The Development of Words Across Centuries an Outline of a Dictionary of Semantic Motivations Based on the Material of Slavic Adjectives

Home , Etymological dictionary, Prepa, Slavic vocabulary

Mariola Jakubowicz

The Development of Words Across Centuries An Outline of a Dictionary of Semantic Motivations Based on the Material of Slavic Adjectives

Inherited from the Proto-Slavic Period 2

MONOGRAPHS

Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences The Development of Words Across Centuries

Mariola Jakubowicz

The Development of Words Across Centuries An Outline of a Dictionary of Semantic Motivations Based on the Material of Slavic Adjectives Inherited from the Proto-Slavic Period

Translated by Artur Zwolski

2 MONOGRAPHS Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences WARSAW 2017 Editorial review Dr hab. Aleksandra Janowska, Associate Professor, University of Silesia, Katowice & Prof. dr hab. Jadwiga Waniakowa, Jagiellonian University, Cracow

Originally published in 2010 as Drogi słów na przestrzeni wieków. Zarys słownika motywacji semantycznych na materiale przymiotników słowiańskich odziedziczonych z prasłowiańszczyzny,

Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy (IS PAN).

Praca naukowa finansowana w ramach programu Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego pod nazwą „Narodowy Program Rozwoju Humanistyki” w latach 2014–2017.

This academic publication was financed within the “National Programme for the Development of Humanities” of the Minister of Science and Higher Education in 2014–2017.

Editorial supervision JakubISS PAS Ozimek MONOGRAPHS SERIES

Cover and title page design Barbara Grunwald-Hajdasz

Editing Marta Wróbel

Andrzej Cedro Typesetting and page makeup

ISBN: 978-83-64031-64-9

Instytut Slawistyki Polskiej Akademii Nauk ul. Bartoszewicza 1b / 17 00-337 Warszawa tel./fax 22/ 826 76 88 [email protected], www.ispan.waw.pl

CONTENTS ...... 9 INTRODUCTION ...... 11 PART ONE ...... 13 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 13 1. 2.ME ChangesANING AND in Meaning ITS CHANGES and Polysemy. Diachrony versus Synchrony . . . . . 15 1. Meaning. Terminological Remarks ...... 16 2.2. Types of Diversity of the Content of Words ...... 2.3.2.1. StringsPolysemy of andMeanings Homonymy ...... 19 ...... 2017 . . 20 3.2.3. The The Methods Modes ofof DescribingResearching Semantic Semantic Changes Changes ...... 22 3.2.1.3.1. An Traditional Approach Modesto Semantic of Description Research. .Semasiology ...... and. . Onomasiology...... 22 3.2.2. The Component Analysis of Meaning ...... 23 ...... 26 3.2.3. The Methods . . . Adopted . . . . from. . . Cognitive. . . . . Linguistics...... 2624 4. Semantic Motivation ...... 29 4.1. The Term 2. 4.2. Parallel Motivating Meanings ...... 31 ...... 31 THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PROTO-SLAVIC MEANING Theoretical1. General Remarks Problems Concerning . . . . . the. . Proto-Slavic...... Language...... 33 2. Reconstruction of Meanings in Non-Attested Languages...... 3. The Reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic Meaning ...... in the Lexicographical Practice ...... 37 3.1. The Continuants and Their Hierarchy 40 on4. The Continuants Particular . Stages . . . of. .Reconstruction ...... 44 4.1. The Principles of Reconstructing the Meaning Which. . . . Is . Based ...... 44 4.2. The Reconstruction of the Structural Meaning 45 6

4.3. The Reconstruction of the Etymological Meaning ...... 47 4.3.1. The Adjectives Inherited from the Proto-Indo-European Language . . 47 4.3.2. The Reconstruction of the Etymological Meaning on the Basis of the Proto-Indo-European Root ...... 48 4.4. The Value of the Reconstructed Material under Discussion. The Confrontation of Results ...... 49 4.5. The Problem of the Homonyms ...... 50 4.6. The Role of Acquaintance with the Realia in the Establishment of a Motivation ...... 51

3. . . . 55 1. The Emergence of the Category of the Adjective ...... 55 1.1.THE The PROBLEMS Criteria for ASSOCIATED Establishing WITH the Proto-Slavic THE PROTO-SLAVIC Status of a WordADJECTIVE ...... 58 2. Productive Adjectival Word-Formative Types ...... 59 3. The Division of Adjectives According to Their Origins ...... 61 3.1. Former Participles ...... 61 3.1.1. The Passive Past Participle with -tъ < -to- ...... 62 3.1.2. The Passive Past Participle with -nъ < -no- ...... 62 3.1.3. The Present Tense Passive Participle with -mъ ...... 63 3.1.4. The Past Tense Participle with -lъ (the Second Active Anterior Participle with -lъ) ...... 63 3.2. Adjectives Related to the Proto-Indo-European Roots with a Verbal Meaning ...... 64 3.3. Adjectives Associated with the Proto-Indo-European Roots with a Nominal Meaning ...... 65

4. THE PARALLELS OF SEMANTIC DEVELOPMENT ...... 67 1. State of Research and Postulates ...... 67 1.1. The First Onomasiological Dictionaries ...... 68 1.2. Contemporary Projects ...... 69 1.2.1. The Scope of the Languages Involved ...... 70 1.2.2. Chronological Scope ...... 71 2. The Proposed Forms of the Dictionary ...... 73 3. The Ways of Analyzing the Material ...... 74 3.1. Semasiological Order ...... 74 3.2. Onomasiological and Semasiological Order ...... 76 3.3. Onomasiological Order ...... 76 3.4. Semantic Motivation in Atlases ...... 77 4. The Choice of Method ...... 78 5. Individual Problems Associated with the Research of Semantic Changes . . 79 5.1. Semantic Changes Associated with the Varieties of a Language . . . . . 79 5.2. Linguistic Taboo and Its Euphemization ...... 80 5.3. Borrowings and Semantic Calques ...... 81 5.4. Words Which Are Attested Only Once (ἃπαξ λεγόμενα) ...... 82 PA 7 ...... 83 RT TWO ...... 85 ANALYSIS1. The Basis OF THE of the MATERIAL Material ...... 85 5. THE RESEARCH MATERIAL AND THE MEANS OF ITS ANALYSIS...... 90 3. The Structure of the Entries and the Arrangement of the Material Within2. The Content the Entry of .the . Semantic. . . . . Field. . . Under. . . Research...... 91

...... 95 ...... 95 AD6. 1B.CONCEPTUAL B . . . GROUPS ...... 1A. GOOD ...... 115 ...... 120104 2A. PLEASANT ...... 126 2B. UNPLE ASANT...... 3A. PRETTY ...... 3B. UGLY ...... 134 4A. HIGH/T . ALL...... 141 4B. LOW/SHORT ...... 155146 5A. FAT ...... 160148 6B.5B. WTHINEAK ...... 6A. STRONG ...... 182 ...... 186173 7A. HEALTHY ...... 190 7B. SICK ...... 193 9A.8A. QUICKYOUNG ...... 8B. OLD ...... 203 ...... 205197 9B. SLOW ...... 213 10A. VIOLENT ...... 218 AD 11B.10B. SCALM ...... 221 11A. CHEERFUL/MERRY ...... 226 ...... 230 12A. STERN ...... 235 13B.12B. TIMIDMILD ...... 13A. BRAVE ...... 241 14A. PROUD ...... 251244 14B. HUMBLE ...... 248 16A.15A. WISEDILIGENT ...... 260 16B.15B. SLAZYTUPID ...... 257

...... 269264 1. An Onomasiological Dictionary Arranged According 7. A DICTIONARY OF SEMANTIC . . CHANGES......

to the Received Meanings 271 8

2. An Onomasiological Dictionary Arranged According to Initial Meanings ...... 288

...... 299 ...... 299 SUMMARY ...... 302 3.1. The CausesDegree forof Reliability the Changes of aof Semantic Meanings Reconstruction of the Studied Adjectives . . . . 3.1.2. The The Inclusion Strings ofof MinimalThematic Sem Groupsantic inChanges the Studied . . .Lexis ...... 305 3.2. Metaphorical Changes ...... 306304 ...... 308 . . 308 4. Research Perspectives ...... 310 4.1. Further Work Upon the Model of a Dictionary of Semantic Changes...... 311 4.2. The Tasks Associated With a Dictionary 4.2.1. The Linguistic Image of the . World.. . . . Axiological...... Research ...... 315 ...... 319 INDEX OF PROTO-SLAVIC . . . . WORDS...... 319 INDEX OF LANGUAGES ...... 320 ABBREVIATIONS ...... 320 REFERENCES ...... 323 DICTIONARIES QUOTED IN THE WORK OTHER WORKS INTRODUCTION The principal aim of this work is to present a model of a dictionary of semantic motivations, which is supposed to be an answer to the postulate of creating a dictionary of motivational parallels that has long continued to be put forward. At the outset I would like to make the reservation that my answer is a partial one, for it involves only a small part of the vocabulary. A more comprehensive answer surely exceeds the limits of one work. In order to perform my task I selected adjectives from the lexical-semantic field which “characterizes people.” preparatoryIts content is aims sufficiently without rich which to enable the planned the construction work would of be a impossible.model which These was planned. The aim that is presented here requires the fulfilment of a number of- ispreparatory not to concentrate aims include upon the the identification results which of motivationalparticular conceptual relationships groups be tween the meanings of the adjectives that were researched. However, my task groups into a model. A comprehensive, descriptive recapitulation of the results,yield a from very theinteresting field that notion was in researched itself, may butbecome to arrange the object those of other conceptual works of research. In order to provide an exhaustive treatment of the subject it is advisable that these works referred to fields of a lesser conceptual volume, ae.g. reconstruction ones that would of theirbe limited initial to meaning. the field Thus,of physical an important properties. part of my re- searchAn analysis includes of a thereconstruction semantic development of meanings of which particular may be lexemes ascribed requires to the reconstructed Proto-Slavic forms. Due to the lack of scholarly works which - in thewould theoretical refer to this part research of my work. task, I I present included there a chapter a method entitled of the “The reconstruction Reconstruc oftion meaning of Meanings for a non-attestedof Non-Attested language Languages. which Theoretical is reconstructed Considerations” on the basis of continuant languages. The theoretical part of my work also discusses the problems associated with meaning, changes of meaning and the current state of research concerning semantic development. 10 The Development of Words Across Centuries

The part of the work which contains the material furnishes an analysis of

adjectival lexemes which belong to selected conceptual-lexical fields. These thelexemes vast majorityare a part of of cases a very the broad usage hyperfieldof the adjectives which that“characterizes were researched people.” is notThis limited field contains exclusively lexemes to the which naming refer of to human physical properties. and mental Even properties. within the In vocabulary of one language in the synchronic perspective there is a dominance of polyfunctional lexemes. This is even more so as far as the diachronic perspective is concerned because the continuants of Proto-Slavic words may be presented as an array of meanings that continues to develop for the Proto-Slavic period until the present time. Monographic works of research that are limited to a single conceptual group are sometimes realized according to a similar

Thearrangement. recapitulation In order of the to fulfillpart of my the task work it was which necessary contains to the select material a very is broad con- stitutedfield, so bythat a two-part a model onomasiologicalof a dictionary of dictionary. semantic Thechanges semantic could development be created. of the lexemes that are discussed in the work is presented in two modes in

based on received meanings; the second model is based on the initial mean- this dictionary. The first mode is associated with an arrangement which is for a dictionary of semantic development, based on the register of changes in ings. Such an arrangement of the work realizes the model which is required-

aforementioneda semasiological doublearrangement onomasiological (this function model. is performed by the comprehen sive collection of material, accompanied by an alphabetical index) and the made in the course of research and contains indications of further opportuni- tiesThe for final research part ofbased the workon the discusses results that substantial were produced. considerations which were PART ONE THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

MEANING AND ITS CHANGES 1. Meaning. Te emarks

The core of my workrminological is constituted by R semantic changes or the changes of meanings. Therefore before I proceed to discuss this question, I would like to stop and explain my notion of meaning, having in mind Vladimir Zvegincev’s statement, according to whom “the point of departure of every semasiological work should be a definition of the meaning of a word (the lexical meaning)” (“Исходным моментом во всякой семасиологической работе должно быть определение значения слова (лексическое значение)”) [Zvegincev 1957: 122]. - How do linguists define meaning? We may venture a statement that no one has provided an answer to this question yet. Let us mention John Lyons’s opinion: “No one has yet presented even an outlineWprowadzenie of a satisfactory do semantyki and complete języko- znawczejtheory of meaning”An Introduction [Lyons 1975:to Linguistic 444; cf. Semantics Lyons 1968: 402]. Renata Grzegorczy- nitionkowa devotedof meaning. the firstShe presented chapter of an her overview of the concepts of meaning, ( ) to the problem of the defi - ationsboth philosophical associated with ones the (includingconcept of psychologicalmeaning in linguistic concepts) works and are linguistic far less ones [Grzegorczykowa 1995b: 9–25]. According to the author, the consider comprehensive and are most frequently a certain reflection of philosophical stressesapproaches the [Grzegorczykowa importance of meaning 1995b: 20].as such, This isand, a result on the of theother peculiar hand, natureof the somewhatof both branches task-oriented of science, approach of philosophical of linguists reflection to the on problem the one hand,of meaning. which Therefore the aim of linguistic considerations associated with meaning is to specify this term precisely in order to maintain the clarity and precision of semantic considerations. Various trends in linguistics position meaning The Development of Words Across Centuries

14 - - manticin various theories ways, whichis applicable is reflected only into thea synchronic emergence description of so many ofsemantic a language. the Thatories is[cf. why Grzegorczykowa these theories 1995b: are beyond 64–89]. the The scope majority of the ofpresent contemporary work. I will se return to those theories which may be useful to research which combines various temporal planes of language further on, in my description of the mode of presentation of semantic changes.

distinction between these terms is not consistently maintained in linguistic Alongside the term “meaning” the term “concept” is frequently used. The

works. Very frequently they are treated as synonyms.

Znaczenie jako pojęcie, bez dalszego określania jego istoty, występuje w większości prac z zakresu strukturalnej semantyki językoznawczej, żeby wymienić klasyczne już dziś prace Ullmanna, Kronassera i in. [Grzegorczykowa 1995b: 21].

(Meaning understood as a concept, with no further elucidation of its essence, occurs in most works in the field of structural linguistic semantics, to name the now classic works by Ullmann, Kronasser and others.)

In the classic “semiotic triangle” (of Ogden and Richards’s) meaning is identified with the concept [Ogden, Richards 1923]. This fact is reflected in Polish translations [Grzegorczykowa 1995b: 12; Lyons 1975: 445 (cf. Lyons- 1968:ture of 404); the works Tabakowska written 2001: by cognitive 49]. linguistics scholars. According to the generalThe use concept of the ofterm cognitive “concept” linguistics, instead ofconcepts the term have “meaning” a categorizing is a peculiar function fea - - and they are the basis of the classification of the ideas about the world of the us ofers mankind of a given but language it changes [Taylor according 2002: to 50; a given Tabakowska language. 2001: This 33–34]. fact is expressed The clas sification of the entire lexical field into concepts is not identical for the whole knowledge. This or that distribution of concepts is determined in each case by the conditionsin the varying of the level life of of detail a given associated community. with These conceptual conditions fields determine of a given thearea im of- portance of particular referents and the concepts which are associated with them.

I use both terms in my work, whereby the term “concept” is used in more abstract contexts, that is e.g. when I have “meaning” in mind which refers to a group of synonyms. As a result of an assumption that “meaning” is a part of the content of a lexeme, I use this term when I refer to specific words. A similar solution, namely the replacement of the term “meaning” with the term “notion-field,” appeared as early as in the 1950s – in a work devoted to polysemy [Rudskoger 1952]. According to the quoted work,

the notion-field is not so sharply delimited as the sense given by the dictionary, and the transitions between two or more notion-fields are smoother than between the corresponding senses [Rudskoger 1952: 12–13]. Meaning and Its Changes 15

- theIn degree contradistinction of precision to of the both author’s terms butopinion, also inI think the capacity that the of difference the content, be becausetween a “notion-field”the former term (“conceptual may be applied field”) toand much “meaning” broader consists content not than only the in content of one lexeme. to hypothetical semantics because we are dealing with reconstructed semantics.Let me In also such mention cases this that term in my embraces analyses the the whole term “lexeme”extent of isthe also semantics applied which is associated with a given dictionary form. Thus it means a lexical unit, according to the practice accepted varietatis causa in works of linguistic research.used interchangeably with the terms “wyraz” and “słowo” [both mean ‘word’],

2. Changes in Meaning and Polysemy. Diachrony versus Synchrony

When we deal with the research of both semantic motivation and semantic development we face the same problem; that is, the mutual relationship be- - tween the meanings that are compared. I used the term “the mutual relation becauseship of the I would meanings like towhich also aredirect compared the attention to one of another” the reader instead to two of phenom the term- ena“change which in occurmeaning” in the – which synchronic could plane:be equally the coexistenceappropriate ofin meaningsthis context and – the paragraphs which follow. The ambiguity which is transposed into the do- mainambiguity of diachrony (polysemy). enables I present us to the verify difference the validity between of these combining phenomena various in meanings with one another of the same continuant. This is the result of the fact that polysemy is a reflection of the effects of semantic changes which are toviewed disregard synchronically. diachrony We in may synchronic define polysemy research in does a figurative not change manner the as fact a “fixed that everysemantic meaning change” has (“zastygła its origin somewhere.zmiana semantyczna”). That is why Thethe modelstendency that of arelinguists used, models that are used in the discussion of semantic changes, and they are either – e.g., in the classification of the types of polysemy – do not differ from the patterned after them or they may become patterns for them ([cf. Apresjan- 1995: 182–183], who employs the models of radial, string and radial string course,polysemy the which aforementioned were distinguished remarks forare the not first a novelty. time on Stephen the basis Ullmann of dia wrotechronic the material following in awords work in by a Arsènepart of Darmesteterhis work devoted published to the in theoretical 1887). Of analysis of semantic changes: 16 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Polysemy is the pivot of semantic analysis. Couched in synchronistic terms, it means that one word can have more than one sense. Translated into diachronistic terminology, it implies that a word may retain its previous sense or senses and at the same

Thetime phenomenonacquire one or severalof polysemy new ones is richly [Ullmann represented 1957: 117]. in literature, of which I will present only those aspects which are relevant to my work.

2.1. Polysemy and

An important problemHomonymy faced by lexicography is the distinction between the phenomena of polysemy and homonymy.1 Even when we compare various dictionaries of the same language we may notice that an arbitrary solution of Sprach- gefühl of the author of a dictionary entry. The taking of etymology as a basis andthis theproblem treatment is impossible of words because which are the continuants final decision of the depends same formon the as ambig-

ofuous the ones, idea ofand providing those which a strict originate distinction from between various synchrony sources, as and homonyms diachrony – an approach that is sometimes suggested – is not approved by the supporters- logical criterion fails also due to the fact that etymologists are not always able [e.g. Lyons 1977: 550–569; Apresjan 1995: 183–186]. Moreover, the etymo to which I return to later in the my text. The authors of contemporary research worksto provide admit an thatanswer there to isa questionstill no consensus concerning concerning the origins a ofconsistent a word – distincan idea- 2 cases of homonymy are those that arose due to a chance concurrence of phonetics and spellingtion between3 of two polysemy lexemes andwhich homonymy. originate fromThe onlydifferent unquestionable etymological sources bal bal bal Balken klon Acer PSlav– e.g., *Polishklenь and ‘aklon dance party’ from Fr. ‘idem’ as opposed to ‘beam, log’ from German κλών ‘beam’ or Polish ‘a species of tree; ’ with an identical sound, which – an may international be eventually term reduced used in to genetics one etymon whose but source they reachedis the Greek a given word language ‘a bybranch.’ different Doubts ways are e.g. caused Polish by ikona cases of words with- икóна and ikona ‘a religious pic ture in the Eastern church,’ borrowed from the Russian word ‘idem’

1 ‘a pictorial representation on the computer screen’ borrowed from Majewska entitled Homonimia i homonimy w opisie językoznawczym 2 An exhaustive account of the issues concerning homonymy is found in a work by Małgorzata an alleged relationship between the homonyms ear [Majewska 2002]. Although John Lyonsear [Lyons 1977: 550] writes about some speakers of English who discern intuitive insight, which is uncorroborated by actual usage‘the part of words, of a cereal cannot plant be whichtaken intocontains consid its- erationflowers byor linguists.seeds’ and ‘the organ of hearing’ (according to NSOED), he concludes that such an 3 I.e. homonymy proper; apart from that there is also homophony and homography. Meaning and Its Changes the English word icon εἰκών. 17 In my opinion, these cases of polysemy or homonymy, which may be even- . The source of both words is the Greek word which arose in the context of a given language because they enable us to trace semantictually reduced changes. to one source, are equally useful as the polysemous meanings In so far as in lexicographical practice the necessity of deciding whether there is a case of a polysemous lexeme or two separate lexemes occurs rarely, in research devoted to semantic changes such a decision is an inherent part of types of polysemy of which those that do not hinder linguistic communication endureevery analysis. in the language Danuta Buttler for a longer [Buttler period 1978: of 210–213] time, whereas distinguishes other types various that hinder communication are eliminated from the language. The latter type may

This happens when from an excessively broad range of meanings, which was initiallygive rise uniform to the so-called to cognate “false languages, friends onlyof a translator”one remains in in cognate usage andlanguages. others become obsolete. In order to illustrate her point, Buttler provides the polysemous Old Polish word niedziela

недéля which meant both ‘the period of seven days’ and ‘the last day of this period’ [Buttler 1978: 213]. In Russian the word- netically retained original, the which first of is the indicated aforementioned by its structure. meanings. Due The to Polish their languagepeculiar retained the meaning ‘the day of rest during the week’ – this meaning is ge - alentsformal with affinity, dissimilar which meaning.is visible Theseuntil the pairs present are above times, all Slavic the object languages of detailed have worksremarkable of research good conditions whose principal to create aim pairs is to makeof phonetic the learners or orthographic of a given foreign equiv language sensitive to such lexical traps. 4

2.2. Types of Diversity of the Content of Words the attention of the reader to different situations in which the same word may referDue to to the both nature people of the and semantic other denotata. field which In someI analyze cases in mythis work, is caused I will not direct by polysemy but by the multireferentiality of a given lexeme. This is especially the case with the adjectives which express parametrical concepts (lexemes which mean ‘tall,’ ‘short’ have the same content range regardless of whether they refer to people, buildings or trees) and ones that provide an appraisal in the field of aesthetics. However, the diversity of referents frequently entails Such works of research include: Czesko-polska homonimia Pułapki leksykalne.4 Słownik aproksymatów polsko-bułgarskich Pułapki leksykalne. Słownik aproksymatów polsko-chorwackich [Szałek, NečasPułapki 1993]; leksykalne. Słownik aproksymatów polsko-słoweńskich [Karpaczewa,Słownik serbsko-polskich Symeonowa, Tokarz homonimów 1994]; i paronimów [Tokarz 1998]; [Tokarz 1999]; [Šipka 1999]. 18 The Development of Words Across Centuries

sensethe change in reference of the tocontent objects, of and meaning. a still different The concept sense inof reference“power,” “might”to elements. and “weakness” has a different sense in reference to living creatures, a different are described in this work has tendencies which are peculiarly associated Each of the pairs of concepts (and sometimes each of its components) which- ceed the limits of the considerations associated with polysemy because the objectswith the of range such of considerations meaning. However, are not the lexemes considerations but entire upon concepts, this subject maybe ex

- evennymic conceptual5 type, which fields. is based on the possibility of a more or less regular transfer of featuresA case of from frequent one objectoccurrence to the is other. that of This polysemy has to doreferred with the to asusage the metoof the same word in reference both to the possessor of a feature and to its manifes- dumny proud → dumna proud face głupi stupid → głupia stupid tations (e.g. Polish człowiek ‘ man’ mina ‘ [lit.which facial are expression]’, associated with mental człowiek features, ‘ thereforeman’ man isodpowiedź their basic ‘ referent.answer’). In my In work the thismajority type of polysemycases this is type marginally of polysemy referred refers to becauseto adjectives I am interested in the opposite direction of the change of the referent, namely the transfer of names of features from inanimate objects to people. The changes in the semantic structure of a word in the case of polysemy of the metonymic

type occur beyond the scope of the semantic field that I am interested in. The metaphor is most frequently the basis of the extension of a name from objects to people [cf. e.g. Gortan-Premk 1997: 139]. Such an extension may changeoccur in occurs polysemy, when therefore the original with meaning a retention fades awayof both and meanings gives way – to the a newer basic meaning.meaning andAs far the as metaphoric the aforementioned meaning – types also in of a polysemy semantic arechange. concerned, The latter we may rather expect the emergence of such a situation in the type of polysemy which originated through metaphor in contradistinction to metonymy. The cause of this is apparently associated with the greater diversity of meanings in the case of the former type of polysemy.

5 Polisemija i organizacija leksičkog sistema u srpskome jeziku This term is usedPostacie by Darinka wieloznaczności Gortan-Premk wyrazów in a work devoted to polysemy - [Gortan-Premk 1997: 74], similarly as in a work by Eugeniusz Grodziński [Grodziński 1970]. Renata Grzegorczy- kowa defines the same type of polysemy as textual variance [wariancja tekstowa]. Jurij Apresjan, in turn, treats this kind of polysemy as one of the types of regular ambiguity of adjectives. Howe ver, he does not define this type and locates it in the subchapter entitled “Другие типы значений” [Apresjan 1995: 200 sq.]. Meaning and Its Changes 19

2.3. Strings of Meanings

The basis of polysemy, as becomes evident during the research on the devel- phenomenon of implied meanings. This phenomenon is based on the fact that certainopment meanings of whole regularlyconceptual evoke fields other, in a closely-relatedlonger temporal meanings, frame, is without usually losthe- ing the position of the basic meaning. Adjectival lexemes are markedly susceptible to this type of extension of meanings, which is a result of the coexistence of certain features on the level of referents. The relations which occur in nature are derivatively transferred to the meanings of words. These relations are particularly visible in the development of lexemes which refer to physical properties. These are relations of the following kind: if an object (especially a living one: “a man,” “an animal,” “a tree”) has the “fat” property, then it may be probably referred to as “strong.” If it is “fat” and “strong” then it may be referred to as “big.” If the object has the “strong” property then it may be referred to as “healthy.” These features occur in various configurations, but this happens so often that we may say that “being big” implies “strength,” similarly as “being fat,” and this in turn implies “health.” These relations between properties are Proto-Slavicreflected in thelanguage development to the particular of meanings, Slavic especially languages. if we Each consider of the aforemen a broader- zone of time and “space,” namely the development from the hypothetical- tionedThe fourdevelopment meanings ofhave this at type the samemay betime both their of own, a string clearly-defined and radial characnature, ifteristics. we use “Big,” the topological “fat,” “strong” systematization and “healthy” whichare not was synonymous introduced meanings. by Arsène systematization, even if it is applied in synchrony, is of an aetiological nature, i.e.,Darmesteter it derives [Darmesteterthe origin of one1887, meaning cited in: from Apresjan another 1995: meaning, 182]. either Topological in the temporal or causal perspective. The transition from the development of a string type to the development of a radial nature occurs in the majority of cases - awhen given one string of the of meaningsmeanings. is used figuratively (due to the change of the refer ent), after which it undergoes further evolution in a way which is typical for the form of semantic changes were noticed e.g. by Krystyna Kleszczowa who wroteThe the implication following of about meanings polysemy: and the consequences of this phenomenon in

- Nie wszystkie […] rodzące się znaczeniax są przewidziane potencjąy języka. Niektóre mają charakter konsekwencji (wnioskowania, implikacji), co da się zawrzećdziecinny w for, to zapewnemule: “jeżeli jest obiekt naiwny ma cechę , to zapewnecierpliwy ma ,również to zapewne cechę jest .” opanowanyCzęść z nich ma charakter ogólnoludzki, są więc przewidywalne, np.: “jeżeli ktoś jest - ”; “jeżeli ktoś jest .” […] Polisemie-konsekwencje są często podłożem przekształceń semantycznych – wystar czy, aby jeden z członów uległ zapomnieniu, por.: “jeżeli ktoś jest protegowany, to 20 The Development of Words Across Centuries

znaczenia leksemu kreatura zapewne jest człowiekiem mało wartościowym” (taką implikację potwierdza rozwój [Buttler 1978: 146]) [Kleszczowa 2001: 93–94].

(Not all […] emerging meanings are anticipated by the potentialityx, it probably of alsoa language. has the Someproperty bear y the character of a consequence (conclusion, implication), which can be expressedchildish, they by are the probably formula: naïve “if an object has thepatient property, they are probably composed .” Some of these consequences are universal in nature, e.g., “if someone is ”; “if someone is .” […] Consequence polysemies are often bases for semantic transformation – all that undergoneis needed is by for the one meaning of the elementsof the lexeme to be kreatura forgotten, cf. “if someone is [a] protégé, they are probably of little worth” (such implication is confirmed by the evolution A semantic string which arises through implication – see Buttler may 1978:be referred 146).) to as

the concept which is expressed by synonymous polysemous words of which somea “potentially may include polysemous all semantic concept.” variants This termand othersrefers notmay to include one lexeme only butsome to

diachrony in the guise of continuants of one Proto-Slavic word. variants.The causes “Potentially of the polysemousimplication concepts”of adjectival systematically meanings are become most evident fruitfully in -

explained within the framework of the science of definitional and connota moretive properties we extend of the lexemes. diachronic The wordsrange ofwhich meanings belong of to such the asemantic word, the field more of complete“strong” may the collectioninclude connotative of connotative properties features of will“big,” become. “healthy” We and may “fat.” say thatThe connotative properties are dormant meanings which may arise at some stage -

ofarise the in development the continuants of a ofword. a given Were Proto-Slavic it not an abuse form toare apply in the the vast term majority “conno of casestation” connotative to reconstructed properties meanings, of the meaningwe might of claim the Proto-Slavic that the meanings lexeme. which

Semantic Changes

3.3.1. The An ApproachMethods to of Seman Researching Semasiology and Onomasiology tic Research.

entitled Semantyka językoznawcza Linguistic Semantics The history of semantic research is presented by Józef Wierzchowski in a work work I am interested only in that part (which refers to the research) [Wierzchowski on seman- tic1980]. changes. Semantics As everybody is a remarkably knows, diversethis type branch of research of linguistics. dominated In the the present initial stage of linguistic research, regardless of whether we understand under this Meaning and Its Changes 21 term the linguistic interests of the Classical culture or the stricte scholarly belongsresearch to which the sphere was begun of diachronic in the final research, decades although, of the eighteenth as I mentioned century. in The the previousresearch point,of semantic their peculiar changes, character which is doesimplied not bydiffer the from very the term research “change,” on polysemy. After a long period of time, when diachronic research was margin- studia diachronica diutissime iacebant inculta we may currently discern a renewal of interest in this type of research, which isalized predominantly by the work associated of linguists with [ the cognitive linguistics trend. ] The branches of linguistics whose objects of study are semantic changes are referred to as onomasiology and semasiology. The term “onomasiology” was Thecoined term by refers Ernst toTappolet the research in 1895 of thein reference relationship to comparativebetween a concept lexicology and the(as early as in 1902 this term was applied by Adolf Zauner to semantic changes). - teenthlexemes century which worksmay express of research this andconcept. until theHowever, 1960s thisthe term referred“semasiology” to the was used for the first time in 1839 by Christian Karl Reisig [EJO: 482]. In nine science of meaning [e.g. Rozwadowski 1903; Kronasser 1952; Zvegincev 1957]. At the end of the nineteenth century, beside the term “semasiology”- manthe term term “semantics” Semasiologie was coined, first in Frenchsémantique scholarship had (Michelthe same Bréal range is theof meaning creator ofand this they name), referred then to also the inscience English of scholarship.meaning in general. Initially Today,the Ger in and the French term Moreover, this term involves two very different approaches to the science of reference to this branch of linguistics the term “semantics” is exclusively used. meaning. However, the term “semasiology” did not become obsolete (despite assertionsThe point in EJO:of departure 482 and EWJP: in onomasiological 299), but it changed research its application is the denotatum/ and it is signifiémainly used as the opposite term to “onomasiology.” - - siological or research its linguistic the point equivalent, of departure i.e., the is concept, a word unitand andthe aimthe researchof such re is centeredsearch is uponto find the linguistic pursuit ofunits designata which tomay which express this unitthis mayconcept. refer. In Semasi sema- ological research may be conducted both on the diachronic level (then the wediversity must add of semantic that it was content not until is interpreted the arrival of as cognitive semantic linguistics changes) andand onits postulatethe synchronic of the level, unity when of synchrony we deal withand diachrony polysemy. thatFor therestored sake ofthe precision due im- notportance have ofto semasiological-onomasiologicalbe limited to one language and researchit is a gateway [cf. Tabakowska to comparative 2001: 45–71]. Onomasiological research, due to its association with a concept, does- ever, this is not a necessary condition of such research. In the present work Iresearch. embrace Semasiological the semasiological research perspective is basically by takinglimited the to oneProto-Slavic language. lexical How 22 The Development of Words Across Centuries

units, which bind all Slavic languages together, as a point of departure. The precursor of such research is Svetlana M. Tolstaja, who takes the results of etymological research as a point of departure in her ethnolinguistic research

[Tolstaja 2008a]. 3.2. The Modes of Describing Semantic Changes

knowledgeAlthough the are research yet to see concerning a consistent the modedevelopment of description of meanings and a consistent(onomasi terminology.ological and semasiological research) has a long history, these branches of

3.2.1. Traditional Modes of Description

- - The logical classification of semantic changes is still applicable. This classifi cation is derived from the works of Hermann Paul [1880], and was further de veloped by Arsène Darmesteter [1887] and Michel Bréal [1897]. It is rooted Accordingin the traditions to the of changes ancient inand the medieval content rhetoric of a word, (metaphor three types and metonymy).of semantic changesThe classification are distinguished, takes the i.e., semantic the extension, range of narrowing word as the down point and of thedeparture. shift in the semantic range. Metaphor and metonymy are referred to also in Stephen

the phenomenon of the regularity in semantic development and the opportu- Ullmann’s classification, who devoted a considerable deal of his research to - nities of the pursuit of this regularity [Ullmann 1957]. Apart from the logical classification, an important role is played by the dis tinctions based on psychology. The concept of the psychological classification is derived from Karl Jaberg’s work, who presented it in the periodical entitled “Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie” in a series of three articlesVölkerpsychologie [Jaberg 1901, entitled1903, 1905]. Die SpracheAlmost at the same time Wilhelm Wundt, a doctor-physiologist with a background in psychology, in the first volume of his , in which he was engaged with semasiology [Wundt 1900]. This work met with severe criticism in a comprehensive review by Jan Rozwadowski, who pointed out linguistic mistakes on the part of the author became[Rozwadowski the established 1903]. The terminology latter mistakes in the were works understandable of semantic research.due to Wundt’s profession.The aforementioned Despite all reservations, three traditional the terms methods “pejoration” of describing and “melioration” semantic changes were presented in the most comprehensive way by Danuta Buttler in the introduction to the work entitled Zmiany semantyczne w języku polskim Semantic Changes in the Polish Language

( ) [Buttler 1978: 13–18]. The latter author’s book also includes the names of other precursors of the science of Meaning and Its Changes 23 semantic changes. Twenty years later this subject was again undertaken by heGrzegorz recalled Kleparski these matters [1999]. in Histhe descriptionBiuletyn PTJ essentially does not depart from ahis wide predecessor’s readership. description, and his contribution consists in the fact that In my work I use logical terminology which, a periodicalincludes the which transformations enjoys quite of a psychological nature caused by the change of the semantic value of a word. mentioned both by Buttler and Kleparski, because I consider it to be most appropriateI do so in spite for the of thesubject obvious that deficienciesI have undertaken. of this In terminology, fact, my aim which is not are to describe the mode in which semantic changes occur. I am interested in the result of these changes, i.e., the newly received meanings and the regularity with which some meanings evolve form others.

3.2.2. The Component Analysis of Meaning

In the last two decades of the twentieth century component semantics, which is derived from structuralism, had been applied in the research of semantic changes. By breaking down the content of the word into elements, the component analysis of meaning facilitates the presentation of the differences between meanings. These differences may concern the meanings of words which belong to one semantic field but also the differences between various meanings of ofone the word, application both from of thecomponent synchronic semantics (in the case in the of polysemy)presentation and of diachronic semantic perspective (in the case of the change of the meaning of a word). The question changes is theoretically expounded by Ryszard Tokarski [Tokarski 1981, 1983, 1987]. According to the author:

zmiana znaczenia zachodzi jako konsekwencja: a) ujęcia semów, b) dodania semów,- c) wymiany semów, tj. ujęcia i równoczesnego dodania, i d) zmiany ich hierarchii. Ujęcie semów wiąże się z procesem uogólniania znaczeń. Dodanie semów to zwę żenie znaczenia lub jego przesunięcie na tle metonimicznym. Wymiana semów- właściwa jest przede wszystkim zmianom metaforycznym, w których podobieństwo opiera się na semach systemowych, natomiast zmiana hierarchii wiąże się z przesu nięciem danego semu z kategorii wirtualnych do systemowych (rzadziej w kierunku odwrotnym) [Tokarski 1981: 103–104]. - - (a change in meaning occurs as a consequence of: (a) subtraction of semes, (b) addi processtion of semes, of generalization (c) exchange of ofmeanings. semes, i.e., Addition their subtraction of semes amounts and simultaneous to the narrowing addi oftion, meaning and (d) or change its metonymical in their hierarchy. shift. Exchange Subtraction of semes of is semes characteristic is associated predominantly with the

of metaphorical changes, in which similarity is based on systemic semes; finally, The Development of Words Across Centuries

24 exchange of semes is linked with the shift of a given seme from a virtual to a systemic

category (or, rarely, in the opposite direction).) semantics in the research of semantic development. The advantage of compo- nentVincent semantics Blanár consists [1984] in is the also clarity a supporter and elegance of the applicationof the presentation of component of the analysis of meaning. Its disadvantage consists in the limitation of its research - mes that differentiate meanings may be presented by simple notions. Problems arisefield. whenThis method the elements is fruitfully that differentiate applied in certain meanings conceptual have to fieldsbe presented where se in a descriptive manner. Of course, this does not preclude the application of this

dominate the traditional mode of description.6 An example of a work in which method.semantic However, changes arethe methodpresented loses with its the distinctive application nature of componentwhich allowed seman it to-

in the history of the English language. The scholar applied the method of com- ponenttics is the analysis book by to Grzegorz research Kleparski.the evaluative The authorsemantic analyzes changes semantic which occurred changes

in the field which includes nominative references to man since the Old English period until the present [Kleparski 1990]. As far as the material furnished by Slavic languages is concerned, we may mention a book by Ewa Masłowska which presents the evaluative metaphorical changes of nicknames [Masłowska this1988]. method, In contradistinction disregarding the to temporalKleparski, aspect. who presents In her work, a suggestion she emphasizes, to apply abovethe structural all, the oppositionmethod in diachronicliterary language research versus in his dialect, work, Masłowskanot the diachronic applies perspective.

3.2.3.In the Theattempts Methods to present Adopted the fromsemantic Cognitive changes Linguistics through the application of methods adopted from cognitive linguistics we discern mainly the terminological innovations adopted from this trend in linguistics. Examples of the application of cognitive linguistics terminology may be found in the articles

6 of research on the diachronic linguistic changes with the usage of methods suggested by struc- Przemysław Łozowski [1999: 27] claims that a significant limitation or even abandonment

turalism is testimony to the “abortive attempts to show appreciation to diachrony within the framework of structuralism itself” (“nieudanych prób dowartościowania diachronii w obrębie researchsamego strukturalizmu”), of semantic changes therefore, with the if applicationI understand of correctly, the method it is of a component testimony to analysis. the inadequacy The lim- itedof these extent methods to which in this diachronic method mayresearch. be applied It is isdifficult a result to of accept the fact this that claim this method in reference is applicable to the

exclusively to those semantic fields whose components are manifestly diversified. This remark applies equally to diachrony and synchrony. Meaning and Its Changes 25

Kleparski, including the book entitled Theory and Practice of Historical bySemantics. Waldemar The SkrzypczakCase of Middle [1995] English and and above Early all Modern in the English works bySynonyms Grzegorz of “Girl/Young Woman” - [Kleparski 1997]. Apart from the traditional terms such as “specialization,” “generalization,” “metaphor,” the author introduces the follow ing terms: “onomasiological substitution,” “scanning,”Rozwój “onomasiological i zmiany semantyczne track/ leksemówpath,” “domains,” “godny,” “base,” “grzeczny” “profiling” i “przystojny” [cf. Kleparski, w perspektywie Malicka-Kleparska kognitywnej 1994:The 233–224].Development In and the Semanticwork by ChangesPatrycja ofPałka the Lexemes titled “godny” ‘dignified,’ “grzeczny” ‘courtaneous, well-behaved’ and “przystojny” ‘becoming, worthy of; handsome’ ( from a Cognitive Perspective especially in the attempt to discern the mode of perceiving the world in the semantic changes. An interesting [Pałka suggestion 2004]) the about cognitive the elaboration perspective of is etymo visible- logical data with the application of the cognitive linguistics apparatus is men- linguistictioned by changeAleksandra as a panchronicNiewiara [2003] phenomenon in her article, whose which successive is an stagesaccount may of bea text discerned bu Gábor and Györi described: [1996]. The aim of the author’s work is to present the

Możliwe jest zatem ciągłe tworzenie się nowych konceptualizacji jak w wypadku- analizowanego przez Györi słowa glass ‘naczynie zrobione ze szkła, używane do picia’. […] Zmiana znaczenia i ustalenie się nowej kategorii przebiega według kolej nych kroków konceptualizacyjnych. Nowy obiekt – bursztyn. Z listy jego atrybutów wybiera się jedną cechę: to, że błyszczy, połyskuje. Kategoria ustalona. Nowy obiekt – szkło (materiał). Na zasadzie analogii wskazujeglaza się, że jest podobny do bursztynu,- gdyż jest prześwitujący, połyskujący i może być użyty jako biżuteria. Pierwotnie- metaforyczne użycie wyrażenia językowego * z czasem staje się literalne. Kate goria ustalona. I wreszcie pojęcie – szklanka. Z listy atrybutów wybiera się cechę od noszącą się do materiału, z którego jest zrobiona, czyli do szkła [Niewiara 2003: 121]. case of the word glass - (Therefore the constant emergence of new conceptualizations is possible, as in the a new category proceeds ‘a vessel according made to of successive glass which conceptualizational is used for the purpose stages. of Adrink new ing’ that was analyzed by Györi. […] A change in meaning and the establishment of - tionobject is –made amber. per One analogiam property that is chosenthis object from is thesimilar list ofto itsamber attributes: because the it factis translu that it- glitters. The category is now established. A new object – glass (material). An indica usage of the linguistic expression *glaza- becomes literal. The category is established. cent, glittering and it may be used as jewellery. With time the initially “metaphorical

Finally, [another] concept – a glass [vessel]. From the list of its attributes a property whichThe greatest refers to advantage the material that that may it is madebe detected from is chosenin the application– i.e. glass.) of cognitive in its ability to follow linguistic reality. Unfortunately, the terminology which linguistics to the research on semantic changes is its flexibility, which consists 26 The Development of Words Across Centuries

- is applied by the researchers of this profile departs from the simplicity which andis a property constantly of works perfected of research methodology, devoted cognitive to a wider linguistics readership scholars [e.g., Tabakow create theirska 2001; own Lakoff,terminology Johnson with 1980]. which At thethe present representatives time, thanks of otherto a specialized linguistic trends are not necessarily familiar. As a result, the contact with other trends - uation where two branches of linguistics indeed employ completely different languageswith an equally of analysis. specialized Thus, terminology although I appreciatebrings about such the attempts“tower of asBabel” the one sit

made by e.g. Grzegorz Kleparski, whose goal is to make cognitive linguistics inscholars a work interested with a different in the target problems audience. of semantic changes [Kleparski 1997], I find it difficult to justify the application of the cognitive linguistics apparatus

ntic Motivation

4. SemaThe Term

4.1. it refers to the dependency between the derivational base and the derivative. The term “motivation” is derived from the science of word-formation where share the fact that they are the basis for the word which arises. According to theThe Encyklopedia concepts of “word-formativejęzykoznawstwa ogólnegomotivation” and of “semantic motivation”- - con. Motivation in the semantic sense differs [EJO], from motivationword-formative is equal motivation to foun indation that it[fundacja]. emphasizes The the term semantic “semantic dependency motivation” of the is notderivative included upon in this its base. lexi

The term “semantic motivation,” which is a part of the title of my work andwhich is frequently used in it, is borrowed from the works of Russian and Czech scholars. In the Polish linguistic literature the term “semantic motiva tion” occurs rarely and it is used mainly in onomastics, where the semantic wheremotivation it refers refers to the to itsrealia real associated significative with value, the origins conditioned of a given by phrase. the genesis or area, geographical location etc. The term is less frequent in phraseology, linguists who were engaged in etymological7 studies.8 The term “semantic motivation” was disseminated above all by Russian Žanna Ž. Varbot defines 7 In contemporary Russian works the term “semantic motivation” is so well-established that the term “motivation” alone is also used in the same sense, e.g. “первичная мотивация”/“типы первичной8 мотивации” (“primary motivation”/“types of primary motivation”) in the works by Žanna Varbot [Varbot 1997: 35–37]. I do not take into consideration Jurij Apresjan’s explanation, formulated for the purposes of synchronic research, according to which semantic motivation means derivation [pochodność, производность] [Apresjan 2000: 164 sq., 1995: 170 sq.], because it is too general. Meaning and Its Changes motivation as the closest meaning which precedes the meaning that we are 27 - interestedis the cl in and which is its source. “Мотивация – ближайший семантиче ский предшественник этого [изучаемого – M. J.] значения” (“Motivation- osest predecessor of this [studied – M. J.] meaning”) [Varbot 1997: 35].- tionaryMore attention of linguistic is devoted terms toby the Olga terms S. Ahmanova: “мотивация,” “мотивировка,” “моти вированность” by Svetlana M. Tolstaja, who mentions a definition in the dic

Мотивированный – Такой, в котором данное содержание поддается более или менее непосредственнему соотношению с соответствующим выражением; имеющий открытую семантическую структуру; поддающийся разложению на лексические морфемы [Ahmanova: 244–245]. with the relevant expression; one whose semantic structure is open; one that may (Motivated – one whose content is to a greater or lesser extent directly associated

be broken down into lexical morphemes.) - nition includes the semantic aspect of motivation, although the latter was Therefore, in contradistinction to Polish dictionaries of this kind, the defi presented by Svetlana M. Tolstaja the onomasiological approach is the most relevantnot presented to my aswork. a separate According dictionary to this approach,entry. Among the notionthe further of motivation definitions is considered above all in relation to the problem of the conventionality and un- conventionality of linguistic units and with the problem of the internal form of the word. The author is right when she points out that the notion of motiva- tionAmong frequently the Czech overlaps and withSlovak the linguists notion ofthere the ismode a dominance of nomination of treating [Tolstaja the word-formative2008a: 188–190]. and semantic motivation jointly. Such a position is favoured by Miloš Dokulil, as follows from his definition: -

Przez motywację wyrazu w ujęciu genetycznym rozumiemy relację pomiędzy zna czeniem wyrazu a cechą, która była uważana za podstawę nazwania przedmiotu lub zjawiska, czyli była tzw. motywem pierwotnym, przy czym taka relacja znaczeniowa- posiada swoją korelację w płaszczyźnie formy językowej – wyraz motywowany opiera się na wyrazie oznaczającym właśnie tę cechę wyjściową, zarówno ze wzglę du na znaczenie, jak i na formę. Tak rozumiana motywacja wyjaśnia, dlaczego dany przedmiot (lub zjawisko) został nazwany w taki sposób, dlaczego otrzymał swoją określoną nazwę [Dokulil 1979: 149]. - tween the meaning of a word and the property that was considered as the basis of(By naming the motivation the object of or a wordphenomenon, in the genetic i.e. that perspective it was the weso-called mean originalthe relation motive, be

property,whereas such both a assemantic regards relationship the meaning finds and its the correlation form. Such on a the notion level ofof motivationa linguistic form – the motivated word is based on the word which means exactly this original 28 The Development of Words Across Centuries

explains why a given object (or phenomenon) was named in such a way, why it received its peculiar name.) -

In his defense of the universal motivation of linguistic signs, Juraj Furdík men tions the general definition of motivation formulated by Juraj Dolník [Dolník 1990: 149]: - - Motywacja słowa to pośredni albo bezpośredni stosunek kauzalny między jego skład nikiem formalnym (materialnym, fonicznym) i znaczeniowym (idealnym), uwarun kowany stosunkiem słowa do korelacyjnych paradygmatycznie słów danego języka [Furdík 2000: 59].

the(The relationship motivation between of a word a isword the and indirect the orparadigmatically direct causal relationshipcorrelative words between of its formal component (material, phonic) and semantic (ideal), conditioned by

Ina given the works language.) of Polish semanticians the term discussed above occurs rarely. - sideration the existence in language of two types of motivation between the initialRyszard meaning Tokarski and employs the derivative this term meaning in one of of his a lexeme:articles whichsemantic takes motivation into con and semantic-cultural motivation9

– the latter is hyperonymous to the former.- The first type is defined in the following manner: “Motywacja semantyczna zachodzisemantic wtedy, motivation gdy znaczenie when derivatory pochodne meaningrozbudowuje develops się wokół around jednego one zof kom the ponentów semantycznych znaczenia wyjściowego” (“We are dealing with-

tosemantic indicate components a semantic ofstring, the original i.e., the meaning”)common semantic [Tokarski element. 1999: 67]. The con dition of finding the semantic motivation is, according to Tokarski, the ability-

The term “semantic motivation,” beside the terms “nominational motiva tion,” “motivational basis” and “nominational types,” is also used by Janusz Siatkowski [1989]. In reference to the process of giving names the author uses the term “semantic motivation” for the semantic element which links the theinitial terms meaning emphasizes with the the received act of naming, meaning. the The other names one on “semantic the result motivation” of this act. and “nominational motivation” refer to the same phenomenon, whereas one of semantic motivation but also the motivating meaning. I consider motivating meaningFor the to purposes be the meaning of the presentwhich has work common it is necessary elements toaccording define not to Tokarskionly the

[1999: 67] – “węzeł semantyczny” [semantic string] with the researched meaning 9 The second type of motivation which is distinguished by the author does not refer to the

it refers to a situation in which an entire lexical-semantic group develops derivative meanings extra-linguistic reality, as we might expect from infrathe name “semantic-cultural motivation,” but

[znaczenia wtórne] in a parallel manner (see also ). Meaning and Its Changes 29 which follows chronologically and due to this fact it is the causative factor for the emergence of new meaning.10 These common elements are frequently connotative properties of the preceding meaning, which become definitional properties in the new meaning. In a broader perspective, we may refer to the direct and indirect motivating meaning. If there is no reference to this precise distinction, we always have in mind the direct motivating meaning. I understand the semantic motivation to be the following: a) a nominationalper analogiam process we may which also speak causes about the emergence direct and indirectof a new motivation meaning, b)11 according to the practice of Russian and Czech scholars, economizethe motivating the argument,meaning ( or, to be more precise, to avoid repeating the term ). The second usage of the term is a result of the need to

“motivating meaning.” Due to the contexts which are associated with the term “semantic motivation” we should not fear that the term may become obscure. Meanings

4.2. Parallel Motivating - er- The units which are the object of my research (i.e. the serially existing motivating meanings which established the regularity of motivation) lack a univ sally accepted name. The term “types of semantic motivation” [“типы семан тической мотивации”] enjoys relative currency. This term was accepted in- the research of Russian and Czech scholars, i.e., in those areas where the greatest number of onomasiological works are published. Other terms include: “semantic derivational models” [“semantische Ableitungsmodelle”] [Schuster-Šewc 1975: 13]; “semantic parallelisms” [Popowska-Taborska 1989: 24]; “onomasi ological (associative) derivatives” [Brzozowska 2000: 143]; “onomasiological models” [“ономасиологични модели”] [Dejkova 2000]: - Под ономасиологичен модел (ОМ) тук ще се разбира тип на номинация по определен ономасиологичен признак, един от множеството признаци, при същи на назования предмет [Dejkova 2000: 235]. 10 Certainly, also other conditions must occur for a new meaning to arise. Above all, in the awareness of the users of a language these common features must become relevant to such a degree that they relegate other elements of meaning to the background and they become the dominant

Infeatures. the cases The whenlatter maya broadening be “overgrown” of meaning with other, occurs, new the features entire (inmotivating such a case meaning a shift inenters meaning the contentoccurs) orof theythe new may meaning, dominate the without former acquiring is blurred new to featuressuch a degree (the narrowing that it opens down to ofreceive meaning.) new semantic elements. 11 motywacja bliższa = bezpośrednia (closer = direct motivation) and motywacja dalsza = pośrednia In worksfurther which = representindirect motivation this branch of knowledge we may also find synonymous terms:

( ). 30 The Development of Words Across Centuries

(Under the term onomasiological model we understand here a type of nomination according to a specific onomasiological property, one of the many properties of the object that is named.) in dialectological atlases also proved futile. The authors of these atlases also failedMy toattempts coin a consistent at finding term, a common and they term use in descriptive the elaborations methods, of lexical e.g., Dalibor maps

- Brozović discusses the names which are derived from a root with a meaning: “[…] названия образованны от корня со значением […]” or names with se mantic connotations: “[…] названия с семантическими конотациями […]” (“namesAll of the formed aforementioned from the steam authors meaning emphasize […]” the/ “names seriality with of the the effects semantic ini- tiatedconnotations by these, of variously […]”) [Brozović referred 1988: to, motivating 11]. meanings. According to their research interests, the authors discern an opportunity of employing this fact in etymological research or in research associated with the linguistic image

which refers to the semantic-cultural motivation mentioned earlier: of the world. At this point, it is worth recalling Ryszard Tokarski’s definition

Przez motywację semantyczno-kulturową rozumiem zatem predyspozycje nie poszczególnych jednostek leksykalnych, lecz całych semantycznie spójnych grup- wyrazowych do podobnego rozwoju semantycznego i do zbliżonych treściowo wartościowań. Sądzę także, że regularności tego rodzaju dają się uzasadnić kulturo wo, tzn. można poprzez ich obserwację dotrzeć do [...] obrazu świata utrwalonego w polszczyźnie [Tokarski 1999: 68]. - sitions not of particular lexical units but of whole semantically consistent lexical groups(Therefore, to a under similar the semantic term semantic-cultural development andmotivation to evaluations I understand which the are predispo similar

i.e., through their observation we may trace the culturally conditioned evaluations incontent-wise. language, to I alsoone thinkof the that aspects the regularities of the image of thisof the kind world may which be culturally is preserved justified, in

the Polish language.) -

of motivatingThe fourth chaptermeanings. of my work, entitled “The Parallels of Semantic Develop ment,” is devoted to the postulates and research associated with the arrangement 2

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PROTO-SLAVIC MEANING

1. General Remarks Concerning the Proto-Slavic Language - to-Slavic language, its status, the extent of its uniformity, its dialectal divisions,Many questionsthe period mayin which be raised it could in referencehave existed to theand verythe area problem that itof occupied. the Pro andAll of other these scholars. problems The were subject undertaken bibliography by Tadeusz of the Lehr-Spławińskiworks devoted to [1946], these problemsFranciszek is Sławski found in [1968; the introduction reprinted 1989:to etymology 33–39], written Oleg N. by Trubačev a team of [2002] Czech

- linguists [Večerka 2006: 270–271 for works concerning the ethnogenesis alsoof the the Slavic bibliography peoples; Večerkain the textbook 2006: 261–262 introduction for works to Slavic concerning historical the studies posi tion of the Proto-Slavic language in the Indo-European family of languages], see - [L.sider Moszyński it to be an 2006: abstract 376–388]. entity, a collection of lexemes and grammatical rules What do we understand under the term Proto-Slavic language? Do we con - guagewhich bygave Antoine rise to Meillet, the particular1 Slavic languages, or a well-defined system of- larequivalents, time and toplace, make and an which analogy similarly to a reference as all other to the languages Proto-Indo-European which are known lan or a specific language which developed in a particu to us, was divided into smaller, more strongly associated units? It seems that the1 second approach definitely dominates. Testimony to this fact is furnished

“[…] un système défini de correspondances entre les langues historiquement attestées” ("a defined system of equivalents between historically attested languages") [Meillet 1903: 27]. 32 The Development of Words Across Centuries

by the polemics associated with the period of the existence and the territorial

which has not been solved until today. These issues are discussed in an abundant range of the Proto-Slavic language – a problem which was widely discussed and - store of research literature to which I make reference [K. Moszyński 1957a; Stieber 1979: 9–13; Birnbaum 1975: 1–83, 220–235, 1998; Sławski 1980 (re Inprinted the context 1989: of 52–57); the language Popowska-Taborska itself, the reconstruction 1991; Trubačev of its 2002;status Mańczakas a real 1981, 2001: 29–38, 2004; Gołąb 1992: 187–235; L. Moszyński 2006: 199–206].-

entity is testified by the distinguishing of dialects of this language – this sub ject was undertaken e.g. by Ljubov’ V. Kurkina [Kurkina 1992, 2002: 153] and Leszek Moszyński [1980; 1998: 81–85] – or even by attempts at distinguishing- an artistic style in this language [Sierociuk 2001]. - In the case of the predecessor of the Proto-Slavic language – the Proto-In- structionsdo-European of wordslanguage in the – we form deal of with roots the2 for treatment this language of a reconstructedor the reconstruc lan- guagetion of assounds an artificial whose phoneticconstruct. status Testimony is unclear, of this as inis furnishedthe case of by the the Proto-In recon-

writesdo-European the following laryngeals. about Zbigniew the aforementioned Gołąb, who approach: emphasizes that he himself embraces a definitely realistic approach to the problem of a proto-language,

be understood as saying that at a period of prehistorical time there was a language, in this[t]he case […] statementa protolanguage that the of reconstructed some linguistic forms family, approximate whose forms historical could reality be imagined should with the help of the reconstructed forms. This imagination has, however, an abstract, intellectual character; we reconstruct only the most relevant features, the distinctive ones, which somehow played a role in the later development of the individual languages of the given family. This means that the reconstruction of a concrete linguistic

mediae aspirataesubstance, i.e., the phonic substance, is impossible and even irrelevant. For example, werelevant do not in know the further what the development phonetic realization of many historical of PIE voiced IE languages, aspirate stops such (theas Sanskrit, ) […] was, but we mark their voiced character […] because this feature is

InAvestic, practice, Baltic, the Slavic, scholars Germanic who etc. are [Gołąb engaged 1992: in 29]. the reconstruction of non-at-

3 cautioustested languages comments veer about between this problem: the first and the second approach, and they make a precise definition of these approaches rarely. Wiesław Boryś makes

2 As a matter of fact, the cause of the construction of the Proto-Indo-European lexicon on the basis of roots was probably the Old Indian dictionary in which the verbs were written exactly in this manner. 3 In reference to the Proto-Indo-European language more information about the changes in

the approach to the treatment of this language as a [uniform] whole may be found in Francisco Adrados’s articles [Adrados 1992; 2007]. 33

The Reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic Meaning - - W epoce prasłowiańskiej rozwój językowy przebiegał, wydaje się, jednolicie na ca łym terenie do pewnego okresu. Jest jednak prawdopodobne, że przekonanie o jed nolitości rozwoju językowego przez długi okres epoki prasłowiańskiej wynika z naszej- niewiedzy, z zatarcia wcześniejszych różnic dialektycznych przez późniejsze zmiany językowe. Istnienie nieznanych nam pradawnych różnic terytorialnych w prasło- wiańszczyźnie jest prawdopodobne, skoro nie jest znany żaden żywy język na kuli ziemskiej, który nie wykazywałby jakiegoś zróżnicowania terytorialnego, dialek tycznego [Boryś 1998b: 29].

belief(In the about Proto-Slavic the uniformity period the of developmentlinguistic development of the language over proceeded,the long period so it seems, of the Proto-Slavicuniformly in language the whole results area fromuntil oura certain ignorance, period. from However, the obfuscation it is likely of previousthat the dialectal differences by later linguistic changes. The existence of ancient territorial differences in the Proto-Slavic language of which we are ignorant is likely, since there is not a living language on the globe that would not manifest some kind of

Interritorial an article or dialectal devoted variety.) to the areal division of the Proto-Slavic language language may be discussed only if the Proto-Slavic language is considered a real Genadz’ Cyhun stresses a point that the areal structure of the Proto-Slavic an amorphous collection of reconstructed forms, without its peculiar spatial andlanguage temporal which features. occupies The a specific selection area, of the and model not as of an reconstruction artificial construct also in –- 4 more detail in the relevant chapter. fluences the mode of the reconstruction of meaning. I discuss this subject in

2. Reconstruction of Meanings in Non-Attested Languages.The literature concerning Theoretical the theoretical Problems problems associated with the reconstruction of non-attested languages is not abundant. A discussion of the basic problems associated with such a reconstruction is found in the compendia of - diachronic knowledge [L. Moszyński 2006: 195–199], in the introductory ar ticles of etymological works [e.g. Shevelov 1964: 3–5], and most frequently in the publications prepared for international congresses of Slavists [e.g. Sławski 4 - “Зразумела, што пра арэальную структуру праславянскай мовы можна гаварыць толькі ў тым выпадку, калі праславяншчына разглядаецца як рэальная мова са сваёй тэрыто рыяй, а не як штучны канструкт – ‘звалка’ рэканструяваных слоў і формаў без уласных прасторавых і часавых характарыстык” [Cyhun 1998: 74]. (“It is obvious that we can talk about an areal structure of Proto-Slavic, provided it is viewed as a real language with its territory, and not as an artificial construct, a ‘dump’ of reconstructed words and forms without its own spatial and temporal characteristics.”) The Development of Words Across Centuries

to1958 the (reprintedprinciples 1989:of the reconstruction 17–24), 1968 (reprintedof the formal 1989: aspects 33–39); instead Birnbaum of the semantic1973; Trubačev aspects 1988]. of the particularIn these works linguistic of research units.5 Even more in attention the textbook is devoted which comprises more than 250 pages, entitled K pramenům slov. Uvedení do etymologie Towards the Sources of Words. Introducing Etymology Úvod do etymologie Introduction to Etymology ( [Večerka 2006]),from Brno, an extended semantic edition development of the previous was discussed in a mere twenty ( pages of text, of which a [Erhart, half was Večerka devoted 1981]), to the phenomenon prepared by aof team taboo of. This etymologists is regret- table, because the competence and many years of experience in the work devoted to the formation of meanings and semantic motivation of the authors of the textbook made us expect that the subject of the semantic development

Das Erschließen unbelegter Sprachen Reconstructing Non-Attested Languag- eswould finally receive proper treatment. Another, more recent, work entitled- ally one paragraph to it: ( ) by Georg Holzer ignores this subject almost completely by devoting liter -

So wie die Rekonstruktion nichts über den Lautwandel aussagt, der zwischen der Ur- sprache und den einzelsprachlichen Teilsprachen gewirkt hat […] sagt sie auch nichts- über einen etwaigen Bedeutungswandel; der betreffenden Bedeutungsträger aus. Ana- chelog zurBedeutungen lautlichen Seitegehabt ist haben, aber auch daß übersich die die Bedeutungen Bedeutungen der der entsprechenden ursprachlichen Bedeueinzel- tungsträger Information gegeben: Die ursprachlichen Bedeutungsträger müssen sol - sprachlichen Bedeutungsträger aus ihnen entwickelt haben können (vgl. 4.1.1., 5.2.4.).- Diese an sich präzise Information ist nur aufgrund der manchmal auftretenden Schwie- rigkeiten, möglichen Bedeutungswandel von unmöglichen zu unterschieden, vage. So lange jedoch die Bedeutungen nicht rekonstruiert, sondern bloß die Bedeutungsträ ger im Rekonstrukt semantisch etikettiert werden sollen, sind diese Schwierigkeiten- irrelevant vgl. 5.2.4. Und die bei der Aufstellung der etymologischen Gleichungen zu berücksichtigenden semantischen Fragen berühren die Rekonstruktion als axiomati sches System sozusagen nur von außen (s. 5.8.6.) [Holzer 1996: 126].

also(Just tellsas the us reconstructionnothing about anyitself potential tells us nothingchanges about in the the meaning changes of inthe sounds respective that took place between the proto-language and the particular partial languages […], it

carriers of meaning. Like in the case of sounds, so when it comes to the meanings of the proto-language’s carriers of meaning, a piece of information is conveyed: as far as 5 I hereby join the ranks of the etymologists, to whom Svetlana M. Tolstaja refers not without a degree of acrimony:

“Не будет преувеличением сказать, что сетования на несовершенство методов и приемов семантической реконструкции как в теоретическом, так и в практическом отношении стали лейтмотивом современных трудов по этимологии” [Tolstaja 2008a: 175]. (“It will not be an exaggeration to say that the complaining about the imperfection of methods and means of semantic reconstruction have become the leitmotif of contemporary etymological studies.”) 35

The Reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic Meaning the meanings of the proto-language carriers of meanings are concerned, they must have been such meanings that the meanings of the respective carriers of component

sometimesmeanings of occur partial in languagesthe distinguishing could evolve of a frompossible them change (cf. 4.1.1, of meaning 5.2.4). This from basically an imprecise piece of information becomes nebulous only in view of the difficulties which - possible one. However, as long as the point is not so much to reconstruct meanings issuesbut simply that tomust provide be considered a semantic when classification elaborating of carriersetymological of meanings comparisons within affect a re construction – these difficulties remain irrelevant, cf. 5.2.4. Indeed, the semantic

Thisthe reconstruction piece of information, as an axiological as it turns system out in aonce superficial we decipher manner theonly language (see 5.8.6).) of whothe author, devote is more not so attention much precise to the as semantic it is a truism, side of and the the reconstruction “difficulties which than sometimes occur” are the fundamental problems with which the etymologists More interest in semantic research in reference to the reconstruction of athe language author ofis the visible quoted in somework rackof the their earlier brains. articles which are scattered in periodicals and works by collective authors. The article entitled Problèmes sémantiques de la reconstruction -

by Émile Benveniste [Benveniste 1954 (re printed 1966)] is especially important, in which the author puts emphasis on the still relevant problems faced by etymologists. He writes that:

[…] en matière de sens, on n’a pour guide qu’une certaine vraisemblance, fondée sur le “bon sens,” sur l’appréciation personnelle du linguiste, sur les parallèles qu’il peut citer. Le problème est toujours, à tous les niveaux de l’analyse, à l’intérieur- d’une même langue ou aux différents étapes d’une reconstruction comparative, de déterminer si et comment deux morphèmes formellement identiques ou compara bles peuvent être identifiés par leur sens [Benveniste 1954: 251]. - allels([…] as that far he as may meaning set forth. is concerned, The problem, we may which follow occurs only on a all degree levels of of likelihood the analysis, as withina guide, the based scope on of“common one language sense,” or on on the the linguist’s different personal stages of judgment, comparative on the recon par- struction, has to do with establishing whether and how two formally identical or

Incomparable the article morphemes entitled Реконструкция may be identified словon the и basis их значений of their meanings.)Reconstruction of Words and Their Meanings the semantic aspects of the reconstruction. The author in this (article, which is ), Oleg N. Trubačev [1980] devoted attention to- partly a critique of the overpowering supremacy of synchrony over diachro ny – a peculiar to the beginnings of the 1980s – polemicizes with the widely principlesaccepted yielding that the to etymologist the primacy should of formal follow reconstruction. is the necessity He to recalls verify anOsvald ety- mologySzemerényi’s from theopinion perspective as a characteristic of phonology, one, should according it cause to semanticwhich one doubts: of the 36 The Development of Words Across Centuries

- “Если этимон вызывает предположение о необычном6 семантическом развитии, исследователь должен заново проверить этимологию с фоно логической точки зрения” [Szemerényi 1967: 12]. Trubačev emphasizes- ticthe components, inadequacy of the the presentation analysis of semes of those for thecomponents research ofwhich semantic were changes. empha- Itsized is difficult and which to agree receded with intosuch the a statement background because or were the eliminated, distinction offacilitates seman a clear demonstration of the process of a semantic change. Thus, the problem

ais small not the number inadequacy of lexemes. of this method, but its excessive meticulousness which limits the range of application of this method to semantic fields that contain

The problem of semantic motivation was also undertaken by Valentina promisingAntonovna title:Merkulova Семантична in her articles реконструкция. [Merkulova Методологични1988: 4–5, 1989a, аспекти 1989b]. ASemantic Bulgarian Reconstruction. scholar, Živka MethodologicalKoleva-Zlateva, presentedAspects a work with a highly

suggest( her own solutions but she merely presents an [Koleva-Zlateva account of earlier 1998]). opin- However, the author of this fairly comprehensive work (112 pages) does not of this work consists in the fact that the author based her research exclusively onions theoretical concerning studies. the problem She describes of the reconstruction in a profuse of manner meanings. the Theopinions deficiency concerning the problem of the reconstruction of meaning which are presented in earlier and recent works. She devotes a good deal of space to the classics of

- semasiology and semantics (e.g. Pisani, Zvegincev and Isačenko). She also- takes into account the results of the research of related fields of study (socio researchlinguistics, without psycholinguistics, which a discussion the study of theoryof children’s is impossible. language, cognitive lin guistics).On the However,other hand, this we does should not pointmake outup forthat the although lack of referencethe semantic to material aspects of reconstruction never should be ignored, it must not become the cause of

6 researcher should re-examine the phonological aspect of the derivation. Often the result will be Cf. “If an etymon involves the assumption of an unusual semantic development, the

the discovery of an entirely different, evident, solution” [Szereményi 1977: 306], by pointing out here the danger of an unjustified identification of words [zrównywanie wyrazów] on the basis of the equivalency [odpowiedniość] of their forms and the apparent similarity of their meaning: “Как показывает приведенный материал, не совпадают пути семантического развития соотносимых балт. и ю.-слав. слов, сближаются семантически неродные слова в их производных значениях, мотивированных разными семантическими признаками. Если этимология, удовлетворительно объясняя форму, вступает в противоречие с семантикой слов, то это может служить сигналом ошибочности этимологии” [Kurkina 1994: 35]. Baltic and South Slavic words do not overlap; non-cognate words approach one another in their derivative(“As is shown meanings by the quotedwhich arematerial, differently the avenues motivated of the semantic semantic features. development If the etymology,of the respective in its satisfactory explanation of a form, runs counter to the semantics of the words, this may be a signal

that the etymology is incorrect.”) The Reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic Meaning a too liberal approach to the reconstruction of a form. This mistake is some- 37 times made even by distinguished etymologists. An example of this is provid- - 2 ed by the works of Václav Machek; in two of his subsequently published etymological dictionaries of the Czech and Slovak languages [Machek; Machek ] wordswe may of encounter similar meanings a great number from other of formal Indo-European transformations languages. (the most recur rent of which is metathesis), which are used to associate Slavic words with

3. The Reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic Meaning inThe the practical Lexicographical approach of the lexicographers Practice who are engaged in the reconstruction of words from non-attested languages varies. Until now there is still the initial meanings in etymological dictionaries. A short paragraph about no single school which would define the principles of the reconstructionSłownik of prasłowiański The Dictionary of the Proto-Slavic Language this subject is included by Franciszek Sławski in the preface to the ( ) [SP]: - Staramy się odtworzyć podstawowe znaczenie ogólne, oczyszczając je od znaczeń nieistotnych, związanych z kontekstem. Chodzi nam o rekonstrukcję rozwoju zna czenia pierwotnego. Opieramy się przede wszystkim na realnie zaświadczonych danych słowiańskich. Uwzględniamy również znaczenia wynikające ze struktury słowotwórczej wyrazu [SP 1:7]. meanings which are associated with the context. We are engaged in the reconstruction(We attemptof the development to reconstruct of thethe basicinitial general meaning. meaning We base by purifyingour research it from above irrelevant all on the actually attested Slavic data. We also take into consideration the meanings which

result from the word-formative structure of a word.) consideration;In the earliest these lexicons were bydictionaries Franz Miklosich which collected[Miklosich] vocabulary (1886) and above Erich all accordingBerneker [Berneker]to formal criteria. (1908–1913) Even in the the meaning cases in whichof a word the wassemantics not taken decided into about the allotment of the continuants to separate lexical families which had dissimilar Proto-Indo-European sources, the authors failed to explain what example of this, we may present the treatment of the Proto-Slavic *jarъ, tra- ditionallymotivated considered their decision as two about homonymic the classification Proto-Slavic of the lexemes: continuants. *jarъ 1. As and an *jarъ 2. Miklosich split the continuants between two source lexemes without - ed himself to a remark concerning a secondary mixing of continuants in the Slavica commentary languages: concerning their meanings [Miklosich: 100]. Berneker limit 38 The Development of Words Across Centuries

*ěro- und *jaro Dabei ist natürlich nicht ausgeschlossen, daß sich die einst verschiedenen Sippen - späterhin im Slav. gekreuzt haben können [Berneker: 447]. roots *ěro- and *jaro (Here it is of course not unlikely that in the Proto-Slavic language two, once separate, Over the course of time,- intersected.) the importance of the semantic aspects began to be

appreciated. The words of Max Vasmer in the conclusion of his etymological dictionary of the Russian language are symptomatic: . Hätte ich die Arbeit von neuem zu beginnen, dann würde ich den Lehnübersetzungen und der semasiologischen Seite größere Beachtung schenken [Vasmer 3: 507]

(Were I to begin my work anew, I would devote more attention to translation Thecalques most consistentand to the semantic practice aspects.) is that of the authors of etymological dictionaries Słownik prasłowiański, whose main principle is the reconstruction of the initial semantics of the researched wholexeme. are Therefore associated the with entries the Kraków-published included in this dictionary are always furnished Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego An Etymological Dictionary of Polish bothwith anof his analysis works: of Słownik meaning. etymologiczny Franciszek Sławski języka polskiegoin the and Słownik etymologiczny kaszubszczyzny( An Etymological Dictionary of) and Kashubian Wiesław Boryś in he is a co-author, consistently include an alleged Proto-Slavic meaning. The same attention to a reliable( reconstruction of meaning is manifest in), ofall whichof the

inarticles the editorship by Wiesław of theBoryś Słownik [see: Boryśprasłowiański 2007] and. Maria Wojtyła-Świerzowska [e.g.The Wojtyła-Świerzowska authors associated with 1991; other 1992], research the successors centers proceed to Franciszek in still different Sławski manners. As a rule, the Этимологический словарь славянских языков An Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Languages the Proto-Slavic meanings, neither in the headword of the reconstructed form ( of the Proto-Slavic word, nor in the etymological) [ESSJ] explanation does not of reconstruct the word. 7 center of disregarding the semantic aspects of etymology. On the contrary, it is theirHowever, articles one themselves would be hard that putcontain to accuse an elaborate the etymologists and in-depth from analysis the Moscow of the

Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inheritedsemantic developmentLexicon (cf. the following names in the “Bibliography”: Kurkina, Merkulova, Petleva, Trubačev, Varbot). The This does not apply by toRick the wordsDerksen to which [see the Derksen] authors of includes the ESSJ devoted the reconstructed comprehensive semantic7 studies, sometimes enhanced by substantial ethnographic data e.g. *kostra kǫtja kǫželь krivъjь [ESSJ 11: 159–160],starting from * volume [ESSJ eleven. 12: 71–74], * [ESSJ 12: 81–82], * [ESSJ 12: 172–174]. Studies of this type, which are not present in the first ten volumes of the dictionary, become more frequent 39

The Reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic Meaning meanings in all Proto-Slavic entries. The Slovenski etimološki slovar The Slo- venian Etymological Dictionary 2 the meaning of the reconstructed Proto-Slavic lexeme in such cases when ( this ) by Marko Snoj [see Snoj; Snoj ] usually provides- meaning does not overlap with the meaning of the Slovene meaning – in con tradistinction to the dictionary edited by Franc Bezlaj [see Bezlaj] which bears the same title and which provides only the reconstructed form. Jiří Rejzek, the author of an etymological dictionary ofEtymologiczny the Czech language słownik [Rejzek], języka polskiegoproceeds inAn an Etymological analogous manner Dictionary to Snoj. of LikewisePolish inconsistent in this respect the practice- of Andrzej Bańkowski, the author of (reconstructs. The semantic reconstruction), who includesis missing the also meanings in the Българскиthat he re етимологиченconstructs himself речник in someThe of Bulgarian the Proto-Slavic Etymological entries Dictionary that he (again, himself)- tradistinction to the majority of dictionaries it consistently refuses to provide the meaning in the reconstructed ( Proto-Indo-European root. ) [BER]; in con What is the relationship between my proposition of the reconstruction to the reconstruction which is conducted in the Słownik prasłowiański difference is caused by the fact that in my work, in contradistinction to the Słownik, the reconstructed meanings and the successive stages of its? The develop basic- ment are the primary tasks. Therefore I do not limit myself to the provision of all the meanings that may be reconstructed for a given word on the basis of its meanings. I embraced the principle about a number of stages of the reconstruc- tioncontinuants, of meaning. but I Iattempt distinguish to present the following the sequence meanings: of the etymological development meaning of these - and(on the basismeaning of non-Slavic which is reconstructed equivalents or according the reconstructed to the continuants Proto-Indo-Euro in Slavic languages.pean root), Thestructural reconstruction meaning (basedof meaning on the which meaning is thus of the presented derivational is a modelbase), every model, it is bound to simplify to a certain extent the actual state of affairs. whichThe facilitates Słownik prasłowiański a clear presentation of the line of reasoning. However, as with at the same time, which are considered more or less chronologically concurrent. Thus, it approaches the model frequently of a dictionary reconstructs of languages a number which of actually meanings ex- - ist, a dictionary which reconstructs the state of affairs at a given period. How ever, it does not investigate the sequence of the emergence8 Therefore of polysemousif I consider meanings. For me, the most relevant thing is above all the possibility of deriving [wyprowadzanie]8 some meanings from other meanings.

The necessity of devoting more attention to the sequence of the emergence of meanings (especially during the process of comparing words from various languages) was pointed out by - e.g. Ljubov’ V. Kurkina: “Для выяснения этимологии важно изучить слово во всей совокупности его семантиче- ского содержания, чтобы определить первоначальный семантический признак, который и должен объяснить все существенные значения, восстановить отдельные этапы семан тической эволюции сравниваемых слов” [Kurkina 1994: 33]. The Development of Words Across Centuries

40 that the reconstruction of more meanings for the Proto-Slavic period is justi-

offied the on emergence the basis of of continuants, these meanings, I mark I enumerate by the means them of awithout graphical providing symbol the probable sequence of their emergence. If I am unable to establish the sequence

part“>” sign. of my I describe work which the reasons is devoted for accepting to the meaning a given that sequence is reconstructed (or the reason on thefor basiswhich of according the continuants to me the in establishmentSlavic languages. of the If a sequence need arises, is impossible) I make reference in the to the earlier sections of the same entry. Moreover, the reader has the opportunity to compare all of the meanings that are reconstructed in a given entry, which is supposed to make the semantic development of the discussed words from the Proto-Indo-European times until the present manifest to the reader.

3.1.In etymology The Continuants continuants and are Theirterms whichHierarchy refer to actually existing words, derived from the reconstructed proto-form. The correctness of the establishment of these continuants is proven by the conformity with the rules of phonetic development which are peculiar to each of the languages, thus, for example, the appropriate realization of nasal vowels, the groups TorT-, TolT- and the sonorous velar consonant. In the case of a discrepancy between the word that we are interested in and the expected form we must surmise that the given word is not a continuant of a Proto-Slavic form but a loan-word from a differ-

whoseent Slavic formal language. mark is We the deal realization with a situationof the groups of this TorT- kind, TolT- frequently as TraT- ,in TlaT- the Russian language in the case of the so-called (Old)ToroT- Church, ToloT- Slavonic borrowings presence of the consonant h- instead of g- is symptomatic of borrowings in Polish. insteadSimilarly of the as expected the form full also grade the meaning [pełnogłos] may be referred to. For an example,earlier stage the

to in modern dictionaries, obsolete meanings or such meanings that are re- cordedthanks toin research.earlier or Needless specially to arranged say, the early,dictionaries archaic are or, asvery they crucial are referred for the reconstruction of meaning. A special role is accorded to the vocabulary of the Old Church Slavonic language because it was the earliest language for which

that was created on the basis of South Slavic dialects of the area of the pres- a writing system was devised. We must not forget that the language itself (one

ent-day Salonika) was preserved thanks to the translation of the texts of the New Testament and of other texts for liturgical purposes for the Slavs. Forof a word this - vant(“For meanings the explanation and facilitate of etymology the reconstruction it is important of theto study particular the entire stages semantic of the semantic content evolution in order to define the initial semantic property which is supposed to account for all of the rele

of the words that are compared.”) The Reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic Meaning reason there could have occurred a certain kind of adaptation of existing 41 allegedlymeanings no for necessity the purposes for creating of the concepts new meanings, that were which translated. reduces (However, the risk inof the semantic field that I selected, one that “characterizes people,” there was my work is the OCS jędrъ adaptation.) The most representative example of such a kind of difficulty in with the meaning ‘fast.’ In other languages for which a reconstructionwriting system ofwas the devised string of later semantic the following transitions meanings which combinedominate: the ‘strong,’ mean- ‘firm/robust,’ ‘fat.’ The semantic development is therefore quite remote but ining which ‘fast,’ therecorded semantic in the development eleventh century, proceeded. with Inthe the meanings case of suchthat functioneddiscrepan- later, is quite possible. The problem lies in the determination of the direction ancies eleventh-century the most important text thing is the is main the possibility meaning of to the establish lexeme (however, or a secondary we do not always have this possibility) whether the meaning that was recorded in - pounds,[Nebenbedeutung], including compound or even a contextualadjectives meaning.which are written in this language, Influences may also be of a formal nature; for example a part of com- tions9 dictionariesmost probably of thereflect Old theChurch Greek Slavonic vocabulary language which and abounds the dictionaries in such forma which register [cf. the Brodowska-Honowska oldest layers of the literature 1960: 225–229]. of other languages,By making wereference bear in to mind the the fact that these dictionaries are arranged according to the written sources that were accessible and not (as in the present times) on the basis of spoken islanguages. missing in That a dictionary is why in isthe no case evidence of the that earliest this vocabularyword or meaning we lack was “negative absent inevidence/attestation,” the language under i.e.,research. the fact Of that course, a word this or isthe a meaningresult of thatthe numberwe pursue of written sources and their limited thematic scope. Another source which is crucial for the reconstruction is the dialectal vocabulary. We must exercise caution in our employment of this vocabulary because it is liable both to preserve old meanings and to create innovations. Therefore it is important to know which of the dialects have the most archaic nature. We must point out that the usage of dictionaries which collect dialectal vocabulary requires a great deal of attention and expertise. It is much more difficult9 than the usage of explicative dictionaries. Above all, in contradistinction- Słownik prasłowiański and the Этимологический словарь славянских языков The percentage [udział] of compounds in the vocabulary of the Proto-Slavic language is a disput ableexclusively question. on the Both basis the of proper names, toponyms and personal names, and despite of this, they are treated reconstruct as appellativa quite ;a other great words number are of reconstructed two-part words. in the Some function of these of wordsa proper are name reconstructed by the SP.

Prasłowiańskie wyrazy złożone a nazwy własne – struktura i semantyka Proto-Slavic Compound Words Thisand Proper subject Names is undertaken – Structure in a andmore Semantics comprehensive manner by Aleksandra Cieślikowa in her article ( ) [Cieślikowa 2002]. The Development of Words Across Centuries

42 to the former type of dictionaries, the very standards of professionalism of the sources varies. They range from specialist research works to amateur studies written by the users of a given dialect.10 In the research of meanings it is critically important to be aware whether a given dictionary collects all of the meanings of a lexeme, or only those that do not occur in the general

important to distinguish whether the meaning that is recorded in a dictionary isvocabulary a lexicalized of ameaning given (standard, in a given literary,dialect or non-dialectal) merely a contextual language. one. It is also

the recorded words and meanings for the reconstruction of vocabulary, and Apart from the benefit of the particular chronological and areal layers of from which the vocabulary originates is very important. The basic dialectal distributionespecially of ofits Slavic semantics, languages, the relationship i.e., the division between into the the western, languages eastern (dialects) and

11 Within these groups there are languages which share close genetic links,southern and groups, this refers is a widelyalso to known their lexicon. and accepted Therefore, thing the [cf. Czeche.g. Stieber and Slovak 1979: vocabulary,13–16]. the Serbian and Croat vocabulary, and the vocabulary of both of the Sorbian languages are closely related. I point out these completely obvious facts because they are crucial for the reconstruction that I am interested in. The knowledge of the mutual relations between the languages facilitates the distinguishing of archaisms from innovations. A considerable percentage of the inherited lexicon is found in the languages which are located in the

languages, in some cases their contribution to the research in which we are engagedcenter. On may the beother smaller hand, than due tothe the contribution close-knit characterof peripheral [zwartość] languages of these and dialects. The preservation of untypical meanings in the remote parts of Slavdom

butenables a remnant us to infer of a Proto-Slavicthat these meanings meaning arewhich not died a common elsewhere. innovation (what couldThe have problem been of likely areal inrelationships the case of betweenthe languages the Slavic of neighboring languages is peoples)engaged 12 The researcher points out that we cannot identify the areal structure with the genetic structure. amongWhile only others the by archaic Genadz’ meanings Cyhun [Cyhun are crucial 1998, for 2000]. the reconstruction of the initial meaning, in order to describe the development of semantic changes one has to distinguish those innovations which developed independently from those

10 I am aware of the great usefulness of the latter kind of dictionaries; due to the substantially greater possibilities of an accurate excerption and a proper understanding of the material, the

11 The settling of the dispute concerning the probably earlier division of the Proto-Slavic language intoterm two “standards complexes, of professionalism”the northern and theis used southern here withoutor the eastern its evaluative and the westernmeaning. complexes, is less

12 important for the purposes of my work. See more on this subject in Boryś [Boryś 2001: 28]. “[…] Пра арэальную структуру праславяншчыны мы можам гаварыць толкі тады, - калі нам удаецца адрозніц у праславянскай мове інавацыі ад архаізмаў” [Cyhun 1998: 74]. (“[…] We may speak about the areal structure of Proto-Slavdom only when we manage to distin guish innovations from archaism in the Proto-Slavic language.”) The Reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic Meaning that manifest a dependency upon the innovations which arose in other lan- 43 guages. Of course, linguistic geography also reveals an opposite aspect of the phenomenon associated with the peripheral preservation of relict meanings. The languages of peoples that are located in borderland areas remain under

- stronger foreign influences. This has to do especially with Sorbian languages numerousand the extinct borrowings, Polabian and language what is which particularly remained important under duringa many-sided the research influ ence of the German element. In the aforementioned languages one may discern- of meaning, semantic calques or even changes in the structure of the concep tual content of a lexeme. A lower degree of foreign influence is manifested by toSouth the Slavicsmallest languages. extent. All This of influencethe aforementioned is associated aspects mainly should in the greatbe taken number into considerationof borrowings during– a form the of appreciationinfluence which of the interferes value of in the the particular texture of meanings language that are attested for the initial meaning. Moreover, due to the universally-known feature of the lexicon as that part of language which is susceptible to foreign influences to the greatest extent, the image of genetic relationships is somewhat modified by historical events- and cultural influences. The Old Polish language, for example, was susceptible vocabularyto Czech influence. also occurred In the inUkrainian the opposite and direction.Belarusian In languages the Bulgarian there language are sig nificant lexical influences of the Polish language; a considerable transfer of- approachedthere are many the borrowingsSerbian language from the in the Russian more language.recent lexical The layer,Macedonian or, in order lan toguage, avoid which a terminological manifests a anachronism, close genetic theaffinity Serbo-Croat with the language. Bulgarian language, In conclusion, we should point out that the initial meanings may be found not only in the direct continuants of the Proto-Slavic words that are researched.The Słownik Such prasłowiańskimeanings (or and at least the Этимологический the semantic elements словарь which славянских indicate them)языков may employ also thebe preservedderivatives in apart the derivativesfrom the continuants of these words. of the reconstructed of attestations. It happens recurrently that the initial semantics may be even betterwords preservedin the cases in whenderivatives the reconstructed than in the continuants word has an of insufficientthe basic word. number The fact that this situation may also be associated with words with abundant attestations deserves attention. An example of this is the Proto-Slavic *bermę the PIE *bher *bьrati ‘that which is carried; weight/burden,’ a word which is formed on the basis of 13 The fact- ‘to thatcarry’ I did which, not inemploy contradistinction the derivatives to the as anroot additional ‘to source take,’ based on the same root, did not lose the Proto-Indo-European meaning ‘to carry.’ 13 As a matter of fact, *bermę is not derived from *berǫ *bьrati but directly from the root (owing to the following Indo-European equivalents: OInd. bhárīman- ‘carrying,’ Gr. φέρμα ‘that which is carried; The Development of Words Across Centuries

44 in my research does not result from their omission or underestimation but from the impossibility of researching in a work of this kind of whole word families of all the lexemes that were discussed. Of course, the meanings that are abstracted

offrom the the typology derivatives of the (both semantic Proto-Slavic development ones and as thosefar as whosepossible. Proto-Slavic status may be questionable!) should be taken into consideration during the research

4. The Particular Stages of uctingReconstruction the Meaning Which Is Based on Continuants 4.1. The Principles of Reconstr Such meaning is associated with the period that is the most distant one chronology-wise. I attempt to reconstruct the meaning which is based on the continuants for every lexical unit that is reconstructed. The reconstruction is based on a comparison of all of the meanings of all Slavic lexemes which are

stage of this process is the rejection of meanings that are clearly secondary derived from the form that is reconstructed as a Proto-Slavic form. The first practice as far as the reconstruction of the meanings of nouns is concerned, causes– such meaningsmore problems that refer during to laterthe reconstructionrealia. This activity, of the which meaning is a commonof other parts of speech. Another activity is associated with the reduction of meanings

are variants of the same meaning, i.e., they differ in features which are in- to a “common denominator” – the establishment of whether some of them related to consider them as derived from themselves. We may speak of deriv- abilitysignificant. when We by also way establish of the change which of of one the semanticattested meanings element of are one sufficiently meaning we receive a different meaning. Thus, we receive a string of transformations

research,which is mentioned we may claim in Darmesteter that we deal [1887]. with aThe Proto-Slavic effect of these monosemantic operations oris polysemanticthe acquisition word. of one It or depends a number upon of strings; the judgment thus, analogically of the researcher to synchronic to decide whether he or she should pursue to the maximum extent the reduction

themselves, meanings which constitute the initial elements of particular strings.of meanings One tomust one bear initial in meaningmind that – i.e.,during to pursue the reconstruction to derive meanings of meaning, from similarly as during the reconstruction of the entire proto-language, we ma- noeuvre between the reconstruction of a model and the reconstruction of an

foetus’). However, it is without doubt that in the early Proto-Slavic period the relationship between these words was not more distant than in the case of other independent derivatives of the same root. The Reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic Meaning entity which is similar to a real entity. Consider the following example: as far 45 as an entire language is concerned, we are dealing with a decision whether - lectal features, which must have been a part of this proto-language, just as iswe the want case to withreconstruct any natural a “pure” language. language Analogically, with or without as far asits thedistinctive meaning dia is - concerned, we may assume only one initial meaning or – as in the case of nat byural the languages Słownik prasłowiański– the parallel existence of diversified meanings of one word, meaningsIt is clear derived that the from degree themselves of the credibility (in principle, of reconstruction this approach is is the embraced highest ). wewhen must all ortake almost into considerationall meanings of the the incompleteness continuants are of equal the material to one another. base at ourIn the disposal. case of SlavicThe period languages of the this Proto-Slavic situation occurs community quite frequently. is centuries However, apart - ular languages that are derived from Proto-Slavic dialects underwent development.from the Even first the written consistent records. nature During of the the recorded course of meanings these centuries does not the produce partic complete certainty as far as the initial semantics is concerned. That is the reason why the meaning which is thus reconstructed must be compared with of procedures. The latter will be discussed in the further part of this chapter. otherIn special meanings cases that there are areacquired reconstructions (by the researcher) of meanings through which the are employment completely - tional link in the string of transitions between the structural meaning and theabsent meanings [niewidoczne] that are in actually the material, attested, if theree.g., *kyrъ is a manifest, *skbьnъ lack. Each of aof transi these aspects is treated in a comprehensive manner in the respective entries. are meanings which may be derivable from one another but we do not know whichVery of frequently these meanings at the wasbeginning the initial of the one. strings In such of casestransformations the authors there who

There may also be a situation in which the meanings constitute a number embrace the “model of a natural language” reconstruct a polysemous word. a common source of these meanings. In the case of deverbal derivatives it may beof clearlyso that distinctive the problem groups. is solved Therefore by assuming the problem an initial consists homonymy in the findingbased on of the varied diathesis of the verb.

