East Slavic Confusion of Nasals

EAST SLAVIC CONFUSION OF NASALS

Reneacute Genis et al (eds) Between West and East = Pegasus OostndashEuropese Studies 20(2012) 639ndash648

William R Veder 1 Slavonic Nasal Vowels When Slavic reordered its syllables to reflect rising sonority nasal vowels appeared (emimenin rarr ę and omumonun rarr ǫ) Subsequently they were denasalised systematically in East Slavic (ę rarr rsquoa and ǫ rarr u) and through erosion in South and West Slavic the process not affecting Polish and leaving substantial lexical and morphological traces in outlying dialects of Bulgarian Macedonian and Slove-nian1 Slavonic (the language of the Slavic apostolate) reflects the full flourishing of nasals writing Glagolitic 2 rarr Cyrillic ѫ and ѭ3 and ⱔ rarr Cyrillic ѧ and ѩ3 However lacking a sound system of its own it had to rely on the local vernaculars to maintain their distinction not only in recitation but in writing as well (aposto-lic tradition required that they be applied in any addition to the corpus of texts) Let us see how this is handled in five East Slavic manuscripts 2 Copies and Quotations from the Lestvica We open the Slavonic translation of John of Sinairsquos Scala Paradisi4 in two 14th

century Russian manuscripts at the beginning of chapter 1 T f5v5 and Т1 f6v6 In comparison to the Greek7 and a construct of the translation (x) we read 188 Οὕτως ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου τοῦ μετὰ πικρίδων καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου αὐτῆς τοῦ μετὰ x тако отъ хлѣба того же съ горьчцам отъ чашѧ тоѩ ꙗже съ Т тако ѿ хлѣба того же ꙁъ горчцам| ѿ чаша тоꙗ ѧже съ Т1 тако ѿ хлѣба сего же ꙁ горчца|м да ꙗсть ѿ чашю сю же съ δακρύων ἐσθιέτω καὶ πινέτω ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρῖμα ἑαυτῷ στρατεύηται x сльꙁам да ꙗстъ пѥтъ да не на сѫдъ себѣ воньствѹѥтъ Т слеꙁам да ꙗсть| пьѥть да не на судъ собѣ воньства| прѥмлеть Т1 сле|ꙁам да пьеть да не на судъ себѣ во|ньствуеть There are just three nasals in this section which Т handles as well as can be

WR VEDER

2

expected from an East Slavic scribe Т1 however handles only the last properly letting отъ govern the accusative чашю сю Now we turn to the third part of chapter 26 (Т f171 Т1 f191v) adding two copies of the sondashcalled Florilegium of Czar Symeon of before 927 11th century И f33а9 and late 15thndashearly 16th century И1 f66v10 and one of the Knjažij Izbornik of ca 93011 16th century M f87v12 26b49 Ὁ πίστιν μὲν ὀρθὴν κεκτῆσθαι λέγων ἁμαρτίας δὲ διαπραττόμενος ὅμοιός ἐστι х же вѣрѫ ѹбо правѫ мꙑ сѧ глаголѧ грѣхꙑ же творѧ подобьнъ ѥстъ Т же вѣру ѹбо праву |мꙑ сѧ гл ть грѣхꙑ же творѧ подобенъ| ѥсть Т1 же вѣру праву ѹбо мѣꙗ грѣхꙑ же творѧ| подобенъ єс И же вѣрѫ правѹ мѣѧ| сꙗ нарцаѥ грѣхꙑ же| дѣлаꙗ подобьнъ ѥ И1 же вѣрꙋ правѹ |мѣѧ сѧ нарцаѧ грѣх же | дѣлаѧ подобенъ єсть M же вѣрꙋ правꙋ мѣа себе нарцаеть| грѣхꙑ же дѣлꙗ подобенъ есть προσώπῳ ὀφθαλμοὺς μὴ ἔχοντι Ὁ πίστιν μὴ ἔχων καλὰ δὲ ἴσως τινὰ х лцѹ очю не мѫщѹ же вѣрꙑ не мꙑ добра же васнь каꙗ Т лцю не мущю очью а ѥже вѣрꙑ| не мать добро же нѣкоѥ Т1 лцу очью не мущѹ| же вѣру не мѣꙗ добра же нѣкаꙗ прлу|чаєм И л|цю очю не мѣюштѹ| а же вѣрꙑ не мы| нъ добро нѣчьто И1 л|цꙋ очю не мꙋщꙋ а же вѣ|ры не мы но добро нѣчто| M лцꙋ ꙫчїю| не мꙗщꙋ же л вѣры не мѣа но добро нѣчто ἐργαζόμενος ὅμοιός ἐστι τῷ ὕδωρ ἀντλοῦντι καὶ εἰς πίθον τετρημένον βάλλοντι х творѧ подобьнъ ѥстъ же водѫ чрѣплѭщѹ въ дьлъвь ѫтьлѫ лѣѭщѹ Т дѣлаѥть по|добенъ ѥсть чреплющему воду въ дельвь ѹтлу лѣющю Т1 творѧ подобенъ єс чреплющему| воду въ ссуд скрушенъ лѣющему| И творѧ| подобьнъ ѥстъ же водѹ| череплꙗ въ ѹдоробь| ѹтьлѹ лѣѫть|| И1 творѧ подобенъ єс же| водѹ черплѧѧ въ делвь| ѹ|тлѹ лѣють|| M тво|рꙗ подобенъ єс же водꙋ черплꙗ въ кад| ѹтлꙋ лѣеть

Of the eleven nasal vowels in this section four show problems сѧ глаголѧ rarr сѧ нарицаѥ И (себе нарицаеть М13) мѫщѹ rarr мꙗщꙋ М чрѣплѭщѹ rarr черплꙗ ИИ1М лѣѭщѹ rarr лѣѫть ИИ1 (лѣеть М14) What the examples of Lestvica 18 and 26b49 taken together show us is confusion of nasals with each other (чашю сю larr чашѫ сиѭ larr чашѧ сиѩ and мꙗщꙋ larr мѧщѹ larr мѫщѹ) and with oral vowels (нарицаѥ larr нарицаѩ) And


3

we may even interpret the misimprovement чрѣплѭщѹ rarr чрѣплѧ as a case of nasal confusion if as лѣѭщѹ rarr лѣѫть suggests the syncope of the suffix + desinence is not intentional 3 Confusion of Nasals in Two Copies of the Lestvica Confusion of nasals is evident in manuscripts which use the letters ѫ and ⱔѧ What if a scribe does not use ѫ15 or neither ѫ nor ѧ16 There we will have to look for reflexes of confusion of nasals viz ѹю harr аꙗ17 Let us see what reflexes of confusion are attested in our 14th century Russian transcription T1 the scribe writes two letters ѫ (сѫщѫ larr сѫщѧ f143) and 42 lsquoblendedrsquo ꙛ18 18 as a homogeneous letter (eg видѣшꙛ larr вѣдѣшѧ f56) and 24 corrected from ѧ by adding a triangular cap (eg внꙛlarrѧтрь вѣщаꙛlarrѧщѧ f143) all but one of them testifying to confusion In addition there are 33 autocorrec-tions a rarr u (eg братєюlarrꙗ larr братѥѭ f46 or своюlarrѧ larr своѭ f144 or покꙋшаꙋlarrа larr покѹшаѭ f152) in one case misimproving the text (въсмердѣвшюlarrꙗ larr въсмрьдѣвъшѧ f59v) and another 16 u rarr a (eg лежꙗlarrю larr лежѧ f26v дш аlarrу larr дѹшѧ f202v) This much can be gleaned from reading the manuscript in isolation For a more detailed diagnosis we need to collate it with the Greek text and at least one other independent manuscript of the translation ic T19 This yields the following picture for the confusion ѫ rarr ѧ 20 120 тѫ Т rarr тѧ Т1 (corrected to ꙋ by later hand) 46 125 своѭ Т rarr своꙗ Т1 46 522 818 23а13 вꙑѭ Т rarr вꙑꙗ Т1 419 пьрѭ Т rarr распрѧ Т1 431 творѭ Т rarr творѧ Т1 435 прѣꙁьрѭ Т rarr преꙁрѧ Т1 437 прѣдъложѫ Т rarr предложа Т1 523 не бо съкрꙑѭ Т rarr н бо скрꙑꙗ Т1 539 сътѫженѥмь Т rarr стꙗжаньєм Т1 73 жѧждѫщ Т1 rarr жадꙗщ Т 75 прѥмлѭще Т rarr прємѧще Т1 737 трѹждаѭ Т rarr трѵждаꙗ Т1 748 ѫтробьнѫ Т rarr ѹтробнаꙗ Т1 102 ѥмлѭщ Т rarr ємлѧщ Т1 1010 сѭ rarr сѧ Т1 118 2534 Е151(5 times) 152 вонѭ Т rarr вонѧ Т1 146 ѹвѣрꙗѭ сѧ Т rarr ѹвѣрѧѧ сѧ Т1 147 повнѹѭщѧѩ сѧ Т rarr повнѹѧщую сѧ Т1 1422 дъмѫщ сѧ Т rarr дмѧщеє сѧ Т1 1537 молѧщѧ сѧ Т rarr молѧщу сѧ Т1 1552 тѫ Т rarr тѧ Т1 185 раждаѭ сѧ Т rarr раждаꙗ сѧ Т1 203 сѫчло Т rarr ꙁсѧченє Т1 225 тъщеславѹѭ Т rarr тщеславꙋꙗ Т1 2218 сърѧщѫ Т rarr сърѧщѧ Т1 2222 вьсѭ ꙁемльнѫѭ Т rarr всѧ ꙁемнаꙗ Т1

