¹ Heinz, Kloss, “Abstandsprache und Ausbausprache,” in Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik, ed. Ulrich, Ammon, Norbert, Dittmar, and Klaus, Mattheier, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1987), 1:302–7Google Scholar; Hudson, R. A., Sociolinguistics (Cambridge, 1980), 31–36Google Scholar; Peter, Trudgill, Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society (London, 1995), 45Google Scholar; Ulrich, Ammon, “Language–Variety/Standard Variety–lDialect,” in Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik, ed. Ammon, Dittmar, and Mattheier, , 1:316–34.Google Scholar

² Joshua, Fishman, The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival (Amsterdam, 1985), 77.Google Scholar

³ P., Selver, Anthology of Modern Slavonic Literature in Prose and Verse(London, 1919), x.Google Scholar

⁴ Endre, Arató, “The Slavic Thought: Its Varieties with the Slavonic Peoples in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,” in Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 22 (1976): 74.Google Scholar

⁵ Dubrovsky's languages were Bohemian, Slovak, Croatian, Slovene, “Serbian (Illyrian),” Russian, Polish, Upper Sorbian, Lower Sorbian, Slovene, and Old Church Slavonic. Perhaps Selver decided that Old Church Slavonic did not count since it is no longer spoken?Google Scholar See Joseph, Dobrovský, Lehrgebaeude der boehmischen Sprache (Prague, 1819), 4–5.Google Scholar

⁶ Noam, Chomsky, Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use (New York, 1986)Google Scholar, 15, says that the quote is “attributed to Max Weinreich,” but scholars have had difficulty finding a citation from Weinreich himself. Joshua, Fishman cites “Der yivo un di problemen fun undzer tsayt,” in Yivo-bleter, 25.1.13, 1945 (Mendele list, 28 10 1996).Google Scholar Yiddish-speaker Victor Friedman, suspecting that the quote is apocryphal, reports that some Scandinavian scholars attribute the quotation to Otto, Jespersen; see his “Language in Macedonia as an Identity Construction Site,” in When Languages Collide: Perspectives on Language Conflict, Language Competition, and Language Coexistence, ed.Joseph, B.D. et al. (Columbus, 2002), 260. I am unable to find a proper citation either way. See “Sum: Weinreich quote,” and “Disc: Army and Navy Quote” in LINGUIST List (2 and 9 March 1997), available at http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/8/8–306.html and http://www.linguistlist.Org/issues/8/8–340.html, respectively (accessed on 2 March 2005).Google Scholar

⁷ Benedict, Anderson, Imagined Communities (London, 1987), 45–48, 78.Google Scholar

⁸ Miroslav, Hroch, “The Social Interpretation of Linguistic Demands in European National Movements,” European University Institute Working Paper, EUF no. 94/1 (Florence, 1994), 12–17.Google Scholar

⁹ Einar, Haugen, Language Conflict and Language Planning: The Case of Modern Norwegian (Cambridge, MA, 1966).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Einar, Haugen, “Language Planning,” in Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik, ed. Ammon, Dittmar, and Mattheier, , 1:624.Google ScholarHudson, , Sociolinguistics, 33.Google Scholar

¹¹ Dennis, Preston, “Folk Dialectology,” in American Dialect Research, ed. Dennis, Preston (Amsterdam, 1993),333–77Google Scholar; Dennis, Preston and Nancy, Niedzielski, Folk Linguistics (Berlin, 2000), 333–77.Google Scholar

¹² Preston, , “Folk Dialectology,” 333–34.Google Scholar

¹³ Ammon, , “Language–Variety/Standard Variety–Dialect,” 320.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Jozef, Štole, Atlas slovenského jazyka [Atlas of the Slovak language] (Bratislava, 1986)Google Scholar; Jaromír, Bělič, Nástin české dialektologie [Outline of Czech dialectology] (Prague, 1972)Google Scholar; Anton, Habovštiak, Atlas slovenského jayzka [Atlas of the Slovak language] (Bratislava, 1984).Google Scholar Another forty-one maps comparing west Slovak isoglosses to rivers, political borders, and mountain watersheds can be found in Václav, Vážný, “Nářečí slovenská” [Slovak dialects], in Československá vlastiveda [Czechoslovak homeland studies], ed. Václav, Dedina (Prague, 1934), 3:234, 252, 266, 272, 282.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Chambers, J. K. and Peter, Trudgill, Dialectology, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1998), 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Bělič, Nástin české diakktologie.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Miroslav, Štěpánek, ed., Malá československá encyclopedie [Small Czechoslovak encyclopedia] (Prague, 1987), 695Google Scholar; de Bray, R. G. A., Guide to the West Slavonic Languages, 3rd ed. (Chelsea, 1951), 146–48Google Scholar; David, Short, “Slovak,” in The Slavonic Languages, ed. Bernard, Comrie and Greville, Corbett (London, 1993), 588–89Google Scholar; Voegelin, C. F. and Voegelin, F. M., Classification and Index of the World's Languages (New York, 1977), 311–14Google Scholar; Vážný, “Nařečí slovenská,” 223.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ľubomir, Ďurovič, “Slovak,” in The Slavic Literary Languages: Formation and Development, ed. Alexander, Schanker and Edward, Stankiewicz (New Haven, 1980), 211–28Google Scholar; Lauersdorf, Mark, The Question of ‘Cultural Language’ and Interdialectical Norm in 16th Century Slovakia: A Phonological Analysis of the 16th Century Slovak Administrative-Legal Texts (Munich, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Rudolf, Krajčovič, Svedectvo dejín o slovenčine [History's evidence about Slovak] (Martin, 1997), 252Google Scholar; Rudolf, Krajčovič and Pavol, Žigo, Príručka k dejinám spisovnej slovenčiny [Handbook for the history of written Slovak] (Bratislava: 1999), 93–101.Google Scholar

²⁰ Štolc, , Atlas slovenského jazyka, frontispiece.Google Scholar

²¹ Ivor, Ripka, ed., Slovník slovenských nárečí [Dictionary of Slovak dialects] (Bratislava, 1994), 505.Google Scholar

²² Anonymous, , Neue und Kurze Beschreibung des Koenigreichs Ungarn (Nüremburg, 1664), 21, 15.Google Scholar

²³ Grellman, , Statistische Aufklärungen über Wichtige Theile und Gegenstände der österreichischen Monarchie (Göttingen, 1795), 1:380.Google Scholar

²⁴ Grellman may very well have seen Czech and Moravian as separate languages, but it is difficult to see how this would affect the classification of Slavs living in Hungary. Alternatively, Grellmen might have seen Slovaks as “Moravians” and referred to a community of immigrants when speaking of “Czechs.” Either way, this divides Slovaks into two categories.Google Scholar

²⁵ Therese, Pulszky, Aus dem Tagebuche einer Ungarischen Dame, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1850), 1:84–86, 91.Google Scholar

²⁶ A few nineteenth-century Slovaks counted the Ruthenians of Transcarpathia as Slovaks. Today the main dispute is whether the Rusyns in the Slovak Republic should be classified as Ukrainians or as an independent nation.Google Scholar See Johann, Thomášek (writing under the pen name Thomas Világosváry), Der Sprachkampf in Ungarn (Zagreb,1841), 32Google Scholar; Ján, Moravčik, Pešťbudínské Vedemosti [Budapest news] 1, no. 2 (20 March 1861).Google Scholar On modern Rusyn as a distinct language, see Paul Robert, Magocsi, A New Slavic Language is Born: The Rusyn Literary Language of Slovakia (New York, 1996).Google Scholar

²⁷ See especially Robert, Pynsent, Questions of Identity: Czech and Slovak Ideas of Nationality and Personality (Budapest, 1994), 46Google Scholar; Theodore, Locher, Die Nationale Differenzierung und Integrierung der Slovaken und Tschechen in ihrem Geschichtlichen Verlauf bis 1848 (Haarlem, 1931).Google Scholar

²⁸ Many readers may prefer the more familiar term Pan-Slav to All-Slav, but I believe that the former has come to imply Russian political domination on the model of Hitlerian Pan-Germanism. I suggest that “All-Slavism” better captures the idea that all Slavs belong to a single nationality for contemporary readers. Kollár himself, however, felt perfectly comfortable with the term Panslav, a word he used in the sense intended by Ján Herkel, the Protestant pastor who originally coined the word.Google ScholarHerkel, defined it as “the unity in literature among all Slavs.” Emphasis in original. Ján Herkel (Joanne Herkel), Elementa Universalis Linguae Slavicae (Buda, 1826), 4.Google Scholar

²⁹ Ján, Kollár, Hlasowé o potřebě jednoty spisowného jazyka pro Čechy, Morawany a Slowčky [Voices about the need for a unified literary language for Czechs, Moravians and Slovaks] (Prague, 1844), 102–4.Google Scholar

³⁰ David, Short, “The Use and Abuse of the Language Argument in Mid-nineteenth Century ‘Czechoslovakism,’ An Appraisal of a Propaganda Milestone,” in The Literature of Nationalism: Essays on East European Identity, ed. Robert, Pynsent (London, 1996), 54.Google Scholar

³¹ Pawel Josef, Šafařík (Pavel Jozef Šafárik), Pjsně swětské Lidu slawenského u Uhrách [Secular songs of the Slavic people in Hungary] (Pest, 1827), 164.Google Scholar The word Slovák was used to mean both “Slovak” and “Slav” in the early nineteenth century. Ibid..

³² In the nineteenth century, this city had several names: Pozsony, Pressburg, Prešpork, and Prešporok. Some Anglophone historians prefer Pressburg when referring to the pre-Czechoslovak period. My use of the name Bratislava in this article is anachronistic: routine Slovak usage of this name dates back only to 1919, though variants of the name Bratislav date back to Šafárik's Slovansé starožitnosti. The various national claims to the city are, however, beyond the scope of this article, so I have decided to use the name that readers would be able to find in a current atlas.Google Scholar See Peter, Bugge, “The Making of a Slovak City: The Czechoslovak Renaming of Pressburg/Pozsony/PreSporok, 1918–1919,” Austrian History Yearbook 35 (2004): 205–27.Google Scholar

³³ “New Slovak” was new because Ľudovít Štúr had recently codified a literary language based on it. Hodžca, M. M., Dobruo slovo Slovákom [A good word with a Slovak] (Levoia, 1847), 91.Google Scholar See also Vážný, “Nařečí slovenská,” 223.Google Scholar

³⁴ Quoted from Imrich, Kotvan, Bernolákovské polemiky [Bernolák's polemics] (Bratislava, 1966), 33.Google Scholar

³⁵ Kollár, , Hlasowé, 89.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., 199.

³⁷ Joshua, Fishman, “Languages Late to Literacy: Finding a Place in the Sun on a Crowded Beach,” in When Languages Collide, ed. Joseph, et al. , 101.Google Scholar

³⁸ I believe that the terms Czech and Biblical Czech are misleading and analytically harmful, since they imply that authors who wrote texts in this standard had some sort of Czech consciousness, whether national or linguistic. The many contributors to Hlasowé, the most influential Slovak defense of Bibličtina, variously described the script as “the Biblical language,” “our beautiful pure Biblical Slovak,” “Czech,” “Slavo-Bohemian,” “the Czechoslovak dialect,” “the Biblical or Czechoslovak language,” and “the Czechoslovak Biblical language … the true language of our forefathers.” This diversity of terminology suggests that Slovaks of many national affiliations-Slovak, Czechoslovak, and Czech-used this script. Bibličtina makes a neutral analytical term. See Kollár, Hlasowé, 184, 190, 7,90,112, 222, 197; respectively, A. W. Šembera's 26 February 1846 letter to Kollár, Jan Stehlo, Matej Bel's 1746 introduction to Doležal's grammar, Jonáš Záborsk's 1845 letter to K. Fejerpataky, Kollár's českoslowenské jednotě w řeči a w literatuře, Jiři Sekčik, Michal Linder.Google Scholar

³⁹ Daniel, Lichard, Rozhowor o Memorandum naroda slowenského [Discussion of the Slovak Memorandum] (Buda,1861), 20–21.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Gilbert, Oddo, Slovakia (New York, 1960), 102–3Google Scholar; Michal, Šebik, Stručné dejiny Slovákov [A brief history of the Slovaks] (Pittsburgh, 1940), 61Google Scholar; Josef M., Kirschbaum, Anton Bernolák: The First Codifier of the Slovak Language (1762–1812) (Cleveland, 1962).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Peter, Petro, A History of Slovak Literature (Montreal, 1995), 67Google Scholar; Dušan, Kováč, “Die Geschichte des Tschechoslowakismus,” Ethnos-Nation 1, no. 1 (1993): 23–32. Available online at http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/soeg/ethnos/english.htm.Google Scholar

⁴² Note that the Hungarus concept was class inclusive, while the natio Hungarica was restricted to Hungary's nobility. On Bernolak's Hungarism, see Daniel, Rapant, Maďarónstvo Bernoldkovo [Bernoláks Magyaronism] (Bratislava, 1930), 13Google Scholar; Ludwig, Gogolák, Beiträge zur Geschichte des slowakischen Volkes, vol. 1, Die Nationswerdern der Slowaken und die Anjange der tschechoslowakischen Frage (1526–1790) (Munich, 1963), 215.Google Scholar On the Hungarus concept generally, see Moritz, Csáky, “Die Hungarus-Konzeption: eine ‘realpolitische’ Alternative zur magyarischen Nationalstaatsidee?” in Ungarn und Österreich unter Maria Theresia und Joseph II, ed.Adam, Wandruszka (Vienna, 1982).Google Scholar On Slovak versions of the Hungarus concept, see Alexander, Maxwell, “Hungaro-Slavism: Territorial and National Identity in Nineteenth-Century Slovakia,” East Central Europe/ľEurope du Centre-Est 29, no. 1 (2002): 45–58.Google Scholar

⁴³ Anton, Bernolák, Dissertatio Philologico-Critica de Literis Slavorum, translated into Slovak by Juraj Pavelek (Bratislava, 1964 [1787]); 22.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ľubomir Ďurovič dated the term Slovák to 1485; Theodore Locher suggests it may have originally been a term of abuse. Bernoláks 1825 dictionary gives the word Slowák two main meanings: “ein Slave, Slavack, tóth” and “ein Slavonier (schlavonier), Tóth, Horvath.” In other words, Bernolák includes ethnonyms whose modern meanings include “Slovak,” “Slav,” “Slavonian,” and “Croat,” but no unambiguously “Slovak” meaning. The terms Slovak and Slav, as well as Slovene, and Slavonian, share the same root; their common origin is clear in the modern Slovak terms slovenský, slovanský, slovinský, and slavonský. The distinction between them remained ambiguous until the 1840s. In 1845, for example, Michael Godra quoted a text claiming that “Slavjaňi or slovaňja and Slavjanki or Slovanki [live] from the wide sea to Kamchatka, Slavonci and Slavonki in Slavonia, Slovenci and Slovenki in the area around Triglav [i.e., in Slovenia], Slováci and Slováčki from the Tatras to the Danube,” and then disagreed, proclaiming that “near Triglav live the slovenci and slovenki, but they normally call themselves slovinci and slovinki, and in the Tatras … live Slováci and slovenki” Jozef Ambruš, after, discussing difficulties of this sort, correctly concluded that scholars “have not paid enough attention to the coherent, expressions slávsky, slovenský, Slovensko, Slovenčina”Google Scholar See Durovid, , “Slovak,” 211Google Scholar; Locher, , Nationale Differenzierung und Integrierung, 86Google Scholar; Anton, Bernolák, Slowár Slowenská= Česko= Laťinsko= Německo= Uherski seu Lexicon Slavicum [Slovak-Czech-Latin-German-Hungarian dictionary], vol. 4 (Buda, 1825), 3010Google Scholar; Michal, Godra, “Voňavje Ďordínki” [Fragrant Georgina], Orol tatranský [Eagle of the Tatras] 1, no. 12 (1845): 95Google Scholar; Jozef, Ambruš, “Die Slawische Idee bei Ján Hollý,” in Ľudovít Štúr und die Slawische Wechselseitigkeit, ed. Ľudovit, Holotik (Bratislava, 1969).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Bernolák, . Dissertatio, 22–23.Google Scholar On the Slovak Learned Society, see Jozef, Butvin, Slovenské národno-zjednocovacie hnutie (1780–1848) [The movement for Slovak national unity] (Bratislava, 1965).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ James Ramon, Felak, “At the Price of the Republic”: Hlinka's Slovak People's Party, 1929–1938 (Pittsburgh, 1994), 5Google Scholar; the final quotation is from Peter, Brock, The Slovak National Awakening: An Essay in the Intellectual History of East Central Europe (Toronto, 1976), 13.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Note that Mikus erased Hattala from his narrative. Joseph, Mikus, Slovakia and the Slovaks (Washington, DC, 1977), 76.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Krajčovič, , Svedectvo dejín o slovenčine, 205.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Kotvan, , Bibliografia Bernolákovcov. These figures were gathered by the author and should be treated as approximations.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Peter, Brock, The Slovak National Awakening: An Essay in the Intellectual History of East Central Europe (Toronto, 1976), 45.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Locher, , Nationale Differenzierung und Integrierung, 163–64.Google Scholar

