Rusin最新文献

{"title":"The Spoken Language of Ukrainian and Rusin Diasporas: Consonant Orthoepy","authors":"M. Druzhynets, Tetiana Kovalevska, A.Р. Romanchenko","doi":"10.17223/18572685/65/13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/65/13","url":null,"abstract":"The article contains the synchronous analysis of the spoken language and in particular the pronunciation of the Ukrainian youth in America, Canada, Europe, the Transnistrian Moldavian Republic (most of whom are Rusins). The sociological survey has demonstrated the percentage of those who own the consontant orthoepy standard in a wide local and social representation abroad, determined the most common pronunciation problems and orthoepic deviations in the system of consonantism, identified their reasons, and proved the historical organicity of modern orthoepic norm. The research of the spoken language of the Ukrainian diaspora focuses on the sociophonetic aspects at the level of its sound presentations. The author aims at determining the level of mastery of the consonant orthoepy of the Ukrainian literary language by young people, representing different local and social spheres: orthoepy of voiced consonants at the end of the word and in front of the voiceless consonants; voiceless consonants before voiced ones; prefixes роз-, без-, об-, prefixes-prepositions з-, від-, між- before voiceless consonants, except for hushing sounds; [в] as [ў]; [д̑з], [д̑ж]. According to the generalized results of the survey, the pronunciation of voiced sounds at the end of the word, the voiceless sounds before the voiced ones, [г], prefixes роз-, без-, об-, з-, affricates [д̑з], [д̑ж] are defined as strong based on the percentage abroad. The norms of the pronunciation of the prefixes об-, між- are considered weak in the speech of the respondents; the greatest difficulties arise when pronouncing the sonorous з- in the word зцідити – 35 % possession of the norm (Transnistrian Moldavian Republic – 15 %, Europe – 43 %, America –30 %, Canada – 50 %). However, the pronunciation norms of the prefixes роз-, без-, з-, affricates [д̑з], [д̑ж] in foreign countries are strong, while the pronunciation norms of the prefixes об-, від-, між- are unstable. The norms of the pronunciation of phonemes in the middle of the word, [в] as [у᷃] are also weak. Typical deviations are related to the influence of Russian orthoepy or spelling. Differences in the percentage of the norm possession depend on the usage of the word and the complexity of sound changes, since in the process of assimilation, the sound changes not only its acoustic but also articulatory characteristics – the place or method of formation. Thus, nowadays, the mistakes in the pronunciation of voiced consonants are due to lack of theoretical knowledge, influence of dialectal speech and the Russian language, since these orthoepic norms were fixed in writing and theoretically substantiated in the grammars of the early 20th century, as it can be seen in manuscripts. The pronunciation rules that are consistently reflected in the manuscripts are strong and followed by the informants.","PeriodicalId":54120,"journal":{"name":"Rusin","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67580531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Grammatical gender and number in the speech of Turkic-Russian bilinguals: interference or intra-linguistic tendencies?","authors":"Z. Rezanova, Y. Ryabova","doi":"10.17223/18572685/66/10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/66/10","url":null,"abstract":"The article presents the results of the study of specific variants of interference in the Slavic-Turkic language contact, namely the deviations from the norms of gender and number expression in the Russian speech of Turkic-Russian bilinguals, with fundamentally different ratio in the grammatical systems of the contacting languages. The Slavic and Turkic languages are typologically different (inflectional synthetic VS agglutinative) in their grammatical categories, types of intercategorical interaction, configurations of particular grammatical meanings and their formal markers within the same categories. The Slavic and Turkic languages are in close intense contact, which results in multiple variants of interference in the speech of the bilingual speakers. The authors have analysed the speech (about 140,000 words) of 22 respondents, aged from 23 to 81, with their education level ranging from primary to higher, to conclude that the differences in the grammatical structures of the interacting languages influence the number of grammatical errors in L2: 1) errors in the use of the grammatical gender prevail in all syntactic positions, due to its absence in the native Turkic languages of the bilinguals; 2) differences in the structure of grammatical