WR VEDER

4

въторѫѭ Т rarr вторꙑꙗ Т1 2229 сѫщѫѭ Т rarr сꙋщаꙗ Т1 отъстѫп rarr ѿстѧп Т1 2411 лѫкавьнѹѭщ Т rarr лꙋкавнꙋѧще Т1 2549 непьщѹѭ Т rarr непщуꙗ Т1 2649 27а10 3010 15 Е152 мьнѭ Т rarr мнѧ Т1 27а3 беꙁмлъвьствѹѭ Т rarr беꙁъмолвьствуꙗ Т1 27а26 вѣдѧщ Т1 rarr вѣдуще Т 292 протѧжѫщѫ сѧ Т rarr протѧжуща сѧ Т1 297 трьплѭ Т rarr терпѧ Т1 301 лѹчѫ ꙁьрѫ Т rarr лѹчѧ ꙁрѧ Т1 3015 дѹшѫ Т rarr дш а Т1 3022 надеждѫ Т rarr надежда Т1 3025 ѹтврьжденѫ Т rarr ѹтверждена Т1 Е73 вѣдѫщхъ Т rarr вѣдѧщих Т1 Е146 сѹшашѫѭ отърадьнѣшѫѭ Т rarr сушашаꙗ ѿраднѣшаꙗ Т1 послѣдѹѭщѫ Т rarr послѣдѹющаꙗ Т1 Е151 глѫбочашѫ Т rarr глѹбочашаꙗ Т1 Е152 въꙁвождѫ Т rarr въꙁвожда Т1 Here all deviating readings but one belong to Т1 The converse confusion ѧ rarr ѫ is attested as follows C2 432 боѩ сѧ Т rarr бою сѧ Т1 111 горѧщѹѥмѹ Т rarr горющему Т1 312 слꙑшѧ Т rarr слꙑшу Т1 420 пртчѫщѧ Т rarr пртѣчащю Т1 424 въходѧщѧѩ сходѧщѧѩ Т rarr входѧщюю сходѧщѵю Т1 431 прѣбꙑваѭщѧ молѧщѧ Т rarr пребꙑвающѵ молѧщѵ Т1 тоѩ Т rarr тою Т1 страждѫщѧѩ Т rarr страждѵщюю Т1 490 въспѧщаѩ Т rarr въспѵщаꙗ Т1 4114 рад польꙃѧ ходѧщѧ наѹчьшѧ сѧ Т rarr рад полꙁѵ пршедшю наоѵчвшю с Т1 4122 вѣдѣшѧ Т rarr вдѣшꙛ Т1 4123 сътѧжѧтъ Т rarr стѧжѵть Т1 55 дѹшѧ Т rarr дш ю Т1 512 обѫродѣвъшѧ Т rarr объюродѣвшю Т1 514 съкрѹшенꙑ сълѧцаѭщѧ сѧ могѫщѧ Т rarr скрѵшенꙑ слѧцѧющѵ сѧ могѵщѵ Т1 87 къснѧ Т rarr късну Т1 814 раꙁгнѣвавъшѧ сѧ отърнѫвъшѧ Т rarr раꙁгнѣвавша сѧ ѿрнувшу Т1 нꙑ въсхꙑщьшѧ въдавъшѧ Т rarr нꙑ въсхꙑтвъшу вдавшу Т1 съмѣшьшѧ польꙁовавъшѧ Т rarr растворвша полꙁовавшу Т1 816 мѫжѧ беꙁмлъвьствѹѭщѧ съвѣрѧщѧ сѧ Т rarr мужу беꙁмолъствующу сварѩщу сѧ Т1 820 суч Т rarr сѧчеш Т1 828 не ѥдноѩ внꙑ Т rarr не єдну внꙑ Т1 829 порождьшѧѩ Т rarr порождешюю Т1 103 мъножашѧѩ отроковцѧ Т1 rarr множашу ѻтроковцю Т 1011 съгрѣшьшѧѩ Т rarr согрѣшающаꙛ Т1 147 повнѹѭщѧѩ сѧ Т rarr повнѹѧщую сѧ Т1 15а1 сѫпрѫжьнцѧ Т rarr супружнцу Т1 1543 ꙗдѫщѧ съпрѣбꙑваѭщѧ Т rarr ꙗдущу спребꙑвающаlarrе Т1 1565 прѣдъначнаѩ Т rarr прѣдъначнаю Т1 229 плачѫщѧѩ сѧ въꙁгорѣвъшѧ сѧ Т rarr плачѧщю сѧ въꙁгорѣвъшю сѧ Т1 2210 обръдѧтъ сѧ Т rarr обрꙑдють Т1 2317 настѫпльшѧ съхраньшѧ Т rarr настꙋпвшꙋ схранвъшꙋ Т1 256 вьсѧ чловѣчьскꙑѩ славꙑ Т rarr всѧ члвчскꙛꙛ славꙋ Т1 2533 надеждѧ Т rarr надеждѫ Т1 2544 своѥѩ волѧ Т rarr


