Scientific position: doctor
Michał Németh
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, Volume 132, Issue 3, 2015, s. 167-185
https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.15.016.3937
This article describes the emergence of the dialectal differences in phonology that eventually led to the division of Western Karaim into two dialects. The study is based on manuscripts and manuscript editions covering the period between the 17th and 20th centuries. Special attention is paid to the relative chronology of the phonological changes. A periodization of Western Karaim is also proposed.
Michał Németh
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, Volume 129, Issue 2, 2012, s. 139-162
https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.12.010.0599The question of dialect mingling in Karaim has been raised by several authors. We know that there was continual contact between members of most Karaim communities during at least the last three centuries, but we know little about the intensity of the discussed phenomenon. Manuscripts reflecting the spoken language serve as our only source of knowledge. One must, however, be careful when editing them since not every manuscript that contains linguistic material referring to more than one Karaim dialect is to be treated as proof of dialect mingling. The present paper presents a critical edition of a Karaim manuscript written in 1868 which contains both north- and south-western elements, and aims to answer the question whether this document can be treated as a relevant example of dialect mingling.
Michał Németh
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, Volume 128, Issue 1, 2011, s. 69-101
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10148-011-0016-2
After endeavouring to examine the grammatical descriptions published in the literature to date and to reconstruct the sound system of the south-western dialect of Karaim as it was presented in the literature, it can certainly be concluded that the matter is far from clear. This is for the simple reason that these works contradict each other at various points. The reason for such discrepancies should be sought in the historical and linguistic backgrounds of the two main centres of the south-western Karaim population, i.e. Lutsk and Halich. Even though these two centres were always in close communication with one another, and the language that was spoken in them originates beyond any doubt from one common root, they remained for centuries under slightly different linguistic influences as a result of the Slavonic languages surrounding them. The present paper aims to present and, where possible, clarify the differences which follow from the studies on the Karaim sound system we have at our disposal. An attempt is also made to identify some differences between the Lutsk and Halich subdialects of south-western Karaim, and explain their origin. Since the grammatical descriptions we are dealing with here and the written sources we are able to work with concern the end of the first half of the 19th century at the earliest, the time scale of our interest is limited to the second half of the 19th and the first four decades of the 20th century.
Michał Németh
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, Volume 131, Issue 4, 2014, s. 353-369
https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.14.021.2728Michał Németh
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, Volume 131, Issue 3, 2014, s. 247-267
https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.14.014.2322This article is an attempt to establish the time-frame and relative chronology of the š > s and ö, ü > e, i changes that occurred in south-western Karaim. The sample material used for the present article comes from Halych Karaim handwritten prayer books dating back approximately to the second half of the 18th and the first half of the 19th century, and are written in the Karaim semi-cursive variant of the Hebrew script. The final conclusion of the article is that both changes occurred in the final decades of the 18th century.
Michał Németh
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, Volume 126, Issue 1, 2009, s. 97-106
In the sixth volume of the Karaim journal Karaj Awazy Aleksander Mardkowicz (1875–1944) prepared a six page long article containing reminiscences of the loft in kenesa in Łuck (Mardkowicz 1933b) and a transcription of seven letters found there (Mardkowicz 1933a). Detailed comparison of five of those manuscripts with their transcriptions (we do not know what happened to the remaining two manuscripts) shows that Mardkowicz’s readings are not free from certain shortcomings and errors. Besides a few obvious printing errors, one can find not only erroneous readings, but also a considerable number of changes that had been made intentionally, fragments that had been passed over, translations of Hebrew fragments that had not been noted, and words that exhibited evident Troki or Crimean Karaim phonetic features but which had been transcribed in such a way as though they had been written in Łuck Karaim. The reason for these intentional amendments to the text of the original manuscripts can probably be ascribed to the fact that Mardkowicz – who played a vital role in the Karaim language purism movement – tended to use “normative Karaim” in his journal, even at the price of modifying the content of the letters. The examples of these misrepresentations have been grouped into the following categories: 1) intentional amendments concerning phonetic, morphologic and phonotactic features and dialectal affiliation of the word forms; 2) erroneous readings of Karaim words and Hebrew abbreviations and, finally, 3) translating Hebrew fragments without noting it. The article does not deliver a full critical edition of the manuscripts, as this is going to be the subject of another, much more comprehensive, study, where the facsimiles of the letters will also be published.
Michał Németh
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, Volume 130, Issue 2, 2013, s. 237-257
https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.13.016.1147This paper is a critical edition of Jehoszafat Kapłanowski’s (a Trakai-born Karaimspeaking Odessan) two letters written in Hebrew script that were sent in 1868 to Lutsk. The critical apparatus that accompanies the transcription and translation includes commentaries on each linguistic peculiarity or irregularity. The study is augmented by a glossary and facsimile, as well as brief historical comments on some of the persons mentioned in the text.
Michał Németh
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, Volume 130, Issue 3, 2013, s. 259-276
https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.13.017.1148In the first part of this study (Németh 2013a) a critical edition of two Karaim letters is presented. They were sent in 1868 from Odessa to addressees living Lutsk by a citizen born in Trakai. This paper (the second part of the study) contains a detailed linguistic analysis of the letters. Special attention is paid to the dialectal affiliation of the manuscripts’ linguistic material, to interdialectal contacts and to the irregularities recorded.
Michał Németh
Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013, s. 91-103
https://doi.org/10.4467/20843836SE.13.006.0943According to KRPS, ḱemec ‘1. soldier; 2. Russian (person)’ is native Lutsk Karaim. Since the word lacks any cognates on Turkic ground, in the present paper an attempt is made to link the word to Germ. Kamasche ‘gaiters’ and to explain its phonetic shape as being a consequence of the influence of the language of Polish Jews.
Michał Németh
Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia, Volume 16, Issue 1, 2011, s. 93-101
https://doi.org/10.4467/20843836SE.11.007.0053This article offers a critique of Árpád Berta’s paper (2001) in which the author contends that the Bšk. tŷraž word for ‘wasp’ originated (via the Volga Bolgharian) from the Hung. darázs id. The present author attempts to point out the weak points in this interpretation, and proposes, instead, the PSlav. *dražъ as the source of the Hungarian and the Bashkir words for ‘wasp’. Thus, the article augments our knowledge of the possible Slavonic origin of the Hungarian and Bashkir words, and provides further details in support of the etymology presented by András Zoltán (2010; 2011).