diccionario etimologico serbio

8/7/2019 diccionario etimologico serbio

1/32

ETIMOLO[KI RE^NIKSRPSKOHR VATSKOG JEZIKA

Probna sveska


2/32

Academie serbe des sciences et des artsetInstitut de la langue serbe

Dictionnaire etymologiquede la langue serbo-croate

Fascicule dessai

Par Marta Bjeleti}, Pavle Ivi}, Aleksandar Loma, Sne`ana Petrovi},

Biljana Sikimi}, Jasna Vlaji}-Popovi}

Sous la direction de Pavle Ivi}

membre de lAcademie

Belgrade1997


3/32

Srpska akademija nauka i umetnostii

Institut za srpski jezik SANU

Etimolo{ki re~niksrpskohr vatskog jezika

Probna sveska

Autori

Marta Bjeleti}, Jasna Vlaji}-Popovi}, Pavle Ivi}, Aleksandar Loma, Sne`ana Petrovi}, Biqana Sikimi}

Urednik

Pavle Ivi}

redovni ~lan SANU

Beograd1997


4/32

IzdajuSrpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, Beograd, Knez-Mihailova 35/

i

Institut za srpski jezik SANU, Beograd, \ure Jak{i}a 9

Izrada programa i kompjuterska priprema za {tampu: Davor Pal~i}Grafi~ko oblikovawe ko rica: Rastko ]iri}

[tampa: Stru~na kwiga, Beograd, Lole Ribara 48

CIP Katalogizacija u publikacijiNarodna biblioteka Srbije, Beograd

808.61-321.1(038)

ETIMOLO[KI re~nik srpskohrvatskog jezika : probna sveska /

Marta Bjeleti}, Jasna Vlaji}-Popovi}, Pavle Ivi}, Aleksandar Loma,

Sne`ana Petrovi}, Biqana Sikimi} ; urednik Pavle Ivi}. Beograd :

SANU : Institut za srpski jezik SANU, 1998 (Beograd : Stru~na kwiga).

XLVIII, 98 str. ; 24 cm

Na spor. nasl. str.: Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue serbo-croate. Bibliografija: str. HHXLIV. Summary: Starting a New EtymologicalDictionary of Serbo-Croatian.1. Bjeleti}, Marta

a) Srpski jezik Re~nici, etimolo{ki

ID=60003084


5/32

SADR@AJ

Predgo vor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Uvod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H

Literatura i skra}enice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HHRe~nik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Starting a new etymological dictionary of Serbo-Croatian . . . 87


6/32

NAPOMENA:

Zbog hitnosti izrade elektronskog izdawa ove sveske nijizvr{ena korektura, pa molimo ko risnike da to imaju u vidu.


7/32

PREDGO VOR

Srpskohr vatska etimolo{ka nauka ima zna~ajnu tradiciju, ali sene moè pohvaliti kontinuitetom. U Beogradu su se wome bavililingvisti razli~itih profila u okviru svo jih {irih interesovawa:

Hen rik Bari}, Milan Budimir, Ivan Popovi}, Velimir Mihajlovi} idrugi. U Zagrebu je poniklo veliko delo Petra Skoka na solidnoj, dece-ni jama gra|enoj osnovi, ali samo nije doìvelo zna~ajniju nadogradwu.Skokov trotomni Etimolo gijski rje~nik hrvat skoga ili srpskoga jezika, ob-

javqen 19711974, petnaest godina posle autorove smrti, ostaje do danasjedini relevantan etimolo{ki priru~nik srpskohrvatskog jezika. Po os-novnoj vokaciji romanista i balkanolog, ali dobro upu}en i uslavisti~ku prob lematiku, Skok je za sobom ostavio re~nik koji svojimobimom (preko 10.000 odrednica), obiqem materi jala (bogat je ne samodoma}om, ve} i leksikom iz susednih jezika), kao i nizom dobrih

re{ewa, bez sumwe ide u red kapitalnih dela svetske etimolo{ke lek-sikografije. Na àlost, ostao je nedovr{en i ve} stoga ne moè se sma-trati savr{enim, a u mnogom pogledu je danas zastareo, kako zbog toga

{to ne obuhvata obimnu dijalekatsku i leksikografsku gra|u objavqenutokom posledwih pedesetak godina, tako i samom svo jom koncepcijom;povrh toga, neprakti~an je za upotrebu i te{ko dostupan potencijalnomko risniku. Jednotomni Hrvat ski etimolo{ki rje~nik Alemka Gluhaka, ob-

javqen 1993. u Zagrebu, sa svo jih 1.800 odrednica ne prevazilazi bitnijeove nedostatke: on se mawe-vi{e svodi na skra}enu i popularnu verzijuSkokovog re~nika, ograni~enu na osnovni leksi~ki fond. Nekolikomonografija iz pera doma}ih i stranih lingvista, posve}enih pojedinimterminolo{kim sferama srpskohrvatske leksike (geografska terminolo-gija Schutz 1957, ihtionimi Vinja , paremiologija Sikimi} 1996) isrpskohr vatskim pozajmqenicama iz pojedinih jezika: turskog, gr~kog,nema~kog i ma|arskog ([kalji}, Kneèvi}; Vasmer 1944; Striedter-Temps1958, Schneeweis 1960; Hadrovics 1985), popuwava samo u pojedinim per-ifernim segmentima one praznine u gra|i i wenoj obradi koje monumen-talno Skokovo delo ~ine prevazi|enim na savremenom nivou slovenskeetimologije.

U posledwih pola veka raspoloìva leksikografska gra|a vi{es-truko se uve}ala, a masa po jedina~nih nau~nih radova iz etimolo{keproblematike za to vreme narasla je gotovo do nepreglednosti. U ve-


8/32

likom broju slavisti~kih centara: Pragu, Sofiji, Qubqani, Krakovu,Var{avi, Kijevu, Minsku u toku su pro jekti na izradi etimolo{kih

re~nika po jedinih slovenskih jezika i di jalekata (staroslovenski, bugar-ski, slovena~ki, poqski, ka{upski, ukrajinski, beloruski), i ve}inawih nalazi se u poodmaklim fazama ([uster-[evcov etimolo{ki

re~nik luì~kog jezika ve} je priveden kraju). Krunu tih nacionalnihpregnu}a predstavqaju dva kapitalna poduhvata na rekonstrukcijipraslov enskog leksi~kog fonda moskovski, koji je ve} pre{ao dobrupolov inu abecede, i krakovski, koji se trenutno nalazi na slovu G. Uskladu sa savremenim lingvisti~kim tendenci jama, pristupilo se raduna arealnim etimolo{kim re~nicima: za srpskohrvatsku etimologijuvaàn je pro jekat karpatskog etimolo{kog re~nika pokrenut u Moskvi.Razvoj slovenske etimolo{ke nauke u posledwim deceni jama otvara pred

srpskohr vatskom etimologi jom nove perspektive, ali je stavqa i predvelike izazove.

U ove savremene tokove slovenske etimologije uklapa se i zasni-vawe pro jekta novog etimolo{kog re~nika srpskohrvatskog jezika (ERSJ).Na inicijativu akademika Pavla Ivi}a, 1983. godine u okviru Insti-tuta za srpskohrvatski jezik i pod pokroviteqstvom Srpske akademijenauka i umetnosti osnovan je Etimolo{ki odsek. U radu na pro jektu kre-nulo se od samih osnova. Trebalo je oformiti biblioteku, stvarati kar-toteke leksema i bibliografskih izvora, definisati korpus na ko jem }ese raditi, ustanoviti principe rada na re~niku i, {to je najva`nije,okupiti i edukovati autorski tim sastavqen od stru~waka razli~itihprofila koji bi predstavqao za~etak beogradske etimolo{ke {kole. Tre-nutno je angaòvano pet saradnika, koji su do sada, pored jedne mono-grafije, ob javili niz ~lanaka u doma}im i stranim ~asopisima i u~est-vovali na vi{e nau~nih skupova u zemqi i inostranstvu.* Uz rukovo-dioca pro jekta, oni potpisuju ovu Probnu svesku ko joj je ciq da prednau~nu javnost iznese koncepciju zapo~etog re~nika formulisanu u za-

jedni~ki napisanom Uvodu (koji sledi) i ilustrovanu sa 135 autorskihodred nica.

Kolege prof. dr @ana @anovna Varbot, dr Qubov ViktorovnaKurkina, akademik Oleg Nikola jevi~ Truba~ov iz Moskve i prof. drVjeslav Bori{ iz Krakova bili su qubazni da pogledaju rukopis Probnesveske u rani joj fazi izrade i dali niz umesnih primedbi i korisnihsugestija. Autorski kolektiv ERSJ i ovom prilikom im za to izraàvasvoju duboku zah valnost. Za sve eventualne nedostatke i propuste u Prob-noj svesci ostaju odgovorni weni potpisnici.

VIII Etimolo{ki re~nik srpskohrvatskog jezika

* V. M. Bjeleti}, Izabrana bibliografija radova saradnika Etimolo{kog odsekaInstituta za srpski jezik, Slavistika , Beograd 1997, 187191.


9/32

UVOD

1. Odre|ewe srpskohr v a ts k i u naslovu re~nika saobrazno jedijahronom pristupu imanentnom etimolo{koj nauci i treba ga shvatitiuslovno i isto rijski: ono ostavqa po strani savremene podele zasnovane

na razli~itim nacionalnim ose}awima. Pri tom se polazi od ~iweniceda je jezik Srba, Hrvata i drugih nacija koje se wime sluè po poreklui u osnovi jedan i da se ovde usvo jen sloèni naziv za wega odavno us-talio kako u na{oj, tako i u svetskoj lingvistici. Time se ne osporavalegitimnost prakse da se van nauke u svakodnevnom govoru, u slu`be-noj upotrebi, u kwièvnosti taj jezik razli~ito ozna~ava zavisno odnarod nosti wegovih nosilaca. Druga~iji pristup koji bi teìo

razgrani~ewu leksike srpskohrvatskog jezika na srpsku i hrvatsku suo~io bi se sa velikim te{ko}ama, a dao samo mr{ave i problemati~ne

rezultate. Tu se pre svega misli na nemogu}nost da se odre|eni di-jalekat ski tipovi u datim vremenima nesporno veù za jedno ili drugoetni~ko ime, kao i na na~elnu nepouzdanost eventualnog zakqu~ka oiskqu~ivo srpskom ili hrvatskom karakteru pojedinih leksema.