4.2.The reconstructionThe Reconstruction of the structural of the Structural meaning refers Meaning to the reconstructed Proto-Slavic words which are not considered as the words inherited from the Proto-Indo-European language but as formations which were created in the Proto-Slavic context. The reconstruction consists in the finding of the The Development of Words Across Centuries

46 a meaning which is compatible with the word-formative structure of this word.derivational In the basecontext of aof Proto-Slavic my work the word structural and the meaning creation is (from a potential this base) mean of- ing. I do not assume that it actually functioned in the Proto-Slavic period. It could have been merely a carrier of certain semes which were transferred - czen withThe a meaningreconstruction of a derivative of the structural word from meaning the semanticentails limitations. center [centrum Above all zna we iowe] to the connotational sphere. completely concealed under the formants that are accreted. If traces of such acannot base can find be a found,word-formative the latter should basis for be eachreconstructed. derivative. Both Frequently, the Słownik the prasłobase is- wiański and the Этимологический словарь славянских языков follow this principle. We must also direct our attention to the semantic function of the word-formative formants in the Proto-Slavic period. The situation varies according to

- the specific parts of speech. On the basis of an overview of the Proto-Slavic word-formation, there were certain formants for nouns which had a quite distinctive semantic function, e.g., the function of the performer of an action [cf. SP 1: 58–141; 2: 13–60; 3: 11–19]; we may also distinguish certain semantic func thetions Proto-Slavic of verbs [SP language, 1: 43–58]. basically Adjectival do notformants feature (ones semantic that are content. not discussed Whereas in the adjectivesoverview of are Proto-Slavic such a part word-formation), of speech for which which the basismay be of reconstructedderivation,14 which for facilitates the reconstruction of the general structural meaning, may be fre-

The structural meaning that I reconstruct has a form which is supposed toquently make found manifest in the the Proto-Slavic transition (hypothetical)from non-adjectival material. semantics to adjectival semantics. If the basis of the derivative under research is a verb, the meaning has the form of an active or passive participle. Apart from that there may be an adjective with a meaning which approaches participial meaning; e.g., in the case of the derivation from *duriti - al meaning is assumed to be the participle with the meaning of the passive *durьnъ ‘to seethe *tęgti[burzyć się]’ the structur

voice ‘rough, choppy’ ( -ьnъ ), similarly as from ‘to tighten, to-ъkъ string, per- forms14 above all a structural function, namely it broadens the original nominal formations by The most frequent suffix doubtlessly does not have this function. The suffix

conferring an unambiguously adjectival form to them. The-a- :diminutive avъ, -asъ, -astъ function,, -atъ ,which in which Franciszek we may Sławski [Sławski 1: 287] perceives after André Vaillant and Nikolaj Trubeckoj, is not sufficientlybělasъ, corroborated* bělastъ, *bělavъ by the material. The suffixes with the base bělъ *perceivečvenasъ the, *č functionvenatъ, *ofč avenavъ diminished intensity in the case of the namesčvenъ of colors (e.g. č*nastъ, *čnatъ, *čnavъ ‘of a color which approaches white, subalbidus’čnъ [SP 1: 228]: * ‘white, albus’; ‘reddish, subruber’ [SP 2:čitavъ 259]: * ‘red, ruber’; * čitъ ‘of a blackishdobravъ color, subniger’ [SPdobrъ 2: 229]: * ‘black, niger’), do not have this function in the adjectives with different semantics (cf. * ‘whole, intact,-awy incolumis’:, is secondary, * based‘idem’ on[SP the 2: 217–218]; serial analogy * which ‘good, is discernible bonus’: * in the case‘idem’ of [SPthe 3:names 293–294]). of colors. This allows us to suppose that the present function of diminishing intensity e.g. the Polish suffix The Reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic Meaning *tǫgъ *sъmǫtiti 47 to*sъm stretchǫtьnъ [napinać]’: ‘tightened, strung [napięty]’ ( ). From meaning‘to muddy/disturb of the active [mącić]’: voice: in ‘turbid the case [zmącony]’; of the derivation ‘muddy/disturbed from *dosęgti [mętny]’ ( ). Analogically, there is the occurrence of participles with the- *dosǫgъ *rǫgati ‘to reach- (to)/to achieve [dosięgać, osiągać]’: ‘one who reaches/achievesrǫ sthžьnъ [dosięga jący czegoś, osiągający coś]’ ( *chytati), from ‘to jeer [szydzić]’: ‘engaged in jeering [szydzący]’; ‘of a*chytrъ jeering nature [szyderczy]’ ( ) (apart- turalfrom meaning,‘jeered [wyszydzany]’), I make the choice from of the active ‘to or get passive hold of voice sth [chwytać]’: of the participle ‘pre hensile [chwytający; chwytny]’ ( ). Thus, by reconstructing the struc on the basis of continuants. I think that this solution is better than provid- ingon theboth basis hypothetical of the actual variants meaning each time.– i.e.,15 the Both meaning variants that are isprovided reconstructed only is such cases when they are attested in continuants cf. *rychlъ, *krǫtъ. The struc- a descriptive manner, e.g., it may be based on a comparison, as from *drěkъ tural meaning of the derivatives of these nominal bases*drěčьnъ (stems) is formed in derivatives with a nominal base are less numerous than those with a double ‘pole, trunk [słup, pień]’: ‘such as a pole; trunk’ ( *grozьnъ). In any case the *groza *gro- zitiformal motivation: either nominal or verbal motivation (cf. ‘terrible there[groźny]’ is no from other possibility or ‘one of who expressing threatens, a given who meaning:is dangerous’ from from *šibati ). In the case of deverbal derivatives, *šibъkъthe descriptive form is used when ‘to brandish’: ‘such that can be brandished’ ( ).

4.3.A different The Reconstruction procedure is applied of inthe the Etymological case of the words Meaning which are directly inherited from the Proto-Indo-European language. A word that has exact formal is inherited directly from the Proto-Indo-European language, i.e., this word equivalents in other Indo-European languages may be considered a word that- manifests the same qualitative and quantitative apophony in the case of the matic formations or the same suffix; compare the examples below.

As4.3.1. far Theas the Adjectives adjectives Inherited are concerned, from the the Proto-Indo-European evidence that could allow Language us to reconstruct the nominal form along with the adjectival meaning already for

15 In the description of the reconstruction of meaning I did not take into consideration the peculiar nature of the adjectives which are participles by origin because, according to my presentation in the chapter to follow, the great vacillation of the diathesis precludes the reconstruction of the semantics of the active or passive voice on the basis of the structure of the participle. The Development of Words Across Centuries

48 the Proto-Indo-European period can be relatively rarely provided. The examples that are used in my work include *mǫdrъ < *mondh-ro from *mendh- with *mǫdrъ, perhaps also *dobrъ < *dhabh-ro- from *dhabh- andequivalents Armenian. in Baltic They andare Germaniccharacterized languages, by vocalism, cf. a typical feature of nominal forms, and the determinant, for which -ro- Indo-European which is added equivalents to the root. exist The inetymo Latin- logical meaning may be reconstructed with a great degree of probability for

languages. Even in the cases which involve a complete formal conformity of those Proto-Slavic lexemes which have reliable equivalents in Indo-European initial meanings were preserved. The situation becomes simpler when we havenon-Slavic at our equivalents disposal more we are than faced two with language the question groups inin whichwhich language continuants the of the given Proto-Indo-European form exist. Then we may speak of the existence of the tertium comparationis. If we are dealing with only two groups which preserve continuants, the nature of the concepts to which a given form refers may become the decisive factor. The concepts which refer to more basic referents, e.g., physical properties, should be treated as earlier ones, although sometimes this principle may lead ad absurdum whereby exclusively the sim-

of certain languages may prove a fallible factor. Since the disintegration of the Proto-Indo-Europeanplest meanings are reconstructed. community until An excessive the arrival belief of the in culturethe greater of the antiquity written word so many years had elapsed that the meanings in each of the languages

could undergo a significant development, therefore I consider the conformity This(or a approachsimple derivability also refers [wyprowadzalność] to the reconstruction of meaningswithin the in particular the languages groups of ofvarious languages, groups although as a more to areliable lesser extent,fact than due the to antiquitythe smaller of temporalthe attestation. space

between the disintegration of the community and the first written records.

4.3.2. The Reconstruction of the Etymological Meaning on the Basis of the Proto-Indo-European Root - tive on the basis of a Proto-Indo-European root, which in the vast majority of casesWe deal is a more verbal frequently root. In my with research the reconstruction the etymological of themeaning Proto-Slavic which isadjec thus reconstructed, similarly as the structural meaning mentioned in paragraph

adjective, or the form of a deverbal adjective. 4.2., assumes the form of a participle as the verbal form which is closest to the The Reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic Meaning nstructed Material under Discussion. 49

4.4. The Value of the Reco The situation Confrontation in which of the Results Proto-Slavic adjective is compared directly with the Proto-Indo-European root provides us with the least reliable results. It seems that one should give up such comparisons as far as possible in favor of actually attested continuants which may be found in the particular Indo-Euro- pean languages. Apart from the obvious fallibility of comparisons with the reconstructed meaning of the Proto-Indo-European root, which is based on the possibility of creating a vicious circle, if the Proto-Slavic meaning contributed

- tionedto the reconstruction by their relationship of the Proto-Indo-European to the Proto-Slavic language,meaning. Thespeaks diversification in favor of suchof the an value approach. of the equivalentsDue to the close from Slavic-Baltic various Indo-European links16 the comparisons languages, condi with

The the Lithuanian language are especially important. Further places in the agenda17 are occupied by the Slavic-Germanic and Slavic-Iranian comparisons. common Germanic and Baltic-Slavic vocabulary is the subject of a collection greatestof studies, when edited the by Proto-Slavic Anatolij Nepokupnyj meaning, independently [Nepokupnyj et reconstructed al. 1989]. on the basisOur of confidence continuants, concerning and the etymological the correctness meaning of our which reconstruction precedes it, is theare identical, or when the Proto-Slavic meaning which is reconstructed on the - mological meaning. basisIn theof continuants case of the adjectives may be easily which derived are not fromword-formatively [wyprowadzone motivated od] the in ety the

- Proto-Slavic context, for which (adjectives) we must reconstruct a number ofmeanings on the basis of continuants, the establishment of their (i.e., of mean areings) faced sequence with a maysituation involve in which serious there difficulties. is a number The ofknowledge more or less of theconvincing etymo etymologies,logical meaning and enables each of us them to solve may this support problem. a different However, proposition very frequently regarding we *chudъ, *jędrъ, *jarъ the semantic development (cf. the etymologies of the Proto-Slavic - gence of meanings). In such may cases become the researcher the decisive falls factor, into a andvicious the circle,latter becauseis depen if- dentthere upon is a number the choice of equally of a particular probable etymology. etymologies, It isthe exactly sequence in this of the case emer that the studies which present the paradigms of the semantic development, treat-

ed 16in a more comprehensive manner in the chapter “The Parallels of Semantic their relationship has remained the subject of a debate for many years. The genetic affinity of Slavic and Baltic languages is a doubtless fact. However, the nature of 17 This subject is treated in a comprehensive manner by Sławski [1977]; the oldest Slavic-Iranian linguistic relationships are discussed by Reczek [1991: 89–90]; see also the body of example material: Gołąb 1992: 93–107. 50 The Development of Words Across Centuries

semantic change. Development,”Problems also prove arise useful. in situations They enable when us theto estimate etymological the probability meaning ofis aadmit given-

resulting from a comparison of Slavic continuants indicate that the secondary naturetedly equal of this to theetymological meanings meaningof some ofis themore continuants probable. butIn suchother situations premises the researcher hesitates whether to consider such a meaning as a relict one

languages, whereas in other Slavic languages it was replaced by newer mean- (i.e., such that was preserved as an exceptional instance in the particular Slavic- logical meaning. ings) or as an innovative meaning which is accidentally equal to the etymo

4.5.The problemThe Problem which is of associated the Homonyms with only an exiguous number of the reconstructed Proto-Slavic words but one that is immensely important, is the pos-

sibility of homonymy. According to Wiesław Boryś:

Jednym z bardziej złożonych problemów leksykologii jest rozróżnianie homonimów- i wyrazów polisemicznych. Również przy rekonstrukcji słownictwa prasłowiańskiego nierzadko trzeba rozstrzygnąć problem, czy w konkretnym wypadku mamy do czynie nia z dwoma (lub kilkoma) jednobrzmiącymi wyrazami o różnym pochodzeniu, czy też z jednym wieloznancznym wyrazem [Boryś 1980: 39 (reprinted 2007: 196)]. - tion(One of of Proto-Slavic the more complex vocabulary problems one has of to lexicology determine consists whether in inthe a givendistinguishing case we are of homonyms and polysemous words. Moreover, not infrequently during the reconstruc

facing two (or multiple) words which sound identically but which have different Inorigins, the present or one, polysemous/ambiguous work the most representative word.) word which forces me to an- *jarъ in which some etymologists see - sibilityswer this of questionProto-Slavic is the homonymy Proto-Slavic is the subject of a number of articles. Eva two etymologically18 points dissimilar to the lexemes, pitfalls othersof excessively – one. The broad problem reconstructions, of the pos

Havlová18 [1994] “Důkladný sémaziologicko-onomaziologický rozbor je nezbytný zajména v případech, kdy je třeba řešit otázku, zda stejně znějící slova s odlišnými významy pocházejí z jednoho základu nebo zda jde o nepříbuzná homonyma. Bohužel je ještě dosti časté stanovisko pokládající a priori taková slova za příbuzná a snažící se jejich významy všemožně spojit. Pokud je předpokládaný významový přechod jen vymyšlený a nedoložený, nemá žádnou průkaznost, neboť při dobré vůli se- dá sémanticky spojit téměř vse. Ani kombinace, předpokládající celý řetěz sémantických přechodů, v němž jsou jen jednotlivé články doloženy paralelou, nejsou o mnoho přesvědčivější […]. Rozhodu jícím kritériem pro to, zda určitá dvojice slov je homonymní, nebo příbuzná, může být jen podrobný průzkum historie příslušných slov, též jejich frazeologického využití, s přihlédnutím k vývoji jednak 51

The Reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic Meaning - general meanings instead of considering them to be homonyms. Specific examples are mentioned by Petr Nejedlý in his article entitled “Rekonstrukce sémantického vývoje a etymologie” [Nejedlý 2000], and also by Maria Wojtyła- -Świerzowska. Although the latter author does not refer to the Proto-Slavic period (the word that she analyzes is a late, probably nineteenth-century bor rowing), the problem is of a universal nature [Wojtyła-Świerzowska 1999]. in the Establishment of a Motivation 4.6. The Role of Acquaintance with the Realia During the reconstruction of the initial meaning a great role is played by the - formations of the meanings of lexemes.19 This was already pointed out earlier, acquaintance with the realia that existed during the formation and the trans 20; especially in the approach which is until today referred to as “Wörter und Sachen,” and this is still pointed out until today [e.g. Němec 1995: 183 jejich synonym, jednak dalších členů jejich slovní rodiny; seznámení s reáliemi, jež slova označují,- je samozřejmým předpokladem. Když tento průzkum neukáže přesvědčivé možnosti obě slova spojit, můžeme je pokládat za homonyma a hledat pro jedno z nich nové etymologické korespon dence” [Havlová 1978: 309]. when one has to decide whether the words with an identical sound but with different meanings originate(“A precise from semasiological the same base and or onomasiological that we are dealing analysis with isnon-cognate indispensable, homonyms. especially Unfortunately, in the cases a priori as cognates and they do what they can to establish links between their meanings. In so far as the supposed se- manticthere is transitiona still-frequent is merely opinion hypothetical whose supporters and not attested, consider this such is words no proof, for with a degree of good will one may establish semantic links between everything. Also combinations which suppose an entire string of semantic transitions, in which only single links are attested by parallels, - ymous or cognate may be associated only with a detailed analysis of the history of given words, alsoare not an moreanalysis convincing. of their phraseological […] The decisive usage, criterion taking of into whether account a specific both the pair development of words is homonof their associated with given words is an obvious assumption. If such research does not present a con- vincingsynonyms possibility and other of membersassociating of boththe same words, semantic we may family; consider becoming them as acquainted homonyms with and theseek realia new

19 I have to give Svetlana M. Tolstaja permission to speak, who tries to trace the realia of the Pro- etymological equivalents for one of them.”) молодой and старой as examples, theto-Slavic author period demonstrates by comparing that the them connotations with the results of these of words, field research preserved conducted in the cultural in the contexts “bastion as of- sociatedSlavdom,” with widely the phasesconsidered of the to moon, be Polesia. do not By depart taking from the lexemesthose that are preserved in the etymological - ment for etymological research must be accompanied by stressing the fact that it may constitute ex- meaning [Tolstaja 2008a: 184]. However, the recognition of the great significance of such ascertain 20 clusively a supplementary proof – it cannot be a counterbalance to traditional methods. “Vývoj významu slova nemůžeme zkoumat bez poznání historie pojmenovávané reálie. Při tom však nesmíme zapomínat, že slovo nepojmenovává samotnou reálii, ale její odraz z povědomí lidí zkoumaného údobí, což v praxi znamená požadavek nevnášet dnešní pojetí do staré doby” [Němec 1995: 183–184]. 52 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Havlová 1999, 2002a]. Maria Wojtyła-Świerzowska [1999] emphasizes the role of the acquaintance with the actual situation in the interpretation of the avenues of semantic development. The question to what extent the particular therealia temple may influencededicated the to Juno progress that was of semantic located in changes the vicinity is yet of to a bemint answered. demon- The frequently mentioned example of the emergence of a monetary unit from

ofstrates nomination that the but origins with data of a whichmeaning may may indirectly be completely indicate aaccidental. possibility However,of a given nomination.in typical research Semantic situations parallels, the which etymologists are mentioned deal not in with my work, specific may instances help us -

degreeto establish of caution (to a lesser in the degree employment – to exclude of semantic – because parallels nominations to the may reconstruc be singu- tionlar) theof meanings possibility from of a thegiven pre-literary solution. Nevertheless,period. Even in one those must semantic exercise spheres a great where, as it seems, the metaphorical relationship of some concepts is wide-

etymologicalspread (e.g. the solutions. transfer21 Importantof the names data of is physical provided reactions by archeological to the names and his of- toricalemotions), sources. one mustTo illustrate always takethis pointinto consideration we may provide also the other names possibilities of sadness, of regret, crying, which are motivated by the words which belong to the semantic

debate the real motivation of these names. Irina Petrovna Petleva perceives thisfield motivation“to tear; to cut.”in the Although funerary their customs formal which explication consisted is known, in the researchers tearing of

one’s clothes and the cutting of one’s face to demonstrate→ regret: - Семантические→ переходы данного типа ‘резать, рвать’ ‘скорбеть […]’ обычно считаются элементарными, не требующими обоснования: ‘физическое стра дание’ ‘страдание нравственное’ – см. Эсся 7, 40. Однако для ряда лексем с семантикой ‘скорбеть, горевать […]’ кажется возможным конкретизировать- этот переход промежуточным звеном ‘в скорби (в горе) царапать, раздирать- себе лицо, рвать на себе одежду, выдирать волосы,’ которое является языко вым отражением элементов древнего погребального ритуала, когда при опла кивании умершего следовало раздирать лица, грудь, одежду, рвать на себе волосы или обрезать их [Petleva 1992: 53–54]. -

(Semantic transitions of the type: ‘to cut, to tear’ > ‘to be sad […]’ are usually con sidered as fundamental ones that do not require a justification: ‘physical suffering’ > ‘moral suffering’ [see ESSJ 7: 40]. However, for the lexemes with the meaning ‘to be sad, to regret […]’ a concretization of this transition in the form of an indirect - (“The development of a word cannot be researched without the learning about the history of the referent. However, we must not forget that a word does not mean the referent itself but its re flection21 in the consciousness of the people of the period under research, which in practice means that we are required not to transfer the contemporary meaning of a word to the earlier times.”) Marija Račeva devotes an article to cases when researchers incorrectly interpret the origins of a word due to the excessive trust in the parallel semantic development [Račeva 2003]. 53

The Reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic Meaning

thesemantic elements link of ‘to a scratch,former funerary cut one’s ritual face inwhen mourning during (sadness); the mourning to tear of theone’s dead, clothes, one to pull/tear one’s hair out’ seems possible. Such a link is a linguistic reflection of

should cut one’s face, chest, clothes, pull one’s hair out or cut it.) the importance of referring to the cultural aspects which are mentioned in See also remarks by Karlíková [1998: 51–52] as well other remarks concerning In comparison to other parts of speech one may notice that the adjective refersauthors to who the are more associated timeless with realia. the MoscowThe number dictionary, of things e.g. Kurkina and actions [2000a: which 81]. - cantly faster than the number of properties. This does not mean that changes dorequire not occur new aslexemes far as referringwith which to propertiesthey may be is concerned.referred to Theis growing properties signifi are revealed exactly in the linguistic analysis. They are presented by the different percentage in the whole body of the vocabulary of the reconstructed lexemes which refer to the particular spheres of life. The conclusions that result from contain the material. my work are presented in the final part which follows the chapters which

THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROTO-SLAVIC

The part of speech that constitutesADJECTIVE the subject of my study is the adjective. Therefore the present chapter is devoted to the discussion of this category of words not from the semantic perspective, but from the perspective of their categoryword-formative of the noun structure. and then In accordancethe development with theof this profile category. of my work, I am interested in genetic questions which are associated with the formation of the

1. The Emergence of the Category of the Adjective

In the Proto-Indo-European period the bulk of the lexicon was divided into two categories: the verbal and the nominal. The majority of the elements of the nominal category includes secondary formations, derived from the verbal root. A peculiar feature which may occur in this category is apophony, which formally distinguishes the nomina from the initial verbs, which are based on the root. During the existence of the Proto-Indo-European community we can hardly speak of distinguishing the substantiva and adiectiva within the nominal category. Although the suffixes did exist, which after the disintegration of the -ro-Proto-Indo-European language acquired adjectival specialization, this is not sufficient proof of the existence of a separate-ra- adjectival that was category. inherited The from suffix the Proto-Indo-European is relatively well-attested. -ro-, which Franciszek are characterized Sławski analyzes by the in reduced his article vocalism eleven Balto-Slavic adjectives with the Baltic suffix 1 of the1 root [Sławski 1982: 207–209 (reprinted 1989: 58–60)]. form for these adjectives. Following a tradition [cf. e.g. Trautmann 1923], the author reconstructs the common Balto-Slavic 56 The Development of Words Across Centuries

The features which distinguish adjectives as a category are discussed by - guages, but the phenomenon itself is Indo-European in nature. Wiesław Boryś, who makes reference to the testimony provided by Slavic lan

- W epoce psł., we wczesnej fazie rozwojowej prajęzyka, doszło do wyodrębnienia klasy przymiotników z ie. kategorii nomen. Podstawę do wyodrębnienia przymiotni- ków, odróżnienia ich od rzeczowników, stanowiły funkcje syntaktyczne. W materiale słowiańskim widoczne są ścisłe związki przymiotników z rzeczownikami, świadec twa ich wspólnej genezy: z jednej strony identyczne postaci, z drugiej identyczna fleksja” [Boryś 1998a: 9 (reprinted 2007: 188)]. - guage, the class of adjectives became isolated from the Indo-European category of the(In thenomen. Proto-Slavic The basis period, for the at isolation an early ofstage adjectives, of the development for their differentiation of the proto-lan from nouns, were their syntactic functions. In the Slavic material one can discern direct relations between adjectives and nouns, evidence of their common origins: identi-

Incal the forms Proto-Slavic on the one language hand, identical there inflectionwere two – productive on the other.) word-formative types.

- lessThe typefirst oneis the – archaic,back vocalism suffixless of the and root, the secondcf.: one, suffixal, productive also after the disintegration of the community. The distinctive feature of the suffix - -o-, -ā- W języku prasłowiańskim produktywny typ słowotwórczy stanowiły nomina o mo tywacji werbalnej, uformowane za pomocą formantów-o- - ǫ-, -u- <, -ou-z apofonią, -ě- < -oi- samogłoski- rdzennej-e- jako lub dodatkowymz wokalizmem wykładnikiem zredukowanym przynależności odpowiedniego wyrazu czasownika. do klasy W czasie, imion. Charakteryzowały się one najczęściej wokalizmem ( ), alternu jącymi z - kiedy nastąpiło ściślejsze rozgraniczenie klasy rzeczowników i klasy przymiotników, takie nomina verbalia (i młodsze nomina postverbalia)-o- w opozycji przekształciły do czasownikowego się bądź w rze wokalizmuczowniki, bądź -e- w przymiotniki. Archaiczne słowiańskie przymiotniki kontynuujące ten typ imion wykazują najczęściej wokalizm […] [Boryś 1981b: 35 (reprinted 2007: 177)]. verbally motivated nomina with stem vowel apophony as an additional exponent of (In the Proto-Slavic language, a productive word-formative type was constituted by by the vocalism of -o- -ǫ-, -u- < -ou-, -ě- < -oi- -e-, or else with thereduced word’s vocalism membership of the withinrespective the classverb. ofAt names. the time They when were a more usually strict characterized separation between the class of nouns ( and the class of verbs), alternatingtook place, suchwith nomina verbalia - tives. The archaic Slavic adjectives continuing this type of names usually display the -o-(and vocalism the younger as opposed nomina to thepostverbalia) -e- transformed into either nouns or adjec

vocalism of verbs […].)

wereAnother peculiar stage exclusively of the acquiring to this category,of an independent cf: character by the adjective in the Proto-Slavic period was the emergence of a repository of suffixes which The Problems Associated with the Proto-Slavic Adjective 57

Stary odziedziczony zasób formantów imiennych, używanych również do tworzenia przymiotników, został zastąpiony nowymi sufiksami, specyficznymi wyłącznie dla przymiotników. Sufiksy te, choć mogą mieć podstawy pie., w większości są tworami pochodzenia psł. [Boryś 1998a: 15–16; (reprinted 2007: 195)].

(The old, inherited repository of nominal affixes, used also to create adjectives, was replaced by new suffixes, specific exclusively to adjectives. While these suffixes could have PIE bases, they are in their majority Proto-Slavic inventions.)

In the Proto-Slavic language the sign of the isolation of the adjectival category from the nominal category is the intensive process of accretion of new adjectival- suffixes upon the-ъkъ former2 *bridъ nominal *bridъkъ suffixes,*pr whichǫdъ *premphasizedǫdъkъ *krěpъ their *krěpъkъadjectival. membership. The identification of the adjectival form-ьnъ is the fundamental*bujь *bujьnъ func tion*durъ of the*durьnъ suffix *krasъ: cf. *krasьnъ : ; : ; : Thenot alwayssecond suffixclear whichwhether frequently its presence has this is roletestimony – to(e.g. the accumulation : ; : ; -ьnъ: on the) performsolder nominal this function form or occasionally to the derivation and it ofis the adjective from the Proto-Slavic noun or verb (cf. the discussion which is associated[nawarstwienie with *krasъsię] of *krasьnъ -

: PRETTY 3A.1, p. 126), which may render dif ficult the establishment of the Proto-Slavic meaning of the adjective. The next and the final stage of the differentiation of the adjectives in the- priateProto-Slavic forms of period the pronoun was the *jь emergence (*ьjь, *ъjь of complex declension [deklinacja złożona] through the blending of the existing adjectival forms with the appro separateness of the class of adjectives and). Itthe was class not of until nouns. the disseminationIt also caused of this complex declension that brought about the complete morphological 3 the fact that the difference between adjectives in the non-oblique cases and nouns may be discerned straightaway.

2 -ъkъ or -kъ. Usually an assumption is made that in the reconstructed -u-stem adjectives the back jer is the continuation of the thematic In works -u- of linguistic research this suffix is reconstructed as -u-stem adjectives is sometimes open to discussion cf. , and in other adjectives it belongs to the suffix. The decision associated with the classification of a given adjective to the group of kъ z tematów na -ŭ-

-u- “Koncepcja wywodząca przymiotniki na - w całej rozciągłości utrzymać się nie daje. Na 21 przykładów naszego materiału tylko 7 przynosi ślady dawnych tematów na kъ derive from -ŭ- stems cannot be defended completely. ” [Brodowska-Honowska 1960: 192–193]. -u- (“The3 notion that adjectives ending in - -j- the Out of 21 examples in our material, only 7 display traces of old stems.”) Due to the contraction of groups of vowels after the disappearance of the intervocalic complex declension partly made itself identical with the non-complex declension in a secondary manner. The results of this process in various languages are treated in a comprehensive manner in textbooks [e.g. Stieber 1979: 163–169]. 58 The Development of Words Across Centuries

1.1. The Criteria for Establishing the Proto-Slavic Status of a Word

So far the criteria on the basis of which a given word may be located in the Proto-Slavic period has not been not discussed in a comprehensive manner. In the introduction to the Słownik prasłowiański following: Franciszek Sławski wrote the W Słowniku prasłowiańskim

mamy dwie podstawowe warstwy wyrazów: na pewno- prasłowiańską i drugą, której prasłowiańskość może być kwestionowana. Do pierwszej zaliczamy wyrazy mające dokładne odpowiedniki indoeuropejskie […] oraz zbudowa- ne przy pomocy formantów czy w ogóle środków morfologicznych nieproduktywnych- w późniejszych językach słowiańskich, np. wykazujących apofonię samogłoski rdzennej, jako dodatkowy środek derywacyjny. […] Druga wielka warstwa słownictwa pra słowiańskiego to należące do nowego pokładu chronologicznego formacje żywe i pro- duktywne. Prasłowiańskości znacznej części rekonstruowanych przez nas wyrazów- nie da się udowodnić, bo jako typ słowotwórczy produktywny zawsze mogły powsta wać paralelnie, a niezależnie w różnych częściach i w różnych epokach Słowiańszczy zny. DotyczySłownik to np. prasłowiański produktywnych we have formacji two basicsufiksalnych layers of […] words: [SP 1: one 8]. that is certain-

(In the ly Proto-Slavic and the other whose proto-Slavic character might be questioned.- icalCounted devices, among that theare firstunproductive layer are wordsin later with Slavic exact languages, Indo-European e.g., displaying equivalents root […] as well as those formed with the use of affixes, or more generally morpholog of Proto-Slavic vocabulary is chronologically newer and contains formations that arevowel living apophony and productive. as an additional The Proto-Slavic means of character derivation. of most […] The of the other words great we layerhave

reconstructed cannot be proven, since – being of a productive word-formative type – they could always appear in parallel in different areas and periods of Slavdom. ThisOne appliesshould fornote instance that even to productive in the case suffixal of morphological formations […].) means that are considered non-productive in the post-Proto-Slavic period one cannot speak

as long as the awareness of the morphological relationship between cognate wordsabout a is fixed preserved. boundary. As long Word-formative as in the awareness means of of all the kinds users may the be motivational productive dependency fades away, the relationship remains viable and it may serve as a matrix for the creation of new derivatives. The Problems Associated with the Proto-Slavic Adjective 59

2.We Productivemust devote more Adjectival attention to Word-Formativethe problem of the productive Types word-formative types. In the adjectival material that I research these types are represented above -ьnъ. The productivity theall by Proto-Slavic deverbal and layer. denominal The majority adjectives of adjectives with the suffixwhich are formed with this of this suffix causes problems in the classification of the particular words to This speaks in favor of the argument that a derivative was formed in a given language,suffix have although a formal verbalwe cannot or nominal rule out basis the in possibility the languages that in both which the it derivaoccurs.- tional basis and the derivative are inherited. As far as semantics is concerned, the criterion which could disqualify the Proto-Slavic status of aIn word the case in the of caseadjectives, of nominal the polyfunctionality, derivatives – namely the transferthe fact that of references those derivatives from4 one could object refer to tothe various other, is referents a completely which typical are unrelated phenomenon, – is of therefore little use ithere. does not facilitate the establishment of the age of a word in any way. Due to the lack of other criteria the basic action whose aim is to examine ьnъ and with some other - butionthe date of of the the attestations. origin of adjectives A considerable with the number suffix - of derivatives which are analyzedproductive in suffixesmy work is have the study an pan-Slavic of the geographical range and they and appear chronological in the earliest distri sources of given languages. In such cases they are universally considered as Proto-Slavic adjectives, in spite of the fact that the presence of the derivational basis in the same languages theoretically could indicate their later origins. Such adjectives include *silьnъ from *sila, *mogtьnъ from *mogtь, *grozьnъ from *groza or from *groziti and many more. Problems are caused by adjectives which are peculiar to only one of the language groups. Close relationships within a group speak rather in favor of their later genesis; however, Słownik prasłowiański. The taking into consideration of the dialectal divisions within the Proto-Slavic languagesuch adjectives is a crucial are usually aspect frequentlyof making this included language in the closer to actually existing languages; on the other hand, the reconstruction of the basis of words attested in only one group involves a higher risk of error.

Słownik prasłowiański 4 Admittedly this issue requires separate treatment because in the there are also nominal entries with structural meanings e.g. ‘something which is distinguished ofby latera white derivatives, (black) color’allegedly [‘coś, formed co odznacza multiple się times, białą renewed (czarną) inbarwą’] a time [SPwhen, 1: 230,for some 239 etreason, sqq.; SP 2: 238, 245 et alia], which are indicated by the material comprised not of continuants but not actual meanings, results from the lack of consistent principles which lie at the heart of the concepta “slot” in of the the linguistic dictionary system about became the reconstruction unoccupied. Theof the reconstruction proto-language of structuralas a very meanings,schematic entity or an entity which more closely resembles actual languages. 60 The Development of Words Across Centuries

In etymological dictionaries one may encounter differences in the appraisal of the Proto-Slavic status of the particular lexemes, e.g., the adjective SAD

*sъmǫtьnъ, found its way into the etymological dictionary of the Czech lan- from the semantic field that I research, whose reconstructed form would be derivational basis *sъmǫtiti as the Proto-Slavic one. Although I recognize that guage by Rejzek, but not in Boryś’s dictionary which reconstructs only its pro et contra Boryś’s caution is justified, I placed this adjective in the appropriate group where one can-ьnъ find, despite arguments its most widespread its Proto-Slavicoccurrence, certainlystatus (cf. is SAD, not 11B.3, p. 223). -ivъThe suffix originalthe only -l-productive suffix of a Proto-Slavic origin. Another productive suffix-livъ is and its variants which emerged through the accretion of this suffix on the Proto-Slavic participle status, as and in the then case through of derivatives the separation of the praesentialof the new suffixform from *r’utifrom thusrevǫ formed adjectives.*revьnъ, Therevьnivъ diversification, revlivъ. On of thesuffixes other speaks hand, againstsuch a sitthe- uation gives no grounds to suppose that none of the aforementioned forms ‘to roar’: their Proto-Slavic status proceeds in the same way as in the case of adjectives is a Proto-Slavic form. The activity which intends to confirm or eliminate

whose suffixes do not compete with each other. facedThe with suffixes a situation which in emerged which the during form the of the Proto-Slavic new derivative period formed and are in stillthe contextproductive of one also of cause the languages a problem completely of a different overlaps nature. with Quite the frequently form of the we con are- tinuant of the Proto-Slavic adjective which is peculiar to this language. In order to exemplify this situation, in this work I took into account also such cases e.g. the entry *šibъkъ; its apparent continuant in Slovene probably emerged through an independent process of derivation, already within the context of

isthis important language to (cf. take THIN, into 5B.5, consideration p. 157). Therefore also the possibility in the case of of an difficulty independent with originthe finding of a derivative of the motivating after the basis end offor the the Proto-Slavic meaning of period.one of the In such continuants a case we it may speak about a sort of a homonymy whereby one element is a continuant of a Proto-Slavic word and the second element is a derivative which emerged independently in one of the languages. This subject is also discussed by Maria

deriving some meanings from other meanings or of constructing excessively Wojtyła-Świerzowska. The scholar advises a limited trust in the possibility of Although the author herself has homonyms of variable/dissimilar roots in mind, hercomplicated remark may strings be successfully of semantic appliedtransitions to cases [Wojtyła-Świerzowska of independent derivation 1999: 40]. of closely related words. The Problems Associated with the Proto-Slavic Adjective 61

3. The Division of Adjectives According to Their Origins that were inherited from Proto-Indo-European and those which emerged in The first layer distinguished by Sławski [SP 1: 8] comprises both the adjectives the Proto-Slavic thanks to inherited mechanisms, above all qualitative apophony- (the exchange of the front vowel in the verbal root into a back vowel in the- nominal stem) and quantitative apophony (the alternation between the nor unproductivemal, reduced and after lengthened the disintegration grade). In of this the layer Proto-Slavic we may unity.discern the domina tionTwo of thematicdivisions (suffixless) intersect within adjectives the adjectivaland those category.with old affixesAlmost which the entire were Proto-Slavic adjectival material may be divided into adiectiva deverbativa and adiectiva denominativa.5 there is both a noun and a However, verb which frequently may perform we are this unable function, to and answer neither the theirquestion structure about nor the their formal semantics basis of excludes the motivation either of of them. the adjective because The second division, a chronological one, occurs within these classes. This is a division into adjectival formations, inherited from the Proto-Indo-European and created in the Proto-Slavic context. As far as the framework of both of these divisions is concerned, absolute certainty is elusive, which is discernible in the material that is analyzed in my work. As far as the chronology is concerned, the division may be established between the adjectives formed owing to the means that were already non-productive in the Proto-Slavic lan- not emerge until the Proto-Slavic period. Therefore also with the application ofguage the chronologicaland the adjectives criterion which it isfeature impossible new suffixes, to establish such a as dichotomous those which divi did- sion. A great deal of very important material is beyond the scope of the classi-

Being aware of the limitations of research, and not wanting to give up the presentationfication into one of the of thedivision chronological of adjectives layers. from the genetic perspective, I distinguished three groups of adjectives below: 1. Ones that emerged through the lexicalization of participles, therefore they have the formal features of the - do-European roots with a verbal meaning but which feature apophonic diver- verb (verbal vocalism), 2. Adjectives which are associated with the Proto-In roots with a nominal meaning. sification, 3. Adjectives which are associated with the Proto-Indo-European

3.1.It is probablyFormer withinParticiples the earliest deverbal adjectives that one must probably classify participles which through the loss of their temporal character passed

5 A marginal class is constituted by adjectives based on composita prepositiva. 62 The Development of Words Across Centuries

from the verbal category to the adjectival one. Apart from the participles which are reconstructed for the times of the European community and which are described in textbooks devoted to the principles of the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European language6 one must take into account the participles which arose within the Slavic context.

of theAccording participle. to Krystyna This is a Kleszczowa’s different phenomenon pertinent remarkfrom the [Kleszczowa vacillation of2003: the 109], the adjectives of this origin do not necessarily retain the formal aspect - aspect of the adjectives (that was later mentioned) which are derived directly from the verbal root, but we may suppose that this “inconsistency” of the di athesis also influenced the instability of the content value of the participles. 3.1.1. The Passive Past Participle with -tъ < -to-

The perfective participle with -to- existed already in the Proto-Indo-European

period [Stefański 1991: 56].*-to(s) According to Oktawiusz Jurewicz: - δυνατός ἂγνωστος Formacje z przyrostkiemό wyrażały w najdawniejszym stanie języka czyn ność dokonaną bierną i czynną ( ‘możliwy, mogący,’ ‘nieznany,’ ‘nieznający się,’ λυτ ς ‘rozwiązany,’ ‘mogący być rozwiązanym’) oraz możliwość dokonania jakiejś czynności […] [Jurewicz*-to(s) expressed 1992: 238]. in the earliest state of the lan- δυνατός (The formations with theἂγνωστος suffix ό guage an accomplished active and passive activity ( ‘possible,’ ‘one that is able to do something,’ ‘unknown,’ ‘ignorant,’ λυτ ς ‘unbound,’ ‘one that can be unbound’) and the possibility of accomplishing a certain action […].) *l’utъ Jurewicz’s remark refers to the earliest*le phaseṷ-to- derived of the Greek from language,the passive in par the- Proto-Slavicticiple of the language PIE *leṷ- we may confirm the active value of the adjective in‘cutting; -tъ probably sharp,’ whichcontinues continues *tstъ the PIE ‘to cut *tēoff,ṷ to-/tū-/tu- separate.’ The original passive participle ‘having a big volume; fat,’ originally ‘swollen with water’ from the PIE root ‘to swell, to increase the volume of something’ (see more at FAT, 5A.2, p. 149). 3.1.2. The Passive Past Participle with -nъ < -no-

-no-, which performs the same function as the -to-, is also of Proto-Indo-European origin. In the TheProto-Slavic participle language with the it suffix is preserved in the following adjectives: *pnъ participlefrom *pel- with the*k suffixnъ *(s)ker- ‘full’ 6 ‘to fill,’ ‘crippled’ from participium ‘to cut.’

Schmitt-Brandt 1998: 268–272. About the PIE see also Stefański 1991: 54–57. The Problems Associated with the Proto-Slavic Adjective 63

3.1.3. The Present Tense Passive Participle with -mъ

The participle with -mo -ma : Proto-Slavic -mъ - do-European languages existed in the in composite the Balto-Slavic form group*-me-no- (Baltic ), where it perhaps continues the form which is attested in inother lexical In- ized forms of adjectives e.g. Polish *łakomy < *olkomъ [Stefański7 1991:olkati 55; Schmitt-Brandt 1998: 270–271].álkti It is preserved in a relict manner my work is the Proto-Slavic *golěmъ, for which the participial ‘greedy’ origin from is * assumed ‘to be hungry,’ cf. Lithuanian ‘idem.’ The only adjective which is analyzed in on the basis of comparison with Lithuanian (see TALL, 4A.5, p. 144). iciple with -lъ Participle with -lъ 3.1.4. The Past Tense Part (the Second Active Anterior ) theAccording Proto-Indo-European to Zdzisław Stieber, times fromwe do which not theknow Proto-Slavic for sure if language this was inherited initially thea participle adjective or *milъ an adjective< PIE *mī- [Stieber mē- mō 1979:- 185]. This doubt reaches -lьback < -lo- to of the entire Indo-European family does ‘kind, not allow pleasant’ us to with assume the suffixa verbal basis in(also this known case. as a determinant in the Indo-European context). The semantics *chylъ *(s)ko : *(s)ke- it is a late Proto-Slavic derivative from *chyliti *rychlъ based on ‘inclined’the PIE re > -‘weak’ based on the PIE ‘to bend’ (unless- pean. Similarly as *chylъ, which is associated with) and *chuliti , also ‘agitated,’ *rychlъ ‘mobile’, which is associated with rušati ‘to dig, to excavate’ have a basis in the Proto-Indo-Euro is supposed to be its basis, by its varied vocalism. Among the words that are discussed in the work there ‘to are set participles sth. in motion,’ formed differs both fromfrom the verbsverb, which are reconstructed for the Proto-Slavic language on the basis of direct continuants and also on the basis of derivatives, including these very participles, e.g. *ěglъ from the unattested **ěgti, *naglъ from the unattested **nagti. The Proto-Slavic mъdьlъ from *mъděti -ьlъ

is considered as a suffix with a suffix todue the to verb the presencewe must considerof the front this jer, also which to be has an originalno justification participle. in the stem of the derivational basis. However, due to the semantic relation of the adjective

Orthodox7 church language. In the book form of the Russian literary language it was maintained under the influence of the The Development of Words Across Centuries

3.2. Adjectives Related to the Proto-Indo-European Roots with aApart Verbal from Meaning the adjectives whose form indicates that they originally performed the role of participles, therefore they have the most strict relationship with verbs, we may distinguish a considerable group of adjectives which, on the basis of Indo-European analysis, also should be considered as deverbal ones. A peculiar feature of Proto-Indo-European research is the pursuit of verbal bases for nomina. We may ponder the extent to which such a basis is legitimate in the case of the formation of a language, which always remains a mere hypothesis, but the fact remains that according to etymological dictionaries the majority of original nouns and adjectives are derived from Proto-Indo-Euro- pean roots with a verbal meaning, and therefore also their meanings are derived from participial meanings. -

However, a closer look at the semantics of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-Euro pean roots frequently inspires a question whether or not it is secondary*dzъ infrom regard the PIEto nominal *dhers- meanings. This has to do with the meanings whose structure is ‘to be- inalof a certainnomina kind,’to the ‘to verbum become and a certain nomina kind,’ is comprehensively e.g. the Proto-Slavic discussed by Maria ‘to be bold, brave.’ The mutualPrasłowiańskie semantic relationship abstractum. between Słowotwór the orig- stwo. Semantyka. I. Formacje tematyczne Wojtyła-ŚwierzowskaIf we assume a deverbal in a monograph origin for e.g. the Proto-Slavic *bolgъ from the PIE *bhelg- *dorgъ from the PIE *d h[Wojtyła-Świerzowskaer-egh- 1992].*strogъ from the PIE *(s)terg- *tǫgъ from the PIE *thengh- *bridъ from‘to glow,’ *bhrē - : *bhrī- ‘to hold, to wield,’ - ing of the nominal ‘to form guard, is motivated to protect,’ by the meaning of one of the participles ‘to pull,’ which is associated with a ‘togiven cut’ verb. and Theother, establishment I assume that of the this original fact, followed mean

of my work. Although from a formal point of view participles have a deter- minedby its classification category of the and active placement or passive in the voice, dictionary there areis ample the fundamental evidence that aims in

a result of which the adjective which arose from the participle could assume boththe Indo-European an active and alanguages mediopassive the participial meaning. 8value quickly became effaced, as δυνατός Let me mention once again the examples8 This phenomenon from the may Greek be also language discerned after which the disintegration were mentioned of the Proto-Slavic above: community

- nomenonin the context has ofto particulardo not only languages, with the earlyespecially participles in the butearly with stages adjectives of their in development general, which – this may issue in- cludeis treated verbal in acontent; more comprehensive e.g., the adjectives manner of various by Danuta Slavic Buttler languages [Buttler derived 1978: from 119–125]. the continuants This phe of the Proto-Slavic *strachъ and *strašiti may be conventionally reduced to the proto-forms *strach(ъ) livъ and *straš(ъ)livъ, their meaning is associated with the verb to fear and they mean either the one

who fears or the one who should be feared. The association of a given form with the first or the second meaning changed over the course of the history of Slavic languages [cf. Jakubowicz 1992]. The Problems Associated with the Proto-Slavic Adjective 65

ἂγνωστος λυτός ‘possible,’examples of‘one adjectives, that is able for to which do something,’ one must reconstruct ‘unknown,’ the heterogeneous ‘ignorant,’ semantics ‘unbound,’ of the active‘one that or passivecan be unbound.’voice include In the the Proto-Slavic original participle language of the unattested verb **rychnǫti: *rychlъ *re- *kr ‘oneǫtъ that moves itself; agitated’ vs. ‘moving itself,on the set PIE in *kert-motion,’ based on the PIE ‘to dig’ (more details*rǫ inžьnъ QUICK, 9A.1, p. 197) and the deverbal adjectives *reng- ‘coiled’ vs. ‘winding’; ‘spinning’ based ‘to turn, to twist’ (STRONG, 6A.7, p. 166), ‘derisive’- mantics,vs. ‘derided’ which > ‘funny’ indeed from hinders the PIE linguistic communication, ‘to wrench’ (UGLY, already 3B.6, p.had 137). to do withWe the may earliest claim nomina that this mixing of active and passive (or mediopassive) se

, both nouns and adjectives, cf. Wojtyła-Świerzowska:

*biti[...] nomina→ *bojactionis mogą pełnić, w zależności od potrzeby, różneбой role semantyczne – implikowane właśnie przez strukturęбой predykatywno-argumentową podstawy. Zatemбой ‘bić’ ‘bicie’ może realizować się jako agens (ros. dial. ‘pięściarz, walczący na pięści’) lub instrument (csł. ‘bicz, flagellum’), a także miejsce akcji (ros. dial. ‘miejsce na brzegu rzeki, gdzie uderza prąd’) [Wojtyła-Świerzowska 1992: 24]. - plicated namely by the predicate-argument structure of the base. Thus, *biti →(if necessary,*boj the nomina actionis can perform different semanticбой roles, which are im бой ‘to beat’ ‘beating’ mayбой be realized as an agent (Dialect Russian ‘boxer, fist fighter’) or an instrument (Church Slavonic ‘whip, flagellum’) as well as a place of action (Dialect Russian ‘a place on a river bank hit by the current’).)

3.3. Adjectives Associated with the Proto-Indo-European Roots withAt this a point, Nominal I would Meaning like to direct attention to a small number of adjectives whose nominal basis dates back to Proto-Indo-European times.9 Such a basis, which does not rest upon a verbal root, is assumed for *vetъchъ PIE *et- *junъ *e- -elъ lack a verbal basis: *debelъ from the PIE *dheb- ‘old’ from the veselъ from ‘year,’ the PIE * ‘young,’es- from themilъ PIE from ‘młody.’ the PIE Also, *mē two-/*mō adjectives-/mī- with Thethe suffix disproportion between the adjectives which are genetically ‘fat, deverbal robust’ and ‘good’ and ‘good.’ accepted in Indo-European linguistics than the actual state of the nominational those which are genetically denominal rather reflects the research assumptions tendencies, which might have occurred in Indo-European times – I mentioned this already in the first sentences of the subchapter entitled “Adjectives Related to the9 My Proto-Indo-European work, of course, features adjectives Roots derivedwith a from Verbal the Proto-Slavic Meaning.” nominal base, e.g. *silьnъ from *sila, *dělьnъ from dělo, *volьnъ from *vola et alia, for which the formal motivation may be both deverbal or denominal, e.g. ladьnъ.

4 THE PARALLELS OF SEMANTIC

The basic aim of my workDEVELOPMENT is to present a model of a dictionary of semantic motivations, therefore I devote the present chapter to the description of the time. As I indicated in the introduction, my work may also be considered only asattempts yet another and achievementsin a series of attempts that were to made realize in an this enterprise field until which the presentis con- when I discuss the onomasiological dictionary. ceived on a broader scale. I return to this subject in the final part of the work

changes.1. State A ofhundred Research years ago, and in aPostulates very comprehensive review of a work by WilhelmLinguists Wundt have long which stressed was situated the necessity between of linguisticscreating a andcorpus psychology, of semantic Jan

Rozwadowski appealed: - - […] wyłania się, krótko mówiąc, postulat semazjologicznych porównawczych słowni ków albo, na początek, monografii porównawczych, traktujących dajmy na to o indo europejskich nazwach takich a takich wyobrażeń. Postulat ten wychodzi także od razu poza obręb tych języków: semazjologiczny słownik może obejmować nie tylko języki tworzące genetyczną całość, jak np. indoeuropejskie (albo ich grupy), semickie, ugro-fińskie itd., ale może, ba, z wielką korzyścią, obejmować w ogóle wszystkie języki świata [Rozwadowski 1903: 5]. or, to begin with, comparative monographs, dealing with, let us say, the Indo-Euro- pean([…] there names arises, for such shortly and put, such the notions. postulate This of semasiological postulate furthermore comparative instantly dictionaries tran- scends the sphere of these languages: a semasiological dictionary can include not only languages that constitute a genetic unity, such as the Indo-European languages 68 The Development of Words Across Centuries

(or their groups), Semitic or Finno-Ugric languages, and so on, but can also – and

Theindeed, development with great of benefit this –thought include allwas the the world’s project languages of a Semasiological altogether.) and Etymological Dictionary, about which our knowledge is scant, for the full text

of this project was never published. In a short report which was published in 1908 by the Akademia Umiejętności the idea of such a dictionary was merely signaled [after: Popowska-Taborska 1989: 20].

1.1. The First Onomasiological Dictionaries work entitled A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-Europe- anA practical Languages. realization A Contribution of Rozwadowski’s to the History intention of Ideas is, in some sense, Carl D. Buck’s arranged in an onomasiological order, is divided into 22 thematic sections, each of which contains several dozen concepts which [Buck]. belong Buck’s to adictionary, given se-

makes a reference to the postulate which was expressed already in 1910 by Heimannmantic field Hariton or which Tiktin, are who somehow suggests associated in an article with entitled it. The “Wörterbücher arrangement - ture the lexis that is collected in dictionaries should be arranged according to der Zukunft” (“The Dictionaries of Tomorrow” [Tiktin 1910]) that in the fu with a collection of lexemes which express it in the majority of ancient and groups of concepts instead of an alphabetical order. Each concept is furnished constitutes a short presentation of the etymology of the words that are set modern Indo-European languages. The principal part of a conceptual entry - forth,mologies, arranged which accordingwere not only to semantic the most motivations. reliable ones, Although until this the day dictionary it is the alsomost met comprehensive with critical presentation opinions, above of both all due convergence to the superficial and variety account of semantic of ety

Johannes Schröpfer, is the Wörterbuch der vergleichenden Bezeichnungslehre. Onomasiologiemotivations of Indo-European(A Dictionary of languages.Comparative A later Study attempt, of Designations. which was Onomasiol made by- ogy Semantische Hefte the ).labours The dictionary associated appeared with this workin 1979–1994 were assumed in the by periodical his collaborator, Anton that was published for this purpose in Heidelberg. After Schröpfer’s death- ropean dictionary [Havlová 1965: 3], was eventually limited to the languages Hönig. The scope of Schröpfer’s dictionary,1 initially conceived as a supra-Indo-Eu - of eastern and southern Europe. In the 1980s, Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze and VjačeslavИндоевропейский V. Ivanov published язык и индоевропейцы. a work which was Реконструкция an attempt at the и reconstruc историко- tion and historical and typological analysis of the Indo-European language –

See more about Schröpfer’s dictionary in the following reviews in Anikin 1985 and Klein 2002. 69

The Parallels of Semantic Development типологический анализ праязыка и прокультуры (The Indo-European Langauge and Indo-Europeans. A Reconstruction and Historico-Topological Analysis of the Proto-Language and the Proto-Culture arrangement and contains lexis that is associated with ).the The life bulk of the of primitive the text man,(ca. 400 therefore pages) it of involves this work the worldconstitutes of animals, a dictionary plants, thewith primitive a semasiological economy, -

Juliusfamily Pokornyand social and structure, other etymological beliefs and ritual.dictionaries In contradistinction that existed at to that Schröp time, thefer andSoviet Buck, scholars who usedpursued ready(-made)/pre-existing their own etymological interestsetymologies in an drawn attempt from to - present new etymologies, especially those of Ivanov. Moreover, there is an other significant difference in the choice of the vocabulary that was collected. ThisUnlike is theirassociated predecessors, with the Gamkrelidze overwhelming and predominance Ivanov concentrated of the names upon the of realiavocabulary in their that dictionary; could illuminate that is, the the predominance culture of Proto-Indo-European of nouns over other people. parts

- oftion speech. intended This to difference collect semantic is caused motivationsby the different in a aims cross-sectional of the authors manner, of the particular dictionaries. Whereas the works by Buck and Schröpfer by assump

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov collect motivational material as if by chance, their main purpose was to reconstruct the language and culture.

1.2.The postulateContemporary of continuing Projects work upon this subject appears systematically, especially in the community of etymologists, for a dictionary of semantic changes attested by reliable examples would be of invaluable assistance, onewhich may could indeed enable meet a verification with questions of the which hypotheses concern concerning the purposefulness the semantic of development of the particular lexemes with obscure etymologies. Although grouping semantic parallels, there is an account of this in Kleparski [Kleparski 1999: 77–78], these questions, however, originate outside the communityinter alia of: etymologists. Every few years new articles appear and their authors renew their demands concerning this type of dictionary. The articles include “О необходимости семасиологического словаря нового типа” (“On the Necessity of a New Type of Semasiological Dictionary” [Trubačev 1964]), “Opara potřebě slovníku sémantických změn” (“On the Need for a Dictionary of [PoSemantic Changes” [Havlová 1965], “O potrzebie słownika semantycznych- lelizmów” (“On the Need for a Dictionary of Semantic Parallelisms”- powska-Taborska 1989]), “Úloha principu sémantických paralel v etymo logickém výzkumu” (“The Role of the Semantic Parallels Principle in Etymo logical Research” [Karlíková 2008]). The articles discuss the fundamental problems concerning the scope and the arrangement of such a work. The Development of Words Across Centuries

1.2.1. The Scope of the Languages Involved - viousThere thatis a thenumber cataloguing of fundamental of concepts issues. from The all languages first one involvesand their the varieties scope of languages which should be included in the dictionary. Although it is ob

demandedwould be of the greatest consideration usefulness, of variousone must cognate find a solutionand non-cognate which has languages, a chance to be realized. Opinions vary on this subject. Rozwadowski’s postulate, who- tions between languages that are used for research is not a drawback but an advantage,is maintained because by Eva it ensuresHavlová. the The creation lack of ofgenetic independent and developmental models of strings rela

of semantic changes [Havlová 1965: 3–4]. “[…] tyto údaje by se ovšem musely- opírat o historicky doložené sémantické přechody z různých i nepříbuzných jazyků” (“However, this information should be based on the historically at- phasizestested changes that the from models different of semantic and non-cognate derivation languages”)should be built [Havlová on the 1978: basis of308–309]. semantic A parallels similar opinionderived fromis expressed various, bynot Heinz necessarily Schuster-Šewc, cognate languages who em

[Schuster-Šewc 1975: 13].

Der Forscher wird hier nach Möglichkeiten zu suchen haben, die ihm das Auffinden und die Rekonstruktion der urspr. formalen und semantischen Zusammenhänge- rartigeserleichtern Hilfsmittel und ihm die zugleich Anwendung größere sogenannter Sicherheit bei semantischen der Bestimmung Ableitungsmodelle des zugrunde liegenden Etymons geben. Wie wir bereits mehrfach betont haben, darf als ein de in unterschiedlichen, nicht unbedingt genetisch verwandten Sprachen erarbeitet betrachtet werden, die auf der Grundlage des Vergleichs von Bedeutungsparallelen

werden [Schuster-Šewc 1975: 13]. - construct the original formal and semantic relations, and which at the same time (The researcher should seek opportunities which could enable him to find and re have emphasized many times, the so-called semantic derivational models, which are elaboratedwill increase upon the thereliability basis of of comparison the establishment of semantic of etymons parallels which in various are basic. languages, As we

not necessarily genetically cognate ones, may be used as an auxiliary instrument.)

Trubačev [1964: 100–105] suggests that the dictionary should contain- borskamaterial pursues drawn real from possibilities, all Indo-European therefore languages. she supports In her the article idea of entitled taking into“O potrzebie consideration słownika the lexis semantycznych of Slavic languages, paralelizmów,” however, Hanna without Popowska-Ta giving up

explicit semantic references to other Indo-European languages, which appear considerationduring the reconstruction also selected of Proto-Slavicphraseologies roots apart [Popowska-Taborska from single-word 1989: lexemes, 23]. Another significant suggestion of the aforementioned author is to take into The Parallels of Semantic Development because they may shed light upon the motivational mechanisms [Hanna 71 andPopowska-Taborska the consideration 1989: of the 23]. great A abundance different premise of nominations is embraced which by occur Žanna in Ž. Varbot, which has to do with the concentration upon particular languages their dialectal varieties. languagesBoth the with maximalist close genetic and the links, minimalist and even approach, on single as languagesfar as the numberwith their of dialectallanguages richness, is concerned, in other have words: their the advantages. concentration The uponconcentration the semantic upon moti the- vation of synonymous words which occur in one language instead of the concentration on the motivation of equivalents from various languages, allows us reason that ethnolinguists are interested in this approach, which is manifested,to discern for example, developmental in the series tendencies of candidate peculiar works to athat given are ethnos. written It at is the for Uralthis aUniversity concentration in Ekaterinburg, of attention whichupon their discuss semantic the means structure, of expressing including concepts the data from a selected semantic field by more or less complex lexical units, with furnishedThe research by etymology of non-cognate [cf. “Conclusion,” languages sectionand the “Researchlanguages Perspectives,”which belong par. 4.2, p. 308]. recognizing the motivation of words which were formed in the period of com- monto various development cultural asareas parallel, has other and inadvantages. the case of It languages decreases linked the possibility by cultural of ties – also semantic calques. 1

As.2.2. far asChronological the chronological Scope range is concerned, we should assume that the majority of authors tacitly agrees with Hanna Popowska-Taborska who claims:

Z góry też założyć wypada, że przedstawiony materiał charakteryzować będzie znaczna rozpiętość czasowa, bowiem badane procesy zmian znaczeniowych – jako związane z różnego typu ogólnymi skojarzeniami – są w dużej mierze niezależne od konkretnych etapów historycznych [Popowska-Taborska 1989: 23]. - ized by a considerable timespan, since the processes of changes in meaning that are considered(One also has here to assume– related at as the they outset are thatto various the presented kinds of material associations will be – arecharacter largely

independent of specific historical stages.) to recognise as the basis the analysis of material which is homogeneous lin- A slightly different attitude is embraced by Žanna Ž. Varbot who advises guistically and chronologically. However, she also admits departures from The Development of Words Across Centuries

72 this norm and the analysis of whole language families, as she does in a series

of articles devoted to the motivations of the adjective of the meaning ‘fast’ in Slavic languages [Varbot 1992a, 1994, 1997]. Cf.: -

Надежность определения типов первичной мотивации зависит от объема мате риала, точности его словообразовательного и семантического анализа, а также от степени языковой и диахронической однородности. of the material, the exactitude of the word-formative and semantic analysis of moti- (The reliability of defining the types of original motivation depends on the volume

andvation further: and also on the degree of the linguistic and diachronic homogeneity.)

Привлечение a priori разновременных образовании, ославляя весомость по- лученных результатов как базы для посдудующей этимологизации темных- лексем определенного хронологического уровня, вместе с тем позволяет су дить о степени диахронической устойчивости тех или иных типов первич ной(The мотивации a priori employment [Varbot 1997: of forms 35]. which belong to various chronological planes – attenuating the value of the received results as the basis for further etymologi-

time to judge about the degree of the permanence of these or other types of original zation of obscure lexemes from a specific temporal plane – enables us at the same

Wemotivation.) must take into consideration the fact that as we reach further and further back into the history of particular languages and their ancestral languages we run the increased risk of making an erroneous link between various words -

into one etymological family. This is not an exceptionless rule. There are com However,parisons in generally the Indo-European speaking, it context, is clear forthat example when we ones study that the have development to do with ofthe a etymologyword nest inof onekinship language names or whichin one arelanguage considered family, completely our activity reliable. will be more reliable than when we compare lexemes from more remotely cognate

languages. Therefore we must exercise caution in our inclusion of particular beginningelements to of the his planned article alreadyregister moreof comparisons than a hundred in the Indo-Europeanyears ago: “Wer context. in der Karl Jaberg had no doubts about this when he wrote the following words at the (“Who makes a construction founded on unreliable etymology in semasiol- Semasiologie auf etymologisch unsicherer Basis baut, fälscht seine Resultate” - ogy, falsifies his results”) [Jaberg 1901: 562]. The problem of the reliability of- the bases for reconstruction is engaged by Weriand Merlingen in a compre hensive article entitled “Über eine Bedeutungsverzweigung im indogerman ischen Lexikon” (“About a Narrowing of Meaning in the Indo-German Lexicon” [Merlingen 1978]). I myself have also elaborated upon this subject in an article The Parallels of Semantic Development

73 entitled “Indogermanische Etymologien in einem Wörterbuch der Semantischen Parallelen” (“Indo-German Etymologies in a Dictionary of Semantic Parallels” the[Jakubowicz collection 2000]). of parallels and serve as a measure for other etymologies is of The question of the reliability of comparisons which are supposed to enter - course discussed in the aforementioned articles, cf. Trubačev “Что касается отбора рубрик-статей, то он должен охватить в первую очередь досто верные случаи семантической эволюции” (“As far as the choice of entry articles is concerned – it should above all include reliable cases of semantic- evolution”) [Trubačev 1964: 103] and Havlová “[…] tyto údaje by se ovšem muselyhave to beopírat based o historicky on historically doložené attested sémantické changes přechody from various z různ andých non-cognate i nepříbuz ných jazyků, nikoliv o etymologické dohady” (“However, this information would languages and not on etymological hypotheses”) [Havlová 1978: 308–309].

2. The Proposed Forms of the Dictionary that is planned. The aforementioned articles are as a rule illustrated by exam- It is more difficult to reach a consensus concerning the form of the dictionary ples. There one may find specific examples of semantic parallels, arranged according to the rules propounded by the authors, e.g., Trubačev [1964: change.104–105] The presents spaces theshould dictionary be arranged as a collection in an alphabetical of spaces filledorder, with according the body to of evidence, while each space is supposed to present a specific type of semantic- ed by an alphabetical index, prepared according to the languages used. The the initial concept. The process of finding the desired word would be facilitat→ → → examples of spaces presented→ by Trubačev are the following: ‘дуть’ ↔‘говорить, думать’ [‘to blow’↔ ‘to speak, to think’]; →‘рождаться’ ‘знать (человека)’→ [‘to be born’ ‘to meet (a man), to get to know someone’]; ‘скот’- ‘имущество’ [‘cattle’ ‘property, wealth’]; ‘таять’ ‘молчать’ [‘to thaw, thisto melt’ point numerous ‘to remain reservations silent, tacere’] arise. (I quote The proposed them without alphabetical the body index of evi of wordsdence). would A system enable of references the location would of the direct lexeme to the which initial participates concept. Already in the se at- mantic change but it would not facilitate, in my opinion, the more desirable 2 Of course, apart from the index of words location of the required concept. - one may prepare another index of concepts (meanings). However, it will be difficult to find one’s way around such an index because we do not seek a spe cific meaning but a more general concept. I will not dwell on practical issues such2 as the volume of such indices (cf. the index to Pokorny’s dictionary,

Cf. also the criticism expressed by Jasna Vlajić-Popović [2002: 23–24]. The Development of Words Across Centuries

74 way in the index of concepts encountered by anyone for whom the language which in itself is a bulky book) [Pokorny 2] and the difficulties in finding one’s- nary which contains parallels in many languages should be accessible to the broadestchosen in thescholarly dictionary community. is a foreign One language. may also For haveit is without reservations doubt that concerning a dictio the spaces with examples themselves but comprehensive criticism of this issue deserves to be expressed elsewhere. I am convinced that the planned dic- - - ingtionary the conceptshould have that isthe sought form ofwithout an onomasiological recoursing to indices.lexicon, as Buck’s dictio nary that was criticized by Trubačev. Its main advantage is the facility of find → → Hanna Popowska-Taborska suggests a similar form of entry articles→ (“spaces” in Trubačev), e.g., ‘to hit, to knock,→ to nudge’ ‘to hiccough’; ‘to hew, to cut’ furnishedto eat large with amounts at least of foodtwo differentfast’; ‘to bend,roots towhich twist, feature to contort’ the same ‘to orinspire very fear; to fear’: ‘to bite, to gnaw’ ‘to worry, to bother.’ Each of the entries is that the greatest and yet-unsolved problem remains the arrangement of thus similar semantic changes. In contradistinction to Trubačev, the author admits Even more examples may be found in onomasiological and etymological worksconceived prepared collections as a ruleof entries by researchers [Popowska-Taborska who are engaged 1989: 24–26].in work upon etymological dictionaries. These works practically furnish the material for the dictionary of semantic motivations.

3. The Ways of Analyzing the Material

Basically, two ways of ordering the material concerning semantic changes are distinguished. They are based on either the semasiological or the onomasiological approach. Practically, the researchers who embrace the semasiological method combine the two approaches as they do not limit themselves to researching the meanings of single words but they research entire groups collected according to the onomasiological method. We may mention the works by Jasna

as examples. Vlajić-Popović [2002], Tetjana Černyš [1998, 2003] and Žanna Ž. Varbot [1986]

3.1. Semasiological Order

As I mentioned before, the semasiological approach – from a lexeme to a con cept – usually realizes itself in the analysis of the semantic development of semanticBesedna nests družina – whole iz korena groups “*god-” of cognate v slovanskih lexemes. jezikih A typicalThe Wordrepresentative Family with of this approach is a comprehensive work by a Slovene Slavist – Alenka Šivic-Dular – ( The Parallels of Semantic Development the Root “*god-” in Slavic Languages 75 semantic development of lexemes derived from the Proto-Slavic root *god ). The author presents an analysis of the familieswhich appeared founded in upon all Slavic bases languages which are [Šivic-Dular in a synonymous 1999]. relationship.The authors whoThe embrace the semasiological method frequently decide to juxtapose word adherent of the simultaneous research of the semantic development of word familiesbenefits whoseof employing derivational this methodbases were are probably discussed in bya synonymous e.g. Žanna Ž. relationship Varbot, an in the Proto-Slavic period.

[…] еще одним перспективным методом использования семантических парал лелей может быть реконструкция славянского этимологического гнезда на семантических основаниях путем подбора его потенциального лексического наполнения в соответствии с семантическим характеристиками образований другого этимологического гнезда, исходная лексема (корень) которого, судя по данным славянских языков, находилась в отношениях синонимии с исходной лексемой реконструируемого гнезда [Varbot 1986: 34]. - toration of its potential semantic content may be yet another promising means of employing(The reconstruction, semantic parallels;based on analogicallysemantics, of to the the Slavicsemantic etymological characteristics nest byof anotherthe res

etymological nest, whose basic lexeme (root) was (judging by data provided by Slavic In thelanguages) aforementioned in a synonymous article, relation the author to the basicpresents lexeme such of the research reconstructed with the nest.) example of word families associated with two Proto-Slavic verbs *bьrati and *nesti check, whetherfor which the she Proto-Indo-European supposes the meaning meaning ‘to carry’ could as the still original function meaning in the that was inherited from the Proto-Indo-European. The author’s aim is to evidence which would support the derivative from *bьrati *bermę - Proto-Slavic language. In other words, it is an attempt at finding supplementary – (unques tionedProto-Slavic. by the Oneetymologists), may wonder with to the what meaning extent ‘burden, this attempt load,’ is secondarily successful ‘foetus’in this [e.g. SP 1: 206–207], which documents the traces of the meaning ‘to carry’ ining of some of the words that are suggested by that author both from the ar- case because not all the examples seem adequate. One may derive the mean chaic meaning ‘to carry’ as well as from the common ‘to take’ – this proves the affinity of the meanings of ‘to carry’ and ‘to take’ – a point which that author explanationsalso notices [Varbot of yet-unexplained 1986: 34]. Another words withresult meanings of the parallel that are research close toof the meaningssemantics ofof derivativesderivatives whoseon the basis isof researchedsynonyms may in a parallelarise by manner.the finding of The authors of works, which concentrate upon the examination of two word families which are derived from synonymous bases, intend to demonstrate parallels in their development, to explain the differences in the development The Development of Words Across Centuries

76 nests that are researched and were not noticed before. or to fill in the gaps with words whose etymological relationship with the

3.2. Onomasiological and Semasiological Order

The works which compare a greater number of words constituting bases of derivatives have a slightly different nature. We may mention the comprehen- - thor discusses the structural and semantic development of six word families sive work by Tetjana Černyš as an example of a work of this kind. The au

of Proto-Slavic origin, which originally belong to the lexical field known as word-formation.“words whose original She assumes semantics the refer Proto-Slavic to the thermal reconstructed process” words [Černyš as a2003]. point ofTetjana departure Černyš and analyzes she comprehensively particular etymological discusses families the semantics within the of particularcontext of derivatives, paying attention to the motivational parallelism which occurs on various levels of derivation.

development within the context of one language. The method that she em- bracesHowever, consists Jasna in theVlajić-Popović analysis of limitsthe semantic herself developmentto the research in of six the word semantic fami-

hislies orwhich her wayare contained around the in material.the conceptual In the fieldintroduction of ‘to beat, the to author hit.’ One proposes should aemphasize model which the iscreation consistently of a model applied which in the enables entire thework. reader The modelto quickly is based find

subgroups; these include all meanings which are a result of the semantic de- velopmenton the distinguishing in these word of nine families, groups distinguished of meanings by divided the author into morein the specific course of a semasiological analysis. Each of the nine chapters devoted to the partic-

- ticularular word nest nests are distributed contains, apart according from anto etymologicalthe model which part, is a presented “semasiological in the introductiondictionary” – tosuch the is work. the author’s At the end title there – in iswhich a table the which derivatives collects from data a from par

all “semasiological dictionaries.” This enables the reader to get a grasp of the frequency of the particular changes of meanings. For example, if we desire to Datalearn about where the the particular semantic changelexemes ‘to contained beat’ > ‘to in steal’ the table occurred, may bewe easily check found what thanksappears to in the 3.5.1 consistent in the table system which of numeration. corresponds with the meaning ‘to steal.’

3.3. Onomasiological Order

of the onomasiological approach whose point of departure are the received However, in the majority of research until the present day there is a dominance The Parallels of Semantic Development meanings, in other words, the pursuit of semantic motivations. The majority 77 of works are created in Brno, in the circle which is associated with the etymological dictionary of the Old Church Slavonic language ESJS. There is also a card index of literature concerning the research of semantic parallels there, estab- thelished dialectal by Václav dictionaries Machek andof the enhanced Czech language by the ESJS and team. it is divided Another into card sections index, concerningwhich was supervisedthe particular by Evaspheres Havlová, of nature contains and datahuman that activity, was excerpted such as inani from- mate nature, time, the cultivation of earth, craftsmanship, medicine.3 The authors upon in a series of articles. Worthy of notice are especially the articles by Ilona from Brno concentrate upon specific semantic fields, which they elaborate works of this type. The subject that was elaborated by this author involves the Janyšková due to their clear structure, which may become a model for other motivations of the names of trees in Slavic languages [e.g. Janyšková 1998a, 1998b, 2000, 2003, 2003–2004]. The objects of research conducted by other authors of the team include: the motivation of floral names [e.g. Havlová 1998]; the names of dishes [e.g. Valčáková 1995], the names of feelings [e.g. Karlíková- 1998]. The team that prepares the Moscow etymological dictionary of Slavic- languages [ESSJ] produced work concerning the names associated with the fea tures of the landscape [e.g. Kurkina 2000a], the names of diseases [e.g. Merku concernslova 1989b], the themotivation adjective of ‘quick’the names [e.g. of Varbot birds in1994]. Slavic A languages, model which enhanced is similar by to Janyšková’s works is represented by the work by Hristina Dejkova which comparative material drawn from other European languages [Dejkova 2000]. aDanuta more Kępacomprehensive elaborates bibliographyupon the same of material these works in a similar in an articleway, although devoted she to employs terminology drawn from cognitive linguistics [Kępa 1999]. I presented the research of semantic motivations in Slavic linguistics [Jakubowicz 2010].

3.4.An overview Semantic of works Motivation which collect in Atlases semantic motivations must not omit comparative atlases of various languages. I refer above all to the atlases which involve various languages, especially the Atlas Linguarum Europae Atlas Общеславянский лингвистический атлас Obščeslavjanskij lingvističeskij atlas but the same also [ applies1983– to the2007] atlases and ofthe particular languages and dialects if they contain [ material that is arranged according 1988, to semantic 2000a, motivations. 2000b, 2003]

I am grateful for this piece of information to Dr Pavla Valčáková. The Development of Words Across Centuries

4.Which The method Choice is the of most Method effective in the realization of the aforementioned

aim? According to Jasna Vlajić-Popović the main aim is this:

Zadatak etimologije da rekonstruiše reč u celini, a ne samo njen praoblik, doveo je do nužnosti rekonstrukcije leksičkich značenja, pri čemu izbor domena semantike ili metoda koji se u te svrhe može korisno upotrebiti, za etimologa u suštini nije bitan.- Etimološku nauku zanima prvenstveno leksička semantika, što je formalno gledano predmet semasiologije, ali prava potreba etimologije leži u inventarisanju seman tičkih paralela. Do njih se može doći samo uspostavljanjem semantičkih tipologija, a ove se pak crpu iz različitih vrsta semantičkih analiza, uključujući onomasiološke [Vlajić-Popović 2002: 19].

(The aim of etymology – to reconstruct a word in its entirety, and not only its form- sentially– by necessity irrelevant brought to the about etymologist. the reconstruction Etymology of is lexical interested meanings, above wherebyall in lexical the semantics,choice of the which semantic from fielda formal or method, point of which view iscould the objectbe used of to semasiology, this purpose, but is thees real necessity of etymology is the taking of an inventory of semantic parallels. The latter may be reached only by juxtaposing semantic typologies, and these in turn

draw from various kinds of analysis, including onomasiological analysis.) - tion about the advantages and disadvantages of the particular ways of collecting This does not exempt us from the attempt of providing an answer to the ques

the material for the dictionary of semasiological parallels. The most difficult thing is to create such a model of a “semasiological dictionary” which would divide the conceptual field under research in a convincing way. However, at this point we are already entering the field of onomasiology. A well-arranged model is such that owing to it one may study lexical “nests” derived from particular synonymous words – not only in one language, as in the aforementioned work of the Serbian author, but in various languages, regardless of their affinity. Such givea dictionary up research could with also this be method enhanced of lexical by more units examples with a reconstructed without sacrificing meaning,clarity. especially Basically, of ifProto-Indo-European we desire to avoid the roots. problem A different of a “vicious opinion circle,” is represented we should

the study of whole families based on one root that is the promising kind of by Aleksandr S. Melničuk [1968: 194–195], according to whom it is exactly- certain etymologies. semanticWhen oneresearch, researches one which semantic also facilitateschanges with the verificationthe semasiological of previous, method un one must decide whether one is interested only in the development of meanings of a given word or of a word family. In the latter case one must take into

Slavic languages the formants which manifest a greater semantic distinctiveness consideration the influence of formants upon the meaning of a derivative. In The Parallels of Semantic Development

79 - include prefixes, which may considerably modify the content of a word,- whereas the function of suffixes usually consists in the change of the deriva tive to a different part of speech or in the location of a word in a specific the matic group (suffixes of place, agent etc.). In the case of including derivatives alwaysto an onomasiological be possible to conduct. dictionary, Therefore, one should each first derivative “clear” themis a separate away from lexeme the content they acquired by the semantics of the affixes. Such a process may not betterin which to givethe “root”up including and “suffixal” the word content in a dictionary are merged of semantic into one; parallels. in doubtful cases (and these are indeed the most interesting cases for the researcher) it is

Semantic Changes 5. Individual Problems Associated with the Research of In the discussion of research of the parallels of semantic changes one must aforementioned image. also take into consideration the specific problems which may obfuscate the

5.1. Semantic Changes Associated with the Varieties of a Language enhanced without impairing its clarity. The doubts are associated above all withThe question the various remains registers open of abouta language. the extent Some to varieties which suchof specialist a model languag may be-

- ination.es, namely In student these varieties and school the jargonsformation on ofthe new one words hand, asand well meanings as the thieves’ is very jargon and4 the prison jargon on the other, have their specific means of nom nomination, and also on peculiar associations, which are limited to a given background.frequently based5 That on is jokes,why one oxymorons, should not means include which such seldom examples occur in thein general gener- examples, therefore it seems to me that the best solution is to create separate sectionsal entries in of entries an onomasiological which would includedictionary. such However, examples, one if mustthey occur.not omit such

The problems associated with the etymologization of jargon words and the means of nomination 4 5 Of the most recent research works about this subject I would like to point out the emergence ofwhich an article occur inby such Wojciech lexis are and discussed Krystyna by Kajtoch Boris Skalka O osobliwym [2000]. posługiwaniu się słowem w czaso- pismach subkultur On the Peculiar Use of Words in Periodicals of Subcultures changes consist in among( other things in the imparting to words of meaning which[Kajtoch, is antonymical Kajtoch toward2010]), thein whichmeaning the which authors is generally describe used. semantic This phenomenonchanges in youth is based and on alternative the peculiar press. evaluation These of the referents which are described. Ibidem further literature on the subject. 80 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Words which are formed in the aforementioned varieties of a language

- (this has to do above all with the jargon of teenagers) very easily percolate andinto unfortunately,the general language. one must This resort constitutes to the Sprachgefühla serious problem of the in lexicographer. the qualifica tion of words to particular sections. Good solutions are really hard to come by,- ble to the people who use a given language. Sometimes such examples them- selvesIn the formmajority blocks of cases,of parallels, the peculiar as for example motivation in the of casecolloquial of the wordsmotivation is legi of

words which have the meaning ‘stupid’ through the concepts derived from the semantic field of ‘to hit, to damage.’

5.2. Linguistic Taboo and Its Euphemization a result of the interference of linguistic taboo. This phenomenon was the sub- jectAnother of many problem research is associated works in with the thelast modifications decades.6 In linguisticsof meaning there which is arean - ance of the meanings of some referents; such is the explanation of the disap- opinion about the considerable influence of linguistic taboo in the disappear- guages, or of the irregular transformation of the form of a word, e.g., the transformationpearance of the ofIndo-European the Slavic name name of the of lynx.the bear In my in workSlavic the and examples Germanic of lan the *bolgъ, BAD,

influence of linguistic taboo are not numerous (cf. the footnote to - opment,1B.14, p. i.e., 111). the Asnatural I demonstrate development in the in the part form of theof minimal work which semantic contains changes. the Thematerial, phenomenon one may ofalso enantiosemy, find an alternative which may solution be a resultfor explaining of euphemization, their devel is sometimes visible in my material, especially in the case of adjectives with an evaluative content. The meanings which are a result of the application of linguistic taboo and euphemization should be set apart from the general part of a dictionary of semantic parallels as a separate section due to the peculiar mechanism of their

changes for which a taboo basis is established. emergence. However, one should find an appropriate number of semantic

6 Eufemizmy współczesnego języka polskiego Euphemisms of Contem- porary Polish Language Tabu w dialektach polskich Taboo Cf. in Anna Polish Dąbrowska, Dialects ( Tabu językowe i eufemizacja w dialektach[Dąbrowska słowiańskich 1993]);Language Anna Krawczyk-Tyrpa,Taboo and Euphemization in Slavic Dialects ( [Krawczyk-TyrpaTabu 2001]), w języku as well i kulturze as the collectiveTaboo in Languageworks: and Culture ( [Czyżewski, Dobrzańska (eds.) 2008]); ( [Dąbrowska (ed.) 2009]). The Parallels of Semantic Development 81

5.3. Borrowings and Semantic Calques of motivational parallels. They diminish the value of research because they areIt is aalso mere advisable reduplication to avoid of borrowings a model which and arosesemantic in one calques language, in the projected research onto a different language. The formulation of this postulate is easier than its realization. Borrowings - phoneticconstitute features a lesser which problem. distinguish However, them borrowings from native are notwords. always As wepercepti know, theble withinindication the contextthat particular of one language Polish words family. are First, borrowings they do not from always southern have or eastern neighbors include h instead of g and u where one would expect - tial or complete adaptation of borrowings to the native form. In such a case a nasal vowel. However, a frequent phenomenon is associated with the par A word which is borrowed from a different language underwent a semantic the identification of these words requires historical and linguistic research. evolution in which we are interested already in the language of the donor (in this case we are dealing with the duplication of the motivational model) or in modelthe language is involved. of the recipient (in this case the motivational model arose in the context of the borrowing). In both cases it is clear that a single motivational of copying the motivational structure from a different language. This point is It is considerably more difficult to eliminate words which arose as a result inimportant the languages due to belonging the fact that to a the shared phenomenon cultural area. of copying In the case or “calque-ing” of languages the of ansemantic uneven motivational level of civilizational and word-formative development structure these languages appears verynormally frequently adopt words for new referents or for newly distinguished concepts as borrowings or the employment of their semantic structure for the creation of a new word. - lish whether the word under research is an independently created example In the case of a calque it is sometimes difficult for the researcher to estab adaptation of an already known example to the other language. The pitfalls which confirms the motivational model which was realized, or it is merely an- -T associated with semantic calques are also pointed out by Hanna Popowska ouraborska activity [1989: will yield 23–24]. more The reliable most results reliable if exampleswe study theare vocabularyfurnished byof theold words – ones that were inherited from the proto-language. For this reason basic lexical stock, where the influence of foreign sources is less considerable. A specific example of a copied motivational structure, which is likely to Eastbe based Slavic on name an erroneousof the rainbow, identification радýга, is usuallyof the etymologyexplained as of a aderivative word, i.e. from the *radъso-called folk etymology,ita is provided by Janusz Siatkowski [1989: 42–43]; the- cation, this name may be explained by folk beliefs. The latter were associated ‘merry’ [ e.g. Tolstoj 1976: 52]. According to Nikita Tolstoj’s justifi 82 The Development of Words Across Centuries

with an idea that the rainbow was a desirable phenomenon, one that was wel- - ples of the names of the rainbow derived from *veselъ, which she considers motivationalcomed with joy parallels [Tolstoj радýгу 1976: 41–42]. Tolstoj also provides East Slavic exam of parallels within the context of the remaining parts of Europe, Siatkowski [Tolstoj 1976: 30–33]. On the basis of the lack радýга, and радýга - posedcasts doubt Eastern upon borrowing, Tolstoj’s perhapsthesis, claiming from the that Old the Ossetic alleged ardunga- parallels, which may be is derivedsemantic from calques the Iranianof the word drunaka itself is a sinefrequently loco citato sup In the East Slavic context, радýга was secondarily associated with the Slavic rad- - ‘arcus’ (after Szeremény; ).- planation in the context of etymology, because this issue should be treated in a separate [Siatkowski article, 1989: I think 43]. that By the refusing example to attemptprovided to by verify Siatkowski Szeremény’s is a good ex

illustration of the possibility of pitfalls afforded by semantic calques. ἃπαξ λεγόμενα

5.4.One shouldWords distinguish Which Are lexical Attested meanings, Only well-attested Once ( and described in) dictio- - - naries, from meanings which are identified on the basis of single texts. A care theful reader early stages will supposedly of the development perceive thatof languages. the meanings In these provided cases inwe the are “inno deal- vative meanings” section frequently originate from dialectal records and from i.e., with the possibility of the singularity and impermanence of these changes.ing Thewith placement a problem of similar such semantic to the one transitions that was in mentioned an onomasiological above (see dictio 5.1.),- nary may meet with the objection of inconsistency in the treatment of the material. In spite of this, I acknowledged that one should not give up the aforementioned material because it contains a latent potential for semantic change. An additional argument in favour of the idea of taking into consider- -

toation the of aforementioned the Old Slavic material alternative (in thevariants sense of of languages, the initial stagesthis material in the develis not currentlyopment of the the object particular of systematic Slavic languages) research, is thereforethe fact that its inchance contradistinction of receiving special treatment in the context of innovative semantic changes is smaller. -

IThe am sameinterested applies in the to thepresent dialectal work. materials, which – although they are re searched – such research does not take into consideration the aspects which

PART TWO ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIAL

THE RESEARCH MATERIAL AND THE MEANS OF ITS ANALYSIS 1. The Basis of the Material dictionaries of particular languages. In the case of the lack of such dictionaries, IThe use source translational of the material dictionaries in my workwhich is includeconstituted examples by definitio of usagenal (explicative) of the lexemes.1 Apart from the meanings which are derived from modern languages, I obviously take into consideration the historical and dialectal material, which is the standard procedure in the work of the etymologist. At this point, it is worthwhile to present the state of Slavic lexicography. of the elaboration of explicative dictionaries, as the majority of Slavic dictio- It is quite varied as far as the particular languages are concerned. The status As far as the Czech and Slovak languages are concerned, these dictionaries includenaries have comprehensive such dictionaries, dictionaries is quite published good. in the second half of the twentieth century: Slovník slovenského jazyka Dictionary of the Slovak Language Slovník spisovného jazyka českého , ed. ŠtefanDictionary Peciar, of vol. Literary 1–6, 1959–Czech 1968 ( [Peciar]); 1 The, excerptioned. Jaromir of material Bělič, vol.would 1–4, be facilitated1960–1971 by dictionaries ( with an onomasiological arrangement of vocabulary. Unfortunately, Slavic languages have such dictionaries only in excep- Русский семантический словарь. Толковый словарь, систематизированный по классам слов и значений The Russian Semantic Dictionary. tionalAn Explanatory cases (e.g. Dictionary Systematized According to Classes of Words and Meanings , ed. Natalia J. Švedova,Česky slovník vol. 1–6, věcný 1998 a synonymický( A Thematic Dictionary and Dictionary of Synoms of the Czech Language [Švedova])).- Alsomasiological certain dictionaries arrangement. of synonyms (e.g. , ed. Jiři Haller, 1974 ( [Haller])) have an ono 86 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Language Příruční slovník jazyka českého, ed. Concise Dictionary of the Czech Language [Bělič]), and the still valid Oldřich ofHujer thiset kind, al., vol.which 1–8, is 1935–1957associated with ( the process of disappearance of these languages.[Hujer]). The2 As Lower far as Sorbianthese languages and the Upper are concerned, Sorbian languages I used translational lack dictionaries dictio-

dictionarynaries, prepared by Jurij as Kral: early Serbsko-němski as the nineteenth słownik century hornjołužiskeje and the first serbskeje half of rěče. the Sorbisch-deutschestwentieth century. InWörterbuch the field of der the Oberlausitzer Upper Sorbian sorbischen language Sprache I consultedA Sor thebian-German Dictionary of the Lausatian Sorbian - tian T. Pfuhl Obersorbisches Wörterbuch An Upper Sorbian Dictionary ( [Kral]) and the one by Chris languages which were published more ( recently contain a lesser amount[Pfuhl]). of The translational dictionaries of the Upper Sorbian and Lower Sorbian

abovevocabulary; all the I dictionaryused them by only Arnošt for the Muka, sake which of verification, I discuss below. to report potential semantic changes. As far as the Lower Sorbian language is concerned, I used Czech and the Slovak languages are represented by the South Slavic languages. Works of equally considerable proportions as those in Slovarthe domain slovenskega of the knjižnega jezika - ularyThe Slovene is contained language in two is thesaurus-typerepresented by dictionaries, the five-volume3 - [Klopčič et al. (ed.) 1970–1991]. Serbian and Croatian vocab the first of which, pub lished by the Yugoslavian Academy of Arts and Sciences (RJAZ), was begun- as early as in the nineteenth century and was completedRečnik in 1976 SANU [RJAZ]. The dictionary of the Serbian Academy of Sciences (RSAN), initiated in 1959, con registeringtinues to be of developed the vocabulary (volume of 19linguistic appeared monuments in 2015 [ and the early 1959–]). lexical stock,As far collectedas the first in ofdictionaries the aforementioned which were dictionaries compiled earlier,concentrates the second upon onethe copiously registers dialectal vocabulary. The aforementioned dictionaries of the Serbian and Croatian languages derive from the period when these languages were considered one language, i.e., the Serbo-Croat language or the Croatian-Serbian language. 4 2 It seems that even if at the present time there are not enough readers for whom it would be worthwhile to create monolingual dictionaries, a solution of some utility would be the prepa-

performs the function of the language of everyday contacts for the users of Sorbian languages. ration3 of dictionaries of the explicative type with explanations in German. The latter language Rečnik srpskohrvatskoga književnog jezika Dictionary of the Serbo-Croatian Literary The Language equivalentRečnik of the aforementioned dictionaries which deal with other languages is the The fact that in this work I take into consideration, vol. 1–6, 1967–1976 two separate ( languages, the Serbian and 4 [ ]).

the Croatian languages, is above all the result of a desire to satisfy the requirements of the so- twentycalled political years: Rječnik correctness. hrvatskoga The lexical jezika dissimilarity A Dictionary as offar the as Croatianthe semantic Language fields analyzedRečnik in my srpskogawork are jezikaconcernedA Dictionary is not reflected of the Serbian in the existing Language definitional dictionaries published in the last ( [Anić]); ( [Nikolić (ed.) 2007]). The Research Material and the Means of Its Analysis The Bulgarian language has a number of dictionaries, the most comprehen- 87 sive of which is the Речник на българския език - Речник на съвременния български книжовен език , Sofia 1977– [Čolakova]; it cur rently reached the letter R. The earlier three-volume the Речник на македонскиот was јазик published in Sofia in the years 1954–1959 [Romanski]. The greatest amount of Macedonian vocabulary is collected in The modern East Slavic vocabulary, vol. has 1–3, also published received comprehensivein Skopje in the treatyears- 1961–1966 [Koneski]. Словарь современного русского литературного языка ment. The Russian language has the seventeen-volumeСловарь русского языка , published in 1948–1965 [Obnorskij]Словник and itsукраїнської concise version мови, – the four-volume from 1957–- 1961 [Evgen’eva]. The Ukrainian language has the eleven-volumeТлумачальны слоўнік беларускай мовы ed. Ivan K. Bilodid, published in Kiev in 1970–1980 [Bilo did],Although and the the Belarusian aforementioned language sources has the maysix-volume seem a little dated, this does not diminish their, ed.value Kandrat from theK. Atrachovič perspective from of my1977–1984 research, [Atrahovič]. and this perspective encompasses more than ten centuries. Their value is determined above all by the presence of contexts which facilitates a better understanding of the content of particular words.

The languages which have received best treatment in this respect include Pol- Historical dictionaries constitute a very important source for my research. ish, Russian, Czech and Slovak. These languages have complete(d) historical- lexicons (or ones that are currently in the process of preparation),Słownik staropolski where the, old vocabulary is treated according toSłownik the requirements polszczyzny of XVIcontemporary wieku lex whichicography. reached In the has field been of inthe the Polish works language since 1966 there and is theis in an advanced stage completed in 2003 [Słstpol.] and the [SP XVI] dictionary, due to the value of the monuments of Bohemian literature, is the dictionaryof development of the (vol. Old 36, Czech published language in 2012, Staročeský reached slovník the letter R). A very valuable

, begun by Jan Gebauer in 1903 [Gebauer]. After his death the work on the dictionary was continued under Emil Smetánka’s supervision, and then5 The subsequently work upon underthe preparation Frantisek ofRyšánek’s a historical and dictionary Bohuslav Havránek’sof the Slovak supervision language has by beenthe Institute completed. of the Also Czech the Language of the Czech Academy of Sciences. complete. It contains the material which dates back from the eleventh to the work on the dictionary of the Old Russian6 A historical and the dictionaryRuthenian languageof the Belarusian is nearly seventeenth5 Unfortunately, century the publication [SRJ XI–XVII]. of the dictionary had been suspended since 2008. The card index of the dictionary has been made accessible in an Internet version. This is a great loss for the readers, who lose access to the material that was elaborated upon by specialists. The card index of

6 This dictionary replaces the already dated three-volume dictionary by Izmail I. Sreznevskij the dictionary is accessible on the Internet at: http://vokabular.ujc.cas.cz/ (accessed 1.04.2017). 88 The Development of Words Across Centuries

language has received excellent scholarly treatment. The Slovník jazyka staro- slověnskéholanguage [HSBM]Dictionary remains of inOld a stageSlovak of development. The Old Church Slavonic

( [SJS]), published by the Czech Academy- of Sciences under the editorship of Josef Kurz, subsequently of Zoe Hauptová, was completed in 1997. As far as the2 more recent materials of the Church Sla vonicdrawn language from early of dictionaries,various recensions which registeredare concerned, either we the still vocabulary resort to ofFranz the Miklosich’s dictionary [Miklosich ]. The historical lexical material may be also

literary language or also dialectal vocabulary, depending on the authors’ aims. For the purposes of this work I consulted Samuel BogumiłSłownik Linde’s języka 1854–1860polskiego dictionary registering the vocabulary from the sixteenth centurydzki until the contemporarySłownik warszawski times of the Warsaw author Dictionary [Linde] and the - edited by Jan Karłowicz, Adam Kryński and Władysław Niedźwie - (the so-called ( )), published at the be apartginning from of the general twentieth vocabulary. century The [Karłowicz]. Czech language The latter has dictionarya nineteenth also century regis ters dialectal and obsolete vocabulary (marked with appropriate qualifiers) the East Slavic languages, the most valuable one is the four-volume dictionary dictionary by Josef Jungmann [Jungmann]. Among the early dictionaries of-

of the Russian language by Vladimir I. Dal’ from the final years of the nine roughlyteenth century, the same which period. abounds Important in dialectal material vocabulary is furnished [Dal’]. by the The translational 1895–1904 dictionary of the Bulgarian language by Najden Gerov [Gerov] dates back to nineteenth century, which also takes into account both early as well as dialec- Slovene-German dictionary by Max Pleteršnik, published at the end of the- - atorytal vocabulary dictionaries. [Pleteršnik]. It is worthwhile I mentioned to return above to the the thesaurus problem whichof Sorbian compris lexi- es the Croatian and Serbian historical material [RJAZ] when I described explan- - tentcography. from Translationalthe range of thedictionaries Slavic languages alone cannot than replace it usually definitional happens dictioin the naries; the range of content of some German lexemes differs to a greater ex- - antslanguages of Proto-Slavic which are lexemes so closely in the related. Sorbian Very languages frequently are theit is result impossible of a peculiar to an swer the question whether the peculiar meanings which occur in the continu rendition of meaning offered by lexical sources. The best translational dictionary development under the influence of the German language or of an imprecise

of the Upper Sorbian thatdictionary was published contains a only hundred the German-Sorbianyears ago. Apart fromportion its [Jentsch]. The best source7 for the Lower Sorbian language is the dictionary by Arnošt Muka [Muka ] Материалы для словаря древне-русскаго языка по писменным памятникам Materials for a Dictionary of Oldwhich Russian. appeared The Writtenin Sankt Relics Petersburg in the years 1893–1912 with the modest title ( 7 [Sreznevskij]). The team which includes Manfred Starosta, Erwin Hanuš (Hannusch) and Hauke Bartels is currently working upon the preparation of a great German-Lower Sorbian dictionary, which is 89

The Research Material and the Means of Its Analysis volume and detailed explanations, its unquestionable merit consists in the theprovision meanings of these that explanationsare registered in refer German to an and even Russian greater – this extent facilitates to the the Polabianprecision language, of the argument. whose fragments Considerations reached about us from the theinsufficient accounts reliability of research ofers of non-Slavic origin.8 These exiguous vestiges of the language which are at Thesaurus Linguae Dravaenopolabicae Thesaurus of the Polabian Drevani Language our disposal had been processedSłownik by etymologiczny Reinhold Olesch języka in Drzewian połabskich An Etymological Dictionary ( of the Polabian Drevani Language [Olesch])9 andThe byextent Kazimierz to which Polański I accounted in for dialectal materials10 is associated with (their availability. The greatest chances of inclusion were enjoyed[Polański]). by words dictionary and the new Słownik gwar polskich A Dictionary of Polish Dialects from languages which have collective lexicons of dialects: Polish (Karłowicz’s ( Słownik gwar kaszubskich na[SGP]), tle kultury which ludowej encompasses the letters A–E and partly F), Russian [SRNG] and SlovakThe material [SSN]. from Very othervaluable dialectal material dictionaries is furnished was bynot systematically excerpted, however, it could be included([Sychta]) in this in seven work volumesthrough theby Bernard medium Sychta of etymological [Sychta]. dictionaries, especially the Słownik prasłowiański. At this point one should make a reservation concerning the acceptations which are derived from the dictionaries of early vocabulary. We can be sure that the acceptance provided by a lexicon is basic only in the case when we consult dictionaries whose authors are or were actual users of the language of a given period. Dictionaries compiled by lexicographers who are younger by a number of generations contain meanings which are reproduced on the basis of contexts. They may be appropriately reproduced when the lexicographer has the ap-

- plespropriate of usage, number we cannot of quotations be sure if from we are varied actually sources dealing at withhis or a lexicalher disposal. mean- ingHowever, or with if thea textual meaning realization found in with a dictionary a limited isrange. supplied The withsame single reservation exam must be sometimes made towards the dialectal dictionaries which are compiled by authors for whom a given dialect is not the native dialect. expressions. The historical and documentational dictionary of the Sorbian language is currently supposed to contain more than 70.000 words as well as a considerable number of phraseological dictionaries may be found at http://www.serbski-institut.de/de/Sprachwissenschaft-Projekte/ at the stage of preparation. The work is supervised by Hauke Bartels. Information about both 8 (accesed9 1.04.2017). 10 DueAccording to the semanticto Paul Rost nature [Rost]. of my work I concentrate not on the form but on the meanings of the Thecontinuants first volume in the was particular prepared languages. with the co-authorship That is why during of Tadeusz the employment Lehr-Spławiński. of dialectal material I use the forms of the literary language, and I signal the dialectal status of these continuants with the abbreviation dial. 90 The Development of Words Across Centuries

2.In this The work Content I analyze ofthe the development Semantic of adjectives Field Underbelonging Research to a very broad

conceptual field (a field which is also referred to as the macrofield in this chapter.) This field includes adjectival expressions which may refer to human- properties. The lexemes which are included in the particular subfields are not synonyms. A peculiar feature of my research is a certain “blurring” of con cepts which are very general and open to related meanings. However, I do thenot mostaim at crucial a comprehensive thing, because definition it enables of the us semantic to embrace content the multidirectional of a given field. transformationsOn the contrary, ofit ismeaning. the “underspecification/indeterminacy” All of these features result from thata panchronic for me is and pan-Slavic nature of this work. The creation of a network of concepts on the supralinguistic level even forces us to use general, imprecise terms.

In Thethis way,subfields each underchapter research is divided were into grouped two subchapters in pairs in which sixteen are chapters. autono- mousEach of units. the chapters The placement is devoted of contrarious to two poles concepts referring in tothe one particular conceptual chapters field. results from a desire to demonstrate that the parallelism of antonymous mo-

11 is a marginal phenomenon. The material that was examined man- tivations,ifests that discernible the motivational e.g. in consistency/coherencethe pair motivating the conceptsof antynomous of ‘straight’ concepts, and ‘obliquus,’which could be theoretically expected, is not realized. Parts of chapters are designated with the letters A and B, whereas some of

resultthem designatedfrom a positive with evaluation the letter inA maythe case be referred of pairs ofto anas “strongerevaluative marked” nature, but as incompared other groups to the ofpart concepts designated he decisive with the factor letter B.was This different, “stronger for marking” example, may the greater physical intensity of a feature. The arrangement of the particular pairs, depending on the criterion that was embraced, may be open to discussion. A semantic analysis is not the aim of my work and it may play an ancillary role at the most. Therefore, I limit myself to the aforementioned explanation. The arrangement of the chapters is arbitrary to a certain extent. I start

referwith theto physical pair of evaluativeproperties, concepts: ranging from “good” parametric and “bad,” ones, followed such as by height two pairs and which also express an evaluation, but a more specialized one. Further pairs

pairbody contains mass, to lexemes physical which properties: refer to “fast” mental and capabilities “slow.” These and are constitutes followed the by terminationpairs which referof the to overview. temperament A peculiar and selected feature features of this last of character. group of concepts, The final

11 pravъ which continues the PIE *prō-o- zъlъ PIE * ǵ hTheul-o- example that is quoted here is based on the Proto-Slavic * ‘appropriate; real,’ ‘straight’ and the Proto-Slavic * ‘bad,’ which continues the ‘obliquus.’ 91

The Research Material and the Means of Its Analysis which undoubtedly occupies a special place in the characteristics of man, is that it contains few words of Proto-Slavic origin.12 The overwhelming major- word-formative derivatives which arose in the particular languages. ity Theof lexemes choice offrom Proto-Slavic this semantic words field which is constituted constitute not the by object semantic of analysis but by 13 - tionalwas a resultdictionaries. of the author’sOn this basis, own selectionI established of semantic a collection associations, of 120 reconstruct verified- edby Proto-Slavicconsulting translational words that referred dictionaries, to human collections properties of synonyms either already and defini in the Proto-Slavic period or at the later stage of the development of continuants. The decisive factor in this case was not so much the exhaustion of the lexical lexemes. The decision about the limiting of the number of the lexemes under analysisand semantic is arbitrary field, but and the is determination not fully satisfactory of a certain even number to the authorof Proto-Slavic herself. Among the Proto-Slavic words which were chosen there are those which are characterized by very considerable semantic constancy, and for this reason their *vělikъ, *vysokъ, *silьnъ, *mogtьnъ, *slabъ, *dobrъ, *mǫdrъ, *glupъ, *moldъ, *veselъ. appeal for the compilation of semasiological dictionary is limited (e.g. impossible to give them up. ) However, these words belong to the basic semantic stock, therefore it was

3. The Structure of the Entries and the Arrangement of the Material Within the Entry

The basis of parts A and B of each chapter are headword articles which are centerd around Proto-Slavic words. Because the whole work revolves around motivated one, the continuants of one Proto-Slavic word appear in various the fluidity of meanings, around the transition of motivating meanings into

13 I developed this theme in a separate article [Jakubowicz 2004]. Cf. the four methods of completing the lexical and semantic field which were distinguished by Władysław Miodunka: “1) drogą analizy indywidualnych skojarzeń znaczeniowych badacza opartych albo na doświadczeniu- pozajęzykowym, albo na związkach semantycznych utrwalonych między wyrazami utrwalonymi w pamięci jednostki, 2) drogą badania skojarzeń znaczeniowych u grupy ludzi, 3) w wyniku analizy tekstów (pisanych lub mówionych) i wydzielania z nich jednostek leksykalnych odpowiadających przyjętym kryteriom, 4) przez odwołanie się do istniejących słowników, z których wybiera się wy razy odpowiadające kryteriom przynależności do analizowanego pola” [Miodunka 1989: 142]. (“1) by way of analyzing individual semantic associations of the researcher that are based either on extralinguistic experiences or on fixed semantic relationships between the words registered in the individual’s memory, 2) by way of establishing the semantic associations in a group of people, 3) by analyzing (written or spoken) texts and excerpting from them the lexical units which meet the set criteria, 4) by referring to existing dictionaries, choosing from them the words which meet the criteria of belonging to the analyzed field.”) 92 The Development of Words Across Centuries

chapters, each time when they represent the meaning which is discussed in a given chapter. Therefore, the same Proto-Slavic lexeme may be the focus of a number of headword articles, depending on how many meanings which I am

Due to the organization of this work each Proto-Slavic word has been linked withinterested a meaning in this which lexeme is basic(as a reconstructed form) and its continuants have.-

to it (this meaning is printed in bold in the in hisdex way of Proto-Slavic around the words).structure The of thepurpose work, of and this the is authorto achieve will aavoid more multiple or less repetitionsconsistent arrangement of the same information. of the material, The accordingwhich will of enable a basic the meaning reader toto each find word is purely conventional. I embraced a principle that this meaning is the meaning which is reconstructed on the basis of continuants, if this mean- - planation of the Proto-Slavic *bol’ьjь amonging is contained the meanings in the that lexical are reconstructedmacrofield under on the analysis. basis of For continuants example, the of this ex is located in the article GOOD, because-

entry there is the meaning ‘good’ and not (in accordance with the etymolog ofical the meaning) basic meaning in the article to the STRONG.word was If determined the meaning by that the earliestis reconstructed or the most on the basis of continuants does not belong to the macrofield, than the ascription on the basis of continuants of a given Proto-Slavic word there are two mean- frequent of innovative meanings. If among the words that are reconstructed as the basic one. The decisive factors in this process include structural and etymologicalings which belong meanings. to a macrofield, On the basis the of earlier the basic of these meaning meanings a given is Proto-Slavic recognized - ed around a Proto-Slavic word, according to the principles set out below. word was ascribed to one of the thirty two lexical fields. An entry is construct after the presentation of all headword articles which belong to them, there is In the concluding remarks located at the end of subsequent subchapters, i.e., models which demonstrate the lines of development of lexemes which are dis- cusseda part entitled in a given “Recapitulation subchapter. ofThese the Semantic models are Changes.” a basis In for the the latter construction part, I place of the onomasiological dictionary located at the end of the work. The models con-

particular lexemes. The choice of motivating meanings was determined on the basissist of of subsequent an analysis meanings of the development – links in the of a chain given of lexeme, semantic having transformations considered the of

the linguistic family. When I present two or even more lines of development of oneactual lexeme, situation it is ina result a specific of the language inability in to the establish context how of the this closest development members pro of-

between the variants in the line of development. The presentation of the lines ofceeded development in a given of case. each I emphasizeof the Proto-Slavic this point lexemes with the in conjunction a given subchapter “or,” placed is followed by a brief recapitulation of the direct motivations of the concept which

parallelism, indirect motivations are also accounted for. is discussed in the subchapter. Here and there, in the cases of motivational 93

The Research Material and the Means of Its Analysis The particular chapters include headword articles built around the reconstructed Proto-Slavic lexemes. The form of the latter lexemes is reconstructed according to the principles embraced in the Słownik prasłowiański, that is that they may differ in their particulars from the reconstructions used for exam- entries occur in two different forms. I embraced the following principles in theple bynotation the Moscow of these school forms: – inthe the ones case that of alternantare found forms, in the resultingESSJ. Some from of the *grǫbъ : *grubъ; *šadъ : *šědivъ alternation *divъof the; *dikъroot (; *dręchlъ : *dręselъ, *peknъ, *pekrъ), I used the notation- with the sign of alternation: “:”; the forms with various suffixes are separated- by a colon ( ), whereas*čitъ/ *čitavъthe nu, merous*dǫgъ/*d casesǫžь, *durъof accretion/*durьnъ. of the productive suffix upon an earlier suffix, usu allyemphasize with fewer the variousattestations, origins were of thesignaled different with forms the sign of the “/” continuants(e.g. of the Proto-Slavic lexeme. The complete) The purposeset of forms of this is provided variation at in the notation headword is to article which is basic for a given lexeme. In the remaining articles only that form is provided which refers to the meaning which is discussed there.

A headword article may consist of four parts, of which three: “Etymological- damentalmeaning,” meanings,“Structural crucial meaning” for the (only reconstruction for adjectives of derived Proto-Slavic in Proto-Slavic) semantics. Thisand “The reconstruction meaning based is described on continuants” at the headword present a reconstructionarticle which is of basic the fun for - to-Slavic entry, present only the results of reconstruction, with a reference to thea given chapter lexeme. and pageHowever, number other where articles it is discussed.which are The based fourth on thepart same of a head Pro- word article, whose purpose is to present innovative meanings, is separately provided for each headword article because it refers to the semantics of continuants instead of the reconstructed Proto-Slavic word. Due to the semantic

- field that was defined I was above all interested in the innovative meanings furtherwhich refer semantic to people. development Not all headwordin the direction articles that have I am a interestedpart entitled in. “Inno vativeEach meanings” entry opens because with the not etymological every meaning meaning, of a given followed lexeme by is a subjectshort jus to- etymological meaning refers to the entry word or to its derivational basis. Also,tification in the of latterits reconstruction, case the word based is given on innon-Slavic the adjectival, etymological participial data. or Thede- scriptive form. If the etymology of a word is underresearched, the meaning is referred to as “obscure.” If the etymological research suggests various meaningssolutions, resulting the meaning from is the described etymology as that “uncertain.” is considered. The word The latter “uncertain” mean- I place (with question marks in parentheses) reconstructed etymological- theings particular are included chapters. (with question marks which signal their hypothetical na ture) in the “Summary of Semantic Changes” sections, located at the end of The Development of Words Across Centuries

94 The meaning which in this work is referred to as the structural meaning has to do with adjectives, which are derived from Proto-Slavic stems and this meaning is not inherited from the Proto-Indo-European. The part which 14

ajustifies given lexeme the reconstruction arose already of in meaning the Proto-Indo-European describes the means period, of derivation or it was formedof these in adjectives. the Proto-Slavic However, period sometimes with the it isassistance impossible of apophonicto decide whether mechanisms which continued to operate. The determining criterion is associated - a priori withthe emergence the equivalents of a lexeme from otherto the Indo-European Proto-Indo-European languages, period. however it is im possibleThe body to define of evidence for in the which meaning case based their ontestimony continuants is sufficient is placed to under shift this meaning in its entirety only if a great variety of the meanings of continuants obliges me to present the basis for reconstruction in a comprehensive

de facto - manner. In practice, the basis of the reconstruction of the “meaning based on continuants” is frequently constituted by “innovative meanings,” dis cussed in the subsequent part. At that point I provide only the reconstruction eachof meaning linguistic with group a justification, if possible. Thewithout selection quoting of examples the same largely material depends twice. on If the formmaterial of the basis continuants. of the meaning In the iscase consistent, when this I only form quote considerably examples diverges – from in relation to the Proto-Slavic form I try to provide especially the forms which are most remote from the etymon.

of innovative meanings, i.e., those which arose already in the period of the independentThe final paragraph development of a of headword the particular article languages. is devoted The to collection the presentation of these meanings is as if a side effect of the work upon the reconstruction of meaning based on continuants. As I have already mentioned in the part which describes the means of reconstructing the meaning based on continuants, the

Proto-Slavic language from those which already arose in the independent basic difficulty lies in the distinguishing of meanings which existed in the of these meanings is even impossible. Thus, the inability to establish the se- development of the particular languages. Very frequently a clear distinction precludes the establishment of meanings which are present in the continu- quence of the semantic development for the meanings of a Proto-Slavic word-

particularants as the languages innovative is meanings. beyond all In doubt, such casesor those I included meanings in thewhose section innovative “Inno vative meanings” only those*chudъ meanings whose emergence in the context of the

nature (e.g., in the case of ) is justified by me in the headword article.

In this case the etymological meaning referred to the derivational basis. 14 6

CONCEPTUAL GROUPS

1A.1A.1. GOOD *dobrъ Etymological meaning Etymological dictionaries explain the Proto-Slavic *dobrъ either as an adjective formed in the Proto-Slavic context from‘appropriate; the root *dob- well-adjusted’ -rъ -rъ dhabh-ro- et alia, e.g. Snoj2 with the suffix [see SP 3: 316 about theProto-Slavic productivity *dobrъ of the should suffix be considered] or as a continuant in relation of with the PIEother nominal lexemes form based * on the [ESSJ 5: 46; SP 3: 310–316 dob-, continuing: 115;the PIE Boryś: **dh ab115].h- The etymology of the dob’ь same root – the Proto-Slavic * ‘to adjust,’ ‘appropriate, suitable’The meaning [SP 3: 285; based Sławski on continuants 1: 151]. [See * , STRONG, 6A.9, p. 167] the psychological.1 ‘good’ Inthat all the Slavic normative languages meaning the meaning precedes ‘good’ the psychologicaloccurs in both one variants chronologically. – the normative and The etymological meaning ‘well-adjusted, appropriate’ indicates Innovative meanings

The meanings which are provided by dictionaries are hyponyms of the meaning ‘good,’ either the normative one (‘decent, diligent, able’) or the psychological one (‘nice, kind, noble’). The innovation, which appears already in the Old Church Slavonic texts and which is common in various Slavic languages, especially in dialects and in the colloquial style of the general language, there is the meaning ‘big’ (usually referring to a portion of something).

This distinction is drawn from Grzegorczykowa [2003]. 96 The Development of Words Across Centuries

1A.2. *lěpъ

Etymological meaning The adjective *lěpъ continues the PIE *lop-o-; the nominal form to lep- ‘glued together’ > ‘appropriate, well-adjusted’ lьpěti, *lьpnǫti ‘to make, to form- [lepić]’ [Sławski 4: 168–169;lìpti limpù Boryś: 285]. It2 is associated with the Proto-Slavic * ‘to stick to sth, to cling; to be sticky,’ whose closest formal and semantic equiv alentMeanings is the Lithuanian based on continuants ‘to cling.’

in the early stages of the development of ‘appropriate,’ Slavic languages ‘good,’ or in their ‘pretty’ dialects. The contin- uantsToday ofthe the meaning comparative ‘good’ degreeof the positiveof the Proto-Slavic degree is rare, *lěp’ь although and *lěp’ьši its traces are moreare visible com-

especiallymon in this marked meaning, in theespecially Czech inand North Slovak Slavic languages, languages, in which where apart they formfrom suppletivethe adjec- tivesforms in for the the basic positive degree: degree lepý of adjectives with the meaning ‘good.’ This suppletion is comparativa: lepší - cally incongruent with the basis. ‘pretty, charming; graceful, shapely’ there are formal with the meaning ‘better, more appropriate,’ ones that are semanti Innovative meanings As a result of emphasis being put on the various aspects of the normative meaning of

‘good’ new meanings arose, ones that are peculiar to the development of the concept of ‘good,’ e.g., ‘distinguished, well-known’ in the South Slavic languages. A Lower Sorbian innovation is the meaning ‘cunning, skillful.’ 1A.3. *godьnъ

Etymological meaning The Proto-Slavic *goditi is based on the PIE root *ghedh-/*ghodh- ‘closely adjusted; connected’ ‘to bind, to adjust,’ ‘to beStructural closely bound’ meaning [Pokorny: 423; SP 8: 20]. The Proto-Slavic *godьnъ - -ьnъ‘aimed from at *goditi sth, targeted at sth; hit’ ‘appropriate,' Southern ‘mature to (do) sth’ [SP 8: 21] is a de rivative with the suffix ‘to expect an occasion; to aim, to target, to hit,’ ‘toThe be meaning appropriate, based good, convenient,on continuants favorable’ [SP 8: 13–14, 22; ESSJ 6: 190].

‘appropriate, adequate’ > ‘capable, able to do sth’ The meaning which is reconstructed on the basis of continuants is ‘appropriate, suitable for sth,’ hence ‘fit, capable.’ The new dominating seme is the metaphorically conceivedgóden, appropriate situation i.e. the fulfilment of the expected requirements. The most distinct trace of the structural meaning is the temporal meaning ‘early’ of the Slovene the narrowing down of the meaning ‘appropriate, well-timed, as regards time.’ 2 of *lьpnǫti, before the Old Polish stage lnąć The semantic relationship is better visible in the Polish ‘to cling [lgnąć],’ which is a continuant [Sławski 4: 211]. Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings 97 comme il faut ones that arose through the narrowing down of the content, especially in the Czech The meaning ‘ 3 ; appropriate’ is the point of departure for new meanings, language, namely ‘good’ and ‘polite, kind,’góden colloquially, Croatian also and ‘big,’ Serbian as well gȍdan as ‘beautiful,’ ‘rich,’ ‘pregnant (female)’ in dialects. Regardlesscomme of il fautthese meanings there is also the meaning ‘mature to do sth.’ (Slovenegȍdan hodný). Further meanings, which narrow down the sense ‘ ,’ refer to impersonal objects, e.g., ‘fertile’ (Serbian and Croatian ), ‘valuable’ (Czech and Slovak ). Cf. also PLEASANT 2A.9, p. 119, PRETTY, 3A.6, p. 129. rǫdъ/*rǫdьnъ

1A.4.Etymological * meaning The adjective rǫdъ rǫdьnъ is related to *rędьnъ ‘arranged in a row, in a series’ in other Indo-European and the languages suffixed we must recognize the Proto-Slavic [see 1A.5, *rǫ p.dъ 98], as a with for- themation apophony which ofwas the created root vowel, in the peculiar Proto-Slavic to nominal period. forms. Due to the lack of equivalents The meanings based on continuants

‘correct, appropriate’ The adjective has few attestations, but its structure and geographical distribution (presence in dialects which are remote to one another) indicates its Proto-Slavic origin [cf. Boryś 1981a: 8 (reprinted 2007: 615)]. For the Proto-Slavic period we may reconstruct the general meaning ‘correct, appropriate’ – one that is semantically close to the normative meaningInnovative of ‘good’ meanings – based on the etymological meaning of ‘arranged in a series.’ Innovative meanings are a result of the formation of new semantic centers for the rądni rądi - particular continuants. In Cashubian ( róden ‘eager, hard-working, nimble,’ ‘nim ble, lively, healthy, merry, hot-blooded, spry’) new meanings concentrate around the meanings ‘nimble, Ródivigorous’. In Slovenerud ( ‘prudent, attentive; caring’; ‘shapely; nimble’) one can discern two independent semantic dominants – ‘decent/strong’ and- ‘nimble, vigorous.’ ‘dense’ and ‘compact, hard’ (both examples drawn from Kajkavian dialects of Croatian [SEK 4: 174]) do not refer to people. In the Church Sla vonic language, apart from the closely etymologically related meanings of ‘bound, joint;comme appropriate’ il faut there is the mysterious meaning of ‘low/short,’ [see LOW/SHORT, similar4B.5, p. semantics. 147]. It seems that the basis of the innovative meanings is the hypernym ‘ ,’ which4 may be inferred from the development of other adjectives with

3 In the Czech language the continuant of the Proto-Slavic *godьnъ: hodný replaced to a considerable extent the Czech dobrý godьnъ in other languages. , consequently its frequency considerably increased as compared with4 the frequency of the continuants of * A different concept of the initial meaning is suggested by Wiesław Boryś, *rwhoǫdъ recognises ‘sb or sth who skillfully puts sth into order, introducing order; one who manages sth’ > ‘nimble, adroit, shapely,’ therefore on the basis of the active structural meaning of the Proto-Slavic [SEK 4: 174]. 98 The Development of Words Across Centuries

1A.5. *rędьnъ

Etymological meaning The Proto-Slavic *rędъ rínda ‘arrangedriñda in a row, in a series’ from the PIE *rd-o- has very closely related equivalents in Baltic: the Lithuanian *rend- ‘row, sequence/series,’ Latvian ‘sequence; number’ are probably derivedrēdh- ‘arrangement, order,’ forms with the reduced grade of the root ‘to put in order’ [Boryś: 531], which may be a nasalized variant of the PIE [however,Structural cf. meaningPokorny: 60]. The Proto-Slavic *rędьnъ ьnъ from *rędъ ‘arranged in a row, in a series’ The meanings based onis a continuants derivative with the suffix - ‘row.’ The continuants of the Proto-Slavic *rędьnъ - ‘correct,’ ‘decent’ indicate the meaning ‘decent’ which is a concretization of the evaluative meaning ‘correct,’ also ‘good’ in Lower Sorbian. They are based on the structural meaning of ‘arranged in a row, in a series,’ thus ‘correctly, care Innovativefully arranged.’ meanings

rzędny, rządny rědny, Upper Sorbian rjany onThe the meanings positive which evaluation arose of in order. a part As of a the result West of Slavicconcretization languages there – ‘pretty, arose beautiful’ from the (cf. the dial. Polish , Lower Sorbian rědny ) are based- tion of an evaluative nature which arose in the West Slavic languages is the semantic meaning ‘correct’ the meanings ‘good, decent’ (Lower Sorbian ). Another innova-

change ‘correct’ > ‘big.’ This suggests that a bigger size is better (perhaps more appro priate or more desired) than the smaller one. 1A.6. *bol’ьjъ

Etymological meaning As far as the etymology is concerned, *bol’ьjъ is compared with the Old Indic bálīyas- βελτίων, βέλτερος ‘strong’ de-bilis

the‘stronger,’ basis of Gr. such a comparison one ‘better, may thinkbraver’ that and also the the Lat. meanings ‘powerless,of the Proto-Slavic weak,’ *althoughbol’ьjъ, similarlythis hypothesis as *golěmъ is not recognized by everyone [cf. Helimskij 2000: 328]. On

, should be derived from ‘strong,’ hence one may infer thatThe the meanings meaning based‘bigger’ onis earlier continuants than ‘better.’ The Proto-Slavic *bol’ьjь, in a form which is extended by -š-, *bol’ь ši, is the suppletive comparative degree of the adjectives *velikъ‘big,’ ‘good’ dobrъ 5 The meanings - ic bol’ii, bol’ši, bol’e ‘big’ and * большии ‘good’. болии‘bigger’, больши and ‘better,’ ones that used to exist next to each other (the Old Church Slavon ‘maior; melior’ and the Old Russian ‘idem’ apart from ‘maior’), today have a different distribution in the Slavic languages in 5 According to ESSJ 2: 193, *bol’ьjь

was originally the comparative degree of ‘big,’ secondarily to ‘good.’ Conceptual Groups 99 which the Proto-Slavic lexeme is continued. ‘Bigger’ in Ukrainian and Belarusian, and ‘better’ in Slovene, Croatian and Serbian.6

1A.7. Western and Eastern *ladьnъ

Etymological meaning – obscure [see PRETTY, 3A.3, p. 127] Structural meaning ‘arranged in a row, well-ordered’ (ut supra) The adjective *ladьnъ may have a double formal motivation because it may be a derivative both of the noun *ladъ as well as of the verb *laditi. However, it is only in single - tives (see: Innovative meanings). instances that we may define this motivation on the basis of the semantics of adjec The meanings based on continuants ‘well-ordered’ > ‘pretty,’ ‘good’ (Eastern), ‘strapping, shapely’ The majority of the continuants of *ladьnъ indicate the structural meaning of ‘well-arranged/put together, well-ordered,’ which refers primarily to inanimate objects. Hence arose the meanings of aesthetic evaluation ‘pretty’ and – these are attested in the East Slavic group – of the general evaluation of ‘good.’ Innovative meanings In the particular languages the meaning ‘strapping, shapely’ passed into ‘big’ (the dial. Polish ładny, dial. Russian лáдны, dial. Belarusian лáдны), which underwent further transformation into ‘adult’ (in Polish dialects and in Ukrainian7). ‘Well-ordered’ is the basis of the meaning ‘decent’ (dial. Czech ladný, Russian лáдный, also Ukrainian and Belarusian), and its dominant is the result of a correct arrangement – order. The rounds of the narrowing down of the meaning ‘good’ yielded further meanings, ones which no longer involved the etymological ‘order’ in their seme content, namely: ‘healthy’ (dial. Russian лáдный), as well as ‘fresh,’ ‘tasty’ (dial. Ukrainian лáдний) and ‘satiated [syty]’ (dial. Belarusian лáдны). The Russian and Ukrainian ‘concordant’ are independent derivatives from the East Slavic лáдить/лáдити/лáдзіць < *laditi

‘identical’ or ‘similar,’ although dictionaries fail ‘toto register live in harmony’the verbal [see basis Sławski with the 4: expected423–424]. meaning. A similar development may be presumed for the Old Russian meanings of

6 The distribution of adverbial meanings which continue the Proto-Slavic *bol’e [see SP 1: 316] is different. Also in some languages the general evaluative meaning disappeared, whereas in other languages the meaning which refers to size, and the adjectival meaning not always corresponds with the meaning of the adverb, (cf. Slovene bȏlji ‘better’ : bòlj ‘more; to a greater degree’). 7 scholar claims that the etymological meaning of the Proto-Slavic *laditi is ‘to nourish; to cause growth,’ Jasna therefore Vlajić-Popović the meanings [2000; ‘big, see grown’PRETTY, of 3A.3, the Proto-Slavic p. 127] offers *ladьnъ a different would explanation. be relics which The preserved the former meaning of the verbal basis. 100 The Development of Words Across Centuries

1A.8. *krasьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning – obscure [see PRETTY,ut supra 3A.1, p. 126] The meaning based ‘motley,on continuants colorful’ ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘beautiful,’ Northern ‘red’ ( )

and Slovak krasný krasne The meaning ‘good’ developed next to the basic meaning of ‘pretty, beautiful’ in Czech may speak here about, cf. alsodevelopmental the Old Polish tendencies “ ofwino” the same‘good, concept excellent instead wine.’ of Such the meaningsmodifications of particular occur regularly lexemes. enough Without (especially doubt we in are colloquial dealing withvocabulary), the emphasis that we of connotational features. The range of usage of the particular lexemes in new meanings depends on the linguistic habits of the users of a given language.

1A.9. *bolgъ

Etymological meaning

– obscure ‘glittering, shining’ (?) [see PLEASANT, 2A.2,The meanings p. 116] based on continuants - ut supra ‘kind, pleasant, amiable,’ ‘happy, favor able’Innovative ( meanings)

The special development of the meaning ‘good’ is discernible in South Slavic languages. theThe continuants latter languages of *bolgъ saw: dial.the profiling Serbian блofȃ theг meaning ‘prosperous,’ which developed in theблȃ гоmaterial direction into ‘affluent,’ which is clearly visibleблаг in the specialized meaningsблаг of благо (‘festive,’ ‘fertile (of land)’ and the substantive by the ‘treasure;adjectives money, of participial wealth; origin cattle,’ from dial. * blažitiBulgarian < *bolžiti ‘sweet; tasty,’ Macedonian - an‘sweet’ блȃжан and the substantive ‘sweets,’ ‘wealth.’ Similar semantic featuresблàжен are realized ‘to make sb. happy’: dial. Serbi ‘meat (adj.), not related to the period of fasting,’ Bulgarian ‘fat.’ 1A.10. *chytrъ

Etymological meaning -

– obscure ‘one who appropriates something to him self’Structural (?) [see meaning QUICK, 9A.3, p. 198] ut supra The meanings based ‘oneon continuants who catches/takes hold of/grabs sth’ ( ) ut supra ‘dexterous, quick,’ ‘cunning; ready-witted’ (Innovative) meanings

In Sorbian languages, apart from the Upper Sorbian ‘fast’ and the word for ‘cunning’ (which earlier existed in both languages), there are innovative meanings of the continuants 101

Conceptual Groups

Sorbian chytšy chětrywhich depart from the words which are known from other Slavic languages: Lower ‘good,’ ‘big,’ ‘pretty; agreeable,’ ‘decent,’ ‘honest’ and the Upper Sorbian ‘of considerable size, big, about a piece of sth,’ ‘important,’ ‘good, delicate.’ The meanings ‘pretty; agreeable,’ ‘decent,’ ‘honest’ may be the specializations of the meaning ‘good,’ although until we establish which of the evaluative meanings arose first, we must- velopmentalso admit theof, e.g.,possibility Czech hodnýof generalization, dial. Polish of dobry one of those meanings. The meaning ‘big’ basis.referring Today to a Sorbian portion languages of something, preserve is regularly only positively based on marked the meaning meanings, ‘good’ whereas (cf. the thede ), where the evaluative facture is its have been associated with a glaring semantic incongruity with innovative meanings.8 negatively marked meaning ‘cunning’ which preceded them was replaced. This could

1A.11. *dělьnъ

Structural meaning -

‘associated with work, with the result of work’ [see DIL IGENT,The meanings 15A.6, p. based254] on continuants - ut supra Western ‘hard-working,’ Eastern ‘re sourceful’Innovative ( meanings)

In the Russian language on the basis of the semantics ‘associated with work, with thework that has been done’ there developed above all meanings referring to man – ‘able,- fit to work’ but today there are also meanings referring to things – ‘suitable to be pro дéльныйcessed, suitable for production.’ Supposedly on the basis of this latter meaning in di alects there developed the generalized meaning ‘of good quality,’ ‘good’ (dial. Russian ), and also secondarily ‘beautiful, strapping.’ 1A.12. *gdъ Etymological meaning

The meaning based on –continuants obscure [see PROUD,ut 14A.1, supra p. 244] Innovative meanings ‘proud’ ( ) -

The innovative meaning ‘good’ appeared in the Czech language. Its co-existence be semanticside ‘magnificent; shift consists beautiful’ in the suggestsdecreasing that of thisthe intensitymeaning ofof the ‘magnificent,’ previous meaning. common in the modern East Slavic languages, is the direct motivation of the meaning ‘good.’ The

8 Sorbian languages. Heinz Schuster-Šewc [377–378] does not comment upon the semantic development in the 102 The Development of Words Across Centuries

1A.13. Western and Southern *drěčьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘extended lengthwise’ [see HIGH/TALL,ut supra 4A.2, p. 142] The meaning based ‘suchon continuants as a pillar, as a tree trunk’ut ( supra ) Innovative meanings ‘well-grown’ ( )

The meaning which arose in the Croatian dialects – ‘decent, good; of merit’ is supposedly a result of the generalization of ‘strong; fit for combat’ > ‘good, of merit, in general.’ čilъ

1A.14.Etymological * meaning Structural meaning ‘refreshed’ [see HEALTHY, 7A.4,ut suprap. 184] The meaning based ‘oneon continuants who is resting,’ ‘refreshed’ ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘refreshed’ > ‘lively,’ ‘vigorous’ ( )

чúлий The hyponyms of the meaning ‘good’: ‘immaculate, spotless,’ which in the Ukrainian Metaphorical accompany meanings the meanings supposedly ‘healthy, arose strong,’ on the indicatebasis of thethe arisingpositive of evaluation the meaning of ‘good’ through metaphor, the meaning which was secondarily subject to specialization.

physical fitness. 1A.15. *strogъ

Etymological meaning

‘diligent’ > ‘one who is on guard’ [see STERN, 12A.2, p.The 226] meaning based on continuants ut supra Innovative meanings ‘severe, stern’ ( ) strogi should be supposedly derived

The unexpected meaning ‘good’ of the Kashubian from the meanings ‘great, strong’ [see STRONG, 6A.18, p. 170]. 103

Conceptual Groups

Recapitulation1A.1. *dobrъ of Semantic Changes ← ← 1A.2. *lěpъ GOOD PSlav APPROPRIATE etym. WELL-ADJUSTED etym. ← ← ← -

GOOD PSlav APPROPRIATE PSlav RIGIDLY ADJUSTED etym. GLUED TO 1A.3. *godьnъ GETHER etym. ← ← rǫdьnъ GOOD Cz. APPROPRIATE PSlav WELL-AIMED struct. ← 1A.4. * 1A.5. *rędьnъ CORRECT PSlav ARRANGED IN A ROW struct. ← ← 1A.6. *bol’ьjь GOOD LSorb DECENT Western, Slovene, Bulg. ARRANGED IN A ROW struct. ← ← ladьnъ GOOD PSlav BIG PSlav STRONG etym. ← ← 1A.7. * 1A.8. *krasьnъ GOOD Eastern WELL-ARRANGED early Pol., USorb, Eastern ARRANGED struct. ← 1A.9. *bolgъ GOOD Cz., Slovak PRETTY/BEAUTIFUL PSlav ← ← 1A.10. *chytrъ GOOD PSlav *PLEASING TO THE EYE SHINING (?) etym. ← ← QUICK PSlav ← 1A.11. *dělьnъ GOOD LSorb, USorb ABLE PSlav CATCHING STH struct. ← ← ← ASSOCIATED

GOOD dial. Russian ABLE Russian HARD-WORKING Russian 1A.12. *gdъ WITH WORK PSlav Cz. ← ←

GOOD MAGNIFICENT/BEAUTIFUL Northern, Old Church Slavonic PROUD 1A.13. *drěčьnъ Northern, Old Church Slavonic ← ← Southern ← GOOD dial. Croatian STRONG Slovak, Slovene, Croatian WELL-GROWN Western, čilъ SUCH AS A TREE TRUNK struct. 1A.14. * ← ← ← or1A.14.1. *GOOD Ukr. STRONG Ukr. LIVELY/FRESH PSlav WELL-RESTED struct. ← ← ← 1A.14.2. 1A.15. *strogъ *GOOD Ukr. HEALTHY Ukr. LIVELY/FRESH PSlav WELL-RESTED struct. ← ← ← ←

GOOD Kash. STRONG Kash. SEVERE PSlav ONE WHO IS ON GUARD etym. DILIGENT etym. The Development of Words Across Centuries

104 do- brъAmong, *lěpъ ,the *godьnъ motivations of the concept of ‘good’r thereǫdьnъ are, *rędьnъ meanings, *ladьnъ which refer to an arrangement which expresses itself either through fitting in (* ) or through chytrъa linear, * orderdělьnъ (* drěčьnъ, *čilъ)., Further*strogъ motivationsčilъ are based on otherbol’ьjь positive evaluations of physical features, namely: skillfulness (* krasьnъ, *g),dъ strength (* - ) or health (* ), greatness (* ). Visualbolgъ features are the source- of still further motivations: beauty (* – the latter may be mo istivated no surprise by the evaluatingthat the motivations ‘excellent’) are and based shine on (* features – the which indirect in a motigiven nominationvation is uncertain). express good. And becauseIt is also ‘good’for this is reason a concept that theof evaluating study of motivation nature, it sheds life on the hierarchy of values among the Slavs as the whole community.

1B. BAD

1B.1. *zъlъ Etymological meaning h h h The PSlav *zъlъ is derived from the PIE *ǵ ulo-s/*ǵ ūlo-s ǵ ūe-lo-s ‘obliquus/crooked/pravus’ > ‘bad’ atžūlùs į-žūlùs (*zūrah- in Pokorny: 489)2 ‘oblique.’ The closest equivalents feature a difference in vocalism:ǵhel- Lith. ‘sharp, rough; merciless,’fallere Lith. ‘insolent; shameless,’žvalús Avest. ‘injustice’ [Vasmerhváras- 2: 99; Boryś: 742]. The nominal form is based on the PIE * ‘to bend’[Pokorny: 489–490], cf. Lat. ‘to tell lies’; Lith. ‘lithe, agile, vigorous,’ Old Indic ‘curvature.’ The meaning of Baltic and Avestan equivalents allows us to suppose that theThe meaning meaning ‘bad’ based arose onalready continuants before the Proto-Slavic period. The common meaning of the continuants of the PSlav *zъlъ ‘bad’ > ‘irate’ - is the evaluative ‘bad,’ thiswhich is indicatedmay provide by the evaluation reconstruction both as of regards the semantics the quality of the and PSlav the abstractum morality. The *zlostь sec ondary meaning ‘irate’ also arose in the Proto-Slavic period. Apart from its frequency

‘anger’Innovative < ‘the meaningslack of good.’ злой

An innovation of the Russian Olonets dialect is the extension of the meaning ‘evil, bad’ (of fate) to the experiences of the subject, from which arises a new meaning – ‘one- sivewhose meanings. fate is bad, A feature unhappy.’ which This attracts change attention is analogous in some to the languages phenomenon is the (frequent presence inof the development of deverbal adjectives) of the competition between active and pas

meanings which have a distinctly positive overtones [see PRETTY, 3A.11, p. 126; WISE, overtones16A.6, p. 262]. and Onethe emphasismay claim of that the the strength first stage and inintensity the evolution which ofare the associated meaning ‘bad’with thistowards concept. a positive direction was the deprivation of the meaning ‘irate’ of the negative 105

Conceptual Groups 1B.2. Southern and Eastern *lochъ/ *lošь Etymological meaning The etymology of the PSlav *lochъ, preserved in derivatives with accretions, especially -jь, in the form – uncertain *lošь, is uncertain. ‘weak; Accordingof inferior to quality’ Pokorny, (?), it belongs ‘oblique’ to the(?) PIE root *lē()-, extended with the formant -s- to *lēs : ləs- with the suffix lasiws leswe lasinn ‘weak, weary.’ This category also includes the Goth. ‘weak,’ Old English ‘weak, angry, irate,’ Old Norse ‘weak, spoilt’ [Pokorny: 680; Berneker: 734; Bezlaj 2: 151-152; Skok 2: 319–320].- ESSJ rejects this with an inexplicable commentary: “Это2 признается ненадежным, семантическим необоснованным”λοξός (“This is considered uncertain,losc semantically un justified”) [ESSJ 16: 93]. As a second possibility Vasmer : 526; BER 3: 481; Skok l.c. Thegive the meaning association based with on the continuants Gk. ‘oblique, slanting,’ Ir. ‘lame.’ The PSlav *lošь is preserved especially in the South Slavic languages with the mean- ‘bad, especially in the moral sense’ indicatedings ‘bad, byunfortunate, the derivatives unpleasant, based on‘heavy,’ the form ‘miserable.’ *lochъ. ApartThe latter from refer the continuants to people and in South Slavic languages and in the Russian dialects, the initial PSlav meaning ‘bad’ is

Innovativeexpress a negative meanings evaluation. [See: innovative meanings.] lochъ/lošь, which is better visible in nominal namelyThe extension dial. Sk. of loch the semantic field of * ľocha lócha lóchanderivatives, is constituted by the specializationsлох of the meaning ‘bad in a moral sense,’ ‘sluggard, scrounger; fool,’ ‘slut,’ ‘swindler’ m. and f., ‘vagabond, thief,’ dial. Russian ‘sluggard, halfwit.’ Cf. also WEAK, 6B.11, p. 178. 1B.3. *chudъ Etymological meaning Etymology obscure. Probably derived from the PIE *ksod-o-, compared with the root ksed- – uncertain ‘crushed; crumbled’ (?) kṣud-rá-

-ro-. Whereas ‘to crush, the to crumble’comparison [Pokorny: with the 625]. OInd Formally kṣódhuka- related to ksaudthe OIndh-uka- < **ksoud ‘small;h miserable; mean’ [ESSJ 8: 112–113] with a different vocalism and an additional formant- sonant in the PIE *ksedh-. Because this comparison is based (< merely* upon competitive) ‘hungry’ [Machek 1938–1939: 174] supposes the presence of an aspirated dental con skaudús withOInd aforms phonetic it is difficult metathesis to establish sk- < ks- the and actual a semantic form of theinnovation root. Usually which compared indicates with the the Lithuanian ‘burdensome; unpleasant; painful’ [e.g. Sławskikṣudrá- 1: . 88–89], A com- previous meaning ‘bad,’ congruent with the development of the OInd prehensiveThe meanings appraisal based of all on of thecontinuants concepts is conducted by Jiří Rejzek [2008: 73-74].

On the basis of continuants one may reconstruct ‘small, a minute,’number of ‘miserable, different meanings. bad,’ ‘weak,’ The ‘thin,’ ‘poor’ initial one, considering the etymological meaning. On the basis of the appraisal of the generaletymology tendencies of the word of the is uncertain, semantic thereforedevelopment it is difficultone may to assume opt for thatone ofthe them meanings as the 106 The Development of Words Across Centuries

referring to physical features are preceded by meanings referring to the material situation. The selection of the initial meaning among the physical meanings is less relevant

because – as one may infer from the research of the names of physical features – they imply themselves. Whereas the meanings ‘thin’ and ‘poor’ are linked by a cause-and-effect relationship,Innovative andmeanings ‘thin’ and ‘bad’ are linked by an evaluative relationship.

Innovations are, in my opinion, meanings which arose in the Slovene languagezèl, Cro –- atian‘strong; and vehement, Serbian zintensive;ȁo fast.’ The source of their emergence is most likely the PSlavmeaning *zъlъ ‘bad; irate’ which was formed in South Slavic languages (Slovene ), analogically to the pan-Slavic semantic development of the *chudъ , from ‘bad’ in the axiological sense to ‘bad; irate; irritated.’ Apart from the aforementioneda languagesdəc < *chudьcь the meaning. The geographical ‘bad, irate’ distribution is contained of in these, the continuants namely their of considerable in Russian territorial dialects. dispersion This meaning and peripheral may also beoccurrence, perceived could in the be Polabian an argument name ofin thefavour devil of –their initiality. This is also indicated to a certain degree by the etymological meaning. The latter, however, is too uncertain to consider it a decisive argument.

However, the aforementioned premises seem too weak to assume the initiality of the meaning ‘bad, irate’ before ‘bad, miserable, mean; shabby, thin, weak.’ *lichъ

1B.4.Etymological meaning The PSlav *lichъ < **lik-chъ is probably based on the PIE root *leik-so- λείπειν ‘the one who remains;-so- remaining’ loik-o- is continued by the PSlav *(otъ)-lěkъ liẽkas ‘to leave behind,’- cf. Greek. lìeks ‘to leave behind,’ with the suffix (the PIE nominal form * ‘remnant,’ cf. Lith. ‘odd (of numbers); exces Thesive,’ Latv.meanings ‘idem’ based [Pokorny: on continuants 669–670]).

‘excessive,’ ‘odd (of numbers)’ > ‘bad, miserable’ лихыи The basic Proto-Slavic meaning could have been ‘odd (of numbers)’ but its absence in the East Slavic languages may also indicate the development of the Old Russian - ‘excessive’ directly from the etymological meaning ‘remaining.’ The meanings ‘excessive’ and ‘odd (of numbers)’ could have arisen already before the branching off [wyodręb innienie the Proto-Slavicsię] of the Proto-Slavic language.9 language – this is testified by the Baltic equivalents. The diffusion of the meaning ‘bad’ may indicate its presence as a secondary meaning already Innovative meanings

OldThe Churchmajority Slavonic of the innovativelanguage, formeanings which areone derivedmay reconstruct from the initiala chain meaning of semantic ‘odd (of number)’ or ‘excessive’ or ‘missing’; e.g. the meaning ‘strange, alien [obcy]’ in the

9 -

The development of meaning from ‘odd (of number)’ to ‘bad’ is interesting from the per spective of cultural research. Was odd (of numbers) negatively evaluated because it involved excess or deficiency, or was it because it was associated with the activity of the unclean spirit? Conceptual Groups 107 lichi - changes: ‘strange’ < ‘excluded’ < ‘ill-fitting.’ The source of the latter may be both ‘odd (of numbers)’ as well as ‘excessive, redundant.’ It is likely that also the USorb ‘na theked, Ukrainian bald; free лихúй from something,’ derived from the earlier ‘deprivedlichý of sth,’ 10may be used in reference to man. A typical semantic development based on ‘bad’ is represented by ‘unhappy’ < ‘miserable’ and early Slovak ‘greedy’ – instances- of the narrowing down of the meaning ‘bad in a moral sense.’ Regardless of that, the East Slavic languages saw the emergence of ‘strong’ (probably on the basis of the mean ing ‘excessive’), which underwent further development. Cf. STRONG, 6A.19, p. 170, DARING, 13A.16, p. 239. 1B.5. plochъ

EtymologicalEastern meaning (?) * The etymology and the range of this word are uncertain because in Slavic languages there was a mixing of the continuants– uncertain of ‘flat’ two (?) separate PSlav adjectives *plochъ and *polchъ polchъ plochý flach - vided by (cf. Machek * 2 TIMID, 13B.1, p. 241), and in the caseplat- of the/plāt- Czech from continuant which the PSlav * oneploskъ also considers a German borrowing ‘flat’ (such is the explanation pro : 462). One must also admit the PIE stem * The meaning ‘flat’ based originated on continuants [Bezlaj 3: 60; Boryś: 443]. A certain continuant of the Pslav *plochъ плохóй плохый ‘bad’ plochý is considered by some etymologists as an old is variant the Russian of the PSlav *ploskъ ‘bad’ (in Old Russian ‘idem.’ Its exact formal equivalent may be the Czech and Slovak ‘flat,’ which ‘flat’ [see Rejzek: 477]. Trubačev, who assumes such a possibility, reconstructs the following development*plochъ of the meaning ‘flat’*ploskъ > ‘even’ > ‘open’ > ‘unprotected’plochý > ‘left unattended’ > ‘bad’: плохой Например, между реконструируемым праславянским словом и значением (вариант к ) ‘плоский’ (ср. чеш. ‘плоский’), с одной стороны, и рус. ‘нехороший, негативный, отрицательный, вызывающий осуждение’ – с другой стороны, вытягивается целая цепочка градусов, или шагов, изменяющегося значения: ‘плоский, ровный, открытый, незащищенный, плохо, без присмотра plochъ - лежащий, плохой’ [Trubačev 1980: 8 (reprinted 2004: 113–114)]. ant from *ploskъ plochý плохой (For example, between the reconstructed Proto-Slavic word and the meaning * (a vari ) ‘flat’ (cf. the Czech ‘flat’) on the one hand, and the Russian ‘bad, evil, negative, contemptible’ on the other hand – there extends an entire chain of Thedegrees Polish orpłochy steps of changing meaning: ‘flat, even, open, unprotected, left unattended, bad.’)- tinuant of the PSlav *polchъ ‘fearful, apprehensive,’ which formally fits into this category, is a con Innovative meanings ‘apprehensive.’ This is clearly indicated by semantics. Supposedly the Belarusian meaning плóхи Whereas the Ukrainian плохúй PSlav *plochъ, was formed on the basis of the ‘sickly’ semantics originates of the continuantsfrom the earlier of *polchъ ‘bad.’, unless it is a Polish borrowing. ‘tranquil; silent; mild,’ which formally continues the

10 The earlier attestation of the word lichý - rowing lichwa speaks against the influence of the German bor ‘usury.’ 108 The Development of Words Across Centuries

marьnъ

1B.6.Structural Northern meaning * Probably originates from the PSlav *mariti mьrěti/*mьriti ‘one that appearsmara in dreams, one who seems’ same family. ‘to dream,’ associated with * ‘to scintillate,’ ‘to seem,’ or from the Pslav ‘dream, illusion,’ which belongs to the The meaning based on continuants

‘fleeting’ > ‘worthless’ Continuants with varied meanings (cf. the innovative meanings below) enable us to reconstruct the meanings ‘worthless’ which are based on the negative evaluation of thatInnovative which is meaningsimaginary, unreal, fleeting. Innovative meanings expressing a negative evaluation, e.g. the Czech marný, Slovak márny, Ukrainian мáрний marny Polish marny мáрны мáрный ‘unimportant,’мáрний Old Polish ‘fleeting impermanent,’ dial. ‘poor’ and ‘ugly,’ Polish and Belarusian ‘bad,’ ‘small,’ ‘weak,’ 'meagre,'марнóй dial. Russian ‘tired,’ Ukrainian ‘thin,’ are manifestations of a narrowingмáрить/ downмарúть of the meaning ‘deprived of value.’ The meanings of the dial. Russian ‘stuffy, hot,’ ‘cloudy’ are independently motivated meanings of the dial. Russian ‘to be stuffy, sultry, about the air before a storm.’ chabъ/*chabьnъ

1B.7.Etymological * meaning skóbas : skobús – uncertain ‘sour, spoilt’ (?) Etymology uncertain; a likely relationship with the Lith. ‘sour.’ The Thesuggestions meanings that werebased put on forward continuants until now are presented by Rejzek [2008: 50–51]. The PSlav *chabъ is attested above all by the Czech and Slovak chabý and derivatives, e.g. the dial. Polish chabina ‘bad, miserable’ > ‘weak’chabeta - ‘miserable; weak’ ‘about a thin (old) man,’ ‘about a mis erable horse, animal.’ Their semantics also indicates the initial meaning ‘miserable, Innovativeshabby, crummy’ meanings > ‘weak.’ The secondary meanings of the continuants of *chabьnъ -ьnъ, chamny < chabny dial. Slovene háben хàбен , extended by the suffix arose as a result of the transfer of the semantic core, e.g. LSorb ‘poor,’ ‘sick,’ dial. Bulg. ‘blunt, about objects.’ The second series of new meanings arose through an extension of the meaning ‘bad, miserable’ to ‘bad in a moral sense’ and a narrowing down of the new semantic shade to ‘timid.’ 1B.8. Western *darьmьnъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *darъ is the continuant of the PIE *dō-ro- δῶρον ‘given’ -ro- from the PIE *dō- ‘gift’ (the exact equivalent of this is the Gk. ‘idem’), a derivative with the suffix ‘to give.’ 109

Conceptual Groups Structural meaning -ьnъ from the Proto-Slavic adverbial expressions *darьmъ, *darьmo ‘given; receiveddariti, *darъ as .a gift’ An adjective with the suffix The meaning ‘in vain,’ based derived on from continuants *

‘worthless’ The meaning ‘worthless’ is attested in all West languages as well as in Ukrainian and- victionBelarusian about (the the latter small ones value may of thefeature thing a borrowingthat is gained from without Polish, effort, which received may be testifiedas a gift. by the lack of attestations from Russian). The motivation is supposedly based on the con Innovative meanings theIn the Slovak particular daromný languages the meaningdaremný ‘received as a gift,’ hence ‘worthless,’ refers to people, designating people with low moral qualities and their specific features such as ‘lazy,’ Czech ‘wicked’ and ‘prankish.’ 1B.9. *rъd’avъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *rъd’a is a derivative of the unattested *rъdъ from the PIE *rudh-o- ἐρυτθρός ‘red’ roudh-o- the nominal form to redh- ‘red,’ cf. the Gk. ‘idem,’ manifesting a fading grade as regards the PIE * ‘red,’ Structural meaning ‘to become red.’ -avъ from the PSlav *rъd’a. ‘having the color of rust,’ ‘struck with rust’ AThe derivative meanings with based the suffix on continuants

‘having the color of rust,’ ‘struck with rust’ ThereInnovative are common meanings attestations of the meanings ‘rusty,’ ‘rust-eaten, rust-covered.’ In Serbian and Croatian the word ŕđav

‘rust-eaten’ received by extension the meaning ‘spoilt’ > ‘worthless,’ from which it was transferred to people in reference to their moral qualities. 1B.10. *bědьnъ

Etymological meaning The basis of the PSlav *běditi bhodh- - ativum of *bhedh- ‘forced to do sth’ πείθειν fidere ‘tobaidjan nag; to force to do sth’ is the PIE * – a caus basis. The semantic (unattested relationship in betweenProto-Slavic) the aforementioned– hence the Gk. verbs is ‘todiscussed persuade,’ by Lat. ‘to trust.’ The Gothic ‘to force’ is also derived fromběditi the from causative *běda

Benveniste [Benveniste 1969a: 117–118]. The attempt to separate * [Snoj:Structural 35] does meaning not seem convincing. A more precise analysis is presented in ERSJ 3: 36. The PSlav *bědьnъ -ьnъ běda, which in turn is a derivative of *běditi sę ‘poor’ *bhodh- is a derivative (with the suffix ) of * ‘to be forced, to be nagged,’ or directly a derivative of the PIE basis [cf. ESSJ 2: 54–57]. 110 The Development of Words Across Centuries

The meaning based on continuants

‘poor’ TheInnovative meaning meanings‘poor’ is attested in all Slavic languages.

of poverty. The common development ‘poor’ > ‘bad, miserable’ results from the low evaluation 1B.11. *durьnъ

Etymological meaning -

– unclear ‘blowing; associated with wind’ (?) [see VIO LENT,The meanings 10A.5, p. 207]based on continuants - ut supra ‘agitated, violent; impetuous,’ North ernInnovative ‘mad’ > ‘stupid’meanings ( )

дурнóй Themay meaningshave a varied ‘bad; motivation. bad in a moral The sense’ nature and of thefurther meanings negative referring meanings to things ‘incapable; indicates old, spoilt,’a low evaluation;‘unpleasant,’ therefore ‘ugly,’ ‘sick’ the of direct the Russian motivation may and be of contained the East Slavic in the equivalents meanings

‘stupid, mindless; simple.’ This also applies to the meaning ‘miserable,’ hence a further theymeaning lack –the ‘small’ aforementioned – which emerged transitional in Polish stages. dialects. Cf. alsoThe STUPID,meanings 16B.3, which p. refer 265. to man’s character are supposedly motivated by the meanings ‘impetuous’ or ‘mad,’ and therefore 1B.12. *gnusьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning – obscureut [see supra UGLY, 3B.1, p. 134] The meanings based ‘revolting’ on continuants ( ) - ‘one that inspires physical repug isnance’ likely >to ‘one be already that inspires Proto-Slavic. moral Its repugnance’ basis is the transfer> ‘bad in of the physical moral repugnance sense’ to theThe moral meaning sphere. ‘bad in a moral sense’ is secondary toward the physical meaning but it Innovative meanings гнусныи gnuśny and the structural гнусныи Innovative meanings: Old Russian ‘defiled,’ Polish ‘lazy’ result from the specialization of the meaning ‘bad in a moral sense.’ 1B.13. Eastern and Southern *gadьnъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘revolting, abhorrent’ (?) [see UGLY, 3B.2, p. 135] 111

Conceptual Groups Structural meaning ut supra

The meaning based –on ‘revolting’ continuants ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘disgusting, revolting’ ( ) gȁdan, consists in the extension of the range of content, combined with the attenuation of the intensityThe shift of meaning.meaning from ‘revolting’ to ‘bad,’ e.g. in Serbian and Croatian

*bolgъ

1B.14.Etymological meaning – uncertain ‘shining, glittering’ (?) [see PLEASANT, 2A.2,The meanings p. 116] based on continuants ut supra ‘good, kind, pleasant,’ ‘happy, auspicious’ (Innovative) meanings благóй благúй and the Belarusian благí In East Slavic languages the form which was adopted from Church Slavonic – (hence the Ukrainian ) developed pejorative meanings. separateHere it seems paths likely in the that remaining this development East Slavic languages.followed separate In Ukrainian paths and in RussianBelarusian where the the adjective assumed the meaning ‘stupid; mad’ [see STUPID, 16B.5, p. 265], and still 11 This feature assumed motivating feature became the secondary semantic feature “a small degree of intensity,”- present in the meaning ‘mild’ which is still present in Ukrainian.12 The further development the dominant position, becoming the basis of a new meaning ‘weak, not much inten sive’specializations. and the supposedly The Polish secondary błahy ‘bad, miserable, shabby.’ - of meaning from ‘bad, miserable, shabby’ to ‘old,’ ‘poor’ is a result of multidirectional , with a narrowing down of meaning from ‘bad, miser able, shabby’ to ‘unimportant,’ was borrowed from Ukrainian or Belarusian. 1B.15. *bridъkъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning [see UGLY,ut supra 3B.5, p. 136] The meaning based ‘cutting’on continuants ( ) ut supra ‘sharp,’ ‘unpleasant’ ( ) 11

[Bilodid] treats these two groups of meanings as two meanings of a single lexemes, whereby the 12meanings ‘good, cordial, mild’ are furnished with the qualifier “obsolete,” and ‘weak; sickly’; ‘old; miserable; poor’ with the qualifier “colloquial.” Wiesław Boryś explains the development of the meaning ‘miserable, shabby, bad’ as the taboo replacement of the initial ‘good’ by the contrary ‘bad’ [Boryś: 31]. However, it seems to me that if there is a possibility of explaining a semantic change by the method of “minimal semantic historychanges,” of consistingvocabulary. in the changes of the semantic dominant, it is better to give up explaining them by the influence of taboo, although certainly such changes are also well-attested in the 112 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Innovative meanings brzydki from the - theticalThe innovative sphere tomeaning the moral ‘bad, sphere. immoral’ emerged in the dial. Polish earlier ‘revolting’ by the transfer of the negative evaluation of ugliness from the aes 1B.16. *polchъ

Etymological meaning

‘set in motion; one that sets in motion; animated’ [seeThe TIMID,meaning 13B.1, based p. 241]on continuants ut supra Innovative meanings ‘eager to run; eager to flee’ ( )

Polish, unless it is a continuant of the PSlav *plochъ, vide supra The meaning ‘bad, miserable, shabby,’ present in early Czech (perhaps also in early marьnъ, vide infra ), arose through the development of ‘unstable, fleeting’ > ‘impermanent’ > ‘unimportant; miserable, bad’ (cf. ). *grozьnъ

1B.17.Etymological meaning Structural meaning – obscure [see STERN, 12A.4, p. ut227] supra The meaning based on ‘horrendous; continuants terrible/dangerous’ ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘terrible/dangerous, terrifying’ ( ) hrozny грòзен Asdo notfar assurprise, the meaning but in the‘bad,’ development beside ‘terrifying, of the Slovenerepulsive,’ gro in̑zen the case of the US and the meaning ‘bad, evil,’ beside ‘horrible; ugly,’ in the case of the dial. Bulg ‘weak, bad, lousy, of low value’ one is hard put to discern a similar transitory stage. 1B.18. *gdъ Etymological meaning

The meaning based on –continuants obscure [see PROUD,ut 14A.1, supra p. 244] Innovative meanings ‘proud’ ( ) gd

The meanings ‘bad’ and ‘unpleasant’ (Serbian and Croatian ), similarly as ‘ugly, repulsive,’ which are also attested in the remaining South Slavic languages [cf. UGLY, 3B.9, p. 138], probably arose through the gradual transfer of the semantic dominant. 1B.19. *slabъ

Etymological meaning

‘flaccid, slack’ > ‘weak’ [see WEAK, 6B.1, p. 173] 113

Conceptual Groups The meaning based on continuants ut supra

Innovative meanings ‘weak’ ( ) In the Slovene language the continuant slàb

changed the basic meaning into ‘bad, worthless’ > ‘bad in a moral sense; one who treats others in a bad way.’ The tendency theseto such languages a development slȁb (beside the transition ‘weak’ > ‘worthless’ which is common in the conceptual development) also stands out in Serbian and Croatian. However, in retains the basic meaning ‘weak.’

Recapitulation1B.1. *zъlъ of Semantic Changes BAD PSlav ← 1B.2. *lochъ OBLIQUUS etym. BAD PSlav ← WEAK etym. 1B.3. *chudъ 1B.3.1. BAD PSlav ← ← ← or 1B.3.2. *WORTHLESS SMALL PSlav CRUMBLED (?) etym. BAD PSlav ← ← or 1B.3.3. *WORTHLESS THIN PSlav BAD PSlav ← ← WEAK PSlav ← or *WORHTLESS CRUMBLED (?) etym. BAD PSlav ← ← 1B.3.4. lichъ *WORTHLESS POOR PSlav BAD Western ← ← 1B.4. * 1B.5. *plochъ ODD (OF NUMBERS) Western, Southern REMAINING etym. ← 1B.6. *marьnъ BAD Russian FLAT (?) Czech BAD Polish, Belarusian ← ← chabъ/*chabьnъ FLEETING Old Polish IMAGINARY struct. BAD PSlav ← 1B.7. * 1B.8. *darьmьnъ SPOILT (?) etym. BAD Czech, Slovak ← ← 1B.9. *rъd’avъ WORTHLESS PSLav RECEIVED AS A GIFT struct. BAD Serbian, Croatian ← ← ← ← WORTHLESS Serbian, Croatian SPOILT Serbian, Croatian 1B.10. *bědьnъ RUST-EATEN PSlav RED etym. ← ←

BAD/MISERABLE general POOR PSlav FORCED TO DO STH etym. The Development of Words Across Centuries

114 1B.11. *durьnъ 1B.11.1. BAD East ← ← ← ← IMPETUOUS etym. ← and SIMPLE Czech, Russian STUPID North MAD North 1B.11.2. ASSOCIATED WITH WIND etym. ← ← IMPETUOUS etym. ← ASSOCIATED

BAD IN A MORAL SENSE East MAD North 1B.12. *gnusьnъ WITH WIND etym. ← ← 1B.13. *gadьnъ BAD dial. Russian MORALLY REPULSIVE PSlav REVOLTING PSlav *BAD ← ← bolgъ MORALLY REPULSIVE PSlav REVOLTING PSlav 1B.14. * ← ← ← 1B.14.1. BADand Russian MAD Russian BLESSED Southern, Russian-Church Slavonic SHINING (?) etym. BAD Ukrainian, Belarusian ← WEAK Ukrainian, Belarusian ← ← PSlav1B.14.2 ← *MILD PLEASANT 1B.15. *bridъ/*bridъkъ SHINING (?) etym. BAD dial. Polish ← ← ← ← REVOLTING Western, Church Slavonic, Ukrainian, Belarusian EFFECTING AN UNPLEASANT SENSATION UPON THE SENSES *UNPLEASANT TO 1B.16. *polchъ THE TOUCH SHARP PSlav BAD early Czech, early Polish ← ← etym. ← IMPERMANENT Czech, Polish EAGER TO RUN grozьnъ ANIMATED etym. BAD USorb, dial. Bulgarian ← ← 1B.17. * 1B.18. *gdъ TERRIBLE PSlav TERRIFYING/DANGEROUS PSlav BAD Croatian, Serbian ← ← Polish, Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian, Eastern ← ← TERRIFYING← Southern TERRIBLE/DANGEROUS← dial.← HUGE Slovene, Croatian, Serbian BRAVE Old Russian, Russian BOLD early Polish, Old Russian HAUGHTY PSlav 1B.19. *slabъ PROUD PSlav BAD Slovene ← WEAK PSlav ←

FLACCID/SLACK etym.

Analogically to the motivations of the antonymous ‘good’ (substantive)lochъ, also*bolgъ the motivations of ‘evil’ enable us to establish which of chudъthese features met with negativezъlъ evaluation. These are physical features: weaknessplochъ (* – thechudъ latter also has an alternativechudъ explanation, maybe * as well), basedobliquus on (*the development), flat (with ofa limiteda lexeme degree whose of etymologycertainty, *is uncertain,), perhaps and thinness (* ) or a small size (* ), although the latter meanings are 115

Conceptual Groups marьnъ, *polchъ chabъ, *rъd’avъ; here propertiesalso impermanence among which (* one may distinguish) and spoilinga low evaluation, (* with contempt: the direct motivationbědьnъ, and is rather perhaps ‘worthless’). *chudъ Motivations may also involvedurьnъ human bridъkъ, *gnusьnъ, *gadьnъ poverty (* as well)durьnъ and stupidity, *bolgъ; in ( both cases), or negatively evaluated, with disgust (* ) as well as (sometimes ambivalently evaluated) madness (* grozьnъ alternativewhich also explanationsis, however, areevaluated possible). negatively. In rarer casesBeside the particular motivation features is based the on features which do not evoke contempt, but on the contrarydarьmьnъ – fear (*, *rъd’avъ),, *chudъ motivation may be a generally conceived lack of value (* lichъ , in the latter case with various possible reasons for such evaluation). Here there is also a motivation associated with being without a pair – * - ized– interesting by considerably due to cultural greater reasons.variation, In which comparison is undoubtedly with the associated motivations with of the aforementionedgreater semantic ‘good’ complexity the motivations of the concept of the itself. concept In contradistinction ‘bad’ are character to also be motivated by concepts with an antonymous value. A more compre- hensivethe concept analysis ‘good,’ of thethis names phenomenon which belong goes beyond to the semantic the framework circle of of ‘bad’ the pres may- ent recapitulation.

2A.1.2A. PLEASANT *milъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *milъ is based on the PIE root *mē-/*mō-/*mī- extended with the formant -lo- ‘pleasant, delicate’ míelas mĩļš, mils < *mielas mijls ; equivalents with the same extensionmul occur in Baltic languages: Lithuanian - ropean‘kind,’ ‘entire, root is whole,’ reconstructed Latvian on the basis of the ‘kind, root *loved,’mē-/* Oldmō Prussian-/*mī- with various ‘kind, loved’ and in Celtic languages:-l-, -r-, -n- ,Welsh -t- ‘modest.’ The meaning of the Proto-Indo-Eu- extending formants ( ) which share the same semantics referring to adjec tivesThe meaningswith a positive based marking on continuants [see Pokorny: 709–710]. miły мúлый - teristic feature of all Slavic languages. ‘kind, pleasant,’ ‘dear, loved’ The meanings ‘kind, pleasant,’ ‘dear, loved’ (e.g. Polish , Russ. ) are a charac Innovative meanings and Serbian, and indirectly attested by the continuants of the derivative *milostь in the The innovative meaning is ‘one who arouses sympathy,’ present in Slovene, Croatian new meaning of ‘grace’ in Old Church Slavonic, Old Polish, Czech and Russian. 116 The Development of Words Across Centuries

2A.2. *bolgъ

Etymological meaning - tionship of *bolgъ with the –PIE uncertain *bhelg- ‘shining, glimmering’ (?) Etymologyform is also – presentuncertain; in the mostPSlav frequently*blьščati accepted opinion has to do with the rela 65 et alia 13 ‘to shine, to glitter,’ a root which in its reduced ‘to shine’ [e.g. SP 1: 306; Boryś: 32; ESJS: The meaning]. based on continuants In the continuants of the PSlav *bolgь there are no traces of the etymological meaning associated with light. The alleged association ‘good, may kind, be pleasant,’corroborated ‘happy, by the favourable’ semantic development of the Polish derivative from świecić : świetny światny in the Old Polish błogi that are reconstructed for the Proto-Slavic language on the (originally basis of the varied), meanwhich- meant ‘glistening, glimmering’ [Słstpol. 9: 66]. The meanings- jects, but allegedly already in the Proto-Slavic period they extended from objects, to whichings of such continuants properties (cf. are the ascribed, innovative to meanings)human properties. originally referred to inanimate ob Innovative meanings In the course of the development of this lexeme there arose meanings with negative

negative overtones in the case of the Macedonian благ overtones.Slavic languages The pan-Slavic this meaning meaning underwent ‘mild’ pejoration.received positive The beginning overtones of the(with process slightly of pejoration may be discerned in the meaning of the Czech ‘meek’),bláhový, whereasa derivative in theof blaho East blahý bláhový

‘good, prosperity.’ Whereas retains the old meaning ‘pleasant, mild,’ changes the meaning into ‘naïve’ as a result of emphasizing of a secondary semantic feature present in the meaning ‘mild.’ This process went further in East Slavic languages [see. BAD, 1B.14, p. 111 and STUPID, 16B.5, p. 265]. 2A.3. *lagodьnъ

Etymological meaning

PSlav **laga – uncertain ‘arranged; decent’lóga (?), : logà ‘weak’ (?) logúoti There are two suggestionslãga to explain this. Sławski was in favor of the existence of the due to the exact Baltic equivalents: dial. Lith. ‘pile’ (cf. ‘to arrange,’ Latv. ‘layer; order.’ There are no other equivalentslakr [Sławski 4: 427]. A competitivelaxus explanation was offered by Berneker [Berneker: 684–685]. According to the scholar, the closest equivalents are the Old Norse ‘bad, of little value’ and arethe acceptableLatin in ‘loose, spite offlabby’ antonymous with a short meanings, vocalism, cf. the in development contradistinction of the toPSlav the * Slavicbolgъ form continuing the long vowel. From the semantic point of view both explanations

Structural[see 2A.2, p. 116].meanings The PSlav *lagodьnъ -ьnъ from *lagoda ‘arranged, harmonious,’ ‘calm’ 13 One would expect is aa Proto-Indo-Europeanderivative with a suffix form with a palatal -ǵ for ‘order, the PSlav ordo; *blьščati peace.’.

Attempts are made to explain this difference by e.g. LIV: 73. Conceptual Groups The latter word is probably derived from the unattested PSlav **laga with a relatively 117 -oda poorlyThe meaning attested suffixbased on [SP continuants 1: 63].

‘kind, pleasant’ > ‘mild, calm’ continuants:The meanings Church ‘kind, Slavonicpleasant’ lagodьnъ are attested, early in Slovene the majority lágoden of, Polishlanguages; łagodny also and ‘mild, by thecalm’ development arose probably of innovative already in meanings. the Proto-Slavic period, which is indicated both by the Innovative meanings innovativeInnovative meanings arewhich numerous; refer to theyother refer referents, to appearance derived directly[see THIN, from 5B.9, the p. multi 158;- WEAK, 6B.18, p. 180] and to character [see MILD, 12B.2, p. 231]. There are also many referential ‘kind; pleasant.’ jьmьnъ

2A.4.Etymological * meaning PSlav *(j)ęti em- form *- ‘one that is being taken; taken’ iti imù jem̃t jemu ‘to take’ belongsemere to the PIE root * ‘to take’ and it is based on its reducedem-. . The closest equivalents in Baltic languages include: Lith. ‘to take,’ Latv. Structural ‘idem.’ meaning The Latin ‘to buy’ is based on the full form of the PIE root * The PSlav *jьmьnъ -ьnъ, based on the praesens form *jьmǫ of the PSlav verb *(j)ęti ‘taken’ > ‘appropriate to be taken, to be held in one’s hand’ is an adjective with a suffix The meaning based on ‘to continuantstake.’ The continuants of the PSlav *jьmьnъ are preserved in West Slavic languages with ‘pleasant to the touch’ > ‘pleasant, delicate’ of the continuants of the PSlav *jьmьnъ, for which the semantic basis in the appro- the meanings ‘pleasant, kind,’ early Polish alsoемен ‘soft, delicate.’ It is exactly the semanticsúмный priateProto-Slavic verbs period. is missing (dial. Macedonian ‘quiet; meek, mild; Russian ‘calm’) seems to indicate the necessity of the reconstruction of the adjective for the Innovative meanings The meanings in the particular languages are a continuation of the Proto-Slavic meaning jemny

‘appropriate to be held in the hand; pleasant to the touch.’ Hence the early Polish ‘soft.’ Further innovative shifts are visible in the meaning ‘mild,’ hence the meanings- which arose through further associations: ‘humble; calm’ > ‘silent.’ There is also an alternative possibility of explaining the meanings ‘humble; calm’ as a semantic devel opment from ‘seized, caught.’ 2A.5. *něžьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning – obscureut supra[see MILD, 12B.1, p. 230] ‘delicate’ ( ) 118 The Development of Words Across Centuries

The meanings based on continuants

‘mild, delicate,’ ‘tender, sensitive’ - It is impossible to establish whether the meaning ‘pleasant; kind’ (used in reference to people and other objects), which is a natural link in the chain constituted by ‘deli cate,’ ‘tender,’ emerged in the Proto-Slavic period or it is an innovation which emerged independently in various languages. For this reason I omit the paragraph “Innovative meanings” here. 2A.6. *dorgъ

Etymological meaning Most likely there is an etymological link with the PSlav *džati *dher-egh- ‘held’ ‘to hold,’dàrgs based on the PIE ‘to hold’ [SP 4: 121; cf. also Syročkin 1997: 84]. The nominal form has no Indo-European equivalents. The formally consistent Latvian form ‘dear, precious; Thebeloved’ meanings may be Slavic based borrowing, on continuants adapted to the phonetics of the Latvian language. The meaning of continuants is uniform in all Slavic languages. Originally it referred to the material value, secondarily to the emotional ‘having value. a greatMost likely value,’ it is‘beloved’ derived directly

*fromjьmьnъ the indicates etymological the necessity ‘held’ (due of taking to its intogreat account value), all without semantic the links intermediation in the research of ofthe semantic meaning motivation. ‘strong, durable’ suggested by Boryś [Boryś: 127]. A comparison with Innovative meanings

ofThe attenuating meaning ‘pleasant’ the expressiveness is one of the of wordsinnovative which semantic are strongly varieties marked of the emotionally. Proto-Slavic ‘precious for emotional reasons.’ This innovation is consistent with the common tendency

*dobrъ

2A.7.Etymological meaning The meaning based on ‘appropriate;continuants well-adjusted’ut supra [see GOOD, 1A.1, p. 95] Innovative meanings ‘good’ ( ) - comme il faut secondaryThe emergence to it. of the meaning ‘pleasant, kind’ in various Slavic languages is the nar rowing down of the sense ‘ ; appropriate’ or of the sense ‘good’ which is 2A.8. *lěpъ

Etymological meaning -

‘glued together/stuck in’ > ‘appropriate, well-ad justed’The meanings [see GOOD, based 1A.2, on p. continuants 96] ut supra ‘appropriate,’ ‘good,’ ‘pretty’ ( ) 119

Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings

The meaning ‘pleasant,’ which is present in Upper Sorbian, Slovene and Bulgarian, could have emerged both on the basis of the meaning ‘good’ as well as of the meaning ‘pretty.’ 2A.9. *godьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘closely adjusted; connected’ [seeut supra GOOD, 1A.3, p. 97] The meanings based ‘pointed on continuants at sth, aimed at sth; hit’ ( ut) supra Innovative meanings ‘appropriate,’ ‘proper’ ( ) gȍdan гóдный comme il faut The emergence of the meaning ‘kind, pleasant’ (Croatian and Serbian , Russiandobrъ, ) is the narrowing down of the sense ‘ ; appropriate’ or of the sense ‘good’ which is secondary to it and unattested in these languages [cf. 2A.7 * p. 118]. Summary of Semantic Changes

2A.1. *milъ ← ← 2A.2. *bolgъ PLEASANT PSlav PLEASANT PIE POSITIVELY MARKED etym. ← ← 2A.3. *lagodьnъ PLEASANT *PLEASANT TO THE EYE SHINING (?) etym. 2A.3.1. ← ← or 2A.3.2.PLEASANT PSlav HARMONIOUS struct. ARRANGED (?) etym. ← ← jьmьnъ PLEASANT PSlav ← CALM struct. WEAK (?) etym. ← 2A.4.struct. * ← PLEASANT PSlav PLEASANT TO THE TOUCH PSlav APPROPRIATE TO BE HELD 2A.5. *něžьnъ TAKEN etym. ← 2A.6. *dorgъ PLEASANT gen. DELICATE/MILD PSlav ← ← ← ← etym. PLEASANT gen. BELOVED PSlav VALUABLE PSlav OWNED etym. HELD dobrъ ← ← ← 2A.7. * 2A.8. *lěpъ PLEASANT gen. GOOD PSlav APPROPRIATE PSlav WELL-ADJUSTED etym. 2A.8.1 ← ←

PLEASANT USorb, Slovene, Bulgarian PRETTY PSlav WELL-ADJUSTED struct. 120 The Development of Words Across Centuries

or 2A.8.2. ← ← 2A.9. *godьnъ PLEASANT USorb, Slovene, Bulgarian GOOD PSlav WELL-ADJUSTED struct. ← ←

PLEASANT Croatian, Serbian, Russian *GOOD APPROPRIATE PSlav -

The motivations of thelěpъ notion, *godьnъ of ‘pleasant’, *dobrъ partially overlaplagodьnъ with; alternative the moti vations of the notion of ‘good.’ Therefore they are based on the way thingsbolgъ are arranged,jьmьnъ e.g., fitness (* ), order (* něžьnъ motivation). Other lagodьnъmotivations are based on sensory experiences: sight (* ), nominationstouch (* which). The motivationsare motivated which by are pleasant associated sensations. with tenderness In the (* case of) *anddorgь tranquillity, although (* the indirect; alternative motivation motivation) is associated may with also touch be classified by holding as - tivated by holding, is more likely. As far as *milъ is concerned, we are dealing with(a sensory a motivation experience), which the was nomination handed over through from the the Proto-Indo-European material value, itself molan- guage, therefore it is such a motivation whose further study is impossible.

2B.1.2B. UNPLEASANT Western and Eastern *prikrъ

Etymological meaning The etymology is obscure. Among the existing hypotheses, which indicate either a pre- – obscure the PIE continuants *piḱ-ro- 2 3: fixal derivation directly from the Proto-Indo-European root or a contamination with claims that *prikrъ is not the [aoriginal review form of these but ** formsperkrъ14 is < provided *perk-ro- ,in continued e.g. Vasmer by the 364;OCz. přiekrýcf. also Boryś: 498], neither seems probable. Bańkowskiprotivьnъ, vide [Bańkowski infra 2: 938]- vincing due to the form of the majority of the continuants. Moreover, the existence of the form přiekrý. This which interesting the author semantic provided hypothesis is doubtful. (cf, 15 ) is not con The meanings based on continuants

During the times of the Proto-Slavic community ‘steep’ the adjective > ‘difficult; probably ‘troublesome’ referred to ob >- ‘unpleasant’

jects which were characterized by difficult access. The meaning ‘steep’ is attested in all languages. Hence probably the already-Proto-Slavic meanings ‘difficult, troublesome; unpleasant.’ 1415 Etymological dictionaries of the Czech language do not list such an Old Czech form. However, confer E. Słuszkiewicz’s attempt at an explanation [Słuszkiewicz 1955]. 121

Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings whetherThe meaning it arose which already may also in the refer Proto-Slavic to people –period ‘unkind, or unfriendly whether it in arose contact in adue parallel to its mannerpsychic features’in the particular – is certainly languages. a secondary Allegedly meaning, meanings although which it is difficultfeature toa establishstronger emotional charge ‘cruel, severus; stern’ probably arose independently [see STERN, 12A.8, p. 228]. 2B.2. *protivьnъ

Etymological meaning

The PSlav *proti/*protь arose ‘one from which the isPIE located *proti in the direction of sight, within sight;The etymologists one that is reconstruct located opposite alternant to forms sth.’ on the basis of continuants: *proti: *preti, προτί práti ‘oppositepret (adv.)’ [Kopečný 1: 226].

Structuralcf. Gk. ‘toward,’meaning OInd ‘toward; opposite,’ Latv. ‘against.’ -ьnъ from the PSlav adjective *protivъ ‘one that is located opposite to sth; contrarious’ - A derivative with a suffix proti/*protь ‘one that is located Theopposite Polish to and sth; Sorbian contrarious’ forms (ossified with the asvowel an adverb e instead with of othe meaning ‘against, oppo site’), which in turn is based on the PSlav pre-adverb * prze [Kopečnýpśe-, USorb 1: 222–226]. pře *per arepreti – according, perhaps basedto Kopečný even –on a theresult PIE of *preti the influenceinfra of the prefix * (Polish -, LSorb -) < -. However, he does not rule out the original alternant * The meanings (cf. based ).on continuants that provokes an unfriendly attitude; unpleasant, unkind; hostile; unfavor- ‘opposite, inverse; different’ > ‘one able, adverse’ The figurative meanings which refer to man – ‘one that provokes an unfriendly attitude; unpleasant, unkind; hostile’ – are well-attested in all Slavic languages. The semantic development might have been based bothprotiviti on the sę realia: ‘one located on the opposite side’ = ‘hostile,’ as well as on an evaluation: ‘different’ = ‘unfriendly.’ The influence of the verb based on the same adverb – * ‘to oppose’ is also probable. 2B.3. *grǫbъ : *grubъ Etymological meaning The PSlav alternation *grǫbъ : *grubъ was probably inherited. It is also manifested by Baltic languages. It origin ‘unprocessed’ is usually established to derive from the PIE *ghre-bh-, based on *ghrē-/*ghrə- - tion seems less probable. According to him, *grǫbъ is based on the nasalized variant of the PIE *gerb- ‘to rub, to grate’ger- [SP 8: 239; Sławski 1: 356]; Snoj’s explana2 gruba grumbt grùbti grumbù ‘obliquus’ from the root * ‘to spin, to turn (transitive)’ [Snoj : 192]. Baltic equivalents (Latv. ‘wrinkle’ : ‘to crease’; Lith. ‘to solidify; to become rough’) allow us to reconstruct the meaning of the nominal form as ‘rough, with an uneven surface.’ While both the semantic and formal congruity of the 122 The Development of Words Across Centuries

16 the extra-Balto-Slavic references are hardly convincing due to semantic reasons. Baltic and Slavic equivalents do not cause doubts, The meanings based on continuants

‘raw, unprocessed, rough,’ fig. ‘unkind,- to-Slavicunfriendly; language boorish’ on the basis of the meanings in the languages of all groups, e.g. Czech andThe meaningSlovak hrubý ‘boorish; unkind, unfriendly’ may be reconstructedgrūb already for the Pro- garian груб грýбый fig. ‘vulgar; boorish,’ Serbian and Croatian ‘coarse, rude,’ Bul ‘unfriendly, unkind,’ Russian ‘rude; unkind.’ *mzъ/*mzъkъ, *mzlivъ

2B.4.Etymological meaning The PSlav *mzъ is based on the reduced grade of the PIE root *merǵ- ‘rotten, decayed’ the derivation of the PSlav meaning *mziti ‘to rot, to decay; PIEto waste *merg- away’ [ESSJ 21: 166–167; Skok 2: 472]. From the point of view of semantics ‘to chill sth, to cool sth down’ from the ‘decay, rot’ is unjustified [Boryś: 325]. More likely phenomena include the development ‘rotten, decayed’ > ‘detestable, revolting’ as well as the derivation of the meaningsStructural ‘to meaning freeze,’ i.e., to become cold < ‘to shudder from revulsion.’ The PSlav *mzъkъ mzъ -kъ. ‘revolting’ ‘revolting’ is based on the original * ‘idem,’ extended with the The meanings based on continuants suffix mzъ since the earliest attestations, e.g. OCS mrъzъ ‘revolting’ мерзыи, as well as *mzъkъ ‘Revolting’ ismrzký the most, Serbian commonly mȑzak, attestedBulgarian meaning мèрзък both of theмéрзкий lexeme * (already , Old Russian (e.g.Innovative Czech meanings , Russian ). - ened, cf. dial. Slovak mrzký The original, strongly pejoratively marked meaning ‘revolting’ could have been-livъ weak is discussed. ‘unkind,’ also ‘ugly’ [see UGLY, 3B.7, p. 137]. See also LAZY, 15B.7, p. 258, where the continuant of the deverbal adjective with the suffix 2B.5. *verdьnъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav verdъ erdh- with perhaps an already nominal ‘enlarged; PIE form protruding’ *ordh- várdha17 ‘ulcer’ is most likely based on the PIE * ‘to increase, to grow’ (cf. OInd ‘growth; development,’ 16 Cf. also the dial. Polish gręby continues both the nasalized form as well as the original meaning. ‘covered*eRd hwith wrinkles,’ and in another dialect ‘bitter,’ which continuants17 indicate the PIE form of *erd-. A clear semantic link makes us presuppose rather a dialectal LIV: phonetic627 reconstructs change in the one form of the ? language on the groups basis instead of Vedic of formsthe independent whereas the origin Germanic of the

Germanic and Indo-Iranian continuants. 123

Conceptual Groups warta ap-vir̂de theProto-Germanic PSlav *verdъ , presents ‘wart,’ a different which grade may indicate of vocalism the than already the aforementioned Proto-Indo-European nom- inalmeaning forms. ‘excrescence’); cf. also Latvian ‘ulcer, furuncle’ which, similarly as Structural meaning -ьnъ from the PSlav *verdъ *verditi ‘ulcerated’ or ‘wounded; painful’ The derivative with the suffix ‘ulcer’ > ‘wound’ or from The meanings ‘to wound, based to cause on pain’ continuants > ‘to do harm,’ which is based on it. In the context of the Proto-Slavic language one should reconstruct both the concrete ‘ulcerated,’ ‘harmful’ - ifest a link with the meanings of the possible derivational bases. Without doubt one maymeaning speak ‘covered here about with a ulcers’ double as semantic well as themotivation. secondary meaning ‘harmful’; both man Innovative meanings

врéдный which continues the Church The meaning which is present in the Russian language – ‘unpleasant, about a man’ – apart from the meaning ‘harmful’ (at the lexeme strongerSlavonic form)pejorative is an overtones. innovation18 which weakens the earlier meaning ‘harmful, acting to the detriment of others.’ It was borrowed by the Polish language with its earlier 2B.6. *skvnъ Etymological meaning It is probably based on the PSlav *skverti skvьrǫ, whose origin is unknown. According – uncertain ‘spoilt’ (?), ‘burnt’ (?) kvariti skverti to Skok [Skok 2: 251], it is based in the PIE context with the PSlav * ‘to spoil.’ BoryśThe meaning [Boryś 556] based reconstructs on continuants the original meaning of * as ‘to fry, to melt sth.’ The meanings which refer to a general evaluation, secondarily to a moral evaluation, сквéрный ‘dirty; revolting, filthy’ skvȓn : skrùn and early Croat. skvrn occur in East Slavic languages (Rus. ‘repulsive; unkind, unpleasant’) and Pol.South doskwierać Slavic languages (Slovene ‘sinful; defiled’). meaningIn West Slavic which languages I am interested the adjective in already is not in theattested. Proto-Slavic However, language. its base occurs in the ‘to annoy; to bother sb.’ which may indicate the emergence of the Innovative meanings takeThe meaninginto consideration ‘unkind, unpleasant,’the possibility which of its are earlier present emergence, in the contemporary vide infra. Russian language, seems to be a weakening of the earlier ‘repugnant.’ However, one should also

18 vrédan, Croat. vrijèdan, dial. vrīdȁn, dial. Bulg. врèден originate from the continuants Sound-similar of the homonymous South Slavic PSlavadjectives *verdъ with the opposite meaning ‘valuable, worthwhile,werd also about man’ (Serb. ‘value; price’). Cf. Old High German ‘idem,’ which is considered as the source of borrowing into the Proto-Slavic languages [Gluhak: 684] or as a proto-cognate form [Skok 3: 625]. The Development of Words Across Centuries

124 *grozьnъ

2B.7.Etymological meaning Structural meaning – obscure [see STERN, 12A.4, p. 227] ut supra The meaning based on ‘one continuants that inspires fear; terrible/dangerous’ ( ut supra) Innovative meaning ‘terrible/dangerous; terrifying’ ( ) grôzen also grozny, Slovene grôzen and Bulgarian грòзен. The meaning ‘unpleasant; disagreeable; troublesome,’ hence in Slovene ‘troubled, unbearable,’ occurs in LSorb In Bulgarian, the further development of meaning proceeded to ‘indecent; immoral.’ 2B.8. *durьnъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘blowing (as a wind); associated with wind’ (?) [seeThe VIOLENT,meanings 10A.5, based p. 207] on continuants ut supra ‘agitated, violent; impetuous,’ Northern ‘mad’Innovative ( meanings) - tones of the word. The meaning ‘unpleasant’ in Russian is a result of the extension of the negative over 2B.9. *zъlь

Etymological meaning

The meanings based on ‘obliquus’ continuants > ‘bad’ [see BAD, 1B.1, utp. supra104] Innovative meanings ‘bad’ > ‘angry at’ ( )

The emergence of the meaning ‘unpleasant’ in all Slavic languages which preserved the Proto-Slavic meaning ‘bad’ is consistent with all the principles of conceptual development. 2B.10. *gdъ Etymological meaning

The meaning based on –continuants obscure [see PROUD,ut 14A.1, supra p. 244] Innovative meanings ‘proud’ ( ) gȓd -

languages,The meanings probably ‘bad’ and emerged ‘unpleasant’ through (Serbian the gradual and transferCroatian of the), similarlysemantic as dominant. ‘ugly, re pulsive’ (cf. UGLY, 3B.9, p. 136) which are also attested in the remaining South Slavic 125

Conceptual Groups Summary of Semantic Changes

2B.1. *prikrъ ← ← 2B.2. *protivьnъ UNPLEASANT PSlav DIFFICULT PSlav STEEP (?) PSlav 2B.2.1. ← ← OPPOSITE PSlav ←

UNPLEASANTor PSlav DIFFERENT PSlav ONE THAT IS LOCATED 2B.2.2.OPPOSITE TO STH struct. ← ← struct. UNPLEASANT PSlav HOSTILE PSlav ONE THAT IS LOCATED OPPOSITE TO STH 2B.3. *grǫbъ : *grubъ ← mzъkъ UNPLEASANT PSlav UNPROCESSED etym. ← 2B.4. * 2B.5. *verdьnъ UNPLEASANT dial. Slovak, colloq. Russian REVOLTING PSlav ← ← ← etym. UNPLEASANT colloq. Russian HARMFUL PSlav ULCERATED PSlav ENLARGED 2B.6. *skvnъ 2B.6.1. ← ← ← etym. UNPLEASANTor Russian, Ukrainian REVOLTING PSlav DIRTY PSlav SPOILT (?) 2B.6.2. ← ← ← etym. UNPLEASANT Russian, Ukrainian REVOLTING PSlav DIRTY PSLav BURNT (?) grozьnъ ← ← PSlav2B.7. *← UNPLEASANT LSorb, Slovene, Bulg. REVOLTING Western, Southern TERRIFYING 2B.8. *durьnъ TERRIBLE/DANGEROUS PSlav ← ← 2B.9. *zъlъ UNPLEASANT Russian BAD Russian VIOLENT PSlav ← BAD PSlav ← 2B.10. gdъ UNPLEASANT pan-Slavic OBLIQUUS etym. ← ← dial. Polish, Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian, Eastern ← ← UNPLEASANT Croatian, Srb. ← INSPIRING FEAR Southern TERRIBLE/DANGEROUS← ← HUGE Slovene, Serb.-Croat. BRAVE Old Russian, Russian DARING early Polish, Old Russian, HAUGHTY PSlav PROUD PSlav theThe concept motivations under research of the concept but sometimes ‘unpleasant’ they are constitute above all a(similarly further link. as in This the iscase manifested of the concept by the ‘evil’) model physical presented properties above. which Therefore are a there direct are motivation properties of 126 The Development of Words Across Centuries

mzъkъ skvnъ vrědьnъ prikrъ grǫbъ: *grubъ which causevrědьnъ revulsion (* ): dirty (* ),grozьnъ ulcerated, *g (*dъ ) or ones that cause problems: difficult/steep (* ), unprocessed (* ), harmful (* ) or ones that inspire terror (* ). One may also- find here a nomination based zъlъon location, analogically to the motivation of the betweenconcepts ‘good’the motivation and ‘pleasant’ based and on in location: contradistinction located opposite to the concept to sth, ‘bad’opposite (un lessprotivьnъ one considers ‘obliquus’ * as a motivation by location). An indirect link- - (* ) and the concept ‘unpleasant’ are, as indicated bydurьnъ the reconstruc and *zъlъ. Duetion ofto thethe Proto-Slavicobviousness meaning, of this semantic the concept transition ‘hostile’ I didor ‘different.’ not concentrate In my mate upon rial the motivation by the concept ‘bad’ is represented by *

the identification of further body of proof which would attest it.

3A.3A.1. PRETTY *krasьnъ Etymological meaning The PSlav *krasьnъ has no reliable etymologies. Most commonly it is associated with verbs which are etymologically – obscure connected with Proto-Indo-European roots which refer ker- ker-

to fire, e.g., with the PIE * (or * ) ‘to burn, to blaze.’ These explications have etymologicalclearly semasiological solution which premises she whichembraces are isconnected also based with above the allmeaning on semantics, ‘red.’ Ljubov’ namely P. onDronova the parallelism suggests the with ‘motley’ the development > ‘red’ > ‘beautiful’ of meanings semantic of the development. PSlav family *However,květ- the-

[Dron ova 2007]. Cf. also a different approach to the same subject [Tolstaja 2008a: 121–133]. A review of the etymological explications is contained in the above-quoted article by Ljubov’Structural Dronova meaning [2007: 75–76] and Jerzy Rusek [2000: 140–141]. -ьnъ from *krasa ‘motley, colorful’ krasiti As far as the formal aspects are concerned, it may be a derivativekrasъ with the suffix ‘beauty’ [Sławski 2: 64–65; ESSJ 12: 110] or * ‘to beautify,’ however an overlay of the suffix on the residually preserved adjective * ‘motley, colorful; red’The is meanings more likely based [Boryś: on 256]. continuants

‘beautiful,’ Northern ‘red’ The meaning which occurs in all Slavic languages is ‘beautiful.’ The meaning ‘red’ is althoughlimited to the North residual Slavic attestation languages. of A thecomparison structural with meaning the structural does not meaning allow us allows to estab us- lishto conjecture this piece that of information the original as meaning completely is ‘red,’ reliable. hence ‘beautiful’ emerged secondarily, Innovative meanings Due to the obscure etymology one cannot identify with certainty which meanings are

innovations and which are relicts. The meaning ‘magnificent,’ which arose in various Conceptual Groups languages of the entire Slavdom, is allegedly innovative. It became the source of such 127 meanings as ‘strong, healthy, big’ in Russian dialects and ‘valuable; main’ in the Old- ingsRussian emerged language. through Without the doubtprocess the of generally-evaluative narrowing down in meaning the particular ‘good’ (dial. languages: Polish, Czech, Slovak, Serbian, early Croatian) is secondary, hence further innovative mean the early Polish and dialectal Polish kraśny - Church Slavonic ‘decent; modest’ and the early Serbianbolgъ and Croatian ‘useful.’ However, the basis of the Pol. krasić ‘sumptuous;krasiti fat’ emerged not as the nar rowing down of the meaning ‘good’ (cf. PSlav * in South Slavic language) but on ‘to season with fat’ with * [cf. Sławski 3: 63–65]. 3A.2. Western *pěknъ, *pěkrъ

Etymological meaning The Western PSlav *pěknъ, *pěkrъ19 has no reliable etymologies. The most probable ‘motley, colorful’ -rъ, -nъ, therefore from *pok-ro and *pok-no- - originalably the adjectives,PIE *pok- formed with the use of the suffixes fēh ποικίλος, have no equivalents in other Indo-European languages. Its basis is prob- ‘motley, colorful,’ reconstructed on the basis of the OHG ‘motley,’ Greek ‘colorful, versicolor, motley’ [Boryś: 434]. For a review of other etymo Thelogical meaning explanations, based see on Rusek continuants [2000: 139].

‘beautiful’ InInnovative all West Slavic meanings languages the main meaning is ‘beautiful.’ arose as a result of the transfer of the content of the word from aesthetic evaluation toThe general meanings evaluation. ‘kind, delicate,’ ‘well-mannered, polite’ which exist in Sorbian languages

3A.3. Western and Eastern *ladьnъ

Etymological meaning There is a number of unconvincing explanations concerning the etymology of *ladьnъ and the entire word family. –Even obscure the direction of derivation has not been established. Some assume the noun *ladъ/lada laditi

as the original form, others – the verb * [see Sławski 4: 417]. A review of the etymologies which were heretofore suggested was summarised in the following way by the ESSJ: “Достоверной этимологии слово до сих пор не имеет, ср. прямые признания Бернекера и Фасмера […] на этот счет”- (“The word still lacks a reliable etymology, cf. the direct admissions by Berneker and explanationsVasmer […] in provided this regard.”) theretofore, [ESSJ 14: considers 11]. A proposition the verb *ofladiti a new < *etymologicalalditi, which explais the originalnation was compound put forward with by the Jasna -d-iti Vlajić-Popović. element, whose This -d- author,element unlike is cognate it was with done the in PIEthe dhē-

‘to lay sth down’ and which is present in five Proto-Slavic verbs with the meaning 19 The form *pěkrъ is reconstructed on the basis of early derivatives of the Polish language piękrać century Polish piękroszka

(Old Polish ‘to adorn,’ sixteenth ‘ornament’). 128 The Development of Words Across Centuries

- pound would be the PIE root *al- ‘to put in order, to arrange,’ as the original Slavic formation. The first part of the com ‘to nourish; to rise, to grow’ [Vlajić-Popović 2000: Structural191–199]. meaning The Pslav *ladьnъ *ladъ ‘arranged in a series, ordered’laditi , limited to the North Slavic languages, is a derivative of the noun The meanings ‘arrangement, based positioning’ on continuants or of the verb * ‘to arrange in a series.’

‘well-ordered’ > ‘having the appropriate- structure of the body’ > ‘pretty,’ Eastern ‘good’ ładny, USorbSupposedly ładny , the Czech semantic and Slovak development ladný proceededлáдный from the, Ukrainian structural лáдный meaning, Belar ‘ar- rangedusian лáдны in a row, ordered’rędьnъ to ‘pleasing due to its arrangement’ > ‘pretty’ (Pol. all to inanimate objects from which it, dial. was Russiantransferred to describe man. One may also ) [cf. * , 3A.5, p. 128]. Most probably the meaning referred above man in the context of an evaluation of harmony which is manifest in the structure of assume the possibility of a direct application of the phrase ‘well-ordered, arranged’ to

Innovativethe whole body, meanings hence ‘strapping, shapely’ or the features of somebody’s face. ładny Czech ladný Secondary innovative meanings: ‘big’ (e.g. dial. Polish ), ‘neat, decent’ (e.g. dial. ) could arise from the meaning ‘pretty’ but a motivation by ‘good’ is equally likely [cf. GOOD, 1A.7, p. 99]. *lěpъ

3A.4.Etymological meaning ‘glued together’ > ‘appropriate, well-adjusted’ [see GOOD,The meanings 1A.2, p. 96] based on continuants ut supra

Polish, where the continuant *lěpъ at the basic ‘appropriate,’ grade does ‘good,’ not exist ‘pretty’ at all. ( A charac)- The aesthetic meaning ‘pretty, beautiful’ is present across all Slavic languages except It is only in the South Slavic group that the continuants of Proto-Slavic lexemes have teristic feature of the continuants of this lexeme is suppletion [cf. GOOD, 1A.2, p. 96]. - mutually corresponding meanings ‘pretty; beautiful’ : ‘prettier; more beautiful’ at both grades. Similarly as in the case of the meaning ‘good,’ the basis of motivation is ‘match ing/fittingInnovative in/adjustment.’ meanings

‘Pretty’ is the basis for the innovative meanings which refer to appearance in various languages: ‘shapely’ (in the Sorbian languages and in Czech), ‘robust’ (in Serbian and Croatian), ‘handsome’ (in the early Russian language). 3A.5. *rędьnъ

Etymological and structural meaning

‘arranged in a row, in a series’ [see GOOD, 1A.5, p. 98] 129

Conceptual Groups The meanings based on continuants ut supra

Innovative meanings ‘appropriate,’ ‘decent’ ( ) rědny, USorb rjany, dial. Polish rzędny, rządny

The meaning ‘pretty’ (LSorb ) is a transfer of the meaning ‘arranged in a sequence,’ ‘accordant with a plan’ to the plane of aesthetics [Schuster-Šewc: 1219]. 3A.6. *godьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘closely adjusted; connected’ut [seesupra GOOD, 1A.3, p. 97] The meanings based ‘measured on continuants out, aimed at; hit’ ( ut) supra Innovative meanings ‘appropriate, due’ ( )

comme il faut meaningThe emergence to the plane of the of meaningaesthetics. ‘pretty’ in Czech, Slovene, Croatian and Serbian is the narrowing down of the sense ‘ ; appropriate’ and the transfer of this *kyprъ

3A.7.Etymological meaning Structural meaning ‘boiling; seething’ut [seesupra VIOLENT, 10A.9, p. 210] The meanings based ‘boiling; on continuants seething’ ( ) - ut supra ‘seething’ > ‘one that increases its vol ume’;Innovative ‘violent’ meanings ( )

It is assumed that the meaning ‘leavened,’ based on ‘seething; with an increased volume’ [for justification, see WEAK, 6B.9, p. 177] emerged in a parallel20 manner Today, it in is presentvarious languages.in the Bulg. A кѝпър further and innovation Macedonian is the кипар formation. One mayof the presume meaning that ‘pretty, it also beautiful’ existed onin theSerbian basis and of ‘leavened; Croatian, ‘mellow/chubby’although its sole remnantin South Slavicis the languages.term of abuse recorded by the kipra 21 - RSAN: subst. f. ‘an old hag’ [Skok 2: 83]. The basis of the meaning ‘beautiful’ is not completelyonly in the derivativeclear. What кѝпрост seems most likely is the transfer from ‘mellow,’ causedspec. by a positive evaluation of this feature. (As a matter of fact, in Bulgarian this meaning is attested ‘mellowness (of soil)’ with a qualifier – this caus es doubts as to the native character of the meaning: according to BER 2: 375 what matters here is the term which was artificially coined on the basis of a Ukrainian word).20 The same interpretation of the semantic change is offered by Tetjana Černyš in for Church Serbian kyprъ The transitional meanings ‘mellow; porous’ are not attested in South Slavic languages (except 21 In this case enantiosemy, ‘porous’) which butis a arelatively more likely frequent phenomenon phenomenon seems in the to field be their of aesthetic decline evaluthan- anation, attempt could haveat a direct an ironic transition basis. The from reservations ‘seething’ expressed to ‘beautiful.’ in BER 2: 375 seem unjustified. 130 The Development of Words Across Centuries

a chapter devoted to the semantic development of the continuants of the PSlav *kyprъ kyprъ(jь)

(“Псл. * та його контитуанти у слов’янських мовах” [Černyš 2003: 347–352; cf. also ESUM 2: 434]): Можна припустити, що в основі цих […] похідних значень теж лежать семантичні риси, пов’язані з тістом.пухкий У випадку південнослов’янських слів це буде порівняння з пухкістю, свіжістю, можливо, и, теплом, випічки (пор. уживання такого прикметника, як укр. у стосунку до виробів із тіста, і як окреслення ситого та здорового тіла, зокрема, жіночного) [Černyš 2003: 350]. features associated with dough. In the case of South Slavic words this will involve a compar- (One may claim that at the basis of these […] derivative meanings there are also semantic- cation of such an adjective as the Ukrainian пухкий in reference to dough products and ison with mellowness, freshness, perhaps with the warmth of the baking (cf. the appli

Althoughas a reference the dial. to Bulg.a full andкѝпър healthy body, especially a woman’s body.) is admittedly surprising, but this doubt may be easily accounted for by the loss of the clarity of the internal form ‘slender’ of the word. apart Stefan from ‘robust,Mladenov pretty’ suggests [Sławski the original2: 169]

kyprá ňadra and assuming a metonymic development from a reference to breasts to meaning ‘big, in reference to breasts,’ mentioning a parallel comparison with Czech: the original reference to the fullness of lips, due to the common phrase кѝпри уста a reference to the whole body [Mladenov: 238]. However, what seem more likely is

(especially in dialects). 3A.8. Western and Southern *drěčьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘extended lengthwise’ [see HIGH/TALL, 4A.2,ut suprap. 142] The meaning based ‘resemblingon continuants a pillar, resemblingut a supratree trunk’ ( ) Innovative meanings ‘well-grown’ ( ) In Slovak and Czech dialects22

of aesthetic evaluation, according the to meaning which tall, ‘pretty’ slender emerged height from is perceived ‘tall; slender’ as delightful which toin turnthe eye. emerged from ‘well-grown.’ The basis of the meaning has to do with the criteria

3A.9. *gladъkъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘smooth’ut [seesupra FAT, 5A.6, p. 150] The meaning based on‘smooth’ continuants ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘smooth, with an even surface’ ( )

The22 meaning ‘pretty’ in early Polish and in dialects, as well as in the Polabian derivative

On the possibility that the Czech dialectal word was borrowed from Slovak, cf. SP 4: 228. 131

Conceptual Groups glotkə skin; lack of wrinkles, warts etc. ‘pretty, in reference to a woman’ is supposedly motivated by the smoothness of 3A.10. *grozьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning – obscure [see STERN, 12A.4,ut supra p. 227] ut supra ‘inspiring fear; dangerous’ ( ) TheInnovative meaning meaningsbased on continuants ‘fearful; terrifying’ ( ) Dial. Slovene grȏzen meanings of grȏzen ‘handsome, robust, beautiful.’grȏzen In the literary language one of the- rately from the continuants is the opposite of *grozьnъ ‘very ugly, repulsive.’ Due to semantic reasons Bezlaj [Bezlaj 1: 182] discusses the dial. Slovene ‘handsome, robust, beautiful’ sepa gražùs ‘terrifying, inspiring terror,’ however, he does not decisively question their etymological association and he rejects the suggestion of a relation with the Lith. ‘beautiful’ [Mühlenbach 1: 651]. In the chain of the semantic changes presented above the hypothetical link *‘strong’ is reconstructed on the basis of the following reasoning: ‘terrifying’ therefore ‘strong.’ 3A.11. *zъlъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘obliquus’continuants > ‘bad’ [see BAD, 1B.1,ut supra p. 104] Innovative meanings ‘bad’ > ‘angry’ ( ) The Slovene zȃl zъlъ(jь 23 Early meanings of this form - ‘pretty, beautiful; handsome’ < * ).2 in Slovene also include ‘considerable; impressive’ which could easily become a moti vating meaning for ‘beautiful’ [Pleteršnik 2: 845]. Snoj 845 reconstructs ‘strong’ as the motivatingcomparative meaning, grade of which the dial. emerged gȏrši from ‘angry, bad,’ and this in turn emerged from the general ‘bad.’ This author makes reference to an analogous development of24 ‘bigger; prettier’ as a parallel with ‘worse.’ However, the link ‘strong’ is not confirmed by the material. The attested meanings ‘considerable; impressive’ might have been based on an earlier ‘big; inspiring fear’ with ‘bad; angry,’ but also in this case there is no direct motivation. 3A.12. *gdъ Etymological meaning

The meaning based on –continuants obscure [see PROUD,ut 14A.1, supra p. 244] 23 *zъlъjь ‘proud’, in contradistinction ( ) to zèl *zъlъ 2 The basis is the PSlav definite form (which is derived) fromdialects.24 the Oneindefinite of its causes form may [Snojbe associated: 845]. with the considerable degree of isolation of dialects due to It the seems geographical that the conditions.enantiosemic development is a quite frequent phenomenon in Slovene 132 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Innovative meanings

The direct motivational basis of the meaning ‘beautiful’ in Czech and Slovak is most downlikely thewith meaning a concentration ‘magnificent,’ on the which aesthetic is also element. present in these languages and which is common in North Slavic languages. The change of meaning constitutes its narrowing 3A.13. *gyzdavъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘inspiring revulsion’ [see UGLY, 3B.4, p. 136] According to a formal reconstruction the adjective is a continuant of the PSlav derivative of *gyzdati or *gyzdъ ‘revolting’ or ‘ornamental’ it is more likely that the meaning of the adjective was based on the meaning of the South Slavic noun *gizd [cf./* SPgizda 8: 340]. <*gyzdъ As far/gyzda as the semantic development is concerned,-

‘ornament; splendour.’ From the per- tionedspective by of the the semanticreconstruction development of the string of the of nounsemantic *gizd development/*gizda25 <* gyzdъfrom ‘repulsive;/gyzda or whetherugly’ to ‘pretty, there wasbeautiful’ a secondary the decision formal about derivation whether of the this South development Slavic *gizdav was condi from *gizd/*gizda is not the most important one because the exchange of semes is the same, regardless of the part of speech in which it occurs. The meaning based on continuants

‘repulsive, abhorrent’ [see UGLY, 3B.4, p.Innovative 136] meanings The Bulgarian гѝздав гиздав gȉzdav gizdàv ‘pretty’ aside ‘dressy,’gízditi ‘dressed se up’; tasteful’; Macedonian semantics‘beautiful, dressedof the whole up,’ ‘elegant, of the South refined’; Slavic Serbian vocabulary and Croatianone may claim that ‘dressed in these up, languag elegant,- esrefined’ the word (cf. Slovene initially referred ‘kitschy, to apparent foppish,’ elegance which ‘to boast, was to negatively brag’). Considering evaluated the by the intuentes gízda 26 , perhaps also to self-importance (cf. early Slovene ‘pride, conceit, aloofness’). With the course of time these lexemes lost their negative overtones. dělьnъ

3A.14.Structural * meaning - ‘associated with work, with the results of work’ [see DIL IGENT,The meaning 15A.6, p. based 254] on continuants - ut supra Western ‘hard-working,’ Eastern ‘re 25 sourceful’ The forms ( which are) reconstructed for the late stage of the development of the South Slavic group after the PSlav *y i transition. 26 The etymology of the Czech hezký relationship with *gydъkъ > and gyzdavъ as a relic of the PSlav *gъz(d)- : *gyz(d)-, gъzdъkъ alternation with the semantic development manifested ‘pretty, beautiful’ by *gyzdavъ is not clear. One may not rule out its

(this possibility is explored in Jakubowicz 2008: 519). 133

Conceptual Groups Innovative meaning дéльный

The innovative meaning ‘beautiful, strapping’ (dial. Russian ) emerged on the basis of the generalised meaning ‘high-quality,’ ‘good’ (cf. GOOD, 1A.11, p. 101).

Summary of Semantic Changes

3A.1. *krasьnъ ← ← 3A.2. *pěknъ, *pěkrъ BEAUTIFUL PSlav RED (?) PSlav COLORFUL/MULTICOLORED (?) struct. ← 3A.3. *ladьnъ BEAUTIFUL Western COLORFUL etym. ← or 3A.3.2.3A.3.1. PRETTY Western, Eastern WELL-ORDERED Early Polish, USorb, Eastern ← - usian ← PRETTY Western, Eastern SHAPELY dial. Polish, Czech, Slovak, Russian, dial. Belar lěpъ NEAT/WELL-ORDERED early Polish, USorb, Eastern ← 3A.4. * 3A.5. *rędьnъ PRETTY/BEAUTIFUL PSlav APPROPRIATE PSlav ← 3A.6. *godьnъ PRETTY/PRETTY LSorb, USorb WELL-ORDERED Western, Southern ← kyprъ PRETTY Czech, Slovene, Croatian, Serbian WELL-FITTED PSlav ← ← 3A.7. * ← PRETTY/BEAUTIFUL Bulgarian, Macedonian PLUMP (of the body) Czech MELLOW 3A.8. *drěčьnъ (of earth) Czech, Slovak, Ukrainian POROUS Ukrainian, Slavonic-Serbian ← ← 3A.9. *gladъkъ PRETTY Czech, Slovak TALL Czech, Slovak WELL-GROWN Western, Southern ← 3A.10. *grozьnъ PRETTY early and dialectal Polish, Polabian SMOOTH PSlav ← ← ← -

PRETTY/HANDSOME dial. Slovene STRAPPING dial. Slovene *STRONG TER 3A.11. *zъlъ RIBLE/DANGEROUS PSlav ← ← ← ← BAD PSlav 3A.12. *gdъ BEAUTIFUL Slovene BIG Slovene *STRONG IRATE PSlav ← ← BEAUTIFUL Czech, Slovak MAGNIFICENT Western, Old Church Slavonic, Old Russian, 3A.13. *gyzdavъ Russian PROUD Western, Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian, Eastern ← ← Slovene ← BEAUTIFUL Bulgarian, Macedonian DRESSED UP Serbian, Croatian KITSCHY UGLY Western, Southern The Development of Words Across Centuries

134 dělьnъ ← ← ← ASSOCI- 3A.14. * BEAUTIFUL dial. Russian GOOD dial. Russian HARD-WORKING PSlav ATED WITH WORK PSlav

lěpъ, *godьnъ ladьnъ, *rędьnъ It is also among the motivations of the concept ‘pretty’ that the references to the system: arrangement (* ) and order (* ),- which are featured in the chapters devoted to the concepts ‘good’ and ‘kind,’- recur, whereas – similarly asgyzdavъ in the case of ‘good’krasьnъ – they, pěknъ are direct motiva tionsladьnъ of the concept ‘pretty.’ Otherdrěčьnъ motivations arezъlъ based on the characteris(*grozьnъ tics of appearance: dress*kyprъ (* ), color (* gladъkъ ), build: shapelygdъ (*is a motivation – alternatively), of evaluative tall nature. (* Particularly), big (* noteworthy), strapping are the indirect), and others: plumpness ( ), smoothness (*zъlъ ). Wonderful*gyzdavъ (* ) They are based, as it seems, on a string of minimal semantic changes. In the motivationscase of *gyzdavъ with negativea changeability overtones: of the badness criteria (* of aesthetic) and ugliness evaluation ( might). have played a certain role. 27

3B.3B.1. UGLY *gnusьnъ Etymological meaning The Słownik prasłowiański 2 2 that some PSlav words are – derived obscure from the PIE root *ghen- - gn [SPúa 7: 201], similarly as Vasmerχναύνειν[Vasmer 1: 422], claims The PSlav *gnu- was supposed to continue the PIE *ghn-o- : g h‘ton-e rub,-, an to extended grind,’ juxta vari- posed with the Old Norse ‘to rub’ and the Greek ‘to scrape, to scratch.’

ant of the PIE root at a reduced grade. This juxtaposition – both due to the lack of of non-Slavic equivalents which would continue a given Proto-Indo-European form as Structuralwell as due to meaning the semantic aspects – is not convincing. -ьnъ from the PSlav *gnusь : *gnusъ gnusiti ‘revolting’ A derivative with the suffix ‘something which is revolting’The meaning or from based * on ‘to continuants be revolting’ [SP 7: 201].

‘causing physical revulsion’ > ‘causing- mental revulsion’ Aside the meaning ‘repulsive,’ for the sake of the Proto-Slavic language one may recon struct the meaning ‘causing physical revulsion,’ which emerged by the transposition of the feeling of revulsion from the physical to the mental sphere [cf. BAD, 1B.12, p. 110]. Cf. also the conclusions which refer to the nominational bases of the lexemes which express 27

the concept ‘pretty’ contained in an article by Krystyna Kleszczowa [2002]. 135

Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings

In Russian dialects the meaning ‘ugly’ emerged as a result of the weakening of the Slovakmeaning as ‘repulsive.’well as Bulgarian The narrowing and Macedonian down of dialects.the meaning ‘causing physical revulsion,’ based on the connoted cause of revulsion, is the meaning ‘dirty’ which is present in

3B.2. Eastern and Southern *gadьnъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav gadъ is based on the PIE *gēdh- alternation -a- : -ě- žad- –< uncertaingěd ‘causing revulsion, disgust’gěd is(?) most closely related with the Baltic *gēdā ‘ag thingda which causes revulsion’ with thegīda-n PSlav (cf. kwda--) of the root vowel.quāt The, originalkōt * (Lithuanian ‘shame, disgrace,’ Old Prussian ‘shame’), the Old Germanic * (Old High German ‘excrement’). The original Structuralmeaning of the meaning root ‘to cause repulsion, revulsion’ is possible but it is poorly attested. -ьnъ from the PSlav *gadъ. ‘revolting’ AThe derivative meaning with based the suffix on continuants - ‘causing revulsion,gadьnъ repulsive’ The meaning ‘causing revulsion,gáden, Bulgarian abhorrent’ гàден is attested in Southгáдный and East Slavic languag es since the earliest written records (Old Church Slavonic ) until the modern onesInnovative (e.g. early meanings Slovene , dial. Russian ). isThe not innovative attested. This meanings word was refer included to the heremental due sphere to the exact[see BAD,congruence 1B.13, ofp. the 110], meaning more basedrarely toon the the physical continuants sphere with – ‘dirty’ *gydъkь in ,Russian *gyzdavъ dialects.. The weakened meaning ‘ugly’

3B.3. Eastern *gydъkъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *gydъ is based on the PIE *gūdh- gūtha- ‘causing revulsion, disgust’gadъ, see *gadьnъ cf. also *gadьnъ ‘a thing which causes revulsion,’ cf. OInd ‘excrement.’ In the PIE context it is related with * [SP 8: 336]; Structural meaning [3B.2, p. 133]. -ъkъ from *gyditi whose basis is *gydъ ‘causing revulsion’ A derivative with the suffix ‘a thing which causes revulsion.’The meaning based on continuants

‘causing revulsion, repulsive’ TheInnovative meaning meanings‘repulsive’ is attested in all East Slavic languages. The meaning of the Belarusian гiдкі

‘ugly,’ aside ‘revolting,’ emerged as a result of the weakening of the original meaning ‘revolting.’ 136 The Development of Words Across Centuries

gyzdavъ

3B.4.Etymological Western, meaning Southern * gydъkъ, 3B.3, p. 135 and *gadьnъ ‘causing revulsion, disgust’ [see * Structural meaning, 3B.2, p. 134] -avъ from the PSlav *gy(z)diti - sive origin from *gyditi, ‘causingsee *gydъkъ revulsion’ A derivative with the suffix , a form with an infix of an expres The meaning based on continuants [SP 8: 340].

‘revolting, abhorrent’ gizdawy In West Slavic languages the basic meaning – ‘repulsive, abhorrent’ – which is the source of the meaning ‘ugly’ and of other innovative meanings such as dial. Polish ‘dirty,Innovative slovenly,’ meanings ‘lazy.’

theThe developmentmeaning ‘ugly,’ of similarly the innovative as in the meanings cases discussed which refer above, to emerged elegance as in a Southresult Slavicof the decreased intensity featured in the content ‘causing revulsion.’ For information about

languages [see PRETTY, 3A.13, p. 132]. 3B.5. *bridъ/*bridъkъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *briti bhrē- : bhrī- bhrī- 2 ‘cutting’ ‘to cut’ is based on the PIE * ‘to cut,’ cf. OInd ‘to punish, toStructural injure [Vasmer meaning 1: 213]. The PSlav *bridъ x -dъ from *briti ‘cutting’ -kъ. is a derivative with the suffi ‘to cut.’ A greater rangeThe meanings is manifested based by the on form continuants with a secondarily accumulated suffix bridъkъ and the early Slovene brídek, was preserved in Czech and Slovak, where ‘sharp’ a differentiation > ‘unpleasant’ of forms and meanings The original meaning ‘sharp,’ apart from the OCS břitký, Slovak britký břidký, Slovak bridkýoccurred. The new form with a progressive assimilation (Czech ) meaningretained theis present older meaning, in all Slavic whereas languages, the regular e.g. in early continuant Polish brzydki(early Czech - ) assumedbřëdḱi an innovative meaning ‘unpleasant; revolting.’ The bridkisame innovative Slovene brídek бридкúй ‘repulsive; unpleas ant,’ Kashubian ‘ugly, unsightly; dirty; bad, immoral,’ USorb ‘revolting,’ Innovative meanings ‘unpleasant, disagreeable,’ Ukrainian ‘ugly, revolting.’

both Sorbian ones; it was probably adopted by Belarusian and Ukrainian from Polish. The meaning ‘having a repulsive appearance; ugly’ emerged in the Polish language and the sphere of tactile sensations to the sphere of aesthetic sensations. The meaning It is a result of the transfer of the meaning ‘disagreeable, unpleasant to the touch’ from bridki ‘unpleasant to the touch’ may be reconstructed on the basis of innovative, specialized meanings, e.g. the dial. LSorb ‘softish,’ which is in opposition to ‘sharp.’ As a result Conceptual Groups 137 realizedof a synaesthetic by hyponyms, ascription e.g. theof the USorb sensations bridki of one sense [tactile, visual etc.] tobřidký other senses there emerged the meaning ‘whichбр actsдки upon the senses in an unpleasant manner,’ бридъкыи ‘bland, about a smell,’ dial. Czech ‘fatty, about meat,’ in dial. Belarusian ‘stinking, about smoke,’ in Old Russian ‘acerbic; sour; bitter’ [cf. BAD, 1B.15, p. 111]. 3B.6. *rǫžьnъ Etymological meaning The PSlav *ręgati ręgnǫti Slovene régati – uncertain ‘extended; astride’ (?) reng- 28 The ‘to extend unattested oneself; one-time to crack’ form (cf. **Churchręgti Slavonic ‘to be astride,’ ringi ‘to crack; to produce cracks’) probably derives from the PIE ‘to twist, to bend’. has an exact equivalentringi in the Latin ‘to sulk, to be angry; to show the teeth (in annoyance). The development of the meaning allegedly proceeded in an analogous manner in the Latin ‘to bare one’s teeth’ > ‘to sulk, to become angry’ and the PSlav ‘to bare the teeth when smiling’ Structural> ‘to sneer.’ meaning The PSlav *rǫžьnъ -ьnъ from the PSlav *rǫgati ‘sneering; derisive’ vs. ‘the one who is sneeredręgati at’ is a derivative with the suffix ‘to sneer at, to deride, to jeer,’ which is an apophonic form from the PSlav * ‘to extend oneself;The meanings to crack’ [Boryś:based 670].on continuants

On the basis of structural meanings in the Proto-Slavic ‘derisive’ language vs. ‘the there one emerged being meaningsderided’ > ‘funny’ which were in opposition to themselves of the active subject to the passive ‘derisive’ vs.Innovative ‘the one being meanings derided, funny.’ - ружныи The meaning ‘revolting,’ hence the weakened ‘ugly,’ is attested in Old Russian; it also ex ists in Slovene, Croatian and Serbian. It emerged, similarly as the Old Russian ‘shameful, ignominious,’ from the original ‘derided; one that should be derided.’ *mzъkъ

3B.7.Etymological meaning Structural meaning ‘rotten, decayed’ut supra [see UNPLEASANT, 2B.4, p. 122] 28 ‘revolting’ ( ) *reng- is based *rong- The reconstruction of the meaning ‘verdrehen, (ver)biegen’ for the PIE root* réngh- on the meanings of Germanic verbs which are based on the causative-iterative form [LIV: 639]. However, due to the possibility of the influence ofringi the continuants of ‘winden,ręgnǫti zusammendrehen’ [LIV: 639] upon the Germanicrégati verbs it would be better to base the reconstruction upon the meanings ‘to show the teeth in annoyance’ (Lat. ), ‘to open’ (Church Slavonic ) ranctweiand ‘to crack, to produce cracks’ (Slovene ) – attested2 independently in the Romance and Slavonicto the solution language of thegroups, problem. which indicate the original meaning ‘to extend; to open.’ The Old Prussian ‘to steal,’ which is sometimes mentioned [Vasmer 3: 512, Boryś: 670], fails to contribute 138 The Development of Words Across Centuries

The meaning based on continuants ut supra

Innovative meanings ‘revolting’ ( ) The dialectal Slovak mrzký of the original meaning. ‘ugly’ aside ‘revolting’ emerged as a result of the weakening 3B.8. *grozьnъ

Etymological meaning

grüznə grozny and USorb hrozny, Slovene grTheȏzen meaning, Bulgarian ‘revolting,’ and Macedonian hence the грòзен softened meaning ‘ugly,’ is an innovation of the particularterror and languagesrepugnance. (Polabian (f.), LSorb ). It is a result of the association between 3B.9. *gdъ Etymological meaning

The meaning based on –continuants obscure [see PROUD,ut 14A.1, supra p. 244] Innovative meanings ‘proud’ ( ) - struction of the string of minimal semantic changes seems most likely. There is a problem associatedThe innovative with meaning the lack of‘revolting; certain semanticugly’ emerged links inin thethe particularSouth Slavic languages. area. The recon

3B.10. *chudъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘crushed; crumbled’ (?) [see BAD, 1B.3, p.The 105] meaning based on continuants ut supra ‘small, minute,’ ‘meagre, bad,’ ‘weak,’ ‘thin,’Innovative ‘poor’ meanings( )

generalThe meaning evaluation ‘ugly’ or emerged physical independently condition onto inan Old aesthetic Russian evaluation. from ‘lousy, flimsy, bad’ and in Polabian from ‘thin; sickly, miserable’ It is based on the transfer of a negative 3B.11. *marьnъ

Etymological meaning

[see BAD, 1B.6, p. 108] 139

Conceptual Groups Structural meaning - ut supra ‘the one that is dreamt, that seems (to be sth),’ ‘imagi nary’The meaning ( based) on continuant ut supra Innovative meanings ‘transitory’ > ‘worthless’ ( ) a negative evaluation of the physical condition onto the aesthetic evaluation. The emergence of the meaning ‘ugly’ in Polish dialects was caused by the transfer of 3B.12. *grǫbъ : *grubъ Etymological meaning

‘unworked / unprocessed’ [see UNPLEASANT, 2B.3, p.The 121] meaning based on continuants - ut supra ‘raw, unworked, rough,’ fig. ‘unkind, un pleasant;Innovative boorish’ meanings ( ) grȗb, dial. Serbian grúb, dial. Bulgarian груб The meaning ‘ugly’ in South Slavic languages (dial. Croatian ) emerged through the generalization of the meaning ‘unprocessed.’ 3B.13. *durьnъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘blowing (as the wind); associated with wind’Structural (?) [see meaning VIOLENT, 10A.5, p. 207]ut supra The meanings based ‘turbulent’ on continuants ( ) ut supra ‘agitated, violent; impetuous,’ Northern ‘mad’Innovative ( meanings) дурнóй, which more fre- недурнóй The innovative meaning ‘ugly’ was assumed by the Russian quently occurs in the negated form ‘pretty.’ chvorъ

3B.14.Etymological * meaning The meaning based on ‘wounded;continuants festering’ut [see supra SICK, 7B.1, p. 186] Innovative meaning ‘sick’ ( ) örě < *xvorъ

Instead of the meaning ‘sick’ the Polabian adjective has the meaning ‘bad, Theugly, loss unsightly; of the dirty,general filthy.’ pan-Slavic Such a semantic meaning developmentshould be supposedly is caused byinterpreted a generalization by the isolatedand a secondary position specializationof the Polabian in language the context in reference of the broader to other meaning Slavic ‘bad,languages. miserable.’ The Development of Words Across Centuries

140 Summary of Semantic Changes

3B.1. *gnusьnъ ← 3B.2. *gadьnъ UGLY dial. Russian REVOLTING PSlav ← 3B.3. *gydъkъ *UGLY REVOLTING Eastern, Southern ← gyzdavъ UGLY Belarusian REVOLTING Eastern ← 3B.4. * 3B.5. *bridъ/*bridъkъ UGLY dial. Czech REVOLTING Western, Southern ← ← ← UGLY Polish, ←USorb, Ukrainian REVOLTING Western, Czech/Slovak, Eastern *ONE THAT ACTS UPON THE SENSES IN AN UNPLEASANT MANNER *UNPLEASANT TO 3B.6. *rǫžьnъ THE TOUCH SHARP PSlav ← ← - ← ← ← UGLY Slovene, Serbian-Croatian← REVOLTING Slovene, Serbian-Croatian *CON TEMPTIBLE DRAWING A SMILE struct. FUNNY/LAUGHING struct. HAVING mzъkъ ONE’S MOUTH OPEN struct. OPEN/SPREAD struct. ← 3B.7. * 3B.8. *grozьnъ UGLY Slovak REVOLTING PSlav ← - ern, Southern ← ← UGLY Polish, Sorbian, Slovene, Bulgarian, Macedonian CAUSING REVULSION West 3B.9. *gdъ INSPIRING FEAR PSlav TERRIBLE/DANGEROUS PSlav ← ← ← ← UGLYSlovene, Southern Serbian-Croatian CAUSING ← REVULSION Southern INSPIRING← FEAR Southern TERRIBLE/DANGEROUS← dial.← Polish, Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian, Eastern HUGE BRAVE Old Russian, Russian BOLD early Polish, Old 3B.10. *chudъ Russian HAUGHTY PSlav PROUD PSlav 3B.10.1. ← ← and 3B.10.2.UGLY Old Russian BAD/MEAGRE PSlav CRUMBLED (?) etym. ← or 3B.10.3.UGLY Polabian THIN PSlav ← ← WEAK PSlav ← 3B.11. *marьnъ UGLY Polabian MISERABLE PSlav CRUMBLED (?) etym. ← WEAK Polish, Belarusian ← ← ← UGLY dial. Polish, Kashubian BAD/MEAGRE Polish 3B.12. *grǫbъ : *grubъ WORTHLESS PSlav IMAGINARY struct. ← 3B.13. *durьnъ UGLY Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian UNPROCESSED PSlav ← ←

UGLY Russian BAD Russian VIOLENT etym. Conceptual Groups chvorъ 141 ← SICK PSlav 3B.14. * UGLY Polabian

gnusьnъ, *gadьnъ, *gydъkъ, *gyzdavъ, *bridъkъ, *mzъkъ, *grozьnъIn the , motivations*gdъ, *rǫžьnъ of the concept ‘ugly’ there is a strong dominance of causing revulsion (* marьnъ chudъ chvorъ). The remaining motivationsgrǫbъ are based on external features: weaknessdurьnъ (* , *marьnъ), thinness, indirect (* motivation;, alternatively) *chudъ or on their causes – sickness (* ), lack of refinement (* ) or on the evaluative assessment: bad (* , alternatively).

4A. HIGH/TALLvysokъ

4A.1.Etymological * meaning ‘located at the top’ > ‘above a given reference point’ The basis of the PSlav *vys- is the PIE *ūpso-, formed on the basis of the PIE preposition > ‘high/tall’ *up(o)- auf - minant -lo- ὑψηλóς uasal ‘on, on the top; to the top’ (cf. the German ). The same basis with the deter Structural is meaning discernible in the Greek ‘high,’ OIr ‘idem.’ The PSlav *vysokъ29 is formed from the basis *vys-, also preserved in the form of the comparative grade *vys-je ‘high’vyše -okь is peculiar to the names of sizes. Its -kъ coalesced with the vowel -o- > * . The suffix overgenesis the is adjectives not known which but itfeatured is likely similar that the semantics. suffix * The problem consists with the which belongs to the stem and which precedes the suffix, and that then it extended- - finding of this first adjective, which was a source of analogous changes [cf. Brodowska Honowska 1960: 198].

29 *vysokъ the scholar reconstructs an earlier form **vych-okъ atušà shoot, A which different he derives etymology from is the suggested PIE ūš-aka- by .Wojciech Smoczyński. For , juxtaposing it with the Lithuanian ‘sprout, sprig, young ’ He also mentions parallels of semantic development: ūrdhv-á ← *ūrdh-ú-, mit einer zu dem obi- gen“Daß urslav. die ‘hoch’ *ūš- bezeichnende adjektivische Form öfters von dem Verb ‘wachsen’← bzw.*/werd ‘wachsen -/, vgl. ved.lassen’ várdhate herleitbar ist, bezeugt beispielweise ai. ‘hochaltus alt parallelenalere gedehnten Sampras.-Schwundstufe, nämlich */urd -/ ‘wächst’ […]. Bedeutungsnahe is freilich lat. ‘hoch, tief,’ eigl. ‘emporgewachsen’ - (= ahd. ‘alt’) von ‘ernahren, aufziehen, pflegen’ […]” [Smoczyński 2000: 92]. ūrdhv-á ← *ūrdh-ú-, with parallel prolonged apophony in(“That relation the adjectivalto the PSlav form *ūš- meaning, namely ‘high’*/urd-/ can ← often be derived from thevárdhate verb ‘to grow’ or ‘to in crease,’altus is attested, e.g., by the OInd. ‘high’ alt alere */werd-/, cf. the Vedic ‘grows’ […]. The Latin ‘high, deep,’ actually ‘to grow’ (= the Old High German ‘old’) from ‘to feed, to grow (transitive), to raise, to tend to,’ is probably semantically close.”) The Development of Words Across Centuries

142 The meaning based on continuants vysoký, Serbian vìsok высóкий ‘high’ The meaning ‘high’ is attested in all Slavic languages, cf. the Czech , Russian . The secondary meanings which are mentioned in the “Innovative Innovativemeanings” paragraph meanings could have begun to emerge already in the Proto-Slavic period. The continuants of the PSlav *vysokъ

form numerous figurative meanings, which are usually consistentwysoka with the figurative meanings formed by descriptors with the basic meaningwysoka ‘big’ (but with a more limited range of usage), e.g. ‘strong, of great intensity’ capability(Polish “ of forminggorączka” secondary ‘high fever’), meanings, and the based ones on which synaesthesia, express a referring positive evaluation:to sounds: Polishwysoki “ jakość” ‘high quality.’ A peculiar feature of ‘high/tall [wysoki]’ is its

“ głos, ton” ‘a high voice, tone.’ drěčьnъ30

4A.2.Etymological Western meaning and Southern * The PSlav *drěkъ draĩkas ‘elongated’ is a substantivized adjective. It has an exact equivalent in Lithuanian: Structural ‘slender, meaning tall (of trees)’ [SP 4: 229]. The PSlav *drěčьnъ -ьnъ from *drěkъ ‘such as a pole, as a tree trunk’ is a derivative with the suffix ‘trunk, pole, beam’ [SPThe 4: meaning 228]. based on continuants

a departure from the etymological meaning ‘well-grown’ and the emergence in Slovak, Slovene The Proto-Slavic meaning is based on ‘such as a pole, as a tree trunk,’ which influenced

and Croatian of the meaning ‘strong, powerful,’ perhaps a common innovation [see STRONG, 6A.11, p. 168] with a residual preservation in Czech and Slovak of the meaning whichInnovative is closer meanings to the Lithuanian equivalent ‘elongated.’ drečný

The meaning ‘well-grown’ is the basis of the Czech and Slovak ‘tall,’ hence ‘slender,’ ‘shapely; pretty.’ dosǫgъ/*dosǫžь

4A.3.Etymological Eastern meaning * The PSlav *sęgati seg- – obscure sègti segt ‘to reach out withsaj- one’s hand to get sth’ is based on the PIE * (in- thecult PSlav to reconstruct form there due is toa nasal the discrepancies infix), present between in the Lithuanian the meanings of ‘to the affix; continuants. to fasten to sth,’ Latv. ‘to cover,’ OInd ‘to hang sth.’ The meaning of the PIE root is diffi 30

[SP 4: 228] reconstructs this adjective as a dialectal Proto-Slavic one. However, if Erich shouldBerneker’s be considered remark, which a later is commonmentioned derivative there, that from some the PSlavCzech *drěkъwords. were likely to have been borrowed from Slovak, then due to the distribution of the word (Slovene, Croatian and Slovak) it Conceptual Groups Structural meaning 143 A derivative with the apophony of the root vowel from *do-sęgti *sęgti ‘onedos thatǫžь reachesemerged up through to sth,’ a secondary‘one that reachesaccumulation sth’ of the -jь. ‘to reach,’ a prefixed ‘to reach.’ The form * Thesuffix meanings based on continuants досужии ‘big, tall,’ ‘skillful, able’ It is likely that not only the meanings ‘big, tall’ but also ‘skillful, able’ (cf. Old Russian - to-Slavic‘dexterous community. ‘; able’), based Therefore, on the the figurative semantic meaning development of the verboccurred ‘to be at able the verbalto reach level. sth in a physical manner’ > ‘to be able to attain sth,’ emerged during the period of the Pro Innovative meanings Innovative changes of the meanings of adjectives proceeded along different tracks.

The semantic dominant ‘the ability to be active’31 is which the basis is testimony of such meanings to the fact as ‘diligent,that the eager, laborious; ingenious,’ ‘vigorous, energetic,’ ‘brave, daring,’ ‘curious,’ and a meaning which features negative overtones – ‘stupid’, adjective assumed the seme of excess, also present in ‘too fast; one that is in a hurry.’ Without doubt the innovative meaning in Russian – ‘one that has free time, free’ – emerged as a consequence of the meaning ‘dexterous, skillful, capable,’ and therefore one that quickly performs the task that he was set to do. [See also OLD, 8B.7, p. 195] velь/*velikъ

4A.4.Etymological * meaning The etymology of the PSlav *velь and the formant -kъ, *velikъ, which emerged by the – obscurevelьjь accumulation upon2 the definite form * , is obscure. One most frequently suggests athe Proto-Indo-European PSlav *velěti origin from the root with a reconstructed meaning ‘to want’32 (according*el- to Snoj : 812, ‘to rule, to wield power’) – which in this case is related with ‘to command, to order’ < ‘to want, to desire’2 – or the homonymous ‘to clench,’ while the authors of the dictionaries emphasize the uncertainty of the etymology [e.g. Brückner: 616–617; Boryś: 693–694; Vasmer 1: 289; Rejzek: 704]. See alsoThe [Helimskij meaning 2000: based 325–327]. on continuants form *velikъ, as well as the residually preserved ‘big’ *velь wieli ẃeli, The meaningвелии ‘big’ or ‘great’ is indicated by all of the continuants of the PSlav extended (e.g. the Old Polish , LSorb InnovativeOld Russian meanings). -

The meaning ‘tall’ in the Sorbian languages, in Czech and Slovak is one of the realiza tions of the meaning ‘big.’ This realization refers to the vertical dimension. The rich 31 - досýжая basis forThe the meaning change ‘stupid of meaning [дурный, on this бестолковый]’ ground. is drawn from SRNG 8: 150, where it is ac companied32 with the following quotation: “ голова.”*elH- I am unable to account for the exact *el- [LIV: 615–617] reconstructs two different forms: ‘to be strong; to be mighty, to wield power’ and ‘to embrace.’ The Development of Words Across Centuries

144 of this concept.33 development of figurative meanings from the original ‘big’ is typical for the exponents

*golěmъ

4A.5.Etymological meaning The PSlav *golěmъ is probably the original present passive participle in -mъ from the unattested **golěti ‘powerful, strong’ galti - ‘to become strong,’ of which the Lithuanian ‘to be ablegal- tofrom do thesth’ rootis an with exact lengthened equivalent vocalism [SP 8: 36; *gēl- see also Syročkin 1997: 79–80]. The verb con Welshtinues galluthe PIE nominal form (according togellit LIV:, geill 164, the perfective form)kalaw * ‘to be able to do sth, to be strong.’ Cf. also the The meaning ‘to be based able to on do continuants sth,’ MWelsh ‘idem,’ Armenian ‘to seize.’ The meanings of the continuants of golěmъ which are mentioned below are varied but ‘great, very big, huge’ golemy withoutOld Czech doubt holemý the most distinctive meaninggòlem is ‘very big, great,’ therefore one which is already innovative in relation to the PIE ‘strong,’golěmъ cf.: the Old Polish ‘very big,голя́м great,’ ‘big, huge,’ Serbian ‘very big, great,’ ‘long; wide; spacious,’ ‘tall, well-grown,’ ‘numerous,’ Church Slavonicголем ‘very big, great,’голѣмыи Bulgarian ‘big,’ ‘very big, huge,’голя́мый ‘long,’ ‘numerous; abundant,’ ‘strong, intensive; violent, fast’- ‘important; distinguished,’ Macedonian ‘big,’ Old Russian ‘very big, great,’ dial. Russian ‘long-legged,’ ‘numerous,’ ‘true, similar,’ ‘without addi tions,Innovative admixtures.’ meanings The continuants of *golěmъ Bulgarian and in Macedonian, underwent in these languages a development which is analogous to the aforementioned, which development today are the of basic the PSlav exponents *velikъ of the concept ‘big’ in in the Serbian and Croatian gòlem has the same source as in the case of the continuants of the aforementioned *velikъ. . The meaning ‘high’

*bol’ьjь

4A.6.Etymological meaning The meaning based on ‘strong’continuants [see GOOD, 1A.6, p.ut 98] supra Innovative meanings ‘big,’ ‘good’ ( ) большóй lost its comparative value and it is the basic lexeme which ex-

The Russian presses the concept ‘big,’ including also the content ‘high’ in Russian.

33 *velikъ Ksenija P. Smolina [Smolina 1978] devoted an article to the development of the adjective , especially in the Old Russian language. Conceptual Groups *dǫžь 145

4A.7.Etymological Western meaning and Eastern Structural meaning ‘pressing’ [see STRONG,ut supra 6A.5, p. 164] The meaning based ‘strong,’on continuants ‘healthy’ ( ut) supra Innovative meanings ‘strong’ ( ) should be treated in the same way as in the case of the continuants of other discussed The innovative meaning ‘strapping, tall’ in Ukrainian, similarly as ‘big, tall’ in Polish, lexemes with the meaning ‘big.’ dikъ

4A.8.Etymological * meaning The meaning based on continuants – obscure [see VIOLENT, 10A.7, p. 209] ut supra Innovative meanings ‘unused by people’ > ‘untamed’ ( )

- It is difficult to explain the emergence of the meanings ‘of great height, big, tall’ aside ‘long’ in the northern dialects of the Russian language or to illustrate it with the paral lels of semantic development. It is likely that the meaning ‘tall’ that we are interested in emerged in the process of the narrowing down of the earlier meaning ‘big.’ Summary of Semantic Changes

vysokъ ← 4A.1. * drěčьnъ HIGH/TALL PSlav ONE THAT IS AT THE TOP/HIGHER etym. ← 4A.2. * dosǫgъ : *dosǫžь HIGH/TALL Czech, Slovak SUCH AS A TREE TRUNK Western, Southern ← 4A.3. * velь/*velikъ HIGH/TALL Eastern ONE THAT REACHES STH struct. ← ← 4A.4. * golěmъ HIGH/TALL Sorbian, Czech, Slovak BIG PSlav STRONG etym. ← 4A.5. * bol’ьjь HIGH/TALL Serbian, Croatian BIG PSlav ← ← 4A.6. * dǫžь HIGH/TALL Russian BIG PSlav STRONG etym. ← ← 4A.7. * dikъ HIGH/TALL Polish, Ukrainian BIG Polish, Ukrainian STRONG Western, Eastern ← ← 4A.8. * HIGH/TALL dial. Russian BIG dial. Russian WILD PSlav The Development of Words Across Centuries

146 velikъ, *golěmъ, *bol’ьjь, *dǫžь on Thethe conceptconceptualization ‘high/tall’ isof usuallysomeone motivated who is ableby magnitude to reach aand, certain indirectly, point bydos strengthǫžь (* ). Other motivations are based drěčьnъ - (* ) or of someone who resembles a tree trunk with his or her height (* ). Thevysokъ parametric semantics of the concept ‘high/tall’ facilitates mo tivation based on a prepositional concept which expresses a location ‘at the top of sth’ (* ).

4B. LOW/SHORTnizъkъ

4B.1.Etymological * meaning The adverb and the preposition *nizъ nei- ni ‘located at the bottom; moving downward’ ni-. ‘down; downward; is based on the PIE * 34 ‘down; downward.’Structural The meaning OInd ‘idem’ is based on the form with short vocalism – * The PSlav *nizъk is an extension of the earlier PSlav form *nizъ, attested only in the ‘low-situated’ - tive *nizъ is the homophonic adverb and preposition *nizъ substantivized adjectives signifying ‘a place which is located low.’ The basis of the adjec The meaning based on continuants ‘at the bottom; downward.’ The meaning based on continuants is very homogenous; *nizъkъ, apart from the basic function of determining the vertical dimension, ‘low’ constitutes secondary meanings which may be referred already to the Proto-Slavic period. To a great extent they correspond to the secondary meanings of the antonymous *vysokъ, although the parallelism of their development is limited. Innovative meanings At the continuants of the lexeme *nizъkъ

the continuants of the PSlav *vysokъ secondary figurative meanings emerged awhich voiced refer consonant: to the moral nizъk sphere and with and thewhich unvoiced do not onehave nisъk antonymous, between equivalents which a relatively among typical distribution of meanings occurred.. (In Bulgarian The new two form alternant assumed forms a concrete emerged: meaning with

whereas the former one retained a figurative meaning used in reference to people: ‘mean, lowdown.’) malъ

4B.2.Etymological * meaning ‘small’ *-zъ was perhaps added by analogy to other Proto-Slavic prepositions 34 The obscure final [Boryś: 365]. Conceptual Groups The meaning based on continuants 147 - ‘small’ BulgarianThe continuants мàлък harmoniouslyмáленький indicate. the original meaning ‘small.’ In certain languag es the original form was replaced with adjectives with accumulated suffixes, e.g. the Innovative meanings, Russian

Similarly as in the case of the antonymous concept ‘big,’ the exponents of the concept ‘small’ also realize the meaning ‘of low height,’ and therefore ‘low/short.’ *knъ

4B.3.Etymological meaning The PSlav *knъ continues the PIE *krə-no-, a participle based on the reduced grade of the PIE root *(s)ker- ‘cut off’

The meaning based ‘to cut.’on continuants

‘crippled; damaged’krъnъ The meaning ‘crippled;крън :damaged’ кърн is indicated by the continuants with the meaning ‘devoidкорныи of a part of the body,’ e.g. the Churchkr̀n Slavonic ‘with ears that were cut off,’ Bulgarian ‘without an ear,’ ‘about a vessel, chipped,’ Old Russian Innovative‘with meanings a damaged nose or ear,’ Slovene ‘broken; cracked’ and others.

кóрный : корнóй developmentThe innovative of the meaning early Polish ‘short kierny in stature; short’ emerged in the Russian dialects [Sławski 2: 491] as a suggestive expression of low height. An obscure ‘angry; irate.’ krǫpъ

4B.4.Etymological * meaning The meaning based on ‘shrunk’continuants [see FAT, 5A.4, p. 150]ut supra Innovative meanings ‘short and fat’ ( ) Dial. Bulgarian кръп, крап, кроп element of the original meaning becoming a semantic dominant. ‘short; court’ emerged as a result of one semantic rǫdьnъ

4B.5.Etymological * meaning ‘arranged in a row, in a series’ [see GOOD, 1A.4, p.The 97] meaning based on continuants ut supra Innovative meanings ‘appropriate, suitable’ ( ) rǫdьnъ aside the

The innovative meaning ‘short,’ which appears in the Church Slavonic meanings ‘linked, joint,’ ‘appropriate,’ probably should be derived from the meaning The Development of Words Across Centuries

148 comme il faut ‘appropriate.’ Perhaps it is a contextual meaning which realises the content ‘ ; not too tall.’ Summary of Semantic Changes

nizъkъ ← 4B.1. * malъ LOW/SHORT PSlav LOCATED LOW/AT THE BOTTOM etym. ← 4B.2. * knъ LOW/SHORT pan-Slavic SMALL PSlav ← ← PSlav ← 4B.3. * krǫpъ SHORT dial. Russian DAMAGED CUT OFF etym. ← ← 4B.4. * rǫdьnъ SHORT dial. Bulgarian SHORT AND FAT PSlav SHRUNK etym. ← 4B.5. * SHORT Church Slavonic APPROPRIATE PSlav

nizъkъ - vationThe conceptthrough ‘low/short,’a small size similarly is certainly as the common antonymous but in ‘high/tall,’ the Proto-Slavic is motivated con- by the prepositional concept ‘at themalъ bottom; downward’ (* ). The moti

textkr ǫitpъ is represented in the case (* ). Another example of this motivation is the abstraction of ak  smallnъ size from a more complex concept ‘stocky’ through(* ). being A suggestive comme il motivation faut must beinvolves treated the with association caution. of shortness with damage, cutting off (* ). Due to the lack of parallels, the motivation

5A.1.5A. FAT Southern and Eastern *debelъ

Etymological meaning The dial. PSlav *debelъ35 is derived by scholars from the PIE *dheb- ‘strong, stout’ debikan ‘fat, strong,tapfer stout;, mighty’ [SP 3: 29–30].dapfer Equivalents with different formants exist in the Baltic group (Old Prussian ‘great’) and the Germanic group (Middle High German Middle German ‘heavy; stout, strong’).

35 The alternant form *dobelь *dobolъ - sult of the contamination of the PSlav *dobъ *debelъ. (and ) which is reconstructed by SP 3: 29–30, may be a re [cf. STRONG, 6A.9, p. 167] and Conceptual Groups The meaning based on continuants 149

‘stout/strong’ > ‘fat, obese’дебелыи The meanings ‘stout,’деб é‘strong,’лый ‘big’ are preserved above all in East Slavic languages Ukrainianwhere innovations дебéлий concentrate around these meanings (Old Russian ‘fat,’ дзяб‘straight,’éлы Russian ‘fat, stout, stocky,’ ‘healthy; strong, robust,’36 Probably ‘unprocessed,’ already ‘stocky, robust,’ ‘strong, powerful,’ ‘healthy,’ ‘durable,’ Belarusian became the ‘strong,’ dominant ‘powerful, one. durable,’ ‘healthy,’ ‘fat, stout, obese’). in the Proto-Slavic period in the South Slavic languages the secondary meaning ‘fat’ Innovative meanings

In the subsequent development of the word the place of the central seme ‘big size’ was assumed by a ‘well-developed adipose tissue.’ This dominant of meaning was a point meaningsof departure based for theon developmentsynaesthesia ofand further ones thatmeanings usually such accompany as ‘fatty (of the foods),’ lexical ‘fertile expo- (of land),’ ‘rich, abundant (of crops).’ In South Slavic languages there are also secondary nents of the concept ‘fat,’ i.e., ‘low (of voice).’ 5A.2. *tstъ Etymological meaning The PSlav *tstъ < *tz-to- is by origin a passive participle of the unattested PSlav verb *tzti, based on **telti tъlǫ ‘one that contains water, swollen’ tužti tùlzt which is also unattested (a closer basis is preserved in Baltic derivedlanguages, by scholarscf. the Lithuanian from the PIE root ‘to * swell,tē-/tū- to/ becometu- fluffy; to mellow, to rot away’ and the Latviantyti ‘to swell’). The Baltic-l- verbs and the reconstructed Slavic verb are- ly with the extension -k-: *te-k- tučiti ‘to swell, to increase one’s volume’ (cf. the PSlav * ) with the extension [Boryś: 636]. This root occurs more frequent The meaning based on continuants (cf. the PSlav * ‘to fatten’).

‘having a big volume,’ ‘fat,’ > Western and Southern ‘fat’ The etymological meaningtołsty ‘one that contains water’ disappeared completely,т�лстый yielding place to the meaning ‘one that has a big volume’ which existsт to�ўсты this day in certain The languages (e.g. USorb ‘having a big trunk (of a tree),’ Russian ‘fat,37 also- when referring to a book,’ deep, low, about a voice,’ Belarusian tłusty ‘idem’)., Slovene tólstmeaning, Croatian ‘fat, having tȕst, Bulgarian a big quantity тлъст of fat,’ which today is the basic meaning of the con- readytinuants during in the the majority period of Westthe community and South withinSlavic languages the particular (e.g. dialects.Polish ), emerged as a secondary meaning, probably al

36 Also Slovene débel bodyweight. In other languages ‘big,a trace great’ of the apart meaning from otherwhich meanings does not refer which to are fat clearlyis found associated in the continu with- ants37 of the PSlav derivative of *tšča tłuszcza

‘the thing which has a big volume,’ e.g. the Polish ‘a big group of people’ [cf. Boryś 1991: 27 (reprinted 2007: 543–544)]. 150 The Development of Words Across Centuries

5A.3. *jędrъ/jędrьnъ

Etymological meaning

There is a lack of a certain etymology.– uncertain In ‘swollen’ the majority (?), of ‘one cases that it is is considered in the middle, to have at emergedthe core’ on (?) the basis of the PIE *od- ἁδρός ‘to swell, to puff up’ with a likely Greek equivalent- tion– of a ‘mature, form without strong, the stout’ initial [Sławski j - , and which1: 536–537, considers where the one subst. can * findędro other suggestions asvariant well]. of A * differentętro interpretation is furnished by ESSJ 6: 66, which features a reconstrucędrъ and *ędro. These vacillations make it impossible to reconstruct the etymological ‘core’ as meaning a voiced ‘interior.’ Also Derksen: 157 is in favor of a relationship between *

Structuralwhich in the firstmeaning case would be ‘swollen’ and in the second one – ‘pertaining to a core.’

The PSlav *jędrъ (only in the case when one accepts the secondядрыи variant prob of- the etymological meaning) ‘one that has a core’ by the form *jędrьnъ is preserved only in-ьnъ South in Slavicwhich, languages according (the to the Old etymology Russian that one assumes,ably under one themay influence perceive eitherof the anChurch extension Slavonic of the language). original *Ajędrъ pan-Slavic, or a derivative range is offeatured *jędro. with the suffix The meanings based on continuants The meanings which are reconstructed for the Proto-Slavic language are attested e.g. by the Czech jadrný ‘vigorous; healthy; robust, firm;jédar fat’ -

èдър ‘robust, sturdy; strong,’ dial. ‘healthy,’ядр áSerbianний and Croatian ‘vigor ous; robust; healthy; firm,’dobrъ ‘well-fed, fat, strapping; sturdy,’ ‘rich, abundant,’ Bulgarian- ‘big, stout, strapping, fat; strong,’ Ukrainian . Žofie Šarapatková suggests ‘good,’about theanalogically problems to associated * , which with subsequently the establishment underwent of the various direction form of theof specializa semantic tion [Šarapatková 1996: 21–22] as the original Proto-Slavic meaning. For information

Innovativedevelopment meanings[see QUICK, 9A.5, p. 199]. The secondary meanings are numerous, although one may merely indicate their direct motivations, e.g. the Serbian and Croatian jédar - ian èдър of semantic development is impossible due to the ‘hard; unclear strict, semantic dense’

krǫpъ/*krǫpьnъ

5A.4.Etymological * meaning The PSlav *krǫpъ derives from a nominal form with an apophonic marker -o- from the PIE root *(s)kremp-38 : *(s)kremb- ‘shrunk’ schrimpfen of the PIE *(s)kerb- : (s)kerbh- ‘to twist; to shrink, to wrinkle (intransitive verbs)’ skrambl(cf. Middleỹs High German ‘to wrinkle, to-s- shrink’), which is a nasalized variant [Pokorny: 949; Sławski 3: 107]. Cf. also the Lithuanian ‘a potbellied dwarf’ (with a preserved mobile). 38

A root with a voiceless consonant which is left unreconstructed by Pokorny [Pokorny: 949]. 151

Conceptual Groups The meaning based on continuants It is likely that the Proto-Slavic meaning was preserved exactly in the Polish krępy and it is close to the dial. Croatian krȏpi ‘short and fat’ ‘stout,’ ‘round.’ This may be inferred from a comparison withInnovative other languages meanings which continue either the meaning ‘short’ or ‘fat.’ After one element of the meaning was eliminated another one became the semantic dominant of the word and it could undergo further development. Thus some of the

- continuants became antonymous in reference to their equivalents in other languages.- The meaning ‘fat’ existed in the кръпOld Czech, крап ,language кроп and in some ofcourt the Bulgarian dia lects.further The development seme ‘short’ there became also a emergedbasis for thea meaning meanings which in other is recorded dialects inof the BulgarChurch ian language (cf. dial. Bulgarian ‘short; shortkr (Fr.ǫpъ there).’ Asemerged a result the of form (krǫpьnъ -ьnъ Slavonic language – ‘small, minute.’krúpan On the basis крof ýtheпный form * 39 By way of an ), extended with the suffix , which is present in Russian, Serbian and Croatian (Serbian and Croatian , Russian [Boryś: 259]). extension of the sense, apart from the meaning ‘fat’ there emerged in these languages a meaning which refers to the general magnitude ‘big,’ which in Russian, according to the general tendency of the development of the meaning ‘big,’ yielded the meanings ‘important, considerable; distinguished.’ 5A.5. *sporъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *sporъ is related with *spěti - ‘successful, fruitful’sphē- with the determinant -e-: *sphē-e- ‘to achieve a [desired] result, to be fruitful, suc cessful.’ The verb is basedsp onti sp theju PIE root * ‘to be successful, to developspẽt spẽju in an auspicious manner.’ The closest equivalents include the Balticthe OInd ones sphāy- (Lithuanian ‘to make it on time,’spōwan ‘to guess at sth,’ ‘to bear fruit; to mature,’spuoen Latvian ‘to achieve an intended result, to succeed in doing sth’) and ‘to become fat,’ cf. the Old English -ro- and although the Old its High form German is not certain. ‘toAside succeed’ the PSlav [LIV: *sporъ 532]., which It is probably indicates asa regular early as apophonic in the Proto-Indo-European form *spho-ro- there language that theresphirá- was a nominal form with(pro)sperus the suffix sphə-ro- is the OInd, Vedic ‘fat’ and the Latin ‘prosperous,’ which indicate aThe form meaning with reduced based vocalism on continuants – * [Pokorny: 982]. in almost all Slavic languages. ‘efficient, abundant’ The meaning ‘efficient, abundant; one that brings the desired result, fruitful’ is attested

39 Some researchers derive the Serbian and Croatian krúpan крýпный from the PSlav *krupьnъ and they link it with the family *krupa and the*krupa Russian and the adjective *krupьnъ which is derived from it refer to slight objects, in contradistinction [Sławski 3: 178; to ESSJ the 13: aforemen 46–47].- However,tioned continuants semantic whichreasons feature speak even against antonymous such a solution. meanings. The PSlav 152 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Innovative meanings The innovative meanings which emerged on the basis of the meanings which are reconstructed for the Proto-Slavic languages are very numerous. They refer to physi- sporý spory спóрий -ьnъ спóрны cal features, both strength and size (Czechspory ‘strong; stout, stocky,’ USorbsporý Czech‘big; stocky, sporý chunky,’ Ukrainian ‘big,’ Belarusianспóрый with the suffix – -ьnъ‘dense’)спóрны as well as to ability (early Polish ‘fast, swift; able,’ Slovak ‘fast,’ in the Czech ‘eager, and Slovak zealous; sporý prompt,’ Russian ‘able,’ Belarusian with the suffix These – meanings ‘quick’). do not resultWhat isfrom interesting a natural is semantic the clear development enantiosemy but which from appears the in- ‘miserable, weak; exiguous’sparen aside ‘strong; abundant.’ spärlich thefluence meaning of the which German belong language, to this i.e., semantic the word sphere family and which ‘to are save also money; present to grudgein oth- ersb languages:sth,’ USorb ‘stingy; spory frugal,’ ‘rare, exiguous,sporý e.g. of hair.’ This is clearly indicated by spȍr *sporъ which refer to velocity, ‘thrifty,’ cf. the Czech Serbian and ‘stingy; Croatian frugal,’ spȍr Serbian and Croatian- posed ‘slow, to the leisurely.’ early Polish Antonymous spory meanings also occur in the continuants of the PSlav ‘slow, leisurely’ as op ‘fast.’ 5A.6. *gladъkъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *gladъ is derived from the PIE *ghlādh glòdus ‘smooth’ ghladh- glatt glaber-. < It * ghashlad anh-ro- exact equivalent in the Lithuanian ‘smooth, even,’ whereas the form * is the basis of the Old High German ‘smooth, shiny’ and the Latin ‘bald; smooth,’ which differStructural from the meaning other ones because of the presence of a suffix [SP 7: 87]. The PSlav *gladъkъ -kъ upon the unpreserved adjective **‘smooth’gladъ, whose form and meaning is indicated by numerous Proto-Slavic derivatives, emerged e.g., * asgladь a result of the accumulation ofgladiti the suffix et alia

‘a smooth, even surface,’ * ‘to smooth’ [seeThe SPmeaning 7: 87–89]. based on continuant

hladký, Old Church ‘smooth, Slavonic with gladъkъ an even surface’глáдкий The original meaning ‘smooth; destitute of unevenness; uniform’ is attested in all Slavic- languages (e.g. the Czech , Russian ). It is difficult to say whether the secondary meanings ‘one that does not present any diffi culty,Innovative easy,’ ‘polite, meanings kind,’ reconstructed by the SP 7: 85, are equally old. gładki, Polabian glott’ĕ, Old гладкии Presumably the parallel innovations (e.g. the early Polish It is Russian ) include the meanings ‘fed, fattened; fat, obese,’ based as it seems40 on the appearance of an animal which is well-fed (which has no sagging skin). likely that the meaning ‘pretty’ in early Polish, its dialects and in Polabian [cf. PRETTY, 3A.9, p. 130] is motivated in a similar manner. Other meanings: the dial. Polish ‘bald 40 Unlike the SP 7: 85, which for the Proto-Slavic language reconstructs the meaning ‘good- looking, fat, chubby.’ 153

Conceptual Groups - 41 [łysy]’ and ‘slippery [śliski]’ are based on the properties of ‘smoothness.’ The mean ings which occur in Russian and Ukrainian dialects: ‘skillful; cunning’ and the ones that do not refer to people: ‘well-ordered,’ ‘tasty’ indicate the presence of an indirect link ‘good.’ It is worthwhile to direct one’s attention to the unexpected dial. Russian ‘empty’ which is presumably a result of the loss of legibility by the meaning ‘destitute of hair,’ understood as ‘deprived of something in general’ > ‘empty.’ tǫgъ

5A.7.Etymological * meaning Structural meaning ‘strained tight, taut’ut [seesupra STRONG, 6A.4, p. 163] The meanings based ‘strained on continuants tight, taut’ ( ) ut supra ‘strained tight’ > ‘hard,’ Western ‘strong’Innovative ( meanings)

- The innovative meaning ‘strong’ emerged in Polish as a link in the series ‘strong’ > ‘well-built’ > ‘fat.’ The cause of its emergence was associated with the intention to eu phemistically express the concept ‘fat,’ when the latter assumed negative overtones. 5A.8. *grǫbъ/*grubъ Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘unworked’continuants [see UNPLEASANT, 2B.3, p. 121] - ut supra ‘raw, unworked, rough,’ fig. ‘unkind, un pleasant;Innovative boorish’ meanings ( ) in the Polish context - The meaning ‘fat’ is probably42 an innovation which occurred in an independent manner It reached the Ukrainian (henceand Belarusian in the Slovak language and Czech probably dialects from it Polish,is a common which expresis indi43 - sion which refers especially to women who are pregnant) and in Serbo-Croatian. - grȗb, Bulgarian груб cated by the lack of this meaning in Russian. The innovative meaning ‘formless; un sightly, ugly’ (Serbian and Croatian ) is motivated by the meaning

41 It is likely to be a calque from German, which is indicated Słownik by the geographystaropolski bases (Silesian its dialects).42 - The meaning ‘fat’ probably is not ankon Old plesznywy…. Polish meaning. grubye The kolanye reconstruction of the meaning ‘fat, with a big circumference’ on one example in which the inter pretation of the meaning is not obvious ( from 1471). The second meaning, The ‘coarse, Słownik rude,’ prasłowiański which is indicated also by derivatives, is better documented by examples [Słstpol43 2: 505]. also reconstructs the meaning ‘fat’ and it accepts the following chain of development: ‘rough, coarse, uneven’ > ‘without a clear outline, unworked, unshapely’ > formation‘fat, chubby, of broad, the word. of a big size’ [SP 8: 239]. The drawback of this reconstruction consists in the clearly negative overtones of the meaning ‘fat,’ which was probably absent in the period of the The Development of Words Across Centuries

154

‘unworked.’ The positively marked figurative meanings ‘important,’ ‘rich’ are present in Czech and Slovak dialects (as well as in the neighboring Polish dialects) and they indicate the positive evaluation of the concept ‘fat.’ 5A.9. Western and Eastern *rychlъ

Etymological meaning

‘pertaining to digging; digging; being dug’ [see QUICK, 9A.1,Structural p. 197] meaning ut supra Eastern ‘one that moves; set in motion’ vs. Western ‘one thatThe moves;meaning animated’ based on ( continuants) The meanings are based on the active meaning of the participle of *rychlъ, peculiar to ‘mellow; plump; porous; flabby’

theInnovative West Slavic meanings languages, are not relevant to the emergence of the meaning ‘plump.’ рхлый

The innovative meaning ‘obese’ (colloq. Russian ) is based on the meaning ‘plump; flaccid,’ which emerged as a result of a transposition of the semantic dominant due to the lack of density discernible in the structural meaning. For information about a different result of the development of the meaning ‘plump; flaccid’ [see WEAK, 6B.5, p. 176].

Summary of Semantic Changes

5A.1. *debelъ ← 5A.2. *tstъ FAT PSlav STRONG etym. ← ← 5A.3. *jędrъ FAT PSlav ONE THAT HAS A BIG VOLUME PSlav SWOLLEN etym. 5A.3.1. ← or 5A.3.2.FAT Southern SWOLLEN (?) etym. ← ← ←

FAT Southern STRAPPING Southern STRONG Southern ONE THAT IS THE krǫpъ/*krǫpьnъ CORE (?) etym. ← ← 5A.4. * 5A.5. *sporъ FAT Old Czech, dial. Bulgarian SHORT AND FAT PSlav SHRUNK etym. ← STOUT Czech ← ← 5A.6. *gladъkъ STOCKY Czech, USorb EFFICIENT PSlav ABUNDANT PSlav ← Eastern ← FAT early Polish, Polabian, Old Russian FAT/OBESE dial. Polish, Polabian, Slovene, SMOOTH PSlav 155

Conceptual Groups tǫgъ ← 5A.7. * 5A.8. *grǫbъ/*grubъ FAT Polish STRONG PSlav ← 5A.9. *rychlъ FAT Polish, Serbian, Croatian COARSE PSlav ← ←

FAT colloq. Russian PLUMP PSlav FLACCID PSlav - tention toward the pole of evaluation. A part of the motivation indicate clearly In the case of the concept ‘fat’ what seems crucial is the directiondebelъ of, * thesporъ at, *tǫgъ, *jędrъ rychlъ, mo- positive associations for it is based on stoutness, strength (* jędrъ alternatively;, alternatively). *tstъ A negative association is present in * - tivated through being flaccid. The motivations associated with beinggladъkъ swollen far(* as *gladъkъ is concerned, indirectly) it is interesting are probably to compare unmarked its indirect suggestive motiva motivations,tion with thesimilarly antonymous as the indication motivation of of the *grubъ content of fat itself (* ). As *krǫpъ ‘rough, coarse.’ In the case of , similarly as in the case of the aforementioned concept ‘short,’ one of the elements of the more complex meaning ‘stout’ was abstracted.

5B.1.5B. THIN *libъ

Etymological meaning It is derived from the PIE *le-bho- le- ‘thin, weak’ líebas ‘weak,’ which in turn is derived from * ‘to become thin’ [Pokorny: 661–662]. It has an exact equivalent in Lithuanian – ‘weak, of a sickly Theconstitution,’ meaning ‘slim, based thin,’ on ‘slender, continuants shapely.’ The PSlav *libъ is residually attested in the Western languages. Both the early continuants luby ‘thin’ libí = libový 44 that were preserved (Old Polish ‘gracilis’ (hapax), Old Czech (?), presumably ‘thin, without fat’ [Gebauer 2: 248]), as well as the equivalent [ESSJ 15: 74–75; InnovativeRejzek: 341; SEKmeanings 3: 162–163] indicate the original meaning ‘thin.’ The Kashubian meaning lëbi as a result of an extension followed by a re-narrowing down but with a different dominant: ‘excessively tall, excessively grown’ is secondary. It emerged The further meaning of the Kashubian lëbi - ‘thin’viction > ‘thinthat thinnessand tall, spindly’is associated > ‘excessively with a lack tall.’ of strength. ‘weakly, weak; delicate’ are a result of a con In Polish -u- luby the 44Czech form. under the influence of ‘pleasant’ or the hypercorrect form in reference to 156 The Development of Words Across Centuries

5B.2. Western and Eastern *ščuplъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav etymology of *ščupati is uncertain. It probably continues the PIE *skep-, associated in the PIE context – obscure with *ščipati < *skep-, which is an extension of the PIE *(s)kē-/(s)ke-

Structural meaning ‘to cut.’ The PSlav *ščuplъ is an early participle of *ščupati ‘touched; groped’ ‘to touch, to grope.’ The structural meaning ‘touched; groped’ could have emerged in reference to an image of someone The‘whose meaning bones may based be groped,’ on continuants i.e. someone ‘thin.’ The innovative meanings, which are discussed below, indicate the PSlav meaning ‘thin’ szczupły ‘thin,’ which at the later štíplýstage, ofSlovak the development šťúplý assumed a positive or negative tone, determining the further semantic development (cf. Polish45 ‘slender,’ earlier ‘thin,Innovative poor,’ early meanings Czech ‘thin, slender’).

assumed positive overtones. Unlike in East Slavic languages where the emergence In a part of western Slavdom there occurred a modification of the meaning which щýплый шчýплы ofUkrainian the meaning щýплий ‘miserable, shabby’ is testimony to the preservation of the negative overtones (cf. the Russian ‘weakly, miserable,’ Belarusian ‘idem,’ ‘idem’). 5B.3. *tъščь

Etymological meaning The PSlav *tъščь is based on the PIE *tus-o- te-s- - ‘empty’ tùščias tukšs tucchyá- ‘empty,’ which refers to * ‘to be emp ty.’ Exact2 equivalents are found in Baltic languages (Lithuanian ‘empty,’ Latvian ‘empty; poor’) and in OInd ( ‘empty; miserable, slight’) [Pokorny: 1085; TheVasmer meaning 4: 90–91]. based on continuants czczy Polish and dial. tszczy ‘empty’ tščí OldThe Churchcontinuants Slavonic clearly tъštь indicate the original meaning ‘empty,’tèšč cf. the Polish (Old- atian tȁšt ) ‘empty, irrelevant,’тощии early ‘poor,’ Old Czech ‘empty; hungry,’ тóщий ‘empty, futile,’ dial. Slovene т ‘empty,’óщий Serbian and Cro тóшчы ‘empty,’ Old Russian ‘empty; inconspicuous, miserable,’ Russian ‘thin,’ shabby, miserable; empty, inane,’ Ukrainian ‘empty,’ Belarusian Innovative ‘empty.’ meanings

From the original ‘empty’ there arose meanings which referred both to the physical human properties and states (the Russian ‘thin, emaciated; miserable,’ early Polish ‘poor, Machek scanty’;2 Kashubian and Old Czechštíhlý ,‘hungry,’ Slovak štíhly the already Old Russian ‘miserable’) 45 : 625 classifies the Czech ‘idem’ within the same family. Conceptual Groups as well as to the evaluation of his products, e.g., by way of metaphorization there 157 emerged the Polish meaning ‘insignificant’ and the Old Church Slavonic meaning ‘futile, unnecessary.’ sъkromьnъ

5B.4.Etymological Western meaning * The PSlav *kromъ is the nominal form to the PIE *(s)krem-, which is an extension of the root *ker- ‘cut off’

Structural meaning ‘to cut.’ It is derived from the PSlav *kromъ -ьnъ ‘cutsъ- off’ ‘a piece that was cut off; a slice (of bread)’ with the Thesuffix meanings and the based prefix on continuants[Boryś: 554]. skromny and Czech skromný. ‘moderate;skromny limited; and the small’ Slovak > skromný ‘modest’, as The meanings ‘modest; limited; small’скрóмный are attested, Bulgarian in Polish скр òмен, Serbian and Croatian skrTheȍ mansecondary. ‘modest’ occurs also in the USorb well as in borrowings: Russian Innovative meanings

residuum of the structural It is difficult to establish whether in Kashubian the meaning ‘thin’ aside ‘poor’ is a result of the semantic development ‘modest’ > ‘poor’ > ‘thin’ or is a meaning ‘cut off.’ 5B.5. *šibъkъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning [cf. VIOLENT, 10A.4, p. 207] The Slovene šíbek is an indirect Slovene derivative from *šiba which is the nomen instrumenti ‘one that from can * bešibati brandished, waved’ šibъkъ 2 It ‘with,is included a long in thin the twig,’work due to the formal conformity with the Proto-Slavic ‘to make lexeme violent which46 movements; is discussed to throw, in it. to hit; to hurl,’ formally equal to the PSlav * [Snoj : 725]. Innovative meanings By extending its range of application, the Slovene šíbek

‘pliant, supple; thin (of a twig)’ assumed the meanings ‘thin, slender; weak, delicate’ to refer to people [see also WEAK, 6B.17, p. 180].

*šibъkъ 46 Unlike Boryś: 609, who claims that Slovene word is a continuant of the PSlav ‘violent,’ ‘fast,’ which is discussed in VIOLENT 10A.4, p. 207. 158 The Development of Words Across Centuries

5B.6. *chudъ

Etymological meaning

The meanings based on – obscure continuants ‘crushed; crumbled’ (?) [see BAD, 1B.3, p. 105] ut supra ‘thin,’ ‘weak,’ ‘small, slight,’ ‘miserable, bad,’Innovative ‘poor’ (meanings)

meanings of the PSlav *chudъ Duechudy to the obscurity of the original semantics it is difficult to establish which of the is a direct motivation of the meaning ‘thin’ (e.g. Polish ). Each of the meanings which were mentioned above as already Proto-Slavic ones could play such a role either on the basis of a series of meanings: ‘weak’ > ‘thin’ and ‘small’ > ‘thin’ or of an evaluation: ‘bad’ > ‘thin,’ or of the series cause > effect: ‘poor’ > ‘thin.’ chvorъ

5B.7.Etymological * meaning The meaning based on ‘wounded;continuants festering’ut [see supra SICK, 7B.1, p. 186]. Innovative meanings ‘sick’ ( ) chvorý : chorý. It is also attested by the derivatives chvorost : chorost association‘Thin’ is the between only attested sickness meaning and an of emaciated the Old Czech body. ‘thinness.’ The change of meaning is based on the

5B.8. *dikъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on continuants – obscure [see VIOLENT, 10A.7, p. 207] ut supra Innovative meanings ‘unused by people’ > ‘untamed’ ( ) дкий is presumably based on the opposition between the herd of fattener animals with the animals whichThe basis live of in the the meaning wild, with ‘thin, a secondary slender, miserable’ application of theof the dial. adjective Russian also to people.

5B.9. *lagodьnъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘arranged/well-mannered; decent’ (?) ‘weak’ (?)Structural [see PLEASANT, meaning 2A.3, p. 116]. ut supra The meanings based ‘mild, on continuants calm; harmonious’ ( ) ut supra ‘kind, pleasant,’ ‘mild, calm’ ( ) 159

Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings łagodny down of the meaning of the property which refers to the structure of the body. Other resultsThe LSorb of the meaning narrowing of down include ‘delicate; the slender; USorb meanings thin’ arose of byłahodny way of the narrowing

‘delicate, weakly, frail.’ All of the properties which are mentioned here constitute one string of meanings. 5B.10. *slabъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘flaccid,continuants slack’ > ‘weak’ut [see supra WEAK, 6B.1, p. 173] Innovative meanings ‘weak’ ( )

слаб, Macedonian слаб The innovative meaning ‘thin; slender’ occurs in South Slavic languages aside ‘weak’ (Bulgarian ).

Summary of Semantic Changes

5B.1. *libъ ← WEAK etym. 5B.2. *ščuplъ THIN Western ← 5B.3. *tъščь THIN Western, Eastern ONE THAT IS TOUCHED/GROPED struct. ← ← sъkromьnъ THIN Russian MISERABLE Russian EMPTY PSlav 5B.4. * ← or5B.4.1. THIN Kashubian CUT OFF struct. (?) ← ← ← struct.5B.4.2. THIN Kashubian POOR dial. Polish, Kashubian MODERATE PSlav CUT OFF 5B.5. *šibъkъ ← 5B.6. *chudъ THIN Slovene SUCH AS A TWIG Slovene 5B.6.1. ← WEAK PSlav ← or 5B.6.2.THIN Western, Eastern CRUMBLED (?) etym. ← ← or 5B.6.3.THIN Western, Eastern SMALL PSlav CRUMBLED (?) etym. ← BAD PSlav ←

THIN Western, Eastern CRUMBLED (?) etym. 160 The Development of Words Across Centuries

← 5B.6.4. chvorъ THIN Western, Eastern POOR PSlav ← SICK PSlav 5B.7. * 5B.8. *dikъ THIN Czech ← 5B.9. *lagodьnъ THIN dial. Russian ONE THAT LIVES IN THE WILD PSlav ← ← 5B.10. *slabъ SLENDER LSorb DELICATE Western MILD PSlav ← WEAK PSlav ←

THIN Bulgarian, Macedonian FLACCID etym.

Similarly as in the case of the concept ‘fat’libъ it, is*slabъ worthwhile, *chudъ to direct one’s attentionchvorъ to the pole tъščьof the, *valuesъkromnьnъ of association. Negative overtoneschudъ dominate:- there arechudъ motivations through weakness (* (?)), dikъ sickness (*far as *chudъ), poverty which (* was mentioned here –a alternatively,number of times, * is concerned, (?)), or small the ness (* (?)), as well as the lack of care on the part of people (* ). As

direction of motivationščuplъ is not clear, whereas the negative overtones (or even itssъkromьnъ bad evaluation – bad) is beyond doubt. The motivation of thinness through pinching or groping (* ) is a mysterious problem. Presumably,lagodьnъ cutting. (* ) should be considered an ironically suggestive motivation. The only motivation which has distinctly positive overtones is mildness – *

6A.6A.1. STRONG *mogtьnъ Etymological and structural meaning The PSlav *mogtь -ti-: *magh-ti ‘strong’ magh- ‘power, strength’ continues the PIE nominal form with the suffix ‘power, strength’ whose basis is the root * mahts ‘to be able to do sth, the maghthave the ability to do sth,maht to be capable of doing sth’ [ESSJ 19: 113;mah-ti- Pokorny: 695]. The closest23 equivalents are found in Germanic languages: Gothic ‘strength,’ Anglo-Saxon , Old High German ‘idem’ from the Proto-Germanic * ‘strength, power’ Structural[Kluge : 530]. meaning The PSlav *mogtьnъ -ьnъ from *mogtь ‘strong’ The meaning based is a on denominativum continuants with the suffix ‘power.’ The continuants of the PSlav *mogtьnъ occur in all Slavic languages with the meaning mocný, Old Church Slavonic‘strong’ moštьnъ мóчный

‘strong’ (e.g. the Czech , dial. Russian ). 161

Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings considerable intensity. The concept ‘strong’ extends the semantic range especially toward the expression of 6A.2. *silьnъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *sila is a continuant of the PIE nominal form with the suf- -lā-: *sē-lā- ‘tense’47 síela ‘strength,seilin power’ fixthe PIE sē()- : se(. The)- closest equivalents are foundsínim in Baltic languages: the Lithuanian ‘soul,’ Old Prussian seilask(acc.) ‘effort, attempt; strength.’ The basis of the2 form is Snoj2 ‘to tighten, to stretch,’ cf. OIr ‘to tighten; to place in a vertical orientation’ and the Old Norse ‘to stretch oneself’ [Pokorny: 890; Vasmer : 2, 624; Structural: 654, cf. meaning also Mur’janov 1982]. The PSlav *silьnъ -ьnъ from *sila ‘strong’ The meaning based is a denominativum on continuants with the suffix ‘strength, power.’ The continuants of the PSlav *silьnъ occur in all Slavic languages with the meaning silný, Old Church Slavonic ‘strong’ silьnъ сльный

Innovative‘strong’ (e.g. themeanings Czech , Russian ). The development of the meanings of the continuants is analogous to the development of the continuants of other adjectives with the same meaning, cf. *mogtьnъ above.

6A.3. *krěpъ/*krěpъkъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *krěpъ and the*krěpъkъ -kъ do not have – uncertain ‘strong,’ ‘durable’ (?) Among the which is extended by the suffix 48 certain etymologies. For an overview of explanations [cf. Sławski 3: 223]. The semantics of the PSlav *sila in the most remote times are described in a more compre- 47 A new view about the emergence and the original semantics of the PSlav *krěpъ is presented inhensive ESSJ:48 manner by Mur’janov [1982]. *krěpъkъ - “Хотя значительная часть продолжений праслав. по слав. языкам и диалектам имеет значение ‘сильный, крепкий,’ это значение по-видимому не было основным и пер воначальным*krěpnǫ дляti нашего слова. В силу способности производных сохранять подчас более ранние значения, прежде характеризовавшие производящее слово, именно производный глагол *krěpъkъ (см.) с его заметными значениями ‘цепенеть, делаться твердым, густеть’ показывает древний характер значения ‘твердый, жесткий,’ факультативно выступающего *krěpъkъ in Slavic languages and у прилаг. (см. выше)” [ESSJ 12: 137–138]. - (“Althoughnal meaning a ofconsiderable the word here part discussed. of the continuants Due to the of ability the PSlav of the derivatives to preserve earlier dialectsmeanings has sometimes, the meaning which ‘strong, earlier powerful,’ were typical this formeaning a given clearly world, was it is notthe thederivative main and *krěpn origiǫti

(qv.) with its interesting meanings ‘to stiffen, to become hard, to become dense’ demonstrates the 162 The Development of Words Across Centuries

suggestions which are mentioned there the most convincing one has to do with the hrǽfa krēp-, which is The verbal meaning of the PIErelationship *krēp- with the Old Norse ‘to endure, to bear’ 49with the PIE * wrongly questioned by Sławski due to semantic reasons. et alii 50 should be reconstructed as ‘to be strong; endurable.’ Such an explanation is favouredThe meanings by the majority based on of etymologistscontinuants [Berneker: 614; Pokorny: 620 ].

‘strong, powerful; resistant, durable (of objects)’ > ‘hard, resistant, durable (of objects)’ > ‘strong, resistantkrzepki (of people)’ I reconstruct the meaningkrépek ‘strong’ on the basisкрѣпъкыи of the common presence of this meaning in the continuants; the meaning ‘hard’ on the basis of: the Oldкрéпкий Polish ‘hard, stiff/rigid,’Belarusian Slovene крпкі ‘hard,’ Old Russian ‘hard; dense; durable (11th c.)’ people;and ‘fortified, presumably inaccessible, a similar about origin a stronghold’ is also featured (12th c.), by Russian the Slovak krepý ‘hard; durable,’ may suppose that the‘idem,’ original and inmeaning Old Belarusian of the PSlav also * krěpъ(kъ)‘stern; stubborn’ in reference to ‘boorish.’ One One may reconstruct a polysemous meaning already for the Proto-Slavic was ‘strong, language powerful; de- durable, permanent,’ therefore a meaning which refers not to people but to materials.

pending on the referent: ‘hard, durable, permanent (of objects)’ and ‘tolerant; strong Innovative(of people).’ meanings When one conducts such a reconstruction one should consider the meanings based on

Czech křepký and Slovak krepký ‘strong, characterized by physical strength, and therefore ‘brisk, jaunty; vigorous’ in and ‘vigorous; nimble, skillful’ in the Serbian and Croatian*krěpъkъ vide supra early nature of the meaning ‘hard, rough,’ which optionally occurs with the adjective Although I consider the claim that the original meaning of the PSlav *krěpъ, *krěpъkъ differed ( ).”) from the meanings of the PSlav adjectives *silьnъ and *mogtьnъ as well as the reconstructions

which there is a suggestion that originally the words of the word family under research referred toof athe stiffening original corpse meaning and justified, due to this I completely one must seek disagree an etymological with the subsequent link with Indo-European line of reasoning words in

тела, которое покидает жизнь - sicalwhich and mean most ‘body.’ distinct Cf. image“Классический of the thing и самыйwhich stiffens, яркий образbecomes того, hard что and цепенеет, sets is the твердеет, image of theзастывает, body from – это which образ life departs [emphasis after the ESSJ]” (“The clas-

into a solid state. I think that there are”) no[ESSJ grounds 12: 137]. to accept This thestatement hypothesis alone about is questionable an etymological be relationshipcause it seems between that the the classical PSlav image *krěpъ of congealing hascorpus to do with and the other transformation Indo-European of a wordsliquid

with the Latin with49 a similar meaning. See ESSJ 12: 137–138. hrǽfa According to Franciszek Sławski: “Zestawienie z stnord. hrǽfa ‘ścierpieć, znieść, wytr zymać’ (…) kwestionuje różnica znaczeń” (“A comparison with the Old Norsevide the argumentation‘to endure, to bear, infra to stand’ […] is questioned by the difference of the meanings.”) [Sławski: 3, 223]. If one assumes the meanings50 The main‘durable, drawback permanent, of this strong’ etymology as the is originalthe poorly meanings attested ( PIE *krēp-. According to Julius) , I consider the semantic relationship with the word that is put into question as completely legitimate.- tioned, and the Welsh craff Pokorny,krappr its continuants < PIE *grep- exist only in the Slavic languages and the Old Norse word that was men ‘fast’ which is classified here is supposed to be borrowed from the Old Norse [Pokorny: 620], although the Norse word which is quoted here occurs only with the meaning ‘wide; limited; difficult’ [Heidermanns: 342]. 163

Conceptual Groups krȅpak - ings there (whereas emerged ‘firm; the ruddy’Bulgarian in theкрèпък same and languages Macedonian usually крепок continues the meaning ‘hard’) as ones that are undoubtedly innovative. On the basis of the proximity of mean in East Slavic languages on the basis of which through the change of ‘strong’ the dominant apart from and ‘strong.’ Without doubt innovative are the figurative meanings – colloq. ‘rich, affluent’- mogtьnъ the narrowing down of the meaning there emerged the meanings ‘frugal; stingy’ in Rus sianкрепкий dialects. The conceptual development (cf. * , 6A.1, p. 160) expresses itself in the assumption of a part of fixed collocations which refer to intensity, cf. the Russian “ чай.” tǫgъ

6A.4.Etymological * meaning The PSlav *tǫgъ alternates with the PSlav *tęgti from the PIE *thengh-51 ‘strained tight; taut,thong tense’h-o- there are no attested words which would be the basis of *tǫgъ apart from Slavic ‘to stretch, languages. to tighten,’ which is derived ‘to draw.’ For the PIE * Structural meaning It is probably derived in the Proto-Slavic context, with a root apophony which continued to thrive in the Proto-Slavic ‘stretched language, tight; from taut, *tęgti tense’ supra.

The meanings based on continuants ‘to draw, to stretch.’ Cf.

The meanings of the continuants vary, which ‘stretched are mentioned tight’ below> ‘hard,’ in theWestern paragraph and Southern ‘strong’ - “Innovative meanings” and which may be derived from the original ‘stretched tight;- velopedtaut,’ present commonly. in the ItEast is attested Slavic languages in the Church and Slavonicclearly discernible tǫgъ in secondary mean ings, which are present in those languages. Presumably the meaning ‘strong’ still de ‘strong’ and in West Slavic languages. It is difficult to say whether its direct motivation was the meaning ‘flexed Innovative(of muscles)’ meaningsor the meaning ‘hard,’ which is also derived from ‘hard.’

Innovative meanings: ‘enduring,’ ‘stubborn’ and ‘difficult’ in Czech, ‘intensive;tóg zealous’ in Czech and Slovak, ‘robust; fat,’ as well as ‘brave,’ ‘wealthy’ in Polish emerged in West Slavic languages on the basis of ‘strong; hard.’ The motivation of the Slovene ‘stiff, stiffened’ is either the secondary result of the flexing of the muscles or the meaning ‘hard.’ The secondary meanings in East Slavic languages:тугóй ‘compact, cramped, stuffed’ and ‘nimble, firm’ areтуг basedй on ‘tense; taut’ > ‘hard.’тугí Apart from these meanings the following figurative meanings emerged: the Russian ‘dull; dumbish,’ ‘hard of hearing,’ Ukrainian ‘stubborn,’ Belarusian ‘dull-witted,’ ‘dull.’

51 Etymologists are still to reach a conclusion about the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-Eu- th ropean form [cf. Pokorny: 1067]. The reconstruction with an aspirated – after LIV: 598. The Development of Words Across Centuries

164 6A.5. Western and Eastern *dǫžь Etymological meaning The PSlav *dęgnǫti dhengh- ‘one that presses’ ‘to grow, to harden’ is based on the PIE * ‘to pinch, to press’ languages.[Pokorny: 52 250]. The semantic development proceeded from ‘to pinch, to press’ to ‘to act with great force,’ hence the nominal meaning ‘strength, power’ in the Slavic Structural meaning The PSlav *dǫžь of an extension of the noun ‘strong,’ *dǫgъ ‘healthy’ -jь, which is a denominativum which arose-o- in Northvocalism Slavic to *languagesdęgnǫti as a result ‘strength, power; health’ with the suffix according to SP 4: 195 is an early nomen with ‘to grow, to Theharden; meaning to become based stronger, on continuants healthier.’

PSlav *dǫžь duży,53 early Czech ‘strong’ duží, Slovak dúži The12th meaningc. дюжии ‘strong’: дужии is, Ukrainian attested д iný жий all languages, Belarusian which дýжы feature continuants of the the adjective (early is absent; Polish only the nominal form *ne-dǫgъ , Old Russian since the ). In South Slavic languages- ed both by the etymology and the meanings of the adjective ‘disease, *dǫžь debility’. is continued. The meaning ‘health’ emerged in a secondary manner from ‘strength,’ which is indicat Innovative meanings

in a parallel manner to the development of the noun *ne-dǫgъ - Innovation Ukrainian which and arose Belarusian, in the context as well asof inthe Russian Polish languagedialects, the is a meaning change of ‘healthy’ the meaning arose duży ‘disease, debility.’ An in

of the “borrowed” Polish ‘strong’ > ‘big.’ A similar development in the Ukrainian language is documented by the meaning ‘strapping’ as well as ‘important,’-ьnъ one that: dåžnii has authority’ (see the chapter about the development of concepts for more information54 theabout unattested this subject). Polish The *dąży Kashubian derivative with an accreted suffix ‘strong; vigorous, fast, merry’ is a relic which indicates both formally and semantically ‘strong.’

52 *dhengh- , which is not satisfactory due to the verbal vocalism of the root. 53 SPWhen 3: 96 one provides derives the the meaning Polish duży ‘strong, from robust’ the PSlav for *dtheǫžь PIE one should explain the origin of -u- instead of the PSlav -ǫ-; because in this case there are no conditions for dissimilation before a na- -u- in Slovene and Bulgarian does not provide a basis for a reconstruction of the form of *dužь alternative to *dǫžь, the only possible solution seemssal consonant, to involve and a therecognition lack of the of equivalentsduży as a borrowing with from East Slavic languages. I discuss the reasons which make me consider this solution possible in a comprehensive manner in a separate

-ьnъ is attested exclusively by a form article54 [Jakubowicz 2009: 135–138]. Apart from Kashubian the derivative with the suffix with negation [cf. ESSJ 24: 127]. 165

Conceptual Groups 6A.6. *čstvъ Etymological meaning The PSlav * čstvъ is usually explained as a continuant of the PIE *kt-t-o- nominal form with a reduced – uncertain vocalism to‘enlaced’ *kert- (?), ‘cutting’ (?) kṛtsná – a suffixed crassus ‘to braid, to enlace, to weave, to tie’ [Pokorny: 584].-t Among Proto-Indo-European words (cf. the OInd ‘whole,’ Lat. ‘fat’) there are no forms which would continue the Proto-Indo-European form withwhich the may suffix be recognized-. One reconstructs as a basis theof theetymological meaning whichmeaning are ‘tightly reconstructed enlaced, ondense, the without holes, whole’ by analogy to the aforementioned Indo-European equivalents, etymology is associated with the lack of non-Slavic proof for the existence of a Proto-In- basis of the continuants ‘tough, strong’ and ‘healthy.’-t-. A drawback of the aforementioned do-European nominal form with the suffix *čstvъ čt-t-vŭ čersti čtǫ A different suggestion is presented in ESSJ 4: 160–161, which perceives(s)ker- the PSlav as *m-t-vъ (< ** from *m) tias. Ita alsoderivative reconstructs of the praesentialthe earlier PSlavform of** čthestvъ PSlav on the* basis of ‘to cut, to incise, to cut away’čŕsten (which is derived in turn from the PIE * cyrski ‘to cut’), derivatives (dial. Slovene ‘idem,’ perhaps also the dial. Polish ‘healthy,- robust’), which are considered – probably correctly – by SP 2: 252 as forms which emerged in the context of the particular languages by way of a simplification of con sonantal groups.kisti kertùThe ESSJ suggests the meanings ‘to beat, to chop’ as a motivational- basispendently of the attested semantic in Indo-Iraniandevelopment languages, – this is done in Armenian, on the basis Albanian of such and meaning also in ofSlavic the Lithuanian . However, one should note that the meaning ‘to chop’ is inde languages. Moreover, even in the Lithuanian language itself, apart from the meanings- ‘to cut, to chop’ there is also ‘to cut; to mow.’ Therefore, the meanings ‘to cut; to chop’ are without doubt innovations. The development of the meaning from ‘cutting; capa beforeble of cutting’the meaning to ‘strong’ of the (inverb combat-related *čersti vocabulary) should not be ruled out. It would require the location of the alleged derivative in the early Proto-Slavic language The meanings based on continuants specialized itself to ‘to cut; to mark by cutting.’ The continuants indicate a number of groups of meanings. Their semantics oscillates between meanings which, on the one hand, ‘dense;are associated hard; firm,’with hardness ‘vigorous; and, strong’ on the other hand, with vigorousness, and with breeziness and health. Due to the considerable diversity of the continuants I mention the whole body of proof material: Polish czerstwy czarstwy čerstwy čerstvý (Old Polish ) ‘vigorous, healthy,čerstvý stout,’ ‘about bread, hardened,’ early- ‘fast,vene vigorous,’čŕstev : čvŕst USorb ‘fresh, breezy, vigorous; healthy.’ Czech ‘fresh,’ čv‘breezy;st vigorous,’ ‘fast,’ ‘healthy,’ Slovak ‘fresh; refreshing,’ ‘breezy; fast,’črъst Slo- vъ ‘strong, robust,’ ‘hard, firm,’ ‘fresh,’чвръст ‘breezy,’ : чевр Croatianст and Serbian ‘hard, robust; strong; healthy; enduring; firm; цврст dense,’ Church Slavonic - sian ‘strong; чéрствый dense,’ ‘honest,’ ‘important,’ Bulgarian ‘strong; hard; Ukrainiandense,’ ‘vigorous; чéрствий skilled,’ ‘fast, diligent,’ Macedonian ‘strong, sure,’ ‘dry,’ Rus чéрствы ‘dry, hardened, e.g. about earth,’ early Russian ‘hard, strong; dense,’ ‘dry, hardened,’ fig. ‘callous,’ ‘firm, hard; strong; fresh,’ Belarusian ‘pure; honest,’ ‘sprightly, fresh.’ The acceptance of the initial meaning ‘firm, hard, especially about farm produce and a young body,’ which may be the basis of the 166 The Development of Words Across Centuries

majority of the aforementioned meanings, seems to be the most feasible solution. Such an initial meaning may be also indicated by the traditional etymology, which enables -

aus different to reconstruct course the of the development semantic development, of the meaning quod as ‘enlaced’vide supra >. ‘dense; hard.’ The et ymology which was put forward by Russian etymologists would induce one to accept Innovative meanings Each of the groups of meanings which are reconstructed for the Proto-Slavic language

might have been a source of semantic innovations. Hence the opposite meanings of the continuants, such as ‘dry, stale’ from ‘hard,’ and on the other hand, ‘fresh’ from on‘firm.’ the The basis meanings of the etymology ‘sprightly; that fast’ one (from accepts, which may a further be considered development as the – initial ‘skillful’ one, > ‘hard-working’) and ‘healthy’ may be derived from ‘strong.’ However, the latter one,

derived from the etymological meaning ‘cutting; capable of cutting’ or as a secondary meaning in reference to ‘dense, hard; enduring, stout.’ krǫtъ

6A.7.Etymological * meaning The nominal form at the apophonic grade -o- to the PSlav *krętati ‘associated with spinning’ krętati instead of **kretati, which would continue the PIE *kert- ‘to spin sth; to set sth into a circular motion’ > ‘to set sth in motion.’kręťǫ

existenceStructural of nasalizedmeaning Proto-Indo-European praesens).

In all linguistic groups ‘twisted’the semantics (vs. ‘winding’;of the continuants ‘twisting’; is associatedsee VIOLENT, more 10A.10, strictly p. 211)

thewith PSlav the etymological *krętati (sę) meaning ‘associated with twisting’ instead of the meanings ‘to be in motion, to set sth in motion,’ which occur most frequently in the continuants of . This induces us to reconstruct the initial meaning ‘to spin sth; toThe set meanings sth into a circular based motion.’ on continuants

One may reconstruct a number of independent ‘strongly semantic twisted’ strings, > whose ‘stiff; beginning hard,’ ‘strong; links, basedstout,’ on Eastern structural ‘dense’ meanings, emerged already in the Proto-Slavic period. The mean- krutý, hence the Old Polish kruty; USorb kruty kšuty; early Croatian and Serbian krȗt крутóй ing ‘strong, stout’ had a pan-Slavic range (Old Czech an East Slavic, LSorb range. The co-existing meanings in the particular, early languages Russian induce one), and to the meaning ‘dense’ (from the earlier meaning ‘boiled to a dense consistency; stiff’) has-

conjecture that the original addition overtones of the meaning ‘strong, stout’ was asso ciated with ‘enduring,’ which indicates the motivation ‘hard’ instead of the theoretically possible motivation – ‘violent.’ [see also STERN, 12A.9, p. 229] Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings 167

krutý крутóй крутóй dial.On the Czech basis kr ofúty the meaning ‘strong, stout’ there emerged innovative meanings ‘great, huge’ (Czech , early Russian kręty ) and ‘healthy’ (early Russian ). The- ically applied to the‘twisted, mental e.g. sphere. by a disease’ is independently motivated by the meaning ‘rolled,’ similarly as the dial. Polish ‘convoluted, dishonest,’ which was metaphor

6A.8. *storbъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *stbnǫti is based on the grade which is reduced in reference to the PIE *(s)ter- with the determinant ‘stiff; -bh numb’- sterban root without the s- mobile and with ‘to an stiffen;alternative to become voiceless numb,’ consonant, cf. e.g. namely the Old * tHighpěti *Germantpnǫti ‘to die.’ In the Proto-Slavic language there are also continuants of the

Structural ‘to suffer; meaning to stiffen.’ stbnǫti ‘hard; stiff’ The basis for this is the Proto-Slavic form at the reduced grade – * ‘to harden; toThe stiffen.’ meanings based on continuants A weakly attested adjectival form *storbъ, reconstructed above all on the basis of the continuants of the denominal *storbiti ‘strong,’ ‘healthy; sprightly’

‘to harden, to make sth stiff; to strengthen.’ 6A.9. *dob’ь

Etymological meaning dobrъ

The PSlav *dob’ь is based ‘appropriate;on the Proto-Slavic well-adjusted’ root *dob- ,[see which also continues * , theGOOD, PIE *1A.1,dhabh -p. 95]

The meaning ‘to adjust,’ based ‘appropriate, on continuants fitting’ [SP 4: 12; Sławski 1: 151]. dóbelj - ‘appropriate’ > ‘capable; able to do sth’ Thewith meaning specialized ‘appropriate; meanings, capable vide infra of. doing sth’ is attested by the Slovene ‘capa ble of doing sth; one that can do sth.’ The basis for the reconstruction is also associated Innovative meanings dóbelj

The meaning ‘one that is suitable’ (e.g. the dobl’ьSlovene ‘capable, suitable forдоблии sth’) specialized itself already in the Old Church Slavonic andдоблїй in the Old Russian languages as ‘fit for combat,’ hence ‘strong,’ cf. the OCS ‘brave,’ ‘strong,’ Old Russian ‘strong, powerful,’ ‘brave, unflinching,’ early Ukrainian ‘brave,’ ‘strong.’ [See also BRAVE, 13A.12, p. 238] 168 The Development of Words Across Centuries

6A.10. *bъdrъ Etymological meaning The meanings based on continuants ut supra ‘vigilant; wakeful’ [see QUICK, 9A.4, p. 199] Innovative meanings ‘vigilant’ > ‘lively,’ ‘sprightly’ ( ) - In East Slavic languages,бодрый supposedlyбóдрый on the, Ukrainian basis of the бóдрий meaning, Belarusian ‘lively,’ бадзёры‘sprightly,’ there emerged innovative meanings – ‘strong; stout; persistent,’ ‘full of strength, of en ergy’ (Old Russian , Russian ). 6A.11. Western and Southern *drěčьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘elongated lengthwise’ [see HIGH/TALL,ut supra 4A.2, p. 142] The meaning based ‘resemblingon continuants a pillar, a tree trunk’ut (supra ) Innovative meanings ‘well-grown’ ( ) - atian and Slovak innovation. This is indicated by the lack of this meaning in Czech. In The meaning ‘strong,’ which emerged from ‘well-grown,’ may be a common Slovene-Cro

Slovak it became a basis of the new meaning – ‘brave,’ and in Croatian of the meaning ‘good’ [see BRAVE, 13A.10, p. 138, GOOD, 1A.13, p. 102]. 6A.12. *jędrъ/jędrьnъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘swollen’ (?) ‘one that is at the center, core (adj.)’Structural (?) [see meaning FAT, 5A.3, p. 150] ut supra The meaning based ‘havingon continuants a core’ (?) ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘full of vigor; stout, firm’ ( ) - tinuants of *jędrьnъ, as well as of *jędrъ - Thebian direct jédar ,motivation Bulgarian èofдър the meaning ‘strong,’ which is a common meaning of the con the PIE *od- in South Slavic languages (Croatian andętro Ser ) is either ‘fat’ (when one accepts an etymology based on ‘to swell’) or ‘full of vigor’ (when one accepts a relationship with * ). 6A.13. *sporъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘successful,continuants fruitful’ [see FAT, 5A.5, p.ut 151] supra ‘efficient, abundant’ ( ) 169

Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings The innovative meanings which refer to physical properties, connote strength, even if they do not express it directly, e.g. the early Polish spory спóрый -ьнъ спóрны sporý ‘fast; capable,’ Russian ‘capable,’ Belarusian (with the suffix ) ‘quick,’ Czech ‘eager, zealous; prompt’ aside ‘strong; vigorous, stout.’ *čilъ

6A.14.Etymological meaning Structural meaning ‘rested’ [see HEALTHY,ut supra 7A.4, p. 184] The meaning based on ‘resting,’ continuants ‘rested’ ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘rested’ > ‘lively/crisp,’ ‘sprightly’ ( ) -

The innovative meaning ‘strong’ in Slovene, Croatian, Serbian and Ukrainian is a re sult of the emergence of another link in the semantic string: ‘rested’ > ‘lively/crisp,’ ‘sprightly.’ 6A.15. *jarъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on continuants‘of spring’ [see VIOLENT, 10A.8, p. 210] ut supra ‘born or sown in spring’; ‘violent, lustful’ (Innovative) meanings The association of youth and lustfulness with strength has resulted in the emergence of the semantic strings ‘young’ > ‘strong’ and ‘lustful’ > ‘strong.’ 6A.16. *polchъ

Etymological meaning

‘set in motion; setting in motion; mobile’ [see TIMID, 13B.1,The meaning p. 241] based on continuants ut supra Innovative meanings ‘eager to run; eager to flee’ ( ) notThe attestedmeaning directly ‘stout, strong’in continuants. in Croatian and Serbian is a development of the meaning ‘quick, violent,’ which is derived from the meaning ‘eager to run.’ The latter meaning is The Development of Words Across Centuries

170 *grozьnъ

6A.17.Etymological meaning Structural meaning – obscure [see STERN,ut 12A.4, supra p. 227] The meaning based ‘inspiringon continuants fear; terrible’ ( ) ut supra

грозьныи and the Ukrainian грíзний. ‘fearful; terrifying’ ( ) The meanings ‘strong, powerful, mighty,’ aside ‘great,’ emerged in the Old Russian

6A.18. *strogъ

Etymological meaning

‘caring’ > ‘one that is on guard’ [see STERN, 12A.2, p.The 226] meaning based on continuants ut supra Innovative meanings ‘strict, stern’ ( ) strogi result from the inference that

The meanings ‘great, strong’ of the Kashubian ‘strictness, sternness’ must be based on strength, cf. also GOOD, 1A.15, p. 102. 6A.19. *lichъ

Etymological meaning

‘the one who remains; the one who remained’ [see BAD, 1B.4,The meanings p. 107] based on continuants ut supra ‘excessive,’ ‘uneven (of numbers etc.)’ >Innovative ‘bad, miserable’ meanings ( )

- The meaning ‘strong,’ aside the meaning ‘excessive’ inherited from the PSlav language, is an innovation attested in the Old Russian language. Further development in the Rus sian language in the direction of ‘capable, sprightly,’ attested in dialects, is testimony of an extension of the reference of the meaning ‘strong’ to include humans [cf. also DARING, 13A.16, p. 239]. 6A.20. *sъdorvъ

Etymological meaning The meaning based on continuants ut supra ‘(made) of good wood’ [see HEALTHY, 7A.1, p. 182] Innovative meanings ‘healthy’ ( ) здрав The meanings ‘vigorous; strong, powerful; incolumis, intact,’ which occur aside ‘healthy’ (e.g. as in the case of the Bulgarian ) are examples of a developmental string. Conceptual Groups 6A.21. *snažьnъ 171

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning – obscureut supra [see DILIGENT, 15A.5, p. 253] The meaning based on ‘careful’ continuants ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘clean,’ ‘diligent, zealous,’ ‘strong’ ( )

The original Proto-Slavic meaning, and therefore also the sequence of the meanings that emerged, is difficult to establish due to the considerablesnážan ,semantic Bulgarian discrepancy and Mace- amongdonian theснà женcontinuants and the unknown etymologicalснáжний. meaning. The meaning ‘strong’ occurs in South Slavic languages (Serbian and Croatian ) and in the dial. Ukrainian *dělьnъ

6А.22.Structural meaning - ‘associated with work, with the effect of work’ [see DIL IGENT,The meaning 15A.6, p. based 252] on continuants - ut supra Western ‘hard-working,’ Eastern ‘re sourceful’Innovative ( meaning) dzielny

On the basis of the meaning ‘capable of working’ there emerged the dial. Polish ‘strong, enduring.’

Summary of Semantic Changes

6A.1. *mogtьnъ ← 6A.2. *silьnъ STRONG PSlav STRONG etym. PIE ← 6A.3. *krěpъ *krěpъkъ STRONG PSlav TENSE etym. ← tǫgъ STRONG PSlav DURABLE etym. 6A.4. * ← ← ← 6A.4.1. orSTRONG Western, Church Slavonic HARD PSlav STRAINED TIGHT PSlav ONE THAT IS BEING STRETCHED TIGHT struct. ← ← 6A.4.2. STRONG Western, Church Slavonic STRAINED TIGHT PSlav ONE THAT IS BEING STRETCHED TIGHT struct. The Development of Words Across Centuries

172 6A.5. *dǫžь ← 6A.6. *čstvъ 6A.6.1.STRONG Northern ONE THAT PRESSES etym. ← ← ← or 6A.6.2.STRONG PSlav ENDURING PSlav HARD PSlav ENLACED etym. ← krǫtъ STRONG PSlav BEATING etym. ← ← TWISTED struct. 6A.8.6A.7. *storbъ STRONG PSlav HARD PSlav ← ← ← 6A.9. *dob’ь STRONG PSlav HARD struct. STIFF struct. NUMB etym. ← ← 6A.10. *bъdrъ STRONG PSlav CAPABLE OF FIGHTING PSlav APPROPRIATE etym. ← ← ← 6A.11.STRONG *drěčьnъ Old Russian, dial. Russian LIVELY/SPRIGHTLY Russian VIGILANT PSlav WAKEFUL PSlav ← ←

STRONG Slovak, Slovene, Croatian WELL-GROWN Western, Southern LIKE A TREE 6A.12. *jędrъ TRUNK struct. 6A.12.1. ← ← ←

orSTRONG PSlav FULL OF VIGOR PSlav HAVING A CORE struct. INTERNAL/ 6A.12.2.CENTRAL etym. ← ← 6A.13. *sporъ STRONG PSlav FAT PSlav SWOLLEN etym. ← ← čilъ STRONG Czech EFFICIENT PSlav ABUNDANT PSlav ← ← ← 6A.14.6A.15. *jarъ STRONG6A.15.1. Slovene, Ukrainian SPRIGHTLY PSlav LIVELY PSlav RESTED struct. ← ← ← or 6A.15.2.STRONG dial. Polish YOUNG Western BORN THIS SPRING PSlav OF SPRING etym. ← ← 6A.16. *polchъ STRONG dial. Polish LUSTFUL Western PECULIAR TO SPRING etym. ← ← ←

STRONGgrozьnъ Croatian, Serbian VIOLENT Croatian, Serbian EAGER TO RUN PSlav MOBILE etym. ← ← 6A.17.6A.18. *strogъ STRONG Eastern TERRIFYING PSlav TERRIBLE PSlav ← ← ← ← STRONG Kashubian TERRIBLE Polish IRATE PSlav ONE THAT STANDS ON GUARD struct. CAREFUL etym. Conceptual Groups 6A.19. *lichъ 173 ← ← 6A.20. *sъdorvъ STRONG Old Russian EXCESSIVE PSlav ONE THAT REMAINED PSlav ← ← ↔ ← WOOD etym. STRONG pan-Slavic HEALTHY PSlav *STRONG *HARD (MADE) OF GOOD 6A.21. *snažьnъ

6A.22. *dělьnъ STRONG PSlav (?) obscure ← ←

STRONG dial. Polish CAPABLE OF WORKING Polish HARD-WORKING PSlav formed already during the period of the Proto-Indo-European community. ApartA particularly from the inheritedgreat number motivation, of the motivations which therefore of the concept is no longer ‘strong’ legible were mogtьnъ silьnъ, *krěpъkъ, *dǫžь, *dob’ь, *lichъ Of course, there is a dominance of motivations associated with physical prop- (* ), they referčstvъ to ,five *kr ǫlexemestъ, *storbъ (* , *tǫgъ ).- tǫgъ erties: hardnessstorbъ (* čstvъ – alternatively), withkrǫ thetъ reasons of hardness jędrъwhich are indicated by indirect motivations: tension (* ),- numbness (* ), being enlaced (* ) or being twisted (* ), fat ness/thickness ( silьnъ – alternatively)., *tǫgъ; see aboveIn a number for information of cases aboutthere isthe empha possi- sis upon the use of physical strength – these motivations are associateddǫžь with- stretching sth tight (*čstvъ bility of a different understandingjarъ of this motivation),sъdorbъ pressure (* ), perhaps also beating (* (?)). Motivation grozьnъby way ,of *strogъ the following causes is also possible: youth (* – alternatively),dělьnъ health (* ), and on thedob’ь oth Someer hand, motivations by way of effectemphasize – inspiring the original fear (* nature of the strength), but also to by which way of the capability of working (* ) or the capabilitykrěpъkъ of fighting, *čstvъ (* ). jarъ, jędrъ polchъ the lexeme referred,bъdrъ on, * thečilъ one hand – endurance (* ), on the other hand – vitality (* sporъ – both alternatively),lichъ violence (* ), sprightliness (* ). The associations that are invoked by strength also include abundance (* ) and excess (* ).

6B. WEAK

6B.1. *slabъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *slabъ is derived by scholars from the PIE *(s)lōb- (s)lāb- derivative from the PIE *(s)lēb- ‘flaccid, *(s)leb- sagging’ > ‘weak’ 959; Snoj2 slōpti slópstu (or -b-), a nominal ‘to be flaccid, weak, sagging’ [Pokorny: 655, : 665], cf. the Lithuanian (with the devoicing of ) ‘to become 174 The Development of Words Across Centuries

weak, to faint,’ Gothic slēpan ‘to sleep,’ Old High German slāf(f)an ‘idem,’ Latin labi ‘to slide down, to fall.’ On the basis of a comparison with the equivalents from Indo-Eu- ropean languages: Latvian slābs ‘weak; indistinct, bland,’ Old High German slaf ‘weak,

flaccid,’ ‘sluggish, drowsy,’ one may reconstruct a nominal derivative with the meaning ‘weak’The meaning already for based the Proto-Indo-European on continuants ‘weak’ period. The meaning ‘weak’ is common in all languages except Slovene (e.g. the Czech slabý, Old Church Slavonic slabъ, Russian слáбый). Innovative meanings Innovative meanings arose in the Slovene language where the meaning ‘weak’ was -

assumed by a derivative, and the form which was inherited from the Proto-Slavic lan- plete,guage not assumed full’ (a shiftthe meanings of the semantic ‘bad; dominantof low quality’ in the (a quantitative shift of the direction). semantic The dominant mean- from slight physical force to inferior quality which is caused by weakness) and ‘incom meaning of the Serbian slȁb and Bulgarian слаб ing ‘thin,’ included in the connotative sphere of the concept ‘weak,’ became a secondary . The meanings ‘sickly,’ ‘deficient’ arise according to the development which is peculiar to this concept and they are usually registered as secondary meanings or semantic variants. 6B.2. *mъdьlъ

Etymological meaning – obscure - tionship with *ma ‘weak; indistinct,’ continued in the Greek μαυρóς ‘weak, miserable; Itunclear, is difficult eclipsed.’ to indicate Comparisons a reliable are Proto-Indo-European also made with the Latvianbasis; perhaps mudēt muduthere is‘to a growrela maũsti maudžiù

mouldy’ and the Lithuanian ‘to ache slightly; to ache’ [Rejzek: 369] but Structuralit is difficult tomeaning find a common ‘slow’ semantic> ‘tired, weak’element in all of these attempts. mъdьlъ -ьlъ55 *mъděti *Themuditi PSlav * ‘weak, frail’ is a derivative with the suffix from the PSlav which *mъděti ‘to be remainsweakened, at theindistinct, grade of tired,’ reduction. a verb With of statethis assumption probably associated the motivation with of the verb ‘to which procrastinate, is the basis to dawdleof *mъdьlъ away would with be sth; ‘to to be waste slow, time,’languid’ in reference– a meaning to мéдлить ‘to dawdle млвий (< *мдлвий which is actually attested in East Slavic languages (cf. the Russian awayThe meaningwith sth, to based dilly-dally on continuantswith sth,’ Ukrainian ‘weak’ ) ‘drowsy, slow’). mdły, modły, Czech mdlý), as well as in Slovene (medèl). The meaning ‘weak’ exists in The adjective is attested primarily in West Slavic languages (e.g. the Polish USorb мло ‘bad, not well.’ all of the aforementioned languages. In the eastern part of Slavdom only an adverbial form is attested: dial. Ukrainian 55 The alternative form *mъdlъ

[cf. Babik 2009: 99], which would indicate a participial origin of the adjective, is reconstructed less frequently. Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings 175 The innovative meanings are a result of various interpretations of the property of - mdły, Czech and Slovak mdlý, Slovene medèl weakness. In West Slavic languages and in Slovenemdły, dial.there medły emerged the meaning ‘in distinct, nondescript’ (Polish ), in Slovene there is also ‘thin,’ whereas in Lower Sorbian ( ) – ‘dead’ – which may be considered a hyperbolization of the original ‘weak.’ 6B.3. Western and Southern *klękavъ : klęcavъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav form *klękti, which is not attested in the material, is based on *klenk- ‘slanting, bent’ klénkti klènkiu klenk-k- is certainly another extension of the‘to genuflect,’PIE *kle-n with attested the determinant only in Baltic -n- (cf. Lithuanian ‘to walk/go fast’) and in Slavicreference languages to the PIE[LIV: *kel- 323]. The form * ‘to bow, to bend,’ which presents a grade of reduction Structural meaning ‘idem.’ -avъ from the PSlav *klękati : *klęcati are iteratives from the unattested *klękti. ‘kneeling’ The derivatives with the suffix The meaning based on continuants klécavý klécav ‘shaky; limping’ Theklȅkav meaning : klȅcav ‘limping, one that is on his or her last legs’ is attested by the Old Czech ‘limping,’ Slovene ‘one that is on his or her last legs,’ Serbian and Croatian Innovative meanings ‘one that staggers; shaky, unsure.’

клèкав. The meaning ‘weak’ arose in Bulgarian and Macedonian which feature the variant

*chylъ

6B.4.Etymological meaning The PSlav *chylъ is interpreted either as a deverbativum of *chyliti or as an original adiectivum based on the PIE ‘bent’ root *(s)ko- : *(s)ke- - nant -l- which is present also in the PSlav *chuliti chylъ would be a variant ‘to bend,’ with extended a shortened by the root determi vowel 2 ‘to huddle oneself up, to curl oneself up, to bend oneself.’ The form * Structural[Vasmer 4: 236]. meaning chyliti, cf. supra ‘inclined’ (only in the case of derivation from * The meaning) based on continuants chylý, early Slovene hił, as well as in Polish and Belarusian ‘bowed’ dialects. The original meaning ‘one that stoops, bowed’ is preserved in the Czech The Development of Words Across Centuries

176 Innovative meanings хлый хíлы хил The meaning ‘weak’ (cf. Russian ‘weak, frail, sickly,’ Belarusian ‘weak, sickly, doddering, old,’ the Bulgarian ‘emaciated, frail, weak’ is derived also from Russian) is motivated by an association between a stooping man and weakness and infirmity. The meanings ‘sickly; frail,’ ‘old, doddering’ emerged for the same reason. 15B.6,It is difficult p. 258. to establish the direction of the motivation of secondary meanings. It is likely that they arose in a parallel manner, by motivating each other. Cf. also LAZY,

6B.5. Western and Eastern *rychlъ

Etymological meaning

‘associated with digging, digging; dug’ [see FAST, 9A.1,Structural p. 197] meaning - ut supra Eastern ‘mobile; set in motion’ vs. Western ‘moving; mo Thebile’ (meaning) based on continuants

The continuants which occur in East Slavic Eastern languages ‘mobile, indicate unstable’ the original > ‘mellow/ meaning chubby; porous; flabby’ vs. Western ‘mobile’ > ‘fast’ - рхлый ‘moving,рхлы unstable,’ from whichрхлий probably there emerged already in the Proto-Slavic pe riod secondary meanings (e.g. the Russian ‘porous; mellow, soft, Belarusian ‘idem,’ Ukrainian ‘lacking density, porous; loose’). A different situation occursInnovative in West meanings Slavic languages, cf. FAST, 9A.1, p. 197. рхлый - The meaning ‘obese; fat’ (colloq. Russian ) is based on the meaning ‘mellow/ chubby; soft.’ ‘Weak’ is indirectly attested upon the meaning ‘mellow; soft,’ hence fur ther, dial. Russian meanings ‘sick; sickly,’ as well as ‘flabby, withered.’ 6B.6. *rъchlъ

Etymological meaning The etymology and the PSlav form is uncertain. Perhaps it is a participle in -lъ from the – uncertainrъch ‘set-, alternative in motion’ to (?),rach- ‘raked, which up’ is further(?) related with *rychlъ ruchъ. This may be indicated by the striking convergence PSlavof the verbsemantic with developmentreduced vocalism with –the * East Slavic continuants of the dial. PSlav *rychlъ (cf. 6B.5), * rachlъ as a participle from the PSlav *rasti rašǫ 2 [Bezlaj 3: 145]. Snoj reconstructs the form * The ‘tomeaning rake, to stab;based to cultivateon continuants (soil)’ [Snoj : 599]. The meaning is reconstructed on the basis of the Croatian rȁhao - ráhel ‘soft; weak, impermanent’ ‘mellow; soft; imper manent,’ Slovene ‘delicate, weak.’ Conceptual Groups ǫtьlъ 177

6B.7.Etymological * meaning The etymology is uncertain; there are various hypotheses of which the most likely one is discussed below. – uncertain ‘rotten’ (?) Structural meaning vъ-tьlěti – uncertainvъ- ‘rotten’assumed (?) the form ǫ- , which is peculiar to nominal It is probably a deverbativum from the prefixed/prefixal * ‘to rot; to become hollow,’ in which the verbal prefix * formsThe meanings [Boryś: 682]. based on continuants

Polish wątły wutły ‘rotten,’ ‘full ofvótel holes; hollow, empty’ TheChurch original Slavonic meaning ǫtьlъ ‘rotten; hollow’ is attested by a number of continuants: the Old ‘rotten, hollow,’ USorb ‘idem,’ Slovene ‘idem,’ cf. also the Old Innovative meanings ‘full of holes, perforated.’ The earliest innovative meaning whose dating should perhaps be set even at the Pro- wutłyto-Slavic period is ‘destroyed.’ The furtherwątły development of the meaningsútlý is varied.- Only in South Slavic languages there arose terms that refer to humans (e.g. the USorb ‘hungry, powerless, weak,’ Polish ‘delicate,’ ‘sickly,’ Czech ‘weak’ > ‘deli cate; slim’ with a loss of the negative overtones). 6B.8. Eastern *vędlъ

Etymological meaning (s)endh schwinden ‘miserable’ swindan From the PIE * ‑ ‘to waste away, to wither,’ cf. the German ‘to decline, to diminish, to fade; to dry out, to wither,’ Old English ‘to diminish; to shrink; toStructural waste away.’ meaning A participle of the past tense from the PSlav *vędnǫti ‘withered’ The meaning based on continuants ‘to wither.’ влый, Ukrainian в´лий, Belarusian влый. ‘withered’ The meaning ‘withered’ is attested in all East Slavic languages: Russian Innovative meanings

The meaning ‘withered’ was metaphorically transferred from plants to humans and preserved the semantic dominant ‘deprived of a vital force,’ hence ‘weak,’ ‘lazy; slow.’ 6B.9. *kyprъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘boiling; seething’ut [seesupra VIOLENT, 10A.9, p. 210] ‘boiling; seething’ ( ) The Development of Words Across Centuries

178 The meanings based on continuants ut supra ‘violent, ‘seething, one that increases Innovativeits volume’ (meanings) The continuants of the PSlav derivative from *kypěti kipry which in the meaning that developed on the basis of the ‘tostructural seethe’ meaning have the was meaning great ‘weak’ in both Sorbian languages (LSorb and USorb ). The semantic dominant, was the source of further meanings referring to humans, both in its literal meaning volume, becamekipry mellowness, lack of density,kipry porosity [cf. Schuster-Šewc: 526]. ‘Weak’

(cf. the LSorb ‘crippled,’ USorb ‘sensitive,’ ‘sickly’) as well as the figurative meaning (USorb ‘lenient’). 6B.10. *chudъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘crushed; crumbled’ (?) [see BAD, 1B.3, p.The 105] meanings based on continuants ut supra ‘small, minute,’ ‘miserable, bad,’ ‘weak,’ ‘thin,’Innovative ‘poor’ meanings( )

chudy, Polabian adĕ, USorb chudy chudý, Old Church Slavonic chudъ, The meaningsхудыи ‘weak, miserable’ are well-attested by continuants (e.g. the dial. Polish- ‘idem,’ Czech Old Russian ). However, it is difficult to present the sequence of the develop ment of meanings with any certainty, cf. THIN, 5B.6, p. 158. 6B.11. *lochъ/*lošь

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘weak’ (?), ‘obliquus’ (?) [see BAD 1B.2, p.The 105] meaning based on continuants ut supra ‘bad, especially in the moral sense’ (Innovative) meanings lȍhav -av. It arose on the basis of the PSlavThe meaning *lochъ. which is secondary in reference to ‘bad’ is the Serbian and Croatian ‘weak, sickly’ – an adjective with a suffixal extension

6B.12. *vetъchъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘old’continuants [see OLD, 8B.1,ut p. supra 193] ‘old’ ( ) Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings 179 In the Polish language the only trace of the continuant of *vetъchъ wiotchy wiotki - nying change of the form; one cannot rule out the adideation to the word – the witka Old Polish – is ‘weak; thin, delicate.’ The change of meaning caused an accompa ‘a thin delicate twig.’ 6B.13. *glupъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘squashed;continuants compressed’ut [see supra STUPID, 16B.1, p. 264] Innovative meanings ‘stupid’ ( ) - глýпый Apart from such meanings as ‘primitive, simple; boorish,’ ‘immature; young,’ ‘insignif icant, redundant,’ the dial. Russian ‘weak,’ has as its basis a generalization of a negative evaluation followed by its narrowing down, among others to ‘weak.’ chabъ/*chabьnъ

6B.14.Etymological * meaning The meanings based on – continuantsuncertain ‘sour, spoilt’ (?) [see BAD, 1B.7, p. 108]

Proto-Slavic period. It is attested by the Czech ‘bad, and miserable’ Slovak chabý > ‘weak’ The meaningchamny ‘weak’ (< *chabny) presumably arose from the earlier ‘bad, miserable’ alreadychabenъ in the 2 ‘miserable; weak,’ LSorb ‘weak,’ aside ‘sick,’ ‘wretched,’ Church Slavonic ‘weak, miserable’ [Miklosich : 1087]. 6B.15. *dręchlъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on continuants – uncertain ‘rotten’ (?) [see SAD, 11B.2, p. 222]ut supra Innovative meanings ‘sad,’ ‘infirm, debilitated by age’ ( ) дряхлыи

The meaning ‘weak’ of the Old Russian is another link of the string ‘infirm due to age.’ 6B.16. *bolgъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘shining; glimmering’ (?) [see PLEASANT, 2A.2,The meanings p. 116] based on continuants ut supra ‘good, kind, pleasant,’ ‘happy, prosperous’ ( ) 180 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Innovative meanings благй

The meaning ‘weak’ of the Ukrainian arose from the preceding ‘mild’ [cf. BAD, 1B.14, p. 111]. šibъkъ

6B.17.Etymological * meaning ‘one that sets or is set in motion with great force’ [see VIOLENT,The meaning 10A.4, based p. 207] on continuants Structural meaning [cf. THIN, 5B.5, p. 157] Innovative meanings ‘such that can be waved, brandished’ The Slovene šíbek šibъkъ but it is an indepen- ‘flexible, lithe; thin, and in reference to man – ‘thin, slender; weak, delicate,’ most probably is not a continuant of the PSlav * - dent Slovene derivative whose form is identical [see THIN, 5B.5, p. 157]. The meaning ‘weak’ emerged by the transposition of the dominant of the meaning ‘thin’ (in refer ence to man – ‘thin, slender’) from posture to physical force. 6B.18. *lagodьnъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘arranged; decent’ (?) ‘weak’ (?) [see PLEASANT,Structural meaning2A.3, p. 116] ut supra The meanings based ‘mild,on continuants tranquil; harmonious’ ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘kind, pleasant,’ ‘mild, peaceful’ ( ) lahodný łahodny łagodny The innovative meaning ‘weak’ (dial. Slovene ‘weak, frail,’ USorb ‘delicate, weakly,rarer instance frail,’ cf. of LSorb the direction of ‘delicate; development slender; as development thin’) emerged in thedue opposite to a transposition direction. of the meaning ‘mild’ from the mental to the physical sphere, which is a considerably

6B.19. *něžьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning – obscure(ut supra[see MILD, 12B.1, p. 230] The meaning based ‘delicate’on continuants ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘delicate’ ( ) nȅžan, Croatian njȅžan, Bulgarian нèжен нéжный asThe mental meaning features. ‘frail, weakly’ (Serbian , Russian ) emerged from the previous ‘delicate,’ which referred both to physical as well 181

Conceptual Groups Summary of Semantic Changes

6B.1. *slabъ WEAK PSlav ← 6B.2. *mъdьlъ SAGGING etym. WEAK Western, Slovene ← ← 6B.3. *klękavъ TIRED struct. SLOW struct. WEAK Bulgarian, Macedonian ← ← ←

chylъ SHAKY Western, Southern KNEELING struct. BENT etym. WEAK Eastern ← ← 6B.5.6B.4. *rychlъ INCLINED PSlav BENT etym. WEAK Eastern ← 6B.6. *rъchlъ SET IN MOTION struct. WEAK Serbian, Croatian ← ← ǫtьlъ LOOSE Serbian, Croatian SET IN MOTION struct. WEAK Western ← 6B.8.6B.7. *vędlъ ROTTEN PSlav WEAK Eastern ← 6B.9. *kyprъ WITHERED Eastern ← ← 6B.10. *chudъ 6B.10.1.WEAK USorb, LSorb LOOSE USorb SEETHING struct. WEAK PSlav ← or 6B.10.2. CRUMBLED (?) etym. WEAK PSlav ← ← or 6B.10.3. SMALL PSlav CRUMBLED (?) etym. WEAK PSlav ← BAD PSlav ← 6B.11. *lošь CRUMBLED (?) etym. WEAK Serbian, Croatian ← ← 6B.12. *vetъchъ MISERABLE Southern BAD Southern, dial. Russian WEAK Polish ← 6B.13. *glupъ OLD PSlav ← ← STUPID PSlav ← chabъ/*chabьnъ WEAK dial. Russian INSIGNIFICANT Pan-Slavic CLOGGED etym. ← Church6B.14. * Slavonic ← BAD Western ← ← 6B.15.WEAK * Czech,dręchlъ LSorb, Serbian, Croatian, Church Slavonic MISERABLE Western, SPOILT (?) etym. SOUR (?) etym. ← ← 6B.16. *bolgъ WEAK Old Russian INFIRM PSlav ROTTEN (?) etym. WEAK Ukrainian ← ← ←

MILD Polish, Southern, Ukrainian PLEASANT PSlav SHINING (?) etym. 182 The Development of Words Across Centuries

šibъkъ WEAK Slovene ← ← 6B.17. * 6B.18. *lagodьnъ THIN Slovene LIKE A TWIG Slovene WEAK dial. Slovak, USorb ← ← 6B.19. *něžьnъ DELICATE MILD PSlav ← ←

WEAK Southern, Russian DELICATE PSlav MILD PSlav

slabъ, *rychlъ, *kyprъNumerous motivationsklękavъ of the, concept*rychlъ, ‘weak’*rъchlъ are based on slabъthe properties of physical objects and are associated with their instability: loosechabъ (* ), set swinging (* ), sagging (* ), or with impermanence,ǫtьlъ with being subjectdręchlъ to decay: corruption: (* – perhaps caused by having vędlъ gone sour – indirect motivationchudъ uncertain), putrefaction (* ), perhaps going rotten (* – indirect motivation uncertain),- withering awaybolgъ , (**lagodьnъ), perhaps, *něžьnъ crumbling (* šibъkъ – indirect, *vetъchъ motivation, which uncertain). Another group of words is based on motivations based on deli motivationscateness (* by the lack of negative) andovertones. being thin The (* following motivations feature(s) a secondary motivation), which differ fromglupъ the aforementioned chabъ, *lošь, perhaps also *chudъ motivationshave distinctly allegedly negative refer overtones: directly to insignificant people and (*they are), associated bad, miserable with (* mъdьlъ – alternativevetъchъ motivation). The remaining klękavъ, *chylъ - being tired, slownessklękavъ (* ), old age (* chylъ ), as well as with bending (* – both are indirect motivations), where the closer motiva tion is kneeling (* ) and inclination (* ).

7A. HEALTHY *sъdorvъ

7A.1.Etymological meaning The PSlav *sъdorvъ is usually considered to have been inherited from the PIE *su- dora- ‘(made, consisting) of good su-wood’ dora-; such a semantic development is discernible in the Avestan dr(u)vō duruva ‘(made) of good wood,’ a compound consisting of * ‘good’ and * ‘healthy56 and Persian ‘idem’ [Pokorny: 216]. When one accepts such an etymological meaning it is necessary to accept an intermediary link *‘hard; strong’ > ‘healthy’. Rick Derksen questions the aforementioned explanation, however, he upholds the relationship with

the56 words representing the Indo-Iranian group [Derksen: 478]. A competing etymology лубнный *lubъ Cf. the parallel development of the meaning from ‘made of strong material’ to ‘strong,лубов powerful;áтый. healthy’ in the dial. Russian ‘strong, healthy’ from the PSlav ‘phloem, bark.’ The intermediary semantic link ‘stiff, hard’ is attested by another derivative: the dial. 183

Conceptual Groups

USorb form strowy as the point of departure, he reconstructs the PSlav *storvъ, which heis suggested links with by the Schuster-Šewc poorly attested [Schuster-Šewc: PSlav *storbъ 1365–1366]. By taking the LSorb and convincing due to phonetic reasons. The Old Church Slavonic form sъdrabъ with a jer which precludes assimilation is proof of the existence‘strong; healthy.’ of the voicedThis hypothesis vowel -d- is. Thenot assimilated form with the voiced zd- in the syllable onset is present also in the monuments of the Sorbian languages. The meanings based continuants - zdravý, Old Church ‘healthy’ Slavonic sъdravъ, Slovene zdràv здорóвыйThe meaning ‘healthy’ is the basic meaning in all of the continuants in Slavic lan guages (cf. e.g. the Czech , Russian Innovative). meanings -

Due to the association of health with strength the meaning ‘strong’ emerged as a sec ondary meaning in various Slavic languages. Cf. STRONG, 6A.20, p. 170. *cělъ

7A.2.Etymological meaning It is derived from the PIE *ka-lo- : ka-lu- hails ‘whole; healthy’ *kailu-s in kailūstikan ‘healthy, intact.’ There are equivalents in Germanic (e.g. the Gothic ‘healthy; whole’) and Baltic languages (Old Prussian The meaning based on continuants ‘health’) [SP 2: 73–74].

‘healthy’ > ‘sound’ - The current basic meaning of all continuants is ‘whole.’ The meaning ‘healthy’ earlier Ukrainianoccurred in dialects. various The languages consistency (Old Churchof the earlierSlavonic, meanings Old Polish, allows Old us Czech, to conjecture Old Rus sian, in the Polabian greeting: ‘bądź zdrów!’ : ‘na zdrowie!’), today only in Russian andćol heil that ‘healthy’ could have been the original Proto-Slavic meaning. The continuant (probably under the influence of the German ) is attested in the Polabian languages in the form of the greeting: ‘bądź zdrów; Willkommen’ and ‘na zdrowie; à votre santé’ [SEJDP: 86]. Eastern, Southern *čitъ/*čitavъ

7A.3.Etymological meaning The PSlav *čiti is derived from the PIE *keiə-/*kiē- - tives based on *kiē-to- ‘rested’ čitъ - anian kíetas ciêts ‘to rest’ [SP 2: 218].kī-lo- The adjec the PSlav *čilъ (hence the PSlav * , cf. the exact Baltic equivalents: Lithu ‘hard, strong; Latvian ‘idem’) and the ones based on * (hence ). Pokorny reconstructs it already for the Proto-Indo-European period [Pokorny:Structural 638]. meaning čitъ -avъ, inherited from the Proto-Indo-European language ‘rested’ or based on the PSlav *čiti The suffixal extension of the adjective * with the suffix ‘to rest’ [SP 2: 217–218]. The Development of Words Across Centuries

184 The meaning based on continuants

čȉtav ‘sound,, Bulgarian intact’ and Macedonian чтав, dial. TheUkrainian meaning чтавый ‘whole, intact’ is attested in all South and East Slavic languages in which the word exists (Serbian and Croatioan Innovative meanings). čȉtav, Bul- garian and Macedonian чтав, dial. Ukrainian чтавый - The meaning ‘one who is in a healthy state; healthy’ (Serbian and Croatian also ‘strong; good; decent; la impossibleborious’) is tobased determine on the whether PSlav meaning this meaning ‘whole, was intact.’ still Perhapsfelt at the such time a of direction the formation of the development of the meaning was set by the structural meaning ‘rested,’ although it is

of the meaning ‘healthy’ and in the remaining meanings which are mentioned above. *čilъ

7A.4.Etymological meaning The PSlav meaning *čiti čьjǫ keiə-/*kiē- ‘rested’ čitavъ ‘to rest’ is based on the same PIE root * ‘to rest,’Structural which is meaning discussed above [see 7A.3, * , p. 183]. The participle in -lъ is derived from *čiti čьjǫ ‘resting,’ ‘rested’ The meaning based on continuants ‘to rest’ [SP 2: 199]. číl, Serbian and Croatian čȉo : čȉl ‘rested’ > ‘lively,’ ‘vigorous’ The meaning ‘rested’ is preserved only in South Slavic languages (the Slovene čilý and USorb čiły. , aside the meanings ‘healthy,’ ‘strong,’ ‘lively,’ ‘vigorous, jaunty’). The meanings ‘lively, vigorous, animated; sprightly’ occur also in the Czech Innovative meanings

The meaning ‘healthy’ in Slovene and Ukrainian (apart from them in Serbian and Croatian there is ‘strong’) is the result of the emergence of further links of the semantic string: ‘rested’ > ‘lively,’ ‘sprightly’ [see also MERRY, 11A.4, p. 219 and GOOD, 1A.14, p. 102]. *storbъ

7A.5.Etymological meaning Structural meaning ‘stiff; numb’ut supra[see STRONG, 6A.8, p. 167] The meanings based ‘hard; on continuants stiff’ ( ) ut supra ‘strong,’ ‘healthy; brisk’ ( ) *rǫdъ

7A.6.Etymological meaning The meaning based on ‘arranged continuants in a row, in a series’ [see GOOD,ut supra 1A.4, p. 97] ‘correct, appropriate’ ( ) 185

Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings continuant of the PSlav *rǫdъ : rądi The innovativeaforementioned meaning meanings ‘healthy’ resulted is one infrom the astring series of of the narrowing meanings down of the of Kashubian the PSlav ‘nimble, lively; sprightly,’ ‘robust, healthy, merry.’ meaning ‘appropriate’ with further changes of the semantic dominant. krěpъ/*krěpъkъ

7A.7.Etymological * meaning – uncertain ‘strong,’ ‘enduring’ (?) [see STRONG, 6A.3,The meanings p. 161] based on continuants ut supra ‘strong, powerful; enduring, durable, about objects’ > ‘hard, enduring, durable, about objects,’ ‘strong, enduring, aboutInnovative people’ meanings ( ) language, is an example of a semantic string. The emergence of the meaning ‘healthy’ aside from ‘strong; robust,’ e.g. in the Macedonian

Summary of Semantic Changes

sъdorvъ ← ↔ ← 7A.1. * cělъ HEALTHY PSlav *STRONG *HARD (MADE) OF GOOD WOOD etym. ← 7A.2. * čitavъ HEALTHY PSLav WHOLE etym. ← ← 7A.3. * čilъ HEALTHY Southern WHOLE Eastern, Southern RESTED etym. ← ← ← 7A.4. * storbъ HEALTHY Slovene, Ukrainian SPRIGHTLY PSlav LIVELY PSlav RESTED struct. ← ← ← ← 7A.5. * rǫdъ HEALTHY PSlav STRONG PSlav *HARD STIFF struct. NUMB etym. ↔ ↔ ← 7A.6. * krěpъkъ HEALTHY Kashubian SPRIGHTLY Kashubian ROBUST Kashubian APPROPRIATE ← 7A.7. * HEALTHY Macedonian STRONG PSlav

storbъ The motivations of the conceptsъdorvъ ‘healthy’ are concentratedcělъ in ,two *čitavъ areas: the area associated with the properties of material objects: durabilityčilъ, * r(*ǫdъ ), the appropriatekrěpъkъ material (* ), remaining intact (* ) and the area associated with the effects of health: sprightliness (* ) and strength (* ). 186 The Development of Words Across Centuries

7B. SICKWestern and Eastern *chvorъ

7B.1.Etymological meaning It is probably derived from *soro- chvara to *ser- ‘wounded;57 festering’ (as the Avestansweran ‘wound’), a nominal form ‘to stab, to wound,’ ‘to be a result of receiving a wounds byer- aand sharp *serg object,h- to fester, to suppurate,’ cf. the Old High German ‘to ache; to fester’sigti [Pokorny: sergù 1050]. One is made curious by the semantic proximity of the PIE * ‘to be sick; to take care of sth,’ reconstructed on the basis of the Lithuanian ‘to Thebe sick’ meaning [for further based information on continuants see Pokorny: 1051]. chory Czech chorý ‘sick’ хвóрый The meaning ‘sick’хвóрий is attested and Belarusian in all North хвóры Slavic languages, e.g. the LSorb ‘sick,’ ‘sick; haggard, emaciated,’ early Russian and colloq. ‘sick, sickly; weak,’ Ukrainian ‘idem.’ *skbьnъ

7B.2.Etymological meaning – uncertain ‘cut; cutting’ (?) ‘wrinkled, curled up’ (?) [seeStructural SAD, 11B.1, meaning p. 221] ut supra The meaning based ‘plaintive;on continuants sad’ ( ) скóрбный ‘sick,’ ‘sad’ The meaning of the early Russian ‘sick’ may be derived directly from the meaning ‘cut’ or ‘wrinkled’ for each of the etymological meanings theoreticallyskběti, which could is thehave basis been of its the basis. adjective. However, one is made curious by the lack of the meanings ‘to be sick; to ache’ or any traces of them in the continuants of the PSlav * *durьnъ

7B.3.Etymological meaning – uncertain ‘blowing; associated with wind’ (?) [see VIOLENT,Structural 10A.5, meaning p. 205] ut supra The meanings based ‘agitated’ on continuants ( ) ut supra ‘agitated, violent; impetuous,’ Northern ‘mad’Innovative ( meanings)

two independent paths. On the one hand, these meanings refer to a mental disease In Russian dialects the development of the meanings which refer to a disease pursued The ch- 57 in the onset is probably a result of the expressive nature of the lexeme [Sławski 1: 77]. Conceptual Groups - 187 through the stages ‘mentally ill,’ ‘mad,’ ‘violent,’ on the other hand, they refer to dis eases associated with physical debilitation through the stages ‘bad,’ ‘corrupt,’ ‘useless.’ *chudъ

7B.4.Etymological meaning – uncertain ‘crushed; crumbled’ (?) [see BAD, 1B.3, p.The 105] meanings based on continuants - ut supra ‘thin,’ ‘weak,’ ‘small, diminutive,’ ‘miser able,Innovative bad,’ ‘poor’ meanings ( ) chaude and in the dial. Slovak chudav.

The meaning ‘sickly’ is present in the Polabian *kyprъ

7B.5.Etymological meaning Structural meaning ‘boiling; seething’ut [seesupra VIOLENT, 10A.9, p. 210] The meanings based ‘boiling; on continuants seething’ ( ) ut supra ‘violent,’ ‘boiling, one that increases itsInnovative volume’ (meanings) kipry -

The LSorb ‘sickly’ is another link in the semantic string ‘weak’ > ‘sickly.’ For infor mation about the stages of the development cf. WEAK, 6B.9, p. 177. *chylъ

7B.6.Etymological meaning Structural meaning ‘bent’ [seeut supra WEAK, 6B.4, p. 175] The meaning based ‘inclined’on continuants ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘inclined’ ( ) The meanings of the Belarusian хíлы хлый

‘sickly’ and Russian ‘frail’ are based on the association with the stooping human figure, similarly as other meanings which refer to physical properties, cf. WEAK, 6B.4, p. 175. *ǫtьlъ

7B.7.Etymological meaning Structural meaning – obscureut supra [see WEAK, 6B.7, p. 175] The meanings based ‘rotten’ on continuants ( ) ut supra ‘rotten,’ ‘full of holes; hollow’ ( ) 188 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Innovative meanings The Polish wątły dominant, peculiar to the transformations in the semantic string. ‘sickly’ aside ‘delicate,’ ‘weak’ indicates a gradual shift of the semantic

*plochъ

7B.8.Etymological meaning The meaning based on –continuants unclear ‘flat’ (?) [seeut supraBAD, 1B.5, p. 107] Innovative meanings ‘bad’ ( ) The Belarusian плóхи

‘sickly’ is supposedly derived from the earlier ‘bad.’ Southern and Eastern *lochъ/*lošь

7B.9.Etymological meaning – uncertain ‘weak; of inferior quality’ (?), ‘obliquus’ (?)The [see meaning BAD, 1B.2, based p. 105] on continuants ut supra ‘bad, especially in the moral sense’ (Innovative) meanings

meanings of the Serbian and Croatian derivative lȍhav Theextension results -av of, thewhich string arose of gradual on the basis semantic of the shifts PSlav – ‘bad’*lochъ >. ‘weak’ > ‘sickly’ include the , an adjective with the suffixal

*chabъ/*chabьnъ

7B.10.Etymological meaning The meaning based on –continuants uncertain ‘sour; spoilt’ (?) [see BAD, 1B.7,ut supra p. 108] Innovative meanings ‘bad, miserable’ > ‘weak’ ( ) chamny from the unattested form *chabny

The innovative meaning ‘sick’ of the LSorb emerged as an instance of the narrowing down of the meaning ‘weak.’ *bolgъ

7B.11.Etymological meaning – uncertain ‘shining, glimmering’ (?) [see PLEASANT, 2A.2,The meanings p. 116] based on continuants ut supra ‘good, kind, pleasant,’ ‘happy, prosperous’ ( ) 189

Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings благй, Belarusian благí

The meaning ‘unhealthy, sickly’ (Ukrainian ) is an instance of the narrowing down of the meaning ‘weak; bad, miserable,’ which emerged from the preceding ‘mild’ [cf. BAD, 1B.14, p. 111]. In Belarusian (in contradistinction to Ukrainian) the meanings with positive overtones disappeared completely. *slabъ

7B.12.Etymological meaning The meaning based on continuants ut supra ‘flabby, slack’ > ‘weak’ [see WEAK, 6B.1, p. 173] Innovative meanings ‘weak’ ( ) Ukrainian слабй The innovative meaning ‘sick; sickly’ appears in Slavic languages aside ‘weak’ (e.g. the ) as another link of the semantic string. Summary of Semantic Changes

chvorъ SICK PSlav ← 7B.1. * skbьnъ WOUNDED etym. 7B.2. * ← or7B.2.1. SICK early Russian WRINKLED etym. ← 7B.2.2. durьnъ SICK early Russian WOUNDED etym. 7B.3. * ← ← ← and7B.3.1. SICK dial. Russian SPOILT dial. Russian USELESS dial. Russian BAD Russian ← ← ← 7B.3.2. chudъ SICK dial. Russian BAD Russian MAD Northern VIOLENT PSlav ← WEAK PSlav ← 7B.4. * kyprъ SICKLY Polabian, dial. Slovak CRUMBLED (?) etym. ← ← ← 7B.5. * ← SICKLY LSorb WEAK LSorb, USorb LOOSE USorb ONE THAT INCREASES ITS chylъ VOLUME PSlav SEETHING PSlav ↔ WEAK Pan-Slavic ← ← 7B.6. * ǫtьlъ SICKLY Russian, Belarusian INCLINED PSlav BENT etym. ← WEAK PSlav 7B.7. * plochъ SICKLY Polish ← BAD PSlav 7B.8. * SICKLY Belarusian 190 The Development of Words Across Centuries

lochъ ← BAD PSlav 7B.9. * chabьnъ SICKLY Serbian, Croatian ← WEAK PSlav 7B.10. * bolgъ SICK LSorb ← WEAK Ukrainian, Belarusian ← 7B.11.Ukrainian * ← ← SICKLY Ukrainian, Belarusian MILD Polish, Southern, slabъ PLEASANT PSlav SHINING (?) etym. ← WEAK PSlav ← 7B.12. * SICKLY Pan-Slavic LOOSE etym.

chvorъ skbьnъ The basis for the motivationsk ofbьnъ the concept ‘sick’ is furnished by thedurьnъ causes. Inof amy disease: material wounds more (*examples), refercuts (*not so much – alternatively) to a sick person or its himself physical or herselfmanifestations: as to a person wrinkling who (* is prone )to and a disease. mental Asones a rule – madness the basis * for the chudъ, *kyprъ, *chylъ, *ǫtьlъ, *bolgъ, *chabьnъ, *slabъ durьnъ, *plochъ, *lošь - motivationtroduces an of evaluative this concept element is being into weak the (*process of nomination. ) or being miserable, bad (* ), which in

8A.1.8A. YOUNG *junъ

Etymological meaning The motivation of the PSlav *junъ ie is inherited, which is clearly indicated by the cognate words. ‘young’ The latter may be found in various Indo-European jaúnas ‘young’ from thejaûns PIE * iuvenis yúvant- languages: Lithuanian ‘young,’ Latvian ‘idem,’ Latin ‘idem,’ OInd The meaning ‘idem.’ based on continuants The semantics which was inherited from the Proto-Indo-European language was pre- ‘young’ the continuants in all Slavic languages. Cf. the dial. Polish juni junný served in the Proto-Slavicjȗn language. This is unequivocallyjȗn indicated by the meanings of junъ ный ‘young,’ний dial. Slovak ‘idem,’ны Slovene ‘idem,’ Serbian and early Croatian ‘idem,’ Old Church Slavonic ‘idem,’ Old Russian and Russian ‘idem,’ Ukrainian ‘idem,’ Belarusian Innovative‘idem.’ meanings There are no innovative meanings as far as the adjectives are concerned. Connotative - guages in the meanings of the derivatives which may be reduced to the form *junakъ features associated with youth: ‘strong’ and ‘brave’ may be found in various Slavic lan

‘daredevil, hero’ and ‘strongman.’ 191

Conceptual Groups 8A.2. *moldъ

Etymological meaning maldai maldian ‘soft; delicate’ mold-/*mald-, which is al- ternativeThe closest in formal reference and tosemantic *mdu- equivalent is found in the Old Prussianmdú- plural ‘children,’mollis < *moldis ‘foal.’ The Baltic andἀμαλδυς Slavic, reconstructed form < PIE * on the basis of ἀμαλδύνω βλαδύς ‘soft, delicate hence the OInd ‘soft, delicate,’ Latinforms are based on the ‘soft,’ PIE * Greekmel- * ‘to mollify, to soothe’ aside (with another treatment of the sonant). All of these The meaning based on continuants ‘to crumble’ [Pokorny: 716–718].

‘young’ The meaning ‘young’ is attested in all Slavic languages. It is a common Balto-Slavic semantic innovation, which is indicated by the secondary meaning ‘young creature’- – already lexicalized in the Old Prussian language. There is no direct proof that the itmeaning most likely ‘soft’ arose was preserved due to a chain in the process Proto-Slavic of the language emergence (whereas of successive in Old Czech meanings ‘del icate’ is recorded, which theoretically may be a trace of the previous meaning, but mláditi which differed from each other very slightly). A different opinion is represented by- France Bezlaj who claims that the Slovene “ młodzić (testo, ilovicu)” ‘to knead one more time (of dough, clay)’ indicates the existence of the residual meaning ‘soft’ in the Pro to-Slavic language. He also classifies the Polish “ piwo” ‘to add more yeast to beer’Innovative into the meanings same category [Bezlaj 2: 187].

‘fresh,’ ‘unripe,’ ‘recently made’ - sidualAlso, the meaning. Slovene ‘soft, fluffy, about bread’ is supposedly an innovation derived from the meaning ‘recently baked,’ which according to Bezlaj [l.c.] could be considered a re

8A.3. *jarъ

Etymological meaning

‘associated with spring; spring (adj.)’ [see VIOLENT, 10A.8,The meanings p. 210] based on continuants ut supra ‘spring (adj.),’ ‘manifesting spring-like behavior,’Innovative ‘violent, meanings lustful’ ( ). Due to the great variety of the meanings and the various possible paths of the ety- - istered in Polish dialects and in the Czech language, should be reconstructed for the Proto-Slavicmological development language or it whether is difficult it should to establish be considered whether an the independent meaning ‘young,’ innovative reg maymeaning be indicated derived eitherby the from meanings ‘lustful’ of orother ‘vigorous,’ continuants or from in this‘born language. in the spring,’ or from one of the meanings which refer to the physical condition, e.g. ‘healthy, robust.’ This 192 The Development of Words Across Centuries

*jędrьnъ

8A.4.Etymological meaning – uncertain ‘swollen’ (?), ‘one that is at the center, coreStructural (adj.)’ (?)meaning [see FAT, 5A.3, p. 150] from the PIE *od- ut supra ‘having a core’ – only when one accepts the derivation The meaning based ( on continuants) Innovative meanings ‘vigorous; robust, firm’ The early meaning of the Ukrainian ядéрний with vigour, if it is the source of the Proto-Slavic meaning. It may also refer directly to ‘young’ may be based on an association

the manifestations of vigor, e.g. to the meaning ‘strong.’ 8A.5. *glupъ

Etymological meaning The meaning based on continuants ut supra ‘crushed; compressed’ [see STUPID, 16B.1, p 264] Innovative meanings ‘stupid’ ( ) overtones, may be motivated either by the lack of experience or by the lack of independence,The meaning which ‘young,’ could registered be indicated in the by Polabian the explanation language, of glawhichpĕ has clearly evaluative

‘young; one who lives with his or her parents.’ Summary of Semantic Changes

8A.1. *junъ ← 8A.2. *moldъ YOUNG PSlav YOUNG etym. PIE ← ← 8A.3. *jarъ YOUNG PSlav DELICATE etym. SOFT etym. 8A.3.1. ← ← ← YOUNGor dial. Polish, Czech LUSTFUL Polish, LSorb, USorb MANIFESTING SPRING- 8A.3.2.LIKE BEHAVIOR PSlav SPRING (adj.) etym. ← ← ←

YOUNG Czech SPRIGHTLY Czech *VIGOROUS MANIFESTING SPRING-LIKE jędrьnъ BEHAVIOR etym. 8A.4. * ← ← ← - 8A.4.1. YOUNG early Ukrainian PHYSICALLY FIT Ukrainian ROBUST Ukrainian VIG OROUS PSlav 193

Conceptual Groups or

← ← ← 8A.4.2.etym. YOUNG early Ukrainian PHYSICALLY FIT Ukrainian ROBUST Ukrainian FAT 8A.5. *glupъ 8A.5.1. ← ← STUPID PSlav and YOUNG8A.5.2. Polabian NOT INDEPENDENT Polabian ← ← STUPID PSlav

YOUNG dial. Russian INEXPERIENCED dial. Russian - dencies, which is allegedly associated with the variety of the objects to which In the motivations of the concept ‘young’moldъ one may found contrarious ten- tributes of early youth or actually childhood, this in turn is associated with a given adjectivemoldъ referred. Tenderness (* ) is associated with the at features tenderness and softness should be referred not to young creatures but softnessto young (*plants. – intermediate motivation) – it is equally possible that the jędrьnъ - jarъ associatedThe motivations with youth through construed physical as thefitness period (* of the), full sprightliness extent of physical or lust powers.fulness (* A distinctly – the motivations pejorative areassociation alternative is discernible in reference in to the each motivations other) are glupъ intermediate motivation is stupidity. which feature a lack of independence and inexperience (* ) where the

8B.1.8B. OLD *vetъchъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav * vetъchъ vẽtušas vetus veteris ‘old’ < ‘(multos) annosetus-o- natus’ PIE *eto- ‘old’ – exactἔτος equivalents invatsará- the Lithuanian ‘very old’ and Latin ‘old’ – continues the PIE * ‘old,’ formed on the basis of the The meaning ‘year,’ basedcf. the Greek on continuants ‘year,’ OInd ‘idem.’ e.g. the Old Polish wiotchy ‘old’ vetchý vȅt/vȅtah, BulgarianIn the majority вехт of, вет the ,languages вèтъх the continuants preserved the original meaning ‘old,’ Вéтхий Завет ‘old,’ Czech and Slovak ‘old,’ Serbo-CroatВéтхий Завет . Until today it is preserved only in fixed expressions, ofe.g. the the PSlav Russian *starъ which is earlier ‘the in Oldthis Testament’meaning, according and Ukrainian to the tendency to the expansiveness‘idem,’ whereas of in innovative other contexts meanings. the early lexeme was replaced by the continuants The Development of Words Across Centuries

194 Innovative meanings The secondary meanings associated with the properties of oldness/old age, e.g., the вéтхий вéтхий

Russian ‘doddering, decrepit,’ Ukrainian ‘worn out; used,’ and about- peopleciation with– ‘weak; the decrepit’word witka – allegedly emerged in an independent manner in various Slavicfacilitated languages. further In semantic Polish, probablychanges. Inunder contradistinction the influence toof othera folk languagesetymology, there in asso oc- ‘a thin twig,’ there occurred a change of the form, which also in Sorbian, where it refers above all to cloths. curred a melioration of the meaning, hence ‘slender; thin.’ The meaning ‘thin’ arose

8B.2. *starъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *starъ continues the PIE stā-ro- stā- ‘one that stands surely’ > ‘strong;stóras adult’ stórr ‘standing,’ a nominal form to the PIE ‘to stand.’initially Its *starъ equivalents must have in Indo-European referred to a man languages in his prime. (Lithuanian A similar semantic ‘fat,’ Old develop Norse- ment ‘great,may be strong, observed virile; in important’)the OInd sthavirá- clearly whichindicate is physicalattested fitnessboth in and the provemeanings that

The‘wide; meaning fat; stout, basedstrong’ onas well continuants as ‘old; venerated, respected’ [Heidermanns: 558]. starý, Old Church Slavonic starъ стáрый ‘old’ - The semantics of the continuants is uniformmoldъ (e.g. the Czech novъ , Russian ), and their referents in various Slavic languages include both liv ing creatures, plants (the antonym of * ) as well as things (the antonym of * ). 8B.3. *dręchlъ

Etymological meaning

The meanings based on – obscure continuants ‘rotten’ (?) [see SAD, 11B.2, p. 222] ut supra ‘sad,’ ‘decrepit, debilitatedдрхлый, Ukrainian by age’ др( хлий, Belarusian) dráхлы The meanings that are preserved in East Slavic languages (Russian established due to the uncertainty) ‘decrepit, of the etymology. weakened by age’ indicate indirectly the meaning ‘old’ with strong negative overtones. Their relationship to ‘sad’ cannot be Western *šědivъ

8B.4.Etymological meaning

The PSlav South Eastern *šadъ – uncertain : Western ‘grey’ *šědъ (?) ‘bright’ (?) ‘of an inconspicuous withcolor’ the (?) PSlav *šarъ : šěrъ cho d-o-‘grey * cho– siwy,r-o- szary’ is allegedly linked root *kso- ‘grey.’ Attempts-toare is madealso based: to derive Avestan the xšaeta forms before monophthongization and palatalization (* ) from the PIE nominal , on which the form with the suffix ‘bright’ 195

Conceptual Groups

[Machek: 627]. A further affinity may link these words with the names of colors in Old GermanicStructural and meaning Celtic languages [cf. Boryś: 591]. -ivъ is based on the PSlav *šadъ - ‘grey’šědъ Only the Western adjective with the suffix (the South ernThe and meaning Eastern basedform – *on continuants) ‘canosus.’

šědъ ‘grey-haired; grey’ -ivъ, e.g.,The Czechmeaning šedivý ‘grey-haired;. grey’ is basic both for the continuants of the non-suffixal form (e.g., the Old Church Slavonic ), as well as for the forms with the suffix Innovative meanings sędziwy, dial. szedziwy šeziwy

The meaning ‘old’ of the Polish and of LSorb ‘grey, the one who went grey; old’ is associated with the grey color of hair. 8B.5. *durьnъ

Etymological meaning

‘blowing,’ ‘associated with wind’ [see VIOLENT, 10A.5,Structural p. 207] meaning ut supra The meanings based on continuants ut supra ‘agitated’ ( ) ‘agitated; violent; impetuous,’ Northern ‘mad’Innovative ( meanings) дурнóй

The peculiar meanings of the dial. Russian ‘old,’ similarly as ‘ugly’ and ‘sick,’ emerged by way of the narrowing down of the meaning ‘bad, not good,’ earlier – ‘bad in the moral sense,’ cf. BAD, 1B.11, p. 110. 8B.6. *chylъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘bent’ [seeut supra WEAK, 6B.4, p. 175] The meaning based ‘inclined’on continuants ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘inclined’ ( ) The meaning of the Belarusian хíлы

‘old,’ similarly as ‘weak,’ has its motivation in ‘inclined,’ cf. WEAK, 6B.4, p. 175. Eastern *dosǫgъ/*dosǫžь

8B.7.Etymological meaning Structural meaning – obscure [see HIGH/TALL, 4A.3, p. 142] ut supra ‘such which reaches a specific point; big, tall’ ( ) 196 The Development of Words Across Centuries

The meaning based on continuants ut supra

Innovative meanings ‘big, tall,’ ‘skillful, capable’ ( ) The development of the meaning of the Old Ukrainian досужии - ceeded along the same path as in the case of the adjective *starъ, cf. supra, however, ‘old’ could have pro-

a more probable development is ‘such that achieves something’ > ‘proficient’ > ‘expe rienced’ > ‘old.’ 8B.8. *bolgъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘shining, glimmering’ (?) [see PLEASANT, 2A.2,The meanings p. 116] based on continuants - ut supra ‘good, kind, pleasant,’ ‘happy, prosper ous’Innovative ( meanings) The Ukrainian благй

‘weak; old, worn out; miserable, poor’ is associated with the pejoration of the meaning ‘good,’ ‘pleasant’ probably by way of gradual changes of the meanings ‘pleasant’ > ‘mild’ > ‘weak’ > ‘old, worn out; miserable, poor.’ The string of quasi-synonymous meanings discernible in Ukrainian determines the fact that in this case we must consider the meaning ‘weak’ as the direct motivation instead of the theoretically possible ‘mild.’

Summary of Semantic Changes

8B.1. *vetъchъ ← 8B.2. *starъ OLD PSlav OLD etym. PIE ← ← ← 8B.3. *dręchlъ OLD PSlav ADULT etym. STRONG etym. ONE WHO STANDS SURELY etym. ← ← šědivъ OLD Eastern DODDERING Eastern ROTTEN (?) etym. ← ← 8B.4. * 8B.5. *durьnъ OLD Polish, LSorb GREY-HAIRED Western GREY-HAIRED etym. PIE ← BAD Eastern ← ← STUPID Polish, Czech, Slovak, Eastern ← ← OLD dial. Russian SIMPLE Russian 8B.6. *chylъ MAD Northern VIOLENT PSlav ↔ ← ← dosǫgъ/*dosǫžь OLD Belarusian WEAK Russian, Belarusian INCLINED PSlav BENT etym. 8B.7. * ← ← 8B.7.1. OLD Ukrainian SKILLFUL PSlav ONE THAT REACHES STH Eastern Conceptual Groups or 197

← ← 8B.7.2. 8B.8. *bolgъ OLD Ukrainian BIG Ukrainian ONE THAT REACHES STH Eastern ← WEAK Ukrainian ← ← PSlav ← OLD Ukrainian MILD Polish, Southern, Ukrainian PLEASANT SHINING (?) etym.

starъ dosǫgъ, alterna- The motivations of the concept ‘old’ are varied. They reflect bothdręchlъ positive associations:chylъ strength, *bolgъ (* ), magnitude or proficiency (* tive motivations) as well as negative motivations: decrepitude (* šedivъ), weakness (* ) or even an evaluation: bad. The motivation which lacks evaluative overtones is associated with the grey color of hair: (* ).

9A. QUICK

9A.1. Western and Eastern *rychlъ

Etymological meaning The Western and Eastern *rychlъ may be a participle of **rychnǫti which is not attested in the material and which remains ‘associated in an with etymological digging; relationship digging; dug’ with *rušati *rušati is an iterativum of the unattested **rusti, whose raũsti rausiù ‘to set in motion,ràust to move.’ ràušu The PSlav *re- -s- exact equivalent exist in Baltic*rъchlъ languages (Lithuanian ‘to burrow, to dig,’ Latvian ‘idem’), based on the PIE root ‘idem’ with the extension Structural[Boryś: 528–529]. meaning Cf. also WEAK, 6B.6, p. 176.

The participle in -lъ from Western the unattested ‘moving; **rychn animated’ǫti vs. Eastern ‘moving, set in motion’ > ‘slack; weak’ The meanings based on continuants ‘to move.’

It was allegedly already in the Proto-Slavic Western language ‘animated’ that this adjective > ‘quick’ developed vs. Eastern in- ‘set in motion’ > ‘slack; weak’ dependently in two dialectal groups [cf. Varbot 1984: 88]. In the east the innovative meanings indicate the meaning ‘set in motion, unstable’; in rychłythe west – the meaning rychły‘animated.’, Czech The rychlý meaning and Slovak‘quick,’ rýchlybased on the earlier ‘animated,’ closer to the structural meaning, is present in all West Slavic languages (cf. Polish , LSorb and USorb Innovative meanings ).

In the east the original ‘set in motion, unstable’ gave birth to varied meanings which contain the following semantic element: ‘impermanent; one that does not constitute 198 The Development of Words Across Centuries

rychły rychlý rychły a coherent whole,’ cf. WEAK, 6B.5, p. 176, FAT, 5A.9, p. 154. The LSorb ‘brave, daring,’ Czech ‘skillful, nimble,’ Old Polish ‘eager, zealous’ emerged on the basis of the meaning ‘animated.’ 9A.2. *bystrъ

Etymological meaning The original **bysrъ arose from the PIE *bhūs-ro- bysia ‘violent;būsen one that flows rapidly (with great noise)’ -t- , cf. the Germanic,zdrój Old Norse struga‘to flow in a rapid manner,’ Frisian ‘to press, to hum, to rumble.’ (The consonant is infixed secondarily to facilitate the pronunciation, cf. Polish ‘spring, source,’ The meanings‘stream’ with based the followingon continuants development of the group: a sibilant + a sonant.)

‘fast (of a river current)’ > ‘clean/pure,’ fig. ‘perspicacious; docile,’ ‘sprightly’ The original meaning ‘rapidly flowing; rapid, about a river current’ is preserved in the majority of languages. It was allegedly in the Proto-Slavic language that figurative- meanings which refer to people – both to their physical properties: ‘sprightly’ as well as mental properties: ‘perspicacious; docile’ > ‘sapient’ emerged. The meaning ‘per spicacious’Innovative is meaningsbased on a comparison with the clearness of rapidly flowing water. In the dial. Polish bystry бстрый ‘quick’ evolved into ‘hotheaded’ > ‘daring,’ in dial. Russian ‘sprightly’ evolved into ‘impish.’ 9A.3. *chytrъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *chytati *chvatati perhaps related with the PIE – rootuncertain *se- ‘one that (mentally) acquires sth’ (?) ‘to get hold of sth, to grasp,’ apophonic in reference to ‘idem,’ is Structural meaning ‘suus.’ The Pslav *chytrъ -rъ chytati, chytiti ‘capable of taking hold of sth; catching; prehensile’ is a derivative with the suffix from the PSLav * ‘to getThe hold meanings of sth, to basedgrasp, to on catch.’ continuants

‘skillful; fast,’ ‘cunning; docile’ híter, CroatianThe basic and meanings Serbian which hȉtar refer to physical properties: ‘fast;итар dexterous’ were preserved above all in Southchytry Slavic languages (Old Church Slavonic ‘dexterous,’chětry Slovene ‘fast; sprightly,’ Macedonian ‘fast; nimble’), and also in the dial. Polish ( ‘fast in work’) and Upper Sorbian ( ‘fast, quick’). Apart from the meanings based on manual skills: ‘fast in work; dexterous,’ one may reconstruct the figurative meanings ‘cunning, docile’ for the Proto-Slavic language [see WISE, Innovative16A.4, p. 261]. meanings

For information about the semantic development in the Sorbian languages [see GOOD, 1A.10, p. 100]. 199

Conceptual Groups Southern and Eastern *bъdrъ

9A.4.Etymological meaning As far as the formal aspects are concerned, the PSlav *bъdrъ may be a derivative with -rъ from bъděti ‘vigilant; wakeful’ bùdras the: budrùs suffix ‘to be vigilant.’ It is likely that it emergedbudra already in the Proto-Slavic period, which is indicated by the exact equivalents: Lithuanian ‘vigilant, endowed with an acute sense of hearing,’ Avestan ‘wakeful’ The[ERSJ meanings 2: 63]. based on continuants - vonic bъdrъ бодрыи and in the ‘wakeful’ early Ukrainian > ‘lively,’ бóдрий‘sprightly’ These emerged from the original meaning ‘wakeful,’ attestedb ȍindar the indicates Old Church that Slait is , Old Russian (the meaning ‘wakeful’ also exists in Serbian, but in this language the form Slavonica borrowing bъdrъ from Russian); across the entire Slavicbodrý ,area Serbian there and emerged Croatian the b ȁmeaningsdar - ‘sprightly; breezy, spry’ and related ones,бóдрый which may be reduced to them (Old Church ‘spry,’ ‘lively, sprightly,’ Slovak ‘live бly,ó дрый ardent; breezy, sprightly,’bodrý Russian ‘buoyant, breezy,bȍdar lively,’, bódar early ‘daring, brave’). The word has continuantsбòдър in South Slavic and East Slavic languages. The form (e.g., Slovak ‘merry, bright, sprightly,’ Serbian ‘sprightly,’ has‘strong,’ a wider ‘brave,’ range. Bulgarian The multidirectional ‘wakeful; semantic breezy; development, sprightly’), which as well was as borrowed the pres- from Russian (as indicated by the vocalism) by South Slavic and West Slavic languages, ence of original meanings, seem to indicate the antiquity of the borrowing. [See also InnovativeCHEERFUL/MERRY, meanings 11A.3, p. 219] bȁdar, dial. Belarusian бóдры is

The basis of the meaning ‘fast’ (Serbian and Croatian ‘lively, sprightly.’ 9A.5. *jędrъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘swollen’ (?) ‘one that is at the center, core (adj.)Structural [see FAT, meaning 5A.3, p. 150] the PIE *od- ut supra ‘having a core’ – only when one accepts the origin from The meaning ( based on) continuants ut supra (j)ędъr, apart from ядрыи ‘full of vigor; robust, firm’ ( ) - guage,The meaning and the ‘fast, early quick’ Slovene is the jedrén only meaning.58 Among of the the continuantsOld Church Slavonicof the PSlav *jędrьnъ only the dial. ‘prompt, Czech jadrný eager, willing; fast,’ which is recorded for the Old Russian lan with the meanings reconstructed on the basis of the vast majority of the continuants has the related meaning – ‘lively, sprightly.’ A comparison

58 to its Church language nature. The isolation of the meaning ‘quick’ in the aforementioned languages is probably testimony 200 The Development of Words Across Centuries

59 60 only by the intermediation of a hypothetical string of semantic changes raises questions about the direction of the change. The meaning ‘quick’ may be derived from ‘fat’ (‘fat’ > ‘strong’ > ‘violent’ > ‘quick’), which contradicts their chronology. 9A.6. Eastern *ěglъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘strong’ [see VIOLENT,ut supra 10A.1, p. 205] The meanings based ‘quick,’ on continuants ‘violent’ ( ) ut supra глый range of the word is indicated by the verbs ‘violent,’ which are ‘fast’ derived > ‘zealous’ from it, ( e.g. the dial.) The wordегл is attestedть by the dial. Russian ‘violent, strong; fast; zealous.’ The wider неглый Russian ‘to make haste or to make someone hasty,’ cf. alsо the dial. Russian ‘sluggish, lazy, slothful.’ *šibъkъ

9A.7.Etymological meaning ‘one that sets or is set in motion with great force’ [see VIOLENT,Structural 10A.4, meaning p. 207] ut supra ‘one that performs violent movements,’ ‘performed with greatThe meaning force’ ( based) on continuants ut supra

szybki, dial. Czech and Slovak‘violent,’ šibký ‘quick’ ( шбкий) - The continuants in North Slavic languages indicate both meanings but one should note that ‘quick’ (Polish , Russian ) is better at tested, whereas the meaning ‘violent’ is closer to the structural meaning [see VIOLENT, 10A.4, p. 207]. 9A.8. *prǫdъ/prǫdъkъ Etymological meaning -

‘one that spring/bounds/jumps up or away’ [see VIO LENT,Structural 10A.2, meaning p. 206] ut supra ‘one that performs violent movements’ ( )

BER 1: 481 assumes the development based on chronology: “В новобълг разбоят е отишъл още по-напред, като от ‘бърз’ > ‘силен, як, здрав’ се е развило значение ‘голям по размери, едър.’” (“In60 the When New one Bulgarian accepts thatlanguage the word the developmentis derived from proceeded the PIE *o further,d- so from ‘quick’ > ‘strong’ ‘robust, healthy’ there emerged the meaning ‘of great size, fat.’”) ‘to swell’ and the etymological meaning ‘fat.’ 201

Conceptual Groups The meaning based on continuants ut supra пруд : пръд прýдкий ‘violent; impetuous,’ ‘quick’ ( ) The meaning ‘quick,’ which occurs in Polish, Czech, dial. Bulgarian ( ) and in Ukrainian ( ), probably emerged already in the Proto-Slavic language, perhaps in a parallel manner to ‘violent; impetuous.’ 9A.9. *naglъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘brave’ (?), ‘violent’ (?) [see VIOLENT, 10A.3,The meaning p. 204] based on continuants ut supra naglъ nagły, Slovak ‘violent; náhly, Slovenequick’ ( nágel ) наглыиThe meaning ‘quick’ is recorded already in the Old Church Slavonic ‘very quick.’ It is indicated also by the LSorb ‘quick,’ Old Russian , where the meaning ‘quick’ occurs side by side with ‘violent.’ 9A.10. *sporъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘successful,continuants fruitful’ [see FAT, 5A.5, p.ut 151] supra The semantic development which proceeded from the cause to the effect is discernible in various innovative meanings of the ‘efficient,continuants abundant’ of the PSlav ( *sporъ. )The effect which facilitate the effect, cf. the early Polish spory sporý is constituted by ‘efficient, effective,’ and the cause is constituted by the properties ‘quick, fast,’ Slovak ‘quick.’ 9A.11. *gorlivъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘hot’ [see DILIGENT,ut supra 15A.4, p. 253] The meaning based ‘combustible,’on continuants ‘hot’ ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘combustible; hot,’ ‘eager’ ( ) gòrljiv -

The innovative meaning ‘fast’ (Serbian and Croatian ) emerged by way of a trans position of the semantic dominant of the meaning ‘zealous,’ which enters into a string of meanings with ‘quick.’ 9A.12. *ľutъ

Etymological meaning

‘one/sth that cuts sth off; sharp’ [see STERN, 12A.1, p.The 226] meaning based on continuants ut supra ‘savage, stern’ ( ) 202 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Innovative meaning -

The meaning ‘quick’ in Bulgarian dialects emerged from the meaning ‘violent’ (cf. VIO LENT, 10A.11, p. 211). Summary of Semantic Changes

9A.1. *rychlъ QUICK PSlav ← ← 9A.2. *bystrъ VIOLENT Western MOBILE PSlav QUICK PSlav ← 9A.3. *chytrъ ONE THAT FLOWS RAPIDLY WITH GREAT NOISE etym. QUICK PSlav ← *bъdrъ PREHENSILE struct. QUICK Western, Eastern ← ← 9A.5.9A.4. *jędrъ 9A.5.1. SPRIGHTLY PSlav WAKEFUL etym. QUICK Old Church Slavonic ← or 9A.5.2. FAST PSlav QUICK Old Church Slavonic ← ← or 9A.5.3. STRONG PSlav FAT Southern QUICK Old Church Slavonic ← 9A.6. *ěglъ FULL OF VIGOR PSlav ← ← *šibъkъ QUICK dial. Russian VIOLENT Eastern STRONG etym. ↔ ← 9A.7.struct. QUICK Western, Russian VIOLENT Russian PERFORMED WITH GREAT FORCE 9A.8. *prǫdъ/*prǫdъkъ QUICK PSlav ← ← 9A.9. *naglъ 9A.9.1. VIOLENT PSlav JUMPING etym. QUICK PSlav ← or 9A.9.2. EAGER (?) BRAVE (?) etym. QUICK PSlav ← 9A.10. *sporъ MOBILE struct. QUICK Polish, Slovak, Belarusian ← ← 9A.11. *gorlivъ EFFICIENT PSlav ABUNDANT PSlav QUICK Serbian, Croatian ← ← 9A.12. *ľutъ ZEALOUS PSlav HOT PSlav QUICK dial. Bulgarian ← ← Church Slavonic, Bulgarian ← ← VIOLENT Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian IRATE Old CRUEL PSlav SHARP etym. 203

Conceptual Groups

*rychlъ, *ěglъ, *šibъkъ, *ľutъ, *prAmongǫdъ/*pr theǫdъkъ motivations as well as of *bystrъ the concept ‘quick’ there is a dominance of- motivationstive explanation associated of *jędrъ with impetuousness ( - jority of the words motivated by impetuousness.) and with strength One is not(one surprised of the alterna by the ), which*gorlivъ is also an indirect motivation of the ma *rychlъ unlessmotivation one byaccepts zealousness an alternative ( explanation). However, of one the is obscure surprised *naglъ by the. There lack of motivation by movement (there is only an indirect*bystrъ motivation – ), *chytrъ sporъ one may probably mention a motivation by are, however, motivations by*bъdrъ its hyponyms: to flow ( ), to get hold of sth ( ). In the case of efficiency, and in the case of – by the possibility for action.

9B.1.9B. SLOW *volьnъ

Etymological meaning

The PSlav *vola ‘willing; one that has a choice,el- one who makes his or her wishvelle come true’wiljan ‘freedom, liberty’ is based on the PIE * ‘to want; to choose,’ cf. the LatinStructural , Gothic meaning ‘idem.’ The PSlav *volьnъ -ьnъ from *vola ‘free, independent’ The meaning based is a derivative on continuants with the suffix ‘freedom, liberty.’

Innovative meanings ‘free, independent’ As far as the formal aspects are concerned, the Polish wolny - ative from the adverbial expression po woli po-. This is indicated ‘slow, leisurely’by the synonymous is a deriv powolny ‘according to one’s will, without pressure,’- mophonicwhich emerged wolny by the apocope of the prefixal volьnъ. The development . In its semantic development one may also discern the influence of the ho ‘independent,’ a continuant of the PSlav * therefore proceeded from ‘independent; free; one who acts according to his or her will, one who is not forced to do sth’ to the narrowed-down ‘one who is not forced to make haste.’ 9B.2. Eastern *vędlъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘withered,ut miserable’supra [see WEAK, 6B.8, p. 177] The meaning based ‘withered’on continuants ( ) ut supra ‘withered’ ( ) The Development of Words Across Centuries

204 Innovative meanings

The meaning ‘withered’ wasв metaphoricallyлый, Ukrainian transposed в´лий, Belarusian from the вworldлы of plants to the human world with the preservation of the semantic dominant ‘deprived of vital forces,’ hence the Russian ‘weak,’ ‘lazy; sluggish; slow.’ 9B.3. *dręchlъ

Etymological meaning

The meanings based on –continuants obscure ‘rotten’ (?) [see SAD, 11B.2, p. 222]ut supra Innovative meanings ‘sad,’ ‘infirm, debilitated by age’ ( )

дряхлыи The meaning ‘slow’ is another link of the string ‘infirm due to old age,’ ‘tired.’ It occurs in the Old Russian ‘lazy, tired, slow.’ *lěnivъ

9B.4.Etymological meaning The meaning based on ‘loose’continuants [see LAZY, 15B.1, p. 255] ut supra Innovative meanings ‘lazy, ignavus; indolent’ ( ) -

The meaning ‘tardy, slow’ is common and its emergence is a result of the interpreta tion of slowness as the consequence of laziness. 9B.5. *tichъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘quiet’ (?), ‘simple’ (?) [see CALM, 10B.4, p.The 215] meaning based on continuants ut supra Innovative meaning ‘quiet’ ( ) тхий, Ukrainian тхий, Belar- usian ціхі Thewhich meaning was common ‘slow’ in in East the SlavicSlavic languages languages (Russian and which is a result of an association based on the, e.g. observation about steps, of reality. water) allegedly emerged from the previous ‘peaceful,’

Summary of Semantic Changes

9B.1. *volьnъ ← ← SLOW Polish, Ukrainian, Russian ONE WHO ACTS ACCORDING TO HIS OR HER WILL PSlav INDEPENDENT PSlav 205

Conceptual Groups 9B.2. *vędlъ ← 9B.3. *dręchlъ SLOW Eastern WITHERED PSlav ← *lěnivъ SLOW Old Russian INFIRM PSlav ← ← 9B.4. 9B.5. *tichъ SLOW Pan-Slavic LAZY PSlav LOOSE etym. ← ← QUIET PSlav

SLOW Eastern PEACEFUL Pan-Slavic

*dręchlъ The motivations*vędlъ of the concept ‘slow’ are based above all on weakness- which may refer to a human:*tichъ decrepitude ( ) or to a plant: withering- (subst.) ( ). Their basis may be associated*lěnivъ by a feature of the temper ament*volьnъ – peacefulness ( ). The motivations associated with a deliber ate choice of slowness due to laziness ( ) or a freely made decision ( ) are distinguished from them.

10A.1.10A. VIOLENT Eastern *ěglъ

Etymological meaning **Ěgti, which is not attested in the material, and which is reconstructed on the basis of the eastern dial. PSlav iterative ‘strong’ form *ěgati jgti jėgù jėgà jegt ‘to bustle, to make haste; to be quick,61 violent,’ has equivalents in Baltic languages: Lithuanian ‘can, to be able to Structuraldo sth,’ ‘strength,’ meaning in Latvian with the secondary meaning ‘to understand’. **ěgti - ed in the material. ‘quick,’ ‘violent’ It is probably a participle (part. praet. act.) from [SP 6: 131] which is not attest The meanings based on continuants глый ‘violent,’ ‘quick’ > ‘eager’ The word is poorly attested. It is attested above all by the dial. Russian ‘violent, strong; quick; zealous.’ Its wider range is indicated by the verbs which are derived fromInnovative it [see SP meanings 6: 131]. глый

The Russian ‘abundant (of crops); fat, about soil’ is (against the suggestion of ESSJ 1: 53) an innovative meaning. An innovation based on the meaning ‘eager’ is ‘active, 61 An unreliable hypothesis is put forward in ESSJ 1: 53 which in reference to the PSlav *agoda reconstructs the form *(j)aglъ úoga uõglis and the originalj-. meaning ‘abundant (of crops)’ by analogy to the Lithuanian ‘berry’ vs. ‘growth, shoot.’ One also cannot perceive a justification to accept the original – not prothetic – syllable-onset 206 The Development of Words Across Centuries

неглый laborious’ (not attested directly in the material), which is discernible in the meaning ‘lazy’ of the dial. Russian [see DILIGENT, 15A.8, p. 252]. 10A.2. *prǫdъ/*prǫdъkъ/*prǫdьnъ Etymological meaning The PSlav *pręsti is based on the PIE root *(s)prend- ‘jumping; to leap into the air’ Structural meaning ‘to jump.’ The PSlav *prǫdъ is the original derivative of *pręsti prędǫ - ‘one that performs violent movements’ ‘to perform violent*pr moveǫdъkъ ments’and in *prwithǫdьnъ an exchange of the root vowel which is typical for the nominal form. There is a secondary accretion of suffixes in the later, more common derivative of The meanings – based the latter on is continuants attested in Sorbian languages. *prǫdъ and *prǫdъkъ is directly attested in the dial. Serbian prȗd, Czech prudký, the early ‘violent; and dial.impetuous,’ Polish prędki ‘quick’. This meaning Theis also meaning indicated ‘violent, by further impetuous’ meanings of the which PSlav originated from it, e.g. the dial. Bulgarian пруд : пръд

‘quick’ which perhaps emerged already in the Proto-Slavic language, or it Innovativeemerged in a meaningsparallel manner to ‘violent; impetuous.’ - pródek prȗd - The innovative meanings arose above all on the basis of the meaning ‘violent’ and ‘impetu ous,’пруд e.g. : пръд the Slovene ‘brave,’ dial. Serbian ‘irate’ and ‘wild/savage; uncontrolla ble,USorb unsubjugated’ prudny (hence ‘timid,’ cf. TIMID, 13B.4, p. 242),prędki dial. Bulgarian and Macedonianpródek ‘nervous, impatient.’ The more related meanings are also based on ‘violent’: ‘disturbing; tiresome’ and the early Polish ‘steep.’ The Slovene ‘eager’ also could have emerged on the basis of ‘quick,’ whereas ‘quick’ is certainly the basis of the meaning ‘early’ < ‘done very quickly’ which is featured in Kashubian. 10A.3. *naglъ

Etymological meaning The etymology is uncertain. Perhaps it is a participle from the unattested PSlav **nagti **nagěti – uncertain ‘brave’ (?)nog ‘violent’tis nõgis (?) - pothesis(: is), correct, which 62is indicated by the Lithuanian ‘to want; to venture to do sth, to dare’ (whose etymology is not established as well) [Boryś: 348]. If this hy then we are faced withna- the question about which of the languages- preserved the original meaning: is it more likely ‘brave’ or ‘violent.’ One takes into considerationto the possibility also that the the basis adjective prefixed joined by the [cf.PSlav for family example, *gъbn theǫ tiaccount, *gybati of the ety mologyPIE *ghe inb ESJS(h)- 9: 526]. Helena Karliková is inclined to accept such an explanation due (from the ‘to move (oneself)’) which expresses movement. This interpretation is semantically justified [Karlíková 2005: 163]. Due to the formal difficulties associated 62 nõglas : nuõglas derivative of nogtis In this situation also the Lithuanian ‘sudden’ should be treated as a native and not as a borrowing from Polish, as stipulated by Fraenkel: 506. Conceptual Groups **nagъb-lъ 207 *naglъ I consider this problem to be still unsolved. with the aforementioned explanation (the necessity to accept the ellipsis > Structural meaning vide supra ‘mobile’ (?) (only when one assumes a prefixed basis, The meaning) based on continuants nahły, Czech náhlý, Serbian and Croatian nȃgao н ‘violent;áглый, Ukrainian fast’ нáглий, Belarusian нáглы. The meaning ‘violent’ is attested in nearly all continuants, e.g. the USorb , Russian OneInnovative may reconstruct meanings with equal sureness the meaning ‘quick’ [see QUICK, 9A.9, p. 201]. - vative meanings: in Czech náhlý, in USorb nahły nȃgao From the meaning ‘violent,’ whichнаглыи is commonly attested, there emerged varied inno нáглый ‘steep,’ Serbian and Croatianнàгъл . ‘importunate,’ in Old Russian ‘daring; brave,’ from which there emerged the Russian ‘impudent.’ The latter was also borrowed into Bulgarian Western and Eastern *šibъkъ

10A.4.Etymological meaning The PSlav *šibati is probably associated with the PIE *kse-b-, a verbal root with the determinant -b- from *kse ‘one that sets or is set into motion with great force’ kip- ‘to set sth in motion with great force,’ on which the OInd Structural ‘to throw, meaning to cast, to hurl’ is also based [Boryś: 609–610].

‘one-ъkъ that from performs the PSlav violent *šibati movements,’ ‘performed with great force’ A derivative with the suffix ‘to perform violent movements; Theto throw, meanings to hit; to based fling, to on brandish, continuants to toss.’

‘violent,’ ‘quick’ - The North Slavic continuants indicate both meanings but one must noteш thatбкий ‘quick’ is better attested, whereas the meaning ‘violent,’ which is closer to the structural mean ing, is discernible in the series of the early meanings of the Russian ‘strong, acute,Innovative about themeanings intensity of pain, rain,’ ‘sharp; violent,’ ‘loud.’ The innovative meanings of the lexeme šibký *šibati in Czech and Slovak dialects are ‘nimble; skillful; enterprising.’ Cf. also the independent derivative from in Slovene [see THIN, 5B.5, p. 157]. 10A.5. *durъ/*durьnъ

Etymological meaning The etymology is uncertain. A relationship with *duti – uncertain-rъ are probable, ‘blowing; although associated there with are wind’reservations (?) associated with the long vocalism; the expected form is **dyrъ ‘to blow’ and a reconstruction of the derivative with the suffix [SP 5: 107; ESSJ 5: 162]. 208 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Structural meaning The origin of the PSlav *durьnъ -ьnъ from the PSlav *duriti ‘impetuous’ may-ьnъ be istwofold. possible. A derivation The assumption with the that suffix the origin of ‘to bring sth into a state of turmoil’ vs. ‘to be in turmoil,’ as well as the whichaccretion would of the be supposedsecondary to suffix proceed at the level of verbs. this word is deverbal also influences the interpretation of the semantic development The meanings based on continuants

‘tumultuous; violent; impetuous,’ Northern ‘mad’ durný, Serbian and AlmostCroatian all d ȗ ofran the meanings whichдýрный refer, dial. to Ukrainian people may дýрний be reduced to ‘tumultuous, violent; impetuous,’ e.g. ‘prone to be angry; furious’ (dial. Slovak the period of the. dial. Proto-Slavic Russian community. ). One may consider the meaning ‘mad’ as a common North Slavic innovation which emerged perhaps during Innovative meanings

dúr, dial. Slovak durnýOn the basis of the meaning ‘agitated’ there emerged the meanings ‘furious, ‘wild,’ hence also ‘one who is easily scared away’ > ‘timid’ (dial. Slovene ). The early and dial. Polish also have the meanings ‘proud, conceited’ [see PROUD, 14A.4, p. 246]. 10A.6. *bujъ/*bujьnъ

Etymological meaning The etymology of the PSlav *bujь is uncertain. Perhaps the word is associated with the OInd bhyas- – obscure bh-ri- perhaps with *byti from the PIE *bhe- - tion of the etymological ‘bigger, stronger, meaning. more powerful,’ ‘abundant, numerous, mighty,’ ‘to be.’ These doubts preclude the reconstruc Structural meaning The poorly attested adjective *bujь -ьnъ: *bujьnъ ‘rapidly growing’ *bujavъ is the basis of the derivative with the suffix [SP 1: 443]. I do not take into consideration the deverbal derivative whichThe meanings is reconstructed based in on SP [l.c.].continuants -

‘excessively developed; rapidly grow ing; abundant’ bujny bujny : bójny, Czech bujný, Slovene bújen, TheBulgarian meanings бỳен ‘excessivelyбýйный developed; rapidly growing; abundant’ are peculiar to all Slavic languages (e.g. the Polish , LSorb Innovative meanings, Russian ).

An innovation is constituted by the transposition of the meanings ‘rapidly growing; abundant,’ which originally буиreferred to the growth of plants, hair etc., to people. This transpositionbȗjan was simultaneouslybujný accompanied by a polydirectionalbujny modification (Old bujnyRussian and Church Russian ‘strong,’ ‘brave,’ ‘mindless, foolish,’ Serbian and Croatian ‘lustful; vital,’ Czech ‘sprightly,’ dial. Polish ‘healthy; strong; fat,’ USorb ‘wild, violent; rollicking,’ ‘lustful; lecherous’). Due to the mutual influence of the 209

Conceptual Groups original *bujь and *bujьnъ, as well as *bujavъ and the continuants of the verbs *bujiti, *bujati - tivated by verbal semantics and which arose by way of an independent development. , it is difficult to establish which of the new meanings of the adjectives are mo

*divъ, *dikъ

10A.7.Etymological meaning Both adjectives *divъ and *dikъ are based on the same stem *dī- – obscure*dikъ dỹkas dīks. The exact equivalent63 The with the same suffix in reference to is the Baltic adjective (cf. the Lithuanian group ‘empty,due to the vain,’ uncertainty ‘useless,’ ‘freeof the of relationships charge; inert,’ beyond Latvian this group. ‘empty; The inert’). relationship withetymological the PIE meaning*deo- ‘not used by people’ may reconstructed only for the Balto-Slavic due to structural reasons, ‘a supernatural namely - o-being,’ in the which PSlav is *divъ sometimes postulated by Slavic isetymologists indicated by [e.g. the Bezlaj doublet 1: *dikъ103] and non-Slavic ones [e.g. Walde 1: 345], is not likely with the homonymic *divъ has a suffixal nature, which . The same argument indicates the lack of an affinity The meaning based on continuants ‘an evil spirit’ [see SP 3: 225]. davĕ, USorb dźiwy, Slovak divý, Bul- garian див and Polish dziki, USorb dźiki ‘not used byдкий people’ et alia > ‘untamed’ > ‘violent’ The basic meaning is ‘untamed’ (e.g. the Polabian , Russian ). It is likely that the earlier meaning (although one that today is perceived as a secondary meaning) isźiwy ‘not, Czechused/cultivated divý, Polish by dziki people, about plants, areas.’ It is difficult to establish whether the meaning ‘violent,’ one that is commonly attested in Slavic languages (e.g.-vъ LSorband -kъ . ) actually arose in the Proto-Slavic period. SP 3: 206 and 228 Innovativereconstructs itmeanings as a Proto-Slavic word for both variants: with the suffix

dívji - Numerous meaningsдвий which arose on the basis of the following semantic stringsdivý are innovative: ‘untamed’ > ‘violent’дкий > ‘irate’ (e.g. the Slovene ‘furious; irate,’ Old Rus sian and Russian ‘severe/stern’) or ‘violent’ > ‘ardent, eager’ (dial. Czech ) > ‘laborious’ (dial. Russian ). Without doubt the meaning which is present in Russian dialects – ‘stupid, slow-witted’ – and whose origin may be associated either with ‘one that shuns the company of people, shy; timid’ or with ‘violent’ > ‘mad,’ from which dìvalj‘stupid’ arose first, followed by д‘slowкий witted,’ is innovative [cf. 16B.6]. On the basis of- ‘violent’esting is there the possibility also emerged of an meanings opposite, which almost refer enantiosemic to physical properties,conceptual cf. development the Serbian ‘great, huge,’ dial. Russian ‘strong; fierce, bitter.’ What is particularly inter which reflects two different reactions to being in danger: attack and escape [see TIMID, 13B.2, p. 242].

63 the semantic According development. to Wojciech Smoczyński, it is more likely that the Baltic adjectives were borrowed from Slavic languages [SEJL: 112], which seems unlikely due to the clearly different direction of 210 The Development of Words Across Centuries

10A.8. *jarъ/*jarъkъ

Etymological meaning *ōro- ēro- ‘of spring’ - The etymology is a debatable question.ζωρός The most likely relationship is with the PIE historical ‘year; material spring.’ whichThe frequently clearly shows presented the gradual suggestion nature of ofseparating the development a part of ofthe the mean par- ings and linking them with the Greek seems to be unjustified in reference to the rich

ticular meanings [Sławski 1: 505]. Due to the uncertainty of the original meaning (it could have been e.g. ‘of spring, associated with the development of nature’ > ‘intensive,’ ‘violent; Thelustful’), meanings the sequence based of theon developmentcontinuants of meanings is merely hypothetical. jary, Czech jarý, Slovene jár, Croatian jȃrī, Ukrainian ‘bornрий or sown in spring’; ‘violent, lustful’ One may reconstruct the meaning ‘born or sown in spring’ (e.g. the Polish jarъ jary рый ) with certainty. The meaning ‘violent, lustful’ is reconstructed partly on the basis of clear attestations (Oldрый, ChurchUkrainian Slavonic рий, Belarusian, early LSorbры , Russian ), partly on the basis of the innovative meanings which are derived from it, e.g. in East Slavic languages: Russian Innovative meanings ‘irate, furious.’ The innovative meanings are varied. Because it has not been established whether we are dealing with one-root or double-root homonymy, we are not always able to estab-

lish from which of thejary meanings, Czech jarý a given innovativeрый meaning is derived; e.g. both ‘born in the spring’ as well as ‘violent, lustful’ could have become a basis for the meaning ‘young’ (dial. Polish and Russian ). 10A.9. *kyprъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *kypěti *kūp- ‘boiling; seething’ kūpti kpu ‘tokûpêt boil; to seethe’ is derived from the PIE ‘to boil,*kup- to features seethe.’ shortThe closest vocalism: equivalents OInd kup- are found in Baltic languages:cupere Lithuanian ‘to boil, to seethe,’ Latvian ‘to smoke; to be raised (of dust).’ The form64 Structural meaning ‘to become angry,’ Latin ‘to desire.’ -rъ kupěti 65 ‘boiling; seething’ AThe derivative meanings (with based the suffix on continuants ) from ‘to boil; to seethe.’

‘boiling, increasing one’s volume,’ ‘violent’kyprý Although it does not appear among the meanings of the continuants, the meaning ‘violent’ supposedly constituted a transitional link between ‘boiling’ and the Old Czech

64 65 TheUnlike origin LIV: of 320 this and word 334, from which *kypěti separates Baltic and Slavic words from the Old Indic and Latin ones. - is questioned by Rick Derksen due to semantic reasons are[Derksen: actually 266]. attested However, in Slavic a comparison languages. of all of the meanings enables us to reconstruct the mo tivation-related processes which link the participial meaning ‘boiling’ with the meanings which 211

Conceptual Groups the PSlav *kypěti ‘eager; sprightly,’ which I infer from the modern figurative usages of the continuants of Innovative meanings: ‘to seethe’ > ‘to behave in a violent way’ [cf. Černyš 2003: 347].

Czech kyprý The innovative meanings based on ‘violent’ > ‘seething’ are the meanings of the Old ‘eager, sprightly.’ For information about the meanings which arose on the basis of the development ‘seething’ > ‘increasing one’s volume.’ [See PRETTY, 3A.7, p. 129, WEAK, 6B.9, p. 177, SICK, 7B.5, p. 187] 10A.10. *krǫtъ Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘associated with spinning’ [see utSTRONG, supra 6A.7, p. 166] The meanings based ‘twisted, on continuants twisting’ (vs. ‘twisted’) ( ) - ut supra ‘spinning’ > ‘one that suddenly chang esInnovative one’s direction,’ meanings ‘violent’ ( ) - cording to the object with which a given continuant originally entered into a relation- The explanation of the motivation of the innovative meaning ‘violent’ may differ ac ship. In East Slavicкрут languagesй where the reference to a bend/turn [zakręt] is noted as a model one, the meaning ‘twisted; characterized by a sudden change of direction’- (assian the крут Ukrainian ‘strongly bent,’ ‘twisted’) – which evolved further66 secondary- meanings: ‘strong, of wind,’ ‘ragged, about a shore, a slope,’ also ‘quick’ (dial. Belaru- ), that remained in a synonymous relationship with ‘sudden’ – was sup posedly the originalкрут meaning.óй The meaning ‘impulsive, impetuous’ is secondary in relation to ‘violent,’ which refers to other objects. Another link of the string of meanings is the dial. Russian ‘hard-working,’ for which one must reconstruct a transi tional link ‘sprightly, eager’ – a continuant of ‘violent; fast.’ 10A.11. *ľutъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘one continuants that cuts sth off; sharp’ [seeut supra STERN, 12A.1, p. 226] Innovative meaning ‘cruel, stern’ ( ) ľutъ and is

The meaning ‘violent,’ which is attested already in the Old Church Slavonic present until today in the Bulgarian ‘violent, impetuous; sharp-tempered,’ is a link of the semantic development ‘cruel’ > ‘furious’ > ‘violent.’

66 крът Similarly as in Bulgarian, where it is a borrowing from Russian, whereas the dial. form ‘sharp, violent, e.g. of a turn’ is most likely native. 212 The Development of Words Across Centuries

10A.12. *grozьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning – obscure [see STERN, 12A.4, p. 227]ut supra The meaning based on ‘inspiring continuants fear; terrible/dangerous’ ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘terrible/dangerous; terrifying’ ( ) - opment, is attested in the early Polish groźny and the Serbian and Croatian grȍzan. The meaning ‘impetuous, impulsive,’ which arose as a natural link of the semantic devel 10A.13. *polchъ

Etymological meaning

‘set in motion; one that sets in motion; mobile’ [see TIMID,The meaning 13B.1, p.based 239] on continuants ut supra Innovative meanings ‘eager to run; eager to flee’ ( ) plȁh płochy directlyThe meaning preserved ‘sudden, in theviolent, continuants. impulsive’ of the Croatian and Serbian and ‘rollicking, untamed,’ Old Polish are derived from the meaning ‘eager to run,’ which is not

Summary of Semantic Changes

10A.1. *ěglъ ← 10A.2. *prǫdъ/*prǫdъkъ/*prǫdьnъ VIOLENT Eastern STRONG etym. ← ← etym. VIOLENT PSlav ONE THAT PERFORMS VIOLENT MOVEMENTS struct. JUMPING 10A.3. *naglъ 10A.3.1. ← or 10A.3.2.VIOLENT PSlav EAGER (?) etym. ← *šibъkъ VIOLENT PSlav BRAVE (?) etym. ← 10A.4. 10A.5. *durъ/*durьnъ VIOLENT Russian PERFORMED WITH GREAT FORCE struct. ← IMPETUOUS etym. ← 10A.6. *bujь/*bujьnъ VIOLENT ASSOCIATED WITH WIND etym. ← *divъ, *dikъ VIOLENT PSlav GROWING IN ABUNDANCE PSlav 10A.7. 213

Conceptual Groups ← ← 10A.8. *jarъ/*jarъkъ VIOLENT PSlav UNTAMED PSlav NOT USED BY PEOPLE PSlav ← 10A.9. *kyprъ VIOLENT etym. BORN IN SPRING (?) etym. ← 10A.10. *krǫtъ *VIOLENT PSlav SEETHING etym. ← ← -

VIOLENT PSlav ONE THAT SUDDENLY CHANGES ONE’S DIRECTION PSlav SPIN 10A.11. *ľutъ NING PSlav ← ← ← VIOLENT Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian IRATE Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian 10A.12. *grozьnъ CRUEL PSlav SHARP etym. ← 10A.13. *polchъ VIOLENT early Polish, Serbian, Croatian TERRIBLE/DANGEROUS PSlav ← ←

VIOLENT Croatian, Serbian EAGER TO RUN PSlav MOBILE etym. *ěglъ, *šibъkъ *prǫdъ, *polchъ; *naglъ *prTheǫdъ motivations of the concept ‘violent’*polchъ are based onkyprъ strength ( ), movement ( – alternatively), e.g.*kr onǫtъ jumps ( , indirect motivation), running ( ), boiling (* ), asdurьnъ well as on the sudden change of*bujьnъ direction associated with movement ( ). The motivations*jarъ associated with the activity of nature, based on wind (* ),- tivationsthe growing are ofassociated plants ( with properties), perhaps which also the may association accompany with violence: spring ( (?)) are less pronounced*l’utъ than one would expect. The*grozьnъ remaining mo *divъ, *dikъ theattempts proclivity at reconstructing to anger ( the), etymological the ability to meaning inspire fearinclude: ( willingness) and itsor causes: being*naglъ untamed ( ). The possible motivations based on the boldness ( ) do not have parallels in the aforementioned material.

10B.1.10B. CALM *mirьnъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *mirъ is based on the PIE root *mē-/*mō-/*mī- with the extending formant -ro- ‘pleasant, delicate’*milъ

Structural. For information meaning about the semantics cf. [see PLEASANT, 2A.1, p. 115]. -ьnъ from *mirъ ‘calm; peaceful’ A derivative with the suffix ‘peace; tranquillity.’ The Development of Words Across Centuries

214 The meaning based on continuants The meanings of the continuants are identical with the structural meaning and are ‘calm;mirny peaceful’, Czech mírný, Bulgarian мрен, мрный uniform in all Slavic languages (e.g. the Old Polish RussianInnovative meanings). A typical development of semantic strings may be discerned in the following examples: мрный míran

Russian ‘calm’ < ‘mild,’ Serbian ‘calm’ > ‘humble,’ ‘peaceful’ > ‘concordant.’ 10B.2. *pokojьnъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *kojiti čiti *k ‘soothing,eə-/*kiē- relieving’*čitъ/*čitavъ ‘to soothe, to relieve; to calm’ is a causativum from the unattested ** ‘toStructural rest,’ based meaning on the PIE (cf. – HEALTHY, 7A.3, p. 183). -ьnъ from *pokojъ on the verb *kojiti ‘soothing, relieving,’ ‘calm’ A derivative with the suffix ‘peace; tranquillity,’ which in turn is based The meaning based ‘to soothe, on continuants to relieve.’

Church Slavonic pokojьnъ, Czech pokojný, Slovene ‘calm’ pokójen покóйный The meaning ‘calm’ is preserved in all of the groups of Slavic languages (e.g. the Old Innovative meanings , Russian ).

pokójen, Serbian pòkojni On the basis of the meaning ‘calm’ there emerged the meaning ‘dead’ as an euphemism (e.g., Slovene ). 10B.3. Western *kľudьnъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *kľudъ, *kľuditi are based on the PIE *kled- hlūtrs κλύζειν ‘clean’ *kle-d-, with the determinant -d-, is based on *kle- ‘to clean;* tole put- into order,’ cf. Gothic šlúoti šl‘clean,’úoju Greek ‘to wash; to clean.’*chľudъ The PIE, which suggests the presence of s (which is also reconstructed in the form , due to the Lithuanian ‘to sweep’). The alternative PSlav Structural mobile in the meaning PIE language, causes difficulties. -ьnъ from the PSlav *kľudъ *kľuditi ‘ordered’ A derivative with the suffix ‘order’ or ‘to clean; to putThe into meaning order.’ based on continuants kludny ‘clean; neat’ > ‘calm’ The original PSlav meaning is ‘clean;kľudný neat’;, Czech today klidnýit occurs in the dial. Czechkludny ‘neat, tidy.’ The commonness of the meaning ‘calm’ indicates that it originated already in the Proto-Slavic period (cf. the Slovak , USorb and LSorb ). 215

Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings The innovative meanings, which arose independently, are examples of the development of semantic strings, e.g. USorb kludny

‘calm’ > ‘mild; tame.’ *tichъ

10B.4.Etymological meaning The PSlav *tichъ teisùs – uncertain ‘quiet’ (?), ‘straight’ (?) tiẽstis has an exact equivalent in the Lithuanian ‘righteous, honest,- just’; it is probably derived from the earlier ‘straight,’ which is derived in turn from ‘spread,’which are cf. remote ‘to from stretch; each extend.’other and An whichaccount refer of the to originalaforementioned ideas in factsthe same is insuf respect,ficient doto drawnot have conclusions a tertium about comparationis the etymological. The supporters meaning ofbecause the originality two meanings of the piano planus meanings ‘straight’ < ‘spread’ mention the semantic parallel in the form of the Italian The meaning ‘even; slow; based calm, onquiet’ continuants from the Latin ‘spread.’ cichy śichy, Czech tichý тхий, Serbian and Croatian ‘quiet’ tìh, Old Church Slavonic tichъ. The meaning ‘quiet’ is attested in all Slavic languages, e.g. USorb , LSorb Innovative, Russian meanings

тих тхий By way of a transpositionтхий, Belarusian of the meaning цíхі ‘quiet’ from human behaviour to man himself there emerged the meanings’ calm’ (e.g. Bulgarian , Russian ), ‘humble’ (e.g. Ukrainian ), ‘mild.’ 10B.5. *plochъ

EtymologicalEastern meaning (?) The meaning based on –continuants uncertain ‘flat’ (?) ut[see supra BAD, 1B.5, p. 107] Innovative meanings ‘bad’ ( ) The Ukrainian плохй plochъ, was formed on the basis of the semantics of the continuants of *polchъ, unless it is not a borrowing from Polish. ‘calm; quiet; mild,’ which formally continues the PSlav

10B.6. *lagodьnъ

Etymological meaning -

– uncertain ‘arranged; neat’ (?), ‘weak’ (?) [see PLEAS ANT,Structural 2A.3, p. meanings 116] ut supra The meanings based on ‘arranged, continuant harmonious,’ ‘calm’ ( ) ut supra

Proto-Slavic period, which is indicated by ‘pleasant, the continuants: agreeable,’ Church ‘mild, Slavonic calm’ ( lagodьnъ), The meanings ‘mild, calm,’ similarly as ‘kind, agreeable,’ allegedly arose already in the 216 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Slovene lágoden, Polish łagodny as well as by the direction of the development of the innovative meanings.

*jьmьnъ

10B.7.Etymological meaning ‘one that is being taken; taken’ [see PLEASANT, 2A.4, p.Structural 115] meaning ut supra ‘taken’ > ‘suitable for being taken, for being held in the hand’The meaning ( based) on continuant ut supra ‘taken’ > ‘pleasant, delicate, pleasant to proventhe touch’ by the ( Church) Slavonic jemьnъ In the Proto-Slavic language the structural meaning ‘taken’мный was still viable, which is емен ‘conducted for show, for profit.’ A trace of this meaning may be also associated with the dial. Russian ‘domesticated/tame; calm’ and the dial. Macedonian ‘tame;jemný mild.’, and indirectly It was likely also that in the already early Polish in the jemnyProto-Slavic language there emerged the meaning ‘pleasant, delicate, pleasant to the touch,’ attested in the Czech and Slovak Innovative ‘soft.’ meanings -

The innovative shifts are discernible in the meaning ‘mild,’ which paved the way for fur ther associations – ‘calm’ > ‘quiet.’ There is also an alternative possibility of explaining the meanings ‘calm’ as a semantic development from ‘one that is able to be grasped, caught.’ 10B.8. *krotъkъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘beaten’ (?) [see HUMBLE, 14B.2,ut supra p. 249] The meanings based ‘tamed on continuants by beating; subjugated’ ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘subjugated; tame’ > ‘mild’ ( ) крòтък,

A further link of the semantic string ‘calm,’ attested e.g. by the Bulgarian could have easily arisen from the meanings ‘subjugated; tame, mild’ 10B.9. *mǫdrъ Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘thinking’continuants [see WISE, ut16A.1, supra p. 260] Innovative meanings ‘wise’ ( ) The secondary meaning of the Bulgarian мдър may suppose that it was originally used in reference to domestic animals, although in modern dictionaries the word appears without distributional ‘calm’ arose due limitations. to an inference. One Conceptual Groups Summary of Semantic Changes 217

10B.1. *mirьnъ ← 10B.2. *pokojьnъ CALM PSlav DELICATE etym. ← 10B.3. *kl’udьnъ CALM PSlav SOOTHING/SOOTHED struct. ← ← tichъ CALM Western WELL-ARRANGED struct. CLEAN etym. 10B.4. * ← QUIET PSlav or10B.4.1. CALM Pan-Slavic ← QUIET PSlav ← 10B.4.2. 10B.5. *plochъ CALM Pan-Slavic SPREAD etym. ← 10B.6. *lagodьnъ CALM Ukrainian SHY/TIMID Ukrainian 10B.6.1. ← or 10B.6.2.CALM PSlav ARRANGED etym. (?) ← jьmьnъ CALM PSlav WEAK etym. (?) ← 10B.7. * 10B.8. *krotъkъ CALM Russian ONE THAT CAN BE TAKEN IN THE HAND struct. ← ← TAME PSlav 10B.9. *mǫdrъ CALM Bulgarian MILD PSlav ←

CALM Bulgarian WISE PSLav

- The basis of the motivations of the concept*tichъ ‘calm,’ similarly as in the case of*mirьnъ the group, *krotъkъ MILD, is associated with words whose semantics is closely relat ed,*m thereforeǫdrъ they are motivated*kľudьnъ, by*lagodьnъ silence ( ), delicateness or mildness (*plochъ ). The motivations(*lagodьnъ may also be associated with: wisdom (factors which), orderliness make one ( calm. – alternative motivation), timidity ( ), and even weakness – alternative motivation) i.e. various 218 The Development of Words Across Centuries

11A.11A.1. CHEERFUL/MERRY *veselъ Etymological meaning According to Pokorny, the PSlav *veselъ is based on the PIE root *esu- – uncertainvesels ‘good’ (?) wessals -el- ‘good.’ is repre The- closestsented byequivalent the Illyrian is theproper Latvian name Veselia ‘healthy; intact/whole,’ Old Prussian facts‘merry,’ do apartnot enable from usthat to the establish only Indo-European the etymological word meaning. with the The extension continuants with the determinant -el- are exiguous, whereas the [Pokorny: commonly 1174–1175]. assumed association The Indo-European with the root *esu- apart from *esu- : *ēsu-, there are reconstructions of nine roots in the form es- and each of them ‘good’ may isbe based the formal merely basis on semasiological *es-el- premises. In Pokorny’s lexicon,  :  is the basis of the names of spring: es- es-nes. From, hence the semanticthe PSlav point*vesna of view one may consider an affinity with the root which with its heteroclitic determinant The meaning based on continuants, Gen. ‘spring.’ The continuants of the PSlav *veselъ ‘merry, joyful’ Innovative meanings occur in all Slavic languages with the meaning ‘merry.’ There are no innovative meanings which refer to people. In Bulgarian and Macedonian

there emerged a figurative designation of plants and flowers ‘fresh, green, verdant.’ 11A.2. *radъ : *radьnъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *radъ is based on the PIE root *rēd- ‘merry, joyful’ rōt rōdas ‘to gladden,’ ‘merry’ [Boryś: 508]. There is an equivalent in the Old English language: ‘merry’; the Lithuanian ‘eager,’ due to the stress and the vowel quality, is considered a borrowing from one of the TheSlavic meanings languages [Heidermanns:based on continuants 453]. The continuants of the PSlav *radъ ‘merry; satisfied’ > ‘eager’ exist in all Slavic languages*radostьnъ – both from with the the abstractum meaning ‘merry’radostь asbased well on as *radъ‘satisfied, content.’ One may infer from a comparison with Germanic- equivalentsated its content. that theWithout new derivativedoubt this – change from the occurred PSlav already during the existence of the Proto-Slavic community. – assumed the early meaning, and the basic adjective attenu Innovative meanings The innovation is constituted by the existence of the adjective in the form of an element of adverbial expressions: Czech býti rád mít rád 67 Mít rád ‘to be glad,’ ‘to like’gern (analogically haben in 67 is commonly considered as a semantic calque of the German . However, as far as the remaining phrases are concerned, I have not found a basis in the German language, although an influence of this language is by all means likely also in Slovene and Croatian. 219

Conceptual Groups biti rad rad biti komu The basis for this innovation arose presumably already in the Proto-Slavic language by Slovak), Croatian ‘to want, to desire,’ Slovene ‘to love someone.’ way of the emergence of the meaning ‘eager.’ 11A.3. *bъdrъ, *budьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘vigilant; wakeful’ [see QUICK, 9A.4, p. 199] The form *budьnъ which occurs apart from *bъdrъ -ьnъ from *buditi ‘vigilant; wakeful’bъděti is a derivative with the suffix The meanings ‘to waken,’ based a oncausativum continuants to ‘to be wakeful.’ ut supra

Innovative meanings ‘vigilant,’ ‘lively,’ ‘sprightly’ ( ) -

The meaning ‘merry’ arose independently*budьnъ, see structuralin a number meaning. of languages as a developmen tal string of ‘sprightly’ (the latter emerged in the Proto-Slavic language) – the same applies to the derivative (of) *čilъ

11A.4.Etymological meaning Structural meaning ‘rested’ [see HEALTHY,ut supra 7A.4, p. 184] The meaning based ‘resting,’on continuants ‘rested’ ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘rested’ > ‘lively,’ ‘sprightly’ ( ) čiły

The emergence of the meaning ‘merry’ in the USorb – apart from ‘sprightly, active, ruddy, robust, lively’ – represents a typical string of meanings, which is derived from the etymological meaning ‘rested.’ 11A.5. *dǫžь Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘strong’continuants [see STRONG, 6A.5, p. 164]ut supra Innovative meanings ‘strong’ > ‘healthy’ ( ) In Kashubian there is the continuation of the form dǫžь, which is absent in the literary it is different from the meaning of the Polish duży Polish language. Another innovative meaning is ‘sprightly,’ hence ‘quick’ and ‘merry’ – ‘big.’ 11A.6. *čstvъ Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘weaved’ (?) ‘cutting’ (?) [see STRONG, 6A.6, p. 165] 220 The Development of Words Across Centuries

The meaning based on continuants ut supra ‘dense,’ ‘hard,’ ‘firm,’ ‘robust; strong’ (Innovative) meanings -

explanation.The meaning ‘merry’ is a part of the semantic string along with ‘sprightly,’ ‘fast,’ ‘skill ful.’ The beginning of this string is presumably ‘strong,’ regardless of the etymological

Western and Southern *drěčьnъ

11A.7.Etymological meaning Structural meaning ‘elongated lengthwise’ [see HIGH/TALL,ut supra 4A.2, p. 142] The meaning based ‘suchon continuants like a pillar, like a tree trunk’ut supra ( ) Innovative meanings ‘well-grown’ ( ) The meaning of the dial. Czech drĕčný

directly associated with shapeliness. ‘merry,’ which occurs apart from ‘pretty; shapely,’ presumably arose by way of the intermediation of the unattested ‘sprightly,’ which is

11A.8. *jarъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘ofcontinuants spring’ [see VIOLENT, 10A.8, p. 208] ut supra Innovative meanings ‘of spring,’ ‘violent, lustful’ ( ) The Czech and Slovak jarý - ship with spring. ‘merry, sprightly’ refers to other meanings of the lexeme ‘young, lively, spry,’ which also exist in Czech. All of the meanings are motivated by a relation

11A.9. *rǫdъ Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘arranged continuants in a row, in a series’ [see GOOD,ut supra 1A.4, p. 97] Innovative meanings ‘appropriate, suitable’ ( ) In a Kashubian dialect a continuant of the Kashubian rądi

‘nimble, lively, healthy, merry, robust, spry’ was preserved. The semantic string concentrates around the Proto-Slavic meaning ‘appropriate.’ 221

Conceptual Groups Summary of Semantic Changes

11A.1. *veselъ 11A.1.1. ← or 11A.1.2.MERRY PSlav GOOD (?) etym. PIE ← 11A.2. *radъ MERRY PSlav ASSOCIATED WITH SPRING (?) etym. PIE ← 11A.3. *bъdrъ, *budьnъ MERRY PSlav MERRY etym. ← ← *čilъ MERRY Slovak, Croatian, Serbian, Russian SPRIGHTLY PSlav VIGILANT PSlav ← ← 11A.4. 11A.5. *dǫžь MERRY USorb SPRIGHTLY Western, Southern RESTED struct. ← ← 11A.6. *čstvъ MERRY Kashubian SPRIGHTLY Kashubian STRONG PSlav ← ← *drěčьnъ MERRY dial. Czech SPRIGHTLY Western STRONG PSlav ← ← ← ← 11A.7. MERRY11A.8. * jarъdial. Czech *SPRIGHTLY SHAPELY Czech SLENDER Czech, Slovak TALL Czech, Slovak ← 11A.9. *rǫdъ MERRY/SPRIGHTLY Czech, Slovak OF SPRING PSlav ←

MERRY/SPRIGHTLY Kashubian APPROPRIATE PSlav *bъdrъ, *budьnъ, *čilъ, *dǫžь, *čstvъ, *jarъ, *rodъ - The basic motivation of the concept ‘merry’ is sprightliness ( *drěčьnъ ). One may conjecture that the same *jarъinter couldmediary have link constituted existed between a parallel the formeanings the supposed ‘shapely’ etymological and ‘merry’ relationship ( ). betweenThe intermediary spring and motivation cheerfulness. through concepts associated with spring ( )

11B. SAD

11B.1. *skbьnъ Etymological meaning

– uncertain*skbiti ‘one that is/has beensku bti cut; skurbstù cutting’ (?), ‘wrinkled, curled up’ (?) The closest equivalent of the PSlav is the Lithuanian ‘to be poverty-stricken, to be in need of sth.’ As far as the formal aspects are concerned, we 222 The Development of Words Across Centuries

should take two possibilities into consideration. The PSlav *skbiti may be based on the reduced grade of the PIE *(s)kerbh- sceorfan cerb *(s)kerb- ‘to *skbe sharp;bnǫti68 to cut,’ cf. Oldск Englishóрбнуть ‘to gnaw,’ OIr2 ‘sharp.’ It is also possible that itschrimpfen is derived from the PIE ‘to spin, to twist; to curl up, to crease,’ hence the PSlav [cf. Russian ‘to crease’ –Structural Vasmer 3: 650–651],meaning cf. Old High German ‘to shrink; to crease’ [LIV: 504]. -ьnъ from the PSlav *skbiti ‘woeful; sad’ A derivative with the suffix ‘to regret.’ The continuants discussedof the verb below. do not manifest any traces of a concrete meaning – the expected ‘to be sick.’ The only possible trace of this is a derivative in the Russian language which is The meanings based on continuants The general meaning which is attested in all languages apart from Czech and Slovak is скрбен ‘sick,’ ‘sad’ скóрбный be a residue of a more concrete meaning, associated with the etymological meaning, even‘sad,’ e.g.regardless the Bulgarian of the etymology. The that meaning one chooses. in the early Russian ‘sick’ may Innovative meanings skrblivý skrbivý - tives from skrbliti of the earlier skrbiti, could be most easily derived from the meaning The meaning ‘stingy; greedy’ of the Czech and Slovak (earlier ), deriva

of the Lithuanian equivalent ‘to be poverty-stricken, to be in need of sth,’ as suggested by Rejzek (cf. “Výchozí význam v bsl. byl ‘být v bídě, starostech,’ odtud do č. ‘(nemístně) šetřit’” – (“The initial meaning in Balto-Slavic was ‘to be poverty-stricken, to be in need,’ basisfrom whichto consider it paved this the meaning way to asthe the Czech etymological ‘to save up one. (inappropriately/inordinately)’”) [Rejzek: 577], although an attestation from one language does not furnish a sufficient

11B.2. *dręchlъ : *drǫchlъ, *dręselъ Etymological meaning The PSlav *dręchnǫti : *drǫchnǫti cannot be explained with any degree of certainty. They were considered variants – uncertain with the ‘rotten’voiced syllable (?) onset from PSlav *trǫchnǫti : truchnǫti trèšti tresêt tresu

‘to rot,’ compared with Lithuanian ‘to rot, to decay,’ Latvian ‘toStructural rot, to decay.’ meaning In this case the etymological meaning would be ‘rotten.’ The PSlav *dręselъ : *dręchlъ are based on the same basis **dręchati : **drǫchati or *dręchnǫti : *drǫchnǫti *dręchlъ is an active preterite participle, dręselъ -elъ with the incompletely explained transition -ch- s ‘to become weak, decrepit.’ дряхóтье is an adjective with the suffix *дряхый < *dręchъ, which could have been the basis of > the- -. SPverbal 4: 223 form. also mentions the Russian derivative ‘that which is old, decrepit (of a man)’ from the adjective 68 скóрбнуть скорбть скóрблый - From the semantic point of view it is not completely justified to separate the Russian words Proto-Slavic ‘to roots. crease,’ ‘to make sth rough,’ ‘dried up; wrinkled; rough, un even.’ It seems that one should verify the way they were treated as ones that belong to other 223

Conceptual Groups The meanings based on continuants

dręchlъ ‘decrepit,dręselъ debilitated by age,’ ‘sad’дряхлыи The meaning which refers to a mental state – ‘gloomy, sad’ – is well-attested in the oldest wellsources as the (Old early Church Czech Slavonic drachlý ‘sad, gloomy,’ дрхлий ‘idem,’ Old Russian ‘sad’also inapart the fromSlovene ‘decrepit dresȇl due to age, ‘weak,’ ‘tired; lazy, slow,’ ‘cruel, rough/hard, stern,’drȅseo as ‘sad,’ early Ukrainian ‘sad, lugubrious’). It occurs ‘sad, lugubrious’ and in Serbian as well as dial. Croatian ‘sad.’ The dating and the geography of the attestations make us reconstruct the meaning ‘sad’ already for the Proto-Slavic language. The obscurity of the etymological meaning does not allow us to answer the question whether the meanings which are registered in all East Slavic languages – ‘doddering, of advanced years, decrepit’ – are derived from the Innovativeearlier ‘rotten’ meanings and therefore whether or not they precede the meaning ‘sad.’ дряхлыи

The meanings of thethe OldUSorb Russian drjechły ‘tired; lazy, slow’ are based on ‘decrepit due ofto meaningsage, weak.’ which The meanings refer to physical ‘cruel, rough, features stern’ also require in West aSlavic more languages, comprehensive for it is study. only on their basis that they could have arisen. ‘sordid; miserable’ seem to indicate the presence

11B.3. *sъmǫtьnъ Etymological meaning The PSlav *mǫtiti *sъmǫtiti, is based on the PIE causativum or iterativum to the PIE *ment h‘clouded,- stirred’ base and the causative-iterative, the basis of the form prefixed in the semantics of the continuants of Proto-In- do-European words is not discernible. ‘to stir, to disturb’ [LIV: 395]. The difference between the Structural meaning A derivative from the PSlav *sъmǫtiti ‘clouded, stirred’ The meaning based on continuants ‘to stir, to disturb.’ Its Proto-Slavic status is debatable. The Old Church Slavonic sъmǫtьnъ smútný smętny ‘turbid, indistinct’ - smutny ‘turbid, muddy; agitated/choppy,’ Czech ‘sad,’the derivative Polish in all andgroups – the of wordlanguages which and arose the underpreservation the influence of the structuralof the Czech mean language – см ‘idem,’ýта Russian ‘indistinct,’ ‘turbulent, tempestuous.’ The presence of - igins.ing in WhereasRussian the Polish, of which smętny the and noun Czech – the smutný basis forare the most second likely one derivatives – is deprived, from andthe verbalwhich continuantswithout doubt of theis under PSlav its*sm influence,ǫtiti : Czech speaks smutiti in favor, Polish of smęcićits Proto-Slavic. A change or of meaning presumably also occurred at the level of the verb.

*ědьnъ

11B.4.Etymological meaning The PSlav *ědъ either as an original euphemistic – uncertain designation ‘edible’ of (?), a poison,‘festering’ etymologically (?), ‘burning’ identical (?) has no well-established etymology [cf. SP 6: 124–125]. It is considered The Development of Words Across Centuries

224 with *ědъ ěsti *oid- - ed to derive ‘food,’ *ědъ a from derivative the PIE from *ad *h- ‘to eat,’ or as a word based on the PIE ‘to cause festering, rottening; to swell, to puff up.’ In turn, Kazimierz Moszyński attempt ‘to burn (transitive and intransitive),’ supporting his argument with the designation of the taste of poisonous mushrooms: ‘burning, scorching’Structural [K. meaning Moszyński 1957b: 295]. The PSlav *ědьnъ is a derivative from *ědъ from *ěsti ‘full of venom; venomous’ designation of a poison. ‘venom, poison,’ and the latter is derived . The meaning of the noun arose from the original ‘food’ as a euphemistic The meanings based on continuants

‘venomous; poisonous’ > Southern ‘irate,’ ‘unhappy’ man,The meaning whereas of in the South noun Slavic arose languages from the a original wide range ‘food’ of assuch a euphemistic meanings arose. designation SP 6: 129 of poison. The North Slavic continuants do not have meanings which could be referred to

reconstruct only one figurative meaning ‘full of venom’ > ‘irate.’ The second Pan-South- Slavic figurative meaning is ‘unhappy’; one may derive it from the same basic meaning. The semantic element on which the metaphoric meanings are based is common: ‘full ofInnovative bitterness,’ meanings hence the South Slavic ‘unhappy.’ The meaning which refers to sadness arose in South Slavic languages presumably as

the string ‘unhappy’ > ‘sad.’ 11B.5. *revьnъ/*revьnivъ, *revlivъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘roaring’ut [cf.supra DILIGENT, 15A.2, p. 252] -ьnъ -ivъ -livъ ‘roaring’ ( ) Derivatives with the suffix (and with accreted onto it), [cf. DILIGENT, 15A.2,The meaning p. 252]. based on continuants ut supra

Innovative meanings ‘roaring’ ( ) rzewny, Old Polish rzewniwy, rzewliwy is

Thecf. also meaning the Ukrainian ‘sad’ of рéвныйthe Polish adjectives thatderived this from is a borrowing ‘one who roars from loudly’ Polish. through the stage ‘tearful’ (which is also attested), ‘moving,’ although one may not rule out the possibility

11B.6. *grozьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning – obscure [see STERN, 12A.4, p. 227]ut supra ‘inspiring fear; terrible/dangerous’ ( ) 225

Conceptual Groups The meaning based on continuants ut supra

Innovative meanings ‘terrible/dangerous; terrifying’ ( ) In my opinion, the only way to account for the meanings of the early Serbian and Cro- atian grȏzan грòзен apply the model present in the early Polish strachliwy, where apart from the meaning ‘painful, sad,’ ‘unhappy, poor’ and the dial. Bulgarian ‘sad’ is to the meanings which exist in Serbian and Croatian seem to be by all means probable, although‘fearful’ there a hypothetical emerged theintermediary meaning ‘timid.’ link has The not development been attested. from ‘timid; scared’ to

Summary of Semantic Changes

11B.1. *skbьnъ 11B.1.1. SAD PSlav ← or 11B.1.2. CREASED etym. SAD PSlav ← 11B.2. *dręselъ, *dręchlъ : *drǫchlъ CUT/WOUNDED etym. SAD PSlav ← WEAK PSlav 11B.3. *sъmǫtьnъ SAD Polish, Czech ← *ědьnъ TURBID/CLOUDED PSlav SAD Southern ← ← 11B.4. 11B.5. *revьnъ, *revьnivъ, *revlivъ UNHAPPY Southern FULL OF VENOM PSlav SAD Polish ← ← 11B.6. *grozьnъ TEARFUL Polish ROARING PSlav SAD Serbian, Croatian ← ← ←

UNHAPPY Serbian, Croatian *SCARED TERRIBLE/ DANGEROUS PSlav sadness: fletus *revьnъ *skbьnъ etymologicalThe motivations motivation, of the although concept one‘sad’ may are also based perceive on the here manifestations the second alof- ( ), perhaps also frowning ( – an alternative *sъmǫtьnъ ternative motivation – the one associated*dręselъ with: dręchlъ cutting). A figurative nature is- thoughmanifested in this by casethe motivation we are dealing by being with muddyan uncertain ( etymological). One should motivation. treat Onethe motivationof the intermediary by putrefaction motivations ( of the feeling )of in unhappiness, a similar manner, and then al *ědьnъ sad is interesting – being full of venom ( ). 226 The Development of Words Across Centuries

12A.1.12A. STERN *ľutъ

Etymological meaning It is likely that *ľutъ < *le-to- is derived from the Proto-Indo-European participial form from the PIE *le- ‘one that cuts off; sharp’

The meanings based ‘to on cut continuants off, to separate’ [Boryś: 291–292].

The basic Proto-Slavic meaning was presumably ‘hardly a designation bearable, of about great intensity a taste/frost’ which referred> ‘cruel; e.g. stern’ to a taste, frost. It is common to this day in Slavic languages, e.g., Polish luty ljȗt probably emerged by way of a metonymic transposition of the name of an object to ‘strong (of frost),’ Serbian ‘hot (of food).’ The meanings ‘cruel, stern; very ľutъbad’, Czech lítý, Slovak ľutý лтый itsdevelopment user; they ofare the attested PSlav *inľutъ the. majority of languages (e.g. Old Church Slavonic , Russian ). Petleva [1978] devotes more attention to the Innovative meanings lítý lítý, Slovene ljȗt лтый On the basis of the meaning ‘stern, cruel’ there emerged ‘irate; furious’ (Czech ),- ‘wild’ (Czech , Old Russian ). Rich development is represented taste;by the e.g.,part in of thethe dialectsmeanings of which the South do not Slavic refer languages to people. there The meaning emerged ‘hard, the meaning unbear able’ produced many innovative meanings, especially ones that refer to the sense of-

‘sour’ apart from ‘burning; hot.’ In Serbian the meaning ‘hard’ passed – quite unexpect edly in this context – into ‘fragile, brittle,’ in Polish and in both Sorbian languages – into ‘pure, without admixtures, about a valuable metal ore.’ [Cf. also VIOLENT, 10A.11, p. 211, QUICK, 9A.12, p. 201, BRAVE, 13A.15, p. 239] 12A.2. *strogъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *strogъ is based on the PIE *sterg- ‘careful’*stergti > ‘one that is onφυλάττειν guard’ - ‘to take care of, sich um etw. kümmern’ [cf.the LIV:adjective 544], * similarlystrogъ. The as formthe PSlav *strogъ features ‘to guard, vocalism which is’ whose peculiar semantic to nomina. de velopment presumably exerted an influence upon the development of the meaning of The meanings based on continuants

‘severus, stern’ TheInnovative meanings meanings ‘severus, stern’ are attested in the majority of Slavic languages. The innovative meanings are associated with the transposition of the meanings from стрóгий strohý

man to other objects, e.g. the Russian ‘strict,’ ‘brief; simple,’ Czech ‘idem,’ as well as ‘rough.’ Conceptual Groups 12A.3. *sorgъ 227

Etymological meaning There is a possibility of a relationship with the continuants of the PIE *sergh- – obscure of *sorgъ raises doubts. ‘to be sick,’ cf. LIV: 558, although the very existence of the Proto-Slavic adjective in the form The meaning based on continuants срагъ, dial. сорóга ‘strict/harsh, stern’ srogiThe adjective is reconstructed on thesrożyś basis se of the Russian/Church Slavonic likelyRussian continuants ‘a gruff of the man.’ PSlav Less *strogъ grounds for reconstruction are furnished by the Polish str- into and sr- the early and dial. LSorb ‘to be angry at someone,’ which are more with a simplification of the consonantal group [see Boryś: 573]. It is strogъdifficult to determine whether we are dealing here ofwith *strogъ a residually preserved Proto-Slavic adjective (it is certain that it was subject to-orT- the. influence of the better-preserved * ) or with the irregular forms of the continuants , which emerged under the influence of the forms with the original group *grozьnъ

12A.4.Etymological meaning The etymology of the PSlav *groza – obscure grasà grasùs grsti is uncertain. According to SP 8: 232–233, the most likelyinto consideration relationship isonomatopoeic with the Lithuanian origin, based on‘menace; the initial sternness,’ *g-r-g-/ *g-r-ǵ- , ‘terrible/similarly dangerous,’ γοργός ‘to endanger.’ According to ESSJ 7: 141–142, instead one should take

Structuralas in the Greek meaning ‘wild; terrible; stern.’ A derivative from *groza; the meaning is motivated also by the verb *groziti ‘inspiring fear, terrible/dangerous’ The meaning based on continuants [SP 8: 238].

Slavonic грозьнъ ‘dangerous; terrifying’ The meaning ‘menacing; dangerous’ is attested in all Slavic languages, e.g. Old Church Innovative meanings. The meaning ‘terrifying’ is a natural link in the semantic development.

grozny, Bulgarian грòзен, Serbian and Croatian grȍzan грTheóзный meaning, Belarusian ‘severus, гр óstern;зны cruel’ – apart from ‘menacing,’ which occurs in many languages (e.g. LSorb groźny, early USorb hrozny, Czech and, Russian Slovak hrozný, Bulgarian and Macedonian) is an грòзен extension, Ukrainian of the грíзнийinherited meaning. There is also a common meaning ‘great’ (early Polish ). Especially noteworthy is the enantiosemic semantic development in the Slovene language [see PRETTY, 3A.10, p. 131 aside UGLY, 3B.8, p. 138]. See also SAD, 11B.6, p. 224. 228 The Development of Words Across Centuries

12A.5. *zъlъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘obliquus’continuants > ‘bad’ [see BAD, 1B.1,ut supra p. 104]

every Slavic language. ‘bad’ > ‘irate’ ( ) The meaning ‘stern’ is a hyperbolization of the meaning ‘bad,’ which is possible in

12A.6. *čstvъ Etymological meaning

The meanings based on ‘enlaced’ continuants [see STRONG, 6A.6, p. 163] ut supra ‘dense’ > ‘hard’ > ‘firm’ > ‘robust; strong’Innovative ( meanings)

The innovative meanings ‘callous, merciless; bad, stern’ arose by way of a figurative usage of the meaning ‘hard.’ *gdъ

12A.7.Etymological meaning The meaning based on –continuants uncertain ‘weak’? [seeut PROUD,supra 14A.1, p. 244] Innovative meanings ‘proud’ ( )

- The Old Russian meaning ‘stern, irate’ presumably arose on the basis of the meaning ‘dangerous’ (common especially in the South and East Slavic languages), which is de rived from the original ‘proud, superbus’ through an intermediary stage ‘daring.’ In South Slavic languages other innovative meanings emerged from ‘terrible/dangerous, menacing’: ‘great,’ ‘bad,’ ‘abhorrent; ugly.’ 12A.8. Western and Eastern *prikrъ

Etymological meaning

The meanings based on – continuants obscure [see UNPLEASANT, 2B.1, p. 120] - ut supra ‘steep,’ ‘difficult; burdensome,’ ‘unpleas ant’Innovative ( meanings) przykry and of the Old Czech příkrý toThe refer meanings to men. ‘severus, stern, brutal’ of the Old Polish are results of a metaphoric transposition of the meaning ‘not easily accessible’ 229

Conceptual Groups 12A.9. *krǫtъ Etymological meaning

‘associated with turning/spinning’ [see STRONG, 6A.7,Structural p. 166] meaning ut supra The meanings based ‘twisted; on continuants (vs. ‘winding’; ‘spinning’) ( ) and Slovak krutý, Croatian and Serbian krȗt ‘strongly twisted’ > ‘stiff; hard’крут 69 The meaningкрут whichóй, Ukrainian also has крутpan-Slavicй range is ‘cruel’: Czech (already in Old Czech) (hence the borrowed Macedonian ), Russian . The motivational basis of the meaning ‘cruel,- merciless’ is most likely ‘hard,’ which is indicated by the strings of co-occurring meanings in the particular languages. In some of the languages (e.g., the East Slavic ones) a second Innovativeary motivation meanings through ‘violent’ > ‘irate’ > ‘stern’ is possible.

krȗt, dial. Slovak krutý Inkrutý the particular languageskšuty innovative meanings motivated by ‘hard,’ fig. ‘stubborn’ (Croatian and Serbian ), hence ‘rebellious; disobedient’ (dial. Czech ) and ‘boorish’ (LSorb ), emerged independently of ‘cruel, merciless.’ 12A.10. *bridъkъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning [see UGLY,ut supra 3B.5 p. 134] The meanings based ‘cutting’ on continuants ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘sharp’ > ‘unpleasant’ ( )

The meanings ‘acerbic,’ ‘stern,’ ‘repugnant’ are attested in Church Slavonic texts apart concretefrom the meaning.meaning ‘sharp,’ peculiar to the texts of the Old Church Slavonic canon. The meaning ‘sharp’ in which we are interested arose as a metaphoric extension of the

Summary of Semantic Changes

12A.1. *ľutъ ← ← 12A.2. *strogъ STERN PSlav CRUEL PSlav SHARP etym. ← ← 12A.3. *sorgъ STERN PSlav ONE THAT IS ON GUARD struct. CAREFUL etym.

STERN PSlav (?) obscure 69 Probably also a source of the borrowing, although one may not rule out the possibility of an earlier borrowing from Russian (in the context of Bulgarian). 230 The Development of Words Across Centuries

*grozьnъ ← 12A.4. 12A.5. *zъlъ STERN Polish, LSorb, Bulgarian, Eastern TERRIBLE/DANGEROUS PSlav ← BAD PSlav 12A.6. *čstvъ STERN pan-Slavic ← ← ← *gdъ STERN Eastern CALLOUS Eastern HARD PSlav ENLACED etym. ← ← 12A.7. ← STERN Old Russian MENACING Polish, Southern, Eastern DARING Polish, Old 12A.8. *prikrъ Russian PROUD PSlav ← ← STEEP PSlav 12A.9. *krǫtъ STERN Old Polish, Czech INACCESSIBLE Eastern, Western ← ← ← TWISTED PSlav 12A.10. *bridъkъ STERN PSlav CRUEL PSlav HARD PSlav ← ←

STERN Church Slavonic SHARP PSlav CUTTING etym. The positive aspect of sternness is signaled by only one motivation: being *strogъ by concepts with negative overtones are considerably more numerous. These on guard, with an intermediate*krǫtъ motivation:, *ľutъ caring ( ). The motivations *čstvъ *prikrъ may*grozьnъ be results, *gdъ of: cruelty ( ) or the cause of sternness: callousness ( ). Motivations such as burdensomeness ( ), being menacing ( *bridъkъ) may, *ľutъ be considered as ones that are objectively referred to the concept ‘stern.’ The motivations through physical properties*krǫ aretъ, peculiar:*čstvъ asperity ( *prikrъ – indirect/intermediary motivation); one*zъlъ may also mentioncase does thenot followinghave evaluative as indirect nature motivations:but it is based hardness on the secondary ( meaning), steepness ( ). The motivation through the concept ‘bad’ ( ) in this

of this word: ‘angry with sb.’

12B.1.12B. MILD *něžьnъ

Etymological meaning The etymology raises doubts mainly due to semantic reasons. As far as the formal aspects – obscure naigât

are concerned, the closest equivalent is the Latvian ‘to feel a need, desire’ which couldit is difficult potentially to link derive. with the meaning ‘delicate.’ Until one finds other equivalents it is difficult to express an opinion about the meaning from which the equivalent words 231

Conceptual Groups Structural meaning As far as the formal aspects are concerned, the PSlav *něžьnъ is a derivative with the suf- -ьnъ from *nega ‘delicate’ The solution of this problem is impossible due to the obscure etymological meaning. fix ‘gentleness,’ although the latter meaning is semantically secondary. The meanings based on continuants

‘delicate,’ ‘tender, sensitive’ The adjective is common (its Proto-Slavic status is sometimes questioned) and it occurs obscurityeverywhere of withthe etymological the basic meanings meaning ‘delicate,’ it is impossible ‘tender, sensitive’;to determine perhaps whether the meaningthe Pro- ‘pleasant; agreeable’ (in reference to people and other objects) is also early. Due to the to-SlavicInnovative meaning meanings ‘delicate’ originally referred to physical or to mental properties. -

The meaning ‘weakly; of infirm health’ [cf. WEAK, 6B.19, p. 180] is a result of an asso ciation, similarly as the meaning ‘pleasant’ which occurs commonly [see PLEASANT, 2A.5, p. 117]. 12B.2. *lagodьnъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘arranged; neat’ (?) ‘weak’ (?) [see PLEASANT, 2A.3,Structural p. 116] meaning ut supra The meaning based ‘arranged,on continuants harmonious,’ ‘calm’ ( ) is indicated both by the continuants: Church ‘agreeable, Slavic lagodьnъ pleasant’, Slovene > ‘mild, lágoden calm’, Polish łagodnyThe meanings as well ‘mild, as the calm’ direction arose of presumably the development already of in innovative the Proto-Slavic meanings. period, which Innovative meanings - łahodny and Polish łagodny On the basis of ‘mild’łagodny (which was probably alreadyлáгідний a PSlav meaning) there arose mean- usianings which лагó дныreferred to the features of one’s character USorb ‘lenient,’ LSorb ‘sensitive,’ Ukrainian ‘kind-hearted, gracious,’ Belar ‘good-natured; peaceable.’ 12B.3. *mirьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘pleasant, delicate’ut [see supra CALM, 10B.1, p. 213] The meanings based ‘calm; on continuants peace-loving’ ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘calm,’ ‘peace-loving’ ( ) мрный

The meaning ‘mild’ arose in various Slavic languages (e.g. the Russian ). 232 The Development of Words Across Centuries

*bolgъ

12B.4.Etymological meaning – uncertain ‘glimmering, shining’ (?) [see PLEASANT, 2A.2,The meaningsp. 116] based on continuants ut supra ‘good, pleasant, delightful’; ‘happy, prosperous’Innovative meanings ( ) -

The meaning ‘agreeable, mild’ is presumably secondary in referencebłogi, Slovene to ‘good, blág pleas, Cro- ant,atian delightful.’ blȃg, Bulgarian Also this and meaningMacedonian could благ have, Ukrainian arisen in благ the periodй of the existence of athe slight Proto-Slavic shift of the community, semantic althoughdominant. its commonness (Polish ) may also be caused by

12B.5. *krotъkъ

Etymological meaning

‘one that is being beaten’ (?) [see HUMBLE, 12B.2, p.Structural 231] meaning ut supra The meanings based ‘tamed on continuants by beating; subjugated’ ( ) ut supra

‘subjugated; tame’ > ‘mild’krȍtak ( , Bulgarian) крIt wasòтък probably alreadyкрóткий in the Proto-Slavic period that the secondary meaning ‘mild’ arose. It is present in the majority of the Slavic languages (e.g. Croatian , Russian ). 12B.6. *milъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘pleasant, continuants delicate’ [see PLEASANT, 2A.1, p. 115] ut supra ‘pleasant, delightful,’ dear, beloved’ ( ) The meaning ‘mild’ is found in the connotations of the meaning ‘pleasant, delightful.’ *mǫdrъ

12B.7.Etymological meaning The meaning based on ‘thinking’continuants [see WISE, ut16A.1, supra p. 261] Innovative meanings ‘wise’ ( ) The meaning of the Bulgarian мдър

‘calm, mild’ arose due to a shift of the semantic dominant of the meaning ‘wise, rational.’ 233

Conceptual Groups 12B.8. *polchъ

Etymological meaning -

‘set in motion; one that sets in motion; mobile’ [see TIM ID,The 13B.1, meaning p. 241] based on continuants ut supra Innovative meaning ‘eager to run; eager to flee’ ( ) plachý

The meaning ‘mild’ (e.g. the Slovak ) is a link of the string ‘timorous’ > ‘shy’ > ‘mild.’ 12B.9. *pokorьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘punished’ [see HUMBLE, 14B.1, p. 248] - ut supra ‘one that humbles himself or herself,’ ‘manifesting humil ity’The ( meaning) based on continuants ut supra ‘humble, submissive, complaisant; servile’ (Innovative) meaning pokorny, early Slovene pokóren also have

Apartfeatures from which the aremeaning contained ‘humble,’ in these the designations.LSorb the meaning: ‘polite,’ ‘mild,’ which results in a natural way from an association of the

12B.10. *jьmьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘being taken; taken’ [see PLEASANT, 2A.4, p. 117] ut supra ‘taken’ > ‘suitable to be taken, suitable to be held in the hand’The meaning ( )based on continuants ut supra ‘pleasant, delicate, pleasant to the touch’Innovative ( meanings) емен could have arisen as a link

The meaning ‘meek; mild’ of the dial. Macedonian of the semantic development which results from the meaning ‘taken, apprehended’ > ‘subjugated’ > ‘meek.’ There is also an alternative possibility of accounting for the meanings ‘mild; calm’ as the final link of the string of changes: ‘suitable for being held in the hand’ > ‘pleasant to the touch’ > ‘mild, meek.’ The Development of Words Across Centuries

234 Summary of Semantic Changes

12B.1. *nĕžьnъ

12B.2. *lagodьnъ MILD PSlav (?) obscure 12B.2.1. ← ← or 12B.2.2.MILD PSlav CALM/HARMONIOUS struct. WELL-ARRANGED etym. ← ← WEAK etym. 12B.3. *mirьnъ MILD PSlav CALM struct. ← ← *bolgъ MILD PSlav CALM PSlav PLEASANT/DELICATE etym. ← ← 12B.4. 12B.5. *krotъkъ MILD Polish, Southern, Ukrainian PLEASANT PSlav SHINING (?) etym. ← TAME PSlav ← ← 12B.6. *milъ MILD PSlav SUBJUGATED PSlav BEATEN etym. ← *mǫdrъ MILD PSlav DELICATE (?) etym. ← ← WISE PSlav 12B.7. 12B.8. *polchъ MILD Bulgarian CALM Bulgarian ← ← 12B.9. *pokorьnъ MILD Slovak SHY Polish TIMOROUS PSlav ← ← 12B.10. *jьmьnъ MILD LSorb, Slovene HUMBLE PSlav← MEEK PUNISHED dial. Macedonian etym. ← Macedonian ← ← or12B.10.1. MILD dial. Macedonian SUBMISSIVE dial. 12B.10.2. *SUBJUGATED ONE THAT IS BEING HELD/APPREHENDED struct. ← ← ←

MILD dial. Macedonian SOFT dial. Polish PLEASANT TO THE TOUCH Western SUITABLE FOR BEING HELD IN THE HAND struct. *lagodьnъ, *mirьnъ, *mǫdrъ *bolgъ, as well as *milъ and *mirьnъ The motivations of the concept ‘mild’ are above*krotъkъ all calmness ( *polchъ *pokorьnъ), being pleasant/kind ( *jьmьnъ – Thean indirect aforementioned etymological motivating motivation), concepts being aretame closely ( related), shyness semantically ( to), thehumility motivated ( concept.) and Therefore submissiveness it is worthwhile ( to –mention alternative the lessmotivation). obvious indirect motivations, which indicate the means that lead to mildness. These in- *krotъkъ *pokorьnъ *pokorьnъ *mǫdrъ alsoclude, cannot on the rule one out hand, the beingpossibility beaten of the( existence) being of motivation punished (through the) and being punished ( *jьmьnъ), on the other hand, wisdom ( ). One

physical property of softness ( – alternative motivation). 235

Conceptual Groups

13A.1.13A. BRAVE *sъmělъ

Etymological meaning The etymology of the PSlav *sъměti is obscure. The relationship with the PIE *mē- /*mō – obscure actual material to be taken into consideration in research. - ‘to try, to be strong-willed’ [cf. Machek: 459] is too poorly documented with the Structural meaning A preterite participle from the PSlav *sъměti ‘one that is brave’ The meaning based on continuants ‘to be brave, to be daring.’ the Sorbian languages which lack continuants, ‘brave’ e.g. Czech smělý, Slovak smelý, Slovene Thesmél ,meaning Serbian sm‘brave,ȅo, Bulgarian daring’ is смел attested in allсм Slavicéлый .languages with the exception of

, Russian 13A.2. *chorbrъ

Etymological meaning There is no consensus about the etymology of the PSlav *chorbrъ. It is usually linked with the adjectives based on – the uncertain PIE root ‘sharp’*(s)kerb- (?) skabs skarpr scearp ‘to cut’; Latvian ‘sharp; stern,’ Old Norse ‘rough,’ Old English ‘sharp’; if we accept this explanation, we Themay reconstructmeaning based the etymological on continuants meaning as ‘sharp.’ [Cf. also Rejzek 2008: 65–66.]

‘brave, daring’ - The meaning that is reconstructed on the basis of continuants is ‘brave, daring.’ If we rely upon the aforementioned etymology then the intermediary link would be a figu rativeInnovative meaning meanings which refers to man: ‘stern.’ The continuant of *chorbrъ is probably the dial. Belarusian chvábry v r ‘strong, healthy’ with an unexplained transition ( > ). 13A.3. *dzъ Etymological meaning The PSlav *dzъ -kъ, *dzъkъ, is usually considered to have been inherited from the PIE ‘brave, *dhs- from daring’ *dhers , also extended by the suffix dyrsos70 θρασύς dh- ‘to dare, to be brave’ (cf. the meanings of Indo-European equivalents: Old Prussian , pl. ‘the brave ones,’ Greek ‘brave, daring’ and the OInd ‘to dare, to be brave, courageous’). The PSlav -z- instead of the expected -s- also raises doubts. The former probably arose by way70 of an assimilation to the syllable onset d-

[SP 5: 61]. 236 The Development of Words Across Centuries

The meaning based on continuants

‘brave’ > ‘daring’ In the Slavic languages there is the widespread meaning ‘brave’ and the secondary one,Innovative ‘daring,’ whichmeanings features negative overtones. In the further semantic development one may discern a differentiation caused by the change of the emotional overtones of the Proto-Slavic word. In the majority of the languages further pejoration occurred, due to which the Czech, Slovak, South Slavic

independentlyand Russian continuants meanings emergedassumed thatthe meaningcontinue ‘impudent,the positive boorish’; overtones in of the the Old meaning Czech language the meaning ‘debauched’ is also attested. In East and West Slavic languages

‘daring’: early Russian ‘firm; resolute,’ ‘fast,’ Polish and early Czech ‘sprightly.’ *bujь/*bujьnъ

13A.4.Etymological meaning The meanings based on – continuants uncertain [see VIOLENT, 10A.6, p. 208] ut supra Innovative meanings ‘rapidly growing; abundant’ ( ) буйь бувый The Old Russian ‘daring’ is motivatedbujny by ‘strong, wild, violent.’ Cf. the similar development of the dial. Russian ‘impertinent; conceited, superbus’; ‘violent, eager to bicker’ and the Old Polish ‘impertinent, conceited.’ 13A.5. *naglъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘daring’ (?) ‘violent’ (?) [see VIOLENT, 10A.3, p. 206] наглыи нагл The hypothetical etymologicalнáглый meaning ‘daring’ is actually attested onlynȃgao by the Old Russian . It may be indicated by the meaning ‘impudent’ (Bulgarian ‘impudent,’ Russian ) and ‘importunate’ (Serbian and Croatian ), which suchcould a have hypothesis. been a result One mustof the take increasing into consideration pejoration of the the possibility sense ‘daring.’ of an The innovative fact that the meaning ‘daring’ is poorly attested forces us to exercise caution in reference to- to-Slavic meaning. origin of the Old Russian ‘daring,’ and to consider ‘quick, violent; sudden’ as a Pro The meaning based on continuants ut supra Innovative meanings ‘quick, violent; sudden’ ( ) нáглый

The innovative meanings of the Russian are ‘daring; impudent, shameless.’ In the light of the doubts associated with the etymology of the word it is difficult to establish what was the direction of their development in reference to ‘daring.’ Conceptual Groups 13A.6. *bystrъ 237

Etymological meaning

‘violent; one that flows in a violent manner’ [see FAST, 9A.2,The meaningp. 198] based on continuants ut supra ‘rapid (of the current of a river)’ > ‘clean,’Innovative fig. ‘bright’; meanings ‘sprightly’ ( ) In the Polish context there emerged the following meanings which are now obsolete:

‘hot-headed,’ ‘plucky, brave.’ Western and Eastern *rychlъ

13A.7.Structural meaning The meaning based ‘associated on continuants with movement’ [see QUICK, 9A.1, p. 197]

In West Slavic languages there is only the meaning Western based ‘mobile’ on the activevs. Eastern voice, peculiar ‘set in tomotion’ the original > ‘flabby; participle weak’ in -lъ. Innovative meanings rychły

The basis of the meaning ‘brave’ of the LSorb is presumably the meaning ‘fast, quick,’ which is also present in this language and is motivated by ‘mobile.’ 13A.8. *gdъ Etymological meaning The meaning based on continuants ut supra – obscure [see PROUD, 14A.1, p. 244] Innovative meanings ‘proud’ ( )

The semantic development from ‘proud’ to ‘brave’ (the latter was already Old Russian and was passed on to Russian) represents a typical string of minimal changes. The meaning ‘proud,’ enhanced by the semantic elementhardy “excessively,”: early Polish became gardy ‘haughty.’ Due to the change of the seme “idea (of oneself)” into “action,” the meaning ‘haughty’ became ‘daring.’ It is also present in the Polish . Finally, by losing the seme “excessively,” it became ‘daring, brave.’ 13A.9. *bъdrъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘vigilant; wakeful’ut [seesupra QUICK, 9A.4, p. 199] The meanings based ‘wakeful; on continuants vigilant’ ( ) ut supra ‘vigilant’; ‘lively,’ ‘sprightly’ ( ) 238 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Innovative meanings The innovative meaning which occurs alrea бъдрый : бодрыи бдрыи : бóдрый dy in Old Russian ( ), and then in early Russian and dial. Russian ( ) is ‘daring, brave; valorous.’ The direct semantic motivation is presumably ‘combat-ready’ – an instance of the narrowing down of the more general meaning ‘ready for action.’ The latter is derived from ‘wakeful.’ 13A.10. Western and Southern *drěčьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘elongated lengthwise’ [see HIGH/TALL,ut supra 4A.2, p. 142] The meaning based ‘suchon continuants like a pillar, like a tree trunk’ut supra ( ) ‘well-grown’ ( ) The meanings ‘brave, sprightly’ emerged from the meaning ‘well-grown’ hence ‘of robust build’ in dial. Slovak. 13A.11. *dělьnъ

Structural meaning

‘associated with work, with the effects of work’ [see DILIGENT,The meaning 15A.6, based p. 252] on continuants - ut supra Western ‘hard-working,’ Eastern ‘re sourceful’Innovative ( meaning) dzielny, early Ukrainian дільнй The meaning ‘brave, valiant’ in Polish and Ukrainian (Polish ) is based on ‘capable of fighting,’ which is derived from the earlier ‘suitable to work, to perform an activity.’ 13A.12. *dob’ь

Etymological meaning cf. *dobrъ ‘suitable; well-adjusted’ [see STRONG, 6A.9, p. 167, The meaning, GOOD, based 1A.1, on p. continuants 95] Innovative meanings ‘suitable’ > ‘fit; suitable to do sth’

SlavonicThe meaning dobl’ь ‘fit for sth’ specialized already inдоблии Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian as ‘capable of fighting,’ hence further meanings ‘valiant, valorous; brave’ (cf. Old Church ‘brave, valorous,’ Old Russian ‘brave, unflinching/stalwart’). 13A.13. *jarъ

Etymological meaning

The meanings based on ‘of continuants spring’ [see VIOLENT, 10A.8, p. 210] ut supra ‘born or sown in the spring’; ‘violent, lustful’ ( ) 239

Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings рый - The Old Russian has the meanings ‘irate; furious, violent,’ ‘daring, brave,’ ‘hardy’ > ‘haughty,’ which represent a quite clear line of development through gradual modi fications of meaning. *prǫdъkъ

13A.14.Etymological meaning Structural meaning ‘one that leaps away’ [see VIOLENT, 10A.2,ut supra p. 204] The meanings based ‘one on continuantsthat performs violent movements’ ( ut supra) Innovative meanings ‘violent; impetuous,’ ‘fast’ ( ) pródek

The innovative meaning ‘brave’ of the Slovene is presumably based on ‘impetuous,’ which is reconstructed for the Proto-Slavic language [cf. also TIMID, 13B.4, p. 242]. 13A.15. *ľutъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning reconstructed ‘one that on thecuts basis off; sharp’ of continuants [see STERN, 12A.1, p. 226] Innovative meanings ‘cruel; stern’ лтый -

The meaning ‘brave, daring’ of the dial. Russian may be [a result of] a transpo sition of the semantic dominant of the Proto-Slavic meaning ‘stern,’ although its direct basis also could have been associated with the meanings which refer to physical fitness ‘strong; sprightly’ which occur in these dialects. 13A.16. *lichъ

Etymological meaning

‘the one who remains; the remaining one’ [see BAD, 1B.4,The meaning p. 107] based on continuants ut supra ‘excessive,’ ‘odd (of numbers)’ > ‘bad, miserable’Innovative ( meanings)

Perhaps the only possibility of accounting for the Ukrainian meaning ‘brave’ is to link- catesit with the the semantic Old Russian relationship ‘strong’ of< ‘excessive.’the two meanings This problem of Ukrainian is not discussedcontinuants: by лѝхийESUM 3: 249. The fact thatлѝхий there are no attestations of similar meanings in Ukrainian obfus-

‘poor, meagre’ and ‘daring.’ The explanatory dictionary of the Ukrainian lan guage treats both words as homonyms [Bilodid 4: 248–249]. The Development of Words Across Centuries

240 Summary of Semantic Changes

13A.1. *sъmělъ

13A.2. *chorbrъ (?) BRAVE PSlav ←(?) obscure← 13A.3. *dzъ BRAVE PSlav ← *STERN SHARP (?) etym. *bujь/*bujьnъ BRAVE PSlav BRAVE etym. PIE ← ← 13A.4.PSlav BRAVE13A.5. *naglъ Old Russian, early Russian VIOLENT Old Russian RAPIDLY GROWING 13A.5.1. ← ← or 13A.5.2.BRAVE Old Russian VIOLENT PSlav BRAVE (?) etym. ← 13A.6. *bystrъ BRAVE Old Russian ← BRAVE (?) etym. PIE ← *rychlъ BRAVE early Polish← QUICK HOT-HEADED Western ← early Polish VIOLENT etym. 13A.7.13A.8. *gdъ BRAVE LSorb ← MOBILE Western ← ← BRAVE13A.9. * Oldbъdrъ Russian, early Russian DARING Polish, Old Russian HAUGHTY PSlav PROUD PSlav ← ← ← BRAVE13A.10. early *drěčьnъ Russian and dial. Russian *COMBAT-READY READY TO DO STH Old Russian WAKEFUL ← PSlav ← Southern BRAVE13A.11. dial. *dělьnъ Slovak STRONG Slovak, Slovene, Croatian WELL-GROWN Western, ← ← Polish, Ukrainian ← ← BRAVE Polish, Ukrainian VALIANT Polish, Ukrainian CAPABLE OF FIGHTING 13A.12. *dob’ь CAPABLE OF WORKING Polish, Ukrainian ASSOCIATED WITH WORK struct. ← - ← ← BRAVE13A.13. Old*jarъ Church Slavonic, Old Russian CAPABLE OF FIGHTING Old Church Sla vonic, Old Russian ← SUITABLE FOR DOING STH PSlav APPROPRIATE etym. *prǫdъkъ BRAVE Old Russian← VIOLENT PSlav ← ← etym.13A.14. 13A.15.BRAVE Slovene *ľutъ HOT-HEADED PSlav VIOLENT PSlav ONE THAT JUMPS AWAY 13A.15.1. ← ←

BRAVE dial. Russian STERN PSlav SHARP etym. Conceptual Groups or 241 13A.15.2. ← ← ← 13A.16. *lichъ BRAVE dial. Russian← STRONG dial. Russian← STERN PSlav SHARP etym.

BRAVE Ukrainian STRONG Old Russian EXCESSIVE PSlav - - The motivations*chorbrъ, *ľutъ of the concept ‘brave’*g aredъ the features of character,*bujь, *bystrъ eval, *jarъuated, both*prǫ dъkъnegatively:, *naglъ sternness (with an intermediary motivation – sharp ness): ( *lichъ, *drěčьnъ), impudence, *l’utъ ( ), impetuosity ( *dělьnъ, *dob’ь – alternative motivation), as *bъdrъ well as positively: strength: ( *rychlъ – alternative motivation), ability, aptitude for something ( ), readiness for something ( ), quickness; sprightliness ( ). 13B. TIMID

13B.1. *polchъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *polchъ is based on the PIE *polo- pel- pellere ‘set in motion; one that sets in motion; mobile’ assumed -chъ. Apart from this word it is also‘movement,’ present the in *strachъnominal form from * ‘to- setuant in ofmotion’ the nominal (cf. Latin Proto-Indo-European ‘to urge on’), which form inwhich the Proto-Slavic is closest to language the Proto-Slavic the suffix πόλος ‘fear.’ The contin

Thelanguage meaning is the Greek based on ‘pole.’continuants

‘eager to run; eager to flee’ > timid; innovativetimorous’ meanings, were assumed in various languages by a more recent pan-Slavic The meanings ‘timid; timorous,’-livъ which, which are maypreserved be reduced residually to inthe all form languages *polch(ъ)livъ apart from. 71- derivative with the suffix When one reconstructs this meaning, apart from the continuants which indicate ‘tim *polšitiorous, timid,’ one should direct one’s attention to the innovative meanings (especially to ‘fast, sudden’ which is preserved in Croatian), in which, similarly as in the derivative ‘to inspire fear ,’ preserve perhaps a trace of the meaning Innovative‘eager to flee,’ meanings which continues the etymological ‘mobile.’

plachý płochy Since the 16th c. the Croatian language attests the meaning ‘fast; sudden,’ from which ‘strong’ is presumably derived. The Old Czech ‘wild’ and the early Polish -livъ emerged71 in a parallel manner in various languages already when the group -olch- shifted in to -loch- ,Due -lach- to, the-oloch- phonetic. form of the word it is most probable that the words with the suffix The Development of Words Across Centuries

242

‘wild, unbridled, violent,’ ‘dangerous,’ ‘mad’ arepłochy likely and to beCzech derived plachý also from the meaning ‘fast; sudden.’ A different direction of the development of the meaning ‘eager topresent run’ is in presumably the Slovene represented plȃh. In the bycase the of Polish the Polish language where the ‘changeable;continuants ofimpermanent; *polchъ are identicalfleeting,’ withhence the the continuants Polish ‘fickle, of *plochъ imprudent, rollicking,’ which is also-

[cf. plachýBAD, 1B.5, p. 107] it is dif ficult*marьnъ to determine whether in some meanings we are dealing with*ploch the development in the mean- ‘impermanent’ > ‘bad; evil,’ discernible inплох theó йearly. Czech ‘miserable, shabby’ [cf. , BAD, 1B.6, p. 108] or with the continuant of the PSlav ings which correspond with the Russian 13B.2. *divъ, *dikъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on continuants – obscure [see VIOLENT, 10A.7, p. 209] ut supra Innovative meanings ‘not used by people’ > ‘untamed’ ( ) dziki, Slovene dívji дкий, Ukrainian дкий, Belarusian дзíкі The meaning ‘shy’ is attested in all three groups (Polish , Russian ); it probably arose in an independent manner. atThe the geography stage of a weakof the negative attestations evaluation admits and the it common never assumed emergence the very of the strongly meaning negative ‘shy, timid’ only for the group of East Slavic languages. The semantic development stopped

overtones peculiar to the meaning ‘cowardly.’ 13B.3. *durьnъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘blowing; associated with wind’ (?) [see VIOLENT,The meaning 10A.5, based p. 207] on continuants ut supra ‘agitated; violent; impetuous,’ Northern ‘mad’Innovative ( meanings) - ably did so in the same way as in the case of the continuants of *polchъ and *prǫdъ, Theand thereforemeaning ‘wild/uncouth/shy,it manifested a relationship timorous’ with which the arose observation in Slovak of adialects, violent presumreaction to danger.

*prǫdъ

13B.4.Etymological meaning Structural meaning ‘one that jumps away’ [see VIOLENT, 10A.2,ut supra p. 206] The meaning based ‘oneon continuants that performs violent movements’ ( ut supra) ‘violent; impetuous,’ ‘quick’ ( ) Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings 243 prȗd пруд : пръд ,’ which arose on the ba- The meaning ‘timorous, timid’ of the dial. Serbian is based on the meaning ‘wild’ the(or theaforementioned Bulgarian and *polchъ dial. Macedonian, one may discern the development ‘nervous of the original mean- sis of the meaning ‘violent’ > ‘unsubjugated, indomitable’). Similarly as in the case of ing which proceeded in opposite directions – to ‘timorous’ and ‘brave’ [see BRAVE, 13A.14, p. 239]. 13B.5. *chabъ/*chabьnъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on –continuants uncertain ‘sour, spoilt’ (?) [see BAD, 1B.7,ut supra p. 108] Innovative meanings ‘bad, miserable’ > ‘weak’ ( )

The meaning ‘timorous’ in Slovak dialects is a specialization of the meaning ‘shabby, bad,’ which occurs in Czech and Slovak. 13B.6. *lěnъ/*lěnivъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘loose’continuants [see LAZY, 15B.1, p. 255]ut supra Innovative meanings ‘lazy, ignavus’ ( ) лѣнивыи

Thechanges meanings may be of postulated the Old Russian for the early Czech ‘slow; léný irresolute; timorous’ present the possibility of semantic changes from the meaning ‘lazy’ to ‘timorous.’ A similar cycle of ‘tardy, slow.’

Summary of Semantic Changes

13B.1. *polchъ ← TIMID PSlav ← ← 13B.2. *divъ, *dikъ TIMOROUS PSlav EAGER TO RUN PSlav MOBILE etym. TIMID Eastern, Polish, Slovene ← ← 13B.3. *durьnъ UNTAMED PSlav NOT USED BY PEOPLE PSlav ← ← *prǫdъ COWARDLY dial. Slovak WILD dial. Slovak VIOLENT PSlav TIMID dial. Serbian ← ← ← 13B.4. ← NERVOUS Bulgarian, Macedonian WILD dial. Serbian ONE 13B.5. *chabъ/*chabьnъ THAT PERFORMS VIOLENT MOVEMENTS struct. ONE THAT JUMPS AWAY etym. TIMID dial. Slovak ← BAD PSlav The Development of Words Across Centuries

244 13B.6. *lěnivъ ← ← ← TIMOROUS dial. Czech, Old Russian IRRESOLUTE Old Russian SLOW dial. Czech, Old Russian LAZY PSlav

concepts are not a part of the Proto-Slavic heritage, which is associated with theThe fact majority that the ofconcepts the terms with which negative express overtones the concept are more ‘timid’ susceptible and the related to the assumption of innovative names. The only name which emerged in the Pro- to-Slavic period is *polchъ, whose negative overtones are markedly weaker. The motivations with movement as a reaction to fear and therefore with *polchъ *prǫdъ 72 are associated with the motivation by the concept of violence/sudenness running*durьnъ , ( *prǫdъ ), scampering ( – intermediate motivation). They *lěnъ ( ). An even opposite nature is exhibited by the motivation by the inability to make a decision ( ). Being undomesticated*chabъ by people may anbe theevaluative source ofnature. both the concept ‘skittish’ as well as and ‘violent’ [cf. VIOLENT, 10A.7, p. 209]. Motivation by being bad, useless ( ) has without doubt

14A. PROUD *gdъ

14A.1.Etymological meaning The etymology is uncertain. As far as the formal aspects are concerned, the most likely – uncertaingùrdus ‘weak; slow’ (?) guds βραδύς, which is derived from the PIE *gdu-; perhaps one may also mention is the affinity with the Lithuaniangurdus *gdo- ‘slow; weak,’ Latvian The ‘withered; semantic tired,’ de- Greek 73 in this context the Latin (< ) ‘stupid, obtuse; gawky’. velopment from ‘deprived of strength; slow’ to ‘proud’ seems possible if we accept the existence of intermediate links from ‘slow; lazy’ > ‘such which makes the impression noof being parallels. lazy Aby relationship his or her behaviour’ with the PSlav> ‘proud’ *grǫ ordъ similarly ‘congealed, torpid’ > ‘stiff, *grreserved;ǫstokъ proud’ [ESSJ 7: 206–207].*g However,her- such a development of the meaning has formal and semantic reasons. ‘difficult, unpleasant, tedious’ and ‘idem,’ based on the PIE ‘to crush’ [SP 8: 284] is unlikely due to the

Cf. also the motivation of the PSlav *lękti sę 72 ‘to get scared of sth,’ initially ‘to bend; to stoop’ [Sławski73 4: 206–208]. This is rejected by Walde’s dictionary [Walde 1: 627] due to the differences in the structure and the semantic difficulties, although in the light of the possibilities of the development of the meanings, the latter reservations seem completely unjustified. Conceptual Groups The meaning based on continuants 245 hrdý гóрдый well as Old Church Slavonic gъrdъ and later ‘proud’ monuments of the Church Slavic recen- The continuants in North Slavic languages (e.g. the Czech , Russian ), as- ciated with the modern South Slavic languages in which there is the dominance of the sions indicate the original meaning ‘proud, haughty, overbearing.’ A problem is *gassodъ гóрдый, from which, by way meaning ‘repulsive.’ According to Ľubor Králik, the original meaning of the PSlav was ‘valorous; brave,’ residually attested by the Russian of an intermediate link ‘inspiring fear there couldgъrdъ have von emerged der Situation both einesthe meaning starken, ‘proud’ as well as ‘repulsive’: Es wäre u. E. denkbar, bei der Analyse von urslav. * mutigen, furchterregenden Krieger auszugehen, der für seine Heldentaten geehrt wird” gъrdъ [Králik 2000: 305–308]. point of departure the situation of the strong, valorous, fearful warrior, who is respected (When we analyze the PSlav * it seems possible – in our opinion – to take as the

due to his heroic deeds.) However, the meaning ‘brave’ is poorly documented and its recognition as the original meaningInnovative would meanings require stronger arguments. In the furthering of the particular development there was the nascent dominance either of the meaning with positive overtones – ‘proud,’ which became the point of- departure for the meaning ‘magnificent,’ common in West Slavic languages andhardy the, further meaningsгордыи which are based on it, or the negative ‘conceited,’ which in turn fur nished the basis for the emergenceгордыи of the meaningsг ó‘arrogant,рдый daring’ (Polish - mentOld Russian which occurred), inand the after South a Slavicfurther languages change of departs the evaluation from the ofaforementioned the meanings ‘daring,development brave’ to (Old such Russian an extent that it, even dial. made Russian Osten-Sacken ). The reconstruct semantic two develop hom-

onymic lexemes [Osten-Sacken2 1911: 419]; likewise Machek [Machek: 144], who, however, does not maintain this hypothesis any more in the subsequent edition of the Slavicdictionary languages, [Machek are: a183–184]. result of the However, semantic the development. majority of the researchers subscribe to the idea that the meanings ‘bad, repulsive; unpleasant,’74 which dominate in South

*pyšьnъ

14A.2.Etymological meaning The basis of the PSlav *pychati *pū-, a reduced form of the root *pe- ‘associated with blowing; inflated;*puchn panting’ǫti ‘to pant, to puff’ is the PIE ‘to blow [dąć]; to puff up’ (which is present in the PSlav ‘to swell’). A derivative formed on the basis of *gdъ горлвый, attested in rare 74 горлвый is also, a derivative the dial. Russian of гордый -liv-northern dialectsгорделивый [SRNG 7: 40] in the meanings ‘proud; haughty, overbearing.’ The adjective arose andby way Southern of the simplification *gorlivъ of the earlier with the accreted suffix , cf. Russian ‘idem.’ The phonetic congruity with the continuants of the Western ‘full of passion’ is accidental. The Development of Words Across Centuries

246 Structural meaning A derivative from *pycha/pychъ, which is derived from *pychati ‘associated*puchnǫti. with panting; with being out of breath’ ‘to pant, to puff, e.g. during blowing’The meaning associated based with on continuants

‘proud,’ ‘conceited’ A problem is associated with the fact that the meanings ‘magnificent’ and ‘proud’*pychati lend. themselves more to an explanation on the basis of the meaning ‘to assume a great volume,’ which does not occur in the continuants of the formal basis [of] A solution of the problem is to recognize the meanings ‘to pant, to puff’ as secondary in reference ‘to blow, to inflate.’ *bujьnъ

14A.3.Etymological meaning The meaning based on –continuants unclear [see VIOLENT, 10A.6, p. 208] ut supra Innovative meanings ‘rapidly growing’ > ‘violent’ ( ) The meanings which refer to self-estimation was assumed by the Old Polish bujny bujny basis for such a development was presumably furnished by one of the fundamental se- ‘conceited, overbearing, self-important’ and LSorb ‘conceited, proud; vain.’ The

mantic elements – ‘excessive; unrestrained,’ and therefore ‘one who is self-important.’ The meaning ‘stupid’ which co-occurs in Russian additionally indicated the negative evaluation of the feature ‘conceited.’ *durьnъ

14A.4.Etymological meaning – uncertain ‘blowing; associated with wind’ (?) [see VIOLENT,The meanings 10A.5, based p. 207] on continuants ut supra ‘agitated; violent; impetuous,’ Northern ‘mad’Innovative ( meanings) It seems most likely that the meanings in which we are interested arose on the basis

excess, which is hardly discernible in the modern Polish durny ofpresent the meaning in the entire ‘agitated, lexical violent, family uncontrollable,’ *durъ, *duriti henceis distinctly ‘self-important.’ visible in the The meanings seme of 75 ‘stupid,’ and which is Slavic languages. In the further development of the Kashubian dërni ‘violent, furious; quick-tempered; mad.’ The latter meanings occur in all groups of the- ‘conceited, haughty’ through the stage ‘confident’ also assumed the meaning ‘resolute,’ ‘energetic’ (with melio ration) and ‘defiant.’ *durьnъ -ьnъ, accreted on the original *durъ75 *duriti SP. This 5: 107 motivation considers is clearly visible as an at adjective the level with of semantics. the suffix . However, the author of the dictionary entry does not rule out a motivation by the verb Conceptual Groups *jarъ 247

14A.5.Etymological meaning The meaning based on ‘ofcontinuants spring’ [see VIOLENT, 10A.8, p. 210]ut supra Innovative meanings ‘spring,’ ‘violent, lustful’ ( )

The Old Russian meaning ‘haughty’ presumably arose by progressing through the stages ‘daring, brave’ > ‘audacious.’ *krǫtъ

14A.6.Etymological meaning Structural meaning ‘associated with spinning’ [see STRONG,ut supra 6A.7, p. 166] The meaning based ‘twisted’on continuants vs. ‘winding’; ‘spinning’ ( ) Innovative meanings ‘strongly twisted’ > ‘stiff; hard’ krȗt - The basis of the meaning ‘proud’ of the Serbian and Croatian (similarly as of the meanings ‘strict,’ ‘cruel,’ which also refer to mental features of man) is most likely a met aphoric use of the meaning ‘hard.’ *bъdrъ

14A.7.Etymological meaning The meanings based on ‘vigilant; continuants wakeful’ [see QUICK, 9A.4, p. 199]ut supra Innovative meanings ‘wakeful’; ‘lively,’ ‘sprightly’ ( ) бóдрый

The early Russian ‘proud’ is probably based on the meaning ‘daring, courageous,’ hence ‘confident.’ *gyzdavъ

14A.8.Etymological Western meaning and Southern Structural meaning ‘repulsive’ [see UGLY, 3B.4, p. 136] The meaning based ‘repulsive’on continuants [see PRETTY, 3A.13, p. 132]ut supra Innovative meanings ‘revolting, repulsive’ ( ) - gìzdav, similarly as Slovene gizdàvSimilarly as in the case of the meaning ‘beautiful’ [cf. PRETTY, 3A.13, p. 132], the in novative meaning ‘boasting; proud, conceited’ (Croatian ‘kitschy, foppish; bragging, conceited’) arose at the level of verbs with the meaning ‘to brag,’ which is motivated in the semantics associated with dressing up. The Development of Words Across Centuries

248 Summary of Semantic Changes

*gdъ ← 14A.1. *pyšьnъ PROUD PSlav SLOW (?) etym. ← ← ← 14A.2. *bujьnъ PROUD PSlav CONCEITED PSlav *HAVING A GREAT VOLUME INFLATED etym. ← ← 14A.3. ← ← CONCEITED LSorb, dial. Russian AUDACIOUS Old Polish, LSorb, dial. Russian *durьnъ BRAVE Old Russian, dial. Russian VIOLENT PSlav RAPIDLY GROWING PSlav ← ← MAD Polish, 14A.4. ← ← CONCEITED early Polish and dial. UNRESTRAINED Polish, Russian *jarъ Russian AGITATED PSlav VIOLENT PSlav ← ← ← PSlav14A.5. ← ← PROUD Old Russian BRAVE Old Russian AUDACIOUS Old Russian VIOLENT *krǫtъ LUSTFUL PSlav OF SPRING PSlav ← ← TWISTED PSlav 14A.6. *bъdrъ PROUD Serbian, Croatian HARD/STIFF PSlav ← ← ← WAKE- 14A.7. PROUD dial. Russian *CONFIDENT BRAVE Old Russian, dial. Russian *gyzdavъ FUL PSlav ← ← ← 14A.8.Slovene ← PROUD Croatian BRAGGING Slovene, Croatian DRESSED UP Croatian KITSCHY UGLY Western, Southern *bujьnъ, *jarъ, *bъdrъ durьnъ. Another motivation The motivations of the concept ‘conceited’ are courage or audacity ( ), which is*gyzdavъ the direct motivation for * onis the the proneness appearance to whichbragging is perceived caused by by one’s other appearance people as whicha manifestation is positively of evaluated by oneself (*krǫtъ ). There are also*pyšьnъ peculiar motivations based motivation is more peculiar to the derivatives which arose in the particular pride: e.g., stiffness ( ) or swollenness ( ), although the latter

languages [cf. Jakubowicz 2010: 55–57].

14B. HUMBLE*pokorьnъ

14B.1.Etymological meaning The PSlav *koriti *kara *karati ‘punished’ ‘to humble oneself’ is related with ‘punishment,’ ‘to punish.’ Conceptual Groups Structural meanings 249 The adjective *pokorьnъ -ьnъ from *pokoriti (sę) *pokora ‘one that humbles oneself,’ ‘manifesting humility’ *koriti (sę) **korьnъ is a derivative with the suffix ‘to humblekorny, attested(oneself)’ since or from the 18th c., dial.‘humility.’ Ukrainian The к expectedóрне-пок óderivativeрне from the non-prefixed- usian кóрны – – is not sufficiently attested (there is only the early Polish Croatian kȏran ‘humbly’ and the dial. Belar ‘humble’ (perhaps a borrowing from Polish),76 as well as the Serbian and The meaning ‘rebuked,based on humiliated’ continuants [Sławski 2: 491]). The continuants which indicated the form *pokorьnъ - ‘humble, submissive, meek; complaisant’ and the meaning ‘humble; com Innovativeplaisant’ are commonlymeanings attested in the Slavic languages.

pokóren, Serbian pȍkōran, Ukrainian покíрний - The semantics ‘humble, complaisant’ implies the meaning ‘obedient,’покóрный attested in various- languages (e.g. Slovene ). The develop ment from cause to effect is discernible in the dial. Russian ‘having a defi ciency, a shortcoming.’ There is a more complex semantic development from ‘humble’ to ‘necessary, needed’ – the latter meaning also occurs in Russian dialects; it is likely that- tionthe intermediate may be accepted link wasonly in with this reservations context the meaningassociated ‘fitting with sth’its reliability. (from the unattested ‘subordinated to sth’), which is attested only in the adverbial form. Such a reconstruc

*krotъkъ

14B.2.Etymological meaning The etymology of the PSlav *krotiti - ceive it as a continuant of the– uncertain causative-iterative ‘beaten’ (?)form *krot- from the root *kret- ‘to tame; to subjugate’ is notκροτε certain.ῖν One may per ‘to shake; to beat, to hit,’ which is probably present in the Greek ‘to tap, to hit,’ Structuraland which is meaningalso present – with a nasal infix – in Germanic languages [Pokorny: 621]. -ъkъ from *krotiti. The meaning, usually reconstructed ‘subjugated by beating; tamed’ A derivative with the suffix majorityas the basic of theone attestations for the Proto-Slavic in all groups ‘to castrate’ of the Slavic[e.g. Berneker: languages 625; nor Boryś:the presumed 718], is actually attested in the Old Lower Sorbian language (16th c.), although neither the- equivalents in other Indo-European languages prove this hypothesis. One should con sider ‘to subjugate; to tame,’ whichкрот is тьprobably derived from the earlier ‘to subjugate bykrotíti beating,’ as the original meaning of the verb. Traces of the meaning ‘to beat’ are preserved in the dial. Russian ‘about fish, to stun by beating,’ dial. Slovene The meanings ‘about apples, based to knock on continuants [apples] from a tree.’ - es of all groups. It is probable that already in ‘subjugated; the Proto-Slavic tamed’ language > ‘mild’ there emerged The meanings ‘broke in, tamed; domesticated’ are well-attested in the Slavic languag кóрный : корнóй which76 is a derivative from the PSlav *knъ According to Sławski [l.c.] the dial. Russian ‘of inferior height, not tall, short,’ ‘cut off; crippled’ does not belong to this category. 250 The Development of Words Across Centuries

krotki, Czech krotký, Serbian krȍtak, Bulgarian крòтък the secondary meanings ‘mild’ from ‘tamed,’ and ‘humble; meek’ (e.g. the Kashubian Innovative meanings from ‘subjugated’).

Due to the lackкрóткий of intermediate links attested in Russian, which could bring about the- emergence of enantiosemicкрутóй meanings which features ‘strict, the bad, same cruel,’ meanings. ‘impetuous, violent’ in the dial. Russian , what seems most likely is the influence of the similarly sound ing Russian adjective *sъkromьnъ

14B.3.Etymological meaning Structural meaning ‘cut off’ [see utTHIN, supra 5B.4, p. 157] The meanings based ‘severed on continuants [off]’ ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘moderate; limited; slight’ ( ) In the Old Polish skromny

‘humble’ the development progressed from ‘moderate as far as one’s requirements are concerned’ to ‘humble.’ *mirьnъ

14B.4.Etymological meaning Structural meaning ‘pleasant, delicate’ut supra [see CALM, 10B.1, p. 213] The meanings based ‘calm; on continuants peaceful’ ( ) ut supra ‘calm’ > ‘mild,’ ‘peaceful’ > ‘concordant’ (Innovative) meanings mirny, Serbian and Croatian míran as

The meaning ‘meek, humble’ arose in the USorb a further link of the semantic development, either directly from ‘calm’ or from ‘mild.’

Comparison of Semantic Changes

*pokorьnъ ← 14B.1. *krotъkъ HUMBLE PSlav PUNISHED etym. ← ← 14B.2. *sъkromьnъ HUMBLE PSlav SUBJUGATED PSlav BEATEN etym. ← ← 14B.3. *mirьnъ HUMBLE PSlav MODERATE PSlav CUT OFF etym. ← ← ← - 14B.4. HUMBLE USorb, Serbian, Croatian MILD USorb, Russian CALM PSlav PLEAS ANT etym. 251

Conceptual Groups - *krotъkъ - The motivations of the concept*pokornъ ‘humble’ are associated above all*sъkromьnъ with activ probablyities which has impose to do humility,not with andphysical therefore violence beating but with( setting) or limits, generally moder ad- ministering punishment ( ). The motivation by cutting (*mirьnъ ) 77 ation. A similar type is represented by motivation by mildness ( ).

15A.1.15A. DILIGENT Western and Eastern *pilьnъ

Etymological meaning

The PSlav *piliti is an iterative ‘moving form (transitive); to *pelti pьl oneǫ, with that the sets extension in motion’ of the vs. vocalism‘moved; ofset the in presentmotion’ stem; *pelti pьlǫ is derived from the PIE *pel- pellere πέλειν ‘to set in motion, to move,’ cf.Structural Latin meaning ‘to drive (forward), to hasten,’ Greek ‘to set in motion’ [Boryś: 436]. The PSlav *pilьnъ is a derivative from *piliti ‘driving forward’ vs. ‘driven forward’ The meanings based on continuants ‘to drive forward, to urge forward.’

pilny, Czech pilný ‘diligent; zealous,’пльный ‘one who strives to do sth; one that applies himself or herself to sth’ The continuants (e.g. USorb , Russian ) which feature the meanings ‘diligent; zealous’ are attested in all North Slavic languages. The innovative meanings which are discussed below demonstrate that in the content ‘to apply oneself to sth, to strive after sth’ emphasis could have been put either on haste (in which one Innovativemay perceive meanings a reflex of the etymological and structural meaning) or on diligence.

- In Polish, Czech and Slovak, apart from the meanings ‘diligent; zealous,’ i.e., ‘one that does sth with haste’ there emerged the meaning ‘something that has to be done ex peditiously.’ Because the vacillations of the diathesis which constitute the basis for such changes were a frequent phenomenon at the initial stage of the codification of the language [Buttler 1978: 119–124], there is no need to reconstruct this meaningpilny, Czechfor the pilný Proto-Slavic, Ukrainian language. пльний On the basis of the meaning ‘one that applies himselfpilny, Czechor herself pilný to sth’ there emerged the meanings ‘attentive; careful’ (early Polish ) and ‘careful; conscientious, caring’ (early Polish ).

77 The problem of the etymological motivation of the exponents of the concept ‘humility’ and ‘haughtiness’ is elaborately discussed by Renata Grzegorczykowa [1993]. 252 The Development of Words Across Centuries

15A.2. *revьnъ : *revьnivъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *r’uti revǫ PSlav *rykati : *ryčati which ‘roaring’ has the same meaning. Both Proto-Slavic families may be based on the PIE root ‘to*re roar’-, *rē most-, *ru- likely, *rū- has onomatopoeic origins, similarly as the

Structural meaning [cf. Boryś: 527]. -ьnъ and -ivъ, which is accreted onto it, from the personal *r’uti ‘roaring’ revǫ Derivatives with the suffix Theinflection meaning of the basedverb on continuants ‘to roar.’

proven by the existence of the Polish continuants: ‘roaring’ rzewny and the early rzewniwy theThe Old existence Polish rzućof the, rzwać meaning, rzwieć ‘roaring’ in the Proto-Slavic languageревлив seems to be indirectly (cf. also Innovative meanings , ‘to roar’) and by the Macedonian ‘strident; tearful.’ -

isIt ispresent probable in thatvarious the meaningdeverbal ‘zealous’ derivatives. is an Only independent a few of innovationthe latter continuein various the languag PSlav formses. It is * revьnъcommon,/*rьvьnъ although and it * isrevьnivъ difficult to accord a Proto-Slavicrȇvan status/rèvan to it because it- рéвний - ment of the meaning, Czech řevnivý and (Serbian Belarusian and Croatian раўнíвы ‘zealous, la borious, diligent,’ Ukrainian ‘diligent,révnostan conscientious’, Macedonian – with aревносен further develop рéвностный *revьnъ ). Other-ostь adjectives. A meaning with the meaning ‘zealous’ (Serbian and Croatian řevnivý , Russian ревнвый ) are based on a derivative from with the suffix ревнѝв - which is motivatedревна -иш by ‘zealous’ is ‘jealous/envious’ (e.g., Czech , Russian- ‘envious,’ early ‘zealous,’ cf. also the Bulgarian and Macedonian ‘en vious’ from ‘to be envious’). A different direction of the semantic development may be discerned in Ukrainian where the meaning ‘heavy, about rain’ probably has the basis ‘violent; strong,’ and this, similarly as ‘zealous,’ is associated with the in tensity of a roar. Cf. also SAD, 11B.5, p. 224. 15A.3. Western and Eastern *ščirъ : *čirъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *ščirъ : *čirъ is derived from the PIE *(s)ke-ro- ‘separated; without foreign admixtures’ the form with the s- szczyry ‘cut off, щclearlyрый separated, without admixtures.’čirý In and the Slovak Proto-Slavic číry languages there is the continuation-ro- of indiboth- mobile (e.g. the Old Polish , dial. Russian ) as well as without it (Czechskeirs skirr). A nominal derivative with the suffixschier - cates that the meaning ‘separatedcir from foreign admixtures’ was already Proto-Slavic (cf.root Gothic *(s)ke - : *(s)kē ‘distinct,’- Old Norse ‘pure, transparent,’ German ‘undilut ed, without additions,’ OIr ‘pure’). The meaning is innovative in reference to the PIE The meaning based ‘to on cut, continuants to separate’ [Pokorny: 919].

and in Old Polish whereas the continuants ‘uniform, in other languageswithout admixtures’ are motivated by this The meaning ‘pure, uniform, without admixtures’ is attested in East Slavic languages 253

Conceptual Groups meaning. Perhaps it was already in the Proto-Slavic language that the adjective was applied to man in a metaphoric psychological meaning ‘hiding nothing; frank,’ which isInnovative indicated both meanings by the East Slavic languages as well as Polish and Lower Sorbian. - rived directly from the Proto-Slavic meaning and they clearly indicated it. Among the innovativeThe meanings meanings of the Czechthe ones and that Slovak are wordmost relevant– ‘pure, transparent,’ for my work ‘authentic’are those that – are refer de šćiry wellto man, as thenamely similar the developmentLSorb , which in the features Belarusian the developmentщры from ‘frank’ to ‘naïve, simple’In Belarusian (but also and to Ukrainian ‘honest’) theand lexemes further intensificationщрий, щры alsoof pejoration developed to the ‘boorish,’ meaning as to ‘trustful, simplehearted.’

‘zealous’ and then ‘diligent.’ *gorlivъ

15A.4.Etymological meaning The PSlav *gorěti *ghor- - ‘hot’ garti gariù – a verb of state – is based*g onher- the PIE perfective stem (simi θέρεινlarly as, Armenian the exact džeraw Lithuanian equivalent – early ‘to burn,’ modern ‘to change into a pair’). The basis is the PIE ‘to become hot; to burn,’ cf. Greek Structural meaning ‘to have a fever.’ -livъ from *gorěti ‘combustible,’ ‘hot’ AThe derivative meanings with basedthe suffix on continuants ‘to burn.’ horlivý as well as Croatian and Serbian gòrljiv ‘combustible; hot,’ ‘fervent/zealous’ TheProto-Slavic meaning period. ‘combustible’ is attested by the Old Czech . ‘Fervent’ is a metaphoric meaning arose presumably already in the Innovative meanings

gorliwy, Slovak horlivý, Serbian and OnCroatian the basis gòrljiv of the metaphoric meaning ‘fervent’ there emergedgòrljiv further meanings which refer to human features:gòrljiv ‘diligent’ (Polish horlivý Polish gorliwy ), ‘conscientious, caring’gorliwy (Serbian and Croatian gorliwy), ,‘fast; Serbian mobile’ and Croatian(Serbian gòrljivand Croatian ), ‘passionate’gorliwy (Czech ), ‘envious’ > ‘heated’ early Croatian gòrljiv, ‘irate,’ dial. Polish , ‘violent’ (dial. Polish ), ‘ambitious’ dial. Polish , ‘kind; cordial; valuable’ (Serbian and ). 15A.5. *snažьnъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *snaga – obscure Structural meaning does not have a reliable etymology [cf. the review in ESUM 5: 332]. A derivative from the PSlav *snaga ‘conscientious, careful’ ‘conatus, effort.’ The Development of Words Across Centuries

254 The meanings based on continuants - tic discrepancies between the continuants ‘pure,’and the ‘fervent/zealous,’ unknown etymological ‘strong’ meaning. The initial Proto-Slavic meaning is difficult to establish due to thesnażny considerable, Slovene semansnážen, early Serbian and Croatian snážam снажныи. It is therefore attested The meaning ‘pure’ is indicated by the early and dial. Polish and Croatian snážan, Bulgarian and and Macedonian Old Russian сн àжен in all groups of theснажн languages.й The meaning ‘strong’ is attested in South Slavic (Serbian snażny, Czech and Slovak) andsnažný East Slavic languages (dial. Ukrainian ). The meanings ‘diligent, fervent; strenuous’ are peculiar to InnovativeWest Slavic languages meanings (Old Polish ). The impossibility of establishing the initial Proto-Slavic meaning also makes it impossible for us to determine which of the meanings may be recognized as an innovative

meaning and what the sequence of the emergence of the particular meanings was. 15A.6. Western and Eastern *dělьnъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *dělo -lo from the verbum *děti, which is derived in turn from the PIE *dhē- ‘laid/set (down)’ is a derivative with the suffix Structural meaning ‘to lay/ponere.’ A derivative from the PSlav *dělo ‘associated with work, with the results of work’ The meaning based on continuants ‘work, the effect of work.’

In the continuants of *dělьnъ ‘associated with work,’ Western ‘hard-working,’ Eastern ‘industrious’ dźělny źělny, Czech dělný one may clearly perceive the structural meaning ‘associatedдéльный with work.’ In the west there is the dominance of the meaning ‘hard-working’ (e.g. USorb , LSorb ) whereas in the East – ‘industrious’ (Russian ). *sporъ

15A.7.Etymological meaning The meaning based on ‘successful,continuants fruitful’ [see FAT, 5A.5, p.ut 151] supra Innovative meanings ‘efficient, abundant’ ( )

The meanings ‘diligent, willing to do sth’ in the early Polish and in Polish dialects, ‘eager, prompt’ in Czech arose as a result of an association result: ‘efficient’ > cause: ‘fast,’ ‘able,’ ‘fervent/zealous,’ ‘eager.’ 15A.8. Eastern *ěglъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘strong’ [see VIOLENT,ut supra 10A.1, p. 205] ‘quick,’ ‘violent’ ( ) 255

Conceptual Groups The meaning based on continuants ut supra

Innovative meanings ‘violent,’ ‘quick’ > ‘fervent’ ( )

The innovationнеглый which. is derived from the meaning ‘fervent/zealous’ is the directly unattested ‘active, hard-working,’ discernible in the adjective with negation – dial. Russian 15A.9. *dikъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on continuants– obscure [see VIOLENT, 10A.7, p. 207] ut supra ‘not used by people’ > ‘undomesticated’ >Innovative ‘violent’ ( meanings)

The meanings ‘fervent/zealous; diligent; enterprising, hard-working’ which occur in north Russian dialects are probably motivated by mobility, and therefore they could have emerged from the previous meaning ‘violent.’ 15A.10. *skbьnъ Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘cut; cutting’ (?) ‘wrinkled, curled up’ [see SAD,Structural 11B.1, meaningp. 221] ut supra The meanings based ‘doleful; on continuants sad’ ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘sick,’ ‘sad’ ( ) skŕben, Croatian and Serbian skban The meanings ‘caring; careful’ in the western part of the South Slavic group (Slovene ) emerged by way of a gradual transposition of the skŕbitisemantic dominant ‘sad’ > ‘concerned about sth’ > ‘striving after sth; caring.’ It arose withprobably a secondary from ‘sad,’ deverbal not directly semantic but by motivation. the intermediation of the Serbian and Croatian ‘conari; to care for sth’ from the earlier ‘to be concerned about,’ and therefore

Summary of Semantic Changes

15A.1. *pilьnъ 15A.1.1. ← ← etym. DILIGENTor Western, Eastern URGING FORWARD struct. SETTING IN MOTION 15A.1.2. ← ←

DILIGENT Western, Eastern URGED FORWARD struct. SET IN MOTION etym. 256 The Development of Words Across Centuries

15A.2. *revьnъ, *revьnivъ ← ← ← DILIGENT Serbian, Croatian ZEALOUS Serbian, Croatian ONE THAT ROARS 15A.3. *ščirъ/*čirъ FROM EFFORT PSlav ROARING etym. ← ← ←

DILIGENT Eastern HONEST Western, Eastern UNIFORM Western, Eastern *gorlivъ SEPARATED etym. ← 15A.4. 15A.5. *snažьnъ FERVENT/ZEALOUS Western, Serbian, Croatian HOT etym. 15A.5.1.

or 15A.5.2.DILIGENT PSlav (?) obscure ← ← 15A.6. *dělьnъ DILIGENT FERVENT/ZEALOUS PSlav (?) CONSCIENTIOUS struct. (?) ← sporъ DILIGENT ASSOCIATED WITH WORK struct. ← ← 15A.7. * 15A.8. *ěglъ DILIGENT Polish, Czech EFFICIENT PSlav ABUNDANT PSlav ← ← ← *DILIGENT (=LAZY with negation) Belarusian FERVENT/ZEALOUS early Russian 15A.9. *dikъ VIOLENT dial. Russian STRONG etym. ← ← ← PSlav ← ← DILIGENT dial. Russian FERVENT/ZEALOUS dial. Russian *MOBILE VIOLENT 15A.10. *skbьnъ UNDOMESTICATED PSlav NOT USED BY PEOPLE PSlav ← ← ← SAD Southern, Eastern DILIGENT Slovene, Croatian, Serbian CONSCIENTIOUS Slovene, Croatian, Serbian CARING Slovene, Croatian, Serbian

A peculiar feature of the concept ‘diligent’ is that it enters the semantic string with the concept ‘fervent,’ on the*revьnъ one hand,, *snažьnъ and with, *gorlivъ ‘conscientious’, *ščirъ/čirъ on, *sporъthe other., *dikъ Fervency constitutes the direct motivation of the meaning ‘diligent’ ofin the*ĕglъ development, which is attested of the lexemesonly with ( negation in the antonymous meaning. ); it is likely that this motivation was featured also by a continuant skbьnъ, perhaps alsoThe meaning*snažьnъ ‘conscientious’ is in the majority of cases secondary in reference to ‘diligent,’ although*dělьnъ a reverse situation is also possible ( the particular –Slavic indirect, languages. uncertain motivation). The motivation of the concept ‘diligent’ by work ( in this context) is peculiar to the words derived in Conceptual Groups 257

15B.1.15B. LAZY *lěnъ/*lěnivъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *lěnъ continues the PIE *lē-no-, a nominal form from the root *lē- ‘loose’ *lē-- lewjan *lē-d-‘to loosen;:, e.g., to let go,letan to leave,’ continued by thelodh verbs based on the PIE forms which are extended- by a suffix: : e.g. Gothic ‘to betray’lnas :

Theadjective meaning with the based suffix on continuants – *

‘lazy’ TheInnovative meaning meanings‘lazy’ is attested as the basic meaning in all Slavic languages. lěnъ, Czech líný, USorb lěni ленóй, Belarusian лан. The innovative meaning ‘slow’ is attested in the Old Church Slavonic , dial. Russian 15B.2. Eastern *vędlъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘miserable,ut suprawithered’ [see WEAK, 6B.8, p. 177] The meaning based ‘withered’on continuants ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘withered’ ( ) -

The meaning ‘withered,’ metaphorically transferred from plants to man, with the pres ervation of the semantic dominant ‘devoid of vigor,’ hence ‘weak,’ ‘lazy; slow.’ 15B.3. *gnusьnъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning – uncertainut supra [see UGLY, 3B.1, p. 134] The meanings based ‘revolting’ on continuants ( ) ut supra ‘causing physical revulsion’ > ‘causing mentalInnovative revulsion’ meanings ( ) The Polish gnuśny

in the meaning ‘lazy’ is an extension of the meaning ‘causing mental revulsion.’ 258 The Development of Words Across Centuries

*gyzdavъ

15B.4.Etymological Western meaning and Southern Structural meaning ‘revolting’ut [seesupra UGLY, 3B.4, p. 136] The meaning based ‘revolting’on continuants ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘revolting, abhorrent’ ( ) The dial. Polish gizdavy

in the meaning ‘lazy’ is an extension of the meaning ‘causing mental revulsion.’ 15B.5. *dręchlъ

Etymological meaning

The meanings based on – ‘rotten’continuants (?) [see SAD, 11B.2, p. 222] ut supra ‘decrepit, weak due to old age,’ ‘sad’ (Innovative) meanings

In Old Russian the meanings ‘slow’ > ‘lazy’ arose on the basis of the meaning ‘decrepit, weak due to old age.’ 15B.6. *chylъ

Etymological meaning

Structural meaning ‘bent’ [seeut supraWEAK, 6B.4, p. 175] The meaning based ‘obliquus’on continuants ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘bent’ ( ) хлый

The Russian ‘ignavus, drowsy; lazy’ is a secondary meaning, based on ‘weak’ *mzlivъ

15B.7.Etymological meaning Structural meaning ‘rotten, decayed’ut supra [cf. UNPLEASANT, 2B.4, p. 122] The meaning based ‘abhorrent’on continuants ( ) ut supra Innovative meanings ‘abhorrent’ ( ) -livъ: *mzlivъ assumed the meaning мързелѝв мрзелив Thethe verb South м(ъ)рзи Slavic deverbal ме adjective with the suffix ‘lazy’ in Bulgarian ( ) and Macedonian ( ). The basis is the meaning of ‘I am disgusted by sth, especially about work.’ 259

Conceptual Groups 15B.8. *lochъ/*lošь

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘weak’ (?) ‘obliquus’ (?) [see BAD, 1B.2, p.The 105] meaning based on continuants ut supra ‘bad, especially in the moral sense’ (Innovative) meanings лóший

The dial. Russian ‘lazy,’ apart from which there is also the subst. ‘idler; dullard,’ is an instance of the narrowing down of the meaning – a result of a negative evaluation.

Summary of Semantic Changes

15B.1. *lěnъ/*lěnivъ ← 15B.2. *vędlъ LAZY PSlav LOOSE etym. ← 15B.3. *gnusьnъ LAZY Eastern WITHERED Eastern ← *gyzdavъ LAZY Polish REVOLTING PSlav ← 15B.4. 15B.5. *dręchlъ LAZY dial. Polish REVOLTING PSlav ← 15B.6. *chylъ LAZY Old Russian DEVOID OF STRENGTH/DECREPIT PSlav ← WEAK Eastern ← ← *mzъ LAZY Russian OBLIQUUS PSlav CURVED etym. ← 15B.7. 15B.8. *lochъ/*lošь LAZY Bulgarian, Macedonian ABHORRENT PSlav ← BAD PSlav

LAZY dial. Russian or with a result which has to do with a negative evaluation of laziness, namely The motivations *gnusьnъof the concept, *gyzdavъ ‘lazy’ are associated either with its causes*lošь The causes of being lazy, which constitute the basis of nomination, involve causing revulsion ( *mzlivъ ) or with the evaluation itself*dręselъ ( ).: *dręchlъ, *chylъ being disgusted*vędlъ by work ( ), lack of strength,*lěnъ / weakness*lěnivъ ( ) and the features which are manifestations of weakness: withering ( ) and lack of tension, slackness ( ). 260 The Development of Words Across Centuries

16A. WISE

16A.1. *mǫdrъ Etymological meaning The PSlav *mǫdrъ is derived by scholars from the PIE *mondh-ro-, a nominal form with -ro-, based on the ‘thinking’PIE *mendh- men- dhē- - the suffix mandrùs ‘to learn,’ considered a PIE compound ofmu ȏdrs ‘mind; thought’ and ‘to lay (transitive), ponere.’ The exact equivalentsmuntar include Bal tic languages: Lithuanian ‘proud; brave; daring, arbitrary,’ Latvian word‘lively, with energetic’ the aforementioned and Germanic words, languages: the former e.g. Old represents High German the initial meaning. ‘sprightly, energetic; fervent/zealous’ [Heidermanns: 416]. When one compares the Proto-Slavic The meaning based on continuants

mudry, Slovene móder ‘wise’, Bulgarian мдър, Belarusian мýдры In the continuants in all Slavic languages the basic meaning is ‘wise; knowledgeable; rational’Innovative (cf. e.g. meanings Sorbian ). Instances of a development toward meanings referring to features of character are rare, e.g., Bulgarian мдър mȗdar - ‘wise, rational’ > ‘calm, mild,’ early Croatian ‘careful, variantswatchful.’ of In the these languages, cases the consists semantic in thedevelopment transposition consists of the in dominant the shift of from meaning theoret toward the result of ‘being wise.’ A crucial semantic innovation, above all in the dialectal mądry moudrý ical to practical skills,m úalsodar with an additional semanticмýдрый element “using one’s abilities- tobined the detrimentwith the transposition of other people” of the (dial. reference Polish to inanimate ‘cunning; objects sly,’ dial. may Czech be discerned ‘idem,’also in dialectsdial. Serbian where the continuants ‘idem,’ dial. of Russian *mǫdr ‘idem’). A development com mądre мýдрый Ukrainian мýдрий assumed the meaning ‘of good quality’ (e.g.,overtones the dial. was Polish preserved “ here.jabłka [apples]”, dial. Russian “ хлеб [bread],” dial. ‘tasty’). Of the whole conceptual structure only the seme of positive

16A.2. *umьnъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav *umъ *amo- ‘perceiving; experiencingaumuõ sth with one’s senses’ - pean noun is based ‘intellect’ on the verbal continues root *a the- PIE ‘idem.’ The closest equivalent, based on a consonantal stem, is the Lithuanian ‘intellect.’ The Proto-Indo-Euro Structural meaning ‘to experience sth with one’s senses; to feel.’ -ьnъ from the PSlav *umъ ‘associated with the intellect’ AThe derivative meaning with based the suffix on continuants ‘intellect.’

umný, Slovene úmen, Bulgarian ‘wise, ỳмен rational’ýмный The continuants in all Slavic languages indicate the meanings ‘wise; rational; prudent’ (e.g. Slovak , Russian ). 261

Conceptual Groups Innovative meanings umьnъIn the particular languages the meaning ‘rational’ was extended. Thus, on the one umnýhand, there emerged the meaning ‘spiritual’ apart from ‘mental’ (Old Church Slavonic ) and ‘associated with dexterity, with manual skills’ (early Czech and Slovak ) on the other. 16A.3. *kovarьnъ

Etymological meaning The PSlav verb *kovati is derived by scholars from the PIE root *kā- ‘associated with hitting, whacking’ ‘to hit, to whack, Structuralto strike’ [Boryś: meaning 271; LIV: 308]. -ьnъ from *kovarь *kovati ‘characteristic of/pertaining to a smith’ A derivative with the suffix ‘smith’; ‘doer,’ which is based on The‘to forge.’ meaning based on continuants The meanings which are attested in Slavic languages prove that it was already in the ‘dexterous, skillful’ > ‘sly’

Proto-Slavic language that the meaning ‘dexterous, skillful’ developed into ‘sly,’ which may indicate a positive evaluation of theковáрный meaning ‘sly’ and the presence of the seme- ‘wise’ in this meaning. Therefore perhaps also the meaning ‘wise,’ which seems to be an innovation of the Russian language ( ) should be reconstructed as an in termediary developmental link between ‘dexterous, skillful’ and ‘sly.’ *chytrъ

16A.4.Etymological meaning – uncertain ‘one that acquires sth’ (?) [see QUICK, 9A.3,Structural p. 198] meaning ut supra The meanings based ‘capable on continuants of grasping; grasping,’ ‘prehensile’ ( ) ut supra ‘quick,’ ‘skillful’; ‘cunning/smart; bright’Innovative ( meanings) interestingOn the basis that of in the the meaning Kashubian ‘bright, dialect capax’ or in there the Ukrainian emerged meaningslanguage the with meanings positive overtones – ‘wise, rational, intelligent’ – and negative overtones – ‘cunning, sly.’chytry It is

‘wise’ and ‘cunning’ exist side by side. The second Polish meaning of the lexeme ‘one who pursues material goods, avidus’ may contain traces of the initial motivation with the meaning ‘to grasp.’ From this meaning there emerged further meanings with negative overtones and which contain the sense ‘to grasp’ > ‘to want to have sth for oneself’: colloq. ‘stingy’ and dial. ‘jealous’ (dial. also ‘fastidious’). 262 The Development of Words Across Centuries

16A.5. *bystrъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on ‘violent; continuants rapidly flowing’ [see QUICK, 9A.2, p. 198] ut supra ‘rapid, about a river current’ > ‘clean,’ fig.Innovative ‘bright;’ ‘sprightly’meanings ( ) -

people.The meaning The basis ‘bright’ of the which metaphoric may be consideredmeaning may an be aspect both ofspeed, the concept as well as‘wise’ transpar prob- ency,ably emerged purity. already in the Proto-Slavic period as a figurative meaning referring to

16A.6. *zъlъ

Etymological meaning

The meanings based on ‘obliquus’ continuants > ‘bad’ [see BAD, 1B.1,ut supra p. 104] Innovative meanings ‘bad’ > ‘irate’ ( )

theThe lexemes innovative злой meaning, зол ‘wise,*zъlъjь capable;, *zъlъ cunning, sly, wiseacre (adj.),’ ‘skillful/capable’;- fig. ‘about memory, very good, retentive’ appear in Russian dialects as the meanings of (< ) apart from the meanings which express intensity (‘fond of sth,’ ‘strong (of frost)’). It seems that it is the seme of intensity (the same capabilities.that is present The in semanticthe meaning development ‘irate,’ which of the was PSlav probably *chudъ already in the a Slovene Proto-Slavic language mean is ing) played a significant role in the formation of meanings associated with intellectual

consistent with this development until a certain stage [see BAD, 1B.3, p. 105]. *dělьnъ

16A.7.Structural meaning - ‘associated with work, with the result of work’ [see DIL IGENT,The meaning 15A.6, p. based 254] on continuants - ut supra Western ‘hard-working,’ Eastern ‘re sourceful’Innovative ( meanings)

dzielnyIn some languages on the basis ofд theéльный meaning ‘capable of working; hard-working, laborious’ there emerged meanings which referred to mental capabilities (early Polish ‘rational, prudent,’ Russian ‘idem’). 263

Conceptual Groups Summary of Semantic Changes

16A.1. *mǫdrъ WISE PSlav ← 16A.2. *umьnъ THINKING etym. WISE PSlav ← 16A.3. *kovarьnъ EXPERIENCING STH WITH ONE’S SENSES etym. ← ←

WISE Old Russian, Russian-Church Slavic DEXTEROUS PSlav PERTAINING TO *chytrъ A SMITH struct. WISE PSlav ← ← ← QUICK PSlav ← 16A.4.struct. CUNNING/SMART PSlav SLY PSlav PREHENSILE 16A.5. *bystrъ 16A.5.1. WISE PSlav ← ← QUICK PSlav or 16A.5.2. TRANSPARENT PSlav WISE PSlav ← QUICK PSlav 16A.6. *zъlъ ← ← BAD PSlav *dělьnъ WISE dial. Russian *INTENSIVE (?) ← ← 16A.7.struct. WISE Polish, Russian CAPABLE OF WORKING PSlav ASSOCIATED WITH WORK

*mǫdrъ *umьnъ withThe various motivations kinds of of the physical concept activity ‘wise’78 arewhere associated physical with properties all of the spheressuch as of man’s*bystrъ existence:, *chytrъ with thinking ( ), feeling ( ), and finally, *kovarьnъ speed ( *dělьnъ – intermediate motivation), the proficiency in a given- craft ( – intermediate motivation) or the capability of working in alsogeneral cunning, ( shrewdness.) are transposed An attempt to the at explainingmental sphere. the indirect In both motivation of the afore of mentioned cases the direct motivation is presumably proficiency, skill but the concept ‘wise’ by ‘bad’ was presented above.

This obvious motivational sphere is peculiar above all to the derivatives which emerged independently78 in various Slavic languages. The Development of Words Across Centuries

264 16B. STUPID

16B.1. *glupъ

Etymological meaning It is most likely derived from a nominal form *glo-po- *gluchъ < *glo- so- *g(ə)le- ,‘crushed; which in turn compressed’ is derived from the original *gel- -e -(similarly. A less probable as relationship would), from be withthe PIE the PSlav glumъ *g‘tohle crush,- to squeeze, to stuff up,’ extended by the determinant - ‘iocus, derision,’ probably based on the PIE ‘to be merry; to jest’ [cf. Sławski 1: 296]. An attempt is made to combine both interpreta Thetions meaningby Čop [1973: based 45–46]. on continuants - ‘stupid’ глупáя The meaning ‘stupid’ is preserved in all Slavic languages. Perhaps one should recon relatedstruct the *gluchъ meaning ‘dark’ as the initial one (cf. dial. Russian “ ночь” ‘a dark night,’ clogging,similarly incontracting, Ukrainian crushing.and Belarusian), based – as in the semantic development of the ‘deaf’ – on the limiting of the possibilities of sensory experiences by Innovative meanings głupi, dial. Czech hloupý глýпый A common innovative meaning is ‘mad’ (e.g. the Polish , Russiangłupi, Slovak hlupý) as , an Serbian extension glȗp of the conceptual sphere which refers to mindlessness. A different directionглýпый of development is discernible in ‘unimportant’ (e.g. Polish - ), hence other referencesgla topĕ a man of inferior worth, e.g., athe similar dial. Russian course. ‘miserable, mean; poor,’ ‘simple’ > ‘boorish’; ‘naïve’ > ‘imma ture.’ The development of the Polabian continuant ‘young’ presumably pursued

16B.2. *tǫpъ Etymological meaning As far as the formal aspects are concerned, it seems likely that the PSlav *tǫpъ is a continuant of a nominal form –from uncertain the PIE *temp- tepti tempiù *stumpa- ‘to stretch,’ cf. stumpfthe Lithuanian, Dutch stump although ‘to it stretch.’ must be However, referred toit isa Proto-Indo-Europeandifficult to justify semantically. form with Onea voiced is struck consonant. by the semantic identity with*stumma- the Proto-Germanic (German ),-

Thevowel. Proto-Germanic ‘mute’ is also semantically related. In this case the as similation-relateds- 79 changes preclude the establishment of the original quality *tofǫ thepъ, one should However, treat it inas boths- mobile. cases we are faced with the problem of the syllable-onset in Germanic, which, if we support the idea of the relationship with the PSlav

**stumba- with the PSlav79 *tǫpъ Cf. a comparison of the reconstructed Proto-Germanic alternate form [Heidermanns: 564]. 265

Conceptual Groups The meanings based on continuants

tępy, Czech tupý, Slovene tóp ‘blunt,туп ónotй sharp,’ ‘stupid (?)’ The basic meaning which is commonly preserved in Slavic languages is ‘blunt, not sharp’- (e.g. Polish , Russian ). The meaning ‘incapable; stupid’ inis alsothe laterpan-Slavic. period. It The is difficult same metaphor to decide iswhether visible inthis the innovation emergence arose of other still inmeanings, the Pro e.g.,to-Slavic in the language Czech language or – as a which productive refer tophenomenon the low degree – it ofarose something, beyond theespecially Slavic realmwhen talking about the senses, e.g., ‘weak, about the sense of hearing, smelling, memory etc.’ 16B.3. *durъ/*durьnъ

Etymological meaning

– uncertain ‘blowing, associated with wind’ (?) [see VIOLENT,The meanings 10A.5, based p. 207] on continuants ut supra ‘agitated, violent; impetuous,’ Northern ‘mad’Innovative ( meanings) perhaps still during the existence of the Proto-Slavic community. Then a transposition ofThe the meaning dominant ‘mad’ and may a change be considered of meaning a common occurred, North e.g. PolishSlavic innovation,durny which arose-

from ‘mad’ > ‘stu pid; limited; mentally retarded.’ *bujь

16B.4.Etymological meaning The meanings based –on obscure continuants [see VIOLENT, 10A.6, p. 208] ut supra ‘overdeveloped; rapidly growing; Innovativeabundant’ ( meanings) in the earliest stages of the development of the languages: Old Church Slavonic bujь The innovative meaning ‘stupid,’буйь based on the preceding link ‘mad,’ is attested already

‘stupid, mad,’ Old Russian ‘daring; mad; stupid.’ 16B.5. *bolgъ

Etymological meaning

– obscure ‘shining, gleaming’ (?) [see PLEASANT, 2A.2, p.The 116] meanings based on continuants ut supra ‘good, kind, pleasant,’ ‘happy, prosperous’ (Innovative) meanings благóй бологóй

Russian (a South Slavic form of Church Slavonic origin instead of ) ‘stupid, quick-tempered’ apart from ‘good, respectable; happy.’ Two possibilities may 266 The Development of Words Across Centuries

bláhový blaho < *bolgo be considered. Either the intermediation of the unattested meaning ‘naïve’ (cf. Czech motivated ‘idem,’ but today a derivative is perceived from as a euphemism. ‘good(ness); happiness, prosperity’) or a development from ‘happy; blessed’ to ‘mad,’ which sometimes could be culturally

16B.6. *dikъ

Etymological meaning

The meaning based on continuants – obscure [see VIOLENT, 10A.7, p. 209] ut supra ‘not used by people’ > ‘untamed’ > ‘violent’ (Innovative) meanings дкий

The basis of the meaning ‘stupid’ of the dial. Russian is probably ‘undomesticated;- untamed,’ which is motived by an anthropocentric evaluation of reality. However, due to the common semantic development ‘mad’ > ‘stupid’ one should also take into consid eration the possibility of the following development: ‘wild’ > ‘violent’ > ‘mad’ > ‘stupid.’

Summary of Semantic Changes

16B.1. *glupъ 16B.1.1. STUPID PSlav ← ← or 16B.1.2. INACCESSIBLE etym. CLOGGED etym. STUPID PSlav ← 16B.2. *tǫpъ FUNNY etym. STUPID pan-Slavic ← 16B.3. *durьnъ NOT SHARP PSlav ← ← ← ASSOCIATED

STUPID Northern MAD Polish, Russian, Ukrainian VIOLENT etym. *bujь WITH WIND (?) etym. ← MAD Eastern ← ← - 16B.4. STUPID Old Russian, Russian, Ukrainian VIOLENT PSlav OVER 16B.5. *bolgъ DEVELOPED PSlav 16B.5.1. ← ← ← or 16B.5.2.STUPID Russian *NAÏVE MILD PSlav SHINING (?) etym. ← ← ← 16B.6. *dikъ STUPID Russian MAD Russian BLESSED HAPPY PSlav 16B.6.1. ←

STUPID dial. Russian UNTAMED PSlav Conceptual Groups or 267 16B.6.2. ← ← ←

STUPID dial. Russian MAD dial. Russian VIOLENT PSlav UNTAMED PSlav

*durьnъ, *bujь, *bolgъ, *dikъ Among the motivations*durьnъ, *bujь of the, possibly concept *dikъ ‘stupid’ madness clearly sets itself clearlyapart ( indicates that stupidity is motivated – alternative by a lack motivation), of judgment. which The in moti two- vationsor three associated cases ( with limiting,80 ) is motivated by violence.*glupъ This *tǫpъ - caused either by a lack of access ( )- orother a lack sphere. of an The appropriate names which tool belong ( )to are this very semantic different group from may this constitute motiva tion. The motivation based on naïveté as a result of stupidity belong to yet an of a word. a rewarding field of research of the etymological qualities in the connotations

80 The motivation by limiting is typical for other derivatives which are not analyzed in the work. See Jakubowicz 2004.

7 A DICTIONARY OF SEMANTIC CHANGES

The dictionary of semantic changes is by design an onomasiological index, whereas the material which is contained in this index may be arranged according to the final concepts (here the basis of the arrangement has to do with the received meanings1 The – motivated authors of meanings) diachronic or research according of tothe the changes initial concepts (the basis of the arrangement are motivating meanings, also known asmeaning, semantic which motivations). I discuss in a more comprehensive manner in the context of theof meanings description choose of research one of theseof the arrangements, parallels of semantic usually development according to thatthe final was conducted heretofore. The following sample of the dictionary actually contains two dictionaries - with an onomasiological arrangement: one is arranged according to final concepts, the other according to initial concepts. The sequence in the dictionary arranged according to final concepts is analogous to the sequence of the chap aters dictionary which refer based to theon amaterial. greater corpusThis sequence of semantic was retainedchanges forit would the sake be beneof the- reader’s convenience who peruses these chapters. However, I believe that in ficialThe to onomasiological give up an interchangeable dictionary is arrangement arranged according of semantic to initial groups concepts, (of words com- withpiled antonymouson the basis of meanings). the material of my work; it is apparently similar to a semasiological dictionary because the same Proto-Slavic lexemes occur relatively

1 According to the premise which is embraced at the beginning of the work, when I use the term concept, I have in mind the whole group of words with one meaning, whereas I use the term meaning in reference to the particular lexemes. The Development of Words Across Centuries

270 2 Such a state of affairs results from the perforce limited number of lexemes which were included in frequentlythe dictionary. in the The role greater of initial their concepts number in will a given be, the group. easier it will be to compose conceptual groups. In the present state of things, these groups are dispersed

which conditioned the choice of lexemes. to aIn great the dictionaryextent because I put it not is not only the Proto-Slavic initial motivation, meanings but asthe the final initial, meaning, motivating, meanings but also those that motivated the particular links of the semantic string in the entire developmental process. This is consistent with

meanings that emerged: ranging all the way from the etymological meaning acrossthe premises structural of my meanings work, that to the is withreconstructed the reconstruction meanings ofon thethe subsequentbasis of the meanings of the continuants and further on, until we reach the innovative meanings which emerged after the dissolution of the Proto-Slavic community. The dictionary includes both direct motivating meanings as well as indirect ones. Therefore sometimes surprising combinations such as: motivations by

of fact, it is such paradoxical combinations that best justify the compilation of dictionariesantonymous of concepts, semantic e.g. parallels. ‘good’ by The ‘bad’ very or possibility ‘pretty’ by of‘repulsive.’ seeking motivations As a matter

to solve the most complex etymological mysteries. The greatest number of suchin them unexpected resulting motivations from developmental are associated strings with is theuseful etymological but is not meaningssufficient

because they are provided in the verbal form instead of the adjectival form, as inwhich the caseare easy of the to other find amongones. One the shouldother ones note inthat the such schema a group that of I employedmeanings - tion mark. The latter is used to mark such cases in which the reconstruction ofcontains the etymological the greatest meaning number is of based lexemes on uncertainwhich are or accompanied even doubtful by foundaa ques-

far as the course of the semantic development is concerned. In each of these tions. Another reason for employing the question mark is the lack of certainty as work which contains the material. casesA separate the reasons problem for using is associated the question with mark the arrangement may be found of in concepts the part inof the index which follows not the alphabetical order but the onomasiological order. And because the author of an index of semantic changes faces the same problems as the one faced by an author of any onomasiological dictionary, there is no need to present these problems in a comprehensive manner. The practical solutions which I decided to embrace are visible in both parts of the present dictionary, especially so in the dictionary arranged according to the initial

concepts, where the concepts are much more varied and thus are more difficult 2 In the model of a dictionary which is presented here all lexemes are provided in the Proto-Slavic form. In a dictionary in which the material would be more varied, it is reasonable to provide actually attested forms of words. A Dictionary of Semantic Changes to arrange. One should also add that not every meaning emphasized in the 271

“summaries of semantic changes” is included in the dictionary. I decided not to accordinginclude there to initial meanings concepts. which I could were indulge not sufficiently in such an distinctarbitrary and solution which because would thehardly present lend themselvesdictionary is to an the attempt model atof athe dictionary second index of semantic – the one motivations, arranged inclusion of all meanings is not the main goal of this dictionary. or: a proposition which is directed to the reader’s consideration. Therefore the

1. An Onomasiological Dictionary Arranged According to the Received Meanings RECEIVED concepts are printed in uppercase letters, initial concepts are printed in lowercase letters. The Proto-Slavic lexemes printed in italics, which follow initial concepts, realize a given schema of semantic development.

1A.location GOOD well-adjusted *dobrъ *lěpъ *godьnъ arranged in a series *rǫdьnъ *rędьnъ *ladьnъ appearance pretty *krasьnъ colorful *krasьnъ shining *bolgъ physical features big *bol’ьjь *drěčьnъ (?) strong *bol’ьjь *drěčьnъ *čilъ healthy *čilъ able *dělьnъ *chytrъ quick *chytrъ features of character hard-working *dělьnъ proud *gdъ evaluation pleasant *bolgъ pretty *krasьnъ *bolgъ magnificent *gdъ association with a tree trunk *drěčьnъ with work *dělьnъ The Development of Words Across Centuries

272 activities and states to grasp *chytrъ to stick, to glue *lěpъ

1B. BAD

appearance red *rъd’avъ shining *bolgъ physical features obliquus *zъlъ (?) flat *plochъ weak *lochъ *bolgъ *slabъ *chudъ small (?) *chudъ impermanent *marьnъ *polchъ (?) sharp *bridъkъ loose *slabъ temperament violent/rapid *durьnъ mad *bolgъ *durьnъ inspired *bolgъ features of character mild *bolgъ proud *gdъ evaluation revolting *gnusьnъ *gadьnъ *bridъkъ nasty *bridъ/*bridъkъ pleasant *bolgъ distinguished/singled out *bolgъ stupid *durьnъ primitive *durьnъ worthless *marьnъ *darьmьnъ *rъd’avъ *chudъ poor *bědьnъ *chudъ horrible *grozьnъ other (?) odd (of numbers) *lichъ remaining *lichъ false *marьnъ association with wind *durьnъ activities and states to move (intransitive) *polchъ to flee *polchъ to cut *bridъkъ to dream *marьnъ to give *darьmьnъ A Dictionary of Semantic Changes

to force *bědьnъ 273 to spoil (to become spoilt) *rъd’avъ *chabъ to rust *rъd’avъ (?)

2A.location PLEASANT well-adjusted *godьnъ *dobrъ *lěpъ arranged in a sequence *lagodьnъ appearance shining *bolgъ (?) features of character calm *lagodьnъ (?) mild *něžьnъ evaluation good *dobrъ *lěpъ *godьnъ beloved *dorgъ pretty *lěpъ dear *dorgъ activities and states to hold *jьmьnъ *dorgъ to touch *jьmьnъ

2B.location UNPLEASANT located opposite sth *protivьnъ physical features obliquus *zъlъ steep *prikrъ dirty *skvnъ ulcerated *vrědьnъ temperament violent *durьnъ features of character proud *gdъ evaluation bad *durьnъ *zъlъ revolting *mzъkъ *skvnъ *vrědьnъ terrible/dangerous *grozьnъ hostile *protivьnъ difficult *prikrъ different *protivьnъ The Development of Words Across Centuries

274 association with wind *durьnъ activities and states to spoil *skvnъ to do harm *vrědьnъ (?)

3A.location PRETTY well-adjusted *lěpъ *godьnъ arranged in a series *rędьnъ *ladьnъ appearance red *krasьnъ multicolored *krasьnъ *pěknъ/*pěkrъ dressed up *gyzdavъ smooth *gladъkъ ugly *gyzdavъ physical features big *zъlъ *drěčьnъ *grozьnъ high/tall *drěčьnъ thin *drěčьnъ shapely *ladьnъ mellow *kyprъ smooth * gladъkъ obliquus *zъlъ features of character proud *gdъ evaluation ugly *gyzdavъ bad *zъlъ magnificent *gdъ good *dělьnъ association with a tree trunk *drěčьnъ with work *dělьnъ

3B.physical UGLY features weak *marьnъ thin *chudъ sick *chvorъ rough *grǫbъ (?) sharp *bridъkъ rotten *mzъkъ A Dictionary of Semantic Changes 275 temperament violent *durьnъ features of character proud *gdъ evaluation revolting *bridъkъ *gnusьnъ *grozьnъ *gdъ *gadьnъ *gydъkъ *gyzdavъ *mzъkъ *rǫžьnъ bad *marьnъ *chudъ (?) *durьnъ terrible/dangerous *grozьnъ *gdъ funny *rǫžьnъ association with wind *durьnъ activities to cut *bridъ/*bridъkъ to spin/twist *grǫbъ

4A. HIGH/TALL location at the top *vysokъ physical features big *bol’ьjь *dǫžь *golěmъ *velь/*velikъ strong *bol’ьjь *dǫžь *golěmъ *velikъ association with a tree trunk *drěčьnъ activities and states to reach *dosǫžь

4B. LOW/SHORT location arranged in a series *rǫdьnъ at the bottom *nizъkъ physical features small *malъ *krǫpъ *knъ stout *krǫpъ damaged *knъ evaluation appropriate *rǫdьnъ activities and states to shrink *krǫpъ to cut *knъ The Development of Words Across Centuries

276

location 5A. inside FAT *jędrъ physical features big *jędrъ (?) strong *debelъ *sporъ *tǫgъ *jędrъ stout *krǫ pъ(?)/*krǫpьnъ swollen *jędrъ *tstъ (?) smooth *gladъkъ rough *grǫbъ/*grubъ (?) shrunk *krǫpь/*krǫpьnъ fat *gladъkъ *rychlъ mellow *rychlъ activities and states to spin/to twist/to roll *grǫbъ *grubъ to be successful *sporъ (?)/ (?)

5B.location THIN arranged in a series *lagodьnъ physical features weak *libъ *slabъ *chudъ (?) small *chudъ empty *tъščь (?) sick *chvorъ (?) delicate *lagodьnъ loose *slabъ evaluation bad *chudъ miserable *tъščь *chudъ *sъkromьnъ association (?) with a thin twig *šibъkъ (?) (?) activities and states to grope *ščuplъ to pinch *ščuplъ to cut *ščuplъ *sъkromьnъ

(?) (?)

6A.location STRONG at the center *jędrъ physical features big *drěčьnъ (?) tense *silьnъ *tǫgъ

(?) A Dictionary of Semantic Changes

hard *krěpъ/*krěpъkъ *tǫgъ *krǫtъ *storbъ *čstvъ 277 dense *čstvъ fat *jędrъ (?) (?) healthy *sъdorvъ (?) stiff *storbъ (?) age young *jarъ temperament violent *polchъ lustful *jarъ quick *polchъ sprightly *bъdrъ *čilъ *jarъ lively *čilъ features of character stern *strogъ hard-working *dělьnъ evaluation appropriate *dob’ь excessive *lichъ terrible/dangerous *strogъ other abundant/efficient *sporъ association with a tree trunk *drěčьnъ with work *dělьnъ with good-quality wood *sъdorvъ activities and states to run *polchъ to press *dǫžь to beat *čstvъ to enlace/to weave/to twist *čstvъ *krǫtъ to spin *krǫtъ (?) to endure *krěpъkъ *čstvъ to grow numb *storbъ to be successful *sporъ (?) to rest *čilъ to be on guard *strogъ to care *strogъ

6B. WEAK location arranged in a series *lagodьnъ appearance shining *bolgъ (?)

(?) The Development of Words Across Centuries

278 age old *vetъchъ physical features thin *šibъkъ *vetъchъ loose *slabъ *kyprъ *rъchlъ *rychlъ fragile/brittle *chudъ thin *chudъ empty *ǫtьlъ (?) tired *mъdьlъ taste sour *chabъ temperament slow *mъdьlъ (?) mental feature mild *bolgъ *lagodьnъ *něžьnъ evaluation bad *loch/*lošь *chabъ/*chabьnъ *chudъ insignificant *glupъ *bolgъ stupid *glupъ (?) association with a thin twig *šibъkъ activities and states to seethe *kyprъ to rot *ǫtьlъ to decay *dręchlъ to wither *vędlъ to sag *slabъ (?) to shake/to totter *rъchlъ *rychlъ *klękavъ to bend (oneself) *chylъ *klękavъ to incline *chylъ

7A.location HEALTHY arranged in a series *rǫdъ physical features strong *storbъ *rǫdъ *krěpъkъ hard *storbъ stiff *storbъ whole *cělъ *čitavъ temperament sprightly *rǫdъ *čilъ lively *čilъ evaluation appropriate *rǫdъ A Dictionary of Semantic Changes activities 279 to rest *čitavъ to grow numb *storbъ association with good-quality wood *sъdorvъ

7B.appearance SICK shining *bolgъ physical features weak *kyprъ *chudъ (?) *chylъ *ǫtьlъ *bolgъ *slabъ loose *slabъ temperament mad *durьnъ evaluation bad *durьnъ *plochъ *lošь activities and states to wrinkle *skbьnъ to twist *skbьnъ to cut/to wound *sk (?)bьnъ *chvorъ (?) (?)

8A.location YOUNG at the center *jędrьnъ physical features delicate *moldъ (?) soft *moldъ able *jędrьnъ fat *jędrьnъ features of character stupid *glupъ (?) temperament lustful *jarъ sprightly *jarъ evaluation (?) inexperienced (?)*glupъ stupid *glupъ association with spring *jarъ 280 The Development of Words Across Centuries

8B.appearance OLD grey-haired *šědivъ shining *bolgъ physical features big *dosǫgъ/*dos (?)ǫžь strong *starъ weak *dręchlъ *bolgъ *chylъ bent *chylъ rotten *dręchlъ age adult (adj.) *starъ (?) *dosǫgъ features of character mild *bolgъ simple *durьnъ stupid *durьnъ skillful *dosǫgъ evaluation bad *durьnъ pleasant *bolgъ association with wind *durьnъ activities to reach *dosǫgъ

9A. QUICK

location at the center *jędrъ physical features fat *jędrъ (?) strong *jędrъ abundant (?) *sporъ sharp *ľutъ efficient *sporъ temperament violent *ěglъ *šibъkъ *bystrъ *ľutъ *prǫdъ/*prǫdъkъ sprightly *bъdrъ features of character vigilant *bъdrъ eager *gorlivъ activities and state to move (oneself) *rychlъ *naglъ to grasp *chytrъ to jump *prǫdъ/*prǫdъkъ (?) A Dictionary of Semantic Changes 281

to flow *bystrъ to cut *ľutъ to be wakeful *bъdrъ

9B. S physicalLOW features weak *dręchlъ loose *lěnivъ temperament calm *tichъ features of character lazy *lěnivъ other free/independent *volьnъ activities and states to wither *vędlъ

10A.physical VIOLENT features strong *ěglъ *šibъkъ abundant *bujьnъ sharp *ľutъ temperament furious *ľutъ eager *kyprъ features of character brave *naglъ evaluation horrible *grozьnъ (?) untamed *divъ/*dikъ association with spring *jarъ with wind *durъ/*durьnъ activities and states (?) to be angry *ľutъ (?) to move (intransitive) *naglъ to seethe *kyprъ to spin/to twist (transitive) *kr (?)ǫtъ to jump *prǫdъ/*prǫdъkъ to run *polchъ (?) to grow *bujь *bujavъ *bujьnъ to cut *ľutъ 282 The Development of Words Across Centuries

10B.location CALM arranged in a sequence *lagodьnъ arranged neatly *k’ludьnъ physical features (?) weak *lagodьnъ clean/pure *kľudьnъ features of character (?) mild *mirьnъ *krotъkъ shy *plochъ mental features wise *mǫdrъ association with the animal world tame *jьmьnъ other silence *tichъ activities and states to rest *pokojьnъ to hold/to take *jьmьnъ to beat *krotъkъ

11A.location CHEERFUL/MERRY arranged in a series *rǫdъ physical features strong *dǫžь *čstvъ shapely *drěčьnъ slender *drěčьnъ high/tall *drěčьnъ sprightly *bъdrъ *budьnъ *čilъ *dǫžь *čstvъ *jarъ *rǫdъ features of character vigilant *bъdrъ/*budьnъ evaluation good *veselъ appropriate *rǫdъ association with a tree trunk *drěčьnъ with spring *jarъ *veselъ states to beat *čstvъ (?) to rest *čilъ (?) A Dictionary of Semantic Changes 283

11B. SAD physical features decrepit *dręselъ *dręchlъ evaluation terrible/dangerous *grozьnъ (?) association with venom *ědьnъ activities and states to wrinkle *skbьnъ to spin/to twist *skbьnъ to cut *skbьnъ (?) to roar/to cry *revьnъ (?) to stir up/to disturb (?) *sъmǫtьnъ

12A.physical STERN features sharp *bridъkъ *ľutъ steep *prikrъ hard *čstvъ *krǫtъ obliquus *zъlъ features of character callous *čsrvъ daring *gdъ proud *gdъ careful *strogъ cruel *krǫtъ *ľutъ evaluation bad *zъlъ difficult *prikrъ terrible/dangerous *grozьnъ *gdъ activities and states to be irate *zъlъ to scare *grozьnъ *gdъ to be on guard *strogъ to beat *bridъ/*bridъkъ *ľutъ *čstvъ to twist/to spin *krǫtъ

12B.position MILD arranged in a series *lagodьnъ appearance shining *bolgъ (?)

(?) The Development of Words Across Centuries

284 physical features weak *lagodьnъ delicate *milъ temperament calm *mǫdrъ *lagodьnъ *mirьnъ features of character shy *polchъ timorous *polchъ humble *pokorьnъ mental features wise *mǫdrъ evaluation delightful *bolgъ pleasant *bolgъ *milъ *mirьnъ activities to tame *krotъkъ to hold *jьmьnъ to punish *pokorьnъ to beat *krotъkъ (?) to flee *polchъ

13A.physical BRAVE features strong *bujь/*bujьnъ *drěčьnъ *dob’ь *lichъ *ľutъ big *drěčьnъ sharp *chorbrъ *ľutъ (?) temperament violent *bujь *bystrъ (?) *jarъ *prǫdъkъ wild *bujь/*bujьnъ quick *rychlъ sprightly *rychlъ valorous *dělьnъ features of character daring *gdъ haughty *gdъ proud *gdъ stern *chorbrъ *ľutъ evaluation suitable *dob’ь (?) capable *dělьnъ association with a tree trunk *drěčьnъ with work *dělьnъ activities to be vigilant *bъdrъ to beat *chorbrъ *ľutъ

(?) A Dictionary of Semantic Changes 285

13B. TIMID temperament violent *durьnъ *prǫdъ wild *durьnъ *dikъ *divъ *polchъ lazy *lěnivъ slow *lěnivъ evaluation bad *chabъ association with wind *durьnъ activities and states to jump *prǫdъ to run *polchъ to move (intransitive) *polchъ

14A.physical PROUD features strong *bъdrъ sprightly *bъdrъ hard *krǫtъ stiff *krǫtъ swollen *pyšьnъ features of character daring *bujьnъ *jarъ *bъdrъ audacious *bujьnъ *jarъ *bъdrъ temperament violent *bujьnъ *durьnъ *jarъ mad *durьnъ lustful *jarъ association with wind *durьnъ (?) with spring *jarъ activities and states to spin *krǫtъ to be vigilant *bъdrъ to blow *pyšьnъ

14B.features HUMBLE of character moderate *sъkromьnъ mild *mirьnъ (?) 286 The Development of Words Across Centuries

activities and states to punish *pokorьnъ to beat *krotъkъ to cut *sъkromьnъ

(?)

15A.physical DILIGENT features hot *gorlivъ strong *ěglъ uniform *ščirъ temperament violent *ěglъ lively *čilъ fervent/zealous *ěglъ *snažьnъ *revьnъ *gorlivъ *ščirъ *sporъ other efficient *sporъ abundant *sporъ uniform *ščirъ/*čirъ features of character frank *ščirъ hard-working *dělьnъ vigilant *bъdrъ careful *snažьnъ *skbьnъ caring *skbьnъ sad *skbьnъ evaluation bad *zъlъ association with work *dělьnъ activities and states to roar *revьnъ/*revьnivъ to hasten (transitive) *pilьnъ to cut *ščirъ *skbьnъ to crease *skbьnъ to twist/to spin *skbьnъ (?) to rest *čilъ (?) (?)

15B.appearance LAZY ugly *gyzdavъ physical features weak *vędlъ *dręchlъ *chylъ loose *lěnъ/*lěnivъ A Dictionary of Semantic Changes evaluation 287 revolting *gnusьnъ *gyzdavъ bad *lošь activities to wither *vędlъ to rot *mzlivъ

16A. WISE physical features obliquus *zъlъ quick *chytrъ dexterous *kovarьnъ skillful *kovarьnъ features of character cunning *chytrъ sly *kovarьnъ evaluation bad *zъlъ association with work *dělьnъ with a smith *kovarьnъ activities and states to grasp *chytrъ to hit *kovarьnъ to feel *umьnъ to think *mǫdrъ

16B. STUPID location lack of access *glupъ appearance shining *bolgъ physical features blunt *tǫpъ (?) abundant *bujь temperament violent *durьnъ *bujь mad *durьnъ *bujь *bolgъ features of character naïve *bolgъ (?) evaluation good *bolgъ blessed *bolgъ funny *glupъ

(?) 288 The Development of Words Across Centuries

association with wind *durъ/*durьnъ activities and state to clog *glupъ (?) to develop *bujь

2. An Onomasiological Dictionary Arranged According to Initial Meanings

INITIAL concepts are printed in uppercase characters, received concepts are printed in lowercase characters. The Proto-Slavic lexemes, printed in italics, realize a given model of the semantic development.

LOCATION OPPOSITE unpleasant *protivьnъ INSIDE fat *jędrъ strong *jędrъ young *jędrъ (?) quick *jędrъ (?) AT THE TOP (?) high/tall *vysokъ (?) AT THE BOTTOM low/short *nizьkъ WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF ORDER good *dobrъ *lěpъ *godьnъ *rǫdьnъ *rędьnъ *ladьnъ pleasant *godьnъ *dobrъ *lěpъ *lagodьnъ pretty *lěpъ *godьnъ *rędьnъ *ladьnъ low/short *rǫdьnъ (?) thin *lagodьnъ strong *dob’ь (?) weak *lagodьnъ (?) healthy *rǫdьnъ calm *lagodьnъ *kl’udьnъ (?) merry/cheerful *rǫdьnъ mild *lagodьnъ brave *dob’ь WITHOUT A COUNTERPART (?) bad *lichъ AT EASE (adv.) slow *volьnъ A Dictionary of Semantic Changes 289

PARAMETRIC FEATURES OLD weak *vetъchъ ADULT old *starъ *dosǫgъ YOUNG strong *jarъ BIG good *bol’ьjь *drěčьnъ pretty *zъlъ *drěčьnъ *grozьnъ high/tall *bol’ьjь *dǫžь *golěmъ *velь/*velikъ fat *jędrъ strong *drěčьnъ old *dosǫgъ (?) brave *drěčьnъ ABUNDANT stupid *bujь violent *bujь/*bujavъ/*bujьnъ SMALL low/short *malъ *krǫpъ *knъ thin *chudъ bad *chudъ FAT (?) strong *jędrъ young *jędrъ quick *jędrъ (?) low/short *kr (?)ǫpъ pretty *kyprъ (?) MELLOW/CHUBBY pretty *kyprъ fat *rychlъ THIN (and LEAN) ugly *chudъ weak *chudъ pretty *drěčьnъ (?) (?) *šibъkъ

FEATURES OF APPEARANCE PRETTY good *krasьnъ UGLY pretty *gyzdavъ lazy *gyzdavъ SHINING bad *bolgъ good *bolgъ (?) (?) 290 The Development of Words Across Centuries

pleasant/kind *bolgъ weak *bolgъ sick *bolgъ old *bolgъ (?) mild *bolgъ (?) stupid *bolgъ (?) (?) (?) COLORS COLORFUL good *krasьnъ pretty *krasьnъ RED bad *rd’avъ GREY old *šědivъ SMOOTH pretty *gladъkъ fat *gladъkъ

FEATURES OF PHYSICAL FITNESS STRONG good *bol’ьjь *drěčьnъ *čilъ high/tall *bol’ьjь *dǫžь *golěmъ *velь/*velikъ fat *debelъ *sporъ *tǫgъ *jędrъ healthy *storbъ *rǫdъ *krěpъkъ old *starъ (?) violent *ěglъ *šibъkъ brave *bujь/*bujьnъ *drěčьnъ *dob’ь *lichъ *l’utъ proud *bъdrъ ABLE (?) good *dělьnъ *chytrъ young *jędrьnъ WEAK bad *lochъ *bolgъ *chudъ ugly *marьnъ thin *libъ *slabъ *chudъ (?) sick *kyprъ *chudъ *chylъ *ǫtьlъ *bolgъ *slabъ old *dręchlъ *bolgъ *chylъ (?) slow *dręchlъ calm *lagodьnъ mild *lagodьnъ lazy *vędlъ *dręselъ (?) *dręchlъ *chylъ QUICK (?) good *chytrъ strong *chytrъ *polchъ A Dictionary of Semantic Changes 291

violent *rychlъ brave *rychlъ wise *chytrъ SLOW weak *mъdьlъ timorous *lěnivъ

FEATURES OF TEMPERAMENT VIOLENT bad *durьnъ unpleasant *durьnъ ugly *durьnъ strong *polchъ quick *ěglъ *šibъkъ *bystrъ *l’utъ *prǫdъ/*prǫdъkъ stern *jarъ *durьnъ *prǫdъ brave *bujь *bystrъ *jarъ *prǫdъkъ proud *bujьnъ (?) *durьnъ *jarъ diligent *ěglъ stupid *durьnъ *bujь CALM pleasant *lagodьnъ slow *tichъ mild *lagodьnъ *mǫdrъ *mirьnъ MILD bad *bolgъ pleasant/kind *nežьnъ weak *bolgъ *lagodьnъ *něžьnъ old *bolgъ calm *mirьnъ *krotъkъ SPRIGHTLY strong *bъdrъ *čilь *jarъ healthy *rǫdъ *čilъ young *jarъ quick *čilъ *bъdrъ violent *rychlъ (?) cheerful/merry *bъdrъ *budьnъ *čilъ *dǫžь *čstvъ *jarъ *rǫdъ brave *rychъ proud *bъdrъ diligent *bъdrъ *čilъ LUSTFUL strong *jarъ young *jarъ stern *jarъ proud *jarъ (?) MAD (?) bad *bolgъ *durьnъ (?) sick *durьnъ 292 The Development of Words Across Centuries

proud *durьnъ stupid *durьnъ *bujь *bolgъ

(?) FEATURES OF CHARACTER DARING stern *gdъ brave *gdъ proud *bujьnъ *jarъ *bъdrъ BRAVE proud *bujьnъ *jarъ *bъdrъ violent *naglъ PROUD good *gdъ (?) bad *gdъ unpleasant *gdъ pretty *gdъ ugly *gdъ stern *gdъ brave *gdъ HARD-WORKING good *dělьnъ CUNNING wise *chytrъ LAZY slow *lěnъ/*lěnivъ timorous *lěnivъ

MENTAL FEATURES STUPID bad *durьnъ young *glupъ NAÏVE stupid *bolgъ TO THINK wise *mǫdrъ

MENTAL STATES HAPPY stupid *bolgъ

PHYSICAL FEATURES OF OBJECTS ROUGH ugly *grǫbъ/*grubъ fat *grǫbъ/*grubъ A Dictionary of Semantic Changes 293

SHARP bad *bridъkъ ugly *bridъ/*bridъkъ quick *l’utъ violent *l’utъ stern *bridъ/*bridъkъ *l’utъ brave *chorbrъ *l’utъ HARD strong *krěpъ/*krěpъkъ (?) *tǫgъ *krǫtъ *storbъ *čstvъ *sъdorvъ healthy *storbъ *sъdorvъ stern *čstvъ *krǫtъ (?) (?) proud *krǫtъ SOFT young *moldъ LOOSE bad *slabъ thin *slabъ weak *slabъ *kyprъ *rъchlъ *rychlъ sick *slabъ slow *lěnivъ lazy *lěnivъ DENSE strong *čstvъ STEEP unpleasant *prikrъ (?) stern *prikrъ OBLIQUUS bad *zъlъ unpleasant *zъlъ pretty *zъlъ stern *zъlъ wise *zъlъ EMPTY thin *tъščь weak *ǫtьlъ sick *ǫtьlъ WHOLE healthy *cělъ *čitavъ

EVALUATION GOOD stupid *bolgъ APPROPRIATE brave *dob’ь BAD pretty *zъlъ The Development of Words Across Centuries

294 ugly *marьnъ *chudъ *durьnъ weak *lošь *chabъ/*chabьnъ *chudъ sick *durьnъ *plochъ *lošь(?) *bědьnъ stern *zъlъ (?) REVOLTING ugly*bridъkъ *gnusьnъ *grozьnъ *gdъ *gadьnъ *gydъkъ *gyzdavъ *mzъkъ *rǫžьnъ bad *gnusьnъ *gadьnъ *bridъkъ FUNNY revolting *rǫžьnъ stupid *glupъ INSIGNIFICANT weak *glupъ (?) DIFFICULT unpleasant *prikrъ stern *prikrъ MISERABLE thin *tъščь

ASSOCIATIONS WITH METEOROLOGICAL PHENOMENA WITH WIND bad *durьnъ unpleasant *durьnъ ugly *durьnъ (?) sick *durьnъ (?) old *durьnъ (?) violent *durъ (?)/*durьnъ timorous *durьnъ (?) proud *durьnъ (?) stupid *durъ/*durьnъ (?) WITH SPRING (?) strong *jarъ (?) young *jarъ violent *jarъ (?) cheerful/merry (?) *jarъ *veselъ daring *jarъ (?) proud *jarъ (?) (?) (?) (?) ASSOCIATIONS WITH THE PLANT WORLD WITH A TREE TRUNK good *drěčьnъ pretty *drěčьnъ strong *drěčьnъ high/tall *drěčьnъ cheerful/merry *drěčьnъ brave *drěčьnъ A Dictionary of Semantic Changes 295

WITH A TWIG weak *šibъkъ thin *šibъkъ WITH WOOD strong *sъdorvъ healthy *sъdorvъ TO GROW violent *bujьnъ

ASSOCIATIONS WITH THE ANIMAL WORLD WITH VENOM sad *ědьnъ TO ROAR sad *revьnъ/*revьnivъ/*revlivъ WILD brave *bujь/*bujьnъ timid *durьnъ *dikъ *divъ *polchъ TAME pleasant *jьmьnъ calm *jьmьnъ *krotъkъ mild *jьmьnъ *krotъkъ humble *krotъkъ

ACTIVITIES AND PROCESSES DESTROYING TO SPOIL sick *skbьnъ sad *skbьnъ TO BEAT (?) strong *čstvъ calm *krotъkъ merry/cheerful (?) *čstvъ stern *čstvъ mild *krotъkъ (?) humble *krotъkъ (?) wise *kovarьnъ TO PUNISH humble *pokorьnъ TO SCARE stern *grozьnъ *gdъ revolting *grozьnъ *gdъ TO PRESS strong *dǫžь 296 The Development of Words Across Centuries

TO CUT bad *bridъkъ ugly *bridъ/*bridъkъ low/short *knъ thin *ščuplъ *sъkromьnъ strong *čstvъ sick *skbьnъ (?) quick *ľutъ (?) violent *ľutъ (?) cheerful *čstvъ sad *skbьnъ stern *bridъ/*bridъkъ (?) *ľutъ *čstvъ brave *chorbrъ (?) *ľutъ humble *sъkromьnъ (?) diligent *skbьnъ (?) *ščirъ TO GROPE thin *ščuplъ (?) TO STIR UP/TO DISTURB sad *sъmǫtьnъ

UNDERGOING DESTRUCTION TO ROT (OF WOOD) weak *ǫtьlъ TO WITHER slow *vędlъ TO RUST bad *rъd’avъ TO ROT unpleasant *mzъ/mzъkъ ugly *mzъkъ lazy *mzlivъ *dręchlъ weak *dręchlъ old *dręchlъ (?) slow *dręchlъ (?) sad *dręselъ (?) *dręchlъ TO GO NUMB (?) hard *storbъ (?) (?) TO SEETHE loose *kyprъ violent *kyprъ TO SWELL fat *jędrъ *tstъ proud *pyšьnъ (?) A Dictionary of Semantic Changes

STATES 297 TO BE WAKEFUL brave *bъdrъ proud *bъdrъ TO REST healthy *čitavъ TO BECOME EXHAUSTED weak *mъdъlъ

MOVEMENT TO MOVE bad *polchъ strong *polchъ mild *polchъ violent *rychlъ *polchъ brave *rychlъ timorous *polchъ TO JUMP quick *prǫdъkъ timorous *prǫdъkъ daring *prǫdъkъ TO RUN bad *polchъ strong *polchъ mild *polchъ violent *polchъ timorous *polchъ TO TOTTER weak *rychlъ loose *rъchlъ

PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES TO WORK good *dělьnъ pretty *dělьnъ strong *dělьnъ brave *dělьnъ diligent *dělьnъ wise *dělьnъ

TO TURN/TO TWIST/TO ROLL ugly *grǫbъ *rǫžьnъ fat *grǫbъ *grubъ (?) (?) (?) 298 The Development of Words Across Centuries

strong *krǫtъ sick *skbьnъ violent *krǫtъ sad *skbьnъ stern *krǫtъ proud *krǫtъ diligent *skbьnъ TO WEAVE/TO ENLACE strong *čstvъ TO BEND old *chylъ (?) TO TIGHTEN strong *silьnъ *tǫgъ TO WRINKLE/TO CREASE sad *skbьnъ (?) sick *skbьnъ TO GRASP wise *chytrъ (?) TO GIVE worthless *darьmьnъ SUMMARY

1. The Degree of Reliability of a Semantic ReconstructionBefore I proceed to discuss the conclusions that may be drawn from the part attention once again to the necessity of exercising caution in reference to the worksof the workwhich which treat containsreconstructed the material, material. I would The results like to ofdirect semantic the reader’s reconstruction are characterized by considerable variety as far as the reliability of such a reconstruction is concerned. We may determine the reliability of a Pro- to-Slavic meaning only when we have partial meanings at our disposal. Their mutual relationship demonstrates the extent of the reliability of the meanings that is assumed/received. The most reliable reconstructions are those overlaps with the meaning reconstructed on the basis of the semantics of the continuants,in which the etymologicaland the aforementioned meaning (or meaning etymological is indicated and structural by the continuants meaning)

Below I classify the lexemes discussed in the work in reference to the degree in an unquestionable manner. - cial in the construction of a corpus of semantic parallels. In my work I present forof the the reliability time being of theira general reconstructed overview meaning.of such a Suchcorpus a classification therefore I restrict is cru which were evaluated as uncertain in the course of the analysis. myselfWe deal to ascribe with a reliablea question situation mark when(placed a uniform in parentheses) meaning basedto the onmeanings continuants is consistent with the etymological or structural meaning, e.g.:

*bystrъ *dzъ *gladъkъ *gadьnъ *chylъ *chvorъ *junъ *milъ ‘rapidly flowing; *mogtьnъ rapid, about a river*mǫ drъ current,’ *radъ ‘brave,’ *revьnъ‘smooth,’ *šibъkъ‘revolting,’ *slabъ‘bent, stooped,’*storbъ ‘sick,’*vetъchъ ‘young,’ *zъlъ ‘beloved; pleasant,’ ‘strong,’ ‘wise,’ ‘merry/cheerful,’ ‘roaring,’ ‘mobile,’ ‘weak,’ ‘stiff,’ ‘old,’ ‘bad.’ 300 The Development of Words Across Centuries

A very great degree of reliability occurs also in the case when a uniform

meaning i.e. it may be derived from it by way of one of the simple semantic meaning based on the continuants is close to the etymological (or structural) *dobrъ *godьnъ operations. Examples*golěmъ of the subsequent links of a*mъdьlъ semantic string include the following: ‘good’ < ‘appropriate’ ( ), ‘suitable’ < ‘accurate’ ( ), ‘big’*bridъkъ < ‘strong’ ( ), ‘weak; tired’*m < ‘slow’zъkъ ( ). Examples of pairs of meanings combined by a sensory association*zъlъ include ‘unpleasant’ < ‘sharp’ ( ) and ‘revolting’ < ‘rotten’ ( ). An example of a motivation based on evaluation*mǫdrъ is ‘bad’ < ‘obliquus’ (*chytrъ). A semantic operation may also consist in*rędьnъ an inference drawn from the motivating*marьnъ meaning e.g. ‘thinking’- i.e. ‘wise’ ( ), ‘grasping’ i.e. ‘quick’ ( ), ‘correct’ i.e. ‘arranged in a sequence’ ( ), ‘imaginary’ i.e. ‘worthless’*darьmьnъ ( ). A greater intel- lectualtionship effort but one is necessarythat is completely to draw admissible an inference is the that relationship ‘given’ (structural between and the etymological meaning) is ‘of inferior value’ ( ). A*kr lessǫpъ obvious rela The determination of a motivating relationship of one pair of meanings fre- pair of meanings ‘stout; short as well as fat’ and ‘shrunk’ ( ). - ing which may be a part of the same semantic string; e.g., the motivation of quently has parallels in another*slabъ motivating relationship referring to a mean *lěnъ - tencethe meaning of such ‘weak’ a relationship by ‘saggy’ facilitates ( ) hasthe adetermination parallel in the ofmotivation the motivation of the meaning ‘lazy’ by ‘loose’ ( ). Sometimes our knowledge about the*silьnъ exis We deal with a string of changes in the case of the word *drěčьnъ of the antonymic pair, and therefore the meaning ‘strong’ by ‘tense’ ( ). Sporadically, we deal with adjectives whose only source of motivation ‘well- whichgrown’ is < ‘onelegible that to is us like is athe tree preposition. trunk’ (struct.) A case < ‘elongated in point is lengthwise’ the PSlav *vysokъ (etym.)., an adjective based on the PIE *up(o)-

‘on, at the top; to the top.’ The meaning ‘locatedIf the above’meaning which which is reconstructedis reconstructed for for this the word Proto-Slavic is not the lexemedirect source is based of onthe the meaning complete ‘high/tall’ or almost but itcomplete may be aconsistency clue for the of researcher. the continuants, we sel- - ever, one should take into consideration such a possibility as well. Apart from dom correct it in order to bring it closer to the etymological meaning. How we may encounter a situation when both the meaning based on continuants asvery well numerous as the etymological cases when meaningthe justification is established of the motivating beyond doubt is not but an the issue, relationship between them apparently seems impossible. Such an example is *starъ analysis clearly indicates an origin from the PIE stā-ro- form from ‘old’ the whose PIE stā- etymological meaning is ‘one that stands fast.’ A formal- ‘standing’, a nominal ‘to stand.’ In such a case we must posit the early Pro Proto-Slavicto-Slavic meaning language. ‘one The that correctness stand fast on of his a reconstruction or her feet’ > ‘strong; of the etymological adult’ which disappeared completely and was supplanted by ‘old’ – an innovation of the Summary 301

stóras stórr meaning is proven by equivalents from other languages: Lithuanian - ‘fat’ing on and the Old basis Norse of the continuants ‘great, strong, but itvirile; will not important.’ be proven by Indo-European data.More Sometimes frequently the we structural deal with meaning a situation will when come we to mayour succor.reconstruct In the a casemean of solveadjectives, the problem especially of the those origin which of a featureword, for suffixes, in the majority we frequently of cases have the thede- rivedstructural adjective meaning and atits our formal disposal. basis However,correspond it may to each not necessarilyother semantically. help us Examples of such adjectives include: *gnusьnъ *gnusъ *grozьnъ *groziti *groza *něžьnъ něga *skbьnъ ‘revolting’ from**sk biti ‘disgust,’ *sъmělъ ‘terrible/dangerous’*sъměti from ‘to threaten’ or ‘horror,’- ‘mild’ from ‘mildness,’ ‘sad’ from ‘to worry,’ ‘brave, daring’ from *d ‘tozъ dare.’ Further*chvorъ adjectives*pěknъ with/ apěkrъ uni form meaning*velъ based onveselъ continuants and the etymological meaning (which is completelyAbove I presented explained) situations include e.g. when the ‘brave,’meaning reconstructed ‘sick,’ on the basis ‘beautiful,’ ‘big,’ ‘merry/cheerful.’ are not completely consistent but when one considers their dating, geograph- icalof continuants distribution is and not their doubtful. content Frequently, itself, one the may meanings establish of the the probable continuants initial meaning. The examples of Proto-Slavic adjectives which manifest a great with the etymological meaning include the following: *debelъ degree of consistency*d ofǫgъ the : *d meaningsǫžь of continuants as well as an*gorlivъ affinity ‘strong, stout’ : ‘fat,In chubby’ the aforementioned (etym.), examples ‘strong’ the etymological : ‘to stretch tight’meaning (etym.), would only ‘zealous, jealous’ : ‘burning; combustible’ (etym. and struct.). A different situation occurs when a comparison of continuants does not pro- videconfirm unambiguous a correct reconstruction proof as far as theof the original meaning nature on theof one basis of theof continuants. meanings is concerned. In the present work I concentrate upon the origin of meanings therefore I cannot constrain myself to the reconstruction of the string of polysemous meanings (although they could have actually existed in the Proto-Slavic toperiod the structural in the lexeme and etymological that is researched) meaning but is Icrucial. should strive to establish the sequenceWhen we in whichare dealing they arose.with Proto-Slavic Therefore the words possibility which offeature making continuants reference - wewhose may semantics base our wasargument strongly on diversified the etymological but their meaning etymology and may thus be establish consid theered initial reliable Proto-Slavic due to the meaning. existence Such of reliable is the caseequivalents of the adjectiveof other languages*lichъ for

*lěpъ is concerned, among the which we reconstruct ‘odd (of numbers)’ as the Proto-Slavic meaning due to the etymological meaning ‘remaining.’ As far as meanings ‘beautiful’ and ‘good’, reconstructed on the basis of continuants, we choose ‘good’, which is based on ‘well-adjusted’ (struct.) < ‘glued together’ 302 The Development of Words Across Centuries

played(etym.) by and the which structural has motivational meaning. As parallelsfar as the in PSlav other *chytrъ adjectives is concerned, which ex press the concept ‘good.’ Quite frequently the role of a determining factor is

among the meaning ‘quick;*dos swift,’ǫžь ‘bright,’ ‘cunning,’ ‘sly,’ ‘wise’ we consider ‘dexterous; quick in work’ as the initial meaning due to the structural meaning ‘grasping.’ In the case of ‘dexterous, skilful,’ ‘diligent, hard-working, careful; capax,’ ‘big, huge’ we choose the latter meaning due to the structural makesmeaning us ‘one reconstruct that can two reach structural sth.’ meanings: one in the form of a participle Quite frequently a discrepancy between the meanings of continuants- ing. Examples include the following: *rychlъ with a passive*krǫtъ meaning and another one with the active or reflexive*kyprъ mean ‘set in motion’*šibъkъ in reference to ‘mobile,’ ‘twisted’ in reference to ‘spinning’ > ‘mobile,’ ‘the one whichthat boiled arose over’ in this in referenceway may beto completely‘boiling over/seething,’ different although it ‘the may one happen with which one wags’ and ‘wagging/brandishing.’*krǫtъ The meanings of the adjectives- preted as the ones that arose on the basis of both the passive as well as the (as in the case of the continuants of ) that some of them may be inter - therreflexive the meaning meaning. based on continuants nor the etymological meaning can be Finally, there is also a considerably great group of adjectives for which nei these changes in the corpus of semantic changes one should mark their unclear statusestablished distinctly with in a sufficientorder not degreeto explain of certainty. obscurum When per obscurum one desires. to include

In my work I traced the semantic development of more than a hundred ad- jectives2. The of Inclusion Proto-Slavic of origin, Thematic which, as Groups it seems, enablesin the usStudied to draw Lexcertain

in the lexicon that is reconstructed. There is an abundance of research works conclusions associated with the frequency of the particular thematic groups-

whose authors study the lexis of Proto-Slavic origin in the quantitative ap becauseproach: [Lehr-Spławińskithey analyze lexis 1938; which Jankowiak belong to only1997; one Orłoś particular 1958; Radewalanguage. 1963; The aimPizłówna of their 1971; research Petleva is to1968]. evaluate However, the percentage these scholars of the are vocabulary on the safer inherit side- ed from the protolanguage in reference to the entire lexicon. Such research - tion of the Proto-Slavic language in the various registers/styles of the Polish language(especially and, research what isaccording even more to interestingLucyna Jankowiak) for me, in refers the various to the contributhematic groups of the Polish language. The task of dividing the whole body of the vocabulary into thematic groups is not easy and one should not be surprised Summary 303 to what extent a part of the lexicon may be representative for the entire lex- that the results cause reservations to be made. A fundamental question arises volumes of the Słownik prasłowiański researchicon (an attemptshould be is conductedmade on the elsewhere. basis of the lexicon contained in the seven ). However, an evaluation of this type of- ent work clearly demonstrates how great an obstacle the lack of the editing An attempt at a “statistical” approach to the material collected in the pres- losich managed to compile an overview of the entire body of Proto-Slavic vocabulary,of the entire although lexicon his in work, the research published of Proto-Slavicin 1886, is obsolete vocabulary to a is.great Franz degree. Mik - tioned dictionary, reached the letter M P. Of the lexica Berneker’s dictionary, which was more modern in reference to the aforemen Derksen includes the whole alphabet, however,, and ESSJ as – in the the letter case of Miklosich, it hasthat a wereperfunctory edited nature in modern as it does times not only embrace the one-volume the entire material. dictionary Currently, by Rick the Słownik prasłowiański stopped at the letter G. This is the reason why it was easier to reach the words from the early and dialectal material that are not registered in explanatory dictionaries, if they begin with a letter from the - struction of the PSlav *ěglъ, *chabъ, *chylъ and *libъ. firstSuch half words, of the alphabet,which without e.g., those doubt which exist furnishedalso in the the further basis partfor the of therecon alphabet, were not found and therefore they are not included in this work. This

Secondly, the semantic reconstruction itself cannot be reliable enough to fur- nishmere numerical fact opens data to questionon its basis. the Apart purposefulness from the reconstructed of statistical conclusions.Proto-Slavic number of meanings whose reconstruction is problematic whereas the like- lihoodmeanings, of a which correct are reconstruction completely or may well-justified, be different there in each is also case. a considerable We already discussed this issue above. Due to the aforementioned reasons one may draw only very general conclusions, namely ones that say that the majority of the meanings of Proto-Slavic adjectives, reconstructed on the basis of continuants, refer to physical features. Their predominance is manifested by the very bulk of the chapters which feature the material. The chapters which provide an analysis of the lexemes which refer to physical features are more comprehensive than others because, according to the arrangement that is used in the work, they discuss the etymology of the majority of the lexemes. To a certain degree we may draw conclusions about the number of the lexemes which feature the Proto-Slavic meanings under research on the basis of the relationship between the entries without cross-references to other - groups and the entries which have such cross-references. However, these propor tions (which are easy to establish because the entries without cross-references precede as a rule the entries with cross-references) do not “give the whole picture,” for example in the VIOLENT group the ratio between the entries without cross-references to the entries with cross references is 9:4. In all nine The Development of Words Across Centuries

304 the Proto-Slavic language is possible. A completely different situation occurs cases I considered that the reconstruction of the meaning ‘violent’ already for-

reconstructedin the group FAT only where for fourthe ratio out ofbetween six lexemes. the entries The remaining without cross-referenc cases involve lexemeses and the whose entries reconstructed with cross-references Proto-Slavic is meaning similar (6:3). does Thenot belongmeaning to any‘fat’ ofis *sporъ *gladъkъ - thetive groupsmeanings. discussed in the work ( ‘efficient, abundant’ and ‘smooth’)In conclusion, and which I think were that classified any attempts within at the statistical group FAT analyses due to in the my innova mate-

onrial the shed conceptual more light relationships on the objective in the difficulties names of associated human features. with the In researchorder to of ancient lexis caused by the insufficient studies of the source materials than

mustendeavor still waitto provide until such an efficient a corpus analysis is compiled. one must above all have a uniformly researched corpus of Proto-Slavic words at one’s disposal. Without doubt we

3. The Causes for the Changes of Meanings of the Studied Adjectives

When the scholars discuss the changes of meanings they emphasize, according to the approach they embrace, either extralinguistic reasons associated -

thewith changes the changes that occur. of the In realia my work, or – what I put is emphasis the peculiarity obviously especially on the extralinof struc- guisticturalists reasons, – intralinguistic therefore onesreaons, that which are independent are indicated from by thethe system.correlations I would of not endeavor to analyze the system of the Proto-Slavic language. We are and will always be ignorant about too many things about it. The object of research is the linguistic material which is a part of at least a dozen or so separate systems. This fact necessitates that one approaches the material from an extralinguistic position and that one purposefully ignores the fact that each semantic change causes an infraction upon a given lexical system, and it may therefore cause further changes. A problem which I would like to emphasize is associated with the discerning of a schematic development of some groups of meanings3 and the individual semantic changes. By way of a convention I call these phenomena a conceptual

3 The tendency of some semantic groups of adjectives to extend the semantic range differs from

the regular polysemousness of adjectives, to which Apresjan devotes one of his chapters [Apresjan 1995: 211–216]. Among the adjectives that he discusses there are no cases that I am interested in, even in the group of parametrical adjectives, which are Apresjan’s [Apresjan 1995: 211] and mine object of interest, see below. It was already Krystyna Kleszczowa [1989: 97] who emphasized the inadequacy of Apresjan’s methods to research which is not based on the speech act. Summary 305 development and a semantic development, in accordance with the principle when I have in mind the meaning referring to a group of synonyms I also use that the term “meaning” is used by me in reference to specific words, and the term “concept.” - ings.A featureThis phenomenon of the conceptual involves development many conceptual is that groupssome concepts and has –an regardless extralin- guisticof the exponent nature. Due which to its expresses commonness them it– mayalso doesassume not other, constitute predictable a problem mean in the interpretation of semantic changes. As far as the semantic development is concerned, we may distinguish two clear-cut groups in reference to the reasons for the occurrence of changes.

3.1. The Strings of Minimal Semantic Changes

- ment of semantic strings which constitute the majority of the cases discussed inThe the first part group of the involveswork which meanings features which the material. arose in The the reason course for of the the emergence develop - of strings of meanings (which in the present work are also referred to as se Themantic discernment strings) i.e. of when the coexistence given concepts of certain imply features further inconcepts nature causes(which andiffer ex- tensionfrom the of initial the range concepts) of the in meanings a regular of manner words. is In that the language context of follows language nature. one may describe this phenomenon as a string of minimal semantic changes. The transition/passage from one meaning of this string to the other consists in the transposition of the semantic dominant (the latter is also known as a semantic center). Danuta Buttler describes it in the following way:

Podłoże przesunięcia centrum semantycznego stanowi mechanizm wnioskowania o właściwościach desygnatu na podstawie cech zawartych w znaczeniu tradycyjnym. Mówiąc innymi slowy – do zmodyfikowanej treści wchodzą elementy implikowane przez jej dawne cechy składowe [Buttler 1978: 126]. of inferring about the properties of the referent on the basis of the features contained in(The the foundation traditional of meaning. the transposition In other words,of the semantic elements center implied constitutes by former a mechanismcomponent

Thisfeatures transposition of the modified does content not arealways introduced cause intoa complete the modified change content.) of meaning. meaning as the basic meaning, and which function in secondary meanings. Frequently, polysemous words arise in this way, which preserve the initial aHowever, decline ofperhaps the transitional – what is semanticbrought into links relief and byan theaccompanying perspective loss of a of wide the legibilitytime span of – thea complete semantic change motivation of meaning of the maylexeme. occur When which we usually have the involves whole 306 The Development of Words Across Centuries

series of semantic strings which present the analogous changes at our disposal we are able to understand the semantic transformation which lost its

- motivationonymic changes over thewhich course consist of centuries in the change – this of turns the referent out to be that even it alludedtrivial. to. TheseThe are emergence names of of features semantic which strings until is a frequentlycertain stage accompanied of the development by met of a language involve impersonal referents and as they involve people, they function in a metaphorical manner. At a certain point the metaphor ceases to 4 - be perceived, and the subsequent links of the semantic string refer to people. For example, the concept ‘soft’ becomes such a “turning point,” which in ref theerence semantic to man transpositions means ‘mild, submissive.’ in the strings of meaning in reference to other, predictedIt is also mechanisms. worthwhile If, to by direct undertaking the reader’s work onattention this book, to theI took superiority into consid of- eration the possibility of a certain dependence of the semantic development

occur rarely. The asymmetry of the conceptual development of antonyms was of antonymous concepts then the material demonstrated that such influences asymmetry may be discerned for example when we compare and examine the also pointed out by Oleksandr O. Taranenko [see Taranenko 1980: 68]. A clear

content of the following chapters which feature the material: 10: A. VIOLENT : areB. CALM; referred 12: to A. by STERN lexemes : B. which MILD; continue 14: A. PROUD the same : B. Proto-Slavic HUMBLE. As words, far as such the aconcepts dependency which cannotbelong tobe B discerned groups: ‘calm,’ among ‘mild’ the and concepts ‘humble’ which most frequentlybelong to

distinctive one but a similar asymmetry may be discerned also in other groups ofgroup concepts A: ‘violent,’ that are ‘stern’ analyzed and ‘proud.’ in my work. The aforementioned example is the most

3.2. Metaphorical Changes

The second group of phenomena was described by linguists in a more comprehensive manner, about which we should not be surprised for due to its not obvious nature it attracted their attention. What we refer to is the phenomenon when particular concepts involve referents which go beyond their basic range. Such a situation as a rule occurs when non-physical referents involve lexemes of the physical domain.

- phorical4 origin of meanings disappears. The departure from the usage of the present passive participle Frequently, in -тъ caused due thatto the the decline etymological of the etymologicalmeaning of the motivation, Polish łakomy the awareness of the meta The users of the language perceive that the application of this adjective to man is initial and to meals is secondary, whereas from the genetic point of view it is the other ‘tasty’ way around. became A illegible. similar case is associated with the adjective szczery a synonym of czysty ‘sincere’ which already in the Old Polish period was ‘clean, pure.’ Summary

There are many semantic groups in which this phenomenon may be dis- 307 cerned. Its peculiar feature is that it is not constrained to the changes in the lexemes but that it also involves lexical combinations which prima facie seem to be more noticeable. Therefore it is the center of attention of various groups of researchers, including experts in cognitive studies and ethnolinguistics - phorical combinations of meanings regularly occur involves the names of physical[cf., e.g., Krzeszowskisensations and 1994; emotions. Pajdzińska All researchers1995]. A typical who areastudy in the which names meta of - emotions – one of the most common themes of cognitive research – empha size the relationships of these semantic fields [Kövecses 1986; Mikołajczuk- ifests1994; itselfNowakowska-Kempna in a particular way 1995; involves Pajdzińska parametrical 1990; Tomczakadjectives 1994]. i.e. the ones Another semantic field in which the seriality of metaphoric changes man rankthat referof a manto dimensions. if they are Forused example, to refer the to people.words which Examples belong in whichto the lexicalwords and semantic field ‘big’ have a tendency to assume meanings referring to the found in various languages, not only Indo-European ones. withThe the words meaning which ‘big’ refer may to havethe vertical the meanings dimension ‘well-known,’ also refer to ‘valued’ tension, may tones be in music, which is a part of synaesthetic changes. On the other hand, along with the parametrical adjectives which refer to the generally understood associated with evaluation and ranks. Also, the concepts associated with age belongconsiderable to the sizegroup (‘great, of concepts big’) they which are manifest commonly a development used to refer in to such concepts a direction. It is worthwhile to note that in this case the words which refer to a person languageswho is “greater” refers byto ahis person or her whose age develop rank is according more important to the general than the direction rank of of the metaphorical development of parametrical concepts. “Senior” in various

“junior” therefore the evaluation of the concepts ‘old/senior’ : ‘young/junior’- ressis opposite of the cursusthan in honorum the general, therefore framework. in this Of contextcourse, thislanguage fact does follows not requirereality; special justification. Firstly, these names are associated with the actual prog- - secondly, what is also very important, the concept ‘older/senior’ has a com pletelyAlthough different the evaluativetendency of image the metaphoricalthan the concept development ‘old’ (this appliesof parametrical in a con adjectivessiderably lesser in the degree direction to the that concepts was presented ‘young’ :occurs ‘younger/junior’). commonly, the distribution of the range of the use of the particular adjectives is not completely - cations do not overlap completely in various languages. This phenomenon is random, but it is constrained to certain semantic fields, whereas these collo sometimesThe tendency the subject to broaden of confrontative the range of research use is also [cf., discernible e.g., the articles in the includedgroup of in Grzegorczykowa, Waszakowa (eds.) 2000]. adjectives which refer to sensory perceptions [cf., e.g., Pajdzińska 2000]. This 308 The Development of Words Across Centuries

phenomenon is commonly referred to as synaesthesia and it is a common

from psychology. It is assumed that the extensions of meanings are condi- tionedfeature by of psychologicalIndo-European factors. languages.5 If this The was very actually term the“synaesthesia” case, then one is derived should classify them as strings of semantic changes consisting in the representation of extralinguistic relationships by language. Because I do not have scholarly data which would enable me to determine the extent to which synaesthetic phenomena are based on physiological conditions at my disposal, I prefer to exercise caution and stipulate that the nominations which are associated with θέσει φύσει ancient terminology. themWhat result remains from relevanta convention to my ( work) ratheris the phenomenonthan nature ( which), of to the use ten the- dencies of the conceptual development may be considered to have been active already in the Proto-Slavic period and which should be ascribed to cul-

featurestural contacts. the material I am afraid I did notthat comprehensively it is difficult to provide discuss athe final innovative answer tomean this- ingsquestion. which It arose is due due to theto the commonness serial semantic of these development. changes that This in is the an partimmensely which - terial that would be broader than one linguistic group. interestingAfter reading phenomenon, this chapter although the reader it requires may receivespecial elaborationan impression upon that a mathe changes of meanings discussed in the work are above examples of a conceptual, therefore serial, development. This is not far from the truth. It is known that in each set of semantic parallels there are conceptual transitions which

principal goal of the dictionary of semantic changes is to collect less typical were mentioned here. However, they are not the most important ones. The

semantic transitions – such that cause doubts among the researchers.

leave4. Research no further Perspectivestasks, and on the other hand the possibilities of constructing furtherNo research works problem on the basis is ever of elaboratedwhat was already upon in done. such Below a way I whichpresent would both avenues of research that may be explored.

er Work Upon the Model of a Dictionary of Semantic Changes 4.1. Furth There is a fundamental need to enhance and extend the models of an onomasiological dictionary that are presented here. My idea is to devise a model

A comprehensive discussion of synaesthesia in language is provided by Irmina Judycka [1963]. Summary 309 in such a way so that it could accommodate any semantic changes. Although the present sample features the superior grammatical and thematic criterion it would be relevant in a dictionary of a greater scope. The fact of grammati- (adjectives with which one may describe features of man), I do not think that see just on the basis of the material that is presented that sometimes it is not possiblecal classification to determine has negligible which word relevance of the familyfor semantic where changesa semantic and change we could occurred was its heart. An even more conventional criterion involved a thematic limiting of the material under research. The problems associated with the range of languages which the dictionary history of scholarship. At this point, I would only like to point out that in order towould enhance be supposed the scope to of include research were one discussed should change in Chapter the language Four, devoted used toin the compilation of entries. If one constrains himself or herself to Slavic languages, other European languages one should perhaps present dictionary entries in its seems that Russian would be sufficient; if we decide to open ourselves to that it is probably too early to include languages beyond the sphere of Euro- a number of languages (perhaps English, French, German, Russian). It seems- wadowski and it was maintained by other linguistics, the differences in the conceptualpean culture. division Although of thesuch world a postulate in the contextwas already of various put forward cultures by were Jan Roz not conceptualtaken into consideration. system is not aThe universal works of one Anna and Wierzbicka therefore the – to creation mention of only a com the- most famous contemporary author – clearly demonstrate that the European and support drawn from other studies. monThe onomasiological model that is suggested dictionary here requires has been a considerable presented in degree book form. of caution I am convinced that with the possibilities provided by modern technology it is reasonable to prepare a computer version of the onomasiological dictionary with cross-references in which one could proceed from the particular received

- nariesconcepts focusing (see the upon onomasiological one concept, dictionarywhich in the arranged present according work are tomentioned received meanings at the end of my work) to the schematic onomasiological dictio ofunder an onomasiological the particular chapters dictionary which arranged feature according the material, to the i.e., initial “Summary meanings. of Semantic Changes.” An analogous possibility should be offered to the reader- developmentWhereas the which particular in my lexemes work was (in placed my work in the these chapters are reconstructed with the material Pro into-Slavic the particular lexemes) small could entry enable chapters. the reader In such proceed a form theto trace dictionary their wouldsemantic be clearer because it would not force the reader to constantly browse through of onomasiological dictionaries. the book to find the justification of putting a specific lexeme in a given place 310 The Development of Words Across Centuries

4.2.Also Theother Tasks research Associated possibilities With based a onDictionary the same premises which were presented in this work loom on the horizon. Their aim is to inspect the models of semantic development. The method which attracts the attention of etymolo-

shouldgists has supplement to do with thean onomasiologicalanalysis of whole dictionary clusters of focused lexical entrieson the systemati[cf. Varbot- zation1986, of 2008; the models Šivic-Dular of semantic 1999]. development. The research In of this lexical case familiesa supplement (clusters) cannot be associated with a lesser work. Due to the plurability of the derivatives the research of semantic changes which occur in one lexical family is more labour-intensive than the research of the semantic development of single lexemes. In this case the task of a compiler of a dictionary of semantic parallels will be to choose from the semantic changes which refer to all derivatives only - sage of a derivative to another word class. The elimination of semantic changes those which did not arise due to the function of the suffix and due to the pas

which occurred under the influence of suffixation is a relatively simple task- jectivewhereas to the a great evaluation degree of and the dependent influence of upon the changethe prejudices of class ofupon the theresearcher. content Aof supplement the derivative of requiresa dictionary the knowledgeof semantic of transitions many contexts, may be and furnished it may be by sub the changes that occurred in the formal derivatives which could have theoretically arisen by way of derivation itself/alone. As far as the formulation of this condi-

tionThe is relativelyresearch simple,of the semantic but the evaluation development whether of the it particularis fulfilled inlexical a specific fam- case is a very subjective question. departure, may be combined with onomasiological research. The examples ofilies, studies and thereforeof the developmental research which parallelism selects aof specific families lexemes based on as synonymous its point of

or quasi-synonymous verbal stems were already discussed by me in Chapter- ativeFour, devotedanalyses to of the lexical history families of research, with a commonon pages 76–77.conceptual basis. Although thisSvetlana author M.also Tolstaja takes the [Tolstaja etymology 2000, of 2002, the particular 2007, 2009] lexemes engaged into in consider compar- ation, her research concentrates upon a minute analysis of the meanings which arose along with the contexts in which they appear. The researcher is interested above all in historical and dialectal contexts, especially ones drawn from the most conservative dialects. Thus, her words are immensely relevant also for etymological studies. In order to emphasize the differences in the meanings derived from one lexeme the author employs the method of comparing continuants representing the particular meanings with synonymous

semantic link was broken. Cf. the study referring to the words with the initial semanticswords therefore of scarcity, she lack,frequently where shebrings conducted up relationships an analysis of of meanings the development whose Summary 311 of the following Proto-Slavic words: *suchъ, *prěšьnъ and *pustъ *trudъ and *mǫka - [Tolstaja 2006, reprinted 2008a: 50–98], [Tolstaja 2008a: 114–120]. In other works Tolstaja confines herselfиграть to aand confrontation гулятъ, *kras- of the developmentand *květ- of two lexical families with*gluchъ similar and or slěpъ convergent semantics [cf. Tolstaja 2000, re- tionedprinted a 2008a:different 102–113], approach, which is also oriented toward ethnolinguistics, [Tolstaja 2008a: 121–133], [Tolstaja 2008a: 134–172]. I already men- anwhen onomasiological I discussed the approach, research i.e., of thethey particular concentrate conceptual not upon fields. lexical In families, contra distinction to Svetlana M. Tojstaja’s works, these works are characterized by- - mentionedbut on the finalworks meanings were written which in belong the Ural to aUniversity given semantic in Ekaterinburg field [cf., e.g., under Er emina 2003; Feokistova 2003; Kubasova 2004; P’jankova 2008]. The afore the directorship of Elena L’vovna Berezovič.

4.2.1.The cataloguing The Linguistic of semantic Image changes of the inWorld. a dictionary Axiological arranged Research onomasiologi- cally enables us to compare the motivational bases of various concepts. This opportunity supposedly will be eagerly seized upon by linguists who are engaged in the reconstruction of various aspects of the linguistic image of the world and who use etymological data for this purpose. Such attempts were

- clefrequently the author made attempts [e.g. Brzozowska to reconstruct 2009; a portion Burzyńska, of the Kamieniecki linguistic image 1998]. of The the worldarticle onby theAleksandra basis of Niewiaraetymological [2000] data deserves drawn fromspecial various attention. Indo-European In the arti languages. The adjectives that she collected refer to certain human features, namely age, height and axiological evaluation. The material that she presented is too scanty to draw far-reaching conclusions from, and therefore the author supposed to justify the purposefulness of such research. confinesThe research herself ofto thea presentation linguistic image of the of most the worlddistinctive on the examples basis of which etymolo are- gy is associated with attempts to reach the original axiological evaluations.6 Motivation always consists in the association between the motivating concept and the motivated thing, therefore it also indicates evaluative relationships which exists between the underlying referents. What seems most promising is an analysis of semantic changes which lead to the emergence of the concepts

6 -

In Polish linguistics Renata Grzegorczykowa is the pioneer of using etymological data in axio importancelogical research. of discovering The author the engages onomasiological this subject basesin many of articlesnew names [e.g., inGrzegorczykowa order to receive 1993, a complete 1995a, 1996, 2003]. A similar position is represented by Jerzy Bartmiński who frequently points out the image of the concepts that are researched [cf., e.g., Bartmiński 2007]. 312 The Development of Words Across Centuries

that are most strongly marked axiologically, i.e., the evaluators ‘good,’ ‘bad’; moment‘pleasant,’ a ‘unpleasant’;given motivation ‘pretty,’ arose ‘ugly.’ were The evaluated research positively of the motivational or negatively. bases The of these concepts enables us to answer the question which of the realia at the

thematerial right whichplace, involvesprecise adjustment. the concept On‘good’ this demonstrates basis one may that infer at thatthe top the of axio the- hierarchy of features which are positively evaluated one finds order, location in

indicateslogical meaning the high ‘such evaluation as should of be’the is basic basic physical for the concept properties ‘good’ such instead as dexterity of ‘the one which is good to other people.’ An analysis of the motivational bases also worthwhile endeavour may be associated with a pursuit of concepts for which evaluativeor strength adjectives which are furnishnecessary a motivational for day-to-day basis. existence. An onomasiological Of course, an equally dictionary, arranged according to initial meanings, will service this ambition. -

The proposed analysis does not always yield the expected results. For ex ample, an overview of the motivations of the concept ‘pretty’ does not provide thea clear motivations answer to by the meanings question which about refer the to type order. of beautyThis may that mean was that preferred a har- moniouswhen subsequent build and nominations regular features occurred. where The valued most more peculiar than somemotivations distinctive are properties of pulchritude. A contradiction of this statement has to do with the

the property and the impression which it produces seems to be important. fact that in the motivations of the concepts ‘pretty, beautiful’ the intensity of 7 toThis age is is proved interesting. by the Contrary motivations to what based one on would the concept expect, ‘huge’ the basic and Proto-Slavic‘terrifying.’ From the axiological point of view the motivation of the concepts*starъ referring

conceptlexeme for of softnessthe concept which ‘old’ in is a associatedsense may withbe considered strength [cf. contrary , toOLD, the 8B.2, con- ceptp. 192], of strength. analogically the basic lexeme for the concept ‘young’ is based on the As far as interesting gems associated with evaluation are concerned, one may also mention the Polabian continuant of the PSlav *glupъ, used in this

language in the meaning ‘young.’ Apart from the adjectival meaning there is lackalso ofa substantivizedindependence. meaningAn overview ‘a man of the who motivations lives with of his the parents’ exponents therefore of the one may claim that the*chytrъ reason, *kovarьnъ for the negative reveals evaluationthat the seme of ‘youth’which deteris the- mined the motivation is experience, which makes us interpret the opposition concept ‘wise’ such as the material indicates clear motivational relationships between the concept ‘wise’ : ‘stupid’ as ‘experienced’ : ‘inexperienced.’ What is interesting is that

‘wise’ This and example the concepts demonstrates which that onefeature may draw negative conclusions overtones: from etymological ‘cunning; research sly.’ only when7 one exercises great caution. Summary 313

As I mentioned above, when one draws conclusions of axiological nature from etymological data one should exercise great caution. One of the reasons is the great chronological diversity of the material. The overtones of referents may undergo considerable re-evaluations and the Proto-Slavic motivation re- backflects to the various overtones periods peculiar which to may that beperiod. testimony Of course, to the this changes opens in a newevaluation. field for comparative research, if one may find a sufficient number of examples dating the research of the number of exponents which express a given concept. If we A different approach to the question of evaluation may be associated with compare these figures, we may find out which concepts were more important beforeand which the Proto-Slavicwere less important community for aarose given from community. the Indo-European From this perspective languages itthe was concept characterized ‘strong’ has by aa greatspecial number position. of lexemesResearch which demonstrates could express that already it, and this state was preserved also in the Proto-Slavic period. Whereas the lexemes which refer to intellectual capabilities in the vast majority of cases were emerging already in the period of the culture of writing, although among them there are also such which have Proto-Indo-European origins. Axiological pursuits based on the results of research of the earliest lexical strata are subject to great limitations. One must be aware about the extent to which we are prone to base our argument on our own conceptual system, in a uniform cultural circle we usually fail to notice that it is only one of the which we inevitably acquired along with the language. Because we operate the conceptual system of the Proto-Slavs or Proto-Indo-Europeans resembled morepossible the ways systems of perceiving of the contemporary the world. peoplesIt is quite which likely remain that in at its the structure stage of the system of European languages which are direct descendants of the Pro- tribal culture (and therefore which are completely different genetically) than suchto-Indo-European research in a language.long time, However,if ever. this is only a supposition which should be corroborated by research, although we will find material foundations for

INDEX OF PROTO-SLAVIC WORDS

The index contains all reconstructed Proto-Slavic adjectives discussed in thework. The location within a given semantic group and the page number are provided. A cross-reference to the place where the reader may find a justification of the reconstruction*gr ofǫ thebъ etymological,*grubъ structural meaning as well as the meaning based on continuants*divъ *dikъ is printed in bold. Alternate forms are separated by the sign “:”, e.g. *bridъ/*bridъkъ : ; the forms*durъ with/*durьnъ different*lochъ suffixes/*lošь are separated by a comma, e.g. , , whereas forms which feature a second ary accretion of a suffix such as , , *bědьnъare written BAD, with 1B.10. the (109) sign “/”. *bolgъ PLEASANT, 2A.2.

*bol’ьjь GOOD, GOOD, 1A.9. 1A.6. (100); BAD, 1B.14. (111); (116); WEAK, 6B.16. (179); *bridъ/*bridъkъSICK, 7B.11. (188); OLD, 8B.8. (196);UGLY, MILD, 3B.5. 12B.4. (232); STUPID, 16B.5. (265) *bujь/*bujьnъ VIOLENT, (98); 10A.6. HIGH/TALL, 4A.6. (144) BAD, 1B.15. (111); (136); STERN, 12A.10. (229) *bъdrъ QUICK, (208); 9A.4. BRAVE, 13A.4. (236); PROUD, 14A.3. (246); STUPID, 16B.4. (265) *bystrъ STRONG,QUICK, 9A.2. 6A.10. (168); (199); CHEERFUL/MERRY, 11A.3. (219); *čělъBRAVE, HEALTHY, 13A.9. 7A.2. (237); PROUD, 14A.7. (247) *chabъ/*chabьnъ BAD (198); 1B.7. BRAVE, 13A.6. (237); WISE, 16A.5. (262) (183) *chorbrъ BRAVE, 13A.2. (108); WEAK, 6B.14. (178); SICK, 7B.10. (188); TIMID, *chudъ13B.5. BAD, (243) 1B.3. (235) *chvorъ (105); UGLY, 3B.10. (138); THIN,SICK, 5B.6. 7B.1. (158); WEAK, 6B.10. (178); *chylъSICK, WEAK, 7B.4. (187)6B.4. *chytrъ UGLY, 3B.14. (139); THIN,QUICK, 5B.7. 9A.3. (158); (186) (175); SICK, 7B.6. (187); OLD, 8B.6. (195); LAZY, 15B.6. (258) GOOD, 1A.10. (100); (198); WISE, 16A.4. (261) The Development of Words Across Centuries

316 *čilъ HEALTHY, 7A.4.

*čitъ /GOOD*čitavъ 1A.14. HEALTHY, (102); 7A.3. STRONG, 6A.14. (169); (184); CHEERFUL/ *čstvъMERRY, STRONG, 11A.4. 6A.6.(219) *darъmьnъ BAD, 1B.8. (183) *debelъ FAT, 5A.1. (165); CHEERFUL/MERRY, 11A.6. (219); STERN, 12A.6. (228) *dělьnъ (108) DILIGENT, (148) 15A.6. *divь *dikь GOOD, 1A.11. (101); PRETTY, 3A.14. (132); STRONG,VIOLENT, 6A.22. 10A.7. (171); BRAVE, 13A.11. (238); (254); WISE, 16A.7. (262) *dobrъ, GOOD, HIGH/TALL, 1A.1. 4A.8. (145); THIN, 5B.8. (158); (209); TIMID, *dob’ь13B.2. STRONG, (242); DILIGENT,6A.9. 15A.9. (255); STUPID, 16B.6. (266) *dorgъ PLEASANT, 2A.6. (95); PLEASANT, 2A.7. (118) *dosǫgъ/*dosǫžь HIGH/TALL, (167); BRAVE, 4A.3. 13A.12. (238) *dǫžь (118)STRONG, 6A.5. *drěčьnъ (142); OLD, 8B.7.HIGH/TALL, (195) 4A.2. HIGH/TALL, 4A.7. (145); (164); CHEERFUL/MERRY, 11A.5. (219) *dręchlъ GOOD,*drǫchlъ 1A.13.*dręselъ (102); PRETTY, 3A.8. (130); (142); STRONG, SAD,6A.11. 11B.2. (168); CHEERFUL/MERRY, 11A.7. (220); BRAVE, 13A.10. (238) *dzъ/*d : zъkъ BRAVE,, 13A.3. WEAK, 6B.15. (179); OLD, 8B.3. (194); SLOW, 9B.3. (204); *durъ/*durьnъ (222); LAZY, 15B.5. (258) (235) VIOLENT, 10A.5. BAD, 1B.11. (110); UNPLEASANT, 2B.8. (124); UGLY, 3B.13. (139); *ědьnъSICK, SAD, 7B.3. 11B.4. (186); OLD, 8B.5. (195); (207); TIMID, 13B.3. (242); *ěglъPROUD, 14A.4. (246); STUPID,VIOLENT, 16B.3. 10A.1. (265) *gadьnъ (223) UGLY, 3B.2. *gladъkъ QUICK, 9A.6. (200); FAT, 5A.6. (205); DILIGENT, 15A.8. (254) *glupъ BAD, 1B.13. (110); (135) STUPID, 16B.1. *gnusьnъ PRETTY, 3A.9. (130);UGLY, 3B.1. (152) *godьnъ WEAK, GOOD, 6B.13. 1A.3. (179); YOUNG, 8A.5. (192); (264) *golěmъ HIGH/TALL, BAD, 1B.12. (110);4A.5. (134); LAZY, 15B.3. (257) *gorlivъ (96); PLEASANT,DILIGENT, 2A.9. 15A.4. (119); PRETTY, 3A.6. (129) *grozьnъ (144) QUICK, 9A.11. (201); (253) STERN, BAD, 12A.4. 1B.17. (112); UNPLEASANT, 2B.7. (124); PRETTY, 3A.10. (131); UGLY, *gr3B.8.ǫbъ *grubъ (138); UNPLEASANT, STRONG, 6A.17. 2B.3. (170); VIOLENT, 10A.12. (212); SAD, 11B.6. (224); *gdъ (227) - : (121); UGLY, 3B.12. (139); FAT, 5A.8. (153) PROUD, GOOD, 14A.1. 1A.12. (101); BAD, 1B.18. (112); UNPLEASANT, 2B.10. (124); PRET *gydъkъTY, 3A.12. UGLY, (131); 3B.3. UGLY, 3B.9. (138); STERN, 12A.7. (228); BRAVE, 13A.8. (237); *gyzdavъ (244) UGLY, 3B.4. (133) *jarъ PRETTY, 3A.13. (132); (136); PROUD,VIOLENT, 14A.8. 10A.8. (247); LAZY, 15B.4.- (258) *jędrъ STRONG,/*jędrьnъ 6A.15. FAT, 5A.3. (169); YOUNG, 8A.3. (191); (210); CHEER FUL/MERRY, 11A.8. (220); DARING, 13A.13. (238); PROUD, 14A.5. (247) *junъ YOUNG, 8A.1. (190) (148); STRONG, 6A.12. (168); YOUNG, 8A.4. (192); QUICK, *jьmьnъ9A.5. (199)PLEASANT, 2A.4.

(117); CALM, 10B.7. (216); MILD, 12B.10. (233) Index of Proto-Slavic Words *klękavъ *klęcavъ WEAK, 6B.3. 317 *kľudьnъ CALM, 10B.3. *kovaьnъ : WISE, 16A.3. (175) *krasьnъ (214)PRETTY, 3A.1. *krěpъ/*krěpъkъ STRONG, (261) 6A.3. *krotъkъ GOOD, 1A.8. (100); (126)HUMBLE, 14B.2. *krǫpъ/*krǫpьnъ (161); HEALTHY,FAT, 5A.4. 7A.7. (185) *krǫtъ STRONG, CALM, 10B.8. 6A.7. (216); MILD, 12B.5. (232); (249) LOW/SHORT, 4B.4. (145); (150) *knъ LOW/SHORT, 4B.3. (166); VIOLENT, 10A.10. (211); STERN, 12A.9. (229); PROUD, *kyprъ14A.6. (247) VIOLENT, 10A.9. *ladьnъ PRETTY,(147) 3A.3. *lagodьnъ PRETTY, PLEASANT, 3A.7. (129); 2A.3. WEAK, 6B.9. (177); SICK, 7B.5. (187); (210) GOOD, 1A.7. (99); (127) *lěnъ/*lěnivъ (116); THIN, 5B.9. (158);LAZY, WEAK, 15B.1. 6B.18. (180); CALM, *lěpъ10B.6. GOOD, (215); 1A.2. MILD, 12B.2. (231) *libъ THIN, 5B.1. SLOW, 9B.4. (204); TIMID, 13B.6. (243); (257) *lichъ BAD, 1B.4. (96); PLEASANT, 2A.8. (118); PRETTY, 3A.4. (128) *lochъ/*lošь BAD, (155)1B.2. *ľutъ (106); STRONG, 6A.19. (170); BRAVE,STERN, 13A.16. 12A.1. (239) (105); WEAK, 6B.11. (178); SICK, 7B.9. (188); LAZY, 15B.8. (259) *malъ QUICK,LOW/SHORT, 9A.12. (201);4B.2. VIOLENT, 10A.11. (211); (226); BRAVE, *marьnъ13A.15. BAD, (239) 1B.6. *milъ PLEASANT, 2A.1. (146) *mirьnъ CALM, 10B.1. (106); UGLY, 3B.11. (138) *mogtьnъ STRONG, 6A.1. (115); (160) MILD, 12B.6. (232) *moldъ YOUNG, 8A.2. (191) (213); MILD, 12B.3. (231); HUMBLE, 14B.4. (250) *mǫdrъ WISE, 16A.1. *mzъ/*mzъkъ *mzlivъ UNPLEASANT, 2B.4. *mъdьlъ CALM, WEAK, 10B.9. 6B.2. (216); MILD, 12B.7. (232); (260) *naglъ , VIOLENT, 10A.3. (122); UGLY, 3B.7. (137); LAZY, 15B.7. (258) *něžьnъ (174) MILD, 12B.1. *nizъkъ QUICK, LOW/SHORT, 9A.9. (201); 4B.1. (206); BRAVE, 13A.5. (236) *ǫtьlъ WEAK, PLEASANT, 6B.7. 2A.5. (117); WEAK, 6B.19. (180); (230) *pěknъ *pěkrъ PRETTY, 3A.2. (146) *pilьnъ DILIGENT, 15A.1. (177); SICK, 7B.7. (187) *plochъ, BAD, 1B.5. (127) *pokojьnъ CALM, 10B.2. (251) *pokorьnъ (107); SICK,HUMBLE, 7B.8. (188); 14B.1. CALM, 10B.5. (215) *polchъ (214) MILD,TIMID, 12B.9. (233);13B.1. (248) *prikrъ UNPLEASANT, BAD, 1B.16. (112); 2B.1. STRONG, 6A.16. (169); VIOLENT, 10A.13. (212); MILD, *protivьnъ12B.8. (233); UNPLEASANT, 2B.2. (241) *prǫdъ/*prǫdъkъ/*prǫdьnъ (120); STERN, 12A.8. (228)VIOLENT, 10A.2. (121) *pyšьnъ PROUD, 14A.2. QUICK, 9A.8. (200); (206); BRAVE, *radъ13A.14. CHEERFUL/MERRY, (239); TIMID, 13B.4. 11A.2. (242) *revьnъ (245)DILIGENT, 15A.2. (218) SAD, 11B.5. (224); (252) The Development of Words Across Centuries

318 *rędьnъ GOOD, 1A.5. *rǫdъ/*rǫdьnъ GOOD, 1A.4. (98); PRETTY, 3A.5. (128) *rǫžьnъ UGLY, 3B.6. (97); LOW/SHORT, 4B.5. (147); HEALTHY, 7A.6. (184); *rъd’avъCHEERFUL/MERRY, BAD, 1B.9. (109) 11A.9. (220) *rъchlъ WEAK, 6B.6. (137) *rychlъ QUICK, 9A.1. *silьnъ STRONG, 6A.2. (176) (161) *skbьnъ FAT, 5A.9. (154); WEAK,SAD, 6B.5. 11B.1. (176); (197); BRAVE, 13A.7. (237) *skvьnъ UNPLEASANT, 2B.6. *slabъ SICK, 7B.2. (186); (221);WEAK, DILIGENT, 6B.1. 15A.10. (255) *snažьnъ (123)DILIGENT, 15A.5. *sorgъ BAD,STERN, 1B.19. 12A.3. (112); THIN, 5B.10. (159); (173); SICK, 7B.12. (189) *sporъ FAT, STRONG, 5A.5. 6A.21. (171); (253) *starъ OLD, 8B.2. (227) *storbъ STRONG, (151); 6A.8. STRONG, 6A.13. (168); QUICK, 9A.10. (201); DILIGENT, 15A.7. (254) *strogъ (194) STERN, 12A.2. *sъdorvъ (167); HEALTHY,HEALTHY, 7A.5. 7A.1. (184) *sъkromьnъ GOOD, THIN, 1A.15. 5B.4. (102); STRONG, 6A.18. (170); (226) *sъmělъ BRAVE, STRONG, 13A.1. 6A.20. (170); (182) *sъmǫtьnъ SAD, 11B.3. (157); HUMBLE, 14B.3. (250) *šadъ *šědivъ OLD, 8B.4. (235) *ščirъ *čirъ DILIGENT, 15A.3.(223) *ščuplъ : THIN, 5B.2. (194) *šibъkъ, (252) VIOLENT, 10A.4. *tichъ (156)CALM, 10B.4. *tstъ FAT, THIN, 5A.2. 5B.5. (157); WEAK, 6B.17. (180); QUICK, 9A.7. (200); (207) *tǫgъ SLOW, 9B.5. (204);STRONG, 6A.4. (215) *tǫpъ STUPID, 16B.2. (149) *tъščъ FAT, THIN, 5A.7. 5B.3. (153); (163) *umьnъ WISE, 16A.2. (264) *velь/*velikъ HIGH/TALL, (156) 4A.4. *verdьnъ UNPLEASANT, (260) 2B.5. *veselъ CHEERFUL/MERRY, 11A.1. (143) *vetъchъ OLD,(122) 8B.1. *vędlъ WEAK, 6B.8. (218) *volьnъ SLOW, WEAK, 9B.1. 6B.12. (178); (193) *vysokъ HIGH/TALL, (177); 4A.1. SLOW, 9B.2. (203); LAZY, 15B.2. (257) *zъlъ BAD, 1B.1. (203) (141) (104); UNPLEASANT, 2B.9. (124); PRETTY, 3A.11. (131); STERN, 12A.5. (228); WISE, 16A.6. (262) Albanian INDEX OF LANGUAGES Anglo-Saxon Armenian OldMWelsh Czech – Middle Welsh OldOCS English – Old Church Slavonic Baltic BelarusianAvest. – Avestan Old High German Church Slavonic OInd. – Old Indian Bulg. – Bulgarian OldOIr. Polish– Old Irish Old PrussianNorse DutchCroat. – Croatian EnglishCz. – Czech Old Welsh PersianOld Russian

Fr. – French Polabian Germanic PolishPIE – Proto-Indo-European IrishGothic Gr. – Greek Proto-Germanic Kash. – Kashubian PSlav – Proto-Slavic Lat. – Latin Russ. – Russian Latv. – Latvian SloveneSerb. – Serbian Lith. – Lithuanian UkrainianSk. – Slovak LSorb – Lower Sorbian Mac. – Macedonian Welsh Middle Low German USorb – Upper Sorbian Middle High German

ABBREVIATIONS dial. – dialectal fig. – figuratively etym. – etymological struct. – structural REFERENCES

DICTIONARIES QUOTEDСловарь IN THE лингвистических WORK терминов

Ahmanova – Ольга С. Ахманова,Rječnik hrvatskoga 1966, jezika , Москва: изд. Советская Энциклопедия. Тлумачальны слоўнік беларускай мовы, Anić – Anić Vladimir, 1996, (2nd edition), Zagreb: Novi Liber. Atrahovič – Кандрат К. Атрахович, 1977–1984,Etymologiczny słownik języka polskiego - Минск: Беларуская Савецкая Энцыклапедыія. Bańkowski – Andrzej Bańkowski, 2000–, Slovník spisovného jazyka českého, vol. 1–, Warsza wa:Academia. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Bělič – Jaromír Bělič et al. (ed.), 1960–1971, Български eтимологичен речник, vol. 1–4, Praha:

BER – Владимир И. Георгиев (ed.), 1971–,Slavisches etymologisches Wörterbuch , vol. 1–, Сoфия: Институт за българскиӓtsbuchhandlung. език. Berneker – Erich Berneker, 1908–1913, Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika , vol. 1, Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universit Bezlaj – Franc Bezlaj (ed.), 1977–2007, Словник української мови , vol. 1–5, Ljubljana: Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša. Bilodid – Іван К. Білодід (ed.), 1970–1980,Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, vol. 1–17, Kиїв: Наукова думка. Boryś – Wiesław Boryś, 2005, Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie. Brückner – Aleksander Brückner,A Dictionary 1970, of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European, Kraków: Wiedza Lan- Powszechaguages. A Contribution (2nd edition). to the History of Ideas, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Buck – Carl D. Buck, 1949, Речник на българския език

Čolakova – Кристалина Чолакова (ed.),Толковый 1977–, словарь живого великорусского, Sofia: языкa Izd-vo na Bŭlgarskata akademiia na naukite. Dal’ – Владимир И. Даль, 1880–1882,Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon, vol. 1–4, Сaнкт-Пeтeрбург–Мoсква: М.О. Вольф. Derksen – Rick Derksen, 2008, Encyklopedia językoznawstwa ogólnego (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series), Leiden–Boston: Brill. EJO – Kazimierz Polański (ed.), 1993, , Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. 321

References Этимолошки речник српског језика

ERSJ – Александар Лома (ed.), 2003–,Etymologický slovník jazyka staroslověnského, vol. 1–, Београд: Academia.Институт за српски језик САНУ. ESJS – Eva Havlová (ed.), 1989–, Этимологический словарь славянских ,языков vol. 1–, Praha:

ESSJ – Олег Н. Tрубaчeв (ed.), 1974–, Этимологічний словник українскої, vol. мови 1–,, Мoсква: Наука. ESUM – Олександр Савич Мельничук (ed.), 1982–, Словарь русского языка Київ: Інститу́т мовозна́вства НАН. Evgen’eva – Анастасия П. Евгеньева (ed.),Encyklopedia 1957–1961, wiedzy o języku polskim, vol. 1–4, Москва: Институт русского языка Академии наук СССР. EWJP – Stanisław UrbańczykLitauisches (ed.), 1978, etymologisches Wörterbuch , Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Slovník staročeský Fraenkel Ernst, 1962–1965, Речник нa български eзик , vol. 1–2, Heidelberg: Winter. Gebauer – Jan Gebauer, 1970, Hrvatski etimološki, vol. rječnik 1–2, Praha:, Zagreb: Academia August Cesarec.(2nd edition). Gerov – Найден Гeров, 1895–1904,Český slovník věcný a synonymický, vol. 1-5, Пловдив: дружественна. Gluhak – Gluhak Alemko, 1993, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der germanischen Primär- Halleradjektive – Haller Jiří (ed.), 1974, , Praha: SPN. Heidermanns – Frank Heidermanns, 1993, Гiстарычны слoўнiк бeлaрускaй мoвы , Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter. HSBM – Аркадзь I. Жураўскi (ed.),Historický 1982– slovník , slovenského jazyka , Miнск: Навука і тэхніка. et al., Příruční slovník jazyka českého, HSSJ – Milan Majtán (ed.), 1991, , Bratislava: Veda. Hujer – Oldřich Hujer 1935–1957, Историчний слoвник украïнськогоvol. 1–8, языка Praha: Státní nakladatelství; Školní nakladatelství: SPN. ISUJ – Евгений K. Тимченко (ed.), 1930–,Němsko-hornjoserbski słownik. Deutsch-Obersorbisches, Хaркiв- WörterbuchKиïв: VPE. Jentsch – Helmut Jentsch, 1989–1991, Slovník česko-německý - , Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag. Jungmann – Josef Jungmann, 1834–1839, , vol. 1-5, Praha: W knjSłownikzecj arcibi języ- skupskka polskiegoe knihtiskarne.... Karłowicz – Jan Karłowicz, Adam A. Kryński,Речник Władysław на македонскиот Niedźwiedzki, 1900–1927, јазик , vol. 1-8, Warszawa: Nakładem prenumeratorów. Koneski – Блаже Конески, 1961–1966,Etymologický slovník slovanských jazyků., vol.Slova 1–3, gramatická Скопје: Институтотa zájmena за македонски јазик “Крсте Петков Мисирков.” KopečnýKluge23 – František Kopečný, 1973,Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache - , ed. Bohuslav Havránek, Praha: Academia. – Friedrich Kluge,Serbsko-němski 1999, słownik hornjołužiskeje serbskeje rěče. Sorbisch-deutsches (23rd edi Wörterbuchtion), ed. Elmar der Oberlausitzer Seebold, Berlin: sorbischen Walter Sprache de Gruyter. Kral – Kral Jurij, 1927, Słownik języka polskiego , Bautzen: Domowina (phototypical edition 1986). Linde – Samuel Bogumił Linde, Lexikon 1854–1860, der indogermanischen Verben., vol. Die 1–6, Würzeln Lwów: und Zakład ihre PrimärstammbildungenNarodowy im. Ossolińskich (2nd edition). LIV – Helmut Rix (ed.), 1998,Etymologický slovník jazyka českého a slovenského - , Wiesbaden: Reichert. Machek 2– Václav Machek, 1957, Etymologický slovník jazyka českého a slovenského, Praha: Naklada- telstvi C̆eskoslovenske akademie ved. – Václav Machek, 1968, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen ,Sprachen Praha: Naklada, Wien: telstvi C̆eskoslovenske akademie vĕd (2nd edition). Miklosich 2 – Franz Miklosich, 1886, Lexicon paleoslovenico-graeco-latinum Wilhelm Braumuller. – Franz Miklosich, 1862–1865, , Vindobonae: Guilelmus Braumuller. 322 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Latviešu valodas vardnica. Lettisch-deutsches Wör- terbuch Mühlenbach – Karl Mühlenback, 1923–1932,Słownik dolnoserbskeje rečy a jeje narečow , vol. 1–4, Riga: Kulturas Fonda Izdevums. Muka – ArnoštThe New Muka, Shorter 1911–1928, Oxford English Dictionary, 1993, Oxford: Oxford University, vol. 1-3, Petrohrad–Press. ObnorskijPraha: Nakladatelstv– i Ceske akademie ved a umeni. Словарь современного русского NSOEDлитературного – языка Сергей П. Обнорский etThesaurus al. (eds.), Linguae 1948–1965, Dravaenopolabicae , vol. 1–17, Москва–Ленинград: Изд-во Акад. наук СССР, Наука. Olesch – Reinhold Olesch,Die 1983–1984, Sprachreste der Draväno-Polaben im Hannöverschen, vol. 1–3, Köln–Wien: Böhlau Verlag. Slovník slovenského jazyka Paul – Paul Rost, 1907, Obersorbisches Wörterbuch , Leipzig: Hinrichs. Peciar – Štefan Peciar, 1959–1968, , vol. 1–6, Bratislava: VEDA. Pfuhl – Pfuhl Christian T., 1866, Slovensko-nemški, Bautzen: slovar Maćica Serbska (phototypical edition 1990). Pleteršnik – Max Pleteršnik, 1894–1895,Indogermanisches etymologisches, vol. Wörterbuch 1–2, Ljubljana: Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša ZRC SAZU. Pokorny – Julius Pokorny, 1959, Słownik etymologiczny języka Drzewian, Bern–München: połabskich, Francke. PolańskiEnergeia. – Kazimierz Polański, 1962–1994, Rečnikfasc. 1–6,Rečnik vol. srpskohrvatskoga 1–4, Wrocław–Warszawa: književnog Zakład jezika Narodowy im. Ossolińskich; vol. 5–6, Warszawa:- slavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnostni. – Český etymologický slovník, 1967–1976, vol. 1–6, Novi Sad–Zagreb: Jugo Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika - Rejzekdemija – Jiří znanosti Rejzek, i2001, umjetnosti. , Voznice: Leda. RJAZ – Речник, 1880–1976, на съвременния vol. 1–23, Zagreb:български Jugoslavenska книжовен език aka,

Romanski – Стоян Романски, 1955–1959, Rečnik srpskohrvatskog književnog i narodnog jezika, vol. 1–3, София: Българска академия на науките. RSAN – Ljubomir Matic et al. (eds.), 1959–, Historisch-etymologisches Wörterbuch der vol.ober- 1–, und Beograd: niedersorbischen Institut za Sprache srpski jezik, Bautzen: SANU. Domowina. Schuster-Šewc – Heinz Schuster-Šewc, Słownik 1978–1989, etymologiczny języka Drzewian połabskich

SEJDP – Kazimierz Polański, 1971–1994,Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego, Wilno: Uniwersytet, No. 1–6 (No. 1 with Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński), Wrocław etc.: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. SEJL – Wojciech Smoczyński, 2007, Słownik etymologiczny kaszubszczyznyWileński, Wydział, Filologiczny. SEK –Słownik Wiesław gwar Boryś, polskich Hanna Popowska-Taborska (eds.), 1994–2010, vol. 1-6, Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy (IS PAN). SGP – , 1979–1991, vol. 1 No. 1 – vol. 4 No. 2, ed. Mieczysław Karaś; Teresa SłownikGołębiowska; gwar polskich Jerzy Reichan, Stanisław Urbańczyk, Wrocław–Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. - – , 1993–, vol. 4 No. 3–, ed. Jerzy Reichan, Stanisław Urbańczyk; Jerzy Reichan, Joanna Okoniowa; Jerzy Reichan, Joanna Slovník Okoniowa, jazyka staroslověnského Barbara Grabka, Kraków: Insty tut Języka Polskiego PAN. SJS – Josef Kurz, Zoe Hauptová (eds.),Etimologijski 1958–1997, rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika , vol. 1–4, Praha: JugoslavenskaNakladatelstvi akademijaC̆eskoslovensk znanostie akademie i umjetnosti. ved. Skok – Petar Skok, 1971–1974, Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, vol. 1–4, Zagreb:

Sławski – Franciszek Sławski, 1952–1982, Słownik staropolski , vol. 1–5, Kraków: Towarzystwo Miłośników Języka Polskiego. Słstpol. – Stanisław UrbańczykSlovenski (ed.), etimološki 1953–2002, slovar , vol. 1–11, Warszawa– Kraków: IJ PAN. Snoj– Marko Snoj, 1997, , Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. 323

References Snoj2 Slovenski etimološki slovar Słownik prasłowiański – Marko Snoj, 2003, , Ljubljana: Modrijan. SP – Franciszek Sławski (ed.), 1974–2001, , vol. 1–8,Słownik Wrocław: polszczyzny Zakład NarodowyXVI wieku im. Ossolińskich. SP XVI – Maria Renata Mayenowa, Franciszek Pepłowski (eds.),Słownik 1966–1994, polszczyzny XVI wieku , vol. 1-34, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. – Krzysztof Mrowcewicz, Patrycja Potoniec (eds.), 1995–,Материалы для словаря древне-русского, vol. 36–, Warszawa:языка по письменным IBL PAN. памятникам - Sreznevskij – Измаил И. Срезневский, 1893–1912, , Санкт-Петербург:Словарь Отделения русского русского языкa языка XI–XVII и сло вв., весности Императорской Академии наук. SRJ XI–XVII – Степан Григорьевич Бaрхударoв Словарь (ed.), русских 1975–, народных говоров vol. 1–, Мoсква: Наука. SRNG –Slovník Федот slovenských П. Филин et nárečí al. (eds.), 1965–, , vol. 1–, Москва– Ленинград: Наука. Русский семантический словарь. Толковый словарь, SSNсистематизированный – по классам, 1994–, vol. слов 1–, и значенийBratislava: Veda. Švedova – Наталия Ю. Шведова, 1998,Słownik gwar kaszubskich na tle kultury ludowej , vol. 1–6, Москва: Азбуковник. Sychta – Bernard Sychta, 1967–1976,Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch , vol. 1–7, Wrocław:Winter. Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Vasmerr2 – Max Vasmer, 1950–1958, Этимологический словарь русского, языкa.vol. 1-3, Пeрeвoд Heidelberg: с не- мецкого и дополнения члена-корреспондента AH CCCP O. Н. Трубачева, vol. 1 Vasme – Макс. Фaсмeр, 1964–1973, Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch –4, Москва: Прогресс Walde – Alois Walde, 1938, , Heidelberg: Carl Winter (3rd edition, ed. Johann Baptist Hofmann).

OTHER WORKS Indogermanische Forschungen,

Adrados Francisco R., 1992, The New Image of Indo-European, IndogermanischeNo. 97, pp. 1–28. Forschungen Adrados Francisco R., 2007, Must we Again Postulate a Unitary and Uniform Indo-European?,- , No. 112, pp. 1–25. Anikin 1985 – Aлександр E. Аникин, (a review) WörterbuchЭтимология der vergleichenden, 1982, Bezeichnung slehre. Onomasiologie. BegründetИзбранные und herausgegeben труды, vol. von 1: J.Лексическая Schröpfer, Bd. семантика. I. Lief. 1/2, Сино 3/4,- нимичHeidelberg:еские Carl средства Winter языка Universitätsverlag, 1979–1981, pp. 173–176. Apresjan Jurij1995 D., – 2000,Юрий Semantyka Д. Апресян, leksykalna. Synonimiczne środki języka , Москва: Восточная литература РАН. Atlas Atlas Linguarum Europae I , trans. Zofia Kozłowska, Andrzej Markowski, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich (2nd edition). 1983–2007 – Językowe podstawy obrazu, świata fasc. 1–4, Assen–Maastricht: Van Gorcum; Benvenistefasc. 5–7, Émile, Roma: Poligrafico. Word Bartmiński Jerzy, 2007, , Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS. Benveniste Émile, 1966,1954, Problèmes Problèmes de linguistique sémantiques générale de la reconstruction, , N o . 1 0 , 2 – 3 , Benvenistepp. 251–264. Émile, 1969a, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, vol. 1, Paris: Éditions de Minuit. , Paris: N.R.F., pp. 289–307. The Development of Words Across Centuries

324 Benveniste Émile, 1969b, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, vol. 2, Paris: Éditions de Minuit. Birnbaum

Henrik, 1973, in: OAmerican możliwości Contribution odtworzenia to the pierwotnego Seventh International stanu języka Congress prasłowiańskiego of Slavists, za pomocą rekonstrukcji wewnętrznej i metody porównawczej. (Kilka uwag o stosunku Birnbaumróżnych podejść), Common Slavic. Progress and Problems in its Reconstructions, Columbus: vol.Slavica 1, ed. Publishers. Ladislav Matějka, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 33–58. Birnbaum Henrik, 1975, in: Prasłowiańszczyzna i jej rozpad,

Henrik, 1998,Lexikálno-semantická Jak długo trwał okres rekonštrukcia prasłowiański, ed. Jerzy Rusek, Wiesław Boryś, Warszawa: Energeia,piti, *pojiti pp., Rocznik 21–27. Slawistyczny Blanár Vincent, 1984, , Bratislava: Studia Veda. z Filologii Polskiej i Sło- Boryświańs Wiesław,kiej 1980, O rozwoju znaczenia psł. * 40, pp. 39–42. Boryś Wiesław, 1981a, Archaiczny słowiański przymiotnik rądi, dropъ, *stromъ Rocznik Slawistyczny 20, pp. 7–10. Boryś Wiesław, 1981b, Psł. przymiotniki dewerbalneJęzyk Polski z apof. o : ь (dial. * , *tromъ), 41, pp. 35–41. Rocznik BoryśSlawistyczny Wiesław, 1991, Etymologie polskie, , No. 71, pp. 22–34. Boryś Wiesław, 1998a, KształtowaniePrasłowiański się– poprasłowiański. klasy przymiotników Na granicy w epoce dwóch prasłowiańskiej, epok, in: Prasłowiań - szczyzna i jej 51,rozpad pp. 9–16. BoryśB Wiesław, 1998b, Słowianie, Słowiańszczyzna – pojęcie, ed. Jerzy i rzeczywistość Rusek, Wiesław dawniej Boryś, i Warszawa:dziś Energeia, pp. 29–33. oryśSlawistyczny Wiesław, 2001, Rozpad wspólnoty prasłowiańskiej w świetle słownictwa, in: Etymologie słowiańskie i polskie. Wybór, ed. studiów Kwiryna z okazjiHandke, 45-lecia Warszawa: pracy naukowej Ośrodek Wydawniczy (IS PAN), pp. 25–33. Boryś Wiesław, 2007,Essai de sémantique. Science des signification Brod , ed. Władysław Sędzik, Warszawa:Słowotwórstwo Slawistyczny przymiotnika Ośrodek w Wydawniczy języku staro-cerkiewno (IS PAN). - Bréal-słowiańskim Michel, 1897,, W , Paris: Libraire Hachette. owska-Honowska Maria, 1960, Общеславянскийrocław: лингвистический Zakład Narodowy атлас. im. Материалы Ossolińskich, и изследования. Wydawnictwo 1984 PAN. Brozović 1988 – Далибор Брозович, Классификация названий луны в языках Европы, in: , ed. Вячеслав В. Иванов, Москва:Język a KulturaНаука, pp., vol. 9–23. 13, Językowy obraz świata i kultura Brzozowska Małgorzata, 2000, Derywaty onomazjologiczne (asocjacyjne) w językowym obrazie świata, in: 152. (Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis,zata, 2218), 2009, ed. Etymologia Anna Dąbrowska, a konotacja Janusz słowa. Anusiewicz,Studia semantyczne Wrocław: Wydawnictwo- twoUniwersytetu UMCS. Wrocławskiego, pp. 144– Brzozowska Małgor , Lublin: Wydawnic Etnolingwistyka. Problemy Języka i Kultury 9/10, pp. 81 91. Burzyńska Anna B., Kamieniecki Rozwój semantyczny Jan, 1998, wyrazów Wpływ przeszłości polskich, Warszawa: na językowy Wydawnictwa obraz śmierci UW. ludzi i zwierząt w polszczyźnie, – Buttler Danuta, 1978, Moвoзнaвствo, 1998, Černyš 1998 – Тетяна O. Чeрниш, Koмпaрaтивнo-зістaвнe дослідження слов’янської лексики у контексті eтимoлoгічних гніздСлов’янська із близькозначними лексика в історико-етимологічному коренями, висвіт- No.ленні 2–3, pp. 168–179. Černyškowa 2003 Aleksandra, – Tетяна O.2002, Чeрниш, Prasłowiańskie wyrazy złożone a nazwy własne – struktura i semantyka, in:, Kиїв: Dzieje Київський Słowian w національний świetle leksyki університет імені Тараса Шевченка. Cieśli Prispevek k zgodovini labialnih, ed. pripon Jerzy Rusek, v indoevropskih Wiesław jezikihBoryś, Leszek Bednarczuk, Kraków:akademija Wydawnictwo znanosti in umetnosti. Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, pp. 95–100. Čop Bojan, 1973, Арэальнaя структура праславяншчыны, in:, Ljubljana: Prasłowiańszczyzna Slovenska i jej rozpad Cyhun 1998 – Генадзь Цыхун, , ed. Jerzy Rusek, Wiesław Boryś, Warszawa: Energeia, pp. 73-77. 325

References Арэальныя аспекты семантычнай рэканструкцыi, in: Studia etymologica Brunensia 1 Cyhun 2000 – Генадзь Цыхун, Tabu językowe i eufemizacja w dialektach słowiań- skich , ed. Ilona Janyšková, Helena Karlíková, Praha: Euroslavica, pp. 201–207. Czyżewski Feliks, DobrzańskaEufemizmyAnna (eds.), współczesnego 2008, języka polskiego , Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS. Dąbrowska Anna, 1993, Tabu w języku i kulturze , Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Dąbrowska Anna (ed.), 2009, La vie des mots étudiée (Język dans a Kultura leur significations 21), Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Ch.Uniwersytetu Delagrave. Wrocławskiego. Darmesteter Arsène, 1887, , P aStudia r i s : L ietymo b r a i r e- logica Brunensia 1 Dejkova 2000 – ХристинаTeoria Дeйкoвa, derywacji Kъм слaвянскитe нaзвания на птиците, in: Lexikálna, ed. Ilona sémantika Janyšková, Helena Karlíková, Praha: Euroslavica, pp. 235–245. Dokulil Miloš, 1979, , ,Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. - Dolník Juraj, 1990,Известия Уральского государственного, Bratislava: Univerzita университета Komenskeho. 190. Dronova 2005 – Любовь П. Дронова Прилагательное благойЭтимология в историко-культурном кон тексте, in: Лексико-семантическое поле “Отношение, vol. 39, человека pp. 175 к –труду” Dronovaв русских 2007 народных– Любовь П. говорах. Дронова, Этнолингвистический Прекрасный красный, in: аспект , 2003–2005, pp. 73–86. Eremina 2003 – Марина А. Еремина, Úvod do etymologie , Екатеринбург: Уральский государственный университет. Номинативное воплощение абстрактной идеи Erhart(на Adolf, материале Večerka русскойRadoslav, лексики 1981, со значением ‘пропасть,, Praha: Státní исчезнуть’) pedagogické nakladatelství. Feokistova 2003 – Любовь A. Феоктистова, . , Екатеринбург: SłowotwórstwoУральский государственный a inne sposoby nominacji: университет materiały имени z 4А. konferencji М. Горького Komisji Słowotwórstwa przy FurdíkMiędzynarodowym Juraj, 2000, Motywacja Komitecie słowotwórcza Slawistów między innymi typami motywacji leksykalnej, in:

, ed. Krystyna Kleszczowa, Ludwig Selimski, Katowice: ИндоевропейскийGnome, pp. 59–62. язык и индоевропейцы, Реконструкция и историко-типологический Gamkrelidze,анализ праязыка Ivanov 1984 и прокультуры – Тамаз Валерианович Гамкрелидзе, Вячеслав Всеволодович Иванов, The Origins of the Slavs. A Linguist’s View, Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers. Polisemija, Тбилиси: i organizacija Тбилисский leksičkog sistemaгосударственный u srpskome jeziku университет., Beograd: Gołąb Zbigniew, 1992, Gortan-Premk Darinka, 1997, Poradnik Językowy Institut za srpski jezik SANU. Grodziński Eugeniusz, 1970, Postacie wieloznaczności wyrazów, Nazwy wartości., StudiaN o . 3 , pp.leksykalno-semantyczne 157–164. Grzegorczykowa Renata, 1993, Pokora, pycha i pojęcia pokrewne, in: , ed. Jerzy Bartmiński, Małgorzata Mazurkiewicz-Brzozowska, Lublin:Studia Wydawnictwoz językoznawstwa UMCS, słowiańskiego. pp. 23–39. Prace Instytutu Filologii Słowiańskiej UJ Grzegorczykowa Renata, 1995a, WpływWprowadzenie etymologii do semantykina współczesne językoznawczej rozumienie wyrazów, , No. 14, pp. 59–62. Grzegorczykowain: Semantyka Renata, a konfrontacja 1995b, językowa , Warszawa: PWN. - Grzegorczykowaszawa Renata, 1996, Badania semantyczno-porównawcze w aspekcie diachronicznym, , ed. Violetta Koseska-Toszewa, i dobroci, Danuta in: Rytel-Kuc, Język w kręgu War wartości.: Slawistyczny Studia semantyczne Ośrodek Wydawniczy (IS PAN), pp. 217–226. Grzegorczykowa Renata, 2003, Jeszcze w sprawie rozumieniaStudia dobra z semantyki porównawczej. Nazwy barw, nazwy wymiarów,, ed. predykaty Jerzy Bartmiński, mentalneLublin:, part 1, Wydawnictwo Warszawa: Wydawnictwa UMCS, pp. 261–272. UW. Grzegorczykowa Renata, Waszakowa Krystyna (eds.), 2000,Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods. The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics - Györi Gábor, 1996, Historical Aspects of Categorization, in: , ed. Eugene H. Casad, Berlin–New York: Mou ton de Gruyter, pp. 175–206. 326 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Jazykovědné aktuality Slovo a slovesnost Havlová Eva, 1965, O potřebě slovníku sémantických změn,Slavia , No. 4, pp. 3–4. Havlová Eva, 1978, K aktuálním otázkám etymologie, , No. 39, pp. Pocta308–309. Dušanu HavlováŠlosarovi Eva, 1994, Slovanská etymologie a homonymie, 63, pp. 141–148. Havlová Eva, 1995, Úloha rekonstrukce v etymologii a etymologie v rekonstrukcji, in: Sborník prací filosofické, ed.fakulty Petr brněnskéKarlík, Jana university Pleskalová, Zdenka Rusínová, Boskovice: Albert, pp. 249–255. Havlová Eva, 1998, Benennungen des Keulen-Bärlapps in den slavischen Sprachen, A 46, pp. 27–38.Slavia Havlová Eva, 1999, Komplexní situace jako sémantické východiskoDzieje Słowian při w vzníku świetle slovanských leksyki, ed. Jerzy slov (na příkladu sémantického východiska ‘chřadnout’), 68, pp. 287–294. - Havlovás Eva, 2002a, Etymologie a praslovanské reálie, in: Rusek, Wiesław Boryś, LeszekSborník Bednarczuk, prací filozofické Kraków: fakulty Wydawnictwo brněnské univerzity Uniwersytetu Jagielloń kiego, pp. 121–124. Компаративистика, уралистика. Лекции и статьи, Havlová Eva, 2002b, Paluba, A 50, pp. 61–66. Helimskij 2000 – ЕвгенийDas Erschließen А. Хелимский, unbelegter Sprachen. Zu den theoretischen Grundlagen der genetischenМосква: Языки Linguistik русской культуры. Holzer Georg, 1996, Rekonstruowanie języków niepoświadczonych, trans. Jolanta Krzysztoforska- , Frankfurt am Main–New York: P. Lang. Holzer Georg, 2001, Известия -Doschek, Kraków: Collegium Columbinum. Iljinskij 1904 – Григорий А. Ильинский, Чешское hezký „красивый”,Zeitschrift für romanische 9 , N o . 2 , pp.Philologie 279–282. Jaberg Karl, 1901, Pejorative Bedeutungsentwicklung im Französischen, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 25, pp. 561–601. Jaberg Karl, 1903, Pejorative Bedeutungsentwicklung im Französischen, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 27, pp. 25–71. Jaberg Karl, 1905, Pejorative Bedeutungsentwicklung imJęzyk Französischen, Polski 29, pp. 57–71. JakubowiczParallelen, Mariola, in: Studia 1992, etymologica Czy straszliwy Brunensia też się 1 boi?, 72, pp. 283–285. Jakubowicz Mariola, 2000, Indogermanische Etymologien in einem Wörterbuch der semantischen , ed. Ilona Janyškova, Helena Karlíková, Praha: undEuroslavica, ihre etymologische pp. 209–215. Motivation, in: Beiträge der Europäischen Slavistischen Linguistik Jakubowicz(Polyslav) Mariola, 2004, Die Bezeichnungen für ‘dumm’ und ‘klug’ in den slavischen Sprachen

, vol. 7 (Die Welt der Slaven 25), ed. Markus Bayer, Michael Betsch, Joanna Błaszczak,ǫ StudiaMünchen: etymologica Otto Sagner, Brunensia pp. 96–100. 6, ed. Jakubowicz Mariola, 2009, O rekonstrukcji pewnego przymiotnika psł.: *dužъ czy *d žъ?, in: Jak Ilona Janyšková, Helena Karlíková, Praha: Lidové noviny,- pp. 135–138.Slavia ubowicz Mariola, 2010, BadaniaPrasłowiańskie nad motywacjami dziedzictwo semantycznymi leksykalne we współczesnej w językoznawstwie polszczyźnie sło wiańskim,ogólnej 79, pp. 51–60. Jankowiak Lucyna A., 1997, Slavia , Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy (IS PAN). Janyšková Ilona, 1998a, Etymologicko-onomaziologická analýza slovanskýchМакедонско-чешка názvů научна dřevin, конференциjа 67, pp. 39–48. Janyšková Ilona, 1998b, K některým makedonským názvům dřevin, in: - Studia, ed. etymologica Мито Миовски, Brunensia Скопjе, pp. 143–150. Janyšková Ilona, 2000, Отражение жизни и представлений славян в названиях можжевель ника, in: , vol. 1, ed. Ilona Janyšková, Helena Karlíková,Česká slavistika Praha: Euroslavica,2003. České přednášky pp. 57–66. pro 13. mezinárodní kongres slavistů, Ljubljana 15. – 21. 8. 2003, ed. Ivo Janyšková Ilona, 2003, Vztah starých Slovanů ke stromům z hlediska jejich jmen, in:

Pospíšil, Praha: Academia, pp. 83–91. References Балканско езикозна- 327 ние Janyšková 2003–2004 – Илона Янышкова, Заметки по поводу слав.*sosna, Slavia 43, No 2–3, pp. 307–314. JuJanyšková Ilona, 2008, K některým aktuálním otázkám slovanské etymologie,Prace Filologiczne 77, 18, No. part 1–3, 1, pp. 5977–84. Jurewiczdycka Irmina, Oktawiusz, 1963, 1992, Synestezja Gramatyka w rozwoju historyczna znaczeniowym języka greckiego wyrazów, –78. - pismach subkultur, in: Relatywizm w języku i kulturze , Warszawa: PWN. Kajtoch Wojciech, Kajtoch Krystyna, 2010, O osobliwym posługiwaniu się słowem w czaso , ed. Anna Pajdzińska, Ryszard Tokarski, Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS, pp. 295–321. Slavia Karlíková Helena, 1998, Typy a původ sémantickýchVerba změn et výrazů historia pro pojmenování citovýcha stavů a jejich projevů ve slovanských jazycích, 67, p. 49–56. Karlíková Helena, 2005, Hněv ve staročeském lexiku, in: , ed. Petr Nejedlý, MiloslavSlavia Vajdlová, Igor Nemec, Praha: Ustav pro Jazyk Ceský Akademie Ved Ceske Republiky, pp. 161–165. KarKarlíková Helena, 2008, Úloha principu sémantických paralelPułapki v etymologickém leksykalne. Słownikvýzkumu, aproksy - matów77, No. polsko-bułgarskich1–3, pp. 85–92. paczewa Marta, Symeonowa Chriska, Tokarz Emil, 1994, , Katowice: Śląsk. Przeszłość w językowym obrazie Kępaświata Danuta, 1999, Pochodzenie wyrazu a współczesny obraz językowy odpowiadającego mu desygnatu (na przykładzie nazw gatunkowych ptaków), in: - , ed. Anna Pajdzińska, Piotr Krzyżanowski, Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS, pp. 137–148. Klein Franz-Josef, 2002, Von Anspruch und Problematik einer universalen Onomasiologie. An8, merkungen zumStudii Wörterbuch şi cercetari der lingvistice vergleichenden Bezeichnungslehre, (a review): Wörterbuch der vergleichenden Bezeichnungslehre,Semantic Change Onomasiologie. in English: A Study Red. ofJ. Schröpfer,Evalutive DevelopmentsA. Hönig, t. 1, z.in 1 the– Domain1980–1989, of 18, No. 1–4, pp. 1–13. Kleparski Grzegorz, 1990, Theory and Practice of Historical Semantics. The Case of Middle English and Early ModernHumans, English Lublin: Synonyms KUL. of “Girl/Young Woman,” Kleparski Grzegorz, 1997, Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego Lublin: KUL. Kleparski Grzegorz, 1999, Kierunki typologiczne w badaniach nad zmianą znaczeniową wyrazów, Podstawy gramatyki 55, pp. kognitywnej 77–91. - Kleparski Grzegorz, Malicka-Kleparska Anna, 1994, Panchroniczne zagadnienia onomazjologii w ujęciu gramatyki kognitywnej, in: pp., ed.219 Henryk Kardela (Biblio Kleszczowateka Myśli Krystyna, Semiotycznej), 1989, Warszawa:Verba dicendi Zakład w historii Semiotyki języka Logicznej polskiego. Uniwersytetu Zmiany znaczeń Warszawskiego:, Katowice: Znak-Język-Rzeczywistość, Polskie Towarzystwo Semiotyczne, –242. Klesz Prace językoznawczeWydawnictwo ,Uniwersytetu Śląskiego. czowa Krystyna, 2001, “Moralny” po staropolsku. Studium leksykalno-aksjologiczne, in: vol. 26, ed. Anna Kowalska, Olga Wolińska (Prace Naukowe UniwersytetuO do- skonałości.Śląskiego 2022), Materiały Katowice: z konferencji Wydawnictwo 21 23 majaUniwersytetu 2001 Śląskiego, pp. 93–101. Kleszczowa Krystyna,218. 2002, Zmiany w klasie polskich przymiotników ocen estetycznych, in: Kleszczowa Krystyna, 2003, Staropolskie derywaty– przymiotnikowe, vol. 1, Łódź: i ich perspektywicznaArchidiecezjalne ewolucja Wydaw., Łódzkie, pp. 207– Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika Katowice:Slovenska Wydawnictwoakademija znanosti UŚ. in umetnosti. Klopčič Mile et al. (eds.), 1970–1991, Семантична реконструкция., vol. Методологични 1–5, Ljubljana: аспекти Koleva-Zlateva 1998 – ЖивкаMetaphors Колева-Златева, of Anger, Pride and Love: a Lexical Approach to the Structure of Concepts,, Amsterdam:Велико Търново: John Benjamins. Знак ‘94. Kövecses Zoltan, 1986, Studia etymologica Brunensia 1 310. Králik Ľubor, 2000, Urslavisch *gъrdъ und seine baltischen Parallelen, in: , ed. Ilona Janyšková, Helena Karlíková, Praha: Euroslavica, pp. 305– 328 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Krawczyk-Tyrpa Anna, 2001, Tabu w dialektach polskich, Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Akademii Bydgoskiej. Kronass Handbuch der Semasiologie, kurze Einführung in die Geschichte, Problematik und Terminologie der Bedeutungslehre Krzesz er Heinz, 1952, - ch, Etnolingwistyka , Heidelberg: Carl Winter. owski Tomasz P., 1994, Parametr Семантико-мотивационноеaksjologiczny w przedpojęciowych поле schematach“отношение wyobra к соб- ственностиżeniowy ” в русских народных, No. 6, pp. говорах. 29–51. Этнолингвистический аспект (Дипломная Kubasovaработа) 2004 – Анна A. Кубасова, Этимология, , Екатеринбург: Уральский государственный университет имени А. М. Горького. Kurkina 1992 – Любов В. Куркина, Славянские этимологии (*skovorda, *pačьkati), 1988–1990,Этимология pp. 57–62. Kurkina 1994 – Любовь В. Куркина, Славянские этимологии (ю.-слaв. *trap, слaв.Этимология *šepati, *pelest’), 86., 1991–1993, pp. 32–45. Kurkina 2000a – Любовь В. Куркина, Еще раз к этимологии рус. раменье, in: 1997–1999, pp. 77– Studia etymologica Brunensia 1 Kurkina 2000b – Любовь В. Куркина, Понятие136. границы в системе пространственных представлений древних славян, in: , ed. Ilona Janyšková, Helena Karlíková, Praha: Euroslavica,Dzieje pp. 127Słowian– w świetle leksyki Kurkina 2002 – Любовь В. Куркина, К реконструкции динамики диалектных отношений159. на карте праславянского языка, in:Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University, ed. Jerzy of Rusek, Chicago Wiesław Press. Boryś, Leszek Bednarczuk, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, pp. 153– Lakoffin: StudiaGeorge, historyczne Johnson Mark, ku czci 1980, Stanisława Kutrzeby Lehr-Spławiński Tadeusz, 1938, Element prasłowiański w dzisiejszym słownictwie polskim, O pochodzeniu i praojczyźnie, vol. 2, Kraków: Słowian Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu InstytutuJagiellońskiego, Zachodniego. pp. 469–484. Lehr-Spławiński Tadeusz, 1946, , Poznań: WydawnictwoPrzeszłość w językowym obrazie świata ŁozowskiUMCS, pp. Przemysław, 25 50. 1999, Panchronia, czyli językoznawstwo bez synchronii, in: Introduction to, ed. Theoretical Anna Pajdzińska, Linguistics Piotr, Cambridge: Krzyżanowski, Cambridge Lublin: University Wydawnictwo Press. – Wstęp do językoznawstwa Lyons John, 1968, Lyons John, 1975, 1939, Untersuchungen, Warszawa: zum Problem PWN. des anlautenden ch- im Slavischen, LyonsSlavia John, 16, 1977, pp. 161 Semantics,219. vol. 2, Cambridge University Press. Machek Václav, 1938– Homonimia i homonimy w opisie językoznawczym, Warszawa: Elipsa. – Praojczyzna Słowian Majewska Małgorzata, 2002,Praojczyzna Słowian. Zbiór wypowiedzi pod redakcją Witolda Mańczaka, Mańczak Witold, 1981, , Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Mańczak Witold, 2001, Przedhistoryczne migracje Słowian i pochodzenie języka staro-cerkiewno- Kraków:-słowiańskiego Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Mańczak Witold, 2004, Derywacja semantyczna rzeczowników ekspresywnych , Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. MasłowskaMeillet Antoine, Ewa, 1903, 1988, Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européenes, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. , Paris: Librairie- Hachette et Cie. Этимология MerMelničuk 1968 – Александр С. Мельничук, Корень kes- и его разновидности в лексике славян- ских и других индоевропейскихЭтимологические языков, исследования, 1966, pp. 194–240. kulova 1988 – Валентина A. Meркулова, Проблема семантической реконструкции в этимо логическом словаре, in: , vol. 4, Свердловск: Уральский Общеславянскийгосударственный лингвистический университет, pp. атлас 4–7. . Материалы и исследования Merkulova 1989a – 268.Валентина A. Meркулова, К вопросу о семантической реконструкции, in: , 1985–1987, Moсквa: Наука, pp. 266– 329

References

Этимология 152. MeMerkulova 1989b – Валентина A. Meркулова, Народные названия болезней (на материалеIndo- germрусскогоanische языка), Forschungen IV, , 1986–1987,106. pp. 140– Mikorlingen Weriand, 1978, Über eine Bedeutungsverzweigung im indogermanischen Lexikon, - nych, Poradnik Językowy 83, pp. 40– łajczuk Agnieszka, 1994,Podstawy Objawy emocjileksykologii gniewu i leksykografii utrwalone w polskich metaforach potocz 7, pp.Pierwotny 20-29. zasiąg języka prasłowiańskiego Miodunka Władysław, 1989, , Warszawa: PWN. Moszyński Kazimierz, 1957a, [!] , Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Język Polski 299. Moszyński Kazimierz, 1957b, Uwagi do 5. zeszytu ‘Słownika etymologicznego językaSlavia polskiego’ Orien- talisFr. Sławskiego,2, pp. 195 200. 37, pp. 292– Moszyński Leszek, 1980, Najstarsze zróżnicowanie dialektyczne prasłowiańszczyzny, 29, No. 1– –Prasłowiańszczyzna i jej rozpad Moszyński Leszek, 1998, Językowe85. i pozajęzykowe kryteria dotyczące podziału dialektycznego prasłowiańszczyzny, in:Wstęp do filologii słowiańskiej , ed. Jerzy Rusek, Wiesław Boryś, Warszawa: Energeia, pp. 79– Этимология, 1980, pp. 50 56. Moszyński Leszek, 2006, , Warszawa: PWN (2ndStudia edition). etymologica Mur’janovBrunensia 1982 1 – Mихаил Ф. Mурьянов, Силa (пoнятиe и слoвo), 226. – Nejedlý Petr, 2000,Rekonstrukce Rekonstrukce lexikálního sémantického vývoje, Praha: vývoje Academia. a etymologie, in: , ed. Ilona Janyšková, Helena Karlíková,Manuál Praha:lexikografie Euroslavica, pp. 223– Němec Igor, 1980, Němec Igor, 1995, Diachronní lexikografie, in: , ed. Frantisek Cermak, Praha, ОбщаяJinocany: лексика H & H, германскихpp. 182–207. и балто-славянских языков Nepokupnyj et al. 1989 – Анатолий П. Нeпoкупный, Наталия Н. Быховец, Изабелла Р. Буниятoвa, Język a Kultura, vol. 13, Językowy obraz świata i kultura , Kиев: Наукова думка. Niewiara Aleksandra, 2000, Badania etymologii a odtwarzanie językowego obrazu świata, in: 105. (Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis, 2218), ed. Anna Dąbrowska, Janusz Anusiewicz, Wrocław: WydawnictwoŚląskie Uniwersytetu studia lingwi- styczneWrocławskiego,, ed. Krystyna pp. 97 Kleszczowa,– Joanna Sobczykowa, Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Niewiara Aleksandra, 2003,122. Zmiany semantyczne w ujęciu panchronicznym, in: Rečnik srpskoga jezika Śląskiego, pp. 115– Iwona, 1995, Konceptualizacja uczuć w języku polskim. Prolegomena, Nikolić Miroslav (ed.), 2007, , Novi Sad: Matica srpska. Nowakowska-KempnaObščeslavjanskij lingvističeskij atlas Общеславянский лингвистический атлас. Серия лек- сико-словообразовательнаяWarszawa: Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna, vol. 1: Животный Towarzystwa мир Wiedzy Powszechnej w Warszawie. Obščeslavjanskij lingvističeskij atlas 1988 – Общеславянский лингвистический атлас. Серия лексико-словообразовательная, vol. 2: Животноводство, ed. Рубен, ed. И. Jan Аванесов, Basara et Москва: al., Warszawa: Наука. 2000a – Obščeslavjanskij lingvističeskij atlas Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN. Растительный мир 2000b – Общеславянский лингвистический атлас. Серия Obščeslavjanskijлексико-словообразовательная, lingvističeskij atlas vol. 3: Общеславянский лингвистический, ed. Александр И. атлас. Подлужный, Серия Минск:лексико-словообразовательная [s.n.]. , vol. 8: Профессии и общественная жизнь, ed. Jan Basara, 2003 – The Meaning of Meaning Janusz Siatkowski, Warszawa: Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN. Studia z Filologii OgdenPolskiej Charles i Słowiańskiej Kay, Richards Ivor Armstrong,283; 1923, , London: Kegan Paul. Orłoś Teresa Z., 1958, Element prasłowiański w dzisiejszym słownictwie czeskim, slav. -oba, Indogermanische 3, pp. Forschungen277– Osten-Sacken W. Freiherrr von den, 1911, Die Bedeutungssphäre der Eigenschaftsabstrakta auf 28, pp. 416–24. 330 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Лексика обозначающая категориальные признаки пищи в русской языковой традиции. Этнолингвистический аспект P’jankova 2008 – Ксения В. Пьянкова, , Екатеринбург: Уральский государственныйJęzykowy университетobraz świata имени А. М. Горького. Pajdzińska Anna, 1990, Jak mówimy o uczuciach? Poprzez analizę frazeologizmów do językowego świata, in: , ed. Jerzy Bartmiński, Ryszard Tokarski, Lublin:Etnolingwistyka. Wydawnictwo UMCS,Problemy pp. Języka 87–107. i Kultury PajdzińskaPajd Anna, 1995, Motywacja semantyczna przymiotników wartościujących, Annales Uni- versitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, No. 7, pp. 5–20. zińska Anna, 2000, “Temperatura” jako domena źródłowa metafor językowych, w perspektywie kognitywnej, Język 18, Polski Sectio FF, pp. 201–212.183. Pałka Patrycja, 2004, RozwójPrinzipien i zmiany der Sprachgeschichte semantyczne leksemów “godny,” “grzeczny” i “przystojny” 84, pp. 174– PaulЭ тимологияHermann, 1880, 156. , Halle: Max Niemeyer. Petleva 1968 – Ирина П. Петлева, Праславянский слой лексики сербохорватского языка I, Этимология, 1968, pp. 114– 50. PetlevPetleva 1978 – Ирина П. Петлева, Этимологические заметки по славянской лексике. X (слав.Эти- мо*ľutъ),логия , 1988 90,, 1976, pp. 52 pp. 42– a 1992 – Ирина П. Петлева, Этимологические заметки по славянской лексике. XVII, - -chorwackiego,–19 Studia z Filologii–57. Polskiej i Słowiańskiej 12, pp. 285 300. Pizłówna Barbara, 1971, Element prasłowiański w słownictwie współczesnego języka serbskoPara- lele w rozwoju słownictwa języków słowiańskich – Popowska-Taborska Hanna, 1989, O potrzebie 26.słownika semantycznych paralelizmów, in: Wczesne dzieje Słowian, ed. Hannaw świetle Popowska-Taborska, ich języka Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, pp. 19– Popowska-Taborska Hanna, 1991, , Wrocław: Zakład StudiaNarodowy etymologica im. Ossolińskich. Brunensia 2 Račevapp. 163 2003 – Мария Рачева, Към проблематиката на семантичната имплицитност, in: , ed. Ilona Janyšková, Helena Karlíková, Praha: LidovéStudia noviny, z Filo- logii Polskiej–178. i Słowiańskiej 199. RaRečnikdewa SANU Sabina, 1963, Element prasłowiański w dzisiejszym słownictwie Речник српскохрватског bułgarskim, књижев- ног и народног језика САНУ 4, pp. 171– Речник српскохрватског 1959– – Александар књижевног Белић и (ed.),народног 1959–1989, језика САНУ , vol. 1–14,Речник Београд: српскохрватског САНУ. књижевног и народног језика – САНУ , 1996, vol. 15, Београд: САНУ. – Митар Пешикан (ed.), 2001–2006, Речник српскохрватског књижевног и народног језика, vol.САНУ 16–17, Београд: САНУ. – Даринка Гортан-ПремкPolszczyzna (ed.), i inne 2010–, języki w perspektywie porównawczej , vol. 18–, Београд: САНУ. Reczek Józef, 1991,The Proto-Slavic Word-Initial x- , Wrocław etc.: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Semazyologia czyli nauka o rozwoju znaczeń wyrazów. Jej stan obecny, Rejzekzasady Jiří, i 2008, zadania , Praha: Nakladatelstvi Karolinum. Rozwadowski Jan, 1903,Fair, Foul, Nice, Proper. A Contribution to the Study of Polysemy, Stockholm: , Lwów: Towarzystwo Filologiczne. Rudskoger Arne, 1952, Studia etymologica Brunensia 1Almqvist & Wiksell. Rusek Jerzy, 2000, Nazwy dla ‘piękny’ w językach słowiańskich,Sborník pracíin: filosofické fakulty brněnské university, ed. Ilona Janyšková, Helena Karlíková, Praha: Euroslavica, pp. 137–143. Šarapatková Žofie, 1996, SémantickýEinführung vývoj in psl.die Indogermanistikjędrъ, A 44, pp. 21–23. Slawische Schmitt-BrandtWortstudien, Robert,Sammelband 1998, des internationalen Symposiums zur, etymologischenTübingen: Francke. und historischen Schuster-ŠewcErforschung Heinz, des slawischen 1975, Modellierung Wortschatzes, semantischer Leipzig, Bautzen: Prozesse Domovina, und Etymologie, pp. 12 19. in:

– 331

References A Prehistory of Slavic. The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic - berg: Carl Winter Universitӓtsverlag. Shevelov George Y., 1964, , Heidel- Paralele w rozwoju słownictwa języków słowiańskich, Siatkowski Janusz, 1989, Europejskie paralele motywacyjne słownictwa słowiańskiego (na margi nesie “Atlasu języków Europy”), in: Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne. ed.Seria Hanna Językoznawcza Popowska-Taborska, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, pp. 39–49. Sierociuk Jerzy, 2001,Słownik Czy istniał serbsko-polskich prasłowiański homonimów język poetycki, i paronimów 8, pp. 127–137. Šipka Danko, 1999, Besedna družina iż korena “*god-” v slovanskih, Poznań: jezikih Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Šivic-Dular Alenka, 1999, , Ljubljana:in: Studia Založbaetymologica ZRC. Brunensia 1 Skalka Boris, 2000, Problematika etymologizování slangových a argotických výrazů,Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. English, ed. Studies Ilona Janyšková,VI. Humanities Helena and Karlíková, Social Sciences Praha: Euroslavica, pp. 271–276. Skrzypczak Waldemar, 1995, Cognitive Linguistics and Paradigmatic Change, in: Z Polskich Studiów Slawistycznych. Prace językoznawcze i etnogenetyczne 301, na pp. IV 13–35. Międzynarodowy SławskiKongres Franciszek, Slawistów 1958, w Moskwie Uwagi 1958o badaniach etymologicznych nad słownictwem słowiańskim, Z Polskich Studiów Slawistycznych, Prace na ,VI ed. Międzynarodowy Przemysław Zwoliński, Kongres Warszawa: Slawistów PWN, w Pradze pp. 99–107. 1968. Sławski3. Językoznawstwo Franciszek, 1968, Z zagadnień rekonstrukcji słowotwórstwa prasłowiańskiego, in: Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny , ed. Witold Doroszewski, Warszawa: PWN, pp. 35–41. Sławski Franciszek, 1977, Zgodności leksykalne słowiano-germańskie, Etnogeneza i topogeneza 24,Słowian No. 2–3, pp. 399–402. Sławski Franciszek, 1980, Praojczyzna Słowian w świetle etymologii, in: wokalizmie, ed. pierwiastka,Irena Kwilecka, Acta Poznań: Baltico-Slavica PWN, pp. 23–28. Sławski Franciszek, 1982,Slavica. O bałtosłowiańskich Wybrane studia przymiotnikach z językoznawstwa z sufiksem słowiańskiego -ra- o zredukowanym 14, pp. 207–209. Sławski Franciszek, 1989, Poradnik Językowy , ed. Władysław Sędzik, Wrocław: Zakład NarodowyUntersuchungen im. Ossolińskich. zum deutschen Lehngut im Altpreussischen Słuszkiewicz Eugeniusz, 1955, Notatki etymologiczne 1. Przykry, , No. 1, pp. 20–24. Smoczyński Wojciech, 2000, , Kraków: WydawnictwoЭкскурсы Uniwersytetu в историю Jagiellońskiego. русской лексики Smolina 1978 – Ксения П. Смолина, К изучению семантической истории прилагательного великий, in: The Diathesis in Indo-European, ed., Евдокия Т. Черкасова, Москва: Наука, pp. 109–127. Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich Stefański Witold, 1991, Poznań: WydawnictwoЭтимология Naukowe UAM. Stieber Zdzisław, 1979, , Warszawa: PWN. Syročkin 1997 – Валерий В. Сырочкин,Czesko-polska Этимологические homonimia, заметки. II, , 1994–1996, Москва: Наука, pp. 75–78. Вопросы Szałekязыкознания Marek, Nečas Jiří, 1993, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Szemerényi Oszvald, 1967, Славянская этимология на индоевропейском фоне, in: Etymologie, No. 4, pp. 3–25. Szemerényi Oszvald, 1977, Principles of Etymological Research in the Indo-European Languages, , ed. RüdigerKognitywne Schmitt, podstawyDarmstadt: języka Wissenschaftliches i językoznawstwa Buchgeschellschaft, pp. 287–346. Полiсемiчний паралелiзм i явище семантичної Tabakowskaаналогiї Elżbieta, 2001, , Kraków: Universitas. Taranenko 1980 – OлександрCoginitive O.Grammar Тараненко,, , Kиїв: Наукова думка. Germanisch-romanische Monatsschrift, Taylor John R., 2002, Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press. Tiktin Heimann Hariton, 1910, Wörterbücher der Zukunft, PojęcieNo. 2, pp. derywacji 243–253. w lingwistyce Tokarski Ryszard, 1981, Derywacja semantyczna jako jedno ze źródeł polisemii wyrazowej, in: , ed. Jerzy Bartmiński, Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS, pp. 91–105. 332 The Development of Words Across Centuries

Język Polski 188. Znaczenie słowa i jego modyfikacje w tekście Tokarski Ryszard, 1983, JęzykowyTeorie pól obraz znaczeniowych świata w met a analizaaforach semowa,potocznych , in: Językowy 63, pp.obraz 179 świata– , Tokarski Ryszard, 1987, , Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS. TokarskiTokarz Emil, Ryszard, 1998, 1999, Pułapki leksykalne. Słownik aproksymatów polsko-chorwackich Tokarzed. Jerzy Emil, Bartmiński,1999, Pułapki Lublin: leksykalne. Wydawnictwa Słownik aproksymatów UMCS, pp. 65 –polsko-słoweńskich78. Играть и гулять , Katowice: Śląsk.Эти- мология , Katowice: Śląsk. Tolstaja 200 2000 – Светлана М. Толстая, : семантический параллелизм, Русский язык, 1997–1999, в научном pp. освещении 164–171. 2 – Светлана М. Толстая, Мотивационные семантические модели иprěsnъ картина мира,- Ad fontes, Noverborum. 1 (3), pp. Исследования 112–127. по этимологии и историче- Tolstajaской 2006семантике. – Светлана К 70-летию М. Толстая, Ж.Ж. О Варботсемантике каритивности (слав. и его парадиг pp.матические 363 380. портнеры, in: , ed. Анатолий Ф. Журавлев, Москва: Индрик,*slěp in: Словенска– етимологиjа данас Tolstaja 2007– Светлана М. Толстая, Почему слепой не видит? (к этимологии слав. -), ,Пространство ed. Александар слова. Лома, Лексическая Београд: Институт семантика за в српскиобщес- лавянскойјезик, САНУ, перспективе pp. 409–419. Tolstaja 2008а – Светлана M. Толстая, - , Москва: Индрик.Славянское языкознание. XIV Международный съезд Tolstajaславистов, 2008b –Охрид, Светлана 10 16 M. сентябряТолстая, Семантическая 2008 г.: доклады реконструкция росcийской делегации и проблема многознач ности праславянского, слова, in: – , ed. Александр М. Молдован Москва: Индрик, pp. 451–Studia474. etymologica Brunensia 6 Tolstaja 2009 – Светлана M. Толстая, ‘Kopмить’ и ‘хopонить’355. (к сeмaнтичeской реконструкции славянской погребальной лексики), in: , ed.Общеславянский Ilona Janyšková, лингвистическийHelena Karliková, Praha: атлас. Lidové Материалы nowiny, и pp.изследования 341– 1974, pp. 22 Tolstoj 1976 – Никита И. Толстой, Из географии славянских слов: 8. ‘радуга,’Poradnik Językowy 9, pp. 26 33. –76. Tomczak Katarzyna, 1994, FrazeologizmyBaltisch-Slawisches nazywające Wörterbuch strach w języku polskim, – - Trautmann Reinhold, 1923, Проблемы индоевропейского, Göttingen: языкознания. Vandenhoeck Этюды & по Ruprecht. сравни- Trubačevтельно-исторической 1964 – Oлег H. Tpyбачев, семантике ‘Moлчать’ индоевропейских и ‘таять.’ O языков нeoбходимости семазиологическо105. го словаря нового типа, in: Вопросы языкознания, , Moсквa: Наука, pp. 100– Trubačev 1980 – Oлег H. Tpyбачев, Реконструкция слов и их значений, Сравнитель- No.но-историческое 3, pp. 3–14. изучение языков разных семей. Теория лингвистической pеконструкции, Trubačev 1988 – Oлег H. Tpyбачев, Приемы ceмaнтичeскoй222. pеконструкции, in: Этногенез и культура древнейших славян. Лингвистические ed.исследования Владимир Н. Топоров, Москва: Наука, pp. 197– Trubačev 2002 – Oлег H. TheTpyбачев, Principles of Semantics , Москва: Наука (2nd edition). - Ullmanngnisse, Stephen, Slavia 1957, , Oxford: Blackwell (2nd edition). Valčáková Pavla, 1995, Die slawischenПраславянская Namen der морфология,Fleischfüllen undсловообразование der mit ihnen gefüllten и этимология Erzeu, 64, pp. 409–419. Varbot 1984 – Жанна Ж. Варбот, Москва: Наука. Этимология Varbot 1986 – Жанна Ж. Варбот, О возможностях реконструкции этимологического гнезда на семантическихЭтимология основаниях,, 1988 , 1984, pp. 33–40. Varbot 1992a – Жанна Ж. Варбот, K этимологии славянских прилагательных сo значeниeм- ‘быстрый.’Wiener I, Slavistisches Jahrbuch–1990, 38, pp.pp. 44233–49. Varbot 1992b – Жанна Ж. Варбот, Связи значений и семантическая реконструкция в этимо логии, –241. References 333

Этимология – – Varbot 1994 – Жанна Ж. Варбот, K этимологии славянских прилагательных сo значeниeм ‘быстрый.’ II, Этимология, 1991 1993, pp. 54 –57. Varbot 1997 – Жанна Ж. Варбот,Слав. K этимологии славянскихБалто-славянские прилагательных исследования сo значeниeм 1998– ‘быстрый.’1999. XIV III, , 1994-1996, pp. 35 46. – Varbot 2000 – Жанна Ж. Варбот, *pilьnъ(jъ), in: , ed. Антон БолеславовичСлавянское Брейдак языкознание. и др., Москва: XIV Индрик, Международный pp. 24 26. съезд сла- Varbotвистов, 2008 Охрид, – Жанна 10– Ж.16 Варбот, сентября Этимологические 2008 г.: доклады гнезда росcийской и лексико-семантические делегации поля в диахронии ,и синхронии, in: – K pramenům slov. Uvedení do etymologie , ed. Александр М. Молдован Москва: Индрик, pp. 84 95. Večerka Radoslav,Studia 2006, etymologica Brunensia 1 , Praha: Lidové noviny. Vlajić-Popović Jasna, 2000,– Some Slavic Etymologies Reconsidered – Formal and Semantics Guidelines, Istorijska semantika glagola, ed. Ilonaudaranja Janyšková, u srpskom Helena jeziku. Karliková, Preko etimologije Praha: doEuroslavica, modela semasiološkog pp. 191 200. rečnika Vlajić-Popović Jasna, 2002, Semantyka językoznawcza , Beograd: Institut za srpski jazyk SANU. WierzchowskiJužnoslovenski Józef, 1980, filolog – , Warszawa: PWN. Wojtyła-Świerzowska Maria, 1991,Prasłowiańskie Dlaczego głuchy abstractum. nie słyszy? Słowotwórstwo. Rozważania Semantyka. o etymologii I. For psł.- macje*gluchъ, tematyczne 47, pp. 209 220. Wojtyła-Świerzowska Maria, 1992, Kieleckie, Warszawa: Studia Slawistyczny Filologiczne Ośrodek Wydawniczy– (IS PAN). Wojtyła-Świerzowska Maria,Völkerpsychologie. 1999, Od homonimii Eine Untersuchung do polisemii der Entwicklungsgesetze(na marginesie drobiazgów von Sprache, ety- Mythusmologicznych), und Sitte Die Sprache 13, pp. 149 155. Wundt Wilhelm, 1900, Семасиология , vol. 1: , Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann. Zvegincev 1957 – Владимир А. Звегинцев, , Москва: Издательство Московского унивесрситета.