SLAVIA časopis pro slovanskou filologii ročník 84, 2015, sešit 1

Borrowings in Ukrainian: Etymological, Semantic, and Orthographic Issues Maksym Vakulenko (Kyïv) In the article, the borrowings in Ukrainian as a linguistic and terminological problem are studied on the basis of etymological, comparative, morphosemantic, and acoustic phonetic analysis. It is shown that one of the most prevalent modifications that foreign words undergo in Ukrainian is a shift of values that can lead sometimes to the breach of motivation ties with the etymon meaning, and to irregularities or distortions of lexical semantic relations and to unwanted connotations. Therefore, normalization of foreign words usage is extremely important. In addition, excess of foreign words in Ukrainian – as in many European languages – often causes orthoepic and orthographic difficulties in their mastering. It is expedient therefore to intensify use of native units, minimizing the number of unnecessary borrowings. Relevant spelling propositions are formulated, including the use of the Ukrainian “ă” and “č” and expediency of some simplifications in the loanwords. Key words: borrowings, language interference, semantic shifts, etymology, phonetic characteristics, process of adaptation in Ukrainian, Ukrainian orthography, spelling irregularities

Introduction Acquisition of the foreign words is a continuous and natural process of the language development. It is common knowledge that of all language system components, vocabulary is the most open and inclined to changes due to language contacts. Back in 1808, William Dwight W h i t n e y noted that a lexical borrowing mediates most of the other contact-related changes ñ phonological and morphological ñ while the prior scope of lexical lending is the peripheral category of the vocabulary including branch terminology and proper names (Ńĺðĺáðĺííčęîâ 1970, 291). The need to attract new alien elements arises when interlingua tendencies to their display coincide with own internal needs and capabilities of a particular language (Áĺëîäĺä 1980, 40-61). Borrowing from foreign languages as a linguistic and terminological problem Among the factors that contribute to inclusion of new lexemes into the language system, are distinguished: 1) need of society to nominate new objects and phenomena, 2) need for separation of similar in content but not identical concepts, 3) low frequency of use of relevant native words, 4) unfavourable synonymy presence, 5) desire for expression, 6) language game, 7) effect of the language economy principle, 8) perception of foreign words as prestigious ones, and so on (Ńĺðĺáðĺííčęîâ 1970, 286; Ăŕď÷ĺíęî 2005, 90). Besides, ëthe lexical loans are indicators of interaction of the world pictures of the donor and recipient languages, showing how one language through foreign language lexical elements is mastering

2

Maksym Vakulenko:

fragments of the world linguistic picture of another languageí (Ěîńĺíęłń 2007, 146-147). The borrowings are traditionally divided into loanwords, loan translations, foreign words, internationalisms, barbarisms, exotisms, and interspersings (Ňęŕ÷ĺíęî 2004, 194-195), where excessive use of foreign words and internationalisms is not considered as a positive tendency (Vakulenko ñ Meljnyk 2013-2014). ëWhen a new lexical unit enters a language, not only a new word from another language rises but there may be changes in the entire lexical systemí (˛ëüíčöüęŕ 2009, 9). During successful adoption of foreign words, the changes at the semantic level often occur: for example, a foreign word comes in hypo-hyperonymic links and creates new semantic fields, thematic groups; enters paradigmatic relations with native and other alien words in the semantic system of the recipient language by promoting and creating synonymous, homonymous and paronymic series and antonymic pairs (˛ëüíčöüęŕ 2009, 10). Studies of the Ukrainian lexicon of the late twentieth century evidence that borrowings from other languages were one major source of its enrichment at that time (Ńňčřîâ 2005, 239). This phenomenon is justified in the cases where a concept and corresponding term come into use in the language of that people who introduced this term; or when peculiar terms denoting alien phenomena, objects, concepts (i. e. exotisms) are borrowed. The internationalisms, although they are especially important forms of interlingua generality in the vocabulary (Áĺëîäĺä 1980, 13), as well as most barbarisms, often infringe normal development of lexical, (including terminological) system of the recipient language. For example, in the Ukrainian linguistic medium, the loanwords with the formant -łíă/ -číă (English -ing), e. g. áŕęáĺíäčíă (backbending), áŕíęłíă (banking), ęîíńŕëňčíă (consulting), ďŕðęłíă (parking), ðĺáĺôłíă (rebirthing), ňţíłíă (tuning), etc. are unnatural. First and foremost, these lexemes break the Ukrainian phonetic and morphological laws and, unlike in the donor language where the sound [g] in this position is absent, cause unjustifiable articulation difficulties. Furthermore, since morphology is least yielded to linguistic influences, changes in the morphological structure may indicate a change of language (Ńĺðĺáðĺííčęîâ 1970, 292). No wonder that so many experts are extremely negative about growing number of Anglicisms in the Ukrainian language, treating this phenomenon as a destructive one (Ăîðîäĺíńüęŕ 2009, 3; Íłęłňłíŕ 2011). Also, it is not always feasible to re-borrow foreign language units from the Russian language because a number of such borrowings is often caused by lack of its own grammatical means. For example, the Russian physical term âŕðčçîííűé (from the English vari(able) zone) with the side connotation of ëboil the zoneí appeared due to impossibility to shape a satisfactory attribute. The Ukrainian language has a morphological potential to create the well-turned native counterpart çěłííîçîííčé (Âŕęóëĺíęî 2010a). Similarly, the Ukrainian language has a well-turned term őâčëüęŕ to denote the Russian âĺéâëĺň (< Eng. wavelet ëweak wave, wave with a small amplitudeí). Baseless are the borrowings like ăĺëłęîďňĺð (from the Greek åëéêüðôåñï, Eng. helicopter, Ukr. âĺðňîëłň), ďîň˙ă (from the Pol. pociπg, Eng. train, Ukr. ďîżçä), ðčńóíîę (from the Pol. rysunek and Rus. ðčńóíîę, Eng. figure, Ukr. ěŕëţíîę),

Borrowings in Ukrainian: Etymological, Semantic, and Orthographic Issues

3

áĺçęîřňîâíčé (calk from the Ger. kostenlos, Eng. free, Ukr. áĺçďëŕňíčé), ďîěŕðŕí÷ĺâčé [color] (from the Fr. pomme orange, Eng. orange, Ukr. ćîâňîăŕð˙÷čé), etc., as they are doublets to the well-turned and widely used native terms or completely normative lexemes (Âŕęóëĺíęî 2011a). Ńrude usage of these and similar units blurs semantic boundaries of Ukrainian words. Unfortunately, some terminological innovations are also not appropriate ñ for example, the desire to use the German loanword ďŕíöĺð ëarmorí that appears in the Dictionary of Ukrainian Language with the mark ìoutdatedî (Áłëîäłä 1970-1980), instead of the áðîí˙ accepted many a year. The last lexeme has a number of derived words, including those in a figurative sense: áðîíüîâčę ëarmored carí, áðîíüîâŕíčé ëarmoredí, áðîíţâŕňč (ęâčňęč) ëbook (tickets)í. The need of the term öčíäðŕ is also questionable ñ because itís just the German doublet to the Ukrainian îćŕðčíŕ (Âŕęóëĺíęî 1996b, 132) ëoxide or oxide mixture formed on the surface of metals (alloys) at the increased temperature in air or other medium containing oxygení which, what is more, has a wrong association with the verb öčíäðčňč ëto spend senselesslyí. In the process of entering of foreign lexeme in the recipient vocabulary, different types of modifications (at the semantic, morphological, phonetic levels, etc.) necessarily occur. It is worth also being aware that a significant number of foreign words, particularly Europeanisms, are, in turn, borrowings from ancient Greek and Latin, and hence have been repeatedly subject of transformations. This concerns both adopted words of foreign origin and relatively recent borrowings. During lending and adopting foreign lexemes, semantic shifts are common. Besides, ësometimes [..] the phenomenon or thing has long outlived their original name, changed over time and acquired new propertiesí (Řĺëóäüęî – Ńŕäîâńüęčé 1928, 11). Distinctions between the etymon and borrowed word bearings are tightly associated with the presence / absence and number of intermediate languages, the degree of affinity of the donor, recipient, and intermediate languages. Semantic transformations are usually noticeable. This is easy to trace by comparing the meanings of some well-known terms of Greek and Latin origin, e. g., osmosis, electron, filter, sine, with their etymons. The Greek lexemes ¨óìüò and }ëåêôñïí mean originally ëpushí and ëamberí, respectively. If the first unit does not practically correspond to the essence of phenomenon (osmosis ëpenetration of liquid through a membrane that separates solutions of different concentrationsí), the friction of amber indeed causes an electrostatic effect. However, the modern term electron does not show any connection with the etymon value and denotes the elementary particle with the smallest negative electric charge. The terms sine and filter are considered to be of Latin origin, but it is not so. In Medieval Latin, the word sinus ëbend, kink, sweep, curveí appears as translation of the Arabic jayb ëpocket, bend, curve lineí. The modern terminological meaning of this lexeme, settled in anatomy, is closely related to the etymon: sinus (Ukr. ńčíóń) ëcavity, recess in the organí. In turn, the mathematical denotation is extremely remote: sine (Ukr. ńčíóń) ëone of the trigonometric functionsí. The Latin word filtrum is probably of West Germanic origin and is akin to the word felt indicating tissue that could serve as a filter.

