Page 76 [76]
OCR
JÓZSEF ZSENGELLÉR radix;°* and to Hiphil and Hophal as parallels of the causative conjugation of Hungarian verbs, are the only specific comparisons between the two languages. Pereszlényi possibly assumed his readers would be less familiar with the nuances of Hebrew grammar than the readers of Sylvester, Szenczi Molnar or Komaromi Csipkés. Having no other work of Pereszlényi’s at our disposal, it would be unfair to say anything more about his knowledge of Hebrew. His Grammatica seems to be a genuine schoolbook meant for Hungarian students, though it always compares Hungarian grammatical elements with Latin ones, and describes some grammatical features more clearly and originally than any previous grammar." To conclude our survey of grammarians we should throw some light on the activities of Miklós Tótfalusi Kis (1650-1702) who commenced studying theology in the Protestant school of Nagyenyed", then went on to learn typography for nine years in Amsterdam. Miklós Tótfalusi Kis founded a printing house in Kolozsvár in 1693.° He made a revision of the Hungarian translation of the Bible (Amsterdam, 1683) which was highly criticised because of its modifications of the previous editions. Tótfalusi wrote an Apologia Bibliorum in 1697 in which he defended his work. Ihe third part ofthis bookis called Ratiocinatio de orthographia (Orthographical rationale);” it is not a systematic grammar and only the orthographical problems of Hungarian are discussed, nevertheless it utilises several other grammatical features of Hungarian. 64 PERESZLENYI, Grammatica, 74. “ob quam causam etiam Hebraei pro radice ponunt tertiam personam.” This description is taken from Szenczi Molnar, Novae Grammaticae, 86. Cf. Dan, Robert, Szenci Molnar Albert és Conrad Vietor, in S. Csanda — B. Keserti (ed.), Szenci Molnar Albert és a magyar késé-reneszdnsz, Szeged, MTA Irodalomtudomanyi Intézet, 1978, 286. “..habent Ungari verba Mandativa... correspondentque Hebraicis verbis in Hiphil.”; “Item quaedam, quae significant actionem ejusdem in leipsum, ficut apud Hebraeos verba Hophal,...” PERESZLENYI, Grammatica, 114. The major achievment of Pereszlenyi in describing the Hungarian language was his morphological analysis. Cf. Cser, Andras, Pal Pereszlényi and the development of morphological analysis in the early grammars of Hungarian, Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55 (2008) 3-21. Today’s Aiud in Transylvania, Romania. Egidiopolis or Brucla in Latin and StrafSburg am Mieresch in German. Clausenburg in German, today’s Cluj-Napoca in Transylvania, Romania. This was the first printing house in Hungary printing Hebrew books. Cf. DÁN, Róbert, A héber könyv Magyarországon, in D. D. Frank (ed.), Dán Róbert, Fejezetek a héber könyv történetéből Magyarországon, Budapest, Jordan Euro-Atlanti, 2010, 15-20, especially 16. © TOTFALUsI Kis, Miklés, Apologia Bibliorum, Claudiopoli, 1697. ZSILINSZKY, Eva (ed.), Tótfalusi Kis Miklós: Számvetés a helyesírásról. Ratiocinatio de orthographia, Budapest, Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság, 2011, 24—96. Ihe original work has no page numbering, therefore the page numbering of this reprint edition will be used from now on. (The reprint text is on even pages, the Hungarian translation is on odd pages). 65 66 67 68 + 74 +
