Ziemowit
26 Apr 2010
Language / Polish was chosen the HARDEST LANGUAGE in the world to learn... :D [1558]
As with all theories, it's good to have those who disagree with them (that's how our knowledge progresses, doesn't it?). Still, this case seems pretty obvious: 'na' is employed with the names of territories (not countries or states) in more or less vicinity of the Polans or the Vistulans, hence more or less familar to those tribes than other more distant areas. I myself may add some more convincing exceptions to this theory than those given in this thread. The first exception would be the territory of our direct neighbour "Prusy" for which we employ 'w' instead of 'na', so it is 'w Prusach'. But then, I wouldn't be surprised if the Polish of the Middle Ages were using 'na Prusach'. There is no written evidence for that as it's too an early period for the written Polish, however. Then the Prussians of the Middle Ages (Prusowie) and their language had disappeared and new inhabitants of these lands took over their name, but in Polish the name of the new inhabitants was slightly changed to distinguish them from the original ones (now they are 'Prusacy'). No doubt that the preposition that goes with the name of that territory, now a state rather than a territory, may have changed into 'w Prusach' (formerly in the old form 'w Prusiech').
In fact, only four examples escape the theory: w Niemczech, w Czechach (both should have 'na'), on the other hand: na Węgrzech, na £otwie (both should have 'w'). In my view, the main reason is that at the time when these usages came into existence, Germany was a well established country, while Hungary may have not been such one (sorry, I'm not a specialist in medieval history). Also, but it's a secondary reason, in the Middle Ages Germany was separated from the Polans by the territories of cousin Polabian Slavs, like £użyce, so the 'w' preposition could have been employed with 'Germany' just as it was with 'France' or with 'Denmark'. As to the Czechs, the tribe of Polans received Christianity and some forms of modern church (at that time the same as state) organization from their hands, so the preposition might have changed as in the case of the Prussians in addition to the fact that the Polans were separated from the Czechs by the tribes of Silesia.
As to the case of 'na £otwie', it might have followed the example of 'na Litwie', due to the similarity of sound in these two names. A good contemporary examplification of using 'na' with the names of territories inside Poland is using forms like 'na Lubelszczyźnie', 'na Opolszczyźnie', 'na Sandomierszczyznie', denoting areas of regional size around their main towns. These are understood as areas without any clear boundaries, though some of them may form official provinces these days, borders of which may be subject to change now and again.
As with all theories, it's good to have those who disagree with them (that's how our knowledge progresses, doesn't it?). Still, this case seems pretty obvious: 'na' is employed with the names of territories (not countries or states) in more or less vicinity of the Polans or the Vistulans, hence more or less familar to those tribes than other more distant areas. I myself may add some more convincing exceptions to this theory than those given in this thread. The first exception would be the territory of our direct neighbour "Prusy" for which we employ 'w' instead of 'na', so it is 'w Prusach'. But then, I wouldn't be surprised if the Polish of the Middle Ages were using 'na Prusach'. There is no written evidence for that as it's too an early period for the written Polish, however. Then the Prussians of the Middle Ages (Prusowie) and their language had disappeared and new inhabitants of these lands took over their name, but in Polish the name of the new inhabitants was slightly changed to distinguish them from the original ones (now they are 'Prusacy'). No doubt that the preposition that goes with the name of that territory, now a state rather than a territory, may have changed into 'w Prusach' (formerly in the old form 'w Prusiech').
In fact, only four examples escape the theory: w Niemczech, w Czechach (both should have 'na'), on the other hand: na Węgrzech, na £otwie (both should have 'w'). In my view, the main reason is that at the time when these usages came into existence, Germany was a well established country, while Hungary may have not been such one (sorry, I'm not a specialist in medieval history). Also, but it's a secondary reason, in the Middle Ages Germany was separated from the Polans by the territories of cousin Polabian Slavs, like £użyce, so the 'w' preposition could have been employed with 'Germany' just as it was with 'France' or with 'Denmark'. As to the Czechs, the tribe of Polans received Christianity and some forms of modern church (at that time the same as state) organization from their hands, so the preposition might have changed as in the case of the Prussians in addition to the fact that the Polans were separated from the Czechs by the tribes of Silesia.
As to the case of 'na £otwie', it might have followed the example of 'na Litwie', due to the similarity of sound in these two names. A good contemporary examplification of using 'na' with the names of territories inside Poland is using forms like 'na Lubelszczyźnie', 'na Opolszczyźnie', 'na Sandomierszczyznie', denoting areas of regional size around their main towns. These are understood as areas without any clear boundaries, though some of them may form official provinces these days, borders of which may be subject to change now and again.