Slavistik/Slawistik as shibboleth

[Bjoern Wiemer]

Dear colleague,

>
>> I agree that there is complete homophony between the two spellings.  The
>> distinction between _Slavic_ and _Slavonic_ in English is more real
>> linguistically.
>
>As an ignorant Germanist, could you please explain to me
>(via private e-mail, so as not to bore the rest of
>SEELANGS) the difference?
        To answer this question please permit me to send you just two
replies I got from persons more competent than me on that matter:

1)
>My impression is that "Slavonic" is used in Britain and in the more recent
>anglophone colonies (Canada, Australia, New Zealand), while "Slavic" is
>used in the United States.  Also, within the USA, "Slavonic" seems to be
>used when people (especially people who know more about Slavic languages
>and literatures than your average educated American!) want to sound archaic
>or arcane -- so you'll hear "Old Church Slavonic" much more often than,
>say, "the Slavonic languages."

2)
>I was educated in Britain, where the word in general use  (I would say,
>100%) was until I emigrated (mid-1960s) SLAVONIC.
>
>When I arrived in North America (Vancouver), I found that nearly everyone
>was using SLAVIC. When I moved to my present position in 1970, I found that
>the Department at the University of Alberta had recently re-christened
>itself SLAVIC, having been previously SLAVONIC. When I asked why, I was
>told that this was a courtesy to those people *slovanskega porekla* who for
>some reason (still unclear to me) believed that the form with -ON- was
>derogatory.
>
>I would guess that 99% of North Americans now use SLAVIC. Those who cling
>to SLAVONIC do so because they are ultra-conservative, or formerly British,
>or both.
>
>This, then, is another of those instances where a more or less voluntary
>change has been made in vocabulary to avoid giving offense. So, for
>example, I now say and write "in Ukraine" instead of "in the Ukraine" -
>although the belief among Ukrainians that the article was/is derogatory was
>and is, as far as I can tell, a matter of self-delusion.
>
>So, you use on -ON- when speaking / writing to Britons, and omit it when
>addressing North Americans. Or, you ignore the whole business.


>> functions as a shibboleth of sorts, in
>> the sense that the writer is inevitably identified with a particular camp
>> by his/her choice.  That's all I wished to point out.
>
>Again, could you please expain this?  I confess
>total ignorance on this point and desire enlightentment...
        I can't agree with the quoted viewpoint. But, maybe, the author of
it could? Here is his address:
        "Loren A. BILLINGS" <billings at RZ.UNI-LEIPZIG.DE>

I will shortly deliver a summary of answers I have got on my request.

With best regards,
Bjoern Wiemer.


#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#

Bjoern Wiemer
Universitaet Konstanz
Philosophische Fakultaet / FG Sprachwissenschaft - Slavistik
Postfach 55 60 - D 179
D- 78457 Konstanz

e-mail: Bjoern.Wiemer at uni-konstanz.de
tel.: 07531 / 88- 2582
fax:  07531 / 88- 4007
                - 2741

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*