1.1. Pored osnovnog leksi~kog fonda, ERSJ zahvata u dostupnu d i - j a l e k a t s k u g r a | u, i to, shodno svome imenu, iz svih srpskohrvat-skih nare~ja. Osim leksikografskih i dijalektolo{kih, ekscerpi raju sei drugi, posebno etnografski izvori. Teì{te je na {tokavskom nare~ju,koje predstavqa osnovicu kwièvnog jezika Srba i Hrvata, ali se priekscerpciji di jalekat ske leksike uzimaju u obzir i ~akavsko i kajkavskonare~je. Iz di jalekata se po proceni autora uzimaju svi regionalizmi od{ireg etimolo{kog interesa: slovenski arhaizmi, starije i uop{te eti-molo{ki zanimqive pozajmqenice. Iscrpno razmatrawe dijalektizamakoji svoje obja{wewe nalaze u uèm arealnom kontekstu i na pli}oj hro-nolo{koj ravni, bilo da su slovenskog ili stranog porekla (npr. itali-

janizmi u primorskim govo rima, turcizmi u mnogim krajevima, german-izmi na severu) ostaju po pravilu izvan okvira ERSJ. Izostavqa se i

sva gra|a koja po svo joj pri rodi spada u re~nike stranih re~i i u ter-minolo{ke re~nike, a tako|e providni neologizmi, okazionalizmi i sl.Tako zami{qen, ERSJ treba da postane temeqni priru~nik srpskohrvat-ske etimologije i da pruì odre|eni doprinos pre svega slavistici, azatim i balkanologiji, indoevropeistici i drugim disciplinama.


10/32

1.2. Etimolo{ko istraìvawe re~i ne da se odvo jiti od wihovei s t or i j e, prosle|ene kroz tekstove od najrani jih pomena. To zna~i daetimolo{ki re~nik treba da ima oslonac u vaqanom istorijskom

re~niku datog jezika. U na{em slu~aju taj preduslov je kroz Rje~nikhrvat skoga ili srpskoga jezika JAZU i Dani~i}ev Rje~nik iz kwièvnihstarina srpskih samo delimi~no ispuwen, jer ova dva re~nika ni pri-bli`no ne iscrpquju isto rijsku gra|u, a sa druge strane, pored narod-nih, sadrè mnogo crkvenoslovenskih re~i, kao i ~isto kwi{kih tvor-evina koje se nikad nisu odoma}ile u ìvom jeziku. Ovaj nedostatak }ekolektiv ERSJ nasto jati da makar delimi~no nadoknadi samostalnomekscerpci jom lingvisti~ke literature koja obra|uje pojedine starije iz-vore, a samo po izuzetku uzima}e se gra|a nepos redno iz tih izvora: wi-hovo potpuno obuhvatawe prevazilazilo bi i pri rodu i mogu}nosti po-

duhvata ~iji je ciq etimolo{ki, a ne istorijsko-etimolo{ki re~nik.2. Osnovni elementi jednog re~nika su o d r e d n i c e; pri wiho-

vom uobli~avawu mogu}a su dva osnovna pristupa: segmentacija po eti-molo{kim gnezdima gnezdovni princip (npr. Skokov re~nik, ESUM)ili po po jedina~nim re~ima leksemni princip (npr. BER, SBM).Pred nost etimolo{kih re~nika ovoga drugog tipa, koji po razu|enostinali~e obi~nim jedno jezi~nim re~nicima, sastoji se pre svega u lak{emsnalaèwu ko risnika pri traèwu date re~i, a onih prvih, gnezdovnoorgani zovanih, u boqem predo~avawu unutar jezi~kih etimolo{kih veza.U ERSJ usvo jena je kombinacija oba na~ela, uz ve}e priklawawe leksem-nom. Odustalo se od maksimalnih gnezda kakva su kod Skoka, koja~esto obuhvataju sve re~i u srpskohrvatskom jeziku izvedene od jednogpraslov enskog ko rena, ili, kad je re~ o pozajmqenicama fonetski, se-

manti~ki i arealno sasvim razli~ite reflekse neke strane re~i.Nasuprot tome, ERSJ u principu svim onim re~ima koje u srpskohrvat-skoj leksici imaju samostalan poloàj dodequje posebne odrednice. Pritom se kao etimolo{ki samobitne prosu|uju pre svega one lekseme kojesvoje nepos redno poreklo nalaze izvan ravni srpskohrvatskog jezika,bilo da se svode na praslovenski predloàk, bilo da reflektuju nekustranu re~, a zatim i neke koje su, dodu{e, izvedene od druge sh. re~i,ali su se od we oblikom dovoqno odvo jile i/li zna~ewem osamostalileda ta filijacija izmi~e jezi~kom ose}awu, npr. glagol vehnuti odprideva vetah.Sli~no tome, odustaje se od podvo|ewa svih srpskohrvat-skih refleksa jednog stranog predlo{ka pod istu odrednicu ako se naosnovu hronologije, semantike i areala moè zakqu~iti da su posredime|usobno nezavisne pozajmice (npr. baga1 i baga2 < tur. baga; undu-

ruqa i unturija < lat. unctura, skara i {kar < gr.esc

ara). Naravno,razdvo jeni su homonimi svih vrsta (npr. jarina1 tj. jarina prole}ni usev

od jarina2 tj. jarina vuna; zvono2 tj. zvono ribqi pr{qen odzvono1 tj. zvono campana). Leksemni princip ipak nije primewensasvim dosledno, da se ne bi oti{lo u nepoèqnu krajnost. Pre svega,ne razdva jaju se dijalekatski refleksi iste re~i (npr. glagorac je

X Etimolo{ki re~nik srpskohrvatskog jezika


11/32

stavqeno pod glagolac , dok BER odgovaraju}e bug. oblike obra|uje odvo- jeno). Drugo, prozirni derivati svih vrsta (deminutivi, augmentativi,denominali ...) stavqaju se pod osnovnu re~. Tako se redovno postupa sasrazmerno recentnim sekundarnim obrazovawima (kakva se, uostalom, na-vode selektivno). Kod starih, ali prozirnih izvedenica pristup jefleksibilan. Pridev mi{ji odvo jen je kao prastaro, mo`da jo{ praindo-evropsko obrazovawe od imenice mi{, iako je i laiku jasno da je odwe izveden. Naprotiv, rukavica, iako sveslovenska i praslovenska re~,ne nosi zasebnu lemu, ve} je obra|ena pod rukav, a glagol duliti, iakoima zapadno- i isto~noslovenske paralele, pod duli itd. Pri opredeqi-vawu za jedno ili drugo re{ewe uvaàvana je, osim na~elnih razloga, ipreglednost odrednice. Drugim re~ima, leksemni princip u ERSJ modi-fikovan je dopu{tawem obrazovawa minimalnih etimolo{kih gnezda.

2.1. Nosilac odrednice moè biti rekonstruisan, npr. infinitiv*preti iz oblika isprel i prelav; pridev *tug iz sloènice devetotug,pridev *dvo jan iz imenskih izvedenica dvojanka , dvojanica itd. Gore( 2) pomenuti princip po kome se tvorbeno i semanti~ki prozirni de-

rivati selektivno obra|uju pod re~ima na koje se svode zna~i, naprimer, da glagol sa prefiksom moè biti naslov odrednice samo tamogde prostog oblika nema, ili gde je veza s wim usled zna~ewskog pomakasasvim zatamwena (pa i tada se prednost daje prostom obliku u slu~ajuda postoje neprefigi rani derivati, npr. -cibriti, a ne **iscibritizbog cibrina i cibrowa). Pri ovakvom izboru odrednica ostajemogu}nost iz vesnih ponavqawa, osobito kod fonetski varijantnih re~i(up. babu{ka pored bobo{ka, bubu{ka, brobo{ka i sl., bigar pored ba -gra, jandruga pored androga i sl., hlev pored lev, Vla{i}i pored

lastoàri i sl.). Da bi se to u najve}oj meri izbeglo, a da se timeupotrebna vrednost re~nika ne smawi, pribegava se upu}ivawu jedne

re~i na drugu pomo}u praznih odrednica. Kako }e i pored toga u ERSJu}i znatan broj srpskohrvatskih leksema koje ne}e biti unete azbu~nim

redom ni kao pune ni kao prazne odrednice, za zavr{ni tompredvi|a se izrada indeksa, koji }e budu}im korisnicima olak{atisnalaèwe.

2.2. O d r e d n i c a E R SJ s a stoji se iz tri dela. U prvom se dajush. oblici re~i, u drugom kratko izri~e etimolo{ki sud, a tre}i je rez-ervisan za etimolo{ku diskusiju.1

2.2.1. P r v i d e o po~iwe naslovom odrednice, za koji se uzimasavremeni kwièvni oblik re~i, ako postoji. Ukoliko je re~ zastarela

iza{la iz ìve upotrebe pred wu se stavqa krsti} (baga3, Bt,tatiti,Tu|kraj). Predmetnuta zvezdica ozna~ava da je oblik u ko jem je

Probna sveska XI

1 V. M. Bjeleti}, J. Vlaji}-Popovi}, A. Loma, Nivoi etimolo{ke analize i seg-

mentacija odrednice u ERSJ, ZbMSFL XL/1, 1997, 920.


12/32

naslovna re~ data rekonstruisan: npr. nominativ zastarele imenicepotvr|ene samo u kosom padeù, infinitiv glagola potvr|enog samo ugovo rima koji su izgubili katego riju infinitiva. Od dveju varijanatasrpskohr vatskog kwièvnog jezika prednost se daje ekavskoj, ali seodred nica moè nasloviti i jekavskim ili ikavskim oblikom, u slu~ajuda nije potvr|ena u ekavskom. Ako se nose}a re~ odrednice neupotrebqava u kwièvnom jeziku, za naslov se uzima wen dijalekatskioblik, a ako takvih ima vi{e onaj, koji stoji najbliè kwièvnom

jeziku (npr. vrah, a ne vra). Naglasak se u naslovu odrednice ne stavqa,ve} se kod razli~ito nagla{enih homonima razlika uspostavqa bro jem ueksponentu, npr. jarina1 i jarina2, a ne jarna i jrina. Za naslovomslede savremeni oblici re~i u raznim govo rima, navedeni po redosledukoji omogu}uje maksimalnu preglednost s obzi rom na wihove fonetske i

tvorbene karakteristike; u nedostatku takvih kriterija, potvrde se re|aju geografski po dijalektima, idu}i od jugoistoka ka severozapadu(specifi~an areal pojedinih leksema posebno je nazna~en u tre}emdelu). Na kraju prvog dela odrednice dolazi podatak o najranijempomenu naslovne re~i. Kod re~i ~iji se oblik u toku wihovog kroz pi-sane izvore prosledivog ìvota nije mewao, taj podatak svodi se nanaznaku vremena od kada se javqaju; kod onih koje su u pro{losti imaledruga~iji oblik ili oblike koji doprinose ustanovqewu wihoveetimologije, takve potvrde se i navode (npr. za glagol `vakati samo sekonstatuje da je u tom obliku potvr|en od XVIII veka bez navo|ewapotvrde, dok se s.v. lati iscrpno navode stsrp. pomeni koji sadrè glash, i to sa svo jim kontekstom, zbog dvosmislenosti zna~ewa). I kodsavremenih i kod isto rijskih potvrda, autorski kolektiv uzima sebipravo da pojednostavi ortografiju pojedinih zapisa i da sam formuli{e

definicije zna~ewa. Sumwa u autenti~ost oblika i naglasaka datih uizvo rima ve{ta~ki (j)ekavizmi, oblici sa restituisanim h, infini-tivi, preneseni naglasci, ozvu~eni poluglasi i druge leksikografskehiperko rekcije nazna~ava se znakom pitawa, naro~ito tamo gde je to

relevantno za etimologiju re~i; u nekim slu~ajevima se i rekonstrui{eizvorna dijalekatska forma. Gde postoje nedoumice oko ta~nog zna~ewa,moè biti dat i {iri kontekst zapisa. Pored osnovnog oblika re~i,daju se i wene flektivne forme: za imenicu pored nominativa genitivi/li neki drugi pade`, za glagol pored infinitiva prvo lice prezentaitd. Na izvore se upu}uje u zagradi iza svakog podatka (ili grupe poda-taka) skra}enicama razre{enim u spisku literature ispred ko jih senazna~ava mesto.

2.2.2. D r u g i d e o Najpre se daje saèt sud o poreklu re~i,poziti van: praslov enska re~, (pra)slov enski dijalektizam, ju`no sloven-ska inovacija, pozajm qenica iz italijanskog, gr~kog porekla, (balkanski)turcizam i sl., deliberativan: verovatno slovenska re~ i sl., ili nega-tivan: nejasnog porekla i sl., a onda kod praslovenskih re~i sledeparalele iz drugih slovenskih jezika i di jalekata (staroslovenski, make-

XII Etimolo{ki re~nik srpskohrvatskog jezika


13/32

donski, bugarski, slovena~ki, slova~ki, ~e{ki, gorwoluì~ki, dowo-luì~ki, poqski, ka{upski, polapski, ruski, ukrajinski, beloruski). Nakraju dolazi na osnovu navedenih paralela rekonstruisan izvorni oblik

re~i, praslovenski, eventualno i praindoevropski, ozna~en zvezdicom.Kod pozajmqenica redosled je obrnut: prvo se navodi wihov (potvr|en)izvorni oblik (latinski, gr~ki, turski itd.), a zatim eventualneparalele u drugim jezicima, balkanskim (makedonski, bugarski, rumun-ski, albanski, gr~ki) ili drugim. Od izvora iz ko jih su paralele crpenenavode se samo oni nestandardni, a ortografija se po mogu}stvu pri-lago|ava vaè}im normama.

2.2.3. T r e } i d e o odrednice po~iwe, po pravilu, referencom /referencama za drugi deo. To je minimalni sadràj tre}eg dela, kod re~i sa jasnom i nespornom etimologi jom (merati). Kod onih drugih ko jih je ve}ina sledi detaqnije obrazloèwe datog etimolo{kog sudai dodatna obja{wewa u vezi sa wim, ukazuje se na alternativne predlogei/li mogu}nosti tuma~ewa po redosledu wihove verovatnosti,ukqu~uju}i i o~ito proma{ene i neprihvatqive etimologije, koje se po-miwu na posledwem mestu, ali samo ako imaju nau~nu relevanciju. Even-tualno se tu mogu saop{titi neki na ovaj ili onaj na~in zanimqivi po-daci koji nisu u vezi sa neposrednom etimologi jom re~i (prisustvoslovenske re~i kao pozajmqenice u drugim jezicima, povratna pozajmicaslovenske re~i koja postoji i u izvornom obliku, krajwe poreklo strane

re~i itd.). Reference su u oblim zagradama, a sastoje se od punog prezi-mena autora (eventualno i prvog slova imena, radi razlikovawa autorasa istim prezimenom), godine izdawa i strane (odnosno, uz posebnunaznaku, broja ili paragrafa). Jednako se treti raju zasebne publikacije

i ~lanci u ~asopisima ili zbornicima (nema di rektnog upu}ivawa na~asopis ili zbornik, ve} se do wega dolazi preko imena autora upriloènom spisku literature). Ako se navodi vi{e bibliografskih je-dinica istog autora ob javqenih iste godine, razlika se uspostavqapomo}u slova abecede koja se redom pridodaju godini. Ako je u pitawudelo u vi{e tomova koji su se po javqivali s vremenskim razmakom ({to

je slu~aj sa ve}inom etimolo{kih re~nika), godinu izdawa u referencizamewuje broj toma. Kwige sa vi{e autora navode se pod svojimskra}enim naslovom. Na kraju tre}eg dela po potrebi se upu}uje nadruge odrednice ERSJ (ako to ve} nije u~iweno u samom tekstu).Naro~itim masnim slogom ozna~ava se da je navedena re~ obra|ena uERSJ kao zasebna odrednica; one koje nisu u{le u Probnu sveskustavqene su u uglaste zagrade.

3.1. Osnovni leksi~ki fond srpskohrvatskog jezika slovenskog jeporekla i projektuje se na p r a s l o v e n s k u r a van. To zna~i da najve}ideo odrednica predstavqaju srpskohrvatski refleksi praslovenskih lek-sema. Okolnost {to uporedo sa pokretawem ERSJ izlaze dva re~nika ko-

jima je ciq rekonstrukcija praslovenskog leksi~kog fonda, moskovski i

Probna sveska XIII


14/32

krakovski (SS i SP), olak{ava obradu slovenskih re~i u planiranom re~niku, omogu}uju}i da se u znatnom broju slu~ajeva upu}ivawem na je-dan ili oba praslovenska re~nika zameni podrobno navo|ewe izvora izko jih su crpene slovenske paralele srpskohrvatske re~i i op{irnijeizlagawe dosada{we etimolo{ke diskusije. Zauzvrat, ERSJ ima ambicijuda da {to ve}i doprinos rekonstrukciji praslovenske leksike, pre svegana osnovu do sada nepoznate ili nezapaène srpskohrvatske gra|e kojaomogu}ava da se potvrdi ili ustanovi pra jezi~ka starina pojedinih re~ii da se povuku nove praslovenske dijalekatske izoglose (aliti / haliti/ halav, bambuh, boblija, Vla{i}i, vrah, àmqa, zamu`, zvono,kosma, luki, nestera, Obeda, olovina, oskrt, o~aga, *preti, prud,Si}evo, smug, *tug). Kao {to se praslovenski jezik- rekonstrukt ne moèposmatrati kao monolitna celina, tako se i u etimolo{kom razmatrawu

slovenske leksike srpskohrvatskog jezika ne sme gubiti iz vida wegovaarealna i dijalekatska ra{~lawenost. ERSJ nastoji da {to preciznijeustanovi areal svake lekseme i da na taj na~in pruì {to solidnijupodlogu za rasvetqavawe isto rijskih odnosa me|u ju`noslovenskim di-

jalek tima i wihovih daqih veza na op{teslovenskom planu.2

3.1.1. Komparativnim putem se u osnovnim crtama dosta pouzdanorekonstrui{e i jedan jezi~ki nivo dubqi od praslovenskog praindo-evropski. I n d o e v r o p s k a e t imologija slovenskog jezgra srpskohrvat-ske leksike ustanovqava se preko praslovenske ravni, tako da ERSJ nemapotrebu za spu{tawem do praindoevropskih dubina kod onih re~i kojesu sa tog aspekta na zadovoqavaju}i na~in prodiskutovane u aktuelnimpraslov enskim re~nicima. Stoga rekonstrukcija u ERSJ po praviluostaje na praslovenskom obliku lekseme, ne upu{taju}i se u wene daqe

indoevropske veze (veta{, vet{ati). Jedino kada je re~ kao takva a nesamo wen ko ren u praslovenskom nasle|ena iz praindoevropskog, na-vode se weni refleksi u raznim indoevropskim jezicima i iz wih izve-den indoevropski praoblik (vetah< ie. *uetusos). Time se udovoqava os-novnom postulatu savremenog etimolo{kog re~nika, ~iji je predmet is-to rija i praisto rija r e ~ i, a izbegavaju se neizvesnosti korenske eti-mologije. Autorski kolektiv ERSJ ipak se ne odri~e prava da, u grani-cama svo jih mogu}nosti, predlaè po jedina nova re{ewa na dubqem, in-doevropskom planu u slu~ajevima kada oceni da moè doprineti isprav-nijem tuma~ewu pojedinih leksema i tvorbenih katego rija (babu{ka,

drevan, mega, Obeda i dr.).

3.2. P o z a j m q e n i c e iz dru gih jezika ulaze u ERSJ po trikriterija: starine, rasprostrawenosti i etimolo{ke zanimqivosti. Poprvom kriteriju u re~nik mogu biti ukqu~ene sve pozajmqenice osimsasvim recentnih (varvarizmi, internacionalizmi, nau~ni, tehni~ki i

XIV Etimolo{ki re~nik srpskohrvatskog jezika

2 Up. M. Bjeleti}, Praslovenska leksika u Etimolo{kom re~niku srpskohrvatskog jezika,Prasowian szczyzna i jej rozpad (u {tampi).


15/32

stru~ni termini stranog porekla). U nedostatku dokumentacije, o star-ini pozajmice prosu|uje se na osnovu stepena fonetske i morfolo{keadaptiranosti re~i u srpskohrvatskom jeziku, wene semanti~ke osamo-staqe nosti u odnosu na aloglotski predloàk i wene produktivnosti. Upogledu areala, u obzir dolaze i re~i stranog porekla sa uskim po-dru~jem rasprostrawenosti, osim ako nisu ograni~ene na bilingvalnesredine gde je priliv tu|ica u srpskohrvatski daleko intenzivniji negou normalnom kontaktu dva susedna jezika. U grani~nim slu~ajevimaodlu~uje kriterij zanimqivosti ~isto etimolo{ke (re~i sa spornometimologi jom, bilo da su ranije neispravno ili da uop{te nisuobja{wene) ili kulturnoisto rijske (povratne pozajmqenice, pozajmqen-ice sa neo~ekivanim arealom). Primena leksemnog principa na pozajm-qenice podrazumeva da se razdva jaju ~ak i formalno podudarni refleksi

iste strane re~i ako se na|e da je ona u srpskohrvatski u{la na raznimmestima, u razna vremena i sa razli~itim zna~ewima (baga1 i baga2).Osim u izuzetnim slu~ajevima, daje se samo nepos redni etimon pozajm-qenice, a za wegovo daqe poreklo upu}uje se na odgovaraju}u eti-molo{ku literaturu.3

4.1. Aktuelna etimolo{ka istraìvawa pokazala su da je odre|e-nim leksi~kim segmentima pre mesto u specijalizovanim studi jama negou etimolo{kim re~nicima. Ovo se prvenstveno odnosi na razli~itet e r m i n o l o g i j e kao {to su botani~ka, zoolo{ka, zanatska i dr., nafolklorne kreacije nastale zamagqivawem prvobitnog zna~ewa i na leksikuiz tajnih jezika. Re~i iz svih ovih domena karakteri{u srazmerno velikafonetska varijantnost i ~esto nesigurna veza sa reali jama na koje se od-nose. Zbog toga }e se ovakva terminolo{ka leksika u ERSJ unositi

restriktivno (jandruga, bi`, vi{). F o l k l o r n a l e k s i k a bi}e data uokviru odrednica sa pouzdanim semanti~kim sadràjem i u svom folk-lornom kontekstu (domadar). Leksika t a j n i h j e z i k a zabeleènih nasrpskohr vatskom terenu posmatra se kao integralni deo balkanskosloven-skih tajnih jezika: ima se u vidu isti etimolo{ki sadràj, bez obzira na

razli~itu mor fosintakti~ku upotrebu (koja varira u zavisnosti od konk-retne di jalekatske osnove). U prvom delu odrednice specifikuje se tajni jezik, a zatim, pored srpskohrvatskih, slede sve raspoloìve balkansko-slovenske potvrde iz datog tajnog jezika (marati, merati , `vawa).

4.2. Pri izradi etimolo{kog re~nika name}e se, kao nezaobilazan,i problem tretmana e k s p r e s i v n e l e k s i k e, budu}i da ona kvantita-tivno predstavqa zna~ajan deo ukupnog leksi~kog fonda. Po jam ekspre-sivni ovde se odnosi na ekspresivnu derivaciju, tj. na sva ona fonet-ska i tvorbena sredstva ko jima se mewa osnovni lik re~i da bi joj sezna~ewe intenzivi ralo i/li pomerilo od deskriptivnog ka afektivnom.

Probna sveska XV

3 Za metodologiju etimolo{ke obrade turcizama v. S. Petrovi}, Turcizmi u Eti-molo{kom re~niku srpskohrvatskog jezika, ZbMSFL H/1, 1997, 117124.


16/32

Po{to etimolo{ki re~nik nije re~niktezau rus, on ne moè sadràvatisve ekspresivne re~i srpskohrvatskog jezika. Wegov ciq je da predo~iosnovne modele ekspresivnih leksema na odabranim primerima, tj. dapokaè koja su sredstva ekspresivizacije karakteristi~na za srpskohr-vatski jezik, koja su najfrekventnija, kod ko jih vrsta re~i se naj~e{}e

javqaju: reduplikacija (babu{ka), nazalizacija (bambuh), prefiksacija(~alabrcnuti), sufiksacija (tatoriti od tatiti), onomatopejske al-ternacije suglasnika (Laole, glagorac, krakoriti), vari rawe zvu~nosti(domadar), ekspresivno ukr{tawe (boblija). Pri izboru onih ekspre-sivnih re~i koje u re~niku dobi jaju status samostalne odrednice vaèuglavnom ista merila kao i za normalnu (nemarki ranu) leksiku bi-

raju se re~i koje su u{le u kwièvni jezik ili su ~este u kolokvijalnojupotrebi, re~i za koje se moè pretpostaviti relativna starina

(`vaw(k)ati), ili takve na ko jima se prepoznaju retki i/li arhai~nimodeli obrazovawa (~alabrcnuti).

4.3. U ERSJ ulazi odabran o n o m a s t i ~ k i m a t e r i j a l: a ntro-ponimi, toponimi i druge individualne oznake pisane velikim slovom,npr. mitolo{ka imena kao Vla{i}i , Dabog, bilo pod drugim (apelativ-nim) odrednicama, bilo u vidu samostalnih odrednica. Samostalno seobra|uju ona imena koja nemaju nepos redne filijacije u ostalojsrpskohr vatskoj leksici, pod uslovom da su u odre|enoj meri zanimqivaza isto riju jezika, ili da su dovoqno poznata da bi wihovo poreklopobu|ivalo radozna lost prose~nog ~itaoca (uostalom, oba ova kriterijanaj~e{}e idu za jedno). Izuzimaju se etimolo{ki ne jasne i slabo pos-vedo~ene formacije usko lokalnog zna~aja: tamni mikrotoponimi, re-centni antroponimi i sl. Samo po izuzetku uvr{}uje se i poneko ime

nedovoqno dokumentovano u pisanim izvo rima, kad se proceni da jena~elni rizik koji sa sobom nosi etimologizi rawe takvog materi jala ukonkretnom slu~aju mawi od vrednosti eventualnog nalaza (Mixor).Takav izbor trebalo bi da re~nik obogati, a da ga ne preoptereti. Sup-stratni hidronimi i toponimi, s obzi rom na svoju veliku vrednost ra-nih isto rijskih i jezi~kih svedo~anstava, zahva}eni su iscrpno,ukqu~uju}i i one koji su zabeleèni u pro{losti a danas se vi{e nekoriste (Ibar, Ra{ko poqe, Bt). Pri tom je teì{te na izvo|ewusrpskohr vatskog oblika iz potvr|enog ili sa dovoqno verovatno}epretpostavqenog predslovenskog predlo{ka, a ne na re{avawu (ilir-ske, tra~ke, keltske itd.) etimologije samog anti~kog imena. Priuno{ewu ino jezi~nih imena koja su u srpskohrvatski jezik u{la poznije,iz adstrata, selekcija }e ve} biti stroga, vo|ena istim onim merilima

koja vaè za regionalne pozajmqenice. I iz te katego rije }e ipak bitiuneto sve {to je dovoqno staro ili na bilo koji drugi na~in intere-santno. [to se ti~e slovenskih imena, najdragocenija za etimolo{kunauku su ona u ko jima se pouzdano ili bar verovatno da prepoznati nekapraslov enska leksema koja se ina~e u srpskohrvatskom jeziku nijesa~uvala, i takvima se posve}uju posebne odrednice (Gruà, Laole, Liko-

XVI Etimolo{ki re~nik srpskohrvatskog jezika


17/32

dra, Obeda, Si}evo, ]etoqubi). Ona druga, koja imaju oslonac u ìvom jeziku, selektivno se navode pod odgovaraju}im apelativima, kao ilus-tracija wihove onomasti~ke upotrebe i/li geografske rasprostrawenosti(Grezna pod grezan, Luki vir pod luki, Tugomir pod *tug). U ne tako

retkim slu~ajevima kada ta apelativna veza, prema uvidu etimologa,dodu{e, pos toji, ali je prose~an ~italac sa svo jim jezi~kim ose}awem nemoè biti svestan, odluka da li }e ime biti dato samostalno ili samopomenuto pod osnovnom re~i donosi se na osnovu procene wegovogistorijsko- geografskog zna~aja (Gu~a zasebno, a ne pod gudac, aliPreqina pod *preti, \ev~ina pod devka). Toponimi antroponimskogpostawa svrstavaju se pod li~na imena od ko jih su izvedeni, ako su onaposvedo~ena na srpskohrvatskom terenu (Negnina pod Negna, ali ojkonim]etoqubi nosi lemu jer LI *Cetol'ub nije potvr|eno). Za sloène an-

troponime i toponime vaì ono {to i za ostale sloènice: spoj dvejuleksema tretira se kao tre}a, nezavisna re~ i stoga u re~niku sti~esvoju autonomnost, tako da Tu|kraj, Likodra idu kao zasebne odrednice,a ne pod tu| ili kraj, odnosno liko ili drati. Isti statusimenu Negna daje wegov verovatni predloàk *Ne-gnev.

