Dialogue of Scriptures (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions) [New ed.] 9783631675946, 9783653069174, 9783631709948, 9783631709955, 3631675941

Citation preview

Dialogue of Scriptures

EUROPEAN ST UDIES IN THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF RELIGIONS Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

VOL. 19

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamińska

Dialogue of Scriptures The Tatar Tefsir in the Context of Biblical and Qur’anic Interpretations

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Biblical and Quranic interpretations / Joanna Kulwicka-Kaminska. Description: Berlin ; New York : Peter Lang, [2018] | Series: European studies in  theology, philosophy and history of religions, ISSN 2192-1857 ;  vol. 19 | Includes bibliographical references and indexes. Identifiers: LCCN 2018042906 | ISBN 9783631675946 (Print) |  ISBN 9783653069174 (E-PDF) | ISBN 9783631709948 (EPUB) |  ISBN 9783631709955 (MOBI) Subjects: LCSH: Quran--Translating. | Quran--Versions, Polish. |  Qur’an--Hermeneutics. | Islam--Terminology. | Bible--Translating--Lithuania  (Grand Duchy) | Bible--Versions, Polish. | Bible--Commentaries--History and  criticism. | Tatars--Lithuania (Grand Duchy) | Islam--Relations--Christianity. |  Polish language--Religious aspects--Islam. | Polish language--Religious  aspects--Christianity. Classification: LCC BP131.15.P6 K85 2018 | DDC 220.5/91851--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018042906 This publication was financed by the Faculty of Languages of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń.   Translators: Andrzej Rubaszewski and Arkadiusz Zwolski Proofreading: Szymon Matusiak, Kevin Rayner and Magdalena Wanot-Miśtura Cover Design: © Olaf Gloekler, Atelier Platen, Friedberg          ISSN 2192-1857 E-ISBN 978-3-653-06917-4 (E-PDF) E-ISBN 978-3-631-70994-8 (EPUB) E-ISBN 978-3-631-70995-5 (MOBI) DOI 10.3726/978-3-653-06917-4 © Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Berlin 2018 All rights reserved. Peter Lang – Berlin ∙ Bern ∙ Bruxelles ∙ New York ∙ Oxford ∙ Warszawa ∙ Wien All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. www.peterlang.com

Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................  9 0.1 Theoretical assumptions of the description and the purpose of the research .....................................................................................................  11 0.2 Methodological assumptions ......................................................................  22 0.3 The state of research .....................................................................................  26 0.4 Why terminology? ........................................................................................  43 0.5 The selection of source texts .......................................................................  45 0.6 The description of source texts ................................................................... 0.6.1 The 16th-century translations of the Bible into Polish ................. 0.6.1.1 Biblia brzeska (1563) ............................................................... 0.6.1.2 Biblia nieświeska (1572) ......................................................... 0.6.1.3 Biblia Jakuba Wujka (1599) ................................................... 0.6.1.4 Biblia gdańska (1632) .............................................................. 0.6.2 The Tatar translation literature .......................................................... 0.6.2.1 Aetiology ................................................................................... 0.6.2.2 Slavic aljamiado ....................................................................... 0.6.2.3 The authors and copyists ....................................................... 0.6.2.4 The types of the text ............................................................... 0.6.2.5 Multilingualism ........................................................................ 0.6.2.6 Heterogeneous nature ............................................................ 0.6.2.7 The content ............................................................................... 0.6.2.8 The Tatar tefsir – the first translation of the Qur’an into a Slavic language ............................................................. 0.6.2.9 The problem of transcription and transliteration ............ 0.6.3 Printed Polish translations of the Qur’an ........................................

 52  52  53  55  58  59  60  60  61  62  64  68  75  76  76  80  84

6

Contents

1 The problems of the translation of the Bible and the Qur’an ..................................................................................................................  91 1.1   Extra-linguistic factors – the role of the Reformation .......................  91 1.2   Translation of religious texts of Divine Revelation ............................  98 1.2.1 Translator’s expertise ........................................................................  105 1.2.2 The tradition of Biblical translation ...............................................  110 1.2.3 The specificity of Qur’anic translations ........................................  117

2 The translation of the religious terminology of Islam into Slavic languages in the monuments of Tatar literature in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania .............................  121 2.1   The profile of a Tatar translator and the significance of Tatar translations of the Qur’an into Polish ��������������������������������������������������  121 2.2   Sources of knowledge. Sources of inspiration .....................................  124 2.2.1 The Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Religion. Language ..................  124 2.2.2 Education ..............................................................................................  126 2.3   Between faithful and free translation ....................................................  127 2.4   In the circle of European culture. The style of the Bible ...................  148 2.5   Christian influences on Tatar manuscript literature in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania �����������������������������������������������������������������������  155 2.6   The relationship between Tatar translations and Old Polish Biblical and Psalter literature and translations of the Bible into Polish ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  161 2.7   Ways and methods of rendering the peculiar terminology of Islam ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  174 2.8   The degree of adaptation of foreign proper names in the light of the research ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  193 2.9   The impact of Tatar translations on the development and standardization of the Polish language ������������������������������������������������  196 2.10 The north-eastern borderland variety of Polish in translation literature of the Tatars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania ����������������  198

Contents

7

3 The translation of Islamic religious terminology into the Polish language in printed translations of the Qur’an ...................................................................................................  211 3.1 Methods of translation ................................................................................  211 3.2 Collocations – the extent of the faithfulness to the original text .....  235 3.3 A comparison of modern translations of the Qur’an into Polish on the basis of the example of the translation of Islamic religious terminology ..................................................................................  248 3.4 The distinctiveness of the translation of the Vilnius Philomaths compared with other translations of the Qur’an ..................................  253 3.5 A comparison of Tatar religious literature and the translation by the Vilnius Philomaths on the basis of the example of the translation of Islamic religious terminology ..........................................  260

4 Conclusion .......................................................................................................  267 Bibliography ........................................................................................................  287 Literature of the subject and the abbreviations of source texts ................  287 Other sources of excerption ..............................................................................  288 Etymological dictionaries and dictionaries of the Polish language .........  288 Dictionaries of foreign languages ....................................................................  290 Thematic dictionaries ..........................................................................................  290 Concordancies .......................................................................................................  291 Non-Polish literature of the subject .................................................................  292 Polish literature of the subject ..........................................................................  302 Websites .................................................................................................................  366

Index of Slavic words and phrases .......................................................  367 Index of Oriental words and phrases .................................................  399 Index of proper names ..................................................................................  403

Introduction …it is difficult for us to recall that heretofore we and our children have been praising God in a language which is unintelligible to us, and we do not use the language which was spoken by our fathers for so many centuries […] it makes us sad that our writings, texts and various worship services heretofore have been concealed in a language that we do not understand. It is time to wake up from our ignorance […] from now on we will pronounce the words of the Maker revealed by his messenger in our mother tongue, the language which is peculiar to us. (J. Sobolewski, Wykład wiary machometańskiej czyli iślamskiej, Wilno 1830, Preface, p. III)

Who are the people who forgot the language of their forefathers and the language of their worship services, and whose mother tongue became Slavic languages (Polish and Belorussian)? For 620 years, the areas of present-day Lithuania, north-eastern Poland, Belarus and a part of Ukraine, i.e. the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) have been inhabited by the Tatar people, who represent the Sunni branch of Islam. The material and spiritual heritage of their culture is constituted by religious books in which the Polish and the Belorussian language used the Arabic script. These books: tefsirs, kitabs, chamails, tejwids and smaller forms of writing which performed the function of amulets, conceal under the garb of the Arabic script content which is intelligible for Slavs. Tatar religious literature is a genuine cultural phenomenon. It combines the culture of Islam with the tradition of Muslim mysticism – Sufism, Christian culture and with the folk beliefs and customs of Slavic peoples:  the Polish, Lithuanian and Belorussian people. This conglomerate of various types of content sets the Tatars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania1 apart from the rest of the 1 In this work, I use the term the Tatars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) – after C.  Łapicz, Kitabistyka a historia języka polskiego i białoruskiego. Wybrane zagadnienia, „Rocznik Slawistyczny” LVII, 2008, p. 38, and A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, Teolingwistyka: historia, stan współczesny, perspektywy……, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki, eds. A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, Symferopol 2008–2009, p. 45 – cf. “For a long time, researchers – especially historians and philologists (linguists) – discussed the most suitable way to refer to the creators of religious writings i.e. »our«

10

Introduction

world of Islam in a significant way, and it constitutes an important factor of their self-identification. The writings of the Tatar ethnic group are also testimony of the existence of a phenomenon which was unique in the history of Europe – the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania. The union of a number of peoples within the framework of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was realized five centuries before the contemporary European Union and it continues to constitute a unique example of peaceful coexistence of many ethnicities, cultures and religions. Since the 14th century the Tatar settlers, who represented a type of inclusive culture – open to external cultural influences – associated their future with the lands of the Duchy. They brought to the “Christian world” a new religion, a different culture and language, a different tradition and different values. In the course of time, probably already in the second half of the 16th century, they ceased to speak dialects derived from the Kipchak group of Turkish languages, and began to use Slavic languages – Polish and Belorussian. They also were unable to use actively the liturgical language, Arabic, which performs in the Muslim world a function which is analogous to that of Latin in Medieval Europe. Therefore, in order to maintain their separate ethnic and cultural identity, which was identified already by the 16th century exclusively through Islam, educated Tatar people, who usually maintained a contact with the Muslim East, began to create religious literature in Slavic languages, written by means of the Arabic script. This literature emerged in the conditions of voluntary, unforced Slavicization and gradual Christianization, which without doubt contributed to the fact that the Tatars developed a translation of the Qur’an into a European language – the third translation of this kind in the world, and the first translation into a Slavic language (i.e. Polish). This translation was called a tefsir. In the world of Islam, tafsirs are known as commentaries on the Qur’an, whereas among the Tatars of the GDL the term “tefsir” refers to comprehensive manuscripts which contain the complete text of the Qur’an with an intralinear translation into Polish, enhanced by an exegetical layer. It was developed in the period of the Reformation, at a time when the Bible was being translated into national languages. Thus, it constitutes a part of the European Biblical translation tradition as far as the methods of translation and the translatorial solutions which were embraced are concerned. Moreover, it continues the Muslim exegetical tradition, which was accessible to the Tatars of the GDL in

Muslims (Tatars); various attributes were attached to these people:  Lithuanian, Polish, Belorussian, Polish-Lithuanian, Lithuanian-Polish etc. None of these terms represented the genesis of the Tatar settlements in the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or the diversified present-day situation. Nowadays, the term which is most frequently used is the one which is legitimate in terms of history, i.e. the Tatars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, for the Grand Duke Witold initiated and developed the settlements of Oriental (Turkic) tribes in the regions of Wilno (Vilnius) and Troki (Trakai).”

Theoretical assumptions

11

the form of inter alia Turkish tefsirs. Therefore, it is an unfamiliar, new and original source for the history of the translation of sacred books. “The historical complexity of the Lithuanian-Polish Tatars as well as the ethnic and cultural diversity of this group may be [therefore] synthesized in the following way: A Tatar from Lithuania, who spoke a Belorussian or Polish language [dialect], and who considered himself a Pole, an adherent of the Muslim tradition who used the Arabic alphabet”2.

Who were the Tatar translators of Muslim religious books? What inspired them? What sources did they use? How and by what means did they translate the Arabic Qur’anic terminology into a Slavic language? Why is the translation of the Qur’an into a national language, the third translation of this kind in Europe, not familiar and accessible to researchers who represent various branches of scholarship? Did the Tatars of the GDL violate the ban on the translation of the holy book of Islam? The present monograph constitutes an attempt at answering these and associated questions.

0.1 Theoretical assumptions of the description and the purpose of the research The researchers of the manuscript religious literature of the Tatars of the GDL3 postulate the demonstration of the language of the Tatar translations against the background of the medieval and Renaissance literature (psalters, prayers, songs, translations of the Bible and religious-polemic writings, especially 16th-century ones)4. The object of research which they indicate also involves the placement of the Tatar translation writings, especially of the translation of the Qur’an into Slavic languages5, in the context of the anti-Trinitarian literature of the Polish Reformation. However, the influence of the Reformation on the aetiology of Tatar

2 C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich. (Paleografia. Grafia. Język), Toruń 1986, pp. 32–33. 3 The notions religious literature and religious writings are treated synonymously, which is in keeping with the principles adopted in historical and linguistic works in which the term religious literature refers not only to belles-lettres, but also to all linguistic monuments. 4 A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne w przekładzie na język polski XVII wieku. Zagadnienia gramatyczne na materiale chutb świątecznych, Warszawa 1999, pp. 178–179. 5 The language layer of Tatar manuscripts in the GDL consists of Oriental and Slavic languages  – the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish and/or Belorussian dialects.

12

Introduction

religious literature is recognized as a separate area of study6. It has also been shown that despite emerging treatises, studies and monographs, as well as source publications devoted to the history of the Tatars and Islam in Poland, the whole sphere of the material culture, spirituality and religion of the Tatars and their rich literature – their manuscript legacy – still remains to be examined, both in its historical and linguistic aspects7, as there is no work that deals with these issues in a monographic and synthetic way. The importance of the Tatar literature is considerable, because, on the one hand, it shows the relationship between the multi-faceted culture of Poland and the Islamic world, whereas on the other hand, it is an important source for conducting philological research, because it contains layers of unexplored grammar and vocabulary of the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish (“polszczyzna północnokresowa” in Polish) dating from the 16th to the 20th centuries. Tatar literature also comprehensively illustrates the ways and methods of Slavicization  – Polonization and Belorussization  – of Orientalisms (especially Arabisms and Turkisms)8. Furthermore, it constitutes invaluable material to observe the processes of interference and transference within the Slavic languages and contacts of Slavs with the Orient at all levels of language: graphical and spelling-related, phonetic and phonological, lexical and semantic, as well as grammatical levels9. Finally, it is a basis for interdisciplinary research, such as linguistic, historical, ethnographic, religious studies, etc.10 6 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski. Der litauisch-tatarische Koran-Tefsir, Köln–Weimar–Wien 2004, p. 539. 7 Cf. A. Kołodziejczyk, Rozprawy i studia z dziejów Tatarów litewsko-polskich i islamu w Polsce w XVII–XX wieku, Siedlce 1997, p. 5. 8 A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., p. 49. Cf. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii islamistycznej, doctoral thesis, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Toruń 2001 (digital version), p. 2. In the book, the term Qur’anism (a term created by analogy to Biblism) is used – a word of both Oriental and nonOriental origin that occurs in the religious literature of the Tatars of the GDL and/ or in the Qur’anic translations and in the lexical system of the Polish language in a religious sense – cf. I. Kończak, Kształtowanie się rosyjskiej terminologii islamistycznej na podstawie czterech rosyjskich przekładów Koranu, Łódź 2011, p. 64. Cf. the term Biblism – J. Godyń, Od Adama i Ewy zaczynać. Mały słownik biblizmów języka polskiego, Kraków–Warszawa 1995, p. 7, and W. Chlebda, Библия в языке – язык в Библии, [in:] Problemy frazeologii europejskiej II. Frazeologia a religia, eds. A. M. Lewicki, W. Chlebda, Warszawa 1997, pp. 67–74, as well as K. Długosz-Kurczabowa, Szkice z dziejów języka religijnego, Warszawa 2007, pp. 155–156. 9 C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, pp. 219–220. 10 A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., p.  42; also I.  Radziszewska, Chamaiły Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego jako teksty religijne i źródła filologiczne, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki…, p. 227, who says that monuments of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims constitute valuable material for linguistic studies, both for Orientalists and Slavists. On the basis of these texts, it is possible “to trace changes in Oriental

Theoretical assumptions

13

It arose, as has already been mentioned, in a multicultural and multilingual Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in a community of Muslims who coexisted with Christians. This condition had an effect on the multilayered genetic structure of Tatar creative output, on the presence of geographically and chronologically diversified features of the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish and Belorussian, on the connection of the literature of the Tatars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with Renaissance translations of the Bible into Polish, and at the same time on the Qur’anic translation tradition in the form, among others, of Turkish tefsirs. Moreover, it is possible to demonstrate common features of Tatar writings and Biblical and Psalter literature of the Middle Ages. The purpose of this thesis is to present, in the most comprehensive manner possible, the ways of rendering Arabic lexis and phraseology11 into Slavic languages, including the adaptation of Arab and Turkish grammatical and lexical forms to the grammatical and lexical system of those languages, as well as showing methods of translation used by different translators, and also methods of transformation of the original12, such as simplifications, reductions (e.g. ellipsis, anacolutha), amplifications, univerbizations, descriptions, substitutions, and so forth. Therefore, the task of this work is to identify language mechanisms which influence new Polish Muslim terminology with regard to the denomination of Allah13 and pagan gods, angels, holy books, prophets, and the Day of Judgement. This study will serve to identify vocabulary and phraseology used in translated texts, or observation of the denomination process – giving names to certain concepts and phenomena (designata), positioning them, creating specific views of the world, and capturing new terminology in statu nascendi. Its aim is also to show and provide documentation of the specific lexis, emerging from the analyzed text, peculiar to the Polish Muslims and vocabulary that is shared by adherents of Islam and Christianity. In connection with this, an attempt was made to discuss the phenomenon of adequate translation of Muslim religious terminology, contained in the semantic

languages which were under the influence of the Slavic environment, to observe the development and changes in the language of the Borderlands over the centuries, and also complete the image of the Belorussian and Polish literary languages.” 11 Combinations manifesting various degrees of semantic lexicalization of components were taken into account. From this point of view, idiomatic expressions may constitute not only idioms, but also loose word combinations. 12 Cf. Л. С. Бархударов, Язык и перевод, Москва 1975, and A. Drozd’s postulates in this context – cf. op. cit., p. 10. 13 Allah is the first, unique and most important name of God in Islam, which according to Muslim exegetes should not be translated or replaced by any other word. Hence, translations of the Qur’an for Muslims retain as a rule the original form of the name (cf. the Tatar tefsir and WzK – the name is used interchangeably with the denomination God, K3). In this study, the Qur’anic proper name Allah is used in order to identify and indicate the unique features of the Absolute, in which Muslims believe.

14

Introduction

field of tenets of Islam14, into Slavic languages (i.e. to convey Islamic concepts in languages from different cultures) in Tatar manuscript monuments in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as well as in Polish printed translations of the Qur’an in comparison with Biblical terminology. The purpose of such comparison is to determine the potential scope of influence of translations of the Bible on the Tatar translated texts, as well as on Polish printed translations of the Qur’an. In fact, one of the main tasks of this monograph is to identify to what extent qualitative lexical and phraseological resources present in Tatar translations15 are shared with or are different from the vocabulary that can be found in Bible translations and Biblical and Psalter literature, and so to show the relation between Muslim religious terminology and the already existing Polish Christian terminology. The aim of the monograph is also to indicate the extent to which the doctrinal distinctiveness of Islam and Christianity is reflected in the lexis and phraseology used by Polish Muslims, thus, indicating differences in the understanding of the same formal lexical items16. Having set such a task, it is essential to provide documentation, to analyze and describe Polish Muslim terminology, referring to the constitutive Islamic doctrinal concepts. Moreover, Christian religious vocabulary is included only to the extent that it constitutes a common and suprareligious core terminology of different faiths or a point of reference for the Muslim vocabulary. Thus, the research procedure included examining the vocabulary and phraseology of translations of the Qur’an and Polish Bible translations, preceding them chronologically17. As a result, it is possible to determine the degree of specificity, 14 In order to present this issue in the most complete manner possible – by analogy – the search for adequate equivalence in translations of the Qur’an into Russian is also indicated (cf. I. Kończak, Kształtowanie się rosyjskiej terminologii islamistycznej…). A discussion of the translation of vocabulary representative for the pillars of Islam, its rituals etc. is beyond the scope of this paper and may be considered only a research postulate. 15 In the theory of translation, the traditional terms przekład (translation) and tłumaczenie (translation) are synonymous and they mean both “the process and its result – a text”, while the more recent term translacja (translation) refers only to the “process”. In this study, these terms are used interchangeably, in the sense of “the process and its result”, because such use is acceptable and widely adopted in the works on translation of religious texts – especially the Bible and the Qur’an. 16 A lexical item is considered a word, a phrase (expression) or a descriptive term of an overall meaning, but in relation to the Muslim religion. The classical concept of meaning is adopted, so it was concluded that “language signs, as lexical items, refer to fragments of reality (categories of phenomena) recognized and organized by human cognitive consciousness” – cf. R. Grzegorczykowa, Wprowadzenie do semantyki językoznawczej, Warszawa 2001, pp. 18–19. Such a concept of a linguistic item also allows us to recognize semantic derivatives as new items. 17 Vocabulary and phraseology play an important role in the structure of literary genres, that is in the linguistic and stylistic form of a work or an entire genre. Phraseological elements may be characterized by special stylistic properties – they

Theoretical assumptions

15

originality and specific distribution of Slavic equivalents of the initial text etc. of analyzed translations, and to present lexical dependency relationships between translations of the Bible and Qur’anic translations, and therefore, to indicate their typical features and the distinctive features of individualistic translators. The taking into account of a comparative background gave the basis to show the relationship between the Tatar and later translations of the Qur’an and West-European Biblical studies, including the Polish tradition of translating. As a comparative background there Polish Bible translations of the 16th and 17th centuries were adopted, both Protestant and Catholic ones, as well as one 20th-century Catholic translation known as Biblia Tysiąclecia (Millennium Bible)18. Some Bible concordances were also used. The treatment of these issues is accompanied by a stylistic analysis of collected denominations, that is, their choice and functioning both within the translated text as well as in the intertextual relation and the pursuit of the rules in this regard. The style of translation is conditioned, among other things, by the fact that Arabic texts of prayer are at the same time literary works. In the case of the Qur’an and prayers, Tatar translators came into contact with a form of rhythmic and rhymed prose which is unusual in reference to Polish literature – known as saǧ‘19. Their role was therefore to render also the formal layer of the original, that is, rhythmic and rhymed prose. They were, in fact, texts meant not only for readers but also for listeners20. The lexical resources of the translations have also been confronted with the lexis collected from Polish lexicographical sources, both historical and modern21; hence the discussion is accompanied by a lexicographical analysis of the terms presented in the monograph. Discussion of such issues would be inadequate or impossible without reference to the linguistic background: north borderland Polish and the standard Polish language. The result of this is the introduction, in addition to the basic immanent description, of comparative elements that show parallels between the Tatar translations and later translations and the language of Polish religious and secular literature are included. The work has also become a part of the current research into the lexis and phraseology of the Polish Reformation. It shows the development of Muslim

18 19

2 0 21

specify the semantic range of the words of which they are composed. New meanings or shades of meanings are often combined with them. Cf. the list and description of source texts of the present monograph together with the list of abbreviations, pp. [287–288] in this monograph. The features of this genre of prose are discussed among others by A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 10 and p. 72. The problems associated with the translation of Qur’anic surahs on the example of the XCII surah, are also indicated by W. P. Turek, Od Gilgamesza do Kasydy. Poezja semicka w oryginale i w przekładzie, Kraków 2010, pp. 237–262. Cf. A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 25. Cf. the list of lexicographical sources, pp. [288–291] in this monograph.

16

Introduction

terminology in its structural and pragmatic aspects, i.e. taking into consideration its historical and cultural background. This kind of description implements the most important and necessary research procedures used in the study of religious vocabulary, namely: 1. semantic focus in the analyses, and 2. the inclusion of elements of the pragmatic level22. The starting point for the discussion has to do with Polish entries that make up the lexicon of selected translations of the Qur’an. According to the author, the most representative linguistic items for the tenets of Islam were analyzed, namely these words that substitute nomina appellativa and nomina propria (the traditional division of the names in the lexical system of any natural language)23 of the original text. Their choice is therefore to some extent arbitrary. These include autosemantic parts of speech such as nouns, adjectives and participles24, as well as nominal compounds/phrases (expressions), i.e. items of a higher order, which also enjoy semantic and syntactic autonomy. This choice is dictated, among others, by the high rank of noun lexemes which, although they are not numerous in translated texts, due to extension are considered to be dominant lexical features25. Therefore, they can be characterized by the greatest extent of semantic explicitness, expressed by the relation lexeme-designatum or designatum-lexeme26. With this feature,

22 I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu od XVI do XVIII wieku na tle terminologii katolickiej, Warszawa 2004, p. 65. 23 This division is also used in descriptions in the Polish language, and here the boundary between these classes of names is vague. If we analyze this issue from a diachronic perspective, it is clear that this border is also fluid i.e., some words in certain circumstances renounce their own characteristics and acquire features specific to the opposite class, i.e., they move from one class to another – after K. DługoszKurczabowa, Jeszcze raz o apelatywizacji biblijnych nazw własnych, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki…, p. 123. 24 According to A. Lenartowicz-Zagrodna, „Eklezjastes” Hieronima z Wielunia (1522). Transliteracja i transkrypcja. Monografia języka, Łódź 2011, p. 241: “The translator enhanced the adjectival and nominal vocabulary the most because there the factor k increases in relation to the Latin text by 0.91 and 0.45, respectively.” She also notes that the Polish translation is richer in the number of text/content words than the Vulgate, and “the largest number of additions includes a group of pronouns, prepositions and conjunctions, a total of approx. 335, as well as nouns (approx. 120)” – cf. p. 242. 25 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura. Leksyka Nowego Testamentu Biblii Gdańskiej (1632) na tle porównawczym. Ujęcie kwantytatywno-dystrybucyjne, Poznań 2010, p. 85. 26 Ibidem, p. 60. Moreover, the author of the monograph adds that “This property of Polish nouns in the Biblical translation text that is the 15th-c. part of the Psałterz floriański was noticed by M. Cybulski, who writes that »Therefore, on the whole, nouns do not require extended Polish synonymy. Exceptions include words which refer to actions, states, products of actions and features«” – cf. M. Cybulski, Analiza statystyczna słownictwa piętnastowiecznej części „Psałterza floriańskiego”, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XXXIX, 1994, p. 23.

Theoretical assumptions

17

which distinguishes them from other autosemantic words, one may understand better the arbitrary decisions that were taken by translators in the selection of Polish lexical substitutions which are equivalents of the original text27. The analysis of denominations that occur in translated texts also plays an important role in the presentation of the development of the language, and its saturation with abstract vocabulary, which develops and differentiates a little later than specific vocabulary related to the realities of everyday life28. It is known that the vocabulary of the Polish language (especially in the 16th century when the first translations of the holy books of Islam and Christianity came into existence) was poorer (in certain areas) than the language of the Bible and the Qur’an. Furthermore, from a formal point of view, nominal compounds/phrases (expressions) constitute about 30% of Biblisms, or one-third of collocations of Biblical provenance29. Whereas adjectives constitute an autosemantic part of speech, which compared to nouns, occur much less frequently, both in the lexicon, and in the analyzed translations. Polish translations of the Qur’an are also characterized by less diversity of adjectives in comparison with the original, because an Arabic adjective used in a text can undergo substantivization. Therefore, a noun can be the Polish equivalent of an adjective which is contextually converted in such a way. And the Polish equivalents of some verbal, and especially nominal forms, in the original text may be adjectival participles, which according to the principle adopted in Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku (SPolXVI) (they are subject to the inflection of nouns, although they are grammatical forms of verbs) are considered separate entries in this work30. Therefore, the scope of the work is limited by both the source material or lexical and phraseological resources provided by the researched texts, as well as by an arbitrary choice (based on contextual meanings) of the extensive exemplificative material of the vocabulary used for a thorough examination of the phenomenon of the translating of Muslim religious terminology. A file was formed from this material, which includes representative vocabulary of the tenets of Islam. All 2 7 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 60. 28 Ibidem, pp.  438–443; M. Cybulski, Staropolskie przekłady psałterza, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XLI, Brochure 2, Łódź 1996, p. 77. 29 Verbal compounds (phrases) are predominant – about 55%, phrases (proverbs, sayings) constitute about 15% of all Biblisms – cf. T. Z. Orłoś, Skrzydlate słowa pochodzenia biblijnego w języku czeskim i polskim, [in:] Problemy frazeologii europejskiej II…, p. 124. According to J. Godyń, op. cit., p. 10 and p. 13, “in the modern Polish literary language, in its various varieties, there are 36 words and about 330 phrasemes of Biblical origin […]. It is significant that more than half of Biblisms of the Modern standard Polish language already had such a status in the standard language of the 16th and 17th centuries; a much smaller part of them entered the standard language in the 19th century. This is due to the wave of Bible translations into Polish which appeared in the period of the Reformation in Poland.” 30 Cf. T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 59 and p. 64.

18

Introduction

possible places where an entity can have textual attestations were the object of observation. This concerns also those words or expressions which belong to the category of hapax legomenon – they have only a single textual attestation in the printed translations of the Qur’an and selected monuments of Tatar literature in the GDL. The focus of the research also had to do with vocabulary that “creates the sacred space” of the studied religious texts. The lexis here can be characterized by a fairly large scope of meaning and semantic capacity, and its common or different semantic and functional components reveal themselves only in a broader context. It is essential that formally identical terms, e.g. an angel, a prophet, have a different range of meanings for followers of different religions who speak the same national language. Hence, as it is stated by I. Winiarska: “Only a contextual analysis, which takes into consideration a broad pragmatic background, enables us to reconstruct the meaning of those religious terms that became relative”31. The issues discussed in the book are illustrated with abundant sample material. It had been collected for many years and compiled in the form of a dictionary32. This dictionary became a basis for conducting further research, and its results are presented in this monograph. The dictionary contains five chapters corresponding to the five basic tenets of Islam, namely: 1. Belief in only one God, 2. Belief in angels, 3. Belief in the holy books: the Torah, the Gospel and the Qur’an, 4. Belief in God’s messengers (from Adam to Muhammad), 5. Belief in the Day of the Last Judgement33. Within each chapter the terms representative of each of the tenets are discussed, excerpted from the monuments of religious literature of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims and Polish printed translations of the Qur’an. At the same time, the following presentation of the material was adopted: a short description of each tenet with a list of its representative terms, arranged in alphabetical order with their history in the Polish language, contextual meanings in translated texts and their confrontation as well as comparison in terms of semantics with the Hebrew, Greek and Arabic bases of translation. These chapters have therefore the form of a dictionary with entries arranged in alphabetical order34. It includes autosemantic parts of speech, and therefore, nouns, adjectives and participles, as well as nominal compounds/ phrases (expressions). A headword (a compound component of complete meaning) is brought to its basic form, that is to Nom. sg for the noun, and Nom. sg m. for the adjective and particle. Phraseological items are given with the main expression recognized as the centre of an idiomatic expression (in the case of expressions, it 3 1 I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 64. 32 A large body of exemplificative material was recorded on an electronic medium, a CD, and was attached to the Polish edition of the monograph entitled Przekład terminologii religijnej islamu w polskich tłumaczeniach Koranu na tle biblijnej tradycji translatorycznej, Toruń 2013. There is a plan to publish the material in paper form. This book is the revised, expanded and updated version of the Polish edition. 33 Cf. J. Danecki, Podstawowe wiadomości o islamie, Warszawa 2007, p. 104. 34 This is consistent with contemporary lexicography and paremiography – cf. J. Godyń, op. cit., p. 25.

Theoretical assumptions

19

is a described noun) in such a syntactic form (word order) in which they appeared in the text. Two options are given in the case of a variable word order. Thus, the entry comprises: 1. A headword and a list of phrasemes in which it is the centre35. 2. Dictionary documentation36, namely: – the state of attestations of selected lexical items with an attempt to establish their degree of universality (When were they first recorded? Do they appear in other texts of the period or only in studied translations?). – the status of specified lexical items in the Polish Biblical and secular language (with reference to the genetic qualifier – the Bible, especially in historical dictionaries of the Polish language). – explanation of the meanings of the analyzed items37 (with particular attention to their primary (Biblical) significance, as well as with an indication

35 The order of entries has been adopted in accordance with the chronology of translations, and so first a list of corresponding words used in Tatar translation is given, in alphabetical order, and then a list of equivalents which occur in Polish printed translations of the Qur’an (KB1 and KB2, while as an exception some peculiar denominations from K3 are cited). Lexical or phraseological equivalents of Arabic etyma which were excerpted from Tatar translations are quoted by means of the transcribed or transliterated form used by researchers of the literature of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims. This also has its negative side because in works in the field of kitabistics the most common practice is to use original systems of transcription and transliteration elaborated on an ad hoc basis, which are furnished with a key for interpreting and specifying (at least approximately) the sound values of transcription signs. In many cases, this makes the identification of terms and names which have the same Arabic etymology but which are differently transliterated or transcribed in different works difficult or even impossible. However, such a solution was adopted due to the fact that the phonetic nuances are not necessary for research in the field of lexicology and etymology. Therefore, various phonetic forms of words and various forms of the simple and complex inflection of adjectives are treated as one entry. All varieties of formative words and forms of the comparative and superlative degree of adjectives, forms of collective nouns, suppletive forms of nouns and adjectives, e.g. human – people, good – better, are treated as separate entries. Forms of words reconstructed on the basis of the appearance of their contextual forms in oblique cases are indicated by an asterisk (*). In this study, all equivalents of linguistic items which occur in the literature of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims are quoted with an asterisk (*). With regard to printed translations of the Qur’an, the above-mentioned symbol specifies only word combinations. 36 When reference to the exemplificative material included in dictionaries of the Polish language is made, abbreviations of sources that are used in specific lexicographical studies are applied. 37 In a study devoted to such a specific issue as Muslim religious terminology, a decision was made to limit the number of general dictionary definitions which are featured in lexicographical works to those that are necessary for the presentation of the semantic

20

Introduction

whether the equivalents present in lexicographical sources create a chain of synonyms, which would demonstrate the stylistic conditioning, and not only the semantic conditioning of the equivalents introduced by the translator. – discussion of the life of individual lexical items in Polish, which reflects lexicographical analysis showing the evolution of the words that have survived in the language, but with a different meaning, that is semantically evolved – they have changed their scope or shade of meaning; revealing their semantic transformations, including lexicalization of individual word combinations, and comparison of their meanings in Polish with those in the analyzed texts. 3. Location of a headword in translated texts – both Biblical and Qur’anic38. The selection of quotations is determined by their chronology. The first recorded headword is given first. The clarity of meaning and a phonetical variant form was also taken into consideration. Due to their high frequency, it is limited to giving samples of the uses of the discussed linguistic items, which are, in the opinion of the author, the most representative ones. 4. A short semantic description, made on the basis of a number of selected Qur’anic contexts (connotative meanings that are referred to in some contexts, potential, contextual and objective) in comparison with the semantic analysis of these items, made on the basis of Biblical contexts39. The analysis that takes into consideration contexts focuses on the Polish lexical item, which is the equivalent of a lexical item in the original text. This sometimes leads to fragmentation of the translated text into single words, the consequence of which is deconstruction of

features of the terms which are discussed. If a particular linguistic item is a term sensu stricto, only the meanings which are directly connected with religion are given. However, if the expression which is analyzed belongs to the general vocabulary, and when it acquires its specific overtones (meaning) only in a religious context, then its general dictionary definition is given. In the majority of cases, a certain semantic component is the basis for a new (specialized) meaning of the lexeme (semantic derivation). When a word is a semantic archaism the meaning that replaced the old one is presented. 38 The citations in the text are referenced according to the following rules: Tatar monuments – a manuscript page number or a surah number is given in Roman numerals, a line number and a page in printed translations of the Qur’an (Tefsir z Olity [the Olita Tefsir], which was not published, is an exception, and therefore, I give the number of a surah [in Roman numerals], the page number of the manuscript and the number of a line); printed translations of the Qur’an – a Roman numeral denotes the number of a surah, and the subsequent Arabic digit number denotes the number of a verse. As a rule, I give the location of the same context only once, with reference to the first notation of the example in the present monograph. 3 9 In the case of Biblical entries, which have Old Testament and New Testament attestations, documentation for both of them is placed with the appropriate provision of meanings. This is because the concepts present in the Old Testament were quite often taken over and developed in the New Testament.

Theoretical assumptions

21

some collocations or fixed phrases, Biblical or Qur’anic idiomatic expressions40. However, reference is made also to the word combinations that constitute a reflection of original Qur’anic combinations and that are the result of amplification tendencies (when one word in the original language has a word combination as its equivalent in Polish) or univerbization trends (when the Polish equivalent replaces more than one lexeme of the original text). Moreover, connotative meanings are sometimes supplemented and compared with the data provided by the science of religion. 5. An Arab etymon or etyma, which can be found in the same position in the Qur’anic translation base, as well as in Greek and Hebrew for Polish translations of the Bible41 (cited in their primary forms, analogues with dictionary entries in their original spelling and transcription42, and Arabic forms in ISO transcription – International Standardization Organization). Etyma that are present in analogue locations of the translation base concurrently carry out the function of semantic explanations43. 6. Documentation of the presence of phraseological combinations typical of the Tatar religious literature in the GDL, and of Polish printed translations of the Qur’an, in Bible translations and/or in Polish lexicographical sources.

4 0 Cf. T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 39. 41 Due to the abundance of linguistic material, only the vocabulary of the highest frequency was taken into account. 42 According to S. Wronka, Transliteracja i transkrypcja alfabetu hebrajskiego, „Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny” LVII, 2004, pp. 45–58. 43 Therefore each time Hebrew, Greek and Arabic lexemes and their contextual meanings are quoted (from the Old Testament and New Testament, after the lexicographical studies by W. Bauer, Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, Berlin–New  York 1988, Fr. R. Popowski, Wielki słownik grecko-polski Nowego Testamentu. Wydanie z pełną lokalizacją greckich haseł, kluczem polsko-greckim oraz indeksem form czasownikowych, Warszawa 1994, Fr. P. Briks, Podręczny słownik hebrajsko-polski i aramejsko-polski Starego Testamentu, Warszawa 2000, J. Stamm, L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, Wielki słownik hebrajsko-polski i aramejsko-polski Starego Testamentu, Warszawa 2012, as well as Qur’anic ones according to the following dictionaries Х. К. Баранов, Арабско-русский словарь, Москва 1984, and H. Wehr, Arabisches Wörterbuch für die Schriftsprache der Gegenwart. Arabisch-Deutsch, Wiesbaden 1985. Arabic lexemes were compared with data featured in J. Danecki, J. Kozłowska, Słownik arabsko-polski, Warszawa 1996), which are interpolated into their Polish equivalents, quoted by the translator in their contexts. The aim of the translator was to provide a faithful rendition of the Biblical or Qur’anic message, as it may be assumed due to its semantic adequacy for a lexeme of the original text. In this way universal contextual meanings will be defined (independently of chronological factors) of Polish lexemes, which are sometimes not included in the dictionaries of the Polish language which have been published so far – cf. T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 39.

22

Introduction

The collected lexical material of the monuments thus became the basis for comparison of the language of Biblical and Qur’anic translations. This book, based on the dictionary presented above, which is the source of exemplificative material, constitutes a detailed discussion of the issues related to the translations of the Qur’an and Islamic religious literature into Slavic languages (including strategies adopted in translation, the methods that were selected and the ways of translating, as well as the degree of transformation of the original implied by them), tracing intertextual dependence and affiliations within a selected group of translations, and thereby attempt to identify the role of each translation unit44 in the process of creation and consolidation of Qur’anic lexical items (the share of individual texts in building and preserving the native corpus), the comparison of that resource with canonical and related texts as well as to determine the state of documentation of these structures in the general and Biblical lexicography collections.

0.2 Methodological assumptions In terms of research subject matter and methodology this work combines the disciplines of linguistics (the history of the Polish language, theolinguistics, Islamic linguistics, kitabistics, religious language) and translation studies45. As is emphasized by I. Winiarska: “any researcher who tackles religious issues must wrestle

44 The term translation unit is traditionally understood as the result of translation or an equivalent of a linguistic item in the original text. 45 The methodological pluralism adopted in this monograph opens up a broad research perspective. It enables, for example, semantic investigation to be combined with pragmalinguistic analysis. Furthermore, it is consistent with the postulate of the integration of various categories and research tools in linguistic research due to the heterogeneous structure of the language. R. Lewicki, Przekład – Język – Kultura, ed. idem, Lublin 2002, p. 8 claims, among other things, that: “The linguistic material and interlingual nature of any translation, regardless of its type or a genre of translated text, as well as regardless of the adopted criteria for equivalence of translations – done consciously or unconsciously – makes it possible to examine every translation by linguistic methods. At the same time, it becomes clear that these methods are insufficient with their traditional application. […] The description tools developed in the last decade by cognitive linguistics have proved useful.” The advocates of linguistic theories also postulate an interdisciplinary analysis of translation. Translation, therefore, is to be subjected to a linguistic analysis of the language exponents of its content, a pragmatic analysis as an act of speech and to be analyzed on the basis of communication theory, which examines its social and cultural determinants – cf. A. Dębski, Translatologia. Podstawowe problemy, stan i perspektywy badań, zainteresowania badaczy, „Rocznik Przekładoznawczy” 2, eds. L. Zieliński, M. Pławski, Toruń 2006, p. 24.

Methodological assumptions

23

with issues that are far beyond the horizon traditionally circled by linguistics”46. In addition, according to her, religious vocabulary requires the use of a dual research perspective, considering it both as a component of general lexis as well as the specific vocabulary (terminology)47. Historical and linguistic analysis of religious terminology is based on the research methods used in diachronic lexicology, especially on the historical and linguistic comparative method48. It takes into account not only structural changes the language is subjected to in its lexical and semantic subsystems (its internal history) but it also describes extra-linguistic factors that affect the emergence and development of Muslim religious terminology (its external history – social, political, historical and religious transformations and changes). Due to the fact that the “lexical layer accumulates knowledge about the outside world and reflects extra-linguistic reality”49, these external determinants play an extremely important role in diachronic lexicology50. Thus, this monograph, as has already been mentioned, follows the current research in the field of lexis and phraseology of the Polish Reformation. Therefore, the subject of description becomes religious language as a functional variety of a general language, being describable by the following features: its subject matter (the proper choice of vocabulary); “the frequent

46 Cf. Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu od XVI do XVIII w., digital version, chapter II. Theoretical Assumptions. 1. The state of research in Polish religious vocabulary. 1.2. The state of research in general Christian vocabulary. Linguistic perspectives, p. 110. In the collection of the author of this monograph. 47 I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 81. 48 A. Gadomski, Cz. Łapicz also indicate that “numerous and significant similarities between Tatar texts and monuments of Old Church Slavonic literature may be seen. Highlighting the analogies between Church Slavonic literature and Muslim literature is important for a researcher of kitabs because Slavic philology developed and verified in practice adequate methods of examination of source texts in Old Church Slavonic and their later versions. These methods can be used in the study of texts that were written several centuries later, created by Muslims in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania” – cf. A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., p. 44; J. KulwickaKamińska, Cechy wspólne piśmiennictwa Tatarów litewsko-polskich i kanonu tekstów scs. Geneza. Grafia. Ortografia, [in:] Varia, ed. M. Olšiak, Vol. XIV, Bratislava 2006, pp. 15–23. 49 I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 99. 50 In the literature on the subject, the external factors that do not arise due to grammatical or system rules, but act directly on the system, include cultural interferences that cause lexical borrowings. “Lexical borrowings as a result of these interferences (importations) are linguistic items that already belong to the lexical system of the Polish language” – cf. ibidem, and W. R. Rzepka, Odbicie historii narodu polskiego w dziejach rozwoju języka polskiego, „Nurt” 1971, No. 1, pp. 28–38. Completely non-linguistic factors are another type of determinants. However, they have a stimulating impact on the development of the language system, as, for example, the Reformation.

24

Introduction

participation of a supernatural factor in the act of speech”, which in the belief of the faithful is the recipient, and the witness of the act of speech; “community dimension” – religious texts perform the function of unifying the community of believers; “a creative power” (spells, exorcisms, formulas etc.); its connection with non-linguistic symbols51. Religious language is thus the subject of theolinguistic research (Gr. theos ‘God’ and Lat. lingua ‘language’) defined at the same time as 1.  The science which was established as a result of interaction of language and religion, as well as 2. A branch of linguistics that deals with the study of religious language, in the narrow and broad sense of the term, and analysis of religious phenomena that are manifested and consolidated in the language52. It is therefore one of the developing trends in contemporary linguistics, which is not limited either by the framework of a particular language or a particular religion. Theolinguistics can be divided into general and specific theolinguistics. Specific theolinguistics examines the phenomena within a particular religion (e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and others) or problems existing in the language (e.g. translation of religious books into the vernacular). Therefore, it is reasonable to single out such varieties of theolinguistics as Christian linguistics (including for example Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant linguistics and the others) and linguistics associated with non-Christian religions, including Muslim linguistics. One of its branches is kitabistics  – an original, academic philological sub-discipline53, which combines Polish and Slavic philology with Oriental studies (with Arabic studies and Turkology), and also with cultural and religious studies. The subject of its study is the material and non-material legacy of the Tatars of the GDL, and in particular their original manuscript literature in the form of kitabs, although it also refers to other varieties of handwritten texts of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims54. Its name comes from the

5 1 I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 39. 52 A. Gadomski, C.  Łapicz, op. cit., p.  51. The history of theolinguistic research  – pp.  33–39, and p.  51. Their genesis and development in Polish linguistics  – cf. pp. 35–36, including an indication of the pioneering role of I. Bajerowa in the study of Polish religious language (cf. the collection of articles entitled O języku religijnym. Zagadnienia wybrane, eds. M. Karpluk, J. Sambor, Lublin 1988), as well as devoting attention to the chronology of the term theolinguistics in Polish linguistics – cf. works by E. Kucharska-Dreiss, Teolingwistyka – próba popularyzacji terminu, [in:] Język religijny dawniej i dziś, eds. S. Mikołajczak, T. Węcławski, Poznań 2004, pp. 23–30, and by D. Zdunkiewicz-Jedynak, Surfując po Internecie w poszukiwaniu Boga…… Gatunki komunikacji religijnej na polskich katolickich stronach internetowych, Tarnów 2006. 53 Cf. A.  Gadomski, Опыт составления словаря русско-польской терминологии теолингвистики, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki…, pp. 247–268. 54 Cf., among others, P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 3, and C. Łapicz, Kitabistyka a historia języka polskiego i białoruskiego …, p. 31, as well as Г. Мишкиниене, Развитие китабистики в Вильнюсском университете, „Kalbotyra” LIV (2), Vilnius 2009, p. 235, and М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, Адкуль пайшлі ідалы, Мiнск 2009, p. 16.

Methodological assumptions

25

Arabic term  kitāb ‘a book, writing, document’55. Originally, kitab, as a general Semitic word, implied ‘the act of writing’. In its specific use the Arabic term  Al-Kitāb is one of many synonymous names of the Qur’an. In addition, theolinguistics can be divided into theoretical and applied; synchronic (investigating the processes that occur in the religious language in a specific historical moment) and diachronic (examining the changes happening in the historical development); historical-theological (dealing with typologization of theolinguistic phenomena in their historical development); comparative and contrastive. Its aim is to explore and describe religious phenomena, being expressed and established in the language; hence, as the current research problems in the field of contemporary theolinguistics, one may mention the following:  religious language, religious text, discourse, genre, translation of religious texts, religious terminology, etc. Therefore, its principal tasks are: the choice of material from relevant sources or texts, differentiation of the collected material, systematization of the collected material, its integration and others. Whereas among the specific tasks and postulates of kitabistics56, which also delimit research areas of this monograph such as:  the need to describe the historical and linguistic relationship between the Orient and the Slavic world, in which philological source material is helpful and even indispensable (the monuments of religious literature of the Tatars of the GDL); the issue of determining ways and methods of adequate translation of Muslim religious texts into the languages outside the culture and tradition of Islam, especially Slavic languages (Polish and Belorussian); the opportunity to show the development and the shaping of Polish (and Belorussian) Muslim terminology – both in terms of religious tenets and exegesis as well as prayers, rituals, customs etc. and the mutual influence of the Christian and Muslim religions and cultures, including the acquisition by the Tatars of the GDL of Slavic religious vocabulary and phraseology and its transferral  – not always adequately and in compliance with the doctrinal differences – to the so-called local Islam professed by them. The philological and historical research method was used in the work on texts, taking into account the historical background, which is particularly important in the analysis of the lexical level of translation. The study was conducted by means of a full index of Polish printed translations of the Qur’an, together with locations and vocabulary of selected monuments of Tatar literature in the GDL. Linguistic details were excerpted from religious literature of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims and the material from Polish translations of the Qur’an, and then they were

55 The meanings of words of Oriental origin were established on the basis of etymological dictionaries, dictionaries of foreign languages and thematic dictionaries, the list of which is given at the end of the monograph in the literature of the subject. 56 The most important tasks and research demands of kitabistics were presented and discussed in detail in an article by C. Łapicz, Kitabistyka a historia języka polskiego i białoruskiego…, pp. 38–44, and in the study by A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., pp. 46–51.

26

Introduction

systematically compiled, and related to the Polish translations of the Bible and lexicographical sources. The analysis of the vocabulary and phraseology, carried out on the basis of solid linguistic material, conducted against a comparative background, facilitated to search for evidence of compliance or borrowings between previously existing Bible translations and the translations of the Qur’an, and as a result, to determine the degree of dependence of Polish Qur’anic translations from the previously existing translations of the Bible, and the degree of originality and innovation of the translated texts of the Qur’an. With the comparative background one could also determine how certain equivalents are embedded in the tradition of translation of religious terminology, and to what extent they constitute reflection of an innovative attitude of translators to the source text. A lexical and phraseological description of Tatar religious literature and Polish translations of the Qur’an is also closely associated with a demonstration of the relationship that occurs between a translation unit and its base, enabling us to examine the most important Polish translations of the Qur’an in terms of the extent and the role they played in the process of co-creation and preservation of items, which ultimately contributed to the resources of idiomatic expressions of Qur’anic provenience. Investigation of the ways of translating word combinations also enables us to determine the extent to which the translator remained faithful to the original text, calquing Arabic word combinations, and to what extent he departed from the source text, preferring contextual translation.

0.3 The state of research The state of research in religious vocabulary of the Polish Reformation and on the general Christian vocabulary is discussed in detail in the works devoted to linguistic and translatological research of Polish religious literature, including Scripture translations into vernacular languages57. Among recently published monographs the following ones should unquestionably be mentioned: Stanisław Koziara Frazeologia biblijna w języku polskim (2001 and 2009)  and Tradycyjne biblizmy a nowe polskie przekłady Pisma Świętego. Ujęcie filologiczno-normatywne (2009), Danuta Bieńkowska Polski styl biblijny (2002), Irena Kwilecka Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii (2003), Katarzyna Meller „Noc przeszła, a dzień się przybliżył”. Studia o polskim słownictwie reformacyjnym XVI wieku (2004), I.  Winiarska Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu od XVI do XVIII wieku na tle terminologii katolickiej (2004), Tomasz Lisowski Sola Scriptura. Leksyka Nowego Testamentu Biblii Gdańskiej (1632) na tle porównawczym. Ujęcie

57 Cf. M. Makuchowska, Bibliografia języka religijnego 1945–2005, Tarnów 2007. The entry Styl religijny developed by M.  Makuchowska includes the synthesis and the overview of the main developments in the field of religious language – cf. M. Makuchowska – the entry Styl religijny, [in:] Przewodnik po stylistyce polskiej, ed. S. Gajda, Opole 1995, pp. 449–473.

The state of research

27

kwantytatywno-dystrybucyjne (2010), and Joanna Sobczykowa O naukowej polszczyźnie humanistycznej złotego wieku. Wujek – Budny – Murzynowski (2012). Among these works – the most important ones for this discussion – in terms of the scope of the research and the methodology adopted, there are the monographs by I. Kwilecka and I. Winiarska58. Irena Kwilecka discusses comprehensively and in detail the issue of the Holy Scripture, that is the translation of a religious text of the status of Revelation into vernacular languages, comparing Old Polish Bible translations with Old Czech translations and as well as Old French translations. She indicates the peculiar nature of the books of the Old Testament (OT), and the New Testament (NT),

58 A special influence on the creation of this monograph, especially in terms of research and methodological proposals, was also exerted by the following works: E. Belcarzowa, Polskie i czeskie źródła przekładu Biblii Leopolity, Kraków 2006; D. Bieńkowska, Słownictwo i frazeologia w Psałterzu przełożonym przez ks. Jakuba Wujka (1594), Łódź 1999; J. Biniewicz, Kształtowanie się polskiego języka nauk matematyczno-przyrodniczych, Opole 2002, as well as Kształtowanie się polskiej leksyki naukowej  – mechanizm derywowania pierwszych polskich terminów matematycznych, [in:] Żywe problemy historii języka, eds. M. Kuźmicki, M. Osiewicz, Poznań 2010, pp. 47–56; M. Cybulski, Staropolskie przekłady psałterza…; K. DługoszKurczabowa Szkice z dziejów języka religijnego…; B. Greszczuk, Archetypy starotestamentowe w polskich przekładach Psalmów. Problemy lingwistyki stosowanej, Rzeszów 2000; M. Kamińska, Psałterz floriański. Monografia językowa, Part  1:  Ortografia. Fonetyka. Fleksja imion, Wrocław 1981, and Psałterz floriański. Monografia językowa, Part  2:  Fleksja liczebników, zaimków, czasowników, Łódź 1991; M. Karpluk, Nad staropolskim słownictwem chrześcijańskim, [in:] Leksyka słowiańska na warsztacie językoznawcy, ed. H. Popowska-Taborska, Warszawa 1997, pp. 105–115, and Słownik staropolskiej terminologii chrześcijańskiej, Kraków 2001, S. Koziara, among others, Pojęcia wartościujące w polskich przekładach Psałterza, Kraków 1993 – and the bibliography, including works in other languages, dedicated to a semantic and stylistic analysis of Old Testament concepts, T. Lisowski, Polszczyzna początku XVI wieku. Problemy wariantywności i normalizacji fonetyki i fleksji, Poznań 1999, and Grafia druków polskich z 1521 i 1522 roku. Problemy wariantywności i normalizacji, Poznań 2001; T. Lisowski and J. Migdał, W drodze do doskonałości. Uwagi o leksyce protestanckich przekładów Biblii, [in:] O doskonałości, Part 1, ed. A. Maliszewska, Łódź 2002, pp. 271–282; B. Matuszczyk, Problemy ekwiwalencji w tłumaczeniu Biblii, [in:] Warsztaty translatorskie. Workshop on translation, eds. R. Sokolowski, H. Duda, Lublin–Ottawa 2001, pp. 51–61; L. Moszyński, Słownictwo na warsztacie Szymona Budnego, [in:] Leksyka słowiańska na warsztacie językoznawcy, ed. H. PopowskaTaborska, Warszawa 1997, pp. 185–200; J. Puzynina – numerous pubications dedicated to axiologically marked vocabulary, and especially her collection of studies, Słowo – wartość – kultura, Lublin 1997, and Słownictwo etyczne. Part 1: Prawda, fałsz, kłamstwo, ed. J. Puzynina, Warszawa 1993; A. Wierzbicka, Jak można mówić o Trójcy Świętej w słowach prostych i uniwersalnych, Lublin 2004; R. Zarębski, Nazwy osobowe w polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu, Łódź 2006.

28

Introduction

which are the product of cultures which are chronologically and geographically distant and therefore extremely difficult to translate. Her detailed research, based on reference material or Old Church Slavonic, Old French and Old Czech translations, proves that Old Polish translations were either faithful or pursued the method of free translation, based among others on the Vulgate, but adapted to the needs of a wide audience – with their simple and naïve imagination and their perceptive abilities59. She draws attention to suprareligious tradition of translating the Bible, and she also shows that the method of free translation of the Bible, compatible with a general trend towards making the Bible more accessible to the faithful, was developed in Poland very early, and can already be seen in the oldest monuments of Polish literature, in Kazania świętokrzyskie from the end of the 13th century, and in Kazania gnieźnieńskie from the end of the 14th century or the beginning of the 15th century60, as well as in somewhat later ones, e.g. in Rozmyślanie przemyskie61 and in Żołtarz by Walenty Wróbel62. The determinants of free translation given by I. Kwilecka, based on the work by Pierre of Troyes called Comestor Historia scholastica, can also refer to the religious literature of the Tatars of the GDL. In addition to this, Tatar translations, as well as Polish printed translations of the Qur’an implement the methods of translating words and word combinations from the source text, which were proposed by her63. Izabela Winiarska, in turn, draws attention to the important fact that the literature on the Reformation mainly includes broadly understood historical and religious studies works. In studies on the problems of the language of religion, such as semantic and terminological disputes, the introduction of new terms by the supporters of the Reformation (neologisms, neosemantisms etc.) or the change in meaning of some of the terms can be explained in the light of theoretical and conceptual categories of religious studies. However, lexical issues in historical works are only incidental, acting merely as an illustration of different content64. In addition to this, if their authors make use of the terms and vocabulary taken directly from their sources they attribute to them only real encyclopaedic definitions. Therefore, Winiarska indicates that there is a serious lack of linguistic studies in the literature of the subject, which would undertake to synthesize the vocabulary of the Reformation. The few existing linguistic studies only mention it briefly rather than thoroughly examine the issue65. 59 Cf. I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii, Poznań 2003, p. 266. These observations are confirmed by the results of research of T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, pp. 438–443. 60 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, pp.165–166. 61 Ibidem, pp. 167–168. 62 Ibidem, pp. 169–172 – cf. M. Cybulski, Staropolskie przekłady psałterza…, pp. 69–74. 63 They are mentioned on pp. [174–175] in this monograph. 64 I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 63. 65 Cf. K. Górski, Zagadnienia słownictwa reformacji polskiej, [in:] Odrodzenie w Polsce, eds. M. R. Mayenowa, Z. Klemensiewicz, Vol. III: Historia języka, Part 2, Warszawa

The state of research

29

According to the author, a lack is also felt in the research in general Christian vocabulary of proven methods and theoretical generalizations, which would analyze the diverse Christian lexis as a whole, creating a theoretical context for material works66. She lists the most representative, in her opinion, contemporary trends of research in religious vocabulary (both from historical and linguistic perspective, as well as in relation to the contemporary religious language), which include: the current that concentrates on the history of the language (focused on genetic research) (studies of this trend can be characterized by the presence of etymological analysis and reflections on the origin, importation and adaptation of foreign religious terminology in Polish, as well as comparative analyses of isolated words)67; a historical and linguistic current in terminal cross sections (here the subject of description is the existing Polish religious vocabulary in its development dynamics, conditioned by extra-linguistic and intralinguistic factors)68; a lexical and semantic current concentrating on the semantic analysis of selected lexemes in the field of religious terminology (single words or groups of lexemes representing a word field)69; a current of stylistic research (here there is the dominance 1962, pp. 233–279; Słownictwo reformacji polskiej, [in:] idem, Z historii i teorii lite­ ratury. Seria druga, Warszawa 1964, pp. 352–387; I. Rucka – a series of articles about excommunication, the Eucharist, and the Holy Trinity in the language of reformed churches, e.g. O wyklęciu albo wyłączeniu… – słownictwo związane z ekskomuniką w kościołach reformowanych w drugiej połowie XVI i początku XVII wieku, „Slavia Occidentalis” LIII, 1996, pp. 69–86; Nazwy eucharystii w polskich kościołach różnowierczych XVI wieku, „Slavia Occidentalis” LIV–LV, 1997, pp. 113–121; Słownictwo związane z dogmatem Trójcy Świętej w polskich kościołach różnowierczych XVI w. i jego dalsze losy, „Slavia Occidentalis” LVI, 1999, pp. 99–114; „Godzien jest robotnik zapłaty swojej” (1 Tm 5, 18), czyli o słownictwie związanym z utrzymaniem ministrów i zborów różnowierczych przełomu XVI i XVII wieku, „Slavia Occidentalis” LXI, 2004, pp. 50–61; L. Moszyński, Jeden werset staropolskiego przekładu Psałterza, „Acta Universitatis Lodziensis”, Folia Linguistica 23, Polszczyzna średniowieczna i renesansowa, ed. M. Kamińska, 1990, pp. 103–109, etc. 66 I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 71. 67 Cf., among others, E. Klich, Polska terminologia chrześcijańska, Poznań 1927; L. Moszyński, Geografia niektórych zapożyczeń niemieckich w staropolszczyźnie, Poznań 1954; M. Karpluk, Słownik staropolskiej terminologii chrześcijańskiej…; M. Jurkowski, Elementy zachodniosłowiańskie w ukraińskiej terminologii sakralnej, „Z Polskich Studiów Slawistycznych”, Językoznawstwo, Warszawa 1992, pp. 83–87. 68 Cf., among others, I. Bajerowa, O słownictwie nowego katechizmu, [in:] Tysiąc lat polskiego słownictwa religijnego, ed. B. Kreja, Gdańsk 1999, pp. 253–263; eadem, Kilka problemów stylistyczno-leksykalnych współczesnego polskiego języka religijnego, [in:] O języku religijnym. Zagadnienia wybrane…, pp.  21–44; J. Puzynina, Słownictwo eucharystyczne w historii języka polskiego, „Zeszyty Naukowe WSP w Opolu”, Językoznawstwo, Vol. XIII: Onomastyka, historia języka, dialektologia, Opole 1991, pp. 479–485. 69 Cf., among others, Z. Zaron, Refleksje na temat wyrażenia WIERZYĆ, [in:] Nazwy wartości. Studia leksykalno-semantyczne, eds. J. Bartmiński, M.

30

Introduction

of the study of the religious language and style, treated as one of the functional styles in the Polish language)70; a functional-communicational current connected with the stylistic current (it is assumed here that the diversity of vocabulary stems from the diversity of religious situations, considered as communication situations, in which the believer comes into contact with the sphere of sacrum)71; a stylistic and semiotic current (referring to the assumptions of structuralism (it is assumed here that religious language creates a multi-level structure, on par with lexis, a number of pragmalinguistic and extra-linguistic items)72; sociolinguistic issues (religious vocabulary functioning in various social groups, particularly among young people)73; a current that focuses on the meaning of the terminology, based mainly on the analysis of religious vocabulary that is present in the general (literary) language while issues that are closely connected with terminology are only hinted at in the research in general religious vocabulary, even in colloquial statements about God and religion74. The author of the monograph also stresses that a lack is felt in the studies on the period of the Middle Polish language, which was of fundamental importance for the development of religious vocabulary and phraseology. Her work constitutes a significant and to some extent pioneering contribution to the description

Mazurkiewicz-Brzozowska, Lublin 1993, pp. 231–238; A. Wierzbicka, Kocha, lubi, szanuje. Medytacje semantyczne, Warszawa 1971; J. Sobczykowa, Leksyka religijna w słowniku współczesnego języka polskiego, „Biuletyn PTJ” L, 1994, pp. 129–139; S. Koziara, Pojęcia wartościujące w polskich przekładach Psałterza…; as well as the works by I. Bajerowa., e.g. Wpływ życia religijnego na język ogólnopolski, [in:] Język a chrześcijaństwo, eds. I. Bajerowa, M. Karpluk, Z. Leszczyński, Lublin 1993, pp. 7–18. 70 Cf., among others, M. Makuchowska, Styl religijny…; M. Wojtak, O początkach stylu religijnego w polszczyźnie, „Stylistyka” I, 1992, pp. 90–97; H. Duda, „……każdą razą Biblią odmieniać”. Modernizacja języka przedruków Nowego Testamentu ks. Jakuba Wujka w XVII i XVIII wieku, Lublin 1998; as well as works by I. Bajerowa, e.g. Wpływ życia religijnego na język ogólnopolski…; Rola języka we współczesnym polskim życiu religijnym. Wprowadzenie do dyskusji, [in:] O języku religijnym. Zagadnienia wybrane…, pp. 9–20. 71 Cf., among others, I. Bajerowa, Swoistość języka religijnego i niektóre problemy jego skuteczności, „Łódzkie Studia Teologiczne” III, 1994, pp. 11–17; M. Makuchowska, Modlitwa jako gatunek języka religijnego, Opole 1998. 72 E.g. J. Mistřik, Religiózny štýl, „Stylistyka” I, 1992, pp. 82–89. 73 Cf., among others, H. Zgółkowa, K. Czarnecka, Kategoria Boga w słownictwie uczniowskim, [in:] Język a kultura, eds. J. Anusiewicz, B. Siciński, Vol. X: Języki subkultur, Wrocław 1994, pp. 29–36; M. Kamińska, Z problemów funkcjonowania terminologii religijnej w świadomości wiernych, [in:] Język a chrześcijaństwo…, pp. 85–94. 74 Cf., among others, I. Bajerowa, J. Puzynina, Język religijny. Aspekt filologiczny, [entry in:] Encyklopedia katolicka, Vol. VIII, Lublin 2000, col. 19–20; for evangelical vocabulary, e.g. B. Zeler, Język innych kościołów chrześcijańskich (na przykładzie Kościoła Ewangelickoaugsburskiego), [in:] Polszczyzna 2000. Orędzie o stanie języka na przełomie tysiącleci, ed. W. Pisarek, Kraków 1999, pp. 149–165.

The state of research

31

of the religious vocabulary of Polish Calvinism, taking into account its wide cultural background. Another researcher of the vocabulary of the Polish Reformation, Magdalena Hawrysz, follows I. Winiarska. The subject of her research is the terminology of the Polish Brethren, who were also called Arians75. This monograph – within the history of the Polish language – is a part of the current of historical and linguistic research with elements of lexical and semantic analysis. It is a contribution to the current trend of historical and linguistic analysis in temporal cross sections. But, in the area of theolinguistic research, it attempts to achieve the postulated objectives of kitabistics, especially to determine possibilities, ways and methods of adequate translation of Muslim religious texts, including the Qur’an, into Slavic languages. The history of kitabistics dates back to the 19th century. The work by Stanisław Kryczyński Bibliografia do historii Tatarów polskich (1935) contains a full list of publications which engage the problems of Tatar literature in the GDL before 1935. The state of research until the mid-1960s is discussed at length by Maciej Konopacki in his article Piśmiennictwo Tatarów polsko-litewskich w nauce polskiej i obcej (1966). The beginnings of kitabistics, its development and current trends in its research are presented in detail in works by Andrzej Drozd76, Paul Suter77, Czesław Łapicz78, Galina Miškinienė79, Joanna Kulwicka-Kamińska80 and other researchers of the religious literature of the Tatar of the GDL. The academic achievements in the study of Tatar texts will therefore be presented in a synthetic way. The Tatar literature in the GDL, hermetic due to its nature (due to the use of the Arabic alphabet81) originated probably in the second half of the 16th century and its goal was to meet the needs of a small community. It was copied and compiled for successive centuries, but for a long time it was not available for direct research.

75 M. Hawrysz, Terminologia jako wyznacznik granic wspólnoty religijnej (na przykładzie leksemu ponurzać i wyrazów pokrewnych), [in:] Żywe problemy historii języka…, pp.  125–135; eadem, Polemiczna twórczość Marcina Czechowica w perspektywie genologii lingwistycznej, Zielona Góra 2012. 76 A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, pp. 14–18. 77 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 3–6. 78 C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, pp. 10–15; C. Łapicz, Kitabistyka a historia języka polskiego i białoruskiego…, pp. 31–49, and A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., pp. 43–45. 79 G. Miškinienė, Sieniausi lietuvos totorių rankrašciai. Grafika. Transliteracija. Vertimas. Tekstų struktūra ir turinys, Vilnius 2001, pp. 29–40, as well as eadem, Развитие китабистики в Вильнюсском университете…, pp. 231–237. 80 Badania kitabistyczne w Polsce i na świecie, „Życie Tatarskie” X (XXVIII), No. 39(116), styczeń–czerwiec 2014, pp. 37–49; Przekład terminologii religijnej… 81 In the texts, the Arabic alphabet was used, which, according to the belief of Muslims, is an excellent form and it has bigger significance than the language itself – cf. M. M. Dziekan, Historia i tradycje polskiego islamu, [in:] Muzułmanie w Europie, ed. A. Parzymies, Warszawa 2005, pp. 216–217.

32

Introduction

The first pieces of information about it appeared in a small treatise Risāle-i Tātār-i Leh from 1558 (this was written in Turkish by an anonymous Tatar, who was a pilgrim to Mecca, for Rustem Pasha, a son-in-law of the Turkish Sultan)82, in Apologia by Azulewicz from 1630, and in the work by Józef Sobolewski, Wykład wiary machometańskiej czyli iślamskiej from 1830. The content of the treatise of 1558 was made available to its readers for the first time through the publication by Antoni Muchliński Zdanie sprawy o Tatarach litewskich, przez jednego z tych Tatarów złożone sułtanowi Sulejmanowi w r.  1558. Z języka Tureckiego przełożył, objaśnił i materyałami historycznemi uzupełnił A. Muchliński, professor zwyczajny literatury Tureckiéj w Cesarskim St. Petersburskim uniwersytecie in a journal Teka Wileńska (1858). However, the original of the treatise was not preserved. Apologia by Azulewicz was a response to anti-Tatar and anti-Muslim lampoon by Piotr Czyżewski, Alfurkan tatarski of 1616. Some quotes from Apologia can be found e.g. in Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, but its entire text has also not survived to our times. J. Sobolewski expounded in Polish the basic tenets of Islam in his work of 1830. Numerous passages of the Qur’an served as a source for him (probably also tefsirs were used and the translation of Philomaths – Polish: filomaci) and hadiths. The first scholar who undertook research in one of Tatar hamails was a German Orientalist, Heinrich O.  Fleischer (1838)83. However, his ignorance of Slavic languages did not enable him to identify the texts contained in it. In his catalogue he called it an Arabic, Tatar and Polish monument84. He referred to the Chamaił lipski (the Lipsk/Leipzig Hamail), in our times regarded as one of the oldest Tatar manuscripts85. The literature of the Tatars of the GDL was only discovered for scholarship with the publication of works by an eminent Orientalist, professor of Turkish studies at the University of St. Petersburg, A. Muchliński, who published a few texts in Polish and Belorussian in 1857. A. Muchliński is also the author of the book Źródłosłownik wyrazów, które przeszły, wprost czy pośrednio, do naszej mowy z języków wschodnich of 1858. In that lexicographical compendium the author used words that occur in the language of the Tatars of the GDL, with reference to their meanings and origin. Although his works made a significant contribution to the study of Tatar literature

82 However, the authenticity of the document is questioned – cf. A. Drozd, M. M. Dziekan, T. Majda, Piśmiennictwo i muhiry Tatarów polsko-litewskich. Katalog zabytków tatarskich, Vol. III, Warszawa 2000, p. 16 and p. 37. 83 In the work by B. Liebrenz, Arabische, Persische and Türkische Handschriften in Leipzig. Geschichte ihrer Sammlung und Erschließung von den Anfängen bis zu Karl Vollers, Leipzig 2008, p. 69, it is mentioned that the manuscript of Leipzig could have been described before Fleischer – in the 18th century by Georg Jakon Kehr, but the description was not preserved. 84 H. O. Fleischer, F. Delitzsch, Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum qui in Bibliotheca Senatoria civitatis Libsiensis asservantur, Grimmae 1838, p. 450. 85 The earliest dated text is Kitab z Suchowoli (the Suchowola Kitab) of 1631.

The state of research

33

until the end of the 19th century, they faded into oblivion. And Muchliński did not find a direct successor to carry on his work. This issue was revived only in the early 20th century, when more and more Tatar manuscripts were being found and notes and more extensive treatments were announced. In 1915, Iwan Łuckiewicz, a Belorussian ethnographer received a copy of a kitab from Mullah S. Połtarakiewicz, from the village of Sorok-Tatary86. A work by I. Łuckiewicz Aŭ-kimaб concerning that monument was published in the Belorussian journal Warta in 1918. However, the research in the phonetics of the monument was carried out by another Belorussian scholar, Jan Stankievič, who together with a Czech scholar M. Tauer made a transcription of the monument in 1924, and in his work written in the following year he discussed its phonetics and morphology. He presented the results of his research in several articles87 and in a more extensive work in the field of phonetics88. Since then, many authors have taken Tatar texts into consideration in their works. They usually informed about their existence and proposed to undertake research in them. Philological descriptions of the texts were made by A. N. Samojłowicz, W.  Wolski, I.  Krachkovsky, E.  Karski, J.  Szynkiewicz, and A.  Woronowicz, who were collecting words and phrases of Arab, Persian and Turkish origin, as well as A.  Zajączkowski, who focused his attention on the texts in Turkish, and M. Konopacki, who described the community of the Tatars of the GDL and their handwritten literature89. Thus, up till the 1950s there appeared small fragments of various manuscripts, but their transliteration and/or transcription into Slavic languages was still a major problem for researchers. Eventually in 1968 a work in Russian by Аnton К. Antonovich, Белорусские тексты, писанные арабским письмом, и их графико-орфографическая система was published. On the basis of rich text material (23 Tatar manuscripts in the form of books and one official document from 1759), the author conducted a thorough study of the spelling system of Tatar manuscripts. In the introduction, he provided some information about the settlement of the Tatars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania since the 14th and 15th centuries, the process of linguistic assimilation with the local population and the origins of Tatar literature. The author reviewed the manuscripts available to him in an attempt to date and locate them. He also developed a system of their transliteration. For many years this monograph was the main source of knowledge about Tatar kitabs. According to A. Drozd and other researchers (including Iwona Radziszewska), Antonovich created the scholarly

8 6 Cf. C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, p. 11. 87 Among others, Беларуские мусульмане и беларуская литература арабским письмом, „Гадавік Беларускага Навуковага Таварыства” I, Вільна 1933; Přispěvky k dějinám běloruského jazyka na zăkladě rukopisu ‘Al-Kitab’, „Slavia” XII, 1933–1934, pp. 357–390. 88 Мова рукапісу «Аль-Кітаб», ч. I: Фанэтыка, New York 1952. 89 Cf. a list of these works – C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, pp. 11–12.

34

Introduction

basis of kitabistics90. А. К. Antonovich had many plans. Among other things, he wanted to publish a chrestomathy of certain texts from the 16th and 17th centuries, to compile a dictionary of kitabs, and to publish transliterated texts, which could form the basis of studies for not only for linguists but also historians, ethnographers, folklorists, etc. The sudden death of the professor in 1980 ended his plans to conduct research in this area. Valerijus N.  Čekmonas from the University of Vilnius was a continuator of the work begun by Antonovich. In 1985 he published an article Гадальная книга Ходыны (из китаба КУ-1446) in the journal “Kalbotyra”, in which he formulated a proposal to develop a corpus of monuments of Tatar literature and indicated their particular role in the conducting of research into the history of the Belorussian language and to elaborate a complete image of the languages of the GDL. An important postulate, which was put forward already by V. N. Čekmonas, was to develop a uniform system of transliteration and/or transcription of Muslim texts in the Cyrillic or Latin alphabet. It is worth mentioning that in the 1970s, research in Tatar monuments was also conducted in London, “where in 1969 the director of Francis Skaryna Belorussian Library and Museum in London, Alexander Nadson, discovered the so-called Tefsir of 1725 in its collection. Two further monuments – a hamail and a kitab – were found in the British Museum”91. In London a number of works devoted to the Tatars and their writings have been published. Here one may mention The Vocabulary of a Belorussian K’it’ab in the British Museum, developed by Shirin Akiner (1973), and The Belorussian Tartars and their Writings by Glyn Munro Meredith-Owens and Alexander Nadson (1970). In Poland, kitab studies were initiated in the second half of 1980s by C. Łapicz of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. A monograph of his authorship entitled Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich (Paleografia. Grafia. Język) was published in 1986. This was devoted to orthographical notation, orthography, as well as to inflection and lexis of the 18th century manuscript (1782/1783) called Kitab Milkamanowicza (the Milkamanowicz Kitab). In it he drew up and applied a system of transliteration of the oldest written texts of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims, based on the Latin alphabet. In his next publication Klucz do raju. Księga Tatarów litewsko-polskich z XVIII wieku w przekładzie i opracowaniu Henryka Jankowskiego i Czesława Łapicza (2000), he introduced modifications and supplementation of this system. It is a philological translation of Kitab Milkamanowicza into contemporary Polish. The contribution of C. Łapicz to kitab studies is essential. He modified the scholarly views about the causes and the time of the appearance of Tatar religious writings. He corrected and supplemented the classification of Tatar monuments.

90 A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 14; I. Radziszewska, Chamaiły jako typ piśmiennictwa religijnego muzułmanów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego (na podstawie słowiańskiej warstwy językowej), Toruń 2010 (digital version). 91 C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, p. 13.

The state of research

35

He also developed rules of transliteration of the Arabic alphabet into the Latin alphabet, and with the reference of Kitab Milkamanowicza, his achievement was to present, for the first time in the history of the Polish language, its philological description and translation into contemporary Polish. And although it is assumed that the scholarly basis of kitabistics was established by Anton K. Antonovich of the University of Vilnius, without doubt Polish academic research owes C. Łapicz the scholarly term kitabistics and its popularization. This term started to be used in the second half of the 1990s. However, it was popularized after 2000. The young generation of scholars of Tatar literature in the GDL include, among others, G.  Miškinienė from Vilnius, a researcher of the oldest Tatar manuscript copies: Kitab z Kazania (the Kazan Kitab) (1645) and Chamaił lipski (the 17th century)92 – cf. Sieniausi lietuvos totorių rankrašciai. Grafika. Transliteracija. Vertimas. Tekstų struktūra ir turinys (2001). She represents the so-called Vilnius school of kitabistics, who in addition to doing research, dedicated to the problems of transliteration and transcription of handwritten texts of the Tatars of the GDL, focuses on their publication and textological analysis. Thanks to this work 181 manuscripts were provisionally described – cf. A. I. Цiтавец, Рукапiсы нашчадкаў татараў Вялiкага княства Літоўскага ў калекцыях свету (2009). The manuscripts that come from Lithuania, Belorussia and Poland were collected in the following catalogues: Рукапісныя i друкаваныя кнігі (1997), A. Drozd, M. M. Dziekan, T. Majda, Piśmiennictwo i muhiry Tatarów polsko-litewskich. Katalog zabytków tatarskich (2000  – here there is a description of Tatar manuscripts available in Poland, Lithuania, Bielorussia, Ukraine, Russia, Tatarstan, Germany and Great Britain), I. A. Ганчарова, A. I. Цiтавец, М. У. Тарэлка, Рукапiсы беларускіх татараў канца XVII – пачатку XX стагоддзя з калекцыі Цэнтральнай Навуковай Бібліятэкі НАН Беларусі: Каталог (2003), Г. Мишкинене, C. Намавичюте, E. Покровская, Каталог арабскоалфавитных рукописей литовских татар (2005), М. У. Тарэлка, Рукапісы татараў Беларусі XVIII  – пачатку XXI стагоддзя з дзяржаўных і грамадскіх кнігазбораў краіны. Каталог (2015), whereas in 2009 in Vilnius Ivano Luckevičiaus kitabas – Lietuvos totorių kultūros paminklas developed by G. Miškinienė was published. The subject of transliteration here was not only the Slavic language layer, but also the Turkish and Arabic layers. The publication includes a commentary and it has been translated into Russian and Lithuanian. Among the researchers who are currently engaged in studies of Tatar religious writings one may mention the following:  Paul Suter from Zurich, whose work includes a linguistic and translatological evaluation and an analysis of the oldest translation of the Qur’an into north-eastern borderland variety of Polish, e.g. Alfurkan Tatarski. Der litauisch-tatarische Koran-Tefsir (2004), Shirin Akiner

92 According to the most recent findings, this text could have come into existence between 1640 and 1700 – cf. М. Тарэлка, Лейпцыгскі канвалют – беларускататарскі рукапіс XVII стагоддзя (кадыкалагічнае апісанне), „Здабыткі” 19, Mінск 2016, pp. 49–59.

36

Introduction

from London, who describes the fates of Tatars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and analyzes in a detailed and complementary manner the kitab language of the documents that are preserved in the British Museum – cf. Religious Language of a Belarusian Tatar Kitab: A Cultural Monument of Islam in Europe. With a Latin-Script Transliteration of the BL Tatar Belarusian Kitab (Or. 13020)’ on CD-ROM (2009), Michail Tarelka from Minsk, who, among other things, indicates interference between Christianity and Islam in Tatar writings in the GDL, e.g. Структура арабаграфичного текста на польской мове (2004), as well as analyzes in linguistic and textological terms the monuments of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims, indicating sources from which they drew knowledge about the Christian religion and creatively adapted it to the tenets of Islam – cf. the work written in collaboration with Iryna Synkova Адкуль пайшлі ідалы (2009), Andrzej Drozd from Poznań, who describes Tatar manuscripts from the historical perspective (among other things, parallels with Old Polish literature), as well as inscriptions on tombstones of the Tatars of the GDL, e.g. Arabskie teksty liturgiczne w przekładzie na język polski XVII wieku. Zagadnienia gramatyczne na materiale chutb świątecznych (1999), Corpus inscriptionum tartarorum poloniae et lithuaniae (2016), Marek M. Dziekan of Łódź, who analyzes the content of Chamaił Aleksandrowicza (the Aleksandrowicz Hamail) from the collection of Zakład Arabistyki i Islamistyki (the Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies) of the University of Warsaw  – cf. Czas święty i czas świecki w chamaile Aleksandrowicza: godziny i dni Niechsiowe (2008), Chcąc znać i wiedzieć, jak ciągnąć fał alkuranowy w „Chamaile Aleksandrowicza” (2013). Manuscripts of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims are also the subject of the research of Iwona Radziszewska of Gdańsk, whose PhD thesis Chamaiły jako typ piśmiennictwa religijnego muzułmanów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego (na podstawie słowiańskiej warstwy językowej), defended in 2010 in the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, which constituted the most comprehensive review to date of manuscript hamails. Joanna Kulwicka-Kamińska from Toruń, the author of the monograph Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii muzułmańskiej (2004), in which she engaged the problem of the historical development of Polish vocabulary related to Islam, taking into account – as source texts – monuments of Tatar religious literature in the GDL, and Olga Starostina from Minsk, who is engaged in philological description of the Kitab of Jan Lebiedź from the second half of the 18th century, and Inse Klemme whose Master’s thesis, entitled Der Chamail Aleksandrowicz. Die Sprachwissenschaftliche Analyse einer Handschrift der polnisch-litauischen Tataren aus dem 19. Jahrhundert on the basis of Chamaił Aleksandrowicza, was accepted at Freiburg University. Among the researchers of Tatar manuscript literature in the GDL one should also mention Stanisław Dumin from Moscow, who is engaged in the studies of Tatar heraldry and the issue of Christianization of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims, as well as their history and culture, e.g. Herbarz rodzin tatarskich Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego (2006) or Lietuvos totoriai istorijoje ir kulturoje, together with Adas Jakubauskas, Galim Sitdykov (2009). Selim Chazbijewicz of Olsztyn engages, among other things, the problems connected with the Christian-Muslim dialogue

The state of research

37

or Tatar motifs in literature – cf. Islam i Tatarzy w literaturze polskiej (2013). Artur Konopacki of Białystok is a historian and the author of the monograph Życie religij­ne Tatarów na ziemiach Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w XVI–XIX wieku (2010). In 2015, in the Philological Department of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, a specialist research unit, known as Centrum Badań Kitabistycznych (the Centre for Kitab Studies), was established. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska supervises the work of the Centre. The statutory tasks of the unit include initiating, running and coordinating interdisciplinary international scholarly and research activity, editorial work and popularization of kitabistics, and in particular: 1. Introducing to the social awareness and in the academic circulation of an original philological source, namely Muslim religious writings in the GDL, together with the first, Slavic (Polish) translation of the Qur’an which was made probably already in the 16th century. This translation was called a tefsir, for legitimate reasons. On the basis of sources it documents the civilization and cultural rank of two Slavic languages  – Polish and Belorussian, which originated the so-called north-eastern borderland variety of Polish93;

93 Years of study in this area are crowned with the preparation of the Tatar translation. The work associated with it was initiated in 2013 by an international interdisciplinary team of scientists as a part of a project of the Narodowy Program Rozwoju Humanistyki (the National Development Programme of Humanities), called Tefsir – projekt filologiczno-historycznego opracowania oraz krytycznego wydania tzw. tefsiru Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego z 2. połowy XVI w. (pierwszego przekładu Koranu na język polski). The international project “TEFSIR”, whose authors are Joanna Kulwicka-Kamińska and Czesław Łapicz, was carried out as a part of the National Development Programme of Humanities, 1.2 module No. 12H 12 0041 81. Works preceding the submission of an application initiated by C. Łapicz lasted a few years. They were led by C. Łapicz and J. Kulwicka-Kamińska of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń in cooperation with Galina Miškinienė from the Institute of the Lithuanian Language in Vilnius, and then also with Dainora Pociūtė of the University of Vilnius. The result of joint action was the drafting of the project The Qur’an in Europe within the Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7). Then Sergejus Temčinas from the Institute of the Lithuanian language in Vilnius as well as Michail Tarelka and Genadij Cychun from the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus in Minsk were invited to collaborate in the project. Since 2017, the second part of the project (No. 11H 16 0319 84) has been in progress. The result of the work conducted within the framework of this project is supposed to be a critical edition of the Tatar tefsir, containing the complete text of the monument i.e. the Slavic layer in transliteration and the Oriental layer – a transcription of selected fragments of the Arabic and/or Turkish text, accompanied with a philological and historical commentary. The vast majority of the researchers continue the kitabistics-related studies and further partners joined the effort associated with the completion of the tasks of the second part of the grant: from Ukraine – Mykhaylo Yakubovych (University in Ostroh), from Belarus – Alla Kozhinova (Belarusian State University in Minsk) and

38

Introduction

2. Conducting long-term documentary, editorial and research activities of fundamental importance for cultural heritage – not only national, but also European; 3. The accumulation, drawing up and the making of source materials available for interdisciplinary research, not only philological, but also for historical, sociological, religious, literary, cultural, theological studies, etc., especially as some system resemblances can be shown between Tatar manuscripts and Polish medieval and Renaissance manuscript texts; 4. Participation in terms of scholarly expertise in initiatives of other domestic and foreign centres which engage the problems of national and cultural minorities, including, for example, the identification and description of historical Tatar manuscripts; 5. The edition, furnished with philological and historical commentary, of the translation of the Qur’an into Polish from the 1820s by the Vilnius Philomaths – Fr. Dionizy Chlewiński and of Ignacy Domeyko94. Research conducted on the basis of Tatar manuscript literature was focused and continues to be focused mainly on Slavic texts, in Polish and Belorussian, written in the Arabic script, taking into account interjections derived from Oriental languages. Meanwhile, a scholarly exploration of the Oriental layer of Tatar monuments is also essential, for its research can contribute to the establishment of the complete textual content of manuscripts, to the indication of the sources of Oriental texts, as well as to an evaluation of the linguistic competence of the authors and copyists of these books. Orientalist studies of Tatar translation texts have been engaged mainly by Turkologists, whose area of research involves Oriental borrowings in the language of written texts and in everyday speech, as well as the onomastics of the Tatars of the GDL. The ethnic language of Tatars also became the subject of their analysis95. from Turkey – Halil İbrahim Usta (Ankara University). A detailed description of the project is available at the following website – http://www.tefsir.umk.pl/ (09-06-2018). 94 Cf. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, M. Lewicka, Instytucjonalne formy badań nad dziedzictwem kulturowym Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Centrum Badań Kitabistycznych (UMK, Toruń), [in:] Tatarszczyzna w badaniach. Konteksty interdyscyplinarne, ed. A. Konopacki, Białystok 2015, pp. 65–79. 9 5 Among contemporary Turkologists one may mention, for example, H. Jankowski, The Tatar Name of Sorok Tatary. Keturiasdešimt Totorių Discovered, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos Visuomenės Tradicijoje: Totoriai ir Karaimai, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008, pp. 147–159; Imiennictwo Tatarów litewsko-polsko-białoruskich w dawnych dokumentach, [in:] Tatarzy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w historii, języku i kulturze, eds. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2013, pp. 149–163; Cechy graficzne i językowe tekstów turkijskich w zapisie kopistów polsko-tatarskich, [in:] Tefsir Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Teoria i praktyka badawcza, e-monografia, eds. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2015, pp. 139–171 [http://www.tefsir.umk.pl/pliki/Tefsir_Tatarow_WKL.pdf] (09-062017), or T. Majda, Turkish-Belorussian-Polish Handbook, „Rocznik Orientalistyczny”

The state of research

39

By contrast, the Arabic-language content of the religious literature of LithuanianPolish Muslims still awaits monographical treatment. The state of research in this field together with bibliographical references until the end of the 20th century is discussed in detail by A. Drozd in his already-mentioned work of 199996. This does not mean that until now in the works which engage the problems of Tatar writings no references to the Arabic linguistic layer have appeared97. Those which have been published concerned a preliminary indication of the content of monuments (mainly hamails)98 and the graphy and orthography of Arabic texts which appear in selected Tatar texts99. However, until the end of 1990s, the achievement of Arabic studies in the scope of kitabistics is associated only with the works by A. Drozd: a study devoted to the prayer for sultans, being a part of khutbahs, called Sułtan dua (świąteczna modlitwa za sułtanów)100, and the previously mentioned monograph Arabskie teksty liturgiczne w przekładzie na język polski XVII wieku (1999), which deals with translation into Polish of three Arabic festive orations present in a hamail from the collection of the library of the Department of Oriental Studies of the University of Saint Petersburg101. As far as foreign achievements are concerned, a turning point is linked with the previosly mentioned publications of kitab studies from Vilnius102 and the works of P.  Suter, in which he made an attempt to evaluate the translation of the Qur’an in a philological and in XLIX (2), Warszawa 1995, pp. 139–158; Osmanizacja pisanego języka Tatarów polskolitewskich, [in:] Tatarzy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w historii, języku i kulturze, eds. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2013, pp. 203–210. 96 Cf. A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, pp. 14–17. Whereas the development of Polish Orientalist studies from their beginnings, i.e. from Middle Polish until now, was thoroughly described in a doctoral thesis by J.  Kulwicka-Kamińska, Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii islamistycznej…… 97 Cf. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, M. Lewicka, Instytucjonalne formy badań…, pp. 70–71. 98 G. M. Meredith-Owens, A. Nadson, The Belorussian Tatars and their Writings, “The Journal of Belorussian Studies”, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1970, pp. 141–176; A. Drozd, Chamaił Sobolewskiego, „Rocznik Tatarów Polskich” I, Gdańsk 1993, pp. 48–62; idem, Rękopis Tatarów polsko-litewskich w zbiorach Biblioteki Gdańskiej PAN, „d’Oriana. Awiza Biblioteczne” 3, 1996, pp. 18–27. 99 Characteristics of their linguistic aspects confined themselves to the signaling of the presence of numerous scriptorial corruptions, the cause of which was the lack of knowledge of Arabic on the part of people who undertook the task of copying religious Tatar books. See, for example, G. M. Meredith-Owens, op. cit., p. 168; A. Drozd, Chamaił Sobolewskiego…, pp. 56–58. 100 A. Drozd, Sułtan dua (świateczna modlitwa za sułtanów), „Rocznik Tatarów Polskich”, No. 2, 1994, pp. 206–217. 101 Sygn. LU-869. The monument is dated from the end of the 18th century or the beginning of the 19th century, whereas the translation was made earlier. See A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 9. 102 Cf. Ivano Luckevičiaus kitabas – Lietuvos totorių kultūros paminklas in a study of G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2009.

40

Introduction

a translatological perspective on the basis of surah Al-Baqara103. As far as native achievements are concerned, the work by J. Kulwicka-Kamińska Przekład terminologii religijnej islamu w polskich tłumaczeniach Koranu na tle biblijnej tradycji translatorycznej (2013) has already been mentioned. Work conducted as part of the “TEFSIR” project opens new perspectives104. M. M. Dziekan, an Arabist of the team, undertook his studies in the framework of the outlined areas of research105. In it he made an attempt to answer the following questions: Is it possible to establish on the basis of Tatar tefsirs in the GDL from what language (Turkish or Arabic) the first translation of the Qur’an into Polish/Belorussian was made?, Is it possible to subject to evaluation – even on limited (representative) material – the Arabic (or Turkish) base of the translation of the Qur’an into Polish and/or Belorussian? Finally, what conclusions (general or detailed) is it possible to draw with reference to Slavic-Oriental relations on the basis of the Polish translation of the Qur’an in the form of a tefsir? An important and still relevant research problem is postulated by A. Drozd: the multilingual content of Tatar manuscripts. Its full and complementary development would require constant cooperation of Slavists and Orientalists. Textological analyses based on the content of manuscripts will facilitate the tracing of the movement of certain subjects through monuments, which are diversified in time and space, and consequently the indication or reconstruction of the most ancient books, and those which became a basis for subsequent copies. On the other hand, they will enable motifs and subjects shared with other manuscripts to be distinguished, both within one kind (e.g. between hamails), as well as with different types (e.g. between hamails and kitabs). The analysis of Arabic content can provide some additional information concerning the dating of individual monuments (or their copies), based on annotations which appear in colophons, which enable direct dating, as well as on additional notes (e.g. a certificate of the owner or family notes) on the first or last pages of books, and on dates and historical facts woven in the text, although some of these may relate to the time of the narration, rather than extra-textual reality106. Stylistic-linguistic and translatological research should include first of all Tatar tefsirs. Only small fragments of these books were published by the mid-90’s. Some

103 Cf. P. Suter, Zu den Koranübersetzungen der litauischen Tataren, „Slavica Helvetica”, Bern–Berlin–Nowy Jork 1993, pp. 371–395; idem, Alfurkan Tatarski… A Belorussian version of the work by Suter was published in 2009 in Minsk – Альфуркан татарскі. Каран-тэфсір татараў Вялікага Княства Літовўскага translated by I. Сынкова, В. Свяклa, M. Тарэлкa, ed. by Г. Цыхун. 104 Cf. pp. [37–38] in this monograph. 105 These tasks, concerning the research in Slavic and Oriental Tatar manuscripts, are an authorial contribution of C. Łapicz and J. Kulwicka-Kamińska to works on the project “TEFSIR”. 106 J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, M. Lewicka, Instytucjonalne formy badań…, p. 73.

The state of research

41

excerpts from Tatar tefsirs appeared in print, among others, owing to Antoni Muchliński (1857), Ignaty Krachkovsky (1924), Stanisław Szachno-Romanowicz (1931), Anton K. Antonovich (1968), Glyn Munro Meredith-Owens and Alexander Nadson (1970)107. Thus, a critical edition of the earliest Polish translation of the Qur’an is important for conducting further research in the translation of Muslim religious texts into languages that are outside the circle of the culture and tradition of Islam, that is a so-called tefsir, with solid linguistic commentary108. Stylistic, linguistic and translatological research should also include the subsequent translations of the holy book of Islam into Polish, that is the Philomath translation of the Qur’an and the translation by Józef Bielawski. The necessity to draw attention to this issue is pointed out, among others, by Nihad Jord in his work Koran rękopiśmienny w Polsce (1994) – cf. chapters entitled Znajomość Koranu w dawnej Polsce; Koran w dorobku polskiej orientalistyki, including:  Przekłady Koranu w języku polskim. The issue of adequate translation of Muslim religious terminology into Slavic languages, which has been raised by modern scholars, includes interference of these two monotheistic religions – Islam and Christianity. These influences have been indicated and described, among others, in the works of C. Łapicz109, A.

1 07 Cf. A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 16. 108 Cf. A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., p. 46. J. Szynkiewicz also wrote about a significant role of tefsirs and their uniqueness, Literatura religijna Tatarów litewskich i jej pochodzenie, „Rocznik Tatarski” II, Zamość 1935, p. 138: “At present tefsirs have become almost unique, and they are kept by a few families as heirlooms. Some copies date back to the 18th century. The text of their translation is very good, in the spirit of the best Muslim commentators” and p. 140: “… there are very few kitabs left, only one or two for a congregation, and as for tefsirs, in the whole country there can be found not more than ten of them.” Cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 6: „Es gibt bis heute kein vollständiges Inventar der litauisch-tatarischen Handschriften. Die bekannten Manuskripte liegen verstreut in Museen und Bibliotheken in Wilna, Mińsk, St. Petersburg, Kazań, Warschau, Leipzig oder London. Eine beträchtliche Anzahl von Handschriften befindet sich in Privatbesitz tatarischer Familien, wo sie von Generation zu Generation weitervererbt werden. Diese Manuskripte sind in der Regel der wissenschaftlichen Forschung nur beschränkt zugänglich. Immer wieder gehen Handschriften unwiederbringlich verloren, oft aus Unachtsamkeit oder Gleichgültigkeit dem islamisch-tatarischen Erbe gegenüber.” At the beginning of the project “TEFSIR”, in 2013, the researchers from Poland, Lithuania and Belorussia knew of the existence of only of a dozen tefsirs. Until recently it was thought that twenty tefsir-like monuments were preserved – cf. I. Сынкова http:// www.tefsir.umk.pl/pliki/Tefsir_Tatarow_WKL.pdf (09-10-2015), but the most recent research of Michail Tarelka, (cf. Рукапісы татараў Беларусі XVIII – пачатку XXI стагоддзя з дзяржаўных і грамадскіх кнігазбораў краіны. Каталог, Мінск 2015) extends this canon by further texts. 109 C. Łapicz, Z zagadnień przekładu muzułmańskiej terminologii modlitewnej na język polski i białoruski, [in:] Z przeszłości i teraźniejszości języka polskiego. Księga pamiątkowa dedykowana Teresie Friedelównie, eds. J. Kamper-Warejko, J.

42

Introduction

Drozd110, K. Dufala111, G. Miškinienė112, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska113, I. Radziszewska114, I.  Synkova, М. Tarelka115, and A.  Konopacki116. Some of them (Drozd, Dufala, Miškinienė, Łapicz, Radziszewska, Synkova, Tarelka) indicated Christian sources, featured in kitabs and hamails in particular (fragments of the Bible and Christian

Kulwicka-Kamińska, K. Nowakowska, Toruń 2007, pp. 99–117; Chrześcijańskomuzułmańska interferencja religijna w rękopisach Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, [in:] Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystes kalbos, kultūros ir raštijos tradicijos, Vilnius 2009, pp. 293–310; Z teorii i praktyki przekładów Koranu (wybrane zagadnienia), [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki…, pp. 269–288. 110 A. Drozd, Tatarska wersja pieśni-legendy o św. Hiobie, „Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne” II (XXII), Seria Literacka, Poznań 1995, pp. 163–195; Wpływy chrześcijańskie na literaturę Tatarów w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej. Między antagonizmem a symbiozą, „Pamiętnik Literacki” LXXXVIII, 1997, fasc. 3, pp. 3–34; Arabskie teksty liturgiczne… 111 K. Dufala, Legenda o św. Grzegorzu w kitabie Tatarów – muzułmanów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki…, pp. 205–220. 112 G. Miškinienė, Sieniausi lietuvos totorių rankrašciai… 113 J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Semantyka i przekład leksemów księga, pismo, słowo w polskich translacjach biblijnych i koranicznych, [in:] Pogranicza, ed. D. Kowalska, Łódź 2007, pp. 327–347; Bałwany i bogowie w Koranie i w Biblii – polski przekład i jego analiza leksykalno-semantyczna, [in:] Studia nad słownictwem dawnym i współczesnym języków słowiańskich, eds. J. Kamper-Warejko, I. Kaproń-Charzyńska, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Toruń 2007, pp. 103–113; Nazwy bogów pogańskich w Koranie i w Biblii – polski przekład i jego analiza leksykalno-semantyczna, [in:] Z przeszłości i teraźniejszości języka polskiego…, pp. 47–69; Ewangelia, Pięcioksiąg, Psalm, Tora w dawnych i współczesnych translacjach biblijnych i koranicznych, [in:] Tradycja a nowoczesność, ed. E. Woźniak, Łódź 2008, pp. 101–114; Przekład słownictwa dogmatycznego islamu i chrześcijaństwa w polskich translacjach biblijnych i koranicz­ nych (na przykładzie wybranych nazw bogów pogańskich), [in:] Tożsamość na styku kultur. Zbiór studiów, eds. I. Masojć, R. Naruniec, Vilnius 2008, pp. 372–390; Sposoby przekładu chrześcijańskiej i muzułmańskiej terminologii religijnej w polskich translacjach biblijnych i koranicznych, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki…, pp. 333–348; Z problematyki przekładu muzułmańskiej i chrześcijańskiej terminologii religijnej (na podstawie piśmiennictwa Tatarów litewsko-polskich, polskich przekładów Koranu i Biblii), [in:] Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos kalbos…, pp. 335–345; Przekład terminologii religijnej… 114 I. Radziszewska, Chamaiły jako typ piśmiennictwa religijnego… In this work the author raises, inter alia, the problem of the presence in one of Tatar hamails of some elements taken from the Psalms translated by Bishop I. Krasicki. Eadem, Elementy obyczajowości Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego na przykładzie oracji weselnych w tatarskim rękopiśmiennictwie, [in:] Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos kalbos…, pp. 346–356. 115 М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit. 116 A. Konopacki, Życie religijne Tatarów na ziemiach Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w XVI–XIX wieku, Warszawa 2010, pp. 155–158.

Why terminology?

43

religious literature), which were creatively used by the Tatars of the GDL, adapting them to the canons and principles of the Muslim faith. Czesław Łapicz has also undertaken research in handwritten translations of the Qur’an into Slavic languages. He indicated the reasons for the first translations of the Qur’an in the form of Tatar tefsirs, and the difficulties encountered by their translators, as well as translation solutions adopted by them, for example Slavicization of original terms, the use of analytical forms and analogical translation to Christian terminology. The aim of the research of J. Kulwicka-Kamińska is translation of the Muslim terminology from Oriental languages (especially from Arabic and Turkish) into Slavic languages (especially Polish and Belorussian), including the interference of Christianity and Islam in Tatar religious literature in the GDL. She points to factors which are common to Polish translations and Muslim translation tradition (translations of the Qur’an, e.g. in the form of Turkish tefsirs) and what constitutes a pattern of Christian (including Biblical) influence, and analyzes inclusion of adequately modified Christian sources into Muslim religious writings.

0.4 Why terminology? Terminology, from a diachronic perspective, is a codification of vocabulary in a specific area by selection of existing forms or creation of new ones, according to arbitrarily created rules. There are three basic ways of obtaining terms: borrowing, neosemantization and the creation of composita117. It is therefore usually a result of a conscious and purposeful activity of specialists in the field that leads to filling a gap in the naming of certain concepts. The role of terms is therefore to perform a nominative function, “as well as definition, signification, identification and distinctive functions”118. They are marked by their reproductiveness, that is they enable to form further derivatives, and uniformity, the application of which is to complement the existing word family, if possible. In creating a new term the point is that it should be used efficiently. It should meet the requirements of brevity, efficiency, clarity and monosemy. In a situation in which it is not possible to respect the principle of name adequacy of the concept it describes, foreign terms are adopted to be able to meet the requirement of monosemy. According to studies, borrowed words constitute one fifth of all terms119. The tendency to preserve original, genetically Oriental terms is a distinctive feature of translation of writings by the Tatars of the GDL. The presence of untranslated terms here is a consequence of the lack of exact Slavic

117 Cf. H. Jadacka, Terminologia, [in:] Nowy słownik poprawnej polszczyzny PWN, ed. A. Markowski, Warszawa 2002, pp. 1760–1767. 118 W. Lubaś, Wokół słownika współczesnego języka polskiego III. Zakres selekcji i informacji, eds. W. Lubaś, F. Sowa, Kraków 1993, p. 8. 119 I. Burkacka, Terminy naukowe jako podstawy słowotwórcze, „LingVaria” VI, 2011, No. 1, p. 51.

44

Introduction

equivalents relating to the reality of the Muslim world120. Thus, they designate important concepts, from the point of view of the Islamic doctrine, and form an image of the Muslim world. Creating a particular image of the world by Slavic Muslims also involved the need for the creation of neologisms and semantic neologisms (in translated texts native expressions are assigned specialized terminological functions). Referring to previously published works on Polish Christian terminology – cf. among others E. Klich, Polska terminologia chrześcijańska, Poznań 1927; M. Karpluk, Słownik staropolskiej terminologii chrześcijańskiej, Kraków 2001, and the methodological solutions adopted in them, the vocabulary representative for the tenets of Islam, is by analogy classified as terminology. It is assumed by Maria Karpluk that terminology does not include only technical vocabulary used in a specialized area of social life, but also words and word combinations of general meaning, with added religious reference. It is because many terms manifest both specific (complete indication of citations is provided) and ordinary meaning (only the quotations which are necessary to illustrate the matter are provided), but they only acquire a specific meaning in a religious context. Thus, they have a double status and are ambiguous, which determines the contextual analysis that takes the onomasiological criterion into account in their description121. So these are terms with a broader sense, which are used to show the development of a specific area of social culture. The Muslim terminology is therefore a religious one122.

120 This problem was pointed out by N. Jord, Koran rękopiśmienny w Polsce, Lublin 1994, p. 43, while analysing the translation by Józef Bielawski: “The lexical level of the translation by Józef Bielawski sometimes contains some inconsistencies. These inaccuracies are the result, among other things, of the objective difficulties caused by the lack of equivalents for Qur’anic terms in Polish. This is evident in the case of the adjectives by which the attributes of God are expressed in the Qur’an.” 121 Such an approach is consistent with the understanding of the terms in the humanities. The terms here do not have clearly marked boundaries, and their subject reference depends on the context. They are often ambiguous, not devoid of expressive and ideological aspects. They differ from words, as they refer to deliberately created elements of expertise. They often define the notion, taking into account only one of its aspects. They can coexist in the text with other terms that indicate the same phenomenon. They constitute instances of synonymy. These remarks follow: Z. Kozłowska, O przekładzie tekstu naukowego. Na materiale tekstów językoznawczych, Warszawa 2007, pp. 126–128. 122 Another argument in favour of recognition of the vocabulary discussed in this work as terminology deals with its morphological properties, and especially with its productivity in substantive adjectival area. These properties are usually present in derivational nests, relational adjectives, names of abstract qualities, processes, states, and objectable or resultable subject, and a dominant morphological technique is suffixation – cf. the findings in this regard in: J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii muzułmańskiej, Toruń 2004.

The selection of source texts

45

The doctrinal aspect of religion was taken into consideration in the selection of entries, and such aspects as worship, organization, and experience were omitted123. According to I.  Winiarska, lexis relating to the issue of dogma, or doctrine, is in many ways close to philosophical terminology, on which the lexis of Biblical origin, among others, left its mark, and thus a specific Biblical style of metaphorical and allegorical dimension124.

0.5 The selection of source texts The chronological scope of the work covers the period from the second half of the 16th century to the late 20th century, because it is the likely time of the formation of the first translations of Tatar religious books in the GDL. This is indicated by indirect data, such as the historical, cultural and linguistic context (e.g. the fact of losing the ethnic language and a need to create literature in a language that was understood and widely used), as well as linguistic features specific to various stages of language development (e.g. linguistic features existing in the Belorussian and Polish languages by the end of the 16th century), and the content of the monuments125. The final turning point is set at the year 1986, that is when the last Polish translation of the Qur’an from the Arabic original was published, which is, in this work, juxtaposed with an intermediate translation from English, published in 1990126. In order to obtain the most representative lexical material,



It should be added that in the work the following words are used interchangeably: word, expression or term and vocabulary or terminology, however, it is assumed that the analyzed linguistic items are terms. 123 M. Karpluk, Słownik staropolskiej terminologii chrześcijańskiej…, p. XI. 124 I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 13. Cf. R. Brandstaetter, O tłumaczeniu Psalmów, [in:] Przekład artystyczny. O sztuce tłumaczenia. Księga druga, ed. S. Pollak, Wrocław 1975, p. 15: Hebrew speech was “admittedly poor in abstract concepts, but rich in images, comparisons and metaphors, growing out of imagination saturated with a particular Eastern perception of the world and people.” 125 Cf. reseach conducted by C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, p. 62 and p. 64; A. Drozd, O twórczości literackiej Tatarów w dobie staropolskiej, [in:] Tatarzy w Europie i na świecie, Poznań 1995, pp. 36–37 as well as P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 126, who ultimately perceived that Tatar monuments in the GDL were certainly created before the end of the 16th century. This is attested by some contemporary sources, such as Risāle-i Tātār-i Leh (1558), and the work of an Ottoman historian, Ibrahim Peçevî (d. 1642). There are also some indications in the text of the translation itself: terminology and some themes referring to the Reformation. 126 In 2011 in New Jersey, an intermediate translation of the Qur’an into Polish was published – cf. Koran. Z interpretacją i przypisami w języku polskim, translated by Ali Ünal (from Arabic into English), Jarosław Surdel (from English into Polish). Among other things, due to the fact that this is another intermediate translation, it has not been chosen as an object of research.

46

Introduction

the author has included excerpts from printed translations of the Qur’an into Polish and Tatar monuments in the GDL, written in the Arabic script, requiring transcription and/or transliteration127. These are Muslim religious texts, whose selection was based on the thematic criterion. They include the first preserved copies of the 16th century Tatar monuments128 such as Kitab z Kazania, Chamaił lipski (transliteration by Miškinienė, Sieniausi lietuvos totorių rankrašciai. Grafika. Transliteracija. Vertimas. Tekstų struktūra ir turinys, Vilnius 2001)129, texts from the 18th century: Tefsir londyński (the London Tefsir or Tefsir of 1725) (transliteration of selected fragments, mainly of surahs I, II – G. M. Meredith-Owens, A. Nadson, The Belorussian Tartars and Their Writings, “The Journal of Belorussian Studies” II, London 1970, No. 2, p. 141–176; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski. Der litauisch-tatarische Koran-Tefsir, Köln–Weimar–Wien 2004, p. 374–446), and for comparative reasons Tefsir z Olity (the Olita Tefsir) from 1723130 (author’s transliteration based on the system adopted within the framework of the project “TEFSIR”), Tefsir z Wilna (the Vilnius Tefsir) from 1788 (transliteration of selected fragments in a manuscript – Łapicz), Kitab Łuckiewicza (the Łuckiewicz Kitab) (transliteration  – J.  Stankievič, Přispěvky k dějinám běloruského jazyka na zăkladě rukopisu ‘Al-Kitab’, „Slavia” XII, 1933–1934, p.  357–390 and G.  Miškinienė, Ivano Luckevičiaus kitabas  – Lietuvos totorių kultūros paminklas, Vilnius 2009), Kitab Milkamanowicza (transliteration of selected fragments  – C.  Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich. (Paleografia. Grafia. Język), Toruń 1986 and in a manuscript – C. Łapicz, as well as a philological translation by H.  Jankowski, C.  Łapicz, Klucz do raju. Księga Tatarów litew­ sko-polskich z XVIII wieku w przekładzie i opracowaniu Henryka Jankowskiego i Czesława Łapicza, Warszawa 2000), dating back to the 19th century: lexical material excerpted from 19th-century kitabs in the form of small dictionaries compiled by Shirin Akiner (Kitab londyński [the London Kitab]) – S. Akiner, The Vocabulary of a Belorussian K’it’ab in the British Museum, “The Journal of Belorussian Studies” III, London 1973, No. 1, pp.  55–84) and Ali Woronowicz (A. Woronowicz, Kitab Tatarów litewskich i jego zawartość, „Rocznik Tatarski” II, Zamość 1935), Józef 127 The texts which are used in this work are already transliterated and as a rule released in print by researchers of religious literature of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims. 128 It is worthwhile noting that the originals, which date back to the second half of the 16th century, were not preserved. The oldest copies known to researchers date back to the 17th century and even later centuries. Those monuments were copied, supplemented, and compiled in different ways until our times – cf. C. Łapicz, Kitabistyka a historia języka polskiego i białoruskiego…, p. 38. 129 Abbreviations indicating source texts – both manuscripts as well as printed – can be found at the end of the study. 130 It is a monument that is in private possession in Lithuania. Only a part of the manuscript dates back to the 18th century, because some of its excerpts, which were corrected, supplemented or added, date back to the 19th century, and precisely from 1836 (recorded from a colophon). In this work some examples from TAL were used, quoting articles that appeared as a part of the project “TEFSIR”.

The selection of source texts

47

Sobolewski Wykład wiary machometańskiej czyli iślamskiej from 1830 as well as printed translations of the Qur’an which date back to the 19th and 20th centuries:  Koran attributed to Jan Buczacki from 1858 (the same as Koran published probably in Poznań in 1848 translated by the Philomaths Fr. Dionizy Chlewiński and Ignacy Domeyko, from which only 11 surahs survived)131, Wersety z Koranu translated by Jakób Szynkiewicz from 1935, Koran translated by Józef Bielawski of 1986, and Koran of 1990. It should be noted that Tatar manuscript monuments in the GDL and printed translations of the Qur’an are two distinct groups of sources because the first translators of the Qur’an into Polish  – the Philomaths Fr. D.  Chlewiński and I. Domeyko – according to the research (the lack of knowledge of the typology of Tatar literature, which is confirmed for example in the memoirs of Franciszek Mickiewicz, the brother of Adam Mickiewicz132) they probably did not directly use Tatar religious books that existed in the GDL, although the Philomath translation and the translation based on it, attributed to Jan Murza Tarak-Buczacki came into being in the Tatar environment. And it is confirmed in historical sources that public readings of Muslim religious books were held during specially organized meetings of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims. Before the publication of the Qur’an in 1858 editorial corrections to it were made by the Tatars from Podlasie Region, Selim Buczacki and his son Jan, who is listed as the author of the translation133. It is further known that Polish Philomaths cooperated with a Tatar from Nowogródek (Navahrudak), J. Sobolewski, who at the same time was writing a catechism of the Muslim faith, entitled Wykład wiary machometańskiej czyli iślamskiej, in which some passages from their translation are present134. The author of the catechism states that he 131 1848 was adopted as the date of the issuing of the original translation on the basis of the findings in this regard by Z. Wójcik, Filomacki przekład Alkoranu dla Tatarów nowogródzkich, „Literatura Ludowa” XXXIX, 1995, No. 3, p. 15–28, and T. Bairašauskaitė, Lietuvos totoriai XIX amžiuje, Vilnius 1996, p. 170, who relied on, among other things Bibliografia Polska Estreichera XIX stulecia, Kraków 1881, p. 379. A. Drozd thinks that it is a translation from French from 1828–1829 – cf. Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 17. Such a thesis is also put forward by W. P. Turek, op. cit., pp. 249–252. It is worth mentioning that a modernized reprint of it appeared in Sandomierz in 2010, entitled Koran. Przekład filomatów. 132 Pamiętnik Franciszka Mickiewicza, issued from the autograph and explained by J. Kallenbach, foreword by W. Mickiewicz, Lwów–Warszawa–Kraków 1923. 133 A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 17. Cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 7. 134 According to C. Łapicz, when Sobolewski was writing the catechism of the Muslim faith, in theory, three Russian translations of the Qur’an could have been available to him, but none of them was based on the original Arabic text. The first Russian translation by Piotr Postnikow and the second one by M. Verovkin of 1716 were based on an earlier French translation by Du Ryer. The third Russian translation by Kolmakov appeared in 1792 and it was based on an English verision by Sale. Although one more Russian translation appeared before the publication of Wykład wiary by Sobolewski, it was also based on the French version by Du Ryer, but it was

48

Introduction

used a Tatar manuscript while he was writing his work. Therefore, one cannot rule out that J.  Sobolewski supported the Philomaths with a tefsir translation of the Qur’an135. The opinions of researchers, however, are divided on this topic136. Selected texts, containing doctrinal vocabulary of Islam, constitute then the subject of analysis. They are only a fragment of a larger collection, which consists of all the religious literature of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims137. At the present stage of studies the postulate that the materials should be used in their entirety and that whole writings are to be encompassed by research reflection is unfortunately not possible for one person to carry out. Complete translations of the Bible, both Catholic and Protestant ones, also form the material basis. Biblia Tysiąclecia (1980) is the main source of excerpts of lexical material. Names taken from it are then matched with their corresponding equivalents in the context of specific locations in Old Polish translations138. The anonymous, and the translation itself existed only in manuscript form as Алкоран или закон магометанский. Переведенный с арапского на французский язык через Господина Дю Риера. All of these translations originated in the 18th century and all were translated from an intermediary language, and not directly from the Arabic original. It is unlikely that they were available to Sobolewski. And it is even less likely that Sobolewski used them during the writing of his work on Islam, especially when he cited passages of the Qur’an in the Polish version. However, it should be borne in mind that, at the time of writing the catechism (in about 1829), Sobolewski had a manuscript of a Polish translation of the Qur’an, which he tried to get the tsar to print. It was a Philomath Qur’an, completed in 1828. Not citing directly this translation, he quoted abundantly its passages in his publication (that is Qur’anic citations). This is confirmed by a detailed comparative analysis of both texts – cf. Źródła cytatów koranicznych w Wykładzie wiary machometańskiej czyli iślamskiej… Józefa Sobolewskiego z 1830 r., [in:] Tatarzy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w historii, języku i kulturze, eds. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2013, pp. 185–202. 135 Cf. A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 17. 136 C. Łapicz, in his article Źródła cytatów koranicznych w Wykładzie wiary machometańskiej czyli iślamskiej… Józefa Sobolewskiego z 1830 r., [in:] Tatarzy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w historii, języku i kulturze…, rules out completely such a possibility, and his conclusions are based on a thorough textological analysis of the Tatar translation literature and Wykład wiary… by J. Sobolewski. 137 It should be added that later copies (especially since the 18th century) of the 16th century monuments include the content of the original modified by involuntary corruption by copyists, to whom Oriental languages were unfamiliar, and who introduced some small textual changes in the form of individual words and phrasemes. In contrast, since the second half of the 18th century modifications of the content of the original texts were of purposeful and deliberate character, which confirms the variability of transmission – introduction of new sentences or phrases, change in grammatical forms and whole lexical items – cf. A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, pp. 46–47. 138 Due to the fact that the lexical material was excerpted from modern translations of the Bible, in which many features of old orthographical notation and phonetics were

The selection of source texts

49

following 16th century translations were included: Biblia brzeska (Brest Bible 1563), Biblia nieświeska (Nesvizh Bible 1572), and Biblia Jakuba Wujka139 (Jakub Wujek Bible 1599). The 17th-century translation known as Biblia gdańska (Gdańsk Bible 1632) was also used. The Bible is an important source material because of its special role in culture, its broad and continuous impact on all social layers, and its theandric, universal character, as well as the complexity of its interpretation and the associated difficulties in linguistic analysis, abundance of literary genres, and multiplicity of stylistic figures140. The oldest Polish printed Bibles also constitute an invaluable source for language studies, as well as information about the spiritual and material culture of particular Slavic peoples and the environments in which those versions of the Bible were created, and historical and linguistic research material due to: 1. The vastness, completeness and complementarity of the text – it is the richest work in terms of its subject matter, content and form; 2.  The sacred character of the text, excluding freedom of translation, demanding great erudition and philological authenticity of a translator, the product of a distinct culture, varied work that was created in different periods of time and in different environments, combining different types of literature; a sacred work in which even the smallest letter cannot be removed or added, which makes translators who are engaged in its translation deal with a huge sense of responsibility, with the rendering of the word of God which is crucial for the faithful. However, at the same time, the translators are usually aware of the enormity of the difficulties that they have to overcome141. The monuments of religious literature of the Tatars of the GDL were consequently subjected to philological and linguistic analysis, especially the oldest translation of the Qur’an into Polish in the form of a Tatar tefsir (an interlinear translation142 that provides an opportunity to compare the translation unit with the original text), dating back to the 16th century. Polish printed translations of the holy book of Islam from the 19th and 20th centuries, especially KB1, KB2 and

omitted, this work adopted a simplified phonetical transcription, based on these versions. Biblia nieświeska is an exception as an antique book from the collection of the Library of the University of Warsaw served as its material basis. 139 As it is stated by T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 39 – despite the Latin mediation of Biblia Jakuba Wujka – the Polish lexeme is in effect the equivalent of Hebrew and Greek lexemes. 140 Cf. K. Długosz-Kurczabowa, Jeszcze raz o apelatywizacji biblijnych nazw własnych…, p. 124; the work also mentions the etymology of the word, p. 131. 141 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, pp. 256–257. 142 H. Jankowski, quoting the most recent research results, states that “…the legitimacy of this term has been subjected to criticism, aptly showing that an appropriate name of the term is satır altı ‘under a line’ (which in English should be rendered as infralinear) since translation into another language or two languages is put under the last row in a page, i.e. it is not located between lines; the same applies to the last line” – cf. Cechy graficzne i językowe…, p. 141.

50

Introduction

K3 were subjected to the same analysis (an intermediate translation from English, in which a Polish lexeme is in effect the equivalent of Arabic lexemes143, supplemented with commentaries that are significant, from the perspective of the Islamic doctrine, and the original text of the Qur’an), as well as excerpts from individual surahs translated into Polish (cf. for example WzK). The first Polish translation of the Qur’an into Polish in the form of a Tatar tefsir became the material basis for the research because it reflects the European tradition of translation (it combines literal translation with exegetical interpretation), demonstrates a relationship with Muslim commentary literature, and includes numerous Arabic and Turkish calques. In addition, it is likely that it was a model for subsequent translators144. It would be therefore desirable to include in the work the whole text and juxtapose it with the relevant passages (analogous contexts) of subsequent printed translations of the holy book of Islam. However, it is not possible for technical reasons, namely due to the lack of a publication of larger passages of the translation of the Qur’an. Therefore, the scope of this work is limited to the first two surahs from the tefsirs of the years 1725 and 1788 (transliterated and made available to the author of the book) and to selected contexts of tefsirs from 1723. For the same reasons the sources were complemented with some copies of other Tatar monuments, such as kitabs and hamails, which constitute reference material which enriches the overview of Tatar translations145. They also show more broadly the influences of Christian terminology and the borrowings from it. Their inclusion in the canon of sources also results in showing different subtypes of a religious language and levels of communication within religious style, because at a linguistic level they are texts which adhere to a colloquial variety of the general language – in contradistinction to the monuments that represent ritual or liturgical language i.e tefsirs. In the analysis of the copies of the original translation, there is a risk of ascribing to the translator translation features, which could not have been completely the result of his work, but the result of the interference of copyists. It is, however, impossible to limit this risk, because none of the original 16th-century texts have survived to our times. 143 Cf. methodological assumptions embraced by T. Lisowski in regard to BW, Sola Scriptura…, p. 39. 144 A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 11. 145 Especially in kitabs, there are numerous citations from the Qur’an, and hamails include large passages of the holy book of Islam – cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 72–83. Analogous conclusions with reference to the Chamaił lipski were presented by M. Тарэлка, Pэлігійна-палемічны тэкст з лейпцыгскага канвалюта, [in:] Święte księgi judaizmu, chrześcijaństwa i islamu w słowiańskim kręgu kulturowym, Vol. I  Księgi wyznawców islamu. Kitabistyka, eds. M. Krajewska, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, A. Szulc, Toruń 2016, pp. 121–149. He drew attention, for example, to the presence of the expression wiárā ‘ibrāhimowā, clearly of tefsir provenance.

The selection of source texts

51

Handwritten books of the Tatars of the GDL and Polish printed translations of the Qur’an were compared with printed translations of the Bible into Polish and Polish lexicographical sources (dictionaries of the Polish language – both historical and modern – also before and after the appearance of translations of the Qur’an because at that time, religious vocabulary was also being borrowed) in order to show in the most comprehensive way possible the process of the shaping of Muslim religious terminology. The lexicographical, phraseological and paremiological resources of the general Polish language were therefore used, as well as the list of Biblisms to check the status of attestations of the discussed constructions in the collections of general and Biblical lexicography. The following Bible concordances were also used:  Biblia Gdańska w systemie Stronga. Stary Testament oraz Wykaz wyrazów i zwrotów polskich w ST Biblii Gdańskiej, Vol. I  and Konkordancja wyrazów hebrajskich i aramejskich Starego Testamentu wraz ze słownikiem oraz wykazem nazw i postaci, Vol. II (2004), Konkordancja wyrazów greckich Nowego Testamentu wraz z Biblią Nowego Testamentu w systemie Stronga oraz Wykazem wyrazów i zwrotów polskich w NT Biblii Gdańskiej (1996), Konkordancja do Biblii Tysiąclecia edited by Fr. J. Flis (1991). In this type of comparison, there is a serious lack of studies and indexes containing complete lexical resources of Renaissance translations of the Bible – this especially applies to Biblia brzeska and Biblia nieświeska. The religious vocabulary of Tatar translators, however, can be described against the lexical-phraseological resources presented in Słownik staropolski (SStp) and the literary language of the 16th century, whose lexis is presented in Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku146. The subsequent translations of the Qur’an were already created at a time when modern Polish already existed147. This timespan is described in successive dictionaries of the Polish language, namely: Słownik języka polskiego S. B. Linde (SL), Słownik języka A.  Mickiewicza (SMick), Słownik języka polskiego (SWil) (the socalled Słownik wileński), Słownik języka polskiego (SW) (the so-called Słownik warszawski), Słownik języka polskiego edited by W. Doroszewski (SDor). Abbreviations of the names of the books of the Bible are drawn from Biblia Tysiąclecia.

146 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 343 referring to editorial assumptions of SPolXVI, indicates that it is an intermediate picture (and even a kind of panoramic presentation) of contemporary lexis. It also gives sources which became part of the canonical texts. These include, among others, some passages from Biblia brzeska (22%), Nowy Testament in the translation of Jakub Wujek of 1593, and a passage from Biblia in the translation of Jakub Wujek of 1599 was placed only in the list of auxiliary texts. There were also the excerpts from Biblia and Nowy Testament by Budny (20%). 147 Cf. Periodization of the history of the Polish language in: Z. Klemensiewicz, Historia języka polskiego, Vols. I–III, Warszawa 1985.

52

Introduction

0.6 The description of source texts 0.6.1 The 16th-century translations of the Bible into Polish Among Polish translations of the Bible, which have survived to the present, the oldest one is a trilingual translation (Latin, Polish and German) known as Psałterz floriański of the 14th century. Psałterz puławski and fragmentary translations of some psalms date back to the turn of the 16th century. The most important translations of the 16th century are:  Psałterz krakowski (1532), Żołtarz Dawidów by W. Wróbel (1539), a prose translation of Psałterz Dawidów by M. Rej (1546, 1555), Psałterz Dawida by J. Lubelczyk (1558), Psałterz Dawidów by J. Kochanowski (1579), and Księga Psalmów by Fr. J. Wujek (1574). Biblia królowej Zofii is the first complete translation of the Old Testament, dating back to the second half of the 15th century. It was, however, based on the Czech translations. The Bible translated by Jan Nicz, known as Leopolita, is also strongly associated with a Czech translation. It was published in 1561, so only in the second half of the 16th century. Thus, at about the middle of the 16th century, at the peak development of the Renaissance in Poland, one may perceive a rapid increase in interest in the Bible, marked by new translations of the Scripture – both the whole Bible as well as its individual parts148. This harmonizes with the statement of I. Kwilecka: “We are dealing with a phenomenon. From the time of the appearance of the first Polish printed translation of the New Testament by Stanisław Murzynowski in the years 1551–1553, by the end of the century there appeared 7 separate translations of the New Testament, 4 different translations of the whole Bible […]. 4 psalters, and 18 postils. In addition to this, a number of theological works were published, and many booklets containing polemics and discussions on the translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular and the dissemination of the Bible among the faithful”149. The first humanist translation of the Bible, referring to the original versions appeared already between 1551 and 1553 (the New Testament in the translation

148 Cf. A list of fragmentary translations of the scripture can be found in E. Belcarzowa, op. cit., p. 9. It is worthy of note that this period also marks the emergence and development of the religious literature of the Tatars of the GDL, and especially the first translation of the Qur’an into Slavic languages in the form of a Tatar tefsir. 149 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 210 – cf. J. Czerniatowicz, Niektóre problemy naukowe grecystyki w pracach biblistów polskich XVI i XVII w. Teksty greckie a polskie przekłady, Wrocław 1969, p. 24. Numerous researchers of Biblical and Qur’anic translation literature refer to these facts – cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 96: „Die zweite Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts wurde in PolenLitauen nicht nur zur Goldenen Zeit in der Literatur, sondern auch zur Goldenen Zeit der Bibelübersetzungen. Alle religiösen Gruppierungen machten sich daran, auch die heilige Schrift nach ihrem Bekenntnis ins Polnische zu übertragen und zu komentieren. Zwischen 1550 und 1600 kam es sieben Bibelübersetzungen.”

The description of source texts

53

of Murzynowski). Subsequently a translation of the whole Bible of their own was prepared by Polish Calvinists (Biblia brzeska). Szymon Budny translated the whole Bible for the Polish Brethren, also called Arians (Biblia nieświeska). However, until recently, Biblia gdańska had the greatest importance for Polish dissenters  – the fruit of many years of cooperation between Lutherans, Calvinists and the Czech Brethren. This translation, made by Daniel Mikołajewski, was not replaced until 1975 by a collective translation made by a team of Protestant Bible scholars. An analogous function in Polish Catholicism was performed by the translation by Fr. Jakub Wujek TJ (Biblia Wujka), surpassing all previous Polish translations in terms of literary merit, while at the same time acting as their synthesis. It was only in the last century that Catholic translators made an effort to translate the books of OT and NT (cf. New Testament translations from Greek by S. Kowalski, Warszawa 1957, E. Dąbrowski, Poznań 1961, and K. Romaniuk, Poznań 1976). The publication of a collective translation of the entire Bible, edited by the Benedictine monks of Tyniec, called Biblia Tysiąclecia, in 1965, was a great event in the history of Polish Biblical studies. Independently of that translation Biblia poznańska (Poznań Bible), another translation of the whole Bible, appeared in Poznań (Poznań 1973–1975, Vols. I–II: OT, Vol. III: NT)150.

0.6.1.1 Biblia brzeska (1563) Biblia brzeska was the first translation of the whole Bible into Polish from its original languages, Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament, which is expressed in its title: Biblia święta, Księgi Stárego y Nowego Zakonu, właśnie z Żydowskiego, Greckiego y Łaćińskiego, nowo ná Polski ięzyk z pilnośćią i wiernie wyłożone151. Its formation is closely connected with the development of Calvinism in Poland and it is the result of cooperation of Poles, Frenchmen, and Italians. It is anonymous as a product of team work. It was published in BrestLitovsk in 1563, under the imprint of a mighty protector of Calvinism in Lithuania, Prince Mikołaj Radziwiłł. However, it came into existence in Pińczów, which from 1550 was the capital of Polish Calvinism, called Sarmatian Athens152. Irena Kwilecka, referring to a study by Janina Czerniatowicz, indicated the dependence of Biblia brzeska on the French translation by Pierre Robert Olivétan in the edition of 1546. She mentioned the following features that are similar to those in the French Bible: an extensive introduction that introduces Biblical 150 According to Wstęp ogólny do Pisma świętego, ed. Fr. J. Szlaga, Poznań–Warszawa 1986, pp. 181–182. 151 This translation is described in detail by, among others, I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, pp. 335–449, and J. Czerniatowicz, Niektóre problemy naukowe grecystyki w pracach biblistów polskich XVI i XVII w. Teksty greckie a polskie przekłady, Wrocław 1969. 152 I. Kwilecka, Biblia Leopolity i Biblia brzeska. Tradycja a nowoczesność przekładu, [in:] Biblie staropolskie, ed. I. Kwilecka, Poznań 2003, p. 29.

54

Introduction

problems to the reader, the order of the books of the Bible, arguments placed at the beginning of each book, and short texts, included in point summaries, which precede each chapter. At the same time, however, she stated that commentaries in the Polish Bible are completely different. According to the researcher, one of the richest sources of commentaries is the Latin Bible by Robert Estienne of 1557, which is equipped with a modern critical apparatus, with extensive “lectures” of François Vatable on OT, and of Theodore Beza on NT. In her opinion, it played an important role as one of the auxiliary sources of Biblia brzeska153. On the basis of comparative research, I. Kwilecka has therefore reached the conclusion that the authors of Biblia brzeska, in addition to the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek text of the New Testament also used the Latin edition of the Bible by R.  Estienne, translated from Hebrew into Latin by Santes Pagnini, and from Greek into Latin by T.  Beza, compared with the text of the Latin Vulgate154. Thus, Biblia brzeska paved the way for Polish translations of the Scriptures. This is because it introduces, for example, such innovations as new sources of translation (the original versions of the Bible – Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament), the use of new Latin humanistic translations, made directly from the original text, another order of the books of the Bible (it marks off the deuterocanonical books as Apocrypha – following this translation such a distinction is made Biblia nieświeska and Biblia gdańska), and a new type of Old Testament illustrations of a scientific and educational nature. Biblia brzeska introduces for the first time a division of the text into verses and their numbers. Biblia brzeska is a free translation of the original text. It uses a translation technique that was modern for those times, namely it puts emphasis on the meaning first (as opposed to verbalism, that is word for word translation), which is expressed, for example, in moving away from syntactic patterns of the source languages (the syntax was consistent with the spirit of the contemporary Polish language, including simple, transparent sentence constructions, and a different word order than in the Latin Vulgate), and also affects the clarity, transparency and comprehensibility of the text. In this respect, Biblia brzeska follows the model of the Bible of Martin Luther and French translations, which represented the tradition of simplification of Latin syntactical structures dating back to the Middle Ages. The comprehensibility and fluency of the translation is further enhanced by expressions and phrases taken from the colloquial language, and such expressive means as diminutives, exclamation and particles, which facilitates individual reception of the translation. Consequently, it also uses new vocabulary such as namiot (a tent)155, and rich synonymy.

1 53 Eadem, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 210. 154 Ibidem, p. 224. 155 Ibidem, p. 259.

The description of source texts

55

Hebrew terms are also translated with great scrupulousness and accuracy156 – for example replacing different Semitisms and foreign Hebrew syntactic-stylistic constructions with their Polish equivalents which in many places makes Biblia brzeska closer to modern Polish translations than the old and modern translations that are based on the Latin Vulgate157. This translation also includes a clear and legible gloss system, and cross-references with educational and exegetical overtones, having in mind a less educated individual recipient. “The system of marginalia is deeply thought out. It contains guidance in the field of terminology, proper reading/interpretation, explanation of foreign words [...]. In short glosses the interpretation of words and terms key to Calvinist theology is given”158. Due to the features cited above, in the literature of the subject it is called “experimental translation” and “a crowning achievement of Polish Protestant Bible studies”159. Thus, it uses modern methods of translation, four hundred years before the appearance of Biblia Tysiąclecia (1966).

0.6.1.2 Biblia nieświeska (1572) Biblia nieświeska originated as a result of a split in the Calvinist church against the teaching of an Italian, Francisco Stankar, “about Christ as a mediator”, and division into a larger Calvinist church (Ecclesia maior) and a smaller antitrinitarian church (Ecclesia minor). Its author was an advocate of extreme antitrinitarianism and in this spirit he made his translation160, the consequence of which was its high saturation with confessional interpretation. Szymon Budny did not recognize the divinity of Christ, who was, according to him, a natural son of Joseph, endowed with special graces, and the Holy Spirit was just a gift of God, not the third person of the Trinity. He called his opponents “trójczacy”, “trójczanie”, or “trybożnicy” (that is “those who believe in three gods”). He did not believe in the immortality of the human soul, or the cult of saints, as well as not recognizing any external forms of worship161. He used many different translations – he mentioned, among others, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Martin Luther, Sebastian Castellio, Theodore Beza, and a Church Slavonic translation162. Szymon Budny thought that establishing the authenticity of the text of the Bible, which could be the basis for translation, takes place by means of juxtaposing, comparing and evaluating of a variety of sources163. He was also a pioneer in the 156 Ibidem, p. 122. According to the researcher, Biblia Gdańska in this respect follows the model of Biblia brzeska. 157 Ibidem, p. 259. 158 I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 299. 159 I. Kwilecka, Biblia Leopolity i Biblia brzeska…, p. 37. 160 Ibidem, p. 30. 161 Cf. L. Moszyński, Biblia Szymona Budnego. Charakterystyka przekładu, [in:] Biblie staropolskie…, pp. 41–42. 162 Cf. ibidem, p. 41. 163 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 225.

56

Introduction

field of textual criticism164. He criticized previous Polish translations of the Bible not only on the grounds of theology but also for philological reasons. He believed that only the original Hebrew text was the best basis for translation because both the Greek (the Septuagint), and Latin translation (the Vulgate) are distorted and unfaithful. Hence he did a pioneering work – translation directly from the Hebrew original. He also clarified the principles of his new translation: word for word translation (a type of faithful translation); the need to break with the cult of regional Polish in favour of the general language; avoiding foreign words; name declension (inflection adaptation) of the foreign names introduced to the text (contrary to the generally accepted Latinization of proper names, he retained the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek proper names)165. He also criticized, expressis verbis, a type of free translation in favour of the principle of literal and grammatical adequacy of translation to the original text. The translation method adopted by him resulted in the appearance of many stylistic Hebraisms in the text (Hebrew replicas in phraseology and syntax), e.g. participial phrases166 umierając umrze (will die dying); służąc służbę (serving the service); uczyniciel czyniąc (a doer who is doing); gerund phrases zadrżą zadrżeniem (they will tremble with trembling) or obiecała obietnicę (she promised a promise) or with other nouns, as for example płakać będę w płaczu (I will weep in weeping), also with reinforcement as in płakali płaczem wielkim (they wept with great weeping); calquing of the Hebrew manner of forming superlative adjectives, as in święte świętych, święte nad świętymi (Holy of holies). There are also other Hebraisms and Greek structures, as e.g. ręka do ręki (hand in hand), po mału mału (bit by little bit), opowiedając być (being answering), nie powiedaj być (not said being), rozumiał być (understood), uczyniciel w uczynku (doer in his deed), etc.167. There are also simple transcriptions of Hebrew or Greek words which do not have equivalents in Polish, especially in relation to the realities of life in ancient times. This is obviously a consequence of translation based on original texts, Hebrew and Greek168. Translation of Hebrew realities was the most problematic thing for Budny. He was aware of the untranslatability of certain terms and structures. So he used 1 64 Ibidem, p. 224. 165 Cf. L. Moszyński, Biblia Szymona Budnego…, pp. 42–43; I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 121; F. Pepłowski, Zmiany językowo-stylistyczne w Nowym Testamencie Szymona Budnego z 1574 r., [in:] Tekst. Język. Poetyka. Zbiór studiów, ed. M. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław 1978, pp. 319–342; T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 21 – cf. also the description of other antitrinitarian translations – among others, the translation by M. Czechowic. 166 It is worthy of note that this translation abounds in participial equivalents, often characteristic only of this translation, for example płynący (flowing) from Hebrew zûḇ, czyniący (doing), from Hebrew ‘āsāh, strzegący (guarding) from Greek tēreō, długo czekający (one that waits for a long time) from Hebrew ‘ārēḵ, wprzód bieżąc (running forward) from Greek prodromos, and many others. 167 Cf. L. Moszyński, Biblia Szymona Budnego…, p. 44. 168 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 173.

The description of source texts

57

various methods in this respect, including the use of margins (here there is the predominance of philological glosses, explanations of the meanings of Greek words, provision of their Polish counterparts, sometimes comments on textual variants, cross-references to parallel places, and factual explanations of the realities)169. He tried to explain both cultural and environmental Hebraisms170. He also explained foreign realities of the natural environment171. As was mentioned before, Budny tried to retain proper names, both personal and local ones. He tried to retain them in the Hebrew version (this is also part of familiarization with Semitic culture), explaining them in the margin172. His language also abounds in neologisms created by the rules of word formation in Polish, which is a consequence of his translation principle of translating a Hebrew word by only one Polish word. Such neologisms include a large group of the names of doers – for e­ xample 34 forms with the suffix -ciel, e.g. błogosławiciel (the one who blesses), chowaciel (tutor), goniciel (messenger), obudziciel (the one who wakes sb up), zagrzewacielka (the warming one), as well as opowiedaciel (talker), karmiciel (the one who feeds), zaklinaciel (exorcist); 16 forms with the suffix -acz, e.g. przeklinacz (the one who curses), zaprawiacz (the one who encourages), zawieracz (the one who closes), as well as zaklinacz (exorcist), opowiedacz (talker)173, which confirms the productivity of certain derivation models, e.g. nominal names of doers ending with -ciel, -acz, -ca, -nik as well as nominal names of qualities ending with -ość. There are also numerous archaisms in his translation, e.g. roba (prostitute), siewier (northern wind) and błogi (blissful) meaning ‘blessed’, ukrzepiony (consoled), uczyciel (teacher), szczątek (descendant) meaning ‘heir’, otroczątko (boy, young boy), wiarować się (avoid)174. Budny introduced into Polish the term rozdział (chapter) for the Latin word capitulum. He writes about it in the introduction to his translation of the Bible175. There is also a distinctive feature of his translation which has to do with the use of such equivalents as for

1 69 L. Moszyński, Biblia Szymona Budnego…, p. 44. 170 Ibidem, p. 45. 171 Ibidem, p. 46. 172 Ibidem. 173 Cf. ibidem, pp. 46–47. There are also examples of Biblical contexts being analyzed in this monograph. 174 According to ibidem, p. 47. There are also examples of Biblical contexts analyzed in this monograph. 175 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 319. Cf. also P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 118: „Der Terminus rozdział wurde von Symon Budny in die polnische Bibelterminologie eingeführt. Mit rozdział bezeichnete Budny die Kapitel der Bibel; damit brach er mit den traditionellen, aus dem Lateinischen übernommenen Bezeichnungen wie kaput oder kapituł. Der Jesuit Jakub Wujek übernahm bei seiner Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments (1594) diesen Terminus, welcher in der Folge ein fester Bestandteil der polnischen Bibelterminologie wurde. Im Tefsirtext finden wir den Terminus rozdział regelmässig als Bezeichnung einzelner Teile des Korans.”

58

Introduction

example ofiarnik, ofiarownik (the one who offers a sacrifice) for the Greek ἱερεύς hiereus, and in Latin sacerdos, exceptionally pop (priest) (an even more contemptuous name), or jedynostwo (oneness), błogi, wielki (great) meaning ‘human’, władać (to rule), poddany (subjected), wyćwiczyć się (to train oneself in sth) ‘learn’, leniwy (lazy) meaning ‘patient’, oczy (eyes) ‘leader, guide’, bogoboyny (God-fearing), poradnik (adviser) ‘counselor’, wydawca (traitor) (about Judas), wiaruy się (mourning), świekotanie (gossiping) ‘sigh’, stękanie (moaning) ‘sighing, groaning, groan’, zwitek ksiąg (a scroll [wad] of books) (also used by Czechowic), głowa księgi (the beginning of the book), and wojewoda (governor).

0.6.1.3 Biblia Jakuba Wujka (1599) Jakub Wujek made the Latin Vulgate the main source for his translation, which was motivated, among other things, by its recognition in the Catholic Church (since the Council of Trent) as the valid and official text of the Bible (it was a direct translation from Hebrew, with the use of Greek and Latin translations; as for the method it faithfully renders the meaning, but not the sense of individual words)176. Thus, the main source language for his translation was Latin. However, for theological and philological reasons he also used Hebrew and Greek versions of the Bible. Consequently, Wujek’s translation reflects a knowledge of different versions of the Bible: Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, while maintaining fidelity to the Vulgate. Without doubt, Jakub Wujek consulted previous Polish translations of the Bible, also Protestant ones, including Biblia brzeska and Nowy Testament by Marcin Czechowic, as well as Biblia nieświeska, and Nowy Testament by Szymon Budny177. Fr. Jakub Wujek as a philologist sought to recreate the Biblical text in its original form. In contrast, as a theologian he wanted to allow his readers polemics with dissenters, who just relied on texts in Hebrew and Greek. The overriding principle of translation, expressed in the Preface to the Reader was fidelity to the Word, that is, respecting the principle verbum de verbo. However, in certain justified cases, he departed from this principle, if clarity and readability of the translated text was demanded, and therefore the meaning of individual words and collocations (the method of rational compliance to the letter)178. Tomasz Lisowski indicates the solid critical apparatus of the text, taking into account alternative lectiones of the Greek original, even though the Latin Vulgate was the basis for translation. Wujek therefore referred to the Greek text in places where translation was difficult or uncertain in terms of meaning179.