4

Maksym Vakulenko:

Another issue is borrowing through language mediation, owing to which various (phonetic, graphic, semantic) word modifications also take place. For example, the Ukr. äčńňčë˙öł˙ ëdistillationí comes from Latin destillare (< de- ëprefix meaning selection, eliminating anythingí + stillare, from stilla ëdropí); so etymologically it has the prefix äĺ-. Although already in the donor language this word had the option distillare, which was borrowed by the European languages, for example, by late Medieval English. In this graphical form, it got into the Slavic languages. The paronymic terms ŕäŕďňŕöł˙ and ŕäîďňŕöł˙ are borrowed apparently from English, where there is the same paronymic pair adapt (adaptation) and adopt (adoption). However, those terms have different etymons. The word ŕäŕďňŕöł˙ is derived from Latin adaptare (< ad- ëtoí + aptare, from aptus ëappropriateí). From the language of the original, this lexeme enters first the French (adapter), and then English (adapt) languages without changing its core value conserved also in Ukrainian ñ ëadaptationí. In the English language, the word adaptation, but its main bearing, is also specified and refers to a film, book or play based on a certain product, but modified to meet new conditions; for example, Ukr. ĺęðŕíłçŕöł˙ corresponds to the Eng. screen adaptation ëlit. adaptation to the screení. In the Ukrainian language, as compared to English, this word has much narrower meaning, first and foremost, the terminological one: ëadaptation of organs, systems and whole organism to certain conditions of existenceí (ôłçč÷íŕ ŕäŕďňŕöł˙ ëphysical adaptationí, ďńčőîëîăł÷íŕ ŕäŕďňŕöł˙ ëpsychological adaptationí, ŕäŕďňŕöł˙ ðĺöĺďňîðłâ ëreceptor adaptationí, ňĺěďĺðŕňóðíŕ ŕäŕďňŕöł˙ ëtemperature adaptationí, etc.). Within the Ukrainian term vocabulary, the semantics of the word ŕäŕďňŕöł˙ is undergoing development, giving rise, on the basis of the terminological denotation, to another special (technical) meaning ñ ësystem adjustment to the application conditionsí. Employment of this word out of scientific style is minimal because it duplicates a number of native frequently used counterparts: ďðčńňîńóâŕíí˙ ëadaptationí, çâčęŕíí˙ ëadjustmentí, among others. The etymon of the term ŕäîďňŕöł˙ is the Latin adoptare (< ad- + optare ëchooseí), which through the French filled up the English lexical fund. In Ukrainian, this lexeme is noticeably inferior the native word (óńčíîâëĺíí˙), which has a clear semantics, and therefore the ŕäîďňŕöł˙ is increasingly being used in another, much narrower special meaning: ësustained engraftment of foreign tissue after transplantationí. In the process of entry into the recipient language system, the foreign word modifies not only in adapting to the phonetic and grammatical rules of the language, but also interacts with the units of lexical level that may also cause some changes. For example, the borrowed English word subtitle modified its form to Ukr. ńóáňčňð due to lexical interaction, namely: 1) pairing ňčňð ñ ńóáňčňð: 2) avoidance of associative links with the word ňčňëî. In this case, the features of the lexical level of the Ukrainian language played a key role because historically, the Eng. title, subtitle, and Ukr. ňčňð, ňčňóë, ňčňëî share the same etymon ñ Lat. titulus ëinscription (< written over / on)í. Simplification of morphemic composition in the borrowings in the process of their mastering leads often to untypical lexical semantic relations between them

Borrowings in Ukrainian: Etymological, Semantic, and Orthographic Issues

5

and other units, including those of foreign origin, in the recipient language lexical system. For example, the original pseudoparonymic pairs are formed by the terms ŕíîňŕöł˙ (annotation) ñ íîňŕöł˙ (notation), ŕňðŕęňîð (attractor) ñ ňðŕęňîð (tractor), ŕńîðňčěĺíň (assortment) ñ ńîðňčěĺíň (assortment), äčôðŕęöł˙ (diffraction) ñ ôðŕęöł˙ (fraction) that contradicts linguistic tendency to create clear boundaries between morphemes (Ńĺðĺáðĺííčęîâ 1970, 244). In the first case, both words are derived from Latin nota ësigní that stands for the root morpheme in both words, and forms in the donor language the relevant verbs notare and annotare (< ad + nota). In English, the lexeme notation develops the etymon semantics and refers to a system of signs or symbols to represent certain information, particularly in mathematics and music. The Ukr. íîňŕöł˙ also preserves the meaning of the etymon but splits it: in one case partially generalizing (ëa system of conventional written tokens adopted in any field of human activityí), and narrowing in the other (ëa system of graphic signs through which the music is recorded, and ëa set of conventional symbols in the system of rules for describing syntax of computer languagesí). In addition, the Ukrainian word íîňŕöł˙ has a value ëinstruction, teachingí absent in English but recorded in Latin (Latin notatio ëcommentí). The English lexeme annotation corresponds graphically to the etymon annotare. In Ukrainian, unlike in most European languages, the graphical form of this lexeme was modified according to pronunciation. As a result, the quasi-opposition emerged: íîňŕöł˙ ñ ŕíîňŕöł˙ (abstract), as the prefix ŕ- means usually denial or indicates absence (Ěĺëüíč÷óę 1974). In this regard, it is worth paying attention to the fact that Ukrainian ŕďďîçčöł˙ ëgrowth of the organism tissues or cell walls caused by deposition of new layers on the previously formed surfaceí, ŕďďĺðöĺďöł˙ ëconditionality of human perception of certain objects and phenomena of the objective world by his or her experience and mental state at the moment of perceptioní correspond graphically to their etymons: ŕďďîçčöł˙ < Lat. appositio ëapplicationí, from apponere < ad + ponere ëputí; ŕďďĺðöĺďöł˙ < ad + perceptio ëperception, cognitioní, from percipere ërealize, understandí < per- ëcompletelyí + capere ëtakeí. The pair ŕňðŕęňîð ñ ňðŕęňîð is also united by quasi-opposition because both lexemes are derived from the Latin trahere ëpullí. By attaching the prefix ad-, the Latin verb attrahere ëattractí was created. The English equivalent keeps reduplication at the boundary between the prefix and the root. However, in Ukrainian, due to reduction at the morphemic seam, morphemic redistribution occurs that causes distortion of the inner form of the word. Presence of the word ňðŕęňîð in the Ukrainian vocabulary conditions fixation of inadequate lexical semantic relation between these units. This concerns also the pair ńîðňčěĺíň ñ ŕńîðňčěĺíň that displays similar quasi-opposition. However, functioning of the Ukrainian terms ńîðňčěĺíň, ŕńîðňčěĺíň has another specialty of etymological character. Both lexemes are derived from the Latin sort- (< sors) ëpart, kindí. As for the words with this morpheme, the process of their ingoing into different languages is rather complex. For example, the word sort got to the late Medieval English from the Old French (sorte), having formed the lexeme assortment ëset of different things or different types of one

6

Maksym Vakulenko:

thingí; in French, the word assortment operates with the same value. The word *sortment is absent in these languages, whereas in German, the word Sortiment is functioning that also comes from the French assortment. So etymologically, the words ŕńîðňčěĺíň and ńîðňčěĺíň are identical. What is more, the word ńîðňčěĺíň has also the paronym ńîðňŕěĺíň that is obviously a phonetic variant of the German Sortiment. The terms ôðŕęöł˙ and äčôðŕęöł˙ are also associated by quasi-opposition of semantic morphological character as prefix äč- (äł-) in the words of foreign origin means ëdoubleí, ëtwiceí (Ěĺëüíč÷óę 1974). So the term äčôðŕęöł˙ takes the semantics of ëdouble part of the mixture of liquidsí that contradicts the sense of this concept. The similar problem is inherent in the pairs of terms äčńîöłŕöł˙ ñ ŕńîöłŕöł˙ and ŕăëîěĺðŕň ñ ęîíăëîěĺðŕň, where due to simplifications at the morphemic seam, semantic distortions occur. In the first case, both words are derived from the Latin sociare ëuniteí. Adding up the Latin prefixes ad- and dis- led to formation of verbs associare ëmergeí and dissociare ëseparateí. However, if one adds semantic load of the prefixes ŕ- (meaning objection, absence) and äč- ëdoubleí, ëtwiceí to the value of the root morpheme (ńîöłŕ-), according to contemporary writing, then the corresponding terms acquire pretty extrinsic bearings. This is also true for the pair of terms ŕăëîěĺðŕň ñ ęîíăëîěĺðŕň derived from the Latin glomero ëroll up into a ball, shrink, concentrateí (< glomus ëballí). By adding Latin prefixes ad- and conëtogetherí, the lexemes agglomero ëattach, accumulate, pile up, store, amassí and conglomero ëcondense, accumulate, pile up, store, amassí were formed, respectively. Instead, as in the previous case, presence of the prefix ŕ- distorts the semantics of the word ŕăëîěĺðŕň. In this case, one should also account for the presence of common quanta of value in both terms: accumulation, association, aggregate. In addition, one should be aware of semantic shifts in both terms as compared to English, from which they are obviously borrowed. The English agglomerate, agglomeration, and conglomerate mean ëaccumulate, pile up, store, amassí, ëa collection of objects put together in no particular orderí and ëbig company formed by merging various companies; set of objects or parts combined in integrity; type of rock formed with stones stitched together with dried clayí, respectively. In Ukrainian, redistribution and mixing of English words values takes place. The Ukr. ŕăëîěĺðŕň has two meanings: ëa gathering of rock fragments and mineralsí, ëbaked in lumps or fine-grained powdered oreí, hence its English counterpart is conglomerate. Instead, the Ukr. ęîíăëîěĺðŕň denotes ëmechanical combination of different objects or their parts, of concepts, opinions, speculations, etc.; jumble, mixí and ëa complex of firms that do not have common production bases but are connected with organizational or financial tiesí. So the first value is borrowed from the English agglomeration, and the second is based on the semantics of the English conglomerate. However, given that the lexeme conglomerate as a geological term is used since the nineteenth century, and the value ëbig company formed by merging various companiesí is formed by analogy with the original one, then this relationship should not be interrupted in Ukrainian. It is also undeniable that the values ëdisordered association of things ever; mixí and ëassociation on a certain basisí are to be differentiated, i. e. there is

Borrowings in Ukrainian: Etymological, Semantic, and Orthographic Issues

7

a need for both lexemes. Therefore, it is most expedient to adjust the borrowings of the Ukrainian lexemes according to the English ones, thus having established an adequate relationship with the etymon. In course of borrowing, there often occur morphemes that play only grammatical role in the donor language system. One of these morphemes is the suffixoid -ŕëü- that has often no meaning in the Ukrainian borrowings. For example, its use is not justified in the Anglicisms łíäóńňðłŕëüíčé ëindustrialí, łíĺðöłŕëüíčé ëinertialí, ďðĺôłęńŕëüíčé ëprefixí, as there are no Ukrainian nouns *łíäóńňðłŕë, *łíĺðöłŕë, and *ďðĺôłęńŕë. Therefore, the adjective forms łíäóńňðłéíčé, łíĺðöłéíčé, and ďðĺôłęńíčé (such forms were actively used in Ukraine in the 1930s) derived from the nouns łíäóńňðł˙, łíĺðöł˙, and ďðĺôłęń, respectively, should be credited as the normative ones. In this regard, the Russian term číĺðöčŕëüíűé should be translated as łíĺðöłéíčé. However, there exist few terms where use of this morph is reasonable. These are such attributes as ďîňĺíöłŕëüíčé [áŕð’şð], äčôĺðĺíöłŕëüíčé [îďĺðŕňîð], etc., arising from the nouns ďîňĺíöłŕë ëpotentialí and äčôĺðĺíöłŕë ëdifferentialí, respectively. In addition, due to semantic differences, they are opposed to ďîňĺíöłéíčé ëpossibleí and äčôĺðĺíöłéíčé ëdifferentialí derived from the nouns ďîňĺíöł˙ ëpotencyí and äčôĺðĺíöł˙ ëdifferenceí, and therefore differ in use. Problems of rendering the Latin ìgî and ìhî in Ukrainian Oleksandr P o t e b n j a distinguished the external form of a word (i. e., sounding), the sense objectified by the sound, and the word inner form (or the closest etymological meaning of the word, the way in which sense is expressed), while stressing that the external and inner forms are inseparable (Ďîňĺáí˙ 1999, 156). Thus the use of any letter influences not only the sound of the word, but also its semantics. The Ukrainian graphemes ìă” and ìg” come from the Greek g (gamma): the first appeared in the 10th century with the Cyrillic script (according to some sources ñ in particular, (Áðŕé÷ĺâńüęčé 2009, 15) ñ it had existed earlier in the Protocyrillic script), and the second was introduced in 1619 (Íłě÷óę 2004 et al., 5). The phoneme /´/ (that allegedly corresponds to the Latin /g/) displays differentiating function just in a few word pairs: ăíłň ëoppressioní – gíłň ëwickí, ăðŕňč ëplayí – gðŕňč ëgrateí. This function is not critical because the values of the words listed can be easily recovered from the context. It was pointed out in the papers (Âŕęóëĺíęî 1995, 89; Âŕęóëĺíęî 1996b, 12; Âŕęóëĺíęî 1997, 14-15) that this phoneme varies within the triad of the /ă/, so we have ă (g) – ć – ç’: Âłííłďĺg (Winnipeg) – âłííłďĺçüęčé, not *âłííłďĺäçüęčé. Note that their voiceless counterparts have separate triads: ő – ř – ń’ (ðóő ëmotion; movement; moveí – ðóřčňč ëstart, set forí – â ðóńł ëin motioní), ę – ÷ – ö’ (ðóęŕ ëhand; armí – ðó÷íčé ëhand; manualí – ó ðóöł ëin handí). Thus the phoneme /´/ appears just as a variant of the /ă/. This is provided by the fact that in the process of formation of the Ukrainian language, the plosive sound [´] has been transformed into the fricative [ă] (Ěĺéĺ 1951, 15; Áĺçďŕëüęî et al. 1957, 82; Ęðčćŕíłâńüęŕ 2010, 50). This phenomenon is warranted by the lan-

