Slovenski jezik Slovene Linguistic Studies 12 2019 Ljubljana – Provo Slovenski jezik • Slovene Linguistic Studies ISSN 1408-2616 http://sjsls.byu.edu izdajata • published by Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti, Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša Ljubljana, Slovenija • Slovenia in • and College of Humanities, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA • ZDA Urednika • Editors Kozma Ahacic ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija • Slovenia E-pošta: kahacic@zrc-sazu.si http://www.zrc-sazu.si in • and Grant H. Lundberg Department of German and Russian, Brigham Young University 3092 JFSB, Provo, UT 84602, USA • ZDA E-mail: grant_lundberg@byu.edu Tehnicni urednici • Technical editors Mija Michelizza ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija • Slovenia E-pošta: mmija@zrc-sazu.si in • and Duša Race ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija • Slovenia E-pošta: dusa.race@zrc-sazu.si Uredniški odbor • Editorial Board: Marc L. Greenberg, Marjeta Humar, Majda Merše, Marko Snoj, Peter Weiss, Marina Zorman Svet zbornika • Advisory Board: Wayles Browne (Cornell University), Janez Orešnik (SAZU), Tom Priestly (Alberta) Priprava za tisk • Typesetting Simon Atelšek Izdaja je navedena v naslednjih zbirkah povzetkov • This periodical is cited by the following abstracting services Scopus, Elsevier B.V., Cabells; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA), Sociological Abstracts, Inc.; MLA International Bibliography, the Modern Language Association of America in • and COBISS Tisk • Printed by Collegium Graphicum, d.o.o. Slovenski jezik Slovene Linguistic Studies 12 2019 Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti, Ljubljana, Slovenija in/and College of Humanities Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 12 (2019): 3–19 Alenka Jelovšek, Tomaž Erjavec ZRC SAZU, Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, Ljubljana, Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana A corpus-based study of 16th-century Slovene clitics and clitic-like elements The article presents a corpus-based linguistic investigation of the spelling variation in 16th century Slovene, focused on clitics and clitic-like elements. Based on a sample from three works of Slovene Protestant writers that was automatically modernised and then hand-corrected, cases where one original word is represented as two modernised words and vice-versa are analyzed, as well as synchronic orthographical variants of the most commonly bound clitics and their distribution, thus contributing to the general description of the spelling variation of the period. Clanek predstavlja na korpusu osnovano jezikoslovno raziskavo pisne variantnosti v slo­venskem knjižnem jeziku 16. stoletja s poudarkom na naslonkah in njim podobnih ele­mentih. Na podlagi vzorca iz treh del slovenskih protestantskih piscev, ki je bil avtomat­ sko posodobljeniin nato rocno popravljen, so analizirani primeri, ko eni izvorni besedi ustrezata dve posodobljeni in obratno. Predstavljene so tudi pisne razlicice najpogostejših naslonk, ki so v 16. stoletju zapisane skupaj z naglašeno besedo, in njihova distribucija, s cimer se dopolnjuje opis pisne variantnosti v obravnavanem obdobju. Introduction When the first standard written version of Slovene was established in the sec­ond half of the 16th century, the texts produced during this period displayed pioneering attempts at establishing an orthographic paradigm, as written Slo­vene had been used only sporadically between the end of the 10th and the mid­dle of the 16th century. Lacking an established spelling tradition of their lan­guage, Slovene Protestant writers resorted to adapting the New Latin and Early New High German orthographic systems in various ways to represent Slovene (Slavic) phonemes, causing discrepancies and clashes within and across dif­ ferent texts (cf. Neweklowsky 1984: 394, Ahacic 2014: 262–267). These and other examples of spelling variation – combined with a considerable number of inconsistencies – contributed to creating a high degree of variation at the onset of written Slovene in the early modern period. While the topic has been dealt with in numerous studies using traditional lin­guistic methods (e.g. Merše, Jakopin, Novak 1993; Toporišic 2008/2009), this pa­per undertakes a corpus-based linguistic investigation of the spelling variation in 16th century Slovene both from the diachronic and synchronic points of view. The investigation is based on a manually annotated sample from three books, and it concentrates on clitics and clitic-like elements. We identify such words by compar­ing the spelling conventions of the early modern period to those of contemporary Slovene using normalised forms of the originals, where we observe cases where one orthographic word is nowadays written as two or more words (1–n mapping) or vice-versa (n–1 mapping). The normalisation also enables the identification of the orthographical variants of the most commonly bound clitics and their distribution, thus contributing to the general description of the spelling variation of the period. This study builds on the work presented in Erjavec and Jelovšek (2013) and presents a first attempt to analyse clitic-like elements in 16th century Slovene, as these elements stand out as some of the most widely-occurring, problematic cases, which warrant analytical methods beyond a manual, traditional approach. It also provides an example of how corpus-based methods can be used to more thoroughly explore spelling variation based on a large quantity of data. The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 details the data sam­ples that are used in our analysis, Section 3 gives the linguistic analysis of the data, and Section 4 gives some conclusions and directions for further work. The data In our investigation we have concentrated on samples from three important 16th century Slovene books, given below with their identifiers, which we will use in the rest of this paper: •• TT 1557: Primož Trubar. Ta pervi deil tiga Noviga te.tamenta [The First Part of the New Testament] (Tübingen, 1557); •• JPo 1578: Jurij Juricic. Po.tilla [Postil] (Ljubljana, 1578); •• TPo 1595: Primož Trubar. Hi.hna po.tilla [House Postil] (Tingen, 1595) The books were chosen for their high degree of orthographical variation. As Primož Trubar was the author of the first Slovene printed book (Cathechismus, 1550), thus establishing basic orthographical rules of the period, two of his works were included in the analysis: the first one from the period when Trubar was still A. Jelovšek, T. Erjavec, A corpus-based study of 16th-century Slovene clitics ... building his orthographical system and the other his last, posthumously published work that was edited by his successors and highly influenced by their often differ­ent spelling choices. The third work included in the analysis, Juricic’s Postil, was chosen for the same reason. Jurij Juricic was historically much less significant author, but being an immigrant from Croatia, he was influenced by his native tongue and its orthographical tradition (cf. Rigler 1968: 194–195, 221–222). The three books were already available in a digital diplomatic transcription1, i.e. one that was faithful to the printed books. The transcriptions were encoded in XML with mark-up for various structural units, as well marking the language of a span of text. From this basis we first constructed a corpus containing all the running Slovene texts of the three books, i.e. without the front pages, page numbers, printer’s marks, or German text. This corpus was then automatically tokenised, i.e. split into words and punctuation symbols, and segmented to sentences. As the texts are quite long, this complete corpus includes almost 30,000 sentences and over 865,000 words, with TT 1557 having about 163,000, JPo 1578 215,000 and TPo 1595 487,000 words. We then made a sample from each book, initially encompassing 200 sentenc­es, which were first automatically modernised with the CSMTiser tool2(Ljubešic et al. 2016; Scherrer and Ljubešic 2016), which is a machine learning program that was trained on the manually word-modernised goo300k corpus of historical Slovene (Erjavec 2015). The automatic modernisation was then hand-corrected using the WebAnno platform (Eckart de Castilho et al. 2014). In the annotation process, sentences that were very short or contained errors were removed. Book Sentences Tokens Words Original types Modern types Modern / Original TT 1557 64 2,375 2,009 876 830 94.7% JPo 1578 112 5,446 4,563 2,013 1,851 92.0% TPo 1595 141 8,417 7,125 2,248 2,024 90.0% ALL 317 16,238 13,697 4,471 3,547 79.3% Table 1. Statistics over the samples. Table 1 gives the final counts over the samples, split by book and in total. To­gether, the dataset contains just over 300 sentences and 16,000 tokens or almost 14,000 word tokens, the other tokens being punctuation symbols. The size of the three samples is considerably different, as different numbers of sentences were 1 The digital library that contains also the complete three books is available at https:// stage.termania.net/korpus16/. 2 The tool is available from https://github.com/clarinsi/csmtiser. deleted from the initial samples. In the table, the “types” columns give the num­ber of different (lower-cased) original and modernised words, i.e. the lexicon of each sample and their union. The original types correspond to the words in the transcriptions, and the modern ones to the manually normalised ones; as could be expected, the latter is lower than the former, as normalisation removes varia­tion in spelling. The last column gives the ratio between the two, and shows that, interestingly, there is least book-internal spelling variation in the first and oldest book (about 5%), while the second has about 8%, and the third as high as 10%, which can be attributed to the influence and inconsistency of the editors of the text (cf. Rigler 1968: 203–204, 230). Finally, the last row shows that, expectedly, spelling variation taken over all three book samples together is much greater, with almost 20% reduction in the size of the modern word-form lexicon. Book Words n-m % 1-n % n-1 % Types n-m % 1-n % n-1 % TT 1557 2,009 116 5.8 94 4.7 24 1.2 876 78 8.9 62 7.1 18 2.1 JPo 1578 4,563 387 8.5 362 7.9 28 0.6 2013 264 13.1 240 11.9 27 1.3 TPo 1595 7,125 272 3.8 208 2.9 85 1.2 2248 180 8.0 134 6.0 51 2.3 ALL 13,697 775 5.7 664 4.8 137 1.0 4471 493 11.0 411 9.2 92 2.1 Table 2. Statistics over clitic-like elements in the samples. Because the focus of the paper is on clitics and clitic-like elements, we quantify the samples in terms of how many words have changed their word boundaries. Table 2 first repeats the number of word tokens and then gives the number of cases of word-boundary changing words, also divided into 1–n (splits) and n–1 (joins), also with percentages over the total number of word tokens. After the tokens, this information is also given for the lexicon of the samples and overall. As can be seen, the overall percentage of split and joined word tokens is 5.7%, with JPo 1578 having the highest percentage, and TPo 1595 the lowest, less than half of that of JPo 1578.3 Of these, the vast majority is for cases where a word is now split, with merges constituting, overall, only about one sixth of the cases. Interestingly, while JPo 1578 has the highest ratio of splits, it has the lowest number of joins. In terms of the lexicon, the proportion of split or joined words is about twice as high as for tokens, meaning that they tend to be fairly low frequency words, and this holds for both splits and joins. 3 The difference can be mainly attributed to the spelling of non-syllable prepositions in TPo 1595 with an apostrophe and considered freestanding (see below). A. Jelovšek, T. Erjavec, A corpus-based study of 16th-century Slovene clitics ... Analysis The sample corpus4 was first imported into the noSketch Engine concordancer of the CLARIN.SI research infrastructure5 and the analysis was performed using this tool. The noSketch Engine offers powerful functionality for corpus analysis:6 it supports annotated corpora and the so called CQL language for querying, al­lows displaying of concordances as well as wordlist, etc. So, for example, it is simple to restrict the query only to parts of the corpus (such as samples from only one book), or to query via regular expressions (such as “k.*” for all words begin­ning with “k”. In the import the split and merged tokens were joined with the underscore, “_”, with the original tokens having the default “word” attribute, and the normalised ones the “norm” attribute. It is thus easy to find all the clitic tokens, in particular, these are the CQL queries that return all the concordances of the such tokens: •• [word=“.*_.*”] i.e. find all word tokens that contain any string, followed by the underscore and followed by any string, •• [norm=“.*_.*”] i.e. the same but over the “norm” attribute. The normalisation also enabled the identification of the spelling variants of the most commonlybound clitics – non-syllable prepositions k ‘to’, v ‘in’ and z ‘with’ – in the analysed sample. As the analysis of the preposition v showed the influ­ence of traditional non-distinguishing between the consonant /v/ and the vowel /u/, a parallel relationship between the consonant /j/ and the vowel /i/ was also examined even though it rarely occurred in the clitics. The results are presented below. 3.1 Two modernised words as one original word As shown in Table 3, the most predominant among the bound words are non-syllable prepositions v ‘in(to)’, k ‘to’, and z ‘with’ (cf. Novak 2011: 127) that account for 75% of instances in the analysed corpus while also displaying a high 4 Although not further discussed here, the complete corpus is composed of two sub-corpora: the one we are discussing here, named “clt”, and another one, named “rnd”, which was also manually annotated and is roughly the same size as the “clt” one. The two subcorpora are in the corpus distinguished by the value of the “subset” attribute on paragraphs, so “

” identifies the paragraphs belonging to the sample discussed here. 5 The corpus under the CLARIN.SI noSketch Engine is available at https://www.clarin.si/noske/run.cgi/corp_info?corpname=zrc16clt&struct_attr_stats=1.T 6 The manual is available at https://www.sketchengine.eu/user-guide/. degree of original variation (as described below). The majority of the remaining instances are also clitics, most frequently the negative proclitic ne ‘not’ followed by the enclitic particle li ‘whether, if’. In some cases, enclitical conditional parti­cle bi and reflexive particle se also form one orthographical word with their hosts, as do proclitical one-syllable prepositions na ‘on’, ob ‘at, by’, pri ‘at, beside’ and za ‘for, behind’. In individual instances two accented words are also written as one orthographi-cal word. Most frequently those are phrases consisting of adjective + noun (e.g. višji_far ‘high priest’, figino_drevo ‘fig tree’ and in reverse word order gnade_bo­gat ‘merciful’) or adverb + verb (domov_iti ‘to go home’, zoper_stati ‘to resist’). As the analysed texts are translations from German where the quoted forms are com­pounds (Hocherpriester ‘high priest’, Pfeigenbaum ‘fig tree’, gnadenreich ‘merci­ful’; heimgehen ‘to go home’, wiederstehen ‘to resist’) it can be assumed they were written together under the influence of German orthography.7 The absolute numbers of specific clitics partially correlate with the preva­lence of bound variants in comparison with the freestanding variants of those clit­ics: the non-syllable prepositions predominantly form one orthographical word with their hosts (most notably v – in more than 90% of instances – while k is bound in approx. 70% and z in 70% of instances). Among other clitics the particle li is bound in 85% of instancesand the negative ne is in approx. 40%, while the rest are freestanding in more than 90% of instances or their number is too small to be statistically relevant. Word TT 1557 JPo 1578 TPo 1595 All bound free bound free bound free bound free v 49 0 105 0 78 19 238 19 k 23 0 73 0 35 53 127 53 z 12 1 61 0 47 77 120 78 li 1 1 46 2 0 5 47 8 ne 0 14 43 14 21 60 63 88 bi 0 15 9 34 0 82 9 131 se 2 20 2 73 0 120 4 213 na 0 23 0 62 3 67 3 152 ob 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 pri 0 2 1 7 0 9 1 18 za 0 13 4 15 2 39 6 67 Table 3. Most frequent bound words. 7 For various mechanisms of borrowing from German into Slovene cf. eg. Legan Ravnikar 2017: 36. Nearly all freestanding variants of non-syllable prepositions occur in TPo 1595. The only exception is the single instance of freestanding preposition z in TT 1557 but the variant used is one-syllable allomorph zo (see below). However, even in TPo 1595 bound variants of v are highly predominant (ap­prox. 80% of instances) while prepositions z in k are bound in approx. 40% of instances. The majority of bound variants of other clitics can be found in other analysed work, JPo 1578. Only in that text are the enclitic bi and one-syllable prepositions ob (obkratkim ‘in short’) and pri (pri.ebi ‘with himself’) bound in some instances while predominantly remaining freestanding. nepotrebuiesh/ne_potrebuješ dabi/da_bi te/te gdo/kdo kay/kaj vprashal/vprašal THAT_would youACCsg. anyone anything asked NEG_need2sg. ‘You don’t need that anyone asks you anything.’ Kadarbi/kadar_bi pak/pa tudi/tudi v.elei/vselejSalnce/sonce .yalo/ sijalo […] when_would however also always the sun shone ‘However, when the sun would always shine …’ In JPo 1578 we also find the majority of instances when negative particle ne is written together with its host word (in Juricic’s text that spelling is three times more frequent than freestanding variant). Even more predominant is the bound variant of the particle li (which is freestanding only in 5% of instances) while the reflexive pronoun se, though in some instances bound, predominantly remains freestanding. In TPo 1595 bound variants of one-syllable prepositions na ‘on’ (but limited to phrase naznanje dati ‘to inform’) and za ‘for’ (eg. kaj zaen /kaj za en/ as a calque translation for German was für ein ‘what kind of’) are used in individual instances but predominantly these prepositions are freestanding. The negative particle ne is bound in approx. 25% of cases. In TT 1557 only individual instances of enclitics li and se are written together with their host words: Hozhesli/hoceš_li popolnom/popolnom biti/biti […] perfect to be want2sg._if ‘If you want to be perfect …’ Vsdigni..e/vzdigni_se , inu/in uer.i..e/vrzi_se umurie/v_morje lift_REXLEXIVE and throw_REXLEXIVE in_sea ‘Lift yourself and throw yourself in the sea.’ 3.2 One modernised word as two original words While in cases where two modernised words form one original word clear pat­terns can be discovered, the reverse cases are sporadic or can be identified as errors in the original books. The one exception is the superlative adjective/adverb prefix naj-/nar-‘the most’ that is orthographically bound with its root only in about 25% of instances. Of interest are also cases when beginnings of words that are homonymous with non- or one-syllable prepositions are separated from the remainder of the word with an apostrophe (eg. s’_nameinja ‘signs’, s’_der.hati ‘to endure’, do_bruta ‘goodness’, sa_do.ti ‘enough’). 3.3 Variants of the preposition k In the analysed corpus 5 spelling variants of the preposition k were attested. Besides bound variant 8 that appears in approx. 60% of instances spelling is used in around 10% of cases. /H/ as an allomorph of the preposition k is also used in mo­dern day Slovene but it is limited to host words starting with a velar (/k/, /g/) while in the 16th century Slovene its use was positionally less limited as it could also be used in front of other plosives (in the analysed corpus it is attested in front of /b/, /p/ and /t/, but the variant is used in front of those consonants with approximately equal frequency.9 is the most frequent in TT 1557, while being rarely used in JPo 1578. In TPo 1595 the preposition with an apostrophe prevails for both vari­ants, and . The latter is used not only in front of plosives /b/, /p/ and /t/ but also when the host word starts with affricates /c/ and /c/10. Another variant of the preposition k is that appears only in TT 1557 in front of the host starting with a v- (quom for k vam ‘to you’; in one instance the usual spelling of the preposition can also be found – kuam). In general, in the analysed corpus the letter q appears only in front of u as a spelling for the consonant cluster /kv/ (eg. cerque ‘churches’). 3.4 Variants of the preposition z The spelling of the preposition z shows similar variation. As k, it has two allo- morphs: voiced /z/ used in front of voiced consonants and vowels and voiceless /s/ used in front of voiceless consonants. While the spelling of both /s/ and /z/ in the 16th century Slovene was highly inconsistent (, <.>, <.s> and <..> were used for both while /s/ could also be written as and <ß> and /z/ as (Ahacic et al. 8 Angle brackets indicate graphemes. Underscore indicates a bound variant. 9 Merše, Jakopin and Novak (1992: 330) state that in Trubar’s works is predomi­nant in front of vowels and sonorants while prevales in front of voiceless plosives. 10 In IPA these are t.s and t..; the first was generally graphically represented with or , the second with (Ahacic et al 2011: 29). 2011: 31); in the translation of the Bible <.> prevailed for /s/ and for /z/) in the role of preposition and thus in word initial position only and <.> were used11. In front of voiced consonants and vowels the preposition was usually spelled as , <.> appears only once (.myrom ‘in peace’). In cases where the host word starts with a voiceless consonant <.> is used more frequently, however appears in more than a third of instances, most notably in JPo 1578 where it is consistently used in front of while <.> pre­dominates in front of 12. Also in TPo 1595 where the preposition is predominantly separated from its host with an apostrophe (especially in front of voiceless consonants) only and not <.’> is used in such cases. TT 1557 JPo 1578 TPo 1595 voiced host voiceless host voiced host voiceless host voiced host voiceless host ._ 0 7 0 13 1 3 s_ 2 1 12 9 8 3 s’ 0 0 0 0 34 42 Table 4. Spelling variants of the preposition s. When the host begins with s-/z- the preposition, when written without the apos­trophe, orthographically merged with the initial letter of the host word (eg. sanashaniem /z zanašanjem/, .ramoto ‘with lenience’, /s sramoto/ ‘with shame’). Pi..ari/pisarji .o/so .ami/sami .ebo/s_sabo gouurili/govorili scribes AUX3pl. with_REFLEXIVE PRONOUN spoke ‘The scribes spoke amongst themselves.’ ie/je on/on [...] ta/ta Sueit/svet [...] .ramoto/s_sramoto [...] napolnil/napolnil AUX3sg. he this world with_shame filled ‘He filled this world with shame.’ 11 An analysis of the entire corpus confirmed that even outside prepositions, other variant spellings were rarely used in word initial position (eg. .sneg ‘snow’,..en ‘dream’, s.daj ‘now’; <ß> was limited to a mid-word position and predominantly used between two vowels).12Such distribution is also confirmed in the analysis of the entire corpus where in JPo 1578 in word initial position is only once used in front of and <.-> never appears in front of . In the other two analyzed texts such distribution is not attested; either grapheme is used in both positions. kar/kar sanashaniem/z_zanašanjem samudi/zamudi [...] what with_lenience misses3sg. ‘what he misses with lenience’ In front of palatal [.] in oblique cases of the 3rd person personal and possessive pro­noun the preposition s had a palatalized allomorph ž (IPA: .; cf. Merše, Jakopin and Novak 1992: 331), which is non-existent in modern day standard Slovene. It was usu­ally bound and spelled as or <.h > (shnymi, .hnymi). In TT 1557 and JPo 1578 is used while in TPo 1595 both spellings show similar frequency. In another spelling variant that occurs in TPo 1595 the digraph is parted by an apostrophe so that the is orthographically attached to the host word: s’_hyh /ž njih/ ‘with their’. Only in one instance in TT 1557 variant is found in different context: shkunshtio /s kunštjo/ ‘with skill’: [...] koku/kako bi/bi oni/oni Ie.u.a/Jezusa shkunshtio/s_kunštjo vieli/ujeli how would they Jesus with_skill entrap ‘[...] how they could skilfully entrap Jesus’ It is not clear whether the spelling in this case represents another allomorph /š/ (while not phonologically justified in front of /k/ it could be explained as the effect of trans-syllable assimilation) or it should be considered as another ortho- graphical variant of the allomorph /s/. The last two allomorphs of the preposition s attested in the analysed corpus are one-syllable /za/ and /zo/ that were limited to the cases where s preceded the adjec­tive ves ‘all, entire’: /za/ appeared in JPo 1578 where it was bound and spelled as <.a> (eg. .au.o ‘with allACCsg. f’) while in TT 1557 and in TPo 1595 /zo/ was attested as a freestanding clitic and was spelled as <.o> and , respectively13: opominai/opominjaj .au.o/z_vso pohleuno.tio/pohlevnostjo exhort IMPERATIVE2sg. with_all meekness ‘exhort with all meekness’ Ie.t/jaz .em/sem .o/z u.o/vso dobro/dobro uei.tio/vestjohodil/hodil I AUX1sg. with all good conscience walked ‘I walked in good conscience’ .lu.hati/slušati/, inu/in so/z v.em/vsem fli.som/flisom .turiti/storiti to listen and with all diligence to do ‘to listen and to do it with due diligence’ 13 Cf. Merše, Jakopin and Novak (1992: 331). Variant /za/ is not mentioned as Juricic’s work was not included in the analysis presented in the article. 3.5 Variants of the preposition v The preposition v shows the highest degree of orthographical variation of all ana­ lysed words as it has – as a one-letter word – 10 different spellings (cf. Novak 2011). Partially, such inconsistency can be attributed to the long tradition of Latin scripts not distinguishing between the vowel /u/ and the consonant /v/ and us­ing and for both sounds depending on their position (Pflughaupt 2008: 123–124). As was traditionally used at the beginning of a word, the bound variant of the preposition was used in majority of cases in the analysed cor­pus (eg. vdobri ‘in good’, vnebe..a ‘to heaven’, vegypat ‘to Egypt’), followed by the bound variant (eg. uiutro ‘in the morning’, umurie ‘to the sea’, unebe.ih ‘in heaven’) and the variant separated from its host with an apostrophe (eg. v’Pakal ‘to hell’, v’Paradi.hu ‘in paradise’). If the host word began with a vowel spelling variant (bound or separated with an apostrophe) was occasionally used (eg. uven ‘in a ACCsg. m’, uvozhito ‘in obvious’, uv’eni ‘in a LOCsg. f’). In one case this variant crosses the word boundary as the apostrophe separates the and the , thus orthographically attaching the v to the host word: u’_venim = v_enem ‘in a LOCsg. m’. Even more spelling variants can be found in cases when the host word starts with a v-. In such instances: a) both the bound preposition and the host are spelled with (, eg. uuayu ‘in you two’); b) the bound preposition is spelled as while the host is written with a (..., eg. vuertu ‘in the garden’); c) the bound preposition is spelled as while the host is written with a (..., npr. uveri ‘in the faith’); c) the preposition is spelled as and separated with an apostrophe from the host written with a ( u’Vo.i ‘in jail’); d) one-syllable variant of the preposition is used with the host spelled with a (, eg. vau.eh ‘in all LOCpl.); e) the preposition orthographically merges with the host into a single ( for v vsej ‘in all LOCsg. f’); f) the preposition orthographically merges with the host into a single sepa­rated from the remainder of the host word with an apostrophe ( for v vsem ‘in all LOCsg. m/n). TT 1557 JPo 1578 TPo 1595 v_ 23 85 52 u_ 19 0 0 v’_ 0 0 11 In front of a vowel v_ 0 4 0 v’_ 0 0 4 uv_ 0 0 0 uv’_ 0 0 1 u’_v 0 0 1 In front of v... u_u... 7 0 7 v_u... 0 6 2 u_v... 0 0 7 u’_v... 0 0 1 va_u... 0 10 0 v... 0 0 1 v’... 0 0 1 Table 5. Variants of the preposition v. In TT 1557 bound variants and are used approximately equally, but when the host word starts with a v- in the analysed corpus only variant is attested (, eg. uuas).14 In JPo 1578 v shows even less variation, bound variant is used almost consistently, including in front of words starting with a v- (the initial v- of the host is consistently spelled as : v_u..., eg. vuoiski); the only exception is when the host word is the adjective ves‘all, entire’ in which case Juricic used the bound version (eg. vau.ei). In TPo 1595, on the contrary, almost all variants of the preposition described above appear: the most frequent being the bound , followed by non-bound with the apostrophe, bound variant can be found in front of the hosts starting with a vowel and all quoted orthographical variants except a) and e) are used in front of a word starting with a v-. In that position the spelling is predominant, fol­lowed by , while other variants appear only in individual instances.15 14 The result partially contradicts the findings of France Novak (2011: 129) who states that preposition v in that position is written as . As the analysed corpus is limited to the hand-corrected sample determining the exact relationship of the spelling variants would require the normalisation and corpus analysis of the complete text of TT 1557. 15 If we compare these findings to those in Novak 2011, we see that in our limited an­alyzed sample prevalence of bound variant is confirmed, as well as spelling Conclusions In the paper we have presented the construction and annotation of a corpus of samples from three Slovene books from the 16th century and, based on this cor­pus, performed an analysis concentrating on its clitics and clitic-like elements. We found that normalised corpus not only simplifies diachronic linguistic re­search, e.g. of word boundaries in the formative period of Slovene standard lan­guage compared to its modern norm, but also facilitates and enhances synchronic research of the 16th century Slovene literary language system. As the analysis of spelling variation in non-syllable prepositions showed, a relatively limited hand-corrected annotated sample enabled identification of majority16 of spelling vari­ ants identified in previous works (cf. Merše, Jakopin and Novak 1992; Ahacic et al. 2011: 30–31; Novak 2011), while with the use of noSketch Engine tool further information about their relative frequency and distribution was obtained.17 As the hand-corrected corpus is expanded such research will yield even more relevant information for the study of the 16th century Slovene literary language that will significantly supplement existing findings (based on traditionally collected ex­amples) with the help of a large amount of statistically relevant data. References Ahacic, Kozma. 2014. The History of Linguistic Thought and Language Use in 16th Century Slovenia. Frankfurt am Main [etc.]: Peter Lang. Ahacic, Kozma. Legan Ravnikar, Andreja. Merše, Majda. Narat, Jožica. Novak, France. 2011. Besedje slovenskega knjižnega jezika 16. stoletja. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. and occasional in front of v-, while Novak (2011: 138) does not mention frequent spelling or orthographical merging of the preposition with the host word in that position in TPo 1595. On the other hand, in front of a vowel spelling (Novak 2011: 138) is not attested in the analyzed sample, as well as spelling that is illustrated in the article (the same spelling occurs with an apostrophe – ). Spelling is identified in both. 16 Excluded are spelling variants that (usually) do not occur in word-initial position, such as variants of s mentioned in 3.4 or (mainly limited to words borrowed from Latin), (that only occasionaly occurs in word-initial position in TPo 1595 in proper name Ckristus for more predominant Christus ‘Christ’) and for k. 17But it must be stressed that in corpus analysis one piece of typographical informa­tion that is in some cases relevant for the research of spelling is lost, i. e. the use of italic type that can in some cases account for the prevalence of one orthographical variant (cf. Novak 2006). Eckart de Castilho, R. Biemann, C. Gurevych, I. Yimam, S.M. 2014. WebAnno: a flexible, web-based annotation tool for CLARIN. Proceedings of the CLARIN Annual Confe­rence (CAC) 2014, Soesterberg, Netherlands. Erjavec, Tomaž. 2015. Reference corpus of historical Slovene goo300k 1.2. Slovenian lan­guage resource repository CLARIN.SI, http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1025, 2015. Erjavec, Tomaž. Jelovšek, Alenka. 2013. A corpus-based diachronic analysis of Slovene clitics. New Methods in Historical Corpora, 117–26. Tübingen: NarrVerlag. Juricic, Jurij. 1578. Po.tilla. Ljubljana. Digital edition: Korpus slovenskega knjižnega jezika 16. stoletja, Jurij Juricic, Po.tilla [https://stage.termania.net/korpus16/]. Legan Ravnikar, Andreja. 2017. K problematiki vpliva sticnega jezika – nemšcine na se­manticne spremembe in stilno vrednost najstarejše slovenske knjižne leksike (16. sto­letje). Slovenski jezik = Slovene Linguistic Studies 11: 35–53. Ljubešic, Nikola. Zupan, Katja. Fišer, Darja. Erjavec, Tomaž. 2016. Normalising Slovene data: historical texts vs. user-generated content. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS 2016), 146–155. Merše, Majda. Jakopin, Franc. Novak, France. 1992. Fonološki sistem knjižnega jezika slo­venskih protestantov. Slavisticna revija 40/4: 321–340. Neweklowsky, Gerhard. 1985. Das Werden der slowenischen Schriftsprache. Entstehung von Sprachen und Völkern. Glotto- und ethnogenetische Aspekte europäischer Spra­chen, 391–402. Tingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Novak, France. 2006. Predponi v- in u- v jeziku slovenskih protestantskih piscev 16. stoletja. Stati inu obstati 3–4: 138–159. Novak, France. 2011. Predlog v v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku 16. stoletja. Globinska moc besede: red. prof. dr. Martini Orožen ob 80-letnici, 126–142. Maribor: Mednarodna založba Oddelka za slovanske jezike in književnosti, Filozofska fakulteta. Pflughaupt, Laurent. 2008. Letter by Letter: An Alphabetical Miscellany. Trans. Gregory Bruhn. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Rigler, Jakob. 1968. Zacetki slovenskega knjižnega jezika. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Scherrer, Yves. Ljubešic. Nikola. 2016. Automatic normalisation of the Swiss German Ar-chiMob corpus using character-level machine translation. Proceedings of the 13thCon­ference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS 2016), 248–255. Toporišic, Jože. 2008/2009. »/S/ledni Sazhetig ie Teßhak inu nepopelnom«.Slavisticna re-vija (Trubarjeva številka), letn. 56/57, št. 4, 1: 191–198. Trubar, Primož. 1557. Ta pervi deil tiga Noviga te.tamenta. Tingen. Digital edition: Kor-pus slovenskega knjižnega jezika 16. stoletja, Primož Trubar, Ta pervi deil tiga Noviga te.tamenta [https://stage.termania.net/korpus16/]. Trubar, Primož. 1595. Hi.hna po.tilla. Tingen. Digital edition: Korpus slovenskega knjižnega jezika 16. stoletja, Primož Trubar, Hi.hna po.tilla [https://stage.termania.net/korpus16/]. Received April 2019, accepted June 2019. Prispelo aprila 2019, sprejeto junija 2019. Korpusna analiza klitik in njim podobnih elementov v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku 16. stoletja V prispevku je predstavljena korpusna obravnava pisne variantnosti v sloven- skem knjižnem jeziku 16. stoletja tako s sinhronega kot z diahronega vidika. Raziskava temelji na rocno pregledanem vzorcu (okoli 14.000 besednih enot) iz Trubarjevih del Ta pervi deil tiga Noviga te.tamenta, 1557,in Hi.hna po.tilla, 1595, in Juriciceve Po.tille, 1578, ter se osredotoca na klitike in njim podobne elemente. Statisticna analiza zapisa skupaj in narazen na podlagi primerjave pi-snih konvencij 16. stoletja in sodobne pisne rabe s pomocjo normaliziranih oblik izvirnih besed, tj. primerov, ko eni (ortografski) besedi iz 16. stoletja ustrezata dve ali vec sodobnih besed (preslikava 1–n) in obratno (preslikava n–1), je po­kazala, da je tovrstnih primerov v korpusu 5,7 odstotka pojavitev, pri cemer so najpogostejše v JPo 1578 in najredkejše v TPo 1595, kjer jih je vec kot enkrat manj kot pri Juricicu. V vecini primerov gre za izvirno eno besedo, ki se v norma­lizirani obliki zapisuje kot dve besedi. Med besedami, ki so v izvirniku zapisane skupaj z gostiteljem, prevladujejo nezložni predlogi v, k in z, sledi jim clenica ne, clenek li in redkeje bi, se ter predlogi na, ob, pri in za (pri tem je njihova abso­lutna pogostnost vecinoma premo sorazmerna z njihovo relativno pogostnostjo v primerjavi z njihovimi samostojno stojecimi variantami – najpogostejše so tudi prevladujoce zapisane skupaj z gostiteljem, pri redkejših pa prevladuje loceni zapis). Posamezni primeri, ko sta združeno zapisani dve naglašeni besedi, so ver­jetno posledica vpliva nemških zloženk. Zgledi, ko eni sodobni besedi ustrezata dve besedi v izvirniku, se pojavljajo sporadicno – z izjemo presežniške prepone naj-/nar-, ki je v vzorcu zapisana združeno s pridevnikom/prislovom v okoli cetrtini primerov – oziroma jih lahko oznacimo kot tiskovne napakeali napake v prepisu. Zanimivi so primeri, ko so vzglasni soglasniki homonimni z ne- ali enozložnimi predlogi in loceni od preo­stanka besede z apostrofom (npr. s’_nameinja, s’_der.hati, do_bruta, sa_do.ti). Normalizacija omogoca tudi ugotavljanje pisnih razlicic najpogostejših naslonk, ki se pisno povezujejo z naglašeno besedo, to je nezložnih predlogov k, z in v. K in njegov alomorf /h/ imata v korpusu izpricanih 5 pisnih variant, od katerih se pojavlja le pred besedami, ki se zacnejo na v-. Z z zvenecim alomorfom /z/ in nezvenecim alomorfom /s/ ima v osnovi tri pisne razlicice, katerih razvrstitev se le delno ujema z (ne)zvenecnostjo prvega glasu sledece besede, pojavljajo pa se tudi primeri pisnega zlivanja predloga s sledeco besedo, ki se zacne s s-/z-. Druge pisne razlicice verjetno predstavljajo dodatne položajno vezane alomorfe: za mehcani /ž/ pred palatalnim n in <.a>, <.o/so> za ozloženo razlici-co /za/, /zo/. Predlog v izkazujenajvecjo mero pisne variantnosti med navedenimi predlogi, saj ima kar 10 pisnih razlicic: splošni sticno zapisani in in , ki je v korpusu obravnavana kot nesticna; , in pred samoglasnikom; in , ki se pojavljata samo pred v-; poleg tega pa še and , ki se pisno zlijeta z vzglasnim v- sledece besede. Analiza pisne variantnosti pri nezložnih predlogih je pokazala, da že rela­tivno omejen rocno pregledannormaliziran korpus omogocaidentificiranje ve-cine pisnih razlicic, ki so navedene v obstojeci literaturi, uporaba programskega orodja noSketch Engine pa omogoca pridobivanje dodatnih podatkov o njihovi relativni pogostnosti in položajnih omejitvah. Z razširitvijo rocno pregledanega korpusa bodo tovrstne raziskave lahko prispevale pomembne in statisticno rele­vantne podatke o sistemu slovenskega knjižnega jezika 16. stoletja, s katerimi se bodo dopolnjevale dosedanje ugotovitve, v glavnem temeljecena paberkovalnem izpisovanju primerov. A corpus-based study of 16th-century Slovene clitics and clitic-like elements18 This paper undertakes a corpus-based linguistic investigation of the spelling vari­ation in 16th century Slovene both from the diachronic and synchronic points of view. The investigation is based on a manually annotated sample (approx. 14,000 word tokens) from Primož Trubar’sTa pervi deil tiga Noviga te.tamenta, 1557, and Hi.hna po.tilla, 1595, and Jurij Juricic’s Po.tilla, 1578, and it concentrates on clitics and clitic-like elements. Statistical analysis, based on comparison of the spelling conventions of the early modern period to those of contemporary Slovene using normalised forms of the originals, where we observe cases where one orthographic word is nowadays written as two or more words (1–n mapping) or vice-versa (n–1 mapping), shows that the overall percentage of split and joined word tokens is 5.7%, with JPo 1578 having the highest percentage, and TPo 1595 the lowest, less than half of that of JPo 1578. Of these, the vast majority is for cases where a word is now split. The most predominant among the bound words are non-syllable prepositions v ‘in(to)’, k ‘to’, and z ‘with’, followed by negative proclitic ne ‘not’, enclitic particle li ‘whether, if’ and in rare instances condi­tional particle bi, reflexive particle se, na ‘on’, ob ‘at, by’, pri ‘at, beside’ and za ‘for, behind’ (the absolute numbers of specific clitics partially correlate with the prevalence of bound variants in comparison with the freestanding variants of 18 This article has been supported by ARRS (programs P6-0038 and P2-0103). those clitics, with the most frequent being predominantly bound while the least frequent are predominantly freestanding). Individual instances of two accented words written together can be attributed to German influence (figino_drevo, der Pfeigenbaum ‘fig tree’). The cases where one modernised word correlates to two original words are, with the exception of superlative adjective/adverb prefix naj-/nar-‘the most’ that is orthographically bound with its root in about 25% of instances, sporadic or can be identified as errors in the original books. Of interest are also cases when beginnings of words that are homonymous with non- or one-syllable prepositions are separated from the remainder of the word with an apostrophe (eg. s’_nameinja ‘signs’, s’_der.hati ‘to endure’, do_bruta ‘goodness’, sa_do.ti ‘enough’). The normalisation also enables the identification of the orthographical vari­ants of the most commonly bound clitics, i. e. non-syllable prepositions k, z and v. K and its allomorph /h/ have 5 attested spelling variants, of which one is limited to hosts starting with a v-. For z with a voiced allomorph /z/ and voice­less allomorph /s/ three variant spellings were discovered that only partially cor­respond with a voiceless/voiced distinction of the initial sound of the host word, and the cases of merging with the host that begins with s-/z- were identified. Additional positional spellings probably represent other allomorphs: for palatalized /ž/ in front of a palatal n and <.a>, >.o/so> for syllabified /za/, /zo/. The preposition v shows the highest degree of orthographical variation of all analysed words as it has 10 different spellings: general bound and and freestanding ; , and in front of a vowel; and attested only in front of a v-, as well as and merged with the initial v- of the host. The analysis of spelling variation in non-syllable prepositions showed that even a relatively limited hand-corrected annotated sample enabled identification of majority of spelling variants identified in previous works, while with the use of noSketch Engine tool further information about their relative frequency and dis­tribution was obtained. As the hand-corrected corpus is expanded such research will yield even more relevant information for the study of the 16th century Slo­vene literary language that will significantly supplement existing findings (based on traditionally collected examples) with the help of a large amount of statisti­cally relevant data. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 12 (2019): 21–30 Janoš Ježovnik ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša, Ljubljana Koncnice rodilnika množine v terskem narecju slovenskega jezika Prispevek obravnava distribucijo in izvor koncnic rodilnika množine, ki se pojavljajo v štirih glavnih (sinhronih) sklanjatvenih vzorcih samostalnikov v terskem narecju sloven-skega jezika – o-sklanjatvi moškega in srednjega spola, a-sklanjatvi, i-sklanjatvi. Oblika rodilnika množine izkazuje precejšnjo koncniško variantnost tako med posameznimi skla­njatvenimi vzorci kot znotraj njih; možne so tudi dvojnicne uresnicitve z dvema ali vec variantnimi koncnicami pri istem leksemu. Obravnava se osredotoca na stanje v govoru kraja Ter/Pradielis. The article provides an analysis of the distribution and origin of genitive plural endings of four main (synchronic) nominal declensions in the Tersko dialect of Slovene – the mascu­line and neuter o-declension, a-declension, and i-declension. The genitive plural form is marked using a variety of endings, varying greatly both between and within declensions; doublet realizations of two or more variant endings can occur with the same lexeme. The analysis focuses on the local variety of Ter/Pradielis. Tersko narecje1 Tersko narecje slovenskega jezika se govori v severovzhodnem delu avtonomne zvezne dežele Furlanija - Julijska krajina v Republiki Italiji, in sicer v gorskih dolinah porecjareke Ter v zahodnem delu Beneške Slovenije. Po uveljavljenem slovenisticnem pojmovanju se vanj uvršcajo tudi govori Breginjskega kota (na­selja Breginj, Logje, Robidišce) na skrajnem zahodu Republike Slovenije (prim. Karto slovenskih narecij z vecjimi naselji (2016)). Proti severu Terske doline od doline Rezije loci gorska veriga Mužcev/Monti Musi, proti jugu in zahodu obmocje meji na Furlansko nižino, na vzhodu pa obmocje terskega narecja na po­bocju gore Ivanec/Joanaz meji na sosednje nadiško narecje. Pretežni del obmocja 1 Besedilo je bilo pripravljeno z vnašalnim sistemom ZRCola (http://zrcola.zrc-sazu.si), ki ga je na Znanstvenoraziskovalnem centru SAZU v Ljubljani (http://www.zrc-sazu.si) razvil Peter Weiss. upravno sodi v obcini Bardo/Lusevera in Tipana/Taipana, tersko narecje pa se govori tudi v posameznih krajih obcin Neme/Nimis, Ahten/Attimis, Fojda/Faedis in Tavorjana/Torreano.2 Tersko narecje je najzahodnejše slovensko narecje in hkrati danes skrajno zahodni del slovanskega jezikovnega prostora kot ostanek avtohtone slovanske naselitve v zgodnjem srednjem veku. Uvršca se v primorsko skupino slovenskih narecij, v geneolingvisticni obravnavi pa glede na starejše jezikovne spremem-be v beneško-kraško narecno ploskev (bazo) severozahodnihslovenskih narecij (prim. Rigler 1963: 46–47; Šekli 2018: 315–317, 326–328). Govor kraja Ter/Pradielis je eden izmed najbolj zahodnih krajevnih govorov narecja. Med splošnonarecnimi3 in nesplošnonarecnimi razvojnimi znacilnostmi4 govora je treba izpostaviti umik naglasa s koncnega (odprtega in zaprtega) (staro) cirkumflektiranega zloga tipa isln. *ok., tož. ed. *nog., m. sp. *ves.l > ó.ko, nó.a, vé..el/vé...., ki je lahko sprožil znotrajparadigmatske naglasne izravnave, npr. im. ed. nó.a, ž., sr. sp. vé..ela vé..elo (in ne **no'a, **ve.é.la **ve.č.lo); vendar npr. orků.ta, .arů.ta z izostankom umika naglasa z nekoncnega besednega zloga.5 2Zgodovinsko je bilo narecje prisotno tudi v nekaterih krajih, ki danes pripadajo obcinama Gorjani/Montenars in Centa/Tarcento, vendar danes aktivnih govorcev tam vec ni; sledovi slovenskega narecja so ohranjeni v krajevnih in ledinskih imenih. O sta­nju leta 1945 – že takrat mocno napredovali jezikovni asimilaciji in posledicni izgubi slovenskega narecja v teku – v teh krajih poroca Cronia (1950: 322–323). 3 Med glavnimi padajoce odvoglašenje isln. *., *o > *ie, *uo > i., u.; zgodnje po­daljšanje isln. kratkih akutiranih zložnikov v nezadnjem besednem zlogu (in posledicno npr. sovpad odrazov isln. *.- z odrazi isln. *.); vokalizacija *., *.- > *a > a., *-., *. > a; pozno raznosnjenje isln. nosnih samoglasnikov (in v tem govoru posledicno razlikovanje med odrazi isln. *e, *č-: *., *.-// *-: *o, *.-> e. : .. // o. : ..); izostanek umika na prednaglasno dolžino po naglasnem pravilu. 4 Med drugimi sovpad odrazov *-., *-o z odrazoma *-, *u; ohranitev posebnega odraza isln. *. > c (nezveneci trdonebni zapornik), popolna onemitev isln. *g (> *.) > . (razen v soglasniških sklopih *zg, *žg), vokalizacija (in podaljšanje) polglasniškega dekomponata isln. *. (> *.r) > a.r, razvoj *. > o(.)., drugotno nosnjenje samoglasnikov v položaju pred koncnim -n (< *-n, *-m), fonološki sovpad isln. sicnikov in šumevcev (isln. *s, *š > .; *z, *ž > .; *c, *c > .); razvoj isln. *v *[.](>*vE : *.O ) > v ne glede na samoglasniško okolje. 5 Narecno gradivo je bilo pridobljeno s terenskimi raziskavami v kraju Ter med letoma 2013 in 2018 ter analizirano v okviru priprave doktorske disertacije Notranja glasovna in naglasna clenjenost terskega narecja slovenskega jezika (Ježovnik 2019) pod mentorstvom doc. dr. Mateja Šeklija. J. Ježovnik, Koncnice rodilnika množine v terskem narecju slovenskega jezika Koncnice rodilnika množine Oblika rodilnika množine je v štirih glavnih (sinhronih) sklanjatvenih vzorcih samostalnika – v o-sklanjatvi moškega in srednjega spola,6 a-sklanjatvi in i-skla­njatvi – oznacena bodisi z odsotnostjo oblikovno izražene koncnice (oziroma z nicto koncnico,-.) ali s katero od oblikovno izraženih koncnic, izmed katerih sta dve lahko bodisi nenaglašeni ali naglašeni (in sicer kratki ali dolgi akutirani), ena je obvezno naglašena, ena pa obvezno nenaglašena: -e/-'e/-.., -í./-'./-., -ú., -aj.7 Pri tem ima naglašeni samoglasnik v osnovi pri leksemih z nicto koncnico pravi­loma, pri leksemih s koncnicama -aj in (nenaglašeno) -e pa obvezno padajoci ton (cirkumfleksni tonem). Pri koncnicah rod. mn. prihaja v vseh pregibnostnih vzorcih samostalnika do notranje variantnosti, pogoste so tudi dvojnicne uresnicitve. V nadaljevanju so obrav­navane koncnice rod. mn., ki se pojavljajo v pregibnostnih vzorcih samostalnika. Koncnica -. Nicta koncnica se pojavlja zlasti pri samostalnikih o-sklanjatve srednjega spola in a-sklanjatve z nepremicnim naglasom na osnovi – izjeme predstavljajo nekateri samostalniki a-sklanjatve, ki se uvršcajo v mešani oziroma koncniški naglasni tip in lahko poleg nicte dvojnicno izkazujejo tudi druge koncnice: dá..ka (rod. mn. dŕ..k poleg da.kí.), lá.va ‘glava’ (rod. mn. lŕ..), nó.a ‘noga’ (rod. mn. (redkeje) nu.x poleg (bolj ustaljeno) noú.) in .e'na ‘ženska’ (rod. mn. ...n poleg .ení.).8 Pri obeh sklanjatvenih vzorcih gre zlasti za samostalnike z osnovo brez izglasnega so-glasniškega sklopa ali z izglasnim sklopom tipa . + (ne)zvocnik (le v primeru ň... tudi s soglasniškim sklopom .+ nezvocnik). Pri tem zlasti v primeru samostalnikov 6 Drugotno so v o-sklanjatev srednjega spola prešli tudi nekateri samostalniki, ki so se prvotno uvršcali v psl. s-sklanjatev: kó.lo (rod. ed. kó.lu), ó.ko (rod. ed. ó.ku), ú.xo (rod. ed. ú.xa in ú.xu). 7V terskem narecju se v nekaterih govorih (npr. Canebola, Zavarh) pojavlja tudi koncnica rod. mn. -ax, ki pa v govoru Tera ni bila zabeležena. Drugotna koncnica -ax je nastala z naplastitvijo koncaja koncnice rod. mn. pridevnika *-ix na narecno osnovo -a- koncnic daj., mest. in or. mn. (isln.*-am, *-ax, *-ami). Do tipološko enake naplastitve pridevniškega koncaja pride npr. v primeru koncnice rod. mn. -.h v nekaterih crnogor­skih štokavskih govorih, pri cemer pa je . drugacnega izvora (Kapovic 2015: 538F). O podobnem prenosu celotne pridevniške koncnice -ih v obliko rod. mn. samostalnikov moškega spola pri slovenskih protestantskih piscih je pisal tudi Ramovš (1952: 45–46), ki je pojav oznacil za “psihološk[o] pomot[o]” (prav tam). 8 Sodec po naglasnih znacilnosti navedenih oblik rod. mn. sta obliki nu.x in ...n pr-votni in izkazujeta odraz zgodaj podaljšanega novega akuta (prim. Kapovic 2015: 380); druge oblike so drugotne, nastale bodisi z naplastitvijo drugotnih koncnic (da.kí., noú., .ení.) oziroma je njihov naglas analoškega izvora (lŕ..). srednjega spola prihaja do odstopanj (npr. rod. mn. krě.le ‘narocje’, .ě.le ‘šilo’, .ě.te ‘sito’) in dvojnicnih realizacij (npr. v primeru samostalnika ně..do ‘gnezdo’: rod. mn. ně..t, ně..de in ně..daj); pri tvorjenkah s pripono -i..e se poleg primerov z nictimi koncnicami pojavljajo tudi primeri z drugimi koncnicami (prim. rod. mn. ko.ě...-. ‘rocaj pri kosi’ : kopě...-e ‘kol za oporo sredi kope’: rabě...-aj ‘rocaj pri grabljah’).9 Pri samostalnikih o-sklanjatve moškega spola je bila nicta koncnica za­beležena le v dveh primerih (rod. mn. otru.k, patů.k ‘potok’), v obeh primerih kot redka dvojnicna razlicica ob bolj ustaljenih koncnicah (rod. mn. otrokí., patň.ke). Pri samostalnikih i-sklanjatve se nicta koncnica v rod. mn. ne pojavlja. Koncnica -. predstavlja odraz izvorne psl. koncnice *-./*-. sklanjatvenih vzorcev, ki nadaljujejo psl. a-sklanjatev ali o-sklanjatev moškega ali srednjega spola (oziroma so v te sklanjatvene vzorce prešli v popraslovanskem obdobju). Koncnica -e/-'e/-.. Pri samostalnikih a-sklanjatve in o-sklanjatve srednjega spola se pojavlja le ne­naglašena koncnica -e,10 in sicer pogosto kot dvojnicna koncnica. Primeri samo­stalnikov a-sklanjatve s to koncnico so razmeroma redki. Koncnici -e in -.. predstavljata najpogostejši koncnici rod. mn. samostalni­kov o-sklanjatve moškega spola; nastopata v komplementarni distribuciji, saj se prva pojavlja pri samostalnikihz nepremicnim naglasom na osnovi, druga pa pri samostalnikih koncniškega naglasnega tipa (pri slednjih poleg koncnice -í.), le redko tudi pri samostalnikih, ki se sinhrono uvršcajo v nepremicni naglasni tip z naglasom na osnovi, a nadaljujejo zgodovinski mešani naglasni tip (tj. odražajo psl. naglasni tip c oziroma b s (po)psl. dolgim samoglasnikom v osnovi): rod. mn. xlev.. (poleg xlě.ve), mo..., no..., las.. (poleg la.í.), trak.., .ob... Oblike z nenaglašeno koncnico -e imajo ne glede na naglasni tip v osnovi vedno dolgi cirkumflektirani samoglasnik. Kratka naglašena koncnica -'e je bila zabeležena le pri dveh prevzetih samostalnikih ba'ket ‘palica’in t'rop ‘skupina živali’ (rod. mn. bake'te, tro'pe). Ramovš (1952: 60) koncnico razlaga kot razširjeno iz tož. mn. (odvi­sno od naglasnega tipa isln. *-e/*-č/*-.), ki se je naplastila na osnovo prvotno 9 Precejšnjo variantnost bi v primeru samostalnikov srednjega spola lahko pripisa­li težnji po upadu tega sklanjatvenega vzorca, pri katerem prihaja zlasti v množinskih oblikah bodisi do maskulinizacije – npr. im. mn. .e'l., oně...., ví.n. (im. ed. .e'lo, oní...e ‘ognjišce’, ví.no) – ali do feminizacije – npr. im. mn. krí.le, pí..me (im. ed. krí.lo, pí..mo)–, neredko tudi dvojnicno (npr. im. mn. ně..da, ně..de in ně..d.; .edě.la, .edě.le in .edě.l.). 10 Naglašeno koncnico rod. mn. -.. izkazuje le samostalnik .e'lo (rod. mn. .el..), pri katerem pa je v množinskih oblikah prišlo do maskulinizacije (prim. im. mn. .e'l.). J. Ježovnik, Koncnice rodilnika množine v terskem narecju slovenskega jezika nictokoncniških oblik rod. mn., najprej verjetno znotraj isln. naglasnih tipov, ki nadaljujejo psl. naglasni tip c in za katere je v tož. mn. znacilna isln. koncnica *-. (pri cemer naj bi prišlo do disimilatorne metatonije *-. = *-., verjetno pod vplivom enako naglašene koncnice rod. mn. samostalnikov i-sklanjatve – prim. nižje), kasneje pa se je koncnica razširila na ostale naglasnetipe. Obvezno cir-kumfleksni tonem oblik z nenaglašeno koncnico -e je posledica posplošitve (mor­da še pred naplastitvijo koncnice) isln. novega cirkumfleksa iz oblik rod. mn. samostalnikov psl. naglasnega tipa a. Pri kratki naglašeni koncnici -'e, ki je bila zabeležena le pri dveh koncniško naglašenih samostalnikih, je verjetno prišlo do izravnave kratkega naglasa drugih oblik pregibnostno-naglasnega vzorca. Koncnica -í./-. Koncnica -í./-. predstavlja edino koncnico rod. mn. i-sklanjatve.11 Koncnica je nena­glašena le v primeru rod. mn. jé..en. (in dvojnicno v primeru samostalnika k'ra., pri katerem oblika rod. mn. krŕ... (poleg kra.í., krŕ..aj/krŕ..jaj) predstavlja etimološko pricakovani odraz) ter v naglasnem tipu z nepremicnim (cirkumfleksnim) naglasom na osnovi, v katerega se uvršcajo iz furlanšcine prevzete besede ženskega spola z iz­glasnim soglasnikom (rod. mn. ..tŕ.d. poleg ..tad.. ‘mesto’, kul.tŕ.d. poleg kul.tadí., kul.tŕ.daj ‘vrsta cesa’, roga.j..n. ‘prošnji dnevi’, telev..j..n. ‘televizija’). Pri samostalnikih a-sklanjatve se pojavlja le naglašena koncnica -í., in sicer pri samostalnikih koncniškeganaglasnega tipa, ki nadaljujejopsl. naglasni tip b s psl. kratkim samoglasnikom v osnovi (rod. mn. ko.í., .e.trí., .oví., tetí., .ení. (poleg ...n)) in pri vecini samostalnikov mešanega naglasnega tipa, ki nadalju­jejo psl. naglasni tip c (rod. mn. bo.xí., da.kí. (poleg dŕ..k), kopí., l..tí. (poleg lě..taj), metlí., .o..í., vodí.). Pri samostalnikih o-sklanjatve moškega spola se koncnica -í. pojavlja pri redkih samostalnikih, ki nadaljujejo psl. naglasni tip c oziroma psl. naglasni tip b s (po)psl. dolgim samoglasnikom v osnovi (rod. mn. judí. ‘ljudje’, ko.í. ‘kos’ in ‘del zemljišca’, la.í., mo.í., pa.í. ‘pas’, vo.í.; cu.í. (poleg ců..e) ‘kljuc’, xlodí. (poleg xl..de)); nezanesljivo izpricana tudi v primeru dní.), pogosteje pa pri samostalnikih koncniškega naglasnega tipa, ki nadaljujejo psl. naglasni tip b s psl. kratkim samoglasnikom v osnovi (rod. mn. bakí. ‘bik’, koní., kon.í., kor.í., kotlí., lon.í., otrokí., .tor.í., terí. ‘reka’,topolí., volí., ..í. (poleg ....) ‘pes’). Pri samostalnikih o-sklanjatve srednjega spola je bila koncni-ca -í. zabeležena le v primeru množinskega samostalnika plé.ca (rod. mn. plecí.) in dvojnicno v primeru samostalnika ó.ko (rod. mn. o.í. poleg o.ú., prim. nižje). 11 Le v treh primerih se kot dvojnicna koncnica v tem pregibnostnem vzorcu pojavlja tudi koncnica -aj. Koncnica -í. predstavlja odraz koncnice rod. mn. i-sklanjatve psl. naglasnega tipa c. Iz tega naglasnega tipa je prešla v druge naglasne tipe i-sklanjatve ter v pregibnostni vzorec samostalnikov psl. naglasnih tipov b in c o-sklanjatve mo-škega spola in a-sklanjatve. Koncnica -ú. Koncnica -ú. je bila zabeležena le pri samostalnikih a-sklanjatve nó.a ‘noga’, ó.ra ‘gora’ in r..ka (rod. mn. noú., orú. in rokú.), pri samostalniku o-sklanjatve moškega spola rů.x (rod. mn. roú.) in dvojnicno pri samostalniku o-sklanjatve ó.ko (rod. mn. o.ú. poleg o.í.), ki pa se v to sklanjatev uvršca le sinhrono, po po­splošitvi imenovalniške osnove z umaknjenim cirkumfleksom (isln. *ok. *oc.sa > st. ter. *óko *oc.sa = ter. ó.ko ó.ku), in v množini izkazuje nadomestno osnovo o.- s posebnostmi v im. in rod. mn. Koncnica -ú. predstavlja odraz koncnice rod.(/mest.) dvojine psl. a-sklanja­tve ter o-sklanjatve moškega in srednjega spola. V vseh primerih razen v primeru orú. se je koncnica iz rod. dv. v rod. mn. verjetno posplošila zaradi parne narave realij, ki jih oznacujejo navedeni leksemi, pri tem pa je pomembno vplival tudi upad dvojine v narecju, ki se je zvecine pluralizirala; vzrok za posplošitev oblike rod. dv. v primeru samostalnika ó.ra ni jasen. Koncnica -aj Koncnica -aj je vedno le nenaglašena in omejena na naglasne tipe samostalni­kov z nepremicnim naglasom na osnovi. Vecinoma se pojavlja pri samostalni­kih a-sklanjatve in izrazito prevladuje pri samostalnikih z osnovo na izglasni soglasniški sklop. Oblike s koncnico -aj imajo ne glede na siceršnji naglasni tip leksema v osnovi vedno dolgi cirkumflektirani samoglasnik. Koncnica se pri sa­mostalnikih a-sklanjatve z osnovo na izglasni sklop tipa (ne)zvocnik + j pripe­nja na (sinhrono gledano) krnjeno osnovo brez koncnega -j-, npr. im. ed. bú.rj-a ‘kostanj’, .kú..j-a ‘licje, olupek’, im. mn. rá.bj-e ‘grablje’, .kŕ.rj-e : rod. mn. bů.raj, .ků..aj, rŕ.baj, .kŕ.raj.12 Pri samostalnikih o-sklanjatve moškega spola je bila koncnica -aj zabeležena le v treh primerih, in sicer vsakic kot dvojnic­na koncnica (rod. mn. kŕ.rtaj ‘krt’ poleg kŕ.rte, rod. mn. m...taj poleg mo.tí., rod. mn. ...taj poleg ...tue). Pri samostalnikih o-sklanjatve srednjega spola je bila koncnica -aj zabeležena v sedmih primerih,pri cemer prevladujejo primeri z osnovo na izglasni soglasniški sklop (rod. mn. jŕ..laj, ně..daj ‘gnezdo’, oně...aj 12Le pri samostalniku rů.bj-a ‘kup kamenja’ na osnovo brez krnjenega-j- (rod. mn. rů.bj-aj). J. Ježovnik, Koncnice rodilnika množine v terskem narecju slovenskega jezika ‘ognjišce’, rabě...aj ‘rocaj pri grabljah’, repě...aj, .eně.tkaj ter rod. mn. .elě..aj, Pů.jaj (mikrotoponim)). Sodec po pogostnosti pojavitev koncnica -aj verjetno izvira iz a-sklanjatve, in sicer je nastala po vrinjenju polglasnika v osnovah z izglasnim sklopom tipa (ne)zvocnik + *-j (slednji je lahko bodisi prvoten bodisi predstavlja odraz isln. *l) za olajšanje izgovora po onemitvi psl. izglasnih polglasnikov ter po kasnejši narecni vokalizaciji vsakršnega polglasnika isln. *. > ter. a (npr. rod. mn. psl. *burj., *gr.bl. > isln. *bűr.j, *grâb.l > ter. bů.raj, rŕ.baj). Na takšen izvor bi kazalo sinhrono pripenjanjekoncnice ne neposredno na osnovo pri tovrstnih samostalnikih (npr. rod. mn. bů.raj, rŕ.baj, .kŕ.raj, .ků..aj); po istem modelu sta nastali tudi obliki rod. mn. .arě..an, rŕ.k.. (im. ed. .arě..na, rŕ.kla), edini, ki izmed samostalnikov a-sklanjatve (ne vštevši oblike z -aj) izkazujeta odraz vrinjenega polglasnika v tem položaju. Koncnica se je nato naplastila na osnove samostalnikov z izglasnim sklopom brez izglasnega -j (ali v nekaterih primerih morda na prvotne nictokoncniške oblike takšnih samostalnikov)13 (npr. rod. mn. psl. *mčtl., *s.nc. > isln. *mét.l, *s.nc =*mčtl.j, *s.nc.j = ter. mč.tlaj, .ě.n.aj) in kasneje še na osnove drugacnega tipa (npr. rod. mn. psl. *r.p., *str.x. > isln. *r.p, *str.x = st. ter. *r.p.j, *str.x.j > ter. rě.paj, .trě.xaj). Seznam uporabljenih krajšav psl./Psl. = praslovansko / Proto-Slavic isln./Csln. = izhodišcnoslovensko / Common-Slovene ter./Ter. = narecno tersko / dialectal Tersko st. = starejše / older ed. = ednina / Singular mn. = množina / Plural dv. = dvojina / Dual im. = imenovalnik / Nominative rod. = rodilnik / Genitive daj. = dajalnik / Dative mest. = mestnik / Locative or. = orodnik / Instrumental 13 Na takšen razvoj bi kazalo tudi dejstvo, da pri samostalnikih a-sklanjatve z osno­vo na izglasni soglasniški sklop koncnica -aj izrazito prevladuje. Bibliografija Cronia, Arturo. 1950. Contributi alla dialettologia slovena. Slavisticna revija 3/3–4: 321–326. Ježovnik, Janoš. 2019. Notranja glasovna in naglasna clenjenost terskega narecja sloven- skega jezika. Disertacija. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. Kapovic, Mate. 2015. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. Karta slovenskih narecij z vecjimi naselji, 2016. V: Jožica Škofic et al.: Slovenski lingvistic­ ni atlas 2, Kmetija 1: atlas. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. https://fran.si/204/ sla-slovenski-lingvisticni-atlas/datoteke/SLA_Karta-narecij.pdf, dostop 2. 4. 2019. Ramovš, Fran. 1952. Morfologija slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije. Rigler, Jakob. 1963. Pregled osnovnih razvojnih etap v slovenskem vokalizmu. Slavisticna revija 14: 25–78. Ponatisnjeno v: Jakob Rigler (ur. Vera Smole), Zbrani spisi 1: Jezi­ kovnozgodovinske in dialektološke razprave, 19–57. Ljubljana 20014: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. Šekli, Matej. 2018: Tipologija lingvogenez slovanskih jezikov. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. Prispelo aprila 2019, sprejeto junija 2019. Received April 2019, accepted June 2019. Koncnice rodilnika množine v terskem narecju slovenskega jezika14 Pri samostalnikih a-sklanjatve nepremicnega naglasnega tipa z naglasom na osnovi in z osnovo brez izglasnega soglasniškega sklopa ali z izglasnim soglasni­škim sklopom tipa . + (ne)zvocnik se praviloma pojavlja koncnica rod. mn. -., pri takšnih samostalnikih z osnovo z izglasnim soglasniškim sklopom pa pravilo-ma koncnica -aj, pri cemer so mogoce tudi dvojnicne uresnicitve. Pri samostalni­kih mešanega in koncniškega naglasnega tipa se praviloma pojavlja koncnica -í.. Pri samostalnikih o-sklanjatve moškega spola prevladuje koncnica -e/-.., in sicer prva pri tistih, ki se uvršcajo v nepremicni naglasni tip z naglasom na osnovi, druga pa pri tistih, ki se uvršcajo v koncniški naglasni tip (izjemoma tudi takšnih, ki so se zgodovinsko, tj. pred narecnimi naglasnimi spremembami, uvršcali v mešani naglasni tip). Koncnica -í. se pojavlja pri nekaterih samostalnikih, ki nadaljujejo 14 Prispevek je nastal v okviru programa P6-0038, ki ga financira ARRS. J. Ježovnik, Koncnice rodilnika množine v terskem narecju slovenskega jezika psl. naglasni tip c in b s (po)psl. dolgim samoglasnikom v osnovi, in pri vecini samostalnikov, ki se sinhrono uvršcajo v koncniški naglasni tip. Pri samostalnikih o-sklanjatve srednjega spola je zaradi upada te slovnicne ka­tegorije stanje mešano, kar je zlasti razvidno pri samostalnikih s pripono -i..e (prim. rod. mn. ko.ě...-. : kopě...-e : rabě...-aj); samostalniki z osnovo brez izglasnega soglasniškega sklopa ali z izglasnim soglasniškim sklopom tipa . + (ne)zvocnik imajo sicer praviloma v rod. mn. nicto koncnico, vendar ne brezizjemno. Pri samostalnikih i-sklanjatve se razen redkih izjem in (drugotnih) dvojnicnih uresnicitev pojavlja le koncnica -í., in sicer tudi pri samostalnikih (sicer) nepremic­nega naglasnega tipa z naglasom na osnovi. Le v naglasnem tipu z nepremicnim (cir­kumfleksnim) naglasom na osnovi, v katerega se uvršcajo izposojenke iz furlanšcine z osnovo na izglasni soglasnik, se praviloma pojavlja nenaglašena koncnica -.. Koncnica -ú., prvotno koncnica rod.(/mest.) dv., se pojavlja pri štirih samo­stalnikih, ki oznacujejo parne realije: rod. mn. (ž. sp.) noú., rokú., (m. sp.) roú. in (sr. sp.) o.ú., ter pri samostalniku (ž. sp.) ó.ra (rod. mn. orú.), pri katerem motivacija za posplošitev prvotno dvojinske, pluralizirane oblike ni jasna. Koncnica -aj se pojavlja zlasti pri samostalnikih a-sklanjatve, le drugotno tudi pri samostalnikih drugih pregibnostnih vzorcev, in sicer prevladujoce v pri­merih samostalnikov z osnovo na izglasni soglasniški sklop. Koncnica je nastala po narecni vokalizaciji vrinjenega polglasnika za olajšanje izgovora glasovnih sklopov tipa soglasnik + j, nastalih po onemitvi psl. polglasnikov v šibkem po­ložaju (npr. rod. mn. psl. *burj., *gr.bl. > isln. *bűr.j, *grâb.l > ter. bů.raj, rŕ.baj) in se nato naplastila najprej na osnove samostalnikov z izglasnim sogla­sniškim sklopom brez izglasnega j ter kasneje še na osnove drugacnega tipa. Genitive plural endings in the Tersko dialect of Slovene Nouns belonging to the non-mobile root-stressed accentual paradigm of a-de­clension with roots containing no final consonant clusters or containing conso­nant clusters of the type . + obstruent usually exhibit the genitive plural ending -., while nouns of the same paradigm with roots containing a final consonant clu­ster usually exhibit the ending -aj; doublet realizations are also possible. Nouns of the mobile or end-stressed accentual paradigms usually exhibit the genitive plural ending -í.. The predominant genitive plural ending of nouns of the masculine o-de­clension is -e/-.., the first with nouns belonging to the non-mobile root-stres­sed accentual paradigm and the second with those belonging to the end-stressed accentual paradigm (rarely also those nouns which historically, i.e. prior to di­alectal accentual changes, belonged to the mobile accentual paradigm). The en­ding -í. appears in nouns reflecting the Psl. accentual paradigms c and b with a (post-)Psl. long root vowel, and in most nouns synchronically belonging to the end-stressed accentual paradigm. Due to the decline of this grammatical category, nouns belonging to the neu­ter o-declension exhibit a mixed state, most evident in nouns with the suffix -i..e (e.g. gen. pl. ko.ě...-. : kopě...-e : rabě...-aj). Nouns with roots containing no final consonant clusters or containing a consonant cluster of the type . + obstruent usually exhibit the ending -., however not without exceptions. Nouns of the i-declension with rare few exceptions exhibit the ending -í., also in nouns belonging to the (otherwise) non-mobile root-stressed accentual paradigm. Only in the accentual paradigm exhibiting circumflex root-stress in all forms, comprised of Friulian feminine loan-words with word-final consonants, do we find the unstressed ending -.. The ending -ú., originally the ending of genitive dual, was found in four no­uns, denoting paired realia: gen. pl. (fem.) noú., rokú., (masc.) roú., and (neut.) o.ú., and with the noun (fem.) ó.ra (rod. mn. orú.); the motivation for the genera­lization of the pluralized (originally dual) form in the latter example is not clear. The ending -aj appears especially with nouns of the a-declension, and only as a secondary ending with nouns of other declensions; it appears predominantly with roots containing final consonant clusters. The ending was formed by dialec­tal vocalization of an epenthetic schwa in word-final consonant clusters of the type consonant + j, which arose as a result of the dropping of Psl. weak yers (e. g. gen. pl. Psl. *burj., *gr.bl. > Csln. *bűr.j, *grâb.l > Ter. bů.raj, rŕ.baj). It then spread to roots of nouns with root-final consonant cluster without a final j and after that onto other types of roots. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 12 (2019): 31–51 ...... ...... [Mihail Saenko] ........ .............. .......... ........ ...., ...... ...... ......, ..... ......: . ....... . ...... ..... .......... Prispevek obravnava izvor in zemljepisno razširjenost poimenovanja jeter s sintagmo »crni X«, navzocega v številnih evropskih jezikih, in sicer pogosto ob poimenovanju pljuc z zvezo »beli X«. Posebej je izpostavljeno vprašanje razmejitve med obmocji, v katerih sta se tovrstni poimenovanji jeter in pljuc pojavili pod vplivom turških jezikov, in ob-mocij, v katerih so te pojavitve neodvisne. To vprašanje je še posebej težko razrešljivo v primeru slovenskih koroških in rezijanskih narecij. The article analyses the origin and location of the designation of liver as the ‘black X’, present in many European languages and, as a rule, opposed to the ‘white X’ – lungs. A special focus is put on the demarcation of interconnected areas, where such a model had appeared due to the influence of Turkic languages, and areas, where such collocations developed independently. The Slovenian dialects in Carinthia and Resia seem to be the most complicated cases. 1. ......... .....: .......... . ........ .....1,2 .................. ........ ......3, *i.ekwr., ........... . ........­.... .......... ..... . ..... jigar, ....... . ........... .......... ...... ... jegär. ... .. .... ......... ... .......... .. ...... ..... 1 ..... ........ ............. .. .. ....... .. ........ .. .......... ..­...... . .... .... ......, .. ............ .. ........ .. ..... .......... . ........... ........., . ..... ............... .......... ......, .. .. .....­... . .. .. ........ .. ............ ...... 2........ .. .., ... . ...... ... .......... ......... ........ . .......­........... .... «...... .» – «..... .», .. .... . .... ..........., . ...... ...... ........ ... .. ......... ........ ......, ....... ...... . ....... ....... ......... ..... .......... («...... .»). ... . . ..... ....... ..­.........................[......2017],............................ ...... .... .. ........ ...... 3 ... .... ....... yákr.t (G. yakná.) «......», ..... .pa. (G. .p.t..) .id', .... iecur (G. iecinoris) .id', .... aknas (f. pl.) .id' . .... ................: jegär-e siyah «......» . jegär-e sefid «......» (siyah – «......», sefid – «.....»). ... .... ..... jegär, ... . ...... ........... ...... . ...... ... «...... .» . «..... .» .... ............ . ........ ...... ... ...­........... .. ....... ... . ....... .iger, .... jigar «......», .... ..... «...., ......, ......» (..... 2006: 839; Räsänen 1969: 126). .......... ............ ...... ..... . ........ . ...............: .... karaciger «......», akciger «......» (kara – «......», ak – «.....»), ...... qaraciy.r . agciy.r4. ........, ........ ........ ........... ........... ....­............ ..... ...... . ... ......; ......... .... .... . .. .... (.... 1973: 185). ... .. ...... ......, ... ........ ........ ...... ... .... ..... ciger, ... . «........» ...... ........ ..... ....... ................ .. ......... .......... ........... ....... ..... ......... .. ... .........: •• .............: ... ........... ...... ... .... ...... ............ ..... ciger; •• ............. + .............: .............. ciger .......... ............... «......» (... ......) . «.....» (... ......); •• .............: . ........ ................ ............ ........ ... ....... ..... ..... «......», «......» ... «............». ...-... ........ ........... ..., ... ... ............ . ........ ............. ............ ...... ............ 2. ..... ....... ..... ciger, . ..... ...... ........... ...... . ...... ... «...... .» – «..... .» ........ . ......... ..... ......., ........... . ........ . ............... . ........: .) .......... ..... (Kassian; Comrie, Khalilov): •• ........ (........ .......): ...... ..... /ma.jin papa./ (= «...... ......») «......»; •• ........ (............ .......): /ma.in pu..pu./ «......», ., ........, ..... ...... ............. .. ................ /.igćr/ «......»; 4 .. .. ........... . .... .... ........... ........... . ..... .. ..­....... ......... (... ....), ......... ... ..., .. .... ..........., ......, ......... ............... ......... •• ........: ....I.. ....I.... /lćhć lćhkćn/ «......» ... ..... ....I.... /lćzilćhkćn/ «......» . ..... ....I.... «.........» (....I.. – «......», ..... – «.....»); •• ........ (........ .......): /ta.ul/ ~ /leha ta.ul/ (/leha/ – «......») «......» ... /.igar/ «......»; •• .........: ...../lćq'/ ~ ...I...../la.a leq'/, ...I. ...../la.a lćq'/ «......» ... ........ /luzu leq'/ «......» (..... – «......», .... – «.....»); •• .......... (......... .......): /laq'/ ~ /l...d. laq'/ «......» (l...d. – «......»); •• .......... (......... .......): ...... .... /.’ulow leq'/ «......» ... .... .... /la.u leq'/ ~ .... ...... /la.u .iger/ «......» (...... – «......», .... – «.....»); •• ............. (............): ..../lik'/ ~ ..... ..../k'ar'u lik'/ «......» ... .... .... /liz'i lik'/ «.........». .) ...........: ...I.. ..... /mi.'ä bij'ar/ «......» ... ......I ..... / xj.r..' bij'ar/ «......» . ....... /.igćr/ «......», ........ «...... . ......» (Kassian; Comrie, Khalilov). .) .......: .igeri «......» (......, ....... 2003: 90). .) ....... (......... .......): ..... «......» (Comrie, Khalilov). .) ......... (..... .... ........ ........... ...... .........): ..... ..... «......» ... ... ..... «......» (..... – «......», ... – «.....»), ..... ..... ... .... ........ ............ ............ ........ ....... 3. ........., ........., .........., ................ ...... ............, .. ........ ................ ..... ciger . .....­..... «...... .» – «..... .», .... ............ ..... ............ ...... .. ....... ...... ...... ...... ..... . .........: mëlçi ~ mëlçi e zezë «......» ... mëlçi e bardhë «......» (.... ..... mëlçi ............ .. ..... milza «.........» (Orel 1998: 259); zi – «......», bardhë – «.....»), ..... mushkni e zez, mushkni e bardh (mushkni – «......») . .. .. (Kyriazis 2012: 140; ALE: 7). ..... ... ............ . ......... ......... .........: šk'ot’ m'avru «......» (...t..a; (s...t. >) šk'ot’ – «......»,m'avru – «......») (............ 2011: 76), µa... p.eµ... (....; p.eµ... – «......») (Kyri­azis 2012: 140), ..... vlang'in m'avr.n, ... vlang'in – .......... ...-..... sp....... «............» (ALE: 5). ....... ............. ........ .. .....: .... 1....... «...... .» – «..... .», . ..... ...... ............. ..... ciger . .......... ...... (...... ......... . ................ ...... .........). . ......... ............ ..... ... ................ ............. t..... ~ t...... «......, ............», ... . .......... – t. µa... t..... (Meyer 1891: 271–272). ...... ...... .... l'aiuihk'atu (l'aiu – «......», ihk'atu – «......») .....­..... . ... ..... .......... ......... (Bara et al. 2005: 338; Gola.b 1984: 220). .. ...... ........... ........... ......, ... .......... .......­.... . ......... ....... (. ....... ... ..... ........... ...... . ..... ALAR): ........ – ........... (1), ...... (10); ......... – ..... (7), ....... (11), ..... ...... (13), ..... ...... (14), ..... (15), .......­.. (16), ...... (17); ...... – ... ...... (... .....a, 12), ........... (......ßad., 29), ....... (.ßd...a, 40), ........ (..s.d..., 53); ....... – .... (Niçë, 21), .......-.-....... (Grabovë e Sipërme, 22) (ALAR: 273). .............. ... . . ................: négru drob, negri dróbur (ALAR: 273). ....... ....... .. ........ . ...... ........ ...... – «....... .» ... «......»: .... mëlçi e kuqë (kuq – «.......»), ..... t. .......t..... (Meyer 1891: 271–272). 4. .........., ..........., ...............5 .............. ...... ...... ................. . «.............. ............... ......» (... 9, ..... 53 . 54) . «........... .......­... ......» (... 2008, ..... I/85). . ......... ......... .............. ...... .............. ... ........ ........... ...... . ......: ...... ........ ...... ... ....­.. ..... .... (........, ..... .... ..... .... –... ....) ... ... ...... ............... ...... (........, c.n .iger – bel .iger (......, ..... ... 101)). ...... .. ........... . .. .........., ... ........ ....... . ...., . ....... . ...... ........ ... ....... (Siatkowski 239–240). .. .... ...­............ . ...... ....... ........... .... .........: ...... ....­.... ........... ..... .. ....., ........ .... .. ... ...... . .........­... ...... 143 (........) .. ....... ....... ........, ............. .. ........ ....... ...., ........... ... ...., ... . ......: 'ce.r.n d'ro.p, .i'ge.r – «......», 'b’a.l d'ro.p, .i'ge.r – «......». ........... 'c.rin drop ...­.. .............. . ......... ...... . ....... (..... ... 167). ..... ...., . ......... ....... ...... ... .......... ...... ...­..., .. . ........ «......» ... ........... .... (........, .a.o..... (..... ... 94): c.n .iger «......» – bel drop «......»; ....... (..... ... 99): c.rn .iger «......» – bel .iger, bel drop «......»), . ... ......­.... ........ ..... ...... ......, .................. . ...... ...... ......, .......... ........ ............. . ............. ...... .... ...... ....... ... .... .......... ....... ... ......... . ........ ........ ..­.... ...... ...... ... ................ (...... 122, 127, 128, 135, 143, 144), ...... ... ..... ........... ........ ....... ...... ......., ..­....... ... ........ ........ ......... 5 .......... .... .......... .... ......... ....... ............. ........ .. .....: .... 2....... «...... .» – «..... .», . ..... ...... ............. ..... ciger .. ........ . . .......... ...... ..... .......... ..... ........ ......... . ..... . ........... . ...... ...... ...... . ............... .......... mëlçi e zezë «......» . mëlçi e bardhë «......». .. ............... ........ .......... .. .................. ..... ....... ........ ..... ....... ........... ........... ............­.. ........ ...... – *etro. ..... ...., . ..... .............. «......» ......... ............. ........... ....... .............. ..... – *otroba. ...... .. ... .......... ........ ...... . ...... ............­.. – crna .igara/.igerica. ....., ... ............., .............. ...... – crna utrobica (...... ... 71, 74, 75, 76, 77), . . ..... ...... (Žminj, 22) – c'.na koro'dela (........ «...... ............») ...... . ut'roba. . .... ....... ... ......... ... ........, ...... . ............. ..............., ........, ......... (..... 68): jčtra, c..na .ígerica (. .........); ......... (76): c.na. útrobica, .ěgarica. ...... ............. džiger .......... ... . XVI .... . .......... (Skok 1: 473). ........ ....... .......... ........ . ...... 24 (Dobrinj), ... . ........ «......» ........... ........ 'je:tra, . .............. 'žigerica ......... ........ «......». 5. .........., ........., ......... . .......... . .......... ...... «...... . – ..... .», .. .... ..........., .....­....... .. ...... ......, A Magyar Nyelvjárások Atlasza (III, ..... 426) ......... ...... ............ ........ ............. máj «......». . .. .. ..... . .......... ....... ...... ............. zsiger «.......­....., .......». . ......... .. ....... ... ...... ............. .. ........., ... . ...... (NALR 1967, harta 92, harta 108; NALR 1969, harta 104; NALR 1980, harta 95; NALR 1987, harta 67, harta 77; NALR 1992, harta 150; NALR 1996, harta 73). ...... ............. .............. . ......... . ...-......... ..­... ......... ........ . .... gig.e.r ~ gig.i.r «......» (...... NALR 874, 877, 896). ........ ..... ................. ............. ............. . ....... .......... gig.e.r ne.gru (...... 878, 883). .. .. .......... ..­......, .. ...... ............... ................... ......, . .....­... (..... 126, .......) . ........ ....... ....... (..... 131, ......). ......... ..... .......... . ...... 896 .................. gig.e.ru a.la ro..u [....... gig.e.r] «......» – gig.e.ru a.la a.lbu [..... gig.e.r] «......»6. ...... ...... ........... .. ....... .........., ...... . .... ............. ..... ..... ......... .............. ......... .. ..­...... ...... ..... ficat, ............ ...... . ............ ..... . ........... .......; ........ mai, ................ . .... ........ . ... ...............; plamân «......» . bojoc «......». .. ...-....... ...... .............. .......... .... fica.tu n.e.gru ... fica.tu. al n.e.gru (........ ...... . fica.t), NALR ......... .. . 14 ...­..... ... .. ... (. ............. . ................ ..........) 6 ...... . ......... ............. fica.t . plamî. ne. ........... . ........ . ........ (5 ....... .. ......-....... . ...­......), . ..... ....... (7 ......., . ...... 936 ..... plomî.nu ne.gru). .. ......-...... ........ ....... . ........ ........ ..........­... ....... plamî.n ne.gru (43 ......), .... mai. ne.gru (20 .......) . fica.t ne.gru(3 ......). ........ ... ...... ........... ...... ...............­.... ... ... ... ............, . ...... .........., ... . .............­....., ... . ... .... .. .. ........... ......... .............. .................. ..... . ........ . .. .......: pla'm.n 'negru (......., ........... .......) . ........ .. .... 'majur. 'njagr.(......., .........., ........., .....­..., ...... . ........ . ......... . ........ .......) (.... 4, ..... 19). ......., ... . ...... ..... ...... .............. .....-.......... ............. jîgari..a (. ..........), ...... . ........ «......», . .. «......»7. ........ ...... NALR, . ............. . ..........8 .. ....... ............., .. ...... .. .............. .......... .... «...... .» .. ......... ......... . ... .. .....­............... ...... ........... cierna pecena . cierna pecen .....­...... ....... ............ . .......... .......... cerna pecena ..­........ . XVII ..... ....... ..... ............ ........... «....... ......», ............... . ........... .... ........., ......... . .........: od nemocech jater aneb cerweneg pecene, ..... ............­... . XVII .... (HSSJ 3: 496). «....... ......... .........» ......... ciérná pecena . ......, ............ .... (......-........ ........) (SSN 2: 762). .. ........ ..... .........: „Miesto jatrá lud obycajne hovorí cierna pecena“, . ....­....., ... ......... ...... (Šujanský 1893). ...... ..... .........., ... . .......... XIX .... ... ........­... .......... ............. ..., .......... máj ........... ... cierna pecena, jatra (Mráz 1866: 357), ... .. ......... iecur (Cerný 1865: 31). ... .......... . ........ . ........... „Cvicenia umu a reci“ (Nagy 1870: 123), . ..... ............. ....... ........ (Kukucín 1958: 279). .........., ......... ........ ......... . .............. .....­... ... ........... ......... . .............. ...... ............... ............... ........... 7.......... .......... ........... . ...... 21: fica..] «......». 8 . .... «.........» ..... «......» ..........., ...... ......... . ....­.... ........... ...... .......... ...... ........ ....., .. ........, ... ... ........ ..... ................ . .. «......». - . ... î...î din pept [ fica. ....... ............. ........ .. .....: .... 3....... «...... .» – «..... .», . ..... ...... ............. ..... ciger . .......... ....... . .......... ....... ..... ............ ...... «...... .......» ..., ...., .. ............. ..... – «...... .......» ('c’.r’n’i pyc’u.'ky . ....). ... ......... .. . ....... ....... . ............ ....... ....... (.o...a, .o..e, .o...., ......a) . ..... (.......) .......... .... ..­...... ... ...... . 10 ....... ............ (..... ........, ....., ...­......, ........., ......, ..... ......., ...... .......)9 . .....­ 9 . ........., ..... «......» ... . «............... ...... .......... ..­...... ....... ............ ....... ....» .. .. ..............., .. .. ........­ .... (....... ......, ....., .......) ......... .............. ... . . ..... ...... .. .......... ...... – ....... (AUGN, ..... 106). ..... .... ................... ...... «...... ......». ... ......­...... . ..... ...... ... (.e.i.) . 6 .... (....., ..........., .....­.., ........ ....., ......., ......), ....... .......... ..... .. .....­..... ........... . .....-........... ........ ... ....... . ........ 6. .......... . .......... ........., .. ...... ........... ................ ....­.. (SLA 1/51, SLA 1/52), ............. ........... .... (ta) crni drob «......» . ............ ...... ........ ... .......... ....... . .... ........ ........ ...... ............... drob, ...... .... ......... ........, ... ................ .... ........ (.... ...... .. ........ ..........., ......... ...... ........... ............. ... ....... .................. ...... . ......). ........ ....... ........ . .......... ........., ... . ........ «......» ............. ...... j.tra ~ ..tra, .. ...... ............ ... te b.le j.tra ~ te b.le ..tra. ..... ...... ...... ...... 001 Egg bei Hermagor (Brdo pri Šmohorju) t. c.rne dr..b plúc. 002 Folach (Borlje) t. c.rn. dr..b plúc., lůng.n 004 Feistritz an der Gail (Bistrica na Zilji) t. c.rn. dr... plúc., (t. b..l. dr...) 007 Riegersdorf (Rikarja vas) t. c.rn. dr..b, ..tr. plúc. 049 Pernice 'c.r. d'ruop, 'c.rni d'ruop, 'jetra; 'j..tre 'b..li d'ruop, p'lu.ca; p'luce 050 Sv. Primož na Pohorju j.t..; 'c..ni d'.u..p pl.ce; 'bi..li d'.u..p 011 Latschach (Loce) d.... plúc. 046 Pamece dr..p pl.ce 051 Vuzenica j.t.e, d...p pl.ce, b..li dr..p 059 Stolvizza (Solbica) j.tra; ..tra te b.le j.tra; te b.le ..tra ....... 1. ........... ...... ... (ta) crni drob ... drob, . ...... ... (ta) beli drob . .......... ......... .. ...... SLA. ...... ... ..... «......» ...... ........... .... «..... .......» . «...... ..­.....» ........ ........ ....... .......... (............... 1960, ..... 145). ...... .......... ........ ............ ....... .... ........... . ......... ..., . .... . ....... (..... SLA 001) dr..b ........... . ...­..... «............», . c.ni dr..b – «......» (Pronk 2009: 212). . ....... (..... SLA 029) ....... ........ ......... .......: jé..tr. «......» (Karnicar 1990: 161), drň.b «............», ta c.r..n drň.b «....., ...... . .........», ta bč.l drň.b «......» (Karnicar 1990: 141). ....... ........... ........ ........... crna jetra «......» . .......... (. ........ ...., ........ ......) . bela jetra . ........ «.......... ......»10 (. ........., ..... ........) . ........ «...­..............., .....................» (Pleteršnik 2006: 366). .... .... ........ ...... ..... .... ....... ......: ...... .. .. ............. .......... ...... ........ .. ........... ...... ... ..­...... ... ......... ... ...... ..... ........ .. ...., ........ ..... ...... ......... . ........ ....... 7. ......... ..... (..... .........., ........... . .................) .................. «...... X» – «..... X» .......... ..... ... .....­..... ....., . ....... ...... ............ ... fuiŕ fosch (.......... ...­....) (Forni), fia fošk (............); fia fošk (..........); figá néger (....­...........); figánéger (........) (Gartner 1923: 149); fiŕn.igher (......­....) (DILF 2001: 451). .............. ...... .......... fuiŕblanch (...­....... .......) (Forni), fia bla.k (............); fia bla.k (..........); figá bla.k (...............); figá bla.k (........) (Gartner 1923: 159); fiŕ bia.nch (DILF 2001: 112). .. .. ..... .. ....... . ...........: fricasséio niéro – fricasséio blancho (......; fricasséio – «............»); ..........: hidge négue – hidge blan (.....); ..... ........... ........: foie noir – foie bllanc (...­...... .....) (Zauner 1902: 156, 170; PAC 1877: 74); . ..... ........... ..... ........: foie noir –foie blanc (DLF 2010: 290). ... ........., Atlas linguistique de la France ..... .. ......... ...... ......, ...... . ..... .... ....... (76, Gérardmer, Vosges; 180, Igney, Meurthe-et-Moselle; 517, Saint-Groux, Charente; 610, Chazelles, Charente; 614, Excideuil, Dordogne; 813, Monistrol-d’Allier, Haute-Loire; 896, Seillans, Var; 901, Theneuille, Allier) ........... «..... ......» ... ........... ....... (ALF, ..... 1073). 10 .......... ...... ......... ..... ........ .. ...... ALE ... .. ...... ............ . ........... (kur'ad n'ira; frit'ura n'egra; fr'itu n'iru) . ......... (a.a'ura n'e.ra) ......... (ALE: 7, 11). ........, .... ..... ....... ..... .......... ........... ...­.. nirom/narom/gniram «......», .......... .. .......... .. ..... . *nigramen (< niger «......»)11 (DRG). ...... . .... ...... .. .......... ........ . ...... .......... ............... ......, ......... ...... . ................. .......... leiv (........ «......»), . . ............­.... – curaglia (............. ..............., ............ .. cor «....­..») (Pallioppi 1895: 216, 420; DRG). ......., ... .... .. ...... «...... X» – «..... X» ....... ....­...... .. .......... ........., .. ............. ..... .... .. ....­.... .. .......... ......, ............ .......... .... . ........... ...... ...... ....... ......., ...... . ....... ....... . ..., ... . ......... ...... ....... .... (. ..... ......., ... ....) ...... ...... ........ ........... ............... ....... 8. ......... ..... ... ........ ......... ......, .. ...... ALE, ..... .. .......... ...­...... ................... .......... ........ ...... .............. «......»: na haenna dubha (ALE: 7). 9. ......... .... ALE ........ kalo buko ... kalu buku «...... ......» . ......... ...­.... ........, ...... ......... . ........ (... ...... buko . ...­... .......) (ALE: 19). .... ...... ROMLEX ........... ........... . ....... ...... . ......, ........., ........, ........, ........, ......., ....... . ...... (ROMLEX). 10. ........ ..... ....... ............ .......... .. ....... . ........ ...... (SS 6: 142–145). ... . ........ ............... ..... ....... ... jatra / jetša 11 ..... ... ..... ..... ........ ........ .. ren «.....» > *renamen > *neramen ... .. ......... Niere «.....» (IDRG). «......», ... . pluca «......», . . .... .............. ......... .. ...... ..... – ......, .. . ...... – ......., . ..... ...... – ........ ...... ........... ...... ......... ... ................ ... ... .....­.. ............ .......... ......... .........., .. ....... .......­............ ....... ........... ...... Sorbischer Sprachatlas ...... «..... – ...... *etra» bele jatra – corne jatra Geierswalde (69), Tätzschwitz (70), Michalken/Bröthen (100), Nardt (101) bele jetša – jetša / belo jatra – jatra Drachhausen (4), Döbbrick (18), Bergen (71) ...... «..... – ...... *pluta» bele pluca – carne pluca Tauer (8), Drewitz (10), Grötsch (14), Bärenbrück (15), Willmersdorf (36), Tranitz (38), Roggosen (45), Drieschnitz (47), Mattendorf (48), Skerbersdorf (51), Kromlau (54), Groß Düben (55), Trebendorf (56), Mlrose (59), Neustadt (60), Zerre (61) bele pluca – pluca Groß Lieskow (37), Roggosen (45), Mattendorf (48), Waldesdorf (49), Sellesen (50) ...... «...... – ....... *etra» lažke jetša – sežke jetša Burg (1), Werben (22), Müschen (23), Ruben (28) lažke jetša – jetša Schmogrow (2), Fehrow (3), Babow (27), Kunersdorf (29), Zahsow (32) ...... «...... – ....... *etra/*pluta» meke jetša – twarde jetša Briesen (20), Guhrow (21) meke pluca – twarde pluca Schönhöhe (9), Jänschwalde (11), Horno (12), Heinersbrück (13), Bärenbrück (15), Gablenz (44), Koppatz (46) ....... 2. ........... ...... . ...... ... ...... .......... . ........ ...­.... . ....... 15, 45 . 48 ............ .. ... ....... 11. ............. ... ........... .........? ............ ........ ........ . ....... ......... ...... ....... . ....­........ ......... ....... ...... .... ........... ........... ...... . ...... (...... ..... .........) . ...... ..... ...... ........ ..........­..... ...... .......... . ...., ......., ...: ... ........ ......... ....­.. ...... . ...... ........ ...... .. ..... ....... . ...... .......­......, .... ..... .. .. ..... ................ ... .. ..... (...... ... ....... – .....), ............ (....... – ......), ... . .. ...., ......... ... . ...... . ..... ... ..... (...... – .......). ......., ...... .. ...... . ..... ............ ... ..... ....... ..... ...... – .................. ......... «......», ....... .. ....... ..... ...... .. ................. ...... «........» (. ...... ..........., ...... ................ . ..­....... .... ... Zauner 1902: 157), . ........... ...... . ............. – *lungon .. *h1ln.gwh- «......» (Kroonen 2013: 344 . ....... .............. ...........). ........ ...... – ......... ........... ...... ... «....­ . ... (Klein 1987: 268)). . ............ ........... kabed ... ... ...» (...-.... .......... molle«...... .........» (........ «......»). .......... ..... . .... ........... ......... (ALF, ..... 1073). ... .. ....., .... ........ . .......... ......, .. . ...... ... .. ..­..... . .......... ....... ...... «....... ...... – ...... ......»: ventroba, c.ska ventroba – l'etka ventroba (287); c’aš'k’ija 'p’ecan’i– 'l’oxk’ija, 'l’oxk’ija p’eca'n’i, l’ax'k’ija p’eca'n’i (331); vant'roba, c’aš'k’jia –'l’oxk’ija(337); c’aš'k’ija –'l’oxk’ija (338); p’a'conka (. ........), c’až'koja (. .........) – 'l’o.k’ija (392); py'c’inka, t’aš'k’i pyc’in'k’e (...... .........) – 'lexk’i, p'l’uca (...... ........), 'lexk’i pyc’in'k’e (...... .........) (413); pe'cu.ka ['corna, t’aš'ka] – 'lyxk’i (484)12. .. .. ...... .. ....... . . ......... .........: cašká pecen «..­....» – lachka pecen «......» – ....... .... ..... . ........... (SSN 2: 762). . ........ ....... ... .......... . .... dudy ciezkie «...... ..­.......» – dudy lekkie «...... .........» . .......... ........ (MSGP 2010: 55), ...... ... ........ ........, ... dudy ........ .........­.... ..... .. ........ ............ ........... ....... . ........... ...... . .... ..... ......... .... ......... .. ............ ...... (... (Karlowicz 1900: 388; SGM 1: 84)). .. ........... ...... ....... ..... (Varennes, ........... .....) ................... .................. ....... . ...... .............: tri`p dur «...... .........» – tri`p mo`l «...... .........» (ALF, ..... 585 . 1073). . ............ .......... ............ .... dir «.......» – lom «......» > dir «......» – lom «......» (Decurtins)13. .. .., .. . .... .....­..... . ............... curaglia .. ....... . . ............ ...... ...­ 12. ...... 272 ......-.. ... «.......», ... . «......» ........... ..... ... ....... . ......: v.ntroba [ceska i letka] «......» ... p..ca «......». 13 ..... dir ......... ........ . .......... durus «.......», . ... ..... lom ........ ....... .. .......... lama «......, ....», .. ..... ......... ......., ... ... ............. .. ......... lahm «......; ..... (. .......... ........)» (Meyer-Lübke 1911: 350). . ..... ........ ... ..... rom «.....» < ....ramus . rom «....» < .... Rahmen. .... (Bergün / Bravuogn): curaglia lomma«...... .........» – curaglia digra «...... .........». . ........ ...... ........... ...... ... (Latsch) ..­............ ........ ....: curaglia cuetschna(«.......») «...... .......­..» – curaglia negra («......») «...... .........». ......., ...... ..... ............ ..... ...curaglia digra (DRG)14, ........, ... ........ ....­.... ...... ........ ...... ...... ........ . ..., ... ........ ...... ............ ..... ............. ..., . ........ ......(iecur) ficatum, ............. ...­......... ....., ......... ...... iecur . ........ «......» ......... .......... ......... .......pa. .. (.pa.) s...t.. > s...t.. .........­.... ..... ..... ...... .. ........ «......» . «...... (..... .... ..­...... . ........)» ........ ............. .......... ., ........, .. ........, ... ..... ... .. ..... .. ....... . ........... . ......­............. ...... ......... ..... (pecen), . . ......... ..........­.. ..... ...... (ke~penys «......» < kčpti «....»). . ..... . .... ........ ......, ..... ............. ...... ........ .........., . ..... ... ........ ........... ............., ..... ....... .... ........ . ...... «...... . – ..... .», .. ........ .. ....­........, ... . ......... ...... (. .........., .......... . .......... ........) ... ........., ......... ......... (...... ... .........) . ......... ......., . . ......... ... ........... .......... ...­....... ......... . .... ......... ............ .......... ....., ......... .., . ..... ......., ......... . ...... ............. .. ..­....... (....... .... ........... . ...... .......... ............ ...... .. ............... ....... . ............ . .......... ....... ...........), . . ...... – ......... ...... .........-.......... ......, . ......., ......., ................ ...... ........... .......... ......... ......... ... ........., ....... ..... ......... ... ............ ..... ...... . .......... ......... ......: 1) ....... ...... . ...... . ............ .........: ....... ., ....... .; 2) ....... ...... . «........» ....... ....... ............. .....­.... ciger; 3) ............... ......; 4) ......... ...... . ......., ............ ... ........ ......... ........ 14 ........... ........... «....... .........» .......... . ........­.... ...... ........ (Alvaneu / Alvagni): curaglia lomma; . . ................. ...... .....-...... (St. Moritz / San Murezzan):curaglia cotschna (IDRG), ...... . .... ....... .. .. ........... ........... . ..., ... ...... ...... .... ..... ........ ....... ......... ............. «........» ...... . .......­....... ......., ......... ....... .... ..... .... ................ ... ....... . «.............» ...... (.... ..... mëlçi e kuqë, ..... ..... t. .......t.....; ....... ..... curaglia cuetschna), ... . ...... . .......... ...... (.... ..... gig.e.ru a.la ro..u). ... ...., ... ... ......., ......... . ......... ............. ... ........ .......... ........, .. ........ .... .. ........ ...­... ...... «...... . – ..... .» . ...... ............ ......... . ...­....... ......: ... .. ....., ........, ........ . ...... ......... . ....... . ........... ........... ........., .., ......., .. ..... ........, ... ............. ...... ..... ............ .. ......., . ...... ..... ..­......... .... . .......... ....... ........ . ........ ....... ....... .....­....... .....­..... ....... ...­.... ........­..... ..........­..... ...... ......... . ....... .....­.... ....... .......... - + - + .......... - + - + .......... ± + - + ......... + - ? - .......... - - + - ........ + - + - ......... - - + - .......... + - + - ....... 3....... ............. . ...... ....... . ..... ...... ........... .. ......... ...... «........» ...... ........ ......... .... ......... ........... . .......: ......... ..... ...... ...... .. ... .... ...­...... .......... . ...... ..........., ............ ...... . ......, .......... ..... . ...... ......., .. .. ..... .... ......... ....... . .......... .......... .... «....... .», «....... .» . ... ... .... ....... . ..... . ........... ......... ...... .. ...... «...... ....­..» . ......... ..... ... ........ ......... .... ? . ............... ...... ........ .... 4................ ......... . .......... ...... (.. .......... ...). ..... ............ ............ ...... – ...... . ..... .. ..... ... . ...... .... . .... ...... 6-18 .........; ..... ....... ............ ...... – ...... . ..... .. ..... ... . ...... .... . .... ...... 3-5 .........; ..... ........... .........­... ...... – ...... . ..... .. ..... ... . ...... .... . .... ...... 1-2 ........15. 15 ... ........... ..... .............. ......... .........: ... 4: 240–241 – .............. ............... ...... ..... .......-.........­ ........ ........ ........ . ...... ........ ........ .......... . ......... ......, .. ..... ..... .......... .... ......., ......., ....­... . ...... ........... .......... ....... ......... ..... ............ ............, ......., ... ........... ...... . ...... . .... .... .........., ................­... .... ..... ... «...... – .....», «....... – ......» ... «....... – ......», ...... ..........., ..... ......... . ..... ......... . ...... ...... .......... .... .. ...... . .. .. ..... ...... ........, ... ............ . ..........16 ..­.... jegär-e siyah vs. jegär-e sefid ......... ..... . ........ . ........­....... . ...... .... «................» .. ........ .......... ... .... ... .......... ........ . .... ... ...... – .......... (.... 1) . .......-.......... (.... 2 . 3). . ...... .......... ..... ......, ... «........» ...... ........... ...... . ...... ......... .......... .. ......... ........ .... ......... ........., .........., ..........., ..........., .........., ........... . ......... ...... ..... .......... ...... .... ..... ....... ..... .....­... ., . ......... ....... ..... ..........., ......... . .......... ....... ............ .... 1973 = .........-......-.......... ........ 1973. ......: ......... ............. ..............., ..... .. 1960. ............. ..... ........... ........ ....... ............. ....... .... (.......). ....... II. ........ ............, ...... .. 2011. ............. ........ (.........) . ..... .................. ...... .......... ...... (.....). Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. ..... ......... ............... ............: 64–100. ............ .. 4. ........ .......... .........., 2012; ... 6: 184 – ....­ .......... ............... ...... ..... .......-..................... .. 6. ........ ......... . .................. ......, 2007; ... 9: 208–209 –..­............ ............... ...... ..... .......-..................... .. 9. ........ ......, 2009; ... 10: 233–234 – .............. ............... ..­.... ..... .......-..................... .. 10. ........ ....... ......, 2015; ... 12 – .............. ............... ...... ..... .......-...........­.......... .. 12. ...... ..... ........ (. ......). 16 .. ...... ......, ... .. ....... .......... ...... .... ...... ...... ............ ........ .. .., ... . ........ ...... ........... ......... kubud bi. «..... .......» (van Donzel 1997: 327), ........, ............ ......, .... .. .. ..... ..... ...... .....-.... ............ ....... ......, ....... .., ......., ...... .. 2003. ....... .......... ....... ......: ......... ........... ... 2008 = .......... .......... ...... ............ 2008. ......: ........ .. .......... ..... “..... ........”. .... 4 = .............. .................. ...... ...... 4. 1993. .....: ........ ................ ... 9 = Siatkowski, Janusz. Waniakowa, Jadwiga. 2009. .............. .........­...... ....., .......-.................... ...... ...... 9. ........ Kraków: Instytut Jezyka Polskiego PAN. ......, ...... .. 2017. ............. *pepel./*popel.: ........ ..... . .......­.... Slovene Linguistic Studies/Slovenski Jezik, 11: 19–34. ..... 2006 = ......., ..... .. et al. 2006. ............-............ ......­.... ........ ....... ........... ....-....... ....... .... ..........­.. ...... .. ...... ...... ......: ...... ALAR = Atlasul lingvistic al dialectului aromân. Volumul I. 2014. Bucure.ti: Editura Akademiei Române. ALE = Atlas Linguarum Europae. Volume I.9, carte 102 foie (......, liver, Leber, hígado,fegato). Carte de motivations (Libuše Cižmárová, Milena Šipková). ........ .. ......: http://www.hisgis.nl/ale/map-commentaries/liver-defopr.pdf/view ALF = Atlas linguistique de la France. ........ .. ......: http://lig-tdcge.imag.fr/ cartodialect3/ A Magyar Nyelvjárások Atlasza. Rész III. 1973. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. AUGN – Rieger J. Atlas ukrainskich gwar nadsanskich. Tom 2. 2017. Warszawa: Wydzial „Artes Liberales“. Bara, Maria et al. 2005. .............. ..... .... ..... (....). ........., .....­.., ..............., ....... Mchen: Biblion Verlag. Comrie, Khalilov. ...... ....... . ....... The Intercontinental Dictionary Series. ..­...... .. ......: https://ids.clld.org Cerný, Emil. 1865. Latinská mluvnica dla D-ra F. Schultza. Pešt: Náklad Viléma Lauffera. Decurtins, Alexi. Niev vocabulari romontsch: surslivan-tudestg. ........ .. ......: http://www.vocabularisursilvan.ch DILF 2001 = Chiocchetti, Fabio; Bortolotti, Evelyn. 2001. Dizionario Italiano – Ladino Fassano. Vigo di Fassa: Istitut Cultural Ladin “Majon di Fascegn”. DLF 2010 = Valdman, Albert et al. 2010. Dictionary of Louisiana French. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. van Donzel, Emeri et al. 1997. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Volume IV. Leiden: Brill. Forni, Marco. Dizionario Italiano-Ladino Gardenese. Dizioner Ladin de Gherdëina-Talian. ........ .. ......: http://forniita.ladinternet.it Gartner, Theodor. 1923. Ladinische Wörter aus den Dolomitentälern. Halle: Verlag von Max Niemeyer. Gola.b, Zbigniew. 1984. The Aromanian dialect of Kruševo in SR Macedonia SFR Yugoslavia. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. HSSJ 3 = Majtán, Milan et al. 2009. Historický slovník slovenského jazyka. Bratislava: VEDA. DRG = Dicziunari Rumantsch Grischun. ........ .. ......: http://online.drg.ch Karlowicz, Jan. 1900. Slownik gwar polskich. Tom pierwszy: A–E. Kraków: Drukarnia C. K. Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego. Karnicar, Ludwig. 1990. Der Obir-Dialekt in Kärnten. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Kassian, Alexei. Annotated Swadesh wordlists for the Lezgian group (North Caucasian family). ........ .. ......: http://starling.rinet.ru/new100/lez.pdf Klein, Ernst. 1987. A Compehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English. Jerusalem: Carta. Kroonen, Guus. 2013. Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden – Boston: Brill. Kukucín, Martin. 1958. Sobrané spisy. Dielo 13. Bratislava: SVKL. Kyriazis, Doris K. 2012. Aspects of Inter-Linguistic Isosemy in the Pastoral Terminology of the Pindos Mountain Region. Balkanismen heute – Balkanisms Today – .......... .......: 137–150. Meyer, Gustav. 1891. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Albanesischen Sprache. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner. Meyer-Lke, Wilhelm. 1911. Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung. Mráz, Franko. 1866. Úplná theoreticko-praktická mluvnica madarského jazyka. Vieden: Tlacou Karola Goríška. MSGP 2010 = Wronicz, Jadwiga et al. 2010. Maly slownik gwar polskich. Kraków: Lexis. Nagy, Ladislav. 1870. Cvicenia umu a reci. Budín: Tlacou uhor. král. univers. kníhtlaciarne. NALR 1967 = Noul atlas lingvistic român pe regiuni. Oltenia. 1967. Bucure.ti: Editura Akademiei Republicii Socialiste România. NALR 1969 = Atlas lingvistic român pe regiuni. Maramure.. 1969. Bucure.ti: Editura Akademiei Republicii Socialiste România. NALR 1980 = Noul atlas lingvistic român pe regiuni. Banat. 1980. Bucure.ti: Editura Akademiei Republicii Socialiste România. NALR 1987 = Noul atlas lingvistic al României. Moldova .i Bucovina. 1987. Bucure.ti: Editura Akademiei Republicii Socialiste România. NALR 1992 = Atlas lingvistic român pe regiuni. Transilvania. 1992. Bucure.ti: Editura Akademiei Române. NALR 1996 = Atlas lingvistic român pe regiuni. Muntenia .i Dobrogea. 1996. Bucure.ti: Editura Akademiei Române. Orel, Vladimir. 1998. Albanian Etymological Dictionary. Leiden – Boston – Köln: Brill. PAC 1877 = Chabrand, Jean-Armand; de Rochas d’Aiglun, Albert. 1877. Patois des Alpes Cottiennes (Briançonnais et Vallées Vaudoises) et en particulier du Queyras. Grenoble – Paris: Masonville et fils – Honoré Champion. Pallioppi, Zaccaria; Pallioppi, Emil. 1895. Dizionari dels idioms romauntschs d’Engiadin’ ota e bassa, della Val Müstair, da Bravuogen e Filisur. Samedan: Stamperia da Simon Tanner. Pleteršnik M. 2006. Slovensko-nemški slovar. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. Pronk, Tijmen. 2009. The Slovene Dialect of Egg and Potschach in the Gailtal, Austria. Amsterdam – New York: Rodopi. Räsänen, Martti. 1969. Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. ROMLEX = Romani lexicon. ........ .. ......: http://romani.uni-graz.at/romlex/ Siatkowski, Janusz. 2012. Slowianskie nazwy czesci ciala w historii i dialektach. Warszawa: Zaklad Graficzny UW. SGM 1 = Wronicz, Jadwiga et al. 2018. Slownik gwar malopolskich. Tom I: A–Ó. Kraków: Instytut Jezyka Polskiego PAN. Skok, Petar. 1971–1973. Etimologijski rjecnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika. Zagreb: Štamparski zavod Ognjen Prica. SS 6 = Sorbischer Sprachatlas. Band 6. 1978. Bautzen: VEB Domowina-Verlag. SSN 2 = Ferencíková, Adriana; Ripka, Ivor et al. 2006. Slovník slovenských nárecí Zväzok II: L – P. Bratislava: Veda. Šujanský, František. 1893. Nieco zo stariny slovenskej. Slovensé pohlady XIII: 52–11. SLA 1 = Škofic, Jožica et al. 2011. Slovenski lingvisticni atlas 1.Ljubljana: Založba ZRC SAZU. Zauner, Adolf. 1902. Die romanischen Namen der Körperteile. Erlangen: K. b. Hof- und Universitäts-Buchdruckerei von Fr. Junge. Prispelo marca 2019, sprejeto maja 2019. Received March 2019, accepted May 2019. Crna jetra, bela pljuca (o izvoru in razširjenosti poimenovalnega modela) V prispevku je postavljena hipoteza, da se je model crni X ‘jetra’ in beli X ‘plju-ca’ pojavil najprej v perzijšcini, bil potem prevzet v turškem in azerbajdžanskem jeziku, od koder se je razširil na veliko ozemlje in zajel nekatere govore kavka­ škega, balkanskega in karpatskega obmocja. V Evropi istocasno obstajajo areali, na katerih se je isti poimenovalni model pojavil brez stika z omenjenimi jeziki. Sem sodijo nekateri romanski in lužiški govori, kakor po vsej verjetnosti tudi slovaška in slovenska narecja. Black liver, white lungs. On the history and location of the model. It is demonstrated that the black X ‘liver’ – the white X ‘lungs’ model originated in the Persian language and was then brought to the Turkish and Azerbaijani languages, from which it spread over a large territory affecting many idioms of the Caucasus, the Balkans and the Carpathians. At the same time there are areas in Europe where such a model developed independently. To this group belong some of the Romance and Sorbian speech varieties and, most likely, Slovak and Slovenian dialects. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 12 (2019): 53–74 Danila Zuljan Kumar ZRC SAZU, Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian language, Ljubljana Word Order in Slovene Dialectal Discourse Prispevek se osredotoca na posebnosti stalne stave v govorjenem narecnem diskurzu gle­de na pravila stalne stave v slovenskem knjižnem pisnem diskurzu, pri cemer poskuša ugotoviti, ali za nekatere besednoredne znacilnosti lahko trdimo, da veljajo za sloven-ski narecni diskurz na splošno (v primerjavi s slovenskim knjižnimpisnim diskurzom). Podrobneje bodo analizirana le izbrana pravila stalne stave, in sicer stava ujemalnega pridevniškega prilastka, samostalniškega prilastka in predložne zveze v samostalniški be-sedni zvezi, stava prostih naslonk v izreku in njihovo zaporedje v naslonskem nizu, stava modalnega glagola v izhodišcu, stava glagola ali njegovega dela v zloženi glagolski obli­ki, besedni red v izreku, ki ga uvede prislovno dolocilo ali clenek, ter stava poudarnega clenka in prislovnega dolocila. The aim of this paper is to determine the differences in fixed word order between Slo­vene dialectal discourse and Standard Slovene written discourse, with a particular focus on whether we can claim that some word order characteristics are present in Slovene dialectal discourse in general (in comparison with Standard Slovene written discourse). We will focus on only selected sentence elements that are subject to fixed word order rules, specifically, on the word order variant of adjective modifiers in agreement with the noun and noun/prepositional phrase modifiers in a noun phrase, the position of clitics in an utterance, the order of clitics in a clitic cluster, the initial position of a modal verb in an utterance, the position of the verb or its part in a compound verb form, the word order characteristics of the utterance introduced by an adverbial or particle and the position of a stressed particle and an adverbial. 1. Introduction There has been little discussion of word order in Slovene to date, even though the first extensive study of clitics and their position in a sentence in Slovene, published in two parts by Matija Murko and titled Clitics in Slovene and subtitled Morpho­logy and syntax and Part II: Syntax was published in 1891–1892 in the Yearbook of the Slovene Society. In the introduction to the paper the author mentions that the knowledge on clitics is closely connected to stress, about which we know little, and adds, “we know even less about stress in sentences, which is the soul of the expression of our thoughts” (Murko 1891: 5), by means of which Murko in fact already anticipated the phenomenon of the functional sentence perspective, as the Czech linguist Vělem Mathesius1 more than forty years later called the arrangement of elements with respect to the functional role that they perform in the sentence, or the rule of free word order, as the Slovenian linguist Anton Breznik called it in his article “Word order in speech” almost twenty years after Murko (Breznik 1982). The majority of articles in Slovenian linguistics on word order in the past were based on an analysis of word order in literary texts (cf. Breznik 1982: 237–239, Toporišic 1982: 161–181). Only in the past fifteen years have there been discus­sions of word order in spoken discourse, i.e. in children’s speech (see Kranjc 2004) and urban speech (see Krajnc 2007), while little has been written about word order in Slovene dialects, or else these discussions focus only on particular dialects (see Zorko 1994, 1995, 1998; Steenwijk 1992; Zuljan Kumar 2002, 2003, 2014, 2016;Škapin 2014). The first attempt at a description of some word order characteristics in several Slovene dialects and a very loose comparison of the specific features of particular dialect groups was contributed by Zuljan Kumar (2007). This article is based on the aforementioned study and offers some new insights. 2. Word order in spoken dialectal discourse The aim of this paper is to determine the differences in fixed word order between Slovene dialectal discourse and Standard Slovene written discourse, with a par­ticular focus on whether we can claim that some word order characteristics are present in all Slovene dialectal discourse in general (in comparison with Standard Slovene written discourse). A second aim is to determine whether the selected word order variants that the author of the article analyzed in texts from the Lit­toral dialectal group2(see Zuljan Kumar 2002, 2003) also appear in texts from other Slovene dialects. If they do, we are further interested in whether their use is 1 V. Mathesius 1939: O tak zvaném aktuálním clenení vetném. Slovo a slovesnost 5. 171–174. Otherwise the principle of functional sentence perspective was partially re­cognized by Henry Weil as early as in 1844, in his article De l’ordre des mots dans les langues anciennes comparées aux langues modernes, in which he compared word order in ancient and modern languages and found that word order in sentences is influenced by mutual relations between ideas (Beaugrande, Dressler 2002: 24). 2 Specifically, the Torre Valley, Natisone Valley, and Brda dialects. D. Zuljan Kumar, Word Order in Slovene Dialectal Discourse merely sporadic and they appear due to the short planning time3 that the speaker has at their disposal in spoken discourse, which prevents the deliberate structur­ing of utterances,4 or whether this is an established and perhaps also preferential use that in fact represents the dialectal word order variant. As part of the latter we will also check the possible influence of contact with a foreign language on the emergence of the word order variant. We will focus on only selected sentence elements that are subject to fixed word order rules, specifically, on the word order variant of adjective premodifiers and noun/prepositional phrase post-modifiers in noun phrases, the position of cli-tics in an utterance, the order of clitics in a clitic cluster, the position of the verb or its part in a compound verb form, the word order characteristics of the utterance introduced by an adverbial or particle and the position of a stressed particle and an adverbial. We will examine the word order variants in question in texts from all Slovene dialect groups.5 2.1 The position of the adjective modifier in agreement with the noun (NOUN > ADJ.MOD in agreement with the noun) In stylistically neutral word order the adjective modifier in agreement with the noun in Standard Slovene discourse is located in front of the head of the phrase,6 whereas in spoken dialectal discourse it can also be placed after the head. We found this kind of position in all the texts analyzed and can therefore assume 3 This is the time that a speaker needs in order to think about what they are going to say. In written discourse the planning time is much longer. 4 Typical of unprepared spoken discourse are interpolated lexemes and structures, false starts, interruptions, self-corrections and also flexible word order. 5 In the collection of texts entitled Slovene Dialects by Tine Logar and in the texts by the following recorders: Tjaša Jakop (Central Savinja dialect, Styrian dialect group; Inner Carniolan dialect, Littoral dialect group), Karmen Kenda Jež (Cerkno, Rovte dialect group, and Gail Valley dialect, Carinthian dialect group), Mihaela Koletnik (Slovene Hills dialect, Pannonian dialect group), Vera Smole (Lower Carniolan dialect), Matej Šekli (Natisone Valley dialect, Littoral dialect group), Jožica Škofic (Upper Carniolan dialect of Kropa), Peter Weiss (Upper Savinja dialect, Styrian dialectal group), Melita Zemljak (Lower Sava Valley dialect, Styrian dialect group), Zinka Zorko (Styrian, Pannonian and Carinthian di­alects) and Danila Zuljan Kumar (Brda, Torre Valley and Natisone Valley dialects, Littoral dialect group). For more see the references section of the paper. 6 A stylistically marked adjective modifier in agreement with the noun in Standard Slovene can be located after the head of the phrase, for example in interjections (strela gromska! – lightning thunderous ‘hell’s bells’! (exclamation), bog nebeški – god heaven­ly ‘god of the heaven’,prijatelj moj dragi – friend my dear ‘my dear friend’) or as a poetic figure (Vida lepa – Vida beautiful ‘beautiful Vida) (Toporišic 1982: 55). Beautiful Vida is a Slovene myth (comm. DZK). that this is a general feature of Slovene dialectal discourse, but with an important distinction: by far the greatest number of examples of post position were in Lit­toral texts, where there is contact with Italian and Friulian, both of which display both word order variants (cf. for example Dardano Trifone 2001: 202, 450–453 and Faggin 1997: 71),7 whereas in texts from the remaining dialect groups the word order variant NOUN > ADJ.MOD in agreement with the noun was far less frequent. Based on this difference we assume that in Littoral dialects this positi­ on is established – the two word order variants can appear together in the same utterance (ex. 2) – and in some cases even preferential,8 while in other dialects it is more the result of the short planning time available to the speaker for creating the utterance. This assertion is supported by Zorko, who states that the word or­der variant NOUN > ADJ.MOD in agreement with the noun appears in Styrian, Carinthian, and Pannonian dialects but that in such phrases the adjective modifier is perceived as an addition (Zorko 1998: 37).9 (1) Litt.: Usak dan s. je j.dlo župu v.ržot.vu (Zuljan Kumar 2003: 63).10 every day REFL AUX3SG ate soup cabbage ‘Every day cabbage soup was eaten.’ SLS: Vsak dan se je jedlo ohrovtovo juho. (2) Litt.: Kostanj ima deblo debelo an puno velikih varhi (Zuljan Kumar 2003: 63). chestnut has trunk thick and many high peaks ‘Chestnut has a thick trunk and many high peaks.’ SLS: Kostanj ima debelo deblo in veliko visokih vrhov. (3) Litt: Je odriezala kruh v flete debele an jih je zmocila tu mliekoan tu jajca strepetane (Zuljan Kumar 2003: 63). bread to slices thick and themACC AUX3SG soaked3SGF into milk and AUX3SG cut3SGF into eggs whipped ‘She cut the thick slices of bread and soaked them into milk and whipped eggs.’ SLS: Odrezala je debele rezine kruha in jih namocila v mleko ter v stepena jajca. 7 For example in Friulian un vistît gnűf means the same as un gnűf vistît ‘new clothes/dress’. 8 In the Brda dialect in certain cases its use is more established than the word order variant ADJ.MOD > HEAD (e.g. župa vržotova ‘ohrovtova juha’– soup cabbage ‘cabba­ge soup’, kuhnja sirkova ‘koruzna juha’– soup corn ‘vegetable corn soup’, njoki ciešpovi ‘slivovi cmoki’ – dumplings plum ‘plum dumplings’). 9 The speaker in spontaneous discourse often creates utterances according to the prin­ciple of addition, i.e. of first stating the most important information and then describing it further (Zuljan Kumar 2007: 43). The thesis that the adjective modifier is perceived as an addition can be supported by the fact that the recorder sometimes placed a comma between the head and the adjective modifier, which means that the speaker paused there. 10 Whenever a feature applies to dialectal texts from all dialect groups, due to space limitations we will not cite examples from all dialect groups. But we have marked all examples in the texts in order to compare the frequency of use. Due to the small selection of texts we of course cannot generalize the finding. D. Zuljan Kumar, Word Order in Slovene Dialectal Discourse (4) Pann.: Starši moji bi ja skrbi meli za mene (Koletnik 2001: 255). parents my COND yes care have for me ‘My parents would of course be worried about me.’ SLS: Moji starši bi ja imeli skrbi zame. (5) Low.Carn.: Je p.ršu kje, na Drenk, p.r strici tuojme /…/ (Smole 2007: 381). AUX3SG came3SGM there, to Drenk, to uncle your ‘He came there to Drenik to your uncle.’ SLS: Prišel je tja na Drenik k tvojemu stricu. (6) Upp.Carn.: /…/ tut svedra ciermanska so klele delal /…/ (Škofic 2007: 218). /…/ also drills carpenter’s AUX3PL there made3PLM ‘They also made carpenter’s drills there.’ SLS: Tukaj so delali tudi mizarske svedre. 2.2 The position of the noun modifier/prepositional phrase (NOUN MOD/PREP. PHRASE > NOUN) In Standard Slovene discourse the noun and prepositional phrase modifiers are located after the head of the noun phrase (Toporišic 1982: 172), while in dialectal discourse they can also be positioned in front of the head. (7) Low.Carn.: Ja, lih tule sa gaurle! Lih tist dan zutrej de sa ga abesil, na Valentina dan (Smole 2007: 282). yes, right that AUX3PL spoke3PLM! Just that day morning that AUX3PL himACC hung3PLM on ValentinGEN Day. ‘Yes, that’s what they were talking about! That just in the morning of that day they had hung him, on the Valentine’s Day. SLS: Ja, ravno tole so govorili! Ravno tisti dan zjutraj, da so ga obesili, na Valentina dan. (8) Low.Carn.: /…/ je biu tam en muj stric, ne, ad matere stric, ne, ad matere stric, ad mujie mame stric /…/. je biu /…/ od matere žlahta (Smole 2007: 386). /…/ AUX3SG was there one my uncle, no, of motherGEN uncle, no, of motherGEN uncle, of my motherGEN uncle. /…/ AUX3SG was /…/ of motherGEN relative ‘There was one of my uncles there, right, mother’s uncle, right, mother’s uncle, my mother’s uncle /…/ he was /…/ my mother’s relative.’ SLS: Tam je bil en moj stric, ne, od matere stric, od matere stric, od moje mame stric /…/ bil je /…/ od matere sorodnik. (9) Low.Carn.: Martinou mat sa mat prav.l, kaku sa wad mater mat anu nuc slišel z.an.t u Gulc (Logar 1993: 36). Martinova’s mother AUX3PL motherDAT told3PLM how AUX3PL of motherGEN motherNOM one night heard3PLM to ring in Gulc ‘Martinova’s mother told my mother, how she heard her grandmother one night to ring in Golic. SLS: Martinova mati so pravili, kako so od matere mati eno noc slišali zvoniti v Golicu. Examples of this kind of position of noun/prepositional phrase modifiers were rare in the texts analyzed, with most of them being found in texts in the Lower Carniolan dialect. Zorko also found them in Styrian, Carinthian, and Pannonian dialectal texts but she also finds this position to be rare (Zorko 1994: 49). In this case it seems to be an established though not frequently used word order vari­ant in Slovene dialectal discourse, alongside the word order variant of NOUN > NOUN/PREP.PHRASE MOD, and not a sporadic feature of spoken discourse that arose due to short planning time. 2.3 Initial position of a clitic or a clitic cluster Concerning the position of clitics in a sentence, Standard Slovene, like the majo­rity of Slavic languages (except Macedonian), follows Wackernagel’s law11 ac­cording to which clitics occur in second position in the utterance after the strong, i.e. non-enclitic accented word (Franks and King 2000: 219; Siewierska 1988: 31, 32; Priestly; Šekli 2018: 71). In compound tenses or in verbal phrases compound consisting of a verb + a verb complement a clitic is placed after the participle (ex. 10) or modal verb (ex. 11) (Toporišic 2000: 676). (10) SLS: Prinesli mu bomo darilo. bring1PLM himDAT FUT.AUX1PL present ‘We’ll bring him a present.’ (11) SLS: Moram ti prinesti darilo. have1SG to youDAT bring present ‘I have to bring you a present.’ Clitics can be located in the initial position (thus functioning as proclitics) of the sentence only in cases of ellipsis of an accented non-enclitic word (ex. 12, 13) or the interrogative particle ali (ex. 14) (Toporišic 2000: 676, cf. Žele 2017: 378) and when answering a question or referring explicitly to something in the prece­ding question or sentence and therefore implying a certain amount of emphasis on the pronoun (ex. 15) (De Bray 1969: 428; Franks and King 2000: 40–43). (12) SLS: Se vidimo! (Jutri se vidimo!) REFL see1PL! (Tomorrow REFL see1PL) ‘See you!’ (‘See you tomorrow!’) (13) SLS: Le naj se pazi! (Alenka naj se le pazi!) ADV PART REFL watch3SG out (Alenka PART REFL ADV watch3SG out) ‘She’d better watch out!’ (‘Alenka had better watch out!’) 11 The placement of clitic clusters in syntactic second position in the sentence after the first stressed sentence constituent or after its first part (Wackernagel’s law) was in­herited by Proto-Slavic from Indo-European (Šekli 2018: 71). D. Zuljan Kumar, Word Order in Slovene Dialectal Discourse (14) SLS: Boš jutri prišel? (Ali boš jutri prišel?) FUT.AUX2SGM tomorrow come2SGM (INTERR.PART FUT.AUX2SGM tomorrow come2SGM) ‘Will you come tomorrow?’ (15) SLS: Bom prišel, kdo pravi, da ne bom. FUT.AUX1SG come1SGM, who says that NEG FUT.AUX1SG ‘I will come, who says that I won’t.’ However, in Slovene dialectal discourse clitics can be located in the initial position in utterances. This position of clitics is a feature of Slovene dialectal discourse in general as we can observe it in all the dialectal texts reviewed. We can even find confirmation for this thesis from Murko, who raises the question of where this position of clitics in spoken Slovene comes from, given that this is an unusual occurrence in other Slavic languages. However, he does not believe it is due to the influence of the neighboring Germanic language but rather that “our language has equally independently devel­oped in this regard as Russian has, which went to the other extreme, having lost even those clitic forms that were Proto-Slavic, and some sort of ga or mu simply did not develop at all” (Murko 1892: 85). In Slovene dialects an utterance can thus be initialized by: 2.3.1 The auxiliary verb biti ‘to be’ (16) Litt.: Je bluo šele tamavu, kar je paršu ho na Štupco (Logar 1993: 69). was already dark, when he came up to Štupca. AUX3SGN ‘It was already dark when he arrived up to Stupica.’ SLS: Bilo je že temno, ko je prišel gor na Stupico. (17) Styr.: Sn reku: »Sn ja dau, ce sn glix p.ršu damu.« Sn dau kuojim jist, /…/ po sn pa zaspau (Jakop 2001: 378). AUX1SG said1SGM AUX1SG yes gave1SGM if AUX1SG just came1SGM home. AUX1SG gave­1SGM horses to eat /…/ then AUX1SG ADV fell1SGM asleep ‘I said, of course I gave, if I just came home. I fed he horses and then I fell asleep.’ SLS: Rekel je: »Sem ja dal, ce sem ravno prišel domov.« Dal sem konjem jesti, /…/ potem sem pa zaspal. 2.3.2 A pronominal clitic (18) Litt.: Ju je merku an s. je obli.žawu šobe (Logar 1993: 71). observed3SGM and REFL AUX3SG licked3SGM lips herACC AUX3SG ‘He was observing her and was licking his lips.’ SLS: Opazoval jo je in si oblizoval ustnice. (19) Litt.: Mu-j dau kaso zlata /…/ (Šekli 2007: 422). himDAT AUX3SG gave3SGM chest of gold /…/ ‘He gave him a chest of gold /…/’ SLS: Dal mu je zlato skrinjo. (20) Low.Carn.: Jeh je bu mal (Smole 2007: 379). themGEN AUX3SG was3SGM few ‘There were few of them there.’ SLS: Bilo jih je malo. (21) Styr.: /…/ jih nic nei strašlu (Logar 1993: 93). themGEN nothing NEG.AUX3SG scared3SGN ‘Nothing scared them.’ SLS: Nic jih ni strašilo. 2.3.3 A reflexive personal pronominal clitic (22) Styr.: Si je pa suos.t žienu (Zemljak 2001: 360). REFL AUX3SG ADV neighbor got3SGM married ‘A neighbor was getting married.’ SLS: Se je pa sosed ženil. (23) Carint.: Se bomo že st.sn.le (Logar 1993: 75). REFL FUT.AUX1PL PART huddle1PLM ‘We will huddle together somehow.’ SLS: Se bomo že stisnili. (24) Upp.Carn.: Se i užgau pa pogoreu use (Škofic 2007: 221). REFL AUX3SG caught3SGM fire and burnt3SGM all ‘It caught fire and was burnt to the ground.’ SLS: Vse se je vžgalo in pogorelo. 2.3.4 A modal verb In Littoral dialects, in contrast to Standard Slovene, an utterance can also be initialized by a modal verb as well as by clitic forms. The modal verb is placed before the infinitive. (25) Litt.: C.n n.rdit t.ku., ku paše mene (Zuljan Kumar 2003: 69). want1SG to do so as suit3SG meDAT ‘I want to do the way it suits me.’ SLS: Narediti hocem tako, kot ustreza meni. (26) Litt.: Moreta vprašat novice tudi tiste žene, ki skarbijo za te potriebne ljudi doma. ask news also those womenACC that take care for these needed people at home can2PL ‘You can ask about the news those women who take care of people who need help at home.’ SLS: Lahko vprašate za novice tudi tiste ženske, ki skrbijo za pomoci potrebne na njihovem domu. D. Zuljan Kumar, Word Order in Slovene Dialectal Discourse The word order variant MOD.VERB > INF is possible in all Slovene dialects,12 but it is established only in Littoral dialects, where it is preferential (compared to the word order variant INF > MOD.VERB), which leads us to the assumption of the influence of Italian and Friulian, both of which have only the word order vari­ant MOD.VERB > INF. However, in this case we cannot attribute it to language interference, i.e. the borrowing of word order variant from Romance languages, but rather the contact Romance languages influenced only the frequency of the use of this word order variant. 2.4 Relative ordering of clitics in a clitic cluster A clitic cluster in Standard Slovene can be enclitic, dependent on a previous stressed word (ex. 27), or it can be proclitic, dependent on the next stressed word (ex. 28). Both types of clusters can follow each other (ex. 29). (27) SLS: Smejal se mi je. laughed3SGM REFL meDAT AUX3SG ‘He laughed at me.’ (28) SLS: Se mi je smejal? REFL meDAT AUX3SG laughed3SGM ‘Did he laugh at me?’ (29) SLS: Povedal sem mu, da so se mi še smejali. told1SGM AUX1SG that AUX3PL REFL meDAT PART laughed3PLM himDAT ‘I told him that they still laughed at me.’ The relative ordering of clitics in a clitic cluster in Standard Slovene is as follows:13 C (in dependent clauses) > PART naj > COND bi/AUX14 > REFL > PRONOM cliticDAT > PRONOM cliticACC > PRONOM cliticGEN > FUT.AUX/je > NEG ne (Toporišic 2000: 671). The example below of the realization of a clitic cluster, for instance, is cited by Franks and King (2000: 45): (30) SLS: Prosi, da naj bi se mu ne smejali. Ask3SG that PART COND REFL himDAT NEG laughPLM ‘She/He asks us not to laugh at him.’ 12 Information about this was obtained through an oral survey of coworkers at the Dialectological Section of the Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language at the Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (ZRC SAZU). 13 The clitic cluster is not always realized in its entirety, but the order of elements always remains unchanged (exceptions are found only in the cases of ne bo, ne bi, ní) (Toporišic 2000: 671). 14 Except je ‘is’, which always goes last in the clitic cluster in the same slot as the future auxiliary (Franks and King 2000: 45). Specific features in the clitic cluster of dialectal discourse in comparison to Stan­dard Slovene relate to the different position of the clitic form of the personal pronoun in the dative case and the different position of the negative particle ne. 2.4.1 Pronominal dative clitic after the clitic of the verb biti ‘to be’ (AUX (cop) biti > PRONOM cliticDAT > VERB) In standard Slovene discourse the pronoun in the dative form is placed before the clitic of the verb biti ‘to be’. In spoken discourse it can come after. We found examples of this in several dialectal groups, and Murko has also reported this position, having found it in Carinthian, Lower Carniolan, and Rovte texts (Murko 1892: 77).15 In view of this we could conclude that it is a general feature of spoken discourse. However, we did not find many examples and so we assume that this word order variation is not established and hence cannot interpret it as a dialectal word order rule, but that it occurs due to short planning time in spoken discourse. (31) Low.Carn.: Je muogl. neikej bet, zatu ke vaš oce je vam p.rpoudvau /…/ (Smole 2007: 383). AUX3SG had3SGN something to be, because your father AUX3SG youDAT told3SGM ‘Something had to happen, because your father told you.’ SLS: Nekaj je moralo biti, ker vam je vaš oce pripovedoval. (32) Rovt.: Pa i p.ršla Šuscawa Marije, de beižwa nad jazuca, ka bo nam šou wos sirk (Logar 1993: 47). And AUX3SG came3SGF Šuscawa Marija, that go1DU over badger, because FUT.AUX3SG all corn usDAT go3SGM ‘And Šuscava Marija came to tell us to chase badger, otherwise it will eat all the corn.’SLS: Pa je prišla Šuscava Marija, da pojdiva nad jazbeca, ker nam bo pojedel vso koruzo. 15 Murko cites examples from Carinthian and Rovte dialects: (1) Carin.: de je ga vidil that AUX3SG himACC saw3SGM ‘that he saw him’ SLS: da ga je videl In this case also the accusative clitic is placed after the auxiliary. I have not found any other such example in the analysed texts. (2) Carin.: de je mu dal that AUX3SG himDAT gave3SGM ‘that he gave him’ SLS: da mu je dal (3) Rovt.: se j mu že wadtor.a glawa prwc (Murko 1892: 77). REFL AUX3SG himDAT already tore3SGF head off D. Zuljan Kumar, Word Order in Slovene Dialectal Discourse (33) Litt.: Ma Sonja j. j.n povi.dla, d. nimi ki xodit ce /…/ (Zuljan Kumar 2003: 73). But Sonja AUX3SG themDAT told3SGF that NEG.AUX3PL what to walk there /…/ ‘But Sonja told them not to go there /…/’ ‘His head was already torn off.’ SLS: Glava se mu je že odtrgala proc. SLS: Ampak Sonja jim je povedala, naj ne hodijo tja. 2.4.2 The order of clitic forms of the pronoun after the verb (VERB > PRONOM cliticDAT/ACC) The clitic form of the pronoun can be placed after the verb. We found examples of this in Littoral texts, and Zorko has also reported this order: in describing spe­cial characteristics of word order in the speech of Ojstrica (a Carinthian dialect group) she cites instances of the clitic form of the personal pronoun frequently appearing after the verb, at the end of the utterance (Zorko 1995: 143). We did not find many such examples in dialectal texts so we can therefore say that this position of the personal pronoun in dialectal discourse is possible (more in some dialects than in others, for example, in Carinthinan dialects) but not frequent and therefore not well established. (34) Lit.: Samo s.n rekla mu, d. ce lohno .ram u stranišce (Zuljan Kumar 2003: 72). Only AUX1SG told1SGF himDAT that if can go1SG to toilet ‘I only asked him, if I could go to the toilet.’ SLS: Sem ga samo vprašala, ce lahko grem na stranišce. (35) Carin.: Je pa powi.dwa mi, kejko jaic marm uzet. ADV told3SGF meDAT how many eggs have1SG to take AUX3SG ‘But she told me how many eggs I had to take.’ SLS: Povedala pa mi je, koliko jajc moram vzeti. (36) Carin.: So pa rekli mu /…/ (Zorko 1995: 144). AUX3PL ADV told3PLM himDAT /…/ ‘But they told him /…/’ SLS: So mu pa rekli /…/ 2.4.3 Special characteristics of the position of the negative particle ne 2.4.3.1 The clitic form bi in front of ne (COND bi > PRONOM cliticGEN/DAT/ACC > NEG ne) In Standard Slovene discourse pronominal clitics in the accusative case (me, te, ga, jo, etc.) are placed before bi, if the sentence is negative. (37) SLS: Za noben denar ga ne bi prodal. for no money himGEN NEG COND sold1SGM ‘I wouldn’t sell it for any money.’ The word order COND > PRONOM cliticGEN/DAT/ACC > NEG is possible, but con­sidered a lower colloquial form. However, in western Slovene dialects this word order variation is neutral and used more frequently than the word order variation PRONOM clitic GEN/DAT/ACC > NEG > COND. Zorko has also reported this for ea­ stern Slovene dialects (Zorko 1998: 230), as has Murko, who notes “that in the west bi has already separated completely from the negative particle ne and that in the east as well the first stressed word draws it increasingly closer” (Murko 1892: 73). However, after analyzing texts we cannot say that this word order variation is established in Slovene dialects apart from Littoral ones, since we have found very few examples in other dialects. For this reason we cannot count it among the general features of Slovene dialectal discourse, but we can consider it as an established word order variation in Littoral dialectal discourse. (38) Litt.: Za noben sud bi ga na prodal. for no money COND himGEN NEG sold1SGM ‘I wouldn’t have sold him for any money.’ (39) Litt.: Du. bi je na poznu, ki j. bla zmer.n oku.le. who COND herGEN NEG knewSGM because aux3SG was3SGF always around ‘Who wouldn’t have known her, as she was always around.’ SLS: Kdo je ne bi poznal, ker je bila vedno naokrog. 2.4.3.2 NEG ne is not placed directly before the personal verbal form In Standard Slovene the negative particle ne is placed directly in front of the per­sonal verbal form whose verbal action it is negating. In Littoral dialectal texts, how­ever, we have found instances where some other word has been inserted between the two. We did not find this word order variation in the examined texts of other dialect groups.16 16 But we cannot attribute this phenomenon to the Romance influence on the we­stern Slovene dialects, because such word order variants are not probable in the contact Romance languages. I am grateful for the discussion on this topic and the following examples to dr. Giorgio Cadorini. Litt: Duo je ne še pozna? Who AUX3SG NEG PART know3SG? Who hasn’t known her yet? LITERARY ITALIAN: Chi lo non ancora conosce? – impossible Chi non lo ancora conosce? – impossible Chi non ancora lo conosce? – possible but improbable Chi non lo conosce ancora? – usual Chi ancora non lo conosce? – less usual D. Zuljan Kumar, Word Order in Slovene Dialectal Discourse (40) Litt.: Ženitve pa me nei ut tizbuot nekul viec umeinla (Logar 1993: 56). weddingGEN ADV meDAT NEG.AUX3SG from that time never more mentioned3SGF ‘From that time on she has never ever mentioned the wedding.’SLS: Ženitve pa mi od takrat nikoli vec ni omenila. (41) Litt.: Ti na nobed.n drek uzame (Šekli 2007: 422). NEG nobody shit take3SG YouDAT ‘Nobody would take shit.’ SLS: Nihce ti dreka ne vzame. 2.4.4 Characteristics of word order variation in compound verbal form A particular feature of the word order variation of compound verbal forms in dia­ lectal discourse compared to Standard Slovene discourse is the former’s word order variation of the past participle of the main verb and the infinitive and infinitive of purpose at the end of the utterance. I found these sentence structures, which Re- indl calls “brace constructions” (Rahmenkonstruktion) (Reindl 2015: 188), in all dialectal texts, but not equally frequently in all of them: they were least frequent in Littoral texts. We can thus assume that this word order variant is established in all Slovene dialects, but is only sporadic in littoral dialects.17 In Pannonian dialects also the past participle of the verb biti ‘to be’ is often placed at the end of the ut­terance (ex. 49, 50). We found many such examples in the analyzed texts from the Pannonian dialect group and we can therefore assume that this word order variation is established and even preferential in these dialects, whereas in the analyzed texts of other dialect groups we found few or no instances. Breznik has already written about the word order variant of the verb at the end of the utterance, and argues that this word order variant is not a Germanism, since it is a feature displayed by other Slavic languages when the meaning requires it (Breznik 1982: 252).18 TRIEST VARIANT OF VENETIAN DIALECT Chi lo no ancora conossi? – impossible Chi no lo ancora conossi? – impossible Chi no ancora lo conossi? – impossible Chi no lo conossi ancora? – usual Chi che ancora no lo conossi? – less usual FRIULIAN Cui lu no ancjemň cognossial? – impossible Cui no lu ancjemň cognossial? – impossible Cui no ancjemň lu cognossial? – impossible Cui no lu cognossial ancjemň? – usual Cui che ancjemň no lu cognossial? – less usual 17Cf. Zorko who believes that the shift of the verb to the last position in the utteran­ce, also in the present tense form, is a general tendency of northeastern Slovene dialects (Zorko 1998: 229).18 Moreover, as noted by Breznik, Slavic word order for the verb is free (Breznik 1982: 252). 2.4.4.1 Position of the main verb at the end of the utterance (42) Carin.: Sm zwecer not.r pršwa (Zorko 1995: 144). in evening inside came1SGF AUX1SG ‘I came inside in the evening.’ SLS: Zvecer sem prišla noter. (43) Rovt: /…/ ce j ta .aspadar /…/ dawaliu, de mu boda meje pasikal (Kenda-Jež 2001: 312). /…/ if AUX3SG that farmer /…/ allowed3SGM that himDAT FUT.AUX3PL bouderies cut3PLM ‘/…/ if that farmer allowed that they would cut his land bounderies.’ SLS: Ce je ta gospodar /…/ dovolil, da mu bodo posekali meje. (44) Low.Carn.: Pozim, op štirih, pol štierih, po sneigi, ucas do kolena gazla (Smole 2007: 379). in winter at four at half past three in snow sometimes to knee trudged1SGF‘Sometimes in the winter at four, half past three I trudged through the snow that was up to the knees.’ SLS: Pozimi, ob štirih, pol štirih, po snegu sem vcasih gazila do kolen. 2.4.4.2 Position of the infinitive and infinitive of purpose at the end of the utterance (45) Styr:: Aca n.so smeeli vec proga prestopit (Zorko 1995: 288). father NEG.AUX3PL could3PLM more threshold to cross ‘Father wasn’t allowed to enter the house anymore.’ SLS: Oce niso vec smeli prestopiti praga. (46) Styr.: /…/ si mag žviino napast (Jakop 2003: 125). REFL had2SGM livestock to feed ‘You had to feed the livestock. SLS: Moral si napasti živino. (47) Pann.: /…/ tak je trmasti, ka nece doktori iti (Koletnik 2001: 293). so AUX3SG stubborn that NEG.AUX doctorLOC to go ‘He is so stubborn that he does not want to go to the doctor.’ SLS: Tako je trmast, da noce iti k zdravniku. (48) Carin.: Pa je zea /…/ koaso pa je šwa fut.r si.c (Logar 1993: 73). and AUX3SG took3SGF scythe and AUX3SG went3SGF grass to cut ‘And she took a scythe and went to cut the grass.’ SLS: Pa je vzela koso in šla kosit travo. 2.4.4.3 Position of the past participle of the AUX biti ‘to be’ at the end of the utterance (49) Pann.: F šolo pa smo mogle tak bežati, ka smo vedno zadje bile (Zorko 1994: 50). To school ADV AUX1PL so to run because AUX1PL always last were1PLF had1PLF‘We always had to run to school because we were always the last. SLS: V šolo pa smo morale tako hiteti, ker smo bile vedno zadnje. D. Zuljan Kumar, Word Order in Slovene Dialectal Discourse (50) Pann.: Te pa smo gledale, ot kerega vogla bi še gdo priša, ka ne bi same bile(Zorko 1994: 50). then ADV AUX1PL watched1PLF from which corner COND PART who came3SGM that NEG COND alone were1PLF ‘Then we watched if anybody would come around the corner so we wouldn’t be alone.’ SLS: Potem pa smo gledali, izza katerega vogala bi še kdo prišel, da ne bi bile same. 2.5 The position of adverbials With respect to the position of adverbials in dialectal discourse, two things should be noted relative to their order in Standard Slovene: their position at the end of the utterance and the word order in the utterance that is introduced by the adverbial. 2.5.1 Adverbial after the verb We found examples in the analyzed dialectal texts in which the adverbial came immediately after the verb, whereas in Standard Slovene discourse it comes be­fore the verb. (51) Pann: Tiste snoupe smo kup povezali leipo (Zorko 1994: 51). those sheaves AUX1PL together tied1PLM nicely ‘We tied those sheaves firmly.’ SLS: Tiste snope smolepo povezali skupaj. (52) Low.Carn.: Se-j pa dolnuot.r p.r Seleh znajdu zutrej (Smole 2007: 381). REFL AUX3SG ADV down there by Sele found3SGM in morning ‘In the morning he appeared down there by Sele.’ SLS: Se je pa zjutraj znašel dol pri Selah. (53) Litt.: J-jau, boš bo.at seda (Šekli 2007: 422). said3SGM FUT.AUX2SG rich now AUX3SG ‘You will be rich now, he said.’ SLS: Dejal je, zdaj boš bogat. Similarly as with the word order in which the modifier is placed after the word modified in non-Littoral dialects, we assume the speaker operates ac­cording to the principle of addition, which is one of the principles of spoken discourse in general, and we can therefore say that this word order arises due to the short planning time of the speaker, and not that it is an established word order variant. 2.5.2 Word order in an utterance in which the adverbial of time/place is in initial position In Standard Slovene discourse the rule applies that word order in an utterance that describes an action in the past or future tense changes if it is introduced by an adverbial. The word order SUB > VERB > OBJ > ADVERB thus changes to the sequence ADVERB > AUX clitic > SUB > main VERB > OBJ. (54) SLS: Toninac je srecal beracico po poti. Toninac AUX3SG met3SGM female beggar on way ‘Toninac met a female beggar on the way.’ (55) SLS: Po poti je Toninac srecal beracico. On way AUX3SG Toninac met3SGM female beggar ‘On the way Toninac met a a female beggar.’ However, in spoken dialectal discourse this rule does not always apply, since the word order SUB > VERB > OBJ > can be preserved even if an adverbial is placed in front. This word order variant is most frequent in Littoral dialects, where in some dialects it is the only one possible (for example, in the Natisone Valley and Torre Valley dialects) and is thus an established dialectal word order rule.19 We also found five instances in the texts of other dialectal groups, e.g. Pannonian, which indicates non-established use as a feature of spoken discourse. (56) Litt.: Do po pot Toninac je srecu nu petjarcu (Logar 1993: 68). down PREP way Toninac AUX3SG met3SGM one female begger ‘Down the way Toninac met a female begger.’ (57) Pann.: Po vojni clovek je straxi živeja. after war man AUX3SG in fear lived3SGM ‘After the war a man lived in fear.’ SLS: Po vojni je clovek živel v strahu. 2.6 Particle position With regard to particles we will limit our discussion to stressed particles only, where the difference in their position in Standard Slovene and in dialectal dis­ course is the greatest (cf. Zuljan Kumar 2002). The basic feature of stressed particles in the analyzed dialectal texts is that their position is not necessarily restricted to the place immediately in front of the word, word phrase, or part of the utterance they modify, as is the case for Standard Slovene discourse. 19 Since this pattern of construction is familiar from Italian and Friulian, this proba­bly influences the frequency of this word order variant. D. Zuljan Kumar, Word Order in Slovene Dialectal Discourse However, in this case it is a general feature of spoken discourse as such, which does not allow a long planning time, and not established word order variants in Slovene dialects. (58) Styr.: V jutro smo zaceli ob trex mlotiti že (Zorko 1998: 232). in morning AUX1PL started1PLM at three to thresh already ‘In the morning we started to thresh already at three.’ SLS: Zjutraj smo zaceli mlatiti že ob treh. (59) Low.Carn.: K-je at celga sveta vedu, m.nde (Smole 2007: 382). that AUX3SG of entire world knew3SGM probably ‘That probably knew about the entire world.’ SLS: Ki je menda vedel o vsem svetu. 3. Conclusions The question of word order in Slovene dialects is a very broad topic, deserving of thorough dialectological research. This article sheds light on just a small section of this question and indicates directions for further study. For a better insight into the word order characteristics of Slovene dialectal discourse, it would first of all be necessary to prepare a sufficiently representative corpus of texts of spontaneous dialectical discourse from all dialect groups. Secondly, the acquisition of more pre­cise findings of a general comparative analysis of word order features of particular dialects would require the use of the methods of corpus linguistics, since otherwise the work is time-consuming and does not bring the same kind of results as does working with a corpus. Nevertheless, we can conclude the following: the analysis of dialectal texts presented here has shown that three groups of word order features can be distinguished in a study of word order in Slovene dialectal discourse. The first group of features, such as, for example, the initial position of clitics in an ut­terance, is characteristic of texts from all dialect groups, and is therefore a general word order feature of Slovene dialectal discourse. The second group includes word order characteristics that are found only in the texts of certain dialect groups, for ex­ample the separated position of the particle ne and the verb in Littoral dialects and the position of the past participle of the verb biti ‘to be’ at the end of the utterance in Pannonian dialects; these characteristics can be considered as specific features of particular Slovene dialectal discourses. The third group of characteristics are those that can be found in all texts but nevertheless differ in the frequency of their use, for example, the position of the adjective premodifier in agreement with the noun and noun/prepositional phrase post-modifiers in a noun phrase as well as the position of the verb (past participle or infinitive) at the end of the utterance. The frequency of use in these cases is the criterion that shows whether the word order characteristic is well established and can thus be understood as an established word order variant in the dialect or rather a dialectal word order rule, or is sporadic and as such the result of a basic pattern in spoken language. i.e. short planning time, which does not allow for the deliberate structuring of utterances. Abbreviations ACC = accusative, ADJ.MOD = adjective modifier, ADV = adverb, ADVERB = adverbial, C = conjunction, Carin. = Carinthian, COND = conditional, cop = copula, ex. = example, F = feminine, FUT.AUX = future auxiliary, GEN = genitive, INF = infinitive, INTERR.PART = interrogative particle, It. = Italian, Litt. = Littoral, LOC = locative, Low.Carn. = Lower Carniolan, M = masculine, MOD = modal, N = neuter, NEG.AUX = negative auxiliary, OBJ = object, Pann. = Pannonian, PART = particle, PL = plural, PRONOM = pronominal, PREP = preposition, PREP.PHRASE = prepositional phrase, REFL = reflexive pronoun, Rovt. = Rovte, sg = singular, SLS = Standard Literary Slovene, Styr. = Styrian, SUB = subject, Upp.Carn. = Upper Carniolan References Beaugrande, Robert de; Dressler, Wolfgang Ulrich; Derganc, Aleksandra; Miklic, Tjaša. 1992. Uvod v besediloslovje. Ljubljana: Park. Breznik, Anton. 1982. Jezikoslovne razprave. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. Dardano, Maurizio; Trifone, Pietro. 20015. La nuova grammatica della lingua italiana. Bologna: Zanichelli. De Bray, Reginald George Arthur. 19693. Guide to Slavonic Languages. London: J. M. Dent&Sons LTD, New York: E. P. Dutton&Co.INT. Faggin, Giorgio. 1997. Grammatica friulana. Udine: Ribis. Franks, Steven; King, Tracy Holloway. 2000. A handbook of Slavic clitics. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press. Jakop, Tjaša. 2001. Fonološki opis govora Ložnice pri Žalcu (SLA 324). Jezikoslovni zapiski 7, n. 1–2: 365–380. Jakop, Tjaša. 2003: Fonološki opis šentviškega govora. Jezikoslovni zapiski 9, n. 1: 113–127. Jakop, Tjaša 2013: Govor vasi Jelšane (T0156) na skrajnem jugu notranjskega narecja. Jezikoslovni zapiski 19, n. 2, 139–147. D. Zuljan Kumar, Word Order in Slovene Dialectal Discourse Kenda-Jež, Karmen. 1999. Med narecjem in knjižnim jezikom. In: Zorko, Zinka (ed.), Koletnik, Mihaela (ed.). Logarjev zbornik: referati s 1. mednarodnega dialektološke­ga simpozija v Mariboru. Zora 8, 304–315. Maribor: Slavisticno društvo. Koletnik, Mihaela. 2001. Slovenskogoriško narecje. Zora 12. Maribor: Slavisticno dru­štvo Maribor. Krajnc Ivic, Mira. 2007. Besedilne znacilnosti javne govorjene besede: na gradivu sej mariborskega Mestnega sveta. Maribor: Slavisticno društvo, 2005. Kranjc, Simona. 2004. Besedni red, usvajanje prvega in ucenje drugega/tujega jezika. Jezik in slovstvo. 49, n. 3–4: 145–157. Logar, Tine. 1975. Slovenska narecja. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. Murko, Matija. 1891. Enklitike v slovenšcini. Oblikoslovje in skladnja. In: Bartel, Anton (ed.). Letopis Matice slovenske za leto 1891, 1–65. Ljubljana: Matica slovenska. Murko, Matija. 1892. Enklitike v slovenšcini. II del: skladnja. In: Bartel, Anton (ed.), Letopis Matice slovenske za leto 1892, 51–86. Ljubljana: Matica slovenska. Priestly, Tom. Word order patters with adverbial affixes and with short pronouns in a Slovenian dialect (manuscript). Reindl, F. Donald. 2015. Slovenian brace constructions and German separable-prefix verbs. In: Wke, Sonja (ed.); Bartels, Hauke (ed.), Einflüsse des Deutschen auf die grammatische Struktur slawischer Sprachen. Internationale Konferenz des Sorbi­schen Instituts Einflüsse des Deutschen auf die grammatische Struktur slawischer Sprachen 2011, 188–197. Cottbus, Chósebuz: Sorbisches Institut. Siewierska, Anna. 1988. Word Order Rules. London: New York, Sydney: Croom Helm. Smole, Vera. 2007. Šmarski govor. In: Müller, Jakob (ed.), Šmarska knjiga: jubilejna monografija ob 500-letnici šolstva v Šmarju, 369–392. Šmarje-Sap: Kulturno-razi­skovalno društvo Turencek. Steenwijk, Han. 1992. The slovene dialect of Resia: San Giorgio. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Šekli, Matej. 2007. Fonološki opis vasi Jevšcek pri Livku nadiškeganarecja slovenšcine. Merkujev zbornik (Jezikoslovni zapiski 13, n. 1/2): 409–417. Šekli, Matej 2018. Lingvogeneza slovanskih jezikov. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. Škofic, Jožica. 2007. Terminologija izginjajoce/izginule obrti – sekirarstvo v Kamni Go-rici na Gorenjskem. In: Jesenšek, Marko (ed.), Besedje slovenskega jezika, (Zora, 50), 214–234. Maribor: Slavisticno društvo. Toporišic, Jože, 1982. Nova slovenska skladnja. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije. Toporišic, Jože. 20004. Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Obzorja. Weiss, Peter. 2004. Sodobne jezikovne inovacije v govorih spodnje Zadrecke doline. In: Kržišnik, Erika (ed.), Obdobja 22, 371–382. Zemljak, Melita. 2001: Fonološki opis posavskega govora v Stržišcu (Zabukovje). Jeziko­slovni zapiski 7, n. 1–2: 349–363. Zorko, Zinka. 1994. Besedni red v severovzhodnih slovenskih narecjih. In Hladnik, Miran (ed.), Zbornik Slavisticnega društva Slovenije 4, 47–55. Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo in šport. Zorko, Zinka. 1995. Narecna podoba Dravske doline. Maribor: Kulturni forum. Zorko, Zinka. 1998. Haloško narecje in druge dialektološke študije. Maribor: Slavisticno društvo Maribor. Zuljan Kumar, Danila 2002: Stava clenkov v beneškoslovenskih govorih. In: Jesenšek, Marko (ed.); Rajh, Bernard (ed.); Zorko, Zinka (ed.), Med dialektologijo in zgodo-vino slovenskega jezika (Zbirka Zora n. 18), 98–107. Maribor: Slavisticno društvo. Zuljan Kumar, Danila. 2003. Nekaj besednorednih posebnosti v nadiškem in briškem narecju. Jezikoslovni zapiski, 9, n. 2: 59–80. Zuljan Kumar, Danila. 2007. Narecni diskurz: diskurzivna analiza briških pogovorov. Ljub­ljana: Založba ZRC. Zuljan Kumar, Danila. 2008. Besedni red v govorjenih slovenskih narecjih. In: Toporišic, Jože (ed.), Škrabceva misel VI: zbornik s simpozija 2007. 121–135. Žele, Andreja. 2017: Narecje kot dobro izhodišce za spoznavanje in prepoznavanje neka­terih skladenjskih pojavov v lastnem jeziku. Jezikoslovni zapiski, 23, n. 2, 373–381. Received April 2019, accepted June 2019. Prispelo aprila 2019, sprejeto junija 2019. Besedni red v slovenskem narecnem diskurzu Besednemu redu se v slovenskem jezikoslovju v preteklosti ni posvecalo veliko pozornosti, ceprav je prva razprava na to temo izšla že v letih 1891–1892. Napisal jo je Matija Murko, ki je obravnaval besedni red pri naslonkah in naslonskem nizu. Vecina razprav je v preteklosti analizirala besedni red v umetnostnih bese­dilih, šele v zadnjih petnajstih letih pa se na Slovenskem pojavljajo tudi razprave o besednem redu v spontanih govorjenih besedilih. Pricujoci prispevek obravnava besedni red v govorjenem narecnem jeziku glede na pravila stalne stave v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku, pri cemer se osre­dotoca samo na izbrana pravila stalne stave. Analiza besedil iz vseh slovenskih narecnih skupin je pokazala, da besednoredne znacilnosti slovenskih narecnih govorjenih besedil lahko razdelimo v tri skupine. Prva skupina znacilnosti, kot npr. izhodišcni položaj naslonk v izreku, je znacilna za besedila iz vseh narecnih skupin, zato lahko recemo, da gre za splošno znacilnost slovenskega narecne­ga diskurza. Druga skupina zajema znacilnosti, ki jih najdemo samo v besedilih dolocene narecne skupine, npr. locena stava clenka ne in glagola v primorskih narecjih ter stava preteklega deležnika glagola biti na koncu izreka v panonski narecni skupini. Tovrstne znacilnosti lahko razumemo kot posebne znacilnosti posameznih slovenskih narecnih diskurzov. Tretja skupina znacilnosti pa so ti-ste znacilnosti, ki jih sicer najdemo v besedilih vseh narecnih skupin, vendar pa se razlikujejo v pogostosti rabe, npr. stava levega ujemalnega pridevniškega D. Zuljan Kumar, Word Order in Slovene Dialectal Discourse prilastka in desnega samostalniškega prilastka in predložne zveze v samostalniški besedni zvezi ter stava osebne in neosebne glagolske oblike na koncu izreka. Po-gostost rabe je v takih primerih tisto merilo, ki pokaže, ali je besednoredna zna-cilnost ustaljenain jo zato lahko razumemo kot ustaljeno besednoredno razlicico v narecju oziroma narecno besednoredno pravilo ali pa je sporadicna in kot taka rezultat osnovne zakonitosti govorjenega jezika, tj. kratkega nacrtovalnega casa, ki ne dopušca premišljenega strukturiranja izrekov. Word order in Slovene dialectal discourse20 There has been little discussion of word order in Slovene to date, even though the first extensive study of clitics and their position in a sentence in Slovene by Matija Murko was published already in 1891–1892. The majority of articles in Slovenian linguistics on word order in the past were based on an analysis of word order in literary texts. Only in the past fifteen years have there been discussions of word order in spoken discourse. This paper discusses on the differences in fixed word order between Slovene dialectal discourse and Stan­dard Slovene written discourse and word order characteristics of the Slovenian dialectal discourse focusing on only selected sentence elements that are subject to fixed word order rules. The analysis of texts from all Slovene dialect groups has shown that three groups of word order features can be distinguished in a study of word order in Slovene dialectal discourse. The first group of features, such as, for example, the initial position of clitics in an utterance, is characteristic of texts from all dialect groups, and is therefore a general word order feature of Slovene dialectal disco­urse. The second group includes word order characteristics that are found only in the texts of certain dialect groups, for example the separated position of the particle ne and the verb in Littoral dialects and the position of the past participle of the verb biti ‘to be’ at the end of the utterance in Pannonian dialects; these cha­racteristics can be considered as specific features of particular Slovene dialectal discourses. The third group of characteristics is made up of those that can be fo­und in all texts but nevertheless differ in the frequency of their use, for example, the position of the adjective premodifier in agreement with the noun and noun/ prepositional phrase modifiers in a noun phrase as well as the position of the verb 20This article has been supported by ARRS (program P6-0038). (past participle or infinitive) at the end of the utterance. The frequency of use in these cases is the criterion that shows whether the word order characteristic is well established and can thus be understood as an established word order variant in the dialect or rather a dialectal word order rule, or is sporadic and as such the result of a basic pattern in spoken language, i.e. short planning time, which does not allow for the deliberate structuring of utterances. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 12 (2019): 75–93 Domen Krvina ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša, Ljubljana Zaporednost dejanj in njen vpliv na rabo glagolskega vida v slovenšcini Zaporednost dejanj je vidsko in širše aspektualno (tako npr. v anglešcini v zvezi z rabo simple in omejitvijo rabe progressive oblik) pomemben jezikovni pojav. Pri zaporednosti dejanj ta v nizu omejujejo ena drugo, s cimer nastaja zaprti interval, v katerem prostora za potekanje, trajanje dejanja naceloma ni; izjemo predstavlja zlasti zadnje dejanje v nizu, ki poteka v polodprtem intervalu. Tako ni presenecenje, da v nizu zaporednih dejanj prevla­duje raba dovršnika (DV) – analiza korpusov Gigafida, Kres in ssj500k za sodobno stanje kaže, da v nizu treh dejanj, ki ga zacenja DV, delež permutacij, kjer DV stoji na vsaj dveh mestih, dosega 85% (na vseh mestih okoli 69%). V korpusu IMP (16.–19. stoletje) ta delež znaša 77% (na vseh mestih okoli 59%). The sequence of events is in terms of aspect (also in non-Slavic languages, for instance, in English with regard to the use of simple rather than progressive forms) an important linguistic phenomenon. Forming the sequence, actions restrict each other, thereby creat­ing a closed interval which limits the space enabling duration of an action; the exception to this is mainly the last action in a sequence (taking place in half-open interval). There­fore it comes as no surprise that in sequence of events the use of the perfective (PF) is predominant – the analysis of the modern corpora Gigafida, Kres and ssj500k shows that in a series of three actions initiated by the PF the share of permutations with PF taking at least two places reaches as high 85% (all three places around 69%). In the IMP corpus (16th–19th century), the share is a bit lower, 77% (all the places around 59%). Uvod Zaporednost dejanj (rus. posledovatel’nost’ dejstvij, ang. sequence of events) je ena pomembnejših vidsko zaznamovanih glagolskih rab. Veckrat se izpostavlja predvsem v ruski (Bondarko 2005: 234–236), pa tudi mednarodni aspektologiji (Comrie 1976: 5, Dickey 2000: 4, 20, 23, 203–233). Pod zaporednostjo dejanj imamo v mislih zaporedje neenakih, neistovrstnih dejanj, sledecihsi eno za drugim: … D , D… Prostora za razvoj dejanj n – 1n, Dn + 1 – tj. potekanje, poudarek na trajanju dejanja – naceloma ni: dejanja so zgošcena, ceznje zgolj zdrsimo s pogledom, ne da bi se pri katerem ustavljali dalj casa (Comrie 1976: 3, 21, Dickey 2000: 205–208, 216–218, Orešnik 1994: 90, 102). V angleških slovnicah (Quirk idr. 1972: 470–471, 638–639, Radden idr. 2007: 219–220) se zaporednost dejanj pogosto navaja kot primer, kdaj moramo – zlasti v sferi past in present – rabiti simple, ne pa progressive tenses,1 npr. (1) He came(? was coming) home, ate (? was eating) dinner and went(? was going) to bed.2 0.1 Zaporednost dejanj v slovenšcini3 Zanima nas, kakšna je raba glagolskega vida – prevlada dovršnika (DV) ali ne­dovršnika (NDV) – pri zaporednosti dejanj v slovenšcini, in sicer zlasti za stanje v sodobnem jeziku, ki je gradivno najbolje pokrito (korpusi Gigafida 2.0, Kres in ssj500k 2.2). Ker nas zanima tudi okvirna razvojna primerjava, bomo proucili še stanje od 16. do zacetka 20. stoletja (korpus IMP), dopolnjeno s krajšim pregledom v IMP slabše zastopanega stanja v 16. stoletju (rocni korpus iz zgledov rabe v monografiji M. Merše Vid in vrstnost glagola v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku 16. stoletja). Naj že v zacetku opozorimo na razlike v obsegu, gradivni in zvrstni graje­nosti korpusov, ki preprecujejo, da bi dobljene deleže DV in NDV v sicer istih iskanih strukturah med seboj vzporejali kot povsem primerljive enote. Razen v rocnem korpusu za 16. stoletje pri iskanju uporabljamo CQL, jezik za iskanje po korpusu (corpus query language), kar nam omogoca razmeroma enotna oznace­nost korpusov za sodobno stanje in korpusa IMP. 1 Za zaporednost dejanj (v pripovedi o preteklosti) kot eno od možnosti rabe aorista v hrvašcini gl. Stanojevic in Geld (2011: 162–163, 171–172). 2Navedena dejanja bi težko potekala eno ob drugem (vzporednost dejanj), ko pouda­rek na njihovem potekanju in s tem raba progressive form oz. v slovenšcini nedovršnika ne bi bila vprašljiva. Vec v nadaljevanju. 3 Tema je bila delno, v manjšem obsegu prvic obdelana v dveh poglavjih disertacije Krvina (2015). D. Krvina, Zaporednost dejanj in njen vpliv na rabo glagolskega vida v slovenšcini Sodobno stanje Zanima nas, katera vidska vrednost (za vstop dopušcamo tudi kategorialno NDV/ DV) tipicno sledi dovršnemu dejanju4 neposredno za naštevalnima veznikoma in ali ter.5 ISKALNA ZAHTEVA: [tag="Ggdd.*"][]{0,1}[word="(in|ter)"][word!="(da|naj|bi|.|,)" & tag!="[ZV].*"] {0,2} [tag="Gg.d.*"] Z besedami: poišci vse nepomožne deležniške oz. sedanjiške glagolske pojavitve do treh mest desno od dovršnih nepomožnih deležniških oz. sedanjiških6 glagol­skih pojavitev, ki jim (lahko z enim mestom presledka) sledita veznika in ali ter. Vmes naj ne bo veznika da oz. naj, clenice bi, (koncnega) locila oz. veznika ali zaimka nasploh. Kot NDV ne upoštevamo vecine naklonskih in nekaterih sorodnih glagolov, ki jim vidsko vrednost izraziteje doloca šele njihov odvisni del v nedolocniku; ta je oznacen posebej, zato teh pojavitev ne izgubimo. K celoti vseh glagolskih pojavitev in celoti NDV se tako v iskalno zahtevo doda: & lemma!="(morati|moci| smeti|hoteti|želeti|nameravati|nacrtovati)" K izracunuposplošenega deleža izhodišcno kot aritmeticne sredine prispeva dejstvo, da je korpus Gigafida najvecji, a ne uravnotežen, korpus Kres je manjši, a razmeroma uravnotežen, korpus ssj500k pa najmanjši, a oznacen rocno (torej z manj šuma); poleg tega Gigafida vsebuje oba manjša korpusa. Kot je razvidno iz Tabele 1, izrazito prevladuje DV; izven sedanjika še neko­liko (posplošeno za okoli 7%) bolj. Delež NDV/DV ni neznaten, a vendar dovolj majhen, da ga bomo v nadaljevanju pri pregledu daljših zaporedij zanemarili. 4 Kot bomo videli v nadaljevanju, bi nedovršno dejanje namrec najverjetneje zace­njalo niz vzporednih, ne zaporednih dejanj. 5 V nadaljevanju (niz 3 dejanj) je v iskanje dodana še vejica, tako da se poleg prevla­dujocih pojavitev v vezalnih priredjih lahko upoštevajo tudi pojavitve v podredjih – kot npr. v zgledih (20), (21), (46), (68), (69). Vec o vlogi veznikov v slovenskih zloženih povedih gl. v Krvina, Žele (2018). 6 Za sedanjik: na cetrtem mestu stoji »s« namesto »d«. Za nedovršnik: na tretjem mestu »n«. Korpus Vseh glagolov tega tipa (ZAPORED.) NDV DV NDV/DV (kategorialno dvovidsko) Gigafida (1.d) 522125 (1.s) 228206 (1.d) 56687 10,9 % (1.s) 41620 18,2 % (1.d) 434192 83,1 % (1.s) 171469 75,2 % (1.d) 31246 6 % (1.s) 15117 6,6 % Kres (1.d) 54187 (1.s) 30980 (1.d) 6897 12,7 % (1.s.) 5429 17,5 % (1.d) 43701 80,7 % (1.s) 23736 76,7 % (1.d) 3589 6,6 % (1.s) 1815 5,9 % ssj500k (1.d) 250 (1.s) 135 (1.d) 37 14,8 % (1.s) 33 24,4 % (1.d) 200 80 % (1.s) 95 70,4 % (1.d) 13 5,2 % (1.s) 7 5,2 % Posplošen delež (1.d) 12,8 % (1.s) 20% (1.d) 81,3% (1.s) 74,1% (1.d) 5,9% (1.s) 5,9% Tabela 1:Razmerje med NDV in DV pri zaporednosti dejanj (dve dejanji v nizu s prvim DV) Sledi nekaj zgledov iz korpusa Gigafida:7 DV DV: (2) Otrok se je predramilpf in nakremžilpf. (3) Najprej je potrdilpf sodelovanje in nato izstopilpf. (4) Te dni so koncalipf ureditev poti, ocistilipf skale in kamenje, jo utrdilipf ter opremilipf z novimi tablami. (5) Dodamopf zelenjavo in še malo prepražimopf. (6) Vzamepf jo v roko, pogledapf in spravipf v mapo s fotografijami. (7) Posodo vzamemopf s kuhalne plošce, tekocino ohladimopf ter primešamopf rumenjake. DV NDV: (8) Vzelipf so mi kri in potem sem cakalaipf na izvide. (9) Vstalpf je, odprlpf okno in globoko dihalipf, k sebi pa ni prišelpf. (10) Z novo tehnologijo je zrna kovine stisnilpf, segrelpf in potem kovalipf. (11) Sezona belega tartufa se zacnepf oktobra in trajaipf do konca januarja. (12) Obmolknepf in razmišljaipf o vprašanju. (13) Vodo odlijemopf, natocimopf svežo in slive pocasi kuhamoipf, vse dokler voda ne zavre. (14) Izpove sepf in prejmepf obhajilo ter dolgo kleciipf v molitvi. 7Kot je navedeno v seznamu literature, smo upoštevali zadnjo deduplicirano verzijo korpusa s konca leta 2018. Zgledi so izbrani z rocnim pregledom dolocenega števila (na­vadno 250–300) nakljucnih konkordanc. D. Krvina, Zaporednost dejanj in njen vpliv na rabo glagolskega vida v slovenšcini Kot kažejo zgledi (4), (6), (7), (9), (10), (13) in (14), vecina nizov vsebuje vec kot samo dve dejanji, kar pomeni, da ima dejanje pogosto svoje »sosede«, torej poteka v zaprtem intervalu (d[d), ki ga omejujeta sosednji dejanji v za- n – 1n]dn + 1 poredju. To pojasnjuje težnjo po prevladi DV, medtem ko NDV nastopa zlasti na koncu niza, kjer je dejanje omejeno le s predhodnim dejanjemoz. svojim zacet­kom (polzaprti interval). Rabo NDV lahko pogojuje tudi kateri drug skladenjski dejavnik, npr. prisotnost prislovov tipa pocasi skupaj z vezniško zvezo vse dokler v naslednjem stavku (13), zlasti pa tipa dolgo (14).8 Izven sedanjika tako DV kot NDV pogosto nastopata v pripovedi o preteklosti, v sedanjiku pa zlasti pri izražanju ponavljalnosti, splošne veljavnosti dejanja – po­gosto v obliki navodil oz. receptov – ali kot historicni sedanjik: (6), (12), (14). Sodobno stanje: niz treh dejanj Kot receno, vecina nizov vsebuje vec kot dve dejanji, zato je bila izvedena še posebna analiza nizov, ko razporejamo dve izbiri (DV ali NDV) na tri mesta (permutacije s ponavljanjem). Kot omejitev smo zopet dolocili, da se mora niz zacenjati z DV; v poštev tako pridejo 4 (1 x 2 x 2) nizi: DV DV DV, DV DV NDV, DV NDV DV, DV NDV NDV. Pri iskalni zahtevi podvojimo drugi clen iz tocke 1, veznikoma in in ter pa doda-mo še vejico: [tag="Ggdd.*"][]{0,1}[word="(in|ter|,)"][word!="(da|naj|bi|.)" & tag!="[ZV].*"] {0,2}[tag="Gg.d.*"][]{0,1}[word="(in|ter|,)"] [word!="(da|naj|bi|.)" & tag!="[ZV].*"]{0,2} [tag="Gg.d.*"] Z besedami: poišci vse nepomožne deležniške oz. sedanjiške glagolske pojavitve do treh mest in še enkrat treh mest desno od dovršnih nepomožnih deležniških oz. sedanjiških glagolskih pojavitev, ki jim (lahko z enim mestom presledka) sledita veznika in, ter ali vejica. Vmes naj ne bo veznika da oz. naj, clenice bi, (koncne­ga) locila oz. veznika ali zaimka nasploh. 8 Gl. tudi Bondarko (2005: 359), Derganc (2014: 539). 2.1 DV DV DV Posplošen delež izven sedanjika: 69%.9 (15) Staro hišo je na novo pozidalpf, uredilpf kegljišce in odprlpf gostilno. (16) Dvakrat je ukradelpf žogo, zatreselpf mrežo in izenacilpf na 6 : 6.10 (17) Hitro sem ukrepalpf, oskrbelpf ranjenca, zaustavilpf krvavitev ter obvestilpf vse pristojne. Kot že omenjeno, je pogosta pripoved o preteklosti, potencialno pa bi ob n-stavc­ni povedi DV v nizu lahko bilo neskoncno mnogo: DVn Posplošen delež v sedanjiku: 68%. (18) Krompir operemopf, olupimopf in narežemopf na kocke. (19) V pesmi vnašam tisto, kar v življenju novega odkrijempf, razišcempf, razvozlampf. (20) Ko pridepf domov, moža objamepf, poljubipf, pobožapf.11 (21) Ko mu prekipipf, pospravipf prtljago in sedepf na prvo letalo. (22) Vstanempf, se oblecempf, umijempf, obujempf, izklopimpf budilko in pohitimpf v šolo. (23) Spodnjo nogo skrcimopf, zgornjo zategnemopf in jo dvignemopf navzgor, zadržimopf, spustimopf in sprostimopf. (24) Vrocicno se obrnepf in odsunepf vrata, stecepf po vhodnih stopnicah ven, odvržepf konzerve in se ozrepf. Zopet vidimo, da so v nizih pogosto vec kot tri dejanja (kar pa naša iskalna zah­teva vse zajame, saj v povedi nima fiksiranega mesta, kje naj se iskanje zacne). Velja tudi, da sedanjik zaporednih (dovršnih) dejanj nastopa zlasti pri izražanju ponavljalnosti ((19), (20), (22)), splošne veljavnosti dejanja – pogosto v obliki navodil oz. receptov ((18), (23)) – ali kot historicni sedanjik ((21), (24)). 2.2 DV DV NDV Posplošen delež izven sedanjika: 10,6%. (25) Prikradlapf se je bližje, pokleknilapf ter vleklaipf na ušesa. (26) Ustavilpf sem, pogledalpf ven in skušalipf ugotoviti, kaj neki sem videl. (27) Upava, da se bo vse to cim prej razrešilopf, pozabilopf in bomo živeliipf dalje. 9 Za podrobnejše podatke gl. Tabelo 2. 10 Glagolska struktura te povedi bi bila 2DV2 x DV, saj je izenacenje sledilo kot na­daljevanje niza, šele ko je bil izpolnjen pogoj 2(DV x DV). 11 Tu so neprva tri dejanja mocno spojena drug z drugim, kot da se eno zacenja še v drugem. D. Krvina, Zaporednost dejanj in njen vpliv na rabo glagolskega vida v slovenšcini Zgled (27) predstavlja izjemo ob sicer prevladujoci pripovedi o preteklosti. Po dejanju na koncu niza ni sledecega, ki bi ga omejevalo, kar mu v polodprtem in-tervalu omogoca razvoj, poudarek na trajanju (v (27) imamocelo stanje: živeti), ki ga izraža NDV.12 Posplošen delež v sedanjiku: 13,1%. (28) Kadar zaprepf oci, zacutipf vrtoglavico in slabost, dihaipf sunkovito. (29) Prezracevanje v predoru požar razširipf, temperatura skokovito narastepf, širiipf se dim. (30) Dodamopf sladkor, premešamopf, postopoma dodajamoipf rumenjake in nazadnje še orehe. (31) Zavremopf, vrocino znižamopf, posodo pokrijemopf in juho kuhamoipf 15 minut. V zaporednostnem sedanjiku se kot obicajno pojavlja ponavljalnost (28), splošna veljavnost dejanja (29) – pogosto v obliki navodil oz. receptov: (30), (31).13 V teh dveh zgledih podobno kot pri (13), (14) rabo NDV poleg možnosti razvoja dejanja v polodprtem intervalu na koncu niza pogojuje še dodatni skladenjski dejavnik – prislov postopoma, zlasti pa 15 minut (N casa).14 Historicni sedanjik tokrat v nakljucnem vzorcu ni bil zaznan. 2.3 DV NDVDV Posplošen delež izven sedanjika: 4,5%. (32) Pripravilipf smo si pijaco, jedliipf in znova napolnilipf mehove. (33) Spremembe bomo opazilipf, uporabljaliipf in zelo hitro vzljubilipf. (34) Ugasnilpf je kosilnico, pogledalpf gor in nekaj casa ocenjevalipf situacijo in mi zaklicalpf. Tudi tu zgled (33) predstavlja izjemo ob sicer prevladujoci pripovedi o prete­klosti. Za rabo NDV na sredini niza zaporednih dejanj mora biti navadno ali izrazito poudarjeno trajanje, ki potiska mejo, doloceno s sledecim dejanjem, v ozadje15 (pogosto podprto z dodatnim skladenjskim dejavnikom, npr. zvezo s 12Trajanje je lahko še dodatno poudarjeno s trudom za izvršitev dejanja, kot ga iz­ raža naklonskim sorodni glagol tipa skušati – npr. v zgledu (26). 13 Zaporednost dejanj je za navodila in recepte kot besedilni tip izrazito znacilna; se­stavljeni so namrec iz faz, kjer je zacetek naslednje pogojen z zakljuckom predhodne. Kot bomo videli v nadaljevanju, to velja ne glede na casovno obdobje (tako tudi npr. za kuhar­ske knjige in opise fizikalnih/kemijskih poskusov v drugi polovici 18. in v 19. stoletju). 14 Gl. tudi Krvina (2015: 112–119). 15 Gl. tudi Petrukhina (2019: 38). prislovno vrednostjo nekaj casa (N casa) v zgledu (34)), ali pa NDV dejanje bolj poimenuje, ga navaja kot dejstvo, in ne izpostavlja izrazito njegovega tra­ janja ((32), (33)).16 Posplošen delež v sedanjiku: 4,3%. (35) Obsevalni aparati so dragi, scasoma se izrabijopf, kvarijoipf in zastarajopf. (36) Pleveli s kratko življenjsko dobo vzklijejopf, cvetijoipf in naredijopf seme v zelo krat­kem casu. (37) Dodamopf sladkor in mešamoipf naprej, dodamopf kokos in nato moko. (38) V ponev damopf zelenjavo, dušimoipf in zacinimopf. Tudi v sedanjiku se zdi, da NDV sredi niza zaporednih dejanj dejanje predvsem poimenuje, izraža kot dejstvo, in ne izpostavlja izraziteje njegovega trajanja – to velja za celotno ponavljalnost, splošno veljavnost dejanja ((35), (36)), tudi pri receptih; izjemopredstavlja (37), kjer prislov naprej ob NDV nakazuje, da je bilo mešanje prisotno že prej, kar kaže na trajanje dejanja. Posebej je zgolj poimenovanje dejanja vidno v zgledih, kjer bi za sredinski NDV potencialno lahko celo rekli, da oznacuje dovršno dejanje (Krvina 2019: 167–168), k cemur sicer ob izraziti prevladi DV prispeva tudi mesto sredi niza zaporednih dejanj: (39) Vsako plast popopramopf, solimoipf in potresemopf s kumino. (40) Želatino razpustimopf in dodamopf kostanju, sladkamoipf in vmešamopf polovico smetane. Zgolj poimenovanje, izražanjedejanja kot dejstva je prisotno tudi ob nikalnosti, ko je dejanje izraženo kot neobstojece (Krvina 2019: 166–167): (41) Liste vedno odtrgamopf, nikoli ne režemoipf, ter pustimopf do 3 cm stebel. Medtem v historicnem sedanjiku NDV sredi niza zaporednih dejanj izraža po­tekanje, trajanje dejanja in tako tok dogajanja nekoliko zaustavlja (Petrukhina 2019: 34): (42) Pridempf do glavnih vrat, pozvonimpf, cakamipf, spet pozvonimpf: nic. (43) Prinesepf k ustom, se zdrznepf, sumljivo ovohavaipf, nato previdno srknepf. 16 Podrobneje o tem gl. v Krvina (2019) D. Krvina, Zaporednost dejanj in njen vpliv na rabo glagolskega vida v slovenšcini 2.4 DV NDV NDV Posplošen delež izven sedanjika: 5,5%. (44) Ko sem odložilapf slušalko, sem kricalaipf in skakalaipf. (45) Gostje in stanovalci zavetišca so sedlipf skupaj, klepetaliipf in razlagaliipf svoje težave. (46) Koleno me je, cim sem ga bolj obremenilapf, boleloipf in otekaloipf. Ob sicer prevladujoci pripovedi o preteklosti najdemo tudi primere s ponavljal­nostjo dejanja v preteklosti (46). Dejanji, ki jih izražata NDV NDV, potekata bolj ali manj eno ob drugem, istocasno, eno lahko predstavlja tudi izhodišce za drugo (npr. (45) klepetati in razlagati) – gre za vzporednost, ne zaporednost dejanj, kot med DV in NDVn. Posplošen delež v sedanjiku: 2,3%. (47) Delegati vstanejopf in bucno aplavdirajoipf ter vzklikajoipf. (48) Premaknešpf rocico, eno pedalo popušcašipf, drugo pritiskašipf. (49) Dodamopf cebulo, mešamoipf in pražimoipf toliko casa, da cebula postekleni. (50) Dodamopf krompir in grah, solimoipf in dušimoipf nekaj minut. Podobno velja za vzporednost dejanj (popušcati in hkrati pritiskati, mešati med praženjem) med NDV NDV, ki sledi zaporednosti za DV pri ponavljalnosti, splo­ šni veljavnosti dejanj v sedanjiku, tudi historicnem (47). V zgledu (50) je medtem med NDV in NDV vzporednost dejanj malo verjetna, saj bi le stežka solili nekaj minut; prvi NDV tako dejanje zopet zgolj poimenuje, in ne izpostavlja izrazito njegovega trajanja. Še bolj to velja za NDV NDV v naslednjem nizu: (51) Zrezke potolcemopf, solimoipf, popramoipf in obložimo z nadevom. V spodnjem zgledu s historicnim sedanjikom gre medtem v nizu NDV NDV zopet za vzporednost dejanj: (52) Zacnepf se temniti, znane sence dreves me zacnejopf strašiti, upogibajoipf se, daljšajoipf. 2.5 Pregled deležev posameznih permutacij Korpus Vseh glagolov tega tipa (ZAPORED.) DV NDV NDV DV NDV DV DV DV DV DV DV NDV Gigafida (1.d) 35434 (1.s) 39297 (1.d) 2259 {6,4%} 1949 {5,5%} (1.s) 4313 {11%} 2424 {6,2%} (1.d) 23997 {67,7 %} 2746{7,7%} (1.s) 23928 {61 %} 4655 {11,8%} Kres (1.d) 3598 (1.s) 5047 (1.d) 284 {7,9%} 172 {4,8%} (1.s.) 126 {2,5%} 273 {5,4%} (1.d) 2384 {66,3 %} 302 {8,4%} (1.s) 3309 {65,6 %} 577{11,4%} ssj500k (1.d) 13 (1.s) 18 (1.d) 0 2 {15,4} (1.s) 0 2{11,1 %} (1.d) 11 {85 %} 2 {15,4%} (1.s) 16 {88,9 %} 3 {11,1%} Posplošen delež (1.d) {5,5%} {4,5%} (1.s) {2,3%} {4,3%} (1.d) {69 %} {10,6 %} (1.s) {68 %} {13,1 %} Tabela 2: Razmerje med NDV in DV pri zaporednosti dejanj (tri dejanja v nizu s prvim DV) Pri nizu vsaj treh dejanj, ki se zacenjajo z DV, torej prevladuje zaporednost dejanj, ki jo v zaprtem intervalu, ki naceloma razvoja dejanja, poudarka na njegovem trajanju ne dopušca, izraža DV; NDV, ki izraža trajanje dejanja, stoji zlasti na zadnjem mestu, kjer je dejanje omejeno le s predhodnim dejanjem oz. svojim zacetkom, ne pa tudi s sledecim – za izvedbo dejanja je na voljo polodprti interval, pri katerem je ena meja nedolocena. Na vmesnem mestu je NDV redek in – zlasti v navodilih, receptih – de­janje zgolj poimenuje, izraža kot dejstvo, ne izpostavlja izrazito njegovega trajanja; zaradi siceršnje prevlade DV v nizih zaporednih dejanj bi bila mogoca celo razlaga, da tak NDV izraža dovršno dejanje (npr. dodamo, sladkamoin vmešamo).17 NDV je razmeroma redek tudi na obeh neprvih mestih za prvim DV, kjer gre med dvema NDV za vzporednost, ne zaporednost dejanj: dejanji potekata hkrati, eno ob drugem, lahko je eno osnova, podlaga za drugo (npr. klepetati in razlagati težave). 17Ob sprejemanju take razlage bi to veljalo upoštevati tudi pri dodeljevanju kate­gorialne slovarske oznake pri glagolih tipa poprati, sladkati, soliti – torej ne le nedov., temvec nedov. in dov. Pri poprati to v stranski razlagi beleži že SSKJ (https://fran.si/ iskanje?View=1&Query=poprati). D. Krvina, Zaporednost dejanj in njen vpliv na rabo glagolskega vida v slovenšcini Razporeditev posplošenih deležev DV in NDV v nizih vsaj treh dejanj, ki jih zacenja DV, glede na celoto lahko zaokroženo prikažemo tudi takole:18 •• Izven sedanjika: 0.69 DVn + 0,11 DVnNDV + 0,05 DVnNDVDVn + 0,06 DVNDVn •• V sedanjiku: 0.68 DVn + 0,13 DVnNDV + 0,04 DVnNDVDVn + 0,02 DVNDVn Prevlada DV je dobro vidna tudi ob izpostavitvi elementa DVn (0,69 + 0,11 NDV + 0,05 NDVDVn + 0,06 DV1– nNDVn); njegov delež na vsaj dveh mestih znaša kar 85%. 2.6 Sodobno stanje: krajša primerjava z nekaterimi drugimi slovanskimi jeziki Kot že omenjeno, prevlada DV glede na obojestransko omejenost dejanja (s predhodnim in sledecim) in s tem zaprtim intervalom za izvedbo dejanja ni pre­senetljiva. Predvsem v primerjavi s severnoslovanskimi jeziki je slovenšcina tu sorazmerno dosledna: kot smo videli v zgledih, zaporednost dejanj predvideva rabo zlasti DV ne glede na širše sobesedilne okolišcine, kot npr. ponavljalnost, splošna veljavnost dejanja. V rušcini, v znatni meri pa tudi v poljšcini, je ob ponavljalnosti zaporednih dejanj zaradi casovne nedolocnosti ponavljajocega se dejanjastilno nezaznamo­vana praviloma le raba NDV, medtem ko v cešcini – podobno kot v slovenšcini – ta omejitev ne velja (Derganc 2003: 68–70, 75, Dickey 2000: 49–55, 64–68, Petrukhina 2019: 35, 38). Vendar pa je v cešcini raba NDV pri zaporednosti dejanj sama po sebi pogo-stejša, tako da je razmerje med njim in DV bolj uravnoteženo, in glede prevlade DV je tu slovenšcina bližja rušcini (Derganc 2014: 537–539, Dickey 2000: 204–208, Petrukhina 2019: 42–43). DV je namrec v rušcini pri zaporednosti dejanj predno­stna izbira, ce se dejanja ne ponavljajo oz. niso v historicnem sedanjiku (Dickey 2000: 203–218). Raba NDV je tu vpeta v kombinacije z DV faznimi glagoli, zlasti nacat’, stat’ (zaceti), pogosto pa NDV le sodeluje v tvorbi fazne sestavljenke, naj-veckrat z za-, ki zacetnost dejanja oznacuje pogosteje kot v cešcini ali slovenšcini (Derganc 2014: 539, Dickey 2000: 225–228, Petrukhina 2019: 39–40).19 18 Manjkajoci delež do celote predstavljajo neupoštevane permutacije, ki na nepr­vem mestu 1 x 3 x 3 vsebujejo še element NDV/DV. Delež teh 5 permutacij ne presega dobrih 10%. 19 Gl. tudi Krvina 2018: 158–167. Korpus starejših besedil IMP (16.–19. stoletje) Primerjalno si bomo ogledali še stanje od 16. do zacetka 20. stoletja; kot opozor­jeno že na zacetku, zaradi razlicnega obsega in zvrstne sestavljenosti korpusov deleži sicer medsebojno niso povsem primerljivi. Tako izhodišcna kot razširjena (vec kot dve mesti) iskalna zahteva ostajata enaki: [tag="Ggdd.*"][]{0,1}[word="(in|ter)"][word!="(da|naj|bi|.|,)" & tag!="[ZV].*"]{0,2} [tag="Gg.d.*"] [tag="Ggdd.*"][]{0,1}[word="(in|ter|,)"][word!="(da|naj|bi|.)" & tag!="[ZV].*"] {0,2}[tag="Gg.d.*"][]{0,1}[word="(in|ter|,)"] [word!="(da|naj|bi|.)" & tag!="[ZV].*"]{0,2} [tag="Gg.d.*"] Korpus Vseh glagolov tega tipa (ZAPORED.) NDV DV NDV/DV (kategorialno dvovidsko) IMP (1.d) 17662 (1.s) 9285 (1.d) 3358 19 % (1.s) 1694 18,2 % (1.d) 12836 72,7 % (1.s) 6693 72,1 % (1.d) 1468 8,3 % (1.s) 898 9,7 % Posplošen delež (sodob-no stanje) (1.d) 12,8 % (1.s) 20 % (1.d) 81,3 % (1.s) 74,1 % (1.d) 5,9 % (1.s) 5,9 % Okvirna razlika (1.d) – 6,2% (1.s) + 1,8% (1.d) + 9,1% (1.s) + 2% (1.d) – 2,4 (1.s) – 3,8 Tabela 3: Primerjava razmerja med NDV in DV pri zaporednosti dejanj (dve dejanji v nizu s prvim DV) Kot je razvidno iz tabele, je izrazita prevlada DV pri zaporednosti dejanj vidna tudi v jezikovnem gradivu od 16. do zacetka 20. stoletja (prevladujejo besedila s konca tega obdobja). Morda je zaznati nekaj težnje po porastu rabe DV v sodobnem jeziku, vendar pa so razlike, zlasti glede na nepolno primerljivost korpusov, dokaj majhne. V nadaljevanju obravnavamo nize vsaj treh dejanj z DV na prvem mestu in zanje navajamo po nekaj zgledov. 3.1 DV DV DV Delež izven sedanjika: 59,5% (53) Genovefa je .vôje déte terdo s rokama oklenilapf, v nebó poglédalapf ter gla.no savpilapf. (54) Mnogo kupcijskih ladij je napadelpf, oropalpf in ljudi prodalpf v sužnost. D. Krvina, Zaporednost dejanj in njen vpliv na rabo glagolskega vida v slovenšcini (55) Zasulipf so jarke in luže, odpeljalipf vodo, pognojilipf travnike in preoralipf stelnike. (56) JEsus je usevpf kruh, je sahvaluvpf, po.vetuvpf inu reslomuvpf, inu ga je davpf .vojim Jogram, inu je rekuvpf. Ne glede na cas nastanka v obravnavanem obdobju (16.–19. stoletje) je izven sedanjika enako kot pri sodobnem stanju najpogostejša pripoved o preteklosti. Delež v sedanjiku: 58,1% (57) Kralj jo vzdignepf in objamepf, ter pošljepf nemudoma po rešene. (58) Semena vertnih zelenjad se torej požanjejopf, posušépf in spravijopf. (59) 100 delov žgane Glavberjeve soli in 17 delov oglja se zmeljepf, zmešapf in razbelipf. (60) Baron naglu gori v.tánepf, naprej .kozhipf, zedelz vůn slezhepf, s’ rokó mahnepf. (61) Šuki luske ostergašpf, jo iztrebišpf, operešpf, osolišpf in s sardeljami nataknešpf. (62) Ko mi vino prinesepf, ne recempf nic, natocimpf in pijemipf. Zopet podobno kot pri sodobnem stanju je precej historicnega sedanjika ((57), (60)), pa tudi ponavljalnosti, splošne veljavnosti dejanja v obliki navodil, recep­ tov ((58), (59), (61)); zadnji zgled v historicnem sedanjiku (62) na koncu niza zakljucuje NDV – in tako prehajamo k naslednji permutaciji. 3.2 DV DV NDV Delež izven sedanjika: 12,9% (63) Zaloputnilpf je duri, odšelpf in grozilipf še s ceste s pestjó. (64) Dekle se je vzdramilopf, vstalopf in pocasi korakaloipf proti izhodu. (65) .o nega s’ obla.tnimi rokami popadlipf, shtrike, inu ketene na nega verglipf, nav.milenu svesalipf, svesaniga dershaliipf, inu okoli nega na.ramnu, inu shpotlivu skakaliipf, uka­liipf, .hrajaliipf, .mejaliipf, inu ve.eliliipf. V pripovedi o preteklosti se lahko pojavljajo tudi zelo dolge povedi tipa DVnNDVn (65), kjer gre pri NDVn za vzporednost dejanj (hkrati držati in skakati, ukati, kricati …) Delež v sedanjiku: 14,1%. (66) Urno se tadaj vzdignetapf, zapustitapf selo in hititaipf na pašnik. (67) Na sredi kleti obstojipf, luc kvišku vzdignepf, debelo pogledapf, usta odprepf in glupo zijaipf. (68) Ce lih koža prerastepf, v sredi ostanepf puhlina in dalje gnjijeipf. (69) Ako se kupica zvrhoma napolnipf z vodo, s papirckom pokrijepf in potem prekucnepf, ne teceipf voda iz nje. Kot obicajno imamo precej historicnega sedanjika ((66), (67)), pa tudi ponavljal­nosti, splošne veljavnosti dejanja ((68), (69); NDV na koncu niza v polodprtem intervalu lahko izraža potekanje, trajanje dejanja. 3.3 DV NDV DV Delež izven sedanjika: 4,5% (70) Ko je odšelpf in je pospravljalaipf, je našlapf pod prtom beneški cekin. (71) Vojaki so se utaborilipf in pripravljaliipf jedi, poveljniki so sedlipf v vojni svet. (72) Knežnja je odprlapf pisemce, citalaipf, radovedno pogledalapf v pevski zbor. (73) Zdravnik je zopet prišelpf, tipalipf žilo in dejalpf, da nij slabše. V pripovedi o preteklosti NDV na sredini niza DV izraža potekanje, trajanje de­janja tedaj, kadar dogajanje vsaj nekoliko ustavlja; v zgornjih zgledih je tako zagotovo v (70), kjer potekanje, trajanje prekinja dovršno dejanje (najti cekin). V sledecih zgledih izrazitejši poudarek na potekanju, trajanjudelno bledi, NDV dejanje vse bolj zgolj poimenuje, izraža kot dejstvo. Delež v sedanjiku: 4,7% (74) Živina garje in uši dobípf, hiraipf in zbolípf. (75) Stopimpf doli, gledamipf naokoli in najdempf v jarku ranjenca. (76) Odprepf vratica in nekaj išceipf, skledo ondi spravipf. (77) Odložipf prvo pismo, vzamepf drugo, bereipf dolgo in preidepf k tretjemu. Podobno velja v sedanjiku za ponavljalnost, splošno veljavnost dejanja (74), medtem ko se v historicnem sedanjiku pri NDV poudarek zopet premakne na potekanje, trajanje dejanja, ki tok dogajanja ustavlja; zlasti to velja, ce rabo NDV pogojuje še drug skladenjski dejavnik, npr. prisotnost prislova tipa dolgo (77). 3.4 DV NDV NDV Delež izven sedanjika: 12,5% (78) Urno je roko .tégnilpf ter nabiralipf in jédelipf. (79) Od žalosti si je zakrilapf obraz in ihtelaipf in zdihovalaipf. (80) Obstalpf je, poslušalipf, uživalipf, strmelipf. (81) Zmešalapf je kvarte, obracalaipf jih, pokladalaipf in prekladalaipf. D. Krvina, Zaporednost dejanj in njen vpliv na rabo glagolskega vida v slovenšcini Pri pripovedi v preteklosti velja enako kot za sodobno stanje: med DV in NDVn gre za zaporednost dejanj, v nizu NDVn pa za vzporednost, pri cemer eno dejanje lahko predstavlja osnovo, izhodišce za drugo (npr. hkrati nabirati in jesti). Delež v sedanjiku: 12,4% (82) Vi.oke ódre támkej .i naprávipf, Sidôvje podkopújeipf, vráta .ékaipf. (83) Gospica pristopipf, vijeipf roke in jadikujeipf. (84) Bolno živince se na tla veržepf, stokaipf, težko sopeipf in ne prežvekovaipf. (85) Le malo se ganempf, pa sprožipf strupeni spak glavo, se jezno napihnepf, žvižgaipf in puhaipf, odpiraipf žrelo, besno grizeipf v zrak. To velja tudi za historicni sedanjik in ponavljalnost, splošno veljavnost dejanja (84). Kot v pripovedi o preteklosti se tudi v historicnem sedanjiku lahko pojavlja­jo zelo dolge povedi tipa DVnNDVn (85), kjer gre pri DVn in med DVnNDVn za zaporednost, znotraj niza NDVn pa za vzporednost dejanj (hkrati žvižgati in pu­hati, odpirati žrelo, gristi). Formulaicni prikaz razporeditve zaokroženih deležev DV in NDV v nizih vsaj treh dejanj, ki jih zacenja DV:20 •• Izven sedanjika: 0.6 DVn + 0,13 DVnNDV + 0,04 DVnNDVDVn + 0,13 DVNDVn •• V sedanjiku: 0.58 DVn + 0,14 DVnNDV + 0,05 DVnNDVDVn + 0,12 DVNDVn Prevlada DV je dobro vidna ob izpostavitvi elementa DVn (0,6 + 0,13 NDV + 0,04 NDVDVn + 0,13 DV1–nNDVn); njegov delež na vsaj dveh mestih znaša 77%. Korpus Vseh glagolov tega tipa (ZAPORED.) DV NDV NDV DV NDV DV DV DV DV DV DV NDV a) IMP (1.d) 1660(1.s) 1091 (1.d) 208 {12,5%}74 {4,5%}(1.s) 129 {12,4%}51 {4,7%} (1.d) 988 {59,5 %} 215 {12,9 %}(1.s) 636 {58,1 %} 154 {14,1 %} Posplošen delež (sodob-no stanje) (1.d) {5,5%}{4,5%}(1.s) {2,3%}{4,3%} (1.d) {69%}{10,6 %}(1.s) {68%}{13,1 %} Okvirna razlika (1.d) – 7%0 % (1.s) – 10,1%– 0,4% (1.d) + 9,5%– 2,3% (1.s) + 9,9%– 1% Tabela 4: Primerjava razmerja med NDV in DV pri zaporednosti dejanj (tri dejanja v nizu s prvim DV) 20Manjkajoci delež do celote predstavljajo neupoštevane permutacije, ki na neprvem me-stu 1 x 3 x 3 vsebujejo še element NDV/DV. Delež teh 5 permutacij ne presega dobrih 10%. Kot je razvidnoiz tabele, je izrazita prevlada permutacije DVn pri zaporednosti dejanj vidna tudi v jezikovnem gradivu od 16. do zacetka 20. stoletja. Zaznati je nekaj težnje po porastu te permutacije v sodobnem jeziku in padcu DVNDVn (minimalno tudi DVnNDV), vendar pa so razlike – zlasti glede na nepolno pri­merljivost korpusov – razmeroma majhne. Rocni korpus knjižnih besedil zlasti 16. stoletja V celotnem N = 4129 glagolskih rab iz zgledov rabe v monografiji Vid in vrstnost glagola v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku 16. stoletja (Merše 1995) predstavlja zapo­rednost dejanj 24%. Izrazito prevladujoca je raba DV (89% pojavitev). Navaja-mo nekaj zgledov; pri navedbi vira sledimo monografiji. (86) ony .o .hlipf tjakaj, inu .o obarovalipf ta Grob /.../ inu .o ta kamen sapezhatilipf (DB 1584, III, 18b) (87) poidipf inu .e iskashipf timu faryu, inu offraipf ta dar (TT 1557, 19) (88) David je .egčlpf /.../ v’Mauho, inu je vselpf vun en kamen, inu je luzhilpf, inu je tiga Phili.terja v’zhellu sadilpf /.../ inu on je doli padčlpf na Semlo (DB 1584, I, 159b) NDV (11% pojavitev) se pojavlja zlasti na koncu niza: (89) .o .e /.../ obe..elilipf, inu sa Svesdo hiteliipf (KPo 1567, LVIb) (90) padepf doli na ta tla, .e ualleipf .em tar tam (TT 1557, 124) (91) inu kadar je on njemu tu mej.tu bil pokasalpf, je on en hlod odrésalpf, inu ga je tjakaj porinilpf, inu tu shelesu je plavaluipf (DB 1584, I, 206a) Podobno kot v drugih obravnavanih obdobjih se pojavlja zlasti pripoved o prete­ klosti (vsi zgledi razen (87)), lahko v historicnem sedanjiku (90), navodila pa so glede na besedilno zvrst (biblijska besedila) redkejša (87). Tudi tu najdemo daljše zglede tipa DVn (88) in DVnNDV (91). Delež DV je res izrazito velik, vendar pa zajema vse pojavitve DV na katerem koli mestu in je primerljiv z izpostavljenim elementom DVn pri tockah 2 (85%) ter 3 (77%). Razvojno gledano velja: pri zaporednosti dejanj se težnja po izraziti prevladi DV ni bistveno spremenila najmanj od 16. stoletja, ko se je v besedilih slovenskih protestantskih piscev zacel oblikovati knjižni jezik takratnega casa. D. Krvina, Zaporednost dejanj in njen vpliv na rabo glagolskega vida v slovenšcini Viri Korpusi Gigafida 2.0 DeDup, Kres in ssj500k 2.2 v orodju NoSketch Engine. https://www.clarin.si/noske/ in (Kres) http://nl.ijs.si/noske, dostop 1. 3.–24. 3. 2019. Korpus IMP. https://www.clarin.si/noske/, dostop 1. 3.–24. 3. 2019. Merše, Majda. 1995. Vid in vrstnost glagola v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku 16. stoletja. Ljub­ljana: SAZU. Portal Fran. www.fran.si, dostop 29. 3. 2019. Literatura Bondarko, A V. 2005. Teorija morfologiceskih kategorij i aspektologiceskie issledovanija. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Derganc, Aleksandra. 2003. Nekatere razlike v rabi dovršnega oz. nedovršnega vida v rušci­ni in slovenšcini. Slavisticna revija 51/posebna številka: 67–79. Derganc, Aleksandra. 2014. Še o razliki med vzhodnim in zahodnim tipom delovanja gla­golskega vida v slovanskih jezikih. Slavisticna revija 62/4: 537–543. Dickey, Stephen, M. 2000. Parameters of Slavic Aspect. A Cognitive Approach. Stanford, California: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Krvina, Domen. 2015. Glagolski vid v sodobni slovenšcini. Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana: FF. Krvina, Domen. 2018. Glagolski vid v sodobni slovenšcini 1. Besedotvorje in pomen. Lju­bljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. Krvina, Domen. 2019. Nezaznamovanost nedovršnika v slovenšcini kot vzporednica neza­znamovanosti moškega slovnicnega spola. Slavisticna revija 67/2: 159–170. Krvina, Domen, Žele, Andreja. 2018. Vezniki: poskus opredelitve njihove vloge v sloven-skih zloženih povedih. Jezikoslovni zapiski 24/1: 7–25. Orešnik, Janez. 1994. Slovenski glagolski vid in univerzalna slovnica. Ljubljana: SAZU. Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. Longman Group UK Limited. Petrukhina, E. V. 2019. Interpretacija vidovyh razlicij meždu russkim, cešskim i slovenskimjazykami. Slavisticna revija 67/1: 31–49. ......, .. 2017: ............. *pepel./*popel.: ........ ..... . ........... Slo­vene Linguistic Studies/Slovenski Jezik, 11: 19–34. [Saenko, M. 2017. Proto-Slavic *pepelb/*popelb: Original form and etymology. Slove­ne Linguistic Studies/Slovenski Jezik, 11: 19–34.] Radden, Günter, Dirven, René. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar. John Benjamins Publi­shing Company. Stanojevic, Mateusz-Milan, Geld, Renata. 2011. New current relevance in Croatian: Episte­mic immediacy and the aorist. Patard, Adeline, Brisard, Frank (ur.): Cognitive Appro­aches to Tense, Aspect, and Epistemic Modality. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Be-njamins Publishing Company. Prispelo aprila 2019, sprejeto maja 2019. Received April 2019, accepted May 2019. Zaporednost dejanj in njen vpliv na rabo glagolskega vida v slovenšcini21 Zaporednost dejanj dejanja v nizu medsebojno omejuje (meji zaprtega interva- la, ki je na voljo za izvedbo dejanja, predstavljata predhodno in sledece dejanje: (dn – 1[dn]dn + 1)), kar vodi k celostnemu, preglednemu pogledu nanje, ki ga izraža DV. Delež DV je visok že, ko stoji v zaporedju dejanj na vsaj treh mestih (sla-bih 70% v korpusnem gradivu za sodobno stanje in slabih 60% za stanje od 16. do zacetka 20. stoletja), in še višji, ko stoji ob NDV na vsaj dveh mestih (85% in 77 %). Prevlada DV je torej izrazita, medtem ko NDV, ki izraža trajanje dejanja, stoji zlasti na zadnjem mestu v nizu, ko dejanje poteka v polodprtem intervalu. Tako stanje v slovenšcini vse od 16. stoletja dalje se dobro ujema z ugotovitva-mi nekaterih tujih raziskovalcev, ki za polpreteklo do sodobno stanje pri izražanju zaporednosti dejanj v slovenšcini ugotavljajo, da se rabi vecinoma DV, NDV pa je vendarle tudi možen (Dickey 2000: 203, 210, Petrukhina 2019: 42–43). Zaporednost dejanj se pojavlja zlasti v pripovedi o preteklosti – v pretekliku in kot historicni sedanjik. Posebej v sedanjiku je pogosta še pri ponavljalnosti, splošni veljavnosti dejanja, tako tudi v navodilih in receptih. Sequence of events and its influence on verbal aspect usage in Slovene The sequence of events forces actions into restricting each other (the borders of the closed interval limiting the duration of an action are represented by the preceding and following action: (dn – 1[dn]dn + 1)), which leads to a holistic, pan­oramic view of them, expressed by PF. The share of PF taking at least three places in the sequence of actions is high enough (low 70% in the present-state corpora material and low 60 % in the corpora material from the 16th to the beginning of the 20th century), reaching even higher when taking at least two places beside IPF (85% and 77%, respectively). The prevalence of PF is thus undisputed, while IPF denoting duration occurs mainly in the last action in a sequence, taking place in the half-open interval. 21Prispevek je nastal v okviru programa P6-0038, ki ga financira ARRS. D. Krvina, Zaporednost dejanj in njen vpliv na rabo glagolskega vida v slovenšcini Such state in the Slovene language from the 16th century onwards agrees well with the findings of some foreign researchers: although in the sequence of events in Slovene PF prevails, the use of IPF is not out of the question (Dickey 2000: 203 , 210, Petrukhina 2019: 42–43). The sequence of events appears mainly in the narrative of the past – in the past tense and as a historical present. Particularly in the present, the repetition, habituality of the action is also common, quite often in the form of instructions and recipes. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 12 (2019): 95–112 Alexander Rath Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, Ljubljana Anmerkungen zur slowenischen Klitikakette (naslonski niz) Naslonski niz je enota v topologiji (predvsem) indoevropskega stavka, ki ima – odvisno od jezika – svojo specificno notranjo skladnjo. Za slovenšcino je še danes najbolj vpli­ven opis tega pojava v Slovenski slovnici Jožeta Toporišica, ki ima do dolocene mere še vedno normativni status. Posledicno nekateri avtorji opis interpretirajo kot normo dovoljenih in prepovedanih zaporedij naslonk, ceprav avtor slovnice ne trdi, da bi bile druge, ne naštete kombinacije prepovedane. Pri pregledu besedilnih korpusov sodobne slovenšcine najdemo vecje število pojavnic, ki odstopajo od modela in so za naravne govorce bolj ali manj sprejemljive. Clanek razumemo kot izhodišce za vecjo raziskavo o možnih zaporedjih, ki bi upoštevala tudi sociolingvisticno opredelitev zvrstnosti slo­venskega jezika. Clitic sequencing is a component of sentence topology, mainly in the Indo-European lan­guages, that has its own inner syntax, specific to the particular language. For the Slovene language the most influential description of this phenomenon continues to be found in Jože Toporišic’s Slovenska slovnica (The Slovene Grammar). Toporišic’s grammar is still, to a certain extent, considered normative. By some proofreaders it is regarded as the norm of allowed and forbidden sequences of clitics, although, the author of the grammar did not claim that sequences not contained in his description were prohibited. On inspection of corpus data from contemporary written Slovene, we find a significant number of oc­currences which do not follow the description given in Slovenska slovnica, which are still more or less acceptable for many Slovene native speakers. We regard this paper as a start­ing point for a more profound research about the acceptable sequences of clitics that also takes into account sociolinguistic aspects of the varieties of Slovene. Überblick Das Slowenische ist eine jener Sprachen, deren zweite Stelle in der Satztopo­logie eine besondere Rolle inne hat. Ist es etwa im Deutschen das Verb, dem dieser Platz zukommt, so ist es im Slowenischen eine fixe Abfolge klitischer Formen der Personal- und Reflexivpronomina im Dativ, Akkusativ und Geni­tiv sowie der positiven (unverneinten) Formen des Verbs biti „sein“ und einiger Partikeln. Diese Abfolge trägt in der modernen slowenischen Terminologie die Bezeichnung naslonski niz – „Klitikareihe“, „klitische Reihung“ bzw. „Klitika­kette“ – in der englischsprachigen Terminologie clitic chain bzw. clitic sequence. Die erste Beschreibung einer solchen Klitikakette, die in der Allgemeinen bzw. Vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft größere Beachtung fand, stammt von Jacob Wackernagel (1892). Er bezieht sich auf das Altgriechische und postuliert eine solche Abfolge anhand von Vergleichen mit Sanskrit und Latein auch f die indoeuropäische Ursprache. Seine Beobachtungen und Schlussfolgerungen zu diesem Phänomen haben als Wackernagels Gesetz Eingang in die Terminolo­gie der Indogermanistik gefunden. Dass dieses Phänonmen auch generell in den slawischen Sprachen auftritt, wurde von Roman Jakobson (1935) dokumentiert. Für das Slowenische gibt es auch schon frühere Beiträge, die in die Zeit von Wackernagel fallen, wie etwa die Abhandlung Enklitike v slovenšcini („Enklitika im Slowenischen“, Murko: 1891) sowie auch einen normativ zu verstehenden Beitrag von Škrabec (1895), der zuerst die allzu häufige Verwendung von Kli­tika in Satzerstposition als Kontaktphänomen kritisiert, die nicht der slawischen Sprachgenese entstammt und dann Klitikareihenfolgen aufzählt, die er für dem Sprachgefühl der slowenischen Muttersprachler entsprechend hält: »Akoravno so se torej naši stariši pisatelji semtertja pregrešili zoper splošni zakon, da stoje enklitike na drugem mestu v stavku in sedanji se pregreše v nasprotnem oziru še veckrat, vender moramo priznati da se naš jezicni cut vedno derži tega zakona, in sicer stoje enklitike na tem mestu ena za drugo v tem redu: sem ga, si ga, ga je, sva ga, sta ga, smo ga, ste ga, so ga, sem si ga, si si ga, si ga je, sva si ga, sta si ga, smo si ga, ste si ga, so si ga, se mi je, se ti je, se mu je, se ji je, se nama je, se vama je, se jima je, se mi ga je itd. n. pr. Ljudje, ki si si jih izbral, so se mi zdeli pošteni. Blago, ki vam ga bomo poslali, bi vas imelo zadovoljiti. Sena, ce se vam ga je že kaj posušilo, nam prodajte.« „Wenngleich sich also unsere älteren Schrei­ber hie und da gegen das allgemeine Gesetz, dass die Enklitika an der zweiten Stelle im Satz stehen, versdigten und sich die ge­genwärtigen in der Betracht noch öfter ver­sdigen, so msen wir dennoch eingeste-hen, dass sich unser Sprachgefl an dieses Gesetz hält, und zwar stehen die Enklitika an dieser Stelle eines nach dem anderen in dieser Ordnung: sem ga, si ga, ga je, sva ga, sta ga, smo ga, ste ga, so ga, sem si ga, si si ga, si ga je, sva si ga, sta si ga, smo si ga, ste si ga, so si ga, se mi je, se ti je, se mu je, se ji je, se nama je, se vama je, se jima je, se mi ga je usw. z. B. Ljudje, ki si si jih izbral, so se mi zdeli pošteni. Blago, ki vam ga bomo poslali, bi vas imelo zadovoljiti. Sena, ce se vam ga je že kaj posušilo, nam prodajte.“ Tabelle 1: Reihenfolgen der Klitika nach Škrabec (1895) mit Übersetzung. A. Rath, Anmerkungen zur slowenischen Klitikakette (naslonski niz) Eine weitere (hier gekzt wiedergegebene) normative Darstellung, deren Auf­zählung jener von Škrabec (siehe Tabelle 1) sehr ähnlich ist, findet sich bei Brez­nik (1916, siehe Tabelle 2). c) O naslonicah (enklitikah) velja tole pravilo: Naslonice ali breznaglasne besede v stakvu so: 1. pomožni glagol v sedanjiku: sem, si, je, sva, sta, smo, ste, so, in navadno tudi bi; 2. kracja oblika osebnih zaimkov: me, te, se, ga, je, mi, ti, si itd. 3. kracja oblika prihodnjika: bom, boš, bo itd. Naslonice morajo stati v stavku na drugem mestu: 1. V prostih stavkih. […] 2. V zloženih stavkih […] c) Stoje pa naslonice na drugem mestu ena za drugo v tem redu: sem ga, si ga, ga je, sva ga, sta ga, smo ga, ste ga, so ga; sem si ga, si si ga, si ga je, sva si ga, sta si ga, smo si ga, ste si ga, so si ga; se mi je, se ti je, se mu je, se ji je, se nama je, se vama je, se jima je, se nam ga je … ga bom, ga boš, ga bo, se ga bom, se ga boš, se ga bo … […] c) F die Enklitika gilt die folgende Regel: Enklitika oder akzentlose Wter im Satz sind: 1. das Hilfsverb im Präsens: sem, si, je, sva, sta, smo, ste, so, und fgewnlich auch bi; 2. die kzere Form der Parsonalpronomina: me, te, se, ga, je, mi, ti, si usw. 3. die kzere Form des Futurs: bom, boš, bo usw. Enklitika msen im Satz an zweiter Stelle stehen: 1. In einfachen Sätzen […] 2. In Satzgefen […] c) Die Enklitika stehen an zweiter Stelle nacheinander in dieser Reihenfolge: sem ga, si ga, ga je, sva ga, sta ga, smo ga, ste ga, so ga; sem si ga, si si ga, si ga je, sva si ga, sta si ga, smo si ga, ste si ga, so si ga; se mi je, se ti je, se mu je, se ji je, se nama je, se vama je, se jima je, se nam ga je … ga bom, ga boš, ga bo, se ga bom, se ga boš, se ga bo … […] Tabelle 2: Reihenfolge der Klitika nach Breznik (1916: 263f.). Einen recht umfangreichen Überblick über bisher publizierte und auffindbare Literatur über die Klitika im Slowenischen bietet die Diplomarbeit von Jaro Se­ver Torkar (2013). Einen generellen Überblick über die Slawischen Sprachen stellt A Handbook of Slavic Clitics (Franks & Holloway King 2000) dar und eine Beschreibung der Verhähltnisse im Kajkavischen, der dem Slowenischen äußerst nahe stehenden kroatischen Regionalvariante, ist in der Schulgrammatik Kajkavsko narjecje (Loncaric 1996: 116f.) enthalten. Die Darstellung der Klitika in der slowenischen Normgrammatik Slovenska slovnica (Toporišic 2000:671) dürfte in der Tradition von Škrabec und Breznik stehen, auch wenn darin nicht direkt auf die älteren Autoren verwiesen wird. Dass sich der Autor jedenfalls zweifelsohne eingehend mit seinen Vorgängern beschäftigt hat, bezeugt das Kapitel Besedni red v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku in der Nova slovenska skladnja (Toporišic 1982: 161ff.). Die innere Syntax der Klitikakette wird in der Slovenska slovnica folgendermaßen dargestellt: V: Konjunktion (veznik) N1: Klitisches naj G1: Verbformen (glagolske oblike) von biti „sein“ auf s­P1: Reflexivpronomen si P2: Reflexivpronomen se Z1: Personalpronomen (osebni zaimek) im Dativ Z2: Personalpronomen im Akkusativ Z3: Personalpronomen im Genitiv G2: Verbformen von biti „sein“: je und auf b­ C: Partikeln (clenki) V N1 G1 P1 P2 Z1 Z2 Z3 G2 C Prósi, Mísli, Míslim, Povęj Ucíl Privóšcil TMíslil Míslil da naj da da Ali Si da da bi si si si sem bi sem, si si Si si, se se se se se se mu ji ji mu mu jim je jo jo je je. bo jih ne že še pa ne smejali. ní treba uciti. spí. ęnkrat. smejati. rés poználo. tó izmislil? sě? smílil? vrnil. nč bi ščl? Tabelle 3:Abschrift der Reihenfolge der Klitika in der Klitikakette mitsamt Beispielen aus der Grammatik Slovenska slovnica (Toporišic 2000:671). A. Rath, Anmerkungen zur slowenischen Klitikakette (naslonski niz) Aus der Tabelle 3 lässt sich ein Maximalparadigma ableiten, das in Tabelle 4 zur Gänze ausgeführt ist. V N1 G1 P1 P2 Z1 Z2 Z3 G2 C da naj bi si se mi me me je ne … sem si ti ji te jo te je bom boš pa že mu ga ga bo sva nama naju naju bova sta sta vama jima vaju ju vaju ju bosta bosta smo nam nas nas bomo ste vam vas vas boste so jim jih jih bodo/ bojo Tabelle 4:Theoretisches vollständiges Syntagma und Paradigma der Klitikakette, wie es dem Modell bei Toporišic (2000:671) entsprechen würde. Da die Darstellung bei Toporišic (2000:671) den Eindruck erwecken mag, es hand­le sich um eine vollständige Beschreibung aller möglichen Kombinationen, muss ausdrklich darauf hingewiesen werden, dass dies nicht explizit gesagt wird. Im Gegenteil kann man aus Toporišic 1982 (161ff.) darauf schließen, dass er sich der Problematik der Variation bewusst war. Jedenfalls werden alle in der Slovenska slovnica (Toporišic 2000:671) angeführten Kombinationen von den Sprecher des Slowenischen akzeptiert, sodass Toporišcs Auflistung als der kleinste gemeinsame Nenner angesehen werden kann. Eine Darstellung, die weitgehend jener von Brez­ nik un Toporišic entspricht, ist auch Teil der auf Englisch verfassten Grammatik von Harrity (2016: Kapitel 12.3.2, Punkt (d) und Kapitel 12.4). Erneut zur Diskussion gestellt wurde die Frage der slowenischen Klitikakette vom Allgemeinlinguisten Orešnik (1985), der ein Vertreter der Natlichkeits­theorie ist. In weiterer Folge wurde das Thema auch von Vertreter der Genera-tiven Syntaxtheorie aufgegriffen, wie etwa von Golden (2003) und Golden & Sheppard (2000) oder Marušic (2008). Dass die Frage der Reihung der slowe­nischen Klitika nicht endgültig abgeschlossen ist, zeigen einige Beispiele, auf diese ich im Laufe der Recherchearbeiten für meine Magisterarbeit (Rath 2014) im Korpus FidaPLUS sowie im Korpus Gigafida gestoßen bin. Da ein Auftreten von abweichenden Reihungen der Klitika im Korpus jedoch noch kein Beweis dafür ist, dass es sich tatsächlich um akzeptable Kombinationen handelt und weil auch nicht ersichtlich ist, ob die gefundenen Beispiele vielleicht auf bestimm­ te Sprachregister beschränkt sind, wurde zusätzlich eine kleine Befragung unter Slowenisten durchgefrt. Diese wurden darum gebeten, die Beispiele frei defi­nierbaren Registern zuzuordnen und herausstechende Besonderheiten schriftlich zu kommentieren. Es wurde dabei jedoch darauf geachtet, dass den Infortmanten nicht im Vorhinein mitgeteilt wurde, dass es dabei um Klitika geht. Es wurde ihnen daher eine schriftliche Auflistung der Beispiele vorgelegt, die auf den je­ weiligen (die fraglichen Klitika enthaltenden) Satz gekürzt waren. Im folgenden Abschnitt sind die Beispiele mitsamt einer Analyse und den Kommentaren der befragten Slowenisten wiedergegeben. Ausgewählte Abweichungen Den hier angeführten, von der Übersicht in der Slovenska slovnica abweichenden Beispielen, folgt jeweils eine Tabelle mit vier Spalten, die die Kommentare von vier zum Sprachregister der Beispiele schriftlich befragten muttersprachlichen Slowenisten wiedergeben. 2.1 Vertauschbarkeit von naj und bi Die Darstellung der Reihung der Klitika von Toporišic in der Slovenska slovnica setzt die Konjunktivpartikel bi vor die Optativpartikel naj. In der Nova slovens-ka skladnja merkt Toporišic (1982: 174) zusätzlich an, dass eine Umkehrung der Reihenfolge als dialektal anzusehen ist (»Zaporedje bi naj namesto naj bi je narecno.« – „Die Abfolge bi naj statt naj bi ist dialektal.“). Ein Beleg ist an dieser Stelle jedoch nicht angeführt. Die Recherche im Korpus FidaPLUS hat gezeigt, dass diese umgekehrte Reihenfolge dennoch auch in der geschriebenen Sprache auftritt, wenn auch wesentlich seltener. Die Folge naj bi wurde 100.000 mal gefunden (die Zahl der Konkordanzen dürfte die maximal anzeigbare Menge ersteigen, daher genau 100.000) und bi naj immerhin 2.499 mal, was insofern beachtlich ist, als dass diese Variante aufgrund der im schulischen und redakti­onellen Bereich vorherrschenden preskriptiven Auslegung der Normgrammatik licherweise weglektoriert wird. . Beispiele: »Avstrijsko interesno združenje za vlagatelje je vceraj izrazilo dvom o tem prev­zemu. Napovedana zamenjava delnic Bank Austria za delnice HypoVereinsbank v razmerju 1:1 po njegovi sodbi ne zrcali sedanjega stanja obeh bank, je za avstrijsko A. Rath, Anmerkungen zur slowenischen Klitikakette (naslonski niz) agencijo Apa izjavil predsednik združenja Wilhelm Rasinger. Zato bodo dali zamen­jalno razmerje sodno preveriti. Prevzem pa bi naj Avstrijo stal tudi izgube 2000 delovnih mest.« (Korpus FidaPLUS) Informantin I Informantin II Informant III Informant IV X (siehe Kommentar am Ende der Aufli-stung) Novica (journalisti­sche Nachricht) Standardno, ampak pa naj bi (standardsprac­hlich, aber die Klitika­reihenfolge sollte auf pa naj bi geändert werden) Pogovorni jezik, bese­dni red (Umgangssprache, Wortstellung) Tabelle 5: Kommentare der Informanten mit Übersetzung. »V uživalskih okoljih tudi ni posebno razvite zvodniške mreže in prostorov v ta namen. Ljudje vedo, da je to situacija, ko se je treba bolj zašcititi, vendar dejansko tega ne pocnejo: Tisti, ki se ukvarjajo s prostitucijo, imajo pravilo, da bi najse zašcitili s kondomi, vendar koliko se da ugotoviti iz pogovorov, se mnogi tega ne držijo.« (Korpus FidaPLUS) Informantin I Informantin II Informant III Informant IV X (siehe Kommentar am Ende der Aufli-stung) Zvrst »komentar« (najbolj naravna cleni­tev po aktualnosti) (Register „Kommen-tar“ (die natlichste Aktualitätsreihung)) Standardno, ampak naj bi (standardsprachlich, aber die Klitikareihen­folge sollte auf naj bi geändert werden) Publicisticni jezik, nelektorirano (Publizistische Sprache, unlektoriert) Tabelle 6: Kommentare der Informanten mit Übersetzung. 2.2 Mehrwertige Verben und klitische Personalpronomina Eine weitere Problemstelle sind mehrwertige Verben, die zweimal Akkusativ verlangen. Verb uciti (transtiv): AKK+AKK / AKK+GEN / GEN+AKK? Mit dem Verb uciti („lehren“,transitiv) verfügt das Slowenische über ein sehr frequentes zweiwertiges Verb, das der im Modell angenommenen Folge REFL_ DAT_AKK_GEN widerspricht. Dem Modell entsprechend müsste das Gelehrte im GEN stehen und der, den es gelehrt wird, im AKK. Dies entspricht allerdings nicht dem heutigen Gebrauch: Im realen Gebrauch ist uciti + AKK + AKK die weitaus frequentere Variante. Die Variante uciti + AKK + GEN hingegen wird als besonders gelehrt, veraltet oder sogar falsch empfunden. Da die AKK- und die GEN-Formen des maskulinen und des neutralen klitischen Personalpronomens ident sind (in beiden Fällen ga und ga), lässt sich dieser Un­terschied in der Klitikakette nur anhand der femininen Formen zeigen (jo f AKK, je für GEN). Die Suche im ausgewogen angelegten Korpus FidaPLUS hat für die Variante mit dem doppelten AKK in der Klitikakette eine Häufigkeit von 12 ergeben, die Variante AKK + GEN tritt hingegen nur zweimal auf. . Beispiele für AKK + AKK beim Verb uciti „lehren“: »Spomnil se je molitve, ki ga joje naucila mati in zacel s tresocimglasom: ”Sveti angel,varuh moj,bodi vedno ti z menoj....stoj mi dan in noc ob strani,vsega hudega me brani....”« (Korpus Gigafida) Informantin I Informantin II Informant III Informant IV X (siehe Kommentar am Ende der Aufli-stung) Leposlovje (Belletristik) Standardno (standardsprachlich) Umetniški jezik, nelektoriran oz. zapis govora (Künstlerspra­che, unlektoriert bzw. verschriftliche gespro­chene Sprache) Tabelle 7: Kommentare der Informanten mit Übersetzung. »Tudi Miša je zaprisežena športnica vse od malega, saj je aktivno vadila atletiko in plavanje. Po nekaj letnem ukvarjanju z aerobiko je bila po operaciji stopalne kosti v nevarnosti, da bo imela težave s hrbtenico, zaradi cesa je bila primorana zaceti z vajami, ki so namenjene prav temu. Vaj, ki so jih jotakrat naucili fizioterapevti, se je tako navadila, da jih v svojem vsakodnevnem jutranjem rituali izvaja še danes. Le-ta poteka dvajset minut, vsak dan, ne glede na karkoli. Miša si ne dopušca izgovorov.« (Korpus FidaPLUS) Informantin I Informantin II Informant III Informant IV (Kein Kommentar) (Ohne Besonderheiten) Standardno, ampak so jo jih (standardspra­chlich, aber die Kli­tikareihenfolge solle auf so jo jih geändert werden) Intervju (Interview) Tabelle 8: Kommentare der Informanten mit Übersetzung. A. Rath, Anmerkungen zur slowenischen Klitikakette (naslonski niz) . Beispiel für die Nichtunterscheidbarkeit von AKK und GEN bei maskulin: »Ponotranjil sem ves kolonialni drek, ki so me ga ucili v šoli.« (Korpus FidaPLUS) Informantin I Informantin II Informant III Informant IV Pogovorno, vulgarno (umgangssprachlich, vulgär) Leposlovje (Belletristik) Standardno + vulgarno (standardsprachlich + vulgär) Pogovorni jezik (Umganssprache) Tabelle 9: Kommentare der Informanten mit Übersetzung. Verb vprašati Das Verb vprašati „fragen“ verlangt ebenfalls AKK + AKK, geht also über das Modell hinaus. . Beispiel: »Pripoveduj mi o stvareh, ki bi jih ga vprašal, ce bi bil tukaj:« (Korpus FidaPLUS) Informantin I Informantin II Informant III Informant IV X (siehe Kommentar am Ende der Aufli-stung) Leposlovje (Belletristik) Standardno, ampak bi ga jih (standardsprachlich, aber die Klitikareihen­folge sollte auf bi ga jih geändert werden) Umetniški jezik, po­govorni (Künstlersprache, umgangssprachlich) Tabelle 10: Kommentare der Informanten mit Übersetzung. 2.3 Sätze mit finitem und davon abhängigem infinitem Verb Transitive Verben wie uciti und vprašati sind allerdings nicht der einzige Fall, in dem die Klitikakette zweimal AKK aufnehmen kann. Ein weiterer Fall sind Sätze mit finitem und abhängigem infinitem Verb, also insbesondere Sätze, die zwei miteinander verknüpfte Handlungen, Zustände oder Empfindungen ausdrücken. Im Folgenden seien nur ein paar Beispiele genannt, die im Korpus FidaPLUS und er die Suchmaschine Google gefunden wurden: . Beispiel: videti + nositi »”Zdaj pa upam, da te jo bom videla nositi,” se je zasmejala.« (Korpus FidaPLUS) B. »Zdaj pa upam, da te jo bom videla nositi ,« se je zasmejala. Über. „Nun hoffe ich aber, dass dich sie werde sehen tragen “ schmunzelte sie. 1. H. 2. H. O4 Subjekt O4 Präd.+Subj. Prädikat Tabelle 11a: Analyse des Beispiels videti + nositi. Informantin I Informantin II Informant III Informant IV X (siehe Kommentar am Ende der Aufli-stung) Leposlovje (Belletristik) Standardno (standardsprachlich) Umetniški jezik (Künstlersprache) Tabelle 11b: Kommentare der Informanten mit Übersetzung. . Beispiel: strah me je + vprašati »a veš tist filing k te jo je strah uprašat še sploh kj..... :/« (http://ilovelike.si/slo­gan/28523, zitiert aus https://www.google.si/, 10. Jänner 2014) B. a veš tist filing k te jo je strah uprašat še sploh kj ..... :/ Über. Kennst du das Gefl wenn dich sie ist Angst fragen erhaupt etwas 1. H. 2. H. O4 Subj. O4 Prädikat Subj. Prädikat O4 Tabelle 12a: Analyse des Beispiels strah me je + vprašati. Informantin I Informantin II Informant III Informant IV Pogovorno (umgangs­sprachlich) (Ohne Besonder­heiten) Pogovorno (umgangssprachlich) Sleng (Slang) Tabelle 12b: Kommentare der Informanten mit Übersetzung. . Beispiel: poslati + cistiti »Cistil sem tudi stranišce. Poslal me ga je cistit eden redkih slovenskih oficirjev, pisal se je Kržic.« (Korpus FidaPLUS) A. Rath, Anmerkungen zur slowenischen Klitikakette (naslonski niz) B. Cistil sem tudi stranišce. Poslal me ga je cistit eden redkih slovenskih oficirjev , pisal se je Kržic. Über. Eine Toilette habe ich auch geputzt. Geschickt mich sie hat putzen einer der wenigen slowenischen Offiziere , er hieß Kržic. 1. H. 2. H. Präd. O4 Subj. O4 Präd. Präd. Subjekt Tabelle 13a: Analyse des Beispiels poslati + cistiti. Informantin I Informantin II Informant III Informant IV Pogovorni stil (skla­dnja) (umgangssprac­hlicher Stil (Syntax)) (Ohne Besonder­heiten) Standardno (standardsprachlich) Prakticno sporazme­valni – pogovor med prijatelji (Praxisnahe Kommu­nikaton – Unterhal-tung unter Freunden) Tabelle 13b: Kommentare der Informanten mit Übersetzung. . Beispiel: peljati + gledati »Prva igra, ki so me jopeljali gledat, je bila Koca strica Toma (Uncle Tom’s Cabin).« (Korpus FidaPLUS) B. Prva igra, ki so me jo peljali gledat , je bila Koca strica Toma (Uncle Tom‘s Cabin). Über. Das erste Schauspiel, das sie haben mich es gefrt schauen , war Onkel Toms Hte. 1. H. 2. H. Präd.+Subj. O4 Subj. O4 Präd. Prädikat Tabelle 14a: Analyse des Beispiels peljati + gledati. Informantin I Informantin II Informant III Informant IV X (siehe Kommentar am Ende der Aufli-stung) Zvrst »komentar« (najbolj naravna cleni­tev po aktualnosti) (Register „Kommen-tar“ (die natlichste Aktualitätsreihung)) Standardno (standardsprachlich) Pogovorni ali nelek­torirani publicisticni jezik (Umgangssprache oder unlektorierte pu­blizistische Sprache) Tabelle 14b: Kommentare der Informanten mit Übersetzung. . Beispiel: sram me je + pokazati »Imam lepo telo in me ga ni sram pokazati, skrbi me pa za svojega fanta.« (Korpus FidaPLUS) B. Imam lepo telo in me ga ni sram pokazati , skrbi me pa za svojega fanta. Über. Ich habe einen schönen Körper und mich ihn nicht ist Scham zeigen ich bin aber um mei­nen Freund besorgt. 1. H. 2. H. O4 Subj. O4 Prädikat Subj. Prädikat Tabelle 15a: Analyse des Beispiels sram me je + pokazati. Informantin I Informantin II Informant III Informant IV X (siehe Kommentar Zvrst »komentar« Standardno, ampak ni Publicisticni jezik am Ende der Aufli-stung) (najbolj naravna cleni­tev po aktualnosti) me ga (standardsprachlich, (nelektoriran), mlado­stniške revije (Register „Kommen­ aber die Klitikareihen- (Publizistische Spra- tar“ (die natlichste Aktualitätsreihung)) folge solle auf ni me ga geändert werden) che (unlektorierte), Jungendmagazin) Tabelle 15b: Kommentare der Informanten mit Übersetzung. . Beispiel: sram me je + ponoviti »Ko sem bil pred kratkim na Jesenicah na eni od hokejskih tekem, so navijaci upo­rabljali takšne izraze, da me jih je pred vami sram ponoviti.« (Korpus FidaPLUS) Ko sem bil pred kratkim na Jesenicah na eni od ho- B. kejskih tekem, so navijaci uporabljali takšne izraze, da me jih je pred vami sram ponoviti. Als ich vor kurzem in Je­ senice bei einem der Hoc- keyspiele war, haben die Über. Fans solche Ausdrke verwendet, dass mich sie ist vor Ihnen Scham wieder­holen. 1. H. 2. H. O4 Subj. O4 Prädikat Subj. Prädikat Tabelle 16a: Analyse des Beispiels sram me je + ponoviti. A. Rath, Anmerkungen zur slowenischen Klitikakette (naslonski niz) Informantin I Informantin II Informant III Informant IV X (siehe Kommentar am Ende der Aufli-stung) (ohne Besonderheiten) Standardno (standardsprachlich) Publicisticni jezik, nelektoriran oz. samo delno (Publizistische Spra­che, unlektoriert bzw. nur zum Teil) Tabelle 16b: Kommentare der Informanten mit Übersetzung. . Beispiel: zanima me + raziskati »Nikoli nisem bil ne vem kako nadarjen za izmišljevanje tovrstnih marketingških sloganov, toda zavoljo razlogov - ki bi me jih nekoc zanimalo raziskati - se je ta oz-naka obdržala bolj kakor vse druge, ki sem jih bil do sedaj skrbno izumil.« (Korpus FidaPLUS) B. Nikoli nisem bil ne vem kako nadarjen za izmišljeva­nje tovrstnih marketingških sloganov, toda zavoljo razlo-gov – ki bi me jih nekoc zanimalo raziskati – se je ta oznaka ob-držala bolj kakor vse druge, ki sem jih bil do sedaj skrbno izumil. Über. Ich war nie wer weiß wie talentiert darin mir solche Marketingslo­gans auszu­denken, aber aus Gründen – welche wde mich sie dere-inst interes­sieren erfor­schen – hat sich di­ese Zuschre­ibung stärker gehalten als alle anderen, die ich bisher sorgfältig erdacht hatte. 1. H. 2. H. Subj.+ Prädikat O4 Subj. O4 Subj.+ Prädikat Prädikat Tabelle 17a: Analyse des Beispiels zanima me + raziskati. Informantin I Informantin II Informant III Informant IV Publicisticni stil (Ohne Besonder- Standardno Tabloidni casopis (kolumna) – bližje heiten) (standardsprachlich) (Boulevardzeitung) pogovornemu kot stilno nevtralnemu jeziku (Publizistischer Stil (Kolumne) – näher der Umgangssprache als der neutralen) Tabelle 17b: Kommentare der Informanten mit Übersetzung. Allgemeine Anmerkungen der Informanten Informantin I Informantin II Informant III Informant IV Primeri, oznaceni 7x, bi bili lahko tako del pogovornega kot publicisticnega stila. Noben od primerov ne izkazuje možnosti, da bi bil izkljucno del stilno nevtralnega (nezaznamovanega) knjižnega jezika. (Die sieben mit x ge­kennzeichneten Bei­spiele knten sowohl Teil des umgangs­sprachlichen als auch des publizistischen Stils sein. Keines der Beispiele ist in der Lage ausschließlich Teil der stilistisch neutralen (unmarkier-ten) Schriftsprache zu sein.) – – Pri vseh je stava na­slonk pogovorna! (Bei allen liegt eine umgangssprachliche Stellung der Klitika vor!) Tabelle 18: Kommentare der Informanten mit Übersetzung. A. Rath, Anmerkungen zur slowenischen Klitikakette (naslonski niz) Aus den Kommentaren geht hervor, dass keiner der befragen Slowenisten die angeführten Beispiele zur Gänze ablehnt bzw. als inakzeptabel zurückweist. Un­einigkeit zeigt sich jedoch bei der varietätenlinguistischen Einordnung. Infor­mantin II empfindet die geringste Einschränkung, wohingegen Informant IV alle Beispiele als umgangssprachlich einordnet. 2.4 Weitere Abweichungen Neben den bereits angefrten Beispielen des Sprachgebrauchs, die er die Mo-delle in den Grammatiken hinausgehen, gibt es noch einige weitere, wie z. B.: •• Mliche umgekehrte Reihenfolge von je als Form von biti „sein“ mit kliti­ schen Personalpronomen im Dativ •• Mliche umgekehrte Reihenfolge von Akkutsativ und Dativ •• Mliche umgekehrte Reihenfolge des klitischen Reflexivpronomens si und Fomen von biti auf s­ •• Mliche umgekehrte Reihenfolge von einigen Partikeln wie etwa še, že etc. und Formen von biti auf b­•• Doppelung der Klitika si und se ohne erkennbaren Inhalt •• Haplologien bei gleichlautenten aufeinanerfolgenden Klitikta Schlussfolgerung und Ausblick Das in der Slovenska slovnica angefrte Modell bildet zwar unbestritten eine Untermenge standardsprachlich jedenfalls akzeptabler Klitikakombinationen ab, keinesfalls jedoch sagt es restlos alle möglichen Kombinationen von klitischen Formen in der slowenischen Klitikakette voraus, die zumindest von einem Teil der Sprecher akzeptiert werden. Ausgehend von den zuvor aufgelisteten Abwei­chungen zwischen dem Modell und den Einschätzungen der befragten Slowe­nisten ist daher eine größer angelegte empirische Untersuchung anzustreben, die auch varitätenlinguistische Dimensionen des jeweiligen Kotexts (sic!), wie etwa Register, Regionalität und Unterschiede zwischen orater sowie literater Sprache (Maas 2010) usw. einbezieht. Bibliografija Breznik, Anton 1916: Slovenska slovnica za srednje šole. Klagenfurt/Celovec: Mohorjeva. Franks, Steven & Tracy Holloway King 2000: A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press. Golden, Marija 2003: Clitic placement and clitic climbing in Slovenian. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 56/3. 208–233. Golden, Marija & Milena Sheppard 2000: Slovene Pronominal Clitics. In: Frits Beukema (Hrsg.) & Marcel den Dikken (Hrsg.): The Clitic Phenomena in European in European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 191–207. Jakobson, Roman O. 1935: Les Enclitiques Slaves. Erstmals verfentlicht: Atti del Con-ngress di Linguistica tenuto in Roma il 19-26 Settembre 1933, Firenze. (Zitiert nach: Selected Writings II, The Hague 1962; 16-22) Loncaric, Mijo 1996: Kajkavsko narjecje. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Maas, Utz 2010: Literat und orat. Grundbegriffe der Analyse geschriebener und gesproche­ner Sprache. In: Grazer Linguistische Studien 73 (Frühjahr 2010). 21-150. (https://zen­trum.virtuos.uni-osnabrueck.de/wikifarm/fields/utz.maas/uploads/Main/GLS-Grund­begriffe.pdf) Marušic, Franc 2008: Slovenian clitics have no unique syntactic position. In: Andrei Anto­nenko (Hrsg.) & John F. Bailyn (Hrsg.) & Christina Y. Bethin (Hrsg.): Annual wor­kshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: the Stony Brook meeting 2007. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 266–281. Murko, Matija 1891: Enklitike v slovenšcini. Oblikoslovje in skladnja. In: Letopis Matice slovenske Jg. 1891. 1–65. Orešnik, Janez 1985: O naslonskem nizu v knjižni slovenšcini. In: Jezik in Slovstvo 31 (Nr. 6). Ljubljana: Slavisticno društvo Slovenije. 213-215. Rath, Alexander 2014: Das Auftreten und die Rolle des slowenischen pa in Relation zur Klitikakette. Graz: Magisterarbeit. Sever Torkar, Jaro 2013: Obravnava slovenskih naslonk. Ljubljana/Radovljica: Diplomarbeit.Škrabec, Stanislav 1895: Nekoliko slovenske slovnice za poskušnjo. In: Cvetje z vertov sv. Franciška 14/5. Toporišic, Jože 2000: Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Založba Obzorja. Toporišic, Jože 1982: Nova slovenska skladnja. Ljubljana: DZS. Wackernagel, Jacob 1892: Über ein Gesetz der indo-germanischen Wortstellung. In: Indo­germanische Forschungen 1. 333-436. Korpus FidaPLUS: http://www.fidaplus.net. Korpus Gigafida: http://www.gigafida.net. Received May 2019, accepted July 2019. Prispelo maja 2019 sprejeto julija 2019. A. Rath, Anmerkungen zur slowenischen Klitikakette (naslonski niz) Pripombe o slovenskem naslonskem nizu Slovenski naslonski niz je zaporedje naslonskih oblik, predvsem osebnih zaim­kov, ki stojijo ponavadi na drugem topološkem mestu stavka. Ta pojav ustreza zakonu, ki ga je za indoevropske jezike opisal Wackernagel (1892). Notranjo skladnjo slovenskega naslonskega niza je prvic na preskriptivni nacin opisal Škrabec (1895). Ta zaporedja je v tradicijo slovenske skladnje vpeljal najprej Breznik (1916) in nato v drugi polovici 20. stoletja še Toporišic v svoji Sloven-ski slovnici. Ceprav bi lahko razumeli Toporišicevo slovnico kot normativno, ne moremo trditi, da so zaporedja naslonk, ki jih tam ni, izrecno prepovedana, ker tega avtor pravzaprav ne trdi. Na ravni dejanske rabe najdemo v sodobnih besedilnih korpusih zaporedja naslonk, ki jih pri omenjenih avtorjih ni. Poleg drugih zanimivosti gre predvsem za dvojne tožilnike, do katerih pride iz razlicnih razlogov, npr. ker se je spremenila vezljivost nekaterih glagolov, tako da ne zah­ tevajo vec vezljivosti TOŽILNIK+RODILNIK, temvec TOŽILNIK+TOŽILNIK (kot se je zgodilo pri glagolu uciti se). Poleg tega tvorijo govorci stavke z dvema vzporednima dejanjema, (npr. »Žensko sem videla nositi torbo.« -> »Videla sem jo jo nositi.«). V tem kontekstu je velikega pomena vprašanje variantnosti, ker lahko pricakujemo razlike v sprejemljivosti na podlagi regionalnosti, diahronije, interaktivnosti jezika (npr. govorni vs. pisni jezik ipd.) ali pa žanra besedila. Pri-cujoci clanek analizira nekaj primerov, ki smo jih dali v oceno štirim osebam, ki so zaposleni na podrocju slovenisticnega raziskovanja in visokošolskega ucnega procesa v okviru slovenisticnihštudijskih programov, da bi nam povedali, kate-rim zvrstem bi pripisali posamezne primere. Pri tem se je pricakovano prikazala neenotna slika, ki je dodaten argument za prihodnja raziskovanja, tako na podro- cju variantnosti slovenšcine kot tudi za raziskave naslonskega niza. Remarks on Slovene clitic sequences Clitic sequencing in Slovene is mainly the ordering of clitic forms of the personal pronouns, which are usually bound to the second topological position in the Slo­vene sentence. This ordering corresponds to the type of sequence described by Wackernagel (1892) for the Indo-European languages in general. The first nor­mative description of the inner syntax of Slovene clitic sequences was published by Škrabec (1895). His description was borrowed by Breznik (1916) and became part of the tradition of Slovene grammars that was continued by Toporišic in the second half of the twentieth century with his Slovene Grammar (Slovenska slovnica). Although Slovenska slovnica by Toporišic is regarded as a norma­tive work, the interpretation that clitic combinations not listed in the work were, therefore, forbidden is at least questionable because Toporišic does not make this claim. In an examination of publicly available contemporary text corpora, we found a number of clitic combinations that are not covered by the grammar. Besides other combinations not mentioned in the grammar, we found mainly dou­bled accusatives, which occur for various reasons. For example, some tri-valent verbs take two accusatives instead of one accusative and one genitive, which is also a matter of historical change as with the verb uciti se ‘to learn.’ Interesting sequencing also occurs in sentences containing a finite and an infinite verb de­scribing a complex event, e.g. ‘I see her carrying her daughter’ -> ‘I see her car­rying her.’ Regarding this topic, linguistic variation is of great importance as the measure of acceptance might depend on dialectal and historical factors as well as on the degree of interactivity (spoken vs. written language, etc.) and genre. The examples listed in this article were presented to academic teachers of Slovene studies asking them for their opinion regarding the register of each sentence. Their comments and some additional analysis for every example are listed in this paper. As expected, there was no uniform opinion among them, which is another argument for additional research on Slovene sociolinguistics as well as on the clitic sequence in particular. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 12 (2019): 113–134 Andrej Perdih, Nina Ledinek ZRC SAZU, Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, Ljubljana Multi-word Lexical Units in General Monolingual Explanatory Dictionaries of Slavic languages Clanek obravnava tipologijo in makro- oz. mikrostrukturno umešcanje vecbesednih leksi­kalnih enot v petih enojezicnih splošnih razlagalnih slovarjih slovanskih jezikov, in sicer slovenskem, hrvaškem, slovaškem, poljskem in ruskem. Vecbesedne leksikalne enote so v teh slovarjih obravnavane kot iztocnice in podiztocnice, med slovarskimi zgledi, v okviru posameznih slovarskih pomenov in v posebnih mikrostrukturnih razdelkih, npr. frazeolo­ škem, paremiološkem, terminološkem. Razlike v obravnavi vecbesednih leksikalnih enot v analiziranih slovarjih so posledica razlicnih jezikovnoteoreticnih pristopov, strukturiranja slovarskih podatkov na ravni slovarja in slovarske baze in tudi medija, za uporabo v katerem je bil slovar primarno oblikovan. Clanek se osredotoca tudi na vecbesedne leksikalne enote v eSSKJ: tretji izdaji Slovarja slovenskega knjižnega jezika, v najnovejšem splošnem eno­jezicnem razlagalnem slovarju slovenšcine, v katerem so te enote obravnavane kot relativno samostojne enote, opisane na podoben nacin kot enobesedne leksikalne enote. The article analyses the typology and the macro- and microstructure positioning of multi-word lexical units (hereinafter: MLUs) in general monolingual explanatory dictionaries of five Slavic languages: Slovenian, Croatian, Slovak, Polish and Russian. MLUs in these dictionaries are included as headwords, as subheadwords, as examples, as independent senses, and as units in various types of MLU sections (e.g. phraseological, terminological, or paremiological sections). Differences regarding the positioning and representation of MLUs in these dictionaries arise from different theoretical backgrounds and data structur­ing as well as the medium in which a dictionary was first published. With regard to the findings about the typology and positioning of MLUs in these dictionaries, the article also focuses on the treatment of MLUs in eSSKJ: The Dictionary of the Slovenian Standard Language, 3rd edition, the new monolingual general explanatory dictionary of the Slove­nian language. In this dictionary, MLUs are treated in a similar way to single-word lexical units and are given relative autonomy in the dictionary structure. Introduction Multi-word lexical units (hereinafter: MLUs) represent a large part of the lexicon of a language. The different types of MLUs (phraseological MLUs, terminological MLUs, and lexicalized MLUs – i.e. non-phraseological non-terminological MLUs) can be treated differently even in dictionaries of the same type and placed in several microstructural positions as well as on the macrostructural level. MLUs can be presented as headwords and subheadwords, or may be included among the examples within a specific dictionary sense. Additionally, MLUs may be placed in the phraseological section, paremiological section (for proverbs), termino­logical section, and lexicalized-MLUs section. These sections (and subsequently their MLUs) may be treated within a dictionary sense if they are semantically related to it. Alternatively, these sections may be placed separately from diction­ary senses. MLUs can be afforded a relative autonomy in which case they are dealt with in ways similar to single-word units so that labels, usage information, definitions, examples, etc. are added to describe MLUs. It seems that there is no consensus among lexicographers as to where in the macro- or microstructure of the dictionary entry the MLUs of different types should be treated. According to Atkins & Rundell (2008: 394) and Vrbinc (2011), the treatment of MLUs differs greatly among English dictionaries. Kržišnik (2009) conducted research on MLUs in English, German, Russian, Croatian, Slo­vak, and Slovenian general and pedagogical monolingual explanatory dictionar­ies, concluding that among the analysed dictionaries some English dictionaries place MLUs in the headword position. In general, however, MLUs are mostly treated in separate microstructural sections, usually in a phraseological section or in a non-phraseological section. Oppentocht & Schutz (2003: 219) advocate a structured collection of types of lexical entities where a distinction between single words, fixed phrases (collocations and idioms), and free text is the basic organizing principle. Vrbinc (2011) recommends that English learners’ dictionar­ies and the bilingual English-Slovenian dictionary include MLUs in two places (as headwords and as idioms in a separate idioms section in a single-word entry) since “it is next to impossible to predict whether users will look up a MLU as a headword or will simply look up one of the constituent elements of such a lexical item (but which one?)”,1 according to the study on dictionary use of Slovenian learners of English presented in Vrbinc & Vrbinc (2004). 1 In the context of improving search possibilities, Lew (2012) describes various approaches to searching phraseological units, which depend on the users’ search stra­tegies and the technical possibilities of electronic-dictionary search engines. Cf. also the search strategies available on the Fran dictionary portal (Ahacic et. al 2015) and the above-mentioned proposal by Vrbinc. A. Perdih, N. Ledinek, Multi-word Lexical Units ... Typology and positioning of MLUs in general monolingual explanatory dictionaries of Slavic languages In this paper, we treat MLUs as combinations of two or more lexemes, where a combination becomes a new lexical unit carrying a meaning of its own. Excluded are multi-word citations from foreign languages that in the target language rep­resent a single lexical unit although written separately (a cappella, ad hoc), re­flexive verbs (bati se), and other types where constituents do not exists as single-word lexemes (cira cara) (Gliha Komac et al. 2015: 7). Our research on the typology and positioning of MLUs in dictionaries of Slavic languages was conducted on the following dictionaries:2 •• Dictionary of the Slovenian Standard Language / Slovar slovenskega knji­žnega jezika (1st edition 1970–1991, 2nd edition 2014) •• Great Dictionary of the Croatian Language / Veliki rjecnik hrvatskoga jezika (2003) •• Dictionary of Contemporary Slovak / Slovník súcasného slovenského jazyka (2006–) •• Great Dictionary of Polish / Wielki slownik jezyka polskiego PAN (2008–) •• Explanatory Dictionary of Russian Language Including Explanations of Word Origin / Tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka s vklyucheniem svedenij o proishozhdenii slov / ........ ....... ........ ..... . .......... ........ . ............. .... (2008) Among these dictionaries, only the Great Dictionary of Polish is designed for use in an online digital environment. Due to the new possibilities of visualization, data organization, hyperlinking, different space constraints, etc. in digital envi­ronment, we can expect different lexicographic treatment of MLUs in digitally-born dictionaries as opposed to print dictionaries. 1.1 Dictionary of the Slovenian Standard Language, first and second edition The dictionary (hereinafter: SSKJ) was compiled at ZRC SAZU, the Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language. It was first published in 1970–1991 and updated in its second edition in 2014 (Perdih & Snoj 2015). No fundamental conceptual changes were introduced in the second edition and the treatment of MLUs also remained unchanged. The dictionary represents the only (finished) 2A part of the research on dictionaries of Slavic languages was presented in Perdih (2016). Regarding treatment of MLUs in dialectal and historical dictionaries, and the Slovenian dictionary of synonyms, see for example Žugic (2016), Legan Ravnikar (2017) and Snoj (2019: 185-193). general monolingual explanatory dictionary of the Slovenian language and con­tains almost 100,000 entries. Both editions are freely available at the Fran dic­tionary portal (www.fran.si).3 MLUs in this dictionary are presented in several microstructural positions:4 •• examples, •• senses, •• phraseological sections, •• and terminological sections. (1) abecéda [...] 1. [...] . elektr. Morsejeva abeceda iz pik in crt sestavljeni znaki za br­zojavni prenos sporocil 2. ekspr. zacetno, osnovno znanje [...] (2) absolen [...] 1. [...] 2. [...] 3. [...] . filoz. absolutni duh (3) hidrát [...] kem. [...] 2. v zvezi ogljikov hidratorganska spojina ogljika z vodikom in kisikom, ki sta v takem razmerju kot v vodi (4) híšen [...] / hišni pes pes, ki se goji v stanovanju, zlasti za družbo, zabavo; hišni red pravila o pravicah in dolžnostih stanovalcev, navadno v vecstanovanjski hiši [...] . iron. v stanovanju je našel hišnega prijatelja ženinega ljubimca; ekspr. v razpredel­nico je napisal same hišne številke izmišljene, neprave . zool. hišni pajek pajek, ki prede lijakaste mreže po kotih, Tagenaria domestica MLUs are included in four different microstructural elements. MLUs (4) hišni pes and hišni red are presented among examples, hišni prijatelj and hišna številka are placed in the phraseological section (starting with the character .). The ter­minological unit hišni pajek is placed in the terminological section (starting with the character .). The terminological MLU (3) ogljikov hidrat is presented as a separate sense of the word hidrat. While representation among examples can occur only within a sense (4), both the terminological and phraseological sections can hierarchically either be included in a specific sense as represented by (1) . Morsejeva abeceda or independently, i.e. after the last sense as shown in (2) . absolutni duh. The distinction is based on the level of semantic shift between a sense and an MLU. Besides phraseological and paremiological units, the phraseological section (as it is called in the front matter of the dictionary) also contains various MLUs that do not fit typologically into clearly defined groups due to their divergence from other senses while often being too infrequent to be presented in a sense of their own (Silvester 1978: 37). 3 In the search result list, entries from the second edition are presented to the user, while entries from the first edition are available in the archive. 4 In entries (or their parts) that are used as examples in this paper, MLUs are under­lined by the authors of the paper in order to easily find MLUs since the visual presenta­tion differs from dictionary to dictionary. A. Perdih, N. Ledinek, Multi-word Lexical Units ... MLUs included among examples are delimited from preceding examples by a slash sign “/” and, when necessary, accompanied by labels and definitions. However, in many cases they are not presented explicitly as standalone MLUs, but rather in contextual usage as part of an example. This also holds for the units in the phraseological section. When MLUs such as ogljikov hidrat are represent­ed on the sense level (3), usage information v zvezi “in phrase”, navadno v zvezi “usually in phrase” (when a MLU is written explicitly, as a whole), v zvezi s/z “in combination with”, and navadno v zvezi s/z “usually in combination with” (when only the additional word is presented) is added. 1.2 Great Dictionary of the Croatian Language This dictionary of 70,000 entries was published in 2004 by Novi Liber. It repre­sents the latest general monolingual explanatory dictionary of Croatian language.5 MLUs are represented in the following positions: •• phraseological sections, •• non-phraseological sections (terminological and non-terminological), •• and examples. (5) k.c|až 1. zgrada koja imazidove i krov i služi za stanovanje[kamena ~a kuca od kamena; zidana ~a kuca od opeke; (za razliku od drvene ili kuce od cerpica)]; hiža [...] . Božja ~a pren. crkva; javna ~a bordel, mjesto gdje se novcem kupuje žensko društvo [...] . dogovor ~u gradidogovorom se postiže napredak; (biti) kao kod svoje ~e dobro se snalazit [...] The entry (5) kuca contains all three locations where MLUs can be placed in the dictionary. While MLUs kamena kuca and zidana kuca are placed among exam­ples and definitions are added, the non-phraseological section (starting with the character .) contains MLUs Božja kuca and javna kuca, whereas the phraseologi-cal section (starting with the character .) contains phraseological units dogovor kucu gradi and (biti) kao kod svoje kuce. 1.3 Dictionary of Contemporary Slovak The dictionary is being compiled at the L. Štúr Institute of Linguistics, Slovak Academy of Sciences. The first volume was published in 2006. The final scope of the dictionary is expected to reach 220,000 entries. So far three volumes have been published, containing entries from A to N published in print and web form (http://slovnik.juls.savba.sk/). 5 The dictionary is based on the 3rd edition of the Dictionary of the Croatian Langu­age (1998). Semantically non-transparent MLUs in this dictionary can be located in the fol­ lowing locations: •• examples, •• senses, •• phraseological sections, •• paremiological sections, •• lexicalized-units sections, •• terminological-units section, •• and subheadwords. (6) bielo prisl. [...] do biela . dobiela [...] (7) dobiela, pís. i do biela prísl. [...] (8) dostat [...] 12. .ako formálne sloveso tvorí s pripojeným podstatným menom lexi­kalizované spojenie: d. doživotie byt odsúdený na doživotný trest; d. guráž odhodlat sa, osmelit sa (9) dupkom prísl. 1. iba v spojeniach vlasy mu stoja, vstávajú, stáli dupkom . rovno dohora, priamo, . i fraz. 2. iba v spojení dupkom hladiet . meravo [...] (10) dôvod-du pl. N -dy m. [...] .z dôvodupredl. s G kniž. [...] (11) charakteristika [-t-t-] -ky -tík ž. 1. . vystihnutie podstatných, typických vlastností niekoho, niecoho; literárny žáner založený na vystihnutí podstatných, typických vlastností niekoho, niecoho [...] . mat. charakteristika logaritmu císlacelá cast tohto logaritmu (12) chlapský [...] hovor. chlapská pijatika velmi silná [...] pren. chýba tu chlapská ruka chlap, muž, otec ako zábezpeka rodiny, posila v domácnosti, pri výchove detí (13) chvost [...] . fraz. držat slovo ako pes chvost nevediet dodržat slub (14) chvost [...] . parem. bol by chytil zajaca, ale mal krátky chvost vyhovára sa (15) chlípat [...] pren. Tažko sa chlípe s cudzou lyžicou. [J. Cajak ml.] tažko sa žije mimo domova, v cudzine (16) choroba-by -rôb ž. 1. .fyzická al. psychická porucha zdravia, narušený zdravotný stav [...] . horská choroba dýchacieproblémy prejavujúce sa nedostatocným prísu­nom kyslíka vo velkej nadmorskej výške [...] In the first volume of the dictionary, MLUs are positioned in four different MLU sections. The phraseological section starts with the character . followed by the fraz. ‘phraseology’ abbreviation (13) (držat slovo ako pes chvost). The paremiological section starts with the character . followed by the parem. ‘paremiology’ abbrevia­tion (14) (bol by chytil zajaca, ale mal krátky chvost). The lexicalized-units section (containing non-terminological non-phraseological units) is introduced by an orange square sign (.). In a lexicalized-units section, the headword is semantically shifted as in the case of (16) horská choroba. Multi-word proper names are also included in this type of sections. In the second volume of the dictionary the terminological section A. Perdih, N. Ledinek, Multi-word Lexical Units ... (introduced by a black square sign .) was established, thus graphically differenti­ating multiword terminological units from non-terminological units, hierarchically positioned under the same sense as is the case of (11) charakteristika logaritmu císla. Terminological proper names are treated in the same manner. When the headword (or one of its senses) is part of one or a few MLUs and therefore has limited collocates, it is described on the sense level and us­age information such as iba v spojení/spojeniach “only in combination”, obyc. v spojení/spojeniach “usually in combination”, vo fraz. spojení/spojeniach “in phraseological combination(s)”is added (SSSJ 26–27) as shown in (9) (vlasy mu stoja, vstávajú, stáli dupkom; dupkom hladiet). Adjectives used only as a part of MLUs, however, are not treated as dictionary senses and only MLUs (with defini­tions) are presented. When a headword has, in a certain sense, acquired figurative meaning, it is presented among examples, and short definitions are added to the examples. From the user’s point of view it is not always clear whether such ex­amples represent the use of an MLU or just a semantic shift of a single-word unit. This is especially true for non-typical usage that is included in the dictionary. Examples with short definitions are used when the headword’s meaning is shifted in certain MLUs. This approach is used on citations representing lesser-used meanings as shown in (15) (Tažko sa chlípe s cudzou lyžicou) or semanti­cally creative usages of a headword (12) (chýba tu chlapská ruka). Verbs are treated slightly differently, since all such types are merged into a single sense (8) (dostat doživotie, dostat guráž). Secondary multi-word prepositions composed of a preposition and a fixed form of a lexical word are treated in full as subheadwords (10) (z dôvodu). Sec­ondary multi-word adverbs (6) (do biela) are included as subheadwords with cross-references to their own entries where they are spelled as a single word or as separate words (7) (dobiela, do biela). 1.4 Great Dictionary of Polish The Great Dictionary of Polish is an ongoing project coordinated by the Insti­tute of Polish Language at the Polish Academy of Sciences. The number of pub­ lished entries was expected to reach 50,000 entries in 2018, excluding MLUs (Zmigrodzki 2014: 40, Zmigrodzki 2018: 14); however, at the time of writing, the number of single-word entries reached 70,496, while the number of MLUs rose to 16,825.6 The dictionary is, however, expected to reach a larger volume in the following years. It is available online at www.wjsp.pl. 6 The authors kindly thank the editor-in-chief, Piotr Zmigrodzki, for the informati­on on the current state of the dictionary (6 July, 2019). Beside single-word lexemes, the dictionary contains MLUs that are treated separately as a special type of entries that are included in two lists: •• list of proverbs, •• and MLUs list. Figure 1: Entry reka containing a list of MLUs (frazeologizmy) and proverbs (przyslowia). The lists are shortened for this presentation. Figure 2: MLU atut w reku as a standalone special entry type. A. Perdih, N. Ledinek, Multi-word Lexical Units ... Paremiological units (przyslowia) are separated from other types of MLUs (frazeologizmy). Both types are treated as independent entries; therefore, they are not really nested, but rather listed and cross-referenced (linked) within single-word entries. Both MLU groups contain nearly the same types of information as single-word lexemes, such as variants, labels, definitions, ontology, lexical relations (synonyms, antonyms, etc.), collocations, citations, morphological and syntactical information. Information about the origin of MLUs is given for well-documented borrowings from other languages. Proverbs can also contain text modifications. The MLUs are treated as separate units and are not semantically referenced to specific senses of single-word lexemes (Zmigrodzki 2015: 65-68). Techni­cally, they can be found either in lists within single-word entries or as search results. In both cases they are hyperlinked to their standalone entries. 1.5 Explanatory Dictionary of Russian Language Including Explanations of Word Origin This dictionary, written by Shvedova, contains 82,000 lexical units, consisting of one-word lexical units and phraseological MLUs. It is based on Explanatory Dictionary of Russian Language, 4th edition, by Ozhegov and Shvedova that has a long tradition in Russian lexicography. MLUs are represented in the following locations: •• examples, •• phraseological sections, •• and after headwords. (17) .......: .... ....... (.....) – ............. [......... ...... ........., .ë.... .... – ......... ...... .. ......., .. .. ..... ... ....... ...... .......]. (18) ........´...2, -., ... . ..........: .............. .... ........... — ......., ...... .......... ........... ...... . ............ .......... ......., ........ ... ......... ............. .. (.......... ..............). (19) ....´.., -. .. (....., .....). [...] . .. ...... – 1) ... ..., ........ ... .. ......., ..ë .. ......; 2) ........., ........ ......... .. ....... (20) ....´...., -., .. 1. ............ ..........., ........ ....... ........, ................ . ... .......... ......., ......., ..ë...., ....... .. ......... .. (......... ..ë......, .. ........ . ... ..). MLUs can be placed in several positions in the microstructure of a dictionary entry. As has been shown for other dictionaries, MLUs can be placed among examples also in this dictionary (20) (......... ........). Terminological MLUs are treated similarly, since they are included in senses that are introduced by terminological labels and defined (18) (............. ...........). MLUs in the phraseological section (introduced by the character .) are defined and ex­amples are added to represent their usage (19) (.. ......). Additionally, words that appear only as parts of a specific MLU, are presented on a headword level with the MLU directly following the headword and being treated as other MLUs (17) (.... .......). 1.6 Discussion Similarly to previous research on different dictionaries (as mentioned above) also the presented dictionaries of Slavic languages show high variety in placing and distinguishing various MLU types. SSKJ VRHJ SSSJ WSJP TSRYA headword – – – +/–* – subheadword – – + – – MLU sections Ph, T Ph, T L, Ph, Pa, T Phl, Pl Ph example +** + + – + sense + – + – + Table 1: MLU-positioning in dictionaries of Slavic languages. L = lexicalized units section, Ph = phraseological section, Phl = phraseological list, Pa = paremiological section, Pl = paremiological list, T = terminological section. * MLUs are treated as headwords of a special type of entries that are not on the same level as single-word entries. ** Graphically separated from other examples by a slash character. Headword positioning is not used in these dictionaries; also treating MLUs as sub-headwords in the Slovak dictionary is limited to specific types of MLUs. The Polish dictionary is somewhat specific. Due to its digital nature it is difficult to tell whether MLUs are treated on microstructural or macrostructural level in this dictionary. This is expected since the boundaries between micro- and macrostructure can be fuzzy in dictionaries designed primarily for use in digital environments in contrast to printed dictionaries (cf. Hausmann & Wiegand 1989, Svensén 1993). The most frequent placing for MLUs in general monolingual explanatory dictionaries of Slavic Languages are in sections of various types, and in exam­ples. Placing MLUs among examples clearly shows their semantic relation to the senses within which they are presented. It also contributes to the compact data representation of all the different types of language units on the wide border be­tween single-word units and MLUs such as syntactical patterns, units where only A. Perdih, N. Ledinek, Multi-word Lexical Units ... pragmatic information needs to be added for the human user, figurative mean­ings, etc. Placing MLUs among examples is very typical of print dictionaries, but it does not need to be a common solution for digital dictionaries either due to different media used for publishing or due to the conceptual differences and advances in linguistic and lexicographic theories. MLU sections in dictionaries are presented either after the last sense (sense-independent) or within a specific sense. While the Slovenian and Croatian diction­ary place MLUs in two different types of sections, namely the phraseological and terminological section, the Slovak dictionary uses a four-type section division, and the Russian dictionary uses a one-type section division. The Polish dictionary also places MLUs in two different microstructural sections but the typology of MLUs differs from the typology used in Slovenian and Croatian dictionaries. In three dictionaries MLUs can also be treated at the sense level, namely in SSKJ, SSSJ and TSRYA. One of the main reasons for different solutions is the great diversity of MLU types with many borderline cases and the variety of theoretical approaches. The most unique approach is used in the Polish dictionary designed for use in a digital environment. The MLUs are presented in two types of sections where the MLUs are listed and, by use of hyperlinking, cross-referenced to a separate MLU-type of entries. Content-wise, the Polish dictionary is the only one of the dictionaries analysed which treats the MLUs as equivalent to single-word lexical units. Beside definitions, exemplification, usage information, and labels, which are all often used also in other dictionaries, other information is also given in a way similar to single-word headwords, such as ontology, lexical relations, a broader representation of formal variants, and sporadically also etymology. Such an approach is straightforward from the current linguistic perspective, since both single- and multi-word lexical units represent basic elements of the lexicon of a language. Beside linguistic reasons, such approaches to dealing with MLUs seem more reasonable for use in electronic dictionaries than in printed dictionaries (all of the other dictionaries analysed were originally print dictionaries), due to the absence of size restrictions and the possibility of the use of hyperlinks. Based on the analyses of general monolingual explanatory dictionaries of Slavic languages we can conclude that typologically similar MLUs in these dic­tionaries are treated in various microstructural sections, which is also the case of English dictionaries (see above). This clearly shows that no absolute consensus exist among lexicographers regarding the position in the dictionary entry where the various MLU types are to be treated and what is the preferred typology of MLUs from a lexicographic perspective. It also suggests important implications for the user perspective. The fact that MLUs are presented in various ways across dictionaries of various languages contributes to diverse user expectations about where to find MLUs in a certain dictionary. The representation of MLUs in a dictionary is usually presented in the front matter, but many users usually do not read such preliminary explanations. The analyses presented here support other theoretical and practical lexico­graphical findings that were considered in the process of building the macrostruc­tural and microstructural organization of dictionary entries in the new Slovenian dictionary of standard language(cf. Petric 2018a, Petric 2018b). The solutions for dealing with MLUs in this dictionary are presented in the next section. Multi-word lexical units in the new general monolingual explanatory dictionary of the Slovenian language The eSSKJ: Dictionary of the Slovenian Standard Language, 3rd Edition7 (herein­after: eSSKJ) is a new medium-sized academic general monolingual explanatory dictionary of the Slovenian standard language (Ledinek 2015; Gliha Komac et al. 2016). Although this is the 3rd edition of the dictionary, it has a completely new con­ceptual design compared to the previous editions. It is being compiled at the Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language of the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Parts of the dictionary have already been published (Gliha Komac et al. 2017; Gliha Komac et al. 2018, Cernivec et al. 2019), and are available on the Fran dictionary portal (www.fran.si). The eSSKJ is primarily intended for adult native speakers of the Slovenian language. The essential materials of the dictionary are the contemporary (mostly written) corpora of the Slovenian language, namely the Gigafida, KRES, and Nova beseda, while other corpora (KAS, SlWaC, GOS) are used as sources for additional information. The dictionary provides a detailed description of a wide­spread contemporary Slovenian lexicon, which is based on the interpretation of texts published since 1991, i.e. after the publication of the first edition of the dic­tionary (SSKJ).Such selectionof materials is based on the fact that textual ma­terials from earlier period are not available in digital format. Also, the timeframe coincides with the creation of Slovenian state and changed socio-economic and political circumstances. Although the dictionary is conceived as the dictionary of the standard Slovenian language, it includes a relatively wide set of the most commonly used contemporary Slovenian lexical units (e.g. spoken language, 7The concept of the dictionary (Gliha Komac et al. 2015) in which the principal conceptual features of the dictionary and the envisaged dictionary conventions are clari­ fied, is available on: http://www.fran.si/novi-sskj. A. Perdih, N. Ledinek, Multi-word Lexical Units ... dialectal expressions, terminological expressions, etc.) according to their use in standard texts. The lexicon and other linguistic elements included in the diction­ary are evaluated and described in relation to the recognized current standard language norm. In accordance with modern lexicographic practice, eSSKJ and its databases are designed primarily for use in web environments and other digital environ­ments, not only for lexicographic purposes but also for the use of data in linguis­tic research, development of language technologies, and natural-language pro­cessing. The databases the dictionary is based on are written in an internal XML format and structured in a way that they can be converted to any of the standard formats for structuring lexical databases, e.g. TEI. The dictionary databases en­able connectivity to a wide variety of other databases. On the basis of new analy­ses and user inquiry data, the dictionary data can be regularly updated. 2.1 The macrostructure of the eSSKJ dictionary In order to take into account the Slovenian and Slavic lexicographic tradition and the habits and language practices of Slovenian language-handbook users, as well as the findings of the research on English learners’ dictionaries and the bilingual English-Slovenian dictionary (see above), MLUs are not treated at the macrostructural level in eSSKJ, and this is also the case in many dictionaries for other Slavic languages (see above; cf. also Kochová et al. 2014). On the contrary, MLUs are placed into the dictionary microstructure in eSSKJ, except for three types of structures that can also be interpreted as single-word lexemes and are considered MLUs neither in the dictionary nor in this article: •• structures of verbs with reflexive morphemes (e.g. bati se; smejati se; zapo­mniti si; znociti se), •• loan words written as multi-words according to the orthographic rules of their languages of origin (e.g. de facto; alma mater; ad hoc; bossa nova; homo sapiens; urbi et orbi), •• and orthographically unclear clusters (e.g. hokus pokus; na svidenje; kdor koli). Despite the fact that in eSSKJ only single-word lexical units are afforded head­word status, eSSKJ places a much greater emphasis on MLUs than the previous general monolingual explanatory dictionary of the Slovenian language. Seman­tically non-transparent MLUs are treated in two separate microstructural sec­tions of the dictionary (non-phraseological and phraseological section) and are regarded as equivalent to single-word lexical units in the sense that they require as systematic and comprehensive a dictionary description as single-word lexical units. Therefore, eSSKJ affords single-word lexical units as well as semantically non-transparent MLUs the same types of data, for example: labels, explanations, synonyms, examples, normativity information, grammatical preferences and limitations, syntactic patterns in which MLUs typically occur, etc. The inclusion of a MLU into the dictionary is based on the analysis of its use in contemporary language corpora. Among various types of MLUs, only semantically non-trans­ parent MLUs are explicitly treated as such in eSSKJ, since the primary role of the general monolingual explanatory dictionary is to provide a systematic description of the senses of the core lexical units of the modern Slovenian language. Semanti­cally transparent MLUs are included among collocations and (parts of) examples illustrating use of individual senses and sub-senses of single-word lexical unit since no additional information on these units needs to be provided to the user. Semantically non-transparent MLUs in eSSKJ are listed in two separate mi-crostructural sections: in a common section for phraseological and paremiologi-cal units and in the section for all other (non-phraseological) MLUs. MLUs are placed under all headwords that are the constituents of a MLU, except for func­tion words (rdec kot kuhan rak ‘as red as a lobster’ is therefore included in the entries rdec ‘red’, kuhan ‘cooked’ and rak ‘crab’, but not the conjunction kot ‘as’). This MLU placement is offered to the dictionary user. For editorial reasons, however, the treatment of MLUs in the database is rather different, since they are treated as a type of separate special entries in the dictionary database and cross-referenced to relevant entries. The reason for such a solution is the finding that in some dictionaries (especially in the pre-electronic ones) inconsistencies can be found when treating the same MLU in different places. The separate treatment of MLUs in the database prevents such events.8 Upon the exportation of the data­base for the published version, however, MLUs are included in the entries of their relevant constituents based on the cross-references to the relevant single-word.9 It 8 Other types of mistakes are still possible, such as the existence of MLU variants as separate entries in the database. However, such mistakes can successfully be found during the editorial and proof-reading process of the single-word entries with MLUs already automatically included upon export. 9 The process of cross-referencing is semi-automated by first tokenizing the MLU main form (and its variants, if any), then removing duplicate words (tokens) and finally structuring the information to appropriate XML structure. Each word (token) is given its own structural element, where an attribute containing the word form is added, and the text value (token) is automatically added to be changed to the lemma form by the author (if necessary). Cross-referencing is done using the lemma form as the search string to match the appropriate single-word entry. Target-entry id is used to establish the cross­-reference. Upon export, the word form is used to distinguish whether it belongs to the dictionary form of the MLU or only to its variant(s). This information is then presented differently to the dictionary user. A. Perdih, N. Ledinek, Multi-word Lexical Units ... would be therefore possible, based on the existing database, to quickly and eas­ily create a dictionary (or several dictionaries) with a different macrostructural arrangement. The decision for the treatment of MLUs at the microstructural level in eSSKJ affects the macrostructure of the dictionary as well. Some words in Slovenian language are used predominantly or exclusively as a part of MLUs. For example, the words deoksiribonukleinski and kriplje are used in MLUs deoksiribonuklein-ska kislina and na vse kriplje/na vse pretege only; therefore, no sense definition for single-word use is given. The word jesihar, which is used very frequently as part of the phraseme vpiti/dreti se kot jesihar, can be used as a single-word lexical unit but is so rare and limited in use that it is not reasonable to include its senses in eSSKJ. In order to be able to show the morphological characteristics (inflection), the pronunciation, and the accentuation10 of such MLU constituents, they are also given headword status, but only the use of their respective MLUs is described. There is another argument for presenting MLUs at microstructural level in eSSKJ instead of affording them independent entry status. The eSSKJ is pub­lished on the Fran dictionary portal. As of May 2019, the portal consists of 36 dictionaries. On a simple search, all matching results are shown from all the dic­tionaries. Due to the sometimes large number of search results, the question arises whether it is more efficient to present all MLUs from the dictionary as individual search results (i.e. individual entries) or to join them to the single-word lexical-unit entries in order to make the search result list more compact. For example, the word buca ‘pumpkin’ has 19 search results from differentdictionaries on the portal. In eSSKJ, it contains 16 MLUs and presenting them as stand-alone entries would increase the number of search results to 35, thus making it difficult for the user to scroll to the search results from any other dictionary. In a stand-alone web dictionary, no such limitation might be needed, cf. above the solution in the Great Dictionary of Polish. The present solution in the Fran portal gives the user a condensed eSSKJ dictionary entry containing core information from the diction­ary including a list of MLUs in the entry without further information, as shown in Figure 3. However, the MLUs are clickable and a user can immediately obtain the required information by clicking the MLU and viewing the whole dictionary entry (the ‘Full Entry’ view). 2.2 Placement of MLUs in the microstructure of the eSSKJ dictionary As we have already mentioned, semantically non-transparent MLUs are placed within two microstructural sections of the dictionary, one being a common section 10 These characteristics are provided for single-word lexical units only in eSSKJ. for phraseological and paremiological MLUs and the other one being the sec­tion for all other (non-phraseological) MLUs. These MLUs are treated separately from all other semantically transparent MLUs. The placement of semantically non-transparent MLUs in two microstructural sections of the dictionary repre­sents a departure from the established Slovenian lexicographic practice, since lexical units that were considered terminological units initially are not treated within a specific microstructural section of eSSKJ, namely the terminological section, as was the case in SSKJ, but in accordance with other non-phraseological MLUs, which is a more common lexicographic practice (Kržišnik 2009: 54). The decision to organize the dictionary data in a different way than in SSKJ was based on the fact that the lexicon included in eSSKJ that was initially part of the termi­nology of various fields of science has been determinologised (cf. Žagar 2005, Nová 2018) and is thus a part of the general lexicon of the language. The initial terms are described in eSSKJ only if they frequently occur in texts that have a relatively wide circle of addressees. The description of the determinologised lexicon in eSSKJ therefore complies with the principles of lexicographic rather than terminographic treatment. Consequently, there is no reason to place this type of lexical unit in separate microstructural sections of entries, although they are regarded as a somewhat specific segment of the general lexicon. Figure 3: The word buca ‘pumpkin’ and its MLUs (in: Stalne zveze ‘Multi-word lexical units’, Frazeologija ‘Phraseology’) among search results A. Perdih, N. Ledinek, Multi-word Lexical Units ... In eSSKJ, three types of MLUs are treated in the section of non-phraseological MLUs: a) non-terminological semantically non-transparent MLUs (e.g. stara mama; kacji pastir), b) determinologised terms labelled with terminological la­bels (e.g. iz psihologije patološki afekt), and c) the most commonly used idiomatic multi-word proper names (e.g. Bela hiša). Regardless of the typology presented, these units are listed in alphabetical order, so that users can find them as easily as possible. The eSSKJ exhibits the most comprehensive and the most systematic treat­ment of phraseology in Slovenian general monolingual dictionaries. The diction­ary deals with phraseological MLUs of the following types: a) non-sentential phrasemes (e.g. poskusni zajcek; stric iz ozadja; odpasti kot zrela hruška; proda­jati bucke (komu)) and sentential phrasemes (e.g. srce pade v hlace (komu)), b) comparative phrasemes (e.g. rdec kot kuhan rak; težak kot beton), c) some prag­matical phrasemes (e.g. gromska strela; pojdi se solit), d) minimal phrasemes (e.g. popihati jo; do amena) and e) paremiological units (e.g. Jabolko ne pade dalec od drevesa). In addition to the information presented in all other types of single-word and multi-word lexical units (e.g. semantic and pragmatic descriptions, grammatical preferences and limitations, labelling, examples, etc.) the description of MLUs placed in the phraseological section includes the main form of the phraseme (e.g. prodajati bucke (komu)), its frequently used variants (e.g. prodajati buce (komu), prodajati bucnice (komu)), its optional components, and, if necessary, informa­tion on valency. The dictionary also provides a condensed representation of the phraseme, in which (all of) its variants and optional elements are shown (e.g. prodajati bucke/buce/bucnice (komu)). Each variant of the phraseme is written in full, which enables users to find them easily. MLUs are listed in alphabetical or­der within a single-word entry. Paremiological units are placed after all the other phraseological MLUs. The variant forms of the phraseme are sorted according to the frequency of their use, as reflected in modern language corpora. Figure 4: Description of phraseological MLUs in eSSKJ. Conclusion A variety of MLU types present lexicographers with several questions that are to be dealt with before the dictionary-compilation process and further elaborated in the later stages of compilation. The analyses of treatment and placing of MLUs in Slavic dictionaries shows the diverse solutions regarding the positioning and representation of MLUs. The differences arise from different theoretical back­grounds, MLU typologies, the medium in which a dictionary was first published, and the user perspective. The shift from paper to electronic dictionaries and new theoretical findings enabled dictionary authors to treat MLUs similarly (or equal­ly) to single-word lexemes by describing them with nearly the same types of linguistic information while at the same time making them relatively independent units with regard to their macro- and microstructural position within the diction­ary structure. The different structural solutions between digital dictionaries can also be a consequence of the context in which the dictionary is available, i.e. whether the dictionary on the web is a part of a larger portal or not. For all these reasons, we can also expect different lexicographic solutions for the description of MLUs in the future. References Ahacic, Kozma, Ledinek, Nina, Perdih, Andrej. 2015. Fran: The Next Generation Sloveni­an Dictionary Portal. In K. Gajdošová, A. Žáková (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th Inter­national Natural Language Processing, Corpus Linguistics, Lexicography Conferen­ce, 9-16. Accessed at: http://korpus.sk/~slovko/2015/Proceedings_Slovko_2015.pdf [31/03/2018]. Anic, Vladimir. 2004. Veliki rjecnik hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb: Novi Liber. Atkins, Sue B.T., Rundell, Michael. 2008. The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cernivec, Manca et al. 2019. Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika 2018. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU. Accessed at: https://isjfr.zrc-sazu.si/sites/default/files/sskj-2018.pdf. [31/03/2019]. Fran, slovarji Inštituta za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša ZRC SAZU, 2014–, version 5.0. Accessed at: www.fran.si [31/03/2018]. Gliha Komac, Nataša et al. 2015. Koncept novega razlagalnega slovarja slovenskega knji­žnega jezika. Ljubljana: Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša ZRC SAZU. Acces­ sed at: http://www.fran.si/novi-sskj [31/03/2018]. Gliha Komac, Nataša et al. 2016. Novi slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika – predstavi­tev temeljnih konceptualnih izhodišc. In Marušic, Franc, Mišmaš, Petra, Žaucer, Rok (eds.) Zbornik prispevkov s simpozija 2015. Nova Gorica: Založba Univerze, 16-33. Accessed at: http://www.ung.si/media/storage/cms/attachments/2016/10/21/13/45/01/ Zbornik-%C5%A0D9_okt.16_splet.pdf [31/03/2018]. A. Perdih, N. Ledinek, Multi-word Lexical Units ... Gliha Komac, Nataša et al. 2017. Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika 2016. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU. Accessed at: https://isjfr.zrc-sazu.si/sites/default/files/sskj2016-20-6-2017_0. pdf [29/03/2018]. Gliha Komac, Nataša et al. 2018. Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika 2017. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. Accessed at: https://isjfr.zrc-sazu.si/sites/default/files/ sskj_2017.pdf [29/03/2018]. Hausmann, Franz Josef, Wiegand, Herbert Ernst, 1989. Component Parts and Structures of General Monolingual Dictionaries: A Survey. V: HAUSMANN, Franz Josef idr. (ur.): Wörterbücher / Dictionaries / Dictionnaires. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexikographie / An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography / Encyclopédie inter-nationale de lexicographie. Handbücher zur Sprach und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of linguistics and communication science / Manuels de linguistique et des sciences de communication, Band 5.1. Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter. 328–360. Kochová, Pavla, Opavská Zdenka, Holcová Habrová, Martina. 2014. At the Beginning of a Compilation of a New Monolingual Dictionary of Czech (A Report on a New Lexicographic Project). Abel, Andrea et al. (eds.): Proceedings of the XVI EURALEX International Congress: The User in Focus. Bolzano/Bozen: Institute for Specialised Communication and Multilingualism. 1145-1151. Kržišnik, Erika. 2009. Kam in kako s frazeologijo v novem slovarju. In A. Perdih (ed.) Stro­ kovni posvet o novem slovarju slovenskega jezika, 23. in 24. oktober 2008. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. 53-56. Ledinek, Nina. 2016. Novi Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika: temeljna konceptualna iz­hodišca. In: Ristic, Stana et al. (eds.) Leksikologija i leksikografija u svetlu savremenih pristupa: zbornik naucnih radova. Beograd: Institut za srpski jezik SANU. 119-130. Legan Ravnikar, Andreja. 2017. K problematiki vpliva sticnega jezika – nemšcine na se­manticne spremembe in stilno vrednost najstarejše slovenske knjižne leksike (16. sto­letje). In Slovenski jezik / Slovene Linguistic Studies 11: 35-53. Lew, Robert. 2012. How can we make electronic dictionaries more effective?. In S. Granger, M. Paquot (eds.) Electronic Lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 343-363. Nová, Jana. 2018. Terms Embraced by the General Public: How to Cope with Determino­logization in the Dictionary?. Cibej, Jaka et al. (eds.): Proceedings of the XVIII EURA­LEX International Congress: Lexicography in Global Contexts. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani / Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts. 387-398. Oppentocht, Lineke, Schutz, Rik. 2003. Developments in electronic dictionary design. In van Sterkenburg, Piet (ed.) A practical guide to lexicography, Terminology and Lexi­cography. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 215-227. Perdih, Andrej. 2016. Splošni razlagalni slovarji slovanskih jezikov. Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana. Perdih, Andrej, Snoj, Marko. 2015. SSKJ2. In Slavia Centralis 8/1: 5-15. Petric, Špela. 2018a. Slovenski vecbesedni leksemi z vidika slovaropisja. Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana. Petric, Špela. 2018b. Slovaropisni vidik samostalniških nefrazeoloških vecbesednih lekse­mov. In Philological studies 16/1: 214-229. Shvedova, N. Yu. 2008. Tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka s vkljucheniem svedenij o prois­hozhdenii slov. Moskva: Rossijskaja akademija nauk. Silvester, Marta. 1978. Prirocnik za tehnicno stran redakcije gesel. Ljubljana: Inštitut za slovenski jezik SAZU. Leksikološka sekcija. Tipkopis. Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika, druga, dopolnjena in deloma prenovljena izdaja. Accessed at: www.fran.si [29/03/2018]. Slovník súcasného slovenského jazyka. Bratislava: VEDA. I. (2006): A–G. II. (2011): H–L. (2015): III. (M–N). Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika, I–V (1970–1991). Ljubljana: SAZU, DZS. Snoj, Jerica. 2019. Leksikalna sinonimija v sinonimnem slovarju slovenskega jezika. Lju­bljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. Svensén, Bo. 1997. Practical Lexicography. Principles and Methods of Dictionary Making. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Vrbinc, Alenka. 2011. Macrostructural Treatment of Multi-word Lexical Items. In ELOPE: English language overseas perspectives and enquiries 8: 51-61. Vrbinc, Alenka, Vrbinc, Marjeta. 2004. Language Learners and Their Use of Dictionaries: The Case of Slovenia. In Erfurt Electronic Studies in English, 3. Accessed at: http:// webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/artic24/marjeta/3_2004.html [29/03/2018]. Wielki slownik jezyka polskiego PAN. Accessed at: http://www.wsjp.pl [29/03/2018]. Žagar, Mojca. 2005. Determinologizacija (na primeru terminologije fizike). In Jezik in slo­vstvo 50/2: 35-48. Zmigrodzki, Piotr. 2014. Polish Academy of Sciences Great Dictionary of Polish [Wielki slownik jezyka polskiego PAN]. In Slovenšcina 2.0 2 (2): 37-52. Zmigrodzki, Piotr. 2018. Geneza slownika i historia projektu. In P. Zmigrodzki et al. (eds.) Wielki slownik jezyka polskiego PAN. Geneza, koncepcja, zasady opracowania. Kra­ków: Instytut Jezyka Polskiego PAN. 9-16. Žugic, Radmila V. 2016. Leksikografska interpretacija višeclanih leksickih jedinica u recni­cima prizrensko-timockih dijalekata i pitanje njihovog statusa kao posebnih odrednica. In Jezikoslovni zapiski 22/1: 153-169. Received April 2019, accepted June 2019. Prispelo aprila 2019, sprejeto junija 2019. A. Perdih, N. Ledinek, Multi-word Lexical Units ... Multi-word Lexical Units in General Monolingual Explanatory Dictionaries of Slavic languages In the article, the typology and the macro- and microstructure positioning of mul-ti-word lexical units in general monolingual explanatory dictionaries of five Sla­vic languages (Slovenian, Croatian, Slovak, Polish and Russian) are analysed. The research showed that MLUs in these dictionaries are most commonly treated on the microstructural level (with the exception of the newest general monolin­gual explanatory dictionary of Polish language), where typologically comparable or similar MLUs are treated in various microstructural sections, most commonly among dictionary examples and in various types of MLU sections. The differen­ces in the treatment of MLUs can arise also from the specifics of the medium in which a dictionary was first published. The dictionaries built primarily for web and other digital environments are based on structured machine readable databases, therefore the MLUs are regarded as equivalent to single-word lexical units in the sense that they require as systematic and comprehensive a dictionary description as single-word lexical units. Consequently, the same types of data are normally afforded to these units. At the same time, such a shift in the treatment of MLUs can also be attributed to the development of lexicology, lexicography and meta-lexicography. In the newest dictionaries, the treatment of MLUs is influen­ced also by the research on user perspective and the possibility to incorporate a dictionary into language portals, while the comprehensive treatment of MLUs is motivated also by the potential of the dictionary data for the linguistic research, and the development of language technologies and natural language processing. With regard to the findings about the typology and positioning of MLUs in these dictionaries, the article also focuses on the treatment of MLUs in eSSKJ: The Dictionary of the Slovenian Standard Language, 3rd edition, the new monolingu­al general explanatory dictionary of the Slovenian language. In this dictionary, MLUs are treated in a similar way to single-word lexical units and are given relative autonomy in the dictionary structure. Vecbesedne leksikalne enote v splošnih enojezicnih razlagalnih slovarjih slovanskih jezikov11 V clanku obravnavamo tipologijo vecbesednih leksikalnih enot v enojezicnih splošnih razlagalnih slovarjih petih slovanskih jezikov (slovenskem, hrvaškem, slovaškem, poljskem in ruskem) in njihovo umestitev v slovarsko makro- oz. mikrostrukturo. Analiza je pokazala, da so vecbesedne leksikalne enote v teh slovarjih najpogosteje obravnavane na mikrostrukturni ravni, izjema je le naj­ novejši poljski enojezicni splošni razlagalni slovar, tipološko enake ali podobne vecbesedne leksikalne enote pa so opisane v razlicnih mikrostrukturnih razdelkih slovarjev, najpogosteje med slovarskimi zgledi in v specializiranih mikrostruk­ turnih razdelkih. Razlike v opisu vecbesednih leksikalnih enot se kažejo tudi z vidika medija, za katerega je slovar primarno oblikovan – v novejših slovarjih, namenjenih rabi v spletnem okolju in drugih digitalnih okoljih, ki temeljijo na strukturiranih racunalniško berljivih podatkovnih bazah, so vecbesedne leksikal­ne enote razumljene kot enobesednim leksikalnim enotam enakovredne enote, ki potrebujejo sistematicen in celovit slovarski opis. Pri njihovem opisu so zato naceloma navedeni vsi tisti slovarski podatki, ki jih dodajamotudi enobesednim leksikalnim enotam. To spremembo je obenem mogoce pripisati tudi razvoju leksikologije, leksikografije in metaleksikografije. Seveda na obravnavo vecbe­sednih leksikalnih enot zlasti v najnovejših slovarjih vplivajo tudi uporabniške zahteve in možnost vkljucitve slovarskih virov v vecje jezikovne portale, celovita obravnava teh enot pa je smiselna tudi z vidika uporabe slovarskih podatkov za jezikoslovne raziskave in za razvoj jezikovnih tehnologij oz. pri procesiranju na­ ravnih jezikov. Clanek se osredotoca tudi na vecbesedne leksikalne enote v eSSKJ: tretji izdaji Slovarja slovenskega knjižnega jezika, najnovejšem enojezicnem raz­lagalnem slovarju slovenšcine, v katerem so te enote obravnavane kot relativno samostojne enote, opisane na podoben nacin kot enobesedne leksikalne enote. 11 This article has been supported by ARRS (program P6-0038). Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 12 (2019): 135–156 ...... ....., ...... .... [Mladen Uhlik, Andreja Žele] ........... ......... ........... ............, ....... .......... ............ ........... (. ............. . ....... ............... . ........) . ...... ............... ... ............ ........... . ........... .. ......­...... . .......... . ...... .............. ......, . ..... ........ . ...... ........ ......... ........... . ............. ........... (......), ....­....... . ..... ........ ... ........ . ...... ..... .......... .... ..... . .... ......... . ........ ............. . ....... ..... .......... ..... ...­........ ............. ............ ........... . .... ......... . ........­.... ........ .. .......... ............. The paper deals with various types of comitative constructions and characteristics of their usage in Slovenian, other South Slavic languages and Russian. The focus is on the con­structions encoding two human participants that are involved in the same event. Special attention is paid to the construction’s predicate as it affects the interpretation of the num­ber of referents. A special reference is made to the Russian comitative constructions in the role of Possesor and to the problem of their equivalents in Slovenian. ........ . ......1 ............... ... .... ............ ............ ........... . .......... ..... . ............. . .. ......... . ...... .............. ...­... (...... ..... ..........2) . . ........ .. ........... ............., ........... .... ............ .......­..., ........... . ..... ......... ......... ... ... ........ .......... ..........., . ....... ...... ........ (.............)3 ........ ........... ....... ....... . .........­ 1 M. .. ...... ............. ...... ..........., ....... ......, ..... .. ........, ....... .. ......, .... .. ........, ...... .. ..........., ......... .. ......, Ma... .. ......., a ..... . .... ........... .. ......­... . ........... .. ......... ....... ............... .. ...... . ....... . .............. ..... ...... .. ........ 2... .......... .. ........ ..... ......., ............ ........... ............ ..... ..........., ........., ....a...... . .............. 3 ....... ........ . ....... ............. . ............. .. ........ (2005, 2008). ... ......, . ...... ... ............. ........ (..... .......) .......... .......... ....... . ............ ....... (1) ..... Midva z ženo hodiva v gledališce. ‘.. . ..... (2) ..... . .....’. (2) ..... Anton hodi z ženo v gledališce. ‘..... . ..... ..... . .....’. .......... ........, ... . .......... ....., . ....... .. ........... ... ........, ............ ..... ...... ............. . ..........4 . ..... . .... ....... ........., ... . .......... ..... ......... .. ...­........ ............ .... . .... ...... ... ......... ... ....... ...., . ...... ............... ............. ........­... . ..... ............. ...........,5 ., ..... ......., ........... ......., . ....... . ........... . ............ . ............ ....­... ............ .............. ............... (3). ..........., . ....... .............. . ............ ....... ........ ....... .....­.... . ............ ......, ..... .. ............... (4). (3) ..... Miza z ogledalom je bila ob nasprotni steni na ovinku, ki je vodil nazaj v vežo. ‘.... . ........ ..... . ............... ..... .. ........, ....... ... ..... . ........’. (4) ..... Vstopila je Ana z lepo pricesko. ‘..... .... . ........ .........’. ....... (3) . (4) .......... ........ ..... ............. ...........­.. . ............. . ................. ...... ............ .........­... ..........., .. ...... ........., ........ .., ... ........, .......­... .......... ....... (midva z Ano, Anton ... z Ano), ......... . ........ .............. .., ..... ......., ...... .. ........ ...... . .......... . ............ ......, ... .. ........... ..............., ........... ........, ...... ... ........... (... .. .... ....... 2005: 10). 4 ...... .............. ............. ......, ....... ........ .......­.... ......... .......... . ............... ...... ... ........, ........­.. ... ..........., . ..... . ... ... .......... ......, ....... ........... . ........ . ............. (........ ... .........) ...... (..... ........ ... Nomachi&Heine, 2011: 55–63). ... ..... .......... ...... ....... ........ ...­.......... ..... (........ ........) .. ........ ........... ..... ... Reindl (2008) . Legan Ravnikar (2017). 5 O ...... ..... .......... ..........., ...... .......... ....... ........ ........... .. .. ............ . ............. ..........., ... Uhlik, Žele (2018: 101). .. ....., .. ...., .......... ............ ........... ... ... ....... ............ ........... . ............. ........... .. ....... ...... ........ .. ........., ........ .. ..... .......­.... ..... .... .......... ....... .........: ........ ....... ..... ....... . ............. .......... . ..... ..... ........., ....... ........ .......... ..... .......... . ............. .......... ............ ...... ...... ........., .. ................ ...­..... ..... .... .. ..., ....... ........... ........... .......... ........, . ...., ....... ........ .......... ........ .. ......, .. .... . ............ .......... .. ................, . ... ........... ............... ......­.... ..... . ......... ........... ......... ............ ......... . ........ ..... ............. ............ ............ ..... ...., ..... ........... ............. ............ ........... . .........­.. . .... .......... ... .... ............ ........... ..... ............ ........... ..... ........ ... ........... ....: ........... . ..... ............... ........ . .......... . ....­........ ..... . ..........., .............. ..... ...... ..... . ...­....... . .............. ...... 2.1 ............ ........... . ..... ........ ...... ..., ..... ................ . .......... ......, ....... ...­......., ..... ................. .........6: (5) ..... Anton je gledal film z Ano. ..... Anton je gledao film s Anom. ..... ..... . ...... ..... . .... ‘..... ....... ..... . .....’. . ..... ........... ....... ... ........ ......: ...... (.......: Anton), ........... . ........., ..... ..... .......... .............. ....... .... .......... ..... ............. ..... .........., . .. ..... ... ...... (..........: z Ano) o......... .............. .... (......­..), ., ... ..... .. .......... ........, ..... ..... .......... .......: 6 . ....... (2005) ..... ............ ......... . .. .. «.......... ....­......». (6) ..... Anton je z Ano gledal film. ‘..... ....... . ..... .....’. ..... Anton je gledal film z Ano. ‘..... ....... ..... . .....’. ..... Z Ano je Anton gledal film. ‘. ..... ..... ....... .....’. ... ..... .... ........... ..... ..... ........ ........... ......­........ ..........., ... ......... ....... (2005: 3), . ........ ....­.... .. ...... .. ..... ......... (..... Anton jez Ano gledalfilm. vs. .nton jegledal film). . .......... ..... ........, .... . ......... ........, .........­... ........... .......... . ..... ....... ............ . ....... .......... ......... . ............ ..... .......... .......: (7) ..... Diego z Rodrigom obiskuje Catalino. ‘..... . ....... ........ ........’. ... ............. .. ........... .......... .. ....... (. ......... ... . ....... .......), ......... .. ...... ............7 ........ . .............. ........... . ......... .......... ............ ...­......... ...... ..... . ... ..... ......... ........ . ....... (9): (8) *Diego z Rodrigom je .biskoval Catalino. (9) ..... Diego je z Rodrigom .biskoval Catalino. ‘..... . ....... ....... ........’. .... .. .............. ........... . .......... ......... .. ....... .. .......... . ............ ..........., .. ....... ........ ..... ..­... ............ ............: (10) ..... Vceraj je Diego z Rodrigom obiskal Catalino. ‘..... ..... . ....... ........ ........’. 7. ..., ... ..... ............ ........ . . .......... ....., ..... ......­... ....... (1895: 212). .......... .. ........... .......... ..., ... ....... ..... ........ ..........., ........... . ........... .. ......... . .....­......, ..... .......... . ..........: ..... Ce dežuje, so otroci doma. . ......­.... . ........... ...... ............... ...... su ..... .... ... ......... Ako pada kiša, djeca su doma ‘.... .... ....., .... ..... ....’. .. ....., .. ...., .......... ............ ........... ... .......... . .............. ........... ...... je, . ............ . ..­..... ............, ...... ..... ....... ............. .....: . ..... ...... ... .............. ....... ali (11). .......... ...... .......­.... ........ ......, . ....... ....... ali ....... (12) . ........... .......... . .......:8 (11) ..... Ali je Diego z Rodrigom obiskoval Catalino? ‘. ..... . ....... ....... ........?’ (12) ..... Je Diego z Rodrigom obiskoval Catalino? ‘..... . ....... ....... ........?’ 2.2 ............ ..........., .............. ...... ..... ...... ... ......... . ............ ......... ............ ........­..., ............ .. ............. .........., ....... . ........­... ......... ........ . .......... ...... ............ .......... ... ......, . ....... ........ ......... . ...........­... .....: . ...... ............ ........... ........ ............. ...... ........... . .... ......... (.... .. . ..... ....... .. ....), .. ...... .. . .... ......... ......... ..... ........... (.... .... . ..... ....... .. ....). ... ........ ....... ......, .......... .... .......... .. ......­.....9, . ............, ... ............. ........ . .... ........... . ............ . ............. ...... .......... ..... .... ....... ...... ............ . ............ ....., .. .............. ....... . .......... ........ ..., . .......... ..... ........... ..........., ......... .. ......... . ..... ........... . ............ ...... . 8 ... ........ .............. ....... ali, .. ...... .... ...... .. ....­... (1895: 214) ..........., ..... .................., ... . .......... ..... ... ......... ............. ..... ........... ..... .......... . .......: ...... Ali te zebe? (‘.... .......?’) ........ Te zebe? . ........... .......­...... ........ ...... ........... ... ............. ............... ..­... ...... . ...... ........... (... .. .. clitic fronting). .. .... ......... ... Zimmerling, Kosta (2013) . Zimmerling (2015). 9 .. ........ . .. .... (1988: 2) ........, ... . ............... (......­....) .. ............ ........ .......... ...........mi s tobom . .......... .. ............. ..... . ........ ... . .....'. ... .. ....., .. .... ........., ... ............ ........... mi s tobom . ........ ............ ........... . ....... ...... .............. ........... (1957: 358–359). ............ .....10 (midva, midve, vidva, vidve, onadva, onidve) . ........ . ............ ...... . ......... . ........... .......... ........ .......... .......... ........... .. ......... ...... ........ ....­... .. ............ (..... midva z Ano = ‘.. . .....’, *Z Ano midva). ..... ....... ......, ........... .......... ........ (........­... .............), . .......... ..... .......... ..... ............. ................ ..........., ............ ........, ..... .... ..­...... ...........: (13) ..... Midva z Anosva gledala film. ..... (...) ....... / ..... . ........... ...... ‘.. . ..... ........ .....’. ..... Ja i Anasmo gledali film. ..... ............... ...... biti (. ..... ....... .... ............. ..... sva) ......... ........ . ......., ........., ... ..... .. ...... ....., .. ...... . ...... ...... . .......... (Midva), ......., ... ........., ...... ............. ([2] + (1)): (14) ..... Midva sva z Ano gledala film. ‘.. (2) . ..... ........ .....’. ..... Midva sva gledala z Ano film. ‘.. (2) ........ . ..... .....’. ..... Midva sva gledala film z Ano. ‘.. (2) ........ ..... . .....’. Ana .......... ............. . . ......... ....... ........ .........­....... ...., ... ...., ......, ... ... .. ........ ...... ...........­......... (midva), ........... ............. . .......... ....., . ....... .. ........, ........... ..... .... .. ........ ..........., ....... ....... ........, ........... .. ...., ........ .. .......... (15) ..... __ Z Ano gledava film. ‘.. . ..... (2) ....... .....’. 10 ........ . ....... ........... ..... Gigafida .........., ... ....... ............ ........... . ...... ............ .. ............. ..... ........... ....., . ....... ..... ........ . ............ . .............. .......... ........... ........... .. ............. ..... ........ . ..... ............ ... ..... (... 26). .. ....., .. ...., .......... ............ ........... ... ........ ........ ........... ........ .......... ... ....... . ...­.... ..., ......... ... ... ........... ....... . .......... ..... .............. ...... .......... .......... ............ ........... .......... ............. . .............. ...... ....­........ ..... . .......... ..... .......... . ......... .... ... ...­..... ...........: (16) ..... Z Ano sva gledalafilm (........ ........ ........... .............: ............ ........... ........ .......... . ....) ‘.. . ..... (2) ........ .....’. (17) ..... Z Ano smo gledali film (..... .............. ..... ............ ............: ........ . ........... ............. (............ Mi = [2 + A]), . ...... ............., ... ....... ............ ........... .. ........ .... (= 3 + ...a)). ‘.. . ..... (= 3) ........ .....’. ............... .............. . .......... ............ ........­... . .......... (18). ......, ........ .. ........... ... . ... ..... . ........ ... .... (18) ..... ... . ... ... ....... ...... . .......... ......., ..... ......., ........ ... .............: .) .. . ..... (= 2) ........ .....; .) .. (= 2) . A... ........ ...... ..... ....... ....., ... ............ ..... . .......... ...... ......... ..... ...... .......... . ....... ..............., .....­..... ....... ......... . .......... ....... (19), . ....... .. ........... (18) . .........­.. (17), ............... ...........: ............ ............. .....­...... Mi, ........... ...., ............, ... ..........-o......... .... ...... o...... (19) ..... S Anom smo gledali film. ‘.. (= 2) . ..... ........ .....’. .......... . .... ......... . ......... . .......... .......... . ..­..... ......... .... ....: ....... ........... (nas, ............ . ...... ...... . .... .... ....... ...........) . .............. .....­........ . ................ ........ ............: nas dvoje (.. + ..), nas dvojica (.. + ..), nas dvije (.. + ..)......... ........... ......... ........ (....): (20) ..... Nas dvoje/dvojica/dvije smo gledali/e s Anom film. = ..... Nas dvoje/ dvojica/dvije i Ana smo gledali/e film. ‘.. (2) . .... ........ .....’. ... ............. ............ ............ ........ (....) . ...­........ . ...... ............ . .......... ............ .. ....­........, . ............. ........... . ...... i ‘.’ (21). . .......... ..... ........ ......... .............. ........ ........ ...... ...­..........11 (21) ..... Ja i Ana smo gledali film. ‘.. . ..... ...... ........ .....’. .. .... ................. ........ . .... O........ ......... ..­.......... . ...... .... ..........., ............ .... .......... . ...... ....., . .... ......... ......... ..............., .........­... .... (...... ..... ... ...........). ....... .........., ... ........ ... . .............. ...... (. .......... (23.a) . .......... (23.b), . .........) . ............ . ...­........... ........., ............ ..... .............. ... ....­......... ..... .........., .. ...........,12. ....... .. ............­.... ...... (........, ..........., ........., ........ . ..........): (22) .... ..... . .... ....... .... ..... . .... ........ ....... Pawel z Ewa przyszli. .... Pavel s Evou prišli. ...... Pavol s Evou prišli. (23) a. *Pavel z Evo sta prišla. b. *Pavel s Evom su došli. 11 ...... Gigafida .... .... ..... ..........., ........... . ........... jaz + in + ... ........... + ......... . ............ ...... .....: ..... Tudi jaz in Dani primeva vsak na eni strani kavca in ga postaviva, kamor nama veli Hrle. ‘.. . .... .... ....... .. ....., ...... .. ..... ......., . ...... ... ...., .... ... ....... (.....) ....’. 12......... ........ ......., ............ .......... .......... ......, ........... ....... .. .......... ...... .... .......: .... Ukrcali se u autobus Rada is mužun. ‘. ....... .... .... . .....’ (Benic, . ......). .. ....., .. ...., .......... ............ ........... ... ...... ........... . .......... ..... ......., ......, . ..., ... ...­..... . ............ ............, .......... ....... ....... ... ..... ............. ..... .........., .......... . ............. ......... . ........ ..........., ..... ......, ........ ......... ... ........, ... . .... ......... ........ .... ........... ............ ........... (24),13 ... ......... ... ....... . ......... ...... ..­.......... . ............ ..... (25): (24) ..... midva z Ano gledava; vidva z Ano gledata. ‘.. . ..... (2) .......; .. . ..... (2) ........’. (25) *jaz z Ano gledava, *ti z Ano gledata. ....... . ......... ...... ............ . ............. ..... ........... . ........... ...., ........ . ... .......... ......., 14 ... .. ............. ............ .....: (26) ....... ..... ..... (Mi) s Petro (2) nacrtujemo pocitnice. . .... ..... (Midva) s Petro nacrtujeva pocitnice. ‘M. . ...... ......... ........’. ... ......... .............. ........, . ....... ........ ....... ...... ..........., . .............. ...... ... .........15 . ......­........ .....16 ............. ............. ........... . ...... .: (27) ..... Pavel in Eva sta prišla. ..... Pavel i Eva su došli. ..... ..... . ... .a ...... ‘..... . .... ......’. 13 K.. .... ........ . ....... (16), . .......... ...... ........... ..... .........., . . .... ...... .............. .......... .......... ... ...... ............... 14 . .... .......... ....... ........ ............. ..... ... .... ....­...... ...... ........ ............. ...... 15 ... ........... .. ........... .......... ............ ..........., ....... ..... ............. ... ......... . ............ .....: ..... Pavel je z Evo prišel, ..... Pavel je s Evom došao. 16 ........... .... *Pavel in Eva gre . .........., ..... ... . . ....... (*..... . ... ....), ............. . ........... .......... ........... ...­... ............ ......... . ... ..... . ............. ............, .... . ...... ........... ..... .............. ... ........, .. ....... ....... ... ........., . ........... ......... ...........: ..... V šolo je prišel Pavel .in Eva. = ..... . ..... ...... ..... . . .... 2.2.1 .. ............ ............ ........... ... ....... ............ . .......... ....., . ....... .. ........, ............. .......... ..­.......... ..........., .............. .... .......... ... ...... ....., . ......... ....... .......... ........, ....., . ....... ...... ..... . ............ ........ .......... (videti ‘......, .......’, slišati ‘.......’). 17 . ...... ............ ..... ........... . .... ....... ..... ......... ........... ........ ........... ....... .... (28).18 (28) ..... In mene je bilo sram, da bi me z Mahlkejem videli na ulici. (Gigafida) ‘. ... .... ......, ... .... . ..... ..... .. ....... .. .....’. ............ ..........., ............. . ......... ......., ..... ...­..... . ...............: ......, ........ .. ....... . ......... ...... ....... ... .. ...... .......... ............ ............ ..........­..... ........ ......... ...... ........... . ....... (29) ............ ..... .......... .........., ... ....... (z Joffreyem) ......... . .... ...­........ (jaz in Joffrey) . .. ..... .... ...... ....... (*te z Joffreyem). (29) ..... Res upam, da veš, kako te z Joffreyjem ljubiva. ‘. ............. ......., ... .. ......, ... .. . ....... (2) .... .....’. ........... .............. ......., ........ .......... (30), ..... ....... ......... . .......... ......... . .......... . ......... ..­...., ...... ... ......, .......... ............. ..... .........., ....­.... ......: (30) ..... Videl sem te z Mojco. ‘..... .... . ......’. . ....... (30), ..... ......., ......, ........ .. ....... (z Mojco) ..­.... ............ ....... (. ..... .... . .....) ... .. ..........­..... (. .... ....., ..... .. ... . ......). .... ............ ........... . ...... ....... ............ ... ............... ........... .............. .......... (..........­.. ...........). ..... ............. ..... .......... . ........... ........... .........., ... ....... (z Mojco) ........ ...... ...­.... (31). ............ ..... .......... . ........... ........... 17... .. ........... . .......... ........ .. .... (1954: 194). 18 ..........................................................­....... . ...... .... ... .. .. .......... (2012). .. ....., .. ...., .......... ............ ........... ... .........., ... .......... ...... (z Mojco) . ....... ........... ..­....... . .... ............ (32): (31) ..... Videl sem te z Mojco, ko sta vstopila v zgradbo. ‘. ..... .... . ......, ..... .. (2) ....... . ......’. (32) ..... Videl sem te z Mojco, ko si vstopal v zgradbo. ‘. ..... .... . ......, ..... .. ...... . ......’. ....... ........, ... . .......... ....., .... ............. ...... (30) . ........ .......... ............ ........... . .... ......., ...... ..­.......... ............. ..... ....... ........... (30), . .. ..... ... ............ ..... (mene, tebe) ............. . ............. ..........­.. . ...... in(33), ... ....... ..... .... ....... ........ .......... (34):19 (33) ..... Videl sem tebe in Mojco. (34) ..... *Videl sem te in Mojco. ..... .... ......... . ............ ............ . ............. ...... . ........ . .......... ..... ............... ..... ...... . ........... ......... ........... ........, ........­.... ..... ..........., ...... .......... ... .... .......... 3.1. .......... ........ ..... .... ........ ....... (...........­..) ........a.. (...... 1979, A... .. ........, ...... 1999), ....­... ........... ........... ............. ..... .........., .....­...... .... . .. .. ........: srecevati se (............'), dogovarjati se (...............'), objemati se (...........'). ...... ...... ...... .......... ............ .......-.......... ....... . ........., .......... ......... .........., ...... .. ....­... ........ ............ . ......., . ........., .. ........ ...... ...... ............ (35) ..... Anton se prepira s Pavlom. ‘..... ...... . ......’. ..... .nton in Pavel se prepirata. ‘..... . ..... ......’. 19 ....... ...... .. ..... .............. . .......... ............, ...­.......... . ........... .......... .. .... ... ...... .. ........ 2008. . ............ ......... .. ......... ......... ........ ........­...... ......... ........ ..... .......... . ....... .......: . ...­....... .......... ...., ... . .......,20...... ........ ........... ......... (prepirati se s kom vs. ....... . ..., pogovarjati se s kom vs. ...­.......... . ..., vojskovati se vs. ....... . ...) 21, . ....... .. .....­..... ........ ............. ...... ....... . ............. .......... ......... ..... ........, ... ... ............. ........ ......... ........ ....... ....... ............ .... .......... .............. ......... (36) ..... Peter se pogovarja z Mašo. ‘.ë.. ............. . .....’. (37) ..... Peter in Maša se pogovarjata. ‘.ë.. . .... .............’. 3.2 ...... ... .......... ......... . ........, ....... .... .. .... .. .......... ........... ......... ........ ........ ... ........ .... ...... .............. . ............ ........... (. ......... .. .........). ..... ......., ........, ............ ..... .........., ......­.......... .... . .........22: ..., . ....... (38) ......, .... .. .... ..... ...... . ...... ... .. ... .... ............ (.... ......., .. ...... . .....), . .. ..... ... ............. ........... . ...... . ..­....... .......... .. ........ ............... (39). (38) ..... Peter caka vlak (skupaj) z Mašo. // Peter caka vlak. ‘.... ..ë. .....a (......) . ...... // .... ..ë. .....a’. (39) ..... Peter in Maša cakata vlak. ‘.... . .... .... ......’. 20. ..., ... . ....... ..... .......... ...., ... . ...... .......... ...... .......... ... ...... .......... ........, ... ..... (.... .. ...... 2007). 21......... ........, ... ............ ......... ..... ............. .. ......... . ............ ..... ... ........ . ............ .... X rad dela Y (X ..... ...... Y) . ......, .... ... ........ .......... ....... .......­....: ..... Anton se rad pogovarja/prepira. ‘A.... ..... ............./.......’. 22 .. .. ....... (2015:14) ........, ... ........ .............. .........­... .......... . ......... ...... ........ .............. ... .......... ........ . ........ .. ....., .. ...., .......... ............ ........... ... . .........., ........... ............ ............, ........ ...­........... ........ ....... .......’, .....oe .......... ......... .........., ........... ........ . ..... ..... (.... 1957: 180, .... .. ........, ...... 1999: 454-455). .......... ............ ....... ....... ... .......... ....... ...., .......... ........ ........... ........ .... . .........: (40) ..... Peter obiskuje tecaj (skupaj) z Mašo. Peter obiskuje tecaj. ‘.... ........ ..... (......) . ...... .... ........ .....’. ... ............ .......... . ....... . .......... ............ ....... .......’ ............ (........, ...... 1999: 454-455, .... 1957: 180). ......... ........ (Gigafida), ......, .........., ... ..... skupaj .......’ ..... ............. . ... ......... ...... .......... (41, 42) ......, ........ .. ..... ............, ...... . ........... .......­....... .............. ........... ........: (41) ..... Skupaj se bova pogovorila! ‘.. . ..... (2) .........!’ (42) ..... Skupaj sva se dogovorila, da si kupiva nekaj v Bigbangu. ‘.. . ..... (2) ............, ... ..... ...-...... . ........ «.......» ’. .......... ...... .........., ... ....... ............ ............ .. ........... ..... ... .. ........ ..........: ..... misliti .......’, premišljati .......’, razmišljati ...........’, ......., ........ ........, .............. . .......... ....... Gigafida (43), ....., .... . ....., ............. ...........: (43) ..... Tudi midva z Velimirjem sva razmišljala o selitvi v Gradec. (Gigafida) ‘. .. . ......... (2) ...... . ........ . ....’. ... .......... . ............. ......... . ............ ..........­.. . .......... .......... ..... ........ .......... .......... .....­...: . ....... (44) ......... misliti ........ .........: (44) ..... Midva z Velimirjem sva mislila, da bi se preselila v Gradec. ‘.. . ......... ...... . ..., ..... ......... . ......’. ............ ........... . .... ......... ....... .... ........... .......... .. .............. ..., ... ....­........ ........... . ... ..... ............. ........ ......... ..­........ .............. . ......... ..... ..... ...... ........ ...­.... ........... .............. . .. ........... ............... ..... .., ......, ......, ... ........ (...., .............. ....­...... ........... .........23) . ............... ...... .......... ....... ....... . ....... .............. .............., .......­....... ........... ... ............ ....... . ............... .......... ...... ............. ........ .. ..... .... ....... ........... ............... ...............:24 (45) ........ . ... .....: ..... volivcevodziv, ..... glasacevareakcija, .... ....... .......... . ........ .. ... ..... . .... ......: ..... odziv volivcev, ..... reakcija glasácaŻ, .... ....... ........... ..... ...., ........... .............. .............. . ...........­... ........... .. ....... ..... ............ ... ... ............ ........ (... ..........-...., ...... 1994: ibid.), ... . ... .........­...... .............. ......: (46) ..... striceva torba vs.* striceva s plešo torba ‘...... .....’ vs. *...... . ....... ..... ...... ............ .. .... .... ...... ........ ......... .......­... ............. . ....... ... ...... ............ ............ . ......... ..... ..... ...... .. ........ .......... ........... ..... ........ ............. ............. (47) . .. ........... ..­............ (47) .... . ..... .... . ..... ..... (.....)./ . ..... .... . ..... ....../ O. ..... ... . ..... ...... 23...... ......... .. ........... . ....... ......, ....... . ........., .. ........... ........ . ............... 24.. .... ........... . ....... ... ..........-...., ...... 1994: 213. .. ....., .. ...., .......... ............ ........... ... . .... ...... ......... . .......... ..... ..... ......... ............. ........... (49), ............. .. ............ ........... .......... (48): (48) *Kupil sem tvojo z Mašo knjigo. (49) ..... Kupil sem tvojo in Mašinoknjigo. . .......... ..... ....... ....... ...... (knjigo) ... .... ...........­... . ..... ... ....., ......... ............. ...... (tvojo in Mašino), ..­....... ........... . ............ ....., ... ............ .. .......... .......... (49, 50).25 ......... . ...... ........... ........... ..... ............. ....., ........ ....... ..... .... ............ ... .. ............., .......... ...... (49) ..... ................ ......: ... ... .... ..... .... ......... (51), ... ... ... ......... ....., . ...... .. ....... .... ..... (52):26 (50) *Kupil sem tvojo in Mašino knjigi. (51) ..... Kupil sem knjigo, ki sta jo napisala ti in Maša. ‘. ..... ....., ....... ........ ../.. . .....’. (52) ..... Kupil sem dve knjigi, eno si napisala ti, drugo pa Maša. ‘. ..... ... ....., .... ........ .., . ...... — ....’. ............. ............. ......... .... . ......, .... ........ ....... ............. ..............., ........... .. ...........­.. ......... (.... ....... . 53): (53) ..... Slišal sem za tvoj in Mašin dogovor. ‘. ...... . ..... . ..... ........’. .. .......... .... ....... ........... ............ ........... ..... .... .......... ... ...... ........... .... .......... . ........... ....... .... ... ......... ............ ....... ............ (54), .. ..........­... ............ ...... .......... ......, . ............... .. .........: (54) ..... Kupil sem knjigo Ane in Maše. ‘. ..... ..... .... . ...../ . ..... ..... .... . .....’. 25. ...... ............ ........ ..... ......... . ..... ...........­.... . ............. .....: Kupil sem tvoje in Mašine knjige. ‘. ..... ..../.... . ..... .....’. 26... ....... ..... ............... ... ..........., ... .... .... .. ..­... ........., ..... .......... .............. skupni ‘o....’Kupil sem tvojo in Mašino skupno knjigo ‘. ..... ..../.... . ..... .....’. .... ................ ......... ............ . ........... ......., ........ .. ..... .... ....... ...... ............(55), .......... .... ............ ...... ........... . ........... ...... .........­.. . ...... ....... .............. (55) ..... *Kupil sem knjigo tebe in Maše. . ........... ..... ........ ..... . ............ ......... . ....­..... (od tebe,od njega), ......., ......, ............. ........ . ..... ........... .......: (56) ..... ..... Kupil sem knjigo od tebe in Maše. .......... ......... ...... ............ .... ...........e ........... . ...­....... ..... . ............. . .. ......... . ...... .............. ...... (...... ..... ..........) . . ........ M. ............ ...­.........., . ....... ............ ... ............ ......... (....) . ......... ..... ........... ... ........... . ........... .......... ...... ..... .........­... ............ ..........., . ....... ...... .... ......... . .... ............ ........... ............. ..... .......... ............ ........... ........ ....... .. .... ..........: .. ........ ....... . ..... .......... . ...... ..... ............ ... .... ............ ............ ...... ......... . ......., . ....... ......... ............ ..... ........, .... ..... . .......... ......., . .................. . ...­.. ............. ..... (..... Anton je gledal film z Ano). ...... ......­.. ............. . ...... ... – ............ ..........., . ....... ......... ........... ......... . ........ ...... ....., ........ .. .............. ..... .......... (..... midva z Ano sva gledala film). ........ ..... ........... ....... .............. . ............ ....... .... ............ ...........: ..., .......... .... ......... .... ........... . ....... ............. . ............ ..... (midva z Ano = 2), ........... ... .... ................ .......... .. ....­..... . ........ . ............ ....... .... .......... .......... .. .. ....., .. ...., .......... ............ ........... ... ..........., ... ........ ............ ........... . ........... .. ..­....... . ........ .............. .... *mi s tobom pišemo ............. . ........ . ............ ...... ............ ............ ...­.. ......... . .......... ..... ..... ........ .... ... ........... .......... ..........: o.. ......... ..... ..............., .......­... ....... ........, . ........... ..... ...... ........... ..... ...., .......... ..........., . ....... ............ ...­... ........... ......... . ........., ......... . ..... ...... ....­......... ........... . ........... ..... ................. ........, ..... ........ ...... ........... ........... S profesorjem se lepo imejta / Lepo se imejta s profesorjem (‘....... ... . ........... ........ ..e..’), . ....... ............ ........... vidva, .......... ......., ..... ........ ......... ........... ............. .. ......... . ........ (......... .......... . ..... ........., .... .. ....... ...­......). . .......... .. ........... L(ij)epo se provedite s profesorom (‘....... ... ........ ..... . ...........’), ......., ........... . ..­........... ........... vi, ......... ........ (.... ..........). .......... ....., ... ............ .......... ........... . ...­... .........., .......... ..............., ............ ...., . .. ......... . .............. ..... (..... . .... ......) ... .....­......... ......, . ....... .. ........, ............. . ... ..... .... ............, .............. ....... ............, .......... ..­......... ........... (..... Pavel in Eva pišeta, ..... Pavel i Eva pišu). .......... . .......... .......... .. ........ ..... ..., ... . ..., . ....... .. ........, ............. ............ ..........., ......­...... ...... ....., . ......... ....... ........ .......... ....... .. ...... ..... .............. ....... ..... .........., .....­...... .............. .......... ........, . .........., ....... ........ ........... ........ ........... .... . .......... .........­.., ... .......... ... ...... .... ......... . .......... . .......... ...., ... . ....... ....., ...... ........ ........... ......... (..... prepirati se vs. .... .......). ....... ..... ........, ... ....... ........... .......... .. ..­............ ...... . ..., ... ............ ........... ............. . ... ... ......... ..... (..........) ............. (.... .... . ..­... .....). ............ ......... ........... ........... ........ ........ .............. ........... .. ........... ...... .......... Benic, Mislav. 2020. Komitativ, instrumental i karitiv u kukljickom govoru. Rasprave: Ca-sopis Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje (. ......). Brozovic, Dalibor, Ivic, Pavle. 1988: Jezik srpskohrvatski, hrvatskosrpski, hrvatski ili srp-ski. Zagreb: Jugoslavenski leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža. Dyla, Stefan, Feldman, Anna 2008. On comitative constructions in Polish and Russian. Gerhild Zybatow, Luka Szucsich, Uwe Junghanns, Roland Meyer (eds.) Formal description of Sla­vic languages: the fifth conference (Leipzig 2003). Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 288–299. Fran = Fran: slovarji Inštituta za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša ZRC SAZU. URL: www. fran.si, .... 20. 3. 2019. GigaFida, korpusna besedilna zbirka, http://www.gigafida.net, .... 20. 3. 2019. Ivic, Pavle. 1957: O govoru Galipoljskih Srba. Srpski dijalektološki zbornik 12. Beograd. Ravnikar, Andreja Legan. 2017. Issues regarding the influence of a contact language: Ger­man influence on semantic change and stylistic values of the oldest Slovenian literary lexica (16th century). [K problematiki vpliva sticnega jezika - Nemšcine na semanticne spremembe in stilno vrednost najstarejše slovenske knjižne leksike (16. Stoletje)]. Slo­venski Jezik 11: 35–53. Nomachi, Motoki, Heine, Bernd. 2011. On Predicting Contact-induced Grammatical Chan­ge: Evidence from Slavic Languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1/1: 48–76. Reindl, Donald F. 2008: Language Contact: German and Slovenian. Bochum: Universität Dr. N. Brockmeyer. Škrabec, Stanislav 1895. Nekoliko slovenske slovnice za poskušnjo. Cvetke z vertov sv. Franciška. 3., 4, 5 zvezek. 208–210, 212–214, 216–218. Gorica: Hilarijanska tiskarna. Uhlik, Mladen, Žele, Andreja. 2018. Impersonal constructions in Slovenian: A comparison with other south Slavic languages and Russian. [Brezosebne zgradbe v slovenšcini: kontrastiva z drugimi južnoslovanskimi jeziki in rušcino]. Jezikoslovni zapiski 24/2: 99–112. Zimmerling, Anton, Kosta, Peter. 2013. Slavic Clitics: A Typology. STUF - Sprachtypolo­gie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 66/2: 178–214. Zimmerling, Anton. 2015. 1P orders in 2P languages. ......... .............­...... ........... E. A. ........ (....), .. .. .......... (....), .. .. .........(....). ......... ............. ........... «......... .....­.............. .......... 2015» 2: 459–483. ......: ..... [Zimmerling, Anton. 2015. 1P orders in 2P languages. Tipologija morfosintaksiceskih para­metrov. E. A. Ljutikova (red.), A. V. Zimmerling (red.), M. B. Konošenko(red.). Mate-rialy meždunarodnoj konferencii «Tipologija morfosintaksiceskih parametrov 2015»: 2. Moskva: MPGU. 459–483.] ......., A........ .. 2005. . ......... ............ ...........: ..... I. ........... . .......... .......... ....... ........... 4: 76–100. [Arhipov, Aleksandr V. 2005. K tipologii komitativnyh konstrukcij: cast’ I. Opredelenie i formal’naja tipologija. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 76–100.] ......., A........ .. 2008. . ......... ............ ...........: ..... II. ......... ............ ............ ....... ........... 3: 22–50. [Arhipov, Aleksandr V. 2008. K tipologii komitativnyh konstrukcij: cast’ II. Polisemija ko­mitativnyh konstrukcij. Voprosy jazykoznanija 3: 22–50.] .. ....., .. ...., .......... ............ ........... ... ........, ...... .. 2008: ............. .......... .o....: ..... .......... ........ [Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 2008: Drevnerusskie čnklitiki. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskih kul’tur.] ........, A... .., ......, ....... .. 1999. O ..., .... ...... ....... ..............., ......... .., ........, .... .. (....). ....... ....... ...... . 60-..... .......... .......... ........ ......: ..... ....... ......... 450–457. [Zaliznjak, Anna A., Šmelev, Aleksej D. 1999. O tom, cego nel’zja sdelat’ vmeste. Rahilina, Ekaterina V., Testelec, Jakov G. (red.). Sbornik naucnyh statej k 60-letiju Aleksandra Evgenevica Kibrika. Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury. 450–457.] .... .. ....... 2007: .............. .........: ....... .... . .............. ............ .....a: ..... .......... ........ [Jurij P. Knjazev, 2007: Grammaticeskaja semantika: russkij jazyk v tipologiceskoj perspek­tive. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskih kul’tur.] ..........-...., ....., ......, ....... .. 1994. A...... . ..... ...... (. ......... ......... ....... «.............. ..............». Scando-Slavi-ca 40: 209–228. [Kopcevskaja-Tamm, Marija, Šmelev, Aleksej D. 1994. Alešina s Mašej stat’ja (o nekotoryh svojstvah russkih «pritjažatel’nyh prilagatel’nyh». Scando-Slavica 40: 209–228.] ............ ...... ........ ..... (....), http://www.ruscorpora.ru/, .... 20. 3. 2019. [Nacional’nyj korpus russkogo jazyka (NKRJa), http://www.ruscorpora.ru/, vhod 20. 3. 2019.] .........., .... .. 2012. .......... . .......-............. ........... ....... ..... .. ...... .......... ............: .......... . ............ ...... . ...... ............ ....... .... . ....... ...... ....... ........... 1: 42–65. [Podlesskaja, Vera I. 2012. Strukturno i linejno-prosodiceskaja celostnost’ imennyh grupp po dannym korpusnogo issledovanija: socninenie i komitativnye gruppy s licnym me-stoimeniem pervogo lica v russkom jazyke. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1: 42–65.] Prispelo aprila 2019, sprejeto maja 2019. Received April 2019, accepted May 2019. Komitativne zgradbe (sopostavitev slovenšcine z drugimi južnoslovanskimi jeziki in rušcino) Naše izhodišce so slovenske komitativne zgradbe z dvema cloveškima udeležen­cema, ki sta vkljucena v isto situacijo: prvi udeleženec je v vlogi jedra komita­tivne zgradbe najpogosteje izražen z imenovalniško samostalniško zvezo, drugi ali spremljevalni udeleženec pa je izražen z orodniško predložno zvezo. Vsi slo­venski primeri rabe komitativnih zgradb so predstavljeni vzporedno z možnimi ustreznicami v rušcini in štokavšcini. Za slovenšcino so znacilne predvsem komitativne zgradbe v osebkovi vlogi, z osebkom pa je poudarjeno predikacijsko razmerje. Predikacijsko razmerje od­ pira soodvisnost udeležencev in povedkov, zato izbira oblike povedka pogosto doloca število referencnih udeležencev. V prvem delu sta predstavljeni dve komitativni zgradbi: prva z udeležence-ma, ki sta najpogosteje v medsebojno nesticnem položaju, in povedkom v ednin-ski obliki (slvn. Anton je gledal film z Ano); druga z udeležencema, ki sta medse­bojno sticna, in nastopata kot celovita samostalniška zveza, ki doloca needninsko obliko povedka (slvn. Midva z Ano gledava film). Razlike med slovanskimi jeziki se kažejo pri drugi komitativni zgradbi: tako na primer slovenšcina dopušca zgolj zgradbe z osebnimi zaimki v dvojini (midva z Ano), pri cemer mora zaimek zaradi sticne rabe vkljucevati soudeleženca v orodniku (t.i. inkluzivna interpretacija). Po tej lastnosti se slovenšcina razlikuje od štokavšcine, v kateri sticne konstrukcije z inkluzivnim spremljajocim udele­žencem in množinsko obliko povedka (*mi s tobom pišemo) niso mogoce. V slovenskih zgledih inkluzivnost udeležencev v komitativni zgradbi potrju­je tudi dvojinska oblika povedka še posebej v primerih, ko prvi udeleženec ostaja neizražen (Z Ano piševa pismo). S povedkovo dvojinsko obliko je povezana tudi razlika med slovenšcino in štokavšcino. V slovenskem stavkuS profesorjem se lepo imejta / Lepo se imejta s profesorjem ima lahko neizraženi zaimek vidva, ki oznacuje naslovljenca, najverjetnejšo inkluzivno interpretacijo, ki vkljucuje spre­mljevalnega udeleženca. V štokavskem stavku z množinskim povedkom L(ij)epo se provedite s profesorom pa neizraženi zaimek vi glede na profesorja nikakor ni v vkljucevalnem razmerju. Profesor ima v štokavskem primeru vlogo okolišcine, torej ni del komitativne zgradbe. Primerjava s štokavšcino kaže na to, da v slo­venšcini ravno dvojina (dvojinska oblika povedka z dvojinskim osebnim zaim­kom) omogoca in hkrati napoveduje možnost inkluzivne komitativne zgradbe. V povezavi z zgornjimi ugotovitvami je treba poudariti, da komitativne stic­ne zgradbe s prvim udeležencem, izraženim z lastnim ali obcim imenom in nee­dninskim povedkom (rus. ..... . .... ......) za južnoslovanske jeziku niso .. ....., .. ...., .......... ............ ........... ... znacilne; v teh jezikih se namrec zveza dveh lastnoimenskih vršilcev izraža s ko­ordinacijo in veznikom (slvn. Pavel in Eva sta prišla, štok. Pavel i Eva su došli). V slovenšcini in štokavšcini je v nasprotju z rušcino raba vkljucevalne sticne komitativne konstrukcije v neimenovalniških sklonih dokaj neobicajna in omeje­na zlasti na glagole zaznavanja. V drugem delu so predstavljene razlike med povedki, ki obvezno implicirajo skupno dejanje,in povedki, ki šele sobesedilno lahko izražajo pomene skupnega dejanja. Ugotavljamo, da se vzajemnost pri prvem tipu povedkov v slovenšcini in štokavšcini pogosteje kot v rušcini izraža s povratno.sebnimi glagoli (slvn. prepirati se, štok. svadati se vs. rus. ........). Velja še pripomniti, da se rušcina bistveno razlikuje od južnoslovanskih je­zikov po tem, da komitativno konstrukcijo uporablja tudi za izražanje skupne svojine (rus. .... . ..... .....). Ponujene so razlicne možnosti smiselnega prevajanja te svojilne zgradbe v slovenšcino. Comitative Constructions in Slovenian: A Comparison with other South Slavic languages and Russian27 The paper focuses on Slovenian comitative constructions with two human partici­pants who are involved in the same situation: the first participant, most frequently expressed by a nominative noun phrase, acts as a nucleus of the comitative con­struction, whereas the other accompanying participant is expressed by means of a prepositional phrase. All Slovenian examples of comitative constructions are presented in parallel with their possible equivalents in Russian and Shtokavian. Comitative constructions typically found in Slovenian are those that act as sub­jects, the subject emphasizing the predicative relation. The predicative relation sug­gests mutual dependence of participants and predicates, which is why the choice of the form of the predicate often determines the number of referential participants. The first part presents two comitative constructions. The first one includes two participants, which are often detached, and a singular predicate (Slovenian Anton je gledal film z Ano ‘Anton watched a movie with Ana’). The second one consists of two contiguous participants that act as a complete noun phrase (Slo­venian Midva z Ano gledava film ‘Ana and I are watching a movie’) demanding a non-singular predicate. Differences between Slavic languages show up in the sec­ond comitative construction: Slovenian, for example, only allows constructions 27This article has been supported by ARRS (program P6-0038). with personal pronouns in dual (midva z Ano), in which the pronoun has to in­clude the other participant in the instrumental case. This is how Slovenian differs from Shtokavian, in which contiguous constructions with an inclusive accompa­nying participant and a plural predicate are not possible (*mi s tobom pišemo). The inclusiveness of participants in Slovenian comitative constructions is also related to the dual form of the predicate, especially in those cases in which the first participant remains unexpressed (Z Ano piševa pismo ‘Ana and I are writing a letter’). The dual form of the predicate is linked to the difference be­tween Slovenian and Shtokavian, which lacks dual. The unexpressed pronoun vidva (‘you two’) denoting the addressee in the Slovenian sentence S profesor­jem se lepo imejta / Lepo se imejta s profesorjem (‘You and professor have a nice time’) may receive an inclusive interpretation that includes the accompa­nying participant. In its Shtokavian counterpart with a plural predicate L(ij)epo se provedite s profesorom (‘Have a nice time with the professor’), however, the unexpressed pronoun vi (‘you’), is by no means in an inclusive relation to the professor. Profesor in the Shtokavian example assumes the role of the circum­stance and is thus not part of the comitative construction. The comparison with Shtokavian shows that it is precisely the Slovenian dual (the dual form of the predicate with a dual personal pronoun) that enables and also announces the inclusive comitative construction. It should be emphasized that contiguous comitative constructions with the first participant expressed by a proper noun and a non-singular predicate (Rus­sian ..... . .... ...... ‘Pavel and Eva came’) are not characteristic of South Slavic languages. In these languages, a union of two proper noun agents is ex­pressed through coordination and conjunction (Slovenian Pavel in Eva sta prišla, Shtokavian Pavel i Eva su došli). In contrast to Russian, the use of inclusive con­tiguous comitative construction in Slovenian and Shtokavian is rather unusual. The second part discusses differences between predicates that necessarily im­ply a common action and predicates that can only express a common action con­textually. It was established that reciprocity in the first type of predicates is more frequently expressed with reflexive verbs in Slovenian and Shtokavian than in Rus­sian (Slovenian prepirati se, Shtokavian svadati se vs. Russian ........ ‘argue’). It is also noteworthy that Russian fundamentally differs from South Slavic lan­guages in that a comitative construction is also used to express common possession (Russian ..../.... . ..... ..... ‘your and Masha’s book’). Different possi­bilities of translating this possessive construction into Slovenian are provided. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 12 (2019): 157–178 Robert Grošelj Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, Ljubljana Prevajajoc iz bolgaršcine – bolgarski deležijski polstavki v slovenskih književnih prevodih Analiza slovenskih prevodnih ustreznic bolgarskih deležijskih polstavkov, ki temelji na petih romanih in njihovih prevodih, je pokazala, da deležijskim polstavkom v bolgar­skem izvirniku, ki jih zaznamujejo raznovrstni okolišcinski pomeni, v slovenskem pre­vodu vecinoma ustrezajo stavcnopriredne, stavcnopodredne in posebne stavcne zgradbe, tj. razdružene in spremenjene stavcne zgradbe, ki predstavljajo oblikoslovno-skladenjske razširitve. Sledijojim deležijski polstavki (druga najpogostejša prevodna možnost), be-sedne/besednozvezne ustreznice in izpusti. Skladenjska funkcija bolgarskih deležijskih polstavkov (prislovno dolocilo alipovedkov prilastek) je ohranjena v vecini odvisnikov, deležijskih polstavkov in besednih/besednozveznih ustreznic. Pomen izhodišcne skla­denjske zgradbe ohranjajo vzrocni priredno in podredno povezani stavki, predmetni in po­vedkovoprilastkov odvisnik (z vzrocnim oz. nacinovnim pomenom), pogojni, posledicni, nacinovni in dopustni odvisniki, nato nacinovni prislovi, nacinovne in casovne prislovne zveze ter lastnostna pridevniška zveza, enako pa velja tudi za deležijske polstavke. Druge prevodne možnosti se od bolgarskih deležijskih zgradb pomensko oddaljujejo ali pa so pomensko ekstenzivne. The analysis of Slovene translation equivalents of Bulgarian gerundial clauses, based on five novels and their translations, has shown that Bulgarian source-text gerundial clauses, characterised by several adverbial meanings, are mainly translated by Slovene coordinate, subordinate and special finite clauses, including detached and modified clauses, repre­senting morpho-syntactic expansions. They are followed by gerundial clauses (the second most frequent translation possibility), words/phrases and omissions. The syntactic func­tion of Bulgarian gerundial clauses (adjunct or predicative modifier) is preserved in most subordinate finite clauses, gerundial clauses and word/phrase translation equivalents. The semantics of the source-text syntactic structure is retained in the case of subordinate/ coordinate clauses representing cause, object and predicative modifying clauses (with a causal or modal meaning), subordinate clauses representing condition, result, manner and concession, followed by modal adverbs, modal or temporal adverbial phrases and a qualitative adjective phrase; the same can be said for gerundial clauses. Other translation possibilities can be considered semantically divergent with regard to Bulgarian gerundial structures or semantically extensive. 1 Uvod Med bolgarskimi neosebnimi glagolskimi oblikami se pojavlja deležje na -..., ki je slovnicno in pomensko-funkcijsko sorodno slovenskemu deležju na -c, -aje oz. -e, saj izraža istodobnost, obenem pa gre v obeh obravnavanih jezikih za glagolsko obliko s prislovno rabo (Parvev 1982: 382; Toporišic 2004: 403; Mi­kolic Južnic 2012: 147), ki jo zaznamujejo prekrivni pomenski odtenki (Leafgren 2011: 65–66; Gradinarova 2014: 69; Mikolic Južnic 2013: 87). Zaradi pomensko-funkcijske podobnosti bolgarskega deležja na -... in slo­venskega deležja na -c, -aje oz. -e v prispevku raziskujem, kako so v izbranih književnih prevodih bolgarski deležijski polstavki prevedeni v slovenšcino, pri cemer me zanima, ali bodo prevladale alternativne (nedeležijske) ubeseditvene možnosti (Mikolic Južnic 2017: 72) ali ne. Prispevek bo z analizo zgradbenih in pomensko-funkcijskih znacilnosti prevodnih ustreznic bolgarskih polstavkov kvalitativno (deloma kvantitativno) ovrednotil razmerje med bolgarskimi dele­žijskimi polstavki in njihovimi slovenskimi ustreznicami, hkrati pa dopolnil red-ke prevodno-jezikovne raziskave dveh sorodnih južnoslovanskih jezikov (prim. Valcanova 2002) in analize prevajanja tujejezicnih deležijskih zgradb v sloven-šcino (npr. Mezeg 2014, Mikolic Južnic 2014). 2 Korpus in metodologija Raziskava gradivsko temelji na analizi petih sodobnejših bolgarskih romanov in njihovih slovenskih prevodov – gre za dela Tobak D. Dimova (DD), Federaci­ja dinastronavtov O. Haima (OH), Na poti k sebi B. Dimitrove (BD), Ponoci z belimi konji P. Vežinova (PV) in Naravni roman G. Gospodinova (GG; prim. bibliografijo). Študijo, ki se umešca med pomensko-funkcijske prevodno-jezikovne razi­skave, sestavlja vec faz, vse pa so bile opravljene rocno: v prvi fazi so bili iz analiziranih bolgarskih romanov izpisani vsi deležijski polstavki, ki so jim bile dolocene pomenske znacilnosti; v drugi fazi so bile izpisane slovenske prevodne ustreznice bolgarskih polstavkov in opredeljene njihove zgradbene in pomen­sko-funkcijske znacilnosti. Nato je sledila kvalitativna in kvantitativna analiza slovenskih prevodnih ustreznic ob navezavi na izhodišcne deležijske zgradbe.1 1 Zaradi prostorskih omejitev analiza ne vkljucuje casovno-vidskih in položajnih znacilnosti (izhodišcnih polstavkov in njihovih slovenskih ustreznic), ki bodo predmet loceneštudije. R. Grošelj, Prevajajoc iz bolgaršcine – bolgarski deležijski polstavki ... 3 Deležja in deležijski polstavki v bolgaršcini (kontrastivno s slovenšcino) Deležje na -..., ki izvira iz jugozahodnih bolgarskih narecij (kjer je prisotno še danes), se je v sistemu knjižne bolgaršcine uveljavilo konec 19. stol. (Parvev 1982: 382; Stefanova 2007: 224–225), v casu oblikovanja t.i.novobolgarskega knjižnega jezika. Deležijske oblike je knjižna bolgaršcina sprejemala – in tako bogatila svojo skladenjsko-oblikoslovno podobo – tako iz lastnih govorov (npr. na -..., -...., -..., -...) kot iz cerkvene slovanšcine in rušcine (npr. na -.., -.., -., -..., -., -.), med njimi pa so na koncu prevladala ravno deležja na -... (Parvev 1989: 419–426). O širitvi deležij (na -c in -ši) v osrednjesloven­skem knjižnemjeziku pod vplivom vzhodnoslovenskega cerkvenega slovstva v 19. stol. in njihovem »izrinjanju na jezikovno obrobje« med 19. in 20.stol. prim. razpravo M. Jesenška (2006: 219–221). 3.1 Gre za neosebno glagolsko obliko, ki se tvori iz sedanjiške osnove nedovršnih glagolov in pripone -..., npr. ....-..., .....-...; pri glagolih z osnovotvor­nim samoglasnikom -i- se ta zamenja z -e-, npr. .... – ....-... (Parvev 1982: 382; Ilieva 1985: 185; Scatton 1993: 216; Stefanova 2007: 225; Leafgren 2011: 64). Tudi slovensko deležje na -c, -aje oz. -e se (vecinoma)tvori iz sedanjiške osnove: pripona oc se pojavlja pri glagolih na -am, -(u)jem, -em in atematskih glagolih (listajoc, pojoc, mirujoc, plešoc, jedoc), -ec pa pri glagolih na -im (se­dec); oblike na -aje se pojavljajo pri glagoli na -am (listaje) in -ujem (pri slednjih se deležja tvorijo iz nedolocniške podstave, npr. vzdihovaje); glagoli na -imimajo še deležja na -e (molce; vec v Herrity 2000: 190–191; Toporišic 2004: 362–363). 3.2 Deležje je hibridna oblika z znacilnostmi glagola in prislova, ki ima funkci­jo prislovnega dolocila.2Deležijski polstavek je lahko pretvorba stavcne zgrad-be (prislovnega odvisnika), ko so naceloma izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji: oseb­ka polstavka in glavnega stavka sta enaka,3 osebek ima vršilsko udeležensko 2J. Apresjan govori o »spremstvenih okolišcinah«, ki združujejo vse prislovne po­mene deležij (najpogostejši naj bi bil nacinovni; Gugulanova 2005: 200). 3 Deležijski polstavek nima segmentno izraženega osebkovega dolocila: ....... ..... ........., . .... ..... ‘Mati gleda TV, babica pa plete’ proti....... ..... ........., ........ ‘Mati gleda TV, pletoc’ (Gugulanova 2005: 92–94). V sodobnem je­ziku se pojavljajo tudi »neenoosebkovni« zgledi, prim. predmetno-osebkovo sonanašanje: ..... ...... . ... ..... .... . .......... .. ..., ....... ........... ‘Fižolsem zalil z dvema litroma vode in zacenjajoc vreti, sem mu dodal zelenjavo’ (Gugulanova 2005: 154). Odstopanja od t.i. enoosebkovnosti deležijskih zvez v bolgaršcini in rušcini z vidika normativnosti in sprejemljivosti problematizira A. Gradinarova (2014: 78–93). vlogo4 in (dopolnilno) dejanje v polstavku je istodobno dejanju v nadrednem stavku (Parvev 1982: 382; Ilieva 1989: 185; Scatton 1993: 231; Kucarov 1999: 350; Gugulanova 2005: 81, 83, 103, 122, 127, 146, 148; Stefanova 2007: 224– 225).5 Glede na dvojno skladenjsko razmerje – do glagola in osebka nadrednega stavka – lahko v primeru deležijskih zgradb govorimo o povedkovoprilastkovivlogi (npr. Štícha idr. 2013: 722, 724; Panevová idr. 2014: 184–185). Podob­ne znacilnosti izkazujejo tudi slovenska deležja na -c, -aje in -e, pri cemer se deležja na -e vecinoma uporabljajo kot nacinovni prislovi (Herrity 2000: 190–192; Toporišic 2004: 403, 632). V bolgaršcini ima podobne lastnosti kot deležje (istodobnost, tvorba iz ne­dov. glagolov) sedanji tvorni deležnik na -., zaradi cesar nekateri avtorji (npr. Parvev 1982: 382–383; Scatton1993: 231; Kucarov 1999: 350) govorijo o med-sebojni zamenljivosti: .. ... ..-.... .. ... /.../ – .... .., ........... ... ......., .. ......(deležnik) .... ...... ‘jaz sem starejši od vaju – je rekel P., govorec obema, gledajoc pa le Tamaro’. V zacetni poziciji (topik/tema) deležijski polstavek prinaša znano informaci­jo, npr. kot uvod ali pripravo za predstavitev glavne, v postpoziciji (ki naj bi bila najbolj naravna) pa gre za novo ali nepredvideno informacijo (rema; Gugulanova 2005: 102, 196, 198). Bolgarsko deležje ima (dinamicen) okolišcinski pomen (Kucarov 1999: 350), ki ga zaznamujejo razlicni podtipi: (1) cas – ........ .. ......, ......... .. ...... .... .......... .. ....... ......... /.../ ‘gredoc na delo, sta bila Milenkova in Mollov pricakana od na stotine delavcev’; (2) vzrok – /.../ ........... ........ .. ........., ..... ....... ........... .. ............ ‘kršeczakone narave, clovek ogroža lasten obstoj’; (3) dopustnost – .. ..... ......, ............................... ........ ......., ........ .... . ......, ......... . .... .. ‘po drugi strani, ironizirajoc 4 Prim. sicer tudi zglede tipa .. ...... .. ...... .. „........ .. .......“, ...... /…/ ....... ‘E. Mincev je bil razglašen za glasnika ljubezni, pojocšlagerje’ (osebek z udeležensko vlogo prizadeto), ...... .. .. ......, .......... .. ..... .....? ‘Ali ti je bil všec film, gledajocga na velikem ekranu?’ (prejemniški predmet; Gugulanova 2005: 158, 166). 5 Bolgarska deležja (podobno velja za ruska sedanja) lahko izražajo tudi preddobna in zadobna dejanja (Gradinarova 2014: 65–68), ki pa so z dejanjem v osebni glagolski obliki mocno spojena. Za preddobnost: 2-....... .... .. /.../.. ......... ......, ....... .. .......‘dveletni otrok iz vasi Kozarevec je umrl, padajoc s postelje’ (Leaf­gren 2011: 66); za zadobnost: /.../ ....... ........ .... ........., ......... .. .. ........ ‘je vzel steklenico ruma, podajajocjo vozniku’ (Gradinarova 2014: 66). – I. Gugulanova (2005: 148) opozarja, da povedek z imenskim delom blokira rabo deležja: *... . ......, ....................‘On je šofer, upoštevaje razdaljo’. R. Grošelj, Prevajajoc iz bolgaršcine – bolgarski deležijski polstavki ... (masovno kulturo) in odražajoc se na masovni kulturi, jo poezija tudi sprejema, integrira vase’; (4) nacin – /.../ ......... .... .. ........... /…/ ..... . .............. ......... ........., .......... ........ .. ........., ...... . ........ .. ....... ‘Slovani so že asimilirali Tracane in romanizirano tracansko prebivalstvo, sprejemajocelemente tracanske kulture, vere in obicajev’; (5) pogoj – ..................... ... ....... .. ....... ........., ... ..... .. ........ ...... .... .. ............ /.../ ‘prikrivajoc politiko pod obliko sodnega postopka, lahko ocrnimo celotno idejo pravosodja’; (6) logic­na posledica – ... ........ ...... .. ...... .., ................. ...... ‘dvignil je privih svojega suknjica, odkrivajocnekakšno znacko’ (Leafgren 2011: 65–66; Gradinarova 2014: 68–70). O precejšnji pomenski fleksibilnost slovenskih deležij – sicer kot prevodnih ustreznic (pomensko in skladenjsko) razlicnih italijan­skih zgradb – razpravlja T. Mikolic Južnic (2013: 87–90). 3.3 Po mnenju nekaterih avtorjev (Parvev 1982: 383; Stefanova 2007: 225) naj bi bilo deležje (v polstavcnih zgradbah, tj. z dolocili in dopolnili) prisotno – kot slogovna obogatitev jezikovnih sredstev – predvsem v pisnem knjižnem jeziku. I. Gugulanova (2005: 143–144, 204) za 70. in 80. leta 20. stol. navaja rabo deležij v knjižnem jeziku, posebej tudi v publicistiki, pod vplivom medijev pa naj bi se povecevala njihova raba v leposlovju; v sodobni bolgaršcini naj bi deležja postala nevtralna in zvrstno neodvisna jezikovna sredstva (ki jih zaznamuje bolj elasticna in svobodna jezikovna norma).6 A. Gradinarova (2014: 70) opozarja na splošno nizko frekvenco bolgarskega deležja v drugi polovici 20. stol. Po E. A. Scattonu (1993: 216) so v bolgaršcini deležijski polstavki omejeni na formalni (pisni in govorjeni) jezik, medtem ko raziskava J. Leafgrena (2011: 64) kaže, da jih je naj­vec v strokovnem jeziku in parlamentarnih razpravah (od 8,5% do 10,8% vseh zgradb, ki bi lahko imele deležijsko realizacijo), sledijo leposlovje in novinarska besedila (od 2 do 3%), v vsakodnevnih pogovorih ali v spletnih klepetalnicah pa jih skoraj ni (novejše raziskave mi niso bile dostopne). V slovenšcini naj bi bila – po mnenju razlicnih avtorjev (prim. Mikolic Južnic 2013: 72) – raba deležij redka (starinska, nerodna), kar pa sodobne raziskave ne potrjujejo v celoti: po korpusnih raziskavah T. Mikolic Južnic (2012: 150–151; 2013: 78–80) deležij ni zanemarljivo malo v izvirnem leposlovju (464,1/500.000 pojavnic), manj jih je v prevedenem (240,3), sledijo t.i. splošni (pisni) jezik (115), znanstvena (57,7) ter strokovna (zakonodajna) besedila (46,7). 6 Za bolgarsko knjižnojezikovno stilistiko v drugi polovici 20. stol. so bila znacilna priporocila, da se je treba pogosti rabi deležij izogibati (Gradinarova 2014: 64; prim. Martinova-Ivanova 2013: 7). 3.4 Med prevodnimi razpravami, ki vkljucujejo bolgarska deležja, naj opozorim – v skladu s pricujoco študijo – na slavisticne. I. Vaseva (1969) v svoji analizi prevajanja ruskih deležij v bolgaršcino navaja, da bolgaršcina ne pozna deležij dov. vida, da so bolgarska deležja 10,5-krat (v leposlovju celo 26,5-krat) redkej­ša od ruskih in da je v bolgarskih prevodih deležij vec kot v izvirnih besedilih. Avtoricina analiza prevodnih možnosti ruskih deležij nedov. vida v književnih prevodih kaže, da prevladujejoodvisniki z veznikom .... (z nacinovnim, ca-sovnim, tudi vzrocnim pomenom) in obliko glagola nedov. vida (41%), ki jim sledijo priredne (vezalne) stavcne zveze z os. glagolsko obliko (23%), deležja (10%), druga sredstva z okolišcinskim pomenom (10%), npr. predložne zveze, prislovni odvisniki in prislovi, ter – nazadnje – deležniki, pridevniki in prilast­kovi odvisniki (prim. tudi Gradinarova 2014: 70–78).7E. A. Scatton (1993: 231) omenja raziskavo, po kateri je zgolj 14% ruskih deležijskih polstavkov bilo pre­vedenih z bolgarskimi polstavki, ostalim pa so ustrezali odvisniki. I. Gugulanova (2005: 200) izpostavlja redkejšo rabo bolgarskega deležja v primerjavi z visoko frekvenco in slogovno nevtralnostjo (sedanjih in preteklih) deležij v rušcini in poljšcini. P. Martinova-Ivanova (2013) v analizi prevajanja ukrajinskih deležij v bolgaršcino in obratno (le na podlagi enega bolgarskega in ukrajinskega ro­mana ter njunih prevodov) ugotavlja, da se ukrajinska tri deležja (sedanje ter pretekli deležji nedov. in dov. vida) uporabljajo izrazito pogosteje kot bolgarska (razmerje 86 : 1). Bolgarskemunajbližje sedanje deležje (v ukrajinskem romanu je 321 zgledov) se sicer prevaja z bolgarskimi osebnimi glagolskimi oblikami v neodvisniških stavkih (42,7%) in odvisnikih (31,5%), sledijorazlicni deležniki, prislovi, izpusti, predložne zveze, da-zgradbe, zloženi povedki, besedne zveze in – omejeno – deležja, pridevniki in predlogi; redkim bolgarskim deležjem (v bolgarskem romanu je 7 zgledov) pa ustrezajo ukrajinsko sedanje deležje, od­visnik in izpust (Martinova-Ivanova 2013: 10–14).8 Izbrane raziskave v zvezi s slovenskimi deležji kažejo, da le redko prevajajo tujejezicna deležja: v prevodih italijanskih leposlovnih besedil prevladujejo priredni in glavni stavki (52,6%), sledijo raznovrstni odvisniki (20,6%), izpusti in elipse (14,2%) itn., medtem 7Kot bolgarske ustreznice ruskih deležij dov. vida si sledijo (preddobnostni) odvi­sniki s .... (40%), vezalne stavcne zveze (20%), pretekli deležniki (22%), predložne zveze, drugi prislovni odvisniki in prislovi (Vaseva 1969). 8 Bolgarske prevodne ustreznice ukrajinskih preteklih deležij dov. vida so predvsem osebne glagolske oblike v neodvisniških stavkih (46,8 %) in odvisnikih (32 %), manj pa razlicni deležniki (10,8 %), izpusti, predložne zveze, prislovi, da-zgradbe, zloženi povedki (imenski in glagolski), besedne zveze, povedkovi prilastki itn. Zelo redko ukra­jinsko preteklo deležje nedov. vida pa se prevaja z odvisniki in pridevniki (Martinova--Ivanova 2013: 11). R. Grošelj, Prevajajoc iz bolgaršcine – bolgarski deležijski polstavki ... ko je deležijskih zgradb komaj 2% (Mikolic Južnic 2014: 41–45); v prevodih francoskega leposlovja je najvec odvisniških ustreznic (66,9%), sledijo prislovna dolocila (18,3%), priredni stavki (6,6%) itn., deležijskih polstavkov je 1,5% (Mezeg 2014: 55–58). Rezultati in analiza V prvem delu so najprej po pomenskih kategorijah opredeljeni bolgarski deležij-ski polstavki; temu sledi analiza njihovih slovenskih ustreznic, in sicer glede na zgradbene in pomensko-funkcijske znacilnosti ter glede na izhodišcne bolgarske polstavke. Na koncu so predstavljene še najpogostejše slovenske prevodne ustre­ znice po glavnih pomenskih kategorijah bolgarskih deležijskih polstavkov. 4.1 V analiziranih romanih je 477 deležijskih polstavkov (z razporeditvijo 35OH, 14GG, 7PV, 104BD, 317DD),9 pri katerih je mogoce – na podlagi interpretacije raz­merja med vsebinama nadrednega stavka in odvisnega polstavka (gre za t. i. vse­ binsko izpeljavo; Panevová 2014: 184) – prepoznati raznovrstne okolišcinske pomene, ki se lahko razdelijo na enovite in mešane. Med t. i. enovitimi pomenskimi kategorijami, pri katerih je interpretacija (okolišcinskega oz. prislovnega) pomenskega razmerja razmeroma jasna in ho-mogena, se pojavljajo cas (121; 25,4%), nacin (113; 23,7%), vzrok (80; 16,8%) in posledica (22; 4,6%). V t.i. mešane pomenske kategorijepa so uvršceni tisti polstavki, pri katerih je razmerje med vsebinama propozicij možno interpretirati na vsaj dva nacina oz. pri katerih gre za prepletajoce heterogeno pomensko raz­merje (prim. Gradinarova 2014: 69; Mikolic Južnic 2014: 35). Mešane pomen­ske kategorije vkljucujejo (po pogostosti) cas-nacin (83; 17,4%), cas-vzrok (26; 5,4%), nacin-vzrok (7; 1,5%), namen-posledica (6; 1,2%), cas-pogoj (5; 1%), nacin-posledica, nacin-namen, cas-nacin-vzrok (po 3), vzrok-pogoj (2) ter cas­-dopustnost, nacin-dopustnost, cas-namen (po 1).10 9 V vzorcu izrazito izstopa delež pojavnic v obsežnem Tobaku D. Dimitrova (dve tretjini), kar vpliva na nehomogenost vzorca; treba pa je poudariti, da bi bil vzorec po­dobno nehomogen tudi ob izkljucitvi teh zgledov, in sicer zaradi nakljucne prevlade de­ležij v enem od del. To omejitev, ki jo je treba upoštevati pri posplošitvah in rezultatih, bi lahko presegle analize na bolj enotnem in vecjem korpusu besedil. 10 V absolutnem smislu je zaporedje pomenskih kategorij cas, nacin, cas-nacin, vzrok, cas-vzrok, posledica, nacin-vzrok itn. (za nadaljevanje zaporedja prim. pomensko mešane skupine polstavkov). Deležijski polstavki izkazujejo veliko pomensko fleksibilnost (prim. Miko­lic Južnic 2013: 90), ki je posledica razlicnih razmerij med vsebinama povezanih zgradb, sam polstavek pa ima v osnovi le razmerni (splošni) prislovno-predikacijski pomen – gre za odvisno spremljajoco predikacijo (kopredikativno zgradbo), ki je v dolocenem casovnem razmerju z nadredno in se (naceloma) pripisuje osebku nad­redne zgradbe. Obenem jo zaznamuje prislovnost (prim. glagolsko-prislovni znacaj deležja) in odsotnost povezovalca, ki bi ekspliciral skladenjskopomensko razmerje (sama deležniška zgradba razlicnih okolišcinskih pomenov ne signalizira; prim. Gre-pl in Karlík 1998: 245). Z razmerno skladenjskopomensko neeksplicitnostjo ali vsaj manjšo eksplicitnostjo so blizu predvsem brezvezniškim (in vezalnim) medstavcnim prirednim zgradbam. O kompleksni interpretaciji vsebinskega razmerja med deležij-skim polstavkom in nadrednim stavkom razpravlja tudi A. Mezeg (2014: 52). 4.2 Bolgarski deležijski polstavki so prevedeni na zelo razlicne nacine, posame­zne zgradbene možnosti pa se lahko uvrstijo v nekaj krovnih kategorij (prim. Mikolic Južnic 2014: 41–45; Mezeg 2014: 55–58). Med prevodnimi ustreznicami (477) je najvec stavcnoprirednih zgradb (154; 32,3%), med katerimi je dalec najpogostejše vezalno priredje (133; 27,9%), sle­dijo protivno (13; 2,7%), posledicno (5; 1%) in vzrocno priredje (3; 0,6%). Na drugem mestu so stavcnopodrednezgradbe (115; 24,1%), in sicer casovni (59; 12,4%), namerni (21; 4,4%), oziralni (10; 2,1%), primerjalni (7; 1,5%), vzrocni in nacinovni (po 6; 1,2%), posledicni (2; 0,4%), predmetni, pogojni, dopustni in povedkoprilastkov odvisnik (po 1; 0,2 %). Sledijo polstavcne zgradbe (93; 19,5%), ki se delijo na deležijske (86; 18%) in nedeležijske (7; 1,5%). Med be-sednimi in besednozveznimiustreznicami (57; 11,9%) se pojavlja najvec pre­dložnih zvez (49; 10,3%), mnogo manj je prislovnih zvez(4; 0,8%), prislovov (3; 0,6%) in pridevniških zvez(1; 0,2%). Peto kategorijo po pogostosti predstavljajo posebne stavcne zgradbe (38; 8%), med katere sodijo razdruženi samostojni stavki (32; 6,7%) in posebne spremenjene stavcne zgradbe (6; 1,2%). Zadnjo kategorijo predstavljajo izpusti (20; 4,2%).11 4.2.1 Med 154 stavcnoprirednimiustreznicami je izrazito najvec vezalnih (133; 27,9 % vseh ustreznic), ki izhodišcno deležijsko vsebino (razlicna pomenska razmerja) pridružujejo (vezniško in brezvezniško) nadredni, jo predstavljajo kot skladenjskopomensko nevtralno povezano dejanje – bodisi spremljajoce/soob­stajajoce bodisi zaporedno (natancnejša pomenska opredelitev izhaja iz razmerja 11 V ponazoritvah bolgarskemu zgledu (brez strani) sledita dobesedni prevod in pre­vodni zgled (s stranjo). – V opombah so prevodne ustreznice povezane (po pogostosti) z izhodišcnimi pomenskimi kategorijami bolgarskih polstavkov. R. Grošelj, Prevajajoc iz bolgaršcine – bolgarski deležijski polstavki ... med vsebinama propozicij); prim. (1) za vezalnopriredne ustreznice bolgarskih polstavkov s pomeni (a) cas, (b) cas-vzrok in (c) nacin-posledica. Med priredni-mi ustreznicami drugo mesto zasedajo »protivne« (13; 2,7%), pri cemer je »pro­tivnost« oz. razlikovalnost nevtralizirana – vecinoma gre za casovno (istodobno, prim. medtem pa, vmes pa) ali posledicno razmerje; prim. (2) za protivnopriredno ustreznico izhodišcno posledicnega polstavka. Posledicno priredje(5; 1%) veci­noma ustreza izhodišcnim vzrocnim deležijskim zvezam, prim. (3a), kar kaže na transpozicijo v prevodu (Fawcett 1997: 37), le enkrat pa izhodišcno casovnemu polstavku, prim. (3b). Vzrocno priredje(3; 0,6%) ustreza enakopomenskim iz­hodišcnim deležijskim zvezam, prim (4).12 (1) (a) /…/........ .........., ............. (OH), dob. ‘je vzdihnil režiser, praska-jocbrado’ – /…/ je vzdihnil režiser in se popraskal po bradi (OHS, 119); (b) .... .. .. ........ ... . ...... /…/ ......... . ......., ......../…/ (PV), dob. ‘oce ga je mocno zagrabil v svoj objem in sesljal, ihtec’ – Oce ga je krepko stisnil v svoj objem /…/ ter hlipalin jecljal /…/ (PVS, 53); (c) ....... .. ....., ................... .. .......... .... (DD), dob. ‘Herakli se je zasmejal, pokazujocneciste polomljene zobe’ – Herakli se je zasmejal in pokazal svoje crne, polomljene zobe (DDS, 662). (2) ...... .. „.........“ . ....... ......... ....... .. .. ........ .. ....... ....... . ... .. ... /…/ .. .... .......... . ........., ......... ... ...... ....... .. ......... . ..... (DD), dob. ‘svet Nikotiane in Nemškega cigaretnega koncerna se je razpadel na locene bloke in dva med njimi sta zdrknila v prepad, pušcajocza seboj obcutekkrivde in žalosti’– Nikotiana in nemški koncern za cigarete sta razpadla v drobce in dva izmed njih /…/sta zdrknila v prepad, za njima pa je ostal obcutek krivde in žalost (DDS, 776). (3) (a) ... ....... ...., .. ............ .. ........ (DD), dob. ‘neumno je obmol­knil, ne vedoc, kaj naj odgovori’ – Boris ni vedel, kaj naj ji odgovori, zato je umolknil (DDS, 593); (b) ....... ............ .. .... .........., ................ .............. .. .. .......... /…/ (DD), dob. ‘bolnica je še naprej nebogljeno mežikala, žalostno se zavedajocsvoje nesposobnosti, da bi razmišljala’ – Bolnica je nejasno cutila, da ne more razmišljati, zato je nebogljeno zamežikala /…/ (DDS, 275). (4) /…/ .... .. ... ..... ....., ................... ....... .. ..... .... (OH), dob. ‘je rekla s stisnjenim grlom, pricakujoctakojšnji posmeh Naska Neta’ – /…/ je dejala in nekaj jo je stisnilo v grlu, kajti pricakovala je, da se ji bo Nasko Ne zacel posmehovati (OHS, 58). 12Vezalno priredje se kot najpogostejša prevodna možnost pojavlja v kategorijah na-cin-posledica (3/3; 100%), posledica (12/22; 54,5%), cas-nacin (35/83; 42,2%), cas-vzrok (8/26; 30,8%), nacin (30/113;26,5%)inkotenaodsedmihenakovrednihprinacinovno--vzrocnih polstavkih (1/7; 14,3%); v kategorijicas (36/121; 29,7%) je druga najpogostejša ustreznica; prim. še vzrok (8/80; 10%). Protivno priredje v nobeni od kategorij ne sodi med najpogostejše prevodne možnosti: posledica (2/22; 9,1%), cas (6/121; 4,9%), cas-nacin (3/83; 3,6%) in nacin (2/113; 1,8%). Podobno velja za posledicno, prim. vzrok (4/80; 5%) in cas (1/121; 0,8%), in vzrocnopriredje, prim. vzrok (3/80; 3,7%). 4.2.2 Med 115 stavcnopodrednimiustreznicami je najvec casovnih odvisnikov (59; 12,4% vseh ustreznic), ki se pomensko deloma prekrivajo z izhodišcnimi polstavki (prim. casovne kategorije), deloma pa v prevod vnašajo spremenjeno pomensko interpretacijo, prim. (5) za casovno odvisniško ustreznico bolgarskih deležijskih zgradb s pomeni (a) cas-nacin-vzrok in (b) vzrok-pogoj. Namerni od­visniki (21; 4,4%) vecinoma ustrezajo vzrocnemu oz. casovno-vzrocnemu izho-dišcnemu razmerju, medtem ko izhodišcno namernemu (vsaj deloma) razmer­ju ustreza manj zgledov (a so v tem okviru med najpogostejšimi ustreznicami); prim. (6) za ustreznici deležijskih zgradb s pomenoma (a) nacin-namen in (b) cas-namen. Oziralni odvisniki (10; 2,1%) vecinoma nastopajo – funkcijsko – v vlogi prilastka, ki lastnostno opredeljuje ali uvaja dopolnilno(spremljajoco) in-formacijo; vecinoma je povezovalno sredstvo oziralnik ki, enkrat se pojavita tudi kateri in absolutni kar (ki kaže na neprilastkovno razmerje, podobno vezalnemu). Oziralno-prilastkovi odvisniki prevajajo pomensko razlicne deležijske polstavke; prim. (7) za ustreznico namerno-posledicnega polstavka. Primerjalni odvisni­ki (7; 1,5%), ki so kot lastnostni sorodni pravim nacinovnim (prim. Toporišic 2004: 641–642), se pomensko vecinoma oddaljujejo od izhodišcnih polstavkov, prim. (8) za primerjalno odvisniško ustreznico vzrocnega polstavka. Vsi vzrocni odvisniki (6; 1,2%) so prevodne ustreznice deležijskih polstavkov z vzrocnim pomenom, lahko tudi v smislu vzrocnega odtenka, ki sooblikuje mešano razmer­je, prim. (9a) za ustreznico vzrocno-pogojnega izhodišcnega polstavka. Enako pogosti nacinovni odvisnikiustrezajo nacinovnim bolgarskim polstavkom, prim. (9b) za ustreznico nacinovno-vzrocnega polstavka.13 13 Casovni odv. so najpogostejša ustreznica v kategorijah cas-nacin-vzrok (edina – 3/3; 100%), vzrok-pogoj (1/2; 50%), cas-pogoj (2/5; 40%), cas (42/121; 34,7%), na-cin-vzrok (1/7; 14,3%), druga po pogostosti pa v cas-vzrok (5/26; 19,2%); v kategorijah cas-nacin (4/83; 4,8%) in nacin (1/113; 0,9%) gre za manj pogosto prevodno možnost. Namerni odv. so edina ustreznica v redkejših (po številu zgledov) kategorijah nacin-na-men (3/3; 100%) in cas-namen (1/1; 100%), druga po pogostosti pa v kategorijah vzrok (14/80; 17,5%) in namen-posledica (1/6; 16,7%); prim. šecas-vzrok (2/26; 7,7%). Oziral­ni odv. sodijo med najpogostejše ustreznice v šibkejših (po številu zgledov) kategorijah nacin-vzrok (sedem enakovrednih ustreznic – 14,3%) in namen-posledica (1/6; 16,7%), pri pomenih vzrok (3/80; 3,7%),nacin (2/113; 1,8%),cas (2/121; 1,6%),cas-nacin (1/83; 1,2%) pa so manj pogoste ustreznice. Primerjalni odv. so pogostejša prevodna ustre­znica le v kategoriji nacin-vzrok (sedem enakovrednih ustreznic – 1/7; 14,3%), prim. še vzrok (5/80; 6,2%) in cas (1/121; 0,8%). Vzrocni odv. se kot najpogostejša ustreznica pojavljajo v redko zastopanih kategorijah vzrok-pogoj (1/2; 50%) in nacin-vzrok (sedem enakovrednih ustreznic – 1/7; 14,3%), kot manj pogosta pa v kategoriji vzrok (4/80; 5%). Nacinovni odv. so pogostejša ustreznica (ena od sedmih enakovrednih) le v kategoriji nacin-vzrok (1/7; 14,3%); prim. še nacin (4/113; 3,5%) in cas-nacin (1/83; 1,2%). R. Grošelj, Prevajajoc iz bolgaršcine – bolgarski deležijski polstavki ... (5) (a) .. .......... ....., .. ................... .. ........., ..... ....... ........... .. ............ (PV), dob. ‘na sestanku sem rekel, da kršec naravne zakone clovek riskira lasten obstoj’ – Na sestanku sem rekel, da clovek, ko deluje proti naravnim zakonom, tvega svoj obstoj (PVS, 377); (b) ................ .. .... .. .......... .., ... ... ......... ...., ... .......... ......... .... .. .... ... .... (OH), dob. ‘sporocajocosebno štabu svoje odkritje, bi rešil Fani in dobil nagrado, da lahko prvi leti na Mars’ – Ko bo osebno sporocil štabu svoje odkritje, bo Fani rešil in dobil za nagrado prvi polet na Mars (OHS, 109). (6) (a) ...... ....... ........ .. ...... .., ................ ........ .. ...... (BD), dob. ‘Dimana podpira bradico s svojo roko, izpostavljajoc naprej ele­gantne prste’ – Dimana si podpira bradico z roko, da je videti, kako lepi so njeni prsti (BDS, 220); (b) ......... ........... .., .. ...... /…/ (DD), dob. ‘skrivajoc svoje zacudenje, je vprašala’ – Da bi prikrila svoje prijetno presenecenje, je vprašala /…/ (DDS, 834). (7) .... /…/ ..... . ........ .... . .. ...... ... ......... ... ..........., .................... ..... .. .. ....... .... (BD), dob. ‘Lina je pisnila z nestrpnim glasom in se skrila za zaveso pri obešalnikih, kukajoc radovedno od tam, da ne bi cesa izpustila’ – Lina /…/ je nestrpno kriknila in se skrila za zaveso pri obe­šalniku, izza katere je radovedno kukala, da ji ne bi kaj ušlo (BDS, 27). (8) ...... ........ ........., ......... ....... ............. .. (DD), dob. ‘Kostov je pogledal Nemca, želecrazumeti njegov vtis’ – Kostov je pogledal Nemca, kakor bi hotel prebrati njegove misli (DDS, 670). (9) (a) .. .. ...... . ......., ............ ...., ......, ... .... .., ........... (BV), dob. ‘užalila ga boš in razburila, izenacujocga, cistega, s samo seboj, sumljivo’ – Užaljen in ogorcen bo, ker ga, cistega, kot je, enaciš s seboj, ki si sumljiva (BDS , 427); (b) ...... ..... .. ..... .. . ...... ...., .. .. .. ....... ...., ................. .. (DD), dob. ‘naenkrat se je Pavel vrnil, da bi ji podal roko, toda ona je vstala sama, odklanjajocnjegovo pomoc’ – Ko ji je Pavel ponudil roko, je sama vstala, ne da bi sprejela njegovo pomoc (DDS, 556). Med najredkejšimi odvisniškimi možnostmi se pojavljata posledicna odvisnika (0,4%), ki ustrezata posledicnim deležijskim zgradbam, prim. (10). S posame­znimi zgledi (0,2%) so izpricani predmetni odvisnik z izrazitim vzrocnim pome­nom (ob povedku biti žal), ki prevaja casovno-vzrocni deležijski polstavek, prim. (11a); pogojni odvisnik kot prevodna ustreznica casovno-pogojnega polstavka, prim. (11b); dopustni odvisnik kot ustreznica nacinovno-dopustnega polstavka, prim. (11c); povedkovoprilastkov odvisnik, ki ustreza nacinovnideležijski zgrad-bi (znacilnost osebka), prim. (11c).14 14 Posledicna odv. sta manj pogosti ustreznici v kategoriji posledica (2/22; 9%). S posameznimi zgledi izpricani odvisniki so vecinoma manj pogoste ustreznice izhodišc­nih deležijskih zgradb: predmetni odv. – cas-vzrok (1/26; 3,4%); pogojni odv. – cas-po­goj (1/5; 20%); povedkovoprilastkov odv. – nacin (1/113; 0,8%). Dopustni odv. je edina prevodna možnost v kategoriji nacin-dopustnost (1/1; 100%). (10) .... ......... ....... ...... /…/ ............ ..... /…/, .............. ....... .... (BD), dob. ‘celo znani bradati vici so zveneli sveže, vzbujajoc glasen smeh’ – Celo ce je pripovedoval že znane stare dovtipe /…/, so delovali sveže /…/, da so vzbujali glasen smeh (BDS, 285). (11) (a) /…/ . .. .. .........., ........ ... ......... .. ......... ...... . ........ . .. ........ ...... (DD), dob. ‘tudi ona se je kesala, mislecz obža­lovanjem na žalostne bore v Camkoriji in na hladne zvezde’ – /…/ in zdaj ji je bilo žal, da je zapustila otožne bore v Camkoriji in hladne zvezde (DDS, 589); (b) .... .., ............ ... ....., .. . ...... ..... .. ...... .. ............, .. ........... ...../…/ . ...... ...... (PV), dob. ‘tako da, izhajajoc iz te misli, ni težko, da clovek pride do sklepa, da je dosedanja metoda precej nevarna’ – Ce nam je ta misel iztocnica, clovek kaj lahko pride do sklepa, da je sedanja metoda /…/ na vso moc nevarna (PVS, 228); (c) ......... .. . ......, ..................... ..... .... .. .... (DD), dob. ‘locili so se z navelicanjem, simulirajoc prijateljske skrbi drug za drugega’ – Locili so se navelicani drug drugega, ceprav so se delali, kakor da so drug za drugega prijateljsko zaskrbljeni (DDS, 811); (c) .......... .. .......... .. ...... .... .......... ..... ... ........ .. .... .. ........, .............. .... (OH), dob. ‘nepricakovano se je v daljavi pokazal Saša Kobaltna pest z zeleno karirasto srajco, dvigajocoblake prahu’ – Naenkrat je od dalec zagledala Sašo Kobaltno pest v zeleni karirasti srajci, kako tece in dviga velikanski oblak prahu (OHS, 29). 4.2.3 Polstavcne ustreznice so tudi razmeroma pogoste (93), sploh deležijske (86; 18% vseh ustreznic) – gre za drugo najpogostejšo prevodno možnost, ki se zgradbeno in pomensko-funkcijsko približujejo jezikovnemu sredstvu v iz­virniku; po pogostosti deležja kot prevodne ustreznice se analizirani bolgarski prevodi locijo od italijanskih ali francoskih, v katerih je deležje znatno redkejše – npr. T. Mikolic Južnic (2014: 37–46) je v analizi slovenskih prevodov sodob­nih italijanskih proznih del (7 del, 2136 deležij) zasledila 2% deležijskih ustre­znic, A. Mezeg (2014: 54–61) pa jih je v prevodih iz francošcine (12 del, 257 deležijskih polstavkov) našla zgolj 1,5%. Rezultat morda kaže na vecjo (tudi slogovno) prekrivnost deležijskih zgradb v bolgaršcini in slovenšcini. Prim. (12) za deležijske polstavke kot ustreznice bolgarskih polstavkov s pomenom (a) cas­-pogoj in (b) vzrok. Redkejši so nedeležijski polstavki(7; 1,5%) z deležniškim (4), pridevniškim (2) ali prislovnim (1) predikacijskim jedrom, njihova vloga pa je prilastkovna ali povedkovoprilastkovna, prim. (13) za ustreznico izhodišcnega casovno-vzrocnega polstavka.15 15 Deležijskipolstavki so najpogostejša ustreznica v pomenskih skupinah cas-pogoj (2/5; 40 %), namen-posledica (2/6; 33 %), vzrok (21/80; 26,2 %) in nacin-vzrok (ena od sedmih enakovrednih možnosti – 1/7; 14,3%); druga najpogostejša ustreznica so v kategorijah nacin (29/113; 25,7%), cas-nacin (12/83; 14,4%), posledica (3/22; 13,6%); prim. še cas-vzrok (3/26; 11,5%), cas (13/121; 10,7%). Nedeležijskipolstavki so v vseh R. Grošelj, Prevajajoc iz bolgaršcine – bolgarski deležijski polstavki ... (12) (a) ........ ....... .. ....... ...... .... .......... closet, .. ....... .. .......... claudo, clausis /…/(GG) – Vracajoc se v preteklost od današnjega stranišca prek angleškega closet, bomo prispeli do latinskega claudo, clausis /…/ (GGS, 40); (b) /…/ ..... ...... ......, .......... ........ ....... .. ......... (DD), dob. ‘je zagotovil Viktor Efimic, zavedajoc se vse pomembnosti narocila’ – /…/ je zatrdil Viktor Efimic, dobro zavedajocse pomembnosti narocila (DDS, 458). (13) .... ........ . ...... ...... ... .... ...., ........ . ..........., .................... ... ......... .. ...... (DD), dob. ‘samo sonce in morje sta sijali tiho, spokojno in zaslepljujoce, ostajajocravnodušni do cloveških skrbi’ – Samo sonce in morje je blestelo tiho, mirno in zaslepljujoce kakor prej, nedovzetno za cloveške skrbi (DDS, 495). 4.2.4 Besedne in besednozvezneustreznice (57) v veliki vecini sestavljajo pri­slovnodolocilne predložne zveze(49; 10,3% vseh ustreznic), med katerimi naj-demo nacinovne (z dodatnim spremstvenim, sredstvenim, oziralnim pomenom), krajevne in casovne, vzrocne in posledicne; predložne zvezepogosto pomensko ustrezajo izhodišcnemu polstavku, vcasih pa se od njega tudi oddaljujejo, prim. (14) za zvezi, ki ustrezata deležniškima zgradbama s pomenoma (a) nacin in (b) cas. Štiri prislovne zveze (0,8%) s casovnim, casovno-krajevnim oz. nacinovnim pomenom naceloma ohranjajo izhodišcni pomensko-funkcijski okvir, prim. (15a) za ustreznico casovno-dopustnega bolgarskega polstavka, podobno pa velja tudi za tri nacinovne prislove (0,6%), ki prevajajo bolgarske nacinovne polstavke, prim. (15b). Povedkovoprilastkova pridevniška zveza (znacilnostna opredelitev osebka) ustreza izhodišcni casovno-nacinovni deležijski zvezi, prim.16 (14) (a) ......., ..... .......... .........., ............ ........ ...... (DD), dob. ‘Preibisch, ki je zakljuceval racune, delajocz racunskim strojem’ – Zdaj je bil v njej Preibisch, ki je /…/zakljuceval neke racune na racunskem stroju (DDS, 607); (b) ... ......... .... /…/...., .. ..... .. ........ ..... ......., ...................... ..... (DD), dob. ‘imel je rad samo ženske, ki jih je obcudoval vsak teden, obiskujocameriške filme’ – Všec so mu bile samo /…/ ženske, ki si jih je enkrat na teden ogledoval v ameriških filmih (DDS, 365). kategorijah izhodišcnih deležijskih polstavkov manj pogosta prevodna možnost, prim. cas (3/121; 2,5%), vzrok (2/80; 2,5%), cas-vzrok (1/26; 1,9%) in nacin (1/113; 0,9%). 16 Predložnezveze so druga najpogostejša prevodna možnost v kategorijicas-nacin (12/83; 14,4%); prim. še nacin (22/113;19,5%), cas-vzrok (3/26; 11,5%), vzrok (5/80; 6,2%), cas (6/121; 4,9%) inposledica (1/22; 4,5%).Prislovne zveze so edina ustreznica v kategoriji cas-dopustnost (1/1; 100%); gre sicer za redko prevodno možnost, prim. cas (1/121; 0,8%) in nacin (2/113; 1,8%). Prislovi so manj pogosta prevodna ustreznica nacinovnih polstavkov (3/113; 2,6%); podobno velja za pridevniško zvezo v kategoriji cas-nacin (1/83; 1,2%). (15) (a) .... ... .. ....., ..... . ........, ...... ....... (BD), dob. ‘imaš videz cloveka, ki tudi hodecnaporno dela’ – Videti si kakor clovek, ki tudi tedaj, ko hodi, naporno dela (BDS, 330); (b) ............., .... ...... ........ .. ....... /…/ (DD), dob. ‘pocasi hodec, je Lila neopazno prišla do jezera’ – Lila je pocasi prišla do ribnika /…/(DDS, 260). (16) . ........... .. ....... ......., .......... ......, ...... . ...., .. .......... ............ .. ......... .. (DD), dob. ‘v teku nekaj sekund je, cutecsreco, bridkost in bolecino, nezavedno odgovarjala na njegovepoljube’ – Nekaj sekund je srecna, presunjena in obupana nezavedno odgovarjala na njegove poljube (DDS, 210). 4.2.5 Najpogostejša posebna stavcna zgradba (38) so razdruženi samostojni stavki (32; 6,7% vseh ustreznic) – izhodišcna stavcno-polstavcna zgradba je raz­bita na dve samostojni stavcni(prim. Toporišic 2004: 490), njuno medsebojno razmerje pa je podobno vezalnemu, prim. (17) za ustreznico posledicnega pol-stavka. Drugacne so spremenjene stavcne zgradbe(6; 1,2%), ki vsebujejo pre­tvorbo polstavka v glavni stavek (z odvisnikom, ki ustreza izhodišcni nadredni zgradbi) ali pretvorbo deležja v povedek glavnega stavka, prim. (18) za prevod izhodišcne zveze s casovno-nacinovnim polstavkom.17 (17) .......... ...... ..., ................ ....... .. ...., .. ......... . ................. /…/ (DD), dob. ‘direktor je ostal sam, cutec nejasno obcutje otožnosti, grenkobe in nezadovoljstva’ – Direktor je ostal sam. Obšlo ga je klavrno custvo nezadovoljstva /…/ (DDS, 178). (18) .... ................ .., .. ...... ... ...... (OH), dob. ‘komaj zadržujoc solze, je krenila k izhodu’ – Le s težavo je zadrževala solze, ko je odhajala (OHS, 38). 4.2.6 V prevodu je bilo izpušcenih 20 (4,2%) deležijskih polstavkov, ki sodijo v razlicne pomenske kategorije,18 prim. (19) z izpustoma (a) casovno-vzrocnega in (b) namerno-posledicnega polstavka (v prvem primeru gre za opustitev vecjega besedilnega dela). 17Samostojni stavki so redkejše prevodne ustreznice bolgarskih deležijskih zgradb s pomenom cas-nacin (11/83; 13,2%),posledica (2/22; 9,1%), vzrok (6/80; 7,5%),nacin (7/113; 6,2%), cas (5/121; 4,1%), cas-vzrok (1/26; 3,8%). Posebne spremenjenestavc­ne zgradbe so redkejše ustreznice polstavkov s pomeni cas-vzrok (1/26; 3,8%), nacin (4/113; 3,5%) in cas-nacin (1/83; 1,2%). 18 Izpusti so vecinoma redkejša prevodna možnost, prim.vzrok (5/80; 6,2%), nacin (5/113; 4,4%), cas (5/121; 4,1%), cas-vzrok (1/26; 3,8%) in cas-nacin (2/83; 2,4%); izje-ma je kategorija namen-posledica (2/6; 33%). R. Grošelj, Prevajajoc iz bolgaršcine – bolgarski deležijski polstavki ... (19) (a) ..... ....... . ......... ....... .., ....... .... ...... ........... .... . ... /…/ (DD), dob. ‘clovek je zacudeno gledal vzorce, trudec se, da bi v njih odkril skrivnostno idejo’; (b) ........ ........ .... ....... .. ..... . .........., ............ ........... .., ....... .. .. ..... ..... ...... (DD), dob. ‘glavni asistent je stopil ven za trenutek in študenti, izkorišcajoc njegovo odsotnost, so se zaceli poditi med mizami’ – Glavni asistent je za kratek cas odšel iz predavalnice in študentje Ř so se zaceli poditi med mizami (DDS, 113). Med 477 prevodnimi ustreznicami bolgarskih deležijskih polstavkov prevladujejo t.i. oblikoslovno-skladenjske razširitve – prevodne ustreznice, ki so oblikoskla­denjsko bolj eksplicitne oz. bolj transparentne od prevodnih enot, kar pomeni, da so pomenske sestavine prevodnih enot v prevodu izražene z vecjim številom obli­koskladenjskih sredstev kot v izvirniku; prim. stavcne prevode angleških polstavc­nih zgradb (z neos. glagolskimi oblikami; Milojevic Sheppard 1997a: 59–60).19 Tovrstnih razširitev izhodišcnih zgradb je za slabi dve tretjini (307; 64,4%), prim. stavcnopriredne, stavcnopodredne in posebne stavcne zgradbe. Slaba petina (93; 19,5%) prevodnih zgradb naceloma ohranja oblikoskladenjsko kompleksnost, prim. polstavcne ustreznice, medtem ko je oblikoslovno-skladenjskih redukcij (prim. besedne ali besednozvezne ustreznice), ki so oblikoskladenjsko manj ek­ splicitne oz. manj transparente od izhodišcnih zgradb (Milojevic Sheppard 1997a: 64), manj – 57 oz. 11,9%. Najmanj je izpustov (20; 4,2%). Raven izhodišcne eksplicitnosti (oz. neeksplicitnosti) skladenjskopomenske­ga razmerja med nadrednim stavkom in odvisnim polstavkom – gre za pomen­sko razmerje med dvema skladenjskima zgradbama – se ohranja v polstavcnih, predvsem deležijskih ustreznicah; neeksplicitno skladenjskopomensko razmerje zaznamuje tudi (vezniško in brezvezniško) vezalno in posebne stavcne zgradbe – ceprav predstavljajo oblikoslovno-skladenjske razširitve, je mogoce tem zgrad­bam dolociti priredno (povezovalno) razmerje, natancnejša pomenska opredeli­tev pa je rezultat interpretacije razmerja med vsebinama propozicij (prim. Mezeg 2014: 52). Do vecje skladenjskopomenske eksplicitacije oz. jasnejše zastopanosti izhodišcnih (impliciranih) skladenjskopomenskih znacilnosti(jasnejša skladenj-ska in pomenska vloga; prim. Fawcett 1997: 100; Milojevic Sheppard 1997b: 101; Mezeg 2014: 53) prihaja v primeru protivnega, posledicnega in vzrocnega priredja in stavcnopodrednih zgradb. Skladenjska in pomenska vloga bese­dnih in besednozveznihustreznic v nadrednih zgradbah je prav tako dolocljiva bolj eksplicitno, pa ceprav gre za reducirane zgradbe. 19 Pogosto se razširjajo prilastki (besednozvezna dolocila) in prislovna dolocila (stavcnofunkcijsko) ter polstavki (neosebnoglagolski ter brezglagolski), ki so posledica stavcne redukcije (Milojevic Sheppard 1997a: 61, 64; 1997b: 100). Prislovnodolocilna oz. povedkovoprilastkovna funkcija izhodišcnih dele­žijskih polstavkov se ohranja v vecini stavcnopodrednih (izjema so oziralni in predmetni odvisniki), polstavcnih ter besednih in besednozveznih ustreznic (v manjši meri nastopajo tudi kot prilastki); stavcnopriredne, posebne stavcne in izpustne možnosti se skladenjskofunkcijsko oddaljujejo od izhodišcnih deležij­skih zgradb. V prevodu prihaja tudi do vsebinskih pomenskih odmikov od izhodišcnega besedila – od izhodišcnih deležijskih zgradb se najveckrat oddaljijo protivno in posledicno priredje, primerjalni, namerni, casovni in oziralni odvisniki, predlo­žne zveze ter nedeležijski polstavki, ki pogosto kažejo na drugacna pomenska razmerja kot izhodišcni polstavki. Raznolikim izhodišcnim pomenom ustrezajo skladenjskopomensko ekstenzivni vezalno priredje ter posebne stavcne zgradbe. Ostale prevodne ustreznice naceloma ohranjajo izhodišcne pomenske znacilno­sti, prim. vzrocne priredne in podredne zgradbe, predmetni odvisnik z vzrocnim pomenom in povedkovoprilastkov odvisnik z nacinovnim pomenom, pogojni, po­sledicni, nacinovni in dopustni odvisniki, nacinovni prislovi, prislovne zveze s ca-sovnim in nacinovnim pomenom ter pridevniška zveza z lastnostnim pomenom. Slovenski deležijski polstavki pomensko ustrezajo svojim izhodišcnim zgradbam, ki izkazujejo pomene nacin, vzrok, cas, cas-nacin, posledica, cas-vzrok, cas-po­goj, namen-posledica in nacin-vzrok. 4.3 Analizo zakljucuje povzemalni pregled prevodnih ustreznic bolgarskih pol-stavkov po glavnih pomenskih kategorijah, prim. cas, nacin, cas-nacin, vzrok, cas-vzrok in posledica, ki predstavljajo dobrih 93 % vseh zgradb v izvirniku (upoštevane so zgolj ustreznice z vec kot 5 pojavnicami na kategorijo). Casovni polstavki (121) so najveckrat prevedeni s casovnimi odvisniki (42), sledijo vezalno povezani stavki (36), deležijski polstavki (13), protivno povezani stavki in nacinovne, krajevne (in casovne) predložne zveze (po 6), razdruženi stavki in izpusti (po 5). Nacinovnim polstavkom (113) vecinoma ustrezajo vezal-no povezani stavki (30), deležijski polstavki (29), nacinovne in krajevne predlo­žne zveze (22), razdruženi stavki (7) in izpusti (5). Casovno-nacinovni polstavki (83) se pogosto prevajajo vezalno povezanimi stavki (35), nacinovnimi, krajev­nimi (in casovnimi) predložnimi zvezami in deležijskimi polstavki (po 12), raz­druženimi stavki (11). Vzorcnim polstavkom (80) ustrezajo predvsem deležijski polstavki (21), namerni odvisniki (14), vezalno povezani stavki (8), razdruženi samostojni stavki (6), primerjalni odvisniki, vzrocne predložne zveze in izpusti (po 5). Casovno-vzrocnideležijski polstavki (26) so najveckrat prevedeni z ve­zalno povezanimi stavki (8) in casovnimi odvisniki (5). Posledicnim polstavkom (22) pa v prevodu vecinoma ustrezajo vezalno povezani stavki (12). R. Grošelj, Prevajajoc iz bolgaršcine – bolgarski deležijski polstavki ... V vseh pomenskih kategorijah se med prevodnimi možnostmi (nadpisana številka oznacuje vrstni red ustreznice po pogostosti v kategoriji) pojavljajo ve­zalno povezani stavki (cas2, nacin1, cas-nacin1, vzrok3, cas-vzrok1, posledica1), v štirih kategorijah deležijski polstavki (cas3, nacin2, cas-nacin3, vzrok1), razdruženi stavki (cas6, nacin4, cas-nacin4, vzrok4) in razlicne predložne zveze (cas5, nacin3, cas-nacin2, vzrok5), v treh izpusti (cas7, nacin5, vzrok5), v dveh casovni odvisniki (cas1, cas-vzrok2), v zgolj eni primerjalni (vzrok5) in namerni odvisniki (vzrok2) ter protivno povezani stavki (cas4). 5. Sklep V analiziranih bolgarskih književnih delih (za problematiko vzorca glej op. 9) se pojavlja 477 deležijskih polstavkov, ki kažejo na raznovrstnapomenska razmer­ja. To je posledica njihove skladenjskopomenske neeksplicitnosti oz. ekstenziv­ nosti (gre za odvisne spremljajoce predikacijske zgradbe s splošnim prislovnim pomenom), ki jo natancneje opredeljuje šele razmerje med vsebinama nadredne in odvisne zgradbe (kompleksnost razmerja se odraža tudi v prehodnih pomen­skih odtenkih). Najbolje zastopane pomenske kategorije so cas, nacin, cas-nacin, vzrok, cas-vzrok, posledica (manj pogoste so nacin-vzrok, namen-posledica, cas­-pogoj, nacin-posledica, nacin-namen, cas-nacin-vzrok, vzrok-pogoj, cas-dopu­stnost, nacin-dopustnost, cas-namen). Med prevodnimi ustreznicami bolgarskih deležijskih polstavkov prevladu­jejo t.i. oblikoslovno-skladenjske razširitve – ustreznice, ki so oblikoskladenj­sko bolj eksplicitne od prevodnih enot, prim. stavcnopriredne (32,3%; 4 tipi priredij), stavcnopodredne (24,1%; 11 tipov odvisnikov) in posebne stavcne zgradbe(8%; 2 podtipa). Tem sledijo polstavcnezgradbe (19,5%; 2 podtipa) s podobno ravnjo skladenjske eksplicitnosti, oblikovno-skladenjsko reducira­ne besedne in besedozvezne ustreznice (11,9%; 4 podtipi) in izpusti(4,2%). Med posameznimi prevodnimi zgradbami prevladujejo vezalno povezani stavki (27,9%), deležijski polstavki (18%), casovni odvisniki (12,4%), predložne zveze (10,3%) in razdruženi samostojni stavki (6,7%). Skladenjskopomensko razmerje med ustreznicami izhodišcnih nadrednih in polstavcnih zgradb je najmanj eksplicitno izraženo v polstavcnih ter – kljub oblikoslovno-skladenjski razširitvi – nekaterih stavcnoprirednih (vezalno pri­redje) in posebnih stavcnih zgradbah(pribl. 55%); v teh primerih je skladenj­skopomensko razmerje treba natancneje interpretirati glede na vsebino povezanih zgradb. Jasnejša skladenjskofunkcijska in pomenska vloga zaznamuje posledicno in vzrocno priredje, stavcnopodrednezgradbe in – kljub reduciranosti – besedne in besednozvezne ustreznice. Stavcnopriredne in posebne stavcne zgradbe se skladenjskofunkcijsko od izhodišcnih polstavkov oddaljujejo, medtem ko se iz­hodišcna prislovnodolocilna oz. povedkovoprilastkovna funkcija ohranja v vecini stavcnopodrednih, polstavcnih in besednih oz. besednozveznih ustreznic. Do vsebinskih pomenskih odmikov od izhodišcnih deležijskih zgradb prihaja v protivnem in posledicnem priredju, primerjalnih, namernih, casovnih in oziral­nih odvisnikih, predložnih zvezah ter nedeležijskih polstavkih, medtem ko izho­dišcne pomenske znacilnosti ohranjajo vzrocne vecstavcne zgradbe, predmetni in povedkovoprilastkov odvisnik z vzrocnim oz. nacinovnim pomenom, pogojni, posledicni, nacinovni in dopustni odvisniki, nacinovni prislovi, prislovne zveze s casovnim in nacinovnim pomenom ter pridevniška zveza z lastnostnim pome­nom. Raznolikim izhodišcnim pomenom ustrezajo skladenjskopomensko eksten­zivni vezalno priredje in posebne stavcne zgradbe. Slovenski deležijski polstavki se pomensko naceloma prekrivajo z izhodišcnimi bolgarskimi polstavki, prim. pomene nacin, vzrok, cas, cas-nacin, posledica, cas-vzrok, cas-pogoj, namen--posledica in nacin-vzrok. Opravljena analiza v zvezi z bolgarskimi deležijskimi polstavki je pokaza-la izjemno dinamicno in raznovrstno prevodno sliko, v kateri – kljub prevladi drugih sredstev – posebno mesto (kot druga najpogostejša ustreznica) zasedajo slovenski deležijski polstavki. Zaenkrat odprta (glede na omejitve pricujoce raz­prave) ostajajo vprašanja o casovno-vidskih in položajnih znacilnostih izhodišc­nih in prevodnih zgradb, tendencah posameznih prevajalcev in stanju v razlicnih funkcijskih zvrsteh, na katera bo treba odgovoriti v prihodnosti. Viri ....., ........ 1951. ...... .....: .... (DD). https://chitanka.info. Dimov, Dimitr. 1966. Tobak. Prev. Katja Špur. Ljubljana: CZ (DDS). ........., ...... 1965. ........ ... .... ... .....: ......... ....... (BD). https://chitanka.info. Dimitrova, Blaga. 1971. Na poti k sebi. Prev. Katja Špur. Ljubljana: DZS (BDS). .........., ....... 1999. ......... ...... .....: .......... ........ (GG). www.slovo.bg. Gospodinov, Georgi. 2005. Naravni roman. Prev. Borut Omerzel. Ljubljana: Študentska založba (GGS). ...., ....... 1963. ......... .. ................ .....: ....... ...... (OH). https://chitanka.info. Haim, Oliver. 1965. Federacija dinastronavtov. Prev. Matej Rode. Ljubljana: MK (OHS). ......., ...... 1981. ..... . ...... ..... .......: ...... .. ..... (PV). https:// chitanka.info. Vežinov, Pavel. 1981. Ponoci z belimi konji. Prev. Katja Špur. Maribor: Obzorja (PVS). R. Grošelj, Prevajajoc iz bolgaršcine – bolgarski deležijski polstavki ... Literatura Fawcett, Peter. 1997. Translation and Language. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. ..........., .... .. 2014. ............. ...... . .......... ..... .. .... ......... Acta linguistica 8/1: 64–95. .........., ....... 2005. ........... ......... . ............ . ......... ...­...... .....: .............. ........... ... ....... ......... Herrity, Peter. 2000. Slovene: A Comprehensive Grammar. London/New York: Routledge. ......, ........ 1989. ......... ..... Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické naklada­tel’stvo. Jesenšek, Marko, 2006. Deležniški in deležijski skladi na -c in -ši v slovenskem jeziku. Slavisticna revija 54/Posebna številka: 213–223. ......., ..... 1999. ........... .......... ......... ...., 277–497. .....: .......... .... ..... ...... Leafgren, John. 2011. A Concise Bulgarian Grammar. Durham: Reference Grammar Net­work, Duke University, SEELRC. .........-......., ........ 2013. ......... . ............ ........... . .......... . .......... ..... ............ .....: ........ ........... ... ....... ......... Mezeg, Adriana. 2014. Francoski gerundijski polstavek in njegove ustreznice v prevedeni slovenšcini. Prevodoslovno usmerjene kontrastivne študije, 50–63. Ljubljana: ZIFF. Mikolic Južnic, Tamara. 2012. Korpusna analiza slovenskega deležja v razlicnih besedil­nih tipih. Zbornik 8. konference Jezikovne tehnologije, Ljubljana, 8.–9. oktober 2012, 147–152. Ljubljana: Inštitut Jožef Štefan. Mikolic Južnic, Tamara. 2013. Neosebne glagolske oblike v prevodni in izvirni slovenšcini: primer deležja. Slovenski prevodi skozi korpusno prizmo, 70–93. Ljubljana: ZIFF. Mikolic Južnic, Tamara. 2014. Kontrastivni vidiki prevajanja italijanskih neosebnih glagol­skih oblik v slovenšcino: korpusna analiza gerundija. Prevodoslovno usmerjene kon­trastivne študije, 32–49. Ljubljana: ZIFF. Milojevic Sheppard, Milena. 1997a. Morpho-syntactic expansions as structural changes in translation. Linguistica 37/1: 59–66. Milojevic Sheppard, Milena. 1997b. Strukturne spremembe pri prevajanju: slovenski prevo­di Agathe Christie. Književni prevod, 99–109. Ljubljana: ZIFF. Panevová, Jarmila idr. 2014. Mluvnice soucasné ceštiny 2. Syntax na základe anotovaného korpusu. Praha: Karolinum. ......, ....... 1983. ....... ........ ...... ......... .. ........... ......­... ........ .... II. .........., 372–386. .....: ........... .. .... ......, ....... 1989. ............. ....... .. .............. ........ ...., 419–426. .....: ........... .. .... Scatton, Ernest A. 1993. Bulgarian. The Slavonic Languages, 188–248. London, New York: Routledge. ........., ........ 2007. .......... ......... ..... ........ . ........... .....: .............. ........... ....... .......... ........... Štícha, František idr. 2013. Akademcká gramatika spisovné ceštiny. Praha: Academia. Toporišic, Jože. 2004. Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Založba Obzorja. Valcanova, Marinela. 2002. Raziskave o slovenskem jeziku v bolgarski jezikoslovni tradici­ji – zgodovina in perspektive. Historizem v raziskovanju slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture (Obdobja 18), 389–400. Ljubljana: Center za slovenšcino kot drugi/tuji jezik pri Oddelku za slovanske jezike in književnosti FF. ......, ....... 1969. ...... .. ....... ............ .. ......... ..... .......... .. ......., 181–201. .....: ....... ........ Prispelo aprila 2019, sprejeto junija 2019. Received April 2019, accepted June 2019. Prevajajoc iz bolgaršcine – bolgarski deležijski polstavki v slovenskih književnih prevodih Namen prispevka je analizirati prevodne ustreznice bolgarskih deležijskih pol-stavkov v slovenskih prevodih petih bolgarskih književnih del. (1) V analiziranih delih se nahaja 477 deležijskih polstavkov z razlicnimi prislovnimi pomeni, kar je posledica njihove skladenjskopomenske neeksplicitnosti oz. ekstenzivnosti – gre za odvisne spremljajoce odvisne predikacijske zgradbe s splošnim prislovnim pomenom, ki ga natancneje opredeljuje šele razmerje med vsebinama nadredne in odvisne deležijske zgradbe. Med bolgarskimi deležijskimi polstavki prevla­dujejo casovni, nacinovni, casovno-nacinovni, vzrocni, casovno-vzrocni in po­sledicni. (2) Najpogostejše prevodne ustreznice so t. i. oblikoslovno-skladenj­ske razširitve, ki so oblikoskladenjsko bolj eksplicitne od prevodnih enot, prim. stavcnopriredne (32,3%), stavcnopodredne (24,1%) in posebne stavcne zgradbe (8%), ki vkljucujejo razdružene in spremenjene stavcne zgradbe (s pretvorbo polstavka v glavni stavek ali deležja v povedek glavnega stavka). Sledijo jim polstavcne zgradbe (19,5%) in oblikovno-skladenjsko bolj reducirane besedne in besedozvezne ustreznice (11,9%) ter izpusti (4,2%). Med prevodnimi zgrad­bami prevladujejo vezalno povezani stavki (27,9%), deležijski polstavki (18%), casovni odvisniki (12,4%), predložne zveze (10,3%) in razdruženi samostojni stavki (6,7%). (3)Skladenjskopomensko razmerje je najmanjeksplicitno izraže-no v polstavcnih, vezalnoprirednih in posebnih stavcnih zgradbah (pribl. 55%), s cimer se približujejo bolgarskim polstavkom; jasnejše skladenjskopomenske znacilnosti zaznamujejo protivno, posledicno in vzrocno priredje, podredja ter besedne/besednozvezne ustreznice. Izhodišcna prislovnodolocilna oz. poved­kovoprilastkovna skladenjska funkcija se ohranja v vecini stavcnopodrednih, R. Grošelj, Prevajajoc iz bolgaršcine – bolgarski deležijski polstavki ... polstavcnih in besednih oz. besednozveznih ustreznic, medtem ko se stavcno­priredne in posebne stavcne zgradbe po skladenjski funkcijiod izhodišcnih de­ležijskih polstavkov oddaljujejo. (4) Vsebinsko so izhodišcnim polstavkom naj­bližje vzrocne vecstavcne zgradbe, predmetni in povedkovoprilastkov odvisnik z vzrocnim oz. nacinovnim pomenom, pogojni, posledicni, nacinovni in dopustni odvisniki, nacinovni prislovi, prislovne zveze s casovnim in nacinovnim pome­nom ter pridevniška zveza z lastnostnim pomenom; podobno velja za deležijske polstavke, ki ustrezajo bolgarskim deležijskim polstavkom s prislovnimi pomeni nacin, vzrok, cas, cas-nacin, posledica, cas-vzrok, cas-pogoj, namen-posledica in nacin-vzrok. Pomenski odmiki od izhodišcnih zgradb se pogosteje pojavljajo pri protivnem in posledicnem priredju, primerjalnih, namernih, casovnih in oziralnih odvisnikih, predložnih zvezahter nedeležijskih polstavkih. Vezalno priredje in posebne stavcne zgradbe pa so pomensko ekstenzivni – ustrezajo namrec razno­vrstnim izhodišcnim pomenom. Translating from Bulgarian – Bulgarian gerundial clauses in Slovene literary translations The aim of the article is to analyse translation equivalents of Bulgarian gerundial clauses in Slovene translations of five Bulgarian literary works. (1) The analysed works include 477 gerundial clauses with different adverbial meanings, resulting from their semantic-syntactic inexplicitness or extensiveness – gerundial clauses represent co-occurring dependent predicative structures with a general adverbial meaning, more explicitly determined by the relation between the semantic con­tent of the superordinate and the dependent gerundial structure. Bulgarian gerun-dial clauses most frequently indicate time, manner, time-manner, cause, time-cause and result. (2) Their most frequent translation equivalents are the so-called morpho-syntactic expansions which are morpho-syntactically more explicit than the corresponding translation units, cf. coordinate (32,3%), subordinate (24,1%) and special finite clauses (8%), which include detached and modified clause structures (with the gerundial clause transformed into the main finite clause or the gerund transformed into the predicate of the main clause). They are followed by non-finite or verbless clauses (19,5%), morpho-syntactically more reduced word/ phrase translation equivalents (11,9%) and omissions (4,2%). The prevalent translation structures are conjunctive coordinate finite clauses (27,9%), gerundial clauses (18%), temporal subordinate finite clauses (12,4%), prepositional phrases (10,3%) and detached finite clauses (6,7%). (3) The syntactic-semantic relation is expressed in the least explicit way by Slovene gerundial or verbless clauses, con­ junctive coordinate and specialfinite clauses (approx. 55%), making them similar to Bulgarian gerundial clauses; more explicit syntactic-semantic properties char- acterise adversative, consecutive and causal coordinate clauses and word/phrase translation equivalents. The original syntactic function – adjunct or predicative modifier – is maintained in most subordinate finite, gerundial or verbless claus­es and word/phrase translation equivalents, while coordinate and special finite clauses diverge from the syntactic function of Bulgarian gerundial clauses. (4) The semantics of the source-text gerundial clauses is best preserved in subordi­ nate/coordinate causal finite clauses, object and predicativemodifying clauses with a causal or modal meaning, subordinate finite clauses indicating condition, result, manner and concession, in modal adverbs, modal or temporal adverbial phrases and a qualitative adjective phrase; a similar semantic overlapping exists in the case of Slovene gerundial clauses which correspond to Bulgarian gerun-dial clauses with the following adverbial meanings: manner, cause, time, time-manner, result, time-cause, time-condition, purpose-result and manner-cause. Semantic deviations from the source-text structures are more frequent in the case of adversative and consecutive coordination, comparative, final, temporal and relative subordinate clauses, prepositional phrases and verbless clauses. Conjunc­tive coordination and special finite clauses are, on the other hand, semantically extensive – they correspond to heterogeneous source-text meanings. Navodila avtorjem Guidelines for Contributors Namen revije Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies je objavljati slovenisticne in za slovenistiko zanimive jezikoslovne clanke. Clanki se praviloma objavljajo v slovenšcini ali anglešcini, lahko pa tudi v kakem drugem jeziku, s povzetkoma v slovenšcini in anglešcini. Prispevke, ki bodo v uredništvo prispelido zacetka vsakega sodega študijskega leta, bomo upoštevali pri izboru za objavo v številki, ki bo izšla naslednjo jesen. Rokopisi naj ne bodo daljši od ene avtorske pole (30.000 znakov). Besedila morajo biti oddana v formatih Word in PDF. Podrobnejše informacije glede želenega formata in sloga lahko dobite pri urednikih ali na internetni strani revije. The mission of Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies is to publish articles concerned primarily with Slovene or of interest to Slovene linguistics. Articles will be published as a rule in Slovene or English or any other language with abstracts in Slovene and English. Papers sent to the Editorial Board by the beginning of each even-numbered academic year will be considered for publication in the following spring issue. Manuscripts should not exceed 18 double-spaced typewritten pages (or 30,000 characters). All articles must be submitted in Word format and as a PDF file. Please contact one of the Editors or consult the journal‘s webpage for details on preferred format and style. Narocila sprejemamo na naslova: Subscription inquiries should be addressed to: za vse države, razen severnoameriških • all countries, except in North America Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies Založba ZRC Novi trg 2, p. p. 306 SI-1000 Ljubljana Slovenija • Slovenia E-pošta: zalozba@zrc-sazu.si Cena • Price: 11 € za Severno Ameriko • North America Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies Department of German and Russian Brigham Young University, 3092 JFSB, Provo, UT 84602, USA • ZDA E-mail: grant_lundberg@byu.edu Cena • Price: $ 20 Nekatera besedila v reviji so pripravljena z vnašalnim sistemom ZRCola (ZRCola.zrc-sazu.si), ki ga je na ZRC SAZU v Ljubljani (www.zrc-sazu.si) razvil Peter Weiss. Several of the texts in this volume were prepared using the data entry system ZRCola (ZRCola.zrc-sazu.si), which is located at ZRC SAZU in Ljubljana (www.zrc-sazu.si). The system was developed by Peter Weiss. Slovenski jezik Slovene Linguistic Studies 12 • 2019 Vsebina • Contents Alenka Jelovšek, Tomaž Erjavec A corpus-based study of 16th-century Sloveneclitics and clitic-like elements........................................................3 Janoš Ježovnik Koncnice rodilnika množine v terskem narecju slovenskega jezika...........................................................21 ...... ...... ...... ......, ..... ......: [Mihail Saenko] . ....... . ...... ..... ..............................................31 Danila Zuljan Kumar Word Order in Slovene Dialectal Discourse...............................53 Domen Krvina Zaporednost dejanj in njen vpliv na raboglagolskega vida v slovenšcini.....................................................75 Alexander Rath Anmerkungen zur slowenischen Klitikakette (naslonski niz) ....95 Andrej Perdih, Nina Ledinek Multi-word Lexical Units in General MonolingualExplanatory Dictionaries of Slavic languages...........................113 ...... ....., ...... .... .......... ............ ........... [Mladen Uhlik, Andreja Žele] (. ............. . ...................... . ........)...............................................135 Robert Grošelj Prevajajoc iz bolgaršcine – bolgarski deležijskipolstavki v slovenskih književnih prevodih..............................157 ISSN 1408-2616 771408 261010