Цитата: MrBTTF от июля 16, 2016, 11:51У поляків там я та є. А i та y вони довший час плутали.
А звідкіля тая плутанина? Поляки не розрізняли ці звуки в тих ж тісто, собі і т.д?
ЦитироватьSamogłoskę u skryptorzy i tłumacze oddawali przez literę v, spółgłoskę v również przez literę v, samogłoski i, y przez litery i lub y
ЦитироватьThis applies, e.g., to inconsistent distinction made between у and i, as still occurred, in Old Polish vein, in manyА звідкіля тая плутанина? Поляки не розрізняли ці звуки в тих ж тісто, собі і т.д?
writings of the time 4. In the interludes more often than not у is [y] and і is
« ě), but exceptions are numerous, cf. tysto — 23, soby dat sg — 20, wozmi
2sgimp — 46, kupity— 44 a.o. As a result, we do not know, e.g., whether
the spelling nyczoho— 3, represents the older and dialectal form with у or
the more modern one with i, attested from the 1660s (HPUL, 663); whether
mini dat -7- 2/90, 2/17 is to be read mini or mynir both forms known in dialects
and texts; whether Spodárom dat sg — 8 can be considered a proof that that
ending actually was -ow and not -ovy as is nowadays the case in most
Southwestern dialects.
ЦитироватьThis applies, e.g., to inconsistent distinction made between у and i, as still occurred, in Old Polish vein, in many2. Задужо польонізмуф.
writings of the time 4. In the interludes more often than not у is [y] and і is
« ě), but exceptions are numerous, cf. tysto — 23, soby dat sg — 20, wozmi
2sgimp — 46, kupity— 44 a.o. As a result, we do not know, e.g., whether
the spelling nyczoho— 3, represents the older and dialectal form with у or
the more modern one with i, attested from the 1660s (HPUL, 663); whether
mini dat -7- 2/90, 2/17 is to be read mini or mynir both forms known in dialects
and texts; whether Spodárom dat sg — 8 can be considered a proof that that
ending actually was -ow and not -ovy as is nowadays the case in most
Southwestern dialects.
Страница создана за 0.101 сек. Запросов: 23.