Bulgarian "deeprichastie"

[Danko Sipka]

> "Gerund" is not a specifically English term, it comes from Latin grammar
> (no doubt as a loan translation from Greek, though I cannot check that
> for the moment). In every language where it is used it of course assumes
> a specific meaning; but the English one is in no way better than any
> other. If the cross-linguistic meaning of "gerund" is "an adverb-like form
> of the verb", the Bulgarian "deeprichastie" is in fact more of a gerund
> than the English ing-form!

The problem with that term is that it is too broad, and particularly
that it reflects neither historical development of Slavic
languages nor linguistic tradition of many Slavic languages.
Even if we forget that it is used not only defined as: "verbal form
without inflection having syntactic valence of the finite verb forms and
expressing dependent predication" (for example Polish idac, przyszedlszy),
but also as "noun derived from a verb" (for example Polish chodzenie),
the term seems to be too general particularly when one has to
discuss diachrony of Slavic languages. (We should, of course, differentiate
this contemporary meaning(s) from the one in Latin: noun derived from
a verb having incomplete declination).

Many Slavic linguistic traditions use something which can be translated
as "adverbial participle": Polish imieslow przyslowkowy, Slovenian
adverbialni deleznik, Serbo-Croatian glagolski prilog.

These terms allow further differentiation, such as: "past adverbial
participle, present adverbial participle", which would be rough
translations of terms in those Slavic languages which need such
distinction. Also, they seem to be more precise to describe
diachrony of Slavic languages - they are connected with
those participles which have adjective functions, as it can be
seen, for example in Stieber's Zarys gramatyki porownawczej jezykow
slowianskich, PWN, W-wa 1979, p. 185-189.

It seems to me that this passage form the lexical entry Participium
in Encyklopedia jezykoznawstwa ogolnego, Ossolineum, 1995, p. 384,
needs to be taken into consideration:

"Jez. majace tylko formy odmienne, jak lac. i grec., lub nieodmienne,
jak ang., nie rozrozniaja formalnie tych uzyc, natomiast np. jez. slow.
maja specjalne formy atrybutywne - zwane imieslowami
p r z y m i o t n i k o w y m i, np. pol piszacy, napisany, oraz
formy praz formy adwerbalne - zwane imieslowami
p r z y s l o w k o w y m i, np. pol. piszac, napisawszy. Formy
atrybutywne sa odmienne, formy adwerbalne - nieodmienne."

But all this is only just one standpoint. It does not take into
consideration English linguistic tradition. I would be very
curious to hear native speakers if a term like adverbial participle
would be acceptable in English linguistic tradition to describe
this phenomenon in Slavic languages.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Danko Sipka, Visiting Professor
Slavic Department, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences
Translation Experts Poland
------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: sipkadan at hum.amu.edu.pl (or sipkadan at plpuam11.amu.edu.pl)
Web: http://www.amu.edu.pl/~sipkdan/ja.htm
phone: ++48-61-535-143
mail: ul. Strzelecka 50 m. 6, 61-846 Poznan, Poland
------------------------------------------------------------------
I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think

                                                    Jacques Lacan
------------------------------------------------------------------