8

Maksym Vakulenko:

guage tendency to eliminate elements with inappreciable semantic load: as Erkki Itkonen notes, in the language development process, uncommon phonemes of low frequency easily fuse with cognate phonemes (Ńĺðĺáðĺííčęîâ 1970, 254). This tendency, as evidenced in (Íłě÷óę et al. 2004), is observed in the evolution of Ukrainian orthography, too: the loanwords (mostly of the Greek origin), that initially (say, by ìzhelekhivkaî) were written with ì´”, had changed their graphical appearance to the ìăî within the later spelling rules (e. g., those of 1928), when adoption had completed. This is why in the dictionary of Ukrainian language (Ăðłí÷ĺíęî 1958-1959) that reflects Ukrainian vocabulary that has been forming for centuries, the overwhelming majority of words with the letter ì´î have orthographic variants with the ìăî. The Ukrainian stylistic vocabulary states: ëThe alien, unnatural for us g is bypassed by our peopleí (Îăłşíęî 1924, 97). The spelling of 1928 is rightly criticized in the History of the Ukrainian language (Îăłşíęî 2001, 372-373) for excessive use of the letter ìgî that led then to widespread teachersí discontent. This orthography is characterized also as ëa typically anemic, bloodless manufactured product of the armchair theorists not suitable for the everyday lifeí (Řĺâĺëüîâ 2008, 502). In addition, the compromise spelling rules introduced in the Code of 1928, were far from being perfect and expedient, as they were inconsistent with the linguistic practice of the masses and underrated eastern Ukrainian orthographic traditions and overestimated the western ones (Áĺâçĺíęî 1991, 39). Note that the explosive [g] is unstable in many languages: before the front vowels in English and Italian it turns into [dç] (George, Genova), in French into [ç] (Gerard), in Spanish into [x] (GijÛn) or into [] (agua). So use of ì´î should be limited by its traditional incidence. In this regard, the expansion of this letter use is perceived as unnatural. Moreover, some of the words where the replace of ìăî to ì´î is proposed do not have the plosive [g] even in the original. Most of such words came from Greek where the letter ìgî is pronounced closely to the Ukrainian [ă]. The words like ăĺíłé ëgeniusí, ăĺíłŕëüíčé ëgenialí, ăĺíĺðŕňîð ëgeneratorí, íłňðîăĺí ënitrogení, îęńčăĺí ëoxygení have descended from the Greek ãÝíïò ërace, blood, species, sort, stem, stock, strainí. The words ăĺíĺðŕë ëgeneralí (< ãåíéêüò ëmain, majorí), ăŕçîí ëlawní (< ãáæþíù ëstitch, machineí), ăŕðíłð ëside dishí (< ãáñíßñù ëdecorate, garnishí), ăłðë˙íäŕ ëgarlandí (< ãéñëÜíôá), ăëłńĺð ëhydroplaneí (< ãëßóôñçìá ëgliding, slide, slipí), ăðčď ëfluí (< ãñßðç), äĺăóńňŕöł˙ ëtastingí (< ãïýóôï ëtasteí), ĺăîżçě ëselfishnessí (< dãþ ëIí), łăíîðóâŕňč ëignoreí (< ãíùñßæù ëintroduce; put into account; knowí), ďëŕăłŕň ëplagiarismí (< ðëáãéÜæù ëput in bedí), ďîðňóăŕëĺöü ëPortugueseí (< Porto + Ãáëëßá ëFranceí), ďðîďŕăŕíäŕ ëpropagandaí (< ðñïðáãÜíôá) are also of Greek origin. The desire to create a simple and unambiguous compliance g – g necessarily entails the same lightweight relation h – ă, that in some cases noticeably distorts the word semantics and causes unwanted connotations, sometimes comic: Hall constant ñ ńňŕëŕ Ăîëŕ ëshe became Nakedí, happy end ñ ăĺďł ĺíä ëplunk finishí, homonym ñ ăîěîíłě ëletís talkí, Hitchcock ñ Ăč÷ęîę ëTopsí, how do you do ñ ăŕâ äó ţ äó ëwoof do you doí, know how ñ íîâ-ăŕâ ënew-woofí. They say that it supposedly separates the Ukrainian language from the Russian

Borrowings in Ukrainian: Etymological, Semantic, and Orthographic Issues

9

one. Actually, there is no separation from the Russian language but from the Bulgarian. For example, the name of Hamburg is written as Ăŕěáóðă both in Ukrainian and Russian, and as Őŕěáóðă in Bulgarian. This applies to most of the words that were borrowed through writing (chiefly toponyms). The representatives of the Western Ukrainian Diaspora perceive the Ukrainian sound [ă] no way as those living in Ukraine, and pronounce it closer to the Ukrainian [ő]: ìőîńďîäüî ëLordí, ìáŕőŕňîî ëmanyí, etc. This is fairly alike the sound of the English phoneme /h/. It is common knowledge that codification of the spelling norms should not deepen differences between spoken and written language (Ńĺðĺáðĺííčęîâ 1970, 578). So let us speak about the sound denoted in the latinographical languages by the h. In the words of Greek origin, the Latin h stands for the ancient Hellenic aspiration that later disappeared, and in the modern Romance languages it is usually mute or absent: ¬ñá ñ ora (It.), hora (Span.), heure (Fr.). In the Romanian language, it sounds like [x]: Mihai, Hagi. The Greek transcribe the English h as ÷ (ìchiî): Hamilton ñ ×Üìéëôïí, Hilton ñ ×ßëôïí, Hania ñ ×Üíéá. The Serb-Croatian language and its successors have the correspondence h – ő: Hrvatska – Őðâŕňńęŕ, Hrtkovci – Őðňęîâöč, Bosansko Grahovo – Áîńŕíńęî Ăðŕőîâî, Ohrid ñ Îőðčä. The Bulgarians write: Őŕěáóðă (Hamburg), Őŕěčëňîí (Hamilton). The letter h is treated as a voiceless consonant in Hungarian (Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Szombathely), Finnish (Lahti, Lehtonen), Arabic (Mahmoud, Sahara), Hebrew (Zahar, Rahil). In the modern Polish language, the h sounds like [x]. In Czech, the h is read similarly to the Ukrainian [ă] only in its native words but in the borrowings, there sounds [x] (Ăîðŕëĺę 1958, 138). The British and the Germans, in turn, perceive Czech sound [h] as akin to the [g] rather than to [h]: Praha ñ Prague, Prag. According to (Vasmer 1953-1958; Öűăŕíĺíęî 1970, 519-520), the ancient Slavonic ìxî is related to the German ìhî: őëłá – hleib (Anc. Ger.), hleifs (Got.); őčćčíŕ – h˚s (Anc. Ger.). The German ìchî often sounds close to the [řü]. In spontaneous borrowing, where native speakers are guided mostly by ear, correspondence ìhî ñ ìxî clearly dominates when rendering English words: őîëäčíă (holding), őĺäćóâŕíí˙ (hedging) (Řčěęłâ 2004); őîâĺð (hover), őłďňâłńň (hip twist); őłíäć (hinge), őłď-őîď (hip hop), őŕá (hub), őŕęĺð (hacker), őĺëďĺð (helper), őłëĺð (healer), őîň-äîă (hot dog), Őŕěěĺð (Hummer), őîëłäĺé (holiday) (Âŕęóëĺíęî 2010a). Only the ăĺëłęîďňĺð ëhelicopterí introduced artificially (that forms a sort of ìterminological tripletî with existing synonyms âĺðňîëłň, ăâčíňîęðčë), breaks this regularity. Comparative study of the acoustic characteristics of relevant sounds convince that the English [h] is phonetically much closer to the Ukrainian [x] than to the [ă]. First, we note that in English (also in Latin, German and many other languages), the phoneme /h/ always precedes the vowel phoneme that indicates its etymological and functional relation to aspiration. So, during pronunciation of the sound [h], ëthe vocal tract is in a vowel-like configuration but the glottis is spread and there may be no vocal fold vibrationí (Stevens 1998, 34). The Ukrainian

10

Maksym Vakulenko:

phonemes /ő/ and /ă/ have no such limitations in compatibility, and, in general, the corresponding sounds differ from [h] in articulation. So we may not speak about identity of corresponding English and Ukrainian sounds but only on their acoustic similarity. In Ukrainian, major allophones of these phonemes are discriminated primarily on the basis of ìvoicedî ñ ìvoicelessî criterion, defined as predominance of basic tone or noise, respectively ñ that is, in terms of acoustics, the ratio of the fundamental wave amplitude to the noise amplitude (Fig. 1: 2).

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Borrowings in Ukrainian: Etymological, Semantic, and Orthographic Issues

11

As far as the English phoneme /h/ always faces a vowel, the interaction of relevant sounds plays a significant role in the acoustic signal formation. So, one need to compare not individual sounds but their combinations: [hV] with [őV] and [ăV], where V is a vowel. The so-called afterbreath plays an important role in such combinations. In the loud utterance, in the transition interval between the voiceless consonant [x] and the following vowel, there occurs an ìafterbreathyî sound with a voice component. This is a possible cause of the ìunexpectedî fundamental tone frequency jumps after the voiceless consonants observed in (Ëč 1983, 257). Each consonant may have its afterbreath that is a voiced sound that occurs at the transition region to the next vowel. In Ukrainian and Russian, the so-called i-like areas in the sound combination ìsoftened consonant + vowelî that possess characteristics of a front elevated vowel, are well-known (Ňîöüęŕ 1981). We believe that it is the afterbreath that causes this phenomenon. An afterbreath is largely absent before the next consonant. An afterbreath provides openness to the syllable that is natural to the Slavic languages, and it may appear also previous to a pause. The afterbreath analogs are the short vowels “ú” and “ü” (ìerî and ìerchikî) in the Old Church Slavonic language (not the hard and soft signs in modern Russian), neutral English sound [©], sound of the French ìsilentî e, if any (remember the song ìTombe la neigeî in performance of Salvatore Adamo). It should be distinguished from the initial phase of the next vowel, because the vowel presence is not necessarily required for occurrence of this phenomenon. The frequency characteristics of the afterbreaths of the Ukrainian consonants were found in (Âŕęóëĺíęî 2000; Âŕęóëĺíęî 2010b; Âŕęóëĺíęî 2012a). In particular, the afterbreath of [x] (like the afterbreath of [ă]) has a Helmholtz formant within 360-530 Hz, the first cardinal formant within 1150-1550 Hz, and the second in the range of 2000-2500 Hz. The afterbreath of [x] (contrary to that of [ă]) has the combination formants at the frequencies Fp2 + Fp1 and Fp2 - Fp1, Fp1 and Fp2 being the first and second principal formants, respectively, where these formants, together with the main tone and Helmholtz resonance, give rise to the low-frequency component up to 1100 Hz (see Fig. 3) Acoustic and functional affinity of the Slavic sound [ő] with aspiration was noted in several studies. AndrÈ M e i l l e t pointed out that this sound is less tense than the German ch, and is easily reduced to aspiration or completely disappears (Ěĺéĺ 1951, 37). Its instability and assimilation to the next vowel is confirmed by experimental data (Áîíäŕðęî 1977, 103). The Ukrainian language also denotes aspiration by the letter ő: őŕ-őŕ ëha haí, őč-őč, őĺ-őĺ ëhe heí, őî-őî ëho hoí, őŕď ëgrab, claw, seizeí, őĺęŕňč (ëpuffí), ňüőó (ëfaugh, ugh, pah, pish, tushí), ęŕőčęŕňč (ëcoughí), ÷őŕňč (ësneezeí) ďőčęŕňč (‘whine’) (Âŕęóëĺíęî 1995, 79; Âŕęóëĺíęî 1996a, 88; Âŕęóëĺíęî 1996b, 10; Âŕęóëĺíęî 1997, 15). While investigating acoustic features of consonants combined with the subsequent vowel, we will part the following segments: 1) the consonant itself (core): 2) the transition area (transeme). To distinguish afterbreath from the next vowel onset, let us choose sound combinations including vowels without Helmholtz formants and with the first formant frequency sufficiently high, as the sound [a].

12

Maksym Vakulenko:

. Fig. 3 In our phonetic experiments on comparative study of the Ukrainian sounds [ő], [ă] and American English [h]: 3 male and 3 female native Ukrainian and 5 male and 5 female native American speakers were involved in. In all acoustic implementations of the phoneme /h/, both isolated and in the speech flow, the core of the sound [h] was characterized by small fundamental wave amplitude and relatively large noise amplitude (Fig. 4), indicating its closeness to the Ukrainian sound [x] (cf. Fig. 1-2).

Fig. 4

Borrowings in Ukrainian: Etymological, Semantic, and Orthographic Issues

13

This is consistent with the findings of the US experts. According to Peter L a d e f o g e d (1975, 182), at the beginning of words, the English /h/ is pronounced as a voiceless palatal fricative sound. This fact confirms its closeness to the Ukrainian [ő]. Kenneth S t e v e n s states that during the English [h] in intervocalic position, ëthe noise component dominates, and there tends to be no vocal fold vibrationí (Stevens 1998, 448-449). Sometimes these oscillations continue but their duration does not exceed about 100 ms (Stevens 1998, 448-449). At the same time, the perception experiments have demonstrated that a short interval (50-100 ms) of low-amplitude vocal cord vibrations is not enough to cause listeners to recognize the consonant as voiced (Stevens et al. 1992; Stevens 1998, 333). Sometimes the English [h] in intervocalic position (when the vocal folds vibration goes on) can indeed be perceived as something approximate to the Ukrainian [ă]. Note that this phenomenon is not fairly common: for example, during our records only one American speaker out of ten demonstrated this type of pronunciation. In addition, there is no clear regularity in such pronunciation (e. g., after which sounds), and this acoustic realization depends heavily on individuality of a particular speaker. Investigation of relevant transemes allows one to see the problem in detail. Fig. 5 shows two-dimensional spectrograms of transemes [h-a] (from ìbehindî) with the most prominent and typical voice components, [ă-ŕ] (from Ukr. ìŕăŕî), and [x-a] (from Ukr. ìőŕňŕî).

Fig. 5 This shows that proportion of the fundamental tone, harmonics and formant amplitudes of the transition [h-a] is alike the Ukrainian [x-a]. The spectrum of the transeme [ă-ŕ] manifests much higher fundamental and first cardinal formant ampli-

14

Maksym Vakulenko:

tude of the [ă], as well as a significant dip in the range of 500-1000 Hz. It is also seen from Fig. 6 displaying 3-D spectrograms of transemes [h-a] (ìbehindî) with the most intensive voice component, Ukrainian [ă-ŕ] (ìŕăŕî), and [x-a] (ìőŕňŕî), that the Ukrainian [ő] and English [h] have similar frequency constitution ñ in particular, significant low-frequency component in the range of 500-800 Hz, whereas the Ukrainian sound [ă] differs by lack of significant overtones in this range.

Fig. 6 These results confirm what we perceive by ìnakedî ear. As can be seen from comparison of Figs. 3: 5: 6, the spectral composition of the transeme [x-a] with such low-frequency component is provided not by the vowel [a] (lacking relevant modes) but by the [ő] afterbreath. Thus, the Ukrainian sound [x] (in any position) is a close acoustic equivalent to the English [h]. The acoustic and articulatory characteristics of the German sound [h] are similar to those of English. Its articulation is also somewhat closer to vowel articulation, but does not include a voice component; so the sound is classified as voiceless or even as voiceless fricative (Boase-Beier ñ Lodge 2003, 127). Thus, the practice of rendering English (German, Swedish, Finnish, Romanian, Hungarian, Croatian, etc.) h (producing corresponding sound) by the Ukrainian ő has loaded historical, logical and acoustic grounds. So it is recommended to write: Hall constant ñ ńňŕëŕ Őîëëŕ, highway ñ őŕéâĺé, know how ñ íîó-őŕó, Hitchcock ñ Őł÷ęîę, etc. Correspondence ìhî ñ ìăî is justified for the borrowings from the Czech and Slovak languages. However, change in the spelling of the words that have long been rooted in the Ukrainian language is inappropriate.

Borrowings in Ukrainian: Etymological, Semantic, and Orthographic Issues

15

Rule ìnineî in the context of borrowing One of the controversial and interesting problems of the Ukrainian orthography is application of the so-called rule of ìnineî, which regulates writing “ł” or “č” in the loanwords. Thus, we will analyze this rule on its compliance with trends of the Ukrainian language and its applicability to modern linguistic realities and formulate appropriate orthographic recommendations. The rule of ìnineî requires to write the letter “č” in place of Latin ìiî in common loanwords after ä, ň, ç, ń, ö, ć, ř, ÷, ð previous to consonants: ńčăíŕë (signal), çčăçŕă (zigzag ), ďðčíňĺð (printer), etc. ñ that somewhat alters the sound of source. More precisely, it should be called an exception as 9 of 21 consonants is a minority. This exception was borrowed from the Polish orthography (Ńěŕëü-Ńňîöüęčé ñ Ąŕðňíĺð 1914; Áĺçďŕëüęî et al. 1957, 66; Ňčěîřĺíęî 1961, 293; 342). Artem M o s k a l e n k o notes that the authors of this innovation ëhad been opposing the commonly known and universally recognized claim that the basis of the Ukrainian language are the norms of the southeastern Ukrainian dialectí (Ěîńęŕëĺíęî 1968, 24). Absence of palatalization of consonants preceding the Ukrainian [č] results in relevant ìhardnessî of typical Ukrainian pronunciation as compared to Russian. However, there are not a few examples where the Ukrainian word, unlike its Russian counterpart, has a softened pronunciation: äłðęŕ (ëholeí) ñ äűðęŕ, ęîěŕðł (ëmosquitoesí) ñ ęîěŕðű, ðłçíčö˙ (ëdifferenceí) ñ ðŕçíčöŕ, řłńňü (ësixí) ñ řĺńňü, ńęŕćłňü (ësay; tellí) ñ ńęŕćčňĺ, ňłëüęč (ëonlyí) ñ ňîëüęî, ďłäłăðŕňč (ëplay alongí) ñ ďîäűăðŕňü, ðîçłăíŕňč (ëdisperseí) ñ ðŕçîăíŕňü, áĺçłäĺéíčé (ëwithout ideasí) ñ áĺçűäĺéíűé. Unlike in Russian, the Ukrainian suffix -ńüę- contains the palatalized sound [sí]. The rise of sound [i] in the course of development of the Ukrainian language (later than the former “č” ceased to soften the preceding consonants) shows objective need for such a sound and focus on expanding soft pronunciation which sounds more pleasantly than a hard. Similar changes in phonological systems of different languages that restore the lost balance between the sounds are not uncommon (Ńĺðĺáðĺííčęîâ 1970, 272-273). During development of the Ukrainian language, the sound [ł] has been varying by elevation and palatalization ability depending on phoneme location, speech rate, dialect, and other factors. For example, the “ł” is read sometimes very similar to the [č] after the consonants ň, ä, í, ë (Řĺðĺő 1951, 378): äĺďóňŕňłâ ëdeputiesí, őîňłâ ëwould; wantedí, ďîňłě ëthení, çŕęëŕäłâ ëinstitutionsí, ďĺâíł ësome; sureí, ńňîëłâ ëtablesí, etc. ñ mostly in cases where this letter appeared in place of former ìoî. Of course, this applies primarily to variation in the consonant pronunciation. However, taking into account essential connectedness of a consonant with a following vowel (Áîíäŕðęî 1977, 119), one should recognize that there is also change in the pronunciation of the [i]. Thus, this sound has a wide range of allophones covering all variants of pronouncing its counterpart in other languages. It was demonstrated in (Vakulenko 2007, 85; Vakulenko 2010; Âŕęóëĺíęî 2011b; Âŕęóëĺíęî 2012b] that the English [I] ñ including position after a consonant ñ meets acoustically the Ukrainian [ł].

