Formation of Possessive Forms of Personal Proper Names

V magistrskem delu z naslovom Tvorba svojilnih pridevnikov iz osebnih lastnih imen smo ugotovili, da kljub predpisani normi v Slovenskem pravopisu 2001 glede tvorbe svojilnih pridevnikov prihaja do razhajanj med rabo in pravili, še posebej to velja za tuja imena, kjer se pisna podoba razlikuje od izgovora. V teoretičnem delu smo pregledali relevantne razprave s področja tvorbe svojilnih pridevnikov iz osebnih lastnih imen in izpostavili ključna jezikoslovna merila, ki pišoče usmerjajo pri pravilni tvorbi in zapisovanju svojilnih pridevnikov. V sklopu empiričnega dela smo najprej osnovali tri glavne skupine imen glede na obrazilo, nato pa smo iz Velikega splošnega leksikona (2006) izpisali moška lastna imena na črko A, zabeležili njihovo izgovarjavo, dodali rodilniško obliko in izvor ter vse troje upoštevali pri izpeljavi svojilnih pridevnikov. Naslednji korak empiričnega dela je bila izvedba vprašalnika, ki ga je izpolnilo 60 intervjuvancev (30 študentov slovenščine in 30 neštudentov). Z njim smo želeli preveriti razkorak med rabo in pravili, predstavljenimi v teoretičnem delu. Z analizo vprašalnikov smo ugotovili, da vprašani nepravilno rabijo svojilnopridevniško obrazilo -in za ženski spol pri samostalnikih druge moške sklanjatve. Prav tako smo opozorili na visok delež (70 %) nepravilnih zapisov iz imena, kjer samoglasnik izpade, pa so ga intervjuvanci pustili (Aachenov namesto Aachnov). Izpostavili smo pogostejšo nepravilno rabo svojilnopridevniškega obrazila pri imenih tipa Aleksejev (Aleksejevov), kjer norma sicer predpisuje rabo rodilnika. V teoretičnem delu smo izpostavili v SP 2001 dopuščene dvojničnosti, pogostost pojavljanja ene in druge variante pa smo preverili med intervjuvanci z vprašalnikom. Razmerje v rabi svojilnega pridevnika Anuszkiewiczev/Anuszkiewičev je opazno v prid prvi varianti, in sicer s kar 95,2 %. Prav tako pri imenih tipa Aillaud [ajó] prevladuje raba svojilnopridevniškega obrazila -ov v primerjaviz z dopuščeno varianto obrazila -ev. Analiza romunskega imena Antonescu, iz katerega lahko tvorimo svojilni pridevnik Antonescov ali Antonescujev, je pokazala več pojavitev za prvo varianto (64,4 %). V teoretičnem delu smo ugotovili, da se pišoči težko znajde med pravili glede večdelnih imen, saj vsebujejo več posebnosti znotraj skupin, kar smo potrdili tudi z nizkim številom pravilnih zapisov svojilnih pridevnikov iz teh imen (v povprečju le 36,72 %).In the Master\u27s thesis, titled Formation of Possessive Forms of Personal Proper Names, we found that despite the prescribed norm in the Slovene Orthography 2001 regarding the formation of possessive forms some discrepancy may still exist between the actual usage and rules, particularly in foreign names, where the written form differs from the spoken form. In the theoretical part, we looked at the relevant discussions in the field of the formation of possessive forms of personal proper names, and highlighted the key linguistic criteria concerning the correct formation and writing of possessive forms. In the empirical part, three main groups of names based on the affix were established, then the male names beginning with A were written out from Veliki splošni leksikon (2006), their pronunciation was written down and the genitive case and person’s origin were added, which were taken into consideration with formation of possessive adjectives. Finally, a questionnaire was carried out on 60 users (30 students of Slovene language and literature and 30 non-students). The questionnaire was aimed at examining the existence of discrepancy between the actual usage and the rules presented in the theoretical part. The analysis of the questionnaires showed the improper use of feminine possessive form -in with the nouns of the Slovenian second masculine declension. Additionally, a large proportion (70%) of respondents improperly declined the names where a vowel falls outnevertheless they left it (Aachenov instead of Aachnov). We highlighted the improper use of possessive form in names such as Aleksejev (Aleksejevov), where the genitive case should be used according to the norm. In the theoretical part, we emphasized some of the competing terms in SP 2001, which were then analysed among the respondents by using the questionnaire. The ratio of the use of possessive form Anuszkiewiczev to Anuszkiewičev is evidently in favour of the first variant, with as much as 95.2%. Similarly, in the names such as Aillaud [ajó], the use of possessive form -ov remains predominant in comparison with the variant of possessive form -ev, which is also accepted by SP 2001. The analysis of the Romanian name Antonescu, from which Antonescov or Antonescujev can be formed, showed the prevalence of the first variant (64.4%). In the theoretical part, we discovered that one may experience difficulties in applying the rules regarding names in multiple parts on account of their specificity within the groups. This was also confirmed by the low number of proper ways of writing of possessive forms of these names (only 36.72% on average)