Кирилична частина Реймського Євангелія – важлива пам’ятка давньоруськоукраїнської книжної писемності

У статті проаналізовані орфографічні та мовні особливості кириличної частини Реймського Єван- гелія. На сьогодні досліджувана пам’ятка у славістиці дискусійна, остаточно не розв’язане питання ні про місце і час її створення, ні про писця. Думки дослідників з цього приводу надто різняться: одні вчені вважають, що книгу привезла до Франції донька українського князя Ярослава Мудрого Анна, вийшовши заміж за французького короля Генріха І; інші це заперечують, і пов’язують її ство- рення з ім’ям святого Прокопія з Чехії, який, згідно із вкладним записом, написаним наприкінці глаголичної частини, написав це Євангеліє. Існує також гіпотеза про сербське походження книги.Ми проаналізували різні гіпотези від початків наукового вивчення Реймського Євангелія (В. Ган- ка, О. Соболевський, Л. Леже та ін.), до подальших (Ю. Шевельов, П. Курінний, Л. Жуковська, I. Тот та ін.) та останніх (Є. Луняк, В. Александрович, Т. Миронова, Е. Біккініна та ін.) студій. Урахували й критично осмислили висновки дослідників, які в різні роки вивчали палеографічні, графічні та орфографічні та мовні характеристики рукопису. Уперше в славістиці звернено увагу на порівняння аналізованого Євангелія з орфографічно-лінгвістичними особливостями пам’яток київської писем- ної школи та виявленими в тексті властиво українськими діалектними особливостями.Зроблено висновок, що згадувані в Реймському Євангелії діалектні особливості мають відповід- ність у точно локалізованих та датованих київських пам’ятках другої частини ХІ століття. Не дає підстав вивести книгу за межі ХІ ст. й орфографія рукопису, а порівняння з орфографічними особ- ливостями точно датованих та локалізованих Остромирового Євангелія, Ізборників Святослава, Архангельського Євангелія навпаки дає багато підстав для узагальнення про раніший час створен- ня Реймського Євангелія від названих пам’яток, оскільки явно виділяється низкою оригінальних написань: одноєровість, закінчення рядків на голосний та приголосний, майже цілковита відсут- ність йотованих, характерне уживання діакритичних знаків. Пам’ятка творена в час, коли устале- ної давньоруської редакції церковнослов’янської мови ще не було. Писець, вочевидь, сам творив руський писемний узус і вводив перші орфографічні руські писемні особливості. Писцем рукопису був русин, найімовірніше, киянин.The present paper analyzes the orthographic and linguistic features of the Cyrillic part of the Reims Gospel. Today, this monument is controversial in Slavic studies: the problems of the place and time of its creation and the questions about its writer have not been finally resolved yet. The opinions of researchers on this subject are very different: some scholars believe that book was brought to France by the daughter of Ukrainian Prince Yaroslav the Wise, Anne, who married the King of France Henry I. Others deny this idea and associate its creation with the name of St. Procopius from Bohemia, who allegedly wrote this Gospel, according to the appendix placed at the end of the Glagolitic part. There is also a hypothesis about the Serbian origin of the book.We analyzed various hypotheses, starting from the early studies of the Reims Gospel (V. Hanka, O. Sobolevsky, L. Leger, etc.), to subsequent ones (Yu. Shevelyov, P. Kurinny, L. Zhukovskaya, I. Tóth, etc.) and recent studies (E. Lunyak, V. Alexandrovich, T. Mironova, E. Bikkinina, G. Prikhodko, M. Fougeron, etc.). The conclusions of researchers who studied the palaeographic, graphic, orthographic, and linguistic characteristics of the manuscript in different years were taken into account and critically comprehended. For the first time in Slavic studies, attention was paid to the comparison of the analyzed Gospel with the orthographic and linguistic features of the monuments of the Kyiv written school and the Ukrainian dialectal features.It is concluded that the dialectal features observed in the Reims Gospel correspond to accurately dated and localized Kyiv monuments of the second part of the 11th century. The orthography of the manuscript does not make it possible to take the book outside the 11th century. A comparison with orthographic features of Ostromir Gospel, Svyatoslav’s Collected Works, and Archangel’s Gospel gives many grounds for generalization about the earlier time of creation of the Reims Gospel. It is clearly distinguished from the above-mentioned monuments by a number of original writings: singularity, the ending of lines on vowels and consonants, almost complete absence of iotated, the characteristic use of diacritical marks, etc. The monument was created at a time when there was no established Old Ruthenian edition of the Church Slavonic language. Apparently, the writer created the Ruthenian written usus by himself and introduced the first Russian orthographic features. The writer of the manuscript was a Ruthenian, most likely a Kyivan.

On Colloquial Phenomena in the Language of the Monument of Church Slavonic Writing of the 15th Century (Based on the Material of the Torment of Paraskeva Friday)

The author’s earlier linguistic and textual analysis of collections containing readings on particularly revered memorable dates and the lives of the most revered saints revealed the manuscript Festal Menaion and Chrysostom from the collection of Tikhonravov No. 185 (from the collection of the Russian State Library) as containing unique information about the Church Slavonic language of the 15th century. This time, as traditionally considered, is a clear indicator of the second South Slavic influence, but evidence of this influence (according to the collection) was not in the Word on the Council of the archangel Michael and Gabriel, the author of which was Clement of Ohrid. There were obvious colloquial elements, but the colloquial (common) facts of the Russian language are especially clearly recorded in another monument of this collection – in the Torment of Paraskeva Friday. In this article, this text is analyzed in comparison with the texts presented in the Great Menaion Reader of the SVT. St. Demetrius of Rostov and in the collection of the 15th century from the Collection of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. The author defines the broad and narrow contexts of the study. The first is connected with the Church Slavonic problems (language, writing), the second with the 15th century, the time when the so-called ‘second South Slavic influence’ was fully manifested. Church Slavonic itself is not a scientific term, although it emerged from a scientific tradition. We can define what the Russian language is by referring to ethnic and geographical boundaries, cultural and spiritual traditions, historical certainty, and keeping in mind, which is very important for the language, its ‘functional side’. It is impossible to evaluate the Church Slavonic language from these positions. Russian is a language that has developed different principles of development, and in relation to the Russian language, the Church Slavonic language appears to be as much an independent unit (a separate scientific ‘subject’) as the dialect language, which was the subject of lively discussions in its time, or the Russian spoken language, which occupies a strong position in the niche of the Russian language to this day. The Church Slavonic language is ultimately the desired object of Slavistic research, and the way to determine its structure and functional status lies through the analysis of specific written sources. The conclusions about the ‘colloquial’ (‘simple’, perhaps common) Church Slavonic language of the Torment of Paraskeva Friday according to the list of Thn-185 are quite obvious, the language of the monument according to this list destroys the myth of the so-called ‘second South Slavic influence’. The analysis allows us to take a new look at what we call the Church Slavonic language, to understand that the Church Slavonic language is still an unidentified linguistic object, rather than a philological one, because this language cannot be separated from the text. The text is the environment in which it exists. Linguistics has adopted the tools of linguistic analysis, which since ancient times served philological purposes, it is already presented in the ΤνΝη γραμματική of Dionysius of Thrace, but it did not serve to describe and understand language as such, the main task of grammatics was considered to be the evaluation of the work, “what is the best of all that grammar does”. This helps in the qualification of what is written in the Church Slavonic language: it should not only contain the traditional forms and vocabulary of this language (also with the traditional permissibility of innovations), but also have a functional correlation, correspond to the sphere of existence of Church Slavonic texts.

"Predicativization and predicatives – a level of transformation and problems with their lexicographic reflection in paleoslavic lexicographic works"

The author studies the predicates from the lexicologist’s perspective – she comments on the mechanism of their word-formation, their semantics and paradigmatic interrelations in the lexical system of the Old Slavonic language. She also responds to the linguistic discussion regarding the so-called category of state. Last but not least, she deals with the question of lexicographic reflection of predicates in Palaeoslavonic vocabularies.

The Life of the Reverent Stephan Makhrishchsky: on the Question of the Short Version of the Work

В статье представлен результат текстологического исследования списков Краткой и Минейной редакций Жития прп. Стефана Махрищского. Уточняется датировка рукописи из собр. В. М. Ундольского № 235 (Отдел рукописей Российской государственной библиотеки), приводятся памяти русских святых и дни преставления князей, встречающиеся в святцах. Исследователь приходит к выводу, что составитель Краткой редакции произведения в качестве источника использует Минейную редакцию Жития. Значительно сокращается состав памятника. Новых сюжетов в текст не вводится. Незначительно редактируется лексика и синтаксические конструкции, что свидетельствует об устойчивой системе церковнославянского языка. The article represents the result of a textological study of the lists of the Brief and Mineyna versions of the Life of St. Stephan Makhrishchsky. The dating of the MS 235 by Undolsky (Russian State Library) is specified, the memory days of Russian saints and the dates of death of princes, which are found in the calendar, are provided. The researcher comes to the conclusion that the compiler of the Brief version of the Works uses the Minea version of the Life as a source. The composition of the life story is significantly reduced. New plots are not introduced into the text. The vocabulary and syntactic constructions are slightly edited, thus demonstrating the stable systemic Slavonic language.

Case Remnants in the Bulgarian Phrasemes

This article analyzes the case remnants in Bulgarian phrasemes. As a source we used Nov frazeologichen rechnik na balgarskiya ezik (1993) by Keti Ankova-Nicheva. Where possible, a comparison has been made with phrasemes in Russian, Serbian, Old Bulgarian and Church Slavonic, which are taken from phraseological dictionaries of the respective languages. The origin of some case forms has been studied. The methods of definitional, component and comparative analysis with Slavic synthetic languages are used. The analysis of the material shows that under the influence of the Church Slavonic language, most of the phraseologies that have retained case forms belong to the sphere of religion.

Short and long forms of the adjectives in translations of the New Testament into the Old Slavonic and the language of Slovene booklore of the XVI century

This article analyzes the instances of using short and long forms of the adjectives the Old Slavonic language, as well as the analytical method of expressing the category of certainty / uncertainty in the Slovene language of the XVI century based on the example of translations of the fragments from the New Testament. The comparison of short and long forms of the adjectives is one of the ways of conveying the category of certainty / uncertainty in the Slavonic language without articles. A similar comparison of short and long forms of the adjectives can be observed in both Old Slavonic and Old Slovene languages. However, in the Slovene language, such juxtaposition ceased to exists as a result of the early contraction in pronominal forms of the adjectives; the XVI century marks the formation of the analytical method of conveying the category certainty / uncertainty using the article “ta” and “en”. The following conclusions were made: the original language could affect the translation strategy and the choice of forms, while in the Slovene language it also pertained to articles; the examples of Slovene translations that preserved the correlation of short and long forms without the presence of the part or article in the originals, testify to the development of special ways of expressing the category of certainty / uncertainty, which replaced the juxtaposition of short and long forms of the adjectives; the analytical forms in the Slovene corresponded with short and long forms of the adjectives in the Old Slavonic language, which emphasizes the similar functional yield of analytical forms with the previous juxtaposition of short and long forms of the adjectives in the Slovene language.

The Features of Translation Maximus the Greek: The Colloquies in Matthewʼs Gospel

This paper examines one of the important translation technique’s features in the Maximus the Greek’s book circle. It is consistently described the various ways of transferring the Greek substantive infinitive to the Church Slavonic language there. In 1524, Maximus the Greek, in collaboration with his disciple Silvan, a monk of the Trinity-Sergius Abbey, translated Homilia of John Chrysostom into the Gospel of Matthew. The analysis of the linguistic material in the Homilia showed that when translating infinitive constructions, there is a tendency to unify, and the main method of transmission into the Church Slavonic language is calcification. The Greek orientation indicates the implementation of the strategy of the early grammatical reference of Maximus the Greek in the translation, and also it allows us to state the proximity of this work to the translations of the 14th century and to establish a connection with the Chudovsky and Athos versions of the New Testament.

Varying Means of Grammatical Parallelism in the Church Slavonic Translations of Psalms of the 11th–16th Centuries

As a metrically organized poetic text, the Psalter is built on the principle of substantive and formal parallelism of verses and stanzas in the Hebrew text as well as in Greek and Church Slavonic translations. In the article, based on the material of Slavic translations of different times (from the Sinai Psalter of the 11 th century to the Psalter of 1552 by Maximus the Greek), cases of assimilation / dissimilation of grammatical forms in parallel text structures are considered. The variability which arises in the process of dissimilation has neither genetic (South Slavonic vs East Slavonic, archaic vs new, standard vs non-standard forms), nor functional (literary vs non-literary forms), but rhetorical nature of stylistic variation, conditioned by the structure of the text. The analysis revealed that in early Slavonic psalter redactions the choice and the number of variable grammatical forms are limited; the texts of the 16 th century, namely the Psalms of 1552 translated by Maximus the Greek, are particularly characterized by stylistic grammatical variability, concerning the most different forms (from the substantive Gen. and Dat. cases to the aorist and perfect in the 3 rd person). The examined cases of the dissimilated grammatical forms in parallel contexts of the Psalter are supported by some original Maximus the Greek's works, so that these forms should be considered as stylistic variants of the literary Church Slavonic language.

Etymological dictionaries about the sources of church Slavonic vocabulary

The article analyses the Church Slavonic vocabulary, which in the Ukrainian language, according to etymological dictionaries, were gone in different ways: 1) directly from the Church Slavonic language or through the literary language of the period of Kievan Rus; 2) from the Church Slavonic language through other languages: Russian, Czech or Slovak; 3) from the Church Slavonic language by the method of tracing; 4) from other languages through Church Slavonic mediation: from Ancient Greek, from Middle Greek, from Modern Greek, from Latin, from Turkic, from Hebrew, from German. The relevance of the article is determined by the need of a comprehensive analysis of Church Slavonic, which is an organic component of the Ukrainian language. The urgency of this issue in modern Ukrainian linguistics is due not only to its insufficient coverage and a certain fragmentation of the results, but also to the fact that in addition to linguistic and historical and cultural aspects, it has a certain rehabilitation orientation. The following scientific methods were used in the study: descriptive, comparative, statistical. The scientific novelty of the work is that for the first time the linguistic and extralinguistic factors of the appearance of Church Slavonic borrowings in the modern Ukrainian language, the main ways of entry of Church Slavonic into the Ukrainian language are systematically described. The results of the work show that discussions on the emergence of Church Slavonic in the Ukrainian language continue among industry experts and linguists.