[tied] Re: Slavic v. Slavonic

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> 12-10-03 04:58, Andy Howey wrote:
>
>> Your definitions of "Slavic" and Slavonic" are not entirely

accurate.

>> The term "Slavonic" can be used as a generic reference to all the
>> languages in the family, such as Reginald de Bray's "Guide to the
>> Slavonic Languages." In this case, it doesn't just refer to OCS

but to

>> all of the the Slavic languages in general.
>
> Yes, the terms <Slavonic> and <Slavic> are practically synonymous in
> English, although <Slavic> is more frequent in current linguistic

use

> (as regards other variants, <Slavonian> is now obsolete and <Slav>
> [adj.] obsolescent, I think).

I know that current English language hardly distinguishes between
"Slavic"
and "Slavonic". Nevertheless, my interlocutor was Romanian and I bet
that
he used the word "Slavonic" with its' slightly specialized Romanian
meaning.

> Some people use <Slavic> for the branch and as a adjective meaning
> 'pertaining to the Slavs in general', and reserve <Slavonic> for

(O)CS

> (<(Old) Church Slavonic>).

Yup, that's what I hinted out.

> There would be some merit in it if only all people concerned could

be

> consistent, but they aren't.

The least thing would be that all writings of one concerned guy
follow a
consistent terminology, but even that should not be taken as granted.
:-)

> I personally favour simplicity, so in my own usage <Slavonic> is

rare.

> I say and write "the Slavic languages", "Proto-Slavic", "Old Church
> Slavic", etc.

Well, it wasn't me who brought on the word into the thread, I am
favoring
"(O)CS" and "Slavic languages" as one can see from my posts. On
another
hand, if one precises his intended meaning for a term and uses that
term
consistently, I think there is little pain for the others to follow
his
arguing line.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi