In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Upper Sorbian by Gunter Schaar-schmidt
  • Gary H. Toops
Upper Sorbian. By Gunter Schaar-schmidt. (Languages of the world/Materials 160.) Munich: LINCOM Europa, 2002. Pp. 80. ISBN 3895862606. $34.50.

Upper Sorbian is the fourth largest of the West Slavic literary languages (after Polish, Czech, and Slovak) and is spoken within the eastern German region of Upper Lusatia, in the state of Saxony (Freistaat Sachsen). In this more or less comprehensive sketch of the grammar of Upper Sorbian, Schaar-schmidt maintains that ‘the number of Upper Sorbian speakers does not exceed 53,600’, but his use of the term ‘Upper Sorbian speakers’ apparently encompasses [End Page 186] actual speakers of the various Upper Sorbian dialects as well as users of the Upper Sorbian literary language.

Upper Sorbian adheres to the same template as all the other booklet-length grammatical sketches in LINCOM’s ‘Languages of the world/Materials’ series: ‘Socio- and geolinguistic data’ (Part 0), ‘Phonology’ (Part 1), ‘Morphology’ (Part 2), ‘Syntax’ (Part 3), and ‘Texts’ (Part 4). The texts are provided with both word-for-word and comprehensive English translations, and all language samples are followed by English glosses. Part 4 also includes an ‘explanatory glossary’ followed by a list of symbols and abbreviations, a list of literary sources, a bibliography, and a map of ‘the Sorbian language area’.

Considering the space limitations imposed by the publisher, S manages to provide a fairly accurate description of the language. However, by failing to distinguish between statal and actional passives—only the latter capable of cooccurring with an agentive ‘by’ (Upper Sorbian wot or přez) phrase—S misconstrues the Upper Sorbian passive voice (43–44, 61–62). His statement that ‘auxiliary deletion is . . . possible in embedded sentences not involving the subjunctive’ (65) is incorrect; the auxiliary deletion to which S refers is actually limited to concessive clauses introduced by the subordinating conjunction byrnjež or runjež ‘although, even if’ (and does ‘involve’ the subjunctive). And S’s rules of clitic placement (58–60) are frequently contradicted by the language samples he cites elsewhere in the booklet (e.g. 54).

Worrisome, too, is S’s facile assertion that ‘[t]here was at one time quite a debate as to whether Upper Sorbian and Lower Sorbian should be considered dialectal variants or separate languages. That debate seems to have settled, with the term “Sorbian” used somewhat like the term “English” ’ (6). This will come as a surprise to those familiar with relatively recent Sorabistic publications like Hinc Šewc’s article ‘Łužiska serbšćina—jedna abo dwě rěči? (Problematika a staw diskusije)’ [‘Lusatian Sorbian—one or two languages? (Scope of the problem and status of the discussion)’] (Lětopis 44.149–59, 1997. Reprinted in Das Sorbische im slawischen Kontext: Ausgewählte Studien, by Heinz Schuster-Šewc, 66–78, Bautzen: Domowina, 2000). In fact, the debate has not ‘settled’ at all nor is it accurate to maintain that the term ‘Sorbian’ is used (by most Sorbs and Sorabists) ‘like the term “English” ’.

Echoing an isolated statement published by a member of the Sorbian Institute (Eduard Werner, Studien zum sorbischen Verbum, Bautzen: Domowina, 1996, p. 13), S further claims that ‘[e]specially in the case of younger-generation speakers . . . aspect plays only a subordinate role’ (35). Not only does S thereby fail to specify to what he considers aspect to be ‘subordinate’ (tense? aspectuality? derivation?), but he also ignores the published assessment of another, prominent Sorabist that ‘by and large, the aspectual system of both Upper and Lower Sorbian (even of colloquial and dialectal varieties, where German influence is strongest) is intact’ (Gerald Stone, ‘Sorbian [Upper and Lower]’, The Slavonic languages, ed. by Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, London: Routledge, 1993 [2001], p. 636).

An 80-page compendium of Upper Sorbian grammar is a worthwhile undertaking and has its scholarly merits. The shortcomings delineated above could easily be remedied within the editorial parameters of the LINCOM series; therefore, a revised, corrected edition of S’s Upper Sorbian would be as feasible as it would be welcome.

Gary H. Toops
Wichita State University
...

pdf

Share