Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

On latin protoslavic language

M a t e r i a l i e d i s c u s s i o n i Studi Slavistici xi - Ra ?aele Caldarelli On Latin-Protoslavic Language Contacts Some Remarks on a Recent Paper by Salvatore Del Gaudio In a recent paper written on the occasion of the th International Congress of Slavists Salvatore Del Gaudio tackled the problem of linguistic relations mainly at a lexical level between Latin later Romance and Slavic His article contributes some interesting data and ideas concerning the ethnic and historical context and provides a good opportunity for a re ection on the possibility of using di ?erent tools in research concerning the past of South- Eastern Europe Unfortunately the paper is much less solid at least in my opinion from the linguistics point of view For the sake of clarity I ? ll divide my observations into ?ve points Author ? s introductory remarks and the state of the art Maybe the main cause of dissent lies in the ?rst paragraphs The author says Del Gaudio Latin elements are primarily investigated in Church Slavonic textual sources also as a consequence of a lack of written evidence in the early Slavic vernaculars For this reason in the literature the early Latin borrowings are often associated with the appearance of Slavic writing and the formation of the distinct Slavic languages However ethno-linguistic research on ancient toponymy along with archaeological evidence has demonstrated the fallacy of such an assumption According to the author then a until now scholars have at least ??primarily ? investigated Latin borrowings in the ?rst Slavic written documents especially Old Church Slavonic hereinafter OCS b research on ancient toponymy etc along with archaeological evidence can contribute new useful data c we can then obtain entirely new results in the ?eld of Latin Protoromance -Slavic linguistic relations To be precise the author speaks of ??Church Slavonic ? ? Firenze University Press ?? issn - online Ra ?aele Caldarelli That such disciplines as those mentioned in point b above can contribute useful data is true By contrast however it is not true that the problem of Romance-Slavic pre-documentary linguistic relations has not been investigated There is a considerable amount of bibliography on this subject Pre-documentary relations were and are investigated with the usual tools of historical linguistics ?rst of all the comparative ones To deny this possibility is tantamount to saying that pre-documentary linguistic stages cannot be investigated at all Nor can archeological or toponymic data replace the comparative method though they can complement it Why then do we only know a relatively small number of borrowings of Romance origin that we can treat as Protoslavic Because linguistic comparison does not provide us with su ?cient linguistic evidence to prove such deep extended loan relations probably such deep relations simply did not exist Moreover I do not think it is methodologically correct to infer wide lexical relations from data that are insu ?cient and partly contradictory In addition the following passage