1 76 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 99. 177 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 29. 178 This translation is analyzed in detail by D. Bieńkowska, Słownictwo i frazeologia w Psałterzu… 179 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, pp. 27–28.

The description of source texts

59

0.6.1.4 Biblia gdańska (1632) Biblia gdańska, published in 1632, translated by Daniel Mikołajewski, is the last translation achievement that closes the series of Polish Bible translations, which had been emerging since the mid-16th century as a realization of the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura, or were the result of a post-Tridentine response of the Catholic Church to the evangelical return to the Scriptures, namely translations made by Jakub Wujek – Nowy Testament (1593), and especially his translation of the whole Bible (1599), which was subjected to censorship180. The translation basis for Biblia gdańska was constituted by the best critical editions of the Greek original text, such as Complutensian Polyglot Bible, Biblia Regia (or King’s Bible), editions by Robert Estienne, Jean Crispinus, and especially Textus Receptus by Theodore Beza, as well as critical humanist Latin translations, such as Clementina, a revised translation of the Vulgate after the Council of Trent, numerous Biblical studies, and the Bohemian Biblia kralicka (Bible kralická)181. Biblia gdańska, like Biblia brzeska, published in 1563, and Nowy Testament gdański of 1606 is based on the translation principle of sola Scriptura. It refers directly to Biblia brzeska, though it is devoid of an introduction, explanations and comments, and the translation was improved and adapted closely to the original, which meant that in that respect it was closer the Bohemian Biblia kralicka, adopting for example its treatment of the apocrypha, in terms of the titles and orders of the books182. The language form (or a standard language) of Biblia gdańska became established for almost 350  years from its release until the sixties of the 20th century, or the beginning of work on Biblia warszawska, which was published in 1975183. In conclusion, Catholic translations, including Biblia Jakuba Wujka, usually follow the Vulgate, carrying on the Latin tradition and the church-religious terminology, and non-Catholic translations adhere to the original texts or translations directly referring to them. They can be characterized by the presence of new terms for ideologically new content. Biblia brzeska stands out in its thoroughness and accuracy in translation of Hebrew terms, which was unusual for its times, and Biblia Jakuba Wujka is known for its author’s knowledge of different Bible language versions:  Hebrew, Greek and Latin, while maintaining fidelity to the Vulgate. It is important that Wujek used the transcription of Latin words most often among the discussed translators, which according to I. Kwilecka is a type of a translation method184.

1 80 Ibidem, pp. 17–18. 181 Ibidem, p. 24. 182 Cf. I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 347. 183 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 18. 184 Cf. I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, pp. 122–123.

60

Introduction

0.6.2 The Tatar translation literature 0.6.2.1 Aetiology The origins of Polish Muslim terminology date back to the 16th century185. At the same time, to be precise in the second half of the 16th century, the first monuments of Tatar literature in the GDL were probably formed. The time and reasons for their appearance can only be established on the basis of indirect data, by means of, among other things, a philological method, which is the message of a treatise of 1558 (Risāle-i Tātār-i Leh), the analysis of the textual content and linguistic features186, as well as a study of the historical context (including the influence of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation)187. It is considered that the fact that Tatars lost the knowledge of their native language contributed considerably to the birth of the Tatar translation literature. Islam professing Tatars, who came to the GDL (especially between the 16th and 17th centuries), found themselves in conditions of diaspora, becoming an ethnic, cultural and religious minority in their new homeland. They lost the knowledge of their ethnic (Turkic) dialects, and living in isolation from the sources and roots of Islam, they also lost the active knowledge of the liturgical Arabic language, and adopted languages that were used in the GDL, that is Polish and/or Belorussian188. This process began in the 15th century and its completion dates back to the second half of the 16th century189. At that time, there appeared the first translations of religious books into Slavic languages which were familiar to the Tatar community

185 Cf. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii muzułmańskiej…, p. 14 – in the period of Old Polish there were no lexemes related to the culture and religion of Islam, except the word sołtan and the expression Mahometowy grob (recorded in a quotation). 186 However, the problem can be more complex, not only on account of the properties of the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish, but also because of the sacred character of texts, and consequently referring to determined sources (psalters, translations of the Bible) and conserving role of the religious language. Switching to a different code can come into play here, namely switching to the code of religious language. In Tatar monuments it is possible to distinguish a number of distinctive features of Old Polish religious prose – medieval and Renaissance. 187 This phenomenon is fully described in the literature of the subject – cf. the works presented in this monograph, for example, A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgicz­ne…; C.  Łapicz, Z zagadnień przekładu muzułmańskiej terminologii modlitewnej…, p. 99–117; Teolingwistyka…, pp. 269–288; Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna…, p. 293–310; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, and also M. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit.; G. Miškinienė, Sieniausi lietuvos totorių rankrašciai…; A. Konopacki, op. cit., p. 129, and many others. 188 Cf. C. Łapicz, Z zagadnień przekładu muzułmańskiej terminologii modlitewnej…, p. 99. 189 Cf. idem, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, pp. 33–60 – the reasons for their assimilation are also discussed.

The description of source texts

61

because there was a need to present the principles and teachings of their religion in these languages to the Tatar followers. At the same time, there must have still been a group of people who knew Oriental languages and were able to translate religious texts from these languages into Slavic languages. According to studies, Lithuanian-Polish Muslims almost universally knew the Arabic alphabet until the interwar period, “and the knowledge of Arabic, which in Islam played a role similar to that of Latin in the Christian West, was limited only to a small elite of people educated in the East, and imams and hujjas (teachers), who came from Crimea and Turkey. The knowledge of Ottoman-Turkish or the language of Crimean Tatars was maintained a little longer […], but only among educated people who had closer relations with Turkey and the Crimea”190. This, however, was an exception. Therefore, Arabic religious texts, which had to be used for doctrinal reasons, in liturgy and religious practices, became incomprehensible to them. Complete language assimilation, and the difficulty connected with that fact, and sometimes even the impossibility of gaining knowledge and understanding of the principles of Islam was one of the main reasons for the creation of “Tatar literature” in a language understandable and accessible to all believers, and not in forgotten, Turkic languages which had already fallen into disuse. It was to ensure for the Tatars their continued ethnic separation and cultural identity, which already in the 16th century was identified only by Islam191. The basic features of the Tatar literature include: the handwritten nature of the texts, the anonymity of its writers, multilingualism – intertwining of a Slavic layer (Polish and Belorussian) with an Oriental layer (Turkish, Arabic and Persian), the exclusive use of the Arabic alphabet (even for writing Slavic texts), which can be explained by the internal manifestation of the relationship between the culture and religion of Islam, and the dominance of Muslim religious themes.

0.6.2.2 Slavic aljamiado Research is widely conducted on the literature of the aljamiado type (from Ar. al-‘aǧamiyya ‘foreign’; hence al-luḡa al-‘aǧamiyya ‘a foreign language’)192. This consists of literary works in a local language, written in the appropriately adapted Arabic alphabet, which developed under the strong influence of the tradition and culture of Islam. This type of literature includes, for example, the Muslim literature of west and south Africa, south and eastern Asia, the literary aljamiado of the

1 90 A. Drozd, O twórczości literackiej Tatarów w dobie staropolskiej……, p. 34. 191 A. Konopacki, op. cit., p. 130. 192 Cf. M. M. Dziekan, Zastosowanie pisma arabskiego do zapisu wybranych języków indoeuropejskich. Perspektywa historyczno-porównawcza, [in:] Tefsir Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Teoria i praktyka badawcza, e-monography, eds. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2015, pp. 75–99 [http://www.tefsir.umk.pl/ pliki/Tefsir_Tatarow_WKL.pdf] (09-06-2017).

62

Introduction

Iberian Peninsula, Muslim Serbian texts in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Muslim literature in Albania. The criteria for literary aljamiado are also fulfilled by Tatar writings in the GDL – they were written in local languages; Polish and/or Belorussian, they were written in an appropriately adapted Arabic alphabet, developed under the strong impact of the tradition and culture of Islam, professed by the Muslim community in the GDL193. They are also characterized by certain features, along with a genesis which was different from the literature mentioned above, and with their purpose, for Tatar manuscript literature did not have a missionary purpose, and helped Tatars to keep their separate identity while living in the conditions of the diaspora. This sets it apart from the literature written in the Arabic script in the Balkans or in the Iberian Peninsula. Islam reached Albania and other Balkan countries as a result of their conquest by Muslim Turkey. Their literature had a secular character and consisted mainly of lyrical pieces, whereas in Spain Catholicism was imposed on the Moriscos, i.e. Spanish Muslims, who practiced Islam secretely. Their literature included prayer books, religious treatises, etc. The works of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims represented, in their vast majority, religious literature, arising in conditions of voluntary, unaffected Slavicization and of slowly progressing Christianization which undoubtedly contributed to the writing by the Tatars of the GDL of a translation of the Qur’an into a Slavic language in the form of a Tatar tefsir – the first translation of this kind in the world.

0.6.2.3 The authors and copyists The literature of the Tatars of the GDL should be considered almost entirely anonymous literature194. Religious motivation could have been the reason for that anonymity – aspiring to the ideal of work for the glory of God, an idea which already motivated anonymous authors of the Middle Ages195. Moreover, one of the causes of that anonymity is the handwritten form that makes the copyist a co-author, and the community the owner of the copyright196. It is therefore difficult not only to

193 Cf. an article by C. Łapicz, Czy piśmiennictwo Tatarów – muzułmanów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego jest słowiańskim aljamiado?, [in:] W podróży za słowem: księga pamiątkowa z okazji jubileuszu 70-lecia urodzin profesora Emila Tokarza, ed. M. Warchał, Bielsko–Biała 2014, pp. 59–70. 194 An opinion presented after A.  Drozd, O twórczości literackiej Tatarów w dobie staropolskiej……, p. 36. 195 Such ideals were also being propagated in the Renaissance, although, as a rule, literary works were already being signed – cf. Słownik łacińsko-polski, 1544: “I, brother Bartłomiej from Bydgoszcz, minorite, I am not and I have never been a man who likes to boast about his work, a man who would make a writing effort for his own renown or the vain glory (As all sorts of people tend to accuse me of it), but I worked for the good of the Republic and for the glory of God, 1544.” 196 A. Drozd, O twórczości literackiej Tatarów w dobie staropolskiej…, p. 36.

The description of source texts

63

establish the names of specific translators, but also to determine whether the translation was made by one or more translators. Due to the lack of knowledge of the specific names of the authors the authorship can be often established only on the basis of historical-linguistic and social premises. Therefore, it would be vital to refer to archives and look for the authors of translations among the Tatar ancestral elite. This is so because from this elite came envoys, emissaries, interpreters, etc. who were in the diplomatic service of the Polish-Lithuanian state (especially until the mid-17th century)197. “The first authors of Tatar literature should certainly be sought among the educated elite having a good command of Oriental languages […]”198. “It is known that in the 16th century, wealthy Tatars sent their children to study in Arabia and other Muslim countries, or they made pilgrimage to Mecca”199. “Arab” writers and translators staying at the royal court originated from such an elite. These included, among others, Alej Kulzimanowicz Talkowski, to whom landed property in the district of Trakai was granted by Stefan Batory, Prince Chasień Dajko of Łosośna in the district of Grodno (a writer who was active in the years 1591–1595), Dawid Bachtyr – an interpreter of King Zygmunt III. One should also mention DerwiszCzelebi Murzicz, who from 1586 was a religious judge200. Artur Konopacki gives the names of two writers-copyists, namely Hodyna (Kitab z Kazania from 1645), and the Minsk imam Urjasz, the son of Ismail (Tefsir miński [the Minsk Tefsir] from 1686)201. However, other studies, e.g. by A. Antonovich Белорусские тексты, писанные арабским письмом, и их графикоорфографическая система inform that Hodyna was a translator of one of the texts included in the kitab202. A similar case is that of imam Urjasz, who according

197 Cf. Studies of historians and heraldists in this field (for example T. Bairašauskaitė, Rodzina tatarska w świetle ksiąg metrykalnych (wiek XIX), „Biuletyn Historii Pogranicza” 7, Białystok 2006, pp. 27–40; S. Dumin, Szlachta tatarska w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim i zmiany jej sytuacji prawnej w XVI–XVIII w., „Roczniki Historyczne” LVII, 1991, pp. 147–163 or Herbarz rodzin tatarskich…; A. Konopacki, op. cit.) as well as the problem of the knowledge of Oriental languages in old Poland – B. Baranowski, Znajomość Wschodu w dawnej Polsce do XVII wieku, Łódź 1950; J. Reychman, Znajomość i nauczanie języków orientalnych w Polsce w XVIII w., Wrocław 1950, and the comments on this problem – A. Drozd, O twórczości literackiej Tatarów w dobie staropolskiej……, pp. 36–39. 198 A. Drozd, O twórczości literackiej Tatarów w dobie staropolskiej…, p.  37  – cf. A. Konopacki, op. cit., p. 158 – “Who were the writers? They were certainly highly educated. They represented high intellectual standards, as it is evidenced by the legacy left by them.” 199 A. Drozd, O twórczości literackiej Tatarów w dobie staropolskiej…, p. 37. 200 According to A. Drozd, O twórczości literackiej Tatarów w dobie staropolskiej…, p. 37. 201 A. Konopacki, op. cit., p. 159. 202 Op. cit., p. 125.

64

Introduction

to the findings of A.  Drozd and M.  Tarelka was a translator of a tefsir from 1686203. The issue of the inception of the text and its authorship should be distinguished from the dating and authorship of its copies, because copyists very often provided information about the date and place of completion of the work, the name of a copyist, and sometimes the name of someone who had ordered the book (for example it is known that a copyist of the tefsir from 1725 – Bogdan Assanowicz, the son of Szaban, was an imam from Łowczyce)204. Copyists were usually mullahs, muezzins and healers, as well as “the elderly who regarded their work as a pious deed”205. The main places where Tatar religious literature was copied included:  Minsk, Lachowicze (Lyakhovichi), Śmiłowicze (Smilovichi), Slonim and Nowogródek206. It is possible to reconstruct the history of a given monument on the basis of information included in the colophon, put mainly at the end of a text, signalling in this way the end of the process of copying. A colophon present in the middle of a manuscript can indicate that that manuscript came into existence in stages or that it was copied by more than one person207.

0.6.2.4 The types of the text Among the monuments of Tatar literature preserved to our times several types can be distinguished208. The basic books include the following: • the Qur’an manuscripts (Ar. Al-Qur’ān ‘recitation’) – the most popular Tatar manuscript monuments, beside hamails (prayer books). They contain the complete text of the Qur’an in Arabic, together with a set of prayers, as well as the explanations of the principles of recitation provided on their initial and final

203 A. Drozd, Koran staropolski. Rozważania w związku z odkryciem tefsiru mińskiego z 1686 roku, „Rocznik Biblioteki Narodowej” XXXVI, Warszawa 2004, pp. 237–248; M. Тарэлка, Калафоны Мінскага тэфсира, „Здабыткi” 8, Мінск 2006, pp. 34–43. 204 The list of copyists is provided, for example, by М. Тарэлка, Рукапісы татараў Беларусі…, p. 183. 205 P. Borawski, A. Dubiński, Tatarzy polscy. Dzieje, obrzędy, legendy, tradycje, Warszawa 1986, p. 250. 206 According to A. Konopacki, op. cit., p. 160. 207 Cf. I. Radziszewska, Chamaiły jako typ piśmiennictwa religijnego… 208 A typology and an in-depth description of Tatar writings on the basis of: A. Drozd, O twórczości literackiej Tatarów w dobie staropolskiej…, pp. 33–34, and Piśmiennictwo Tatarów polsko-litewskich (XVI–XX w.). Zarys problematyki, [in:] Piśmiennictwo i muhiry…, pp. 12–16; cf. a typology and detailed description of Tatar writings – J. Szynkiewicz, Literatura religijna Tatarów litewskich…, pp. 138–139; C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, pp. 65–69; idem, Kitabistyka a historia języka polskiego i białoruskiego…, pp. 37–38; I. Radziszewska, Rękopisy tatarskie na Podlasiu, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos…, pp. 138–143; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 6–9; A. Konopacki, op. cit., pp. 131–153, and many others.

The description of source texts

65

pages. The manuscripts of the Qur’an consist of between 200 and 300 pages in an average format of 20 cm × 17 cm. The Qur’an was usually copied and handed down from generation to generation as one of the most valuable possessions of the Tatars of the GDL209. But printed copies of the Qur’an, being in the possession of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims, usually came from Kazan or Bakhchysarai (the second half of the 19th century); • tefsirs (Ar. tafsīr ‘explanation, interpretation, analysis, commentary – especially on the Qur’an’) – in Islam these are commentaries on the Qur’an. For Tatars of the GDL a tefsir is a manuscript containing the complete text of the Qur’an with a Polish interlinear translation written diagonally, which has some Belorussian features, supplemented with an exegetical layer. Prayers and a description of rituals accompanying the recitation of the Qur’an, which can be found in the initial and closing pages of the monument, are additional elements of the contents. On account of their volume, in excess of 400–500 pages (with an average format of 35 cm × 20 cm) those extremely expensive books were ordered by the entire group of the faithful as wakuf (Ar. waqf ‘in the Muslim law is a sum of money intended for religious, charity or public purposes’) for the mosque210; • kitabs (Ar. kitāb)  – monuments of diverse volume and content (usually of a religious character), being a type of reading matter of a cognitive function. They contain texts of diverse subject matter:  stories about prophets and outstanding figures of Islam, stories based on the Muslim tradition, the apocrypha, the Qur’an and the Bible, eschatological visions, moralistic works, devotional and prayer texts, hadiths, commentaries on some surahs of the Qur’an, descriptions of ceremonies and religious rituals, elements of the Muslim law, religious polemics, magic texts, Turkish and Arabic dictionaries, tejvids, more rarely nonreligious texts, among which the most common are works of fiction of Oriental or Old Polish origin. Kitabs usually include 150–300 pages, and the most frequent types of their formats are 35 cm × 20 cm, and 20 cm × 17cm211;

209 There is the view that the Qur’an had been copied until the beginning of the 20th century, however there were examples of the drafting of later copies, e.g. a manuscript of the Qur’an from the 1970s, copied by imam Sulejman Rafałowicz from Iwie. 210 This type of monument is discussed most comprehensively by P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…; also C. Łapicz, Glosy, komentarze, objaśnienia etc., czyli o pozakorani­ cznych dopiskach w rękopiśmiennych tefsirach muzułmanów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos…, p. 70. 211 The theme of the oldest known kitabs is presented by A. Konopacki, op. cit., pp. 139– 140. This type of writings is described in detail by H. Jankowski, C. Łapicz, Klucz do raju. Księga Tatarów litewsko-polskich z XVIII wieku w przekładzie i opracowaniu Henryka Jankowskiego i Czesława Łapicza, Warszawa 2000, pp. 13–20 and by C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, as well as by K. Dufala, op. cit., p. 205, and by G. Miszkinienė, O zawartości treściowej najstarszych rękopisów Tatarów litew­ skich, „Rocznik Tatarów Polskich” VI, Gdańsk 2000, pp. 30–36.

66

Introduction

• hamails (Ar. ḥamā’il ‘portable’)212  – the most popular type of Tatar writings. Owing to their content and use they are classified as prayer books. Such a categorization results to a great extent from the content of these books, consisting of diverse texts of religious character, including a practical description of Muslim rituals, and first of all the essential duties of a Muslim such as profession of faith, prayer, fasting, charity, and pilgrimage. There are also texts on ablutions and ceremonies of the life cycle, such as giving a name, circumcision, the marriage ceremony, as well as sets of Arabic and Turkish supplications, occasional formulae, and devotional texts such as zikras, and hikmiets, supplemented with table of the Muslim calendar. Magic texts are also frequently found in hamails. They are both of Near Eastern (Turkish and Arabic), as well as Christian provenance. As far as the classification of hamails in terms of their content and purpose is concerned, two types are usually distinguished: molliński – the ones which are used by mullahs (Ar. mawlà ‘lord’; hence molna, mollah/mullah ‘Tatar clergyman’) to celebrate rites, and fałdżejski – the texts used by faljeys (Ar. fa’l ‘a[good]sign, a good omen’; hence Tur. fal ‘predicting, divination’213 + Tur. -dži) to practice magic and divination; nevertheless they are rarely present in their pure form and they usually have universal character, embracing both elements of collective ceremonies, including magic practices, as well as individual rituals and prayers. Hamails contain 100–300 pages in their usual formats of 10 cm × 8 cm or 15 cm × 10 cm214; additional books: • sufras (Ar. sifr ‘book’) – manuscripts of low volume, containing one thirtieth part of the Qur’an, called djus (Ar. ǧuz ‘part, share’, ‘component, element’)215; they are a kind of didactical booklets, and served to teach children and pray for a deceased person during the night before a funeral. • tejvids (Ar. taǧwīd ‘recitation’)  – textbooks for learning the recitation of the Qur’an with an explanation of grammatical rules; a type of specific lectures in Turkish on the rules of articulation and recitation of the Qur’an with an interlinear translation into Polish and Belorussian. They appear occasionally; they 212 Various etymologies of this name are presented by I. Radziszewska in her work Chamaiły jako typ piśmiennictwa religijnego… 213 The meanings of Turkish terms are given, among others, after S. Stachowski, Studien über die arabischen Lehnwörter im osmanisch-türkischen, Wrocław–Warszawa– Kraków–Gdańsk, I–IV, 1975–1986, and H. Jankowski, C. Łapicz, op. cit. 214 So far, the fullest most complete description of handwritten hamails can be found in the study of I. Radziszewska, Chamaiły jako typ piśmiennictwa religijnego…, and Chamaiły Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego jako teksty religijne…, pp. 221– 227; cf. also G. Miškinienė, Sieniausi lietuvos totorių rankrašciai…… 215 Each of the thirty parts is divided into two halves – hizbs (Ar. ḥizb, for example, ‘a sixtieth part of the Qur’an’), while one hizb consists of four quarters – rubs (Ar. rub‘ ‘quarter, the fourth part, a fraction; one fourth, quart’). This division facilitates recitation (e.g. it is possible to recite one part every day during the month of Ramadan). Moreover, it is helpful in memorizing the Qur’an. See also WzK, p. 11.

The description of source texts

• •

•

•

•

•

67

sometimes constitute a part of the content of other monuments of Tatar literature, that is kitabs and hamails; vocabulars  – manuscript books, whose content, as the etymology of the name suggests, consist of lexical resources, phrases and expressions together with their translation into Polish and/or Belorussian; amulets: hramotkas (Belor. ‘letter, magazine’) – prayer scrolls worn by the living; beside hamails and dalavars, the most numerous group of monuments of Tatar writings. They are also called dalavars. In the content of hramotkas, which are usually 2–6 metres long and 4–12 cm wide, there are protective Qur’anic verses, the principles of faith, prayers assuring forgiveness of sins, prosperity in this life, as well as magic formulas and ­figures – talsims (Ar. ṭilasm); dalavars (Ar.-Tur. du’âlar ‘prayers, a set of prayers’) – prayer scrolls entombed along with the deceased and Tatar manuscripts created and used to this day. They are written in Arabic, and sometimes in Turkish, and they contain selected surahs, Qur’anic verses, the principles of faith, penitential and salutary prayers, whose task is to assist the deceased to obtain a positive outcome in the Last Judgement216; nuskas (Ar. nusẖa ‘copy, manuscript’) – manuscript monuments similar to hramotkas, also called duaykas (Ar. du‘ā’ ‘prayer’). They take the form of little slips of paper with texts of Arabic prayers, and magic formulas and figures, written out from hamails; they served protective and healing purposes; tablets  – paper or cardboard charts of a didactic-devotional nature, hung in mosques and houses. They contain descriptions of ceremonies, prayer formulas, selected Qur’anic verses with their translation, ethical instructions and the like; muhirs (from Ar. muhr ‘seal’) – decorative charts or fabrics with inscriptions or images of objects, buildings and places of sacred or magical value. They performed a decorative function, enriching the interior of houses, and a magical function, protecting the homestead and its residents. In the content of muhirs, a leading theme appears in the form of the text of an inscription (descriptions of ceremonies, prayer formulas, selected verses of the Qur’an, and ethical instructions) or presentation of holy places accompanied by calligraphic, geometrical, floral and architectural decorations or Muslim emblematics, hence the classification into inscriptional and representational muhirs according to the criterion of the subject 217.

216 Cf. among others, I. Radziszewska, Chamaiły Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego jako teksty religijne…, p. 221. 217 Interesting characterization of these monuments can be found in a work by M. Łyszczarz, Młode pokolenie polskich Tatarów, Olsztyn–Białystok 2013, pp. 258–261.

68

Introduction

In addition, the following types of monuments can be mentioned: • excerpts from kitabs containing mainly the rules of religious observances (the oldest monument of this type dates back to the middle of the 17th century)218; • short textbooks and dictionaries of the Turkish language (cf. documents drawn up by G. Miškinienė Турэцка-беларускі размоўнік 1836 году з збораў Нацыянальнага Музэю Літоўскай Рэспублікі ў Вільні, 1995 (together with S.  Szupa); Турецко-польский словарик из китаба Якуба Хасеневича (1840), 2008; Turkų-lenkų kalbų žodynėlis iš lietuvos totorių rankraščio (1840), 2008 (together with Nesrin Güllüdaǧ). In the most recent catalogue of Tatar monuments in the GDL219, the following division is proposed: books-codexes, which include the manuscripts of the Qur’an, sufrs, tefsirs, kitabs, hamails, and the so-called leczebniks, that is healing books; scrolls, to which belong hramotkas and one-sheet manuscripts. Here one may mention excerpts from tejvids, excerpts from hamails, nuskas, and Lāhi prayer. Moreover, it is shown that in the catalogue from 2011 a type of monument known as tejvid was present. Little-known manuscripts, which evade the above-stated classification, are also presented: a manuscript from a house of prayer in Slonim, containing only one prayer in Turkish and a manuscript from the National Library of Belorussia, containing a translation only of surahs 78–114 of the Qur’an and an explanation in Polish – this monument has features both of a tefsir and a kitab. Henryk Jankowski postulates supplementing the above typology with epigraphic material (tomb inscriptions) and documents, including legal and parish letters, as well as private correspondence220.

0.6.2.5 Multilingualism A Slavic layer (Polish and Belorussian) and an Oriental layer (Arabic, Turkish – mainly Ottoman-Turkish, and Persian) permeate the Tatar monuments in the GDL. P. Suter cites one of the most spectacular examples of this multilingualism in the following Qur’anic verse (for T1):  te ktōre klanajōn-ṡe beš wacht nemaź i widają spelnō źek’at’ i dześencine (Turkish beş ‘five’, Arabic waqt ‘time’, Persian namāz ‘a ritual prayer’, Arabic zakāt’ ‘alms’)221. At the same time, it is important to draw attention to the different types of monuments of Tatar literature. Tefsirs, kitabs and hamails are source texts from which lexical material had been excerpted. Hypothetically, it is assumed that the first translation of the holy book of Islam into a Slavic language was created in the form of a Tatar tefsir, and it was probably made directly from the Arabic original, though 218 Cf. description http://www.islamicmanuscripts.info/reference/books/Drozd-2000Tatarow/Drozd-2000-Tatarow-048-083.pdf (08-05-2017). 219 М. Тарэлка, Рукапісы татараў Беларусі…, pp. 6–8. 220 H. Jankowski, Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian Tatar Documents, „Materialia Turcica” 24 (2003), pp. 114–115. 221 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 62.

The description of source texts

69

not without the interaction of the Turkish language222. It cannot be ruled out that it was translated from Turkish, but it was made to conform with the Arabic base (cf. the principle of sola Scriptura)223. This is attested in the oldest preserved tefsir 222 A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., pp. 33–58 – cf. A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgicz­ne…, p. 49, who concludes that despite the Arabic source text, sometimes a Turkish medium could be the basis for translators; also G. Miškinienė – cited after A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 49; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 9–10; pp. 29–31; p. 126 – believes that the Arabic text was the basis for the translation, but he also gives the Turkish (that is Ottoman Turkish) and Persian manuscripts of the Qur’an, which were model texts for Tatar tefsirs. And finally, he states that the translation of the Qur’an into Polish made in the GDL was certainly based on the Arabic original (it was a direct translation from Arabic). However, Turkish and Persian external influences are readily identifiable. Turkish mediation in the translation is not sufficiently confirmed. A. Konopacki, op. cit., p. 138 states that “There are many reasons, including linguistic ones, showing that the original version of the text, which later became a model for other copied tefsirs, was translated and compiled at the end of the 16th century directly from the Arabic language.” An indication of that base of translation is, however, the focus of attention of many researchers – was it the Qur’an or an Arabic tafsir or both of them? Sergejus Temčinas in one of his articles (based on a textological comparative analysis of surahs 1 and 36, from various copies of the Tatar tefsir), argues that “in the majority of identified cases (69 from the total of 133), the exegetic additions to and modifications of the Qur’anic text have exact or, more seldom, approximate parallels in the Arabic tafsir Tanwīr al-miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbās of the late 9th–early 10th century. It is beyond doubt that this classical tafsir must have served as a source for the Polish translation of the Qur’an included in Lithuanian Tatar manuscripts of the 17th–20th centuries” – cf. Арабский «Танвир аль-микбас мин тафсир Ибн Аббас» как источник польского перевода Корана по рукописям литовских татар XVII–XX вв.: суры 1-я (Аль-Фатиха) и 36-я (Йа Син), [in:] Święte księgi judaizmu, chrześcijaństwa i islamu w słowiańskim kręgu kulturowym, Vol. I Księgi wyznawców islamu. Kitabistyka, eds. M. Krajewska, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, A. Szulc, Toruń 2016, p. 119. 223 Cf. a philological analysis of a Turkish layer in the so-called Tefsir litewski (the Lithuanian Tefsir) from the 16th century, Chamaił lipski (the Lipsk/Leipzig Hamail), Kitab z Kazania (the Kazan Kitab), and Tefsir miński (the MinskTefsir) in the study of H. Jankowski, Cechy graficzne i językowe…, pp. 152–162. An observation of the author of the article concerning Tefsir miński is extremely interesting: “…Tefsir miński is a copy of a translation which is at least 250 years older and which dates back to at least the first half of the 14th century, and only future researchers will be able to demonstrate to what extent it was changed by a chain of copyists”; “linguistic features of the Turkish part certainly ruled out the possibility that a Turkish translation could come into existence at the end of the 17th century […]. This shows conclusively that Urjasz ibn Ismail could not have been a translator of the Turkish part, and that he must have used a much older translation. Therefore, certain archaic expressions, which could not have been understood by an average Turk at the end of the 17th century and most probably were also not understood by him, were either omitted or explained on the basis of the Arabic original” and

70

Introduction

copy of 1686, where the first 18 surahs are written in Turkish, and all the others in Polish, strictly speaking in its north-eastern borderland dialect224. In order to determine whether a Turkish tefsir could have been the basis for translation by Tatars the translation technique should be explored, as well as the degree of the relationship, repeating the same errors225, the influence of Muslim sects (Shiites or Sunnis) on translation, and the presence of Turkish sources226. “… one thing it is possible to state almost certainly: the copyist and the author of the Polish translation of Tefsir miński – if it was Urjasz ibn Ismail – used a very old Turkish translation, so in this respect we are probably dealing with the oldest Turkish translation of the Qur’an known in the circle of Lithuanian Tatars.” 224 This fact is mentioned by a Turkologist, H. Jankowski, Cechy graficzne i językowe…, p. 146: “So a few incompletely preserved manuscripts of the Qur’an start or end, probably independently of each other, with surah 18: The Karszi manuscript starts with surah 18 (Borowkow 1963: 12), a manuscript of the tefsir from the National Library of the Academy of Sciences in Minsk contains surahs 2–18 in Turkish translation, whereas the remaining ones were translated into Polish (Tarelka, Citavec 2011: 24), one of three manuscripts of the translation discussed by Zajączkowski, then stored in the collections of the University of Warsaw, dating back to 1499, contains surahs 1-18. Is there here a kind of regularity or relationship? Certainly it has nothing to do with the division into parts (Ar. aǧzā’), because surah 18 is in part 16, which ends in surah 21. It could have such a connection, since surah 18 is nearly in the middle of the Qur’an. Even so, if the Qur’an was not bound in two volumes containing about two equal parts, it is possible that copyists and translators divided their work in half on this surah.” 225 M. M. Dziekan made an attempt to compare Tefsir Józefowa (the Józefow Tefsir) with Arabic, Turkish and Persian tefsirs, Ortografia arabskiego tekstu Koranu w tefsirze Józefowa na podstawie sury Ja Sin, [in:] Święte księgi judaizmu, chrześcijaństwa i islamu w słowiańskim kręgu kulturowym, Vol. I Księgi wyznawców islamu. Kitabistyka, eds. M. Krajewska, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, A. Szulc, Toruń 2016, pp. 169–184. He stated inter alia that “Among the obvious errors in the tefsir, two of them should be highlighted: 1. The orthography (‫ )و‬instead of (‫ )وا‬in various forms of verbs in the 3nd person plural of the masculine gender (15 cases) and the orthography (‫ )ة‬instead of (‫)ت‬, including 5 cases in verbal forms in total). None of these mistakes was found in any Near Eastern manuscripts that were compared. In the remaining places, we frequently have to deal with the usual lapsus calami like the lack of a dot above or below a letter (e.g. verse 29) or moving (verse 56) and the lack of letters (verse 61). A specific error occurred in ayat 35 – an identical error can be found in a comparable Turkish manuscript. There is one more type of error that goes beyond spelling differences. In the manuscript, ayats are not numbered, but separated from each other by red circles (similarly as in a comparable Turkish manuscript). No numbering is typical of ancient manuscripts of the Qur’an. However, this sign appears in the tefsir much more often than in the Turkish manuscript and more often than characters that separate verses in the other manuscripts.” 226 Cf. X. Уста, Исторический обзор первых подстрочных переводов корана (на материале тюрских языков), [in:] Tiurkų Istorija ir Kultūra Lietuvoje. Turks’

The description of source texts

71

Characteristic features of Turkish tefsirs, which have analogies with Tatar tefsirs are the following: – the availability of copies originating from the 14th to 16th centuries preserving archaic linguistic features typical of the 12th and 13th centuries; – mixing of linguistic features characteristic of different dialects. Tefsirs available to researchers are heterogeneous – it is possible to identify in them grammatical and lexical features specific for different groups of Turkish languages such as the languages of Oghuz Turks and Uyghurs, as well as Uzbek and Kipchak dialects; – the literalness of translation; – numerous mistakes of copyists, resulting, for example, from their ignorance of the grammar of Old Arabic227. Another feature of Tatar tefsirs, which distinguishes them from Turkish monuments of this type, is heterogeneity of translation. The exponents of a literal translation can be found in these texts, such as interlinear arrangement, morphological and syntactic fidelity to the original, including postpositional word order, and the presence of structures typical of the languages of source texts, e.g. the Ar. absolute masdar form and free translation228. In the Muslim world, Arabic was, and still is, the language of religion. In the case of Tatars, living far away from Muslim countries, and speaking Slavic languages, also Turkish acquired significance as a religious language, although it was considered as the language of a lower rank. Therefore, greater influence of that language can be seen in other types of monuments than tefsirs. One of the translators – Hodyna (Kitab z Kazania) explicitly wrote that he translated this book from Persian and Turkish229. Turkish influences in Tatar translation writings are twofold. On the one hand, there is the impact of the Turkish language, which was familiar to Tatars and was used by them, and on the other hand, the influence of texts translated from Turkish in the form of Tatar translations (including the selection of specific lexical and

History and Culture in Lithuania. История и Культура Тюрков в Литве, ed. T. Bairašauskaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2014, pp. 154–165, and also H. Jankowski, Cechy graficzne i językowe…, who on p. 146 indicates a number of linguistic features which are important for comparative purposes of the language and writing of three manuscripts of the translation of the Qur’an of the years 1392–1440. 227 Cf. a detailed description of the monuments in X. Уста, Исторический обзор…, pp. 157–161. 228 Cf. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Tefsir z Olity – uwagi językoznawcy, “Slavistica Vilnensis” 2015, Kalbotyra 60, Vilnius, pp. 159–175. 229 Cf. after A. Antonovich, op. cit., p. 125.

72

Introduction

semantic substitutions). Thus, Turkish translations served as companion texts, or formed the basis for translation230. The influences of the Turkish language are therefore seen at all levels of the linguistic structure of a Muslim translated text: spelling-related, phonetic and phonological, lexical-semantic, and grammatical levels. They manifest themselves, for example, in borrowings adopted from that language and in the adaptation of a word of Arabic origin (they were borrowed directly only in exceptional cases), which were then translocated or Slavicized; in the creation of hybrid forms with Turkish suffixes; in the vacillation of initial voiced and voiceless consonants; in word order of a nominal attribute, especially in proper names and in several other forms. The Tatar study of Arabic was closely coupled with the knowledge of the Turkish language, in which Arabic was probably taught. “This fact was of considerable importance in the process of translating Arabic texts into Polish, and in fact Turkish language habits could have been intermediary”231 – in grammatical constructions and at the vocabulary level. The impact of Turkish translations is discernible in the selection of specific equivalents for the Arabic etyma, e.g. *jedinostvo (KŁ 113b, v. 1, p. 377)232 a term used in relation to Allah, corresponds to the Turkish birligine ‘unity’. In terminology concerning angels, the Slavic equivalent ‘enh’eł also refers to the Turkish model of translation. However, a Tatar translator did not always convey grammatical properties of the forms in line with the Turkish version in which they occurred, e.g. the number, and hence Tur. sg ferişte ‘angel’ was translated ‘enh’ełove (KŁ 117a, v. 2, p. 379; 125a, v. 1, p. 384), similarly Tur. sg melek ‘angel’ (cf. Ar.  malak ‘angel’) once was rendered as ‘enh’eł, and at other times as ‘enh’ełove, in a similar way pl melā’ik was described as ‘enh’eł or ‘enh’ełove (KŁ 124b, v. 7 [v.9]233, p. 384; 117b, v. 6, p. 380; 107b, v. 6, p. 374), but Tur. pl ferişteler ‘angels’ has its correct equivalent in Tatar translation ‘enh’ełove, Tur. kerrūbīler ‘cherubim’; ‘great angels’ is rendered

230 The identification of the role of Arabic and Turkish sources in the origin of literary monuments of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims is therefore essential for the formation of a picture of the European, including Polish, translation tradition of the Qur’an. 231 A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 34. 232 The English equivalents of the words and expressions quoted from Polish translations of the Bible and the Qur’an can be found in the Index (Index of Slavic words and phrases, Index of Oriental words and phrases, Index of proper names). 233 According to the researchers of Tatar religious literature, „Leider ist Stankiewiczs Transliteration recht subjektiv und inkonsequent, so dass die linguistischen Eigenheiten der Texte oft verschleiert werden” – after p. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 4. Moreover, in his study Kitab Łuckiewicza both pages and verses of the manuscript are sometimes misidentified. Therefore the marking of the verses, accepted after G. Miškinienė, is introduced in square brackets when there is inconsistency in the numbering of verses between Stankiewicz’s version and Miškinienė’s version – J. Stankievič, Přispěvky k dějinám běloruského jazyka na zăkladě rukopisu ‘Al-Kitab’, „Slavia” XII, 1933–1934, and G. Miškinienė, Ivano Luckevičiaus kitabas…

The description of source texts

73

by a hybrid form kereb’iłov’e (cf. KŁ 133b, v. 1, p. 389); the preservation of untranslated original names can also be explained by the influence of Turkish translations, for example ferij and dźivij (KŁ 107b, v. 3 [v. 5], p. 374) – cf. Tur. dīv ü perī, firyszte – cf. Tur. ferişte, imam (KŁ 119b, v. 4, p. 381) – cf. Tur. imām, or kur’an (KŁ 118a, v. 6, p. 380) – cf. Tur. ḳurān, and also the rendering of Turkish expression ‘arş ḥurūsıdur ‘the rooster of the Throne, the cock of the Throne’ (cf. Ar.  ‘arš ‘throne’) by the expression ‘eršovij kūr (KŁ 119b, v. 1, p. 381); Tur. ey ahı (cf. Tur. exclamation particle ey! + Ar.  aẖ ‘brother’; ‘friend, companion’) rendered by vocative denomination ej braće (KŁ 107b, v. 7 [v. 9], p. 374); Tur. bu nebidür eki cihān sultanı ‘this prophet is the sultan of two (both) worlds’ (cf. Ar.  nabī ‘a prophet’ and Ar.  sulṭān ‘power, dominion’; ‘strength, power, might’; also ‘ruler, sovereign’) with the phrase to prarok, dvūχ śv’etoŭ pan (KŁ 111b, v. 1, p. 376); the presence of equivalents can also be explained by Turkish influence: ‘adźin ‘Is’e (KŁ 117b, v. 3 [v. 4], p. 380) from Tur. biri ‘īsā; Jūs’uf praroke (KŁ 117a, v. 6, p. 380) from Tur. yūsuf peyġāmberi (Tur. peyġāmber means ‘prophet’); ‘Jmranoŭ sin Mūs’a (KŁ 132a, v. 2, p. 388) from Tur. ‘imrān oġlı mūsā (tur. oġlı means ‘son’) etc. It is worth to notice that in Turkish translations original proper names and important doctrinal terms are left untranslated. The same principle applies to Tatar translations. In addition, in Turkish translations there are two-component nominations, where only one of them is translated, and the other one remains original, which narrows the range of references. Tatars were also eager to use this model in order to maintain precision and clarity of the message. The following constitutes proof of the departure from the Turkish translations and their creative processing: a Tatar neologism dušejemca (KŁ 125a, v. 6, p. 384)234 as the transformation of Tur. cān alıcı, that is literally ‘the one who takes the soul (life); an original equivalent ṕek’elnij vojevoda (KŁ 127b, v. 5, p. 386 – cf. the Tur. expression ṭamu melek ‘an angel of hell’); periphrasis of a heterogeneous structure mūkari ṕek’elnije (KŁ 131b, v. 5, p. 388 – cf. Tur. zebān-ile from Ar. pl  zabāniyya[t]‌‘lackeys, butlers, agents’; ‘agency’, ‘devils’); addressative denomination (cf. noble titulature) jeho milost’ (KŁ 134g, v. 9, p. 591)235 as a way of expressing Tur. evlā safāya (cf. Ar.  mawlà ‘lord’; ‘protector, patron’ + Ar.  ṣafā ‘be clean, clear, transparent’) the combination Božij ḿiłośńik (KŁ 109b, v. 2, p. 375) as an equivalent of Tur. çalabuñ sevdügi sen ‘Allah loves you’; ‘you are the favourite,

234 It fits perfectly in the prevailing tendency in the Polish language to create (in the 16th and 17th centuries) words with the morpheme -ca, and saturate texts with them, not only in poetry but also in prose, especially in the 18th century. Interesingly, these are mostly complex structures in the 18th century, formed under the influence of Church Slavonic, Russian and Greek, including the names of doers with the first element dusza (soul), e.g. duszodawca (soul giver) – cf. F. Pepłowski, Odczasownikowe nazwy wykonawców czynności w polszczyźnie XVI w., Wrocław– Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk 1974, pp. 141–143. 235 After G. Miškinienė, Ivano Luckevičiaus kitabas……

74

Introduction

the chosen one of Allah’ or ‘you are chosen, beloved by Allah’; the rendering of Ar. iḍāfa peculiar to Tatar writings – Muχemmed posol Božij (KŁ 108b, v.  9, p. 375) as an equivalent of Tur. muḥammed resūlu’llah (cf. Ar.  rasūl ‘envoy, emissary, messenger’; ‘apostolic prophet, papal’ + Ar.  allāh ‘Allah’); prarok, paχvalnaść śv’eata (KŁ 115b, v. 1, p. 379) as reflected in Tur. muṣṭafā faḥr-i ‘ālem ‘Muhammad – the magnificence of the world’ (cf. Ar.  muṣṭafān ‘chosen one’, hence the name of Muhammad Muṣṭafà  + Ar.  faẖr, for example ‘pride, glory, honor’; ‘splendor, grandeur, lavishness’ + Ar.  al-‘ālam ‘world’); To jest Ibrahim prarok (KŁ 133a, v. 1 [v. 2], p. 389 – cf. Tur. budur ibrāhīm-i ḥalīl from Ar.  ẖalīl ‘friend’; ‘lover’); Ibrahīm, prijećel (!) Božij (KŁ 111a, v. 8, p. 376 – cf. Tur. ibrāhīm ḥalīl); the expression *den sūdnij (KŁ 128b, v.  9, p.  386) from Tur. yarın ‘aẕāb ‘tomorrow (waiting) trouble’ (cf. Ar.  ‘aḏāb ‘torment, suffering, torture, ordeal’; ‘punishment’), as well as different equivalents of jedinij (KŁ 113a, v. 9, p. 377) and jedin (KŁ 115a, v. 3, p. 378) in comparison with Tur. eḥad ‘one’, birdür ‘one is’ and bir ‘one’ (cf. Ar.  aḥad ‘one’ or  waḥīd ‘only one, sole, incomparable, unique’; ‘lonely, alone, single’) as attributive denominations of Allah, and others. As far as Slavic languages, into which Muslim religious texts were translated from Arabic or Turkish sources, are concerned, written Tatar monuments in the GDL reflect the socio-linguistic situation, where Polish, as a comprehensively developed language of higher culture, overlapped the Belorussian substratum236. Therefore, mixed language texts prevail: Belorussian and Belorussian-Polish, which illustrates that Belorussian-Polish diglossia prevailed among Tatars (cf. especially kitabs237 and hamails). Here there is an analogy with the first Psalter translations, which were heterogeneous in nature, because in addition to native elements they also included components taken from foreign languages, which reflected some aspects of foreign culture. However, there are exceptions, as has already been mentioned, Tatar tefsirs and liturgical prayer texts, which were translated into Polish (into the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish) due to their highest rank as the revealed word of God238. In

236 Cf. A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, pp. 27–29; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 126 – cf. „Dass die Koranübersetzung in polnischer und nicht in weissrussischer Sprache angefertigt wurde, kann mit der ausgeprägten polnisch-weissrussischen Diglossie-Situation in Litauen im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (und auch später) erklärt werden. Das Polnische war als Sprache der Bibelübersetzungen, der höheren Bildung und Kultur sowie als Sprache des Adels die Sprache mit dem höheren sozialen Prestige. Der Koran, das heilige Wort Gottes, musste naturgemäss in diese sozial höhergestellte Sprache übertragen werden.” 237 Cf. Comments on the linguistic complexity of Kitab Milkamanowicza – C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, pp. 217–218. 238 Cf. also P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 10–12, pp. 31–33 and p. 84: „Die sprachliche Basis der Übersetzungstexte ist in allen Handschriften polnisch.”

The description of source texts

75

addition, Tatars who belonged to the nobility were aware of the prestige of the Polish language239.

0.6.2.6 Heterogeneous nature The texts that constitute Tatar religious literature in the GDL vary in terms of volume, genological classification (heterogeneous nature of religious literature – the use of features of other genres is seen even in the same work), as well as their subject matter. Apart from Arabic texts they also contain texts in Belorussian, Polish, Russian (less frequently), as well as Turkish. “Great erudition was required in translating, and above all the knowledge of the Oriental languages in which Muslim texts were written, i.e. Arabic, Turkish and Persian. At the same time, translators had to know the languages of the text that they were translating into, namely Polish and Belorussian”240. Tatars introduced these languages to their literature by means of the Arabic script. This fact confirms the fundamental assumption of David Diringer (a well-known researcher of the alphabets of the world), who argued that “the alphabet follows religion”241. There is no doubt that those who first translated religious texts into Polish and Belorussian must have known Arabic and Turkish pronunciation very well, and perhaps the pronunciations of other languages of the countries that are under the influence of Arab culture. Their aim was to present a phonetical transcription of Slavic translation with Arabic letters. Thus, the phonetical principle instead of spelling rules dominates in written texts. However, translators and copyists used their experience with Polish and Belorussian, as well as Arab and Turkish orthography. Therefore, apart from the prevailing phonetical transcriptions, there often appear records subordinated to the rules of spelling applicable to Polish and Belorussian, as well as to Arabic and Turkish in a certain period of time242. Early translators and commentators of the Qur’anic texts still had a good command of Arabic and Turkish, whereas later generations of copyists duplicated those texts passively, and this contributed to the occurrence of spelling mistakes. This led to the situation in which some parts of the texts became incomprehensible at their semantic level and were chaotic in their spelling243.

239 This issue is disscussed in detail in Z. Kurzowa, Język polski Wileńszczyzny i kresów północno-wschodnich XVI–XX w., Warszawa–Kraków 1993, p. 28 and following. 240 C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, p. 61 – cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 92: “And our people cannot speak Arabic or Turkish, but they have a knowledge of other languages: everyone in our country has a command of the two languages that are commonly used there” (an excerpt from Risāle-i Tātār-i Leh). 241 D. Diringer, Alfabet, czyli klucz do dziejów ludzkości, Warszawa 1972, p. 525. 242 Cf. C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, p. 88. 243 Ibidem, p. 90.

76

Introduction

0.6.2.7 The content Tatar books consist of two fundamentally different groups as far as the authorship of the texts is concerned: the first involves texts created by Tatars, either individually or as adaptations or translations into Polish and/or Belorussian; the other consists of texts that were written in Oriental languages, Turkish and Arabic, and are considered borrowings from eastern sources244. In the Oriental group of Tatar monuments in the GDL one may mention the following genres:  popular Oriental commentary, fiction, devotional, liturgical, instructive, and magical-prognostic writings, etc., mostly of a religious nature. However, variants of Arabic prayers with accompanying commentaries or exempla often have their original in Turkish prayer books245. A. Drozd states that Tatars used Turkish sources, which include the literature of the Golden Horde or Turkestan in the Chagatai language, and at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries the literature of Ottoman Turkey and later Turkish monuments, as well as Arabic sources, mostly prayers in classical literary Arabicfrom Anatolia, and from the Volga Region, Crimea and Turkestan246. In addition, the first authors and translators of Muslim religious texts drew from the available Christian literature, making the adaptation of its fragments or the whole texts appropriate for the canons and tenets of Islam247.

0.6.2.8 The Tatar tefsir – the first translation of the Qur’an into a Slavic language The first translations of the Qur’an originated in Central Asia, in the area where Islam has been present since the 8th century, and more precisely in the kingdom of the Samanids, in its capital city of Bukhara in the years 875–999. We know about the six oldest translations of the Qur’an which originated in this area. Three of them date from the earliest period of Karakhanid literature (between the 10th and 12th centuries), two of them date back to the period of the Khwarezmian, and more precisely Khwarezmian-Turkish literature (between the 13th and 14th centuries), and one is the example of Chagatai literature (since the 15th century)248. Translations of the Qur’an into Turkish are later. The first ones were made in the earliest form of Turkish, which is called Old Anatolian (from the 13th to the half of the 15th centuries)249. The first translation of the Qur’an into a European language (Latin), appeared on the initiative of Peter the Venerable in the 12th century. However, it was not 2 44 A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 46. 245 Ibidem, p. 40. 246 Ibidem, p. 42. 247 Cf. C. Łapicz, Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna……, p. 294. 248 After H. Jankowski, Cechy graficzne i językowe…, p. 142. 249 Ibidem, p. 144.

The description of source texts

77

until 1543 that it was printed, thanks to the effort of Martin Luther. Several years later, in 1547, this edition became the basis for the translation of the Qur’an into Italian, and in 1616, it served as the basis for the first German translation of the Qur’an. The first English translation of the holy book of Islam was not published in print until 1743. The first Slavic translation (in the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish) in the second half of the 16th century is therefore probably the third consecutive translation of the Qur’an into a European language250, after the Latin translation and the Italian one based on it, and at the same time, it was the earliest (that is the first) translation of that book into a Slavic language251. Another Slavic translation, this time into Russian, appeared in 1716, that is only in the 18th century252. The tradition of the formation of infralinear translations in Central Asia probably originated in the 11th century, and continued until the 15th century in Anatolia (in Ottoman Turkish). It is assumed that the Tatars of the GDL adopted it from there253. 250 It is known that at the initiative of Juan de Segovia a trilingual (Latin, Castilian and Aragonese) translation of the Qur’an was made. It dates back to 1456. Unfortunately it was not preserved. However, recent studies indicate the discovery of handwritten marginalia of Segovia – cf. U. Roth, R. F. Glei, Die Spuren der lateinischen Koranübersetzung des Juan de Segovia – alte Probleme und ein neuer Fund, „Neulateinisches Jahrbuch” 11, 2009, pp. 109–154; idem, Eine weitere Spur der lateinischen Koranübersetzung des Juan de Segovia, „Neulateinisches Jahrbuch” 13, 2011, pp. 221–228; D. Scotto, ‘De pe a pa’. Il Corano trilingue di Juan de Segovia (1456) e la conversione pacifica dei musulmani, „Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa” 48/3, 2012, pp. 515–577; U. Roth, D. Scotto, Auf der Suche nach der Erbsünde im Koran Die ‘Allegationes de peccatis primi parentis’ des Juan de Segovia, „Neulateinisches Jahrbuch” 17, 2015, pp. 181–218. 251 Cf. A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., p. 46; A. Konopacki, op. cit., p. 135; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 1–3 – cf. Introduction which includes a short historical outline of Tatar settlement and their life among Christians; the linguistic situation of Tatars of the GDL – strong influence of the Polish language with an associated trend to linguistic and cultural assimilation; Tatar translation activity had been developing since the 16th century – for example Polish translation of the Qur’an in the form of a Tatar tefsir and others. 252 C. Łapicz, Z teorii i praktyki przekładów Koranu…, p. 269. 253 X. Уста, Исторический обзор…, p. 162. As was observed by H. Jankowski, Cechy graficzne i językowe…, pp. 147–148: “It is still not exactly known how Turkic manuscripts reached Lithuania and from where Muslim mullahs came or where Tatars went to improve their knowledge. It is customary to think that the closest contacts were kept with Turkey and the Crimea, which is confirmed by the existence of the two oldest translations of the Qur’an, which in their Oriental layer are Turkish – see the Lithuanian tefsir from the 16th century and Tefsir miński from 1686. The contacts with the Volga region were difficult until the partitions of Poland because of the relations with Russia, however it is most likely that eastern Turkic texts reached Lithuanian Tatars from the Volga region, for example those are present [the change

78

Introduction

Thus, the 16th-century translation of the Qur’an, made by the Tatars of the GDL, is an extremely important and significant achievement of both Polish, as well as European Islamic studies, for Polish (and also Belorussian) culture and in the history of the Polish (and Belorussian) language254. This is so because this 16th-century translation of the Qur’an shows that even then Polish was developed enough to become an efficient tool to provide a sufficient basis for making a specific translation of an extremely difficult text, remote from Polish cultural, linguistic and religious realities. “Nevertheless, the experts on Islamic problems express an opinion that the tefsir translation of the Qur’an is very good, made in the spirit of the best Muslim commentators”255. The 16th-century translation of the holy book of Muslims into Polish (the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish) is then evidence of the connection of the Oriental world and culture with the world and culture of the Slavs. The whole Qur’an was probably translated into Polish as early as in the second half of the 16th century. Hypothetically it is assumed that there existed a Polish translation of the Qur’an earlier than the copies of the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th centuries. This can be asserted on the basis of historical sources and a philological analysis of the earliest preserved copies of the translation of the Qur’an. Traditional methods of textual criticism can be used to confirm this thesis, aimed at establishing its filiations – the study of clerical errors, vocabulary analysis, etc. As has been mentioned, it cannot be ruled out that the text was made directly from the Arabic original, although not without the impact of Turkish. It also cannot be ruled out that it could have been translated from Turkish, but it may have been compared with the Arabic basis (an analogy to the Polish Psalter tradition).

introduced by the author of the monograph] in the two oldest hamails, of Lipsk from the 17th century and Jezufowicz [Józefowicz] from 1765. This is not, however, certain. It is necessary to remember that Lithuanian Tatars have Kipchak roots and their ancient ethnic language was closer to eastern Turkic languages than to Turkish. It can be assumed that the first hamails were copied from the Turkish ones even at a time when part of Tatars still knew their native language to some extent, and in the process of copying them conscious or involuntary partial Kipchakization took place, which resulted in the appearance of a mixed language.” 254 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 126–127, makes an assumption that the Tatar tefsir is one of the first complete, accurate and theologically unsubstantiated translations of the Qur’an into European languages in the pan-European context and it occupies a prominent place among European translations of the Qur’an until the 18th century. 255 C. Łapicz, Z teorii i praktyki przekładów Koranu…, p.  270; P.  Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 7 – the opinions repeated after J. Szynkiewicz, Literatura religijna Tatarów litewskich i jej pochodzenie, „Rocznik Tatarski” II, Zamość 1935, p. 138.

The description of source texts

79

However, the Polish archetype, the original handwritten text, the prototype of the translation of the Qur’an did not survive to our times256. It is also unclear whether there were more of these prototypes, because on the basis of a comparative analysis of the available texts, researchers can conclude that some of the copies have more features in common (cf. the Tefsir z Olity from 1723 and a tefsir preserved at the library of University of Vilnius from 1788), while others are significantly different from them (e.g. the Tefsir miński from 1686). This may indicate the existence of so-called chains of copies. It is therefore the task of researchers to identify and create a list of Tatar canonical texts. The earliest known copies include the Qur’an stored in Pskov (1682), in which there are glosses containing a Polish translation, and a tefsir from 1686 located in the collection of the Jakub Kolas Central Scientific Library of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus257. Some excerpts from the tefsir translation were also used in kitab texts of a commentary, didactic and fictional nature. They assumed a bilingual form, but they were written linearly, in continuo. Coherent excerpts from the tefsir in both layouts sometimes appear in kitabs as separate chapters. They are also used for translating prayers and khutbahs, because, as has been proven by A. Drozd, the tefsir translation undoubtedly played a significant role in the work of later translators – even being a translation model for them 258. However, the 16th century translation of the holy book of Islam was not called (and still is not called) the Qur’an in the Tatar tradition in the GDL, and did not 256 Cf. C. Łapicz, Glosy, komentarze, objaśnienia…, p. 78. A similar situation applies to the Polish Psalter tradition preceding Psałterz floriański. As is stated by M. Cybulski, Staropolskie przekłady psałterza…, p. 19: “It is certain that there was a Polish translation of the Psalter earlier than its earliest version known to us. And although not even the slightest shred of that old translation has survived until now, the evidence of its existence must be regarded as convincing. Researchers of Old Polish literature generally agree on this issue. However, there is no consensus concerning the details: time, place and the scope of the first translation, the number of its missing copies, its relationship to Vulgate and the Czech translation tradition, and the achievements of its Polish successors.” Similar discussions are conducted concerning the original of Rozmyślanie przemyskie by T. Mika, W. Twardzik, Jak zagadkowe cztery tytuły rozdziałów w Rozmyślaniu przemyskim pozwalają wyobrażać sobie jego zagubiony autograf, „Język Polski” XCI, 2011, Brochure 5, pp. 321–334. According to the latest findings, also the text of Kazania świętokrzyskie is a copy of a copy. The authograph of the monument came into existence as early as in the 13th century (the end of the 13th century or the beginning of the 14th century), and it was copied in the middle of the 14th century – cf. W. Wydra, Wokół fenomenu Kazań świętokrzyskich, [in:] Kazania świętokrzyskie. Nowa edycja. Nowe propozycje badawcze, eds. P. Stępień et al., Warszawa 2008, pp. 46–47. 257 A. Konopacki, op. cit., p. 135. 258 Cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 72–83; A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 48; C. Łapicz, Źródła cytatów koranicznych w Wykładzie wiary machometańskiej…

80

Introduction

have its status, but according to the exegesis and tradition of Islam, it was a tefsir (from Ar.  tafsīr), that is ‘commentary, interpretation, explanation’259, of the original Arabic text of the Qur’an. Limited knowledge concerning the first Slavic translation of the Qur’an is the result of its existence only in few handwritten copies called tefsirs and the way it was recorded – by means of the Arabic script, which was little known in our culture, and which was specially adapted to represent the Slavic sound system.

0.6.2.9 The problem of transcription and transliteration The spelling of the headwords excerpted from monuments of the writings of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims and the contexts in which they can be found varies because of the linguistic diversity of these monuments and because of different methods of transliteration and transcriptions used by researchers260. Heretofore a uniform and universal system of both transcription and transliteration of Tatar translation texts from the Arabic script into the Latin alphabet or the Cyrillic alphabet has not been established. The international ISO system is insufficient to represent the alphabet used in the Tatar writings in the GDL. It includes only 28 consonant sounds of the Arabic alphabet, while in Tatar texts about 38 graphemes are used. Therefore, certain original temporarily developed systems of transcription and transliteration for work in the field of kitabistics are used, accompanied by a key for reading and specifying (at least approximately) the sound values of transcription signs. Nevertheless, the identification of Arabic terms and names with the same etymology, but which are differently transliterated or transcribed in different works, is in many cases difficult or even impossible261.

259 A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., p. 43. Ar. tafsīr also has the meaning of the science of the exegesis of the text of the Qur’an. 260 Cf. C. Łapicz, Z problematyki badawczej piśmiennictwa Tatarów białostockich, [in:] Studia językowe z Białostocczyzny. Onomastyka i historia języka, eds. E. Smułkowa, I. Maryniakowa, Warszawa 1989, pp. 165–166: “It is especially difficult to transliterate texts from the Arabic script into the Latin alphabet. […] It is undoubtedly the phonetical principle that is the foundation of using Arabic letters for writing Slavic texts. However, the study of the monuments shows that the copyists sometimes retained certain Belorussian and Polish spelling conventions, they retained etymological signs, and they used a morphological principle of a writing system. Over time, successive generations of copyists lost their original language skills (the knowledge of Arabic and Turkish), retaining only the knowledge of Arabic letters – and all of this had a significant impact on the practice of using the Arabic alphabet to write Slavic texts. It is these facts that greatly complicate the rules of transcription and transliteration of Muslim texts.” 261 Idem, Transkrypcja czy transliteracja tekstów muzułmanów litewsko-polskich pisanych alfabetem arabskim? (Wprowadzenie do dyskusji), „Kalbotyra” LIV (2), Vilnius 2009, p. 209.

The description of source texts

81

The basic condition for the development of research in the field of kitabistics is therefore the elaboration of the system of transliteration and transcription of the Arabic alphabet that is present in the Tatar texts in the GDL into the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets, which would be universal, commonly accepted and used by all (or most) of the researchers262. However, while developing a system of transliteration for one particular monument does not cause much difficulty, developing a system of conversion of the Arabic alphabet into the Latin alphabet, which would be not individual, but universal, used for transliteration of any texts which varied temporarily and geographically, is a much more difficult task. It is possible to identify the reasons for difficulties in reading the monuments of Tatar literature. These include: the dominant phonetical transcription, resulting in dialectal differentiation of subsequent copies and the presence in one monument of features of a variety of dialects, often distant geographically; chronological stratification of the monuments, namely the presence of Polish and Belorussian linguistic features from the 16th century to the time of the appearance of the copies; coexistence in the texts of four different languages:  Arabic, Turkish, Polish and Belorussian; strong influence of orthographical norms and conventions and Arabic and Turkish spelling, as well as, in later monuments, of graphical norms and Polish and Belorussian orthography; passive reproduction of texts by later generations of copyists, who not only did not know the Oriental languages, but even the Arabic alphabet263. The copies of Muslim texts appeared in the period ranging from the 16th to the 20th centuries, and at that time the languages in which the 16th century originals were created, were evolving manifestly, resulting in the accumulation in the subsequent copies of diverse linguistic facts, varied both in time and space. In Muslim texts we also find dialect and dialectal features that can be explained either by the copyist’s idiolect, or the place where a specific copy appeared. In addition, the language of Tatar manuscripts was under the obvious influence of the most important languages of the world of Islam  – Arabic, Turkish and Persian. Therefore, these texts are diverse at all levels of their linguistic structure264. So how has the reading of Tatar monuments in the GDL been dealt with so far? The first system of transliteration based on a broad source basis is the proposal of А. К. Antonovich, contained in his work Белорусские тексты, писанные арабским письмом, и их графико-орфографическая система. It enables the conversion of the Arabic alphabet used to write Slavic texts into the Cyrillic alphabet. In fact, it

262 Cf. idem, Kitabistyka a historia języka polskiego i białoruskiego…, p.  38, and Г. Мишкиниене, Развитие китабистики в Вильнюсском университете…, p. 235 – footnote 3. 263 C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, pp. 89–90 – cf. also idem, Transkrypcja czy transliteracja tekstów muzułmanów litewsko-polskich…, pp. 207–219. 264 Idem, Transkrypcja czy transliteracja tekstów muzułmanów litewsko-polskich…, pp. 208–209.

82

Introduction

meets the conditions of adequate and universal transliteration265, although in the literature of the subject the subjectivity of the system and the causes thereof are indicated266. The authors of later works adapted the system of А. К. Antonovich. The authors of the article The Belorussian Tartars and their Writings can be mentioned here, that is G. M. Meredith-Owens and A. Nadson, and the author of a short dictionary of Tatar monuments in the GDL The Vocabulary of a Belorussian K’it’ab in the British Museum – S. Akiner267, C. Łapicz – the author of a monograph Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich. (Paleografia. Grafia. Język), and his later work (together with H. Jankowski) Klucz do raju. Księga Tatarów litewsko-polskich z XVIII w., in which he presents a modified system of transliteration of the Arabic alphabet into Latin, based on previously defined (in 1986) rules, or the work by G. Miškinienė Sieniausi lietuvos totorių rankrašciai. Grafika. Transliteracija. Vertimas. Tekstų struktūra ir turinys, as well as a monograph by P.  Suter Alfurkan Tatarski. Der litauisch-tatarische Koran-Tefsir, in which he offers some suggestions for decoding monuments of Tatar writings268, he discusses the unique role of the Arabic script269, and includes a table which demonstrates the spelling of consonants270, and vowels271, and the associated peculiarities272. 2 65 Cf. ibidem, pp. 210–211. 266 Ibidem, p. 211. 267 C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, pp.  91–100 (cf. also C.  Łapicz, H. Jankowski, op. cit., p. 41) observes that in the article by G. M. Meredith-Owens and A. Nadson transcription is confused with transliteration, and moreover there is unjustified freedom in reading individual words. The system of the conversion of the Arabic alphabet into the Latin one is an adaptation of the system of А. К. Antonovich. It is a faithful transposition of the Cyrillic alphabet into the Latin alphabet which perpetuates the imperfections of the system of А. К. Antonovich. The system of transliteration of the Arabic alphabet into Latin, presented in this article, was adopted in her work by S. Akiner, who, however, introduced several modifications: an Arab letter ṯā᾿ is transliterated by her as s᾿; ẖā’ as ch; ḏāl as z’; šīn as ş; zāʼ as ẕ.” However, A. Woronowicz (cf. Szczątki językowe Tatarów litewskich czy Kitab Tatarów litewskich i jego zawartość) used a phonetical transcription. Arabic words given by him (as a reference) are, however, recorded in different ways, inconsistently and often incorrectly. C. Łapicz also perceives the consequences of a disordered and inconsistent system of transcription and/or transliteration in other studies, e.g. A. Drozd, Rękopisy tatarskie w zbiorach londyńskich, where the excerpts from a tefsir of 1725 “were not transliterated into the Latin alphabet, but the author made their phonetical transcription, additionally using a totally subjective, original system of transcription” – cf. C. Łapicz, Transkrypcja czy transliteracja tekstów muzułmanów litewsko-polskich…, p. 212, and the identification of specific errors and inaccuracies – pp. 212–215. 268 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 135–136. 269 Ibidem, pp. 136–139. 270 Ibidem, p. 140. 271 Ibidem, p. 146. 272 Ibidem, pp. 141–165.

The description of source texts

83

So the question arises as to whether it is at all possible to create a universal system of transcription and transliteration of Tatar literature monuments in the GDL, or the task of the researchers will be simply to adapt the existing proposals of А. К. Antonovich and C. Łapicz and to adjust them to specific monuments, especially bearing in mind that the system of transliteration of texts written in the Arabic alphabet into the Latin alphabet must allow the retention of the individual features of graphy of the analyzed monuments, and it must ensure the preservation of the spelling identity of the original. Therefore, it is essential to subordinate consistently to each letter of the Latin alphabet its Arabic equivalent, which would exclude the freedom of subjectivity of interpretation of the value of letters and would make it possible to reproduce faithfully the original spelling. The following features should be maintained in the process of converting the Arabic alphabet into the Latin alphabet and/or Cyrillic: 1. The features that are related to the location of a manuscript in “time and space”, that is help to date it on the basis of the reflected linguistic and spelling-related facts; 2. The linguistic facts that help to associate a specific copy with the dialectal area where it was created or the area its copyist came from; 3. The linguistic facts that help to differentiate and date various layers of the language present in each Tatar manuscript273. The reason for the necessity of developing of a unified system of transliteration and transcription of Muslim texts into Latin and/or Cyrillic, postulated by researchers, is the concern for a uniform and comparable way of conversion of the original Arabic spelling. It is because the diversity of the ways of converting texts written in Arabic alphabet into Latin alphabet (Cyrillic) existing today makes this difficult or even makes the correct phonetical interpretation impossible, and furthermore it burdens the study with the unnecessary ballast of subjective individualism. A standardized conversion system should enable a researcher to have reliable spelling and enable a reader to decode the text in a proper way, with the correct sound, even if only approximately, preferably with the use of characters of a clear structure, easily understandable without any special explanations274. In 2013 an international interdisciplinary team of researchers (consisting of historians, culture experts, Slavic scholars, including scholars of Polish and Belorussian languages, and Orientalists, including Arabists and Turkish scholars, whose participation was conditioned by the fact that Tatar monuments are multilayered and multilingual) engaged in the preparation of a critical edition of the

273 Cf. C. Łapicz, Transkrypcja czy transliteracja tekstów muzułmanów litewsko-polskich…, p. 217. 274 Ibidem, p. 216 – he postulates here the preservation of traditional characters used in Slavic phonetic transcription systems.

84

Introduction

Tatar translation of the holy book of Islam275. The most important research tasks included the following: development and an attempt at standardization of transliteration and transcription rules of Polish and/or Belorussian texts of the Muslims in the GDL written in the Arabic alphabet into Latin alphabet; to decipher tefsir manuscripts (one of the earliest and one of the most recent available copies constitute a basis for editing)276 according to developed principles; designation of areas of research and the development of methodological tools for the multifaceted philological and historical description of manuscript monuments of the Tatar-Muslims in the GDL (including kitabs, hamails, tejvids…); preliminary preparation of online publication and in this way to provide researchers with original philological sources. During the work on the project, it was acknowledged that the Slavic linguistic layer should determine the transliteration system solutions. Attention was devoted to the similarity of transliteration systems adopted in kitabistics tradition and transliteration characters common for these systems were accepted. It was stated that the ISO system will be useful in the transliteration of the Oriental layer of the Tatar texts. In addition, it fulfils an important supporting role, being used for orientation as to which Arabic graphemes were used to represent Polish sounds. A transliteration table was provisionally developed, which includes instructions as to the transliteration of tefsir manuscripts from 1723 and 1890. These tefsirs were completely transliterated. Therefore, a coherent and unified transliteration system has been developed for the monument of the highest rank, namely of the first translation of the Qur’an into a Slavic language. In the future, its critical edition, accompanied by a reliable philological commentary, may become a source basis for academic research in many areas, such as Slavic and Oriental studies, cultural studies, religious studies, political science, history, ethnology, theology, etc.

0.6.3 Printed Polish translations of the Qur’an The history of Polish translations of the Qur’an is presented, among others, in the works of M.  Konopacki277, N.  Jord278, Mazen Arafe279, Janusz Danecki280, C. 275 Cf. pp. [37–38] in this monograph. See also J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Edycja tefsiru Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego – z problematyki transkrypcji i transliteracji, [in:] Staropolskie spotkania językoznawcze 2. Jak wydawać teksty dawne, eds. K. Borowiec, D. Masłej, T. Mika, D. Rojszczak-Robińska, Poznań 2017, pp. 201–218. 276 Tefsir z Olity from 1723 and Tefsir Józefowa from 1890, stored in the National Museum in Vilnius (sgn. НМЛ R-13.012). 277 Cf, an article on the first literary translations of the Qur’an – M. Konopacki, Z historii przekładów Koranu w Polsce, „Znak” 2, 1973, pp. 276–281. 278 N. Jord, op. cit., pp. 7–96 – especially chapter III, pp. 32–46: Koran w dorobku polskiej orientalistyki – Koran jako przedmiot zainteresowań polskich myślicieli (XVIII–XX w.), Przekłady Koranu w języku polskim. 279 M. Arafe, Świat arabski w piśmiennictwie polskim XIX wieku, Lublin 1994, pp. 96–226. 280 J. Danecki, Podstawowe wiadomości…, pp. 79–82.

The description of source texts

85

Łapicz281, and A. Konopacki282. Thus – for the purpose of this monograph – it is limited only to the most important facts. Polish interest in the Qur’an dates back to the 17th century. It manifested itself for the first time in the circle of Silesian and Pomeranian Oriental studies. It was the expression of the acceptance of the academic attitude to the culture and beliefs of the Orient. There was then a special interest in Semitic languages. The first Latin translation of the Qur’an with its commentary, entitled Interpretatio Alcorani litteralis cum scholiis, was made by Dominik Ślązak (Dominicus Germanus de Silesia), a Franciscan monk from Wrocław. It was not published in his lifetime due to its prohibition by Pope Alexander VI. It was released only in 1883. In 1701, another Silesian Orientalist, Andrzej Acoluthus from Wrocław, published in Berlin a fragment of his Latin translation:  Al Coranica sive specimen Alcorani quadrilinguis, Arabici, Persici, Turcici, Latini. In the beginning of the 19th century, the department of Oriental languages functioned in the Gdańskie Gimnazjum Akademickie. Its outstanding representative was the Orientalist Jan Fabricius, who during his stay in Rostock supervised the publication of the Qur’an in Arabic and Latin. 1840 saw the publication of a French translation of the Qur’an, which was developed by the Orientalist Wojciech (Albert) de Biberstein Kazimirski. This translation was popular for a long time and it was appreciated very much not only in France but also beyond its borders. It had as many as fourteen editions. The full title of the translation is Le Koran. Traduction nouvelle faite sur le texte arabe. However, the first translation of the Qur’an into Polish was not made until the first half of the 19th century. One may find only a few references concerning the previous attempts at translation. Bohdan Baranowski, a historian and Orientalist, on the basis of the findings of the 17th-century genealogist Kacper Niesiecki, stated that in the 17th century, Piotr Starkowiecki, a translator of the Royal Chancery, made his translation of the Qur’an from Arabic into Polish, which was unreleased due to the death of its translator. However, Baranowski was not sure whether Starkowiecki translated the whole text of the Qur’an and whether the source text was written in Arabic, or whether it was a Turkish translation283. Polish Philomaths Fr. D. Chlewiński and I. Domeyko made their translation of the Qur’an in the first half of the 19th century284. It is interesting that one of them 2 81 Cf. C. Łapicz, Z teorii i praktyki przekładów Koranu…, pp. 269–289. 282 A. Konopacki, op. cit., pp. 135–137. 283 B. Baranowski, Najdawniejsze polskie przekłady z literatury orientalnej, „Prace Polonistyczne”, Łódź 1947, p. 45. 284 Konopacki discusses the causes of this translation – among others the situation of the Philomaths in exile, the interest in the Orient, the growing economic importance of the East, and the development of Oriental studies – A. Konopacki, op. cit., pp. 135–137 – cf. also J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii islamistycznej…, pp. 21–27. It is worthy of note that the development of Oriental studies from their beginnings, i.e. in the period of Middle Polish, until the present

86

Introduction

was a Catholic priest, and in the case of the other, a beatification process was begun in 2008. Ignacy Domeyko was an outstanding Polish scholar, and geologist, an explorer of South America and the hero of the third part of Dziady by Adam Mickiewicz, having the pseudonym Żegota. As it turns out, Domeyko did not only work in the milieu of Polish Tatars, helping to build their identity through the translation of the most important book for their faith, but also the Mapuche – a

day had a special significance for the genesis of the translation of the Qur’an, which is described in detail in the works of Polish Orientalists: J. Reychman, Znajomość i nauczanie języków orientalnych…; Orient w kulturze polskiego oświecenia, Wrocław 1964; Z dziejów orientalizmu polskiego w dobie oświecenia, [in:] idem, Szkice z dziejów polskiej orientalistyki, Vol. II, Warszawa 1966; Podróżnicy polscy na Bliskim Wschodzie w XIX w., Warszawa 1972; Orientalizm, [entry in:] Słownik literatury polskiego oświecenia, Wrocław 1991; B. Baranowski, Znajomość Wschodu w dawnej Polsce…; A. Zajączkowski, Studia orientalistyczne z dziejów słownictwa polskiego, Wrocław 1953; Orient jako źródło inspiracji w literaturze romantycznej doby mic­ kiewiczowskiej, Warszawa 1955; Z dziejów orientalizmu polskiego doby mickiewicz­ owskiej, [in:] Szkice z dziejów polskiej orientalistyki, Vol. I, Warszawa 1957, pp. 95–156; S. Kałużyński, Uniwersyteckie studia orientalistyczne w Polsce, „Przegląd Orientalistyczny” 2 (10), 1994, pp. 71–87; K. Skarżyńska-Bocheńska, Arabistyka, joint publication, Instytut Orientalistyczny Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego [the Institute of Oriental Studies of the University of Warsaw] 1932–1982, Warszawa 1986. Studies by Reychman and Zajączkowski concerning the history of Orientalism and Oriental studies to the mid-19th century are of special value. In the 1990s, several works of Polish orientalists appeared. They described in detail the development of Polish Arabic and Islamic studies after World War II, and presented a complete bibliography of Polish Arabic studies (magazines, articles, books, scholarly and popular scholarly studies published in Poland) for the years 1945–1992: M. M. Dziekan, Z. Poniatowski, Islamistyka w Polsce (1945–1990) – bibliografia, „Signa Temporis” VII, 1991, Brochure 1, pp. 143–218; A Bibliography of Arabic and Islamic Studies in Poland (1945–1992), Warszawa 1993; Z. Poniatowski, Dzieje islamistyki w Polsce po II wojnie światowej, „Przegląd Orientalistyczny” XL, 1992, No. 1–4, pp. 67–76. The work by M. M. Dziekan pt. Polacy a świat arabski: słownik biograficzny, published in Gdańsk in 1998, acquaints its readers with the history of Polish-Arab relations, the development of knowledge about Islam and the Arab world in the span of nearly a thousand years. The book consists of two parts – the first contains the biographies of more than a hundred Poles who were related to, through their activities, the culture and science of the Middle East and played a significant role in introducing these issues to their compatriots. The second part is a synthetic presentation of Polish Arabic and Islamic studies after World War II. It presents the centres of Arabic studies in Poland, it describes in detail the Arabic literature, and the history of the Arab world. It also deals with the issues of linguistics, Islam, philosophy, culture, sociology, ethnography, source studies and numismatics, as well as presenting periodicals published in Poland which present Arabic and Islamic issues. In this part of the book the names of institutions disseminating the knowledge of the Arab world are given.

The description of source texts

87

Chilean tribe (now approximately of one million people) to whom he dedicated his work Araukania i jej mieszkańcy (Araucania and its inhabitants) owe their survival to him. The Pole, sent in a military company to the land of Mapuche by the then president of Chile, described in it the life and culture of the tribe. It is thanks to this book, which was reprinted a number of times, that the president made a decision to change the existing policy of exterminating of the Mapuche to their assimilation. In this way, Domeyko helped save this Native American population285. The work of Philomaths was probably published in Poznań in 1848286. The Kórnik Library houses a copy of the translation of the Philomaths, without a cover page, the names of translators, and a place and year of publication. It consists of the first eleven chapters, which represents about a quarter of the entire text of the Qur’an. In 1858, under the imprint of a Warsaw bookseller, Aleksander Nowolecki, the translation of the Qur’an into Polish was released under the name of a Tatar from Podlasie – Jan Murza Tarak-Buczacki, entitled Koran (al-Koran) z arabskiego przekład polski Jana Murzy Tarak Buczackiego, Tatara z Podlasia. Wzbogacony objaśnieniami Władysława Kościuszki. Poprzedzony życiorysem Mahometa z Washingtona Irwinga. Pomnożony poglądem na stosunki Polski z Turcją i Tatarami, na dzieje Tatarów w Polsce osiadłych, na przywileje tu im nadane, jako też wspomnieniami o znakomitych Tatarach polskich Juliana Bartoszewicza. Z dodaniem wiadomości:  o Arabach przed Mahometem, o ich historii, religii, nauce, zwyczajach, o obrządkach religijnych, o stanie judaizmu z czasów Mahometa, o środkach przezeń użytych dla zaprowadzenia jego religii, o okolicznościach, które się do tego przyczyniły, o przepisach Koranu w sprawach cywilnych, o sektorzach między wyznawcami Islamu, podających się za proroków pomiędzy Arabami za Mahometa lub po nim, wyjętych z dzieła tłumacza Koranu G. Sale, uczonego angielskiego; oraz Kalendarza Arabsko-Tureckiego przez Adryana Krzyżanowskiego i zbioru modlitw

285 http://www.gwiazda-polarna.com/polska_19_14_Ryn.html (20-05-2016), and cf. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Fenomen Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego – koegzystencja kultur. Przekłady Koranu na język polski, „Litteraria Copernicana” 2(18), Tatarzy polscy – adoptowani do narodu, eds. M. Lewicka, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2016, p. 47. 286 Cf. K. Estreicher, Bibliografia polska XIX stulecia, Vol. III, p. 39, Kraków 1876, and Vol. VI, p. 379, Kraków 1881. In 2014, a fragment of a manuscript was found, which dates back to the first half of the 19th century, identified as the Philomath translation of the Qur’an. It contains 26 surahs of the Qur’an, but in total there are 351 ayats, i.e. more than 5% of the volume of the book. This is due to the fact that this part of the manuscript includes the final surahs, which are the shortest ones – LXIX–LXXI and LXXXIX–CXI – cf. A. Konopacki, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz, Nieznany rękopis polskiego przekładu Koranu, „Colloquia Orientalia Bialostocensia”, Estetyczne aspekty literatury polskich, białoruskich i litewskich Tatarów (od XVI do XXI w.), eds. G. Czerwiński, A. Konopacki, Białystok 2015, pp. 49–67; J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Cechy archaiczne i regionalne w odnalezionym fragmencie rękopisu filomackiego przekładu Koranu na język polski, [in:] Historia języka w XXI wieku. Stan i perspektywy, eds. M. Pastuch, M. Siuciak, Katowice 2018, pp. 368–380.

88

Introduction

codziennych i świątecznych przełożonych z arabskiego przez Władysława Kościuszkę (Vols. I–II, Warszawa, under the imprint of Aleksander Nowolecki, a bookseller, 1858, printed in the printing house of J. Jaworski). The translation appeared in two volumes: volume one is a historical and social introduction, including information on the life and activities of Muhammad; the second volume is the actual translation of the Qur’an. There is consensus among the researchers of the Polish translations of the Qur’an that the authors of this translation were the Philomaths, who have already been mentioned287. As for the translation’s sources, opinions are divided. Some researchers believe that it is a translation from the Arabic original288, and others present the opinion that the basis of the translation was the translation by Wojciech (Albert) de Biberstein Kazimirski, published in Paris, in 1840289. This is because the publisher indicated in the Introduction that its author compared his translation from Arabic with the translation of the Qur’an in French made by Kazimirski. It is also believed that there is a possible relationship between a handwritten tefsir translation and the 19th-century translation printed in Warsaw in 1858. Also in the interwar period, some attempts were made to translate the text of the Qur’an into Polish. Dawid Künstlinger was the author of the first translation work. In 1926, under the imprint of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Kraków the Przekład i objaśnienie 53 sury Koranu was released. The surah is entitled Gwiazda and consists of 62 verses. Künstlinger presented, together with his translation, a philological commentary to this surah. The second attempt to translate the Qur’an was associated with the name of a Polish mufti, a prominent Islamic theologian and Orientalist, Jakób Szynkiewicz, who in 1935, under the imprint of the Muftiat in R. P. published Wersety z Koranu. In the introduction, he included basic information about the Qur’an. The verses were taken from 74 surahs. He cited them in Arabic with an accompanying translation from the original into Polish. Therefore, they were, according to the doctrine of Islam, a form of commentary on the original text of the Qur’an. A reprint of the book was published in Białystok in 1995 by the Muslim Students Society in Poland. In the second half of the 20th century, there was a noticeable increase of interest in the issues of Islam and the Qur’an. The translation of the Qur’an into Polish made by Józef Bielawski is the culmination of eight years of work, preceded by the long-standing interest of the author in the religion of Islam, Arab culture, and

287 Cf., for example, T.  Bairašauskaitė, Lietuvos totoriai XIX amžiuje…, pp.  5–18; Z. Wójcik, op. cit., pp. 15–28; A. Drozd, W sprawie autorstwa Koranu Buczackiego, [in:] Z Mekki do Poznania, ed. H. Jankowski, Poznań 1998, pp. 69–83; C. Łapicz, Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna……, p.  303; J.  KulwickaKamińska, Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii islamistycznej…, pp. 35–40. 288 M. Arafe, op. cit., p. 169; Z. Wójcik, op. cit., p. 22; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 7. 289 J. Szynkiewicz, op. cit., p. 138; A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 17; J. Danecki, Podstawowe wiadomości…, p. 81.

The description of source texts

89

the Qur’an itself. The translation of the Qur’an developed by Józef Bielawski was published by Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy in 1986. The basis of this translation is the original Arabic text, based on the Cairo edition, established in 1923290. In 1990, a translation of the Qur’an appeared in London, signed by the Ahmadiyya Movement, representing a translation of the English version authored by Malik Ghulam Farid291.

2 90 Cf. J. Danecki, Podstawowe wiadomości…, p. 80. 291 Cf. ibidem, p. 81.

1 The problems of the translation of the Bible and the Qur’an 1.1 Extra-linguistic factors – the role of the Reformation The second half of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century is the golden age of Polish culture and language. The Reformation is undoubtedly one of the most important extra-linguistic factors having an impact on the emergence of European literature, based on national languages, including Polish, and not on Latin, which was a commonly used language until that time. Translations of the Scripture into vernacular languages contributed to the emergence in the late Middle Ages of literature in national languages, and the language of the Bible, especially its vocabulary and phraseology, played a significant role in the development of various European languages292. One of the main reasons for the emergence of the Reformation movement is the belief that the Scripture is the only source of the true faith revealed to man by God. Therefore, it was a turning to the Bible as the sole authority in matters of faith. The starting point of theology – of whatever denomination – became the doctrinal principle of sola Scriptura, which was a consequence of the philological humanist maxim ad fontes, i.e. the recognition of the Scripture as the primary and the only source of knowledge of God. In practice, it adopted the form of recommendation that every Christian should read the Bible every day by oneself, which was made possible mostly due to the invention of printing293. The choice of a source text was dictated first of all by denominational reasons, that is the religious environment of the author of a translation. Therefore, Bible translations from the original languages into Polish found their advocates primarily among the proponents of the Reformation. A careful reading of the Scripture, rejecting the Catholic tradition, led Protestant theologians to a new approach to such important issues of Christian dogma as the teaching of the Trinity, the issue of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the question of the common priesthood and others294. Hence, the Reformation contributed significantly to the creation of translations both of the Bible and the Qur’an into vernacular languages. It promoted the idea of reliance on the original sources in the process of translating, and therefore, translators referred to the original texts, written in Hebrew and Greek in the case of the books of the OT and NT, and for the Qur’an in Arabic. There was also a trend of using in translation new, sometimes even colloquial Polish vocabulary. 2 92 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 185. 293 Cf. T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, pp. 13–14. 294 Cf. ibidem, p. 13.

92

The problems of the translation

The Reformation movement is closely connected with humanistic tradition, which brought with itself a new way of translating and commenting on the Bible. The following translations constituted a model in this regard: the translation of the New Testament made by Erasmus of Rotterdam, Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible, and French translation of the Scripture. It was assumed that “Bible translations into vernacular languages should be made from original texts, which were subjected to critical philological revision. Protestants fitted in the idea of returning to the sources, ad fontes, with their postulate to prefer philological knowledge in translation work rather than knowledge of the magisterium”295. Protestant tradition of exegesis also initiated the hermeneutics of the text of the Bible. Breaking with tradition and opting for the doctrinal principle of sola Scriptura led to (sometimes fierce) doctrinal disputes296. Elżbieta Belcarzowa states that: “The spread of religious heterodoxy around the mid-16th century, which gained its adherents through different writings in Polish, mobilized the Catholic camp to counteract”297. The Catholic counter-attack followed two ways: Latin writings and literature only in Polish designed for the largest audience with the purpose of attacking the writings of dissenters. Hence, the struggle between Catholics and dissenters in the mid-16th century took place mostly in Polish and contributed to the emergence of Polish translations of the Bible because both the writings of dissenters and the answers given by Catholics, drew a large part of their arguments and counterarguments from Scripture. This is the reason why “these writings include a lot of quotes from not only the New Testament, but also from the books of the Old Testament”298. Therefore, religious polemics affected the secularization of religious language, stimulated the development of the general language and rhetorical style, and improved the techniques of linguistic persuasion (typically, often emotive vocabulary). In the 16th century, new forms of para-Biblical literature appeared which raised theological issues. The Bible passages were used in argumentation and proving, and the Bible was referred to as an authority. Due to the interpenetration of linguistic phenomena, inter-faith contacts, including polemical ones, influenced the translation literature. Thus, Polish religious translation literature, including Bible translations into Polish, as well as religious writings of the Tatars of the GDL, arose from the main intellectual trends of the Renaissance, that is humanism and the Reformation. The emergence of religious literature in Slavic languages, but written in Arabic script, coincided with the Reformation and it was at the same time the result of the Reformation, for at that time, the communities that lived in the GDL were especially interested in their history, culture and religion, relying on this for their

2 95 Ibidem, pp. 15–16. 296 Ibidem, p. 14. 297 E. Belcarzowa, op. cit., p. 7. 298 Ibidem, pp. 8–9.

Extra-linguistic factors – the role of the Reformation

93

autonomy299. It is worth noting that the GDL was “an archipelago of denominations and religions, and consequently  – an archipelago of diverse cultures and languages, which constituted its wealth. The mutual interpenetration of culturally dissimilar elements occurred in the condition of the harmonious coexistence of numerous variabilities. This facilitated the mutual understanding, approchement and enrichment of these elements”300. Handwritten texts of various content  – kitabs, semikitabs, hamails, tejvids, and tefsirs – form the core of Tatar works of this period. Most of the Tatar literature is translation, based on Oriental literature. It is known that in the beginning of the 16th century Tatars were in possession of a unique translation of the Qur’an into Polish. However, it was not accessible to people who were unfamiliar with the Arabic alphabet301. In the Middle Polish period, in addition to translation of the Qur’an, Muslim liturgy in Arabic was translated into Polish302. The emergence of those translations confirms the Renaissance origins of the Muslim literature of the Tatars of the GDL. Thus, the Reformation was an important reason for the development of theological literature in Polish and related to the Bible, as well as the Qur’an. The emergence of Muslim religious texts was also closely related to the time of the Counter-Reformation in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth (including the fight against antitrinitarians), which affected the religious polemic nature of these texts. Paul Suter is one of the researchers who indicate the cultural context of the emergence of Muslim religious translations. He lists the following causes of their emergence:  humanism, the Reformation, the development of the Polish literary language, the emergence of Bible translations into vernacular languages, including Polish, Polonization of the Tatars of the GDL, and the influence of Calvinists and antitrinitarians303. It also shows the coexistence of many religions in the

299 This thesis is confirmed by H. Jankowski, Cechy graficzne i językowe…, p. 166: “A question may be asked about the religious and literary culture of Lithuanian Tatars before the 16th century, about the spreading of manuscripts in their community and the widespread habit of copying them, about the ordering and possession of religious literature. It is possible that such a thing existed to a very small extent and it was limited to protective talismans and protective magic, and that religious and reading culture developed under the influence of the flourishing Polish and Ruthenian culture of the 16th century. If this assumption is accepted, the view that Tatars translated Oriental texts because of their linguistic assimilation should be refuted, and it should be assumed that they did so thanks to the widespread development of literature and that they imitated Poles and Belorussians, who were beginning to translate the Bible into their national languages. After all, such influences have been conclusively demonstrated by researchers in the area of kitabistics.” 300 C. Łapicz, Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna…, p. 293. 301 Cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 21–23. 302 Cf. A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne… – about the material of festive khutbas. 303 Cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 94–104.

94

The problems of the translation

GDL (Catholicism as the dominant religion opposing heresies, and Lutheranism, Calvinism and Anabaptism, which were derived from the Reformation, as well as Judaism practiced by the Karaites, whose theological centre was established in the vicinity of Trakai, and Islam, confessed by the Tatars of the GDL)304. M. Тarelka and I. Synkova mention the following causative factors of the literature of LithuanianPolish Tatars:  the influence of humanism, the development of the humanities and philological studies – not only of Latin, but also Greek and Hebrew, and the establishment of critical studies of Biblical texts, the development of Bible studies, stressing the importance of Biblical and religious issues, meticulous analysis of original texts and drawing polemical arguments from them, which results in made the attempts by Tatars to practice exegesis on the basis of translation of words from the Old Hebrew language (e.g. ruah, Emmanuel, Elohim) or contemporary religious literature, as well as from the original texts of the Bible. They also stress that in the GDL there was a specific climate of religious tolerance, unusual even at that time (this was, in fact, a multi-faith and multicultural environment, in which elements of Western culture – Roman tradition – were mixed with the elements of Eastern culture – Byzantine tradition), although they also indicate that not all confessions had equal rights there. This was the direct cause of the emergence of Jewish (e.g. Jakow-Nachman of Bełżec) and Muslim apologetic texts (e.g. Azulewicz). They also add that Protestants, especially Arians, showed an interest in Jewish commentaries on the Bible and the Muslim faith. Not unreasonably then, their opponents called them “Judaizing” and “uncircumcised Muslims”, which is confirmed, for example, by P. Skarga305. They also point to the Reformation movement, and especially the criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, which prepared a foundation for a broad and open discussion on religion, faith, and life according to its principles, etc. Bible translations into the vernacular languages were used in such criticism and religious polemics. This was also done by Tatars, who used such sources as BN, BB, and BW, as well as exegetics, catechisms, and didactic and polemic literature. The views of antitrinitarians, relating to extreme monotheism, were especially close to them (cf. Lutherans, Calvinists and Arians, who rejected tradition, which is the Catholic interpretation of certain places of the OT and NT, and relied only on the text of the Bible). Extreme monotheism is also a feature of Islam, as well as of Judaism (cf. Karaites), hence the views of Arians are cited in Tatar literature306, and one may perceive in such works especially the influence of Szymon Budny, a radical antitrinitarian. The religious literature of the Tatars of the GDL, as it was mentioned before, reflects not only the influence of the Reformation, but also it was under the influence of the Counter-Reformation because in the second half of the 16th century, the Catholic Church, weakened by the Reformation, began to act against the spread of Protestantism. Polemic literature was on the rise, which also 3 04 Ibidem, pp. 104–108. 305 М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit., p. 309. 306 Ibidem, p. 308 – here quotations from some authors are given.

Extra-linguistic factors – the role of the Reformation

95

“impacted” the Muslims (cf. the lampoons Al-Koran of 1616 and Al-Furkan of 1617 by P.  Czyżewski). The authors of Адкуль пайшлі ідалы therefore indicate that Tatar authors tried to defend their faith by means of inter alia historical texts, e.g. of a Protestant text in defense of J. Hus307, criticism of idolatry, and its presence and practice in Christianity (including the dogma of the Trinity and the recognition of the divine nature of Jesus), criticism of traditional Christian exegesis, etc.308. Czesław Łapicz, in addition to the factors determining the development of the Tatar translation literature mentioned above, that is the widespread ideas of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, draws attention to religious debates, directly related to the heated religious disputes associated with the Reformation309. Religious debates, as a form of exchanging views, defending arguments, and discrediting opposing arguments, were common in the multi-faith and multicultural society of the GDL. However, the Tatars, who were a minority in their new country and whose familiarity with the tenets of Islam was limited, usually did not enter into theological disputes with the local Christians310. They also did not feel threatened about being limited in their freedom to confess their religion because religious freedom and tolerance was guaranteed to them in the GDL. It is known, however, that in the period between the 16th and the 18th centuries, which is at the same time the period when the Tatar literature in the GDL was being developed, polemic anti-Islamic literature appeared in Poland. However, it concerned mainly external matters, non-religious, and sometimes purely social issues. Therefore, a meaningful Christian-Muslim dialogue, referring to the canons of faith, to the Qur’anic message and the teachings contained in the writings of Muslim theologians, ulama and exegetes could not fully develop there. The obstacle in conducting such a dialogue was also inaccessibility and incomprehensibility – both for Christians, and for Slavic Muslims – of Muslim religious literature, which was prepared in Polish and/or in Belorussian, but written by means of the Arabic alphabet. However, as has already been mentioned, Tatars eagerly accepted some views expressed by religious reformers which were consistent with their faith – antitrinitarianism and monotheism, iconoclasm, etc.; hence they favoured Protestant translations of the

3 07 Ibidem, p. 311. 308 Ibidem, pp.  316–332, and a description of the influence of specific denominations – pp. 332–338. 309 Cf. C.  Łapicz, Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna…, pp.  305– 306: “Traces of such disputes (they were very one-sided as always – understandably – these verbal clashes were won by a Muslim!) despite being present in the writings of Lithuanian-Polish Tatars, are not original texts originated in the GDL. They are rather translations of dialogues taken from the classical literature of the world of Islam.” 310 This fact is confirmed in the studies of A. B. Zakrzewski, Tatarzy litewscy wobec władzy państwowej od epoki wczesnonowożytnej po koniec XX wieku, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos…, p. 15.

96

The problems of the translation

Bible into vernacular languages311. Accordingly as it was stated by C. Łapicz: “In the writings of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims […], one may discern a relationship between Islam and Reformation currents, which were very dynamic in Lithuania, as well as the mutual influence of religions present in the GDL, and especially the influence of Christianity on the local [variety of] Islam of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims, who lived in diaspora conditions. In the context of these considerations, it is also important to note that the language in which »the only correct« views were exchanged in ongoing disputes was usually (but not only!) Polish”312. A. Konopacki notes that in the manuscripts which have been preserved much polemical material can be found, as well as discussions with Christians and the followers of Judaism. These polemics were focused on three aspects: religious, customary (ceremonial), as well as didactic and moralistic313. The existence of Slavic Muslim terminology was also motivated by the denomination-related requirements of a religious discourse emerging in the 16th century. Therefore, the Reformation had a significant impact on the cultural and religious revival in the GDL, and the emancipation of the vernacular languages, which is reflected in Bible translations in those languages. This could have significantly influenced the decision to translate the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam. Moreover, as has been confirmed by research in this area, Tatars actively used translations of the Scripture into the vernacular languages, including translations into Polish, took part in religious polemics, in which passages from the OT and NT were extensively cited, as well as borrowed themes, fragments, and sometimes even whole works from Old Polish literature314. Also the researchers of Polish translations of the Scripture and Reformation vocabulary indicate the most important achievements of the Reformation and formulate research proposals, which are essential for the reflections undertaken in this monograph315. As the direct consequences of this movement one may mention the following: the overall development of a national language, the development of religious literature in national languages, democratization of the religious language, and the promotion of a national language by introducing it into liturgy, as well as its usage in polemics and debates concerning the faith (also the origin and development of specific vocabulary and phraseology), pragmatisms, desire to 311 More on this topic in C. Łapicz, Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religij­na…, pp. 300–305. 312 Ibidem, p. 305. Cf. observations of E. Belcarzowa, op. cit., pp. 7–9. 313 A. Konopacki, op. cit., pp. 125–127 and p. 130. 314 Cf. A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, pp. 22–23; A. Konopacki, op. cit., p. 131. 315 One may mention here, for example, works written by K. Górski, Słownictwo reformacji polskiej…, pp. 352–387; S. Rospond, e.g. Język renesansu a średniowiecza na podstawie literatury psałterzowo-biblijnej, [in:] Odrodzenie w Polsce…, pp. 61–181; Kościół w dziejach języka polskiego, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź 1985; Studia nad językiem polskim XVI wieku, Wrocław 1949; a series of articles by I. Rucka – cf. p. 19 and many other works.

Extra-linguistic factors – the role of the Reformation

97

motivate the faithful and to accustom them to the reading of the Scripture, and a related rise in literacy. Izabela Winiarska indicates that “historians of the Polish language have recognized the Reformation as one of the most important extra-linguistic factors which stimulated the transformation of Middle Polish”316. Their subjects of research were, for example, the following:  the impact of correctness-related polemics on the improvement of literary Polish, mechanisms for the creation and development of specific vocabulary and new terminology (Importantly, the reform movement found its social support among the Małopolska nobles and Lithuanian nobility, and conversions, often repeated, from Catholicism to Lutheranism, Calvinism or Arianism, contributed to intensive development of religious terminology), and philological analysis of the translations of the Bible, because among the most important consequences of the Reformation one may mention an increase in the number of publications in the national language, including an abundance of new Bible translations, as well as the spread of new genres (forms) of religious literature (confessions, catechisms, postils, apologies, hymnals, etc.). However, “Despite the widespread interest in the Reformation, the number of analytical and lexicographical works examining the problem of the development of religious terminology in this period from a linguistic perspective is insufficient; they are scattered, and narrow in scope. There is a perceptible lack of extensive monographs devoted to this problem”317. In contrast, most of the scholarly works which engage the problem of Bible translations into vernacular languages point to the Reformation as an important and high-ranking factor which had a direct impact on their appearance. As stated by T.  Lisowski:  “The merit of the Reformation […] was not so much the spread of the Bible among the faithful as making it available in translations giving as closely as possible the meaning of the original text, which was associated with the Protestant idea of returning to the sources, underpinned by a desire to know the true word of God and the fear of its perversion by inadequate translation”318. Leszek Moszyński, in his article Jeden werset staropolskiego Psałterza319, came to the important conclusion that the translation principles of the Psalter used today were developed in Polish in the age of humanism and the Renaissance. Moreover, I. Kwilecka states that this assertion should be applied to the entire translation of the Bible, adding that translators at the time of humanism and the Renaissance took full advantage of the achievements of their (medieval) predecessors320. Research in the development of the Polish language suggests that major linguistic changes

3 16 I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 9. 317 Ibidem, p. 10. 318 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 15. 319 L. Moszyński, Jeden werset staropolskiego Psałterza…, pp. 103–109. 320 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 255.

98

The problems of the translation

took place in the second half of the 16th century, and that this was the greatest period of the development of Polish Bible studies321. According to M. Hawrysz: “It is a truism to repeat an opinion about the great role of the Reformation for the Polish culture, especially for the development of the national language, but the postulate that demands its comprehensive study and presentation still remains valid. Undoubtedly, one of the most important aspects of this task is to describe the vocabulary of the Reformation. This is so important because unlike the lexis of any other period of history, it is a visible sign of reflection and hard work on the creation of terminology in a sphere of life which was absent until the time of religious disputes (or only residually present) in the area of the native language”322.

1.2 Translation of religious texts of Divine Revelation In the 14th and 15th centuries, when the first translations of the Psalter appeared, an important process was taking place, shaping the standards of literary Polish, which in the next century would reach the status of a uniform, common communication tool for all literate people in Poland. This is the stage preceding the growth of the Polish language to the role of an effective means of giving names, interpretation and communication of the content of the world of Christian and Latin culture323. During the Renaissance, the development of the literary language by graphization  – establishing the written form of the language, normalization or standardization  – removal of language variants, especially regional forms in favour of unified forms, overall increase in the efficiency of the language and its intellectualization – the change in the ratio between specific and abstract vocabulary in favour of the latter, the development of syntactic means enabling the conveying of thoughts precisely in a coherent, logical form, and the development of new varieties of style. Therefore, it is an important stage in the evolution of the Polish literary language, and thus an important stage in the development of the resources of translational equivalents, both lexical and grammatical ones, especially in terms of specific terminology and religious style, that is a stage in the development of Polish Biblical style, being one of functional varieties of the general language, namely Polish religious language324. The Bible is a religious text recognized by Christians as the revealed word of God. In the same way, Muslims describe the Qur’an as the word of Allah revealed in Arabic to Muhammad. Making an effort to translate religious texts, with the

3 21 Ibidem, pp. 255–256. 322 M. Hawrysz, op. cit., p. 125. 323 M. Cybulski, Staropolskie przekłady psałterza…, p. 7. 324 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 30. Cf. the determinants of Polish Biblical style – J. Godyń, op. cit., pp. 16–19.

Translation of religious texts of Divine Revelation

99

status of Revelation, into vernacular languages in the second half of the 16th century, both the Bible and the Qur’an, translators followed an important assumption that these languages had adequate means of expression, sufficient to convey specific, extremely difficult, heterogeneous books, so remote from the cultural, religious, and linguistic realities of Europe. Therefore, efforts were made to use the functional potential of Polish of the period between the second half of the 16th century until the early 17th century to convey semantic nuances of the original lexemes by their synonymous Polish equivalents. This is because the sacred text required from a translator precision in transposing the meaning of the original into the language of translation. It was a kind of struggling with the resistance of the material of the target language (Polish), especially when it was in the initial stage of intellectualization325. As stated by I. Kwilecka: “When evaluating old Polish translations of the Bible we are not aware of how difficult and responsible a job it was and how limited the abilities of the translator of that time were. On the one hand, there were difficulties connected with our mother tongue, still raw and hardly suitable for rendering complex concepts and new terms, and on the other hand, there was a huge difficulty connected with the poor state of knowledge of many basic facts and things which a translator encountered in the original text – so remote from and alien to Polish reality  – for which it was necessary to find Polish equivalents. […] The Bible  – including especially the Old Testament – is a work that is extremely difficult to translate. The original text came into existence in stages in very distant times, and it was a product of a different culture. It was written in three different languages by many authors, and contained a variety of literary genres, and a diverse content”326. Also according to the researchers of the history of Qur’anic translations: “translation of the Qur’an, especially into languages outside the culture of Islam, such as the European languages, consitutes a great difficulty to translators. The holy book of Islam, like the writings of other great religions, is a kind of a literary work that speaks to the hearts and minds of its followers, using poetic language, rhyme, rhythm, similes, and metaphors. The Arabic language, in which the Qur’an was revealed, also differs in its structure from European languages. It contains and presents different cultural and philological literary elements that are difficult to translate”327.

3 25 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, pp. 34–35. 326 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 96. 327 According to C. Łapicz, Z teorii i praktyki przekładów Koranu…, p. 270. Analogous opinions are expressed in reference to the translations of the Bible: “We are still unable to speak about the existence of a perfect translation which could be on a par with the original; we are unable to speak about about the existence of a masterly translation”; “For the words read in the Hebrew language do not have the same force as the words translated into a different language” – cf. I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 96 and p. 257.

100

The problems of the translation

According to J. Bielawski, “It is impossible to render its content and form fully and adequately, and the Arabs are so proud of that”328. Thus, the original texts of the Bible and the Qur’an were edited in the languages chronologically, geographically and culturally distant even from the 16th century Polish329. Their translators had to face the semantic inadequacy of linguistic signs in the original text and in the language of translation, which is a consequence of cultural differences and differences in the structure of languages. In addition, the sacred nature of the books, and especially of religious texts of Revelation status, demanded from them the greatest possible philological fidelity to the original330. Translators often explicitly expressed concern about being faithful to the original and about the comprehensibility of the translation, and the beautiful tone of the native language. Therefore, they always sought Polish lexical substitutions, which would render in a most adequate way the meaning of the translated text, the meaning of the word of God given to the faithful in the original language. In the course of translation work, they could often be sure that their chosen equivalent was poorer in meaning in comparison to the word in the original language, and therefore, that their substitution failed to reflect the ambiguity of the original lexeme adequately. Using in a Polish text one of the meanings of the original polysemic lexeme was therefore a specific interpretation of the original text331. Therefore, despite being based on the same original text, individual translations differ from one another in terms of quality and quantity. On the other hand, translators used the same language means, which were given to them in the Polish of that time. They were limited by system determinants of the target language (the Polish language), mainly at the lexical-semantic (e.g. synonymy), syntactic (word order), and stylistic level (metaphorical expressions). Moreover, they were under the influence, to a greater or lesser extent, of Polish translational tradition. This meant that in each of those translations lexical loci communes can be found. Thus, each of the Polish translation texts is traditional in terms of lexis, but at the same time it is original332. As has already been mentioned, cultural considerations were crucial in the process of translation333. The task of a translator was not only to seek the most 328 N. Jord, op. cit., p.  41. A  similar opinion is expressed by W.  P. Turek, op. cit., p. 244: “The uniqueness of the Qur’an in this case means the inability of simultaneously maintaining of its form (prosody, rhyme or monorhyme) and the content (e.g. phraseology, numerous instances of ellipsis, play on words based on roots of words).” 329 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 389. 330 Ibidem, p. 391. 331 Ibidem, p. 390. 332 Ibidem. 333 Translation theorists mention two main reasons for untranslatability (assuming at the same time that untranslatability relates only to specific cases that can be interpreted as exceptions to the general principle of translatability from one language into another): 1. The language into which translation is to be made does not have

Translation of religious texts of Divine Revelation

101

adequate equivalents to the words of the source text, but also the reconstruction of the communication process that operated in communities speaking the original language during the creation of that text. So he had to interpret the original text, and perform its exegesis in terms of its meaning within Semitic culture. The the same structural means as the original language, and 2. It is impossible to render certain concepts in the language of translation, which can be easily expressed in the original language – cf. O. Wojtasiewicz, Wstęp do teorii tłumaczenia, Warszawa 2005, p. 30. All of them emphasize that the second of these factors has a much greater impact on difficulties in translation – “the centre of gravity (of translation) lies in the field of cultural traditions, and not in the structures of individual languages” – according to A. Bednarczyk, Wybory translatorskie. Modyfikacje tekstu literackiego w przekładzie i kontekst asocjacyjny, Łask 2005, p. 11. Therefore the basic problems in translation include: cultural differences – the way of perception, conceptualization and evaluation of the world specific to a particular culture, expressed (reflected) in language, cultural divergence of associations and semantic fields, including the issue of translation of so-called erudite allusions; religious differences (belief system), including the problem of translation of religious terminology; civilizational differences; time distance between the writing time of the original and its translation; polysemy, metaphorical expressions, allusion in the original text; the problem of adequate rendering of the realities of the source text, including the original proper names – cf. the following works: O. Wojtasiewicz, op. cit.; E. A. Gutt, Dystans kulturowy a przekład, transl. A. Pokojska, Kraków 2004; E. Tabakowska, Językoznawstwo kognitywne a poetyka przekładu, Kraków 2001; K. Hejwowski, Kognitywno-komunikacyjna teoria przekładu, Warszawa 2006; A. Bednarczyk, op. cit.; Przekład – Język – Kultura…, and many others. The task of translators, in view of this assumed untranslatability and inadequacy – mainly of a cultural nature – is not only to translate the concepts, but also to equip recipients of the text with cultural information indispensable for its understanding – after E. A. Gutt, op. cit., p. 27. Transmission to a different cultural tradition involves shifts and transformations. R. Lewicki, op. cit., p. 9 distinguishes the most current (from our modern perspective) trends and translation research topics. He mentions the following: 1. Finding areas of culturally conditioned untranslatability in specific language pairs and defining the “inter-lingual conceptual network”, which would indicate the areas of full translatability in a pair or a group of languages; 2. Analysis of equivalence in translation of texts that are strongly culture-bound (specific); 3. Research in text models; they are subjected to description and comparison as products of different cultures, showing culturally specific elements and the sources of that specificity; 4. The study of communication logic; here there are also great cultural differences; 5. The study of translation series and their determinants; 6. The study of the translator’s idiolect (mainly in relation to the study of literary texts); 7. The principles and mechanisms of the creation of the canon of the translation literature (in relation to literary texts). Among the theorists of translation there are also critics of the skopos theory and the theory of intercultural communication. According to them, cultural elements are present in the text in a secondary form, that is they are always carried out by linguistic exponents, and they are linguistically encoded. So it is impossible to translate the culture, but only its linguistic exponents – cf. A. Dębski, op. cit.,

102

The problems of the translation

translator thereby faced the problem of translation limits, and thus it had to be determined to what extent it was possible to render directly the connotative, stylistic and aesthetic features of the original text into the target language. The extent of translatability depends on the distance in time that separated the translation from the original text, distance of the original language from the language of translation, and the distance between the culture in which the original was created and the culture in which its translation is being prepared334. One of the main problems that the translators of the Bible faced had to do with the appropriate rendering of national realities, foreign in our latitudes, in the Polish language, which was still in the process of developing. In this matter, they were left mainly to their own devices and intuition. Hence, the degree of knowledge of those realities and the way they translated the text speaks volumes about their preparation for translational work, their expertise, and the sources they referred to. This in turn, the way in which various realities were being rendered was to some extent a reflection of the current state of knowledge about this problem, and therefore, also the knowledge of similar things and phenomena in the surrounding reality. Constant confrontation of these two worlds took place in the process of translation335. Translations of the Bible and the Qur’an are therefore testimony of their struggle with the lack of linguistic equivalents relating to distant realities in the Polish language of that time, and of their theoretical translational assumptions, such as the linguistic basis for translation and the degree of semantic accuracy in comparison with the original text. The issue of original proper names is a problem that has a direct relationship with an attempt to render adequately the realities of the Bible. In the translated texts, the motivation behind the giving of certain proper names may be completely obscure, the reason for which has to do mainly with the distance between the original language and culture and the language and culture of the translation336. Biblical and Qur’anic proper names had a special nature, namely they informed about the nature of their carriers, expressed their personalities and essence, identified and symbolized the history of the denotata of a proper name, and had a sacred and axiological dimension337. Their genesis was in fact analogous to the creation of predicative expressions; they were created in the communication process under certain social conditions. “So originally they had descriptive meanings, sometimes

pp. 11–39. In view of the presented positions, in this monograph the postulate of the unity of non-linguistic knowledge and the knowledge encoded in language was adopted, while recognizing the incompatibility of cultures as an important problem in the translation of Biblical and Qur’anic texts. 334 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 36. 335 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 97. 336 Ibidem, p. 295. 337 Ibidem, p. 296.

Translation of religious texts of Divine Revelation

103

they were interpreted on the basis of the etymology of the word or the words which constituted the name, but in the course of time, they gained connotative or naïve meanings, or their meanings even became blurred. Descriptive, and connotative meanings of proper names based on folk etymology contained information expressed by various linguistic means (usually morphological), which played an important role in the identification of the object described by that name. […] In almost all cultures, proper names evolved from words of descriptive meaning to words devoid of predicative features, whose meaning was becoming less clear as a result of lexicalization of the names, the disappearance of bases motivated them, or other reasons, e.g. the evolution or specialization of the language”338. This is also the case with proper names of God, pagan idols, prophets, etc. established in Semitic languages339. Hence, as it is stated by Rafał Zarębski with reference to the text of the New Testament: “People who dabble in the translation of New Testament names face many difficulties, all the more as it is translation between the languages and cultures which are very distant from each other. The use of Polish equivalents of some foreign names improves the clarity of translation, but it can cause an imbalance of the relationship between the original and translation because of excessive distance from the version of the basic text”340. The special position of proper names in a sacred text should be mentioned here because they play not only the function of identification in it, but they also can describe a denotatum. The fact that these names very often not only serve the purpose of description, but they also have meaning, largely affects the specificity of the onomastics of the Bible and the Qur’an. Therefore, translators faced a dilemma of whether to leave a name that was meaningful in the original text (it refers especially to names derived from Semitic languages e.g. ‫ﺁ‬ qur’ān in Arabic means ‘reading, lecture’, and ‫ ּתוָֺרה‬in

338 P. Sobotka, Od predykacji do nominacji – próba rekonstrukcji żydowskiej wizji Boga na przykładzie Jego biblijnych i talmudycznych określeń, [in:] Czynić słowami. Studia ofiarowane Krystynie Długosz-Kurczabowej, ed. H. Karaś, Warszawa 2006, p. 295. 339 In his article Od predykacji do nominacji… (p. 297), P. Sobotka has modified the division of Hebrew proper names proposed by Encyclopaedia Judaica, ed. C. Roth, Vol. XII, Jerusalem 1972, pp. 803–805. He proposed the following division of Hebrew proper names for God, prophets, etc., which perform a largely referential and identification-related function: a. indices (the oldest onomastic layer): simple (nominal and pronominal) and structures (verbal and nominal) b. individual descriptions (chronologically later than the indices; they have generally metaphoric or metonymic nature): unmotivated (one-word) and motivated (usually multi-word). 340 R. Zarębski, Tłumaczenie obcych nazw geograficznych w dawnych i współczesnych polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu, [in:] Studia nad słownictwem dawnym i współczesnym języków słowiańskich…, p. 121.

104

The problems of the translation

Hebrew means ‘teaching, instruction, law’), but was asemantic in Polish, or to use the native semantic equivalent. If they decided to use a semantic calque, they were frequently forced to use the resources of native appellative lexemes. Although it is believed that untranslatability is one of the primary features of a proper name, the special position of a proper name in a sacred text forced translators to seek Polish lexical equivalents. An additional difficulty and limitation in translating the text of the Qur’an has to do with the theory of i‘ǧāz, formulated by Muslim theologians (ulama), which assumes the unique miraculous nature of the Qur’an and its untranslatability341. According to this theory, no translation of the Qur’an is able even just to approach the artistic and literary level of the original Arabic version of the Qur’an342 because “due to its particular structure, connections between its words and verses, and the nature and precision of its lofty language, the Qur’an cannot be imitated. Even the slightest change, for example in punctuation, leads to deranging the text”343. So this excludes the possibility of translating the Qur’an into other languages because every translation will be at best an imperfect subjective human interpretation of the words of Allah, which were given to Muhammad in Arabic344. Thus, Muslim theologians expressed the belief that a complete and adequate translation of the Qur’an is not possible at all because no language, except Arabic, is able to render in an exact way all the meaning contained in the book345. This has its direct religious and cultural implications, namely: – the Qur’an exists only in the Arabic language, and its name – the Qur’an – can only be used to referr to its original Arabic text; each translation is only a commentary, interpretation and explanation; – Islam attaches particular importance to the immutability of the message received by Muhammad, to the preservation of the unchanged original Arabic text of the Qur’an; – the concern about the immutability of the Revelation is also the result of an understanding of the specificity of the Arabic language, in which “the precise form of words and the use of grammatical forms was important to the understanding of the message contained in the book”346. However, the i‘ǧāz theory, and Muslim tenets allowed comments, translation and explanation of individual words and entire verses in languages other than Arabic.

341 Here it is an analogy to the assumptions of the theory of translation, according to which translation cannot render identical meanings and connotations of meanings of individual words or phrases of the original text. 342 C. Łapicz, Z teorii i praktyki przekładów Koranu…, p. 271. 343 S. Ziauddin, D. Merryl, Islam, Warszawa 2005, pp. 17–19. 344 C. Łapicz, Z teorii i praktyki przekładów Koranu…, p. 271. 345 After ibidem. 346 Ibidem, p. 272.

Translation of religious texts of Divine Revelation

105

Therefore, all translations of the Qur’an into other languages are only accepted as a form of a Qur’anic commentary and true interpreters of the holy book into other languages are considered to be only those who provide commentaries on the Qur’an, i.e. muffasirun, and not its interpreters347. Lithuanian-Polish Muslims used this opportunity and they called their translation of the Qur’an tefsir, that is the interpretation of the holy text or its commentary. Therefore, Tatar tefsirs did not run counter to the theory of i‘ǧāz, which despite the fact that it prohibited the translating of the Qur’an as a book of liturgy, allowed a particular translation of the Qur’an to be made not to replace the holy book, but to facilitate the understanding of its message. In practice, this meant that it was permitted to make a translation only when the translated text, in the intention of its translator, was to provide a form of explanation and a commentary on the original Arabic text, which obligatorily accompanied the translation348. The postulated rigour of accuracy and adequacy of translation, desirable especially in the translating of religious texts and those that are considered revealed, was then most fully achieved in interlinear translations, and the very notion of interlinear translation in translation practice had become almost synonymous with a literal translation349. It is worth noting that also in the so-called Koran londyński (the London Qur’an) (K3) the Polish text of the Qur’an was placed parallel with the Arabic original. Thus, the Polish version of the text intended for Polish-speaking Muslims is only a kind of an aid, an explanation and commentary on the original Arabic text, which is most often incomprehensible to an average Polish Muslim (cf. also WzK). Such translation of the Qur’an into Polish, authorized by the Ahmadiyya Movement, is not so much the Qur’an but rather an interpretation of the Qur’an350. In this way, both the oldest (the first) translation of the Qur’an into Polish (from the second half of the 16th century), as well as the translation of 1990, have the status of a form of a tafsir, accepted by the dogma of Islam351.

1.2.1 Translator’s expertise The uniqueness of religious texts of the status of Divine Revelation required and still requires not only good philological preparation, but also great erudition and excellent orientation in the current state of general knowledge on the part of their translator, which is especially important because “the original text was created in stages, in old distant times, being written by different authors, and it consists of a variety of literary genres – it was a product of an old and distant culture. Extensive

3 47 Ibidem, p. 279. 348 Cf. ibidem, p. 275. 349 Ibidem, p. 278 – the reflection of Fr. R. Popowski is cited. 350 Cf. ibidem, p. 279. 351 Ibidem, p. 280.

106

The problems of the translation

Biblical themes, as well as Qur’anic (an annotation of the author of this monograph) included almost all areas of the life at that time, such as politics, economy, trade, industry, craft, art, philosophy, religion, and knowledge about the world of plants and animals”352. Therefore, the erudite expertise of the translators of the Bible and the Qur’an had to be reliable. The Biblical aids, being common in medieval France and the ways of making the Biblical text more accessible (e.g. the 11th century – Papias, the 12th century – commentaries of the Church Fathers, normal gloss, interlinear gloss, the second half of the 12th century – Historia Scholastica by Pierre of Troyes called Comestor, the 13th century – The Postil of Nicholas of Lyra, the 16th century – Mammotreptus by Johannes Marchesini) were known throughout Latin Europe, including Bohemia and Poland. They constituted a basic resource of capitular and monastic libraries (and sometimes also of parish libraries)353. Latin manuscripts of the Bible or its parts and indispensable Biblical aids, brought from abroad, mainly from France and Italy, since the establishment of the University of Cracow in 1364, had been collected, copied and studied at libraries of the university colleges and in the private collections of professors. At the end of the 15th century there appeared the first printed texts of the Hebrew Bible, and at the beginning of the 16th century – the first polyglot Bible (Complutensian Polyglot Bible, 1522), containing Hebrew and Aramaic texts, the Greek Septuagint and the Latin translation of the Vulgate together with two dictionaries: Hebrew and Aramaic. New translations of the Scripture from the original languages into Latin date back to the first half of the 16th century. Among them it is possible to indicate the translation of the New Testament made by Erasmus of Rotterdam (1522) and translations of Sante Pagnini (1528), Cajetanus (1530–1531), Sebastien Castellion (1551), Robert Stephanus or Estienne (1557) and Theodore Beza (since 1557 ten editions of NT had been published). At that time, the first translation of the Bible into Belorussian was made by Franciszek Skaryna (c. 1485–1551), who was a Belorussian printer, scholar, publicist, cultural activist, translator and writer of the period of the Renaissance. Skaryna based his work on the Bohemian translation of the 15th century, and he also used the Vulgate, Septuagint, and the incomplete Old Church Slavonic translation made by Cyril and Methodius. He did not use the original Hebrew version. The Bible of Skaryna, although incomplete (the Ukrainian translation, which was made slightly later, was even more fragmented), was the first Belorussian Bible. It was also the first book printed in this language. The significance of this work also has to do with the fact that it was initiated even before Martin Luther’s address (31 October 1517). The idea of making a translation must have therefore arisen when Skaryna was studying in the West. There are some indications that at that time, the interest in the Bible increased in western universities. This resulted in the appearance of editions of the Biblical text in the original languages. Therefore, in a 3 52 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 153. 353 Cf. ibidem, p. 165.

Translation of religious texts of Divine Revelation

107

short span of time there also appeared the first translations of the Bible from the original texts into modern languages – cf. Martin Luther (1534 – a translation into German, based on the Vulgate, but taking into account the Hebrew and Greek original versions), Pierre Robert Olivétan (1535 – a translation into French based solely on the original versions), Antonio Brucioli (1532 – an Italian translation based on the original languages)354. It is worth noting that Szymon Budny was one of the most erudite European translators of the Bible. I. Kwilecka believes that he may have used the rich collection of sources and Bible literature of his patrons, the nobles of the Radziwiłł and Kiszka families, or of the collection of the Protestant church in Vilnius355. On the other hand, Tatar translators relied on Qur’anic commentary literature that existed not only in Arabic, but also in other languages of the world of Islam, especially in Turkic languages and Persian356. Also dialogue texts contained in Tatar manuscripts are translations of some fragments of original writings and commentaries on Islam. In addition, the first authors and translators of Muslim religious texts referred to the Christian literature available to them, acquiring and assimilating Christian ideas, themes and all religious texts in accordance with the teaching of Islam357. Thus, the writing expertise of translators, the wealth of sources they used, as well as the original Arabic texts or their translations into Turkic languages as the basis of translation are an expression of innovation, and they were also an expression of the connection of Tatar translation with Western humanist translations358. In addition to excellent erudite preparation and exceptional orientation in the current state of general knowledge, a translator should have an appropriate philological expertise or the knowledge of the original languages in which the source text was created, and of the languages into which this text is to be translated (linguistic competence). Hence, one usually mentions the necessity of multilingualism (bi- or polyglottism) of translators. The translator needs to have a knowledge of

354 Cf. the list and characterization of the sources of knowledge and inspiration – ibidem, pp. 104–106 and p. 165. 355 More on this topic – cf. ibidem, p. 228. 356 For example, the authors of the study and translation of Kitab Milkamanowicza managed to establish its twelve sources, but it was not always possible to indicate exact works, except the canonical ones, such as the Qur’an and hadiths, and specific manuscripts – cf. H. Jankowski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., pp. 21–23. The great achievement is a reference to the Tafsir of ibn Abbas as one of the sources of the Polish translation of the Qur’an in the form of a Tatar tefsir – cf. C. Ю. Темчин, Арабский «Танвир аль-микбас мин тафсир Ибн Аббас» …, pp. 95–119. 357 A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…; C. Łapicz, Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna…, p. 294. Cf. Also a list of works of authors who confirm that thesis – The state of research, pp. [41–43] in this monograph. 358 Cf. comments on the erudition and non-language preparation of Tatar translators – A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, pp. 77–78.

108

The problems of the translation

methods of translation and editorial work (e.g. the range of translation transformations, the translator’s relationship to the grammar and lexis of the original text, etc.). The translation of a religious text is then preceded by earlier stages associated with translational activities. These include primarily the choice of source texts and original languages as the basis for translation (a reference to the original text – Arabic, and in the case of the Bible – Hebrew, Greek and Latin, whose immediate consequence is diversification of translations in terms of the distribution of Polish equivalents of original lexical items), the selection of the type of translation (e.g. literal or dynamic translation), and the choice of the way the text will be prepared and interpreted. Thus, the vocabulary of a translated text, in its resources and form, is conditioned by the source text. It is noted by L. Moszyński: “the main cause of linguistic differences in Polish translations was the linguistic nature of the original language”359. The extent of the dependency of a translation on its source is conditioned by objective factors, such as the difference in grammatical systems, and individual factors, which include the translational method adopted by the translator. As has been mentioned, the translators of the Bible and of the Qur’an both knew the original languages in which those texts had been written, as well as the vernacular languages of the translation360. It is worth noting that knowledge of Oriental languages in old Poland was not advanced, and at the same time, it was limited mainly to Turkish and Tatar people. The reception of Oriental literature was minimal. Against this background, Tatars alongside Karaites are seen as the few experts in Oriental languages, and almost the sole users of Oriental literature. They seem therefore to be the only ones in the then Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (apart from exceptions such as P. Starkowiecki) who knew Arabic361. Their translations from that language are undoubtedly the only works of this kind which were preserved to the present from the time of old Polish362. Kipchak dialects were not original languages for the Tatar translators, but rather Arabic and Ottoman Turkish. The knowledge of these languages, and maybe also of Persian, was indirect, and it was a sign of scholarship. It was present, in spite of the process of assimilation, during the subsequent 359 Stworzenie świata (Gn 1, 1–31) w przekładzie Wujka z Wulgaty (1599) i Budnego z hebrajskiego (1572), [in:] Jan Jakub Wujek. Tłumacz Biblii na język polski. W czterechsetletnią rocznicę wydania Nowego Testamentu 1593–1993, ed. M. Kamińska, Łódź 1994, p. 50. 360 This was in line with one of the demands of M. Luther, concerning the expertise of a Renaissance translator of Scripture that he had to know both the original languages and national languages. 361 According to A. Drozd, the knowledge of Arabic among Tatars was present at least until the mid-17th century, though at that time, it was limited only to a few individuals – cf. Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 177. 362 Ibidem, p. 39.

Translation of religious texts of Divine Revelation

109

centuries363. The knowledge of Turkish, progressing from the second half of the 16th century, and certainly since the 18th century, was connected with the process of the Ottomanization of Tatars, certified by many loan words in their everyday speech, onomastics, tombstone inscriptions, and even in liturgical texts364. Other facts that attest the knowledge of Turkish among Tatars include:  the signing of documents issued by Tatars in Turkish, glosses in Turkish, the presence in kitabs of large pieces of text in Turkish without Belorussian or Polish translation, emigration of many families to Turkey365. “It goes as far as to say that it was just the knowledge of Turkish – apart from Arabic – and the knowledge of the rich Qur’anic literature that existed in that language which determined the competence of a translator, and undoubtedly it was helpful in the work on a Slavic translation of the book”366. A knowledge of the Arabic language in the second half of the 16th century is attested in the first translation of the Qur’an into Polish, made in the form of a Tatar tefsir, which manifests very high standards of competence on the part of its translator (for example the ability to read Arabic morphological and syntactic forms, as well as the meanings of individual words or semantic items). This ability, according to A. Drozd, was maintained for at least a few decades after the translation of the Qur’an367. According to this researcher:  “The level of translations, despite occasional gaps and errors, shows without any doubt a proficient knowledge of Arabic, at least passive, in writing”368. Mastering the language, in a sufficient way to make translations, required thorough studies, performed by means of study guides such as grammar books and dictionaries, as well as the help of adequately trained teachers. Arabic studies generally took place abroad369. The Persian language appeared in the form of elements of Persian Sufi literature, through popular religious literature in Turkish. There is some evidence that documents the use of Persian texts by Tatars, namely the introduction to a divination book, recorded in the kitab of 1645. However, this is an isolated case370. The content of Tatar literature monuments, especially of kitabs, indicates that Muslims could use Latin fairly well371. These facts confirm bi- or even multilingualism of some Tatars already in the second half of the 16th century, also continuing into later centuries.

3 63 Ibidem, p. 30. 364 Ibidem, pp. 31–32. 365 Ibidem, pp. 32–33. 366 C. Łapicz, Glosy, komentarze, objaśnienia…, pp. 77–78. 367 A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 34. 368 Ibidem. 369 Ibidem, pp. 34–35. 370 Ibidem, p. 35. 371 A. Konopacki, op. cit., p. 158.

110

The problems of the translation

1.2.2 The tradition of Biblical translation In-depth research, conducted by Irena Kwilecka372, shows that the oldest European translations of the Bible are faithful and/or free. The requirement of reception of Biblical content by the audience meant that all translations, beginning from Greek translations of the Septuagint, Theodotion and Symmachus, and then Latin translations the so-called Vetus Latina, that is Itala, Afra, Hispana, and also the Vulgate – were a kind of adaptation of the Biblical text to the culture of the times and local conditions. “However, a special kind of adaptation developed in medieval Europe because of the increasing spread of the Bible”373. The first complete translation of the Bible in the Parisian dialect was made in the 13th century. Although it followed the Vulgate, it is characterized by its departures from faithful translation including glosses, commentaries, and explanations introduced directly to the text, using phrases c’est a dire, c’est a ssavoir ‘that is, scilicet’)374. Thus, in parallel with faithful translations a new type of translation was being developed, designed to familiarize the multitude of the faithful, not familiar with Latin, who often could not even read or write, with the content of the Bible. The Scripture – Scriptura sacra, divina was translated into lingua vulgaris, lingua vernacula. The earliest complete translation of the Bible into a Slavic language, made in this spirit, is Biblia leskowiecka (1370 – the Bohemian language), being an expression of integration with Western Europe and at the same time, establishing the tradition of Cyril and Methodius. Faithful and free translations also coexisted in medieval and Renaissance Poland. I. Kwilecka and D. Bieńkowska confirmed in their research the thesis concerning the coexistence of two stylistic patterns of Biblical Polish positioned synchronously, that is connected with two basic types of translation and designed for a specific audience375. Thus, “In the Middle Ages, as in other periods, the approach to the original text of the Bible […] was different. There were some translations which were true to the original text, even verging on literality (the so-called grammatical translations). Other translations were free, in which their translators attempted to be faithful to the ideas of the original text using their own linguistic and stylistic means which were often different from the established pattern”376. However, faithful translations were made not only in the Middle Ages, as they also emerged during the Renaissance, manifesting a more philological nature. The 3 72 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii… 373 Ibidem, p. 153. 374 Ibidem. 375 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…; D. Bieńkowska, Wzorzec stylistyczny polszczyzny biblijnej w pierwszej połowie XVI wieku, „Studia językoznawcze. Synchroniczne i diachroniczne aspekty badań polszczyzny” VIII, Szczecin 2009, pp. 29–38. 376 Cf. I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 154.

Translation of religious texts of Divine Revelation

111

features of this type of translation can be seen in BW, for which the standard text was the Vulgate, and in BN, which was based on the original texts in Hebrew and Greek. In contrast, the type of free translation of the Bible was already noticeable in medieval texts, for example in the Bible passages used in liturgy and catechesis, as well as in pericopes for Sundays and major holidays and celebrations. As has already been mentioned, I. Kwilecka perceives features of free translation in the oldest monuments of the Polish language – in Kazania świętokrzyskie and in Kazania gnieźnieńskie, as well as in the somewhat later texts, e.g. in Rozmyślanie przemyskie, and in Żołtarz by Walenty Wróbel. The last of the presented monuments is a unique text as it constitutes the first comprehensive free Polish translation of the Psalter (cf. amplification trends in syntax; in lexis – insertion of comments explaining Old Testament metaphors into the main text, but also simplification tendencies, for example, removal of metaphors, and insertion of glosses in the margins)377. At the same time, it uses the old medieval translation technique, once widespread throughout Latin Europe, to introduce laymen to the content taking into account their intellectual capacities and their system of ideas, their lack of theological training, their ignorance of Latin, and their being alien to the realities of the Old Testament and ancient ways of expression378. This technique was reflected in the translations of the 15th century and the beginning of the 16th century, in which colloquial words and phrases were avoided, the original text was translated more faithfully and literally, and diminutives were not introduced. “The tradition of retaining the medieval text existed for a long time, in many cases it survived until the times of Wujek, and to a lesser of greater extent its influence can be perceived in all 16th century translations of the Bible. The break with the medieval text in the language of the Bible was gradual, through renewing vocabulary and phraseology, replacing phrasemes, typical of religious prose, with new expressions, and the introduction (usually to a very limited extent) of the elements of colloquial speech”379. The other trend, which can be seen in the 16th-century translations of the Bible, as opposed to the one mentioned above, is the tendency to modernize an older translation (it also applies to translations later than Leopolita – cf. BB, BN, BW). These are two seemingly contradictory trends: on the one hand, the continuity of tradition, and on the other hand, the modernization of the text, correcting it, and smoothing. The aim was to achieve a new quality of translation by the introduction of new words and new phraseology to the traditional text. Generally speaking, the translators were able to reconcile those two tendencies, and by studying their translations one may observe that some of them adhered more to tradition, while others were more readily inclined to revise their translation, which significantly distinguishes the 16th-century translations380. The

3 77 M. Cybulski, Staropolskie przekłady psałterza…, pp. 71–74. 378 Ibidem, p. 71. 379 E. Belcarzowa, op. cit., p. 122. 380 Cf. ibidem, pp. 122–123.

112

The problems of the translation

development of Bible studies, at least since the early 16th century, was an important factor here, forcing to some extent the pursuit of words appropriate for the text of the Bible, referring to sources, and not only in Latin, as well as imposing the comparative method both with regard to the translated text and to its translation. Especially from the end of the Middle Ages a new type of recipient appeared, representing an intermediary level between the elite and a vast group of population devoid of education, which was a direct consequence of the growth of intellectual aspirations of the middle class and a part of the Polish nobility381. In the age of the Renaissance, in which the first translations of the Bible and the Qur’an appeared, the controversy concerning the nature of translation – free or faithful – was still in progress. Eventually the principle of the free use of models prevailed, although both in theory and in the practice of the Renaissance translations of religious texts, including the Bible, issues of stylistic beauty were subjugated to theology382. Researchers (such as E.  Belcarzowa, I.  Kwilecka, D.  Bieńkowska, S.  Koziara, I. Winiarska, T. Lisowski, R. Zarębski) studying the early translations of the Bible indicate features that differentiate Protestant and Catholic translations, as well as the common features. They emphasize that the Renaissance translators were united primarily in their desire to render the “true word of God” faithfully and to spread the teaching of Christ383. Thus, for example Fr. Jakub Wujek used both Biblia brzeska, and Nowy Testament in the translation of Czechowic, as well as some textual criticism-related solutions of Szymon Budny, contained in his introduction to the New Testament of 1574384. He also took over the denomination rozdział and Russian zaczało, introduced by Budny385, for which reason “Wujek was accused before the provincial of the Jesuit Order that in translating the Scripture he gave priority to its sense rather than to its literalness, using the Greek text and the »heretical Biblia brzeska«, and that in his translation too much space was devoted to the exquisiteness of the style and the beauty of words”386. In contrast, Szymon Budny, who had such a critical attitude to Biblia brzeska, accepted some of its translation solutions (e.g. an adjective borsukowy (badgerish) as a translation of a Hebrew word ‘tachaš’, or the noun towarzysz (companion) from the Greek ‘hetaíros’). According to the studies of I. Kwilecka, Budny did not translate Apocrypha on his own387, but he took over the text from Biblia brzeska, 3 81 I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, pp. 42–43. 382 Cf. C. Łapicz, Z teorii i praktyki przekładów Koranu…, pp. 277–279. 383 Cf. I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 229. 384 Ibidem. 385 Ibidem. 386 Ibidem, p. 345. 387 The Apocrypha or apocryphal books are the books of the Old Testament which did not enter the so-called Palestinian canon. They were not preserved in their original Hebrew, but only in Greek manuscripts and in texts that were translated from those manuscripts (ibidem, p. 311). For the first time, they were included in the BB

Translation of religious texts of Divine Revelation

113

introducing minor editorial changes (mainly lexical ones, which were doctrinally motivated). So in Biblia nieświeska there is an Introduction to the Apocrypha, which is identical to the one in Biblia brzeska, as well as the same number and order of books. Biblia brzeska is the first Polish Bible translation to include non-canonical books of the Old Testament, which are placed in a separate section. Besides an extensive text of the Apocrypha, smaller fragments of other texts were also taken over in it, e.g. an apocryphal text of the Prayer of Manasseh. Translational analogies also apply to the Book of Esther and 2 Chronicles, where Budny took over most of the comments from his predecessors388. T. Lisowski is one of the researchers who confirms in his studies the fact that translators referred  – in spite of doctrinal differences  – to the achievements of their predecessors (the translators of the Bible into Polish) and benefited from their experiences (in search of adequate equivalence)389. He also indicates intertextual dependencies that are clearly seen at the lexical level between Biblia gdańska, Biblia brzeska, Biblia Jakuba Wujka and Nowy Testament gdański390. He also notices intertextual filiations between Biblia gdańska and Biblia Jakuba Wujka, pointing to Biblia Jakuba Wujka as a translation, which despite doctrinal differences (it was a Catholic post-Tridentine translation, of Counter-Reformation nature), as well as philological dissimilarity (it was translated indirectly from the Latin Vulgate), supplied Daniel Mikołajewski with lexical translational patterns, more than Biblia brzeska, a Protestant translation, which was subjected merely to his editorial revision391. Therefore, Mikołajewski found Wujek’s lexical substitutions more relevant in terms of formal-semantic adequacy, as is evidenced by the presence of the same quaint lexemes in both translations392. Lisowski sees similarities between Biblia gdańska and Biblia brzeska, as well as between Biblia Jakuba Wujka and Nowy Testament gdański in terms of abundance

translation. It has the same introduction to Apocrypha, and the same number and order of books as in the translation made by Budny (cf. ibidem, pp. 314–315 and p. 317). 388 Ibidem, p. 343. 389 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 293 and following – the comparison of translations, their features and achievements, as well as indication of their common features. 390 Ibidem, p. 30. 391 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 431 states that “the text of Biblia gdańska has some references to the Protestant translations, such as Biblia brzeska […] as well as to Biblia Wujka, which is a Catholic post-Tridentine translation.” He also emphasizes frequent lexical references in Biblia gdańska to Biblia Wujka, despite the fact that Biblia Wujka is based on the principle verbum de verbo fidelissime reddere whereas the Protestant Biblia brzeska is a creative implementation of the translation method of St. Jerome, reddere non verbum verbo, sed sensum sensui, and so is free of lexical, semantic, phraseological and syntactic interferences of the language of the basic text – cf. 433. 392 Ibidem, p. 436.

114

The problems of the translation

of vocabulary and average frequency of the occurrence of words. Also his analysis of data describing the share of individual autosemantic parts of speech in the studied texts indicates the quantitative convergence of Biblia gdańska and Biblia brzeska on the one hand, and Biblia Wujka as well as Nowy Testament gdański on the other hand. According to him, this regularity is revealed in most of the parameters describing the share of individual parts of speech393. He notices that this quantitative convergence between a Protestant translation of the New Testament and the Catholic translation Biblia Jakuba Wujka “perhaps attests to the fact that Protestants, in search of the closest possible Polish rendering of the message of the Bible did not hesitate to use the translation made from a doctrinal perspective which they did not accept”394. He also claims that the interdependence of different doctrinal translations is another argument for the existence of a Biblical translational tradition in the 16th century, common to both Catholic and Protestant translations, and independent of ideological and religious bias395. Lexical affinity can also be noted between the Catholic New Testament translation made by Jakub Wujek of 1593 and the text of Biblia brzeska. Their common lexemes then appeared in parallel New Testament places in Nowy Testament gdański and Biblia gdańska, which proves the continuity of the translation tradition, whose first known link in this analysis is Biblia brzeska, the last one being Biblia gdańska. This tradition was free from doctrinal influence396. On the other hand, I. Winiarska, referring to the research made by E. Belcarzowa and D. Bieńkowska in the field of mutual influences and borrowings between various Bible translations, makes an attempt to establish a paradigm of the Polish Biblical style by a juxtaposition of passages from the Gospel according to Matthew in some 16th-century translations (such translations as those made by S. Murzynowski of 1551, J. Leopolita of 1561, Biblia brzeska from 1563, Budny’s Nowy Testament from 1570 and 1572, by M. Czechowic from 1577, and by J. Wujek from 1599) in order to show the interdependence and relationship existing between Protestant and Catholic translations397. She presents ample evidence proving that the translators in selecting lexical and phraseological equivalents took into account the existing translational tradition, and that the Protestant translations not only implemented

3 93 Ibidem, pp. 77–78. 394 Ibidem, p. 79. 395 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 340 citing the research of E. Belcarzowa (op. cit., p. 49 and p. 53), he also concludes that “such interdependence can be seen between two earlier 16th century New Testament translations – a Protestant translation made by Stanisław Murzynowski (1551–1553) and Catholic Leopolita translation (1561)” – cf. pp. 164–165. 396 Ibidem, p. 181. 397 I. Winiarska-Górska, Język, styl i kulturowa rola szesnastowiecznych protestanckich przekładów Nowego Testamentu na język polski: między nowatorstwem a tradycją, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki…, p. 294.

Translation of religious texts of Divine Revelation

115

the standard (paradigm) of the Polish Biblical style, but also considerably contributed to the process of its formation398. Stanisław Koziara, who examined Biblical phraseology in Polish, also pointed to the relationship between Biblia brzeska and Biblia Wujka in the sphere of the selection of certain forms399. He found similar relations between Biblia gdańska and Biblia Wujka, and even noted that in the sphere of individual choices Biblia gdańska is more frequently in accordance with Biblia Wujka than with Biblia brze­ ska. He also indicated that Biblia brzeska had a pioneering role in the work of the creation of Biblisms. Biblia gdańska and Biblia Wujka had the greatest impact on the resources and form of Polish phraseology, also performing the function of retaining Biblisms in the Polish language. And the translation made by Sz. Budny had the smallest influence due to the individualism of its translator. Thus, various researchers of Bible translations show numerous traces of mutual influence of Catholic and heterodox translations400. Elżbieta Belcarzowa firmly states that “Old Polish Bible translations, either medieval or later ones, made in the 16th century, had always been a continuation of previous works, alluded to earlier translations and greatly benefitted from them”401. Catholic translators used heterodox translations, and vice versa, because in the 16th century, the method of mutual borrowing was widely practiced among translators of Biblical texts. As a result, all Psalter and New Testament translations had, apart from their individual features, a kind of a common framework. However, it should be borne in mind that individual texts also vary widely, indicating the extent of independence of their translators in reference to the original text and in reference to the Polish language402. “The complex problem of interdependence and loan words in the 16th-century translations shows clearly the method of translating the Bible that was adopted at that time. Bible translators, perhaps out of respect for the word of God, sanctified by tradition, drew extensively on the achievements of their predecessors, while introducing some novelties to improve or modernize awkward and obsolete fragments of an older text”403.

3 98 Ibidem, pp. 295–314. 399 S. Koziara, Uwagi o frazeologii pochodzenia biblijnego w języku polskim, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki…, p. 156 – cf. “These similarities between Biblia brzeska and Biblia Jakuba Wujka show that, despite his confessional aversion felt to the text of Biblia brzeska, many features of that translation found his recognition and were also used in his translation. Similar relationships can also be seen when comparing Biblia gdańska with Biblia Wujka.” 400 Cf. also findings in R. Zarębski, Nazwy osobowe w polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu…, p. 191 and p. 196. 401 E. Belcarzowa, op. cit., p. 17. 402 Ibidem, p. 18 and pp. 64–65. 403 Ibidem, p. 122.

116

The problems of the translation

Difficulties in translation, that is the problem in understanding of an often obscure text of the Bible and of realities foreign to translators, as well as the difficulty in finding a proper Polish word rendering in the most accurate way the meaning of a translated text was the reason that previously created translations were referred to, and not only Polish but also Bohemian and Latin ones together with their interpretations and commentaries on the Greek and even the Hebrew text. It is essential to indicate the impact of Latin and Bohemian translations on the Polish translations of the Bible, as well as to show a similar role of Arabic and Turkish sources in the genesis of literary monuments of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims, in the formation of European translational tradition, including Polish translational tradition. Marek Cybulski states that “Polish literary language was strongly influenced by Latin, in some respects becoming similar to it, and, especially in the 15th century, it also underwent the impact of Bohemian as the language of a nation that was closer to the cultural centre. It was also Christianized earlier and its literature began to develop earlier”404. The multi-faceted influence of the Bohemian language on Biblical Polish dates back to the days of Old Polish, when Polish translators referred to Bohemian translations in search of adequate translational solutions405. In the Middle Ages, a Latin translation made from the Septuagint by St. Jerome at the end of the 14th century was accepted as the basic text of the Book of Psalms. It was later included in a complete translation of the Bible, which was later called the Vulgate. Setting to work on the translation of the text of the Bible into their native language, Polish translators had copies of the Vulgate, but they did not necessarily refer to them because drawing on the achievements of Czech translators seemed to be easier. Both translational traditions could also be combined, and in the translation from Latin, the Bohemian text was used as a subsidiary text, and the translators sought equivalents for more difficult words in it. Alternatively, the translation was made from the Czech/Bohemian text and any questionable places were verified according to the Vulgate. Thus, already in the Middle Ages, and also in the 16th century, Polish translators benefitted from the rich experience of Bohemian translators406. This fact is also confirmed by the studies of T. Lisowski, who states that “a part of the specific lexemes […] of the translations edited by Daniel Mikołajewski or with his participation, show the dependence on the Bohemian Biblia kralicka,

4 04 M. Cybulski, op. cit., Łódź 1996, p. 8. 405 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, pp. 386–387 – he also provides there a list of the literature of the subject items which confirm the influence of Czech on the Polish Biblical language; also p. 439 – he confirms that there was a tradition, born in the Middle Ages, of using Czech Bible translations as auxiliary texts in translational work. 406 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p.  201. Cf. also Z. Wanicowa, Mechanizm błędów translacyjnych w „Biblii Królowej Zofii” a spór o podstawę jej przekładu, „Językoznawstwo: współczesne badania, problemy i analizy językoznawcze” 4, 2010, pp. 13–35.

Translation of religious texts of Divine Revelation

117

a model translation into Bohemian made in the spirit of the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura407. Polish translations of the Qur’an are undoubtedly a part of the European trend, because their translators used the previously developed methods of translating sacred books into national languages. As has already been mentioned – in the case of Tatar translations – previously created translations of the Bible into vernacular languages were useful, as well as Turkish translations, together with their explanatory commentaries. As is stated by P. Suter: „Die Reformation in Polen-Litauen war Wegbereiterin für die Verwendung des Polnischen als sakrale Sprache der Bibelübersetzungen. Die polnischen Bibelübersetzungen können als Vorbild für die Anfertigung der litauisch-tatarischen Koranübersetzung betrachtet werden. Die Koranübersetzung fügt sich harmonisch in die Reihe der Bibelübersetzungen der Reformationszeit ein”408. The Philomaths made use of French translation of the Qur’an by Claude Étienne Savary, and they probably used Tatar translations409, and Polish Bible translations. In the edition of 1858, it is mentioned that the comparative material was the translation made by Wojciech (Albert) de Biberstein Kazimirski410. J. Bielawski used old classical Arabic commentaries and translations of the Qur’an into European languages411. As he stated in the Introduction to his translation of the Qur’an, he used the method of literal translation, abandoning it only where necessary to ensure the clarity and readability of the translated text: “The main assumption in translating a text is first and foremost fidelity to the Arabic text and clarity of thought. If it was possible, I translated literally, and if it was not possible, I abandoned literality a little, trying to retain as closely as possible the original meaning of the Arabic text. In my translation I used Polish poetic prose with the aim of rendering the original Arabic text as faithfully as possible, and often, if it was possible, I kept the logical structure of Arabic phrases (expressions) and sentences, as long as it did not interfere with the spirit of the Polish language and it did not blur the clarity of thought”412.

1.2.3 The specificity of Qur’anic translations The Qur’an, which contains the Revelation of the one God, is of great importance for Islam as a religion and civilization. The closed religious ideology was formed 4 07 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 351. 408 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 126. 409 This problem requires a separate study  – cf. in this regard divergent views of Drozd in Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 17, Suter in P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p.  7, and Łapicz in C.  Łapicz, Źródła cytatów koranicznych w Wykładzie wiary machometańskiej… 410 Cf., for example, J. Szynkiewicz, op. cit., p. 138; A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgicz­ne…, p. 17; J. Danecki, Podstawowe wiadomości…, p. 81. 411 Cf. KB2, p. 832. 412 KB2, p. 831.

118

The problems of the translation

in forty odd years –the duration of the Revelation and the period of the development of the text of the Qur’an – that is the holy book as well as the whole religious system in its complete form, of the Revelation given once and for all, without any possibility of interference in its content. The immediate consequence of this in Islam was, and it still is, to assign special significance to the interpretation of the text of the Qur’an, that is to its exegesis413. As has already been mentioned, i‘ǧāz is a theological category that functions in the interpretation of the Qur’an and in its theological schools. “According to the i‘ǧāz theory, which was formed and finally formulated in the 10th century, the Qur’an is the only revealed book that is the perfect artistic work of the highest divine wisdom […]. Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament have this feature”414. Muslims believe that the Qur’an was given to Muhammad in the Arabic language, recognized by the Muslim tradition as the language of Divine Revelation. This means that it is designed for people who speak Arabic and the Arabic version of the Qur’an is unique and the only one that is acceptable. According to this tradition, the original of the Qur’an that exists in Arabic is stored with Allah in heaven, and it will be taken to heaven before the end of the world, and on earth only blank paper will be left behind415. Thus, directly and literally, the Qur’an itself brought about the sacralization of the Arabic language. According to this idea, purist Muslim dogmatists do not recognize other languages to be worthy and appropriate in which to praise God, and to spread and receive content of the Qur’an, and researchers and commentators clearly emphasize that the Qur’an should not be assessed a priori, but only on the basis of the Arabic language, because each translation is, as has already been stated, at best an imitation of the original, and cannot be recognized as its equivalent by the doctrine of Islam. Therefore, all translations of the holy book are not regarded as the Qur’an, and only as its interpretation, “and hence no translations can exist in the sense that they do not represent in any way the text of the Qur’an, and because of this they are not the Qur’an”416. “This approach is fully justified and correct from the point of view of modern translatology”417. This is because a translation can never match the original, which is especially true when translating the Qur’an into European languages, which are culturally alien to the Arab world418. None of the translations of the Qur’an has any dogmatic and theological sanction of correctness419. This is because the Arabic language is an inherent feature of the Qur’an, in which it is sacred. The Qur’an can

4 13 J. Danecki, Podstawowe wiadomości…, p. 49. 414 Ibidem, p. 70. 415 A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., p. 40. 416 J. Danecki, Podstawowe wiadomości…, p. 79. 417 Ibidem. 418 Ibidem. 419 A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., p. 40.

Translation of religious texts of Divine Revelation

119

be translated into other languages, but only in the form of a commentary, interpretation of its content, and not a proper translation, and hence all manuscripts had to contain the original text with its interlinear explanation. For this reason, only interlinear translations of the Qur’an were allowed, which were called an interpretation or commentary on the text of the Qur’an. It can be concluded that Tatar tefsirs were the first translations of the Qur’an into Slavic languages420. The bestowal of supernatural qualities to an external form, used to preserve the speech of Allah, objectified in the Arabic Qur’an and in the Arabic language, namely the Arabic alphabet and writing, was a natural consequence of the views proclaimed by Muslim linguistic theology. This reflection is important in the study of Tatar literature in the GDL. The Tatars lost their ethnic language as a result of their assimilation with the local population and began using Slavic languages, but their written texts, both sacred (e.g. kitabs, tejvids, and hamails) and secular ones (e.g. glossaries, letters, wills, signatures on documents, receipts, epitaphs, etc.) were written down in the Arabic alphabet. In this respect, therefore, Tatar translations were different from Bible translations into vernacular languages used in liturgy, since the texts used in liturgy were first and foremost in Arabic or Turkish.

420 Cf. H. S. Szapszał, O zatraceniu języka ojczystego przez Tatarów w Polsce, „Rocznik Tatarski” I, Wilno 1932, p. 37, and P. Borawski, A. Dubiński, op. cit., p. 249 – “They were among first full translations of the Qur’an in Europe. Their oldest copies date back to the second half of the 16th century.”

2 The translation of the religious terminology of Islam into Slavic languages in the monuments of Tatar literature in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 2.1 The profile of a Tatar translator and the significance of Tatar translations of the Qur’an into Polish421 Although the authors of Tatar translation texts are not known by name, they can be included, on the basis of their legacy, not only in the Tatar intellectual elite, but also in the educated and enlightened elite of the GDL. As has already been mentioned422, they knew not only the Tatar language (Crimean Tatar), but also Turkish (Ottoman Turkish), Arabic and Persian. In addition, they also used Latin, as well as Polish and Belorussian. They were perfectly familiar with the current religious issues, responsive to all polemics and religious disputes. They were well versed in Biblical and Psalter religious literature, both in the religious literature of the Middle Ages, as well as in the literature contemporary with the Renaissance423. A.  Konopacki believes that these people belonged to the nobility. This assumption is based on the premise that Tatar writers drew extensively on a wide range of Catholic and Reformation ideas, but in their writings there were no texts or borrowings associated with Eastern Orthodoxy424. I. Winiarska also notes that the Reformation movement found its social support mainly among the noblemen in Małopolska and Lithuania, leading to their multiple conversions and provoking religious disputes425.

421 Cf. the chapter The translator’s expertise, pp. [105–109] in this monograph. Cf. also T. Bairašauskaitė, Vietinis komponenetas Lietuvos totorių tapatybės konstrukcijose (istoriografinis aspektas), [in:] Lietuvos Didžiosios kunigaikštijos tradicija ir tautiniai naratyvai, Vilnius 2009, pp. 255–275. 422 Cf. the chapter The translator’s expertise, pp. [105–109] in this monograph. The claim of polyglottism of Tatar translators is confirmed, for example, by the research work of H. Jankowski, Cechy graficzne i językowe…, p. 161, and with reference to the translator of Tefsir miński, dated to 1686, he writes: “it seems that Urjasz knew Turkish, Arabic, and obviously Polish very well.” 423 Cf. the chapter Sources of knowledge. Sources of inspiration, pp. [124–127] in this monograph. 424 A. Konopacki, op. cit., pp. 157–158. 425 Cf. I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, pp. 124–129.

122

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

In presenting a profile of a Tatar translator, one should focus primarily on the effects of his work426. Even at first glance there appears a high awareness of the need to ensure the compliance of the translation with its original canonic Arabic version427. This was manifested, for example, in the pursuit of a stylistic pattern of translation of Muslim texts into the Polish language (at the same time, the stylistic choices of the authors individualized the language of translation – cf. individual, temporary and occasional names), and so in a deliberate choice of vocabulary, the pursuit of terms close to the original meaning, precise determination of native equivalents for “theologically important” terms or words or leaving them in their original form due to the lack of adequate counterparts in the language of translation, as well as in discovering the equivalence of general vocabulary, not related to religion (that is not religiously characterized), and taking into account the changes resulting from the development of lexis. This translational awareness and the awareness of the fact that many religious differences are conditioned by a different understanding of the word also influenced their painstaking pursuit of appropriate means of expressions (often including the so-called functional analogues428), and not only the substitution of Arabic lexemes by their Slavic counterparts.

426 Bearing in mind the fact that the religious literature of the Tatars of the GDL is stylistically and linguistically inconsistent, the Tatar translations of the Qur’an (a sacred book of Divine Revelation status) into Slavic languages became the subject of reflection, and on that basis conclusions were drawn. Cf. the results of studies in this field – A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, pp. 179–180. 427 Establishing the so-called degree of contamination of original and translation layers in terms of their record is an important research issue. Such research was carried out, on limited textual material, by J. Kulwicka-Kamińska and M. Lewicka – cf. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Tefsir z Olity…, pp. 159–175; M. Lewicka, Identyfikacja i analiza tekstologiczno-filologiczna arabskiej warstwy językowej pp. 478–485 Tefsiru z Olity (1723 r.), [in:] Estetyczne aspekty literatury polskich, białoruskich i litewskich Tatarów (XVI-XXI w.), eds. G. Czerwiński, A. Konopacki, Białystok 2015, pp. 107–132. In this respect the findings of M. M. Dziekan, Ortografia arabskiego tekstu Koranu…, pp. 173–174 are also extremely interesting: “the analysis showed 86 differences in orthography in the tefsir, in comparison with the contemporary standardized edition of the Qur’an, so they appear in the case of approximately 10% of the words. Only in 36 cases (4,5%) different types of errors can be taken into account […], other differences have something to do with the possibility of various spellings of words in Arabic – mainly in terms of the record of so-called ‘short alif’ instead of alif and the spelling of hamza”, and: “It can be finally said that the Tefsir Józefowa shows not many spelling mistakes in comparison with the original text of the Qur’an. It refers both to old manuscripts as well as to the modern, unified text of the holy book.” 428 Functional equivalence or the so-called functional analogy is the replacement of a name of phenomenon (or even an allusion to it), which is better known in initial culture, by a name of phenomenon (or an allusion to it) that is better known in the target culture. Sometimes they coexist with borrowings.

The profile of a Tatar translator

123

The individual approach to the translated text and the tendency toward modern translational solutions is also demonstrated by the presence of instances of synonymy or translation of one Arabic word by two or more Polish words, a significant number of particles used in a persuasive function (e.g. ć, ci- representative of the preaching style), introducing words that are absent in the original Qur’an to emphasize, strengthen or clarify the meaning of the text, the accumulation of emotionally marked vocabulary, etc. As a result of these efforts translation gained a pragmatic dimension, which had an influence on its reader through persuasion and pragmatism429 (cf. the schools of translation of Erasmus of Rotterdam and Pico della Mirandola). On the other hand, the awareness of the inadequacy or untranslatability of stricte Muslim terminology became a direct cause of preserving the translocated or Slavicized words in the religious writings of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims (cf. for example, Russian, especially modern translations of the Qur’an, such as the 19th-century translation of I. Y. Krachkovsky, in which the original form seid was preserved, while in previous translations equivalents had been proposed, such as наши главнейшие (Postnikov), наши владетели (Nikolaev), властители (Sablukov)430; the Tatars of the GDL translated it as śejjd from Arabic  sayyid, ‘lord, ruler’; ‘chief, leader’; ‘sir (a title)’). According to the studies of P. Suter, most of the original terms which occur in Tatar translations refer to the central concepts of the religion of Islam431. Keywords, word pillars of the Muslim doctrine were therefore left in their original form or semantic calques or Arabic word formation were used, which was the attestation of the importance of the text, as well as an awareness of the Arabic language, the forms of which one attempted to render faithfully. And sometimes periphrases were used, which indicated some difficulties in coming up with one-word equivalents. These efforts enabled the rendering of the original meaning of words. So the translator of the Qur’an was sophisticated and well prepared for his task, and also well-versed in the commentary literature. And he also took care about the semantics of the work, introducing in the text the interpretation presented in commentaries432. In addition, he paid attention to the sound layer in reference to the ‘formal marvelousness of the Qur’an, which was especially an original feature of tefsirs because Muslim views on the translation of the holy book of Islam overlooked the question of its form. The translation of BN was for the Tatars of the GDL the model of such a concern about ‘not falsifying the word of God’, in which the high awareness of the translator dictated the necessity of preserving quoted words in Hebrew and Aramaic, e.g. gehenna (Gehenna) (cf.

429 Cf. the principles of the Renaissance Bible translation  – for example Erazm z Rotterdamu, Metoda prawdziwej teologii, [in:] idem, Trzy rozprawy, translation and edition J. Domański, Warszawa 1990. 430 Cf. I. Kończak, Kształtowanie się rosyjskiej terminologii islamistycznej…, pp. 83–85. 431 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 56. 432 A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 180.

124

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

a descriptive equivalent in BB – męka ogniowa [‘torments of fire, torture of fire, ordeal of fire’]). In justified cases, a similar method was used by Jakub Wujek, who transcribed Latin words about whose meaning he was not sure. The translators were also renowned for their knowledge of various methods of translation of a religious text. They made an effort to preserve the elementary criteria of adequate translation, which led to subordination of the original grammar to the stylistic needs of its translation (This is seen especially in tefsirs, but also in khutbas and in translations of liturgical texts)433, and in appropriate cases they used the ad sensum method of translation. Inclusion, annotations, glosses and commentaries which occurred in the text of the translation or on its margins were also a reflection of translational dilemmas of the Tatar translators, and also their knowledge of humanistic texts434. Thus, it can be said with complete responsibility that the religious literature of LithuanianPolish Muslims, especially their tefsir translations, is an important part of Polish and European literature of the 16th century.

2.2 Sources of knowledge. Sources of inspiration Tatar religious literature can be characterized, for example, by referring to arguments from religious polemics for apologetic purposes, contained in original religious and moralizing literature (Arabic and Turkish literature, including the Qur’an and hadiths) and by an excellent knowledge of Polish Christian literature, including translations of the Bible, hagiographies of saints and prophets, Christian tales, and legends (e.g. apocryphal gospels – cf. the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the apocryphal Gospel of Matthew, and Protoevangelium of James), properly interpreted and confronted with the teachings of Islam. Apart from the already discussed problem of the influence of the Muslim tradition on the subject matter of Tatar manuscripts, an attempt should be made to answer the question about the source from which the Tatars of the GDL drew their knowledge about the medieval and Renaissance literature, secular as well as Biblical and Psalter literature. Without doubt three factors can be indicated here: religious and linguistic determinants of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the system of education and religious polemics and debates435.

2.2.1 The Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Religion. Language The state of Gediminas in the 16th century in its Lithuanian part was pagan, while the Eastern Church dominated in the conquered Ruthenian lands. For political reasons, in order to become independent of the Teutonic Knights, Christianity was

4 33 Ibidem. 434 C. Łapicz, Glosy, komentarze, objaśnienia…, p. 79. 435 Cf. pp. [92–96] in this monograph.

Sources of knowledge. Sources of inspiration

125

accepted in the version which was adopted in Poland. Accepting the Latin culture resulted in the Polonization of the ducal court, an influx of Polish clergy, including religious congregations, and the opening of parochial schools. Therefore, the Catholic Church coexisted with the Orthodox Church until the first half of the 16th century. From the signing of the Brest Union of the Eastern Church with the Western Church (1596), the only official religion was Catholicism, and for the Ruthenian society – the Uniate Church. However, country people, the middle class and the petty gentry were still Orthodox. In the 16th century, the Reformation reached the lands of the GDL  – Calvinism and Lutheranism. The new religion became one of the elements which united Polish and Lithuanian-Ruthenian nobles. Konigsberg was a centre of Lutheranism, and Brest was a centre of Calvinism, having an influence on the Vilnius region and Ruthenian lands. In Ruthenian lands Arianism was also popular. Thanks to the Reformation the national languages began to play an important role: German in western Lithuania and Polish in eastern Lithuania. The predominant language was Polish. It was introduced in the documents of the Reformed Church, along with Ruthenian as the second national language, thus moving away from Latin. In the judiciary and the administration of the GDL, Polish chancellery language appears from the 16th century. Gradually it supplants Belorussian, which at that time was under the influence of Polish (especially at the lexical level). During the 16th century, two versions of chancellery language coexisted in Lithuania: Belorussian and Polish, with almost identical vocabulary. During the first quarter of the 16th century, the nobility provided signatures in the Cyrillic script. Later it was in Latin followed by a formula in Polish – ręką własną (with my own hand), etc. At the end of the 16th century both the higher nobility and the Uniate and even Orthodox clergy signed documents in Polish, and from the 17th century Polish dominated in official documents436. The change of official language from Ruthenian into Polish initiates the spread of the Polish language in religious and secular literature, and in chronicles. A natural consequence of this process is the change of the official state language, carried out by the Warsaw Parliament in 1697. It was the time of the Counter-Reformation. The Counter-Reformation fought against the Reformation and Orthodoxy. An important role in this process was played by the Jesuits, as well as by the Dominicans and Franciscans who supported them. They regained for Catholicism the majority of heterodox magnates and gentry with relative ease, except in western Lithuania or Prussia, where Lutheranism dominated. The educational system also played an important role in the acquisition of the knowledge of Christian religious literature by the Tatars of the GDL, including translations of the Scripture into national languages437.

436 Cf. E. Smułkowa, Białoruś i pogranicza. Studia o języku i społeczeństwie, Warszawa 2002, p. 298. 437 Detailed characteristics of this issue including the list of schools of various denominations in the lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the curricula

126

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

2.2.2 Education In the Middle Ages, elementary school teaching was systematically implemented in the area of the GDL in the form of schola, i.e. a “Latin school”. Institutional teaching was conducted, at different levels and of different specialties, among which one may mention monastery novitiates and particular studies, parish centres and urban educational centres, groups of cathedral singers, universities, and communities of students gathered around their teacher. As a rule the establishment of churches in Lithuania was accompanied by the creation of parish schools. The first schools of this type in Lithuania appeared after 1387. Most of them were in the diocese of Vilnius. In the diocese of Samogitia, in 1579, there were 23 parish schools. Since 42 churches existed in this diocese, and therefore, 55% of them had a school. Moreover, in the 16th century, Catholic schools were established in such places as Stokliszki (Stoklishkes), Olita (Alytus), Okmiany (Akmenė), Retowo (Rietavas), and Kaunas. In the mid-16th century, there was a total of 259 parochial schools. Parish schools were furnished very well, and for example, it is known that in the 18th century, a school in Preny (Prienai) had an excellent library with hundreds of books in Latin, French and Polish. Similar libraries existed in such towns as Iłukszta (Ilūkste), Rakiszki (Rokiškis), Obele, and Kukuciszki (Kuktiškės). Churches and presbyteries had their own libraries already in the 16th century. “In his will of 1614, the Canon of Wornie Józef Grodzicki clearly separates ‘spiritual’ books, giving them to Jesuits and those which were ‘fit for learning’, including the Polish Bible and postils, from ‘secular’ books”438. There were large monastery libraries (2–3  thousand volumes) in the Jesuit College in Smolensk, in the Trinitarian Antokol monastery in Vilnius, and in the Piarist’s school in Vilnius. In addition to parochial schools there were also monastery schools, which were very dynamic. For example, the Franciscans in Kaunas had their own schools (the beginning of the 17th century), and the Dominicans likewise (Poporcie, Wysoki Dwór [Aukštadvaris]). The names of school and church servants, as well as of alumni of parochial schools were written in documents. They usually completed their studies in foreign universities. In Vilnius (from the 14th century) and Wornie (from the 15th century) there functioned cathedral schools focused on teaching liturgical chant performers, catechetical singers and public performers of poetic texts. They educated the illiterate pagan society in the spirit of Christianity. High schools or the germs of higher education appeared in Lithuania together with the Reformation. 1570 was the crucial year, when the Jesuit College in Vilnius was established. Colleges in Połock (Polotsk), Ryga (Riga), Kroże (Kražiai), Grodno (Hrodna) and Witebsk (Vitebsk) were established before 1649, and later the ones in Dyneburg (Dinaburg/ Daugavpils), Poszawsze (Pašiaušė), and Nowogródek.

they implemented can be found in the work entitled Kultura Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Analizy i obrazy, Kraków 2006, pp. 713–733. 438 Kultura Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego…, p. 727.

Between faithful and free translation

127

Five-class schools with a course in philosophy functioned in the following towns:  Nieśwież (Nesvizh), Orsza (Orsha), Smolensk, Pinsk, and Dyneburg. There were also schools of other faiths. The educational system of the evangelicals had developed before the end of the 16th century – parochial and secondary schools were established (Nowe Miasto [Žemaičių Naumiestis], Birże [Biržai], Radziwiliszki [Radviliškis], Sołomieście, Popiele [Papilys], Poszuszwie [Pašušvys], Szydłowo [Šiluva]). These were the schools of the Latin type. Religion was a compulsory subject there. It is possible that a Lutheran school functioned at the end of the 16th century in Żejmele [Žeimelis], and Arians attended their schools in Iwie and Nowogródek. In Vilnius there was a private evangelical school. In Kiejdany (Kėdainiai) and Sluck secondary schools were established. The secondary school in Vilnius represented high standards. In addition to that, there were also known schools of the Orthodox Brotherhood in Vilnius and Mohylew (Mogilev) – late 16th century and later in Minsk, Pinsk and Sluck. Students were taught from the Psalter, breviary, and primers, and then it was time for trivium and quadrivium. Teaching in local languages was an important contribution of the Protestants. In Pińczów, which was called the Sarmatian Athens, representatives of the Reformation from all over Europe met, and a modern humanist high school there provided education for the children of the local nobility. This type of teaching also gained the approval of the Roman Catholic Church, which decided at the Council of Trent to introduce native languages into schools. At the same time, a reform of education was conducted and a modernized program of seven liberal arts was promoted. As for school curricula, according to the available sources, students were taught “catechism, the Ten Commandments of God, and other elements of Christian devotion, as well as grammar, music and other sciences, according to the capabilities of children”439. The synod of 1528 indicated the principles of writing, rules of conduct, the basics of religion – the prayers “Ojcze nasz” (the Lord’s Prayer) and “Zdrowaś Mario” (Hail Mary), the confession of faith, the most important holidays and fasts, the commandments of God and the church, as well as the explanation of the gospels and the epistles of Paul in Polish and Lithuanian. In the 16th century, a textbook was introduced. This was a catechism replacing the primer.

2.3 Between faithful and free translation As has been stated440, in the Middle Ages and in later literary periods, the translator’s attitude to the original text varied:  from faithful translation, based on the principle verbum de verbo fidelissime reddere (cf. BN, BW), to a free translation that upholds the idea reddere non verbum verbo, sed sensum sensui (cf. BB).

4 39 Ibidem, p. 719. 440 Cf. p. [27–28] and pp. [110–112] in this monograph.

128

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

On the one hand, a literal translation allowed recreation of some of the features of the original text, such as verses, but on the other hand, it introduced alien syntactic constructions and foreign phraseology, and moreover, it made the general meaning of the verses difficult to understand. The sense of expression was in fact treated as less important than the meaning of individual words (preserving literal sense, literal compliance). It depended on the translation of a word for a word so that their number in the base text and in the derivative text is the same. It was therefore translation rather at the level of an expression, but not at the level of a sentence or even of a larger unit of a text: a word with the same meaning was sought in the Polish language, and it was less important or even unimportant to find a semantic equivalent of a sentence in the original language. The main feature of a free translation441, which helps to distinguish it from a faithful translation of the Bible, was the free attitude to the original, which is represented by the Latin translation of St Jerome, called the Vulgate. This method consisted in rendering not only of individual words, but also the ideas contained in individual verses. This was reflected in the syntax, namely in the change of the order of individual words, individual sentences, in the change of whole sentence structures, in introducing of numerous references between sentences, such as wtedy, a wtedy, w tym czasie (then, and then, at that time), emphasizing the time sequence and causal relationships. In this type of translation, one may perceive a redundancy of speech with far-reaching saving of words involving skipping any unnecessary details, and sometimes even whole sentences, which disturbs the perception of the reading public. Therefore, various foreign names were subjected to special treatment. In a faithful translation they were given in Latin transcription, not caring about the comprehensibility of the text, and in a free translation various explanations were introduced, some realities were adapted to contemporary conditions, to current social, political or economic relations, and when foreign names were retained, they were preceded by an explanation, e.g. góra Synaj (Mount Sinai). This made the original text closer to the contemporary recipient and more understandable. Various expressive elements were introduced to establish direct contact with the reading public. These were evaluative expressions or terms which enhanced an emotional attitude to individuals, e.g. miły (dear, beloved), święty (saint, holy)  – this adjective usually preceded the names of the apostles, even though it was not present in the original Latin text, etc. Various polite expressions (adapted to the situation) were added in translation to address a given person directly, e.g. bracie (o brother). Furthermore, in some contexts, semantic and formative instability of words could be seen, a kind of “excess vocabulary”, while in other contexts vocabulary of quite crystallized semantic dominants was found.

441 A detailed description of the determinants of a free translation, which were already present in the oldest monuments of the Polish language and in the Renaissance translations of the Bible, is given in I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, pp. 268–279.

Between faithful and free translation

129

The western school of translation aiming to familiarize believers with the text of the Scripture had already gained adherents in the Middle Ages. Its features can be noted in the 14th- and 15th-century Biblical and Psalter literature442. These include for example: 1. Repetitive and time reference sentences to sustain the narrative, 2. Systematic explanation of proper names and any foreign names, 3. Numerous supplements to the content and appositions, often introduced by the postposition to jest (that is), 4. Name epithets, 5. Prolixity of style – forms of expression similar to colloquial speech443. One should mention some of its features indicated by I.  Kwilecka (a researcher of free translations of Biblical and Psalter literature) to show the analogy and references of subsequently produced Tatar translations to the methods used in these monuments444, such as, from Kazania świętokrzyskie – interjection – prawi ‘powia­da’ (it says) [often found in Old French translations of the Bible]; particularization – whole sentences preceding the Latin context or single words, e.g. angieła bożego (of God’s angel); explanations of foreign terms e.g. miasto Corrozaim (the town of Corrozaim), nieprzyjaciele, to są diabli (enemies, who are devils); changes in word order; from Kazania gnieźnieńskie – instead of Yahweh miły Kryst (dear Christ); a free approach to the Latin text in terms of its form, that is its verbal and syntactic-stylistic nature, while retaining and often highlighting the content and meaning of the Bible, consisting of the expansion of the original text to give the quoted passages the form of a living story or supplementing the idea contained in a verse; rendering the content of some verses using their own words; the adaptation of the ceremonies or realities, incomprehensible for the contemporary audience, to Christian traditions445; from Rozmyślanie przemyskie – translation of the Latin word Jesus by miły Jezus (dear Jesus), rendering the Latin word puer by dzieciątko, dziecię (a small child, a baby); in dialogues  – adding adjectives, pronouns or adverbs to emphasize certain details, to strengthen the argumentation, 4 42 Cf. p. [27–28] and pp. [110–112] in this monograph. 443 After I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 167. 444 The research confirms that Tatar translators drew from the achievements of Polish translators of the Bible, and especially they used Budny’s Bible translation. That text, however, was not released in print until 1572, while there are some indications of the fact that Tatar translation texts, including the translation of the Qur’an into Polish, may have been formed earlier than the aforementioned translation. It can therefore be argued that the Tatars of the GDL modelled their translation on the Polish medieval Biblical and Psalter literature. 445 Some clear analogies can be indicated (with respect to the method) in the translation of these passages, and in the translation of the Qur’an made by the Tatars of the GDL, on the basis of the contexts from Kazania gnieźnieńskie given by I. Kwilecka – cf. ibidem, pp. 272–273.

130

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

to express the lively atmosphere derived from a living language; from Żołtarz by Walenty Wróbel – avoiding Latin syntactic constructions and putting in their place natural word order and sentence structures of the living language; avoiding archaizing lofty style; emphasis on the emotional closeness with the Creator while maintaining honour and respect accorded to him (cf. the image of a prophet in the literature of the Tatars of the GDL); replacing Vulgate simple imperative forms used in relation to God by a polite [adhortative] expression racz (may) + infinitive; signalling the direct speech by means of the past participle of verba dicendi, especially when a personal form of the verb does not occur immediately before the quotation; introducing comments in the middle of a sentence and explanations signalled by the metalinguistic formula to jest; prohibition preceded by the interjection ej (hey!); adding an interjective expression Panie, miły Panie (Lord, dear Lord); highlighting a subject that is not specified in the Vulgate, e.g. Podźcie, wszytcy ludzie, oglądajcie (come, all people, look); the introduction of such terms as nigdy (never), żaden (none), tylko (only), każdy (every), wszytcy (everybody). It is worth noting that Wróbel did not translate the Psalter according to the principle verbum de verbo fidellisime reddere, but explained its content. Rospond, on the basis of his example, writes on the nationalization of the Polish literary language by such ways as using a living, everyday speech, the elevation of colloquial words, the introduction of diminutives typical of peasant speech, emancipation from foreign phraseological and syntactic combinations446. On this basis I. Kwilecka concludes that the nationalization of the Polish language is the legacy of the Middle Ages. However, the role of the Renaissance was only its continuation and consolidation through such an invention as printing447. Marek Cybulski mentions the following features of medieval free translation448:  pursuing the meaning of a larger whole; highlighting logical relationships between the content of component sentences; amplification tendencies, e.g. the introduction of attributes  – cf. in montes  – na gory niebieskie (for heavenly places); the introduction of complements, e.g. timent Dominum – bojący się gniewu boskiego (fearing God’s wrath); developing of a predicate and a predicate group, e.g. Dominus custodit – Pan Bog jest strożem mojem naprzeciwko mem nieprzyjacielem wszytkiem (my God is my guardian against all my enemies); expressing of an implied subject, e.g. non det – on nie da (he will not give); adding conjunctions; adding the second element in a syntactic series, e.g. auxilium mihi – wspomożenie moje i duszy mej zbawienie (my support and the salvation of my soul); the adding of the so-called addressative forms, e.g. ad te – k tobie, miły Panie (to you dear Lord); the adding of the so-called modifiers, e.g. miserere nostri – smiluj się już […] nad nami (have now mercy […] on us); the loss of figurative meanings of metaphorical expressions, whose sense is explained by means of abstract words. 4 46 After ibidem, p. 171. 447 Ibidem, p. 172. 448 M. Cybulski, Staropolskie przekłady psałterza…, p. 10 and p. 62.

Between faithful and free translation

131

A significant role in the process of the promotion of the Bible was played by Historia scholastica by Pierre Comestor, containing Biblical history from the creation of the world to the beginning of the activities of disciples of Jesus Christ, based on the historical books of the Bible. “The Latin work of Pierre Comestor quickly spread throughout Latin Europe, becoming an indispensable aid for studying, commenting and translating the Bible into vernacular languages. […] Similarly, although not to such a wide extent, the Latin work of Pierre Comestor had an impact on other medieval translations into European languages, including Polish and Bohemian translations”449. In his work Pierre Comestor presented the following ways of making the medieval Bible accessible: 1. The selection of appropriate books of the Bible suitable for presentation in the form of a continuous narrative; 2. Enhancing the text of the Bible with various supplements, containing explanations of difficult words, some little-known realities, and foreign proper names450; referring to contemporary events and the introduction of local colour, which served to reduce the time and cultural distance separating the described reality from the imagination of a medieval recipient, using periphrasis, motivated by their context as one of the ways of rendering foreign terms (circumlocutions); 3. Adding to the names of the most important Bible characters adjectives such as nasz (our), święty (saint, holy), miły (dear), dobry (good), wielki (great), i.e. terms with an emotional tinge, which brought those figures closer to the contemporary recipients. Adding evaluative adjectives and adverbs in later use by some Bible translators fulfilled an important moral function: it served to enhance positive and negative features451. These principles can be supplemented by others: 1. The introduction of some abbreviations to the text of the Bible to avoid unnecessary repetition and to ensure coherence of ideas; 2. Omitting certain little-known names of people, nations, cities and countries as mentioning them would be only an unnecessary burden for the reader; 3. Putting short explanatory prologues at the beginning of each book, and short summaries at the beginning of each chapter (argumenta) needed for better understanding of the meaning;

4 49 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 157. 450 K. Pisarkowa also indicates preceding, especially foreign, proper names by metainformation as a means almost normally used by Old Polish writers – K. Pisarkowa, Historia składni języka polskiego, Wrocław 1984, p. 130: “it informs that […] the proper name comes from a different class than the characters comprising the text.” 451 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, pp. 167–171.

132

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

4. The introduction of supplements explaining individual places in the Bible, without which the text of the Bible would be too difficult to understand or even completely unclear for lay people who lacked sufficient preparation452. Therefore, the Protestant school of Bible translation into vernacular languages, born in the 16th century, combined the humanist desire of maximum approximation to the original text with pragmatism, with the need to use these translations in the teaching of the church453. The first translations of the Bible into vernacular languages (cf. lingua vulgaris, lingua vernacula) were thus a response to the need to make its content more accessible to the faithful who were ignorant of Latin. The same objectives motivated the translators of Muslim religious literature – to satisfy a difficult demand of fidelity to the original and at the same time, to introduce the content of their holy book to Slavic followers of Islam, who did not speak Arabic, which resulted in the appearance of numerous commentaries and explanations of hermetic Muslim terminology. Therefore, the objectives set by Tatar translators were consistent with those which were fundamental in translations of the Bible into vernacular languages, namely they reflect a need to bring the knowledge of the content of holy books closer to the believers, to make their message understandable and clear, and also to explain the basic canons of faith in Slavic languages, which were understood and used by Tatars. In traditional Islamic countries tefsirs contained the content of the Qur’an. However, handwritten tefsirs that existed in the tradition and culture of the Muslims in the GDL contain, in addition to the Arabic original, copies made at various times and in various places the first ever translation of the holy book of Islam into a Slavic language (made in the second half of the 16th century), the aim of which was primarily to facilitate the understanding of the message of the Qur’an454, not to replace it. Therefore, the translation became a form of explanation and commentary to its accompanying original text in Arabic. This was consistent with the assumption of the Protestant school of Scripture translation, which advocated the abandonment of the principle verbum de verbo fidellisime reddere formulated by Sixtus of Siena in his textbook of Bible teachings – Bibliotheca sancta (Venice 1566), or that of imitation (literal

4 52 Ibidem, p. 160. 453 Cf. I. Winiarska-Górska, Język, styl i kulturowa rola szesnastowiecznych protestancki­ch przekładów Nowego Testamentu…, p. 290. 454 Cf. “The principle of sola Scriptura – Scripture alone – fundamental for the Protestant churches which arose from the 16th century Reformation. In simple terms it amounts to the recognition of the Scripture as the sole authority in matters of faith and the belief that the truth necessary to salvation has been provided in the Bible, and the duty of a Christian is to make an effort to find it, get to know it and recognize it as their own […]. It is important for a language historian that the principle of sola Scriptura can be directly associated with the appearance in the 16th century of a number of Bible translations into vernacular languages” – after ibidem, p. 289.

Between faithful and free translation

133

copying of original words and structures of the original Biblical languages), for translations ad sensum, that is according to the principle reddere non verbum verbo, sed sensum sensui. Accordingly, the influence of Western Bible literature is also evident in Tatar translations. These translations also refer to the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura, one of whose objectives was to make the religious message accessible to its contemporary recipient by the pursuit of clarity and explicitness, as well as a concern for its comprehensibility, for the main features of the Renaissance translation were the introduction of the translated text, adjustment to the intellectual level of its recipient and to his perceptive abilities, speaking in a language understandable to them, and attracting attention through appropriate means of expression, etc.455 Numerous features of free translation can be identified in Tatar religious literature in the GDL. They were already described in a Latin work of Pierre Comestor, and found their expression in the oldest monuments of Polish religious literature. They are the following: 1. Differentiation of the meanings of words depending on the context, the introduction of variant equivalents, the choice of which is motivated by the sense of expression, and using richer synonymy, e.g. a tefsir translator explains the meaning of the Arabic etymon  rasūl by two synonymous counterparts – *prōrōk *pōslanec (T1 fol. 34a, v. 4b–5b, p. 436)456; in phraseology – creating multi-word combinations in which the selection of equivalents of one of the components of a phraseme is dependent on the meaning of the other component (also the introduction of multi-word equivalent of one Arabic lexeme, which shows that the translation was largely independent on its source), e.g. Ar.  mursal ‘sent, forwarded, sent back’; ‘delegated’; ‘broadcast, transmitted’ or also ‘envoy, apostle’ is *prōrōk welk’ij (T1 fol. 34a, v. 4b–5b, p. 436). Therefore, many Arabic words have several synonymous exponents in the Polish translation, while the same Polish lexemes are equivalents of different Arabic words; 2. The presence in the content of kitabs or hamails of some passages from the Qur’an, Muslim commentary literature, as well as some passages from the Bible (especially from the Old Testament), and Christian religious literature457, which was consistent with a tendency to embrace didacticism in Bible translations; 3. Introducing explanations of some proper names and denominations of foreign origin, thus signalling and concretizing their designation, as well as using periphrases as one of the ways of rendering foreign terms, e.g. Ar.  lā ilāha illā llāh ‘Muslim profession of faith including the statement of monotheism’ – nemaš inšegō bōga illa tilkō ōn (T1 fol. 34b, v. 3b, p. 437), Ar. 

4 55 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, pp. 154–155. 456 Other examples – cf. pp. [166–168] in this monograph. 457 This issue is discussed on pp. [41–43] and pp. [169–174] in this monograph.

134

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

Ṭāḡūt – balwanem ōbrazem dagōnam (T1 fol. 34b, v. 8b, p. 437), ōbrazi balwani dagōni zwodzicela (T1 fol. 35a, v. 2b, p. 438), Ar.  Suwāʻ, and Ar.  Wadd – bogav bilvanov […] vudda i śū’a (KM 373, v. 12–13, p. 186), Ar.  ma‘nà ‘sense, meaning; imagination (presentation), concept, thought; expression’ – z kur’ana wykład mewni kazać (W, p.  361), Ar.  al-lawḥ +  al-maḥfūẓ458 ‘a guarded table’ – na levchi’l-melchfuzu tablici (KL after A, p. 72), Ar.  fī ‘in, on, about (something)’; ‘at the time, when’; ‘among, in the midst’ + Ar.  kitāb – w matrice bōžej lewch-el-mechfūẓ (T1 fol. 354b, v. 6, p. 111), Ar.  āya[t]‌ ‘sign, feature, miracle; pattern; a verse of the Qur’an’ – kśenge korãn ãjet’ami rōzdzelami (T1 fol. 110b, v. 2b, p. 265), Ar.  Al-Fātiḥa[t] ‘the name of the first chapter of the Qur’an, that is of the first surah’ – u fatʼiche şureju; da fat’iche şureju (KL after A, p. 66), Ar.  malak – anhieł melek reknie (W, p. 361), Ar.  fariyy ‘evil spirit; insane’ or ‘good spirit, fairy’ – ōd ferejev čeñijev pan bōg ãśt’ereže (ChL 104b, v. 6, p. 199 and 105a, v. 1, p. 199 – here the Ar. etymon was explained by another word of Arabic etymology characterized by a wider distribution, namely dżinn), Ar.  karīm ‘noble, respectable, reputable’; ‘generous, magnanimous’; ‘good, gracious’; ‘liberal, good-natured’; ‘valuable, precious, costly’ + Ar.  kātib ‘writer’ – k’irama k’at’ibine dva ‘enheli pri Panu Bohu, pavelbonije pisari (KL after A, p. 72), Ar.  zabāniyya[t] (pl) – od zebanijow mukarow piekielnych (W, p. 366), Ar. ,  Ǧabrā’īl, Ǧibrīl – ǯebrak’il anhel boží (KM 336, v. 12, p. 177), Ar.   Munkar wa-Nakīr – dva anheli pitalnik’i božije Munkir wa Nakir (KM 256, v. 5, p. 157), Ar.  ‘arš – ʻErš (in a footnote – trun) (KŁ 118a, v. 2–3, p. 380), Ar.  mursal – s-prōrōkaw welk’ich murśelōw (T1 fol. 34a, v. 4b–5b, p. 436), nechaj budźe nad murşelami, prorokami i poslami jeho (KL after A, p. 76), Ar.  rasūl – do reśūl prōrōka (ChL 118a, v.  3–4, p.  201), Ar.  maǧnūn ‘possessed, obsessed, crazy, mad, insane, cracked’; ‘madman, lunatic, maniac’ – glūpij meǧnūn (T1 fol. 294b, v. 8, p. 243), Ar.  imām ‘superior, leader’ – imamem i pōwodirem (T1 fol. 18a, v. 3b, p. 403), Ar.  umma[t] ‘people, race’ – ummet’ōw i nacij śwjádkami prōrōkow (T1)459, Ar.  min ‘from, out of, from among, belonging to, coming from’ + Ar.  ‘arafāt ‘a mountain near Mecca’ – ź erefat’ gōrī (T1 fol. 26b, v. 1b, p. 421), Ar.  ǧahila ‘not to know, to be unaware, not to have an idea, not to know how to do something’; ‘to be stupid, ignorant’, hence ǧahil ‘unaware’ – nedōwerk’em ǧahilinem (T1 fol. 11b, v. 8b, p. 390) etc. One of the examples is also the use of the word prorok (prophet) as an explanation of a name present in the source text (cf. a tendency in Biblical translations to introduce a specifying nominal

458 The Arabic basis adopted after S. Akiner, The Vocabulary of a Belorussian K’it’ab in the British Museum, “The Journal of Byelorussian Studies” III, London 1973, No. 1, p. 72: al-lawch al-machfūz ‘the preserved tablet’ – cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 289. However, in the original Qur’an there is the combination Ar. lawḥ + Ar. maḥfūẓ ‘a guarded table’. 459 The example is quoted after P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 293.

Between faithful and free translation

135

attribute to describe a proper name), e.g. in T1 the translator added to the name Mojżesz his function prorok: mūśī prōrōku (fol. 10a, v. 5b, p. 387) – cf. analogous situation in verse 19 of Kazania gnieźnieńskie or poseł: muchemmed pōsōl mōj (fol. 406b, v. 3, p. 243). A reverse situation can also be found in the Tatar translation literature. In many contexts a proper name is introduced as a clarification of appellativum (cf. Biblical and Psalter literature). A number of cases can be given in which next to the name of a prophet the translator gave his function or vice versa – he introduces the name as a concretization of the subject, absent in the Arabic original (cf. the introduction of a proper name as clarification of appellativum in Biblical and Psalter literature) – cf. Je‘kub prorok (KL after A, p. 70), prōrok śulejmam rek (KK 70a, v. 1, p. 104), ‘iśā ʻprȏrōk (ChL 32a, v. 4–5, p. 188), do šehib proroka (KM 60, v. 5, p. 90), do proroka jiχ śamuela (T2 II, v. 6, p. 69), prōrōk muchemmed (T1 fol. 15a, v. 8b, p. 397), do prōrōka īch samū-ãla (T1 fol. 33a, v. 1b, p. 434), and also maśijaš ʻejśa sīn bōžžij (fol. 147b, v. 7, p. 114) etc. Such techniques demonstrate the translator's concern to make the style of the Qur’an communicative; 4. Adding various attributes and epithets to the names of major characters (lexis emotively and axiologically loaded) or contemporary titles, e.g. the names of prophets are as a rule preceded by a term święty (holy, saint), which can be translation of Ar.  ḥaḍra[t]‌ – an honorificator used, among others, before the names of prophets and respected figures by Islam, counterparts of Christians saints or the inventive of a translator and the influence of Turkish translations460, e.g. adam śvetij (KK 64b, v. 7, p. 99), śventij mūśa prōrok (KK 64a, v. 12, p. 99), naš ṡwentij mōjžeš (T1 fol. 406b, v. 5, p. 243), śvetji mossa prorok (KM 212, v. 7, p. 145), śvetji mūśā (KM 425, v. 7, p. 200), śvetij pan jezus prōrōk (KK 67b, v. 13, p. 102), or with the title pan, e.g. in KM to Muhammad včinilem jego panem (110, v. 1, p. 111) and naš spodar (291, v. 11, p. 165). There are other attributes used in reference to prophets such as welk’ij (T1 fol. 34a, v. 5b, p. 436), boži (KM 309, v. 7, p. 170), pravcivi (KM 367, v. 10, p. 184), perši i ostanni (KM 368, v. 7, p. 184), laskavi (KM 475, v. 11–12, p. 214), prijećel (!) Božij (KŁ), statečnij or statečni (T1 fol. 18b, v. 7b, p. 404, KM 309, v. 3–4, p. 170), śmali, mondri i nad ušistk’emi prorokami peradnejši (KM 368, v. 5–6, p. 184), ciχi i pokorni (KM 342, v. 2, p. 178), pōwažnij (T1 fol. 386b, v. 3, p. 244), etc. The presence of adjectival interjections, the so-called semantic modifiers, is also motivated by moralizing and instructive considerations, which shows the emotional attitude of the translator to his translation. Addressative denomination is also used in addressing

460 Honorification is a special kind of meaning contained in the content of speech, namely it is information concerning close social relation between its sender and recipient, and between the sender and listener, who is not its direct recipient (addresee of a statement, as well as the relationship between the sender and the main character of a statement – after R. Huszcza, Honoryfikatywność. Gramatyka, pragmatyka, typologia, Warszawa 2006, p. 51.

136

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

individual people461, including symbolic titles, e.g. brat (brother) – brace džebra’il (ChL 103a, v. 5, p. 198), prace ǯebrak’ilu (KM 282, v. 12–13, p. 163), praroku, ej braće (KŁ 107b, v. 7 [v. 9], p. 374), or jego miłość (his Grace)462 – džebra’il jegō milōśt’ ãngel (ChL 118a, v. 4, p. 201), iśrafil jeho milośc (KM 82, v. 5, p. 99), prerok jego milośc (ChL 14a, v. 6–7, p. 182), muχemmeda jeho milości (KM 2, v. 8, p. 59), ad iśma’ile jeho milośc (KM 122, v. 10, p. 116), jūnūs prorok jeho milośc pev (KM 56, v. 6–7, p. 88), resiul jego miłość mówił (W, p. 363) (cf. polite expressions in Bible translations: cny (noble), miły, bracie, etc.), thereby introducing a familiar warm atmosphere, and at the same time, a warm, almost personal relationship with the presented people463. Depending on the context, translators add negative attributes, e.g. in reference to pagan idols: inšij bōg (KK 57a, v. 1, p. 92), *prōžnije bōgi (T1 fol. 17b, v. 4b, p. 402 – cf. BB), to angels, e.g. *strašnije strogije mūkari (KM 266, v. 2–4, p. 159), mukari pek’elnije (KK 63a, v. 10–11, p. 98), botam prijduc pitalnik’i dva anheli oʒin [i d]urūhí strašnije čornije (KM 267, v.  8–10, p. 160), to Satan, e.g. ṕek’elnij vojevoda (KŁ), barzdō špatna i strašna stvorenjō (KK 74b, v. 2–3, p. 108), Dedždžal preklentij (KL after A, p. 64) etc. The presence of possessive pronouns in pre- and postposition is common both to Bible translations and to Tatar religious literature, e.g. bogu ojcov tvujiχ (T2 II, v. 6, p. 35), balvani naši (KM 135, v. 7–8, p. 121), balwanow swojich (T1 fol. 7b, v. 4b, p. 382), piśmo svuje (T2 II, v. 4, p. 61), na sluga swego (KL after A, p. 71), predku tvajmu Ibrahimu praroku (KL after A, p. 68), naš spodar (KM) etc.;

461 “An addressative form” refers to all performative utterances, which by means of some nominal, pronominal and attributive forms, and their potential combinations, serve the sender to make linguistic contact with the addressee, in accordance with accepted social and cultural norms – after E. Tomiczek, System adresatywny współczesnego języka polskiego i niemieckiego. Socjolingwistyczne studium konfrontatywne, Wrocław 1983, p. 45. 462 This could be the translation of the Arabic formula ‘alayhi as-salām’, accompanying the names of angels and the prophet Muhammad, and rendered in Tatar literature by a titular expression Jego Miłość. It could also be the result of translation from a Turkish basis. 463 According to M.  Cybulski, Podziały społeczne i terytorialne odzwierciedlone w formułach dawnej polskiej etykiety językowej, [in:] Żywe problemy historii języka…, p. 109: “it was characteristic of old customs to use »familiar« names outside the close family circle and to use them e.g. in the circle of social etiquette. Poles addressed each other as bracie (brother) or siostro (sister), with some variants in the living speech such as panie bracie (brother sir), pani siostro (sister madam) […]. In epistolography there are variants enhanced with various epithets, both in salutation, as well as in subscriptions (…mój miłościwy panie i bracie (my dear brother sir), … moja miłościwa pani i siostro (my dear lady and sister), uniżony sługa i brat (humble servant and brother), uniżona sługa i siostra (humble servant and sister), etc.). […] There was also the opposite phenomenon: standard titles used in public relations, towards the next of kin.”

Between faithful and free translation

137

5. Supplementing translations with various additions and details facilitating text comprehension, e.g. trough more explicit description of the subject or object than in the source text – cf. Ar.  ašraka ‘to draw into something (to participate in something)’ cō trōječnik’i rōwnūją ōd tich kōleg i sinōw, e.g. T1 (fol. 450a, v. 2, p. 123), s-tich ktōre bōgū spōlenčnik’i najdūją, e.g. T1 (fol. 15a, v.  1b–2b, p.  396), Ar.  Al-Kitāb – kśenga korãn, e.g. T1 (fol. 18b, v.  5b, p. 404), *kśenga t’ewrīt’, e.g. T1 (fol. 10a, v. 7b, p. 387 or fol. 15b, v. 1b, p. 397), kśenge t’ewrīt’i źebūr, e.g. T1 (fol. 17a, v. 1b, p. 400), Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  allāh kśenge bōže korãn, e.g. T1 (fol. 15b, v. 1b, p. 397), Ar.  Al-Kitāb + Ar.  bi ‘in, on’ ‘with (sb, sth)’; ‘by, with the use of, by way of’ + Ar.  al-ḥaqq ‘truth, truthfulness’; ‘correctness, rightness’ – korãn kśenge prawdziwą, e.g. T1 (fol. 23a, v. 8b, p. 414), Ar.  fī + Ar.  kitāb – w matrice bōžej lewch-elmechfūẓ, e.g. T1 (fol. 354b, v. 6, p. 111), Ar.  āya[t]‌+ Ar.  allāh – korãn piśmō bōže, np. T1 (fol. 30b, v. 6b, p. 429), Ar.  hudan ‘the right way, true faith’ – priwodcą kū dōbremū, e.g. T1 (fol. 15a, v. 4b, p. 397), Ar.  huwa ‘he’ + Ar.  al-ḥaqq ten korãn istōtna prawda, e.g. T1 (fol. 14b, v.  2b, p.  395), Ar.  rūḥ ‘spirit, soul, breath’ + Ar.  al-quds ‘the holy place, sanctuary’ – dūchem śwentim ǧebra’ilōwim, np. T1 (fol. 14a, v. 2b, p. 394), Ar.  rasūl – prōrōk muchemmed, e.g. T1 (fol. 15a, v.  8b, p.  397), Ar.  nabī + Ar.  huwa – prōrōk jich samūjel, e.g. T1 (fol. 33a, v. 5b, p. 434) – cf. also T1 (fol. 17a, v. 6b, p. 401), Ar.  nāṣir ‘helper, supporter, advocate, backer’ – pōmōcnici ‘īśá prōrōke, e.g. T1 (fol. 84b, v. 8, p. 113), as well as dalem […] korãn muchemmedu, e.g. T1 (fol. 10a, v. 7b, p. 387), i ūtestamentōwal ibrahīm sinōw iśma’īla iśchake, e.g. T1 (fol. 18b, v. 8b, p. 404), ōddal diwidowi pan bōg, e.g. T1 (fol. 34a, v.  2b, p.  436), pewne zabiliṡmi mōśijaša ‘īśâ jezūsa sina panni mariji pōsla bōžegō, e.g. T1 (fol. 79b, v. 3, p. 214), maśijaš ‘ejśa sīn bōžžij, e.g. T1 (fol. 147b, v.  7, p.  114) or by specifying a broader context, e.g. the Ar. expression    min dūna allāh ‘without, excluding, except for’ + ‘Allah’ is translated as widzōncich prōrōkew balwanow ōprōč pana bōga, np. T1 (fol. 7b, v. 4b–5b, p. 382) or ōprōč bōge spōlenčnik’i balwani, np. T1 (fol. 22a, v. 6b–7b, p. 412), the combination of the Arabic pronoun  mā ‘what’ and the Ar. verb  anzala ‘to lower, lower down’; ‘to reduce, cut’; ‘to entertain somebody’; ‘to land, go down’; ‘to reveal something (about God)’, is conveyed by the phrase cō zesłał (what he has sent) and then the specific books are listed along with the prophets to whom they were revealed, namely:  cō zeslal nam korãn i cō zeslal źwitk’ī prikezana dō abrahama i dō izma’īle i dō izika i dō je‘kūba i dō prōrōkōw sinōw je‘kūbōwich jezusa i cō ṡmi dali mōjžešu t’ewrīt’ ã jezūsu inǧīl, e.g. T1 (fol. 19a, v. 7b, p. 405), although that text does not appear in the original, Ar.  ẖātam ‘seal, stamp’; ‘signet’; ‘ring’ + Ar.  an-nabī – pečentarem všitk’iχ prorok, e.g. KM (110, v. 1, p. 111) and others, e.g. in T1 chwalōn-gō i ōčiščajōn-gō ōd balwanow ōd spōlenčnikōw (fol. 136b, v. 7, p. 41), mi-jegō chwalic [bendzem] jedinōstwa (fol. 19a, v. 8b, p. 406), na’ūči was korãn i mōndrōṡci znac bōga jednegō (fol. 21a, v. 4b, p. 409), cō zeslal na piṡme bōg (fol. 22b, v. 6b, p. 413), tilkō tō šetani cō krōlewstwa jemū wźeli newernici (fol.

138

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

15b, v. 2b, p. 397), bili lūdze za času nūcha (fol. 27b, v. 6b, p. 423), mūśī prōroke (fol. 8a, v. 2b, p. 382), muchemmed prōrōk’em (fol. 9b, v. 4b, p. 385), pōsel naš ṡwentij mōjžeš (fol. 406b, v. 5, p. 243), i ūtestamentōwal ibrahīm sinōw iśma‘īla iśchake ã je‘kūb tež sinōw swojich ūmirajōnc aj sinačkōwe (fol. 18b, v.  8b, p.  404) or in T2 daliśmi ’iesi sinu merjeminemu znak’i cuda martviχ oživac ślepim ōči dac i pomocovaliśmi dūχem śventim (II, v. 8, p. 72) as inclusions, etc. A formal signal of introducing explanations is using conjunctions że (that) e.g. i kśenge-m zeslanim že jedna drūgej rōwna (T1 fol. 23b, v. 2b, p. 414), že sōbe radi ne-dadzą (T1 fol. 6b, v. 8b, p. 380), že muchemmed jest prōrōk (fol. T1 412a, v. 2, p. 36), že bōg jedin (T1 fol. 22a, v. 6b, p. 412), co (what) e.g. ãnjōli te čarī w babilōne cō jich potwarają harūt’a i marūt’a (T1 fol. 15b, v. 3b, p. 398), bo (because) e.g. bō zwadi wam (TAL V, 107a, v. 5) or modifiers, e.g. chaǧōwe meśōnc[e] wadōmō šewwal z̀ī l-ke‘de z̀ī l-cheǧǧ (T1 fol. 26a, v.  6b, p.  420). They also put in the right noun in the function of a subject to sentences with an implied subject, e.g. Ar.  qawl ‘speech, speaking’; ‘words’ from Ar.  [qāla] ‘speak, say’; ‘find, conclude’; ‘say something against somebody or about somebody’ – rekl ibrahīm, e.g. T1 (fol. 18a, v. 3b, p. 403), rekl mūśa, e.g. T1 (fol. 12a, v. 3b, p. 390), mowī muchemmed, e.g. T1 (fol. 19b, v. 6b, p. 406), mow ja muchemmed (that is speak, o Muhammad!), e.g. T1 (fol. 28a, v. 5b, p. 424) etc; 6. Placing numerous explanations in the translated text, signalled by metalinguistic expressions to jest or znači śe (scilicet), e.g. treceja kśenga dana ‘jiśi proroku to jest inǯil (KM 370, v.  4–5, p.  184), furkan to jest kur’an (KL after A, p.  67  – here there is the Arabic term  furqān ‘division, separation (e.g. good form evil)’; ‘testimony, the proof of truth, criterion’, and with a definite article  Al-Furqān ‘the Qur’an’; ‘holy books – the Qur’an, the Bible’, for which Tatars did not find an adequate equivalent in Slavic languages, therefore, it was explained with the help of the word kuran, adapted to the Polish semantic lexical system; anyway, the Arabic  furqān is very frequently translated as korãn – cf. T1 fol. 10a, v. 7b, p. 387) and similarly od furkane to jest od kur’anu (KM 369, v. 13 and 370, v. 1, p. 184), dekret boži to jest kuran (KM 121, v.  12, p.  116), ten korãn şwentij wipisanij w skritō kśenga tō jest w lewchi l-mechfūz (T1 fol. 05a, v. 1b, p. 378), źī-l-kernejni tō jest aleksandra (T1 fol. 38b, v. 1, p. 248), idriśe znači śe kravec (KM 371, v. 13, p. 185), ‘iśa to jest po bolskū jezus (KM 371, v. 13, p. 185), and also ‘eršovij kūr – parūsku ṕev’eń jest (KŁ 119b, v. 1, p. 381 – cf. 110b, v. 2, p. 376), ‘ak’if jest’ ōfara s-pōstem k’ilka dnej (T1 fol. 25a, v. 2b, p. 417), nemaź średnij tō jest’ ak’inde (T1 fol. 32a, v. 6b-7b, p. 432), and others464. However, it should be noted that sometimes a word or

464 Similar examples can be found in Polish Bible translations, e.g. Gr. Messias, a word of Aramaic origin ‘anointed one’, is conveyed only as Mesjasz – cf. J 1, 41 with an explanation co jest, jeslibyś wykładał, Krystus (BB), co iest przełożywszy/pomázaniec (BN), co jest, wyłożywszy, Chrystus (BW), co się wykłada Chrystus (BG), to znaczy: Chrystusa (BT), etc.

Between faithful and free translation

139

phrase (expression) that is present in the original text is actually rendered by means of its Slavic equivalent, but its meaning is concretized by the provision of an Arabic term, which does not appear in the basis of translation. Thus, in certain contexts, glosses, explanations, or concretizations of meanings are not Slavic equivalents but Arabic religious lexis. A striking example of this is the context of T1: prijōl ãdam ōd bōga slōwa ktōrī ūblagal tō jest’ la iláhe illa lláh muchemmed reśūlu lláh (fol. 9a, v. 5b, p. 385). Inserting numerous explanations directly into the text of the translation, usually signalled by metalinguistic formulas to jest, a mianowicie (that is, and namely) is also a feature of Latin commentaries, such as P. Comestor, Postil by M. Lyra, and medieval French translations465. Tatar sacred texts reflect the Renaissance approach of the translator towards translation that was a continuation the tradition of Biblical and Psalter literature and Polish Bible translations, intended for a wide audience, and which were often not so much an imitation of the Holy Bible as a lecture or commentary on it, rendering the contents of the Scripture in an understandable way, with the help of the most communicative linguistic means. Therefore, translators had to take into account the reception of the content by its recipient. This was an extremely difficult task, especially at a time when the first translations of religious texts into vernacular languages were made. Thus, they constituted a kind of adaptation to the culture of that time, and to local conditions. Referring to the living everyday speech (that is to the colloquial language) was also the expression of a tendency whose purpose was to popularize Muslim religious texts among the faithful. This was done, for example, by using diminutives, cocreating the image of depicted characters (a specific image of referents) – cf. in KM ʒica ‘iśa proroka poraʒila (339, v.  12, p.  178), in T1 sinačkōwe (about the sons of Jacob fol. 18b, v. 8b, p. 404 – the lexeme synaczek (a little son), with the frequency level equal to 1, is present on the pages of BB and BW466), and sinaček about Abraham’s son – cf. prišed wespōl z ōjcem dō widōncegō mejsca i rekl sinačkū mōj (T1 fol. 367a, v. 8, p. 314), which, apart from their function of identification (on the basis on kinship), give additional information about the feelings of their parents467, precede forms of address with the interjection ej (cf. Turkish particles ay!, ey!), and the presence of vocative denominations – cf. praroku, ej braće, e.g. KŁ, aj sinačkōwe, e.g. T1468. It is worth mentioning that classical Arabic vocative forms are the 4 65 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 270. 466 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, pp. 144–145. 467 Diminutives also performed an emotional function, aimed to engage the reader emotionally, emphasize, and then convey by an appropriate expression, expressiveness inherent in the original text or to create it. 468 In the context given in T1, the source base undoubtedly had an influence on the translation. In the Arabic original, there is in fact a combination of the vocative particle yā with the noun ibn ‘son, descendant’ in the plural. The lexeme synaczek

140

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

combinations of particles  yā ‘o!, hey!’ with an indefinite noun (to an individual recipient) and  ayyuhā ‘o!’ with a definite noun, addressed to a wider audience, typical of oratorical and Qur’anical style. The Polish vocative form is an equivalent of both forms469. It should be noted that „Im Tefsirtext fungiert als Vokativpartikel meistens die türkische Interjektion i (o) und etwas weniger häufig die arabische Interjektion yā (o)”470, e.g. či-ne patriš i muchemmed (T1 fol. 69b, v. 3, p. 252) and mow ja muchemmed (T1 fol. 321a, v. 7, p. 252), where i muchemmed, and also ja muchemmed can be translated as ‘o Muhammadzie!’ (o Muhammad!). The use of voluntative expressions (often they are the equivalents of optative forms) can also be explained by the rhetorical function of the texts of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims, e.g. nex grajōŋ i zabawejūn śe (TAL VI, p. 118b, v. 8), nex tilkō pōmnōŋ ō kurane (TAL VI, p. 116b, v. 2), i nech-spōminają tam īme śwentegō (T1 fol. 283a, v. 8, p. 360), and also expressing Ar.  amīn as an optative, e.g. daj nam tak (T1 fol. 5b, v. 5b, p. 379), referring to colloquial phraseology (including marked words, augmentatives) making the message more intelligible, communicative and expressive, e.g. tilkō lōtrōw prikezana lamōncich (T1 fol. 8a, v. 5b, p. 383), radi ne-dadzą glūpstwam (T1 fol. 6b, v.  8b, p.  380), jakō pōdōbenstwa pastira z-bidlim [rozumu] ne-majōncegō i slūchū (T1 fol. 22b, v. 8b, p. 413), bendze rūcal kadūk z-šetanṡk’egō dōtknenu (T1 fol. 37b, v. 4b–5b, p. 443), berōŋ aźan waš na šiderstwo i na žartī (TAL V, p.  101b, v.  8), dūrnī ślepī balwan (TAL VI, p.  114b, v.  5), z glūpstwa pōganśḱegō (TAL VI, p. 124a, v. 3–4), ach ty, fierej, kab cibie cholera! (W, p. 358), χanūχ a brasvisko idriś (KM 371, v. 11–12, p. 185), Dedždžal preklentij (KL). The same can be said about making words with figurative meaning concrete (so-called modulation), e.g. wiʒe cebe i prijacōl twojix (TAL VI, p. 117a, v. 6) – the original text has the Ar.  qawm ‘people’ (not friends!), rendered also as coll. people – cf. i lūʒe mōje (TAL V, p. 96b, v. 6), i lūʒe majōnc ks̀engi žiʒi greci (TAL V, p. 95b, v. 7), To jest Ibrahim prarok (KŁ) – in Turkish translation it is rendered ḥalīl, from Ar.  ẖalīl, which was rendered by a Tatar translator as prorok, that is he described more specifically the meaning of the base text, or na zbawene i na spaṡene lūdzem i na ūspōkōjene grechōw, e.g. (T1 fol. 18a, v. 4b, p. 403) from Ar.  muṯbat ‘established, reliable, steady, ready’ + Ar.  li ‘for’; ‘affiliation, ownership, possession’; ‘to, toward, in the direction of’ + Ar.  nās ‘people’ + Ar.  amn ‘peace, security, safety’. The following means are used to make the Qur’anic text more accessible (they are also exponents of ad sensum translation):  personalization of translation (the specification of the recipient and invocator), achieved, for example,

(little son) is a peculiar equivalent belonging to the category of hapax legomenon. I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 171 reports that this kind of exclamations is another element adopted from the common language. Some examples of adding interjections at the beginning of exclamatory sentences are cited, among others, in V. Kyas, Prvni český překlad bible, Praha 1971, p. 28 and p. 49. 469 Cf. A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, pp. 134–136. 470 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 252, and also the examples in p. 268.

Between faithful and free translation

141

by addressing the recipient directly, e.g. a ḱedi pōčūwace na tix dwux (TAL V, p. 108a, v. 2), weʒce jegō mōc i sōndī (TAL V, p. 116a, v. 1), as well as introducing the 2nd person sg instead of pl (pej! wiedz! [heap, sing! know!]), e.g. weʒ jakō tō źle grexi nōsic cenžḱe (TAL VI, p. 112b, v. 8 – 113a, v. 1). In many contexts the closeness and intimacy of their relationships is shown by a direct address of God to his prophets – cf. numerous appositions in T1 ale wedz ī muchemmed (fol. 6b, v. 6b, p. 380), wspōmni ī muchemmed (fol. 8b, v. 8b, p. 384). Next, one may mention the livening up of the narrative by using modifiers – cf. jūž ōnī ne ūwerōŋ (TAL VI, p. 111a, v. 5), xōc pan bōg wizwoli was (TAL VI, p. 116a, v. 3), menka barzō gōrka (TAL VI, p. 116b, v. 6), wlaśne tak jakō ktūrego (TAL VI, p. 116b, v. 8), jes̀lī prijʒe īm ajeť xōc jeden (TAL VI, p. 120b, v. 8), gde ūčinil prōrōctwa tam bic mūśī (TAL VI, p. 122b, v. 1), mūw s̀mele (TAL V, p. 103a, v. 3), ha či te tō cō laske bōža (TAL VI, p. 115a, v. 2), wnet ūpadnō perūni (T1 fol. 7a, v. 6b, p. 381), azali wī bōjaźnikami bōžemi zōstanece (T1 fol. 7b, v. 1b, p. 381), ci zas ktōre newernikami są (T1 fol. 8a, v. 3b, p. 383), wistōmpce kōnečne [z raju] (T1 fol. 9a, v. 6b, p. 385), prišed jim korãn jūž wedzōnc že ōd bōga (T1 fol. 14a, v. 6b, p. 395), bō pan bōg zawše jest‘ z-cerpliwimi (T1 fol. 33b, v. 7b-8b, p. 435), the strengthening of a statement using the particle że, for strong attestation of uttered opinions – cf. the profession of faith in T1 nemaš inšegō bōga illa tilkō ōn (fol. 34b, v. 3b, p. 437), in TAL ni maš z inšix bōga tilkō bōg jedinī (V, p. 104a, v. 1), and other examples ta kśenga nimaš wentepliwoṡci w nej (T1 fol. 6a, v. 2b, p. 379), mejsce jegō jest nad peklō ne maš taḱim ẕalimōm kriwdnikōm ktō bi īx pōratōwal (TAL V, p. 103b, v. 7), stressing and emphasizing the content using quantifiers:  nigdy, żaden, każdy, tylko, wszytcy, e.g. od wšitḱix ceremonī (TAL V, p. 93a, v. 7), bōje śe pana bōga pana i karmicela wšitḱix s̀wjetōw (TAL V, p. 97b, v. 2), matke wšitḱix mast meḱḱe (TAL VI, p. 118b, v. 8), nad wami kūždemu strōžem (TAL VI, p. 120b, v. 2), ōžiwi was wšitk’ich (T1 fol. 8a, v. 8b, p. 383), každegō īmōnami (T1 fol. 8b, v. 5b, p. 384), syntactic-stylistic changes, e.g. employing adverbs of time to keep narration flowing (with the strong outlining of temporary-spatial relations and the highlighting of the causal links)  – cf. wšak prišed wam pōsōl (TAL V, p. 95b, v. 7), benʒe činil dōbre ūčinḱi tedi takōwemu jest ōdpūskliwī pan bōg milōserdnī (TAL VI, p. 115a, v. 4–5) and ḱedi gō preklōl pan bōg (TAL V, p. 102a, v. 3–4), ḱedi rekliśce slišimi prikezane twoje i pōslūšnī tōbe (TAL V, p. 94b, v. 5), a k‘edī dōwedzeli-ṡe wšitk‘e lūdze napilī-ṡe ōnī (T1 fol. 11a, v. 2b, p. 388), mōwi ãnijōl (T1 fol. 12b, v. 7b, p. 392), mow malik’u (T1 fol. 115a, v. 1, p. 247), - χto jeni jest, skažu, tilko słūχaj - (KŁ 117b, v. 3, p. 380), - i praroče, pasłūχaj, što tabe skažu - (KŁ 126a, v. 5, p. 385), etc. It should be added that the syntax of the original texts, which has a nominal character, was often supplemented with predicates. There are also verba dicendi in a group of added verbs. This is because verbs such as mówić (speak) (in its participial form mówiąc [speaking]) and rzec, prawić (to say, to utter) create a meta-textual framework and signal direct speech. In addition, one may find the inversion of words in a sentence, whole sentences and sentence structures – cf. ten zblōnʒil prawʒiwej drōgī (TAL V, p. 95b, v. 1), as well as the change of the past tense to the present tense affecting the liveliness of speech – cf. reče ‘īs̀a

142

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

čistī jest bōže ōd śabrōw i ōd sōkōlektūrōw (TAL V, p. 109b, v. 1), and many other features. Strengthening and clarification of the text, expressively marked vocabulary (the use of diminutives), and colloquial phrases were designed to involve listeners emotionally, to introduce to them (by colloquiality and some freedom) the sense of the message and to explain it (through the added words). In addition, the persuasive and prayer function of Muslim texts conditioned the presence of modally marked utterances (voluntative and expressive in the imperative or subjunctive mood, and apostrophes). Other common features of Muslim religious literature and humanist translations include: 1. Preserving in their original forms the important terms from the doctrinal point of view and relevant only to the Muslim religion (translocation or Slavicization), and especially proper names, as well as often “their inflection according to the Slavic paradigm, even though Turkish languages are agglutinative languages which do not feature inflection similar to that of Slavic languages”471, as well as their inclusion in regular derivation processes. The first Psalter translations were of similar character as the native elements were combined in them with the elements acquired from foreign languages, which reflected foreign culture. In Protestant translations, however, referring to humanist editions (the impact of Erasmus), retaining original names was one of the manifestations of historicism. It is worth recalling that primarily Szymon Budny gave both proper and local names in their original form. He also thought that the proper names introduced in the text should be inflected472. Among Catholic translations of the Scripture the BW is characterized by a high level of the frequency of transcription of Latin words. It is noteworthy that Wujek applies a Latin translation in questionable cases, in words for which different interpretations were known, where the same word in different places of the Bible was rendered in a different way by other translators, and where the Latin word was only a transcription of its Greek equivalent. There is therefore a certain method in these proceedings, resulting from the translator’s reflective attitude to the sources of his translation. I. Kwilecka states that “this method in many cases turned out to be more

471 C. Łapicz, Warstwy językowe w piśmiennictwie religijnym Tatarów litewsko-polskich, [in:] Dzieje Lubelszczyzny VI. Między Wschodem a Zachodem, Part IV: Zjawiska językowe na pograniczu polsko-ruskim, eds. J. Bartmiński, M. Łesiow, Lublin 1992, p. 328 – cf. The findings in this field of J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii muzułmańskiej…, pp. 140–149. 472 It is worth mentioning that in the earliest Bible translations proper names occurred in their traditional assimilated forms, yet they were generally uninflected (the authority of the Vulgate – indeclinabilia). There are no such forms in the BN!

Between faithful and free translation

143

useful than substituting dubious native names for foreign terms, which often caused confusion in lexicography”473. 2. The creation of word-image terminology (the dependence between the significant and signified, that is between the name and its designatum was supposed to be not only symbolic, but also of a cause and effect nature474) – cf. denominations of pagan idols in T1, such as *prijacele (fol. 35a, v. 2b, p. 438), *spōlenčnik’i (fol. 7b, v. 3b, p. 382), *tōwariš (fol. 7b, v. 3b, p. 382), *zwodzicel (fol. 35a, v. 2b, p. 438); the names of the Qur’an – dekret boži (KM), *derekcijón dla luʒij (T2 II, v. 3, p. 49), helava (KL after A, p. 72), istōtna prawda (T1 fol. 14b, v. 2b, p. 395), *priwodca kū dōbremū (T1 fol. 15a, v. 4b, p. 397), sonʒicel (KM 117, v. 2, p. 114); the denominations of angels, which described in a precise way their function and appearance – dušejemca (KŁ), ‘eršovij kūr (KŁ), mukari pek’elnije (KK 63a, v. 10–11, p. 98), pavelbonije pisari (KL after A, p. 72), pitalnik’i božije (KM 256, v. 5, p. 157), boslanec od pana boha (KM 337, v. 11–12, p. 177), *slūga bōžij (T1 fol. 23b, v.  2b, 414), barzdō špatna i strašna stvorenjō (KK 74b, v.  2–3, p.  108), ṕek’elnij vojevoda (KŁ), *zrajca (KK 63a, v.  3–4, p.  98); the denominations of prophets (especially of Muhammad) – *milośnik doskonali (KM 5, v. 2–3, p. 60), paχvalnaść śv’eata (KŁ), *pan i pečentar všitk’iχ prorok (KM 110, v.  1, p.  111), dvūχ śv’etoŭ pan (KŁ), *pomocnik do boga (T2 II, v. 1, p. 88), pōsōl bōžij (ChL 102a, v. 2, p. 198), prijećel (!) Božij (KŁ), pričinca uśiχ nas na sudni ʒen (KM 309, v. 4, p. 170), *pričinca do śebe za ummet’em (KM 368, v. 11, p. 184), *sluga (KM 110, v. 3, p. 111), *śvjadek (T2 II, v. 3, p. 38) etc. Peculiar equivalences of a metaphorical nature can also be found in Wykład wiary machometańskiej czyli iślamskiej by J. Sobolewski, e.g. about angels – *pisarze pobłażający (p. 14), *Pytalniki w Mogile (p. 103), *posłaniec zemsty niebieskiej (p. 14), about prophets – prawdziwy Apostoł (p.  67), poseł (p.  109), sługa Boży (p.  66), *Polubieniec Boga (p.  74), *Tchnienie Boga (p. 74), *Powiernik Boga (p. 74), *czystość Boga (p. 74), *Poufalec Boga (p. 74), etc.; 3. Bi- or multilingualism of translators, in compliance with the postulate of M. Luther that translators of the Scripture should know both Biblical as well as vernacular languages – cf. bōg-bōh-allāh, kśenga-kniha-alk’it’ab, anol-anhel’enhel, kūr-ṕev’eń, prorok-prarok, pan-spodar-śejjd, tūrma-wenźene, zbawenespaşene or the already mentioned contexts ‘iśa to jest po bolskū jezus; χanūχ a brasvisko idriś etc. C.  Łapicz says that “translation activities required from those who made that effort quite an erudition, and above all a knowledge of the Oriental languages in which Muslim texts were written such as Arabic, Turkish and Persian. Translators also needed to know the languages into which they translated their text, namely Belorussian and Polish”475;

4 73 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, pp. 122–123. 474 Cf. M. Hawrysz, op. cit., p. 129. 475 C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, p. 61.

144

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

4. The inclusion of critical apparatus in the text of translation, that is glosses, additions, and meta- or extra-textual commentaries placed in the margins as a critical apparatus containing mostly polemic and philological glosses was present in all Renaissance translations of the Bible. It was one of the innovative trends, a realization of cognitive values, as well as a manifestation of the idea of objectivity and quasi-rationalism. However, as it has been noted by I. Winiarska: “One may observe different degrees of saturation of translations with critical apparatus, as a result of reliance on somewhat different models – more gravity in humanist translations or – as in the case of Biblia brzeska – the implementation of innovative solutions used in French translations”476. From the Middle Ages there were very few literal French translations, showing no consideration for the preparation of the recipient. Even in the earliest complete French translation of the Bible from the middle of the 13th century one may observe that some of the books have specifically distinguished glosses and commentaries, and sometimes the explanations are included directly in the text, often preceded by phrases c’est a dire, c’est a ssavoir477. Renaissance translations of the Bible were therefore usually accompanied by an extensive auxiliary scientific apparatus. This consisted of marginal glosses, commentaries, a preface to the reader, etc., which were used both for the explanation of the text as well as for the impact on its linguistic form. According to C.  Łapicz, the fundamental objective of the references (glosses, explanations, commentaries etc.) in the Tatar translation literature is the interpretation and explanation of mystical, allegorical and symbolic contents478. He distinguishes two types of glosses:  non-textual (systematizing, supplementary, family annalistic, including author’s records, donation and ownership notes), ordering extensive manuscripts from a technical perspective and supplementing them with additions needed for recipients, but which are not directly connected with the text of the Qur’an, as well as intertextual glosses (interpretative, explanatory, referring or corrective notes) relating, either directly or indirectly, to the text of the Qur’an and its contents479. Notes woven into the text of the translation are often preceded by a formal distinctive feature in the form of the phrase to jest. The problem of glosses was brought up in detail on the basis of the manuscript of the Tefsir z Olity480. Ordering extra-textual glosses are created in it, for 476 I. Winiarska-Górska, Język, styl i kulturowa rola szesnastowiecznych protestanckich przekładów Nowego Testamentu…, p. 296. 477 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 158. 478 C. Łapicz, Glosy, komentarze, objaśnienia…, p. 70. 479 Ibidem, pp. 71–77. 480 Cf. articles by J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, O czym informują glosy w tatarskiej literaturze przekładowej? (na przykładzie tefsiru z Olity), „Rocznik Tatarów Polskich”, seria 2, Vol. II (XVI), Białystok, Olsztyn, Wrocław 2015, pp. 45–52; eadem, Tefsir z Olity…, pp. 168–171.

Between faithful and free translation

145

example, by pagination, its division into thirty parts, facilitating the memorization and recitation of the Qur’an, of which marginal glosses inform, both in Arabic (Arabic figures indicating subsequent djuses), and in Polish, e.g. “30.ta Sufra” (TAL p. 483a – the right margin) as well as the division into surahs – most of them preceded by a title and information on the number of ayats forming it, e.g. rōzʒal darū nebesḱegō stō i dwaʒeśca ajeťew (TAL surah V). Supplementary notes in the manuscript are prayers, prayer intentions, or prayer instructions. As an example one may mention a note after surah CXIV: potim pej zedake (TAL p. 485b) and its formula in Arabic (all written in Arabic in continuo). One of such supplements is also a spontaneous prayer of the copyist, the so-called du‘ā’ ẖatmi al-Qur’āni, located in one of the last sheets of the monument (TAL p. 478b–479a–b). It is a prayer known in its different forms in the Middle East481. In turn on p. 480a–480b there is a table of contents with the names of surahs and the numbers of pages. In the context of family chronicle, notes one may also note the content of colophons, for example, in p. 1 the dedication of 1806 was placed, signed Józefowicz; on pages 2a–2b and 3a there are entries in Polish (in the Latin alphabet) – these are family records, which constitute a specific silva rerum. Records of this type are also present on p. 481a and b. Extra-textual glosses could occur simultaneously with a copy, or later as a result of the work of readers, including researchers. They were made in Arabic, Polish, and also in Belorussian or Russian, and they were written in the Arabic alphabet, in the Latin alphabet or in the Cyrillic script (grazhdanka). They were most often placed outside the text of translation. The role of intratextual glosses is the concretization of the content of the Qur’an. They help in its explanation and interpretation. They are often based on Islamic commentary literature (written in Arabic or Turkish), including the original Islamic tafsirs. As an example one may mention one of the marginal glosses written in the Arabic script – cf. mūwonc že raju ne maš pekla ne maš (TAL p. 234a, v. 7 – the right margin), as well as glosses written in the Latin alphabet, which inform as what a given fragment of a tefsir is about – cf. oczÿstosci myc ciała (TAL p. 94a, v. 7 – the right margin). A separate and very interesting kind of glosses is a transliteration in the Latin alphabet of the text of translation into a Slavic language of the text written in Arabic alphabet, combined with a correction of the translation, i.e. as a rule removal of everything which was not needed, e.g. Jako z̈ydzi wrucilismÿ zazdrosc miedzi nich niepryiacielstwo y niemiłosc az̈ do dnia sądnego (TAL p. 95b, v. 6 – the left margin). This type of glosses is a valuable resource for philologists or historians because the transliteration of the Slavic layer of the tefsir was written in the Latin alphabet. Did a reader (or another copyist) know not only Arabic, but could he also identify the translation of the Qur’an into the north-eastern 481 M. Lewicka, Identyfikacja i analiza tekstologiczno-filologiczna arabskiej warstwy językowej…, p. 129.

146

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

borderland variety of Polish, written in the Arabic alphabet appropriately adapted to the phonological system of Slavic languages? The glosses written in the Latin alphabet also explain the Qur’anic terms. As an exemplification a heterogeneous example can be given: munḱir jest (written in the Arabic alphabet) neguiący prawde (written in the Latin alphabet) (TAL p. 219a, v. 1 – the right margin). In addition, they expand context with the content that facilitates its understanding. Semantically and stylistically conditioned instances of synonymy are also intratextual glosses (this is not only a feature of the Old Polish translations of the Psalter and later translations of the Scripture into Polish, but also a continuation of the tradition of making glosses and translating texts, which dates back to ancient Greece – see Gr. metálēpsis ‘the translation of a word into its synonymous expression’), and introducing in their place the definitions of words and extensive interpretative notes, based on the commentary literature known in a particular cultural circle. Glosses conceived in this way belong to the inherent characteristics of a free translation. As one of its indicators they were discussed by Joanna Kulwicka-Kamińska in her work Przekład terminologii religijnej islamu w polskich tłumaczeniach Koranu na tle biblijnej tradycji translatorycznej (2013). There are also corrective glosses present in the manuscript, whose task is to correct the errors of predecessors or to fill gaps, etc. They manifest the linguistic awareness of its copyist. There are both Slavic and Arabic language versions. Numerous corrections were made in the text of the Tefsir z Olity. They were made in black ink on the brown ink of the original and translated version. Vocalization signs were changed, and some words were corrected or added, e.g. pōtōpi was za newerenstwo waše pōtim (TAL 234b, v. 5). Unfortunately, the improved Arabic and Slavic versions of the tefsir are not free of errors. The monument is also characterized by metaglosses, for example, on the right outer margin of the text of surah 1 there are commentaries in Arabic and their explanations in Polish, e.g. ẕnači s̀wjat jedeŋ drūgi raẕ ẕnači wšistḱix s̀wjatew i okrengew w božej moci ẕostajoncix (TAL p. 6a, v. 2–5). Tatar translators took the trouble to preserve the fundamental principles of adequate, faithful translation482 because, as it is stated by C. Łapicz, “factually, in its content, the translation of the Qur’an had to be entirely »slavish« (i.e. it had to be philological, faithful and literal), even when »fidelity« and »literality« of the

482 As an exemplification, we may provide the following information: transcription and transliteration of religious terminology, retaining of postpositional word order of the original text, including the order of possessive pronouns and attributes, the presence of foreign syntactic structures, including nominal combinations, the presence of subordinative structures with a conjunction że – cf. examples on pp. [149–154] in this monograph.

Between faithful and free translation

147

translation was associated with the violation of the norms and principles of the language the text was translated into”483. This postulated rigour of translational accuracy and adequacy was most fully achieved in interlinear translations, which are Tatar tefsirs, where normally postpositional word order, which is a distinctive feature of the Arabic language, was retained. So the same word order as in the original was maintained in the translation, despite the fact that one Arabic word was often represented by several Polish words. Accordingly they were “literal translations that followed faithfully the morphological, syntactic, and even orthographical (e.g. in reference to the Arabic alphabet) structure of the original text”484, although their task was at the same time, a competent commenting, explanation and interpretation of Qur’anic meanings and its content, rather than merely the equivalent replacement of the holy book of Islam. The verbal and faithful nature of translation was also conditioned by the theological character of the literature, auxiliary to the doctrinal assumptions, and in this context, the stylistic and compositional layers had to be subordinated to the overriding theological and doctrinal tenets of Islam485. On the other hand, as has been proven, the Tatar translations in the GDL follow the trend toward free translations. It can therefore be argued that the religious literature of the Tatars of the GDL can be described by its far-reaching faithfulness to the original text while at the same time, retaining many of the features typical of free translation. In terms of translational techniques Tatar translations follow the current of innovative translations, based on the Renaissance humanist translations. Tatar religious translational texts constitute an interplay between tradition and innovation, because they combine the existing translational tradition with some innovative elements (e.g. they introduce innovations in accordance with the spirit of the Polish language). They are marked by both literal translation, as well as free, conditioned, among others, by the reception of the content of the Qur’an by its recipient. Thus, even at sentence or verse level there coexist verbal or sometimes even literal and automatic translations (taking over Arabic structures), used, for example, for prosodic purposes (the rendering of the formal layer of the Qur’an or the rhythmic and rhymed prose called saǧ‘), which sometimes indicates an indirect Turkish influence486, and comments taken from Muslim exegesis as well as interpretations, which are features of free translation (the predominance of these elements is a distinctive feature of a text translated in continuo). It is worth noting that, according to I.  Winiarska, the translation of Szymon Budny resembles humanist critical translations the most, and this translation was the main model for Tatar translators. It should also be borne in mind that although

4 83 Idem, Z teorii i praktyki przekładów Koranu…, p. 276. 484 Ibidem, p. 278. 485 Cf. Renaissance translations of religious texts. 486 A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 34.

148

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

translations of the Bible into vernacular languages took over many things from the humanist tradition, they cannot be identified with humanist translations. I.  Winiarska mentions the principles taken from the humanist tradition, which were applied by the Renaissance translators of the Bible into vernacular languages. These include: 1. Reliance on old manuscripts, therefore not only on one manuscript, even if it could be regarded as the best one; 2. The need to compare texts and choose correct and accurate ones; comparing translations into other languages, hence the reliance on printed Greek editions, recognized by humanists to be correct, and Latin translations, as well as on the vernacular translations approved by the churches. In addition, translators made use of the Vulgate, the writings of the church fathers, commentaries, dictionaries, glosses, and postils, so they used ancient and contemporary church literature. At the same time a clear difference can be noticed here between the Catholic translations, which usually used the Vulgate and the Protestant translations, which referred to the original texts or translations which were in turn directly based on them; 3. Frequent references to the literal and historical meaning; 4. Focusing on the explanation of the meaning of words. This led to the emergence of a specific type of exegesis and interpretation of the Bible, not much different from the philological analysis which became an important feature of Protestant translations487.

2.4 In the circle of European culture. The style of the Bible Certain specific stylistic features of the Bible derive from the Semitic languages of the original text. The first contact of the Hebrew language of the Old Testament with the Greek language of its translation (the Septuagint) took place in Alexandria between 280 and 130 BC. The Hebrew language, especially in the Pentateuch, was very primitive, and had no literary tradition, while Greek had in its history the golden age of Pericles. In addition, the structure of the two languages was very different. So Semitic forms were mechanically accepted, which then, being different from the language of translation, formed the features of Biblical style. These include two-part names (periphrases or composita), pleonasms, repetitions, etc. Later translators of the Bible, including Slavic translators, copied elements of this Biblical style. Sometimes they did it mechanically, while sometimes were taking over a certain stylistic model, further developing it in a creative way. This happened when a given stylistic element in translation appeared where it was not present it the basic text. If such a phenomenon occurred in a text of a particular 487 I. Winiarska-Górska, Język, styl i kulturowa rola szesnastowiecznych protestanckich przekładów Nowego Testamentu…, p. 290.

In the circle of European culture

149

translator it can be said that he created his own Biblical style, modelled on the style of the original text488. An attempt to define a stylistic pattern and the Biblical and Psalter style was made by D.  Bieńkowska. According to her, a stylistic pattern is a “traditionally strengthened complex of linguistic means, usually lexical ones, most common in certain types of texts, a stylistic manner, and stylistic fashion”489. In contrast, a Psalter and Biblical style or a Biblical style is a “stylistic variety of the Polish language, which emerged during the Middle Ages in connection with sacred texts, which were translations of the books of the Bible”490. In the 16th century, the Biblical style was co-created by a pattern of a Biblical language taken from medieval translations (including specific Hebrew word combinations, some of which have the nature of symbols, comparisons and metaphors) and stylistic norms of the Renaissance Polish language. Therefore, the language of Bible translations appears to be a phenomenon. It combines traditional language, containing a number of syntactic and lexical archaisms with contemporary language. The most important determinants of the Biblical style are its characteristic lexis, phraseology and syntax. On this basis one can identify connections between various translations of Scripture, as well as the influence of these translations on the translations made in the 16th century by the Tatars of the GDL, including the first European translation of the Qur’an into the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish. Therefore, its syntactic exponents are: – using subordinating structures with the conjunction że to quote somebody’s statements (oratio recta), which is especially characteristic of a faithful translation, e.g. mūw že se ja pewne bōje śe žebi mjel zgrešic bōgū memū menḱī (TAL VI, p. 111a, v. 8 – 111b, v. 1), prirečene ōd nix že meli trimac prikezane (TAL V, p. 95b, v. 5), mōw ī muchemmed ktō stal neprijacelem ǧebra’ilū že neprawde prinōṡi (T1 fol. 15a, v. 3b, p. 396). – calquing of the word order of a source base. This enabled the retention of semantic and syntactic parallelism in the translation, and in part also rhyme. Sometimes, because of some problems with the translation of certain structures, they diverged from faithful keeping word order by using amplifications, reductions, etc., which resulted in a preverbal order of the complement (in compliance with Polish syntax, that is with the medieval and Renaissance Old Polish syntax – religious prose). Tatar texts also contain OV clauses, e.g. wečnī s̀wjet lepšī jest (TAL V, p.  113a, v.  1), dla kūždej wjedōmōs̱ci čas i mejscō jest (TAL VI, p. 116a, v. 7), jūž ōni ne-nawrōceni są (T1 fol. 7a, v. 4b, p. 381), ci zas ktōre 488 After E. Siatkowska, Samodzielność przekładu Nowego Testamentu przez Jakuba Wujka, Jana Blahoslava i Michała Frencla (na przykładzie konstrukcji imiesłowowych), [in:] Język religijny dawniej i dziś, eds. S. Mikołajczak, T. Węcławski, Poznań 2004, pp. 75–76. 489 D. Bieńkowska, Wzorzec stylistyczny polszczyzny biblijnej…, p. 29. 490 Ibidem, pp. 29–30.

150

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

newernikami są (T1), mī werōncimi są (T1 fol. 6b, v.  7b, p.  380), which was typical of 16th century Polish prose (cf. Sermons by Piotr Skarga) and Bible translations. – using the passive voice, for example jest prikezanō īm (TAL VI, p.  127a, v. 3) and phrases with participial gerund clauses abudantly (BN and tefsirs are particulary coincidental in this respect), e.g. BN Był bo uczący je jako władze mając (Mk 1, 22), I byli uczniowie …poszczący się (Mk 2, 18)  – cf. ja tō bil mūwoncī (TAL V, p. 109b, v. 2), bilī ōnī krijōncimi pred tim (TAL VI, p. 112b, v.  3), bil pōziwajōncī (TAL V, p. 108a, v. 1), cō biliśce mūwoncimi na pana bōge neprawde (TAL V, p. 119a, v. 5–6), i bili ōni na tō žartujōncimi (T1 fol. 327a, v. 7, p. 48), ōni ne-są werōncimi (T1 fol. 6b, v. 1b, p. 380), especially with the perfect participle  – cf. pōrūciwši cō tōbe prišlō ōd bōga (TAL V, p.  100b, v. 1), ktūrim s̱e mōdlōŋ zanexawši pana bōga (TAL V, p. 120b, v. 5), i werizawši wirūcają tō cō pan bōg prikezal jim (T1 fol. 8a, v. 5b–6b, p. 383), ja wedōmšij tō cō wī ne-mōžece wedzec (T1 fol. 8b, v. 4b, p. 384). Imbuing the text with participles was typical of the Biblical style and originated in the Vulgate. Since the 16th century, it had become a feature of the Polish literary style. Participles are very frequent in Tatar tefsirs. The frequency of their occurrence was stylistically conditioned – in the Polish language they were, in fact, one of distinguishing features of the literary style as opposed to colloquial speech  – cf. lūʒe pis̱me majōnce (TAL V, p. 102a, v. 1), tō cō jest ōni w sōbe tajōncimi (TAL V, p. 102a, v. 7) etc. – beginning utterances with conjunctions. In the Bible, the Latin et and the Greek kai refer to the Semitic tradition of using many conjunctions in multicompound sentences. In Polish, their equivalents are the conjunctions a (or), i (and), which function mainly as references – indicators of continuation (using them to begin sentences influences text rhythmicality and relates to oral literature and colloquial language). A similar situation occurs in Arabic texts, where this function is performed by the conjunction wa. Therefore, Tatar translations are characterized by the presence of paratactical sequences of nominal groups. These are polysyndetic combinations with the conjunction wa translated into i or a (in conformity with Polish syntax  – cf. the Old Polish religious literature of the 16th and 17th centuries and Bible translations), or with the comma and asyndetic (i.e. “conjunctionless”) clauses – in keeping with the Arabic text, e.g. a kto stal neprijacelem panu bogu i anolom i prorokem jego i gebrijelovi i miχalovi (T2 II, v. 7, p. 25), i ūčinil pan bōg ḱehbe dōm ōdpūstū s̀wentī (TAL V, p. 106b, v. 6), ã nebō sklepil (T1 fol. 7b, v. 2b, p. 381). The multifunctional Greek conjunction kai is usually tranlated into Polish as i or a, but sometimes it is replaced with other conjunctions, which can be interepreted as a departure from the kai style. Conjunctions other than a and i mostly occur in the Protestant translations, for “a postulate of a completely new translation into Polish emerged in the dissenteing community in the northern part of Poland […], Polish dissenters wanted to disseminate the Scripture in a language accessible to

In the circle of European culture

151

the entire nation”491. A  similar situation occurs in the translations of the Tatars of the GDL, where the conjunction wa is translated, among others, into wšak (indeed) – cf. wšak prišlō tōbe ź wjedōmōścī prōrōkōw (TAL VI, p. 113a, v. 5), wšak biliṡce martwe (T1 fol. 8a, v. 7b, p. 383). Generally, in the Polish Gospel translations, equivalents of kai are the conjunctions a and i, but, in parallel verses, other conjunctions, playing a non-referential role, are used. Even in its Greek base kai “apart from its basic meaning i/a can also have an opposite meaning – ale (but) […] intententional and/or consecutive – aby (in order to), tak, że (so that) […], temporal gdy (when)”492, taken directly from the spoken language. This applies also to the Arabic equivalence wa – cf. ale te ktūre sklamali pis̱mō naše dōtknemi īx (TAL VI, p. 114a, v. 2), ãle pan bōg ōgarnōl mocą (T1 fol. 7a, v. 6b, p. 381), abiśce ne bili zamarli w newernōści teraz ōžiwilis̱mi was warōŋ īmanem (TAL VI, p. 122a, v. 4), ã menōwice s-tich (T1 fol. 15a, v. 1b, p. 396), bō pan bōg (T1 fol. 14b, v. 8b, p. 396); the equivalence of wa can also be the conjunction i used in an opposite function, e.g. ne ūpadne z drewa i jeden list (TAL VI, p. 115b, v. 3). – the word order of possessive pronouns. In the Arabic language, there is a postpositional word order, which is connected with the category of state, which is expressed by definite and indefinite name forms. Object pronouns, therefore, combine as objects with personal forms of verbs and with prepositions. Possessive pronouns, that is an Arabic suffix  – the so-called suffigated pronoun  – was rendered by the Tatars of the GDL in keeping with the Arabic source text, namely after a noun – cf. TAL rōzsōndḱi swuje (V, p. 105b, v. 5), cō pōjmace renkōma wašimi bez s̀idla (V, p. 106a, v. 6), dawilī sinī wašī i žiwili dzewčente waši (T1 fol. 10a, v. 3b, p. 386). This structure appears in a text translated equivalently. In contrast, where amplifications and generalizations of the Qur’anic message were used, a word order consistent with the Polish pattern was introduced, that is the prenominal order. Both solutions were considered correct, as in Old Polish there was postnominal and prenominal order, and their use depended on the semantics and the rules of the rhetorical style. – the genre of a nominal attribute, for example, the presence of two-component combinations with an adjectival attribute. Old Polish moved the possessive adjectival attribute over the possessive attribute. Therefore, possessive adjectives were created from proper names, e.g. in the Bible syn Dawidowy (David’s son), in the tefsir TAL sīn merjemin (V, p. 96a, v. 3), in T1 ‘ejśō sina merijeminegō mūṡinegō (fol. 148a, v. 2, p. 286). In Tatar translations status constructus (iḍāfa) was mainly rendered by means of a Polish adjectival attribute493 – cf. až dō dna 4 91 J. Czerniatowicz, op. cit., p. 26. 492 K. Wojciechowska, Odpowiadam wam jak Piotr. Elementy stylu i stylizacji w Ewangelii Marka, Warszawa 2006, p. 282. 493 For a detailed discussion of this problem together with its exemplification – cf. pp. [158–160] in this monograph.

152

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

sōndnegō (TAL V, p.  95b, v.  6), sinōwe bōžži (TAL V, p.  96a, v.  7), z wimislū šetansḱegō (TAL V, p. 105b, v. 7), etc. The concept of abstraction is not known in Semitic languages, and all abstract qualities are expressed in a language of concrete terms, e.g. syn potępienia (the son of perdition). The Greek Bible very often uses genitive nouns describing the adjuncts instead of adjectives of which there are few in Hebrew. This “Semitic style of expression” is yet another determinant of the Biblical style. The Tatar translation also used, albeit less frequently, structures with a genitive attribute in government with the modified noun, e.g. bōje śe pana bōga pana i karmicela wšitḱix s̀wjetōw (TAL V, p. 97b, v. 2), zakric calō trūp brata jegō (TAL V, p.  97b, v.  5), raju rōskōšī (TAL V, p.  102b, v.  8). There is a difference between Polish and Arabic structures, as in Arabic there is a category of state. Nevertheless, both structures can be considered equivalent in terms of their translation. At the same time, the postpositional order of the pronominal and possessive attribute was maintained, but in the places in which the Tatar translators added the attributes which were absent in the source text, the prenominal order was applied – cf. ōtō taḱe pōkūti zlamanix pris̀eng (TAL V, p. 105b, v. 4), stan śe sōndnī ʒen (TAL VI, p. 117a, v. 3), e.g. najlepša chwa[la] bōgu (T1 fol. 5b, v. 2b, p. 378). – different than contemporary verb government, e.g. TAL čince dośic prirečene (V, p. 93a, v. 3), opūščac ceremonī božej (V, p. 93a, v. 5), ne ẕajmūjce dom božī (V, p. 93a, v. 6) etc. and synthetic syntax instead of contemporary prepositional one, for example, TAL mes̀onca ẕakaẕanego wōjowac (V, p. 93a, v. 5), xeramem jest wam (V, p. 93b, v. 1), T1 prišed jim prōrōk (fol. 15a, v. 8b, p. 397), i ūmōcawaliśmi gō dūchem śwentim ǧebra’ilōwim (fol. 14a, v. 2b, p. 394), prin[e]‌ṡce piṡmem dōwodī (fol. 16b, v. 5b–6b, p. 400), gdze-ṡe mōdlil mne (fol. 18a, v. 4b, p. 403), ne-mōže bic rōwnij śedzōncij dōma (fol. 72b, v. 2, p. 45). – introducing indirect object, the example of which are verba dicendi – cf. TAL reče dō nix (V, p. 108a, v. 7). – foreign syntax structures, which are structural calques of the source text, for example, Arabic nominal clauses, that is those without a linking verb in the predicatebut with the predicate expressed exclusively with nominal forms and based on the opposition of a state between the subject and the predicative, are rendered in Tatar translations into Polish with structures copying the Arabic ones – cf. že tī prōrōk (TAL VI, p. 121a, v. 3), matka jegō prawʒiwa ščira newasta (TAL V, p. 104a, v. 4), bōg wjádōmij jakō (T1 fol. 15a, v. 1b, p. 396), ten korãn istōtna prawda (T1) and often introduced using the particle pewnie/zapewne (surely/for sure), np. pewne pan bōg twardegō kerane i pewne pan bōg ōdpūskliwī milōserdnī (TAL V, p. 107a, v. 1), pewne pan bōg ō kōždej reči wjedōm (TAL V, p. 106b, v. 8). A nominal predicate contains a predicative in the form of a noun in the nominative. Thus, a similarity between the original syntax and the 16thcentury Polish can be observed here. The structure was used in Polish until the 18th century when it was supplanted by the instrumental case; Arabic attributive clauses  – syndetic ones (with a formal exponent), introduced by a relative pronoun allaḏī ‘which’  – may not use an anaphoric pronoun as

In the circle of European culture

153

antecedent, e.g. ten (that one), which is faithfully rendered by Tatar translators – cf. ōn jest ktūrī ūčinil dla was gwjezdī (TAL V, p. 119b, v. 4), bō ōn jest ktūrī zeslal wam ks̱enge kuran (TAL VI, p. 121b, v. 1), ōn jest’ ktōrij stworil dla was tō cō jest’ dla was w źemi (T1 fol. 8a, v. 8b, p. 383) or they may reduce it – cf. pewne pan bōg jest jegō krōlewstwa nebesḱe i źemsḱe (TAL V, p. 98b, v. 6–7); Arabic attributive clauses in an adjectival function – asyndetic ones (without a pronoun) are rendered, for example, as participial structures zaplata dōbre činōncix (TAL V, p. 105a, v. 6); Arabic paratactical linking words, e.g. with fa-, which is a consecutive conjunction, are transposed by Tatars with the closest meaningful equivalent przeto (therefore)  – cf. pretō bōjce śe bōga i majōnce rōzumī (TAL V, p. 107a, v. 3), tedy (and so) – cf. tedī ne-pōšlō (T1 fol. 7a, v. 1b, p.  380), bo (because)  – cf. bō stanece s-kriwdnikōw (T1 fol. 9a, v.  3b, p.  384), że – cf. že ōni we zlem blendze (T1 fol. 19b, v. 1b, p. 406), jeśli (if) – por. jeṡli wam prijdze (T1 fol. 9a, v. 6b, p. 385), już (already) – cf. jūž ōni ne-nawrōceni są (T1). However, this structure may not be reflected in Polish and then it can be expressed with the conjunction i, which begins the subordinate clause in conditional complex sentences – cf. i zbawil īx spas̱enjem pan bōg (TAL V, p. 105a, v.  4), i wiwodzi wodą tą (T1 fol. 7b, v.  2b, p.  381) or without any conjunction – ne būj s̱e lūʒej židowsḱix (V, p. 99b, v. 5–6), chōrōba newernōṡc prispōri jim pan bog (T1 fol. 6b, v. 3b, p. 380); some excluding clauses (in simple and coordinate clauses), e.g. by means of the particle illā are rendered with a prepositional clause with excluding prepositions oprócz (apart from), poza (aside from), z wyjątkiem (except for) or a textual modification operator (presupposition) with excluding function (tylko, jedynie [solely], wyłącznie [exclusively]), preceding a noun or a pronoun – cf. ‘ejs̀ a sīn merjemin tilkō pōsel prōrōk (TAL V, p. 104a, v. 3), ne-mami na’uk’i tak’ij tilkō cō ti nas na’ūčil (T1 fol. 8b, v. 6b, p. 384); structures with the Arabic accusative in which nouns and adjectives in the accusative of the indefinite state function as adverbs are translated into adverbs or prepositional clauses (in a sentence they play the role of an adverbial modifier) – cf. za te cō mōcnō ōbōwon že śe bōgu pris̀ engōŋ (TAL V, p. 105b, v. 2); sentences characterized by a neutralization of the number of a verb acting as a predicate preceding a subject posed a great problem for Tatar translators. It entailed the change from the Arabic singular number into the Polish plural number and vice versa. Original syntactic combinations coexist with typically Polish structures, e.g. some attributive clauses – syndectic ones; even though the anaphoric pronoun is missing, izeit is explicated in translation just as nominal designata of relative pronouns  – cf. stracili naʒeje ci ktūre (TAL V, p. 93b, v. 4–5), prijacelōn s̱e s timi ktūre newernikami sōŋ (TAL V, p. 104b, v. 3), zapewne ci ktōre newernikami są (T1 fol. 6a, v. 6b, p. 379), i tich ktōre ūwerili (T1 fol. 6b, v. 2b, p. 380). The nominal nature of the syntax of source texts is often supplemented by predicates, including the auxiliary verb być (to be) – cf. takōwe lūʒe sōŋ ōnī newernikami bōgu (TAL V, p. 99b, v. 7), a ōn jest istī bōg (TAL VI, p. 110a, v. 5), ãle ōni ne-są werōncimi (T1 fol. 6b, v. 1b, p. 380), and also pečenc prilōžil bōg na serce jich (T1 fol. 6a, v. 7b, p. 379), i tich

154

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

ktōre pred wami mineli (T1 fol. 7b, v. 1b, p. 381). The group of additional verbs includes verba dicendi. Verbs mówić (the participial form mówiąc/speaking) and rzec, prawić are meant to create a meta-textual framework  – one may indicate, for example, the change of indirect speech (oratio recta) into direct one (oratio obliqua) – cf. abiś tegōž dūxa ūʒelil dō ūčnōw swīx pōmōcnikōw žebi ūwerili mne i prōrōku memū rekli ūweriliśmi (TAL V, p. 108b, v. 8), iśma‘īl dōbūdōwawši rekl bōže naš (T1 fol. 18b, v. 1b, p. 403) or winiʒemī ržekl (TAL V, p. 97a, v. 1), as well as mow či-waš križ lepšij (T1 fol. 19b, v. 2b–3b, p. 406). The structure lā….illā and a general negation, which is a compound of a general negation and a prepositional clause (with a conjunction illā), is rendered in Tatar monuments with the phrase nie masz (you do not have [sth]) + genitive, that is with a genuine Polish structure used between the 16th and 19th centuries – cf. ni maš z inšix bōga tilkō bōg jedinī (TAL V, p. 104a, v. 1), ni maš rowni bōgu tilkō ōn sam (TAL VI, p. 120b, v. 3). As has already been stated, the essential exponents of a Biblical style are its syntax, lexis and phraseology. In the case of Biblical syntax, these are both native structures as well as ones dependent on various foreign patterns, contemporary to the time of translation, but also archaic or archaized, which differ depending on the denomination and the way of translating. As for the lexis and phraseology, D.  Bieńkowska proves that the lexis typical of literary Polish is predominant in the 16th-century translations. However, the traditionalism of these translations is a result of “a deliberate reference to tradition, imitating the pattern inherited from the Middle Ages, building the Biblical style, preserving a continuation of the tradition of Biblical translations”494.

494 D. Bieńkowska, Jakub Wujek – nowator czy tradycjonalista?, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, t. I, Łódź 1992, p. 151. There are analogues to inflected forms – in translated texts what is archaic co-occurs with what is contemporary – cf., for example, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Różnice i zbieżności systemowe rękopiśmiennych tekstów staropolskich i manuskryptów Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, [in:] Tefsir Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Teoria i praktyka badawcza, e-monography, eds. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2015, pp. 243–269 [http://www.tefsir.umk.pl/pliki/Tefsir_Tatarow_WKL.pdf] (20-06-2017). Individual choices of translators have an influence on this, including deliberate use of inflection categories for the purpose of stylization. Translators were gradually removing inflectional monuments which were not semantically loaded/marked, and they retained some obsolete forms in formulas, phrasemes and archaisms in lofty expressions. On the one hand, the strengthening of these forms serves the sacralization of the language of translation, and on the other hand, keeping the archaic forms, absent in literary Polish is an inherent trait of the northeastern borderland variety of Polish.

Christian influences on Tatar manuscript literature

155

2.5 Christian influences on Tatar manuscript literature in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Christian terminology adapted and assimilated by the Polish language is an inherent feature of Tatar translations. Much of it is borrowed from the Bohemian language, but at the time when the first translations of the Qur’an came into existence the majority of these terms were “settled” in Polish, commonly used and no longer perceived as foreign. They belong to the so-called earliest layer of borrowings associated with the adoption of Christianity, when the Bohemian language constituted a medium for borrowings from Latin, Germanic languages or the Old Church Slavonic language which entered the Polish language. The involvement of Tatar translational literature in a formal and semantic relationship with Christian terminology was primarily caused by the need to subordinate the system of terms of a language other than liturgical Arabic to a specific system of concepts. Thus, Christian terminology was used to denote the religious concepts of Islam. However, these terms are not synonymous because the differences between them stem from the fundamental religious premises. Arabic terms cannot be directly rendered by using their equivalents in Christian lexis, for Christian vocabulary describes a different reality and is not capable of rendering all the nuances of semantic terms of the Muslim religion. Hence Christian vocabulary is present in Tatar translational literature, which is, as a rule, of different intension or extension, for in the conceptual systems of Islam and Christianity, the same lexical item can be multifunctional. Therefore rather than a replacement of Muslim terms by the terms from the religious and cultural circle of Christianity, it is rather a translational analogy which would be adequate to and compatible with the doctrine of Islam. Consequently, Christian terminology is present in religious manuscripts of the Tatars of the GDL. It was adapted to the requirements of Islam, which was professed in the Christian religious and cultural environment495. Numerous examples of the use of such translational analogy can be mentioned, e.g. concerning the terms expressing the concept of the one and only God: Ar.  allāh – bōg (T1 fol. 34a, v. 5b, p. 436), pan bōg (T1 fol. 8a, v. 2b, p. 382)496, *bōg jedin (T1 fol. 39a, v. 8b, p. 446), and even jahūwā, būġ jahūwā (a denomination used only in BN)497, Ar.  rabb ‘ruler, master, owner, holder, God’  – *pan bōg (T1 fol. 8b, v.  2b, p.  383), Ar.  aḥad – *ōdīn bōg (KK 58a, v.  1– 2, p.  93), Ar.  waḥīd – *jedinnij (T 119a, v.  3b, p.  405), jedin (T1 fol. 22a, v. 2b, p. 411), Ar.  tawḥīd ‘union, merger’; ‘unification, uniformity’;

495 Cf. C. Łapicz, Z zagadnień przekładu muzułmańskiej terminologii modlitewnej…, p. 116 – also the discussion on the conditions of transfer of Christian linguistic elements to Tatar translatorial literature in the GDL. 496 Cf. on this topic – ibidem. 497 Cf. М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit., pp. 275–276.

156

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

‘monotheism’; ‘standardization’ – *jedinōstwō (TAL V, p. 104a, v. 5), božjo jedinostvo (KM 194, v.  6, p.  140), *jedinostvo bośk’e (KM 367, v.  8–9, p.  184), in denominations of pagan gods:  Ar.  ilāh ‘god, deity, idol’ – *prōžnije bōgi (T1), *balwan (T1 fol. 17b, v. 4b, p. 402), inšij bōg (KK) or bog inšij (T1 fol. 22a, v. 2b, p. 411), Ar.  Ṭāḡūt – *ōbraz, *balwan, *dagōn, *zwodzicel (T1), in the names which refer to holy books: Ar.  Al-Kitāb or Ar.  kitāb – kśenga (T1), Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  allāh – *kśenga bōža (T1), Ar.  Al-Kitāb + Ar.  bi + Ar.  al-ḥaqq – *kśenga prawdziwa (T1) or *kśenga s-prawdą (T1 fol. 27b, v. 7b, p. 424), Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  muqaddas ‘holy’ – *piśmo śvetije (KM 6, v. 3, p. 61), Ar.  al-bušrà ‘news, good news’ – śwjastōwane (T1 fol. 220b, v. 2, p. 64), Ar.  āya[t]‌ – kśenga (T1 fol. 9a, v. 8b, p. 385), piṡmō (T1 fol. 29a, v. 8b, p. 427), Ar.  āya[t] + ar.  allāh – piśmō bōže (T1), Ar.  kalima[t] ‘word, expression’; ‘speech, address, statement’; ‘expression, phrase, locution’; ‘catchphrase, aphorism, maxim, thought’; ‘influence, authority’ + Ar.  allāh – *slovo pōžije (KK 45 b, v. 7–8, p. 84) or the names of the books of the Bible featured in ChL: perše kśengi mōjźešōve (2a, v. 5–6, p. 176), kśengi samū’elove (4a, v. 1–2, p. 177), *perše kśengi krūlevśk’e (9b, v.  4–5, p.  180), as well as in T1 the explanation added by the translator:  źwitk’ī prikezana dō abrahāma i dō izma‘īle i dō izika i dō je‘kūba i dō prōrōkōw sinōw je‘kūbōwich, in names which refer to angels: Ar.  malak – ãnijōl (T1 fol. 23b, v.  2b, p.  414), *slūga bōžij (T1), expressions which refer to the angel Gabriel in KM: anhel boží (336, v. 12, p. 177) or boslanec od pana boha, and such combinations of words as anheli nepeśk’ije (222, v. 3, p. 147), moci anelśk’e (390, v. 9, p. 191), Ar.  rūḥ + Ar.  al-quds – *dūch śwentij (T1), Ar.  ‘aduww ‘enemy, foe’ + Ar.  mubīn ‘clear, obvious’ – *neprijacel jawnij (T1 fol. 27a, v. 7a–8a, p. 423), Ar.  Iblīs – the name of ‘devil, evil spirit, Satan’ – zwodzicel, šetan (T1 fol. 9a, v. 1b, p. 384), Ar.  šaytān ‘Satan, devil’ – šetan, zvodca (KK 63a, v. 13, p. 98), or in names which refer to prophets498: Ar.  nabī – prōrōk (T1 fol. 23b, v. 2b, p. 414), Ar.  nabī + Ar.  allāh – *prōrōk bōžij (T1 fol. 14b, v. 2b, p. 395), Ar.  rasūl – prōrōk (T1), and also pōsōl (T1 fol. 39a, v. 7b, p. 446) or pōslanec (T1 fol. 34a, v. 5b, p. 436), Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  allāh – posol Božij (KŁ), Ar.  imām – *kaplan, *staršij, and also *ōfarōwnik (T1)499, and also some expressions which are featured in KM such as *pravcivi prorok (373, v. 3–4, p. 186), śveti prorok (425, v. 4–5, p. 200), to Muhammad prorok perši i ostanni (368, v. 7, p. 184), pričinca uśiχ nas na sudni ʒen (309, v. 4, p. 170), *bosel pravʒivi (110, v. 5–6, p. 111), in relation to Jesus ciχi i pokorni (342, v. 2, p. 178), *sin božij (58, v. 5, p. 89), *ū pana boha mili (338, v. 3,

498 There are prorocy in the Qur’an (Ar. nabī from Hebr. nāḇî’) with regard to OT and NT messengers, as well as in relation to messengers to the Arab tribes, and wysłannicy (Ar. rasūl) in relation only to those who were among Arabs, e.g. Hūd, Ṣāliḥ, Šu’ayb, Muḥammad and others. The mission to Arabs distinguished this second group of prophets from OT and NT characters – cf. J. Danecki, Podstawowe wiadomości…, pp. 120–121. 499 See also contexts – P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 114–116.

Christian influences on Tatar manuscript literature

157

p. 177), in T1: pâmazanec (fol. 85a, v. 7, p. 202), pričinca bliskij ū bōge (fol. 44a, v. 7, p. 244), *zbawicel grechōw (fol. 386b, v. 3, p. 244), sīn merjemin (fol. 85a, v. 7, p. 202), and in KŁ in relation to Muhammad: Božij ḿiłośń’ik (109 b, v. 2, p. 375), Ar.  ‘Īsa – pan jezus (KK 67b, v.  13, p.  102), Ar.  ʻabd ‘servant, slave’  – *slūga (T1 fol. 7b, v. 4b, p. 382), in denominations of the Last Judgement: Ar.   yawm ad-dīn ‘the Day of Judgement’ – *sūd božij (KM 181, v. 12, p. 136) or *den sōndnij (T1 fol. 5b, v. 3b, p. 379), Ar.  al-yawm ‘dzień’ + Ar.  al-āẖir ‘the last, final’ – *čas ōstatnij (T1 fol. 6b, v. 1b, p. 380) or *den ōstatnij (T1 fol. 23b, v. 2b, p. 414), Ar.  yawm – *ten den (T1 fol. 10a, v. 1b, p. 386), Ar.  yawm +  ‘aẓīm ‘big, large’; ‘strong, powerful, mighty’; ‘wonderful, marvellous’; ‘important, significant, essential, impressive’; ‘haughty, proud, arrogant’; ‘effusive’; ‘difficult, complicated, complex’ – sudnij den strašnij (KK 64a, v. 6–8, p. 99), etc. In addition, a number of translatorial analogies can be found in a 19th-century monument, namely in Wykład wiary machometańskiej czyli iślamskiej by J. Sobolewski, e.g. in relation to Allah: Bóg Najwyższy (p. 2), *Bóg jedyny (p. 13), in relation to pagan gods – *inne bóztwa (p. 94), *inny Bóg (p. 102), in relation to revealed books – Xięgi Boskie (p. 16), *słowo Boże (p. 20), Ewangelija (p. 16), Pentateuchum (p. 16), Psalmy (p. 92), Psałterz (p. 16)500, in relation to angels – *posłaniec (p. 14), *Anioł stróż (p. 14), *szatan (p. 65), *czart (p. 31), and Gabryel (p. 16), in relation to prophets – *Prorok Boży (p. 66), poseł (p. 109), *sługa Boży (p. 66), Apostoł (p. 67), Jezus syn Maryi (p. 74), and also Abraham (p. 10), Adam (p. 18), Dawid (p. 16), Jezus Chrystus (p. 74), Mojżesz (p. 74), Salomon (p.  74) or in relation to the Day of Judgement  – Sąd ostateczny (p.  22), *dzień sądny (p. 31) *dzień zmartwychwstania (p. 980), etc. On the basis of the collected material, one may identify numerous examples of the interference of the Christian and Muslim religions. Transborder lexemes (lexemes borrowed from Bible translations but with a different distribution)501 show the Tatars from the GDL not only as translators, but also as critics of the text, guided in their work by the doctrinal principle sola Scriptura, and by the resulting philosophical inquisitiveness and reverence in search of such a Polish equivalent which, in their opinion, could render in the most faithful way the sense of the original Arabic text. The doctrine was for Tatars all the more important as far as it called for philological reflection on the meanings hidden beneath foreign Arabic words that expressed the revealed truth502. The above examples also illustrate how Biblical phrases migrated to the Tatar literature. The set phrases found in the 16th-century translations of the Holy Scripture were perceived already then as separate and typical of this type of text and as

500 This form replaced the Old Polish form żołtarz (Psalter) – the influence of Kochanowski (cf. I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 106). 501 The term is used after T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura. In this monograph it refers to two different groups of texts – translations of the Bible and of the Qur’an. 502 Cf. ibidem, p. 157.

158

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

different from the set phrases deriving primarily from colloquial and conversational styles. A  large part of them are word combinations, whose development is influenced by the structures appropriate to the languages of the source texts. Thus, the distinctive feature of Biblical phrases are tautological structures, found also in Tatar translations of the Qur’an, e.g. benʒeš īx sōnʒil sōnʒ (TAL V, p. 99a, v. 8), rōźʒeli was pūlkam pūlkami (TAL VI, p. 116a, v. 5), pōśnik pōṡnikajōnce menščiźni (T1 fol. 343a, v. 3, p. 230), na jeʒoncego jeʒene (TAL VI, p. 124b, v. 8), s cūdōw od cūd (TAL VI, p. 110a, v. 7), i pelnice cō ṡce mī prirekli pelnic a ja tež spelne cō-m prirekl wam (T1 fol. 9b, v. 1b, p. 385), etc. By Biblical standards, one expression is used next to the other with the same meaning. It is also common in Semitic languages to repeat words with the same root, e.g. to make a compound of a verb with a noun deriving of the same root – cf. dla tej mōwi cō muwili (TAL VI, p.  115a, v.  1), dōbre ūčiniḱi činōŋ (TAL V, p.  106a, v.  3), ōfjerōwalō wšitḱe ōfjerī (TAL V, p. 116b, v. 5), i pris̀engali panu bōgu mōcnō priśengōŋ (TAL V, p.  120b, v.  7). Other examples are presented by P.  Suter on the basis of the contexts of T1:  ōšūkać ōšūkaniną; wiglōndać wiglōndanem; zōslaliṡmi zeslanem; ōčiṡcić ōčiṡcenem503. In these texts, there are pleonastic combinations, which are not calques of combinations of the same root of original lexemes, and a certain seriality of combinations associated with the repetition of one of the elements of a combination, accompanied by specific symbols. This inventory of idiomatic expressions is animated and enriched by constructions which came from the standard Polish language of that time. This was a reflection of the new Renaissance principles of translation, as well as of the increasing efficiency of the Polish language at the lexical-phraseological level504. In the pursuit of adequate equivalence for the Muslim terminology, structured borrowings were also used505  – cf. *dūch śwentij (T1) from Ar.  rūḥ and Ar. 503 After P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 53–54. This could be an accurate reflection of the Arabic construction known as the absolute masdar. In the Arabic language, masdars occupy an intermediate position between verbs and names/nouns. Their nominative functions amount solely to the role of a noun, and therefore they cannot be adjectives. The verbal meaning of masdars is revealed in their syntactic functions. Masdar has the function of the so-called absolute masdar or of absolute object in the sense corresponding to Polish gerunds. In this construction, which consists of a verb in a personal form and a masdar in the accusative there is an emphasis on the process of perfoming an activity or the succession of a process. In Polish these adverbs of manner seldom occur, but these constructions may be found in Bible translations, because a similar construction existed in Hebrew (“zawołał wołaniem wielkim”) – after M. Shahari, Masdar absolutny w języku arabskim. Terminologia, przykłady i rola w wyrażaniu emfazy [http://snkp.manifo.com/abstrakty-wystapien] (07-01-2013). 504 Cf. D. Bieńkowska, Słownictwo i frazeologia w Psałterzu…, pp. 54–55. 505 Some of them may coincide with the above-mentioned examples of ChristianMuslim interference. It should also be borne in mind that “a number of syntactic structures and lexical forms which seem to be calques created by the translator

Christian influences on Tatar manuscript literature

159

 al-quds, pavelbonije pisari (KL) from Ar.  karīm + ar.  kātib, *kśenga bōža (T1) from Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  allāh, *kśenga s-prawdą (T1) from Ar.  Al-Kitāb + Ar.  bi + Ar.  al-ḥaqq, *skrita kśenga (T1 fol. 05a, v. 1b, p. 378) from Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  maknūn ‘guarded because of its value’; ‘extremely valuable’, *piśmo śvetije (KM) from Ar.  kitāb +Ar.  muqqadas, piśmō bōže (T1) from Ar.  āya[t]‌+ Ar.  allāh, *slovo pōžije (KK) from Ar.  kalima[t] + Ar.  allāh, *prōrōk bōžij (T1) from Ar.  nabī and Ar.  allāh, *sin božij (KM 58, v. 5, p. 89) from Ar.  ibn and  allāh, sin Merjemin (KL after A, p. 74) from Ar.  ibn and  Maryam, *den sōndnij and *den powstanij (T1 fol. 5b, v.  3b, p. 379) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ad-dīn, *ōbiwatel pek’elnij (T1 fol. 9a, v. 8b, p. 385) from Ar.  ṣāḥib ‘friend, companion, colleague, co-participant, associate’; ‘supporter, advocate’; ‘owner, lord, ruler, manager, host’ + Ar.  an-nār ‘fire’, etc. They are often a reflection of the original Qur’anic combinations of status constructus (Ar. iḍāfa), in which the element referred to is a noun, adjective or an indefinite participle, and the defining element is a noun, nominal adjective or a participle in genitive, definite or indefinite. In translation they most frequently assume two forms: a noun with a genitive attribute (N[Ag) or a noun with an adjectival attribute (N[Aa)506. In the literature of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims, one may perceive a clear tendency to remove the genitive attribute in favour of the adjectival attribute. Most of the attributes are adjectives derived from a nominal counterpart of an Arabic defining element (adjectivization), for example Boga>boży (God’s/divine). Grammatical differences between the source language and the language of translation therefore influenced the emergence of alternation, where at least one of the equivalents does not show grammatical identity with a word in the source text, that is, for example, the above-mentioned use in translation of an adjectival form in place of an Arabic noun. This shows the concern of translators to ensure the syntactic correctness of the Polish translation, and at the same time, to preserve the clarity of meaning. In this respect, Tatar translators’ decisions and choices are analogous to those made by the translators of the Biblical and Psalter literature who also used adjectives with attributive names (e.g. opting for an adjective in place of Latin nouns in the genitive – cf. Latin flos agri kwiat pola>kwiat polny (the flower of the field>field flower), which was correct in the second half of the 16th century).

actually functioned in general language. Of course, the interference of Arabic elements also took place. Apart from that, it can be shown that a certain amount of Turkish interference was brought into the linguistic system of the Tatars of the GDL at the stage of linguistic assimilation – and therefore it was present not only in the analyzed texts – as well as reflecting Turkish translational conventions acquired in the course a translator’s learning of the Arabic language. A number of them had already been confirmed in a tefsir translation of the Qur’an” – after A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 178. 506 After ibidem, p. 137.

160

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

Another way of rendering the Arabic iḍāfa is the introduction of a prepositional phrase in the place of a genitive attribute – cf. *pričinca za ummet’em (KM), probably from Ar.  šafī‘ ‘intermediary, mediator’; ‘patron, saint’ + Ar.  al-umma[t]‌, its replacement with a series of coordinate nouns and adjectives  – cf. wieliki, istotny (in Old Polish istotny meant ‘existing, true, real’) from Ar.  sayyid + Ar.  al-kā’ināt507, the transformation of the first element, and others. In contrast, nominal compounds/phrases (expressions) with nouns such as  ṣāḥib and  ḏū in combinations with abstract nouns lose their lexical individuality and they are used to express some characteristics or a condition, being translated accordingly508. On the basis of the analyzed examples, it can be said that Tatar translators did not follow a routine and they did not have a tendency to Polonize the Arabic original. Their activities are also reflected in the accumulation of participial forms as equivalents of Arabic nouns, adjectives, and even verbs. According to A. Drozd, “Over two-thirds of participles ending with -ąc, -ący in the target text do not have any connection with the Arabic root in terms of grammatical form. They replace adjectives, nouns and even verbs, and tend to be amplified”509. Despite many similarities with Bible translations, Tatar translational texts may be said to manifest a high degree of originality and maintain their own autonomy, e.g. in the ways and methods of translating that were adopted – they cannot be clearly classified as literal or free. Thus, they are heterogeneous in this respect. The creative adaptation of Christian terminology to the canons and the principles of the Muslim faith also manifests an attempt to maintain autonomy because lexical items which occur in specific contextual meanings are updated by other lexical items, with which they establish syntactic-semantic relations – cf. the use of the Christian term przyczyńca (intercessor, advocate) used in reference to Muhammad in Tatar writings: *pričinca do śebe za ummet’em or pričinca uśiχ nas na sudni ʒen (KM) and in reference to Jesus in the Bible: a jesliby kto zgrzeszył, przyczyńcę mamy u Ojca, Jezusa Krystusa sprawiedliwego (BB 1 J 2, 1) and Emmanuel: Muḥammad prorok iž pravӡivi Emānūyel pocešicel vaš a moj prijacel (KM 484, v. 8–9, p. 320), as well as Oto Dziewica pocznie i porodzi Syna, któremu nadadzą imię Emmanuel, to znaczy „Bóg z nami” (BT Mt 1, 23). Therefore, one should recognize the pioneering role of the Tatar religious writings in the GDL in the process of the co-creation of the so-called Qur’anisms, consisting, on the one hand, in the use of the existing Polish Christian terminology, and on the other hand in the creation of an original Qur’anic phraseology.

5 07 The example after ibidem, p. 141. 508 Cf. ibidem, pp. 140–144. The discussion on a multi-word status constructus – ibidem, pp. 144–147. 509 Cf. A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 105 – cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 362–363.

The relationship

161

The identity and individuality of Tatar translational texts is also attested in word-formative innovations, which are, however, based on 16th-century productive derivative models, for example nominal names of doers ending in -ca as in dušejemca ‘the one who takes the soul’ (KŁ), in -ciel as sonʒicel ‘the one who judges’ (KM), in -(al)nik, as kajetnik (T1 fol. 29b, v. 3b, p. 427), *pytalnik ‘the one who asks’ (ChL 107a, v. 5–6, p. 200, KM), wiršownik ‘the one who writes poems’ (T1 fol. 430b, v. 5, p. 175), rōwnacz ‘the one who flattens (levels)’ (T1 fol. 327b, v. 1, p. 315), or *šidar (T1 fol. 11b, v. 8b, p. 390) – only in BielKron, which features the word szyderz) is used, and also nominal names describing various features ending in -ość, for example paχvalnaść (KŁ)510, or abstracta of the type čarōʒejstwo (TAL V, s. 108b, v. 6), prōrōčenstwo (TAL V, p. 118b, v. 1), as well as semantic innovations511, e.g. denominations of pagan gods: *prijacele (T1), *spōlenčniki (T1), *tōwariš (T1), *zwodzicel (T1), the names of holy books and their parts: dekret boži (KM), *direkcija dla lūdzej (T1 fol. 24b, v.  1b–2b, p.  416), helava (KL), istōtna prawda (T1), *priwodca kū dōbremū (T1), imam (KL after A, p. 68), *źwitk’ī prikezana (T1), the names of angels: mūkari (KM 269, v. 3–4, p. 160) and mukari pek’elnije (KK), ‘eršovij kūr (KŁ), pavelbonije pisari (KL), barzdō špatna i strašna stvorenjō (KK), ṕek’elnij vojevoda (KŁ), *zrajca (KK), the names of prophets: *pečentar všitk’iχ prorok (KM), dvūχ śv’etoŭ pan (KŁ), meśec naš śvetlji (KM 291, v. 11–12, p. 165), *pōwodir (T1), the denomination of the Judgement – *den pōwstanij. The unique denomination of the prophet is the expression dvūχ śv’etoŭ pan (KŁ). One should add that the Tatar translator aptly interprets the form of the dual grammatical number and tries to render it in his translation. When it is in the genitive attribute, he uses an amplified numeral in the Gen.: dwóch (two) or obojich (both). In this regard, the Turkish translation was certainly helpful for him – cf. Tur. bu nebidür eki cihān sulṭanı.

2.6 The relationship between Tatar translations and Old Polish Biblical and Psalter literature and translations of the Bible into Polish The use of the national language in liturgy was the agenda-related imperative of the Reformation, resulting, among other things, in an imbalance of opposition between the sacrum and the profanum. In contrast to the trends which manifested themselves in the Christian environment, which undoubtedly affected the literature of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims, here translation did not replace the original text. It was only its supplement and was not used in liturgy. Such a function of the

510 Tatars, therefore, who took Biblia nieświeska or other Biblical translations, and Renaissance religious literature as a model, used this model creatively to create neologisms unheard of either in writings of Budny or in the Polish lexical system. 511 Some denominations were undoubtedly shaped under the influence of Turkish translations – ch. at least ‘eršovij kūr.

162

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

translation of the Qur’an was determined by the religious and linguistic canons of Islam. However, Tatar religious manuscripts in the GDL, perfoming not so much a liturgic function as that of preserving the ethnic distinctiveness and cultural identity of the Lithuanian-Polish Muslims, were created in national languages – Polish and/or Belorussian, which also reflected a conscious attitude to these languages, expressed, for example, in Slavicization of foreign terminology512. It is, of course, known that neither Belorussian nor Polish, at their level of functional development, were able to adequately express the canons of Islam. Therefore, the first authors and translators of Muslim religious texts either Slavicized terms associated only with the religion and culture of Islam, or they took over and adapted Christian religious terminology. The Muslim religious language is therefore not the opposition to the Christian religious style, but to some extent also its continuum. The Tatars of the GDL referred to Old Polish Biblical and Psalter literature as well as Polish translations of the Bible essentially in two ways. They used Polish translations of the Bible in the translation process of Muslim source texts, that is they studied Polish translations, as well as they took over and adapted fragments of Old Polish literature of religious nature and excerpts from the Polish translations of the Bible to the requirements of Islam, which they professed513. The first of these issues is particularly important for the studies presented in this monograph. Therefore, it will be treated with special diligence. The other issue will be only signalled, for there are a number of academic studies concerning this issue, analysing it in detail. On the basis of an analysis of Muslim translational literature, one may indicate both translational solutions that coincide with those which were adopted in Bible translations, as well as the adaptation of Old Polish vocabulary, especially religious, to the concepts and terminology of Islam. Thus, the thesis resulting from theoretical assumptions about the influence of Old Polish Biblical and Psalter literature upon the style and language of Tatar translations has been confirmed in the material presented in this work. The research confirms the fact that Polish Tatar writings were under the influence of Polish religious literature of the 16th century, and it may have also been influenced by older medieval texts, operating in the first half of the 16th century, which constitute some of the sources of knowledge of literary Polish in the GDL. Therefore, one may identify some convergence between Tatar translations in the GDL and the Old Polish translations of Biblical and Psalter literature. It applies both to the methods of translation, as well as specific translational solutions514. Comprehensive translations of the Bible into Polish and Tatar tefsirs were written at the same time, i.e. in the second half of the 16th century. As it was shown, at

5 12 Cf. I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 141. 513 Cf. C. Łapicz, Z jakich źródeł muzułmanie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego czerpali wiedzę o religii chrześcijańskiej?, [in:] Dialog chrześcijańsko-muzłmański. Historia i współczesność, zagrożenia i wyzwania, eds. M. Lewicka, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2011, p. 177. 514 Cf. the chapter: Between faithful and free translation, pp. [127–148].

The relationship

163

that time, there was a European, including Polish, suprareligious tradition of translating the Scripture into vernacular languages, to which the Tatar translators of the holy book of Islam also made reference. In a similar way they made the interpretation of certain linguistic forms of their original text because the translations of the Qur’an and Bible translations had a similar linguistic basis for their translation – texts from the Semitic-speaking world. However, they did not rewrite mechanically ready-made patterns, but they sought inspiration in Bible translations – they processed them, modified and confronted them with their source texts and the assumptions of their religion. Besides the above discussed translation methods, the parallels with Bible translations include: the introduction of the announcement of the content of chapters515, similar to BB and BW, which links these translations with the earlier translational tradition; the presence of concrete lexical and phraseological borrowings516, especially from BN, e.g. jegova (ChL 9a, v. 3, p. 179 – BN), trōjčane (T1 fol. 148a, v. 5, p. 122 – BN) and trōječnik’i (T1 fol. 450a, v. 2, p. 123 – BN)517, *jedinōstwa (T1 – BN), *‘ubridliwuść (P97 – BB, BN)518, *prōžnije bōgi (T1 – BB), *spōlenčnik (T1 – BN), vojevoda (KŁ 515 Cf., for example, the structure of the manuscript P97 – М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit., pp. 240–241. 516 Only selected words and phraseological combinations were quoted, distinguishing certain translations of the Scripture. For more on this topis – see: Christian influences on Tatar manuscript literature in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, pp. [155–161]. 517 The term trójca (trinity) in Polish is a borrowing from the Czech language. The specialization and spread of Trójca (Trinity) in the function of a dogmatic term meant that this word occurred in other meanings only in exceptional cases. The 1560s is a time of controversy over the dogma of the Trinity in the Calvinist camp. Arians (Budny, Czechowic and others) rejected this dogma, questioning either the equality of Persons, the unity of nature, or the hierarchy of Persons and their nature. Discussion, polemics and disputes, which took place for about twenty years, were vividly reflected in the language area, mainly in vocabulary and word-formation, and less frequently in collocations. In the rich polemical literature concerning the dogma of the Trinity, there appeared numerous names, describing supporters of separate views, given mostly to opponents, which were, as a rule, negatively marked. In addition to borrowings from Latin and Greek, their Polish counterparts (neologisms) were used, e.g. trójczak (13 times), trójczanin (8 times) – both of them were used by Budny; trójczak (11 times) – Czechowic; trójczak (1 times) – Wereszczyński. These are derivatives from numeral nouns dwójca, trójca with affixes -ak, -anin. They were short-lived – they only existed in the Middle Polish language. SPolXVI notes a negative meaning of trójczak (26 times), in relation to the supporter of the dogma of the Trinity. SL attests its use in the Polish language of the 17th century. The state of Linde duplicates SW (after F. Pepłowski, Odbicie sporów teologicznych o dogmat Trójcy Świętej w polszczyźnie XVI w., [in:] Studia z gramatyki i leksykologii języka polskiego. Prace dedykowane Profesor Marii Szupryczyńskiej, eds. M. Gębka-Wolak, I. Kaproń-Charzyńska, M. Urban, Toruń 2003, pp. 273–277). 518 Researchers of Polish Biblical and Psalter literature also note the dominant role of specific affixes, including -ość, -ca, -nik, e.g. E. Ostrowska was researching the

164

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

– BN), *źwitk’ī prikezana (T1 – the phrase zwitek ksiąg can be found only in BN and in Czechowic), u uśich k’it’abach helava (KL – cf. BN w głowach księgi), Xięgi

formation with the prefix -ość in Psałterz krakowski, and she noted a convergence in this field with the translations of Wróbel and Leopolita – cf. Rzeczowniki z przyrostkiem -ość w języku XVI wieku, [in:] Odrodzenie w Polsce…, Vol. III, Part 2, pp. 303–502; the object of research reflection of D. Bieńkowska and E. UmińskaTytoń were affixes -ość, -anie, -enie, -nik – cf. Warianty sufiksalne w staropolskich i renesansowych przekładach Psałterza, „Poradnik Językowy” 1994, Brochure 5–6, pp. 41–48; a high frequency of derivatives with -ość, -ca, -nik and the productivity of these prefixes was indicated by E. Woźniak, Słownictwo i frazeologia Psałterza krakowskiego (1532) na tle ówczesnych przekładów biblijnych, Łódź 2002; the issue of gerundial nomina agentis in the 16th-century Polish language is the topic of the work of F. Pepłowski, Odczasownikowe nazwy wykonawców czynności w polszczyźnie XVI w., Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk 1974; while A. LutoKamińska in her monograph Polska wersja przekładowa Ex P. Terentii comediis Latinissimae colloquiorum formulae… Mateusza z Kęt. Studium języka autora na tle polszczyzny XVI wieku, Warszawa 2010, p. 199 discussed the function of an affix -ość, e.g. the formation of proper abstract nouns and concrete nouns. She noted the fact that in the literature of the subject, it is noticeable that overproduction of this ambiguous affix in the second half of the 16th century began to be reduced in literary texts by the use of other suffixes, and especially of the less productive suffix -stwo – cf. especially a footnote 67. It is worthy of note that this type of formations, or neologisms formed by suffixal derivation with the use of suffixes -ca, -nik, -ość, and especially -ciel are particularly characteristic of BN. As is stated by L. Moszyński, Biblia Szymona Budnego…, pp. 46–47: “The Polish language of Budny is rich, full of neologisms created according to the rules of Polish wordformation, which, generally speaking, is a consequence of the principle adopted by him, of translating a Hebrew word by only one Polish word. A large group of names of doers belong to such neologisms. I have written down from Biblia Budnego as many as 34 formations with the suffix -ciel known only in his translation of the Bible.” F. Pepłowski in turn, in Odczasownikowe nazwy wykonawców czynności…, p.  279 cites statistics on the number of words formed with such affixes as -acz (400), -ca (285), -ciel (272), and -nik (228). They come mainly from continuous texts or from dictionaries of the 16th century. Their genesis is often associated with the period of the Middle Ages. The formations with these suffixes had their continuation in the 17th and 18th centuries. They are associated with specific types of texts, for example the affix -ciel is used mainly in religious literature, and the affix -ca can be found both in religious literature and in poetry (thanks to Jan Kochanowski, because previously only four composita with this affix were known). On the basis of his studies he states that “… most of the derivatives with -ca occur in religious literature; this is a typical phenomenon for the whole century; it can be observed both in OpecŻyw, dating from the beginning of the century in which there are 20 such words, as well as in texts from the end of the century, such as for example WujNT (43), LatHar (27), and SkarKaz (22). A particularly large influx of -ca words in religious texts can be seen in the years

The relationship

165

Boskie (Ww – cf. BudNT introd.)519, pričinca (T1, KM – BB), *staršij (T1 – BN, BG), *kaplan (T1 – BN), * ōfarōwnik and * ōfarnik (T1 – BN), *ʒica (KM – BN), pâmazanec (T1 – BB, BN, BG – it does not appear in BW), a bendą jakō pajančina (T1 fol. 480a, v. 3, p. 185 – BW) or also *mōśijaš ‘īśâ jezūs sin panni mariji (T1); *zvane (KM 109, v. 3) ‘powołanie’ (BN); the use of medieval names of doers with the suffix -nik, and with the 16th-century affixes -nik, -ciel, -ca520, and also denominations of abstract concepts with a suffix -ość, that is using certain word-formation models, e.g. *balwannik (T1 fol. 22a, v.  7b, p.  412 – SPolXVI, I, 296 in BudNT Ap 21/8), *činicel (T1 fol. 366a, v. 3, p. 50 – BW, in BN it is uczyniciel; SPolXVI, IV, 291 10 times BLeop, WujNT), *dōglōndač (TAL V, p. 109b, v. 4 – SPolXVI, V, 238–239 8 times Mącz, Rej, BN; Cn, SL), *gūbicel mjest i ws̱ī (TAL VI, p. 123a, v. 5 – SPolXVI, VIII, 231 only 2 times – Skarga, and for the first time BN Zach 11, 7 as a translation of Hebr. chowelim; SL), kriwdnik (TAL V, p.  97b, v.  3 – SPolXVI, XI, 343 1 time Sandecki-Malecki Mt 5, 44), *naşmewca (T1 – fol. 401a, v.  3, p.  49 – BG, BN, WujNT; SPolXVI, 36 times), newernik (TAL V, p. 99b, v. 7 – BB, BN; in SPolXVI a high frequency – 246 times), *nōśicel (T1 fol. 320b, v. 3, p. 50 – BN; SPolXVI, XVIII, 501 10 times; SL), pāpažnik (P97 – SPolXVI), škūdnik (TAL V, p. 97b, v. 4 – Kartoteka SPolXVI), *ūčenśniḱ (TAL V, p. 104a, v. 3 – Kartoteka SPolXVI), zemścicel gnewliwī (TAL V, p. 106b, v. 4 – Kartoteka SPolXVI), *zwodzicel (T1 – all Bible translations that were analyzed; Kartoteka SPolXVI); the use of everyday vocabulary and colloquial phraseology (including pejoratives, diminutives, and augmentatives)521;

1558–1583, thus in the period of the greatest productivity of this affix. In addition to Bible translations one may mention here polemical writings, the lives of the saints, sermons and catechisms. The majority of words newly introduced to the texts are linked with religious topics, among which there is a significant share of neologisms. It was in this period that ¾ of newly introduced words appeared for the first time in religious texts […]. In terms of newly introduced words, three Bible translations came to the fore: Leop (11), BudBib (9), BibRadz (5), as well as SkarŻyw (10) and KrowObr (7)” (cf. pp. 123–124). Moreover, the growth in the productivity of the suffix -ca occurs in the 17th century, which is associated with the influence of authors coming from the eastern lands, especially bilingual ones, writing both in Polish and Ruthenian, such as J. Galatowski, P. Mohiła, K. K. Sakowicz and M. Smotrzycki, who introduced a number of composita, mostly calques from church Ruthenian (cf. p. 291). 519 The meaning of the abbreviatons of cited monuments can be found in historical dictionaries of the Polish language. 520 The writings of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims is characterized by the richness and diversity of names of doers (nomina agentis), especially denominating believers and unbelievers. These are both borrowings from Bible translations, as well as neologisms which are not featured either in Renaissance religious literature or in the Polish lexical system. They therefore constitute extremely interesting research material, which heretofore was not analyzed in a comprehensive manner. 521 This issue is discussed in detail on pp. [139–142] in this monograph.

166

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

the use of colloquial phrases and symbolic titles522; the use of legal terminology, including Latinisms as evidence of the influence of the Western tradition and a feature of Renaissance translations (a distinctive feature of Renaissance translations also had to do with textual dependence on secular sources. This can be seen when the word is present in these sources, but is present in the Polish language in a low frequency or was used in an unusual sense in the Polish language)523, e.g. the substitution of Ar.  bāb meaning, among others, ‘a chapter (of a book)’ by ārtikul, the expressing of Ar.  āya[t]‌as *peregraf (T1 – fol. 15a, v. 6b, p. 397), as well as *rōzdzel524 and *wirš (T1 – fol. 181a, v. 6b, pp. 283–284), the rendering of Ar.  al-lawḥ +  al-maḥfūẓ as *matrika bōža (T1 fol. 354b, v. 7, p. 289), the interpretation of Ar.  hudan as *direkcija (T1, T2), dekret boži (KM), Ar.  umma[t] as *nacija (T1), and others, such as *dekleracija (T1 fol. 382a, v. 5, p. 180), *direktōr (T1 fol. 377b, v. 3, p. 204), fatiga (T1 fol. 34b, v. 4b, p. 437), *fūndatōr (T1 fol. 157a, v. 5, p. 256), histōrija (TAL VI, p. 112a, v. 7), igriskō i ōšukanina (TAL VI, p. 113a, v. 1), *kōnwersacija (T1 fol. 22b, v. 1b, p. 412), kreminal (T1 fol. 23b, v. 6, p. 196), *ōbiwatel peḱelnī (TAL V, p. 105a, v. 6), prōcesija (T1 fol. 21b, v. 4b, p. 410), *respekt (TAL VI, p. 125a, v. 4), wiktōrijōŋ (TAL V, p. 101a, v. 4), etc.525; univerbizations526 and creating instances of synonymy527, e.g. Ar.  rabb – *pan and prōwizor (T1 fol. 5b, v.  2b, p.  378), Ar.  nidd ‘equal, identical, similar, alike, the same’ 5 22 Cf. examples on pp. [135–136]. 523 Cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 109–114; I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 100. 524 Cf. contexts of T1 – P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 118–120. 525 Other Latinisms built with -ija/-yja: bestyja, fundacyja etc. – see P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 200. 526 The inadequacy of Slavic lexemes in reference to their Arabic counterparts is one of the reasons for the surplus of words in translation. It is worthy of note that this was already typical of the 14th- and 15th-century translations of Biblical and Psalter literature and it was widely practiced in the 16th century translations of the Bible. 527 The polysemy of the Arabic translational base contributed to the fact that one Arabic word was described by two or more Polish synonyms. This translatorial style originated from the 15th century idea of adding glosses in Latin texts, and also in texts “whose main functions included emotionality, expressiveness and suggestion” (cf. D. Bieńkowska, Szeregi wyrazowe w przekładzie Biblii Leopolity. (Z problemów kształtowania się synonimii staropolskiej), „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XXXIX, 1994, pp. 5–6), significantly influenced the development of Polish synonymy. Its development took place in translational literature of the 16th century. It was a distinctive feature of free translations, and it was in opposition, in this respect, to literal translations. At the same time, it was observed that among words having more than one-time equivalence there was a majority of abstract concepts. Instances of synonymy are usually tautological structures as a combination of two synonyms, sometimes remaining in varying degrees of generality (the conjunction i can be an indicator of combination). Particular caution should therefore be exercised in determining meanings, especially with regard to so-called word doublets,

The relationship

167

– *spōlenčnik and *tōwariš (T1 fol. 7b, v. 3b, p. 382), Ar.  ilāh – *prōžnij bōg and *balwan (T1 fol. 17b, v. 4b, p. 402), Ar.  hudan *direkcija, *priwodca (T1), Ar.  Al-Kitāb or Ar.  kitāb – matrika bōža, kśenga, piṡmo (T1), and kśenga korãn, *kśenga t’ewrīt’, *kśenga t’ewrīt’ i źebūr (T1), Ar.  āya[t] – rōzdzal, piṡmō (T1), Ar.  malak – ãnjōl, *slūga bōžij (T1), Ar.  šayṭān – šetan, kadūk (T1), Ar.  imām – *staršij, *pōwodir, *kaplan, *ōfarōwnik (T1), Ar.  rasūl – prōrōk, pōsōl, pōslanec (T1), Ar.  mušrik ‘polytheist’ – *trōjčanin, *trōjčak, *trōječnik, *newernik (T1), and *‘erabōwe (T1 fol. 16a, v. 3b, p. 399), *lūdze trōjeck’e, Ar.  bayyina[t] ‘clear evidence, undisputed testimony’ – znak’i, cuda (T2 II, v. 8, p. 72), Ar.  muṯbat + Ar.  li + Ar.  nās + Ar.  amn – *zbawene, *spaṡene lūdzem, *ūspōkōjene grechōw (T1 – cf. BB rendering of Gr. metanoia with the neologism upamiętanie (repentance), Lat. poenitentia – pokajanie (apology, beating one’s breast) [in the writings of the Orthodox Church] and pokuta (atonement, which were used interchangeably)528, Ar.  naṣara ‘help, aid, assist, support’; ‘bring victory (of God)’; ‘save, protect, defend’ – *ratūnek, *wspōmōžene (T1 fol. 18a, v. 1b, p. 402) and with Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-qiyāma[t] ‘resurrection’ – *den sondnij powstanij (fol. 27b, v. 5b, p. 423), Ar.  al-yawm + Ar.  al-āẖir – *den pōwstanij and *čas ōstatnij, and also *den ōstatnij (T1), as well as Ar.    min dūna allāh – ōprōč bōge spōlenčnik‘i balwani (T1), and *widzōnci *prōrōk *balwan ōprōč pana bōga (T1 fol. 7b, v. 4b–5b, p. 382), Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  allāh – *kśenga bōža korãn (T1), Ar.  Al-Kitāb + Ar.  bi + Ar.  al-ḥaqq – *korãn *kśenga prawdziwa (T1), Ar.  āya[t] + Ar.  allāh – korãn piśmō bōže (T1), korãn piṡmō i cūde bōžže (T1 fol. 324b, v. 2, p. 203), dziwi i cūda bōže (T1 fol. 34a, v. 4b, p. 436), also in relation to proper names, e.g. Ar.  allāh – allāh (T1 fol. 34b, v. 3b, p. 437), bōg, pan bōg, *bōg jedin (T1), Ar.  Ṭāḡūt – *ōbraz, *balwan, *dagōn, *zwodzicel (T1), Ar.  Suwāʻ and Ar.  Wadd – *bogi, *bilvani, *vudda i *śū‘a (KM), Ar.  Al-Furqān or Ar.  furqān – furkan, kur’an (KL), Ar.  Iblīs – zwodzicel, šetan (T1), Ar.  At-Tawrā[t] or Ar.  Tawrā[t] ‘Torah, Pentateuch, Old Testament’ – tevrit, berše kśenga (KM 370, v. 2–3, p. 184), Ar.  Az-Zabūr or Ar.  Zabūr ‘the book of Psalms, Psalter’ – źebūr and drūga kśenga (KM 370, v. 3–4, p. 184), Ar.  Al-Inǧīl or Ar.  Inǧīl ‘Gospel’ – inǯil and treceja kśenga (KM 370, v. 4–5, p. 184) etc., also including lexical and semantic doublets, e.g. bōg-alláh, *pan-prōwizor, prōwizōr-karmicel, *begliwan, behliwan-balvan, palvan, kur’an-koran, furkan-korãn, levchi’l-melchfuzu-*tablica, *ajat/ajet-*peregraf, *ajat/ajet-kśenga, *ajat/ajet-piśmo, *ãjet’-*rōzdzel, alk’it’abkśenga, mewni-*wykład, k’at’ib-*pisar, melek-anhieł, melek-*slūga bōžij, ferej-čeñij,

which occur in Bible translations and in translations of the Qur’an as “equivalents” of one source word and are generally considered to be synonyms (cf. I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 186). 528 I. Winiarska-Górska, Język, styl i kulturowa rola szesnastowiecznych protestanckich przekładów Nowego Testamentu…, p. 302.

168

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

*ruχ-*dūch, kūr-ṕev’eń, šejtan-šatan-kadūk, šejtan-zvodca, zebanje-mukari, ǯeib*prijacel, glūpij-meǧnūn, śejjd-pan-spodar, *murśel-*prōrōk, mursiel, murşel-*posel, *imam-*pōwodir, resiul-prorok, resiul-*posel, resiul-*poslanec, *šehid-*śvjadek, *šefipričinca etc.529. Multiequivalence translation confirms the Renaissance nature of translations, whose distinctive feature was that translators searched for such equivalents of ambiguous words in the original text, which could render in the best way their meaning in a given context, making the whole understandable and readable. Renaissance translators were concerned about rendering the imagery and figurativeness of the original language, and preventing any blurring of the latter’s meanings. Hence they used stylistic synonyms. Creating such instances of synonymy was a distinctive feature of Old Polish Psalter translations, and also of Bible translations into Polish, which were made later. Creating instances of synonymy in Old Polish translations of the Bible is especially visible in the case of verb synonyms – cf. for example Psałterz floriański, in which they are rendered by more than one Polish equivalent. This gives rise to an increase in synonymy and diversity of vocabulary in the text of the translation in comparison with the original text530. A distinctive feature of the 14th- and 15th-century part of Psałterz floriański is also greater abundance of vocabulary in relation to its Latin basis531. According to the research of T. Lisowski, “in all Polish translations there are more verbs and participles than in the original text […] because the main source of the increased number of verbal entries in Polish translations is a verbal category of aspect implemented lexically, which multiplied the number of entries, that is Polish equivalents of the verbs in the original text”532.

529 A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 79, analysing Tatar prayer texts, indicates that there are numerous instances of synonymy, whose presence in these texts is conditioned by the use of a particular translatorial and writing method that is analogical to parallelism based on translation unit. Pairs of synonyms are used to render a term or a word in the original text, or hendiadys, e.g. Ar. ṣāliḥ – dobry (good), stateczny (serious); a native word – an Oriental borrowing (cf. examples analyzed in this monograph); a native expression (Polish or Belorussian) – dialectal or archaic, e.g. prorok-posoł (prophet-envoy). He also highlights semantic-synonymous parallelism, e.g. armie muzułmanów and wojska wiernych or antonymous parallelism: pan proroków (the Lord of prophets) and orędujący za grzesznymi (one who intercedes for the sinners). In this respect he points out an analogy to the translations of the Bible, and especially of Psalms (cf. Hebrew structures, and sağ‘ – Arabic structures). 530 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 65. 531 Cf. ibidem, p. 50. 532 After ibidem, p. 68 – see also the research in the synonymy in Polish translations of Psałterz – such as M. Cybulski, Staropolskie przekłady psałterza…; E. Woźniak, Słownictwo i frazeologia Psałterza krakowskiego (1532)…, and in Polish Renaissance translations – D. Bieńkowska, Słownictwo i frazeologia w Psałterzu…; I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…; I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…; E. Belcarzowa, op. cit.

The relationship

169

A diachronic and open view, which is a distinctive feature of this monograph, assumes the possibility of exchange of religious ideas and layers of vocabulary between denominations as part of a common religious tradition533. Research confirms that in their translatorial work the Tatars of the GDL also took advantage of the achievements of their predecessors. Thus, their writings reflect tendencies typical of the language of the 16th-century Protestant humanists – cf. for example the coexistence of well-established Christian terminology with secular nomenclature, e.g. with legal terminology, including numerous Latinisms; the presence of native equivalents, taken from colloquial language, etc.534. Finding the Bible translation that the Tatar translators referred to continues to be a philological problem. According to the research which was carried out535 one may say that they certainly used such Protestant translations as BB and BG widely, but especially the arian BN. This is because arian translators represented similar views as Lithuanian-Polish Muslims on such important issues as the dogma of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ and the universal priesthood – cf. “Four polemical texts have been identified in a semikitab from the Library of the Belorussian Academy of Sciences, which contain quotations from the Calvinist Biblia brzeska, and about 140 verses from the Old Testament and 20 verses from the New Testament, taken from an Arian translation of the Bible called Biblia nieświeska”536. In particular, therefore, they drew on the Christian Reformation literature, namely they used Arian religious writings. BN, whose author relied on the original Hebrew and Greek sources, attracted their attention the most, as this translation seemed to be the most faithful and the closest to the original text. This was of great importance for the Tatars as they devoted particular attention to the purity of the message (cf. the principle of sola Scriptura). There is a perception in science that Szymon Budny, an exquisitie philologist and text critic, made a translation that is so hermetic in reception that he did not find any

533 Cf. I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 85 – Catholics and Protestants within the same Judeo-Christian tradition. 534 Cf. ibidem, p. 101. 535 Cf., for example, G. Miškinienė, Sieniausi lietuvos totorių rankrašciai… – a comprehensive set of references and analogies to the BN translation based on the three oldest Tatar manuscripts in the GDL; A. Drozd, Wpływy chrześcijańskie na literaturę Tatarów w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej…, pp. 10–11; A. Konopacki, op. cit., p. 155 – the presence of glosses in Polish in BN (in the Latin alphabet), comments introduced in the Arabic script, and of passages of the Qur’an with the relevant Bible allusions C. Łapicz, Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna…, p. 304; H. Jankowski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., p. 24; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 539. The impact of BN on the content of Chamaił lipski is discussed, among others, in М. Тарэлка, Рэлігійна-палемічны тэкст… 536 C. Łapicz, Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna…, p.  304  – after М. Тарэлка, Структура арабаграфичного текста на польской мове, Miнск 2004, p. 11.

170

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

continuators. According to S. Koziara, one of the reasons why Budny’s translation contains the fewest influences in the history of Bible translations is the fact that it is extremely individualistic537. This opinion is shared by I. Kwilecka: “as a translator, Szymon Budny himself did not find any continuators”538. The above thesis proposed by scholars should be verified against a Tatar tefsir. Budny’s translation, similar as the Tatar translation literature in the GDL, originated in a multiethnic, multiconfessional and multicultural environment in the Lithuanian borderland, which resulted in a combination of elements of Western, Eastern and Byzantine cultures and traditions. Moreover, Budny’s text is in conformity with humanistic and critical translations and thus, sets an excellent example to be followed by Tatar translators. The similarities between Budny’s translation and the Tatar translation of the Quran include: the translation strategy (authenticity), the type of translation (a faithful translation with an extended critical apparatus or a philological translation), and the translatorial solutions which were adopted. The translation solutions shared with BN comprise: transcription and Slavicization and inflectional adaptation of foreign terms, extensive commentaries to the translated text as an implication of untranslatability of certain terms and structures (cf. glosses)539, the presence of numerous Hebrew replicas in syntax and phraseology, as for example participial and gerundive expressions, forming of the superlative and coining religious terminology (cf. numerous neologisms created in conformity with the Polish word formation rules). In their monograph published in 2009, based on an analyzed monument  – a 17th-century polemical manuscript from the collections of the National Library in Minsk, I. Synkova and M. Tarelka expanded even more the canon of the sources which were used by the Tatar translators in the GDL. They proved, on the basis of the monument they analyzed, that BW and Psalms in the translation of Jan Kochanowski were also used by them. This confirms the thesis of a suprareligious translatorial tradition and the influence both religious ideas and vocabulary between different denominations. They diligently indicated and documented borrowings from BN, BB and BW, as well as from Psalms translated by Jan Kochanowski in four polemical texts that make up this 17th-century manuscript. They indicate, among other things, a high frequency of Biblical quotations (e.g. in the first text, a polemic on the dogma of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the Christian exegesis of certain passages of the Scripture – Gen. 1, 1 and 8, 1; Ps 110, 1 and 4; 146, 3–4; Is. 7, 14; 9, 6; in the second text, focusing on the ambiguity of the Old Testament word Elohim and accepting in this respect the interpretation of BN and M.  Czechowic – Gen. 32, 30; 18, 1;

5 37 Cf. S. Koziara, Frazeologia biblijna w języku polskim, Łask 2009. 538 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 224. 539 The awareness of the fact that religious terminology has no equivalents is consistent with the latest trends in translation studies – therefore Budny and the Tatar translators were ahead of their time in this regard.

The relationship

171

Ex. 4, 16; 7, 1; Rt 1, 15; Za 12, 8; Ps 77, 13; Ps 96, 4 and 5; Is. 9, 6; in the third text, devoted to the life of the Jewish king Josiah – 1 Kings 13, 2; Is. 9, 5; in the fourth text, explaining the origin of Ishmael – allusions to the text of the Bible, including an unknown commentary on Psalm 110), cited in such a form that could comply with the tenets of Islam; the presence of Old Testament proper names of Hebrew and Aramaic origin, as well as of Latin origin, in transliteration convergent with Polish Bible translations (especially from BN), and the creation of adjectives from those elements analogously to the BN translation (they are lacking in BW and in the Vulgate); the use of the names of the Bible known in the Christian tradition and the names of its individual chapters, and other denominations, e.g. ’ūfārniq, ruẓdzal, jahūwā after BN, pradziwnī būġ after BW, etc.; They also indicated the type and nature of modifications introduced by the Tatars, thus including changes motivated by religious and ideological reasons (eliminating or transforming quotations inconsistent with the doctrine of Islam, for example those concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, whom to include as offspring of Abraham – Isaac or Ishmael, things concerning the person of the Holy Spirit, etc.), e.g. the regular replacement in the words of Jesus of the phrases Ociec moy (Mt 20, 23) by ṣām pān būġ and Oycże moy (Mt 26, 39) by būža mōj, the replacement of ieden (Mk 10, 18)  by jadinij/jadinnī in relation to God, omitting pronouns in phrases such as po prawicy twoiey (Mt 20, 21), the replacement of Bog Izraelow (1 Kings 11, 31) by būġ, z kośćiołá (2 Kings 23, 4) by z dūmū, adding to the proper name of God the epithets stressing his identity and uniqueness, e.g. ṣṭwurical (Mk 12, 28), adding the word būġ e.g. jahūwā būġ (1 Sm 2, 2), adding of the word pan, e.g. pān būġ (Gen. 8, 1), pān jaẓūṣ (Mt 15, 29), etc.; the changes of exegetical nature, e.g. the change of skała (2 Sm 22, 32) for ‘ūbruncā or cudne (Gen. 6, 2) for bārẓdu paqna, and others; stylistic changes, e.g. omitting everything which, from the point of view of an author or a copyist, did not matter much – cf. Iehowo Boże nasz zbaw nas proszę (2 Kings 19, 19) replaced by jahūwā ẓbāw nāṣ, making interpretations and explanations of the sense of the text – cf. wszedł na gorę osobno modlić się (Mt 14, 3) changed into pān jaẓūṣ wšadl na ġūrā’ ūṣūbnū mūdlicśa pānū būġu, adding titles – cf. qrūlā kidarlihāmā (Gen. 14, 17) or adding a title to a proper name – cf. qrūl jūra[wa]hām (1 Kings 13, 4), the introduction of a specific subject in place of a pronoun, and also the replacement of a proper name by a pronoun, the use of abbreviations, simplifications and amplifications – cf. Co chcesz (Mt 20, 21) for cū ḥcaš čaġu žūndāš čaġu prūśiš, consistent correction of ofiarownik, a word from BN (Gen, 14, 18), into ’ūfarniq, modifications of calques from Hebrew – cf. śmiercią umrzesz (Gen. 20, 7)  changed into bandzaš ‘umirāl ‘umraš, the replacement of less known words with their synonyms which were more familiar, and others540. The existence of this type of “borrowings” is due to the impact of the Reformation movement. It is supposed that Tatars did not necessarily have to use 540 Cf. pp. 273–284 (the examples are given in the spelling according to М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit.).

172

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

translated texts of the Bible, but the quotations from the Old and New Testaments could have reached them as an echo of ongoing religious polemics541. This fact was confirmed in the research of P. Suter. He indicates that Tatars used polemical writings and listened to religious discussions, where extensive excerpts from the Old and New Testament were cited from existing translations of Biblical and Psalter literature (fragmentary and comprehensive translations). He thinks that, for example, false attribution of the authorship of the Psalms in Arabic to David (as an Arab prophet), and the authorship of the gospels to Jesus in Latin can be explained by the influence of knowledge drawn from such polemics542 – cf. wedlūg jenzika ‘erabṡk’egō dawidōwegō ã’īśī sīne merjeminegō inǧīl jenzik’em lacinṡk’im (T1 fol. 93b, v. 6, p. 109). Also I.  Synkova and М. Тarelka prove that the passages from the Scripture which occur in the P97, namely from BB, BN or BW, come from other sources543 than these translations because not all quotations from the Old and New Testament agree literally with any of the known Bible translations. A. Konopacki argues that there existed theological Tatar literature, consisting of works that these people composed on their own on the basis of Christian religious texts by removing, for example, parts incompatible with Islam544. Some Qur’anic motifs were therefore replaced, especially in kitabs, with descriptions taken over from the tradition of the Old Testament, and exceptionally even of the New Testament (cf. the birth, life and passion of Jesus, the life of Mary, etc.)545. According to K.  Dufala, “The

5 41 This issue has been raised on pp. [92–96] of this monograph. 542 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 109 – cf. comments on the role of religious polemics C. Łapicz, Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna…, pp. 305–306. 543 They attempted to identify them, pointing to the apocryphal Book of Adam (Vita Adae et Evae), which was translated into Polish by Pussman and published in 1543, an archaic formula “Christians believe in the Almighty Father and the Almighty Son”, an unknown commentary to the Wisdom of Solomon, a certain Protestant document, a catechism and others – cf. М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit., pp. 254–296. М. Тарэлка also writes about the compilation of unspecified sources, Pэлігійнапалемічны тэкст… Combining multiple source texts, their modifications, and expanding with new source material is typical of apocryphal texts, for their peculiar feature is “being in constant motion, constant transformation, which in turn leads to the emergence of structures which are a kind of a supplement to a supplement” – cf. T. Mika, W. Twardzik, Jak zagadkowe cztery tytuły…, p. 323. 544 A. Konopacki, op. cit., p. 155. 545 Cf. C. Łapicz, Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna…, p. 295: “Stories based on the tradition of the Old Testament were adapted especially willingly, as it is the book which was (and still it is) regarded as the common heritage of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That is why Tatar kitabs in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania contain numerous citations, motifs, longer passages, and sometimes even entire works taken from the Christian cultural sphere, including the rich cultural heritage of Old Polish literature, both original and translated from other languages.”

The relationship

173

authors and copyists of Muslim manuscripts, using Christian sources, chose such works or their fragments which agreed with the Muslim tradition in any way. Especially popular were therefore different Old Testament motifs, which are also reflected in the Qur’an”546. According to A. Drozd547, the examples of compilation of Biblical and Qur’anic texts show “the indifference in the approach of Tatars to the sources of both religions:  creating a synthesis of the epic content of the two holy books, Tatar authors treated their storyline as a complementary history.” Researchers point to the presence in Tatar manuscripts, for example, of Historyja barzo cudna… written by Krzysztof Pussman in 1543548, Psalmy in the translation of bishop I.  Krasicki549, Legenda o św. Hiobie550, Legenda o św. Grzegorzu551, and other sources from the Christian cultural sphere552. In the process of substance and formal adaptation of these texts, the interference between Christianity and Islam was inevitable, not only in a strictly linguistic sphere, especially in the lexicalsemantic and phraseological area, but also on the dogmatic plane, reaching even to the so-called pillars of Islam, as well as at the level of customs and habits553. As was noticed by A. Konopacki, borrowing whole passages from Christian texts, on the one hand could indicate a desire to show the proximity of the two religions, Islam and Christianity, but on the hand referring to these texts was to show their fallaciousness (the fact of falsification of the word of God)554. The vast majority 5 46 K. Dufala, Legenda o św. Grzegorzu w kitabie Tatarów…, p. 207. 547 A. Drozd, Wpływy chrześcijańskie na literaturę Tatarów w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej…, p. 18–23. 548 M. Adamczyk, Biblijno-apokryficzne narracje w literaturze staropolskiej do końca XVI wieku, Poznań 1980; A. Drozd, Staropolski apokryf w muzułmańskich księgach. (Tatarska adaptacja Historyji barzo cudnej o stworzeniu nieba i ziemie Krzysztofa Pussmana), „Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne” III (XXIII), Seria Literacka, Poznań 1996, pp. 95–134. 549 I. Radziszewska, Chamaiły jako typ piśmiennictwa religijnego muzułmanów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego… – the author of this work identified the translation and its translator – cf. pp. 129–130; in the same hamail a fragment of a tragicomedy of G. B. Guarni under the title Pastor Fido, albo Konterfekt Wierny Miłości, was recognized, which was translated by I. Krasicki – cf. pp. 127–129. 550 A. Drozd, Staropolski apokryf w muzułmańskich księgach…, pp. 163–195. 551 K. Dufala, Legenda o św. Grzegorzu w kitabie Tatarów…, pp. 205–220. 552 C. Łapicz in his article Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna w rękopisach Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego discusses in detail the Christian, including Catholic, sources, which were creatively used by the Tatars of the GDL, and shows the process of adaptation of stories contained therein to the canons and dogmas of Islam – pp. 295–299. Moreover, in the article Z jakich źródeł muzułmanie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego…, p. 166, he states that Polish translations of the Bible, the lives of saints and prophets, and Christian myths and legends were the subject of careful reading, and even in-depth studies by Lithuanian-Polish Muslims. 553 Cf. C. Łapicz, Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna…, p. 294. 554 Cf. A. Konopacki, op. cit., p. 158.

174

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

of this literature was in fact apologetic in its nature and purposes, and its goal was to prove the validity of the Muslim views, including extreme monotheism. Disputes in Tatar writings are conducted with Jews or Christians (there is no distinction between Catholics, Protestants, etc. because their patterns were drawn mostly from the original writings and commentaries of Islam before the split in Christianity), or with the representatives of monotheistic religions555. One should only add that Tatar translations, in terms of their relation to the model, that is the paradigm of Polish Biblical style, not only implemented this model scheme, but they also had a part in shaping it556. In fact, distinctive features of this paradigm can be noticed in them, such as: – in the syntax: an abundance of passive structures, utterances in ordinate elliptical clauses, especially with a perfect participle, paratactical structures, the use of conjunctions i, bo, a as typical indicators of a combination, postpositional word order of pronominal and possessive attributes; – in lexis and phraseology: the use of distinctive, petrified word combinations and syntactic structures, the sublimity of style and archaic quality of the language557.

2.7 Ways and methods of rendering the peculiar terminology of Islam In order to specify the manners and methods of translating specialist Muslim terminology into Slavic languages, I referred to the methodology that is adopted and well-established in the history of the Polish language. The same principles guiding the evolution and development of diverse terminologies of foreign origin were also indicated by such researchers as Edward Klich, Franciszek Pepłowski, I. Kwilecka, R.  Zarębski, I.  Winiarska558. Klich distinguished three categories of Christian terms:  foreign untranslated terms (formal-semantic borrowings), translated foreign terms and native terms with a new meaning (neosemantisms). This division has been complemented and extended by I. Kwilecka, who distinguished the following mechanisms in the creation of new terminology: transcription of foreign names (mainly in faithful literal translations), the replacement of a foreign term

5 55 Cf. C. Łapicz, Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna…, p. 302. 556 Cf. Section 2.4. 557 Cf. deliberations of I. Winiarska-Górska, Język, styl i kulturowa rola szesnastowiecz­ nych protestanckich przekładów Nowego Testamentu… 558 E. Klich, op. cit.; F. Pepłowski, Słownictwo i frazeologia polskiej publicystyki okresu oświecenia i romantyzmu, Warszawa 1961; I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…; R. Zarębski, Nazwy osobowe w polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu…; I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu… Cf. also K. Hejwowski, op. cit., pp. 74–76; A. Bednarczyk, op. cit., p. 69; Z. Kozłowska, op. cit., pp. 132–158.

Ways and methods

175

with its meaning, the replacement of a foreign term with a native name of similar connotation, the use of metonymy, and the use of periphrasis559. But, I. Winiarska has compared mechanisms exploited by Reformed Protestants to create their own religious vocabulary with the trends observed by F.  Pepłowski in regard to the phraseology of journalism in the age of Enlightenment and in the 19th century, namely borrowings from foreign languages, formal changes  – neologisms (formative derivatives, syntactic and semantic derivatives), internal borrowings, or vocabulary transfer from other areas and neosemantisms, i.e. a change of meaning within previously existing religious terminology560. Tatar translators also faced difficulties in finding appropriate counterparts of the original Qur’anic terms in Slavic languages. Therefore, they resorted to transcription, periphrases (circumlocutions) or attempts to use native terminology. Therefore, in the texts of their translation, one may observe the following ways of rendering of both proper as well as appellative names: 1. translocation (the transmission of a name in a foreign form on the basis of a quotation), 2. Slavicization (formal-semantic borrowings, that is adopting the form and meaning of the word and its adaptation to the grammatical and lexical system of Slavic languages), indicating the problem of untranslatability of Muslim religious terminology into Slavic languages, and 3.  translation (a pursuit of native semantic equivalents)  – here one may distinguish specific methods of translation distinguished by I. Kwilecka and I. Winiarska such as the substitution of a foreign term with its meaning, the replacement of a foreign name with a native one of a similar connotation, the use of metonymy, periphrasis, antonomasia, as well as creating neosemantisms (semantic derivatives) or neologisms (mainly morphological derivatives, resulting from the process of suffixation), and the use of structural borrowings. Translocated or Slavicized terms are frequently used in Tatar translations, which stems from the fact that the translators were fully aware of the untranslatability of specialist Muslim terminology into Slavic languages561. Hence, they would often leave foreign religious terms untranslated. On the one hand, this was partly due to a lack of adequate equivalents in Slavic languages, but on the other, the translators assumed that the target texts should be comprehensible for religious Muslims562.

5 59 I. Kwilecka, Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii…, p. 302. 560 I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 98. 561 C. Łapicz, Z zagadnień przekładu muzułmańskiej terminologii modlitewnej…, p. 106. 562 This thesis is confirmed by research done by modern sociologists and linguists. In the community of Polish Tatars, one observes a lack of general knowledge of the Arabic language, while at the same time, the essential Islamic terms of Arabic origin are used. A Tatar woman, Dżemila Smajkiewicz-Murman, puts an emphasis on the characteristic way of pronouncing these terms: “Arabic terms are pronounced in a Turkish way with a stress put on the last syllable – cf. Obyczajowość Tatarów polsko-litewskich na Wileńszczyźnie, „Acta Baltico-Slavica” XXXVII, Warszawa 2013, p. 204. Therefore, they are an important factor in the identification and identity of

176

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

One of the features of these translations is therefore the presence of Oriental lexical borrowings functioning in colloquial speech and in the language of Tatar literature563. A whole range of examples of the translocation or Slavization of terms of Oriental origin can be provided564, to mention:  Ar.  tawḥīd  – t’evchid (KL after A, p. 83), tewchid (W, p. 365), Per. péhlivan, pählivān (cf. Ar.  bahliwān ‘an idol’) – *begliwan or behliwan (W, p. 355), Ar.  ma‘nà – mewni (W, p. 361), Ar.  sūra[t]‌‘a chapter of the Qur’an’ – siurej (W, p. 364), Ar.  āya[t] – *ãjet’ (T1), Ar. ḥurūf, pl  ḥarf ‘a letter’ – churf (pl churfy) (W p. 356), Ar.  safar ‘a book (especially in relation to holy books)’ – *sufry (KM 329, v. 2, p. 324), Ar.  ḥizb – *chiźby (T1 fol. 2a, v. 9, p. 374), Ar.  kitāb – kitab (W, p. 360), Ar.  al-lawḥ +  al-maḥfūẓ  – levch, levchu, levchi‘l-melchfuzu (KL after A, p. 72), Ar.  malak – melek (W), Ar. coll.  – ǧinn ‘demons, good or evil spirits’ – dżyn (W, p. 357), Ar.  rūḥ – *ruχ (KM 7, v. 10, p. 62), Ar.  fariyy or Per. perī  – fierej (W, p.  358), Ar.  kātib  – k’at’ib (KL after A, p.  72), Ar.  zabāniyya[t] – zebanje (W, p. 366), Ar.  šayṭān – šejtan (KK 63a, v. 9, p.  98), Ar.  mu’aḏḏin ‘calling for prayer’  – mueźźin (KŁ 119b, v.  2, p.  381), Ar.  rasūl – *reśūl (ChL 118a, v. 3–4, p. 201), Ar.  mursal – mursiel (W, p. 362), Ar.  ḥaḍra[t] – χezret’ (KM 21, v. 8, p. 69), Ar.  ḥaḍra[t] +  rasūl – reśūl χezrek (KM 103, v. 6, p. 108), Ar.  imām – *imam (T2 II, v. 2–3, p. 33), Per. pejgamber – bejgamber (KK 41b, v. 8, p. 81), Ar.  ṣiddīq ‘truthful,

this ethnic group. Its meta-language contributes to the creation of their own “Tatar perception of the world.” This fact was noted by Leszek Bednarczuk: “The Arabic alphabet was used for wills, notes and tomb inscriptions as well as the Qur’anic texts that were incomprehensible to most of the population. It performed the double role of a holy and secret script. Religious and lay texts written in Belorussian and Polish are so full of Turkish and Arabic terms that their language can be described as a remodelled Belorussian (or Polish) ethnolect, in which Slavic endings are affixed to Oriental lexemes. Its phonemic and word-building characteristics resemble other ethnolects of the Grand Duchy. Palatal consonants occur in the context of front vowels, as in the following examples:  Oriental (Tatar) lexemes in Belorussian/ Polish: biesz ‘five’, fierej ‘name of a demon’, iślam ‘Islam’, mieczeć ‘mosque’, resiul (Turkish resul) ‘envoy, prophet’, sielam […]” – after Language in contact and conflict on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL), „Acta Baltico-Slavica” XXXVII, Warszawa 2013, p. 28. 563 Cf. A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 80. 564 The list of Arabic borrowings that are present in T1 is given by P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 57–58. He also notes that 70 of them refer to the central concepts of the religion of Islam. He also mentions Ar. ḥalāl and ḥarām, the names of parts of the Qur’an and other holy books. As the most commonly used Arabisms he mentions farḍ, kāfir, šayṭān, zakā, ẓālim, as well as the formula of the creed lā ilāha illā llāh, and the term ġāzī (cf. pp. 58–61). He also cites words borrowed from Turkish and Persian, which were also used in Tatar texts, albeit at a lower level of frequency (cf. pp. 61–66).

Ways and methods

177

honest’ – *siddik (KM 189, v. 11, p. 139), Ar.  ḥisāb, for example, ‘counting, calculating, calculation, calculus, conversion’ – cysiab (W, p. 356), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-mulaḥ – ’ejjam-ul-mulach (W, p. 357), Ar.  faza‘(un) ‘fear’ – fezach (feźiche) (KL after A, p. 67), Ar.  maw‘ūd, for example, ‘appointed, designated (a date)’; ‘promised, pledged’ – mew’ud (miew’ud) (W, p. 361), Ar.  sā‘a[t], for example, ‘an hour’; ‘time, a period of time, instant, moment’ – saa (W, p. 363), etc. Proper names constitute a particular group among the words of Oriental (mainly Arabic) etymology565, because, as a rule, they are preserved in accordance with their foreign sound, e.g. the name of God from Ar.  allāh – alláh (T1), the names of pagan gods:  Ar.  Suwā‘ and Ar.  Wadd  – *vudda i *śū’a (KM), the names of holy books: Ar. ‫ﺁ‬ Al-Qur’ān ‘Koran’ – kur’an (KM), Ar.  Al-Furqān or Ar.  furqān – furkan (KL), Ar.  At-Tawrā[t]‌or Ar.  Tawrā[t] – t’ewrīt’ (T1), Ar.  Az-Zabūr or Ar.  Zabūr – źebūr (T1, KM), Ar.  Al-Inǧīl or Ar.  Inǧīl – inǧīl (T1 fol. 19a, v. 7b, p. 405), indžil (KL after A, p. 69), the names of angels:  ‘Izrā’īl, ‘Azrā’īl – ‘eźrak’il (KM 176, v. 1, p. 134), Ar.  Daǧǧāl ‘the character modelled on the Christian antichrist’ – deǯǯal (KM 7, v. 10, p. 62), Ar.  Ǧibrīl,  Ǧabrā’īl – džebra’īl (ChL), Ar.  Hārūt and Ar.  Mārūt – haruta i maruta (T2 7, v. 10, p. 62), Ar.  Isrāfīl – Işrafīl (KL after A, p. 69), Ar.  Mīkāl or  Mīẖā’īl – Meka’ił (in a footnote there is an explanation Michael) (KŁ 134b, v. 4, p. 390), Ar.   Munkar wa-Nakīr – munk’ir ve nek’ir (KM 256, v. 4–6, p. 157), ar.  Rāfā’īl – Refe‘e (KŁ 132b, v. 4, p. 389), the names of prophets: Ar.  Ādam – adam (KK 41b, v. 8, p. 81), Ar.  Ibrāhīm – ibrahjim (T2 II, v. 2, p. 75), Ar.  Isḥāq – iśχaf (KM 15, v. 9, p. 66), iśhak (KM 21, v. 2, p. 68), Ar.  Ya‘qūb – ja‘kūb (KK 44b, v. 5–6, p. 83), Ar.  Nūḥ – *nuχ (T2 II, v. 6, p. 57), nūχ (KM 15, v. 7, p. 66), Ar.  Dāwūd – davod (KM 15, v. 11, p. 66), davūd (KM 21, v. 5, p. 68), Ar.  Sulaymān – śulejman (KK), Ar.  Ayyūb  – ajjūb (KM 21, v.  6, p.  69), Ar.  Yūsuf  – jūsuf (T2 II, v.  4, p. 36), Ar.  Mūsa – mūśa (KK), Ar.  Hārūn – haron (KM 21, v. 5, p. 68), Ar.  Zakariyyā – źek’erijja (KM 21, v. 4, p. 68), Ar.  Yaḥyà – jaχja (KM 21, v. 4, p. 68), Ar.  ‘Īsa – ‘iśā (ChL), Ar.  ‘Ilyās – iljas (KK 64a, v. 6, p. 99),

565 The names of gods, angels and other spiritual beings (e.g. evil spirits and demons) are classified as proper names in such works as M. Malec, Onomastyka w „Rozmyślaniu przemyskim”, „Polonica” XXII–XXIII, 2003, p. 353; Ł. M. Szewczyk, Nazewnictwo literackie w Sonetach krymskich Adama Mickiewicza, [in:] Polszczyzna dawna i współczesna, ed. C. Łapicz, Toruń 1994, p. 104; K. Długosz-Kurczabowa, Onomastyka Nowego Testamentu, „Slavia Occidentalis” XLVI/XLVII, 1989/1990, 1991, p. 73 (“a specific subgroup of anthroponyms”). The same proper name can be capitalized or written in lowercase, depending on the system of transliteration and transcription adopted for a particular Tatar monument in the GDL. Furthermore, the individual forms in the analyzed translations frequently have several orthographical, phonetic, inflexional or formative variants, depending mostly by historical and linguistic factors.

178

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

Ar.  Ismā‘īl – iśmaīl (KK 43a, v. 10–11, p. 82), Ar.  Yūnus – jūnūś (KM 21, v. 7, p. 69), Ar.  Lūṭ – lūt (KM 21, v. 3, p. 68), Ar.  Hūd – hūd (KM 21, v. 1, p. 68), Ar.  Ṣāliḥ – saliχ (KM 21, v. 1, p. 68), Ar.  Šu‘ayb – šū‘ib (KM 21, v. 3, p. 68), Ar.   Ḏū al-Kifl – źūlk’ifil (KM 21, v. 7, p. 69), Ar.  Ḏū al-Qarnayn – źulkarnejni (KM 21, v. 6, p. 68), Ar.  Idrīs – idriś (KM), Ar.  Muḥammad – muχammed (KK 74 a, v. 11–12, p. 108), and many others. The Slavicization of the proper names of Oriental origin is also documented in one of the contexts of TAL – cf. i s̀ulejmana i ajūba i jūzefa i mūs̀ū i harūna i tak tež placimi dōbrōtliwim i źeḱerjū i jexjū i ‘īs̀ū i iljas̱a […] tak tež is̱maal i alizeūš i jūnus̀ i lōt (V, p. 118a, v. 4–6). Among the words which are translocated or Slavicized one may also mention the names of the first chapter of the Qur’an which are featured, for example, in KM – cf. Ar.  Al-Fātiḥa[t]‌– *fat’iχet’ (483, v. 10–13, p. 216 and 484, v. 1–2, p. 216) and other ones, as well as the names of prophet Muhammad, e.g. in KM (120, v. 2–8, p. 115): from Ar.  ṣafā’ ‘brightness, clarity, transparency’; ‘happiness, joy, merriment’; ‘honesty, directness, openness’ – sefa, from Ar.  faẖr – feχri, from Ar.  šafī‘ + Ar.  ṣadra[t] + Ar.  al-muntahà ‘advocate under the lotos tree’566 – šefihu u sidret’u munt’eha, from Ar.  ḥabīb ‘friend, beloved’ – ǯeib, from Ar.   sayyid al-anām ‘lord over people’ (cf. Ar. coll. anām ‘humankind, people, the human race’)567 – śejjdu alla name, from Ar.  ẖayr + Ar.  al-bariyya[t] ‘The Best of the Created’568 – χejru albenjjet’i, from Ar.  qāsim ‘sharing (sorrow, pain with somebody), dividing something’  – kaśim, probably a distorted form of the name Maḥmud – mūmiud, Ar.  ṭāba ‘to be good, nice, pleasant’; ‘to like’; ‘to recover, to get back to health’ or Ar.  ṭāba` ‘seal, stamp’ – maybe it is the basis for a name tabe, Ar.  Al-Muzammil ‘wrapped with a robe’ – muźimmilu, Ar.  Al-Mudaṯṯir ‘clothed with a robe’ – mudeśśiru, Ar.  šahīd ‘martyr’; ‘a hero who died on the battlefield’ – šahid, Ar.   dā‘/in allāh ‘calling, appealing (to God)’ – da‘i, Ar.  sirāǧ ‘lamp, lantern’ + Ar.  munīr ‘luminuous, bright, shiny’ – śirač munir, Ar.  Ṭāhā and Ar.  Yāsīn – th ve jśn, Ar.  Muṣṭafà (cf. Ar.  muṣṭafān) – mustega. Translators’ doubts pertaining to the choice of the original form, present in the source text, and the form embedded in translation and literary traditions can be observed here (particularly when it comes to the proper names mentioned in both the Bible and the Quran), e.g. the forms kur’an, *kuran, *keran and korãn, which occur in Tatar monuments in the GDL, indicate either Slavicization of Ar. ‫ﺁ‬ Al-Qur’ān, or reflect the state of the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish because some dictionaries of the Polish language record the forms kuran and

5 66 Cf. H. Jankowski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., p. 115. 567 Cf. ibidem. 568 Explication and etymology according to H. Jankowski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., p. 115 – cf. J. Danecki, J. Kozłowska, op. cit., p. 136: Ar. barrī 1. ‘terrestrial’; 2. ‘wild (about plants and animals)’.

Ways and methods

179

korãn (cf. SPolXVI IX, 431–432; Kartoteka SPolXVII and XVIII), and in the lexeme keran, one may see a contraction of o>u typical of the north-eastern borderland Polish. And in the form keran, there is a o-e vacillation typical of loan words. The following are further examples of this phenomenon: Ar.  or  Mīkāl, Mīẖā’īl  – *michajel (T1 fol.15a, v.  5b, p.  397), but *miχal (T2), Ar.  Ǧibrīl,  Ǧabrā’īl – in T2 both *ǯebra’il (II, v. 5, p. 25), as well as *gebrijel, Ar.  Ibrāhīm – in T1 *ibrāhim (fol. 18a, v. 5b, p. 403) and *ãbrahám (fol. 18a, v. 2b, p. 402), Ar.  Isḥāq – in T1 *iśchak and *iźak (fol. 19a, v. 3b, p. 405), Ar.  Dāwūd – in T1 dawūd (fol. 34a, v. 2b, p. 436) and *diwid, Ar.  Mūsà – in T1 mūśa (fol. 10a, v. 7b, p. 387) and *mōjžeš (fol. 19a, v. 7b, p. 405), Ar.  ‘Īsà – w T1 *‘ejśa (fol. 14a, v. 2b, p. 394) as well as *jezūs. It also refers to nomina appellativa, e.g. Ar.  šaytān – in KL šejtan and šatan (after A, p. 81). The translator’s hesitation, providing information about his bi- or polyglottism, is sometimes stated expressis verbis in the text of the translation, e.g. the already cited examples from KM: ‘iśa to jest po bolskū jezus or χanūχ a brasvisko idriś, and Woronowicz uses iśa (Jesus), and in KŁ Mov’ił, že to ‘eršovij kūr – parūsku ṕev’eń jest, etc. Translocated or Slavicized denominations quoted in this work are mostly of Arabic origin (thus, their Arabic etyma are given), but in the Ottoman Turkish or Tatar adaptation (they were taken over directly only in exceptional cases)569. The following examples therefore show that the basis for the Slavic form was often not an Arabic word, but a Turkish or a Tatar one, as it is evidenced by the realization of Ar. ḍ and ḏ as z, e.g. χezrek, χezret’ (Ar.  ḥaḍra[t]‌), zikr (Ar.  ḏikr ‘memory, recollection, remembrance’; ‘noting, mentioning, citing’; ‘report, story, account, narration’; zikr – in Sufism – repeating of prayer formulas) or reflexation of Ar. a>e, Ar. ā>e, typical of Ottoman Turkish and Tatar, e.g. t’evchid, tewchid (Ar.  tawḥīd), *begliwan or behliwan (cf. Ar.  bahliwān), siurej (cf. Ar.  sūra[t]), *ãjet’ (Ar.  āya[t]), mewni (Ar.  ma‘nà), fezach (feźiche) (Ar.  faza‘ (un)), mew’ud (miew’ud) (Ar.  maw‘ūd), melek (ar.  malak), šejtan (Ar.  šayṭān), fierej (ar.  fariyy), zebanje (Ar.  zabāniya[t]) or levch, levchu, levchi‘l-melchfuzu (Ar.  al-lawḥ +  al-maḥfūẓ), *mursel (Ar.  mursal), reśūl (Ar.  rasūl), χezrek, χezret’ (Ar.  ḥaḍra[t]), Muchammied (Ar.  Muḥammad), and also the acquisition of the ending -t originating from the Ar. exponent of the feminine gender -a[t]un, in the status constructus, which corresponds to the adaptation of Arabisms in Turkish – cf. Tur. ayet from Ar.  āya[t] (the Tatars of the GDL had *ãjet’, ajet’), Tur. ḥazret from Ar. ḥaḍra[t] (Tatars of the GDL had χezrek, χezret’)570 or adding the suffix -j, e.g. Tur. sure from Ar.  sūra[t] (Pol./Belor. siurej) and others. Turkish mediation is also visible in the form of the Persian bejgamber, or in the form of Arabic wacht

569 A. Zajączkowski, Glosy tureckie w zabytkach staropolskich. I. Katechizacja turecka Jana Herbiniusa, Wrocław 1948, p. 13; J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii muzułmańskiej…, p. 126. 570 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 56 and p. 243.

180

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

(cf. Ar.  waqt). The influence of Turkish (no distinction between voiced and voiceless consonants, hence the alternation b-p) is also reflected in fluctuations in initial sounds of the words požy-božy, *palvan-*balvan, *prat-*brat, boslanecposlanec, *bosel-*posel, berše kśenga-*perše kśenga, *slova pōžji-*slova bōžji, etc.571. The influence of Turkish languages is also present in the absorption of such words of Arabic origin as denominations of pagan deities *Menat (Ar.  Manā[t]), *Nesr (Ar.  Nasr), *Wedda (Ar.  Wadd), the denomination of an evil spirit Eblis (Ar.  Iblīs), the name of an angel *Malek (from Ar.  Mālik ‘owner, holder, having something’; ‘ruler, lord’), and the names of prophets: *Edris (Ar.  Idrīs), Mohammed (Ar.  Muḥammad), Saleh (Ar.  Ṣāliḥ), *Dulkefl (Ar.   Ḏū al-Kifl), etc. Thus, the philological source material illustrates both ways and methods of Slavicization of Arabisms, as well as Turkisms572. In the field of phonetics, a process of substitution can be observed, that is the replacement of the sounds of a foreign language with the sounds of the Polish language – in the phonological system of the Polish language, for example, there are no phonemes which in Arabic correspond to the following graphemes:  ‫ﺙ‬ (ṯā’), ‫( ﺝ‬ǧīm), ‫( ﺡ‬ḥā’), ‫( ﺥ‬ẖā’), ‫( ﺫ‬ḏāl),  (zā’),  (šīn), ‫( ﺹ‬ṣād), ‫( ﺽ‬ḍād), ‫( ﻁ‬ṭā’), ‫ﻅ‬ (ẓā’), ‫‘( ﻉ‬ayn), ‫( ﻍ‬ḡayn), ‫( ﻕ‬qāf),  (lām). They were therefore replaced with sounds of similar articulation, e.g. ‫( ﺙ‬ṯā’) (a interdental, fricative, voiceless sound) was adapted as [t’] – śit’, ‫( ﺝ‬ǧīm) (an alveolar, prepalatal, affricate, voiced consonant) was perceived as [dz], [dż], [dż’], as well as [cz]  – Dadżał, *Diedzał, Dedżdżal, džebra’īl, Džebra’ił, dżin, dżyn, dżyniej, *čeñij, czynaj, indżyl, indžil, ‫( ﺡ‬ḥā’) (guttural, fricative, voiceless) was realized with [χ] or [c]‌, [ch] – *ruχ, iśhak, *iśchak, Mohammed, Muhammad, Mohammad, Muchammed, Muchemmed, Muchammied, *nūch, ruchułłach, cysiab, ‫( ﺫ‬ḏāl) (interdental, fricative, voiced) was realized with [ź] – mueźźin, źūlk’ifil, źulkarnejni,  (zā’) (dental, fricative, voiced) was realized with [z], [z’] or [ź] – źebūr, ziebur, źebur, feźiche, fezach,  (šīn) (alveolar, prepalatal, fricative, voiceless) as [sz], [ś]  – šejtan, šū‘ib, śit’, ‫( ﺹ‬ṣād) (dental, fricative, emphatic, voiceless) as [s], [s’]  – seddik, sadik, *siddik, syddyk, siddīk, ‫( ﺽ‬ḍād) (dental, plosive, emphatic, voiced) as [d] or [z]  – chadret, χezrek, χezret’, ‫( ﻁ‬ṭā’) (dental, plosive, emphatic, voiceless) was rendered with [t]  – šejtan, lūt, ‫( ﻕ‬qāf) (uvular, plosive, voiceless) was realized with [k] – furkan, *kuran, ku’rān, kurān, kur’an, jakūb, ja’kūb, Je’kub, je’kūb,  (lām) (alveolar, lateral, flowing, voiced) was rendered with [l] or [ł]  – Azrail, ‘Ez’ra’ił, ‘Eźra’il, Dadżał, *Diedzał, Dedżdżal, džebra’īl, Dżebra’il, Dżebra’ił, iśrafil, *Is’rafił, Is’refił, Mek’a’il, Meka’ił, iljas, iljaś, iśma‘īl, iśmaīl, ‘iśma‘il, Iśma‘il, iśmahil, *izma‘īl, *iźma‘īl, mursiel, *murśel, resiul,

5 71 Cf. C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, pp. 123–125. 572 A similar situation occurs in the translations of the Qur’an into Russian – cf. the Turkish mediation in borrowing Arabisms – I. Kończak, Формирование в русском языке терминологии, cвязанной c исламом, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki…, pp. 319–322.

Ways and methods

181

reśūl, ruchułłach, saliχ etc. The influence of Ottoman-Turkish was also noticeable, e.g. in the 18th-century Muslim texts – the use of letters ‫( ﺹ‬ṣ), ‫( ﻁ‬ṭ), ‫( ﻍ‬ḡ), ‫ﻕ‬ (q) before back sounds, and  (k) before front sounds. The process of substitution had also gone well in relation to the phonemes of the Turkish language, e.g. in the vocalic system, the vowels ö, ü, ä are realized by native sounds e, i, a, e.g. Tur. Mänā  – mewni, Tur. zebür  – ziebur, źebur, Tur. kälem  – kalam, kalem, etc., and in the word mewni (Tur. mane, mana, mänā); moreover, a phoneme absent in the source language was inserted (epenthesis). In addition, the Oriental elements which occur in the Tatar literature are – as has already been noted – inflected. They take Slavic endings; they are subjected to regular derivation processes, for example prefixation, unknown in Turkish languages573. The advanced process of adaptation of foreign terms is manifested by formations created by means of native formants of foreign bases, which are the so-called hybrids. They are, above all, typical of other thematic areas (e.g. associated with prayer, rituals, etc.) in contradistinction to the ones analyzed in this work. As an example one may mention such words as: chylawlyk (Ar.  ẖilāf ‘variety; contradiction, inconsistency, lie, error’ + Tur. -lık), kurbanłyk (Ar.  qurbān ‘sacrifice’ + Tur. -lık), namazłyk (Per. Namāz + Tur. -lık), daławar (Ar.  du‘ā’ ‘prayer’ + Tur. -lar), kierubiler (Ar.  qarūbī ‘cherubin’ + Tur -lar), chelalikdur (Ar.  ḥalāl ‘allowed, legal, lawful’ + Tur. -dir), azanczej, azandżej (Ar.  aḏān ‘call to prayer’ + tur. -çı), hadżej (Ar.  ḥāǧǧ(i) ‘a honorary title of a person who has taken a pilgrimage to Mecca’ + Tur. -çı), czynaj (Ar.  ǧinnī + Tur. -çı), fałdżiej (Ar.  fa’l ‘a (good) sign, good omen’ + Tur. -çı), charadži (Ar.  ẖarāǧ ‘tax’ Turkish mediation), ikindży (Tur. ikinci ‘second’), kurandżej (Ar. ‫ﺁ‬ qur’ān + tur. -cı), siunniedżej (Ar.  sunna[t]‌‘ordinary procedure, origin, custom; law, act, statute’ + Tur. -cı), and many others. Scarce knowledge of the facts and issues the translators encountered while working with the source text implies that they had problems with describing the Quranic reality adequately. Besides resorting to transcription and Slavicization, the translators tried to find analogies to facts and issues in the immediate environment. Thus, so-called realogisms were translated with domestic names, metonymy or circumlocution. Examples include quoting the term rabini from the source text and the attempt at translating it – cf. rabinōwe slūʒi bōže (TAL V, p. 102a, v. 8), translating the ethnonym Sabianie (Sabians) by resorting to explication te ktūre

573 Cf. examples in J.  Kulwicka-Kamińska Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii muzułmańskiej… and works by A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., pp. 49–50 – also about generic changes and the palatalization of consonants in Slavic languages; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 56 and following, including, for example, discussion on generic changes – cf. pp. 243–244; other works dealing with processes of Slavicization are the following: C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…; idem, Głos w dyskusji, [in:] Dzieje Lubelszczyzny…; H. Jankowski, C. Łapicz, op. cit.; М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit., and many others.

182

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

klanajōn śe slōncu mes̱ōncu (TAL V, p. 103a, v. 8), and the oronym Al-Dżudi in Mosul as gōra ktōra jest w mūsile (T1 fol. 174a, v. 8, p. 37), as well as rendering of the Arabic term Inǧīl using the current Polish name of a similar connotation, e.g. awanelī (TAL V, p. 100a, v. 5). Names of foreign plants and animals were replaced with those of domestic fauna and flora – cf. ne ūčinil pan bōg xeram ź werblōnʒic ani z samic čwōronōgix bidla ani z ōwec (TAL V, p. 107a, v. 7), spuṡciliṡmi na was manne i prepōrk’ī (T1 fol. 10b, v. 4b, p. 387), cō rōdzī źemjá ōd bōbaw i grōchaw [i ogurkow] malūn garbūzōw pšenici i čōsnōkōw i sōčōwici i cibūli (T1 fol. 11a, v. 4b, p. 388), borrowings present in the Polish language of the time – cf. samic i z samcōw werblōndōw (TAL V, p. 107a, v. 8), ze ḱwjatū galōnẕek grōna jednō drūgemu bliskō i ōgrōde z rōzinkōw iz ōliwī i pōmarančōw pōma granatōw (TAL V, p. 120a, v. 1–2 – referring to contemporary events and the local colour) or circumlocutions – cf. pan bōg rōščepī raźnō nas̱ene xōc w skōrūpe twardej jakō ōrex (TAL V, p. 119b, v. 1 – the source text refers to the date). The demand of the appropriate equivalence of the Muslim terminology was often met exactly by periphrases, e.g. Ar.  islām – *mus̀ulmansḱa wjara (TAL V, p. 93b, v. 6), Ar.  allāh – pan bōg (T1), * bōg jedin (T1), Ar.  rabb – * pan bōg (T1), ar.  aḥad – *ōdīn bōg (KK), Ar.  tawḥīd – božjo jedinostvo (KM), *jedinostvo bośk’e (KM), Ar.  ilāh – *prōžnije bōgi (T1), inšij bōg (KK), bog inšij (T1), Ar.  kitāb – *piśmo śvente (KM 515, v. 5, p. 225), *matrika bōža (T1), Ar.  al-ḥaqq – istōtna prawda (T1), Ar.  hudan – *priwodca kū dōbremū (T1), Ar.  zabāniyya[t]‌(pl) – mūkari ṕek’elnije (KŁ), Ar.  malak – *slūga bōžij (T1), *anjōl s̱merci (TAL VI, p. 126b, v. 4), Ar.  mursal – *prōrōk welk’ij (T1), Ar.  ẖalīl prijećel (!) Božij (KŁ), Ar.  yawm – *ten den (T1), etc. Two-word structures (usually two-component nominal groups) dominate among periphrases. They allow definition of precise religious concepts, and to establishment of their various determinants. They consist of a superior element, which is generally expressed by a noun in nominative that locates the concept of a broader scope, and indicates its appurtenance to a particular conceptual class, and of a subordinate element (usually an adjective or a noun in genitive), which is a sign of a narrowing concept. Exponents can also imply positive and/or negative values, that is, they can help in the axiologization of translation. Terminological clusters574 could be heterogeneous structures, e.g. *jedinij allaχ (505, v. 2–3, p. 222) and jedinni allāh (431, v. 13, p. 202) in KM (jedinij + Ar.  allāh), k’it’abom verχ (488, v. 6, p. 218) in KM (Ar.  kitāb + verχ, that is ‘the top of books’), śveti šan w KM (Tur. şan < ar.  ša‘n, that is ‘saint, famous’), ‘enheli ‘eršovije (after A, p. 66) in KL (‘enhel + Ar.  ‘arš, or ‘angel of the Throne’), *ruχ śventij (II, v. 4, p. 22) in

574 Cf. S. Gajda, Wprowadzenie do teorii terminu, Opole 1990, p. 96: “their creation is an antidote to the limitations in the sphere of morphological word formation, but it is primarily the result of the tendency for justification of the names that are to express through their formal structure the place of the expressed concept in the system of terminology.”

Ways and methods

183

T2 (Ar.  rūḥ + śventij, or ‘holy spirit, holy ghost’), ‘eršovij kūr in KŁ (Ar.  ‘arš + kūr, that is ‘a throne morning singer, cock’), Dedždžal preklentij in KL (Ar.  Daǧǧāl + preklentij, that is ‘Antichrist cursed’), mursiel boży (p. 362) in W (Ar.  mursal + boży, that is ‘God’s messenger’), lūdzem imam (fol. 18a, v. 3b, p. 403) in T1 (lūdzem + Ar.  imām, that is ‘a guide for people’), and also werōncich muśulman (T1 fol. 157b, p. 60), jeʒōŋ zakazane reči xeram (TAL V, p. 99a, v. 7), ḱirama ḱaťibīne pisarōw ūčinkōw wašix (TAL VI, p. 115b, v. 7), gōršī ẕalimin (TAL VI, p.  119a, v.  2), ǯahilōw newjedōmix (TAL VI, p.  121a, v.  4), ij bō lixī ferejsḱe (TAL VI, p. 123a, v. 2) or *pričinca za ummet’em (KM)575. Therefore, one may observe the process of the connecting of a superior element (often expressed by using borrowings) with an expression taken from the Polish language or using a borrowing in a defining element, narrowing the range of references. They were created for pragmatic purposes: incorporated in the structure of a Muslim term, general or Christian words made the message understandable by evoking certain associations. Therefore, the words of a general language (Polish and Belorussian) or terms of the Christian religion are the elements of these structures, as there were certain translatorial difficulties related to the attempt to substitute religious terms of Islam in the Slavic languages such as those related to specific Muslim concepts and terms with the precise terminology of the Christian religion. Tatar translators did not hesitate to use translations which were doctrinally foreign to them, as long as they could provide lexical substitutions that were more relevant in their context576. The attempts at finding the most adequate lexical equivalents, which would render the meaning of the source text as faithfully as possible, forced the Tatar translators to apply still other solutions in order to meet the demand for Polish nominations in terms of Muslim religious terminology. These included, among others, creating morphological and semantic derivatives577. In addition to lexemes with an established literary tradition or the terms which were deep-rooted in the Polish language and in the tradition of Bible translations, neologisms were also present in Tatar translations578, and also neosemantisms as well as words of low frequency (in SPolXVI their occurrence was confirmed by not more than 10 instances. Therefore, these are the words that were only used in individual

575 Other examples of such structures are cited by P.  Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 68–69. 576 Cf. A comprehensive description of this issue – pp. [41–43] and pp. [169–174] in this monograph. 577 Cf. J. Biniewicz, Kształtowanie się polskiej leksyki naukowej…, p. 50. 578 Cf. p. [161] – morphological derivatives typical only of the writing of LithuanianPolish Muslims, and p. [165] – structures common to Tatar religious literature in the GDL and Polish translations of the Bible.

184

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

cases)579 – the so-called occasionalisms, which assumed new, often metaphorical meanings. This type of innovation was used to replace foreign terms or native words which were objectionable for ideological reasons. Therefore, they served the need for expression of the new ideological content. Semantic derivatives were, therefore, a functional means of shaping new knowledge of reality, and a tool for its explanation and interpretation. They were formed mainly by specialization. Their role was sometimes limited to the modeling of meanings of existing terms. Thus, a broadening of the scope of their use took place. Semantic derivatives were another important factor in the shaping of the new terminology, therefore, Tatar translations are characterized by a high level of frequency of abstract vocabulary as an attempt to adapt the language to express more complex abstract concepts. Denominations that are typical only of Tatar writings in the GDL were mostly of metaphorical nature580. Among them one may find their original counterparts, used in Old and Middle Polish, but with a low frequency, e.g. *būricel [prikezane] (TAL VI, p. 122a, v. 3 – SPolXVI II, 518 only Skarga uses it 9 times; SL), *direkcija (T1)  – SPolXVI (VI, 292) confirms the occurrence of this word only 4 times, in SarnStat as ‘management, the introduction of order and regulations; direction’, fatiga (T1) – a word used with a low frequency  – 2 times (SPolXVI VII, 42 from BartBydg) in the meaning of ‘labour, hardship’, jedinōstwō (TAL) – SPolXVI (IX, 419–420) – its use is attested in only one monument, namely in BN (Ef. 4, 3) in the sense of ‘unity, harmony, community’, kadūk (T1) – a word registered for the first time in SL, mainly in dialectal usage as ‘torturer, devil, evil spirit, demon’, karmicel (TAL V, p. 109a,

579 It was considered that words which were not recorded in SPolXVI remained on the margin of the Polish lexis of the 16th century. These are: 1. Morphological variants of entries in SPolXVI, those which are created on the same basis with the help of a variant (synonymous) formative morpheme, 2. Lexemes of the same root existing in the lexis of the 16th century in a potential way, as they are derivatives of the formative bases, which are recorded in SPolXVI (also composita), 3. Lexemes of the same root, potential in the Polish language of the 16th century, which are grammatical forms of lexemes which were functioning as entries in SPolXVI. Other peculiar lexemes, which are not entries in SPolXVI, are lexemes that do not remain in relation of formative or grammatical derivation of entries in SPolXVI. These are: 1. Lexemes that are formative or grammatical derivates of the bases that are not recorded as entries in SPolXVI, as well as 2. Lexemes of foreign origin. However, as is stated by T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 350 – the lexis of all translations only occasionally differs from the average lexical resources of the Polish language of the 16th century, which was reconstructed in SPolXVI, and where it does differ, it is cleary in search of the most adequate Polish equivalents for the vocabulary of the original text. In the analyzed translations, therefore, neutral lexemes prevail, which shows the high degree of comprehensibility of the text of Renaissance translations for the 16th century audience. 580 The examples of semantic innovations are given in p. [161] in this monograph.

Ways and methods

185

v. 5 – SPolXVI X, 143–144 only 4 times Skarga), napōminač (TAL V, p. 118b, v. 4 SPolXVI XVI, 107 – 10 times Mącz, SL), *peregraf (T1) – a word of a low frequency confirmed only in Mączyński, occurs only 4 times (according to SPolXVI XXIII, 251), *pōwodir (T1) – the entry can be found in Mały słownik zaginionej polszczyzny (p. 251) in the sense of ‘the pack leader, a male leading a flock’ as well as in SL (IV, 429) in the sense of ‘der Leiter, der Führer’; ‘a bull, a leader of a herd’, as well as in SWil (II, 1170) ‘a leader, an animal going in the front of the herd, the flock leader’, prōwaʒicel [z blendū kū dōbremū] (TAL VI, p. 126b, v. 1 – SPolXVI XXX, 461, Cn, SL), rōźʒelač [dōbrix ōd zlix] (TAL VI, p. 115b, v. 1)581, ūcekač (T1 fol. 323a, v. 8, p. 50) – Kartoteka SPolXVI notes it to be outside the source canon, wernik (T1 fol. 19a, v. 5b, p. 405 – Kartoteka SPolXVI notes it to be outside the source canon; it also occurs in Падручны гістарычны слоўнік субстантывнай лексікі, I, p. 70; cf. wernica), *wiglōndač (T1 fol. 338b, v. 2, p. 50) – a structure that dates back to the Middle Ages, in the 16th century used with a very low frequency; it is noted by Падручны гістарычны слоўнік субстантывнай лексікі, I, p. 107, and only after BN, *źwitk’ī prikezana (T1) – the occurrence in the Polish language of the expression zwitek ksiąg (Lat. volumen libri) confirms SPolXVI (XI, 403), referring to BN and CzechEp582 and abstracta, e.g. dwōrōwane (TAL VI, p. 111a, v. 2 – SPolXVI VI, 257 1 time Górnicki; SL only a verb), glūxōte (TAL V, p. 103b, v. 4 – SPolXVI VII, 432 8 times FalZioł; BartBydg, Mącz), pōwinnōs̱c (TAL V, p. 106a, v. 3 – SPolXVI). Other original lexical forms occur in the following contexts: nadixa zlim dūxem (TAL VI, p. 121a, v. 5 – SPolXVI XV, 486 6 times Czechowic, Jan z Szamotuł, Seklucjan, Mącz; SL), newōtwurca jest nebōs i źemi (TAL VI, p. 120a, v. 5), i ūlečileś s̀lepōrōʒōnegō ōču mejsca ne majōncegō (TAL V, p. 108b, v. 4), ūcenžami (TAL VI, p. 126a, v. 1 – Kartoteka SPolXVI), ūžalōwanī jest laskōŋ jegō (TAL VI, p. 111b, v. 1) and others. Epithets and metaphors (stylistic tropes), including complex epithets, which occur in the monuments of Tatar literature in the GDL, are generally nominal compounds/phrases (expressions) with an attribute. They are in apposition in reference to the subject they describe, and sometimes they are also metaphors. They often have their source in a tradition concerning the prophet or in the history of Islam. Their role is to emphasize and introduce the content of the message by building a cordial atmosphere and the realization of a moral function, as well as giving the translation emotional colour. They usually show the way of interpretation. Adjectival terms, especially in the comparative and superlative degree, provide names to the elements of faith which are especially revered. Some of the terms used with the highest frequency, which define the sacral sphere and are axiologically marked, are the following:  boży in the sense of ‘proper to God, referring

581 F. Pepłowski, Odczasownikowe nazwy wykonawców czynności…, p. 21; he includes it among words which are cited [only] once. 582 Formative formations are also words of low frequency – see examples in p. [165] in this monograph.

186

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

to God’; ‘belonging to God’, and święty ‘such that people recognize as relating to divine or supernatural matters’, as well as ‘good, worthy of praise and respect due to their religious attitude’583. Tatar translators often precede the names of the major characters of Islam with epithets that are positively evaluative or express special respect. They also use them to refer to revealed books and to God’s Day of Judgement. Tatar religious translation texts provide us with rich exemplification in this area, e.g. jeden (one), jedyny (the only one) are attributes expressing the unity and oneness of God – cf. *bōg jedin (T1), *bōg jedinij (KK 64b, v. 6, p. 99), *pan bōg jedinij (KK 62b, v. 12–13, p. 98), *jedinij allaχ (KM), *stvoricel jedinij (KM 506, v. 6–7, p. 223), also ṕeršij i ‘astatńij on jest v’ekūistij, da kažnej reči mocnij, ńiχto jemū nepadobnij, jedinij jest (KŁ 107b, v. 2 [v. 4], p. 374), the combination *pan bōg lexicalized thanks to the Biblical tradition, showing a subjective attitude of the translator to the content described, as an equivalent of Ar.  allāh; description used in reference to the revealed books, such as boży (divine), święty (holy) – these are the epithets indicating the transcendent source of the message, which is God himself, and thus imparting a supernatural, otherworldly character to the books, prawdziwy (true) – the term that connotes such a property as the message of truth, poważny (respected, venerated), mądry (wise), znaczny (significant, distinctive) (in the sense of ‘significant’) – high-ranking epithets of a special meaning – cf. *kśenga bōža korãn (T1), *kśenga s-prawdą (T1), korãn piśmō bōže (T1), *kur’an považnij i mondrij (KL after A, p. 71), *keran Božij (KL after A, p. 71), korãn čistōśc majoncij (T1), korãn istōtna prawda (T1), *kurãn kśenga pravʒiva (T2 II, v. 4, p. 46), dekret boži (KM), *piśmo śvente (KM), *slovo pōžije (KK), ōd tak značnich ãjet’ōw (T1 fol 258a, v. 7, p. 323); boży and święty are also descriptions of angels used with a high frequency, whose origin and functions are expressed by such attributes as niebieski (heavenly), and ‘aršovy, that is relating to the throne, and their nature is expressed by such epithets as straszny (terrible), pobłażający (tolerant), and smutny (sad), while their appearance is described, for example, by szpetny (ugly), podobny do ptaka (bird-like) – cf. anhel boží (KM), anheli nepeśk´ije (KM), anheli ‘aršovije (KM 176, v. 3, p. 134), *dūch śwentij (T1), *slūga bōžij (T1, T2), *anheli strogije (KM 256, v. 5, p. 157), *‘enh’eł strašnij (KŁ 117b, v. 6, p. 380), *zaslūžonije anheli (KM 249, v. 5–6, p. 155), pavelbonije pisari (KL), *pisarze pobłażający (Ww), ‘enh’eł smūtnij (KŁ 117b, v. 6, p. 380), *strašnije strogije mūkari (KM), ‘enh’eł padobnij ptaχu (KŁ 118b, v. 4, p. 380), barzdō špatna i strašna stvorenjō (KK); ostatni (the last), sądny (judgement, doomsday), straszny – these, in turn, are the attributes of God’s Judgement, indicating its specific nature and emphasizing its inevitability and horror – cf. *den sondnij (T2 I, v. 3, p. 1), *ten den (T1), *den ōstatnij (T1), *ten den strašnij (KM 193,

583 Explications adopted from I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, pp. 157–161. Cf. comments on the high frequency of the epithets boży, wielki, święty, dobry in Renaissance translations of the Bible – T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 99.

Ways and methods

187

v. 3–4, p. 140), *strašni sud (KM 193, v. 1–2, p. 140), *strašni sud boži (KM 430, v. 6, p. 202), etc. Other axiologically marked terms are those which relate to the reality that threatens the faith in the one and only God, e.g. denominations of pagan gods – cf. inšij bōg (KK), *prōžnije bōgi (T1); the names of Satan – cf. *neprijacel jawnij (T1), *neprijacel welk’ij jawnij (T1, T2), barzdō špatna i strašna stvorenjō (KK), ṕek’elnij vojevoda (KŁ), Dedždžal preklentij (KL) or show God as a severe Judge, e.g. descriptions of angels taking part in God’s Judgement – cf. mukari pek’elnije (KK – cf. KŁ, W), *strašnije strogije mūkari (KM), dva anheli oʒin [i d]urūhí strašnije čornije (KM), etc. Moreover, as has already been mentioned, in some contexts two or more equivalents coexist (variants of lexical translations considered by translators) of an Arabic etymon, forming the so-called instances of synonymy584. They also show the difficulties translators faced in the process of translating the text of the Qur’an. The multiplicity of equivalents which refer to certain terms may also indicate semantic and stylistic instability of denominations used in the translation. However, as a rule, they made a conscious choice of a certain Polish lexeme from the available Polish synonyms, which shows translation decisions of the Tatar translators, and it is a manifestation of their linguistic reflection. Therefore, in Polish translation many Arabic words have several synonymous exponents, while the same Polish lexemes are equivalents of different Arabic words. In the majority of cases, Arabic words have more than one Polish exponent – the alternation usually includes two or three different equivalents. If there are more of them, they are usually words of the same root, but of different prefixation and suffixation. Therefore, one of the characteristics of translations made by the Tatars of the GDL is a differentiation of vocabulary, expressed in the multiplicity of equivalents as a result of a methodical pursuit of the most adequate equivalents of the vocabulary of the original text as well as an attempt to render the wealth of Qur’anic terms585. An analysis of the contextual usage of the words which occur as translational variants of Arabic lexemes shows two types of motivation:  1. The meaning and structure of the source text and 2.  Vocabulary (lexical and phraseological) resources of contemporary Polish language, from which the translator chose the most adequate lexical means, forming in this way the style of translation. Thus, the variability of equivalents may be caused by the ambiguity of Arabic words for the translation of which a translator was pursuing native exponents depending on the context. This is a sign of departure from a literal translation, evidence of concern for comprehensibility and reasonableness of expression, and

5 84 The examples are given in pp. [166–168]. 585 This is based on the relationship of subordination. It occurs when the item of the OL (original language) has a wider semantic field than its equivalent item in the TL (the language of translation). The technique opposite to differentiation is generalization.

188

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

a direct consequence of this semantic motivation of equivalent selection are translational doublets586. On the other hand, by a purposeful choice of specific lexical means, or stylistic variants, from the existing collection of vocabulary, the translator shaped the linguistic style of his translation. Therefore, in this context, we may speak about stylistic motivation587. The presented types of motivation can overlap and coexist as the cause of the variability of equivalents588. One of the features of a free translation is the taking into account of semantic contexts and the differentiation of equivalent Arabic lexemes conditioned by these contexts (the taking into consideration of their polysemy). Therefore, Tatar translators made a conscious substitution of the original lexical items by their Polish equivalents. At the same time, they introduced such Slavic equivalents which, in their opinion (motivated philologically and theologically), rendered the sense of the original text in the most adequate way. Therefore, the selection of lexical substitutions depended on the individual decision of a translator and they were inherent in the interpretation of the original message. This was conditioned, among other things, by the methods of transformation of the original text which were adopted (e.g. simplifications, reductions [ellipsis, anacolutha], substitutions, amplifications, univerbizations, and definite descriptions), his personal stylistic predilection (e.g. his attitude to archaisms, neologisms, and dialectisms), confessional considerations, and the linguistic source of translation. It was also affected by the linguistic competence of the translator, as well as by the functional efficiency of the Polish language at a certain stage of its development. Thus, Tatar translators used the Polish structures of the time which, owing to the still unstable language norms, enabled them to reproduce the Arabic forms precisely, without having to resort to calques or innovations. In the rendering of Arabic syntactic structures589, Tatar translators sought both compliance of the translation with the Arabic canonical version, as well as compliance with the rules of the language of translation. This made them experience

5 86 They are presented in pp. [167–168] in this monograph. 587 Cf., for example the high frequency of etymological variants forming pairs of words of the foreign-native type; the presence of archaic forms apart from neologisms as elements of stylization – preserving the continuity of translations, but also the property of north borderland Polish – see a detailed description, analysis and examples in М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit., especially pp. 227–237, and A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, pp. 79–80. 588 E. Woźniak, Słownictwo i frazeologia Psałterza krakowskiego (1532)…, pp. 95–97. 589 Cf. the ways of rendering the original syntactic structures in Slavic languages – A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, pp. 125–131, and the discussion about the exponents of a Biblical style – pp. [149–154] in this monograph.

Ways and methods

189

many problems, e.g. adjectives or nouns in Acc. of the indeterminate state, performing the function of adverbs in the Arabic text, were rendered with the adverbial forms, native prepositional phrases or with synthetic structures typical of Old Polish and the borderland Polish (an adverbial expressed by the Instr.) e.g. Ar.  al-yawma ‘today, nowadays’  – Dna sondnego (T1); the meaning of particularly strong nouns or adjectives was rendered through compounding a given noun in the singular with the same noun in the plural in status constructus (by analogy to the Old Polish adaptation of the Hebrew figure superlativus absolutus – cf. pieśń nad pieśniami (the song of songs), e.g. Ar.  ar-rabb that is pan nad panami (lord of lords), Ar.  al-malik means król nad królami (king of kings); conjunction  wa, whose role in classical Arabic is similar to that of a comma in Polish, was partially eliminated, and sometimes it was translated as the conjunction i, which was in line with Polish syntax (it was used at the beginning of a sentence as an indicator of continuation – cf. Old Polish religious literature of the 15th and 16th centuries and Bible translations)590; a intensifying Arabic particle  inna, corresponding to Polish zaprawdę (verily) was rendered with pewnie (in Old Polish it meant ‘undoubtedly, certainly, without doubt’), always occurring at the beginning of a sentence (a syntactic Arabism, but also an analogy to Polish phraseological pattern – therefore, there was an instance of imposing of an Oriental translation pattern on an Old Polish idiomatic expression – cf. pewne ten korãn şwentij, e.g. T1 (fol. 05a, v. 1b, p. 378) and many others. According to A. Drozd, the source of adverbial translation of the particle  inna is a Turkish pattern. This particle, in contrast with its Tatar equivalent pewnie, is not an independent semantic category in the Arabic language591. Original simple sentences were replaced with coordinated ones, e.g. through introducing the sentence pattern in place of a nominal clause592, e.g. mej ōkō patr na nix (a guardian in the original text) (TAL V, p. 100a, v. 8), tix ktūre ūwerili jednemū bōgu (TAL V, p. 101b, v. 5), etc. In addition to the basic text of the translation, in the literary monuments of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims, there are also certain texts which accompany the translation. In tefsirs, they are closely associated with the Sunni orthodoxy593, and they provide the exegesis of specific places or Qur’anic denominations. Thus, in the Tatar tefsirs, one may distinguish short exegetical comments and appositions (e.g. the introduction of a Biblical name of a pagan god Dagon as one of the equivalents of Ar.  Ṭāḡūt), exegetical explanations of the original Arabic text, e.g. a number of different equivalents of one source etymon, which is an expression of amplification trends, as well as the word for word translation of the text of the

5 90 A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 164. 591 Ibidem, pp. 166–167. 592 Ibidem, p. 172. 593 In T1 P. Suter defines them thoroughly as Commentaries to the Qur’an by Abū Ǧa‘far Muḥammad Ibn Ǧarīr aṭ -Ṭabarī – cf. Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 28–29.

190

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

Qur’an retaining the poetical structure of the text, and its word order, but not the structure of individual verses, etc.594 In the literary monuments of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims, word order is the main grammatical element which faithfully reflects the original text, for Arabic is a language with a fixed word order595. The individual components of a sentence usually occupy a fixed position, for example, in postnominal word order of an adjectival attribute (cf. Tatar translations and KB2 – there prevails a postnominal word order, corresponding to the order of words in the Arabic base text). Tatar translators usually followed or faithfully reproduced Arabic word order. At the same time, one should add that Arabic word order, without inversion, occurred mainly in parts of the text translated equivalently, i.e. those parts which were neither amplification nor exegetical commentary. By contrast, where amplification or exegetical commentary occurs, the word order is usually consistent with the Polish pattern, and opposite to the Arabic pattern, i.e prenominal word order. Postnominal word order was also correct in Old Polish, in which both adjectival configurations, before and after a noun (e.g. the influence of Latin) occurred in parallel, and their distribution was regulated semantically and according to the rules of the rhetorical style596. In Arabic possessive and objective pronouns invariably occupy a position after the word described, with which they are connected as suffixes. In Tatar translations pronominal postposition is usually retained, which faithfully reflects the word order of the Arabic basis – cf. bogu ojcov tvujiχ (T2), anolí jego i v kśengi jego i v posli jego i dnū ostatnemū sondnemū (KM 24, v. 1–3, p. 71), predku tvajmu Ibrahimu praroku (KL), etc.597. This differs from the word order in Polish, where the preposition of possessive pronouns is dominant, and the position of objective pronouns is movable. Interestingly enough, the postposition of a possessive pronoun entered the medieval Polish language only under the influence of Bible translations and Latin syntax. And possessive pronouns, in the Arabic text, as objects, connect with the personal forms of verbs, and also with prepositions598. A thesis can be presented that the above-mentioned characteristic features of the Tatar translations are representative of religious discourse. Indeed, the religious code is marked by openness and polysemy. The language of religion and worship is far from clarity, monosemy, and speaking in a direct way. Hence it is expressed by analogy, similes, metonymy, metaphors, and speaking without assertion. Specialized vocabulary, typical of religious discourse gains additional support

5 94 Cf. ibidem, pp. 35–55. 595 Cf. A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, pp. 117–119. 596 Ibidem, p.  118. Postpositional word order is also typical of BN because Budny adopted it from Hebrew. See Section 2.4. 597 Cf. comments on this topic in A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, pp. 121–123. See Section 2.4. 598 Cf. the way of their translation – ibidem, p. 120. See Section 2.4.

Ways and methods

191

in the form of axiological, volitional, soliciting, persuasive, and emotive vocabulary. All these elements together organize the sacral space of a religious text. Religious symbolism should also be included in this system, which, according to Janusz Maciuszko, forms the very foundation of religious language, and is the axis which integrates the group599. One of important features of religious discourse, considered also in more general terms – as a kind of a semiotic code, is the usage of symbols, parables, similes, and other similar composite marks. The usage of metaphors and parables is therefore a universal feature of a religious code. Semantic ambiguity, polysemy and contextuality resulting from the use of such composite marks are also features of this code. The Reformation enriched religious discourse, which was conducted in national languages, with the elements of scholarly language and rhetorical language, including the vocabulary of the humanities. Therefore, the characteristics of the religious code of that period should include, in addition to the aforementioned features, also the introduction of quotation from the works of religious authorities. According to Bogdan Wyderka, this is justified topically, based on the so-called loci communes, and mainly on loci theologici600. Thus, a distinctive feature of vocabulary “forming a sacred space” of religious texts is its role performed in a religious discourse, namely a “transpositional” function consisting in adopting a religious and evaluative perspective typical of a particular denomination. In addition to stabilizing (lexicalized) canonical combinations, usually of Biblical or Qur’anic provenance, it is possible to enrich the system with additional combinations that become clear in the context of other combinations. All of them, in appropriate contexts, become exponents of a religious discourse which are comprehensible to the faithful. In addition, in religious texts, elements of natural and supernatural reality are given a sacred perspective with suitable vocabulary, used to refer directly to religious categories essential for a particular religious denomination. However, regardless of this (or rather, together with this), at a general level, there is also lexis that defines what is sacred in the context of sacrum and profanum, as well as additionally, vocabulary marked axiologically, with a clear dichotomous reference to what is good and bad in a particular religious group, and vocabulary that encourages a particular attitude. Modal exponents of a religious discourse are words that name, in the most general terms, the attitude of acceptance and approval (or rejection and disapproval) of transcendent reality (cf., for example, an enormously rich group of nomina agentis – those who believe and do not believe in Allah). Sacred reality is also presented with high clarity owing to the use of terms that determine what is

599 J. Maciuszko, Symbole w religijności polskiej doby baroku i kontrreformacji, Warszawa 1986, p. 76; I. Bajerowa, O słownictwie nowego katechizmu…, p. 260. 600 B. Wyderka, Perswazyjność jako cecha stylowa gatunków prozy publicystycznej XVII wieku, [in:] Odmiany polszczyzny XVII wieku, eds. H. Wiśniewska, C. Kosyl, Lublin 1992, pp. 85–96.

192

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

sacred (cf. attributive denominations that are repeated with great frequency such as boży, święty, etc.). In the most general terms, dichotomous order includes a primary sphere and the relationship between man and God. This relationship  – emphasized by Luther – is also present in Calvinist and Muslim literature. It is also an expression of a dualistic perception of the world in religious discourse. Adjectives and participles, as well as adverbs play an important role in creating “a modal framework” of a religious discourse. As a component of expressions or terminological clusters such words express an opinion that a thing described possesses a characteristic or property expressed with an adjective because such words can be found in each semantic field as a part of expressions. The role of this lexis comes down to a number of correlated functions: 1. Syntactic  – it creates syntactic derivatives (clusters) and it is also a component of phraseology  – it is a part of the expressions and periphrases of theological terms; 2. Semantic and style-creating – it is an exponent and a signalling device of sacred discourse; 3. Pragmatic – it aims to offer assessments and values associated with the reality described, and introduces that reality in the axiological system of culture, appearing in instances of synonymy or used interchangeably with words axiologically and emotively marked, and with persuasive vocabulary (on the basis of postulated equivalence)601. Such adjectives as, for example, święty, błogosławiony (blessed), prawdziwy, szczyry/ szczery (sincere), duchowny (spiritual), dobry and also fałszywy (false), zły (evil), pospolity (common), are a part of clusters, of the so-called syntactic derivatives, which are extremely important elements in the conceptual and terminological system of religion. According to A. Zajda, syntactic derivatives are characterized by developed and mature systems of terminology602. Another function consists in the use of this vocabulary in circumlocutions. Many doctrinal, organizational and ceremonial differences are, in fact, explained not by introducing new proper Muslim terminology, and peculiar vocabulary, but through circumlocutions. According to I. Winiarska, this is done on purpose, and in Polish-language treatises, to which one may attribute the status of works of popular science, their authors were more concerned with the explanation of the meaning of disputed terms than with precise Polonization of their theological terminology603. Consequently, it can be assumed that the above features, typical of

6 01 According to I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, pp. 152–153. 602 Cf. a developed system of legal terminology – A. Zajda, Staropolska terminologia prawnicza (do 1500 r.), Kraków 1990, p. 26. 603 I. Winiarska, Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu…, p. 154. She mentions the research of J. Misiurek, Historia i teologia polskiej duchowości katolickiej, Vol. I, Lublin 1994, p. 14, who notes that the same topics were described in a different

The degree of adaptation

193

Tatar translations, are representative of religious discourse whose dynamics can be observed particularly in metaphorical vocabulary. From the lexicological point of view, it is justified to study the aspect of the term which is the subject of the metaphor and, consequently, the group of terms subject to metaphorization 604. The language of religion and cult does not strive to be unambiguos, monosemic or explicit. Therefore, it finds its expression in analogy, e.g. z samic čwōronōgix bidla ani z ōwec (TAL), comparison, e.g. či majōn śe ōnī tak bic jakō ojcōwe īx piśma ne majōnce i ne wjedomī (TAL V, p. 107b, v. 2), kerane ź werxū na was kamene jakō na sōdōme albō zespōd že s̱e rōspadne źeme jakō pōd karūnem pōd nōgami wašimi (TAL VI, p. 116a, v. 4), w skōrūpe twardej jakō ōrex (TAL VI, p. 119b, v. 1), metonymy, e.g. kto zabija dūša čloweča (TAL V, p. 97b, v. 8), krew za krew i dūša za dūše (TAL V, p. 99b, v. 7–8), metaphor, e.g. dōm meškane zdrowje wečnegō (TAL VI, p. 122b, v. 6), abiśce ne bili zamarli w newernōści teraz ōžiwilis̱mi was warōŋ īmanem i ūčiniliśmi dla was s̱wjetlōścōŋ kuran benʒece xōʒic wedlūg kurannī s̱wjet nōsic meʒi lūʒmi a śe ma cenic pōdōbnī tim cō xōʒōŋ w cemnōści blendōw ni maš wijsca īm s tej cemnōści (TAL VI, p. 122a, v. 4–6), etc. Metaphorization concerns phenomena that are difficult to express with precise notions, to which religious concepts usually belong. In the Tatar tefsir, the translators not only attempted to render faithfully the Qur’anic imagery but they often also expressed it in a very original way – cf. TAL ūtwori nūtr jegō prijencem wjerī mus̱ulmanśḱej i ktō zaxce žebi ten zblōnʒil ūčinī nūtr jegō skōmpōścōŋ a w grexū ūčinī pišnim rōzumelbiś že ma drabina dō neba (VI, p. 122b, v. 3–4 – in the original heart).

2.8 The degree of adaptation of foreign proper names in the light of research Personal names, which are usually of foreign provenance, are characterized by their high frequency among the analyzed proper names – cf. the names of Allah, pagan gods, angels, and prophets. Apart from them here one may mention only a few denominations of holy books or God’s Judgement. Some of them are common both to Biblical and Muslim tradition, while others belong only to the tradition of Islam. The nomina propria, common both to the Bible and the Qur’an, were rendered by Tatar translators in two ways – either by translocation or Slavicization of Arabic forms or by citing their established Polish forms605. In the second case, it happens that they take their proper names from Polish Bible translations, indicating their

way in Polish and Latin texts, as usually in the Polish version, there were longer circumlocutions, replacing one-word terms in Latin or Greek. 604 Cf. I. Bajerowa, O słownictwie nowego katechizmu… 605 Cf. examples in pp. [176–181] in this monograph.

194

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

Hebrew or Aramaic source, or even Latin606, e.g. Hebr. kᵊrûḇ /Ar.  qarūbī > k’eruvva (KL after A, p.  72) (lenition [w]‌– cf. BN Cheruwowie) and kierrubiej (W, p. 360) (cf. Vul. Cherubim); Hebr. Gaḇᵊrij’ēl /Ar.  Ǧabrā’īl,  Ǧibrīl ˃*gebrijel (T1) (Latin mediation – the lack of lenition [w] in a post-vowel position); Hebr. ‘Aḇᵊrāhām /Ar.  Ibrāhīm ˃ *ãbrahám (T1) (Latin mediation – the lack of lenition [w] in a post-vowel position – cf. Vul. Abraham); Hebr. Jicᵊḥāq / Ar.  Isḥāq ˃ *iźák (T1), *izik (T1) (the lack of preservation of [ḥ] – cf. Vul. Isaak/Izaak); Hebr. Ja‘ªqōḇ /Ar.  Ya‘qūb > ja‘kūb (KK) (Latin mediation – the lack of lenition [w] in a post-vowel position); Hebr. Mōšeh/Ar.  Mūsà *mōjžeš (T1) (Latin mediation – ending in -s, which in Polish was changed into [š]); Hebr. ‘Ahªrōn /Ar.  Hārūn > ‘agarūn (ChL 5a, v. 4, p. 177), haron (KM 21, v. 5, p. 68) (preservation of [h] – cf. BN Aharon, but Vul. Aaron); Hebr. šᵊmû’ēl > śamuel (T2) (Latin mediation – cf. Vul. Samuel). It is worth noting that the form *michajel which occurs in T1 coincides with the form Michael, which occurs only in BN (cf. Gr. Μιχαήλ Michaēl and Lat. Michael), while in T2 it is *miχal, a Bohemism adapted to the Polish language. In some forms the influence of Arabic ortography is noted, e.g. Hārūn [haron/harun]; Ba‘al [bā‘āl]; Ya‘qūb [ja‘qūb] etc. As far as rendering proper names common both to the Biblical and Qur’anic tradition is concerned, dilemmas of translators are therefore noticeable regarding the choice between the original form (in the form assimilated phonetically and morphologically) and the traditional variant of a name, borrowed in earlier stages of development of the Polish language607. However, the terms appropriate only to the Muslim religion, as was already mentioned, were translocated and Slavicized. Maintaining the original forms of foreign proper names is not only an expression of high translatorial awareness but it is also a feature of Renaissance translations. In the 16th century, there were, in fact, two conflicting tendencies concerning the assimilation of proper names:  the first one – characteristic primarily of the spoken language and literature of a lower rank – was based on assimilation and Polonization of proper names, the other – represented by humanist writers – was focused on maintaining foreign words in their original form608. In the light of onomastic studies, showing a degree of adaptation of foreign proper names to Slavic phonological and morphological system, it was found that they reflect different stages of their adaptation to Polish and Belorussian

606 For more information on this topic see М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit., pp. 292–299. The examples of Hebrew etyma and their Slavic equivalents in the writings of the Tatars of the GDL were given in the notation of the authors of the monograph. The translocation and adaptation of the proper names present in Polish translations of the Bible, deriving from Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin is elaborated by R. Zarębski, Nazwy osobowe w polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu…, pp. 67–107. 607 This problem, along with the exemplification, is discussed in pp. [178–179]. 608 A. Luto-Kamińska, op. cit., Warszawa 2010, p. 120.

The degree of adaptation

195

phonetics609. They are also subjected to processes of Slavicization at the morphological level. But most of them do not function in the lexical system of the Polish language. The methods of adaptation of proper names coincide with those that were used by translators of the Holy Scripture610. R.  Zarębski states that “foreign proper names in translated texts can be translocated, that is transmitted in a foreign form on the basis of a quotation, adapted in reference to their ortography, phonetics and morphology, and finally translated”611. However, both when such a name is rendered in the form of a citation as well as when it is translated, there is a danger of “impoverishing” of the original name612. When translators decide on using a semantic calque, they are forced to use native resources of appellative lexemes.

609 More on this topic: C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, pp. 88–89, and also J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii muzułmańskiej…, pp. 139–140. 610 This is a problem within the mainstream of onomastic and translatorial studies, the subject of which are the causes of structural variations of proper names and their relation to the base of translation (the choice of translation sources, methods of translation, the impact of translatorial tradition, etc.), resulting in setting apart name citations (translocation), names adapted phonetically and morphologically (transposition), and translated names, as well as modes of operation of proper names in translated texts. The elaboration of literary onomastics, including onyms of the so-called translation series (consequtive translations of a literary work) is still one of the current research postulates with regard to Bible translations (cf. the state of research – R. Zarębski, Nazwy osobowe w polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu…, pp. 20–28 and M. Graf, Onomastyka na usługach socrealizmu. Antroponimia w lite­ raturze lat 1949–1955, Poznań 2006, pp. 39–49), as well as the Qur’an (taking into consideration not only the Arabic base, but also showing the impact of Turkish translations). 611 R. Zarębski, Tłumaczenie obcych nazw geograficznych…, p. 113. The issue of translating proper names, and the adequate rendering of terms in translated texts is described in detail by such a theorist as K. Hejwowski, op. cit., pp. 92–93. He lists several ways of proceeding: 1. Leaving a foreign proper name in its original version (reproduction) a. without any additional explanations, b. with a footnote at the bottom of a page or an explanation in the text; 2. Minimum modification of a foreign proper name – adapting it to the orthographical or grammatical requirements of the target language; 3. Transcription of a foreign proper name (for languages using different alphabets); 4. Translation of a foreign proper name a. replacing it with a recognized equivalent in the target language, b. replacing it with its equivalent invented by a translator, c. replacing it with an item of the target language which is not a proper name (hyperonym or circumlocution); 5. The replacement of a foreign proper name with a proper name of the target language which is not its equivalent; 6. Omission of a foreign proper name (sometimes together with its nearest context). See also Z. Kozłowska, op. cit., pp. 131–143. 612 R. Zarębski, Tłumaczenie obcych nazw geograficznych…, p. 114.

196

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

According to some linguists, untranslatability is one of the primary features of a proper name. The motivation behind the proper names in translated texts may be completely unintelligible. The reason for this lies mainly in the distance between the original language and its culture and the language and culture of translation. However, the special position of the name in texts of Divine Revelation sometimes forces translators to use Polish lexical equivalents613. The shape of a proper name is primarily determined by such factors as the source of translation, the attitude to tradition (the use of achievements of previous translations or rejecting the solutions of predecessors), and the type of translation (free, philological, literal, dynamic, or interlinear translation, etc.). The same is true of the Qur’an. Thus, Tatar translators either used native semantic equivalents for Qur’anic proper names (apart from individual equivalents they also introduced descriptions and periphrases), e.g.  allāh – bōg, pan bōg, *bōg jedin614 or they etymologized proper names of Arabic origin (especially those which were important for doctrinal and theological reasons), and then the Slavic equivalent was often preceded by a metalinguistic expression to znaczy; to jest (that is; that is to say)615, e.g. idriśe znači śe kravec (KM), ‘iśa to jest po bolskū jezus (KM), furkan to jest kur’an (KL) or conversely, they provided a Slavic equivalent, and its meaning was specified through the introduction of the original Arabic name as an explanatory gloss, e.g. treceja kśenga dana ‘jiśi proroku to jest inǯil (KM), dekret boži to jest kuran (KM), ten korãn şwentij wipisanij w skritō kśenga tō jest w lewchi l-mechfūz (T1), etc. As a result, the same referent (designatum) was described by different names, which became a source of onymic synonymy.

2.9 The impact of Tatar translations on the development and standardization of the Polish language The first Bible translations, and to a lesser extent also the translations of the Qur’an616 may have had an impact on the evolution of the Polish literary language,

6 13 Cf. ibidem. 614 Cf. the examples mentioned on pp. [182–183] in this monograph. 615 Cf. pp. [138–139]. This is another feature linking Tatar literature with translations of the Bible into Polish – cf. denominations with the explanation of their etymology of a type to znaczy (that is); czyli (or); co się wykłada (what is explained as), e.g. J 1, 38 Rabbi (co jeslibyś wykładał jest Mistrzu) (BB), Rabbi co się rozumie wyłożywszy vczyćielu (BN), Rabbi (co zowią, wyłożywszy, Nauczycielu) (BW), Rabbi! (co się wykłada: Mistrzu) (BG), Rabbi! to znaczy: Nauczycielu (BT), Rabbi (co nazywa się przetłumaczone „Nauczycielu”) (Grecko-polski NT) or denominations that do not contain an introductory element, e.g. po hebrajsku (in Hebrew); a w greckim (and in Greek), etc. 616 The question of the degree of impact of national minorities on the general language is an important research problem. According to C. Łapicz, Głos w dyskusji, [in:]

The impact of Tatar translations

197

and thus on the formation and development of the Polish Biblical style. The research of T. Lisowski is of significant importance in this regard. He states that three quarters of translation entries of BG could have been fully perceived by an average user of the language617. Therefore, the assumptions concerning the methods of translation were of great significance. Especially important was the work of translators on the adaptation of geographically and culturally foreign texts to the needs of a particular audience (cf. the assumptions of humanist translations, including the demand for the comprehensibility of the message of sacred books). Therefore, intellectualization of the language took place, mainly in the process of translating the Bible and para-Biblical texts618, and this was accompanied by the standardization of the literary language, i.e. its normalization619. Its immediate cause was the contact of a language which was in the process of forming its literary variety, with a language of high prestige. Therefore, not only did translations draw from the functional resources of the Polish language, but the Polish language also benefited from the formation of translations of the Bible and the Qur’an because its contact with languages of a higher culture, that is with the original languages of the Bible and the Qur’an, was the main causative factor of its intellectualization, thus of improving its functional efficiency at the lexical (the growth of new lexical items, especially abstract ones, such as neosemantisms and idioms), stylistic and syntactic levels.

Dzieje Lubelszczyzny…, p. 343: “sources report that the Lithuanian Karaites, who were very few, only between 400 and 1000 people, strongly influenced the language of their Slavic environment.” However, Tatars were much more numerous in the GDL, therefore, their power of influence was also much greater. Thus, the ethnic groups inhabiting the lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and representing Kipchak dialects (Armenians, Lithuanian-Polish Muslims), were able to have an impact on the enrichment of the lexical resources of Slavic languages (especially of Polish and Belorussian). On the basis of studies in this area it was found that nearly a half of the so-called Islamisms (words of Oriental origin which occur in the religious writings of the Tatars of the GDL and or in Qur’anic translations as well as in the lexical system of the Polish language in a religious sense) are listed by SWil i SMick (the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish). Some of them are already recorded for the first time in SPolXVI. And only few of them are attested in Kartoteka SPolXVII and XVIII – cf. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii muzułmańskiej…, pp. 179–180. 617 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 443 – cf. Z. Klemensiewicz, op. cit., pp. 317–335, and also D. Bieńkowska, Słownictwo i frazeologia w Psałterzu…, p. 33: “In the second half of the 16th century, the vocabulary resource of the literary language was increasing through the use of everyday vocabulary, living speech, its greater semantic and emotive differentiation, as well as clarifying the meaning of words closely dependent on the context.” 618 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 439. 619 Ibidem, pp. 35–36.

198

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

Religious translation literature, in fact, greatly contributed to the process of transformation of the meaning of Polish vocabulary, especially in the field of enrichment of ways words were used  – well-known words of fixed attribution to a certain semantic field, types of speech, etc. had to be used in new, hitherto unknown contexts (in a new vocabulary environment), which made them assume peculiar shades of meaning. It contributed significantly to the enrichment of vocabulary, and above all to the increase of the resources of synonymy (the pursuit of Polish equivalents which would render in the most accurate way the meaning of the original lexemes led to the formation of contextual synonymity, which ultimately enabled growth in general synonymy in the Polish language)620 and to syntactic reorientation, or producing special syntactical means which were to compensate for the loss of situational references (gestures, facial expressions, the intensity and tone of voice, etc.), specific for direct oral contact621. As far as the religious writings of the Tatars of the GDL are concerned, it can be argued that they may have had an impact on the enrichment of the resource of religious vocabulary, and thus on the increase of dictionary resource of Polish, especially of abstract vocabulary, but also of the terms unique to the religion of Islam, including Arabic and Turkish borrowings622. Therefore, in this work, the postulate for contextual research was taken into account. Attention was drawn to the pragmatic aspect, that is to the ways words function in religious texts. In this way, new words could be identified, which enriched the lexical system of Polish, and it was also possible to observe the way Muslims took advantage of the existing religious language to express new content, for instance by giving new semantic functions to existing religious terms. It was concluded that religious determinants were most important extra-linguistic factors which influenced the emergence and development of a specific religious terminology.

2.10 The north-eastern borderland variety of Polish in translation literature of the Tatars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania In the literature of the subject623, the Slavic layer in the literary monuments of Lituanian-Polish Muslims is described as the north-eastern borderland variety of

6 20 Ibidem, p. 81. 621 Cf. M. Cybulski, Staropolskie przekłady psałterza…, p. 89. 622 Cf. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii muzułmańskiej… 623 Cf., for example, C.  Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…; H.  Jankowski, C. Łapicz, op. cit.; G. Miškinienė, Sieniausi lietuvos totorių rankrašciai…; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…; М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit.; I. Radziszewska, Chamaiły jako typ piśmiennictwa religijnego muzułmanów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego…

The north-eastern borderland variety of Polish

199

Polish and/or as the Belorussian language624. Such terms as Polish-Belorussian or Belorussian-Polish were adopted in relation to this language because it is difficult to determine the exact boundaries of the autonomous presence of these languages (or dialects) in the Muslim manuscripts in the GDL. This issue is further complicated by the fact that the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish is also mixed phonetically. Indeed, Polish linguistic features are here mixed with Belorussian features. The polish features were forms consistent with the current Polish phonetical system, i.e. from the end of the 16th century to the end of the 18th century, realizing phonetical trends of the literary Polish of those centuries and forms manifesting a certain degree of conservatism in reference to literary Polish, as well as north Polish dialectal features, characteristic especially of the Mazowsze region. While Ruthenian features include typically Ruthenian characteristics, transplanted and assimilated in the dialect, new properties unknown in this form either to Polish or Ruthenian, resulting from the collision of the Polish and Ruthenian systems, for example Ruthenian lexical realization of nasal vowels:  dub instead of dąb; hard pronunciation of ń before a hard consonant, combinations χi, χ’e instead of Polish χy, χe; soft l; fluctuations: l:ł, rz:r, v:u, g:γ. The mixing of Polish and Belorussian phonetical systems happened, therefore, as a result of direct contacts of the two language groups, Belorussian and Polish. The Belorussian population took over the Polish language, gradually using Polish, and the Polish population adapted their language to Belorussian, which was close to Polish625. In addition, in order to identify the features of the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish in the monuments of the Tatars of the GDL their writing system should also be taken into account because writing is largely a reflection of the north-eastern borderland pronunciation, for example, of asynchronous realization of nasals, fluctuations in the use of l:ł; blending of the phonemes i:y, problems with correct identification of triple consonant series (S-Ś-Š), the lack of phonemes ś, ź, ć, dź in the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish and in Belorussian dialects etc. These are the orthographical-linguistic facts. It should also be borne in mind that Tatar translators, using the Arabic alphabet, completely foreign to the Slavic phonological system, were faced with analogous problems that were encountered by writers and copyists of Old Polish texts626, except for the fact that they already had sophisticated Polish spelling based on dior multigraphs, and on diacritics. These problems included: 1. The orthography of the nasals ę, ą, and other vowel phonemes, because the classical Arabic alphabet is a consonantal script, in which only three vowel

6 24 After K. Dufala, Legenda o św. Grzegorzu w kitabie Tatarów…, p. 205. 625 Cf. Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., p. 115. 626 Cf. C. Łapicz, Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich…, pp. 7–8; A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., p. 44; J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Cechy wspólne piśmiennictwa Tatarów litewskopolskich…, pp. 15–23.

200

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

colours are marked by means of the so-called vocalization (cf. in Polish – 8, in Belorussian – 6). Thus, in the Arabic alphabet, there are the following vocalization marks: fatḥa (ٙ◌ ), kasra (◌ ), ḍamma ( ُ◌) and sukūn (◌), ْ which shows that ٙ there is no vocalization. Therefore, in Tatar religious texts Slavic vowels (i.e. Polish and Belorussian ones) are indicated by means of these marks. Sometimes (mainly when the respective syllables were stressed) these marks are supplemented by waw (‫ )ﻭ‬and yā (‫)ﻱ‬. In texts in Polish the nasal vowel phonemes typical of Polish were not taken into account, and they were rendered either by means of characters corresponding to their oral values (that is ę as e and ą as o), or by combinations such as an oral vowel + nasal vowel (i.e. en, on, em, om…), which reflect north-eastern borderland pronunciations; 2. Determining the softness of consonants occuring before a vowel. In fact, the Arabic alphabet does not reflect the hard-soft phonological opposition (typical of Polish and Belorussian), which does not exist in Arabic. In order to express it, the first translators of religious books used the literal distinction between emphatic and non-emphatic consonants featured in the Arabic alphabet. However, this opposition includes only the consonants ṣ-s, ḍ-d, ṭ -t, ẓ -z, q-k, but there was the lack of it in reference to b, p, v, m, n, and l. Moreover, the vowel phonemes i and y, which indicated the softness or hardness of the preceding consonants, were not distinguished in writing, therefore the context indicated the meaning of individual words; 3. Indicating triple consonant series (S-Ś-Š) and other consonant phonemes. Polish and Belorussian contained a number of sounds unfamiliar to Arabic (there are no characters in the Arabic alphabet to mark them), so it was necessary to invent new characters to denote these sounds. Therefore, the problem of multifunctionality of letters arose. New orthographical symbols were introduced to denote the Slavic sounds that were not known in Arabic, e.g. in order to distinguish Belorussian sounds c (ć), dz (dź) three new characters were added, previously known in Persian and Turkish alphabets, which were used to denote the phonemes p, ž, č. Some Slavic sounds were marked in the texts by several Arabic letters of equivalent function, e.g. the phoneme ź (or z’), and the phoneme z. In the monuments analyzed in the study (created and then copied mainly in the period between the 16th and 18th centuries; the exceptions are KL and the material collected by Woronowicz), the following features of the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish can be seen627:

627 Cf. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Piśmiennictwo religijne Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego jako oryginalne źródło do badań polszczyzny północnokresowej, „Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne” XXIV (II), Seria Językoznawcza, Poznań 2017, pp. 85–110.

The north-eastern borderland variety of Polish

201

In the vocalic system a. nasal asynchrony i.e. articulation fission (under the influence of Belorussian dialects), for example in the word-final position  – derekcijón (T2), drogoŋ prawӡiweŋ drogoŋ ktūroŋ (TAL I, p. 6a, v. 5), in the middle position – spōlenčnik (T1), widzōnci (T1) (the realization of ę as en and ą as on before affricate consonants c, cz, dz, dź, showing a dominant consonantal pronunciation628 and the presence in the word spōlenčnik of hypercorrect ę as an example of secondary nasality)629, kśenga (ChL, T1, T2, KM) (the realization of ę as en before plosives k, g)630, sond (KK), pečentar (KM), mondri (KM), sūnd (KM) (the realization of ę as en and ą as on before plosives t, d)631, but excepting the position before l(ł), where they retain their oral value, e.g. počol jeśc (TAL V, p.  93b, v.  3)  or their total denasalization632, e.g. in the mid-word articulation – cf. meśec (KM), sūd/sud (KM) (also the lexically Ruthenian realization of nasal vowels, manifested, for example, in the substitution of Ruthenian u in the place of a former back nasal; see also the etymological pattern of the Old Czech súd; Old Russian sudъ)633, in the word-final position  – cf. w ime (TAL I, p.  6a, v.  2), ẕalalo śe wodo (TAL V, p. 93b, v. 2) or before the consonant w, for example, the loss of nasality of -ǫ before etymological -w in the perfect participle – cf. prijōwšī (TAL V, p. 94a, v. 6), wźowši (TAL CX, p. 485a, v. 2); b. the reduction of unstressed vowels, e.g. he reduction o>a634 in a pre-stressed position and in a post-stressed position – cf. jedinōstwa (T1), jedinostva (KM, KŁ), prarok (KŁ), paχvalnaść (KŁ) or e>a – cf. žona, podžoga (opalimi go […] w ognū peḱelnim […] i žona jego nošonc podžoga) (TAL CXI, p. 485a, v. 5), laska (spelnilem nad wami laska moja) (TAL V, p. 93b, v. 6), ẕnenʒnal w gloʒā (TAL V, p. 93b, v. 6–7); c. the lack of the i:y635 distinction of phonemes, e.g. jedinōstwa (T1), jedinostva (KM, KŁ), pitalnik (KM), sin (KM), pōwodir (T1), prijacel (T1), tōwariš (T1), tovariš (KM 533, v. 8–10, p. 229), neprijacel (T1, T2), priwodca (T1), prikezana (T1) (especially in loan words, e.g. in T1 direkcija) – cf. ciχi i pokorni (KM), statečni (KM), śmali (KM), mondri (KM); d. the lack of the distinction o:ō636, e.g. jedinōstwa (T1), ōbraz (T1), spōlenčnik (T1), tōwariš (T1), milōśt’ (ChL), piṡmō (T1), ãnjōl (T1), pōsōl (T1), pōsel (T1), pōslanec

6 28 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., p. 81. 629 Ibidem, p. 79, and P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 187 – cf. uczęstnik. 630 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., pp. 81–82. 631 Ibidem. 632 Ibidem, pp. 79–80. 633 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., p. 85. Cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan tatarski…., pp. 176–188. 634 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., p. 86; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 168–170 and pp. 201–209. 635 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., pp. 91–92. 636 Ibidem, pp. 69–75 and p. 76.

202

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

(T1), milōśnik (KK 74 a, v. 11–12, p. 108), pōwodir (T1), prōrōk (T1, KK, ChL), prōrok (KK) (also the increase in articulation of o before R); e. close vowels637, e.g. ó>o – cf. in KK, T1 bōg (retaining of ō)638, in KM rovni (428, v. 9–10, p. 201); in TAL pžipadkow, šeptow (CXIII, p. 485b, v. 1); é>i/y (especially in a position before r and the word-final position of j>éj in Gen., Dat., Loc.) – cf. in T1 wiršownik, in TAL tij (CXI, p. 485a, v. 5), ni ma (CXII, p. 485a, v. 7), ni maš (V, p. 104a, v. 1), newiliwajce (V, p. 104a, v. 7), KM ʒica639 or a continuation of the old long vowel e – cf. dziécię640; f. the presence of the alternation a:e in loan words in the word-initial position, e.g. ‘enhel, ‘enh’eł (KŁ 119b, v. 8, p. 381, KM 115, v. 6–7, p. 113, KL) and the fluctuation of e:o, e.g. keran (KL)641; g. vacillation in vowel sounds, e.g. e:o – cf. prowiẕerowi (TAL I, p. 6a, v. 3), u:o – e.g. wekoisti (TAL CXII, p. 485a, v. 7), ę:ą, e.g. pravӡiveŋ (TAL I, p. 6a, v. 5); h. reduction (contraction) o>u, e.g. zvuʒicel (T2 II, v. 5–6, p. 45), kur’an (KM, KL), kurãn (T2)642; i. lowering of articulation of i, y>e + M, e.g. dušejemca (KŁ)643; lowering of articulation of i, y>e + R, e.g. derekcijón (T2)644; j. increase in articulation i, y>e + N, e.g. jedin (T1)645; k. forms without apophony, e.g. ḱwjet (TAL VI, p.  119b, v.  8), wjedōmī (TAL V, p. 104a, v. 6); l. o in the place of Polish e notation [o]‌; [é]> notation [i]; [ó]> notation [u] – in T1 o is constricted, therefore, with a high frequency, it is written as ū. 638 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., pp. 69–75. 639 Ibidem, p. 86. 640 Ibidem, p. 67. 641 Ibidem, pp. 92–93 and p. 232. 642 Ibidem, p. 86; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 198–201. 643 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 196. 644 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., p. 75; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 194. 645 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., p. 76. 646 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., pp. 69–75 and p. 90. 647 Cf. Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., p. 90 and p. 92.

The north-eastern borderland variety of Polish

203

*slnьce648, meśec (KM)  – cf. mésjac from Proto-Slavic *měsęcьś in a position before k’, e.g. (anheli) nepeśk’ije, (moci) anelśk’e (KM)649; b. the lack of distinction in the orthography of hard and soft consonants n:ń, e.g. pričinca (KM) (cf. general Slavic *pričina)  – here also under the influence of Belorussian a soft consonant ń occurring before a hard successor is subjected to depalatalization; den (T1, T2, KM) (in addition, fluctuations n:ń in the northeastern borderland variety of Polish occur in word-final position, and thus, for example, arbitrary, interpretative spelling dźeń is not correct, but ʒen – in the tradition of phonetical transcription in Slavic languages it contains a ʒ and a neutral spelling n)650; c. mixing γ and g, consisting in substitution of a Ruthenian y in the place of Polish g, and at the same time, the introduction of hypercorrect g in the place of Ruthenian γ 651 e.g. begliwan and behliwan (W), bog and boh (KM), angel (KK 60b, v. 8, p. 96) and anhel (KM 65, v. 11, p. 92), anhieł (W), jego and jeho (KM), kniga (KK 63b, v. 9, p. 98) and kniha (KM 257, v. 7–8, p. 257); d. the simplification of consonant clusters652, e.g. -zdr->-ẓzr- in the word ẕaẕzros̀nikow (TAL CXIII, p. 485b, v. 2) or the disappearance of a middle sound in the cluster zdr>zr- in the word zrajca (KK); e. the fluctuation of l:ł, e.g. balwan (T1), and balvan (KM), spōlenčnik (T1), ãnjōl (T1), anhel (KM), angel (KK), ‘enhel (KL, KM, KŁ), milośc (KM), boslanec (KM), sluga (T2), slova (KK, T2), posel (T2), pōsōl (T1), poslanec (T2), milōśnik (KM), mili (KM)653; f. the gemination of a historically soft ž>žž in the adjectival form boży, e.g. jedinōstwa bōžže (T1), and Belorussian cluster characteristic of the south-western dialects n’j, e.g. stworenje (T1)654; g. the realization of Polish rz modelled on the Ruthenian r, e.g. prijacel (T1), prijećel (KŁ), tōwariš (T1), tovariš (KM), neprijacel (T1, T2), pisar (KL), priwodca (T1),

648 Cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 215 – the change of [e]‌>[o] in the word-final position, and p. 271 – the indication of the Ruthenian dialectal forms, e.g. slōncō. 649 Cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 228–229. 650 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., pp. 97–98. 651 Ibidem, p. 106 and p. 235 – cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 216–219. 652 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 235; М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit., pp. 178–179. 653 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., p. 100; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 219–220. 654 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 237–238.

204

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

prikezana (T1), pečentar (KM), pričinca (KM)655, and the presence of ‘e:‘a both in native words as well as in borrowings656; h. the asynchrony of palatalness – cf. wjari (TAL I, p. 6a, margin, v. 15), wjedōmī (TAL V, p. 104a, v. 6), zdrowje (TAL VI, p. 122b, v. 6), ḱwjet (TAL VI, p. 119b, v.  8), s̀wjet (TAL VI, p.  112b, v.  3), s̱wjedkami (TAL V, p.  105a, v.  3)  – in the latter examples, also the retention of voiced pronunciation of v in the consonant group śv as a manifestation of the influence of Belorussian657; i. no indication of softness of consonants before a vowel (also a graphical feature – the lack of indication of the softness of consonants the vowel T + A, that is the lack of a the softness exponent -i-), e.g. zwodzicel (T1), anol (T2, KM), boslanec (KM), poslanec (T2), prijacel (T1), neprijacel (T1, T2), prikezana (T1), sonʒicel (KM), pečentar (KM), den658; j. the reduplication of n as an east Ruthenian influence, e.g. jedinnij (T1), jedinni (KM), jedinnostvo (KM 5, v. 6, p. 60), oʒinnji (KM 410, v. 10, p. 198)659; k. unvoicing, e.g. lūcḱemu (TAL CXIV, p. 485b, v. 3), and voicing, e.g. liǯbar (TAL VI, p. 116a, v. 1); l. assimilations in the terms of the place of origin, e.g. bliššix (TAL V, p. 104b, v. 7); m. the presence of the word sumienie in the non-simplified form (in the original phonetical version) – sūmnenem (TAL I, p. 6a, margin, v. 17); n. the occurrence of the adjective miłosierny with the non-simplified consonantal group rd: milōserdnegō (TAL I, p. 6a, v. 2); o. the lack of consonants j in prefixal forms of verbs, e.g. pžiʒe (TAL CX, p. 485a, v. 1); p. the lack of j in an intervocalic position, e.g. xrescane (TAL V, p. 96a, v. 7), but later it appears in an appended passage as xržes̀cijanom (TAL I, p. 6a, margins, v. 25); q. retention of the group ir in the place of er, e.g. ščira (TAL V, p. 104a, v. 4); r. fluctuation in a triple consonant series S-Ś-Š, e.g. milośc (KM, A), piśmo (KK, T2, KM), źwitk’ī prikezana (T1), maśijaš (T1)660 – these examples illustrate both the typical shortcomings of the graphy as well as of phonetics. In inflection a. the ending -i after a soft consonant instead of -e as the Belorussian influence in Nom. pl m.  in the forms pisari (KL), neprijaceli (T1)661, and the ending -i instead of -y because of the lack of distinction in Arabic writing between i:y

6 55 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., pp. 104–105; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 221–223. 656 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., p. 87. 657 Ibidem, p. 245; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 231. 658 Ibidem, pp. 91–92. 659 Ibidem, pp. 109–110; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 238. 660 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., pp. 94–96 and p. 237; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 231–233. 661 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., p. 168; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 254.

The north-eastern borderland variety of Polish

205

(cf. Old Polish orthography), e.g. ōbrazi, balwani etc.662, and also the presence of such forms as kaplani, pōslanci, slūdzī, bōgi (T1)663 and prōrōk’i, newernik’i, čarōwnik’i, as variants to prōrōci, newernici, čarōwnici (T1) etc.664; b. the ending -ej in Gen. pl of soft-stem words, e.g. dla lūdzej (T1)665, nicej (TAL CXIII, p. 485b, v. 1), and the ending -ów in Gen. pl of soft-stem words m., e.g. dō lōkcōw (TAL V, p. 94a, v. 8), and also the Gen. pl of soft-stem neuter nouns is replaced by the Nom. sg. forms, e.g. wiwedlis̱mi ź nix dwanas̱ce pōkōlene (TAL V, p. 95a, v. 5–6); c. in Nom. and Acc. pl of consonant nouns forms a fluctuation of the original ending -i and borrowed from soft-vowel stems -e, moci (KM)666, typical of the 17th century, and especially of the 18th century; d. the presence of the ending -ą in hard-stem nouns in Acc. sg f., and also the occurrence in nouns ending in -a in Acc. sg f. of a regional tendency to assimilation with Nom. sg – it is a phonetical phenomenon (the so-called ‘akanie’). Therefore, in the analyzed texts the following forms can be found: žona, podžoga (TAL CXI, p. 485a, v. 5), pod obrona (TAL CXIII, p. 485a, v. 9), and others; e. the occurrence of the ending -e in nouns in Gen. sg f. ending in -a, e.g. mensa s̀wīne (TAL VI, p. 125a, v. 1) and the ending -u under Ruthenian influence, e.g. bez xlūbū (TAL V, p. 95a, v. 7), as well as the fluctuation of the endings -a:-u in inanimate nouns, e.g. s̀wjatū (TAL I, p. 6a, v. 3), as well the use of the forms of Nom. sg in soft-stem nouns n., e.g. z granic prikezane (TAL V, p. 104b, v. 2), meškane zdrowje wečnegō (TAL VI, p. 122b, v. 6); f. the duality of endings in Gen., Dat,. and Instr. pl of the noun przyjaciel, e.g. s prijacōl (TAL V, p. 107b, v. 6) – cf. prijacelī, prijacelmi (TAL V, p. 101a, v. 1) – cf. prijacelami; g. the presence of an ending of the original Nom. pl in the noun przyjaciel, e.g. prijacelī bōžže (TAL V, p. 96a, v. 7), but prijacele (TAL VI, p. 122b, v. 7);

6 62 Cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 253. 663 Cf. ibidem, p. 255. 664 Cf. ibidem, pp. 255–256 – also comments on the fluctuation of the usage of -owie, pp. 256–257. 665 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 240 and p. 265. Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., p. 169 treats this as a peculiarity against the background of the history of the Standard Polish language and its north borderland dialect, and he confirms its presence in Belorussian and north Ukrainian dialects. “It was an ending that only periodically (between the end of the 16th century and the end of the 17th century) was present in Polish in the area of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and it may be that it was typical of very colloquial language, being used by bilingual individuals, who were subjected to the mutual interference of two language systems.” 666 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., p.  178; P.  Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p.  300; М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit., pp. 191–194 – also the influence of BN.

206

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

h. the fluctuation of the endings and genders of nouns, e.g. jedinōstwa, jedinostva (T1), ʒica (KM)667; i. the ending -o after the pattern of adverbs with the suffix -o instead of -e, e.g. stvorenjō (KK)668; j. the fluctuation of the stressed endings -i:-y and -ij:-yj in adjectives, which may refer to Belorussian dialects of the Brest-Pinsk region, but it also occurs in Vilnius dialect, moreover, it was typical of the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish669, e.g. jedinij (KK, T1, KŁ – P. Suter indicates the exclusiveness of the stressed forms -ij:-yj in TM), prōžnij, inšij, śwentij, jawnij (T1), strašnij (KŁ), ṕek’elnij (KŁ), etc.; k. root alternations – mixing soft and hard stems in adjectives ending in -ny:-ni and -cy:-ci, e.g. peḱelni (TAL CXI, p. 485a, v. 5), pžijmūjonci (TAL CX, p. 485a, v. 3), blendni, ẕweʒoni (TAL I, p. 6a, v. 6); l. forms of simple inflection of adjectives  – cf. rence abū lehebowī (TAL CXI, p. 485a, v. 4); m. the residue of nominal case inflection of adjectives in Nom. sg n. in the form of božjo jedinostvo (KM)670; n. active present participle ending in -ąc in the function of a nominal attribute, e.g. žōna nōšōnc (TAL CXI, p. 485a, v. 5); o. archaic personal forms of the verb być, e.g. jesc x̱eram (TAL V, p. 93b, v. 1), tō jesc (TAL VI, 123b, v. 7); p. the past tense of verbs expressed, for example, by means of the active participle of the past tense ending in sg in -l, -la, -lo, which can be considered a Polonism, e.g. k’edī rekl pan bōg (T1 fol. 8b, v. 2b, p. 383) and the loss of the suffix -l in consonant groups, e.g. wšak prišed wam pōsōl (TAL V, p. 95b, v. 7), žebis̱ pōšed (TAL VI, p. 113a, v. 6). There are also instances when after a vowel stem instead of -l in a word-final position there appears a wāw (‫)و‬, which represents the impact of Belorussian, e.g. ã ktō ṡe ūdaw (T1 fol. 9a, v. 7b, p. 385); q. the presence of past perfect forms – e.g. bilis̱ce zatajili (TAL V, p. 95b, v. 8), ne ūžili śe bilī (TAL VI, p. 110b, v. 3), dal bil bōg (T1 fol. 35a, v. 4b, p. 438); r. disruptions in the connectivity of verbs with the pronoun się, e.g. pōzwolila śe na tō (TAL V, p. 97b, v. 3), śe ne weʒal (TAL V, p. 98b, v. 6), priśli śe dō taḱegō času (TAL VI, p. 122b, v. 8);

667 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., pp. 161–164; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 304–305; М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit., pp. 194–202. 668 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., pp. 149–150. 669 C. Łapicz, Z problematyki badawczej piśmiennictwa Tatarów białostockich…, p. 166; М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit., pp. 195–196; P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, pp. 307– 309 – cf. south Belorussian dialects, as well as the dialects of Vilnius region – the so-called Polish islands. Kartoteka SPolXVI, for example, records the expression sluga bożij (the servant of God) in OpecŻyw. 670 P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 309 – cf. božjo with a peculiar ending -o.

The north-eastern borderland variety of Polish

207

s. the imperative with the ending -i in 2nd person sg, e.g. wspōmni i muxemmed (TAL V, p. 96b, v. 4); t. the presence of iterative verbs, e.g. prislūxiwajon s̱e (TAL V, p. 99a, v. 2), śpešajōn s̱e w newernōści (TAL V, p. 99a, v. 1); u. generic pronouns without the word-initial ń in combination with a preposition (Belorussian influence) – e.g. na jim (TAL V, p. 93b, v. 3). In word formation a. the presence of productive formations in the general and the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish of the period between the 16th and 18th century, e.g. in TAL denominative nomina agentis with the suffix -nik – cf. kriwdnik (V, p. 97b, v. 3), škūdnik (V, p. 97b, v. 4), bojaźnik (V, p. 105a, v. 1); with the suffix -ciel, e.g. zemścicel (V, p. 106b, v. 4), būricel (VI, p. 122a, v. 3), gūbicel (VI, p. 123a, v. 5), prōwaʒicel (VI, p. 126b, v. 1) or with the prefix -ca, e.g. pričinca (VI, p. 114b, v. 6), twurca (VI, p. 120a, v. 5), pōtwarca (VI, p. 126b, v. 2), etc., and also -arz, e.g. liǯbar (VI, p. 116a, v. 1), -acz, e.g. dōglōndač (V, p. 109b, v. 4). In the vast majority of cases, they are listed in SWil. Some of them are neologisms or neosemantisms, borrowed from polemical religious texts or from Bible translations, for example BN – cf. karmicel (V, p. 97b, v. 2); abstract nomina actionis with formatives -enie, -anie: ūspamentane (V, p. 99a, v. 5), zaślepene (V, p. 103b, v. 3), činene (V, p. 107b, v. 6), pōhanbene (VI, p. 122b, v. 2); abstract nouns ending in -ość, e.g. dwuličnōść (V, p. 101a, v. 3); denominative nomina attributiva with the suffix -ski babsḱix (CXIII, p. 485b, v. 1); b. the occurrence of possessive adjectives with the suffix -owy, e.g. lehebowī (TAL CXI, p. 485a, v. 4); c. superlativus of adjectives in an older variant, e.g. nalepša (TAL VI, p. 110a, v. 4), nagōrše (TAL V, p. 102a, v. 5), but nailepše (TAL V, p. 108a, v. 5); d. verb forms with a different prefix than the one that is used today, with an added prefix, or without a prefix, e.g. padne (TAL CXIII, p. 485b, v. 1), źeme śwentō napisal pan bōg wam (TAL V, p. 96b, v. 6), nawracam twar mōjōŋ kū (TAL VI, p. 117b, v. 3), premenali slōwo (TAL V, p. 95b, v. 2), rezlōnčili śe ōd wjerī (TAL VI, p. 126b, v. 6), etc. In syntax a. Instr. in a predicative adjective, e.g. kajeta pžijmūjoncim (TAL CX, p. 485a, v. 3), stali činōncimi (TAL V, p. 102a, v. 8), bōnʒce i wī cnōtliwimi (TAL V, p. 94a, v. 5), bōnʒce stawajōncimi (TAL V, p. 94b, v. 6); b. synthetic and analytical forms in syntactical combinations, e.g. complement expressed as a case form of a noun instead of noun + preposition – cf. zapōmneli ōbetnici mōjej (TAL V, p. 95b, v. 5), strūnce śe gō (TAL V, p. 95b, v. 7), prepositional structures instead of factitive ones, e.g. pomagać na (help somebody) (whom? what? Instead of to whom? why?); c. syntactic use of prepositions, e.g. w ‘at’ – cf. benʒece īm w pōmōci (TAL V, p. 95a, v. 7), čemū ne prišle tōbe w pōmōci anjōla (TAL VI, p. 110b, v. 6–7);

208

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

d. a regional structure with the preposition dla (for) + Gen., e.g. stronil s̀e dla gržexū (TAL V, p. 93b, v. 7); e. the structure u (with) + Gen., e.g. pitajōŋ ū cebe (TAL V, p. 93b, v. 7); f. accusative syntax of the preposition pomiędzy (between), e.g. ūčili meʒi was prōrōḱi (TAL V, p. 96b, v. 5); g. a quantitative group subject, e.g. prijʒece jeden z was (TAL V, p. 94b, v. 1); h. an archaic form of the preposition z (with), e.g. ne rźnice iź šiju īx (TAL V, p. 93a, v. 5). In lexis a. the presence of Belorussian lexical forms, e.g. a hybrid in KK (bōg) ōdīn/ōdīn (bōg), and in KM (boh) oʒinnji, (pan bōg) oʒinnji; in KŁ (113b, v. 3, p. 377) božeje adźinostva (božeje – a form without contraction, and adźinostva – a Belorussian form – cf. Russian единство, therefore, it may be a hybrid of jedynostwo with a vowel reduction in the word-final position); in KM and KŁ mūkari, and in KK mukari, in W mukary; in KK and KM, as well as in KL kniha; in KM verχ; in KM spodar; in T1 tūrma (fol. 484b, v. 4, p. 187); b. the presence or regional forms of the type inny-inszy (other, other one)671, e.g. bog inšij/inšij bōg/inšij boh (inszy – and Old Polish word and a frequent variant of the word inny, created from the original form in-y with the suffix of the comparative degree -szy672; the expression inszy bog (another god), recorded in SPolXVI II, 282) confirms this fact, as well as the transformations of the type pān būġ, and pān jaẓūsūwi, pānnā mārija, in which only the second word is inflected673, as well as borderland vocabulary such as dwuliczność 1.  ‘a twofolded side of things’; 2. fig. ‘falsity, hypocrisy’ (SWil 267); najdować ‘to determine, to decide, to settle’ (Mały słownik zaginionej polszczyzny, later: MSZP); naterminować ‘to write briefly and only for the sake of remembering, to take down’ (SWil, 744); przekluć ‘to pierce, to pierce with a beak (in reference to birds)’ (SWil, 1237); przymieszać 1.  ‘to join, to mix with something, being as an addition’; 2. ‘to something’; fig. ‘to belong to something, to apply oneself to something’ (SWil, 1297); spuszczać się ‘to rely on, to trust’ (SWil, 1552); zamętek ‘heartache, anguish, oppression’ (MSZP); żywiący – an adjective formed from żywię ‘the thing that lives’ (MSZP), etc. Therefore, the monuments of Tatar literature in the GDL provide a wide variety of linguistic facts, characteristic of the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish in the period between the 16th and 20th centuries. And they are at the same time an invaluable source of research for this variety of Polish because, as it is assumed, their protographs came into existence already in the second half of the 16th

6 71 М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit., p. 231. 672 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., p. 187. 673 М. Тарэлка, I. Сынкова, op. cit., p. 233.

The north-eastern borderland variety of Polish

209

century. Today, language historians have Akta cechów wileńskich z lat 1495–1759, which were published on the basis of their subsequent copies in Poznań in 2006674, and Akta izdavaemyje Vilenskoju Archeografičeskoju Kommissieju, Vols. I–IX, Vilnius 1895–1878 (AWK), containing textual attestation of features considered to be regional (in the period between the last two decades of the 16th century and the first two decades of the 17th century)675. These documents are the earliest sources of excerpts. According to C.  Łapicz, religious writings of Polish Muslims represent “an invaluable source for studying the history of this variety of the Polish language, they enable to trace its phonetical, grammatical and lexical evolution in the period between the 16th and 20th centuries because during the course of these centuries the texts of Tatars of the GDL, and subsequent copies, different in time and space, were formed, and the linguistic features, which aptly illustrate and document centuries-old progress of the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish were accumulated”676.

674 After A. Pihan-Kijasowa, Akty cechów wileńskich z lat 1495–1759. Komentarz językowy, [in:] W kręgu języka, eds. M. Skarżyński, M. Szpiczakowska, Kraków 2009; eadem, Nazwiska mieszczan wileńskich (XVI–XVIII wiek). Zarys problematyki, [in:] Poznańskie Spotkania Językoznawcze, eds. A. Pihan-Kijasowa, I. SarnowskaGiefing, Vol. XXII, Poznań 2011, pp. 83–95. 675 Z. Kurzowa, op. cit., p. 115. 676 J. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, op. cit., pp. 42–43.

3 The translation of Islamic religious terminology into the Polish language in printed translations of the Qur’an 3.1 Methods of translation An overview of lexical and phraseological components of selected semantic fields indicates that in the Biblical and Qur’anic practice of translation, one may perceive primarily the use of native translational equivalents. And a distinctive feature of Qur’anic translations is their language, which abounded in metaphors. Thus, one of the mechanisms of denomination is the metaphor678. Polish equivalents may also expand their meanings under the influence of the religion of Islam679. In names used in reference to pagan gods, one may identify both the replacement of foreign terms with native names of similar connotations (e.g. in translations of the Bible and the Qur’an: bałwan, bóg, bóstwo, bożek, bożyszcze), as well as the use of metonymy (e.g. in the translations of the Bible and the Qur’an: obraz, posąg, wize­ runek; in Bible translations: obraz, rycina, wyżyny), periphrases (e.g. in Qur’anic translations: *fałszywe przez was wystawione bożyszcze, bóstwa zmyślone/zmyślone bóstwa, bogi zmyślone, *niedołężni opiekunowie, *przedmioty czci etc.; in Bible translations:  ryty bałwan/bałwan ryty, ryty obraz/obraz ryty, plugawy bałwan), inventing neosemantisms (in translations of the Bible and the Qur’an: fałsz, pan, równy; in Qur’anic translations: inny, obrońca, opiekun, orędownik, partner, pomoc­ nik; in Bible translations: marność, próżność, nikczemność, nikczemny, plugastwo, obrzydłość), and the use of neologisms (wstawiennik). An exception is a borrowing which was known already in Old Polish, namely bałwan (from Persian through Turkish and Ruthenian mediation). However, in KB2 (VI, 100)  a Latinized form dżinn was used (a formal-semantic borrowing which was featured in Polish since the 19th century), and in K3 (VI, 101) it is jinn (cf. in English) from coll Ar.  ǧinn used in reference to the sons falsely attributed to God, to whom praise that only He can receive is given, whereas in KB1 (VI, 100) its Polish equivalent duch was used. The semantic field of ‘revealed books’ can be characterized by names created by linguistic mechanisms of denomination such as metonymy and neosemantization. In the translated religious texts which were analyzed, there are also numerous periphrases and antonomasias.

678 The problem of metaphors in religious texts could become a subject of a separate study, so at this point I will limit myself only to indicating some metaphorical items appearing in the examined texts. 679 Cf. I. Kończak, Kształtowanie się rosyjskiej terminologii islamistycznej…, p. 105.

212

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

Common to both Biblical and Qur’anic translations are such metaphorical names (that came into existence in the process of neosemantization) of the holy books as mądrość (in all translations of the Qur’an) and prawda (in all translations of the Qur’an). Others, although they refer to the word of God, in the Bible they are not denominations of the book – cf. droga, dziedzictwo, łaska, napomnienie, nauka, światło, światłość, wyrocznia. In translations of the Qur’an there is a rich repertoire of neosemantic terms that refer to the revealed books that connote mercy and grace, wisdom, and teaching that comes from the holy book, and the truth, light, and law, as well as healing. These include both the already mentioned names, and thus, for example: dziedzictwo, łaska, światło, światłość, and such names as dowód, miłosierdzie, przewodnictwo, przypomnienie, rozróżnienie, rozstrzygnięcie, szczęście, uzdrowienie. Also anthropomorphisms can be distinguished among them, such as przewodnik (all translations), stróż (KB1 – only in the expressions – stróż mądrych (XL, 56), stróż wiernych (XXIX, 50). A mechanism of denomination which differs from neosemantization, is metonymy. Metonymies which are common both to the Bible and the Qur’an include primarily księga, pismo and słowo, but also what is contained in the book receives its name – cf. objawienie, opowiadanie, prawidło, prawo, proroctwo. And the peculiar metonymic expressions for the Qur’an are the following: napomnie­ nie, nauka, przestroga, znak, as well as tablice. They usually replace the names of specific books. When they are used in such a way they can be also called antonomasias. In the analyzed translated texts, there are numerous descriptive denominations, e.g. *Boski dekret (K3 XIII, 39), *jasny dowód (KB2 VI, 157), wyraźny dowód (K3 VI, 158), *zrozumiałe dowody (K3 XLV, 21), droga prosta (KB2 XLI, 44; X, 57), *dziedzic­ two królestwa (KB1 IV, 57), księga Mojżesza (KB2 XLVI, 12; K3 XLVI, 13), *Księga Psalmów (KB1 XVII, 57; XXI, 105), *księgi święte/święte księgi (KB1 II, 107; XVI, 46; XVII, 4), wielka łaska (K3 XXIX, 52), *łaska niebieska (KB1 VI, 158), dobra nowina (K3 XLVI, 13), wielka nowina (KB2 XXXVIII, 67), obietnice Pańskie (KB1 IV, 120), jasny osąd (K3 XIII, 38), *pismo nasze (KB1 V, 22), pismo przestróg (KB1 XXXVIII, 7), *pismo święte (KB1 IV, 48; V, 16), *pochodnia wiary (KB1 V, 50), *prawidło spraw waszych (KB1 II, 50), *prawidło wiary (KB1 III, 132), *prawidło obowiązków (KB1 II, 181), *przedmiot sprzeczek (KB1 XI, 112), *przedmiot tysiąca sprzeczek (KB1 XLI, 45), *przedmiot sporu (KB2 XI, 110), *przedmiot szyderstwa (KB1 XXXVI, 29), *przykazania jasne (KB1 XLV, 19), *święte tablice (KB1 VI, 155), *tablice prawa (KB1 VII, 153), wspaniała wiadomość (K3 XXXVIII, 68), radosna wieść (KB2 XLVI, 12), oczywiste wskazówki (KB2 XLV, 20), *słowo wiary (KB1 XXVIII, 51), słowo Boże (KB1 III, 72; VIII, 2), *światło wiernych (KB1 VII, 202), *światło wierzących (KB1 XXVII, 2), *światłość narodów (KB1 XLVI, 11), *wykład prawdziwéj wiary (KB1 XLI, 2), *wyrocz­ nie Boskie (KB1 VI, 158), *znak(i) jasny(e) (KB2 XXIX, 49), wyraźny(e) znak(i) (K3 XXII, 17; XXIX, 50), źródło zaszczytu (K3 XLIII, 45; LXVIII, 53), źródło żalu (K3 LXIX, 51), *najpiękniejsze opowiadanie (KB2 XXXIX, 23), najlepsza Rozprawa (K3 XXXIX, 24), including complex nominal groups, e.g. *pięć ksiąg Mojżesza (KB1 II, 73), *rękojmia łask niebieskich (KB1 XXIX, 50), *rękojmia Boskiego miłosierdzia (KB1

Methods of translation

213

VII, 202), *rękojmia łask boskich (KB1 XXXI, 2), *skład świętéj wiary (KB1 XLV, 10), *skład prawdziwéj wiary/*skład wiary prawdziwéj (KB1 LXVIII, 52; LXIX, 51), *zbiór najlepszych prawideł (KB1 XXII, 16), *jedna z ksiąg najwyborniejszych (KB1 XXXIX, 24), etc. With regard to the names of angels and other spiritual beings common both to the Bible and the Qur’an, created by linguistic mechanisms of denomination such as semantic derivation (including neosemantization)680, the following names can be mentioned: kłamcy, kusiciel, nieprzyjaciel, opiekun, posłańcy, słudzy/sługi, stróż, wojska, wróg, wysłannicy, zastępy, zgromadzenie, zwodziciel. In addition, in the analyzed translations, there are the following combinations: *kusiciel rodzaju ludzkiego (KB1 XXVIII, 14), *jawny nieprzyjaciel (KB1 XVII, 55), *otwarty nieprzy­ jaciel (KB1 XLIII, 62), *poseł Boży (KB1 LXXXI, 19), posłańcy niebiescy (KB1 XLIII, 80), *najwyższa rada (KB2 XXXVII, 8), słudzy zemsty (KB1 XXIX, 30), słudzy Najwyższego (KB1 XV, 57), władca dołu (KB1 LXXXV, 4), *zastępy aniołów (KB1 IX, 26), *czujne zastępy (KB1 LXXII, 8), *zastępy niebieskie (KB1 III, 122), *górne zgromadzenie (KB1 XXXVII, 8), zgromadzenie dżinnów (KB2 VI, 128), *zgromadze­ nie Duchów niebieskich (KB1 XXXVIII, 69), *wielki zwodziciel (KB2 XXXI, 33). In Kartoteka SPolXVI the use of denominations of angels (including Satan) such as świadek, towarzysz and zdrajca is attested in the monuments of the Polish language. The following neosemantisms featured in the Bible, occur as components of phrases (expressions) in the translations of the Qur’an:  rada, władca, zgromadzenie. Also in the Bible, Satan is described as władca złych duchów and władca tego świata, and the angels as rada sprawiedliwych (BW, BT), rada szcze­ rych (BG), wojska Boga żywego (BB, BW, BT), wojska Boga żyjącego (BG), wojsko niebieskie (BW, BG), zgromadzenie Pana, zgromadzenie świętych or zgromadze­ nie bogów (BT). And in Qur’anic translations there are such neosemantisms as buntownik, gońcy, nadzorca, nieposłuszny, ostrzegający, pokusiciele, pokuszenie, popędzający, posłannicy, spotykający, sprawiedliwi, strażnik, wspomożyciele; only in expressions: *najwyżsi dostojnicy (KB2 XXXVIII, 69), *jeźdźcy uzbrojeni (KB1 III, 121), niewdzięczny względem/wobec Pana (KB2 XVII, 27; K3 XVII, 28), *niewierny Bogu (KB1 XVII, 29), *czci przedmiot (KB1 IV, 116), *pułki niebieskie (KB1 XXXVI, 27), *sprowadzający z drogi (KB2 XXVIII, 15), sprzymierzeniec niewiernych (KB1 II, 259). There are other combinations such as: *strażnicy Gehenny (KB2 XL, 49), stróże piekła (KB1 XL, 52; LXVII, 8), *stróże ognia (KB2 LXXIV, 31), *wieczny towarzysz (KB1 XLIII, 35). Among the denominations which are common to the Bible, the Christian tradition and the Qur’an the following can be mentioned: apostoł, bogobojny, chory, czarnoksiężnik, czarownik, człowiek, czysty, dziecko, kapłani, kłamca, kuglarze, łagodny, namiestnik, ojciec, opętany, opowiadacz, oszust, pokorny, posłaniec, posłany, 680 Cf. the concept of semantic, morphological and lexical derivation – V. Maldjieva, Czy normalność jest w normie?, „Prace Filologiczne” LX, Seria Językoznawcza, Warszawa 2011, pp. 179–187.

214

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

posłuszny, poważany, prawdomówny, przewodnik, przyjaciel, przykład, słowo, sługa, sprawiedliwy, syn, szaleniec, szalony, szczery, śmiertelny, świadek, wielki, wierni, wybrany, wysłannicy, wzywający, znak, zwiastujący, zwiastun, zwodziciel. Some of these items are components of collocations which occur both in the Polish translations of the Bible as well as in the translations of the Qur’an, but some of them are peculiar only to Qur’anic translations. Their use is at the same time attested in Polish lexicographical sources. The following denominations are typical only of the Qur’an: autor, cierpliwy, czarodziej, czciciel, grożący, ludzki, naczelnik, najlepsi, napominający, niewdzięcznik, oczarowany, ostrzegający, oświecony, pobożny, podarunek, poeta, pomoc, pomocnik, pouczony, powiernicy, śmiertelnik, wierszo-pisarz, wspaniałomyślny, współczujący, zaczarowany. The denominations of the Last Judgement which occur in Polish translations of the Qur’an are also native equivalents of Arabic translational bases. Such names as, for example, sąd, godzina, zmartwychwstanie, and zwycięstwo, are common to the Bible, the Christian tradition and the Qur’an. Moreover, some one-word denominations such as boleść, ból, chwila, cień, czas, koniec, kres, pomsta, zguba, and many others, were used in the sense of ‘the Last Judgement’. These words occur only in phraseological expressions. Arabic translational bases were also rendered by such one-word equivalents as czas, dzień, godzina, koniec, termin, and also by structures consisting of two or more words, such as, for example, wyznaczony czas, czas spotkania, ta Godzina, ostatnia godzina, Sąd całego świata, pewien termin, czas oznaczony, tamten świat and some phrases, e.g. dotrzymać obietnic, oznaczyć czas. Among the denominations of the Last Judgement numerous metaphors can be identified. In this context, one may mention such terms as (straszny) cios, dowód (przekonywający), druzgocące, *koniec (dni waszych), *(oznaczony) kres, nieuniknione, *(wielka) nowina, obietnica (prawdziwa), pomsta (niebieska), *wieść (wielka), wydarzenie (przerażające), zmartwychwstanie, zwycięstwo, etc. In the semantic field of the Qur’anic names of the Last Judgement, one may distinguish denominations of a temporal nature. Among them the most important ones are phraseological combinations whose core is the word dzień (day). Here adjectival or objective attributes, which clarify the meaning of a described element play the role of a defining element. They are most frequently two-word combinations of the noun dzień with an adjectival attribute (what is it like?), or with an possessive attribute (whose? of what?). Most of the word combinations with the superior element dzień which occur in the translations were lexicalized. Their meaning is ‘the Last Judgement’. They also reflect the original Qur’anic combinations, in which the Ar. word  yawm is described by a noun, a nominal adjective or a participle in Gen. Thus, in printed translations of the Qur’an threre are such expressions as *Dzień bolesny (KB2 XLIII, 65) and *bolesny dzień (K3 XLIII, 66), *dzień boleści (KB1 XI, 28), *dzień ciemności (KB1 XXVI, 189), *Dzień Cienia (KB2 XXVI, 189), *Dzień czasu oznaczonego (KB2 XV, 38), Dzień grozy (KB2 L, 20), *Dzień mroczny (KB2 LXXVI,

Methods of translation

215

10), Dzień nieszczęsny/*nieszczęsny Dzień (WzK Człowiek v.  10, p.  93; KB2 XXII, 55), Dzień nieuchronny (KB1 LXIX, 1), *Dzień Nieuniknionego (KB2 XL, 18), *dzień obiecany (KB1 LXXXV, 2)  and *Obiecany Dzień (K3 LXXXV, 3), dzień odłączenia się (KB1 LXXVIII, 17), *dzień ogólnego zmartwychwstania (KB1 LXXV, 1), *dzień okropności (KB1 LXXVI, 10), *dzień okropny (KB1 LXXVI, 27), *dzień okropny dla niewiernych (KB1 LXXIV, 10), dzień ostateczny (KB1 XIV, 43; XLII, 46), *Dzień Ostatni (WzK Kobiety v. 136, p. 39; KB2 XXXIII, 21; K3 XXXIII, 22), Dzień oznacz­ ony (KB1 XXXIV, 29; KB2 LVI, 50), *Dzień pełen bólu (KB2 XI, 26), *dzień pogróżek (KB1 L, 19), *dzień powrotu do Allaha (WzK Krowa 281, p. 109), *dzień powszech­ nego zebrania (KB1 LXIV, 9), Dzień (im) przyobiecany (KB1 XLIII, 83; KB2 LXXXV, 2), *dzień rachunku (KB1 XXXVIII, 15), dzień rozdzielenia (KB1 LXXVII, 14), dzień rozłączenia (się) (KB1 XLIV, 40), *Dzień rozrachunku (KB2 XXXVIII, 16), *dzień rozrzucający na wszystkie strony nieszczęście (KB1 LXXVI, 7), Dzień Rozstrzygnięcia (KB2 XXXVII, 21; XLIV, 40; LXXVII, 14; LXXVIII, 17; K3 XLIV, 41; LXXVII, 15; LXXVIII, 18), *Dzień Sądu (KB1 XX, 101; KB2 XV, 35; K3 XV, 36) and *dzień Sądny (KB1 XV, 35), *dzień sądu najwyższego (KB1 XL, 9), *dzień Sądu ostatecznego (KB1 IV, 139), *Dzień Spotkania (KB2 XL, 15; K3 XL, 16), dzień straszliwy (KB1 LXXIV, 9), Dzień Straszny/*straszny dzień (WzK Człowiek v. 10, p. 93; KB1 XXII, 54; LIV, 8; KB2 XLVI, 21; K3 VI, 16; XXVI, 136), *dzień świadectwa (KB1 LXXXV, 3), *Dzień ten/*ten Dzień (KB1 LXIX, 15; KB2 LXIX, 15–18; K3 LXIX, 16–19), Dzień trudny (KB2 XXV, 26), *Dzień westchnienia (KB2 XIX, 39), *Dzień wiadomego czasu (KB2 XXXVIII, 81), Dzień Wieczności (KB1 L, 33; KB2 L, 34; K3 L, 35), *Dzień Wielki/Wielki Dzień (WzK Oszuści v. 4–5, p. 103; KB1 LXXIX, 34; KB2 XIX, 37; LXXXIII, 5; K3 LXXXIII, 6), *Dzień (ich) wskrzeszenia (KB2 XXXVIII, 79), *Dzień wszystko obejmujący (KB2 XI, 84), *dzień wyroku (KB1 LXIX, 4), *Dzień wzajemnego oszukiwania (KB2 LXIV, 9), dzień wzajemnego zawodu (KB1 LXIV, 9), *Dzień Zebrania (KB2 XLII, 7), *dzień zemsty (KB1 XIV, 44), *Dzień Zgromadzenia (KB2 LXIV, 9; K3 LXIV, 10), dzień (ich) zguby (KB1 LII, 45), Dzień Zmartwychwstania (WzK Rodzina Imrana v. 77, p. 103; KB1 IV, 88; LXXV, 6; KB2 IV, 87; LXXV, 6; K3 IV, 88; LXXV, 67), *Dzień Zwycięstwa (KB2 XXXII, 29; K3 XXXII, 30), *ów Dzień (KB1 XVII, 54). An analysis of collocations that describe the one and only God and pagan gods, the holy books, angels, prophets and the Last Judgement also demonstrates that, to a large extent, this phraseology was formed by Polish Biblical and Psalter literature. Word combinations taken from Polish phraseological resources (including the Bible) are primarily the domain of the translation of Polish Philomaths. Collocations of Christian provenance are, for example, the following: jeden Bóg (KB1 XII, 40; KB2 XVI, 51), *jedyny Bóg (KB1 XXI, 108; KB2 XXI, 108), *jedność Boga (KB1 XI, 2), bogi zmyślone (KB1 XXXI, 29; XLV, 9), *cudze bogi/*bogi cudze (KB1 XXIX, 7; XXXIX, 17), fałszywe bogi/*bogi fałszywe (KB1 XXVII, 43 and XLIII, 86), *obce bóstwa (KB1 XXXVI, 74), *inny bóg/*bóg inny (KB1 III, 16; KB2 VII, 59; K3 VII, 73), inne bóstwa (KB1 X, 67; XXII, 61; KB2 VI, 19), słowo Boże or słowa Boże (KB1), słowo Boskie (KB1 VI, 115), święte księgi/*księgi święte (KB1), *księga prawa (KB1 III, 63), *księga Psalmów (KB1), *pięć ksiąg Mojżesza (KB1), *księga Boża (KB1 III, 22), księga boska (KB1 XXXV, 23 and 26), *księgi mądrości (KB1

216

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

III, 158), *pismo święte (KB1), pisma objawione (KB1 II, 128), *pisma prawdziwe (KB2 XCVIII, 3), *księga mądrości (KB1 XXXI, 1; K3 III, 185), dobra nowina (K3), aniołowie Boscy (KB1 IV, 163), aniołowie niebiescy (KB1 II, 30), *Anioł święty (KB1 LXXXI, 19), *Anioł niszczyciel (KB1 XXIII, 43), Anioł Pański (KB1 XXXVI, 25), słudzy Boga (KB1 XLIII, 18), *poseł Boży (KB1), posłańcy niebiescy (KB1), *duchy niebieskie/*niebieskie duchy/duchowie niebiescy (KB1 LII, 38; LXXIV, 31; II, 28), *zły duch/złe duchy (KB1 VII, 183; VI, 121), duch niezgody (KB1 XI, 120), *potępiony sza­ tan (KB1 XVI, 100), *zastępy niebieskie (KB1), *zastępy aniołów (KB1), *Aniołowie stróże (KB1 LXXXII, 10–11), święty Duch/*Duch święty (KB2 XVI, 102; II, 87), *najwyższa rada (KB2), *wojsko z niebios, wojska niebios (KB2 XXXVI, 28; XLVIII, 4), *szatan przeklęty (KB2 XVI, 98), anioł śmierci (KB1 XXXII, 11; KB2 XXXII, 11; K3 XXXII, 12), *prorocy Pana (KB1 II, 85), *prorocy Pańscy (KB1 XXIII, 53), *fałszywy prorok (KB1 XL, 25), *fałszywi prorocy (KB1 XXXVII, 28), *Apostoł Boga (KB1 LXI, 6), *dwunastu Apostołów (KB1 III, 78), *posłaniec Boży (KB1 IV, 155), posłaniec Boski (KB1 VII, 73; XCVIII, 2), *wierny posłaniec (KB1 XXVI, 143), prawdziwy posłaniec (KB1 XLIV, 12), sługa Boży (KB1 XCI, 13), *sługa Boga (KB1 XXXIII, 39), sługa Najwyższego (KB1 XXXIV, 27; XI, 52), wierny sługa/*słudzy wierni (KB1 XXXVIII, 44; XXXVII, 111), *syn Boży (KB1 IX, 30), *opowiadacz prawdy (KB1 XXIX, 2), pierwszy człowiek (KB1 VII, 10; XX, 119), wybrany Pański (KB1 LXVIII, 50), narodz­ ony ze słowa Bożego (KB1 XIX, 35), *przedmiot szyderstwa, *Król na ziemi (KB1 XXXVIII, 25), *nauczyciel od Boga wybrany (KB1XLVI, 30), *prorocy Boga (KB2 II, 91), posłaniec Boga (KB2 XCI, 13), *wierni słudzy (KB2 XXXVII, 111), *zwiastun dobrej wieści (KB2 II, 213), słowo prawdy (KB2 XIX, 34), *pomocnicy Boga (KB2 LXI, 14), człowiek sprawiedliwy (KB2 XIX, 41), człowiek śmiertelny (KB2 XII, 31), *mąż sprawiedliwy (KB2 XII, 46), *mały chłopiec (KB2 XIX, 29), syn Marji (KB1 III, 40), syn Marii (KB2 III, 45; K3 III, 46), godny zaufania (KB2 XII, 54; K3 XXVIII, 27), Sąd Boga (KB1 LI, 6), Sąd ostateczny (KB1 LI, 12; also WzK Ozdoby, v. 85, p. 31), sąd Boży (KB1 XXVII, 80), sąd Pański (KB1 VI, 150), *sąd Twój (KB1 III, 7), *mój sąd (KB1 III, 48), Sąd całego świata (KB1 XVI, 79), *dzień Sądny (KB1 XVIII, 42), *dzień Sądu ostatecznego (KB1), dzień ostateczny (KB1; WzK Krowa 264, p. 55), *ów dzień (KB1), dzień straszliwy (KB1), *dzień ciemności (KB1), *koniec dni (KB1 VI, 2), *tamten świat (KB1 XIX, 77), zmartwychwstanie powszechne (KB1 XXXI, 27), prawdziwe zmartwychwstanie (KB1 VI, 30), pomsta niebieska (KB1 XVI, 1), czas oznaczony/*oznaczony czas (KB1 XI, 97; KB2 XI, 104), ostatnia godzina (KB1 XLVII, 20; K3 XIX, 76), Dzień Zmartwychwstania (WzK, KB1, KB2, K3), Dzień grozy (KB2), *Dzień Ostatni (WzK, KB2, K3), *Dzień Sądu (KB1, KB2, K3), *Dzień Wielki/Wielki Dzień (KB1, KB2, K3), *dzień obiecany/*Obiecany Dzień (KB1, K3), *Dzień ten/*ten Dzień (KB1, KB2, K3), Dzień Straszny/*straszny dzień (WzK, KB1, KB2, K3), Dzień Wieczności (KB1, KB2, K3) and many others. The vocabulary of a translated text, both in its resources and nature, is dependent on the source text, hence it is possible to talk about simplification, that is, grammatical and/or semantic transformation of the equivalent of a word in the original text which occurs when two words in the source text have one Polish equivalent (there are few examples in Qur’anic translations supporting this process), and

Methods of translation

217

about amplification or expanding the vocabulary in the translated text (there are numerous examples in translations of the Qur’an, and especially in KB1). Both examples of simplification and of amplification can be identified in the translations of the Qur’an. Simplification transformations occur with a low frequency – cf. denominations of pagan gods: Ar.    min dūna allāh was rendered as bezsilny bałwan681 (KB1 XXI, 67),     ilāh min dūna allāh as obce bóstwo (KB1), Ar.  rabb + Ar.  mutafarriq ‘divided, heterogeneous, scattered, distributed’ was also rendered as bałwan (KB1 XII, 39), Ar.  ašraka + Ar.  bi ‘in, on’; ‘with (somebody, something)’; ‘by, using, via’ + Ar.  huwa as bałwochwalca (KB1 IV, 51), Ar.  bi + Ar.  allaḏī the masculine relative pronoun ‘which, the one who, who’ +   min dūna as bożek (KB1 XXXIX, 37), Ar.  raǧas ‘dirt, filth (especially in a moral sense)’; ‘defilement, contamination, disgrace’ + Ar.  min ‘from, belonging to, coming from’ +  waṯan ‘false god, idol’ as bałwan (KB2 XXII, 30); the names of the holy books: Ar. expression  kitāb +  mūsà ‘Moses’, is translated in KB1 (XLVI, 11) as Pentateuchum, Ar. combination  Al-Kitāb +  mufaṣṣal ‘detailed, precise’ was rendered in KB1 (VI, 114) as Koran, similarly Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  min + Ar.  ‘inda ‘close, near, next to’ +  allāh as in KB1 (II, 83) Koran, and Ar.  raḥma[t]‌‘compassion, mercy, grace, pity’ + Ar.  li + Ar.  mu’min ‘faithful’ as miłosierdzie, in KB1 (X, 58) and in KB2 (XXVII, 77), in KB2 (XLV, 20) an example of simplification is the rendering of Ar.  raḥma[t] + Ar.  li +  qawm ‘people, nation, tribe’; ‘compatriots’ with a one word – miłosierdzie; denominations of angels: Ar.  ‘aduww + Ar.  mubīn, translated as nieprzyjaciel (KB1 II, 163; KB2 XX, 117), and Ar.  ‘ibād ‘a slave of God, a servant of God, man’ + Ar.  mukarram ‘respected’, rendered as sługa (KB1 XXI, 26); denominations related to prophets: Ar.   an-nabī + al-ummī ‘maternity, maternal’, rendered in KB1 (VII, 156) by one translation unit prorok or Ar.  raǧul ‘man, human being’ + Ar.  masḥūr ‘enchanted’, in KB1 (XVII, 50)  translated as szaleniec, and also Ar. combination  naḏīr ‘warning’ +  mubīn, in K3 (VII, 185) expressed by one equivalent ostrzegacz; the names of the Last Judgement: primarily KB1 translation – cf. Ar.  yawm + Ar.  at-talāqin ‘meeting’ as zmartwychwstanie (XL, 15), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-waqt + Ar.  al-ma‘lūm ‘known, familiar’; ‘specified’ rendered as oznaczony czas (XV, 38), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  hum 3nd person pl masculine personal pronoun ‘they’; 3nd person pl suffigated pronoun ‘them’ + Ar.  allaḏī + Ar.  wa‘ada ‘promise (somebody something), make a promise, pledge’; ‘threaten (somebody/with something)’ was rendered as Dzień im przyobiecany, Ar.  li + Ar.  yawm + Ar.  lā ‘no’ + Ar.  rayb ‘suspicion, doubt’ + Ar.  fī +

681 Forms that constitute the basis of translation are reducible either to Nom. sg (only exceptionally pl) or the infinitive. In Nom. sg the indefinite state is given as a rule. The definite state is taken into account only when it has a decisive influence on the meaning of the translated term or reflects a fixed combination, present in the Qur’an, e.g. status constructus.

218

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

Ar.  huwa was rendered as sąd Twój, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  qāma means ‘get up, rise’; ‘emerge, to be formed, to be born’; ‘be, exist’; ‘to do something, to fill something’; ‘to revolt against somebody, to rebel, to attack’; ‘to reborn, to resurrect’ + Ar.  al-ḥisāb was rendered as Dzień sądu ostatecznego (XIV, 42), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  šaẖaṣa ‘rise, ascend, predominate’; ‘appear, show up’; ‘leave, give up something, someone’; ‘set the way’ + ar.  fī + ar.  huwa + ar.  baṣar ‘eyesight’; ‘look’; ‘understanding, comprehension, perception’ rendered as dzień ostateczny, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  lā + Ar.  maradd ‘repulsive, causing aversion’ + Ar.  la particle of confirmation and emphasis: ‘indeed, sure enough, verily, really, for sure’; particle of swearing ‘I swear, I swear on my life’; particle of surprise ‘how strange!’ + Ar.  huwa (the primary meaning of  lā +  maradd +  la +  huwa is ‘which cannot be rejected’) was also rendered as dzień ostateczny, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ra’à ‘see (somebody), notice, observe, perceive’; ‘think that…, to regard somebody as…, believe that…, to express an opinion’; ‘decide, determine’ + Ar.  hiya ‘she’ was rendered as dzień straszliwy (LXXIX, 46), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  hum + Ar.  allaḏi + Ar.  fī + Ar.  huwa + Ar.  āṣ‘aqa ‘be struck by lightning’; ‘be struck, hit, beaten’; ‘be broken, shattered’; ‘to amaze somebody’ was rendered as dzień ich zguby, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  atà ‘come arrive, turn up’; ‘bring (someting), carry, fetch, bring (somebody)’; ‘do something, make, carry out something’; ‘end, finish (something); ‘eliminate, destroy, consume, deplete’ + Ar.  hum + Ar.  ‘aḏāb – dzień zemsty, they are uniquely present in KB2, e.g. Ar.  ba‘ṯ ‘sending, sending back, emission, delegation’; ‘agitation, revival, resurrection, rebirth, renaissance’ + Ar.  antum ‘you’ – zmartwychwstanie (XXXI, 28; also in K3 XXXI, 29), Ar.  mīqāt ‘deadline, appointment’; ‘meeting place’ + Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ma‘lūm – Dzień oznaczony. The following amplification transformations can be mentioned: Ar.  bāṭil ‘trivial, worthless’; ‘inefective, futile’; ‘false, untrue, absurd, baseless’  – bóg (zmyślony) (KB1), Ar.  iftarà ‘invent, make up, fabricate’; ‘spread slander, cast aspersions on somebody’, rendered as bóstwa zmyślone (KB1 XI, 23), Ar.  walī ‘helper, supporter, ally’; ‘guardian, Muslim saint, wali, a man close to God’ rendered as bóg zmyślony (KB1) or niedołężny opiekun (KB1 XIII, 17), Ar.  šarīk ‘companion, mate, partner’; ‘companian, participant’ rendered as przedmiot czci (KB1 XVI, 88), Ar.  ‘ābid ‘one who honors’; ‘loyal’; ‘follower’; ‘admirer’ represented by a complex nominal group fałszywe przez was wystawione bożyszcze (KB1 CIX, 4), Ar.  bušrà – obietnice Pańskie (KB1 XVI, 104), radosna wieść (KB2), dobra nowina (K3), Ar.  ḥukm ‘judgement, opinion, viewpoint’; ‘decision, verdict, judgement’; ‘conviction, sentence’; ‘rule, principle, law’; ‘ordinance, decree, regulation’; ‘wisdom, common sense’ – jasny osąd (K3), Ar.  qawl – słowo wiary (KB1), Ar.  bayyina[t]‌  – wyrocznie Boskie (KB1), zbiór najlepszych prawideł (KB1), znak wyraźny (KB1 XXIX, 48), Koran (z nieba) (KB1 XXII, 16), jasny dowód (KB2 XVI, 44), znak(i) jasny(e) (KB2 XXII, 16), wyraźny dowód (K3 II, 186), wyraźny(e) znak(i) (K3 XVI, 45), Ar.  hudan  – prawidło wiary (KB1 II, 91), światło wiernych (KB1), światło wierzących (KB1), skład świętéj wiary (KB1), skład prawdziwéj wiary/skład wiary prawdziwéj (KB1), droga prosta (KB2), Ar. 

Methods of translation

219

raḥma[t]  – łaska niebieska (KB1), rękojmia łask niebieskich (KB1), rękojmia łask boskich (KB1), wielka łaska (K3 VI, 158), Ar.  ḏikr – pismo przestróg (KB1), źródło zaszczytu (K3), Ar.  ḥasra[t] ‘sadness, grief, sorrow’; ‘sigh sadly’ – źródło żalu (K3), Ar.  Al-Kitāb or Ar.  kitāb – święte księgi/księgi święte (KB1), pismo nasze (KB1), święte tablice (KB1), pięć ksiąg Mojżesza (KB1), pięć ksiąg (KB1 II, 81), słowo Boże (KB1), Boski dekret (K3), Ar.  munīr – dająca światło (KB2 XXXI, 20), Ar.  kalima[t] – pismo święte (KB1), Ar.  baṣīra[t] ‘penetration’; ‘intellect, intelligence, quickness, consciously, deliberately, in a thoughtful way’ – przykaza­ nia jasne (KB1), oczywiste wskazówki (KB2), zrozumiałe dowody (K3), Ar.  Az-Zabūr – Księga Psalmów (KB1), Księga Dawida (K3 XXI, 106), Ar.  ḥadīṯ ‘discussion, conversation’; ‘chat, talk’; ‘discussion, dispute’; ‘tale, story, narrative’; ‘story, tale’; ‘hadith’ (a story from the life of the prophet Muhammad) – jedna z ksiąg najwyborniejszych (KB1), najpiękniejsze opowiadanie (KB2), najlepsza Rozprawa (K3), Ar.  nūr ‘light’; ‘point of light, a ray of light’; ‘brightness, radiance’; ‘lamp’ – pochodnia wiary (KB1), Ar.  Al-Furqān – prawidło spraw and prawidło obowiązków (KB1), Ar.  iẖtalafa ‘be distinguished, be different, stand out’; ‘differ in views, disagree’; ‘attend, often visit somebody’ – przedmiot sprzecz­ek, przedmiot tysiąca sprzeczek (KB1), przedmiot sporu (KB2), Ar.  imām  – światłość narodów (KB1), Ar. coll.  ǧinn – duch tajemny (KB1 XXVII, 39), genjusz buntowniczy (KB1 XVIII, 50), Ar.  malak – aniołowie Boscy (KB1), jeźdźcy uzbro­ jeni (KB1), zastępy niebieskie (KB1), Ar.  ināṯ pl from  unṯà ‘female’; gram. f. – czci przedmiot (KB1), Ar.  rasūl (in relation to angels) – anioł śmierci (KB1 VII, 35), posłaniec niebieski (KB1), sługa zemsty (KB1), Ar. coll.  ǧund ‘soldiers, troops, army’ – straż aniołów (KB1 IX, 40), zastęp aniołów (KB1), Ar.  ṣayḥa[t] ‘scream, shout, yell, cry’ – Anioł niszczyciel (KB1), Anioł zatracenia (KB1 XXXVI, 28), huk ogłuszający (KB2 LXXX, 33), ogłuszający krzyk (K3 LXXX, 34), Ar.  ḥaras ‘guard, sentry’; ‘escort’; ‘the royal guard’  – czujny zastęp (KB1), Ar.  ḥāfiẓ ‘guard, sentry’ – Anioł stróż (KB1 LXXXVI, 4), Ar.  ḡurūr ‘delusion, illusion’; ‘snobbery, vanity’ – wielki zwodziciel (KB2), Ar.  mutalaqqin ‘receiving’; ‘getting, accepting’; ‘encountering’ – Zapisujący anioł (K3 L, 18), Ar.  fitna[t] ‘spell, charm, attractiveness’; ‘enchantment, fascination’; ‘confusion, anxiety, intrigue, discord’ – próba od Allacha (K3 II, 103), Ar.  mursal (in relation to angels) – sługa Najwyższego (KB1). Ar.  ṣāliḥ ‘fit, useful, suitable, appropriate, proper’; ‘useful, good, sold, fair’; ‘devoted, faithful’ – duch cnotliwy (KB1 LXXII, 11), Ar.  ẖazzān ‘barrier’ – stróż piekła (KB1 LXVII, 8), strażnik Gehenny (KB2 LXVII, 8), Ar.  qarīn ‘companion, friend’; ‘husband, helpmate’ – wieczny towa­ rzysz (KB1), Ar.  sā’iq ‘driver, chauffeur, engine driver, pilot’; ‘cattle drover’ – anioł, który będzie ją prowadził (K3 L, 22), Ar.  zabāniyya[t] – anioł kary (K3 XCVI, 19), Ar.  ‘Ifrīt the name of a ‘rebellious angel’ – wielki dowódca (K3 XXVII, 40), Ar.  nabī – sługa Najwyższego (KB1 XXV, 33), Ar.  (in relation to prophets) – prorok pański (KB1), dostojny prorok (KB1 IX, 129), posłaniec Boży (KB1 III, 138), prawdziwy posłaniec (KB1), posłaniec Najwyższego (KB1 V, 79), Apostoł prawdy (KB1 XLIV, 17), sługa wiary (KB1 XLI, 13), posłaniec pewny (KB2 XLIV, 18), posłaniec jawny (KB2 XLIV, 13), posłaniec jasny (KB2 XLIII, 29), Ar. 

220

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

kaḏḏāb ‘liar, cheater’ – fałszywy prorok (KB1), wielki kłamca (K3 XL, 25), Ar.  sibṭ ‘grandson’  – dwunastu Apostołów (KB1), Ar.  mursal (in relations to prophets) – posłaniec Boski (KB1), sługa Najwyższego (KB1 XXVI, 160), poselstwo sług Najwyższego (KB1 XXVI, 123), tłumacz Nieba (KB1 VII, 75), Ar.  ‘ābid – sługa Boga (KB1 XXI, 84), Ar.  ‘abd – sługa boski (KB1 XLIII, 59), Ar.  bašīr ‘bringing good news’; ‘messenger, heralds of good news’ – zwiastun radosnej now­ iny (KB2 XI, 2), zwiastun radosnej wieści (KB2 II, 119; XXXIV, 28), zwiastun dla ludzi, którzy wierzą (KB2 VII, 188), dawca dobrej nowiny (K3 V, 20), nosiciel dobrej nowiny (K3 XI, 3), zwiastun dobrej nowiny (K3 XXXIV, 29), zwiastun dobrych wieści (K3 II, 120), przekaziciel dobrej nowiny (K3 VII, 189), Ar.  ẖayr – szczególny sługa (KB1 XXXVIII, 48), Ar.  bašar ‘man, human being’; ‘people, human race’  – człowiek śmiertelny (KB2 XVIII, 110), Ar.  mubaššir ‘bringing good news’; rel. ‘preaching prophecy, being a missionary’  – głosiciel Jego obietnic (KB1 II, 209), przepowiadać Boskie obietnice (KB1 XLVIII, 8), posłać z obietnicami (KB1 IV, 162), ogłaszać obietnice (KB1 XVII, 106), głosić obietnice (KB1 XVIII, 57), zwiastun dobrej wieści (KB2), głosiciel radosnej wieści (KB2 XLVIII, 8), zwiastun dobrej nowiny (K3 II, 214), niosący dobrą nowinę (K3 XVII, 106), nosiciel dobrej nowiny (K3 XVIII, 57), głosiciel dobrej nowiny (K3 IV, 166), Ar.  umma[t] – naczelnik wiernych (KB1 XVI, 121), przewodnik narodu (KB2 XVI, 120), wzór cnoty (K3 XVI, 121), Ar.  āya[t] – podziwienie świata (KB1 XXIII, 52), Ar.  aẖ + Ar.  hum  – posłaniec Władcy Światów (KB1 VII, 65), Ar.  kalima[t] + Ar.  min + Ar.  huwa  – Słowo pochodzące od Niego (KB2 III, 45), Ar.  sayyid – szlachetny pan (KB2 III, 39), Ar.  muqarrab ‘the one who is nearby, close to’ – wielki powiernik Najwyższego (KB1 III, 40), jeden z przybliżonych (KB2 III, 45), Ar.  Al-Muzammil – zakryty szatami (KB1 LXXIII, 1), owinięty szatą (KB2 LXXIII, 1), owinięty płaszczem (K3 LXXIII, 2), Ar.  Al-Mudaṯṯir – okryty płaszczem (KB1 LXXIV, 1; KB2 LXXIV, 1), Ar.  muẖliṣ ‘devoted, honest, loyal, faithful (to somebody)’  – szczerze odda­ny (KB2 XIX, 51), człowiek wybrany (K3 XIX, 52), Ar.  ṣiddīq – człowiek sprawiedliwy (KB2), mąż sprawiedliwy (KB2), człowiek prawdomówny (K3 XIX, 42), człowiek prawdy (K3 XII, 47), Ar.  raǧul – człowiek zwyczajny (KB1 XXXIV, 42), Ar.  ḏū l-yad ‘strong, powerful, influential (about a man)’  – człowiek wiele mogący (KB1 XXXVIII, 16), posiadający siłę (KB2 XXXVIII, 17), człowiek olbrzymiej władzy (K3 XXXVIII, 18), Ar.  ṣādiq ‘telling the truth’  – niewinny zupełnie (KB1 XII, 51), Ar.  masḥūr  – ofiara oszustwa (K3 XVII, 102), Ar.  musaḥḥar ‘enchanted’; ‘charmed, fascinated’ – omamiony kuglarstwem (KB1 XXVI, 153), osoba oczarowana (K3 XXVI, 186), Ar.  munīb ‘authorized’ – nawracający się w skrusze (KB2 XI, 75), Ar.  ḥanīf ‘tending toward a trend’682 – prawdziwie pobożny (KB2 VI, 161), prawdziwie wierzący (KB2 II, 135), skłaniający się ku Allachowi (K3 VI, 80), Ar.  ḥalīm ‘gentle, calm, patient, understanding, obedient, compliant’  – człowiek cierpliwy (K3 IX, 114), Ar.  muḥsin ‘doing 682 This relates to ‘the Arabs who even before the arrival of Islam tended to monotheism, turning away from idolatry’.

Methods of translation

221

good’ – czyniący dobro (KB2 XII, 22; XXXVII, 80), Ar.  awwāb ‘the one who turns to God’  – pełen skruchy (KB2 XXXVIII, 17. 30. 44), Ar.  kāfir ‘infidel, unbeliever, heathen, giaur’ – jeden z niewdzięcznych (K3 XXVI, 20), Ar.  nāṣiḥ ‘honest’; ‘good advisor’ – dobrze doradzający (KB2 VII, 79), szczery doradca (K3 VII, 80), Ar.  mu’min  – prawdziwy wierny (K3 XXI, 89), Ar.  amīn ‘reliable, trustworthy, faithful, credible’; ‘authorized’; ‘safe, secure’ – godny zaufania (KB2 XXVIII, 26 and K3), Ar.  ḥāfiẓ – dobry strażnik (KB2 XII, 55), dobry dozorca (K3 XII, 56), Ar.  istahza’a ‘ridicule, mock, deride, scorn’ – przedmiot pośmiewiska (KB1 XIII, 32), przedmiot szyderstwa (KB1), Ar.  munādin ‘calling, summoning, announcing’; ‘proclaiming, announcing, declaring, pronouncing, advertising, promulgating’ – głos Proroka (KB1 III, 190). Arabic translation bases are also expressed by subjective clauses, serving as identifying denominations, e.g. Ar.  mursal – ten, który został posłany (KB2 XXVI, 176), Ar.  bašīr  – człowiek, któremu polecono opowiadać Boskie obietnice (KB1 VII, 188), Ar.  naḏīr  – ten, który ostrzega (K3 XXXV, 25), Ar.  muqarrab – ten, który cieszy się bliskością Boga (K3 III, 46), Ar.  Al-Mudattir – ty, który okryłeś się swym strojem (K3 LXXIV, 2), Ar.  an  – a particle which takes the subjunctive:  to, in order to; conjunction: that + Ar.  kāna ‘be’; ‘exist’; ‘take place, happen’ + Ar.  min + Ar.  Muslim ‘Muslim’  – niebo, które (mi) zaleciło Islamizm (KB1 X, 73), Ar.  muḥsin – ten, który dobrze czyni (KB1 XXXVII, 78), ten, który czyni dobro (K3 XII, 23; XXXVII, 81), Ar.  ṣiddīq  – ty, co się nie mylisz (KB1 XII, 46), Ar.  muhtadd/in ‘directed by the right way’ – ten, który jest prowadzony drogą prostą (KB2 VI, 56), ten, który jest właściwie kierowany (K3 VI, 57), or by phrases, e.g. Ar.  bašīr – pocieszać nadzieją szczęścia (KB1 XXXIV, 27), głosić nagrody (KB1 XI, 2), ogłaszać obietnice (KB1 II, 113; V, 22), Ar.  munīb – często do Nas powracać (K3 XI, 76), Ar.  ḥanīf – wierzyć w Jednego Boga (KB1 VI, 162), czcić jedność Jego (KB1 VI, 79), Ar.  aslama ‘give up, surrender’; ‘accept Islam, become [a] Muslim’  – wyznawać Islamizm (KB1 V, 48), Ar.  awwāb zwracać się ku nam (KB1 XXXVIII, 16), zwracać się do Boga (K3 XXXVIII, 18. 31), zwracać się ku Bogu (K3 XXXVIII, 45), Ar.  amīn – posiadać zaufanie (KB1 XII, 54), Ar.  ḥāfiẓ – potrafić one zachować (KB1 XII, 55), Ar.  ṣābir ‘patient’ – w pokorze cierpieć (KB1 XXI, 85), etc. In the translation of denominations relating to the Last Judgement, the following amplifications can be mentioned:  Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-qiyāma[t] – dzień ogólnego zmartwychwstania (KB1), dzień Sądu ostatecz­ nego (KB1), Ar.  yawm +  al-ǧam‘ ‘gathering, collecting’; ‘combining, putting together, integration’ – dzień powszechnego zebrania (KB1), Ar.  yawma’iḏin ‘then, at that time’ – dzień sądu najwyższego (KB1), ten dzień (KB2 XL, 9; K3 XL, 10), Ar.  hunālika ‘there’ – dzień Sądny (KB1), w podobnym przy­ padku (KB2 XVIII, 44), w takim przypadku (K3 XVIII, 45), Ar.  hāḏā ‘this’  – prawdziwe zmartwychwstanie (KB1) and drugie życie (K3 VI, 31), Ar.  al-yawma – ten dzień (K3 XVI, 64), Ar.  yawm – ów dzień (KB1), ten dzień (KB2 XVII, 52), Ar.  al-qāri‘a[t] ‘poverty, misery, failure, disaster’ – Dzień Okropności (KB1 – the title of a surah CI), dzień wyroku (KB1), Straszny cios (KB1 CI, 1), Wydarzenie przerażające (KB2 CI, 1), to, co druzgocące (KB2 LXIX, 4), nagłe

222

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

nieszczęście (K3 LXIX, 5), Wielkie Nieszczęście (K3 CI, 2), Ar.  al-ḥāqqa[t] ‘what is definitely going to happen’ – Dzień nieuchronny (KB1  – the name of a surah LVI), Ar.  mīqāt – czas oznaczony (KB1 LVI, 50), Ar.  ad-dīn – Sąd Boga (KB1), Ar.  as-sā‘a[t] – ta Godzina (KB2 XLVII, 18), ostatnia Godzina (KB1, K3), tamten świat (KB1), Ar.  aǧal ‘period, term’; ‘the end (of life)’ – pe­wien termin (KB2 VI, 2), Ar.  al-wāqi‘a[t] ‘event, incident, accident’; ‘fact’; ‘misfortune’; ‘fight, skirmish’ – nieuniknione wydarzenie (KB2 LVI, 1; K3 LVI, 2), Dzień nieuchronny (KB1 LVI, 1), Ar.  al-ḡāšiya[t] ‘misfortune, disaster’; ‘the servants, entourage, bodyguards’ – dzień który wszystko obejmie (KB1 LXVIII, 1), oszałamiające wydarzenie (KB2 LXXXVIII, 1), przejmujące nieszczęście (K3 LXXXVIII, 2), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-faṣl ‘separation, segregation’; ‘exclusion, removal, dismissal’; ‘decision, resolution’ – dzień ostatecznej Decyzji (K3 XXXVII, 22), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ṯaqīl ‘hard’ – bardzo ciężki dzień (K3 LXXVI, 28), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  aẓ-ẓulla[t] ‘arcade, canopy, awning’ – dzień przytłaczającego mroku (K3 XXVI, 190), Ar.  maw‘id ‘promise’; ‘term’; ‘arranged appointment, date’ – wyznaczony czas (KB2 XVIII, 58; K3 XVIII, 59), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  at-taḡābun ‘mutual cheating’  – dzień wzajemnego zawodu (KB1), Dzień wzajem­ nego oszukiwania (KB2), dzień określenia strat i zysków (K3 LXIV, 10), Ar.  amr ‘order’; pl ‘case, thing’ + ar.  as-sā‘a[t] – rozkaz dotyczący Godziny (KB2 XVI, 77), sprawa nadejścia obiecanej Godziny (K3 XVI, 78), Sąd całego świata (KB1). And an example of periphrasis is featured in KB2 (LXXIX, 46)  translation of Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ra’à + Ar.  hiya – Dzień, kiedy oni zobaczą ową Godzinę. Having analyzed the translated texts, one may also mention single equivalence, when one word of a base text has in translation only one equivalent, and multiequivalence/variantability, when one word of a base text has two or more equivalents, or vice versa – one word in a language of translation corresponds to several words in the original text. The translation of one word by two or more Polish equivalents could be a purposeful rhetorical device, used in order to diversify the vocabulary of translation, reflecting the diversity and richness of the contemporary Polish language. Translations of the Bible and the Qur’an – as far as the analyzed terms are concerned – are usually characterized by their multiequivalence, because the majority of words in the original languages are polysemic and translators of the Bible and the Qur’an tried to render that ambiguity. Some alternations can be found because of such multiequivalence683:  a. arising from the use of words and forms belonging to the same family, but not to the same grammatical category (e.g. Ar.  aḥad was explicated in KB1 and K3 by jeden (CXII, 1 and XIII, 17) and jedyny (XIII, 17 and CXII, 2), Ar.  ḥakīm ‘wise, reasonable, cautious’ was rendered in KB2 as mądrość (XXXVI, 2), mądry (X, 1), Ar.  mursal was rendered in KB2 and K3 as posłaniec (XXXVII, 37; XXXVII, 38) and posłany (VII, 75; VII, 76), Ar.  mubaššir in KB2 was translated as zwiastun (XVII, 105) and zwiastujący (IV, 165), and in K3 as nosiciel dobrej 683 Cf. D. Bieńkowska, Słownictwo i frazeologia w Psałterzu…, pp. 22–23.

Methods of translation

223

nowiny and niosący dobrą nowinę, Ar.  šāhid ‘witness’ was expressed in KB1 by świadek (XXXIII, 44) and dać świadectwo (XLVIII, 8), Ar.  nāṣiḥ was translated in KB2 as dobrze doradzający, doradca (VII, 79), Ar.  bašar was rendered in KB2 as śmiertelnik (XVII, 96) and in KB1 as śmiertelny (XLI, 5), Ar.  ṣabara ‘be patient’; ‘endure, suffer, withstand (something), endure patiently (something)’; ‘abstain from something’; ‘confront something’ was represented in KB1 and K3 by być cierpliwym (XL, 57; XL, 56) and czekać cierpliwie (LXX, 5; LXXIV, 8), Ar.  ad-dīn was rendered in KB1 as Sąd Boga and dzień sądny), b. alternations arising as a result of the use of words which belong to the same or a different family (also of foreign origin) and to the same grammatical category – morphological forms (e.g. Ar.  qarīn translated in KB1 as towarzysz (XLIII, 37), towarzystwo (IV, 42), Ar.  hudan is światło (XLI, 44), światłość (VI, 88) in KB1, Ar.  mubaššir in KB1 translated as ogłaszać obietnice and głosić obietnice, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ‘asīr ‘difficult, not easy, hard, complex’; ‘heavy’ in KB1 translated as chwila straszna (XXV, 28) and dzień straszliwy, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-faṣl in KB1 was translated as dzień rozłączenia (się), dzień odłączenia (się), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  alīm ‘strenuous, painful’ in KB2 was rendered as Dzień bolesny and Dzień pełen bólu or equivalents of different meanings (e.g.  šarīk in KB1 rendered as bóstwo (VI, 22), przedmiot czci and towarzysz (X, 36), Ar.  walī explicated as bóg zmyślony, niedołężny opiekun and bałwan (VII, 31), and also in KB1 as sprzymierzeniec (II, 259), Ar.  malak in KB1 translated as aniołowie Boscy, jeźdźcy uzbrojeni, zastępy nie­ bieskie, Ar.  ṣayḥa[t]‌in K3 rendered as kara (XXIII, 42) and podmuch (XXXVI, 30), Ar.  kalima[t] in KB1 translated as pismo (święte) and wyrok (XI, 112), and Ar.  āya[t] in KB1 translated as nauka (III, 3), znak (II, 93), księga (II, 209) or also Ar.  hudan in KB2 translated as droga (prosta) (II, 97), przewodnictwo (XXXI, 3), Ar.  rasūl in KB1 translated as prorok (XLIII, 28), posłaniec (II, 285), sługa (LXXIII, 16), and also in KB1 as kapłan (II, 92), apostoł (LVII, 25), Ar.  mursal in KB1 expressed by posłaniec (XV, 80), poselstwo sług Najwyższego (XXVI, 176) and apostoł (XXXVII, 36) as well as tłumacz Nieba, Ar.  arsala ‘send’ (something or somebody) translated in KB1 as być posłany (XI, 27) and tłumacz nieba (LI, 38), and even as zwodziciel (XXXIV, 33), Ar.  imām in KB1 translated as naczelnik (II, 118), kapłan (XXXII, 24), and powiernik (XXI, 73), Ar.  yawm – in KB1 sąd (XIX, 38), dzień (XI, 28), chwila (LXXVII, 13), czas (XIX, 40), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ‘aẓīm – in KB2 dzień wielki, dzień straszny (XXXIX, 13) and in K3 wielki dzień (XLVI, 22), straszny dzień and żałosny dzień (XXXIX, 14), Ar.   yawm al-ḥisāb – dzień Sądu (XXXVIII, 26), dzień rachunku in KB1, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ǧam‘ – in KB1 dzień powszechnego zebrania and dzień straszny (XLII, 7), Ar.  as-sā‘a[t] – godzina, ostatnia godzina (XXII, 7), and also tamten świat in KB1). One of the causes of such diverse alternations is that translators were concerned about the syntactic correctness of Polish translation, and at the same time, they wanted to preserve the clarity of meaning. Grammatical differences between the source language and the language of translation contributed to the creation of alternations, where at least one of the equivalents does not show grammatical identity with a word of the source text.

224

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

The lack of grammatical identity between words in the original text and the text of translation was the result of a conscious pursuit of such a form that reflected best the syntactic function of the word in the sentence, from the point of view of grammatical correctness. Therefore, for example, Ar. noun  ‘aṣī ‘rebel, mutineer’ was translated as nieposłuszny – cf. KB1 (XIX, 44), Ar. noun  kaḏib ‘lie’; ‘falsehood, untruth’ as kłamać – cf. KB1 (XXVI, 223), Ar. present participle  naḏīr as natchnąć – cf. KB1 (XXV, 8), Ar. noun  sā’iq as popędzający – cf. KB2 (L, 21), Ar. noun  ṣāḥib as stać na straży – cf. KB1 (LXXIV, 30), Ar. noun  šahīd as świadczyć – cf. KB1 (II, 137), and dawać świadectwo – cf. K3 (L, 22), Ar. noun  tanzīl in the meaning of ‘sending, revelation (for example of the Qur’an)’; ‘dropping down’ as pochodzić od, zesłać, czynić obietnice – cf. KB1 (XXVI, 192; XLI, 1; XLI, 3), Ar. noun  taḏkira[t]‌‘note, reminder’; ‘notification, message’ as uczyć – cf. KB1 (LXIX, 48), Ar. noun  rasūl as wysłany – cf. KB2 (LXI, 6), Ar. noun  mursal as posłany – cf. KB2 and K3, Ar. verb  kaḏḏaba ‘call a liar, accuse of lying’; ‘do not believe, do not give faith’; ‘deny, reject’ as kłamca – cf. KB2 (VII, 64 and K3 VII, 65), zwodziciel – cf. KB1 (VII, 62), Ar. verb  arsala as zwodziciel, and also tłumacz nieba – cf. KB1, Ar. adjective  saqīm ‘sick, ill, ailing, sickly’; ‘skinny, emaciated’ as nie czuć się dobrze – cf. K3 (XXXVII, 90), Ar. participle  ḥanīf as czcić jedność Jego, wierzyć w Jednego Boga – cf. KB1, Ar. verb  anḏara ‘warn (against something)’ as opowiadanie słowa wiary – cf. KB1 (XXXII, 2), Ar. participle  munḏir ‘warning (against something)’ was rendered as głosić groźby – cf. KB1 (XVIII, 54), Ar. participle  bašīr as pocieszać nadzieją szczęścia, głosić nagrody, ogłaszać obietnice – cf. KB1, Ar. participle  mubaššir as ogłaszać obie­ tnice, głosić obietnice, posłać z obietnicami, przepowiadać Boskie obietnice – cf. KB1, Ar. noun  šāhid as dać świadectwo – cf. KB1, Ar. verb  amkana ‘be possible, feasible’; ‘give the opportunity to do (something), enable somebody to do (something)’ as pośrednik ich losu – cf. KB1 (VIII, 72), Ar. adjective  amīn as posiadać zaufanie – cf. KB1, zaufać – cf. K3 (XII, 55), Ar. noun  ḥāfiẓ as potrafić one zachować – cf. KB1; the way of rendering of Ar. iḍāfa, especially in KB1, where Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ad-dīn as dzień sądny, and Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ǧam‘ as dzień straszny; the usage of nominal equivalents of an Arabic adjective, e.g. Ar.  ‘abūs ‘gloomy, somber, serious’; ‘severe, dangerous’ as okropność – cf. KB1 (LXXVI, 10),  āẖir means sąd, zmartwychwstanie – cf. KB1 (II, 8. 59. 120; XXXIII, 21), Ar.  alīm as sąd, boleść (XLIII, 65; XI, 28) – cf. KB1, Ar.  ‘aqīm ‘barren’; ‘fruitless, inefficient, unproductive, unnecessary, vain’; ‘sterile, sterilized’ as zniszczenie – cf. K3 (XXII, 56), the use of different grammatical equivalents for an Arabic verb, e.g.  ba‘aṯa ‘post, send (something, somebody), delegate, dispatch, issue’; ‘cause, incite, excite, provoke’; ‘resurrect’ – zmartwychwstanie (KB1 XXXVIII, 80), wskrzeszenie (KB2 XXXVIII, 79), etc. In addition, a distinctive feature of translations KB1 and KB2 is the change of a personal form of a verb to its semantically related noun or a present participle, or nominalization, e.g. Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ba‘aṯa was translated as dzień zmartwychwstania (KB1 XXXVIII, 80), Dzień ich wskrzeszenia (KB2), etc.

Methods of translation

225

The majority of equivalents, which in translation render one word of the source text, are the result of contextual translation. In this way, there arose combinatorial synonyms (alternations in which words which constitute them, outside the translated text, do not manifest semantic similarity, e.g. in KB1 bóstwo-towarzysz and przedmiot czci-towarzysz from Ar.  šarīk, bałwan-niedołężny opiekun and bóg zmyślony-opiekun (see XLII, 4) from Ar.  walī; in KB1 anioł-jeździec from Ar.  malak, pułk-straż from Ar. coll.  ǧund, in K3 kara-podmuch from Ar.  ṣayḥa[t]‌; in KB1 pismo-stróż (XXXVII, 168 and XL, 56)  from Ar.  ḏikr, pismo (święte)-wyrok from Ar.  kalima[t]; the already mentioned examples from KB1: prorok-sługa-kapłan-apostoł from Ar.  rasūl, być posłany-tłumacz niebazwodziciel from Ar.  arsala, naczelnik-kapłan and naczelnik-powiernik from Ar.  imām; the already mentioned examples from KB1: sąd-dzień-chwila-czas from Ar.  yawm, dzień Sądu-dzień rachunku from Ar.   yawm al-ḥisāb, dzień powszechnego zebrania-dzień straszny from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ǧam‘, godzina-ostatnia godzina-ostateczny sąd-tamten świat from Ar.  as-sā‘a[t], in KB2 dzień wielki-dzień straszny from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ‘aẓīm), expressively marked (e.g. in K3 łaska-litość (VI, 155 and XVI, 90) from Ar.  raḥma[t]), and stylistic (their aim was to diversify the vocabulary of translation, e.g. with words of identical meaning but differing in etymology, degree of vitality and appurtenance to different varieties of style in Polish – cf. in KB2 bałwan-coś innego (V, 90 and V, 3) from Ar.  naṣb ‘statue, monument, obelisk’; ‘idol, god, pagan idol’; in KB1 pokusiciel-kusiciel (VI, 112 and XXIX, 37) from Ar.  šayṭān; in KB2 uzdrowie­ nie-uleczenie (XLI, 44 and X, 57) from Ar.  šifā’ ‘health’; ‘recovery, healing’; in KB1 znak-podziwienie świata from Ar.  āya[t], naczelnik-imam (II, 118) from Ar.  imām, czarodziej-kuglarz (XLIII, 48 i XX, 66) from Ar.  sāḥir ‘sorcerer’; ‘magician’; literally ‘the one who enchants’, oczarowany-omamiony kuglarstwem (XXVI, 185 and XXVI, 153)  from Ar.  musaḥḥar, in K3 namiestnik-dziedzic (XXXVIII, 27 and X, 74) from Ar.  ẖalīfa[t] ‘heir, successor’; ‘caliph’)684. There is a pursuit of equivalents for ambiguous words in the original text, which would render in the best possible way their meaning in a given context, and at the same time, correspond to the standards of correctness of the literary language. Therefore, the motivation for selection of equivalents varies, depending on the importance and structure of the source text, as well as on the dictionary resources of contemporary Polish. Thus, several types of motivation can be mentioned. One of them is a semantic motivation – variability of equivalents may be caused by the already mentioned polysemy of source words685, whose various native exponents – depending on the context – the translator was searching for (hence the coexistence of translations belonging to different genres), e.g. Ar.  šarīk was explicated in KB1 as bóstwo, przedmiot czci, Ar.  šafī‘ was translated in KB1 as obrońca (X, 19), opiekun (XXXIX, 44), pomocnik (VI, 51), Ar.  walī in KB1 was 6 84 Cf. ibidem, pp. 26–29. 685 See pp. [222–223] in this monograph.

226

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

rendered as bóg zmyślony, niedołężny opiekun and bałwan, and in K3 as obrońca (XLII, 6), pomocnik (XIII, 17), przyjaciel (VII, 31) in reference to pagan gods, and Ar.  walī translated in KB1 as opiekun (VII, 28), sprzymierzeniec, but in K3 as przy­ jaciel (VII, 28), orędownik (XVI, 64) in relations to angels, Ar.  rasūl in KB1 was rendered as anioł śmierci, posłaniec niebieski, goniec (XXXV, 1), sługa zemsty in reference to angels and Ar.  rasūl in KB1 rendered as kapłan, posłaniec, posłaniec Boży, posłaniec Najwyższego, prawdziwy posłaniec, Apostoł, Apostoł prawdy, prorok, prorok pański, dostojny prorok, sługa, sługa wiary in relation to prophets, Ar.  Al-Kitāb or Ar.  kitāb rendered, for example, as księga (KB1 II, 50; KB2 II, 53; K3 II, 54), pismo (KB1 III, 73; XIII, 36 and KB2 XCVIII, 3), as well as nauka in KB1 (XLI, 2), and przykazanie in K3 (XCVIII, 4), etc., and also Koran, Ewangelia, Tora, or Ar.  ḏikr translated as pismo przestróg, przestroga (XXXVIII, 87), przepis (XXI, 49), nauka (LXXXI, 27), and even stróż in KB1, napomnienie in KB2 (LXXXI, 27) and K3 (LXXXI, 28), przypomnienie in KB2 (XLIII, 44; LXVIII, 52) and K3 (XXXVII, 169; XXXVIII, 9), źródło (zaszczytu) in K3, Ar.  bašīr in KB2 translated as zwiastun (V, 19), zwiastun radosnej nowiny, zwiastun radosnej wieści, zwiastun dla ludzi, którzy wierzą, in K3 as dawca dobrej nowiny, nosiciel dobrej nowiny, przekaziciel dobrej nowiny, zwiastun dobrej nowiny, zwiastun dobrych wieści, and in KB1 as pocieszać nadzieją szczęścia, człowiek, któremu polecono opowiadać Boskie obietnice, głosić nagrody, ogłaszać obietnice, Ar.  mubaššir rendered in KB2 as zwiastun and zwiastujący, in K3 as niosący dobrą nowinę, nosiciel dobrej nowiny, and in KB1 as ogłaszać obietnice, głosić obietnice, Ar.  ḥalīm in KB2 translated as wpaniałomyślny (XXXVII, 101), łagodny (XI, 75. 88), in K3 as łagodny (XI, 76), człowiek cierpliwy, mądry (XI, 88), and in KB1 as dobry (XI, 77), pobożny (IX, 115), mądry (XI, 89), Ar.  imām in KB1 translated as powiernik, kapłan, naczelnik, Ar.  ‘aẓīm in KB1 translated as ostateczny (XXXIX, 15), sądny (XLVI, 20), straszny (XXII, 54), and in K3 as straszny (VI, 16; XXVI, 136), wielki (XLVI, 22), żałosny (XXXIX, 14), Ar.  al-qāri‘a[t]‌in KB1 translated as Dzień Okropności (the title of a surah), dzień wyroku, and in KB2 as Wydarzenie przerażające, to, co druzgocące, Ar.  yawm in KB1 translated as sąd, dzień, chwila, czas. There is also compositional motivation – the occurrence of lexical irregularities due to compositional features of a piece of writing (a search for synonymous equivalents which could render the meaning of a number of synonyms in the source text)686, e.g. jedenjedyny in KB1 from Ar.  aḥad, posąg-bałwan in KB1 (V, 92; V, 4) from Ar.  naṣb, bóstwo-przedmiot czci in KB1 from Ar.  šarīk, obrońca-opiekun-pomocnik in KB1 from Ar.  šafī‘, obrońca-wsparcie in KB1 (IX, 117; IV, 172) from Ar.  naṣīr ‘helper, supporter’; ‘defender, protector’; ‘adherent’, bałwan-bóg zmyślony and sprzymierzeniec-opiekun in KB1, as well as opiekun-współtowarzysz in KB2 (XLII, 6; VII, 33)  and obrońca-pomocnik-przyjaciel-orędownik in K3 from Ar.  walī, posłaniec-goniec and posłaniec-sługa in KB1, as well as posłaniec-wysłany in KB2 as a translation of Ar.  rasūl, pułk-zastęp in KB1 from Ar. coll.  ǧund, 686 Some examples are common both for semantic and compositional motivation.

Methods of translation

227

duch-czart-szatan-pokusiciel-kusiciel in KB1 (duch – see XXXVII, 7; czart – see V, 92; szatan – see II, 34) from Ar.  šayṭān, nieprzyjaciel-wróg in KB2 (XX, 117 and II, 168) from Ar.  ‘aduww, posłaniec-posłany-wysłannik in KB2 (wysłannik – cf. XV, 80)  from Ar.  mursal, stróż-strażnik in KB2 from Ar.  ẖazzān, zostać posłany-wysłać in KB2 (XXXIV, 34; XI, 25) from Ar.  arsala, fałszywy prorok-oszust in KB1 (oszust – cf. XXXVIII, 3) from Ar.  kaḏḏāb, autor-wierszopisarz-wierszopis in KB1 (XXI, 5; LII, 30; XXXVII, 35) from Ar.  šā‘ir ‘aware of something’; ‘poet’, dawca dobrej nowiny-nosiciel dobrej nowiny-przekaziciel dobrej nowiny-zwiastun dobrej nowiny-zwiastun dobrych wieści in K3 from Ar.  bašīr, śmiertelnik-śmiertelny-człowiek in KB1 (człowiek  – cf. XVIII, 110)  from Ar.  bašar, czarodziej-czarnoksiężnik-kuglarz in KB1 (czarnoksiężnik – cf. LI, 52) from Ar.  sāḥir, oczarowany-omamiony kuglarstwem in KB1 from Ar.  musaḥḥar, cierpliwy-wytrwały in K3 (XXI, 86; XXXVIII, 45)  from Ar.  ṣābir, wyśmiewać się-szydzić in K3 (XXXVI, 31; XIII, 33) from Ar.  istahza’a, dzień Sądu-dzień Sądu ostatecznego-dzień zmartwychwstania-dzień ogólnego zmartwych­ wstania in KB1 as a translation of Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-qiyāma[t], rozłączenie-rozdzielenie-odłączenie (się) in KB1 (XXXVII, 21; LXXVII, 14; LXXVIII, 17)  from Ar.  faṣl; sąd-zmartwychwstanie in KB1 from Ar.  āẖir, czasgodzina-czas oznaczony-koniec in KB1 (XXIX, 4; XX, 129; XVI, 63; VI, 2), terminpewien termin-kres in KB2 (XVI, 61; VI, 2; XI, 3), czas-termin in K3 (XVI, 62; VI, 3) from Ar.  aǧal, zgromadzenie-zebranie in KB2 (LXIV, 9; XLII, 7) from Ar.  ǧam‘, oznaczony-wiadomy in KB2 (LVI, 50; XXXVIII, 81) and wyznaczony-znany in K3 (XV, 39; XXXVIII, 82) as a translation of Ar.  ma‘lūm, określony-oznaczonywyznaczony in KB2 (LXXI, 4; XI, 3; XX, 129) and ustanowiony-ustalony-wyznacz­ ony in K3 (VI, 3; XX, 130; LXXI, 5) from Ar.  musamman ‘so-called’; ‘name, concept, term’. Stylistic motivation includes translation doublets composed of words representing different chronological “layers” of the Polish language, e.g. bałwan-coś innego in KB2 as a translation of Ar.  naṣb, pokusiciel-kusiciel in KB1 as a translation of Ar.  šayṭān; already mentioned examples from KB1:  znak-podziwienie świata from Ar.  āya[t], naczelnik-imam from Ar.  imām, czarodziej-kuglarz from Ar.  sāḥir; etymological variants, creating pairs of words of the foreign-native type, e.g. genjusz-duch in KB1; hanif-prawdziwie wierzący-prawdziwie pobożny and imam-przywódca in KB2, imam-naczelnikkapłan-powiernik in KB1, etc. The translation KB2 is characterized by the accumulation of contemporary active participial forms in -ąc, -ący, often substantivized and used as denominations of living beings, especially of angels and prophets. They may reflect a high frequency of similar Arabic forms or they can be the result of the creativity of the translator who rendered in this way Arabic adjectives, nouns, or verbs, e.g. (retaining the relationship with the base – from Arabic participles) ostrzegający from Ar.  naḏīr (XXV, 7) or Ar.  munḏir (XVIII, 56), zwiastujący from Ar.  mubaššir, nawołujący from Ar.  dā‘/in (XXXIII, 46), prawdziwie wierzący from Ar.  ḥanīf, nawracający się w skrusze from Ar.  munīb, spotykający from Ar.  mutalaqqin (L, 17), współczujący from Ar.  awwāh ‘the one who

228

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

sighs’ (IX, 114), czyniący dobro from Ar.  muḥsin; (from nouns, adjectives and verbs) popędzający from Ar.  sā’iq, dobrze doradzający from Ar.  nāṣiḥ, napominający from Ar.  ḏakkara ‘remember, remind’; ‘remind (something to somebody), pay attention, indicate’ (LXXXVIII, 21) or to express amplification tendencies, e.g. sprowadzający z drogi. Arabic collective nouns – collectiva (which lack plural forms) – in KB2 were rendered mostly by means of the plural form of verbs, e.g. Ar. coll.  ǧund was wojska (IX, 40 – cf. also in KB1, where there is translation of Ar. coll.  ǧinn as duchy VII, 178), unless there was the equivalent generic name in Polish, e.g. Ar. coll.  ahl ‘family’; ‘relatives’; ‘population, inhabitants’; ‘followers’ – ludzie (XVI, 43). There are instances where collective nouns were adjectivized or expressed in singular, e.g. Ar. coll.  ǧund was also translated as wojsko (XXXVI, 28). As far as the category of nomina propria is concerned, in the Qur’an, i.e. in the original context, they primarily performed the functions of signifying and locating things in time and space. Due to the special nature of the holy book of Islam their symbolic function was also clearly revealed. And in almost all cultures names have been subjected to evolution, from words of descriptive meaning to words devoid of predicative features, whose meaning was gradually obliterated as a result of lexicalization, the disappearance of their motivation bases or other reasons, e.g. the evolution or specialization of the language. The Qur’anic proper names which were examined are primarily anthroponyms – cf. the names of Allah, pagan gods, angels and prophets687. Apart from them, one should note several denominations of the holy books. Some of these are common both to the Biblical and Muslim tradition688. In Polish translations of the Qur’an there are original Arabic proper names of pagan gods – translocated (K3) or Slavicized (KB1, KB2). These are the words which have no Slavic lexical equivalents, and are therefore untranslatable. Orthographical borrowings can be identified among them, e.g. Gibt (KB2 IV, 51), Jagut (KB1 LXXI, 23), Jauk (KB1 LXXI, 23), El-Lata (KB1 LIII, 19), Manat (KB2 LIII, 20), Menat (KB1 LIII, 20), Nesr (KB1 LXXI, 23), Al-Ozza (KB1 LIII, 19), Sagut (KB2 IV, 51), Tagot (KB1 IV, 54), Tagut (KB1 XVI, 38), Sowa (KB1 LXXI, 22), Suwa (KB2 LXXI, 23), Wedda (KB1 LXXI, 22) and phonetic-graphical ones, e.g. Dżibt (KB1 IV, 54), Jaghut (KB2 LXXI, 23), Yaghūth (K3 LXXI, 24), Ja‘uk (KB2 LXXI, 23), Ya’ūq (K3 LXXI, 24), Al-Lat (KB2 LIII, 19), Lāt (K3 LIII, 20), Manāt (K3 LIII, 21), Nasr (KB2 LXXI, 23 and K3 LXXI, 24), Al-Uzza (KB2 LIII, 19), ‘Uzza (K3 LIII, 20), Suwā’ (K3 LXXI, 24), Wadd (KB2 LXXI, 23). All of them are Qur’anisms. The denomination of the one

6 87 The category of anthroponyms also includes bynames and nicknames. 688 I. Kończak, Kształtowanie się rosyjskiej terminologii islamistycznej…, p. 123 divides them into Biblisms which entered the language of translation and Biblisms which had their reflection only in the Qur’an, as well as ones that belonged only to the Muslim faith – only Qur’anisms (words whose usage is limited only to the text of the Qur’an).

Methods of translation

229

and the only God of Islam – Allah – is also a Qur’anism. However, this name was used only in WzK – cf. Allah (interchangeably with the denomination Bóg), e.g. Szczerość wiary v. 1, p. 37 and in K3 – cf. Allach (e.g. II, 127). It should be added that, in a similar way, the name of Allah is used in the 20th-century translation of the Qur’an into Russian by I. Y. Krachkovsky. In contrast, earlier translations, such as those of Postnikov and Nikoaev used its equivalent Bóg689. In addition, in the translation made by Krachkovsky, also other denominations specific only to the Muslim religion were retained in their original Arabic form, even with the use of their original diacritics. In Polish translations of the Qur’an there is also an anthroponym of Biblical origin, namely Baal (cf. KB1 XXXVII, 125; KB2 XXXVII, 125; K3 XXXVII, 126). Some proper names, representative of Islam, are attested in Polish lexicographical sources (mostly in SWil and SMick), e.g. the name of God – Allach(h) and the names of pagan gods – Dżbyt, Jagut, Jauk, Lath, Menata, Nezr, Al-Ozza, Soa, Tagut, and Wodd. The names of angels also belong to the category of nomina propria, e.g. Eblis, Iblis (KB1 XVIII, 50; II, 32), Iblis (KB2 XVIII, 50), Iblīs (K3 II, 35), Israfil (KB1 LXXX, 33), Gabrjel, Gabryel (KB1 XLVI, 12; II, 92), Gabriel (KB2 II, 98; K3 II, 99), Harut, Marut (KB1 II, 96; KB2 II, 102), Hārūt, Mārūt (K3 II, 103), Ifrit (KB1 XXVII, 39; KB2 XXVII, 39), Malek (KB1 XLIII, 77), Malik (KB2 XLIII, 77), Mālik (K3 XLIII, 78), Michał (KB1 II, 92; KB2 II, 98; K3 II, 99), Sydżil (KB1 XXI, 104). Some of them can be found in the Bible – cf. Gabriel and Michał. These names were borrowed into the Polish language from Hebrew or Greek via Latin and other European languages, owing to the reception of Christianity and the first translations of the Bible. In the analyzed translation texts, they occur in their Latinized forms. However, the anthroponyms typical only of the text of the Qur’an, such as Iblis, Ifrit, Harut and Marut, Malik, Israfil, and Sydżil are for the most part known in Polish lexicographical sources – cf. Eblis, Iblis (SWil, SMick, SW, SDor), afryt(y), efryt, ifrit (SMick, SDor, SWO), Malek (SWil). In dictionaries of the Polish language, there are also the following denominations: Azrail (Azrael), Asrafil, Monkir i Nakir (Nekir). It should also be added that in K3 an attempt was made to translate the Arabic name  ‘Ifrīt by means of the expression wielki dowódca because the etymology of the Arabic root word was combined with Ar.  nifrīt ‘wicked’ used in the context of power, slyness, and insubordination. However, in KB1 the denomination Israfil (cf. LXXX, 33) is given as a gloss to Ar.  ṣayḥa[t]‌. This translation also describes more specifically Ar.  rūḥ, assigning it the equivalent Gabryel (LXXVIII, 38). The proper names that appear in the 19th- and 20th-century translations of the Qur’an such as Tora (KB2 III, 3; V, 44), Ewangelja (KB1 III, 2), Ewangelia (KB2 III, 3; K3 III, 4), as well as the combination księga Psalmów (KB1) are also featured in dictionaries of the Polish language and in Polish translations of the Bible. By contrast, 689 Cf. a discussion on this topic – ibidem, pp. 69–70.

230

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

the names Koran (for example KB1 XVII, 9; KB2 XVII, 9; K3 XVII, 10), and Psalmy (KB1 IV, 160; KB2 IV, 163) are common to both the Polish translations of the Qur’an and the lexicological sources. They can be classified as loan words. In addition, in KB1 there appears a name of Greek origin, which in Polish is a loan word, recorded in SPolXVI and in later lexicographical studies – Pentateuchum. In addition, in K3 the original Arabic names were transferred on the basis of a citation, e.g. Al-Furqān (XXV, 2 – cf. Ar.  Al-Furqān) or there was an attempt to translate them, e.g. Księga Dawida from Ar.  Az-Zabūr. The names of prophets are also included in the category of nomina pro­ pria: Aaron (KB1 XXI, 49; KB2 XXI, 48; K3 XXI, 49), Adam (KB1 III, 30; KB2 III, 33; K3 III, 34), Abraham (KB1 II, 129; KB2 II, 130; K3 II, 131), Dawid (KB1 IV, 160; KB2 IV, 163; K3 IV, 164), Eliasz (KB1, KB2 XXXVII, 123; K3 XXXVII, 124), Eljasz (KB1 XXXVII, 123), Elizeusz (KB1 VI, 86; K3 VI, 87), Al-Jasa (KB2 VI, 86; also XXXVIII, 48), Hiob (KB2 IV, 163; K3 IV, 164), Job (KB1 XXI, 83), Hud (KB1 VII, 63; KB2 VII, 65), Hūd (K3 VII, 66), Edris (KB1 XIX, 57), Idris (KB2 XIX, 56), Idrīs (K3 XIX, 57), Izaak (KB1 XII, 38; KB2 XII, 38; K3 XII, 39), Izmael (KB1 XIX, 55; K3 XIX, 56), Isma‘il (KB2 XIX, 54), Jakub (KB2 XII, 38; K3 XII, 39), Jakób (KB1 XII, 38), Jan (KB1 III, 34; KB2 III, 39), Yahyā (K3 III, 40), Jezus (KB1 IV, 169; KB2 IV, 171; K3 IV, 172), Jonasz (KB1 VI, 86; KB2 XXXVII, 139; K3 XXXVII, 140), Jonas (KB1 XXXVII, 139), Józef (KB1 XII, 9; KB2 XII, 8; K3 XII, 9), Lokman (KB1 XXXI, 11; KB2 the title of surah XXXI), Luqmān (K3 XXXI, 13), Lot (KB1 XXVI, 161; KB2 XXVI, 161; K3 XXVI, 162), Mojżesz (KB1 XLVI, 11; KB2 XLVI, 12; K3 XLVI, 13), Noe (KB1 XXXVII, 77; KB2 XXVI, 106; K3 XXVI, 107), Mahomet (KB1 X, 39), Mohammed (KB1 XLVII, 2), Muhammad (KB2 XLVII, 2; K3 XLVII, 3), Saleh (KB1 LIV, 27), Salih (KB2 XI, 89), Sālih (K3 XI, 90), Salomon (KB1 XXI, 79; KB2 XXI, 79; K3 XXI, 80), Szajba (KB1 VII, 83), Szoajba (KB1 VII, 88), Szoaib (KB1 XXVI, 177), Szu‘ajb (KB2 VII, 85), Shu‘ajb (K3 VII, 86), Zachariasz (KB2 XIX, 2; K3 XIX, 3), Zacharjasz (KB1 XIX, 1), Zu’l-Kifl (KB2 XXXVIII, 48), Dulkefl (KB1 XXXVIII, 48), Dhu’l-Kifl (K3 XXXVIII, 49), Dulkarnain (KB1 XVIII, 82), Zu’l-Karnajna (KB2 XVIII, 83). The tendency to restore the original spelling of foreign proper names can be seen in K3 – cf. Hūd, Idrīs, Yahyā, Luqmān, Sālih. In other translations the original Arabic names were Slavicized, whereas in the analyzed texts, anthroponyms common to the Qur’an and the Bible such as Aaron, Adam, Abraham, Dawid, Eliasz, Elizeusz, Hiob, Hud, Ifra‘im, Izaak, Jakub, Jan, Jezus, Jonasz, Józef, Lot, Mojżesz, Noe, Salomon, Samuel, Set, Zachariasz are in their Latinized forms because they were borrowed by the Polish language from Hebrew or Greek (owing to the reception of Christianity and the first translations of the Bible), and were preserved in it. The multi-component denomination Bóg Abrahama, Izaaka i Jakuba is rooted in the Biblical tradition (cf. Hebr. ’El + the names of the leaders of clans), however, supplemented with Ishmael, in line with the message of the Qur’an (cf. KB1 II, 127 Boga ojców naszych: Abrahama, Izaaka, Izmaela). It can be added that, in terms of proper names, KB1 is characterized by the use of forms not subjected to Arabization, such as can be found in the Bible.

Methods of translation

231

Generally speaking, proper names are opposed to appellatives due to the fact that the former define individual objects, while the latter refer to classes of objects. The number of designata, however, does not decide whether we are dealing with a proper or a common name. This is because only a few, perfect proper names meet the demand for the uniqueness of its designatum. Therefore, multi-designata instead of individual proper names dominate in the language690. The division of words in a given language into proper names and common names is based on two main criteria: grammatical and semantic691. 1. Grammatical criterion a. the rule of orthography requires proper names to be written with a capital letter, and common names in lower case. Etymological spelling of proper names in lower case shows the completed process of appellativization, i.e. the existence of two independent homonymous words, a proper name and a common noun, whereas spelling with a capital letter proves that the process of appellativization is still in progress, so that there is still one word, one polysemic name692. b. in terms of inflection, the most significant difference is retention of the singular/plural category in appellativized common names and neutralization of this category in proper names, i.e. the possibility of the occurrence of individual proper names in the plural. The category of gender, occurring in Polish inflection, which, for example, manifests itself in the concord between the grammatical gender of a name and the neutral gender of a person designated by it, may be neutralized in appellativized names, e.g. they can refer both to men and women. c. in terms of word formation, Biblical names, both in the onomastic and appellative sense, are rarely used in Polish as a derivative base (except for adjectival forms, mainly with the affix -owy). d. in terms of lexis and style, it is striking that there are no synonyms in the category of proper names. This is because the nomina propria do not have dictionary definitions, but only multi-word definite descriptions.

690 K. Długosz-Kurczabowa, Jeszcze raz o apelatywizacji biblijnych nazw własnych…, p. 124; also the etymology of the word, p. 141. 691 Ibidem, p. 124; also the etymology of the word, pp. 141–143. 692 However, this not a strict rule. According to R. Zarębski, Nazwy osobowe w polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu…, p. 14 translators “misuse capital letters in relation to common words, which is dictated by extra-linguistic factors, e.g. when the uppercase letter becomes an exponent of expression.” Different variants of Biblical proper names are also identified by D. Bieńkowska, Polski styl biblijny, Łódź 2002, pp. 86–87. The fact that the capital letter is used for stylistic purposes, although not always consistently against the same lexeme, is also presented by K. DługoszKurczabowa, Charakterystyka językowa ekumenicznego przekładu „Ewangelii św. Mateusza”, „Przegląd Humanistyczny”, 1998, p. 68 and p. 95.

232

The translation of Islamic religious terminology



e. in the logical-syntactic aspect, a rule was revealed that limits the occurrence of nomina propria to the role of a subject in the sentence of the form A is B. 2. Semantic criterion It is assumed that both nomina appellativa and nomina propria are words of a natural language  – they are signs, which have their meanings. However, nomina propria have onomastic meanings693, and nomina appellativa have lexical meanings. The onomastic meaning of a proper name includes all the features of the designatum, and the lexical meaning of a common name includes only the common features of all designata694. The transition from common words to proper words (or names), and vice versa, is fluid. It is therefore a vague division695. While discussing the issues of translation of Muslim religious terminology one should therefore take into account the historical processes of appellativization of Qur’anic proper names (it is assumed after Krystyna Długosz-Kurczabowa that this is the process of transition of a proper name, nomen proprium, into a common noun, nomen appellativum)696. From the point of view of linguistic semantics, it is the manifestation of generalization, or the extension of meaning. It involves the loss of onomastic meaning and the acquisition of lexical meaning. An appellativizational shift is made on the basis of a selected feature, subject similarities, or a condensed comparison697. In terms of lexicology, appellativization is one of the ways of enriching vocabulary (it does not assume the reduction of a proper name, and therefore, as a result pairs of words with the same form but different meanings begin to function698), as well as of deappellativization of common names (a more frequent phenomenon in the contexts analyzed – a process in which a common name assumes onomastic meaning and begins to function as a proper name; a common noun loses semantic generality and thus, limits its scope of meaning to only one designatum). Denominations present in the semantic field of ‘holy books’ can serve as an example of this. Such names as Koran, Pentateuchum or Tora can be included in the category of nomina propria. On the other hand, such lexemes as

693 Their basic functions include: a referential function – naming, identifying and distinguishing from other elements; the function of permanent representation in society from birth to death; an expressive function, which is emotionally marked; the function of evoking the origins – pointing to a specific cultural, social or regional circle; a protective function – linguistic taboo. 694 K. Długosz-Kurczabowa, Jeszcze raz o apelatywizacji biblijnych nazw własnych…, p. 124; also the etymology of the word, p. 143. 695 Cf. C. Kosyl, Warianty i ekwiwalenty nazw własnych, „Poradnik Językowy” 1982, Brochure 4, p. 221. 696 K. Długosz-Kurczabowa, Jeszcze raz o apelatywizacji biblijnych nazw własnych…, p. 124; also the etymology of the word, p. 143. 697 Cf. ibidem, p. 124; also the etymology of the word, p. 143. 698 Cf. ibidem, p. 124; also the etymology of the word p. 146.

Methods of translation

233

Ewangelia or Psalmy, depending on their meaning, belong either to the category of nomina propria (as the names of holy books  – a reference to only one denotatum) or nomina appellativa. There is in fact a large group of words that could be categorized as nomina appellativa, but their ontological status is specific. They are situated on the border of onomastic and appellative areas – these are definite descriptions semantically similar to appellatives and with references in certain contexts to an individual object, which they connote and designate at the same time (they function as reference and identification)699. In certain contexts, they are therefore subjected to the process of onomatization. These are, for example, such definite descriptions as obrońca, opiekun, orędownik, pan, pomocnik in the function of denominating specific pagan gods (and god here is a multi-designata name); a number of deappellative names of angels and prophets, associated with their duties or expressing their qualities – cf. antychryst or buntownik względem Miłosiernego as denominations of Satan (but such names as anioł, archanioł, cherubin are multidesignata names); nauczyciel, and also Mesjasz, Rabbi, and Chrystus as descriptions of Jesus700, or lampa oświetlająca as a denomination of Muhammad (but prorok and widzący are multi-designata names). Such words as dowód, dziedzictwo, łaska, miłosierdzie, przewodnictwo, przypomnienie, rozróżnienie, rozstrzygnięcie, szczęście, światło, światłość, uzdrowienie, słowo, napomnienie, etc., which denominate specific holy books, were also subjected to deappellativization. Some of them, especially in modern translations, are capitalized (but this practice is not always consistently implemented), e.g. Księga (such record prevails in KB2 and K3), Pismo(a) (e.g. in KB2 and K3), Tablice (e.g. in KB2 and in K3), and also in K3 Słowo, Światło,

6 99 Cf. P. Sobotka, op. cit., p. 297. 700 R. Zarębski, Nazwy osobowe w polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu…, p. 14 classifies the lexemes Mesjasz and Rabbi within the category of proper names because their first meaning connotes the figure of Jesus, which distances them from common words (similarly K. Długosz-Kurczabowa, Onomastyka Nowego Testamentu…, p. 73), however, P. C. Bosak OP, Postacie Nowego Testamentu. Słownik-konkordancja, Poznań 1996 includes them in the category of titles and descriptions. The name Chrystus from the Hebrew mašiah ‘a king anointed with sacred oil’, having originally an appellative meaning (Gr. christos) became a proper name signifying Jesus through St. Paul who used it without an article. It may be called an anthroponymic appellative – cf. R. Zarębski, Nazwy osobowe w polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu…, p. 31. According to E. Woźniak, Ofiary i krzywdziciele. Studium postaci w przedtry­ denckim piśmiennictwie pasyjnym. Analiza językoznawcza, Łódź 2007, pp. 42–43 the name Chrystus is a deappellative name, and as a nomen appellativum it means ‘anointed, anointed by God, messiah’. In the Middle Ages, it occurred rather in an index way than in a descriptive way. In the Old Polish texts, however, it was sometimes used as a common word, due to the fact that it not only signifies the meaning but also has its own meaning, as is evidenced by the coexistence of its momonym of full meaning – cf. T. Mika, Maryja, Jezus, Bóg w Rozmyślaniu przemyskim. O nazywaniu osób, Poznań 2002, pp. 149–156.

234

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

Przewodnictwo, Przypomnienie, Proroctwo etc. They sometimes replace indexical names  – they can be considered as antonomasias. These are mainly nouns or nominalized adjectives or nominalized present or passive participles, naming abstract features. They can be divided into original names – translocated or Slavicized  – and native names, created by such linguistic mechanisms of nominalization as semantic derivation (including neosemantization) or neologization (mainly suffixal derivation). Therefore, metaphorical names, which abound in the text of the Qur’an, can be described as quasi-proper names701. They are ambiguous, but in their basic meaning, they have one designatum in the universe, which indicates their similarity to the ideal proper names702, while in other meanings they have many designata, as a result of which they belong to the category of common words. Among them there are also two-word structures, as well as multiword denominations, thanks to which it is possible to express accurately the essential features of the concept described (syntactic derivation) – cf. sprzymierzeniec niewiernych, władca dołu, opowiadacz prawdy, głosiciel dobrej nowiny. Therefore, in individual translations a one-word name was sometimes rendered by a more complex, periphrastic name or by a name which consisted of two elements – cf. Ar.  ‘Ifrīt translated as wielki dowódca or Ar.  Az-Zabūr as Księga Dawida. Denominations of Allah constitute a special group of names. From a linguistic point of view the attributes of God found in the Qur’an cannot be considered as his names. However, in order to distinguish God as a being, who concentrates in himself all the best and most worthwhile features, all these adjectival, participial and nominal names were referred to only one designatum. In the original Arabic text, they are written with a definite article, which in KB2 was honoured with a capital letter (there is the lack of such consistency of spelling in the translation

701 Cf. E. Grodziński, Zarys ogólnej teorii imion własnych, Warszawa 1983, pp. 255– 260. However, K. Długosz-Kurczabowa, Charakterystyka językowa ekumenicznego przekładu…, p. 68 and p. 95 includes here also such items as Pan (the Lord), Król (King), Ojciec (Father), written with a capital letter, as proper nouns. R. Zarębski, Nazwy osobowe w polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu…, p. 39 gives as an example the names of Messiah rendered in New Testament translations. According to this author, He is sometimes referred to by individual names such as Jezus, Chrystus, Mesjasz (Jesus Christ the Messiah), Pomazaniec (the Anointed One), and appellatives used in the function of nomen proprium, e.g. Baranek (the Lamb), Człowiek (Human), etc., as well as with two-word names: Jezus Chrystus (Jesus Christ) and Chrystus Jezus (Christ Jesus). 702 It is worth noting that in a situation where the same denotatum bears two names, we have to deal with onymic synonymy that was dictated by linguistic factors. Therefore, as has been observed by K.  Długosz-Kurczabowa, Charakterystyka językowa ekumenicznego przekładu…, p. 84: “The semantic reality of a nomen pro­ prium means that one name is not enough to determine the unique designatum […]. . Therefore, there are many names, each of which reveals only one aspect of the complex nature of a described object.”

Collocations – the extent of the faithfulness

235

KB1). They can be called individual definite descriptions, and three basic classes of them can be distinguished: individual one-word definite descriptions, two-word individual definite descriptions, and more than two-word definite descriptions. The terms such as jeden, jedyny fall in the class of one-word definite descriptions. In this class, nouns and adjectives constitute a dominant group. In this case, as far as adjectives are concerned, the process of substantivization has occurred. They retain their inflectional and derivational features, therefore, they are entitled to such grammatical categories as gender, case and number, but their lexical value is fundamentally changed. Each of them, in fact, means a person, therefore, these words receive designata of a completely separate ontological category. Conversely, changing ontological category entails changing their syntactic properties (in a sentence they play the role of a subject or an object). Moreover, Ifrit or Iblis are examples of appellativization.

3.2 Collocations – the extent of the faithfulness to the original text Phraseological resources of selected Bible translations have been subjected to studies in recent years, together with stylistic functions performed by them and the transformations of these items in extra-religious areas of their operation703. The aim of my research is, among others, to present the resources of native structures of Qur’anic phraseology together with a similar layer of phraseology of Biblical provenance and compare the phraseological items which occur in Polish translations of the Bible and the Qur’an, and also to show the origin, the process of consolidation, and the changes that took place in the vocabulary of the Polish Qur’anic style. It is also an attempt to describe native Qur’anic phraseology in its historical aspect, which entails a certain selection of sources of vocabulary excerption, i.e. monuments of Tatar literature in the GDL (starting with the chronologically earliest copies and ending with modern monuments) and Polish printed translations of the Qur’an. It is therefore important to show the role they played in the process of co-creation and the orthography of items comprising the resources of idiomatic expressions of Qur’anic provenance, and also to trace intertextual interdependence and affiliations within the selected group of translations. Therefore, there is an analysis of the ways of translating the vocabulary of the Qur’an from Arabic into Slavic languages, along with an attempt to outline the dependency of Polish translations on the original texts. In the literature of the subject, the following criteria for defining idiomatic expressions are distinguished:

703 Cf. S. Koziara, Uwagi o frazeologii pochodzenia biblijnego w języku polskim…, p. 153.

236

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

1. The criterion of frequency – the frequency of the occurrence of word combinations in the text of a monument which is studied (word combinations which appear most frequently, having the form of common, fixed formulas, such as Księga Boga, Słowo Boga, pismo święte, prorok Boga, posłaniec Boży, etc.); 2. The frequency criterion  – distinguishing characteristic word combinations which appear in series, one component of which is repeated while the other is replacable, e.g. such a series is created with the word księga: błogosławiona księga/księga błogosławiona, mądra księga, księga nauki, księga nauczająca prawdy, księga oczywistości, księga ogłaszająca prawdę, księga prawideł, księga przestrogi, księga przysłana wiernym, księga szacowna, księga z Nieba, księga z nieba zesłana/księga zesłana z nieba, księga zawierająca mądrość, księga zesłana przed Koranem, księga zesłana po Mojżeszu, najlepsza księga, przepowiedziana księga; 3. The formal criterion – combinations of pleonastic nature: a. words of the same root (e.g. wzywający, który wzywał do wiary), b. combinations of words of different roots, c. combinations of a type Bóg bogów, etc. 4. The semantic criterion – metaphorical combinations (e.g. człowiek ryby); 5. The contextual criterion – a study of the contextual use of words which are equivalents of one word in the main text (e.g. Ar.  šāhid expressed with świadek and dać świadectwo); 6. Such combinations whose equivalent in Arabic is one word (e.g. Ar.  bušrà – radosna wieść)704. These criteria also became a basis for separating phraseological combinations, present in the analyzed translated texts. There are three main groups of such word combinations: 1. Idiomatic expressions, which are the result of calquing, that is literal transmitting both of combination patterns, as well as their meanings – a. word combinations created of the same roots, most of which are transferred into Polish with foreign syntactic structures; b. calqued word combinations which are not in conflict with the spirit of the Polish language, but also do not feature native equivalents; c. calqued idiomatic expressions, which occur in the text of translation for stylistic reasons, that is, they were the result of a conscious choice of a translator, as in the contemporary Polish language there were already their one-word equivalents or other native compounds (confirmed in dictionaries of the Polish language – often accompanied with the label bibl.) – lexical and phraseological idioms foreign to Polish, which entered the Polish language by way of calquing;

704 The criteria for defining idiomatic expressions adopted after E. Woźniak, Słownictwo i frazeologia Psałterza krakowskiego (1532)…, pp. 99–105. Cf. also D. Bieńkowska, Słownictwo i frazeologia w Psałterzu…, pp. 47–48.

Collocations – the extent of the faithfulness

237

2. Idiomatic expressions, which are the result of departing from the original text as a manifestation of a pursuit of such equivalents of the original words, whose relationship with the Arabic basis would not result from their mechanical transmission into Polish. They constitute the result of departing from literal translation in pursuit and selection of equivalents, which – being semantically correct in a given context – were also in line with the Modern standard Polish language; 3. Idiomatic expressions which in translation do not manifest a relationship with the original text, as two or more word combinations are equivalents of a single word in the original text. They are the result of effort to create a lively, vivid and varied language of translation (cf. amplification tendencies). Phraseological combinations which occur in KB2 attest that this translation is more faithful than a free one, and that it attempts to render the original Arabic text accurately. Therefore, it is characterized by the highest frequency of structures of the type of a citation or quasi-citation705, and often literal, even grammatical calquing of the original text. Hence the presence of stylistic Arabic borrowings, e.g. wzywający, który wzywał do wiary or preservation of original postpositional word order (especially in expressions). A distinctive feature of KB1 is also faithful representation, even calquing of the Arabic word order by keeping the same order of words in translation as in the original text, which is the postnominal position of the adjectival attribute. However, in K3 there dominates a word order which is consistent with the Polish pattern, and opposite to Arabic, that is prenominal word order. The following are the examples of the structures of the type of citation or quasicitation in KB2: bogowie z ziemi (XXI, 21; also K3 XXI, 22) from Ar.  ilāh + Ar.  min + Ar.  arḍ ‘Earth’; ‘land, soil’, anioł w niebiosach (LIII, 26; also K3 LIII, 27) from Ar.  malak + Ar.  fī + Ar.  samā’ ‘heaven, heavens’, Duch wierny (XXVI, 193; also KB1 XXVI, 193; K3 XXVI, 194) from Ar.  ar-rūḥ and Ar.  al-amīn, szatan przeklęty (LXXXI, 25)  from Ar.  šayṭān + Ar.  raǧīm ‘stoned’; ‘cursed (an epithet of Satan)’, wróg jawny (II, 168), wróg oczywisty (XVII, 53) from Ar.  ‘aduww + Ar.  mubīn, wojsko z niebios from Ar. coll.  ǧund + Ar.  min + Ar.  samā’, strażnik Gehenny from Ar.  ẖazzān + Ar.  705 In the literature of the subject (Földes’ typology), the following types of phraseological equivalence are distinguished: complete equivalence – this refers to the formal and semantic plane (the number and type of components, their meaning, and syntactic structure are identical); partial equivalence – including two subgroups: complete semantic equivalence with partial or zero formal equivalence, and partial or zero semantic equivalence with complete or partial formal equivalence; zero equivalence – the items of the original language do not have equivalence in the target language – see J. Pociask, „Trudny orzech do zgryzienia” – kilka uwag o tłumaczeniu stałych związków frazeologicznych, „Rocznik Przekładoznawczy” 2, eds. L. Zieliński, M. Pławski, Toruń 2006, p. 193.

238

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

ǧahannam ‘hell’, Księga Mojżesza (also K3) from Ar.  kitāb +  mūsà, słowo Pana (VI, 115; also K3 VI, 116) from Ar.  kalima[t]‌+ Ar.  rabb, miłosierdzie dla ludzi (VII, 52) from Ar.  raḥma[t] + Ar.  li + Ar.  qawm, miłosierdzie dla wierzących (X, 57) from Ar.  raḥma[t] + Ar.  li + Ar.  mu’min, słowo rozstrzygające (LXXXVI, 13) from Ar.  qawl + Ar.  faṣl, to, co zostało zesłane przedtem (V, 59) from Ar.     mā + anzala + min + qabla ‘before, by the time, earlier’ (cf. K3 V, 60), Dzień Wielki from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ‘aẓīm, Dzień Sądu from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ad-dīn, Dzień Zmartwychwstania (also KB1, K3) from Ar.  yawm + ar.  al-qiyāma[t], Dzień Spotkania (also K3) from Ar.  yawm +  at-talāqin, Dzień czasu oznaczonego from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-waqt + Ar.  al-ma‘lūm, Dzień przyobiecany from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  maw‘ūd, Dzień mroczny, nieszczęsny (LXXVI, 10) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ‘abūs + Ar.  qamṭarīr ‘terrible, tough’, dzień trudny from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ‘asīr, Dzień Ostatni (also K3) from Ar.  al-yawm + Ar.  al-āẖir, Dzień rozrachunku from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ḥisāb, Dzień Zgromadzenia (also K3), Dzień Zebrania from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ǧam‘, Dzień bolesny (also K3) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  alīm, Dzień Wieczności (also KB1, K3) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ẖulūd ‘eternity’; ‘infinity’; ‘immortality’; ‘stay, staying’, Dzień westchnienia from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ḥasra[t], Dzień Zwycięstwa (also K3) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-fatḥ ‘opening’; ‘conquest, victory’, Dzień Cienia from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  aẓ-ẓulla[t], Dzień Rozstrzygnięcia (also K3) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-faṣl, Prorok rodzimy (VII, 157) from Ar.   an-nabī + al-ummī, posłaniec szlachetny (XLIV, 17) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  karīm, posłaniec od Pana światów (VII, 61; also K3 VII, 62) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  min + Ar.  rabb + Ar.  al-‘ālam, posłaniec Pana światów (XLIII, 46) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  rabb + Ar.  al-‘ālam, syn Marii (XIX, 34; LVII, 27; also K3 XIX, 35; LVII, 28) from Ar.  ibn + Ar.  Maryam, ludzie napomnienia (XVI, 43) from Ar. coll.  ahl + Ar.  aḏ-ḏikr, znak dla ludzi (XIX, 21; also K3 XIX, 22) from Ar.  āya[t] + Ar.  li + Ar.  nās, znak dla światów (XXI, 91) from Ar.  āya[t] + Ar.  li + Ar.  ‘ālam, słowo Prawdy from Ar.  qawl + Ar.  al-ḥaqq, pieczęć proroków (XXXIII, 40; also K3 XXXIII, 41) from Ar.  ẖātam + Ar.  an-nabī, miłosierdzie dla światów (XXI, 107) from Ar.  raḥma[t] + Ar.  li + Ar.  ‘ālam, lampa oświetlająca (XXXIII, 46) from Ar.  sirāǧ +  munīr, człowiek zaczarowany (XVII, 47) from Ar.  raǧul + Ar.  masḥūr, czarownik uczony (XXVI, 34) from Ar.  sāḥir + Ar.  ‘alīm ‘knowledgeable, familiarized, informed’; ‘scholar, scientist’, wybrać go (LXVIII, 50; also K3 LXVIII, 51) from Ar.  fa- conjunction ‘and’; ‘then, after’; in complex conditional clauses it begins a subordinate clause; this, so + Ar.  iǧtabà ‘choose’ + Ar.  huwa, namiestnik na ziemi (XXXVIII, 26; also K3 XXXVIII, 27) from Ar.  ẖalīfa[t] + Ar.  fī + Ar.  arḍ, dobry dla swoich rodziców (XIX, 14) from Ar.  barra ‘obey, be obedient to someone, be devoted to someone’; ‘keep a promise, oath’; ‘be good, truthful, sincere’; ‘do good’; ‘be generous’ + Ar.  bi + Ar.  wālid ‘parent, father’ + Ar.  huwa, wzywający, który wzywał do wiary (III, 193) from Ar.  munādin + Ar.  nādà ‘call, summon’; ‘proclaim, declare, announce, preach, introduce,

Collocations – the extent of the faithfulness

239

present’ + Ar.  li + Ar.  īmān ‘faith, belief, confidence’, po (nich) posłać (VII, 103; see also K3 VII, 104) from Ar.  ba‘aṯa + Ar.  min + Ar.  ba‘da ‘po, za’ + Ar.  hum, przyjść z prawdą (XXXVII, 37) from Ar.  ǧā’a ‘come, arrive, turn up’; ‘bring (somebody, something)’ + Ar.  bi + Ar.  ḥaqq and others. An analysis of the translation of the Qur’an by Józef Bielawski confirms the realization of the basic principles of translation adopted by its translator, to which he included “fidelity to the Arabic text and the clarity of thought”706. The dependence of phrasemes and idioms, and the transference of those element onto native soil is in fact the result of literal translation. It should be added here that monomorphic idiomatic expressions, characterized by their constant lexical composition are the most numerous among metaphorical expressions. The translation of Bielawski stays absolutely faithful to the Arabic text both in terms of individual words, as well as phraseological combinations. The majority of idioms are in fact rooted in the Arabic original. It is a conscious choice of the translator of the Qur’an, conditioned by the principle of stylistic adequacy and literality. As it has been noted by A. Drozd – especially the “taking over of Arabic prepositions is a gateway to the easy formation of calques”707 – cf. Ar. preposition  ‘alà of locative and directional functions – ‘over’ + Instr. or ‘on’ + Acc. or + Instr., or + Loc., e.g. na otwartej drodze rozkazu (KB2 XLV, 18)  from Ar.  ‘alà ‘on’; ‘above, over’; ‘next to, beside’; ‘in, in the middle of’; ‘to, toward, in the direction of’; ‘despite, besides, expect’; ‘according to’; ‘opposite, contrary’ + Ar.  šarī‘a[t]‌ ‘water source, a place abundant in water’; ‘canon law of Islam, legal law, legal provision’ + Ar.  min + Ar.  amr; Ar. preposition of appurtenance, purpose, and cause  li – ‘for’ + Gen., e.g. miłosierdzie dla światów (KB2), from Ar.  raḥma[t] + Ar.  li + Ar.  ‘ālam; Ar. preposition of locative, ablative, and concurrence meaning  bi expressed causally in Gen., Acc., Dat., or prepositionally: ‘in’ + Loc., ‘from’ + Instr., ‘from’ + Gen., e.g. przyjść z prawdą (KB2) from Ar.  ǧā’a + Ar.  bi + Ar.  ḥaqq, posłać z Naszymi znakami (KB2 XLIII, 46) from Ar.  arsala + Ar.  bi + Ar.  āya[t]; Ar. preposition of partition or possession, including also origin, cause, or defining starting or reference point  min – ‘from’ + Gen., genitive (possessive attribute), e.g. wojsko z niebios (KB2) from Ar. coll.  ǧund + Ar.  min + Ar.  samā’, dziedzic rodu Jakuba (KB2 XIX, 6) from Ar.  wariṯa ‘appoint as an heir or inheritor, bequeath’ + Ar.  min + Ar.  āl ‘kinsfolk, family’; ‘dynasty’; ‘mirage’ + Ar.  Ya‘qūb, miłosierdzie pochodzące od Nas (KB2 XIX, 21), łaska od Nas (K3 XIX, 22) from Ar.  raḥma[t] + Ar.  min + Ar.  naḥnu ‘we’, posłaniec od Pana światów (KB2, K3) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  min + Ar.  rabb + Ar.  al-‘ālam; Ar. preposition  ilà – ‘to’, np. powrócić do mego sądu (KB1 III, 48) from Ar.  ilà + Ar.  marǧi‘ ‘return, relapse’; ‘place to escape, refuge, escape, support’; ‘instance, factor, power, authority’; ‘source, origin’ + Ar.  antum. 7 06 KB2, p. 831. 707 A. Drozd, Arabskie teksty liturgiczne…, p. 155.

240

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

And in KB1 semantic or formal items dominate, which are related to the word combinations mentioned708. They are also present in KB2 and K3, but with a lower frequency. Among them can be identified those which appear in variant morphological forms of one of the components of a word combination, e.g. święty Duch, Duch święty (KB2) from Ar.  rūḥ + Ar.  al-quds, szatan buntownik (KB2 XXXVII, 7) from Ar.  šayṭān + Ar.  mārid ‘rebellious, contrary, opposing’; ‘big, huge, powerful’, księga (B)boska, Boskie pismo (KB1 XXXV, 23; II, 95) from Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  allāh, słowo Boskie, słowo Boże (KB1 X, 65; IX, 40) from Ar.  kalima[t]‌+ Ar.  allāh, dzień okropności (KB1) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  qamṭarīr, dzień sądny (KB1) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ad-dīn, dzień zniszczenia (K3 XXII, 56) with  yawm +  ‘aqīm, dzień boleści (KB1) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  alīm, Dekret Boży (K3 XVI, 2) from Ar.  amr + Ar.  allāh, posłaniec Boży, sługa Boży (KB1) from Ar.  rasūl + ar.  allāh, sługa Boski (KB1 LXXII, 19) from Ar.  ‘abd and Ar.  allāh, syn Boży (KB1) from Ar.  ibn +  allāh, pierwszy wierzę (K3 VII, 144) from Ar.  awwal ‘the first one’ and Ar.  almu’min, jawnie ostrzegający (KB2 XV, 89) from Ar.  naḏīr + Ar.  mubīn, sługa pobożny i sprawiedliwy (KB1 XXXVIII, 29), wierny sługa (KB1), wspaniały sługa (KB2 XXXVIII, 44; K3 XXXVIII, 45), znakomity sługa (K3 XXXVIII, 31) from Ar.  ni‘ma[t] ‘grace, blessing’; ‘goodness, benefit, utility’; ‘goodness, kindness’ and Ar.  al-‘abd, napominający (KB2) from Ar.  fa- + Ar.  ḏakkara; in which there was an exchange of lexical components, e.g. to, oprócz Boga (KB2 XXI, 66) from Ar.    min dūna allāh, to, poza Bogiem (KB2) from Ar.     mā min dūna allāh, bóg poza Bogiem (KB2 XXXVI, 74) from Ar.     ilāh min dūna allāh, wróg jawny (KB2 XXVIII, 15)  or jawny zwodziciel (K3 XXVIII, 16) from Ar.  muḍill ‘deceptive, false’ + Ar.  mubīn, pułk niebieski (KB1) from Ar. coll.  ǧund + Ar.  min + Ar.  samā’, Księga od Boga (KB2 II, 89) from Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  min + Ar.  ‘inda +  allāh, księga (B)boska, Boskie pismo (KB1) and Księga Boga (KB2 XXXV, 29) from Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  allāh, słowo Boskie, słowo Boże (KB1) and słowo Boga (KB2 X, 64)  from Ar.  kalima[t] + Ar.  allāh, Dzień od Boga (KB2 XXX, 43) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  min + Ar.  allāh, termin Boga (KB2 XXIX, 5) from Ar.  aǧal + Ar.  allāh, roz­ kaz Boga (KB2 XVI, 1) and Dekret Boży (K3) from Ar.  amr + Ar.  allāh, prorok Boga (KB2) and Prorok Pana (KB1) with  nabī + Ar.  allāh, posłaniec Boży (KB1), posłaniec Boga (KB2 IV, 157) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  allāh, sługa Boga (KB1 XIX, 31; KB2 XIX, 30; LXXII, 19) and sługa Boski (KB1) from Ar.  ‘abd and Ar.  allāh, sługa władcy światów (KB1 XLIII, 45) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  rabb + Ar.  al-‘ālam, syn Boży (KB1), syn Boga (KB2 IX, 30) from Ar.  ibn and  allāh, człowiek ryby (KB2 LXVIII, 48)  from Ar.  ṣāḥib + Ar.  al-ḥūt maghreb. ‘fish’; ‘big fish’; ‘whale’, dziecko w kolebce (KB1 XIX, 30), dziecko w kołysce 708 This division is vague. Individual equivalents may in fact realize more than one of the features mentioned. Cf. S. Koziara, Uwagi o frazeologii pochodzenia biblijnego w języku polskim…, p. 155.

Collocations – the extent of the faithfulness

241

(K3 XIX, 30) from Ar.  fī + Ar.  mahd ‘cradle’; ‘bed’ + Ar.  ṣabiyy ‘boy, lad’; ‘youngster, young man’; ‘journeyman, apprentice, disciple’, stwierdzenie prawdy (K3 XIX, 35) from Ar.  qawl + Ar.  al-ḥaqq, błogosławiony syn (KB1 XIX, 19), sprawiedliwy syn (K3 XIX, 20) from Ar.  ḡulām ‘boy, lad’ + Ar.  ḏakī ‘bright, insightful, wise; ‘cunning, clever; intelligent, smart’; ‘tasty’, nawołujący do Boga (KB2 XXXIII, 46) from Ar.  dā‘/in + Ar.  ilà +  allāh, zręczny czarownik (KB1 VII, 106; XXVI, 33; K3 XXVI, 35) and sprytny czarownik (K3 VII, 110) from Ar.  sāḥir and Ar.  ‘alīm, Król na ziemi (KB1) from Ar.  ẖalīfa[t] + Ar.  fī + Ar.  arḍ, sprawiedliwy dla rodziców (KB1 XIX, 14)  and obowiązkowy wobec swoich rodziców (K3 XIX, 15) from Ar.  barra + Ar.  bi + Ar.  wālid + Ar.  huwa, istny anioł (KB1 XII, 31) from Ar.  malak + Ar.  karīm, wierny czciciel (KB1 XII, 24), wybrany sługa (K3 XII, 25) from Ar.  ‘abd and Ar.  muẖliṣ, or those which are a result of changes at the syntactic level (especially in the word order), e.g. podzieleni panowie (KB2 XII, 39)  and poróżnieni panowie (K3 XII, 40)  from Ar.  rabb + Ar.  mutafarriq, szkaradny bałwan (KB1 XXII, 32), obrzydliwość bałwochwalstwa (K3 XXII, 31) from Ar.  raǧas + Ar.  min +  waṯan, święty Duch (KB2) from Ar.  rūḥ + Ar.  al-quds, duch niebieski (KB1 LIII, 26) from Ar.  malak + Ar.  fī + Ar.  samā’, potępiony szatan (KB1) and szatan, ten odrzucony as well as Szatan, odrzucony (K3 XVI, 99; LXXXI, 26) from Ar.  šayṭān + Ar.  raǧīm, zbuntowany szatan (K3 XXXVII, 8) from Ar.  šayṭān + Ar.  mārid, najwyżsi dostojnicy (KB2) from Ar.  mala’ ‘people, crowd, audience, public’ + Ar.  a‘là ‘the highest, higher’; ‘outerwear’, jawny zwodziciel (K3) from Ar.  muḍill + Ar.  mubīn, jawny nieprzyjaciel, otwarty nieprzyjaciel (KB1), jawny wróg (KB2 XLIII, 62; K3 XLIII, 63) from Ar.  ‘aduww + Ar.  mubīn, pułk niebieski (KB1) from Ar. coll.  ǧund + Ar.  min + Ar.  samā’, Boskie pismo (KB1) from Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  allāh, wielka nowina (KB2), wspaniała wiadomość (K3) from Ar.  naba’ ‘message, news, information, tradition’; ‘announcement, notification, communication, tidings’ + Ar.  ‘aẓīm, dzień okropności (KB1) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  qamṭarīr, dzień rozdzielenia (KB1 XXX, 42) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  min + Ar.  allāh, czas wyznaczony przez Allacha (K3 LXXI, 5) from Ar.  aǧal + Ar.  allāh, Obiecany Dzień (K3) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  maw‘ūd, wielki dzień (K3) from Ar.  yawm +  ‘aẓīm, ciężki dzień (K3 LXXIV, 10) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ‘asīr, dzień wiadomego czasu (KB2), dzień znanego czasu (K3 XXXVIII, 82) from Ar.  yawm + ar.  al-waqt + Ar.  al-ma‘lūm, ciężki Dzień (KB2 LXXVI, 27) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ṯaqīl, żałosny dzień (K3 XI, 27) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  alīm, określony termin, oznaczony termin, wyznaczony termin (KB2 LXXI, 4; XIV, 10; XX, 129), wyznaczony czas (K3 XIV, 11; LXXI, 5) from Ar.  aǧal + Ar.  musamman, czcigodny prorok (KB1 XLIV, 16) and szlachetny Posłaniec (K3 XLIV, 18) from Ar.  rasūl and Ar.  karīm, jawnie ostrzegający (KB2) from Ar.  naḏīr + Ar.  mubīn, Posłaniec od Allacha (K3 IV, 158) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  allāh, wierny Posłaniec (KB1 XXXVII, 162) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  amīn, wzywający w imieniu Boga (KB2 XLVI, 32) and nawołujący do Allacha (K3 XLVI, 33) from Ar.  dā‘/in + Ar.  allāh, wierny sługa (KB1 XXXVII, 79) and wierzący

242

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

sługa (K3 XXXVII, 82) from Ar.  ‘abd and Ar.  mu’min, Posłaniec od Pana światów (K3 XLIII, 47) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  rabb + Ar.  al-‘ālam, łaska Boga (KB1 XIX, 21) from Ar.  raḥma[t] + Ar.  min + Ar.  naḥnu, opętany przez dżinny (KB2 XXIII, 25) from Ar.  bi + Ar.  huwa + Ar.  ǧinna[t] ‘madness, obsession, mania’, opętany poeta (KB2 XXXVII, 36), szalony poeta (K3 XXXVII, 37) from Ar.  šā‘ir + Ar.  maǧnūn, ludzie posiadający napomnienie (KB2 XXI, 7), ci, którzy posiadają Upomnienie (K3 XVI, 44) from Ar. coll.  ahl + Ar.  aḏ-ḏikr, zwiastun Godziny (KB2 XLIII, 61) from Ar.  li + Ar.  ‘ilm ‘knowledge’; ‘science’; ‘cognition’; ‘perception’; ‘intellect’ + Ar.  as-sā‘a[t], błogosławiony syn (KB1), sprawiedliwy syn (K3) from Ar.  ḡulām + Ar.  ḏakī, syn z łagodnym charakterem (KB1 XXXVII, 99)  from Ar.  ḡulām + Ar.  ḥalīm, mądry chłopiec (KB2 XV, 53) from Ar.  ḡulām + Ar.  ‘alīm, dziecko w kolebce (KB1), dziecko w kołysce (K3) from Ar.  fī + Ar.  mahd + Ar.  ṣabiyy, dla ludzi łaska Boga (KB1 XIX, 21) from Ar.  āya[t] + Ar.  li + Ar.  nās, słowo swoje (KB1 III, 40) from Ar.  kalima[t] + Ar.  min + Ar.  huwa, naczelnik ludu (KB1 II, 118), przewodnik dla ludzi (KB2 II, 124) and przywódca ludzi (K3 II, 125) from Ar.  li + Ar.  nās + Ar.  imām, Lampa dająca światło (K3 XXXIII, 47) from Ar.  sirāǧ +  munīr, na otwartej drodze rozkazu (KB2) and na wyraźnej drodze względem tej Sprawy (K3 XLV, 19) from Ar.  ‘alà + Ar.  šari‘a[t] + Ar.  min + Ar.  amr, napominający ludzi (KB1 LXXVII, 6), rzucający napomnienie (KB2 LXXVII, 5) from Ar.  fa- + Ar.  mulqiya[t] ‘one that meets’ + Ar.  ḏikr, ten, który napomina (K3 LXXXVIII, 22)  from Ar.  fa- + Ar.  ḏakkara, przykład Hebrajczykom (KB1 XLIII, 59)  from Ar.  maṯal ‘example, instruction, learning; ‘similarity, proximity’; ‘comparison, parable, proverb,’ + Ar.  li + Ar.  banū ‘the human race, people’ (Isrā’īl), zręczny czarownik (KB1, K3) and sprytny czarownik (K3) as well as czarownik bardzo uczony (KB2 VII, 109) from Ar.  sāḥir and Ar.  ‘alīm, człowiek, który jest ofiarą oszustwa (K3 XVII, 48) from Ar.  raǧul + Ar.  masḥūr, Człowiek z Ryby (K3 LXVIII, 49) from Ar.  ṣāḥib + Ar.  al-ḥūt, pierwszy z wiernych (KB1 VII, 140), pierwszy z wierzących (KB2 VII, 143) from Ar.  awwal + Ar.  al-mu’min, dziedzic rodu Jakuba (KB2) from Ar.  wariṯa + Ar.  min + Ar.  āl + Ar.  Ya‘qūb, następca po Dawidzie (KB1 XXVII, 16) from Ar.  wariṯa and Ar.  Dāwud, Wołający do Wiary (K3 III, 194) from Ar.  munādin + Ar.  nādà + Ar.  li + Ar.  īmān, obdarzony wspaniałym charakterem (KB2 LXVIII, 4) and posiadać najwspanialsze cechy moralne (K3 LXVIII, 5) from Ar.  ẖulq ‘inborn characteristic’; ‘character, nature’; pl ‘character, morality’ + Ar.  ‘aẓīm, ten, który wypełnia przykazania Boże (K3 LIII, 38) from Ar.  allaḏī + Ar.  waffà ‘fully execute, completely implement’; ‘keep a promise’, istny anioł (KB1), szlachetny anioł (KB2 XII, 31; K3 XII, 32) from Ar.  malak + Ar.  karīm, wierny czciciel (KB1), szczery sługa (KB2 XII, 24), wybrany sługa (K3) from Ar.  ‘abd and Ar.  muẖliṣ, sługa pobożny i sprawiedliwy, wierny sługa (KB1), wspaniały sługa (KB2, K3), znakomity sługa (K3) from Ar.  ni‘ma[t] and Ar.  al-‘abd, uważać (go) za kłamcę (KB2 XXIII, 44 and K3 XXIII, 45) from Ar.  kaḏḏaba + Ar.  huwa, przynieść prawdę (K3 XXXVII, 38) from Ar.  ǧā’a + Ar.  bi + Ar.  ḥaqq, być w błędzie (KB2

Collocations – the extent of the faithfulness

243

LXVII, 9 and K3 LXVII, 10) from Ar.  fī + Ar.  ḍalāl ‘losing one’s way, straying’; ‘error, mistake’, szczery w obietnicy (KB2 XIX, 54)  from Ar.  kāna + Ar.  ṣādiq + Ar.  al-wa‘d ‘promise, vow’, ostatni z Proroków (KB1 XXXIII, 40) from Ar.  ẖātam and Ar.  an-nabī or semantic (while maintaining or not formal and denotation identity with the original item), e.g. obrzydliwość bałwochwalstwa (K3) from Ar.  raǧas + Ar.  min +  waṯan, duch świątobliwości (KB1 V, 109), święty Duch/Duch święty (KB2), Duch Świętości (KB1 II, 81; K3 II, 88)  from Ar.  rūḥ + Ar.  al-quds, szatan, ten odrzucony and Szatan, odrzucony (K3) from Ar.  šayṭān + Ar.  raǧīm, istny anioł (KB1) from Ar.  malak + Ar.  karīm, duch buntowniczy (KB1 XXXVII, 7) from Ar.  šayṭān + Ar.  mārid, zgromadzenie duchów Niebieskich, górne zgromadze­ nie (KB1), Wyniosłe Zgromadzenie, Wysokie Zgromadzenie aniołów (K3 XXXVIII, 70; XXXVII, 9), najwyższa rada (KB2) from Ar.  mala’ + Ar.  a‘là, kusiciel rodzaju ludzkiego (KB1) from Ar.  muḍill + Ar.  mubīn, pułk niebieski (KB1) from Ar. coll.  ǧund + Ar.  min + Ar.  samā’, Boskie pismo (KB1) from Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  allāh, słowo wielkiej wagi (KB2 LXXIII, 5) from Ar.  qawl + Ar.  ṯaqīl, rękojmia łask niebieskich, łaska dla wiernych, łaska nieba, Boskie miłosierdzie (KB1 XLV, 19; XII, 111; XVI, 66; VII, 50) from Ar.  raḥma[t] + Ar.  li + Ar.  qawm, historja prawdziwa (KB1 XXXVIII, 67) from Ar.  naba’ + Ar.  ‘aẓīm, Księga od Boga (KB2) from Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  min + Ar.  ‘inda +  allāh, księga (B)boska, Boskie pismo (KB1) and Księga Boga (KB2) from Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  allāh, słowo Boskie, słowo Boże (KB1) and słowo Boga (KB2) from Ar.  kalima[t] + Ar.  allāh, dzień rozdzielenia (KB1), Dzień od Boga (KB2) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  min + Ar.  allāh, czas naznaczony and (Bóg oznaczył) czas (KB1 LXXI, 4; XXIX, 4), termin Boga (KB2), wyznaczony czas Allacha and czas wyznaczony przez Allacha (K3 XXIX, 6) from Ar.  aǧal + Ar.  allāh, pomsta niebieska (KB1), roz­ kaz Boga (KB2) and Dekret Boży (K3) from Ar.  amr + Ar.  allāh, Sąd ostateczny and dzień ostateczny (KB1 XIX, 38; LXXXIII, 5), dzień straszny (KB2) oraz straszny dzień and żałosny dzień (K3) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ‘aẓīm, stanąć na sąd Boży, powrócić do mego sądu (KB1 V, 104) and powrócić do Boga (KB2 V, 105), as well as do Mnie powrócić (KB2 III, 55; K3 III, 56) from Ar.  ilà + Ar.  allāh +  marǧi‘ + Ar.  antum, dzień Sądu, dzień Sądu ostatecznego, dzień ogólnego zmart­ wychwstania (KB1) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-qiyāma[t], dzień Sądu ostatecznego (KB1) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  qāma + Ar.  al-ḥisāb, dzień okropności, w którym obłok smutku pokryje nasze oblicza (KB1 LXXVI, 10), ponury, pełen rozpaczy dzień (K3 LXXVI, 11) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ‘abūs + Ar.  qamṭarīr, chwila rozdzielenia (KB1 LXXVII, 13) and dzień ostatecznej Decyzji (K3) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-faṣl, dzień zmartwychwstania and dzień sądu (KB1 XXXIII, 21 and II, 8. 59. 120) from Ar.  al-yawm + Ar.  al-āẖir, dzień sądu (KB1 XLIII, 65) and Dzień pełen bólu (KB2) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  alīm, dzień ostateczny (KB1 XI, 85) and dzień zniszczenia (K3 XI, 85) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  muḥīṭ ‘surrounding, covering, comprising in itself; familiar, knowing, wise’; pl ‘range, scope’; ‘sphere, region’; ‘environment, surroundings’; ‘ocean’, chwila straszna (KB1) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ‘asīr, niechybna godzina (KB1

244

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

XXI, 97)  and obietnica Boża (K3 XXI, 98) from Ar.  wa‘d + Ar.  ḥaqq, Sąd Pański sprawiedliwy (KB1 VI, 150) from Ar.  ḥuǧǧa[t] ‘argument’; ‘evidence’; ‘excuse, pretext’; ‘authority’; ‘document, papier’ + Ar.  bāliḡ ‘achieving something, reaching something’; ‘huge, significant, extraordinary’; ‘adult, of age, mature (about a man)’, czcigodny prorok (KB1) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  karīm, prorok Boga (KB2) and Prorok Pana (KB1) with  nabī + Ar.  allāh, Apostoł kłamstwa (KB1 LXVII, 9) from Ar.  fī + Ar.  ḍalāl, Apostoł Boga, posłaniec Boży, sługa Boży, tłumacz niebios, tłumacz nieba (KB1), posłaniec Boga, wysłany od Boga (KB2 LXI, 6) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  allāh, sługa Pana Świata (KB1 VII, 102) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  min + Ar.  rabb + Ar.  al-‘ālam, posłaniec godny zaufa­ nia (KB2 XXVI, 162) and Posłaniec, wierny swojemu zadaniu (K3 XXVI, 163) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  amīn, posłaniec wiary and nauczyciel od Boga wybrany (KB1 XLVI, 31) from Ar.  dā‘/in + Ar.  allāh, sługa Boga (KB1, KB2) and sługa Boski (KB1) from Ar.  ‘abd and Ar.  allāh, sługa pobożny i sprawiedliwy, wierny sługa (KB1), wspaniały sługa (KB2, K3), znakomity sługa (K3) from Ar.  ni‘ma[t] and Ar.  al-‘abd, sługa wierzący (KB2 XXXVII, 81; XXXVII, 132) from Ar.  ‘abd and Ar.  mu’min, sługa władcy światów (KB1) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  rabb + Ar.  al-‘ālam, szalony (KB1 XXIII, 25), opętany przez dżinny (KB2) and nawiedzony szaleństwem (K3 XXIII, 26) from Ar.  bi + Ar.  huwa + Ar.  ǧinna[t], szalony wierszopis (KB1 XXXVII, 35) from Ar.  šā‘ir and Ar.  maǧnūn, syn Boży (KB1), syn Boga (KB2) from Ar.  ibn and  allāh, ci, którzy przyjęli pisma and Żydzi i chrześcijanie (KB1 XVI, 45 and XXI, 7) from Ar. coll.  ahl + Ar.  aḏ-ḏikr, nauka poprzedzająca zbliżenie ostatecznego sądu (KB1 XLIII, 61) or zwiastun Godziny (KB2) and znak Godziny (K3 XLIII, 62) from Ar.  li + Ar.  ‘ilm + Ar.  as-sā‘a[t], chłopiec czysty (KB2 XIX, 19), błogosławiony syn (KB1), sprawiedliwy syn (K3) from Ar.  ḡulām + Ar.  ḏakī, chłopiec wspaniałomyślny (KB2 XXXVII, 101), syn z łagodnym charakterem (KB1), syn cier­ pliwy (K3 XXXVII, 102)  from Ar.  ḡulām + Ar.  ḥalīm, syn obdarzony mądrością (KB1 XV, 53), syn, który obdarzony będzie wspaniałą wiedzą (K3 XV, 54) from Ar.  ḡulām + Ar.  ‘alīm, mały chłopiec (KB2) from Ar.  fī + Ar.  mahd + Ar.  ṣabiyy, przykład dla synów (Izraela) (KB2 XLIII, 59), przykład dla Dzieci (Izraela) (K3 XLIII, 60) from Ar.  maṯal + Ar.  li + Ar.  banū, dla ludzi łaska Boga (KB1) from Ar.  āya[t] + Ar.  li + Ar.  nās, Znak dla wszystkich ludów (K3 XXI, 92), and podziwienie świata (KB1 XXI, 91) from Ar.  āya[t] + Ar.  li + Ar.  ‘ālam, prawdziwy […] narodzony ze słowa Bożego (KB1) and stwier­ dzenie prawdy (K3) from Ar.  qawl + Ar.  al-ḥaqq, ostatni z Proroków (KB1) from Ar.  ẖātam and Ar.  an-nabī, łaska Boga (KB1) from Ar.  raḥma[t] + Ar.  min + Ar.  naḥnu, miłosierdzie Boskie (KB1 XXI, 107), łaska dla wszyst­ kich ludów (K3 XXI, 108)  from Ar.  raḥma[t] + Ar.  li + Ar.  ‘ ālam, nawołujący do Boga (KB2) and powołać ludzi do Boga (KB1 XXXIII, 45) from Ar.  dā‘/in + Ar.  ilà +  allāh, głos Proroka, który nas wzywał do wiary (KB1 III, 190) from Ar.  munādin + Ar.  nādà + Ar.  li + Ar.  īmān, przepowiadać Boskie obietnice i pogróżki (KB1 XLVIII, 8), głosiciel Jego obietnic i gróźb (KB1 II, 209) and zwiastun dobrej wieści, ostrzegający; głosiciel radosnej wieści i ostrzegający

Collocations – the extent of the faithfulness

245

(KB2 II, 213; XLVIII, 8), zwiastun dobrej nowiny i ten, który ostrzega (K3 II, 214) from Ar.  mubaššir + Ar.  wa ‘and, also; as well as; also; and, while’ + Ar.  munḏir, ty będziesz oświecać ich Jego światłem (KB1 XXXIII, 45) and Lampa dająca światło (K3) from Ar.  sirāǧ +  munīr, naczelnik świętej wiary (KB1 XLV, 17), and also na otwartej drodze rozkazu (KB2) and na wyraźnej drodze względem tej Sprawy (K3) from Ar.  ‘alà + Ar.  šari‘a[t] + Ar.  min + Ar.  amr, Pośrednik woli mojéj (KB1 XLIII, 45), posłać z Naszymi znakami (KB2) and wysłać z Naszymi znakami (K3 XLIII, 47) from Ar.  arsala + Ar.  bi + Ar.  āya[t], nieść Napomnienie na cały świat (K3 LXXVII, 6) from Ar.  fa- + Ar.  mulqiya[t] + Ar.  ḏikr, nauczanie twoim jest obowiązkiem (KB1 LXXXVIII, 21) from Ar.  fa- + Ar.  ḏakkara, szaleniec (KB1) from Ar.  raǧul + Ar.  masḥūr, ten, którego wieloryb połknął (KB1 LXVIII, 48) from Ar.  ṣāḥib + Ar.  al-ḥūt, być miły oczom Przedwiecznego (KB1 XIX, 56), znaleźć w kimś upodobanie (God is an agent – KB2 XIX, 55; K3 XIX, 56) from Ar.  kāna and Ar.  murḍin ‘satisfactory, bringing contentment, satisfaction’; ‘pleasant, kind, enjoying’; ‘sufficient’, Wybrany Pański (KB1) from Ar.  fa- + Ar.  iǧtabà + Ar.  huwa, posłać na ziemię (KB1 X, 15) from Ar.  ẖalīfa[t] + ar.  fī + Ar.  arḍ, zaprzeczać poselstwu (KB1 XXIII, 46)  from Ar.  kaḏḏaba + Ar.  huwa, mieć spuściznę rodziny Jakóba (KB1 XIX, 6) and dziedzic błogosławieństw Domu Jakuba (K3 XIX, 7) from Ar.  wariṯa + Ar.  min + Ar.  āl + Ar.  Ya‘qūb, wyznawać wiarę doskonałą (KB1 LXVIII, 4)  from Ar.  ẖulq and Ar.  ‘aẓīm, bardzo wierny (KB2 LIII, 37), wierny przykazaniom (KB1 LIII, 38) and ten, który wypełnia przyka­ zania Boże (K3) from Ar.  allaḏī + Ar.  waffà, następca posłańców (KB1 VII, 101)  from Ar.  ba‘aṯa + Ar.  min + Ar.  ba‘da + Ar.  hum, oświecony światłem prawdy (KB1 XXXVII, 36) from Ar.  ǧā’a + Ar.  bi + Ar.  ḥaqq, Słowo pochodzące od Niego (KB2) from Ar.  kalima[t] + Ar.  min + Ar.  huwa, wierny swym przyrzeczeniom (KB1 XIX, 55) from Ar.  kāna + Ar.  ṣādiq + Ar.  al-wa‘d, czarownik bardzo uczony (KB2) from Ar.  sāḥir i Ar.  ‘alīm, etc. Their occurrence in the translations of the Qur’an is an expression of originality and innovation on the part of their translators and indicates the lexical creativity of their language. The Qur’anic translations which especially stands out in this respect is KB1, in which departure from the original text is the result of free translation, therefore, also its interpretation, often relying on the Christian tradition and derived from it. The example of such an analogy is, for instance, the rendering of Ar.  rasūl with the term prorok, and even sługa, Kapłan or Apostoł, while  rasūl nominates the one who was sent only to the Arabs, in contrast with the characters of the OT and NT. Ar  allāh was translated in KB1 as Bóg or Pan, and also as Najwyższy, Niebo and Niebiosa, whereas the original Qur’anic phraseology was repeatedly rendered using word combinations of Biblical provenance. The KB1 translation can therefore be assigned the role of developing Polish Qur’anic phraseology. The KB2 translation, analogously to KB1, rendered Ar.  as Bóg, hence expressions known in Polish translations of the Bible are also featured, e.g. Księga od

246

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

Boga, Księga Boga, słowo Boga, Dzień od Boga, termin Boga, rozkaz Boga, prorok Boga, posłaniec Boga, sługa Boga, syn Boga. However, such analogies are not numerous. This translation is in fact characterized by its faithfulness to the original Arabic text, both in terms of rendering individual lexemes, as well as phraseological combinations, most of which have their origin in the Arabic original. Therefore, KB2 also plays a significant role in the process of forming the resources of Qur’anic phraseology. In subsequent translation (K3) there is a clear reference to KB2 in the selection of individual lexical and semantic equivalents as well as word combinations, while at the same time manifesting an attempt to preserve the original proper names. Some of these denominations are also a reflection of the syntactic structure known as status constructus. These are the following combinations: księga boska (KB1), Księga Boga (KB2), Księga Allacha (K3 XXXV, 30) from Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  allāh, Księga Mojżesza (KB2, K3) from Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  mūsà, słowo Boskie (KB1), słowo Boże (KB1), słowo Boga (KB2), słowo Allacha (K3 VI, 35) from Ar.  kalima[t]‌+ Ar.  allāh, słowo Pana (KB2, K3) from Ar.  kalima[t] + Ar.  rabb, światło wiary (KB1 XXXIX, 24), droga Boga (KB2 XXXIX, 23), przewodnictwo Allacha (K3 XXXIX, 24)  from Ar.  hudan + Ar.  allāh, święty Duch/Duch święty (KB2), Duch Świętości (KB1, K3), duch świątobliwości (KB1) from Ar.  rūḥ + Ar.  alquds, stróż piekła (KB1; K3 XL, 50), strażnik Gehenny (KB2) from Ar.  ẖazzān + Ar.  ǧahannam, stróż ognia (KB2), strażnik Ognia (K3 LXXIV, 32) from Ar.  ṣāḥib + Ar.  an-nār, władca dołu (KB1) from Ar.  ṣāḥib + Ar.  al-uẖdūd ‘furrow’; ‘trench, groove’, anioł śmierci (KB1, KB2, K3) from Ar.  malak and Ar.  al-mawt ‘death’, Prorok Pana (KB1), prorok Boga (KB2), Prorok Allacha (K3 II, 92) from Ar.  nabī + Ar.  allāh, Apostoł Boga (KB1), posłaniec Boży (KB1), sługa Boży (KB1), tłumacz niebios (KB1), tłumacz nieba (KB1), posłaniec Boga (KB2), Posłaniec Allacha (K3 XCI, 14) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  allāh, sługa Boga (KB1, KB2), sługa Boski (KB1), sługa Allacha (K3 LXXII, 20) from Ar.  ‘abd + Ar.  allāh, sługa władcy światów (KB1), posłaniec Pana światów (KB2) from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  rabb + Ar.  al-‘ālam, syn Marji (KB1), syn Marii (KB2, K3) from Ar.  ibn +  Maryam, syn Boży (KB1), syn Boga (KB2), syn Allacha (K3 IX, 30)  from Ar.  ibn +  allāh, ludzie napomnienia (KB2), ludzie posiadający napomnienie (KB2) from Ar. coll.  ahl + Ar.  aḏ-ḏikr, słowo Prawdy (KB2), stwierdzenie prawdy (K3) from Ar.  qawl + Ar.  al-ḥaqq, pieczęć proroków (KB2, K3) from Ar.  ẖātam + Ar.  an-nabī, człowiek ryby (KB2) from Ar.  ṣāḥib + Ar.  al-ḥūt, wierny swym przyrzeczeniom (KB1), dotrzymywać obietnice (K3 XIX, 55) from Ar.  kāna + Ar.  ṣādiq + Ar.  al-wa‘d, nauka poprzedzająca zbliżenie ostatecznego sądu (KB1), zwiastun Godziny (KB2), znak Godziny (K3) from Ar.  li + Ar.  ‘ilm + Ar.  as-sā‘a[t], pierwszy wierzę (K3) from Ar.  awwal + Ar.  al-mu’min, sługa pobożny i sprawiedliwy, wierny sługa (KB1), wspaniały sługa (KB2, K3), znakomity sługa (K3) from Ar.  ni‘ma[t] + Ar.  al-‘abd, Dzień Sądu (KB1, KB2, K3) and dzień sądny (KB1) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ad-dīn, Dzień Zmartwychwstania (KB1, KB2, K3) and

Collocations – the extent of the faithfulness

247

dzień Sądu, dzień Sądu ostatecznego, dzień ogólnego zmartwychwstania (KB1) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-qiyāma[t], zmartwychwstanie (KB1), Dzień Spotkania (KB2, K3) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  at-talāqin, dzień wiadomego czasu, Dzień czasu oznaczonego (KB2), dzień znanego czasu, dzień wyznaczonego czasu (K3 XV, 39) and czas oznaczony (KB1 XXXVIII, 82) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-waqt + Ar.  al-ma‘lūm, Dzień Rozstrzygnięcia (KB2, K3), dzień ostatecznej Decyzji (K3), dzień rozłączenia (KB1 XXXVII, 21), dzień rozłączenia się, dzień rozdziele­ nia, dzień odłączenia się (KB1), chwila rozdzielenia (KB1) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-faṣl, dzień pogróżek (KB1), Dzień grozy (KB2), Dzień Obietnicy (K3 L, 21) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-wa‘īd ‘promise’, Dzień westchnienia (KB2), dzień smutku (K3 XIX, 40), czas wzdychania (KB1 XIX, 40)  from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ḥasra[t], Dzień Wieczności (KB1, KB2, K3) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ẖulūd, Dzień rozrachunku (KB2), Dzień Rozliczenia (K3 XXXVIII, 17), dzień rachunku, dzień Sądu (KB1) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ḥisāb, Dzień Zgromadzenia (KB2, K3) or Dzień Zebrania (KB2) and dzień powszechnego zebra­ nia (KB1) as well as dzień straszny (KB1) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ǧam‘, dzień wzajemnego zawodu (KB1), Dzień wzajemnego oszukiwania (KB2), dzień określenia strat i zysków (K3) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  at-taḡābun, Dzień Zwycięstwa (KB2, K3), and dzień ten (KB1 XXXII, 29) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-fatḥ, dzień ciemności (KB1), Dzień Cienia (KB2), dzień przytłaczającego mroku (K3) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  aẓ-ẓulla[t], straszliwa chwila (KB1 XL, 18), Dzień Nieuniknionego (KB2) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-āzifa[t] ‘the one that approaches [f.]’ or ‘the one that pproaches’, czas naznaczony (KB1), termin Boga (KB2), wyznaczony czas Allacha (K3) from Ar.  aǧal + Ar.  allāh, pomsta niebieska (KB1), rozkaz Boga (KB2), Dekret Boży (K3) from Ar.  amr and Ar.  allāh, Sąd całego świata (KB1), rozkaz dotyczący Godziny (KB2), sprawa nadejścia obiecanej Godziny (K3) from Ar.  amr + Ar.  as-sā‘a[t], etc. Ar. iḍāfa was translated with a lower frequency as a combination of a noun and a prepositional phrase, introduced in the place of a genitive attribute, e.g. in KB2 wysłany od Boga, in K3 Posłaniec od Allacha from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  allāh, in K3 Posłaniec od Pana światów from Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  rabb + Ar.  al-‘ālam, in KB1 ostatni z Proroków from Ar.  ẖātam + Ar.  an-nabī, in K3 Człowiek z Ryby from Ar.  ṣāḥib + Ar.  al-ḥūt, in KB2 szczery w obietnicy from Ar.  kāna + Ar.  ṣādiq + Ar.  al-wa‘d, in KB1 pierwszy z wiernych, in KB2 pierwszy z wierzących from Ar.  awwal + Ar.  al-mu’min, in K3 czas wyznaczony przez Allacha from Ar.  aǧal + ar.  allāh. And sometimes it is rendered with a subjective clause (usually of interpretative nature), e.g. in K3 dzień, który szybko się zbliża (XL, 19) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-āzifa[t]‌, in KB1 dzień, w którym będzie musiał zdać rachunek (XL, 28) from Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ḥisāb and others. In KB1 one may perceive a general tendency to remove genitive attributes and to use adjectival attributes instead (the adjectivization of names acting as attributes [Gen.] and the modification of word combinations by the introduction of other parts of speech). The examples from KB1 show that the lack of grammatical

248

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

identity between the words of the source text and their translation was a result of conscious departure from verbality in translation in search of the form that would be the best from the point of view of grammatical correctness and that would render the syntactic function of a word in sentence.

3.3 A comparison of modern translations of the Qur’an into Polish on the basis of the example of the translation of Islamic religious terminology In KB2 one may clearly see a reference to – recognized by the author as the best – translations of the Qur’an into European languages, including Russian709. In terms of translation of nomina appellativa one may observe such similarities among these translations as, for example: a. retaining words unique only to the text of the Qur’an in their original form – cf. imam from Ar.  imām (the fact that the term is used both in KB2 and in the 20th century-translation by Krachkovsky confirms its full adaptation, also semantic, in Polish and Russian710; wezyr from Ar.  wazīr, noted, for example, in hist. ‘vizier’; ‘minister’ (the word registered for the first time in Kartoteka SPolXVI, and in a Ruthenian text of the 17th century is explained as ‘a high official in the Islamic world’. Krachkowsky [the 20th century] refers it to Aaron, the brother of Musa [neosemantization] – in a similar way to KB2 XXV, 35)711; dżinn from Ar. coll.  ǧinn (a word present in Polish and Russian since the 19th century; it appeared for the first time in KB2, and in Russian translations, in the translation made by Krachkovsky, although in some ayats [four contexts] it is substituted with words such as geniusz or duch)712; sura from Ar.  sūra[t]‌(cf. the 20th century – adaptation in Polish and Russian has its reflection in translations of the Qur’an – cf. KB2 XI, 13)713.

709 KB2, p. 832 – cf. “For consultation I also referred to the translations of the Qur’an into European languages, which I found to be the best….” These include, among others, Bell: The Our’ān. Translated with a critical re-arrangement of the Surahs by Richard Bell, Edinburgh 1939, Vols. I–II; Blachère: Le Coran. Traduit de l’arabe par Régis Blachère, Paris 1957; Hamza: Le Coran. Traduction nouvelle et commentaires par Boubakeur Hamza, Paris 1972, Vols. I–II; Krachkovsky: Koran. Pierievod i kom­ mentarii I. Y. Krachkovsky, Moskwa 1963; Paret: Der Koran. Übersetzung von Rudi Paret, Stuttgart 1979 – cf. pp. 839–840. 710 I. Kończak, Kształtowanie się rosyjskiej terminologii islamistycznej…, pp. 82–83. 711 Cf. M. Jurkowski, Rutenizmy i orientalizmy w „Listach Marysieńki” Jana Sobieskiego, [in:] Studia nad polszczyzną kresową, eds. J. Rieger, W. Werenicz, Vol. III, Wrocław– Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź 1984, pp. 82–90, and I. Kończak, Kształtowanie się rosyjskiej terminologii islamistycznej…, p. 83. 712 Cf. I. Kończak, Kształtowanie się rosyjskiej terminologii islamistycznej…, pp. 109–110. 713 Cf. ibidem, p. 114.

A comparison of modern translations of the Qur’an

249

A similar situation occurs in the case of the translation of nomina propria – cf. the preservation in KB2 of words unique only to the text of the Qur’an in their original form, e.g. Illijjun (LXXXIII, 18)  from Ar.  ‘Illiyyūn ‘the highest class of angels in heaven’ (a term that is not known in Russian, and is not recorded in any lexicographical studies. In the 19th-century translations it was replaced by a descriptive form, while the original forms only appeared in later translations)714; Sidżdżin (LXXXIII, 7) from Ar.  Siǧǧīn a proper name of ‘a certain rock or a well in hell – of the registry, where all the deeds of people are recorded’ (the term is not known in Russian, and is not recorded in any lexicographical studies). In the 18th-century translations, it was replaced by a descriptive form, whereas the original forms appeared in later translations)715; b. translation, i.e. seeking adequate equivalence for words that occur not only in the Qur’an, but also in the Bible, including the use of typical borrowings which existed and were well-established in the Polish language, e.g. anioł, sza­ tan, posłaniec, prorok (cf. translations into Russian, e.g. the word posłaniec was rendered as ‘a man sent by God to people to admonish them and bring them to the right path’ [often in relation to prophets], and it occurs in all translations of the Qur’an as a denomination of all prophets before Muhammad also of Muhammad; prorok and posłaniec are used synonymously)716, etc.; c. the occurrence of Qur’anisms of Arabic origin which recently entered the Polish language as technical terms717, e.g. hanif (II, 135) from Ar.  ḥanīf (denomination related to Abraham) – a term that is also present in the translation of Krachkovsky in the sense of ‘the one who first believed in the one true God’, used eight times in total, including seven times in reference to Abraham; it was used in the Russian translation when it already started to function as a term, but it is not registered in dictionaries of the Russian language718; d. the presence of words of Arabic origin, appearing also in non-religious texts, e.g. Islam, muzułmanin, although sometimes they are translated – cf. Ar.  sayyid rendered as a periphrasis szlachetny pan – cf. KB1 wielki (III, 34), K3 szlachetny (III, 40)719;

7 14 Cf. ibidem, p. 106. 715 Ibidem. 716 Cf. ibidem, pp. 84–85. 717 Most Qur’anisms which have no reference in the Bible, came to the lexical system of Polish or Russian only in the 20th century. Some of them are strictly religious terms, while others can function outside religious texts, although they have religious connotations – cf. ibidem, pp. 122–124. 718 Cf. ibidem, p. 86. 719 For comparison’s sake – in Russian translations – the original form of seid is present in the 20th century translation by Krachkovsky. Earlier translations proposed its equivalents instead: наши главнейшие (Postnikov), наши владетели (Nikolaev), властители (Sablukov) – see ibidem, pp. 83–84.

250

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

e. the adoption of similar translational solutions (Krachkovsky-KB2), e.g. Dawid is described as namiestnik na ziemi; the angel Gabriel is described as Duch from Ar.  rūḥ; Ar.  āya[t]‌was translated as znak. Therefore, there is a manifest similarity in adopting certain translational solutions between KB2 and the translation of Krachkovsky – one of the latest, a 20th century translation of the Qur’an, designed for Muslims (cf. also Tatar tefsir, WzK and K3). This translation is also characterized by a predominance of foreign terminology, which is testimony to translational awareness. It demonstrates the difficulty of adequate equivalence, especially in terms of proper names, which are retained in their original Arabic form720. These features, demonstrating a good knowledge of Islam and high translational awareness, can also be indicated in the first translation of the Qur’an into Slavic languages – in the Tatar tefsir of the second half of the 16th century. The analysis of translated Qur’anic texts confirms the far-reaching dependence of K3 on KB2. It is a dependence both in the selection of words, as well as in the rendering of word combinations. The relationship between K3 and KB2 can therefore be seen above all in the lexical layer. More results could be achieved in this regard, comparing also syntactic interdependence – sentence structures. Translational preferences can therefore be identified as common to both translations as to the selection of Polish equivalents of lexical items of the original text and also parallelism in distinguishing different contexts. Examples of their lexical similarity are, for example, denominations of pagan gods, e.g. Ar.  rabb – pan, Ar.  bāṭil – fałsz, Ar.  naṣīr – pomocnik, Ar.  ṣanam ‘idol, god, icon, graven image’ – bożek; the names of holy books, e.g. Ar.  tanzīl – objawienie, Ar.  hudan – przewodnictwo, Ar.  ḥaqq – prawda, Ar.  imām – przewodnik, Ar.  kalima[t]‌– słowo, Ar.  ḏikr – napomnienie or przypomnienie, ar.  ḏikrà ‘recollection; memory, remembrance’; ‘anniversary, ‘jubilee; pl ‘memories, memoir, diary’ – napomnienie, Ar.  maw‘iẓa[t] ‘admonition, reproach, reprimand’; rel. ‘instruction, teaching, preaching penance’ – napomnienie, Ar.  nūr – światło, Ar.  āya[t] – znak, Ar.  kitāb – księga or słowo, Ar.  šifā’ – uz­drowienie, Ar.  ‘ilm – wiedza, Ar.  aǧr ‘payment, fee, salary, pay’; ‘payment, tuition fee’; pl ‘expenditures’ – nagroda; descriptions of angels and other spiritual beings, e.g. Ar.  malak – anioł, Ar. coll.  ǧinn – duch, Ar.  šayṭān 720 The presence of original forms in translations is a proof of the fact that words of Arabic origin entered the lexical system of the language of translation (semantic adaptation of a word is evidenced not only by its presence in the system of a language, but also by the knowledge of its meaning, because if its meaning is not familiar, translators explain it using the original forms or its equivalents that are the closest semantically to the translated word; it is worthy of note that today even in Russian there is no universal way of transliteration of Arabic names – hence the discrepancies in various translations) and confirmation of the high awareness of a translator as to the untranslatability of specific terms – cf. ibidem, pp. 122–124.

A comparison of modern translations of the Qur’an

251

– szatan, Ar.  rasūl – posłaniec, Ar.  mursal – posłaniec, posłany, Ar.  ‘aṣī – buntownik, Ar.  kaḏib – kłamca, Ar.  kafūr ‘infidel’ – niewdzięczny, Ar.  ‘ibād – sługa, Ar.  qarīn – towarzysz, Ar. coll.  ǧund – zastęp, Ar.  ḥaras – straż; denominations of prophets, e.g. Ar.  aẖ – brat, Ar.  sibṭ – plemię, Ar.  šāhid – świadek, Ar.  ẖayr – najlepszy, Ar.  rid’ ‘cloak’ – pomocnik, Ar.  ṣāliḥ – sprawiedliwy, Ar.  imām – przywódca, Ar.  ṣābir – cierpliwy, Ar.  ḥalīm – łagodny, Ar.  ṣādiq – prawdomówny, Ar.  bašar – śmiertelnik, człowiek, Ar.  raǧul – człowiek, Ar.  šā‘ir – poeta, Ar.  sāḥir – czarownik, Ar.  mu‘allim ‘teacher’; ‘master’ – pouczony; descriptions of the Last Judgement, e.g. Ar.  yawm – dzień, Ar.  ad-dīn – sąd, Ar.  al-fatḥ – zwycięstwo, Ar.  ba‘ṯ + Ar.  antum – zmartwychwstanie, Ar.  al-ḥāqqa[t] – Nieuniknione, Ar.  as-sā‘a[t] – Godzina, Ar.  aǧal – termin, Ar.  wa‘d – obietnica, etc. One should ad that among common lexemes (T. Lisowski describes them as lexemes indicating affinity, including distinctive lexemes)721 there were selected only those that occur in parallel places because the analysis of their distribution (their use in specific contexts) facilitates, to a large extent, an assessment of the lexical relationship between different translations. Outside the area of research there were therefore the so-called transborder lexemes, which are common with a different frequency, characterized by distribution typical of individual translations722, and specific lexemes limited only to one translation723, constituting the differentia spe­ cifica in the studied texts. The higher the percentage of specific lexemes, the more diverse and specialized is the vocabulary of a given text. Expressions, phrases and locutions of common phraseology, which also occur in parallel contexts can be listed, such as, for example, Ar.    min dūna allāh – bogowie poza Nim, Ar.     mā min dūna allāh – ci, poza Nim, Ar.  mā + Ar.  ašraka – przypisywać równych, Ar.  ilāh + Ar.  min + Ar.  arḍ – bogowie z ziemi, Ar.  malak + Ar.  karīm – szlachetny anioł, Ar.  ‘aduww + Ar.  mubīn – jawny wróg, Ar.  ar-rūḥ and Ar.  al-amīn – Duch wierny, Ar.  malak + Ar.  fī + Ar.  samā’ – anioł w niebiosach, Ar.  ba‘aṯa + Ar.  min + Ar.  ba‘da + Ar.  hum – po (nich) posłać, Ar.  ẖalīfa[t]‌+ ar.  fī + Ar.  arḍ – namiestnik na ziemi, Ar.  āya[t] + Ar.  li + Ar.  nās – znak dla ludzi, Ar.  ab ‘father’; (in composita) ‘owner, possessor’ + Ar.  -ka ‘your’ – twój ojciec, Ar.  -ī ‘my’ – mój ojciec/ojciec mój, ojciec wasz/wasz ojciec, Ar.  -kum ‘your pl’ – wasz praojciec, Ar.     mā + anzala + min + qabla – to, co zostało zesłane przedtem (KB2), to, co było zesłane przedtem (K3), Ar.  kāna + Ar.  murḍin – znaleźć w kimś upodobanie, Ar.  fī + Ar.  ḍalāl – być w błędzie, Ar.  kaḏḏaba + Ar.  huwa – uważać (go) za kłamcę, Ar.  fa- + Ar.  iǧtabà + Ar.  huwa – wybrać go, Ar.  al-yawm + Ar.  al-āẖir – Dzień Ostatni, 7 21 T. Lisowski, Sola Scriptura…, p. 38. 722 Ibidem, p. 139. 723 Ibidem, p. 241.

252

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

Ar.  yawm + Ar.  alīm – Dzień bolesny, moreover, the examples of similar rendering of Ar. iḍāfa, e.g. Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  mūsà – Księga Mojżesza, Ar.  kalima[t] + Ar.  rabb – słowo Pana, Ar.  malak and Ar.  al-mawt – anioł śmierci, Ar.  wariṯa + Ar.  Dāwud – dziedzic Dawida, Ar.  ẖātam + Ar.  an-nabī – pieczęć proroków, Ar.  ibn + Ar.  Maryam – syn Marii, Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  min + Ar.  rabb + Ar.  al-‘ālam – posłaniec od Pana światów, Ar.  ni‘ma[t] + Ar.  al-‘abd – wspaniały sługa, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ad-dīn – Dzień Sądu, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-qiyāma[t] – Dzień Zmartwychwstania, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  at-talāqin – Dzień Spotkania, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-faṣl – Dzień Rozstrzygnięcia, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ǧam‘ – Dzień Zgromadzenia, ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ẖulūd – Dzień Wieczności, ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-fatḥ – Dzień Zwycięstwa and amplifications, e.g. Ar.  iftarà in KB2 is to, co wymyślili, and in K3 to, co zmyślali, Ar.  kitāb is księga Mojżesza, Ar.  amīn is godny zaufania, Ar.  amkana is dać władzę nad nimi, Ar.  yawma’iḏin is ten dzień, Ar.  maw‘id is wyznaczony czas, Ar.  al-wāqi‘a[t] is translated nieuniknione wydarzenie, etc. The examples show that not only did K3 take over the KB2 vocabulary, but also it took over word combinations, and even whole verses, sometimes only slightly modifying them. A number of word combinations that were present in KB2 in K3 were in fact subjected to such operations as e.g. the change of word order into prepositive (KB2 generally retained postpositional word order typical of the Arabic language) – cf. Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  karīm translated in KB2 as Posłaniec szla­ chetny, and in K3 as szlachetny Posłaniec, Ar.  ‘abd + Ar.  mu’min realized in KB2 as sługa wierzący, and in K3 as wierzący sługa, Ar.  yawm +  ‘aẓīm rendered in KB2 as Dzień Wielki, and in K3 as Wielki Dzień as well as in KB2 as Dzień Straszny, and in K3 as straszny dzień, retaining original proper names, e.g. Ar.     ilāh min dūna allāh translated in KB2 as bóg poza Bogiem, and in K3 as inny bóg poza Allachem (XXXVI, 75), Ar.     mā min dūna allāh in KB2 as to, poza Bogiem, and in K3 as to, poza Allachem (XXVII, 44), Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  allāh in KB2 it is Księga Boga, in K3 Księga Allacha, Ar.  kalima[t]‌+ Ar.  allāh in KB2 is słowo Boga, in K3 it is rendered as słowo Allacha, Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  min + Ar.  ‘inda +  allāh in KB2 it is Księga od Boga, in K3 Księga od Allacha, Ar.  dā‘/in + Ar.  ilà +  allāh in KB2 is rendered as nawołujący do Boga, in K3 as Nawołujący do Allacha, Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  allāh in KB2 it is posłaniec Boga, and in K3 Posłaniec Allacha, Ar.  ‘abd + Ar.  allāh in KB2 it is sługa Boga, and in K3 sługa Allacha, Ar.  ibn +  allāh in KB2 is syn Boga, in K3 syn Allacha, Ar.  nabī + Ar.  allāh in KB2 is prorok Boga, and in K3 Prorok Allacha, Ar.  ilà +  allāh +  marǧi‘ + Ar.  antum is translated in KB2 as powrócić do Boga, and in K3 as powrócić do Allacha (V, 106), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  min + Ar.  allāh is rendered in KB2 as Dzień od Boga, and in K3 as dzień od Allacha (XXX, 43), the replacement of some lexical components or their reduction, e.g. Ar.  arsala + Ar.  bi + Ar.  āya[t], translated in KB2 as posłać z Naszymi znakami, and in K3 as wysłać z Naszymi Znakami, Ar.  kalima[t] + Ar.  min + Ar.  huwa, realized in KB2 as Słowo pochodzące od Niego, and in K3 as Słowo

The distinctiveness of the translation

253

od Niego (III, 46), Ar.  li + Ar.  yawm + Ar.  lā + Ar.  rayb + Ar.  fī + Ar.  huwa, in KB2 rendered as Dzień, co do którego nie ma wątpliwości (III, 9), and in K3 as Dzień, co do którego nie ma żadnych wątpliwości (III, 10), Ar.  hunālika, in KB2 translated as w podobnym przypadku and in K3 as w takim przypadku, etc. Thus, the above examples confirm the lexical affinity between translations KB2 and K3724. However distinguishing features of the translation K3 are its interlinearity, making this translation similar to Muslim tafsirs; translocation or Slavicization of proper names – sometimes also known in translations of the Bible and in the Christian tradition; and the richness of the author’s commentaries (exegesis). Thus, as has previously been noted, both KB1 and KB2 play a significant role in forming the resources of Qur’anic vocabulary and phraseology, while the function of K3 is mainly to retain them.

3.4 The distinctiveness of the translation of the Vilnius Philomaths compared with other translations of the Qur’an Among the printed translations of the Qur’an into Polish, the definitely distinguished one is the translation of the Polish Philomaths, who adopted such a method of translating that they released a Polish translation of a syntactic scheme of original texts while at the same time retained conformity as to the meaning. Their translation is full of expressions, and even whole phrases added by its translators in order to make the difficult text of the Qur’an more accessible to readers (cf. the monuments of Tatar literature in the GDL). At the same time, the translator’s awareness of doctrinal differences between Islam and Christianity did not seem to be considerable. It is worth noting that the first translation of the Qur’an into Russian played an analogous role. The oldest of them  – the translation of Postnikov – at the same time, played the role of interpretation and commentary, since its primary purpose was to make the text of the Qur’an understandable to the tsar (the lecture on Islam; descriptive function of language; the presence of Old Russian with a strong influence of Church Slavonic; the omission and adding of whole passages, absent in the original text). In the subsequent translations  – those of Sablukov and Nikolaev – one may also perceive a pursuit of primarily native equivalents, often transmitted from Christianity725. Therefore, the translation of the Philomaths and the 18th and 19th-century translations of the Qur’an into Russian are characterized by a pursuit of the most adequate equivalents to express the meaning of the words of the original text, e.g. a word naczelnik for Ar. 

724 More accurate results in this area of research could be achieved by using the quantitative distribution method – cf. ibidem. 725 Cf. I. Kończak, Kształtowanie się rosyjskiej terminologii islamistycznej…, p. 122.

254

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

imām – a similar translational solution to those adopted in the first translations of the Qur’an into Russian (in spite of the fact that this word had been in the Russian language since the 16th century [in the first monument of 1551] in the sense of ‘a spiritual leader of a Muslim community’, its semantics was not entirely clear, and therefore, in the 18th and 19th-century translations, there appeared such equivalents as naczelnik nauki (the oldest translation), and since the 19th century in parallel imam and przywódca/wódz, and only since the 20th century has the original term imam been used, thereby, confirming the full adaptation of this word to the Russian language)726; rozdział (cf. XXV, 34) for Ar.  sūra[t]‌(in the 18th century, this word did not occur in the system of the Russian language, hence its equivalents such as rozdział [a wider range] and others; since the 19th century – also in Polish – the terms surat and sura were known [cf. SWil], but along with them the equivalent rozdział is still used. The variability of its various forms is testimony to the beginning of the process of its adaptation to Russian and Polish)727; duch, duch tajemny, genjusz for Ar. coll.  ǧinn (the word dżinn appeared in Polish and Russian not earlier than in the 19th century. It was expressed in the translations of the Qur’an of this period by its equivalent geniusz  – cf. the meaning:  in the beginning ‘these were the guardian spirits of people’, then ‘the personification of good and evil forces in mythology’. Previously, in the translation of the 18th century, the words diabły (devils) or demony (demons) were used. However, neither of these equivalents reflected the meaning of this word in Islam – they are rather Christian equivalents)728; wiersz (cf. III, 5) for Ar.  āya[t] (the word ajat does not appear in any translations of the Qur’an, either Russian or Polish – cf. the 19thcentury translations into Russian, in which an analytical form was used – wiersz Koranu)729, etc. KB1 is completely different from the 20th-century Polish translations of the Qur’an both in terms of equivalence – individual equivalents of phraseological combinations, as well as in terms of the method of translation that was adopted (including the techniques of translation that were selected). The unique translatorial equivalents, typical of this translation include, e.g. Ar. expression     ilāh min dūna allāh translated as obce bóstwo – cf. in KB2 bóg poza Bogiem, in K3 inny bóg poza Allachem, Ar.    min dūna allāh rendered as bałwan – cf. KB2 to, oprócz Boga, K3 ten poza Allachem (XXI, 67)  and inne bóstwo – cf. KB2 współtowarzysze poza Bogiem (X, 66), K3 inni niż Allach (X, 67) as well as niedołężne bóstwo (XXV, 3) – cf. in KB2 and K3 bogowie poza Nim (XXV, 3 and XXV, 4), ar.  iftarà rendered as bóstwa zmyślone – cf. in KB2 to, co wymyślili (XI, 21), in K3 to, co zmyślali (XI, 22), Ar.  naṣīr expressed as obrońca, wsparcie – cf. in KB2 and K3 pomocnik (e.g. IX, 116), and Ar.  bāṭil translated as (bóg) zmyślony – cf. 7 26 Cf. ibidem, pp. 82–83. 727 Cf. ibidem, p. 114. 728 Cf. ibidem, pp. 109–110. 729 Cf. ibidem, p. 115.

The distinctiveness of the translation

255

in KB2 and K3 fałsz (XXXI, 30 and XXXI, 31), Ar. coll.  ǧinn rendered as genjusz – cf. duch (KB2, K3), and also dżinn (KB2) or jinn (K3), Ar.  malak translated as anioł, and also as jeźdźcy uzbrojeni, zastępy niebieskie – cf. anioł (e.g. KB2 III, 125 and K3 III, 126), Ar.  rasūl translated as posłaniec niebieski, anioł śmierci, goniec, sługa zemsty – cf. posłaniec (e.g. KB2 XXIX, 31 and K3 XXIX, 32), Ar. coll.  ǧund expressed by zastęp, and also straż aniołów, zastęp aniołów, pułk – cf. wojsko (KB2), zastęp (e.g. K3 XXXVI, 29), Ar.  ḥaras translated as czujny zastęp – cf. straż (KB2 LXXII, 8 and K3 LXXII, 9), Ar.  kafūr rendered as niewierny (XVII, 29)  – cf. niewdzięczny (KB2 XVII, 27 and K3 XVII, 28), Ar.  ‘aṣī as nieposłuszny – cf. as buntownik (KB2 XIX, 44 and K3 XIX, 45), Ar.  šayṭān explained as szatan, and also as czart, duch, kusiciel, pokusiciel – cf. szatan (e.g. KB2 XXIX, 38 and K3 XXIX, 39), Ar.  tanzīl rendered as pochodzić od, zesłać, czynić obietnice – cf. objawienie (e.g. KB2 XXVI, 192 and K3 XXVI, 193), and also zwiastun (KB2 XLI, 4), Ar.  hudan translated as prawidło spraw, prawidło obowiązków, prawidło wiary, światłość narodów, światło, przewodnik (II, 181), skład świętéj wiary, skład prawdziwéj wiary/skład wiary prawdziwéj – cf. przewodnictwo (e.g. KB2 II, 185; XL, 54; K3 II, 186; XL, 55) and also droga (e.g. KB2 VI, 88) and droga prosta (KB2), Ar.  bušrà expressed by szczęście (XLVI, 11), obietnice Pańskie – cf. radosna wieść (KB2) and dobra nowina (K3), Ar.  kalima[t]‌translated as wyrok, pismo święte – cf. słowo (e.g. KB2 XI, 110 and K3 XI, 111), Ar.  ḏikr as pismo przestróg, nauka, stróż, przestroga, przepis – cf. napomnienie or przypomnienie (KB2 and K3), Ar.  nūr explained as pochodnia wiary – cf. światło (e.g. KB2 V, 46 and K3 V, 47), Ar.  rasūl rendered as posłaniec, posłaniec Boży, prawdziwy posłaniec, and also as kapłan, Apostoł, Apostoł prawdy, prorok, prorok pański, dostojny prorok, sługa, sługa wiary – cf. posłaniec (e.g. KB2 II, 98 and K3 II, 99), as well as posłaniec pewny, posłaniec jasny, posłaniec jawny, wysłany (KB2), Ar.  mursal translated as posłaniec, posłaniec Boski, and also as sługa Najwyższego and apostoł and tłumacz Nieba – cf. posłaniec (KB2 and K3) and posłany (KB2, K3) and also wysłannik (KB2), Ar.  kaḏḏāb expressed by oszust and fałszywy prorok – cf. kłamca (KB2 and K3) and wielki kłamca (K3), Ar.  arsala translated as być posłany and zwodziciel – cf. wysłać (e.g. KB2 XXV, 56 and K3 XXV, 57), zostać posłany (KB2), Ar.  aẖ is Apostoł (XXIX, 37), and Ar.  aẖ + Ar.  hum is posłaniec Władcy światów – cf. (ich) brat (e.g. KB2 XXIX, 36 and K3 XXIX, 37), Ar.  sibṭ explained as dwunastu Apostołów – cf. plemię (KB2 III, 84 and K3 III, 85), Ar.  ẖayr as szczególny sługa – cf. najlepszy (KB2 XXXVIII, 48; K3 XXXVIII, 49), Ar.  kāḏib ‘liar, cheater’; ‘deceitful, false, lying, dishonest’ as szalony and zwodziciel (VII, 64) – cf. kłamca (KB2 VII, 66 and K3 VII, 67), Ar.  šā‘ir as autor, wierszo-pisarz – cf. poeta (e.g. KB2 XXI, 5; LII, 30 and K3 XXI, 6; LII, 31), Ar.  anḏara explicated as opowiadanie słowa wiary – cf. ostrzegać (KB2 XXXII, 3 and K3 XXXII, 4), Ar.  mu‘allim translated with a use of phrase temu człowiekowi kazano mówić (XLIV, 13) – cf. pouczony (KB2 XLIV, 14 and K3 XLIV, 15), Ar.  āya[t] as podziwienie świata – cf. znak (KB2 XXIII, 50 and K3 XXIII, 51), Ar.  rid’ as pomoc (XXVIII, 34) – cf. pomocnik (KB2 XXVIII, 34 and K3 XXVIII, 35), Ar.  ṣāliḥ as wywyższony (III, 34) – cf. sprawiedliwy (KB2 III, 39 and K3 III, 40), Ar.  amkana as pośrednik ich losu – cf. dać władzę nad

256

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

nimi (KB2 VIII, 71 and K3 VIII, 72), Ar.  imām as kapłan, powiernik, naczelnik – cf. przywódca (e.g. KB2 XXI, 73 and K3 XXI, 74), Ar.  sāḥir as czarodziej, czarnoksiężnik, kuglarz – cf. czarownik (e.g. KB2 LI, 52; K3 LI, 53), Ar.  amīn as wierny (XXVIII, 26), posiadać zaufanie – cf. godny zaufania (KB2 and K3), Ar.  ittaba‘a ‘follow, to something after’; ‘track somebody, observe, walk behind somebody’; ‘examine, study’; ‘investigate’; ‘be driven by something’; passive ‘have successors, heirs’ as być posłuszny (XXXIII, 3) – cf. iść za czymś (e.g. KB2 XXXIII, 2; K3 XXXIII, 3), Ar.  istahza’a as przedmiot pośmiewiska, przedmiot szyderstwa – cf. wyśmiewać (się) (e.g. KB2 XXXVI, 30 and K3), Ar.  yawm translated as sąd, dzień, chwila, czas – cf. dzień (e.g. KB2 LXXVII, 13 and K3 LXXVII, 14), Ar. combination  yawm +  al-qiyāma[t] rendered as dzień Sądu, dzień Sądu ostatecz­ nego, dzień ogólnego zmartwychwstania – cf. Dzień Zmartwychwstania (e.g. KB2 LXXV, 1 and K3 LXXV, 2), Ar.  yawm and Ar.  ‘aẓīm expressed by Sąd ostateczny, dzień ostateczny (XXXIX, 15), dzień sądny (XLVI, 20) – cf. Dzień Wielki/ Wielki Dzień and Dzień Straszny/straszny dzień (KB2 and K3), Ar.   yawm al-ḥisāb translated as dzień rachunku, dzień Sądu – cf. Dzień rozrachunku (KB2), as well as Dzień Rozliczenia (K3), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-faṣl as dzień rozłączenia, dzień rozłączenia się, dzień rozdzielenia, dzień odłączenia się, chwila rozdzielenia – cf. Dzień Rozstrzygnięcia (KB2, K3), Ar.  al-yawm + Ar.  al-āẖir explained as dzień zmartwychwstania, dzień sądu – cf. Dzień Ostatni (e.g. KB2 II, 8. 62. 126 and K3 II, 9. 63. 127), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-fatḥ as dzień ten – cf. Dzień Zwycięstwa (KB2, K3), Ar.  al-fatḥ translated as sąd (XXXII, 28)  – cf. zwycięstwo (KB2 XXXII, 28 and K3 XXXII, 29), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  min + Ar.  allāh as dzień rozdzielenia – cf. Dzień od Boga (KB2), dzień od Allacha (K3), Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ǧam‘ as dzień powszechnego zebrania and dzień straszny – cf. Dzień Zgromadzenia (KB2, K3), Ar.  maw‘id explicated as dzień (XVIII, 57)  – cf. wyznaczony czas (KB2, K3), Ar.  aǧal translated as czas, godzina, czas oznacz­ ony, koniec – cf. termin (KB2 and K3), Ar.  as-sā‘a[t] as godzina, tamten świat – cf. (ostatnia) godzina (e.g. KB2 XIX, 75 and K3), ta godzina (KB2), Ar.  wa‘d as godzina (XXI, 97) – cf. obietnica (KB2 XXI, 97 and K3 XXI, 98), and also Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ḥasra[t] – czas wzdychania, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ad-dīn – dzień sądny, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-waqt + Ar.  al-ma‘lūm – czas oznaczony, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ‘asīr – dzień straszliwy, chwila straszna, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  alīm – dzień sądu, dzień boleści, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  qamṭarīr – dzień okropności, etc. KB1 is also characterized by the predominance – in comparison with other translations – of amplification trends, and thus of a high frequency of terminological clusters in which two-word structures730 or more than two-word structures predominate, e.g. complex nominal groups (a two or more word structure often has an ornamental function) or subjective clauses, being often an equivalent of one word in the original text, as well as unique phraseology, often extrapolated 730 Cf. the examples, pp. [218–222] in this monograph.

The distinctiveness of the translation

257

from the books of the Bible or from Catholic tradition731. The unique equivalent of Ar.  amr and  allāh is also the expression pomsta niebieska and godzina as an equivalent of Ar.  wa‘d. Moreover, chwila is a denomination of the Day of the Last Judgement and at the same time an equivalent of Ar.  yawm, as well as godzina as an original translational solution for Ar.  aǧal and also the word czas that renders Ar.  yawm. Ar.  aǧal + Ar.  allāh was translated as czas naznaczony. These denominations are also of Biblical origin. Other equivalents of Christian provenance – also original in comparison with the 20th-century translations – are the following: Sąd całego świata or tamten świat, explicated Ar.  amr + Ar.  as-sā‘a[t]‌and Ar.  as-sā‘a[t]. In addition, the author of the translation did not retain the lexical and syntactic order of the original text and therefore, the content of the Qur’an was rendered in a free way. It is also characteristic of him to treat each verse separately, without taking into account the contextual relationships in the entire surah. This caused a breakdown of the original text and thus, the translation does not fully reflect the Qur’anic style732. Inaccuracies can also be seen in the interpretation of individual verses, resulting, for example, in the addition of words, and sometimes whole sentences of interpretative nature to the content of the original text (cf. the literary monuments of Tatars of the GDL), e.g. translators specified subject in places where in the original Arabic text, there is only implied subject – cf. aniołowie niebiescy (II, 30), duch nieposłuszny (XXXVIII, 77), Anioł Pański rzekł do niego: Męczenniku wiary! Wnijdź do ogrodu rozkosznego (XXXVI, 25), odpowiedział duch buntow­ niczy (XV, 39–40), Prorok opuszczając lud, rzekł (VII, 77), Napróżno, odpowiedział Prorok, chcecie pokonać obrzydzenie, jakie ku niej mają ci, co zemną wierzą (VII, 86), mówią Mahomet jest jego opowiadaczem (X, 39), Mojżesz tłumacz nieba działał cuda przed Faraonem (LI, 38), and they also introduced words or expressions as glosses (especially the explanations of foreign terms), e.g. Co myślicie o bóstwach El-Lata i Al-Ozza? I o Menacie, trzeciem ich bożyszczu? (LIII, 19–20), nauki zesłanéj dwom aniołom zamieszania Harut i Marut (II, 96), Anioł Sydżil księgę zamyka (XXI, 104), zrobię cię naczelnikiem, imamem ludu (II, 118). Other examples of using interpretative expressions are, for example, supplementing the translation with various appositions and details in order to facilitate the understanding of the meaning, e.g. by providing a definition of a subject or object that is clearer than the one in the original text – cf. Ar.  mā + Ar.  ašraka – bożki zmyślone (X, 19), Ar.  bāṭil – (bogi) zmyślone, Ar.  iftarà – bóstwa zmyślone, Ar.  šarīk – przedmioty czci, Ar.  rasūl – anioł śmierci, Ar.  mala’ + Ar.  a‘là – zgromadzenie duchów Niebieskich, Ar. coll.  ǧund + Ar.  lam a particle of negation + Ar.  ra’à – straż aniołów niewidzialnych oczom (IX, 40), zastępy aniołów niewidzialnych oczom (IX, 26), Ar.  rūḥ – Gabryel, Ar.  ṣayḥa[t]‌– Anioł niszczyciel, Anioł zatracenia, Ar. 7 31 Cf. the examples, pp. [215–216]. 732 N. Jord, op. cit., pp. 41–42 (comments on the translation).

258

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

 ḥāfiẓ – Aniołowie stróże, Ar.  mutalaqqin – Anioł (L, 16), Ar.  ṣāliḥ – duchy cnotliwe, Ar. coll.  ǧinn – duch tajemny, genjusz buntowniczy, Ar.  qarīn – wieczny towarzysz, Ar.  Al-Kitāb + Ar.  mufaṣṣal – Koran, Ar.  Al-Kitāb – pięć ksiąg Mojżesza, pięć ksiąg, Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  mūsà – Pentateuchum, Ar.  kalima[t] – pismo święte, Ar.  bayyina[t] – Koran (z nieba), Ar.  aẖ + Ar.  hum – posłaniec Władcy Światów, Ar. pronoun  huwa – Syn Marji (XLIII, 59), Ar.  ṣāḥib + Ar.  al-ḥūt – ten, którego wieloryb połknął, Ar.  al-fatḥ – sąd, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ‘aẓīm – Sąd ostateczny (LVIII, 22), Ar.  yawma’iḏin – dzień sądu najwyższego, Ar.  hunālika – dzień Sądny, Ar.  hāḏā – prawdziwe zmartwychwsta­ nie, Ar.  al-yawm + Ar.  al-āẖir – dzień zmartwychwstania and dzień sądu and others, e.g. Wierni, wierzący w Jedyność Najwyższego (XCVIII, 6), Gdy ci czytam księgę (LXXV, 18), On widzi Gabryela (LXXXI, 23), ona (Arka) służyć będzie za przykład potomności (XXIX, 14), Ty wiesz [Muhammadzie], co to jest Siddżyn (LXXXIII, 8), Anioł Pański rzekł do niego: Męczenniku wiary! Wnijdź do ogrodu rozkosznego (XXXVI, 25), Jezusowi Synowi Marji, dałem Proroctwo i Ewangelją (LVII, 27), prawdziwy […] narodzony ze słowa Bożego; Ty tylko masz napominać tych, którzy mają bojaźń Boga (LXXIX, 45), Tacy są, między synami Adama, Noego, Abrahama, i Izraela, Prorocy, których Bóg osypał łaskami swojemi (XIX, 59), on często w niebiosa przesyłał modły czystego serca (XXXVIII, 44), pytaj­ cie się Żydów i chrześcijan (XXI, 7), nauka poprzedzająca zbliżenie ostatecznego sądu (XLIII, 61), Syn twój będzie dla ludzi łaską Boga (XIX, 21), and by specifying of a broader context (an extension of the original text, using various appositions), e.g. Ar. expression  mā +  ašraka – mieszać do czci fałszywe bóstwa (XXVII, 61), stawiać obok niedołężne bóstwa (III, 144), Ar.  taqī ‘pious, religious, Godfearing’ – Pobożność i dobroczynność były jego udziałem (XIX, 14), Koran jest słowem posła Bożego, Anioła świętego, where Anioł święty (refering to Gabriel) is an explanation of poseł Boży (LXXXI, 19), the introduction into the text of translation of denominations of evil spirits such as:  duch nieporządku (L, 5), duch niezgody różnić będzie resztę śmiertelnych (XI, 120) or a description of Satan that is richer than the one in the original text – kusiciel rodzaju ludzkiego (XXVIII, 14), Ojcze mój! nie czcij szatana, on był nieposłusznym rozkazom Najwyższego (XIX, 45), and also Gdy ci czytam księgę przez Anioła Gabryela (LXXV, 18), On widzi Gabryela na wysokości obłoków, niosącego światłość (LXXXI, 23), okropny głos trąby Israfila (LXXX, 33), Źli będą zapisani w księgę Siddżyn i pójdą na dno tegostrasznego piekła (LXXXIII, 7), Bóg ogłasza tobie słowo swoje, nazywać się będzie Jezus Messjasz Syn Marji (III, 40), Jestem sługą Boga, odpowiedziało dziecko, On dał mi Ewangelją i uczynił Prorokiem (XIX, 31), Abrahama, który jednego tylko czci Boga i zasłużył być Jego przyjacielem (IV, 123), Adam nauczył się od Pana słów modlitwy, Bóg wrócił się do niego, bo chętnie zwraca się do człowieka żałującego (II, 35), Stworzyliśmy i ukształciliśmy was w pierwszym człowieku (VII, 10), etc. In the analyzed translation, one may also perceive a departure from the source text in rendering of the original Qur’anic combinations – cf. the phraseological components of the semantic field Wiara w Dzień Sądu Ostatecznego (the Belief in

The distinctiveness of the translation

259

the Day of the Last Judgement), e.g. Ar.  yawm + Ar.  lā + Ar.  istāẖara ‘be late, be delayed, be at an end’ + Ar.  an + Ar.  huwa + Ar.  sā‘a[t]‌+ Ar.  wa + Ar.  lā + Ar.  istaqdama ‘call, invite’ – Dzień oznaczony przyjdzie (XXXIV, 29); ar.  yawm + Ar.  hum + Ar.  allaḏī + Ar.  wa‘ada – Dzień im przyobiecany; Ar.  yawm + Ar.  qāma + Ar.  al-ḥisāb – dzień Sądu ostatecznego; Ar.  yawm + Ar.  šaẖaṣa + Ar.  fī + Ar.  huwa + Ar.  baṣar – dzień ostateczny; Ar.  yawm + Ar.  lā + Ar.  maradd + Ar.  la + Ar.  huwa – dzień ostateczny; Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ra’à + Ar.  hiya – dzień straszliwy; Ar.  yawm + Ar.  kāna + Ar.  šarr ‘evil, foul, bad’; pl ‘evil, malice, baseness, wickedness’ + Ar.  huwa + Ar.  mustaṭīr ‘menacing, looming (about danger)’; ‘approaching’ – dzień rozrzucający na wszystkie strony nieszczęście; Ar.  yawm + Ar.  hum + Ar.  allaḏī + Ar.  fī + Ar.  huwa + Ar.  āṣ‘aqa – dzień ich zguby; Ar.  yawm + Ar.  atà + Ar.  hum + Ar.  ‘aḏāb – dzień zemsty. There is here a trend to reduction, which results in redundancy in the target text in relation to the original, and thus, in the transformation of the original text. The translational methods of modification of the original text, featured in KB1, also include the following transformations that have already been listed and described: definite description, substitution, simplification, amplification733 or the introduction of author’s comments. This is largely the result of free translation, which is interpretation often based on Christian tradition and derived from it. Examples of interpretative expressions occur, for example, in the field of linguistic items describing the Day of the Last Judgement:  translation of Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ‘abūs + Ar.  qamṭarīr as dzień okropności, w którym obłok smutku pokryje nasze oblicza; Ar.  ilà + Ar.  allāh + Ar.  marǧi‘ + Ar.  antum jako stanąć na sąd Boży and also Ar.  ilà + Ar.  marǧi‘ + Ar.  antum as powrócić do mego sądu, and also Ar.  fa- + Ar.  li + Ar.  allāh + Ar.  ḥuǧǧa[t]‌+ Ar.  bāliḡ as Sąd Pański będzie sprawiedliwy; należy on do Boga (VI, 150); Ar.  yawm + Ar.  qāma + Ar.  al-ḥisāb as dzień Sądu ostatecz­ nego; Ar.  al-fatḥ as sąd; Ar.  as-sā‘a[t] as tamten świat; Ar.  amr + Ar.  as-sā‘a[t] – Sąd całego świata with an explanation – dosłownie: Interes godziny; Ar.  li + Ar.  yawm + Ar.  lā + Ar.  rayb + Ar.  fī + Ar.  huwa – sąd Twój; Ar.  yawm + Ar.  šaẖaṣa + Ar.  fī + Ar.  huwa + Ar.  baṣar – dzień ostateczny; Ar.  yauma’iḏin – dzień sądu najwyższego; Ar.  hunālika – dzień Sądny; Ar.  hāḏā – prawdziwe zmartwychwstanie; Ar.  al-ḡāšiya[t] – dzień który wszystko obejmie; Ar.  al-yawm + Ar.  al-āẖir – dzień sądu, dzień zmartwychwstania; Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ǧam‘ – dzień straszny, etc. Therefore, this is a translation that can be characterized by a great wealth of synonyms.

733 Cf. the examples, pp. [217–222] in this monograph. See also pp. [211–215].

260

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

3.5 A comparison of Tatar religious literature and the translation by the Vilnius Philomaths on the basis of the example of the translation of Islamic religious terminology In the case of Polish translations of the Qur’an, it is difficult to talk about the continuity of translational tradition because both Tatar tefsirs, as well as translations of the Philomaths and of Józef Bielawski, as one can demonstrate, were formed almost independently of one another. It should also be borne in mind that there was a narrow range of the reception of Tatar translations, limited, for example, by the barrier of the alphabet, to diaspora communities734. This, however, does not change the value and importance of Tatar translations for historical, linguistic and literary studies. They are in fact the only Polish translations from Arabic preserved from the period of the Middle Polish language. Moreover, as was already mentioned, some tefsir researchers (e.g. Suter), and researchers of prayer and liturgic texts, i.e. khutbahs (e.g. Drozd) suggested that there was a connection between Tatar translation texts and the 19thcentury translation printed in Warsaw in 1858. In the first half of the 19th century (after 1824), the hermetism of Tatar translations inspired two Philomaths from Vilnius, Fr. Dionizy Chlewiński and Ignacy Domeyko, who “made in fact the first philological translation of the Qur’an into Polish. They admitted, however, that »even though this will be an inaccurate and inadequate work, for the time being it wil meet their [i.e. Lithuanian-Polish Tatar Muslims] needs, so that they will be able to understand themselves«”735. Analysing the methods of translation and translatorial solutions offered by Philomaths, especially their use of Christian terminology featured and established in the Polish language, a number of similarities can be indicated between the Tatar translations (also the aforementioned ones) and the translation of the Philomaths. These include, among others: 1. Similarity of interpretation of some Qur’anic proper names and the ways of their adaptation with clearly attested Turkish mediation, and 2. The methods of translation that were adopted

a. departure from the original text manifested by the tendencies to use amplification, definite description, or substitution, b. a similar way of rendering of Ar. iḍāfa,

734 Cf. P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 126 – to paraphrase – “The Tatar Qur’an-Tefsir was used only in a narrow circle of followers of Allah, which was dictated, for example, by the use of the Arabic script, the writing of their religious tradition.” 735 C. Łapicz, Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna…, p. 303.

A comparison

261

c. in terms of equivalence – the adoption of similar translatorial solutions, e.g. the use of translational analogy to Christian terminology or substitution of the same lexical and phraseological equivalents for Arabic religious terms.

Note 1 KB1 mentions the names of several deities, which have their origin in pre-Islamic religions. These are original names, untranslatable into Polish, of Oriental etymology, appearance in their morphologically and graphically Slavicized forms, and are usually inflected. One may perceive a noticeable Turkish influence in their adaptation, e.g. reflexation of a>e – cf. Menat (Ar.  Manā[t]‌) and others736. Furthermore, common both to KB1 and to Tatar writings in the GDL are such proper names as Israfil (cf. KM, KL, KŁ, Ww), Pentateuchum (Ww), and a Latinized form of the name of the holy prophet of Islam – Mahomet (Ww) used in parallel with Mohammed, and the denomination Chrystus (Ww). KB1 also gives its own proper names Sydżil (with a gloss: tak się zowie Anioł, który zapisuje czyny ludzkie) or Dulnun (with a gloss: to jest mieszkaniec ryby, czyli Jonasz), which are absent in other translations of the Qur’an. It also uses Latinized forms of original Arab names, which can express translator’s uncertainty in relation to given equivalents – cf. Jan (Yahia). Note 2 In KB1 one may perceive methods of translation analogous to Tatar translations. They include: a. departure from fidelity to the original text by: – supplementing the text of the Qur’an with various additions, containing an explanation of difficult words, unfamiliar realities, foreign names, or short exegetical comments, e.g. Co myślicie o bóstwach El-Lata i Al-Ozza? I  o Menacie, trzeciem ich bożyszczu? (LIII, 19–20); Anioł Sydżil księgę zamyka (XXI, 104) and others737, –  adding evaluative attributes, performing an important moral function, that is to emphasize positive and negative qualities, e.g.  *bezsilny bałwan, niedołężny bałwan (V, 80), *bożki zmyślone, *fałszywe przez was wystawione bożyszcze, *bogi fałszywe/fałszywe bogi, *obce bóstwa, (bogi) zmyślone, *niedołężne bóstwa, zmyślone bóstwa (XXVIII, 75)/bóstwa zmyślone (VII, 135), fałszywe bóstwa (XXVII, 61)/bóstwa fałszywe (XVI, 3), urojone bóstwa (XVI, 20)/*bóstwa urojone (XIX, 84), *nieznane bóstwa (XVI, 58), *bóstwa pozbawione mocy i wyrozumiałości (XXXIX, 44), *bóstwa pozbawione wszel­ kiej władzy (XVI, 75), *fałszywe obrazy (XXIX, 52), *niedołężni opiekunowie, *Anioł niszczyciel, Anioł zatracenia, *Anioł święty, *duchy tajemne, *genjusze buntowniczy, duch nieposłuszny, słudzy zemsty, *czujne zastępy, duchy cnot­ liwe i przewrotne (LXXII, 11), *zły duch/złe duchy, duch nieporządku, duch

7 36 The examples, pp. [179–181] in this monograph. 737 The examples, pp. [257].

262

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

niezgody, *aniołowie zamieszania, straszliwie przerażający Aniołowie (LXVI, 6), *wybrani Aniołowie (LXXXIII, 21), święte księgi/*księgi święte, pismo przestróg, *pismo święte, *święte tablice, przykazania jasne, *prorocy pańscy, dostojny prorok, *fałszywy prorok, *Apostoł prawdy, prawdziwy posłaniec, posłaniec Najwyższego, *posłaniec Boży, sługa boski, słudzy wiary, *szczególni słudzy, sługa Najwyższego (XXVI, 176), wielki powiernik Najwyższego, *nau­ czyciel od Boga wybrany, *srogie kary (XI, 28), Straszny cios, etc., – the already mentioned supplementation of the translation with appositions and some details to facilitate the understanding of the meaning, e.g. by the specification of subject or object – cf. Ar.  bāṭil – (bogi) zmyślone, Ar.  iftarà – bóstwa zmyślone, Ar.  šarīk – przedmioty czci, Ar.  rasūl – anioł śmierci and many others738, by the extension of the original text as inclusions and interjections, e.g. Ar. expression  mā +  ašraka – mieszać do czci fałszywe bóstwa, stawiać obok niedołężne bóstwa and others739, and also the introduction to sentences with an implied subject of an appropriate noun in the function of a subject, e.g. aniołowie niebiescy, duch nieposłuszny740, etc., –  the introduction, usually in parentheses, of intratextual glosses (which function as contextual explanations, entailing the provision of more than one equivalent of the original etymology, and also show the translators’ hesitation as to the use of the correct form of foreign origin, absent in the Polish language)741, e.g. Będziecież żądać od waszego Proroka (Mahometa) (II, 102); Najwyższy zwiastuje Tobie narodzenie się Jana (Yahia) (III, 34); wielka nowina (dzień zmartwychwstania) (LXXVIII, 2); przychodzę do was ze znakami (cudami) Boskiemi (III, 43); przyjmijcie księgę przysłaną wiernym (Mahometanom) (III, 65); badaj nas (ra’ina) (IV, 48); jeden (Eblis) nie oddał hołdu (VII, 10); Ta księga (Koran) pochodzi od władcy światów (XXVI, 192); Dla czego nie widzę tu dudka (hud hud) (XXVII, 20); Oni będą witać się w dzień zmartwychwstania, i życzyć pokoju (selam) (XXXIII, 43); same tylko gorzkie owoce rodziły, tamaryndy i cokolwiek nabaków (lotus) (XXXIV, 15); Przekleństwo bałwanom! Tafsir (wytłumaczenie tego wersetu) (XXXIX, 67); On (Mojżesz) wzywał Pana przeciw bezbożnemu narodowi (XLIV, 21); Wielka liczba starożytnych (od Adama do Mahometa) (LVI, 13); I nie wielu

7 38 The examples, pp. [257–258]. 739 The examples, p. [258]. 740 The examples, p. [257]. 741 Cf. aziz ‘wielmoża’ (a mighty lord) – this word is absent in dictionaries of the Russian language and in dictionaries of the Ruthenian languages, hence the use of equivalents: Postnikov – богатый; Sablukov and Krachkovsky – вельможа; Nikolaev – Азиз (an Egyptian administrator) – he was not sure of the meaning, therefore he gave the explanation in brackets – see I. Kończak, Kształtowanie się rosyjskiej terminologii islamistycznej…, p. 84.

A comparison

263

z nowożytnych (po przyjściu Mahometa) (LVI, 14); przykład ich pobożności (Abrahama i jego rodziny) (LX, 6); wyobrażenie tej przepaści piekielnej (Sakar) (LXXIV, 27); A zaniedbujecie przyszłość (życie wieczne) (LXXV, 21); Przyjdzie dzień, w którym słońce zamknie się (lub zgaśnie) (LXXXI, 1); pyszniącego się Iblisa (Eblis) (II, 32); jesteś na świętej dolinie Tuwa (Tuba) (XX, 12) etc. – cf. ukazanie się Diedzała (Antichrysta) (Ww, p. 23), isa (Jezus) był z mursielow bożych (W, p. 362) and others. Czesław Łapicz draws attention to another feature that links Tatar translations with KB1, namely the presence of extra-Qur’anic comments – cf. “It is interesting that similar extra-Qur’anic additions also occurred in the first printed translation of the Qur’an of 1858, ascribed to Jan Murza Tarak Buczacki. They are introduced in the title: Nabożeństwo mahometańskie czyli islamskie, to jest zbiór modlitw codziennych i świątecznych. Dla użytku prawowiernych wyznawców wiary islamskiej obrządku sunnietskiego, przygotował Władysław Kościuszko (The Muslim or Islamic Service, which is a Collection of Daily and Festive Prayers. For the Use of Orthodox Followers of the Islamic Faith of Sunni Islam Preared by Władysław Kościuszko) (p.  581). It cannot be ruled out that in this case the author, in a sense, followed the model of the structure and content of manuscript tefsirs of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims. In later Polish translations of the Qur’an such additions are no longer present”742. The features discussed above are also exponents of a free translation. These are also the already described translatorial methods of modification of the original text such as amplification and definite description743, as well as exegetical commentries and interpretations744, e.g. the use of terms jedność, jedyność in reference to Allah as an attempt to explicate, for example, Ar.  allāh (II, 120; XI, 2), or the supplementation of the Qur’anic context with an expression Jedyność Najwyższego, Ar.  ilāh + Ar.  min + Ar.  arḍ rendered as Bóstwa, które sobie na ziemi obrali (XXI, 21), Ar.  mā + Ar.  ašraka as mieszać do czci fałszywe bóstwa or stawiać obok niedołężne bóstwa, Ar.  ḥanīf characterized as ten kto się prawdziwie przywiązuje do Pana (III, 96), czcić Boga jedynego (II, 129), czcić Jego jedność (XVI, 121), Ar.  naḏīr +  mubīn – on, któremu było poleconem opowiadać tylko słowo Boże (VII, 183), Ar.  anḏara – opowiadanie słowa wiary, Ar.  ṣābir – w pokorze cierpieć, Ar.  bašīr – człowiek, któremu polecono opowiadać Boskie obietnice, pocieszać nadzieją szczęścia, Ar.  li + Ar.  ‘ilm + Ar.  as-sā‘a[t]‌ – nauka poprzedzająca zbliżenie ostatecznego sądu, Ar.  qawl + Ar.  al-ḥaqq – prawdziwy […] narodzony ze słowa Bożego (XIX, 35), Ar.  mursal – poselstwo sług Najwyższego, tłumacz Nieba, Ar.  ẖātam + Ar.  an-nabī – ostatni z Proroków, Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  allāh – tłumacz niebios, tłumacz nieba, Ar. 

7 42 C. Łapicz, Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna…, p. 72, footnote No. 2. 743 The examples, pp. [218–222]. 744 Cf. the examples of the semantic field Wiara w Dzień Sądu Ostatecznego (the Belief in the Day of the Last Judgement), p. [259].

264

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

arsala + Ar.  huwa – tłumacz nieba, Ar.  arsala + Ar.  bi + Ar.  āya[t] – Pośrednik woli mojéj (XLIII, 47), Ar.  dā‘/in + Ar.  allāh – nauczyciel od Boga wybrany, Ar.  ‘alà + Ar.  šari‘a[t] + Ar.  min + Ar.  amr – naczelnik świętej wiary, Ar.  amkana – pośrednik ich losu, Ar.  fa- + Ar.  ḏakkara – nauczanie twoim jest obowiązkiem, Ar.  awwāb – on często w niebiosa przesyłał modły czystego serca and Napróżno, odpowiedział Prorok, chcecie pokonać obrzy­ dzenie, jakie ku niej mają ci co zemną wierzą, Ar.  an + Ar.  kāna + Ar.  min + Ar.  muslim – niebo, które (mi) zaleciło Islamizm, etc. and substitutions, often also of interpretative overtones, e.g. Ar.  rūḥ + Ar.  al-quds – duch świątobliwości, Ar.  mutalaqqin – Anioł, Ar.  raḥma[t] + Ar.  li + Ar.  qawm – rękojmia łask niebieskich or łaska nieba and Boskie miłosierdzie, Ar.  qawl + Ar.  ṯaqīl – poważne pismo (LXXIII, 5), Ar.     mā + anzala + min + qabla – starożytne pisma (V, 64), Ar.  hudan + Ar.  allāh – światło wiary, Ar. coll.  ahl + Ar.  aḏ-ḏikr – ci, którzy przyjęli pisma and Żydzi i chrześcijanie, Ar.  yawm +  ‘aẓīm – Sąd ostateczny, Ar.  al-yawm + Ar.  al-āẖir – dzień zmartwychwstania, dzień sądu, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  alīm – dzień sądu, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-fatḥ – dzień ten, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  qāma + Ar.  al-ḥisāb – dzień Sądu ostatecznego, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ḥisāb – dzień Sądu, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ǧam‘ – dzień straszny, Ar. .  yawm + Ar.  ra’à + Ar.  hiya – dzień straszliwy, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  min + Ar.  allāh – dzień rozdzielenia, Ar.  ḥuǧǧa[t] + Ar.  bāliḡ – Sąd Pański sprawiedliwy, as well as reductions745, e.g. no equivalent for Ar.  raqīb ‘observer, controller, supervisor, censor’; ‘standing guard, guard, guardian’ in the sentence On nie wyrzecze ani jednego słowa, któreby nie zostało dokładnie zapisa­ nem (L, 17) and others, b. a similar way of rendering the Ar. iḍāfa Iḍāfa (status constructus) in translation usually assumes two forms: a noun with a genitive attribute746 or a noun with an adjectival attribute. In KB1, analogously to Tatar translations, a high frequency of the model N[Aa is observed. Arabic syntactic structure is therefore reflected in such combinations as: Ar.  kitāb + Ar.  allāh – księga boska, Ar.  kalima[t]‌+ Ar.  allāh or ar.  rabb – słowo Boskie and słowo Boże (XI, 120), Ar.  rasūl + Ar.  allāh – posłaniec Boży and sługa Boży, Ar.  ‘abd + Ar.  allāh – sługa Boski, Ar.  ibn + Ar.  allāh – syn Boży, Ar.  qawl + Ar.  al-ḥaqq – prawdziwy […] narodzony ze słowa Bożego, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  ad-dīn – dzień sądny, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-ǧam‘ – dzień straszny, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-fatḥ – dzień ten, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-waqt + Ar.  al-ma‘lūm – czas oznaczony, Ar.  yawm + Ar.  al-āzifa[t] – straszliwa chwila, Ar.  aǧal + Ar.  allāh – czas naznaczony, Ar.  amr i Ar.  allāh – pomsta niebieska,

7 45 Cf. the examples that confirm simplification, pp. [217–218]. 746 Cf. the examples that confirm the model N[Ag, pp. [246–247].

A comparison

265

c. in terms of equivalence – denominations common both for Tatar translations and KB1, e.g. Pan Bóg (II, 83), jedyny Bóg (XX, 98), Bóg Jedyny (XLI, 13), Bóg jeden (CXII, 1), aniołowie Boscy, Aniołowie niebiescy, Aniołowie stróże, słudzy Boga, księga prawdy (XXXIV, 3)  or księga Prawd (XXXIV, 3 and V, 59), słowo Boże or słowa Boże, słowo Boskie, księga Boża, księga (B)boska, pismo święte, posłaniec Boży, sługa Boży (IV, 169), syn Boży, syn Marji, Sąd ostatecz­ny, sąd Boży, dzień Sądny, dzień ten/ten dzień, dzień straszny/straszny dzień and jedność (II, 120), Jedyność (XCVIII, 6 – in relations to God), jedność Boska (III, 89), jedność Boga, czart (XXXI, 20), wykład wiary (XLI, 2), święty Koran (LXXV, 32; LXXXII, 22; LXXXIV, 19), Apostoł (XXXV, 22), prawdziwy Apostoł (XXXVIII, 70), etc. In addition, in KB1 for Ar. term imam (a borrowing which occurs in the 19thcentury Polish) a native equivalent naczelnik was proposed (This may also be due to the influence of the translation of the Qur’an into Russian – cf. naczelnik nauki in the translation of Postnikov) – similarly in T1 one may read lūdzem imamem i pōwodirem; to translate Ar. term  āya[t]‌the equivalents used were księga (a synecdoche) and wiersz (II, 209 and XXV, 34) – cf. T1, and Ar.  sūra[t] was translated as rozdział (XI, 16). However, researchers of religious writings of the Tatars of the GDL indicate that there are substantial differences between the Tatar tefsirs and Qur’anic quotations, featured, for example, in the catechism of J. Sobolewski and similarities between the translation of I. Domeyko and D. Chlewiński, and the work of J. Sobolewski. According to C. Łapicz, “the citations used by Sobolewski vary significantly from their versions contained in Tatar manuscripts, written in the Arabic script, in tefsirs and kitabs, and probably also in hamails […] therefore it can be concluded that Tatar manuscripts were not the source of religious content used by Sobolewski in his publication”, while “the authors of Muslim kitabs drew Qur’anic quotations from Tatar manuscript tefsirs. This is apparent from a comparative list of the relevant passages of several tefsirs and of the Kitab Milkamanowicza.” Furthermore, “the formal and content-related identity of the citations taken from the publication of Sobolewski and in the translation version of the Philomaths is clear and unambiguous; the formal and content-related similarity of these two versions with the relevant passages of the Qur’an published in print in 1858 and signed by J. Buczacki is also obvious and justified. However, at the same time, it strikes us that the relevant passages of the holy book in the manuscript tefsirs of the Tatars of the GDL are completely dissimilar in their form and content. These findings and comparisons prove that Sobolewski in his work did not use tefsirs or fragments of tefsir translation of the holy book of Tatars of the GDL, which were also cited and commented on in the Muslim kitabs and hamails. Therefore, in his publication there is a lack of the information about the existence of such manuscripts, their importance, and their role in the religious practice of the Tatars of the GDL. It can be believed that the Arabic alphabet made them hermetic to the public, or to the vast majority Lithuanian-Polish Muslims, being inaccessible, not only for everyday religious practice, but also for occasional religious reading. It is intriguing, however, that

266

The translation of Islamic religious terminology

the compendium of Sobolewski itself became not only a source of religious knowledge for Muslims, but also an anonymous source of citations for later popularizers of the principles and teachings of Islam, especially for later copyists of hamails. I. Radziszewska, for example, found some excerpts from the work of Sobolewski in a hamail of Jasionówka, in a description of the Muslim nikah and customs and traditions related to the Tatar wedding ceremony, including religious rites. The compiler of this hamail obviously did not indicate the publication of Sobolewski as the source from which he drew the appropriate passages for his manuscript. It is worth looking into the relationship between the publication of Sobolewski and a set of prayers included in the edition of the Qur’an of 1858, as well as with a description of prayer rituals, entitled Nabożeństwo mahometańskie czyli islamskie, to jest zbiór modlitw codziennych i świątecznych dla użytku prawowiernych wyznawców wiary islamskiej obrzędu sunnietskiego, przepolszczył Władysław Kościuszko deserves. A. Drozd even said (and not without reason) that in this case, there is no doubt a case of literary theft because Kościuszko was neither their translator, nor the author of the collection, which is signed in his name”747.

747 Cf. C. Łapicz, Źródła cytatów koranicznych w Wykładzie wiary machometańskiej…, p. 200.

4 Conclusion If we count from the year 1397 (indicated by Jan Długosz in Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae 965–1480)  – the date of the settlement of the newcomers from the Golden Horde in the lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania – the Tatars have been contributing to Slavic culture and history for 620 years – individuals who are derived from the Turkish peoples of Eastern Europe and northern Asia. Complete assimilation with the Christian surroundings was expressed in the material and non-material cultural heritage of this ethnic group, which includes both architectural structures as well as a peculiar religious literature, including the third translation of the Qur’an into a European language (i.e. Polish). These monuments of religious writings were developed in conditions which are particular from a historical and sociological point of view – in a multicultural, multilingual Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, in a Muslim community, whose representatives lived in the conditions of a diaspora surrounded by Christians. The aforementioned monuments constitute the most important part of the cultural heritage of the Tatars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. A huge spiritual, literary and cultural value is attached to these monuments. They constitute testimony to the strong links between the multi-themed culture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the civilization of Islam, which is expressed in the exceptional combination of seemingly contradictory and mutually exclusive elements but which actually constitute a harmonious whole both in the social life as well as in the literary works of the Tatars of the GDL, namely elements of Oriental Muslim culture with elements of Christian culture748. The collaboration of Catholics (the Vilnius Philomaths) and Muslims (the Tatars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) in the translation and publication of a 19th-century translation of the Qur’an was a direct result of the cultural tolerance which had dominated in the GDL. Another translation, the one by Józef Bielawski, is a completely new chapter in the history of the interpretation of the holy book of Islam. The translations of the Qur’an into Polish were presented in the context of European translatorial tradition, starting from the Biblical-Psalter literature of the Middle Ages, through the Renaissance humanist translations all the way to the 19th-century and 20th-century translations of holy books, including the translations of the Qur’an into Russian (Postnikov, Nikolaev, Sablukov, Krachkovsky). One established that in the case of Polish Qur’anic translation it is difficult to speak about continuity of translatorial tradition, for both the Tatar tefsirs and the translations of the Philomaths ( the one by Father Dionizy Chlewiński and Ignacy 748 According to M. Lewicka, Identyfikacja i analiza tekstologiczno-filologiczna arabskiej warstwy językowej…, p. 107.

268

Conclusion

Domeyko) as well as the one by Józef Bielawski were developed most probably independently of each other. Therefore, two radically different groups of texts became the objects of the present study. The first group is constituted by Tatar manuscript texts, mainly tefsirs, but also kitabs and chamails, which use the Arabic script and which require transcription and/or transliteration. The range of their reception was limited – inter alia by the barrier of the alphabet – to the community of the diaspora. Therefore, one conjectures that the 19th-century translators of the Qur’an into Polish did not use the religious books of the Tatars of the GDL directly, although their translation was developed in a community of Tatar people (historical sources prove that communal reading sessions devoted to Muslim religious books during specially organized Lithuanian-Polish meetings of the adherents of Islam were held; moreover, they collaborated with a Tatar from Nowogródek, Józef Sobolewski, who was at the same time writing a catechism of the Muslim faith entitled pt. Wykład wiary machometańskiej czyli iślamskiej) and which was intended for them. The second group is constituted by print editions of the translations of the Qur’an into Polish: the Koran of 1858 ascribed to J. Buczacki, which is identical to the Koran translated by the Philomaths and which was probably published in 1848 in Poznań. Only 11 surahs are preserved from this translation. Then there are the Wersety z Koranu translated by Jakób Szynkiewicz and published in 1935, the Koran translated by Józef Bielawski, published in 1986, and the so-called London Koran published in 1990. As far as the Tatar manuscripts are concerned, it was established that Tatar translators translated from Arabic, and used Turkish translations (including tefsirs) as translation aids or translated directly from Turkish, using the methods of the translation of sacred books into national languages which had been developed previously (this is confirmed by the fact of the existence of a suprareligious translatorial tradition), starting from the selection of the type of translation through specific translatorial solutions all the way to the adaptation of Old Polish vocabulary, especially religious vocabulary, to the concepts and the terminology of Islam. In this context, a peculiar feature of the Muslim translations has to do with the fact of making reference – justified by the Christian surroundings – to the BiblicalPsalter literature and to the translations of the Scripture, including inter alia using them as translation aids during the translation of Islamic source texts. Research in this field is conducted in two directions:  the use in the process of translation of the Christian translatorial tradition as a model and the incorporation of appropriately modified Christian expressions into the Muslim religious writings. As far as print editions of the translations of the Qur’an are concerned, we established that the 19th-century and 20th-century translators of the Qur’an made reference to the European Qur’anic translatorial tradition.

Conclusion

269

In this work, an attempt was made to compare and to describe the aforementioned texts in the light of the modern theories of translation and to present them in the context of Biblical and Qur’anic translatorial tradition. In the theory of translation, the assumption is that every text is translatable749. According to the proponents of cognitivism, the translatability of a text is determined by its interpretability resulting from the similarity of human cognitive capacity. A consequence of this kind of translatability is the recognition of adequate equivalence as the most important and central problem in the theory of translation. Untranslatability applies only to some specific cases, being exceptions to the general principle of translatability of one language into another. Translation theorists present two main reasons for untranslatability: 1. The language into which translation is to be made does not have the linguistic structures that exist in the original language, and 2. In the language into which a translation is to be made it is impossible to render certain concepts that are easily expressed in the original language750. All proponents of cognitivism emphasize that the second of these factors has a much greater impact on difficulty of translation. According to them, the basic translational problems are the following: the differences between source and target cultures – specific to a particular culture’s perception, conceptualization and evaluation of the world expressed (or reflected) in the language, cultural differences in associations and semantic fields, including translation of the so-called erudite allusions; religious and axiological differences, including the translation of religious terminology; civilizational differences; time distance between the appearance of the original text and its translation; the polysemy, figurativeness, allusiveness, and symbolism of the original text; adequate rendering of the realities of the original text, including original proper names, the so-called realogisms. Therefore, translation appears to be not only a clash of two languages, but also it is the collision of two cultures, in which the translator assumes the role of a mediator. His task is both to translate concepts, and also to equip text recipients with whatever cultural information is necessary for its understanding751. The advocates of linguistic theories are of the opinion that the cultural elements are present in the text in a secondary form, that is they are always realized by linguistic exponents, and they are linguistically encoded. Language is not just a product of culture, but above all it is the means of conveying it. Therefore, it is not possible to translate culture, but only its linguistic components752.

749 Cf. the works quoted in this monograph are by O. Wojtasiewicz, E. Tabakowska, K. Hejwowski, A. Bednarczyk, R. Lewicki, A. Dębski, M. Pławski and many others. 750 O. Wojtasiewicz, op. cit., p. 30. 751 According to E. A. Gutt, op. cit., p. 27. 752 Cf. A. Dębski, op. cit., pp. 11–39.

270

Conclusion

With reference to the positions presented, in this monograph, the postulate of the unity of extra-linguistic knowledge and the knowledge encoded in language was adopted, while recognizing the incompatibility of cultures as an important issue in translation of the texts of the Bible and the Qur’an. A linguistic item, in fact, is not an autonomous entity and it must be examined against the background of the knowledge and cognitive abilities of the participants of communication. Equivalence, therefore, depends at the same time on the language and on the text (linguistic, social and historical conventions should also be taken into account – pragmatics). It is therefore a dual perspective: 1. Top-down – the dependence of the text on extra-linguistic conditions of the original language and its translation; 2. Bottom-up – the use of adequate and equivalent characters, and their combinations in the linguistic systems of source and target languages753. Basically, there are two strategies of dealing with a translated text754: authenticity – a high degree of saturation with the realities of the original text (e.g. retaining foreign terminology) and adaptation  – translation of the unknown by means of what is known, when the situation in the original text is not known in the target culture (e.g. the introduction of local colour). The result of adaptation is compensation for cultural differences – a translator creates a situation which is regarded as equivalent, at the same time, taking advantage of extra-textual tools (commentaries, glosses, etc.). However, the greater degree of adaptation, the lower the authenticity of the text, for transfer to another cultural tradition, as a rule, implies shifts and transformations. Therefore, depending on the adopted strategy a choice of specific translation solutions is made, e.g. borrowing or transferences755, calques and lexical and semantic equivalents (for example recognized equivalents, functional equivalents – the so-called functional analogues, descriptive analogues, etc.). The type of translated text and translation requirements associated with it is an extremely important issue. The source texts analyzed in the work are heterogeneous holy books having the nature of Divine Revelation, which are distant from the cultural, religious and linguistic realities of Europe. Therefore, they require of their translators both the greatest possible philological faithfulness, as well as the fullest possible comprehensibility of their message. In translating the text of the Qur’an the theory of i‘ǧāz constitutes additional difficulty and limitation.

7 53 Cf. M. Pławski, op. cit., p. 183. 754 It is assumed in this study that a strategy of translation is a translator’s preferred way to manage the whole text or its significant parts, aiming to solve specific translation tasks. 755 In the translation theory, there are also other definitions of transfer, e.g. reproduction without any explanations (the use in a translated text of a word/expression of a base language that is not assimilated in the target language – this can include transliteration) and reproduction with an explanation – a footnote, a gloss (paratext) – see K. Hejwowski, op. cit., pp. 76–78.

Conclusion

271

Moreover, the Bible and the Qur’an are literary texts. They both meet the conditions of textuality, such as cohesion, and coherence, as well as those of discourse, such as intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality, and intertextuality. They perform such functions as representational (informative), expressive (the aesthetic aspect), and appellative (the dialog aspect) functions. Another difficulty in their translation is the need to find a balance between the poetic artistry of the original text, and care for theological and doctrinal correctness (the combination of poetic and pragmatic functions). Translation theorists notice an analogy between the translation of a literary text, especially a specialized text, which contains the terminology of the field, and the translation of a humanistic scholarly text756. In J. Delisle’s translation typology of literary texts, Biblical and legal texts are classified within one group757. Translation of specialized texts presupposes a knowledge of the terminology and implementation of a demand for precise and unambiguous transfer of the meaning of individual terms (an equivalent has in fact a relative cognitive function)758, as well as the possession of substantial knowledge, i.e. a knowledge of the reality referred to in the text. A specialized text also allows for lack of equivalence – the lack of translation of certain text elements (e.g. terms) and for changes and transformations to be made, e.g. in relation to terms, foreign phrases or other realogisms. Therefore, a translator’s comments are also acceptable (substantial: supplementary, explanatory, and linguistic, included in the main text – meta-text in parentheses or without a note, as well as footnotes and marginal glosses) on a lexical level and on the level of translation difficulties, expertiserelated issues, etc. All these techniques are intended to enable faithful rendering of the original content in the spirit of the environment for which the translation is designed. The aim of translating a specialized text is therefore not only to provide information, but also to preserve the image of the world in terms of author’s way of explaining phenomena, perceiving reality, etc.

7 56 Cf. Z. Kozłowska, op. cit., p. 75. 757 J. Delisle, La traduction raisonnée (Manuel d’initiation à la traduction professionelle. Anglais → Français), Ottawa 1993, p. 47. 758 In religious texts, an additional difficulty in the implementation of this demand has to do with the awareness of the untranslatibility of religious terminology. In the literature of the subject, it is considered to be without equivalents (cf. M. Mocarz, Przekaz leksyki religijnej w przekładzie wobec oczekiwań odbiorców, [in:] Przekład – Język – Kultura, ed. R. Lewicki, Lublin 2002, p. 105). Terminological equivalence (according to S. Kaufman, Problemy ekwiwalencji terminologicznej, [in:] ibidem, p. 161) occurs where referential accuracy is necessary i.e. when there is reference to the same object or concept. A concept is a basic unit of description – the identification with the meaning of the term in its referential layer (assuming that it is possible to talk about concepts described in one language using the linguistic means of another language). Thus, the primary goal in translation of religious terminology is to care about the faithfulness of rendering the content on a denotation level and seeking to achieve the most complete semantization possible.

272

Conclusion

Equally important is also the intended recipient of the message, the so-called “target reader” or a terminal recipient, from one who needs to have everything explained to one who is a specialist, an academic759. Modern theory of translation accurately identifies the competences of a good translator. These include:  A knowledge of the culture of the original language and the target language; expertise in the depicted reality; a knowledge of both languages – the original and target languages; the ability to fit together different structures on the basis of their relative similarities; a knowledge of the theory of translation; familiarity with the type of the text and the ability to create it; a knowledge of other texts in the language of translation, especially parallel ones; communication skills; the use of non-linguistic knowledge about the recipients; insight in efforts to render the meaning of the text; predispositions and personal qualities, etc.760 It could be postulated that the Tatar translators of the Qur’an met the requirements of a good translator of a specialized text, and the holy book of Islam is undoubtedly such a text. They ranked not only among the Tatar intellectual elite, but also among the educated and enlightened elites of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They were known for their knowledge of the Muslim and Christian culture and religion  – they professed and practiced Islam in a Christian environment, they were familiar with current religious issues – they were responsive to all polemics and religious discussions. They also had expertise in the realities described in the Qur’an, as evidenced by their sophisticated erudite techniques – a knowledge of Qur’anic commentary literature, existing not only in Arabic, but also in other languages common in the world of Islam, especially in the Turkic languages and in Persian, excellent orientation in the Biblical and Psalter religious literature of the Middle Ages and their contemporary Renaissance literature (the acquisition and adaptation of Christian themes and entire religious texts in accordance with the canons and tenets of Islam and the assimilation of Biblical ideas). Moreover, they were distinguished by their exquisite philological expertise, or their knowledge of the original languages in which the source text had been written – Arabic (in this respect, they were among the very few who knew this language at that 7 59 Cf. K. Hejwowski, op. cit., p. 59. 760 According to ibidem, p. 154 (also p. 55, p. 95) – see also Z. Kozłowska, op. cit., pp. 56–57. In the literature of the subject, there are various approaches to translation competences. Therefore, also other models can be presented, for example, general linguistic competence (both grammatical and lexical) in both languages, and a knowledge of interlingual equivalence. On the basis of these two competences the translator can master linguistic exponents of cultural, intercultural, and pragmatic competences – cf. A. Dębski, op. cit., p. 35. There is also talk about a receptive competence in the source language, and a productive competence in the target language, a supercompentence allowing transformation of information between the textual and linguistic system of the source culture and the textual and linguistic system of the target culture – cf. M. Pławski, op. cit., p. 184.

Conclusion

273

time), Ottoman Turkish, to a lesser extent Persian, and the languages into which this text was to be translated (linguistic competence)  – Polish and Belorussian. Moreover, they used Latin in quite an effective way; hence they are usually said to be multilingual (bi- or polyglots). They also knew diverse ways and methods of translation of a religious text – in this area, they actively used the achievements of European Biblical translation tradition. Therefore, they took the trouble of implementing the elementary criteria of adequate translation, and in appropriate cases they also translated ad sensum. Their high translation awareness manifested itself, for example, in the pursuit of a stylistic pattern in the translation of Muslim texts into Polish, and consequently in a deliberate choice of vocabulary, seeking terms close to the original meaning, precise determination of native equivalents for terms, proper names or “theologically important” words or retaining them in their original form (translocated or Slavicized) due to the lack of their adequate equivalents in the language of translation, ensuring that translation was in compliance with the Arabic canonic version. They were also renowned for their knowledge of translation and editorial methods (e.g. in the field of translation transformations, translator’s approach to grammar and vocabulary of the original text, etc.). Their translation dilemmas, and at the same time knowledge of humanist texts were also reflected in inclusions, glosses, annotations, and commentaries present in the text of the translation or on its margins. Subsequent translators of the Qur’an, the Philomaths of Vilnius Fr. D. Chlewiński and I. Domeyko, were also known for their knowledge of the culture and religion of Islam, but ideologically and culturally they were closer to the tradition and religion of Christianity. Therefore, in their translation, one may discern a low awareness of the doctrinal differences between Islam and Christianity, manifested, for example, in rendering the original Qur’anic combinations with peculiar phraseology extrapolated from the books of the Bible or the Catholic tradition, with a direct consequence in denominations of essential concepts of the doctrine of Islam, which were inadequate with regard to the teachings of Islam, and sometimes even contrary to the canons and tenets of the Muslim faith. Fr. D.  Chlewiński and I.  Domeyko were aware of the imperfections of their translation, and they informed their readers about this, at the same time announcing that their translation would respond to the needs of Slavic Muslims assimilated in a Christian environment. Such an assumption undoubtedly contributed to the choice of a translation strategy, namely of adaptation. They made the first philological translation of the Qur’an into Polish. Their translation is therefore rich in expressions, and even whole phrases of Christian provenance, added by the translators in order to make the difficult text of the Qur’an easy for its readers. This is not a unique approach in the European tradition of translation. The first translations of the Qur’an into Russian performed a similar function. The earliest of such translations, the one by Postnikov, is interpretative and commentatory in its nature, since its primary purpose was to introduce the text of the Qur’an to the tsar (hence, for example, the presence of Old Russian with strong influence of Church Slavonic, and reductions or adding whole parts of text absent in the

274

Conclusion

original, and designed to teach Islam). In subsequent translations – of Nikolaev and Sablukov – one may likewise perceive a pursuit of primarily native equivalents, often transferred from Christianity. It has been indicated in the literature of the subject that the Vilnius translators were able to use the French translation of Claude Étienne-Savary in their work, published in Paris in 1782 (re-edition in 1821). And some tefsir researchers (e.g. Suter) and prayer and liturgical texts, the so-called khutbahs (e.g. Drozd) suggest the existence of relationships of this 19thcentury translation with Tatar translation texts. However, opinions of researchers on this topic are divided. It is impossible to deny that the authors of this 19thcentury translation had excellent philological expertise – they knew Arabic, and above all, they used Polish in an effective way so that they could successfully make the transformation of the source text through simplifications, reductions, amplifications, univerbizations, descriptions, and substitutions, and thus they created semantic or formal units related to Qur’anic word combinations. This is undoubtedly an expression of the originality and innovativeness of its translators. Moreover, this is testimony to the important role of the Philomaths in the shaping of Polish Qur’anic phraseology. One of the Polish Arabists who demonstrated high qualifications and competence was also Józef Bielawski. His translation of the Qur’an is the fruit of years of work, and was preceded by a long-standing interest on the part of the author in the religion of Islam, Arab culture, and the Qur’an. The erudite and philological expertise of the translator was impressive – an excellent knowledge of the Arabic language (the Arabic original based on the edition of Cairo, published in 1923 was the basis for his translation) and the use of the best translations of the Qur’an into European languages, recognized as such by the author (cf. R.  Bell, R.  Blachère, B. Hamza, I. Y. Krachkovsky, R. Paret, etc.). Bielawski was also well-versed in the ways and methods of translation. He consistently implemented literal translation, and in places that were obscure to the recipient, elements of free translation were introduced (cf., for example, Wujek’s translation). This was a conscious choice of the translator of the Qur’an, conditioned by the principles of adequacy of style and literality. His translation fully confirms the implementation of the assumptions adopted by the translator, to which he included “fidelity to the Arabic text and clarity of thought.” Therefore, it retained far-reaching faithfulness to the original text in terms of both translations of individual words, as well as of word combinations. The majority of idiomatic expressions are in fact rooted in the Arabic original. It should be also added that monomorphic idioms, characterized by their constancy of lexical composition, are the most numerous among metaphorical expressions, and the original Qur’anic text is rich in them. Therefore, the translation by Bielawski plays a significant role in the process of forming the resources of Qur’anic phraseology. In addition, he also used Polish poetic prose in his translation to render in the most faithful way, even formally, the original Arabic text. Therefore, translation appears to be an extremely complicated and complex phenomenon, which involves difficulties, both in terms of adoption and consistent

Conclusion

275

implementation in the translated text of determinants of a single type of translation, as well as the choice of specific ways and methods of translation. This is particularly evident in Tatar translation texts. What types of translation can be identified and distinguished in the religious writings of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims? The answer to this question is not clear because of (among other reasons) the heterogeneity of Tatar religious literature, as well as the heterogeneity of adopted strategies, ways and methods of translation. The texts of Tatar religious literature in the GDL vary in terms of volume, genological classification, and their subject matter. Tefsirs, kitabs and hamails can be distinguished among them. As for the Slavic languages, into which Muslim religious texts were translated, from Arabic or Turkish sources, linguistically mixed texts prevail:  Polish-Belorussian and Belorussian-Polish. This illustrates the Belorussian-Polish diglossia, which prevailed among Tatars (cf. especially kitabs and hamails). The exceptions are Tatar tefsirs, as well as prayer and liturgical texts, which were translated into Polish (the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish) because of their high rank as the revealed word of God. The hierarchy of monuments of Tatar literature is therefore also reflected in the way of their translation. The following types of translation can be distinguished based on the criterion of fidelity to the original text: literal, philological, communicative and free761. In the light of the study, it can be argued that in the Tatar tefsirs all these types of translation coexist. They can be described as faithful, literal translations762, whose distinguishing features are: observance of the principle of verbal and grammatical adequacy of translation to the original, which manifests itself, inter alia, in slavish adherence to morphological and syntactic (e.g. calquing of Arabic postpositional word order; the same order of words in translation as in the original text, although one Arabic word is sometimes signed by several Polish words), and even graphical (e.g. the Arabic script) structure of the original; its interlinearity; the care of orality in translation, because its perception was based solely on hearing  – hence the faithful reproduction of the rhythmic and rhymed prose, so-called saǧ‘; calquing of the original linguistic structures – Arabic word combinations, etc. Tatar tefsirs can also be characterized as philological translations. They sometimes, in justified 761 According to A. Lenartowicz-Zagrodna, op. cit., p. 294. It should be borne in mind that words of different languages are rarely absolute equivalents, and their ranges of meaning often do not coincide. Therefore, absolute equivalence does not exist, because there are no literal equivalents of lexical items. This assumption also applies to terminology – cf. K. Hejwowski, op. cit., p. 31. 762 The assumption of translatologists that is important here is that literal translation is not the same as transcoding (the substitution of one text by another) because the translator must draw from the linguistic conventions of the language of translation, which are not always equivalent to the conceptual system of the original language. This is done by a subjective reading of the original text by its translator. The original text and the target text cannot be identical – only their degree of similarity or approximation can be determined.

276

Conclusion

cases, depart from the grammar of the original to render in the most adequate way its semantics, while taking into account the cultural context. This is manifested in Tatar translations in the GDL, among others, in a careful treatment of the semantics of translation through the introduction to the text of interpretations given in commentaries; the retention of foreign elements in the text (culturally and linguistically) in order to render adequately or make more understandable the realities of the Qur’an – cf. the retention of translocated or Slavicized terms and proper names relating to the central concepts of the religion of Islam. Their presence in the literature of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims is a testimony of translation awareness of the inadequacy or untranslatability of strictly Muslim terminology (the lack of fullyfledged Slavic equivalents relating to the reality of the Muslim world). In addition, it expresses the pursuit of literalness, and precision in denomination of designates from the world of religion and culture of Islam, and it is also consistent with the strategy of translation adopted by Tatar translators – the authenticity of the message (cf. quotational translation), so that the recipient could access the original stimulus and interpret it on his own (for this, however, the appropriate knowledge is necessary, e.g. translation for coreligionists – a knowledge of the culture of the original text)763. Retaining original terms or proper names may, however, cause problems in perception at the level of semantics. In addition, in verbal translation (word for word, literal), and philological (or functional, dynamic) the process of translation is treated as an operation on texts, and mental operations are not perceived764. Hence Tatar religious texts are also marked by the communicative translation which is based on elimination of the cultural context of the original when it is incomprehensible to the recipient. It is based on adaptation. In relation to the Tatars of the GDL this was manifested in the introduction to the translated text of similar things and phenomena of surrounding reality, that is, elements of the Christian religion and culture. Therefore, in these writings, Christian religious vocabulary is present, including phraseology of Biblical provenance, as a rule of another intension and extension. Its existence in Tatar translation texts is based more on translational 763 A similar function is performed by the modern 20th century translation of the Qur’an into Russian by I. Y. Krachkovsky. This is a translation designed for Muslims. It is characterized by a predominance of foreign terminology, including foreign names, registered in their original Arabic form. For comparison’s sake, the example of translation of the Bible by Sz. Budny can be cited. Budny, contrary to the generally accepted mode of the Latinization of proper names, deliberately kept the original names in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. According to R. Zarębski, Nazwy osobowe w polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu…, p. 68 “most Greek forms functioning as transcribed quotations occurred in modern translations seeking to render in the most faithful way the spirit of the original text.” It therefore indicates the similarity in terms of the use of the term Semitisms in translations BN and BT (cf. p.107). 764 Cf. K. Hejwowski, op. cit., p. 47.

Conclusion

277

analogies than on the substitution of Muslim terms adequate and consistent with the doctrine of Islam with terms taken from Christian religion and culture. Therefore, the task of translators is to concentrate all efforts to make a choice of the most appropriate lexical and semantic equivalents for the words of the source text. Adaptation can also justify the presence in the literature of Slavic Muslims of indigenous realities and local colour or local customs, e.g. of complimentary clauses – cf. brat or jego miłość. These changes are motivated by a desire to improve the comprehensibility of the text, while maintaining the rigor of translation accuracy. A free attitude to the original text also serves to increase the degree of intelligibility of the text. This is called translation ad sensum. It consists in rendering not just individual words, but also the thoughts contained in individual verses. The assumed linguistic and stylistic freedom cannot, however, disturb the sense of the original (retaining the meaning of the source unchanged) and the understanding of doctrinal concepts. In the religious literature of the Tatars of the GDL, a number of exponents of free translation can be indicated, e.g. enriching the quality of vocabulary seen in linguistic equivalence, that is the differentiation of the meanings of words depending on the context (the so-called logical development), leading to rendering of a Arabic lexeme with various Slavic equivalents (the consequence of this is the use of various equivalents, including a high frequency of translation doublets); supplementing the text of translation with explanations of difficult concepts, original proper names, and other denominations of foreign origin, and thus signalling and specifying their designation, as well as the use of circumlocutions as one of the ways of rendering foreign terms; omitting proper names unknown to the recipient (when they were not necessary for the understanding of the content) or replacing them with native names; adding to the names of major characters evaluative attributes in order to emphasize their positive or negative qualities (emotive and axiological functions) and to increase the emotional charge of the message; complementing translation with different appositions and details to facilitate the understanding of the meaning, e.g. by clearer than in the original definition of a subject or an object, the introduction of a proper noun in a function of a subject to sentences with an implied subject; the placing in the text of translation numerous explanations, signalled by a metalinguistic circumlocution to jest, znači śe; referring to living everyday speech, that is to colloquial language (in a function of strengthening comprehensibility and fluency of translation) e.g. through expressive means such as diminutives, particles, and interjections; adaptation of the content to the linguistic consciousness of the recipients by replacing abstract concepts with concrete – the presence of modulation; the introduction of numerous references between sentences (wtedy, a wtedy, w tym czasie), emphasising the succession of time and cause/effect relationships; accurate signalling the utterances of characters, and many others. In Tatar religious literature there are also present texts accompanying the translation, for example, glosses, annotations, meta- or extra-textual commentaries, serving both to explain the text (interpretations, and interpretation of mystical, allegoric, and symbolic content), as well as influencing its linguistic form. The free nature of translation is consistent with the

278

Conclusion

principle of sola Scriptura, one of whose objectives was to make the content of the religious message accessible to the recipient through a pursuit of clarity and equivalence, as well as concern for comprehensiveness. The features of a free translation can also be indicated in Tatar kitabs or hamails – cf. the presence in their content of passages of the Qur’an, Muslim commentary literature, as well as passages from the Bible (especially from the Old Testament), and from Christian religious literature. It is worth noting that in other types of monuments than tefsirs there is a clear predominance of communicative and free translations over the literal. The coexistence of various types of translation in the religious literature of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims is the result of a postulated and assumed translation strategy, namely to maintain a balance between authenticity and adaptation in order to render faithfully “szczyrego Słowa Bożego” (the true word of God) and make its content accessible to the faithful. These were demands common for Renaissance translators of religious text of Revelation status. An important methodological problem is, therefore, to consider from the position of linguistics the so-called translation choices, depending on the strategies of translation and its dominant features. As a consequence of adaptation, there are in fact shifts and transformations, usually necessary to preserve the fidelity of the message, for its accuracy and precision. In Muslim translation texts one may perceive univerbization trends (their results are surpluses in translation, for example the presence of instances of synonymy in translated texts), amplification tendencies (their consequences are identifying or defining denominations, in which the second element serves to make the meaning more precise, helps to determine an object, and has a decisive influence on the equivalence of references), the presence of periphrases and definite descriptions, which not only give names but also enrich and differentiate the onomastics of a literary work that has an impact on its stylistic value, the introduction of glosses in the text (words added in order to emphasize, strengthen or clarify the text), the use of modifiers of meaning, simplification trends, reductions (e.g. ellipsis, anacolutha), substitutions, inversions, as well as shifts in grammatical categories (e.g. substantivization of adjectives), inflection and syntactic changes (new syntactic structures, the evolutionary transition from genitive to adjectival attribute), etc. Moreover, the following translation methods of modification of the original text can be mentioned: semantic transformations, including formation of neosemantisms (parallel development of concepts and associated terms, as well as phraseology, e.g. native words shape and precise their meaning after the pattern of foreign words; the specialization of foreign vocabulary, formerly borrowed in the Polish language), morphological transformations, including formation of neologisms (morphological derivatives dominate, which were formed in the process of suffixation – the use of productive suffixes in Polish in a given period) or the use of so-called occasionalisms. These types of innovations were used in order to replace foreign or native words objectionable for ideological reasons. They served the need for expression of the new ideological content. Therefore, a distinctive feature of religious writings of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims is differentiation of vocabulary,

Conclusion

279

expressed in the multiplicity of equivalents as a result of a prudent search for the most adequate equivalence of the original vocabulary. Translation can also be considered from a stylistic point of view. In this classification, there are informal (kitabs, hamails), and artistic translations (tefsirs). A paraphrase in turn is a separate type of translation. According to Irena Kwilecka and Anna Lenartowicz-Zagrodna765, in previous studies of Biblical translation texts what in reality is a free translation was mistakenly called paraphrase. I completely agree with such proposition also in relation to Tatar translations in the GDL. Indeed, it is impossible to accept the opinion of P. Suter, followed by A. Drozd that a Tatar tefsir is partly a paraphrase of the original text. It would be contrary to both the definition of a paraphrase as “conscious stylization, allusive imitation of a style and poetics of another literary work, author or genre in a way that allows the original to be recognized” (according to Edward Balcerzan, in a paraphrase a “translator could change the course of events presented in the work, transfer the story to new geographical and cultural settings, and modify the ideology of the original text”)766, as well as to the attitude of Muslims to the text of the Qur’an (see – the characteristics of religious texts with Revelation status767 – for example the authenticity and the limited role of fiction; compliance with the principle of sola Scriptura and going back ad fontes; the i‘ǧāz theory, etc.). Muslim believers could not, therefore, allow themselves to make a conscious transformation of the source text, because of its sacred character, requiring the greatest possible philological faithfulness to the original. Their tendency to produce a faithful verbal translation was also conditioned by the theological nature of their literature, ancillary to the doctrinal assumptions, hence stylistic and compositional layers had to be subordinated to the overriding theological and doctrinal content of Islam. Thus, whatever some researchers of Tatar religious literature recognize as a paraphrase should rather be called the introduction to the text of exegetical comments and interpretations and qualified as yet another feature of a free translation. The study of Old Polish translations of the Bible also proves that they were faithful translations or had some features of a free translation. Translation ad sensum expressed a tendency to make the Scripture accessible to the faithful unfamiliar with Latin. The same objectives guided translators of Muslim religious writings – to respond to a strict demand for faithfulness to the original text, and at the same time to make the content of the Qur’an accessible to Slavic followers of Islam, unfamiliar with Arabic, which resulted in, for example, numerous comments and explanations of esoteric Muslim terminology. The objectives set by Tatar translators were therefore consistent with those which were behind the translations of the Bible into vernacular languages, namely the implementation of a demand to make the sacred books accessible, by making their message clear 7 65 A. Lenartowicz-Zagrodna, op. cit., p. 293. 766 Ibidem, p. 292. 767 See p. [98] and following in this monograph.

280

Conclusion

and understandable, and also the explanation and clarification of the basic canons of faith in Slavic languages, which were understandable for and used by Tatars. Therefore, the exponents of translation ad sensum based on the work Historia scholastica by Pierre Comestor can be definitely applied to Tatar religious writings in the GDL768. Tatar religious writings in the GDL are marked by far-reaching faithfulness to the original text, retaining many of the features of a free translation. A consequence of Tatar translation activities was a widening of the resources of Polish religious terminology and nomenclature in the field of the religion and culture of Islam. A pioneering role in its creation can be assigned to Muslim translators. A Polish and even European Qur’anic tradition of translation in fact did not exist at that time. Slavic translation was probably the third consecutive – after the Latin and the Italian translation based on the former – translation of the Qur’an into a European language and the first translation of this book into Slavic (the northeastern borderland variety of Polish). In its creation, Lithuanian-Polish Muslims referred to the authority of earlier translations of the Bible. The Reformation was in this regard their ally. It had a direct influence on the development in Europe, including Poland, of a non-confessional tradition of translating the Scriptures, which was common to Catholic and Protestant translations and independent of ideological and religious influences. In their search for the closest possible expression of the message of the Bible they did not hesitate to use the translation made from another, unacceptable doctrinal perspective. The Protestant school of translation of the Bible into vernacular languages born in Western Europe in the 16th century combined the humanist desire for maximum approximation to the original text with pragmatism – the need to use these translations in the teaching of the church. The research confirms that in their translation work, the Tatars of the GDL benefitted from the achievements of their predecessors. The reference made by Tatars of the GDL to the Old Polish Biblical and Psalter literature and Polish translations of the Scriptures went essentially in two directions – making use of Bible translations in the process of translating Muslim source texts, that is the study of translations (Protestant, for example, BB and BN, and Catholic, for example BW), as well as the acquisition and adaptation of passages from Old Polish religious literature and excerpts from Polish translations of the Bible according to the needs of Islam, which was professed by the translators. Therefore, Tatars used similar translation solutions to those which were adopted in Bible translations. They borrowed individual lexical and phraseological substitutions; they used specific morphological models in the creation of morphological derivatives; they used legal terminology; they interpreted certain forms of the original language in a similar way, because translations of the Qur’an and Bible translations had a similar translation base  – texts in the Semitic languages (hence, for example, calquing the Semitic 768 Cf. pp. [131–132].

Conclusion

281

way of forming superlatives, the presence of stylistic Semitisms [replicas in terms of syntax and phraseology], e.g. participial phrases, gerund phrases [tautological structures], rendering combinations of a noun with an adjective or indefinite participle with a nominalized adjective or participle in Gen. as a noun with an adjectival attribute, etc.). It should be added that the Tatars of the GDL undertook a dialogue with tradition because they did not copy mechanically ready-made patterns, but sought inspiration in Bible translations – they altered and modified them, as well as confronted them with their source texts and the assumptions of their religion. Moreover, as studies show, Tatar translations in terms of their relation to the pattern – the paradigm of the Polish Biblical style – not only implemented this model scheme, but also played their part in shaping it. The religious writings of Lithuanian-Polish Muslims  – especially the tefsir translations – therefore adhered to the tradition of translating holy books and their authors were familiar with the most important trends in the Polish and European literature of the 16th century. These writings are characterized, for example, by their heterogeneous nature (coexistence of native elements with components acquired from foreign languages and reflecting elements of foreign culture), linking them with the first translations of the Psalter; multiequivalent translation, confirming the Renaissance nature of translations; creating instances of synonymy, typical of Old Polish Psalter translations, and also of later translations of the Scripture into Polish; creating word-image terminology; maintaining the original foreign form of proper names, as a sign of high translation awareness and a feature of Renaissance translations (cf. a trend to retain foreign words in their original version represented by humanist writers) and graphical and phonetic-morphological variation shared with Bible translations and characteristic of the 16th century, proving the difficulty in assimilating Qur’anic onymia; etymologising proper names and terms of Arabic origin (especially those which were doctrinally and theologically important) and usually preceding their Slavic equivalent with a metalinguistic expression to znaczy, to jest as a characteristic of medieval and Renaissance free translations; inclusion of critical apparatus in the translation, namely glosses, annotations, and commentaries, which were present in all Renaissance translations of the Bible, showing philological preparation and commitment in the process of translation, etc. In terms of translation technique Tatar translations represent an innovative current of translations, referring to Renaissance humanist translations. The expression of the relationship of Tatar translations with Western humanist translations is also shown by the translators’ writing expertise, the wealth of sources they used, as well as original Arabic texts or their translations into Turkic languages as assumed translation bases. Hypothetically, it is assumed that the first translation of the Qur’an into Slavic was made directly from the Arabic original (researchers, however, are focused on an indication of that base of translation – was it the Qur’an or an Arabic tefsir, or maybe both of them?), though not without Turkish influence. Researchers of the Tatar translation literature advance the thesis that a Turkish medium could have

282

Conclusion

been the base for Tatar translators769. They cite Ottoman Turkish and Persian manuscripts of the Qur’an, which could have been models for the texts of Tatar tefsirs. It cannot be ruled out that it was translated from Turkish, but it was confronted with the Arabic base text (cf. the role of Latin and Czech translations in Polish Biblical and Psalter tradition, including the principle of sola Scriptura). Turkish influences present in the Tatar translation literature are twofold. On the one hand, there was the impact of the Turkish language, known and used by Tatars, on the language of Muslim manuscripts, and on the other hand, there were the influences of Turkish translation texts on the shape of Tatar translations (including the selection of specific lexical and semantic substitutions). Thus, Turkish translations either had an accompanying function or formed the basis of translation. Therefore, in the religious literature of the Tatars of the GDL, there is the overlapping of the medieval tradition (a continuation of the achievements of translation theory of the 15th century) and the inventiveness of the Renaissance. It is in this analogy to the 16th century printed Biblical texts, which also represent a transitional stage – they refer to the tradition of the Middle Ages, and at the same time, they enjoy the benefits of humanist Biblical studies. Therefore, they belong – in terms of linguistic features and translation techniques – to the Middle Ages and the Renaissance at the same time. However, in the case of translation of the Qur’an into Polish, as we have already seen, there is a lack of continuity of translation tradition, for both Tatar tefsirs, as well as the translations of the Philomaths and Józef Bielawski arose almost independently of one another. The reception of Tatar translations had a narrow range, limited, for example by the barrier of the alphabet mainly to the diaspora. This, however, does not change their rank and importance for historical-linguistic and literary studies. Some scholars in fact can see some connections between the Tatar texts and the 19th-century translation of the Philomaths of Vilnius. The 19th and 20th century translators of the Qur’an refer then to the European tradition of translating the Qur’an770. They, however, made a choice of different translation strategies and hence different ways and methods of translation. In the translation of the Vilnius Philomaths, one may perceive a desire to explain the tenets of Islam and make them accessible to Slavic Muslims by means of what was known to them, what surrounded

769 Cf. conclusions of P. Suter, Alfurkan Tatarski…, p. 34: „Die Hipothese einer intermediären türkischen Übersetzung ist von verschiedenen Forschern geäussert worden” s. z. B. Szynkiewicz (1935), pp. 138–139: “It is difficult to determine with certainty whether the translation had been made directly from the Arabic original or from [a]‌Turkish translation.” 770 Cf. considerations and final conclusions about the erudite and philological expertise of translators, pp. [105–109] and pp. [121–124] in this monograph.

Conclusion

283

them – Christian culture and religion. The strategy adopted was therefore one of adaptation, implying changes and transformations in relation to the original. And in the translation of J.  Bielawski, one may perceive an attempt to preserve the authenticity of the message. In both translations one may identify both characteristics that distinguish them from each other, as well as characteristics that are common to them. An overview of lexical and phraseological components in selected semantic fields shows that in the Qur’anic translation practice one may perceive primarily the use of native translation equivalents, created by linguistic mechanisms of denomination such as metonymy or neosemantization. These translations are also characterized by the use of periphrases and antonomasias. Multiequivalence can be seen in them, since most of words in the source languages are polysemic, and translators of the Qur’an tried to render that ambiguity in the text of the translation. When there is multiequivalence alternations occur:  arising from the use of words and forms belonging to the same family, but not of the same grammatical category, alternations arising from the use of words belonging to the same or a different family (also of foreign origin) and also to the same grammatical category – morphological forms, and equivalents whose meaning is different. The existence of many equivalents by which one word of the source text is rendered is often the result of contextual translation. Combinatorial, expressive and stylistic synonyms were formed this way. Therefore, the motivation of the selection of equivalents varies, mainly depending on the meaning and structure of the source text and the lexical resources of contemporary Polish. Thus, several types of motivation can be listed:  semantic (the consequence of which is the coexistence of translations belonging to different genres), compositional (the search for synonymous equivalents to render a number of synonyms in the source text), and stylistic motivation. However, in terms of the choice of particular lexical and semantic substitutions, the translation of the Polish Philomaths differs significantly from the 20th century translations of the Qur’an (KB2, and also K3). In the former, items that are semantically and formally related to original words and their combinations are predominant, which is caused, for example, by a rendering of Qur’anic phraseology using expressions, groups of words, and even whole phrases extrapolated from the books of the Bible and from Christian or Catholic tradition. This is an effect of free translation, implying changes and transformations of the source text. The most important translation methods of modification of the original are simplification and amplification. This translation is characterized by a predominance – in relation to other translations – of amplification trends, and thus of a high frequency of terminological clusters, in which there is a dominance of two-word or more than two-word structures, e.g. complex nominal groups (a two or more word structure often has an ornamental function) and subject clauses, which constitute an equivalent of one word in the original text. The sources of transformation of the original texts are also the following: definite descriptions,

284

Conclusion

reductions, and author’s comments and interpretations. The translation of the Philomaths abounds in expressions, and even whole phrases, added by translators for making the difficult text of the Qur’an accessible to its readers (cf. the monuments of Tatar literature in the GDL). Moreover, the authors of the translation did not retain the lexical and syntactic order of the original text and therefore, the content of the Qur’an was translated in a very free way. It is characteristic for them to treat each verse separately, without taking into account contextual relationships in the entire surah. This causes the breakdown of the original text and thus, translation does not fully reflect the Qur’anic style. The analysis of the translation of the Qur’an by J. Bielawski shows a different picture of equivalence in terms of individual equivalents, as well as idiomatic combinations. Therefore, it is characterized by a high frequency of quotation structures or quasi-quotations, and often literal, even grammatical calquing of the original, resulting in stylistic Arabisms and retaining the original postpositional word order (especially in expressions). The result of a free translation is a dependence of phrasemes and idioms on the original and their transfer onto native soil. Phraseological compounds, especially idioms, are in fact carriers of culture, symbols, and stereotypes. Their translation is therefore synonymous with cultural transfer. The translation of Bielawski in fact retains far-reaching faithfulness to the Arabic original. The authenticity and reliability of the message is also confirmed by the preservation of words unique to the text of the Qur’an, and adapted in the Polish language such as dżinn, imam, wezyr, sura or the presence of Qur’anisms of Arabic origin, which have entered Polish in modern times as technical terms, e.g. hanif; the presence of words of Arabic origin, typical also of non-religious texts, for example, Islam, muzułmanin, and citing original proper names, e.g. Illijjun, Sidżdżin; the translation, or search for adequate equivalence for words present not only in the Qur’an but also in the Bible, including the use of loan words existing and well-established in the Polish language. In another modern translation of the Qur’an (K3) one may clearly perceive a reference to the translation of Bielawski both in the selection of individual lexical and semantic equivalents, as well as in rendering phraseological combinations, in an attempt to preserve the original proper names. The research confirms the far-reaching dependence of K3 on KB2. This relationship is especially clearly seen in the layer of vocabulary. More results could be obtained by comparing also the so-called transborder lexemes, specific lexemes, differentia specifica in the studied texts, and the relationship between syntax and sentence structure. The distinguishing features of translation K3 are: interlinearity, making it similar to Muslim tafsirs; translocation or Slavicization of proper names – sometimes also known to Bible translations and Christian tradition; the richness of author’s comments (exegesis). And the work of Fr. D. Chlewiński and I. Domeyko, so different from the translations of the 20th century, has a number of similarities with Tatar translations in the GDL – mainly in terms of adopted methods and translation solutions, including the use of Christian terminology, present and well-established in the

Conclusion

285

Polish language. The main similarities between Tatar translations and the translation of the Philomaths are the following: 1. Analogies in the interpretation of some Qur’anic proper names and the way of their adaptation with clearly confirmed Turkish mediation; 2. Adopted translation methods: a. departure from fidelity to the base text by complementing translation with various supplements, containing explanations of difficult words, little-known realities, foreign proper names, and short exegetical comments; adding evaluative attributes; supplementing translation with circumlocutions and details to facilitate understanding of the meaning, as well as the introduction, usually in parentheses, of intertextual glosses (also in the function of etymologization of original terms and proper names)771 and the presence of extra-Qur’anic comments, b. a similar way of the rendering of the Ar. iḍāfa (a high frequency of the N[Aa model), c.  similar translation solutions, e.g. the use of translational analogy of Christian terminology or the substitution of the same lexical and phraseological equivalents for Arabic religious terms. However, the researchers of Tatar religious literature in the GDL also identify substantial differences between Tatar tefsirs and the quotations from the Qur’an present in the catechism of J. Sobolewski, as well as similarities between the translation of I. Domeyko and D. Chlewiński and the work of Sobolewski772. In the light of the studies and their conclusions, one may argue that the translation of the Vilnius Philomaths and of an Arabist, Józef Bielawski, play a significant role in building up the resources of Polish Qur’anic phraseology and in creating a specific image of the world of the religion and culture of Islam. And the function of K3 is its consolidation.

771 Placing a foreign term in brackets (after its equivalent) is considered by translation theorists as the best solution in translation – cf. Z. Kozłowska, op. cit., p. 158. 772 Cf. C. Łapicz, Źródła cytatów koranicznych w Wykładzie wiary machometańskiej…

Bibliography Literature of the subject and the abbreviations of source texts KK – Kitab z Kazania (the Kazan Kitab) (transliteration [in:] Miškinienė G., Sieniausi lietuvos totorių rankraščiai. Grafika. Transliteracija. Vertimas. Tekstų struktūra ir turinys, Vilnius 2001). ChL – Chamaił lipski (the Lipsk/Leipzig Hamail) transliteration [in:] Miškinienė G., Sieniausi lietuvos totorių rankraščiai. Grafika. Transliteracija. Vertimas. Tekstų struktūra ir turinys, Vilnius 2001). TAL – Tefsir z Olity (the Olita Tefsir) (author’s transliteration based on the system adopted in the project “TEFSIR”) T1 – Tefsir londyński (the London Tefsir or the Tefsir of 1725) (transliteration of selected fragments – mainly of surahs I, II [in:] Meredith-Owens G. M., Nadson A., The Byelorussian Tartars and Their Writings, “The Journal of Byelorussian Studies” II, London 1970, No. 2, pp. 141–176; Suter P., Tatarski A. Der litauisch-tatarische Koran-Tefsir, Köln–Weimar–Wien 2004, pp. 374–446). T2 – Tefsir z Wilna (the Vilnius Tefsir) (transliteration of selected fragments in a manuscript – Łapicz C.). KL – Kitab „londyński” (the London Kitab) (transliteration [in:] Akiner S., The Vocabulary of a Byelorussian K’it’ab in the British Museum, “The Journal of Byelorussian Studies” III, London 1973, No. 1, pp. 55–84). KŁ – Kitab Łuckiewicza (the Łuckiewicz Kitab) (transliteration of selected fragments [in:] Stankievič J., Přispěvky k dějinám běloruského jazyka na zăkladě rukopisu ‘Al-Kitab’, „Slavia” XII, 1933–1934, pp. 357–390 and transliteration [in:] Miškinienė G., Ivano Luckevičiaus kitabas – Lietuvos totorių kultūros paminklas, Vilnius 2009). KM – Kitab Milkamanowicza (the Milkamanowicz Kitab) (transliteration of selected fragments [in:] Łapicz C., Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich (Paleografia. Grafia. Język), Toruń 1986 oraz w rękopisie – Łapicz C.). A – Akiner S., The Vocabulary of a Byelorussian K’it’ab in the British Museum, “The Journal of Byelorussian Studies” III, London 1973, No. 1, pp. 55–84. W – Woronowicz A., Kitab Tatarów litewskich i jego zawartość, „Rocznik Tatarski” II, Zamość 1935, pp. 376–394. Ww – Sobolewski J., Wykład wiary machometańskiej czyli iślamskiej, Wilno 1830. KB1 – the translation of the Quran ascribed to Jan Murza Tarak-Buczacki, Warszawa 1858, and based on the Quran which was published earlier (Poznań 1848) in the translation of the Philomaths Fr. Dionizy Chlewiński and Ignacy Domeyko.

288

Bibliography

WzK – Szynkiewicz J., Wersety z Koranu, Sarajewo 1935; reprint Muslim Students Society in Poland, Białystok 1995. KB2 – Koran in translation of J. Bielawskiego, Warszawa 1986. K3 – Koran londyński (Quran of London), Święty Koran, 1990, Arabic text and Polish trasnslation, the patronage of Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad. BB/BRadz – Biblia brzeska (Brest Bible 1563), Clifton–Kraków 2003. BN/Bud – Biblia nieświeska (Nesvizh Bible 1572), Nieśwież: starodruk ze zbiorów Biblioteki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. BW – Biblia Jakuba Wujka (Jakub Wujek’s Bible 1599), transcription of type B of the original text from the 16th century, Warszawa 2000. BG – Biblia gdańska (Gdansk Bible 1632), Nowy Testament, Kraków 1996; Stary Testament, Kraków 2004. BT – Biblia Tysiąclecia (Millennium Bible), Poznań–Warszawa 1980.

Other sources of excerption Grecko-polski Stary Testament. Księgi greckie, in translation of M. Wojciechowski, Warszawa 2008. Grecko-polski Nowy Testament. Wydanie interlinearne z kodami gramatycznymi, in translation of Fr. R. Popowski SDB, M. Wojciechowski, Warszawa 1994. Hebrajsko-polski Stary Testament. Pięcioksiąg. Przekład interlinearny z kodami gramatycznymi, transliteracją oraz indeksem rdzeni, book design by A. Kuśmirek, Warszawa 2003. Hebrajsko-polski Stary Testament. Prorocy. Przekład interlinearny z kodami gramatycznymi, transliteracją i indeksem słów hebrajskich, in translation of G. Szamocki, book design by A. Kuśmirek, Warszawa 2008. Koran. Z interpretacją i przypisami w języku polskim, in translation of A. Ünal (from Arabic into English), J. Surdel (from English into Polish), Clifton, NJ 2011. Miškinienė G., Ivano Luckevičiaus kitabas – Lietuvos totorių kultūros paminklas, Vilnius 2009.

Etymological dictionaries and dictionaries of the Polish language SDor – Słownik języka polskiego, ed. W. Doroszewski, Warszawa, I–XI, 1958–1969. SEB – Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, W. Boryś, Kraków 2005. SEBr – Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, A. Brückner, Warszawa 1989.

Bibliography

289

SESł – Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, F. Sławski, Kraków, I–V, 1952–1982. SL – Słownik języka polskiego S. B. Lindego, Lwów, I–VI, 1854–1860. SLam – Encyklopedyczny słownik wyrazów obcych, ed. S. Lam, Warszawa 1939. SMick – Słownik języka A. Mickiewicza, ed. K. Górski, Wrocław–Warszawa– Kraków, I–XI, 1962–1983. SMuchl – Źródłosłownik wyrazów które przeszły, wprost czy pośrednio, do naszej mowy z języków wschodnich, A. Muchliński, Petersburg 1858. SPas – Słownik języka J. Ch. Paska, I–II, 1965–1973. SPolXVI – Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku, ed. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław– Warszawa–Kraków, I–XXXVI, 1966–2014. SStp – Słownik staropolski, ed. S. Urbańczyk, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków, I–X (1953–1993) i XI (brochure I–VI; 1995–2000). SSTCH – Słownik staropolskiej terminologii chrześcijańskiej, M. Karpluk, Kraków 2001. ST – Słownik zapożyczeń pochodzenia arabskiego w polszczyźnie, W. P. Turek, Kraków 2001. SW – Słownik języka polskiego, eds. J. Karłowicz, A. Kryński, W. Niedźwiedzki, Warszawa, I–VIII, 1900–1927. SWil – Słownik języka polskiego, Wilno, I–II, 1861. SWO – Słownik wyrazów obcych, W. Kopaliński, Warszawa 1983. Kartoteka SPolXVI – Kartoteka Słownika polszczyzny XVI wieku. Kartoteka SPolXVII i XVIII – Kartoteka Słownika języka polskiego XVII i 1. połowy XVIII wieku, ed. K. Siekierska, Kraków 1996 ( Vol. I, Brochure 1–3, Kraków 1999–2001); http://sxvii.pl (19-08-2016). Etymologiczny słownik języka polskiego, Vols. I–II, A. Bańkowski, Warszawa 2000. Mały słownik zaginionej polszczyzny, F. Wysocka, Kraków 2003. Nowy słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, K. Długosz-Kurczabowa, Warszawa 2003. Podręczny słownik dawnej polszczyzny, S. Reczek, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1968. Słownik frazeologiczny języka polskiego, S. Skorupka, Vols. I–II, Warszawa 1989. Słownik synonimów polskich, A. Krasiński, 1885. Słownik wyrazów obcych, J. Tokarski, Warszawa 1983. Wielki słownik etymologiczno-historyczny języka polskiego, K. DługoszKurczabowa, Warszawa 2008. Wielki słownik wyrazów obcych, M. Bańko, Warszawa 2005.

290

Bibliography

Dictionaries of foreign languages Баранов Х. К., Арабско-русский словарь, Москва 1984. Падручны гістарычны слоўнік субстантывнай лексікі, рэд. А. М. Булыка, Мінск 2013. Срезневский И. И., Словарь древнерусского языка (репринт), т. I–III, Москва 1989. Tpyбaчeв O. H., Эmuмoлoгuчecкuй cлoвapь cлaвянcкux языкoв. Пpacлaвянcкuй лeкcuчecкuй фoнд, вып. 3, Mocквa 1976. Danecki J., Kozłowska J., Słownik arabsko-polski, Warszawa 1996. Podręczny słownik hebrajsko-polski i aramejsko-polski Starego Testamentu, ed. Fr. P. Briks, Warszawa 2000. Turkų-lenkų kalbų žodynėlis iš lietuvos totorių rankraščio (1840), eds. N. Güllüdağ, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008. Wehr H., Arabisches Wörterbuch für die Schriftsprache der Gegenwart. ArabischDeutsch, Wiesbaden 1985. Wielki słownik grecko-polski Nowego Testamentu. Wydanie z pełną lokalizacją greckich haseł, kluczem polsko-greckim oraz indeksem form czasownikowych, ed. Fr. R. Popowski SDB, Warszawa 1994. Wielki słownik hebrajsko-polski i aramejsko-polski Starego Testamentu, eds. J. Stamm, L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, Warszawa 2012. Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, Hrsg. von W. Bauer, Berlin–New York 1988.

Thematic dictionaries Davidson G., Słownik aniołów w tym aniołów upadłych, Poznań 2002. Dziekan M. M., Symbolika arabsko-muzułmańska. Mały słownik, Warszawa 1997. Dziekan M. M., Polacy a świat arabski: słownik biograficzny, Gdańsk 1998. Dziekan M. M., Arabowie. Słownik encyklopedyczny, Warszawa 2001. Hasan A., Król I., Słownik tematyczny języka arabskiego, Warszawa 2007. Krauss H., Mały leksykon aniołów, Poznań 2009. Kreiser K., Diem W., Lexicon der Islamischen Welt, Stuttgart 1974. Komornicka M., Słownik zwrotów i aluzji biblijnych, Łódź 1994. Kopaliński W., Słownik eponimów czyli wyrazów odimiennych, Warszawa 2006. Langkammer H., Słownik biblijny, Katowice 1982.

Bibliography

291

Leksykon podstawowych pojęć religijnych. Judaizm, Chrześcijaństwo, Islam, ed. A. T. Khoury, translat. J. Marzęcki, Warszawa 1998. Mały słownik kultury świata arabskiego, J. Bielawski, Warszawa 1971. Praktyczny słownik biblijny. Opracowanie zbiorowe katolickich i protestanckich teologów, ed. A. Grabner-Haider, translat. and study by T. Mieszkowski, P. Pachciarek, Warszawa 1994. Słownik etymologiczno-motywacyjny staropolskich nazw osobowych, Part 2: Nazwy osobowe pochodzenia chrześcijańskiego, eds. A. Cieślikowa, M. Malec, K. Rymut, Kraków 1995. Słownik hermeneutyki biblijnej, eds. R. J. Coggins, J. L. Houlden, Warszawa 2005. Słownik Nowego Testamentu, ed. X. Leon-Dufour, Poznań 1993. Słownik symboliki biblijnej, L. Ryken, J. C. Wilhoit, T. Longman, Warszawa 1998. Słownik teologii biblijnej, ed. X. Leon-Dufour, Poznań 1990. Słownik wiedzy biblijnej, eds. B. M. Metzger, M. D. Coogan, Warszawa 1999. Tworuschka M. i U., Islam mały słownik, Warszawa 1995. Widła B., Słownik antropologii Nowego Testamentu, Warszawa 2003.

Concordancies Biblia Gdańska w systemie Stronga. Stary Testament oraz Wykaz wyrazów i zwrotów polskich w ST Biblii Gdańskiej, Vol. I, Kraków 2004. Bosak P. C. OP, Słownik-konkordancja osób Nowego Testamentu, Poznań 1991. Bosak P. C. OP, Postacie Nowego Testamentu. Słownik-konkordancja, Poznań 1996. Bosak P. C. OP, Postacie Biblii. Słownik-konkordancja, Vol. I, Poznań 1999. Konkordancja do Biblii Tysiąclecia, ed. Fr. J. Flis, Warszawa 1991. Konkordancja wyrazów greckich Nowego Testamentu wraz z Biblią Nowego Testamentu w systemie Stronga oraz Wykazem wyrazów i zwrotów polskich w NT Biblii Gdańskiej, Kraków 1996. Konkordancja wyrazów hebrajskich i aramejskich Starego Testamentu wraz ze słownikiem oraz wykazem nazw i postaci, Vol. II, Kraków 2004. Kościelniak K., Tematyczna konkordancja do Koranu, Kraków 2006. Paret R., Der Koran. Kommentar und Konkordanz, Vols. I–II, Stuttgart 2005. Rosłon J. W., Zammeru Maskil. Filologiczny komentarz do Księgi Psalmów ze słownikiem hebrajsko-polskim i łacińskim oraz konkordancją i zarysem reguł gramatycznych, Brochure 1–3, Warszawa 1985. Thyen J. D., Bibel und Koran im Vergleich und kleine Koran-Konkordanz, Altenberge 1984.

292

Bibliography

Non-Polish literature of the subject Адомавичюте И. Э., К проблеме взаимоотношения литовских белоруссизмов и полонизмов, „Slavia Orientalis” XXX, 1980, No. 1/2, pp. 7–12. Аниченко В. В., Языковая ситуация в Белоруси во время Великого княжества Литовского и Речи Посполитой, „Kalbotyra” XL (2), Vilnius 1988, pp. 34–40. Aльxaзpaджи C. A., Apaбизмы в pyccкoм языкe (к постановке вопроса), „Hapoды Aзии и Aфpики”, Mocквa 1977, No. 1. Антонович А. К., Белорусские тексты, писанные арабским письмом, и их графико-орфографическая система, Вильнюс 1968. Асланов Г. Н., Bocтoчнaя (тюркская) лeкcикa в pyccкoм языкe (первая половина XIX в.), Баку 1990. Acфaндияpoв И. У., Bocтoчнaя лeкcикa в pyccкoм языкe, Taшкeнт 1991. Байрашаускайте Т., Татарская и караимская общины в XIX веке: демографический аспект, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos Visuomenės Tradicijoje: Totoriai ir Karaimai, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008, pp. 45–57. Бархударов Л. С., Язык и перевод, Москва 1975. Боровков А. К., Лексика среднеазиатского тефсира XII–XIII вв., Москва 1963. Будзько І. У., Старабеларускія пераклады Бібліі: тыпалогія лінгвістычнага м адэлявання на фоне літаратурнапісьмовых традыцый, „Slavia Orthodoxa” I, Slavia Latina, Miнск 2008, pp. 25–45. Булыка А. M., Даўнія запазычанні беларускаŭ мовы, Miнск 1972. Булыка А. M., Назоўнік, [in:] Мова беларускай пісьменнасці XIV–XVIII стст., Miнск 1988, pp. 8–100. Ганчарова I. A., Цiтавец A. I., Тарэлка М. У., Рукапiсы беларускіх татараў канца XVII – пачатку XX стагоддзя з калекцыі Цэнтральнай Навуковай Бібліятэкі НАН Беларусі: Каталог, Мiнск 2003. Грущина В. П., Функционирование и семантическая эволюция тюркизмов, Саратов 1984. Дaнилeнкo B. П., Лeкcuкo-ceмaнmuчecкue u гpaмamuчecкue ocoбeннocmu cлoв-mepмuнoв. Иccлeдoвaнuя пo pyccкoй mepмuнoлoгuu, Mocквa 1971. Дзендзелюк Л., Тимошенко Э., Хамаил литовских татар из фондов Львовской национальной научной библиотеки Украины, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos Visuomenės Tradicijoje: Totoriai ir Karaimai, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008, pp. 131–136.

Bibliography

293

Дубинский A., Заметки о языке литовских татар, „Вопросы языкознания” 1972, No. 1, pp. 82–88. Думін С., Канапацкі I., Беларускія татары. Мінулае і сучаснасць, Мiнск 1993. Дуфала К., Об одной белорусско-польской рукописи, написанной арабским письмом, „Studia Russica” XVI, Budapest 1997, pp. 215–223. Журавский А., Ислам, Mocквa 2004. Kaльнoвa O. И., Фyнкцuoнupoвaнue экзomuзмoв в pyccкux meкcmax, Bopoнeж 1986. Канапацкі I., Смолік А., Гісторыя і культура беларускіх татар, Мiнск 2000. Коньчак И., Способы передачи личных имен в четырех русских переводах Корана, „Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici”, Studia Slavica VII, Nauki Humanistyczno-Społeczne, Toruń 2002, Brochure 358, pp. 193–199. Крачковский И. Ю., Рукопись Корана в Пскове, Докл. Рос. Акад. наук 1924, pp. 165–168. Крумниг А., Канон Вульгаты и славянская Библия, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. II, Łodź 1992, pp. 233–241. Кутина Л. Л., Формирование языка русской науки (терминология математики, астрономии, географии в первой трети XVIII в.), Mocквa 1964. Кутина Л. Л., Формирование терминологии физики в России. Период предломоносовский и первая треть XVIII в., Mocквa 1966. Луцкевіч I., Ай Китаб (З пасьмертнай спадчыны Iвана Луцкевіча), [in:] Наша Нива. Зорник, Вильня 1920, pp. 28–39. Мечковская Н., Язык и религия. Пособие для студентов гуманитарных вузов, Москва 1998. Мишкиниене Г., Адаптация арабско-турецких заимствований в китабе KY–1446, [in:] Функцыянальны аспект апісання моўных сістэм, Гродно 1995, pp. 200–205. Мишкиниене Г., Идеологические споры между мусульманами и иудеями (на материале арабскоалфавитных рукописей литовских татар середины XVII в.), [in:] Krakowsko-Wileńskie Studia Slawistyczne, ed. S. Temčinas, Vol. II, Kraków 1997, pp. 234–250. Мишкиниене Г., К проблеме транслитерации китаба ЛУ–893, „Kalbotyra” XLII (2), Vilnius 1990, pp. 64–70. Мишкиниене Г., Китаб з фондаў Казанскага Ўніверсытэту (№ 1466), [in:] Запісы. Беларускі інстытут навукі й мастацтва XXI, New York 1994, pp. 76–111. Мишкиниене Г., О некоторых особенностях рукописи ЛУ–893, [in:] Е. Карский и современное языкознание, Vol. II, Гродно 1996, pp. 238–242.

294

Bibliography

Мишкиниене Г., Правовое положение татар в Великом княжестве Литовском в XVI–XVII вв. (По материалам полемической литературы о литовских татарах), „Kalbotyra” XLIV (2), Vilnius 1994, pp. 85–91. Мишкиниене Г., Проблемы адаптации арабизмов и тюркизмов в китабе КУ–1446, „Kalbotyra” XLV (2), Vilnius 1997, pp. 53–64. Мишкиниене Г., Развитие китабистики в Вильнюсском университете, „Kalbotyra” LIV (2), Vilnius 2009, pp. 231–237. Мишкиниене Г., Структура и стилистика текстов (белорусские тексты, писанные арабским письмом) в арабскоалфавитных рукописях XVII в., [in:] VALODA – 1997, Humanitārās fakultātes VII zinātniskie lasijumi. Teksts un kultūra. Metodika, Daugavpils 1999, pp. 109–113. Мишкиниене Г., „Темные места” в переводе арабских и старотурецких рукописей на белорусский и польский языки в XVII в., „Kalbotyra” XLVI (2), Vilnius 1997, pp. 204–215. Мишкиниене Г., Турецко-польский словарик из китаба Якуба Хасеневича (1840), [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos Visuomenės Tradicijoje: Totoriai ir Karaimai, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008, pp. 105–121. Мишкиниене Г., Дургут Х., Легенда „Мирадж” из китаба Ивана Луцкевича, [in:] Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystes kalbos, kultūros ir raštijos tradicijos, Vilnius 2009, pp. 357–375. Мишкиниене Г., Намавичюте С., Китаб Ивана Луцкевича. Памятник народной культуры литовских татар, Вильнюс 2009. Мишкинене Г., Намавичюте С., Покровская Е., Каталог арабско-алфавитных рукописей литовских татар, Вильнюс 2005. Мишкиниене Г., Темчин С., О текстологии рукописных китабов литовских татар: Диалог пророка Мухаммеда с шайтаном, [in:] Tatarzy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w historii, języku i kulturze, eds. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2013, pp. 211–230. Мишкиниене Г., Шупа С., Турэцка-беларускі размоўнік 1836 году з збораў Нацыянальнага Музэю Літоўскай Рэспублікі ў Вільні, New York 1995. Несцяровіч B., Пра некаторыя моўныя асабливасци беларускіх текстаў арабскім пісьмом XVIII–XIX стст., [in:] Беларуская фразеалогія, лексікологія, ред. Ф. Янкоўскі, Мінск 1984, pp. 92–97. Несцяровіч B., Старажытныя рукапісы беларускіх татар (Графіка. Транслітарацыя. Агульная характарыстыка мовы. Фразеалогія), Віцебск 2003. Несцяровіч B., Фразеолагізмы (фраземы) беларускага тексту, напісанага арабскім пісьмом, [in:] Беларуская фразеалогія, ред. Ф. Янкоўскі, Мінск 1980, pp. 32–41.

Bibliography

295

Opeшкинa M. B., Ocoбeннocmu ocвoeнuя mюpcкux cлoв в coвpeмeннoм pyccкoм языкe, Mocквa 1992. Райс К., Классификация текстов и методы перевода, [in:] Вопросы теории перевода в зарубежной лингвистике, Москва 1978. Рецкер Я. И., Теория перевода и переводческая практика, Москва 1974. Рукапісныя i друкаваныя кнігі, [in:] Рукапісныя i друкаваныя кнігі беларускіх татараў. Каталог выставы, Мінск 1997. Саверчанка І. В., Сымон Будны – гуманіст і рэфарматар, Мінск 1993. Славянская письменность Великого княжества Литовского. Характерные черты и специфические особенности, ред. Н. Морозова, М. Чистякова, Вильнюс 2014. Старабеларускія лексіконы, Мінск 1992. Старасціна В. В., Агульная характарыстыка Кітаба 1771 г., [in:] Романовские чтения, ред. О. В. Дьяченко [и др.], Могилев 2006, pp. 231–232. Старасціна В. В., Аб колькасці перапісчыкаў Кітаба Яна Лебедзя (1771), „Веснік Віцебскага дзяржаўнага універсітэта: Навуковы часопіс” 2 (44), Віцебск 2007, pp. 70–75. Старасціна В. В., Языковые особенности и состав Китаба Яна Лебедя (1771 гoд), [in:] Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės kalbos, kultūros ir raštijos tradicijos, Vilnius 2009, pp. 376–388. Старасціна В. В., Тыпалогія і змест Кітаба Яна Лебедзя (1771 г.), „Acta albaruthenica, rossica, polonica”, рэд. Г. М. Мезенка, Віцебск 2006, pp. 93–95. Сутер П., Тефсиры литовских татар как объект интерференциального исследования, [in:] Kipčiakų tiurkų Orientas Lietuvoje. Istorija ir tyrimų perspektyva, Vilnius 1994, pp. 145–153. Сынкова І., Отражение антитринитарной полемики в литературе Татар Великого княжества Литовского, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos Visuomenės Tradicijoje: Totoriai ir Karaimai, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008, pp. 223–232. Тарэлка М., Да пытання аб цытатах з Бібліі С. Буднага і Брэсцкай Бібліі ў рукапісе Р97 з калекцыі Цэнтральнай Навуковай Бібліятэкі НАН Беларусі, [in:] Гісторыя выдавецкай дзейнасці ў Польшчы і Беларусі ў XVI – XX стагоддзях, Мінск 2003, pp. 13–17. Тарэлка M., Калафоны Мінскага тэфсира, „Здабытки” 8, Мінск 2006, pp. 34–43. Тарэлка М., Папярэднія звесткі аб палемічным трактаце з рукапісу Р97 Бібліятэкі НАН Беларусі, „Весник”, Снежань 2002, No. 3, pp. 86–90. Тарэлка М., Пра нараджэнне Ізмаіла, [in:] Мечети и мизары татар Беларуси, Литвы и Польши, Новогрудок 2003, pp. 153–155.

296

Bibliography

Тарэлка M., Пскоўскі Каран 1093/1682 г. Новыя звесткi, [in:] Tatarzy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w historii, języku i kulturze, eds. J. KulwickaKamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2013, pp. 291–306. Тарэлка М., Рукапіс Р98 (таджвід) з фондаў Цэнтральнай Навуковай Бібліятэкі НАН Беларусі (праблема датування і вызначэння жанру), [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos Visuomenės Tradicijoje: Totoriai ir Karaimai, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008, pp. 123–129. Тарэлка M., Рукапісы татараў Беларусі XVIII – пачатку XXI стагоддзя з дзяржаўных і грамадскіх кнігазбораў краіны. Каталог, Мінск 2015. Тарэлка M., Pэлігійна-палемічны тэкст з лейпцыгскага канвалюта, [in:] Święte księgi judaizmu, chrześcijaństwa i islamu w słowiańskim kręgu kulturowym, Vol. I Księgi wyznawców islamu. Kitabistyka, eds. M. Krajewska, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, A. Szulc, Toruń 2016, pp. 121–149. Тарэлка М., Структура арабаграфічнага тэксту на польскай мове (На матэрыяле рэлігійна-палемічных твораў з рукапісу Р97 Цэнтральнай навуковай бібліятэкі Нацыянальнай акадэміі навук Беларусі), Мінск 2004. Тарэлка М., Сынкова I., Адкуль пайшлі ідалы, Мінск 2009. Тарэлка М., Цiтавец A. I., Беларская кніга напісаная арабскім пісьмом у фондзе Цэнтральнай Навуковай Бібліятэкі НАН Беларусі, „Весті Нацыянальнай Академіі Навук Беларусi” 2002. Тарэлка М., Цiтавец A. I., Рукапісы татараў Беларусі канца XVII – пачатку XX ст. з дзяржаўных кнігазбораў краіны. Каталог, Мінск 2011. Тарэлка М., Эль Фадэль З., Цiтавец A. I., Татарскі рукапіс XVIII ст. з фондаў Цэнтральнай Навуковай Бібліятэкі НАН Беларусі, [in:] Іслам і мусульмане Беларусі ў XX стагоддзі, Мінск 2002, pp. 74–79. Темчин С. Ю., Арабский «Танвир аль-микбас мин тафсир Ибн Аббас» как источник польского перевода Корана по рукописям литовских татар XVII–XX вв.: суры 1-я (Аль-Фатиха) и 36-я (Йа Син), [in:] Święte księgi judaizmu, chrześcijaństwa i islamu w słowiańskim kręgu kulturowym, Vol. I Księgi wyznawców islamu. Kitabistyka, eds. M. Krajewska, J. KulwickaKamińska, A. Szulc, Toruń 2016, pp. 95–119. Уста X., Исторический обзор первых подстрочных переводов корана (на материале тюрских языков), [in:] Tiurkų Istorija ir Kultūra Lietuvoje. Turks’ History and Culture in Lithuania. История и Культура Тюрков в Литве, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2014, pp. 154–165. Ушаков В. Д., Некоторые аспекты перевода Корана на русский язык, „Азия и Африка сегодня” 1996, No. 9. Ушаков В. Д., О переводе Корана: вопросы теории и практики (на основе опыта автора), „Восток” 2006, No. 5.

Bibliography

297

Xaллaви M. Xyc. Caлим, Лeкcuчecкue apaбcкue зauмcmвoвaнuя в coвpeмeннoм pyccкoм языкe, Mocквa 1986 (self-presentation). Цiтавец A. I., Беларускія кнігазборы татарскіх рукапісных кніг, [in:] Информационное обеспечение науки Беларуси: от рукописей к электрон ным информационным ресурсам, Минск 2006, pp. 147–156. Цiтавец A. I., Китаб, [in:] Вялікаие Княства Литоўскае, Минск 2006. Цiтавец A. I., Рукапiсы нашчадкаў татараў Вялiкага княства Літоўскага ў калекцыях свету, [in:] Забыткі: дакументальныя помнiкi на Беларусі, Минск 2009, pp. 49–62. Цiтавец A. I., Тефсир, [in:] Вялікаие Княства Литоўскае, Минск 2006. Цiтавец A. I., Звесткі пра перапісчыкаў рукапісных кніг беларускіх татараў XVII–XX стст., „Беларускі археаграфічны штогоднік”, вуп. 6, Минск 2005, pp. 113–126. Чекмонас В. Н., Гадальная книга Ходыны (из китаба КУ-1446), „Kalbotyra” XXXVI (2), Vilnius 1985, pp. 99–107. Якобсон P., O лингвистических аспектах перевода, [in:] Вопросы теории перевода в зарубежной лингвистике, Москва 1978. Akiner S., Oriental Borrowings in the Language of Byelorussian Tatars, „Slavonic and East European Review” LVI, London 1978, No. 2, pp. 224–241. Akiner S., The Religious Vocabulary of the British Library Tatar-Byelorussian Kitab, London 1980. Akiner S., Religious Language of a Belarusian Tatar Kitab: A Cultural Monument of Islam in Europe. With a Latin-Script Transliteration of the BL Tatar Belarusian Kitab (Or. 13020) on CD-ROM, Wiesbaden 2009. Altbauer M., Studies in the Vocabulary of the Byelorussian Translations of the Bible, “The Journal of Byelorussian Studies” II, London 1972, No. 4, pp. 359–368. Bachmann-Medick D., Übersetzung als Repräsentation fremder Kulturen, Berlin–Bielefeld–München 1997. Bairašauskaitė T., Pirmasis Korano vertimas Lietuvoje, „Mūsų praeitis” 4 (1994), 11, Vilnius 1995, pp. 5–18. Bairašauskaitė T., Lietuvos totoriai XIX amžiuje, Vilnius 1996. Bairašauskaitė T., Vietinis komponenetas Lietuvos totorių tapatybės konstrukcijose (istoriografinis aspektas), [in:] Lietuvos Didžiosios kunigaikštijos tradicija ir tautiniai naratyvai, Vilnius 2009, pp. 255–275. Bednarczuk L., Language in Contact and Conflict on the Territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL), “Acta Baltico-Slavica” XXXVII, Warszawa 2013, pp. 19–39. Bell R. T., Translation and Translating. Theory and Practice, London–New York 1991.

298

Bibliography

Binark I., Eren H., World Bibliography of Translations of the Meaning of the Holy Qur’an. Printed translations 1515–1980, Istanbul 1986. Bukowski P., Heydel M., Współczesne teorie przekładu. Antologia, Kraków 2009. Chlebda W., Библия в языке – язык в Библии, [in:] Problemy frazeologii europejskiej II. Frazeologia a religia, eds. A. M. Lewicki, W. Chlebda, Warszawa 1997, pp. 67–74. Danecki J., Literature of the Polish Tatars, [in:] Muslims in Poland and Eastern Europe, 2011 http://orient.uw.edu.pl/MSZ/index.html (20-08-2012). Danylenko A., On the language of Early Lithuanian Tatar Manuscripts, or have Lithuanian Tatars ever Written in Ukrainian?, “Slavonic and East European Review” LXXXIV (1), London 2006. Danylenko A., ‘Prostaja mova’, ‘kitab’, and Polissian standard, „Die Welt der Slaven” LI, 2006, pp. 80–115. Danylenko A., Religious Language of a Belarusian Tatar Kitab: A Cultural Monument of Islam in Europe, “Slavonic and East European Review” LXXXIX (3), London 2011, pp. 516–518. Delisle J., La traduction raisonnée (Manuel d’initiation à la traduction professionelle. Anglais → Français), Ottawa 1993. Dickins J., Hervey S., Higgins I., Thinking Arabic Translation, London–New York 2002. Doherty M., Language Processing in Discourse, London–New York 2002. Dreschner H. W., Transfer: Übersetzen – Dolmetschen – Interkulturalität, Frankfurt a. M. 1997. Dumin S., Jakubauskas A., Sitdykov G., Lietuvos totoriai istorijoje ir kulturoje, Kaunas 2009. Dziekan M. M., Einige Bemerkungen über die islamische Literatur der polnischlitauischen Tataren, [in:] Studies in Arabic and Islam, eds. S. Leder et al., Leuven–Paris–Sterling, VA 2002, pp. 185–191. Dziekan M. M., History and Culture of Polish Tatars, [in:] Muslims in Poland and Eastern Europe, 2011 http://orient.uw.edu.pl/MSZ/index.html (20-08-2012). Dziekan M. M., Poniatowski Z., A Bibliography of Arabic and Islamic Studies in Poland (1945–1992), Warszawa 1993. Encyclopaedia Judaica, ed. C. Roth, Vol. XII, Jerusalem 1972. Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an, Vols. I–IV, Lejda 2001–2005. Fleischer H. O., Delitzsch F., Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum qui in Bibliotheca Senatoria civitatis Libsiensis asservantur, Grimmae 1838, pp. 450–451. Frick D. A., The Brest Bible of 1563: Translators. Sponsors. Readers. Die Brester Bibel. Kulturgeschichtliche und sprachliche Fragen der Übersetzung, [in:]

Bibliography

299

Brester Bibel 1563, Vol. II: Księgi Nowego Testamentu. Kommentare, Hrsg. von H. Rothe, F. Scholz, Padeborn–München–Wien–Zürich 2001, pp. 1661–1703. Functional Approaches to Culture and Translation. Selected papers by José Lambert, ed. D. Delabastita, L. D’hulst, R. Meylaerts, Amsterdam–Philadelphia 2006. Glassé C., The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam, London 1989. In Other Words. A Coursebook on Translation, ed. M. Baker, London–New York 2006. In Translation – Reflections, Refractions, Transformations, eds. P. St-Pierre, P. C. Kar, Amsterdam–Philadelphia 2007. Jakulytė-Vasil M., Tatars’ Assimilation/Integration in the Social Fabric of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos Visuomenės Tradicijoje: Totoriai ir Karaimai, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008, pp. 23–36. Jankowski H., A Polish Tatar Ziker, “Acta Orientalia Hungarica” 48, No. 3, 1995, pp. 405–420. Jankowski H., Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian Tatar Documents, “Materialia Turcica” 24, 2003, pp. 113–144. Jankowski H., The Tatar Name of Sorok Tatary. Keturiasdešimt Totorių Discovered, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos Visuomenės Tradicijoje: Totoriai ir Karaimai, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008, pp. 147–159. Jankowski H., Rounded – Unrounded Vowel Harmony in Turkish, [in:] The Szeged Conference. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics held on August 20–22, 2010 in Szeged, eds. É. KincsesNagy, M. Biacsi, Szeged: Department of Altaic Studies [Studia UraloAltaica 49], 2012, pp. 253–264. Jankowski H., Similarities in Some Language Strategies of Muslim Bosnians and Lithuanian Tatars, [in:] Tiurkų Istorija ir Kultūra Lietuvoje. Turks’ History and Culture in Lithuania. История и Культура Тюрков в Литве, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2014, pp. 120–126. Kiraga S., „Sacrum und Profanum” – Ein neues Wörterbuchprojekt zur säkularisierten Lexik, „Ling Varia” VI, 2011, No. 1, pp. 71–83. Koller W., Phraseologismen als Übersetzungsproblem, [in:] Europhras 92. Tendenzen der Phraseologieforschung, ed. B. Sandig, Bochum 1994, pp. 351–373. Koller W., Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft, Heidelberg–Wiesbaden 2004. Kończak I., Названия мусульманских мест молитвы в системе русского языка XVIII–XX вв. (на материале четырех русских переводов Корана), „Rocznik Orientalistyczny” LVII, Warszawa 2004, Brochure 1, pp. 133–139.

300

Bibliography

Kończak I., История арабизмов, заимствованных древнерусским языком, „Rocznik Orientalistyczny” LIX, Warszawa 2007, Brochure 2, pp. 60–76. Kończak I., Формирование в русском языке терминологии, cвязанной c исламом, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki, eds. A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, Symferopol 2008–2009, pp. 319–332. Kowalski T., Zur semantischen Funktion des Pluralsufixes -lar -lär in den Türksprachen, „Prace Komisji Orientalistycznej PAU” 25, Kraków 1936. Kračkovski I., Белорусская речь арабским письмом, „Восток” 1922, No. 1. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Relationships between translated handwritten literature of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania’s Tatars  and translations of the Bible into Polish during the Renaissance, [in:] Word of God, words of men. Translations, inspirations, transmissions of the Bible in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Renaissance, ed. J. Pietrzak-Thébault, Getynga 2018 [in print]. Kwilecka I., Kommentare: Eigennamen, [in:] Die Brester Bibel: kulturgeschichtliche und Sprachliche Fragen der Übersetzung, [in:] Biblia Slavica, Hrsg. von H. Rothe, F. Scholz, Serie II: Polonische Bibeln, Band 2: Brester Bibel 1563, Teil 1: Stary Zakon, Teil 2: Nowy Testament, Paderborn 2001, pp. 1580–1587 (a Polish-language typescript, pp. 155–169). Kyas V., Česká předloha staropolského žaltáře, Praha 1962. Kyas V., Prvni český překlad bible, Praha 1971. Künstlinger D., Die Herkunft des Wortes Iblis im Kuran, „Rocznik Orientalistyczny” VI, Lwów 1928, pp. 76–83. Künstlinger D., Die Namen der Gottes-Schriften im Quran, „Rocznik Orientalistyczny” XIII, Lwów 1938, pp. 72–84. Ladmiral J. R., Traduire: theoremes pour la traduction, Paris 1979. Liebrenz B., Arabische, Persische and Türkische Handschriften in Leipzig. Geschichte ihrer Sammlung und Erschließung von den Anfängen bis zu Karl Vollers, Leipzig 2008. Majda T., Turkish-Byelorussian-Polish Handbook, “Rocznik Orientalistyczny” XLIX (2), Warszawa 1995, pp. 139–158. Makuchowska M., Greule A., Kucharska-Dreiss, Neuere Forschungen zur Sakralsprache im deutsch-polnischen Vergleich. Erträge – Tendenzen – Aufgaben, Salzburg 2005, pp. 73–91. Meredith-Owens G. M., Nadson A., The Byelorussian Tatars and Their Writings, “The Journal of Byelorussian Studies” II, London 1970, No. 2, pp. 141–176. Mistřik J., Religiózny štýl, „Stylistyka” I, 1992, pp. 82–89. Miškinienė G., Sieniausi lietuvos totorių rankrašciai. Grafika. Transliteracija. Vertimas. Tekstų struktūra ir turinys, Vilnius 2001.

Bibliography

301

Moszyński L., Zur Sprache der Bibelübersetzung Szymon Budnys von 1572, [in:] Biblia Slavica, Hrsg. von H. Rothe, F. Scholz, Biblia. To jest Księgi Starego i Nowego Przymierza. In der Übersetzung des Simon Budny Nieśwież, Zasław 1571–1572, Paderborn–München–Wien–Zürich 1994, pp. 351–414. Mounin G., Introduction linguistique aux problemes de la traduction, [in:] Linguistique et traduction, Bruxelles 1979. Muchliński A., Исследование о происхождении и состоянии литовских татар, Петербург 1857. Muslim Tatar Minorities in the Baltic Sea Region, eds. I. Svanberg, D. Westerlund, Leiden 2016. Muysken P., Biblingual Speech: A Typology of Code-mixing, Cambridge 2000. Nida E. A., Contexts in Translating, Amsterdam–Philadelphia 2001. Reiss K., Vermeer H. J., Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translations-theorie, Tübingen 1984. Roth U., Glei R. F., Die Spuren der lateinischen Koranübersetzung des Juan de Segovia – alte Probleme und ein neuer Fund, „Neulateinisches Jahrbuch” 11, 2009, pp. 109–154. Roth U., Glei R. F., Eine weitere Spur der lateinischen Koranübersetzung des Juan de Segovia, „Neulateinisches Jahrbuch” 13, 2011, pp. 221–228. Roth U., Scotto D., Auf der Suche nach der Erbsünde im Koran Die ‘Allegationes de peccatis primi parentis’ des Juan de Segovia, „Neulateinisches Jahrbuch” 17, 2015, pp. 181–218. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. M. Baker, London–New York 2001. Scotto D., ‘De pe a pa’. Il Corano trilingue di Juan de Segovia (1456) e la conversione pacifica dei musulmani, „Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa” 48/3, 2012, pp. 515–577. Segel H., From the History of Polish Romantic Orientalism: Aleksander Chodźko’s „Derar”, [in:] Orbis scriptus. Dmitrij Tchižewskij zum 70. Geburstag, eds. Herausgegeben von Dietrich Gerhardt, Wiktor Weintraub, Hans Jürgen zum Winkel, München 1966, pp. 707–715. Stachowski S., Osmanisch-türkische Wörter im Wörterbuch von P. S. Pallas (1787–1789), „Folia Orientalia” IX, Warszawa 1968, pp. 53–68. Stachowski S., Studien (ber die arabischen Lehnwörter im osmanisch-türkischen, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk, I–IV, 1975–1986. Stankievič J., Беларуские мусульмане и беларуская литература арабским письмом, „Гадавік Беларускага Навуковага Таварыства” I, Вільна 1933. Stankievič J., Мова рукапісу «Аль-Кітаб», ч. I: Фанэтыка, New York 1952.

302

Bibliography

Stich A., Jazyk bible v nás, [in:] Aniž jest co nového pod sluncem, Praha 1994. Suter P., Zu den Koranübersetzungen der litauischen Tataren, „Slavica Helvetica”, Bern–Berlin–New York 1993, pp. 371–395. Suter P., Alfurkan Tatarski. Der the Belarussian version litauisch-tatarische Koran-Tefsir, Köln–Weimar–Wien 2004 (in Belarussian Альфуркан татарскі. Каран-тэфсір татараў Вялікага Княства Літоўскага, Miнск 2009). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vols. I–XI, Lejda 1960–2002. Translation and the Classic. Identity as Change in the History of Culture, eds. A. Lianeri, V. Zajkov, New York 2008. Translation Studies, ed. S. Bassnett, London–New York 2005. Translation Today. Trends and Perspectives, eds. G. Anderman, M. Rogers, Clevedon–Buffalo–Toronto–Sydney 2003. Venuti L., The Translator’s Invisibility. A History of Translation, London–New York 1995. Vermeer H. J., Übersetzen als kultureller Transfer, [in:] Übersetzungswissenschaft. Eine Neuorientierung, Tübingen 1994. Voices in Translation. Bridging Cultural Divides, ed. G. Anderman, Clevedon–Buffalo–Toronto 2007. Wexler P., Christian, Jewish and Muslim Translations of the Bible and the Koran in Byelorussia: 16th–19th Centuries, “The Journal of Byelorussian Studies” VI, London 1988, No. 1, pp. 12–19. Wexler P., Jewish, Tatar and Karaite Communal Dialects and their Importance for Byelorussian Historical Linguistics, “The Journal of Byelorussian Studies” VIII, London 1973, No. 1, pp. 41–53. Windrow Sweetman J., Islam and Christian Theology. A Study of the Interpretataion of Theological Ideas in the Two Religions, Part II, Vol. II, Mediaeval Scholastic Developments, London 1967.

Polish literature of the subject Adamczyk M., Biblijno-apokryficzne narracje w literaturze staropolskiej do końca XVI wieku, Poznań 1980. Adamiec D., Wyraz Bóg i frazeologia z nim związana w XVII wieku, „Prace Filologiczne” XL, 1996, pp. 137–148. Adamiec D., Obraz diabła w tekstach i frazeologii okresu baroku, [in:] Słowa w różnych kontekstach, ed. S. Dubisz, Warszawa 1998, pp. 11–19. Alexeev A. A., Pismo Święte i jego przekład, [in:] Idee chrześcijańskie w życiu Europejczyka. Język. Piśmiennictwo. Sztuki plastyczne. Obyczaje, Part I, eds. A. Ceglińska, Z. Staszewska, Łódź 2001, pp. 151–165.

Bibliography

303

Alisauskas V., Jovais L., Paknys M., Petrauskas R., Raila E., Kultura Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Analizy i obrazy, Kraków 2006. Altbauer M., Od typu metronimicznego do „pajdonimicznego”. Przyczynki do onomastyki jidyszowej i nowohebrajskiej, „Onomastica” VII, 1958, Brochure 2, pp. 355–364. Altbauer M., O technice przekładowej Szymona Budnego, [in:] Studia językoznawcze poświęcone Profesorowi Doktorowi Stanisławowi Rospondowi, eds. M. Adamus, S. Bąk, Wrocław 1966, pp. 85–96. Altbauer M., O kryteriach ustalania pierwowzoru tłumaczeń biblijnych (na przykładzie wschodniosłowiańskiego tłumaczenia księgi Ruth), „Slavia” XXXVI, 1967, pp. 590–600. Anusiewicz J., Lingwistyka kulturowa. Zarys problematyki, Wrocław 1994. Apresjan J. D., Semantyka leksykalna. Synonimiczne środki języka, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1980. Arafe M., Świat arabski w piśmiennictwie polskim XIX wieku, Lublin 1994, pp. 96–226. Armour R., Islam, chrześcijaństwo i zachód. Burzliwe dzieje wzajemnych relacji, translat. I. Nowicka, Kraków 2004. Armstrong K., Krótka historia islamu, translat. J. Włodarczyk, Wrocław 2004. Bairašauskaitė T., Rodzina tatarska w świetle ksiąg metrykalnych (wiek XIX), „Biuletyn Historii Pogranicza” 7, Białystok 2006, pp. 27–40. Bajerowa I., W sprawie zaniku samogłosek pochylonych w języku polskim, „Język Polski” XXXVIII, 1958, Brochure 5, pp. 325–339. Bajerowa I., Kształtowanie się systemu polskiego języka literackiego w XVIII w., Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1964. Bajerowa I., Kilka problemów stylistyczno-leksykalnych współczesnego polskiego języka religijnego, [in:] O języku religijnym. Zagadnienia wybrane, eds. M. Karpluk, J. Sambor, Lublin 1988, pp. 21–44. Bajerowa I., Rola języka we współczesnym polskim życiu religijnym. Wprowadzenie do dyskusji, [in:] O języku religijnym. Zagadnienia wybrane, eds. M. Karpluk, J. Sambor, Lublin 1988, pp. 9–20. Bajerowa I., Wpływ życia religijnego na język ogólnopolski, [in:] Język a chrześcijaństwo, eds. I. Bajerowa, M. Karpluk, Z. Leszczyński, Lublin 1993, pp. 7–18. Bajerowa I., Swoistość języka religijnego i niektóre problemy jego skuteczności, „Łódzkie Studia Teologiczne” III, 1994, pp. 11–17. Bajerowa I., O słownictwie nowego katechizmu, [in:] Tysiąc lat polskiego słownictwa religijnego, ed. B. Kreja, Gdańsk 1999, pp. 253–263.

304

Bibliography

Bajerowa I., Polski język ogólny XIX w. Stan i ewolucja, Vol. I: Ortografia, fonologia z fonetyką, morfonologia, Katowice 1986; Vol. II: Fleksja, Katowice 1992; Vol. III: Składnia, synteza, Katowice 2002. Bajerowa I., Przemiany języka religijnego, [in:] eadem, Zarys historii języka polskiego 1939–2000, Warszawa 2003, pp. 114–119. Bajerowa I., Puzynina J. [hasło:] Język religijny. Aspekt filologiczny, [in:] Encyklopedia katolicka, Vol. VIII, Lublin 2000, kol. 19–20. Balcerzan E., Tłumaczenie jako „wojna światów”. W kręgu translatologii i komparatystyki, Poznań 2009. Bandtke J. S., Wiadomość o najstarszym może psałterzu polskim w bibliotece W. W. Kanoników Laterańskich w klasztorze Św. Floriana niedaleko miasta Lintz w Wyższej Austrii, „Rocznik Towarzystwa Naukowego” XII, Kraków 1827, pp. 25–63. Bańko M., Słownik peryfraz, czyli wyrażeń omownych, Warszawa 2002. Bańkowski A., Kilka nowych szczegółów do genezy Psałterza floriańskiego, „Pamiętnik Literacki” LI, 1960, pp. 253–264. Bańkowski A., Nowotestamentowe (εκκλησία i jego losy w językach Europy, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 57–63. Baranowski B., Najdawniejsze polskie przekłady z literatury orientalnej, „Prace Polonistyczne”, Łódź 1947, pp. 33–48. Baranowski B., Znajomość Wschodu w dawnej Polsce do XVII wieku, Łódź 1950. Baranowski W., Świat islamu, Łódź 1987. Baranowski W., Język sakralny polskich Tatarów, „Euhemer” 3, 1988, pp. 83–95. Bartmiński J., Derywacja stylu, [in:] idem, Pojęcie derywacji w lingwistyce, Lublin 1981, pp. 31–54. Bartmiński J., Definicja kognitywna jako narzędzie opisu konotacji słowa, [in:] Konotacja, ed. J. Bartmiński, Lublin 1988, pp. 169–183. Bartmiński J., Językowe podstawy obrazu świata, Lublin 2006. Basaj M., Ekwiwalencja tłumaczeń frazeologizmów (na przykładzie języka czeskiego i polskiego), [in:] Z problemów frazeologii polskiej i słowiańskiej, eds. M. Basaj, D. Rytel, Wrocław 1982, pp. 73–83. Basaj M., O staropolskiej frazeologii biblijnej zapożyczonej z języka czeskiego, [in:] Frazeologia a religia. Tezy referatów międzynarodowego sympozjum naukowego, Opole 4–6 września 1996, eds. W. Chlebda, S. Kochman, Opole 1996, pp. 115–117. Basaj M., Siatkowski J., Przegląd wyrazów polskich uważanych w literaturze naukowej za bohemizmy, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” X–XII,

Bibliography

305

1964–1966; także, „Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej” VI–XIX, 1967–1980. Basaj M., Siatkowski J., Bohemizmy w języku polskim. Słownik, Warszawa 2006. Bąba S., Frazeologia biblijna i modlitewna w tytułach utworów literackich, „Język Polski” LI, 1971, No. 5, pp. 358–364. Bąba S., W sprawie klasyfikacji polskich jednostek frazeologicznych, „Prace Filologiczne” XXV, 1974, pp. 377–385. Bąk M., Powstanie i rozwój polskiej terminologii nauk ścisłych, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź 1984. Bąba S., Twardy orzech do zgryzienia, czyli o poprawności frazeologicznej, Poznań 1986. Bąba S., Innowacje frazeologiczne i kryteria ich oceny, [in:] Aktualne problemy kultury języka, ed. A. Furdal, Zielona Góra 1991, pp. 25–34. Bąba S., Z życia wybranych zwrotów biblijnych we współczesnej polszczyźnie, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 167–177. Bednarczuk L., Z północno-wschodniej peryferii polszczyzny, „Język Polski” LIV, 1974, pp. 326–332. Bednarczuk L., Stosunki językowe na ziemiach Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, Kraków 1999. Bednarczyk A., Wybory translatorskie. Modyfikacje tekstu literackiego w przekładzie i kontekst asocjacyjny, Łask 2005. Belcarzowa E., Niektóre osobliwości leksykalne Biblii tzw. Leopolity, Wrocław 1989. Belcarzowa E., O tzw. glosach w Biblii Leopolity, [in:] Studia historycznojęzykowe i dialektologiczne, eds. M. Kucała, J. Reichan, Vol. LXXVIII, Kraków 1992, pp. 43–53. Belcarzowa E., XV-wieczne próby przekładu fragmentu Izajasza (Iz 3,16–23), [in:] Studia historycznojęzykowe, eds. M. Kucała, Z. Krążyńska, Vol. I, Kraków 1994, pp. 113–121. Belcarzowa E., W poszukiwaniu staropolskiego przekładu Nowego Testamentu, [in:] Poznańskie Spotkania Językoznawcze, eds. Z. Krążyńska, Z. Zagórski, Vol. VII, Poznań 2001, pp. 7–26. Belcarzowa E., Polskie i czeskie źródła przekładu Biblii Leopolity, Kraków 2006. Bennett P. R., Gramatyka porównawcza języków semickich, Warszawa 2009. Bešta T., Z badań nad wschodniosłowiańskimi wpływami językowymi w polszczyźnie romantyków, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XVII, 1971, pp. 199–241.

306

Bibliography

Białoskórska M., Staropolskie semantyczne dublety słowotwórcze i ich kontynuacje w polszczyźnie XVI i XX wieku, [in:] Studia historycznojęzykowe, eds. M. Kucała, Z. Krążyńska, Vol. I, Kraków 1994, pp. 29–42. Białoskórska M., Mickiewiczowskie peryfrazy, Szczecin 2002. Białoskórska M., Mickiewiczowskie peryfrazy z komponentem ogień i światło, „Studia Językoznawcze” IV, Szczecin 2005, pp. 9–22. Bibliografia Polska Estreichera XIX stulecia, Vol. III, Kraków 1876 and Vol. VI, 1881. Bielawski J., Islam, Warszawa 1980. Bielawski J., Piwiński R., Kosmogonia islamu, „Euhemer” 1, Warszawa 1975, pp. 43–55. Bieńkowska D., Rola glos marginalnych w przekładzie Biblii J. Wujka, „Acta Universitatis Lodziensis”, Folia Linguistica 23, 1990, pp. 21–29. Bieńkowska D., Jakub Wujek – nowator czy tradycjonalista?, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 143–151. Bieńkowska D., Styl językowy przekładu Nowego Testamentu Jakuba Wujka (Na materiale czterech Ewangelii), Łódź 1992. Bieńkowska D., Nazwy własne i formy od nich derywowane w XVI-wiecznych przekładach tekstów ewangelicznych, „Acta Universitatis Lodziensis”, Folia Linguistica 27, 1993, pp. 9–14. Bieńkowska D., O kształtowaniu się języka tekstów ewangelicznych w przekładzie Jakuba Wujka. (Różnice między „Postyllą” a Nowym Testamentem), „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XXXVIII, 1993, pp. 5–14. Bieńkowska D., O przeobrażeniach polskiego stylu biblijnego, „Stylistyka” 2, 1993, pp. 101–110. Bieńkowska D., Odbicie stylu przekładu Biblii J. Wujka w literaturze polskiej, [in:] Jan Jakub Wujek tłumacz Biblii na język polski. W czterechsetną rocznicę wydania Nowego Testamentu 1593–1993, ed. M. Kamińska, Łódź 1994, pp. 162–170. Bieńkowska D., Szeregi wyrazowe w przekładzie Biblii Leopolity. (Z problemów kształtowania się synonimii staropolskiej), „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XXXIX, 1994, pp. 5–17. Bieńkowska D., Z filologicznego warsztatu przekładu „Psałterza” Jakuba Wujka, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XL, 1995, pp. 5–17. Bieńkowska D., Renesansowy charakter przekładów Biblii J. Wujka. (Na materiale Psałterza), [in:] O prekladach Biblii do slovenčiny a do innych slovanskych jazykov, Bratislava 1997, pp. 107–116.

Bibliography

307

Bieńkowska D., Ekwiwalenty łacińskich rzeczowników w przekładzie „Psałterza” J. Wujka (1594), [in:] Czterechsetlecie unii brzeskiej: zagadnienia języka religijnego, ed. Z. Leszczyński, Lublin 1998, pp. 177–186. Bieńkowska D., Jak Jakub Wujek Pismo św. na język polski przekładał. (O warsztacie tłumacza i technice przez niego stosowanej), „Bobolanum” 9, 1998, pp. 27–52. Bieńkowska D., O osobliwościach leksykalnych w postyllach ks. J. Wujka, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XLIII, 1998, pp. 5–14. Bieńkowska D., O pewnej metodzie przybliżania tekstów świętych przez Jakuba Wujka, [in:] Funkcja słowa w ewangelizacji, eds. M. Kamińska, E. UmińskaTytoń, Łódź 1998, pp. 291–298. Bieńkowska D., Słownictwo i frazeologia w Psałterzu przełożonym przez ks. Jakuba Wujka (1594), Vol. I–II, Łódź 1999. Bieńkowska D., O problemach XVI-wiecznych tłumaczy Biblii na język polski. (W świetle uwag autorów translacji), [in:] Język rodzimy a język obcy – komunikacja, przekład, dydaktyka, eds. A. Kopczyński, U. Zawilska-Okrutna, Warszawa 2002, pp. 81–87. Bieńkowska D., Polski styl biblijny, Łódź 2002. Bieńkowska D., Autorytety i normy w tłumaczeniach Pisma Świętego na język polski, [in:] Autorytety i normy, ed. D. Kowalska, Łódź 2003, pp. 57–91. Bieńkowska D., Sąd Ostateczny (Mt 25,31–46) – forma literacka i właściwości stylistyczne, „Język Polski” LXXXIII, 2003, pp. 90–95. Bieńkowska D., Prorok, widosen i wieszcz, czyli o nazwach osób przepowiadających przyszłość w polskich XVI-wiecznych tłumaczeniach Starego Testamentu, [in:] Z przeszłości i teraźniejszości języka polskiego. Księga pamiątkowa dedykowana Teresie Friedelównie, eds. J. KamperWarejko, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, K. Nowakowska, Toruń 2007, pp. 15–28. Bieńkowska D., Ecclesiastes w przekładzie Hieronima z Wielunia (1522) – między tradycją a nowatorstwem, [in:] Tradycja a nowoczesność, ed. E. Woźniak, Łódź 2008, pp. 55–72. Bieńkowska D, Wzorzec stylistyczny polszczyzny biblijnej w pierwszej połowie XVI wieku, „Studia językoznawcze. Synchroniczne i diachroniczne aspekty badań polszczyzny” VIII, Szczecin 2009, pp. 29–38. Bieńkowska D., Lenartowicz A., Przekład Księgi Koheleta w Biblii Jana Leopolity (1561) wobec przekładu Hieronima z Wielunia (1522), [in:] Imago mundi. 50 lat polskiej translatoryki, eds. K. Hejwowski, A. Szczęsny, U. Topczewska, Warszawa 2009, pp. 443–451. Bieńkowska D., Umińska-Tytoń E., Polszczyzna Biblii gdańskiej na tle XVIwiecznych przekładów biblijnych, [in:] Polszczyzna regionalna Pomorza.

308

Bibliography

Zbiór studiów, ed. K. Handtke, Vol. VI, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1994, pp. 7–15. Bieńkowska D., Umińska-Tytoń E., Warianty sufiksalne w staropolskich i renesansowych przekładach Psałterza, „Poradnik Językowy” 1994, Brochure 5–6, pp. 41–48. Biliński K., Biblijny obraz Anioła Stróża i Szatana, „Litteraria” 30, 1999, pp. 5–14. Binek P., Polskie tłumaczenia Ewangelii św. Marka w XX wieku z kręgu tradycji Biblii Wujka. (Aspekt zmian leksykalno-stylistycznych), „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej WrTN” XXII, 1996, pp. 61–87. Biniewicz J., Rozwój polskiej terminologii chemii nieorganicznej, Opole 1992. Biniewicz J., Narodziny polskiej terminologii nauk ścisłych, [in:] Słowo i Czas, Opole 1999, pp. 217–226. Biniewicz J., Kształtowanie się polskiego języka nauk matematycznoprzyrodniczych, Opole 2002. Biniewicz J., Kształtowanie się polskiej leksyki naukowej – mechanizm derywowania pierwszych polskich terminów matematycznych, [in:] Żywe problemy historii języka, eds. M. Kuźmicki, M. Osiewicz, Poznań 2010, pp. 47–56. Bobrownicka M., Poliglotyzm społeczeństw słowiańskich a rozwój ich świadomości narodowej, [in:] Język a tożsamość narodowa, ed. M. Bobrownicka, Kraków 2000, pp. 9–18. Bogusławski A., Uwagi o przekładzie i jego wartościowaniu, „Przegląd Humanistyczny” 1978, 2, pp. 30–52. Bogusławski A., Uwagi o pracy nad frazeologią, [in:] Studia z polskiej leksykografii współczesnej, ed. Z. Saloni, Vol. III, Białystok 1989, pp. 13–30. Bohdanowicz L., Chazbijewicz S., Tyszkiewicz J., Tatarzy muzułmanie w Polsce, Gdańsk 1997. Borawski P., Z dziejów kolonizacji tatarskiej w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim i w Polsce (XIV–XVII w.), „Przegląd Orientalistyczny” 4 (104), 1977, pp. 291–304. Borawski P., O sytuacji wyznaniowej ludności tatarskiej w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim i w Polsce (XVI–XVIII w.), „Euhemer” 4, 1980, pp. 43–54. Borawski P., Tolerancja religijna wobec ludności tatarskiej w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim (XVI–XVIII wiek), „Przegląd Humanistyczny” XXV, 1981, 3, pp. 51–66. Borawski P., Tatarzy w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, Warszawa 1986. Borawski P., Asymilacja kulturowa Tatarów w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim, „Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce” XXXVI, 1991, pp. 163–192. Borawski P., Wprowadzenie do historii języka polskiego. Zagadnienia historiozoficzne, Warszawa 2000.

Bibliography

309

Borawski P., Dubiński A., Charakterystyka języka Tatarów polsko-litewskich, „Acta Baltico-Slavica” XIV, Warszawa 1981, pp. 83–90. Borawski P., Dubiński A., Tatarzy polscy. Dzieje, obrzędy, legendy, tradycje, Warszawa 1986. Borawski P., Sienkiewicz W., Chrystianizacja Tatarów w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim, „Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce” XXXIV, 1989, pp. 87–114. Borek H., Socjolingwistyczne aspekty imiennictwa, „Onomastica” XXIII, 1978, pp. 163–175. Brajerski T., Biblijne słownictwo i frazeologia, [in:] Encyklopedia katolicka, eds. F. Gryglewicz, R. Łukaszynko, Z. Sułkowski, Vol. II, Lublin 1976, wyd. 2 1985, kol. 483–486. Brajerski T., Stylizacja biblijna, [in:] Encyklopedia katolicka, eds. F. Gryglewicz, R. Łukaszynko, Z. Sułkowski, Vol. II, Lublin 1976, wyd. 2 1985, kol. 447–450. Brajerski T., O języku polskim dawnym i dzisiejszym, Lublin 1995. Brandstaetter R., O tłumaczeniu Psalmów, [in:] Przekład artystyczny. O sztuce tłumaczenia. Księga druga, ed. S. Pollak, Wrocław 1975, pp. 15–16. Breza E., Polszczyzna „Ojcze nasz” i „Zdrowaś Maryjo”, „Język Polski” LXXI, 1991, pp. 2–9. Breza E., Odmiana nazw własnych w Nowym Testamencie Biblii Wujka i Biblii Tysiąclecia, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 152–159. Brzozowski J., Czytelnik projektowany w przekładzie: problem paratekstu, [in:] Ślady obecności. Traces d’une présence, eds. I. Piechnik, M. Świątkowska, Kraków 2001, pp. 61–69. Budziszewska W., Nieznany zabytek polszczyzny północnowschodniej z połowy XIX wieku, „Acta Baltico-Slavica” XXII, Warszawa 1994, pp. 95–108. Bura R., Polska, czeska i górnołużycka frazeologia pochodzenia biblijnego a Nowy Testament Jakuba Wujka, Biblia kralicka oraz Nowy Testament Michała Frencla, Kraków 2003. Bura R., Frazeologia w górnołużyckiej Biblii z roku 1728 na tle porównawczym czesko-polskim, „Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis” 124, 2007, pp. 41–48. Burdziej B., Super flumina Babylonis. Psalm 136(137) w literaturze polskiej XIX– XX w., Toruń 1999. Burkacka I., Terminy naukowe jako podstawy słowotwórcze, „Ling Varia” VI, 2011, No. 1, pp. 43–70. Buttler D., Rozwój semantyczny wyrazów polskich, Warszawa 1978. Buttler D., Kurkowska H., Satkiewicz H., Kultura języka polskiego. Zagadnienia poprawności gramatycznej, Warszawa 1973.

310

Bibliography

Caner E. M., Islam bez zasłony. Spojrzenie od wewnątrz na muzułmańskie życie i wierzenia, translat. R. A. Czekaj, Gorzów Wielkopolski 2007. Cardini F., Europa a islam. Historia nieporozumienia, translat. B. Bielańska, Kraków 2006. Cegieła A., Kryteria poprawności językowej terminów, [in:] Podstawy terminologii, ed. W. Nowicki, Warszawa 1986, pp. 135–153. Chat E., Chrześcijaństwo a islam – polemika i dialog, Kielce 2005. Chazbijewicz S., Polszczyzna północnokresowa językiem Tatarów polskolitewskich, „Acta Baltico-Slavica” XXIV, Warszawa 1999, pp. 263–271. Chazbijewicz S., Dialog muzułmańsko-chrześcijański z perspektywy islamu, „Muzułmanie Rzeczypospolitej” 2010, No. 3 (7), pp. 11–14. Chazbijewicz S., Dialog chrześcijan i muzułmanów w Polsce – jego początki i instytucjonalizacja, [in:] Dialog chrześcijańsko-muzłmański. Historia i współczesność, zagrożenia i wyzwania, eds. M. Lewicka, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2011, pp. 95–110. Chazbijewicz S., Duchowa kultura Tatarów polskich jako integralny element kultury pogranicza słowiańsko-muzułmańskiego, „Acta Baltico-Slavica” XXXVII, Warszawa 2013, pp. 151–163. Chazbijewicz S., Islam i Tatarzy w literaturze polskiej, [in:] Tatarzy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w historii, języku i kulturze, eds. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2013, pp. 309–318. Cherek A., Zakresy użycia wielkich liter w drukach krakowskich w pierwszej ćwierci XVII w., Part 1, „Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne” X (XXX), Seria Językoznawcza, Poznań 2003. Cherek A., Zakresy użycia wielkich liter w drukach krakowskich w pierwszej ćwierci XVII w., Part 2, „Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne” XI (XXXI), Seria Językoznawcza, Poznań 2004, pp. 33–53. Chlebda W., Biblizmy języka polskiego i rosyjskiego. Koncepcje opisu leksykograficznego, [in:] Współczesny język polski i rosyjski. Konfrontacja przekładowa, eds. A. Bogusławski, J. Mędelska, Warszawa 1997, pp. 23–66. Chlebda W., Tarsa J., Pytania o skrzydlate słowa, „Zeszyty Naukowe WSP w Opolu”, Filologia Rosyjska XXXII, 1994, pp. 39–49. Chmiel J., Sztuka przekładu a teologia. Biblia polska Wujka, [in:] Od Biblii Wujka do współczesnego języka religijnego. Z okazji 400-lecia wydania Biblii ks. Jakuba Wujka, eds. Z. Adamek, S. Koziara, Tarnów 1999, pp. 22–27. Cienkowski W., Ogólne założenia metodologiczne badania zapożyczeń leksykalnych, „Poradnik Językowy” 1964, Brochure 10, pp. 417–429. Cieślikowa A., Sposoby przenoszenia apelatywów do kategorii nazw osobowych, [in:] V Ogólnopolska Konferencja Onomastyczna, ed. K. Zierhoffer, Poznań 1988, pp. 85–89.

Bibliography

311

Cieślikowa A., Staropolskie odapelatywne nazwy osobowe. Proces onimizacji, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1990. Cieślikowa A., Derywacja paradygmatyczna w staropolskiej antroponimii, Kraków 1991. Cieślikowa A., Rodzaje ekspresji w tworzeniu nazw osobowych, „Polonica” XV, 1992, pp. 111–119. Cieślikowa A., Leksykografia nazw własnych a leksykografia nazw pospolitych, [in:] Wokół Słownika współczesnego języka polskiego III. Zakres selekcji i informacji, Kraków 1993, pp. 23–31. Cieślikowa A., Nazwy własne w różnych gatunkach tekstów literackich, [in:] Onomastyka literacka, ed. M. Biolik, Olsztyn 1993, pp. 33–39. Cieślikowa A., Tendencje słowotwórcze w języku mówionym w okresie średniowiecza, [in:] Studia historycznojęzykowe, eds. Z. Krążyńska, M. Kucała, Vol. I, Kraków 1994, pp. 15–21. Cieślikowa A., Z dziejów nazw własnych w języku polskim. Dziedzictwo i innowacje, [in:] Studia historycznojęzykowe, eds. M. Kucała, W. R. Rzepka, Vol. III, Kraków 2000, pp. 319–328. Cieślikowa A., Nazwy własne w przekładzie literackim, [in:] Polskie nazwy własne. Encyklopedia, ed. E. Rzetelska-Feleszko, Kraków 2005, pp. 389–394. Citko L., O zapożyczeniach leksykalnych z polszczyzny w języku latopisów starobiałoruskich, „Białostockie Archiwum Językowe” 10, Białystok 2010, pp. 11–22. Cook D., Męczeństwo w islamie, Kraków 2009. Cook M., Mahomet, Warszawa 2000. Coşeriu E., Sincronía, diacronía e historia, Montevideo 1958. Cybulski M., Geneza glos Psałterza floriańskiego, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XXXI, 1985, pp. 5–17. Cybulski M., Język piętnastowiecznej części Psałterza floriańskiego. Ortografia, fonetyka, fleksja, Łódź 1988. Cybulski M., Bohemizmy leksykalne w piętnastowiecznej części „Psałterza floriańskiego”, „Acta Universitatis Lodziensis”, Folia Linguistica 23, 1990, pp. 51–64. Cybulski M., O roli wzorca czeskiego w kształtowaniu się polskiego słownictwa psałterzowego w XV wieku, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XXXVII, 1992, pp. 17–31. Cybulski M., Analiza statystyczna słownictwa piętnastowiecznej części „Psałterza floriańskiego”, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XXXIX, 1994, pp. 19–34. Cybulski M., Pan i sługa. Niektóre społeczne uwarunkowania zmian w polskich obyczajach językowych, [in:] Uwarunkowania i przyczyny zmian językowych. Zbiór studiów, ed. E. Wrocławska, Warszawa 1994, pp. 31–39.

312

Bibliography

Cybulski M., Staropolskie przekłady psałterza, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XLI, Brochure 2, Łódź 1996. Cybulski M., Modlitwy Wacława a Psałterz, [in:] Tekst sakralny. Tekst inspirowany liturgią, ed. G. Habrajska, Łódź 1997, pp. 107–113. Cybulski M., Obyczaje językowe dawnych Polaków. Formuły werbalne w dobie średniopolskiej, Łódź 2003. Cybulski M., Obyczaje językowe w dobie średniopolskiej, [in:] Rozprawy o historii języka polskiego, ed. S. Borawski, Zielona Góra 2005, pp. 149–211. Cybulski M., Tytulatura w wybranych pamiętnikach polskich z XVI–XVIII w., [in:] Ad pereptuam rei memoriam. Profesorowi Wojciechowi Ryszardowi Rzepce z okazji 65. urodzin, ed. J. Migdał, Poznań 2005, pp. 87–95. Cybulski M., Znaczenie źródeł z Kresów północno-wschodnich dla historii polskich obyczajów językowych, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” L, 2005, pp. 21–34. Cybulski M., Kategoria osoby a polskie formy adresatywne, [in:] Osoba, osobowość – czynniki je kształtujące, ed. M. Pietrzak, Łódź 2006, pp. 61–88. Cybulski M., Podziały społeczne i terytorialne odzwierciedlone w formułach dawnej polskiej etykiety językowej, [in:] Żywe problemy historii języka, eds. M. Kuźmicki, M. Osiewicz, Poznań 2010, pp. 99–116. Cyran W., Mechanizm zapożyczania wyrazów w języku polskim, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XX, 1974, pp. 23–37. Czachorowski M., Tatarzy-muzułmanie we współczesnej Polsce, [in:] Dialog chrześcijańsko-muzłmański. Historia i współczesność, zagrożenia i wyzwania, eds. M. Lewicka, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2011, pp. 111–121. Czekman W. N., Akanie. Istota zjawiska i jego pochodzenie, „Slavia Orientalis” XXIV, 1975, No. 3, pp. 283–305. Czekman W. N., Fonetyka i fonologia języka białoruskiego z elementami fonetyki i fonologii ogólnej, Warszawa 1988. Czerniatowicz J., Niektóre problemy naukowe grecystyki w pracach biblistów polskich XVI i XVII w. Teksty greckie a polskie przekłady, Wrocław 1969. Damborský J., Wyrazy obce w języku polskim (próba klasyfikacji), „Poradnik Językowy” 1974, Brochure 7, pp. 341–355. Danecki J., Opowieści Koranu, Warszawa 1991. Danecki J., Podstawowe wiadomości o islamie, Vol. I, Warszawa 1997; Vol. II, Warszawa 1998. Danecki J., Kultura islamu. Słownik, Warszawa 1997. Danecki J., Bóg i Jego język. Szkic językoznawstwa teologicznego, [in:] Z Mekki do Poznania, ed. H. Jankowski, Poznań 1998, pp. 57–67. Danecki J., Klasyczny język arabski, Warszawa 2004. Danecki J., Podstawowe wiadomości o islamie, Warszawa 2007.

Bibliography

313

Danecki J., Gramatyka języka arabskiego, Vol. I, Warszawa 2007; Vol. II, Warszawa 2008. Dąbek T. M. OSB, Mowa w Piśmie Świętym. Biblijna teologia słowa, Kraków 2004. Dąbrowski E., Nowy polski przekład Pisma Świętego z języków oryginalnych. Krytyczna ocena tzw. Biblii Tysiąclecia, London 1967. Dąmbska-Prokop U., Współczesne przekłady francuskie Psalmów (Kilka uwag), [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. II, Łódź 1992, pp. 138–146. Dedecius K., Uwagi o teorii i praktyce przekładu artystycznego, translat. I. Małuszyńska, [in:] Przekład artystyczny. O sztuce tłumaczenia, ed. M. Rusinek, Wrocław 1955, pp. 17–34. Deiana G., Spreafico A., Wprowadzenie do hebrajszczyzny biblijnej, study by the polish version S. Bazyliński, Warszawa 2001. Dejna K., Dialekty polskie, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1973. Dejna K., Atlas polskich innowacji dialektalnych, Warszawa–Łódź 1981. Dejna K., W sprawie tzw. dialektów kresowych, „Język Polski” LXIV, 1984, pp. 51–57. Deptuchowa E., Wanicowa Z., Tajemnice staropolskich glos, „LingVaria” V (2010), No. 2 (10), pp. 105–111. Dębski A., Translatologia. Podstawowe problemy, stan i perspektywy badań, zainteresowania badaczy, „Rocznik Przekładoznawczy” 2, eds. L. Zieliński, M. Pławski, Toruń 2006, pp. 11–39. Dialogi o Bogu we współczesnej kulturze, ed. Fr. J. Bagrowicz, Toruń 2009. Diringer D., Alfabet, czyli klucz do dziejów ludzkości, Warszawa 1972. Długosz-Kurczabowa K., Apelatywizacja biblijnych nazw własnych w języku polskim, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1990. Długosz-Kurczabowa K., Nowotestamentowe antroponimy w języku polskim, „Poradnik Językowy” 1990, Brochure 8, pp. 605–614. Długosz-Kurczabowa K., Onomastyka Nowego Testamentu, „Slavia Occidentalis” XLVI/XLVII, 1989/1990, 1991, pp. 71–88. Długosz-Kurczabowa K., Charakterystyka językowa ekumenicznego przekładu „Ewangelii św. Mateusza”, „Przegląd Humanistyczny” 1998, pp. 66–96. Długosz-Kurczabowa K., Jeszcze raz o apelatywizacji biblijnych nazw własnych, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki, eds. A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, Symferopol 2008–2009, pp. 123–152. Długosz-Kurczabowa K., Szkice z dziejów języka religijnego, Warszawa 2007. Dobrzyńska T., Przekład wyrażeń metaforycznych (Problemy znaczeniowe), [in:] Synteza w stylistyce słowiańskiej, ed. S. Gajda, Opole 1991, pp. 107–115.

314

Bibliography

Dobrzyńska T., Nazwy własne w użyciach tropicznych. Casus antonomazji, [in:] eadem, Studia o tropach, Vol. II, Wrocław 1992. Drabina J., Współistnienie religii i wyznań w Polsce dawnej i współczesnej, Kraków 1993. Drabina J., Wierzenia, religia, wspólnoty wyznaniowe w średniowiecznej Polsce i na Litwie i ich koegzystencja, Kraków 1994. Drozd A., Chamaił Sobolewskiego, „Rocznik Tatarów Polskich” I, Gdańsk 1993, pp. 48–62. Drozd A., Nowe odkrycia w badaniach nad piśmiennictwem tatarskim, „Rocznik Tatarów Polskich” II, Gdańsk 1994, pp. 218–230. Drozd A., Rękopisy tatarskie w zbiorach londyńskich, „Rocznik Tatarów Polskich” II, Gdańsk 1994, pp. 38–54. Drozd A., Sułtan dua (świateczna modlitwa za sułtanów), „Rocznik Tatarów Polskich” 1994, No. 2, pp. 206–217. Drozd A., Zastosowanie pisma arabskiego do zapisu tekstów polskich (zarys historyczny), [in:] Plenas Arabum domos, ed. M. M. Dziekan, Warszawa 1994, pp. 75–93. Drozd A., O twórczości literackiej Tatarów w dobie staropolskiej, [in:] Tatarzy w Europie i na świecie, Poznań 1995, pp. 33–47. Drozd A., Staropolski przekład Koranu, „Świat Islamu” 1, pp. 4–5; 2, pp. 6–8, Sokółka 1995. Drozd A., Tatarska wersja pieśni-legendy o św. Hiobie, „Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne” II (XXII), Seria Literacka, Poznań 1995, pp. 163–195. Drozd A., Rękopis Tatarów polsko-litewskich w zbiorach Biblioteki Gdańskiej PAN, „d’Oriana. Awiza Biblioteczne” 3, 1996, pp. 18–27. Drozd A., Staropolski apokryf w muzułmańskich księgach. (Tatarska adaptacja Historyji barzo cudnej o stworzeniu nieba i ziemie Krzysztofa Pussmana), „Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne” III (XXIII), Seria Literacka, Poznań 1996, pp. 95–134. Drozd A., Wpływy chrześcijańskie na literaturę Tatarów w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej. Między antagonizmem a symbiozą, „Pamiętnik Literacki” LXXXVIII, 1997, Brochure 3, pp. 3–34. Drozd A., W sprawie autorstwa Koranu Buczackiego, [in:] Z Mekki do Poznania, ed. H. Jankowski, Poznań 1998, pp. 69–83. Drozd A., Arabskie teksty liturgiczne w przekładzie na język polski XVII wieku. Zagadnienia gramatyczne na materiale chutb świątecznych, Warszawa 1999. Drozd A., Z badań nad staropolskimi zapożyczeniami w literaturze Tatarów, [in:] Orient w kulturze polskiej, Warszawa 2000, pp. 145–153. Drozd A., Współczesne oblicze kultury Tatarów Rzeczypospolitej, [in:] Zagadnienia współczesnego islamu, Poznań 2003, pp. 41–58.

Bibliography

315

Drozd A., Koran staropolski. Rozważania w związku z odkryciem tefsiru mińskiego z 1686 roku, „Rocznik Biblioteki Narodowej” XXXVI, Warszawa 2004, pp. 237–248. Drozd A., Corpus inscriptionum tartarorum poloniae et lithuaniae, Warszawa 2016. Drozd A., Dziekan M. M., Majda T., Meczety i cmentarze Tatarów polskolitewskich. Katalog zabytków tatarskich, Vol. II, Warszawa 1999. Drozd A., Dziekan M. M., Majda T., Piśmiennictwo i muhiry Tatarów polskolitewskich. Katalog zabytków tatarskich, Vol. III, Warszawa 2000. Drzazgowski M., Zapożyczenia ruskie w języku pisarzy kresowych i środkowopolskich XVII–XIX wieku, „Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej” XXVIII, 1991, pp. 51–64. Dubiński A., Charakterystyka języka Tatarów polsko-litewskich, „Acta BalticoSlavica” XIV, Warszawa 1982, pp. 83–90. Dubisz S., Dzieje języka polskiego jako problem badawczy w pracy historyka języka, „Poradnik Językowy” 2009, Brochure 3, pp. 19–34. Dubisz S., Język – historia – kultura (wykłady, studia, analizy), Warszawa 2002. Dubisz S., Typologia odmian polszczyzny poza granicami kraju, [in:] Język polski w kraju i za granicą, eds. B. Janowska, J. Porayski-Pomsta, Vol. I, Warszawa 1997, pp. 35–42. Duda H., „…każdą razą Biblią odmieniać”. Modernizacja języka przedruków Nowego Testamentu ks. Jakuba Wujka w XVII i XVIII wieku, Lublin 1998. Dufala K., Legenda o św. Grzegorzu w kitabie Tatarów – muzułmanów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki, eds. A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, Symferopol 2008–2009, pp. 205–220. Dumin S., Szlachta tatarska w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim i zmiany jej sytuacji prawnej w XVI–XVIII w., „Roczniki Historyczne” LVII, 1991, pp. 147–163. Dumin S., Herbarz rodzin tatarskich Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, Gdańsk 2006. Dumin S., Problem chrystianizacji Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w świetle źródeł, [in:] Dialog chrześcijańsko-muzłmański. Historia i współczesność, zagrożenia i wyzwania, eds. M. Lewicka, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2011, pp. 149–163. Dunaj B., Język polski najstarszej doby piśmiennej (XII–XIII w.), Kraków 1975. Dupuis J., Chrześcijaństwo i religie. Od konfrontacji do dialogu, Kraków 2003. Dziekan M. M., Arabia Magica. Wiedza tajemna u Arabów przed islamem, Warszawa 1993. Dziekan M. M., Forma i znaczenie w tłumaczeniu klasycznej literatury arabskiej, „Przegląd Orientalistyczny” 1–2, 1997, pp. 35–44.

316

Bibliography

Dziekan M. M., Jak modlą się muzułmanie. Antologia modlitwy, Warszawa 1997. Dziekan M. M., Chamaił Aleksandrowicza, „Rocznik Tatarów Polskich” IV, Gdańsk 1998, pp. 27–43. Dziekan M. M., Miejsce święte w islamie, „Przegląd Orientalistyczny” 3–4, 2001, pp. 185–193. Dziekan M. M., Badania arabistyczne i islamistyczne w Polsce. Zarys dziejów i problematyki, [in:] Islam a świat, eds. R. Bäcker, and S. Kitab, Toruń 2004. Dziekan M. M., Historia i tradycje polskiego islamu and Nalborczyk A. S., Status prawny muzułmanów w Polsce i jego wpływ na organizację ich życia religijnego, [in:] Muzułmanie w Europie, ed. A. Parzymies, Warszawa 2005, pp. 199–239. Dziekan M. M., Cywilizacja islamu w Azji i Afryce, Warszawa 2007. Dziekan M. M., Czas święty i czas świecki w chamaile Aleksandrowicza: godziny i dni Niechsiowe, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos Visuomenės Tradicijoje: Totoriai ir Karaimai, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008, pp. 81–89. Dziekan M. M., Dzieje kultury arabskiej, Warszawa 2008. Dziekan M. M., Chcąc znać i wiedzieć, jak ciągnąć fał alkuranowy w „Chamaile Aleksandrowicza”, [in:] Tatarzy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w historii, języku i kulturze, eds. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2013, pp. 125–133. Dziekan M. M., Zastosowanie pisma arabskiego do zapisu wybranych języków indoeuropejskich. Perspektywa historyczno-porównawcza, [in:] Tefsir Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Teoria i praktyka badawcza, e-monografia, eds. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2015, pp. 75–99 [http://www.tefsir.umk.pl/pliki/Tefsir_Tatarow_WKL.pdf] (06-03-2017). Dziekan M. M., Ortografia arabskiego tekstu Koranu w tefsirze Józefowa na podstawie sury Ja Sin, [in:] Święte księgi judaizmu, chrześcijaństwa i islamu w słowiańskim kręgu kulturowym, Vol. I Księgi wyznawców islamu. Kitabistyka, eds. M. Krajewska, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, A. Szulc, Toruń 2016, pp. 169–184. Dziekan M. M., Poniatowski Z., Islamistyka w Polsce (1945–1990) – bibliografia, „Signa Temporis” VII, 1991, Brochure 1, pp. 143–218. Dziekan M. M., Wrona B., Teoria i praktyka przekładu z języków orientalnych, „Przegląd Orientalistyczny” 1–2, 1997, pp. 111–112. Dzika U., Bóg – Pasterz i Gospodarz w tłumaczeniach Psalmu 23 na język polski i rosyjski, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 185–190.

Bibliography

317

Dzika U., Formuły ufnościowe Psalmu 27 w wersji polskiej i rosyjskiej, [in:] Historia i teraźniejszość Rosji w świetle faktów językowych, ed. L. JochymKuszlik, Kraków 1993, pp. 107–112. Dzika U., Motyw ufności w Psalmie 27. Zagadnienia zastosowania i przekładu terminologii zbawczej, [in:] Przekład artystyczny, ed. P. Fast, Vol. V: Strategie translatorskie, Katowice 1993, pp. 161–167. Dzika U., Przekład a problemy teologiczne. Znaczenie w języku polskim i rosyjskim hebrajskich formuł ufnościowych zawierających pochodne od rdzenia bth, „Studia Rossica” II, 1994, pp. 163–166. Dzika U., Sfera sacrum w przekładzie – biblijne psalmy królewskie, [in:] Tekst sakralny. Tekst inspirowany liturgią, ed. G. Habrajska, Łódź 1997, pp. 115–126. Dzika U., Słowo w psalmach. Z problematyki przekładu, [in:] Funkcja słowa w ewangelizacji, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Umińska-Tytoń, Łódź 1998, pp. 201–212. Encyklopedia biblijna, ed. P. J. Achtemeier, Warszawa 2004. Encyklopedia języka polskiego, eds. S. Urbańczyk, M. Kucała, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1999. Encyklopedia katolicka, eds. S. Wielgus, J. Duchniewski, M. Daniluk, S. Fita, J. Miszurek, M. Rusecki, A. Stępień, A. Weiss, Lublin 1997. Erazm z Rotterdamu, Metoda prawdziwej teologii, [in:] idem, Trzy rozprawy, translat. and study by J. Domański, Warszawa 1990. Forstner D., Świat symboliki chrześcijańskiej, translat. and study by W. Zakrzewski, P. Pachciarek, R. Tuszyński, Warszawa 1990. Frankowski J., „Biblia Tysiąclecia”. Tło i problematyka przekładu, [in:] Przekład artystyczny. O sztuce tłumaczenia. Księga druga, ed. S. Pollak, Wrocław 1975, pp. 65–79. Frankowski J., Metafora w Biblii, [in:] Studia o metaforze II, eds. M. Głowiński, A. Okopień-Sławińska, Wrocław 1983, pp. 153–173. Frankowski J., Słowo wstępne autora transkrypcji, [in:] Biblia w przekładzie ks. Jakuba Wujka z 1599 r. The “type-B” transcription of the original text from the 16th century and the introductions Fr. J. Frankowski, Warszawa 2000, pp. XVII–XXXVIII. Friedelówna T., Imię Boga w staro-cerkiewno-słowiańskim psałterzu, „Zeszyty Naukowe Wydziału Humanistycznego UG”, Slawistyka, 1988, No. 5, pp. 135–155. Friedelówna T., Biblijna onomastyka w staro-cerkiewno-słowiańskim „Psałterzu Synajskim”, „Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici”, Filologia Polska XL, 1993, Brochure 246, pp. 3–24. Friedelówna T., Pierwociny geograficznej terminologii w dobie oświecenia, [in:] Studia z gramatyki i leksykologii języka polskiego, eds. M. Gębka-Wolak, I. Kaproń-Charzyńska, M. Urban, Toruń 2003, pp. 219–227.

318

Bibliography

Fulińska A., Naśladowanie i twórczość. Renesansowe teorie imitacji, emulacji i przekładu, Wrocław 2000. Gadomski A., Łapicz C., Teolingwistyka: historia, stan współczesny, perspektywy…, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki, eds. A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, Symferopol 2008–2009, pp. 33–58. Gajda S., Rozwój polskiej terminologii górniczej, Opole 1976. Gajda S., Wprowadzenie do teorii terminu, Opole 1990. Gala S., W sprawie językowej definicji nazw osobowych, „Onomastica” XXVI, 1981, pp. 41–51. Gala S., Kategorie semantyczne a odmiany stylistyczne w antroponimii, „Onomastica” XXVIII, 1983, pp. 105–131. Gala S., Założenia metodologiczne prac o słowotwórczych typach antroponimicznych, „Zeszyty Naukowe UG”, Prace Językoznawcze 10, Gdańsk 1984, pp. 9–14. Gaudefroy-Demombynes M., Narodziny islamu, translat. H. Olędzka, Warszawa 1988. Gąsiorowski K., Przekład Psałterza w Biblii Leopolity. (W czterechsetlecie wydania Biblii), „Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny” XIV, 1961, pp. 189–190. Gehin P., Jak czytać rękopis średniowieczny, Warszawa 2008. Gesner A., Glosy w Rozmyślaniu przemyskim. Wyniki analizy formalnej i perspektywy badań, „Kwartalnik Językoznawczy” 3, 2011, pp. 89–96. Gieparda E., Tłumaczeniowa tradycja nowotestamentowych realiów od Jana Jakuba Wujka do Biblii Tysiąclecia, [in:] Biblia w kulturze, ed. S. Rzepczyński, Słupsk 1996, pp. 231–252. Głuszkowski M., Język religii i jego znaczenie dla zachowania tożsamości przez polskich staroobrzędowców, [in:] Wokół religii i jej języka. Konstrukcje i destrukcje tożsamości, eds. E. Golachowska, A. Zielińska, Warszawa 2011, pp. 135–144. Gnilka J., Biblia a Koran. Podobieństwa i różnice, translat. W. Szymona OP, Kraków 2005. Goddard C., Wierzbicka A., Język, kultura i znaczenie: semantyka międzykulturowa, [in:] Kognitywne podstawy języka i językoznawstwa, ed. E. Tabakowska, Kraków 2001, pp. 175–202. Godyń J., Od Adama i Ewy zaczynać. Mały słownik biblizmów języka polskiego, Kraków–Warszawa 1995. Godyń J., Założenia teoretyczno-metodologiczne do „Małego słownika biblizmów języka polskiego”, [in:] Problemy frazeologii europejskiej II. Frazeologia a religia, eds. A. M. Lewicki, W. Chlebda, Warszawa 1997, pp. 105–112.

Bibliography

319

Golachowska E., Język religii na pograniczu polsko-wschodnio-słowiańskim. Postulaty badawcze, [in:] Europa-Slavia-Germania. W poszukiwaniu tożsamości, eds. W. Burszta, M. Dudziak, R. Piotrowski, Warszawa–Gorzów Wielkopolski 2009. Górnicz M., Terminologizacja tekstów specjalistycznych, [in:] Lingwistyczna identyfikacja tekstów specjalistycznych. Języki specjalistyczne 3, eds. B. Z. Kielar, F. Grucza, Warszawa 2003, pp. 106–117. Górnicz M., Kornacka M., Wyraz – tekst – interpretacja, Warszawa 2009. Górnowicz H., Wstęp do onomastyki, Gdańsk 1988. Górski K., Biblia i sprawy biblijne w „Postylii” Reja, „Reformacja w Polsce” XII, 1955. Górski K., Z historii i teorii literatury, Wrocław 1959. Górski K., Zagadnienia słownictwa reformacji polskiej, [in:] Odrodzenie w Polsce, eds. M. R. Mayenowa, Z. Klemensiewicz, Vol. III: Historia języka, Part 2, Warszawa 1962, pp. 233–279. Górski K., Słownictwo reformacji polskiej, [in:] idem, Z historii i teorii literatury. Seria druga, Warszawa 1964, pp. 352–387. Górska E., Studium kontrastywne składni arabskich i polskich współczesnych tekstów literackich, Kraków 2000. Górska E., Intensyfikacja treści we współczesnym arabskim języku literackim, Kraków 2015. Graf M., Onomastyka na usługach socrealizmu. Antroponimia w literaturze lat 1949–1955, Poznań 2006. Grek-Pabisowa I., Maryniakowa I., Współczesne gwary polskie na dawnych Kresach północno-wschodnich, Warszawa 1999. Greszczuk B., Antynomia dobra i zła w najstarszym piśmiennictwie religijnym, [in:] Tysiąc lat polskiego słownictwa religijnego, ed. B. Kreja, Gdańsk 1999, pp. 47–56. Greszczuk B., Archetypy starotestamentowe w polskich przekładach Psalmów. Problemy lingwistyki stosowanej, Rzeszów 2000. Greszczuk B., Składnia i frazeologia a wierność przekładu. (Na materiale translacji biblijnych), [in:] Język – człowiek – kultura. Rozprawy i artykuły, ed. B. Czopek-Kopciuch, Piotrków Trybunalski 2000, pp. 51–67. Greszczuk B., Autorytet literatury psałterzowo-biblijnej jako wzoru normatywnego polszczyzny średniowiecza i renesansu, [in:] Autorytety i normy, ed. D. Kowalska, Łódź 2003, pp. 153–166. Greszczuk B., Mówią nazwy. O doskonałości i niedoskonałości w nazywaniu Boga, [in:] O doskonałości, Part 1, ed. A. Maliszewska, Łódź 2002, pp. 177–188.

320

Bibliography

Greszczuk B., Poezja, muzyka i modlitwa w Psalmach – heterogeniczność przekazu tekstowego, [in:] Pogranicza, ed. D. Kowalska, Łódź 2007, pp. 141–149. Greszczuk B., Metodologia homogeniczna czy eklektyczna w badaniach językoznawczych?, [in:] Tradycja a nowoczesność, ed. E. Woźniak, Łódź 2008, pp. 369–380. Greszczuk B., Kułakowska M., Frazeologia demoniczna w utworach religijnych do XVII wieku, [in:] Problemy frazeologii europejskiej II. Frazeologia a religia, eds. A. M. Lewicki, W. Chlebda, Warszawa 1997, pp. 253–262. Greszczuk B., Kułakowska M., Metafora w polskich przekładach Psalmów. Próba rekonstrukcji semantycznej, [in:] Semantyka tekstu artystycznego, eds. A. Pajdzińska, R. Tokarski, Lublin 2001, pp. 79–98. Greszczuk B., Piela M., Motywacje kilku biblijnych nazw własnych w tekście oryginału i w przekładzie brzeskim z 1563, „Zeszyty Naukowe WSP w Rzeszowie” XXXII, Językoznawstwo 5, 1999, pp. 135–157. Grochowski M., Zarys leksykologii i leksykografii. Zagadnienia synchroniczne, Toruń 1982. Grodziński E., Zarys ogólnej teorii imion własnych, Warszawa 1983. Grodzki M., Tajemnicze litery Koranu odczytane na nowo. Przyczynek do dialogu chrześcijańsko-muzułmańskiego, [in:] Dialog chrześcijańsko-muzłmański. Historia i współczesność, zagrożenia i wyzwania, eds. M. Lewicka, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2011, pp. 219–233. Grosbart Z., Transkrypcja i transliteracja w ujęciu teorii i praktyki przekładu, [in:] Dziesięć wieków związków wschodniej Słowiańszczyzny z kulturą Zachodu, ed. J. Borsukiewicz, Vol. I, Lublin 1990, pp. 458–467. Grucza F., Tłumaczenie, teoria tłumaczeń, translatoryka, [in:] Problemy translatoryki i dydaktyki translatorycznej, ed. F. Grucza, Warszawa 1986, pp. 9–27. Grucza F., Terminologia. Jej przedmiot, status i znaczenie, [in:] Teoretyczne podstawy terminologii, ed. F. Grucza, Wrocław 1991, pp. 11–44. Grygajtis K., „Alfurkan tatarski prawdziwy” siedemnastowieczny paszkwil na Tatarów litewskich, „Ze skarbca kultury” XLVIII, 1989, pp. 7–37. Grzegorczykowa R., Dzieje i współczesne rozumienie wyrazów „duch” i „dusza”, [in:] W zwierciadle języka i kultury, eds. J. Adamowski, S. Niebrzegowska, Lublin 1999, pp. 333–340. Grzegorczykowa R., Wprowadzenie do semantyki językoznawczej, Warszawa 2001. Grzeszczuk S., Przedmiot i zadania nazewnictwa literackiego, „Z polskich studiów slawistycznych”, Nauka o literaturze 2, Warszawa 1963, pp. 383–405. Gutt E. A., Dystans kulturowy a przekład, translat. A. Pokojska, Kraków 2004.

Bibliography

321

Hanusz J., O wpływie języków wschodnich na słownik języka polskiego, „Prace Filologiczne” I, Warszawa 1885, pp. 455–466. Hauziński J., Tropem muzułmańskich dziejów, Toruń 2007. Hawrysz M., Terminologia jako wyznacznik granic wspólnoty religijnej (na przykładzie leksemu ponurzać i wyrazów pokrewnych), [in:] Żywe problemy historii języka, eds. M. Kuźmicki, M. Osiewicz, Poznań 2010, pp. 125–135. Hawrysz M., Polemiczna twórczość Marcina Czechowica w perspektywie genologii lingwistycznej, Zielona Góra 2012. Hejwowski K., Kognitywno-komunikacyjna teoria przekładu, Warszawa 2006. Historia i współczesność języka polskiego na Kresach wschodnich, ed. I. GrekPabisowa, Warszawa 1997. Hossein S., Idee i wartości islamu, Warszawa 1988. Hourani A., Historia Arabów, translat. J. Danecki, Gdańsk 2002. Hrabec S., Elementy kresowe w języku niektórych pisarzy polskich XVI i XVII w., Toruń 1949. Hrabec S., Jak tłumaczył łacinę pierwszy pisarz Psałterza floriańskiego, „Roczniki Humanistyczne KUL” XIV, Lublin 1966, Brochure 4, pp. 113–122. Huszcza R., Honoryfikatywność. Gramatyka, pragmatyka, typologia, Warszawa 2006. Hutcheon L., Ironia, satyra, parodia – o ironii w ujęciu pragmatycznym, [in:] Ironia, ed. M. Głowiński, Gdańsk 2002, pp. 165–191. Islam w Europie. Nowe kierunki badań. Księga ku czci Profesor Anny Parzymies, eds. M. Widy-Behiesse, K. Zasztowt, Warszawa 2015. Jadacka H., Terminologia, [in:] Nowy słownik poprawnej polszczyzny PWN, ed. A. Markowski, Warszawa 2002, pp. 1760–1767. Jakobson R., Polska literatura średniowieczna a Czesi, „Kultura” 6, 1953, pp. 27–38. Jakobson R., Językowe aspekty tłumaczenia, translat. Z. Sroczyńska, [in:] Przekład artystyczny. O sztuce tłumaczenia. Księga druga, ed. S. Pollak, Wrocław 1975, pp. 109–115. Jan Jakub Wujek. Tłumacz Biblii na język polski. W czterechsetletnią rocznicę wydania Nowego Testamentu 1593–1993, ed. M. Kamińska, Łódź 1994. Jankowski H., Gramatyka języka krymskotatarskiego, Poznań 1992. Jankowski H., Imiennictwo Tatarów litewsko-polsko-białoruskich w dawnych dokumentach, [in:] Tatarzy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w historii, języku i kulturze, eds. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2013, pp. 149–163. Jankowski H., Cechy graficzne i językowe tekstów turkijskich w zapisie kopistów polsko-tatarskich, [in:] Tefsir Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Teoria i praktyka badawcza, e-monografia, eds. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz,

322

Bibliography

Toruń 2015, pp. 139–171 [http://www.tefsir.umk.pl/pliki/Tefsir_Tatarow_WKL. pdf] (28-04-2017). Jankowski H., Łapicz C., Klucz do raju. Księga Tatarów litewsko-polskich z XVIII wieku w przekładzie i opracowaniu Henryka Jankowskiego i Czesława Łapicza, Warszawa 2000. Język w kręgu wartości. Studia semantyczne, ed. J. Bartmiński, Lublin 2003. Język polski. Współczesność – historia, eds. W. Książek-Bryłowa, H. Duda, Vol. I, Lublin 2000; Vol. IV, Lublin 2003. Język polski na Kowieńszczyźnie. Historia, sytuacja socjolingwistyczna, cechy językowe, teksty, ed. H. Karaś, Wilno–Warszawa 2001. Język religijny dawniej i dziś, eds. S. Mikołajczak, T. Węcławski, Poznań 2005. Język – Struktura – Styl – Współczesne kierunki badań lingwistycznych, „Acta Universitatis Lodziensis”, Folia Linguistica Rossica 2, 2006. Jodłowski S., O definicję synonimu, [in:] Studia linguistica in honorem Thaddaei Lehr-Spławiński, Warszawa 1963, pp. 23–29. Jord N., Koran rękopiśmienny w Polsce, Lublin 1994, pp. 7–96. Jordan M., Islam. Historia religii i kultury, Warszawa 2004. Jurkiewicz J., Osadnictwo polskie w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim w świetle badań historycznych, „Acta Baltico-Slavica” XXII, Warszawa 1994, pp. 237–255. Jurkowski M., Metajęzyk w terminologii, [in:] Teoretyczne podstawy terminologii, ed. F. Grucza, Wrocław 1991, pp. 45–60. Jurkowski M., Elementy zachodniosłowiańskie w ukraińskiej terminologii sakralnej, „Z polskich studiów slawistycznych”, Językoznawstwo, Warszawa 1992, pp. 83–87. Juszkiewicz U., Z historii i teorii prac nad polską terminologią techniczną, „Poradnik Językowy” 1982, Brochure 2, pp. 82–88. Kabata M., Neologizmy jako przejaw nominacji językowej w poezji kapłańskiej, [in:] Słowo. Tekst. Czas, Part 7: Nowe środki nominacji językowej w nowej Europie, eds. M. Aleksiejenka, M. Kuczyńska, Szczecin 2004, pp. 77–82. Kaleta Z., Świat ludzkich wartości odzwierciedlony w nazwach własnych osób. (Nazwiska zachodnioeuropejskie i słowiańskie), „Slavia Occidentalis” LIII (1), 1995, pp. 27–34. Kaleta Z., Kierunki i metodologia badań. Terminologia, [in:] Polskie nazwy własne. Encyklopedia, ed. E. Rzetelska-Feleszko, Kraków 2005, pp. 45–81. Kaleta Z., Teoria nazw własnych, [in:] Polskie nazwy własne. Encyklopedia, ed. E. Rzetelska-Feleszko, Kraków 2005, pp. 15–36. Kałużyński St., Uniwersyteckie studia orientalistyczne w Polsce, „Przegląd Orientalistyczny” 2 (10), 1994, pp. 71–87.

Bibliography

323

Kamieniecki J., Staropolskie przekłady Psalmu 51, „Acta Universitatis Wroclawiensis”, Prace Literackie 34, 1995, pp. 29–44. Kamieniecki J., Zapiski językowe Szymona Budnego (Stary Testament), „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej WrTN” XXI, 1995, pp. 145–153. Kamieniecki J., Z dziejów szesnastowiecznej filologii biblijnej – przekłady biblijne Szymona Budnego, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej WrTN” XXV, 1999, pp. 59–65. Kamińska H., Epitety Allaha w Koranie: próba analizy statystycznej, „Studia Religioznawcze” 8, Warszawa 1973. Kamińska M., Psałterz floriański. Monografia językowa, Part 1: Ortografia. Fonetyka. Fleksja imion, Wrocław 1981. Kamińska M., Psałterz floriański. Monografia językowa, Part 2: Fleksja liczebników, zaimków, czasowników, Łódź 1991. Kamińska M., Onomastyka biblijnych tekstów przekładowych jako problem badawczy, [in:] Onomastyka literacka, ed. M. Biolik, Olsztyn 1993, pp. 321–328. Kamińska M., Z problemów funkcjonowania terminologii religijnej w świadomości wiernych, [in:] Język a chrześcijaństwo, eds. I. Bajerowa, M. Karpluk, Z. Leszczyński, Lublin 1993, pp. 85–94. Kamińska M., Charakterystyka ilościowa słownictwa w I części „Psałterza floriańskiego”, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XXXIX, 1994, pp. 45–55. Kamińska M., O zasadach tłumaczenia Nowego Testamentu przez J. Wujka, [in:] Studies in Literature and Language. In Honour of Adela Styczyńska, ed. J. Janicka-Świderska, Łódź 1994, pp. 52–56. Kamińska M., O różnicach leksykalnych między Psałterzem floriańskim (część I) a Psałterzem puławskim, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XL, 1995, pp. 153–167. Kamińska M., Cybulski M., Indeks łacińsko-polski do Psałterza floriańskiego, Warszawa 1995. Kamińska M., Cybulski M., Kowalska D., Słownik polsko-łaciński do średniowiecznych psałterzy polskich. Wyrazy autosemantyczne, Łódź 2000. Karaś M., Kilka uwag o polszczyźnie kresowej początku XVI wieku, „Język Polski” LIII, 1973, pp. 104–112. Karaś M., Polszczyzna na pograniczu białoruskim w początkach XVI w., „Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń Komisji Naukowych PAN. Oddział w Krakowie” XVII, 1975, pp. 107–108. Karpluk M., Imiona apostołów i ewangelistów jako świadectwo oddziaływania liturgii słowiańskiej w Polsce, „Zeszyty Naukowe UG”, Slawistyka 3, Gdańsk (1982) 1984, pp. 63–68.

324

Bibliography

Karpluk M., O najwcześniejszym polskim słownictwie chrześcijańskim, [in:] O języku religijnym. Zagadnienia wybrane, eds. M. Karpluk, J. Sambor, Lublin 1988, pp. 88–102. Karpluk M., Staropolskie tłumaczenia Biblii jako źródło dla przyszłego Słownika naszej terminologii religijnej, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 95–103. Karpluk M., O języku kazań polskich z początku XVI wieku, [in:] Nurt religijny w literaturze polskiego średniowiecza i renesansu, eds. S. Nieznanowski, J. Pelc, Lublin 1994, pp. 171–186. Karpluk M., Z polsko-ruskich związków językowych. Słownictwo cerkiewne w polszczyźnie XVI wieku, Warszawa 1996. Karpluk M., Nad staropolskim słownictwem chrześcijańskim, [in:] Leksyka słowiańska na warsztacie językoznawcy, ed. H. Popowska-Taborska, Warszawa 1997, pp. 105–115. Karpluk M., O staropolskiej terminologii chrześcijańskiej (inspiracje czeskie), [in:] Tysiąc lat polskiego słownictwa religijnego, ed. B. Kreja, Gdańsk 1999, pp. 29–33. Katechizm Kościoła Katolickiego, Poznań 1994. Kempa T., Wobec kontrreformacji. Protestanci i prawosławni w obronie swobód wyznaniowych w Rzeczypospolitej w końcu XVI i w pierwszej połowie XVII wieku, Toruń 2007. Kępińska A., Z problematyki opisu składni XVI-wiecznych przekładów Ewangelii na język polski, [in:] Staropolskie spotkania językoznawcze 1. Jak badać teksty staropolskie?, eds. T. Mika, D. Rojszczak-Robińska, O. Stramczewska, Poznań 2015, pp. 51–62. Kępka I., Adaptacja imion w Ewangelii wg św. Mateusza w Biblii gdańskiej na tle porównawczym, [in:] Nazwy i dialekty Pomorza dawniej i dziś, ed. R. Woźniak-Śliwa, Vol. V, Gdańsk 2003, pp. 197–210. Kępka I., Biblia gdańska – rewizja Biblii brzeskiej czy nowy przekład?, „Rocznik Gdański” XIV, 2004, Brochure 1/2, pp. 113–122. Kielar B. Z., Tłumaczenie i koncepcje translatoryczne, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź 1988. Kielar B. Z., Problemy tłumaczenia tekstów specjalistycznych, [in:] Teoretyczne podstawy terminologii, ed. F. Grucza, Wrocław 1991, pp. 133–140. Kielar B. Z., O wzorach kulturowych i tekstowych w tłumaczeniu i w dydaktyce translacyjnej, [in:] Język, kultura – kompetencja kulturowa, ed. F. Grucza, Warszawa 1992. Kielar B. Z., Zarys translatoryki, Warszawa 2003. Kitab S., Wstęp do nauki języka arabskiego, I–II, Poznań 1989. Klawek A., Onomastyka biblijna, „Onomastica” VII, 1961, pp. 403–416.

Bibliography

325

Klawek A., Etymologia ważniejszych imion biblijnych, „Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń Komisji Naukowych Oddziału Krakowskiego PAN”, styczeń– czerwiec 1964, Kraków, pp. 57–59. Klemensiewicz Z., Przekład jako zagadnienie językoznawstwa, [in:] Przekład artystyczny. O sztuce tłumaczenia, ed. M. Rusinek, Vol. I, Wrocław 1955, pp. 85–97. Klemensiewicz Z., Historia języka polskiego, Vols. I–III, Warszawa 1985. Klemensiewicz Z., Lehr-Spławiński T., Urbańczyk S., Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego, Warszawa 1955. Kleparski G. A., Kierunki typologiczne w badaniach nad zmianą znaczeniową wyrazów, „Biuletyn PTJ” LV, Warszawa 2000, pp. 33–76. Klich E., Polska terminologia chrześcijańska, Poznań 1927. Kładoczny P., Proroctwa chrześcijańskie jako gatunek mowy na tle innych gatunków profetycznych, Zielona Góra 2004. Kołodziejczyk A., Tatarzy regionu bialskopodlaskiego w XVII–XX w., [in:] Z nieznanej przeszłości Białej i Podlasia, eds. T. Krawczak, T. Wasilewski, Biała Podlaska 1990, pp. 191–220. Kołodziejczyk A., Rozprawy i studia z dziejów Tatarów litewsko-polskich i islamu w Polsce w XVII–XX wieku, Siedlce 1997. Kołodziejczyk D., Rola islamskiego sąsiedztwa w kulturze i polityce Rzeczypospolitej, [in:] Rzeczpospolita wielu wyznań, eds. A. Kaźmierczyk, A. K. Link-Lenczowski, M. Markiewicz, K. Matwijowski, Kraków 2004, pp. 441–448. Komornicka A., Biblia a sztuka przekładu i interpretacji. Modlitwa Pańska (Mt 6, 9–13), [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 29–38. Komornicka A., Czy istnieje doskonały przekład literacki, [in:] O doskonałości, ed. A. Maliszewska, Vol. II, Łódź 2002, pp. 161–172. Kondratiuk M., Polsko-białoruskie związki leksykalne, „Acta Baltico-Slavica” X, Warszawa 1977, pp. 303–312. Koniusz E., Z problematyki badań nad polszczyzną wileńską (geografia, historia, współczesność), „Acta Baltico-Slavica” XXVI, Warszawa 2001/2002, pp. 7–23. Konopacki M., O muzułmanach polskich, „Przegląd Orientalistyczny” 3, 1962, pp. 225–240. Konopacki M., Piśmiennictwo Tatarów polsko-litewskich w nauce polskiej i obcej, „Przegląd Orientalistyczny” 3, 1966, pp. 193–204. Konopacki M., Z historii przekładów Koranu w Polsce, „Znak” 2, 1973, pp. 276–281. Konopacki M., Nie dokończony Chamaił imama Muchli, „Rocznik Muzułmański” 7, 2009, pp. 42–48.

326

Bibliography

Konopacki A., Życie religijne Tatarów na ziemiach Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w XVI–XIX wieku, Warszawa 2010. Konopacki A., Wzajemne przenikanie się islamu i chrześcijaństwa na przykładzie miejsc modlitw na ziemiach dawnego Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, [in:] Dialog chrześcijańsko-muzłmański. Historia i współczesność, zagrożenia i wyzwania, eds. M. Lewicka, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2011, pp. 139–147. Konopacki A., Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Łapicz C., Nieznany rękopis polskiego przekładu Koranu, „Colloquia Orientalia Bialostocensia”, Estetyczne aspekty literatury polskich, białoruskich i litewskich Tatarów (od XVI do XXI w.), eds. G. Czerwiński, A. Konopacki, Białystok 2015, pp. 49–67. Kończak I., Terminologia koraniczna związana ze stosunkiem do Boga w systemie leksykalnym języka rosyjskiego w XVIII–XX w., [in:] Arabowie, islam, świat, eds. M. M. Dziekan, I. Kończak, Łódź 2007, pp. 75–82. Kończak I., Rosyjskie przekłady Koranu, [in:] Między Wschodem a Zachodem, Łódzkie Studia Wschodoznawcze, eds. M. M. Dziekan, I. Kończak, Vol. II, Łódź 2009, pp. 165–175. Kończak I., Kształtowanie się rosyjskiej terminologii islamistycznej na podstawie czterech rosyjskich przekładów Koranu, Łódź 2011. Kosman M., Reformacja i kontrreformacja w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim w świetle propagandy wyznaniowej, Wrocław 1973. Kosman M., Tolerancja wyznaniowa na Litwie do XVIII wieku, „Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce” XVIII, 1973, pp. 95–123. Kosman M., Protestanci i kontrreformacja: z dziejów tolerancji w Rzeczypospolitej XVI–XVIII wieku, Wrocław 1978. Kosman M., Reformacja na Litwie. Przebieg – programy – realizacja, [in:] Chrzest Litwy, Lublin 1990, pp. 181–207. Kossowska M., Werbalizm jako metoda przekładu Pisma św. (Szkic na podstawie tekstu Nowego Testamentu), „Roczniki Teologiczno-Kanoniczne KUL” VIII, 1961, Brochure 4, pp. 5–32. Kossowska M., Z dziejów polskiego stylu psałterzowego, „Język Polski” XLII, 1962, Brochure 2, pp. 135–148; Brochure 3, pp. 194–212. Kossowska M., Biblia w języku polskim, Vols. I–II, Poznań 1968–1969. Kosyl C., Warianty i ekwiwalenty nazw własnych, „Poradnik Językowy” 1982, Brochure 4, pp. 213–221. Kosyl C., Aluzyjność nazw własnych w dziele literackim, „Annales UMCS” VI, sectio FF, Lublin 1988, pp. 39–49. Kosyl C., Główne nurty nazewnictwa literackiego (zarys syntezy), [in:] Onomastyka literacka, ed. M. Biolik, Olsztyn 1993, pp. 67–100.

Bibliography

327

Kosyl C., Chrematonimy, [in:] Współczesny język polski, ed. J. Bartmiński, Lublin 2001, pp. 447–452. Kosyl C., Nazwy własne w literaturze pięknej, [in:] Polskie nazwy własne. Encyklopedia, ed. E. Rzetelska-Feleszko, Kraków 2005, pp. 363–387. Kościelniak K., Złe duchy w Biblii i Koranie. Wpływ demonologii biblijnej na koraniczne koncepcje szatana w kontekście oddziaływań religii starożytnych, Kraków 1999. Kościelniak K., XX wieków Chrześcijaństwa w kulturze arabskiej, Kraków 2000. Kościelniak K., Tradycja muzułmańska na tle akulturacji chrześcijańskoislamskiej od VII do X wieku. Geneza, historia i znaczenie zapożyczeń nowotestamentowych w hadisach, Kraków 2001. Kościelniak K., Chrześcijaństwo w spotkaniu z religiami świata, Kraków 2002. Kościelniak K., Sunna, hadisy i tradycjonaliści. Wstęp do tradycji muzułmańskiej, Kraków 2006. Kowalewska-Dąbrowska J., Obraz anioła w poezji Jana Twardowskiego, [in:] Tysiąc lat polskiego słownictwa religijnego, ed. B. Kreja, Gdańsk 1999, pp. 179–194. Kowalski T., W sprawie zapożyczeń tureckich w języku polskim, [in:] Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski, Vol. II, Kraków 1928, pp. 447–459. Kowalski T., W sprawie metodologii badań zapożyczeń tureckich w językach słowiańskich, [in:] I Sjezd Slovanských Filologů, Praha 1932, pp. 554–556. Kowalski T., Próba charakterystyki języków tureckich, „Myśl Karaimska” I, Wrocław 1946, pp. 35–73. Kowalska A., Stan i potrzeby w zakresie historycznych badań nad polszczyzną regionalną, „Język Polski” LXX, 1990, pp. 25–32. Kowalska D., Autorytet „Wulgaty” w pracy przekładowej pierwszego tłumacza „Psałterza floriańskiego”, [in:] Autorytety i normy, ed. D. Kowalska, Łódź 2003, pp. 227–241. Kowalska D., Styl językowy Psałterza floriańskiego na tle porównawczym, Łódź 2003. Kowalska D., Obraz leksyki związanej z wyrażaniem uczucia gniewu w I cz. „Psałterza floriańskiego”, [in:] Studia nad słownictwem dawnym i współczesnym języków słowiańskich, eds. J. Kamper-Warejko, I. KaprońCharzyńska, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Toruń 2007, pp. 21–28. Kowalska D., Określenia temporalne w Psałterzu Dawidowym Mikołaja Reja, „Studia Językoznawcze” IX, Szczecin 2010, pp. 87–99.

328

Bibliography

Kowalska D., Sztuka słowa Mikołaja Reja. Studium stylistycznojęzykowe Psałterza Dawidowego, Łódź 2013. Kozaryn D., Leksem Bóg w „Wizerunku własnym żywota człowieka poczciwego” Mikołaja Reja. (Przyczynek do językowego obrazu Boga w Rejowym „Wizerunku”), [in:] Język religijny dawniej i dziś (w kontekście teologicznym i kulturowym), eds. Fr. P. Bortkiewicz, S. Mikołajczak, M. Rybka, Vol. IV, Poznań 2009, pp. 191–197. Kozarzewska E., Nowsze próby klasyfikacji związków frazeologicznych, „Prace Filologiczne” XXVIII, 1979, pp. 293–313. Koziara S., Pojęcia wartościujące w polskich przekładach Psałterza, Kraków 1993. Koziara S., Współczesne tłumaczenia Psałterza w świetle biblijnej tradycji przekładowej w języku polskim, [in:] Dawność kulturowa w literaturach słowiańskich drugiej połowy XX wieku, ed. M. Kaczmarek, Opole 1993, pp. 55–63. Koziara S., O Psałterzu z roku 1594 w przekładzie ks. Jakuba Wujka – uwagi jubileuszowe, „Język Polski” LXXIV, 1994, Brochure 3, pp. 161–168. Koziara S., Status i funkcja form adresatywnych w języku współczesnych kazań, [in:] Fenomen kazania, ed. W. Przyczyna, Kraków 1994, pp. 136–145. Koziara S., Nowy Testament w przekładzie ks. Jakuba Wujka jako źródło polskiej frazeologii biblijnej, [in:] Frazeologia a religia. Tezy referatów międzynarodowego sympozjum naukowego, Opole 4–6 września 1996, eds. W. Chlebda, S. Kochman, Opole 1996, pp. 44–46. Koziara S., O frazeologizmach w polskich przekładach biblijnych. Od Biblii Wujka do Biblii Tysiąclecia, „Język Polski” LXXVII, 1997, Brochure 2–3, pp. 89–96. Koziara S., Rola Biblii Gdańskiej w kształtowaniu stylowej odrębności polszczyzny biblijnej, „Myśl Protestancka” 3–4, 2002, pp. 69–80. Koziara S., O niektórych wyznacznikach normy w zasobach polskiej frazeologii pochodzenia biblijnego, [in:] Autorytety i normy, ed. D. Kowalska, Łódź 2003, pp. 243–252. Koziara S., O frazeologii biblijnej nie zawsze biblijnego pochodzenia, [in:] Studia nad polszczyzną współczesną i historyczną, ed. J. Liberek, Poznań 2004, pp. 159–166. Koziara S., O frazeologii biblijnej w języku polskim (uwagi na marginesie szerszego ujęcia monograficznego), [in:] Poznańskie Spotkania Językoznawcze, eds. Z. Krążyńska, Z. Zagórski, Vol. XII, Poznań 2004, pp. 85–99. Koziara S., Polska frazeologia biblijna – stan i perspektywy opisu, „Ling Varia” I, 2006, pp. 73–80. Koziara S., Frazeologia biblijna w języku polskim, Kraków 2001; wyd. 2 Łask 2009. Koziara S., Tradycyjne biblizmy a nowe polskie przekłady Pisma Świętego. Ujęcie filologiczno-normatywne, Kraków 2009.

Bibliography

329

Koziara S., Uwagi o frazeologii pochodzenia biblijnego w języku polskim, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki, eds. A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, Symferopol 2008– 2009, pp. 153–166. Kozłowska J., Gramatyka języka arabskiego. Ćwiczenia, Warszawa 2004. Kozłowska Z., O przekładzie tekstu naukowego. Na materiale tekstów językoznawczych, Warszawa 2007. Kożynowa A., Tarelka M., Teksty polskie muzułmanów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego z końca XVIII – początku XIX wieku jako źródło do badań nad polszczyzną północnokresową, [in:] Studia nad polszczyzną kresową, ed. J. Rieger, Vol. IX: Dawna i współczesna polszczyzna na kresach, Warszawa 2004, pp. 279–296. Kozłowska J., Yacoub G., Ćwiczenia z arabskiej frazeologii, Warszawa 2000 (part 1)–2001 (part 2). Krakowska A. M., O normie i konwencji artystycznej – wybrane zagadnienia nieprzetłumaczalności na przykładzie sztuki, „Rocznik Przekładoznawczy” 2, eds. L. Zieliński, M. Pławski, Toruń 2006, pp. 133–140. Krążyńska Z., Średniowieczne techniki rozbudowywania zdań (na przykładzie wielkopolskich rot sądowych), „Kwartalnik Językoznawczy” 3–4, 2010, pp. 1–16. Kresy – pojęcie i rzeczywistość, ed. K. Handke, Warszawa 1997. Kryczyński S., Bibliografia do historii Tatarów polskich, Zamość 1935. Kryczyński S., Tatarzy litewscy. Próba monografii historyczno-etnograficznej, „Rocznik Tatarski” III, Warszawa 1938. Krzysztofiak-Kaszyńska M., Przekład literacki we współczesnej translatoryce, Poznań 1996. Krzysztofiak-Kaszyńska M., Przekład literacki a translatologia, Poznań 1999. Kucała M., Co już jest, a co jeszcze nie jest nazwą własną, „Onomastica” XII, 1967, pp. 153–161. Kucała M., Bohemizmy frazeologiczne w staropolszczyźnie, „Język Polski” LIII, 1973, pp. 119–131. Kucała M., Modyfikacje frazeologii biblijnej, „Roczniki Humanistyczne KUL”, Lublin 1997, Brochure 1, pp. 55–57. Kucała M., Nazywanie Chrystusa w historii polszczyzny, [in:] idem, Polszczyzna dawna i współczesna, Kraków 2000, pp. 175–182. Kucała M., Nazywanie Boga Ojca w historii polszczyzny, [in:] Obraz Boga Ojca w kulturze, eds. M. Ołdakowska-Kuflowa, U. M. Mazurczak, Lublin 2000, pp. 55–65.

330

Bibliography

Kucharska-Dreiss E., Teolingwistyka – próba popularyzacji terminu, [in:] Język religijny dawniej i dziś, eds. S. Mikołajczak, T. Węcławski, Poznań 2004, pp. 23–30. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Analiza leksykalno-frazeologiczna modlitw muzułmanów litewsko-polskich w zestawieniu z modlitwami chrześcijan, [in:] Frazeologia a religia. Tezy referatów Międzynarodowego Sympozjum Naukowego, Opole, 4–6 września 1996, eds. W. Chlebda, S. Kochman, pp. 127–128. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Analiza semantyczna atrybutów Boga jeden, jedyny w Koranie i Biblii, „Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici”, Studia Slavica II, Nauki Humanistyczno-Społeczne, Toruń 1998, Brochure 318, pp. 89–99. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Koran po polsku. (XIX-wieczne przekłady Koranu na język polski: rys historyczny i filologiczny), „Przegląd Artystyczno-Literacki” 10 (80), Toruń 1998, pp. 15–30. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii islamistycznej, praca doktorska, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, Toruń 2001 (a digital version). Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Przekład i charakterystyka semantyczna nazw obowiązkowych modlitw muzułmanów (na podstawie zabytków Tatarów litewsko-polskich i polskich przekładów Koranu), „Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici”, Filologia Polska LV, Językoznawstwo, Toruń 2001, Brochure 347, pp. 103–112. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Islamizmy w systemie gramatyczno-leksykalnym polszczyzny (z historii procesów adaptacyjnych), „Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici”, Studia Slavica VII, Toruń 2002, pp. 167–190. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Terminologia islamistyczna w polskiej leksykografii, [in:] Islam i muzułmanie Białorusi w XX wieku, ed. I. Konopacki, Mińsk 2002, pp. 60–73. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Tożsamość kulturowa Tatarów litewsko-polskich, „Lithuania” 1/2 (42/43), Warszawa 2002, pp. 57–64. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Historia islamizmów w języku polskim, „Język Polski” LXXXIII, Kraków 2003, Brochure 2, pp. 96–101. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Orientalizmy doby staropolskiej – adaptacja do języka polskiego (część I), „Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici”, Filologia Polska LVIII, Językoznawstwo, Toruń 2003, Brochure 359, pp. 103–134. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Kształtowanie się polskiej terminologii muzułmańskiej, Toruń 2004. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Cechy wspólne piśmiennictwa Tatarów litewsko-polskich i kanonu tekstów scs. Geneza. Grafia. Ortografia, [in:] Varia, ed. M. Olšiak, Vol. XIV, Bratislava 2006, pp. 15–23.

Bibliography

331

Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Orientalizmy doby staropolskiej – adaptacja do języka polskiego (część II), „Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici”, Filologia Polska LXII, Językoznawstwo, Toruń 2006, Brochure 377, pp. 93–126. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Nazwy bogów pogańskich w Koranie i w Biblii – polski przekład i jego analiza leksykalno-semantyczna, [in:] Z przeszłości i teraźniejszości języka polskiego. Księga pamiątkowa dedykowana Teresie Friedelównie, eds. J. Kamper-Warejko, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, K. Nowakowska, Toruń 2007, pp. 47–69. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Bałwany i bogowie w Koranie i w Biblii – polski przekład i jego analiza leksykalno-semantyczna, [in:] Studia nad słownictwem dawnym i współczesnym języków słowiańskich, eds. J. Kamper-Warejko, I. KaprońCharzyńska, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Toruń 2007, pp. 103–113. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Semantyka i przekład leksemów księga, pismo, słowo w polskich translacjach biblijnych i koranicznych, [in:] Pogranicza, ed. D. Kowalska, Łódź 2007, pp. 327–347. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Ewangelia, Pięcioksiąg, Psalm, Tora w dawnych i współczesnych translacjach biblijnych i koranicznych, [in:] Tradycja a nowoczesność, ed. E. Woźniak, Łódź 2008, pp. 101–114. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Partner, równy, towarzysz – biblijne i koraniczne nazwy bogów pogańskich, [in:] Varia, eds. A. Gálisová, A. Chomová, Vol. XV, Bratislava 2008, pp. 331–334. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Prawo, Przepis, Tora – przekład nazw Świętych Ksiąg w polskich translacjach biblijnych i koranicznych, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos Visuomenės Tradicijoje: Totoriai ir Karaimai, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008, pp. 93–105. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Przekład słownictwa dogmatycznego islamu i chrześcijaństwa w polskich translacjach biblijnych i koranicznych (na przykładzie wybranych nazw bogów pogańskich), [in:] Tożsamość na styku kultur. Zbiór studiów, eds. I. Masojć, R. Naruniec, Wilno 2008, pp. 372–390. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Anioł w dawnych i współczesnych translacjach biblijnych i koranicznych, „Kalbotyra” LIV(2), Vilnius 2009, pp. 208–218. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Przyczynek do historii Koranu w języku polskim, [in:] Varia, ed. G. Múcsková, Vol. XVI, Bratislava 2009, pp. 309–316. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Sposoby przekładu chrześcijańskiej i muzułmańskiej terminologii religijnej w polskich translacjach biblijnych i koranicznych, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki, eds. A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, Symferopol 2008– 2009, pp. 333–348. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Z problematyki przekładu muzułmańskiej i chrześcijańskiej terminologii religijnej (na podstawie piśmiennictwa Tatarów litewsko-polskich, polskich przekładów Koranu i Biblii), [in:] Lietuvos

332

Bibliography

Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos kalbos, kultūros ir raštijos tradicijos, Vilnius 2009, pp. 335–345. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Zabytki piśmiennictwa Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Stan badań i kierunki badań, [in:] Żywe problemy historii języka, eds. M. Kuźmicki, M. Osiewicz, Poznań 2010, pp. 193–206. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Posłaniec w dawnych i współczesnych przekładach biblijnych i koranicznych, „Studia Językoznawcze” IX, Szczecin 2010, pp. 113–124. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Prorok w dawnych i współczesnych translacjach Biblii i Koranu, „Białostockie Archiwum Językowe” 10, Białystok 2010, pp. 159–176. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Przekład hebr. tôrāh i ar. taurāt w polskich translacjach biblijnych i koranicznych, [in:] Varia, ed. V. Kováčová, Vol. XVII, Ružomberok 2010, pp. 279–293. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Nazwy świętych ksiąg w piśmiennictwie Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego – między przekładem wiernym i swobodnym, „LingVaria” VI, Kraków 2011, No. 1 (11), pp. 151–163. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Z problematyki przekładu biblijnych i koranicznych nazw aniołów oraz innych istot duchowych, „Język Polski” XCI, Kraków 2011, Brochure 1, pp. 24–36. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Z problematyki przekładu biblijnych i koranicznych nazw świętych ksiąg (na podstawie piśmiennictwa Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego oraz polskich translacji Biblii i Koranu), [in:] Wokół religii i jej języka. Konstrukcje i destrukcje tożsamości, eds. E. Golachowska, A. Zielińska, Warszawa 2011, pp. 233–249. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Przekład terminologii religijnej islamu w polskich tłumaczeniach Koranu na tle biblijnej tradycji translatorycznej, Toruń 2013. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Badania kitabistyczne w Polsce i na świecie, „Życie Tatarskie” X (XXVIII), No. 39(116), styczeń–czerwiec 2014, pp. 37–49. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., O czym informują glosy w tatarskiej literaturze przekładowej? (na przykładzie tefsiru z Olity), „Rocznik Tatarów Polskich”, seria 2, Vol. II (XVI), Białystok, Olsztyn, Wrocław 2015, pp. 45–52. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Tefsir z Olity – uwagi językoznawcy, „Slavistica Vilnensis”, Kalbotyra 60, Wilno 2015, pp. 159–175. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Fenomen Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego – koegzystencja kultur. Przekłady Koranu na język polski, „Litteraria Copernicana” 2(18), Tatarzy polscy – adoptowani do narodu, eds. M. Lewicka, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2016, pp. 39–53. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Edycja tefsiru Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego – z problematyki transkrypcji i transliteracji, [in:] Staropolskie spotkania

Bibliography

333

językoznawcze 2. Jak wydawać teksty dawne, eds. K. Borowiec, D. Masłej, T. Mika, D. Rojszczak-Robińska, Poznań 2017, pp. 201–218. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Piśmiennictwo religijne Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego jako oryginalne źródło do badań polszczyzny północnokresowej, „Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne” XXIV (II), Seria Językoznawcza, Poznań 2017, pp. 85–110. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Cechy archaiczne i regionalne w odnalezionym fragmencie rękopisu filomackiego przekładu Koranu na język polski, [in:] Historia języka w XXI wieku. Stan i perspektywy, eds. M. Pastuch, M. Siuciak, Katowice 2018, pp. 368–380. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Lewicka M., Transformacja immanentną cechą przekładu tekstu specjalistycznego – na podstawie polskiego tłumaczenia Koranu z 2. połowy XVI w., „Linguistica Copernicana”, Toruń 2(8) /2012, pp. 65–75. Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Lewicka M., Instytucjonalne formy badań nad dziedzictwem kulturowym Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Centrum Badań Kitabistycznych (UMK, Toruń), [in:] Tatarszczyzna w badaniach. Konteksty interdyscyplinarne, ed. A. Konopacki, Białystok 2015, pp. 65–79. Kuraszkiewicz W., Pochodzenie polskiego języka literackiego w świetle wyników dialektologii historycznej, Wrocław 1953. Kuraszkiewicz W., Polski język literacki. Studia nad historią i strukturą, Warszawa 1986. Kurkowska H., Skorupka S., Stylistyka polska, Warszawa 1959. Kurzowa Z., Język filomatów i filaretów. Przyczynek do dziejów języka polskiego XIX wieku. Słowotwórstwo i słownictwo, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1963. Kurzowa Z., O polskich dialektach kresowych, „Język Polski” LXV, 1985, pp. 99–108. Kurzowa Z., Badania nad polszczyzną kresową w dziesięcioleciu 1973–1983, „Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej” XXIV, 1987, pp. 63–71. Kurzowa Z., Język polski Wileńszczyzny i kresów północno-wschodnich XVI–XX w., Warszawa–Kraków 1993. Kurzowa Z., Ze studiów nad polszczyzną kresową, Kraków 2007. Künstlinger D., Przekład i objaśnienie 53 sury Koranu, Kraków 1926. Kwilecka I., Ze studiów nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii. Problem tłumaczenia realiów biblijnych. 1. Świat zwierzęcy w Starym Testamencie, „Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej” X, 1971, pp. 59–89. Kwilecka I., O swobodnych średniowiecznych przekładach biblijnych (na przykładzie tłumaczeń francuskich, czeskich i polskich), „Język Polski” LVIII, 1978, Brochure 2, pp. 87–97.

334

Bibliography

Kwilecka I., Średniowieczna Biblia francuska a najstarsze zachodniosłowiańskie przekłady biblijne, „Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej” XVIII, 1979, pp. 209–231. Kwilecka I., Z badań nad staropolskim słownictwem biblijnym, „Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej” XXIII, 1985, pp. 49–60. Kwilecka I., Średniowieczna Biblia czeska a staropolskie przekłady biblijne (zarys problematyki badawczej), „Acta Universitatis Lodziensis”, Folia Linguistica 23, 1990, pp. 73–82. Kwilecka I., Niektóre osobliwości leksykalne pochodzenia biblijnego i ich funkcjonowanie we współczesnej polszczyźnie, [in:] Procesy rozwojowe w językach słowiańskich, ed. J. Zieniukowa, Warszawa 1992, pp. 85–111. Kwilecka I., Staropolskie przekłady Biblii i ich związek z biblistyką europejską. Zarys problematyki, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. II, Łódź 1992, pp. 272–293. Kwilecka I., Historia przekładu jednego wersetu biblijnego z Listu św. Pawła do Kolosan: Kol 3, 11, „Łódzkie Studia Teologiczne” III, 1994, pp. 53–71. Kwilecka I., Rola przekładów biblijnych w rozwoju języka polskiego: od średniowiecza do renesansu, „Sprawozdania Wydziału FilologicznoFilozoficznego PTPN” 107, Part 2 (1991/1993), 1994, pp. 27–42. Kwilecka I., Staropolskie przekłady Biblii jako czynniki sprawcze zmian językowych, [in:] Uwarunkowania i przyczyny zmian językowych. Zbiór studiów, ed. E. Wrocławska, Warszawa 1994, pp. 61–70. Kwilecka I., Pochodzenie nazwy Wielkanoc w świetle historycznojęzykowych badań porównawczych, [in:] Symbolae slavisticae dedykowane Pani Profesor Hannie Popowskiej-Taborskiej, Warszawa 1996, pp. 191–200. Kwilecka I., Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii, Poznań 2003. Kwilecka I., Biblia Leopolity i Biblia brzeska. Tradycja a nowoczesność przekładu, [in:] Biblie staropolskie, ed. I. Kwilecka, Poznań 2003, pp. 29–38. Kyas V., Recepcja najstarszego psałterza czeskiego w Polsce, „Roczniki Humanistyczne KUL” XXV, Lublin 1977, pp. 55–62. Landowski Z., Islam: nurty, odłamy, sekty, Warszawa 2008. Landowski Z., Świat arabski. Leksykon, Warszawa 2008. Legeżyńska A., Tłumacz i jego kompetencje autorskie, Warszawa 1999. Lenartowicz A., Promocja, zachęta, manipulacja… czyli o reklamowej funkcji przemów do czytelnika w wybranych XVI-wiecznych utworach religijnych, [in:] Komunikowanie i komunikacja w dawnej Polsce, eds. K. Stępnik, M. Rajewski, Lublin 2008, pp. 133–145.

Bibliography

335

Lenartowicz A., Tradycja i nowoczesność polszczyzny. „Eklezjasta” Hieronima z Wielunia (1522). Sposoby oddawania wybranych konstrukcji łacińskich, [in:] Tradycja a nowoczesność, ed. E. Woźniak, Łódź 2008, pp. 73–89. Lenartowicz A., Piotr Poznańczyk a Biblia Leopolity, czyli o XVI-wiecznych edycjach Księgi Syracha, „Studia Językoznawcze” IX, Szczecin 2010, pp. 125–137. Lenartowicz-Zagrodna A., „Eklezjastes” Hieronima z Wielunia (1522). Transliteracja i transkrypcja. Monografia języka, Łódź 2011. Lenartowicz-Zagrodna A., Księgi Jezusa, syna Syrachowego, Ecclesiasticus rzeczone, które wszytkich cnot naukę zamykają w sobie w przekładzie Piotra Poznańczyka. Studium języka zabytku, Łódź 2015. Leociak J., Teleżyńska E., Antroponimia biblijna w twórczości Cypriana Norwida. (Wokół postaci Mojżesza), [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 251–260. Leszczyński Z., Perspektywy uchwycenia zasobu formalnych stereotypów pochodzenia biblijnego w polszczyźnie, [in:] Język a chrześcijaństwo, eds. I. Bajerowa, M. Karpluk, Z. Leszczyński, Lublin 1993, pp. 95–119. Lewaszkiewicz T., Rola przekładów Biblii w formowaniu języków literackich europejskiego kręgu kulturowego, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 232–248. Lewaszkiewicz T., O potrzebie nowego spojrzenia na genezę polskiego języka literackiego (z uwzględnieniem tła ogólnoeuropejskiego), [in:] Studia historycznojęzykowe, eds. M. Kucała, Z. Krążyńska, Vol. I, Kraków 1994, pp. 213–220. Lewicka M., Identyfikacja i analiza tekstologiczno-filologiczna arabskiej warstwy językowej s. 478-485 Tefsiru z Olity (1723 r.), [in:] Estetyczne aspekty literatury polskich, białoruskich i litewskich Tatarów (XVI-XXI w.), eds. G. Czerwiński, A. Konopacki, Białystok 2015, pp. 107–132. Lewicka M., Z badań nad piśmiennictwem Tatarów polsko-litewskich. Arabska warstwa językowa Tefsiru z Olity (1723), [in:] W kręgu zagadnień świata arabskiego, A. Abbas, A. Maśko, Poznań 2015, pp. 417–433. Lewicki R., Konotacja obcości w przekładzie, Lublin 1993. Lewicki R., Obcość w odbiorze przekładu, Lublin 2000. Lewicki R., Terminologia wschodniego chrześcijaństwa w aspekcie przekładalności, [in:] Problemy technolingwistyki. Języki specjalistyczne 2, ed. J. Lewandowski, Warszawa 2002, pp. 181–189. Lewis B., Arabowie w historii, translat. J. Danecki, Warszawa 1995. Ligara B., Galicyzmy leksykalne w listach Zygmunta Krasickiego na tle wpływów francuskich w polszczyźnie XIX wieku. (Studium bilingwizmu polskofrancuskiego), Kraków 1987.

336

Bibliography

Ligara B., Dwujęzyczność twórców literatury polskiej jako problem badawczy historii języka, „Ling Varia” VI, 2011, No. 1 (11), pp. 165–178. Lindert B., Wpływ systemu fonetycznego języków wschodniosłowiańskich na system fonetyczny języka polskiego na terenie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego na początku XVII w. (na podstawie Discvrsu Nabożnego A. S. Radziwiłła), „Prace Filologiczne” XXIII, 1972, pp. 235–238. Lindert B., Wpływy mazowieckie w języku polskim na kresach północnowschodnich Polski na początku XVII w., „Biuletyn PTJ” XXX, 1972, pp. 213–215. Lindert B., Ślady wpływów mongolskich (tatarsko-tureckich) w onomastyce na terenie dawnej Ziemi Lubelskiej, „Rozprawy Wrocławskiej Komisji Językowej” XII, 1981, pp. 253–255. Lisowski T., „Cerkiew” i „kościół” jako ‘ecclesia’ i ‘templum Christianorum’ w polszczyźnie szesnastowiecznej, [in:] Język a chrześcijaństwo, eds. I. Bajerowa, M. Karpluk, Z. Leszczyński, Lublin 1993, pp. 131–144. Lisowski T., Polszczyzna początku XVI wieku. Problemy wariantywności i normalizacji fonetyki i fleksji, Poznań 1999. Lisowski T., Grafia druków polskich z 1521 i 1522 roku. Problemy wariantywności i normalizacji, Poznań 2001. Lisowski T., Między doktryną a wiernością przekładu. Grecki leksem εκκλησία i jego polskie ekwiwalenty w protestanckich tłumaczeniach Nowego Testamentu z XVI i XVII w., [in:] Język doświadczenia religijnego, eds. G. Cyran, E. Skorupska-Raczyńska, Vol. I, Szczecin 2008, pp. 285–298. Lisowski T., Rzeczownikowe hapakslegomena swoiste Nowego Testamentu Biblii Gdańskiej (1632) – tradycja i nowoczesność. Ujęcie statystyczne, [in:] Tradycja a nowoczesność, ed. E. Woźniak, Łódź 2008, pp. 89–99. Lisowski T., Dwa protestanckie przekłady Nowego Testamentu z 1606 i 1632 roku, autorstwa ks. Daniela Mikołajewskiego, wobec Biblii brzeskiej i Biblii Jakuba Wujka. Wybrane parametry kwantytatywne charakteryzujące leksykę, [in:] Język doświadczenia religijnego, eds. E. Skorupska-Raczyńska, G. Cyran, Vol. II, Szczecin 2009, pp. 29–42. Lisowski T., Surrexit Dominus vere! Jak leksykalnie prawdę o zmartwychwstaniu wyraża Biblia brzeska (1563), Biblia Jakuba Wujka (1599) i Biblia gdańska (1632)?, [in:] Język. Religia. Tożsamość, eds. G. Cyran, E. SkorupskaRaczyńska, Vol. III, Gorzów Wielkopolski 2009, pp. 51–63. Lisowski T., Czy z ilości wynika wartość? Uwagi nad leksyką Nowego Testamentu Biblii gdańskiej (1632), [in:] Ilość – wielkość – wartość, ed. E. Umińska-Tytoń, Łódź 2010, pp. 251–266. Lisowski T., Leksyka Nowego Testamentu Biblii brzeskiej (1563) oraz Biblii Jakuba Wujka (1599) wobec zasobu leksykalnego Słownika polszczyzny XVI

Bibliography

337

wieku, „Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne” XVI (XXXVI), Seria Językoznawcza, 2010, pp. 146–156. Lisowski T., Sola Scriptura. Leksyka Nowego Testamentu Biblii Gdańskiej (1632) na tle porównawczym. Ujęcie kwantytatywno-dystrybucyjne, Poznań 2010. Lisowski T., Migdał J., Bohemizmy wśród leksemów osobliwych staropolskich psałterzy, [in:] Synchroniczne i diachroniczne aspekty badań polszczyzny, eds. M. Białoskórska, A. Belchnerowska, Vol. II, Szczecin 1995, pp. 149–160. Lisowski T., Migdał J., Leksemy osobliwe w miejscach słownikowo różnych Psałterza floriańskiego i puławskiego, [in:] Studia historycznojęzykowe, eds. M. Kucała, Z. Krążyńska, Vol. I, Kraków 1994, pp. 101–112. Lisowski T., Migdał J., Leksykalne osobliwości szesnastowiecznych przekładów Biblii w świetle tłumaczeń Jakuba Wujka, [in:] Idee chrześcijańskie w życiu Europejczyka. Język. Piśmiennictwo. Sztuki plastyczne. Obyczaje, Part 1, eds. A. Ceglińska, Z. Staszewska, Łódź 2001, pp. 287–299. Lisowski T., Migdał J., Uwagi o słownictwie protestanckich przekładów Biblii. Osobliwości leksykalne Biblii brzeskiej a Biblia gdańska, „Studia Językoznawcze” I, Szczecin 2002, pp. 209–219. Lisowski T., Migdał J., W drodze do doskonałości. Uwagi o leksyce protestanckich przekładów Biblii, [in:] O doskonałości, Part 1, ed. A. Maliszewska, Łódź 2002, pp. 271–282. Lizisowa M. T., Charakter regionalizmów w polskim języku kancelaryjnym Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w XVI i XVII w., [in:] Studia polsko-litewskobiałoruskie, eds. M. Tomaszewski, E. Smułkowa, H. Majecki, Warszawa 1988, pp. 297–304. Lubaś W., Referencjalne i niereferencjalne aspekty transpozycji słowiańskich nazw własnych, „Z polskich studiów slawistycznych”, Językoznawstwo 8, Warszawa 1992, pp. 139–145. Lubaś W., Terminy we współczesnych polskich słownikach ogólnych, [in:] Wokół słownika współczesnego języka polskiego III. Zakres selekcji i informacji, eds. W. Lubaś, F. Sowa, Kraków 1993. Luto-Kamińska A., Polska wersja przekładowa Ex P. Terentii comediis Latinissimae colloquiorum formulae… Mateusza z Kęt. Studium języka autora na tle polszczyzny XVI wieku, Warszawa 2010. Łapicz C., Losy językowe Tatarów litewsko-polskich, „Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici”, Filologia Polska XXVII, Nauki Humanistyczno-Społeczne, Toruń 1985, pp. 53–73. Łapicz C., Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich. (Paleografia. Grafia. Język), Toruń 1986.

338

Bibliography

Łapicz C., Z problematyki badawczej piśmiennictwa Tatarów białostockich, [in:] Studia językowe z Białostocczyzny. Onomastyka i historia języka, eds. E. Smułkowa, I. Maryniakowa, Warszawa 1989, pp. 161–171. Łapicz C., Trzy redakcje językowe muzułmańskiej legendy w piśmiennictwie Tatarów litewsko-polskich, „Acta Baltico-Slavica” XX, Warszawa 1991, pp. 155–168. Łapicz C., Zawartość treściowa kitabu Tatarów litewsko-polskich, „Acta BalticoSlavica” XX, Warszawa 1991, pp. 169–191. Łapicz C., Głos w dyskusji, [in:] Dzieje Lubelszczyzny VI. Między Wschodem a Zachodem, Part IV: Zjawiska językowe na pograniczu polsko-ruskim, eds. J. Bartmiński, M. Łesiow, Lublin 1992, pp. 342–343. Łapicz C., Tradycje religijne muzułmanów litewsko-polskich (wybrane zagadnienia), [in:] Wilno-Wileńszczyzna jako krajobraz i środowisko wielu kultur, ed. E. Feliksiak, Vol. I: Literatura i język, Białystok 1992, pp. 297–318. Łapicz C., Warstwy językowe w piśmiennictwie religijnym Tatarów litewskopolskich, [in:] Dzieje Lubelszczyzny VI. Między Wschodem a Zachodem, Part IV: Zjawiska językowe na pograniczu polsko-ruskim, ed. J. Bartmiński, M. Łesiow, Lublin 1992, pp. 321–332. Łapicz C., Historyczne i kulturowe aspekty piśmiennictwa Tatarów litewskopolskich, [in:] Tematy. Księga jubileuszowa w 70. rocznicę urodzin Profesora Leszka Moszyńskiego, eds. K. Szcześniak, H. Wątróbska, Gdańsk 1998, pp. 361–367. Łapicz C., Z zagadnień przekładu muzułmańskiej terminologii religijnej na język polski i białoruski, [in:] Krymsko-polskie Zeszyty Naukowe, ed. A. Gadomski, Symferopol 2005, pp. 165–179. Łapicz C., Z zagadnień przekładu muzułmańskiej terminologii modlitewnej na język polski i białoruski, [in:] Z przeszłości i teraźniejszości języka polskiego. Księga pamiątkowa dedykowana Teresie Friedelównie, eds. J. KamperWarejko, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, K. Nowakowska, Toruń 2007, pp. 99–117. Łapicz C., Glosy, komentarze, objaśnienia etc., czyli o pozakoranicznych dopiskach w rękopiśmiennych tefsirach muzułmanów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos Visuomenės Tradicijoje: Totoriai ir Karaimai, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008, pp. 69–80. Łapicz C., Kitabistyka a historia języka polskiego i białoruskiego. Wybrane zagadnienia, „Rocznik Slawistyczny” LVII, Warszawa 2008, pp. 31–49. Łapicz C., Chrześcijańsko-muzułmańska interferencja religijna w rękopisach Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, [in:] Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystes kalbos, kultūros ir raštijos tradicijos, Vilnius 2009, pp. 293–310.

Bibliography

339

Łapicz C., Transkrypcja czy transliteracja tekstów muzułmanów litewskopolskich pisanych alfabetem arabskim? (Wprowadzenie do dyskusji), „Kalbotyra” LIV (2), Vilnius 2009, pp. 207–219. Łapicz C., Z teorii i praktyki przekładów Koranu (wybrane zagadnienia), [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki, eds. A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, Symferopol 2008– 2009, pp. 269–288. Łapicz C., Muzułmański katechizm Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego z 1830 r., [in:] Krymsko-polskie Zeszyty Naukowe, ed. A. Gadomski, Symferopol 2011, pp. 35–46. Łapicz C., Z jakich źródeł muzułmanie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego czerpali wiedzę o religii chrześcijańskiej?, [in:] Dialog chrześcijańsko-muzułmański. Historia i współczesność, zagrożenia i wyzwania, eds. M. Lewicka, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2011, pp. 165–185. Łapicz C., Źródła cytatów koranicznych w Wykładzie wiary machometańskiej, czyli iślamskiej… Józefa Sobolewskiego z 1830 r., [in:] Tatarzy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w historii, języku i kulturze, eds. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2013, pp. 185–202. Łapicz C., Czy piśmiennictwo Tatarów – muzułmanów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego jest słowiańskim aljamiado?, [in:] W podróży za słowem: księga pamiątkowa z okazji jubileuszu 70-lecia urodzin profesora Emila Tokarza, ed. M. Warchał, Bielsko-Biała 2014, pp. 59–70. Łuczak A., Problem rozwiązywania hebraizmów i arameizmów w Nowym Testamencie S. Murzynowskiego – na wybranych przykładach, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 225–231. Łużny R., Z doświadczeń, przemyśleń oraz możliwości i zamiarów tłumaczy słowiańskich tekstów religijnych, „Roczniki Humanistyczne KUL” XLIII, Lublin 1995, pp. 125–129. Łyszczarz M., Młode pokolenie polskich Tatarów. Studium przemian generacyjnych młodzieży w kontekście religijności muzułmańskiej oraz tożsamości etnicznej, Olsztyn–Białystok 2013. Machut-Mendecka E., Archetypy islamu, Warszawa 2005. Machut-Mendecka E., Świat tradycji arabskiej, Warszawa 2010. Maciuszko J., Symbole w religijności polskiej doby baroku i kontrreformacji, Warszawa 1986. Majda T., Rozwój języka tureckiego w XVII wieku, Warszawa 1985. Majda T., Modlitewnik turecki ze zbiorów Biblioteki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, „Rocznik Tatarów Polskich” II, Gdańsk 1994, pp. 17–19. Majda T., Język turecki, Warszawa 2004.

340

Bibliography

Majda T., Osmanizacja pisanego języka Tatarów polsko-litewskich, [in:] Tatarzy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w historii, języku i kulturze, eds. J. KulwickaKamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2013, pp. 203–210. Majkiewicz A., Intertekstualność – implikacje dla teorii przekładu, Warszawa 2008. Makuchowska M., O statusie języka religijnego, [in:] Systematyzacja pojęć w stylistyce, ed. S. Gajda, Opole 1992, pp. 167–170. Makuchowska M., Styl religijny, [in:] Przewodnik po stylistyce polskiej, ed. S. Gajda, Opole 1995, pp. 449–473. Makuchowska M., Modlitewne formy adresatywne, „Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Opolskiego”, Językoznawstwo XVI, 1996, pp. 63–67. Makuchowska M., Modlitwa jako gatunek języka religijnego, Opole 1998. Makuchowska M., Język religijny względem pozostałych odmian polszczyzny, [in:] Od Biblii Wujka do współczesnego języka religijnego. Z okazji 400-lecia wydania Biblii ks. Jakuba Wujka, eds. Z. Adamek, S. Koziara, Tarnów 1999, pp. 176–189. Makuchowska M., Język religijny, [in:] Język polski. Najnowsze dzieje języków słowiańskich, ed. S. Gajda, Opole 2001, pp. 369–402. Makuchowska M., Bibliografia języka religijnego 1945–2005, Tarnów 2007. Maldjieva V., Czy normalność jest w normie?, „Prace Filologiczne” LX, Seria Językoznawcza, Warszawa 2011, pp. 179–187. Maldjieva V., Tożsamość nazw a tożsamość doktryny (terminy chrześcijańskie w języku neognozy), [in:] Wokół religii i jej języka. Konstrukcje i destrukcje tożsamości, eds. E. Golachowska, A. Zielińska, Warszawa 2011, pp. 355–366. Malec M., Imiona chrześcijańskie w średniowiecznej Polsce jako odbicie uniwersalistycznych cech ówczesnej kultury, [in:] V Ogólnopolska Konferencja Onomastyczna, ed. K. Zierhoffer, Poznań 1988, pp. 197–202. Malec M., Onomastyczne sygnały obecności elementów europejskiej kultury literackiej w średniowieczu polskim, „Acta Universitatis Lodziensis”, Filologia Linguistica 23, 1990, pp. 95–102. Malec M., Miejsce imion biblijnych w antroponimii polskiej, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 86–94. Malec M., Imiona chrześcijańskie w średniowiecznej Polsce, Kraków 1994. Malec M., Kształtowanie się kategorii imienia w polskim systemie antroponimicznym (zarys problematyki), [in:] Antroponimia słowiańska, eds. E. Wolnicz-Pawłowska, J. Duma, Warszawa 1996, pp. 215–221.

Bibliography

341

Malec M., Przydomki hagionimiczne w funkcji samodzielnych imion osobowych, [in:] Onomastyka a dialektologia. Prace dedykowane Pani Profesor Ewie Rzetelskiej-Feleszko, eds. H. Popowska-Taborska, J. Duma, Warszawa 1997, pp. 181–186. Malec M., Adaptacja obcych nazw własnych w „Rozmyślaniu przemyskim”, [in:] Studia historycznojęzykowe, eds. K. Rymut, W. R. Rzepka, Vol. III, Kraków 2000, pp. 329–333. Malec M., Imię w polskiej antroponimii i kulturze, Kraków 2001. Malec M., Onomastyka w „Rozmyślaniu przemyskim”, „Polonica” XXII–XXIII, 2003, pp. 345–390. Malec M., Imiona, [in:] Polskie nazwy własne. Encyklopedia, ed. E. RzetelskaFeleszko, Kraków 2005, pp. 97–118. Mała Encyklopedia Przekładoznawstwa, ed. U. Dąmbska-Prokop, Częstochowa 2000. Małek E., Postacie aniołów w dawnych literaturach i folklorze wschodniosłowiańskim, [in:] Inspiracje chrześcijańskie w kulturze Europy, Part II, ed. E. Woźniak, Łódź 2000, pp. 243–257. Małgorzewicz A., Przekład jako medium rozumienia kultury i międzykulturowej integracji w kontekście językoznawstwa kognitywnego, „Rocznik Przekładoznawczy” 2, eds. L. Zieliński, M. Pławski, Toruń 2006, pp. 169–179. Marciniak T., Formy islamu w Polsce. Od tradycji do fundamentalizmu, [in:] Islam a świat, eds. R. Bäcker, S. Kitab, Toruń 2004. Marcinkiewicz R., Opis leksykograficzny nazw geograficznych „Nowego Testamentu” (między toponimami a eponimami), „Studenckie Prace Naukowe”, Nauki Humanistyczne, Wrocław 1999, Brochure 7, pp. 5–15. Marcinkiewicz R., Polska eponimia biblijna (Babilon, Babilonia), „Poradnik Językowy” 2000, Brochure 2, pp. 27–37. Marcjanik M., Etykieta językowa, [in:] Encyklopedia kultury polskiej XX wieku, ed. J. Bartmiński, Vol. II: Współczesny język polski, Wrocław 1993, pp. 271–281. Markiewicz H., Romanowski A., Skrzydlate słowa, Warszawa 1990. Masłowska E., Przeobrażenia semantyczne polskich gwarowych nazw diabła, „Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej” XXIV, 1987, pp. 77–90. Matuszczyk B., Dialektyzmy Biblii Leopolity (1561) na tle polszczyzny literackiej 2 poł. XVI wieku, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 160–166. Matuszczyk B., Regionalizmy polszczyzny literackiej drugiej połowy XVI wieku w świetle języka przekładów Biblii. Zagadnienie normy językowej, „Roczniki Humanistyczne KUL” XXXVII–XXXVIII, Lublin 1989–1990, Brochure 6, 1992.

342

Bibliography

Matuszczyk B., Kilka uwag o języku Nowego Testamentu (1593) w tłumaczeniu Jakuba Wujka, „Język Polski” LXXIII, 1993, pp. 241–245. Matuszczyk B., „Niech mi Jahwe to uczyni i tamto dorzuci” (idiomy semickie w Biblii Tysiąclecia), [in:] Od Biblii Wujka do współczesnego języka religijnego. Z okazji 400-lecia wydania Biblii ks. Jakuba Wujka, eds. Z. Adamek, S. Koziara, Tarnów 1999, pp. 65–73. Matuszczyk B., Biblia Tysiąclecia wobec tradycji Wujkowego przekładu Pisma świętego, [in:] Inspiracje chrześcijańskie w kulturze Europy, Part I, ed. E. Woźniak, Łódź 2000, pp. 201–210. Matuszczyk B., Wierność czy zrozumiałość? Kazimierza Romaniuka tłumaczenie Biblii w świetle tradycji polskich przekładów Pisma Świętego, [in:] Przekładając nieprzekładalne, eds. O. Kubińska, W. Kubiński, T. Z. Wolański, Gdańsk 2000, pp. 233–241. Matuszczyk B., Problemy ekwiwalencji w tłumaczeniu Biblii, [in:] Warsztaty translatorskie. Workshop on Translation, eds. R. Sokolowski, H. Duda, Lublin– Ottawa 2001, pp. 51–61. Matuszczyk B., Biblia gdańska (1632) wobec wzorca polskiego stylu biblijnego, „Myśl Protestancka” 3–4, 2002, pp. 81–86. Matuszczyk B., „Bądźcież tedy doskonali…”. O biblijnym znaczeniu przymiotnika doskonały, [in:] O doskonałości, Part 1, ed. A. Maliszewska, Łódź 2002, pp. 259–266. Matuszczyk B., O demetaforyzacji języka współczesnych przekładów Pisma świętego, [in:] Warsztaty translatorskie 3. Workshop on Translation, eds. R. Sokołowski, H. Duda, K. Klimkowski, Lublin 2003, pp. 129–140. Matuszczyk B., O tłumaczeniu miejsc trudnych Pisma Świętego na przykładzie hebraizmów, [in:] Przekładając nieprzekładalne, eds. O. Kubińska, W. Kubiński, Gdańsk 2003, pp. 135–144. Matuszczyk B., Kilka uwag o przekładaniu semityzmów we współczesnych polskich tłumaczeniach Biblii, [in:] De lingua et litteris: Studia in honorem Casimiri Andreae Sroka, eds. D. Stanulewicz, R. Kalisz, W. Kürschner, C. Klaus, Gdańsk 2005, pp. 467–470. Meller K., „Noc przeszła, a dzień się przybliżył”. Studia o polskim piśmiennictwie reformacyjnym XVI wieku, Poznań 2004. Metodologia badań onomastycznych, ed. M. Biolik, Olsztyn 2003. Mez A., Renesans islamu, translat. J. Danecki, Warszawa 1994. Mędelska J., Marszałek M., Problem interpretacji zwężenia o>u w wymowie północnokresowej. (Na materiale wydawnictw kowieńskich 1919–1940), „Język Polski” LXXXVI, 2006, Brochure 1, pp. 268–279. Mickiewicz A., Powieści poetyckie, Warszawa 1964.

Bibliography

343

Mickiewicz F., Pamiętnik Franciszka Mickiewicza, z autografu wydał i objaśnił J. Kallenbach, słowo wstępne W. Mickiewicz, Lwów–Warszawa–Kraków 1923. Między oryginałem a przekładem, eds. J. Konieczna-Twardzikowa, U. Kropiwiec, Vol. I: Czy istnieje teoria przekładu?, Kraków 1995. Między oryginałem a przekładem, eds. M. Filipowicz-Rudek, J. KoniecznaTwardzikowa, Vol. II: Przekład, jego tworzenie się i wpływ, Kraków 1996. Między oryginałem a przekładem, eds. M. Filipowicz-Rudek, J. KoniecznaTwardzikowa, M. Stouch, Vol. III: Czy zawód tłumacza jest w pogardzie?, Kraków 1997. Między oryginałem a przekładem, eds. M. Filipowicz-Rudek, J. KoniecznaTwardzikowa, U. Kropiwiec, Vol. V: Na początku był przekład, Kraków 1999. Między oryginałem a przekładem, eds. U. Kropiwiec, M. Filipowicz-Rudek, J. Konieczna-Twardzikowa, Vol. VIII: Stereotyp a przekład, Kraków 2003. Migdał J., O języku Andrzeja Glabera z Kobylina. Studium normalizacji polszczyzny wczesnorenesansowej, Poznań 1999. Migdał J., „Wyznajemy, że On jest Panem naszym, Mesjaszem, Bogiem i człowiekiem prawdziwym, Zbawicielem i Odkupicielem naszym” – jak Jakub Wujek nazywa Jezusa w swoich „Postyllach”, [in:] Język religijny dawniej i dziś, eds. S. Mikołajczak, T. Węcławski, Poznań 2004, pp. 298–308. Migdał J., Walczak B., Rytualne formuły językowe w najstarszych polskich tekstach, [in:] Rytuał. Język – religia, ed. R. Zarębski, Łódź 2005, pp. 387–400. Mika T., Maryja, Jezus, Bóg w Rozmyślaniu przemyskim. O nazywaniu osób, Poznań 2002. Milewski T., Teoria, typologia i historia języka, Kraków 1993. Mika T., Twardzik W., Jak zagadkowe cztery tytuły rozdziałów w Rozmyślaniu przemyskim pozwalają wyobrażać sobie jego zagubiony autograf, „Język Polski” XCI, 2011, Brochure 5, pp. 321–334. Minikowska T., Wyrazy ukraińskie w polszczyźnie literackiej XVI wieku, Warszawa 1980. Miodek J., Głos wołającego – na puszczy czy na pustyni, [in:] idem, Przez lata ze słowem polskim, Wrocław 1991, pp. 82–84. Miodunka W., O obecność w historii języka polskiego studiów nad polszczyzną mniejszości narodowych i grup etnicznych. Jubileusz prof. Marii StrycharskiejBrzeziny, „LingVaria” V, 2010, No. 2, pp. 267–277. Miodunka W., Między etniczno-genealogicznym a kulturowym rozumieniem narodu. O potrzebie historycznojęzykowych badań polszczyzny jako języka obcego i drugiego, „Ling Varia” VI, 2011, No. 1 (11), pp. 179–204.

344

Bibliography

Misterski H., Religijna koncepcja metafory, „Studia Romanica Posnaniensia” XVII, 1993, pp. 157–161. Miśkiewicz A., Tatarzy polscy 1918–1939, Warszawa 1990. Miśkiewicz A., Tatarzy polscy w latach 1945–1985. Zarys historyczny, „Studia Podlaskie” III, Białystok 1991, pp. 99–137. Miškinienė G., O zawartości treściowej najstarszych rękopisów Tatarów litewskich, „Rocznik Tatarów Polskich” VI, Gdańsk 2000, pp. 30–36. Miškinienė G., Zabytki Tatarów litewsko-polskich. Nowe perspektywy badawcze – referat wygłoszony w Towarzystwie Miłośników Języka Polskiego, Toruń 2001. Moszyński L., Geografia niektórych zapożyczeń niemieckich w staropolszczyźnie, Poznań 1954. Moszyński L., Polskie kontakty z piśmiennictwem cerkiewnosłowiańskim do końca XV wieku, „Zeszyty Naukowe Wydziału Humanistycznego UG”, Slawistyka 3, eds. L. Moszyński, H. Wątróbska, Gdańsk 1982. Moszyński L., Jeden werset staropolskiego przekładu Psałterza, „Acta Universitatis Lodziensis”, Folia Linguistica 23, Polszczyzna średniowieczna i renesansowa, ed. M. Kamińska, 1990, pp. 103–109. Moszyński L., O staropolskim i staroczeskim przekładzie pierwszych zdań Księgi Rodzaju z oryginału hebrajskiego (Biblia Budnego i kralicka), [in:] Studia historycznojęzykowe, eds. M. Kucała, Z. Krążyńska, Vol. I, Kraków 1994, pp. 149–156. Moszyński L., Technika przekładu najstarszego polskiego tłumaczenia Biblii z hebrajskiego, „Rocznik Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego” LV, 1994, pp. 64–65. Moszyński L., Sposoby tłumaczenia hebrajskich miar w renesansowych przekładach Biblii (od Leopolity do Biblii Gdańskiej), [in:] Język polski – historia i współczesność, eds. Z. Krążyńska, L. Zagórski, Poznań 1995, pp. 67–78. Moszyński L., Słownictwo na warsztacie Szymona Budnego, [in:] Leksyka słowiańska na warsztacie językoznawcy, ed. H. Popowska-Taborska, Warszawa 1997, pp. 185–200. Moszyński L., Szymon Budny jako onomasta, [in:] Onomastyka i dialektologia. Prace dedykowane Pani Profesor Ewie Rzetelskiej-Feleszko, eds. H. PopowskaTaborska, J. Duma, 1997, pp. 187–196. Moszyński L., Cerkiewnosłowiańska tzw. Moskiewska Msza Maryjna jako odzwierciedlenie litewsko-białorusko-polskich kontaktów kulturowych w XV wieku, [in:] Czterechsetlecie unii brzeskiej: zagadnienia języka religijnego, ed. Z. Leszczyński, Lublin 1998, pp. 21–35.

Bibliography

345

Moszyński L., „Na tej opoce zbuduję kościół mój” – przekład czy egzegeza polskich wersji zdania Mt 16, 18 od XVI wieku do dziś, [in:] Funkcja słowa w ewangelizacji, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Umińska-Tytoń, Łódź 1998, pp. 33–46. Moszyński L., Początki polskiego słownictwa religijnego, [in:] Tysiąc lat polskiego słownictwa religijnego, ed. B. Kreja, Gdańsk 1999, pp. 7–12. Moszyński L., Z historii słowiańskich przekładów peryfrastycznych imienia Boga – Elohim (Księga Wyjścia 3, 14). Proces onomatyzacji zwrotu „Jestem Który Jestem”, [in:] Studia lingwistyczne ofiarowane Profesorowi Kazimierzowi Polańskiemu na 70-lecie Jego urodzin, eds. W. Banyś, L. Bednarczuk, S. Karolak, Katowice 1999, pp. 285–294. Moszyński L., Osobliwe konstrukcje imiesłowowe w Biblii Budnego z roku 1572, [in:] Studia historycznojęzykowe, eds. K. Rymut, W. Rzepka, Part III: Rozwój polskiego systemu językowego, Kraków 2000, pp. 241–252. Moszyński L., Kształt językowy potocznych frazeologizmów ewangelijnych w przekładach polskich. Od Murzynowskiego do Biblii Tysiąclecia, [in:] Idee chrześcijańskie w życiu Europejczyka. Język. Piśmiennictwo. Sztuki plastyczne. Obyczaje, Part I, eds. A. Ceglińska, Z. Staszewska, Łódź 2001, pp. 301–328. Moszyński L., Nomina agentis z formantem -acz w Biblii Szymona Budnego z roku 1572, „Roczniki Humanistyczne KUL” XLIX–L, Lublin 2001–2002, Brochure 6, pp. 279–289. Moszyński L., Rzeczowniki z sufiksem -ciel w Biblii Budnego z roku 1572, [in:] W świecie słów i znaczeń. Księga pamiątkowa dedykowana profesorowi Bogusławowi Krei, eds. J. Maćkiewicz, E. Rogowska, Gdańsk 2001, pp. 208–219. Moszyński L., Biblia Szymona Budnego. Charakterystyka przekładu, [in:] Biblie staropolskie, ed. I. Kwilecka, Poznań 2003, pp. 41–50. Moszyński L., Literackie, słownikowe, potoczne a „biblijne” szesnastowieczne nazwy maści końskich, [in:] Studia z gramatyki i leksykologii języka polskiego. Prace dedykowane Profesor Marii Szupryczyńskiej, eds. M. GębkaWolak, I. Kaproń-Charzyńska, M. Urban, Toruń 2003, pp. 261–272. Motahhari M., Poznanie Koranu, Piotrków Trybunalski 1992. Mrozek A., Koran a kultura arabska, Warszawa 1967. Mrozek-Dumanowska A., Islam a Zachód, Warszawa 1991. Mrozek-Dumanowska A., Współczesny ruch odnowy islamu. W poszukiwaniu własnej tożsamości kulturowej, Warszawa 2000. Mrozek-Dumanowska A., Zdanowski J., Islam a globalizacja, Warszawa 2005. Mrozowska A., Majda T., Siedemnastowieczny słowniczek turcyzmów, „Prace Filologiczne” XXIV, Warszawa 1973, pp. 219–232.

346

Bibliography

Muchliński A., Zdanie sprawy o Tatarach litewskich, przez jednego z tych Tatarów złożone sułtanowi Sulejmanowi w r. 1558. Z języka Tureckiego przełożył, objaśnił i materyałami historycznemi uzupełnił A. Muchliński, professor zwyczajny literatury Tureckiéj w Cesarskim St. Petersburskim uniwersytecie, „Teka Wileńska” 1 (4), Wilno 1858, pp. 241–272; 2 (5), pp. 121– 179; 3 (6), pp. 139–183. Mróz-Ostrowska E., Rzeczowniki z przyrostkiem -ość w języku XVI wieku, [in:] Odrodzenie w Polsce, eds. M. R. Mayenowa, Z. Klemensiewicz, Vol. III: Historia języka, Part 2, Warszawa 1962, pp. 303–502. Nadolski B., Dokoła prac przekładowych w XVI wieku, „Pamiętnik Literacki” XLIII, 1952, Brochure 1–2, pp. 475–487. Nagórko A., Zagadnienia derywacji przymiotników, Warszawa 1987. Nasr S. H., Idee i wartości islamu, translat. J. Danecki, Warszawa 1988. Nasr S. H., Istota islamu. Trwałe wartości dla ludzkości, translat. K. Pachniak, Warszawa 2010. Nida A. E., Przekłady. Teoria i praktyka, [in:] Słownik wiedzy biblijnej, eds. B. Metzger, M. Coogan, Warszawa 1997, pp. 633–634. Nida A. E., Zasady przekładu na przykładzie tłumaczenia Biblii, translat. M. B. Fedewicz, „Pamiętnik Literacki” LXXII, 1981, Brochure 1, pp. 323–342. Nitsch K., Studia z historii polskiego słownictwa, Kraków 1948. Nosowski J., Teologia Koranu. Wykład systematyczny, Warszawa 1971. Nosowski J., Polska literatura polemiczno-antyislamistyczna XVI, XVII i XVIII w., Brochure 1–2, Warszawa 1974. Nowakowska-Kempna I., Pozycja nazw własnych w przekładzie dzieła literackiego, „Prace Naukowe UŚ” I, Język artystyczny, Katowice 1978, pp. 97–116. Nowicki P., Greczyzna biblijna. Wprowadzenie, Warszawa 1967. Nowicki P., Hebrajszczyzna biblijna, Warszawa 1978. Nowotczyński M., Tatarzy polsko-litewscy. Wybrane zagadnienia kultury duchowej na podstawie Chamaiłu Aleksandrowicza, Warszawa 2004. Nowowiejski B., Z metodologii badań pogranicza językowego północnowschodnio-polskiego, [in:] Słowiańskie pogranicza językowe. Zbiór studiów, ed. K. Handke, Warszawa 1992, pp. 103–108. O definicjach i definiowaniu, eds. J. Bartmiński, R. Tokarski, Lublin 1993. Obara J., O trudnościach związanych z ekscerpcją kalk leksykalnych, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej WrTN” XI, 1978, pp. 233–258. Obara J., Teoretyczne problemy kalkowania, Wrocław 1989. Obremski K., Genologia i retoryka w Księdze Psalmów, Toruń 2010.

Bibliography

347

Oćwieja A., Hieratyczny język tłumaczenia Biblii wobec stylu oryginału (na przykładzie nowotestamentowych przekładów Czesława Miłosza), [in:] Hungaro-Slavica. Studia in honorem Iani Bańczerowski professsoris Universitatis Scientiarum de Rolando Eötvös nominate, ed. I. Nyomárkay, Budapest 2001, pp. 175–179. Orłoś T. Z., Skrzydlate słowa pochodzenia biblijnego w języku czeskim i polskim, [in:] Problemy frazeologii europejskiej II. Frazeologia a religia, eds. A. M. Lewicki, W. Chlebda, Warszawa 1997, pp. 9–18. Orłoś T. Z., Z badań nad słowiańską frazeologią porównawczą. Czeskie i polskie skrzydlate słowa, „Z polskich studiów slawistycznych”, Językoznawstwo, Warszawa 1998, pp. 213–218. Orłoś T. Z., Hornik J., Czesko-polski słownik skrzydlatych słów, Kraków 1996. Osiewicz M., Piotrowska A., Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku jako podstawa materiałowa badań nad regionalnym zróżnicowaniem słownictwa, [in:] Leksykalno-stylistyczne zjawiska w polszczyźnie ogólnej, eds. E. SkorupskaRaczyńska, J. Rychter, Gorzów Wielkopolski 2007, pp. 63–73. Ostrowska E., O artyzmie polskich średniowiecznych zabytków językowych, „Zeszyty Naukowe UJ” CLIV, Prace Językoznawcze, Kraków 1967, Brochure 20, pp. 66–108. Ostrowska E., Z dziejów języka polskiego i jego piękna. Studia i szkice, Kraków 1978. Pajdzińska A., Językowy obraz Boga i szatana w polskiej poezji powojennej, [in:] Tysiąc lat polskiego słownictwa religijnego, ed. B. Kreja, Gdańsk 1999, pp. 157–178. Paluszak-Bronka A., Językowy obraz szatana w kazaniach księdza Piotra Skargi, „Studia Językoznawcze” II, Szczecin 2003, pp. 233–243. Paluszak-Bronka A., Nazwania sakramentu Eucharystii w kazaniach księdza Piotra Skargi, „Studia Językoznawcze” IV, Szczecin 2005, pp. 241–253. Paluszak-Bronka A., Czachorowska M., Językowy obraz innowiercy w kazaniach księdza Piotra Skargi. Wyraz nietolerancji wyznaniowej w XVI w., [in:] Inspiracje chrześcijańskie w kulturze Europy, ed. E. Woźniak, Łódź 1999, pp. 367–380. Paolucci G., Eid C., Islam. Sto pytań, translat. K. Klauza, Warszawa 2004. Parzymies A., Muzułmanie w Europie, Warszawa 2005. Paśko D., Powiązania między językiem polskim a wyznaniem katolickim wśród bilingwalnej społeczności wierszynian na Syberii, [in:] Wokół religii i jej języka. Konstrukcje i destrukcje tożsamości, eds. E. Golachowska, A. Zielińska, Warszawa 2011, pp. 113–120.

348

Bibliography

Pawłowska A., Pomiędzy grzecznością a jej brakiem – granice w dawnej polskiej etykiecie językowej, [in:] Żywe problemy historii języka, eds. M. Kuźmicki, M. Osiewicz, Poznań 2010, pp. 117–123. Pepłowski F., Słownictwo i frazeologia polskiej publicystyki okresu oświecenia i romantyzmu, Warszawa 1961. Pepłowski F., O zasobie leksykalnym Słownika polszczyzny XVI wieku, [in:] W służbie nauce i szkole. Księga pamiątkowa poświęcona Profesorowi Doktorowi Zenonowi Klemensiewiczowi, ed. M. Szymczak, Warszawa 1970, pp. 248–259. Pepłowski F., Odczasownikowe nazwy wykonawców czynności w polszczyźnie XVI w., Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk 1974. Pepłowski F., Zmiany językowo-stylistyczne w Nowym Testamencie Szymona Budnego z 1574 r., [in:] Tekst. Język. Poetyka. Zbiór studiów, ed. M. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław 1978, pp. 319–342. Pepłowski F., Odbicie sporów teologicznych o dogmat Trójcy Świętej w polszczyźnie XVI w., [in:] Studia z gramatyki i leksykologii języka polskiego. Prace dedykowane Profesor Marii Szupryczyńskiej, eds. M. Gębka-Wolak, I. Kaproń-Charzyńska, M. Urban, Toruń 2003, pp. 273–280. Perczyńska B., Frazeologia religijna w najstarszych ruskich zabytkach hagiograficznych, [in:] Problemy frazeologii europejskiej II. Frazeologia a religia, eds. A. M. Lewicki, W. Chlebda, Warszawa 1997, pp. 273–280. Pieciul-Karmińska E., Językowy obraz Boga i świata. O przekładzie teologii niemieckiej na język polski, Poznań 2007. Piela M., Gramatyka tekstu a przekład biblijny. Reguły niepowtarzania składników, „Studia Judaica” IV, 2001, pp. 1–15. Piela M., Grzech dosłowności we współczesnych polskich przekładach Starego Testamentu, Kraków 2003. Piela M., Jakiego przekładu Biblii hebrajskiej brakuje w Polsce?, „Studia Judaica” X, 2007, No. 2 (20), pp. 235–250. Pieńkos J., Przekład i tłumacz we współczesnym świecie. Aspekty lingwistyczne i pozalingwistyczne, Warszawa 1993. Pieńkos J., Podstawy przekładoznawstwa. Od teorii do praktyki, Kraków 2003. Pihan A., Z zagadnień literackiej polszczyzny północnokresowej XVII wieku, [in:] Słowiańskie pogranicza językowe. Zbiór studiów, ed. K. Handke, Warszawa 1992, pp. 121–127. Pihan-Kijasowa A., Adaptacja formalna łacińskich nazw osobowych rodzaju męskiego w polszczyźnie XVII wieku. Wybrane zagadnienia, [in:] Synchroniczne i diachroniczne aspekty badań polszczyzny, eds. M. Białoskórska, S. Kania, Vol. I, Szczecin 1994, pp. 171–180. Pihan-Kijasowa A., Literacka polszczyzna Kresów północno-wschodnich XVII wieku. Fonetyka, Poznań 1999.

Bibliography

349

Pihan-Kijasowa A., Udział leksyki religijnej w słownictwie pamiętników zesłańczych z XIX wieku, [in:] Język. Społeczeństwo. Wartości, eds. E. Laskowska, I. Benenowska, M. Jaracz, Bydgoszcz 2008, pp. 321–332. Pihan-Kijasowa A., Akty cechów wileńskich z lat 1495–1759. Komentarz językowy, [in:] W kręgu języka, ed. M. Skarżyński, M. Szpiczakowska, Kraków 2009. Pihan-Kijasowa A., Nazwiska mieszczan wileńskich (XVI–XVIII wiek). Zarys problematyki, [in:] Poznańskie Spotkania Językoznawcze, eds. A. PihanKijasowa, I. Sarnowska-Giefing, Vol. XXII, Poznań 2011, pp. 83–95. Piotrowicz A., Typy regionalizmów leksykalnych, Poznań 1991. Pisarkowa K., O składni „Kazań gnieźnieńskich”. Partykuła ć, ci, [in:] Studia z polskiej składni historycznej, Vol. I, Wrocław 1976, pp. 7–39. Pisarkowa K., Jak się tytułujemy i zwracamy do drugich, „Język Polski” LIX, 1979, Brochure 1, pp. 5–17. Pisarkowa K., Historia składni języka polskiego, Wrocław 1984. Pisarkowa K., Wyobrażenie Chrystusa w Rozmyślaniu przemyskim, „Znak” 4, 2002, pp. 98–112. Pisarska A., Tomaszkiewicz T., Współczesne tendencje przekładoznawcze, Poznań 1988. Piwiński R., Mity i legendy w krainie proroka, Warszawa 1983. Pleciński J., Język, Biblia, przekład, „Tygodnik Powszechny” 9, 1986, pp. 4–5. Pławski M., O tłumaczeniu jako czynności uwarunkowanej kulturowo na przykładzie frazeologizmów zawierających etnonimy, [in:] „Rocznik Przekładoznawczy” 2, eds. L. Zieliński, M. Pławski, Toruń 2006, pp. 181–190. Pociask J., „Trudny orzech do zgryzienia” – kilka uwag o tłumaczeniu stałych związków frazeologicznych, [in:] „Rocznik Przekładoznawczy” 2, eds. L. Zieliński, M. Pławski, Toruń 2006, pp. 191–199. Pociej H., Antirresis, abo, Apologija przeciwko Krzysztofowi Philaletowi, który niedawno wydał książki imieniem starożytnej Rusi religiej greckiej przeciw książkom o synodzie brzeskim, napisanym w Roku Pańskim 1597, Wrocław 1997, (W Wilnie przez Daniela Łęczyckiego Roku Pańskiego 1600). Podhrodecki L., Tatarzy, Warszawa 1971. Pollak S., Granice swobód, [in:] Przekład artystyczny. O sztuce tłumaczenia. Księga druga, ed. S. Pollak, Wrocław 1975, pp. 271–284. Polszczyzna XVII wieku. Stan i przeobrażenia, ed. D. Ostaszewska, Katowice 2002. Polszczyzna północno-wschodnia. Metodologia badań językowych, ed. A. Falińska, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź 1989. Poniatowski Z., Dzieje islamistyki w Polsce po II wojnie światowej, „Przegląd Orientalistyczny” XL, 1992, No. 1–4, pp. 67–76.

350

Bibliography

Popowska-Taborska H., Kształtowanie się polskiego szesnastowiecznego słownictwa w świetle badań nad Słownikiem Bartłomieja z Bydgoszczy, „Zeszyty Naukowe UJ”, Prace językoznawcze, 1974, Brochure 42, pp. 161–171. Popowska-Taborska H., Słowiańskie etnonimy i antroponimia, [in:] eadem, Wczesne dzieje Słowian w świetle ich języka, Wrocław 1991, pp. 49–72. Przekład – Język – Kultura, ed. R. Lewicki, Lublin 2002. Przekładając nieprzekładalne, eds. O. Kubińska, W. Kubiński, Vol. II, Gdańsk 2004, Vol. III, Gdańsk 2007. Pszczołowska L., Puzynina J., Tłumacze Odrodzenia o swoich przekładach, „Poradnik Językowy” 1954, Brochure 9, pp. 14–26. Puchalska J., Dziedziczki Soplicowa, Warszawa, 2014. Puchalska J., Koran w Soplicowie. Tajemnicza historia pewnego manuskryptu, „Życie Tatarskie” No. 39 (116), 2014, pp. 99–105. Puzynina J., Biblijna etyka mowy a współczesna filozofia języka, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 17–28. Puzynina J., Język wartości, Warszawa 1992. Puzynina J., Słownictwo eucharystyczne w historii języka polskiego, „Zeszyty Naukowe WSP w Opolu”, Językoznawstwo, Vol. XIII: Onomastyka, historia języka, dialektologia, Opole 1991, pp. 479–485. Puzynina J., Słowo – wartość – kultura, Lublin 1997. Puzynina J., Słownictwo etyczne, Part 1: prawda, fałsz, kłamstwo, Warszawa 1993. Rachwałowa M., Formy adresatywne w mowach staropolskich, „Poradnik Językowy” 1987, Brochure 7, pp. 528–535. Radziszewska I., Multilingwizm tekstów religijnych Tatarów litewsko-polskich na przykładzie chamaiłów, [in:] Slavistika v moderním světě, Červený KostelecPraha 2008, pp. 251–259. Radziszewska I., Rękopisy tatarskie na Podlasiu, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos Visuomenės Tradicijoje: Totoriai ir Karaimai, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008, pp. 138–143. Radziszewska I., Chamaiły Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego jako teksty religijne i źródła filologiczne, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki, eds. A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, Symferopol 2008–2009, pp. 221–230. Radziszewska I., Elementy obyczajowości Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego na przykładzie oracji weselnych w tatarskim rękopiśmiennictwie, [in:] Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystes kalbos, kultūros ir raštijos tradicijos, Vilnius 2009, pp. 346–356. Radziszewska I., Chamaiły jako typ piśmiennictwa religijnego muzułmanów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego (na podstawie słowiańskiej warstwy

Bibliography

351

językowej), praca doktorska, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, Toruń 2010 (komputeropis). Reczek J., Języki w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, „Język Polski” LXIX, 1989, Brochure 1–2, pp. 10–19. Reczek J., Bohemizmy leksykalne w języku polskim do końca XV wieku. Wybrane zagadnienia, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1968. Rewers R., Wygasanie słownictwa staropolskiego w szesnastowiecznym piśmiennictwie religijnym, „Slavia Occidentalis” LII, 1995, pp. 97–119. Reychman J., Znajomość i nauczanie języków orientalnych w Polsce w XVIII w., Wrocław 1950. Reychman J., Śląska i pomorska orientalistyka XVI–XVIII w., [in:] Szkice z dziejów polskiej orientalistyki, Vol. I, Warszawa 1957, pp. 51–67. Reychman J., Zainteresowania orientalistyczne w środowisku mickiewiczowskim w Wilnie i Petersburgu, [in:] Szkice do dziejów Polskiej Orientalistyki, ed. S. Strelcyn, Vol. I, Warszawa 1957. Reychman J., Orient w kulturze polskiego oświecenia, Wrocław 1964. Reychman J., Mahomet i świat muzułmański, Warszawa 1966. Reychman J., Z dziejów orientalizmu polskiego w dobie oświecenia, [in:] idem, Szkice z dziejów polskiej orientalistyki, Vol. II, Warszawa 1966. Reychman J., Katedra języków orientalnych Gdańskiego Gimnazjum Akademickiego (1584–1810 r.), [in:] Szkice z dziejów polskiej orientalistyki, Vol. III, Warszawa 1969, pp. 83–85. Reychman J., Nowe prace o zabytkach piśmiennictwa polsko-białoruskiego pismem arabskim, „Przegląd Orientalistyczny” 4 (76), 1970, pp. 344–353. Reychman J., Podróżnicy polscy na Bliskim Wschodzie w XIX w., Warszawa 1972. Reychman J., Historia Turcji, Wrocław 1973. Reychman J., Orientalizm [hasło:] Słownik literatury polskiego oświecenia, Wrocław 1991. Riddell P. G., Smith Riddell B., Anioły i demony w różnych religiach świata, Kraków 2009. Robinson F., Świat islamu, translat. J. Pierzchała, M. M. Dziekan, Warszawa 1996. Rospond S., Studia nad językiem polskim XVI wieku, Wrocław 1949. Rospond S., Język renesansu a średniowiecza na podstawie literatury psałterzowo-biblijnej, [in:] Odrodzenie w Polsce, eds. M. R. Mayenowa, Z. Klemensiewicz, Vol. III: Historia języka, Part 2, Warszawa 1962, pp. 61–181. Rospond S., Słowotwórstwo onomastyczne a apelatywne, „Z polskich studiów slawistycznych”, Warszawa 1972.

352

Bibliography

Rospond S., Kościół w dziejach języka polskiego, Wrocław–​Warszawa–​Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź 1985. Rozencweig W., Podstawowe zagadnienia kontaktów językowych, [in:] Język i społeczeństwo, Warszawa 1980, pp. 230–238. Różański J., Duch oryginału czy dosłowność? W kręgu zagadnień inkulturacji i tłumaczenia Nowego Testamentu na język gidarski, [in:] Język religijny dawniej i dziś, eds. S. Mikołajczyk, T. Węcławski, Poznań 2004, pp. 352–363. Rucka I., O wyklęciu albo wyłączeniu… – słownictwo związane z ekskomuniką w kościołach reformowanych w drugiej połowie XVI i początku XVII wieku, „Slavia Occidentalis” LIII, 1996, pp. 69–86. Rucka I., Nazwy eucharystii w polskich kościołach różnowierczych XVI wieku, „Slavia Occidentalis” LIV–LV, 1997, pp. 113–121. Rucka I., Słownictwo związane z dogmatem Trójcy Świętej w polskich kościołach różnowierczych XVI w. i jego dalsze losy, „Slavia Occidentalis” LVI, 1999, pp. 99–114. Rucka I., „Godzien jest robotnik zapłaty swojej” (1 Tm 5, 18), czyli o słownictwie związanym z utrzymaniem ministrów i zborów różnowierczych przełomu XVI i XVII wieku, „Slavia Occidentalis” LXI, 2004, pp. 50–61. Ruczaj A., Określenie Boga w „Psałterzu Wittenberskim”, [in:] Język, literatura i kultura Słowian dawniej i dziś, ed. J. Świdziński, Vol. II, Poznań 1999, pp. 149–156. Rutkowska K., Ukanie w gwarach polskich na Litwie, [in:] Język mniejszości w otoczeniu obcym, ed. J. Rieger, Warszawa 2002, pp. 77–85. Rutkowski M., Nazwy własne w strukturze metafory i metonimii. Proces deonimizacji, Olsztyn 2007. Rutkowski M., O kłopotach z konotacjami nazw własnych (na marginesie Słownika metafor i konotacji nazw własnych), „Onomastica” LIV, 2010, pp. 25–33. Rybicka H., Losy wyrazów obcych w języku polskim, Warszawa 1976. Rybicka-Nowacka H., Rzeczowniki zapożyczone z łaciny w języku polskim XVII wieku, Wrocław 1973. Rytuał. Język – religia, ed. R. Zarębski, Łódź 2005. Rzepka W. R., Odbicie historii narodu polskiego w dziejach rozwoju języka polskiego, „Nurt” 1971, No. 1, pp. 28–38. Rzepka W. R., Walczak B., Bóg i szatan w polszczyźnie XVI wieku, [in:] Tysiąc lat polskiego słownictwa religijnego, ed. B. Kreja, Gdańsk 1999, pp. 57–66. Rzetelska-Feleszko E., Polska terminologia onomastyczna. Problematyka, „Zeszyty Naukowe UG”, Prace Językoznawcze 17–18, Gdańsk 1993, pp. 217–222.

Bibliography

353

Rzetelska-Feleszko E., Perspektywy badawcze onomastyki literackiej, [in:] Onomastyka literacka, ed. M. Biolik, Olsztyn 1993, pp. 21–26. Rzetelska-Feleszko E., Nazwy własne, [in:] Współczesny język polski, ed. J. Bartmiński, Lublin 2001, pp. 405–410. Said E. W., Orientalizm, translat. W. Kalinowski, Warszawa 1991. Sakowicz E., Dialog chrześcijaństwa z islamem według dokumentów Urzędu Nauczycielskiego Kościoła (1963–1998), „Biuletyn” 1999, No. 20 (6), pp. 43–61. Sakowicz E., Dialog chrześcijaństwa z islamem według dokumentów soborowych i posoborowych (1963–1999), Warszawa 2000. Sakowicz E., Dialog Kościoła z islamem według dokumentów soborowych i posoborowych (1963–1999), Warszawa 2000. Sakowicz E., Islam, [in:] Jan Paweł II. Encyklopedia dialogu i ekumenizmu, ed. E. Sakowicz, Radom 2005, pp. 239–271. Sakowicz E., Rozmowy o islamie i dialogu, Lublin 2007. Saloni Z., Terminologia, [in:] Encyklopedia językoznawstwa ogólnego, ed. K. Polański, Wrocław 1999. Sarnowska-Giefing I., Korzeniowska-Gosieniecka M., Bibliografia polskiej onomastyki literackiej do roku 2000, Poznań 2001. Sarnowska-Giefing I., Od onimu do gatunku tekstu. Nazewnictwo w satyrze polskiej do 1820 roku, Poznań 2003. Sarwa A., Rzeczy ostateczne człowieka i świata. Eschatologia islamu, Łódź 2003. Sawaniewska-Mochowa Z., Z polszczyzny kowieńskiej XIX wieku (wybrane zagadnienia z zakresu grafii, fonetyki i leksyki), „Acta Baltico-Slavica” XXIV, Warszawa 1999, pp. 239–251. Scarabel A., Islam, translat. K. Stopa, Kraków 2004. Schabowska M., Apelatywizacja rzeczowników własnych na przykładzie wyrazów zapożyczonych do języka polskiego, [in:] Symbolae Polonicae In honorem Stanislai Jodłowski, Prace Komisji Językoznawczej PAN, Wrocław 1972, pp. 155–164. Schnayder J., Z problematyki przekładu biblijnego. Uwagi filologa na marginesie Biblii tynieckiej, „Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny” XXIV, 1971, pp. 161–187. Siatkowski J., Bohemizmy fonetyczne w języku polskim, Part 1–2, Wrocław– Warszawa–Kraków 1965–1970. Siatkowski J., O cerkiewizmach w najstarszej polskiej terminologii chrześcijańskiej, „Zeszyty Naukowe UG”, Slawistyka 3, Gdańsk 1982, pp. 97–105. Siatkowska E., W kręgu współczesnych przekładów biblijnych, „Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny” XXXIX, 1986, pp. 498–509.

354

Bibliography

Siatkowska E., Tradycja i dynamizm współczesnych przekładów Biblii na polski, czeski i górnołużycki, „Roczniki Humanistyczne KUL” XLIII, Lublin 1995, pp. 11–19. Siatkowska E., Samodzielność przekładu Nowego Testamentu przez Jakuba Wujka, Jana Blahoslava i Michała Frencla (na przykładzie konstrukcji imiesłowowych), [in:] Język religijny dawniej i dziś, eds. S. Mikołajczak, T. Węcławski, Poznań 2004, pp. 73–80. Siatkowska E., Nazwy aniołów i diabłów w religijnym języku polskim na tle ogólnosłowiańskim i pozasłowiańskim, „Rocznik Slawistyczny” LVII, Warszawa 2008, pp. 89–100. Siemieniec-Gołaś E., Wizerunek Tatara w dawnym polskim piśmiennictwie, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos Visuomenės Tradicijoje: Totoriai ir Karaimai, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008, pp. 207–214. Sieradzka-Baziur B., O semantyce wyrazu „Bóg” w utworach Jana Kochanowskiego, „Roczniki Naukowo-Dydaktyczne WSP w Krakowie”, Prace Językoznawcze 8, 1994, pp. 231–238. Sieradzki A., „Ciebie jeno samego Panem, Krolem i Stworzycielem sprawiedliwie wyznawać mamy”. Apostrofy do Boga w Rejowym przekładzie Psałterza, [in:] Język polski. Współczesność – historia, eds. W. Książek-Bryłowa, H. Duda, Vol. II, Lublin 2002, pp. 169–183. Sieradzki A., Rejowy „Psałterz Dawidow” wobec autorytetu parafrazy Iohana van der Campen, [in:] Autorytety i normy, ed. D. Kowalska, Łódź 2003, pp. 379–390. Sieradzki A., Tłumaczenia nazw ofiar starotestamentowych w Psałterzu Dawidowym M. Reja, „Roczniki Humanistyczne KUL” LI, 2003, Brochure 6, pp. 175–185. Skarżyńska-Bocheńska K., Arabistyka, Warszawa 1986. Skibińska E., Czy justaucorps może zastąpić żupan, a boulettes zrazy. O nazwach ubiorów i potraw we francuskich przekładach „Pana Tadeusza”, „Pamiętnik Literacki” LXXXVII, 1996, Brochure 1, pp. 157–165. Skibińska E., Przekład a kultura. Elementy kulturowe we francuskich tłumaczeniach „Pana Tadeusza”, Wrocław 1999. Skubalanka T., Historyczna stylistyka języka polskiego, Wrocław 1984. Skubalanka T., Problemy synonimii poetyckiej, [in:] Studia z historii i teorii poezji, Wrocław 1970, pp. 429–445. Skrzyniarz R., Najstarsze próby tłumaczenia Biblii na język polski w Kazaniach świętokrzyskich, „Roczniki Teologiczne” XLIV, 1997, Brochure 4, pp. 17–28. Słowa – kładki, na których spotykają się ludzie różnych światów, eds. I. Burkacka, R. Pawelec, D. Zdunkiewicz-Jedynak, Warszawa 2010.

Bibliography

355

Słowiańsko-niesłowiańskie kontakty językowe, eds. J. Siatkowski, I. Doliński, Warszawa 1992. Smajkiewicz-Murman Dż., Obyczajowość Tatarów polsko-litewskich na Wileńszczyźnie, „Acta Baltico-Slavica” XXXVII, Warszawa 2013, pp. 193–210. Smolińska B., Polszczyzna północnokresowa z przełomu XVII i XVIII w., Wrocław 1983. Smułkowa E., Uwagi do metody badań nad leksyką gwarową pogranicza językowego, [in:] Studia nad gwarami Białostocczyzny. Morfologia i słownictwo, eds. E. Smułkowa, I. Maryniakowa, Warszawa 1984, pp. 67–71. Smułkowa E., Kształt współistnienia na polsko-białorusko-litewskim pograniczu językowym, „Prace Filologiczne” XLV, 2000, pp. 571–580. Smułkowa E., Białoruś i pogranicza. Studia o języku i społeczeństwie, Warszawa 2002. Smułkowa E., O polsko-białoruskich związkach językowych w aspekcie czasowym i terytorialnym, [in:] Białoruś i pogranicza. Studia o języku i społeczeństwie, Warszawa 2002, pp. 293–305. Smułkowa E., Badanie pograniczy językowych – uwagi metodologiczne, [in:] Gwary dziś, 2. Regionalne słowniki i atlasy gwarowe, Poznań 2003, pp. 45–56. Smułkowa E., Glosa do teorii badań pograniczy językowych (na przykładzie sytuacji językowej Brasławszczyzny), [in:] Studia nad słownictwem dawnym i współczesnym języków słowiańskich, eds. J. Kamper-Warejko, I. KaprońCharzyńska, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Toruń 2007, pp. 165–179. Sobczak J., Czy tatarska ludność Litwy należała do stanu szlacheckiego?, „Przegląd Historyczny” LXXVII, 1986, Brochure 3, pp. 467–480. Sobczykowa J., Leksyka religijna w słowniku współczesnego języka polskiego, „Biuletyn PTJ” L, 1994, pp. 129–139. Sobczykowa J., Myśl o języku w komentarzu biblijnym ks. Jakuba Wujka, Katowice 2001. Sobczykowa J., O językoznawstwie polskich biblistów XVI wieku na przykładzie ks. Jakuba Wujka, [in:] Język, literatura i kultura Słowian dawniej i dziś, ed. V. Mitrinović, Vol. III: Linguaria, Poznań 2001, pp. 199–208. Sobczykowa J., O naukowej polszczyźnie humanistycznej złotego wieku. Wujek – Budny – Murzynowski, Katowice 2012. Sobotka P., Od predykacji do nominacji – próba rekonstrukcji żydowskiej wizji Boga na przykładzie Jego biblijnych i talmudycznych określeń, [in:] Czynić słowami. Studia ofiarowane Krystynie Długosz-Kurczabowej, ed. H. Karaś, Warszawa 2006, pp. 295–305. Sokolski J., Dziadowska pieśń o Sądzie Ostatecznym, „Acta Universitatis Wroclawiensis”, Prace Literackie 34, 1995, pp. 5–10. Sokólska U., Siedemnastowieczna polszczyzna kresów północno-wschodnich. Słowotwórstwo, słownictwo, frazeologia, Białystok 1999.

356

Bibliography

Sowa F., Osobowe nazwy własne w polskich przekładach Biblii, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 81–85. Stachowiak L., Prorocy – słudzy słowa, Katowice 1980. Stachowski S., Przyrostki obcego pochodzenia w języku serbochorwackim, Kraków 1961. Stachowski S., Studia nad chronologią turcyzmów w języku serbsko-chorwackim, Kraków 1967. Stachowski S., Studia nad chronologią turcyzmów w języku bułgarskim, Kraków 1971. Stachowski S., Słownictwo pochodzenia orientalnego w utworach Adama Mickiewicza [w]‌: Mickiewicz i kresy, Kraków 1999, pp. 230–246. Stachowski S., Glosariusz turecko-polski, Kraków 2005. Stachowski S., Słownik historyczny turcyzmów w języku polskim, Kraków 2007. Stachowski S., Lista zestawień leksykalnych polsko-tureckich Franciszka Menińskiego, [in:] Silva rerum philologicarum. Studia ofiarowane prof. M. Strycharskiej-Brzezinie z okazji Jej jubileuszu, eds. J. S. Gruchała, H. Kurek, „Biblioteka LingVariów” X, Kraków 2010, pp. 385–390. Stankiewicz K., Słownictwo interferencyjne a problem wielojęzyczności na Wileńszczyźnie, [in:] Słowa w różnych kontekstach, ed. S. Dubisz, Warszawa 1998, pp. 271–284. Starnawski J., Uwagi o przekładzie tekstów sakralnych, [in:] Sacrum w literaturze, eds. J. Godfryd, M. Jasińska-Wojtkowska, S. Sawicki, Lublin 1983, pp. 267–273. Staropolszczyzna piękna i interesująca. Zbiór studiów, eds. E. Koniusz, S. Cygan, Vols. I–II, Kielce 2006. Staszewska Z., Językowy obraz anioła na materiale „Modlitw Wacława”, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XLVI, 2001, pp. 135–145. Staszewska Z., Superlatywizacja jako próba pokazania autorytetu Istoty Najwyższej i świętych. Na materiale „Modlitw Wacława”, [in:] Autorytety i normy, ed. D. Kowalska, Łódź 2003, pp. 431–452. Starzec A., Rozwój polskiej terminologii motoryzacyjnej, Opole 1984. Stępień P., Kazania świętokrzyskie. Nowa edycja. Nowe propozycje badawcze, współprac. H. Tchórzewska-Kabata, I. Winiarska-Górska, Warszawa 2009. Studia historycznojęzykowe. Wybór problemów i przegląd metod badawczych z zakresu historii języka polskiego, ed. I. Bajerowa, Wrocław 1986. Studia nad polszczyzną kresową, eds. J. Rieger, W. Werenicz, Vol. I, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź 1982.

Bibliography

357

Studia nad polszczyzną kresową, eds. J. Rieger, W. Werenicz, Vol. II, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź 1983. Studia nad polszczyzną kresową, eds. J. Rieger, W. Werenicz, Vol. III, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź 1984. Studia nad polszczyzną kresową, eds. J. Rieger, W. Werenicz, Vol. IV, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź 1986. Studia nad polszczyzną kresową, eds. J. Rieger, W. Werenicz, Vol. V, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź 1990. Studia nad polszczyzną kresową, eds. J. Rieger, W. Werenicz, Vol. VI, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź 1991. Suchostawska I., Kognitywna analiza przypowieści Jezusa przedstawiających relację Bóg-człowiek, [in:] Perspektywy dyskursu religijnego, czyli przyjęcie Kaina, ed. P. P. Chruszczewski, Vol. II, Kraków 2004, pp. 247–266. Szagun D., Biblijny genetivus partitivus czy forma superlatywu w poezji Norwida, „Język Polski” LXXXII, 2002, pp. 17–20. Szapszał H. S., O zatraceniu języka ojczystego przez Tatarów w Polsce, „Rocznik Tatarski” I, Wilno 1932, pp. 34–48. Szarlej J., Przydatność metodologii kognitywnej w badaniach tekstu biblijnego, [in:] Tradycja a nowoczesność, ed. E. Woźniak, Łódź 2008, pp. 115–126. Szczepińska B., „Błogosławieństw” przekładanie rozmaite (Mt 5,1–13; Łk 6,20– 26). Przekład a interpretacja, „Gdańskie Studia Językoznawcze” 8, 2003, pp. 113–133. Szczepińska B., Ewangelie tylekroć tłumaczone… Studia o przekładach i przekładaniu, Gdańsk 2005. Szczęk J., Problem przekładu na język polski stereotypów kulturowych utrwalonych w wybranych związkach frazeologicznych języka niemieckiego, [in:] Język – Stereotyp – Przekład, eds. E. Skibińska, M. Cieński, Wrocław 2002, pp. 231–240. Szczucki L., Jan Licinius Namysłowski. Studium z dziejów antytrynitaryzmu litewskiego na przełomie XVI i XVII wieku, [in:] Studia nad arianizmem, Warszawa 1959, pp. 131–167. Szczucki L., Marcin Czechowic (1532–1613). Studium z dziejów antytrynitaryzmu polskiego XVI wieku, Warszawa 1964. Szerszunowicz J., Jednowyrazowe ekwiwalenty obcojęzycznych związków frazeologicznych (na materiale wybranych języków europejskich), „Białostockie Archiwum Językowe” 8, 2008, pp. 175–192. Szerszunowicz J., Quasi-ekwiwalenty związków frazeologicznych w teorii, frazeologii i translatoryce, „Białostockie Archiwum Językowe” 9, 2009, pp. 323–346.

358

Bibliography

Szewczyk Ł. M., Nazewnictwo literackie w Sonetach krymskich Adama Mickiewicza, [in:] Polszczyzna dawna i współczesna, ed. C. Łapicz, Toruń 1994, pp. 103–114. Szewczyk Ł. M., Funkcje nazw własnych w literaturze pięknej, [in:] Polonistyka toruńska Uniwersytetowi w 50. rocznicę utworzenia UMK, Językoznawstwo, Toruń 1996, pp. 111–116. Szewczyk Ł. M., Jednostkowe deskrypcje określone w onomastyce literackiej, [in:] Poznańskie Spotkania Językoznawcze, eds. Z. Krążyńska, Z. Zagórski, Vol. I, 1996, pp. 83–88. Szkice z dziejów polskiej orientalistyki, ed. T. Majda, Vol. IV, Warszawa 2007; Vol. V, Warszawa 2010. Szydłowska-Ceglowa B., Staropolskie nazwy instrumentów muzycznych, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk 1977. Szymczak M., Właściwości znaczeniowe wyrazów utworzonych w języku polskim od nazw własnych, „Poradnik Językowy” 1980, Brochure 3, pp. 105–112. Szymoniuk M., Jeszcze raz o funkcjonalności przekładu, [in:] Przekład artystyczny, ed. P. Fast, Vol. II: Zagadnienia serii translatorskich, Katowice 1991, pp. 91–105. Szynkiewicz J., O kitabie, „Rocznik Tatarski” I, Wilno 1932, pp. 188–194. Szynkiewicz J., Literatura religijna Tatarów litewskich i jej pochodzenie, „Rocznik Tatarski” II, Zamość 1935, pp. 138–143. Tabakowska E., Językoznawstwo kognitywne a poetyka przekładu, Kraków 2001. Tabakowska E., Bóg bez metafory. Recenzja książki Anny Wierzbickiej „Co mówi Jezus? Objaśnienia przypowieści ewangelicznych w słowach prostych i uniwersalnych”, translat. I. Duraj-Nowosielska, Warszawa 2002, „Znak” 10, 2004, pp. 117–125. Talko-Hryncewicz J., Muślimowie czyli tak zwani Tatarzy litewscy, Bibljoteczka Geograficzna Orbis, serja III, Vol. VII, Kraków 1924. Taras B., Tajnica moja mnie!… Zagadki nazw własnych w „Kazaniach świętokrzyskich”, „Prace Filologiczne” XLV, 2000, pp. 595–597. Taszycki W., Czas i miejsce powstania Psałterza puławskiego, „Poradnik Językowy” 1954, pp. 8–17. Taszycki W., Jeszcze słów kilka o Psałterzu puławskim, „Poradnik Językowy” 1955, pp. 193. Taszycki W., Geneza polskiego języka literackiego w świetle tekstów historycznojęzykowych, [in:] Studia staropolskie, ed. K. Budzyk, Vol. III, Wrocław 1956, pp. 30–59. Taszycki W., Najdawniejsze zabytki języka polskiego, Warszawa 1975.

Bibliography

359

Tatarzy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w historii, języku i kulturze, eds. J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, C. Łapicz, Toruń 2013. Tazbir J., Tradycje tolerancji religijnej w Polsce, Warszawa 1980. Thyen J. D., Biblia i Koran. Synopsa wspólnych tradycji, Warszawa 2002. Titowiec J., Pierwszy przekład Koranu na język polski. Ze zbioru siedemnastowiecznych rękopisów w Centralnej Bibliotece Naukowej Narodowej Akademii Nauk Białorusi, „Rocznik Biblioteki Narodowej” XXXVI, Warszawa 2004, pp. 222–235. Tokarski J., Derywacja semantyczna jako jedno ze źródeł polisemii wyrazowej, [in:] Z zagadnień słownictwa współczesnego języka polskiego, Wrocław– Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk 1978, pp. 201–213. Tokarski R., Struktura pola znaczeniowego (studium językoznawcze), Warszawa 1984. Tokarski R., Zapożyczenia leksykalne a zmiany znaczenia w polu wyrazowym, „Język Polski” LV, 1975, Brochure 4, pp. 275–282. Tokarski R., Mechanizmy polisemii: metafora i metonimia, [in:] Stylistyczna akomodacja systemu gramatycznego, ed. T. Skubalanka, Wrocław 1988, pp. 55–72. Tokarski R., Słownictwo jako interpretacja świata, [in:] Współczesny język polski, ed. J. Bartmiński, Lublin 2001, pp. 342–370. Tomal M., Język hebrajski biblijny, Warszawa 2008. Tomaszkiewicz T., Terminologia tłumaczenia, Poznań 2006. Tomczak R., Biblijna terminologia i pojęcie cudu, „Studia Paradyskie” V, 1995, pp. 181–188. Tomiczek E., System adresatywny współczesnego języka polskiego i niemieckiego. Socjolingwistyczne studium konfrontatywne, Wrocław 1983. Tryuk M., Frazeologia terminologiczna. Kilka uwag o frazeologii w terminologii, [in:] Problemy frazeologii i leksykografii, eds. A. Kątny, K. Hejwowski, Olecko 2000, pp. 99–108. Turek W. P., Od Gilgamesza do Kasydy. Poezja semicka w oryginale i w przekładzie, Kraków 2010. Turska H., Leksykalne pożyczki białoruskie w języku polskim (doba staropolska), „Sprawozdania z prac naukowych Wydziału Nauk Społecznych PAN” XXXVI, 1970, Brochure 2, pp. 77–91. Turska H., O powstaniu polskich obszarów językowych na Wileńszczyźnie, [in:] Studia nad polszczyzną kresową, Vol. I, 1982, pp. 19–121. Turska H., Język polski na Wileńszczyźnie, [in:] Studia nad polszczyzną kresową, Vol. II, 1983, pp. 15–23.

360

Bibliography

Turzyńska T., O pewnych typach związków frazeologicznych z wyrazami Bóg, Diabeł itp. we współczesnym języku polskim, „Zeszyty Naukowe UŁ”, Filologia Polska 1, 1978, Brochure 38, pp. 89–96. Twardzik W., Glosy w „Rozmyślaniu przemyskim”, „Teksty Drugie” 1994, Brochure 3, pp. 155–165. Tyszkiewicz J., Międzywojenne badania nad dziejami Tatarów litewsko-polskich w XVII stuleciu, „Przegląd Historyczny” 2, Warszawa 1985, pp. 305–320. Tyszkiewicz J., Tatarzy na Litwie i w Polsce. Studia z dziejów XIII–XVIII w., Warszawa 1989. Tyszkiewicz J., Tatarzy w Polsce i Europie. Fragmenty dziejów, Pułtusk 2008. Umińska-Tytoń E., Nazwy osobowe w tzw. dynamicznym przekładzie Nowego Testamentu, [in:] Onomastyka literacka, ed. M. Biolik, Olsztyn 1993, pp. 329–335. Umińska-Tytoń E., Imiona w Polsce używane na tle tradycji kulturowych, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XLV, 2000, pp. 131–206. Umińska-Tytoń E., Pan i ksiądz. Z dziejów form adresatywnych, [in:] Z przeszłości i teraźniejszości języka polskiego. Księga pamiątkowa dedykowana Teresie Friedelównie, eds. J. Kamper-Warejko, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, K. Nowakowska, Toruń 2007, pp. 201–215. Urbańczyk S., Polski kresowy dialekt literacki?, „Z polskich studiów slawistycznych”, Językoznawstwo 6, Warszawa 1983, pp. 435–443. Urbańczyk S., Polskie „trójca” i słowiańskie rzeczowniki odliczebnikowe, „Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej” V, 1965, pp. 119–122. Walczak B., Rola desygnatów i realiów w badaniach etymologicznych nad zapożyczeniami, [in:] Język. Teoria – Dydaktyka, ed. M. Preyzner, Kielce 1984, pp. 149–164. Walczak B., Rola elementu obcojęzycznego w rozwoju leksyki współczesnej polszczyzny, „Sprawozdania PTPN”, Wydział Filologiczno-Filozoficzny, Poznań 1984, No. 100, pp. 19–29. Walczak B., Obcojęzyczny element wschodni w rozwoju słownictwa polszczyzny ogólnej, „Sprawozdania PTPN”, Wydział Filologiczno-Filozoficzny, Poznań 1987, No. 102, pp. 71–75. Walczak B., Objaśnienia etymologiczne w powojennych słownikach polskich, „Studia z polskiej leksykografii współczesnej” III, ed. Z. Saloni, Białystok 1989, pp. 73–98. Walczak B., Pochodzenie polskiego języka literackiego w świetle nowej metody, [in:] Język. Teoria – Dydaktyka, Kielce 1990, pp. 5–19. Walczak B., Terminologia w słownikach ogólnych (na przykładzie Słownika języka polskiego pod red. Mieczysława Szymczaka), „Poradnik Językowy” 1990, Brochure 4, pp. 260–264.

Bibliography

361

Walczak B., Słownik wileński na tle dziejów polskiej leksykografii, Poznań 1991. Walczak B., Nazwy świątyni muzułmańskiej w języku polskim (do kwestii dróg przenikania orientalizmów do polszczyzny), [in:] Dzieje Lubelszczyzny VI. Między Wschodem a Zachodem, Part IV: Zjawiska językowe na pograniczu polsko-ruskim, eds. J. Bartmiński, M. Łesiow, Lublin 1992, pp. 333–341. Walczak B., Komu zawdzięczamy polski język literacki?, [in:] Język a chrześcijaństwo, eds. I. Bajerowa, M. Karpluk, Z. Leszczyński, Lublin 1993, pp. 23–42. Walczak B., Zarys dziejów języka polskiego, Poznań 1995. Walczak B., Mały słownik etymologiczno-historyczny kacerstwa polskiego, „Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne”, Seria Literacka III (XXIII), Innowiercy – odszczepieńcy – herezje, Poznań 1996, pp. 11–31. Walczak B., Językowe konsekwencje unii brzeskiej. Postulaty badawcze, [in:] Czterechsetlecie unii brzeskiej: zagadnienia języka religijnego, ed. Z. Leszczyński, Lublin 1998, pp. 7–20. Walczak B., Zapożyczenia leksykalne: teoria i metodologia badań, [in:] Polszczyzna północno-wschodnia, Part 2, ed. B. Nowowiejski, Białystok 1999, pp. 69–107. Walczak B., Rola Biblii w rozwoju języków i językoznawstwa. Zarys problematyki, [in:] Inspiracje chrześcijańskie w kulturze Europy, ed. E. Woźniak, Łódź 2000, pp. 155–167. Walczak B., Jeszcze raz: polski kresowy dialekt literacki?, [in:] Studia nad polszczyzną kresową, ed. J. Rieger, Vol. X, Warszawa 2001, pp. 319–324. Walczak B., Z teorii i metodologii badań nad zapożyczeniami leksykalnymi (zapożyczenia i przeniknięcia), [in:] Wokół polszczyzny dawnej i obcej, ed. B. Nowowiejski, Białystok 2006, pp. 425–434. Wanicowa Z., Ignota, dubia, reperta. Czytać i rozumieć staropolszczyznę, Kraków 2009. Wanicowa Z., Mechanizm błędów translacyjnych w „Biblii Królowej Zofii” a spór o podstawę jej przekładu, „Językoznawstwo: współczesne badania, problemy i analizy językoznawcze” 4, 2010, pp. 13–35. Warmińska K., Tatarzy polscy. Tożsamość religijna i etniczna, Kraków 1999. Wasilewski M., Elementy chrześcijańskie w Koranie, „Znak” 8–9, 1958, pp. 993–1010. Wasilewski T., Tolerancja religijna w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim w XVI–XVII w., „Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce” XIX, Warszawa 1974. Whorf B., Język, myśl i rzeczywistość, Warszawa 1982.

362

Bibliography

Wierzbicka A., System składniowo-stylistyczny prozy polskiego Renesansu, Warszawa 1966. Wierzbicka A., Kocha, lubi, szanuje. Medytacje semantyczne, Warszawa 1971. Wierzchowski J., Leksykalno-frazeologiczna struktura języka, Wrocław 1990. Wierzbicka A., Jak interpretować Ewangelię? Semantyka metafory i przypowieści, [in:] U progu trzeciego tysiąclecia. Człowiek – Nauka – Wiara, eds. J. J. Jadacki, A. Białecka, Warszawa 2001, pp. 253–268. Wierzbicka A., Jak można mówić o Trójcy Świętej w słowach prostych i uniwersalnych, Lublin 2004. Wierzbicka A., Semantyka: jednostki elementarne i uniwersalne, Lublin 2006. Wierzbicka A., Słowa klucze: różne języki – różne kultury, Warszawa 2007. Winiarska I., Językowy wizerunek heretyka w „Konfesji sandomierskiej”, [in:] Słowa w różnych kontekstach, ed. S. Dubisz, Warszawa 1998, pp. 45–71. Winiarska I., Nazywanie Chrystusa w tradycji Kościoła ewangelickoreformowanego, „Prace Filologiczne” XLV, 2000, pp. 633–642. Winiarska I., Protestanckie słownictwo religijne w „Thesaurusie” Knapskiego, „Prace Filologiczne” XLVII, 2002, pp. 419–441. Winiarska I., Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu od XVI do XVIII wieku na tle terminologii katolickiej, Warszawa 2004. Winiarska I., „Sumienie” w XVI- i XVII-wiecznym piśmiennictwie religijnym polskich kalwinistów, [in:] Zamknięte w języku. Studia językoznawcze, ed. H. Karaś, Warszawa 2004, pp. 117–129. Winiarska-Górska I., Język, styl i kulturowa rola szesnastowiecznych protestanckich przekładów Nowego Testamentu na język polski: między nowatorstwem a tradycją, [in:] Chrestomatia teolingwistyki, eds. A. Gadomski, C. Łapicz, Symferopol 2008–2009, pp. 289–318. Witaszek-Samborska M., Wyrazy obcego pochodzenia we współczesnej polszczyźnie, Poznań 1992. Witkowska A., Przekłady na język polski, [in:] Encyklopedia katolicka, Lublin 1995, Vol. II, pp. 410–411. Witosz B., Genologia lingwistyczna. Zarys problematyki, Katowice 2005. Wojciechowska K., Odpowiadam wam jak Piotr. Elementy stylu i stylizacji w Ewangelii Marka, Warszawa 2006. Wojtak M., O „polityce w słowiech”. Formy adresatywne w XVIII w., „Język Polski” LXXVI, 1996, pp. 81–87. Wojtak M., Grzeczność po staropolsku w świetle „Pamiętników” Jana Chryzostoma Paska, „Poradnik Językowy” 1989, Brochure 8, pp. 528–533.

Bibliography

363

Wojtak M., O początkach stylu religijnego w polszczyźnie, „Stylistyka” I, 1992, pp. 90–97. Wojtak M., Staropolska etykieta językowa jako obraz relacji międzyludzkich. Wybrane zagadnienia, [in:] Przeszłość w językowym obrazie świata, eds. A. Pajdzińska, P. Krzyżanowski, Lublin 1999, pp. 205–216. Wojtasiewicz O., Wstęp do teorii tłumaczenia, Warszawa 2005. Wolnicz-Pawłowska E., Pogranicze wschodnie, [in:] Polskie nazwy własne. Encyklopedia, ed. E. Rzetelska-Feleszko, Kraków 2005, pp. 453–466. Wolniewicz M., Teoria przekładu biblijnego w ujęciu współczesnych tłumaczy Biblii na język polski, „Łódzkie Studia Teologiczne” III, 1994, pp. 19–29. Woronowicz A., Szczątki językowe Tatarów litewskich, „Rocznik Tatarski” II, Zamość 1935, pp. 351–367. Woźniak E., Cechy charakterystyczne polskiego tłumaczenia Psałterza krakowskiego, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XLI, 1996, pp. 77–96. Woźniak E., Z badań nad polskim słownictwem psałterzowym. Nazwy zwierząt i roślin w Psałterzu krakowskim, [in:] Biblia w kulturze, ed. S. Rzepczyński, Słupsk 1996, pp. 253–272. Woźniak E., Charakterystyka ilościowa słownictwa Psałterza krakowskiego, „Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN” XLII, 1997, pp. 229–250. Woźniak E., O niektórych cechach języka Psałterza krakowskiego (1532), [in:] W kręgu Pism Papieża i tekstów biblijnych, ed. M. Kamińska, Łódź 1997, pp. 125–132. Woźniak E., Słownictwo i frazeologia Psałterza krakowskiego (1532) na tle ówczesnych przekładów biblijnych, Łódź 2002. Woźniak E., Ofiary i krzywdziciele. Studium postaci w przedtrydenckim piśmiennictwie pasyjnym. Analiza językoznawcza, Łódź 2007. Wójcik Z., Filomacki przekład Alkoranu dla Tatarów nowogródzkich, „Literatura Ludowa” XXXIX, 1995, No. 3, pp. 15–28. Wstęp ogólny do Pisma Świętego, ed. J. Szlaga, Poznań–Warszawa 1986. Wronka S., Transliteracja i transkrypcja alfabetu hebrajskiego, „Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny” LVII, 2004, pp. 45–58. Wronkowska-Dimitrowa M., Z rozważań nad osobliwościami leksykalnymi Biblii Leopolity, [in:] Polszczyzna stara i nowa, ed. Ł. M. Szewczyk, Bydgoszcz 2000, pp. 9–19. Wyderka B., Perswazyjność jako cecha stylowa gatunków prozy publicystycznej XVII wieku, [in:] Odmiany polszczyzny XVII wieku, eds. H. Wiśniewska, C. Kosyl, Lublin 1992, pp. 85–96. Z problemów przekładu i stosunków międzyjęzykowych, Part 1, eds. T. Żeberek, T. Borucki, Kraków 1998.

364

Bibliography

Z problemów przekładu i stosunków międzyjęzykowych, Part 2, eds. T. Żeberek, T. Borucki, Kraków 2002. Zaborski A., Nowe tłumaczenia Biblii a teoria przekładu, „Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny” XXX, 1977, pp. 296–310. Zabrocki L., Z teorii nazw własnych. Studia Indoeuropejskie, Wrocław 1974. Zajda A., Staropolska terminologia prawnicza (do 1500 r.), Kraków 1990. Zajączkowski A., Elementy tureckie na ziemiach polskich, „Rocznik Tatarski” II, Zamość 1935, pp. 199–228. Zajączkowski A., Studia nad językiem staroosmańskim. II. Wybrane rozdziały z anatolijskotureckiego przekładu Koranu, Kraków 1937. Zajączkowski A., Pierwsza próba opracowania języka tureckiego w literaturze staropolskiej, „Sprawozdania TNW”, Wydział I, 1938. Zajączkowski A., Ze studiów nad zagadnieniem chazarskim, Kraków 1947. Zajączkowski A., Glosy tureckie w zabytkach staropolskich. I. Katechizacja turecka Jana Herbiniusa, Wrocław 1948. Zajączkowski W., Resztki językowe Tatarów litewskich, „Sprawozdania z Czynności i Posiedzeń PAU” XLIX, Kraków 1948, No. 8, pp. 396–400. Zajączkowski A., Z dziejów zapożyczeń orientalnych w polszczyźnie, „Komisja Językowa TNW”, Warszawa 1949, pp. 143–154. Zajączkowski A., Tak zwany chamaił tatarski ze zbiorów rękopisów w Warszawie, „Sprawozdania z Czynności i Posiedzeń PAU” LII, Kraków 1951, No. 4, pp. 307–313. Zajączkowski A., Studia orientalistyczne z dziejów słownictwa polskiego, Wrocław 1953. Zajączkowski A., Orient jako źródło inspiracji w literaturze romantycznej doby mickiewiczowskiej, Warszawa 1955. Zajączkowski A., Z dziejów orientalizmu polskiego doby mickiewiczowskiej, [in:] Szkice z dziejów polskiej orientalistyki, Vol. I, Warszawa 1957, pp. 95–156. Zakrzewski A. B., O asymilacji Tatarów w Rzeczypospolitej w XVI–XVIII w., [in:] Tryumfy i porażki. Studia z dziejów kultury polskiej XVI–XVIII w., ed. M. Bogucka, Warszawa 1989, pp. 76–96. Zakrzewski A. B., Osadnictwo tatarskie w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim – aspekty wyznaniowe, „Acta Baltico-Slavica” XX, Warszawa 1991, pp. 137–153. Zakrzewski A. B., Rzeczpospolita od XVI–XVIII w. – państwem Tatarów?, [in:] Rzeczpospolita państwem wielu narodowości i wyznań XVI–XVIII wiek, eds. T. Ciesielski, A. Filipczak-Kocur, Warszawa–Opole 2008, pp. 221–230. Zakrzewski A. B., Tatarzy litewscy wobec władzy państwowej od epoki wczesnonowożytnej po koniec XX wieku, [in:] Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios

Bibliography

365

Kunigaikštijos Visuomenės Tradicijoje: Totoriai ir Karaimai, eds. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė, Vilnius 2008, pp. 13–21. Zaręba A., Obce nazwy własne i ich miejsce w systemie językowym, „Poradnik Językowy” 1979, pp. 1–13. Zarębski R., Słownik nazw osobowych w polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu, Łódź 2005. Zarębski R., Nazwy osobowe w polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu, Łódź 2006. Zarębski R., Tłumaczenie obcych nazw geograficznych w dawnych i współczesnych polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu, [in:] Studia nad słownictwem dawnym i współczesnym języków słowiańskich, eds. J. KamperWarejko, I. Kaproń-Charzyńska, J. Kulwicka-Kamińska, Toruń 2007, pp. 113–125. Zaron Z., Refleksje na temat wyrażenia WIERZYĆ, [in:] Nazwy wartości. Studia leksykalno-semantyczne, eds. J. Bartmiński, M. Mazurkiewicz-Brzozowska, Lublin 1993, pp. 231–238. Zdaniukiewicz A. A., System wokaliczny gwar wileńskich a język białoruski, „Z polskich studiów slawistycznych”, Językoznawstwo, Warszawa 1983, pp. 475–482. Zdanowski J., Bracia muzułmanie i inni, Szczecin 1986. Zdunkiewicz D., Komponenty semantyczne przekazywane poza asercją w tekstach o funkcji perswazyjnej (na materiale homilii z lat 1981–1983), [in:] Polono-Slavica Varsoviensa. Studia semantyczne, eds. R. Grzegorczykowa, Z. Zaron, Warszawa 1993, pp. 143–152. Zdunkiewicz-Jedynak D., Językowe środki perswazji w kazaniu, Kraków 1996. Zdunkiewicz-Jedynak D., Kultura słowa w komunikacji kaznodziejskiej – uwagi na marginesie teksów homiletycznych i oficjalnych wypowiedzi kościelnych lat dziewięćdziesiątych, [in:] O zagrożeniach i bogactwie polszczyzny, ed. J. Miodek, Wrocław 1996, pp. 135–143. Zdunkiewicz-Jedynak D., Surfując po Internecie w poszukiwaniu Boga… Gatunki komunikacji religijnej na polskich katolickich stronach internetowych, Tarnów 2006. Zeler B., Język innych kościołów chrześcijańskich (na przykładzie Kościoła Ewangelickoaugsburskiego), [in:] Polszczyzna 2000. Orędzie o stanie języka na przełomie tysiącleci, ed. W. Pisarek, Kraków 1999, pp. 149–165. Zgółkowa H., Czarnecka K., Kategoria Boga w słownictwie uczniowskim, [in:] Język a kultura, eds. J. Anusiewicz, B. Siciński, Vol. X Języki subkultur, Wrocław 1994, pp. 29–36. Ziauddin S., Merryl D., Islam, Warszawa 2005.

366

Bibliography

Zielińska A., Polska mniejszość na Litwie Kowieńskiej. Studium socjolingwistyczne, Warszawa 2002. Zieniukowa J., Rozważania o tzw. dynamicznym przekładzie Biblii, [in:] Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrześcijaństwa, eds. M. Kamińska, E. Małek, Vol. I, Łódź 1992, pp. 104–115. Zierhoffer K., Zierhoffer Z., Adaptacja zachodnioeuropejskiego nazewnictwa przejętego z łaciny przez polszczyznę XVI wieku, „Onomastica” XXXVII, 1992, pp. 13–39. Zierhoffer K., Zierhoffer Z., Nazewnictwo zachodnioeuropejskie w piśmiennictwie i języku polskim (od czasów najdawniejszych do końca XV w.), „Acta Universitatis Lodziensis”, Folia Linguistica 27, Wpływy obce w nazewnictwie Polski, Łódź 1993, pp. 363–373. Zierhoffer K., Zierhoffer Z., Obce nazwy geograficzne w polszczyźnie, [in:] Polskie nazwy własne. Encyklopedia, ed. E. Rzetelska-Feleszko, Kraków 2005, pp. 309–326. Zierhoffer K., Zierhoffer Z., Przejmowanie nazewnictwa z narodowych języków zachodnioeuropejskich przez polszczyznę XVI wieku, „Onomastica” XXXIX, 1994, pp. 5–32. Ziomek J., Literatura odrodzenia, 1987.

Websites http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp http://www.gwiazda-polarna.com/polska_19_14_Ryn.html http://www.islamicmanuscripts.info/reference/books/Drozd-2000-Tatarow/Drozd2000-Tatarow-048-083.pdf http://islam-katowice.pl/koran-online-po-polsku http://www.tefsir.umk.pl

Index of Slavic words and phrases The words and phrases which occur in this index are lowercase because of their variable spelling in excerpted texts. Furthermore, all forms are presented in the singular number. The entries in the Index cover the semantic fields corresponding to the five tenets of Islam, namely: 1. Belief in only one God, 2. Belief in angels, 3. Belief in the holy books: the Torah, the Gospel and the Quran, 4. Belief in God’s messengers (from Adam to Muhammad), 5. Belief in the Day of the Last Judgement. As most of these are common names, they have not been capitalized even in the English version. A angel/angel 203, 250 ãngel/angel 136 angieł boży/angel of God 129 anhel boží/angel of the Lord 134, 156, 186 anhel ‘aršovij/angel of the Throne 186 anhel nepeśk’ij/angel of heaven 156, 186, 203 anhel strašnij čornij/frightful, black angel 136, 187 anhel strogij/stern angel 186 anhel/angel 134, 143, 203 anhieł/angel 134, 167, 203 ãnijōl/angel 141, 156 anioł boski/angel of the Lord 216, 219, 223, 265 anioł kary/angel of punishment 219 anioł niebieski/angel of heaven 216, 257, 262, 265 anioł niszczyciel/Angel of Destruction 216, 219, 257, 261 anioł pański/angel of the Lord 216, 257–258 anioł śmierci/Angel of Death 216, 219, 226, 246, 252, 255, 257, 262 anioł stróż/guardian angel 157, 216, 219, 258, 265 anioł święty/holy angel 216, 258, 261

anioł w niebiosach/angel in heavens 237, 251 anioł zamieszania/Angel of Confusion 257, 262 anioł zatracenia/Angel of Perdition 219, 257, 261 anioł, który będzie ją prowadził/the angel that will lead her 219 anioł, który zapisuje czyny ludzkie/ the angel that records human deeds 261 anioł/angel 225, 233, 249, 250, 255, 258, 264 anjōl s̱merci/angel of Death 182 ãnjōl/angel 167, 201, 203, 207 anol/angel 143, 150, 190, 204 antychryst/Antichrist 233 apostoł Boga/apostle of God 216, 244, 246 apostoł kłamstwa/apostle of lies/ falsehood 244 apostoł prawdy/apostle of truth 219, 226, 255, 262 apostoł/apostle 157, 213, 223, 225–226, 245, 255, 265 archanioł/archangel 233 ārtikul/chapter, section 166 autor/author 214, 227, 255

368

Index of Slavic words and phrases

B balvan/idol 167, 180, 203 balvan naš/our idol 136 bałwan ryty/carved idol, sculpted idol, statue of an idol 211 balwan/idol 134, 137, 156, 167, 203, 205 balwan swoj/one’s idol 136 bałwan/idol 211, 217, 223, 225–227, 254 balwannik/idolater 165 bałwochwalca/idolater 217 bardzo ciężki dzień/a very terrible day 222 bardzo wierny/very faithful 245 barzdō špatna i strašna stvorenjō/a very ugly and frightful creature 136, 143, 161, 186–187 berše kśenga/book one (of the Pentateuch) 167, 180 bezsilny bałwan/helpless idol 217, 261 bilvan/idol 134, 167 blendni/errantes 206 błogi/blissful 57–58 błogosławiciel/the one who blesses 57 błogosławiona księga/blessed book 236 błogosławiony syn/blessed son 241–242, 244 bóg Abrahama, Izaaka i Jakuba/God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 230 bóg bogów/God of gods 236 bog cudzy/strange god 215 bog fałszywy/false god 215, 261 bóg inny/another god 215 bog inšij/other god 156, 182, 208 bóg jeden/One God 265 bog ojcov tvujiχ/God of your fathers 136, 190 bog poza Nim/god beyond Him 251, 254 bog z ziemi/god from the earth 237, 251 bōg jedin/One God 137–138, 155, 167, 182, 186, 196

bōg jedinij/one God, the One and Only God 141, 154, 186 bóg jedyny/the One and Only God 157, 265 bóg najwyższy/the Highest God 157 bóg poza Bogiem/god beyond God 240, 252, 254 bōg wjádōmij/Cognizant God, Omniscient God, God Who Knows 152 bóg zmyślony/a false god 211, 215, 218, 223, 225–226, 254, 257, 261–262 bog/God 203 bóg/God 160, 167, 190, 211, 229, 245, 258–259 bōg/God 137, 141, 143, 152–155, 157, 167, 196, 202, 205–206 bogobojny/God-fearing 58, 213 boh/God 203 bōh/God 143 bōjaźnik bōžij/one who fears God 141 ból/pain 214 boleść/pain, distress 214, 224 bolesny dzień/painful day 214 borsukowy/badgerish 112 bosel pravʒivi/legitimate messenger, true messenger, legitimate envoy, true envoy 156 bosel/messenger, envoy 180 boski dekret/God’s decree 212, 219 boskie miłosierdzie/divine mercy 243, 264 boskie pismo/God’s scripture 240–241, 243 boslanec od pana boha/messenger from the Lord 143, 156 boslanec/messenger, envoy 180, 203–204 bóstwo pozbawione mocy i wyrozumiałości/a deity devoid of power and understanding 261 bóstwo pozbawione wszelkiej władzy/deity devoid of any power 261

Index of Slavic words and phrases bóstwo urojone/imaginary deity, false deity 261 bóstwo zmyślone/false deity 211, 218, 254, 257, 261–262 bóstwo, które sobie na ziemi obrali/a deity they chose on earth 263 bóstwo/deity, divinity 211, 223, 225– 226, 257, 261 božeje adźinostva/God’s oneness, God’s unity 208 bożek zmyślony/false idol 257, 261 bożek/idol 211, 217, 250 boži/God’s, of God 135 božij ḿiłośńik/lover of God 73, 157 božjo jedinostvo/God’s oneness, God’s unity 156, 182, 206 božy/God’s, of God 180 boży/God’s, of God, divine 159, 183, 185–186, 192, 203 bożyszcze/idol 211, 218, 261 brat/brother 73, 128, 136, 139, 152, 180, 251, 255, 277 būġ jahūwā/the God Jehova 155 būġ/God 171 buntownik względem Miłosiernego/a rebel against the Merciful One 233 buntownik/rebel 213, 251, 255 būricel (prikezane)/the one who violates (a commandment), rebel, vanquisher 184, 207 być cierpliwy/to be patient 223 być miły oczom Przedwiecznego/be pleasant to the eyes of the Eternal One 245 być posłany/be commissioned, to be sent 223, 225, 255 być posłuszny/to be obedient 256 być w błędzie/to be wrong 242, 251 C čarōwnik/sorcerer 205 čas ōstatnij/the final time 157, 167 ceremona boža/ceremony dedicated to God, ritual dedicated to God 152

369

chaǧōwij meśōnc/pilgrimage month 138 chłopiec czysty/a pure boy 244 chłopiec wspaniałomyślny/a generous boy 244 chory/ill, sick 213 chowaciel/tutor 57 chwila rozdzielenia/moment of separation 243, 247, 256 chwila straszna/frightful moment 223, 243, 256 chwila/moment 214, 223, 225–226, 256–257 cień/shadow, shade 214 cierpliwy/patient 214, 227, 251 ciężki dzień/a terrible day 241 činicel/a doer 165 ciχi i pokorni/humble and meek, gentle and lowly 135, 156, 201 cnōtliwij/virtuous 207 cny/noble, virtuous 136 coś innego/something else 225, 227 cud/miracle 138, 167, 257, 262 cūd bōžij/miracle of God, God’s miracle 167 cūd bōžžij/miracle of God, God’s miracle 167 cūd/miracle 158 cudzy bóg/strange god 215 czarnoksiężnik/sorcerer 213, 227, 256 czarodziej/magician, wizard 214, 225, 227, 256 czarownik bardzo uczony/a very learned sorcerer 242, 245 czarownik uczony/a learned sorcerer 238 czarownik/sorcerer 213, 251, 256 czart/devil 157, 227, 255, 265 czas naznaczony/appointed time 243, 247, 257, 264 czas oznaczony/appointed time 214, 216, 222, 227, 247, 256, 264 czas spotkania/time of meeting 214

370

Index of Slavic words and phrases

czas wyznaczony przez Allacha/time appointed by Allah 241, 243, 247 czas wzdychania/time of sighing, time of groaning 247, 256 czas/time 214, 223, 225–227, 256–257 czci przedmiot/worships an object 213, 219 czcić Boga jedynego/to worship the Only God 263 czcić jedność Jego/to worship His unity, worship His oneness 221, 224 czcić Jego jedność/to worship His unity, worship His oneness 263 czciciel/worshipper 214 czcigodny prorok/a noble prophet 241, 244 czekać cierpliwie/to wait patiently 223 często do Nas powracać/return to Us frequently 221 człowiek cierpliwy/a patient man 220, 226 człowiek olbrzymiej władzy/a man of great power 220 człowiek prawdomówny/a truthful man, an honest man 220 człowiek prawdy/a man of truth 220 człowiek ryby/a man of the fish 236, 240, 246 człowiek śmiertelny/a mortal man 216, 220 człowiek sprawiedliwy/a just man 216, 220 człowiek wiele mogący/a man who can do much, a mighty man 220 człowiek wybrany/a chosen man 220 człowiek z ryby/a man from the fish 242, 247 człowiek zaczarowany/an enchanted man, man under a spell 238 człowiek żałujący/a man who regrets 258 człowiek zwyczajny/an ordinary man 220

człowiek, któremu polecono opowiadać boskie obietnice/a man who was commissioned to tell God’s promises 221, 226, 263 człowiek, który jest ofiarą oszustwa/a man who fell victim to deceit 242 człowiek/man 213, 227, 251 czujny zastęp/alert host 213, 219, 255, 261 czyniący dobro/one who does good 221, 228 czynić obietnice/make promises, promise 224, 255 czystość Boga/God’s Pure One 143 czysty/pure 213 D dać świadectwo/give testimony, testify 223–224, 236 dać władzę nad nimi/to give power over them 252, 256 dająca światło/light-giving 219 dawać świadectwo/give testimony, testify 224 dawca dobrej nowiny/giver of good news 220, 226–227 dekleracija/declaration 166 dekret boži/God’s decree 138, 143, 161, 166, 186, 196 dekret boży/God’s decree 240, 243, 247 den ostatnij sondnij/last judgement day 190 den ōstatnij/last day 157, 167, 186 den powstanij/day of resurrection, resurrection day 159 den pōwstanij/day of resurrection, resurrection day 161, 167 den sondnij powstanij/day of judgement and resurrection, judgement and resurrection day 167 den sondnij/judgement day 167, 186

Index of Slavic words and phrases den sōndnij/judgement day 157, 159 den sūdnij/judgementday 74 den/day 203–204 derekcijón dla luʒij/direction for people 143 derekcijón/direction 201–202 direkcija dla lūdzej/direction for people 161 direkcija/direction 161, 166–167, 184, 201 direktōr/director 166 dla ludzi łaska Boga/God’s grace for people 242, 244, 258 do Mnie powrócić/return toMe 243 dobra nowina/good news 212, 216, 218, 255 dōbre činōncij/one who does good 153 dōbrōtliwij/good, kind-hearted 178 dobry dla swoich rodziców/good for his parents 238 dobry dozorca/good watchman, good keeper 221 dobry strażnik/good watchman 221 dobry/good 131, 168, 186, 192, 226 dobrze doradzający/well-advising, good adviser 221, 223, 228 dōglōndač/look after, tend, watch over 165, 207 dom božī/the house of God 152 dōm ōdpūstū s̀ wentij/holy house of forgiveness (about the Kaaba) 150 dōm/house 193 doradca/adviser 223 dōrōga/way 202 dostojny prorok/a noble prophet 219, 226, 255, 262 dotrzymać obietnic/to keep one’s promises 214 dotrzymywać obietnice/to keep one’s promises 246 dowód przekonywający/convincing proof, convincing evidence 214 dowód/proof, evidence 212, 233

371

dōwod/proof, evidence 152 droga Boga/God’s way 246 droga prawʒiwa/true way 201 droga prosta/straight way 212, 218, 221, 223, 255 droga/way 201, 212, 255 drūga kśenga/book two (of the Psalms) 167 drugie życie/the other life, eternal life, the afterlife 221 druzgocące/devastating 214 duch buntowniczy/rebellious spirit 243, 257 duch cnotliwy i przewrotny/virtuous and perverse spirit 261 duch cnotliwy/virtuous spirit 219, 258 duch niebieski/heavenly spirit 216, 241 duch nieporządku/spirit of disorder 258, 261 duch nieposłuszny/rebellious spirit, disobedient spirit 257, 261–262 duch niezgody/spirit of dissent 216, 258, 262 dūch śwentij ǧebra’ilōwij/holy spirit, holy ghost (about angel Jibril) 137, 152 dūch śwentij/holy spirit, holy ghost (about angel Gabriel) 156, 158, 186 duch świątobliwości/spirit of piety (about angel Gabriel) 243, 246, 264 duch świętości/spirit of holiness (about angel Gabriel) 243, 246 duch święty/holy spirit, holy ghost (about angel Gabriel) 216, 240, 243, 246 duch tajemny/secret spirit 219, 254, 258, 261 duch wierny/faithful spirit (about angel Gabriel) 237, 251 duch/spirit, ghost 211, 227–228, 248, 250, 254–255 dūch/spirit, ghost 168

372

Index of Slavic words and phrases

dūrnij ślepij balwan/stupid, blind idol 140 dūša čloweča/human soul 193 dūša/soul 193 dušejemca/the One Who Takes the Soul 73, 143, 161, 202 dūχ śventij/holy spirit, holy ghost (about angel Gabriel) 138 dvūχ śv’etoŭ pan/the Lord of Two Worlds 73, 143, 161 dwōrōwane/ridiculing, making funof 185 dwunastu apostołów/twelve apostles 216, 220, 255 dźeń/day 203 dześencina/tithe 68 dzieciątko/a small child, a baby 129 dziecię/a small child, a baby 129, 202 dziecko w kolebce/a child in a cradle 240, 242 dziecko w kołysce/a child in a cradle 240, 242 dziecko/a child 213, 258 dziedzic błogosławieństw domu Jakuba/heir to the blessings of the House of Jacob 245 dziedzic Dawida/David’s heir 252 dziedzic rodu Jakuba/heir of the House of Jacob 239, 242 dziedzic/heir 225 dziedzictwo królestwa/heritage of the Kingdom 212 dziedzictwo/heritage 212, 233 dzień boleści/painful day, day of pain 214, 240, 256 dzień bolesny/painful day 214, 223, 238, 252 dzień ciemności/day of darkness 214, 216, 247 dzień cienia/day of shadow 214, 238, 247 dzień czasu oznaczonego/day of appointed time 214, 238, 247 dzień grozy/day of terror 214, 216, 247

dzień ich wskrzeszenia/day of resurrection, resurrection day 215, 224 dzień ich zguby/day of their perdition 215, 218, 259 dzień im przyobiecany/a day which was promised to them 217, 259 dzień który wszystko obejmie/the day which will cover everything 222, 259 dzień mroczny/a dark day 214, 238 dzień nieszczęsny/a day of disaster, an ill-fated day, an unfortunate day 215, 238 dzień nieuchronny/an inevitable day 215, 222 dzień nieuniknionego/a day of the inevitable 215, 247 dzień obiecany/a promised day 215–216 dzień obietnicy/a day of the promise 247 dzień od Allacha/a day from Allah 252, 256 dzień od Boga/a day from God 240, 243, 246, 252, 256 dzień odłączenia się/a day of separation 215, 247, 256 dzień ogólnego zmartwychwstania/ the day of general resurrection, the day of universal resurrection 215, 221, 227, 243, 247, 256 dzień określenia strat i zysków/the day of accounting for gains and losses 222, 247 dzień okropności, w którym obłok smutku pokryje nasze oblicza/ the day of atrocities on which a cloud of sorrow will cover our faces 243, 259 dzień okropności/the day of atrocities 215, 221, 226, 240–241, 256, 259 dzień okropny dla niewiernych/ terrible day for the unfaithful 215

Index of Slavic words and phrases dzień okropny/a terrible day 215 dzień ostatecznej decyzji/the day of the final decision 222, 243, 247 dzień ostateczny/the last day 215–216, 218, 243, 256, 259 dzień ostatni/the last day 215–216, 238, 251, 256 dzień oznaczony przyjdzie/the appointed day will come 259 dzień oznaczony/the appointed day 215, 218 dzień pełen bólu/a painful day, day full of pain 215, 223, 243 dzień pogróżek/a day of threats 215, 247 dzień powrotu do Allaha/a day of the return to Allah 215 dzień powszechnego zebrania/a day of the general assembly 215, 221, 223, 225, 247, 256 dzień powszechnego zmartwychwstania/the day of general resurrection, the day of universal resurrection 215 dzień przyobiecany/a promised day 238 dzień przytłaczającego mroku/the day of overwhelming darkness 222, 247 dzień rachunku/day of examination 215, 223, 225, 247, 256 dzień rozdzielenia/the day of separation 215, 241, 243, 247, 256, 264 dzień rozłączenia się/the day of separation 215, 223, 247, 256 dzień rozłączenia/the day of separation 247, 256 dzień rozliczenia/the day of examination 247, 256 dzień rozrachunku/the day of examination 215, 238, 247, 256 dzień rozrzucający na wszystkie strony nieszczęście/the day which spreads disaster in all directions 215, 259

373

dzień rozstrzygnięcia/the day of decision 215, 238, 247, 252, 256 dzień sądny/the day of judgement, judgement day 145, 157, 215–216, 221, 223–224, 240, 246, 256, 258–259, 264–265 dzień sądu najwyższego/the day of the highest judgement 215, 221, 258–259 dzień sądu ostatecznego/the day of final judgement 215–216, 218, 221, 227, 243, 247, 256, 259, 264 dzień sądu/the day of judgement, judgement day 215–216, 221, 223, 225, 227, 238, 243, 246–247, 252, 256, 258–259, 264 dzień smutku/the day of sorrow 247 dzień spotkania/the day of meeting 215, 238, 247, 252 dzień straszliwy/a terrible day 215–216, 218, 223, 256, 259, 264 dzień straszny/a terrible day 215–216, 223–225, 243, 247, 252, 256, 259, 264–265 dzień świadectwa/the day of testimony 215 dzień ten/this day 215–216, 247, 256, 264–265 dzień trudny/a difficult day 215, 238 dzień westchnienia/day of sighing, a day of groaning 215, 238, 247 dzień wiadomego czasu/the day of the appointed time 215, 241, 247 dzień wieczności/a day of eternity, eternal day 215–216, 238, 247, 252 dzień wielki/a great day 215–216, 223, 225, 238, 252, 256 dzień wszystko obejmujący/an allembracing day 215 dzień wyroku/the day of judgement 215, 221, 226 dzień wyznaczonego czasu/the day of the appointed time 247

374

Index of Slavic words and phrases

dzień wzajemnego oszukiwania/a day of mutual deception 215, 222, 247 dzień wzajemnego zawodu/a day of mutual disappointment 215, 222, 247 dzień zebrania/a day of assembly, an assembly day 215, 238, 247 dzień zemsty/the day of vengeance 215, 218, 259 dzień zgromadzenia/a day of assembly, assembly day 215, 238, 247, 252, 256 dzień zmartwychwstania/day of resurrection, resurrection day 157, 215–216, 224, 227, 238, 243, 246, 252, 256, 258–259, 262, 264 dzień znanego czasu/a day of the appointed time 241, 247 dzień zniszczenia/a day of destruction, destruction day 240, 243 dzień zwycięstwa/day of victory, victory day 215, 238, 247, 252, 256 dzień, co do którego nie ma wątpliwości/the day as to which there is no doubt 253 dzień, co do którego nie ma żadnych wątpliwości/the day as to which there is no doubt 253 dzień, kiedy oni zobaczą ową godzinę/the day when they will see the hour 222 dzień, który szybko się zbliża/the day which is approaching fast, a fastapproaching day 247 dzień, w którym będzie musiał zdać rachunek/the day on which he will be held accountable 247 dzień/day 214, 223, 225–226, 251, 256 dziw/marvel, miracle 167 E ‘enh’eł/angel 72, 202 ‘enh’eł padobnij ptaχu/an angel which resembles a bird, a bird-like angel 186

‘enh’eł smūtnij/sad angel 186 ‘enh’eł strašnij/dreadful angel 186 ‘enhel ‘eršovij/angel of the Throne 182 ‘enhel pri Panu Bohu/angel close to Lord God 134 ‘enhel/angel 143, 182, 202–203 ‘eršovij kūr/the rooster of the Throne, the cock of the Throne 73, 138, 143, 161, 179, 183 F fałsz/falsehood 211, 250, 255 fałszywe bóstwo/false god, false deity 258, 261–263 fałszywy bóg/false god 215, 261 fałszywy obraz/false image 261 fałszywe przez was wystawione bożyszcze/false god displayed by you 211, 218, 261 fałszywy prorok/false prophet 216, 220, 227, 255, 262 fatiga/labour, hardship 166, 184 fūndatōr/founder 166 G gehenna/Gehenna 123 genjusz buntowniczy/rebellious jinn 219, 258, 261 geniusz/jinn 248, 254–255 genjusz/jinn 227, 254–255 głos proroka/the voice of the prophet, prophet’s voice 221 głos proroka, który nas wzywał do wiary/the voice of the prophet who called us to faith 244 głosić groźby/to preach threats 224 głosić nagrody/to preach rewards 221, 224, 226 głosić obietnice/to preach promises 220, 223–224, 226 głosiciel dobrej nowiny/a preacher of the good news 220, 234

Index of Slavic words and phrases głosiciel Jego obietnic i gróźb/ preacher of His promises and threats 244 głosiciel Jego obietnic/preacher of His promises 220 głosiciel radosnej wieści i ostrzegający/preacher of the joyous news and the warning one 244 głosiciel radosnej wieści/preacher of the joyous news 220 głowa/leader, beginning 58 glūpij/stupid 134, 168 glūxōta/deafness, impaired hearing, lack of hearing 185 godny zaufania/trustworthy 216, 221, 252, 256 godzina/the hour (about Last Judgement) 214, 223, 225, 227, 251, 256–257 goniciel/messenger 57 goniec/messenger 213, 226, 255 gōra/mountain, mount 134, 182 górne zgromadzenie/higher assembly 213, 243 greci/Greeks 140 grex/sin 141, 193 grożący/threatening 214 gržex/sin 208 gūbicel mjest i ws̱ī/destroyer of towns and villages, vanquisher of towns and villages 165 H hałava/head 202 helava/leader, beginning 143, 161 histōrija/story 166 historja prawdziwa/true story 243 huk ogłuszający/deafening rumble, a deafening thud 219 I igriskō i ōšukanina/fun and deceit, trick and deceit, ridicule and deceit 166

375

inne bóstwo/another deity 215, 254 inne bóztwo/another deity 157 inny bóg poza Allachem/another god apart from Allah 252, 254 inny bóg/another god 157, 215 inny niż Allach/beside Allah, other than Allah 254 inny/other, other one 208, 211 inšij bōg/other god 133, 136, 156, 182, 187, 208 inšij/other 206 istī bōg/real God 153 iść za czymś/to follow something 256 islam/Islam 249, 284 istny anioł/true angel 241–243 istōtna prawda/core truth 137, 143, 152, 161, 182, 186 istotny/core, crucial, essential 160 J jadinij/sole, one, one and only, the only one 171 jadinnī/sole, one, one and only, the only one 171 jasny dowód/clear proof, clear evidence 212, 218 jasny osąd/clear judgement 212, 218 jawnie ostrzegający/one who warns openly 240–241 jawnij/clear, open 206 jawny nieprzyjaciel/open enemy 213, 241 jawny wróg/open enemy 241, 251 jawny zwodziciel/open deceiver 240–241 jeden Bóg/one God 215 jeden bōg/one God 189 jeden z niewdzięcznych/one of the ungrateful 221 jeden z przybliżonych/one of those close to God 220 jeden/one 141, 151, 186, 208, 222, 226, 235, 262

376

Index of Slavic words and phrases

jedin/one 74, 155, 202 jedinij allaχ/one Allah 182, 186 jedinij/sole, one, one and only, the only one 74, 182, 186, 206 jedinni allāh/one Allah 182 jedinni/sole, one, one and only, the only one 204 jedinnij/sole, one, one and only, the only one 155, 204 jedinnostvo/oneness, unity 204 jedinostva/oneness, unity 201, 206 jedinostvo bośk’e/oneness of God, unity of God, God’s oneness, God’s unity 156, 182 jedinostvo/oneness, unity 72 jedinōstwa bōžže/oneness of God, unity of God, God’s oneness, God’s unity 203 jedinōstwa/oneness, unity 137, 163, 201, 206 jedinōstwō/oneness, unity 156, 184 jedna z ksiąg najwyborniejszych/ one of the most exquisite books 213, 219 jedność Boga/oneness of God, unity of God, God’s oneness, God’s unity 215, 265 jedność boska/oneness of God, unity of God, God’s oneness, God’s unity 265 jedyność Najwyższego/oneness of the Highest One, unity of the Highest One 258, 263 jedyność/oneness, unity 263, 265 jedynostwo/oneness, unity 58, 208 jedyny Bóg/one God, the One and Only God 215, 265 jedyny/sole, one, one and only, the only one 186, 222, 226, 235 jego milośc/his Grace 136 jego miłość/his Grace 136, 277 jegō milōśt’/his Grace 136 jeho milośc/his Grace 136 jeho milost’/his Grace 73

jeździec uzbrojony/armed horseman 213, 219, 223, 255 jeździec/horseman 225 K kadūk/devil 140, 167–168, 184 kajeta pžijmūjoncij/the one who accepts apology 207 kajetnik/the repentant one 161 kaplan/priest 156, 165, 167, 205 kapłan/priest 213, 223, 225–227, 245, 255–256 kara/punishment 223, 225 karmicel wšitḱix s̀ wjetōw/Provider of All Sustenance for All Worlds, the One Who Feeds All Worlds 141, 152 karmicel/provider of all sustenance, the one who feeds 167, 184, 207 karmiciel/provider of all sustenance, the one who feeds 57 kłamać/to lie 224 kłamca/liar 213, 220, 224, 251, 255 kniga/book 203 kniha/book 143, 203, 208 kōlega/friend 137 koniec dni waszych/end of your days 214 koniec dni/end of days 216 koniec/end, finish 214, 227, 256 kōnwersacija/conversation 166 kravec/tailor 138, 196 kres/end, limit 214, 227 kriwdnik/the one who hurts 207 król na ziemi/king on earth, king of earth 216, 241 król nad królami/King above all Kings 189 krōlewstwa nebesḱe i źemsḱe/ heavenly and earthly kingdoms 153 kśenga bōža/book of God 137, 156, 159, 167, 186 ks̱enga kuran/Quran, the Book of Quran 153

Index of Slavic words and phrases kśenga pravʒiva/true book 186 kśenga prawdziwa/true book 156, 167 kśenga s-prawdą/book with the truth 156, 159, 186 kśenga samū’elova/book of Samuel 156 kśenga zeslana/a book which was sent 138 kśenga/book 140, 143, 156, 167, 190, 201 księga Allacha/book of Allah 246, 252 księga błogosławiona/blessed book 236 księga Boga/book of God 236, 240, 243, 246, 252 księga boska/book of God 215, 240, 243, 246, 264–265 księga boża/book of God 215, 265 księga Dawida/book of David (of the Psalms) 219, 230, 234 księga mądrości/book of wisdom 215–216 księga Mojżesza/book of Moses (of the Pentateuch) 212, 238, 246, 252 księga nauczająca prawdy/a book which teaches the truth 236 księga nauki/book of instruction 236 księga oczywistości/book of obviousness 236 księga od Allacha/book from Allah 252 księga od Boga/book from God 240, 243, 246, 252 księga ogłaszająca prawdę/a book which proclaims the truth 236 księga prawa/book of law 215 księga prawd/book of truths 265 księga prawdy/book of truth 265 księga prawideł/book of rules 236 księga przestrogi/book of warning 236 księga przysłana wiernym/book sent to the faithful, book sent to believers 236, 262

377

księga psalmów/book of Psalms 212, 215, 219, 229 księga szacowna/noble book 236 księga święta/holy book 212, 215, 219, 262 księga z nieba zesłana/book sent from heaven, heaven-sent book 236 księga z nieba/book from heaven 236 księga zawierająca mądrość/book of wisdom 236 księga zesłana po Mojżeszu/book sent after Moses 236 księga zesłana przed Koranem/book sent before the Quran 236 księga zesłana z nieba/book sent from heaven, heaven-sent book 236 księga/book 212, 223, 226, 233, 236, 250, 257–258, 261, 265 kuglarz/juggler, conjurer 213, 225, 227, 256 kūr/rooster, cock 143, 168, 183 kurannī s̱wjet/Quranic world, the world of Quran 193 kusiciel rodzaju ludzkiego/tempter of humankind 213, 243, 258 kusiciel/tempter 213, 225, 227, 243, 255, 258 L łagodny/gentle 213, 226, 251 lampa dająca światło/light-giving lamp 242, 245 lampa oświetlająca/light-giving lamp 233, 238 łaska Boga/grace of God, God’s grace 242, 244, 258 łaska dla wiernych/grace for the faithful 243 łaska dla wszystkich ludów/grace for all peoples 244 łaska nieba/heavenly grace 243, 264 łaska niebieska/heavenly grace 212, 219 łaska od Nas/grace from Us 239

378

Index of Slavic words and phrases

łaska/grace 212, 225, 233 laskavi/kind 135 leniwy/lazy 58 litość/mercy, compassion, pity 225 lixa ferejsḱa/devilish usury 183 liǯbar/accountant, arithmetician, good with numbers 204, 207 lōtr prikezana lamōncij/criminal who breaks commandments, criminal who violates precepts 140 lūdze trōjeck’e/people who believe in the Trinity 167 ludzie napomnienia/people of admonition 238, 246 ludzie posiadający napomnienie/ people with admonition 242, 246 ludzie/people 228 ludzki/human, humane 214 lūʒe majōnci ks̀ engi/people who have books, people with books 140 lūʒe pis̱me majōnce/people who have books, people with books 150 lūʒe židowsḱe/Jewish people 153 M mądra księga/wise book 236 mądrość/wisdom 212, 222 mądry chłopiec/wise boy 242 mądry/wise 186, 222, 226 mały chłopiec/little boy 216, 244 marność/vanity, worthlessness, futility 211 matka jegō/his mother 152 matka wšitḱix mast/mother of all towns 141 matrika bōža/genealogy of God 166–167, 182 mąż sprawiedliwy/just man 216, 220 męczennik wiary/martyr for the faith 257–258 męka ogniowa/torments of fire, torture of fire, ordeal of fire 124 meśec naš śvetlji/our bright moon 161

meśec/moon 201, 203 mésjac/moon 203 mesjasz/Messiah 138, 233–234 meškane zdrowje wečnegō/house of eternal health 193, 205 mes̀ onc ẕakaẕanij/forbidden month, sacred month 152 mieć spuściznę rodziny Jakóba/to have the legacy of the family of Jacob 245 mieszać do czci fałszywe bóstwa/to have false gods to worship 258, 262–263 mieszkaniec ryby/the one who lived in the fish 261 mili/beloved, loving 203 milośc/love 203–204 miłosierdzie boskie/divine mercy, God’s mercy 244 miłosierdzie dla ludzi/mercy for people 238 miłosierdzie dla światów/mercy for worlds 238–239 miłosierdzie dla wierzących/mercy for the faithful 238 miłosierdzie pochodzące od Nas/ mercy coming from Us 239 miłosierdzie/mercy 212, 217, 233 milośnik doskonali/perfect lover 143 milōśnik/beloved, loving 202–203 milōśt’/love 201 miły/dear, pleasant 128, 131, 136 moc/power, might 151, 205 mōc/power, might 141 moc anelśka/angelic power 156, 203 mōcna priśenga/firm promise, firm oath 153 mój ojciec/my father 251 moj prijacel/my friend 160 mój sąd/my judgement 216 mondri/wise 135, 201 mukar pek’elnij/torturer from hell, infernal tortuter 136, 143, 161, 187

Index of Slavic words and phrases mūkar ṕek’elnij/torturer from hell, infernal tortuter 73, 182 mukar piekielny/torturer from hell, infernal torturer 134 mūkar/torturer, murderer 161, 208 mukar/torturer, murderer 168, 208 mus̀ ulmansḱa wjara/Muslim faith 182 muzułmanin/Muslim 249, 284 N na otwartej drodze rozkazu/on the open way of command 239, 242, 245 na wyraźnej drodze względem tej sprawy/on a clear way as to this matter of faith 242, 245 nacija/nation 134, 166 naczelnik ludu/leader of the people 242 naczelnik nauki/leader of learning 254, 265 naczelnik świętej wiary/leader of holy faith 245, 264 naczelnik wiernych/leader of the faithful 220 naczelnik/leader 214, 223, 225–227, 253, 256–257, 265 nad ušistk’emi prorokami peradnejši/ more outstanding than all prophets, first of all prophets 135 nadzorca/supervisor 213 nagłe nieszczęście/sudden disaster, sudden misfortune 222 nagroda/reward 250 najlepsza księga/best book 236 najlepsza rozprawa/best dissertation 212, 219 najlepszy/best 214, 251, 255 najpiękniejsze opowiadanie/most beautiful story 212, 219 najwyższa rada/highest council 213, 216, 243 najwyższy dostojnik/highest dignitary 213, 241

379

najwyższy/highest 245, 262 namiestnik na ziemi/governor on earth, representative on earth 238, 250–251 namiestnik/governor, representative 213, 225 napōminač/admonish 185 napominający ludzi/one who admonishes people people 242 napominający/the admonishing one 214, 228, 240 napomnienie/admonition 212, 226, 233, 250, 255 narodzony ze słowa bożego/born of the word of God 216 naš spodar/our Lord 135–136 naşmewca/mocker 165 następca po Dawidzie/successor after David, David’s successor 242 następca posłańców/successor of messengers 245 natchnąć/inspire 224 nauczanie twoim jest obowiązkiem/ teaching is your duty, teaching is your obligation 245, 264 nauczyciel od Boga wybrany/teacher chosen by God 216, 244, 262, 264 nauczyciel/teacher 196, 233 nauka poprzedzająca zbliżenie ostatecznego sądu/teaching preceding the last judgement 244, 246, 258, 263 nauka/teaching, learning 212, 223, 226, 255 nawiedzony szaleństwem/filled with madness 244 nawołujący do Allacha/calling to Allah 241, 252 nawołujący do Boga/calling to God 241, 244, 252 nawołujący/calling 227 nawracający się w skrusze/converting in contrition 220, 227 ne-nawrōconī/not converted 149, 153

380

Index of Slavic words and phrases

nebō/heaven 150 nedōwerek/disbeliever, doubter, nonbeliever, unbeliever 134 neprijacel jawnij/open enemy 156, 187 neprijacel panu bogu/enemy of the Lord 150 neprijacel welk’ij jawnij/great open enemy 187 neprijacel/enemy 201, 203–204 newerenstwo waše/your infidelity, your unfaithfulness, your lack of faith 146 newernik bōgu/one who does not believe in God, non-believer, unbeliever 153 newernik/non-believer, unbeliever 137, 141, 150, 153, 165, 167, 205 newōtwurca nebōs i źemi/Creator of new heaven and earth 185 nie czuć się dobrze/not to feel good 224 niebieski duch/heavenly spirit 216 niebieski/heavenly 186 niebiosa/heavens 245, 258, 264 niebo/heaven 245 niebo, które mi zaleciło islamizm/ heaven which recommended Islam to me 221, 264 niechybna godzina/inevitable hour 243 niedołężne bóstwo/clumsy deity 254, 258, 261–263 niedołężny bałwan/clumsy idol 223, 226, 261 niedołężny opiekun/clumsy carer 211, 218, 223, 225–226, 261 nieposłuszny rozkazom Najwyższego/ disobedient to the commands of the Highest One, disobedient to the orders of the Highest One 258 nieposłuszny/disobedient 213, 224, 255

nieprzyjaciel/enemy 129, 130, 213, 217, 227 nieść napomnienie na cały świat/ carry admonition to the whole world 245 nieszczęsny dzień/disastrous day, illfated day 215 nieuniknione wydarzenie/inevitable event 222, 252 nieuniknione/inevitable, unavoidable 214, 251 niewdzięcznik/ingrate, ungrateful person 214 niewdzięczny względem/wobec Pana/ ungrateful to the Lord 213 niewdzięczny/ungrateful 251, 255 niewierny Bogu/unfaithful to God 213 niewierny/unfaithful 255 niewinny zupełnie/completely innocent 220 nieznane bóstwo/unknown deity 261 nikczemność/wickedness, villainy 211 nikczemny/wicked, mean, despicable, evil 211 niosący dobrą nowinę/bringing good news 220, 223, 226 niosący światłość/light-bringing 258 nōśicel/messenger 165 nosiciel dobrej nowiny/messenger of good news 220, 223, 226–227 nowina/news 214 nūtr/inside 193 O obce bóstwo/strange deity 215, 217, 254, 261 obdarzony wspaniałym charakterem/ endowed with an excellent character 242 obiecać obietnicę/promise a promise 56

Index of Slavic words and phrases obiecany dzień/promised day 215–216, 241 obietnica boża/promise of God, God’s promise 244 obietnica pańska/promise of the Lord, Lord’s promise 212, 218, 255 obietnica prawdziwa/true promise 214 obietnica/promise 251, 256 ōbiwatel pek’elnij/resident of hell 159, 166 objawienie/revelation 212, 250, 255 obowiązkowy wobec swoich rodziców/dutiful towards one’s parents 241 obraz ryty/carved image, statue 211 obraz/image 211 ōbraz/image 134, 156, 167, 201, 205 obrońca/defender 211, 225–226, 233, 254 obrzydliwość bałwochwalstwa/ repulsiveness of idolatry 241, 243 obrzydłość/abomination 211 obudziciel/the one who wakes sbup 57 ociec moy/my father 171 ōčiṡcić ōčiṡcenem/purify with purification 158 oczarowany/enchanted 214, 225, 227 oczy/eyes, leader, guide 58 oczywista wskazówka/obvious instruction 212, 219 ōdīn bōg/one God 155, 182, 208 ōdīn/sole, one, one and only 208 odłączenie się/separation 227 ōdpūskliwij/forgiving 141, 152 ōfarnik/the one who offers a sacrifice 165 ōfarōwnik/the one who offers a sacrifice 156, 165, 167 ofiara oszustwa/victim of deceit 220 ofiarnik/the one who offers 58 ofiarownik/the one who offers 58, 171

381

ōfjera/offering, sacrifice 158 ogen peḱelnij/hell fire 201 ogłaszać obietnice/announce promises 220–221, 223–224, 226 ogłuszający krzyk/deafening scream 219 ojciec mój/my father 251 ojciec wasz/your father 251 ojciec/father 213, 234 określony termin/appointed day 241 określony/appointed, specified, particular 227 okropność/atrocity, abomination 224 okryty płaszczem/covered with a coat, coated 220 omamiony kuglarstwem/beguiled with conjuring 220, 225, 227 opętany poeta/possessed poet 242 opętany przez dżinny/possessed by jinns 242, 244 opętany/possessed 213 opiekun/carer 211, 213, 225–226, 233 opowiadacz prawdy/teller of truth 216, 234 opowiadacz/teller 213, 257 opowiadanie słowa wiary/telling the word of faith 224, 255, 263 opowiadanie/telling 212 opowiedaciel/talker 57 opowiedacz/talker 57 orędownik/advocate 211, 226, 233 osoba oczarowana/enchanted person 220 ostateczny sąd/last judgement 225, 258, 263 ostateczny/last, final 218, 226 ostatni z proroków/last of the prophets 243–244, 247, 263 ostatnia godzina/last hour 214, 216, 222–223, 225, 256 ostrzegać/warn 255 ostrzegacz/the one who warns, warning one 217

382

Index of Slavic words and phrases

ostrzegający/warning 213–214, 227, 244 ōšūkać ōšūkaniną/deceive with deceit 158 oświecony światłem prawdy/ enlightened with the light of truth 245 oświecony/enlightened 214 oszałamiające wydarzenie/ overwhelming event 222 oszust/swindler, fraudster 213, 227, 255 otroczątko/boy, youngboy 57 otwarty nieprzyjaciel/open enemy 213, 241 ów dzień/this day 215–216, 221 owinięty płaszczem/covered with a coat, coated 220 owinięty szatą/covered with a robe 220 oznaczony kres/specified end, specified limit 214 oznaczony termin/appointed date 241 oznaczony/appointed, specified 227 oznaczyć czas/appoint time 214, 243 oʒin Boh/one God 208 oʒinnji/sole, one, one and only 204, 208 P ‘prôrōk/prophet 135 pajančina/cobweb, spiderweb 165 palvan/idol 167, 180 pan bog/God 130, 153 pâmazanec/the anointed 157, 165 pan bōg jedinij/the only Lord and God 186 pan bōg milōserdnij/the Merciful Lord, Merciful Lord God 141 pan bōg ō kōždej reči wjedōm/the Lord Who Knows Every Single Thing, the Lord Who Knows Everything, the Cognizant

Lord, the Omniscient God, the Omniscient Lord 152 pan bōg ōdpūskliwij milōserdnij/ the Forgiving and the Merciful Lord, the Forgiving and Merciful Lord 152 pan bōg twardegō kerane/Lord God of Severe Punishment 152 pan Bóg/Lord God 150, 265 pan bōg/Lord God 134, 137, 141, 150– 153, 155, 158, 167, 182, 196, 206–208 pān būġ/Lord God 171, 208 pan nad panami/Lord of Lords 189 pan/lord 130, 135, 143, 166–168, 171, 211, 233–234, 245, 250, 262–263 pāpažnik/papist, Roman Catholic 165 partner/partner 211 pavelbonij pisar/noble writer 134, 143, 159, 161, 186 paχvalnaść śv’eata/glory of the world 74, 143 paχvalnaść/praise, glory 143, 161 pečentar všitk’iχ prorok/seal of all prophets 137, 143, 161 pečentar/seal 201, 204 ṕek’elnij vojevoda/hellish leader, hellish ruler 73, 136, 143, 161, 187 ṕek’elnij/of hell, hell’s, hellish, infernal 206 peklō/hell 141 pełen skruchy/full of remorse, remorseful 221 peradnejši/at the front 202 perédnij/at the front 202 peregraf/section, verse 166–167, 185 perša kśenga krūlevśka/Kings 156 perša kśenga mōjźešōva/Genesis, the First Book of Moses 156 perše kśenga/book one (of the Pentateuch) 180 perši i ostanni/the first and the last 135, 156 ṕeršij i ‘astatńij/the first and the last 186

Index of Slavic words and phrases ṕev’eń/rooster, cock 138, 143, 168, 179 pewien termin/certain date 214, 222, 227 pięć ksiąg Mojżesza/five books of Moses (of the Pentateuch) 212, 215, 219, 258 pięć ksiąg/five books (of the Pentateuch) 219, 258 pieczęć proroków/seal of the prophets 238, 246, 252 pierwszy człowiek/the first man 216, 258 pierwszy wierzę/I am the first believer 240, 246 pierwszy z wiernych/first of the faithful, first believer 242, 247 pisar ūčinkōw wašix/recorder of your deeds 183 pisarz pobłażający/lenient writer, tolerant writer 143, 186 pierwszy z wierzących/first of believers 242, 247 pisar/writer, author 167, 203–204 piśmō bōže/God’s scripture 137, 156, 159, 167, 186 pis̱mō naše/our scripture 151 pismo nasze/our scripture 212, 219 pismo objawione/revealed scripture 216 pismo prawdziwe/true scripture 216 pismo przestróg/scripture of warnings 212, 219, 226, 255, 262 piśmo śvente/holy scripture 182, 186 piśmo śvetije/holy scripture 156, 159 piśmo svuje/God’s scripture 136 pismo święte/holy scripture 212, 216, 219, 223, 225, 236, 255, 258, 262, 265 pismo/scripture 212, 225–226, 233 piśmo/scripture 167, 204 piṡmo/scripture 167 piṡmō/scripture 156, 167, 201 pitalnik božij/God’s one who asks 134, 143

383

pitalnik/the one who asks 136, 201 płakać płaczem wielkim/weep with great weeping 56 płakać w płaczu/weep in weeping 56 plemię/tribe, people 251, 255 plugastwo/filth 211 plugawy bałwan/filthy idol 211 po mału mału/little by little 56 pobłażający/lenient 186 pobożny/pious, religious 214, 226 pocešicel vaš/your comforter 160 pochodnia wiary/torch of faith 212, 219, 255 pochodzić od/descend from, originate from, come from 224, 255 pocieszać nadzieją szczęścia/comfort with the hope of happiness 221, 224, 226, 263 podarunek/gift 214 poddany/subjected 58 podmuch/gust 223, 225 podzieleni panowie/divided lords 241 podziwienie świata/sign for the world 220, 225, 227, 244, 255 poeta/poet 214, 251, 255 pokajanie/apology, beating one’s breast 167 pokorny/humble 213 pokusiciel/tempter 213, 225, 227, 255 pokuszenie/temptation 213 pokuta/atonement 167 polubieniec Boga/God’s favourite 143 pomazaniec/the anointed one 234 pomoc/help, assistance 214, 255 pomocnik Boga/God’s helper 216 pomocnik do Boga/helper leading to God 143 pomocnik/helper 211, 214, 225–226, 233, 250–251, 254–255 pōmōcnik/helper 137, 154 pomsta niebieska/heavenly vengeance 214, 216, 243, 247, 257, 264 pomsta/vengeance 214

384

Index of Slavic words and phrases

po nich posłać/send for them 239, 251 ponury, pełen rozpaczy dzień/gloomy day full of despair 243 pop/priest 58 popędzający/pushing, urging 213, 224, 228 poradnik/adviser 58 poróżnieni panowie/lords who fell out with each other 241 posąg/statue 211, 226 poseł boży/messenger of God, God’s messenger 213, 216, 258 pōsel naš/our messenger, our envoy 138 posel/messenger, envoy 168, 180, 203 poseł/messenger, envoy 135, 143, 157 pōsel/messenger, envoy 138, 153, 201 poselstwo sług Najwyższego/ messengers, servants of the Highest One 220, 223, 263 posiadać najwspanialsze cechy moralne/to have the most excellent moral virtues 242 posiadać zaufanie/have trust 221, 224, 256 posiadający siłę/having power 220 posłaniec, wierny swojemu zdaniu/a messenger who is faithful to his task 244 posłać na ziemię/send to earth 245 posłać z Naszymi znakami/send with Our signs 239, 245, 252 posłać z obietnicami/send with promises 220, 224 poslanec/messenger, envoy 167, 203–205 pōslanec/messenger, envoy 133, 156, 167, 168, 180, 202 posłaniec Allacha/messenger of Allah, Allah’s messenger 246, 252 posłaniec Boga/messenger from God, God’s messenger 216, 240, 244, 246, 252

posłaniec boski/messenger from God, God’s messenger 216, 220, 255 posłaniec boży/messenger from God, God’s messenger 216, 219, 226, 236, 240, 244, 246, 255, 262, 264–265 posłaniec godny zaufania/ trustworthy messenger 244 posłaniec jasny/apparent messenger 219, 255 posłaniec jawny/apparent messenger 219, 255 posłaniec Najwyższego/messenger of the Highest One 219, 226, 262 posłaniec niebieski/heavenly messenger 213, 216, 219, 226, 255 posłaniec od Allacha/messenger from Allah, Allah’s messenger 241, 247 posłaniec od Pana światów/ messenger from the Lord of Worlds 238–239, 247, 252 posłaniec Pana światów/messenger of the Lord of Worlds 238, 242, 246 posłaniec pewny/reliable messenger 219, 255 posłaniec szlachetny/noble messenger 238, 252 posłaniec wiary/messenger of faith 244 posłaniec Władcy Światów/ messenger of the Lord of Worlds 220, 255, 258 posłaniec zemsty niebieskiej/ messenger of heavenly vengeance 143 posłaniec/messenger,envoy 157, 213, 222–223, 226–227, 249, 251, 255 posłannik/messenger, envoy 213 posłany/sent, commissioned 213, 222, 224, 227, 251, 255 posłuszny/obedient 214 pōśnik/meal 158 pōṡnikajōncī menščizna/eating man 158

Index of Slavic words and phrases posol božij/messenger of God, God’s messenger 74, 156 pōsōl bōžij/messenger of God, God’s messenger 143 posol/messenger, envoy 202 pōsōl/messenger, envoy 135, 141, 143, 156, 167, 201–203, 206 pośrednik ich losu/intermediary of their fate 224, 255, 264 pośrednik woli mojéj/intermediary of my will 245, 264 potępiony szatan/condemned satan 216, 241 potrafić one zachować/able to keep them 221, 224 pōtwarca/slanderer 207 pouczony/instructed 214, 251, 255 poufalec Boga/God’s trusted one 143 poważany/respected, venerated 214 poważne pismo/venerated scripture 264 pōwažnij/respected, venerated 135 poważny/respected, venerated 186 powiernik Boga/God’s confidant 143 powiernik/confidant 214, 223, 225–227, 256 pōwinnōs̱c/duty, obligation 185 pōwodir/superior, leader, guide 134, 161, 167–168, 185, 201–202, 265 powołać ludzi do Boga/call people to God 244 powrócić do Allacha/return to Allah 252 powrócić do Boga/return to God 243, 252 powrócić do mego sądu/return for My judgement 239, 243, 259 požy/of God, God’s 180 pradziwnī būġ/true God 171 prarok/prophet 73–74, 136, 139–141, 143, 190, 201 prat/brother 136, 180 pravcivi prorok/true prophet 156

385

pravcivi/true, genuine 135 prawda/truth 146, 212, 250 prawdomówny/truthful, veracious, honest 214, 251 prawdziwe zmartwychwstanie/true resurrection 216, 221, 258–259 prawdziwie pobożny/truly pious, truly religious 220, 227 prawdziwie wierzący/true believer 220, 227 prawdziwy apostoł/true apostle 143, 265 prawdziwy narodzony ze słowa bożego/ truly born of the word of God, truly born of God’s word, true and born of the word of God, true and born of God’s word 244, 258, 263–264 prawdziwy posłaniec/true messenger 216, 219, 226, 255, 262 prawdziwy wierny/true believer 221 prawdziwy/real 186, 192 prawidło obowiązków/precept of duties 212, 219, 255 prawidło spraw waszych/precept of your affairs 212 prawidło spraw/precept of affairs 212, 219, 255 prawidło wiary/precept of faith 212, 218, 255 prawidło/precept, rule 212 prawo/law 212 prawʒiwa drōga/true way 141 prawʒiwa ščira newasta/truly honest woman 152 preklentij/cursed 136 prerok/prophet 136 pričinca bliskij ū bōge/intercessor close to God 157 pričinca do śebe za ummet’em/intercessor for community 143, 160

386

Index of Slavic words and phrases

pričinca uśiχ nas na sudni ʒen/ intercessor for us all on judgement day 143, 156, 160 pričinca za ummet’em/intercessor for the community 160, 183 pričinca/intercessor, advocate 165, 168, 183, 203–204, 207 prijacel/friend 140, 143, 160–161, 168, 201, 203–205 prijećel (!) božij/friend (!) of God, God’s friend (!) 74, 135, 143, 182 prijećel/friend 203 prikezane/commandment 140–141, 149, 184, 201, 204–205 prirečene/promise, oath 149, 152 priwodca kū dōbremū/leader towards the good 137, 143, 161, 182 priwodca/leader 167, 201, 203 próba od Allacha/test from Allah, ordeal from Allah 219 prōcesija/procession 166 prōrōčenstwo/prophecy 161 proroctwo/prophecy 212, 234, 258 prorok Allacha/prophet of Allah, Allah’s prophet 246, 252 prorok Boga/prophet of God, God’s prophet 216, 236, 240, 244, 246, 252 prōrōk bōžij/prophet of God, God’s prophet 156, 159 prorok boży/prophet of God, God’s prophet 157 prōrōk jich/their prophet 137 prorok Pana/prophet of the Lord, Lord’s prophet 216, 240, 244, 246 prorok pański/prophet of the Lord, Lord’s prophet 216, 219, 226, 255, 262 prorok perši i ostanni/first and last prophet 156 prorok pravӡivi/true prophet 160 prorok rodzimy/native prophet 238 prōrōk welk’ij/great prophet 133–134, 182

prorok/prophet 134–140, 143, 150, 160, 168, 196, 202, 217, 223, 225–226, 233, 245, 249, 255, 257–258, 262, 264 prōrok/prophet 135, 138, 202 prōrōk/prophet 133–135, 137–138, 151–154, 156, 159, 167–168, 182, 202, 205 prōwaʒicel (z blendū kū dōbremū)/ the one who leads (from the wrong to the good) 185, 207 prowiẕer/the provider of sustenance 202 prōwizor/provider of all sustenance, the one who feeds 166–167 prōžnij bōg/helpless god 136, 156, 163, 167, 182, 187 prōžnij/helpless 206 próżność/vanity 211 przedmiot czci/object of veneration 211, 218, 223, 225–226, 257, 262 przedmiot pośmiewiska/object of ridicule 221, 256 przedmiot sporu/object of dispute 212, 219 przedmiot sprzeczek/object of arguments 212, 219, 221 przedmiot szyderstwa/object of scorn 212, 216, 221, 256 przedmiot tysiąca sprzeczek/ object of a thousand arguments 212, 219 przejmujące nieszczęście/excruciating disaster, dreadful disaster 222 przekaziciel dobrej nowiny/ messenger of the good news 220, 226–227 przeklinacz/the one who curses 57 przepis/regulation, law 226, 255 przepowiadać boskie obietnice i pogróżki/proclaim God’s promises and threats 244

Index of Slavic words and phrases przepowiadać boskie obietnice/ proclaim God’s promises 220, 224, 244 przepowiedziana księga/proclaimed book 236 przestroga/warning 212, 226, 255 przewodnictwo Allacha/Allah’s guidance 246 przewodnictwo/guidance, leadership 212, 223, 233, 250, 255 przewodnik dla ludzi/guide for people 242 przewodnik narodu/guide for the people, guide for nation 220 przewodnik/guide, leader 212, 214, 250, 255 przyczyńca/intercessor, advocate 160 przyjaciel/friend 205, 214, 226, 258 przyjść z prawdą/come with the truth 239 przykazanie jasne/clear commandment, obvious commandment 212, 219, 262 przykazanie/commandment 226 przykład dla dzieci Izraela/example for the children of Israel 244 przykład Hebrajczykom/example for Hebrews 242 przykład dla synów Izraela/example for the sons of Israel 244 przykład ich pobożności/example of their piety 263 przykład potomności/example for future generations 258 przykład/example 214 przynieść prawdę/bring the truth 242 przypisywać równych/assign equals 251 przypomnienie/reminder 212, 226, 233, 250, 255 przywódca ludzi/leader of people 242 przywódca/leader 227, 251, 254, 256

387

pułk niebieski/heavenly regiment 213, 240–241, 243 pułk/regiment 225–226, 255 pūtalnik/the one who asks 203 pytalnik/the one who asks 161 pytalniki w mogile/the ones who ask in the grave 143 Q qrūl/king 171 R rabin/rabbi 181 rada sprawiedliwych/council of the just 213 rada szczerych/council of the honest 213 rada/council 213 radosna wieść/joyful news 212, 218, 236, 255 raj rōskōšī/paradise of delights 152 raj/paradise 141, 145 ratūnek/help 167 ręka do ręki/hand in hand 56 rękojmia boskiego miłosierdzia/ warranty of divine mercy, warranty of God’s mercy 212 rękojmia łask boskich/warranty of God’s grace 213, 219 rękojmia łask niebieskich/warranty of heavenly grace 212, 219, 243, 264 roba/prostitute 57 rovni/equal 202 rōwnacz/the leveller, the one who flattens (levels) 161 równy/equal 211, 339 rōzdzal/separation 167 rōzdzel/separation 134, 166–167 rozdział/separation 57, 112, 254, 265 rozdzielenie/separation 227 rozkaz Boga/God’s command, God’s order 240, 243, 246–247

388

Index of Slavic words and phrases

rozkaz dotyczący godziny/command concerning the hour, order concerning the hour 222, 247 rozłączenie/separation 227 rozróżnienie/differentiation 212, 233 rozstrzygnięcie/decision 212, 233 rozumiał być/understood 56 rōzʒal darū nebesḱegō/Chapter on Heavenly Gifts 145 rōźʒelač (dōbrix ōd zlix)/separate (the good from the bad) 185 ruẓdzal/separation 171 rycina/drawing, print 211 ryty bałwan/carved idol 211 ryty obraz/carved picture 211 rzucający napomnienie/throwing admonition 242 S sąd Boga/God’s judgement 216, 222–223 sąd boży/God’s judgement 216, 265 sąd całego świata dosłownie: interes godziny/judgement of the whole worlds, literally: the matter of the hour 259 sąd całego świata/judgement of the whole world 214, 216, 222, 247, 257, 259 sąd ostateczny/last judgement, final judgement 157, 216, 243, 256, 258, 264–265 sąd pański będzie sprawiedliwy; należy on do Boga/Lord's judgement will be just; it belongs to God 259 sąd pański sprawiedliwy/just judgement of the Lord 244, 259, 264 sąd pański/judgement of the Lord, Lord’s judgement 216 sąd Twój/Your judgement 216, 218, 259 sąd/judgement 214, 216, 223–227, 251, 256, 258–259

sądny/judgement, doomsday 186, 226 ṣām pān būġ/Lord God alone 171 šatan/satan 168, 179 šidar/mocker 161 siewier/northern wind 57 sin božij/son of God, God’s son 156, 159 sin bōžži/son of God, God’s son 152 sīn bōžžij/son of God, God’s son 135, 137 sin merijemin mūṡin/Mary’s and Moses’ son 151 sin merjemin/son of Mary, Mary’s son 138, 159 sīn merjemin/son of Mary, Mary’s son 151, 153, 157, 172 sin panni mariji/son of Virgin Mary, Virgin Mary’s son 137, 165 sin/son 201 sinaček mōj/my little son, my little boy 139 sinaček/little son 138–139 skała/rock 171 skład prawdziwéj wiary/creed of true faith 213, 218, 255 skład świętéj wiary/creed of holy faith 213, 218, 255 skład wiary prawdziwéj/creed of true faith 213, 218, 255 skłaniający się ku Allachowi/inclined to believe in Allah 220 skrita kśenga/hidden book 138, 159, 196 škūdnik/pest 165, 207 s̀ lepōrōʒōnij/blind since birth 185 slovo bōžije/word of God, God’s word 180 slovo pōžije/word of God, God’s word 156, 159, 180, 186 slovo/word 203 słowo Allacha/word of Allah, Allah’s word 246, 252 słowo Boga/word of God, God’s word 236, 240, 243, 246, 252

Index of Slavic words and phrases słowo boskie/word of God, God’s word 215, 240, 243, 246, 264–265 słowo boże/word of God, God’s word 157, 212, 215–216, 219, 240, 243, 246, 263–265 słowo od Niego/word from Him 253 słowo Pana/word of the Lord 238, 246, 252 słowo pochodzące od Niego/word coming from Him 220, 245, 252 słowo posła Bożego/word of the messenger of God, word of God’s messenger 258 słowo prawdy/word of truth 216, 238, 246 słowo rozstrzygające/decisive word 238 słowo swoje/one’s word 242, 258 słowo wiary/word of faith 212, 218 słowo wielkiej wagi/word of great importance 243 słowo/word 212, 214, 233, 250, 255, 264 sługa Allacha/servant of Allah, Allah’s servant 246, 252, 255 sługa Boga/servant of God, God’s servant 216, 220, 240, 244, 246, 252, 258 sługa boski/servant of God, God’s servant 220, 240, 244, 246, 262, 264 slūga bōžij/servant of God, God’s servant 143, 156, 167, 182, 186, 206 sługa boży/servant of God, God’s servant 143, 157, 216, 240, 244, 246, 264–265 sługa Najwyższego/servant of the Highest One 216, 219–220, 255, 262 sługa Pana Świata/servant of the Lord of the World 244 sługa pobożny i sprawiedliwy/pious and just servant 240, 242, 244, 246 sługa wiary/servant of faith 219, 226, 255

389

sługa wierzący/believing servant 244, 252 sługa wierny/faithful servant 216 sługa władcy światów/servant of the Lord of Worlds 240, 244, 246 sługa zemsty/servant of vengeance 219, 226, 255 sluga/servant 136, 143, 203, 206 slūga/servant 157 sługa/servant 213–214, 217, 223, 225–226, 245, 251, 255 służąc służbę/serving the service 56 śmali/the bold, the brave 135, 201 śmiercią umrzeć/die a death 171 śmiertelnik/mortal 214, 223, 227, 251 śmiertelny/mortal 214, 223, 227, 258 smutny/sad 186 sōdoma/Sodom 193 sōkōlektūr/one who has relations with another person 142 sonco/sun 202 sond/judgement 201 sōndnij ʒen/judgment day 152 sonʒicel/the one who judges 143, 161, 204 spaṡene lūdzem/salvation for people 140, 167 spas̱enje/salvation 153 spodar/Lord 135–136, 143, 208 spōlenčnik/companion 137, 143, 161, 163, 167, 201, 203 spotykający/meeting 213, 227 sprawa nadejścia obiecanej godziny/ the case of the coming of the promised hour 222, 247 sprawiedliwy dla rodziców/just for parents 241 sprawiedliwy syn/just son 241–242, 244 sprawiedliwy/just 213–214, 251, 255 sprowadzający z drogi/leading off the way 213, 228 sprytny czarownik/cunning sorcerer 241–242

390

Index of Slavic words and phrases

sprzymierzeniec niewiernych/ally of the unfaithful 213, 234 sprzymierzeniec/ally 223, 226 sroga kara/severe punishment 262 stać na straży/keep guard, guard 224 stanąć na sąd boży/stand to be judged by God 243, 259 starożytne pismo/ancient scripture 264 staršij/older, elder 156, 165, 167 statečni/staid, level-headed 135, 201 statečnij/staid, level-headed 135 stawiać obok/put next to, put beside 258, 262–263 stękanie/moaning 58 strašni sud boži/terrible judgement of God 187 strašni sud/terrible judgement 187 strašnij/terrible 206 straszliwa chwila/dreadful moment 247, 264 straszliwie przerażający anioł/terribly dreadful angel 262 strašnij strogij mūkar/terrible severe torturer; terrible severe murderer 136, 186–187 straszny cios/terrible blow 214, 221, 262 straszny dzień/terrible day 215–216, 223, 243, 252, 256, 265 straszny/terrible 186, 226 straż aniołów niewidzialnych oczom/ guard of angels invisible to the eye 257 straż aniołów/guard of angels 219, 255 straż/guard 225, 251, 255 strażnik gehenny/guardian of Gehenna 213, 219, 237, 246 strażnik ognia/guardian of Fire, Malik 246 strażnik/guardian 213, 227 stróż mądrych/guardian of the wise 212

stróż ognia/guardian of Fire 213, 246 stróż piekła/guardian of Hell 213, 219, 246 stróż wiernych/guardian of the faithful 212 stróż/guardian, watchman 212–213, 225–227, 255 strōž/guardian, watchman 141 stvorenjō/creation 206 stvoricel jedinij/the Only Creator 186 stwierdzenie prawdy/statement of truth 241, 244, 246 stworenje/creation 203 ṣṭwurical/Creator 171 sūd božij/judgement of God, God’s judgement 157 sud/judgement 201 sūd/judgement 201 sudnij den strašnij/terrible judgement day 157 sūnd/judgement 201 śventij/holy, saint 183 śveti prorok/holy prophet 156 śveti/holy, saint 156, 182 śvjadek/witness 143, 168 śwentij/holy, saint 206 świadczyć/testify 224 świadek/witness 213–214, 223, 236, 251 światło wiary/light of faith 246, 264 światło wiernych/light of the faithful 212, 218 światło wierzących/light of believers 212, 218 światło/light 212, 223, 233, 245, 250, 255 światłość narodów/light of nations 212, 219, 255 światłość/light 212, 223, 233 świekotanie/gossiping 58 święta księga/holy book 212, 215, 219, 262 święta tablica/holy tablet 212, 219, 262

Index of Slavic words and phrases święte nad świętymi/Holy of Holies 56 święte świętych/Holy of Holies 56 święty duch/holy spirit, holy ghost (about angel Gabriel) 216, 240–241, 243, 246 święty/holy, saint 128, 131, 135, 186, 192 śwjádek/witness 134 śwjastowane/annunciation 156 syn Allacha/son of Allah, Allah’s son 246, 252 syn Boga/son of God, God’s son 240, 244, 246, 252 syn boży/son of God, God’s son 216, 240, 244, 246 syn Dawidowy/son of David, David’s son 151 syn cierpliwy/patient son 244 syn Marii/son of Mary, Mary’s son 216, 238, 246, 252 syn Marji/son of Mary, Mary’s son 216, 246, 258, 265 syn Maryi/son of Mary, Mary’s son 157 syn obdarzony mądrością/son endowed with wisdom 244 syn potępienia/son of condemnation 152 syn twój/your son 258 syn z łagodnym charakterem/son of gentle nature 242, 244 syn, który obdarzony będzie wspaniałą wiedzą/son who will be endowed with excellent knowledge 244 syn/son 160, 214 synaczek/son 139 szaleniec/lunatic, madman 214, 217, 245 szalony poeta/mad poet, crazy poet 242 szalony wierszopis/mad poet, crazy poet 244

391

szalony/mad, crazy 214, 244, 255 szatan buntownik/rebel-satan 240 szatan przeklęty/cursed satan 216, 237 szatan, odrzucony/satan, rejected 241, 243 szatan, ten odrzucony/satan, the rejected one 241, 243 szatan/satan 157, 227, 249, 251, 255, 258 szczątek/descendant 57 szczególny sługa/special servant 220, 255, 262 szczery doradca/honest advisor 221 szczery sługa/honest servant 242 szczery w obietnicy/honest in his promise 243, 247 szczery/honest 192, 214 szczerze oddany/truly devoted, truly dedicated 220 szczęście/happiness 212, 233, 255 szkaradny bałwan/hideous idol 241 szlachetny anioł/noble angel 242, 251 szlachetny pan/noble lord 220, 249 szlachetny posłaniec/noble messenger 241, 252 szlachetny/noble 249 szpetny/ugly 186 szyderz/mocker 161 szydzić/deride, sneer 227 T ta godzina/this hour, the hour 214, 222, 256 ta kśenga/this book, the book 141 tablica/tablet 134, 167, 212, 233 tablica prawa/tablet of law 212 tamten świat/that world 214, 216, 222–223, 225, 256–257, 259 tchnienie Boga/breath of God, God’s breath 143 temu człowiekowi kazano mówić/this man was made to speak 255 ten den strašnij/this terrible day, the terrible day 186

392

Index of Slavic words and phrases

ten den/this day, the day 157, 182, 186 ten dzień/this day, the day 215–216, 221, 252, 265 ten poza Allachem/the one but Allah, the one beside Allah 254 ten, którego wieloryb połknął/ the one who was devoured by a whale 245, 258 ten, który cieszy się bliskością Boga/ the one who enjoys being close to God 221 ten, który czyni dobro/the one who does good 221 ten, który dobrze czyni/the one who does good 221 ten, który jest prowadzony drogą prostą/the one who is led along a straight way 221 ten, który jest właściwie kierowany/ the one who is led properly 221 ten, który napomina/the one who admonishes 242 ten, który ostrzega/the one who warns 221 ten, który posiada upomnienie/the one who has admonition 242 ten, który przyjął pisma/the one who accepted the scriptures 244, 264 ten, który wypełnia przykazania boże/the one who fulfils God’s commandments 242, 245 ten, który został posłany/the one who was sent 221 ten, poza Nim/the one but Him, the one beside Him 251 termin Boga/day appointed by God 240, 243, 246–247 termin/day 251, 256 tilkō/only, solely 133, 137, 140–141, 153–154 tłumacz nieba/intermediary between Heaven and people 220, 223–225, 244, 246, 255, 257, 263–264

tłumacz niebios/intermediary between Heaven and people 244, 246, 263 to, co było zesłane przedtem/that which was sent before, that which has been sent before 251 to, co druzgocące/that which is devastating 221, 226 to, co wymyślili/that which they invented 252, 254 to, co zmyślali/that which they made up 252, 254 to, co zostało zesłane przedtem/that which was sent before 238, 251 to, oprócz Boga/this but God, this beside God 240, 254 to, poza Allachem/this but Allah, this beside Allah 252 to, poza Bogiem/this but God, this beside God 240, 252 tovariš/companion 201, 203 tōwariš/companion 143, 161, 167, 201, 203 towarzystwo/company 223 towarzysz/companion 112, 213, 223, 225, 251 treceja kśenga/book three (of the Gospel) 167 treceja kśenga dana ‘jiśi proroku/book three given to prophet Jesus 138, 196 trōjčak/the one who believes in Holy Trinity 167 trōjčanin/the one who believes in Holy Trinity 163, 167 trōječnik/the one who believes in Holy Trinity 137, 163, 167 trun/the Throne 134 tūrma/prison 143, 208 twój ojciec/your father 251 twurca/creator 207 ty będziesz oświecać ich Jego światłem/you will enlighten them with His light 245 ty, co się nie mylisz/you who are not wrong 221

Index of Slavic words and phrases ty, który okryłeś się swym strojem/you who donned your clothes 221 U ū pana boha mili/beloved by Lord God 156 u uśich k’it’abach helava/beginning of all books 164 ‘ubridliwuść/abomination, repulsiveness 163 ‘ūbruncā defender 171 ‘ūfarnik/priest 171 ‘ūfārniq/priest 171 ūcekač/the one who escapes 185 ūčenśniḱ/participant 165 uczyć/teach 224 uczyciel/teacher 57 uczyniciel czyniąc/a doer who is doing 56 uczyniciel w uczynku/doer in his deed 56 uczyniciel/doer 56, 165 ukrzepiony/consoled 57 uleczenie/healing 225 umierając umrze/will die dying 56 upamiętanie/repentance 167 urojone bóstwa/false deities 261 ūspōkōjene grechōw/forgiveness for sins 140, 167 ustalony/established 227 ustanowiony/established 227 uważać go za kłamcę/consider him a liar 242, 251 uzdrowienie/healing 212, 225, 233, 250 V verχ/summit, peak, top 182, 208 vojevoda/leader, ruler 163 W w głowach księgi/at the beginning of books 164

393

w podobnym przypadku/in a similar case 221, 253 w pokorze cierpieć/suffer meekly, suffer in humility 221, 263 w takim przypadku/in this case, in such a case 221, 253 wara/faith 193 wasz ojciec/your father 251 wasz praojciec/your forefather 251 wečnij s̀ wjet/eternal world 149 wekoisti/eternal 202 welk’ij/great 135 wernica/believing woman 185 wernik/believing man 185 werōncij/believer 150, 153 werōncij muśulmanin/believing Muslim, Muslim believer 183 wiadomy/obvious, known 227 wiarować się/avoid 57 widzący/the one who sees 233 widzōnci/the one who sees 137, 167, 201 wieczny towarzysz/eternal companion 213, 219, 258 wiedza/knowledge 250 wielka łaska/great grace 212, 219 wielka nowina/good news, great news 212, 214, 241, 262 wielki dowódca/great commander 219, 229, 234 wielki dzień/great day 215–216, 223, 241, 252, 256 wielki kłamca/great liar 220, 255 wielki powiernik Najwyższego/ great confidant of the Highest One 220, 262 wielki zwodziciel/great deceiver 213, 219 wielki/great 58, 131, 186, 214, 226, 249 wielkie nieszczęście/great disaster 222 wierny czciciel/faithful worshipper 241–242

394

Index of Slavic words and phrases

wierny posłaniec/faithful messenger 216, 241 wierny przykazaniom/faithful to the commandments 245 wierny sługa/faithful servant 216, 240–242, 244, 246 wierny swym przyrzeczeniom/ faithful to his promises 245–246 wierny/faithful 214, 256, 258 wiersz Koranu/verse of the Quran, Quranic verse 254 wiersz/verse 254, 265 wierszopis/poetaster 227 wierszo-pisarz/poetaster 214, 227, 255 wierzący sługa/believing servant, believer servant 242, 252 wierzyć w jednego Boga/believe in one God 221, 224 wieść wielka/great news, good news 214 wieść/news 214 wiglōndać wiglōndanem/reconnoitre with reconnoitering, scout with scouting 158 wiglōndač/scout, detective 185 wiktōrija/victory 166 wimisl šetansḱij/satan’s idea 152 wirš/verse 166 wiršownik/the one who writes poems 161, 202 wizerunek/image 211 wjedōmōśc prōrōkōw/message from prophets 151 wjera mus̱ulmanśḱa/Muslim faith 193 władać/rule 58 władca dołu/ruler of the abyss 213, 234, 246 władca światów/Lord of the Worlds 262 władca tego świata/ruler of this world 213 władca złych duchów/ruler of evil spirits 213 władca/ruler, lord 213

wódz/commander 254 wojewoda/governor 58 wojsko Boga żyjącego/army of the living God 213 wojsko Boga żywego/army of the living God 213 wojsko niebieskie/heavenly army 213 wojsko niebios/heavenly army 216 wojsko z niebios/army from heavens 216, 237, 239 wojsko/army 213, 228, 255 wołający do wiary/calling to faith 242 wróg jawny/open enemy 237, 240 wróg oczywisty/obvious enemy 237 wróg/enemy 213, 227 wskrzeszenie/resurrection 224 wspaniała wiadomość/great news, good news 212, 241 wspaniałomyślny/generous, magnanimous 214 wspaniały sługa/excellent servant, great servant 240, 242, 244, 246, 252 wsparcie/support 226, 254 współczujący/compassionate 214, 227 współtowarzysz poza Bogiem/ companion apart from/beyond God 254 współtowarzysz/companion 226 wspōmōžene/support 167 wspomożyciel/support 213 wstawiennik/intercessor 211 wybrać go/choose him 238, 251 wybrany anioł/chosen angel 262 wybrany pański/chosen of the Lord 216, 245 wybrany sługa/chosen servant 241–242 wybrany/chosen 214 wyćwiczyć się/train oneself insth 58 wydarzenie przerażające/dreadful event 221, 226

Index of Slavic words and phrases wydawca/traitor 58 wykład prawdziwéj wiary/ presentation of true faith 212 wykład wiary/presentation of faith 265 wykład/presentation 134, 167 wyniosłe zgromadzenie/haughty assembly 243 wyraźny dowód/clear proof, clear evidence 212, 218 wyraźny znak/clear sign 212, 218 wyrocznia boska/oracle of God, God’s oracle 212, 218 wyrocznia/oracle 212 wyrok/sentence, judgement 223, 225, 255 wysłać z naszymi znakami/send with Our signs 245, 252 wysłać/send 227, 255 wysłannik/messenger, envoy 156, 213–214, 227, 255 wysłany od Boga/sent from God 244, 247 wysłany/sent 224, 226, 255 wyśmiewać się/ridicule, laugh at something 227, 256 wytrwały/persistent 227 wywyższony/exalted 255 wyznaczony czas Allacha/time appointed by Allah 243, 247 wyznaczony czas/appointed time 214, 222, 241, 252, 256 wyznaczony termin/appointed day 241 wyznaczony/appointed 227 wyznawać islamizm/confess Islam, profess Islam 221 wyznawać wiarę doskonałą/confess the perfect faith, profess the perfect faith 245 wyżyny/idols 211 wzór cnoty/example of virtue 220 wzywający w imieniu Boga/calling in the name of God 241

395

wzywający, który wzywał do wiary/the one who called to faith 236–238 wzywający/calling 214 X xięga boska/book of God, God’s book 157, 165 xrescanin/Christian 204 xržes̀ cijanin/Christian 204 Z zaczarowany/enchanted, under a spell 214, 238 zadrżeć zadrżeniem/tremble with trembling 56 zagrzewacielka/warmingone 57 zakazane reči/forbidden things 183 zaklinaciel/exorcist 57 zaklinacz/exorcist 57 zakryty szatami/covered with robes 220 żałosny dzień/disastrous day, day of misery 223, 241, 243 żałosny/miserable 226 zapisujący anioł/recording angel 219 zaprawiacz/the one who encourages 57 zaprzeczać poselstwu/deny the messengers 245 zaslūžonij anhel/distinguished angel 186 zastęp aniołów/host of angels 213, 216, 219, 255 zastęp aniołów niewidzialnych oczom/host of angels invisible to the eye 257 zastęp niebieski/heavenly host 213, 216, 219, 223, 255 zastęp/host 213, 226, 251, 255 zaufać/trust 224 zawieracz/the one who closes 57 ẕaẕzros̀ nik/jealous person 203 zbawene/salvation 140, 143, 167

396

Index of Slavic words and phrases

zbawicel grechōw/saviour of sins 157 zbiór najlepszych prawideł/collection of the best regulations, collection of the best laws 213, 218 zbuntowany szatan/rebellious satan 241 zdrajca/traitor 213 zebranie/assembly, gathering 227 źema śwenta/holy land 207 zemścicel gnewliwij/angry avenger 165 zemściciel/avenger 207 zesłać/send 224, 255 zgromadzenie bogów/assembly of gods 213 zgromadzenie duchów niebieskich/ assembly of heavenly spirits 213, 243, 257 zgromadzenie dżinnów/assembly of jinns 213 zgromadzenie Pana/assembly of the Lord 213 zgromadzenie świętych/assembly of saints 213 zgromadzenie/assembly 213, 227 zguba/destruction 214 žiʒi/Jews 140 zlij dūx/bad spirit 185 zły duch/evil spirit 216, 261 zmartwychwstanie powszechne/ general resurrection, universal resurrection 216 zmartwychwstanie/resurrection 214, 217–218, 224, 227, 247, 251 zmyślone bóstwo/false deity 211 znaczny/significant, distinctive 186 znak dla ludzi/sign for people 238, 251 znak dla światów/sign for the worlds 238 znak dla wszystkich ludów/sign for all peoples 244 znak godziny/sign of the hour 244, 246

znak jasny/clear sign 212, 218 znak wyraźny/clear sign 218 znak/sign 138, 167, 212, 214, 223, 225, 227, 250, 255 znakomity sługa/excellent servant, great servant 240, 242, 244, 246 znaleźć w kimś upodobanie/to like somebody 245, 251 znany/known 227 zniszczenie/destruction 224 zōslac zeslanem/be sent 158 zostać posłany/be sent, be commissioned 221, 227, 255 zrajca/traitor 143, 161, 203 zręczny czarownik/skillful sorcerer 241–242 źródło żalu/source of sorrow, source of grief 212, 219 źródło zaszczytu/source of honour 212, 219, 226 zrozumiały dowód/understandable proof 212, 219 zvane/called, named 165 zvodca/deceiver 156, 168 zvuʒicel/deceiver 202 ẕweʒonij/deceived 206 zwiastujący/announcing 214, 222, 226–227 zwiastun dla ludzi, którzy wierzą/ herald for the people who believe 220, 226 zwiastun dobrej nowiny i ten, który ostrzega/herald of the good news and the one who warns 245 zwiastun dobrej nowiny/herald of the good news 220, 226–227 zwiastun dobrej wieści/herald of the good news 216, 220, 244 zwiastun dobrych wieści/herald of the good news 220, 226–227 zwiastun godziny/herald of the hour 242, 244, 246 zwiastun radosnej nowiny/herald of the joyful news 220, 226

Index of Slavic words and phrases zwiastun radosnej wieści/herald of the joyful news 220, 226 zwiastun/herald 214, 222, 226, 255 zwitek ksiąg/scroll (wad) of books 58, 164, 185 zwitek/scroll, wad 58 źwitek prikezana/scroll (wad) of commandments 137, 156, 161, 164, 185, 204 zwodzicel/deceiver 134, 143, 156, 161, 165, 167, 204, 213–214

397

zwracać się do Boga/turn to God 221 zwracać się ku Bogu/turn to God 221 zwracać się ku nam/turn to Us 221 zwycięstwo/victory 214, 251, 256 żyd i chrześcijanin/Jew and Christian 244, 258, 264 ʒen/day 203 ʒica/child 139, 165, 202, 206

Index of Oriental words and phrases A ‘ak’if 138 ‘aršovy 186 ajat 167, 254 ajet 167 ajet’ 141, 145, 179 ãjet’ 134, 167, 176, 179, 186 alk’it’ab 143, 167 aźan 140 azanczej 181 azandżej 181 B begliwan 167, 176, 179, 203 behliwan 167, 176, 179, 203 bejgamber 176, 179 C čeñij 134, 167, 180 chadret 180 charadži 181 chelalikdur 181 cherubim 194 cherubin 233 cheruwowie 194 chiźby 176 churf 176 chylawlyk 181 cysiab 177, 180 czynaj 180–181 D dadżał 180 daławar 181 dedżdżal 180 dedždžal preklentij 136, 140, 183, 187 deǯǯal 177

diedzał 180, 263 dżin 180 dżinn 134, 211, 248, 254–255, 284 dźivij 73 dżyn 176, 180 dżyniej 180 E ‘erš 134 F fałdżiej 181 ferej 134, 167 ferij 73 fierej 140, 176, 179 firyszte 73 G ǧahilin 134 gōršij ẕalimin 183 H hadżej 181 hanif 227, 249, 284 I ikindży 181 illa 133, 139 imam 73, 134, 161, 168, 176, 225, 227, 248, 254, 265, 284 imam ludu 257 īman 151, 193 islam 249, 284 iślam 176 J jinn 211, 255

400

Index of Oriental words and phrases

K k’at’ib 167, 176 kalam 181 kalem 181 kereb’iłov’e 73 kierrubiej 194 kierubiler 181 ḱirama ḱaťibīne 183 kitab 176 kurandżej 181 kurbanłyk 181 k’eruvva 194 k’irama k’at’ibine 134 k’it’abom verχ 182 L levch 176, 179 levchi’l-melchfuzu 134, 167 levchu 176, 179 lewch-el-mechfūẓ 134, 137 lūdzem imam 183, 265 M maśijaš 135, 137, 204 meǧnūn 134, 168 melek 134, 167, 176, 179 mew’ud 177, 179 mewni 134, 167, 176, 179, 181 miew’ud 177, 179 mōśijaš 137, 165 mueźźin 176, 180 mursel 179 murśel 134, 168, 180 murşel 134, 168 mursiel 168, 176, 180 mursiel boży 183, 263 muzułmanin 249, 284 N namazłyk 181 nemaź średnij 138

R rabbi 196, 233 resiul 136, 168, 176, 180 reśūl 134, 176, 179, 181 reśūl χezrek 176 ruchułłach 180–181 ruχ 168, 176, 180 ruχ śventij 182 S sadik 180 śabr 142 šahid 178 šan 182 seddik 180 šehid 168 śejjd 123, 143, 168 šejtan 168, 176, 179–180 šetan 137, 156, 167 šewwal 138 siddik 177, 180 siddīk 180 siunniedżej 181 siurej 176, 179 sufry 176 sura 248, 254, 284 surat 254 şurej 134 syddyk 180 T t’evchid 176, 179 tewchid 176, 179 U ummet’ 134 W wacht 179 wacht nemaź 68 wezyr 248, 284

Index of Oriental words and phrases X xeram 152, 182–183 x̱eram 206 Z ẕalimin 183 zebanije 134 zebanje 168, 176, 179

zedaka 145 značnije ãjet’i 186 ǯahil newjedōmij 183 zikr 179 χezrek 176, 179–180 χezret’ 176, 179–180 z̀ ī l-cheǧǧ 138 z̀ ī l-ke‘de 138

401

Index of proper names A ‘adźin ‘Is’e 73 ‘agarūn 194 ‘ajūb 177 ‘ejjam-ul-mulach 177 ‘ejśa 135, 137, 153, 179 ‘erab 167, 172 ‘erefat’ 134 ‘ez’ra’ił 180 ‘eźra’il 180 ‘eźrak’il 177 ‘ies’a 138 ‘iśa 138–139, 143, 179, 196 ‘iśā 135, 177 ‘īśâ 137, 165 ‘īs̀ a čistī 142 'iśma'il 180 ‘jmranoŭ sin mūs’a 73 ‘uzza 228 aaron 248 abraham 137, 156–157, 230, 258, 263 ãbrahám 179, 194 abū leheb 206 adam 157, 177, 230, 258, 262 adam śvetij 135 ãdam 139 afryt(y) 229 aharon 194 ajjūb 177 ak’inde 138 al-furqān 230 alizeūš 178 al-jasa 230 allach 229 allah 13, 215, 229 alláh 167, 177 allāh 143, 167

al-lat 228 al-ozza 228–229, 257, 261 al-uzza 228 asrafil 229 awanelja 182 azrael 229 azrail 180, 229 B bā‘āl 194 baal 229 C chrystus 138, 233–234, 261 D da‘i 178 dagōn 134, 156, 167 davod 177 davūd 177 dawid 157, 230, 250 dawūd 179 dhu’l-kifl 230 diwid 137, 179 dulkarnain 230 dulkefl 180, 230 dulnun 261 dżbyt 229 džebra’il 136, 180 džebra’ił 180 džebra’īl 177, 180 dżibt 228 E eblis 180, 229, 262–263 edris 180, 230 efryt 229

404 eliasz 230 elizeusz 230 eljasz 230 el-lata 228, 257, 261 emānūyel 160 emmanuel 94, 160 ewangelia 226, 229, 233 ewangelija 157 ewangelja 229, 258

Index of proper names

H haron 177, 194 harun 194 harūn 178 harut 229, 257 hārūt 229 harūt’a i marūt’a 138 haruta i maruta 177 hiob 230 hud 230 hūd 178, 230

ibrāhim 179 ibrahjim 177 idris 230 idriś 138, 140, 143, 178–179, 196 idrīs 230 ifra‘im 230 ifrit 229, 235 iljas̱ 178 iljas 178, 180 iljaś 180 iljas 178, 180 illijjun 249, 284 indžil 177, 180 indżyl 180 inǧīl 137, 172, 177 inǯil 138, 167, 196 is’rafił 180 is’refił 180 isa 263 iśchak 137–138, 179–180 iśhak 177, 180 isma‘il 230 iśma‘īl 137–138, 154, 180 iśma’il 136 is̱maal 178 iśmahil 180 iśmaīl 178, 180 israfil 229, 258, 261 iśrafil 136, 180 işrafīl 177 iśχaf 177 izaak 230 iźák 179, 194 izik 137, 156, 194 izma‘īl 137, 156, 180 iźma‘īl 180 izmael 230

I iblis 229, 235, 263 iblīs 229 ibrahim 74, 136, 140, 190 ibrahīm 74, 137–138

J ja‘kūb 177, 194 ja‘qūb 194 ja‘uk 228 jaghut 228

F fat’icha 134 fat’iχet’ 178 fezach 177, 179–180 feźiche 177, 179–180 feχri 178 furkan 138, 167, 177, 180, 196 G gabriel 229 gabrjel 229 gabryel 157, 229, 257–258 ǧebra’il 149 gebrijel 179, 194 gibt 228

Index of proper names jagut 228–229 jahūwā 155, 171 jakób 230 jakub 230 jakūb 180 jan 230, 261–262 jauk 228–229 jaχja 177 je‘kub 135, 180 je‘kūb 138, 180 jexja 178 jegova 163 jezus 137–138, 143, 179, 196, 230, 233–234, 258, 263 jezūs 137, 165, 179 jezus chrystus 157, 234 jezus krystus 160 job 230 jonas 230 jonasz 230, 261 józef 230 jūnus̀  178 jūnūs 136 jūnūś 178 jūs’uf prarok 73 jūsuf 177 jūzef 178 K karūn 193 ḱehbe 150 keran 178–179, 202 keran Božij 186 koran 167, 217, 226, 230, 232, 258, 262 korãn 134, 137–38, 141, 152, 167, 178–179, 186, 189 korãn čistōśc majoncij 186 korãn şwentij wipisanij w skritō kśenga lewchi l-mechfūz 138, 196 koran z nieba 218, 258 ku’rān 180 kur’an 73, 134, 138, 167, 177–178, 180, 196, 202

kur’an považnij i mondrij 186 kuran 138, 140, 153, 178, 180, 193, 196 kuran kaśim 178 kurān 180 kurãn 186, 202 L lāt 228 lath 229 lokman 230 lot 230 lōt 178 luqmān 230 lūt 178, 180 M mahomet 230, 257, 261–263 malek 180, 229 malik 229 mālik 180, 229 manat 228 manāt 228 marut 229, 257 mārūt 229 mek’a’il 180 meka’ił 177, 180 meḱḱe 141 menat 180, 228, 261 menata 229 michael 177, 194 michajel 179, 194 michał 229 miły jezus 129 miły kryst 129 miχal 179, 194 monkir i nakir 229 mohammad 180 mohammed 180, 230, 261 mōjžeš 135, 138, 179, 194 mojżesz 135, 157, 230, 257, 262 muchammed 180 muchammied 179–180

405

406

Index of proper names

muchemmed 135, 137–141, 149, 180 mudeśśiru 178 muhammad 138, 180, 230, 258 muḥammad 160 mūmiud 178 munk’ir ve nek’ir 177 munḱir 146 munkir wa nakir 134 mūśa 135, 138, 177, 179 mūsil 182 mustega 178 muźimmilu 178 muχammed 178 muχemmed 74, 136 N nasr 228 nekir 229 nesr 180, 228 nezr 229 noe 230, 258 nūch 138, 180 nuχ 177 nūχ 177 P pān jaẓūṣ 171, 208 pan jezus 157 pānnā mārija 208 pentateuchum 157, 217, 230, 232, 258, 261 psalmy 157, 230, 233 psałterz 157 R refe‘e 177 S saa 177 sagut 228 saleh 180, 230 salih 230

sālih 230 saliχ 178, 181 salomon 157, 230 samū-ãl 135 samuel 230 śamuel 135, 194 samūjel 137 sefa 178 šefi 168 šefihu u sidret’u munt’eha 178 šehib 135 śejjdu alla name 178 set 230 shu‘ajb 230 siddżyn 258 sidżdżin 249, 284 śirač munir 178 śit’ 180 soa 229 sowa 228 suwa 228 suwā’ 228 šū‘ib 178, 180 śulejman 177–178 śventij mūśa 135 śvetji mossa 135 śvetji mūśā 135 ṡwentij mōjžeš 135, 138 święty Koran/holy Qur’an 265 sydżil 229, 257, 261 szajba 230 szoaib 230 szoajba 230 szu‘ajb 230 T t’ewrīt’ 137, 167, 177 tabe 178 tagot 228 tagut 228–229 tevrit 167 th ve jśn 178 tora 226, 229, 232

Index of proper names V vudda i śū‘a 134, 167, 177 W wadd 228 wedda 180, 228 wodd 229 Y ya‘ūq 228 yaghūth 228 yahia 261–262 yahyā 230 Z zachariasz 230

zacharjasz 230 źebur 180–181 źebūr 137, 167, 177, 180 źek’erijja 177 źeḱerja 178 ziebur 180–181 źī-l-kernejni 138 zu’l-karnajna 230 zu’l-kifl 230 źūlk’ifil 178, 180 źulkarnejni 178, 180 ǯebra’il 179 ǯebrak’il 134, 136 ǯeib 168, 178 χanūχ 140, 143, 179 χejru albenjjet’i 178

407

EUROPEAN ST UDIES IN THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF RELIGIONS Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

Vol. 1 Bartosz Adamczewski: Retelling the Law. Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and

Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy. 2012.

Vol. 2 Jacek Grzybowski (ed.): Philosophical and Religious Sources of Modern Culture. 2012. Vol. 3

Bartosz Adamczewski: Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels. 2013.

Vol. 4 Edmund Morawiec: Intellectual Intuition in the General Metaphysics of Jacques Maritain. A Study in the History of the Methodology of Classical Metaphysics. 2013. Vol. 5 Edward Nieznański: Towards a Formalization of Thomistic Theodicy. Formalized Attempts to Set Formal Logical Bases to State First Elements of Relations Considered in the Thomistic Theodicy. 2013. Vol. 6 Mariusz Rosik: “In Christ All Will Be Made Alive” (1 Cor 15:12-58). The Role of Old Testament Quotations in the Pauline Argumentation for the Resurrection. 2013. Vol. 7 Jan Krokos: Conscience as Cognition. Phenomenological Complementing of Aquinas's Theory of Conscience. 2013. Vol. 8 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Mark. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2014. Vol. 9 Jacek Grzybowski: Cosmological and Philosophical World of Dante Alighieri. The Divine Comedy as a Medieval Vision of the Universe. 2015. Vol. 10 Dariusz Karłowicz: The Archparadox of Death. Martyrdom as a Philosophical Category. 2016. Vol. 11 Monika Ożóg: Inter duas potestates: The Religious Policy of Theoderic the Great. Translated by Marcin Fijak. 2016. Vol. 12 Marek Dobrzeniecki: The Conflicts of Modernity in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. 2016. Vol. 13 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Luke. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2016. Vol. 14 Paweł Rytel-Andrianik: Manna – Bread from Heaven. Jn 6:22-59 in the Light of Ps 78:23-25 and Its Interpretation in Early Jewish Sources. 2017. Vol. 15 Jan Čížek: The Conception of Man in the Works of John Amos Comenius. 2016.

Vol. 16 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Matthew. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2017. Vol. 17 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of John. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2018. Vol. 18 Tomasz Stępień & Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska: Unknown God, Known in His Activities. 2018 Vol. 19 Joanna Kulwicka-Kamińska: Dialogue of Scriptures. The Tatar Tefsir in the Context of Biblical and Qur’anic Interpretations. 2018. www.peterlang.com