La­jos Cs. Nagy: Some of the Results and Fur­ther Direc­tions of Med­vesal­ja Vocab­u­lary Research

The author in this study intro­duces the process and the result of lex­i­co­log­i­cal research made in Med­vesal­ja and its sur­round­ing (Sőreg, Ajnác­skő, Cse­vi­ce, Gömöralmá­gy, Dobfenek, Gömör­péter­fala, Óbást, Egy­házas­bást [=Újbást], Ba­kó­há­za, Vec­sek­lő, Med­veshidegkút, Tajti). The basis of the study is from the 1162 ques­tions of The Atlas of Hun­gar­i­an Dialects answeres given on 617 ques­tions of lex­i­cal char­ac­ter as lan­guage data. In order to ensure the com­pare­ness of the data, dur­ing ter­rain work, the author adhered to th ques­tions of the atlas. Accord­ing to a cor­pus part (cca 40 thou­sand data) select­ed from the data­base com­pris­ing approx. 80 thou­sand data, the basic ques­tion was how a region’s speak­ing com­mu­ni­ty names iden­ti­cal con­cep­tion­s, from qual­i­ta­tive and quan­ti­ta­tive point of view what char­ac­ter­is­tics lex­e­mas have. The author analysed the data clas­si­fy­ing them by con­cep­tion­s. From the point of view of gen­er­al divi­sion, and lex­i­cal divi­sion, the author com­pares nam­ing sys­tems in Med­vesalj with the research point data of the areas in the atlas, 3 Hun­gar­i­an (H–6: Karanc­sla­pu­jtő, H–7: Bárna and H–10: Bor­sod­szent­györ­gy), and 3 Slo­vak (Cssz–17: Bolyk, Cssz–18: Mag­yarh­e­gymeg and Cssz–19: Zsip). The author out­lines the fur­ther ori­en­ta­tion of the research, since the dialect cor­pus com­pris­ing of 80 thou­sand can launch fur­ther... continue reading →