|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Language. The language territory where Carpatho-Rusyn dialects are spoken coincides with the historical territory of *Carpathian Rus’, which in terms of present-day boundaries is located within southeastern Poland (the *Lemko Region), northeastern Slovakia (the *Presov Region), most of the *Transcarpathian oblast of Ukraine (*Subcarpathian Rus’), and a small corner of north-central Romania (the *Maramures Region). Rusyn is also spoken in a few scattered communities in northeastern Hungary and among emigrants from Carpathian Rus’ who settled in the *Vojvodina and Srem regions of present-day Yugoslavia and far eastern Croatia and in the United States and Canada. The language of these “immigrant” communities is described in separate subsections at the end of this entry. The Rusyn language area of Carpathian Rus’ is characterized by dialectal differentiation. This owes in part to the fact that Rusyns never comprised the dominant ethnolinguistic element within a single or united political-administrative unit. Dialectal differentiation has also been the result of three additional factors: the internal migration of Rusyns within Carpathian Rus’; the scattered nature of settlements among territories that connect them with West Slavic (Polish and Slovak) and non-Slavic (Magyar and Romanian) populations; and limited communication or even isolation among Rusyns because of the largely hilly and mountainous terrain of the lands they inhabit. Classification of Carpatho-Rusyn dialects Initial attempts to describe and classify Rusyn dialects of the Carpathian region belong to the nineteenth century and are found in the writings of Mykhail *Luchkai, Iakiv *Holovats’kyi, Ievhenii *Sabov, and Volodymyr *Hnatiuk, among others. Systematic research began only toward the end of that century, when the linguistic-geographical method began to be applied in linguistics. This method made it possible to determine the center and periphery of defined dialectal units, the borders between individual dialects, and interference phenomena. In this connection the work of the Norwegian Slavist Olaf *Broch and the Galician-Ukrainian scholar Ivan *Verkhrats’kyi should be mentioned. Contemporary dialectology, for instance, accepts Verkhrats’kyi’s classification of Rusyn dialects in the Carpathian region according to those with a mobile stress and those with a fixed stress. Research on Carpatho-Rusyn dialects intensified during the first half of the twentieth century. Dialectologists focussed not only on the description of linguistic structure, however, but also on the place of Carpathian dialects within the family of East Slavic languages, on their connection with other, mainly neighboring dialects and languages, and finally on the reciprocal ties among them. Most researchers placed Carpathian dialects into the southwest Ukrainian language group, together with dialects of Galicia, Bukovina, and other neighboring regions. But Nikolai Durnovo supported the position of the Moscow dialectological commission (1915), which, while emphasizing their affinity with west Ukrainian dialects, regarded them as a separate dialectal group. Georgii *Gerovskii, on the other hand, attempted to classify Carpathian dialects with Great Russian dialects on the basis of the presence of the archaic vowel ы and other Old Russian and Old Ukrainian archaisms. He divided the entire Rusyn speech area into eight basic dialect groups (Southern Maramorosh, Northern Maramorosh, Bereg, Uzh, Eastern Zemplyn, Western Zemplyn, Sharysh, and Spish). He also spoke of a few transitional dialects and the Verkhovyna (Boiko) dialects, which he considered to be of “foreign (Galician) origin.” Ivan *Pan’kevych’s tripartite classification has long been generally accepted. In his well-known study, Ukrains’ki hovory Pidkarpats’koi Rusy i sumezhnykh oblastei (1938), Pan’kevych divided Carpathian dialects south of the mountains into three groups: *Lemko (from the Tatra mountains to the Laborec River); *Boiko (from the Laborec to the Teresva River); and *Hutsul (east of the Teresva). This classification was eventually modified by other scholars, who demonstrated that the Boiko group actually comprised only a narrow belt of dialects in the Verkhovyna along the crest of the Carpathians. Most of the dialects of Subcarpathian Rus’ were therefore placed into a separate group called Central Transcarpathian, or simply Transcarpathian (zakarpats’ki) dialects. These dialects will be referred to here as Subcarpathian dialects. They stretch from the Shopurka and Teresva rivers in the east to the Uzh River in the west. From there to the Laborec lies a transitional belt of dialects of the Subcarpathian and Lemko type; from the Laborec westward stretches the region of Lemko dialects. Hutsul dialects, which were formed as a result of colonization along the southern slopes of the mountains in the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, are excluded by most researchers from the Carpathian dialects and placed instead in the so-called Hutsul-Pokuttia group. Although differentiated by a great number of phenomena not found in other Carpathian dialects, the Hutsul dialects are, because of their geographical location, often included in discussion of the larger body of Carpathian dialects. Fedir Zhylko, in his monograph Hovory ukrains’koi movy (1958), divided Carpathian dialects into Boiko, Transcarpathian (i.e., Subcarpathian), and Lemko groups. But unlike Pan’kevych, Zhylko did not place Boiko and Transcarpathian (Subcarpathian) dialects into one group, since he recognized the significant differences between them. From the second half of the twentieth century, intensive research on Carpathian dialects increasingly employed methods of recording individual dialectal phenomena for linguistic atlases. Such activity led to a highly detailed classification. This is particularly true of the study of Carpathian dialects in the territory of Ukraine and Slovakia. For instance, the data collected by Iosyp *Dzendzelivs’kyi for a three-volume atlas (1958, 1960, 1993) resulted in a detailed description and classification of dialects of the Transcarpathian region (Subcarpathian Rus’) of Ukraine mainly on the basis of lexicon. The work of Zuzanna *Hanudel’ (1981-1989, 1993) has similarly made possible a detailed classification of Rusyn dialects in the Presov Region of eastern Slovakia. The difficulty in classifying Carpatho-Rusyn dialects stems largely from the fact that individual dialect territories experience an overlapping of numerous isoglosses. In other words, certain linguistic features typical of one area encroach into other areas; determining where to draw a