16

Maksym Vakulenko:

In the ìzhelekhivkaî code, the consonants were hard before the “ł” and soft before the “ż”. Note that possibility to read consonants hard before the modern [ł] evidences in favor to consider /ł/ and /č/ as the different phonemes. Articulation and phonetic classification of the Ukrainian [č] requires additional research. Berndt P o m p i n o - M a r s c h a l l from the University of Berlin argues that this sound is not like the German [I] as in ìbitteî, so a new International Phonetic Alphabet sign was proposed for the [č]: i (ìiî strikethrough) (Pompino-Marschall 2012). Inconsistencies of positional distinction between “ł” and “č” are also noticeable. Given that phonetic liaison between a vowel and following consonant is not significant (Áîíäŕðęî 1977, 64), there is no major difference in the sound of the phoneme /i/ previous to pauses, vowels, and consonants. Therefore, there is no compelling phonetic reason to change the “ł” into the “č” before some consonants: ňŕęńł ëtaxií ñ ňŕęńčńň ëtaxi driverí, äłîä ëdiodeí ñ äčďëîě ëdiplomaí. It is interesting that in the native Ukrainian words çâłäňč – çâłäňłë˙ ëfrom thereí, çâłäęč – çâłäęłë˙ ëfrom whereí, őîäč – őîäłěî ëcomeí, ńęŕćč – ńęŕćłěî ësayí, etc. the use of these letters is rather contrary. Similarly, in the imperative form of noun verbs formed from the borrowed base, the letter “ł” does not transform into ìčî: íĺ áŕńłňü (< áŕń íbassí), íĺ ôłíňłňü (< ôłíň ëfeintí). This happens also in the indefinite form of a verb produced from a borrowed noun: ňðĺíäłňč (< ňðĺíä ëtrendí), ôŕíŕňłňč (< ôŕíŕň ëfaní). The suffix -łâ- is not also subject to this rule: âŕíňŕćłâęŕ ëtruckí (< âŕíňŕć ëcargoí), ăðóíňłâęŕ ëgroundí (< ăðóíň ësoilí), ńňîěĺňðłâęŕ ëa 100 m distanceí (< ěĺňð ëmeterí). It was shown in (Vakulenko 2007, 84; Vakulenko 2010; Âŕęóëĺíęî 2011b; Âŕęóëĺíęî 2012b) that invariant acoustic characteristics of the Ukrainian sound [č] give the ratio corresponding to the small third (6/5), i. e. minor concord, while the relevant ratio for the sound [i] corresponds to the large third (5/4) and major key. Therefore, there are major and minor concords in Ukrainian ñ as well as in music. A language, as we know, causes mentality. Breaking this balance being composed through centuries by reducing the major concord occurrence, may influence the nationís mentality ñ obviously to decrease the content of optimistic, positive, active outlook. The sounds [i] and [č] are differentiated and denoted by individual letters not only in several Slavic languages but also in Turkish, Romani (Ðîć÷ĺíęî 1995, 28) and in other languages. In Greek, the letters representing the sound [i], are read as the Ukrainian [č] in the position subsequent to the t (tau). In Japanese, a differential feature of consonant hardness / softness is manifested even more distinctly than in Ukrainian, and the sound similar to the Ukrainian [č] is absent ñ so it is advisable to write Japanese borrowings in Ukrainian through “ł” only: äçłíäç˙ (dzindzya), ńŕńłěł (sasimi), ńţðłęĺí (shuriken), öłěŕęł (tsimaki) (Áîíäŕð 2011, 62). A similar feature of the Korean language phonetic system was observed (Ěîńĺíęłń ñ Ńčíčřčí 2007). The tendency to replace the “ł” with the “č” (that appears primarily in the pursuit to expand the rule of ìnineî to the proper names) is actually a step backwards,

Borrowings in Ukrainian: Etymological, Semantic, and Orthographic Issues

17

as contradicts to the phonetic principle of the Ukrainian language. Furthermore, this historical ìreverseî inevitably throws Russian graphical forms: Ŕðăĺíňčíŕ (Argentina), Áðŕňčńëŕâŕ (Bratislava), Ńčíăŕďóð (Singapore), Ěŕäðčä (Madrid) ñ and Russian pronunciation (ć, ř, ö are read hard): Âłðäćčíł˙ (Virginia), Âŕřčíăňîí (Washington), Öčöĺðîí (Cicero). Note that in other languages a tangible desire to discriminate spelling of proper and common names is manifested: tailor ñ Taylor, point ñ Poynting. Back in 1894 the famous Ukrainian writer Ivan Franko had noted: ëThe Russian Ukrainians, having had accustomed to the Russian language and Russian letter pronunciation, have written in Ukrainian always with respect to this pronunciation [Ö] so that when reading letters in Russian, a true Ukrainian word turns outí (Ňčěîřĺíęî 1961, 26). This is still topical today. As for allocation of the special group of consonants, in the process of formation and development of the Ukrainian language, hardening of the ìnineî consonants was not happening. Quite the contrary: the Ukrainian language is characterized by hard pronunciation of labial, sibilant, and velar consonants as a result of historical processes of dispalatalization. As the sounds [ă], [ę], [ő] (outside the ìnineî) were hard, for palatalization in the position prior to front vowels, the soft consonants [çí], [öí], [ńí] appeared in their place (Áĺçďŕëüęî et al. 1957, 84-88). Note that these consonants able to soften, belong to the ìnineî. In modern Ukrainian, as follows from (Ďĺðĺáčéíłń 1970, 38; Ňîöüęŕ 1981, 182), the consonants of the ìnineî are palatalized at least as frequently as the other consonants. Thus, ëthis Polish way to write y after some consonants, and i following the others, does not have any substantial scholarly groundí (Îăłşíęî 1924, 165). The Ukrainian language has been disapproving this rule from the very beginning. Mykhajlo G h r u s h e v s j k y j , Borys G h r i n c h e n k o , and the authors of the specialized dictionaries of the ìUkrainizationî period (1918-1932 years), among others, neglect this rule and write: ňĺðłňîðł˙ ëterritoryí, ďðłíöłď ëprincipleí, ňłðĺ ëdashí, ŕńłěďňîňŕ ëasymptoteí, äłíŕěłęŕ ëdynamicsí, äłôĺðĺíöłŕë ëdifferentialí, ńłńňĺěŕ ësystemí, öłňðóń ëcitrusí, etc. (Íłě÷óę et al. 2004, 170-188; 229; 237; Ęóðčëî 1918; Őâĺäîðłâ 1919). Many carriers of modern Ukrainian are easy and often use the forms “ęŕçłíî” (casino), “ńňðłď-áŕð” (strip bar), “őîëäłíă” (holding), “ěĺðłňîęðŕňł˙” (meritocracy), “äłëĺð” (dealer), “ăðłëü” (grill) and so on as more natural and convenient to them. In addition, the last two words are similar to the Ukrainian äłëî (affair; work) and ăðłňč (warm), respectively. Of course, the above forms are out of norm, but such phenomenon occurs too often to be fully neglected. The Ukrainian Encyclopedia provides a huge number of terms traditionally written with the “ł”, in particular: ńłâŕďłňĺę (sivapithecus), ńłäŕ (sidah), ńłíäč (the Sinds), ńłðőŕęďőŕ (sirhakpha), ńłňł (city) (Áŕćŕí (13) 1959-1965). Such use of the Ukrainian “ł” in place of the European ìiî is often reasonable because it allows one to discern between pseudo homonyms of foreign and native origin and to avoid unwanted connotations: ęðłę (creek) ëa small stream; a narrow channel; an inlet of the seaí ñ ęðčę ëcryí, ďðłěóń ëwickless heaterí (< Lat. primus) ñ ďðčěóń ëcoercioní, ðłáîíóęëĺżíîâŕ ęčńëîňŕ (ribonucleic acid) ñ ðčáîęîěáłíŕň ëfish processing plantí;

18

Maksym Vakulenko:

ňóðáłäłěĺňð (turbidimeter) ñ ňóð áłäč ëwoe tourí; Äĺðłáŕńłâńüęŕ [street] (from Fr. De Ribas) ñ Äĺðčáŕń ëelevate bass; rack bass; bully bassí, ăðłíłçŕöł˙ ëgreenizationí ñ Ăðčíü ëGregoryí. The Ukrainian advertising presents interesting ideas on such connotations. The possible use of this rule in the phrase “Âĺńíŕ â ěŕăŕçčíł Reebokî ëSpring in the store Reebokí would result in ìÂĺńíŕ â ěŕăŕçčíł Ðčáîęî ëSpring in the Fishstoreí. Then the Finnish brand of paint ìTikkurilaî might acquire the form ìŇčęóðčëŕî ëYou smoked, girlí, and the ìCity Bankî would transform to the ìŃčňł Áŕíęî ëNo famine bankí. The exception ìnineî is hardly applicable in those borrowings where the ìeî has been replaced by the “ł”: ŕðňłëü ëartel, marketing cooperativeí, ňŕðłëü ëplateí, öłńŕð ëEmperor, tzar, Kingí, Îőðłě, Ëŕâðłí, and others. It is impossible to meet this rule in abbreviations and relevant derivatives: Ĺęńłěáŕíę (< “Ĺęńďîðňíî-łěďîðňíčé áŕíę” ëExport-Import Bankí), ńňłôłâĺöü (from the abbreviation ìSTIFî). The comprised words are written mainly with the ìiî, especially those containing the inner prefix “ł(í)”: áĺçłíĺðöłéíčé ëinertialessí, äĺçłíôîðěŕöł˙ ëdisinformationí, ďðĺńłíôîðě ëpressinformí, ďĺäłíńňčňóň ëPedagogical Instituteí, áóäłíäóńňðł˙ ëconstruction branchí, also çłăíîðóâŕňč ëmake ignoredí, çłěłňóâŕňč ëmake simulatedí ñ and the element “ęâŕçł” (quasi): ęâŕçłěîäî (Quasimodo), ęâŕçłńňŕí (quasi-state), ęâŕçł÷ŕńňčíęŕ (quasi-particle), ęâŕçłńňŕöłîíŕðíčé (quasi-stationary). It is often difficult for a lay person to decompose the word into necessary components: äćłó-äćłňńó (jiu-jitsu), “Ďĺďńłęî” (îPepsikoî), ŕäłäŕńłâńüęčé (Adidas < Adi Dassler), Âłäłâŕí (VD-one), ńłäłðîě (CD ROM), ěŕðłőóŕíŕ (marijuana). This rule is not appropriate in the borrowed terms comprised of two or more bases. For example, the term âŕðłęîíä ëvaricapí ñ from the English vari(able) cond(enser) ñ is the truncated collocation “âŕðłŕňčâíčé ęîíäĺíńŕňîð” ëvariable capacitorí where the letter ìiî should be kept. The same applies to the terms ăðłí ëgriní coming from the English gr(adient) in(dex), and âŕðłęŕď ëvaricapí itself that originates from the English vari(able) cap(acity) and not from the ìâŕðč ňŕ ęŕďŕéî ëboil and dripí. Significantly, the rule ìnineî was set in active use only after notorious repressions of 30-ies of the last century ñ because it powerfully contributed to displacement of the Ukrainian ìiî, so imposing Russian spelling and pronunciation. What perfectly fit into the idea of ìfusion of languages and nations.î That is why we are critical about any intention to extend the scope of this rule without adequate scholarly justification and wide discussion. Unfortunately, Ukraine has no serious counter to this onslaught. Even despite warnings of well-known linguists, who encouraged to honor tradition to write the ìiî in the foreign proper names (Ęŕðŕâŕíńüęčé 1994, 114). So the fourth edition of Ukrainian orthography contains not a few examples with a strong Polish bias: Ŕðăĺíňčíŕ ëArgentinaí (Pol. Argentyna), Ěŕäðčä ëMadridí (Pol. Madryt), Ěĺęńčęŕ ëMexicoí (Pol. Meksyk), Ńŕðäčíł˙ ëSardiniaí (Pol. Sardynia), Ńęŕíäčíŕâł˙ ëScandinaviaí (Pol. Skandynavia), Ńčöčëł˙ ëSicilyí (Pol. Sycylia), Ńčðł˙ ëSyriaí (Pol. Syria), Ňčáĺň ëTibetí (Pol. Tybet), Âŕřčíăňîí ëWashingtoní (Pol. Waszyngton) (ÓĎ 1993, 101-102). This complication of spelling is hard to be justified given that the Poles themselves use the names

Borrowings in Ukrainian: Etymological, Semantic, and Orthographic Issues

19

Chicago, Chile, Singapur ëSingaporeí, Tirana written in accordance with the original, not the ìnine.î Therefore, the ìlasting vitalityî of the Orthography of 1960 (Áĺâçĺíęî 1991, 41), unfortunately, does not extend to its last variants. In rendering the French ìuî, a similar situation is set. This letter is related to the rounded front vowel that sounds after consonants like the Ukrainian vowel denoted by the letter ţ ensuing a consonant. The modern Ukrainian spelling actually identifies this letter with the Polish ìuî (gives rounded back vowel) and with the French digraph ìouî. Also, this gives rise to unwanted connotations: ćóðł ëjuryí ñ ćóðáŕ ëmelancholyí, Ćóëü Âĺðí ëJules Verneí ñ Äćóëłęî Áŕíäłňňî ëGiulico Bandittoí. As for special terms traditionally written with ìiî ñ ôîðňłńńłěî ëfortissimoí, áðŕâłńńłěî ëbravissimoí, etc. ñ after replacing the ìiî by the “č” they not only have acquired the Russian appearance but lost also their expressiveness inherent in the source language. Thus, the rule of ìnineî is: ï inexact (distorts source pronunciation and poorly reflects features and trends of the Ukrainian language); ï discordant (ðč, äč, ňč, çč); ï inconvenient (exception for almost half of Ukrainian consonants); ï non-phonetical (makes positional letter changes without phonetic approach); ï non-etymological (neglects historical changes of the Ukrainian consonants for their softness and hardness); ï intermediary (taken from the Polish grammar and throws Russian writing and pronunciation). These drawbacks are noteworthy enough to reasonably raise the question to restrict an application area of this rule, namely: 1) do not extend the rule of ìnineî to the proper names, abbreviations (and their derivative lexemes) and compound words, where the full form of the word contains the letter ìiî: ńňłôłâĺöü, äćłó-äćłňńó, “Ďĺďńłęî”, ŕäłäŕńłâńüęčé, âłäłâŕí, ńłäłðîě, ěŕðłőóŕíŕ, âŕðłęŕď, âŕðłęîíä; 2) do not extend this rule to the borrowings from the Slavic, Romani, Turkish, Japanese and Korean languages; 3) do not extend the rule of ìnineî to those borrowings where phonemic opposition and /ł/ – /č/ removes ambiguity due to pseudo homonymy at the lexical or morphemic levels: ęðłę ñ ęðčę, ďðłěóń ñ ďðčěóń, ðłáîíóęëĺżíîâŕ ęčńëîňŕ ñ ðčáîęîěáłíŕň; 4) resume writing “ł” in the proper names and some terms according to the spelling of 1960 including: Ŕðăĺíňłíŕ, Ŕðłńňîňĺëü, Áðŕçłëł˙, Áðŕňłńëŕâŕ, Âŕřłíăňîí, Ěŕäðłä, Ěĺęńłęŕ, Ńŕðäłíł˙, Ńłíăŕďóð, Ńłðł˙, Ńłöłëł˙, Ńęŕíäłíŕâł˙, Ňłáĺň, Ňłěîð, Ňłðŕíŕ, Öłöĺðîí, ׳ęŕăî, ׳ëł, áðŕâłńłěî, ďłŕíłńłěî, ôîðňłńłěî, ńłâŕďłňĺę, ńłäŕ, ńłíäč, ńłðőŕęďőŕ, ńłňł.

20

Maksym Vakulenko:

Fig. 7 Some other spelling speculations Reduplications in proper names In the late twentieth century, Estonia changed the name of its capital from ìTallinî to ìTallinnî. Furthermore, in the Western Europe, the names like Jensen and Jenssen which differ solely by reduplication, are fairly common. Therefore, the desire to ìsimplifyî the spelling by eliminating letter reduplications in proper names, is not warranted. Reduplications at the prefix and root boundary As shown above, simplification of consonant reduplications after prefixes a(d)and dis- leads to distortion of lexical semantic relations among the term lexicon elements. This reduplication at the morphemic seam should be kept if there exists a cognate form without prefix: ęóěóë˙öł˙ – ŕęęóěóë˙öł˙, íîňŕöł˙ – ŕííîňŕöł˙, ďĺðöĺďöł˙ – ŕďďĺðöĺďöł˙, ďîçčňčâ – ŕďďîçčňčâ, ďîçčöł˙ – ŕďďîçčöł˙, ńîðňčěĺíň – ŕńńîðňčěĺíň, ńîöłŕňčâíčé ñ ŕńńîöłŕňčâíčé. The Latin -jeAn eloquent example of ìborrowingî Russian form is the word “ďðîĺęň” ëprojectí ñ because the Russian ìeî is read as [je]. The cognate words ŕä’şęňčâŕöł˙ ëadjectivationí, łí’şęöł˙ ëinjectioní, îá’şęň ëobjectí, ńóá’şęň ësubjectí, ńţð’şęöł˙ ësurjectioní, áłşęöł˙ ëbijectioní, ňĺňðŕşęň ëtetrajectí, ňðŕşęňîðł˙ ëtrajectoryí are written through “ş”. Thus, it is reasonable to normalize spelling of terms derived from Latin words with the formant -ject-, with “ş” and so codify the form ďðîşęň.

Borrowings in Ukrainian: Etymological, Semantic, and Orthographic Issues

21

The English w Acoustic considerations suggest that the English w preceding a vowel at the beginning or middle of a word, is appropriate to be rendered by the Ukrainian “â”, and in other cases by the “ó”: Âłěáëäîí (Wimbledon), Âŕřłíăňîí (Washington), Äîóńîí (Dawson), Řîó (Shaw), íîó-őŕó (know how), Âîóâĺðěŕí (Vowverman) (Âŕęóëĺíęî 1997, 17). The Latin -ia- in the middle of words There is no good reason to graphically display an appearance of [é] after the ìiî before the vowels in the middle of words: *ďł˙íłíî ëpianinoí, *ðŕäłéî ëradioí, *ńďĺöł˙ëüíčé ëspecialí, etc. This is motivated by the fact that the Ukrainians supposedly cannot utter a vowel without a prosthetic sound. But experience shows they still can. Besides, any vowel always affects pronunciation of the next one, so there is no need to iotate it specially. The current orthography just aptly reflects phonetic features of an appearance of [é] after the ìiî before the vowels that is clearly felt at the end of words. Conclusions Thus, the process of borrowing and adopting foreign words is one of the ways to replenish the vocabulary of any language, including its term lexicon. The influx of borrowings is uneven but continuous. One of the most prevalent modifications that foreign words undergo is shift of values that can lead sometimes to the breach of motivation ties with the etymon meaning, irregularities or distortions of lexical semantic relations in the recipient language system, etc. Therefore, normalization of foreign words usage is extremely important, that requires consideration of the organization peculiarities of both recipient and donor languages. In addition, excess of foreign words in the Ukrainian and many European languages that often causes orthoepic and orthographic difficulties in their mastering, should be accounted for. It is expedient therefore to intensify use of native units, minimizing the number of unnecessary loans (e. g., calks, doublets, etc.). Also, it is advisable not to expand the use of the ìăî and ìčî in such borrowings.

References: Boase-Beier ñ Lodge 2003: B o a s e - B e i e r , J. ñ L o d g e , K.: The German language: a linguistic introduction. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 2003. Ladefoged 1975: L a d e f o g e d , P.: A Course in Phonetics. University of California 1975. Pompino-Marschall 2012: P o m p i n o - M a r s c h a l l , B.: private communication. Stevens et al. 1992: S t e v e n s , K. N. ñ B l u m s t e i n , S. E. ñ G l i c k s m a n , L. ñ B u r t o n , M. ñ K u r o w s k i , K.: Acoustic and perceptual characteristics of voicing in fricatives and fricative clusters. Journal of the Acoustical Soc. of America 91, 1992, 2979-3000. Stevens 1998: S t e v e n s , K. N.: Acoustic Phonetics. MIT Press, Cambridge 1998.

22

Maksym Vakulenko:

Vakulenko 2007: V a k u l e n k o , M. O.: Acoustic Invariant Approach to Speech Sound Analysis for Brand New Speech Recognition Systems (Ukrainian and English).í Computing 6, 2007, 3, 79-86. [on-line: http://computingonline.net/issues/2007_vol_6_issue3-eng.html; 28 March 2013]. Vakulenko 2010: V a k u l e n k o , M. O.: Acoustic invariants of Ukrainian vowels. Âłńíčę Ęčżâńüęîăî ëłíăâłńňč÷íîăî óíłâĺðńčňĺňó ÑÔłëîëîăł˙ì 13, 2010, 1, 21-31. Vakulenko ñ Melnjyk 2013-2014: V a k u l e n k o , M. ñ M e l n j y k , K.: Term properties and modern terminological systems development. Terminology Science & Research vol. 24, 2938; [on-line: https://drive.google.com./file/d/0Bw44-ZBHniK_Y0I3d1MtUUNVND Q/ view?usp=sharing; 08.06.2015]. Vasmer 1953-1958: V a s m e r , M.: Russisches etymologisches Wˆrterbuch I-III. Heidelberg 19531958.

