The Role of Calques in the Early Czech Language Revival Author(s): George Thomas Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Oct., 1978), pp. 481-504 Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4207718 . Accessed: 18/06/2014 14:00 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic and East European Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Transcript
The Role of Calques in the Early Czech Language RevivalAuthor(s): George ThomasSource: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Oct., 1978), pp. 481-504Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4207718 .
Accessed: 18/06/2014 14:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A RECENT assessment of the work of the late Boris Unbegaun notes, with obvious regret, that in the study of calques in the Slavonic languages 'apart from a few isolated articles, little has been done to carry forward research in this field in which Unbegaun made such an excellent start'.' In Czech scholarship the role of calques has been given due attention, particularly in the work of Havranek on the literary language,2 Jedlikka in his investigation of the linguistic and literary terminology ofJungmann,3 and Nemec in his recent synthesis of Czech historical lexicology.4 Nevertheless only one work, Norbert Reiter's Die deutschen Lehnibersetzungen im Tschechischen5, has been en- tirely devoted to the study of calques in Czech. Despite the wealth of material collected byReiter it cannot be said that our knowledgeof the chronology of the introduction of calques or of the language situation which encouraged their use is in any way deepened by this study. The present paper sets out to determine- the theoretical attitudes to calques among the writers and scholars active in the final decades of the eighteenth century and to show how, and to what extent, these theories were put into practice.
George Thomas is Associate Professor of Russian at McMaster University.
1 Robert Auty, 'B. 0. Unbegaun's Contributions to Russian and Slavonic Philology' (Oxford Svnkc Papers, New Series, vol. vi, I974, p. IO).
2 Bohuslav Havr&nek, Vjwj spisovndho jazyka Jeskiho, (eskoslovenskA vlastiv&da, ftada II, Spisovnfjazyk, Prague, 1936, pp. i-i44.
3 Alois Jedlika, Josef jtungmann a obrozznskd tcrminologic literrnm vidnd a linguistickd, Prague, I948.
' Igor Ncmec, V wjovipostupy Jesk slovnl zasoby (Studie a price linguistick6, 7), Prague, 1968.
6 Norbert Reiter, Die deutschen Lehnfbersetzungen im Tschechischen, Berlin, 1953.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I Following the publication of Walter Schamschula's Die Anfdnge der tschechischen Erneuerung und das deutsche Geistesleben (1740-i800) (Munich, I973), no justification for the study of this crucial period need be given. Nevertheless with the important exception of Josef Dobrovsk9, the figures of the early Czech language revival have been largely ignored. This is probably to be explained by the fact that so few of Dobrovsky's contemporaries wrote explicitly about lexicology. Studies of the dictionaries of Tham, Tomsa and Dobrovskf or the translations of Zeberer, Tham, Tomsa and Zlobickf are lacking. Alone among the figures of the period, Wenzel Pohl (Vaclav Pol) has achieved a degree of obloquy as a result of his unprincipled and idiosyncratic neologisms and over-zealous purism.
In the linguistic literature the term calque is normally used as the equivalent of German Lehnprdgung, which subsumes 'alle Einfluisse einer Sprache auf eine andere, die sich nicht auf die Laute, sondern auf Bildung und Bedeutung erstrecken'.6 In this paper we shall exclude Lehnsyntax, Lehnwendung and for the most part also Lehn- bedeutung. Hence we shall be dealing with Lehnbildungen, i.e. words formed 'aus dem Stoff der eigenen Sprache, aber durch den Anstoss eines fremden Vorbildes',7 e.g. Cz hospoddfstvi (G Wirtschaft), zloutenka (Gelbsucht), premluvit (uberreden), pfedm6sti (Vorstadt). These Lehnbildungen may be further divided into: (a) Lehnibersetzungen (Liis.) ('die genaue Glied-fur-Glied-tVbersetzung des Vorbildes') e.g. zem6tfeseni (Erdbeben), okamzik (Augenblick), (b) Lehnibertragungen (Ltit.) ('die freiere Teilibertragung'), e.g. nemocnice (Krankenhaus),
jinotaj (L allegoria); (c) Lehnschopfungen (Ls.) ('die formal un- abhangige Neubildung eines Wortes zur tVbersetzung eines fremden'), e.g. nddraz'{ (Bahnhof), kopana (Fussball), krasoveda (in Jungmann) (Asthetik). The last group would be considered by many linguists as pure neologisms and, because of their independence of the foreign model, should be treated separately from other calques. This distinction is all the more important because there is often a profoundly different linguistic consciousness underlying their creation.
II The replacement of foreign words by Czech equivalents goes back at least to the fourteenth century and may even have enjoyed an unbroken tradition from OCS calques of Greek and Latin, cf.
6 Werner Betz, 'Die Leinbildungen und der abendliindische Sprachenausgleich' (Beitrdge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 67, Tubingen, I944, p. 295).
7 Ibid., p. 296.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
v.emohici for omnipotens, prvorozenec for primogenitus.8 A conscious effort to make the vocabulary more Czech can be seen in the work of the lexicographers of the court of Charles IV: profek (prologus), jinovna (allegoria), zemomJrna (geometria), (all examples from Prelpursk) Slovnik), sevienie (conclusio) (Rajhradsky Slovnik), Hlovelenstvi (humanitas) (from Nomenclator).' Jan Hus was alarmed by the standard of Czech displayed by his Prague parishioners and set about creating words which would be readily comprehensible to his congregation composed mostly of artisans, e.g. hlavizna for capitola, akazka for monstraci, radni duim for Rathaus, spolupodstatny for consubstantialis.'0 The humanism of the Renaissance brought with it a greater degree of tolerance of foreign words, which considerably influenced the word stock of Czech writers, lexicographers and grammarians up to and including Komensky." Thus it has been said of Blahoslav: 'Ano Blahoslav, ac sam cituje krasna slova Husova o 6istote jazyka, negtftf se ani slov nemeckych'.'2 The following are typical of his grammatical terminology: deklinaci, preposici, translaci, ortografi, pronunciaci, but the calques sklonini, pfeklddati, vyfknuti, vymluvenz should also be noted.'3 Even the Nomenclator quadrilinguis boem. lat. graec. germanicus of 1598 has veseld hra for Lustspiel, smutna hra for tragedia, povrchnost for superficies."4
A sense of shame began to develop among the writers of the Baroque that Czech had to use even the following foreign words: proces, suplikaci, theologie, filozoffie, retoryka, grammatyka, forma etc.'5 The first tentative steps to rectify the situation were made by Ji'ri Konstanc in his Lima, where he suggests a 'modus faciendi nova nomina quibus indigemus pro versionibus ex alienis linguis', e.g. nemocnicy for infirmaria, nerozdilnovolnosti for indifferentia.16 Konstanc was followed by the more radical reforms of Vaclav Rosa, who was
8 N6mec, op. cit., p. I43. 9 Alois Lisicky, 'Z d6jin zipasu o cesk6 slovo' (Osveta, 49, Prague, 1919, pp. 475-78,
hereafter Lisicky, Osvita, 49). 10 Vaclav Flajshans, Nd! jazyk matdskj, Prague, 1924, p. 222; Emanuel MichAlek,
'Adjektivni neologismy v Husove jazyce' (Listy filologicki, go, Prague, 1967, pp. 247-50) and 'K Husovym lexikilnim neologizmum v oblasti substantiv' (ibid., 89, I966, pp. 67-74); Igor Nemec, 'Nova slova Husova a J. A. Komensk6ho' (Slovo a Slovesnost, 31, Prague, 1970, pp.313-24).
l Lisicky, Osveta, 49, p. 542; Stanislav Krlik, 'K otAce vlivu latiny na rozvoj slovni zAsoby humanistickd ceftiny' in Ceskoslovenskipfednd!ky prol VI mezindrodni sjezd slavistz v Praze, Prague, 1968, pp. 171-73.
18 Flaj?hans, op. Cit5, p. 276. l3Josef Vintr, 'Terminologicky system Gramatiky &esk6 Jana Blahoslava' (Listy
filologicki, 95, 1972, pp. 152-53)- 14 Lisicky, Osvzta, 49, P. 543. 15 Jifi Konstanc, Lima linguae Bohemicae, Prague, I667, p. i6i. Throughout the paper
the original spelling is retained in quotations from primary material, with the following exceptions: j = i, cz = c, sz = -, ss = 9, g = j, au = ou, w = v.
16 Ibid., pp. 49-50. He adds: 'Hic deceo posse nos aliarum nationum vocabula boemizare, ut Latini Graeca et Germani Latina, Gallica etc. sua faciunt.'
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to have considerable influence on language thinking right up to the time of Jungmann.17 In the chapter on word-formation (entitled 'Syntax' !) of his 6echoWecnost18 Rosa sets out to show how native words can be built up on the model of, and to replace, foreign compound words. He has been criticized by Dobrovskf and others for his ignorance of the laws of Czech word-building.19 Nevertheless his was a genuine attempt to provide Czech with a native abstract vocabu- lary. Many of his creations were later accepted by Jungmann, e.g. casoslovo (Zeitwort) predhra (Vorspiel, praeludium), dobropisemnost (Recht- schreibung, orthographia), spoluzvulka (Mitlauter, consonans), veselohra (Lustspiel),20 while others provided the impulse for the formation of analogous words, e.g. Rosa's words with spolu- are replaced with the prefix sou-,2' okolostojicnost abbreviated to okolnost (for circumstantia, Umstand). A number of Rosa's words may still be found in use: priislovce, spojka (calqued on Latin adverbium, conjunctio).22 While this purism may be seen as a reaction to the overloading of foreign words by the humanists,23 it is clear that Rosa drew inspiration from the puristic tendencies which elsewhere characterized the Baroque. More specifically he, like those who came after him, was strongly influenced by the work of Philip von Zesen and the activities of the Sprachgesellschaften in Germany.24 An attempt was being made to rid German of words like Kloster, Fenster, Theater, Obelisk. 'To znaje Rosa nemohl odolati pokuseni zkusiti podobne brouseni take v materstine sv61.25 The closeness to the German movement is even discernible in the choice of words requiring purification, e.g. Gesichtsvorsp rung for Nase, cf. vonocit, citon for nos; samotov for kldJter, videlkyn6 for oko.26 All these examples in fact come from Rosa's successors who went to
17 The most complete study of Rosa is a recent Berkeley Ph.D. dissertation: Helen Svoboda, The Work on Word Formation by V. J. Rosa (1621-8z), 1970; see also Jaroslav PotAk, 'Rosova Mluvnice a vyvoj Zeftiny a &ske lingvistiky v I7. stoleti' (Studia Slavica Pragensia, 1973, pp. 39-53).
18 Viclav J. Rosa, Cechoreenost seu grammatica linguae bohemicae, Micro-Pragae, I672. 19 Josef Dobrovsky, Die Bildsamkeit der Slawischen Sprache an der Bildung der Substantive und
Adjective in der B6hmischen Sprache dargestkllt, Prague, 1799, p. 58; Franti?ek Bily, Od kolibky na3eho obrozenf, Prague, 1904, pp. 40, 46.
20 Jedlicka, op. cit., p. 4I. 21 Ibid., pp. 40-4i. 22 Lisicky, Osvita, 49, p. 546. 23 It is worth remembering that loan-words have been favoured during fruitful, rather
than decline periods; see jaromir BE1ic, 'Poznimky o postaveni n6meck%ch pfejatfch slov v dne?rni celtine' (Slavisch-deutsche Wechselbeziehungen in Sprache, Literatur uid Kultur, Berlin, I969, p. 9): 'ZvlsAt je vsak zajimave, ze nejv6t?i mnoestvi slov z n6m&iny v dnedni spisovne 6eftin6 neni z dob cesk6ho ipadku, jak se dosud obyZejn6 soudilo, nybrl naopak (s v jimkou nejnov6j?iho iidobi od konce prvni svetove vAlky) z dob rozvoje a rozkv6tu'. In support he quotes the findings of an article by Rippl which was to have appeared in Slavia, i8, Prague, I944, pp. I-32.
24 For a note on the Sprachgesellschaften and the relevant literature see Adolf Bach, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, gth edn, Heidelberg, I970, pp. 325-28.
25 Bily, op. cit., p. 43. 26 Henrik Becker, Zwei Sprachanschldisse, Berlin and Leipzig, 2948, p. 98.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
extremes in their purist zeal. Despite this, Rosa's effect on later Czech lexicography has been characterized as beneficial by Flajshans, who considered him a light shining in the darkness of his time.27 His ideas are carried forward in the work of Pohl who in spirit belongs to the Baroque but in time to the early phase of the Czech language revival.
III Wenzel Pohl (I 720-90) spent his active life in Vienna, where he was very influential at the court of Maria Theresa. Little is recorded of Pohl's linguistic theories apart from standard Baroque topoi like the following:
Aus welch allen [examples of word-formation-G.T.] abzunehmen ist, dass die Bohmische Sprache im Reichtum der Worten [sic!] keinen Mangel erleide, weder andern Sprachen weiche, sondern selbe theils noch uibertreffe, insonders in ausnehmbarer Ausdrucklichkeit der Deutungen.28
Therefore we are left to judge his intentions by his lexicographical work, which is best seen in the third and subsequent editions of his grammar29 in an appendix containing about 6,ooo words and entitled 'Slovnik reci 6esk6'. This vocabulary is made of (a) words in normal use, (b) words recently created by the purists and (c) Pohl's own neologisms.30 It is the last group which has received considerable comment.
The main objections to Pohl's neologisms have been to his cavalier attitude towards the rules of word-formation, cf. forms like mluv6tnost (Beredsamkeit), umttnost (Gelehrsamkeit) (p. 235), his use of Moravianisms, e.g. the suffix -osta, and even the inclusion of words from popular Viennese Czech, e.g. baraban (a Russian word pre- sumably heard from his pupils).3" Pohl lacked knowledge of the Czech literary past and 'chtel narodu ceskemu vyrvati jeho jazyk a vpraviti mu zr'udny' ustroj neu'strojny vlastnf v5roby'.32 Coupled with this ignorance there is an apparent animosity to the tradition of Czech writing founded as it is on the work of the Brethren and particularly on the language of the Kralice Bible.33 The crux of the problem however lies in the very nature of Baroque purism:
27 Flajshans, op. cit., p. 298. 28 Wenzel Pohl, Die Bohmische Sprach-Kunst, Vienna, 1776, p. 254. 29 The Ist, 2nd and 4th editions of Pohl's grammar (1756, 2764, 1776) bear the title
Die Bohmische Sprach-Kunst, while the 3rd and 5th are entitled Neuverbesserte Bohmische Grammatik, all published in Vienna.
ao Alois Lisickl, 'Jan Viclav P61 v zipase o ceske slovo' (Osvuta, 50, 1920, pp. 39-46, I6o-69, 214-22, 285-93, 345-52, 415-23, 459-67), p. i6o, hereafter Lisicky, Osvuta, 50.
31 Ibid., p. 162. 33 Ibid., p. i65. 33 Ibid., p. I68.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Kriv6 pojfmany purismus vedl k tvovreni novych slov za kazdou cenu. Pri skrovnych znalostech jazykovych a nespravnych theorilch zvrhla se snaha v jadru svem uglechtihi v nesmyslne novot6nf, jehoz pomnikem je spousta nerfidnfch slov, kterym by se 6asto bez nemeckeho nebo latinskeho originalu ani nerozumelo.34
Although the Czechs, like the Germans, saw salvation for the declining Czech language in the purification of foreign elements,35 it is doubtful whether figures like Pohl were seriously concerned about the ultimate fate of the Czech language. This allowed him a degree of fancifulness in his neologizing, which was unfettered by the constraints of the practical needs of a language in crisis:
[Pohl] . .. netvoril ... slova z nalehave potreby, nybrz z chorobne libfistky a z jakesi posetile umin6nosti. Stal se proto typem anarchistic- keho novotarstvf, ale se svou dobou nenf vlastne v tak pHkr6m rozporu.36
Dobrovsky went so far as to make the unkind suggestion that Pohl's purism was a reaction to his being the subject of mirth at the Viennese court when it was discovered that Czech had so many transparent loans from German.37
Scholars have been reluctant to point out the positive contribu- tions of Pohl to the development of the Czech vocabulary. A single exception is provided by the work of Walcel, who after listing those words of Pohl which have gained acceptance in the Czech literary language or which at least continued in use throughout the language revival period, concludes:
Eine noch genauere, mit Hilfsmitteln vorgenommene Untersuchung des gesamten Wortschatzes vonJ. W. Pohl ware sicher ein wfinschenswerter Beitrag zur Entwicklung des tschechischen Wortschatzes.3
This challenge, issued a half century ago, has gone unanswered. It is not our aim here to indicate Pohl's rightful position in the history of the Czech language, but to introduce some of the more typical of Pohl's neologisms and comment briefly on their significance for the history of calquing in Czech. In addition to assigning each word to one of Betz's categories given above we shall provide a supposed model for the Czech word (but only where this differs from the German gloss given in the original).
34P. Via, '0 barokni 6eitin6' ( Vkstnik Ceski Akademie, 6o, Prague, 1951, p. 72). 3', Bfl', op. cit., p. 44. 36 Vasa, op. cit., p. 73. 7 Vzajem listyjJosefa Dobrovsko aJiffo Ribaye z let 1783-I8oo, ed. A. Patera, Sbirka
pramenAiv ku poznani literltrniho zivota v techach, Prague, 1913 (hereafter DR), no. 43; letter from Dobrovsky to Ribay, dated i i May 1786.
IlJosef Walcel, 'Die Vermehrung des tschechischen Wortschatzes durch Johann Wenzel Pohl (I720-1790)' (Slawistische Schulbldtter, 1927, p. 21).
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Since the list of words given above is illustrative and not exhaustive, it does not allow of any statistical examination. Nevertheless it permits some insight into Pohl's neologizing. Firstly we are struck by the use of certain suffixes, e.g. -na in spJvoherna, cinoherna, kn6hoschovna, bohospitna, veyrobna etc. to denote place. The suffix -dlo is also used logically in zdalidlo and velicidlo, but with comical results, since the
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
first, far from meaning an instrument which appears to make things look nearer, contrives only to designate an instrument which should do precisely the opposite. An attempt at analogy is also made in the use of -v6stnik for -graphist, though we also have -pisnik in sv6topisnik. It would also be more reasonable to expect -vJstnik to correspond to -logist as in km6novlstnik. Why do we have for -logie -slovnost in vzniko- slovnost and -spitli,39 -spitost in bohospitost/bohospitli?
Apart from these inconsistencies and his disregard for the rules of Czech word formation, Pohl introduces several independent neo- logisms, which cannot be passed over without further comment. Rozva, presumably based on the root rod/roz, would be totally incomprehensible to a Czech of Pohl's or indeed any other generation but for the German gloss. Similarly pamitinaf and pamntina/pamitfnka are totally inadequate as attempts to render 'historian' and 'history'. Velkerovlstna is a more creditable attempt to render 'university' and has an approximate parallel in the Croatian nineteenth-century neologism sveulililte. Pohl's fedlice/lfeice 'grammar', perhaps incorrectly formed for *fednice, appears to presage Jungmann's mluvnice.
As Walcel points out,40 several of these words have gained accept- ance in the Czech literary language, without Pohl receiving any recognition, e.g. vyjimka, and slovnik (which Jungmann incorrectly assigns to Tomsa). To his list might be added hldska.
The reason for such detailed treatment of this apparently peripheral figure in the history of the Czech literary language is twofold. Firstly the threat posed to the stability of a language already in decline by the wholesale introduction of new words for such rudimentary concepts as given above elicited from Josef Dobrovsky a carefully orchestrated rebuttal, which served as a constant warning sounding in the ears ofJungmann's school. To this we shall return below. Secondly, Pohl's concern for the purity of the Czech language was kept constantly in the minds of a number of philologists of his own and the following generation, particularly among the scholars active in Vienna.
Almost exactly contemporaneous with Pohl is the work of J. K. Rohn, whose Nomenclator or Jmenowatel4l of 1764 is also imbued with the purist spirit and contains some neologisms e.g. perlova matka for Perlmutter, vodopijan for Wassertrinker, zubni maso for Zahnfteisch, sp6vohra for Gesangspiel. Rohn's neologizing shows that he was more in tune with the language of Czech literature. His later Analecta (I773-79) was criticized by Smetanka in Ottfiv Naulnj Slovnik as of
9 fly, Op. cit., p. 70. 40 Walcel, op. cit., pp. i6, 20. 41 The author regrets that he was unable to consult this source at first hand in the
preparation of this paper.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ROLE OF CALQUES 489 little value because of its exaggerated purism. In fact the words metafora, melodie, musica, mathematica, logica, etc. are left untranslated.42 Lisick9 has excerpted the following calques: litedinost (Empfindung), plnomoc (Vollmacht), medotekouct (konigftiessend), prostfedzemni (medi- terraneus), knJhdrZite1 (to replace puchaltr from G Buchhalter) .43
The influence of Pohl can be discerned in two anonymous text- books Kniha pro dltky (I77I) and Krdtkd pravidla k latinske rZeNi (Ist edn, Prague, I764) .44 The first has the oft-quoted vonnocit for 'nose', as well as the Lehniibersetzungen pomocnl prostredky (Hilfsmittel), vysokovdZnost (Hochachtung), novo-chtivost (Neugierde), zezi-spisovani (Geographie).45 The Latin Grammar contains a surprisingly high number of words which have been retained in the literary language. This is probably because of the high degree of logicality used in word formation. Indeed, the book represents the first creditable attempt to produce a Czech linguistic terminology. As Bflf has pointed out:
Nesmirnm jest rozdil mezi knizkou tou a Pohlovym dflem. Take tu se latinske vfrazy mluvnicke vyjadruji po cesku, ale vedle vadnych 6teme tu celou radu spravn6 utvorenych. S podivem hledfme na to, ze mnohe terminy latinske se tu cesky vyjadfrujf nazvy, kterych uzfvame take dnes.46
Some examples: samohldska (Selbstlauter), dvojhldska (Doppellauter), pdd (casus), sloveso (verbum), jmeno vlastnl (nomen proprium), podstatlive
jm6no (nomen substantivum), pfivrzliv6jmino (nomen adjektivum). The I 775 edition differs from the earlier edition, which is less logical and more closely bound to the Baroque tradition. Nevertheless it has jmlno podstatni for 'noun' for the first time in Czech. The following list of the names of the cases is illustrative of the considerable differences between the two editions:
The Etymologia47 of the Slovak scholar Bernolak, which was also influential in the history of Czech, is imbued with the purist spirit
42 LisickY, Osvlta, 50, P. 43. 411 Ibid., p- 44. 44 A further, more often quoted, edition appeared in 1775. 45 Lisickl, Osvlta, 50, p. 286. 46 Bfl), op. cit., p. 74. 47 Anton Bernolik, Etmologia wcum slavicarum sistens modum multiplicandi vocabula per
derivationem et compositionem, Trnava, 1 791 .
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of Pohl, e.g. mezihddka a calque of interjectio and no less than six suggested equivalents for 'object': pfedklad, pfedhod, pfedhodka, pfedkladka, pfedhoda, pfedlozka.48
The most extreme of the followers of Pohl was Maximilian Schimek (I 748-98), a protdg6 of Zlobickf in Vienna, from whom he took over the teaching of Czech at the Military Academy in Wiener Neustadt.49 Schimek expressly mentions his debt to Pohl in the introduction to his Krdtky veytah of I 778.50 Apart from the occasional idiosyncratic neologism like videlkyn6 to replace the supposed loan- word oko, 5 most of Schimek's creations are calqued from German, e.g. prdvodavec (Gesetzgeber), bratrovrdadeni (Brudermord), dfevo&erv (Holzwurm), krvo iVniv) (blutdurstig), morska koUka (Meerkatze), morska Panna (Meerfrdulein), morske' prase (Meerschwein), Nfizokrajina (Nieder- land), rajsk6jablko (Paradiesapfel), visokomislnost (Hochmuth), zdvofilost (Hiflichkeit), zemotrnota or zemztfeseni (Erdbeben). The feature of Schimek's lexicon is its preference for Lehnuibersetzungen modelled almost exclusively on German. In this respect, though Schimek is often thought of as the apogee of the purist movement of the eight- eenth century,52 he shows a new direction in the coining of new words and the role of the calque.
The first figure of the Czech language revival to call into question the wilful creation of new words was Franz Martin Pelzel (FrantiAek Pelcl), who pointed out in his review of Kniha pro ditky53 the incom- prehensibility of many of its neologisms, e.g. cyton and vonnocyton, sladovinka 'sugar', slavobyt 'palace' and pen6Zovalstvi 'numismatics'. However Pelzel shows elsewhere that he is far from being opposed to neologisms on principle. Thus in his review ofJan Zeberer's transla- tion Knzze Honzuk from German he notes:
Er zeigt, dass er vollkommen seiner Sprache miichtig ist, und da wo er in der alten bohmischen Sprache keinen Ausdruck ffir gewisse Worte fand, erschuff er sich neue die den Sinn so passend, als moglich, ausdruickten. So iubersetzt er z. B. Lustspiel durch vesela Cino-hra, Aufzug durch zatah, Auftritt durch nastup, Schauplatz durch Divadlna und dergleichen mehr.54
That Pelzel was aware of the possibilities of calquing can be illustrated by the fact, recorded by Hanus,55 that he refers to himself
48 Lisicky, Osvuta, 50, P. 35I. 49 Schamschula, op. cit., pp. 153-54. 50 Maximilian Schimek, Krdtkj vejtah vleobecnd historie pfirozenfch vkci, Vienna, I 778, P. 3. 51 Schamschula, op. cit., p. I62. 52 Jedlicka, op. cit., p. I9. 53 Prager Gelehrte Nachrichten, Prague, I771-72, II, pp. 8I-82. 54 Ibid., I, pp. 363-64, not p. 173 as given in Schamschula's footnote, p. i68. 55Josef Hanus, Frantiek Martin Pelcel eski historik a buditel (Rozpravy Cesk' Akademie
Cisa're Frantiska Josefa, Trida III, c. 38), Prague, 1914, p. I.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
on one occasion in a letter as Kodisek, a calque of his German name which, he claims, his parents had used. In fact his Czech family name was SedlaVek. After his early receptiveness to neologisms, Pelzel grew increasingly ill-disposed to them. In his later theoretical writings, which carried all the authority to be expected of the first in- cumbent of the chair of Czech at the Charles University, Pelzel attacked neologisms and the aims of the purists in general. His statements however lack originality, merely echoing the thoughts of the most trenchant opponent of neologizing, Josef Dobrovsky, to whom we now turn our attention.
IV Opposition to neologisms and purism can be traced throughout Dobrovsk5's published and unpublished writings. Just as Pohl's purism was a product of the Baroque, Dobrovsky's attitude was fashioned out of the etiquette of Classicism. Firstly he regarded the Czech language as 'v obdobi klasickem hotovy i po strance lexikailnf'.56 The writer had therefore to confine himself to the word stock of the Kralice Bible, Veleslavfn and Komensky. Comments like the following are constantly met in Dobrovsky's criticism:
Das neu gemachte Wort okolostoj cny aus okolo stojlcy ist in keinem guten Schriftsteller zu finden, und die fibrigen Beispiele auf 1cny in Rosa's Grammatik S. 384, 389 sind ebenfalls von neuerem Geprage.57
This assessment of the importance of the Golden Age was not challenged until the time ofJungmann, who pointed out the lacunae in Czech humanism and the inability of Czech as a result to serve as a vehicle for poetry and scientific writing.58 A further corollary of this reverence for the Czech renaissance was that this was precisely the period which was most characterized by a toleration of loan- words. Dobrovsk} and his fellow classicists were fundamentally opposed to the replacement of these loan-words by native elements, claiming that: 'Ein Wort so von der ganzen Bbhmischen Nation aufgenommen ist und verstanden wird, ist b6hmisch.'59
Dobrovsky fully realizes that new words would still be created despite his opposition to lexical enrichment and purism. He therefore devotes his energies to indicating the inadequacies of those words which were being created. A constant complaint of Dobrovsky
56 Havr6anek, op. cit., p. 84. 57 Dobrovsky, Bildsamkeit, p. 5I.
58 Josef Jungmann, Beleuchtung der Streitfrage uiber die bohmische Orthographie, Prague, I829, pp. 6o-6 i.
rl F. M. Pelzel, Akademische Antrittsrede uiber den Nutzen und Wichtigkeit der bohmischen Sprache, Prague, 1793, p. 8.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
concerns the incomprehensibility of neologisms.60 Thus he criticizes Pohl's stkvelna, vizhna, weybrazlik, which no Czech could hope to understand.6' His argument is sometimes coloured by local rivalry between Prague and Vienna or Bohemia and Moravia. Nevertheless he makes the valid point that 'ein Mahrer ... kann fast nie sicher sein, welches Wort gangbar (in B6hmen) und welches neugemacht iSt'.62
The second shortcoming of many new words is their transgression of the rules of word formation. Accordingly Dobrovsky sets out one of the basic requirements for would-be neologizers, which was scrupulously observed by Jungmann's generation: 'Wer neue W6rter, wenn es n6thig ist, bilden will, muss sich zuerst mit den Gesetzen der Ableitung woll bekannt machen.'63 It is one of Dobrovskf's great achievements to have supplied neologizers with just such a firm theoretical base.64
Dobrovsky is dubious about the qualifications of the linguist for creating new words. The 'Grammatikalus' tends towards too literal translations of foreign words.65
Der Grammatiker ist nicht einmal der Mann, der neue Worter erfinden soll. Diess Verdienst ist nur dem asthetischen Schriftsteller eigen und auch dieser hat seine Grenzen.66
A neologist should combine the talents of linguist and specialist in the particular branch of study which is to be enriched.67 This point of view was readily accepted by the school of Jungmann, who in the introduction to his dictionary explicitly mentions the need to enlist
60 Bo'hmische Litteratur auf das jahr I779, Prague, 1779, I, p. I65 (hereafter BL: I); cf. Pelzel, Antrittsrede, p. 8 and Grundsatze der b6hmischen Grammatik, Prague, 1798 (2nd edn), p. 325.
61 Bohmische und Mdhrische Litteratur auf das jahr I78o, Prague, 178o-84, II, p. II0 (hereafter BL: iI).
62 Vzajen listy osefa Dobrovskiho ajosefa Valentina Zlobickiho z let 1781-1807, A. Patera ed., Sbirka pramenuv ku poznani literarniho zivota v eechach, Prague, I908 (here- after DZ), no. 68; letter from Dobrovsky to Zlobicky of 2 August 1798. This should not be taken as meaning that Dobrovsky was not interested in Moravianisms. For instance he asks Zlobicky (p. I42) whether zvefenec is a Moravianism, to which he obtains the reply that the Moravian is zvefetice. Ironically, despite Dobrovsky's censure, this supposed Moravianism has been retained in the literary language as zvefinec, a Lelhnubertragung of G Tiergarten.
63 Dobrovsky, Bildsamkeit, p. 9. 64 Of prime importance are Bildsamkeit and Uber den Ursprung und die Bildung der slawixhen
und insbesondere der bo5hmischen Sprache (as an introduction to F. J. Tomsa, Vollstandiges W6rterbuch der bohmisch-deutsch- und lateinischen Sprache, Prague, I791); an assessment of Dobrovsky's contribution can be found in: Jaromir Belic, 'Zakonodarce nove spisovn6 cestiny: K dvoustemu vyroci nArozeni Josefa Dobrovsk6ho' (NaJe AeJ, 36, Prague, 1953, pp. 193-20I, p. I99); Zd6nka SvobodovA, 'Dobrovskj a nbneckadfilologie' (Rozpravy 6SAV, Prague, I955, Ae.it 2, p. 32).
65 BL: I, p. 331 - 66 BL: I, p. 329. 67 BL: I, p. 33I.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the support and advice of specialists in creating new vocabulary, cf. his acknowledged debt to Marek (philosophy), A. Jungmann (medicine), Palackf (aesthetics), Presl (botany), etc.68
Crucial to an understanding of the role of calques in Dobrovsky's scheme is his abhorrence of slavish imitations of foreign words. On this ground he criticizes the following Lehniibersetzungen from Tham: mkchoslap (Balgentreter), krvosvJdek (Blutzeuge).669 In attacking Schimek's prstoun (actually the word is Pohl's) for 'toe' he asks pertinently: 'Miissen die Bohmen zwischen den Fingern und Zehen, den Deutschen zu Gefallen, erst im i8ten Jahrhunderte einen Unterschied machen ?'70 A further creation of Schimek bratrovrazdeni (Brudermord, fratricidium) is in Dobrovsky's view open to the criticism that such a combination is impossible in Czech. He suggests a paraphrase vrah bratra or vrazda nad bratrem.7' Similarly he questions the admissibility of krvoziznivy (sic!) (blutdurstig), particularly since Veleslavin has already krve zizniv) (sic!) and krve zddostiv).72 The same criticism may be levelled at pzilostrov (Halbinsel) and okolostojQnost ('eine elende Nachahmung des lat. Wortes circumstantia').73 In the words spolutovarysl (Mitgesell) and spoluoutrpnost (Mitleiden) the element spolu-, superfluous to the Czech words, has been added because 'man hat ... zu angstlich und buchstablich die Ausdriicke fremder Herkunft nachzuahmen gesucht'.74 Dobrovsky finds fault with kasoslovo (Zeitwort), prefering the simple slovo, a Lehnbedeutung based on L verbum. The full force of Dobrovsk9's irony is reserved for Tham's creation mofska fetkev for Meerrettich:
Hier muisste der Leser nach der bohmischen Erklarung an ein wunder- seltsames auslIindisches Gewiichs denken und wuirde es kaum ahnen, dass hier der bohmische kren, kiren, ehemals chiren, wie noch bei den andern Slaven, zu verstehen sey.75
Dobrovsky was aware, if we are to judge by his review of Stulli's dictionary in Slovanka (I8I4), of a further irony in this attempt at purification, namely that Tham probably supposed kfen to be loaned from Austrian German kren, the very contrary to the actual case.76
68 J. Jungmann, Slovnik 6esko-nbmeck), Prague, I 835-39, vol. I, p. V; for more discussion, see Jedli6ka, op. cit., p. 20.
69 Lisicky, Osveta, 50, p. 423. 70 BL: iI, p. I04. 71 BL: iI, p. 94; despite Dobrovsky's insistence modern Czech has bratrovrah and bratrov-
raYda. 72 BL: is, p. 1oo. 73 Dobrovsk4, Bildsamkeit, p. 6i. 74 Ibid., p. 62. 75 Josef Dobrovsky, Ankifndigung eines deutsch-bUhmischen Lexikons, Prague, I 798, no page. 76 Josef Dobrovsk, Slovanka. Zur Kenntniss der alten und neuen slawischen Literatur und
Sprachkunde nach alken Mundarten, der Geschichte und AltertldJmer, Prague, I814, p. 229.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Dobrovsk9 sagely warns lexicographers of the dangers of making a German or Latin dictionary the basis for a new Czech dictionary.77 His general understanding of the dangers facing the Czech language, summed up in his aphorism: 'Wenn man so fortfahrt, so wird man nicht mehr b6hmisch sondern mit bohmischen Wortern Deutsch schreiben',78 predates by more than a century the debate, initiated by Alexander Bruckner, on the contention that Czech is little more than translated German.79
The other pivotal position in Dobrovsky's argumentation is the principle of analogy, which derives directly from Adelung.80 Analogy takes two forms:
i. the formation of new words according to a pattern of word formation already established in the language, not necessarily reflecting the structure of the foreign model, e.g. the set with the suffix -nice: chmelnice (Hopfgarten), lednice (Eisgrube), dfevnice (Holzkammer), loznice (Schlafkammer).81
2. the formation of new words by mirroring the word building structure of a foreign model.
It is on the second principle that Dobrovsky criticizes divotvorny as an attempt to render abenteuerlich, since the Czech word should correspond to wunderthdtig.82 Similarly he finds fault with Zlobicky's weyhoz for Ausschuss, deputatio, because it should mean Auswurf.83 The creator of hv6zdnatost for Gestirn, constellatio is taken to task, since his neologism should correspond to *Sternheit. A word formed by analogy with the German and Latin models would be zhv6zdeni. Here Dobrov- sky's attack carries an extra barb, since he is able to point out that the would-be neologizers could have found precisely this word in classical Czech literature.84 The recurring theme in these criticisms of words formed without analogy is that they lead to incomprehension because of the opacity of their etymologies. Dobrovsky is not always so logical in his own proposed neologisms. He is, for example, hoist with his own petard, when Zlobicky answers Dobrovsky's replacement of odvad6dlo for 'lightning conductor' by hromovod with the comment: 'Hromovod ist Donnerleiter, kein Blitzableiter, das odwadedlo habe
BL: I, p. 255. 78 BL: ii, p. IOO.
79 See the pages of Nde Rel throughout the thirties. 80 Svobodova, oC. cit., p. 32. 81 Dobrovsky, Uber den Ursprung, pp. 3I-32. 82 Josef Dobrovsky, Drittes Zehend zur richtigen Beurtheilung des Thamischen deutsch-
b6hmischen National-Lexicons, Prague, 1798, no page. 83 Josef Dobrovsky, Litterarisches Magazin von BJhmen und Mahren, Prague, 178687,
In, p. i I8. 84 BL: I, p. 331.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ROLE OF CALQUES 495 ich aus der Zeitung des Kramerius, ich glaubte, dass man den Blitzableiter in Bohmen so nennet'.85 It would probably be cold comfort for Zlobickf to learn that, such is the illogicality of language and the prestige of Dobrovsky, modern Czech has hromosvod.
A fascinating insight into the way Dobrovskf brings these principles to bear is provided by his attempt to render L objectum, G Gegenstand in Czech.86 He begins by reviewing the situation in the other Slavonic languages: R predmet like G Vorwurf, Gegenwurf; Cr (source Jambregic) predstavek, predversek; P predszut, predcisk (note przedmiot is not given). In the 'Normabuichern' Czech had zdstoj (to which pfedstoj would be preferred). At this point Dobrovsky introduces an irrelevance, namely the problem of Czech equivalents for objectio, for which he favours pfedvrzeni rather than Tham's nimJt, ndmitka. Hindsight enables us to see that Tham's proposal has survived, while Dobrovsky's has failed to gain acceptance. Returning to the original problem Dobrovsky writes:
So wiurde ich, wenn ich von Materien schrieb, wo das Wort Gegenstand nicht umschreiben diirfte, piredmet oder p'redwrh oder piredwrzek wahlen.
Pfedstavek would not be preferred because of the possibility of confusion with pfedstaveni (Vorstellung). In fact the current word for 'preposition' pfedstdvka stood uncomfortably close to the suggested pfedstavek. Dobrovskf concludes:
PIredmitka ist nicht zu verwerfen, doch gefaillt mir piredvrzek am Besten und druickt die Etymologie des lat. objectum gut aus, nach welchem alle gebildet sind.
The twin principles of analogy were not lost either on Dobrovsky's followers Palkovi6 and Tomsa87 or, more importantly for the subsequent history of the Czech literary language, on the school of Jungmann.88
At first sight the two guidelines for neologizing proposed by Dobrovsky appear contradictory. Words constructed on the analogy of foreign compounds would seem to be slavish imitations. In fact his understanding of the problem is on an altogether subtler level. Dobrovsk; recognized the individuality of the Czech language and saw the dangers of putting it too tightly into the strait-jacket of a German model. Nevertheless new words, which were needed to render German and Latin compounds, should resemble the foreign
8I DZ, no. 58, p. I25; letter from Dobrovsky to Zlobicky, 7 April 1798; no. 59, Zlobicky's reply Of 12 April.
86 DZ, no. 40, p. 98: letter from Dobrovsky to Zlobicky, 3 March 1795. 87 F. J. Tomsa, BJhmiscde Sprachlekhre, Vienna, 1782, p. 435. 88 Jungmann, Bekuchtung der Streitfrage, p. 57.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
model sufficiently so that the meaning of the new word should be manifest to the reader encountering it for the first time. At the same time a morpheme-to-morpheme correspondence between Czech and the donor language must remain within the constraints of the Czech word-building laws. In other words Dobrovsk4 favours Lehniibersetzungen where correctly formed and, where they would do violence to the Czech language, suggests Lehndbertragungen as alternatives. Lehntbertragungen should also be preferred where a pattern of word-formation already exists. Lehnschopfungen were to be eschewed. Within the category of Lehnubersetzungen Dobrovskf made another distinction, namely that, although there might be an etymo- logical connection between a Czech neologism and its model, it might often be the case that some form of transformation might be necessary in word-building to achieve the desired word. In some cases Czech would have to replace a German compound by an adjective + noun phrase, e.g. veselohra for Lustspiel should give way to veseld hra.89 The school of Josef Jungmann on the whole avoided the pitfall of recasting Czech in a German mould, yet by their consistent use of suffixes like -pis, -slova, -zpyt provided the Czech language with an elegant and easily decipherable set of new terms.90
From the foregoing we see that Dobrovsky was not so thoroughly opposed to calques as is commonly supposed. Given the paucity of his writing in Czech and the inexplicable lack of any detailed investigation of his dictionary, it is no surprise that so little attention has been given to an examination of the respective roles of calques, neologisms and loan-words in Dobrovsky's own work. Dobrovsk9 has emerged in the literature as the legislator for subsequent attempts at purification and enrichment of the Czech language and as the monitor and sometimes severe critic of his contemporaries' often hapless neologisms. In the following word studies we shall attempt to adjudicate the claim that several words owe their accept- ance in the literary language to Dobrovsky's enormous prestige.
obrozent This key word of the Czech national revival calqued on Wiedergeburt
appears for the first time in Dobrovsk9's dictionary, II, p. 433.91 Jungmann's dictionary gives no sources. We are left with the possibility that Dobrovsk9 himself created the word or that it was introduced into the dictionary by Puchmajer.
89 Dobrovsky, Bildsamkeit, p. 64; Jungmann, Slovnik, iv, p. I95 notes for smutihra 'non probatur Dobrowskio DB 64, qui praefert smutnd hra, sine justa causa'.
"' For the use of these suffixes, see Jedlilka, op. cit., p. 58. I1 Josef Dobrovskw, Deutsch-boehmisches WMerbuch, Prague, iBoi-2 (hereafter DW).
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
pravopis The Baroque term for 'orthography' dobropisebnost, which Palkovi6
describes as 'schon fast angenommen'92 was used by Jungmann in his early writings93 and is recorded in his dictionary (I, p. 392). With time it was replaced by the neater calque pravopis, which has arisen independently in Czech, cf. P prawopismo, prawopistwo, etc. The word is first recorded in DW, ii, p. i I5 and in the title of Puchmajer's Pravopis russkotesk),9' which might suggest that again Puchmajer has added the word in the editing of the manuscript of Dobrovskf9s dictionary. The absence of any signifying mark in Palkovik (I727) suggests that he no longer considered the word a neologism, and we can therefore assume that the word was by then in normal use and had been since the turn of the century.
pfedmit It is doubtful whether this word should be regarded as a calque or
simply as a loan from Russian or Polish. We might comment in passing that this word has been variously attributed to Marek and Jungmann,95 pfedmlt is found in Zlobick986 and DW, i, p. 229 and Palkovik (1742). In view of the note on the word in a letter from Dobrovsky to Zlobick9 of I795 the chronology of this word in Czech is in need of some correction.97
zemJIfcstvi As a replacement for various circumlocutions like rozmzfovanje zemJ
(Feldmesserei)98 or umni zemomJmefiEn6 (sic!) (Erdmesskunst)"9 zeimnfictvi is first recorded in Tham's dictionary of 1788. The only basis on which we may assume Dobrovsky as its originator is the note 'D' against the word in Palkovic (28I8), which could equally mean that Dobrovskf approved of the neologism.
92Juraj Palkovi6 (Georg Palkowitsch), Bohmisch-deutsch-lateinisches W etrbuch mit Bevfigung der dem Slowaken und Mdhrer eigenen Ausdriicke und Redensarten zundchstffir Schulen neubearbeitet, i A-N, Prague, I820, 33 O-Z, Bratislava, I82 I.
93 Jedlieka, op. cit., p. 47 gives prvotiny, p. I i. 94 Jungmann, Slounik, m, p. 447. 96 Teresa Z. Orlos, Zapozyczenia polskie w slowniku Jungmanna, Polska Akademia Nauk,
Oddzial w Krakowie, Prace komisji Sbowianoznawstwa, Nr. ii, Cracow, I967, p. 55, gives Marek's Logika as the source of what she regards as a loan-word from przedmiot; N6mec, VIvojovi postupy, p. 148 gives Jungmann's translations.
I' Kniha prdv nad pfelinbzmi hrdelnimi a tkkjmi fadu MistskIho (totiZ Policye) pfestupky, Vienna, 3804.
9 See footnote 86. 9 Caspar Zacharias Wussin, Lexikon tripartitum, oder Teutsch-Lateinisch- und B&lmisches
Worterbuch, Prague, 3742. '9 K. I. Tham, Neues ausfihrliczes und vollstdndiges deutsch-bohmisches Nationallexikon,
Prague, 3788.
32
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
zemapis This word also replaced a phrase - zemn popysovdni.100 It is first
recorded in Jungmann's Slovesnost (I820, p. 82). It also appears in Palkovi6 (28I 8). Jungmann's dictionary cites Dobrovskl and his own Slovesnost as sources. Evidence for Dobrovsk9's role in its introduction comes from Palkovic, who notes against the word 'versucht von D.'. The mark + next to the word shows that Palkovic regarded it as an as yet unassimilated neologism.
zlejduch Preserved in modern Cz as zloduch, this word is clearly calqued on
G Bosewicht. It is recorded in Jungmann's Ztraceny rdj'0l as zljduch, translating 'spirit of another sort'. It is not found in Dobrovsky's dictionary but appears in his Bildsamkeit (p. 62) as zlejduch with the note that it may be written as one word. The form of the word with ej for literaryyf suggests a dialectal source, on the basis of which we can posit that Dobrovsky was merely introducing into the literary language a word originating in popular speech.
Though other candidates for Dobrovsk's neologizing activity will doubtless appear, it cannot be said that the argumentation in the word studies above suggests that his role has been seriously underestimated.
V Of Dobrovsky's contemporaries, Frantisek Jan Tomsa occupies the closest position in his attitude to the lexical development of the Czech language. In his translation work, particularly his school texts and his popular scientific writing he strove to keep his language 'frei von den unsinnigen Neologismen eines V. Pohl'.102 His dictionary, for which Dobrovsky wrote an introduction, was also without the newly created words which in Dobrovskf's opinion marred Tham's roughly contemporary dictionary.103 Nevertheless both of the writers who have dealt with Tomsa in recent years have mentioned Tomsa's contribution to the Czech word stock. Thus Prficha claims that Tomsa 'podilel se na vytvirenf ceskdho odborneho nizvoslovI',104 while Ziel, who appears not to have seen Pr'ucha's work, says that Tomsa 'versuchte, fur alle Worter richtige tschechische Ausdrucke
100 See Tham, op. cit., Wussin, op. cit. 101 Josef Jungmann, Pfeklady, Prague, I958, vol. i, song Iv, line 659. 102 Liane Zeil, 'Die Bedeutung des tschechischen Josefiners FrantiAek Jan Tomsa
(175I-I814) fiir die Entwicklung seiner Muttersprache' (Zeitschnft fir Slawistik, I4, East Berlin, I969, p. 599).
108 Lisick9, Osvlta, 50, p. 350. 104 J. Prficha, 'K hodnocenf Tomsovy kodifikace 6ef.tiny' (Slovo a Slovemost, 24, I963,
P. 57).
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ROLE OF CALQUES 499 zu verwenden. Dadurch. . . bereicherte [er] ... die tschechische wissenschaftliche Terminologie, zu deren Entwicklung er in hohem Masse beigetragen hat'.105 Unfortunately neither of these claims is substantiated by any concrete examples. It does seem that Tomsa may have been a little less dogmatic than Dobrovsk9 as the result of the experience of his translating endeavours:
Tomsa sdilel v podstat6 take Dobrovskeho negativnf postoj k tvoireni novych slov; zdA se viak, ze tu byl o n6co liberiln6j?M, coz vyplyvalo z toho, le Dobrovsky, kterf publikoval prieva6.n6jen nemecky, nepocit'oval tolik nedostatek ceskych termfni jako Tomsa prii pirekladech odbomnch a populariza6nkch spisfi.106
Tomsa at times criticizes the neologisms of others, e.g. dijina for 'history' and zastoj for Gegenstand because of their lack of analogy and transgression of word-building laws.'07 He suggests pfibJkopis a calque of Geschichtschreibung or historiographia and pfedvrzeni.108 While Tomsa in the section of his Bohmische Sprachlehre on translation says that Czech need not have precisely as many words as German,'09 it is clear that he has a German model constantly before him in the section on the composition of nouns. Tomsa does not try to translate German words morpheme by morpheme but is concerned with rendering German words into Czech after carrying out the necessary transformations. That Tomsa is attempting to calque German is evident from the statement that 'muss oft der vordere Teil des deutschen zusammengesetzten Hauptworts im Bohmischen durch ein Beiwort erklart werden'.110 Other transformations involve the use of a genitive, e.g. zemJ tfeseni for Erdbeben, or the use of a prepositional phrase e.g. hra s smutnym skondnim instead of smutna hra for Trauerspiel."1'
The above tends to support the suggestion that Tomsa as a practically minded translator was more inclined than Dobrovskf to introduce calqued neologisms. However the claims cannot be properly tested until a thorough investigation of Tomsa's dictionary and, possibly even more importantly, his popular scientific writing has been carried out.
Karel Hynek Tham also began his career in the same intellectual circles as Dobrovskf but later relations with Dobrovskf became very strained. The split came with Dobrovsk9's open attack on the purist spirit of Tham's dictionary of I788. Dobrovskf claimed that Tham had followed too closely the Viennese school and had created
106 Ziel, op. cit., p. 6o6. 106 Prficha, op. cit., p. 6o. 107 F. J. Tomsa, B6hmische Sprahklehre, p. 426. 106 Ibid., p. 427. 109 Ibid., p. 429. 110 Ibid., p. 46. I'l Ibid., pp. 47-48.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
neologisms uncritically.'12 Inexplicably neither Tham's dictionaries of I788 and I805 nor his specialist dictionaries of trading and legal terminology have been subjected to any detailed examination. This is all the more strange in view ofJungmann's admitted debt to these dictionaries. Indeed in the introduction to his translation of Paradise Lost, Jungmann directs his reader to Tham's dictionary of I 805 for an explanation of the more unfamiliar words."l3 The fact that Jung- mann's work actually contains many words not found in Tham does not diminish the respect that Jungmann held for Tham's lexico- graphical work. Another important neglected source for judging the role of neologisms and calques in Tham is his translation work, namely Makbet and Loupeznicy."4 In the introduction to Makbet Tham points out that a translation can lead to a 'rozgirenf a zvelebeni jazyka'."5 He uses the following new words osviceni (Lus. of G Aufkldrung), hra divac) (Ltis of G Schauspiel), smutnohra and truchlohra (Lius. of G Trauerspiel).116
Undoubtedly Tham was imbued with the purist spirit which derived from Pohl. Lisickf notes his avoidance of foreign words in his later dictionaries, e.g. knJharna for 'bookshop', pfed rukama (Lus. of vorhanden), vyslanec to replace emisaf, ukazadlo for index."7 Tham's legal dictionary of i8o8"18 has been excerpted by Lisicky, who gives the following examples:'"" okolostojny (umstdndlich), odtah (Verzug), vlastenstvi (Eigenthum), vlastenelnost (Eigenthuimlichkeit), zastupa (Stell- vertretung), pfedklad/pfednos (Vortrag), rozvodnost (Ausfuhrlichkeit), tehddzni (damalig), vicenostfvicenstvi (Mehrheit), zlidnJni (Bevolkerung). That Tham did not limit himself to calquing can be demonstrated by his inclusion of words like bohoslovi, loaned from Russian, to which Dobrovskf voices his objection.'20 It is hard to see why Dobrovsk> took exception to this word since (a) it is loaned from another Slav language and (b) it corresponds exactly to Latin theologia. Perhaps he was wary of the new suffix -slovi, which was to reach such productivity as a calque of L -logia in the lexical enrichment programme of Jungmann.
Tham grew impatient with Dobrovsk9's constant criticism of his attempts at lexical enrichment. He was particularly bitter that this
112 The polemic between Tham and Dobrovsky can best be seen in Dobrovskys AnkUindigung and Tham's Antikritik and the subsequent interchanges, see footnotes 72 and 85; the documents are conveniently bound together in one volume in the Klementinum.
118"Jungmann, Pfeklady, p. I3. 114 Published together, Prague, 1786. 116 Makbet, p. iii. 116 Ibid. 117 Lisicky, Osvita, 50, p. 290. 118 K. I. Tham, Versuch eines b6kmisch-deutschenjuristischen Lexikons, Prague, I8o8. 119 Lisicky, Osvita, 50, pp. 462-63. 120 Ibid., p. 4I9.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
criticism came from a man, who, he alleged, 'das Bohmische angstlich ja fehlerhaft spricht, und schreibt'.121 This feeling of annoyance was shared by others of Tham's contemporaries, including Dobrovsk)'s lifelong friend and correspondent Josef Valentin Zlobick5 (I 743-I81 o). A Moravian, active in Vienna, the censor of Czech books, the first to hold the Chair of Czech at Vienna Univer- sity and the official translator of legal codes for the Austrian Govern- ment, Zlobicky commanded the greatest respect of the figures of the Czech language revival in Vienna. In a letter to Ungar dated 24 October (?) 1786 Zlobickf suggested it was time Dobrovsky published something himself in Czech:
dann werden wir ihn auch durchl6chern und so dann diktatorisch und unfehlbar als er sein und passieren will, werde ich in meinen Beitraigen zeigen, dass er auch ein Mensch wie ich sei, und sich selbst in den b6hm. Sprachregeln und kritischen Anmerkungen und Auslegungen sehr geirret habe.122
He was particularly upset by Dobrovsky's negative attitude to Czech as a medium for poetry, fiction and scientific literature. Dobrovskf refused to recognize the practicability of Czech being adapted and enriched to perform all the functions of a literary language: 'Kunste und Wissenschaften lernet man hier in Bohmen aus lateinischen, franz6sischen und meistens deutschen Buichern; daher ist die weitere Ausbildung der b6hmischen Sprache nicht mehr m6glich.'"23 Jungmann's generation rightly recognized that this attitude doomed Czech to remaining on the level of a patois or a mere linguistic curiosity, which there would be no point learning.'24 As Jungmann points out: 'Alle Nationen bereicherten im Laufe der Zeit ihre Sprache mit neuen W6rtern; wenn sie das nicht gethan hatten, so sprachen noch alle Nachkommen Adams, wie ihr Urvater im Paradiese.'"25 The need for lexical enrichment was even admitted by Dobrovskf9s conservative disciple, the SlovakJuraj Palkovic.'26
Alone of Dobrovsky's contemporaries, Zlobickf had the intellectual authority to advance the argument for lexical enrichment:
1 1 K. I. 'Tham, Dritte und letzte Antikritik, no page number, see footnote I I2. 122 Published as supplement III in DZ, p. 172. ZlobickW warns Ungar not to pass on this
sentiment to Dobrovsky. Zlobicky obviously felt equally strongly on the subject nine years later, when he wrote in a letter to Dobrovsky, dated 14 February 1795 (DZ no. 38, p. 88): 'Ich habe nur gewartet bis auch Sie etwas Bohmisches herausgeben - anders so was in der Gerichtssprache iubersetzen, wo man gebunden ist, so viel m6glich alles wortlich und knechtisch zu ubersetzen, wo aber einige gegrundete Rugungen sind, als eine Schuld der tYbereilung zu betrachten.'
123 BL: iI, p. Io6. 124Jungmann, Beleuchtung einer Streitfrage, p. 7 1. 125 Ibid., p. 57. "Il Palkovic, op. cit., p. iv.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Endlich hat man was man dem Rosa und anderen ausgesteilt hat, na zp&isob Smotrickeho a jinych: pHzvuk, predslovce, samohl.ska, slabika pozdvizenA etc. zu schreiben fur gut befunden, was mir sehr gefallen hat und womit man fortfahren muss, wenn man unsere wortreiche Sprache in Schwung bringen will. Die Deutschen thun es, warum wir nicht? Tomsa soll es in sein Worterbuch aufnehmen und mit Burger- rechte kronen.127
Tomsa's reluctance to give credibility to a whole series of neologisms by their inclusion in his dictionary led Zlobick4 to reprove Dobrovsk9 for over-rating the merits of Tomsa's dictionary and for withholding his approval of Tham's more progressive dictionary.128 The practical result of this state of affairs was that Zlobicky, as a translator, found the current dictionaries inadequate and was forced to create his own terms, which he collected in his vjpisky to Tomsa's dictionary. The manuscript of these vypisky, since deposited in the Library of the Czech Museum, was fully utilized by Jungmann in the compilation of his own dictionary, where Zlobicky's contributions are marked Z. or Zlob. We should take care not to attribute words to Zlobicky solely on Jungmann's evidence as the following example proves. In his handwritten additions to Tham's dictionary,129 Jungmann adds (p. 248) 'Zlob.' after the word ndmAt. In fact ndmlt, as we have already seen, was discussed in the correspondence between Dobrovsky and Zlobickf. It is first recorded in Tham's dictionary of 1788. Zlobicky himself in his translations used pfedmzit.180
The general agreement among scholars is that calques have played a large role in the lexical activity of Zlobicky. Thus Havranek remarks: 'v pirekladech Zlobickeho jsou to z valne casti kalky - doslovnd pireklady - z nemciny nebo z latiny'.131 Schamschula comes to much the same conclusion:
Als (Ybersetzer war Zlobicky gezwungen auf mehreren Gebieten eine tschechische wissenschaftliche Terminologie zu schaffen, die der deutschen entsprach. Fur ihn war also zwangslaufig das Deutsche die Modellsprache, nach der er die Reform des Tschechischen mit- zugestalten suchte.132
Later he points out: 'Sprachsch6pferisch war Zlobickf jedoch auf dem Gebiet der Lehnubersetzung tAtig.283 Schamschula gives some
127 DZ no. 50, p. I 4: letter from Zlobicky to Dobrovskl, 13 August 1797. 128 DZ, p. go, see footnote 122. 129 Preserved in the Literarni pozz2stalost josefa jungmanna of the Literarnf Archiv NdrodnMho
Musea (Pamatnik Narodniho Pisemnictvi), C, p. 309, see page 428. 130 Kniha prav, p. 132. 131 Havranek, op. cit., p. 86. 132 Schamschula, op. cit., p. 148. 133 Ibid., p. 149.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
examples from the Knika prav of I804:134 odpovidatedlnost (for Verant- wortlichkeit) neodolajitedlnj (for Unwiderstehlichkeit). In addition he uses calques coined by others: okolostojt6nost (Umstdndlichkeit) andpfedsevzeti (Vorhaben).
It is likely that Schamschula's observation that Zlobicky's linguistic activity will never be properly appreciated because so much of his work has been lost will be readily accepted. Yet as he points out, a systematic analysis of Zlobickf?s medical and legal translations could produce results in the foreseeable future.135 We give below a few further examples of typical words in Zlobick's Kniha prdv:
These examples are scarcely sufficient material on which to base an argument about Zlobickf as a coiner of calques. A more detailed study of his translations and a comparison with their models should help one to make more precise statements about Zlobickf's role in the lexical enrichment of literary Czech.
VI Much attention is given in Jedlicka's study to the link between Jungmann's generation, the Baroque and the figures of the early Czech language revival. He points out that Schimek, Zlobick5, Tham and to a lesser extent Tomsa stand between the Baroque and the attitudes of Jungmann's school.136 There is therefore a con- tinuous tradition of purism and lexical enrichment. The faults of the language renewers with whom we have dealt in this article stem from their insufficient knowledge of the linguistic rules of Czech.137 This has resulted in the fact that most of the attempts are unscientific, as one might expect from self-taught experimenters. Therefore, there is an important distinction to be drawn between Zlobick9, Tham and Tomsa on the one hand and Pohl and Schimek on the other. As translators, the former were very much aware, pace Jedli6ka,138 of the practical needs of enriching the Czech language and ridding it of
184 Ibid. 185 Ibid. 186 Jedli6ka, op. cit., p. IO. 137 Havrinek, op. cit., p. 68; Jedlicka, op. cit., p. 8; Via, op. cit., p. 70; B&1iM,
'ZAkonodArce. . .', p. I94; M. Jelinek, 'O 6esk6m purismu' (Pfedndiky ve xiv blhu Letni Ikoly slovansk)ch studif v roce I970, Prague, 197 1, p. 2 I).
138 Jedli6ka, op. cit., p. IO.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the debris of years of neglect. They had the advantage too, that their neologisms were put under the microscope of Dobrovskl, the keenest observer of the early Czech language revival.
Jungmann's school was able to derive benefit from both currents. It accepted purism and the need for lexical enrichment as the twin pillars of the programme to reconstruct and modernize the Czech literary language.139 At the same time it took into consideration Dobrovsky's criticism of the lexical creations of its predecessors. In the words of Bei':
Naopak jeho [Dobrovskeho - G. T.] kriticky postoj k lexikilnimu novotaireni nutil mladsi pracovnfky k pe6live rozvaze, zda je noveho vyrazu opravdu treba, ci zda je mozno pokojit se vyhovujfcim virazem cizim. Brzdil tim take pirehnany purismus a zabraAoval tvoreni prekotnemu hrozfcimu zaplavou novych slov, kterym by nikdo nero- zumd1 a jez by spolecnost nestacila stravit.140
The fact that the early renewal purists broke with the idiosyncratic neologisms of Pohl and favoured Leknibersetzungen and Lehniiber- tragungen saved the Czech language from chaos. Dobrovskf himself 'hat das Prinzip der Wortzusammensetzung nach deutschem Muster nicht in jedem Falle abgelehnt, doch wollte er es nur im Notfalle angewendet wissen'.14' It is hardly surprising therefore, that although calques occupy last place in Jungmann's list of means of lexical enrichment142 and are recommended to be used 'cum grano salis',143 'piijfm'ni kalku nenI pro Jungmanna v rozporu s nazfrainim puristickym'.144
The intention of this paper was to point out the role of calques relative to the problems of purism and lexical enrichment. We have shown the historical background to calquing in an important period in the development of literary Czech and hope thereby to have gone some way towards filling a few of the lacunae left by Reiter's monograph.
139 Compare KoHar's attack on Palkovic's dictionary, in Krok, Prague, 1823, dil i, cistky 4, pp. 128-4I.
140 B61ic, 'ZAkonod&rce. . .', p. i99. 141 Schamschula, op. cit., p. I63. 142 Jungmann, Beleuchtung einer Streitfrage, p. 65; cf. Jedlicka, op. cit., p. 65. 143 Jungmann, Belkuhtung einer Streitfrage, pp. 68-69. 144Jedli6ka, op. cit., p. 17. We here beg the question of German influences on
Jungmann's linguistic theories, for which see particularly J. Dolansky-Heidenreich, 'Jungmannova Slovesnost z r. 1845' (Slavia, I8, 1947, pp. I38-64).
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
