Definiteness in Bulgarian: Modelling the Processes of Language Change 9783110198898, 9783110195576

Citation preview

Definiteness in Bulgarian

≥

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 182

Editors

Walter Bisang Hans Henrich Hock Werner Winter (main editor for this volume)

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Definiteness in Bulgarian Modelling the Processes of Language Change

by

Olga M. Mladenova

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin. This book was published with the financial assistance of the Faculty of Humanities at the author’s home institution, University of Calgary (Canada).

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines 앪 of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mladenova, Olga M. Definiteness in Bulgarian : modelling the processes of language change / by Olga M. Mladenova. p. cm. ⫺ (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 182) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-019557-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Bulgarian language ⫺ Definiteness. 2. Bulgarian language ⫺ History. 3. Bulgarian language ⫺ Dialects. I. Title. PG929.D42M57 2007 491.811⫺dc22 2007035013

ISBN 978-3-11-019557-6 ISSN 1861-4302 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ” Copyright 2007 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Contents

v

Contents

List of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Definiteness: expression and content . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1. Head nouns vs. head pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2. Anomalous nominal structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1. The pragmatic level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2. The semantic-referential level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3. The lexical-morphological level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4. The syntactic level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. At the interface of expression and content . . . . . . . . . 3. The diachronic model of definiteness . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Process 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1. Anaphoric article vs. anaphoric demonstrative . . . . . . . 3.1.2. Explicit expression of anaphoric definiteness . . . . . . . 3.2. Process 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Process 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1. Nominals of Type 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2. Nominals of Type 3 and equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3. Nominals of Type 4 and equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4. Nominals of Type 5 and equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.5. Nominals of Type 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.6. Nominals of Type 9 and equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.7. Attributive definiteness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Overview of identifiability-based definiteness . . . . . . . 3.5. From identifiability to inclusiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1. Emphatic sam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. Process 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1. Explicit expression of inclusive definiteness . . . . . . . . 3.6.2. Proportional vs. non-proportional quantifiers . . . . . . . 3.7. Process 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8. Overview of generics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8.1. Word formation at the intersection of generics and specifics

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii ix xii 1 9 9 33 42 48 49 55 65 65 80 93 94 99 106 109 111 111 117 118 119 123 125 129 131 137 139 147 151 157 166 169 173

vi

Contents

3.9. 3.10. 3.11. 3.12. 3.13. 3.14. 3.14.1. 3.14.2. 3.15. 3.15.1. 3.15.2. 3.16. 4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.2.3. 4.2.4. 4.3. 4.4. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 6. 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 7. 8. 8.1. 8.2. 8.3.

Process 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beyond the definite article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Process 7: non-identifiability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Process 8: non-inclusiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typifying genericity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . About pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clitic reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Type 0 nominals with a dative reflexive clitic . . . . . . . . . Beyond nominal structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From content to expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From expression to content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the diachronic model of definiteness . . . . . . . Language variation and textology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Langue: case (1) vs. case (2a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parole: cases (2b) and (2c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beyond the definite article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beyond nominal structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beyond the Modern Bulgarian damaskins . . . . . . . . . . . Insights gained from the textological perspective . . . . . . . Definiteness in the dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of dialect variation . . Article, case and animacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Article, gender and number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The three-way article system: article and person . . . . . . . . Adjectives vs. nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Insights gained from the dialectological perspective . . . . . . Bulgarian definiteness in a Balkan context . . . . . . . . . . . A linguo-geographic view on the Balkan connections . . . . . Definiteness and possessivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-Ottoman Turkic impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moesian vs. Rupa contributions to the evolution of definiteness Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marking of the definite article on masculine adjectives . . . . Marking of the definite article on numerals . . . . . . . . . . Competition of 2M1 and 2U1 nominals: mu˘zˇu˘´ mi / mu˘´zˇu˘ mi vs. mu˘´zˇ mi / mu˘zˇ mí . . . . . . . . . . . . .

184 194 196 209 219 223 223 231 234 234 241 243 247 247 248 255 265 276 279 283 292 297 297 302 310 317 326 339 344 344 348 357 362 368 370 370 380 387

Contents

8.4. 8.5. 8.6. 8.7. 8.8. 8.9. 8.10. 8.11. 9. 10. 11.

Competition of 2M1 and 2U1 nominals: zˇenáta mi vs. zˇená mi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Competition of 2M1 and 2U1 nominals: sinu˘´ mi/sína mi/sina mí vs. sín mi/sin mí . . . . . . . . Competition of 2U1 and 2M1 nominals with a kinship term in the head position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definite feminine singular nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . Definite plurals in -te vs. -ti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definite plurals in -to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definite feminine singular nouns in a consonant . . . . Three-way vs. single-article systems . . . . . . . . . . Note on language data treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

. . . . 392 . . . . 397 . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

402 409 415 420 425 433 437 438 463

viii

Contents

List of abbreviations

ACC ADJ ADV AG CL DAT DET DG DIM FEM GEN IMPER IMPF INF INSTR INTERROG LF LOC M MASC MidB ModB NEUT OB PERS PF PIE PL PREP PS REFL REL SG U VOC

Accusative Adjective Adverb Adjectival-genitive language Clitic Dative Determiner Determiner-genitive language Diminutive Feminine Genitive Imperative Imperfective aspect Infinitive Instrumental Interrogative particle Long-form adjective Locative Marked nominal Masculine Middle Bulgarian Modern Bulgarian Neuter Old Bulgarian Personal numeral Perfective aspect Proto-Indo–European Plural Preposition Proto-Slavic Reflexive Relative Singular Unmarked nominal Vocative

List of tables

ix

List of tables

Table 1 Ratio of the available articles to the necessary ones according to current norms. Comparative view of togazi and togiva homilies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 2 Overview of the expression and content of the grammatical category ‘definiteness’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3 Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 0 or nominals with pronominal heads . . . . . . . . . Table 4 Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 1 or basic nominals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5 Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 2 or nouns with short-form possessives . . . . . . . . Table 6 Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 3 or nouns in apposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 7 Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 4 or nouns with preceding adjectives . . . . . . . . . Table 8 Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 5 or nouns with ensuing adjectives . . . . . . . . . . Table 9 Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 6 or nouns with quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 10 Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 7 or substantivized adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 11 Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 8 or nouns with prepositional phrases . . . . . . . . . Table 12 Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 9 or nouns with relative clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 13 Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 10 or nouns with adverbials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 14 Complementarity of personal and demonstrative pronouns in the third-person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 15 Description and text register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 16 Classification of nominals according to syntactic position . Table 17 Syntactic distribution of Ø, the short and the full forms of the article among definite masculine nouns . . . . . . . Table 18 Masculine singulars in -a liable to double interpretation . . Table 19 Comparison between nominals with appositive and restrictive readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

7

.

9

. 10 . 17 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 25 . 26 . 27 . 28 . 31 . 32 . 39 . 58 . 65 . 73 . 76 . 85

x

List of tables

Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Table 38 Table 39 Table 40 Table 41 Table 42 Table 43 Table 44 Table 45 Table 46

Reading and description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Representation of anaphoric definites in the damaskin . . . . Numeric presence of the 4M1 nominals . . . . . . . . . . . Numeric presence of the 5M1 nominals . . . . . . . . . . . Numeric presence of the 8M nominals with a restrictive reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Numeric presence of the 9M nominals . . . . . . . . . . . . Dynamics of the attributive definite article in the damaskin . Definiteness, gender and number in the damaskin . . . . . . Definiteness and animacy in the damaskin . . . . . . . . . . Definiteness and syntactic function in the damaskin . . . . . Representation of the 1M8 and 1M4 variants of vsicˇki in the damaskin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proportional quantifiers in the damaskin . . . . . . . . . . . Specific vs. generic heads of nominals of type 8 . . . . . . . Nominals meaning ‘to the east of’ in the damaskin and Standard Bulgarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expression of abstract notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the reflexive and non-reflexive pronominal possessives in the damaskin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reduplication in nominals of types 0M1-8, 0M5-7 and 9M with universal relative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strong pronouns functioning as direct and indirect objects . . Representation of the strong reflexive pronoun in the damaskin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the derivation of relative pronouns and conjunctions in the damaskin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the analysed damaskin homilies from the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries . . . . . . . St. Petka: Numerical data on the use of definite articles . . . Elevation of the Cross: Numerical data on the use of definite articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jesus Christ’s Burial: Numerical data on the use of definite articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presentation of the Virgin: Numerical data on the use of definite articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definite articles of cases (1) and (2a) introduced after the seventeenth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definite article for masculine singulars in the Svisˇtov damaskin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

86 97 119 120 124 128 130 132 132 132 156 157 175 179 206 226 227 230 232 242 249 258 259 260 261 264 273

List of tables

Table 47 Representation of the Middle Bulgarian precursors of 1M1 nominals and equivalent in the Modern Bulgarian translation Table 48 Semantics of the Rhodope three-way article system . . . . . Table 49 Definite articles in three versions of St. Mary of Egypt: the Kiev damaskin, Standard Macedonian and the Svisˇtov damaskin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 50 The three-way article system reinterpreted . . . . . . . . . . Table 51 Marking definiteness on nominals with masculine heads in the Tixonravov damaskin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 52 Representation of the nominals of types 4 and 5 in slots that would have been filled with marked nominals in Standard Bulgarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 53 Nominals expressing possessivity in Standard Bulgarian . . . Table 54 Evolution of possessivity and definiteness over time . . . . .

xi

285 318

323 325 336

337 350 357

xii

List of tables

List of figures

Figure 1 Appositive vs. restrictive reading of a nominal’s dependent element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2 Acquisition of the definite article by number, gender and animacy: relative chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3 At the specific-generic interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4 Overview of the semantic-referential level of the default inheritance model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 5 Diachrony of the Bulgarian definite article . . . . . . . . Figure 6 Definiteness from a linguo-geographic perspective: the relevant core areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 7 Rise of the Bulgarian definite article . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

81

. . 134 . . 148 . . 195 . . 246 . . 342 . . 364

Introduction

1.

1

Introduction

Given the serious difficulties native speakers of languages without overt markers of definiteness (like articles) are reputed to face when learning languages that possess such markers (cf. e. g. Shortall 1996), consider the following situation. There is a group of speakers of a language A with no articles and a subgroup of it, which is bilingual in languages A and B, the latter having articles. Can speakers of A be moved to introduce into their language functional counterparts to B’s articles? If so, how would it happen? What would the consecutive steps be? What factors would play a role? These are hypothetical “goal-oriented” questions. Looking at the same generic situation from a causal angle, imagine that language A (some of whose speakers have over time been bilingual in languages A and B) does switch sides: from being a language without overt markers of definiteness it becomes one with such markers. What was the mechanism of change? Did bilingualism with language B have a role to play? If so, what was it precisely? Is bilingualism a necessary or a contingent factor in such evolutions? Does it matter whether language B is in a substratum, adstratum or superstratum position to language A? Although overt definiteness is not an unrestricted universal in Joseph H. Greenberg’s sense, since unrelated languages are known to have acquired it, there must be some overall, cross-linguistically valid principles that govern the mechanism through which acquisition takes place. Typological linguistics can only determine what these principles are on the basis of comparison among a critical number of real language-specific scenarios. This book, written between 2001 and 2007, contributes to such a typological project by exploring the Bulgarian scenario. Besides being of indisputable interest to language typology, its conclusions also shed light on one of the key issues of Balkan linguistics with its focus on the convergent development of the languages spoken in the eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula. The acquisition of overt definiteness by Bulgarian, one of the members of the Balkan Sprachbund, is a central question of its historical grammar. Moreover, it – no less than the Cyrillic alphabet – goes to the heart of Bulgarian national identity, since Bulgarians tend to be proud of their linguistic system, which stands out against a Slavic background. Whereas one does not hear speakers of other Slavic languages brag about their full-fledged case systems, Bulgarians often present themselves to the outside world as speakers of a language that lacks case but has article.

2

Introduction

It is hard to say when the symbolic value of overt definiteness first came to the fore but by the 1830s it was already around. Neofit Rilski, author of the first Modern Bulgarian grammar, admonishes an unnamed opponent that, if the opponent considers the Bulgarian article “ugly” because neither the ancient Slavic literary language nor the other Slavic languages have one, he must have been breastfed by the wrong mother, because Bulgarians take in with their mothers’ milk the sweetness of the article, which is a special gift that adorns their language (Neofit Rilski 1835: 52–54). The message is clear – “if you are one of us, you love our article” – and it was not to change much over the next one hundred seventy years. It provides an extra justification for this study of the rise and evolution of overt definiteness in Bulgarian, the “most Bulgarian” of all features of the Bulgarian language. Starting with the treatment of the Ancient Greek definite article by Apollonius Dyscolus in Pλ  « (book I, sections 37–155) in the second century C.E., definiteness, viewed here as an overarching category subsuming definiteness strictu sensu and indefiniteness, has generated a huge linguistic and philosophic literature, which includes both language-specific descriptions and theoretical generalizations. The most recent survey of it is provided in Lyons 1999, for earlier influential syntheses see Christophersen 1939: 50–81 and Krámsky´ 1972. If even these studies of broad scope are admittedly incomplete in their coverage of the literature, one should not expect more from this book, which can be a reliable guide only in the realm of the most important Bulgarian-related bibliography, always referred to in the appropriate places. But it is still essential to determine the place of the approach adopted here in the context of the linguistic thought on definiteness, if this book is to be as relevant to typologists and scholars with a general interest in definiteness as a linguistic phenomenon in synchrony and diachrony, as it is to those whose focus is on the specific manifestations of definiteness in the Slavic and the Balkan languages. As the goal of this study is to provide a unified account of the evolution of definiteness in Modern Bulgarian as expressed by nominals of varied structure that have common nouns, proper names or pronouns in the head position, it could only lean on a theoretical framework that embraces all and any occurrences of definiteness in text. A prerequisite to the successful analysis of the earliest preserved Modern Bulgarian texts from a diachronic perspective was the assignment of all encountered nominals to a certain category of definiteness. Thus the empirically-conditioned necessity to be inclusive in my treatment automatically led to an attempt to reconcile theoretical views, which have originated in different traditions and saw themselves as mutually

Introduction

3

exclusive. This was so because, as shown convincingly by Lyons, none of the existing theories can make sense of all instances of definiteness in language (1999: 1–15, 253–281). The most important gulf is between the theories assuming that identifiability or, alternatively, inclusiveness is the main meaning of definiteness. The identifiability-based theories claim that a nominal can have a marker that alerts hearers that they should be able to identify its referent on a variety of grounds. Some of the possibilities include: the referent was mentioned before or it can be deduced from the immediate situation in which the utterance was made or from general knowledge of the world. Being based on minimal requirements, such identification does not imply that hearers must be able to recognize the referent in any real sense but rather tells them to take it for granted for the purposes of communication. Identifiability interpretations work best with specific references. Among the important contributions to this tradition, which goes back as far as Apollonius Dyscolus, are Christophersen 1939, Jespersen 1949: 403–543, Heim 1988 and relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson 1995: 202–217). The inclusiveness-based theories, on the other hand, interpret definiteness marking as an indicator that the reference is of an entire set that satisfies the description. What counts as an entire set depends on the type of noun and the particular context: for personal names it is a unique referent whereas for mass and count nouns it can refer to the set uniquely relevant in the given situation (which may involve sets of one or more entities as required by context) or to the kind in general. Even though much linguistic material is equally well explained in terms of both identifiability and inclusiveness, there are uses that allow only one of these treatments. Inclusiveness accounts especially successfully for generic and alternative-world contexts. The tradition originated in the domain of philosophy with Russell 1905 and has as its most important representative Hawkins 1978. There have been attempts to bridge these traditions and I mention some whose focus is on Bulgarian in section 2.2 when I introduce my own proposal. The promising avenue, opened by C. Lyons (1999: 274–340), however, deserves special attention. Even though he is not aware of it, he has I. I. Revzin as a forerunner in his view that definiteness is a grammatical category on par with gender and number rather than a semantic or a pragmatic notion (Revzina 1979; Lyons 1999: 274–275). Lyons argues as follows: grammatical categories are created when freestanding lexical items acquire a grammatical status while losing their semantic and phonological independence. Definiteness as a semantic or a pragmatic notion based on identifiability appears to be a linguistic universal (Nikolaeva 1979: 4–5; Lyons 1999: 278–281). When

4

Introduction

and if definiteness is grammaticalized in a language, it may develop further meanings such as inclusiveness, genericity, specificity etc. It can eventually become so broad as to be semantically meaningless. When this happens, definiteness either lapses into oblivion as a grammatical category or is reinstated by other means in a new life cycle. Prefiguring the results reached in this book, I would like to note that they confirm empirically Lyons’ conclusions about the life cycle of definiteness as a grammatical category and about its functions. My research demonstrates not only the mechanisms by which the Bulgarian definite article, having originated from a demonstrative pronoun, expands from an identifiability marker to an inclusiveness marker and from there to a genericity marker, but also links beyond any doubt this evolution to the earlier inflectional marking of definiteness on adjectives, preserved to various degrees as a relic in the contemporary Slavic languages. This new perspective on definiteness in Slavic turns around the old question about the reasons that provoked the appearance in the welldefined Balkan Slavic area of such a “non-Slavic” feature as the definite article. In tune with Lyons’ large-scale picture and my detailed analysis, scholars should ask themselves now not what external influences prompted the appearance of a definite article in this particular area but rather why the Slavic languages divided in choosing two alternative scenarios: eliminating the grammatical category of definiteness in the majority of the Slavic languages while preserving and re-building it in the Balkan area. Atempts to come to grips with this problem will have to take into account the testimony of the Slavic dialects outside the Balkans that display parallel tendencies (see Cyxun 1981: 92–93 with further references) as well as find a way to gauge the impact of the nonSlavic Balkan languages on the internal Slavic development in the Balkans. Definiteness is a semantic and pragmatic concept in all the Slavic languages (Nikolaeva 1979) but in Bulgarian and Macedonian, which form one dialect continuum, definiteness today is more than that. It is a full-fledged grammatical caterogy with an enclitic definite article, an innovation datable around the twelfth century (Svane 1961–1962) or earlier (Gu˘lu˘bov 1962), and a much more recent free-standing indefinite article that is still embryonic. These innovations are part of the list of linguistic “balkanisms” that draw Bulgarian1 1. This, of course, is also true of Standard Macedonian, which will however for the most part remain outside the scope of my analysis. The South Slavic territory participating in the innovations of the Balkan Sprachbund is shown on a map in Cyxun 1981: 7. For a description of this territory and discussion of the range of terms that have been used in the linguistic literature to refer to it see Alexander 1983 and Mladenov 1986.

Introduction

5

together with the non-Slavic languages spoken in the Balkan Peninsula: Greek, Romanian and Albanian (Gu˘lu˘bov 1962; Reiter 1967; Stölting 1970; Cyxun 1981: 92–124; Assenova 2002: 123–140; Friedman 2003). Since the influential conservative literary tradition, being the one best represented in writing, prevented vernacular linguistic phenomena from penetrating the written texts, the changes that the language underwent in the middle period of its history (from the twelfth to the fourteenth century)2 can fully be appreciated only in the next, modern period of its history, which started in the fifteenth century. The Bulgarian situation strongly resembles in this regard that of the Romance languages (Selig 1992: 1–24). The diachronic study of definiteness in Bulgarian has to focus by necessity on the first texts written in Modern Bulgarian, which did not appear until the early seventeenth century. These are the so-called damaskins, for the most part translated literary texts of a religious and didactic nature, which received their name from the sixteenth-century Greek clerical author Damaskenós Stoudítes (?–1577), who published a collection of thirty-six such texts entitled B   « ‘A Book Called Treasure’ in 1557–1558 in Venice (Petkanova-Toteva 1965: 6–41). Damaskin collections however could include work by other authors, sometimes also attributed to Damaskenós Stoudítes. Those that have been preserved consist of miscellaneous texts occasioned by festivals of the Orthodox Church and ordered according to the church calendar. These texts were intended to be read in church as sermons to the parish (Demina 1985: 27).3 As time passed by, the content of the damaskin collections and their function in society changed significantly: the more varied they became, the broader their use in audiences outside clerical circles (Petkanova-Toteva 1965: 105–214). Their continued popularity late into the nineteenth century was reflected by the patriarch of

2. Kiril Mircˇev (1978: 203–204) quotes definite articles from two Middle Bulgarian manuscripts that stand apart from the literary tradition in their relatively wide use of the vernacular: Narodno zˇitie na Sv. Ivan Rilski ‘Popular life of St. Ivan of Rila’ (written in the twelfth century but preserved in a fifteenth-century copy, published in Ivanov 1936) and Mixail Voin ‘Michael the Warrior’ (fourteenth century, published in Ivanov 1931: 422–424). 3. This is why I will use the term homily to designate any one of these texts. Damaskenós Stoudítes employed the term «, which the Bulgarian damaskins translate as slovo, today still in use in the meaning ‘speech, oration, public discourse’. This is one of the terms that demonstrate the continuity between the early modern damaskin language and Standard Bulgarian.

6

Introduction

Bulgarian literature Ivan Vazov in chapter eight of his novel Cˇicˇovci ‘Uncles’ [1884].4 From a linguistic point of view, Bulgarian damaskins form two groups: damaskins written in the older literary language (Middle Bulgarian)5 and those written in Modern Bulgarian. The relations of the two groups to one another are by no means simple.6 The most thoroughly studied damaskin collection is the so-called Tixonravov damaskin (Demina 1968; 1971; 1985). An important outcome of Demina’s work was the classification of the homilies included in the damaskin into three groups. Some homilies (No. No. 22–30 and 41) are in Middle Bulgarian and they will remain outside the scope of my study. The Modern Bulgarian ones were subdivided into homilies that use the adverb of time togazi ‘then’ and reflect an earlier original (No. No. 2–17, 33–38 and 40) than those, in which togiva ‘then’ is used (No. No. 1, 18–21, 31, 32 and 39) (Demina 1968: 76–81; 1985: 261). Both Modern Bulgarian sections of the damaskin display fewer articles than one would expect judging from the perspective of Standard Bulgarian. On the other hand, the definite articles that do appear in the damaskin correspond (with rare exceptions that belong to clearly defined categories) to articles in contemporary usage. These are undoubtedly two stages in the evolution of the same system. My observations on the use of articles match the conclusions of others who have also found continuity between the language of seventeenth-century damaskins and Modern Standard Bulgarian (Velcˇeva 4. There is also other evidence of the popularity of the damaskins at this time. For instance, it has been pointed out that Najden Gerov, the author of the most important early Bulgarian dictionary (1895–1904), used sometimes examples from the damaskins to illustrate the meanings of words (Demina 1985: 213, footnote 9). 5. This older literary language is Church Slavonic influenced by Serbian orthographic norms such as the replacement of the nasal vowels by u and e, respectively, or the indiscriminate use of ˘ı for etymological ˘ı and u˘ (Demina 1985: 14–15). The language of the archaic damaskins as well as that of other pre-modern manuscripts identified as forerunners of the Modern Bulgarian damaskins, which may have Bulgarian orthography (Velcˇeva 1996), will be called in this study for the sake of simplicity Middle Bulgarian. This umbrella term reflects the fact that texts in this archaic literary koine were written and read in Bulgaria during and after the Middle Bulgarian period of its history (that is, between the twelfth to the fourteenth century) and served as the foundation of the subsequent literary language that arose on this territory, the language of the Modern Bulgarian damaskins. 6. See Gyllin 1991 for a general English-language overview of the Bulgarian damaskin literature that reviews the contributions of previous scholars and Mladenova 2006b.

Introduction

7

1984; Demina 1985: 263; Gyllin 1991: 53; Sorokina 1993: 5, 23; Velcˇeva 2001: 77). The number of nouns accompanied by the definite article varies from homily to homily. Some homilies appear to come closer to the modern usage than others. This impression may be illusory because numbers depend on the subject matter of the homily. A homily that contains many generalizations and digressions about human nature will display different categories of definites from a down-to-earth narrative about the actions of specific characters. Statistics based on five togazi and two togiva homilies are displayed in Table 1. Although it reveals no striking differences between sections, I will base my conclusions only on the togazi damaskin homilies. Table 1. Ratio of the available articles to the necessary ones according to current norms. Comparative view of togazi and togiva homilies Homily number

Togazi Section 2

7

8

Togiva Section 13

14

1

31

Definite articles in absolute numbers 99 50 42 82 83 77 101 Total number of the necessary articles according to current norms 210 169 155 163 193 191 274 Ratio of the available articles to the necessary ones 47.14 % 29.59 % 27.1 % 50.31 % 43.01 % 40.31 % 36.86 %

My analysis of the evolution of definiteness in the Bulgarian diasystem over the last four centuries is based on a number of sources that include general theoretical and language-specific research on definiteness and Bulgarian language data. An important inspiration was Maxim Sl. Mladenov’s personal archive, which contains among other materials a box of index cards with linguistic data collected over more than thirty years, bibliography and thoughts on the definite article in Bulgarian as well as unpublished maps. Any materials or ideas stemming from Mladenov-Archive are marked specifically as such. My goal is to show what variables have influenced the expansion of the article during the time that has elapsed since the seventeenth century, formulate the rules that governed the use of the article and other markers of definiteness in the seventeenth century in comparison with the contemporary norm and construct a model of transition from the older system to the modern one. In

8

Introduction

order to do so, I approach definiteness semiotically and look in the second chapter into the relationship of its two aspects, expression and content, as it presents itself in contemporary Standard Bulgarian. Leaning heavily on damaskin testimony, the third chapter tackles in chronological order the processes that shaped the contemporary state of affairs. The next two chapters address the nagging concern that perhaps my conclusions on the diachrony of definiteness in Bulgarian would change considerably if my database was significantly expanded to include, on the one hand, further damaskins besides the Tixonravov and, on the other, evidence from the contemporary Bulgarian dialects. The fourth chapter confirms the validity of the diachronic model for a number of other damaskins and shows that expanding the database in this direction can only detail my interpretation but not significantly change it. In contrast, the fifth chapter demonstrates that the analysis of dialect data can produce surprising results, which, without compromising the diachronic model, project it to a greater chronological depth and throw light on its balkanological implications. Finally, the sixth chapter views the Bulgarian state of affairs against a Balkan background and makes generalizations, which will be of interest to a broader audience of historical linguists.

Expression

2.

9

Definiteness: expression and content

These two aspects of definiteness are detailed in Table 2.1 By keeping them separate in my model, I am avoiding the complications arising from traditional terminology, which, as it has been noticed before (Koseska-Toszewa and Gargov 1991: 36–37), blends together expression and content. Table 2. Overview of the expression and content of the grammatical category ‘definiteness’ Expression

Content

Nominal Structure

Pragmatic Semantic Lexical-Morphological Syntactic

2.1.

Expression

There is general consensus that it is the structure of nominals that expresses definiteness (Maslov 1971: 183).2 Eleven types of nominals are used with a higher or lower frequency in Modern Standard Bulgarian in two alternative formats: marked and unmarked. The type of modification of the head (attribute, apposition, prepositional phrase, relative clause or adverbial), its own characteristics (pronoun or noun) and word order are the criteria according to which the types of nominals have been determined. Even types used rarely today (such as 5 as a pure type or as a variation of other types) are taken into account to make sure that the classification covers all cases, some of which

1. The semiotic framework of my model corresponds to some degree to Chesterman’s dimension extensivity, in which he follows G. Guillaume’s analysis of French (Chesterman 1991: 25–29, 70–73). 2. For a recent survey of definiteness marking across languages, cf. Lyons 1999: 15–41, 47–153. Koseska-Toszewa and Gargov argue that sentential structure is the expression of definiteness. What they mean is that, given the polysemic nature of most linguistic forms, their quantificational character can only be disambiguated on the level of the sentence or the text (Koseska-Toszewa and Gargov 1991: 81).

10

Definiteness: expression and content

may have been more prevalent in the past.3 As to the proposed subdivisions of this classification, it was important to strike a balance between comprehensiveness and manageability; thus even though the subdivisions do not exhaust and detail all available variation, they allow us to keep track of all subtypes that have proven salient in the context of the evolution of definiteness. I will introduce the proposed classification schematically, illustrating each type of nominal with a couple of Standard Bulgarian examples. Throughout this book nominal types will be referred to by their code and a short example aiming to serve as a mnemonic device. Table 3. Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 0 or nominals with pronominal heads Unmarked Nominal

Code

Marked Nominal

Code

Weak personal or reflexive pronoun

0U

Strong personal pronoun Personal or Reflexive Pronoun & Reflexive Dative Clitic

0M1-1

Pronoun & Noun-Article

0M1-3

Adjective-Article & Pronoun

0M1-4

Pronoun & Adjective-Article

0M1-5

Pronoun & Quantifier-Article

0M1-6

Pronoun & Preposition & Noun-Article

0M1-7

Pronoun & Relative Clause

0M1-8

Pronoun & Adverb

0M1-9

Indefinite determiner edin

0M2

Non-specific determiner njakoj

0M3-1

Typifying determiner koj da e

0M3-2

Typifying determiner kojto i da e

0M3-3

Typifying determiner sˇto-gode All-quantifying determiners vseki, vsicˇki (pl.)

0M3-4

All-quantifying determiner vsicˇki-Article Demonstrative determiners tozi (toja), onzi (onja)

0M4-2

0M1-2

0M4-1

0M5-1

3. It is my conviction that this is of paramount importance especially since previous research on word order of the damaskin nominals did not reach any positive results beyond pure description (Popova 1968).

Expression Unmarked Nominal

Code

Marked Nominal

Code

Demonstrative & Noun-Article

0M5-2

Adjective-Article & Demonstrative

0M5-3

Demonstrative & Adjective-Article

0M5-4

Demonstrative & Quantifier-Article Demonstrative & Preposition & Noun-Article

0M5-5

Demonstrative & Relative Clause

0M5-7

Demonstrative & Adverb

0M5-8

Interrogative determiner koj

0M6

Negative determiner nikoj

0M7

Emphatic determiner sam

0M8-1

Emphatic determiner sam & Pronoun Pronoun & Emphatic determiner sam-Article

0M8-2

Pronominal unique referent edi-koj si

0M9

0U (si) (1)

Toj si kaza: “Eto ja.” he REFL.DAT said.3SG there her.CL.ACC ‘He said to himself: “There she is.”’ 0M1-1 (az)

(2)

11

Az na nego ne mozˇex da otkazˇa. I to him.ACC not could.1SG to refuse.1SG ‘I could not say no to him.’ 0M1-2 (sebe si)

(3)

Na neja vinagi ì besˇe studeno. to her.ACC always her.CL.DAT was.3SG cold.NEUT ‘She was always cold.’

(4)

Ne mozˇesˇ da mislisˇ samo za sebe si. not can.2SG to think.2SG only of self REFL.DAT ‘You cannot think only of yourself.’

0M5-6

0M8-3

12

Definiteness: expression and content

0M1-3 (az idiotu˘t) (5)

A pu˘k az idiotu˘t mu povjarvax. whereas on-the-other-hand I idiot.THE him.CL.DAT believed.1SG ‘And silly me, I believed what he said.’ 0M1-4 (gorkijat toj)

(6)

Gorkijat toj ostana su˘vsem samicˇu˘k. poor.MASC.THE he remained.3SG completely alone.MASC ‘Poor him, he’s remained now all alone.’ 0M1-5 (nie gresˇnite)

(7)

Prosti ni grexovete, Gospodi. Nie forgive.IMPER us.CL.DAT sins.THE, lord.VOC we gresˇnite ne znaem kakvo pravim. sinful.PL.THE not know.1PL what do.1PL ‘God, forgive our sins. We sinners don’t know what we are doing.’ 0M1-6 (te dvamata)

(8)

Te dvamata nikoga ne skucˇajat zaedno. they two.PERS.THE never not are-bored together ‘The two of them are never bored together.’ 0M1-7 (vie v u˘gu˘la)

(9)

Ej, vie v u˘gu˘la, po-tixo! hey, you.PL in corner.THE quieter ‘Hey, you in the corner, don’t be so loud!’ 0M1-8 (ti, kojto vinagi si go zasˇtitaval)

(10) I ti, kojto vinagi si go zasˇtitaval, and you.SG who.MASC always are.2SG him.ACC defended sega si promeni mnenieto za nego. now are.2SG changed opinion.THE of him ‘You too, who have always defended him, now changed your opinion of him.’

Expression

13

0M1-9 (vie otsresˇta) (11) Ej, vie otsresˇta, po-tixo! hey you.PL across quieter ‘Hey, you over there, don’t be so loud!’ 0M2 (edin) (12) Edin mi se ezˇi na mene, ama one.MASC me.CL.DAT REFL.ACC bristles on me but sˇte su˘zˇaljava. will regret.3SG ‘One person is opposing me but he’ll regret it.’ 0M3-1 (njakoj) (13) Njakoj cˇuka na vratata. somebody knocks on door.THE ‘Somebody is knocking at the door.’ 0M3-2 (koj da e) (14) Vsicˇki znajat tova. Pitaj kogo da e. all.PL know.3PL this.NEUT Ask.2IMPER anobody.MASC.ACC ‘Everybody knows this. Ask anybody.’ 0M3-3 (kojto i da e) (15) Nikoj ne e dlu˘zˇen da se su˘obrazjava nobody not is obliged.MASC to REFL.ACC reckons s tebe ili kojto i da e. with you.2SG.ACC or anybody.MASC ‘Nobody is obliged to reckon with you or anybody at all (whoever). 0M3-4 (sˇto-gode) (16) Da xapnem sˇto-gode i da tru˘gvame. to take-a-bite.1PL whatever and to go.1PL ‘Let us eat a little something and let us go.’

14

Definiteness: expression and content

0M4-1 (vsicˇki) (17) Vsicˇki sa su˘glasni da pomognat. all are.3PL concordant.PL to help.3PL ‘Everybody has agreed to help.’ 0M4-2 (vsicˇkite) (18) Na tazi ulica zˇivejat pet kucˇeta. Toj e prijatel on this.FEM street live.3PL five dogs He is friend s vsicˇkite. with all.THE ‘Five dogs live on this street. He is friendly with all of them.’ 0M5-1 (tazi) (19) Vizˇ ja tazi kakvo kucˇe ima. look.IMPER her.CL this.FEM what dog has ‘Look what dog this woman has.’ 0M5-2 (tija idiotite) (20) Tija idiotite osˇte cˇakat otgovor. these idiots.THE still wait.3PL answer ‘Silly them, they are still waiting for an answer.’ 0M5-3 (gorkite tija) (21) Gorkite tija mnogo im se su˘bra. poor.THE these much them.CL.DAT REFL.ACC gathered.3SG ‘Poor them, they’ve had a lot to endure.’ 0M5-4 (tova cˇervenoto) (22) Tova cˇervenoto go maxni ottuka. this.NEUT red.NEUT.THE it.CL.ACC remove.IMPER from-here ‘Take away this red thing.’ 0M5-5 (tija petimata) (23) Tija petimata sˇte nosˇtuvat v drug xotel. these five.PERS.THE will overnight in another hotel ‘These five persons will spend the night in another hotel.’

Expression

15

0M5-6 (toja s ocˇilata) (24) Njakyde su˘m go vizˇdal toja s somewhere am1SG him.CL.ACC seen this.MASC with ocˇilata. glasses.THE ‘I’ve seen somewhere this man with the glasses.’ 0M5-7 (taja, deto nikoga ne pozdravjava) (25) Tova e taja, deto nikoga ne pozdravjava. thisNEUT is this.FEM that never not greets ‘This is the woman, who never says hello.’ 0M5-8 (onija otsresˇta) (26) Onija otsresˇta maj ne razbirat bu˘lgarski. those across apparently not understand.3PL Bulgarian ‘It looks as if those over there do not understand Bulgarian.’ 0M6 (koj) (27) Koj iska da dojde s mene? who wants to comes with me.ACC ‘Who wants to come with me?’ 0M7 (nikoj) (28) Tuka njama nikoj. here has-not nobody ‘There is nobody here.’ 0M8-1 (sam) (29) Zavedox gostenina v bankata i go ostavix tam, took.1SG visitor.THE in bank.THE and him left.1SG there a sam otidox v parka. whereas self.MASC went.1SG in park.THE ‘I took the visitor to the bank and left him there, whereas I myself went to the park.’

16

Definiteness: expression and content

0M8-2 (sam toj) (30) Sam toj osˇte ne e cˇul za tova. self.MASC he yet not is heard about this.NEUT ‘He himself hasn’t heard about it yet.’ (31) Povecˇe njama more has-not

da vi razkazvam, vie to you.PL.CL.DAT narrate-I you.PL

sami se pomu˘cˇete da si predstavite self.PL REFL.ACC try.2PL.IMPER to REFL.DAT imagine.2PL kakvo stana posle. what happened.3SG afterwards ‘I won’t tell you more; you try yourselves to imagine what happened next.’ 0M8-3 (tebe samata) (32) Tebe samata ne te li you.SG.ACC self.FEM.THE not you.SG.CL.ACC INTERROG e sram kato si pomislisˇ za tova? is shame as REFL.DAT think.2SG about this.NEUT ‘Aren’t you yourself ashamed, when you think of it?’ (33) Samijat toj ne znae kakvo ima predvid, no self.MASC.THE he not knows what has in-view but prikazva. talks ‘He himself has no idea what he means, but he talks.’ 0M9 (edi-koj si) (34) Obazˇdasˇ se po telefona. Edi-koj si tam call.2SG REFL.ACC on phone.THE so-and-so.MASC there li e? Ne, njama go. INTERROG is No has-not him.CL.ACC ‘You call on the phone. Is so-and-so there? No, he is not.’ Many subtypes of the 0M nominals allow an alternative word order (e. g. Pronoun & Emphatic determiner sam for 0M8-2) as well as the inclusion of adjectives (e.g. Pronoun & Adjective-Article & Noun for 0M1-4).

Expression Table 4. Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 1 or basic nominals

17 4

Unmarked Nominal

Code

Marked Nominal

Code

Noun

1U

Noun-Article Indefinite determiner edin (N Adjective) & Noun Non-specific determiner njakoj (N Adjective) & Noun Typifying determiner koj da e (N Adjective) & Noun Typifying determiner kojto i da e (N Adjective) & Noun Typifying determiner sˇto-gode (N Adjective) & Noun All-quantifying determiner vseki, vsicˇki (pl.) (N Adjective) & Noun All-quantifying determiner vsicˇki (pl.) & Demonstrative determiner tozi, onzi (N Adjective) & Noun Demonstrative determiner tozi (toja), onzi (onja) (N Adjective) & Noun Demonstrative determiner tozi (toja), onzi (onja) Quantifier (N Adjective) & Noun Interrogative determiner koj (N Adjective) & Noun Negative determiner nikoj (N Adjective) & Noun Emphatic determiner sam & Noun Emphatic determiner sam & Noun-Article Unique referent edi-koj si (N Adjective) & Noun Determiner vsicˇki, edin, sam, su˘sˇti-Article (N Adjective) & Noun Determiner vsicˇki, sam, su˘sˇti-Article (N Adjective) & Demonstrative determiner tozi, onzi & Noun or Demonstrative determiner tozi, onzi & Adjective-Article & Noun

1M1 1M2 1M3-1 1M3-2 1M3-3 1M3-4 1M4-1 1M4-2

1M5-1 1M5-2 1M6 1M7 1M8-1 1M8-2 1M9 1M104 1M11

4. This is an umbrella category that includes all determiners that can combine with the definite article.

18

Definiteness: expression and content 5678

1U (stol) (35) stol, stena, du˘rvo, lekari chair wall tree physicians ‘chair’, ‘wall’, ‘tree’, ‘physicians’ 1M1 (stolu˘t) stenata, (36) stolu˘t (stola),5 chair.MASC.THE chair.MASC.THE wall.FEM.THE du˘rvoto, lekarite tree.NEUT.THE physicians.THE ‘the chair’, ‘the chair’, ‘the wall’, ‘the tree’, ‘the physicians’ 1M26 (edin stol) (37) edin stol, edno cu˘fnalo du˘rvo one.MASC chair one.NEUT blossoming.NEUT tree ‘a/one chair’, ‘a/one tree in blossom’ 1M3-17 (njakoj cˇovek) (38) njakakva interesna kniga, njakoj cˇovek some-kind-of.FEM interesting.FEM book some.MASC person ‘some (kind of) interesting book’, ‘a/some person’ 1M3-28 (koj da e cˇovek) (39) koj da e cˇovek, koja da e bu˘lgarska pevica any.MASC person any.FEM Bulgarian.FEM singer ‘any person’, ‘any Bulgarian (female) singer’ 5. The form in brackets contains the so-called short form of the definite article. The difference between the full and the short form of the definite article for masculines is discussed below in section 2.2.4. 6. In the damaskin language, nominals of types 1M2 to 1M8 can also place modifiers on both sides of the head noun, cf. sicˇka sila beˇsovska [all.FEM power demonic.FEM] ‘all the devil’s host’ (Demina 1971: 84), toizi narod mnogo evreisky [this.MASC nation many Jewish.MASC] ‘this numerous Jewish nation’ (Demina 1971: 121), an option Standard Bulgarian no longer has. 7. Other non-specific determiners such as necˇij ‘someone’s’ belong to the same group but will not be discussed in this study. 8. Here also belong kaku˘v da e ‘no matter of what kind’, cˇij da e ‘no matter whose’ etc.

Expression

19

91011

1M3-39 (kojto i da e cˇovek) (40) kojto i da e cˇovek, kojto i da e cˇuzˇd whichever.MASC person whichever.MASC foreign.MASC ezik language ‘whichever person’, ‘whichever foreign language’ 1M3-410 (na sˇto-gode dostu˘pna cena) (41) na sˇto-gode dostu˘pna cena, sˇto-gode normalen zˇivot at whatever accessible.FEM price whatever normal life ‘at a marginally accessible price’, ‘relatively normal life’ 1M4-111 (vsicˇki jabu˘lki) (42) vseki izpit, vsjako neposlushno dete, vsicˇki every.MASC exam every.NEUT disobedient.NEUT child all.PL jabu˘lki apples ‘every exam’, ‘every disobedient child’, ‘all apples’ 1M4-2 (vsicˇki tezi jabu˘lki) (43) vsicˇki tezi all.PL these ‘all these apples’

jabu˘lki apples

9. Here again the list of forms could have been continued. 10. Out of all the compounds with -gode, which were employed in the past, sˇto-gode is the only one used with any regularity in the contemporary standard language. My classification also does not specify all the types of nominal of which sˇto-gode can be part but there certainly is a broader range of variation than the examples lead readers to believe. For more details about the semantics and the diachrony of the -gode compounds see Mladenova 2006a. 11. This category is also broader. It includes the determiner vsjakaku˘v ‘of all kinds’ and obsolete vsjakoj ‘every’. The singular of vsicˇki is currently used only in a very few set phrases, e.g. s vsicˇka sila ‘with all [one’s] might’, vsicˇko drugo ‘everything else’.

20

Definiteness: expression and content 121314

1M5-112 (onija lekari) (44) tazi cˇervena jabu˘lka, onija lekari this.FEM red.FEM apple those physicians ‘this red apple’, ‘those physicians’ 1M5-2 (onija petima lekari) (45) onija petima those five.PERS ‘those five physicians’

lekari physicians

1M613 (koj ucˇitel) (46) koj ucˇitel, koja sinja roklja which.MASC teacher which.FEM blue.FEM dress ‘which teacher’, ‘which blue dress’ 1M714 (nikoe dete) (47) nikoe dete, nikoi cˇerveni jabu˘lki no.NEUT child no.PL red.PL apples ‘no child’, ‘no red apples’ 1M8-1 (sam Gospod) (48) Sam Gospod ne mozˇe da mu pomogne. self.MASC Lord not can.3SG to him help.3SG ‘God himself cannot help him.’ 1M8-2 (sam prezidentu˘t) (49) Sam prezidentu˘t dojde na pogrebenieto. self.MASC president.THE came.3SG to funeral.THE ‘The president himself came to the funeral.’

12. Here belong taku˘v ‘such’, lit. ‘of this kind’ and onaku˘v ‘of that kind’. 13. Category 1M6 also includes kaku˘v ‘what kind of’ and cˇij ‘whose’. 14. Here also belong nikaku˘v ‘no (about properties)’ and nicˇij ‘no one’s’.

Expression

21

1M9 (edi-koja si godina) (50) edi-koja si godina so-and-so.FEM year ‘year so and so’ 1M10 (vsicˇkoto kiselo mljako) (51) vsicˇkoto kiselo mljako, su˘sˇtijat nechetliv all.NEUT.THE sour.NEUT milk same.MASC.THE illegible pocˇerk, ednata ru˘ka, samijat prezident handwriting one.FEM.THE hand self.MASC.THE president ‘all the yogurt’, ‘the same illegible handwriting’, ‘one of the two hands’, ‘the president himself’ 1M11 (vsicˇkoto onova kiselo mljako) (52) vsicˇkoto onova kiselo mljako, tozi all.NEUT.THE that.NEUT sour.NEUT milk this.MASC su˘sˇtijat necˇetliv pocˇerk, onezi belite same.MASC.THE illegible handwriting those white.PL.THE cvetja flowers ‘all that yogurt’, ‘this same illegible handwriting’, ‘those white flowers’ Table 5. Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 2 or nouns with short15 form possessives Unmarked Nominal

Code

Noun & Short Form 2U1 Possessive Adjective & Short Form 2U2 Possessive & Noun

Marked Nominal

Code

Noun-Article & Short Form Possessive

2M1

Adjective-Article & Short Form Possessive & Noun

2M2

2U115 (zˇena mi) (53) zˇena mi wife me.DAT ‘my wife’ 15. This type occurs only with a limited list of head nouns.

22

Definiteness: expression and content 1617

2U216

(mili mi decˇica)

(54) mili mi decˇica dear.PL me.CL.DAT children.DIM ‘my dear children (as an address form)’ 2M1 (sina im) (55) kljucˇa mi, paltoto mu, key.MASC.THE me.CL.DAT coat.NEUT.THE him.CL.DAT sina im son.MASC.THE them.CL.DAT ‘my key’, ‘his coat’, ‘their son’ 2M2 (novija mi kljucˇ) (56) novija mi kljucˇ new.MASC.THE me.CL.DAT key.MASC ‘my new key’ Table 6. Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 3 or nouns in apposition Unmarked Nominal

Code

Marked Nominal

Code

Noun & Noun

3U

Noun-Article & Noun Adjective-Article & Noun & Noun

3M1-1 3M1-2

Noun & Noun-Article

3M2

3U17 (djado Ivan) (57) djado Ivan, student bu˘lgarin, vagon-restorant grandfather Ivan student Bulgarian.NOUN carriage restaurant ‘Grandfather Ivan’, ‘a student, Bulgarian by nationality’, ‘dining car’ 3M1-1 (ucˇiteljat Petrov) (58) ucˇiteljat Petrov, studentu˘t bu˘lgarin teacher.MASC.THE Petrov student.MASC.THE Bulgarian.NOUN ‘the teacher Petrov’, ‘the student who is Bulgarian’ 16. This type occurs only in limited syntactic slots (for instance in address forms). 17. Each of these nouns can be represented by a noun accompanied by an adjective of type 4U1 or perhaps occasionally 5U.

Expression

23

18

3M1-2 (dobrijat ucˇitel Petrov) (59) dobrijat ucˇitel Petrov good.MASC.THE teacher Petrov ‘the good teacher Petrov’ 3M218 (vagon-restorantu˘t) (60) vagon-restorantu˘t, Pesˇo Damadzˇanata carriage restaurant.MASC.THE Pesˇo demijohn.FEM.THE ‘the dining car’, ‘Pete the Demijohn’ Table 7. Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 4 or nouns with preceding adjectives Unmarked Nominal

Code

Marked Nominal

Code

Adjective ([AND] N Adjective) & Noun

4U1

Adjective-Article (N Adjective) & Noun Adjective-Article AND Adjective & Noun Determiner & Adjective (N Adjective) & Noun Possessive-Article & Short Form Possessive & Noun

4M1-1

Possessive & Short Form Possessive & Noun

4U2

4M1-2 4M1-3 4M2

4U1 (du˘rven stol) (61) du˘rven stol, sposobni mladi lekari, wooden.MASC chair talented.PL young.PL physicians ruso i sineoko momicˇe blond.NEUT and blue-eyed.NEUT girl ‘a wooden chair’, ‘talented young physicians’, ‘a blond and blue-eyed girl’

18. In both subtypes of 3M the noun followed by article can be represented not only by a simple noun but also by a noun accompanied with an adjective of type 4M1 or (in the earlier language) 5M1. Of these variations only 3M1-2 was classified as a separate subtype.

24

Definiteness: expression and content 1920

4U2 (moja si rabota) (62) moja si rabota, bratovo ti my.FEM REFL.DAT work brother.ADJ.NEUT you.CL.DAT dete child ‘my own business’, ‘a child of your brother’s’ 4M1-1 (du˘rvenija stol) mladi lekari (63) du˘rvenija stol,19 sposobnite wooden.MASC.THE chair talented.PL.THE young.PL physicians ‘the wooden chair’, ‘the talented young physicians’ 4M1-220 (rusoto i sineoko momicˇe) (64) rusoto i sineoko momicˇe blond.NEUT.THE and blue-eyed.NEUT girl ‘the blond and blue-eyed girl’ 4M1-3 (edin du˘rven stol) (65) edin du˘rven stol, tezi sposobni mladi one.MASC wooden.MASC chair these talented.PL young.PL lekari physicians ‘a/one wooden chair,’ ‘these talented young physicians’

19. Not all Bulgarian dialects mark the article on masculine adjectives in the same way as the standard language of the modern period (cf. Maps 1a–1d). For more details on this variation see section 5.5. 20. To keep the classification reasonably simple, I did not include this modification as a separate subtype in 5M, 8M and 9M although I acknowledge that it may occur in these types as well.

Expression

25

21

4M221 (babinata ti ku˘sˇta) (66) babinata ti ku˘sˇta grandmother.ADJ.FEM.THE you.CL.DAT house.FEM ‘your grandmother’s house’ Table 8. Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 5 or nouns with ensuing adjectives Unmarked Nominal

Code

Marked Nominal

Code

Noun & Adjective

5U

Noun-Article & Adjective Determiner & Noun & Adjective

5M1 5M2

5U (cˇovek bozˇi) (67) cˇovek bozˇi person godly.MASC ‘godly person’ 5M1 (cˇoveku˘t bozˇi) (68) cˇoveku˘t bozˇi person.THE godly.MASC ‘the godly person’ 5M2 (onzi sin majcˇin) (69) onzi sin that.MASC son ‘that son of a gun’

majcˇin mother.ADJ.MASC

21. Unless accompanying a possessive pronominal adjective of type moj ‘my’ tvoj ‘your’ etc., the possessive datives in 4U2 and 4M2 refer to the dependent component rather than the head of the nominal as a possessive of type 4 would routinely do (cf. *tvojata babina ku˘sˇta ‘the house that is [at the same time] yours and [your] grandmother’s’, which makes no sense). This agrees with the hypothesis that possessive adjectives (in this case babin) as opposed to relational ones carry out a referential function (Nørgård-Sørensen 2002). Whereas 2M1 ku˘sˇtata ti ‘your house’ and 2M2 xubavata ti ku˘sˇta ‘your nice house’ are synonymous to 4M1 tvojata ku˘sˇta, and tvojata xubava ku˘sˇta, respectively, this is not the case regarding 4U2 and 4M2, which lack synonyms. This usage was attested in the damaskin, cf. 4M2 with an inversed word order goli izleˇzox ot cˇarvata maicˇini si naked.MASC cameout.1SG from guts.THE mother.ADJ.PL REFL.DAT ‘I came naked out of my mother’s womb’ (Demina 1971: 148).

26

Definiteness: expression and content

Table 9. Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 6 or nouns with quanti22 fiers Unmarked Nominal

Code

Marked Nominal

Code

Quantifier & Noun

6U

Quantifier-Article & Noun AND Quantifier-Article & Noun

6M1 6M2

Demonstrative determiner tozi, onzi & Quantifier-Article & Noun Quantifier & Noun-Article

6M3 6M4

6U (pet jabu˘lki) (70) mnogo du˘rveta, pet jabu˘lki, cˇasˇa voda22 many trees five apples glass water ‘many trees’, ‘five apples’, ‘a glass of water’ 6M1 (pette jabu˘lki) (71) pette jabu˘lki five-THE apples ‘the five apples’ 6M2 (i pette jabu˘lki) (72) i dvete momicˇeta, i pette jabu˘lki and two.NEUT.THE girls and five-THE apples ‘both girls’, ‘all five apples’ 6M3 (onija pette jabu˘lki) (73) onija pette jabu˘lki, drugite dvete devojki those five-THE apples other.PL.THE two.FEM.THE girls ‘those five apples (out of a set defined previously)’, ‘the other two girls (out of a set defined previously)’

22. The semantic differences between nominal types 6U/6M and 8U/8M (cˇasˇa voda ˇ esˇko 1955. vs. cˇasˇa s voda) were pinpointed by C

Expression

27

23

6M423 (tri cˇasá) (74) v kolko cˇasá, tri cˇasá in how-many hour.THE three hour.THE ‘at what hour’, ‘three o’clock’ Table 10. Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 7 or substantivized adjectives Unmarked Nominal

Code

Marked Nominal

Code

Elliptic (Substantivized) Adjective

7U

Elliptic (Substantivized) Adjective-Article

7M

7U (kontrolno) (75) sladko, zˇenska, kontrolno sweet.NEUT female.ADJ.FEM control.ADJ.NEUT ‘jam, preserve’, ‘female person’, ‘quiz’ 7M (kontrolnoto) (76) sladkoto, zˇenskata, kontrolnoto sweet.NEUT.THE female.ADJ.FEM.THE control.ADJ.NEUT ‘the preserve’, ‘the female person’, ‘the quiz’

23. This curious type of a limited scope includes only expressions serving to tell the time of the day. Apparently, it was not yet in place in the damaskin, see (593). In view of the variation between synonymous compounds and nominal phrases mentioned below in this section, type 6M4 do sedem cˇasá until seven hour.THE ‘until seven o’clock’ may be seen as an emerging compound perhaps in competition with a 6M1 nominal like do sedemte cˇása/cˇasove until seven.THE hours, cf. du sidimt’áx cˇásu˘ until seven.THE hours ‘until seven o’clock’ (Region Cˇirpan, Mogilovo, SbNU 9.2: 187 – Mladenov-Archive).

28

Definiteness: expression and content

Table 11. Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 8 or nouns with prepositional phrases Unmarked Nominal

Code

Marked Nominal

Code

(Adjective) Noun (Adjective) & Preposition & (Adjective) Noun (Adjective)

8U1

8M1-1

(Adjective) Noun (Adjective) & Preposition & Noun-Article

8U2

Noun-Article & Preposition (N Adjective) & Noun Adjective-Article & Noun & Preposition (N Adjective) & Noun Determiner (N Adjective) & Noun & Preposition (N Adjective) & Noun Noun-Article & Preposition & Noun-Article Adjective-Article & Noun & Preposition & Noun-Article Determiner (N Adjective) & Noun & Preposition & Noun-Article Noun-Article & Preposition & Adjective-Article & Noun Adjective-Article & Noun & Preposition & Adjective-Article & Noun Determiner (N Adjective) & Noun & Preposition & Adjective-Article & Noun Noun-Article & Preposition & Determiner (N Adjective) & Noun Adjective-Article & Noun & Preposition & Determiner (N Adjective) & Noun Determiner (N Adjective) & Noun & Determiner (N Adjective) & Noun

(Adjective) Noun & (Adjective) Preposition & Adjective-Article & Noun

8U3

Noun & Preposition & 8U4 Determiner (N Adjective) & Noun

8M1-2 8M1-3 8M2-1 8M2-2 8M2-3 8M3-1 8M3-2 8M3-3 8M4-1 8M4-2 8M4-3

8U1 (sin na golemec) (77) cˇovek bez su˘vest, sin na golemec, naxalen person without conscience son of big shot cheeky.MASC sin na golemec, keremiden pokriv na selska ku˘sˇta son of big shot tile.ADJ.MASC roof of rural.FEM house ‘a person without conscience’, ‘a son of a big shot’, ‘a cheeky son of a big shot’, ‘a tile roof of a rural house’

Expression

29

8U2 (sin na golemeca) (78) sin na son of ‘a son of the big shot’

golemeca big shot.THE

8U3 (sin na selskija golemec) (79) sin na selskija son of rural.MASC.THE ‘a son of the rural big shot’

golemec big shot

8U4 (sin na edin golemec) (80) sin na edin son of one.MASC ‘a son of a big shot’

golemec big shot

8M1-1 (ucˇiteljat po istorija) (81) ucˇiteljat po istorija, teacher.MASC.THE of history ucˇiteljat po bu˘lgarska istorija teacher.MASC.THE of Bulgarian.FEM history ‘the teacher of history’, ‘the teacher of Bulgarian history’ 8M1-2 (novijat ucˇitel po istorija) (82) novijat ucˇitel po istorija, new.MASC.THE teacher of history novijat ucˇitel po bu˘lgarska istorija new.MASC.THE teacher of Bulgarian.FEM history ‘the new teacher of history’, ‘the new teacher of Bulgarian history’ 8M1-3 (edin sin na golemec) (83) edin one.MASC ‘a/one son of a big shot’

sin son

na of

golemec big shot

30

Definiteness: expression and content

8M2-1 (sestrata na domakinjata) (84) sestrata na domakinjata sister.THE of hostess.THE ‘the sister of the hostess’ 8M2-2 (xubavata sestra na domakinjata) (85) xubavata sestra na domakinjata beautiful.FEM.THE sister.THE of hostess.THE ‘the beautiful sister of the hostess’ 8M2-3 (edno kucˇe na su˘seda) (86) edno kucˇe na su˘seda one.NEUT dog of neighbour.THE ‘a/one dog of the neighbour’s’ 8M3-1 (sinu˘t na selskija golemec) (87) sinu˘t na selskija golemec son.THE of rural.MASC.THE big shot ‘the son of the rural big shot’ 8M3-2 (naxalnija sin na selskija golemec) (88) naxalnija sin na selskija golemec cheeky.MASC.THE son of rural.MASC.THE big shot ‘the cheeky son of the rural big shot’ 8M3-3 (edno kucˇe na nasˇija su˘sed) (89) edno kucˇe na nasˇija su˘sed one.NEUT dog of our.MASC.THE neighbour ‘a/one dog of our neighbour’s’ 8M4-1 (sinu˘t na edin golemec) (90) sinu˘t na edin son.THE of one.MASC ‘the son of a big shot’

golemec big shot

Expression

31

8M4-2 (naxalnija sin na edin golemec) (91) naxalnija sin na edin golemec cheeky.MASC.THE son of one.MASC big shot ‘the cheeky son of a big shot’ 8M4-3 (edin sin na tozi golemec) (92) edin sin na tozi golemec one.MASC son of this.MASC big shot ‘a son of this big shot’ Table 12. Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 9 or nouns with relative clauses Unmarked Nominal

Code

Marked Nominal

Code

(Adjective) Noun & (Adjective) Relative Clause

9U

Noun-Article & Relative Clause

9M1

Adjective-Article & Noun & Relative Clause

9M2

Determiner (N Adjective) & Noun & Relative Clause

9M3

9U (xladilnici, kakvito vecˇe ne pravjat) (93) xladilnici, kakvito vecˇe ne pravjat fridges, of-the-kind-which.PL already not make.3PL ‘such fridges that they have stopped producing’ 9M1 (obicata, kojato namerix na ulicata) (94) obicata, kojato namerix na ulicata earring.FEM.THE, which.FEM found.1SG on street.FEM.THE ‘the earring, which I found on the street’ 9M2 (zlatnata obica, kojato namerix na ulicata) (95) zlatnata obica, kojato namerix na golden.FEM.THE earring, which.FEM I-found on ‘the golden earring, which I found on the street’ ulicata street.FEM.THE ‘the golden earring, which I found on the street’

32

Definiteness: expression and content

9M3 (tazi obica, kojato namerix na ulicata) (96) tazi obica, kojato namerix na ulicata this.FEM earring, which.FEM found.1SG on street.FEM.THE ‘this earring, which I found on the street’ Variation of the order of noun and adjective has not been treated as a reason to postulate separate subtypes except for 4U and 5U but the possibility of such a variation should not be excluded for categories 3U, 8U and 9U. In practice, I did not find acceptable Standard Bulgarian illustrations of types such as the following: Noun-Article & Adjective & Preposition & Noun-Article & Adjective Determiner & Noun & Adjective & Preposition & Noun-Article & Adjective Noun-Article & Adjective & Preposition [Adjective] & Noun Noun-Article & Adjective & Relative Clause The conclusion that can be made on the basis of this remarkable absence is that these are environments that led the way of innovation in terms of word order and rejected the so-called inversed word order earlier than others. Table 13. Formal classification of Bulgarian nominals: Type 10 or nouns with adverbials Unmarked Nominal

Code

Marked Nominal

Code

Noun-Article & Adverb

10M1-1

Adjective-Article (N Adjective) & Noun & 10M1-2 Adverb Determiner (N Adjective) & Noun & Adverb

10M1-1 (ku˘sˇtata otsresˇta) (97) ku˘sˇtata otsresˇta house.THE across ‘the house across’ 10M1-2 (dvuetazˇnata ku˘sˇta otsresˇta) (98) dvuetazˇnata ku˘sˇta otsresˇta two-store.ADJ.FEM.THE house across ‘the two-store house across’

10M2

Expression

33

10M2 (tazi ku˘sˇtata otsresˇta) (99) tazi ku˘sˇta otsresˇta this.FEM house across ‘this house across’ Because of its deictic character, this nominal type is restricted in its syntactic functions and defective in form (i.e., the unmarked form is not used). The nominal can only take a predicative position in equational (100) but not in characterizing sentences (101), which would require a U nominal: (100) Petu˘r e su˘sedu˘t otgore. Peter is neighbour.THE above. ‘Peter us the neighbour on the upper floor.’ (101) *Petu˘r e su˘sed otgore. Peter is neighbour above. ‘Peter is a neighbour on the upper floor.’ 2.1.1. Head nouns vs. head pronouns Most categories of nominals introduced in Tables 3–13 are straightforward and require no justification. This is not so regarding the pronominal type 0, treated for Bulgarian most extensively in Nicolova 1986. I was guided by general theoretical and diachronical considerations in my decision to include it as a nominal type in its own right.24 The personal pronouns, the backbone of type 0, are distinguished from the nominals of types 1–10 by their lack of descriptive content, which limits their use to cases in which the linguistic or extra-linguistic context clarify their reference (Lyons 1999: 30). Building on a proposal first made by Paul Postal, C. Lyons argues that the personal pronouns, the definite article and the demonstrative pronoun unmarked for proximity are in fact forms of the same grammatical category (Lyons 1999: 26–32, 134–148). This hypothesis strives to account for three general characteristics of personal pronouns that, as I will show below, apply to Bulgarian as well: (a) inherent definiteness;25 (b) complementary distribution with demon-

24. Following a different line of reasoning, M. Flier reaches similar conclusions in his treatment of long-form adjectives in Old Church Slavonic (Flier 1974: 19, 53–77). 25. The Bulgarian counterpart of the indefinite personal pronouns that other languages possess (e.g. English one, French on, German man) is cˇovek ‘person’, treated here

34

Definiteness: expression and content

stratives in the third person; and finally (c) the etymological connection between third-person personal pronouns, demonstratives and definite articles in genetically unrelated languages around the globe. The first point warrants no elaboration as it is generally accepted. I will dwell in the following paragraphs on the Bulgarian evidence in favour of the latter two points. Types 0M5-7 (taja, deto nikoga ne pozdravjava) and 0M1-8 (ti, kojto vinagi si go zasˇtitaval) provide the clearest proof that third-person demonstrative and first and second-person personal pronouns form one paradigm in non-anaphoric contexts as exemplified in (102) and (103), whereas strict anaphoric contexts allow only personal pronouns in all three persons as shown in (104) and (105). Demonstrative taja in (102) cannot be replaced by the corresponding personal pronoun neja and, similarly, demonstrative taja cannot stand for personal pronoun tja in (104) but second-person pronouns work equally well in both types of contexts as one can see in (103) and (105), which reword (102) and (104) so as to fit in the corresponding second-person forms instead of the third-person ones. (102) Spomnix si za svetskija zˇivot i recalled.1SG REFL.DAT about worldly.MASC.THE life and za mladostta si. Spomnix za ljubovta about youth.THE REFL.DAT recalled.1SG about love.THE si, kojato stana pricˇina da postu˘pja v REFL.DAT which.FEM became.3SG reason to enter.1SG into manastira. Spomnix za taja, kojato monastery.THE recalled.1SG about this.FEM who.FEM obicˇax, i za belite rozi, s koito tja loved.1SG and about white.PL.THE roses with which.PL she obicˇasˇe da se kicˇi. loved.3SG to REFL.ACC adorn.3SG ‘I recalled the worldly life and my youth. I recalled my love that was the reason why I became a monk. I remembered her, whom I loved and the white roses she liked to adorn herself with.’ (Elin Pelin)

as a regular noun. It however displays some irregularities in its use (cf. GSBKE 2: 129), which may be an indication that it too has advanced along the road towards pronominalization.