Áŕćŕí 1959-1965: Á ŕ ć ŕ í , Ě. Ď. [ed.]: Óęðŕżíńüęŕ ðŕä˙íńüęŕ ĺíöčęëîďĺäł˙, 1-17. Ăîëîâíŕ ðĺäŕęöł˙ ÓÐĹ, Ęčżâ 1959-1965. Áĺâçĺíęî 1991: Á ĺ â ç ĺ í ę î , Ń. Ď.: ˛ńňîðł˙ óęðŕżíńüęîăî ěîâîçíŕâńňâŕ. ˛ńňîðł˙ âčâ÷ĺíí˙ óęðŕżíńüęîż ěîâč. Íŕâ÷. ďîńłáíčę. Âčůŕ řęîëŕ, Ęčżâ 1991. Áĺçďŕëüęî et al. 1957: Á ĺ ç ď ŕ ë ü ę î , Î. Ď. ñ Á î é ÷ ó ę , Ě. Ę. ñ Ć î â ň î á ð ţ ő , Ě. Ŕ. – Ń ŕ ě ł é ë ĺ í ę î , Ń. Ď. ñ Ň ŕ ð ŕ í ĺ í ę î , ˛. É.: ˛ńňîðč÷íŕ ăðŕěŕňčęŕ óęðŕżíńüęîż ěîâč. Ðŕä˙íńüęŕ řęîëŕ, Ęčżâ 1957. Áĺëîäĺä 1980: Á ĺ ë î ä ĺ ä , Č. Ę.: Číňĺðíŕöčîíŕëüíűĺ ýëĺěĺíňű â ëĺęńčęĺ č ňĺðěčíîëîăčč. Âčůŕ řęîëŕ, Őŕðüęîâ 1980. Áłëîäłä et al. 1970-1980: Á ł ë î ä ł ä , ˛. Ę. [ed.]: Ńëîâíčę óęðŕżíńüęîż ěîâč, ˛-Ő˛. Íŕóęîâŕ äóěęŕ, Ęčżâ 1970-1980. Áîíäŕð 2011: Á î í ä ŕ ð , Î. ˛.: ßďîíńüęł çŕďîçč÷ĺíí˙ ł óęðŕżíńüęčé ďðŕâîďčń. In: Ńëîâ’˙íńüęčé çáłðíčę XIV-XV. ÎÐ˛ÄÓ ÍŔÄÓ, Îäĺńŕ 2011, 55-63. Áîíäŕðęî 1977: Á î í ä ŕ ð ę î , Ë. Â.: Çâóęîâîé ńňðîé ńîâðĺěĺííîăî ðóńńęîăî ˙çűęŕ. Ďðîńâĺůĺíčĺ, Ěîńęâŕ 1977. Áðŕé÷ĺâńüęčé 2009: Á ð ŕ é ÷ ĺ â ń ü ę č é , Ě.: Ďîőîäćĺíí˙ ńëîâ’˙íńüęîż ďčńĺěíîńňł. Âčä. äłě „Ęčşâî-Ěîăčë˙íńüęŕ ŕęŕäĺěł˙”, Ęčżâ 2009. Âŕęóëĺíęî 1995:  ŕ ę ó ë ĺ í ę î , Ě.: Ďðî ďĺðĺęëŕä ňŕ çŕďîçč÷ĺíí˙ ÷óćîěîâíčő ńëłâ. Âłńíčę ÍŔÍ Óęðŕżíč 11-12, 1995, 78-81. Âŕęóëĺíęî 1996a:  ŕ ę ó ë ĺ í ę î , Ě. Î.: Äî ďðŕâîďčńó ÷óćîěîâíčő ăĺîăðŕôł÷íčő âëŕńíčő íŕçâ. Âłńíčę ăĺîäĺçłż ňŕ ęŕðňîăðŕôłż 1 (5) 1996, 86-92. Âŕęóëĺíęî 1996b:  ŕ ę ó ë ĺ í ę î , Ě. Î. [ed.]: Ðîńłéńüęî-óęðŕżíńüęčé ńëîâíčę ôłçč÷íîż ňĺðěłíîëîăłż. Ďîëłăðŕô. öĺíňð Ęčżâńüęîăî óí-ňó łě. Ňŕðŕńŕ Řĺâ÷ĺíęŕ, Ęčżâ 1996. Âŕęóëĺíęî 1997:  ŕ ę ó ë ĺ í ę î , Ě.: Ďðî “ńęëŕäíł” ďðîáëĺěč óęðŕżíńüęîăî ďðŕâîďčńó (óęðŕżíńüęŕ ëŕňčíčö˙, çŕďîçč÷ĺíł ńëîâŕ ňŕ łí.). Ęóðń, Ęčżâ 1997. Âŕęóëĺíęî 2000:  ŕ ę ó ë ĺ í ę î , Ě. Î.: Ŕęóńňč÷íł őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčęč ňŕ łíâŕðłŕíňč çâóęłâ óęðŕżíńüęîż ěîâč. Íŕóęîâčé âłńíčę ęŕôĺäðč ŢÍĹŃĘÎ ĘÄËÓ. Ôłëîëîăł˙, ďĺäŕăîăłęŕ, ďńčőîëîăł˙ 1, 2000, 62-66. Âŕęóëĺíęî 2010a:  ŕ ę ó ë ĺ í ę î , Ě. Î.: Ðîçâčňîę ňĺðěłíîńčńňĺě ł ňĺðěłíîňâîðĺíí˙. Óęðŕżíńüęŕ ěîâŕ 2010, 1, 88-93. Âŕęóëĺíęî 2010b:  ŕ ę ó ë ĺ í ę î , Ě. Î.: Ŕęóńňč÷íł őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčęč ňŕ łíâŕðłŕíňč óęðŕżíńüęčő ďðčăîëîńíčő. Âłńíčę Ëóăŕíńüęîăî íŕö. óí-ňó łěĺíł Ňŕðŕńŕ Řĺâ÷ĺíęŕ. Ôłëîëîăł÷íł íŕóęč ˛˛/13 (200), 2010, 64-81 [on-line: http:// www.nbuv.gov.ua/portal /Soc_Gum/Vlush/Filol/2010_13_2/9.pdf; 28 March 2013].

Borrowings in Ukrainian: Etymological, Semantic, and Orthographic Issues

23

Âŕęóëĺíęî 2011a:  ŕ ę ó ë ĺ í ę î , Ě. Î.: Îńîáëčâîńňł ńĺěŕíňčęč ďŕðîíłěłâ ł ďńĺâäîńčíîíłěłâ ó íŕóęîâîěó ńňčëł óęðŕżíńüęîż ěîâč. Âłńíčę Ęčżâńüęîăî íŕöłîíŕëüíîăî ëłíăâłńňč÷íîăî óíłâĺðńčňĺňó, „Ôłëîëîăł˙” 14, 2011, 2, 31-46 [on-line: http://archive. nbuv.gov.ua/ Portal/Soc_Gum/Vknlu/fil/2011_2/Vakulenko.pdf; 28 March 2013]. Âŕęóëĺíęî 2011b:  ŕ ę ó ë ĺ í ę î , Ě.: ˛íâŕðłŕíňíî-ŕęóńňč÷íčé ŕíŕëłç ěîâëĺíí˙ ňŕ ďîńňłéíł őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčęč óęðŕżíńüęčő ăîëîńíčő. In: Äłŕëîă ěîâ – äłŕëîă ęóëüňóð. Óęðŕżíŕ ł ńâłň. Ěŕňĺðłŕëč ˛ Ěłćíŕðîäíîż íŕóęîâî-ďðŕęňč÷íîż ˛íňĺðíĺň-ęîíôĺðĺíöłż ç óęðŕżíłńňčęč. Ěţíőĺí: 27-29 ćîâňí˙ 2010 ðîęó. KUBON & SAGNER, M¸nchen 2011, 164-177. Âŕęóëĺíęî 2012a:  ŕ ę ó ë ĺ í ę î , Ě.: Äîńëłäćĺíí˙ łíâŕðłŕíňíčő ŕęóńňč÷íčő őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčę óęðŕżíńüęčő ďðčăîëîńíčő. In: Äłŕëîă ěîâ – äłŕëîă ęóëüňóð. Óęðŕżíŕ ł ńâłň. Ěŕňĺðłŕëč ˛˛ Ěłćíŕðîäíîż íŕóęîâî-ďðŕęňč÷íîż ˛íňĺðíĺň-ęîíôĺðĺíöłż ç óęðŕżíłńňčęč. Ěţíőĺí: 3-6 ëčńňîďŕäŕ 2011 ðîęó. KUBON & SAGNER, M¸nchen 2012, 224-239. Âŕęóëĺíęî 2012b:  ŕ ę ó ë ĺ í ę î , Ě.: Äîńëłäćĺíí˙ ăîëîńíčő çâóęłâ óęðŕżíńüęîż ěîâč ěĺňîäîě ŕęóńňč÷íčő łíâŕðłŕíňłâ. Ďðčęëŕäíŕ ëłíăâłńňčęŕ ňŕ ëłíăâłńňč÷íł ňĺőíîëîăłż : MegaLing-2011. Ó̲Ô, Ęčżâ 2012, 81-100. Ăŕď÷ĺíęî 2005: Ă ŕ ď ÷ ĺ í ę î , Î. Ŕ.: Ěîâíł çŕďîçč÷ĺíí˙ ˙ę ðĺçóëüňŕň äłŕëîăó ęóëüňóð. Ěîâíł ł ęîíöĺďňóŕëüíł ęŕðňčíč ńâłňó 18/1, 2005, 90-94. Ăîðŕëĺę et al. 1958: Ă î ð ŕ ë ĺ ę , Ę. [ed.]: ×ĺřńęî-ðóńńęčé ńëîâŕðü. Ăîń. ďĺä. čçä-âî, Ďðŕăŕ 1958. Ăîðîäĺíńüęŕ 2009: Ă î ð î ä ĺ í ń ü ę ŕ , Ę.: Íîâł çŕďîçč÷ĺíí˙ ł íîâîňâîðč íŕ ňëł ôîíĺňč÷íîż ňŕ ńëîâîňâłðíîż ďłäńčńňĺě óęðŕżíńüęîż ëłňĺðŕňóðíîż ěîâč. Óęðŕżíńüęŕ ňĺðěłíîëîăł˙ ł ńó÷ŕńíłńňü VIII, 2009, 3-9. Ăðłí÷ĺíęî 1958-1959: Ă ð ł í ÷ ĺ í ę î , Á.: Ńëîâŕðü óęðŕżíńüęîż ěîâč, ˛-˛V : [íŕäðóę. ç âčä. 1907-1909 ðð. ôîňîěĺőŕíł÷íčě ńďîńîáîě]. Âčä-âî ŔÍ ÓÐŃÐ, Ęčżâ 1958-1959. ˛ëüíčöüęŕ 2009: ˛ ë ü í č ö ü ę ŕ , ß. Â.: Ëĺęńčęŕ ăðóçčíńüęîăî ďîőîäćĺíí˙ â óęðŕżíńüęłé ěîâł. Ŕâňîðĺô. äčń. … ęŕíä. ôłëîë. íŕóę : ńďĺö. 10.02.01 “Óęðŕżíńüęŕ ěîâŕ”. Ęčżâńüęčé íŕö. óí-ň łě. Ň. Ă. Řĺâ÷ĺíęŕ, Ęčżâ 2009. Ęŕðŕâŕíńüęčé 1994: Ę ŕ ð ŕ â ŕ í ń ü ę č é , Ń.: Ńĺęðĺňč óęðŕżíńüęîż ěîâč. Ęîáçŕ, Ęčżâ 1994. Ęðčćŕíłâńüęŕ 2010: Ę ð č ć ŕ í ł â ń ü ę ŕ , Î. ˛.: ˛ńňîðł˙ óęðŕżíńüęîż ěîâč. Ińňîðč÷íŕ ôîíĺňčęŕ. ˛ńňîðč÷íŕ ăðŕěŕňčęŕ. Hŕâ÷. ďîńłá. ÂÖ “Ŕęŕäĺěł˙”, Ęčżâ 2010. Ęóðčëî 1918: Ę ó ð č ë î , Î.: Ńëîâíčę óęðŕżíńüęîż ôčçč÷íîż ňĺðěiíîëüîăiż. (Ďðîĺęň). Ęčżâ 1918. Ëč 1983: Ë č , Ó.: Ěĺňîäű ŕâňîěŕňč÷ĺńęîăî ðŕńďîçíŕâŕíč˙ ðĺ÷č:  2-ő ęíčăŕő. Ďĺð. ń ŕíăë. Ęíčăŕ 1. Ěčð, Ěîńęâŕ 1983. Ěĺéĺ 1951: Ě ĺ é ĺ , Ŕ.: Îáůĺńëŕâ˙íńęčé ˙çűę. Číîńňðŕííŕ˙ ëčňĺðŕňóðŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 1951. Ěĺëüíč÷óę 1974: Ě ĺ ë ü í č ÷ ó ę , Î. Ń. [ed.]: Ńëîâíčę łířîěîâíčő ńëłâ. ŔÍ ÓÐŃÐ, Ęčżâ 1974. Ěîńĺíęłń 2007: Ě î ń ĺ í ę ł ń , Ţ. Ë. – Ń č í č ř č í , Ð. ˛.: Ńëîâĺńíčé îáðŕç Ęîðĺż â óęðŕżíńüęîěó ěîâîďðîńňîðł. Âčä. äłě Ŕ+Ń, Ęčżâ 2007. Ěîńęŕëĺíęî 1968: Ě î ń ę ŕ ë ĺ í ę î , Ŕ. Ŕ.: ˛ńňîðł˙ óęðŕżíńüęîăî ďðŕâîďčńó (ðŕä˙íńüęčé ďĺðłîä). Âčäŕâíčöâî Îäĺńüęîăî óíłâĺðńčňĺňó, Îäĺńŕ 1968. Íłęłňłíŕ 2011: Í ł ę ł ň ł í ŕ , Ô. Î.: Íîâł çŕďîçč÷ĺíí˙ ó ńőłäíîńëîâ’˙íńüęčő ěîâŕő. Ęîěďŕðŕňčâíł äîńëłäćĺíí˙ ńëîâ’˙íńüęčő ěîâ ł ëłňĺðŕňóð 15, 2011, 187-191. Íłě÷óę et al. 2004: Í ł ě ÷ ó ę , Â. et al.: ˛ńňîðł˙ óęðŕżíńüęîăî ďðŕâîďčńó XVI-XX ńň. Íŕóęîâŕ äóěęŕ, Ęčżâ 2004. Îăłşíęî 1924: Î ă ł ş í ę î , ˛.: Óęðŕżíńüęłé ńňčëłńč÷íčé ńëîâíčę: ďłäðó÷íŕ ęíčćęŕ äë˙ âčâ÷ĺíí˙ óęðŕżńüęîż ëłňĺðŕňóðíîż ěîâč. Ç äðóęŕðíł Íŕóęîâîăî ň-âŕ łě. Řĺâ÷ĺíęŕ, Ëüâłâ 1924.

24

Maksym Vakulenko:

Îăłşíęî 2001: Î ă ł ş í ę î , ˛.: ˛ńňîðč˙ óęðŕżíńüęoż ëčňĺðŕňóðíîż ěîâč [óďîð˙ä., ŕâň. łńň.áłîăð. íŕðčńó ňŕ ďðčěłň. Ě. Ń. Ňčěîřčę]. Íŕřŕ ęóëüňóðŕ ł íŕóęŕ, Ęčżâ 2001. Ďĺðĺáčéíłń 1970: Ď ĺ ð ĺ á č é í ł ń , Â. Ń.: Ęłëüęłńíł ňŕ ˙ęłńíł őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčęč ńčńňĺěč ôîíĺě óęðŕżíńüęîż ëłňĺðŕňóðíîż ěîâč. Íŕóęîâŕ äóěęŕ, Ęčżâ 1970. Ďîňĺáí˙ 1999: Ď î ň ĺ á í ˙ , Ŕ. Ŕ.: Ďîëíîĺ ńîáðŕíčĺ ňðóäîâ: Ěűńëü č ˙çűę. Ëŕáčðčíň, Ěîńęâŕ 1999. Ðîć÷ĺíęî 1995: Ð î ć ÷ ĺ í ę î , Ç. Â.: Äî ďðîáëĺěč âłäňâîðĺíí˙ óęðŕżíńüęîţ ěîâîţ ăĺîăðŕôł÷íčő íŕçâ çŕðóáłćíčő ęðŕżí. In: Ňĺçč Âńĺóęðŕżíńüęîż íŕóęîâî-ďðŕęňč÷íîż ęîíôĺðĺíöłż ç ňîďîíłěłęč “Ńňâîðĺíí˙ íŕöłîíŕëüíîăî łíôîðěŕöłéíîăî áŕíęó ăĺîăðŕôł÷íčő íŕçâ”. 30 ćîâňí˙ – 1 ëčńňîďŕäŕ 1995 ðîęó, Ęčżâ 1995, 27-29. Ńĺðĺáðĺííčęîâ 1970: Ń ĺ ð ĺ á ð ĺ í í č ę î â , Á. Ŕ. [ed.]: Îáůĺĺ ˙çűęîçíŕíčĺ: ôîðěű ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙, ôóíęöčč, čńňîðč˙ ˙çűęŕ. Íŕóęŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 1970. Ńěŕëü-Ńňîöüęčé – Ąŕðňíĺð 1914: Ń ě ŕ ë ü - Ń ň î ö ü ę č é , Ń. – Ą ŕ ð ň í ĺ ð , Ô.: Ăðŕěŕňčęŕ óęðŕżíńüęîż ěîâč. Âłäĺíü 1914. Ńňčřîâ 2005: Ń ň č ř î â , Î. Ŕ.: Óęðŕżíńüęŕ ëĺęńčęŕ ęłíö˙ ŐŐ ńňîëłňň˙. Íŕ ěŕňĺðłŕëł ěîâč çŕńîáłâ ěŕńîâîż łíôîðěŕöłż. Ďóăŕ÷, Ęčżâ 2005. Ňčěîřĺíęî 1961: Ň č ě î ř ĺ í ę î , Ď. Ä.: Őðĺńňîěŕňł˙ ěŕňĺðłŕëłâ ç óęðŕżíńüęîż ëłňĺðŕňóðíîż ěîâč II. Ðŕä˙íńüęŕ řęîëŕ, Ęčżâ 1961. Ňęŕ÷ĺíęî 2004: Ň ę ŕ ÷ ĺ í ę î , Î. Á.: Çŕďîçč÷ĺíí˙. In: Ðóńŕíłâńüęčé, Â. Ě. (ńďłâăîëîâŕ) – Ňŕðŕíĺíęî, Î. Î. (ńďłâăîëîâŕ) ñ Ç˙áëţę, Ě. Ď. et al.: Óęðŕżíńüęŕ ěîâŕ. 2-ăĺ âčä., âčďð. ł äîď. Âčä-âî “Óęð. ĺíöčęë.” łě. Ě. Ď. Áŕćŕíŕ, Ęčżâ 2004, 194-195. Ňîöüęŕ 1981: Ň î ö ü ę ŕ , Í. ˛.: Ńó÷ŕńíŕ óęðŕżíńüęŕ ëłňĺðŕňóðíŕ ěîâŕ: ôîíĺňčęŕ, îðôîĺďł˙, ăðŕôłęŕ, îðôîăðŕôł˙. Âčůŕ řęîëŕ, Ęčżâ 1981. ÓĎ 1993: Óęðŕżíńüęčé ďðŕâîďčń. 4-ňĺ âčä., âčďð. é äîď. Íŕóęîâŕ äóěęŕ, Ęčżâ 1993. Öűăŕíĺíęî 1970: Ö ű ă ŕ í ĺ í ę î , Ă. Ď.: Ýňčěîëîăč÷ĺńęčé ńëîâŕðü ðóńńęîăî ˙çűęŕ. Ðŕä˙íńüęŕ řęîëŕ, Ęčĺâ 1970. Řĺâĺëüîâ 2008: Ř ĺ â ĺ ë ü î â , Ţ.: Âčáðŕíł ďðŕöł. Ó 2 ęí. Ęí. ˛. Ěîâîçíŕâńňâî. Âčä. äłě “ĘĚ Ŕęŕäĺěł˙”, Ęčżâ 2008. Řĺëóäüęî – Ńŕäîâńüęčé 1928: Ř ĺ ë ó ä ü ę î , ˛. – Ń ŕ ä î â ń ü ę č é , Ň.: Ńëîâíčę ňĺőíł÷íîż ňĺðěłíîëîăłż (çŕăŕëüíčé). Ďðîşęň. Äĺðć. âčä-âî Óęðŕżíč, Ęčżâ 1928. Řĺðĺő 1951: Ř ĺ ð ĺ ő , Ţ.: Íŕðčń ńó÷ŕńíîż óęðŕżíńüęîż ëłňĺðŕňóðíîż ěîâč. Íŕóęîâĺ ň-âî łě. Řĺâ÷ĺíęŕ; Á-ęŕ óęðŕżíîçíŕâńňâŕ, ×. 3. Ěîëîäĺ ćčňň˙. Ěţíőĺí 1951. Řčěęłâ 2004: Ř č ě ę ł â , Ŕ.: Ŕíăëî-óęðŕżíńüęčé ňëóěŕ÷íčé ńëîâíčę ĺęîíîěł÷íîż ëĺęńčęč. Âčäŕâíč÷čé äłě “Ęčşâî-Ěîăčë˙íńüęŕ ŕęŕäĺěł˙”, Ęčżâ 2004.

Maksym Vakulenko