|Title:||Common Slavic's Pannonian Dialect as Viewed through Old Hungarian||Add Dissertation|
|Author:||Ronald Richards||Update Dissertation|
|Email:||click here to access email|
|Institution:||University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures|
|Linguistic Subfield(s):||Historical Linguistics;|
|Abstract:||The dissertation focuses on Pannonian Slavic, a dialect of the Common Slavic protolanguage which existed in what is today Hungary and which is believed to have died out in the century or so following the conquest by Magyar tribes of the Carpathian Basin in general, and of Transdanubia in particular, i.e. the area known in Roman times as Pannonia. Many Pannonian Slavic loanwords found their way into Old Hungarian, which in effect became the sole repository for Pannonian Slavic lexemes.
We examine here the main theories concerning the ethnolinguistic make-up of Slavic Pannonia and the methodologies proposed for identifying Pannonian Slavic loanwords in Hungarian, paying special attention to the diachronic development of the Hungarian phonological sys tem and the effects such development would have on the aforementioned Pannonian Slavic loanwords.
We then analyze this reconstructed corpus of Pannonian Slavic loanwords with an eye towards various theories which deal with the ethnolinguistic profi le of Slavic Pannonia. Specifically, we explore the extent to which Pannonian Slavic can or cannot be associated with any single Common Slavic dialect (e.g. Proto-Slovene, Proto-Czech) or dialect group.
Our results suggest that, if Pannonian Slavic was linguistically homogeneous, then it is most likely that this dialect was associated with, or an extension of, the Proto-Serbocroatian (i.e. the Common Slavic dialect which developed into Chakavian and Shtokavian), while if it was heterogeneous, then it is most likely that this dialect was associated with, or an extension of, Proto-Serbocroatian and Proto-Czechoslovak, although association with the Proto-Sorbian or Proto-East Slavic dialect groups would remain within the realm of possibility. Our results do offer strong evidence against the proposition that Pannonian Slavic was associated with, or as an extension of, Proto-Slovene. Likewise, while our results cannot shed light on the question of the Urheimat of the Slavs or the exact nature of the rel ationship which obtained between Slav and Avar in Pannonia, they do show evidence of center-periphery phenomena which would be consistent with a Pannonia-centered linguistic expansion (be it primary or secondary) of Slavs.