⁵² John, DeFrancis, The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (Honolulu, 1984), 255.Google Scholar

⁵³ The Tatras have become the main geographical symbol of Slovakia. Ladislas Sziklay even speaks of Slovakš “Tatrologia” and dates “the mystic cult of the Tatras” at least back to Hollý. Gogolák, however, claims that the Tatra myth originated with the Zips Germans and was only introduced to Slovak poetry through Palkovičs writings. Gogolák credits Štúr with “recoining the Tatra idea to a concept of Slovak independence opposed to both Magyars and Czechs.”Google Scholar See Ladislas, Sziklay, Hviezdoslav (Budapest, 1941), 24Google Scholar; Gogolák, , Beiträge zur Geschichte des Slowakischen Volkes, 2:46.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Hodža reproduced an example of Calvinist “Hungaro-Polish-Slavic” in his Epigenes Slovenicus. Its conventions were used mostly in Calvinist liturgical works printed in Debrecen; its orthography shows a marked Hungarian influence, notably {cs} in place of /tJ/ {č}, {s} for /J/ {ˇ} and {sz} for /s/ {s}.Google ScholarHodža, M. M., Epigenes Slovenicus [Slavic descendants] (Levoča, 1847), 63.Google ScholarA sample text in a similar orthography, described as “Eastern Slovak,” is available in Krajčovič and Žigo, Príručka k dejinám spisovnej slovenčiny, 102–3.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Vladimir, Matula, “The Conception and the Development of Slovak National Culture in the Period of National Revival” Studia historica slovaca [Studies in Slovak history] 17 (1990): 153.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Ľudovít, Štúr, Beschwerden und Klagen der Slaven in Ungarn über die gesetzwidrigen Uebergriffe der Magyaren (Leipzig, 1843), 35.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Štúřs Slavic and Slovak loyalties are difficult to distinguish. Sometimes, Štúřs Slovak feeling predominates: “We are Slovaks and as Slovaks we stand before the world and before Slavdom.” Elsewhere, Štúř suggested that Slovak feeling merely serves Slavdom: “If the Slovak language did not exist, then my capacity for Slavdom would also not stand, and that would be to despair. One supports the other.”Google ScholarĽudovit, Štúř, Náreˇja slovenskuo alebo potreba písaňje v tomto nárečje [The Slovak dialect, or the necessity of writing in this dialect] (Bratislava, 1846) 13, 79Google Scholar; Samuel, Cambel, ed. Dejiny Slovenska [History of Slovakia], vol. 2 (Bratislava, 1987), 719.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Štúr, , Nárečja slovenskuo, 51.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Emil, Horák, “Štúrov spis Nárečja slovenskuo alebo potreba písaňja v tomto nárečí v aktuálnom slovanskom kontexte” [Štúr's essay Nárečja slovenskuo alebo potreba písaňja v tomto náreči in the Slovak context of its day], Slavica Slovaca [Slavic Slovak] 38, no. 2 (2003): 97.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Štúřs original text reads, “Mi slováci sme kmen a jako kmen máme vlastnuo nárečja, ktoruo je od českjeho odchodnuo a rozdjelno.” Cambel gave this as “Slováci sú osobitný národ a ako národ majú svoj vlastný jazyk (v dobovej terminólogii „Kmen” a „nárečie”).”Google Scholar Compare Štúr, , “Nárečja slovenskuo,” 51Google Scholar; and Cambel, , ed., Dejiny Slovenska, 721.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Emphasis added. Brock, The Slovak National Awakening, 48, 80.Google Scholar

⁶² Ján, Kollár (Johann Kollár), Ueber die Wechselseitigkeit zwischen den verschiedenen Stdmmen und Mundarten der slawischen Nation (Leipzig, 1844 [1837]).Google Scholar

⁶³ Štúr, , Nárečja slovenskuo, 13.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Jozef Miroslav, Hurban, Českje hlasi proti Slovenčiňe [Czech voices against Slovak] (Skalice, 1846), 26.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Sugar, Peter F., “The More It Changes, the More Hungarian Nationalism Remains the Same,” Austrian History Yearbook 31 (2000): 127–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶ Quoted from Pražák, “Slovenská otázka v dobé J. M. Hurbana” [The Slovak Question in the age of J. M. Hurban],530/202. Hurban's motives are the subject of debate among Slovak historians. Pražák interpreted it as Czechoslovakism, Francisci as a demonstration against Kálmán Tisza, Skultéty as the result of “anger,” and Zechenter as a gambit for Czech support in the struggle against Magyarization. Most of these explanations are compatible with each other.Google Scholar On Slovak attitudes toward Hurban's transformation, see Samuel, Osudský, Filosofia Štúrovov [The philosophy of the Sturites], vol. 2, Hurbanova Filosofia [Hurban's philosophy] (Myjava, 1928), 320.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Štúr was unable to find a Slovak publisher and felt his work would reach a wideaudience in a more established script. Note that even when Štúr discussed Slovak folk songs, he did not use his version of Slovak spelling; his quotations followed Hattala's standardization. While Hattala based his work on Štúřs codification, it would be a mistake to equate Hattala's Slovak with Śtúřs Slovak.Google ScholarZlatko, Klátík, Štúrovci a Juhoslovania [The Štúrítes and South Slavia] (Bratislava, 1965),34Google Scholar; Ľudevit, Štúr, O národních pisních a pověstech piemen slovanských [On the national songs and legends of the Slavic tribes] (Prague, 1852), 24.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ In English, see Paul, Vyšný, Neo-Slavism and the Czechs, 1898–1914 (Cambridge, 1977)Google Scholar; Suzanna, Mikula, “Milan Hodža and the Slovak National Movement, 1898–1918” (PhD diss., Syracuse University, 1974).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ The biggest problem was Štúrs use of {j} for diphthongs. Bibličtina, Bernolákovcina, modern Czech, and modern Slovak all have a rule allowing the palatalized consonants {ď} {ň} {ť} to be written as unpalatalized {d} {n} {t} when followed by the letter {i}; {i] self-evidently palatalizes the preceding consonant. Štúřs preference for {j} thus led to great confusion over the palatalization of consonants. Štúr himself spelled the modern Slovak nie (no, not) as both nje and ňje, though Štúr was consistent about the {ď} in ďjela.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ No original titles appeared in Bernolákovčina after 1851, but Bernolákovčina catechisms were reprinted as late as 1867. Parishioner demand, apparently, did not always follow the guidance of Catholic leadersGoogle Scholar. See Kotvan, Bibliografia Bernolákovcov.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ammon parenthetically defines such authorities as “teachers, administrative superiors.” However, the term applies just as well to journalists, literati, and similar cultural figures. Ammon, “Language-Variety/Standard Variety-Dialect,” 328–29.Google Scholar

⁷² Samo, Czambel, Príspevky k dejinám jazyka slovenského [Contributions to the history of the Slovak language] (Budapest, 1887), 69.Google Scholar

⁷³ Tibor, Pichler, “1848 und das slowakische politische Denken,” in 1848 Revolution in Europa, ed. Heiner, Timmermann (Berlin, 1999), 167Google Scholar; Pichler, , “The Idea of Slovak Language-Based Nationalism,” in Language, Values and the Slovak Nation, ed. Tibor, Pichler and Jana, Gašparíková (Washington, DC, 1994), 37.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Hugh, Seton-Watson, Nations and States: An Enquiry into the Origins of Nations and the Politics of Nationalism (London, 1977), 169.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Bělič, Nástin české dialektologie, 16Google Scholar; Ďurovič, “Slovak,” 211; emphasis added.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Habovštiak, Atlas slovenského jayzka.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Josef, Kirschbaum, Slovakia: Nation at the Crossroads of Central Europe (New York, 1960), 49.Google Scholar