Festschrift für Herbert Bräuer zum 65. Geburtstag am 14. April 1986 by Reinhold Olesch;Hans RotheReview by: H. LeemingThe Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 66, No. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 258-260Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4209745 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 13:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:13:20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

258 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

particles and yet may be semantically modal, such as imperfective non-past verbs used with future or gnomic meaning. She is of course at liberty to do this; but the reader may choose to suspend judgement on her analysis because of these limitations. She also takes the virtue of conciseness to the point of a vice, especially in her first chapter, which would be difficult to follow without a knowledge of the literature to which she refers. Occasional typing errors, mis- spellings, blanks after corrections, inconsistencies in transliteration, and incomplete bibliographical references reinforce the impression that the book was prepared without great concern for the reader. This is a pity: the comparisons which Kramer draws between Macedonian, Serbo-Croat and Bulgarian will interest any student of the South Slavonic languages, and her analysis of modality warrants the attention of other linguists. Lady Margaret Hall C. M. MACROBERT

Oxford

Olesch, Reinhold and Rothe, Hans (eds). Festschrift fitr Herbert Brauer zum 65. Geburtstag am I4. April 1986. Slavistische Forschungen, Band 53. Bohlau Verlag, Cologne, Vienna, I986. viii + [2] + 751 pp. Notes. Index of Abbreviations. DM 238.00.

HEARTY congratulations to Professor Brauer on his sixty-fifth birthday, here celebrated by a fine collection of fifty-four articles, one for each of his eleven- plus years, mostly in German, with four in Polish, two in English, Russian and Serbo-Croat, and one in Czech and Bulgarian. The editors have allowed contributors considerable range in the size of their articles, from short but none the less valuable notes on specific problems to Herbert Jelitte's twenty- nine page monograph on areal aspects of the noun suffix -ota/-eta in the Slavonic languages. Other lengthy articles are: Rolf-Dietrich Keil on Gogol' in the light of his biblical quotations; Christo Vasilev on three topics, the short dative pronoun in the Lay of Igor, the loss of epenthetic 1, and the third person singular imperative; Peter Thiergen on Chekhov's short story Knjaginja; George Shevelov with a cogent and well-argued plea for the acceptance as Old Ukrainian material of the inscriptions on Princess Jevfrosinija of Polotsk's cross of I I6 I, which disappeared in mysterious circumstances forty-five to sixty years ago. Since Shevelov's mild and well-mannered polemic is directed partly in answer to a review in this journal (SEER 6o, July I 982, 44 I-43), I would point out that, while being in general sympathetic with his position, one is also concerned to maintain the historicity of a Byelorussian linguistic and cultural identity. Klaus Piperek, on sentence types in Slavonic; Erwin Wedel, on final clauses in Old Russian; andJurgen Udolph, on the occurrence of the beaver-name *bobrb, *bebr-j, *bbbr-6 in common and proper nouns, have also been allowed the space to present a full picture.

Thematically the articles can be classified as follows: nine on literary topics -A. Dostail on debyzantinization in early Slavonic literatures; K. Kuev on the history and fate of a Middle Bulgarian manuscript; Keil on Gogol'; J. Klein on Sumarokov and classicism; W. Potthoff on a seventeenth-century Croatian treatise on rhetoric; Thiergen on Chekhov's Knjaginja; W. Kasack on

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:13:20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS 259

traces of Russian Geistesgut in Wladimir Celiscev (Lindenberg); W. Kosny on Tadeusz Peiper's poem Bezokoliczniki; three on translation - G. Freidhof, writing with great zest and enjoyment, on three types of word play with illustrations from Rabelais, Joyce, Khlebnikov and German nonsense poetry; H. Keipert on Dositej Obradovic as translator, with some delightful examples of his calques, none better than vredoradost for Schadenfreude; H. Rothe on the renderings of the Greek genitive in the Old Russian kondakar'.

