1887
Volume 5, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 0302-5160
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9781
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

SUMMARYThe fact that Rumanian is one of the languages studied in the Grammatik der romanischen [sic] Sprachen of F. Diez is by no means as natural as we might think it today. In Mithridates, which appeared in 1809, Rumanian is still defined as a "Romance-Slavic" language, which thus does not explicitly belong to the Romance languages.In the field of Rumanian studies, the first decades of the last century were marked by an increasing interest in the grammatical and lexical description of Rumanian. The substantial contribution of Rumanian philologists, however, was only appreciated outside Rumania many years later, at a time when comparative studies, especially those concerned with the Romance languages, felt the need for a deeper knowledge of Rumanian.While Diez and Fuchs, for example, were content to make use of either German-Rumanian manuels, or of studies written in German (Kopitar 1829, Schott 1845), the following generation (that is, Miklosich, Rosier, Mussafia and Schuchardt) tried to obtain first-hand information directly from Rumanian writers, who, although their materials were often tendentious and partial, nevertheless offered the richest source of information on Rumanian. Recourse to studies by Rumanians on their mother tongue proved even more necessary as the field of interest was transferred from global descriptions to more detailed linguistic studies. The studies of Miklosich, Rosier and Mussafia marked the beginning of Rumanian philology abroad, which, however, would soon be more fully developed by Rumanian philologists such as Hasdeu, Lambrior, §aineanu and Philippide. These were fully conversant with contemporary European linguistic trends, as well as with the work of their Rumanian predecessors. Among these, Ion Heliade Radulescu and loan Maiorescu represent two different directions in Rumanian philology in the first half of the 19th century.The work of Heliade is important in several respects. On the one hand, it is related to the ideas of the first Rumanian philologists of the so-called Transylvanian School - which was a continuation of both Classical and Illumi-nist studies - on the other hand, it is characterized by a large number of original remarks, which although sporadic and unorganized, witness to an awareness of contemporary linguistic problems.While Heliade was not familiar with Western researches based on the comparative method, Maiorescu was strongly influenced by them. The present study shows for the first time parallels between certain fundamental ideas of F. Bopp and I. Maiorescu concerning the origin of language and the function and origin of a number of grammatical elements.From the point of view of the historiography of Rumanian linguistics, the ideas of Heliade and Maiorescu which are discussed in the present study are usually considered to be of secondary importance against those dealing with the problem of the formation of a Rumanian literary language. This problem, as well as that of the Romanicity of the Rumanian language, occupies a major position in the work of all Rumanian linguists of the last century. For general linguistics, these problems do not play the same role. On the other hand, many of the ideas expressed in passing show that the points of contact between Rumanian linguistics and linguistic studies in other countries are not merely incidental.RÉSUMÉLe fait que la langue roumaine est une des langues etudiees dans la Grammatik der romanischen [sic] Sprachen de F. Diez n'est pas aussi naturel comme nous pourrions le penser aujourd'hui. Dans le Mithridates, paru en 1809, le roumain est encore defini comme une langue "romisch-slawisch", qui n'appartient done pas de maniere explicite aux langues romanes.Les premieres decennies du siecle dernier ont ete marquees, dans le domaine de la linguistique roumaine, par une activite toujours croissante en ce qui con-cerne la description grammaticale et lexicale du roumain. II est un fait que la contribution assez importante des philologues roumains ne fut appreciee au-dela de la Roumanie que beaucoup plus tard, au moment ou les recherches de la linguistique comparee, notamment celles des etudes romanes, sentirent le besoin d'une connaissalice plus approfondie du roumain.Alors que Diez et Fuchs, par exemple, se bornent a utiliser soit des manuels allemand-roumains, bilingues ou polyglottes, soit des etudes ecrites en allemand (Kopitar 1829, Schott 1845), la generation suivante, a savoir Miklosich, Rosier, Mussafia et Schuchardt, s'efforce de s'informer directement chez des auteurs roumains qui, souvent tendencieux et partiaux, offrent quand-meme les mate-riaux les plus riches pour la connaissance du roumain. Ce recours a des etudes ecrites par des roumains sur leur langue maternelle s'averait d'autant plus ne-cessaire que le champ de recherches se transferait de descriptions globales a des etudes linguistiques plus detaillees. Les etudes respectives de Miklosich, Rosier et Mussafia marquent, a l'etranger, le debut de la philologie roumaine proprement dite qui, bientot, sera reprise plus amplement par des philologues roumains tels que Hasdeu, Lambrior, saineanu et Philippide. Ceux-ci connais-sent a fond les courants de la linguistique europeenne contemporaine aussi bien que les traveaux de leurs precurseurs roumains. Parmi ces derniers, Ion Heliade Rặdulescu et loan Maiorescu representent deux directions differentes de la philologie roumaine de la premiere moitie du XIXe siecle.L'oeuvre de Helaide est significative a plusieurs égards. D'une part, elle est liee aux idees des premiers philologues roumains appartenant a la soi-disante École de Transylvanie - qui continuait aussi bien les études classiques que celles illuministes - d'autre part, elle se distingue par un grand nombre de re-marques originales qui, tout en restant sporadiques et non-ordonnees, temoig-nent d'une sensibilite pour les problemes de la linguistique contemporaine.Alors que Heliade ne connait pas les recherches occidentales basees sur la methode comparative, Maiorescu en est fortement influence. La présente e'tude montre, pour la premiere fois, des paralleles entre certaines ide'es fonda-mentales de F. Bopp et I. Maiorescu, concernant l'origine du langage et la fonction et l'origine de quelques elements grammaticaux.Du point de vue de l'historiographie de la linguistique roumaine les idees de Heliade et Maiorescu, dont on parle dans la presente etude, sont d'ordinaire considerees comme secondares par rapport a celles concernant le problème de la formation d'une langue litteraire roumaine. Ce probtème ainsi que celui de la romanité du roumain occupent une place de premier rang chez tous les linguistes roumains du siecle dernier. Pour la linguistique generate, ces problemes ne jouent pas le meme role. Par contre, beaucoup d'idees exprime'es en passant montrent que les points de contact entre la linguistique roumaine et celle des autres pays europeens ne sont pas de purs incidents.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/hl.5.1-2.05fri
1978-01-01
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/hl.5.1-2.05fri
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error