5.1. Pitawima t v o r b e r e ~ i srpskohrvatske, praslovenske, pai praindoevropske kao jednom od najva`ni jih kriterija za preispiti-vawe postoje}ih i postavqawe novih etimologija, bi}e u ESRJ posve}enaodgovaraju}a pa`wa. Sumarna, i laiku jasna konstatacija etimolo{keveze razmatrane lekseme sa nekom drugom re~i, data u sredi{wem deluodred nice, biva po potrebi u wenom zavr{nom delu detaqno razmotrenasa tvorbenog gledi{ta. Polaze}i od pretpostavke da je praslovenski usvo joj ranoj, na indoevropski pra jezik neposrednije naslowenoj fazi,

bio jezik sa funkcionalno razgrani~eni jom upotrebom sufikasa i ve}omsklono{}u ka kompoziciji, nastoji se na etimolo{kom razlikovawu ho-monim nih obrazovawa, me|usobno ukr{tenih na srpskohrvatskoj, ili jo{na poznoj praslovenskoj ravni (suf. -ina : lit. -iena ili -yna; suf. -()j: gr. -ioj ili -e(i)oj, up. s.vv.jarina1 i jarina2, mi{ji). Tako|e se uka-zuje na mogu}nost da se pojedine sufiksalne izvedenice ubedqivijeob jasne kao arhai~ne sloènice (jagwed, proso, rukav, psl. *sykt s.v.Si}evo).

5.1.1. Us redsre|en na re~i (a ne na korenove), ERSJ se prikqu~ujeonim savremenim istraìva~kim usmerewima koja teè da etimologiju,gde god je to mogu}e, protegnu daqe od po jedina~ne lekseme, ka rekon-struk ciji f r a gm e n a t a p r a j e z i ~ k o g t e k s t a, praslovenskog i/lipraindoevropskog, budu}i da komparativno-istorijska istraìvawaleksemskih veza mogu ne malo doprineti boqem etimolo{kom tuma~ewu po-

jedinih re~i (naro~ito sloènica) i wihovih semanti~kih razvoja (Dabog,drevan, jagwed, proso).

Probna sveska XVII


18/32

5.2. Probna sveska ERSJ i sam budu}i re~nik pi{u se sa ~vrstimuverewem da je s e m a n tika od izu zetnog zna~aja za izvo|ewe vaqanihetimolo{kih zakqu~aka. Stoga pra}ewe semanti~kog razvoja, uvaàvaweve} prime}enih semanti~kih zakonitosti, a ponekad i ukazivawe na nekepomake zna~ewa koji dosad nisu opisani u etimolo{koj literaturi ~ini

jednu od okosnica etimolo{ke argumentacije u ERSJ. îm se zadovoqiminimum formalnih uslova, odnosno kad ne postoje ozbiqne formalneprepreke odre|enom tuma~ewu, semantika moè postati odlu~uju}i fak-tor u stvarawu etimolo{kog suda. Iako se izvesna prednost dajedoma}im se manti~kim paralelama (babu{ka


19/32

sveske su oni prvi, ve} samim tim {to dobar deo re~i u naslovimawenih odrednica prose~an znalac srpskohrvatskog jezika nema u svom

jezi~kom fondu. Kolektiv ERSJ se nada da }e Probna sveska u nadoknaduza smawenu reprezentativnost jezi~kog ise~ka biti tim privla~nije{tivo za specijaliste u oblasti etimologije, a da im pri tom prezenti-

rawe do sada neobra|enog materi jala i novi etimolo{ki predlozi ne}esmetati da obrate pa`wu i na ono {to treba da bude glavni predmetkriti~kog suda: op{te metodolo{ke postavke i tehni~ka re{ewa pri-meweni u izradi konkretnih odrednica. Kolektiv ERSJ je, ipak, svestan~iwen ice da ocewiva~ima koncepcije budu}eg re~nika moè smetati to{to u Probnoj svesci nema vi{e rutinskih odrednica, tj. obi~nih ive} etimolo{ki re{enih re~i. Donekle opravdan, taj prigovor moè seublaìti procenom autora da broj takvih re~i i nije toliko veliki

kako se na prvi pogled moè ~initi, tako da izrada budu}eg re~nika ni-kako ne}e biti stvar rutine i proste kompilacije. S obzi rom na kreati-van pristup izradi odrednica ERSJ, one nose potpise svo jih sastavqa~a,ali odgovornost za svaku od wih nosi ceo kolektiv, koji ih na za-

jedni~kim sas tancima prosu|uje i me|usobno uskla|uje. Druga dimenzija re~nika koja u Probnoj svesci nalazi samo delimi~an odraz jesteme|usobna povezanost pojedinih odrednica, tj. odnosi filijacije me|upojedinim obra|enim leksemama koje se samostalno tuma~e shodno usvo-

jenom leksemnom principu ( 2). Ti odnosi su u nekoliko slu~ajeva ilu-strovani mawe-vi{e kompletnom prezentaci jom etimolo{kog gnezda ~ijisu (gotovo) svi ~lanovi obra|eni (vetah, veta{, vet{ati, vehnuti;`vati, `vakati, `vatati, `vawati; aliti, halav, haliti; tat, tatiti),a ~e{}e prikazom po dve ili vi{e srodnih ili problematski poveza-nih leksema (baga1 : baga2 : baga3 : bagir : bagqa; kosma : ~esmina;veda : neveda : bogves; vigled : vihoda; driskati : dricati; bi` :vi{; gela : dela : ela; flema : hlemutati; marati : merati; da`d :ki{a i dr.). Naj~e{}e se, me|utim, pun opseg gnezda predo~avaupu}ivawem na budu}e odrednice ERSJ (koje su mahom ve} ura|ene, aliiz razloga ekonomi~nosti nisu mogle biti uvr{}ene u Probnu svesku).

6.1. Uprkos te`wi ka {to jezgroviti jim formulaci jama, diskusijau tre}em delu pojedinih odrednica srazmerno je op{irna, tako da wihovprose~an obim donekle prevazilazi okvire uobi~ajene u dosada{woj eti-molo{koj praksi. Razlog tome je nedostatak referentne literature, sin-teza i monografija na koje bi se moglo upu}ivati za op{tije po jave iprobleme vezane za srpskohrvatsku etimologiju i leksikografiju, {to jeautore ~esto primoravalo da na tu problematiku ukazuju i razmatraju je

povodom pojedinih re~i. Na prvom mestu nedostaje jedna moderna i do-voqno obuhvatna isto rija srpskohrvatskog jezika; poèqne bi bile imonografske studije koje bi se, pre svega sa dijahronog stanovi{ta, bav-ile kqu~nim pitawima tvorbe i semantike (studije o isto rijskom raz-vitku pojedinih sufikasa, pojedinih segmenata leksike, ukqu~uju}i ono-mastiku, pojedinih semanti~kih katego rija). Autori ERSJ, osim rada na

Probna sveska XIX


20/32

samom re~niku, stavqaju sebi u zadatak, svako u skladu sa vlastitimkompetenci jama i interesovawima, pisawe jednog broja ovakvih studija;neke su u fazi izrade, a neke su se ve} po javile (Sikimi} 1996). Time biERSJ dobio potrebne spoqa{we oslonce koji bi ga rasteretilipreop{ir nih diskusija pod pojedinim re~ima. Podrobniji osvrti uProb noj svesci imaju za ciq da nau~noj publici uka`u, u okviru pojedi-nih odrednica, bar na deo tih op{ti jih problema, u nadi da }e i disku-sija povodom Probne sveske na taj na~in biti usmerena od pojedina~nogi ilustrativnog ka op{tijem i su{tinskom.

7. Izlaze}i sa ovom Probnom sveskom pred sud stru~ne javnosti,kolektiv ERSJ o~ekuje pre svega konstruktivnu kritiku, od kakve se samnije ustezao na stranicama Probne sveske povodom konkretnih eti-molo{kih re{ewa dru gih autora. Nadamo se da }e takvi kriti~ki osvrtibiti podsticajni za daqi rad na ERSJ i pomo}i da se koncepcijabudu}eg re~nika u pone~em popravi do izlaska wegove prve sveske.

Marta Bjeleti} (M. B.)Jasna Vlaji}-Popovi} (J. V.-P.)Pavle Ivi} (P. I.)Alek sandar Loma (A. L.)Sne`ana Petrovi} (S. P.)Biqana Sikimi} (B. S.)

XX Etimolo{ki re~nik srpskohrvatskog jezika


21/32

START ING A NEW ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARYOF SERBO-CROATIAN

0. Serbo-Croatian etymological science can be credited with a signifi-cant tradition but it cannot boast of continuity. In Belgrade it was studied bylinguists of different profiles: Henrik Bari}, Milan Budimir, Ivan Popovi}, Ve-limir Mihajlovi} et al. within their broader fields of interest. In Zagreb thegreat work of Petar Skok arose from a solid foundation decades in the build-ing, but it never lived to serve as a basis for any significant superstructure.Skoks three-volume Etimolo gijski rje~nik hrvat skoga ili srpskoga jezika, pub-lished in 19711974, fifteen years after its author's death, remains until thisday the single relevant etymological hand book of the Serbo-Croatian language.Being a romanist and a balkanologist by original vocation, but also very wellgrounded in Slavistics, Skok left behind a dictionary which in terms of itsrange (over 10,000 entries), abundance of material (not only indigenous, butalso lexicon from neighbouring languages), as well as numerous good solu-tions undoubtedly num bers among the worlds capital works of etymologicallexicogra phy. Unfortunately, it has remained incom plete and in many respectsoutdated, not only because it lacks considerable dialectal and lexicographicmaterial that has been published in the course of the last half century, butalso due to its basic concepts; and last but not least, it is not practical for useand not easily available for the potential user. The single-volume Hrvat ski eti-molo{ki rje~nik published in 1993 in Zagreb by Alemko Gluhak with its 1,800entries does not resolve these shortcomings; it presents an abridged and popu-lar version of Skoks dictionary, only limited to the basic word fund. Severalmonographs authored by domestic and foreign linguists, dealing with certainterminological segments of the Serbo-Croatian lexicon (ichthyonyms, ornitho-nyms, paroemiology) and with Serbo-Croatian loans from certain languages:Turkish, Greek, German and Hungarian ([kalji}, Kne`evi}; Vasmer 1944;

Striedter-Temps 1958, Schneeweis 1960; Hadrovics 1985) fill in only certainperipheral as pects of the gaps in the material and its treatment that renderSkoks monumental work outdated in modern Slavic etymology. In the courseof the last half century the lexicographic material has been immensely en-larged, while the number of individual articles dealing with etymology has be-


22/32

come virtually limitless. In many Slavistic centres (Prague, So phia, Ljubljana,Krakow, Warsaw, Kiev, Minsk) work is in progress on projects of etymologi-cal dictionaries for individual Slavic languages and dialects (Church Slavonic,Bulgarian, Slovenian, Polish, Kashu bian, Ukraine, Belorussian), most of themin advanced stages of completion (the Lusatian etymological dictionary bySchuster-[ewc being already finished). Simultaneously with these national en-deavours two capital enter prises in the reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic lexi-con are in progress the Moscow dictionary, and another one in Krakow. Inaccordance with contemporary trends in linguistic, work on regional etymo-logical dictionaries has also been undertaken: relevant for Serbo-Croatian ety-mology is the project for a Carpathian etymological dictionary started in Mos-cow. The development of Slavic etymology during the last few decades opensnew pros pects for the Serbo-Croatian etymology, posing, at the same time,

great challenges. Also fitting into these modern trends is the beginning of theproject for a new etymological dictionary of the Serbo-Croatian language Eti -molo{ki re~nik srpskohrvat skog jezika (ERSJ). Following the initiative of aca-demician Pavle Ivi} under the aus pices of the Ser bian Academy of Sciencesand Arts the Etymological Department of the Institute for the Serbo-CroatianLanguage was founded in 1983. Work on the project commenced from thevery beginning, priority given to gathering and educating a team of specialistsof different profiles that would represent the core of the Belgrade etymologi-cal school 1. The pur pose of this Pilot Issue is to present the princi ples of thedictionary as formulated in a co-authored introduction and illustrated by 135individually written lemmas.

1. The specificat i o n Se r b o - C r o a t i a n i n t h e t itle of the dictionaryconforms with the diachronic ap proach immanent to etymological science, soit should be understood conditionally and historically: it disregards contempo-rary divisions based on different national feelings. It takes as its point of de-

parture the fact that the language of the Serbs, Croats and other nations usingit is originally and basically one language and that the composite termadopted here has been long established in domestic and world linguistics too.This does not question the legitimity of the practice that outside science

proper in everyday speech, in official use, in literature this languageshould be given different names depending on the nationality of its speakers.Another ap proach which would divide the Serbo-Croatian lexicon into Ser-

bian and Croatian would encounter great difficulties, while yielding onlymeagre and problematic results. This ap plies in the first place to the impossi-

bility of associating positively certain dialectal types in given e poques withone or the other ethnicity, as well as the general uncertainty of any judgment

about the exclusively Ser bian or Croatian character of individual lexemes.

88 Etymological Dictionary of the Serbo-Croatian Language

1 For their selected bibliography cf. M. Bjeleti}, Izabrana bibliografija radova sarad-nika Etimolo{kog odseka Instituta za srpski jezik, Slavistika I, Beograd 1997, 187191.


23/32

1.1. Along with the basic lexicon, the ERSJ incorporates available d i-a l e c t a l m a t e r i a l from all Serbo-Croatian vernaculars, the ob ject of ex-cerption being not only lexicographic and dialectological sources, but alsoother, especially ethnographic ones. Stress is placed on the [tokavian dialectwhich furnishes the basis of the literary language of the Serbs and Croats, butalso taken into account are the ^akavian and Kajkavian dialects. Excerptedfrom the dialects are all regionalisms of wider etymological interest: Slavic ar-chaisms, older and etymologically interesting loan-words. An exhaustive dis-cussion of dialectisms that can be ex plained in a narrow regional context andon a shallow chronological level be they Slavic or alloglottal in origin (e.g.Italianisms in the coastal speeches, Turcisms in many regions, Germanisms inthe North) princi pally remains outside the scope of the ERSJ. Also omittedis all the material that naturally belongs to dictionaries of foreign words and

to terminological dictionaries, as well as transparent neologisms, occasional-isms and the like. Thus conceived, the ERSJ is intended as the fundamentalhand book of Serbo-Croatian etymology, making a certain contribution toSlavistics in the first place, but also to Balkanology, Indoeuropeistics andother disciplines.

1.2. Etymological study of a word cannot be separated from its h i s t o r y as traced through texts to its earliest attestations. This means that an etymo-logical dictionary should be grounded on a solid historical dictionary of agiven language. In our case that condition is only partly met by the Rje~nikhrvat skoga ili srpskoga jezika JAZU and by Dani~i}s Rje~nik knji`evnih starina srpskih since these two dictionaries do not com pletely exhaust histori-cal records. They also contain many Church Slavonic words as well as purelyliterary creations which never found their way into the spoken language. Theauthors of the ERSJ will attempt to make up for this shortcoming by drawingupon linguistic works dealing with certain older sources, and only exception-ally will material be taken directly from those sources; covering them thor-oughly would sur pass both the nature and possibilities of an enter prise withan etymological and not a historical-etymological dictionary as its goal.

2. There are two princi pal ap proaches in structuring lemmas as unitsof an etymological dictionary: segmentation according to etymological nests the nest principle (e.g. Skoks dictionary, ESUM) or according to individualwords lexematic princi ple (e.g. BER, SBM). The advantage of etymo-logical dictionaries of the latter type, the structure of which resem bles that ofordinary single-language dictionaries, lies in the fact that it provides easier ac-cess for the user seeking a certain word, while the former, nest organizeddictionaries are better at presenting etymological connections within a givenlanguage. Adopted in the ERSJ is a compromise of both princi ples, with a

preference for the lexematic. Abandoned is the idea of maximal nests,like those found in Skoks dictionary that often com prise all the words inSerbo-Croatian derived from a Proto-Slavic root, or, in the case of loan-words,

Pilot Issue 89


24/32

the very different phonetical, semantical and regional reflexes of a foreignword. On the other hand, the ERSJ generally assigns separate lemmas to allwords that have an independent status. Judged as such are particularly lexe-mes with direct origin beyond the level of the Serbo-Croatian language, bethey traceable to a Proto-Slavic prototype, or to a reflex of a foreign word, aswell as such Serbo-Croatian derivatives which have become formally so dis-tant or semantically independent from the basic word that their filiationevades the language intuition, e.g. the verb vehnuti from the adjective ve -tah. Similarly, not all Serbo-Croatian reflexes of an alloglottic original arecontained in the same lemma if chronology, semantics and regional distribu-tion indicate that they are actually independent loans (e.g. two entries baga1

and baga2 from Turk. baga; unduruqa and unturija Lat. unctura, skaraand {kar Gk. escara). Separated, of course, are the homonyms of all

kinds (e.g. jarina1

, i.e. jari

nacrop sown in spring fromjarina

2

i.e.

jarinawool; zvono2zvono fish verte bra from zvono1zvono cam pana). How-

ever, the lexematic princi ple is not ap plied all the way in order to avoid ex-tremes. To begin with, the dialectal reflexes of the same word are not sepa-rated (e.g. glagorac is placed under glagolac, while in BER respective Bulg.forms are treated separately). Transparent derivatives of all sorts especiallysecondary formations (included by exception only) are classified under the

basic word. When it comes to old, but transparent derivatives, the approachremains flexi ble. The adjective mi{ji is separated as an ancient, perhapsProtoIndo- European formation from the noun mi{, although it is obviousto a layman that it is derived from that noun. On the other hand, rukavica,although a common Slavic word, does not have a lemma of its own, but it isdiscussed under rukav; the verb duliti, in spite of its west- and eastslavic

parallels underduli, etc. While opting for one or the other solution, apartfrom princi pal factors, account was also taken of the textual transparency ofthe lemma. In other words, the lexematic princi ple was modified in theERSJ by allowing minimal etymological nests.

2.1. Lexical entries may also be reconstructions, e.g. the infinitive*preti from the forms isprel and prelav; the adjective *tug from the com-

pound devetotug, the adjective *dvojan from nominal derivatives dvojanka,dvojanica, etc. The fact that formally and semantically transparent derivativesare selectively dealt with under the words they can be traced back to implies,for exam ple, that a verb with a prefix may be an entry only if a sim ple formdoes not exist, or when the connection between them is com pletely blurred bysemantic change (even then there is a preference for the sim ple form whenthere are non- prefixed derivatives, e.g. -cibriti , rather than **iscibriti

because of cibrina and cibrowa). This selection of dictionary entries maylead to certain repetitions, especially in the case of phonetic variations ofwords (cf. babu{ka alongside bobo{ka, bubu{ka, brobo{ka, etc., bigaralongside bagra, jandruga alongside androga, etc., hlev alongside lev,Vla{i}i alongside lasto`ari, etc.). In order to avoid such redundancies,



25/32

without diminishing the usability of the dictionary, reference from one wordto another may be made by empty entries. Since the ERSJ will contain aconsiderable number of Serbo-Croatian lexemes that will not be listed alpha-

betically either as full or empty entries, an index is planned for the finalvolume which will be an aid for future dictionary users.

2.2. T h e E R S J l e m m a c o n sists of three parts. The first lists theSerbo-Croatian forms of the word, the second briefly states the etymologicalorigin, while the third is reserved for etymological comment2.

2.2.1. The first part of the lemma begins with the dictionary entry,represented by the contemporary literary form of the word if one exists. If theword is obsolete it is preceded by a dagger (baga3, Bt, tatiti ,Tu|kraj). An asterisk in front of a word means that the entry form is a re-construction, e.g. the nominative of an obsolete noun attested in oblique casesonly; the infinitive of a verb attested solely in the vernaculars that have lostthe category of the infinitive, etc. Among the two variants of the Serbo-Croatian language, the ekavian is favoured, but a lemma can also be titled bya jekavian (or ikavian) form if the word is not attested in ekavian. If the entryword is not in use in the literary language, the lemma is titled by its dialectalform, and if these are numerous, by the one that is closest to the literary lan-guage (e.g. vrah, and not vra). Entries are not accented, so that homonymswhose accents do not coincide are differentiated by num bers in the position ofexponents, for example jarina1 andjarina2, and notjar na andjrina. Thetitle is followed by the contemporary forms of the word in various vernacu-lars, given in an order that provides maximum transparency with regard to

their phonetic and formal characteristics; in the absence of such criteria, attes-tations are arranged geographically, i.e. according to dialectal criteria, startingfrom Southeast toward Northwest (the specific areal distribution of certainlexemes is specially noted in the third part of the lemma). At the end of thefirst part of the lemma come(s) the earliest attestation(s) of the word, or onlyan indication of its date in the case of words whose form underwent nochanges during their (written) history. In the case of both contemporary andhistorical sources the authors take the liberty of simplifying the orthographyof certain records and formulating semantic definitions. Doubt about theauthenticity of forms and accents given in some sources: artificial (j)ekavisms,forms with restituted h, infinitives, retracted stress, voiced semivowels andother lexicographic hypercorrections is indicated by a question mark, espe-cially when it is relevant for etymology; sometimes the original dialectal form

is reconstructed. In the case of dilemma about the precise meaning, a widercontext of the record may be given. Beside the basic form the word is givenin its flective forms as well. Sources are indicated by abbreviations (inter-

Pilot Issue 91

2 Cf. M. Bjeleti}, J. Vlaji}-Popovi}, A. Loma: Nivoi etimolo{ke analize i seg-mentacija odrednice u ERSJ, ZbMSFL XL/1, 1997, pp. 920 (in print).


26/32

preted in the list of references) placed in parentheses after each datum (or agroup of data), preceded by geographical location.

2.2.2. The sec ond part of the lemma begins with a concise state-ment about the origin of the word: positive (Proto-Slavic word, (Proto)Slavicdialectism, Southslavic innovation, loan-word from Italian, Greek in origin,(Balkan) Turcism, etc.), deliberative (probably a Slavic word, etc.), or nega-tive: (of uncertain origin and the like). In the case of Proto-Slavic words, it isfollowed by parallels from other Slavic languages and dialects (Church Slavic,Macedonian, Bulgarian, Slovenian, Slovak, Chech, Up per Lusatian, Lower Lu-satian, Polish, Kashu bian, Pola bian, Russian, Ukraine, Belorussian). At the endcomes the original form of the word, reconstructed on the Proto-Slavic (some-times the Indo-European) level, marked by an asterisk. In the case of loan-

words the order is different: first comes their (attested) original form (Latin,Greek, Turkish, etc.) and then parallels in other languages, primarily Balkan(Macedonian, Bulgarian, Rumanian, Albanian, Greek). The literature that these

parallels are taken from is quoted only when it is not standard for the respec-tive language, while the orthogra phy, when possi ble, conforms to presentnorms.

2.2.3. The t h i r d p a r t of the lemma regularly begins with a reference(or references) to the second part. That is the minimal content of the third

part, when the word has a clear and indisputable etymology. Others andthese prevail are followed by a detailed justification of the etymological at-tribution and additional relevant explanations, pointing to alternative solutionsand/or possibilities of interpretation given in order of probability, including

also obviously mistaken and unacceptable etymologies that are mentioned inthe last place, but only if they have scientific relevance. Optionally interestingfacts regarding the word, but not its etymology proper (the presence of aSlavic word as a loan in other languages; the reborrowing of a word that alsoexists in an original form; the ultimate origin of a foreign word, etc.) arementioned.

3.1. The basic lexicon of the Serbo-Croatian language is Slavic in ori-gin and has been pro jected onto the P r o t o -S l a v i c level, which impliesthe predomination of lemmas dealing with Serbo-Croatian reflexes of Proto-Slavic lexemes. The circumstance that simultaneously with starting the ERSJ,two other dictionaries aimed at reconstructing the Proto-Slavic lexical fund, inMoscow and Krakow (SS and SP) are also being published, makes the

work on the Slavic words in the planned dictionary easier. It means that in agreat number of instances sim ple reference to one or both Proto-Slavic dic-tionaries can be a substitute for extensive quoting of sources of Slavic paral-lels and for a detailed description of earlier relevant etymological discussion.On the other hand, the ERSJ has an ambition to make the greatest possiblecontribution to the reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic lexicon, primarily based



27/32

on hitherto unknown or unnoticed SCr. material which allows the commonSlavic character of certain words to be confirmed or established, and some newProto-Slavic dialectal issoglosses to be drawn (aliti / haliti, bambuh,boblija, Vla{i}i, vrah, `amqa, zamu`, zvono, kosma, luki, nestera,Obeda, olovina, oskrt, o~aga, *preti, prud, Si}evo, smug, *tug). SinceProto-Slavic, a language-reconstruct, cannot be viewed as a monolithic whole,its areal and dialectal ramification should be kept in mind in the etymologicaltreatment of the Serbo-Croatian Slavic lexicon. The ERSJ is aimed at defin-ing, as precisely as possi ble, the areal distribution of each lexeme, thus pro-viding the most solid possi ble basis for illuminating the historical relations be-tween the South-Slavic dialects, as well as their further connections in thecommon Slavic domain3.

3.1.1. Reconstruction in the ERSJ generally remains on the Proto-Slavicform of the word without going further into its I n d o - E u r o p e a n con nec-tions (veta{, vet{ati). Solely in the case that the word as such and notonly its root has been inherited by Proto-Slavic from ProtoIndo-European,are its reflexes in various Indo-European languages listed, as well as its IEform reconstructed (vetah IE *uetusos). This meets the basic postulate of amodern etymological dictionary dealing with the history and prehistory of aword, while avoiding the uncertainties of root etymologies. The authors ofthe ERSJ, however, do not deny themselves the right to pro pose, within therealm of their capacities, new solutions on a deeper, Indo-European levelwhenever they consider that they may contribute to a better interpretation ofcertain lexemes and formations (babu{ka, drevan , mega, Obeda, etc.).

3.2. L o a n - w o r d s from other languages enter the ERSJ under threecriteria: antiquity, areal distribution and etymological curiosity. Respecting thefirst criterion the dictionary includes all loan-words except for quite recentones (barbarisms, internationalisms, scientific, technical and professional termsof foreign origin). When documentation is missing, the antiquity of a loan is

judged on the basis of the degree of its phonetical and morphological adapta-tion in Serbo-Croatian, its semantical independence from the alloglottal proto-type and its productivity. As far as the geographical factor is concerned, for-eign words with narrow areal distribution may be included, too, unless theyare limited to bilingual communities where the influx of foreign words wasmore intensive than in normal contact between two languages. Decisive in linecases is the criterion of interest purely etymological (words with disputableetymology, whether erroneous or no previous interpretation) or cultural-historical interest (reborrowings, loan-words with unex pected location). Apply-ing the lexematic princi ple to loan-words means that even formally coincid-ing reflexes of the same foreign word are separated if they have entered

Pilot Issue 93

3 M. Bjeleti}, Praslovenska leksika u Etimolo{kom re~niku srpskohrvatskog jezika,Prasowian szczyzna i jej rozpad (in print).


28/32

Serbo-Croatian in different places, in different periods and with differentmeaning (baga1 and baga2). Save for exceptional cases, only the immediateetymon of the loan-word is given, and for its deeper origin suggestions are of-fered about further etymological references4.

4.1. Current etymological studies have shown that certain lexical seg-ments belong to specialised monographs rather than etymological dictionaries.This is primarily true of different term i n o l o gies (such as botanical, zoo-logical, occupational, etc.), folklore creations resulting from the blurring of theoriginal semantics and secret languages. Typical of all the words from thesesegments is their relatively high phonetical variability and often incertain

bonds with the realia they refer to. This is why this terminological lexiconwill find its way into the ERSJ quite restrictively (jandruga, bi`, vi{).

F o l k lo re l ex icon will be represented only through words with reliable seman-tics, which are viewed in their contexts (domadar). The lexicon of s e c r e t l a ng u a g e s at tested on the Serbo-Croatian terrain is observed as an integral

part of Balkan Slavic secret languages: borne in mind is identical etymologi-cal content, regardless of different morphosyntactical use (which varies ac-cording to a particular dialectal basis). In the first part of the lemma the secretlanguage is specified, and then SCr. attestations are followed by all availableBalkan Slavic (marati, merati , `vawa).

4.2. A topic inevita bly encountered in etymological lexicogra phy is theproblem of treating e x p r e s sive words s ince they represent a quantita-tively significant portion of the total lexicon. The notion expressive refershere to the expressive derivation, i.e. all the phonetical and formal means that

alter the basic word in order to intensify and/or cause shift of meaning fromdescriptive toward affective. Since an etymological dictionary is not athesaurus- type dictionary, it cannot include all the expressive words of Serbo-Croatian. Its goal is to show what means of expressivisation are typical of theSerbo-Croatian language, in what category of words they occur most often,which are the most frequent ones, e.g. reduplication (babu{ka), nasalisation(bambuh), prefixation (~alabrcnuti), suffixation (tatoriti from tatiti),onomato poeic alternation of consonants (Laole, glagorac, krakoriti), voic-ing alternation (domadar), expressive contamination (boblija). In choosingexpressive words to be granted individual lemmas the same criteria as thoseestablished for normal (unmarked) lexicon are ap plied words that haveentered the literary language or those frequent in colloquial use, words forwhich relative antiquity can be sup posed ( vaw(k)ati) or in which rareand/or archaic models of formation can be recognised (~alabrcnuti).


4 For the methodology of etymological treatment of Turcisms cf. S. Petrovi}, Tur-cizmi u Etimolo{kom re~niku srpskohrvatskog jezika, ZbMSFL XL/1, 1997, pp. 117124.


