Етимолошки речници српског језика – од концепције ка методологији

Abstract

У области савремене српске етимолошке лексикографије у току је израда два речника: вишетомног Етимолошког речника српског језика (ЕРСЈ) и Приручног етимолошког речника српског језика (ПЕРСЈ). Први је речник типа тезауруса, чија грађа обухвата целокупан лексички материјал, док се други ограничава на тумачење основног лексичког фонда. Ова два речника имају различите концепције, што се огледа у начину селекције и организације лексичке грађе, у начину формирања одредница и избора насловне речи, затим у структури одреднице, као и у начину цитирања литературе и извора. Циљ рада је да се поређењем одговарајућих сегмената ова два речника (леме на а- и б-) идентификују и представе разлике у методолошкој обради одредница, проистекле из различитих концепција.

Two etymological dictionaries of the Serbian language are currently being compiled – Etimološki rečnik srpskog jezika (ERSJ), an exhaustive, thesaurus-type, long-term project, and Priručni etimološki rečnik srpskog jezika (PERSJ),a concise manual. These dictionaries differ conceptually in two major aspects: a) the lexical material they are based on – exhaustive literary and dialectal material for ERSJ on the one hand, and standard Serbian for PERSJ on the other; b) the audiences they address – experts in etymology and linguists in general for ERSJ on the one hand, and both linguistic experts and the broader audience for PERSJ on the other. The aim of this paper was to investigate whether the conceptual differences between the two dictionaries have resulted in differences in methodological treatment. The analysis of the respective material (covering letters a- and b-) has exposed the following differences: a smaller number of lemmas in PERSJ than in ERSJ (§ 3.1); a more nest-oriented approach in the organization of lemmas in PERSJ than in ERSJ (§ 3.2); more recent borrowings in PERSJ than in ERSJ (§ 3.3); the headword in PERSJ is a form from standard Serbian, accented and grammatically determined (§ 5.1.2), while in ERSJ the headword is a kind of ’hyperlemma’, an initial derivation form without accent (§ 5.1.1); the first part of the lemma in PERSJ is significantly shorter than in ERSJ, due to a more restrictive selection of derivatives and to the absence of dialectal material, semantic definitions, references and place names (§ 5.2.2); a more precise identification of the etymon in the case of inter-Slavic borrowings in PERSJ, especially in the case of loanwords from (Old) Church Slavonic (§ 6.3); the explanation of synonyms and functional or regional variants, often given in the third part of the lemma in PERSJ, are absent from ERSJ (§ 7.6); in the case of loanwords, parallels from other languages placed in the second part of the lemma in ERSJ, are transferred to the third part in PERSJ (§ 6.2); information on word history and cultural history in a broader sense appears more frequently, and is more detailed in PERSJ than in ERSJ (§ 7.7); references in PERSJ are clustered at the end of the lemma, whilst in ERSJ each piece of data cited has its own reference (§ 8).