Expression

35

(103) Spomnix za tebe, kojato obicˇax, i recalled.1SG about you.2SG.ACC who.FEM loved.1SG and za belite rozi, s koito ti obicˇasˇe about white.PL.THE roses with which.PL you.2SG loved.2SG da se kicˇisˇ. to REFL.ACC adorn.2SG (104) Vednu˘zˇ [Bozˇura] cˇu, cˇe Vasilcˇo si ide; once [Bozˇura] heard.3SG that Vasilcˇo REFL.DAT comes no osˇte sˇu˘stija den cˇu, cˇe Vasilcˇo but still same.MASC.THE day heard.3SG that Vasilcˇo si ide, tova e istina, no sˇtjal da REFL.DAT comes this is truth but would.3SG.MASC to se ozˇeni za Ganaila. I tja, kojato REFL.ACC marry.3SG for Ganaila And she who.FEM besˇe cˇuvala tolkova prikazki, toja pu˘t v was.3SG heard.FEM so-many rumours this time in du˘noto na dusˇata si useti, cˇe tova bottom.THE of soul.THE REFL.DAT felt.3SG that this mozˇe da stane. may.3SG to happens ‘Once she [Bozˇura] heard that Vasilcˇo was on his way back, but she heard on the same day that yes, Vasilcˇo was indeed on his way back but he was going to marry Ganaila. And she who had heard so many rumours this time deep in her heart felt that this might happen.’ (Jovkov, Bozˇura) cˇu, cˇe Vasilcˇo si ide; no (105) Vednu˘zˇ ti once you heard.2SG that Vasilcˇo REFL.DAT comes but osˇte sˇu˘stija den cˇu, cˇe Vasilcˇo si still same.MASC.THE day heard.2SG that Vasilcˇo REFL.DAT ide, tova e istina, no sˇtjal da se comes this is truth but would.3SG.MASC to REFL.ACC ozˇeni za Ganaila. I ti, kojato besˇe marry.3SG for Ganaila And you.2SG who.FEM was.2SG

36

Definiteness: expression and content

cˇuvala tolkova prikazki, toja pu˘t v du˘noto na heard.FEM so-many rumours this time in bottom.THE of dusˇata si useti, cˇe tova mozˇe da stane. soul.THE REFL.DAT felt.2SG that this may.3SG to happens Examples (102)–(105) demonstrate that 0M1-8 and 0M5-7 nominals behave as predicted by Lyons. First- and second-person pronouns fare equally well in anaphoric and non-anaphoric contexts, whereas in the third person personal and demonstrative pronouns function in complementary distribution: the former in anaphoric and the latter in non-anaphoric contexts. Similar relations exist between the other subtypes of nominals of type 0M1 and 0M5. Let us look at 0M1-1 (az) and 0M5-1 (tazi) for example: in the third person, the former are reserved for strict anaphoric contexts, and the latter fill in in non-anaphoric ones. If used in an anaphoric context, sentences like (106) and (107), illustrating deictic 0M5-1, will become ungrammatical unless the 0M5-1 is replaced with its 0M1-1 counterpart as shown in (108) and (109). (106) Toja za kaku˘v se misli? this.MASC for what.MASC REFL.ACC thinks ‘Who does he think he is?’ (107) Na taja i xlopa du˘skata. to this.FEM her.CL.FEM.DAT clatters board.THE ‘She has a tile loose.’ (108) Cˇu li go kak govori su˘s sekretarkata heard.2SG INTERROG him how speaks with secretary.THE si? Kak ne go e sram! Toj za kaku˘v REFL.DAT How not him is shame he for what.MASC se misli? REFL.ACC thinks ‘Did you hear how he spoke to his secretary? Shame on him! Who does he think he is?’ (109) Kakvoto i da pravisˇ, nisˇto ne mozˇesˇ da whatever also to do.2SG nothing not can2SG to promenisˇ. Tja si e takava. Na neja change.2SG she REFL.DAT is such.FEM to her.FEM

Expression

37

i xlopa du˘skata. her.CL.FEM.DAT clatters board.THE ‘No matter what you do, you cannot change anything. She is like that. She has a tile loose.’ Types 0M1-1 (az) and 0M5-1 (tazi) have specialized for strict anaphoric and non-anaphoric use, respectively, and have counterparts in the damaskin language, cf. (110) i pode do posteljata s[ve˛]t[o]mu symeonu. i and went.3SG to bed.THE saint.DAT Symeon.DAT and videˇ e˛ pl˘ına su˘s cˇerve, i ot saw.3SG her.CL.ACC full.FEM with worms and from smrad˘ı ne mozˇe da stoi tam. i uboja stench not can.3SG to stand.3SG there and started-fearing.3SG se, i recˇ[e] si toizi e kato REFL.ACC and said.3SG REFL.DAT this.MASC is like novy iov˘ı. new.MASC Job ‘And he went to St. Symeon’s bed and saw it full of worms and he could not stand there because of the stench and he was scared and said to himself: “He is like a new Job.”’ (Demina 1971: 54) As one can clearly see from the broader context included in (110), nominals of type 0M5-1 express the speakers’ immediate reaction to what is going on around them and can therefore be expected to appear most frequently in the reactive text register.26 Besides these two types, the personal pronouns and the demonstrative third-person pronoun clearly form one paradigm in nominals of type 0M8, where the substitution of the third-person personal pronoun for the demonstrative one in non-anaphoric positions is at least awkward. Identity of sense anaphora is a type of loose anaphora, “where there is no coreference but the previously occurring noun phrase supplies the understood descriptive content of the demonstrative” (Lyons 1999: 28). It only occurs with third-person referents and requires 0M5, see (111):

26. For a more detailed discussion of text registers and their connection to particular types of description readers are referred to section 2.2.2.

38

Definiteness: expression and content

(111) – Nima taka zˇivejat plennicite? – popita tja. really thus live.3PL prisoners-of-war.THE asked.3SG she – Mnogo pouzˇasno. Toja izglezˇda dobre. Sigurno much more awfully this.MASC looks well probably se polzva s privilegii. REFL.ACC uses with privileges ‘“Is this how the prisoners of war really live?” she asked. “Much more awfully. This one looks good. He probably enjoys privileges.”’ (Stanev) Complementary distribution has also been recorded in deictic contexts, a subtype of the non-anaphoric contexts, in which personal pronouns are possible only with persons, whereas demonstrative pronouns work across the board. It has been noted for other languages as well, e.g. English (Lyons 1999: 29), that non-human referents must be pointed at by demonstrative pronouns, cf. (112) of a truck (Nicolova 1986: 39). (112) *Toj/ Toja e tovaren. *he this.MASC is freight.ADJ.MASC ‘This is [a truck] for transportation of goods.’ Such examples alert us to the possible relevance of the opposition between human and non-human referents for the choice of nominal type. Looking back at examples (102)–(110), we can see that they all include persons as referents. The following examples of anaphoric inanimates demonstrate however the same pattern as for human referents; in other words, identity of sense anaphoric 0M5 cannot be replaced with toj, the corresponding 0M1, in (113) and strict anaphoric 0M1 cannot be replaced with tija, the corresponding 0M5, in (114): (113) Cˇesto stavali pozˇari, osobeno v cˇarsˇijata, no often occurred.PL fires especially in marketplace.THE but toja bil naj-goljam. this.MASC was.MASC biggest ‘Fires often broke out, especially in the marketplace, but this one was the biggest of all.’ (Talev) Nadjavam se, (114) – Tezi botusˇi sa za vas !…" these boots are.3PL for you.PL.ACC hope.1SG REFL.ACC cˇe sˇte vi stanat – recˇe tja. – Te that will you.PL.CL.DAT fit.3PL said.3SG she they

Expression

39

sa na mu˘zˇa mi, no ne mu are.3PL to husband.THE me.CL.DAT but not him.CL.DAT trjabvat. are-necessary.3PL ‘“These boots are for you. !…" I hope they will fit you,” she said. “They belong to my husband, but he does not need them.”’ (Stanev) Table 14. Complementarity of personal and demonstrative pronouns in the third-person Anaphoric contexts

Non-anaphoric contexts

Strict

Identity of sense

Non-person

Person

0M1 or equivalent

+

–

–

+

0M5 or equivalent

–

+

+

+

Table 14 summarizes these findings. The choice between 0M1 and 0M5 nominals (or equivalent) is made at the intersection of two embedded oppositions – non-anaphoric vs. identity of sense anaphoric context vs. strict anaphoric – and inside the former – personal vs. non-personal referent. In the only environment in which 0M1 and 0M5 nominals compete (regarding persons in non-anaphoric contexts) the choice of 0M5 is stylistically marked: sentences (106) and (107), intrinsically critical of the referent because of their content, are made extra offensive by the use of the 0M5 nominal. When no offence is intended, speakers prefer 0M1.27 A very similar competition of 0M1 and 0M5 nominals in the subject position has been identified in Italian (Duranti 1984). On the formal level, the close relationship of personal pronouns and demonstratives has had as a corollary the penetration of the demonstrative masculine oblique form togo into the paradigm of the third-person personal pronoun in the Moesian dialects, as well as, more importantly, the use of the personal pronoun forms toj ‘he’, tja ‘she’, te ‘they’, nego ‘him; it’, neja ‘her’ and tjax ‘them’ as demonstrative pronouns unmarked for proximity in the Moesian and Balkan dialects, cf. toj cˇovek ‘that man’, neja sutrin ‘on that morning’ (Mileticˇ 1901: 22–24; BDA 1: 171; Stojkov 1993: 256; Nicolova 27. In view of the other restrictions on the use of the personal pronouns with inanimates in anaphoric contexts mentioned briefly in Nicolova 1986: 42, it is conceivable that other categories of referents (such as unique referents, abstracts, mass and collective nouns and animate non-persons) make choices that are not strictly identical to those discussed above. They are however difficult to pinpoint because they seem to boil down to stylistic awkwardness rather than contrasts of grammaticality.

40

Definiteness: expression and content

1986: 38; Duridanov and Mladenov 1988: 100–101, see also Map 4 on p. 115). Bulgarian and Macedonian are the only Slavic languages that chose descendants of Proto-Slavic demonstrative pronoun *t ч (which also is the source of the definite article) as their third-person personal pronouns in the subject position (ESSJ 2: 707–711), an innovation that was not adopted by all dialects (see Maps 11c and 11d). The language of the damaskins falls into the innovative area (Demina 1985: 141–143). Having seen on what grounds nominals of type 0 can be considered part and parcel of the general classification of nominals, it is time to survey the peculiarities that set them apart from other nominal types. The most important differences between 0U and 0M1 nominals, on one hand, and the nominals of types 1–10, on the other are that (a) nominals of type 0 are always definite, whereas the other types may be either definite or indefinite; (b) they lack descriptive content; and (c) they espouse a different relation to the grammatical category ‘person’. The lack of descriptive content paired with inherent definiteness indicate that the content of nominals of type 0 is pure definiteness without any admixture. Moreover, Lyons argues that the grammatical categories ‘person’ and ‘definiteness’ should in fact be treated as a single grammatical category (Lyons 1999: 310–321). This makes it essential to have a better look at the grammatical category ‘person’. The three grammatical persons are the result of two embedded oppositions: non-participant vs. participant in the communicative situation and inside the latter speaker vs. non-speaker. Whereas personal pronouns are overtly marked for person, nouns are commonly thought to be of the third person but in context they can combine not only with third-person verbs but also with first- and second-person ones, which makes it plausible that the majority of nominals outside context are in fact neutral to the category person (Lyons 1999: 315). In the subject position, however, they necessarily acquire person through agreement with the corresponding verb. Even in a non-subject position, person may occasionally be marked on a nominal, as in (115), where agreement with the verb of a relative clause indicates that the 0M4 nominal is in the first person plural. (115) Vsu˘sˇtnost, tova ne e samo moj problem, a in-fact this.NEUT not is only my.MASC problem but na vsicˇki, koito cˇistim posolstvoto. of all who.PL clean.1PL embassy.THE ‘In fact, this is not a problem only for me but for all of us who clean the embassy.’ (Popov 2001: 42)

Expression

41

As mentioned before, Lyons links the personal pronouns with the definite article, on one hand, and with the demonstrative pronoun unmarked for proximity, on the other. Whereas the connection for third-person pronouns is straightforward, Lyons also finds it possible to incorporate the first- and second-person pronouns into his analysis because in English in the plural they may be used pre-nominally as personal determiners in sentences like the following: (116) I don’t trust you politicians an inch. (Lyons 1999: 27) He brings examples from languages like German, Warlpiri, Spanish, French and Nama to show that a range of restrictions applies to this usage cross-linguistically (Lyons 1999: 141–145). Bulgarian comes closest to Spanish in that it can only use nominals of type 0M3-1 (az idiotu˘t): (117) Az na vas politicite xicˇ ne vi I to you.ACC. politicians.THE at-all not you.CL.DAT vjarvam. trust.1SG English nominals of the type you politicians include into full noun phrases, Lyons argues, personal determiners, forms related to but not identical with personal pronouns. In other words, this test proving that there are two sets of homonymic forms (personal determiners and personal pronouns) does not work for Bulgarian material.28 This however does not affect the general conclusions about the connections between personal and demonstrative pronouns 28. The exception that I encountered in the damaskin – see (1) – and that could be worded in Standard Bulgarian in the same way (az siromax i cˇuzˇdenec I poor-man and foreigner) would have been impossible if it did not contain conjoined nominals. Any one of them on their own would have worked better as 0M3 nominals: az cˇuzˇdenecu˘t or az siromaxu˘t. This is not the only peculiarity that sets conjoined nominals of type 0 apart, for another feature and bibliography see Nicolova 1986: 46. (1) ne vidisˇ li kolko zlo teglim syromax, not see.2SG INTERROG how-much evil draw.1SG poor-man az˘ı I

i and

cˇjuzˇdinec˘ı. foreigner

ami but

me me.CL.ACC.

pitasˇ˘ı ask.2SG

cˇto mï e what me.CL.DAT is ‘Don’t you see how much I [who am] a poor man and a foreigner suffer? Why are you asking me what’s the matter with me?’ (Demina 1971: 105)

42

Definiteness: expression and content

and the definitive article. We return to the grammatical categories ‘definiteness’ and ‘person’ in section 5.4. The remaining subtypes of type 0 have close parallels to others (e.g. 0M1-3 to 3M; 0M1-4 to 4M; 0M1-5 to 5M; 0M1-6 to 6M;29 0M1-7 to 8M; 0M1-8 to 9M and 0M1-9 to 10M; 0M2 to 1M2; 0M3-1 to 1M3-1; 0M4 to 1M4; 0M5 to 1M5; 0M6 to 1M6; 0M7 to 1M7 and 0M8 to 1M8) and were included in this classification to allow consistent coverage of nominals with pronouns and nouns in the head position. Types 0M1-3 (az idiotu˘t), 0M1-4 (gorkijat toj), 0M1-5 (nie gresˇnite), 0M1-6 (te dvamata), 0M5-2 (tija idiotite), 0M5-3 (gorkite tija), 0M5-4 (tova cˇervenoto), OM5-5 (tija petimata) and 0M8-3 (tebe samata) will be considered in section 2.1.2 in connection with the double marking of definiteness, which is their only systematic difference from the corresponding types with a noun head. 2.1.2. Anomalous nominal structures The nominal types described in Tables 3–13 occur both in the damaskin and in Standard Bulgarian but not necessarily in the same proportions. Differences of frequency and, occasionally, form as with the relics of oblique cases in type 8 or the simultaneous use of a case marker and article in M nominal types attested in the entire Tixonravov damaskin 77 times (Sorokina 1993: 7)30 will be discussed further as the need arises. It is appropriate here to consider whether there are damaskin nominal types, whose structure diverges radically from that of nominals in the standard language and, if so, highlight any deviations from the later norms. There are two areas, which deserve attention from this point of view: (a) marking of definiteness on conjoined nominals and (b) double marking of definiteness on the same nominal. Current norm requires that the article be marked on every conjoined nominal: (118) Bu˘rkotijata i bezredieto se zasilvaxa confusion.THE and disorder.THE REFL.ACC intensified ‘The confusion and disorder were intensifying.’ (Emilian Stanev – GSBKE 3: 221) 29. It should be noted here that for reasons that are worth exploring types 0 and 6 show categoric non-negotiable preferences for different word order, cf. 0M1-6 (te dvamata) but 6M1 (pette jabu˘lki). 30. In this regard Standard Bulgarian differs from the Bulgarian dialects too. As opposed to the standard language, many dialects have preserved case endings to a larger extent but case in tandem with the definite article is a less frequent appearance than “pure” case. For more details see section 5.2.

Expression

43

(119) Toj xapna ot xljaba i sireneto. he took-a-bite from bread.THE and cheese.THE ‘He partook of the bread and cheese.’ (Emilian Stanev – GSBKE 3: 213) If, however, the nominal is of type 4 and one adjective agrees with all conjoined members, then the article is marked only once, on the adjective: (120) Vnimanieto mu se pogu˘lna ot nejnite attention.THE him.DAT REFL.ACC absorbed by her.PL.THE zˇestove i dumi. gestures and words ‘His attention was absorbed by her gestures and words.’ (Emilian Stanev – GSBKE 3: 220) Sentences conforming with the current rules of article marking are attested in the damaskin: (121) Takvozi by m[u˘]cˇ[e]nïeto i cˇjudesata such.NEUT was suffering.THE and miracles.THE s[veto]mu dimitriju saint.DAT Demetrius-DAT ‘Such were the ordeal and the miracles of St. Demetrius.’ (Demina 1971: 111; for another example see Demina 1971: 269) The damaskin, however, sometimes treats conjoined nominals as if they were one nominal and marks the article just once, on the last member, as the following examples of nominals of type 2 (122) and 8 (123) demonstrate: (122) i [s]tan˘ı obraz˘ı i snagata i kato zlak˘ı zelena and became face and body.THE her.DAT like grass green ‘And her face and her body became as green as verdure.’ (Demina 1971: 56) (123) kazaxa told.3PL

na onïa cˇl[ove]ci to those persons

cˇto that

dr˘ızˇut˘ı grob˘ı hold.3PL grave

i and

cr[˘ı]kvata s[ve]t[o]mu church.THE saint.DAT ‘They said to those people who take care of the saint’s grave and church …’ (Demina 1971: 108)

44

Definiteness: expression and content

The evolution towards the current norm was obviously prompted by the strengthened link between noun and article, which accompanied the grammaticalization of the article. While the article was more independent and its use was to a greater extent optional, speakers could mark it just once, as they continue to do with an adjective that is the attribute of two conjoined nouns. When the article merged with the noun, its range of action was limited to it, and conjoined nominals had to each supply their own definite article. There also is evidence, although numerically weak, that the treatment of 4M1-2 numerals (rusoto i sineoko momicˇe) in the damaskin could difer from that in Standard Bulgarian: (124) i rodi se vu˘ pesˇtera syromasˇka da and bore.3SG REFL.ACC in cave humble.FEM to ny ocˇisti d[u]sˇ˘ıta, deto e bila meˇsto i us.DAT cleans soul.THE where is been.FEM place and pesˇtera na zlyte i lukavite razboinici beˇsoove cave of evil.PL.THE and sly.PL.THE villains demons ‘And he was born in a humble cave to purify our soul that used to be the place and cave of the evil and sly villain demons.’ (Demina 1971: 259) (125) I rodi se v pesˇtera siromasˇka da and bore.3SG REFL.ACC in cave humble.FEM to ni ocˇisti dusˇata deto e bila mjasto i us.DAT cleans soul.THE where is been.FEM place and pesˇtera na zlite i lukavi razbojnici besove. cave of evil.PL.THE and sly.PL. villains demons My Standard Bulgarian version (125) shows that, according to current norms, only the first of the conjoined adjectives can have a definite article if both adjectives apply to the same referent. Conversely, if definite articles accompany both adjectives, as they do in (124), they are understood to apply each to its own referent. In other words, ADJ.THE AND ADJ.THE NOUN serves as a shortcut for ADJ.THE NOUN AND ADJ.THE NOUN. The damaskin also provides examples that conform to current norms: (126) I koa ti beˇ nuzˇda, ta and what.FEM you.2SG.DAT was.3SG need so-that preˇdade s[y]na moego na zavistlivete betrayed.2SG son.ACC my.MASC.ACC to envious.PL.THE

Expression

45

i pogany evree and infidel.PL Jews ‘And what was the need [that made you] betray my son to the envious and infidel Jews.’ (Demina 1971: 281) The other peculiarity comes across as marking of the definite article on nominals that have already been marked for definiteness in one way or another. As mentioned above, nominals with a pronominal head systematically double mark definiteness, if we recall that, besides being inherently definite, personal pronouns every time they have a chance to do so (as in types 0M1-3, 0M1-4, 0M1-5, 0M1-6, 0M5-2, 0M5-3, 0M5-4, 0M5-5 and 0M8-3) simultaneously feature a definite article. On the contrary, Standard Bulgarian nominals with nouns in the head position most of the time keep clear of double marking. Damaskin double marking however finds parallels in the vernacular and the dialects. Pronounced with a pause, such damaskin nominals can be compared with a similar use of the definite article in cases of repair. An illustration is provided in (127), in which the two overlapping nominals tezi margariti and margaritite fill one syntactic slot. Another option is the emphatic use of double marking, as in (128), (129) and (130). (127) dobre |togava e onu˘zi (gesture: points to a vase) vaza well then PARTICLE that.FEM vase ottam |f neja nalej vremeno dokato premest’u˘ from-there in her pour.IMPER temporarily until I-move ot tezi |margaritite tam from these daisies.THE there ‘Okay then. That vase over there (points). Pour into it for now until I move some of these, of the daisies there.’ (Krasimira Aleksova, interview No. 1.1) (128) sˇe kaesˇ nali cˇe toja moju˘ cˇovek will say-2SG PARTICLE that this.MASC my.THE person |moju˘ cˇapat taka nali ||ne sˇtesˇe my.THE crotchety thus PARTICLE not wanted ‘You will say, won’t you, that my husband, my crotchety [darling] didn’t want [to become a godfather], right?’ (Krasimira Aleksova, interview No. 1.2)

46

Definiteness: expression and content 31

(129) Togís cár’uu sin su˘ uzˇénil za unu˘´ s then emperor.ADJ.MASC son REFL married for that.FEM úbaata momu˘´ beautiful.FEM.THE lass ‘Then the emperor’s son married that beautiful lass.’ (Region Razgrad, ISSF 7: 165 – Mladenov-Archive)31 (130) Nasˇ’te starite dojdoxa. our.PL.THE old.PL.THE came.3PL ‘Our parents came.’ (Mladenov-Archive; for dialect examples with inversed word order see Stojkov 1993: 263) Double marking in the damaskin can be of several types, some of which would not be out of place in contemporary Bulgarian, cf. 0M5-2 in (131)–(132) and nouns accompanied by two adjectives, each of them with an article (133): (131) i and

onïa those

zavidnicite, enviers.THE

prigledaxa watched.3PL

go, him.ACC

i and

videˇxa danïila cˇe su˘ m[o]li b[og]u saw.3PL Daniil that REFL.ACC pray.3SG God.DAT ‘And those, the enviers, were watching him and saw that Daniil was praying to God’ (Demina 1971: 127) (132) i togazi naprasno me grabnu˘xa strasˇnyte and then suddenly me.ACC grabbed.3PL terrible.THE onïa agg[e]le those angels ‘And then all of a sudden those terrible angels grabbed me.’ (Demina 1971: 136) 31. Aleksandu˘r Aleksandrov and Snezˇana Pencˇeva (1995) analyse damaskin double and triple marking of definiteness and proclaim its connection with similar practice in the Moesian, Balkan (Region Elena) and Banat dialects. Mladenov-Archive contains examples from other dialect areas as well: Balkan (Malcˇika, Region Svisˇtov; Sˇanovo, Region Kazanlu˘k; Kravino, Region Stara Zagora), Moesian (Topcˇii, Region Razgrad; Stefan Karadzˇa, Region Dobricˇ; Nova Cˇerna, Region Silistra), Rupa (Area Strandzˇa), Western (Gaitanci, Sˇipot, Lagosˇevci, Mali Drenovec, Region Vidin; Cu˘rvarica, Region Kjustendil; Region Sofia), Northern Greece (Su˘cˇanli, Region Gjumjurdzˇina; Region Kostur) and Western Romania (Banat). Double marking of definiteness in the Bulgarian dialect of Cioplea in Romania was attributed to Romanian influence in Gut¸u 1971.

Expression

47

(133) da se vu˘zvesele˛t˘ı bl[ago]s[love]nnyte vasˇite d[u]sˇi to REFL.ACC rejoice.3PL blessed.THE your.THE souls ‘Let your blessed souls rejoice.’ (Demina 1971: 119) Cross-linguistic parallels to marking definiteness simultaneously by a demonstrative and a definite article are offered by Lyons, who proposes a classification according to the position of demonstrative in the noun phrase (1999: 118–120). It is important to note that other members of the Balkan Sprachbund regularly exhibit this feature, cf. Romanian omul acesta person.THE this.MASC ‘this person’, fruntea ta cea lata˘ forehead.THE your.FEM DET.FEM broad.FEM ‘your broad forehead’, Albanian tregu i mbuluar market.THE DET.MASC covered ‘the covered market’ and Greek      THE.FEM day THE.FEM nice.FEM ‘the nice day’ (Assenova 2002: 129–130). Since double marking of definiteness as a consistent systemic feature together with clitic reduplication (an important parallel in the realm of pronouns) has been identified as a potential characteristic of the dialects located at the geographic centre from which innovation radiated (Cyxun 1962: 290; Cyxun 1981: 17–18), further field research targeting this aspect may bring promising results. At this stage, the comparison of regular double marking on 0 type with its marginality for types 1–10 allows us to assume that nominals with pronominal heads were the first to take the path towards double marking of definiteness. Limiting oneself to the comparison of damaskins with the standard language, one may miss divergences in nominal structure that are not reflected in either or misinterpret encountered variation, as certain nominals containing possessives show (Mladenov and Mladenova 2005). Standard Bulgarian oscillates between two alternative models: babinata Penina ku˘sˇta, grandmother.ADJ.FEM.THE Pena.ADJ.FEM house, and the less frequent baba Peninata ku˘sˇta, grandmother Pena.ADJ.FEM.THE house, that correspond semantically to 8M1-1 ku˘sˇtata na baba Pena ‘grandmother Pena’s house’. Note that neither model but especially not baba Peninata ku˘sˇta is easily fitted into a slot in the classification of Bulgarian nominals provided above unless we disregard the juxtaposed possessives in babinata Penina ku˘sˇta and the quasi-compound in baba Peninata ku˘sˇta and classify them under 4M1-1 (du˘rvenija stol). These models were adopted by the standard language from different regional varieties: babinata Penina ku˘sˇta mostly from the Eastern dialects and baba Peninata ku˘sˇta mostly from the East Rupa and/or the Western dialects. Without reference to the Bulgarian dialects, the relationship of the nominals babinata Penina ku˘sˇta and baba Peninata ku˘sˇta in Standard Bulgarian remains unclear. The testimony of these competing nominals and

48

Definiteness: expression and content

others like dialect devettjá stotin ku˘sˇti nine.THE hundreds houses (e. g. Teteven, Mladenov-Archive) vs. Standard Bulgarian devetstotinte ku˘sti ninehundreds.THE houses ‘the nine hundred houses’ makes it possible to attribute variation between other compounds and nominal phrases such as desetgodisˇninata ten-anniversary.THE vs. desetata godisˇnina tenth.FEM.THE anniversary ‘the tenth anniversary’ to regional difference as well.

2.2.

Content

As to the content of definiteness, there are so many factors that have an impact that some systematic approach is necessary in order to assure that they are all accounted for in a principled manner. This understanding, matching current mainstream opinions in linguistics (Chvany [1983] 1996; Lyons 1999: 253–281), was first formulated in the late 1960s by I. I. Revzin in his broad program for the typological study of definiteness, which was applied to the Slavic and Balkan languages (Revzin 1977a, Revzin 1977b, Nikolaeva 1979). A. D. Sˇmelev proposes a model of (in)definiteness in Russian that makes use of oppositions such as trivial vs. non-trivial individualizing (first introduced by M. G. Seleznev), constant vs. variable denotative space and concrete vs. generalized reference (1992). An attempt to systematize the meanings of the grammatical category ‘definiteness’ in Bulgarian, based on the search for a stable ‘invariant’ core of the varying manifestations of definiteness was made by Valentin Stankov (1987). Moving away from this idea in his later work, he increased the number of dimensions relevant for definiteness to four: identifiability, totality, referentiality and significativity (Stankov 1995: 104). Meri Lakova (1997–1998) proposes another model of definiteness in Bulgarian, which postulates the existence of four types of noun phrases: generic (with the article –u˘t), indefinite (with edin or Ø1 article), definite (with the article –u˘t) and adefined (with Ø2 article). Koseska-Toszewa and Gargov (1991) see (in)definiteness as a sentential category in the area of quantificational phenomena and deal with it from the perspective of situational semantics. Tania Avgustinova (1998) situates her model of definiteness at the intersection of three dichotomies: limited vs. non-limited, specific vs. non specific and generic vs. non-generic, where limitedness (a concept borrowed from Sˇamraj 1989) roughly corresponds to identifiability. A different approach could be the so-called default inheritance model (Corbett and Fraser 2000), which has not been consistently applied to definiteness, although Chesterman explores the idea of ‘default readings’ of some of his parameters ‘which will hold unless circumstances indicate otherwise’

Content

49

(1991: 66; see also p. 164). I would like to apply this hierarchical model, used mostly in computational linguistics, more systematically. Essential to it is the assumption that the highest level of factors determines the features of a given entity unless exceptional values have been encoded for it on a lower level (Daelemans et al. 1992). My reasons for opting for the particular order of levels displayed in Table 2 are of a general theoretical (Revzina 1979: 74) and language-specific nature. I will introduce my proposal informally starting with the highest level. 2.2.1. The pragmatic level Speakers can present a nominal either as familiar (theme, also called topic) or as novel (rheme, also called focus) in the universe of discourse.32 In order to do so, they have to choose between marked nominals as signs of discourse familiarity – such as 1M in (135) – and unmarked nominals as signs of discourse novelty – such as 1U in (134).33 (134) Vnimavaj! Dupka! pay-attention.IMPER.2SG hole ‘Careful! A hole!’ (135) Vnimavaj! Dupkata! pay-attention.IMPER.2SG hole.THE ‘Careful! The hole!’ In (134) the hole the speaker alerts her hearer to is presented as new information, whereas in (135) the definite article indicates that the hearer is reminded of a familiar hole. The novel first-mention nominal may be followed by an anaphora co-referential with it. The anaphora can be represented by nouns accompanied with demonstrative determiners (1M5) or definite articles (1M1 and equivalent) or by personal pronouns (0U or 0M1-1), the choice between them being made on a lower level of the default inheritance model. Here is an illustration of the relevance of the pragmatic level for the choice of the type of nominal.

32. For a general discussion and references see Lyons 1999: 227–236 and for a Bulgarian-based perspective see Dyer 1992: 34–39, Dyer 1993. 33. This argument has also been made by Sˇamraj (1989: 50–51) regarding the opposition of forms with and without the definite article in Bulgarian.

50

Definiteness: expression and content

(136) Pred barakite bjaxa skovani masi i In-front barracks.THE were.3PL hammered-together tables and skamejki, a sred tjax imasˇe pobit v benches whereas among them had.3SG driven.MASC in zemjata kol, na kojto be nabucˇen ground.THE stake on which.MASC was.3SG impaled.MASC sˇirok du˘rven kru˘g. Na toja kru˘g broad.MASC wooden.MASC disk on this.MASC disk stoesˇe jastreb. Toj besˇe privu˘rzan o kola stood.3SG hawk he was.3SG tied.MASC onto stake.THE s pirincˇena verizˇka, zˇu˘lta, kakto be with brass.ADJ.FEM chain yellow.FEM as was.3SG zˇu˘lt i negovijat du˘lu˘g, gol yellow.MASC and his.MASC.THE long.MASC bare.MASC i xisˇten krak. and rapacious.MASC leg ‘Tables and benches were hammered together in front of the barracks, and in their midst a stake was driven in the ground on which a broad wooden disk was impaled. A hawk stood on this disk. He was tied to the stake with a brass chain, as yellow as his long, bare and rapacious leg.’ (Stanev) The 1U first-mention nominals masi i skamejki ‘tables and benches’, kol ‘stake’, sˇirok du˘rven kru˘g ‘broad wooden disk’ and jastreb ‘hawk’ are followed by anaphoric 0M1-1 tjax ‘them’, 1M1 kola ‘the stake’, 1M5-1 toja kru˘g ‘this disk’ and 0M1-1 toj ‘he’, all of them co-referential with their respective first-mention nominals. Nominals of type 0 play an important role on the pragmatic level. The contrast between 0U and 0M1-1 nominals allows to distinguish between informationally non-segmented and segmented sentences on one hand and between topic and focus in the realm of the segmented sentences on the other. As a null-argument language, Bulgarian has the option to choose between weak and strong pronouns (affixes and clitics vs. free-standing and reduplicated forms), so that the sentence ‘I love you’, where both ‘I’ and ‘you’ are expressed by the respective weak or strong pronouns can appear in context in one of the following sixteen versions:

Content

(137) Obicˇam te. love.1SG you.CL.2SG (138) Obicˇam tebe. love.1SG you.2SG (139) Obicˇam te tebe. love.1SG you.CL.2SG you.2SG (140) Obicˇam te tebe az. love.1SG you.CL.2SG you.2SG I (141) Obicˇam te az tebe. love.1SG you.CL.2SG I you.2SG (142) Tebe obicˇam. you.2SG love.1SG (143) Tebe te obicˇam you.2SG you.CL.2SG love.1SG (144) Tebe obicˇam az. you.2SG love.1SG I (145) Tebe az obicˇam. you.2SG I love.1SG (146) Tebe az te obicˇam. you.2SG I you.CL.2SG love.1SG (147) Tebe te obicˇam az. you.2SG you.CL.2SG love.1SG I (148) Az te obicˇam. I you.CL.2SG love.1SG (149) Az obicˇam tebe. I love.1SG you.2SG (150) Az tebe obicˇam. I you.2SG love.1SG (151) Az te obicˇam tebe. I you.CL.2SG love.1SG you.2SG (152) Az tebe te obicˇam. I you.2SG you.CL.2SG love.1SG

51

52

Definiteness: expression and content

Sentences (137)-(152) form a communicative paradigm, whose members despite synonymity are not interchangeable in context (Zolotova et al. 1998: 380). Each member of the communicative paradigm is characterized by its word order and subtype of 0 nominals. In terms of word order, one can distinguish between preposition and postposition of the pronoun to the verb. In case of clitic reduplication, preposition is accompanied by clitic reprise – see (143), (146), (147) and (152) – and of postposition with clitic anticipation – see (139), (140), (141) and (151). All Balkan languages including Bulgarian are thought to reach much more frequently for the former type which is ahead of the latter on the path towards grammaticalization (Lopasˇov 1978: 14–15, 20–21, 46, 51).34 In fact, for the subject position the use of 0M1-1 automatically implies reduplication, as the strong pronoun does not replace the verb ending but accompanies it. Viewed from this perspective, the notorious Balkan clitic reduplication appears as no more than a counterpart to the typologically trivial reduplication in the subject position. Since type 0M1-1, as opposed to type 0U, as a rule implies textual salience of some kind, the non-segmented sentence (137) would be the proper one to use as an answer to yes-or-no questions like that in (153) or in any contexts that emphasize the predicate and take the arguments for granted such as (154): (153) “Obicˇasˇ li me?” “Obicˇam te.” love.2SG INTERROG me.CL.ACC love.1SG you.CL.2SG.ACC ‘“Do you love me?” “Yes, I do.”’ (154) Kamen ne vjarva, cˇe go obicˇasˇ. Kamen not believes that him.CL.ACC love.2SG ‘Kamen doesn’t believe that you love him.’ If speakers wish to contrast or emphasize the arguments, they must choose strong pronouns as in (148) to highlight the subject, in (142) – the object or in (149) – both. In the following examples one can see how these members of the communicative paradigm fit in context: (155) “Vsicˇki me mrazjat.” “Az te obicˇam.” all me.CL.ACC hate.3PL I you.CL.2SG.ACC love.1SG ‘“Everybody hates me.” “I love you.”’ 34. There is a broad range of variation between the standard language and the Bulgarian dialects in this regard, which has not been thoroughly studied. Preliminary reports indicate that the Southwestern, the Rhodope and the Thrace dialects lag behind in the use of clitic reduplication of the object (Mladenov and Steinke 1978: 76).

Content

53

(156) “Kogo obicˇasˇ?” “Tebe obicˇam.” whom love.2SG you.2SG.ACC love.1SG ‘“Whom do you love?” “I love you.”’ Pronouns in the subject slot do not have the resources to distinguish between topic and focus formally, except by word order and intonation. Conversely, contrast between single and reduplicated long-form pronouns is available for the object position. Long-form pronouns in the oblique cases mark the focus of an utterance. A similar usage has been noted regarding the other Balkan languages (Lopasˇov 1978: 22, 47; Cˇernjak 1979: 256, 259). Clitic reduplication of the object is reserved for nominals in the topic position (Cyxun 1962: 290; Ivancˇev 1978 [1968], 166–168; Leafgren 1997). Besides, clitic reduplication possibly has expressive functions, as has been argued recently (Tchizmarova 2004). The following examples demonstrate the interplay of long-form pronouns in the focus and clitic reduplication in the topic position. In his famous farewell letter to his wife Veneta – see (157) – Xristo Botev uses a long-form second-person pronoun in the focus position. Stanislav Stratiev rephrases the sentence and, having moved the object to the topic position, he renders it by clitic reduplication, see (158). (157) Ako umra, to znaj, cˇe posle if die.1SG then know.IMPER.2SG that after otecˇestvoto si su˘m obicˇal naj-mnogo fatherland.THE REFL.DAT am loved.MASC most tebe, zatova gledaj Ivanka i you.2SG.ACC that-is-why look.IMPER.2SG Ivanka and pomni ljubjasˇtija te Remember.IMPER.2SG loving.MASC.THE you.CL.2SG.ACC Xrista. Xristo.ACC ‘If I die, be aware that after my fatherland I have loved you best. Therefore look after Ivanka and remember Xristo, who loves you.’ (Stojanov 1976: 280–281) (158) Zajavjavam, cˇe ne iskam povecˇe da su˘m Veneta. declare.1SG that not want.1SG more to am Veneta Mene vse me obicˇat naj-mnogo, no me.ACC always me.CL.ACC love.3PL most but

54

Definiteness: expression and content

vse posle nesˇto. Posle Otecˇestvoto. always after something after fatherland.THE ‘I declare that I do not wish to be Veneta any more. I am always loved best but always after something. After the Fatherland.’ (Stratiev) In conclusion, it is worth pointing out that the pragmatic level displays more differences than similarities of detail between the uses of unmarked and marked nominals of the 0 type, on the one hand, and the rest of the nominal types, on the other. The main dichotomy for the majority of nominal types is that between the first-mention focus and the topic positions, to be filled in with unmarked and marked nominals, respectively. This however is not a relevant opposition for type 0 because of its lack of descriptive content, which makes its use in the first-mention focus position at best difficult. This brings about the prominence of another dichotomy (that of communicatively nonsegmented vs. segmented sentences), which is the one that governs the use of unmarked and marked nominals of type 0. Communicatively segmented sentences with a neutral, unmarked word order have the subject in the topic position and the verb and its complements in the focus position. As soon as there is a departure from the unmarked word order leading to the topicalization of an element that is not normally part of the topic, the need appears for a special expression to render it. Thus, the reduplicated 0M1-1 for the object in topic position cannot be replaced by the respective 0U35 as (159) demonstrates: (159) Obicˇam te, mamo! No ne moga povecˇe love.1SG you.CL.ACC Mom.VOC but not can.1SG more da te gledam kak vexnesˇ po men. […] to you.CL.ACC look.1SG how pine.2SG after me.ACC Prosti mi, tatko! I tebe te forgive.2SG me.CL.DAT Dad and you.ACC you.CL.ACC obicˇam! love.1SG ‘I love you, Mom! But I cannot go on watching you pine for me. […] Forgive me, Dad! I love you too!’ (Valentin Kabakcˇiev)

35. Replacement with the non-reduplicated equivalent of the 0M1-1 nominal is however an option even though a less appealing one stylistically.

Content

55

These distinctions are not readily expressed by nominals with nouns in the head position. The one between segmented and non-segmented sentences is apparently simply ignored, whereas topicalization may as well be rendered by clitic reduplication with objects expressed by nominals with nouns in the head position. 2.2.2. The semantic level This level houses a scalar classification of referents, denotations and properties to which nominals refer or which they denote. It is difficult to select an umbrella term that would be suitable to cover all semantic uses of the U and M nominals. The term ‘denotation’ does not include unique referents, whereas ‘referent’ fits neither the typifying use of nominals nor non-specifics and quantitative generics (Chesterman 1991: 64, 188). Even if one takes into account the so-called ‘discourse referent’ (Heim 1988: 249–263; 281–285; Lyons 1999: 268–269), which expands the notion of referent to include apparent anaphora, not based on real-world reference, and retains nonspecifics as referential in a discursive sense, there still remain nominal uses that are clearly non-referential. According to a narrower view, only unique referents of all the categories of interest to us here “are ever semantically referring” (Lyons 1999: 165–166). I opted for ‘description’ as shorthand for ‘referent and/or property and/or denotation’, in line with the conventional usage of the term in semantics to denote “all material that ascribes properties to entities” (Lyons 1999: 7). In order to keep the levels of expression and content apart, the term ‘description’ will be reserved for the semantic aspect of a nominal. All descriptions can be divided into several contiguous categories, which function in all possible worlds, including the actual world. The binary oppositions generic vs. non-generic, inside the non-generic area specific vs. nonspecific and, inside the specific area, definite vs. indefinite account for the major partitions among types of descriptions. Definite descriptions can either refer to unique referents (e.g., proper nouns) or the relevant member(s) of a set. For the purposes of this analysis it is useful to further subdivide the definite and the generic categories. Generics are either typifying or quantitative. In the definite category, identifiability rules in the core, whereas the periphery is dominated by inclusiveness. Core definite values assign a nominal to the individuative descriptions and peripheral ones to the quantitative or the (situationally) unique definites, respectively. The inclusive subcategories of the definite category and the neighbouring quantitative generics share features important for understanding the diachronic processes that shaped definiteness

56

Definiteness: expression and content

in Bulgarian. In addition to the generic and specific categories, I will explore theoretically and empirically the existence in Bulgarian of a non-specific description, situated between specifics and generics and subsumed under neither. It is therefore a category different from both its neighbours: typifying generics and indefinites. Category boundaries are fuzzy, so typifying generics, for instance, share properties with both neighbours: quantitative generics and non-specifics. Thus we obtain a series of adjacent semantic categories: quantitative generics – specific definites – unique referents – specific indefinites – non-specifics – typifying generics. The specific definite category is not homogeneous but structured as an individuative core surrounded by a quantitative/unique periphery. One can see a correlation between these types of descriptions and text registers as postulated in Zolotova et al. (1998: 29–35, 393–400). In their model there are three monologue and two dialogue text registers. Especially striking is the correlation of descriptions with the monologue text registers.36 In the graphic text register used to report observed actions, speakers present individual facts perceivable directly by one of the five senses. The most important opposition in this text register is that between definite and indefinite specifics. Since this is the register for one-time occurrences, we can also call it the vednu˘zˇ register (Bulgarian vednu˘zˇ ‘once’). In the informative text register, speakers present habitual facts that cannot be anchored at a specific point of time. One reports in this register on states of affairs, into which one has gained insight through logical mental operations or from experience. The relevant oppositions for this register will have to include the borderline segments delimiting the specific area: that is, quantitative definites at one extreme and non-specifics at the other. Temporal adverbs such as ponjakoga ‘sometimes’, cˇesto ‘often’, postojanno ‘constantly’, vsjakoga ‘every time’, vinagi ‘always’ etc. characterize this register. I shall label it the mnogokratno register (Bulgarian mnogokratno ‘repeatedly’). The gnomic text register, suitable for expressing general statements regarding natural and social phenomena, which are true of whole classes of objects, needs generics (quantitative and typifying). This is the vu˘obsˇte register (Bulgarian vu˘obsˇte ‘in general’). Since the classification of text registers is predicate-based, this correlation is also understood to imply the co-occurrence of description types and verbal tenses and aspects as follows: perfectives & specifics (160), imperfectives & non-specifics and 36. The correlation between nominal type and text register in my model corresponds to the quantification of nominal and verbal phrases in the model proposed by Koseska-Toszewa and Gargov 1991: 38–39; 80–126.

Content

57

quantitative definites (161), the absolute present tense & generics (162) (Zolotova et al. 1998: 331, 427–428).37 (160) Vu˘rzˇi prasˇeca dobre. Sˇte precedisˇ tie-up.PF.2SG.IMPER bloom.THE well will strain.PF.2SG bilkata prez edin tjulben. Sˇtom herb.THE through one.MASC muslin as-soon-as izstine, sˇte ja dadesˇ na momata, cool-down.PF.3SG will her.ACC give.PF.2SG to lass.THE da ja izpie, ama na gladno su˘rce. to her.ACC drink-up.PF.3SG but on hungry.NEUT heart ‘Tie the bloom up well. You will strain the herb through a piece of muslin. As soon as it cools down, you will give it to the lass, to drink it up, but on an empty stomach.’ (Dimitu˘r Talev – GSBKE 2: 272) (161) Slucˇvalo se e da se happened.IMPF.PART.NEUT REFL.ACC is to REFL.ACC spirat xora na pu˘tja pod strjaxata stop.IMPF.3PL people on road.THE under eaves.THE im da slusˇat nejnata pesen. them.DAT to listen.IMPF.3PL her.FEM.THE song ‘It has happened that people stop on the road under their eaves to listen to her song.’ (Todor Vlajkov – GSBKE 2: 278) (162) Zˇeljazoto se kove dokato e goresˇto. Iron.THE REFL.ACC forge.3SG while is hot.NEUT ‘The iron is forged while it is hot.’ (a maxim – GSBKE 2: 293) It should be emphasized that the relationship between text register and description is unilateral, i.e. without the kind of description typical of a given register, it cannot function properly in its full range; however, other types of description are not barred from occurring when needed. 37. The two other registers that are employed in dialogues are the ‘inductive’ and the ‘reactive’ text registers. Speakers use the former to produce changes in reality (e.g., by provoking their interlocutors to perform an action) and the latter to express a reaction to a communicative situation. Perhaps one can go beyond linking descriptions with text registers and determine that certain nominal types function better in one text register than in another. For instance, in section 3.14 I argue that nominals of type 0M1-2 characterize the reactive text register.

58

Definiteness: expression and content

Schematically these descriptions are presented in Table 15: Table 15. Description and text register Text Register

Generic

Non-generic Specific Definite

Informative (mnogokratno) Gnomic (vu˘obsˇte)

+ +

+

(6) Indefinite

+

+

+

+

(7) Non-specific

(5) Unique

Graphic (vednu˘zˇ)

(4) Individuative

(3) Quantitative

(2) Quantitative

(1) Typifying

(Part of a) Set

+

+

The following sentences illustrate the introduced categories of descriptions in their typical registers. Generic typifying: (163) Kravata e bozajnik. cow.THE is mammal ‘A cow is a mammal.’ Generic quantitative: (164) Prez zimata mecˇkite during winter.THE bears.THE ‘Bears sleep during the winter.’

spjat. sleep.3PL

Definite quantitative: (165) Tja ne izliza sutrin predi da si izpie she not leave.3SG morning before to REFL.DAT drink.3SG mljakoto. milk.THE ‘She does not leave in the morning until she drinks her milk.’

Content

59

Definite individuative: (166) Kupixte li podaru˘k za deteto? bought.2PL INTERROG gift for child.THE ‘Did you buy a gift for the child?’ Unique referent: (167) V dalecˇinata sineesˇe Dunavu˘t. In distance.THE appeared-blue.3SG Danube.THE ‘At a distance, the blue Danube was visible.’ (168) Kogato zimata e studena, Dunavu˘t zamru˘zva. when winter.THE is cold.FEM Danube.THE freezes ‘Whenever the winter is cold, the Danube freezes.’ (169) Dunavu˘t se vliva v Cˇerno more. Danube.THE REFL.ACC flows-in in Black sea ‘The Danube flows into the Black Sea.’ Indefinite: (170) Na prozoreca se pokaza dete. on window.THE REFL.ACC showed.3SG child ‘A child appeared in the window.’ Non-specific: (171) Otvreme navreme minavaxa koli. from-time to-time passed-by.3PL cars ‘Cars were driving by from time to time.’ Any number of examples of descriptions outside their typical registers can be offered, a situation common in other languages as well (Lyons 1999: 180). I shall limit myself to illustrations of individuatives in the informative register (172) and definite quantitatives in the graphic register (173): (172) Vsjaka sutrin fajtonu˘t otvezˇdasˇe polkovnika v every.FEM morning carriage.THE took.3SG colonel.THE in grada i na obed go dokarvasˇe obratno. town.THE and on noon him.CL.ACC brought.3SG back ‘Every morning the carriage took the colonel to the town and at noon brought him back.’ (Stanev) (173) Toj prebroi monetite v dzˇoba si. he counted.3SG coins.THE in pocket.THE REFL.DAT ‘He counted the coins in his pocket.’

60

Definiteness: expression and content

Sets are definite because they are identifiable in the context of communication, due to knowledge of the world or by association with the topic of discourse. The simplest kind of definiteness is that relying on immediate perceptitibility in the communicative situation. This is what will further be referred to as deictic definiteness. Given the written nature of the available sources however, our knowledge of this type of definiteness in the previous stages of Bulgarian is not extensive. Here is one illustration from contemporary fiction, which will clarify the point I would like to make. In his short story Napast bozˇija ‘God’s Scourge’, Elin Pelin describes the social conflict provoked by a breakout of an epidemic. There were two local theories explaining it: according to the priest it was God’s punishment triggered by the villagers’ sins and according to the teacher it was caused by the polluted water of the village well. When the teacher barred access to the well, the priest took an axe and tried to remove the lid of the well. Then Mladen, a village lad, said: (174) Djado pope, xvu˘rli bradvata nastrana, grandfather priest.VOC throw.IMPER.2SG axe.THE away cˇe mi tu˘mnee pred ocˇite! or-else me.CL. DAT darkens in-front-of eyes.THE ‘Father, drop the axe or I may lose my temper!’ The axe was not mentioned in the previous exchange between characters but was part of the setting described by Elin Pelin. For obvious reasons, what would have been deictic definiteness in the process of communication comes through as anaphoric definiteness in written text. Deictic definiteness can be expressed by personal and demonstrative pronouns and by the definite article. Of special interest for my purposes are the so-called bridging inferences that rely on background knowledge. This background knowledge may be situational or cultural (Clark 1977; Lyons 1999: 4). In (175) the customers of an inn and its entrance, although never previously mentioned in the story, are still represented by 1M1 nominals. The author could afford to do this because in the world in which we live inns have some inherent characteristics (such as customers and entrances) that make them what they are. This definiteness by entailment will further be referred to as exophoric definiteness. (175) Edin den obacˇe dojde komisija, napravi one.MASC day however came.3SG commission made.3SG ogled i posredstvom ne znam inspection and by-means-of not know.1SG

Content

61

kakvi razporedbi bitovoto xancˇe besˇe what.PL directives folk-style.NEUT.THE inn was.3SG izzeto ot seloto i be taken-away.NEUT from village.THE and was.3SG predadeno na ‘Balkanturist’. Nov upravitel transferred.NEUT to Balkantourist new.MASC manager se naznacˇi na mjastoto na starija REFL.ACC appointed.3SG on place.THE of old.MASC.THE da uveri klientite, xandzˇija. !…" Za innkeeper in-order to assure.3SG customers.THE cˇe v xancˇeto se servira samo prjasna that in inn.THE REFL.ACC serve.3SG only fresh.FEM stoka, novijat upravitel zakupi dva kafeza goods new.MASC.THE manager bought.3SG two crates s zˇivi pileta ot pticefermata i with live.PL chickens from poultry-farm.THE and gi postavi pred vxoda … them.ACC placed.3SG in-front-of entrance.THE ‘One day, however, a commission came and made an inspection and by means of I don’t know what directives the folk-style inn was taken away from the village and turned over to Balkantourist. A new manager was appointed to the position of the former innkeeper. !…" In order to reassure the customers that only fresh goods were served in the inn, the new manager bought two crates of live chickens from the poultry farm and put them in front of the entrance …’ (Radicˇkov 1980: 112) Descriptions (be they specific, generic, or non-specific; definite or indefinite) can be treated by the speaker either as familiar or as novel in the universe of discourse. Prescriptions on the pragmatic and the semantic levels can agree or contradict each other. In other words, on the one hand, there might be more than one reason for a nominal to be marked: it can, for instance, be both anaphoric and exophoric. On the other hand, there are cases when contradictory prescriptions need to be reconciled. Such are the indefinites presented as familiar and the definites presented as novel, a situation illustrated in the following sentences:

62

Definiteness: expression and content

(176) Do osemnajset godini bjax sportist. Vu˘rvesˇe until eighteen years was.1SG athlete was-going.3SG mi vsicˇko. Xvanax se s volejbol me.DAT everything Caught.1SG REFL.ACC with volleyball i – xop! – za tri meseca vljazox v otbora; and up! for three months entered.1SG in team.THE edin prijatel se zapisa pri boks’orite – az one friend REFL.ACC enrolled.3SG at boxers.THE I sled nego. after him.ACC ‘I was an athlete until the age of eighteen. I could do anything. I took up volleyball and in three months I fell plump into the team; a friend enrolled in boxing, I after him.’ (Iliev, Chapter 1) (177) Zasˇtoto te smetnali, cˇe fajtonu˘t e na because they reckoned.3PL that carriage.THE is to edin pijanica ot torlasˇkoto selo one.MASC drunkard from Torlak.ADJ.NEUT.THE village Staropatica, kogato cˇoveku˘t se zasedi Staropatica when person.THE REFL.ACC over-stayed.3SG v kru˘cˇma ili xancˇe, konete go ostavjali i in tavern or inn horses.THE him.ACC left.3PL and se pribirali sami v Staropatica. REFL.ACC returned.3PL alone.PL in Staropatica ‘Because they reckoned that the carriage belonged to a drunkard from the Torlak village Staropatica: when the man stayed too long in a tavern or an inn, the horses would leave him and return on their own to Staropatica.’ (Radicˇkov 1980: 93) Examples like (176) and (177) show that the default inheritance model works as predicted. According to the highest pragmatic-level rules, nominals need to be marked if they are familiar in the universe of discourse. On the lower semantic level, the choice among marked nominals is restricted to nominals of type 1M2 because the description is indefinite. Outside the sphere of discoursive familiarity, indefinites can be expressed by nominals of type 1U, but if we replace edin prijatel ‘a/one friend’ in (176) with the corresponding nominal of type 1U prijatel, the sentence becomes ungrammatical. The same is

Content

63

the situation with the nominal edin pijanica ot torlasˇkoto selo Staropatica ‘a/one drunkard from the Torlak village Staropatica’ in (177). Its referent is presented as familiar in the universe of discourse and this makes it impossible to replace it with the corresponding nominal of type 8U2 pijanica ot torlasˇkoto selo Staropatica ‘drunkard from the Torlak village Staropatica’. The ungrammaticality of U nominals in this position was first noticed by Svetomir Ivancˇev (1957: 514–515). Conversely, novel referents are signaled by unmarked nominals on the pragmatic level. Our novel definite referents otbora ‘the team’ and boks’orite ‘the boxers’ in (176), however, are referred to by nominals of type 1M1. This implies that new values have been formulated for them on the lower semantic level and these values bar the upper-level default rules from applying. Non-specifics presented as familiar follow the same pattern: they are expressed by nominals of type 1M3-1. In the following example, familiar njakoi deca ‘some children’ cannot be replaced with deca ‘children’ without provoking a breakdown of communication. (178) Za Marta Jordanova vecˇe spomenax. Osˇte … of Marta Jordanova already mentioned.1SG more Kazvaxa, cˇe bila metresa na Profesora. were-telling.3PL that been.FEM mistress of Professor.THE Mozˇe bi bivsˇa. Mozˇe bi ot vreme na vreme. may be former.FEM may be from time to time Ucˇudvasˇto be drugo – njakoi deca surprising.NEUT was other some.PL childrem gledala mnogo. Zasˇto njakoi? taken-care-of.FEM a-lot why some ‘I have already made mention of Marta Jordanova. What else? There also was a rumour that she was the Professor’s mistress. Maybe a former mistress. Maybe from time to time. Something else was surprising: she was said to take a very good care of some children. Why some?’ (Iliev, Chapter 1) The opposition specific/generic is also reflected in the use of nominals of type 0. Nominals of type 0M1 may have a specific reading as in (179), whereas their counterparts of type 0U’s reading is generic, cf. (180) (Nicolova 1986: 43–44):

64

Definiteness: expression and content

(179) Te kazvat, cˇe toj bil mnogo bogat. they say.3PL that he was.MASC very rich.MASC. ‘They say that he is (allegedly) very rich.’ (180) Kazvat, cˇe toj bil mnogo bogat. say.3PL that he was.MASC very rich.MASC. ‘He is said to be very rich.’ Similar contrasts are possible not only in the third person plural but also in the second person singular, cf. specific (181) and generic (182): (181) Ne zabravjaj, cˇe ako ti ne se not forget.IMPER.2SG that if you not REFL.ACC poxvalisˇ sam v razgovora s tjax, praise.2SG yourself.MASC in conversation.THE with them tvoite zaslugi mogat da bu˘dat prenebregnati. your.PL.THE merits may.3PL to be.3PL disregarded.3PL ‘Don’t forget that if you don’t praise yourself when you talk to them, your merits may be disregarded.’ (182) Ako ne se poxvalisˇ sam, nikoj if not REFL.ACC praise.2SG yourself.MASC no-one njama da te poxvali. will-not to you.CL.ACC praise.3SG ‘If you do not praise yourself, no one will.’ A nominal of the marked series may be present on both semantic and pragmatic grounds like the singular ti ‘you’ in (183), which is (a) specific and (b) contrasted with az ‘I’. (183) Ako ti ne se poxvalisˇ sam, az if you not REFL.ACC praise.2SG yourself.MASC I sˇte te poxvalja. will you.CL.ACC praise.1SG ‘If you do not praise yourself, I will.’ In other contexts nominals of 0M type may also have a generic reading, as in Xristo Botev’s famous lines, that contain a generic 0M5-7 and a generic 0M1-1:

Content

65

(184) Toz, kojto padne v boj za svoboda/ this.MASC who.MASC falls.3SG in battle for freedom toj ne umira. he not dies ‘He who falls in battle for freedom does not die.’

2.2.3. The lexical-morphological level Inside a section delimited on the upper pragmatic and semantic levels, change spreads from one class of words to another. The relevance of oppositions such as adjective vs. noun, singular vs. plural, masculine vs. feminine vs. neuter, animate vs. inanimate, count vs. mass and concrete vs. abstract cannot be excluded off hand. Such oppositions intuitively appear to be more important for the evolution of definiteness than for its functioning in the contemporary language. Individual words (Bog ‘God’) or classes of words (kinship terms, terms for body parts or residents of a locality, diminutives of personal names etc.) may have fixed values regarding definiteness. These values may function not across the board but in specific syntactic environments. They are usually described as exceptions in traditional grammar (GSBKE 2: 127–129). Certain subtypes of the 0 type specialize to always express certain descriptions, for instance 0M3-1 (non-specific). We will look into some constant nominal-description liaisons of this kind in more detail later. But as type 0 subtypes have a very limited membership, one could argue that their values are lexically determined on an item-by-item basis. Together with the more versatile subtypes like 0M1 and 0M5 these semantic constants form a 0 type range that corresponds to that of the rest of the nominal types.

2.2.4. The syntactic level Nominals can function in the sentence in a number of syntactic positions, presented schematically in Table 16. Table 16. Classification of nominals according to syntactic position Argument Subject

Predicative Nominal Object

Adverbial

66

Definiteness: expression and content

Also revelant for our purposes are the semantic relationships of verbs with their arguments, customarily referred to as thematic (or theta) roles: agent, patient, theme, experiencer, beneficiary, goal, source, location etc. At least, some patterns of clitic reduplication are better captured in terms of the opposition between agent, patient and experiencer rather than subject and object. Several comments pertaining to this lowest level of the default inheritance model need to be made. (A) It should be kept in mind that there may be greater numbers of nouns in a given sentence than the nouns employed in these four positions. For instance, nouns also appear as subordinate elements of nominals of type 8. In statistics, therefore, syntactic data may or may not correspond numerically to the data for other levels of the same portion of the text. (B) Apart from these syntactic functions, nominals can be employed on their own as nominative sentences, such as those in (185).38 (185) Ucˇen svjat! Djavolski svjat! I po learned.MASC world devilish.MASC world and over zvezdite pocˇnaxa kato kozi da se katerjat, stars.THE started.3PL like goats to REFL.ACC climb.3PL i na morskoto du˘no slizat cˇak and to sea.ADJ.NEUT.THE bottom descend.3PL as-far-as raci da lovjat – da se cˇudisˇ i crabs to catch.3PL to REFL.ACC amaze.2SG and maesˇ prosto! divert.2SG simply ‘Learned world! Devilish world! [People are everywhere]. They have started to climb to the stars like goats, and they descend to hunt for crabs as far as the bottom of the sea, simply unbelievable!’ (Cˇudomir, Alaminut)

38. The Bulgarian Academy grammar offers a classification of nominative sentences with many examples and a stylistic characterization (GSBKE 3: 96–99). A comparison between English and Bulgarian nominative sentences with examples is provided by Zˇana Molxova (1970: 76–77). A semantic analysis of 1U and 1M1 nominals functioning as nominative sentences was made by Sˇamraj 1989: 57–60. Non-specifics in nominative sentences have also been discussed by others, see Stankov 1995: 114 with further bibliography.

Content

67

Since the general rules of the semantic level would apply to such sentences, I will not treat them here separately. (C) Bulgarian address forms of masculine and feminine singulars have special markers (the so-called vocative case), which continue to be widely used today (GSBKE 3: 259–261) and are well represented in the damaskin literature, as (186) shows: (186) I recˇ[e] mu zˇenata mu, gde s˘ı and said.3SG him.DAT wife.THE him.DAT where are.3PL deˇcata nasˇi g[o]sp[o]dine. i toi ei children.THE our.PL mister.VOC and he her.DAT recˇ[e], su˘sl˘ızi dzveˇrïe izeˇdoxa gy o said.3SG with-tears beasts devour.3PL them.ACC oh zˇeno moa wife.VOC my.FEM ‘And his wife told him, “Where are our children, sir?” And he told her with tears, “Beasts devoured them, my [dear] wife.”’ (Demina 1971: 78) Adjectives that accompany masculine address forms appear in the so-called long form (LF), which is nowadays rarely used in Bulgarian outside set 39 phrases and toponyms. See, for example, 4U in (187) and 5U in (188): (187) mili tatko dear.MASC.LF dad ‘Dear Dad’ (188) carju cˇestiti emperor.VOC happy.MASC.LF ‘Your Majesty’39 Such usage is common in the damaskin literature – see (189) and (190) – where it occurs against a background of a much broader distribution of LF. I return to LF in section 5.5. In the damaskins there also is a deviation from the familiar usage, consisting of the attachment of a noun-type vocative ending to a masculine adjective, which is illustrated here in (191).40 39. This address formula, frequently used in fairy tales, is attested in the togiva section of the Tixonravov damaskin as well (Demina 1971: 317). 40. Other examples are available in the togiva section of the Tixonravov and the Svisˇtov damaskins (Demina 1971: 312; Mileticˇ 1923: 283). Since this linguistic form

68

Definiteness: expression and content

(189) prosti mi tova zlo sˇto ti forgive.2SG.IMPER me.DAT this.NEUT evil that you.DAT sm˘ı storil˘ı, b[o]zˇii cˇl[ove]cˇe am do.PART godly.MASC.LF person.VOC ‘Forgive me the evil that I did to you, godly man.’ (Demina 1971: 55) (190) ne mi e vu˘zmozˇno o[t]cˇe s[ve]ty not me.DAT is possible.ADV father.VOC holy.MASC.LF da si ostavle˛ zˇenu˘ta da bude inokynja, to REFL.DAT leave.3SG wife.THE to be nun zasˇto e ednak˘ı mlada because is still young.FEM ‘I cannot, holy Father, allow my wife to be a nun because she is still young.’ (Demina 1971: 137) (191) evlaviju zloumne. zasˇto uze mito Eulavius.VOC evil-minded.VOC why took.2SG bribe ‘Evil-minded Eulavius, why did you take a bribe?’ (Demina 1971: 175) Neuters and plurals functioning as address forms are represented today by nominals of the U series. The same is true of the damaskins, as the following selection of nominals demonstrates. (192) o cˇedo sˇto me taka mlogo izpytuvasˇ˘ı oh child why me.ACC so much question.2SG ‘Oh [my] child, why are you questioning me so much?’ (Demina 1971: 53) (193) Ami i vye zˇeny, cˇjujte kak˘ı izlazi ot and as well you women listen how comes-out from dobro dr˘ıvo dobr˘ı plod˘ı good.NEUT tree good.MASC fruit ‘And you too, women, listen how good fruit is produced by a good tree.’ (Demina 1971: 142)

must have been carried over from the archaic original – cf. in the parallel archaic versions of (191) avlavïe| vreˇzˇdennoumne in Ilievski 1972, 2: 558 and avlavïe| vreˇdoumne BAN, 24.4.32: 294v – it can hardly count as a straightforward characteristic of early Modern Bulgarian. At the same time, it attests to some confusion regarding the formal differences between nouns and adjectives.

Content

69

(194) Cˇjujte vye sˇto ste su˘brani sega na listen.2PL.IMPER you that are.2PL gathered now on t˘ızi trapeza maly i veliky this.FEM table small.PL and great.PL ‘Listen you, young and old, who have gathered now around this table.’ (Demina 1971: 90) Marked nominals of type 1M1, 2M1 and 7M are not used in the damaskins as address forms, even though the standard and the colloquial language employ them so (GSBKE 2: 175; 3: 260; Kostov 1976: 306–310 with further bibliography), as the following examples demonstrate: (195) Vicˇko, stani, cˇe sˇte xodim v grada. Vicˇko get-up.2SG.IMPER because will go.1PL to city.THE Xajde, momcˇeto mi, pocˇva da se come-on boy.THE me.DAT begins to REFL.ACC su˘mva. dawn.3SG ‘Vicˇko get up, we are going to the city. Come on, my boy, it has started to dawn.’ (Mladenov-Archive: V. Atanasov, S trevogi i smjax prez zˇivota. Septemvri 1974, 4: 72) (196) Stotici xiljadi bu˘lgari, zastanali kraj hundreds thousands Bulgarians standing.PL beside televizorite i radioaparatite, sˇte bu˘dat s tjax, TV-sets.THE and radio-sets.THE will be.3PL with them s nasˇeto obsˇto: “Xajde, nasˇ’te!” with our.NEUT.THE common.NEUT come-on ours.THE ‘Hundreds of thousands of Bulgarians standing beside the TV and radio sets will be with them with our common [cry of support]: “Go our [team]!”’ (Mladenov-Archive: Newspaper Narodna mladezˇ, 19.04.1968) In the damaskins the address form is represented systematically by nominals of the unmarked series, which for some categories of nouns are accompanied by special endings as well as LF, a situation that is far from unusual cross-linguistically (Lyons 1999: 152–153). And finally, nominals of type 5 as in (186), (188), (190) and (191) are better represented in this syntactic slot than elsewhere.

70

Definiteness: expression and content

(D) A contrast between masculine and non-masculine nouns surfaces in the so-called full form of the definite article that must be chosen when a definite masculine nominal performs the function of subject or nominal predicate in a sentence, as in (197). (197) Avtobusu˘t pravi vru˘zka s nosˇtnija vlak bus.THE makes connection with night.ADJ.MASC.THE train cˇak sutrinta i po pricˇina na toploto only morning.THE and after cause of warm.NEUT.THE i xubavo vreme pu˘tnicite ne ostanali na and nice.NEUT weather travelers.THE not stayed.PL on zˇelezopu˘tnata spirka da cˇakat avtobusa, a railway.ADJ.FEM.THE stop to wait.3PL bus.THE but tru˘gnali pesˇa za seloto. left.PL on-foot for village.THE ‘The bus does not make a connection with the night train until the morning, and because of the warm and pleasant weather, the travellers did not stay at the train stop to wait for the bus but left on foot for the village.’ (Radicˇkov 1980: 92) The full form avtobusu˘t ‘the bus’ is employed because the nominal is the subject of the sentence and the short form avtobusa ‘the bus’ because it is an object. Despite isolated opinions to the contrary (Mayer 1984; Mayer 1992), I side with the vast majority of scholars who consider this an artificial distinction of the written standard norm, which has no basis in speech in any of the varieties of the Bulgarian language. Bulgarian children learn in school (some better than others) how to choose the correct form of the article for masculine nouns. The rule is not enforced in speech. It is not followed in the Tixonravov damaskin either (Demina 1985: 247–248). For a comprehensive analysis of the use of full- and short-form articles in the standard language since the nineteenth century see Stojkov 1949–1950. The treatment of Bog ‘God’ in the damaskin literature throws light on the genesis of this peculiarity of the Standard Bulgarian norm, proving once again that there is continuity between the language of the damaskin litrature and the later standard language. Singular bog˘ı in the Tixonravov damaskin is never used with the definite article. Probably because of the symbolic importance of the word in the damaskin discourse universe, it appears more frequently than other words with relics of case endings such as bogu (dative) and especially boga (accusative).

Content

(198) ako si if

ot

b[og]a

nastaven˘ı,

71

b[og]˘ı da te

are.2SG by God.ACC admonished God

to

you.ACC

upazi safe-guard.3SG ‘If you have been admonished by God, let God take care of you.’ (Demina 1971: 54) (199) v˘ısxoteˇ b[og]˘ı da se rodi ot maika wished.3SG God to REFL.ACC bear.3SG by mother bez o[t]ca. da bude su˘vr˘ısˇen˘ı b[og]˘ı i without father.ACC to be perfect.MASC God and su˘vr˘ısˇen˘ı cˇl[ove]k˘ı perfect.MASC person ‘God wished to be given birth by a mother without a father, to be a perfect God and a perfect human being.’ (Demina 1971: 59) (200) placˇe i m[o]li se b[og]u, da mu dade cries and asks REFL.ACC God.DAT to him.DAT give.3SG b[og]˘ı cˇedo God child ‘He weeps and prays to God to give him a child.’ (Demina 1971: 60) (201) ami g[ospod]˘ı b[og]˘ı koga sˇte da iskusi cˇl[ove]ka but lord God when wants to tempts person.ACC da go opita kak˘ı ljuby b[og]a i kak˘ı ima to him.ACC tries how loves God.ACC and how has tr˘ıpeˇnïe, ta mu dade b[og]˘ı zlo i napast˘ı. patience so-that him.DAT gives God evil and ordeal kato bogatymu iovu like rich.DAT Job.DAT ‘But when the Lord wishes to tempt a person in order to test whether he loves God and has patience, he sends him evil and ordeal as to the wealthy Job.’ (Demina 1971: 69)

72

Definiteness: expression and content

The opposition bog˘ı (nominative) and boga (accusative), however, can be reinterpreted according to the more recent analytic Bulgarian norms as Bog (1U) vs. Boga (1M1). There is evidence that supports the conjecture that it was in fact so reinterpreted. The noun bog in Bulgarian is used with a definite article in non-Christian contexts as in (202) and (203). This usage is known to the damaskin as well as shown by (204). (202) starogru˘ckite bogove old-Greek.PL.THE gods ‘the ancient Greek gods’ (203) bogu˘t na vojnata Mars god.THE of war.THE Mars ‘Mars, the god of war’ (204) taku˘vzi li se pokaza this-kind-of.MASC INTERROG REFL.ACC showed.3SG preˇd velikyte bogove i preˇd mene in-front-of great.PL.THE gods and in-front-of me.ACC ‘Is that how you showed yourself to the great gods and to me?’ (Demina 1971: 102) Otherwise, as a subject and predicate, it never has article whereas as object it features the short form of the definite article. In Standard Bulgarian sentences (198)–(201) sound as follows: (205) Ako si ot Boga nastaven, Bog da te if are.2SG by God.THE admonished God to you.ACC opazi safe-guard.3SG (206) Pozˇela Bog da se rodi ot majka wished.3SG God to REFL.ACC bear.3SG by mother bez basˇta [i] da bu˘de su˘vu˘rsˇen Bog i without father.ACC and to be perfect.MASC God and su˘vu˘rsˇen cˇovek perfect.MASC person (207) Placˇe i moli se na Boga da mu cries and asks REFL.ACC to God to him.DAT dade Bog cˇedo give.3SG God child

Content

73

(208) Ami Gospod Bog kogato iska da izkusi cˇoveka but Lord God when wants to tempts person.THE da go proveri dali obicˇa Boga i dali to him.ACC tries if loves God.THE and if ima tu˘rpenie, dava mu zlo i napast kato na has patience gives him.DAT evil and ordeal like to bogatija Iov rich.MASC.THE Job In other words, the distribution of morphemes from the damaskin literature has been preserved: Ø [subject and predicate] vs. –a [object and adverbial]. There only is a difference between damaskin and current usage when Bog is accompanied by an adjective: the damaskin uses 4U or 5U nominals, whereas Standard Bulgarian opts for 4M1-1 or, rarely, 5M1. The damaskin accusative form b[og]a moego in (209) would be rendered in Standard Bulgarian as moja Bog ‘my God (short form)’ and the nominative b[og]˘ı moj as mojat Bog ‘my God (full form)’. (209) preˇbudeˇte vye tuka u t˘ızi nosˇt˘ı. remain.2PL.IMPER you.2PL here in this.FEM night i az˘ı da popitam b[og]a moego preˇz and I to ask.1SG God.ACC my.MASC.ACC during t˘ızi nosˇt˘ı. i ako me pusti b[og]˘ı moj poj this.FEM night and if me.ACC lets God my go.INF sˇtem˘ı su˘s vas shall.1SG with you.ACC ‘Stay with me here this night and I shall ask my God this night and if my God lets me, I shall go with you.’ (Demina 1971: 121) The contrast between Bog and other masculine nouns that take the definite article is the following: Table 17. Syntactic distribution of Ø, the short and the full forms of the article among definite masculine nouns

Bog Other masculines

Subject and Predicate

Object and Adverbial

Ø Full form of the article

Short form of the article Short form of the article

74

Definiteness: expression and content

The unmistakeable family resemblance of these patterns (article vs. no article on one hand and short-form article vs. full-form article on the other), divergent from any patterns for other lexical classes, clearly points to an explanation for the situation with masculines in Standard Bulgarian at the intersection of two grammatical categories: ‘case’ and ‘definiteness’.41 Another deviation from the norms governing the use of the article in the nominal of type 3 Gospod Bog ‘Lord God’ comes to support the view that what looks like a marked nominal today is in fact the accusative case. Contrary to usage with other nouns, in the position of object both parts get an ending –a, which makes perfect sense if this is a case form: (210) Tozi dar mu e ot Gospoda Boga. this.MASC gift him.DAT is from Lord.THE God.THE ‘He has this gift from the Lord God.’ The same nominal is attested in the damaskin where it clearly is a case form: (211) sicˇka mysl˘ı beˇsˇe i i nadezˇda na g[ospod]a all.FEM thought was her.DAT and hope on Lord.ACC b[og]a God.ACC ‘All her thought and hope was [placed] on Lord God.’ (Demina 1971: 94) The unusual (in its dependence on syntactic role) distribution of the definite article with Bog in Standard Bulgarian emphasizes the continuity between the damaskin tradition and the current standard language. Authors such as Ivan Momcˇilov (1818–1869) in his 1868 Gramatika za novobu˘lgarskija ezik ‘Grammar for the Modern Bulgarian Language’, who were among the first to impose the opposition of full- and short-form articles in the written

41. The similarity of case endings and article has been noticed before. L. Mileticˇ justifies aberrant forms like zˇivotat ‘the life’ in the Svisˇtov damaskin where the article –ot represents the norm (for instance, zˇivotot ‘the life’, staricot ‘the old man’ etc.) with the influence of the accusative-genitive form zˇivota, definite zˇivotatogo or, alternatively, with the influence of other dialects assuming that their norm was represented in the protograph of the Svisˇtov damaskin (Mileticˇ 1923: 21–23). Trying to explain masculine singular forms such as pri og˘ınja ‘by the fire’ in a damaskin written in Mokresˇ (Region Lom) by the priest Puncˇo in 1796, Vladimir Sˇaur found equally plausible their alternative interpretations as case forms or articulated nouns (1970: 37).

Content

75

norm of Standard Bulgarian (Pu˘rvev 1975: 68), were no doubt well acquainted with the damaskin tradition, still operative at that time.42 The genitive-accusative case ending -a- of masculines blended with the definite article, which is homophonous with it in some Bulgarian dialects, and became the specialized short form of the definite article in the written norm of Standard Bulgarian. The distribution of definite articles -u˘t and -a (phonetically [$t] or [at] and [$] or [a]) in the Bulgarian dialects is displayed in BDA (1: 152–154; 2: 169–172; 3: 167–171; 4: 223–226). Definite article [$] has the broadest distribution, whereas the variants [$t], [at] and [a] are more narrowly localized. According to Bulgarian orthographic conventions, both [a] and [$] would appear as -a in writing. The case ending -a could have been reinterpreted as a special oblique-case article for masculines only in the area of distribution of [$t] or [at] article probably under the influence of the neighbouring dialects where [$] and [a] were the regular articles. This development must have been facilitated by the general feeling among speakers of Bulgarian that [$t] and [$] (or, alternatively, [at] and [a]) are essentially “the same thing”.43 In dialects with [$] or [a] articles, the equation of article with the case ending -a would not lead to a contrast dependent on syntactic slot. In the areas of distribution of articles [ot], [o], [ôt], [ô] or [ê] the case ending -a would feel more as the alien body it is and its identification with the article would be impeded. This limits the ground for this reinterpetation of the case ending to the Balkan, Rupa and Transitional dialects. Statistics presented in Table 18 give an idea of the numeric strength of the foci of identification of article and case ending in the damaskin and confirm the existence of a cumulative effect.

42. Ivan Momcˇ˘ılov’s intellectual indebtedness to the damaskin literature is no exception for this period. Early authors of the Bulgarian Revival such as Paisij Xilendarski (1722–1773), Sofronij, the Bishop of Vraca (1739–1813), Joakim Ku˘rcˇovski (ca. 1750–ca. 1820) and Kiril Pejcˇinovicˇ (ca. 1770–1845) are also firmly rooted in the damaskin tradition (Petkanova 1987: 235). 43. This feeling is based on fact, as the [$], [a], [ô] and [ê] articles in the area of single articulation are known to derive from earlier [$t], [at], [ôt] and [êt] (Kolev 1991).

76

Definiteness: expression and content

Table 18. Masculine singulars in -a liable to double interpretation Homily 3 Homily 8 Masculine singulars in the genitive-accusative (ending -a) Out of those: Number of masculine singulars that would get definite article -a according to current norm Percentage of the masculine singulars in -a liable to double interpretation

Total

38

14

52

9

10

19

23.68 %

71.43 %

36.54 %

There is another argument that can support the claim that at one point in the history of Bulgarian a reinterpretation of the former accusative case endings as definite articles took place. In the damaskin, the masculine definite article is of type [$t]. Its graphic representation was studied by Elena Sorokina (1993: 5–7). There is an instance in the Tixonravov damaskin, cited in (212), when the subject of a sentence was marked with -a: (212) ide stratilata ot vojsku comes chieftain.ACC from battle.ACC ‘The chieftain returns from battle.’ (Demina 1971: 79) The form stratilata appears to be an erroneous accusative of stratilat in the subject slot. It is a telltale error that of course shows that the scribe’s knowledge of the case system was dwindling. But there might have been another reason why the sentence sounded acceptable to the scribe (as it does to me): namely, the reinterpretation of the morpheme -a as a definite article. If stratilata is a 1M1 nominal, it has taken a shape characteristic of other regional varieties of Bulgarian than those codified in the damaskin. Another case-related peculiarity I found in the damaskin44 also has a logical explanation.

44. There are very few case errors in the damaskin that I can cite. They usually have an explanation of some kind. For instance, a third case error (Demina 1971: 280) could be explained with the instant distraction of the scribe who substituted a dative iosifu for the expected nominative and thus changed the meaning of a sentence: instead of Joseph said these words to Pilate, it states that [he] said these words to Joseph Pilate. So the sentence even with the erroneous case form on the surface continues to make sense.

Content

(213) I tïa devetteˇx and these nine.THE.ACC

cˇinove n[e]b[e]sny. ranks celestial.PL

77

na tri in three

cˇinove razdeˇljavat se po tri ranks divide.3PL REFL.ACC in three ‘And these nine celestial ranks are divided in three [groups] of three ranks each.’ (Demina 1971: 119). As shown on an unpublished map by Maxim Mladenov (reproduced in this book as Map 2), the Northeastern Bulgarian dialects have preserved the genitive-accusative quantifier form of the type pettjax as the only representative of 6M1, usable in all syntactic positions including the subject, as in (213). Although the scribe’s variety of Bulgarian obviously featured this form, regardless which of the alternative localizations of the damaskin language we take into account (Demina 1985: 260; Mladenova 2007), the contemporary configuration of the type pettjax remains to the east of it. The generalization of the former genitive form of the article makes sense with ‘five’ and bigger numbers because this was the case required by them not only in Old Bulgarian but also elsewhere in Slavia. The dependent nouns in 6M1 however are in their regular plural forms both in the damaskin and the Bulgarian dialects. Since Bulgarian does not preserve the old distinction of dual and plural forms, many Bulgarian dialects have expanded the type pettjax to include the numerals from two to four as well (Pasˇov 1974). Seen in context, these examples demonstrate that it is not acceptable to attribute case errors solely to scribe ignorance. In view of this, it is more plausible to assume that there was an association of sorts between the definite article and a case ending, which must have contributed to the appearance of the exotic rule in Standard Bulgarian that assigns special forms to the former nominatives of masculine nouns. (E) In comparison to nominals of types 1–10, 0 type nominals are noticeably more dependent on their syntactic slot. Thus, many of my generalizations about 0 type’s properties on the upper levels of the default inheritance model are liable to severe restrictions on the syntactic level. Here are some examples. Since only freestanding pronominal forms can appear in prepositional phrases, in this position the weak-strong contrast is neutralized.45 Other restrictions applying to pronominal clitics and thus narrowing the ground where weak and strong pronouns compete are listed in Nicolova

45. An apparent exception, the use of dative clitics with some prepositions (e.g. vu˘rxu mene and vu˘rxu mi ‘on me, on top of me’) will be discussed in section 3.8.1.

78

Definiteness: expression and content

1986: 48. This makes the syntactic slots of subject and object the most pertinent ones for distinguishing between the pragmatic and semantic patterns of 0 type. But 0U nominals that present themselves as verbal personal endings cannot perform anaphoric functions. This means that 0M1-1 nominals must take over the anaphoric function in the subject slot, which diminishes even further the possibility for pragmatic and semantic specialization of 0U and 0M1-1 nominals. Syntactic restrictions shape opportunities for specialization of 0 type markers inside the circumscribed area as well. We looked above into the pragmatic functions of communicative paradigms on the example of a sentence with a three-component SUBJECT – VERB – OBJECT structure. Other types of sentences however may have much more limited communicative paradigms, which would automatically imply different sets of functions for their members. For instance, sentences that feature experiencers in the dative or the accusative, have just three-member paradigms, see (214)-(216) for ‘She is sleepy’ and (217)-(219) for ‘He is afraid’. (214) Spi ì se. sleeps her.CL.DAT REFL.ACC (215) Na neja ì se spi. to her.ACC her.CL.DAT REFL.ACC sleeps (216) Spi ì se na neja. sleeps her.CL.DAT REFL.ACC to her.ACC (217) Strax go e. fear him.CL.ACC is (218) Nego go e strax. him.ACC him.CL.ACC is fear (219) Strax go e nego. fear him.CL.ACC. is him.ACC Sentences (214) and (217) are non-segmented, whereas the segmented (215)–(216) and (218)–(219) highlight the experiencer by clitic reduplication. We saw above that direct objects can be represented by clitics, long-form pronouns and clitic reduplication. The same is true of indirect objects but not of experiencers (Nicolova 1986: 52–53). Sentence (220) contextualizes the experiencer in the topic position and (221) – in the focus position.

Content

79

(220) Jana placˇe, ne zasˇtoto e bolna. Na neja Jana cries not because is ill.FEM to her.ACC ì se spi. her.CL.DAT REFL.ACC sleeps ‘Jana cries not because she is ill. She is sleepy.’ (221) Na neja ì se spi, a na to her.ACC her.CL.DAT REFL.ACC sleeps and to nego mu se gleda televizija. him.ACC him.CL.DAT REFL.ACC watches television ‘She is sleepy and he wants to watch TV.’ In Bulgarian dialects 0M1 nominals in this type of sentence are represented by hybrid nominals much more frequently than direct or indirect objects (Duridanov and Mladenov 1988: 109). They combine a 0M1-1 pronominal form in the nominative with a clitic in the dative or the accusative: (222) Tja ì se spi. she her.CL.DAT REFL.ACC sleeps (223) Toj go e strax. he him.CL.ACC is fear The fact that in this type of sentence the reduplication of clitics is not limited to the topic position raises all kinds of questions regarding the diachrony of clitic reduplication as well as the validity of the synchronic explanations that have been proposed. We will return to this issue in section 3.14. In conclusion, it should be emphasized that the fourth (syntactic) level of the default inheritance model of definiteness in Bulgarian needs consideration for at least four reasons. One is the link of the subtypes of the generic description to particular syntactic positions. The other is the unusually high sensitivity of type 0 nominals to syntactic function. The third one is of a diachronic nature. The expansion of the definite article, which is one of the visible indicators of the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian, followed a logical path from one type of description to another. Inside categories, the definite article spread from one class of words to another and from one syntactic position to another. Paying attention to the lexical and morphological classes and syntax, one can construct a more detailed diachronic model. And finally, the syntactic level is important typologically because languages seem to differ in regard to the impact exercised by syntactic constraint on the marking of definiteness.

80

2.3.

Definiteness: expression and content

At the interface of expression and content

A further issue that requires attention concerns the relationship between expression and content of the category definiteness. It was pointed out that a variety of nominal types express the complex of meanings known as ‘definiteness’. What is the relation between particular types of nominals and the content they render? General semiotic considerations suggest that signs may display two kinds of relation between expression and content: (a) a one-to-one relation where an expression is unambiguously connected with a given content; and (b) a conventional or arbitrary relation between expression and content. The former type of relation lies at the heart of iconic and indexical signs, the latter determines the essence of metaphorical and metonymic ones.46 Applied to the problem at hand, the question can be rephrased as follows: can nominal types be divided in two broad groups – universal vs. specialized signs of definiteness, corresponding to conventional and one-to-one signs, respectively? Since the answer is yes, as we have already seen in connection with nominals of type 0, it is interesting to verify whether one group preceded the other in the diachronic process of article-acquisition. Certain nominals such as 1U and 1M1 are able to serve as universal expressions of (in)definiteness. Others, like 2M1 and 10M, are always specialized. Yet others such as 3M, 4M1-1, 5M1, 8M and 9M can have readings, in which the explicit reason for the presence of the definite article is provided by a component of the same nominal linked to the head noun through agreement, adjunction or subordination. The corresponding unmarked nominals 3U, 4U, 5U, 8U and 9U display a different connection between nominal elements. The two readings will be referred to as appositive (or non-restrictive, allowing for a universal use) and restrictive (allowing for a specialized use). They can be represented schematically as in Figure 1. The circle represents the set of entities denoted by the head noun. The filled area signifies those of them for which the adjective (types 4 and 5), subordinate prepositional phrase (type 8), subordinate clause (type 9) or adjoined noun (type 3) is true. As the schema shows, this area can either coincide with the relevant set of entities or mark out a subset in it. In order to distinguish between appositive and restrictive readings, I will propose a simple test. If one can replace a nominal with its 1M counterpart without provoking a breakdown of communication, one has to do with a nominal with an appositive 46. I am leaning here on Edmund Leach’s classification of semiotic signs (Leach 1976: 9–16) and on Jurij Lotman and Boris Uspensky’s semiotic typology of cultures (Lotman and Uspensky 1978: 217).

At the interface of expression and content

81

Figure 1. Appositive vs. restrictive reading of a nominal’s dependent element

reading. Such a replacement is possible because a nominal with an appositive reading has the same denotation as its respective 1M counterpart. Conversely, a nominal with a restrictive reading should not be interchangeable with the corresponding 1M nominal because they have different denotations. Here are some examples of marked nominals with appositive and restrictive readings: 3M appositive (type 3M2): (224) Ivancˇo Jotata Ivancˇo iota-THE

neusetno inconspicuously

se REFL.ACC

namesti settled.3SG

mezˇdu govoresˇtite. between talkers.THE ‘Ivancˇo the Iota inconspicuously settled himself between the speakers.’ (Vazov, Chapter 12) 3M restrictive (type 3M1-1): (225) Reka Dunav izvira ot planinata river Danube spring-forth.3SG from mountain.THE Sˇvarcvald. Schwarzwald ‘The Danube River springs forth from the Schwarzwald Mountain.’ (GSBKE 2: 145)

82

Definiteness: expression and content

3M appositive (type 3M1-2): (226) Govorixme za prekrasnija grad Rim i talked.1PL about splendid.THE city Rome and negovata istorija. his.FEM.THE history ‘We talked about the splendid city of Rome and its history.’ 4M1-1 appositive: (227) Radistu˘t Racˇo zjapasˇe ostrovu˘rxata radio-operator.THE Racˇo was-staring.3SG gabled.FEM.THE kambanarija na cu˘rkvata Sejnt Dzˇordzˇ i belfry of church.THE St. George and pafkasˇe cigara sled cigara. was-smoking.3SG cigarette after cigarette ‘The radio operator Racˇo was staring at the gabled belfry of the St. George church and chainsmoking.’ (Popov 2001: 140) 4M1-1 restrictive: (228) Ti, dragi cˇitatelju, navjarno si vizˇdal you dear.MASC reader.VOC surely are.2SG seen.MASC pone vednu˘zˇ v zˇivota si njakoj ot at-least once in life.THE REFL.DAT some.MASC of onija slameni xora, koito novobrancite musˇkat those straw.ADJ.PL people who.PL recruits.THE jab.3PL s nozˇovete na pusˇkite, za da izucˇat with knives.THE on guns.THE for to learn.3PL voennoto izkustvo. military.NEUT.THE art ‘You, dear reader, have surely seen at least once in your life some of those straw people, whom recruits jab with their bayonets in order to learn the art of war.’ (Minkov, Slamenijat feldfebel)

At the interface of expression and content

83

8M appositive (type 8M1-1): (229) Toj se pojavjavasˇe vsjaka privecˇer, he REFL.ACC appeared.3SG every.FEM early-evening malko predi. da zaleze slu˘nceto, sred xrastite ot a-little before to set.3SG sun.THE among bushes.THE of carigradski lesˇnik, bezkrajno ljubopiten i Istanbul.ADJ.MASC hazelnut endlessly curious.MASC and vinagi nasˇtrek. always alert ‘He appeared every evening, just before the sunset, among the filbert bushes, endlessly curious and always on the alert.’ (Radicˇkov 1980: 5) 8M restrictive (type 8M2-1): (230) Dumite na Georgi bjaxa tolkova tixi, ta words.THE of Georgi were.3PL so quiet.PL that edva li mozˇesˇe da gi cˇue njakoj barely INTERROG could.3SG to them hear.3SG somebody osven nas – zatova leko se stresnaxme, besides us that-is-why slightly REFL.ACC startled.1PL kogato sled izvestno vreme osu˘znaxme, cˇe when after known.NEUT time realized.1PL that poslednata replika be kazana ot mu˘zˇa na last.FEM.THE utterance was.3SG said.FEM by man.THE on su˘sednata masa. neighbouring.THE table ‘Georgi’s words were so quiet that it was unlikely anyone but us could hear them; that is why we were startled a bit when after some time we realized that the last retort was said by the man at the neighbouring table.’ (Igov)

84

Definiteness: expression and content

8M restrictive (type 8M1-1): (231) Pu˘tjat ku˘m ku˘sˇtata na prijatel nikoga ne e journey.THE to house.THE of friend never not is du˘lu˘g. long.MASC ‘The journey to the house of a friend is never long.’ (alleged Danish proverb – misli.start.bg) 9M appositive: (232) Ne go zabeljazva dori i dezˇurnijat po rota, not him notices even and man-on-duty.THE by company kojto sled neocˇakvanata proverka na who.MASC after unexpected.FEM.THE inspection of prizraka- feldfebel be sednal zaedno s ghost.THE sergeant was.3SG seated.MASC together with edin ot cˇasovite v edno zatuleno one.MASC of sentries.THE in one.NEUT hidden.NEUT ku˘tcˇe i igraesˇe s nego na dama. corner and was-playing.3SG with him on checkers ‘He is not noticed even by the company’s man on duty who, after the unexpected inspection by the ghost sergeant, was seated together with one of the sentries in a quiet corner playing checkers.’ (Minkov, Slamenijat feldfebel) 9M restrictive: (233) Eto vi receptata. Sku˘po here.PARTICLE you.2PL.DAT prescription.THE expensive.NEUT e i rjadko se kupuva. Zatova malko is and rarely REFL.ACC buys that-is-why few apteki go razprostranjavat. Eto na farmacies it.ACC distribute.3PL here.PARTICLE on gu˘rba su˘m vi napisala adresa, na back.THE am you.2PL.DAT written.FEM address.THE on

At the interface of expression and content

85

kojto sˇte go namerite. which.MASC will it.ACC find.2PL ‘Here is your prescription. It’s expensive and people rarely buy it. That is why few pharmacies hold it. Here on the back I have written the address, at which you will find it.’ (Iliev, Chapter 2) Table 19 provides the 1M1 counterparts of the nominals marked in bold in (224)–(233). The information lost by simplifying nominals with appositive reading does not preclude the hearer from identifying the referent in context, whereas the same operation on nominals with restrictive reading will necessarily provoke questions eliciting the extra information necessary for identification of the referent. Table 19. Comparison between nominals with appositive and restrictive readings Nominals with an appositive reading

1M1 counterpart

Nominals with a restrictive reading

1M1 counterpart

(224) Ivancˇo Jotata

Ivancˇo

(225) planinata Sˇvarcvald

planinata

(226) prekrasnija grad Rim Rim

(228) voennoto izkustvo

izkustvoto

(227) ostrovu˘rxata kambanarija

kambanarijata

(230) mu˘zˇa na su˘sednata masa

mu˘zˇa

(229) xrastite ot carigradski lesˇnik

xrastite

(231) ku˘sˇtata na prijatel ku˘sˇtata

(232) dezˇurnijat po rota, kojto sled neocˇakvanata proverka na prizraka-feldfebel be sednal zaedno s edin ot cˇasovite v edno zatuleno ku˘tcˇe i igraesˇe s nego na dama.

dezˇurnijat po rota

(233) adresa, na kojto sˇte go namerite

adresa

The existence of a formal contrast between appositive and restrictive readings should be noted regarding types 0, 3 and 8: types 3M2 and 3M1-2 are reserved for appositives whereas 3M1-1 and 8M2-1 indicate a restrictive reading. In type 0, third-person heads distinguish between appositive and restrictive readings by contrasting personal and demonstrative pronouns; see, for instance, the appositive 0M1-8 in (104) and the restrictive 0M5-7 in (102). Types 8M1, 4M, 5M and 9M have the potential to express either reading as

86

Definiteness: expression and content

needed. We have seen that there is no difference of principle between sets represented by single nouns (of type 1) and nominals of type 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 with an appositive reading of the element that modifies the head noun. The expectation, therefore, is that these categories will have similar values at any given period of the evolution of language. Nominals with a restrictive reading are, on the other hand, unambiguously definite for reasons made clear with lexical means. This can provoke two alternative evolutions: on the one hand, they can remain longer without a formal marker of definiteness, on the other, their obviously definite character can make them lead the way to innovation and be among the first types to acquire a definite article. We shall look into their actual behaviour in section 3.3. The opposition of marked and unmarked nominals serves to disambiguate the reading of a specific description. Such descriptions in languages that have no definite article are consistently ambiguous outside context. Bulgarian data show that ambiguity continues to characterize even languages with a definite article but its scope is narrowed down to non-specific and generic descriptions. Categories generic vs. specific vs. non-specific are summarized in Table 20: Table 20. Reading and description Generic (quantitative) Specific

Non-specific

Restrictive reading Nominal of type M

Nominal of type M Nominal of type U

Appositive reading Nominal of type M

Nominal of type U Nominal of type U

Restrictive reading of generic nominals: (234) Bogatite datcˇani sa dobre obrazovani, Wealthy.PL.THE Danes are well educated.PL a bednite ne sa. whereas poor.PL.THE not are.3PL ‘The wealthy Danes are well-educated, but the poor are not.’ Appositive reading of generic nominals: (235) Mezˇdu ikonomicˇeskoto polozˇenie na edin between economic.NEUT.THE situation of one.MASC narod i negovata obrazovanost ima prjaka nation and his.FEM.THE level-of-education there-is direct zavisimost. Bogatite datcˇani, naprimer, sa correspondence wealthy.PL.THE Danes for-example are.3PL

At the interface of expression and content

87

dobre obrazovani. well educated.PL ‘There is a direct correspondence between the economic situation of a nation and its level of education. The wealthy Danes, for example, are well-educated.’47 4748

Restrictive reading of specifics: (236) Vsicˇki gosti ocˇakvaxa s netu˘rpenie da vidjat all.PL guests expected.3PL with impatience to see.3PL koja ot svoite razkosˇni rokli which.FEM of own.PL.THE luxurious.PL dresses domakinjata e resˇila da oblecˇe. Vratata hostess.THE is decided.FEM to put-on.3SG door.THE se otvori i tja vleze. Tja besˇe REFL.ACC opened.3SG and she came-in.3SG she was.3SG oblecˇena v bjalata roklja. dressed.FEM in white.FEM.THE dress ‘All the guests impatiently waited to see which of her luxurious dresses the hostess had decided to put on. The door opened and she entered. She was dressed in the white dress.’ Appositive reading of specifics: (237) Zabeljaza li kak besˇe oblecˇena noticed.2SG INTERROG how was.3SG dressed.FEM aktrisata? Tja besˇe oblecˇena v bjala roklja. Actress.THE she was.3SG dressed.FEM in white.FEM dress ‘Did you notice how the actress was dressed? She was dressed in a white dress.’48

47. Examples (234) and (235) as well as the focus on restrictive and appositive readings were inspired by the treatment in Hawkins (1978: 282–289). For an explanation of the effects of modification of reference in a set-theoretical framework, cf. Chesterman 1991: 80–83. 48. Russian would translate (236) and (237) identically: (11) Ona byla v belom plat’e. she was.FEM in white.NEUT.LOC dress.LOC

88

Definiteness: expression and content

Restrictive reading of non-specifics: (238) Toj jade vseki den na zakuska topla banica. he eats every.MASC day on breakfast hot.FEM pastry Ako banicata se slucˇi studena, toj predpocˇita if patry.THE REFL.ACC happens cold.FEM he prefers da ne zakusva. to not eats-breakfast ‘Every day he eats hot pastry for breakfast. If the pastry happens to be cold, he prefers to not eat breakfast.’ Appositive reading of non-specifics: (239) Neka da ne se cˇudim, cˇe toj e tolkova let to not REFL.ACC marvel.2PL that he is so debel. Toj jade vseki den na zakuska topla fat.MASC he eats every.MASC day on breakfast hot.FEM banica. pastry ‘No wonder he is so fat. Every day he eats hot pastry for breakfast.’ As a manifestation of the same tendency, possessives consistently keep restrictive and appositive readings apart. The short-form possessives (nominals of type 2) have specialized to be used in restrictive contexts, whereas the emphatic long-form possessives can be employed both ways. In this regard, Bulgarian takes a different path from the West European languages, in which the definite article is not used in conjunction with possessives. The difference has been captured in Lyons’ terminology as the opposition between AG (adjectival-genitive) and DG (determiner-genitive) languages, respectively, and attributed to the different structural position occupied by the possessive (1999: 24, 130–134). The path taken by AG and DG languages may be different but the outcome is the same: restrictive and appositive readings of the respective nominals differ formally as well as semantically. Here are the options that Bulgarian offers: Restrictive reading 2M1: (240) Bungalata ni se namiraxa pocˇti na bungalows.THE us.DAT REFL.ACC found.3PL almost on pu˘tja. road.THE ‘Our bungalows were almost on the road.’ (Igov)

At the interface of expression and content

89

Restrictive reading 4M1-1: (241) Az ostanax nezasegnat ot vasˇija I remained.1SG unaffected.MASC by your.2PL.MASC.THE pisatelski sadizu˘m i za tova trjavbva samo da writer.ADJ.MASC sadism and for this must only to vi blagodarja. you.2PL. DAT thank1SG ‘I remained unaffected by your sadism as a writer and for that I can only be grateful to you.’ (Minkov, Kakvo mozˇe da se slucˇi nosˇtem) Appositive reading 4U: (242) Tu˘j naprimer negovo otkritie besˇe eliksiru˘t za thus for-example his discovery was.3SG elixir.THE for impregnirane na kozˇata protiv belezi ot strastni impregnation of skin.THE against marks of passionate.PL celuvki !…" kisses ‘Thus, for example, the elixir for the impregnation of the skin against marks of passionate kisses was a discovery of his.’ (Minkov, Damata s rentgenovite ocˇi) Of great interest for our purposes here are the restrictive readings of specifics, in which the definite article performs as a specialized (one-to-one) linguistic sign. The question that awaits an answer is whether the damaskin displays this use of the definite article with nominals of type 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9. This issue will be addressed in section 3.3 in greater detail when I turn to the attributive function of the definite article. Needless to say, the possibility that a given nominal be definite for more than one reason applies to the attributive function of the article as well. Above we considered the co-occurrence of anaphoric and exophoric definiteness. From now on we shall also consider the possibility that exophoric and attributive definiteness co-occur. Problematic from a logical point of view is the cooccurrence of anaphoric and attributive definiteness unless the first-mention nominal is already endowed with attributive definiteness, which carries over to the next (anaphoric) occurrences. In view of the contrast between specialized and universal signs of definiteness, double marking in the damaskin, the Bulgarian vernacular and some dialects discussed in section 2.1 comes through as a preference for the

90

Definiteness: expression and content

specialized signs of definiteness. Elena Sorokina directly attributes double marking in the Tixonravov damaskin to the expression of anaphoric and specific quantitative definiteness by separate markers inside the same nominal (Sorokina 1993: 14). Although I disagree with some aspects of her analysis as well as with the interpretation of the examples cited to prove her point, I consider the proposal worth serious attention. Examples (131), (132) and (133) of double marking cannot be associated with the presence of two raisons d’être of markedness but the damaskin contains others in which double marking coincides with a double function: Anaphoric + attributive (243) I c[a]r˘ı pocˇe da mu kazuva su˘n˘ı cˇto and emperor began.3SG to him.DAT tells dream that e videˇl˘ı. i recˇ[e] mu evlavïe. taka is seen.MASC and said.3SG him.DAT Eulavius so mnogoleˇtnyi c[a]ru. i az˘ı taku˘vzi su˘n˘ı perennial.MASC emperor and I such.MASC dream videˇx. i ne mogu da razumeˇju cˇto sˇtu˘t˘ı saw.1SG and not can.1SG to understand.1SG what will.3PL da bu˘d˘ıt˘ı tïa nasˇite su˘nïe to be.3PL these ours.THE dreams ‘And the emperor started to tell him the dream he had seen and Eulavius said to him, “So, your perennial Majesty, I too saw such a dream and I cannot understand what these dreams of ours forebode.”’ (Demina 1971: 175) Anaphoric + definite quantitative (244) i poide ioav˘ı i preˇcˇete evreete cˇto and went.3SG Joab and counted.3SG Jews.THE that beˇxu t˘ıkmo v˘ı ier[u]s[a]lim˘ı !…" i osta mnogo were.3PL just in Jerusalem and remained.3SG a-lot meˇsto i ljudïe necˇ˘ıteny. zasˇto tova poveleˇnïe place and people uncounted.PL because this.NEUT order zlo se javi preˇd b[og]a. evil.NEUT REFL.ACC appeared.3sg in-front-of God.ACC cˇ˘ıtenïite ljudïe i na tïa Napade mor˘ı attacked.3SG pestilence on these counted.PL people and

At the interface of expression and content

91

mnogo umiraaxu. a-lot died.3PL ‘And Joab went and counted just the Jews who were in Jerusalem. … And a large territory and many people remained uncounted because this order appeared evil to God. Pestilence fell upon those counted people and many died.’ (Demina 1971: 124) As emphatic double marking of definiteness in the Bulgarian vernacular is not an option equally available in all contexts, the hypothesis linking double marking with the need to supply each aspect of meaning with its own marker deserves further exploration although it is clear that it cannot explain all such instances. The correspondence between double marking and double function is especially plausible regarding proportional quantifiers expressed by nominals of type 1M11 (vsicˇkoto onova kiselo mljako) and 6M3 (onija pette jabu˘lki), as we shall see in section 3.6.2. Since there is consensus in the literature that clitics reduplicate nominals of the marked series, one can also view clitic reduplication as a kind of double marking (Ivancˇev 1978 [1974]: 176–177; Avgustinova 1998; Assenova 2002: 113–115).49 Here is an example that shows in context a topicalized nominal of type 8M5-1 with an anaphoric function, accompanied by clitic reduplication. (245) Toja ciganin, sˇtom ima majstorsko, sigurno this.MASC Gipsy since has master.ADJ.NEUT probably i novo umee da pravi, pomisli si also new.NEUT knows-how to makes thought REFL.DAT pravime, staro prepravjame, Zajako !…" “Novo Zajako new.NEUT make.1PL old.NEUT refurbish.1PL stiga da ima samo zˇelezo i vu˘glisˇta. Mu˘re, ja ako as-long-as to has only iron and coals Oh I if ima zˇelezo i vu˘glisˇta, i aeroplan sˇte napravja, ama has iron and coals also airplane will make1.SG but 49. This is not the case in the Novo-Selo dialect, which does not mark definiteness on nouns but employs clitic reduplication. Thus the only marker of definiteness on the topicalized nominal 1U in the following sentence appears to be the clitic reduplication (Mladenov 1969: 156–157): (12) Sèno ga doku˘ràmo jòsˇtu˘ icˇèr. hay it.CL.ACC brought.1PL already yesterday ‘We brought the hay in already yesterday’

92

Definiteness: expression and content

pusto da opustee, zˇelezo mnogo ne damned.NEUT to become-damned.3SG iron much not se namira.” Taja rabota za aeroplana REFL.ACC finds this.FEM thing about airplane.THE toj ja kaza i pred drugite opekuni. he her.CL.ACC said also in-front-of other.PL.THE trustees ‘Since this Gipsy has a master’s [certificate], he can probably also make new stuff, Zajako thought to himself … “We make new stuff and we repair old as long as there is iron and coal. Oh, if there is iron and coal, I can even make an airplane but, damn it, iron is in short supply.” He said this thing about the airplane in front of the other trustees as well.’ (Radicˇkov 1970: 107–108) If specialized markers of definiteness had consistently prevailed over universal markers in the history of Bulgarian, definiteness would have had an entirely different expression in Standard Bulgarian.50 As universal markers were and continue to be the rule, contexts in which a marker of definiteness has overlapping functions played a key role in the expansion of overt definiteness from one type of description to another.

50. An example how the preference for specialized markers of definiteness can shape the expression of this grammatical caterory is offered by Lakota, which has a separate anaphoric article different from the more general article used for nonanaphoric purposes (Lyons 1999: 53–54). Specialized markers of definiteness were also reported for the early history of the Romance definite articles (Selig 1992; Vincent 1997), a fact that is important from a balkanological perspective.

93

3.

The diachronic model of definiteness

So how did definiteness evolve in Bulgarian? I would like to propose now a model that connects the seventeenth-century damaskin language with contemporary Standard Bulgarian through a series of processes in a relative chronological relation to one another. The first three processes flesh out the category definiteness on the basis of identifiability. Processes 4 and 5 mark the expansion of the definite articles towards inclusiveness and their penetration into the generic area. Process 6 carries the expansion in the opposite direction: to unique referents. Processes 7 and 8 deal with phenomena of indefiniteness and particularly with the delimitation of indefinites from non-specifics as well as the presence of the markers of indefiniteness and non-specificity in the generic area. The final consequence of these last processes is the demarcation of typifying generiticy. Research in languages around the globe has revealed that change takes place in time not at a regular pace but in three stages that, when plotted on a graph, look like the letter S. The beginnings are faltering and take a long time to shape. Then the process speeds up and finally it slows down again, usually before achieving a full coverage of the affected phenomena (Aitchison 1991: 83–88, 98–100). It is useful to evaluate each of the processes that I shall investigate against this general background. For this purpose, I shall divide the S-curve into four phases: Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV

Slow beginnings Early stage of the quick expansion Late stage of the quick expansion Slow fading out

The boundary between Phase II and Phase III is a conventional one, which I shall fix for convenience at 50 % coverage of the relevant phenomena. It is not possible to assign values (in terms of time that has elapsed or percentage of the phenomena covered) to the boundaries between the other phases. In spite of this vagueness, the perspective gained by taking S-curves into account has far-reaching consequences. The slow phases differ from the quick ones not only temporally but also sociolinguistically. Phases II and III are characterized by “free” variation of the phenomenon undergoing change. Speakers involved in the process believe that there is no (significant) difference between the competing manifestations. As change progresses, this feeling gives way to the conviction that the new alternative is preferable. Conversely, in Phases I

94

The diachronic model of definiteness

and IV, speakers are not aware of any change happening. The rare deviations from the norm are either not noticed or treated as exceptions that need an explanation. Readers who feel that the perspective adopted here is much too schematic are referred to Orr 2003 for fascinating examples of historical change that follow sinuous paths. “[P]rocesses, forms, and categories go through periods of declining frequency and marginalisation, sometimes almost to the point of disappearance, followed by periods where such processes, forms and categories make a comeback, showing high degrees of productivity, and often used in slightly different functions than previously. Sometimes, however, such processes are interrupted, and can only be reconstructed from the traces that they leave, often seen as irregularities or archaisms” (Orr 2003: 271). By taking contemporary language as its starting point, the perspective on language change adopted here automatically favours the winners, those changes that came to fruition and are the ones responsible for shaping the current state of affairs. Only at a later stage can we turn to the false starts and explore the scenarios that could have been realized but were not. As to the processes that were first marginalized and then made a comeback with “slightly different functions than previously”, they certainly warrant their separate S-curves for each stage. Obvious candidates for research in this framework are the North Russian continuants of the Proto-Slavic demonstrative pronoun *t ч that seemed to head, especially around the seventeenth century, in the same direction as their Bulgarian counterparts (Iordanidi 1978).

3.1.

Process 1

As heir to the Proto-Slavic demonstrative pronoun *t ч, which had both deictic and anaphoric functions (ESSJ 2: 707–710), the Bulgarian definite article’s first uses had to match the environment in which a demonstrative determiner can be replaced by an article. Such is the anaphoric use with individuative referents. In the damaskin the anaphoric definite article appears in strong competition with toizi (toja) ‘this’/onzi (onja) ‘that’ m. – tazi ‘this’/onazi ‘that’ f. – tova ‘this’/onova ‘that’ n. – tija ‘these’/onija ‘those’.1 Since identification with the antecedent is facilitated in strict anaphoric contexts, the pressure to choose the more explicit form of identification provided

1. Demina provides an overview of all forms that occur in the damaskin (1985: 254–258).

Process 1

95

by demonstrative determiners must have been weaker in such cases.2 Strict anaphora is one of the playgrounds where demonstratives compete with the article in languages that have one at their disposal, as shown in a detailed contrastive study of Russian, Czech, Polish and German anaphoric demonstratives. Languages without article like Russian are shown to vacillate between demonstratives and zero in this position. The article’s chances of being used grow when the antecedent is a definite nominal (Golovacˇeva 1979: 191) because it is then required by the compounded impact of two separate factors. The damaskin offers examples of all three options: Ø – demonstrative determiner – definite article. The following five co-referential chains give an idea of the range of choices made in the damaskin. (246) i uze togazi motika, i kopa nadolu, 20, and took.3SG then mattock and dug.3PL down twenty lakte i naide kamik˘ı goleˇm plosk˘ı. i cubits and found.3PL stone big.MASC flat.MASC and izvadi kamik˘ı i videˇ, 3 kr[˘ı]stove extracted.3SG stone and saw.3SG three crosses ‘And then he took a mattock and dug twenty cubits down and he found a large flat stone and he took the stone out and saw three crosses.’ (Demina 1971: 67) (247) Poidoxa neˇkoi kaloere na s[ve]t[o]go o[t]ca went.3PL some.PL monks to holy.MASC.ACC father.ACC ammona, i klevetixa neˇkoego Ammon.ACC and smeared.3PL some.MASC.ACC drugygo, kako ima u kelïa svoa zˇena other.MASC.ACC how has in cell own.FEM woman kurva. i s[ve]tyi ammon˘ı razumeˇ cˇe e whore and saint.MASC Ammon understood.3SG that is istinna. i poide u onogova brata u truth and went.3SG to that.MASC.ACC brother.ACC to

2. Here again nominals with pronominal heads seem to be ahead of those with nouns in the head posisiton in the delineation of functions between 0M1-1 and 0M5-1 in strict anaphoric contexts as we saw in section 2.1.1.

96

The diachronic model of definiteness

kelïata mu i pozna gde beˇsˇe cell him.DAT and guessed.3SG where was.3SG su˘kryta zˇenata. i seˇdn˘ı otgoreˇ na nea. i hidden.FEM woman.THE and sat on-top of her.ACC and recˇe na onïa kaloere, idete po sicˇky kelïi said.3SG to those monks go.2PL.IMPER to all.PL cells isˇteˇte i naidete zˇenata i search.2PL.IMPER and find.2PL.IMPER woman.THE and doved[e]t[e] ju sam bring.2PL.IMPER her.ACC here ‘Some monks went to the holy Father Ammon and told on a fellowmonk that he had in his cell a woman whore and St. Ammon understood that it was true and he went to the cell of that brother and guessed where the woman was hidden and sat on top of her and said to those monks: “Go and search all the cells and find the woman and bring her here.”’ (Demina 1971: 63) (248) S[ve]sˇtennik˘ı neˇkoi su˘ ednogo priest some.MASC with one.MASC.ACC bl[a]gogovennogo dïakona ljubov˘ı imaxa dobr˘ı blessed.MASC.ACC deacon.ACC love had.3PL good.FEM mezˇdu sebeˇ si. i b[o]zˇ[e]stv[e]n˘ı zˇivot˘ı between self REFL.DAT and divine.MASC life beˇxa dobyle. i ne znam dïavol˘ı kak˘ı were.3PL acquired.PL and not know.1SG devil how gi osu˘toni i preˇl˘ısti ta se them.ACC harmed.3SG and lured.3SG so-that REFL.ACC omradzixa. i dr˘ızˇaxa si m˘ıst˘ı i vrazˇd˘ı hate.3PL and held.3PL REFL.DAT revenge and animosity se vu˘ edin˘ı drugyi. i slucˇi one.MASC other.MASC and happened.3SG REFL.ACC in on˘ızi vrazˇd˘ı, ta umreˇ onzi s[ve]sˇtennik˘ı. that.FEM animosity that died.3SG that.MASC priest

Process 1

97

i dïakon˘ıt˘ı osta skr˘ıben˘ı i and deacon.THE remained.3SG grieved.MASC and grizˇen˘ı. zasˇto dode by zˇiv˘ı worried.MASC because while was.3SG alive.MASC onzi s[ve]sˇtenik˘ı ta se ne prostixa that.MASC priest so-that REFL.ACC not forgave.3PL ‘A priest and a blessed deacon were fond of each other and had acquired grace. But I do not know how the devil harmed and lured them so that they started hating each other. And they were having revenge and animosity on each other. And in that animosity it happened that the priest died and the deacon remained grieved and worried because while the priest was alive they had not forgiven each other.’ (Demina 1971: 61) Four homilies (No.No. 2, 3, 4 and 5) were searched for anaphoras. Unique referents (defined broadly) were excluded because of their deviant behaviour, which will be the object of deliberation later. In a total of 38 anaphorical chains there were 11 inanimate referents and out of the remaining animate referents 22 were persons. Most of the referents were specific, concrete objects, the only exceptions being glas ‘voice’, bolest˘ı ‘disease’ and meˇsto ‘place’ as representatives of the more abstract vocabulary. The three options having a total numeric presence of 117 in these four homilies are shown in Table 21 in absolute numbers and percentages. Numerals of 0 type have not been included since the damaskin use shows no peculiarties in comparison with Standard Bulgarian. Table 21. Representation of anaphoric definites in the damaskin Ø Nom.

4

Oblique

4

Demonstrative determiner

Definite article

onzi ‘that’

toizi ‘this’

Nom.

Oblique

Nom.

Oblique

Nom.

