Page 310 - Stati inu obstati, revija za vprašanja protestantizma, letnik II (2006), številki 3-4, ISSN 1408-8363
P. 310
SYNOPSES, ZUSAMMENFASSUNGEN
UDC 808.63-3=71=30"15/16"
Majda Merše
Megiser’s dictionary and the forming of Slovene linguistic standards
in the 16th century
At the end of the 16th century, Hieronomus Megiser placed Slovene as a
non-first (complementary) language into two multilingual dictionaries: into
the German-Latin-Slovene-Italian dictionary Dictionarium quatuor linguarum of
1592, and into the The∫aurus Polyglottus of 1603. A consideration of the literary
form of Slovene which had developed from its Trubarian beginnings from 1550
onwards and its concurrent appearance in Megiser’s dictionaries demonstrates
that the latter captured more characteristic features of Slovene literary language
from the second half of the 16th century. Because of the generic associations of
his dictionaries (they are both multilingual) and because their lexicographical
information is focused only on select linguistic fields, a rich informativeness is
perhaps to be expected, especially with respect to the lexical corpus. On the
basis of demonstrated written and phonetic pairs, it is also possible to become
acquainted with the real problematic at the written and phonetic levels.
Individually, the non-systemic and mostly indirectly demonstrated data about
the inflection and valency of words does not suffice for an acquaintance with
the characteristic features of the contemporary morphological and syntactical
system.
In Megiser’s dictionaries the attested writing system demonstrates distinc-
tive features. Compared to the language of Dalmatin’s translation of the Bible,
the following stand out: a less stable notation of sibilants and palatoalveolar
fricatives and affricates, changing patterns in the writing of other consonants
(e.g., soft /l/ and /n/) and a rarer and less stable use of accent signs. The two
dictionaries offer many examples of the unwritten reduced vowel (?) in word-
final syllables (e.g., ba?n, pametn), and also expose more types of orthographic
variability (e.g. the writing of verbal calques either together or separately).
Megiser’s dictionaries furthermore demonstrate generally recognised phonetic
variants (e.g., divji – divje, slobodnost – slaboden, cagav – cagov, sirota – sorota; priseči
– persegati; nezastopnost – nezestop; and also, črešnja – češnja, človečki – človeški;
slišati – šlišati), which for the most part mirror still developing current phonemic
processes. In the case of the majority of lexicographically mediated word forms,
whether already known or novel, it is possible to uncover their formation using
established morphological models. The morphological variability also typical
of 16th century literary language is demonstrated by numerous pairs of lexico-
graphically attested synonyms (e.g., baržagar – baržager, plešiv – plešast).
At the same time, the multilexical Slovene complementary strings in
Megiser’s dictionaries mirror typical lexical constructions as used in literary
works: besides indigenous words, older and more recent borrowings (the latter
mostly from German) are also woven into them. Megiser’s dictionaries also
308
UDC 808.63-3=71=30"15/16"
Majda Merše
Megiser’s dictionary and the forming of Slovene linguistic standards
in the 16th century
At the end of the 16th century, Hieronomus Megiser placed Slovene as a
non-first (complementary) language into two multilingual dictionaries: into
the German-Latin-Slovene-Italian dictionary Dictionarium quatuor linguarum of
1592, and into the The∫aurus Polyglottus of 1603. A consideration of the literary
form of Slovene which had developed from its Trubarian beginnings from 1550
onwards and its concurrent appearance in Megiser’s dictionaries demonstrates
that the latter captured more characteristic features of Slovene literary language
from the second half of the 16th century. Because of the generic associations of
his dictionaries (they are both multilingual) and because their lexicographical
information is focused only on select linguistic fields, a rich informativeness is
perhaps to be expected, especially with respect to the lexical corpus. On the
basis of demonstrated written and phonetic pairs, it is also possible to become
acquainted with the real problematic at the written and phonetic levels.
Individually, the non-systemic and mostly indirectly demonstrated data about
the inflection and valency of words does not suffice for an acquaintance with
the characteristic features of the contemporary morphological and syntactical
system.
In Megiser’s dictionaries the attested writing system demonstrates distinc-
tive features. Compared to the language of Dalmatin’s translation of the Bible,
the following stand out: a less stable notation of sibilants and palatoalveolar
fricatives and affricates, changing patterns in the writing of other consonants
(e.g., soft /l/ and /n/) and a rarer and less stable use of accent signs. The two
dictionaries offer many examples of the unwritten reduced vowel (?) in word-
final syllables (e.g., ba?n, pametn), and also expose more types of orthographic
variability (e.g. the writing of verbal calques either together or separately).
Megiser’s dictionaries furthermore demonstrate generally recognised phonetic
variants (e.g., divji – divje, slobodnost – slaboden, cagav – cagov, sirota – sorota; priseči
– persegati; nezastopnost – nezestop; and also, črešnja – češnja, človečki – človeški;
slišati – šlišati), which for the most part mirror still developing current phonemic
processes. In the case of the majority of lexicographically mediated word forms,
whether already known or novel, it is possible to uncover their formation using
established morphological models. The morphological variability also typical
of 16th century literary language is demonstrated by numerous pairs of lexico-
graphically attested synonyms (e.g., baržagar – baržager, plešiv – plešast).
At the same time, the multilexical Slovene complementary strings in
Megiser’s dictionaries mirror typical lexical constructions as used in literary
works: besides indigenous words, older and more recent borrowings (the latter
mostly from German) are also woven into them. Megiser’s dictionaries also
308