5

свою волю Т1 2545 слꙑшѧщѹ Т1 rarr слꙑшю бо Т 2550 съгрѣшьша оскврьньша Т1 rarr съгрѣшвъшю ѻсквернвъша Т 2555 дошѫ Т rarr дш а Т1 2636 молѧ Т rarr молю Т1 2672 вьсѧ нашеѩ Т rarr всю нашю Т1 26а4 горѧщеѭ Т rarr горющею Т1 26а17 сѫщѧѩ Т rarr сущую Т1 26b37 вьсꙗ Т1 rarr всю Т 27а36 поѹчаѭщѧ Т rarr поѹчающу Т1 2832 одолѣвъшѧ rarr одолѣвшу Т1 296 бꙑваѩ Т rarr бꙑваю Т1 Here all deviating readings but two belong to Т1 Confusion of nasal and oral vowels is attested in the form ѫѧ harr ѹе 456 отътрьгнетъ Т1 rarr ѿтерьгнуть Т 479 сътварꙗѭтъ Т1 rarr стварꙗѥть Т 4110 покаꙁааше Т rarr покаꙁаша Т1 4115 просвѣщаѭтъ Т1 rarr ѻсвѣщаѥть Т 4123 съпѹщаѭтъ Т1 rarr спущаѥть Т 57 въꙁбѹждаѭщѧ Т rarr вꙁбѵждающе Т1 58 инꙑ въꙁираѭщѧ Т rarr инꙑ вꙁирающе Т1 59 дрѹгꙑ прѣстоѩщѧ Т1 rarr инꙑ престоꙗще Т осѫждьшѧ Т1 rarr ѻсужающе Т 76 объꙗвлꙗѭтъ Т1 rarr ꙗвлꙗѥть Т 1560 несъгласьноѭ беꙁврѣменьноѭ и недостижьноѭ Т1 rarr неискупленою беꙁъвременьную и непостꙑжьную Т 2615 покажѫтъ Т1 rarr покажеть Т 2638 раждаѭтъ сѧ Т1 rarr ражаѥть сѧ Т 2687 ѩже Т rarr єже Т1 26а1 бꙑваѭтъ Т1 rarr бꙑваѥть Т Е71 врачѧ ѹмолихъ Т1 rarr враче въмолихъ or врачевъ молихъ Т Related are 736 238 нъ Т rarr ноlarrѧ Т1 251 нъ Т rarr нꙛ Т1 where the antigraph must have spelled нъ rarr нѫ Here the deviating readings but three belong to T In addition we find confusion of nasals with oral vowels + m (ѫѧ harr Vм) 117 живѫщѧ рекъшѧ Т1 rarr жꙑвуща рекъшемъ Т 57 стоѩщѧ даѭщѧ rarr стоꙗщѧ дающемъ ТТ1 59 могѫщѧ Т1 rarr имущемъ Т прѣклоньшѧ Т1 rarr преклоньшемъ Т обрѣтаѭщѧ и прѣдъставлꙗѭщѧ Т1 rarr ѻбрꙗщющемъ и предъставлꙗющемъ Т 510 сѣдѧщѧ ꙁакрꙑваѭщѧ Т1 rarr сѣдꙗща ꙁакрꙑвающемъ Т 513 инꙑ рикающѧ стенѧщѧ Т1 rarr инꙑ ревущемъ въꙁдꙑшющемъ Т 66 тоѭ Т rarr тоѧ Т1 742 льгъчаишѧѩ rarr простѣишимъ Т1 84 начѧльствовавъшѧ ѹстꙑдѣвъшѧ сѧ Т1 rarr старѣишиньствовавъшимъ ѹстꙑдѣвъша сѧ Т 816 мѫжѧ сварѧщѧ сѧ Т1 rarr мѹжа мутꙗщимъ сꙗ Т 2672 ищѫщемъ Т rarr ищущу Т1 26а37 сътѫжаѭщиимъ Т rarr стѧжаємꙑм Т1 26а66 могѫщѧ Т1 rarr могущамъ Т 2832 нерадѧщѧ прѣдъставъшѧ одолѣвъшѧ проливаѭщѧ Т1 rarr лѣнѧща сѧ ставъшемъ предолѣвъшемъ иꙁливающемъ Т Е71 не хотѧщемъ врачемъ Т rarr не хотѧща врача Т1 Е1410 дѫти Т rarr дъмити Т1 Е152 понѫждаѩ Т rarr понуждаємъ Т1 Of the deviating readings eleven belong to

