Serbo-Croatian Self-Taught by Natural Methods by J. J. R. O'BeirneReview by: D. P. SubotićThe Slavonic Review, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jun., 1922), pp. 264-265Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4201610 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 17:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The SlavonicReview.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.37 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:33:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

264 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW.

entiated from that of the other characters. It is not altogether the translator's fault. Shakespeare's character-drawing is very subtle and complete in detail, and he has given us an English-speaking Jew. But Slovenia is on a par with Aberdeenshire as regards Jews and Zupancic lacked his model. By way of contrast, I am looking forward to his Antonio in Twelfth Night. To compensate for Shylock, Bassanio has lost none of his feckless charm, and it is not even necessary to under- stand Slovene to appreciate that Portia's most famous speech is beautiful also in its newest incarnation.

There are certainly " bits " here and there where the text could still be improved and probably will be revised in future editions, but they are trifles compared to the impression conveyed by the whole-and they do not affect the poetic merit of the translation, which is a valuable and beautiful addition to the vast bulk of Shakespeare bibliography. But to judge fully of the measure of Zupancic's work, one must be a Slovene. To appreciate and criticise it even superficially, you must know not only Shakespeare, but Slovene-and season knowledge with a little love . . . . F. S. COPELAND.

Serbo-Croatian Self-taught by Natural Methods. By J. J. R. O'Beirne, London (E. Marlborough & Co.), I92I. 8vo, pp. II2.

"THE volume contains carefully selected and comprehensive vocabu- laries, conversational phrases and sentences, such as are wanted daily by tourists, travellers, business men, civil and military officers, etc." These are Mr. O'Beime's own words in the preface to this book, but we must add that the conversational phrases in particular, as they stand (from p. 72 to I07) cannot be of much use unless the innumerable mistakes are corrected in the next issue of the book. Let us quote some of them. No Serb would say (p. 72) Ste li vrlo dobro = Are you quite well; but jeste li, etc. The interrogative in Serbo-Croatian is formed by putting the interrogative particle " Ii " immediately after the full forms of the verb " biti," except in the third person sing. On p. 67 Mr. O'Beirne gives the present tense of the verb biti = to be, but he should know that the short forms " sam, si, je," etc., must be preceded by the personal pronoun; hence, I am ja sam or jesam, etc.

The phrase vrlo jesam vam zahvalan (p. 72) should be " vrlo sam vam zahvalan "; ste li vi zdravi and zdravi li ste (p. 74) should be " jeste li zdravi "; ja se nadam da ce budimo opet sastali (p. 74) should be " nadam se da cemo se opet sastati "; kako dugo ste se vi utili (p. 76) should be " koliko ima vremena kako ucite," or " otkada ucite "; ja ne mislim puno toga (p. 78) should be " ja nemam bogzna kakvo misljenje o tome "; moja krivina (p. 79) should be " moja krivica "; da li vi me ne tujete (p. 79) should be " zar me ne cujete"; je li ste odali moje stvari (p. 80) should be " jeste li predali moje stvari"; idete li vi sa brzom vozom (p. 8I) should be " idete li brzim vozom"; ja se zelim istupiti (p. 82) should be " zelim da se skinem (or izigjem) "; molim vas vruea voda (p. 83) should be " moljim vas vruce vode";

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.37 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:33:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS. 265

ste 1i obukali (p. 84) should be " jeste li se obukli "; odmak cu biti obukao (p. 84) should be " odmah cu biti gotov," etc., etc. All these are utterly wrong and utterly un-Serb and indeed could not be found even in the most depraved dialect.

There are many more such errors, several on practically every page. Even if we allow that many are due to misprints, it is difficult to find any explanation, save insufficient knowledge of the language, for such blunders as the following: mozem ja videti gospodinu (p. 93); gde je nasa prostor (p. 97); putnici se obziraju da drzaju stenge prosto (p. 99), cannot be excused at all. The correct phrases in each case would be: " mogu li videti gospodina"; " gde su nasa mesta "; " umoljavaju se

putnici da ne stoje u hodniku (or na putu, prolazu)." There are also incorrect statements such as that " the Serbiaii

Government has abolished the teaching of the Cyrillic alphabet in the schools and substituted the Roman " (p. 3), or that Serbo-Croatian " contains no sounds which are not found in English" (p. 7). In the " outline of grammar" (p. 56), Mr. O'Beirne gives rules about the genders, but does not indicate a great many exceptions which cannot be ignored. The statement about definite and indefinite adjectives (p. 6o) is incorrect. D. P. SUBOTIC.

Nauka o stikhe. Chast I. : Chastnaya Metrika i Ritmika russkago yazika. (The Science of Verse. Metrics and Rhythmics.) Valery Bryusov. Moscow (" Altsiona " Press). I9I9.

THIs book is the outcome of the course of lectures delivered by Bryusov in the Studio of Versification (" Studio Stikhovedenia) " in Moscow in the spring of I9I8. It is a textbook destined to serve as an aid to the teacher and lecturer, and it is too bald and concise to be readable. In fact, a reader who is not well at home in Russian and Classical prosody will not be able to read it without the greatest effort. It is the first part of a system of Russian prosody and is devoted to the study of the " line " as apart from any sequence of verse. Being the first, and the only really serious, exposition of the subject (since the very antiquated, though still rather valuable book of Vostokov, in I820), and written as it is by one of our most eminent experts in the craft of verse, the book is of course of great interest. Bryusov's theory of Russian prosody is based on a system of feet, and is practically identical with Prof. Saintsbury's theory of English prosody. Unhappily it has not the exquisite literary qualities which Prof. Saintsbury has been able to impress even on his textbook of prosody. Apart from excessive baldness and dogmatism, the principal fault of the book is a lack of purely linguistic teaching. Thus Bryusov seems not aware of the difference between the orthographic and the pro- nounced word, and regards all monosyllables as equally heavily stressed. Consequently he finds spondees in lines where no ear would detect anything but an iambic. But the theory of feet and of substitution (to use Prof. Saintsbury's term) is developed with ability and thoroughness. All who are interested in Russian verse and in

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.37 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:33:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions