Jazyk a slovník (Ukázka, strana 99)

like write-right-rite-Wright, etc. The Scandinavian languages, where inflexion is absent, have considerably less homonymy. This also holds for the extent in which the lexical and grammatical morphemes or words are distinguished, cf. Dan noun = preposition trods (defiance/ in spite of), adverb = preposition efter (after), under (down/under), preposition = conjunction til (to/until); Engl adverb = preposition across, noun = preposition behind, noun = adverb = preposition inside, adjective = adverb = conjunction still, verb = conjunction like, preposition = conjunction since, pronoun = conjunction that etc; Ic adverb = preposition undir (down/ under), noun = pronoun vor (spring/our, us), pronoun = preposition viđ (we/with), verb = conjunction enda (terminate/and also), adverb = conjunction begar (at once/when) etc.; Afr noun = preposition deur (door/through), noun = conjunction as (ash/axle/as) etc.; Fr noun = pronoun minen (grimaces/mine), dou (dove/you, thou), numeral = pronoun ien (one/somebody), noun = conjunction mar (lake/but) etc.

2.2 In the inflexion, the situation is much the same, cf. Ger –en denoting weak nom. pl masc. (Menschen), infinitive and the 1. and 3. pl of the present and past tense (arbeiten, arbeiteten), weak gen. and dat. sg masc. and neuter of adjectives and the whole of pl (kleinen): or –e in the function of verbal 1. sg present and past tense (reise, reiste), of nom., gen. and acc. pl of nouns (Tage), of the weak nom. sg of all genders and acc. fem. and neuter sg of adjectives (kleine) etc. And similar examples from Icelandic, cf. –ur appears in nom. sg masc. of nouns (sometimes also in other cases, mainly in sg, leikur game), in the strong nom. sg masc. of adjectives (fagur beautiful), in the 2., sometimes also 3. sg present tense of verbs (brestur burst); –i embraces the whole of the weak sg fem. of nouns (aefi life), the strong nom. and acc. pl of neuters (ríki realm), the weak nom. sg masc of adjectives (fagri beautiful), the 1. and 3. sg and 3. pl of the present subjunctive (bresti burst) etc.

Scandinavian languages have this type of homonymy less frequently, cf. Sw –t denoting the neuter adjective (eget own) and both the past participle and supine of verbs (dragit carried, läst read); and also perhaps –en, used for the past participle of the strong verbs (dragen carried), and for marking the postpositive article of the common gender (barnen the child).

Norwegian examples, cf. –e standing for the plural of nouns (laerere teachers), for the pl form of the strong adjectives (store great), for the sg form of the weak adjectives (store), for the infinitive (telle count), for the subjunctive (leve live), for the imperative sometimes (fordre claim) and as a component of the past tense endings (i.e. –de, –te, bygde built, leste read).

There are only few other cases, much less heavily burdened, as the –e given here.

In English, there is basically only one, though largely employed, ending, namely –s, cf. pl nouns (tables), possessive suffix of nouns (father’s house), 3. sg of the present tense of verbs (he speaks). Due to very few endings, Frisian inflexional homonymy is rather rich, like the German one, though it does not reach the high degree of the Icelandic.

2.3 Synonymy occurs generally somewhat less than homonymy, and when it does, it is in conformity with the existence of inflexion again. Its relevance for the individual languages can be quite typically illustrated on the variety of the forms and types of the plural (nominative) noun formation (subdivided into variants, in some cases). Latin and other foreign imports are not considered here, cf.: Dutch: boeken (books), zieken (the sick), schepen (ships), kalveren (calves), sleutels (keys); Engl: tables, horses, losses; children, geese;

98 Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS204695

Afr: tande (teeth); broers (brothers), hawens (harbours), liedere (songs), kinders (children); Sw: flickor (girls), pojkar (boys), parker (parks), skor (shoes); äpplen (apples); träd (trees); Dan: bøger (books), kwinder (women); drenge (boys), ord (words), børn (children); Nor: bøker (books), dotre (daughters); ting (things), gjess (geese); Ic: heimar (worlds), beniar (wounds), saevar (seas), gestir (guests), baekur (books); menn (men), kýr (cows), brúđir (brides), gaess (geese); Ger: Männer (men), Kinder (children); Frauen (women), Schulen (schools), Uhus (eagle owls); Tage (days), Bäume (trees), Lehrer (teachers), Väter (fathers); Fr: boeken (books), greiden (meadows), appels (appels); kij (cows), manlju (men).

3.C Word : Word The preceding is basically linked with yet another question, namely, “What are the mutual relations between words and to what extent are they differentiated in form?” One aspect of this, the parts of speech, was already tackled above (see 1.2).

3.1 From another point of view, the suppletive forms and their occurrence belong here, too, though suppletion is by no means typical for the isolating languages. It can be readily seen that the individual languages analysed here limit this phenomenon to a few basic cases in the sphere of adjectives and adverbs (in their comparison), and in the past tense forms of the auxiliary to be, sometimes also in the object forms of the personal pronouns.

Dutch has the following adjectival and adverbial suppletive forms: goed – better – best (good), weinig – minder – minst (little), veel – meer – meest (much), gaarne – liever – liefst (gladly); the pronominal forms are of the type wij – ons (we – us), ik – mij (I – me) as opposed to the etymologically related hij – hem (he – him) etc.

This situation is, with minor alterations, repeated in the other languages, too, cf. Engl bad – worse – worst, go – went, man – people; Afr baie – meer – meeste (many, much), naby – nader – naaste (near); Nor gjerne – heller – helst (gladly), gammel – eldre – eldst (old); Dan jeg – mig (I – me), vi – os (we – us); Ic margur – eldre – eldst (old), illa – verr – verst (badly); dålig – sämre – sämst (bad), liten – lilla – små (little in sg and pl); Ger gut – besser – beste, bald – eher – ehest (soon), wir – uns (we – us), ich – mich (I – me); Fr graech – leaver – leafst (glad), ik(ke) – my (I – me), etc. Compare also the forms of to be:

Dutch Eng Afr Sw Nor Dan Ic Ger Fr

Infinitive

Present

Preterite

(te) zijn (to) be (om te) wees (att) vara (å) vaere (at) vaere (ađ) vera (zu) sein (it) wêze

is, ben(t) is, am, are is är, (äro) er er erbi-, ist, sind, seid bi-, is

was, waren was, were was war, (voro) var var var, vorwarwie-

99 Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS204695

Dutch Engl Afr Sw Nor Dan Ic Ger Fr

Supine or Past Part

Imperative

Subjunctive

gewezen been gewees varit vaert vaeret veriđ gewesen west

wees be wees var vaer vaer versei wês

zij, ware (were) sy, ware vare, vore (vaere) (vaere) sé-, vaersei-, wäre(bi-, is)

3.2 There seems to be a basic typological relation between the preponderance of the isolating type in a language, cancellation of the formal differences in the parts of speech on the one hand and the growing polysemy of words on the other hand. As we know, the range of polysemy is inversely proportionate to word length, and to its morphological complexity, i.e. the degree of derivation or composition. This latter fact has been long ago established by V. Mathesius and the basic opposition of the high versus low degree of it was called descriptive and simple denomination. In this respect English sets, through its basically shortest words (see 1.12) and rather rich polysemy, represents one extreme, while the other is to be found in German with its abundance of compounds, mostly monosemous. Other languages oscillate between them, Dutch being nearer to German. It is worth-while investigating this dependence to some extent, though it may be practically difficult, if not impossible, given the diversity and pragmaticism which are characteristic of the treatment of polysemy in various dictionaries.

4. IIA Naming Structure (Word Combination) Under this heading (its conception was defined by the Prague School) at least three features can be included which are relevant for the analysis of the multiword nominal constructions.

These are adjective : noun agreement, numeral : noun agreement and possessivity. The isolating languages typically lack in both types of agreement and possessive suffixes.

4.1 In the Dutch, an adjective preceding its noun agreement is not usually formally expressed (see 1.4). The only exception is the case when a neuter noun plus the indefinite article are combined with an adjective, cf. een zvart paard (a black horse) where the agreement is is signalized by the lack of an ending which is common here (this is, however, the situation of the written standard language only). The numeral and noun agreement is, on the other hand, the rule here, cf. een paard – drie paarden (one horse – three horses) but with current and commonly used objects (often of a unit type) it is dropped in the plural, cf. vijf gulden (five guilders), twintig jaar (twenty years), etc.

The possessive suffix (genitival by origin) is limited to denote the possessive relation of persons only, cf. Jans boek (John’s book). Also here, there is a strong inclination to supplant it with a periphrastic expression that can distinguish the person’s gender also, cf. Jan z’n boek, Marie d’r hond (John’s book, Mary’s dog). A universal substitute here and elsewhere is, however, the periphrastic construction with van, cf. de hond van Marie (the dog of Mary), etc. Though the numeral agreement is still strong, some traces of the isolating type, like in the possessive constructions, are to be found here.

100 Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS204695