REPOZYTORIUM UNIWERSYTETU
W BIAŁYMSTOKU
UwB

Proszę używać tego identyfikatora do cytowań lub wstaw link do tej pozycji: http://hdl.handle.net/11320/11721
Pełny rekord metadanych
Pole DCWartośćJęzyk
dc.contributor.authorGrabowska, Katarzyna-
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-15T06:20:53Z-
dc.date.available2021-10-15T06:20:53Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.isbn978-83-7431-618-7-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11320/11721-
dc.description.abstractThe discovery and publication of Suprasl Chronicle started the development of studies on the language, context and the circumstances of coming into existence the West Ruthenian Chronicles of the 15th and 16th centuries. It allowed to reveal interesting characteristics of the historiography of Belarus and Lithuania of this period. The development of chronicle writing of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was divided into stages. Initially, separate historiography narratives were created – chronicles, which were later combined with each other and compilations were created. With time they were supplemented with new pieces of writing as the needs developed, it resulted in subsequent fuller digests. Each of the three digests of Byelorussian-Lithuanian chronicles is distinguished by its own individuality, connected not only with specific ideological significance, different in particular monuments, but also with the environment it was created in. It was also reflected in the specific linguistic nature of Old Byelorussian chronicles. The purpose of this work was linguistic characteristics of Suprasl Chronicle with regard to phonetic features, changes within declension and verbal flexion, as well as lexical borrowings. The linguistic analysis of the monument text proved that a portion of phonetic and inflection phenomena displays the West Ruthenian realization. Concurrently, the monument shows strong connections with Russian Orthodox traditions, what is reflected on both the phonetic and morphological level. The frequency of particular phonetic phenomena is on a varied level due to that fact most of them did not obtain the position of written standards. On the one hand, it is easy to notice, within lexical borrowings, the influence of the Polish language which mediated to transfer some borrowings into the West Ruthenian language. On the other hand, the text of the chronicle is riddled with Old Slavonic vocabulary what provides subsequent evidence that it has a connection to a literary tradition. A vast majority of phonetic phenomena displays fluctuations between Church Slavonic and (West) Ruthenian realizations. This refers, inter alia, to: 1) realization of Proto-Slavic groups of sounds *tort, *tolt, *tert, *telt, and onset clusters *ort, *olt; 2) onset forms with o- collateral to je- (<*ie-); 3) fluctuations of the Church Slavonic realization and Ruthenian realization of clusters *kt, *gt, *tj i *dj; 4) records with [ki], [gi], [xi] collateral to [ky], [gy], [xy]. A strong link to the chronicle writing tradition is attested by a negligible amount of records documenting the transition [e] > [o] after old palatal consonants [ž’], [š’], [č’], [c’] as well as after [r’]. The forms realizing the East Slavonic pattern gain advantage over the Church Slavonic forms, what can be observed in: 1) the development of Proto-Slavic combinations with short close vowels (yers) before consonants [l] and [r]; 2) continuants of the Proto-Slavic groups realization: labial + [j]. This monument documents, almost without any exceptions, the vocalisation of short close vowels typical of the Old East Slavic language in the Proto-Slavic combinations *trъt, *tlъt, *trьt, *tlьt. A group of phenomena justified in the West Ruthenian phonetics, without any consequences in the realization, is presented by: 1) spirant change [g] > [h], in Cyrillic monuments realized graphically in the form of кг and к in the place of etymological [g] and the omission of fricative - glottal [h] in words like: осподарь; 2) transition [ł] > [ṷ] in masculine of the past tense; 3) change [u] > [ṷ]; 4) writing Ђ or е in the place of etymological [ě], proving their articulation similarities; 5) narrowing of the articulation of [ě] typical of South-Byelorussian and North-Ukrainian dialects; 6) articulation of [a] sound in the place of [o] sound, documented by records with a in the place of etymological [o] in unstressed syllables, and indirectly, some records with o in the place of etymological [a] in an unstressed position; 7) articulation of [e] sound in the place of [’a] sound, strengthened by writing [e] sound in the place of unstressed [’a]. In the monument there are no evident examples confirming the influence of the Polish phonetics. The realization of vowels reduced in the morphemes of words raises conclusions that they were used intuitively, arising from their loss of phonological meaning. The analysis of inflectional forms of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, participles and verbs led to the conclusion that in the field of declension and verbal flexion this chronicle does not substantially differ from the state represented by most of the Old Byelorussian monuments of the 16th century. In the noun inflection there is a noticeable tendency to reduce the number of paradigms with regard to the general Ruthenian system by their unification. Concurrently, the noun inflection system is characterised by fluctuations in endings and inflexional stems, it leads to the occurrence of many collateral forms within particular paradigms. From all types of declension the most permanent turned out to be the declension of *ā. The processes of equalization of declination form into *ŭ are characterized by ǒ-stem declination in gen., dat., loc. singular and plural. Noun forms of consonant declination with *s were almost completely equalized to ǒ-stem declination. Some forms declined into *jǒ, *n, *jā, *ū and *r. were generalized and turned into inflectional endings of declination into *ǐ. A leveling tendency is noticeable within the given declination of *ū, *ā, *jā, as well as *ǒ, *jǒ and mutual interaction of hard and soft - stem declension. The tendency to level endings of all genders in plural in accordance with the paradigm of *ā declination was not certified in the monument by numerous examples. A varying level of the development of animate – inanimate category is worth mentioning. Genitive and accusative singular masculine are commonly used with reference to animate nouns of the paradigm *ǒ, *jǒ. Parallel forms of old and new accusative were certified in masculine plural nouns, instead in feminine nouns a total lack of syncretism of genitive and accusative can be observed. Changes that take place in the inflectional system of pronouns covered particular groups unevenly. Personal and reflexive pronouns, pronouns of the third person, and some of the gender-neutral pronouns underwent the least transformations. The most significant changes, which included mainly endings, took place in the field of indefinite pronouns. They refer, amongst others, to the parallel application of Church Slavonic and Old East Slavic endings in some cases and West Ruthenian forms. Noteworthy is the parallel use of the 2nd person pronouns and a reflexive pronoun based on Church Slavonic and Old East Slavic word roots. The most important changes observed in the declension of adjectives include the process of disappearing the forms of noun declension, which were best preserved in possessive pronouns with formatives -овъ (-евъ). The syntactic function of adjectives with simple declination changed, limiting their use to predicative roles. Within a group of complex adjectives regular Old East Slavic endings were recorded along with Church Slavonic endings. Inflectional innovations typical of the West Ruthenian languages found expression in nominative masculine of complex adjectives with the ending -ыи (-ии) reduced to -ы, -и and feminine possessive adjectives with complex declension endings. Participle forms in the analysed monument provide valuable research material, however, their system of declension compared to the All- Ruthenian system was significantly simplified. All forms of genders and numbers of present participles were unified to nominative feminine and their function was limited to non-declinable adverbial participle. The frequency of the use of similar forms in the monument is high. In the verbal system one can notice tendencies to unify and simplify the complicated structure of past tenses. Alongside traditional forms of aoryst, imperfect and plusquamperfect, which are frequently used, the function of universalized past tense is often adopted by perfect, usually simplified and used in the synthetic form of present participle of past tense with the ending -лъ. Only a few examples of old perfect with an auxiliary word есть were found. Attention should be given to the fact that in the original part of the monument, created already within the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, it became the dominating form but not the only one. The regression of the complicated system of past tenses in spoken language is also documented in the monument by using grammatical numbers incorrectly and incorrect spelling of some of conjugational forms. The monument documents old forms of imperative with a particle да. The use of an auxiliary verb бы used with the 2nd and 3rd person plural proves the gradual evolution of conditional tense. The forms without a coda consonant in ending were documented in the 3rd person singular of present tense / future simple, mainly used in the function of praesens historicum. The review of borrowings carried out in the work proves that the most numerous group of borrowings in the Suprasl Chronicle constitutes words derived from the Church Slavonic language or the words which entered East Slavonic languages through the medium of the Church Slavonic language. The incidence of borrowings from particular languages is different in each portion of the chronicle. The majority of words derived from the Church Slavonic language (similarly Scandinavian loanwords) are found in the compiled All-Ruthenian portion of the Suprasl Chronicle. Chronologically newer extracts of the monument were marked with the influence of the Polish language (and German). Church Slavonic vocabulary was mainly linked to religious sphere and is used to define abstract concepts. These are usually the words of Greek origin, which entered the language of East Slavs through the medium of the Church Slavonic language. The most numerous group of borrowings documented in the chronicle constitutes: names determining people according to their profession, held office, a position in an orthodox church and monastery administration, membership of a particular social group and names of concepts connected with religious sphere. The analysis of phonetics, inflectional forms and lexical borrowings, carried out in this work, proves that Suprasl Chronicle is a monument, on the one hand, connected with the Ruthenian tradition of chronicle writing, as it is best evidenced by the All-Ruthenian portion, on the other hand – it is connected with the tradition of chronicle writing of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Most of linguistic phenomena which appear in the chronicles have an All-Ruthenian coverage, however, the monument documents also many linguistic phenomena typical of Church Slavonic language on the phonetic, morphologic as well as lexical level. A characteristic peculiarity of Byelorussian and Lithuanian chronicles was the presence of linguistic properties specific to the West Ruthenian territory, what is confirmed by the conducted analysis of the text of Suprasl Chronicle. They are characterized by the inconsistency of realization and the uneven level of exemplification in particular portions of the monument. All these properties reflect a living language of the author of this text, as well as the territory where it was written. Owing to this Suprasl Chronicle is a nonhomogeneous and rich monument in terms of language.pl
dc.description.sponsorshipProjekt finansowany w ramach programu Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego pod nazwą "Regionalna Inicjatywa Doskonałości" w latach 2019-2022, nr projektu: 009/RID/2018/19, kwota finansowania 8 791 222,00 złpl
dc.language.isoplpl
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstokupl
dc.subjectpiśmiennictwo WKLpl
dc.subjectlatopisy białorusko-litewskiepl
dc.subjectjęzyk starobiałoruskipl
dc.subjectfonetykapl
dc.subjectmorfologiapl
dc.subjectzapożyczenia leksykalnepl
dc.titleJęzyk Latopisu supraskiego 1519 r. Fonetyka. Fleksja. Słownictwopl
dc.title.alternativeThe Language of Suprasl Chronicle Dated 1519 (Phonetics, Inflection, Vocabulary)pl
dc.typeBookpl
dc.rights.holder© Copyright by Uniwersytet w Białymstoku Białystok 2020pl
dc.description.referencesСупрасльская летопись, [w:] Н. Н. Улащик (red.), 1980, Полное собрание русских летописей, т. 35, Москва, s. 36–67.pl
dc.description.referencesАникин – Аникин А. Е., 2007–2019, Русский этимологический словарь, т. 1–13, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesБулыко – Булыко А. Н., 2011, Большой словарь иностранных слов, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesДаўн. зап. – Булыка А. М., 1972, Даўнія запазычанні беларускай мовы, Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesДАБМ – Дыялекталагічны атлас беларускай мовы, Мінск 1963.pl
dc.description.referencesДьяч. – Дьяченко Г. М., 1900, Полный церковно‑славянский словарь, Москва (репринт: Дьяченко Г. М., 1993, Полный церковно‑славянский словарь, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesЕСУМ – Мельничук О. С. (red.), 1982–, Етимологічний словник української мови: В 7 т., Київpl
dc.description.referencesЖучкевич В. А., 1974, Краткий топонимический словарь Белоруссии, Минск.pl
dc.description.referencesКр. этим. сл. – Шанский Н. М., Иванов В. В., Шанская Т. В., 1971, Краткий этимологический словарь русского языка, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesМіхневіч А. Я. (red.), 1994, Беларуская мова. Энцыклапедыя, Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesПетр. – Петровский Н. А., 1980, Словарь русских личных имён, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesСл. інш. сл. – Булыка А. М., 1993, Слоўнік іншамоўных слоў, Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesBednarczuk L., 2007, Związki i paralele fonetyczne języków słowiańskich, Warszawa.pl
dc.description.referencesBednarczuk L., 2010, Językowy obraz Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, Kraków.pl
dc.description.referencesBiblia Tysiąclecia, Wydanie trzecie poprawione, Poznań–Warszawa 1980.pl
dc.description.referencesBolek A., 1990, Charakterystyka morfologiczno‑syntaktyczna imiesłowów piśmiennictwa Rusi Moskiewskiej XVI–XVII wieku, Kraków.pl
dc.description.referencesCitko L., 2003, Imiona książąt litewskich w „Kronice Bychowca”, [w:] Z. Abramowicz (red.), Wielojęzyczność i wielokulturowość na pograniczu polsko‑wschodniosłowiańskim, „Studia Slawistyczne 3”, Białystok, s. 105–110.pl
dc.description.referencesCitko L., 2006, „Kronika Bychowca” na tle historii i geografii języka białoruskiego, Białystok.pl
dc.description.referencesCitko L., 2006, Nazwiska patronimiczne w tradycji nazewniczej Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, [w:] L. Citko, B. Siegień (red.), Gwary i omomastyka pogranicza polsko‑wschodniosłowiańskiego i słowiańsko‑bałtyckiego, Białystok, s. 73–80.pl
dc.description.referencesCitko L., 2010, O zapożyczeniach leksykalnych z polszczyzny w języku latopisów starobiałoruskich, „Białostockie Archiwum Językowe”, t. 10.pl
dc.description.referencesDaniłowicz I., 1827, Latopisiec Litwy i kronika ruska, Wilno.pl
dc.description.referencesTurkowski T., 1938, „Daniłowicz Ignacy”, [w:] W. Konopczyński (red.), Polski Słownik Biograficzny, t. 4, Kraków, s. 412–414.pl
dc.description.referencesDaniłowicz I., Sidorowicz J., 1860–1862, Skarbiec diplomatów papiezkich, cesarskich, krolewskich, książęcych; uchwał narodowych, postanowień różnych władz i urzędów posługujących do krytycznego wyjaśnienia dziejów Litwy, Rusi Litewskiej i ościennych im krajów. Zebrał i w treści opisał Ignacy Daniłowicz. Z pozgonnych rękopisów znajdujących się w bibljotece Muzeum Wileńskiego wydał Jan Sidorowicz, t. 1–2, Wilno.pl
dc.description.referencesСл. тюрк. – Шипова Е. Н., 1976, Словарь тюркизмов в русском языке, Алма­‑Ата.pl
dc.description.referencesDługosz­‑Kurczabowa K., Dubisz S., 2003, Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego, Warszawa.pl
dc.description.referencesGetka J., 2009, Prosta mowa końca XVIII wieku. Język „Nauk Parafialnych” (Poczajów 1794), Warszawa.pl
dc.description.referencesGodek S., 2014, O zaginionej spuściźnie naukowej Ignacego Daniłowicza, „Zeszyty Prawnicze”, t. 14, nr 4, s. 43–78.pl
dc.description.referencesGrabowska K., 2013, Zapożyczenia leksykalne z języka polskiego w „Kronice supraskiej”, „Linguodidactica”, t. 17, s. 57–67.pl
dc.description.referencesGrabowska K., 2014, Polonizmy leksykalne w wybranych latopisach białorusko‑litewskich, „Acta Neophilologica”, t. 16(2), s. 25–35.pl
dc.description.referencesGrabowska K., 2015, Formy fleksyjne rzeczowników ŏ-tematowych w „Kronice supraskiej”, „Linguodidactica”, t. 19, s. 51–62.pl
dc.description.referencesGrabowska K., 2016, Sposoby wyrażenia praesens i futurum w „Kronice supraskiej”, „Linguodidactica”, t. 20, s. 95–104.pl
dc.description.referencesJakubowski J., 1910, Kroniki litewskie, „Rocznik Towarzystwa przyjaciół nauk w Wilnie”, t. 3, s. 68–74.pl
dc.description.referencesVasm. – Фасмер М., 2004, Этимологический словарь русского языка, т. 1–4, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesJakubowski J., 1912, Studya nad stosunkami narodościowymi na Litwie przed Unią Lubelską, Warszawa.pl
dc.description.referencesJasińska­‑Socha T., 1979, System fleksyjny starobiałoruskich zabytków II połowy XVI w., Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk.pl
dc.description.referencesСрезн. – Срезневский И. И., 1893, Матеріалы для словаря древне‑русскаго языка, т. 1–3, Санктпетербургъ.pl
dc.description.referencesJučas M., 1968, Lietuvos metraščiai, Vilnius.pl
dc.description.referencesKaraś H., 1996, Rusycyzmy słownikowe w polszczyźnie okresu zaborów, Warszawa.pl
dc.description.referencesKaszlej A., 1997, Dzieje Kodeksu supraskiego, Supraśl.pl
dc.description.referencesKlemensiewicz Z., Lehr­‑Spławiński T., Urbańczyk S., 1981, Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego, Warszawa.pl
dc.description.referencesKlich E., 1927, Polska terminologia chrześcijańska, Poznań.pl
dc.description.referencesKochman S., 1975, Polonica w leksykografii rosyjskiej XVII w., Warszawa–Wrocław.pl
dc.description.referencesKrawcewicz A., 1999, Formowanie się koncepcji genezy WKL w polskiej historiografii, „Białoruskie Zeszyty Historyczne”, nr 11, s. 5–17.pl
dc.description.referencesZnosko – Znosko A., 1996, Słownik cerkiewnosłowiańsko‑polski, Białystok.pl
dc.description.referencesKuraszkiewicz W., 1963, Zarys dialektologii wschodniosłowiańskiej, Warszawa.pl
dc.description.referencesLehr­‑Spławiński T., Bartula C., 1973, Zarys gramatyki języka staro‑cerkiewno-‑słowiańskiego, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk.pl
dc.description.referencesŁapicz C., 1986, Kitab Tatarów litewsko‑polskich. (Palegografia. Grafia. Język), Toruń.pl
dc.description.referencesСтрижак О. С. (red.), 1985, Етимологычний словник літописних географічних назв Південноï Русі, Киïв.pl
dc.description.referencesMalec M., 1994, Imiona chrześcijańskie w średniowiecznej Polsce, Kraków.pl
dc.description.referencesMilejkowska H., 1984, Польские заимствования в русском литературном языке XV–XVIII веков, „Studia z Filologii Rosyjskiej i Słowiańskiej”, t. 7.pl
dc.description.referencesMironowicz A., 2014, Rękopisy supraskie w zbiorach krajowych i obcych, Białystok.pl
dc.description.referencesMorozova N., 2001, Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės metraščių kalbos ir tekstologijos problemos: Bychovco kronika (autoreferat rozprawy habilitacyjnej), Vilnius.pl
dc.description.referencesMoszyński L., 1984, Wstęp do filologii słowiańskiej, Warszawa.pl
dc.description.referencesNowowiejski B., 1996, Zapożyczenia leksykalne z języka niemieckiego w polszczyźnie XIX wieku (na materiale czasopism), Białystok.pl
dc.description.referencesАверина С. А., 1991, Сложные слова в языке XII в., [w:] В. В. Колесов (red.), Древнерусский язык домонгольской поры, Ленинград.pl
dc.description.referencesPerczyńska B., 2007, Język najstarszych ruskich zabytków hagiograficznych, Lublin.pl
dc.description.referencesProchaska A., 1890, Latopis litewski: rozbiór krytyczny, Lwów.pl
dc.description.referencesShevelov G. Y., 1963, Orzeczenia bezpodmiotowe odimiesłowowe na -no, -to w języku polskim przed rokiem 1450, „Slavia Orientalis”, t. 17, nr 3.pl
dc.description.referencesSmoktunowicz K., 2009, Latopisy białorusko‑litewskie: geneza, redakcje, język, „Studia Wschodniosłowiańskie”, t. 9, s. 203–216.pl
dc.description.referencesСуперан. – Суперанская А. В., 2005, Cовременный словарь личных имен, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesSmoktunowicz K., 2011, Unifikacja form czasu przeszłego w języku staroruskim na przykładzie „Kroniki supraskiej”, „Studia Wschodniosłowiańskie”, t. 11, s. 259–267.pl
dc.description.referencesSmolka S., 1889, Najdawniejsze pomniki dziejopisarstwa rusko‑litewskiego: rozbiór krytyczny, Kraków.pl
dc.description.referencesStieber Z., 1989, Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich, Warszawa.pl
dc.description.referencesSzaraniewicz I., 1882, O latopisach i kronikach ruskich XV i XVI wieku, a zwłaszcza o Latopisie „Welikoho kniaztwa litowskoho i żomojtskoho, „Rozprawy i sprawozdania z posiedzeń Wydziału historyczno­‑filozoficznego Akademii Umiejętności”, t. 15, s. 351–413.pl
dc.description.referencesWalczak B., 1999, Zapożyczenia leksykalne: teoria i metodologia badań, [w:] Polszczyzna północno-wschodnia, t. 2, Białystok.pl
dc.description.referencesАрлоў У., Сагановіч Г., 2002, Дзесяць вякоў беларускай гісторыі (862–1918). Падзеі. Даты. Ілюстрацыі, Вільня.pl
dc.description.referencesWalczak B., 2001, Kontakty polszczyzny z językami niesłowiańskimi, [w:] J. Bartmiński (red.), Współczesny język polski, Lublin, s. 527–539.pl
dc.description.referencesWolff J., 1895, Kniaziowie litewsko‑ruscy od końca czternastego wieku, Warszawa.pl
dc.description.referencesZoltan A., 2014, Interslavica. Исследования по межславянским языковым и культурным контактам, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesЦыг. – Цыганенко Г. П., 1989, Этимологический словарь русского языка, Киев.pl
dc.description.referencesЧамярыцкi В. А., 2007, Беларуска‑літоўскі летапіс 1446, [w:] Г. П. Пашкоў (red.), Вялікае княства Літоўскае. Энцыклапедыя ў двух тамах, т. 1, Мінск, s. 299–300.pl
dc.description.referencesЧамярыцкi В. А., 2007, Супрасльскі летапіс, [w:] Г. П. Пашкоў (red.), Вялікае княства Літоўскае. Энцыклапедыя ў двух тамах, т. 2, s. 645.pl
dc.description.referencesШан. – Шанский Н. М., 1963, Этимологический словарь русского языка, т. 1, вып. 1, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesШапош. – Шапошников А. К., 2010, Этимологический словарь современного русского языка. В двух томах, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesЭСБМ – Цыхун Г. А. (red.), 1978–, Этымалагічны слоўнік беларускай мовы, т. 1–11, Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesBoryś – Boryś W., 2005, Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, Kraków.pl
dc.description.referencesБаханькоў А. Я., Жураўскі А. І., Суднік М. Р., 1970, Гістарычная лексікалогія беларускай мовы, Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesBrückn. – Brückner A., 1927, Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, Kraków.pl
dc.description.referencesLinde – Linde M. S. B., 1854–1860, Słownik języka polskiego, t. 1–4, Lwów (reprint: Linde M. S. B., 1951, Słownik języka polskiego, t. 1–4, Warszawa.pl
dc.description.referencesLPŻ – Vanagas A. (red.), 1985–1989, Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas, t. 1–2, Vilnius.pl
dc.description.referencesLVKŻ – Kuzavinis K., Savukynas B., 1994, Lietuvių vardų kilmės žodynas, Vilnius.pl
dc.description.referencesReczek – Reczek S., 1968, Podręczny słownik dawnej polszczyzny, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków.pl
dc.description.referencesSIP – Spis imion prawosławnych w brzmieniu polskim i staro‑cerkiewno-słowiańskim, Warszawa 1936.pl
dc.description.referencesSJPD – Doroszewski W. (red.), 1958–1969, Słownik Języka Polskiego, t. 1–11, Warszawa.pl
dc.description.referencesSPXVI – Mayenowa M. R., Pepłowski F., 1966–, Słownik polszczyzny XVI w., Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków.pl
dc.description.referencesБеднарчук Л., 2014, Моўная суіснасьць Вялікага Княства Літоўскага ў беларускай мове, [w:] Беднарчук Л., Спадчына Вялікага Княства Літоўскага ў беларускай мове, Нью Ёрк–Кракаў–Люблін, s. 1–8.pl
dc.description.referencesБлінава Э., Мяцельская Е., 1980, Беларуская дыялекталогія, Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesБодянский О. М., 1846, О поискахъ моихъ въ Познанской публичной библіотекѣ, [w:] Чтенія въ Императорскомъ Обществѣ Исторіи и Древностей Россій‑скихъ, № 1, Москва, s. 1–45.pl
dc.description.referencesБорковский В. И., Кузнецов П. С., 2007, Историческая грамматика русского языка, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesФилин Ф. П., 2006, Происхождение русского, украинского и белорусского языков, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesБулыка А. М., 1980, Лексічныя запазычанні ў беларускай мове XIV–XVIII стст., Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesБулыка А. М., 2015, Аб царкоўнаславянскіх лексічных элементах у старабеларускай мове, [w:] А. М. Булыка, Выбраныя працы, Мінск, s. 68–82.pl
dc.description.referencesБулыка А. М., 2015, Освоение старобелорусским языком тюркизмов на словообразовательном уровне, [w:] А. М. Булыка, Выбраныя працы, Мінск, s. 150–164.pl
dc.description.referencesБулыка А. М., Жураўскі А. І., Крамко І. І., 1979, Гістарычная марфалогія беларускай мовы, Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesБулыка А. М. i in., 1988, Мова беларускай пісьменнасці XIV–XVIII стст., Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesБѣлокуровъ С. А., 1898, Русскія лѣтописи. I–III. (…) По рукописи принадлежащей Н. П. Никифорову, [w:] Чтенія въ Императорскомъ Обществѣ Исторіи и Древностей Россійскихъ, Кн. 4, Москва, s. III–LII.pl
dc.description.referencesВалюх З., 2009, Відтопонімні прикметники в історії словотвірної системи української мови, «Філологічні науки», вип. 1, s. 92–97.pl
dc.description.referencesВялкина Л. В., 1972, Славянские названия месяцев, [w:] Р. И. Аванесов (red.), Общеславянский лингвистический атлас. Материалы и исследования. 1970, Москва, s. 265–279.pl
dc.description.referencesГадолина М. А., 1963, История форм личных и возвратного местоимений в славянских языках, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesГарбуль Л. П., 2014, Межславянские семантические заимствования в русском приказном языке XVII века, „Slavistica Vilnensis”, s. 63–80.pl
dc.description.referencesХабургаев Г. А., 1978, Судьба вспомогательного глагола древних славянских аналитических форм в русском языке, [w:] Вестник Московского Университета. Серия филилогия, № 4, Москва, s. 42–53.pl
dc.description.referencesГоршкова К. В., Хабургаев Г. А., 1981, Историческая грамматика русского языка, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesГрушевський М., 1907, Исторія України-Русі, Київ–Львів.pl
dc.description.referencesДанилович И., 1840, О литовскихъ лѣтописяхъ, «Журналъ Министерства Народнаго Просвѣщенія», ч. 38, № 2, Санктпетербургъ, s. 70–114.pl
dc.description.referencesДурново Н. Н., 2000, Избранные работы по истории русского языка, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesЕрмаловіч М., 1990, Старажытная Беларусь. Полацкі і новагародскі перыяды, Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesЕфимов А. И., 1967, История русского литературного языка, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesЖураўскі А. І., 1961, Да пытання аб асноўных тыпах старажытнай беларускай літаратурнай мовы, «Працы Інстытута мовазнаўства АН БССР», вып. 8, s. 106–116.pl
dc.description.referencesЖураўскі А. І., 1983, Мова нашых продкаў, Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesЖыдовіч М. А., 1969, Назоўнік у беларускай мове, ч. 1: Адзіночны лік, Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesЗализняк А., 2001, Семантическая деривация в синхронии и диахронии: проект создания «Каталога семантических переходов», «Вопросы языкознания», т. 2, s. 13–25.pl
dc.description.referencesЦейтлин Р. М., 1977, Лексика старославянского языка. Опыт анализа мотивированных слов по данным древнеболгарских рукописей X–XI вв., Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesЗолтан А., 1984, Западнорусско‑великорусские языковые контакты в области лексики в XV в. (rozprawa doktorska), Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesИванов В. В., 1983, Историческая грамматика русского языка, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesИванова М. В., 2006, Историческая грамматика русского языка, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesИванова Т. А., 2005, Старославянский язык, Санкт­‑Петербург.pl
dc.description.referencesИорданиди С. И., Крысько В. Б., 2000, Историческая грамматика древнерусского языка, т. 1, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesКарскій Е. Ф., 1903, Бѣлоруссы. Введеніе въ изученіе языка и народной словесности, т. 1, Варшава.pl
dc.description.referencesКарский Е. Ф., 1955, Белорусы. Язык белорусского народа, вып. 1, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesКарский Е. Ф., 1956, Белорусы. Язык белорусского народа, вып. 2, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesКарский Е. Ф., 1962, О языке так называемых литовских летописей, [w:] Е. Ф. Карский, Труды по белорусскому и другим славянским языкам, Москва, s. 208–249.pl
dc.description.referencesКарский Е. Ф., 1962, Особенности письма и рукописного сборника XV в., именуемого летописью Авраамки, [w:] Е. Ф. Карский, Труды по белорусскому и другим славянским языкам, Москва, s. 345–372.pl
dc.description.referencesЧамярыцкi В. А., 1969, Беларускiя летапiсы як помнiкi лiтаратуры. Узнiкненне i лiтаратурная гiсторыя першых зводаў, Мiнск.pl
dc.description.referencesКасаткин Л. Л. (red.), 2005, Русская диалектология, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesКасцюк М. П. (red.), 1994, Нарысы гісторыі Беларусі, ч. 1, Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesКолесов В. В., 1980, Историческая фонетика русского языка, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesКопыленко М. М., 1973, Кальки греческого происхождения в языке древнерусской письменности, [w:] Византийский временник, т. 34(59), Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesКузнецов П. С., 1953, Историческая грамматика русского языка. Морфология, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesЛихачев В. С., 2001, Текстология (на материале русской литературы X–XVII веков), Санкт­‑Петербург.pl
dc.description.referencesЛурье Я. С., 1976, Общерусские летописи XIV–XV вв., Ленинград 1976.pl
dc.description.referencesМещерский Н. А. (red.), 1972, Русская диалектология, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesМикитась В. Л., 1978, Захидноруськi, або литовсько‑руськi, лiтописи [витяг з пiдручника: М. С. Грицай, В. Л. Микитась, Ф. Я. Шолом, Давня украïнська лiтература, Киïв, s. 97–103], [online] http//www.litopys.org.ua/psrl13235/lytov34htm.pl
dc.description.referencesНовак М. О., 2012, Реакции на греческие словосложения в древнеславянском Апостоле, [w:] Русский язык: функционирование и развитие. Материалы Международной научной конференции (Казань, КФУ, 18–21 апреля 2012 г.), т. 1, s. 164–171.pl
dc.description.referencesЧамярыцкi В. А., 1997, Беларускiя летапicы i хронiкi, Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesОгиенко И. И., 2012, Иноязычные элементы в русском языке, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesОгієнко І. І., 1995, Історія української литературної мови, Киів.pl
dc.description.referencesПавленко Л. П., 2010, Історична граматика української мови, Луцьк.pl
dc.description.referencesПасхалов А. П., 2007, Удивительная этимология, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesПриселков М. Д., 1940, История русского летописания XI–XV вв., Ленинград.pl
dc.description.referencesПташицкій С. Л., Шахматовъ А. А. (red.), 1907, Полное собраніе русскихъ лѣтописей (Западноруссскія лѣтописи), т. 17, С.-Петербургъ.pl
dc.description.referencesРахманова Л. И., Суздальцева В. Н., 2010, Современный русский язык. Лексика. Фразеология. Морфология, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesРогожникова Т. П., Стилистика форм praesens historicum в житийных текстах «Макариевского цикла», [online] http://www.library.krasu.ru/ft/ft/_articles/0088594.pdf.pl
dc.description.referencesРусанівський В. М., 1985, Джерела розвитку східнослов’янських литературніх мов, Київ.pl
dc.description.referencesСамотик Л. Г., 2012, Лексика современного языка. Учебное пособие, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesЧамярыцкi В. А., 2015, Летапісы і хронікі Вялікага княства Літоўскага XV–XVII стст., Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesСемянчук А. A., 2000, Беларуска‑літоўскія летапісы і польскія хронікі, Гродна.pl
dc.description.referencesСоболевский А. И., 2005, Лекции по истории русского языка, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesСушицький T., 1921–1929, Західноруські літописи як пам’ятки літератури, ч. 1–2, Київ.pl
dc.description.referencesТихомировъ И. А., 1901, О составѣ западно‑русскихъ, такъ называемыхъ литовскихъ лѣтописей, «Журналъ Министерсва Народнаго Просвѣщенія», ч. 334, s. 1–37.pl
dc.description.referencesУлащик Н. Н., 1974, Подготовка к печати и издание тома XVII «Полного собрания русских летописей», [w:] Б. А. Рыбаков (red.), Летописи и хроники, Москва, s. 360–368.pl
dc.description.referencesУлащик Н. Н., 1976, Открытие и публикация Супрасльской летописи, [w:] Б. А. Рыбаков (red.), Летописи и хроники, Москва, s. 203–213.pl
dc.description.referencesУлащик Н. Н., 1980, Предисловие, [w:] Улащик Н. Н. (red.), Полное собрание русских летописей, t. 35, Москва, s. 3–18.pl
dc.description.referencesУлащик Н. Н., 1985, Введение в изучение белорусско‑литовского летописания, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesЧемерицкий В. А., 1981, Работа автора первого белорусско‑литовского свода над русскими источниками, [w:] Б. А. Рыбаков (red.), Летописи и хроники 1980. В. Н. Татищев и изучение русского летописания, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesЧемерицкий В. А., 1985, Белорусская литература XIV–XVI вв. История всемирной литературы в 9 томах, [online] http://feb-web.ru/feb/ivl/vl3/vl3-4932.htm?cmd=p.pl
dc.description.referencesЧерных П. Я., 1956, Очерк русской исторической лексикологии. Древнерусский период, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesШалфеева Е. Б., 2001, Типология заимствованных элементов в языке белорусско‑литовских летописей XV–XVI в.: На материале Супрасльской летописи 1519 г. (rozprawa doktorska na prawach rękopisu), Новосибирск.pl
dc.description.referencesПреобр. – Преображенский А., 1910–1914, Этимологический словарь русского языка, т. 1–3, Москваpl
dc.description.referencesШахматовъ А. А., 1901, О Супрасльскомъ спискѣ западно‑русской лѣтописи, [w:] Лѣтопись занятій Археографической Комиссіи за 1900 годъ, вып. 13, Санкт­‑Петербург, s. 1–16.pl
dc.description.referencesШахматовъ А. А., 1908, Разыскания о древнѣйшихъ русскихъ лѣтописныхъ сводахъ, С-Петербургъ.pl
dc.description.referencesШахматов А. А., 1938, Обозрение русских летописных сводов XIV–XVI вв., Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesШахматов А. А., 1957, Историческая морфология русского языка, Москва.pl
dc.description.referencesЩавинская Л. Л., 1998, Литературная культура белорусов Подляшья XV–XIX вв.: Книжные собрания Супрасльского Благовещенского монастыря, Минск.pl
dc.description.referencesЮргелевіч П. Я., 1974, Курс сучаснай беларускай мовы з гістарычнымі каментарыямі, Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesЯнкоўскі Ф., 1983, Гістарычная граматыка беларускай мовы, Мінск.pl
dc.description.referencesAbramowicz Z., 2014, Synkretyzm antroponimii Podlasia, „Poznańskie Spotkania Językoznawcze”, t. 27, s. 17–32.pl
dc.description.referencesBartula C., 2004, Podstawowe wiadomości z gramatyki staro‑cerkiewno-słowiańskiej, Warszawa.pl
dc.description.referencesBednarczuk L., 1999, Stosunki językowe na ziemiach Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, Kraków.pl
Występuje w kolekcji(ach):Książki / Rozdziały (WUwB)
Książki/Rozdziały (WFil)

Pliki w tej pozycji:
Plik Opis RozmiarFormat 
K_Grabowska_Jezyk_Latopisu_supraskiego_1519_r_okladka.pdf296,89 kBAdobe PDFOtwórz
K_Grabowska_Jezyk_Latopisu_supraskiego_1519_r.pdf2,35 MBAdobe PDFOtwórz
Pokaż uproszczony widok rekordu Zobacz statystyki


Pozycja jest chroniona prawem autorskim (Copyright © Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone)