Page 430 - Stati inu obstati, revija za vprašanja protestantizma, letnik X (2014), številka 19-20, ISSN 1408-8363
P. 430
SYNOPSES, ZUSAMMENFASSUNGEN
young nobleman Andreas von Auersperg (of Turjak), who came from Carniola
to study in Tübingen. From 1571 Steiner was at the same time the priest in the
then Lutheran parish of Bühl near Tübingen. In 1572 he defended his Latin
thesis Disputatio de consiliis before a board presided over by his teacher Jakob An-
dreae. Steiner remained Auersperg’s home tutor until 1573, when he became
priest at Sv. Rupret in Carinthia. In 1576 he was called to the position of provin-
cial preacher and superintendent in Klagenfurt. He was also one of seven theo-
logians and philologists who checked Dalmatin’s Slovene translation of the Bible
in Ljubljana in 1581. It is not yet possible to explain the ways by which his book
came to Memmingen.
UDC 811.163.6"15":929Megiser H.
Majda Merše
Megiser’s dictionaries of 1592 and 1603 in Slovene linguistic
awareness and the overlap of Slovene vocabulary in them
Megiser’s four-language dictionary with German as the starting-point DIC-
TIONARIVM QVATVOR LINGVARVM of 1592 and his polyglot dictionary Theſau-
rus Polyglottus of 1603 are the first two polyglot dictionaries where the Slovene
language is included to provide equivalents. The different number of languages
placed side by side in dictionary form, the different linguistic starting-point (in
MD 1592 German, in MTh 1603 Latin) and the decade which passed between
the two editions, enabling Megiser to gain a better knowledge of the Slovene
language and its dialects, also let us sense the differences as regards how much
Slovene vocabulary is encompassed.
A comparison of the vocabulary included in both dictionaries and quoted in
the section Windiſch in MD 1592 and in the sections for Slovene, Carniolan,
Carinthian, Eastern Slovene (marked as Bezjakian and (partly) Croatian vocab-
ulary in MTh 1603) has shown that (a) part of the vocabulary occurs only in MD
1592, and part only in MTh 1603, though the latter is more extensive; (b) the
larger number of headwords also involves more Slovene equivalents; and (c)
within the non-overlapping part of the vocabulary a typology can be ascertained
which contributes to an understanding of the differences with regard to the
vocabulary that is included.
In MD 1592, the German starting-point clearly influenced the search for
Slovene equivalents, while in MTh 1603 the Latin headwords generally deter-
mined the choice of equivalents, but the final choice was sometimes influenced
- apart from broader usage (whether in the Slovene provinces or only in Carinthia)
- by equivalents quoted in the German section. Megiser’s two dictionaries also
differ in the completeness of word families. Among unilaterally added or elimi-
428
young nobleman Andreas von Auersperg (of Turjak), who came from Carniola
to study in Tübingen. From 1571 Steiner was at the same time the priest in the
then Lutheran parish of Bühl near Tübingen. In 1572 he defended his Latin
thesis Disputatio de consiliis before a board presided over by his teacher Jakob An-
dreae. Steiner remained Auersperg’s home tutor until 1573, when he became
priest at Sv. Rupret in Carinthia. In 1576 he was called to the position of provin-
cial preacher and superintendent in Klagenfurt. He was also one of seven theo-
logians and philologists who checked Dalmatin’s Slovene translation of the Bible
in Ljubljana in 1581. It is not yet possible to explain the ways by which his book
came to Memmingen.
UDC 811.163.6"15":929Megiser H.
Majda Merše
Megiser’s dictionaries of 1592 and 1603 in Slovene linguistic
awareness and the overlap of Slovene vocabulary in them
Megiser’s four-language dictionary with German as the starting-point DIC-
TIONARIVM QVATVOR LINGVARVM of 1592 and his polyglot dictionary Theſau-
rus Polyglottus of 1603 are the first two polyglot dictionaries where the Slovene
language is included to provide equivalents. The different number of languages
placed side by side in dictionary form, the different linguistic starting-point (in
MD 1592 German, in MTh 1603 Latin) and the decade which passed between
the two editions, enabling Megiser to gain a better knowledge of the Slovene
language and its dialects, also let us sense the differences as regards how much
Slovene vocabulary is encompassed.
A comparison of the vocabulary included in both dictionaries and quoted in
the section Windiſch in MD 1592 and in the sections for Slovene, Carniolan,
Carinthian, Eastern Slovene (marked as Bezjakian and (partly) Croatian vocab-
ulary in MTh 1603) has shown that (a) part of the vocabulary occurs only in MD
1592, and part only in MTh 1603, though the latter is more extensive; (b) the
larger number of headwords also involves more Slovene equivalents; and (c)
within the non-overlapping part of the vocabulary a typology can be ascertained
which contributes to an understanding of the differences with regard to the
vocabulary that is included.
In MD 1592, the German starting-point clearly influenced the search for
Slovene equivalents, while in MTh 1603 the Latin headwords generally deter-
mined the choice of equivalents, but the final choice was sometimes influenced
- apart from broader usage (whether in the Slovene provinces or only in Carinthia)
- by equivalents quoted in the German section. Megiser’s two dictionaries also
differ in the completeness of word families. Among unilaterally added or elimi-
428
