| Abstract (english) | The primary task of this paper was to present, describe and analyze all three editions of Fr. Marijan Lanosović’s grammar as comprehensively and systematically as possible. The grammar is printed three times. The first two editions titled: Neue Einleitung zur Slavonischen Sprache mit einem nützlichen Wörter = und Gesprächbuche, auch einem Anhange verschiedener deutscher und slavonischer Briefe und einem kleinen Titularbuche versehen (Osijek, 1778; 1789) in terms of content and structure mostly coincide with some minor differences. The third edition of the grammar is structurally and substantively different from the first two, printed six years later under the title: Anleitung zur Slavonischen Sprachlehre sammt einem nützlichen Anhange mit verschiedenen Gesprächen, deutsch = schlavonisch und hungarischen Wörterbuche, Briefen, Benennung der vornehmsten geist = und weltlichen Würden, dann der vorzüglichsten Festtäge und anderern Personen versehen (Budim, 1795.). Linguistic analysis is based on the study of all language levels: spelling, orthography, phonology, morphology, syntax, word formation and lexis, and special attention is paid to a comprehensive analysis of formations and formative typesin order to achieve better and more systematic linguistic analysis of the corpus. The introductory chapter contains three parts. The first one refers to the time period in which Slavonian grammar was created and is entitled Socio-political Circumstances. This subchapter includes the theoretical introduction to the time span that covers the first half of the 18th century, and then the second one when Slavonian grammars were created. The subchapter also includes the influence of Enlightenment ideas on the scholars of that time in general, and then on writers and even grammarians. The chapter also sheds light on the historical aspect of the events that preceded the publication of Slavonian grammars, depicting first the Croatian and then the Slavonian regions in Lanosović's time. Important is also the role of the Franciscans in the time of fragmented Croatia and the fact that the Franciscans with their works try to overcome the previous regionalism in literature by finding linguistic solutions and encouraging spelling reform. The second subchapter in the introduction is entitled The Life and Work of Marijan Lanosović, which provides basic information about the Franciscan and the author of Slavonian grammar, and especially those facts from his biography that may have influenced the writing of Slavonian grammar. An important piece of information from his biography is that at the invitation of Emperor Joseph II. he participated in Vienna as a member of the commission for the harmonization of spelling, as well as that before the Slavonian grammar he published the Latin grammar. The third part of the introduction, entitled: On the Structure of Lanosović's Slavonian Grammar, contains basic information on the structure of the first two, and later the third edition of the grammar. The fourth part is entitled Previous Research where we have listed all previous works dealing with the topic of Slavonian grammar. The second chapter entitled External Description of Grammar describes the structure and methodology of the grammatical description of Slavonian grammar in relation to its predecessors, ie old Croatian grammars starting with the grammar of Bartol Kašić, and contemporaries, ie with special emphasis on Slavonian grammarians B. Tadijanović and M. A. Relković. It has been noticed that Slavonian grammar originated within the framework of tradition. At the structural level, there is a similarity with most old Croatian grammarians. Lanosović's Slavonian predecessors contain dictionary parts of the manual, as well as conversational patterns that are thematically very similar to Lanosović's grammar. In addition, in parallel with our corpus, B. Tadijanović also recorded forms of letters in German and Croatian, as well as the titles of secular and ecclesiastical vocations. The coincidence was noticed with Relković's grammar in the chapter on voices. Namely, Lanosović's list of words that are in opposition by one phoneme or by accent from the third edition of the grammar is very similar to Relković's list of homographs in the chapter on accent. When dividing into types of words, it was noticed that Slavonian grammar still represents the traditional imitation of old grammarians who based their description of grammar on the Latin model. The division of nouns into three types according to the ending in the genitive singular has been taken over by Slavonian grammarians from Kašić. As far as the case system is concerned, the comparison with old grammars shows that in the first two editions Lanosović took over 7 cases in the singular and 8 in the plural from Della Bella and Kašić (the 8th case is locative). In the third edition, Lanosović distinguishes 8 cases in the singular and plural. In the first two editions he describes the locative only in the plural, while in the third edition, unlike Kašić and Della Bella, he describes the locative in the singular and plural. The ablative is still present in Lanosović's model. The coincidence in declension patterns with the first Croatian grammars has been confirmed: the grammar Institutiones linguae Illyricae from 1604 by Bartol Kašić and Istruzioni grammaticali della lingua illirica from 1728 by Della Bella. As for the category for animate and inanimate, in Lanosović, as well as Kašić and Tadijanović, do not differentiate animate and inanimate in A singular. In the description of the adjectives, as well as in the description of the comparison, the concordance in the declension patterns in Relković and Lanosović’s grammar was confirmed. Lanosović warns of the difference between definite and indefinite adjectives, which is conditioned by context, and he could have taken the note from Della Bella. One of the influences of Latin on old grammars is reflected in the introduction of grammatical categories from Latin, such as conjunctive, potential, gerund, participles, etc. In addition, Della Bella, Relković and Lanosović took over the criterion of dividing verbs into three types according to the ending in the present (-am, -em and -im). From the verb categories, Lanosović describes the manner, time, number and person that we find in his predecessors, starting with Kašić. Syntax in old (Slavonian) grammars, as well as in Lanosović's Slavonian grammar, is understood as a combination of forms and (types) of words with the absence of the description of the relationship between the described elements. In the syntactic description, a contrasting approach is used because the grammars are also intended for the German readership. In the conversational patterns from the first two editions of Slavonian grammar, we noticed both thematic and syntagmatic similarities with Relković's conversational patterns. The chapter on external description can be concluded by confirming the coincidence with old grammarians in general, but also with Slavonian grammarians, at the structural level, in taking over the grammatical model, examples, but also the contrastive approach