WR VEDER

6

Т seven to Т1 and one to ТТ1 jointly (probably a case of coincidental variation) We have a sizeable body of confusion of nasals in two 14th century Russian manuscripts along with evidence that such confusion occurred as early as the 11th and as late as the 16th century In relation to the length of the text (ca 56000 words in version a = Т and ca 60000 in version b = Т1) it is not frequent affecting less than 1 of its potential nasals it occurs in usual words disrupting syntactic coherence and its results coincide in no more than a single case This means that it is not related to the language competence of the scribes is accidental and individual 4 Reading Glagolitic Confusion of nasals is in fact an almost inevitable accident of reading Glagolitic texts These were written hanging from a line which made that line the signal level for identification of letters Failure to look far enough down for distinctive features would lead to much greater confusion than was possible in Cyrillic For instance looking no further down than the crossbar one could confuse ⰰ harr ⰵ (а harr е) looking only at the top loop ⱁ harr ⱛ harr ⱐ (о harr ѹ harr ъь) and at the top curve in addition harr ⱔ (ѫ harr ѧ) which may also be confused independently by looking at the top curve and no further than the left loop Such failures governed only by Murphyrsquos law not any law of language mark our five East Slavic manuscripts of the 11th to 16th centuries as independent direct transcriptions of Glagolitic antigraphs into Cyrillic21 They also mark almost all of the sondashcalled lsquocanonical manuscriptsrsquo22 both those copied in Glagolitic and those transcribed into Cyrillic (see Diels 1932 98ndash107 Mirčev 1963 99 Velčeva 1980 140ndash145 Lunt 2001 40ndash41) For the cause of such failures we must turn to the autocorrections of Т1 eg 514 аще всюlarrѧ въселенꙋюlarrѧѧ ꙁа нꙑ плачюlarrѧщю сѧ съꙁовем (f59v) it is only when the final съꙁовемъ is transcribed that вьсꙗ въселенаꙗ turns out to be not the subject but the direct object of the clause and needs to be corrected Evidently the scribe could not anticipate this Why As a Glagolitic antigraph has to be deciphered morpheme by morpheme he can only look back not forward This inability to anticipate is well known to interpreters when a speaker chooses not to


7

use his native language the rendering will inevitably be wanting in details of sense and syntax The need to get on with the work also sets limits to the ability to look back the longer the chain of coordinated adjectives or participles the greater the risk that the last will go astray 5 Copying and Transcribing from Glagolitic The confusion has three manifestations viz a of nasals with each other b of nasals and orals c of nasals and orals + mn Of these c is not attested in the sondashcalled lsquocanonical manuscriptsrsquo it seems to occur in South Slavic manuscripts only after ca 1150 (see Ščepkin 1906 135ndash143 Mirčev 1963 98) Howbeit we may take this as an indication that nasal vowels were an endagered species even in South Slavic before the 11th century b surely shows that nasalisation was recessive c definitely shows that the learning required to preserve them either by experience or by rote had to be complemented with a mnemonic device a mater lectionis23 an added nasal marker generated in recitation and by internal dictation in writing ⱔ added to ⱁ and ⰵ in late Glagolitic ⱘ and ⱗ ѫ + н in Bulgarian manuscripts of the 12ndash13th centuries (see Mirčev 1963 98) ѧ + superscript н in a 14th c Bulgarian transcription24 oral vowel + м25 in the (Glagolitic) hyparchetype of the Euthalian Apparatus entered into the Commented Apostolus before 972 (see Van der Tak 2003) and in Т and Т1 It should be clear by now that confusion of nasals should not be related to the language competence of any scribe whether of East or South Slavic origin nasal vowels were first and foremost a feature of written texts26 and their confusion belongs to the domain of visual accidence in the manuscript transmission of texts27 The traces of such confusion in the sondashcalled lsquocanonical manuscriptsrsquo are explained simply by the fact that none of them is an autograph but all are dependent on Glagolitic antigraphs copied in Glagolitic or transcribed into Cyrillic Nonetheless confusion in the spelling of nasal vowels is not devoid of meaning only of the meaning our teachers wished it had It means that we must look whether the scribe worked with an antigraph written in Glagolitic 6 Slavonic Philology How did Slavonic philology get to a point where the Glagolitic paternity of

WR VEDER

8

Cyrillic transcriptions could not be noticed The answer is simple Slavonic manuscripts much too early fell into the hands of much too competent linguists whose main interest lay in the dialects of the scribes rather than the language of the texts Consider for instance Nicolaas van Wijk In 1911 as scriptor in the department of manuscripts at the Royal Library in The Hague he stated ldquoIf we print but one carefully selected sample from four or five Books of Hours from different dialect areas this small effort is sure to yield important data for knowledge of the Middle Dutch dialectsrdquo (van Wijk 1911 88) Seven years later as professor of Slavic and Baltic linguistics at the University of Leiden he transferred this approach to Slavonic manuscripts pointing to the lsquolarge bodyrsquo of editions and studies of Slavonic Gospelndash and Psalterndashlsquotexts in which as it were every word is used to determine the local and chronological relationships between the manuscriptsrsquo (van Wijk 1918 81) Crucial here is that the focus is not on the text as such but on its manuscript versions The task of philology is to explain texts28 If it sets out to explain manuscripts it blurs first of all the delicate distinction between autographs and apographs by treating all manuscripts as potentially autonomous sources Second it fails to develop a clear vision of text history usually stopping at the earliest manuscript This is why it failed to notice that the majority of Slavonic texts and many of its manuscripts differ from those of Western Europersquos vernaculars in one critical respect their transmission is marked by an additional layer of accidence the Glagolitic

Notes 1 In South and West Slavic denasalisation yielded dialectndashspecific results For the retention of nasal diphthongs in peripheral dialects see Gołąb 1960-1961 and 1962-1963 Lunt 2001 40 2 This letter is not attested in any extant Glagolitic manuscript but must be reconstructed on the basis of its monographic renderings in Cyrillic see Veder 2008 496ndash497 3 Glagolitic originally had no means to mark either jotation or palatality see Veder 2008 4 CPG 7852 composed ca 650 translated probably before 885 5 Cod Moskva RGB F304 nr10 dated 1334 wwwstslrumanuscriptsindexphp In the printed text | marks the end of a line and || the end of a page 6 Cod Moskva RGB F304 nr155 14th c wwwstslrumanuscriptsindexphp The description fails to note that f81rndash82r are written by a different hand and that 1 f is lacking after f185 7 Ed Rader 1633 with Latin translation by St Ambrose of Camaldoli (published Venice 1531) The translation based on a Greek codex different from those used by Rader offers many readings lacking in the Greek


9

8 The section numbering is based on the (unnumbered) division by Luibheid 1982 A copy of the machinendashreadable collations of the full Lestvica is available from lthilandarosuedugt upon request 9 Cod Moskva GIM Sin1034 dated 1073 made for Grand Prince Izjaslav Jaroslavič but hastily rededicated to Grand Prince Svjatoslav Jaroslavič (ed Dinekov 1991) 10 Cod SndashPeterburg RNB KirndashBel 51582 end 15thndashbeginning 16th c The collection of texts reflected in the two manuscripts of the Florilegium contains four more quotations from the Lestvica see Feder forthc 11 Feder (ed) 2008 vol 2 175 quoted from the protograph of the Florilegium The collection of texts contains another quotation from the Lestvica vol 2 131 quoted directly from the Lestvica 12 Cod Kiev CBAN Melmp119 Lrsquovov before 1596 descr Veder 1982 sections 663ndash664 13 This may not be genetically related to нарицаѥ but rather reflect the substitution of a finite form compare же сѧ глаголѧ rarr же сѧ гл ть and же имꙑ rarr же имать T 14 This may simply be a correction for the unmotivated pl лѣѫть 15 East Slavic scribes usually do not use ѫ see eg T (note 5) and И1 (note 10) 16 Serbian scribes usually use neither ѫ nor ѧ see eg the two independent transcriptions of version a of the Lestvica in codd Beograd NBS Rs93 of ca 1360 and Peć 87 of ca 1375ndash1385 httpsccdigitalnbrszbirkarukopisa 17 In Serbian manuscripts we would of course look for reflexes ѹю harr еѥ In East Slavic manuscripts such reflexes have customarily been treated as copied from Bulgarian antigraphs or signs that Bulgarians participated in the compilation of the text (see eg Speranskij 1928ndash29 Prokopenko 2009) 18 This lsquoblendedrsquo jus is of course in itself a mark of confusion 19 Collation entails that we address the text by chaptersection Capital letters indicate four prefatory texts (A Vita BHG 882 BndashC Epistle and Reply CPG 7850 D Prologue CPG 7851) and one concluding text (E Epistle to the Pastor CPG 7853) 20 In the attestations the correct form is given in normalised spelling before the arrow the deviant form in manuscript spelling after it 21 For T and T1 this is proven by Veder forthc for И and И1 evidence is adduced by Feder forthc M will be the subject of a separate study 22 For the contents of this lsquocanonrsquo see most recently Schaeken 1999 23 On this device see Veder 2004 383 24 Cod Beograd MSPC Krka 4I made at Ohrid in 1346 of the Glagolitic protograph of the Scete Paterikon see Veder 2011I 44ndash45 25 Van der Tak (2003 16) interprets such renderings as reflexes of the digraphic spelling of Glagolitic nasal vowels but their attested confusion with monographic vowels makes this unlikely 26 The regulation of their spelling by Patriarch Euthymius of Tărnovo in the second half of the 14th c (see Vasilev 1980 412ndash413) does not endow them with linguistic relevance 27 Other visual accidents to be transferred from the linguistic to the transmissional record are in the terms of Diels 1932 lsquoVertauschung der beiden Halbvokalersquo (96) lsquoVereinzelter Uumlbergang von o zu ersquo (100) lsquoUumlbergang der Halbvokale in Vollvokalersquo (101) lsquoUmlaut der Halbvokalersquo (108) lsquoUmlaut von o zu ersquo (112) lsquoAufgabe des epenthetischen lrsquo (139) lsquoDissimilationrsquo (140) and lsquoAufgabe der Palatalitaumltrsquo (141) 28 The maxim is traditionally attributed to Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (dagger1494)

