Revija SRP 53/54

 

Pisma urednishtvu

 
Pismo urednishtvu I
Spelling in the Revija
24. november 2002
 
Dear Sir or Madam:
 
Could you please tell me why the Revija does not seem to have the same Slovenian alphabet as seen on other Slovenian sites?
Does the Revija strive to introduce a new system of spelling into current Slovenian or revive a much older one? I can find similarities before 1840 in the Austrian-dominated period, when German was the first language of record.
Thanks for any clarification.
 
Sincerely,
James O'Brien
Princeton, NJ
 
 
Pismo urednishtvu II
Spelling in the Revija
25. november 2002

Dear Rajko Shushtarshich,

Thanks for your quick response to me.

http://www.revijasrp.si/knrevsrp/zbornik1/bohor1.htm
is an interesting site. The retrovision of your spelling system does more than avoid the isolation of Gaj's reforms, which were, in any event, the inevitable reflex of Bohemian "advances". By winding the clock back a bit you also escape from the agenda of Karadzhich and all the wrongs worked in his name.

I would point out that the translation of lingua as jezik made possibly for some confusion in Bohorich's day and, certainly, all the more so in our own. In the 16th century this missionary slogan (compare Rv. 5:9) meant "every heathen nation will accept God". Jezik/glwssa/lingua then meant "ethnic group", "nationality", "nation" and even, as here, "heathens" or Gentiles, rather than merely "language". In Russian the connection is still operative: jazychnyi.

Regards,
James O'Brien
 
P.S.: My name is not Rajko Sustarsic
Perhaps "Celestinus Schumacher"?
 
 
 
Pismo urednishtvu I
Pravopis v Reviji
24. november 2002

Dragi gospod ali gospa,

ali bi mi, prosim, povedali, zakaj Revija, kot se zdi, nima iste slovenske abecede, kakrshno je videti na drugih slovenskih straneh?

Ali si Revija prizadeva uvesti nov pravopisni (chrkovalni) sistem v sodobno slovenshchino ali ozhiviti nekega starejshega? Najdem lahko podobnosti pred 1840, v dobi avstrijskega gospostva, ko je bila nemshchina prvi uradni jezik.

Hvala za kakrshnokoli pojasnilo.

Iskreno,
James O'Brien
Princeton, NJ

 

Pismo urednishtvu II
Pravopis v Reviji
25. november 2002

Dragi Rajko Shushtarshich,

hvala za vash hitri odgovor.

(http://www.revijasrp.si/knrevsrp/zbornik1/bohor1.htm)
je zanimiva stran. Nazaj usmerjeni pogled vashega pravopisnega sistema je vech kot izogib omejenosti Gajevih reform, ki so bile v vsakem primeru neizbezhen odsev cheshkih »izumov«. S pomikom ure malce nazaj se tudi odmikate od delovanja Karadzhicha in vseh zablod, narejenih v njegovem imenu.

Rad bi opozoril, da je prevod besede lingua kot jezik lahko vzrok za dolocheno nejasnost v Bohorichevem chasu in gotovo she bolj v nashem. V 16. stoletju je misijonarska krilatica (prim. Raz. 5 : 9) pomenila »vsak poganski narod bo sprejel Boga«. Jezik /glossa/ lingua je tedaj pomenilo »etnichna skupina«, »narodnost«, »narod« in celo, kakor tukaj, »pogani« ali neverniki, bolj kot le »jezik«. V rushchini je zveza she delujocha: jazychnyi.*

S pozdravi,
James O'Brien
 
P.S.: Moje ime ni Rajko Sustarsic
Mogoche "Celestinus Schumacher"?
________
* jazychnyi – rus. jezichen; jazycheskij – poganski; jazychnik – pogan; (op. prev.)

Prevedel I. Antich