracian elements, he also considers Romanian bridge interaction, or Illyrian origin of some roots. Although there is enough lexical material in general, the informative value of the study is questionable: on one hand, etymologizing proper names is generally more problematic than searching for the origin of appellatives, and on the other hand, proper names do not form the backbone of any Language lexicon. The graphic scheme suggests that the author actually distinguishes between two types of lexical layers: higher order are those that are represented by circles (ie the three satem groups mentioned), and lower order and thus lower importance, are probably those that are expressed by arrows (ie influences Finno-Ugric, Germanic and Romance language ). However, in the author's older works we find another distinction. Paliga in 2007 uses the designation nucleus and the traditional term stratum for individual layers. In the first case, it characterizes the satem group A, ie the Balto-Slavic component, as the basic nucleus, while the groups B and C, ie the Iranian and Thracian groups, as the secondary nuclea. This would mean that the author does remain in the more traditional understanding of Proto-Slavic, mainly as a continuation of Balto-Slavic. However, there is some confusion by using the term stratum, when the author describes the Balto-Slavic component as a stratum, the North Thracian and the West Iranian as superstrata, but mentions Germanic as another superstratum and Finno-Ugric as an adstratum. Subsequently, it is categorized differently when he refers to the Baltic Slavic part as a stratum, Finno-Ugric as a substrate, Iranian and Thracian as an adstratum, and Germanic and Proto-Romanian as a superstratum. To complete everything, he finally refers to the Balto-Slavic, Iranian, and Thracian components as the "basic nucleus," while the Germanic, Iranian and Thracian again, and indirectly Romanian, are simply referred to as "influences". On the whole, it can be said that the choice of terms and linguistic arguments is completely loose, and therefore in fact this work has a very small informative value in signifying the external influences on the Proto-Slavic language.
Poslednja izmena:
