Suchergebnisse

Petnaest godina nakon Drugoga libanonskog rata – vođenoga 2006. između Države Izraela i Hezbolaha, militantne šijitske organizacije u Libanonu – analitičari su uglavnom jednodušni u ocjeni kako je Izrael u najmanju ruku doživio vojni neuspjeh u tome ratu. Premda danas s višegodišnjim odmakom ocjene ishoda rata nisu više toliko kategoričke i apsolutne, neki od čimbenika koji su utjecali na neuspješnost Izraelskih obrambenih snaga (DF) ipak su se pokazali relevantnima, a njihov odjek prepoznatljiv je i u aktualnoj izraelskoj vojnoj misli. Stoga je u ovome radu istraživački interes usmjeren na dosad nedovoljno proučavan aspekt Drugoga libanonskog rata – jezik. Pritom se tematizira terminologija koju su izraelske vojne snage rabile u ratnim operacijama protiv Hezbolaha. Prema izvješću izraelskoga povjerenstva ustrojenoga nakon završetka rata terminologija uvedena u vojne doktrine netom prije sukoba na više se mjesta izrijekom apostrofira kao jedna od determinanti izraelskoga vojnog neuspjeha. Istraživanjem primarnih izvora te sagledavanjem recentnih reevaluacija učinaka i ishoda rata osvjetljuju se razmjeri posljedica paušalnoga pristupa oblikovanju vojnojezične politike. Podrobnije se problematizira znanstvena težina koju terminologija nosi u jeziku svake struke, a posebice u vojno-obrambenim znanostima.

The aim of this paper was to revisit and shed new light on the generally accepted view that the impact of German-Illyrian dictionary (Nĕmačko-ilirski slovar) by Ivan Mažuranić and Jakov Užarević of 1842 on Bogoslav Šulek's German-Croatian dictionary (Nĕmačko-hrvatski rĕčnik) of 1860 was decisive and indispensable in many aspects, nothing if not a fundamental dictionary in Šulek's work. This research was undertaken to put to the test this assertion by investigating more in depth the military subcorpora of both dictionaries, especially bearing in mind Šulek being the founding father of Croatian military terminology. The primary goal was to excerpt Croatian military terminology from both dictionaries in order for them to be mutually juxtaposed and made subject to a combination of quantitative and qualitative research. In terms of quantitative outcomes, we tried to detect and register German headwords and their corresponding Croatian equivalents to the most comprehensive extent possible, having produced two parallel subcorpora. The results of the correlational analysis prompted us to re-evaluate the proportions of Mažuranić and Užarević's influence on Šulek. In terms of qualitative results, the research primarily outlined the spectrum of word-formation methods in both dictionaries and linguistic purism tendencies. In the final analysis, it can be reasonably assumed that Šulek did resort to the German-Illyrian dictionary as one of his valuable sources but in all likelihood as an auxiliary one, let alone a fundamental one.

The aim of this paper was to revisit and shed new light on the generally accepted
view that the impact of German-Illyrian dictionary (Nĕmačko-ilirski slovar) by
Ivan Mažuranić and Jakov Užarević of 1842 on Bogoslav Šulek's German-Croatian
dictionary (Nĕmačko-hrvatski rĕčnik) of 1860 was decisive and indispensable in
many aspects, nothing if not a fundamental dictionary in Šulek's work. This research
was undertaken to put to the test this assertion by investigating more in depth the
military subcorpora of both dictionaries, especially bearing in mind Šulek being the
founding father of Croatian military terminology. The primary goal was to excerpt
Croatian military terminology from both dictionaries in order for them to be mutually
juxtaposed and made subject to a combination of quantitative and qualitative
research. In terms of quantitative outcomes, we tried to detect and register German
headwords and their corresponding Croatian equivalents to the most comprehensive
extent possible, having produced two parallel subcorpora. The results of the
correlational analysis prompted us to re-evaluate the proportions of Mažuranić and
Užarević's influence on Šulek. In terms of qualitative results, the research primarily
outlined the spectrum of word-formation methods in both dictionaries and linguistic
purism tendencies. In the final analysis, it can be reasonably assumed that Šulek
did resort to the German-Illyrian dictionary as one of his valuable sources but in all
likelihood as an auxiliary one, let alone a fundamental one.