Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Keywords
  • Date

Search results

Number of results: 13
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:

Abstract

The words for the thigh have a complex distribution in Slavic. Thus, the word * lęžьka is found mainly in Russia and in the eastern parts of Belarus and Ukraine. The word *stegno is found in a few large and several smaller clusters in the Czech Republic, parts of Slovakia, in a large part of Ukraine and Belarus, in northern Russia, in some areas in Slovenia, Montenegro, and it is scattered in numerous other places. These words make extensive transitional belts along the border between Belorussia and Russia as well as between Ukraine and Russia. In Poland both the variants *udon and * udъ m are used. In a vast area in Northern Russia the term * χolъka is used. The Turkish borrowings *butъ and *butina occur in a large area in South Slavic. Along the border between Poland and the Czech Republic we find compact, although relatively small areas in which the forms *kyta i *kyto are found, whereas the areas next to the border between Poland and Slovakia use compound forms such as * grubO t ě lo , *noga v ъ grubizně, etc. Moreover, in large areas in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia we find Lithuanian borrowings. Many of the words for the thigh also refer to other parts of the body, such as the hip (the meanings “hip” and “thigh” are provided by many dictionaries alongside), the hip bone, the kidney, the calf, the shin, the foot or parts of the foot. Many of these words have been recorded in The General Slavic Linguistic Atlas (OLA) only in very rare instances, at times only at one point. However, most of them have been referred to in comparative documents other than the OLA.
Go to article

Abstract

The article deals with the question of linguistic interference among Slavic languages at the example of Choroszczynka, a bilingual village in Biała Podlaska County, Lublin Voivodeship. The presentation of two complete questionnaires for the Slavic Linguistic Atlas (OLA), Polish and Ukrainian, not only makes it possible to capture grammatical and lexical peculiarities of both sets assigned to individual dialects, but also reveals carelessness of the fi eldworkers who collected the data. This, in turn, contributed to such an interpretation of dialectal data presented in OLA maps which does not refl ect linguistic reality.
Go to article

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more