|
(詳細は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).〔Language abbreviations used in this article: Av. Avestan; Cr. 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 〕 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".〔Matasović 2008:48〕 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.〔Matasović 2008:47〕 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〔Meillet & Vaillant 1934:508〕 cite the Slavic word *''taparu'', axe (Russ. ''topór'', Pol. ''topór'', Cr. '),〔 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."〔 Matasović criticizes Gołąb's approach as "methodologically unacceptable",〔 emphasizing that initial *''x''- in Slavic has several sources, some of which have been ascertained (like PIE *#''ks''-),〔By the RUKI law: *#''ks''- > *#''kš''- > *#''kx''- > *#''x''-.〕 and others which have not.〔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''-.〕 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. Two likely Iranian loanwords in Common Slavic are〔 *PSl. *''gōnjā'', cloak, mantle (Russ. ''gúnja'', Pol. ''gunia'', Cr. ''gȗnj'') < Iranian *''gaunyā'' (Av.〔 ''gaona-'', Ossetian ''γun''); *PSl. *''rāji'', heaven (OCS ''rajь'', Pol. ''raj'', Russ. ''raj'') < Iranian *''rāy''- (Av. ''rāy''). 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: *PSl. *''gupānu'', master (Old Czech ''hpán'', Pol. ''pan'', Ukr. "župan") < Iranian *''gu-pāna'' 'cattle supervisor' *PSl. *''pātrītej'', to observe (Pol. ''patrzyć'') < Iranian *''pātray''- (Av. ''pāθrāy'' 'to protect') 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'').〔Compare Old Church Slavonic (OCS) ''bogatъ'', rich, to ''ubogъ'', poor.〕 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''.〔 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. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Proto-Slavic borrowings」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|