number in the contacting languages resulted in the prevailing deviations from the speech standard in the use of number forms of material and collective nouns; 3) the variability of the particular grammatical meanings of the masculine, feminine and neuter genders in Russian resulted in the fact that the masculine gender, which is the unmarked member of the gender opposition, proved to prevail in all syntactic positions, except the coordination relation of the linking verb in compound predicates; 4) interference phenomena interact with current trends in the development of the Russian language, as well as with the spontaneous character of oral speech.","PeriodicalId":54120,"journal":{"name":"Rusin","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67580556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Paremiological wealth of the language of the Slovakian Rusins. Component composition and semantic features","authors":"M. Čižmárová","doi":"10.17223/18572685/64/12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/64/12","url":null,"abstract":"The article draws attention to the current state of study of Rusin phraseology and paremiology in Slovakia and analyzes the most important works from the 1950s to this day. These works are the most valuable source of information about the residents of the region, the world around them, their culture, world outlook, customs, stereotypes and historical past. The following books are presented: E. Nedzelsky’s The Nation’s Word of Mouth. Proverbs – Sayings – Incantations – Riddles – Sayings of Transcarpathia, Y. Tsyhra and I. Lehdan’s People Will Say How to Tie It, M. Mushynka’s From the Depths of Ages. Anthology of Oral Folk Art of Presov Region, N. Warhol and A. Ivchenko’s Phraseological Dictionary of Lemko Dialects of Eastern Slovakia, M. Schmaida’s “... And I am also wishing you...”, J. Warhol’s Calendar and Family Ritual of Ukrainians of Slovakia, and A. Galgashov’s Struzhnitsky Walkways. The rich factual phraseological material of the Slovakian Rusins has been accumulated by scholars for decades, and a significant part of it remains in the manuscripts of the Museum of Ukrainian Culture in Svidník. Numerous dialect phrases were published in the pages of local periodicals – Nove Zhytja, Dukla and the magazine Druzhno Vpered. The author investigates paremias with animalistic and phytonymic components, as well as paremias with components – names of food and food products.","PeriodicalId":54120,"journal":{"name":"Rusin","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67580580","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Dilemmas of Ethnic Identification and Socio- Political Representation of the Rusins in the Slovak Republic and Ukraine (on the Results of an Expert Survey)","authors":"M. Zan","doi":"10.17223/18572685/65/17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/65/17","url":null,"abstract":"The article highlights the problem of ethnic identification and socio-political representation of Rusins in Slovakia and Ukraine. The author bases his presentation on the results of an survey among Slovak and Ukrainian experts. The object of research is the Rusin ethnic group of northwestern area in Slovakia (Prešov and Kosice self-governing regions) and Transcarpathian region of Ukraine. According to the survey among Slovak experts, 44% consider Rusins “a separate ethnic group, different from Ukrainians”; the same number of respondents defines Rusins “a sub-ethnic (ethnographic) group of Ukrainians”; 12 % cannot decide on this issue. Most of the respondents in Ukraine (44 %) define Rusins “a sub-ethnic (ethnographic) group of Ukrainian people”; 28 % are convinced that Rusins are representatives of a separate ethnic group, different from Ukrainians; 28 % stated their own options regarding the nature of ethnic identification of Rusins. The vast majority of Slovak experts (52 %) define “rather active” public and political participation of Rusins; 16 % state “active” participation; 16 % define it “rather passive”; 8% – “passive”, 8% were undecided about the answer. The Ukrainian respondent opinions were divided as follows: 48 % consider the public and political participation of Rusins “rather passive”; 28 % – “passive”; 16 % – “rather active”; 4% indicated the “active” role of Rusin national cultural associations with the remark that only older generations are involved; 4 % public and political participation of Rusins was defined as ”ineffective”. Slovak experts emphasized the active work of public and political leaders of Rusin origin Peter Krajnak, Miroslav Lajcak and Peter Medvid’. The respondents from Ukraine named Rusin leaders Yevhen Zhupan and Yuriy Prodan in Transcarpathian regional public and political environment.","PeriodicalId":54120,"journal":{"name":"Rusin","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67580664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Bishop Jozef Gaganec (1793–1875) – a leading figure of the religious, national and cultural life of Greek Catholics and Rusins in the mid-19th century in present-day Slovakia","authors":"J. Coranič","doi":"10.17223/18572685/65/4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/65/4","url":null,"abstract":"The second bishop of Prešov, Jozef Gaganec is one of the greatest figures in the history of the Greek Catholic Eparchy of Prešov. During his tenure (1843–1875), Bishop Gaganec successfully continued the work of his predecessor, Bishop Tarkovič. He took upon himself a task of firmly establishing the eparchy and securing its future development and prosperity in the mid-19th century. He ensured its organizational stability, financial provision, and pastoral unity. Bishop Gaganec governed his eparchy in very uncertain and complicated times (revolution of 1848–1849, poor harvests, famines, emigration, etc.) that significantly affected his episcopacy. He made every effort to alleviate the social impacts that this period brought upon both the clergy and regular folks. Bishop Gaganec got involved in ecclesiastical and religious reforms, for instance, he introduced a strict liturgical order in the eparchy. He also channelled his effort into improving the religious life of the clergy and congregation. He strongly promoted cultural and publishing activities, which he considered vital for a spiritual life of his flock. Bishop Gaganec participated in almost all cultural activities of Greek Catholics and largely contributed to the establishment of many cultural institutions in the Prešov and Mukachevo eparchies. He also played an important role in the national and political life of Greek Catholic Rusins during and after the revolutionary years of 1848–1849. In appreciation of his many religious, cultural, and national activities, Bishop Gaganec was acknowledged by the Austrian emperor and the Roman Pontiff. He justly deserves the title “the Father of the Prešov Eparchy”.","PeriodicalId":54120,"journal":{"name":"Rusin","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67580712","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"“I am a Rusin, I am a Hutsul…”: Ethnoimagological dominants of Yuriy Fedkovych’s vision","authors":"L. Kovalets, M. Lanovyk, Z. Lanovyk","doi":"10.17223/18572685/63/12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/63/12","url":null,"abstract":"The article examines how images of other nations are formed in the artistic world of a writer – a representative of another nation. Employing the imagological approach with its tools for studying the ethnic structures of the text and drawing on E. Smith’s concept of the national identity and E. Levinas’s concept of the Other, the author analysies the problem of perception of the Other on the interpersonal and intercultural levels, using the artistic heritage of the Ukrainian Rusin writer Yu. Fedkovych as a case study. The article highlights the dominants in the representation of other ethnic groups in the context of the writer’s identity, taking into consideration the cultural and historical discourses of the literature of a particular nation. Born into an interethnic family in Bukovynian Hutsulia, which was part of multicultural Austria, working and doing military service in various territories of Europe, communicating with representatives of various ethnic groups, Y. Fedkovich recorded the main stereotypes in perception of other nations’ representatives, which reveal the specificity of European interethnic relations. The main attention is drawn to the analysis of the Hutsul image of the world and the dominant images of the Other (Italian, Austrian, German, Moldavian / Romanian, Serbian, Polish, Jewish, Gypsy Imago). According to Levinas, the factors that determine the image of the Other are situations of freedom / enslavement, reinforced by the experience of war. Theoretical considerations are confirmed by examples from creative works. In this perspective, the literature represents intercultural dialogue in the European space to become a source of ethnoimagological studies.","PeriodicalId":54120,"journal":{"name":"Rusin","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67579973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"On the handwritten tradition of the Slavic version of Matthew Blastares’s Syntagma in the principality of moldavia in the 15th–17th centuries","authors":"Alexandr Pascal, Russian State Children’s Library","doi":"10.17223/18572685/64/2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/64/2","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyses the relationship of the copies of the Slavic version of Matthew Blastares’s Syntagma made in the 15th – 17th centuries in the Principality of Moldavia. The author studied haplographies (line omissions) in eight of the eleven surviving copies de visu and by photocopies to determine that, in addition to the monastery of Neamc, Suceava, and Romanesque metropolitans, there was another most important center for copying the Syntagma in the Principality of Moldavia of the 15th-17th centuries in the Putna Monastery, where three direct copies of each subsequent copy from the previous one were created, starting with the original Copy of 1472 (Bucharest, Library of the Academy of Romania, Nr. 131). These are the following manuscripts: Copy of 1474 (Moscow, Russian State Library, Fund 98, Nr. 742); Copy of the early 16th century (Moscow, Russian State Library, Fund 98, Nr. 65); Copy of the last quarter of the 16th century (Moscow, Russian State Library, Fund 178, Nr. 4293). The information about the number of Slavic copies of Matthew Blastares’s Syntagma in the Principality in the 15th – 17th centuries has been adjusted upwards, since some of the surviving copies can be traced back to their Slavic manuscript protographic originals, which have not yet been found in the world depositories or not survived to this day.","PeriodicalId":54120,"journal":{"name":"Rusin","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67580637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"I.P. Filevich and Carpathian Rus Part 2. Carpathian Rus in I.P. Filevich’s scholarly heritage","authors":"S. Sulyak","doi":"10.17223/18572685/63/6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/63/6","url":null,"abstract":"The Russian historian I.P. Filevich (1856–1913) was a native of Chełm Land and the son of a Uniate priest, a native of Galicia, who had been invited to Kholmshchyna by the Russian authorities. I.P. Filevich devoted his life to studying the history and modern state of Carpathian Rus, including his native Russian Zabuzhie, which, according to the historian, played an important role in Russian history, but was ignored by Russian historiography, since the few works by Russian researchers, mostly done during their visits to these regions, could not fill this gap. Polish historians were biased in their coverage of the history of these terrotiries, considering them originally Polish. There are few works by Galician-Russian historians D.I. Zubritsky, A.S. Petrushevich, I.I. Sharanevich and others, but they were almost unknown in Russia and failed to give a complete picture of the history of Carpathian Rus either. In his works, I.P. Filevich raises the issues of the history of Galicia and Chełm Land. In his Master’s thesis \"The Struggle of Poland and Lithuania-Rus for the Galician-Vladimir Legacy\", he explored the \"dark\" period in the history of Galician Rus – from 1340 to 1433, before the occupied lands were finally annexed to Poland to form the Ruthenian Voivodeship. In his doctoral dissertation \"History of Ancient Rus. Vol. 1. Territory and Population\", he described the history of the study of Carpathian Rus in modern times and tries to identify the western boundaries of the \"Russian territory\", indicating the presence of the Russian population in Transylvania. In other works, he characterized the reunification of the Uniates and the \"return to the Russian roots\" in Chełm Land, analysing the mistakes made during this process. I.P. Filevich studied the history of Austrian rule in Galicia, the social and political life of the Rusins, the history of the union in Galicia and Chełm Land, the fate of the Galicia-Vladimir land within Poland, and the history of the struggle between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. He also emphasised the importance of studying the \"geographical nomenclature\". His works aroused general, scholarly and political interest in the problems of Carpathian Rus, including Chełm Land, and ultimately contributed a lot to the solution of the problem of separating Chełm Land and Podlasie into a separate province.","PeriodicalId":54120,"journal":{"name":"Rusin","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67579777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"V.A. Frantsev and Carpathian Rus","authors":"S. Sulyak","doi":"10.17223/18572685/64/5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/64/5","url":null,"abstract":"Frantsev Vladimir Andreevich (April 4 (16), 1867 – March 19, 1942) – a Russian Slavicist, who authored more than 300 works on Slavic studies. He graduated from a Warsaw grammar school, then studied in the Imperial Warsaw University. In 1893–1895, V. Frantsev made several journeys abroad with the academic pupose. In 1895, he began to prepare for the master’s degree. In 1897, he went abroad and spent three years there. In 1899, V.A. Frantsev made a trip to Ugrian Rus, after which published an article “Review of the most important studies of Ugric Rus” in the Russian Philological Bulletin (1901, Nr. 1–2) in Warsaw. During his trip, V.A. Frantsev met and subsequently maintained contacts with prominent figures in the revival of Ugrian Rus. In 1899, he became Associate Professor of the Department of the History of Slavic Dialects and Literatures of the Imperial Warsaw University, in 1903 – an extraordinary professor, in 1907 – an ordinary professor. In 1900–1921, V.A. Frantsev lectured at the University of Warsaw, which in 1915 moved to Rostov-on-Don in connection with WWI. Teaching actively at the University, he devoted his free time to archival studies, working mainly in the Slavic lands of Austria-Hungary, where he went “for summer vacations” from 1901 to 1914. Sometimes he continued his work during the winter vacations and Easter holidays, as in 1906/07 and in 1907/08, when the university did not function due to student unrest. V.A. Frantsev reported to the “Society of History, Philology and Law” at the University of Warsaw, of which he was an active participant. In 1902–1907, Frantsev published almost all of his major works (except P.Y. Shafarik’s correspondence, published much later). Among them were his master’s thesis “An Essay on the History of the Czech Renaissance” (Warsaw, 1902), doctoral dissertation “Polish Slavic Studies in the late 18th and first quarter of the 19th century” (Prague, 1906), “Czech dramatic works of the 16th – 17th centuries” (Warsaw, 1903), etc. In 1909, during heated discussions on the future structure of Chełm-Podlasie Rus, he published “Maps of the Russian and Orthodox population of Chełm Rus with statistical tables”. In 1913, V.A. Frantsev became a member of the Czech Royal Society of Sciences. Since 1915, he was a corresponding member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg in the Department of Russian Language and Literature. He did not accept the October Revolution, yet never publicly opposed the new government. At the end of 1919, he received an offer from the Council of Professors of the Prague Charles University (Czechoslovakia) to head the Russian branch of the Slavic Seminar. In Czechoslovakia, he became a professor at Charles University. In 1927, he took Czechoslovak citizenship. V.A. Frantsev’s life was associated with the Russian emigration. He was a full member and chairman of the Russian Institute, as well as chairman of the “Russian Academic Group in Czechoslovakia”, deputy chairman of th","PeriodicalId":54120,"journal":{"name":"Rusin","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67580237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Image of “Other” as Viewed by a Rusin Woman: Interethnic Issues in Olha Kobylianska’s Ego-Documents","authors":"О.А. Drach","doi":"10.17223/18572685/65/11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/65/11","url":null,"abstract":"The study of interethnic relations through the prism of ego-documents provides an opportunity to identify dominant ethnic stereotypes and restore the authentic image of the “Other”. The relevance of this approach to the history of Rusins derives from the ethno-confessional diversity of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The source base of the research engages the diaries of an aspiring writer Olha Kobylianska. In Câmpulung, Bukovina, Rusins contacted with Jews, Germans, Poles, and Romanians in their everyday life, with Jews being most frequently mentioned nation in Olha’s writings. The stereotypical image of the Jew implies their de-individualization, expressed by means of the semantics of collectiveness, emphasizing the ultimate isolation of the nation. The fact that she was in love with a Jew and hoped to marry him did not preclude the condemnatory connotations in the Jewish discourse. Germans in her diaries are young men, whose attractive appearance emphasizes their professionalism, cultural sensitivity, good education, intelligence, and morality. Kobylianska thought the “Other” from Germany to be able to outshine everyone around him. The Poles are represented by the Serbinkys Catholic family, whose neighbourship with the Kobylianska’s family determined the homelike relationship and positive tone. The Catholic priest and officer, who epitomize the nation in the diaries, are endowed with natural beauty, classical proportions, culturalness, and good manners. Emotionally, the girl’s ego-narrative demonstrates a negative attitude towards Romanians, whose indecent behaviour is interpreted by Kobylianska as humiliation based on ethnicity.","PeriodicalId":54120,"journal":{"name":"Rusin","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67580449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}