Basis and local influences Old Church Slavonic

1 basis , local influences

1.1 great moravia

1.1.1 moravian recension


1.2 first bulgarian empire

1.2.1 bulgarian recension
1.2.2 macedonian recension


1.3 later recensions

1.3.1 serbian recension
1.3.2 russian recension
1.3.3 middle bulgarian
1.3.4 bosnian recension
1.3.5 croatian recension

basis , local influences

written evidence of old church slavonic survives in relatively small body of manuscripts, of them written in first bulgarian empire during late 10th , 11th centuries. language has southern slavic basis admixture of western slavic features inherited during mission of saints cyril , methodius great moravia (863–885).

the well-preserved manuscript of moravian recension, kiev folia, characterised replacement of southern slavic phonetic , lexical features western slavic ones. manuscripts written in second bulgarian empire (1185-1396) have, on other hand, few western slavic features.

old church slavonic valuable historical linguists since preserves archaic features believed have once been common slavic languages such these:

most significantly, yer (extra-short) vowels: /ĭ/ , /ŭ/
nasal vowels: /ɛ̃/ , /ɔ̃/
near-open articulation of yat vowel (/æ/)
palatal consonants /ɲ/ , /ʎ/ proto-slavic *ň , *ľ
proto-slavic declension system based on stem endings, including later disappeared in attested languages (such u-stems)
dual distinct grammatical number singular , plural
aorist, imperfect, proto-slavic paradigms participles

old church slavonic have preserved extremely archaic type of accentuation (probably close chakavian dialect of modern serbo-croatian), unfortunately, no accent marks appear in written manuscripts.

the southern slavic nature of language evident following variations:

phonetic:

ra > /la/ means of liquid metathesis of proto-slavic *or, *ol clusters
sě proto-slavic *xě < *xai
cv, (d)zv proto-slavic *kvě, *gvě < *kvai, *gvai


morphosyntactic use of dative possessive case in personal pronouns , nouns: рѫка ти (rǫka ti, hand ), отъпоущенье грѣхомъ (otŭpuštenĭje grěxomŭ, remission of sins ); periphrastic future tense using verb хотѣти (xotěti, want ); use of comparative form мьнии (mĭniji, smaller ) denote younger .

morphosyntactic use of suffixed demonstrative pronouns тъ, та, то (tŭ, ta, to). in bulgarian , macedonian these developed suffixed definite articles.

old church slavonic has features in common bulgarian:

near-open articulation [æ] of yat vowel (ě); still preserved in bulgarian dialects of rhodope mountains;
the existence of /ʃt/ , /ʒd/ reflexes of proto-slavic *ť (< *tj , *gt, *kt) , *ď (< *dj).
use of possessive dative personal pronouns , nouns, in братъ ми (bratŭ mi, brother ), рѫка ти (rǫka ti, hand ), отъпоущенье грѣхомъ (otŭpuštenĭje grěxomŭ, remission of sins ), храмъ молитвѣ (xramŭ molitvě, house of prayer ), etc.
periphrastic compound future tense formed auxiliary verb хотѣти (xotěti, want ), example хоштѫ писати (xoštǫ pisati, write ).


great moravia

the language standardized first time mission of 2 apostles great moravia 863. manuscripts of moravian recension therefore earliest dated of ocs recensions. recension takes name slavic state of great moravia existed in central europe during 9th century on territory of today s western slovakia , czech republic.

moravian recension

in prague fragments moravian influence replacing /ʃt/ /ts/ , /ʒd/ /z/. recension exemplified kiev folia. other linguistic characteristics include:

confusion between letters big yus (Ѫ) , uk (оу) - occurs once in kiev folia, when expected form въсоудъ vъsudъ spelled въсѫдъ vъsǫdъ
/ts/ proto-slavic *tj, use of /dz/ *dj, /ʃtʃ/ *skj
use of words mьša, cirky, papežь, prěfacija, klepati, piskati etc.
preservation of consonant cluster /dl/ (e.g. modlitvami)
use of ending –ъmь instead of –omь in masculine singular instrumental, use of pronoun čьso

first bulgarian empire

old church slavonic language developed in first bulgarian empire , taught in preslav (bulgarian capital between 893 , 972), , in ohrid (bulgarian capital between 991/997 , 1015). did not represent 1 regional dialect generalized form of eastern south slavic, cannot localized. existence of 2 major literary centres in empire led in period 9th 11th centuries emergence of 2 recensions (otherwise called redactions ), termed bulgarian , macedonian respectively. researchers not differentiate between manuscripts of 2 recensions, preferring group them in macedo-bulgarian or bulgarian recension. others, horace lunt, have changed opinion time. in mid-1970s, lunt held differences in initial ocs neither great enough nor consistent enough grant distinction between macedonian recension , bulgarian one. decade later, however, lunt argued in favour of such distinction, illustrating point paleographic, phonological , other differences. development of old church slavonic literacy had effect of preventing assimilation of south slavs neighboring cultures, promoted formation of distinct bulgarian identity.

bulgarian recension

the manuscripts of bulgarian recension or eastern variant among oldest of old church slavonic language. recension centred around preslav literary school. since earliest datable cyrillic inscriptions found in area of preslav, school credited development of cyrillic alphabet gradually replaced glagolic one. number of prominent bulgarian writers , scholars worked @ preslav literary school, including naum of preslav (until 893), constantine of preslav, john exarch, chernorizets hrabar, etc. main linguistic features of recension following:

the glagolitic , cyrillic alphabets used concurrently.
in documents original supershort vowels ъ , ь merged 1 letter taking place of other.
the original ascending reflex (rь, lь) of syllabic /r/ , /l/ metathesized ьr, ьl; or combination of ordering used.
the central vowel ы y merged ъи ъi.
sometimes use of letter ⟨Ѕ⟩ (/dz/) merged of ⟨З⟩ (/z/).
the verb forms нарицаѭ, нарицаѥши (naricajǫ, naricaješi) substituted or alternated наричꙗѭ, наричꙗеши (naričjajǫ, naričjaješi).

macedonian recension

the manuscripts of macedonian recension or western variant among oldest of old church slavonic language. recension named macedonian because literary centre, ohrid, lies in historical region of macedonia. @ period, administratively ohrid formed part of province of kutmichevitsa in first bulgarian empire until byzantine conquest. main literary centre of dialect ohrid literary school, prominent member , founder, saint clement of ohrid commissioned boris of bulgaria teach , instruct future clergy of state in slavonic language. language variety used in area started shaping modern macedonian dialects. recension represented codex zographensis , marianus, among others. main linguistic features of recension include:

continuous usage of glagolitic alphabet instead of cyrillic
a feature called mixing (confusion) of nasals in /ɔ̃/ became [ɛ̃] after /rʲ lʲ nʲ/, , in cluster of labial consonant , /lʲ/. /ɛ̃/ became [ɔ̃] after sibilant consonants , /j/
wide use of soft consonant clusters /ʃt/ , /ʒd/; in later stages, these developed modern macedonian phonemes /c/ /ɟ/
strict distinction in articulation of yers , vocalisation in strong position (ъ > /o/ , ь > /e/) or deletion in weak position
confusion of /ɛ̃/ yat , yat /e/
denasalization in latter stages: /ɛ̃/ > /e/ , /ɔ̃/ > /a/, оу, ъ
wider usage , retention of phoneme /dz/ (which in other slavic languages has dеaffricated /z/);

later recensions

later use of language in number of medieval slavic polities resulted in adjustment of old church slavonic local vernacular, though number of southern slavic, moravian or bulgarian features survived. significant later recensions of old church slavonic (referred church slavonic) in present time include: slovene, croatian, serbian , russian. in cases, denasalization of yuses occurred; old church slavonic, modern polish , isolated bulgarian dialects retained old slavonic nasal vowels.

serbian recension

the serbian recension written in cyrillic, in glagolitic alphabet (depending on region); 12th century serbs used exclusively cyrillic alphabet (and latin script in coastal areas). 1186 miroslav gospels belong serbian recension. feature following linguistic characteristics:

nasal vowels denasalised , in 1 case closed: *ę > e, *ǫ > u, e.g. ocs rǫka > sr. ruka ( hand ), ocs językъ > sr. jezik ( tongue, language )
extensive use of diacritical signs resava dialect
use of letters i, y sound /i/ in other manuscripts of serbian recension

due ottoman conquest of bulgaria in 1396, serbia saw influx of educated scribes , clergy re-introduced more classical form, closer resembling bulgarian recension.

russian recension

the russian recension emerged after 10th century on basis of earlier bulgarian recension, differed slightly. main features are:

substitution of [u] nasal sound /õ/
merging of letters ę , ja

middle bulgarian

the line between ocs , post-ocs manuscripts arbitrary, , terminology varies. common term middle bulgarian contrasted old bulgarian (an alternative name old church slavonic), , loosely used manuscripts language demonstrates broad spectrum of regional , temporal dialect features after 11th century.

bosnian recension

the bosnian recension used bosnian cyrillic alphabet (better known bosančica) , glagolitic alphabet.

use of letters i, y, ě sound /i/ in bosnian manuscripts

croatian recension

the croatian recension of old church slavonic used glagolitic alphabet of angular croatian type. shows development of following characteristics:

denasalisation of psl. *ę > e, psl. *ǫ > u, e.g. cr. ruka : ocs rǫka ( hand ), cr. jezik : ocs językъ ( tongue, language )
psl. *y > i, e.g. cr. biti : ocs byti ( )
psl. weak-positioned yers *ъ , *ь in merged, representing schwa-like sound, , 1 of letters used (usually ъ ). evident in earliest documents baška tablet.
psl. strong-positioned yers *ъ , *ь vocalized in Štokavian , Čakavian speeches, e.g. cr. pas : ocs pьsъ ( dog )
psl. hard , soft syllabic liquids *r , r′ retained syllabicity , written r, opposed ocs sequences of rь , rъ, e.g. krstъ , trgъ opposed ocs krьstъ , trъgъ ( cross , market )
psl. #vьc , #vъc > #uc, e.g. cr. udova : ocs. vъdova ( widow )




^ toward understanding of europe. 
^ contested ethnic identity. 
^ poetics of slavdom: part iii: njego. 
^ lunt 2001, p. ??.
^ vlasto 1970, p. 174.
^ indo-european language , culture. 
^ ancient indo-european dialects. 
^ sussex & cubberley 2006, p. 43.
^ razmyshlenija o makedonskom sreze ... - i. kaliganov . kroraina.com. 
^ see: american contributions tenth international congress of slavists , sofia, september 1988, alexander m. schenker, slavica, 1988, isbn 0-89357-190-3, p. 47.
^ crampton 2005, p. 15.
^ versions of new testament. 
^ sussex & cubberley 2006, p. 64.
^ kamusella 2008, p. ??.
^ birnbaum 1991, p. 535.
^ curta 2006, p. ??.
^ orthodox church in byzantine empire. 
^ stolz, titunik & doležel 1984, p. 111: specific phonological , lexical differences led jagić (and many others after him, notably vaillant) distinguish between western (or macedonian) ocs of glagolithic manuscripts , eastern (or bulgarian) ocs of suprasliensis…
^ vlasto 1970, p. 169.
^ lunt 2001, p. ??.
^ macedonian, victor friedman, facts world s languages, 2001
^ lunt 2001, p. 4.
^ cubberley 2002, p. 44.
^ definite article in contemporary standard bulgarian, gerald l. mayer, freie universität berlin. osteuropa-institut, otto harrassowitz, 1988, p. 108.
^ marti 2012, p. 275: [t]he first printed book in cyrillic (or, more precise, in bosančica)…
^ cleminson, ralph (2000). cyrillic books printed before 1701 in british , irish collections: union catalogue. british library.