Oblique

56

12

8

1

24

8

8 (out of 117)

77 (out of 117)

32 (out of 117)

6.84 %

65.81 %

27.35 %

All anaphoric expressions except for the few Ø ones are perceived as grammatically correct from a Standard Bulgarian perspective. This is, therefore, not the environment that accounts for the general feeling that there are fewer definite articles in the damaskins than needed. The statistics agree with the as-

98

The diachronic model of definiteness

sumption that anaphoric definiteness is the first to appear in a language when a definite article has just been introduced. This use of the demonstrative determiner tu˘ in the earliest attested stage of Bulgarian, as known from the classical Old Church Slavonic literary texts from the ninth to the eleventh century, was described by J. Kurz, who came to the conclusion that it did not provide grounds to concede the existence of a full-fledged definite article (Kurz 1937–1946). Reinterpreting his conclusions, A. Mincˇeva argues that lying at the intersection of the spheres of action of demonstrative determiners and definite articles, the anaphoric use of tu˘ yields to a twofold interpretation (Mincˇeva 1987: 43–44). We can conclude that Phase I of Process 1 took place in the period between the ninth and the eleventh century, in which there are no data for usage of the definite article other than anaphoric. We also know that it was around this time (prior to the tenth century) that definite nouns first emerged as phonetic words, a development linked to the transformation of the jers in a strong position (Gu˘lu˘bov 1962: 65–77). In order to generalize and stabilize in the anaphoric function, the definite article needed the reflected light of use in other environments. This happened later but prior to the seventeenth century: sometime around the twelfth century, if we are to take into account evidence uncovered by Kiril Mircˇev [1958] and Gunnar Svane that includes articles with other functions (Mircˇev 1978: 203–224; Svane 1961–1962). The situation that we witness in the damaskin matches Phase IV, when very few nominals remain out of the sphere of action of anaphoric marking that can be of two kinds: by means of a demonstrative determiner or a definite article. It is significant that anaphoric definites are present in the damaskins also in identity of sense cases; for instance, the anaphora can have a whole sentence as an antecedent: (249) az˘ı videˇx kato go plesna vinar˘ı sˇto I saw.1SG as him.ACC slapped.3SG cup-bearer that sluzˇi. i toi mu recˇ[e]. tazi tvoa serves and he him.DAT said.3SG this.FEM your.FEM desna ruka pse da ju donese, i mnogo right.FEM hand dog to her.ACC bring.3SG and many ljudïe da videt˘ı. i vidite kak mu se people to see.3PL and see.2PL how him.DAT REFL.ACC

Process 1

99

su˘by dumata toja cˇas realized.3SG word.THE this.MASC hour ‘I saw how the cup-bearer that serves slapped him and he said to him, “Let a dog bring this right hand of yours and let many people see [it]” and you see how his word came true right away.’ (Demina 1971: 90) (250) i mnogo mu duma da se and much him.DAT talked.3SG to REFL.ACC otrecˇe ot x[rist]a i ne sˇteˇ renounce.3SG from Christ.ACC and not wanted.3SG s[ve]ty nikak˘ı dumata da mu cˇjue saint.MASC at-all word.THE to him.ACC hear.3SG ‘And he pressed him a lot to renounce Christ but the saint did not want to hear his word at all.’ (Demina 1971: 79) This use of the article agrees with the conclusion that the introduction of the anaphoric article is captured in the damaskin at an advanced stage of its evolution, especially since a very similar instance from the Dobrejsˇo Gospel of the thirteenth century has been analysed by Svane (1962: 231).

3.1.1. Anaphoric article vs. anaphoric demonstrative If the situation with anaphoras in the damaskin appears to be grammatically like the current one, stylistically it is not.3 Speakers of Standard Bulgarian would much more frequently opt for articles than for demonstrative determiners in the anaphoric position. If a demonstrative is indeed used, it will rather be the determiner for close objects tozi and not onzi, the distal determiner preferred by damaskins. This peculiarity of the damaskin has roots in the Middle Bulgarian literary tradition and is even assumed to have arisen under the influence of the Greek demonstrative « ‘that’ (Velcˇeva 1964: 167; 1984: 154–155; 2001: 68). We shall return to its Middle Bulgarian forerunners in section 4.3. But the overuse of demonstratives is understandable 3. The restrictions on the use of nominals of type 1M5-1 in Standard Bulgarian and the stylistic differences between them and nominals of type 1M1 (and equivalent) were explored in some detail by Tatjana Sˇamraj (1989: 17–30). Regarding their anaphoric use, she comes to the conclusion that there is a pragmatic difference between the 1M5 and 1M1 versions of the same sentence. The former highlights the speaker’s special relation to the referent, which may be emotional, ironic or critical, whereas this added subjective dimension lacks in the latter.

100

The diachronic model of definiteness

even in the context of the damaskin literature viewed on its own if one considers the goal of this literature: to reach the uneducated common people for whom the older literary language had become unintelligible (Golovacˇeva 1979: 200; Gyllin 1991: 46–50). The effort surfaces in the choice of other stylistic tools as well (Velcˇeva 1984: 153–154). I shall give only two examples. Some more abstract ideas are frequently glossed right away, rephrased in the same sentence, to ensure that they be understood by readers.4 (251) i naucˇi gy na cˇistota da sa and taught.3SG them.ACC to cleanliness to are.3PL cˇisti clean.PL ‘And he taught them to cleanliness to be clean.’ (Demina 1971: 90) (252) i zakri se da ne gleda na deˇteto and covered REFL.ACC to not see.3SG to child.THE su˘mr˘ıtu˘ mu kato sˇte da umre death.THE him.DAT as will to die.3SG ‘And she covered her eyes not to see the death of the child how he will die.’ (Demina 1971: 120) (253) oti se i toi tvr˘ıdeˇ podkani da stori because REFL.ACC too he quite urged to do.3SG volja b[o]zˇïa, kato iska b[og]˘ı will divine.FEM as wants God ‘Because he too was quite eager to implement God’s will, what God wishes.’ (Demina 1971: 182) Another feature has to do with the general propensity of the damaskin style to be more verbal and less nominal than the standard language today. This trend agrees with observations made on other language data (Wells 1960) and the conclusion that it is bookish styles that tend to be more nominal whereas colloquial styles are more verbal. This trend is reflected in the use of nominals of type 8. One of the less studied uses of clitic reduplication – that of possessives rendered by a prepositional phrase – aims to make the message as clear as possible (for further discussion and examples see section 3.14). Moreover, nominals of type 8 are sometimes replaced with constructions that circumvent the direct subordination of one nominal to another in a way that continues to 4. For yet another example see (363).

Process 1

101

be characteristic of the colloquial language but is avoided in the more formal varieties of the standard language, as my translations of the damaskin 5 examples in Standard Bulgarian indicate: (254) i u seˇkygo dobrago cˇl[ove]ka cˇto and in every.MASC.ACC good.MASC.ACC person.ACC that e xr[i]stïanin˘ı blagocˇestiv˘ı. u negova d[u]sˇu b[og]˘ı is Christian pious.MASC in his.FEM soul.ACC God pocˇiva rests ‘And in every good person who is a pious Christian, in his soul God rests.’ (Demina 1971: 301) (255) I v dusˇata na vseki dobu˘r cˇovek, kojto and in soul.THE of each.MASC good.MASC person who e blagocˇestiv xristianin, pocˇiva Bog. is pious Christian rests God ‘And God rests in the soul of every good person who is a pious Christian.’ (256) I vu˘ onïa dni v˘ı edin˘ı den˘ı uzexa onia and in those days on one.MASC day took.3PL those slugy s[ve]t[o]mu neˇkoa gozba da ugotvet˘ı servants saint.DAT some.FEM meal to cook.3PL ‘And in those days once the servants of the saint busied themselves to cook a meal.’ (Demina 1971: 77) (257) I v edin ot onija dni slugite na and in one.MASC of those days servants.THE of svetijata vzexa da sgotvjat edna gozba.5 saint.THE took.3PL to cook one.FEM meal ‘And on one of those days the servants of the saint busied themselves to cook a meal.’ Thus it becomes clear that the overuse of anaphoric demonstratives fits in with the striving towards explicitness and clarity of the damaskin compilers. Another aspect that needs consideration is whether the damaskins exhibit a pattern of some kind in choosing between the two competing anaphoras or 5. For another example see (247).

102

The diachronic model of definiteness

whether this is a case of “free” variation. If there was a pattern, was it perpetuated in Standard Bulgarian? The question is important not only in itself but also from a balkanological perspective as early Romance also employed anaphorically two demonstrative pronouns from which proper articles were to develop later: the Latin distal deictic and anaphoric pronoun ille and ipse, which was used to express emphasis and contrast. Regarding Romance, it was established that the proto-article ille had a broader range than its counterpart ipse: the former accompanied first-mention definite nominals as well as second-mention ones, which were not prominent from an informational point of view, whereas the latter highlighted the topic of discourse, marking out those second-mention definite nominals that were informationally more loaded (Selig 1992; Vincent 1997). As we shall see below, I am unable to give conclusive answers to these questions. Let us first look at some data. Quotation (258) is a larger chunk of text dealing with the holy spring in Germia, which seems to display the Romance pattern by using four 1M5-1 nominals with an anaphoric function to denote the holy water which is the topic of the fragment and leaving the less salient anaphoras unmarked or marked by the definite article in nominals of type 1U and 1M1 or equivalent. I will then go on to show why two of the 1M5-1 nominals must be preserved by current standards, whereas the presence of the other two while acceptable is not compulsory. All anaphoras in the fragment were underlined and the 1M5-1 nominals were written out in bold. (258) I na drugo meˇsto pak˘ı, cˇto se zove germïa, and on other place again which REFL.ACC calls Germia i tamo takvazi voda beˇsˇe os[ve˛]sˇtenna, vu˘ and there such.FEM water was.3SG sanctified.FEM in ime arx[a]gg[e]la mixaila. i koi prixozˇdaaxu name archangel.GEN Michael.GEN and who.PL came.3PL tamo sicˇki isceˇleˇvaxu ot seˇkakva bolest˘ı. i there all recovered.3PL from any.FEM illness and voda imasˇe rybyci drebny. i tïe onazi that.FEM water had.3SG fish.PL.DIM small.PL and they lizˇaaxu na bolnyte ljudïe teˇloto im˘ı licked.3PL of ill.PL.THE people body.THE them.CL.DAT i isceˇleˇvaaxu. i vu˘ onova vreˇme beˇsˇe u and recovered.3PL and in that time was in

Process 1

103

carigrad˘ı knedz˘ı neˇkoi velik˘ı i Constantinople prince some.MASC grand.MASC and mu studïe. i pr˘ıvyi u grad˘ı imeto first.MASC in city name.THE him.CL.DAT Studie and razboleˇ se ot ljuta bolest˘ı do smr˘ıt˘ı. came-down REFL.ACC from acute.FEM disease to death i ne mozˇaasˇe ni o cˇto da se isceˇli. and not could.3SG no of what to REFl.ACC recovers i kato lezˇaasˇe doide neˇkoi cˇl[ove]k˘ı and while was-lying.3SG came.3SG some.MASC person imeto mu gulïo. ot germïa. i doide name.THE him.CL.DAT Gulio from Germia and came.3SG u carigrad da poseˇti studïa knedza kato e in Constantinople to visits Studie.ACC prince.ACC as is boln˘ı. i ze da mu kazuva za ill.MASC and started.3SG to REFL.ACC says about s[ve˛]taa voda, kak˘ı cˇini isceˇlenïe, za onu˘zi about that.FEM holy.FEM water how performs cure i cˇjudesa. i kato cˇju za tova studïe, and miracles and when heard.3SG about that Studie zaraduva se i ze da se rejoiced.3SG REFL.ACC and started.3SG to REFL.ACC nadeˇe na pomosˇt˘ı b[o]zˇia. i poide tamo su˘s relies on help god.ADJ.FEM and went.3SG there with s[ve˛]taa drugy bolny. i uleˇze u onu˘zi others ill.PL and enetered.3SG in that.FEM holy.FEM voda, i toja cˇas isceˇleˇ. i ne tu˘kmo water and that.MASC hour recovered.3SG and not just dosˇle su˘s toi ami i sicˇkite bolnïi cˇto beˇxu he but also all.THE ill.PL that were.3PL come.PL with nego. i edin˘ı ot teˇx imasˇe him.ACC and one.MASC of them.ACC had.3SG

104

The diachronic model of definiteness

beˇl˘ı na oko, i toi isceˇleˇ. I kato videˇ white.MASC on eye and he recovered and as saw.3SG studïe knedz˘ı tolkova cˇjudo cˇto se cˇini. Studie prince so-much miracle that REFL.ACC performs raznese mnogo imanïe i su˘gradi c[˘ı]rkva scattered.3SG much property and built.3SG church velika. i ostavi mnogo stoka tamo u c[˘ı]rkvata. great.FEM and left.3SG a-lot-of goods there in church.THE i na seˇkyi d[e]n˘ı koi doxozˇdaasˇe and on every.MASC day whoever.MASC came.3SG bolen˘ı isceˇljavasˇe. i mnogo sleˇpy progledaaxu, ill.MASC recovered.3SG and many blind.PL saw-again.3PL i sleˇkavy ispravixa se ot onu˘zi and bent.PL straightened-out.3PL REFL.ACC from that.FEM os[ve˛]sˇtena ot arx[a]ggl˘ı mixaila voda, cˇto beˇsˇe water that was.3SG sanctified.FEM by archangel Michael.GEN ‘And again in one other place that is called Germia, there was such water sanctified in the name of Archangel Michael. And everybody who came there recovered from all kind of illnesses. And that water had small fish and they licked the bodies of the ill people and they recovered. And at that time there was a prince in Constantinople by the name of Studie, [who was] grand and foremost in the city. And he came down with a deadly disease and nothing could cure him. And while he was lying down a man by the name of Gulio came from Germia. And he came to Constantinople to visit prince Studie as he was ill. And he started telling him about that holy water, how it cures and performs miracles. And when Studie heard about that he rejoiced and started to rely on God’s help. And he went there with other ill people and dipped in that holy water and got well right away and not only he himself but all the ill people who had come with him. And one of them had a cataract and he was cured too. And when prince Studie saw all the miracles that were performed, he spent a huge amount of money and built a great church and left there many goods. And the ill people who went there every day were cured. And many blind people saw again and bent people straightened out because of that water, which was sanctified by Archangel Michael.’ (Demina 1971: 131–132)

Process 1

105

The second 1M5-1 nominal in this fragment must remain in Standard Bulgarian as it is in the damaskin, because, if it is replaced with the corresponding 4M1-1 svetata voda holy.FEM.THE water, the meaning would change from anaphoric to generic. This is one of the conditions under which nominals of type 1M5 are preferred in the standard language over nominals of type 1M and equivalent: if the default reading of the 1M nominal in this context would be other than anaphoric. Standard Bulgarian would also keep the fourth instance, the 9M3 nominal because its 9M1 conterpart vodata, kojato besˇe osvetena of Arxangel Mixail water.THE which.FEM was sanctified by Archangel Michael features attributive definiteness and seems to have a slightly differently delineated referent, which makes coreference problematic, unless a demonstrative makes it clear that the speaker treats the nominal as an anaphora. As to the other two 1M5-1 nominals, they can but need not be replaced by their 1M1-1 counterparts. I would like to avoid the quotation of lengthy texts in Standard Bulgarian proving that such facultative nominals with their added anaphoric power continue to be used by speakers to emphasize the topic of discourse. Here is the shortest quotation at my disposal: (259) Pitame go kaku˘v e pru˘stenu˘t na kraka ask.1PL him.CL.ACC what.MASC is ring.THE on leg.THE mu. Mititaki ni razkazva, cˇe predi da him.CL.DAT Mititaki us.CL.DAT tells that before to si tru˘gne, otisˇli s cˇico mu v REFL.DAT leaves went.3PL with uncle him.CL.DAT in njakakva stancija, ta go some-kind-of.FEM station so-that him.CL.ACC opru˘stenili. Sega po toja pru˘sten provided-with-ring.3PL now after this.MASC ring ucˇeni xora sˇte go sledjat i sˇte learned.PL people will him.CL.ACC follow.3PL and will razberat podir vreme ku˘de pu˘tuvat vrabcite. understand after time where travel.3PL sparrows.THE ‘We ask him [the sparrow Mititaki] about the ring on his leg. Mititaki tells us that before leaving for home his uncle and he went to some kind of office and a ring was attached to his leg. Scholars will now keep an eye on this ring and will eventually understand where sparrows travel’. (Radicˇkov)

106

The diachronic model of definiteness

It seems therefore that there is continuity between the states of affairs in the damaskin language and Standard Bulgarian. There are however some problems with this analysis. The most important is that there are more 1M5 nominals and equivalent in the damaskin than those to which one can attribute this function as emphatic marker of the topic of discourse. What is more, I found neither objective criteria, which would allow me to distinguish clearly between prominent and non-prominent anaphoras nor did my competence as a native speaker of Bulgarian guide me in this regard.6 And finally, since the damaskin text is a translation and the phenomenon we are trying to pinpoint does not provide a contrast between grammatical and non-grammatical occurrences, it is not implausible that the original, as it has already been suggested, was at least partially responsible for the overuse of 1M5 nominals. 3.1.2. Explicit expression of anaphoric definiteness Standard Bulgarian has at its disposal a lexical anaphoric marker: su˘stijat ‘the same’7, always accompanied by the definite article. Su˘sˇtijat is an explicit expression that must be used when the identification or similarity between referents or states of affair is the focus of the utterance as in (260) and (261). (260) Naj-nakraja se vu˘rnaxme pri nasˇija finally REFL.ACC returned.1PL at our.MASC.THE starec. Zavarixme go na su˘sˇtoto mjasto i v old-man found.1PL him on same.NEUT.THE place and in su˘stata poza. same.FEM.THE posture ‘Finally we returned to our old man. We found him in the same place and posture.’ (Danailov, Ku˘sˇta otvu˘d sveta) (261) I sinu˘t ima su˘sˇtija glas kato basˇta also son.THE has same.MASC.THE voice like father si. REFL.DAT ‘The son too has the same voice like his father.’ 6. The only approximate parallel (mutatis mutandis) to this elusive opposition seems to be the use for topicalized objects of reduplicated 0M1-1 nominals, which was also shown to be optional. 7. For a semantic analysis of these readings of English same see Moltmann 1992 with further bibliography.

Process 1

107

In relative identity statements, 1M10 nominal with su˘stijat compete with 1M5-1 or 1M1 nominals and their equivalents. For instance, 1M10 su˘sˇtija sˇal in (262) can be replaced with 1M5-1 onja sˇal that.MASC shawl or 1M1 sˇala shawl.THE. (262) Na cˇardaka se pokaza stara, on verandah.THE REFL.ACC showed.3SG old.FEM pregu˘rbena zˇena, zavita prezglava su˘s stooping.FEM woman tucked.FEM headover with s kojto predi tova sˇal, su˘sˇtija same.MASC.THE shawl with which.MASC before this be zagu˘rnata momata. was.3SG wrapped.FEM lass.THE ‘A stooping old woman came out on the verandah, tucked headover in the same shawl, which had been wrapped around the lass before.’ (Talev) When it relates to plurals, conjoined or quantified nominals su˘sˇtijat appears in competition with edin i su˘sˇt(i). Thus po su˘sˇtija nacˇin ‘in the same way’ can be replaced with po edin i su˘sˇt nacˇin by one.MASC and same.MASC manner in (263) and su˘sˇtata jasla ‘the same day nursery’ with edna i su˘sˇta jasla one.FEM and same.FEM day-nursery in (264). (263) Idejata za cˇovesˇkite prava ne se idea.THE about human.PL.THE rights not REFL.ACC priema ot vsicˇki po su˘sˇtija nacˇin. accepts from all by same.THE manner ‘The concept of human rights is not accepted by everybody in the same way.’ (264) Dvete mi deca posesˇtavaxa su˘sˇtata two.THE me.CL.DAT children attended.3PL same.FEM.THE jasla po razlicˇno vreme. day-nursery at different time ‘My two children attended the same day nursery at different times.’ I found in the damaskin no record of su˘sˇtijat in any of the usages listed above. I am not sure how much weight one should attach to the absence of a lexical item from a text of limited proportions, but it does open the possibility that su˘sˇtijat appeared after the seventeenth century. Since su˘sˇtijat incorporates the

108

The diachronic model of definiteness

definite article and is an explicit anaphoric expression, it is plausible to relate its appearance to the evolution of the definite article in its anaphoric function. We shall see throughout this book that neutral and explicit expressions of a given description tend to exhibit parallel evolutions. On the other hand, the relative tardy chronology is indirectly supported by the slightly awkward single example (265) of the predecessor of edin i su˘sˇti as a nominal predicate, which appears as expected in a context that involves plurality. (265) s[y]n˘ı b[o]zˇïi, deto e su˘s o[t]ca su˘sˇti son god.ADJ.MASC that is with father.ACC same.MASC i edno. i sˇto se slavi ravno su˘s and one.NEUT and what REFL.ACC glorifies equally with s[ve˛]t[o]go d[u]xa holy.MASC.ACC spirit.ACC ‘God’s son who is the same with the father and who is as glorious as the Holy Spirit’ (Demina 1971: 60) The damaskin usage features reversed word order of the expression and lack of agreement in gender, which makes plausible the contamination between two different wordings, which would sound in Standard Bulgarian as deto e edin i su˘sˇti su˘s basˇtata that is one.MASC and same.MASC with father.THE and deto e edno su˘s basˇtata that is one.NEUT with father.THE, respectively. The very fact that the wording is awkward may be a sign that the expression had been introduced relatively recently and had not settled yet. Besides these usages, su˘sˇt(i) without the definite article has the meaning ‘real, true’, which is today slipping out of use but is the one best attested in the damaskin, see: (266) onazi zˇena beˇ su˘sˇti dïavol˘ı that.FEM woman was.3SG true.MASC devil ‘That woman was a true devil.’ (Demina 1971: 179; for other examples see Demina 1971: 162, 258, 266, 267, 271, 278) Given the fact that su˘sˇt(i) comes from the present active participle of byti ‘to be’ (Vasmer 1986–1987, 3: 814), this should obviously count as the initial meaning of the word that came into being by following the evolution: ‘being, existing; that is, exists’ > ‘real, true’. The descendants of Proto-Slavic *ist ч in the other South Slavic languages and some Bulgarian dialects (BER 1: 90; ESJS 5: 254) evolved along the same path from ‘real, true’ to ‘same’. The counterparts of su˘sˇtijat in Albanian and Romanian, however, derive from the distal demonstrative pronouns (Albanian po ai lit. ‘PARTICLE that.MASC’,

Process 2

109

gjith-ai lit. ‘all that.MASC’; Romanian acelas¸i < Latin ecce + ille + sibi, cf. acel ‘that’), which means that their point of entry must have been the relative identity statements, where demonstratives and ‘same’ are interchangeable. The evolution of the Greek   « ‘the same’ from ‘pertaining to oneself’ demonstrates that identifiability-based definiteness must have been treated as one domain, as it shows evolution from individuation to identity. The Ancient Greek  « (whose Modern Greek descendant   «  ‘myself’ will be discussed in section 3.5.1) could also function both anaphorically and as an emphatic pronoun (Schwyzer 1966, 2: 191–193; for parallels in the Romance languages see Lyons 1999: 334). Thus, Balkan data regarding the explicit anaphoric lexical marker demonstrate the coexistence in the region of three different patterns that cannot be reduced to one another.

3.2.

Process 2

The exophoric definiteness, which is the use of the definite article that marks it out as a full-fledged grammatical category,8 represents another ground by virtue of which a nominal can be definite. Exophoric definiteness is relevant for the individuative descriptions. Being based on inference, the article cannot be replaced in this position by a demonstrative determiner because demonstratives indicate by definition that “the identity of the referent is immediately accessible to the hearer” (Lyons 1999: 21). The damaskin offers many examples of such use. This is evidence that by the time reflected in the damaskin the definite article had already become a feature of the grammatical system. The following are examples of first-mention 1M1 nominals definite by entailment: (267) I kato vleˇze tamo s[ve]tyi dimitrïe, videˇ and as entered.3SG there saint.MASC Demetrius saw.3SG ednu˘ skorpïa goleˇma sresˇta nego ide, i one.FEM scorpion big.FEM towards him.ACC comes and izvadila si zˇeloto da go uxape take.PART.FEM REFL.DAT sting.THE to him.ACC bite.3SG ‘And when St. Demetrius entered there, he saw a big scorpion coming towards him that had taken out its sting to hurt him.’ (Demina 1971: 102) 8. This is a minimalist requirement against the background of received wisdom according to which a definite article should be considered a genuine article only after it has penetrated the generic area (Tolstoj 1962: 125; Krámsky´ 1972, 33).

110

The diachronic model of definiteness

(268) i pomysli da ide na b[o]zˇïi grob˘ı. i and thought.3SG to go.3SG to divine.MASC grave and da sedi tamo izokolu po pustynjata to sit.3SG there around in desert.THE ‘And he thought to go the Holy Sepulchre and to stay around there in the desert.’ (Demina 1971: 156) Statistics based on homilies No.No. 7, 8, 13 and 14 show the following: 58.57 % of all 1M1 nominals that need a definite article in this category (exophoric definiteness) do indeed have one. This number is impressive against the percentage of articles of all kinds represented in the same four homilies (37.79 %). This means that the damaskin witnesses the installation of definite articles by entailment in its Phase III. In order to understand how the article spread from the anaphoric position to that of definiteness by entailment, one needs to consider the cases in which an anaphoric article could be re-interpreted as an exophoric article because it had both functions at the same time. There are such examples in the damaskin: (269) ami i teˇloto negovo i do dnesˇny but too body.THE his.NEUT and until today.ADJ.MASC d[e]n˘ı stoi ceˇlo u grob˘ı. zasˇto videˇx day stands entire.NEUT in grave because saw.1SG mu grobu˘t˘ı az˘ı !…" kato !…" otvorixme I as opened.1PL him.DAT grave.THE ‘But his body too has remained until this very day untouched in the grave as I saw it !…" when !…" we opened his grave.’ (Demina 1971: 159–160) Svane discusses a very similar example from the Dobrejsˇo Gospel of the thirteenth century (1962: 229–230). In it the same co-referential nominal appears twice in a close sequence and is accompanied only the second time by a definite article, although Standard Bulgarian requires that both instances be articulated. The first nominal is definite by entailment, whereas the second has a double-duty article, and that is the one that is actually present in the text. Such double-duty articles are the entrance through which the anaphoric article penetrated the new area and acquired a new function that was to transform it into an article proper.

Process 3

3.3.

111

Process 3

The attributive function of the definite article surfaces in nominals of type 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 as well as their counterparts of type 0. Let us have a look at them. 3.3.1. Nominals of Type 2 They are represented by the possessive 2M1 (sina im) and 2M2 (novija mi kljucˇ) in Standard Bulgarian, unless they belong to a small and much discussed group of kinship terms. I shall return to this group of inalienable possessions in a moment. The bulk of the nominals of type 2 in the damaskin is very similar to those in the standard language: the damaskin offers an early record of the enforcement of a quasi-absolute rule in Bulgarian. Statistics show that 100 % of the nominals of type 2M1 in the six homilies searched (No.No. 2, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14) are indeed in place.9 Section 6.2 sheds light on the significance of this extraordinary agreement between the damaskin and the standard language. Here is a typical example for illustration of the type: (270) i prinoseˇsˇe dar˘ı g[ospod]u b[og]u i and was-bringing.3SG gift Lord.DAT God.DAT and dumasˇe si sam, da bude was-saying.3SG REFL.DAT self.MASC to be.3SG toizi dar˘ı za sicˇki ljudïe. a mene za this.MASC gift for all.PL people whereas me.DAT for ocˇistene da bude, za greˇxoveti mi prosˇten˘ıe purification to be.3SG for sins.THE me.DAT forgiveness ‘And he brought an offering to the Lord and was saying to himself, “Let this offering be for all people and to me let it be for purification and forgiveness of my sins.”’ (Demina 1971: 151) My overall impressions based on the entire togazi section of the damaskin tally with these results. Excluding kinship terms, I found very few instances of 2U1 filling in for the expected 2M1. Here is my selection:

9. This amounts to 99 in absolute numbers.

112

The diachronic model of definiteness

(271) I um si pomracˇisˇ and mind REFL.DAT darken.2SG ‘And you derange your mind.’ (Demina 1971: 138; another illustration on p. 75) It is remarkable that my exceptions also involve inalienable possessions: um ‘mind’ and obraz˘ı ‘face’. Kin and the body parts as inalienable possessions may be treated differently from alienable possessions in languages around the globe (Greenberg 1978: 65–66; Lyons 1999: 128–130). This is so because alienable and inalienable possessions instantiate different type of belonging: attachment (the possessor is linked to the object possessed) and detachment (a part is detached from the whole) (Danon-Boileau and Morel 1996). It is culturally significant that the human body and kin should be represented linguistically alike as wholes of which the body parts and the individual person are part.10 Bulgarian does not deal with kinship terms consistently.11 The standard language uses some of them as heads of 2U1 nominals and others as heads of 2M1 nominals. To the former group belong zˇena mi ‘my wife’, basˇta mi ‘my father’, majka mi ‘my mother’, brat mi ‘my brother’, baba mi ‘my grandmother’, djado mi ‘my grandfather’, du˘sˇterja mi ‘my daughter’, zˇet mi ‘my son-in-law’, snaxa mi ‘my daughter-in-law’, sveku˘rva mi ‘my husband’s mother’, vujcˇo mi ‘my mother’s brother’, cˇicˇo mi ‘my father’s brother’, lelja mi ‘my aunt’ etc. and to the latter mu˘zˇu˘t mi ‘my husband’, sinu˘t mi ‘my son’, sveku˘ru˘t mi ‘my husband’s father’, vnuku˘t mi ‘my grandson’, vnucˇkata mi ‘my granddaughter’, plemenniku˘t mi ‘my nephew’, plemennicata mi ‘my niece’, plurals like du˘sterite mi ‘my daughters’, diminutives such as majcˇi10. There is various additional evidence that these two classes of vocabulary may be perceived as essentially similar. I shall only point at the use of the body-parts domain to map out kinship (Bjeletic´ 1999). 11. The Balkan languages display a range of attitudes towards inalienable possessions: from Greek that marks them out minimally only by the impossibility to combine with certain verbs expressing possession (Joseph and Philippaki-Warburton 1987: 95–96) to Albanian that requires a different definite declension and allows different possessive constructions for kinship terms (Camaj 1984: 38–39, 111–113, 240; Demiraj 1993: 123–124, 129, 167) and Romanian featuring different patterns of marking definiteness and possessive constructions for inalienables and alienables (GRL 1: 99–100, 158–159; Manoliu-Manea 1990; Vasilev 1968). Even the languages in which the alienable/inalienable contrast is more salient, are inconsistent in their treatment of it, a sign that the contemporary state of affairs is a relic that is gradually eroding as time goes by.

Process 3

113

cata mi ‘my mother’ etc. The Bulgarian dialects can, however, opt for different configurations, as shown on the unpublished maps by Maxim Sl. Mladenov, reproduced at the end of this book. The maps take into account vast dialect material and display the areals of mu˘zˇu˘´ mi vs. mu˘´zˇ mi vs. mu˘zˇ mí ‘my husband’ (Map 3); zˇenáta mi vs. zˇená mi ‘my wife’ (Map 4) and sinu˘´ mi/sína mi vs. sín mi/sin mí ‘my son’ (Map 5); and that of a number of other kinship terms (Map 6).12 The damaskin vacillates. Most of the time it makes the same 13 choices as Standard Bulgarian: (272) i stana i celuva i maika si i and raised.3SG and kisses and mother REFL.DAT and sestryte si sisters.THE REFL.DAT ‘And she got up and kissed both her mother and her sisters.’ (Demina 1971: 136) (273) i ideˇsˇe i sreˇsˇtna basˇta si and was-coming3SG and met3SG father REFL.DAT ‘And he was walking and he met his father.’ (Demina 1971: 327) (274) gde e brat mi where is brother me.DAT ‘Where is my brother?’ (Demina 1971: 93) Regarding feminine zˇena ‘wife’, however, the damaskin almost always sides with dialects that use the word with the definite article, whereas the Standard Bulgarian norm requires that it be of type 2U1.13 (275) i onzi muzˇ˘ı nein˘ı kato isprovodi and that.MASC husband her.ADJ.MASC as escorted.3SG thoma. i zatvori vrata, i vr˘ına se Thoma and closed.3SG door and returned.3SG REFL.ACC pri zˇenu˘ta si, i videˇ kak˘ı duma thoma to wife.THE REFL.DAT and saw.3SG how talks Thoma

12. Maps 3 and 6 were supplemented with data collected and analysed in Cyxun 1981: 100–108. 13. According to Qvonje (1985: 480), the Trojan damaskin makes the same choice. The only exception in the Tixonravov damaskin I am aware of is a zˇena mi i deca … izmreˇxa ‘my wife and children died’ (Demina 1971: 76).

114

The diachronic model of definiteness

su˘s˘ı zˇenu˘ta mu. pocˇjudi se with wife.THE his.DAT wondered.3SG REFL.ACC ‘And that husband of hers when he saw Thoma off and closed the door and returned to his wife and saw Thoma talking with his wife and wondered.’ (Demina 1971: 90; other examples on pp. 69, 70, 71, 73, 77, 78) Reversely, regarding masculine sin ‘son’, the damaskin opts for 2U1, whereas Standard Bulgarian uses 2M1. (276) A o[te]c˘ı negov˘ı otkak se rodi sin But father his.ADJ.MASC since REFL.ACC bore.3SG son mu aleksïa ne smeˇsi se his.DAT Aleksia not mingled.3SG REFL.ACC su˘svoata si zˇena with-own.FEM.THE REFL.DAT wife ‘But his father did not mingle with his wife after his son Alexis was born.’ (Demina 1971: 327; other examples on pp. 82 and 327) Masculine mu˘zˇ ‘husband’ appears both with and without the article:14 (277) a dïavol˘ı ei kaza sicˇko cˇto i and devil her.DAT told.3SG everything that her.DAT rekl˘ı muzˇ˘ı ei koga otxozˇdasˇe said.MASC husband her.DAT when was-leaving.3SG ‘And the devil told her everything that her husband had said when he was leaving.’ (Demina 1971: 114; other examples on pp. 71, 136, 137) (278) i onazi zˇena tecˇe skoro i naide and that.FEM woman ran.3SG soon and found.3SG mu˘zˇatogo si husband.ACC.THE REFL.DAT ‘And that woman ran quickly and found her husband.’ (Demina 1971: 123; other examples on pp. 77, 137, 142, 181, 289, 328)

14. Qvonje (1985: 479–480) claims that both mu˘zˇ and sin consistently form 2M1 nominals in the Trojan and the Koprivsˇtica damaskins versus 2U1 nominals in the Svisˇtov damaskin. If that is indeed so, it points to a significant difference between the Tixonravov and the Koprivsˇtica damaskins that are deemed to be otherwise very close.

Process 3

115

The variegated picture that both current and past Bulgarian speech varieties offer can be interpreted as follows. There must have been a time when inalienable possessions had their specialized possessive construction (2U nominals) and 4U1 nominals containing a possessive determiner were used as universal possessive constructions. Even though such a distribution is not documented for Bulgarian, there are languages featuring the dative in a possessive function that is associated with inalienable possessions and it has been argued that the dative was particularly appropriate for the purpose because it allowed speakers to empathize with the point of view of possessors (Levine 1986; Timoc-Bardy 1996; Kucˇanda 1996). The specialized possessive construction for inalienables was interpreted at one point as intrinsically definite and the universal one as indefinite. Such a reinterpretation was facilitated by the fact that Slavic possessives did not participate in the long/short-form opposition that characterized adjectives at large but had only short forms, which were generally associated with indefiniteness. Thus even after the rise of the definite article kinship terms continued to be used as heads of 2U1 nominals (considered inherently definite). Then, however, the Bulgarian dialects gradually stopped distinguishing between alienable and inalienable possessions, a process that had as one of its corollaries the penetration of alienables into the area of nominals of type 2 formerly reserved for inalienables and as another the preference for 2M1 rather than 2U1 nominals no matter whether a kinship term or any other noun was in the head position. The sequence in which dialects were affected can be reconstructed on linguo-geographical grounds: change first penetrated the Southern dialects, then the Western ones and finally the Northeastern ones (see Cyxun 1981: 100–108 for similar conclusions). The interpetation proposed here builds on Cyxun’s analysis. It distinguishes between three areas: an innovative southern one with the Rupa dialects as its core, a conservative northeastern one with the Moesian dialects as its core and a diffuse area in-between which features the characteristics of both and includes the Western and the Balkan dialects. The conservative northeastern area is the stronghold of the receding category of alienability. Not coincidentally, the Northeastern Moesian dialects and some Western dialects (i.e. territories that belong to the conservative and the diffuse areas) were reported to treat parts of the body similarly to kin as inalienable possessions: glava mu head him.DAT ‘his head’ instead of glavata mu head.THE him.DAT elsewhere (Mileticˇ 1937: 25–26; Mladenov 1966a: 70; Cyxun 1981: 96–97). Except for the examples cited above, the damaskin deals with this lexical class like the standard language, i. e. it uniformly uses 2M nominals. The southern area, as indicated by Cyxun, is

116

The diachronic model of definiteness

the centre of innovation from which the grammatical category of definiteness emanated. Not only was there a certain sequence in which dialects were involved in the process of change but the group of kinship terms was also affected on a term-by-term basis rather than simultaneously. If we keep in mind that vocabulary classes incorporated the definite article not all at once (for details see section 3.4), it becomes obvious that the current state of affairs as reflected on Maps 3–6 depends on the points in time when the mapped kinship term left the category inalienable possessions and entered the sphere of action of the definite article. We can infer from the maps that feminines were involved in the process of change before masculines and in each gender category certain lexical items were ahead of others: feminine zˇena (Map 4) preceded feminine snaxa (Map 6) and masculine mu˘zˇ (Map 3) preceded masculine sin (Map 5). Since feminines started acquiring the definite article at a time while inalienability was a much more active category, they had a stronger resistence to overcome, and their slow progress is visible in the broader diffuse area. Their centre of innovation is quite precisely delimitated by the diffuse area that surrounds it. A sizeable territory to the north-northeast of the isogloss on Maps 4 and 6 remained outside their expansion. Masculines marched with an increasing speed and, as we can see on Maps 3 and 5 that are based on a larger amount of data, the innovative 2M nominal conquered the entire territory leaving no conservative area standing but instead pushing the diffuse area further north and northeast into the same direction where one can observe the conservative area on the maps featuring feminines. The damaskin compiler spoke a dialect that had an innovative zˇena but a conservative sin and vacillating mu˘zˇ, a combination that postulates for the seventeenth century a much broader diffuse area of mu˘zˇ than the one we have today because it had to include the alternative localizations of the damaskin language and a conservative area of sin that roughly matches its current diffuse area. After the category of inalienables was abolished, its dead remnants continued to tag along carried by inertia. All Bulgarian dialects today display some traces of the model ‘kin is inalienable possession’. Regarding the standard language, variation in the use of 2U1/2M1 nominals with kinship terms in the head position may also be due to contradictory impulses coming from different dialect zones (Mladenov 1980: 201).15 Alienables, which had be-

15. The attempt to explain the oscillation between 2U1 and 2M1 in the standard language on accentological grounds (Qvonje 1985) does not convince me because

Process 3

117

come acceptable in nominals of type 2, needed to mark definiteness explicitely, whereas some equally definite inalienables stayed on with type 2U1. 3.3.2. Nominals of Type 3 and equivalent The damaskin does not offer examples of nominals of type 3M (u˘cˇiteljat Petrov, dobrijat ucˇitel Petrov or vagon-restorantu˘t) but there are many instances of 3U (djado Ivan) with an appositive reading. Their usage is no different from current norms, as a typical example would demonstrate: (279) i razbra tova c[a]r˘ı konstantin˘ı and understood.3SG this.NEUT emperor Constantine ‘And Emperor Constantine understood this.’ (Demina 1971: 64) On other occasions, 3U stands for 3M, as in the following rare examples where 3M with a restrictive reading was to be expected: (280) sega te izgoreˇvam, ako ne dovedesˇ˘ı tuka now you.ACC burn.1SG if not bring.2SG here raba b[o]zˇïa simeona slave.ACC divine.MASC.ACC Symeon.ACC ‘I shall burn you on the spot if you do not bring here God’s slave Symeon.’ (Demina 1971: 55) (281) Pogrebi avva zosime teˇloto na syrota bury.IMPER.2SG Avva Zosima.VOC body.THE of orphan marïa Maria ‘Avva Zosima, bury the body of the orphan Maria.’ (Demina 1971: 199) There are a number of homilies that offer no data whatsover on nominals of type 3. Here are the meagre numbers regarding the representation of nominals of type 3 in positions that would be held today by 3M: one instance of 3U instead of 3M1-1 with a restrictive reading in each of homilies 2, 9 and 40 and one instance of 3U instead of 3M1-2 with an appositive reading in homily 9. there is at least one term (vnuk) with accent on the stem as well as a number of feminines that join the group favouring 2M1 and thus contradict the proposed explanation.

118

The diachronic model of definiteness

I also have at my disposal a selection of nominals with personal pronouns in the head position, forerunners of type 0M1-3 (az idiotu˘t). They have an appositive reading and today would have been accompanied with the definite article. A remarkable difference from current norms is constituted by the fact that even weak pronouns can have an attribute in the damaskin, something not possible today when only the strong pronouns can be used this way. Here is an illustration of each category of pronoun in the role of head: strong in (282) and weak in (283): (282) slucˇi se i mene greˇsˇnomu happened.3SG REFL.ACC too me.DAT sinful.MASC.DAT antonïju napisati Anthony.DAT write.INF ‘It happened also to me, the sinful Anthony, to write.’ (Demina 1971: 53) (283) poslusˇai me tvoego raba listen.IMPER.2SG me.CL.ACC your.MASC.ACC slave.ACC ‘Listen to me your slave.’ (Demina 1971: 67) Even though not sufficient for statistical purposes, these data allow me to hypothetically place the process no further than Phase I. In this category the impact of set phrases that continue to be used (case form and all) as relics of the past appears to be particularly great. This may account for the fact that the attributive article in this nominal type lags behind its employment in other types. 3.3.3. Nominals of Type 4 and equivalent This type is better represented although not in the area of 0M1-4 (gorkijat toj) and 0M5-3 (gorkite tija). The majority of examples contain a possessive. Typical illustrations are (284) of 4M1-1 and (285) of the damaskin forerunner of 0M1-4: (284) toi srebro i zlato ne uzima, ami ednak˘ı he silver and gold not takes but besides tvoeto imanïe razdade your.NEUT.THE property distributed.3SG ‘Not only does he not take silver and gold but he even gave away your property.’ (Demina 1971: 92)

Process 3

119

(285) i priblizˇix se okaannaa az˘ı do and came-close.1SG REFL.ACC pitiful.FEM I to vratata door.THE ‘And I – pitiful me – came to the door.’ (Demina 1971: 194) Statistical data regarding attributives of type 4 are shown in Table 22: Table 22. Numeric presence of the 4M1-1 nominals Homily number

2

7

8

9

Total

Expression 4U1

4M1-1 4U1

4M1-1 4U1

4M1-1 4U1

4M1-1 4M1-1

Restrictive reading

4

1

6

22

5

10

20

36

33 (104) 31.73 %

Appositive reading

1

0

0

0

5

1

2

2

3 (11) 27.27 %

Total number of the available 4M1-1 nominals: 36 Number of 4M1-1 nominals by current norms: 115 Percentage of the available 4M1-1 nominals regardless of reading: 31.30 %

In the four analysed homilies (2, 7, 8 and 9) nominals with a restrictive reading are represented by 4M1-1 in 31.73 % of the expected cases. This situates the restrictive 4M1-1 nominals in Phase II. The available data regarding 4M1-1 nominals with an appositive reading are statistically negligible and have little impact on the overall picture. 3.3.4. Nominals of Type 5 and equivalent This type is better attested in the damaskin than it is today. Here are some typical examples: (286) I otide zˇiv˘ı pod zemljata vu˘ ada and went.3SG alive.MASC under ground.THE in hell.ACC nesytogo insatiable.MASC.ACC ‘And he went alive underground into the insatiable hell.’ (Demina 1971: 288)

120

The diachronic model of definiteness

(287) gde e kr[˘ı]st˘ı x[risto]v˘ı where is cross Christ.ADJ.MASC ‘Where is Christ’s cross?’ (Demina 1971: 65) (288) i razdra si rizite svoi and tore-up.3SG REFL.DAT robes.THE own.PL ‘And she tore up her robes.’ (Demina 1971: 329) (289) I poidoxme do vratata cr[˘ı]kovny. i tïe and came.1PL up-to gates.THE church.ADJ.PL and they mu se samy otvorixa him.DAT REFL.ACC self.PL opened.3PL ‘And we came to the church gates and they opened up to him on their own.’ (Demina 1971: 62) (290) pomiluvai me smeˇrennago i have-mercy.2SG.IMPER me.ACC humble.MASC.ACC and (290) greˇsˇnago sinful.MASC.ACC ‘Have mercy on me, the humble and sinful one.’ (Demina 1971: 54) Statistics regarding type 5 based on the same four homilies are summarized in Table 23: Table 23. Numeric presence of the 5M1 nominals Homily number

2

7

8

9

Total

Expression 5U

5M1

5U

5M1

5U

5M1

5U

5M1

5M1

Restrictive 5 reading

1

9

3

8

0

28

9

13 (63) 20.63 %

Appositive 0 reading

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

1 (2) 50 %

Total number of the available 5M1 nominals: 14 Number of 5M1 nominals by current norms: 65 Percentage of the available 5M1 nominals regardless of reading: 21.54 %

Process 3

121

Only 20.63 % of the nominals with restrictive reading are represented by the expected 5M1 type (cˇoveku˘t bozˇi). This barely makes them eligible to be assigned to Phase II of Process 3. Again, the available data regarding nominals with an appositive reading are insufficient to draw any conclusions. The competition between nominals of type 4 and 5 deserves a special study. The insight that I have at this point is that there are syntactic positions, such as address form (su˘krovisˇte moe [treasure my.NEUT] ‘honey’), object and nominal predicate, that continue to tolerate nominals of type 5. Note that these syntactic slots are the ones that more often fill the focus position. Sentences such as the following that come from the damaskin have word order perfectly acceptable today, as their translation into Standard Bulgarian indicates: (291) i naide na polovin˘ı pu˘t si dr˘ıvo and found.3SG on half way REFL.DAT tree xubavo i mnogolistno nice.NEUT and many-leaved.NEUT ‘And he found halfway a nice and luxuriant tree.’ (Demina 1971: 183) (292) i nameri na polovin pu˘t du˘rvo xubavo i and found on half way tree nice.NEUT and kicˇesto luxuriant.NEUT (293) zasˇto toizi kr[˘ı]st˘ı s[ve]tyi, ta e oruzˇïe because this.MASC cross holy.MASC so is weapon silno seˇkimu xr[i]stïaninu powerful.NEUT every.MASC.DAT Christian ‘Because this holy cross is a powerful weapon for every Christian.’ (Demina 1971: 183) (294) zasˇtoto tozi svjat kru˘st e oru˘zˇie because this.MASC holy.MASC cross is weapon silno za vseki xristianin powerful.NEUT for every.MASC Christian Furthermore, there appear to be more numerous stylistically neutral instances of type 5U (cˇovek bozˇi) than 5M1 (cˇoveku˘t bozˇi). If the status of types 4 and 5 is not equipollent, that is so because there clearly are positions, from which type 5 is excluded, whereas there are no positions, which disallow type 4. It is

122

The diachronic model of definiteness

the absence of type 5 from these positions that made scholars claim that the word order of type 4 nominals is the only one that matters in contemporary Standard Bulgarian (GSBKE 3: 227, 286–287).16 These observations can be supported with some numerical data. In homily 2 there is a total of 112 nominals of types 4 and 5, where I have included six instances of deviant nominals that have an adjective or a determiner on both sides of the head noun, e.g. drugy gadove ljuty others reptiles poisonous.PL ‘other poisonous reptiles’ (Demina 1971: 55). Nominals of type 4 constitute 59 % of the total and type 5 – 36 %. Even though some uses sound poetic or archaic and would not be my first choice of expression, I have stronger objections only against one nominal of type 5 with anaphoric function, which I would have preferred to see as a 4M1 nominal. This means that 99 % of all choices are perceived as grammatical according to current norms. Even more significantly, 77 % of the nominals of type 4 cannot be replaced with their type 5 equivalents, whereas this is true only of 30 % of the nominals of type 5. As opposed to type 4, the irreplaceable nominals of type 5 are rendered so by their lexical representation; a fact, which highlights again the role of the damaskin literary tradition for the makeup of Standard Bulgarian. For example, I have heard so many times heaven referred to as c[a]rstvo n[e]b[e]snoe kingdom heavenly.LF.NEUT, as it is in the damaskin (Demina 1971: 55), that the reverse order nebesno carstvo sounds awkward. If however in the slot filled by carstvo nebesnoe in the damaskin sentence there was some other nominal, there would have been no objection against the employment of a type 4 nominal. In the other cases (23 % for the nominals of type 4 and 70 % for those of type 5) it would have been grammatical to use either nominal type. And finally, 58 % of the nominals of type 5 are situated in focus positions. Recurrent lexical collocations and presence in the focus area of utterances account for 83 % of the existent nominals of type 5 in this homily. This conclusion agrees with observations made on Russian for which four factors determining the postposition of possessives in the nominal phrase have been identified: (1) demands of the literary tradition; (2) logical stress, emphasis on the possessive in the utterance; (3) considerations of the rhythmical structure of the text; and (4) association of the possessive with inalienable possession (Zˇurinskaja 1979: 322–332). Progress in the understanding of word order in the Bulgarian nominal phrase can only be made against a 16. Deviations from this pattern have been attributed to foreign influence; e.g., usage in Petu˘r Beron’s Riben bukvar (1824) is thought to have occurred under the impact of Romanian (Mladenov 1975: 160–162) as well as comparable phenomena in the Bulgarian dialect of Cioplea in Romania (Gut¸u 1971).

Process 3

123

general Slavic background and will have to take into account research outcomes pertaining to other Slavic languages (see Nikolaeva 1986 with further bibliography). 3.3.5. Nominals of Type 817 This type is frequently represented in the damaskin not by prepositional phrases subordinated to a head noun but by a nominal in an oblique case, which can follow or precede the head. It can also feature clitic reduplication. A representative selection of nominals of type 8 is available for observation in these examples: (295) i beˇsˇe vysocˇinata agg[e]lutomu ot zemljata and was.3SG height.THE angel.THE.DAT from ground.THE do n[e]beto up-to sky.THE ‘And the height of the angel was from the ground to the sky.’ (Demina 1971: 124) (296) Po su˘mr˘ıt˘ı cara navu˘xodonosora. vu˘cari after death king.GEN Nebuchadnezzar.GEN enthroned.3SG se syni negov˘ı valtasar˘ı REFL.ACC son his.ADJ.MASC Belshazzar ‘After the death of King Nebuchadnezzar his son Belshazzar ascended to the throne.’ (Demina 1971: 127) (297) deto lezˇi teˇloto b[o]zˇïemu cˇl[ove]ku where lies body.THE godly.MASC.DAT person.DAT ‘where the body of the godly man was lying’ (Demina 1971: 329) (298) I theofilu roditelete prïidosˇe ku˘ ap[o]s[to]lu and Theophil.DAT parents.THE came.3PL to apostle.DAT ‘And Theophil’s parents came to the apostle.’ (Demina 1971: 290) (299) i ostavixa go na ustïeto na onzi trap˘ı and left.3PL him.ACC on mouth.THE of that.MASC pit ‘And they left him at the mouth of that pit.’ (Demina 1971: 127)

17. Since I have no data about the counterparts of type 0 – 0M1-7 (vie v u˘gu˘la) and 0M5-6 (toja s ocˇilata) – I am leaving them out of the discussion.

124

The diachronic model of definiteness

(300) i tolkova beˇsˇe ljuta onazi bura, and so-much was.3SG violent.FEM that.FEM tempest kolkoto se strosˇi kr˘ımiloto na korabt˘ı that REFL.ACC broke.3SG rudder.THE of ship.THE ‘And this tempest was so violent that the rudder of the ship broke.’ (Demina 1971: 166) An important subtype is that of possessives rendered by a prepositional phrase reduplicated with a clitic (see Savova 2003 for an analysis of Standard Bulgarian and vernacular data). A frequent feature of this nominal of type 8 is the inverted word order (the possessive precedes the head noun) as in (523), which would be quite unacceptable in contemporary Bulgarian in the absence of a clitic that follows the head noun. See however (298) for an instance of this word order in the damaskin in a non-reduplicated nominal and (301) for one that displays reduplication. (301) videˇx x[rist]a raspetago. na saw.1SG Christ.ACC crucified.MASC.ACC on ednogo rogacˇa mezˇdu rogovete mu one.MASC.ACC deer.ACC between antlers him.CL.DAT ‘I saw the crucified Christ on a deer between his antlers’ (Demina 1971: 71) Table 24. Numeric presence of the 8M nominals with a restrictive reading Homily number

2

7

8

9

40

Expression with a restrictive 8U 8M 8U 8M 8U 8M 8U 8M 8U 8M reading 3

6

3

0

5

6

20

22

5

0

Data stemming from five analysed homilies (2, 7, 8, 9 and 40) and displayed in absolute numbers in Table 24 show the following: 42.5 % of the nominals with a restrictive reading are represented by 8M, as expected according to current norms. This assigns the process of expansion of the definite article in this area to Phase II. No data about nominals with an appositive reading are available. But current norms require that 8M2-1 (sestrata na domakinjata) and not 8M1-1 (ucˇiteljat po istorija) be the expression of restrictives in many instances. Although it was demonstrated above that 8M1-1 can have a restrictive reading, given a particular nominal, these nominal types are by no means interchangeable. Statistics based on the available instances in these five homilies show that only 5 out of 31 expected nominals (or 16.13 %) are

Process 3

125

represented by 8M2-1 nominals. Moreover, in the majority of instances the head noun is accompanied by an oblique case form instead of a prepositional phrase. As (295) shows, there may be some overlapping of case form and article in this category. The numbers testify that 8M2-1 is a later phenomenon than 8M1-1. Whereas when we catch sight of it 8M1-1 has clearly advanced to Phase II in its expansion, 8M2-1 is at the beginning of the process, possibly still in Phase I. Case forms again appear as an obstacle to the progress of the definite article. In Standard Bulgarian 8M2-1 and 8M1-1 show some predilection for specialization, the former for specific and the latter for generic descriptions (Ivancˇev 1978 [1967]: 155–157): (302) Dru˘zˇkata na lopata se pravi ot handle.THE of shovel REFL.ACC make.3SG of bukovo du˘rvo. beech.ADJ.NEUT wood ‘A shovel handle is made of beech wood.’ (303) Dru˘zˇkata na lopatata se scˇupi. handle.THE of shovel.THE REFL broke.3SG ‘The shovel handle broke down.’ As emphasized by Ivancˇev, this is only a tendency in Standard Bulgarian that is easily countered by examples in which 8M1-1 is a specific designation and (less frequently) 8M2-1 a generic one. I found no indications that the specialization was underway in the seventeenth century. 3.3.6. Nominals of Type 9 and equivalent The most detailed discussion of this type of Bulgarian nominals is Nicolova 1986: 123–149. These nominals have attracted a lot of attention cross-linguistically in connection with definiteness. They have been labeled anticipatory anaphora (or cataphora) because the article points to information that follows it in a restrictive relative clause, which is part of the same sentence. In rhetorical terms, the cataphoric use of the definite article is a tension-creating device (protasis). It corresponds to the descriptive function of the definite article in Revzin’s terminology (Revzin 1977b: 223, 233). Examples of such a use are the following: (304) of a 9M1 nominal with a restrictive reading, (305) of a 0M5-7 nominal with a restrictive reading and (306) of a 0M1-8 nominal with an appositive reading.

126

The diachronic model of definiteness

(304) i naide veˇdroto sˇto cˇr˘ıpaxu su˘s nego and found.3SG pail.THE that drew.3PL with it.ACC (304) vodu water.ACC ‘And he found the pail, with which they were drawing water.’ (Demina 1971: 54) (305) ako ima beleˇg˘ı takvzi. eda e toi drugi ne if has scar such.MASC then is he other.MASC not e, ami e toizi deto go isˇtem is but is this.MASC that him.CL.ACC search.1PL ‘If he has such a scar, it is him. It is not another person but that one whom we are looking for.’ (Demina 1971: 75) (306) i nedeˇj se gnusi ot mene and do-not.IMPER.2SG REFL.ACC loathe.INF of me.ACC sˇto su˘m tvoa robynja that am your.FEM slave ‘And don’t loathe me who am your slave.’ (Demina 1971: 95) It is important to note that the universal relative pronouns sˇto(to) and deto can be reduplicated by a full form personal pronoun with preposition as in (304) or a clitic as in (305). The personal pronoun carries on itself the markers of gender, number and case and helps disambiguate the universal relative pronoun. This usage of the universal relative pronoun deto, reduplicated or not, is considered a balkanism (Assenova 2002: 109–110). The universal relative pronouns compete in Bulgarian with specialized relative pronouns that mark on themselves gender, number and case. Thus the Standard Bulgarian versions of the damaskin nominals above would be vedroto, s koeto cˇerpexa voda pail.THE with which.NEUT drew.3PL water in (304), tozi, kogoto tu˘rsim this.MASC whom.MASC. ACC search.1PL in (305) and mene, kojato su˘m tvoja robinja me.ACC who.FEM am your.FEM slave in (306). Even though the geographic distribution of the two competing types of relative pronouns is not known in detail (Cyxun 1981: 108–115), and it is not clear whether there are dialects that use one or the other exclusively, it has been noted that there are dialects that reserve the universal relative pronoun as a nominative form and employ the specialized relative pronouns in the oblique cases. The damaskin provides copious data demonstrating that it does not make such a distinction. Beside the universal relative pronouns

Process 3

127

deto and sˇto(to), it uses (albeit much less frequently) specialized relative pronouns as well, both in the nominative as in (307) and in the oblique cases as in (308).18 Moreover, as opposed to deto and sˇto(to), which can rarely be used without an antecedent in the principal clause (Nicolova 1986: 137), the specialized relative pronouns frequently occur in the damaskin as in the vernacular in such constructions, which are thought to be elliptic 0M5-7 nominals functioning as the subject, object or nominal predicate of the principal clause (Kostov 1970). The reading of the nominal in such a case is always restrictive. An instance of such an elliptic 0M5-7 functioning as a direct object is (308). (307) storixa edinˇı zgovorˇı sicˇki ljudïe, koito made.3PL one.MASC agreement all.PL people who.REL.PL tvoj xleˇbˇı jadutˇı pri tvoe carstvo your.2SG.MASC bread eat.3PL at your.2SG.NEUT kingdom ‘All people who eat your bread under your rule came to an agreement.’ (Demina 1971: 127) (308) I kogoto sˇtesˇ da otvezˇesˇ da bude and whom.REL.MASC will.2SG to untie.2SG to be.3SG otvezanˇı untied.MASC ‘And whom you wish to untie will be untied.’ (Demina 1971: 142) Many other instances of elliptic 0M5-7 nominals are available (e. g. Demina 1971: 144, 168, 244, 245). In fact, the vast majority of the examples with the specialized relative pronoun kojto in the togazi section of the Tixonravov damaskin belong to types 0M1-8 (ti, kojto vinagi si go zasˇtitaval) and 0M5-7 (taja, deto nikoga ne pozdravjava), many of the latter elliptic. My only example of an elliptic 0M5-7 nominal with a universal relative pronouns is:

18. For an analysis against a general Slavic background of the similar state of affairs in the Tu˘rlis Gospel written in 1861 in West Rupa dialect in Drama Region (Northern Greece) see Topolin´ska 1997.

128

The diachronic model of definiteness

(309) G[ospod]i b[ozˇ]e moj m[i]l[o]stive sˇto lord.VOC god.VOC my gracious.VOC (!) what.REL izbavljavasˇˇı ot skrˇıbˇı deto se na tebe save.2SG from grief that REFL.ACC on you.2SG.ACC nadeˇe hopes ‘Oh my gracious Lord, you who save from grief [the person] that has faith in you’ (Demina 1971: 75) The togiva section features a striking increase in the use of the specialized relative pronouns in comparison with the universal ones, which are also available. It appears that the compiler of the togazi section of the damaskin was speaker of a dialect that used predominantly universal relative pronouns, reaching for the specialized ones when he needed a 0M nominal, most frequently an elliptic 0M5-7. The compiler of the togiva section, on the other hand saw the two types of relative pronoun as equally suitable for 0M1-8, 0M5-7 and 9M nominals. Table 25. Numeric presence of the 9M nominals Homily number Expression

2

7

8

9

9U

9M

9U

9M

9U

9M

Restrictive reading

0

1

0

3

2

0

Appositive reading

0

2

1

2

0

0

Total

9U

9M

9M

4

6

10(16) 62.5 %

6

2

6 (13) 46.15%

Total number of the available 9M nominals: 16 Number of 9M nominals by current norms: 29 Percentage of the available 9M nominals regardless of reading: 55.17 %

As shown in Table 25, statistics based on four homilies (No.No. 2, 7, 8 and 9) demonstrate that 62.5 % of the nominals with a restrictive reading are represented by 9M. In other words, 9M nominals are in Phase III of the process of expansion. There are no sufficient statistical data to draw conclusions regarding type 0 but the damaskin provides examples of 0M1-8 nominals in contexts, which

Process 3

129

today would require 0M5-7 with a restrictive reading: see (310) keeping in mind that the damaskin third-person plural personal pronoun is tïe and the proximal demonstrative in the plural is tïa.19 (310) A deˇcata si ne razbra cˇe su˘ and children.THE REFL.DAT not understood.3SG that are zˇivy. ami i tïe sˇtoto gy otxranixa living.PL but also they that them.CL.ACC brought-up.3PL na drugo selo. ne znaja nikoi cˇe sa on other.NEUT village not knew.3SG nobody that are.3PL bratïa brothers ‘And he did not find out about his children that they were alive. But those who brought them up in another village, they too did not know that they were brothers.’ (Demina 1971: 74)

3.3.7. Attributive definiteness When compared with the numbers for individuative definites among nominals of type 1M1 in homilies 2, 7, 8 and 9, the combined data on the appositive readings of types 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 show the following picture: 37.04 % appositives20 vs. 30.28 % 1M121 . In other words, nominals with an appositive reading of the attribute and non-modified nouns are in Phase II of the process of introduction of the definite article. The overall representation of the attributive definite article amounts to 36.29 %. It therefore also belongs to Phase II. Its expansion in different environments, however, lends itself to detailization. Besides the general S-curve that it forms taken in its entirety, each of its components can be viewed as a small S-curve that is at a different stage of realization (Aitchison 1991: 85–87). The available data make the following chronological sequence plausible: (A) 2M1; (B) 9M; (C) 8M1-1; (D) 4M1-1; (E) 5M1; (F) 8M2-1; (G) 3M

19. For a comparative view of the relations between these forms across the damaskin literature cf. Velcˇeva 1964: 190–194. 20. In absolute numbers this equals 10 nominals of type M vs. 17 nominals of type U, all of them in positions that today would have been filled by nominals of type M. 21. I found 152 nominals of type 1M1 and 350 of type 1U that marked individuative referents in the analysed four homilies.

130

The diachronic model of definiteness

In other words, the attributive definite article was introduced first to 2M1 and last to 3M nominals with the other nominal types in-between in the order shown above. The state of affairs in the seventeenth century, as presented in the damaskin, places these environments at the evolutionary stages listed in Table 26: Table 26. Dynamics of the attributive definite article in the damaskin 2M1 (sina im)

Phase IV

9M (obicata, kojato namerix na ulicata and alternatives) Phase III 8M1-1 (ucˇiteljat po istorija)

Phase III

4M1-1 (du˘rvenija stol)

Phase II

5M1 (cˇoveku˘t bozˇi)

Phase II

8M2-1 (sestrata na domakinjata)

Phase I/II

3M (ucˇiteljat Petrov and alteranatives)

Phase

0

The evolution of 2M1 has been virtually completed. Types 9M and 8M1-1 are being carried by a powerful impulse forward towards the completion of their evolution. The important developments regarding 4M1-1, 8M2-1 and 3M will take place in the future, 4M1-1 sooner than the others. Type 5M1 is on the path to acquiring a peripheral status. Viewed chronologically, the attributive use of the definite article can be considered an expansion of exophoric definiteness achieved through the generalization of its employment in ambiguous contexts, such as the following which features a restrictive 9M1 nominal, whose head even on its own would have been definite by entailment: (311) I edin˘ı sluga s[ve˛]t[o]mu dimitrïju !…" and one.MASC servant saint.DAT Demetrius.DAT stoasˇe i gledasˇe s[ve˛]t[o]go kato was-standing.3SG and was-watching.3SG saint.ACC how go zbodoxa onïa carevy voine, i him.CL.ACC stabbed.3PL those emperor.ADJ.PL soldiers and otidoxa si. A toi izvadi s[ve˛]t[o]mu went.3PL REFL.DAT and he took-out.3SG saint.DAT pr˘ısten˘ı ot desnata ruka. Uze mu ring from right.FEM.THE hand took.3SG him.CL.DAT

Overview of identifiability-based definiteness

131

drexa, i natopi ju i !…" vr˘ıxnata also upper.FEM.THE clothing and dipped.3SG her.CL.ACC u kru˘vta sˇto beˇsˇe istekla ot s[ve˛]t[o]go in blood.THE that was.3SG dripped.FEM from saint.ACC i stori su˘s onu˘zi odezˇda mnogo cˇjudo. and performed.3SG with that.MASC garment a-lot-of miracle ‘And a servant of St. Demetrius !…" was standing and watching how the emperor’s soldiers stabbed the saint and went away. And he took the ring from the right hand of the saint and his !…" overcoat, and he dipped it into the blood that had dripped out of the saint and performed with that garment many miracles.’ (Demina 1971: 104) Since exophoric definiteness is ahead of attributive definiteness in its evolution, we can assume that this indeed is what happened: attributive definiteness is a more recent development that was triggered by the re-interpretation of nominals definite by entailment as attributive nominals (but see also section 6.2).

3.4.

Overview of identifiability-based definiteness

The processes discussed until now shaped the use of definite articles pertaining to individuative referents. The combined impact of exophoric and attributive definiteness leads to a representation of 59.92 % in homilies 7, 8, 13 and 14, which is roughly equal to the percentage of exophoric 1M1 definites (58.57 %). It places the expansion of the definite article with individuative referents in Phase III. The largest group of definite articles in the damaskin belongs to the category of individuative referents (defined anaphorically, attributively, exophorically or by combinations thereof). Although reached following a different path of reasoning, this conclusion tallies with the predictions of Koseska-Toszewa and Gargov (1991: 37–38), whose theoretical framework with its focus on quantification makes it possible to draw an adequate but approximate and partial sketch of the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian, if applied diachronically. This conclusion also provides empirical confirmation for the validity of the model proposed by Lyons, in which identifiability is the basis of definiteness when it first emerges as a grammatical category (Lyons 1999: 274–281). Even so, the group does not reach a full representation according to current standards. The question to ask is whether morphological and lexical

132

The diachronic model of definiteness

classes as well as syntactic function play a role in the existing configuration.22 Tables 27, 28 and 29 contain the numbers on which my conclusions in this regard are based. The numeric information regarding each category should be read so: “Masculine. Homily 2. 14 (59) 23.73 %” means that in Homily 2 there are 14 nominals with masculine heads marked with the definite article out of the 59, which would have been there were current norms applied to the text; this amounts to 23.73 % of the expected definite articles in the category of individuative referents. Table 27. Definiteness, gender and number in the damaskin Masculine

Feminine

Neuter

Plural

Homily 2 14 (59) 23.73 %

41 (48) 85.42 %

25(29) 86.21 %

14 (24) 58.33 %

Homily 7

3 (70) 4.29 %

20 (30) 66.67 %

13 (16) 81.25 %

9 (14) 64.29 %

Homily 9 21 (175) 12 %

53 (85) 62.35 %

41 (68) 60.29 %

45 (62) 72.58 %

Total

38 (304) 12.5 % 114 (163) 69.94 % 79 (113) 69.91 % 68 (100) 68 %

Table 28. Definiteness and animacy in the damaskin Animates 9 (46) 19.57 % 14 (123) 11.38 % 17 (130) 13.08 % 40 (299) 13.38 %

Homily 2 Homily 7 Homily 9 Total

Inanimates 85 (114) 74.56 % 31 (52) 59.62 % 143 (260) 55 % 259 (426) 60.8 %

Table 29. Definiteness and syntactic function in the damaskin Subject

Predicate

Object

Adverbial

Homily 2 21 (44) 47.73 %

0 (0)

35 (54) 64.81 %

38 (60) 63.33 %

Homily 7

0 (2) 0 %

24 (61) 39.34 %

38 (73) 52.05 %

2 (8) 25 %

70 (136) 51.47 %

56 (121) 46.28 %

7 (64) 10.94 %

Homily 9 26 (95) 27.37 % Total

54 (203) 26.61 % 2 (10) 20 % 129 (251) 51.39 % 132 (254) 51.97 %

The statistics from these three homilies indicate that whereas masculine individuative referents are at the beginning of their incorporation into the sphere of the definite article (Phase I), feminines, neuters and plurals are well into 22. Since the analysis of the opposition concrete vs. abstract vocabulary showed that it did not have any impact on the evolution of the article, I shall not produce my data that support this conclusion.

Overview of identifiability-based definiteness

133

Phase III. They also make it clear that inanimates are far ahead of animates in the acquisition of a definite article. Inanimates are in Phase III, whereas animates are still in Phase I. The behaviour of individual words supports this generalization. For instance, masculine singular animate dïavol˘ı ‘devil’ always appears as a nominal of type U throughout the damaskin, whereas its plural form can be accompanied by the definite article where appropriate: (312) Zasˇto su˘ uleˇzle vu˘ nego dïavolite i because are.3PL enter.PART.PL in him.ACC devils.THE and isˇt˘ıt˘ı da se bïjut˘ı su˘s nas want to REFL.ACC fight.3PL with us.ACC ‘Because the devils have possessed him and want to fight with us.’ (Demina 1971: 292) Maxim Sl. Mladenov’s linguo-geographic findings regarding the competition of nominals of types 2U1 (zˇena mi) and 2M1 (sina im) (see Maps 3–6) also confirm that feminine kinship terms must have been ahead of masculines in the acquisition of the definite article. Moreover, since as far as I am aware kinship terms in the plural homogeneously join the type ‘kin is possession like any other’, this must serve as indication that they aquired the definite article both before masculines and feminines in the singular. Conclusions reached in section 5.2 support this chronology. These results, which do not contradict the findings of other scholars (Mileticˇ 1908: xliii; Sorokina 1993: 20) but detail them, are represented graphically in Figure 2: the darker the background, the more saturated with definite articles the environment. The centre is occupied by singular masculine animates that are least susceptible to the definite article, followed by singular feminine animates. The periphery contains first the inanimates of all three genders and then all the plurals. Evaluating the relative resisting power of the grammatical categories ‘gender’, ‘number’ and ‘animacy’ we can postulate (a) the precedence of masculine over feminine among animates; (b) the precedence of animacy over gender among singulars; and (c) the irrelevance of both animacy and gender in the plural. Thus we can conclude that category ‘number’ is universally relevant, whereas decisions in the realm of the singular are made on the basis of animacy and only inside animacy gender plays a role. This perspective fits in with the latest discoveries about the intimate relationship between the grammatical categories ‘gender’ and ‘number’ (Weber 2000). In search for a primitive function of gender, masculines have been identified with count nouns (e. g., tree), feminines with collectives (e. g., forest) and neuters with mass nouns (e. g., wood) (Leiss 2000). These primi-

134

The diachronic model of definiteness

Figure 2. Acquisition of the definite article by number, gender and animacy: relative chronology

tive gender functions are consistent with the evolutionary pattern of the grammatical category ‘definiteness’ that emerged in this study, as in either case (whether these are count nouns or masculines; collectives or feminines; and mass nouns or neuters) the order in which they would be incorporated by overt definiteness would be the same. The logic behind such a model of expansion of the definite article with individuative referents appears to be that those referents that are felt to need individuation most are the ones that receive the definite article first, whereas those that are felt to be individual enough on their own are the last to be incorporated into the process by generalization. To the latter category belong first and foremost masculine singular animates. The expansion of the definite article provides a reverse image of the recession of case. In an insightful study of case in modern Bulgarian based on the distribution of case relics in the Bulgarian dialects, Stojko Stojkov concludes that plurals must have lost their case endings before singulars; neuters and feminines before masculines; inanimates before animates. Case persisted longer with personal names and kinship terms than with other noun classes (Stojkov 1970: 151–152). This remarkable coincidence of sequence fits in with the old hypothesis that there is interdependence between the loss of case and the appearance of definite articles in languages across the globe (see an overview of opinions regarding Bulgarian in Mayer 1988: 110–114). On the other hand, I have to agree with Lyons when he says: “it is not at first sight obvious why a loss of case distinctions should lead to the emergence of a cat-

Overview of identifiability-based definiteness

135

egory of definiteness” (1999: 324; see also Cyxun 1981: 94). The two developments have indeed coincided in some languages (most importantly in Germanic and Romance), while others (like Classical Greek) show that a synthetic language can have a definite article as well or that a language (like Chinese) may survive lacking both case and definite article. Since some languages (Slavic among them) can mark the difference between definite and indefinite objects by means of case distinctions, the annihilation of these distinctions may prompt the search for a new tool that would perform this function.23 There are however significant differences between the approach of articles and case to definiteness, as Lekomceva pointed out regarding Old Church Slavonic (1979: 204). If case in Slavic has been more relevant to inclusiveness-based than identifiablity-based definiteness as it appears to have been (see section 3.6, which deals with contrasts which elsewhere in Slavia are expressed by competition between the accusative and the genitive), then the definite article must have had a long history before it was able to take over this function of case. This means that the rise of definiteness cannot have been prompted by the loss of case. As opposed to Lyons (1999: 325), others have argued in favour of a connection of sorts, albeit not necessarily one of cause and effect; see different analyses in Abraham 1997 and Philippi 1997 for Germanic, and Selig 1992: 79–105 and Vincent 1997 for Romance. Even though I am not ready to answer the question why that may be so in Bulgarian, I tend to think that there must be a connection between the rise of definiteness and the loss of case since the order in which overt definiteness was introduced to nominal classes determined on the basis of gender, animacy and number coincides in minute detail with that established for the elimination of case distinction. Perhaps the factor that controled the sequence in which these two processes took place was of a higher order and functioned outside any direct interaction between case and definiteness. Syntactically, the article must have spread first to nominals performing the function of object – see, among others, examples (267), (269), (284), (288), (304), (329) – and adverbial (268), (289), then to nominals performing the function of subject (297), (298), (300) and finally to predicative nominals (in equational sentences). There are too few data on predicative individuate referents in these three homilies to consider them statistically reliable. My impression from the damaskin as a whole is that predicative nominals repre23. See Kusmenko 2003: 146 for a recent support of this thesis with the specification that, if I am to rephrase his statement to fit my terminology, the definite article came to replace case to satisfy the needs of the pragmatic level of the default inheritance model.

136

The diachronic model of definiteness

sented by nominals of the marked series are even less frequent than the numbers in Table 29 lead us to believe. The following is one of those rare in24 stances: (313) cveˇtovete su˘ prazdnicite na sicˇkite s[ve]ty flowers.THE are.3PL holidays.THE of all.PL.THE saints ‘The flowers are [= represent] the holidays of all saints.’ (Demina 1971: 256)24 At the moment captured by the damaskin, nominals in the position of object and adverbial are in Phase III, nominals in the position of subject at the early stages of Phase II and predicative nominals somewhere between Phases I and II. In fact, the data on these three syntactic positions (subject, object and abverbial) appear to be an indirect reflection of the higher-level correlation between gender, number and animacy, on one hand, and definiteness, on the other. Since the subject of a sentence is frequently expressed by a masculine animate noun, the lagging of subjects behind objects and adverbials may simply be indicative of what we already know from the analysis of noun classes. The numbers regarding the three analysed homilies are the following: only 4 out of 118 masculine nouns in subject position (or 3.39 %) are represented by nominals of type M. If we take into account only animate masculine nouns, the proportion is even lower: 2 out of 108 (or 1.85 %). In other words, more than half of the nominals in subject position are masculine animates, and they behave in a radically different manner from masculine inanimates, feminines, neuters and plurals, dropping the overall representation of subjects by nominals of type M to 26.61 %. The rest of the nominals in subject position display a very different picture: 52 out of 85 (or 61.18 %) are represented by a marked nominal. This places them in Phase III with somewhat higher values than those for the object and adverbial positions. Masculine animates in subject position are in Phase I with values even lower than those that they have as a word class. The only undeniably interesting new outcome of the syntactic analysis that appears not to be linked to the upper level of the default inheritance model is that predicative nominals fall so obviously behind nominals in other syntactic positions. This lack of relevance of the syntactic level comes as a surprise against the background of the facts in Romance (Vincent 1997: 163–164). Romanian continues to avoid the article in most prepositional phrases if the head noun is not accompanied by an adjective or other attribute (GLR 1: 102–104):

24. Cf. also (121).

From identifiability to inclusiveness

137

(314) Stau pe scaun. sit.1SG on chair ‘I am sitting on a/the chair.’ (315) Stau pe scaunul de lemn. sit.1SG on chair.THE of wood ‘I am sitting on the wooden chair.’ Apparently, the same state of affairs characterizes the Geg dialect of Albanian and has been reconstructed for the older stages of Albanian (Svane 1958: 163–164). Bulgarian, in contrast, does not display many visible links between the marking of definiteness (except on nominals with pronominal heads) and certain syntactic positions on the synchronic level and, as we just saw, syntax was of little interest diachronically as well. This makes it difficult to accept Svane’s thesis about the exceptionally close relations of Bulgarian, Romanian and Albanian in this regard.

3.5.

From identifiability to inclusiveness

Individuatives were incorporated by overt definiteness by means of the three processes discussed in sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. What was the direction of evolution from this moment on? Situational quantitative definiteness (understood to include all members of a given set relevant for the context) and contextually unique referents (in other words, singleton subsets defined unequivocally by context) can be viewed as opposite borderline types of definites that have more common features than differences between them. The commonalities have been described before (Propp 1951: 222–224; Revzin 1977b: 233, Lyons 1999: 12). The relevant category defining the difference between extremes is number. Situational quantitative definiteness (or inclusive definiteness) encompasses plurals and mass nouns, whereas count nouns in the singular represent situationally unique referents. The dichotomy of contextually unique referents, on one hand, and situationally quantitative (inclusive) referents, on the other, is not one of expression but of referentiality. In other words, it is not the grammatical number that matters but the number of referents. In both cases, the description includes all the relevant referents. These types of definiteness belong to the overarching category of inclusiveness (Lyons 1999: 7–12) A subcategory of quantitative definites, definite count nouns in the informative and the graphic text registers or, as they are labeled here, ‘distribu-

138

The diachronic model of definiteness

tive definites’ can refer to each of a number of relevant referents taken at one point of time or in a sequence. This is how singular count nouns are incorporated into the quantitative category side by side with plurals and mass nouns. Here is a typical example: (316) cˇesto be sresˇtal iz gorite often was.3SG encountered.MASC around woods.THE bjagasˇti pcˇelni rojaci, trupasˇti se running.PL bee.ADJ.PL swarms gathering.PL REFL.ACC okolo svojata carica around own.FEM.THE queen ‘He had often encountered in the woods bee swarms on the run, gathered around their queen.’ (Radicˇkov 1980: 72) Whereas identifiability-based definites have as their opposite indefinites (descriptions of category 6, see Table 15), the inclusiveness-based quantitative definites are contrasted with non-specifics (descriptions of category 7). Sentence (316) demonstrates this by juxtaposing non-specific bjagasˇti pcˇelni rojaci ‘bee swarms on the run’ and distributive definite svojata carica ‘their queen’. Quantitative definites and situationally unique referents share characteristics with the adjacent descriptions: generic quantitatives and true unique referents. Generic quantitatives in the singular are a more abstract, generalized development of distributive definites; generic quantitatives in the plural follow the line of inclusive definite plurals and mass nouns (Stankov 1987: 73) and, finally, the scope of uniqueness increases as one moves from situational to truly unique referents. The next three processes trace the progression of the definite article into the areas of generics and unique referents. One of the issues that we have to address is the order in which this expansion took place. Since the definite article was expanding in two opposite directions, it could do that simultaneously. This conjecture is made even more plausible when one considers that these processes are manifestations of the same trend from conditional, temporary and situational to unconditional, permanent and general. However, the expansion of the definite article inside the individuative section from plurals, inanimates, feminines and neuters to singular masculine animates indicates that we can expect the expansion in the direction of generics to have started prior to that in the direction of unique referents, first towards generics in the plural and only later towards generics in the singular.

From identifiability to inclusiveness

139

The possibility of expansion in two opposite directions at the same time casts doubt on the universality of S-curves as an adequate model of language change. Even if the expansion of the article among unique referents did not keep abreast with the expansion among generics, there are no reasons to expect a linear consecutive sequence, say, from quantitative definite plurals to quantitative generic plurals, then from distributive definite singulars to quantitative generic singulars and, finally, from contextually unique referents to referents that are unique in an absolute sense. This study provides an example of a language change that requires a three-dimensional model rather than the two-dimensional S-curves that evolve at the intersection of two axes: time and the linear sequence of environments affected by change. The individual processes traced here can have a true representation as S-curves but the transformation of definiteness into an overt grammatical category cannot. On the other hand, it has been shown that uniqueness can be subsumed under inclusiveness and unique referents represented by proper nouns are a kind of generics (Lyons 1999: 7–12, 193–198). This generalization demonstrates again that the following three processes deal with manifestations of the same tendency (the incorporation of inclusiveness into the grammatical category of definiteness), and it simultaneously reduces the number of overarching semantic categories to four: generics – definites – indefinites – non-specifics. Even though this proposal does not redeem the S-curves as a universal model of language change, it demonstrates that what empirically are distinct but interconnected processes is on the more general level a single evolution. This realization makes the need for a befitting three-dimensional model of change even more urgent as there must be many more phenomena of this type in languages around the globe. 3.5.1. Emphatic sam Now is the moment to turn to this pronoun, which may be a component of 0M8 (sam, sam toj or tebe samata), 1M8 (sam Gospod or sam prezidentu˘t), 1M10 (samijat president) and 1M11 (samijat tozi president), because it, not unlike the definite article, straddles the boundary of identifiablity and inclusiveness. Standard Bulgarian sam is used according to a pattern very similar to that established for English in Cohen 1999, with the adjustments that need to be made because it occurs in syntactic positions from which English -self is barred. Nominals containing Bulgarian sam are focus expressions that involve a comparison (implied or explicit). The emphatic sam performs the function of a focus particle: its presence triggers “a set of alternatives against

140

The diachronic model of definiteness

which the focus expression is compared and evaluated” (Cohen 1999: 1050). The etymological connections of its source Proto-Slavic *samч suggest that comparison was as central to its understanding at the time it was coined as it is now (ESSJ 2: 589–594). There are three relevant conversational implicatures that circumscribe the entire range of variation of sam: the scalar, the existential and the exclusive implicatures. The scalar implicature forms an imaginary scale of likelihood on which sam assigns to its referent the least likely position, cf. 1M10 in (317) suggesting that an adult and a cat can both be considered members of the set ‘children’ but the adult is the less likely member of the set. (317) Za Ema kotkata besˇe minimalnoto uslovie for Ema cat.THE was.3SG minimal.NEUT.THE condition tja da se cˇuvstva majka. Govoresˇe ì, she to REFL.ACC feels mother talked.3SG her.CL.DAT galesˇe ja i ja vu˘zpitavasˇe kato stroked.3SG her.CL.ACC and her.CL.ACC trained.3SG like dete. Ponjakoga samata Ema izglezˇdasˇe child sometimes herself.THE Ema seemed.3SG po-goljamoto dete, koeto se e bigger.NEUT.THE child who.NEUT REFL.ACC is vzˇivjalo prekaleno v igrata. absorbed.NEUT too-much in game.THE ‘The cat was the minimal prerequisite for Ema to feel as a mother. She talked to it, stroked it and trained it like a child. Sometimes Ema herself seemed the bigger child, much too absorbed into the game.’ (Gospodinov 2000: 79) The existential implicature of sam includes the referent into a set, to which the content of the sentence uniformly applies, cf. 0M8-2 in (318) equating two sets that of streetwalkers and that of their acquaintances. (318) Po tvojata logika ne mozˇe da poznavasˇ by your.FEM.THE logic not can.3SG to know.2SG njakoja ulicˇnica, ako ti samata ne some.FEM streetwalker if you yourself.FEM.THE not

From identifiability to inclusiveness

141

si ulicˇnica … are.2SG streetwalker ‘According to your logic, you cannot have a streetwalker as an acquaintance unless you are yourself one …’ (Rajnov) The exclusive implicature points at the referent of sam as the only participant in the event, cf. 0M8-1 in (319) where a pheasant falls unaided from the wall. (319) U nas – kazva, – kato ubijat fazan, ne at us.ACC says when kill.3PL pheasant not go jadat vednaga, a go zakacˇvat him.CL.ACC eat.3PL right-away but him.CL.ACC hang.3PL za cˇovkata na edin gvozdej na stenata da sedi by beak.THE on one.MASC nail on wallTHE to stays tam ednadve sedmici dotogava, dokato there one.FEM two.FEM weeks until-then until-when se otku˘sne ot sˇijata si sam REFL.ACC tears-off from neck.THE REFL.DAT himself i padne na zemjata. and falls on ground.THE ‘In our country, she says, when people kill a pheasant, they don’t eat it right away but they hang it by the beak on a nail in the wall to stay there for a week or two until it comes off its neck on its own and falls on the ground.’ (Cˇudomir, Kumata Berta) Depending on context, nominals may choose one or two implicatures from the range: [exclusive] – [exclusive and scalar] – [scalar] – [scalar and existential] – [existential]. The overlapping of implicatures creates effects like the following: cf. the scalar and existential 1M10 in (320) where individuals and the state are included in the set of entities eligible to be destroyed and the state is assigned an extreme position on the likelihood scale; and the exclusive and scalar 0M8-1 in (321) stating that the character was capable of selling her products in the marketplace without assistance, even though this was highly unlikely for a person with her education.

142

The diachronic model of definiteness

(320) No sinu˘t mi e bolen i za dve but son.THE me.CL.DAT is ill.MASC and for two.FEM stiski banknoti ne cˇovek, ami samata du˘rzˇava handfuls banknotes not person but herself.THE state bix zagrobil. would.1SG sent-to-grave.MASC ‘But my son was ill and for two handfuls of cash I would send to the grave not only a person but the state itself.’ (Iliev) (321) Zˇena mu drebnicˇka, suxa i tvu˘rda wife him.CL.DAT tiny.FEM wiry.FEM and tough.FEM kato kremu˘k, be naj- predanata su˘pruga, kojato su˘m like flint was most loyal.THE spouse.FEM who am sresˇtal. Rabotesˇe za dvama mu˘zˇe, kakvo met.MASC worked.3SG for two.MASC.PERS men what kato besˇe zavu˘rsˇila amerikanski kolezˇ v as was.3SG finished.FEM American.MASC college in Carigrad, tja mozˇesˇe vsicˇko, mozˇesˇe da Istanbul she could.3SG everything could.3SG to se opravja su˘s zemjata, s REFL.ACC takes-care with land.THE with jabu˘lkovata gradina, s konja i karucata, apple.ADJ.FEM.THE orchard with horse.THE and cart.THE psuvasˇe se su˘s seljanite na majka, sama swore.3SG REFL.ACC with peasants.THE by mother herself prodavasˇe stokata na pazara. sold.3SG goods.THE on market.THE ‘His wife – tiny, wiry and as tough as a flintstone – was the most loyal spouse I have ever met. She did the work of two men, what if she had graduated from the American college in Istanbul. She could do anything. She could take care of the land, the apple orchard, the horse and the cart; she could swear back at peasants who were swearing at her and on her own sell goods in the market.’ (Danailov, Dokolkoto si spomnjam)

From identifiability to inclusiveness

143

Nominals with a scalar reading on its own or in conjunction with another implicature can be replaced by the equivalent 0M1-1 (az) or 1M1 (stolu˘t) or 1M5-1 (onija lekari) nominals with an emphatic intonation. Without such an intonation the respective 0M1-1 or 1M1 or 1M5 nominal does not preserve the scalar reading. The following instance of an exclusive and scalar 0M8-1 nominal, upholds its reading in (323), where the capitalized 0M1-1 marks emphatic intonation but lacks the subjective perspective completely in (324), which features a 0U nominal. (322) Stiga tuj pusto lezˇane! Da idem enough this.NEUT damned.NEUT lazyness to go.1PL utre! Su˘glasi se, zasˇtoto inak tomorrow give-in.IMPER.2SG REFL.ACC because otherwise sama tru˘gvam s turistite. myself.FEM leave.1SG with hikers.THE ‘Enough of this damned lazyness! Let us go tomorrow! Give in or else I am going with the hikers on my own.’ (Cˇudomir, Turisti) (323) Su˘glasi se, zasˇtoto inak AZ give-in.IMPER.2SG REFL.ACC because otherwise I tru˘gvam s turistite. leave.1SG with hikers.THE (324) Su˘glasi se, zasˇtoto inak tru˘gvam give-in.IMPER.2SG REFL.ACC because otherwise leave.1SG s turistite. with hikers.THE Nominals with existential or exclusive readings do not have synonyms. The existential reading however can always be dropped by replacing the nominal with its 0U or 0M1-1or 1M1 or 1M5-1 counterpart, whereas this option is not always available in the exclusive reading. For instance, if 0M8-1 in (325) is omitted, the sentence is stripped of more than its pragmatic attributes; its very meaning is altered.

144

The diachronic model of definiteness

(325) Zapocˇnax da se razxozˇdam sam iz started.1SG to REFL.ACC walk.1SG myself.MASC around grada i vednu˘zˇ, tocˇno pred ku˘sˇtata na city.THE and once right in-front-of house.THE of Aleko Konstantinov, edno momcˇe me Aleko Konstantinov one.NEUT boy me.CL.ACC sprja i kaza: – Ti sofijanec li stopped.3SG and said you Sofia-resident.MASC INTERROG si be? are.2SG VOC.PARTICLE ‘I started to go alone for walks around the city and once, right in front of Aleko Konstantinov’s house, a boy stopped me and said: “You there! Do you come from Sofia?”’ (Danailov, Dokolkoto si spomnjam) Such examples form the hard semantic core of Bulgarian sam, which is surrounded by a pragmatic periphery. In order to express the subjective perspective of the speaker, exclusivity in this periphery alternates with salience (scalar or existential) providing a parallel to the interplay that, as we will see, characterizes many definite descriptions at the intersection of inclusiveness and identifiability. The nominal types that include sam are not attached to one reading or another. From a formal perspective all occurrences can be divided into three groups: examples in which sam and samijat are interchangeable and such in which they are not, only either sam or samijat being acceptable. Regardless of reading, samijat cannot stand for sam in nominals of type 0M8-1 (sam) and sam cannot replace samijat in nominals of type 0M8-3 (tebe samata) and 1M10 (samijat president) if they are in a non-subject position. The exclusive reading prevents samijat from substituting for sam in 0M8-2 (sam toj), 1M8-1 (sam Gospod) and 1M8-2 (sam prezidentu˘t). Such a distribution seems to indicate that definite samijat started its progression with the existential and the scalar readings (the ones correlating with identifiability) and since it has had the chance until now to incorporate the exclusive reading only in the non-subject positions in which it dominates the scene, it must have moved towards exclusivity later. The damaskin offers plenty of examples of sam illustrating all the readings outlined above with a clear numerical predominance of the exclusive one. Even though the situation in the damaskin is content-wise quite similar to that familiar from Standard Bulgarian, there also are some serious formal differ-

From identifiability to inclusiveness

145

ences. Best represented are nominals of type 0M8-1 (sam), 0M8-2 (sam toj) and 1M8-1 (sam Gospod); there are some instances of 1M8-2 (sam prezidentu˘t) and none of 0M8-3 (tebe samata) and 1M11 (samijat tozi president). 1M10 (samijat president), the only type containing samijat, was encountered in the togiva section of the damaskin. One conclusion that can be made is that samijat is captured in the damaskin at the very beginning of its introduction. But both damaskin sections also employ another form of the emphatic pronoun: samsi < sam + si REFL.DAT, which appears in the damaskin in the masculine and extremely rarely in the feminine in the subject position and is attested today in folklore and in some dialects (BER 6: 453–460). I will cite one example with a combined exclusive and scalar reading, which would correspond to 0M8-1 in Standard Bulgarian (not only does St. Nicholas of all people steer the ship but he does it on his own): (326) i iavi jm se togazi s[ve˛]ty and appeared.3SG them.CL.DAT REFL.ACC then saint nikolae na ru˘teˇ korablju. i poe kr˘ımiloto Nicholas on stern.LOC ship.DAT and took.3SG helm.THE i nacˇe samsi da kr˘ımi and started.3SG himself to steers ‘And St. Nicholas appeared then in front of them at the stern of the ship and took the helm and started to steer himself.’ (Demina 1971 2: 177) Samsi is a very intriguing form because it points to competition between two markers on the emphatic pronoun sam: a clitic and a definite article.The two sections of the damaskin represent an earlier and a later stage of Bulgarian as Demina has shown, but also perhaps different dialect varieties. Standard Bulgarian contrasts sam and samijat like Albanian vetë vs. vetja (Demiraj 1993: 181–182). The togazi section of the damaskin contrasts sam and samsi, this latter construction with a structural parallel in Romanian – însus¸i < Latin ipse + sibi (ILR: 272–273). The togiva section of the damaskin employs all three forms: sam, samsi and samijat.25 The Greek equivalent   «  is

25. The Bulgarian dialects feature yet another form, which remains without representation in the standard language or the damaskins: the descendant of Proto-Slavic long-form adjective *samчjц. According to BER (whose data are probably incom-

146

The diachronic model of definiteness

marked with both the definite article and the clitic. The models represented by the Balkan languages are in a complex relationship of similarity and contrast that deserves further attention. Greek and Albanian (like English) use the same forms as an emphatic and reflexive pronoun, whereas Bulgarian and Romanian (each according to its own set of rules) distinguish formally between them. From an etymological point of view, Albanian vetë which is a reflexive pronoun, opposes Bulgarian sam(ijat), Romanian însus¸i and Greek   « , which are originally emphatic pronouns. Closest to Bulgarian and worth special attention is Romanian el singur, lit. ‘he alone’, which the majority of Romanian dialects feature in positions taken in Standard Romanian by însus¸i (ALR s.n. 6: 1663–1664). As a whole, the Balkan counterparts are not only far from being literal equivalents but the semantic space of su˘sˇtijat and sam(ijat) has not always been divided between them in the same way. As a proof I would like to cite Greek   «, which straddles the borderline between su˘sˇtijat and sam(ijat) finding a rare Bulgarian parallel in the damaskin where su˘sˇti stands for sam with an exclusive reading. (327) i vidi kak˘ı e su˘sˇti nein˘ı muzˇ˘ı. ami pak˘ı ne and sees how is same her husband but again not smeˇa da go popita da recˇe ty koi dared.3SG to him.CL.ACC asks to says you.SG who sy are.2SG ‘And she sees that he is her husband himself but nevertheless did not dare to ask him and say: “Who are you?”’ (Demina 1971: 78) In the diachronic framework proposed here this example shows that in the seventeenth century inclusiveness was already infiltrating the domain initially dominated by identifiability.

plete) its forms samí, su˘mí, su˘méj MASC and su˘máj FEM were recorded in Moesian and Balkan dialects as well as on the fringes of the West Rupa and the Southwestern dialects and once in the Northwestern dialects. Additional field research is required to situate the competing forms samsi – sami – samijat in the Bulgarian dialects.

Process 4

3.6.

147

Process 4

It was shown above that singulars and plurals acquire a definite article on the same grounds. In view of the article’s expansion into the generic area however it makes sense to view them separately in their relation to inclusiveness, starting with plurals. There are contexts in which inclusive referents rendered by plurals or mass nouns are not distinguishable from individuative referents. Let us examine the following sentence: (328) Toj izpi mljakoto. He drank.3SG milk.THE It can have two readings depending on context: (a) He drank all the milk; and (b) He drank the milk that was previously introduced into the universe of discourse, for example, that glass of milk on the table. It could have been the case that the glass on the table was the only milk in the house. In such a case the contrast between the readings based on inclusiveness and identifiability is neutralized. Such must have been the first contexts, in which the article was used to show that the statement is true of all relevant members of a set. Inclusiveness- and identifiability-based definiteness may be simultaneously expressed in the damaskin, as in the following example, in which the highlighted nominal is definite for two reasons: it is the object of a perfective verb that requires that the action affects the object in its entirety and it is part of a restrictive 9M nominal that individuates the head noun, linking it unambiguously to the moment of utterance: (329) ami me ostaveˇte da si dovu˘rsˇa but me.ACC leave.2PL to REFL.DAT finish.1SG m[o]lbata sˇto se moljax sega prayer.THE that REFL.ACC prayed.1SG now ‘But please leave me to finish the prayer that I was uttering now.’ (Demina 1971: 55) From such contexts the article spread to others, such as (330), where the meaning is inclusive and from there to generic contexts as in (331). (330) Vcˇera obraxme cˇeresˇite. yesterday picked.1PL cherries.THE ‘We picked the cherries yesterday’ (331) Parite njamat miris. money.PL.THE do-not-have.3PL scent ‘Money has no scent.’

148

The diachronic model of definiteness

Figure 3. At the specific-generic interface

One can see that the level of abstraction in (331) is higher. Whereas (330) refers to a relevant set of cherry-trees and the action affects them all, (331) points to money in general. In other words, as it has been suggested before (Lyons 1999: 192), the inclusive use of the article is the one that straddles the boundary between specific and generic. This is the connection that enables the expansion of the definite article into the generic area. The adjacent categories of plural or mass nouns with the definite article are schematically represented in Figure 3. Between the two “pure” types (individuative in the domain of specifics and quantitative in the domain of generics) there is a transitional area, which shares the features of both. There are grammatical constructions such as partitives – see (332)–(334) – or direct objects of some perfective verbs – see (335)–(336) – in which a full coverage of referents is assumed, and all of these are consistently expressed in the damaskin by nominals of type 1M1 (or alternatives). (332) ima li neˇkoi deto neˇ e storil˘ı has INTERROG some.MASC that not is do.PART.MASC seˇme ot s[i]novete i[zra]ilevy seed from sons.THE Israelite.PL ‘Is there anyone among the sons of Israel who has not produced offspring?’ (Demina 1971: 151)

Process 4

149

(333) pobixa mnogo ot poganite killed.3PL many from heathen.PL.THE ‘They killed many of the heathens.’ (Demina 1971: 64) (334) poveleˇ ednomu ot slugyte negovi ordered.3SG one.MASC.DAT from servants.THE his.ADJ.PL ‘He ordered one of his servants.’ (Demina 1971: 103) (335) i napl˘ınixa si meˇxovete su˘s vodu and filled.3PL REFL.DAT skins.THE with water.ACC ‘And they filled their [water-]skins with water.’ (Demina 1971: 120) (336) ami prosteˇte zasˇto se su˘vr˘ısˇi but forgive.2PL.IMPER because REFL.ACC finished.3SG vinoto wine.THE ‘But forgive [us] because we are out of wine.’ (Demina 1971: 115) However, the incorporation of the generic quantitative area into the area of action of the definite article was not completed in the damaskin. In (337)–(338) there is a sample of generic quantitatives expressed by nominals of the M series and in (339)–(340) – by nominals of the U series. (337) moleˇte se za sicˇky rod pray.2PL.IMPER REFL.ACC for all.MASC race xr[i]stïansky. da ny pomiluvate i pokryete ot Christian.MASC to us.DAT forgive.2PL and cover.2PL from seˇkaa beˇda. da se spodobim da every.FEM misfortune to REFL.ACC manage.1PL to stanem˘ı na meˇstoto gdeto su˘ pravednicite stand.1PL on place.THE where are.3PL righteous.PL.THE amin amen ‘Pray for the entire Christian race, forgive us and shelter us from any misfortune, so that we manage to stand in the place where the righteous are. Amen.’ (Demina 1971: 116)

150

The diachronic model of definiteness

(338) Imasˇe togazi neˇkoi cˇl[ove]k˘ı imeto mu had.3SG then some.MASC person name.THE him.DAT valaam s[y]n˘ı veorov˘ı. i beˇsˇe xytrec˘ı. Balaam, son Beor.ADJ.MASC and was.3SG crafty-man I kogo bl[ago]s[lo]veˇsˇe, byvasˇe bl[ago]s[lo]ven˘ı. i and whom blessed.3SG was.3SG blessed.MASC and kogo by proklel˘ı, byvasˇe whom would.3SG curse.PART.MASC was.3SG cursed.MASC proklet˘ı. I nadumaxa se togo and agreed.3PL REFL.ACC this.MASC.ACC to da dovedut˘ı, da prokl˘ıne evreete bring.3PL to curse.3SG Jews.THE ‘There was a man at that time. His name [was] Balaam, son of Beor, and he was a crafty man. And whomever he blessed was blessed and whomever he cursed was cursed. And they agreed to bring this [man] to curse the Jews.’ (Demina 1971: 121) (339) kolko su˘ cˇinove n[e]b[e]sny how-many are.3PL ranks celestial.PL ‘How many are the celestial ranks?’ (Demina 1971: 117) (340) Oracˇe imat obycˇai. koga ima neˇkoi ploughmen have.3PL custom when has some.MASC dobra nïva za seˇane. i ako ne ima samsi good.FEM field for sowing and if not has oneself.MASC seˇme da ju zaseˇe. a tïe zaemljut˘ı ot seed to her.ACC sow.3SG and these borrow.3PL from drugyx seˇme i seˇjut others.GEN seed and sow.3PL ‘Ploughmen have a custom. When someone has a good field for sowing and has no grain to sow it, they borrow grain from others and sow.’ (Demina 1971: 119)

Process 4

151

3.6.1. Explicit expression of inclusive definiteness In the damaskin inclusive definiteness can also be expressed explicitly and emphatically by the determiner sicˇki, which participates in 0M4-1 (vsicˇki), 0M4-2 (vsicˇkite), 1M4-1 (vsicˇki jabu˘lki), 1M4-2 (vsicˇki tezi jabu˘lki), 1M10 (vsicˇkoto kiselo mljako) and 1M11 (vsicˇkoto onova kiselo mljako) nominals. This quantifier continues to be used in Modern Standard Bulgarian but in fewer collocations than in the seventeenth century and in competition with cjal/celija(t) ‘whole, entire’. A reduction of the potential to form collocations with aggregate, collective and abstract nouns characterizes other quantifiers such as kolko and mnogo. In contemporary Standard Bulgarian these classes of nouns form collocations with cjal, kolko goljam/kolko mnogobroen and goljam/mnogobroen, respectively, whereas the damaskin favoured sicˇki, kolko and mnogo. The process indicates that the boundary between divisibles and non-divisibles (in the sense of Chesterman 1991: 164) has in Bulgarian been moving to include aggregates, collectives and abstracts together with count nouns into the non-divisible category, leaving plurals and mass nouns as the only members of the divisible category, whereas in the seventeenth century the divisible category was much broader and had as members plurals, mass nouns, aggregates, collectives and abstracts. Data regarding the Bulgarian dialects have not been collected systematically but what is available seems to indicate that the centre of innovation lies in the Moesian dialect area (for more details see Mladenova 2009). The determiner vsicˇki ‘all’ is used today with the definite article in all forms vsicˇkija(t), vsicˇkata, vsicˇkoto, vsicˇkite (0M4-2, 1M10 and 1M11) and without the definite article in plural only vsicˇki and only exceptionally in the singular (0M4-1 and 1M4-1). The consensus in the Bulgarian linguistic literature appears to be that the meaning of both versions is identical (GSKBE, 2: 207; BTR-4: 113).26 I shall argue that this is not accurate. The difference is subtle and usually blurred but it (still) exists. The members of the opposition vsicˇkoto (0M4-2 and 1M10) – vsicˇko (0M4-1 and 1M4-1) and vsicˇkata (1M10) – vsicˇka (1M4-1) do not occur in free variation. There are very few set phrases with vsicˇko and vsicˇka (such as vsicˇko xubavo or vsicˇko naj-dobro ‘all the best’, vsicˇko drugo ‘everything else’, vsicˇko ostanalo ‘all that re-

26. Some – very few – restrictions on the distribution of these two types were listed by Nicolova (1986: 186–187), most notably in 0 nominals (vsicˇki nie all we ‘all of us’ but see also its synonymous nie vsicˇkite we all.THE), nominals of type 2M2 (vsicˇkite ni prijateli all.THE us.CL.DAT friends ‘all our friends’) and in nominals reduplicated by a clitic, which prefer 1M10 (vsicˇkoto kiselo mljako) over 1M4-1 (vsicˇki jabu˘lki).

152

The diachronic model of definiteness

mains’, s vsicˇka sila ‘with all [one’s] might’) and it cannot be replaced with vsicˇkoto or vsicˇkata in these phrases. (341) Zˇelaja vi vsicˇko xubavo. wish.1SG you.PL.DAT all.NEUT nice.NEUT ‘I wish you all the best.’ (342) Vsicˇko drugo sa gluposti. all.NEUT other.NEUT are.3PL nonsense.PL ‘Everything else is nonsense.’ (343) Za vsicˇko ostanalo sˇte se of all.NEUT remaining.NEUT will REFL.ACC pogrizˇa az. take-care.1SG I ‘I will take care of the rest.’ The opposition vsicˇkite – vsicˇki maps the categories Quantitative-Individuative (QI) and purely quantitative (Inclusive and Generic) (QG), respectively. The following illustrations will help make this point. (344) Rastesˇe sinu˘t mi bjal (kato was-growing.3SG son.THE me.DAT white.MASC like onaja kucˇka), sineok (kato men) i that.FEM bitch blue-eyed.MASC like me.ACC and s proklet xarakter (kato celija ni with dmned character like whole.MASC.THE us.DAT rod). Mama se podmladi s extended-family mom REFL.ACC rejuvenated.3SG with dvajset godini, samo deto ne ì tekna twenty years only where not her.DAT gushed.3SG mljako. Na tati mu minaxa vsicˇki artrozi, milk to dad him.DAT passed.3PL all.PL arthroses isˇiasi i xipertonii. sciatica.PL and high-blood-pressure.PL ‘My son grew white (like that bitch), blue-eyed (like me) and with a temper (like our entire family). Mom looked twenty years younger except that she could not breastfeed. Dad got over every arthrosis, sciatica and high blood pressure.’ (Iliev)

Process 4

153

(345) Napravix mu vsicˇki izsledvanija, za da made.1SG him.DAT all.PL tests for to razbera dali nosi moite geni. understand.1SG whether carries my.PL.THE genes ‘I have done every test on him to figure out whether he carries my genes.’ (Iliev) (346) Ostanax na sluzˇba kato serzˇant. i maj remained.1SG on service as sergeant and apparently mirjasax – tam sa po-ludi ot vsicˇki borks’ori, settled-down.1SG there are crazier.PL than all.PL boxers futbolisti, tenisisti. football players tennis players ‘I stayed in [military] service as a sergeant. And I kind of settled down: they are wilder there than any boxer, football or tennis player.’ (Iliev) (347) ne mozˇe da iskasˇ ot vsicˇki xora da bu˘du˘t not can.3SG to want.2SG from all.PL people to be.3PL vu˘spitani be well-bred.PL PART ‘You can’t expect all people to be well-bred, buddy.’ (Krasimira Aleksova, interview No. 1.3) (348) S edna recˇ, tija ispu˘lnjavaxa roljata na with one.FEM word these were-fulfilling.3PL role.THE of sˇpionki. Namesto da gi zadu˘rzˇime spies.FEM.PL instead to them.ACC detain.1PL i nakazˇem, koeto vu˘rsˇat ne samo and punish.1PL which.NEUT do.3PL not only vu˘stanicˇeskite glavatari, no i vsicˇki vojuvasˇti, insurgency.ADJ.PL.THE leaders but also all.PL belligerents nie gi otpusnaxme svobodno da si otidat. we them.ACC let.1PL freely to REFL.DAT go.3PL ‘In one word, they were fulfilling the role of spies. Instead of detaining them and punishing them, which not only insurgency leaders, but also any belligerents would do, we let them free to go home.’ (Stojanov, Chapter 2.8)

154

The diachronic model of definiteness

Examples (344)–(348) point to the use of 1M4-1 (vsicˇki jabu˘lki) to denote entire sets. They are at the very least inclusive and sometimes generic. Looking back at examples (341)–(343) with vsicˇko, we can see that they too are illustrations of the QG position. In the following sentences there is a reason besides inclusiveness for the presence of the article: anaphoric definiteness in (349) and (350) and attributive in (351). (349) Razglobi mu edno radio, edin take-apart.IMPER.2SG him.DAT one.NEUT radio one.MASC gramofon, da recˇem, elektricˇeski zvu˘nec, jutija, record-player to say.1PL electrical.MASC buzzer iron armonika i kakvito sˇtesˇ osˇte glavni masˇini, harmonica and what.PL want.2SG else major devices turi im cˇastite v edna torba, put.IMPER.2SG them.DAT parts.THE in one.FEM sack razdrusaj ja, razbu˘rkaj gi, shake.IMPER.2SG her.ACC scramble.IMPER.2SG them.ACC kolkoto sˇtesˇ, sˇtom mu gi as-much-as will.2SG as-soon-as him.DAT them.ACC dadesˇ – sˇte gi sglobi, sˇte gi give.2SG will them.ACC put-together.3SG will them.ACC napravi nanovo vsicˇkite. make.3SG again all.PL.THE ‘Take apart a radio, a record-player, for example, a buzzer, an iron, an harmonica and whatever other major devices, place their parts in a sack, shake it up, scramble them around, as much as you will, when you give them to him, he will put the parts together, and he will make the devices all afresh.’ (Cˇudomir, Alaminut) (350) Cˇetiri deca, vizˇ vsicˇkite se izucˇixa. four children look all.PL.THE REFL.ACC studied.3PL ‘Four children – look – they all got an education.’ (Cvetanka Nikolova, interview R04)

Process 4

155

(351) i vsicˇkite si romani sˇe gi izdava| and all.PL.THE REFL.DAT novels will them publish.3SG sponsorirani| sponsored.PL ‘And he plans to finance the publication of all his novels by fundraising.’ (Krasimira Aleksova, interview No. 1.2) The reference encompassed by vsicˇkite can be explicitly delimited in the sentence as in the following example from an electronic newspaper: (352) Dazˇe i da priemem, cˇe vsicˇkite 500000 even also to assume.1PL that all.PL.THE 500000 bezrabotni zapocˇnat rabota, efektu˘t vu˘rxu razmera unemployed.PL start.3PL work impact.THE on size.THE na pensiite sˇte e ogranicˇen. of pensions.THE will is limited.MASC ‘Even if we assume that all the 500000 unemployed will start work, the impact upon the size of pensions will be limited.’ (www.mediapool.bg/site/izbori/2001/06/12/0003.shtml) Positions QG and QI are held by determiners of different types. Determiners and quantifiers are subdivided into two groups: weak vs. strong determiners corresponding to cardinal and proportional quantifiers. In logical analysis natural-language all is equated with the universal quantifier all and considered to belong to the category of proportional quantifiers (Kearns 2000: 73–81). Cardinal quantifiers, such as several or eight, express quantity in absolute terms – several cars points to as many items as several frogs. Proportional quantifiers, like most or big, are understood differently in conjunction with different referents – a big car is bigger than a big frog. Vsicˇkite and vsicˇkoto encountered in QI positions fit the definition of ‘proportional quantifiers’. They accompany specific referents that at least theoretically can be estimated numerically. Proportional vsicˇkite corresponds to ‘all x members of set y consisting of x members’. Conversely, vsicˇki, vsicˇka and vsicˇko are inserted in QG positions. The quantifier vsicˇki is employed of entire classes of referents and the numeric value of the class is not only unknown but also irrelevant. A paraphrase of vsicˇki can be ‘all x members of class y regardless of the numeric value of x’. This makes vsicˇki non-proportional but does not quite qualify it as a cardinal quantifier. Therefore, diachronic Bulgarian data do not fit the equipollent dichotomy of proportional vs. cardinal quantifiers and support A. Chesterman’s search for a theoretical framework that would corre-

156

The diachronic model of definiteness

spond to the linguistic facts better (1991: 192–196). Following a different path of reasoning than my own, he reaches similar conclusions regarding the difference between English all and all (of) the (Chesterman 1991: 74). There is a strong tendency in Standard Bulgarian towards erasing the difference between the non-proportional vsicˇki and the proportional vsicˇkite by using vsicˇki not only in the QG but also in the QI position, as the following example shows: (353) Nasjadali kraj ogu˘nja, vsicˇki deca sme seated.PL around fire.THE all.PL children are.1PL se smu˘rlusˇili, oslusˇani vu˘v vixrite. REFL.ACC drooping.PL listening.PL in winds.THE ‘Seated around the fire, [we] all the children were drooping, listening to the winds.’ (Todorov) This tendency may have been supported by regional differences regarding the use of the determiner. The standard language appears to combine singular 1M10 (vsicˇkoto kiselo mljako) with plural 1M4-1 (vsicˇki jabu˘lki) while reducing the employment of 1M10 plural. There are contemporary authors like Andreja Iliev, who avoid 1M10 plurals altogether and use 1M4-1 both in QG and QI positions. The damaskin gives evidence for a different norm. Seventeen homilies (No.No. 2 – 15, 36 and 40) were searched for the 1M10 and 1M4-1 variants of vsicˇki in all genders and numbers. From the point of view of current norms, there are three groups of occurrences: (a) 1M10 forms; (b) 1M4-1 forms perceived as erroneous; and (c) 1M4-1 forms perceived as acceptable. I do not have complete statistics of the latter category. The numbers for groups (a) and (b) are presented in Table 30: Table 30. Representation of the 1M10 and 1M4-1 variants of vsicˇki in the damaskin Total in Total in position QG: 97 position QI: 144 1M10 (vsicˇkoto kiselo mljako) 1M4-1 (vsicˇki jabu˘lki)

Available instances in absolute numbers Ratio of the 1M10 representation in this position Available instances in absolute numbers Ratio of the 1M4-1 representation in this position

11

97

11.34 %

67.36 %

86

47

88.66 %

32.64 %

Process 4

157

The representation of referents in the QI position by 1M10 amounts to 67.36 %, which is comparable with individuative referents at large, assigning the definite article with vsicˇki to Phase III of expansion. The number of QG referents represented by 1M10 would have been null were it not for the contribution of three consecutive homilies: No. 11 (7 occurrences), No. 12 (3) and No. 13 (1). These numbers place the expansion of 1M10 among generics in Phase I. The damaskin norm differs from the current one in one major aspect: singulars and plurals are treated alike. The difference of meaning between 1M10 and 1M4-1 is that between individuative specifics and generics, respectively. Today this distinction is barely perceptible only in the plural; the singular has annihilated it altogether. Returning to the theoretical distinction between nonproportional vsicˇki and proportional vsicˇkite, it appears that for a while Bulgarian featured both whereas today most speakers employ solely the formerly proportional vsicˇki, and only aberrations in the distribution of its forms remind us of the previous state of affairs. 3.6.2. Proportional vs. non-proportional quantifiers My conclusions could perhaps have been questioned were they not supported with the eloquent parallel distribution of nominals of type 6U (pet jabu˘lki) and 6M2 (i pette jabu˘lki). In some languages the distinction between cardinal (non-proportional) and proportional quantifiers may be achieved by lexical means: for example, English cardinal two vs. proportional both. Bulgarian is the only Slavic language that has lost its proportional quantifier oba ‘both’ (known today only peripherally, cf. BER 4: 736). Like other Balkan languages 2 ‘two’ and    2 (cf. Albanian dy ‘two’ and të dy ‘both’, Greek  ‘both’), Bulgarian systematically employs the definite article in nominals of type 6M2 to express the proportional meaning ‘x out of the relevant set of x’, where x stands for any number. This use is attested in the damaskin consistently. My collection of proportional quantifiers represented by 6M2 nominals made on the basis of the same seventeen homilies is summarized in Table 31. Table 31. Proportional quantifiers in the damaskin Proportional quantifier

English gloss

i dvata i dveˇteˇ i trite i troicata

‘both.MASC’ ‘both.FEM.’ or ‘both.NEUT’ ‘all three’ ‘all three.MASC.ANIM’

Number of instances 17 5 4 1

158

The diachronic model of definiteness

I have at my disposal no counterexamples of 6U (pet jabu˘lki) nominals used in positions in which 6M2 (i pette jabu˘lki) nominals were to be expected. The process of introduction of the definite article to this environment was therefore complete by the seventeenth century. A couple of sentences will show that the approach of the damaskin is identical to the current one, even when the actual expression in Standard Bulgarian would be different: (354) s[ve]tyi zˇe evstatïe poide doma si i saint PART Eusthatius went home REFL.DAT and skaza na zˇenu svoju, sˇto mu beˇsˇe told to wife.ACC own.FEM.ACC what him.DAT was.3SG rekl˘ı g[ospod]˘ı. Togazi padnaxa na liceto say.PART.MASC lord then fell.3PL on face.THE si na zemlja i dvata i pomolixa REFL.DAT on ground and two.THE and prayed.3PL se b[og]u su˘ssl˘ızi REFL.ACC God.DAT with-tears ‘And St. Eusthatius went home and told his wife what the Lord had said to him. And they both fell with their faces to the ground and prayed to God with tears.’ (Demina 1971: 72) (355) Dveˇ reky imasˇe cˇto tecˇaxu ot istocˇna two.FEM rivers had.3SG that flowed.3PL from eastern.FEM probi onzi kamen˘ı dolu strana !…" I side and pierced.3SG that.MASC stone down dl˘ıboko, i zinu˘ propast˘ı kolkoto da se deeply and gaped.3SG abyss as-much to REFL.ACC su˘berut˘ı i dveˇteˇ reˇky velikye gather.3PL too two.FEM.THE rivers great.PL ‘There were two rivers that were flowing on the east side !…" And he pierced that stone deep down and an abyss opened enough to contain both great rivers.’ (Demina 1971: 131) Definite proportional quantifiers are expressed in the damaskin by doublemarked nominals of type 0M1-6 (te dvamata), 0M5-5 (tija petimata), 1M11 (vsicˇkoto onova kiselo mljako) or 6M3 (onija pette jabu˘lki). In the entire togazi section there are 58 instances of such double-marked nominals, per-

Process 4

159

ceived as correct according to current norms. I shall illustrate each nominal type with one example: (356) Tïa dumy kato cˇju arxïerei razgneˇva these words when heard.3SG prelate became-angry.3SG se tvru˘de i skocˇi jadovit˘ı da REFL.ACC quite and jumped.3SG enraged.MASC to ubïe ap[o]s[to]la i ne mozˇe. Zasˇto toja cˇas kills apostle.ACC and not can because this hour osleˇpeˇ. i sicˇkata mu snaga became-blind.3SG and all.FEM.THE him.DAT body stori se knila. a drugite made.3SG REFL.ACC rotten.FEM whereas others.THE izokolu kato videˇxa tova mneˇsˇe im around when saw.3PL this.NEUT seemed.3SG them.DAT !se" cˇe e magïa storil˘ı. ta potekoxa na REFL.ACC that is magic made.MASC so ran.3PL to filippa da go bijut˘ı. ato i tïe taka Philipp.ACC to him.ACC beat.3PL but also they so i tova ap[o]s[to]l˘ı patixa i osleˇpeˇxa. !…" suffered and became-blind.3PL and this.NEUT apostle kato se preˇklonil˘ı i m[o]li when REFL.ACC bowed-down.MASC and prayed.3SG se b[o]gu i ot n[e]beto zdravïe dojde REFL.ACC God.DAT and from sky.THE health came.3SG na onïa sicˇkyte, i pak˘ı zdravi byxa. on those all.PL.THE and again healthy.PL were.3PL ‘When the prelate heard these words, he became quite angry and he jumped enraged to kill the apostle but he could not because he was struck blind on the spot and his entire body became rotten. The others around him, when they saw this, assumed that he had cast a spell and they ran to Philipp to beat him. But they suffered the same thing and became blind. !…" And the apostle bowed down and prayed to God and health descended from heaven on all those and they were healthy again.’ (Demina 1971: 288)

160

The diachronic model of definiteness

(357) i recˇ[e] patrïarx˘ı i koi by nei and said.3SG patriarch and who.MASC was her.DAT kr[u˘]stnik˘ı. i rekoxa s[ve]sˇtennicite ede koi godfather and said.3PL priests.THE something who.MASC i ede koi boljarin˘ı. I prizova and something who.MASC nobleman and called.3SG patrïarx˘ı i onïa dvata boljarina i recˇ[e] patriarch as well those two.THE noblemen and said.3SG im˘ı them.DAT ‘And the patriarch said, “And who was her godfather?” And the priests said the noblemen so-and-so and so-and-so. And the patriarch called both those noblemen as well and said to them.’ (Demina 1971: 138) If I am right that nominals like 1M11 (vsicˇkoto onova kiselo mljako) or 6M3 (onija pette jabu˘lki) express definiteness of proportional quantifiers, the damaskin should provide not only examples in which these nominals are used anaphorically but also such that are definite by entailment or on any of the other grounds identified in this study. There is at least one such example. Describing the rule of monastic life during Lenten (called zakon˘ı ‘law’) at a monastery on the river Jordan, the damaskin systematically uses imperfective verbs to show that the actions were habitual and concludes: (358) taka preˇz sicˇkite tija veliky posty so during all.PLTHE these great.PL fasts ‘[They did] so throughout Lenten.’ (Demina 1971: 190) This is an instance of a distributive definite, a type that will be discussed in detail in the next 3.7 section. The 1M11 nominal refers not to Lenten in that particular year but to every Lenten. To a speaker of Standard Bulgarian this nominal sounds confusing, as it seems to imply that contrary to all the other indications in the text, it referred to that year Lenten. In this regard the damaskin is ahead of Standard Bulgarian on the path of innovation, which can only mean that it reflects a regional usage different from that of Standard Bulgarian. There is another piece of evidence corroborating this conclusion. Definite proportional quantifiers can also be represented in the damaskin by double-marked nominals as in (359), which are not perceived as correct by

Process 4

161

the norms of the standard language, althought they have parallels in the dialects (360). !tvar˘ı b[o]zˇïa" se zove. (359) I cˇjuvst˘ıvna and sensory.FEM creation divine.FEM REFL.ACC called.3SG koeto se. vidy i razumeˇe i da useˇti what.NEUT REFL.ACC sees and senses and to fees su˘s petteˇx si negovyte cˇjuvstvy. with five.THE REFL.DAT his.PL.THE senses.PL Sireˇcˇ. da vidy. da ukusi. da cˇjue, da pomirisˇe in-other-words to sees to tastes to hears to smells da poxvane. to touches ‘And sensory !divine creation" is called what one sees and senses and feels with one’s five senses; in other words, to see, to taste, to hear, to smell [and] to touch.’ (Demina 1971: 117) májkata za pricˇesténie (360) Edín pu˘´t tr´gva ˚ one.MASC time sets-off mother.THE for communion i zavózˇda i néjnite dveté momí. and takes also her.THE two.FEM.THE maids ‘Once the mother sets off for Holy Communion and takes with her both her teenage girls.’ (Koprivsˇtica [Region Pirdop], Stojkov 1950: 10 – Mladenov-Archive) The equivalent of (360) in Standard Bulgarian is ambiguous: (361) Edin pu˘t tru˘gva majkata na pricˇastie i one.MASC time sets-off mother.THE on communion and zavezˇda i svoite dve momi. takes also own.PL.THE two.FEM maids ‘Once the mother sets off for Holy Communion and takes with her both her teenage girls//her two teenage girls.’ Ideally, proportional and non-proportional numerals keep their expression different both when indefinite (6M2 vs. 6U) and when definite (6M3 vs. 6M1). Definite and indefinite proportional quantifiers are juxtaposed in (362) and definite and indefinite non-proportional quantifiers in (363):

162

The diachronic model of definiteness

(362) i spusti se naprasno i iznevarky and dashed.3SG REFL.ACC suddenly and out-of-nowhere istr˘ıgn˘ı sabïata iz rukata voinotomu wrested.3SG sword.THE from hand.THE warrior.DAT.THE i fr˘ıli go na zemli. i samsi and threw.3SG him.ACC on ground.OBLIQUE and self poe i razveza ix˘ı, i pusti gy took.3SG and untied.3SG them.ACC and let them.ACC i trite da si idut˘ı. Cˇto si and three.THE to REFL.DAT go.3PL what REFL.DAT polagate na umu˘t si, za onïa trite lay.2PL on mind.THE REFL.DAT about those three.THE osuzˇdennici na onzi cˇas, kolko li convicts on that.MASC hour how-much INTERROG radost˘ı velika imaxu, kato se izbavisˇe joy great.FEM had.3PL when REFL.ACC rescued.3PL ot su˘mr˘ıt˘ı. from death ‘And [he] dashed suddenly and out of nowhere, wrested the sword out of the warrior’s hand and threw him on the ground. He himself took and untied them and let all three of them to go home. What do you imagine in your mind regarding those three convicts in that hour? How great a joy they must have had when they were rescued from death.’ (Demina 1971: 172) tri cˇl[ove]ci (363) I vu˘ edin˘ı d[e]n˘ı, izleˇzoxa and in one.MASC day came-out.3PL three persons

iz˘ı ier[u]s[a]lim˘ı da dumat˘ı rapsakiju dumy from Jerusalem to talk.3PL Rapsak.DAT words podumaxa mirny da se umire˛t˘ı !…" I peaceful.PL to REFL.ACC reconcile.3PL and said.3PL trite muzˇïe three.THE men ‘And one day three men came out of Jerusalem to say to Rapsak words of peace to reconcile !…" And the three men said’ (Demina 1971: 125)

Process 4

163

In fact, both in the damaskin and in Standard Bulgarian the boundary between proportional and non-proportional quantifiers is blurred. Definite proportional quantifiers can appear not only as 1M11, 6M3 etc. but also in the guise of non-proportional quantifiers. I shall support this claim with nominals of type 1M4-2 in the damaskin (364) and Standard Bulgarian (365): (364) nye o velikyi c[a]ru preˇz t˘ızi we oh grand.MASC emperor.VOC during this.FEM sicˇka nosˇt˘ı plakaxme gorko vu˘ t˘ımnicu. all.FEM night cried.1PL bitterly in prison ‘We, Your Majesty, cried bitterly in prison all this night.’ (Demina 1971: 176) (365) I vse pak ti si zˇivjal njakak and anyway you.SG are.2SG lived.MASC somehow si vsicˇki tija godini. PARTICLE all.PL these years ‘Anyway you lived somehow all these years.’ (Rajnov, Part 3) Conversely, 1M11 and 6M3 nominals can stand for non-proportional quantifiers. I shall demonstrate this possibility with one passage in which first-mention cardinal quantifier 6U is followed by co-referential 6M3 and 6M1 nominals: (366) I toizi inoku˘ videˇ vu˘ edna nosˇt˘ı. kato and this.MASC monk saw.3SG in one.FEM night as dojdoxa dva cˇl[ove]ka, mlady i xubavy came.3PL two.MASC persons young.PL and handsome.PL rekoxa onïa dvata momka !…" tvr˘ıdeˇ !…" i quite and said.3PL those two.THE lads i kato gledasˇe onzi and as was-watching.3SG that.MASC protospathar˘ı s[ve˛]t[o]go commander-of-the-palace-guard saint.MASC.ACC dimitrïa, kato se mnogo oskr˘ıbi i Demetrius.ACC as REFL.ACC a-lot saddened.3SG and

164

The diachronic model of definiteness

recˇ[e] na dvata momka said.3SG to two.THE lads ‘And this monk saw one night how two men came, quite young and handsome !…" And these two lads said !…" Having seen how saddened St. Demetrius was, the commander of the palace guard said to the two lads’ (Demina 1971: 109) The lack of consistency in the use of double-marked nominals is of different nature in the damaskin and Standard Bulgarian. Standard Bulgarian has abandoned the idea of specialized markers of definiteness and nominals of type 1M11 and 6M3 as relics of the former tendency are now used indiscriminately. The damaskin, on the other hand, represented a norm that, being at the time on the rise, favoured specialized markers of definiteness. This norm was however not yet fully enforced. It is a task for the future to search in the Bulgarian dialects for reflections of this norm. Even more complex is the situation with edin˘ı ‘one’. It had not only the ability to function as a cardinal quantifier (367) but also as a proportional quantifier in two different ways: to mark explicitly a one-member set (368)–(369) and a member in a two-member set (370). (367) i minu˘ se edna godina and passed.3SG REFL.ACC one.FEM year ‘And one year passed.’ (Demina 1971: 74) (368) xodi walks

u in

ednu˘ one.FEM

riza, shirt

i and

jade eats

t˘ıkmo only

edin˘ı xleˇb˘ı one.MASC bread ‘And he goes about in the same shirt and eats only bread alone.’ (Demina 1971: 92) (369) I ucˇi da veˇruvat˘ı edinogo b[og]a and teaches to believe.3PL one.MASC.ACC God.ACC x[rist]a raspetago Christ.ACC crucified.MASC.ACC ‘And he teaches them to believe in a single God, the crucified Christ.’ (Demina 1971: 92) (370) i izleˇze mu prisˇka ljuta na edna noga and appeared.3SG him.DAT blister sore on one.FEM leg ‘And a sore blister burst on one [of his] leg[s].’ (Demina 1971: 57; other examples on pp. 257, 268)

Process 4

165

In the damaskin there are no instances in which the 6M1 nominal denotes a member in a two-member set. Subsequent developments were to make this the only option for speakers of Standard Bulgarian today. Edin can currently only be a cardinal quantifier or an indefinite determiner on the road to becoming an indefinite article. There is an intimate bond between these functions. The evolution from determiner to article will be traced below in section 3.11. As an explicit lexical marker of contextually unique referents, edin has fallen out of use.27 It must be replaced by other adjectives derived from edin such as ednicˇu˘k ‘one and only’,28 edinstven ‘only, unique’ (sometimes reduplicated edin-ednicˇu˘k, edin-edinstven) or the adverb samo ‘only’ (a cognate of the emphatic pronoun sam discussed in section 3.5.1), depending on the type of description: specific descriptions opt for the former solution, non-specific ones for the latter. The Standard Bulgarian version of (368) shows this clearly: edinstvena riza i (371) Xodi v ednajade samo xljab. walks in one.FEM unique.FEM shirt and eats only bread

27. It has only survived in set phrases such as: (13) edin Gospod znae tova one.MASC Lord knows that.NEUT ‘only God knows that’ with a history that goes further back than the introduction of alternative ways to express contextual uniqueness, as proven by its close counterpart in the damaskin (Demina 1971: 165) or as a 6M1 nominal in: (14) za ednoto cˇudo for one.NEUT.THE miracle ‘just so that everybody would wonder’ (15) … za ednata gizdosija bjaxa tija pu˘rcˇove, for one.FEM.THE dazzling-beauty were.3PL these he-goats deto that

nosexa wore

zvu˘ncite. bells.THE

‘One dazzling beauty they were of a he-goat, those he-goats that had the bells on.’ (Xajtov 1972: 133) (16) Bésˇe za was.3SG for

ednáta úbos one.FEM.THE beauty

‘It was very beautiful.’ (Region Botevgrad, SbNU 38: 49 – Mladenov-Archive) 28. This form is attested in the togiva section of the Tixonravov damaskin (Demina 1971: 318).

166

The diachronic model of definiteness

The differential treatment of the singular and plural numerals supports the conclusion made in section 3.4 about the relevance of the category number for the expansion of the definite article.

3.7.

Process 5

Definites, referring to each of a number of relevant referents taken at one point of time or in a sequence and dubbed here ‘distributive’, are attested in the damaskin: (372) zasˇto kolkoto izgoreˇvat˘ı sveˇsˇti preˇd moi because as-much burn.3PL candles in-front-of my.MASC obraz˘ı. tolkova se i umaleˇvat˘ı greˇxovete icon so-much REFL.ACC too diminish.3PL sins.THE na onïa cˇto prinesuvat˘ı sveˇsˇtite of those that bring.3PL candles.THE ‘Because as candles burn in front of my icon, the sins of those who have brought the candles diminish.’ (Demina 1971: 110) (373) i koga si seˇaxa seˇdbata, i and when REFL.DAT sowed.3PL sowing.THE and doxozˇdaxu madïanite, i pozˇu˘nuvaxa jm˘ı came.3PL Midianites.THE and harvested.3PL them.DAT ja, i ovcete im˘ı uzymaxu her.ACC and sheep.PL.THE them.DAT took.3PL ‘And whenever they had sowed their sowing, the Midianites would come and harvest it and they would take their sheep.’ (Demina 1971: 123) (374) i posreˇsˇtnu˘xa, 12. muzˇïe, obleˇcˇeni vu˘ sveˇtly and met.3PL twelve men dressed.PL in luminous.PL odeˇzˇdy, i zlaty veˇncy imaxu˘ na glavu˘ta si gowns and golden.PL crowns had.3PL on head.THE own.DAT ‘And they met twelve men, dressed in luminous gowns, and they had golden crowns on their heads.’ (Demina 1971: 295) As (372) and (373) show, such definites appear in both singular and plural in the informative text register. They mark each of the relevant sets of referents,

Process 5

167

be it sins (372), or crops and sheep (373). Distributive definites can also appear in the graphic register when multiple referents are implied. Illustrations are provided in (354) and (374). Distributive definites are another starting point of expansion of the definite article into the generic area. Svane (1961: 248) cites and analyses an early example of a generic nominal in the singular represented by a 1M1 from Praxapostolos Ochridensis of the twelfth century. Generic 1M1 singulars are used in the damaskin side by side with generics of the U series: (375) a toi preˇz ned[e]ljata ednusˇt˘ı iadeˇsˇe and he during week.THE once was-eating.3SG ‘And he ate once a week.’ (Demina 1971: 54) (376) d[u]sˇa e cˇl[ove]ku nevidima i bezsu˘mr˘ıtna soul is person.DAT invisible.FEM and immortal.FEM i nevesˇtest˘ıvnaa and immaterial.FEM ‘The human soul is invisible, immortal and immaterial.’ (Demina 1971: 117) Distributive meaning can be expressed explicitly and emphatically by the determiner vseki (Nicolova 1986: 183–185), in the damaskin rendered as seˇkyi or v˘ısaky,29 by sicˇki with abstracts and by the Greek loan kata with units of time (for more details see Mladenova 2009). (377) ami e seˇkyi cˇl[ove]k˘ı car˘ı na svoja glava but is every.MASC person emperor on own.FEM head ‘But every person has a free will.’ (Demina 1971: 184) (378) Vu˘ ime x[risto]vo deto e rekl˘ı nam˘ı, in name Christ.ADJ.NEUT that is tell.PART.MASC us.DAT da nast˘ıpame na zmïe i na skorpïe i na to step-on.1PL on snakes and on scorpions and on sicˇka sila vrazˇïa all.FEM power hostile.FEM ‘In Christ’s name because he told us to confront snakes and scorpions and all the devil’s host.’ (Demina 1971: 102 – reference to Luke 10: 19)

29. For an analysis of the collocability of v˘ıseˇku˘ in Old Church Slavonic with shortand long-form adjectives and participles cf. Flier 1974: 141–144.

168

The diachronic model of definiteness

(379) taka cˇineˇsˇe kata ned[e]lja za mnogo vreme thus proceeded.3SG every week for much time ‘This is what he did every week for a long time.’ (Demina 1971: 53) As in Standard Bulgarian, seˇkyi (v˘ısaky) functions both as a non-proportional and a proportional quantifier. It can, in other words, translate into English either as ‘every’ (377) or as ‘each’ (380), depending on context. (380) i slucˇixa se i pastyrïete i and happened.3PL REFL.ACC and shepherds.THE and oracˇete ot edno selo i zanesoxa ploughmen.THE from one.NEUT village and brought.3PL gy seˇky doma si them.ACC each.MASC home REFL.DAT ‘And both the shepherds and the ploughmen turned out to be from the same village and brought them each home.’ (Demina 1971: 74) An important peculiarity that distinguishes seventeenth-century from modern usage is the occurrence of sicˇki with abstract nouns in the informative (381) or the inductive register (382), which would correspond to vseki today. (381) i dade gy ta se naucˇixa and gave.3SG them.ACC so-that REFL.ACC learned.3PL na zapoveˇd˘ı b[o]zˇïa i na sicˇka preˇmudrost˘ı on commandment divine.FEM and on all.FEM wisdom ‘And she sent them to learn God’s commandment and all the wisdom.’ (Demina 1971: 116) (382) b[og]˘ı da te upazi, i da te god to you.ACC preserve.3SG and to you.ACC ucˇjuva ot sicˇko zlo protect.3SG from all.NEUT evil ‘Let God preserve you and protect you from all evil’ (Demina 1971: 54; another example on p. 70) Bulgarian speakers today would say vsjaka premu˘drost ‘every wisdom’ and vsjako zlo ‘every evil’. This preference is another manifestation of the reinterpretation of abstract nouns as non-divisibles mentioned in section 3.6.1 and discussed in detail in Mladenova 2009. This process had not yet taken place in the damaskin. At that time only count nouns could be accompanied by the determiner seˇkyi.

Overview of generics

3.8.

169

Overview of generics

Quantitative generics of both types introduced here with processes 4 and 5 refer to whole classes rather than concrete objects. They can appear in two kinds of contexts: generic and non-generic. In terms of text register the former kind of context corresponds to the gnomic register and the latter to the informative and the inductive registers. So what phase had Bulgarian reached by the seventeenth century in the expansion of the definite article to generics? Data collected from six homilies (No.No. 2, 7–11) show the following picture: 28 nominals of type M and 48 nominals of type U denote generic referents that in Standard Bulgarian would have been rendered exclusively by nominals of type M. This boils down to 36.84 % and situates the generic definite article in Phase II of its expansion. The definite article in Bulgarian, as well as in other languages, has not been introduced to all positions that can be filled by a generic nominal. The term ‘quantitative generics’ is reserved in my model for generics expressed by 1M1 (stolu˘t) nominals (and alternatives) whereas ‘typifying generics’ are those expressed by 1U (stol) nominals (and alternatives).30 These two types of generics differ both in distribution and meaning. Distribution is determined on the syntactic level of the default inheritance model. Interrogative, modal and negative contexts are one of the areas of action of non-referential generics (i.e., the speaker does not intend them to refer to a particular entity in the world). Typifying descriptions are the ones that most frequently fill the slot of object and subject in such contexts: (383) Bu˘lgarin taka bi li kazal? Bulgarian.MASC so would.3SG INTERROG said.MASC ‘Would a Bulgarian say so?’ (384) Turcˇin ne smeel vecˇe da Turk.MASC not dared.MASC any-more to zamru˘kne v poleto, nito da se overtakes-by-the-night in field.THE nor to REFL.ACC otbiva v xristijanski ku˘sˇti. drops-in in Christian.PL houses ‘A Turk did not dare to be overtaken by the night in the field, nor to call in a Christian home.’ (Xajtov 1972: 125) 30. Valentin Stankov (1995) proposes a different division of this segment. His Ø1 article with generic function and Ø2 article correspond to my typifying description.

170

The diachronic model of definiteness

(385) Njama spravedlivost na tozi svjat. has-not justice on this world ‘There is no justice in this world.’ (386) Osa med su˘bira li? – mina mu wasp honey gathers INTERROG passed.3SG him.DAT prez uma i njamasˇe through mind.THE and had-not

nuzˇda da si need to REFL.DAT

otgovarja, zasˇtoto otgovoru˘t na tozi vu˘pros answers because answer.THE to this.MASC question se su˘du˘rzˇasˇe v samija vu˘pros. REFL.ACC contained.3SG in very.MASC.THE question ‘“Does a wasp gather honey?” – went through his mind, and there was no need to answer because the answer to this question was contained in the very question.’ (Radicˇkov 1980: 104) Quantitative generics can venture into alternative world contexts, but if they do, they subtly change the sentence reading. A more common choice for (386) would be: (387) Osata med su˘bira li? wasp.THE honey gathers INTERROG There is a fine difference between the two variants that becomes clear if one looks at the English paraphrases of (386) and (387) as (a) and (b), respectively: (a) Can a wasp (if wasp it is) collect honey? (b) Do wasps (as a class) collect honey? In actual world contexts, the definite article is typically applied to generic subjects and objects, whereas generic meaning in the predicative and adverbial slots is expressed by unmarked nominals. Unmarked nominals continue to express generic meaning in the positions of subject and object (Stankov 1995: 115–118), although much less frequently than nominals with the definite article (GSBKE 2: 141–142). They are more common in the informative than the gnomic text register. The only typifying generic that periodically crops up in the gnomic register as the subject of classificatory sentences (cˇovek ‘person’) has been treated as an exception (GSBKE 2: 129). As already suggested, cˇovek is probably on the road towards becoming an indefinite pronoun, supplementing the range of personal pronouns that may have a generic reading, such as the gen-

Overview of generics

171

eric second-person singular and third-person plural. It certainly is the functional and, in some cases, etymological equivalent of the indefinite pronoun that many languages have (see Lyons 1999: 150–151 with further references). This use of cˇovek has parallels in Albanian and Romanian and a broad representation in the Slavic languages, most noticeable in West Slavic (Mazon 1931; Assenova 2002: 132).31 Tatjana Sˇamraj explains such a use of unmarked nominals in a broader context as a generic statement of (in)compatibility between a subject and a predicate (1989: 66–68). Many examples of typifying generics in the subject position come from proverbs and are relics from a previous stage of development of the Bulgarian language. In other words, the referential use of typifying generics is declining. In affirmative sentences in the gnomic register, the only option a speaker has is the quantitave generic: (388) Pcˇelata e nasekomo. bee.THE is insect ‘The bee is an insect.’ Generic nominals of type 9U with a restrictive reading continue, however, to be quite common in this position, as pointed out by Ivancˇev (1978 [1967]: 152–155) and illustrated with examples like the following: (389) Dete, koeto e zdravo, izglezˇda veselo. child which.NEUT is healthy.NEUT looks merry.NEUT ‘A child that is healthy looks happy.’ (390) Deteto, koeto e zdravo, izglezˇda veselo. child.THE which.NEUT is healthy.NEUT looks merry.NEUT ‘The child that is healthy looks happy.’ Formal considerations therefore play a role in the order in which quantitative generics have spread at the expense of typifying generics. The object position lags behind the subject position in this process. The reason for that may be that it is sometimes (especially in the informative register) very difficult to 31. For an overview of the dynamics in the use of Bulgarian cˇovek with readings ranging from specific to non-specific to (quantitative) generic to typifying over the last two centuries and its cultural implications see Mladenova 2003. An early insight into the dependence of a salient typifying pronoun on the routine use of the gnomic register was provided by André Mazon: “La tendance à faire du nom de l’homme une manière de pronom est un fait de civilisation populaire qui s’adapte au besoin de s’exprimer par sentences et par dictons.” (1931: 156).

172

The diachronic model of definiteness

distinguish between a typifying generic and a non-specific in this position, as (386) above demonstrates.32 Is med ‘honey’ in this sentence a typifying generic or a non-specific? My answer to that would be that it is a typifying generic because it is a component of a sentence in the gnomic register used in conjunction with another typifying generic. Alternatively, med in (391) can be non-specific because it appears in the informative register in conjunction with a unique referent in the subject position: (391) Pcˇelata Maja med su˘bira li? bee.THE Maya honey gathers INTERROG ‘Does Maya the Bee gather honey?’ The similarity between these two descriptions in the informative register remains striking, as (392) will demonstrate: (392) … ne mozˇe da ne znaesˇ dali mljakoto not can.3SG to not know.2SG whether milk.THE na taja koza lekuva rak. of this.FEM goat cures cancer ‘You must know whether the milk of this goat cures cancer.’ (Radicˇkov 1980: 126) The difference between these descriptions is one of degree. If an object is customarily brought in connection with a subject but does not participate in the list of inherent characteristics of that subject, it will be treated as non-specific, whereas if it is a constant and immanent feature of the subject that makes it what it is, it might more readily be perceived as typifying generic. There is a broad gray area between the clearer cases at the extremes of this continuum. The blurry boundary between non-specific and typifying descriptions and the dependence of a particular reading on various aspects of the linguistic context have been acknowledged in the linguistic literature (for a discussion and further bibliography see Lyons 1999: 189–193).

32. This has even led some researchers such as Valentin Stankov (1984: 197) to the thought that what I consider two categories of descriptions (typifying and nonspecific) should be treated as one. Later, however, he changed his mind (1995: 106).

Overview of generics

173

3.8.1. Word formation at the intersection of generics and specifics Empirical research strongly suggests that the word formation of different grammatical categories is governed by systematic restrictions (Mladenova 2008, especially note 19). Adjectives derived from nouns can point back to a non-specific, quantitative generic or typifying source noun, and exceptionally even to a specific source noun (in the case of possessives); abstract nouns and adverbials can point to a quantitative generic or typifying source noun, whereas verbs may only be formed from a typifying source noun. Derived forms that have more than one reading are disambiguated in context. The damaskin provides revealing information about the grammaticalization of typifying descriptions, the only ones that work across the board. It has been noticed before that many derived verbs (Greenberg 1978: 66–69) and adjectives (Sˇamraj 1989: 77, 82, 84) stem from typifying descriptions. One can also find examples of adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions, for instance: 33 (393) imam grizˇa za nesˇto < grizˇa se za have.1SG care for something care.1SG REFL.ACC for nesˇto something ‘I take care of something’ > ‘I tend to something’ (394) masa ot du˘rvo > du˘rvena masa table of wood wooden.FEM table ‘a table of wood’ > ‘a wooden table’ (395) nosˇt > nosˇtja, zima > zime night at-night, winter in-winter ‘night’ > ‘at night’, ‘winter’ > ‘in winter’33 (396) sleda > sled trace in-the-trace-of ‘trace’ > ‘after’ (397) mjasto > vmesto da place in-the-place to ‘place’ > ‘instead of’

33. For more details about the formation and semantic delineation of temporal adverbials see section 4.2.4.

174

The diachronic model of definiteness

Whereas verbs and adjectives are usually earlier formations (in some cases even Proto-Slavic), adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions (derived from prepositions) may have been formed later, at a point of time immediately prior to the period reflected in the damaskin. Nominals of type 8 and their synthetic precursors, which are from a contemporary perspective deviant nominals, present in this respect particular interest. As we have seen, generics entered the sphere of action of the definite article after specifics. In view of the discussion regarding the interconnection between the loss of case and the acquisition of the definite article (section 3.4), it does not come as a surprise that generics appear to have preserved their case endings longer than specifics. Some synthetic 8U1 and 8U2 nominals that were used on a regular basis continue to be employed until this day, reinterpreted as prepositions: (398) vr˘ıxu vodata top.LOC water.THE ‘on the water’ (Demina 1971: 198) (399) navr˘ıx˘ı glavu˘ta on-top head.THE ‘on top of the head’ (Demina 1971: 304) (400) nasreˇd cr[˘ı]kvata on-mid.ADV church.THE ‘in the middle of the church’ (Demina 1971: 62) (401) do krai selo to end village ‘up to the village margin’ (Demina 1971: 76) In Standard Bulgarian most of them appear in competition with the respective 8M nominals: (402) navru˘x glavata vs. na vu˘rxa na glavata on-top head.THE on top.THE of head.THE ‘on top of the head’ (403) nasred cu˘rkvata vs. na sredata na in-middle.OBLIQUE church.THE in middle.THE of cu˘rkvata church.THE ‘in the middle of the church’

Overview of generics

175

(404) dokraj selo vs. do kraja na seloto up-to-end village up-to end.THE of village.THE ‘up to the end of the village’ Speakers of Bulgarian perceive the subtle semantic difference between these competing nominals mostly as a stylistic one. I would say, the new prepositional phrases stemming from synthetic versions of nominals of type 8 are felt to be more ‘picturesque’, perhaps because many of them are more characteristic of the colloquial language than of the neutral style of Standard Bulgarian. Specific and generic nouns in this environment had different evolutions. The difference (summarized in Table 32) is particularly conspicuous in nominals lacking preposition at the synthetic phase. Table 32. Specific vs. generic heads of nominals of type 8 Generic Head

Specific Head

Synthetic Phase

Noun.CASE & Noun.CASE Noun.CASE & Noun.CASE

Analytic Phase

Preposition [ ‘between them’) and naokolo mi ‘on my circle’ (> ‘around me’). This prepositional construction has been assigned the status of balkanism since it has parallels in Romanian and Modern Greek (Mladenov 1985b). In the damaskin one can also encounter prepositionless nominals of type 8 with generic heads, in which the head is not a new preposition and was not to become one. Here are some typical examples:

Overview of generics

177

(409) i videˇx˘ı v˘ı vreˇme zˇetva beˇsˇe ljude mnogo and saw.1SG in time harvest was.3SG people many ot levïa i ot egipt˘ı from Libya and from Egypt ‘And I saw – it was at harvest time – many people from Libya and Egypt.’ (Demina 1971: 193) (410) kak sˇt˘ı da budu raspet˘ı i umr˘ıtven˘ı how shall.1SG to be.1SG crucified.MASC and killed ot ruce bezakonïi evree by hands lawless.PL Jews ‘How I shall be crucified and killed by the hands of lawless Jews.’ (Demina 1971: 304) In other words, the lack of the preposition is a marker of a generic reading of the head noun, which acts at a time when not all specific heads have yet acquired their definite articles. It is therefore a supplementary means of disambiguation that stopped functioning as a productive grammatical device when this task was taken over by the definite article. It was only preserved with generic heads that had been transformed into prepositions and in set phrases with verbal heads such as (411) and (412): (411) na zalez slu˘nce on setting sun ‘at sunset’ (412) na edin xvu˘rlej kamu˘k on one.MASC throw stone ‘at a stone’s throw’ (cf. Luke 22: 41) This is the mechanism that prompted the appearance of the much-discussed competition between nominals of type 6 and 8 like cˇasˇa voda and cˇasˇa s voda ‘a glass of water’. This also is how a curious construction, frequently encountered in colloquial Bulgarian and Romanian, came into being (Beyrer and Kostov 1978). It consists of the use of a limited number of kinship terms in their unmarked forms as quasi-address forms. One such example is attested in the damaskin: sveˇte na moite ocˇi koj majka da otisˇi zˇalost moa [light.VOC of my.PL.THE eyes who mother to consoles grief my.FEM] (Demina 1971: 329). These words are pronounced by a grieving mother over the dead body of her son and addressed to him. So majka ‘mother’ here cannot be a proper address-form. It refers to the speaker. It also is not in the vocative, which is

178

The diachronic model of definiteness

expected of an address form. The sentence is the rough equivalent of ‘Light of my eyes, who can console my grief as your mother’. Beyrer and Kostov convincingly derive such forms from possessive synthetic nominals of type 8 with heads in the vocative through a stage of a prepositionless nominal, e.g. Ivane babi Ivan.VOC grandmother.GEN/DAT > Ivane baba Ivan.VOC grandmother > baba. All three stages are attested in Bulgarian. In view of our discussion here, we must conclude on the basis of this usage that unique referents in the head position are treated like generics. Regarding unique referents see section 3.9. The contrast between generics and specifics as it surfaces in the damaskin and in Standard Bulgarian can be illustrated by the following examples, which juxtapose damaskin sentences with their Standard Bulgarian counterparts: (413) i dojde na vu˘stocˇna strana polatyte and came.3SG on eastern.FEM side chambers.THE ‘And he came to the eastern side of the palace.’ (Demina 1971: 295) (414) I dojde na iztok ot palata and came.3SG on east of palace (415) na v˘ıstocˇna stran˘ı na on˘ızi planinu˘ gdeto on eastern.FEM side of that.FEM mountain where zˇiveˇsˇe s[ve]ty simeon˘ı. zmïa goleˇma […] was-living.3SG saint.ADJ.MASC Symeon snake large.FEM tamo zˇiveˇsˇe there was-living.3SG ‘On the eastern side of the mountain where St. Symeon lived, a large snake was living.’ (Demina 1971: 57) (416) Na iztocˇnata strana na onazi planina, on eastern.FEM.THE side of that.FEM mountain ku˘deto zˇiveesˇe Sv. Simeon, zˇiveesˇe where was-living.3SG St. Symeon was-living.3SG goljama zmija. large.FEM snake

Overview of generics

179

(417) i naprasno istecˇe voda mnogo ot istok˘ı and immediately gushed-out.3SG water much to east ogradat˘ı fence.THE ‘And a lot of water gushed out in that very moment to the east of the fence.’ (Demina 1971: 57) (418) I v su˘sˇtija mig iztecˇe mnogo voda and in same.THE moment gushed-out.3SG much water na iztok ot ogradata on east from fence.THE Both the damaskin and Standard Bulgarian have at their disposal “the same” nominals meaning ‘to the east of’ but they use them in different ways, as shown in Table 33. Table 33. Nominals meaning ‘to the east of’ in the damaskin and Standard Bulgarian Damaskin

Standard Bulgarian

Specific Head

na v˘ıstocˇna stran˘ı na + Noun

na iztocˇnata strana na + Noun

Generic Head

na v˘ıstocˇna stran˘ı + Noun

na iztok ot + Noun

ot istok˘ı + Noun

The difference between a specific and a generic reading of na v˘ıstocˇna stran˘ı in the damaskin is marked by the presence or absence of the preposition following it rather than by an article. Standard Bulgarian has eliminated this possibility, preserving the nominal in its specific reading only and moving it from the U to the M series. It is remarkable that sentences (414), (416) and (418) are more felicitous as they are, the 8M (specific) nominal not being interchangeable with its 8U (generic) counterpart. In this case as in many others, diachronic change manifests itself not in the introduction of radically new ways of speaking but in the redistribution of those already available to speakers. The findings reported in this section throw light on a variation in the realm of nominals with a deverbative noun in the head position such as piene na vino ‘drinking of wine’, prane na drexi ‘laundering of clothes’, posresˇtane na gosti, lit. ‘welcoming of guests’, i.e. ‘entertaining’, which may appear in context as: 8U1 (piene na vino) 8U2 (piene na vinoto) 8M1-1 (pieneto na vino) 8M2-1 (pieneto na vinoto)

180

The diachronic model of definiteness

The standard language usually keeps the preposition na but it may also drop it in nominals of the U series (Cyxun 1981: 80, 87), a practice viewed as controversial by normative grammarians. Among the authors who provide examples of na drop in such nominals are Pop Mincˇo Ku˘ncˇev and Ivan Vazov. I shall illustrate the phenomenon with a biblical verse: (419) No, eto radost i veselie, Kolene goveda but here-is joj and merry-making slaughtering cattle i kolene ovce, jadene meso i piene vino! and slaughtering sheep eating meat and drinking wine I kazvat: Da jadem i da piem, Zasˇtoto and say.3PL to eat.1PL and to drink.1PL because utre sˇte umrem. tomorrow will die.1PL ‘Then, lo, joy and gladness, slaying oxen and slaughtering sheep; eating flesh and drinking wine, saying, Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!’ (Isaiah 22: 13) In the context of this study this usage immediately raises the question whether the na drop in such nominals is not the marker of a generic reading as it was in the other nominals of type 8 that were discussed above. Among the damaskin examples of nominals with deverbative heads there are analytic nominals that fit contemporary standards (420) and synthetic nominals with the dative (421) or the genitive (422), as well as nominals that blend the analytic and synthetic expression (423): (420) slusˇajte listen.IMPER.2PL

pak again

i also

na tïa of these

dumi words

tlˇıkovanïeto interpretation.THE ‘Listen again to the interpretation of these words as well.’ (Demina 1971: 302) (421) x[risto]s se zatova slozˇi. da izvadi Christ REFL.ACC for-this-reason puts to takes-away nas ot poslusˇanïeto dïavolu us from obedience.THE devil.DAT ‘That is why Christ pledged himself: to take us away from [our] obedience to the devil.’ (Demina 1971: 263)

Overview of generics

181

(422) I napokon po uspeni b[ogorodi]ci meˇtaxu and afterwards after decease mother-of-god.GEN cast.3PL ap[o]s[to]lete zˇdreˇbe koj kyde da ide apostles.THE lots who where to goes ‘And afterwards, after the Mother of God’s decease, the apostles cast lots [to decide] who should go where.’ (Demina 1971: 81) m[˛o]cˇenïeto na (423) taka treˇbuva !…" da zapovnyme so must.3SG to remember.1PL torment.THE of s[ve˛]tyxˇı saints.GEN ‘We must !…" so remember the martyrdom of the saints.’ (Demina 1971: 111) I will limit the further discussion only to nominals with deverbative heads derived from transitive verbs, in which the dependent component functions as a direct object although nominals, which feature a dependent in the role of a subject, are available in the damaskin and have identical structure, cf. (422) and (424): (424) ami togazi athinjane beˇxu mudrost elinskaa but then Athenians were.3PL wisdom Hellenic.FEM naucˇˇıli. i ne priemaxu ap[o]s[to]lu ucˇenieto, learned.3PL and not accepted.3PL apostle.DAT teaching.THE i ne tacˇeˇxa go ni zasˇto and not respected.3PL him no for-what ‘But at that time the Athenians had acquired Hellenic [i.e. heathen] wisdom and did not accept the apostle’s teaching and did not hold him in respect at all.’ (Demina 1971: 287) Even though I came across no instances of analytic nominals without the preposition in the Tixonravov damaskin, the dialects offer plenty of examples that have been analysed from a linguo-geographic perspective in Cyxun 1981: 80–89. Early evidence of prepositionless analytic nominals is provided in the eighteenth-century Svisˇtov damaskin, cf.

182

The diachronic model of definiteness

(425) vu˘ jasli se polozˇi da iz˘ıbavi nas ot in crèches REFL.ACC placed.3SG to rescues us from bez’slovesnoe zlo teg’line speechless.NEUT evil undergoing ‘He placed himself into a crèche to rescue us from speechless suffering.’ (Mileticˇ 1923: 78) (426) Ili sladko ceˇluvanïe basˇta mu i maika or sweet.NEUT kissing father him.CL.DAT and mother mu koi da iskazˇe him.CL.DAT who to spells-out ‘Or who could depict the sweet kissing of his father and his mother?’ (Mileticˇ 1923: 284) Synthetic nominals with the dative (predecessors of type 8M2-1) were only found in the dialect of Bobosˇtica in Southern Albania. Serbian for the most part preserved the initial synthetic nominals with the genitive or its descendant, the oblique case.34 The dialects in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Northern Greece and European Turkey can be divided into three groups (see Map 5 in Cyxun 1981: 85). It should be kept in mind that all dialects can distinguish between specific and generic heads but they do it today using different sets of markers: double marking of the contrast (nominals with preposition in competition with nominals without preposition and the definite article applied as needed) versus single marking by means of the definite article alone attached to one of the nominal types (with or without preposition) generalized across the board. The three scenarios owe their differences to a different starting point in the move from synthetic to analytic expression. Double marking characterizes the Western and the Rupa dialects in Bulgaria and Northern Greece and some Northern dialects in Macedonia. This is what Cyxun calls the diffuse zone and I shall call area A. Scholars who have studied the use of these nominals in context (such as B. Vidoeski regarding the Kicˇevo dialect, cf. Cyxun 1981: 83–84) argue that there is a semantic difference and it, we can add, fits the generic/specific contrast. It was suggested 34. It is questionable whether the example with the alleged genitive in the Rhodope nominal misal’ za pokrivane xleba ‘napkin for covering bread’ (Cyxun 1981: 81) can indeed count as a genitive since xleba can be perceived as bread.THE in many Rhodope dialects as shown on a map in Kolev 1991: 71. Moreover, genitive was preserved in the Bulgarian dialects mostly with masculine proper names and kinship terms (cf. Stojkov 1993: 131 regarding the Rhodope dialect).

Overview of generics

183

that a 8U1 nominal such as grozje bran’e ‘harvesting of grapes; vintage’ (frequently with the deverbative head noun following its dependent) refers to the period of time when this activity customarily takes place, whereas the corresponding 8M2-1 bran’eto na grozjeto ‘the harvesting of the grapes’ refers to the activity itself. The 8U1 nominals in such dialects are on the road to becoming compound nouns, recent parallel formations to Proto-Slavic compounds such as *grozdober ч ‘vintage’ < *grozdч ‘bunch of grapes’ + *bцrati ‘to harvest’ and *seˇnokos ч ‘hay harvest’ < *seˇno ‘hay’ + *kositi ‘to mow’ that are said to denote both an agricultural activity and the season when it takes place. Grozdober and brane na grozde however are not always interchangeable in context, the former being better suited to refer to the season and the latter to the activity, especially if tackled in any specific detail. Single marking is attested in three separate areas. The nominal construction without preposition that appears to treat the dependent element as a direct object (to be called from now on objective nominal) was generalized in the Western and the Northern dialects in Macedonia and in the Torlak dialect in Eastern Serbia (area B). In these dialects the synthetic predecessor of all nominals of type 8 must have contained a dependent element in genitive or its continuant, the oblique case. The regular analytic nominal construction with preposition that appears to treat the dependent element as an attribute (attributive nominal) predominates today in two broad areas of distribution: the Eastern Bulgarian dialects (area C) and the Southwestern Bulgarian dialects and the adjacent territory in Southeastern Macedonia and Northern Greece (area D). Here the dependent element at the synthetic phase was in the dative. Since competition of analytical nominals of type 8 with and without preposition was attested in the damaskin with non-verbal heads and the damaskin language has been localized in area A (Mladenova 2007), featuring such competition with deverbatives at present, we can assume that the damaskin language was also characterized by it. In most areas the definite article was introduced to nominals of type 8 with specific heads after the demise of synthetic nominals because they would otherwise result in forms like those recorded in the Bobosˇtica dialect, which remain exceptional. It is unlikely that synthetic nominals were still around in large numbers in type 8 nominals with deverbative heads when the definite article incorporated them because these nominals mostly involve inanimates whereas the synthetic forms combining case and article were perpetuated more readily with animates (see section 5.2 for more details). Only in area A the article encountered an already highlighted contrast between specifics and generics: attributive nominals

184

The diachronic model of definiteness

with specific heads and objective nominals with generic heads. This looks like an eager anticipation of the change to come by the means currently available to speakers in area A and points to the potential use of the genitive/dative contrast towards the same goal at the synthetic phase. The association of the dative with definiteness would not be new to us: we discussed it in connection with alienable/inalienable possessions in section 3.3.1. The double marking of the specific/generic contrast that originated in such a way has been preserved to this day. These considerations make it possible to hypothetically project today’s linguo-geographic situation onto the synthetic phase of type 8 nominals as follows: the need to distinguish between specific and generic descriptions arose in area A (comprising of the Rupa and some Western dialects) and the response to it was the establishment of a genitive/dative contrast. From area A the dative in type 8 nominals spread to areas C and D, where however it installed indiscriminately because the specific/generic dichotomy was not one that speakers cared yet to uphold at this time. The innovation did not reach area B. This proposal differs somewhat from that made by Gennadij Cyxun. Most importantly, it links the competition between objective and attributive analytic nominals to the specific/generic contrast. Cyxun, on the other hand, thinks that the analytic phase in the development of the nominals of type 8 followed everywhere a synthetic phase featuring the genitive case. He argues that the synthetic nominals were uniformly replaced by objective analytic nominals, ousted out of some territories by attributive analytic nominals (areas C and D), preserved as the only expression in yet others (area B) and competing with attributive nominals in the diffuse zone (area A), a sign that the attributive nominals must have been introduced there last. The nominals of type 8 with verbal heads give an idea about the heuristic potential of the analysis of historical and dialect data in a unified theoretical framework. This issue will be given further consideration in chapter 5.

3.9.

Process 6

This is the process through which the definite article expands from contextually unique referents to referents that are unique in an absolute sense. If dependent on the communicative situation itself rather than the broader context surrounding it, contextually unique referents are a category partially overlapping with what was labeled ‘deictic definites’ in section 2.2.2. In the communicative situation “here” and “now”, both identifiability and inclusiveness

Process 6

185

can play a role. Deictic definiteness based on inclusiveness involves contextually unique referents. A sentence like (427) Close the door, please. cited by Lyons (1999: 14) may be felicitous in different communicative situations involving an open door. If a speaker utters it in a room with one door only, definiteness of the door may be attributed equally to identifiability and inclusiveness. If, on the other hand, there are several open doors but the speaker shivers, the addressee will infer that she means the door to the balcony, an inference pointing to identifiability rather than inclusiveness. Apparently, inclusiveness in the communicative situation always implies identifiability but not vice versa. One may however encounter referents unique in the broader context of communication that are not identifiable for the hearer, as in the following sentence (Lyons 1999: 7): (428) I’ve just been to a wedding. The bride wore blue. Consider the following Standard Bulgarian sentences illustrating deictic definiteness: (429) Eto gi podaru˘cite. Gledaj kuklata kolko here them gifts.THE look.2SG.IMPER doll.THE how-much e xubava. is pretty.FEM ‘Here are the gifts. Look how pretty the doll is.’ (430) Eto gi podaru˘cite. Gledaj tazi kukla here them gifts.THE look.2SG.IMPER this.FEM doll.THE kolko e xubava. how-much is pretty.FEM ‘Here are the gifts. Look how pretty this doll is.’ They would both be grammatical in a situation with one doll among the gifts but only (430) would normally work in a situation with more than one doll. On the basis of such material we can make a conclusion that later will turn handy: deictic 1M1 (and equivalents) compete with 1M5-1 nominals (and equivalents) only in contexts involving inclusiveness, or, in other words, with contextually unique referents. As emphasized in section 2.2.2, historical evidence, all of it stemming from written texts, tells us very little about deictic definiteness. Narrated communicative situations as opposed to directly experienced ones involve the representation of deictic definites by anaphoras and the explicit marking of contextually unique referents by lexical means.

186

The diachronic model of definiteness

We may lack the documentation to prove that it actually happened that way, but contextually unique referents provide the second after anaphoras entry point through which a demonstrative pronoun may evolve into an article. Even though written sources do not provide information about the marking of definiteness in the fleeting communicative situation, one can get some idea how marking changed over time by an analysis of the contrast between the contextually unique referents that would be used in experienced communicative situations versus those that would correspond to them in narrated communicative situations (for further consideration of this matter see sections 4.2.4 and 5.4). It should be kept in mind that lexically expressed uniqueness makes the unequivocal identification of the referent possible regardless of the presence or absence of a definite article. Here are several illustrations of contextually unique referents in the damaskin, (431)–(434) involving a communicative situation envisaged by the compiler of the damaskin homilies and (435)–(437) communicative situations transposed into the universe of discourse. (431) Taka e prilicˇen˘ı i dnesˇnïat˘ı d[e]n˘ı so is similar.MASC too today.ADJ.MASC.THE day ‘This is what today’s day is like as well.’ (Demina 1971: 99) (432) Taka e i dnesˇnye˛t˘ı prazdnik˘ı so is too today.ADJ.MASC.THE holiday ‘Today’s holiday is also like that.’ (Demina 1971: 183) (433) kato i dnesˇnoto ev[an]g[e]lïe cˇto ima as too today.ADJ.NEUT.THE gospel that has vu˘zvedenïe za osleto parable about foal.THE ‘as today’s gospel [reading] too that contains a parable about the foal’ (Demina 1971: 274) (434) v˘ıtreˇ u cr[˘ı]kva vleˇzi i gledai inside in church enter.2SG.IMPER and look.2SG.IMPER ot leva strana s[ve]sˇtennici cˇto stoe˛t˘ı from left.FEM side priests that stand.3PL ‘Enter the church and look at the priests standing on the left side.’ (Demina 1971: 62) (435) i videˇ o desna strana seˇnka cˇiljasˇka and saw.3SG at right.FEM side shadow human.FEM ‘And he saw on his right a human shadow.’ (Demina 1971: 191)

Process 6

187

(436) V˘ı leˇto sedmo, otkoga beˇsˇe nacˇel˘ı in year seventh.NEUT from-when was.3SG start.PART.MASC c[a]r˘ı kostantin˘ı da c[a]ruva. i pri emperor Constantine to govern.3SG and during negovo c[a]rstvo s˘ıbraxa se mnog[o] his.ADJ.NEUT rule gathered.3PL REFL.ACC many necˇ˘ıstivi varvare, na reˇke˛ dunavske˛ godless.PL barbarians on river.ACC Danube.ADJ.FEM.ACC ‘In the seventh year after Emperor Constantine had started to govern and during his rule, many godless barbarians gathered on the Danube River.’ (Demina 1971: 64) (437) I na utreˇsˇnyi d[e]n˘ı prinese ioakim dar˘ı and on tomorrow.ADJ.MASC day brought Joakim gift svoj g[ospod]u b[og]u own.MASC Lord.DAT God.DAT ‘And on the next day Joakim brought his offering to the Lord.’ (Demina 1971: 152) As shown by the examples, situationally unique referents appear in the guise of attributive definites. In other words, they are represented by nominals of type 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 with a restrictive reading of the attribute that matches one and only one referent in the discourse universe. For instance, since humans normally have only one head per person, the 2M1 and 8M nominals glavata mu ‘his head’, glavata na Plamen ‘Plamen’s head’ have a unique reading that is not characteristic of 1M1 glavata ‘the head’. Here is an example of a situationally unique referent of type 8M from the damaskin. (438) i su˘bral˘ı beˇsˇe ot mnogo s[ve]tyx and gather.PART.MASC was.3SG from many saints.GEN mosˇti i imasˇe gy u cr[˘ı]kvata relics and had.3SG them.ACC in church.THE s[ve]tye sofïie saint.FEM.DAT Sophia.DAT ‘And he had gathered relics from many saints and was keeping them in the St. Sophia Church.’ (Demina 1971: 108) The majority of situationally unique referents in the damaskin are represented by nominals of the U series, whereas current norms require that the definite

188

The diachronic model of definiteness

article be used. I have cited all available examples that feature a nominal of the M series, whereas I could easily double and triple the numbers of nominals of the U series. The damaskin shows Bulgarian in Phase I of the process of expansion of the article to encompass situationally unique referents. The mass introduction of the article to this position must have taken place after the seventeenth century. It is nominals of type 3 that form the transitional area from situationally unique to unique referents. Types 3U (e.g., gospodin Petrov ‘Mr. Petrov’) and 3M2 (e.g. Petrov boksjora ‘Petrov the boxer’) with an appositive reading are reserved for unique referents, whereas 3M1-1 nominals (e.g., drugarjat Petrov ‘comrade Petrov’) with a restrictive reading are situationally unique. The same person can be referred to not by only these three nominals but also by the 1U nominal Petrov (initially 7U). Modern Bulgarian marks situationally unique and unique referents differently. Since the damaskin has exclusively 3U, all changes in this area must have taken place after the seventeenth century. The use of the article with unique referents can be explained with the impact of a tendency towards consistency or the so-called ‘rule generalization’ (Aitchison 1991: 86). Marking a unique referent, especially one designated by a proper name rather than a common noun, with a definite article is not informative because the referent is individual anyway by its very nature. Today some unique referents are always used with an article (except as address forms) whereas others are used without it (Revzin 1977: 212). As in other regards, dialects may be at variance with the standard language; for instance, the following sentences offer examples of feminine and masculine personal names that would remain without the article in the standard language (cf. Rosica, Ivan).35 (439) Rosícata ali si dosˇlála? Rosica.THE INTERROG REFL.DAT come.FEM ‘Has Rosica come home yet?’ (Mladenov-Archive – Sˇumnatica [Region Momcˇilgrad], Rodopi 1977, 12: 37]) (440) da tu˘ pítu˘t za Juvánu˘t to you.2SG.ACC ask.3PL about Juvan.THE ‘to ask you about Ivan’ (Mladenov-Archive – Jasu˘jug [Region Gjumjurdzˇina], SbNU 50: 231]) 35. I disagree categorically with the claim that Marijata Maria.THE is a grammatical expression in colloquial Bulgarian (Koseska-Toszewa and Gargov 1991: 34), which I understand as an umbrella term for the oral practices of speakers of Stan-

Process 6

189

This usage characterizes some Balkan and Rupa dialects (Cyxun 1981: 98–100). Apparently the situation in such Bulgarian dialects comes closer to that in the Balkan languages, which use the article with proper names to a greater extent (GLR 1: 102; Pani 1991; Demiraj 1993: 122; Lyons 1999: 121–123, 337). Since the uniform use of unique referents with the definite article has never been fully achieved in any variety of Bulgarian, rule generalization appears to produce an effect opposite to the intended one. Which uniques to mark with the definite article is decided on the lexical-morphological level and is not affected by syntactic function (excluding the address form). Some diminutive proper names are always accompanied by the definite article and so are some other names: for example, toponyms such as Ludogorieto an area in Northeast Bulgaria, Rodopite ‘the Rhodope mountains’ (GSBKE 2: 123–127). Is there a single factor that can account for all these choices? It has been argued that formless geographical objects rather than entities that have a distinctive exterior form take the definite article (Chesterman 1991: 86), and Bulgarian data like the cited toponyms agree with this hypothesis. The article is therefore used in regard to unique geographical locations in the same way in which it was shown to function with specific referents at large: the ones that are well defined inherently do not require from speakers any supplementary efforts on the level of discourse. Turning to diminutive proper names, we see them governed by the same regularity. Diminutive proper names in Bulgarian can be of any grammatical gender, Vasil MASC > diminutive Vasilcˇo; Todora FEM > diminutive Todorka; Boris MASC > diminutives Bore, Borka; Elena FEM > diminutive Lencˇe. If the name acquires with the diminutive suffix a morphological gender marker that points in a direction different from the sex of the holder, the name will take the definite article. My selection of examples displays the following picture. Vasilcˇo MASC and Todorka FEM have kept their gender and cannot be accompanied by the definite article. U nominals Bore NEUT and Lencˇe NEUT are only used as address forms. In all other syntactic positions these names appear with as M nominals: Boreto and Lencˇeto. Diminutive Borka follows the same path. It has acquired a feminine morphological marker and appears with the feminite definite article (Borkata) in all dard Bulgarian in an informal context. It can only be explained as an influence of a dialect norm different from that of the standard language and its colloquial varieties. Their other examples Anito Ani.THE and Savata Sava.THE, which are indeed characteristic of colloquial Bulgarian, conform with the pattern discussed further in the text.

190

The diachronic model of definiteness

positions except the address form. The same behaviour has been noted regarding the few masculine personal names that end in -a: Sava – Savata, Toma – Tomata (GSBKE 2: 124). In other words, a unique referent is marked with the definite article in Bulgarian if there is a feeling that additional precision on the level of expression is needed to compensate for some fuzziness in the sphere of semantics and referentiality. If that is not the case, a 1U nominal is deemed satisfactory and sufficient.36 If, however, the unique referent is expressed not by a nominal of type 1 but by one of the other nominal types (and particularly by type 4), then marking

36. Violetta Koseska-Toszewa and Georgi Gargov suggest that only the proper names that are complete symbols in the logical sense can be expressed by unmarked nominals, whereas such proper names that are incomplete symbols are identified with definite descriptions and marked with the definite article (1991: 34). This may be a promising avenue for explanation that needs however further elaboration. As it is, it just rephrases what we know empirically (that there are some proper names that are used with and others that are used without the article) but does not explain what makes the river Marica a complete symbol in contrast to the river Dunav (Danube), which is an incomplete symbol. It also does not explain why (17) is grammatical whereas (19) is ungrammatical, although their respective synonyms (18) and (20) are both grammatical. Or, in my terminology, why do unique referents expressed by 1U behave differently if they behave similarly when expressed by 2U? On the other hand, if we replace basˇta in (19) and (20) with tatko ‘daddy’, the sentences become parallel to (17)–(18). Other kinship terms behave either like majka (baba ‘grandmother’, djado ‘grandfather’, lelja ‘aunt’, vujcˇo ‘uncle on the mother’s side’ etc.) or like basˇta (du˘sˇterja ‘daughter’, sin ‘son’, mu˘zˇ ‘husband’, zˇena ‘wife’, vnuk ‘grandson’ etc.), although for some of them (sin ‘son’, mu˘zˇ ‘husband’, vnuk ‘grandson’) 2U is ungrammatical. (17) Majka si dojde. mother REFL.DAT came.3SG ‘Mother came home.’ (18) Majka mi si dojde. mother me.DAT REFL.DAT came.3SG ‘My mother came home.’ (19) *Basˇta si dojde. father REFL.DAT came.3SG ‘Father came home.’ (20) Basˇta mi si dojde. father me DAT REFL.DAT came.3SG ‘My father came home.’

Process 6

191

with the definite article becomes mandatory. The attribute in types 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 can only have an appositive reading.37 (441) i zaraduva se i n[e]beto. i and rejoiced.3PL REFL.ACC and heaven.THE and zemljata. zasˇto se najde zagubeny adam earth.THE because REFL.ACC found.3SG lost.MASC Adam ‘And both heaven and earth rejoiced because the lost Adam was found.’ (Demina 1971: 118) Besides, as in other languages, proper names can be transformed into common nouns by a restrictive attribute, a usage attested in the damaskin, see novy iov˘ı ‘a new Job’ (Demina 1971: 54). The damaskin offers very few examples of unique referents mapped by 1M1 nominals. They are all common inanimate nouns. Even they are not consistently accompanied by the definite article: (442) i pogleda na n[e]bo i videˇ krst˘ı goleˇm˘ı na and looked.3SG on sky and saw cross big on n[e]beto, ot slnceto posveˇti sky.THE from sun.THE more-luminous.MASC ‘And he looked at the sky and saw a large cross on the sky, more luminous that the sun.’ (Demina 1971: 64)

37. Perhaps significantly, Russian chooses to mark overtly unique referents in conjunction with appositive possessives as in the following sentence: (21) On byl blagodaren sud’be za to, cˇto he was.MASC grateful.MASC fate.DAT for that.NEUT what u nego byla ego Natasˇa at him.GEN was.FEM his Natasha ‘He was grateful to fate for having his Natasha.’ (Zalotuxa 2000, 18) Such occurrence of ego ‘his’ violates the general rules of its employment. Replacement with the “correct” svoja Natasˇa is not possible, without implying that there is an identical Natasha for other people as well, which is inherently contradictory if we accept the uniqueness of every human being including Zalotuxa’s character Natasˇa. Contrary to Bulgarian, Russian approaches definiteness from the extreme where it is least ambiguous, even without overt markers. Hausa can serve as an example of a language whose priorities in marking definiteness are similar to those of Bulgarian (Lyons 1999: 52–53).

192

The diachronic model of definiteness

(443) Ami pak˘ı kato i pr˘ıveˇn˘ı napl˘ınixa zemljata su˘s but again as too before filled.3PL earth.THE with cˇjudesa miracles ‘But they again filled the earth with miracles as before.’ (Demina 1971: 113) (444) Ami preˇkloni nebeto, i sleˇze na zemlju but tilted.3SG sky.THE and came-down.3SG on earth.ACC ‘But he tilted the sky and came down to earth.’ (Demina 1971: 162) (445) zasˇto sl[˘ı]nceto ide ot desna strana, a because sun.THE comes from right.FEM side whereas lunata ot leva moon.THE from left.FEM ‘Because the sun rises from the right side and the moon from the left’ (Demina 1971: 258) Other common nouns that – at least in some ideological discourses – denote unique referents are always used without the definite article: b[o]g˘ı ‘God’ (discussed in some detail in section 2.2.4), dïavol˘ı ‘devil’, rai ‘paradise’, ad˘ı ‘hell’, sveˇt˘ı ‘world’. Proper names are not accompanied by the article either, even those of them that today normally would be, as in the following example: (446) i su˘bra voiska i pojde na dunav˘ı da and gathered.3SG troops and went.3SG on Danube to s[e] bie su˘s teˇx REFL.ACC fight.3SG with them.ACC ‘And he gathered troops and went to the Danube to fight with them.’ (Demina 1971: 64) From the point of view of current norms, particularly striking is the absence of nominals of type 4M1-1 in this category (but see section 5.5 for further insights). (447) Velikyi c[a]r˘ı iustinïan˘ı vu˘ edno vreˇme Great.MASC emperor Justinian in one.NEUT time pomysli da uzme ot mosˇtite s[ve]t[o]mu thought.3SG to take.3SG from relics.THE saint.DAT

Process 6

193

dimitrïju Demetrius.DAT ‘The great emperor Justinian at one time thought to take from St. Demetrius’ relics.’ (Demina 1971: 108) (448) Ami zavistlyvi dïavol˘ı videˇ kak˘ı otst˘ıpat but envious.MASC devil saw.3SG how step-away.3PL ot nego i prixodet˘ı ku˘ b[og]u. stori da from him.ACC and come.3PL to God.DAT made.3SG to povdign˘ı ogn˘ı i zapali irov˘ı dom˘ı raise.3SG fire and set-on-fire.3SG Ir.ADJ.MASC house ‘But the envious devil saw that [people] desert him and come to God and provoked a fire and set Ir’s house on fire.’ (Demina 1971: 289) (449) i padnu˘ mr˘ıtv˘ı mr˘ısny lïo and fell.3SG dead.MASC filthy.MASC Lio ‘And the filthy Lio fell down dead.’ (Demina 1971: 103) (450) i carstvuvasˇe vu˘ velikyi rim˘ı and was-governing.3SG in great.MASC Rome ‘And he was governing in the great Rome’ (Demina 1971: 70) The conclusion that we have to draw is that unique referents were incorporated into the sphere of action of the definite article after the damaskin was compiled. In the language of the damaskin the expansion to this environment was at the very beginning of Phase I. Important from a balkanological perspective is that Bulgarian even today lags behind the other Balkan languages, which tend to employ definite articles with proper names of persons and places much more consistently. Unique referents (including those whose uniqueness is situational) can be replaced in reported speech with 0M9 (edi-koj si) or 1M9 (edi-koja si godina) (cf. Nicolova 1986: 174–175, Osenova 1999 with further bibliography), forms with a lengthy attested history but no precise counterparts in the other Slavic languages (BER 1: 478). What makes the existence of a pronominal unique referent remarkable is that it enables speakers to keep unique referents at all times separate from other types of descriptions, even if they choose to discard the particular expressions that refer to these unique referents. These nominals are used in the damaskin almost in the same way as in Standard Bulgarian:

194

The diachronic model of definiteness

(451) I pojdoxa su˘seˇdete neiny na patrïarxa and went.3PL neighbours.THE her.PL on patriarch.ACC aleksandrˇıskago. i rekoxa mu. Alexandria.ADJ.MASC.ACC and said.3PL to-him.CL.DAT Vl[a]d[i]ko s[ve˛]tyi ede koa bludnica kazˇe bishop.VOC holy.MASC so-and-so.FEM whore says krˇıstena smˇı, a tïa krˇıstnika ne ima baptized.FEM am1SG whereas she god-father.ACC not has ‘And her neighbours went to the Patriarch of Alexandria and said to him: Holy Father, the whore so-and-so says “I am baptized” but she does not have a god-father.’ (Demina 1971: 137; further examples on pp. 138, 167; in the togiva section on pp. 206, 212) The fragment in (451) shows that in the seventeenth century nominals of type 0M9 and 1M9 were also part of reported speech but they had not yet incorporated the reflexive clitic si as a compulsory component.38

3.10. Beyond the definite article With this last process, we have completed the overview of the environments in which the definite article can be employed. These environments belong to the specific definite (individuative and quantitative), generic quantitative and unique descriptions, marked on Figure 4 in the lower part of the circle. It is time now to move to the area of predominant action of the nominals of type U. If the marked nominals represent identifiability, inclusiveness and quantitative genericity, the bare unmarked nominals are the sign of non-identifiability, non-inclusiveness and typifying genericity. The question to be addressed next pertains to the delimitation of categories. What is the relation between non-identifiability and non-inclusiveness, on the one hand, and indefiniteness and non-specificity, on the other? Are there any formal indicators that distinguish between indefinite, non-specific and typifying descriptions? Surely, if there are no such indicators (and I use the term broadly to cover any language manifestations), one cannot prove that the existence of these descriptions is anything but hypothetical. My model, however, claims to correspond to the model of definiteness held by

38. See section 3.14.2 for more details about the reflexive si.

Beyond the definite article

195

Figure 4. Overview of the semantic-referential level of the default inheritance model

speakers of Bulgarian. Typological parallels from languages around the globe (Lyons 1999: 98–99) show that one can have specialized markers of indefiniteness (as in Turkish, Hebrew, Mandarin and Lakota) or non-specificity (as in Persian and Irish) but also markers that do not distinguish between indefinite and non-specific descriptions (as in Cantonese). In order to answer the question about the delimitation of segments, we have to focus first and foremost on nominal types that compete with U nominals. The next two processes deal with two such nominals: 1M2 (edin stol) with its alternatives 4M1-3 (edin du˘rven stol), 8M2-3 (edno kucˇe na su˘seda), 8M3-3 (edno kucˇe na nasˇija su˘sed) and 8M1-3 (edin sin na golemec) (Process 7)39 and 1M3-1 (njakoj cˇovek) (Process 8)40 . But are there no specialized explicit nominals, which would compete with nominals of the U series, to denote typifying genericity? If so, this would be the only type of description lacking its own pronominal expression as our narrative has so far systematically shown. As it turns out, Standard Bulgarian uses nominals 0M3-2 (koj da e), 0M3-3 (kojto i da e), 1M3-2 (koj da e cˇovek) 39. The most detailed analysis of the competition of Ø article and edin in Standard Bulgarian is Stankov 1995 with further bibliography. 40. Koseska-Toszewa and Gargov interpret the semantic contrast between what I call 1M2 and 1M3-1 as that between strong and weak existential quantification (1991: 93–97).

196

The diachronic model of definiteness

and 1M3-3 (kojto i da e cˇovek) to render typifying descriptions. We shall take a look at the expressions of typifying genericity in section 3.13.

3.11. Process 7: non-identifiability The existence of an indefinite article is a controversial issue in the grammar of Standard Bulgarian, a situation that readily finds parallels in other languages.41 Candidate for this role is the quantifier and indefinite pronoun edin ‘one’. I shall call it a quasi-indefinite article, following Lyons (1999: 95).42 The most important argument against the treatment of some of the uses of edin as an indefinite article is that it allegedly appears in free variation with nominals of type U. According to some linguists and the educated public at large, the excessive use of edin is simply a matter of poor taste. These facts point to a linguistic phenomenon undergoing change. I side with the opinion that at least in some positions edin has already installed itself as a mandatory component of language structure. Valentin Stankov goes so far as to argue that there never is free variation between edin and the zero marker of indefiniteness but that the choice can fully be understood only in a broader context (1995: 130–138). Whether or not the mandatory uses are a sufficient ground to label edin an indefinite article is of lesser importance in a theoretical framework in which nominal structure is treated as the expression of definiteness. At this stage, the Bulgarian quasi-indefinite article falls short of Lyons’ requirement that it be the default expression of indefiniteness; in his own words, ‘if we do find an expression which either obligatorily marks any indefinite noun phrase, or normally does so but is absent under certain specifiable conditions, we can take it to be an indefinite article’ (1999: 89). 1M2 (and its alternatives) is indeed in a state of aggressive expansion and in many positions in competition with nominals of the U series, but it is nominals of the U series that are the default expression of indefiniteness in Bulgarian. In order to gauge change between the damaskins and Standard Bulgarian, one can only rely on the mandatory uses of 1M2. The appearance of 1M2 in 41. The Academy of Sciences grammar of the Bulgarian language does not even mention it. It is treated there as an indefinite pronoun (GSBKE 2: 203–204). Arguments for its existence have been offered by Ivancˇev 1957: 514–517; Friedman 1976; Rozˇnovskaja 1979: 106; Maslov 1981: 161–163; Stankov 1984; Mayer 1988: 115–121; Friedman 2003 with further bibliography. The list can be continued. 42. See in the same sense ‘indefinite marker’ in Friedman 2003.

Process 7: non-identifiability

197

positions in which it continues today to be in variation with 1U has a limited heuristic value even if fine semantic distinctions can be proven to exist between variants. Such usage only tells us that it was introduced to these positions prior to the seventeenth century. I will abstain from citing such damaskin examples, but they certainly are available. The use of edin is governed by rules that belong to all levels of the default inheritance model. Its employment is relevant primarily but not exclusively for the indefinite descriptions. I have already shown that the use of 1M2 nominals to refer to indefinite referents is obligatory in modern Bulgarian in contexts, in which these indefinite referents are presented by the speaker as familiar although they remain non-identifiable for the hearer; see (176) and (177). The damaskin provides a large number of examples of such use of 1M2 nominals. (452) edna rabota sˇto e storena tuka treˇbuva da one.FEM matter that is done.FEM here requires to se ispravi REFL.ACC straighten.3SG ‘A matter that has been settled here needs to be straightened out.’ (Demina 1971: 197; further examples: 54, 55, 60, 61, 67, 105–106, 107, 166) There are also, however, examples in which nominals of U type denote the topic, and this choice seems incorrect from the point of view of current norms: (453) i cˇl[ove]ci kato videˇxa oti se zapali and persons as saw.3PL that REFL.ACC set-on-fire cr[˘ı]kvata, tekoxa da ju ugaset˘ı church.THE ran.3PL to her.ACC extinguish.3PL ‘And (some) people when they saw that the church was on fire, ran to put it out.’ (Demina 1971: 109; another example on p. 76) It is obvious to a speaker of Standard Bulgarian that 1U cˇl[ove]ci cannot remain unaltered: to be indefinite it will have to be replaced with 1M2, to be definite with 1M1. As the context allows both interpretations and we have no way of knowing which one was intended by the speaker, this is an example of a communication breakdown provoked by different treatments of the topic position by the two consecutive varieties of Bulgarian. In my translation of the sentence into English, I gave preference to the indefinite reading. Either way, in the seventeenth century edin was in the process of introduction to the

198

The diachronic model of definiteness

topic position even if nominals of type U and 1M2 continued to be in competition. Moving down to the semantic level, one comes across other environments in which the occurrence of a 1M2 nominal to refer to an indefinite referent is mandatory. These are all contexts for which a three-way contrast is in place. In cases when a nominal can only have two readings (such as individuative vs. indefinite or quantitative individuative vs. non-specific), the definite article is sufficient to disambiguate the nominal. The need for a second marker arises if a nominal is susceptible to three readings. I shall list the uses of 1M2 (and its alternatives) in the following order: (A) indefinites vs. typifying descriptions and (B) indefinites vs. non-specifics. This sequence also coincides with a gradual reduction of the gap between contrasting descriptions: as we move from the first use to the second, the difference becomes easier to disregard because it is smaller. (A) Adverbials can frequently be of three kinds: typifying, individuative and indefinite, or in other words generic vs. specific (identifiable specific vs. non-identifiable specific). Formally, the contrast between them is realized in Standard Bulgarian as 1U (454) vs. 1M1 (455) vs. 1M2 (456). (454) Te (iskat da) zˇivejat v grad. they want.3PL to live.3PL in city ‘They (want to) live in a city.’ (455) Te zˇivejat they live.3PL ‘They live in the city.’

v in

grada. city.THE

(456) Te zˇivejat v edin grad (njaku˘de v Rumu˘nija). they live.3PL in one.MASC city somewhere in Romania ‘They live in a city (somewhere in Romania).’ In other words, if a nominal of type U has a preferential reading other than indefinite, but speakers need to indicate that it is an indefinite referent that they have in mind, they must use a 1M2 nominal. The damaskin offers many examples of such use of 1M2. Here is a representative selection: (457) i poidoxa na stan˘ı u neˇkoi grad˘ı andropol and went.3PL on camp in some.MASC town Andropol i byxa u edna ku˘sˇta and were in one.FEM house ‘And they camped in a town [called] Andropol and were residing in a house.’ (Demina 1971: 89)

Process 7: non-identifiability

199

(458) i kondisa blizu tamo na edin˘ı grad˘ı and stopped-over.3SG close there on one.MASC town ‘And he stopped over there nearby in a town.’ (Demina 1971: 92) (459) I vu˘ edna nosˇt˘ı, javi mu se and in one.FEM night appeared.3SG him.DAT REFL.ACC s[ve]tyi dimitrïe saint.MASC Demetrius ‘And one night St. Demetrius appeared to him [in his dream].’ (Demina 1971: 108) (460) I agara go, ostavi pod edna elu and Agara him.ACC left.3SG under one.FEM fir-tree.ACC ‘And Agara left him under a fir tree.’ (Demina 1971: 120) The damaskin also offers some instances in which a U nominal stands for a 1M2 nominal: (461) i zasˇto ne imaxu tamo svoe meˇsto togazi and because not had.3PL there own.NEUT place then gde da uleˇzut˘ı. i zatova uleˇzosˇe vu˘ where to enter.3PL and because-of-that entered.3PL in pesˇteru cave.ACC ‘And since they had then no place of their own where they could go, they entered a cave.’ (Demina 1971: 260) (462) i lezˇasˇe podfr˘ılen˘ı na gnoisˇte, deto and was-lying.3SG tossed.MASC on pile-of-garbage where grazˇdane imaxa kupisˇte townsmen had.3PL dunghill ‘And he was lying tossed on a pile of garbage where the townsmen had a dunghill.’ (Demina 1971: 69; other examples on pp. 54 and 78) Another diagnostic environment in which typifying and indefinite descriptions are kept apart by edin is provided by nominals of type 8. (463) Nadzu˘rna prez stu˘kloto na edin sˇevrolet. peeked.3SG through glass.THE of one.MASC Chevrolet ‘He peeked through the glass of a Chevrolet.’ (Rajnov, Part 1)

200

The diachronic model of definiteness

The sentence would become ungrammatical if edin was dropped. In other contexts the nominal stu˘kloto na sˇevrolet can be quite grammatical but then sˇevrolet is taken in its generic meaning: (464) Prozorcite blestjaxa na slu˘nceto kato stu˘kloto windows.THE were-shining.3PL on sun.THE like glass.THE na sˇevrolet. of Chevrolet ‘The windows were shining in the sun like the glass of a Chevrolet.’ To denote a specific referent, one only has at one’s disposal 8M4-1 as in (463) for indefinites and 8M2-1 as in (465) for individuatives. (465) Nadzu˘rna prez stu˘kloto na sˇevroleta. peeked.3SG through glass.THE of Chevrolet.THE ‘He peeked through the glass of the Chevrolet.’ Since this particular contrast cannot be expressed by the opposition of nominals of type 8M1-1 (ucˇiteljat po istorija) and 8M2-1 (sestrata na domakinjata) alone, the use of 8M4-1 (sinu˘t na edin golemec) was imposed as a marker of the indefiniteness of the referent expressed by the dependent noun. I did not come across such examples of 8M4-1 in the damaskin. The contrast of focal typifying generics and indefinites in the object position was illustrated by Svetomir Ivancˇev (1957: 521) with the following examples: (466) Toj xvu˘rli kamu˘k (a ne tuxla). He threw.3SG stone but not brick ‘It was a stone he threw, not a brick.’ (467) Toj xvu˘rli edin kamu˘k. He threw.3SG one.MASC stone ‘He threw a stone.’ It is required on the pragmatic level of the default inheritance model that indefinites familiar to the speaker but non-identifiable by the hearer be rendered by a 1M2 nominal. In order to keep indefinites as in (467) distinct from typifying generics as in (466), a requirement of the semantic-referential level, they are expressed by 1M2 nominals if they are presented as novel in the universe of discourse. Thus 1M2 nominals can appear both as topic and as focus but for reasons that pertain to different levels of the default inheritance model. Yet another common ground for typifying, definite and indefinite nominals is the syntactic position of the predicative nominal. In equational sentences, the opposition between definites and indefinites is rendered by 1M1

Process 7: non-identifiability

201

(or an alternative) vs. 1M2. The use of a nominal of type U is a sign that a characterizing reading of the sentence is intended. Since the difference between equational and characterizing sentences is frequently perceived as a stylistic rather than a grammatical one, this has implications for the use of both 1M1 and 1M2. The tendency is to replace equational sentences with characterizing ones whenever possible. It was not easy to find examples with 1M2 in the predicative position that cannot be replaced with 1U. Svetoslav Minkov uses such equational sentences – cf. (468) and (469) – but I am sure that some speakers will try to dismiss this usage simply as sloppy style. (468) No nali vie ste samo edna but INTERROG you.2PL are.2PL only one.FEM izmislena licˇnost, geroj na roman i nisˇto invented.FEM person character of novel and nothing povecˇe? more ‘But you are just an invented person, a fiction character and nothing more, aren’t you?’ (Minkov, Kakvo mozˇe da se slucˇi nosˇtem) (469) Naku˘so kazano, maestro Cˇezario Galfone besˇe briefly said.NEUT maestro Cesario Galfone was.3SG edna svru˘xestestvena licˇnost, cˇijto zˇivot one.FEM supernatural.FEM personality whose.MASC life be posveten izcjalo v sluzˇba na was.3SG devoted.MASC completely in service of slabija pol ot xajlajfnoto obsˇtestvo. weak.MASC.THE sex of high-life.NEUT.THE society ‘In a nutshell, maestro Cesario Galfone was a supernatural personality, whose life was devoted exclusively to the service of the weak sex of upper society.’ (Minkov, Damata s rentgenovite ocˇi) My intuition is that the more elaborately modified the nominal, the less likely it will be to avoid the determiner edin. In other words, it will rather be nominals of type 4M1-3, 8M4-1 and 9M4 than 1M2 that will be perceived by speakers as acceptable in this position. Examples (468) and (469) containing nominals of type 4M1-3 and 9M4, respectively, confirm such a view. This situation also has parallels in other languages (Lyons 1999: 104). By offering some instances of 1M2 in the predicate position, the damaskin dates the usage as older than the seventeenth century:

202

The diachronic model of definiteness

(470) koi sm˘ı az˘ı edin˘ı gresˇnik˘ı u g[ospod]a who.MASC am I one.MASC sinner in lord.ACC b[og]a i ot sicˇki cˇl[ove]ci naigreˇsˇen˘ı God.ACC and from all.PL persons most-sinful.MASC ‘Who am I? A sinner in front of the Lord, most sinful of all people.’ (Demina 1971: 143) (471) i tïa jm˘ı r[e]cˇe. edna greˇsnica esm˘ı and she them.DAT told.3SG one.FEM sinner.FEM am ‘And she told them: “I am a sinner.”’ (Demina 1971: 138) Both typifying generics and indefinites can occur in modal, interrogative and negative contexts and they are marked by nominals of the U series and 1M2 (and alternatives), respectively. (472) Toj si e taku˘v. Kato si naumi he REFL.DAT is such.MASC once REFL.DAT decides nesˇto ne mozˇesˇ da go razubedisˇ. Ne something not can.2SG to him.ACC dissuade.2SG not iska da cˇue nito duma. wants to hears not word ‘He is like that. Once he has made up his mind, you cannot dissuade him. He doesn’t want to hear a single word.’ (473) Ne mozˇa da cˇue nito edna duma ot not could.3SG to hears not one.FEM word of texnija razgovor, zasˇtoto te govorexa their.MASC.THE conversation because they were-talking.3PL mnogo tixo. very quietly ‘He wasn’t able to hear a word of the conversation, because they were talking very quietly.’ The damaskin offers such examples. In a long paragraph that discusses how it was possible that the meal Jesus Christ shared with his disciples after his resurrection (Luke 24: 41–43) did not produce any material waste, this waste is compared to a crumb:

Process 7: non-identifiability

203

(474) oti nicˇto ni edna troxa mozˇe because nothing neither one.FEM crumb can.3SG osta ot ogn˘ı b[o]zˇ[es]tv[e]nnyi remain.INF from fire divine.MASC ‘Because nothing, not even a crumb, can remain from the divine fire.’ (Demina 1971: 303) Further examples of such interactions of the material and spiritual worlds are given, among them the offering the prophet Gideon (Judges 6: 21) burnt without trace: (475) i b[og]˘ı mu prïe m[o]lbata. i pusti and God him.DAT accepted.3SG prayer.THE and sent.3SG b[o]zˇ[e]stv[e]nnyi ogn˘ı. i izgori ju. i ne divine.MASC fire and burnt.3SG her.ACC and not videˇ se napokon˘ı ni troxa ni pepel˘ı saw.3SG REFL.ACC afterwards neither crumb nor ash ‘And God accepted his prayer and sent divine fire and burnt it [the offering] and neither crumb nor ash could be seen afterwards.’ (Demina 1971: 303) These occurrences of 1M2 edna troxa and 1U troxa in negative contexts can be interpreted as having different readings, parallel to those in (472) and (473), respectively. A clear illustration of this usage of 1M2 is the following: (476) i pak˘ı meˇtaxu kamenïe i ni edin˘ı and again threw.3PL stones and neither one.MASC kamik˘ı ne udari ioanna stone not hit.3SG John.ACC ‘And they again threw stones and not a single stone hit John.’ (Demina 1971: 82) My data are not numerically strong and it is difficult to judge on their basis how well rooted the usage was in the seventeenth century. If we are to take into account how elusive the difference between the two types of nominals in this context is even in our days, we can probably conclude that this was an early stage of the introduction of 1M2 to this position. (B) Indefinite referents in the informative register have to be marked by 1M2 to disambiguate them from non-specifics since that would be the default reading of a nominal of type U in this register.

204

The diachronic model of definiteness

(477) V posledno vreme cˇesto se slucˇva da in last.NEUT time often REFL.ACC happens to sresˇtna na ulicata prosjak. meet.1SG on street.THE beggar ‘Recently, it has often happened that I meet a beggar in the street.’ (478) V posledno vreme cˇesto se slucˇva da sresˇtna in last.NEUT time often REFL.ACC happens to meet.1SG na ulicata edin prosjak. Toj e star i on street.THE one.MASC beggar he is old.MASC and bedno oblecˇen cˇovek. poorly dressed.MASC person ‘Recently, it has often happened that I meet a certain beggar in the street. He is an old and poorly dressed man.’ Here the opposition is between 1M2 for non-identifiability and 1U for noninclusiveness. I did not come across examples of such a use of 1M2 in the damaskin. Beyond the indefinite category of descriptions, nominals of type 1M2 are also employed in Standard Bulgarian as markers of typifying generics (Maslov 1981: 162). Here is an illustration: (479) Edinstvenijat svidetel, kojto bi mogu˘l only.MASC.THE witness who.MASC would.3SG able.MASC da izdade tajnata na gospodarja si, be to betrays secret.THE of master.THE REFL.DAT was.3SG Dzˇanka, no kucˇeto njamasˇe da stori tova, Dzˇanka but dog.THE not-had.3SG to does this.NEUT zasˇtoto edno kucˇe nikoga ne izdava tajnite na because one.NEUT dog never not betrays secrets.THE of gospodarja si. master.THE REFL.DAT ‘The only witness, who might have been able to betray the secret of his master, was Dzˇanka, but the dog was not going to do that, because a dog never gives away the secrets of his master.’ (Radicˇkov 1980: 24) This use of edin is referential. It is only possible in environments in which nominals of U type cannot (anymore) perform the typifying function. In other words 1M2 (and its alternatives) do not compete with the U type but appear in

Process 7: non-identifiability

205

a complementary distribution with it. The choice of an appropriate expression is made on the syntactic level. Typifying adverbials and predicates are represented by nominals of type U; typifying subjects and objects, on the other hand, increasingly by 1M2. In these syntactic positions the definite article can have a quantitative generic reading as well but, as mentioned earlier, there is a difference between a quantitative and a typifying generic reading. The definite article points to the whole class, whereas typifying edin emphasizes the typical features of the class as the essence of (one of) its individual representatives, not identified and non-identifiable. One example can illustrate this difference between quantitative (480) and typifying (481) generics: (480) Tija dumi zvuchat smesˇno v ustata na these words sound.3PL funny in mouth.THE of bu˘lgarina. Bulgarian.MASC.THE ‘Those words sound funny coming from Bulgarians [as a class].’ (481) Tija dumi zvuchat smesˇno v ustata na these words sound.3PL funny in mouth.THE of edin bu˘lgarin. one.MASC Bulgarian.MASC ‘Those words sound funny coming from a Bulgarian [if that’s what s/he is].’ The typifying function of 1M2 is attested in the damaskin: (482) ami s[ve]tyi dimitrïe gotov˘ı pomosˇtnik˘ı. but saint.MASC Demetrius ready.MASC helper naprasno se javi kato edna mlu˘nïa immediately REFL.ACC appeared as one.FEM lightning po stenyte dzidovvny along walls.THE mural.PL ‘But St. Demetrius [is] a ready helper. He appeared right away like a lightning on the fortified walls.’ (Demina 1971: 109) (483) neˇ e pravedno nam˘ı taka da cˇinime ednomu˘ not is right.ADV us.DAT so to do.1PL one.DAT cˇl[ove]ku cˇjuzˇdincu˘ person.DAT stranger.DAT ‘It is not right for us to behave like this to a stranger.’ (Demina 1971: 289)

206

The diachronic model of definiteness

Moving again one rung down on the ladder of the default inheritance model, one can observe on the lexical-morphological level another function of edin that it only performs with particular word classes. I shall focus my attention on three categories of nouns, whose categorial classification does not allow an indefinite reading. Such are unique referents, abstract and mass nouns. A unique referent can be transformed into an indefinite member of a set by adding edin (Maslov 1981: 162–163): (484) Toj uspokoi razvu˘lnuvanata devojka s he calmed-down.3SG agitated.FEM.THE girl with tu˘rzˇestvenoto obesˇtanie, cˇe sˇte napravi ot neja solemn.NEUT.THE promise that will makes of her.ACC nepodrazˇaema boginja na xubostta – edna inimitable.FEM goddess of beauty.THE one.FEM fenomenalna Venera na dvajsetija vek, phenomenal.FEM Venus of twentieth.MASC.THE century s parafineni gu˘rdi i s rentgenovi ocˇi. with paraffin.ADJ.PL breasts and with X-ray.ADJ.PL eyes ‘He calmed down the agitated girl with the solemn promise to make out of her an inimitable goddess of beauty – a phenomenal Venus of the twentieth century with paraffin breasts and X-ray eyes.’ (Minkov, Damata s rentgenovite ocˇi) The damaskin does not provide examples of such a use of 1M2 nominals. Whereas count nominals of the U series have a default indefinite reading, unmarked abstract nouns denote the corresponding abstract notion in general. By using a 1M2 nominal (or one of its alternatives) a speaker can point unambiguously to an instance, a manifestation of the abstract notion. In other words, regarding abstract nouns, there are three sets of oppositions, listed below in Table 34: Table 34. Expression of abstract notions Graphic Register

Indefinite (1M2)

Individuative (1M1)

Informative Register

Non-Specific (1M3-1/1U)

Quantitative Individuative (1M1)

Gnomic Register

Typifing (1U)

Quantitative Generic (1M1)

Differences between registers are only partially marked on the nominals. An abstract 1M1 nominal can function without limitations in any text register.

Process 7: non-identifiability

207

Which reading is intended becomes clear only under the impact of context. This is how this system of oppositions works in Standard Bulgarian: Indefinite (1M2): (485) Nito edna nespravedlivost ne ponese po-tezˇko not one.FEM injustice not endured.3SG more-heavily ot tazi. than this.FEM ‘This injustice was harder for him to endure than any other.’ Individuative (1M1): (486) Blagodarixa j za dobroto, koeto im thanked.3PL her.DAT for good.THE which them.DAT besˇe storila. was.3SG done.FEM ‘They thanked her for the good turn she had done for them.’ Non-Specific (1M3-1/1U): (487) Dokato ne napravi (njakoe) zlo na njakogo until not does (some) wrong to someone.ACC ne se uspokojava. not REFL.ACC calms.down ‘He does not rest until he has harmed someone.’ Quantitative Individuative (1M1): (488) Vsjaka sutrin kato se su˘budi every.FEM morning as REFL.ACC wakes-up izpitva radostta, cˇe e zˇiv. experiences joy.THE that is alive.MASC ‘Every morning as he wakes up, he feels happy that he is alive.’ Typifying (1U): (489) Ako cˇovek placˇe ot radost, su˘rceto ne go if person cries from joy heart.THE not him.ACC boli. hurts ‘If one cries with joy, one’s heart does not hurt.’

208

The diachronic model of definiteness

Quantitative Generic (1M1): (490) Zloto lesno idva, no mu˘cˇno si evil.THE easily comes but with-difficulty REFL.DAT otiva. goes ‘Evil comes easily, but leaves with difficulty.’ Statistics mentioned but not cited earlier in this study show that abstracts were not treated differently from concrete nouns in the damaskin in regard to the definite article (cf. section 3.4). We can therefore conclude on the basis of the testimony of examples in the informative register such as (491) that the whole system was already in place in the seventeenth century. These words are addressed by a widowed mother to her son: (491) ami b[og]˘ı taka dade da si ti syracˇe po but god so give.3SG to are.2SG you orphan after negovata su˘mr˘ıt˘ı. i az vdovica. ami pak˘ı ne his.ADJ.FEM.THE death and I widow but again not by mene ni edno zlo ili neˇkoa nivolja, was me.DAT neither one.NEUT evil or some.FEM plight da povtareˇm za drugygo muzˇa to repeat for another.MASC.ACC husband.ACC ‘But this is what God ordained for you – to become an orphan after his death – and me – a widow. But again no evil or plight happened to me [forcing me] to remarry another man.’ (Demina 1971: 141) The use of the indefinite article with mass nouns has attracted the attention of many scholars (Chesterman 1991: 7, 41–44). Nominal 1M2 and its alternatives follow the same pattern that was outlined above for abstract nouns. Example (328) in its second (individuative) reading is contrasted with an indefinite: (492) Toj izpi edno mljako. he drank.3SG one.NEUT milk ‘He drank a [glass of] milk.’ Even though this “portion” reading appears to be less readily available to English, there too one can use mass nouns as if they were count nouns (Lyons 1999: 9, 188). Such a nominal can also have, given an appropriate context, another reading, familiar from other languages such as English: that of “variety” as in the following example:

Process 8: non-inclusiveness

209

(493) Vu˘v Vidinskija kraj pravjat edno in Vidin.ADJ.MASC.THE region make.3PL one.NEUT vino, koeto se kazva ‘gu˘mza’. wine which.NEUT REFL.ACC calls gumza ‘In the surroundings of Vidin they make a wine called “Gumza”.’ The damaskin does not offer examples of the use of edin˘ı with mass nouns. Summarizing the process of expansion of 1M2 and its alternatives, we can conclude that the situation in the damaskin is much closer to the current state of affairs than one would expect. Statistics on the basis of five homilies (No.No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) show that 24 out of 29 or 82.76 % of the expected mandatory 1M2 nominals were already in place in the seventeenth century. This situates them in Phase III of the expansion of 1M2 to these positions. The intuition of linguists regarding edin has been that it is a very recent innovation. Opinions about its expansion under the influence of poor translations from the West European languages have repeatedly been expressed, and they point indirectly to a late nineteenth- and twentieth-century chronology of the phenomenon. This study pushes the starting point of this process at least two centuries back.

3.12. Process 8: non-inclusiveness The distinction between indefinites and non-specifics is twofold: the nonspecific is, on one hand, such an indefinite member of a set whose identity remains unknown and whose very existence is not taken for granted and, on the other hand, the series of indefinite members of a set that fill a given slot at different moments in time. Non-specifics are, therefore, second-order indefinites. In both subvarieties non-inclusiveness is what makes non-specifics what they are. The difference between them is context-dependent: the “hypothetical” variety appears in the so-called opaque contexts, whereas “habitual” non-specifics obtain in transparent contexts. The opaque contexts typically involve verbs of volition, interrogative and negative sentences, future tense and modality, conditional and – particularly interesting in the case of Bulgarian – renarrated mood. Logicians explain the non-specific reading that arises in opaque contexts as the outcome of the inclusion of the existential quantifier in the scope of the logical operator deemed to characterize the specific type of sentence. Transparent contexts do not place the existential quantifier in the scope of a logical operator and thus present the corresponding referent as existing (Lyons 1999: 166–172).

210

The diachronic model of definiteness

Non-specifics are typically expressed by nominals of type U. The damaskin provides many examples that match current usage. One illustration of each subtype will suffice. A non-specific in an opaque context: (494) ami g[ospod]i b[ozˇ]e moj poveli agg[e]lu but Lord.VOC God.VOC my.MASC order.2SG angel.DAT mirno da mi prïemle d[u]sˇu˘ta i da peacefully to me.DAT accept.3SG soul.THE and to mi ne bu˘de zabraneno da uleˇza na me.DAT not be.3SG forbidden.ADV to enter.1SG on tvoe c[a]rstvo ot necˇisti i skvr˘ıny beˇsove your.NEUT kingdom by unholy.PL and vile.PL demons ‘But, my Lord God, order the angel to accept my soul in peace and [let it] not be forbidden to me by unholy and vile demons to enter your kingdom.’ (Demina 1971: 95) A non-specific in a transparent context: (495) iz t˘ımnica zapreˇni ljudïe izvazˇda. i dl˘ızˇni from prison locked-in.PL people takes-out and debtors otkupuva redeems ‘He frees people from prison and redeems debtors.’ (Demina 1971: 92) When the need arises, as under the impact of pragmatic requirements, illustrated for Standard Bulgarian above in (178), a non-specific should be referred to explicitly by a nominal of 1M3-1 type. The damaskin offers instances of such a usage for both subtypes. Transparent context: (496) kazˇu˘t˘ı neˇkoi bezumny ami ako se ne say.3PL some.PL reckless.PL well if REFL.ACC not zakl˘ınem˘ı kak˘ı da se storime i da se swear.1PL how to REFL.ACC do.1PL and to REFL.ACC izbavime ot beda rescue.1PL from trouble ‘Some reckless [people] say, “Well, if we do not take an oath how can we manage to escape from trouble?”’ (Demina 1971: 80)

Process 8: non-inclusiveness

211

Opaque context: (497) ako i gost˘ı neˇkoi doide. a toi ne znae kak˘ı if too guest some.MASC comes but he not knows how da go pogosti, ili da poduma su˘s nego to him.ACC regales or to talks with him.ACC ‘If a visitor came, he wouldn’t know how to regale him or talk to him.’ (Demina 1971: 140) Since the delimitation of indefinites from non-specifics appears to be a more recent phenomenon, there is a certain overlap between the use of nominals of type 1M2 and 1M3-1. Although, as shown above in (478), Standard Bulgarian can use edin to distinguish between indefinites and non-specifics, the damaskin does not offer evidence that the process was underway in the seventeenth century. Moreover, it offers counterevidence that the two segments were perceived as one. In the damaskin 1M2 and 1M3-1 nominals are in competition. Modern Bulgarian disallows this use of njakoj and frowns upon the respective use of edin. Since the use of 1M2 to denote non-specifics is less common, I shall start with it: (498) Tova sicˇkoto cˇjuem seˇky d[e]n˘ı. ami ne this.NEUT all.NEUT.THE hear.1PL every day but not dr˘ızˇim. ami pak˘ı na pr˘ıvata ny hold.1PL but again on first.FEM.THE us.DAT dumat˘ı zlae˛ rabota tecˇem i cˇinim !…" I evil.FEM.ACC matter run.1PL and do.1PL and say.3PL edny cˇl[ove]ci. oti ako se opye, cˇto one.PL persons because if REFL.ACC drink.1SG what cˇinju zlo do.1SG evil ‘All this we hear every day but we do not abide [by it]. Instead we return to our previous bad habits and perform [in accordance with them] !…" And some people say, “Because if I get drunk what misdeed have I done?”’ (Demina 1971: 139; another example on p. 149) Much more frequent is the opposite phenomenon. I shall cite only one instance of a 1M3-1 nominal in a position that today must be filled by a 1M2, as in my Standard-Bulgarian version of this sentence.43 43. For other examples the reader is referred to sentences (247), (248) and (256).

212

The diachronic model of definiteness

(499) i togazi naprasno me grabnu˘xa and then immediately me.ACC grabbed.3PL strasˇnite onïa agg[e]le i su˘vedoxa me fearsome.PL.THE those angels and led-down.3PL me.ACC dolu na neˇkoe t˘ımno i grozno i down on some.NEUT dark.NEUT and ugly.NEUT and strasˇno meˇsto terrible.NEUT place ‘And then those fearsome angels grabbed me right away and led me downward to a dark, ugly and terrible place.’ (Demina 1971: 136) (500) I togava onezi strasˇni angeli me grabnaxa and then those fearsome angels me.ACC grabbed.3PL migom i me zavedoxa dolu na edno in-moment and me.ACC led.3PL down to one.NEUT tu˘mno, grozno i strasˇno dark.NEUT ugly.NEUT and terrible.NEUT

mjasto. place

Opaque contexts in general and sentences in which the verb indicates the reported status of information in particular seem to lag behind in the process of delimitation between indefinites and non-specifics. Even today examples like (501) sound more acceptable than similar use of 1M3-1 in sentences, in which the verb indicates a vouched-for status of information such as (499). The reason is that this is an environment in which the difference between an indefinite and a hypothetical non-specific is made blurry by the explicit admission of the speaker to have no first-hand knowledge of the related facts. (501) byl go navadil˘ı neˇkoi be.PART.MASC him.ACC slander.PART.MASC some.MASC cˇl[ove]k˘ı, savel˘ı person Saul ‘Some man, Saul, had, they say, slandered him.’ (Demina 1971: 65) The massive presence of 1M3-1 as a replacement of 1M2 nominals is highlighted by statistics based on five homilies (No.No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). Out of a total of 44 1M3-1 (njakoj cˇovek) nominals in these homilies, 24 or 54.55 % stand for 1M2 nominals. In other words, the employment of 1M3-1 nominals in the damaskin and in Standard Bulgarian is governed by different norms.

Process 8: non-inclusiveness

213

In Standard Bulgarian, the behaviour of 1M3-1 nominals with component njakoj diverges from that of all the other determiners, pronouns and adverbs, formed with the Proto-Slavic prefix *neˇ- (ESSJ 2: 475–476). As opposed to 1M3-1 njakoj nominals, they all – including 0M3-1 (njakoj), which is much more frequent with an indefinite reading than its 0M2 (edin) counterpart – can have both specific and non-specific readings. Here are examples in support of 44 this claim. Indefinite reading: (502) Cˇu, cˇe njakoj xodi po prusta heard.3SG that someone walks around verandah.THE tezˇko, bavno. heavily slowly ‘He heard that someone was walking heavily and slowly on the verandah.’ (Ivan Vazov – GSBKE 2: 204) (503) Imasˇe da mi govorisˇ nesˇto. had.2SG to me.DAT talk.2SG something ‘You had something to talk to me about.’ (Rajnov, Part 1)44 (504) Toj be zastanal pod navesa na he was.3SG stood.MASC under awning.THE of njakakvo kafene i s vtrencˇen some-kind-of.NEUT coffee-house and with staring.MASC pogled sledesˇe kak du˘zˇdu˘t, vecˇe look was-following.3SG how rain.THE already 44. Today nesˇto ‘thing’ can be a noun, and not a pronoun (BTR-4: 535; Nicolova 1986: 177–178). It can be accompanied by adjectives and can be the head of 1M1 and 1M2 nominals: nesˇtoto ‘the thing’, edno nesˇto ‘a thing’. A similar fate (that, however, was never realized) was awaiting njakoj if we are to consider occurrences like the following: (22) edin˘ı neˇkoj cˇl[ove]k˘ı one.MASC some.MASC person

beˇsˇe ot tojzi was.3SG from this.MASC

sveˇt˘ı umreˇl˘ı world die.PART.MASC ‘A certain person had departed from this world.’ (Demina 1971: 287) (23) i edin˘ı neˇkoi ot teˇx˘ı recˇe and one.MASC some.MASC of them.ACC said.3SG ‘and one of them said’ (Demina 1971: 147; further examples on pp. 130 and 146)

214

The diachronic model of definiteness

poroen, pljusˇti po asfalta torrential.MASC pelts on asphalt.THE ‘He stand under the awning of some kind of a coffee-house and stared at the rain, already torrential, that was pelting on the asphalt.’ (Rajnov, Part 1) Hypothetical reading: (505) Mezˇdu tuj pop Serafim usu˘rdno vu˘rsˇesˇe between this.NEUT priest Seraphim eagerly was-doing.3SG v oltara svojata rabota, kojato ne e tu˘j in altar.THE own.FEM.THE work which.FEM not is so leka, kakto mozˇe da si pomisli njakoj. easy.FEM as may.3SG to REFL.DAT thinks somebody ‘In the meantime Reverend Seraphim eagerly performed in the altar his duties, which are not as easy as somebody may think.’ (Elin Pelin, Izkusˇenie) (506) Po-ku˘sno, ako mozˇete pak da naminete, sˇte gledam later if can.2PL again to drop-in.2PL will see.1SG da vi usluzˇa s osˇte nesˇto. to you.2PL.CL.DAT help.1SG with more something ‘Later if you can drop in again, I’ll try to help you with anything else.’ (Stanev) Habitual reading: (507) Tvu˘rdi se, cˇe na njakoi lekastvoto asserts REFL.ACC that to some.PL medicine.THE im pomaga. them.CL.DAT helps ‘It is asserted that the medicine helps some people.’ (508) Njaku˘de v mraka svetvasˇe svetulka, napisvasˇe somewhere in dark.THE flashed.3SG firefly drew.3SG s ognena cˇerta njakaku˘v znak, with fire.ADJ.FEM line some-kind-of.MASC sign njakakva tajna duma, i ugasvasˇe. some-kind-of.FEM secret.FEM word and went-out.3SG ‘A firefly would flash somewhere in the dark, draw some sign with a fire line, some secret word, and go out.’ (Jovkov)

Process 8: non-inclusiveness

215

Moreover, as recently as the nineteenth century, 1M3-1 njakoj nominals too could be used to denote specific referents: (509) – Udrjajte! Izbjagna! Pazete se, shoot.IMPER.2PL ran-away.3SG defend.2PL REFL.ACC revolver vadi! – se slusˇaxa po-natatu˘k drugi revolver pulls-out REFL.ACC heard.3PL further other.PL glasove i okolo desjatina pusˇki izgu˘rmjaxa ot voices and around ten-or-so riffles fired.3PL from edin pu˘t. Tova besˇe njakoj one.MASC time this.NEUT was.3SG some.MASC turcˇin, kojto, podplasˇen ot dvizˇenieto, Turk.MASC who.MASC startled.MASC by movement.THE bjagasˇe bezsu˘znatelno, naku˘deto was-running unconsciously where-to

mu vidjat him.DAT see.3PL

ocˇite. eyes.THE ‘“Shoot! He ran away! Look out – he is pulling a revolver out!” Other voices were heard in the distance and ten rifles or so were fired at the same time. That was some Turk, who, startled by the movement, was running unconsciously, helter-skelter.’ (Stojanov, Chapter 2.5) Now such a use is reserved to the composite 1M3-1 njakoj si nominals, sometimes with a certain derogatory connotation (GSBKE 2: 205). As mentioned in section 3.9, the reflexive particle si is a component of other determiners as well.45 The derogatory connotation stems from the fact that a referent known to the speaker is deliberately presented as unknown. By making such a choice, the speaker implies that s/he does not even want to know the identity of the referent. If its identity is so unimportant, the referent itself cannot be significant for the speaker.

45. Nicolova considers (after L. Sadnik, R. Aitzetmüller and J. Gebauer) that si in njakoj si is probably identical with the reflexive dative clitic (1986: 172), a hypothesis that is for me more plausible for semantic reasons than the alternative view, according to which si is a concessive particle (GSBKE 2: 497; ESSJ 2: 607). For more details about the functions of the reflexive dative clitic with pronouns the reader is referred to section 3.14.2.

216

The diachronic model of definiteness

(510) Edin nasˇ bu˘lgarin, kojto one.MASC our.MASC Bulgarian.MASC who.MASC bil ovcˇar pri njakoj si been.MASC shepherd at some.MASC PARTICLE aga ot okolnite sela i na Turkish-patron from surrounding.PL.THE villages and to kogoto momcˇetata vzeli ovcete, ne se whom lads.THE taken.PL sheep.PL.THE not REFL.ACC zabavi da se javi pred vojvodata delayed.3SG to REFL.ACC appears in-front-of chiftain.THE s protest. with protest ‘A Bulgarian of ours, who was a shepherd for a certain Turkish patron from the surrounding villages and whose sheep the lads had taken, did not delay in appearing before the chieftain with a complaint.’ (Stojanov, Chapter 2.5) (511) Njakoj si Deli Mustafa, pu˘darin ot some.MASC PARTICLE Deli Mustafa field-keeper from Erkecˇ, vliza v doma na Karaivana ot Zagore i Erkech enters in home of Karaivan.ACC from Zagore and iznasilva izvestnata su˘s svojata xubost rapes famous.FEM.THE with own.FEM.THE beauty Karaivanica. Karaivan-wife ‘A certain Deli Mustafa, a field-keeper from Erkech, enters the home of Karaivan from Zagore and rapes his wife, well-known for her beauty.’ (Xajtov 1972: 122)

Process 8: non-inclusiveness

217

The composite 1M3-1 nominal is attested in the damaskin: (512) I nakani se vednu˘sˇt˘ı da ide po and planned.3SG REFL.ACC once to go.3SG after neˇkoa si rabota i poide u cr[˘ı]kvata some.FEM PART business and went.3SG in church.THE s[ve]tomu nikolu saint.MASC.DAT Nicholas.DAT ‘And once he was planning to go away [called] by some business and he went to the St. Nicholas Church.’ (Demina 1971: 179) We can thus see that in the contemporary language the specific/non-specific contrast in the realm of nominals of type 0M3-1 is expressed by the opposition of njakoj si and njakoj. These data also show that initially all derivatives with the prefix *neˇ- did not distinguish indefinites from non-specifics.46 The 1M3-1 njakoj nominal in the singular is used today most frequently in the informative register. Its counterpart in the graphic register is 1M2. In the plural the meaning of these nominals is so similar that the opinion has been expressed that 1M3-1 njakoi is the suppletive plural of 1M2 nominals in the singular (Rå Hauge 199: 68). The claim was supported with the following example: (513) Osven tova trjabva da uredja njakoi raboti beside this.NEUT must to arrange.1SG some.PL matters predi da tru˘gna. before to leave.1SG ‘Apart from that I need to put some things in order before I leave.’ The ‘rare’ use of 1M2 edni is illustrated as follows: (514) – Ku˘de besˇe? where were.2SG – Bjax na gosti u edni was.1SG on guests at one.PL ‘Where were you?’ ‘I was visiting some friends.’

prijateli. friends

46. Nicolova claims that this state of affairs continues to characterize the standard language today (1986: 176).

218

The diachronic model of definiteness

To understand the situation, one should note that edni raboti one.PL matters can fill in for njakoi raboti in (513), whereas njakoi prijateli some.PL friends in (514) is ungrammatical. These examples highlight again the relevance of the contrast between opaque and transparent contexts for the distribution of 1M2 and 1M3-1 nominals. Sentence (513) provides a modal context in which njakoi sounds slightly better than edni. The reason for this is, in my opinion, purely pragmatic. The use of edni violates Grice’s second maxim of quantity: ‘Do not make your contribution more informative than required.’ Edni makes the things that need to be put in order sound quite specific47 but the hearer is not told what they are. Is it because they have to be kept secret from the hearer? It is in the best interest of communication to avoid teasing by means of such unnecessary innuendos. This is achieved by using the non-specific njakoi. I argue, therefore, that njakoi in (513) continues to be non-specific. In transparent contexts such as the actual world utterance in the graphic register in (514), no competition between edni and njakoi is possible. We can conclude that the shrinking use of 1M3-1 nominals is indeed a very recent phenomenon. Today they have almost been ousted from the indefinite category and are limited to non-specifics. In the damaskin they could not only appear as indefinites but could even be used as typifying generics as in (515), a position in which today they would most likely be replaced by 1M2 or 1U. This is the beginning of an elaborate simile of church holidays with an imaginary garden: (515) Prilicˇnny s˘ı cr[˘ı]kovnyte prazdnici similar.PL are.3PL church.ADJ.PL.THE holidays bl[ago]sl[o]venïi xr[i]stïane. kato neˇkoa goleˇma blessed.PL Christians as some.FEM big.FEM ograda cˇto e nasadena v˘ıtreˇ ot seˇkakvo garden that is planted.FEM inside of all-kind-of.NEUT cveˇte mirizlivo flower.COLLECT fragrant ‘The church holidays, blessed Christians, are similar to a big garden that has been planted inside with all kind of fragrant flowers.’ (Demina 1971: 256)

47. As Valentin Stankov indicates, the plural edni not only points to a specific (indefinite) referent but also by the same token shows that the speaker wants to add supplementary information about the referent (1995: 126).

Typifying genericity

219

3.13. Typifying genericity If quantifying genericity is the continuation of inclusive definiteness, typifying genericity is the extension of non-inclusivity into the generic domain. We have seen that typifying generics are difficult to distinguish from non-specifics in some contexts. Let us now survey the explicit and emphatic expressions of typifying genericity in Bulgarian. Traditionally considered indefinite pronouns, nominals 0M3-2 (koj da e), 0M3-3 (kojto i da e), 1M3-2 (koj da e cˇovek) and 1M3-3 (kojto i da e cˇovek), treated in most detail in Nicolova 1986: 171–174 and Osenova 2002: 82–94, express in fact typifying genericity. My presentation here summarizes the outcomes of detailed research (Mladenova 2006a), which demonstrates that as expressions of typifying genericity these nominals compete with nominals of the U series in opaque contexts and function as focus particles. The following grammatical sentences show this contrast in action: in (517) with its 1U nominal the focus is on the verb naucˇisˇ, whereas in (516) it is on the 1M3-3 nominal kojto i da e cˇuzˇd ezik. (516) Na mladi godini e lesno da naucˇisˇ kojto i da e on young.PL years is easy to learn.2SG whichever.MASC cˇuzˇd ezik. foreign.MASC language ‘It is easy to learn any foreign language at a young age.’ (517) Na mladi godini e lesno da naucˇisˇ cˇuzˇd on young.PL years is easy to learn.2SG foreign.MASC ezik. language ‘It is easy to learn a foreign language at a young age.’ The explicit typifying nominals have core and peripheral uses. The core ones stand their ground and allow no competition, whereas at the periphery, the neighbouring segments (quantitative generics, on one hand, and non-specifics, on the other) may offer alternative interpretations with the corresponding semantic adjustments. So, it is on the semantic level that contrasts with other explicit expressions are realized but the contrasts with nominals of the U series are decided upon on the pragmatic level, the focus position favouring and even requiring explicit typifying nominals. If, at least according to some conservative speakers of Standard Bulgarian, this discussion exhausts the functions of 0M3-3 and 1M3-3 nominals,

220

The diachronic model of definiteness

attested since the nineteenth century, the older 0M3-2 and 1M3-2 nominals, evidence of which dates back to the eighteenth century (Svisˇtov damaskin, Mileticˇ 1923: 76, 101), have a broader employment. Their range of action and specialization are circumscribed by two conversational implicatures: existential and scalar. The existential implicature (which they share with 0M3-3 and 1M3-3 nominals) presents its description as a member of a set of which the sentence is true. In other words, it corresponds to the definition of typifying genericity. The scalar implicature assigns to the respective nominal the least likely position on an imaginary scale of likelihood. These two implicatures may act on their own or in conjunction with each other. It appears that the evolution of the overt markers of typifying genericity passed through the following chronological stages: [Stage 1] existential implicature; [Stage 2] existential implicature acting on its own or in conjunction with scalar implicature; [Stage 3] existential and scalar implicature acting on their own or in conjunction with each other. As soon as scalar reading divorced from existential implicature becomes an option for a certain type of nominal – which happens in Stage 3 – this is a sign that the respective nominal has expanded its domain beyond typifying genericity. I will illustrate the three possible readings with an instance of 1M3-2 each: existential reading in (518), existential & scalar reading in (519) and, finally, scalar reading in (520). (518) Popitajte koj da e cˇinovnik ot ask.2PL.IMPER any.MASC bureaucrat from Ministerskija su˘vet i sˇte se ministerial.MASC.THE council and will REFL.ACC ubedite v pravotata mi. convince.2PL in rightness.THE me.CL.DAT ‘Ask any bureaucrat at the Council of Ministers and you’ll see that I am right.’ (519) Spestenite pari v ku˘sˇti edva sˇtjaxa da saved.PL.THE money at home hardly would.3PL to stignat za osˇte njakolko sedmici, a posle be-enough.3PL for yet several weeks whereas afterwards idvasˇe mu˘cˇitelnata prosija za was-coming.3SG tantalizing.FEM.THE begging for

Typifying genericity

221

kakva da e rabota. whatever.FEM job ‘The money put aside at home would hardly be enough for several weeks more, and then the tantalizing begging for the odd job was to come.’ (Dimitu˘r Dimov, Tjutjun) (520) Ru˘cete na Minka sa su˘vsem zamu˘rseni i hands.THE of Minka are.3PL completely soiled.PL and napukani ot sazˇdi i ot lu˘skane, kosata chapped.PL from soot and from polishing hair.THE ì– otdavna nevcˇesana i neumita. her.CL.DAT for-a-long-time not-combed.FEM and not-washed Cˇe koj sˇte ì pomogne da se umie So who will her.CL.DAT helps to REFL.ACC washes i naglasi plitkite. Da ì dadat pone and arranges braids.THE to her.CL.DAT give.3PL at-least kakva da e ku˘rpa za glavata, a to stanala whatever.FEM kerchief for head.THE whereas else became rosˇava i mru˘sna kato cigancˇe. disheveled.FEM and dirty.FEM like Gipsy.NEUT ‘Minka’s hands are soiled all over and chapped from soot and polishing; her hair has not been combed and washed for a long time. Who is going to help her wash herself and arrange her braids? They could have at least given her a headcloth, no matter how shabby, [without which] she is dishevelled and as dirty as a Gipsy.’ (Cˇudomir, Edin zˇivot) An earlier explicit marker of typifying genericity were nominals 0M3-4 (sˇtogode) and 1M3-4 (na sˇto-gode dostu˘pna cena), which are in the current standard language outside the sphere of typifying genericity altogether. These nominals must have passed through the stages identified for 0M3-2 and 1M3-2. Now nominals 0M3-4 and 1M3-4 are interchangeable with 0M3-2 and 1M3-2 in a very narrow section of the latter’s range. These nominals, known inside a broad South Slavic areal (ESSJ 1: 312) and borrowed into Romanian (Ga˘mulescu 1974: 136–137), can be traced back to the beginning of the fifteenth century, when they were used in the Valachian recension of Middle Bulgarian side by side with markers of another series, formed with -libo (Djamo-Diaconit¸a˘ 1971: 181), which has not been preserved in Modern

222

The diachronic model of definiteness

Bulgarian (ESSJ 1: 320). I will provide an illustration of a 1M3-4 nominal with an existential reading, which comes from a folk song: (521) stori me, Bozˇe, prestori/ na make.IMPER.2SG me god.VOC transform.IMPER.2SG on kakva-gode gadinka,/ na sivo, pu˘stro gu˘lu˘bcˇe whatever.FEM fowl on gray.NEUT motley.NEUT dove ‘Turn me, God, into any kind of fowl, into a gray, motley dove.’ (Conev 1916, Irinka, sivo gu˘lu˘bcˇe) I have no damaskin instances of 1M3-4 nominals. My few examples of 0M3-4 nominals come mostly from the togiva section of the Tixonravov damaskin (Demina 1971: 240, 243, 244) but also from the togazi section (Demina 1971: 58). They show that, as early as the seventeenth century, scalar implicature could be the only reading of a 0M3-4 nominal. Given the direction of expansion established for the koj da e and the kojto i da e series, this proves that in the seventeenth century the -gode series was already in Stage 3 of its development. It stayed in this stage throughout the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries. In the twentieth-century standard language 0M3-4 and 1M3-4 nominals were no longer markers of typifying genericity. These developments render themselves to an interesting interpretation that has significance for the typology of language change. On the basis of rich cross-linguistic material, Martin Haspelmath concludes that “rather than growing larger and larger, the area covered by an indefinite shifts […] like a window that opens up the view on a limited area of the semantic space” (1997: 150). Elsewhere in his book he notes that indefinite pronouns show “a remarkably low degree of diachronic stability” (Haspelmath 1997: 16). These two facts that agree with my own observations on the diachrony of Bulgarian explicit markers of typifying genericity are obviously in a cause and effect relation to one another. The need for a new marker of typifying genericity that arose in eighteenth-century Bulgarian was due to a shift of emphasis in the use of the previous marker – the -gode series – that was to leave typifying genericity without an explicit marker. The da e series, introduced in the eighteenth century, underwent the same semantic evolution, which prompted the appearance in the nineteenth century of the -to i da e series.

About pronouns

223

3.14. About pronouns Our focus here will be on those nominals of type 0 that form the basis for the entire group: the personal pronouns (0U – 0M1). They may be anaphoric, deictic and, due to their lack of descriptive content, only exceptionally if the context supports it, first-mention descriptions. As we shall see, variation between competing forms of the U and M series of nominals of type 0 is determined by factors pertaining to all levels of the default inheritance hierarchy. Let us see what conclusions about the evolution of the nominals of type 0 can be reached on the basis of the damaskin. 3.14.1. Clitic reduplication As the contrast visible on the semantic level appears to be an archaism with Slavic parallels (see section 2.2.2), we shall focus here on the innovation – clitic reduplication, a famous linguistic balkanism of presumed Romance inspiration (see Lopasˇov 1978; Cˇernjak 1979; Dyer 1988 and Assenova 2002: 104–117 with further bibliography in the context of balkanology) – that at least in certain usages has pragmatic significance. The three syntactic positions of relevance for it are: (a) reduplication of the possessive attribute, which may be part of nominals of type 8, e.g. sinu˘t mu na Gosˇo son.THE him.CL.DAT of Gosˇo ‘Gosˇo’s son’ (mentioned in section 3.3.5), type 4, e.g. svoite si gresˇki one’s own.PL.THE REFL.DAT mistakes ‘one’s own mistakes’, or – only poetically in the standard language – type 5, e.g. gresˇkite si svoi mistakes. THE REFL.DAT one’s own.PL ‘one’s own mistakes’ (the latter types’ representation in the damaskin is discussed in Demina 1986); (b) reduplication of the universal relative pronouns deto and sˇto(to) (discussed in section 3.3.6), e.g. ocˇilata deto gi nosja glasses.THE that them.CL.ACC wear.1SG ‘the glasses that I wear’; (c) reduplication of the object or experiencer, e.g. eto ja ucˇitelkata here THE her.CL.ACC teacher.FEM. ‘here’s the teacher’. As indicated, type (a) involves possessive nominals of types 4/5 as in (276) and (522) – for another example see Demina 1971: 189–190 – and type 8 as in (258), (301) and (523). Especially in the case of type 5 there are many more instances of a different word order: the reflexive si is not incorporated in the nominal, but precedes it as in (288) and (524). The preferred interpretation of the reflexive with this word order is as a dativus ethicus, rather than a clitic reduplication. Even though I can cite no damaskin examples of nominals of type 8 with such word order, it has been attested in contemporary

224

The diachronic model of definiteness

Bulgarian by Savova 2003. It has been suggested that these nominals of type 8 follow a Turkish model (Rusinov 1968; Mircˇev 1978: 95). (522) videˇx azˇı greˇsˇny i nedostoiny petrˇı saw.1SG I sinful.MASC.LF and unworthy.MASC.LF Peter su˘svojte si ocˇi with-own.PL.THE REFL.DAT eyes ‘I, the sinful and unworthy Peter, saw with my own eyes’ (Demina 1971: 159–160) (523) izvadi ot moreto tomuzi momku pull.IMPER.2SG from sea.THE this.MASC.DAT lad.DAT basˇtu˘ mu father him.CL.DAT ‘Pull out of the sea this lad’s father.’ (Demina 1971: 84) (524) izvadi si nozˇˇı svoj pulled.3SG DAT.REFL knife own.MASC ‘He pulled out his knife.’ (Demina 1971: 103) Clitic reduplication of this type is not very frequent in the damaskin and appears to be determined on the third level of the default inheritance model: regarding nominals of types 4/5 it only affects those that contain the reflexive possessive svoj and the reflexive dative clitic si and regarding nominals of type 8 – inalienable possessions. The bulk of nominals of type 8 coming from the vernacular and the standard language that Savova (2003) analyses also gravitates towards inalienable possessions although there are a few that do not belong to this category. A plausible explanation is that, with the disintegration of inalienability as a grammatical category in Bulgarian, this reduplicated construction expanded its use to include alienable possessions as well. In parallel to the svoj si nominals of types 4/5 the damaskin provides evidence that the other pronominal possessives can also be accompanied by si. Of course, this parallel construction, illustrated in (359) and (525) (other examples in Demina 1971: 103, 104, 241), cannot be considered clitic reduplication strictu sensu because the clitic and the “reduplicated” possessive are not synonymous.

About pronouns

225

(525) Togozi arx[a]gg[e]lˇı videˇ ioannˇı b[o]goslovˇı this.MASC.ACC archangel saw.3SG John evangelist na negovoto si otkrytïe on his.NEUT.THE REFL.DAT revelation ‘John the Evangelist saw this archangel in his revelation.’ (Demina 1971: 128) With non-reflexive pronominal possessives, the reflexive clitic si can also precede the nominal rather than be in its designated place after its first component. (526) ne sˇtem da sme naedno do zˇivota not want.1PL to are.1PL together until life.GEN nasˇego ni da si plˇıta nasˇa our.MASC.GEN neither to REFL.DAT flesh.THE our.FEM smeˇsimˇı da si ju oskvrˇınimˇı mix.1PL to REFL.DAT her.CL.ACC profane.1PL ‘We do not want to be together until we die, neither to mix our flesh to profane it.’ (Demina 1971: 91) With this word order, one can also encounter reduplication of nominals of type 4/5 with a non-reflexive possessive by the corresponding clitic. See, for instance negov his & mu him.CL.DAT in (527): (527) i su˘ slu˘zy mu ceˇluva glavu˘ta negova and with tears him.CL.DAT kisses head.THE his.ADJ.FEM os[ve˛]sˇtennae˛ sanctified.FEM ‘And he kisses his sanctified head with tears.’ (Demina 1971: 158) The nominals of type 4U2 have limited use in Standard Bulgarian and, according to Nicolova, in all of them si invariably has the meaning ‘own’ (1986: 94–95), in other words its function is to transform a regular possessive into an emphatic one. My statistics based on four damaskin homilies (No.No. 6–8 and 14) are summarized in Table 35. Like Standard Bulgarian and the Balkan dialects (Stojkov 1993: 255), the damaskin language features one reflexive possessive pronoun for all persons. Six out of the eight instances of the non-reflexive possessive in slots that require a reflexive are filled by possessives in the first and the second-person, which continue to be acceptable as substitutes for the reflexive possessive in the standard language (Nicolova 1986: 103). As opposed to current usage,

226

The diachronic model of definiteness

quasi-reduplication with the reflexive clitic of non-reflexive possessives like the reduplication of reflexive possessives is limited to sentences that feature the possessor in the subject slot. Table 35. Overview of the reflexive and non-reflexive pronominal possessives in the damaskin

Reflexive possessive in nominals of types 4/5 Reduplicated reflexive possessive in nominals of type 4U2 Reflexive possessive in nominals of types 4/5 and dativus ethicus of the clitic si Non-reflexive possessive in nominals of types 4/5 “Reduplicated” non-reflexive possessive in nominals of type 4U2 Non-reflexive possessive in nominals of types 4/5 and dativus ethicus of the clitic si Non-reflexive possessive in nominals of types 4/5 and dativus ethicus of a non-reflexive clitic

Possessor in Possessor outside the subject slot the subject slot 14 0 2 0 6

0

8 0

94 0

2

0

0

1

From a functional perspective, type (b) is intermediary between types (a) and (c) of reduplication because it may contain a possessive like (a) or an object like (c). A reduplication with a dative clitic as in (528) or a possessive as in (529) can transform universal relative pronouns into equivalents to Standard Bulgarian specialized relative pronoun cˇijto‘whose’ (subtype b-1, e.g. onja deto mu zabravix imeto that.MASC that him.CL.DAT forgot.1SG name.THE ~ onja cˇieto ime zabravix that.MASC whose.NEUT name forgot.1SG ‘that [person] whose name I forgot’), whereas an accusative clitic as in (530) or a full-form personal pronoun as in (531) make them the equivalents of kojto ‘who; which’ (subtype b-2, e.g. ocˇilata deto gi nosja ~ ocˇilata koito nosja glasses.THE which.PL wear.1SG ‘the glasses which I wear’). I can think of no reason why there would be no dative clitics in the second category but I have no examples of indirect objects or experiencers, only of direct objects. (528) Pomoli se b[og]u za moata pray.IMPER.2SG REFL.ACC God.DAT for my.FEM.THE dˇısˇtera deto ï e sega svadbata daughter that her.CL.DAT is now wedding.THE ‘Pray to God for my daughter whose wedding it is now.’ (Demina 1971: 90)

About pronouns

227

(529) Velikˇı e bogˇı xristïansky deto ne mozˇe great.MASC is God Christian.MASC that not can3SG nikoj iskaza negova sila nobody describe.INF his.FEM power ‘Great is the Christian God, whose power nobody can describe.’ (Demina 1971: 67) (530) Padnu˘ vu˘ jamu deto ju iskopa fell.3SG in pit that her.CL.ACC dug.3SG ‘He fell into the pit that he had dug.’ (Demina 1971: 115) (531) I stori se mnogo iskanïe zaradi kr[ˇı]stˇı and made.3SG REFL.ACC a-lot-of search for cross x[risto]vˇı deto e na nego raspet Christ.ADJ.MASC that is on him.ACC crucified.MASC bylˇı g[ospod]ˇı nasˇˇı i[su]s x[risto]s been.MASC lord our.MASC Jesus Christ ‘And a big search began for Christ’s cross, on which our Lord Jesus Christ had been crucified.’ (Demina 1971: 64) Nicolova provides telling statistics contrasting the two universal relative pronouns in the standard language: only 6 % of the instances that could have had a reduplicated sˇto(to) were indeed reduplicated versus 80 % of deto relative pronouns (1986: 138). My statistics of the universal relative pronouns eligible for reduplication in four Tixonravov homilies (No.No. 2–5), detailed in Table 36, offer a similar contrast 26 % sˇto(to) vs. 88 % deto. Table 36. Reduplication in nominals of types 0M1-8, 0M5-7 and 9M with universal relative pronouns Reduplication

Present

Absent

Subtype b-1

Subtype b-2

Subtype b-1

Subtype b-2

sˇto(to)

1 (100 %)

8 (24.24 %)

0

25 (75.76 %)

deto

1 (100 %)

6 (85.71 %)

0

1 (14.29 %)

Judging after the reduplicated universal relative pronouns in ten homilies (No. No. 2–11), one can see that their numbers are close 18 sˇto(to) vs. 25 deto, but the damaskin language (as opposed to today’s vernacular, which opts for deto) gives overall preference to sˇto(to). Clitic reduplication is present in 38 % of all cases and this is by far the most frequent type of reduplicated nom-

228

The diachronic model of definiteness

inal in the damaskin. Being at the same time the type for which one can argue in favour of a syntactic motivation, it can be concluded that at least initially clitic reduplication in Bulgarian did have a syntactic justification. This conclusion highlights a contrast between clitic reduplication and the definite article as two devices that started as nominal markers of different nature and only subsequently came to function with partially overlapping sets of nominals. As opposed to the previous types, type (c) of reduplication (eto ja ucˇitelkata) is a sentential phenomenon. My search for object reduplication in the damaskin brought fewer results than I expected. Among examples are nominals of types 0M1 (532), elliptical 0M5-7 (533), 1M2 (534), 1M5 (535) and 1M10 (536). (532) i mene and me.DAT

da mi bude sˇto sm˘ı to me.DAT.CLITIC be.3SG what am.1SG

iskala wanted.FEM ‘so that I too get what I wanted’ (Demina 1971: 66) (533) kojto sˇte nainapreˇd da dojde da go who.REL.MASC will first to comes to him.CL.ACC zadrˇızˇisˇˇı detain.2SG ‘Detain whoever comes first.’ (Demina 1971: 61) (534) I kakˇı ne mozˇe ni edinˇı gradˇı b[og]ˇı and how not could.3SG no one.MASC town god vasˇˇı da go izbavi your.2PL.MASC to him.CL.ACC rescues ‘And how your god could rescue no town’ (Demina 1971: 126) (535) gledax na desna strana i poznax looked.1SG on right.FEM side and recognized.1SG go onogozi s[ve˛]sˇtennika him.ACC.CLITIC that.MASC.ACC priest.ACC ‘I looked right and I recognized that priest.’ (Demina 1971: 62) (536) izbodoxa go sicˇkoto mu teˇlo stabbed.3PL it.CL.ACC entire.NEUT.THE him.CL.DAT body ‘They stabbed all over his body.’ (Demina 1971: 62)

About pronouns

229

All previous examples feature clitics but strong pronouns can also be employed as in (537) with its 9M3 nominal: (537) onogozi momka sˇto ti that.MASC.ACC lad.ACC what.REL you.2SG.CL.DAT ostavix da go kr[ˇı]stisˇˇı nego left.1SG to him.CL.ACC baptize.2SG him.ACC ti isˇtemˇı you.2SG.CL.DAT demand.1SG ‘That lad I left with you to baptize, him I demand from you.’ (Demina 1971: 86) Both word-order models of clitic reduplication are present in the damaskin: preposition to the verb with clitic reprise as in (532), (533), (534) and (537), and postposition to the verb with clitic anticipation as in (535) and (536). In order to gauge the seventeenth-century state of affairs in comparison with the current one, I studied the strong pronouns of type 0M1 in positions of direct and indirect object and experiencer. As we saw in section 2.2.1, strong pronouns are not an option as an expression of the experiencer, but the damaskin offers some – not many – examples of such a usage, indicating that in the seventeenth century these pronouns had not yet been ousted from this position, cf. (538) and other examples in Demina 1971: 76, 127, 138, 140. (538) neˇ e podobno tebe caru da si not is becoming you.2SG.DAT emperor.VOC to REFL.DAT razvalisˇ poveleˇnïeto upset.2SG command.THE ‘It does not become you, Majesty, to disregard your own command.’ (Demina 1971: 127) Most indirect objects and experiencers use the synthetic dative forms of the personal pronouns as in (538). Direct and indirect objects may be expressed by strong pronouns today if they form the communicative focus of the utterance. There are such examples in the damaskin but there also are many, which in Standard Bulgarian would have been replaced by clitic reduplication or weak pronouns (0U). Although I found no contexts in which clitic reduplication would be ungrammatical, my opinion as a native speaker here carries a lesser weight than in other respects as the ultimate decision whether to use reduplication in most cases lies with speakers and there are few environments in

230

The diachronic model of definiteness

which speakers must use it. The only certainty is that strong pronouns would not have been employed as the evolution of pronouns involves the expansion of the weak pronouns at the expense of the strong ones (Mircˇev 1978: 182) and their reduplication with weak pronouns in positions of pragmatic salience (including the topic position for some sentence types and both topic and focus for others). Only under particular conditions do strong pronouns remain in place (e.g. in conjoined nominals, see Nicolova 1986: 46 for other environments).48 Statistics on the basis of ten homilies (No.No. 2–11) are summarized in Table 37. Table 37. Strong pronouns functioning as direct and indirect objects Perceived as incorrect (topic?) In preposition In postposition Direct object Indirect object

Total number In preposition In postposition

23 (50 %)

40 (74.07 %)

46

54

7 (28 %)

31 (67.39 %)

25

46

Only 41 % of the strong pronouns in object syntactic slots are perceived as correct from a contemporary perspective. This means that the elimination of many strong pronouns, a regressive innovation that accompanied or preceded the introduction of clitic reduplication was in Phase II of its evolution in the seventeenth century. Indirect objects were slightly ahead of direct objects (46 % vs. 37 % of correct forms). The difference between the two positions in relation to the verb is much greater: in postposition, which is the normal object position, only 29 % of the forms are correct, whereas in preposition the rate is 58 %. To the extent to which clitic reduplication is even today more optional in postposition than in preposition, we can conclude that it is the latter of the two complementary progressive innovations – the introduction of the 48. The list provided by Nicolova and containing mostly subcases of the use of the strong pronouns as a communicative focus can be continued. For instance, the use of the weak first- and second-person pronouns with verbs that take both direct and indirect objects is restricted: *dade mi te s/he gave me.CL.DAT you.2SG.CL.ACC ‘s/he gave you to me’ must be replaced by dade te na mene gave you.2SG.CL.ACC on me.ACC or dade mi tebe gave me.CL.DAT you.2SG.ACC the choice depending on the desired focus. It is significant that one or the other must be present and cannot be avoided. Weak pronouns are also currently barred from head positions in 0M1-3, 0M1-4, 0M1-5, 0M1-6, 0M1-7 and 0M1-8. At least in some of them the damaskin allows weak pronouns, cf. 0M1-3 in (283).

About pronouns

231

clitic reduplication and the expansion of the weak pronouns – that lags behind at the time documented by the damaskins. Even though indirectly, these numbers in tandem with the sparse documentation of clitic reduplication in the damaskin assign to it a more recent chronology than to identifiability-based overt definiteness. Such a chronology is supported by the lack of examples in the damaskin featuring clitic reduplication of a nominal as its only marker of definiteness. The encountered reduplicated nominals have the expected markers of definiteness (definite article or demonstrative pronoun) as needed. Moreover, the state of affairs in the seventeenth century points to syntactic determination as the driving force of clitic reduplication.

3.14.2. Type 0 nominals with a dative reflexive clitic The data on clitic reduplication throw new light on the reflexive, personal, emphatic and indefinite pronouns and the pronominal unique referent, which appear accompanied with the reflexive dative clitic si. In other words 0M1-2 sebe si and dialect mene si etc. 0M3-1 njakoj si, 0M9 edi-koj si and dialect and damaskin samsi seem to be the pronominal counterparts to type 2, which, as already pointed out, is a relic of the synthetic nominals of type 8. Standard Bulgarian today has generalized the 0M1-2 sebe si and 0M9 edi-koj si, it tolerates 0M3-1 njakoj si but it rejects the personal and emphatic pronouns with si. The majority of the Bulgarian dialects, except the Moesian and the Balkan ones, have lost the reflexive sebe (si) and replaced it with the personal pronouns of type 0M1-2 (Stojkov 1993: 254–255). One famous example of 0M1-2 with a personal pronoun in the head position comes from Vasil Levski’s letter to Panajot Xitov from 1868: (539) Ako specˇelja, pecˇelja za cjal narod, ako if win.PF.1SG win.IMPF.1SG for entire.MASC nation if zagubja – gubja samo mene si. loose.PF.1SG loose.IMPF.1SG only me.ACC REFL.DAT ‘If I win, I win for the entire nation; if I lose, I lose only myself.’ The connection between pronominal types sebe si, mene si and samsi that share the same formal component (the dative reflexive clitic si) is underscored by the possibility to rephrase (539) in two ways: neutrally by 0M1-2 sebe si and emphatically by 0M8-3 samija mene with an exclusive reading. The damaskin vacillates between the representation of the reflexive pronoun as 0M1-1 (sebe) and 0M1-2 (sebe si). One can also encounter the clitic

232

The diachronic model of definiteness

not in postposition to the strong reflexive pronoun, which is the only possibility today, but preceding the nominal and even at a distance from it. My statistics based on ten homilies (No. No. 2–11, see Table 38) situate the introduction of 0M1-2 sebe si in Phase III as more than 55 % of instances correspond to current usage. Table 38. Representation of the strong reflexive pronoun in the damaskin 0M1-1 0M1-1 with clitic reduplication Direct object Indirect object With preposition

1 0 10

0M1-2 with free word order

0M1-2 with fixed word order

0 0 5

3 2 16

1 0 0

One illustration of each type should suffice: 0M1-1 (540) nisˇto ne imasˇe pri sebeˇ tˇıkmo ceˇnata si nothing not had.3SG at self just fee.THE REFL.DAT ‘He had nothing with him but his fee.’ (Demina 1971: 89) 0M1-1 with clitic reduplication (541) i progneˇva se g[ospod]ˇı na nego and got-furious.3SG REFl.ACC lord on him.ACC dokrai, ta se samsy sebe obeˇsi all-the-way so-that REFL.ACC himself self hanged.3SG ‘And the Lord became extremely furious with him so that he hanged himself.’ (Demina 1971: 69) 0M1-2 with fixed word order (542) znai oti i sebeˇ si vreˇdisˇˇı know.IMPER.2SG that also self REFL.DAT harm.2SG ‘You should know that you are also harming yourself.’ (Demina 1971: 89) 0M1-2 with free word order (543) i rekoxa si mezˇdu sebeˇ and said.3PL REFL.DAT between self ‘And they said to each other’ (Demina 1971: 96) The important question is how to interpret the attachment of the dative reflexive clitic to pronouns. Let us take as a starting point the clitic reduplication of

About pronouns

233

type negovite si gresˇki ‘his own mistakes’, essentially a type 2 nominal with a non-reflexive possessive. This type that has the least right to be called clitic reduplication is also the one that is most transparent. The function of the reflexive clitic in it is clear: it transforms a non-reflexive possessive into a reflexive one co-indexing it with the subject. In a similar vein, 0M1-2 with a personal pronoun in the head position (mene si) appears to be the environment in which the alliance of a strong pronoun with a reflexive clitic makes most sense because it simply transforms personal pronouns into reflexives. Both phenomena must have been initiated in areas lacking a reflexive possessive and a strong reflexive pronoun, which locates the centre of innovation somewhere in the Western and/or Southern dialects. From there they penetrated the Northeastern dialects, which applied the approach to their specialized reflexive possessive and strong reflexive pronoun, reinterpreting the neutral alien compounds of type negov si and mene si as emphatic expressions, never to attain full acceptance (at least in the standard language). The expansion of the model into the Northeastern dialects was facilitated by the parallel, although somewhat later, expansion of clitic reduplication proper, perhaps from the same centre of innovation. Some end products of the two processes bear superficial similarity, e.g. reduplicated possessives svoi si xora own.PL REFL.DAT people ‘one’s own people’ vs. na Ivan sestra mu of Ivan sister him.CL.DAT ‘Ivan’s sister’; reduplicated indirect objects na sebe si recˇe to self REFL.DAT said.3SG ‘s/he said to herself/himself’ vs. na tebe ti recˇe to you.ACC.2SG you.CL.DAT said.3SG ‘s/he said to you’. In the absence of linguo-geographic data about samsi, it is difficut to decide when and where it was involved in this process. The damaskin language attests to the compatibility of a specialized reflexive possessive (negov si) and a strong reflexive pronoun (sebe si) with samsi in the same linguistic system. It was shown in section 3.5.1 that samsi is a parallel form to 0M8-3 (tebe samata), which however features the definite article. In mene si, sebe si and samsi the reflexive si is thought to add emphasis, edi-koj si does not appear without si, which makes it difficult to pinpoint the semantics added by the reflexive si, whereas njakoj si was identified as the specific counterpart of the non-specific njakoj. Thus the functions of the reflexive clitic si with pronouns seem to include emphasis on the pragmatic and specificity on the semantic level of the default inheritance model. This analysis highlights the similarity between clitic reduplication and definiteness: as time was passing by, clitic reduplication (like definiteness) acquired new significance and expanded to express new meanings in new environments. On the other hand, clitic reduplication has converging sources. As we shall see in chapter six, the same is true of definiteness.

234

The diachronic model of definiteness

3.15. Beyond nominal structure The relevant space outside nominal structure can be explored on two levels. On one hand, one may search for linguistic devices that work in tandem with nominal structure towards the better expression of the content of the grammatical category of definiteness; on the other, one may check whether the linguistic forms active in the realm of nominal structure function also outside it. In other words one can contextualize nominal structure from the point of view both of content and expression. We shall start with the former perspective. 3.15.1. From content to expression The combined effect of processes 7 and 8 in Standard Bulgarian produced a much clearer delimitation of the indefinite and the non-specific descriptions in comparison with the state of affairs in the seventeenth century as displayed in the damaskin. Even so, indefinites are less easily contrasted with non-specifics by speakers of Bulgarian than other adjacent descriptions. As opposed to Russian, which is said to have a particularly nuanced view of indefinite/ non-specific referents (Arutjunova 1999: 814–816), Bulgarian is more focused on definite referents. Other linguistic devices are also employed to distinguish indefinite from non-specific and typifying descriptions. Lexical means such as the opposition of indefinite edin-edinstven (or edin-ednicˇu˘k) and non-specific samo were mentioned in section 3.6.2. A linguistic environment that treats such descriptions differentially is provided by existential and locative sentences (for a general discussion in conjunction with definiteness cf. Lyons 1999: 236–246). Two verbs in the third person compete in these constructions: the copula e ‘is’ (sa ‘are’) and ima ‘has’. Today only ima combines with U nominals with an indefinite reading. This specialization was not yet in place in the damaskin, in which one comes across many examples of e (sa) with indefinites side by side with some occurrences of ima: (544) i imasˇe tamo vu˘bel˘ı gl˘ıbok˘ı i sux and had.3SG there well deep.MASC and dry.MASC bez vodu i u nego mnogo gadove beˇxu without water.ACC and in him.ACC many reptiles were.3PL ‘And there was a deep dry well without water there and there were many reptiles in it.’ (Demina 1971: 55)

Beyond nominal structure

235

(545) ami misleˇsˇe na umu˘t si kak˘ı but was-thinking.3SG on mind.THE REFL.DAT how su˘ tuka i drugy m[u˘]cˇ[e]nici deto su˘ are.3PL here too other.PL martyrs that are.3PL pomnogo muka preˇtr˘ıpeˇle zaradi ime more suffering endure.PART.PL in-the-sake-of name x[risto]vo Christ.ADJ.NEUT ‘But he was thinking to himself that there were around other martyrs too who had suffered more in Christ’s name.’ (Demina 1971: 107) (546) zasˇto reˇka imasˇe tamo velika, zovesˇe because river had.3SG there great.FEM called.3SG se xrisa REFL.ACC Chrysa ‘Because there was a big river there. It was called Chrysa.’ (Demina 1971: 131) (547) i na toizi ostrov˘ı beˇsˇe metox monastirsky and on this.MASC island was.3SG building monastic.MASC ‘And on this island there was a cloister.’ (Demina 1971: 133) (548) i beˇsˇe drugo lozïe blizu pri tova and was.3SG other.NEUT vineyard near at this.NEUT carevoto emperor.ADJ.NEUT.THE ‘And there was another vineyard, close to the emperor’s one.’ (Demina 1971: 145) The use of the copula in (544), (545), (547) and (548) is perceived as ungrammatical by speakers of Standard Bulgarian today. Has the copula then been ousted from existential and locative sentences altogether? Sentences with the copula affirming the existence of definites and unique referents are avoided on general theoretical grounds (Kearns 2000: 82). The copula combines with definites (expressed by 1M1 and alternatives) and unique referents in locative sentences. The use is sparsely documented in the damaskin as indicated in (549). Locative e ‘is’ + 1M1 competes with ima ‘has’ + 1U to refer to the same referent, as demonstrated in (550). The fact that speakers of Standard Bulgarian would prefer ima + 1U on both occasions does not diminish the im-

236

The diachronic model of definiteness

portance of (549) as an indicator that locative e + 1M1 was an option for speakers in the seventeenth century: (549) Ami znai cˇe e vodata vu˘tre u but know.2SG.IMPER that is water.THE inside in monastir˘ı monastery ‘But be advised that the water is inside the monastery.’ (Demina 1971: 135) (550) i pokazaxa mi, kak˘ı ima voda vu˘treˇ u and showed.3PL me.DAT how has water inside in monastir˘ı monastery ‘And they showed me that there was water inside the monastery.’ (Demina 1971: 135) Against the few instances of the type illustrated by (549), I can cite many examples when e (sa) + U nominal in locative contructions stands for e (sa) + 1M1 (or alternatives). More interesting are the instances in which U nominals appear to fit equally well in e (sa) and ima existential and locative constructions. (551) tova ednak˘ı zosima misli i tija mu this.NEUT still Zosima thinks and she him.DAT se videˇ zasˇto besˇe mesecˇina i REFL.ACC saw.3SG because was.3SG moon and sveˇteˇsˇe nosˇta was-shining.3SG night.THE ‘This is what Zosima was still thinking and he had a vision of her because there was a moon and the night was luminous.’ (Demina 1971: 198) Standard Bulgarian can render the damaskin besˇe mesecˇina in two ways: as besˇe mesecˇina [was.3SG moon] and imasˇe mesecˇina [had.3SG moon] and there is at first glance little difference between the meanings of these constructions. The subtle distinction that does exist can be clarified by the following contrasting sentences in Standard Bulgarian:

Beyond nominal structure

237

(552) Vcˇera imasˇe oblaci. yesterday had.3SG clouds ‘Yesterday there were clouds.’ (553) *Vcˇera bjaxa oblaci. yesterday were.3PL clouds ‘Yesterday there were clouds.’ (554) Vcˇera besˇe oblacˇno. yesterday was.3SG cloudy.NEUT ‘It was cloudy yesterday.’ (555) Vcˇera imasˇe slu˘nce. yesterday had.3SG sun ‘There was sun yesterday.’ (556) Vcˇera besˇe slu˘nce. yesterday was.3SG sun ‘There was sun yesterday.’ (557) Vcˇera besˇe slu˘ncˇevo. yesterday was.3SG sunny.NEUT ‘It was sunny yesterday.’ Damaskin (551) structurally corresponds to Standard Bulgarian typifying (556), which is a syntactic variant of (557). The role of typifying generics as building blocks of word formation was discussed in section 3.8.1. One of the syntactic environments, which feeds word formation, is situated at the borderline of existential constructions with a typifying subject like (551) and (556) and impersonal predicative constructions such as (554) and (557). Some descriptions (such as ‘sun’) have the option of appearing in existential and impersonal constructions with the respective adjustments of form. Others have to choose one: impersonal (‘clouds’) or existential (‘moon’). All such descriptions can appear as indefinites in tandem with ima. Another example from the damaskin shows again that competing constructions with ima and e were available to speakers in the seventeenth century. Talking about the same occasion of famine in Thessaloniki, two different speakers use as synonyms e velik˘ı glad˘ı and ima velik˘ı glad˘ı:

238

The diachronic model of definiteness

(558) Poslusˇai mene i otvezi ju Listen.2SG.IMPER me.ACC and carry.2SG.IMPER her.ACC vu˘ solun˘ı. i proda sˇtesˇ˘ı ju tamo kako in Thessaloniki and sell.INF will.2SG her.ACC there how isˇtesˇ. zasˇto e tamo velik˘ı glad˘ı want.2SG because is there great.MASC hunger ‘Listen to me and carry it [the grain] to Thessaloniki and you will sell it there as you wish because there is great famine there.’ (Demina 1971: 106) (559) glad˘ı velik˘ı ima tamo hunger great.MASC has there ‘There is a great famine there.’ (Demina 1971: 106) Although both constructions taken in isolation sound equally well to speakers of Standard Bulgarian, in the damaskin context, in which they were offered, one would prefer (559) over (558). The distribution depends on text register: habitual or permanent characteristics tend to be expressed by e +1U, whereas one-time events favour ima+1U. The context involved a one-time event and categorically called for ima+1U. To summarize, the locative and existential constructions in Standard Bulgarian provide means to distinguish indefinites, on one hand, from non-specifics and typifying generics, on the other, which remain lumped together. This development took place after the seventeenth century. The contrast of locative and existential constructions gives an idea how indefinites are distinguished from typifying generics and non-specifics in areas in which nominal structure cannot be employed. These supplementary tools of expression of definiteness in Bulgarian make it necessary to look again at the relationship between content and expression of this grammatical category. As stated at the beginning of this study, definiteness is expressed first and foremost by nominal structure. What matters are not only the definite article, the presence or absence of various determiners and the type of nominal but also the kind of connection between the nominal head and its dependents, as demonstrated by the differences between typifying and specific nominals of type 8 (cf. section 3.8). Nominal structure, however, is not the only tool that speakers of Bulgarian have at their disposal. Neither can this be a reasonable expectation, since definiteness has been shown convincingly to pervade all areas of language, interacting with word order and phrasal stress, case and verbal aspect among others (Chvany [1983] 1996). Adopting the terminology introduced by W. Gladrow (1992) to the study of definiteness in Russian, I

Beyond nominal structure

239

can say that nominal structure forms the nucleus of the functional semantic field of definiteness. The nucleus is surrounded by a periphery with which it acts in tandem. Let us mention briefly some other members of this periphery. Another well-known tool hangs on the employment of verbal aspect inherited from Proto-Slavic not only by Bulgarian but also by the other Slavic languages. In Bulgarian, aspect and nominal structure work hand in hand in contexts that involve inclusiveness (Kabakcˇiev 1984; Koseska-Toszewa and Gargov 1992; Stankov 1995: 108–109). The damaskin demonstrates that, in this regard too, the seventeenth-century norms were lax in comparison with the current ones. In a long passage, the damaskin discusses the covenant God made with Moses that depended on the willingness of the Israelites to obey God (Demina 1971: 139). The future of the Israelites is described in the informative text register. In this passage Standard Bulgarian would use nonspecifics (expressed by U nominals) and inclusiveness-based individuatives (expressed by 1M1 and alternatives) in conjunction with imperfective verbs. The damaskin has nine U nominals and ten 1M1 nominals (and alternatives) in QI positions and perfective verbs where the Modern Bulgarian translation of the Bible offers imperfectives: (560) dam˘ı vam˘ı i az˘ı du˘zˇd˘ı vu˘ vreˇme will-give.PF.1SG you.DAT too I rain in time svoe own.NEUT ‘I too shall give you rain at its proper time.’ (Demina 1971: 139) (561) togava sˇte davam na zemjata vi du˘zˇda then will give.IMPF.1SG to land.THE you.DAT rain.THE na vremeto mu on time.THE him.DAT ‘Then I shall send rain on your land in its season.’ (Deuteronomy 11: 14) This demonstrates that only after the seventeenth century was the use of verbal aspect brought in tune with nominal structure, a chronology that, on one hand, fits the expectation that inclusiveness-based overt definiteness is secondary to the identifiability-based one. On the other hand, the serious recent restructuring of this verbal category seems to question some of our assumptions about its semantics at the Proto-Slavic stage of its development. A brief mention of yet another possibility will give an idea of the array of devices that are at the disposal of speakers to deal with this grammatical cat-

240

The diachronic model of definiteness

egory (for a cross-linguistic perspective on the range of lexical, syntactic and morphological devices used to mark definiteness, cf. Lyons 1999: 199–226). The composite preposition zaradi (< za ‘for’+ radi ‘for the sake of’) is a partial synonym of za in Standard Bulgarian (GSBKE 2: 424). When used with a final and causal meaning, these prepositions behave as a specialized and a universal linguistic sign, respectively. Zaradi requires specific descriptions expressed by M nominals, whereas za can combine with nominals of both series and any description. The damaskin offers many examples (of which I shall cite only one of zaradi + 1U nominal) that show that this delineation between prepositions had not been carried out yet in the seventeenth century. (562) i procˇju se po sicˇka onazi and began-to-hear.3SG REFL.ACC along all.FEM that.FEM zemlja i sracinsky ljudïe mnogo prixozˇdaxu land and Saracen.PL people many were-coming.3PL zaradi veˇra for faith ‘And he became famous in all that land and many Saracen people were coming for faith.’ (Demina 1971: 57) The correlation of the zaradi ~ za contrast with definiteness finds a parallel in a regional syntactic peculiarity attributed to the influence of Romanian on isolated Bulgarian dialects developing in contact with Romanian: the use of the Romanian preposition pe in competition with its Bulgarian equivalent na with definite animates in the position of direct object (Mladenov 1993a: 381–382), for example: (563) Téjku ju˘ Father her.CL.ACC

zé pu˘ máminu˘tu˘ took.3SG PREP mother.ADJ.FEM.THE

májku˘. mother ‘Father took Mother’s mother [with him].’ (Mladenov 1993a, 381) In a similar way and, according to some scholars, also under Romance influence direct objects expressed by personal names and personal pronouns take the preposition na in a number of dialects in Macedonia and around Thessaloniki in Northern Greece (Cyxun 1981: 40–41; 59–60). This brief and admittedly incomplete survey of the periphery of the functional semantic field of definiteness shows that between the seventeenth and the twentieth century it too was the arena of significant language change

Beyond nominal structure

241

matching in scope that in the realm of nominal structure. A much more thorough study – promising interesting results – is necessary in order to compile a complete inventory of the peripheral markers of definiteness and get a clearer idea of the details of evolution in every single case. 3.15.2. From expression to content This overview of some of the environments in which (in)definite expressions are exclusively acceptable or preferred represents one way to place nominal structure in the context of other linguistic devices with which it interacts. Alternatively, taking expression as a starting point, one can search for functions that markers of definiteness may have beyond those described so far. I shall give only one example. The Bulgarian interrogatives are transformed into relative pronouns and conjunctions by attaching to them in postposition the particle -to, cf. koj ‘who’ > kojto ‘who (relative), that’, koga ‘when (interrogative)’ > kogato ‘when (relative); when (conjunction)’. There is general consensus that like the definite article, the third-person personal pronoun and the proximal demonstrative pronoun tozi (toja), the particle -to comes from the same Proto-Slavic source: the demonstrative and anaphoric pronoun *t ч (ESSJ 1: 328; 2: 391; for Indo-European parallels to the association between relative pronouns and the definite article see Ivanov 1979: 37–63). The particle -to however does not change by gender and number.49 As in other languages where the definite article is associated with the relative pronouns (see Lyons 1999: 61–62 for some cross-linguistic parallels), -to should obviously be seen as modifying the entire relative clause. The standard language accepts very few relative pronouns (most notably sˇto ‘what; that’ and otkak ‘since’) without -to (Nicolova 1986: 123) but the dialects show a different picture: only the Eastern ones participate in the innovation illustrated by the standard language, whereas the Western dialects do not distinguish formally between relative and interrogative pronouns, an option that unites them with the other Slavic languages. Between the innovative and the conservative areas there is a diffuse belt (BDA 2: 206; 3: 223; 4: 287; Cyxun 1981: 108–115 with a map 49. This claim should probably be qualified. Preparing Maxim Mladenov’s edition of one of the earliest Modern Bulgarian glossaries included in a primer published in Bucharest in 1827 (reported in Mladenov 1979) for a posthumous publication, I came across two tokens of koite who.THE.PL, a relative pronoun, corresponding to koito. This form shows that in some Bulgarian varieties at the beginning of the nineteenth century the formal similarity between relative pronouns and 1M1 nominals (and equivalent) was much more pronounced than it is widely believed.

242

The diachronic model of definiteness

on p. 114). The damaskin language falls into Cyxun’s diffuse belt where relative pronouns with and without -to are used side by side or in neighbouring dialects. The contemporary state of affairs allows us to form no expectations regarding the damaskin language. So what choices were in fact made by the damaskin compiler? Statistic data coming from four homilies (No. No. 2–5) are presented in Table 39. The introduction of -to to the domain of relative pronouns and conjunctions is in its Phase II (65 innovative forms vs. 112 conservative ones). This conclusion based on average values however seems to conceal more than it is revealing. When one looks at the data detailed by relative pronoun/conjunction, one faces a situation very different from that of the definite article. All our previous statistics showed environments that could be ranked so that they formed a gradient. In this case the middle range is missing. The analysed expressions split effortlessly into a conservative and an innovative group. In section 3.14.1 we saw clitic reduplication functioning with the universal relative pronouns in a similar vein. I did not even include sˇto in Table 39 because, as far as the standard language goes, it is not one of the relative pronouns that are used with the particle -to. The damaskin has a higher percentage of sˇtoto forms: 7 out of 93 in the same four homilies, or 7.53 % of all forms. Table 39. Overview of the derivation of relative pronouns and conjunctions in the damaskin Without -to [G]de ‘that’ Ot[g]de ‘from where’ Kaku˘v ‘what(ever)’ [G]de ‘where’ Kolko ‘as much as; as many as’ Koj ‘who’ Koga ‘when’ Zasˇto ‘because’ Do[g]de ‘until’ Otkoga ‘since’ Ku˘de ‘where’

1 (4 %) 1 (25 %) 8 (80 %) 31 (96.88 %) 58 (100 %) 9 (100 %) 3 (100 %) 1 (100 %)

With -to 31 (100 %) 2 (100 %) 1 (100 %) 24 (96 %) 4 (75 %) 2 (20 %) 1 (3.12 %)

In regard to the specialized relative pronoun kojto, which was Cyxun’s object of study, the damaskin language comes closer to the conservative than to the innovative contemporary dialects. Champion on the path towards innovation is the universal relative pronoun deto both in its initial meaning ‘where’ and,

Overview of the diachronic model of definiteness

243

most importantly, the derived ‘that’, a balkanism. The numbers regarding all other forms are too small to be statistically significant. The conservative pattern is most conspicuous regarding zasˇto and koga. Koj and dode follow suit, the latter being even today acceptable without the particle -to. The particle -to is not the only one that transforms interrogative pronouns into relative pronouns. In the conservative Western area Cyxun notes that a number of dialects use koj sˇto as a relative pronoun, whereas the Rhodope dialects, which are part of the innovative area, resort to double marking, discernible in the specialized relative pronoun azˇit MASC, azˇata FEM, azˇoto NEUT and azˇite PL (1981: 111–112, 115). These forms are descendants of the Old Bulgarian relative pronoun izˇe (ESSJ 2: 298–302; ESJS 4: 235), to which the pronoun t ч was added; izˇe in its turn was formed from the anaphoric pronoun i with the particle zˇe in postposition. No traces of the relative pronoun izˇe have been preserved in other Bulgarian dialects, although the anaphoric i is the source of the majority of the oblique forms of the third-person personal pronouns (Todorov 2002). Cyxun argues convincingly that double marking shows that the pronoun t ч was attached to relative pronouns in the Rhodope dialects earlier than elsewhere, which is yet another indication that these dialects formed the centre of innovation in regards to the introduction of overt definiteness.

3.16. Overview of the diachronic model of definiteness It is time now to summarize the main conclusions reached in this chapter. Bulgarian data show that the rise of the definite article and the loss of case endings took place around the same time and affected the language in the same sequence. Identifiability-based definiteness (pointing to ‘that entity’) preceded inclusiveness-based definiteness (pointing to ‘all entities’) and nonidentifiability-based indefiniteness (pointing to ‘an entity’) preceded non-inclusiveness-based indefiniteness (pointing to ‘some entity’). The diachronic evolution for Bulgarian can be attributed the following rough values: from the tenth to the twelfth century (identifiability-based definiteness), before the seventeenth century (inclusiveness-based definiteness and non-identifiability-based indefiniteness) and after the seventeenth century (non-inclusiveness-based indefiniteness). More specifically, the definite article’s presence is noticeable by the twelfth century, whereas the introduction of a mandatory edin in contrast with typifying generics was well underway prior to the seventeenth century. In terms of text registers overt definiteness was first established in the graphic register, from there it moved into the informative one and only eventually penetrated the gnomic one.

244

The diachronic model of definiteness

The definite article in the seventeenth century can be situated in Phase II of its evolution. Since it was not introduced simultaneously to all positions (some of its uses being closer to current norms than others), one of the objectives of this study was to explore what that meant concretely. The definite article started its progress with the anaphoric function and by the seventeenth century it in conjunction with demonstratives had reached almost complete coverage of all relevant environments. From anaphoras the article penetrated individuative definites by entailment (exophoric definiteness) and had attained Phase III by the time reflected in the damaskin. The introduction of attributive definites must have started later because it only had the chance to get to Phase II. As a whole, identifiability-based definiteness can be situated in Phase III with masculine singular animates lagging behind considerably. The expansion of the definite article into the area of generics is in Phase II in the damaskin, whereas unique referents are hardly touched by the process. This difference underscores the significance of the grammatical category ‘number’, besides ‘gender’ and ‘animacy’, for the evolution of the definite article. The evolution of the indefinite marker edin, through which an indefinite description is carved out of a fuzzy indefinite/non-specific area to be opposed to typifying generics, is in the same Phase II in which the damaskin captured attributive definites and generics. The crystallization of a grammatical category ‘definiteness’ in Bulgarian is accompanied by a re-arrangement of the lexicon, in the process of which the category of non-divisibles encompasses aggregates, abstract and collective nouns besides singular count nouns, leaving plurals and mass nouns on their own as divisibles. This rearrangement was manifested in changes in the collocability of aggregates, abstract and collective nouns. Inalienability loses its status as an independent grammatical category and alienable and inalinable possessions start being treated identically. As time passes by, the contrast between proportional and non-proportional quantifiers gets more elusive. There are no insurmountable boundaries between descriptions. Individuative referents are bridged with unique referents by situationally unique individuatives and with generics by inclusive individuative plurals and mass nouns, on one hand, and distributive singulars, on the other. Generics consist of two subtypes: quantitative and typifying generics, which require different expressions: 1M1 and 1U nominals (or alternatives), respectively. If the link between the two varieties of generics is in the realm of content, that between unique referents and indefinites is one of expression: these two categories of descriptions are routinely expressed by U nominals. The distinction between indefinites and non-specifics is one of degree or number of occurrences in time (one-time for indefinites and multiple for non-specifics) by members of a set.

Overview of the diachronic model of definiteness

245

Typifying generics display links both to indefinites and non-specifics. They are hardly distinguishable from the latter in certain syntactic positions. The general principle that determines the order in which overt language expression (such as the definite or the quasi-indefinite article) progresses from one environment to another can be formulated thus: those who need it most get it first.50 Comparison with Russian shows that this is not the only option that a language can have. As a grammatical category, definiteness has both pragmatic and semantic dimensions, which are intertwined. The semantically defined types of descriptions come to the fore particularly clearly in their correlation with text registers. Between pronouns and nouns there is a transparent boundary: not only nominals with nouns and pronouns in the head position function under many of the same conditions and perform the same pragmatic and semantic functions but there is traffic across the boundary: nesˇto ‘thing’ and cˇovek ‘person’ have moved in opposite directions, the former being now a full-fledged member of the category nouns, whereas the latter is on its way to becoming an indefinite pronoun. The most striking difference between these two categories is due to the different importance attached by them to the syntactic level of the default inheritance model. The different roles played by typifying, generic, specific and non-specific descriptions in word formation throw new light on the interdependence of the process through which new paradigmatic units are coined and the syntagmatic role of paradigmatic units in the universe of discourse. And finally on the general theoretical level, this chapter provides evidence that there is a need to add a three-dimensional model of diachronic change to supplement the existing two-dimensional S-curves. This conclusion echoes a proposal made on typological grounds regarding evidentiality (Anderson 1986: 282–284) that, as far as I know, has found no following. Nevertheless, typologists routinely employ two-dimensional semantic implicational maps that chart the functions of a given grammatical category in order to predict which combinations of functions may have a single marker in a language and which may not. Such maps need not be synchronic. They may also include the source, from which the analysed grammatical category stems, and indicate which paths of development are possible and which are impossible (Haspelmath 1997: 129–130; Tatevosov 2002: 28–48 with further bibliography). Summarizing the conclusions reached in this chapter regarding the diachrony of the definite ar50. This principle is confirmed among other things by the delay with which explicit expressions of each description acquire the formal marker that has come to characterize it in Standard Bulgarian: susˇti ~ su˘sˇtijat, sam ~ samijat, edi-koj ~ edi-koj si, njakoj ~ njakoj si.

246

The diachronic model of definiteness

Figure 5. Diachrony of the Bulgarian definite article

ticle in Bulgarian, Figure 5 presents them as a three-dimensional diachronic chart. The lettered knots represent functions and the arrows the paths from one function to another. A stands for anaphora, B for exophoric definiteness, C for attributive definiteness, D for inclusive definiteness, E for quantitative genericity in the plural, F for distributive definiteness, G for quantitative genericity in the singular, H for situational uniqueness and I for absolute uniqueness. The knots are encompassed by a parallelepiped, representing the definite article. Knot A is placed on the edge of the identifiability plane to show that anaphora – the initial function of the Bulgarian article – is a function that can be expressed equally by a demonstrative pronoun and a definite article. When identifiability was consolidated, it served as the foundation for expansion of the definite article into a different plane: inclusiveness. The three paths of expansion into inclusiveness have their individual starting points that are not linked to the particular functions on the identifiability plane but to identifiability per se. These starting points are the knots D, F and H, situated on the edge of the planes of identifiability and inclusiveness. Even more importantly, knot H has also been placed on the edge between article and demonstrative pronoun because inclusive deictic definiteness is a function that can be expressed by either marker. As we will see in section 5.4, the existence of a second entry point from the domain of the demonstrative pronoun into the domain of the definite article, has played an important role in the shaping of regional models of definiteness. This three-dimensional diachronic chart of the Bulgarian definite article can serve as a springing board for research in the cross-linguistic typology of definite articles. I will stop my analysis here, leaving typologists to pursue the handful of exciting questions that arise from it.

Preliminary Considerations

4.

Language variation and textology

4.1.

Preliminary Considerations

247

Interest in textology can be stirred up by different research goals. On the one hand, one may wish to reconstruct the lost original text by studying its preserved copies; on the other, one may be looking into language variation in time, space or both. If textology is compared to the diachronic study of vocabulary, the former approach – mutatis mutandis – equates with etymology and the latter with the investigation of lexical change. As I aim to reconstruct the evolution of the grammatical category ‘definiteness’ in Bulgarian, my interest falls into the latter category. Looking at a particular expression in a manuscript copy of a text, one can discern between the following raisons d’être for it: 1. The expression was part of the source copied by the scribe. 2. The expression was introduced by the scribe because: a. That is what a competent native speaker would have said (or could have said) in this context at this time and place (the same content is rendered by a different expression). b. The scribe reinterpreted a fragment of the source: i. Thus removing an ambiguity (one out of two possible alternative readings of the original expression was eliminated). ii. Thus correcting an error in the source (correlation of expression and content was established, which may or may not correspond to the intentions of the initial author). c. The scribe made a mistake (the correlation of content and expression was disjointed). Turning to the textological comparison of manuscript copies of the same text that feature different treatments of definiteness, one should start with the assumption that only case (2a) and perhaps (2bi) are evidence of linguistic variation. Cases (2bii) and (2c) can occur inside the same linguistic system because no linguistic system produces error-free communication. Not only message senders have slips of the tongue – case (2c) – but message receivers also must keep in mind this possibility and have ready a strategy to deal with them in the absence of the message sender – case (2bii). Case (1) is a black box. An expression is part of the source for one of the same five reasons listed above. If the reason for the divergences between two copies of the text is that

248

Language variation and textology

the scribes were using different sources, explanation by reference to case (1) only removes the “real” reason for the existence of the divergent forms one or more manuscript generations back in time. In an ideal world in which all copies of an autograph have been preserved, one should be able to attribute each expression in every generation of manuscripts to one of the five categories. Obviously, the world we live in is not ideal. It would therefore be difficult to be sure in many cases what the particular raison d’être of an expression was. Even so, the perspective gained by exploring definiteness in the damaskins in this framework should not be underestimated. In the previous chapter I treated the state of affairs reflected in the Tixonravov damaskin as representative of language practice in the seventeenth century, which means that I lumped together the five alternative textological raisons d’être for any particular expression of definiteness in the damaskin. Given the direction of evolution of definiteness as a grammatical category (from implicit to explicit; grammaticalization of forms that were previously possible but not compulsory; linguistic innovation), missing evidence was not interpreted as a sign that the phenomenon was inexistent at the time the manuscript was written whereas existing evidence was taken as a sign that the phenomenon was indeed in place. Moreover, since language innovation is a cumulative process, I was justified in treating the contributions of an unknown number of scribes over time as roughly representative of the language system of the latest of them. The situation would have been very different if I were studying a language archaism rather than an innovation but as it was, I could expect that my approach was giving me a conservative estimate of the state of affairs in seventeenth-century Bulgarian. Nevertheless, there are further concerns that need to be addressed. Whereas case (2) with its subcategories is compatible with the existence of one language system, case (1) opens the door for the coexistence in the same text of two (or more) language systems. One of my goals in this chapter is to assess what repercussions this possibility has on the validity of my model of definiteness. Another is to try to fine-tune the model by evaluating it against other data coming from the period between the seventeenth and the twentieth century. And finally, it is essential to find out whether the archaic originals, of which the Modern Bulgarian damaskins are a continuation, have had any impact on the representation of definiteness.

4.2.

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

Let us now see how the conclusions made on data stemming from the togazi section of the Tixonravov damaskin fare against the background of other

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

249

damaskins. Table 40 shows which homilies have been compared across the available damaskins. Only homilies of the Tixonravov togazi type were chosen. I included all published damaskins, two manuscripts kept in the Library of the Russian Academy in St. Petersburg – the Kotel (BAN, 13.5.18) and the Musina damaskin (BAN, 13.6.19)1 – and the Hilandar damaskin (HRL, SPEC.HM.SMS.683)2 whose original is at the Hilandar monastery in Mount Athos (Greece). As scholarly interest has been concentrated on the earliest damaskins, my information on the seventeenth century exceeds that 3 4 on the later centuries. Table 40. Overview of the analysed damaskin homilies from the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Homily’s short title

Damaskin name and approximate date

Source consulted

St. Symeon the Stylite3

Tixonravov, seventeenth century Trojan, seventeenth century Kotel, 1765

Demina 1971: 53–58 Ivanova 1967: 22–28 BAN, 13.5.18: 3–11

Birth of the Virgin4

Tixonravov, seventeenth century Trojan, seventeenth century Kotel, 1765

Demina 1971: 59–63 Ivanova 1967: 29–35 BAN, 13.5.18: 11v–18v

1. This collection was named by me so because it has a note on sheet 221 that starts so: Da| sa znai detu dodi vacˇju i| macˇju da| sedet˘ı da| ucˇet˘ı na| musïna ‘Let it be known that Vacˇu and Macˇu came to live and study in Musina’. The handwriting of this note is different from that of the scribe, very similar to the Veljuv 1824 damaskin copied in Musina. Musina is a village in the Pavlikeni Region known for its involvement in cultural life; see, for instance, the undated note on the margins of a fourteenth-century Mineion (Lint¸a 1985: 30). 2. Named by me so because of its current location. I gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the Hilandar Research Library at the Ohio State University for providing me with a copy of the microfilm preserved there as well as the Hilandar Monastery, which opened its invaluable collection to scholars worldwide. 3. Translated from Greek into Middle Bulgarian and from Middle Bulgarian into Modern Bulgarian contrary to Demina’s assumption that it was the original work of a Slavic author (1968: 155). Devoted to St. Symeon the Stylite (389–459 A.D., Syria), commemorated by the Orthodox Church on September 1. 4. Content-wise but not textologically connected with Jacob’s Proto-Gospel (Demina 1968: 157). Identified as a revision of a Prologue reading and a homily by Clement of Ochrida (Mircˇeva 2001: 129–149). Holiday commemorated by the Orthodox Church on September 8.

250

Language variation and textology

5

6

7

8

9

10

Homily’s short title

Damaskin name and approximate date

Source consulted

Elevation of the Cross5

Tixonravov, seventeenth century Trojan, seventeenth century Koprivsˇtica, seventeenth century Kotel, 1765 Svisˇtov, 1753

Demina 1971: 64–68 Ivanova 1967: 36–42 Mileticˇ 1908: 198–202 BAN, 13.5.18: 18v–25v Mileticˇ 1923: 287–292

St. Petka6

Tixonravov, seventeenth century Trojan, seventeenth century Koprivsˇtica, seventeenth century Ljubljana, seventeenth century Zˇeravna, seventeenth–eighteenth centuries Kotel, 1765

Demina 1971: 94–98 Ivanova 1967: 77–83 Mileticˇ 1908: 7–12 Argirov 1895: 550–5567 Syrku 1883: 387–393

St. Demetrius8

Tixonravov, seventeenth century Trojan, seventeenth century Koprivsˇtica, seventeenth century Kotel, 1765 Hilandar, nineteenth century

Demina 1971: 99–112 Ivanova 1967: 84–102 Mileticˇ 1908: 12–27 BAN, 13.5.18: 32v–52 HRL, SPEC.HM. SMS.683: 29v–40v

St. Nicholas9

Ljubljana, seventeenth century Kotel, 1765

Argirov 1895: 532–55010 BAN, 13.5.18: 60–79

BAN, 13.5.18: 25v–32v

5. A revision of a Middle Bulgarian source (Demina 1968: 159), which was translated from a Greek original (Mircˇeva 2001: 101–104). Holiday commemorated by the Orthodox Church on September 14. 6. Goes back to St. Petka’s life written in Middle Bulgarian by Euthymius of Tu˘rnovo in 1376–1382 (Demina 1968: 162–163; Mircˇeva 2001: 205–243). Holiday commemorated by the Orthodox Church on October 14. 7. NUK, Cod. Kop. 21: 96v–103, manuscript available online. 8. Authored by Damaskenós Stoudítes. Translated from Greek to Middle Bulgarian to Modern Bulgarian. Holiday commemorated on October 26. 9. Authored by Damaskenós Stoudítes. Translated from Greek to Middle Bulgarian to Modern Bulgarian. Holiday commemorated on December 6. 10. NUK, Cod. Kop. 21, 75–96, manuscript available online.

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

1112131415

251

Homily’s short title

Damaskin name and approximate date

Source consulted

Presentation of the Virgin11

Tixonravov, seventeenth century Trojan, seventeenth century Hilandar, nineteenth century Veljuv, 1824

Demina 1971: 151–155 Ivanova 1967: 159–164 HRL, SPEC.HM. SMS.683: 117v–121v BAN, 13.6.17: 79–95v

Tixonravov, seventeenth century Trojan, seventeenth century Svisˇtov, 1753

Demina 1971: 156–160 Ivanova 1967: 165–171 Mileticˇ 1923, 221–226

Tixonravov, seventeenth century Veneration of the Holy Cross13 Trojan, seventeenth century Kotel, 1765

Demina 1971: 183–188 Ivanova 1967: 217–223 BAN, 13.5.18: 79–87v

St. Mary of Egypt14

Tixonravov, seventeenth century Kotel, 1765

Demina 1971: 189–200 BAN, 13.5.18: 88–104v

Burial of Jesus Christ15

Tixonravov, seventeenth century Trojan, seventeenth century Kotel, 1765 Musina, nineteenth century Hilandar, nineteenth century

Demina 1971: 277–285 Ivanova 1967: 236–246 BAN, 13.5.18: 127v–141v BAN, 13.6.19: 183–221 HRL, SPEC.HM. SMS.683: 67v–76

St. Sabbas the Sanctified12

The comparison between damaskins was carried out in pairs. I identified which homilies from the togazi section of the Tixonravov damaskin have counterparts in the Kotel damaskin and compared the texts marking out all divergences in the area of definiteness in the Kotel damaskin. It turned out that not all togazi homilies were presented in the Kotel damaskin in the same recension. Table 40 contains only the homilies that do appear in the same recension. The next step was to search for the same homilies in the other damaskins

11. Stems from Jacob’s Proto-Gospel but its Middle Bulgarian original has not yet been identified (Demina 1968: 102–104; Mircˇeva 2001: 99–101). 12. Source unknown (Demina 1968: 107–110). 13. Authored by Damaskenós Stoudítes. Translated from Greek to Middle Bulgarian to Modern Bulgarian. Holiday commemorated on the third Lent Sunday. 14. Greek text attributed to St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (but see Kunze 1969: 20–22), translated into Middle Bulgarian and from there into Modern Bulgarian. 15. Authored by Damaskenós Stoudítes. Translated from Greek to Middle Bulgarian to Modern Bulgarian. Holiday commemorated on Easter Saturday.

252

Language variation and textology

available to me. At a later point of my investigation I included one more homily from the Ljubljana and the Svisˇtov damaskins each. This allowed me to expand the basis of comparison with these damaskins beyond the only homily that finds counterparts in both the Tixonravov and the Kotel damaskins. The curious experience I had with the Hilandar and the Musina damaskins made me broaden my nineteenth-century data base with a homily from another source, the damaskin compiled by Macˇu (or Vacˇu or perhaps Nacˇu) Veljuv from Musina in 1824 and kept today in the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg (BAN 13.6.17). Comparing each homily with its Tixonravov counterpart, I not only made lists of the divergences in the expression of definiteness but also formed an opinion of the scribes’ approach to their sources. It apparently depended on how free a scribe felt to transform his sources and how well he understood them.16 Here is a brief account of my impressions. The Musina compiler seems to have been overwhelmed by his task: he was keeping to his original as best as he could but he understood it imperfectly and his attention was wandering.17 It should not come as a surprise that the image of definiteness that he provides lags far behind the nineteenth-century state of affairs. From a strictly visual perspective, the nineteenth-century Hilandar damaskin, dated so in the catalogue of the Hilandar Research Library on the basis of watermarks and the inscriptions from 1848 and 1871 inserted in the free space left between homilies on leaf 43v, makes a better impression. Its compiler is however also slavishly dependent on an original that he sometimes misunderstood.18 The Musina and the Hilandar data were less enlightening than the 16. I have no evidence that women were involved in the production of damaskins. So the masculine pronouns in my narrative reflect my understanding that all compilers of damaskins were men. 17. I could cite many examples to prove my point but one should suffice. The Musina damaskin is a manuscript where phonetic words (that is, sequences that may include clitics and carry one stress) are separated by space. But its source was apparently not dividing words by space. As the word tisusˇtu˘ ‘thousands’ was unfamiliar, the compiler divided it into ti and susˇtu˘, and on one occasion even attached the first part to the previous numeral getting triti susˇtu˘ volove zive˛gari ‘the three are [?] teams of oxen’ instead of tri tisusˇtu˘ volove zive˛gari ‘three thousand teams of oxen’ (Musina 19th century, BAN 13.6.19: 184). 18. One instance of type 2c is amy adutpnicata razvalena osta idodne||ska (Hilandar 19th century, HRL, SPEC.HM. SMS.683: 75) standing for ami adu tu˘mnicata razvalena osta i dosega ‘and the hell’s dungeon remains ruined until this moment’ (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 284).

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

253

others except in one respect: they made me aware how much the quality of information could vary from damaskin to damaskin. The Veljuv damaskin provides a lection that differs in important respects from that available to me in the other sources.19 As to the authorship of the changes in the text, if the instances of (2c) are any indication,20 it is more plausible that they and the editorial changes were introduced by two different persons, in other words that the editorial changes belonged to the copied original classifiable therefore as instances of case (1). The Veljuv damaskin demonstrates that both younger and older manuscripts circulated in the nineteenth century: whereas some of the nineteenth-century production is textually practically identical with the oldest seventeenth-century damaskins, in other cases it may have a longer record of evolution. Sofronij (1739–1813), the future Bishop of Vraca, identified as the compiler of the Kotel damaskin (P. Ivanov 1931), embraced a different approach based on his much better understanding of the text as well as a broader definition of the admissible linguistic modifications. In terms of definiteness, the Kotel damaskin consistently provides a more recent picture than the other sources at my disposal.

19. The text bears striking resemblance to the Tixonravov version but there also are modifications pointing to a conscious editing effort. As Demina (1968: 60) assigns the Veljuv damaskin to her third group of Modern Bulgarian damaskins, perhaps its peculiarities characterise the whole group. Among the systematic lexical replacements are sr[˘ıd]ce ‘heart’ for utroba ‘womb’, rozˇba ‘offspring’ for seˇme ‘seed’ and plod˘ı ‘fruit’, grizˇa ‘worry’ for skr˘ıb˘ı ‘sorrow’, prilicˇa for podobaet ‘it is proper’, bolerin ‘nobleman’ for bogat˘ı ‘rich’, dusˇmani for vragove ‘enemies’ etc. Frequently but not always, the changes find a parallel in the Trojan damaskin and – outside this homily – in replacements made in the Ljubljana and the Kotel damaskins of the second group of Modern Bulgarian damaskins. Besides, at the end (BAN, 13.6.17: 92v–95v) there as an ample addition containing a hymn to the Virgin structured around an impressive series of forty imperatives radujse˛ ‘rejoice’, reminiscent of the Akathist to the Holy Virgin, but the content of the hymn is not the same. 20. Here is just one example of quite a few showing that the copyist did not always understand the text he was copying: ne| prilïcˇa praveden˘ı ty da prenesesˇ˘ı dar g[o]s[po]du b[o]gu zasˇto|si bescˇaden˘ı (BAN 13.6.17: 79v) ‘it is not proper for you righteous to offer a gift to the Lord God because you are childless’ vs. ne podobaet pr˘ıveˇn˘ı ty da prinesesˇ˘ı dar˘ı g[ospo]du b[o]gu zasˇtoto si bezplodn˘ı (Demina 1971: 151) ‘it is not proper for you to be the first who offers a gift to the Lord God because you are childless’.

254

Language variation and textology

Judging from the facsimile of eleven pages of the Svisˇtov damaskin reproduced by Mileticˇ (1923) at the end of his edition, several different scribes contributed to the damaskin. The different authorship may account for the radically different treatment of definiteness in the two analysed homilies. Introducing very few changes (eight new definite articles were introduced and two are missing from the inventory of forty-two available in the Tixonravov damaskin, see Table 42), the Svisˇtov damaskin embraces in Elevation of the Cross a conservative approach not unlike the Musina and the Hilandar damaskins whereas, conversely, in St. Sabbas the Svisˇtov damaskin makes many additions: the Tixonravov provides 83 out of the expected 193 definite articles (or 43 %), the Trojan damaskin adds four but omits two (44 %), whereas the Svisˇtov damaskin adds forty-one new definite articles, bringing the total representation to 64.23 % of the expected. It has been noticed before (Demina 1968: 81, 85), and my experience confirms it, that the compiler of the Trojan damaskin systematically updated the orthography, grammar and vocabulary of his original. The more noteworthy it is that he felt no urge to introduce serious changes to the expression of definiteness.21 This can only mean that, in this regard, his original matched closely his linguistic intuition. The testimony of the Trojan damaskin adds weight to the assumption that my findings in the Tixonravov damaskin are indeed representative of the stage of evolution of definiteness in seventeenthcentury Bulgarian. Although to a lesser extent, the Ljubljana damaskin can serve as evidence of the same. Its compiler too did not refrain from emendations in the text (Demina 1968: 205) but the expression of definiteness was not subjected to as many changes. Least revealing are the data from the Koprivsˇtica damaskin, which hardly differ from the Tixonravov’s, a fact that complies with the observation that these two manuscripts are very closely related (Demina 1968: 79–80, 225). Let us now have a look at the list of divergences between the Tixonravov homilies and their counterparts in the other available manuscripts. Each entry in the list can be attributed to one of the five raisons d’être discussed at the beginning of this chapter. I begin my survey with the instances that have a direct bearing on the language system, represented by cases (1) and (2a), and exclude for the time being any reinterpretations of the source (2b) or errors (2c), pertaining to the area labeled parole by Ferdinand de Saussure. 21. It is significant from this point of view that in 18.75 % of instances or nine out of a total of forty-eight definite articles of case (2a) in eight analysed homilies the newly introduced definite articles accompany lexical democratization. This reduces his strictly definiteness-related interpolations to meager thirty-nine.

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

255

4.2.1. Langue: case (1) vs. case (2a) Here are some typical illustrations of the kind of data to be considered at this time: (564) i po, 3, den˘ı and after 3 day otide si na went.3SG REFL.DAT on

(565) i| po| tretïjat˘ı and after third.MASC.THE d[e]n˘ı utide| si day went.3SG REFL.DAT

svoe meˇsto na| s||voe meˇsto own.NEUT place on own.NEUT place (Kotel 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 57) 10) ‘And after the third day [the grass-snake] returned to his place.’ An option that normally exists only with numerals is to find them in one manuscript written out and in another represented by a letter with a numerical value (corresponding to an Arabic figure in my transliteration). Such is the case illustrated by (564) and (565). The Tixonravov letter g under a title could correspond to ‘third’ or ‘the third’ in any gender. Following his native speaker’s intuition, Sofronij of Vraca rendered this situationally unique referent as ‘the third day’. Speakers of Standard Bulgarian today would make the same choice. If Sofronij’s source contained a polysemic notation like the Tixonravov one, its explicit interpretation should be attributed to Sofronij himself. Otherwise, the choice will have to be attributed to a previous manuscript generation. Anyway, such data are excluded from the statistical analysis as they are not comparable across manuscripts using polysemic and monosemic notation. (566) i slusˇasˇe and was-listening.3SG

(567) i| slusˇasˇe and was-listening.3SG

kato cˇ˘ıteˇxa as were-reading.3PL

kato cