“Proto-Slavic borrowings”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

Numerous lexemes that are reconstructible for the Proto-Slavic language have been identified as borrowings from the languages of various tribes that Proto-Slavic speakers came into contact with, either in prehistorical times or during their expansion when they first appeared in history in the 6th century (the Common Slavic period).^[1] Most of the loanwords come from Germanic languages, with other contributors being Iranian, Celtic, and Turkic. The topic of such loanwords in Slavic has sparked numerous sharp debates in the 20th century, some of which persist to this day.

Slavic and Iranian

According to Matasović (2008), "solving the problem of Iranian loanwords in Slavic, their distribution and relative chronology, is one of the most important tasks of modern Slavic studies".^[2] Slavs in the era of the Proto-Slavic language came into contact with various Iranian tribes, namely Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans, which were present in vast regions of eastern and southeastern Europe in the first centuries CE. The names of two large rivers in the centre of Slavic expansion, Dnieper and Dniester, are of Iranian origin, and Iranian toponyms are found as far west as modern day Romania.^[3]

For a long time there have been investigators who believe that the number of loanwords from Iranian languages in Proto-Slavic is substantial. For example, Gołąb (1992) maintains that all Slavic words with unexplained initial *x- are in fact Iranianisms. However, there have been other Slavists who have claimed that confirmed Iranianisms in Slavic are in fact surprisingly few, and Matasović has raised broad objections to the body of past Iranianist research. Meillet and Vaillant^[4] cite the Slavic word *taparu, axe (Russ. topór, Pol. topór, Sr-Cr. tȍpor),^[1] which came from Iranian *tapara- (cf. Persian tabar). (Gołąb, noting the etymological connection with Slavic *tepǫ, I hit, holds that this word is in fact a loan from Slavic into Iranian.) Meillet and Vaillant explain the alleged lack of Iranianisms in Slavic with the argument: "the civilization of warrior and partially nomadic tribes, like Scythian and Sarmatian, could have exerted only a cursory influence on the patriarchal civilization of Slavs."^[4]

Matasović criticizes Gołąb's approach as "methodologically unacceptable",^[3] emphasizing that initial *x- in Slavic has several sources, some of which have been ascertained (like PIE *#ks-),^[5] and others which have not.^[6] Matasović recommends that instances of initial *x- in Slavic should first be explained by recourse to regular Slavic sound laws, and that Iranian should be proposed as a source if and only if the etymon has been attested in Iranian and if and only if there is additional phonetic evidence to support the proposal.

Gołąb and Matasović concur that Reczek (1985) and Bernštejn (1961–74) compiled excessively large numbers of alleged Iranianisms by neglecting to thoroughly check the candidates against accepted sound changes in the various major descendants of Proto-Indo-European.

There are Iranianisms which have not been attested in every one of the three first order subdivisions of the Slavic languages (East, West, South); hence the evidence is lacking that these borrowings date back to Common Slavic. Examples:

Meillet and Vaillant considered that the semasiological development of the Proto-Slavic word for god was an Iranianism. In both Slavic and Indo-Iranian, the root that denotes deity also denotes wealth, share (Proto-Slavic *bagu > Common Slavic *bogъ) and Indo-Iranian (Old Persian baga, Sanskrit bhága).^[7] However, they did not argue that the Proto-Slavic root itself was a borrowing, despite its similarity to the Old Persian and Sanskrit roots.

One of the Iranian-Slavic lexical isoglosses is a lone adposition: Old Persian rādiy, OCS radi.^[3]

Matasović notes typological coincidences between Slavic and Ossetian, an Iranian language whose ancestor was Alanic. In both modern Ossetian and the Slavic group, verbs are conjugated for perfective and imperfective aspects; prefixation is a prominent means of deriving perfective verbs from imperfective verbs; there are certain syntactic behaviors of pronominal clitics in common; both sporadically mark direct objects with the genitive. It remains to be determined, however, whether those correspondences are a result of prehistoric contacts between Slavic and Alanic tribes, or just a case of accidental parallel development.

Slavic and Germanic

It is not certain when speakers of Proto-Slavic first came into contact with Germanic tribes: among Common Balto-Slavic words that have Centum reflexes, there is not a single one that has typical Germanic sound features.^[8] As for the Baltic languages, all their prehistoric Germanic loanwords are either mediated through Slavic or are borrowed from Old Norse or Proto-Norse; i.e., borrowed during a period well after Slavic prehistory (which ended c. 600 CE). The conclusion is that the speakers of Germanic must have lived far from the area of the subsequent spread of speakers of Proto-Balto-Slavic.

The Goths are the first Germanic people who can be proved to have had intensive contacts with speakers of Proto-Slavic. Goths are believed to have reached the western shores of the Black Sea between the Danube and Dniester Rivers (an area covered by present-day Ukraine and Romania) about 230 CE, so contact between them and Proto-Slavic speakers might have started in the preceding century. Contact between these two groups continued all the way to the early historical period. It is believed that the Gothic language was the intermediary for the entry of many terms of Greco-Roman cultural provenience into Proto-Slavic, for example^[1]

Here is a list of words which are generally held to be Germanic loanwords in Proto-Slavic:^[1]^[9]

This set of loanwords covers diverse semantic fields, fields from which languages readily borrow words: buildings (*xūzu,*tūnu); terrain features (*xulmu, *bergu); social interaction and societal structure (*pulku, *želdān, *kōpītej, *činda); animals and cattle (*asilu, *skatu).

Interpretation of the Germanic material

Many Germanic loanwords entered Slavic languages well after Proto-Slavic; i.e. in the Common Slavic period. After 600 CE most such borrowings came from Old High German.

Stender-Petersen (1927) assumes two layers of Germanic loanwords in Slavic (whether into Proto-Slavic or into Common Slavic): words from Proto-Germanic and words from Gothic. Kiparsky suggests a more refined chronological layering:

All investigators agree that Germanicisms entered Proto-Slavic and Common Slavic over a lengthy period and subsequently underwent numerous sound changes. *činda, *želdān, *xelmu would predate the Slavic first palatalization; *lōku, *kōsitej, *kōpitej would predate the change, PSl. *aw > PSl. */ō/. Of special interest are certain Proto-Slavic accentual developments that can be observed in Germanic loanwords:

Slavic and Celtic

By the time Slavs start to appear in historical records, Celtic languages were already limited to the British Isles and modern-day France.^[14] However, during Classical Antiquity Celts populated the regions of Central Europe in which Slavs spread in the 6th and the 7th century, there may have been speakers of Celtic languages in the regions of Slavic expansion. In any case, it seems very possible that Celtic words might have entered Slavic indirectly instead, through Vulgar Latin/early Romance dialects, since Celtic, being but marginally spoken, was probably a low prestige idiom spoken by the lower classes of society.{{citation needed|date=November 2009|reason=Matasović 2008: page number ???}} Two likely examples of direct borrowings from Celtic are

Slavic and Greek

Ancient Greek words in Proto-Slavic are identified through phonetic features, some related to Greek phonetic history, others possibly Scythian-Sarmatian or Gothic mediations. Ancient Greek, non-mediated words are korablja (ark), koliba (cottage, hut), and supposedly trem (porch); Scythian mediations are luk (onion), haluga (fence), koš (basket), talog (dregs), kurva (whore); supposedly Gothic mediations are crkva (church) and daska (plank).^[23]

Other Indo-European languages

Speculations as to contacts between Proto-Slavic speakers and other Indo-European languages have abounded in the literature on Slavic historical linguistics. Proposals have included Italic, Illyrian, Thracian, Venetic, and even Armenian.

Loanwords from non-Indo-European languages

There are words that undoubtedly were borrowed from non-Indo-European languages. Most of these words came from Turkic languages, chiefly Bulgar and European Avar.^[24] Among commonly cited examples of non-IE loanwords are

Notes

1. ^¹²³⁴⁵Language abbreviations used in this article:Av. Avestan; Sr-Cr. Serbo-Croatian; Goth. Gothic; Lat. Latin; OCS Old Church Slavonic; OE Old English; OHG Old High German; OIr. Old Irish; ON Old Norse; PGm. Proto-Germanic; Pol. Polish; PSl. Proto-Slavic; Russ. Russian
2. ^Matasović 2008:48
3. ^¹²Matasović 2008:47
4. ^¹Meillet & Vaillant 1934:508
5. ^By the RUKI law: *#ks- > *#kš- > *#kx- > *#x-.
6. ^Sometimes PIE *#sk- metathesizes into *#ks- which then regularly yields Proto-Slavic initial *x-. This is not, however, a regular sound change. There are several other sandhi environments (some of which were analogically leveled out in Proto-Slavic) that also yield initial *#x-.
7. ^Compare Old Church Slavonic (OCS) bogatъ, rich, to ubogъ, poor.
8. ^Matasović 2008: 49
9. ^Saskia Pronk-Tiethoff, The Germanic Loanwords in Proto-Slavic. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2013.
10. ^The expected form *skilingu is incompatible with Proto-Slavic phonotactics, compare *činda, not *kinda, hence the conversion of the *i to *u after *k.
11. ^First-person present singular is žlědǫ; in the infinitive -dt- is dissimilated to -st-, this being a common Balto-Slavic process still operable in Proto-Slavic.
12. ^Compare masculine Proto-Slavic *xūsu with neuter modern German Haus, masculine Proto-Slavic *pulku with neuter modern German Volk etc. Late Proto-Germanic (after the operation of Verner's law), as well as all attested ancient Germanic languages, had word stress fixed on the first syllable of a word, and Germanic loanwords were thus susceptible to the operation of Illič-Svityč's law.
13. ^E.g. Russ. smókva < Goth. smakka.
14. ^Matasović 2008:52
15. ^{{cite book|last1=Eugen|first1=Hill|editor1-last=Nielsen Whitehead|editor1-first=Benedicte|editor2-last=Olander|editor2-first=Thomas|editor3-last=Olsen|editor3-first=Birgit Anette|display-editors = 3 |editor4-last=Rasmussen|editor4-first=Jens Elmegård|title=The Sound of Indo-European – Phonetics, Phonemics and Morphophonemics|date=2012|publisher=Museum Tusculanum Press|location=Copenhagen|page=190|url=https://www.academia.edu/3727224/Hidden_sound_laws_in_the_inflectional_morphology_of_Proto-Indo-European._A_phonological_account_of_the_primary_first_singular_of_thematic_verbs_and_the_instrumental_case_of_thematic_nouns_and_adjectives|accessdate=11 October 2015|chapter=Hidden sound laws in the inflectional morphology of Proto-Indo-European}}
16. ^{{PIE|*ḱr̥(h₂)-u̯o-}} is a zero-grade derivative of PIE {{PIE|*ḱr̥(h₂)-}} ~ {{PIE|*ḱer(h₂)-}} ‘horn’; cf. Avestan sruuā- ‘horn’, Ancient Greek {{lang|grc|κεραός}}, {{transl|grc|keraós}} ‘horned’, Lat. cervus ‘deer’, etc.
17. ^Rick Derksen, Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 236.
18. ^Nicholas Zair, The Reflexes of Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Celtic (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 94-5.
19. ^Ranko Matasović, Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 221.
20. ^Rick Derksen, EDSIL, 250.
21. ^Nicholas Zair, Reflexes of PIE Laryngeals, 170-1.
22. ^Ranko Matasović, Addenda et corrigenda to Ranko Matasović’s Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic (Brill, Leiden 2009). Published online (Zagreb, 2011), 23.
23. ^{{cite journal|last=Vlajić-Popović|first=Jasna|year=2015|title=Serbian and Greek: A Long History of Lexical Borrowing|url=http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/publish/no28_ses/Chapter3_2.pdf|journal=Slavic Eurasian Studies|publisher=Hokkaido University|volume=28|p=157}}
24. ^This ancient language is not to be confused with the language of the modern Avar people of the Caucasus. The genetic affiliation of the "European Avar" language of medieval European history is indetermined, with rival proposals being Turkic, Mongolian, and Iranian.