References BHG Halkin Franccedilois (ed) 1957ndash1984 Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca 1ndash3 + Novum

auctarium (= Subsidia hagiographica 8a + 65) Bruxelles

WR VEDER

10

CPG Geerard Maurits (ed) 1974ndash1987 Clavis patrum graeligcorum 1ndash5 Turnhout Diels Paul 1932 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik 1 Teil Heidelberg Dinekov Petăr et al (eds)1991 Simeonov sbornik (po Svetoslavovija prepis ot 1073 g) 1ndash2 Sofia Feder Uiljam R (ed) 2008 Knjažij izbornik za văzpitanie na kanartikina 1ndash2 Veliko Tărnovo Feder Uiljam R forthc lsquoŠest citata ot Lestvicarsquo In Veselin Panajotov et al (eds) Festschrift for

Hristo Trendafilov Šumen Gołąb Zbigniew 1960ndash1961 and 1962ndash1963 lsquoDva makedonski govora (na Suho i Visoka vo

Solunsko)rsquo Makedonski ezik vol 11ndash12 12 113ndash182 vol 13ndash14 12 173ndash276 Luibheid Colm and Norman V Russell 1982 The Ladder of Divine Ascent New York Lunt Horace G 2001 Old Church Slavonic Grammar Seventh Revised Edition BerlinndashNew York Mirčev Kiril 1963 Istoričeska gramatika na bălgarskija ezik Sofia [1st ed 1958] PG Migne JacquesndashPaul (ed) 1857ndash1866 Patrologiae cursus completus series graeca Paris Prokopenko Larisa V 2009 Lingvotekstologičeskoe issledovanie Prologa za sentjabrrsquoskoe polugodie po

spiskam XIIndashnačala XV v Moskva wwwruslangrudocautorefprokopenkopdf Rader Matthaumlus 1633 S Patris Joannis Climaci opera omnia Paris [repr PG 88] Schaeken Jos and Henrik Birnbaum 1999 Die altkirchenslavische Schriftkultur Muumlnchen (=

Slavistische Beitraumlge 382) Ščepkin Vjačeslav N 1906 Bolonskaja Psaltyrrsquo SndashPeterburg Speranskij Mixail N 1928ndash29 lsquoOtkuda idut starejšie pamjatniki russkoj pisrsquomennosti i literaturyrsquo

Slavia vol 7 516ndash535 Van der Tak Johannes G 2003 Euthalius the Deacon Prologues and Abstracts in Greek and Church

Slavic Translation Sofia Van Wijk Nicolaas 1911 lsquoDe leemten in onze dialektkennisrsquo De nieuwe taalgids vol 5 80ndash90 Van Wijk Nicolaas 1918 lsquoTondalusrsquo Visioen en St Patriciusrsquo Vagevuur uitgegeven door Dr R

Verdeyen en Dr J Endepols 2 dln GentndashrsquosndashGravenhage 1914ndash1917rsquo Museum vol 25 79ndash84 Vasilev Vasil P 1980 lsquoPravopisnata reforma na Evtimij i otraženieto igrave v proizvedenija na negovi

sledovnici i na bălgarskite damaskinarirsquo In Tărnovska knižovna škola vol 2 405ndash421 Veder William R 1982 lsquoMeleckij sbornik i istorija drevnebolgarskoj literaturyrsquo Palaeobulgarica

vol 63 154ndash165 Veder William R 2004 lsquoThe Glagolitic Alphabet as a Textrsquo In Duumlrrigl MarijandashAna et al (eds)

Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam 375ndash387 ZagrebndashKrk Veder William R 2008 lsquoThe Glagolitic Barrierrsquo Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics vol 34

489ndash501 Veder William R 2011 The Scete Paterikon Introduction Maps and Indices Amsterdam (=

Pegasus OostndashEuropese Studies 12) Veder William R forthc lsquoAn Omission in the History of Slavic Writingrsquo In Flier Michael et al

(eds) Memorial Volume for Horace Lunt Bloomington Velčeva Borjana 1980 Praslavjanski i starobălgarski fonologičeski izmenenija Sofia mdashPublished in Pegasus OostndashEuropese Studies 20(2012)mdash

WR VEDER

2

expected from an East Slavic scribe Т1 however handles only the last properly letting отъ govern the accusative чашю сю Now we turn to the third part of chapter 26 (Т f171 Т1 f191v) adding two copies of the sondashcalled Florilegium of Czar Symeon of before 927 11th century И f33а9 and late 15thndashearly 16th century И1 f66v10 and one of the Knjažij Izbornik of ca 93011 16th century M f87v12 26b49 Ὁ πίστιν μὲν ὀρθὴν κεκτῆσθαι λέγων ἁμαρτίας δὲ διαπραττόμενος ὅμοιός ἐστι х же вѣрѫ ѹбо правѫ мꙑ сѧ глаголѧ грѣхꙑ же творѧ подобьнъ ѥстъ Т же вѣру ѹбо праву |мꙑ сѧ гл ть грѣхꙑ же творѧ подобенъ| ѥсть Т1 же вѣру праву ѹбо мѣꙗ грѣхꙑ же творѧ| подобенъ єс И же вѣрѫ правѹ мѣѧ| сꙗ нарцаѥ грѣхꙑ же| дѣлаꙗ подобьнъ ѥ И1 же вѣрꙋ правѹ |мѣѧ сѧ нарцаѧ грѣх же | дѣлаѧ подобенъ єсть M же вѣрꙋ правꙋ мѣа себе нарцаеть| грѣхꙑ же дѣлꙗ подобенъ есть προσώπῳ ὀφθαλμοὺς μὴ ἔχοντι Ὁ πίστιν μὴ ἔχων καλὰ δὲ ἴσως τινὰ х лцѹ очю не мѫщѹ же вѣрꙑ не мꙑ добра же васнь каꙗ Т лцю не мущю очью а ѥже вѣрꙑ| не мать добро же нѣкоѥ Т1 лцу очью не мущѹ| же вѣру не мѣꙗ добра же нѣкаꙗ прлу|чаєм И л|цю очю не мѣюштѹ| а же вѣрꙑ не мы| нъ добро нѣчьто И1 л|цꙋ очю не мꙋщꙋ а же вѣ|ры не мы но добро нѣчто| M лцꙋ ꙫчїю| не мꙗщꙋ же л вѣры не мѣа но добро нѣчто ἐργαζόμενος ὅμοιός ἐστι τῷ ὕδωρ ἀντλοῦντι καὶ εἰς πίθον τετρημένον βάλλοντι х творѧ подобьнъ ѥстъ же водѫ чрѣплѭщѹ въ дьлъвь ѫтьлѫ лѣѭщѹ Т дѣлаѥть по|добенъ ѥсть чреплющему воду въ дельвь ѹтлу лѣющю Т1 творѧ подобенъ єс чреплющему| воду въ ссуд скрушенъ лѣющему| И творѧ| подобьнъ ѥстъ же водѹ| череплꙗ въ ѹдоробь| ѹтьлѹ лѣѫть|| И1 творѧ подобенъ єс же| водѹ черплѧѧ въ делвь| ѹ|тлѹ лѣють|| M тво|рꙗ подобенъ єс же водꙋ черплꙗ въ кад| ѹтлꙋ лѣеть

Of the eleven nasal vowels in this section four show problems сѧ глаголѧ rarr сѧ нарицаѥ И (себе нарицаеть М13) мѫщѹ rarr мꙗщꙋ М чрѣплѭщѹ rarr черплꙗ ИИ1М лѣѭщѹ rarr лѣѫть ИИ1 (лѣеть М14) What the examples of Lestvica 18 and 26b49 taken together show us is confusion of nasals with each other (чашю сю larr чашѫ сиѭ larr чашѧ сиѩ and мꙗщꙋ larr мѧщѹ larr мѫщѹ) and with oral vowels (нарицаѥ larr нарицаѩ) And


3


WR VEDER

4



5


WR VEDER

6



7


WR VEDER

8




9




WR VEDER

10
















3


WR VEDER

4



5


WR VEDER

6



7


WR VEDER

8




9




WR VEDER

10















WR VEDER

4



5


WR VEDER

6



7


WR VEDER

8




9




WR VEDER

10
















5


WR VEDER

6



7


WR VEDER

8




9




WR VEDER

10















WR VEDER

6



7


WR VEDER

8




9




WR VEDER

10
















7


WR VEDER

8




9




WR VEDER

10















WR VEDER

8




9




WR VEDER

10
















9




WR VEDER

10















WR VEDER

10















East Slavic Confusion of Nasals

Documents

Transcript of East Slavic Confusion of Nasals