A specialist in Middle Eastern languages will likely be quick to associate Pol. mamuna ‘an ape-like mythological creature’ with Ar./Pers./Tkc. majmun ‘ape’. It is possible and indeed probable that this name is an Oriental borrowing applied to an ancient native belief, but a closer inspection reveals at least several other possibilities tangled in an ethnolinguistic web of potential conflations and contaminations. This paper presents the ethnographic background and some etymological ideas, though without as yet a definite answer.

Stanisław Stachowski wrote a series of articles devoted to studies on the New Persian loanwords in Ottoman-Turkish, which were published in Folia Orientalia in the 1970s and later republished in 1998 as a single volume. Since then, however, a good number of editions of new Ottoman texts have appeared, especially transcription texts dating from before Meninski’s Thesaurus (1680), which provide much new lexical material. Within this material there are many Persianisms – predictably enough where Ottoman-Turkish is concerned. This paper aims to supplement Stachowski’s work with words of Persian origin taken from pre-Meninski transcription texts. It is divided into two parts, the first including data to be added to entries already recorded by Stachowski (eight articles), the second containing data that constitute new entries (three articles). A short historical-etymological note on the words dealt with also features at the end of each entry.

Stanisław Stachowski wrote a series of articles devoted to studies on the New Persian loanwords in Ottoman-Turkish, which were published in Folia Orientalia in the 1970s and later republished in 1998 as a single volume. Since then, however, a good number of editions of new Ottoman texts have appeared, especially transcription texts dating from before Meninski’s Thesaurus (1680), which provide much new lexical material. Within this material there are many Persianisms – predictably enough where Ottoman-Turkish is concerned. This paper aims to supplement Stachowski’s work with words of Persian origin taken from pre-Meninski transcription texts. It is divided into two parts, the first including data to be added to entries already recorded by Stachowski (eight articles), the second containing data that constitute new entries (three articles). A short historical-etymological note on the words dealt with also features at the end of each entry.

Stanisław Stachowski wrote a series of articles devoted to studies on the New Persian loanwords in Ottoman-Turkish, which were published in Folia Orientalia in the 1970s and later republished in 1998 as a single volume. Since then, however, a good number of editions of new Ottoman texts have appeared, especially transcription texts dating from before Meninski’s Thesaurus (1680), which provide much new lexical material. Within this material there are many Persianisms – predictably enough where Ottoman-Turkish is concerned. This paper aims to supplement Stachowski’s work with words of Persian origin taken from pre-Meninski transcription texts. It is divided into two parts, the first including data to be added to entries already recorded by Stachowski (eight articles), the second containing data that constitute new entries (three articles). A short historical-etymological note on the words dealt with also features at the end of each entry.

Stanisław Stachowski wrote a series of articles devoted to studies on the New Persian loanwords in Ottoman-Turkish, which were published in Folia Orientalia in the 1970s and later republished in 1998 as a single volume. Since then, however, a good number of editions of new Ottoman texts have appeared, especially transcription texts dating from before Meninski’s Thesaurus (1680), which provide much new lexical material. Within this material there are many Persianisms – predictably enough where Ottoman-Turkish is concerned. This paper aims to supplement Stachowski’s work with words of Persian origin taken from pre-Meninski transcription texts. It is divided into two parts, the first including data to be added to entries already recorded by Stachowski (eight articles), the second containing data that constitute new entries (three articles). A short historical-etymological note on the words dealt with also features at the end of each entry.

Binomials in general and English binomials in particular are a frequent, complex and important linguistic as well as stylistic phenomenon.1 Compared to other linguistic phenomena, however, they are a relatively under-researched field. Therefore our aim is to provide a concise survey of English binomials, sketching their structure, function, history and the current state of scholarship, and pointing out possibilities for further research.2

The first part of this article was published in the previous issue of the journal. In Part II we move on to the etymological (9.) and the semantic structure of English binomials (10.). Very broadly speaking, we thus move from aspects that concern mainly the surface to features that lie a little deeper down. The etymological structure has to do with the use and distribution of native words and of loan-words; the semantic structure comprises synonyms, antonyms, and complementary pairs, as well as factual, stylistic, and cultural binomials. We also deal briefly with the semantic features of multinomials (11.), with the relation of translated binomials to their (especially Latin or French) source (12.), with differences between authors and texts (13.), with the sequence of elements and the factors that influence the sequence (14.), and with the question how far binomials are formulaic and how far they are flexible and can be coined on the spur of the moment (15.). A brief conclusion (16.) and references complete the article.