Show Less
Restricted access

The History of Linguistic Thought and Language Use in 16 th Century Slovenia

Series:

Kozma Ahacic

This book is the first work on this topic to have been published in English and is thus brought before the international public. A preliminary sociolinguistic survey of the major issues concerning language use in 16t h century Slovenia is followed by the central section – an analysis of Adam Bohorič’s pioneering grammar of Slovenian (1584) that establishes its position in the framework of contemporary European linguistics. Other subjects include the four-language grammatical appendix to Hieronymus Megiser’s dictionary (1592), the linguistic work of the German writer and teacher Nicodemus Frischlin during his stay in Slovenia, and the language issues addressed in the writings of various Slovenian Protestant writers.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access

3.4.1.5 Adverbium — the adverb

Extract

(BH 1584: 154–158)

Bohorič’s discussion of the adverb introduces the next set of chapters where those parts of speech are discussed that received only limited attention in virtually all grammar books. Like Clajus, Albertus and Statorius,265 Bohorič follows the example of Melanchthon in more or less all of these chapters. Even so, we detect considerable differences between Bohorič and Melanchthon. I will try to describe these as accurately as possible — let me also remark that considering the nature of the approach towards the discussed matter the contents of these chapters would better fit a dictionary than a grammar book; however, this is a common feature of most vernacular grammar books of the time; grammarians were in this particular respect simply more interested in lexical considerations than in its theoretical background.

The division in accidentia entirely follows Melanchthon (MGL-CR 326; MGL-Cam 301; MGL qq 5v), whereas the section on species regarding the derivational complexity (species) follows Melanchthon only partially.

Bohorič distinguishes the derived and non-derived adverbs, thus adhering to the common practice of distinguishing adverbs according to the species of derivational complexity (species); however, his division of derived adverbs is more detailed than Melanchthon’s (MGL-CR 326–327; MGL qq 5v–qq 6r; MGL-Cam 301–302). Bohorič divided adverbs into four groups according to the criterion of ← 173 | 174 → whether they are derived from nouns, pronouns, verbs or prepositions. In doing so Bohorič could rely on Melanchthon’s description of the examples of adverbs...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.