T. Pronk, Gailtal Slovene in Urban Jarnik’s Letters to Primic and Kopitar, 1811–1814 111 Tijmen Pronk Leiden University Gailtal Slovene in Urban Jarnik’s Letters to Primic and Kopitar, 1811–1814 Slovens i jezik – Sloven Linguistic Studies 6 (2007): 111–132 Prispevek predstavlja narečne podatke iz Ziljske doline na Koroškem, ki jih navaja Urban Jarnik v pismih Primicu in Kopitarju. Jarnikovo obravnavo narečnih podatkov imamo lahko za začetek slovenskega narečjeslovja. Prvi del prispevka je posvečen filološki in fonološki analizi Jarniko- vih podatkov, v drugem delu pa je slovarček vseh ziljskih besed, izpričanih v Jarnikovih pismih. Gradivo prinaša veliko narečnih besed, ki jih v poznejši literaturi ni zaslediti. The paper presents the dialectal data from the Gailtal in Carinthia that Urban Jarnik discusses in his letters to Primic and Kopitar. Jarnik’s discussions of his native dialect in these letters could be regarded as the first serious treatment of Slovene dialectal material. The first part of the paper is devoted to a philological and phonological analysis of Jarnik’s data. The second half gives a glos- sary of all the Gailtal Slovene words in Jarnik’s letters. Many dialectal words that Jarnik gives are not attested in later literature. Urban Jarnik was a Slovene priest, linguist, poet, and ethnologist, born in Bach (Po- tok) near Sankt Stefan (Šteben) in the Gailtal in 1784. Jarnik is often considered to be the first Slovene dialectologist. In 1811, he wrote a number of letters to Janez Nepomuk Primic about his native dialect of Slovene, spoken in the Gailtal in what is now Carinthia, Austria. Primic, born in 1785 in Zalog near Škofljica in what is now Slovenia, founded the Slovene Chair at the Graz Lyceum (earlier and later the University of Graz), which he was the first to occupy. Primic was a key figure in the so called “Slovene rebirth” (preporod) movement of the late 18th and early 19th century. Jarnik’s letters to Primic about the Gailtal dialect were all written in 1811 as part of a series of letters, exchanged between the two. In 1934, a total of twelve letters from Jarnik to Primic that are kept in the National and University library in Ljubljana have been collected and published by France Kidrič. In a few of the letters that are not primarily dedicated to the Gailtal dialect, Jarnik also occasionally tells Primic something about his native dialect. Jarnik’s letters to Primic are mainly known for the fact that they contain some of Jarnik’s early poetry (Prunč 2003: 21). Primic sent copies of Jarnik’s letters to the librarian of the Court Library in Vienna, Jernej (Bartholomäus) Kopitar. Kopitar, born in 1780 in Repnje near Vodice in what is now Slovenia, was a well-known Slavist, author of the first modern Slovene grammar, and published the first edition of the first text of the Freising Frag- ments. Kopitar was keenly interested in what Jarnik had written about the Gailtal dialect and got in touch with him. A correspondence between Jarnik and Kopitar arose. Eight- een of Jarnik’s letters to Kopitar have been published by Erich Prunč in five articles in Anzeiger für slavische Philologie between 1970 and 1983. Letter no. 8 (of 1 December 112 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 6 (2007) 1813, Prunč 1971: 97–104) is especially interesting with regard to the dialectal mate- rial Jarnik provides. Other letters to Kopitar occasionally contain information about the Gailtal dialect as well. The purpose of this article is to present the dialectal Slovene material as de- scribed and written down by Jarnik in his letters in such a way, that the reader be- comes aware of the linguistic value of these forms. The focus will be on the phonol- ogy of Jarnik’s dialect, as it can be abstracted from his (often varying) spelling and numerous remarks in the letters. The lexicon, at the end of the article, comprises the lexical information provided by Jarnik. The material he provides will be set out against the dialectal material published by Grafenauer (1905), Paulsen (1935), Logar (1968, 1981), and against data I collected in the village of Potschach (Potoče) in the Gailtal between 2001 and 2004. The differences between Jarnik’s material and that of later sources are minor. There are two later important sources of data about the Gailtal dialect by Jarnik himself, viz. his 1842 article on Carinthian Slovene dia- lects and Pleteršnik’s dictionary. In the article, Jarnik treats several characteristics of the dialect.1 Compared to the letters, however, the number of forms he gives is limited, and the characteristic features of the dialect he discusses, are also discussed in the letters. Pleteršnik’s dictionary, on the other hand, contains 127 lemmata marked Zilj.-Jarn. (Rok.), i.e., found in the manuscript Wörter, die im Gailthale (на Зи́ли) gebräuchlich sind, or Besede nabrane po Ziljski Dolini (Pleteršnik 1893–1894: xiv), written by Jarnik in 1815.2 The forms in the manuscript are transcribed in much the same way as the dialectal material in Jarnik’s letters. Pleteršnik normalized them to fit in his dictionary. A remarkable difference with the material in Obraz slovenskoga narěčja u Koruškoj, Versuch eines Etymologikons, and Jarnik’s letters is the fact that most of Pleteršnik’s forms have tones written on them, even if a word is only attested in Jarnik’s manuscript. Like the letters, the manuscript does not contain contrastive tonal accents. Pleteršnik leaves a few words that are not attested outside the Gailtal unstressed, e.g., hota ‘pig’ and lis ‘lazy, indolent’. In other cases, Pleteršnik writes an accent that is based on historical or comparative evidence. He writes, for instance, sənę̑n ‘sleepy’ for Jarnik’s ſenen. This is evidently wrong. The Potschach form sə̀nən shows initial stress. Pleteršnik recognizes the suffix -en and writes it with the falling accent on the suffix we normally find in standard Slovene (notice that the accent in adjectives of this type is always retracted in the Gailtal [e.g., Potschach lẹ́san ‘wood- en’ < lesę̑n etc.]). This means that we should be careful in accepting the accents in other Gailtal words Pleteršnik cites as well, e.g., in the word príšaštnik ‘announcer of public works’ (Jarnik príſhaſhtnik), in which the acute accent on the -í- does not necessarily indicate stress, let alone pitch (see below). 1 These have been discussed briefly in Karničar 2003. We also find scattered comments on the Gailtal dialect in Jarnik’s Versuch eines Etymologikons, but these will be left out of the discussion here. In 1822, Jarnik wrote Kleine Sammlung solcher altslavischer Wörter, welche im heutigen windischen Dialekte noch kräftig fortleben (Ein Beytrag zur Kenntnis der hoch- slovenischen Büchersprache), published in Klagenfurt. I have not seen this book, and hence do not know whether it contains any specific information about the Gailtal dialect. 2 In about 15 lemmata Pleteršnik gives an example, set word combination, or expression from the manuscript. The manuscript itself consists of about 20 pages of dialect information and is kept in the National and University Library in Ljubljana. T. Pronk, Gailtal Slovene in Urban Jarnik’s Letters to Primic and Kopitar, 1811–1814 113 Although Jarnik’s material provides an interesting and early source of the Gail- tal dialect, it is important to be aware of a number of issues that complicate the use of Jarnik’s data. To begin with, Jarnik does not always state whether the words he discusses are from the Gailtal, from other parts of Carinthia, or from other Slov- ene dialects. Due to the standardization Jarnik employs in his spelling, it is often impossible to identify the provenance of a word. A good example of this is a let- ter to Primic from the middle of 1811 (Kidrič 1934: 97ff.). Jarnik analyses several Slovene words. Some of these seem to be from Carinthia (e.g., perſedlo), but it is difficult to determine whether these words were also used in the Gailtal. Other words Jarnik discusses cannot be from any Carinthian dialect (e.g., zhés, kadílo). Words like pogoriſhzhe are either from the Gailtal, or from more central Slovene dialects, but not from other Carinthian dialects, where the cluster would be simplified and one would expect *pogoriſhe. In this study, only those words have been incorporated that are either specifically said to be from the Gailtal (also Oberkärnten), as well as those that show features that are specific to the Gailtal dialect. I am aware that, by incorporating the latter group, the picture we get of the Gailtal dialect as it was spoken by Jarnik is somewhat distorted, and it looks more aberrant than it is in reality. Further, the material Jarnik provides is by no means complete. The most striking feature that is missing from his data is the pitch-accent.3 It is also clear that his nota- tion is not always consistent. The German alphabet does not allow Jarnik to notate all phonological distinctions, but several remarks in his letters show that he was aware of certain distinctions that remain obscure in his transcriptions most of the time. In spite of their limitations, Jarnik’s discussions of his native dialect in his letters can be regarded as the first serious treatment of Slovene dialectal material (cf. the over- view in Toporišič 1962: 385–386). In the letters, there is a relatively large number of elsewhere unattested words. These are probably the most important contribution of Jarnik’s letters to our knowledge of the Gailtal dialect. The number of elsewhere unattested forms is relatively large, because Jarnik wrote the letters for the express purpose of pointing out in which respect his dialect differed from the rest of Slovene. His focus is for a large part on lexical and ethnological curiosities, rather than on phonological or grammatical features. He gives linguistic information on a few occa- sions, and on these occasions his notation of the dialect is clearly closer to the pho- netic reality. The following phonological and grammatical differences from standard Slovene or the other Carinthian dialects have been observed by Jarnik in his letters: 1. Palatalization of h and k to ſh (š) and zh (č) respectively before front vowels. Jarnik does not mention the palatalization of g to j, which he writes in e.g., drujega. 2. The loss of v (w) between two non-front vowels. Although Jarnik mentions this development, he hardly ever writes it: sdrava, kravaríza, dobrava, but ſtăă and ſhliſhāā in his first letter to Kopitar. 3. v for l before non-front vowels and consonants. This dialectal feature is often omitted from the notation, e.g., planiniti with l occurs beside the l-ptc.f.sg. pvanuva (for *planinuva?) with v. Cf. also pólzha ‘weeds’, which is pronounced as povzha 3 Jarnik himself observes “Někakovo (da tako kažem) pěvanje u izgovaranju” (1842: 46), but he clearly did not distinguish phonemic tones. 114 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 6 (2007) (pȁwča), and which Jarnik derives from pléti ‘to weed’. If this derivation is incorrect, and it may well be, the l of pólzha is a mere speculation. 4. Original dl where Standard Slovene has l (and dv before non-front vowels), e.g., kridvo ‘skirt’, pl. kridle. We also find standardized krilo. 5. n for final m. Often, Jarnik writes final -m, especially in 1sg. pres. forms, but not in all forms. We do find man, béſn, and nieſen. In the last two examples one observes the dilemma Jarnik faced when he had to write a syllabic n. Usually, Jarnik writes en (reshálen, prízhen), but the absence of a vowel between ſ and n in béſn shows that the ə of an earlier *bẹsən had already completely disappeared. 6. ſhzh (šč) where Standard Slovene also has šč, but the rest of Carinthia has ſh. Since in this respect the dialect does not deviate from the standard, Jarnik faithfully writes ſhzh, e.g., in ſragiſhzhe, ſriſhzhe etc. 7. The diphthongs i(j)e (/iə/) and ue (/uə/) are sometimes distinguished in his letters to Kopitar, but Jarnik often writes e and o, mostly with an acute: é and ó. Jarnik uses the spelling nieſim in a letter to Primic (no. 32), when he discusses the way this verb is pronounced and how it might be spelled. Jarnik rarely distinguishes the diphthongs je and wo from e and o, e.g., jeden, zhernjèlo, and possibly bjedra, but not in p’beri, shena, wigrebſti, koshuh, moje. In his letter to Kopitar of 1 December 1813, Jarnik mentions the difference between /e/, /ẹ/, and the diphthong /je/: “Die Gailthaler [...] pflegen in vielen W: e͡a statt e und é zu sprechen”. He writes zhe ͡as, mre͡as, t’nje͡aka, tre͡apvo, ſve͡azhan (elsewhere ſvèzhen), and zhe ͡ara with the diphthong e͡a. In this let- ter, he also uses e͡a to write final unstressed [ε] in v’roze͡a, potoze͡a, and jutre͡a. 8. The use of the prefix wì-, which is otherwise attested (be it scarcely) in Western Slovene dialects. Jarnik dedicates a whole letter to Primic to this prefix (Kidrič 1934: 124–128). The spelling wì- probably reflects bə- (see below). The suffix seems to have enjoyed some productivity in the prehistory of the Gailtal dialect. All attested verb forms with this suffix can be found in the lexicon at the end of the article under wì-. 9. The conditional auxiliary bé, derived from the aorist of ‘to be’, with inflected forms and a few examples of its use. 10. Ablaut of the type brieg, brégu, ſrésti ſe, me je ſriedu, ſrédva, riezh, rézhi, piezh, pézhi, Bu͡əg, Bogu, ru ͡əg, rogu, ſtu͡əg, ſtogu. Remarkably enough, Jarnik writes the closed o of Bogu, rogu, ſtogu without an acute, unlike the closed e in brégu, ſrésti ſe etc. Some aspects of the phonology of Jarnik’s language are obscured by the fact that the German alphabet does not provide a straightforward way of presenting them. Jarnik had to use the five vowels a, e, o, i, and u to describe a system with eight vow- els (a, e, o, ẹ, ə, ọ, i, and u), distinctive vowel length, and four diphthongs (je, wo, iə, and uə). To be able to distinguish between these vowels, Jarnik at times uses acute and grave accents to indicate vowel quality and/or length. He does not, however, use the accents regularly. The accuracy with which the accents are employed varies per letter. The accents Jarnik employs are specifically not used to denote stress or pitch. Since most quality distinctions are found in stressed position only, the net result is T. Pronk, Gailtal Slovene in Urban Jarnik’s Letters to Primic and Kopitar, 1811–1814 115 that in most cases the stress will be on the vowel which is written with an accent over it. One of the aspects of the Gailtal dialect that turns up in the linguistic literature is the fact that the falling stress of original mobile words generally lies on its Proto- Slavic place, i.e., on the first syllable of a word, rather than on the following sylla- ble, as in the Slovene standard. There are only a few indications for this in Jarnik’s material, mainly because the place of the accent is not indicated directly. We do find reflexes of initial stress in néhti, rézhi, and pézhi. Néhti ‘someone’ should probably be derived from *nȅkъto > *nehtûə > *nèhtu > *nẹ́htə >> nẹ́hti (with -i from pronouns like *tisti, *toti, etc.). These forms must be initially stressed, since pretonic -e- would become -ə-, which is always written without an accent. The difference between é and è, and between ó and ò is generally that between a closed and an open vowel respectively. We find e.g., dróshje, sgóni, béſn, néhti, ſedéa with a closed vowel, and mòsh, samòkel, gredò, jèrek, and shènzh with an open vowel.5 The e is also used to write a schwa. As already mentioned, an e that stands for ə is never written with an accent. The distribution of é, ó, è, and ò is, however, not as straightforward as it may seem at first glance. Not only does Jarnik often omit the ac- cent, he also sometimes uses it for the notation of diphthongs. The open diphthongs, je and wo, are sometimes spelled with a grave: (j)è, ò (wò would be expected, but it is not attested), e.g., in shálikshène, zhernjèlo, and mòra. Similarly, and more often, the closed diphthongs iə and uə are spelled é and ó, e.g., in zéla, wìlétati, gnój, and ſpóvad. A number of times, Jarnik writes an acute over e and o before tautosyllabic j, e.g., in kój (also koj), nékéj (also nékej), and méjſhta. This is a result of the raising of *o and *e before tautosyllabic j. This is confirmed by examples adduced by Graf- enauer and Logar, such as srẹ̀jščĕ (Grafenauer) and pẹ́:jčẹ (Logar, loc. sg.). Before heterosyllabic j, e, and o are apparently also closed (ẹ and ọ), and Jarnik employs the acute accordingly: ſedéa and téa. In this respect, my own field material differs from that of Grafenauer and Logar. Where my data are in accordance with Jarnik’s data (sədẹ́ja, tẹ́ja), Grafenauer and Logar have an open vowel (Grafenauer dəžéi̯a, méi̯a, Logar pré:jà, kənđé:ià). Once, Jarnik uses a grave where one would expect an acute and once vice versa, viz. in drèse and kónj. Perhaps the infinitives vtézhi and wìtézhi also show a wrong acute (in two separate letters), but it should be noted that the present day dialect of Potschach has tèjči. If Jarnik had the same form, one would probably expect *téjzhi, with an acute because of the following j. The omission of post-vocalic j in Jarnik’s notation -tézhi can be ascribed to influence from the standard language. The use of accents on the other vowels appears to serve a slightly different pur- pose than the accentuation of e and o. Not much can be concluded about the accen- tuation of u, since it occurs only three times (viz. in búzati, gertúne, and vapúza, all 4 Three times a 3rd person plural present ending with a grave is attested, viz. gredò, ſedò, and vidijò, all in letter no. 13 to Kopitar. Elsewhere Jarnik writes -o. 5 According to Paulsen, the reflex of an *o that was lengthened through brata-lengthen- ing merged with the reflex of the nasal vowel *ǫ in the Pənəgó̧rcə area, where Jarnik was born (1935: 65f.). Jarnik’s material shows that this was either a very recent development, or that things were more complicated than Paulsen thought. 116 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 6 (2007) in letter no. 15 to Primic). Accented i is much more frequent. It seems that acute í indicates an accented i. However, it can be argued that the reason why Jarnik places an accent over the i is either the length or the quality of the vowel, rather than the fact that the i is stressed. In the present day dialect, phonetic [i] occurs virtually only in stressed position. Unstressed i became ə, except in final position. In final posttonic position, the i became more centralized, but remained phonemically distinct from ə (see Grafenauer (1905: 197), who writes ė for unstressed i in final position). Ac- cording to Paulsen, i is reduced to ə in final position in Sankt Štefan, the birthplace of Jarnik (1935: 110), as well, a development that may well have taken place before Jarnik’s period. An i with a grave is only used by Jarnik in letter no. 36 to Primic, and once in letter no. 8 to Kopitar (bômì). In the letter to Primic, ì has been attested in the follow- ing words: dat.sg. tì (also ti), popìti, wìſìſáli, and in the prefix wì- in a large number of words. In my opinion, ì is an etymological spelling for ə. If one focuses on the prefix wì- and on bômì, one might get the impression that ì is distinct from i and í and reflects Proto-Slavic *y. This is exactly what Jarnik suggests when he writes “Pàrvo lice u višebrojniku na my město na mo, n. p. damy, delamy, widimy itd. město: damo, delamo, widimo itd.” (1842: 55). Further on, Jarnik writes: “Několiko ženskih samostavnih imade u višebrojniku i (y), n. p. bukwy (knjige), ziby (u broju II. bukle, buklice)” (ibidem). Elsewhere in his article, Jarnik also uses the letter y in the prefix wy. These all appear to be etymological spellings. As dat. sg. tì, and, even more, wìſìſáli seems to indicate, ì was at least in some cases used for ə. In the 1842 article, there is evidence that Jarnik’s y in wy- and in the feminine pl. ending reflects a front vowel. With regard to the plural ending Jarnik writes “imade u višebrojniku i (y)”. Also, the fact that, both in bukwy and in the prefix wy-, Jarnik writes w instead of v (as in e.g., bèsva [1842: 56]) points to a front vowel, considering “što izgovaraju Ziljani v [...], kad sledi pošle njega i ili e, izgovaraju kao němački w” (idem: 54). This cor- responds to present day Potschach, where we find the prefix bə-, not *wə-. It follows that in these cases y reflects (earlier) i. As far as the 1pl. pres. ending -mì/my is concerned, there is reason to believe that it does not reflect *my. In the present day dialect of Potschach, the 1pl. pres. ending is -mu.6 Jarnik’s ending -mì/-my matches this ending, when one takes into consid- eration Paulsen’s observation that final -u had become -ə in Sankt Štefan by 1935. When we combine this with the spelling wìſìſáli for (*bə)səsáli, and with the fact that wy-/wì- reflects (earlier) *vi-, it becomes plausible that Jarnik’s y in his 1842 article and ì in his letters simply reflect ə. The spelling popìti must be a mistake for *popíti (cf. wìpíti), and, conversely, wìſíſáti is a mistake for *wìſìſáti (cf. wìſìſáli). Once we find unaccented i for ə, viz. in ſim ‘am’, in a folk song which Jarnik wrote down for Kopitar. In the same song we also find the variant ſem, and in one of his other letters Jarnik writes ſen. In four cases, Jarnik uses a circumflex accent instead of an acute or a grave, once 6 The origin of the ending *-mu is unclear. Possibly it resulted from raising of *-o to *-ọ in forms with an accented ending *-mò. There are indications that accented short *-o in final position was raised, e.g., in the demonstrative tọ̏ti ‘that’ < *tȍ + -ti. Final -u and -ọ merged in the Gailtal dialect. T. Pronk, Gailtal Slovene in Urban Jarnik’s Letters to Primic and Kopitar, 1811–1814 117 on an o (bômì), and three times on an u (Ruſûla, ſhû, prezvetûjaſh, in two different letters). Again, the accent does not denote tone. Although one would expect a falling tone in bômì, ſhû, and prezvetûjaſh, a rising tone would be expected in Ruſûla. All of the 150 odd nouns with a stressed suffix -úlja listed in Pleteršnik have a rising tone. It seems Jarnik’s use of the circumflex instead of an acute is purely decorative. In a few of his letters to Kopitar, Jarnik uses the apostrophe as a distinctive sym- bol in the notation of several words. We find the apostrophe in the following words: lip’za, lub’zo, sad’, béſ’n, p’rməknía, t’nje͡aka, r’sbieſhat, in the prefix p’- in p’tép (next to potép), p’tieplſh, p’beri, p’ledan, p’ſnev, and in the prepositions k’, v’ and s’ (also ’s). In most of these cases, the apostrophe stands for -ə- in unstressed posi- tion. The use of the apostrophe with the prepositions only seems to indicate that they should be taken together with the following word, not that they are pronounced end- ing in a -ə. The notation of p’rməknía, r’sbieſhat, and the forms with p’- indicate that vowels in pretonic position were already reduced and had merged into ə in Jarnik’s times. Vowel reduction in posttonic position is also clearly reflected in a number of forms. Reduction of post-tonic e or o to a is reflected in savershanik and obrank, and in the verbal endings of sadénaſh, prezvetûjaſh etc. Posttonic i is reduced to ə in the suffix -iza: lip’za, lub’zo, prahezo. In a few cases, Jarnik writes the i anyway: vidlize, jamizo. When the ə is preceded by a resonant, it is syncopated: merselza, kobílza. Before v, the unstressed ə becomes u: pvanuva. All these features are also found in the present day dialect. A problem Jarnik is presented with, when spelling his language with the Ger- man alphabet, is the notation of syllabic resonants. It has been demonstrated above that Jarnik had a syllabic n in his dialect, which was written en or n. Syllabic m does not occur in the words which Jarnik uses, and syllabic l occurs too infrequently to provide a solid basis for analysis of its notation. On the basis of the twentieth-cen- tury material from the Gailtal, one can also posit vocalic /r/ as a separate phoneme, which is pronounced as [ər]. Jarnik does, however, differentiate between er (also ’r) and re (also r’). He writes er in words like saperva, terdno, widerl, merselza, and savershanik, where -er- reflects a sequence *-ъr- or *-ьr-. He also writes p’rməknía and perdirjati, with -er- from reduced *-ri-, and gertúne, which Pleteršnik regards as a variant of the elsewhere attested gratúne. Other sequences of -r- plus a reduced vowel are, however, reflected as -re-: wìſtrelíti, bressoben, gredò, ſprehájati, and in the prefixes res- (esp. r’sbieſhat) and pre-. I think these cases must be regarded as ety- mological spellings for phonetic [ər]. The fact that Jarnik spells per, p’rməknía, and perdirjati with -er-, rather than with -re- must be motivated by a desire to separate it from the prefix pre- < *prě-. In the case of gertúne, Jarnik probably did not know that the word also existed in other dialects, and hence he could not know that the vowel originally followed the -r-. I conclude that Jarnik only had a sequence [ər], which can phonemically be interpreted as a vocalic /r/. Finally, Jarnik uses the letters v, b, and w to write phonemes that reflect earlier *v. Of these three, v is the most common and seems to be the default choice. Above, I cited Jarnik 1842: 54, where he states that there is a phonetic difference between v before the vowels i and e and v in other positions. Before i and e, v sounds “kao němački w”. In fact, Jarnik writes w before i or e instead of v on several occasions. 118 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 6 (2007) We find widati next to vidijò, Wiſprija next to Viſprijani, and also sap’wiedov, ſwèt, ſwét, nowega, hliewe, and the prefix wi-. In shiwlenje, w is attested before a resonant followed by a front vowel. Once, w is attested before o, viz. in wishoworiti. This cor- responds to present day Potschach žəƀrîti, with ƀ from *v before -ri- (cf. žəƀlènje), without an intermediate -o-. The second -o- of wishoworiti seems to be etymologi- cal, rather than real. Before a and u, w never occurs. The same distribution is found for b in those few cases where it reflects earlier *v. We find shoboriti, r’zbieſhat (cf. Pleteršnik razvẹ́siti), and bélbano (from German wölben), in three separate letters. In the present-day dialect, *v and *b have merged before *i, *e, and *ě. Evidently, this had already happened in Jarnik’s time, which is why he writes b in these cases. The fact that we often find v where we would expect b or w is due to Jarnik’s efforts to standardize his spelling, a desire we have come across before in this paper. It has already been pointed out that the focus of Jarnik’s discussions of his own dialect was at least as much ethnological, as it was linguistic. On several occasions, he gives grammatical or phonetic details about the dialect, but for the most part he is interested in providing Primic and Kopitar with interesting dialect vocabulary, say- ings, folklore, and songs. In order to show to what extend Jarnik edited his language to look more like the central Slovene dialects, I have included the following folk song. This song was written down by Jarnik in his letter to Kopitar from 12 Feb. 1814 (Prunč 1974: 79–80). ,Sem bila ſtara ſédem lét Béſte me djali v’Kloſhter lép! Ko ſhe nieſim vedala Kaj je lubésen póbovſhka. 5 Sdej ſim bila ſtara ſhéſtnajst lét ,Ste me djali v’Kloſhter lép; ,Sim shé dobro védala, Kaj je lubésen póbovſhka. Mlada Neshza v’najvishej linzi ſtojí 10 V’tej linzi Kloſhterſkej, Vidila je na ravno pole Je vidila nje lubeja, Ki ora s’dvema volizhama. Kaj je pa rekla Mlada Neshza 15 K’tej viſhi Nuni Kloſhterſkej Odprite mi vi vrate gre; Kar pa bom berzagala! Kaj je pa rekla viſhi Nuna Kloſhterſka: Kteri ſe Kloſhtri odgovori, (?) 20 Te nikoli vezh vun rézhen nie. V’kloſhtri k’meſhi vkup sgoni, Vſe Nune k’meſhi gredo, Kej je pa mlada Neshiza, Ki je vſelej ta perva bla; 25 Sdaj je she te sadnje k’nie! T. Pronk, Gailtal Slovene in Urban Jarnik’s Letters to Primic and Kopitar, 1811–1814 119 ,Shle ſo gledat nje bélo poſtelzo One nieso naſhle drujega Ko tri kaple mersle kervi Ki je mlada Neshiza 30 shé berzagala! The standardization this song had undergone seems to have been employed quite regularly. This is a good example of the understanding Jarnik had of the phonological differences between his native dialect and the central Slovene dialects. The diph- thong -ie- is only used in the dialectal forms nie, nieſo, and nieſim, elsewhere Jarnik writes -é-: lét, lép, shé (she), lubésen, and bélo. Jarnik consistently writes l where the dialect has w for an etymological *l: bila, vedala, mlada, vidila, rekla, bélo, and berzagala. In word-final position, we find -m where the dialect has -n for etymologi- cal -m: ſédem, nieſim, ſim. Examples like ſem bila and bom berzagala are ambiguous, because, in the present-day dialect, a word-final -n is realised as [-m] before a follow- ing b-. The form ſhéſtnajst probably replaces dialectal ſhéſtnéjst, with raising of *a to é before tautosyllabic -j-. Similarly, Jarnik uses standardized sdaj next to dialectal sdej. Completely adapted is odgovori for odshewri vel sim. (cf. showoriti). Lexical influence from central Slovene dialects can probably be seen in ko, for which Jarnik writes ki in a previous letter to Kopitar (letter no. 8, Prunč 1971: 102), nowadays kə, and in kaj for koj (although Jarnik uses both koj and kaj as dialectal forms in letter no. 8, idem: 102–103). Further use of standardized forms can neither be proven, nor ruled out; a form like vſelej is not attested in any later data from the Gailtal, but it cannot be ruled out that it was used in the Gailtal dialect in Jarnik’s days. In spite of the standardization Jarnik employs, the song still contains quite a few dialectal features. Most dialectal features that have been preserved are lexical, and the phonological differences with the central dialects are mostly obscured by the stand- ardization. A phonological feature that Jarnik did not standardise is the use of plain l where standard spelling has lj: pole, lubésen, lubeja (cf. present day Asg. lûbija), and kaple. As a result, Jarnik does not differentiate between the reflexes of PSl. *l and *l’ here. This difference is generally retained in Slovene and its dialects, either through an opposition l vs. lj, or through an opposition w vs. l. The fem. loc. sg. ending -ej in najvishej (najviſhej?) and in Kloſterſkej is a dialectal grammatical feature, as is the use of the conditional béſte. Some other dialectal forms are: ſim for ſem, vrate for vrata, gre for gor, sgoni for svoni, drujega for drugega, ko for kot, nje for njen, kej for kje (cf. in the Obir dialect qé:j). Also dialectal, if not merely a metrical variant, is bla for bila, but with standard l instead of w. The use of the definite article in ta perva, te sadnje, and tej viſhi Nuni is also a feature of the Gailtal dialect. It can be concluded that the dialectal phonological features of those words and texts that Jarnik presents as dialectal can in most cases only be identified with the help of later sources. Jarnik consciously attempts to spell his dialect so that it is easy to read for Primic and Kopitar. He does this by standardizing the spelling. As a re- sult, many of the dialectal features become obscured. However, the variation between standardized and non-standardized spelling provides us with information about the phonology of Jarnik’s dialect. The picture we get of the dialect corresponds to data 120 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 6 (2007) from later sources in almost every detail.7 The contribution of Jarnik’s material to the knowledge of the Gailtal dialect is therefore mainly lexical.8 Lexicon This lexicon compiles all words that have been labeled by Jarnik as being used in the Gailtal in one way or another (see above for discussion of the problems related to the selection of the material). The sources for the lexicon are Jarnik’s letters to Primic and Kopitar. The letter in which a word is attested is indicated between brackets with a P for Primic or a K for Kopitar, followed by the number of the letter in the respec- tive collection. Specification of the meaning of words that are in some way related to the Gailtal costume is obtained through citation from an article by Jarnik in the “Vaterländische Blätter für den Österreichischen Kaiserstaat” of 1813 (which I did not have access to) by Makarovič and Dolenc 1992: 20–21. Forms from later sources have been added for comparison. Graf. stands for Grafenauer 1905. Paul. stands for Paulsen 1935. I have used those forms from Paulsen that are said to be either the same in all subdialects of the Gailtal (i.e., those marked as “gemeinglt.” or as “glt.”), or specific to the Pənəgó̧rcə area (i.e., the area in which Jarnik’s native village, Sankt Stefan, lies). Log.a stands for Logar 1968, Log.b stands for Logar 1981. The notation in Logar’s two publications varies only marginally. Unmarked forms are from my own fieldwork data in what Paulsen 1935 calls the Egg- Görtschacher dialect, a sub- dialect group neighbouring Jarnik’s native dialect. Forms from Paulsen’s dissertation are only added if they provide information that is not available from other sources, because Paulsen is generally less reliable than Logar, and certainly less reliable than Grafenauer. I am aware that some scholars use Paulsen’s data, albeit with care (cf. Priestly 2005: 179). In my view, this care is certainly justified. The problematic nature of some of Paulsen’s material could well be due to the way in which he presents his material, rather than to sloppy work, such as is the case in Gumperz’s work (ibidem). It is certainly preferable to use Grafenauer’s data instead of Paulsen’s data whenever possible until a thorough review of Paulsen’s work has been given. The abbreviations that have been used in the lexicon are the following: 7 An example of an archaism is kvobaſa, which seems to indicate that w had not yet dis- appeared between a consonant and an unstressed ə, as in present day kəbása, Logar kəƀá:sà. Other dialectal features, like the development of *sl to šl (e.g., in ſhliſhāā), have been attested in later sources as well. 8 A lexicological research of Jarnik’s poetry has been undertaken by Erich Prunč in his three-volume work Urban Jarnik (178-18). Textologische Grundlagen und lexikologische Untersuchung seiner Sprache. According to Prunč, the number of dialectisms in Jarnik’s poet- ry is very low. The words that can be attributed to Jarnik’s native dialect with any certainty are fača, niri, planinčica, poljubiti, poljubovati, and toti. For phonetic reasons, gniva and razgnetiti can be added to this list (Prunč 1988: 221f.). T. Pronk, Gailtal Slovene in Urban Jarnik’s Letters to Primic and Kopitar, 1811–1814 121 A accusative adv. adverb D dative dim. diminutive du. dual f feminine G genitive I instrumental ipf. imperfect ipv. imperative L locative al (K8; P22) ‘if, whether’ = al bandérar (P15) ‘flag bearer at a wedding’ bélbano (K1) {fAsg.} ‘vaulted’, cf. bệlb ‘vault’ bélo (K10) {fAsg.} ‘white’ beſednik (P15) ‘speaker at a wedding’ beſeduvati (P15) ‘to speak at a wedding; be wordy’ berzagala (K10) {l-ptc. fsg.} ‘to loose hope, become desperate’ béſn, béſi, bé, béſmo, béſte, béſo, béſva, béſta (P15; K8; K10) {123sg., 123pl., 1(2)3du.} irrealis ‘would be’ = bẹ́sn etc. bi (K8) conditional auxiliary verb = bə bív (K8) {l-ptc. msg.} ‘to be’ = bîw bívesh (P15) ‘spring’, cf. zbîwaža ‘in spring’ bjedra (P15) ‘barrel of a certain size (containing “7 Maaß”)’ bla (K10) {l-ptc. fsg.} ‘to be’ bom, boſh, bode (bo), bômì (P22; P29; P36; K8; K10) {123sg., 1pl.} future ‘will be’ = bôn, bôš, bôde, bômo brésa (K8) {PN} name of cow or goat with white stripes, cf. brẹ́za ‘birch tree’ bressoben (P15) ‘toothless’ bressobniza (P15) ‘toothless woman’ brieg, brégu (K8) {Nsg. Dsg.} ‘slope’ = brîəg, brẹ́gu l-ptc. l-participle m masculine N nominative n neuter pf. perfect pl. plural PN personal name ppp. past passive participle pres. present tense sg. singular TN toponym= Bu ͡əg, Bogu (K8) {Nsg. Dsg.} ‘God’ = bûəg bunka, bunke (P15) {Npl.} ‘double bass’ bunkati, bunkajo (K8) {pres. 3pl.} ‘to play the double bass’ bunkavz (P15) ‘double bass player’ buntara (K8) meaning unknown búzati (P15) ‘to stab’ buzhize (P15) ‘straw made of pine wood fibers’ dar (K1) ‘when (rel.)’ = dr de (K8) ‘that (conj.) = da délavzi (P36) {Npl.} ‘worker’ = Log.b đé:wòu̯c délnik (P36) ‘heir’ (?) (djevnik) den (K8) ‘day’= dên deno (P36) {Asg.} ‘bottom’, Log.a, Log. b đnò dernza (P15) ‘nit’ derzha (P15) ‘an enormous mountain giant’ dezhva (K1) {Nsg.} ‘girl’ = dẹ̀čwa, Graf. dẹ̀čła dievan (K1) {pres.1sg.} ‘to make, do’ = dîwan dirjati (P15) ‘to trot’ diſhí (K8) {pres. 3sg.} ‘to smell’ = dəší djali (K10) {l-ptc. mpl.} ‘to put’ = djáti doſenzhi (K8) ‘to reach’ = dəsènči dòb (K13) {mNsg.} ‘oak’ = dôb, Log. b đò:ƀ 122 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 6 (2007) dober, dobro (K8; P36; K10) {mNsg., adv.} ‘good’ = dọ́br, dwòbro, Graf. dọ́bər, dòabrŏ, Log. a đọ́:ƀə̀r, đu̯ó:ƀrà {fNsg.}, Paul. đó̧ƀər, đó̧ƀra dobrava (P36) ‘forest’ = dóbraa, Graf. dòbraa, Log.b đó:ƀraà, Log.a đó: ƀrau ̯à doma (K8) ‘at home’ = dọ́ma drèse (P15) ‘crampon’ dro (K1) ‘indeed’ = dro dróshje (P15) ‘yeast’ = drọ̀žje, Graf. drọ̀žjĕ drujega (K10) {nGsg.} ‘other’ dvema (K10) {I} ‘two’ en prah (P15) ‘a little, a bit’ en’ prahezo (P15) ‘a little bit’ g’zi (K8) {Npl.} ‘musicians’ = gə̀dci (phonetically [gə̀ci]) ga (K8) {Asg.} ‘him (encl.)’ = ga germeléti (P15) ‘to be alive with, swarm with’ = Graf. grməlẹ́tė germovla (P15) ‘ant’ = grmàwla, Graf grmọ̀wla gertúne (P15) ‘plaited container on a waggon’ gledat (K10) {sup.} ‘to look at’ glíha, gliha, gliho (K1) {fNsg., fAsg.} ‘equal’ = glîh gnój (P36) ‘dung’ = gnûj, Log.a g ̶nù:əj, Log.b γnù:əi̯ godajo (K8) {pres. 3pl.} ‘to play (an instrument)’ = gódoo golído, golido (P15; K8) {Asg.} ‘milking pail’ = gəlída gora (P36) ‘mountain’ = gwòra, Log.a g ̶u̯árà, Graf. gòara gorenzh (K8) present active participle ‘to burn’ (?), Paul. gərȩ̀nč goſpued (K8) {Asg.} ‘parson’ cf. gəspûəd. gre (K10) ‘up’ gredò, gredo (K13; K10) {pres.3pl.} ‘to go’ = grdó haja (P15) ‘clumsy, unrefined woman’ hiſha (P36) ‘house’ = šíša, Log.a, Log. b ší:šà hliewe (K8) {Lsg.} ‘stable’ = hlîəbe hòta (P15) ‘pig’, cf. hôtəč hotezh (P15) ‘piglet’ = hôtəč hòtlív (P15) ‘sexually aroused’ hranili (K8) {l-ptc. mpl} ‘to keep’ = hránəli hvadno (K1) {Asg.} ‘cold’ ieserniza (P15) ‘a stream that empties into a lake’ in (K8) ‘and’ = n, only in numerals is (P36) ‘from’ ispíti (P36) ‘to finish (a drink, a glass)’ ispo (K8) {Asg.} ‘room’ = îspo jamizo (P36) {Asg.} dim. (?) ‘hole’ je (K1; P36; K10) ‘is’ {pres.3sg.} = je jeſ (K1) ‘I’ = jəz. The final voiceless consonant is probably due to the fact that the following words starts with a p-. jeden (P32) ‘one’ = jèdn, Graf. i̯èadn̥ jèrek (P15) ‘bitter’ = jèrk jiſhzhi (K1) {ipv.2sg.} ‘to seek, look for’ = jə̀šči, Graf. jə̀ščan {pres.1sg.} jiemo (K8) {pres. 1pl.} ‘to eat’ = íəmo, Log.b í:ən {pres.1sg.} jutre͡a (K8) ‘tomorrow’ = jùtre k’ (K10) ‘to’ = k k’leti (K8) ‘next year’ (?), cf. léto kej (K10) ‘where?’ kój, koj, kaj (K1; P36; K8; K10) ‘what’ = koj kakor (K1) ‘how (rel.)’ = kâkr kamba (P15) ‘knot, bow’, cf. kȁmbati se ‘go arm in arm’, kȁmba ‘doorknob’ kamro (K1) {Asg.} ‘room’ kánterzh (P15) ‘cabinet “um Gläser oder andere kleine Sachen aufzubehalten”’ kaple (K10) {Apl.} ‘drop’ kar (K10) ‘what (relative)’ = kȁr karèta (P15) ‘type of wagon, “einspänniger Wagen mit einer größeren Ladtruge für Weinfässer”’ kávka (P15) ‘simple-minded female’ kávkej (P15) ‘simple-minded male’ T. Pronk, Gailtal Slovene in Urban Jarnik’s Letters to Primic and Kopitar, 1811–1814 123 ke, ki, k’ (K1; K8; K10) ‘who (rel.)’ = kə kervi (K10) {Gsg.} ‘blood’ = kr ̀bi kloſhter, kloſtri (K10) {Asg., Lsg.} ‘monastery’ kloſhterſka, kloſhterſkej (K10) {fNsg., fDsg.} ‘of the monastery’ ko (K10) ‘when’ = kə ko (K10) ‘than’ = kə kobílza (P15) ‘fever’ kolavtra (P29) “Person oder Sache, die eine radförmige Bewegung macht” koleda, kolede (P30) {Npl.} ‘someone who sings monotonously’ koleduvanje (P30) ‘singing in a choir’ koleduvati (P30) ‘to sing in a choir’ kòrat (P15) ‘pagan mythical figure, who is seen in the relief of the moon and who causes the moon to wax by pouring water from a jug’ koróruvanje (P30) ‘singing in a choir’ koróruvati (P30) ‘to sing in a choir’ kosha (P36) ‘skin’ = kọ́ža, Log.a, Log. b kọ́:žà koshuh (P23) ‘sheep-skin that reaches to the calves’ = kwòžəh, Log.a, Log.b kwážə̀x, Graf. kòažəχ kote (P36) {Apl.} ‘corner’ = kót kravaríza (K8) ‘cow-girl’ krèshel (P15) ‘collar of a chemise’ krevati (P15) ‘to rebuke, blame’ kridvo, kridlo, kridle, v’kridli (K8; P29) {Nsg., Npl., Adu.?} ‘wing’, Paul. krídu̯o̧, Graf. krìdłŏ kròg (K13) ‘around’ = krôg kruh (K8) ‘bread’ = krúha kteri (K10) ‘which (relative)’ kuhinje (K8) {Gsg.} ‘kitchen’ = s kúhənje, Log.a kú:xəńà {Nsg.}, Log. b kú:ĥəńà kujnza (K8) {Asg.} ‘horse (dim.?)’, cf. kwȍjn kumej (K8) ‘hardly’ = kûmej kvobaſa (K8) {Nsg.} ‘sausage’ = kəbása, Log.a kəƀá:sà le (K1) ‘only’ = le lédik, ledik (K1) ‘bastard’ = lẹ́dək, this word is not inflected in the present- day language len (K8) ‘flax’ = lên lép (K10) {mNsg.} ‘beautiful’, cf. líəpa {fNsg.} lesha (K8) ‘lie’ lésha (K8) ‘lying’ leshajo (K1) {pres. 3pl.} ‘to lie’ léta, lét (K8; K10) {Gsg., Gpl.} ‘year’ = lẹ́ta, see: k’léti. léva (P15) ‘a kind of small wall stove, used for illumination rather than for heating’ lezho meſo (K8) ‘veal’ liepo, liepe (K1; K8) { fAsg., fApl.}, lépo (P36) {adv.} ‘beautiful’ = líəpo, líəpe lieta (K8) {pres. 3sg.} ‘to run’ = líəta lietas (K8) ‘this year’ = lîətas linzi (K10) {Lsg.} ‘dormer’ (?) lip’za, lip’ zo, lipzo (K1) {Nsg., Isg.} ‘lime-tree (dim.)’, cf. lípa liſ (P15) ‘lazy’ lub’zo, lub’ze (K1) {Asg., Gsg.} ‘sweetheart’ lubeja (K10) {Asg.} ‘sweetheart (masc.)’ = lûbija lubésen (K10) ‘love’ = ləbîəzn lud (K8) {Nsg.} ‘the people’ man, maſh (K1; K8) {pres.1sg., 2sg.} ‘to have’ = mân, mâš mánko, manko (P15; K8) {adv.} ‘at least’ méjſhta (K8) {Nsg.} ‘porridge (of maize or potatoes)’ = mȅjšta mèkez (P15) ‘bruise’ menie (K1) {Dsg.} ‘me’, mə̀ne, Graf. mə̀nĕ merselza (P15) ‘fever’ mersle (K10) {fGsg.} ‘cold’, cf. mr ̀zle {fApl.} meſo (K8) ‘meat’ = méso, Log.a, Log. b mé:sò meſhi (K10) {Dsg.} ‘mass’ mezh (P36) {Asg.} ‘sword’ 124 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 6 (2007) mi (K1; K10) {Dsg.} ‘me’ = mi míhen (P15) ‘small’ = mîhn miken (P15) ‘small’ = mîkn mísenza (P15) ‘table-drawer’ mizken (P15) ‘tiny’ mizkenòſt (P15) ‘littleness’ mlada (K10) {fNsg.} ‘small, little’ = mwáda mladina (P36) ‘youth’ = mwədína moje (K1) {mApl.} ‘my’ = muə́je mwòje mòra (P15) ‘mare’ = mwo ̏ra morza (P15) ‘mare (dim.)’ = mwo ̏rca mòsh (K13) {mNsg.} ‘husband’ = môž motovidlo, motovidvo (P29; K8) ‘windlass’ = mətəbídwo, Graf. mətəbìdłŏ movka (K1) {adv.} ‘home’, cf. ma ̏w ‘home’ mozhidlo (P29) ‘quagmire, puddle’ Mozhidle, mozhíle (K8; P15) {TN}, a marshy spot near a mountain, where the water cannot flow away. mre͡as (K8) ‘cold’ = mrjȅz najſpo (K8) {Asg.} ‘attic’ naſ, nam (P36; K8) {A, D} ‘us’ = nas, nan naſhzhekáa (K8) {l-ptc. fsg.} ‘to milk’ = ščəkáa nagelni (K8) {Npl.} ‘carnation’ = náglne {Apl.} nahájati (P15) {ipf.} ‘to find (something lost)’ najti (K8) ‘to find (something lost)’ see: obrenzhi najvishej (K10) {fLsg.} ‘highest’, cf. nejbîši {mNsg.} napajat (K8) {sup.} ‘to be watered’ naſhle (K10) {l-ptc. fpl.} ‘to find’ navada (K1) ‘use, custom’ = nəwâda ne (P15; P22; P36; K1), na (K8; K10) ‘on’ = nə neſéſh (K1) {pres.2sg.} ‘to carry’ = nəsẹ́š, Log.b nəsẹ́:n néhti, nehti (P15; P29) ‘some-one’ = nẹ̀hti, Graf. nẹ̀hte (sic!) nejzhen (K8) {pres. 1sg.} ‘to want not’ = nȅjčn, Graf. nẹ̏jčn̥ nékej, nékéj (P15; P29) ‘something’ = nẹ́kej nie, nieso (K10) {pres.3sg., pres.3pl.} ‘to be not’ nikoli (K10) ‘never’ nemaſh (K1) {pres.2sg.} ‘to have not’ = nîəmaš nieſim = nieſen, nieſi, nie, nieſo (P32; K10; K1; K8) {pres.123sg. 3pl.} ‘to be not’ = nîəsn etc. nizh (K1) ‘nothing’ = nə̏č, Log.a, Log. b nə̀č nje (K10) ‘her’ = njẹ́ njemu (P36) {Dsg.} ‘him’ = njèmu njin (K1) {Dpl.} ‘them’ ‘no (K1) {Asg.} ‘a’ = no nowega (K8) {nGsg.} ‘new’ = nọ́bega, Log.b nọ́:wà {fNsg.}, Graf. nọ́u̯a nuna, nuni, nune (K10) {Nsg., Dsg., Npl.} ‘nun’ = núna {Nsg.} obhajati (P15) ‘to administer the Holy communion’ obrank (K8) ‘hoop’ = ọ́branči {pl.}, Graf. ọ̀branč, Log.b ọ́:ƀrànč obréſt (K8) ‘find’ (?), see: obrenzhi obréſti (K8) ‘to find, meet, come across’ see: obrenzhi obrenzhi (K8) ‘to find, meet, come across’ odgovori ſe (K10) ‘to obey (?)’ odpri, odprite (K1; K10) {ipv.2sg., 2pl.} ‘to open’ = wòpri one (K10) {fNpl.} ‘they’ ora (K10) {pres.3sg.} ‘plough’, cf. ọ́ran {pres.1sg.} oſepnizhaſt (P15) ‘pockmarked’ otide (K8) {pres. 3sg.} ‘to leave’ ozhi (P36) {Apl.} ‘eye’ = ọ́či, Log.a ọ́:čẹ̀ {Npl.} p’ſnev (K8) {l-ptc. msg.} ‘to skim’ = pəsnȅw p’beri (K8) {ipv. 2sg.} ‘to pick up’ = bjèri, pəbráti T. Pronk, Gailtal Slovene in Urban Jarnik’s Letters to Primic and Kopitar, 1811–1814 125 p’bivajo (K8) {pres. 3pl.} ‘to hit’ = pəbíwoo p’ledan (K8) {pres. 1sg.} ‘to look’ = pəlêdan p’rmeknía (K8) {l-ptc. fsg.} ‘to move’ = Graf. prmə̀knȯ, Paul. pərmə̀knu {l- ptc. msg.} p’tieplaſh (K8) {pres. 2sg.} ‘to tramp about’ (?) pa (P15; P22; K1; K10) ‘and’ = pa pálizo (P36) {Asg.} ‘pole’ = pàlca péjdi (K8) {ipv. 2sg.} ‘go!’ = pòjdi peketáti (P15) “in Karrier reiten” per (K8) ‘at’ = pr perdirjati, perdirjali (P15; K8) {l-ptc. mpl.} ‘to come trotting’ pertizh (P15) ‘tablecloth; cloth made of linen’, cf. pr ̏t ‘cloth made of linen’ pertóſek, pertoſek (P15; K10) ‘chopper, hatchet “abgehauene Nadelholzäste zur Viehstreu klein zusammen zu hacken”’ = prtọ́sək piſkati, piſhzhi (P29) {ipv. 2sg.} ‘to play the flute’, cf. pìščala ‘flute’ piezh, pézhi (K8) {Nsg., Dsg.} ‘stove’ = pîəč, pẹ́či, Log.a, Log.b pì:əč pikez (P36) {Asg.} ‘point’ pinta (P15) a liquid measure pízhiza (P15) ‘pip, stone’ = pîčəce {Npl.} ‘pumpkin seeds’ planiniti, pvanuva {inf., l-ptc. fsg.} (P15; K8) ‘to keep and herb cattle on the mountain, “auch das Melken, Butter und Käsemachen wird darunter verstanden”’ planinzhan (P15) ‘alpine herdsman’ planinzhiza, pvaniſhzhiza (P15; K8) ‘milkmaid’ = Graf. płənȉnčəca pleſíſhe, pleſíſhzhe (P15) ‘dance floor; dance group’ pleteníza (P15) ‘carpet’ pléti (P15) ‘to weed’ póbovſhka (K10) {fNsg.} ‘of guys’ (?) poſhle (P15) ‘after’ póſtarn, poſtarn (P36) ‘elderly’ = pûəstarn poſvétiti, poſvétil (P22) {l-ptc. msg.} ‘to chase away’ poſzadvo, poſzadlo (K8; P29) ‘virile member of animals’ pod (K1) ‘under’ = pəd pogazha (P15) ‘special kind of bread baked in the harvest period, leavened bread (?)’ pogazhniza (P15) “der große Frauentag” (15 August) (pogazhenza) poheno (K8) {fAsg.} ‘full’ = pộhəno, Log.b pọ̀:xn̥ {mNsg.} pojdaſh (K8) ‘to go’ = pòjdamo (pres.1pl.) pojden, pojdeſh (K8; P22) {pres. 1sg., 2sg.} ‘to go’ = pòjdoo (pres.3pl.) pole (K10) {Asg.} ‘field’= pọ́le polijávniza (P15) ‘watering can’ pólzha (P15) ‘weeds’ (povzha) popìti (P36) ‘to finish (a drink, a glass)’, cf. píti poſtelzo (K10) {Asg.} ‘bed’ potép, p’tép, potepuh (P15; K8) ‘vagabond’ potoze͡a (K8) {Lsg.} ‘brook’ = cf. pwòtak {Nsg.}, Log.a, Log.b pwó:tàk, Graf. pətọ́ka {Gsg.} powédati (P36) ‘to tell’ = pəbẹ́dati pratnaſte/meſnaſte kroglize (K8) {Npl.} ‘German sausage’ právlo (P15) introduces direct speech prèrokuvale (P15) {l-ptc. fpl.} ‘to prophesy’ prezvetujan, prezvetûjaſh (K1) {pres.1sg., 2sg.} ‘to start to blossom’ príſhaſhtnik, priſhaſhtnik (P15; K8; K10) {Nsg.} ‘announcer of public works in a district’ príſhaſhtniza (P15) ‘female priſhaſhtnik’ príſhaſhtváti (P15) ‘to be a priſhaſhtnik’ príſhaſhtvo (P15) ‘the office of priſhaſhtnik’ priſhel, priſhla, priſhli, priſhle (P15) {l- ptc. msg., mdu., mpl., fdu.} ‘to come’ = Log.a, Log.b prí:šọ̀ {l-ptc. msg.} 126 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 6 (2007) priden (K8) {mNsg.} ‘good (of a person’ = prídn priedi (K1) ‘in front’ = príədi príklad (P15) ‘ecclesial term, probably for an amount of money to be paid to the curch regularly, “Kollektur”’ prízhen (K8) {mNsg.} ‘fresh’ = prîčn (p)tíza (P36) ‘bird’ = tə̏č, Log.a tì:čəca {dimminutive} puebi (K8) {Npl.} ‘boy’ = pûəbi puebizh, puebizhan (K1) {Nsg., Dpl.} ‘boy (dim.)’ pukſho (P36) {Asg.} ‘gun’ putov, a, o (P15) ‘lame, disabled’ pvazhidvo (K8) ‘payment’ = Paul. pu̯ačídu̯o̧ r’sbieſhat (K8) {sup.} ‘to hang out (laundry)’ = rzbîəšan (pres. 1sg.) radi (K8) {mNpl} ‘happy’ = rádi rajala (P29) {l-ptc. fsg.} ‘to dance’ = râjati {inf.} rajniſh kónj (P22) ‘uncastrated stallion’ rajnishar (P22) ‘uncastrated stallion’ raspraſnjani (K8) {ppp. mNpl.} ‘to unfold, cause to tear’ (Jarnik 1832: 178: raspraſniti ‘to unfold’, Pleteršnik 1893-1894: razprásniti ‘to cause to tear’ [citing Jarnik]) ravno (K10) {nAsg.} ‘flat’, cf. ràwna {fNsg.} rejſh (P22) ‘fast, quickly’ = rèjš rekla, rézhen (K10) {l-ptc. fsg., ?} ‘to say’ = rjèkwa répo (P36) {Asg.} ‘turnip’ = rẹ́po resdjati (P15) ‘to spread’ = rsdjáti reshálen (P15) ‘to disappoint’, cf. ržáləti rétnja (P15) ‘bottomless waterhole’ rieſhiſh ſe (K8) ‘to refrain from’, cf. rîəšn {pres.1sg.} riezh, rézhi (K8) {Nsg. Dsg.} ‘thing’ = rîəč, rẹ́či rok, v’roze ͡a (P36; K8) {Gpl., Lsg.} ‘arm’ = róce {Lsg.} roshe (P36) {Apl.} ‘rose’ = rwòže {Npl.} Ruſûla (K8) {PN} name of a cow (Jarnik 1832: rſúlja “rothbraune Kuh”), cf. rûs ‘brown’, Log.a rù:s ru ͡əg, rogu (K8) {Nsg. Dsg.} ‘horn’ = rûəg, Log.a rù:əg ̶ ’s, s’ (K8; K10) ‘with; from’ = s/z ’s pervenja (P15) ‘initially’ sa (K1) ‘for’ = zə saſhliſhi (K1) {pres.3sg.} ‘to get to hear’, cf. šlîši ‘hears’ sad’ (K1) ‘backward’ or ‘at the back’ = zád(i) sadénaſh (K8) {pres. 2sg.} ‘to cause (harm etc.)’, cf. dẹ́naš samòkel, la, lo (P15) {adj.} ‘hoarse’ = zəmóku sap’wiedov (K8) = pəbẹ́dəw ‘to tell’, cf. pəbíən {pres.1sg.} saperva (K1) {l-ptc. fsg.} ‘to close’ = zəpr̀wa savershanik (P15) ‘outcast, “Auswürfling unter den türkischen Waitztschurtschen [= Maiskolben]”’ sbierat (K8) {sup.} ‘to collect’ = zbírati {inf.} sdej, sdaj (K10) ‘now’ = stȅj sdrav, sdrava, sdravi, sdrave (P15) {mNsg., mNdu., mNpl., fNdu.} ‘healthy’ = zra ̏w, zráa, zrábi sgóni, sgoni (P15; K8; K10) {pres. 3sg.} ‘to ring (a bell)’ = zgọ́ni Silani (P23) ‘in habitants of the Gailtal’ = Ziláni skokama dirjati (sic! P15) ‘to gallop’ slóbek (P15) ‘devil’ slóbim (P15) {pres. 1sg.} ‘to rage’ sluebasen (K8) {Nsg.} a term of abuse, cf. zlûədej ‘evil-doer’ sluemek (K1; K8) { Nsg., Asg.} ‘devil’, cf. zlûədej ‘evil-doer’ sluemekov (K8) {mNsg.} ‘of the devil’ smahan (K8) {adv.} ‘quietly’ = zmâhan svegali (K1) {l-ptc. mpl. pf.} ‘to lie’ “st. slagali”, cf. Log.b wəgòu {l-ptc. msg. ipf.}̯ T. Pronk, Gailtal Slovene in Urban Jarnik’s Letters to Primic and Kopitar, 1811–1814 127 shálikshène, shalikshene (P15; K4) ‘mythical women, resembling the sibyls, who lived in caves and used to scream at people when and what to sow’ shie, she, shé (K8; P36; K10) ‘already’ = žîə shedvo (K8) ‘sting’ = Graf. žèdłŏ, Paul. žé ̧du̯o̧ shenſtva (P22) ‘woman’ = žə̀nstwa, Graf. žə̀nstwa shena, shien (K8) {Nsg., Gpl.} ‘wife’ = žjèna shènzh (P15) ‘bad’ = žènč shiwlenje (P36) ‘life’ = žəblènje shoboriti (P15) ‘to speak, talk’ = žəbrîti, Graf. žəbrîtė shoga (P15) ‘silk ribbon worn by girls in their hair on special occasions’ ſadja (K1) {Gsg.} ‘fruit’ = sə̀dje (?) ſama (K1) {fNsg.} ‘self’ = sâma ſamotèshnize (P36) {pl.} ‘kind of sleigh’ ſazen (K8) {adv.} meaning unknown ſe (K1; K8) reflexive pronoun, A = se ſédem (K10) ‘seven’ ſedò, ſedéa (K13; K8) {pres.3pl., l-pt. fsg.} ‘to sit’ = sədó, sədẹ́ja ſen, ſem, ſim (K1; K10) {pres.1sg.} ‘am’ = sn ſenzhi ‘to reach’ = Graf. -sènčė ſhle (K10) {l-ptc. fpl.} ‘to go’ ſi (P36) {pres.2sg.} ‘are’ ſienzo (K1) {Asg.} ‘shade’ = sîənco, Graf. sȉənca {Nsg.} ſkazhlaſh (K1) {pres.2sg.} ‘to jump’ = skàčlaš ſkokama (K8) ‘saltatory’ ſkopníze (P15) ‘snowless spot’ ſkopnizhkaſto (P15) ‘with snowless spots’ ſlushbe (K8) {Apl.} ‘service’ = Paul. slúžbo ̧ {Asg.}, Graf. slə̀žba {Nsg.} (a borrowing from central dialects because of initial sl-) ſmòkviza, ſmokvize (P15; K8) {Apl.} ‘strawberry’ ſniemat (K8) {sup.} ‘take from, lift from’ = snîəmat ſo (P15; P36; K10) {pres.3pl.} ‘are’ = so ſod (K8) {Asg.} ‘dish’ = sôde {Apl.} ſpóvad (P32) ‘confession’ = spûbad ſprehájati (P15) ‘to walk’ ſprenzhi (K8) ‘to harness together, yoke together’ ſragiſhzhe (P15) ‘piece of clothing worn when collecting pig’s droppings’ ſrajza (P15) ‘shirt’ ſrenzha (K8) ‘luck’ = srènča, Graf. srènča ſrenzhati (K8) ‘to meet’ = sre ̏nčati, Log.b srẹ̀nčan {pres. 1sg.} ſrésti ſe, me je ſriedu, ſrédva (K8) ‘to meet’ ſriſhzhe (K8) {Apl.} ‘shirt’ = srèjšče, Graf. srẹ̀jščĕ, Log.a srái ̯ščè ſtanu (K1) {Gsg.} ‘state, situation’ (?) ſtara (K10) {fNsg.} ‘old’ = stára ſtati, ſtojí, ſtăă (K8; K10; K1) {inf., pres.3sg., l-ptc. fsg.} ‘to stand’= státi, stí, stáa, Log.a stá:à ſte (P36; K8) {pres. 2pl.} ‘are’ = ste ſterm, ſtermen (P22) ‘steep’ = str ̀bn ſtolzhi (K8) {Lsg.} ‘stool’ ſtrahota, ſtrahòte {Nsg., Apl.} (P36) ‘fear’ ſtu͡əg, ſtogu (K8) {Nsg. Dsg.} ‘rack for drying hay’ = stûəg ſvate (K8) {Apl.}, in ſvate sbérati (P15) ‘to invite the wedding guests’ ſve͡azhan, ſvèzhen (K8; P15) ‘(the time of) evening prayer’ ſvinja (P15) ‘swine’ = sbìnja ſwét (P36) ‘world’ = sbíət ſwèt (P36) ‘advice’ or ‘holy’ (= sbêt) ſhe (K8; K10) ‘still, yet’ = še ſhéstnajst (K10) ‘sixteen’ = šîəstnejst ſhidvo (K8) ‘awl’ = Graf. šìdłŏ ſhitro (K1) {adv.?} ‘fast’ = Paul. šítro ſhivan’za (P22) ‘needle’ = šíwanca hiwíle (P36) {Npl.} ‘seamstress’ 128 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 6 (2007) ſhkandèlo (P36) ‘dish’ {Asg.} = škndẹ́ja {Nsg.} ſhliſhāā (K1) {l-ptc. fsg.} ‘to hear’ ſhméſnarji, ſhméſhnarje (P15; K8) {Npl., Apl.} unknown type of food ſhpani, ſhpane (K1) {Npl., Apl.} ‘friend’ = špân ſhterkáliza (P15) ‘syringe’ ſhterlínkati (P15) ‘to go about as a vagabond’ ſhterlínkavez (P15) ‘vagabond’ ſhu, ſhû, ſhel (K8; P15), ſhva (K1) {l- ptc. msg., fsg.} ‘to go’ = šȁw, šwa ̏, Log.b šàu ̯ ſhzhekáti, naſhzhekati (P15) {ipf., pf.} ‘to milk’ t’nje͡aka (K8) {Asg.} meaning unknown, prob. a kind of person taríze (P36) {Npl.} ‘woman who scutches’ = təríce ta perva (K10) {fNsg.} ‘the first’ te sadnje (K10) {nNsg.} ‘the last’ téa (K8) {l-pt. fsg.} ‘to want’ = tẹ́ja terdno (K1) {adv.} ‘hard’ = tr̀du ti (K1), te (K8; K10), tì, ti (P22; P36; K1) {Nsg., Asg., Dsg.} ‘you’ = tî, te, ti to (K1), tej (K10), tan (K1) {fAsg., fDLsg., mDpl.} ‘that, this’ Tòrka (P15) {PN} ‘the wife of Tork or the War-god, a treacherous and vindictive woman’ tre͡apvo (K8) {Asg.} meaning unknown tri (K10) {fApl.} ‘three’ = trî tudej (K8) ‘also’ = tûdej tva, tvojo (K1) {fNsg., Asg.} ‘your (sg.)’ = twáa, twòo, Log.b twá: uſtnize (K4) {Npl.} ‘lips’ (?) = ȕstnce ushenek (P15) ‘grumbling’ v’, u (K1; K10; K8) ‘in’ Vaſha (K8) {TN, Apl.} ‘Italy’ = nə Wa ̏šče ‘into Italy’ vajſhenza (P15) ‘pillow’ = bèjšnca vani (K8) ‘last year’ = wâni vari ſe (P36) {ipv. 2sg.} ‘to watch out’ vávtara (P15) ‘door-leaf’ vbuejega (K1) {Gsg.} ‘poor, pitiable’ vedala (K10) {l-ptc. fsg.} ‘to know’ = bẹ́duwa veſ (K8) ‘village’ = bês, Log.b wè:s vezh (K10) {adv.} ‘more’ vidle, vidlize (K8) {pl.} ‘fork’ = bídlce, Graf. vìdl̥cĕ vi (K10) ‘you (pl.)’ vino (P36) ‘wine’ = Log.b ƀí:nò viſhi (K10) ‘higher’ = bîši vkup (K10) ‘together’ vlenzhi (K8) ‘bare (a child)’ = lènči volizhama (K10) {Idu.} ‘ox’ vprenzhi (K8) ‘harness’ = prènči vrate (K10) {pl.} ‘gate’ (?) vrenzh (K8) ‘warm’ = (w)rȅnč vsemi, vsev (K1; K8) {ipv.2sg., l-ptc. msg.} ‘to take’ = zémi/zə̀mi, zêw, Log. b zé:mẹ̀, zè:u ̯ vſe (K1), vſa (P36), vſo (P36), vſe (P36), vſan (K1), vſe (K10) {nAsg., fNsg., fAsg., mApl., Dpl., fNpl.} ‘all’, Log.b sjè: {nNAsg.} vſelej (K10) ‘always’ vtézhi (P36) ‘to escape’ vun (K10) ‘out’ wìbíti, wìbil (P36) {inf., l-ptc. msg.} ‘to beat out, smash’ wibivanje (P36) ‘beating out, smashing’ wibivati (P36) {ipf.} ‘to beat out, smash’ widati, vidijòm, vidila (K8; K13; K10) {inf., pres.3pl.; l-ptc. fsg.} ‘to see’ = bídəti, bídijo, bíduwa, Log.a ƀí:đn̥ {pres. 1sg.} widélanje (P36) ‘finishing work’ wìdélati, wìdélali, wìdélan, wìdélana (P36) {l-ptc. mpl., ppp., fNsg.} ‘to finish work’ widerhanje (P36) ‘pulling out’ widerhati, widerhal (P36) {l-ptc. msg.} ‘to pull out’ wìdréti, wìdíram, widerl, wìdert (P36) {pres. 1sg., l-ptc. msg., ppp.} ‘to snatch away’ wìganjanje (P36) ‘chasing away’ wìganjati (P36) {ipf.} ‘to chase away’ T. Pronk, Gailtal Slovene in Urban Jarnik’s Letters to Primic and Kopitar, 1811–1814 129 wìgladiti, wìglajena (P36) {ppp. fNsg.} ‘to chop all branches off a (pine) tree’ wìgnati, wishenem, wìgnán (wìgnan) (P36) {pres. 1sg., ppp. fNsg.} ‘to chase off’ wigóſti (P36) ‘to finish playing (an instrument)’ wìgorím (P36) {pres.1sg.} ‘to burn down’ wigrebſti (P36) ‘to dig out, scrape out’ wìjéſti, wìjédli (P36) {l-ptc. msg.} ‘to finish eating’ wìjiskánje (P36) ‘searching through’ wijískati, wìjiskáti (P36) ‘to search through, ransack’ wìjushinati, wìjushináli (P36) {l-ptc. mpl.} ‘to finish lunch’ wìkáſhlati (P36) ‘to finish coughing’, cf. Log.b kà:šlan {pres. 1sg.} ‘to cough’ wìkídanje (P36) ‘clearing out’ wìkidati, wìkídati (P36) ‘to clear out’ wìkopáti, wìkopán (P36) ‘to dig out’ wìlésti (P36) ‘to crawl out, climb out’ wìlétati (P36) {ipf.} ‘to run off, fly off’ wiletéli (K8) {l-ptc. mpl.} ‘to run, fly’, cf. ltẹ́li {l-ptc. mpl.} wìletéti (P36) ‘to run off, fly off’ wìlisanje (P36) ‘licking clean’ wìlísati, wilisal (P36) {l-ptc. msg.} ‘to lick out’ wilíti (P36) ‘to pour out’ wìlivati, wìlijati (P36) {ipf.} ‘to pour out’ wìlomíti (P36) ‘to break out, away’ wìluſhzhenje (P36) ‘ginning (corn)’ = cf. wəščíne wìluſhzhiti, wìluſhzhen (P36) {ppp.} ‘to gin (corn)’ wìmíti (P36) ‘to wash completely, wash till clean’ wìmívanje (P36) ‘thorough washing’ wìmivati (P36) {ipf.} ‘to wash completely, wash till clean’ wìmózhiti, wìmózhen (P36) ‘to soak’ wìmréti, wìmerla (P36) ‘to die out’ wipikati (P36) {ipf.} ‘to put out, cut out (with a bill)’ wipikniti, wìpiknila (P36) {inf., l-ptc fsg.} ‘to put out, cut out (with a bill)’ wìpípal (P36) ‘to pull out’ wìpíti (P36) ‘to finish a drink’ (= ispíti, popìti) wìpléti (P36) ‘to finish weeding’, cf. plẹ́ti ‘to weed’ wìrasti, wìraſla, wìraſhzhen (P36) {l- ptc. fsg., ppp.} ‘to complete growth, finish growing’, cf. rásti, Log.a rá:stẹ̀ wìredíti, wìrèjen (wìrejen) (P36) {ppp.} “die körperlich gute Erziehung vollenden” wìrésanje (P36) ‘engraving’ wìrésati, wirésal, wìrésan (P36) {l-ptc. msg., ppp.} ‘engrave, cut out’ wìshémanje (P36) ‘wringing out’ wìshémati (P36) {ipf.} ‘to wring out’ wìshéti, wìshèt (P36) {ppp.} ‘to wring out’ wìshgati, wìshgan (P36) {ppp.} ‘to burn completely’ wishoworiti (P36) ‘to finish speaking’ wìſékati (ſe), wìſekala ſe, wìſékan, wìſékana (P36) {l-ptc. fsg., ppp., fNsg.} ‘cutting down trees until none is left’, - ſe ‘be cut down completely’ wìſerkanje (P36) ‘slurping out’ wìſerkati (P36) {ipf.} ‘to slurp out completely’ wìſerkniti (P36) ‘to slurp out completely’ wìſhívati, wìſhívale (P36) {l-ptc. fpl.} ‘to finish sewing’ wíſhnjava (P36) ‘height’ wìſhzhekáti (P36) ‘to finish milking’ wìſíſáti, wìſìſáli (P36) {l-ptc. mpl.} ‘to suck up completely’ wìſípati (P36) freq. ‘to fill in, bury’ wìſkákati ſe (P36) ‘to finish fooling around’ wìſkozhiti (P36) ‘to jump away from’ wiſok (P36) ‘proud’ 130 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 6 (2007) Wiſprija, viſprijani (P36) {TN} Weispriach wìſtrelíti, wiſtréli, wìtſélil (P36) {pf.: ipv. 2sg., l-ptc. msg.} ‘to shoot, fire a shot’ wìſtrélanje (P36) ‘shooting’ wìſuti (P36) ‘fill in, fill up’ wìſzati ſe (P36) ‘to urinate till empty’ wìtègniti ſe (P36) ‘to overstretch, sprain’ wìtekniti, wìteknil (P36) {l-ptc. msg.} ‘to put out, cut out’ wìtergati (P36) ‘to tear out’ wìtézhi, wìteklo (P36) {l-ptc. nsg.} ‘to run out, pour out’ wìtlazhíti (P36) ‘to squeeze out intestines’ wìtréti, wìterle (P36) {l-ptc. fpl.} ‘to finish braking (flax)’ wìvertanje (P36) ‘perforation’ wivertati (P36) ‘to bore out, perforate’ wìvohati (P36) ‘to nose through, get track of sth., find out’ wivuzhiti ſe (P36) ‘to learn completely’ wìzheſanje (P36) ‘finishing combing’ wìzheſati (P36) ‘to finish combing’ wizhihati ſe, wìkihati ſè (P36) ‘to finish sneezing’ zéla (P36) {fNsg.} ‘whole’ = cíwa, cf. cíəlej {fLsg.} Zewlovz (K8) {TN, Asg.} ‘Klagenfurt’ zézo hájati (P15) “das liebeswürdige Mädchen wiegen” zhe ͡ara (K8) {Nsg.} ‘daughter’ = ščêra zhe ͡as (K8) ‘time’ (?) = čjə̏s zhernjèlo (P15) {nNsg.} ‘red’, cf. črnẹ́ja {fNsg.}, črnjèle {fNpl.} zhréve (P36) {Apl.} ‘intestines’ = črîəbe zhuda (K8) {Nsg.} ‘miracle’ = čúda References Grafenauer, I. 1905. “Zum Accente im Gailthalerdialekte”, Archiv für slavische Philologie 27, 195–228. Jarnik, U. 1815. Wörter, die im Gailthale (на Зи́ли) gebräuchlich sind, unpublished manuscript, kept in the National and University Library, Ljubljana. Jarnik, U. 1832. Versuch eines Etymologikons der slowenischen Mundart in Inner- Oesterreich, Klagenfurt. Jarnik, U. 1842. “Obraz slovenskoga narěčja u Koruškoj”, Kolo I, 41–57. Karničar, L. 1990. Der Obir-Dialekt in Kärnten; die Mundart von Ebriach/Obirsko im Vergleich mit den Nachbarmundarten von Zell/Sele und Trögern/Korte, Vienna. Karničar, L. 2003. “Urban Jarnik in koroška slovenska narečja”, Simpozij o Urbanu Jarniku, Koroški etnološki zapisi 2, 95–103. Kidrič, F. 1934. Korespondenca Janeza Nepomuka Primca 1808–1813, Ljubljana. Logar, T. 1968. “Vokalizem in akcent govora Potoč v Ziljski dolini”, Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 11, 137–143. Logar, T. 1981. “Potoče (Potschach; OLA 146)”, Fonološki opisi, 201–211. Makarovič, M. & Dolenc, J. 1992. Die slowenische Volkstracht in Wort und Bild: das Gailtal, Ljubljana. Paulsen, V. 1935. Lautlehre des Slowenischen Gailtalerdialektes in Kärnten, unpublished dissertation, university library, Vienna. Pleteršnik, M., 1893–1894. Slovensko-nemški slovar, Ljubljana. Priestly, T., 2005. “John Gumperz’s Data from Ziljska Bistrica: Some Corrections”, Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 5, 176–188. T. Pronk, Gailtal Slovene in Urban Jarnik’s Letters to Primic and Kopitar, 1811–1814 131 Prunč, E. 1970, 1971, 1974, 1981, 1983. “Aus der Kopitarkorrespondenz (Briefe Urban Jarniks an Bartholomäus Kopitar)”, Anzeiger für slavische Philologie IV, 90–114; V, 83–106; VII, 72–91; XII, 43–69; XIV, 87–103. Prunč, E. 1988. Urban Jarnik (178–18). Textologische Grundlagen und lexikologische Untersuchung seiner Sprache. Band 2: Wortschatzanalyse. Klagenfurt. Prunč, E. 2003. “Urban Jarnik kot pesnik”, Simpozij o Urbanu Jarniku, Koroški etnološki zapisi 2, 20–40. Toporišič, J. 1962. “Die slovenische Dialektforschung”, Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 30, 383–416. Prispelo oktobra 2006, sprejeto januarja 2007 Received October 2006, accepted January 2007 Ziljščina v pismih Urbana Jarnika Primcu in Kopitarju, 1811–1814 Prispevek predstavlja narečne podatke iz Ziljske doline na Koroškem, ki jih navaja Urban Jarnik v pismih Primicu in Kopitarju. Jarnikovo obravnavo narečnih podatkov imamo lahko za začetek slovenskega narečjeslovja. Prvi del prispevka je posvečen filološki in fonološki analizi Jarnikovih podatkov, v drugem delu je slovarček vseh ziljskih besed, izpričanih v Jarnikovih pismih. Gradivo prinaša mnogo narečnih besed, ki jih v poznejši literaturi ni zaslediti. Pisma Urbana Jarnika Primicu in Kopitarju z začetka 19. stoletja so pomemben vir podatkov o slovenskem koroškem narečju nasploh in o Jarnikovem lastnem ziljskem govoru. Jarnikovi podatki postavljajo jezikoslovca pred nekaj ovir. Prvič, ni vselej jasno, ali besede, ki jih navaja, izvirajo iz Ziljske doline ali iz drugih delov Koroške. Drugič, Jarnik ni zapisoval narečnega gradiva sistematično fonemsko, čeprav je za Primica in Kopitarja skušal pisavo deloma standardizirati. Gradivo kljub temu prinaša dovolj informacij, iz katerih lahko ugotavljamo fonološki sistem Jarnikovega jezika. Jarnikovo fonologijo ugotavljamo tudi s pomočjo poznejših opisov ziljskega narečja in na podlagi različic njegove pisave. Fonološke in morfološke značilnosti, ki jih najdemo v pismih, se ujemajo s podatki iz poznejših virov. Glavni prispevek Jarnikovih pisem k našemu poznavanju ziljskega narečja pa je velika količina drugod neizpričanih besed. Gailtal Slovene in Urban Jarnik’s Letters to Primic and Kopitar, 1811–1814 The paper presents the dialectal data from the Gailtal in Carinthia that Urban Jarnik discusses in his letters to Primic and Kopitar. Jarnik’s discussions of his native dialect in these letters could be regarded as the first serious treatment of Slovene dialectal material. The first part of the paper is devoted to a philological and phonological analysis of Jarnik’s data. The second half gives a glossary of all the 132 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 6 (2007) Gailtal Slovene words in Jarnik’s letters. Many dialectal words that Jarnik gives are not attested in later literature. The letters Urban Jarnik wrote to Primic and Kopitar at the beginning of the 19th century contain a wealth of linguistic information about the Carinthian dialects of Slovene, as well as of Jarnik’s native Gailtal dialect in particular. There is, however, a number of obstacles for the linguist trying to understand Jarnik’s data. Firstly, it is not always clear whether the forms Jarnik adduces are from the Gailtal or from other parts of Carinthia. Secondly, Jarnik’s spelling is by no means phonological. He tries to standardize his spelling so that Primic and Kopitar can relate the dialectal forms to words they know from the central dialects of Slovene. In spite of this, there is enough information to determine the phonology of Jarnik’s language in detail. Jarnik’s phonology can be described with the help of later descriptions of the Gailtal dialect, and on the basis of variations in his spelling. The phonological and grammatical information we can extract from the letters corresponds to what we know about the dialect from later sources. The main contribution of the letters to our knowledge of the Gailtal dialect is the large number of words Jarnik provides that are elsewhere unattested.