that was common at that time. The first chapter of the internal description of Lanosović's grammar is entitled Ortography. The alphabet of Slavonian writers represents the transition between the Croatian north and south. By studying Lanosović's spelling, it was noticed that Slavonian grammarians have established the writing of certain graphemes, but also that there are still fluctuations in the recording of some phonemes. Lanosović's orthography, as well as in most older Croatian works, is the combination of morphological and phonological orthography, with the predominance of morphological writing. As a conclusion, it can be stated that Lanosović's text is characterized by separate writing of accented units, but the composed writing of accented units has also been recorded. The rules for writing uppercase and lowercase letters in Lanosović’s grammar were not implemented systematically. Recording accents in Lanosović's text is unsystematic and without general rules. In the chapter entitled Phonology, we concluded that the Ikavian reflex of the letter jat predominates in Lanosović’s grammar. In the chapter entitled Morphology, we proved again Lanosović's fitting into traditional frameworks. Lanosović's paradigms are today's paradigms for nouns a, e and i types. The inventory of case suffixes for singular nouns generally does not deviate from the current situation in the standard language. The transitional period in language development can be seen in the third edition of Lanosović's manual, where he adds the singular locative to declension patterns. The use of old and new forms is visible in plural cases. In the chapter on the morphology of adjectives, the inventory of case suffixes for the singular and plural corresponds to the standard language. In the chapter on the morphology of numbers in samples dva, tri, and obadva, deviations from the standard language can be seen in G, D, L, and I singular. The shapes of the ordinal numbers coincide with the shapes in the standard language. During the process of studying pronouns, we noticed that the third edition brings new forms of pronouns in addition to the old ones. In addition, we identified and listed differences in plural forms among all three of Lanosović's editions. When studying the morphology of verbs, we noticed that Lanosović distinguishes three conjugations with regard to the present ending of the first person singular: the first in - am, the second in -em and the third in -im. Lanosović distinguishes six verb tenses. Verb tenses are given in the indicative and the conjunctive. Lanosović divided the extensive chapter on syntax according to the types of words and their composition in gender, number and case with other words in the text. Some syntactic constructions have already been recorded in Lanosović’s grammar, which have already been confirmed in ancient writers. These are well-known syntactic calques already described in the literature. In the chapter on word formation, we first of all confirmed that suffixation is the most prolific formation type in which nouns are formed. We noticed that the inventory of Lanosović's suffixes mostly coincides with the inventory of suffixes in the standard language. We have proved that the prefix formation is a poorly prolific way in the formation of nouns, as well as that Lanosović did not use the prefix and suffix formation. We have divided the chapter on adjectives according to the formative types, starting with the suffix – the most prolific formative type. Other formation types in adjectives are less exemplary, while some of the formation types are not confirmed on the corpus, such as suffixoid and prefixoid-suffixoid formation of adjectives. In Slavonian grammar, we have recorded a special group of adjectives formed by denying the participle. Such a formation is mostly recorded in the third edition of the grammar, and in the first two editions it is confirmed with only a few examples. In the chapter on pronouns, we have proved the initial hypothesis that prefixation and adhesion are the most prolific way in the formation of pronouns, but we did not confirm suffixation in the corpus. When forming a verb, suffixation is the most frequent in our corpus. We have proved the initial hypotheses that the prefix-suffix formation is less prolific. By researching the formation of numbers, we confirmed that suffixation and adhesion create examples recorded in the corpus. The study of adverb formation resulted in several conclusions. In the corpus, the most prolific type of formation is transformation, and less prolific adhesion. The suffixal and prefixal formations are equally represented by more than ten examples. Although the formation of prepositions is not found in Croatian language manuals, following the division of Pranjković and Silić into unmotivated and motivated prepositions, we started the research which concludes that a part of motivated prepositions is formed in three formative ways: suffixation, prefixation and adhesion. A similar division of conjunctions is recorded in Silić and Pranjković's grammar. Here, too, the division mentioned was the reason why we started the research. By studying, we noticed that conjunctions are formed exclusively by adhesion. In the chapter on vocabulary, we divided the material according to the origin, meaning and richness of synonymy. In the analysis of lexemes, we noticed the greatest adequacy of lexemes originating from the Turkish language. In addition, we recorded a larger number of examples originating from German and Hungarian, which was actually expected regarding the extralinguistic and historical factors. By layering lexis according to meanings, we determined some semantic categories, eg. linguistic terminology, religious and theological terminology that is exemplified in most examples, zoonyms, phytonyms, medical terminology (mainly from anatomy), military terminology, agricultural and culinary terminology, geographical terminology etc. By researching synonyms common to Slavonian grammarians, but also to old grammarians in general, we noticed that Lanosović's knowledge of living languages, foreign languages and purist efforts, but also his efforts to bring different dialects closer and make his manual understandable to readers of the wider dialect. In the subchapter on possible lexicographic models, we noticed his good knowledge of old Croatian dictionaries and grammars, concluding that Lanosović did not stand out from his contemporaries by choosing lexis, as well as that he fitted into the lexicographic tradition of his time. The last chapter of this paper is entitled Lanosović 's Slavonian Grammar in the Central European Context. A great coincidence of Slavonian grammar with Felbiger's Viennese grammar, as well as with Gotsched's Grundlegung and Kern, was noticed. The basic goals of this paper have been achieved by conducting a comprehensive linguistic analysis of the representative corpus. However, it does not mean that the research of this corpus has been completed. The results of philological research can serve as a starting point for other research of the second half of the 18th century, primarily philological and historical. |
