Manuscript proposals: [email protected] / 0745 204 115 //// Tracking orders Individuals / Sales: 0745 200 357 / Orders Legal entities: 0721 722 783

Home /
Philology /
Romanian language and literature /
Concepts, norms and models of analysis in the first Romanian grammars (1667-1914). Flexible parts of speech

Concepts, norms and models of analysis in the first Romanian grammars (1667-1914). Flexible parts of speech

Name: Concepts, norms and models of analysis in the first Romanian grammars (1667-1914). Flexible parts of speech
Brand: Editura Universitară
SKU: 9786062818463
Price: 53.91 RON
Availability: OutOfStock

53,91 Lei

Publisher: Editura Universitară

Author: Alina Marieta Rucăreanu (Monahia Alexandra)

Edition: I

Pages: 474

Publisher year: 2024

ISBN: 978-606-28-1846-3

DOI: 10.5682/9786062818463

Unavailable at the moment

Product Code: 9786062818463 Do you need help? 0745 200 357

Add to wishlist

Concepts, norms and models of analysis in the first Romanian grammars (1667-1914). Flexible parts of speech
Download

Born in Bucharest, on January 23, 1971, Alina Marieta Rucăreanu (Monahia Alexandra) graduated from the Sanitary High School in Bucharest, after which she followed the monastic vocation, becoming a monk. He graduated from the Theological-Sanitary Post-secondary School in Târgu-Mureș, then the Faculty of Orthodox Theology and the Faculty of Letters. He has a master's degree in Ecumenical Theology and one in Philology.
In 2015, at the University of Bucharest, she obtained the title of doctor in Educational Sciences, following the defense of her doctoral thesis "The religious element in Romanian interwar poetry from a pedagogical perspective", being a scholarship holder of the Romanian Academy. Later, he completed his doctoral internship at "Ovidius" University in Constanța, finishing with a thesis on the history of Romanian grammar, "Concepts, norms and models of analysis in the first Romanian grammars (1667-1914). Flexible Parts of Speech", obtaining the Excellence Scholarship and the "Ovidius" Scholarship for doctoral studies.
The two components of his researcher profile can be found in the activity he carries out at the department, as a professor of Romanian language and literature, receiving various distinctions, such as the Diploma of Honor and the Diploma of Merit. He attended many professional training courses and participated in numerous professional scientific events, publishing several specialized studies.
Also, she combines the activity of a teacher with that of a nun at the Șigănești Monastery in Ilfov county.

FOREWORD (P. Gh. Barlea) / 11
INTRODUCTION / 20
0.1. The objectives of this study / 22
0.2. The stage of research in the field of the history of Romanian grammar / 24
0.3. Research sources / 27
0.4. Research methodology / 31
0.5. The structure of the work / 33
1. THE FIRST ROMANIAN GRAMMAR. GENERAL PRESENTATION / 40
1.1. The socio-cultural conditions of the emergence of the first Romanian grammars / 40
1.2. Periodization of the history of Romanian grammar / 42
1.2.1. Romanian grammars from the period 1667‑1828 / 43
1.2.2. Romanian grammars from the period 1828‑1870 / 68
1.2.3. Romanian grammars from the period 1870‑1914 / 87
1.3. The models of the first Romanian grammars / 101
2. MORPHOLOGY, OBJECT OF STUDY OF ANCIENT GRAMMAR / 108
2.1. Terminology / 108
2.2. Definition of "etymology" / 110
2.3. Terminology of parts of speech / 115
2.4. Classification of parts of speech / 116
2.5. Conclusions / 127
3. GRAMMATICAL CLASS OF THE NOUN / 129
3.1. The position of the noun in the system of parts of speech / 129
3.2. Terminological aspects regarding the class of the noun / 131
3.3. Definition of the noun / 132
3.4. The criteria for classifying the noun / 138
3.4.1. The criterion regarding the nature of the objects / 139
3.4.2. The criterion of notions named by nouns / 140
3.4.3. Gender category criterion / 148
3.4.4. Criterion of structure (form) / 153
3.4.5. Declination criteria for nouns / 156
3.4.6. The semantic criterion / 173
3.5. The types of the noun / 176
3.6. Conclusions / 179
4. GRAMMATICAL CLASS OF THE ARTICLE / 181
4.1. The position of the article in the system of parts of speech / 181
4.2. Terminological aspects regarding the article class / 188
4.3. Definition of the article / 189
4.4. Article classification criteria / 195
4.4.1. The criterion related to the degree of individualization that article / 195 has
4.4.2. Criterion of origin / 205
4.4.3. The criterion related to the morphological class that the article accompanies / 208
4.4.4. The criterion of the position of the article in relation to the part of speech it accompanies / 211
4.4.5. Criterion of structure (form) / 221
4.4.6. Criterion of origin / 222
4.4.7. The criterion referring to the gender of the noun that the article accompanies / 223
4.4.8. The criterion for converting the article into other parts of speech / 224
4.5. Article types / 225
4.6. Conclusions / 226
5. THE GRAMMATICAL CLASS OF THE ADJECTIVE / 228
5.1. The position of the adjective between the parts of speech / 228
5.2. Terminological aspects regarding the adjective class / 231
5.3. Definition of the adjective / 232
5.4. The adjective classification criteria / 236
5.4.1. Criterion of the level of individualization of adjectives according to endings / 237
5.4.2. The criterion of the possibility of the adjective to change functionally after the noun / 240
5.4.3. Criterion of structure (form) / 250
5.4.4. Criterion of origin / 250
5.4.5. The syntactic criterion and the position of the adjective within the nominal predicate / 253
5.4.6. The criterion of similarity in relation to the noun and the ability of the adjective to articulate / 254
5.4.7. The criterion of compatibility in the expression of degrees of comparison / 259
5.4.8. The criterion regarding the stylistic role of the adjective / 272
5.4.9. The criterion of the possibility of the adjective to transform by conversion / 273
5.5. Adjective types / 275
5.6. Conclusions / 276
6. THE GRAMMATICAL CLASS OF THE PRONOUN / 278
6.1. The position of the pronoun in the system of parts of speech / 278
6.2. Terminological aspects regarding the pronoun class / 280
6.3. Pronoun definition / 280
6.4. Pronoun classification criteria / 284
6.4.1. The criterion regarding the grammatical role of the pronoun and the form the pronoun takes according to the category of the person / 284
6.4.2. Criterion of structure (form) / 332
6.4.3. Criterion of origin / 333
6.4.4. Criterion of "use" / 333
6.4.5. Declination criterion / 334
6.4.6. The criterion of the position of the unstressed forms of the pronoun compared to the verb / 334
6.5. Pronoun types / 334
6.6. Conclusions / 337
7. GRAMMATICAL CLASS OF NUMERALS / 340
7.1. The position of the numeral in the system of parts of speech / 340
7.2. Terminological aspects regarding the numeral class / 342
7.3. Definition of the numeral / 344
7.4. The classification criteria of numeral / 346
7.4.1. The criterion related to what the numeral / 346 expresses
7.4.2. Criterion of structure (form) / 364
7.4.3. The criterion of the approximation idea / 365
7.4.4. Declination criterion / 368
7.4.5. The criterion of the position of the numeral in relation to the noun / 370
7.5. Types of numeral / 370
7.6. Conclusions / 373
8. GRAMMATICAL CLASS OF THE VERB / 376
8.1. The position of the verb between the parts of speech / 376
8.2. Terminological aspects regarding the verb class / 378
8.3. Definition of the verb / 379
8.4.1. Syntactic criteria / 386
8.4.2. Morphological criteria / 396
8.4.3. Classifications of verbs according to other criteria / 421
8.4.4. Grammatical categories specific to the verb / 423
8.5. Verb types / 442
8.6. Conclusions / 446
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS / 448
POSTFATA (D. E. Tomescu) / 456
ANNEXES / 459
BIBLIOGRAPHY / 464

Among the research works dedicated to the history of the grammars of the language - difficult works, by their nature, but increasingly frequently approached in the current scientific and university space - the proposal of Alina Marieta Rucăreanu (Maica Alexandra) is imposed from the beginning by the breadth of coverage and by the seriousness of the detailed descriptions and analyses. The author had the Benedictine patience to go through "pencil in hand" no less than 45 treatises and grammar manuals from the oldest period of their history, 1667 1914. These are confronted with several modern normative-academic grammars - GA, in three editions, then GALR and GBLR, to which he added the consultation of the lexicographical works DEX and DTL, so that the corpus of work carefully studied increased to 52 sources - some very dense, many of the old ones being very intricately designed and presented . The result synthesized so far only concerns the flexible parts of speech and already accumulates about five hundred pages.
Practically, what the young researcher proposes is to reconstruct "the trajectory followed by the various linguistic concepts and norms from the 17th century to the present day", with a special focus on morphology. The comparative and diachronic view of achievements in the field of grammars (descriptive - in most of them; normative - quite a few; historical - some of them) has as a substrate the understanding of the current state of Romanian grammarians and the acceptance of some conceptions, some methods of analysis and terminology related in the synchronic, but also historical grammar of the Romanian language.
So, methodologically, the treatment of this immense study material is comparative, in the broadest sense of the term, and diachronic, in principle. The latter approach goes so far as to study, where appropriate, successive editions of the same old grammar, in order to emphasize the inner evolution of the author(s)' conception of the language system. On the other hand, the necessary connections are made with the linguistic thought of the era in which each grammar thus researched was conceived, printed, and used. In other words, the history of grammarians is projected against the background of Romanian linguistic thought. Let's add from now on to the merits already outlined the fact that for most of those from the 17th - 19th centuries, until around 1870, the texts had to be transliterated. However, it is known that the old Cyrillic alphabets generated great difficulties in rendering the basic forms and the inflectional forms of the words, not to mention the masking of some etymologies, through various phonetic and graphic peculiarities, etc. In addition, some copies used here were accessed in manuscript, from the Romanian Academy Library, which meant a new series of difficult confrontations with the texts – illegible handwriting, pages damaged by time, etc. The printed copies were not all of the best quality either. In addition to the terminological hesitations, classification, interpretation, definition and description of lexical-grammatical classes, there are typographical errors, repetition of the same issue in different chapters, sometimes with different interpretations, missing pages, etc. In some cases, the author sheds light on the authors of unsigned works and, as such, registered in the records of the Romanian Academy as "anonymous". This is the case of the Grammar of 1839, for which the authorship of Ioan Pop, the one who wrote the Romanian Grammar of 1835, is reconstructed. Taking into account the common features and particular features of these two books, but also of others from those years, Alina Marieta Alexandra Rucăreanu found that the 1839 edition represents the fourth edition of the grammar manual written by the head of the Romanian language department at the "St. Sava" from Bucharest, during the glory period of this school - the era of the formation of the great revolutionary scholars from 1848.
However, despite the large amount of material selected and processed, the author clearly sets her goals to be pursued - see § 01 et seq. of the present work, as well as the grid of analysis and description of language facts contained in the respective grammar books. Basically, this grid is made up of the following items:
a) presentation of grammatical concepts, namely: grammatical classes and categories, from a historical perspective and from the perspective of current language sciences;
b) the inventory and analysis of the definitions given in these grammars to the parts of speech concerned; elements of linguistic thinking are deduced from this (semantic or formally lexical preponderance in definitions and descriptions, the importance given to the logicosyntactic functions of the parts of speech);
c) the manner in which each grammar establishes the paradigmatic particularities of the lexicogrammatical classes described;
d) identifying the norms and models of analysis used in the different grammars, even if the authors do not present them explicitly, theoretically.
Obviously, all interpretation is based on two important parameters in a history of the field:
a) the possible (in fact, the necessary) models that were the basis of those grammars;
b) acquisitions that have remained valuable until today in modern grammars of the Romanian language, at all levels: terminology, definitions, analysis, etc.
Then, this analytical scheme is applied to all parts of speech, with the rigorous modifications imposed by their typological and inflectional specificity.
As expected, the most spectacular developments stand out in the terminology related to the systematically analyzed grammatical structure. Borrowings, linguistic calculations and translations rule the law here as well, as in any terminology - the sources being, as the author states, Slavonic (especially Meletie Smotrițki, for very old Romanian grammars - Eustatievici Brașoveanul, 1757; Staicu, 1667 1669), but and the Greek, Latin, German, Italian, French, Hungarian and then other Slavonic sources – from Macarie, 1757 1772; Institutiones, 1770 etc.
We would add that Smotrich himself used Greek and Latin models, and his terminology fully reflects this. Anyway, all this results in a very heterogeneous Romanian metalanguage, as Alina Rucăreanu observes.
Moreover, the author of the work discussed here had many aspects to clarify in the old terminology. For example, in Săulescu, 1834, pronouns can have "root" forms (te) and a "detracted" form (tine). Of course, he could deduce from the context, from the example given, that the second term, very strange to the present reader, denotes the form we today call "accented" of the personal pronoun, while the other, the "root" te, is the unaccented form, clitic, because otherwise the respective terms are not explained anywhere.
The author herself points out, in the Introduction, that the first use of the term "morphology" belongs to Ioan Nădejde, in 1884. Other studies give different dates and authors for the Romanian use of this basic term in any work of modern grammar. Until then, the term "etymology" was used - frequently in Europe with this meaning. Later, the names for the concept in question interfered, sometimes even in the same work, notes the author of the book.
In some of the sources, even when he had in front of him modern editions, which should have facilitated his investigations on old grammar texts, it turned out that the original was only partially transliterated. This is the case of the critical edition of the grammar from 1812 by Ioan Budai Deleanu, whose manuscript was published in 1970, with established text and glossary by Mirela Teodorescu, introduction and notes by Ion Gheție. When she got to the grammar classes article, adjective and pronoun, Alina Rucăreanu found that they were missing from the "academic" edition, which required the recourse to the manuscript in the custody of the Romanian Academy Library.
Each chapter of the book explains in its own way the broad problem of the codification of the Romanian morphological system. For example, in the chapter devoted to pronouns we can follow the course of the formation of the terminology of this class - particularly rich and complicated, in any natural language. Of course, the older the descriptions in textbooks and scientific treatises, the greater the problems of naming manifest linguistic forms, mechanisms and phenomena. Thus, in Staicu 1667 1669, we find agonist for "possessive", and the example given is yours (!); in Eustatievici Brașoveanul, 1757, it is purcedero, with the gloss "from another word purcedere" (mine, yours, his). You can clearly see the autochthonizing tendencies through the calcs of the avuțiialnica type, at Macarie, 1757 1772, with (my) examples; (have) lambs and, again, Eustatievici Brașoveanul, 1757, with mistresses, the example given being lambs. Then, the terms pass from one generation to another, cf. possessive for "possessive", in Câmpeanu, 1848 and in Măcărescu, 1851. Frequent names used in a "purist" spirit appear since Macarie, 1757 1772, which, apart from from another series of avucialnics (ne, va) - so unaccented, clitic forms, it names the same forms, but other inflectional subtypes, with other non-aesthetic terms: causative (mi; ne; Și, îi, imi); indicative (ti, i, îl, l, le, li, o).
We note that the same subclasses of pronouns cause the same hesitations of nomenclature, doubled and the framing of examples, which do not always reflect the subtype just defined and named by the author.
Diaconovici Loga, 1822, calls the reciprocal or reciprocal possessives (his, his, six, his), and Bălășescu, 1848, repeats it, with his pronunciation and spelling: vrţătóre or reciprocal (his, his).
Sometimes, the same term designates two different subclasses or, in any case, renders them quite vaguely, by reference to the subdivisions found in speech: Staicu, 1667 1669, gives an example of a demonstrative pronoun that form, calling it o, correct, demonstrative, and Macarie , 1757 1772, so only a few years apart in time, takes up the indicative term, but completes it with the double, because it lists the two variants, this, that, that is, what today we call "demonstrative of proximity/demonstrative of distance".
As I said, the same grammar returns to its own terminology, as successive generations enrich, modify or replace specialized terms. It must be said that, in the recourse to the method and in the organization of her vast work site, Alina Rucăreanu operates an internal periodization of the evolution of Romanian grammars, which broadly corresponds to the history of the literary Romanian language itself and to the history of linguistics and even literature and Romanian culture: Romanian grammars from the period 1667 1828; Romanian grammars from the period 1828 1870; Romanian grammars from the period 1870 1914. In principle, linguists from the same period influence each other and in close succession, although it is not excluded that the old models are also followed at long intervals. However, notes the author of the study, following in the footsteps of Iorgu Iordan, when it came to the generation after 1918, it no longer followed the model of the teachers from the Hasdeu, Philippide, etc. era. The young ones were, from now on, schooled abroad, they had other theoretical bases and other sources of organizing the material for grammatical codification. This also applies to some of the representatives of the last of the three periods established here, the one before the Great War. The author observes phenomena specific to the old eras, in which the written form failed to accurately reproduce the pronunciation, because the decision of the writing belonged exclusively to one or another of the authors of the respective grammars. Thus, the relationship between the genitive possessive article and the possessive pronoun is rendered differently in Institutiones, 1770, where we find separately mieu, tâu, său and separately al, a, ai, ale, compared to Micu Şincai, 1780 1805, who writes and theorizes the forms ameu, amea, atau, ata, asau, anoastra, aavaastra, etc.
Often, the very identification of grammatical classes and subclasses was difficult in the old codifications. The fact that the language reflects the historical evolution of the community of the respective speakers is seen not only in the structure of the vocabulary, as has been observed for a long time (A. Meillet insisted on this topic, as is known, as well as A. Darmstetter, G. Matoré et al. a), but also in the evolution of morphology, rightly considered the most stable and independent compartment of the language system. Among many others, Mother Alexandra has the opportunity to determine, since so many grammars have passed through her hands, when exactly the first theoretical and exemplified record, with rigorous explanations, of the pronoun/plural of majesty in Romanian normative descriptive works should be recorded. The fact that the respective forms are registered only in Ionescu, 1884, as a separate pronominal type may be related to the new regime of the country's leadership. Not by chance, the old emphatic uses of the plural we, you are exemplified by their use in official documents: "We, Carol I, King of Romania...". In the same grammar, the "personal locutions" for polite pronouns/respective pronouns are recorded, cf. Rucăreanu, ch. The pronoun. Of course, various complicated formulas of reverence are attested in old Romanian texts – chronicles, religious writings, etc., which is normal in a linguistic community strongly marked by Byzantineism. The very detailed, very rigorous and very extensive hierarchization – in religious and secular environments, in family and microgroup structures – is naturally reflected in speech. Anyone who reads the prefaces from the chronicles or from the prints of Antim Ivireanul, for example, notices how richly illustrated are the locutions and compounds for expressing politeness/majesty in the encomiastic style, typical of the species of the respective dedicator. Almost all are calculations, translations, if not direct borrowings from Byzantine Greek, from the intermediate Slavonic of Orthodox Christianity, and, more rarely, from secular and Christian Latin. It's just that their registration with these values, as a grammatical lexical subclass in grammar treatises, was done late, in another phase of linguistic thought.
Moreover, Alina Alexandra Rucăreanu's work also has the merit of signaling, in the subfields, the moments that constituted crossings over a threshold of understanding language mechanisms and facts, in general, in the history of Romanian grammarians. And this was possible - we emphasize this once again - thanks to the courage of exposing such a large number of old and modern Romanian grammars. Thus, we are shown that the first clear division between the proper possessive pronoun and the possessive pronominal adjective is the anonymous treatise Insitutiones, 1770. More specifically, its authors observed that the possessives mine, your, his, our, yours are indeclinable, with casual inflection having only the nouns that accompany the respective forms. Moreover, in the same old grammar it is specified that the prefixing of the pronoun also entails the enclitic and unbound placement of the "particle" (as it is called there) a, al: mine, but: on my lord, from my lord . Similarly, in Tempea, 1797, the inclusion of the pronouns dânsul, dânsul among the "personal pronouns" is attested for the first time. Văcărescu, 1787, and Școleriu, 1789, placed it in other types; Golescu, 1840, included it among "relative pronouns", for example.
The fact that Alina Rucăreanu had the patience to go through the most diverse grammars from the same era and from different eras and, as we showed, the same grammar repeated in different editions, creates this possibility for her to follow in detail the evolution of thinking and codification of the morphological system of the Romanian language . It sometimes happens that the same author changes his opinion regarding the values and the systemic framing of some grammatical classes and categories. This is the case of Timotei Cipariu, who, in the 1855 edition of his grammar, includes under "possessive pronouns" all competing forms, such as [casa] mea vs a mea etc., while in the 1869 edition he deals with the forms mieu, mea, miei, tuu, tua, ta, once as pronouns and once again as pronominal adjectives – with corresponding examples. It is true that in the footnotes the author forgets about this division, operated according to syntactic functional criteria, and charges pronominal adjectives also as pronouns. On the other hand, Rucăreanu observes that the Transylvanian illuminist analyzes separately, in the 1869 edition, the article lu (sic!) compared to me, considering that this lu is a category of the relative pronoun, which he called articularia.
Not only the terminology, as an important technical detail, is treated historically in this work, but also the scientific discourse, in its entirety, even if such observations are made succinctly. Following the quotations from Timotei Cipariu, 1869, we can understand how destructive etymological obstinacy can be in general written expression and in scientific style, in particular, where clarity and fluency should be strongly manifested. This is what the definition of the pronoun class sounds like, quoted by Alina Rucăreanu:
"The pronoun is the second part of the word after the name, it is called asia, because it is placed in the place of the noun, which replaces it, and holds its place in the word." (Cipariu 1869: 245)
From the same Latin etymological scruples, the same Cipariu writes, in the 1855 edition, the compounds with a hyphen and marking the primary elements of the composition: ce va si; fia which; even if we don't. Titu Maiorescu had to fight with such samples of etymological spelling, in the meetings of the Romanian Academy, where the reports of the Latinist Nicolae Quintescu and others wreaked havoc.
On the other hand, such positionings in profile metalanguage were justified by the "heavy legacy" of the standard or specialized literary language until the end of the 19th century, still very close to common speech, as is known. For example, if we have in front of Ienăchiță Văcărescu's grammar 1787, we can notice from the title the tendency to return to everyday speech, even vernacular, by doubling the technical neologism with a well-verified neologism of use: "observations / or băgări da sămaila". The process of bringing it back to the level of "common" understanding continues in the explanations in the actual text and in the terminology: the indefinite pronoun another, another is called "gives diversity or gives gist". So, following his models (I. Văcărescu used an Italian grammar), the author tries to adapt the neological terminology, but privileges the usual Romanian expression (dà, catră, șa dașchid), on the one hand, adding the terminological correspondent selected from the speech autochthonous, even popular - not infrequently, on the other hand.
This is why, in some grammarians, the same term can denote different classes, subclasses and grammatical categories. In Eustatievici-Brașoveanul, 1757, p. 42, but also in others, the term "indicator" can mean the personal pronoun, the demonstrative pronoun or the reinforcing pronoun and the author of the study discussed here gives many examples of this kind, present especially in the verbal subsystem, etc. .
Having in front, as I said, the panorama of the treatises on the grammar of the Romanian language in its diachronic development for almost a century and a half, confronted with the current academic codifications, Alina Alexandra Rucăreanu is in a position to evaluate the merits or limits of the predecessors in the relatively similar approach, that of modern research on old Romanian grammars. For example, he notes that Butnariuc, 2016: 147, attributes to Diaconovici Loga, 1822 the first record of the forms dânţul, dânţu for personal pronouns, when - in reality - the priority belongs to Tempea, 1797, n. 72. To the same modern researcher are fined and other haphazard statements, by the way. For his part, among the modern historians, Ionașcu, 1914, did not notice many peculiarities of the old grammars, such as the "personal pronouns" (undetermined) in I. Budai Deleanu, 1815 1820. The observations of the author of the present book are formulated neutrally, politely , in a few lines that clearly have no other purpose than to restore the scientific and historical truth.
The entire work is written in a sober, scientific style, but not "dry", despite the amount of information it brings to the readers. The comments, analyses, demonstrations are clear, logically linked, without wasting words. Often, the author makes up her own terminology to designate criteria for ordering the huge array of concepts, categories, classes and subclasses with which she operates. Every statement is based on demonstration, and every demonstration - on examples with great illustrative power, as must happen in genuine scientific research.
Alexandra Rucăreanu's study opens new avenues of research - first of all, towards inflexible parts of speech, then towards syntax, vocabulary, stylistics. It is yet another credit to this wide-ranging and yet accessible work that it reads with utility and pleasure.

Univ. Prof. Dr. Emeritus
Petre Gheorghe Bârlea

If you want to express your opinion about this product you can add a review.

write a review