The other articles are devoted to various aspects of comparative, historical and descriptive grammar. The most popular branch here is vocabulary with twenty items: ten on historical lexicology - S. Babic on German loan-words in the Croatian literary language; I. Dujcev on the concept of eternity in Byzantine Greek and Old Church Slavonic; I. Duridanov on problems of Middle Bulgarian lexicology; Jelitte, mentioned above; G. & S. Ressel on the vocabulary of Croat Istrian proverbs and sayings; P. Schreiner on Slavonic words in Byzantine sources; G. Schulz on Slavonic elements in Prussian German; J. Siatkowski on the criteria determining the influence of a language on a closely related neighbour, in this case Czech on Polish; P. Simunkovic on Croat Istrian toponymy; A. de Vincenz on the effects of continuing contacts on German loanwords in Polish. Seven discuss specific etymologies: H. Borek on the river name Tyra; J. Knobloch on Cz. s'ibal, s'ibrinky, serka; H. Rosel on the surname of PopeJohn Paul I -is Wojtyla from wojt or Wojciech?; J. Schiutz on the archaism sorok sorokov cerkvej moskovskich; 0. N. Trubacev on *kresati, *krasa, *kresTb; Udolph, mentioned above. Three are concerned with problems of lexicography: G. A. Bogatova, notes on recent Russian historical lexico- graphy; J. Matesic on semantic differentiation in Russian feminine derivatives of masculine professional names, on the face of it a rich field for fuelling indignation when feminist glasnost' gets off the ground; F. Otten on the unsatisfactory treatment of mozzTer and mortir by contemporary Russian lexicographers with his amendments. The next most popular philological field is syntax, with eleven items: H. Galton on tense and aspect in Abbot Daniel's pilgrimage; U. Hinrichs on parenthesis in Slavonic; M. Kravar on the possible influence of the Latin future perfect in -ero on the formation of the periphrastic future with budu; Piperek, mentioned above; N. Reiter on the genitive object of inanimate nouns in Serbo-Croat folk poetry; H. Schaller on syntactic pecu- liarities of Old Russian compared with the modern language; F. Scholz on the development of the future in Russian; G. Stone on pronominal address in Slovene; K. Trost on Handlungsstruktur in the Russian verbal system; Vasilev and Wedel, mentioned above. W. Kuraszkiewicz deals with the morphology of the noun in M4czynski's lexicon of 1564 and relates some features to his birthplace near Sieradz; P. Brang discusses the 'objective' and 'subjective' use of capital letters in modern Russian.

Indo-European themes occur in F. Kortlandt on the origin of the Slavonic imperfect and W. Schmalstieg, who puts forward the highly interesting theory that the Slavonic agent expressed by ot with the genitive continues an Indo- European construction with this case in an earlier ergative function. Balto- Slavonic vowel gradation is the concern of W. Schmid, while W. Thomas examines relations between Tokharian and Balto-Slavonic, coming down eventually against L. Bednarczuk who sees the greatest typological similarity

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:13:20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

26O THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

between these languages (Studia Indo-Iranica, Wroclaw, I 983, PP. - 3). K. D. Seemann considers diglossia in Kievan Rus'; Z. Vince reports the work of Ivan Broz (i 852-93) on Croat literary norms; R. Olesch surveys the archaic features of Polabian; S. Urbaniczyk analyses the language of a brief seventeenth-century Polish text recorded in the Armenian alphabet.

The type is neat and clear; misprints are few. The following were noted: r for t in byzanrske (p. 7I); ist strictly (p. 451); saber (p.453) (or is this an Americanism?); a missing i in perwszych (p. 56I); Borth-East (p. 622); similiarity (p. 624) (a Hibernianism?); a missing s in Handlungsapektanderung (p. 637); koronk for kroronk (p. 669, line 4). A slight correction needs to be made in Freidhof's engaging essay. The model for Stephen Dedalus' parody 'Lamb of London.. .' (p. 92) is not John i, 29, here cited for both the English original and the Czech translation, but the triple invocation said before communion in the Tridentine Mass ('who takest' in the version familiar to Joyce).

Among the comparative materials offered by Jelitte in his admirably full treatment of the suffix -ota/-eta (pp. I45-I73) we find no mention of Gk Cyv6tn,, although this word, a Pauline neologism in II Corinthians vi, 6, is the model for RChSl, Serbian and Bulgarian cistota, Uk cystota; also ank6TX61, an alternative reading for &yvotsI favoured by Slavonic translators in II Corinthians ii, 3, is the model for RChSl, Polish Ukrainian and Polish postota; furthermore nagota for yu[tvo6ti" is implied by the derived verb nagotovati for y1U[VLTwU in the OCS translation of I Corinthians iv, i i. These examples of Greek influence should not be left out of consideration in determining the genesis and spread of the Slavonic suffix. Finally, Lithuanian nuogata, pilnata, galata, sirata, in spite of the apparently native phonology of the first two, do not convince as ancient Indo-European cognates, in view of the strong Polish and Byelorussian influences in the Lithuanian vocabulary; czystata and prastata, both met in Chylin'ski's Lithuanian version of the New Testament, are clearly Polonisms. It is also significant that Chylin'ski prefers nuogastis and nuogyste to nuogata at Romans viii, 35, and II Corninthians xi, 27; here Wujek's Polish version has nagosc. London H. LEEMING

Blankoff, Jean, Lothe, Jean and Von Wiren-Garczynski, Vera (eds). The Teaching of Russian Language and Literature in Europe. L'enseignement de la langue et de la litterature russes en Europe. Prepodavaniye russkogo yazyka i literatury v Yevrope. Series Etudes linguistiques. AIMAV, Brussels, I986. i 69 pp.

THE volume under review contains the proceedings of the seventeenth AIMAV Seminar. There are fifteen papers, three of which are in English, four in French and eight in Russian. Only one of the eight Russian papers is a Soviet contribution and stands out sharply from the others, both in terms of the style of writing and level of abstraction: it is the least interesting of those eight papers, the subject being that of improving the qualifications of teachers of Russian, a subject on which Soviet scholars wax particularly tedious. Of the papers in English the least interesting is K. Bella's entitled 'My Method of Studying Russian'. It is anecdotal, confused and unenlightening. These two

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:13:20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions