К ВОПРОСУ ОБ ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ СОЧЕТАНИЯ ГЛАГОЛА БЫТИ В ПРОШЕДШЕМ ВРЕМЕНИ И -Л- ПРИЧАСТИЯ В ИПАТЬЕВСКОЙ И 1-ОЙ НОВГОРОДСКОЙ ЛЕТОПИСЯХ
The book is dedicated to the language of early Church Slavonic manuscripts of South and East Slavic provenance and dated back to the 11th - 14th centuries.
An outline of perfect and pluperfect in the dialect of Gammalsvenskby.
The book contains a collection of articles dedicated to problems of the history of Russian and Church Slavonic language.
The article is dedicated to the loanword tagash as attested in Russian historical lexicography and etymology, and its paronimical attraction with the Turkic word tugash. The open access to the text cannot be provided due to copyright restrictions.
The article is dedicated to the linguistic and textual pecularities of the Festal Menaion F p I 37 preserved in Russian National Library (S.-Petersburg) and dated to the beginning of the 13th c. Numerous linguistic features of the manuscript testify to Old West Bulgarian (Old Macedionan) literary usage of the end of the 9th — beginning of the 10th c., on the basis of which the earliest Slavonic hymnographical translations were performed. Despite of such an archaic linguistic and textual layers observed in the manuscript, its calendar, structure and content were influenced by the monastic rite based on Typicon of Patriarch Alexius the Studite which had been translated and introduced in Kievan Rus’ at the second half of the 11th c. The linguistic features of the text version as attested by F p I 37 have been compared to the manuscripts testifying to the Alexius the Studite text version par excellence. It has been affirmed that adaptation of the Old Bulgarian hymnographic heritage in Kievan Rus’ followed the unstable trend to neglect the most remarkable South (and South West) Slavonic lingustic features and aimed at establishing “neutral” over dialectal early Church Slavonic literary usage.
The significant part of the article contains the edition of the earliest Slavonic, i. e. Old Bulgarian, translation of the Greek kanon Τάφῳ παρθενοδόχῳ dedicated to the Dormition of the Theotokos. The earliest Slavonic translation has been preserved in the unique available manuscript, that is F p I 37. The publication of the Slavonic translation is supplied with the first critical edition of the Greek source performed on the basis of twelve manuscripts, the linguistic commentary of the Slavonic text, and remarks concerning some metric pecularities of the original Greek version.
The paper focuses on the two most important perfective forms expressing past time reference in the Nizh dialect of Udi, a language of the Lezgic group of East Caucasian family. The form with the suffix -i is the most frequent in narrative texts, and can be properly characterized as the Aorist (perfective past). The form with the suffix -e is less frequent, but has a wide range of uses, including the expression of current relevance of past situations and the experiential meaning, as well as the resultative meaning (present state); on the whole, this form fits the crosslinguistic category of the perfect. There is also the Pluperfect, which is derived from the Perfect by means of the “retrospective switch” enclitic, and is semantically a “perfect in the past”. Apart from the functional differences between the Aorist and the Perfect, there is a number of morphosyntactic ones. In particular, the default position of person markers on the verb is enclitic in case of the Perfect, but endoclitic (intraclitic) in case of the Aorist. Also, there is a special negation strategy available only for the Perfect, which includes the perfective participle and the postpositional negative complex. According to the hypothesis put forward in the paper, this negation structure may at least partly disclose the origin of the Perfect form, which seems to be based on the participle. The diachronic scenarios of the Aorist and the Perfect origin and evolution are discussed in the paper, as well as the perspectives for future research of the system of past tenses in Udi.
The article is dedicated to the text critical investigation of the Troparion for the Translation of the Holy Mandylion from Edessa to Constantinople