Modern Serbian Research Articles

?????????? ???????-as,-ás? ???????????????? ???????

The present article is dedicated to the study of interlingual contacts based on the facts given by the history of the Hungarian personal suffix -as. This suffix is used in modern Serbian, Croatian, Yugoslav-Ruthenian, Slovenian and Slovak literary languages and dialects. People speaking these dialects have been living for a long time in these territories that used to be a part of the Hungarian kingdom. The history of this suffix, its functioning and its present status is demonstrated on the basis of Carpathian and Ruthenian written old and new texts. The productivity of the borrowed personal suffix -?? (-??) is considered to be a result of active interlingual contacts in the Carpathian region and also of the considerable influence of Hungarian on the language and culture in the Southern Carpathian hills. There are many words in modern Carpatho-Rusyn texts which are borrowed from Hungarian, e.g.: ???????, ??????, ??????, ??????, ??????, ????????? etc. Some of them appear in word formation paradigms of the Carpatho-Rusyn motivated words, e.g.:????????, ????????????, ????????, ???????, ??????, ??????? and so on. The result of the Carpatho-Rusyn and Hungarian language contacts on word formation level testifies to a very intensive interaction. In modern Ruthenian the same tendency is to be observed: numerous lexical borrowings from Hungarian exist side by side with borrowings of units on a more abstract level. In our case the word formation suffix ?? (-??) with a personal meaning is of Hungarian origin and it is very productive in modern Carpatho-Rusyn.

Milos Crnjanski and Modern Serbian Literature

Milos Crnjanski and Modern Serbian Literature

Special Studies: Bone Consumption by Pigs in a Contemporary Serbian Village: Implications for the Interpretation of Prehistoric Faunal Assemblages

This article presents the results of recent ethnoarchaeological research concerned with the destructive effects of domestic pigs upon bone assemblages. Bones of cattle, pigs, and sheep were fed to domestic pigs in a modern Serbian village. Over 90% of the sheep and pig bones, but less than 10% of the cattle bones were consumed by the pigs. Pigs prefer the bones of smaller species and bones or bone parts that have a higher content of soft cancellous material. The results demonstrate that pigs, and not only dogs, were important taphonomic agents in early and historical village sites throughout the New and Old Worlds.

Kinship and Economy in Modern Iceland: A Study in Social Continuity

A primary purpose of this paper is to provide an accurate listing of modern Icelandic kinship terms. A second objective 1S to discuss the meaning of the consanguineal kinship terminology in order to show that patrilineal principles of social organization have persisted in spite of the abrupt economic development in Iceland. The Icelandic economy was greatly expanded as a result of its profitable role in fishing during World War II. Earlier descriptions of Icelandic kinship include a description of medieval kin terms by Merrill (I964) which is basically accurate, although two cousin terms are missing. A second article has introduced into the anthropological literature a modern Icelandic kinship terminology which is inaccurate in its cousin terms and which includes affinal kin terms that were actually constructed by the author (Rich I976). Both authors describe the social organization of medieval Iceland in relation to such economic institutions as allodial land rights and a system of wergild payments. In contrast to other areas of Scandinavia, however, allodial forms of land-holding did not exist in medieval Iceland2 (Benediktsson I967; Gudmundsson I967; Phillpotts I9I3). It is questionable whether wergild payments were made in that period in either Norway or Iceland (Phillpotts I9I3). Modern Icelandic kinship terminology is one in which affinal and consanguineal relationships are defined by separate terminologies These-two categories are not made by either Merrill (I964) or Rich (I976: I7), who claims that affinal ties are increasingly classiSed with relationships of consanguinity as part of a centrifugal trend in conceptualizing relationships. A more accurate description of the economic institutions and the social strueture in Iceland will point to why exactly the opposite trend has occurred in Icelandic social organization. In a paper describing the lineage pattern of kinship nomenclature, Dole (I965: 40-4I) wrote that kinship systems which exhibit this kind of terminology include such European kinship terminologies as medieval Icelandic and Russian, nineteenth century Swedish, Scotch, Irish, and Polish and modern Serbian and, also, the nonEuropean kinship terminologies of China, India, and certain pastoral societies in Asia and Africa. This form of kinship terminology was correlated with forms of social organization that combined principles of unilineality and differential inheritance rules, usually, primogeniture (Dole I965:

Notes on the Beginnings of Modern Serbian Literature: The Kurzbeck Press in Vienna and Its Successors, 1770-1800

Notes on the Beginnings of Modern Serbian Literature: The Kurzbeck Press in Vienna and Its Successors, 1770-1800

Jernej Kopitar's Role in the Serbian Language Controversy

At beginning of nineteenth century Serbian people became engaged in a dual struggle for political and cultural independence. Their early political leader was Karadjordje, whose rebels began to lift awesome Turkish yoke that had been oppressing their countrymen for four long centuries. Their chief cultural revolutionary was Vuk Karad'i6 (17871864), a minor official who had fled to Vienna after fall of Karadjordje government in 1813. From Vienna Vuk waged a campaign to free Serbian writing from its thralldom to Russian Slavonic, an imported idiom that Serbs had been using in their secular and religious works for almost a century. Vuk proposed a simplified alphabet and a new literary language based exclusively on spoken Serbian. His program was first derided and then bitterly opposed by Church-led conservatives and others who wished to preserve some bond between Serbian literary language and Russian Slavonic. ensuing struggle became so fierce that one Vuk partisan, Djura Dani'ii, named it The War for a Serbian Language and Orthography.' Any attempt to understand issues in this controversy obstructed by lack of an accurate, rudimentary history of Serbian literary language. Until very recently Serbian philologists and cultural historians, stemming as they do from victorious Karadiid tradition, have tended to regard pre-Vuk linguistic phenomena as irrelevant or inconsequential. There has been a determined effort to preserve Vuk mystique, since his story tightly interwoven with whole romantic ethos of Serbian nationhood. But mystiques can lead to mystification, a fact well illustrated by befuddlement of great Trubetzkoy, who once wrote that the modern Serbian literary language has almost nothing in common with Slaveno-Serbian tradition, and that its history is marked by a sharp and complete with tradition, a which furthermore was voluntary and not imposed.2 break with tradition was neither voluntary nor sudden, for it required more than fifty years of bitter controversy before books published in Vukovian alphabet were officially sanctioned in Serbia (1868). This