In the article I listed, broken down by suitable groups, over 1,600 confirmed interferences of Russian in the process of teaching Polish to Germans. Out of 670 noted word entries, phonetic interferences accounted for 146 entries, morphological interferences for 116 entries, and lexical interferences for 176 entries. As regards graphical interferences, 263 uses of Cyrillic letters (ъ, ы, я, н, б, ч, л) account for some 70 entries, while 163 lexical entries attest to about 300 mistakes such as ɡom 'dom' [house], namiętać 'pamiętać' [to remember], tożemy 'możemy' [we can], napicał 'napisał' [he wrote], buł 'był' [he was], tytaj 'tutaj' [here], kupułem 'kupiłem' [I bought (masc.)]. The object of the article included only the interference-caused mistakes I noticed. In fact, there were many more of them.
Spelling treatises, spelling rules in grammars, and reading primers played a major role in the development of most Slavic languages. On occasion, the primers were also the main source of knowledge on the basics of mathematics, geography, natural science, history etc. Of particular essence in language policy were those spelling treatises and primers that furthered Slavic spelling reforms.
The Polish dialect of Novogrudok is one of the variations that make up the North Borderlands Polish language, next to the Vilnius and Kaunas dialects, to name just two. A detailed study of this regional historical Polish dialect is important because of the history of the Polish language spoken in the North Borderland, and primarily due to the possible enrichment of the knowledge of the language used by Adam Mickiewicz. The article contains the names of authors and titles of 16th to 19th century works that might be useful in writing the history of the Polish dialect spoken in Novogrudok.
Recenzje: Tadeusz Lewaszkiewicz, Aneta Bogusława Strawińska, Aleksander Walicki i Aleksander Łętowski o stanie polszczyzny północnokresowej. Ortografia – Fonetyka – Zagadnienia gramatyczne. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, Białystok 2018, ss. 175; Aneta Bogusława Strawińska, Leksyka północnokresowa jako element deskrypcji zagadnień ortoepicznych w poradnikach Aleksandra Walickiego i Aleksandra Łętowskiego. Wydawnictwo PRYMAT, Białystok 2022, ss. 198.
The Etymologiczny słownik języka polskiego (vols. 1-2, Warszawa 2000)/Etymologiczny słownik mowy polskiej (vol. 3/1, Częstochowa 2014) by Andrzej Bańkowski includes 390 references to and comments about the vocabulary and general nature of the language used by Adam Mickiewicz. The dictionary author's noted down selected neologisms and regionalisms used by Mickiewicz, considered the poet's works as the first lexical attestation of many words in the Polish language and demonstrated his lexical references to 16th and 17th century writer and his role in popularizing vocabulary which was also adopted by other 19th century authors. Not all of Bańkowski's findings are justified and some require clarification, but there can be no doubt that most deserve to be used in a future monograph about the language of Mickiewicz.
Zygmunt Krasiński devoted much if his attention to the "philosophical" essence of the language and the origins of various tongues. His conjectures, based on speculative and mystic philosophy, are of no scientific importance; rather, they reflect the author's strong attachment to religion. While not original, his views on the role of a mother tongue in preserving national identity are correct. The writer was interested in spelling and correct grammatical usage of the Polish language. He also focused on assessing the style of texts written in Polish and French. His views were hardly innovative, offering some value in comparison with the 19th century theory of style. Other language-related mentions: the sophistication of Juliusz Słowacki's language and proposals of baby names based on "inspired" etymological ideas, are inconsequential.
Linde's theory and practice of etymology must not be evaluated solely through the lens of modern linguistics, but also from the point of view of late 19th century language (especially Slavic language) studies. Against the general background of late 18th/early 19th century linguistics, his theory of etymology may be granted tentative approval, even though it contains many mistakes and nonsensical conclusions. Linde compiled the views of many of his predecessors (such as de Brosses, de Gébelin, Adelung, Ihre, Wachter and Dobrovský), but also attempted to modify some of their thoughts and add his own. It is not true (as stated in Zwoliński 1981) that no connection exists between the etymological theories of Dobrovský and Linde. The Polish lexicographer did indeed partially utilise the Czech's work. Such approval cannot, however, be extended to Linde's etymological practices as regards comparing Polish and Polish-Slavic lexical material: even though 65% (i.e. 547) of etymological fields contain correctly compiled vocabulary, mistakes occur in 35% (i.e. 292) of them. That Linde's etymology-deriving principles were ineffective is evidenced by the fact that each of these 292 etymological fields should – based on the state of knowledge in the late 19th/early 20th century – be split into from 2 to 19 etymological fields. On the other hand, his etymological lists that cite words from many Indo-European languages, such as Polish and other Slavic languages, Latin, Greek, German and Baltic languages, and Sanskrit, should be viewed with some approval. Most of the comparisons found in Linde's etymological treatise, which contains about 1,300 entries, bear similar marks of plausibility. The possibility of Bopp, Rask and Grimm being familiar with the inquiries of the Polish lexicographer and amateur linguist cannot be excluded. In the 19th century, Linde's etymological principles influenced the so-called inspired linguists, including J. Kamiński, J. Lelewel, A. Mickiewicz and C.K. Norwid.