boundary between these territories in the process of defining and classifying the dialects thus becomes difficult. Another difficulty in classification is related to the fact that the dialects have in the past and continue to be influenced by numerous sociolinguistic or extralinguistic factors from the larger world in which Rusyns live, whether in Ukraine, Slovakia, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, the United States, or Canada. When attempting a synchronic description of the language system of dialects and in classifying them, researchers must consider the larger linguistic and cultural worlds in which dialects function. The structure and function of the dialects must be described in connection with the languages with which they are in contact. A number of linguistic factors suggest it may be preferable to divide Carpatho-Rusyn dialects into two basic groups, which will be referred to here as Western, or Lemko Rusyn dialects, and Eastern, or Subcarpathian Rusyn dialects. These two groups are defined by specific isoglosses and dialectal phenomena as well as extralinguistic and sociolinguistic elements distinguishing one group from the other. The Western Rusyn group is composed of northern and southern Lemko dialects, with their several West Slavic elements (especially eastern Slovak and Polish). The Eastern Rusyn group is composed of the Subcarpathian and Boiko dialects, the latter more or less neighboring on Ukrainian. Both groups consist of smaller dialectal subgroups. The main isogloss between the Western and Eastern groups is defined by the placement of the stress. While in Lemko dialects the stress is constant, fixed on the penultimate syllable of the word, as in Polish or eastern Slovak, the stress in the Eastern group is free and movable, as in Ukrainian. Other phenomena (discussed below) likewise support the division of Carpatho-Rusyn dialects into these two large groups. The border between the groups corresponds approximately to the Laborec and Solinka rivers. Between the Laborec and Cirocha on the southern slopes of the Carpathians and the Solinka and Oslawa rivers on the northern slopes lies a traditional belt of dialects, on one side of which are phenomena typical of Lemko dialects and on the other side features characteristic of dialects along the Uzh River. Along the southern slopes of the Carpathians in Slovakia, Rusyn dialects widen out from the Laborec River westward roughly along an axis created by the towns Snina, Medzilaborce, Svidnik, Bardejov, and Stara L’ubovna as far as the Poprad River. The Lemko dialects continue into Poland on the northern slopes of the Carpathians, along the border with Slovakia from the river Solinka westward as far as the Poprad and Dunajec rivers. This ethnolinguistic territory was significantly disrupted with the deportation of Lemko Rusyns from the northern slopes of the Carpathians immediately after World War II. The Eastern or Subcarpathian Rusyn dialects generally begin along the Uzh River, since between the Laborec and Uzh there is belt of transitional dialects of the Middle Carpathian-Lemko type. From the linguistic point of view, the territory of Ukraine’s Transcarpathian oblast (Subcarpathian Rus’), on which are situated the Middle Carpathian dialects, is the defining center of Rusyn linguistic territory. According to Dzendzelivs’kyi the Middle Carpathian dialects can be divided into four subgroups: Maramures dialects (found between the Rika and Shopurka rivers); Borzhava dialects (found between the Rika and Larorytsia rivers); Verkhovyna dialects (found in the southeastern part of the Velykyi Bereznyi and Volovets’ districts and in the southwestern part of the Mizhhiria district), which are linked with neighboring Boiko dialects north of the Carpathians and with Lemko dialects to the west; and Uzh dialects (found between the Latorytsia and Uzh Rivers), in which Lemko and Boiko elements are present. In analyzing Rusyn dialects it is particularly important to remember their location, specifically, that the majority of Western, or Lemko, dialects are situated in the territory of Slovakia and Poland while the majority of Eastern or Subcarpathian dialects are found within the territory of Ukraine’s Transcarpathian oblast.  Major markers of Carpatho-Rusyn dialects Most research on Carpatho-Rusyn dialects has emphasized their genetic origins in East Slavic and specifically a Ukrainian language base. Among the linguistic features of Carpatho-Rusyn dialects which indicate their East Slavic connection is the pleophony or polnoglasie, which is apparent in a shift from the Proto-Slavic groups *tort, *tolt, *tert, *telt, to torot, tolot, teret, telet; for example, in words such as korova, holova, bereh, celenky. Also significant is a shift from the Proto-Slavic groups *dj, *tj, *kt’ to c, dz, or z, as in medza, chodzu, svicka, nic, peci or meza, chozu, syzu (in former *Maramorosh, *Uzh, and *Bereg counties, and also east of the Latorytsia River). Perhaps the phoneme most characteristic of Carpatho-Rusyn dialects is the back vowel ы (in Latin transliteration designated as y), which originates from various Proto-Slavic vowels and occurs in different positions: as a reflex of the Proto-Slavic *y, such as my, vy, syn; as a reflex of the Proto-Slavic *ъ and *ь in the groups *ъjь and *ьjь, such as in dobryj, velykyj, staryj; as the reflex of *ъ in the prefixes *vъ-, *zъ-, *obъ-, *odъ-, such as in vysol, zysol, obysol, odysol; as a reflex of *ъ and *ь in the groups *trъt, *tlъt, *trьt, *tlьt; *tъrt, *tъtl, *tьrt, *tьlt, such as in dryva, slyza, blycha, chyrbet, okyrsyna; as a successor to the Proto-Slavic *y in velars, such as in ruky, nohy, chyza; and as a reflex of i after s and z, such as in zyty, syty, syrokyj. Further common features include mutations for the Proto-Slavic nasals *e>’a, a>u, as in des’at’, s’atyj, zub, budut’. Exceptions in some dialects occur in the mutation for e, for instance, in piet’, and mn’eso in the Hutsul dialects; meso in the Lemko dialects, and certain others. Among the morphological features which link Carpatho-Rusyn dialects with East Slavic languages are the ending -u in first person singular present tense verbs nesu, stoju, pysu (but citam, spivam, hram—more about this below); the ending -t’ in third person plural present tense verbs nesut’/nesut, pysut’/pysut, stojat’/stojat; the ending of present active verbal adjectives in -cyj/-cij, -ca/-coje, as in spivajucij ftach, chraml’ucyj zajac’, nechot’aca baba, kypjaca voda, nevyd’ace d’ivca, as well as the ending of present active verbal adverbs in -cy/-ci, as in chodyt placuci, ide spivajuci, bih revucy; and the unification of case endings of nouns of all three genders in the dative, locative, and instrumental plurals, as in vovkam, vovkach, vovkamy; d’ivkam, d’ivkach, d’ivkamy; slovam, slovach, slovamy, and others. Carpatho-Rusyn dialects have preserved a pan-Slavic and East Slavic lexical inheritance, including items characteristic of Ukrainian. But they have also absorbed a number of items from Slovak and Polish, as well as Hungarian, German, and Romanian, as a result of lengthy contact with these non-East Slavic and non-Slavic languages and cultures. Southern Lemko Rusyn dialects in the Presov Region illustrate precisely this situation since they share with eastern Slovak or Slovak dialects in general nomenclature for things and phenomena which are well known or widespread in the Slavic world in historically recent times. The oldest Rusyn vocabulary from a Proto-Slavic base, however, is identical with Ukrainian, that is, with East Slavic lexicon. One of the most typical syntactical properties of Carpatho-Rusyn dialects is the absence of the pronoun subject, including those instances when the verbal predicate is in the past tense: Robyl jem tam calyj den’ (Ukrainian: Ja tam pracjuvav cilyj den’). Among other common syntactical features is the expression of possession by means of conjugated forms of the verb maty; Mam korovu; Mam dobru zenu (Ukrainian: U mene korova; U mene dobra zinka), as well as the use of constructions such as Bolyt’ n’a holova; Fkral mu kon’a (litarary Ukrainian: U mene bolyt’ holova; Vin u n’oho vkrav kon’a). Another group of linguistic phenomena characteristic of all Carpatho-Rusyn dialects consists of certain elements of linguistic structure which within the East Slavic language family occur only in Ukrainian. These elements include: (1) the replacement of the Proto-Slavic o and e in new closed syllables most often with i, as in kin’, sil’, viz (other mutations, however, are known: u [iu], u, ы, y, as in kun’, kiun’, kun’, spoza hyr, and vezu—viuz, vuz, viz); (2) the reflex i for the Proto-Slavic e (jat’), as in s’ino, l’ito; (3) the middle vowel y for the originally Proto-Slavic i, as in myska, vyty, robyty, prynesty. To these phenomena may also be added a combination of hard (depalatalized) syllables de, te, ne, le, and soft (palatalized) syllables d’i, t’i, n’i, l’i (de, tebe, ned’il’a, let’ity, n’igda, pot’im, l’ito). These features have persisted in the Rusyn language in the Presov Region in spite of centuries of isolation from Ukrainian and in spite of long-term contact with Slovak dialects and the Slovak literary language. This can be regarded as further proof of the well-known linguistic fact that a language’s most rigid characteristics are its phonological features, which are immutable and resist the influence of neighboring languages. Western (Lemko) Rusyn dialects The most characteristic features of Western or Lemko dialects are listed below: (1) There is a fixed stress on the penultimate syllable of a word. (2) Third person singular and plural present tense verb endings have a hard -t: chodyt, robyt, sydyt/chod’at, robjat, syd’at (in the Eastern group of dialects: chodyt’, robyt’, syd’at’). (3) The ending -l is found in the masculine third person singular past tense verb: chodyl, robyl, spal (in the Eastern group the ending -v predominates: chodyv, robyv, spav). (4) Verbs with the suffix -uva in the infinitive (kupuvaty, chosnuvaty) have forms of the suffix -iju- in their conjugation: kupiju, kupijus, kupije, kupijut (in the Eastern group are forms with the suffix -uju-: kupuju, kupujes). (5) The nominative plural adjective has the ending -y, as in stary baby, velyky luky. (6) The ending -om is found in instrumental singular feminine nouns, adjectives, and pronouns (from the Ondava River westward to the Rusyn ethnographic border just beyond the Poprad River): s tom dobrom susidom (along the Laborec River and further to the east this ending is -ou, as in s tou dobrou susidou). (7) The same forms are used for the locative and instrumental singular masculine and neuter adjectives and pronouns: o tym dobrym chlopovy/d’ivcatu and s tym dobrym chlopom/d’ivcatom. (8) Dual forms of instrumental plural adjectives and pronouns are used in -yma: s tyma dobryma chlopamy, babamy. (9) The genitive singular feminine adjective has the form -oj: staroj baby, sumnoj d’ivky (the Eastern group has non-contracted forms of the type staroji). (10) The first person singular present tense of the verb uses the endings -u and -m. The ending -u in the first person is used in these instances: a. after a present tense stem ending in a consonant in which there is no contraction: yty—ydu, nesty—nesu, vesty—vedu, vezty—vedu. Here, Rusyn dialects conform to literary Ukrainian: idu, nesu, vedu. This applies also to verbs with an infinitive stem ending in -y, hence without the intervocalic j: nosyty—nos’u, robyty—robju/robl’u, kosyty—kos’u; b. after non-contracted verb stems with the groups -oja, -ija: stojaty—stoju, bojaty s’a—boju s’a, smijaty s’a—smiju s’a; c. when the infinitive stem has the suffix -uva-/-ova-, which in the conjugation changes to -uj-: kupuvaty/kupovaty—kupuju/kupiju, studuvaty—studuju/stud’iju, holoduvaty—holoduju/holod’iju. The ending -m, on the other hand, is used in the first person singular in those instances where the verbal stem ends in -a, and in which a contraction occurs in the group -aju-, -aje-: citaty—citam, citas, citat; citame, citate; padaty—padam; sluchaty—slucham. The contraction in this group is typical for West and South Slavic languages. In contrast, literary Ukrainian and the other East Slavic languages have preserved the group -aje-: cytaju, padaju, sluchaju. (11) The use of the ending -u and -m in the first person singular corresponds with the use of two parallel endings in the third person singular; these are -t’/-t and a zero ending: a. the ending -t’/-t is used after contracted verb stems or after non-contracted verb stems if they do not have a group containing the intervocalic j: citaty—citat, padaty—padat, sluchaty—sluchat; syd’ity—sydyt’/sydyt, robyty—robyt’/robyt (Ukrainian: cytaty—cytaju, cytaje; padaty—padaju, padaje; sluchaty—sluchaje, sluchaje, because the contraction of the group -aje- does not occur, but sydity—sydyt’, robyty—robyt’, because the verb stems do not contain a group with the intervocalic j; the ending -t’/-t is also used after non-contracted verb stems with the groups -oja: stojaty—stojit’/stojit, bojaty s’a—bojit’ s’a/bojit s’a (cf. Ukrainian: stojit’, bojit’sja); b. the zero ending is used when the stem ends in -e: nese, vede, place. Compare the first person plural: nes-e-me, ved-e-me. The same ending is used in this instance in Ukrainian, as in nese, vede, place. (12) There are two analytic forms of imperfective future verbs: a. a conjugated form of the auxiliary verb byty plus the infinitive of the main verb: budu chodyty, budu robyty, budu spaty (this form is characteristic largely of the dialects in the Laborec region); b. a conjugated form of the auxiliary verb byty plus the l-participle: budu robyl, budu chodyl, budu spal (mainly west of the Laborec River). (13) The epenthetical l is absent after labials: robju, spju, kupju (but zeml’a). (14) The original i disappears in the imperative form: chod’, yd’/id’, rob, voz’. (15) There is a second palatalization in nominative plural masculine nouns whose stems end in k, g, h, ch, and also other masculine nouns (proper nouns) from the original o-stem: borsug—borsudzy, vovcy, volosy, chrobacy, cerkivnycy, Rusnacy. (16) The short (enclitic) form of the personal pronouns mi, t’i, si, mu, ji (as in daj mi, povidz ji, kupju t’i); n’a, t’a, sa/s’a, ho, ju/jej (as in vydyt n’a, cuje t’a, sluchat ho, bojit sa jej) is used. The enclitic in the dative for the pronoun ja is only in one form, mi (the long form as in the Ukrainian meni does not occur here), as in prysol gu mi. (17) The following pattern is found for numerical morphology: dvomy/dvome, tr’omy/tr’ome, stir’me/stirme, pjat’me, sest’me, devjat’me, des’at’me, used with masculine animate nouns: dvomy chlopy, tr’omy princove, pjat’me sandare. Numbers from five up, however, are also used in their basic form—that is, pjat’, sist’, devjat—with nouns in the genetive plural: pjat’ chlopiv. Some researchers also include among the characteristic features of Western (Lemko) Rusyn dialects contracted forms of neuter adjectives, such as zelene lyst’a, which differs from the Eastern group with its non-contracted groups -oj, -oje, -oji. Contracted forms, however, are typical not only of Lemko dialects but also appear in the Eastern, Subcarpathian group, especially east of the Rika River and in the majority of Ukrainian dialects on Ukrainian territory, as well as in literary Ukrainian. Likewise, the suffix -me in the first person plural of present tense verbs (chodyme, robyme) appears in Eastern (Boiko, Middle Carpathian, Hutsul) Rusyn dialects, as well as in Western (Lemko) dialects. Other features specific to Western (Lemko) Rusyn dialects include, for example, the palatal -t’ before i in infinitive endings (chodyt’i, robyt’i, spat’i); palatalization of the sibilants s and z before i originating from e or before a<e (s’ino, z’il’a, boju s’a, s’atyj); and depalatalization of soft dentals t,d, and n in such instances as pjat, ked, den. These phenomena are not characteristic of the entire Lemko region. The lexicon of Western Rusyn dialects is perhaps most aptly represented in the speech of Rusyns in the Presov Region. This lexicon is distinguished largely by the following characteristic features: (1) Many words are shared with dialects belonging to the northeast Slovak dialectal region. This includes vocabulary from the Proto-Slavic lexical base; for instance, the names of cereal grains and other terms from the botanical world, the names of certain animals, and terms for various natural phenomena. The northeast Slovak zito is in Rusyn zyto as opposed to southwest Slovak raz; other comparative examples of northeast Slovak/Rusyn/southwest Slovak include: sosna/sosna/borovica; pul’ka/pul’ka/moriak; borsuk/borsuk/jazvec; zachodit’/zachodyty/zapadat’; and zimna (voda)/zymna/studena. (2) Words from the fields of economics, culture, technology, politics, and many other spheres of social life have penetrated into Rusyn from Slovak. All such lexical items, however, take on phonetic and morphological features of Rusyn dialects: Slovak vlak, Rusyn vlak, in contrast to Ukrainian pojizd. Likewise, all terms for specific types of trains are also borrowed from Slovak: in Slovak osobny vlak, nakladny vlak, rychlik; in Rusyn osobnyj vlak, nakladnyj vlak, and richlyk. The equivalent terms in Ukrainian are pasazyrs’kyj, tovarnyj/vantaznyj, svydkyj/kurjerskyj pojizd. The borrowing and adaptation of specific Slovak words in Rusyn is closely related to the analogous process of the borrowing and adaptation of entire constructions containing certain given words. The Slovak construction nastupit’ do vlaku is in Rusyn nastupyty do vlaku, but in Ukrainian sisty u pojizd; the Slovak vystupit’ z vlaku is in Rusyn vystupyty z vlaku, but in Ukrainian vyjty z pojizdu, and so on. Many borrowings from Slovak also occur in the areas of administration, management, and the legal system. The Slovak obciansky preukaz is in Rusyn obcanskyj preukaz; but in Ukrainian pasport; Slovak vodicsky preukaz/Rusyn vodyckyj preukaz/Ukrainian prava vodija; Slovak danovy urad/Rusyn dan’ovyj ur’ad/Ukrainian viddilennja zboru podatkiv; Slovak veduci odboru/Rusyn veducyj odboru/Ukrainian zavidujucyj viddilom; and so on. (3) Many words from everyday life have also been integrated into the Rusyn vocabulary from Slovak, including terms for clothing, shoes, furniture, stores, and health. Thus in Slovak, Rusyn, and Ukrainian: kosel’a/kosul’a/sorocka; sako/sako/pidzak; vetrovka/vetrovka/stromivka/kurtka; chladnicka/chladnycka/cholodyl’nyk; holicstvo/holycstvo/perukarn’a; mam chripku/mam chrypku/u mene hryp; ma hnacku/mat hnacku/u n’oho ponos. (4) Rusyn borrowings from Slovak include not only individual lexical items, certain Slovak word-forming components have replaced original East Slavic word-forming components. For example, the suffix -aren’ (in Slovak the a is long, whereas in Rusyn dialects it is short) as in vynaren’, kolkaren’, osiparen’ (several, however, preserve the suffix -aln’a, -arn’a: jedaln’a, elektrarn’a); the suffix -ycka/-icka in tlmocnycka, casnycka, kadernycka, dojicka, and many others. The lexical borrowings together with the word-forming processes just discussed bear witness to the close, natural, and long-term connection between Rusyns living in Slovakia and Slovak political, social, and cultural life. The absence of an analogous Ukrainian vocabulary and word-formation process in the lexical reserve of Rusyns in Slovakia testifies to the lack of any direct or lengthy contact with the social life in Ukraine or with the Ukrainian language. Western Rusyn dialects from the Lemko Region in Poland have similarly absorbed words from Polish in the fields of economics, administration, politics, and so on, adapting these words according to the phonetic and morphological laws of the individual dialect. For example, the Polish pravo jazdy is in Rusyn pravo izdy. Other Polish/Rusyn examples are: urzad powiatowy/povitovyj urjad; proces sadowy/sudovyj proces; urzad podatkowy/podatkovyj urjad; podatek bezposredni/bezposerednij podatok; potentat finansowy/finansovyj potentat; pociag osobowy (towarowy, pospieszny)/osobovyj (tovarovyj, pos’pisnyj) potjah. Currently, the most explicit features of Rusyn language development in the Presov Region of eastern Slovakia and among Lemkos in Poland is the borrowing of Slovak and Polish terms connected with various aspects of modern life. But while this development draws the Rusyn lexicon closer to Slovak or Polish, it cannot be seen simply as the “slovakization” or “polonization” of Rusyn. Terminology borrowed from Slovak or from Polish undergoes a process of adaptation according to the phonological and morphological norms of the Rusyn language and thus is actually and strongly integrated into the Rusyn language system. With regard to the syntax of Western (Lemko) Rusyn dialects, there are phenomena which differ from those found in Ukrainian; other phenomena are typologically similar or identical to West Slavic and partly South Slavic languages. Such phenomena include: (1) sentences lacking a pronoun subject: Robyl jem tam calyj den’; (2) passive sentence structures with reflexive forms of the verbs: Strasn’i s’a tam stril’alo. Tota luka s’a mi t’asko kosyla; (3) prepositional and non-prepositional constructions that correspond to analogous constructions in Slovak but are generally lacking in Ukrainian and East Slavic; for example, the Rusyn Nevid’il jem tam nyjaky zeny and Slovak Nevidel som tam nijake zeny, in contrast to the Ukrainian Ja tam ne bacyv nijakych zinok; or Rusyn Nestarajut’ s’a o chudobnych/Slovak Nestaraju sa o chudobnych/Ukrainian Vony ne piklujut’ pro bidnych; (4) constructions with the dative commodi/incommodi or with the possessive dative: Mama jim napekla kolaciv; Fkraly mu kon’a; Zena mu porodyla chlopc’a; (5) adverbial prepositional constructions identical to Slovak constructions but absent in Ukrainian: Rusyn Ydu do skoly/Slovak Idem do skoly/Ukrainian Ja idu v skolu; Rusyn Stoju pry studn’i/Slovak Stojim pri studni/Ukrainian Ja stoju bil’a kolodc’a; Rusyn Ydu gu stolu/Slovak Idem k stolu/Ukrainian Ja idu do stola, and others; (6) a clear difference between Western Rusyn dialects and Ukrainian or other East Slavic languages, especially in the area of syntactical semantics, as in the following examples: a. In Rusyn dialects possession is expressed with a noun in the nominative indicating the possessor and the verb maty/mat’i in the proper conjugated form plus the accusative of the noun denoting the possessed item: Susid mat velyku zahorodu. This structure is also typical of Slovak: Sused ma vel’ku zahradu. By contrast, in Ukrainian the most frequently used possessive construction is formed with the preposition u plus a genitive noun denoting the possessor and with the item possessed as a subject in the nominative (sometimes in the genitive if the verb is negated): U susida velykyj sad. U neji nema svojeji chaty. b. For positive location and existence constructions Rusyn dialects customarily employ the verb jest (for instance: Jest dachto doma?), while negative sentences of this type use the forms nyt/n’it or nejest. In positive sentences the subject is in the nominative (see the previous example with dachto), while in negative sentences the subject is in the genitive: Ci to jest dajaka polehota, ci to nyt uz inaksoj polehoty? Moho muza nit doma. Korunky nejest. c. In both groups of Lemko dialects, as in Slovak and Polish, reflexive forms of non-reflexive verbs are used in reciprocal meaning almost without restriction, as well as in those instances when the form of the pronoun s’a/sa, si can be substituted by the phrases jeden druhoho, jeden druhomu, and others: cuty s’a, vid’ity s’a, nenavyd’ity s’a, hladkaty s’a. The expression of reciprocity in literary Ukrainian and in the majority of Ukrainian dialects by means of the reflexive pronoun sja, is, in contrast to Rusyn dialects as well as to Slovak and Polish, considerably more limited. In literary Ukrainian reciprocity is expressed by means of the phrases odyn odnoho: (vony) cujut’, bacat’, nenavyd’at’, hlad’at’ odyn odnoho. This difference between Ukrainian, on the one hand, and Rusyn, Slovak and Polish, on the other, is still more marked in verbs with the pronoun in the dative. In the Western (Lemko) Rusyn dialects, as in Slovak, the use of verbs plus a dative construction for the expression of reciprocity is practically unrestricted: Rusyn pomahaty si, skodyty si, otpuscaty si, pris’ahaty si, sepkaty si, rozumyty si, nadavaty si/Slovak pomahat’ si, skodit’ si, odpust’at’si, prisahat’ si, suskat’ si, rozumiet’ si, nadavat’ si. In similar instances in literary Ukrainian and in Ukrainian dialects reciprocity is almost always expressed with the phrase odyn odnomu: vony pomahajut’, skod’at’, proscajut’ odyn odnomu. (7) In compound constructions the same conjunctions are used in Rusyn as in Slovak and Polish: ze, zeby, keby, kyd’/ked: Neznal jem, ze prydes. Neprysla by’m, keby jem toto znala. Ponahl’ajut s’a, zeb? jich nezastyhnul doc. Eastern (Subcarpathian) Rusyn dialects. The most marked difference between the Western and Eastern groups of Rusyn dialects is found in the placement of the stress. As mentioned above, in the Western (Lemko) group the stress is always fixed on the penultimate syllable, while in the dialects found east of the Laborec River the stress is mobile and changes in relation to the form of the word; for example: noha—na nozi, nesty—nesu. Phonological differences between the two Rusyn dialect groups other than those covered above, include the following: (1) In Eastern (Subcarpathian) dialects, besides the reflexes i and y in place of the original o in new closed syllables, the reflexes u (iu), u, ы, and y appear, as in kun’,kiun’, kun’, spoza hyr; or vezu—viuz, vuz, viz. In the Western dialects the mutation i is found in such instances, and in northern Spish also y (kin’, n’is, syl’). (2) The palatal z’, s’, c’ appears in suffixes -z’k-, -s’k-, -c’k’, -ec’-, -yc’a-: berez’kyj, rus’kyj, brac’kyj, kupec’, udovyc’a. (3) Alongside the phoneme e is its positional variant, a narrow e before soft consonants: chlopec’, den’, teper’, des’at’. (4) There is a frequent transition of the original e, ь to y before syllables with soft consonants: dyn’, pyn’, otyc’, vyr’ba, zym’la. (5) The phoneme o before i and u, and also before soft consonants, is pronounced like a narrow o: rozum, dobri, na kon’i, os’in’; (6) The vowel y is markedly labialized, especially after labials, and its pronunciation is close to o: byla, my, vy, ryba. The morphology of the Eastern group of Rusyn dialects differs from the Western group particularly in the following ways: (1) The ending of the instrumental singular of the feminine noun, adjective, adjectival pronoun, and numerals is -ou, as in z mojou tret’ou dobrou kamaratkou, in contrast to the ending -om in Western dialects: z mojom tret’om dobrom kamaratkom. (2) Neuter nouns with the proto-Slavic suffix -at have the ending -y in the dative singular from the Cirocha River and further east (tel’aty), while in Western dialects in similar instances the suffix -atu/-at’u is used (as in malomu tel’atu). This phenomenon occurs under the influence of the o-stems. (3) Imperfect future tense verbs are created from a conjugated form of the auxiliary verb byty and an infinitive of the main verb (budu robyty), while in Western dialects the typical Lemko type dominates, that is, a form of the verb byty plus an l-participle: budu robyl. (4) The ending of the past tense is -v (pronounced as an u): chodyv, robyv, syd’iv, whereas in Western dialects an -l is found: chodyl, robyl, syd’il. (5) The soft ending -t’ is found in the third person singular of the past tense verb (with minor exceptions): chodyt’, robyt’, sydyt’, as opposed to a hard -t in Western dialects: chodyt, robyt, sydyt. (6) Mostly palatalized forms of masculine nominative plural nouns have stems ending h, k, ch: paribky, ptachy, sluhy, pauky, in place of the Western forms paribcy, ptasy, sluzy, paucy. (7) Masculine nouns with the suffix -ar’ overwhelmingly employ the ending -y in the nominative plural: kon’ary, rybary, vol’ary, in contrast to the ending -e in Western dialects: kon’are, rybare, vol’are. (8) Non-contracted forms of neuter nouns exist in the nominative singular, such as syn’eje nebo. (9) There are non-contracted forms of the genitive singular feminine adjective: do mojeji dobroji susidy, rather than the Western type: do mojoj dobroj susidy. (10) There are differentiated forms of the locative and instrumental masculine and neuter singular adjectives and words functioning as adjectives, such as demonstrative pronouns: z tym dobrym/z tym dobrym—na tomu dobromu (as opposed to the Lemko form: z tym dobrym—na tym dobrym). With regard to syntax, the Eastern (Subcarpathian) Rusyn dialects differ from the Western (Lemko) dialects in the following ways: (1) Instead of the Western construction of the type mam jednoho syna to show possession, Eastern dialects more often use the construction u mene je jeden (odyn) syn; u nasoho kuma je d’ivka. (2) In Eastern dialects the so-called ablative genitive is found after verbs expressing alienation, divisiveness, and actions having a negative impact, followed by the preposition v (u): voly v n’oho zabere; gazdy u gazdu braly; v jennoji udovyc’i d’ivka pomerla. In Western (Lemko) dialects constructions with the prepositionless dative are used in these instances: vz’aly mu zeml’i; susidovy merla zena. (3) In expressing movement toward a given thing or person Western dialects employ the preposition gu/ku (ydu gu kamaratovy), while in Eastern dialects the prepositions yd, id, ud, d are used with the dative or do with the genitive: dochodyt yd tomu ved’makovy; a vin prykladau ucho yd zemly; pryjdeme d n’omu; idu do susida. (4) In expressing movement to or into a given place, a construction with the preposition v/u plus the accusative is used in Eastern dialects (pisov u pole; ydu v selo; vernuv s’a v Chust), while in Western dialects constructions with the preposition do plus the genitive (ydu do Svydnyka; ponahl’at sa do skoly; vosol do chyzy), and na plus the accusative (prysly na pole; yde na postu) are found. (5) In Eastern dialects a direct object after verbs, such as dumaty, zabyty, hovoryty, spivaty, and znaty, is found in the accusative after the prepositions za and pro: dumav za zyml’u; a za voly zabyv; spivaly za n’u; pro d’ivca ja dumaju; ja pro nyc ne znam; budu pro vas hovoryty. In contrast, Western dialects in these instances use the construction o plus the locative, which is typical for Slovak and Polish (ja o tym n’ic ne znam; bisiduvaly o n’i vel’o; ne rozmysl’al o tym), or the construction na plus the accusative after verbs dumaty and zabyty, which is also characteristic of Slovak and its dialects (uz na n’oho ne dumaj; ale ona na n’oho ne zabyla); (6) Eastern dialects commonly use constructions with the preposition cerez plus the accusative to express spatial, causal, and temporal ties: kun’ skocyv cerez stachetky; pereskocyly cerez kapuru; dvi noci ne spala cerez n’oho; lysyla ho cerez chlopc’a molodoho; cerez rik prychod’at mama; my pryjsly cerez dyn’ pozad vas. Instead of cerez in such constructions, Western dialects employ the preposition prez (preskocil prez pl’it; prez zymu ne bylo roboty) or pro and o plus the accusative (cylu n’ic pro n’oho ne spala; vernu sa o rik). In the lexicon of both Eastern and Western Carpatho-Rusyn dialects there are many words characteristic of East Slavic languages as a whole, and in several instances words drawn from the Proto-Slavic base. Both Eastern and Western Rusyn groups have preserved old East Slavic terminology for the members of a family and relational ties, such as forms of otec: n’an’o, n’en’o, n’yn’o, n’an’ko, tato; “mother’s father” of “father’s father” with the words stryko, stryj, stryko. Both groups also share many common elements in mountain pasturing terminology. The Eastern group, however, includes several specific words distinct from Western dialects: bortyc’a, porylyc’a (in Northern Lemko dialects: krt’tic’a); drahanec’ (Northern Lemko: studn’a), zalyva (Western dialects: kopryva), korc (Western dialects: kr’ak), ozyc’a (in Western dialects most often: lyzka), and others. Most of the differences between the Western (Lemko) and Eastern (Subcarpathian) groups of Rusyn dialects lie in the lexicon connected with contemporary life. While Southern Lemko dialects in the Presov Region have acquired contemporary lexicon from Slovak, and Northern Lemko dialects lexicon from Polish, Eastern (Subcarpathian) Rusyn dialects in Ukraine borrowed from Hungarian prior to World War I and from literary Ukrainian or from Russian during the Soviet era. Many borrowings from Hungarian are common for both Western and Eastern Rusyn dialects, i.e., laba from Hungarian lab (paw), betjar’ from betyar (rogue/rascal), chosen from haszon (benefit, adventage), birovaty from bir (to be able), byzovno from bizonyos (certain, sure), and so on. There are, however, many Hungarianisms which occur and are still in use only in Eastern (Subcarpathian) Rusyn dialects and are unknown in the Western (Lemko) group, i.e., bovt from Hungarian bolt (shop/store), darab from darab (piece), gorgosi from horgas (curved spine), legin’ from legeny (lad), yppen from eppen (just now), faralovatysja from farad (to get tired), syjtalovaty from setal (to walk), and many others. Among borrowings from Ukrainian are: pojizd (pasazyrs’kyj, hruzovyj, skoryj), sofers’ki prava, zavidujucyj udjilom, risynja suda; and from Russian: voditel’skije prava, zevedujuscij otdelom, nalogovaja deklaracija, sest’ na pojezd, sojti s pojezda, konditerskaja, parykmacherskaja, rubaska, odezda, odevat’sja, razdevat’sja, and many others. Population resettlement, which has resulted in the formation of linguistic islands or in dispersion has contributed to preservation of the basic features of the Rusyn language as it is spoken in its original homeland. At the same time, however, under the impact of new ethnic and linguistic surroundings, Rusyn speakers have gradually become distanced from the original language and have often developed autonomous language systems. Thus the disparate Rusyn dialects in northeastern Hungary have been and remain under the strong influence of Hungarian. Rusyn speakers in Hungary have borrowed many words from Hungarian and adapted them to the phonological and morphological rules of their respective Rusyn dialect: sor, hordov, termes, illat, katonak, vezer, foksag, izer, borongatas, bizovno, ipen, legin’, ken, fumetezuvaty, and poharmadluvaty, among others. With regard to the further development and study of the overall linguistic character of Rusyn dialects, several factors must be taken into consideration. Rusyn dialects are located on the periphery of East Slavic, and specifically Ukrainian, linguistic territory; they have, however, been sufficiently isolated from other Ukrainian dialects. Certain Rusyn dialects, moreover, especially those of the Western group in Slovakia and Poland, have not been affected by contemporary literary Ukrainian. Rusyn dialect speakers have traditionally lived in a territory, Carpathian Rus’, divided by various administrative and international borders. Finally, a high percentage of Rusyn speakers has lived and continues to live in contact with languages and dialects that are non-Ukrainian and even non-Slavic. While Carpatho-Rusyn dialects preserve in their structure a great number of general East Slavic (and specifically Ukrainian) archaic features, they have also acquired a whole series of new features under the influence of neighboring West Slavic languages and dialects. Certain phenomena typical of Rusyn dialects were also found in Old Ukrainian, but in the subsequent development of the Ukrainian language they were marginalized or replaced by other elements. The autochthonous Carpatho-Rusyn language area remains a region of numerous dialects which, as one moves westward, have gradually lost their southwestern (Transcarpathian) Ukrainian elements and in many cases have replaced these with West Slavic elements, whether Slovak or Polish. Linguistic and extralinguistic factors reflect the specific location of Carpatho-Rusyn dialects, anchored as they are between two vast Slavic language groups—East and West—both of which have strongly influenced all spheres of Rusyn life. Bibliography: Olena Pazhur, Bibliohrafiia pro doslidzhennia ukrains’kykh hovoriv Skhidnoi Slovachchyny (Presov, 1972); J. Werchratskij, Ueber die Mundart der marmaroscher Ruthenen (Stanyslaviv, 1883); Anton Semenovich, “Ob osobennostiakh ugrorusskago govora,” in Sbornik statei po slavianoviedieniiu, sostavlennyi . . . uchenikami V.I. Lamanskago (St. Petersburg, 1883), pp. 212-238; Olaf Broch, “Zum Kleinrussischen in Ungarn,” Archiv fur slavische Philologie, XVII (Berlin, 1895), pp. 321-416 and XIX (1897), pp. 1-21—Russian ed.: Ugrorusskoe nariechie sela Ublia Zemplinskago komiteta (St. Peterburg, 1899); Olaf Broch, Studien von der slovakisch-kleinrussischen Sprachgrenze im ostlichen Ungarn, Videnskabsselskabets Skrifter: II. Historisk-filosofiske Klasse, No. 5 (Kristiana/Oslo, 1897); Olaf Broch, Weitere Studien von der slovakisch-kleinrussischen Sprachgrenze im ostlichen Ungarn, Videnskabsselskabets Skrifter: II. Historisk-filosofiske Klasse, No. 1 (Kristiana/Oslo, 1899); Ivan Verkhratskyi, “Znadoby dlia piznania uhorsko-ruskykh hovoriv,” Zapysky Naukovoho tovarystva imeny Shevchenka, XXVII and XXVIII (L’viv, 1899), pp. 1-68 and 69-276, XL and XLIV (1901), pp. 1-113 and 114-280; Ivan Verkhratskyi, Pro hovor halytskykh lemkiv, Zbirnyk Fil’ol’ogichnoi sektsyi Naukovoho tovarystva im. Shevchenka, Vol. V (L’viv, 1902); M. Durnovo, “Dyialektolohichna paezdka u Podkarpatskuiu Rus’ u letku 1925 hodu,” Zapiski addzelu humanitarnykh naouk, kn. 2 (Minsk, 1928), pp. 220-229; Georgij Gerovskij, “Jazyk Podkarpatske Rusi,” in Ceskoslovenska vlastiveda, Vol. III: Jazyk (Prague, 1934), pp. 460-517—Russian trans.: Georgii Gerovskii, Iazyk Podkarpatskoi Rusi (Moscow, 1995); Ivan Pan’kevych, Ukrains’ki hovory Pidkarpats’koi Rusy i sumezhnykh oblastei (Prague, 1938); Georgii Gerovskii, “Narodnaia rech’ Priashevshchiny,” in Ivan S. Shlepetskii, ed., Priashevshchina (Prague, 1948), pp. 94-144; Zdzislaw Stieber, Atlas jezykowy dawnej Lemkowszczyzny, 8 vols. (Lodz, 1956-64); Ivan Pan’kevych, Narys istorii ukrains’kykh zakarpats’kykh hovoriv, pt. 1: Fonetyka (Prague, 1958); Iosyp O. Dzendzelivs’kyi, Linhvistychnyi atlas ukrains’kykh narodnykh hovoriv Zakarpats’koi oblasti URSR/Ukrainy, 3 vols. (Uzhhorod, 1958-93); Vasyl’ Latta, “O klassifikatsii ukrainskikh govorov,” in Kafedra ukrains’koi movy i literatury Priashivs’koho F.F. Universytetu im. P.I. Shafaryka, Biuleten’ zahal’noderzhavnoho dialektolohichnoho seminara (Presov, 1963), pp. 57-76; Laslo Dezhe, Ocherki po istorii zakarpatskikh govorov (Budapest, 1967); Karpatskii dialektologicheskii atlas, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1967); Iosyp Dzendzelivs’kyi, “Stan i problemy doslidzhennia ukrains’kykh hovoriv Zakarpats’koi oblasti URSR ta Skhidnoi Slovachchyny,” in Mykhailo Rychalka, ed., Zhovten’ i ukrains’ka kul’tura (Presov, 1968), pp. 255-283; Iosyp O. Dzendzelivs’kyi, Ukrains’ko-zakhidnoslov”ians’ki leksychni paraleli (Kiev, 1969); P. M. Lizanec, Magyar-ukran nyelvi kapcsolatok (Uzhhorod, 1970); Iosyp Dzendzelivs’kyi, “Dialektna vzaiemodiia ukrains’koi movy z inshymy slov”ians’kymy movamy v karpats’komu areali,” in Dopovidy na VII Mizhnarodnii z”izdi slavistiv (Kiev, 1973); P. N. Lizanets, Vengerskie v zaimstvovaniia v ukrainskikh govorakh Zakarpat’ia (Budapest, 1976); Zuzana Hanudel’, Linhvistychnyi atlas ukrains’kykh hovoriv Skhidnoi Slovachchyny, 2 vols. (Bratislava and Presov, 1981-89); Zdzislaw Stieber, Dialekt Lemkow: fonetyka i fonologia (Wroclaw, Warsaw, Cracow, Gdansk, and Lodz, 1982); Zuzana Hanudel’, Narodni stravy i napoi: leksyka ukrains’kykh hovoriv Skhidnoi Slovachchyny (Bratislava and Presov, 1987); Obshchekarpatskii dialektologicheskii atlas, 5 vols. (Chisinau, Moscow, Warsaw, Kiev, and Bratislava, 1989-97); Vasyl’ Latta, Atlas ukrains’kykh hovoriv Skhidnoi Slovachchyny (Bratislava and Presov, 1991); Zuzana Hanudel’, “Terytorial’na klasyfikatsiia ukrains’kykh hovoriv Skhidnoi Slovachchyny,” Duklia, XLI, 4 (Presov, 1993), pp. 63-69; Janusz Rieger, Slownictwo i nazewnictwo lemkowskie (Warsaw, 1995); Mykhailo Lesiv, Ukrains’ki hovirky u Pol’shchi (Warsaw, 1997), esp. pp. 9-82; Juraj Vanko, The Language of Slovakia’s Rusyns/Jazyk slovenskych Rusinov (New York, 2000). Juraj Vanko Vojvodina The language spoken by Rusyns who began migrating during the first half of the eighteenth century to the Backa region (and from there to neighboring Srem and Slavonia) retains the Zemplyn-Sharysh and Spish characteristics of the Western (Lemko) Rusyn dialect group. Among the phonetic features of the Backa or Vojvodinian-Srem Rusyn dialects are the following: 1. fixed penultimate stress; 2. e (?) gives e, е and и/і or и/’і, e.g., бешеда (beseda), бидни (bidni); e- gives йе-, e.g., єшень (jesen’); 3. dj gives дз, e.g., цудзи (cudzi); 4. d’, t’ give дз, ц, e.g., дзеци (dzeci), цемни (cemni); 5. z’, s’ give ж (z), ш (s), e.g., жем (zem), шено (seno); the clusters dl, tl are preserved, e.g., садло (sadlo); tort, tolt give trat, tlat, e.g., крава (krava), глад (hlad); 6. the clusters kv, gv are preserved except for spirantization in the latter, e.g., квице (kvice), гвизда (hvizda). Morphological features include the following: 1. soft-stem neuter nouns have the ending -о in the nominative singular, e.g., морйо (morjo); 2. the genitive and dative plural of nouns ends in -ох (och), e.g., псох (psoch); 3. the first person singular and plural of the present tense end in -м and -ме, respectively, e.g., знам (znam), знаме (zname); 4. the reflexive particle ше (se) has no fixed position relative to its verb; 5. the past tense has in two forms: я знал (ja znal) or знал сом (znal som). In effect, Vojvodinian-Srem Rusyn has alternating East Slavic (Carpatho-Rusyn) and West Slavic (East Slovak, i.e., Zemplen, Saris) characteristics, although the latter are dominant. This is explained as the result of language change or long-term mutual linguistic interference. Consequently, Vojvodinian-Srem Rusyn can be considered a clear case of a dual reflexive language. Bibliography: Frantisek Pastrnek, “Rusini jazyka slovenskeho,” in Vladimir I. Lamanskii, ed., Stat’i po slavianoviedieniiu, Vol. I (St. Petersburg, 1904), pp. 60-78; Charles E. Bidwell, “The Language of the Backa Ruthenians in Yugoslavia,” Slavic and East European Journal, X, 1 (Madison, Wisc., 1966), pp. 32-45; Oleksa Horbach, “Leksyka hovirky bachvans’ko-srims’kykh ukraintsiv,” Naukovyi zbirnyk Muzeiu ukrains’koi kul’tury v Svydnyku, IV, pt. 1 (Bratislava and Presov, 1969), pp. 309-349; Mikola M. Kochish, Lingvistichni roboti (Novi Sad, 1978); Zuzana Hanudel’, Linhvistychnyi atlas ukrains’kykh hovoriv Skhidnoi Slovachchyny, 2 vols. (Bratislava and Presov, 1981-89); Henrik Birnbaum, “Language Families, Linguistic Types, and the Position of the Rusin Microlanguage Within Slavic,” Die Welt der Slaven, XXVIII [N.F., VII] (Munich, 1983), pp. 1-23; Aleksandr D. Dulicenko, “Das Russinische,” in Peter Rehder, ed., Einfuhrung in die slavischen Sprachen, 2nd rev. ed. (Darmstadt, 1991), pp. 126-140; Aleksander D. Dulichenko, Jugoslavo-Ruthenica: roboti z ruskei filologii (Novi Sad, 1995); Horace G. Lunt, “Notes on the Rusin Language of Yugoslavia and Its East Slovak Origins,” International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, XLII (Columbus, Ohio, 1998), pp. 43-84; Aleksandr Dulichenko, “Iazyk rusin Serbii i Khorvatii (iugoslavo-rusinskii),” in Osnovy balkanskogo iazykoznaniia, Vol. II: slavianskie iazyki (St. Petersburg, 1998), pp. 247-272; Iuliian Ramach, Primenovnitski konstruktsii u ruskim literaturnim iaziku (Belgrade, 1998). Aleksandr D. Dulichenko United States and Canada The vast majority of Rusyn immigrants who arrived in North America between 1880 and 1914 brought to the New World not only their vernacular speech but also certain preconceptions about their literary language or language of culture. Those preconceptions were preserved and even institutionalized by Rusyn immigrants in the New World. Various factors influenced the choice of language, including geography (place of residence before emigrating); religious orientation (Greek Catholic, Orthodox, Roman Catholic); and historical, cultural, and political orientation (dependant largely on level of education). In any case, the literary language the immigrants favored was more or less dependent on and influenced by their vernacular speech. It is difficult to describe the Carpatho-Rusyn language in the United States and Canada, given its extreme diversity and the wide degree of subjectivity found in use of various linguistic elements. From Carpathian Rus’ the immigrants brought with them language variants based on the Church Slavonic, Ukrainian, and Russian literary languages as well as on their own spoken vernaculars of East Slavic (Ukrainian) or West Slavic (East Slovak) origin. To these were added new borrowings from the Anglo-American linguistic sphere, such as lexicon related to domestic life (bojsik, stora, susy) and the public sphere (bos, cerman, stejt, sif) as well as idiomatic expressions (imiti honor: to have the honor; tebe nic ne badrujet: nothing bothers you). At the same time, immigrant Rusyn speakers experienced a gradual loss of the feeling of their language, which was reflected in a simplification of the semantic structure of their vocabulary and its morphology, in confusion over the choice of one or another word, and in the continual movement between speaking Rusyn and English, more often than not with preference for the latter. The written language produced by the immigrants could, in most cases, be read using a Rusyn, Ukrainian, or Russian “pronunciation.” Functioning in geographic isolation from the European homeland and surrounded by an English-language environment, Rusyn immigrant speech became steadily americanized or canadianized and in most places in both the United States and Canada it tended to disappear, especially with the death of the early immigrants in the decades after World War II. The only exceptions are found among newer immigrants, in particular Lemkos who arrived from Poland in the 1970s and Vojvodinian Rusyns who have been migrating from Yugoslavia since the 1980s. Both groups continue to preserve their native speech, although they are being subjected to the same assimilatory pressures experienced by earlier waves of immigrants. Bibliography: Charles E. Bidwell, The Language of Carpatho-Ruthenian Publications in America (Pittsburgh, 1971). Aleksandr D. Dulichenko Entry courtesy of Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture. |
|
|
|
|