You are on page 1of 12

*

. -

811.163.1
091=163.1
. ,
10. 11. .
,
. , ,
12. .
: , , , ,
.

1.
(, ),
12. .
, .
, 9. , .
,
10. 11. .
.1 . , ,
1100. ,
,2 . . .3
. , 9. ,
, , () ,
. 10. ,
,
.
, ,
.
, - . , ,
* M. -, , , , e-mail:
jgrkovicns@sbb.rs
,
, 178001.
1

. , , 1975, 7.

. -, , 1957 [1931], 36.

. . , , 2004, 55.

43

. -

, ,
, , 9. .
,
, .
,
. , - .

, ,
. . 11. ,
.4 .
j , j.5
. .
1011. ,6 , . , , . . .
, 10. 11. ,
, ,
.7
. .8 (prastaroslovntina)
(soluska staroslovntina), ,
, . (velkomoravsk staroslovntina),
: , .,
, . *tj, dj (> c, z). ,
() .
, . , - ( 1011. ), .
(11. ), (
), , .
2. .

. VIII 873.
, .
,
. ,9
, ,
. ,
4

. , , 1971, 62.

H. G. Lunt, On Dating Old Church Slavonic Gospel Manuscripts, South Slavic and Balkan Linguistics, ed. A. A.
Barentsen, R. Sprenger, M. G. M. Tielemans, Amsterdam 1982, 215.
6

. . , , 1986, 7.

, . , 9.

R. Veerka, Staroslovntina v kontextu slovanskch jazyk, OlomoucPraha 2006, 97112.

. , 1219. , .
, 1979, 28.

44

. ,
, , . , . ,
893, - ,
.10 , ,
, .
, , , ,
, , .11 . ,
. 1018.
,
11. , . 11. 12.
- , . .12
, ,
1020. .13
10. 11. .
, , . , .14 .
: X XII
.15 ,
. ,
, .16
3. : ?
, , , ,
, ? ,
?
. . ,
,17 :
XI
10

- , II: , 1995, 324326.

11

. , , , I, 1981, 216. ,
,
, . , e, 2001, 9596.

12

. , , , III, . . , . , 1966, 259.


13

. , XI , , 1, 1981, 176
178.
14

, . , 48.

15

, . , 218.

16

. . , , , . . ,
. , . , 2001, 35, 38.
17

, , 72.

45

. -

XII .18
, ,
12. , ,19
, .

11. 12. ,20 . ,
, .21

10. 11. . differentia specifica
,22 o ,

. ,
,
. .
(),
, , . . .
11.
, ,23 .
,24 .
,25 . ,26 .
.27 ,
.
.
.28 ,
, ( > , > ), :
, ,
.29 , ,
18

, 62.

19

, . , 2441.

20

, 102110.

21

. , , 1975, 30.

22

. , ,
XX, 2 (1977) 121; . , , Jugoslovenski
seminar za strane slaviste 3334 (1984) 5566.
23

Jagi, nav. delo, 410.

24

-, . , 205. .

25

, , 34.

26

, . , 19.

27

A. , ,
XLVI, 2 (2003) 19.
28

Codex Marianus glagoliticus, ed. V. Jagi, Graz 1960 (), 423476.

29

Jagi, nav. delo, 430. , , , ,

46

5. (911. ) ,

6. , , (1213. ), ,

,30 , .
.
, . , : An jeder Stelle,
wo q ursprnglich ist, kann x stehen und steht berwiegend, soda die q nur als erhaltene
Altertmlichkeit aus ltere Vorlage abgesehen werden knnen. 31
,
, . , > , , , , , , , . .
i ,32
, ,
.33 : zqlq
8:2 ( zxlx 7:21), lq/q 8:44 ( lx/q 18:20), l\kavxnx 11:29 (l\kavqnx),
mladxnecq 1: 41 ( mladqnecx 1: 44, mladenecx 2: 12), mxzda 6: 23 (. mqzda),34
nepravxdxnX 16:10 ( nepravedxnX 18:6), osxlx 14:15 (osqlx), otxcx 12:53 ( otecx 18:35), ocxtx 27:34 ( ocetx 23:36), silxnx 14: 31 ( silenx
24:19), tqkmo 17:20 ( txkxmo 6:4, tokmo 4:27), [xdx 25:18 ( [edx
13:46) , .
: ,35
[xdx[a [qdx[a .
.36
[xdx [edx
: o
,
.

, ,
, . . . .
, , .
. , , 1925, 2527.
30

. , X XI () , . , ,
1986, 47.
31
A. Leskien, Handbuch der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen) Sprache. Grammatik Texte Glossar, Heidelberg
1969, 29.
32

-, . , 135166. , , ,
,
. . , : It cannot be
determined to what extent this is purely graphic or how clearly it reveals a phonetic change which took place preceding
the loss of the vowel, H. Lunt, Old Church Slavonic Grammar, 'S-Gravenhage 1965, 31.
33

, .
, . , . , ,
, 2000, 53.
34
, , , . , , , , 1: , . ,
, X/1, . , 1998, 467.
35

-, . , 146.

36

, 141.

47

. -

,
, , , , , , , , ,
> . , 12. ,
A > ,37 :38
,39

(. ),
, , rx lx,
,40
, , , , , ,
,41
, : cr=x 19:12 (cysarq, ), csr=x 4:46 (cysarq, ),
morxskaago 21:25, vqsx 18:32, 4:1 () .
> , z Z: kqnAzx 9:18,
pynAzx 22:19, zvyzdX 24:29 .

MJ , 10561057. ,
.42
1843. . . : , ,
, , (
).43 .

, , .
. , , ,
.
,
. , , ,
.44

37
e, , ,
.
, .
38
, , ,
.
39

Jagi, nav. delo, 423424.

40

-, . , 193, 196.

41

, 132.

42

non sequitur
. , . . . 1100. , ,
.
43

10561057, . . , 2007 (), II.

44

, , . , , y e , \ ou .

48

4.
. : , .
XI XII .45 ,
,
.
. ,
. ,
, 12. ,46
, , , , .: gl=xi houlxnxi~ na mosyy.47

. : Sve to pokazuje, da u maedonskim, srpskim i hrvatskim starinama, prije
no to e se ustanoviti gospodstvo znaka , dugo vremena ve prevlagjivae .48
.
, .
.49 12. (
) 12 : Wqmeta\{i se, ka\{i se (2), tobo\, tvo\, mog\{ou, sq mqno\, e\,
trybou\{imq (4). , 8 , .
ou : idou, vqnidou, nasla/dou se, molou, poml=ou se (1.
. . .), rabou ( .), pla;ou{i se, gl=ou{i.
, :
60% , 40%
ou.
: , 1. . .
ou, , ,
. .
, 10. 11. , .50
12. , ,
.

45

. , XII , , I, 1981, 111.

46

, . , 2728.

47

V. Jagi, Grkoviev odlomak glagolskog apostola (s 8 tablica), Starine JAZU XXVI (1893) 48.

48

, 97.

49

. , , , 15491994,
1997, 3954.
50
,
.
, H. Kuna, Srednjovjekovna bosanska knjievnost, ur. J. Raos, J. Juri-Kappel, gl. ur., E. Haimbegovi, Sarajevo
2008, 295. , ,
, .
, ( ).
, 12.
.

49

. -

5. 12. o . , . .51
, .
, . . A \
: , XII. ,
B, @ (A) e (E), \ ou (u), }, ou.52
.
12. , , ,
. - ,
. , .53 ,
.54 , .

, , , , .
( ,
, ),
: , , ,
, , , .
, , , .
, .

, .
( ),
, ,
12. 13. .
, .
, , MJ,
10. 11. , , 11.
.
, , . , 12. ,
.

51

, . , 2021.

52

, 22.

53

. , . , 1 (1936) 226.
54
. -, XIII ( 8),
XL, 2 (1997) 6981.

50

THE FORMATION OF SERBIAN CHURCH SLAVONIC


Jas mi na M . Grkov i -Maj or
The notion of Old Church Slavonic covers several linguistic layers, with the main difference being between
the Cyrillo-Methodian (reconstructed) language and the language of the existing manuscripts, since the latter
shows considerable phonological differences from classical Old Church Slavonic (with the exclusion of the
Kiev Folia which are relatively close to it). This indicates that the Church Slavonic recensions were already
developing after the Moravian mission, at the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th centuries, by
adapting the inherited phonological system to the systems of Slavonic languages. In this process, Serbian
Church Slavonic was formed as well and we find the proof for that in the Codex Marianus (which is generally
accepted to be an Old Church Slavonic manuscript). As Vatroslav Jagi has already proven, it was written
on the tokavian terrain. The Codex Marianus shows the linguistic traits characteristic of Serbian Church
Slavonic, namely the mergings of jer; > u; , > , , > ; , , , t, d, c > , , , t, d, c; r, s > r, s; dz > z.
The only characteristic that is not witnessed is the change > e, which is probably due to the relative simplicity
of the Glagolitic letter representing , as opposed to the one representing the back nasal vowel. Since the
phonological level is the differentia specifica of the Church Slavonic recensions, it can be assumed that Church
Slavonic was formed already at the time of the Codex Marianus, i.e. that the liturgical texts were read in the
Serbian way already at the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th centuries, while the orthography
remained traditional. In the following period the inventory of Serbian Cyrillic as well as the orthography of
Serbian Church Slavonic texts were being modified, to be finally defined by the end of the 12th century. This
was concomitant with the rise of the Serbian medieval state and the revival of the monastic scriptoria.

51