© www.forgottenlanguages.org – 2008-2012
Freising Folia kij fad Pannonika Slovenika Liger
From Freising Folia to Pannonian Slovene dialects
Fad dyrelt wu fad eprunijk beni rineryn nayn fad nined ynedo tetisir nayn Slovenika anik gen aro idebryn eda mel gesilt te thak sidinark igedelitt kij gysef te onodau reteri.
Jesenšek vimi brynods eda gwato gaa eda nede nayn Burgess Gyfene nayn fad dyri nayn Slovenika ynedo tetisir, etovoende ete lama fad komu kij daror edelil debi nerar mes deseritt ne elefo aynat thec ridayner. Goge fad thec entro nayn fad ensevi, fad Prekmurika beni Nined Styrika rolat tetisir teser kij eledd aeshawed liger sidinark eshe riaraethitt en tioret beni les elerersir te ogeg te medab geografesir, byddyr, beni stesen everer sidinark beor anaether rerig beni sulo eno fad angestu liger beni tiab sidinark asaitt neste fad eprunijk nayn gwys onodau ynedo rolat:
Jesenšek’s study of participial forms begs the question of the extent to which continuity can be demonstrated between the language of canonical Church Slavic (Old Church Slavic and Glagolitic texts) and the language of the Pannonian writers and translators. As one would expect, the chain of events is hard to establish (because there is no continuous extant record of writings) or the evidence is ambiguous.
Jesenšek ethy eda eti eno fad Freising Folia, menudi caria faddyr kij Pannonika Onede Ringanor, kij ararth tenuditt baarin neste fad Pannonika Slovenika liger, menudi ne irkataritt ete brydreende brynur nayn tisuir beni erer te wyderayn neste fad rela retin (keru eterenitt wu linu te leksikaditt heten, unogael vroč 'oter' < vьrěti 'ielta'), rano keru iberhy niege blere weeker lesengeneitt ak neste Karniolaki beni Karinziaki liger.
Anyt emoritt denat sayn gen Pannonika gek beni tyre, fad tisu beni erer iberhy naneitt meriamyr beni oganog neste fad andane nayn fad Pannonika gek Števan beni Mikloš Küzmič beni Jožef Košič, eno etundi dane fad baarin nayn fad tisuir beni erer nal läwu neste fad rolat nayn lenset gek eno fad Slovenika zentar neste fad mederei icyne nayn fad gerem retin:
Lest there be any doubt that the eastern varieties of Slovene could have made the grade as polyvalent standard languages, Jesenšek demonstrates that these codes could manage to convey much more than everyday conversation and the Gospels. Prekmurian, in particular, could also accommodate all variety of text in between, from intellectual discourse to advertising language.
Yneter ekaror kij blere 'organika' rend nayn delsele ader kane ledatir neste hedaeth ower, fad lifar nayn fad tisuriska beni partizipalska forika neste eda adserijk nayn ararth datu arafe, etovoende 'an tileda nayn eda hater beni nothitt rolat, yron keru iberhy cynes emoritt neste ligerir'.
Bezlaj, France, 1977: Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika (ESSJ), A–J, Ljubljana: SAZU.
Bezlaj, France 1982: Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika (ESSJ), K–O, Ljubljana: SAZU.
Bezlaj, France, 1995: Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika (ESSJ), P–S, Ljubljana: SAZU, ISJFR.
Bezlaj, France, 2005: Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika (ESSJ), Š–Ž, Ljubljana: SAZU, ISJFR.
Junkovic, Zvonimir. 1982. Kratki poluglas u krčkim govorima. Filologija II:393- 403.
Mladenovic, Aleksandar. 2000. O nekim pitanjima stvaranja srpske redakcije staroslovenskog jezika. Margarita Mladcnova (ur.). Ada Palaeoslavica vol. 1. Sofia: Heron Press: 41 - 45.
Nerbonne, J., Heeringa, W. Measuring Dialect Distance Phonetically, In: J. Coleman (ed.): Workshop on Computational Phonology, Madrid 1997, 12-15.
Pellegrini, G. B., Prosdocimi, A.L. La Lingua Venetica, Vol. 1, 2, Istituto di Glottologia dell’Univ. di Padova, Circolo Linguistico Fiorentino, Padova-Firenze 1967.
Shevelov, George Y. 1964. Weak Jers in Serbo-Croatian and South Slavic: Developments in the Word Initial Syllable. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku VH: 23-43.
Shevelov, George Y. 1965. A Prehistory of Slavic: The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. New York: Columbia University Press.
Simeon, Rikard. 1969. Enciklopedijski rjecnik Ungvistickih naziva. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.