29/32

4.3. The ERSJ includes a selection of o n o m a s t i c ma terial: anthropo-nyms, toponyms, as well as mythological names (cf. Vla{i}i, Dabog).Treated individually are names that have no immediate filiation with the restof the SCr. lexicon, provided they are of some interest for the history of thelanguage, or sim ply intriguing. Excluded are etymologically dubious or poorlyattested formations of narrow local significance: untransparent microtoponyms,recent anthroponyms and the like. Only exceptionally is a name insufficientlydocumented in written sources included in the dictionary, when it is felt thatthe princi pal risk that goes with the etymological interpretation of such mate-rial in a specific instance is less than the value of a potential find (Mixor).Such choices are intended to enrich the dictionary, rather than as somethingsuperfluous. Substratum (Pre-Slavic) hydronyms and toponyms, with respect totheir great value as early historical and linguistic testimonies, are incorporated

extensively, including those recorded in the past but out of use today (Ibar,Ra{ko poqe, Bt). Stress is placed on deriving the Serbo-Croatian formfrom an attested or with sufficient probability sup posed Pre-Slavic proto-type, and not in solving (the Illyrian, Thracian, Celtic, etc.) etymology of theancient name itself. In including alloglottic names that entered Serbo-Croatianlater, from adstratum, the selection will have to be rigorous, guided by thesame criteria as used for regional loan-words. Included into this category will

be everything that is old enough or interesting in any other respect. As far asSlavic names are concerned, the most valuable for etymology and thereforegranted individual lemmas are those that present a reliable, or at leasthighly probable, attestation of a lexeme otherwise not surviving in Serbo-Croatian (Gru`a, Laole, Likodra, Obeda, Si}evo, ]etoqubi). Ones thatare rooted in the living language are included selectively under respective ap-

pellatives, serving as illustrations of their onomastic use and/or areal distribu-tion (Grezna under grezan, Luki vir s.v. luki, Tugomir under *tug). Fre-quently this appellative connection is seen by an etymologist, though an aver-age reader with his linguistic feeling cannot be aware of it, so that the deci-sion whether the name is to be an individual lemma or merely an examplementioned under a basic word de pends on the evaluation of its historical-geographical importance (Gu~a separately, and not under gudac, butPreqina s.v. *preti, \ev~ina s.v. devka). Toponyms of anthroponymic ori-gin ap pear under the personal names they are derived from, if these are at-tested on Serbo-Croatian soil (Negnina under Negna, but the place name]etoqubi has a lemma of its own since the personal name *Cetolub isnot attested. Composite anthroponyms and toponyms are sub ject to the samecriteria as other com pound words: the union of two lexemes is understood asa third, independent word and therefore gains autonomy in the dictionary, so

that Tu|kraj, Likodra go as separate lemmas and not under tu| or kraj,respectively liko or drati. The same status is given to the name Negnafrom its probable prototype *Ne-gnev.

Pilot Issue 95


30/32

5.1. The problems of word fo r m ation Serbo-Croatian, Proto-Slavic and even ProtoIndo-European as one of the most important criteriafor examining existent and establishing new etymologies, will receive due at-tention. An overall statement about the etymological connections of a givenlexeme with another word, aimed to satisfy even a layman, and placed in thecentral part of the lemma, whenever necessary receives a detailed discussionfrom the formal point of view in the final part of the lemma. Supposing thatProto-Slavic in an earlier phase of its development, when it was still closelylinked with Proto-Indo-European, was a language with a functionally more di-versified use of suffixes and a higher tendency for composite formations, therehas been an attempt at etymological segregation of homonymous formationsinterconnected on the Serbo-Croatian or even late Proto-Slavic levels (suf.-ina : lit. -iena or -yna; suf. -()j : Gk. -ioj or -e(i)oj, cf. s.vv.jarina1 and

jarina

2

, mi{ji). Note is also taken of the possibility that certainsuffixalderivatives may be given more probable explanations as archaic compounds

(jagwed, proso, rukav, PSl. *sykt s.v. Si}evo).

5.1.1. Concentrating on words (and not on roots), the ERSJ joins con-temporary trends of investigation that tend to use etymology, wherever possi-

ble, as a means to delve deeper than the individual lexeme, toward the recon-struction of frag m e n t s o f t h e p r o t o - l a n g u a g e t e x t, Proto-Slavicor ProtoIndo-European, since comparative-historical study of lexical links cancontribute a great deal to a better etymological interpretation of certain words(especially com pounds) and their semantic development (Dabog, drevan, jag -wed , proso).

5.2. This Pilot Issue of the ERSJ as well as the future dictionary arebeing written with the strong conviction that s e m a nt i c s i s e xtremely im-portant in drawing valid etymological conclusions. Therefore, tracing semanticdevelopment, respecting already noted semantic regularities, sometimes notingcertain semantic shifts hitherto not described in etymological references consti-tute one of the princi pal lines of etymological argumentation in the ERSJ. Assoon as the minimum of formal conditions is satisfied, i.e. when there are noformal obstacles in the way of a certain interpretation, semantics can becomea crucial factor in making an etymological attribution. Although there is a

preference for local semantic parallels (babu{ka buhnuti : pupa pu -piti), use is made of exam ples of equal or very similar semantic develop-ment in all Slavic languages and dialects (the likely connection of SCr. ~es -mina with ~esati is com pared with the relation Russ. dub : dubim). Addi-tional argumentation can be provided by analogies from further, non-Slaviclanguages (e.g. for negve : noga Lat. pedica : pes, pedis and Gk. pedh : pouj,podoj). Long sequences of semantic ramification and evolution are not presentedin extenso, but only in fragments providing necessary parallels, and cited for therest are the references they were taken from, while already existing articles withexhaustive argumentation make it possi ble to refer to them and minimize se-



31/32

mantic argumentation within the lemmas (zvono2

, drevan). The already men-tioned lack of historical dictionaries is necessarily reflected on tracing the se-mantic evolution of certain words in the course of time, therefore the conclu-sions in the ERSJ in that respect are often based on comparison, and not ondocumentation.

6. The c h o i c e o f l e m m a s for the Pilot Issue was dictated by twowishes: to present the most representative possi ble segment of the future dic-tionary and to be as persuasive as possi ble in illustrating the usefulness of theenter prise itself, i.e. the need for such a dictionary as well as the authors ca-

pacity to cope with this assignment. It is for the latter reason that the choiceof words for the Pilot Issue fell mostly on words that cannot be found inSkoks dictionary, or are not given an etymological solution, or those for

which Skoks etymology has been superseded, either in later literature or inthe works of the ERSJ authors themselves presented here for the first time.Care was taken to include all the prominent authors and works in the field ofSerbo-Croatian etymology in the last half a century, giving thus an idea aboutthe development of this disci pline after Skok. Satisfying these demands had acertain price: the Pilot Issue features fairly few words from the basic lexiconstratum, with a relative predominance of dialectisms, archaisms and onomas-tics which will not be the structure of the future ERSJ itself. In every otherrespect the intention was to provide a cross-section of all the strata of the lan-guage as represented by various word classes (nouns, verbs, adjectives, prepo-sitions, etc.) as well as words of different origin: general Slavic, Proto-Slavicdialectisms, early Latinisms, later Romanisms and Germanisms, Turcisms, etc.Unlike the future dictionary which is intended not only for specialists, but

also for educated laymen, the Pilot Issue is intended for the former (and notthe latter) this being obvious by the very fact that most of the words thattitle its lemmas are absent from the lexicon of an average Serbo-Croatianspeaker. The authors of the ERSJ believe that the Pilot Issue will compensatefor not being a representative exam ple of the language by being even more at-tractive reading for specialists; hopefully, the presence of hitherto untreatedmaterial and new etymological proposals will not be an obstacle to whatshould be the princi pal ob ject of scholarly criticism: general methodologicalassumptions and technical solutions ap plied onto particular lemmas. However,the authors are aware of the fact that reviewers of the concept of the futuredictionary may ob ject to the fact that the Pilot Issue does not contain moreordinary lemmas, that is standard and etymologically indisputable words.Partly legitimate, this objection can be offset by the authors estimation that

the number of such words is not so large after all, so that writing the futuredictionary will not be a matter of routine and mere compilation. In view ofthe creative ap proach taken in work on the ERSJ lemmas, they are signed bythe initials of their authors, although the responsibility for each and every oneof them lies on the whole team which has analysed them and ad justed themon group meetings. Another dimension of the dictionary, which is only partly

Pilot Issue 97


32/32

reflected in the Pilot Issue is the interrelatedness of individual lemmas, that is,the filiation of certain lexemes inter preted individually according to theadopted lexematic princi ple ( 2). This is illustrated in a cou ple of instances

by a more or less com plete presentation of etymological nests in which (al-most) all the mem bers are entered (vetah, veta{, vet{ati, vehnuti;`vati, `vakati, `vatati, `vawati; aliti, halav, haliti; tat, tatiti),and more often by the presentation of several cognate or problem-connectedlexemes (baga1 : baga2 : baga3 : bagqa : bagir; kosma : ~esmina; veda :neveda : bogves; vigled : vihoda; driskati : dricati; bi` : vi{; gela :

dela : ela; flema : hlemutati; marati : merati; da`d : ki{a, etc.) Mostoften, however, the full range of the nest is indicated by referring to futurelemmas (mostly already written, but omitted from the Pilot Issue for reasonsof economy).

6.1. In spite of a tendency toward lapidary formulations, the discussionin the third part of some lemmas is fairly extensive, so that their averagelength excedes the framework considered standard in earlier etymological

practice. This is due to a shortage of references, synthetic studies and mono-graphs that could be quoted for certain general phenomena and problems re-lated to Serbo-Croatian etymology and lexicogra phy, which often obliged theauthors to discuss such problems within respective lemmas. The first title thatis missing is a modern and comprehensive history of the Serbo-Croatian lan-guage; also desirable would be monographs that would, from a primarily dia-chronic stand point, treat crucial topics on word formation and semantics (stud-ies about the historical development of certain suffixes, studies on certain seg-ments of the lexicon, including onomastics, studies of semantic categories).The authors of the ERSJ, apart from work on the dic tionary itself, feel them-selves called upon to produce such studies, according to their interests andcompetences; some are in progress, some have already been published(Sikimi} 1996). That would give the ERSJ external sup port that would relieveit of extensive discussions within certain lemmas. Occasional detailed reflec-tions within some lemmas of the Pilot Issue are aimed at drawing the atten-tion of the scientific audience to some of these general problems, with thehope that discussion will be thus directed from the individual and illustrativetoward the general and the essential.

7. Thus welcoming the opinion of specialist, the authors of the ERSJex pect, first of all, constructive criticism which they themselves did not hesi-tate to give when discussing specific etymological solutions by other authors.It is hoped that such critical reviews will inspire future work on the ERSJ andthat they may be helpful in further developing the concept of the planned dic-tionary before its first volume appears.

Translated by Jasna Vlaji}-Popovi}


diccionario etimologico serbio

Documents

Transcript of diccionario etimologico serbio