UDK 808.63-087(091 ):929 Pavel A. Marc L. Greenberg Kalifornijska univerza, Los Angeles ÂGOST PAVEL'S PREKMURJE SLOVENE GRAMMAR Neobjavljena slovnica Avgusta Pavla Vend nyelvtan je bila zamišljena kot normativna slovnica knjižne prekmurščine. Starinski pojavi in avtorjeva panhrona obdelava jezika pa izpričujejo, da je slovnica tudi pomemben vir primerjalnega gradiva. Pričujoči prispevek prikazuje na osnovi terenskih zapisov in opisov posameznih govorov odnos med to slovnico in živim narečjem, s posebnim ozirom na govor Pavlove rojstne vasi, Cankove. Drugotni namen prispevka je seznaniti bralca z obsegom in ureditvijo rokopisa. Agost Pâvel's unpublished Vend nyelvtan was ostensibly written as a normative grammar of literary Prekmurje Slovene. Nevertheless, the conservative features of the language and the author's pan-chronic treatment of it suggest that the work may be considered a valuable source of comparative material. The present paper attempts to show the relationship of the language of the grammar to the living dialects, based on available field notes and descriptions of local Prekmurje dialects, particularly that of Pâvel's own village, Cankova. A secondary aspect of the paper is to acquaint the reader with the scope and organization of the manuscript. 0 If one of Ägost Pavel's earliest works, A vashidegküti szlovén nyelvjârâs hangtana [The Phonetics of the Slovene Dialect in Cankova] (1909), brought to light in comprehensive detail the sound system of a typically conservative Prekmurje dialect, then one of his last, Vend nyelvtan (hereafter VN) (ms. completed in 1942)1 gives a mature treatment of the phonology as well as the remaining aspects of Prekmurje grammar.2 However, this latter work was never published, nor has the manuscript been, to my knowledge, examined in any linguistic studies. Intended as a textbook of the "official" Prekmurje literary language (Novak 1970: 305-306), the work at first glance appears to be a somewhat stylized descriptive grammar of a Prekmurje dialect, rich with detailed phonological rules, paradigm tables and thorough lists of word classes, but without the pedagogical apparatus of a classroom textbook. Since the ostensibly pedagogical purpose of the work is by now obsolete, we shall attempt to reevaluate VN as a potential source of comparative material for the study of the history of Slovene and Slavic. It is hoped that this ' I am grateful to Prof. Ludvik Olas (University of Maribor), Jože Vugrinec and Franc Kuzmič (both of the Študijska knjižnica in Murska Sobota) for drawing my attention to the manuscript. 2 The grammar was commissioned by the Hungarian Cultural Society for Prekmurje (Vendvidéki Magyar Kôzmilvelôdési Egyesület |VMKE], Slov. Madžarsko kulturno društvo za Vendsko krajino) to give credence to the individuality of the language of Prekmurje Slavs (Vend nyelv) and by extension to the theory that the Prekmurje Slavs were in fact a separate people, distinct from the osztrâk szlovénok (Austrian Slovenes) of Slovenia proper. Entrusted as the only scholar capable of writing such a work, Pâvel took on the job reluctantly with the justification that it would be better he write the book than someone unqualified to do so Pâvel had hoped that the text would be turned down by the censors, in which case he would have reworked the language in the "gajica" alphabet. As it turned out, the book was praised as "an excellent scientific work that, with some exceptions, gives a true picture of the language of Prekmurje," however, the Society added that "it is much more than the Society intended... morevover, the average person could not learn to speak the Prekmurje language from it" (Novak 1970: 305-307). will pave the way for the incorporation of VN into the further study of the Prekmurje dialect as well as Slovene dialectology and