No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 June 2016
Orthography of E Loanwords. Faced with the task of writing down E loanwords (which he uses so often in speech), the bilingual chooses one among a multitude of ways ranging from one extreme, i.e. writing loanwords the way they are written in E, to another, i.e. writing loanwords the way they are pronounced by him, using one of the two SC alphabets. The range of possibilities is almost limitless (cf. Table 6), since the biningual may use all orthographical means and devices that are at his disposal in both E and SC. The existence of the two SC alphabets (latinica, with the Roman characters, and ćirilica, with the Cyrillic characters) makes the situation even more complicated, though, generally speaking, the E spelling is favoured by those who use latinica, and the pronunciation spelling is favoured in ćirilica.
This is the second part of a two-part article. The first part appeared in CJL/RCL 12: 1 (1966), 52-63.
8 It is possible to argue that whenever a loanword is written as in E the situation is comparable to the switching of codes in spoken language.
9 SC pozajmljenica “loanword.”
10 The first element in šperploča is of German origin. It often happens that an E loanword is explained by a loanword from another language (e.g. lotovi (placevi) “lots”; German Platz) or that a loanword used in StSC is explained by another loanword. E.g. turnir(tournament), biftek(stejk). “steak.”
11 There are some compounds of that type in StSC, but foreign language influence (Turkish in particular) is also considered the cause of that phenomenon. Cf. M. Stevanović, Savremeni srpskohrvatski jezik, Belgrade, 1964, p. 423.
12 Cf., e.g., M. Stevanović, “Popridevljivanje glagolskog priloga na -ći” (“The adjectival use of the verbal adverb in -ći”), Južnoslovenski filolog (“South Slavic Philologist”) 18(1949-50), pp. 55-85.
13 Such constructions are not the comparatives in the opinion of Yugoslav language experts. Cf., e.g., Dušanka Ignjatović, “Još o komparativu i komparaciji”, (“More about the comparative and comparison”), Naš jezik (“Our language”) 12(1962), pp. 124-9.
14 Only a few instances of the simple comparative of loan adjectives have been noted even in the spoken ImSC: faniji from fani “funny,” čiplji from čip “cheap,” and the superlative najsmartiji from smart. See pp. 324-25 of my thesis (cf. note 5).
15 Cf. Ivić, Milka, “O predlogu po u srpskohrvatskom jeziku” (“The preposition po in the Serbo-Croatian language”), Južnoslovenski filolog 19(1951-2), pp. 173–212 (especially p. 190)Google Scholar, and Ljudevit Jonke, Književni jezik u teoriji i praksi (“Literary language in theory and practice”), Zagreb, 1964, p. 116.
16 For similar confusions in StSC see Lj. Jonke, Književni jezik, p. 147.
17 Such an editorial comment reveals the incompetence of some editors: kibernetika is an accepted term in StSC, elektronski mozak (“electronic brain”) is used instead of kompjuter, and robot is originally a Slavic word (cf. rob “slave” in SC)!