historical grammar in general.3 0.1 The present study has a twofold purpose. The primary goal will be to evaluate VN as a source of comparative material for the Prekmurje dialect by comparing the language of VN with that of living Prekmurje dialects, particularly with reference to the dialect of Cankova whenever possible.4 In order to be concise, we shall limit our discussion to selected topics in the phonology and morphology.5 Secondarily, an attempt will be made to convey the scope and organization of the work itself in order to acquaint the reader with the content of the manuscript. 0.2 The manuscript 0.2.1 The text of VN contains 178 typewritten pages, divided into 455 numbered paragraphs, each of which deals with a single grammar point. The text is entirely in Hungarian, though individual sections are titled also in Prekmurje Slovene (grammar terms are clearly adapted from those in use by Slovene grammarians). The work is divided into the following sections: § 1—§4: The people and their language. Dialects (Nép és nyelv. Nyelvjârâsok); §5—§94: Phonology (Hangtan - Glâszoszlôvje); §95—§ 106: Punctuation (Irâsjelek - Locsila); §107: Abbreviations (Rôvidi'tések - Kratice); Morphology (Alaktan - Oblikoszlôvje) §108—§110: Parts of speech, sentence elements (Szófajok, mondatrészek - Be-szédne vrszte, sztâvkovi cslêni); §111—§113: Inflection (Ragozâs - Pregibanje); § 114—§ 173: Noun (Fônév - Szamosztâlnik); §174-§200: Adjective (A melléknév -Pridevnik:); §201-§204: Article (A névelô-Cslen, spôlnik); §205-§230: Pronoun 3 One of Rigler's many linguistic concerns included the investigation and analysis of the Slovene Pannonian dialects, of which the Prekmurje dialect makes up the northeastern peninsula, and their relationship to the Croatian kajkavian dialects (1973, 1976, 1977). In the earliest of his three major articles devoted to this area, Rigler noted the disparity between the relatively large number of works devoted to the Pannonian dialects and what is actually understood about them: »Med ne preveč poznana področja lahko štejemo tudi panonske dialekte, čeprav po drugi strani ne moremo reči, da spadajo med slabo poznane slovenske dialekte, vsaj relativno ne. [...] Vendar vse to objavljeno in neobjavljeno gradivo še ni dovolj sistematično pregledano in obdelano. Ni pa tudi zadostno, saj zmanjka gradiva skoraj za vsak problem, ki ga skuša človek pojasniti« ([1973] 1986: 117). Taking up Rigler's agenda, I hope that the present study will make a step toward a more complete treatment of the Pannonian dialects. 4 Pâvel's data from the Cankova dialect will be cited from Pâvel 1909, 1917 and 1918. This material will be marked by two numbers following the token, the first number referring to the page, the superscript number to the line number, counting from the top. The three separate sources can be easily indentified since the page numbers of the items do not overlap: 1909 = pp. 1-148: 1917 = pp. 165-187; 1918 = pp. 263-282. As a point of departure for a larger work on Prekmurje dialects, I first checked Pâvel's data for Cankova. Thus, observations on the Cankova dialect and some of the data is from my own field notes taken during a one week stay in Pâvel's village in April 1988. It is clear that Pâvel was familiar with, aside from his own dialect, the local variation of Prekmurje, as attested by his fieldwork (albeit ethnographic) in Northern Prekmurje and Porabje (Pâvel 1927 [= 1930-31], 1942a) as well as by the lengthy criticism of Kiihar's Southern Prekmurje material ("A markók nyelve" [The language of the Marki], written in 1912 but never published, presumably remains in the possession of Pâvel's heirs, according to Novak 1970: 22-23). s Moreover, I intend to elaborate on the material in VN in further studies. (Névmâs - Zaimek); §231-242: Numeral (Szâmnév - Stêvnik); §243-§311: Verb (Ige - Glâgol); §312-§325: Adverb (Hatârozôszô - Priszlov); §326-§340: Preposition (Elôljârô - Predlog); §341: Conjunction (Kotószó - Véznik); §342: Interjection (Felkiâltô szó - Medmet); §343—§385: Lexicon (Szótan - Beszédoszlôvje); §386-§455: Syntax (Mondattan - Sztâvkoslôvje). Subdivisions will be discussed, where relevant, in the corresponding sections of this paper. 0.2.2 As is clear from this list, a considerable share of the work deals with sound change (90 sections or twenty three pages of the manuscript), primarily in the form of pan-chronic statements based closely on those that had appeared previously in Pâvel 1916 and 1916a. Sections 16 through 36 deal with vocalic change (A magânhangzôk vâltozâsai), sections 41 through 91 with consonantal change (A mâssalhangzôk vâltozâsai). Several layers of innovation may be distinguished, though Pâvel treats them as belonging to a single historical plane. Underlying forms may be Common Slavic (svet-ja > svêcsa 'candle', med-ja > mêja 'border' [§44]; zem-ja > zemla 'land', mrav-ja > mravla 'ant' [§45]) as well as dialectal Common Slovene (vem da zse > vendar 'however' [§68]) and pre-Prekmurje ("Pannonian") Slovene (tuszti > kuszti 'fat' [§73]). This imprecision may be overlooked in the context of the popular and pedagogical aim of the work, not to mention Pâvel's prestructural background. Regardless, the historical references seem to attest to a more ambitious goal, namely, that Pâvel aspired to write a descriptive grammar of Prekmurje Slovene. 1 Orthography: vowels and prosody 1.1 As Rigler has pointed out, the vowel system of the dialect of Cankova represents a conservative Prekmurje system from which innovative Prekmurje dialects may be derived (Rigler [1963] 1986: 171).6 The stressed vowel system distinguishes long (including diphthongs) and short vowels. Long vowels occur, as elsewhere in Slovene, only under ictus. The following vowel inventory obtains: long /i, ü, u, ei, ou, e, o, a /, short and unstressed li, ü, u, e, o, e, à I; ö occurs as a positional variant of several vowels, primarily in the neighborhood of sonorants, e.g., hbńati (CMG) (Pâvel has heńati [16932]) 'to shop', köriti (C: 7234) 'to light, heat,' vôter/vèter 'wind,' гоо (C: 8519) 'took (Msg)'; r, I and n may also form syllables.7 For the diachrony leading to this system see Rigler loc. cit. 6 To date, no exceptions to this statement have been found. 7 The transcription used here differs somewhat from that traditionally used for Prekmurje dialects. For the stressed "open" front mid-vowel the symbol e replaces the traditional ä. The dot marking the "closed" midvowels lei and loi has been bandoned; it should be understood that, under ictus, the symbols e, o refer to closed mid vowels, similar to those in Standard Slovene. Unstressed tel in all Prekmurje material should be read as [e], unless otherwise marked. The lax unstressed [jj will be written merely as i'; the lax realization is a predictable feature that Pâvel and others mark i. It should be noted that this vowel reduction is found strongly and consistently in Goričko (Fi, GPe, GS, Mk, Mt, Št, Ve) and Ravensko (C) dialects, though to a much lesser degree or not at all in the Dolinsko dialects (Bi, Br, Go, MP, Re). I noted weak or no reduction in Bi, MP and Re; Br and Go have reduction marked in the students' works, perhaps as an artifact of their expectations based on their familiarity with the literature, while Ftičar and Benedik 1981 note no reduction in Go. A phonetic distinction a: à occurs in 1.1.2 The conservative vowel system just described is very nearly represented in the orthography of VN, which employs the following conventions for vowels, based on the Hungarian alphabet (according to the practice of Prekmurje writers of the preceding two centuries): long monophthongs (under stress only) are marked by acute (two acutes in the case of front round vowels): {â), (é), (t), (ó), (u), (o), (u). Diphthongs (under stress only) are marked by the pointed circumflex (ê), {ô) (= I eil, loul). Short stressed lei (< *è) and /ë/ (< *e, *f) are not distinguished: both phonemes are represented simply by (e), e. g., leto, zselezo, zsena, pesz, cf. C lèto, železo vs. zèna, pis.8 Short variants of lêl before the nasals in closed syllables are not reflected in VN, e. g., Cdèn-dén 'day' (C: 3920), nesèn-nesén 'I carry' (C: 3938), menši-mčnši 'smaller (Msg)' (C: 3927), VN dén, neszém, ménsi. The distribution of length in this position is in free variation in Cankova, according to Pâvel's note (1909: 39). 1.1.2.1 All long vowels and diphthongs are concomitantly stressed and marked by the diacritic signs mentioned above. The place of short stress, which is not marked in VN, can be predicted in disyllabic accentogenic words, since short ultima stress (except as a positional variant of long final stress) does not occur. Thus, disyllabic words with no long vowel mark must be short prima-stressed, e.g., zsena (=žena) 'wife', radoszt (=ràdost) 'happiness'. Otherwise the place of stress is often clear from statements about accentuation in VN, e.g., "stress is the same in the infinitive as in the present simple" (§285), e.g., raniti, ranim, vnicsiti, vnicsitn (=ràniti, rànim, vničiti, vničim) 'feed (inf, lsg)', 'destroy (inf, lsg)'. Where the place of short stress can be thus deduced, the grave diacritic Q will be placed over the appropriate vowel in the present paper, e.g., ràniti, rànim, vnicsiti, vnicsim. 2 Orthography: consonants 2.1 The inventory of consonantal segments in Cankova corresponds roughly to that of Standard Slovene (though, naturally, the distribution differs significantly) with the following exceptions: Id'l (used in Pâvel 1909, 1916, 1916a, 1917, 1918) stands for the reflex of Common Slavic *j before a stressed vowel or after Prekmurje dialects. The distribution of a and â may be described as follows: in Goričko, Ravensko and northern Dolinsko dialects (Br, Go, Re) long stressed lól is realized as [a], short stressed /ä/ as [a]; in southern Dolinsko dialects (Bi, MP) the opposite is true; /a/ —» [à] and /à/ —* (a). Unstressed lal is labialized in C, Go. The symbol y represents a hight central vowel, not unlike Russian £>/, that is found in Mt as the reflex of *f, e. g., syn 'son', typ 'lindens (Gpl)'. Diphthongs, which should be regarded as single phonemes in Prekmurje, are written without the customary non-syllabic markers, thus lièl, lèil, Idul, etc. should be read (iè], [f{], (öuj. Phoneme sequences retain the non-syllabic mark, e. g., Lpl na nogài <— lna-nog-â-jl. The articulation of the first part of the diphthong lèil has a low realization and should be read [à] in GS, Mt and Št. In order to minimize the prosodie symbols used, in all Prekmurje material the acute (') and grave (') stand for length and shortness under stress, respectively, as these dialects have no tonemic distinctions. The local dialects Mt, Št and Ve have no quantitative distinctions, so that here prosodie markers stand for place of stress only. 8 Neither had earlier Prekmurje writing systems distinguished closed and open mid-vowels. For details see Novak's chart of Prekmurje alphabets (1988: 14-15). The graphic distinction is absent from most alphabets devised for other areas of Slovenia and Slovenia as a whole, the exceptions being "metelčica" and representations of Slovene phonology for pedagogical purposes. a consonant (d'àgoda 'berry' [C: 1 1732], zè/d'e 'cabbage' [C: 12238]); the dialect has a true palatal nasal [ń] from proto-Slavic and dialectal Slovene simplification of the cluster nj (koń [C: 2333], kaméne [C: 11611]). Consonantal graphemes in VN correspond to those in Standard Slovene, with the following exceptions: (cs) = /č/, (dzs) = Idil, (nj) = Ińl, (s) = /š/, (sz) = /s/, {zs) = lil. The graphemes (gj) and (tj) are used for the variants of Id'l, where applicable (see below, 3.1.2). The diagraphs for palatal consonants, written with the second element (/), depart from Hungarian and earlier Prekmurje practice, i.e., (gy), (ty), (ny), (cf., Novak 1986: 125-126; 1988: 14-15). 3 Sound change 3.1 Innovative sound change in VN is discussed in the sections dealing with phonology (§5-§94). As was mentioned above, Pâvel does not deal with morpho-nological alternation as such, but rather treats change pan-chronically and, with some exceptions, without regard to its geographical distribution. The sound changes described in the first section of the grammar are not, generally speaking, those reflected in the normative language of VN itself. In cases where the innovation is not general in all of Prekmurje, the conservative situation is actually reflected in the grammar. A few examples are given here to illustrate. 3.1.1 Three geographically distributed reflexes of long (stressed) *e (from the merger of *à/*è in certain morphological environments, *ë and * Ę) are found in Prekmurje dialects: lei (SW), liel (SE), and Ieil (N)9, e.g., lei (C): vés (4133) 'village', pén (4732) 'tree stump', no(j)ét, no(j)éta (4619) 'fingernail (NGsg)', déska 'board (4617)', méd (414) 'honey', bédra (41') 'thighs', fcéla (415) 'bee', veseld'él veséld'e (417) 'joy', zeléni 'green', d'esén (4112) 'autumn', berén (412U) 'I pick', nesén (4120) 'I carry', mozgé (425) 'brain', meglé (4629) 'clouds, fog (Npl)' lébeltebé (4121) 'you (AGsg)', imé (4220) 'name', zéli (1671) 'took (Mpl)'; liel (Re): vies, mièt, nuièt, rièbra 'ribs', zelièni, jesièn, urièmu 'we plow', iiviè 'lives', nesiète, tebiè, muzgiè, zièli; leili0 (Mt): vèis, pèin, dein, mèit, j\sèinld'èis\n, peič, fčeila, podnèibi\ 'climate (borrowed from St Sin),' b\rèin, pob\rèimo, sp\čei 'he/she bakes', ot s\strèi 'from [my] sister (Gsg); glavèi 'heads (Npl)', imèi, imèin\, zèili. In VN the conservative situation (as reflected in Cankova) is represented in the orthography; the reflex is written é: vés (§129), dén (§155), no jet, nojtâlnojéta (§149), rebra (§161), bédra (§161), méd (§155),pécs (§129),jeszén (§129), neszém, neszés, neséte 9 Pâvel was aware of the reflex ei as the long variant in the environment before a nasal (cf. above 1.1.2), which he claimed is spoken by the Bâkard'e (NW), Goričanci (NE) and Màrki (SE) (C: 40'-7): dèin/dén 'day', sèinlsén 'dream', korèinlkorén 'root', StèimIStén '1 read'. The picture is clearly quite simplified: cf. dién 'day', lién 'flax', nesièn, nesèiS, nesèimo 'carry (l,2sg. lpl)', S(ièn, ščèiS, Sièimo 'want (l,2sg, lpl)' (Ve = Pâvel's Bakard'e). Here the relationship /'èN#/C : èiC reflects the original situation èN#/C : èiC after the diphthongization of è > iè accompanying the loss of quantitative oppositions, as is also the case in Martinje (e.g., lièto 'year', llièka 'person (Gsg)', zièld'e 'cabbage' < *leto, *čl(o-v)'èka, *zlld'e). The conservative reflex is found also elsewhere, e. g., dén, lén, nojét, lakét, fčela, pé(, led, zobgé 'teeth', sarcé 'heart', raslém, ianém 'I reap', barém (GS). 10 In Martinje the reflex has merged with that of *ê, e.g., brèik 'hill', snèik 'snow', stèin\ 'wall', mèis\c 'month'. (§263), mozgé (§125), roke (§118), tebé (§206), imé, iména (§167), vzéla, *vzéli (§268). 3.1.2 The characteristic N and W Prekmurje (Goričko, Ravensko) innovation j > d' before a stressed vowel or after a consonant (§46), is dealt with in the text, though not reflected in the language of VN. The conservative situation, which is found in Dolinsko Prekmurje (and the rest of Slavic), is represented instead: zobjé, dojiti, jészti, cf. zubjiè, dufiti, jésti (Re). Pâvel treats the development, as in earlier works (1909: 93-95,117-128; 1916a: 102-103), as a two-stage innovation: j > gj/tj(= [/']/[ gIk : zobjé > zobgjé > zobge 'teeth', vlaszje > vlastjé > vlaské 'hair', dojiti > dogjiti > dogïti 'to milk', jèszti > gjèszti > gèszti.11 3.1.3 In word-final position before a full stop, /m/ and Inl are distinguished in VN; in Cankova they are neutralized as n, e.g., VN pèszem 'song', z bràtom 'with brother (Isg)', szràm 'shame', odprém 'I open', sztèrem 'I break', kâzsem 'I show', vrêmen 'weather', szèmen 'seed'; cf. pèsen (C: 383), z brâton (C: 138), otprén (C: 2240), stèren (C: 2426), kazen (C: 12'8), vrèimen (C: 3821). The retention of -m* Ф is found in northern Prekmurje dialects, as Logar notes in Gornji Senik (Porabje) d'ârem 'yoke', pečem, rastém 'I grow', sèmen (1974: 55-56). A similar situation has been recorded in a dialect in Yugoslavia close to Porabje: piès\m, z broàtom 'with brother (Isg)', p\čeim 'I bake', bobèin 'drum' (Mt), though here the distinction may be optionally neutralized. The innovation is treated in the text of VN (§47). 4 Morphology: Noun 4.0 Nouns in VN are divided, following the traditional classification, into four declension classes: I. a-stem feminine and masculine (§117-128), II. /-stem feminine (§129-140), III. 0-stem masculine (§141-158), IV. o-/e-stem neuter (§159-172). Classes II and III he terms consonant stems. Each class is exemplified by a full paradigm, while alternations and exceptions are treated in the subsequent sections. 4.1 The mobile accentual paradigm in the a-stem feminine class presents a number of peculiarities in Prekmurje dialects. Proto-Slavic accentual mobility (c- 11 In Cankova the following allophonic distribution of d' holds: [g]/[k] before front vowels gèzdili (C: 125«) 'to ride a horse', boglš se (CMG) 'you are afraid (2sg)\ vlaské (C: 128'4, G) 'hair', [dž] before back vowels bodïàti se (CMG) 'to be afraid'. I found this distribution most consistent in the younger generations, 65 and below. Older informants had d' more consistently, if not exclusively. I noted a similar situation in the village Martinje, though here the younger generations produced g/k, dž as occasional optional variants of d'. In light of this observable diachronic development, Pâvel's two-stage treatment seems quite reasonable. The development j > d' is also found in neighboring Hungarian dialects, pointing to a contact innovation, e.g., gydr (St Hung jdr) 'to walk', gyég (St Hung jég) 'ice', borgyu (St Hung borjit) 'calf (Asbóth 1908). It is interesting to note that the area of the innovation in Hungarian extends further south than the Slovene innovation, which roughly covers a territory north of a line drawn between Gederovci in the west to Filovci in the east. The Hungarian dialects in Prekmurje. which encompass most of the easternmost villages along the Hungarian border, have the change from the northernmost village (gyövök [St Hung jövök] 'I come' [Hódos/Hodoś]) extending southward to the Mura (gyöjök [Peteshäza/Peteäovci]) (Penavin 1966: map 21). paradigm, in Slang's classification) is well preserved, and the distribution of case endings and quantity differs strikingly from that of Slovene as well as South Slavic in general. We may illustrate this paradigm as reflected in VN with comparative material from Cankova (as far as they are attested) and other Prekmurje dialects in a common noun of this type, (*rçkà, rôkç >) rôka, rokô (§118): VN Attestations Ngs rôka rduka (C: 227) Asg rokô rokàu (C: 1628) Gsg roké/rôke roké (CMG) Dsg rôkilrokê rduki (CMG) Lsg rôki/rokê rôki (C: 75«) Isg rokôv rokôuf (CMG)12 NApl roké roké (C: 3526) Gpl rôk ràuk (CMG) Dpi rokâtn rokân (Ve) Lpl rokâj/rôkaj roAài/rôkai (C: 15") lpl rokàmi rokâmi/rokàmi (C: 1315) NAdu rôki/rokê rôuki/rukèi (Br, Go) Gdu rôki/rokê/rôk rouk (CMG), rôuki/rukèi (Br, Go) DLIdu rokàma rukàma (Br, Go) 4.1.1 The desinence {-ouv} is given as the regular Isg ending for a-stem nouns in VN. The desinence {-om}, analogized with the masculine and neuter, is attested on the southeastern periphery of Prekmurje: z rukün 'with one's hand', z vihûn 'with one's ear', pud zemlûn 'under the ground', i kràvon 'with a cow' (Bi). This seems most likely an innovation in common with kajkavian dialects, given the proximity of the village Bistrica to the Croatian border. 4.1.2 The stressed DL singular desinence - gy vâltozâs a hazai szlovének nyelvében és a dunântûli magyar nyelvjârâsokban [The Change j > gy in the Dialect of the Slovenes in Hungary and the Hungarian Dialects Beyond the Danube). Értekezések a MTA nyelv- a széptudomânyi osztâlya kôrébôl 20, pp. 461-521. Daničič, Duro, 1925: Srpski akcenti (= Posebna izdanja Srpske kraljevske akademije 58, Filosofski i filološki spisi 16). Belgrade: Srpska kraljevska akademija. Fonološki opisi srpskohrvatskih/hrvatskosrpskih, slovenačkih i makedonskih govora obuhvačenih opšteslovenskim lingvističkim atlasom (Pavle Ivid, ed.) (= Odjelenje društvenih nauka; 55/9), 1981. Sarajevo: ANU BiH. Ftičar, Jože and Francka Benedik, 1981: Gomilice (= OLA 21). Fonološki opisi..., pp. 179-182. Grafenauer, Ivan, 1905: Zum Accente im Gailthalerdialekte. Archiv für slavische Philologie 27, pp. 195-228. Ivšič, Stjepan, 1913: Danaśńi posavski govor (Svršetak). Rad JAZU 197/83, pp. 9-138. Jaksche, Harald, 1965: Slavische Akzentuation II. Slovenisch. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Logar, Tine, 1966: Prispevek k dialektologiji Goričkega. Panonski zbornik (Franc Zadravec, ed.), pp. 29-30. Murska Sobota: Pomurska založba. ---, 1974: Govor Slovencev v Porabju na Madžarskem (Glasovna skica). X. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture (Tine Logar, ed.), pp. 53-57. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. Logar, Tine and Péter Kirâly, 1981: Gornji Senik (Felsöszölnök) (= OLA 149). Fonološki opis..., pp. 213T218. Novak , Vilko, 1970: Življenje in delo Avgusta Pavla. Razprave: dissertationes 7/7, pp. 295-341. ---, 1986: Über die Phonetik des Dialekts von Prekmurje in der Volks- und Schriftsprache. Linguistica 11, pp. 111-131. ---, 1988: Slovar stare knjižne prekmurščine. Poskusni snopič. Ljubljana: Znanstvenoraziskovalni center S AZU. Pâvel, Âgost (= Avgust Pavel), 1909: A vashidegkûti szlovén nyelvjârâs hangtana [The Phonetics of the Slovene Dialect in Cankova] (= A Magyar szlâv nyelvjârâsok 1, Oszkâr Asbóth, ed.). Budapest: A Magyar Tudomânyos Akadémia. ---, 1916: A legujabb vend irodalom nyelve [The Most Recent Prekmurje Slovene Literary Language], Nyelvtudomâny 6/1, pp. 1-27. ---, 1916a: A legujabb vend irodalom nyelve (cont.). Nyelvtudomâny 6/2, pp. 103-116. ---, 1917: Vend szôveggyiijtemény s az eddigi gyiijtések tôrténete [A Collection of Prekmurje Slovene Texts and the History of their Collection to Date], Nyelvtudomâny 6/3, pp. 161-187. ---, 1918: Vend szôveggyiijtemény s az eddigi gyiijtések tôrténete (cont ). Nyelvtudomâny 6/4, pp. 263-282. ---, 1927: Nyfltüzhelyü konyhâk a hazai slovénoknal [Open-Hearth Kitchens of the Slovenes in Hungary]. A Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum Néprajzi Târânak Értesitôje 19, 129-144. ---, 1930-1931: Odprta ognjišča v kuhinjah rabskih Slovencev (Slovene trans, of Pâvel 1927). Etnolog 4, pp. 125-145. ---, 1942: Vend nyelvtan [Prekmurje Slovene Grammar]. Unpublished manuscript, located in Študijska knjižnica, Murska Sobota. (Ms. prepared in Szombathely and Cankova.) ---, 1942a: Rigâszâs a Vendvidéken és az Orségben [Stalking the Fieldfare in Porabje and Orség]. Néprajzi Ertesitó, pp. 141-163. Penavin, Olga, 1966: A Jugoszlâviai Muravidék magyar tâjnyelvi atlasza [Atlas of Prekmurje Hungarian Dialects in Yugoslavia] (= A magyar nyelvtudomânyi târsasâg kiadvânyai 116). Budapest: A Magyar Nyelvtudomânyi Târsasâg. Ramovš, Fran 1952: Morfologija slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije. Rigler, Jakob, 1963: Pregled osnovnih razvojnih etap v slovenskem vokalizmu. Slavistična revija 14/ 1-4, pp. 25-78. Reprinted in Rigler 1986, pp. 139-186. ---, 1967: Pripombe k Pregledu osnovnih razvojnih etap v slovenskem vokalizmu. Slavistična revija 15/1-2, pp. 129-152. Reprinted in Rigler 1986, pp. 187-207. ---, 1968. Začetki slovenskega knjižnega jezika (= Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Razred za filološke in literarne vede 22, Inštitut za slovenski jezik 10). Ljubljana: SAZU. ---, 1973: Smeri glasovnega razvoja v panonskih govorih. Študije o jeziku in slovstvu, pp. 113-128. Reprinted in Rigler 1986, pp. 116-128. ---, 1976: Junkoviéeva kajkavska teorija in slovenščina. Slavistična revija 24/4, pp. 437-465. ---, 1977: O slovensko-kajkavskih jezikovnih razmerjih. XIII. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Zbornik predavanj, pp. 29-38. Reprinted in Rigler 1986, pp. 129-138. ---, 1986: Razprave o slovenskem jeziku (Franc Jakopin, ed.). Ljubljana: Slovenska Matica. Toporišič, Jože, 1988: Tvorbeni model slovenskega knjižnega naglasa. Slavistična revija 36/2, pp. 133-180. V e r m e e r, Willem R., 1984: On Clarifying some Points of Slavonic Accentology: the Quantity of the Thematic Vowel in the Present Tense and Related Issues. Folia Linguistica Historica 5/2, pp. 331-395. Vratuša, Anton, 1939: Jezikovne razmere v severnem Prekmurju in slovenskem Porabju. Slovenski jezik 2: pp. 213-228. Republished with minor adjustments, though without dialect map: 1966, Panonski zbornik (Franc Zadravec, ed.), pp. 20-28. Murska Sobota: Pomurska založba. Material (References not listed above in the bibliography are to students' bachelor's theses, consisting of answers to the field questionnaire for the Slovene Linguistic Atlas Project; they are available in the Slavic Library of the Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana University. A complete list of these appears in Slavistična revija 34/2, 1986, pp. 228-232.) Bi = Bistrica: my material; Br = Bratonci: Majda Jeneš 1983; C = Cankova: Pâvel 1909, 1917, 1918; CMG = Cankova: my material; Fi = Filovci: Marjan Kulčar 1985; Go = Gomilice: Ftičar and Benedik 1981, Irena Lebar 1986; GPe = Gornji Petrovci: Janez Glažar 1967; GS = Gornji Senik: Logar 1974, Logar and Kirâly 1981 ; Mk = Markovci: Logar 1966; Mt = Martinje (stress only): my material; MP = Mala Polana: my material; Re = Renkovci: my material; Št = Števanovci (stress only): Mâria Horvâth 1985; Ve = Večeslavci (stress only): Majda Domijan 1983. POVZETEK Prispevek obravnava neobjavljeno normativno slovnico knjižne prekmurščine Avgusta Pavla Vend nyelvtan (VN) ter skuša prikazati razmerje njenega jezika do žive prekmurščine. Primerjava te slovnice s terenskimi zapisi in opisi posameznih govorov kaže, da je Pavel za normativne oblike izbral pretežno starinske pojave, tako da je jezik VN enoten in dosleden konzervativni sistem. Fonološke razlike znotraj prekmurskega narečja so obravnavane v poglavju, posvečenem glasovnim spremembam. Te so sicer prikazane ne glede na njihovo zemljepisno razporeditev, vendar z novejšimi podatki o narečju lahko določimo izoglose posameznih pojavov. Novost VN je v njeni obširni in urejeni predstavitvi prekmurskega oblikoslovja, ki poleg tega nudi tudi bogato primerjalno gradivo. Pri sklanjatvi najdemo dvojnice, ki kažejo starinsko, pa tudi novejše stanje. Pri glagolskem oblikoslovju so izpričane oblike, ki jih le redko najdemo v terenskih zapisih. Ker so podane paradigme in po vsej verjetnosti izčrpni seznami leksemov, ki pripadajo tem vzorcem, je načelno možno tvoriti veliko gradiva, ki v slovnici ni izrecno izpričano.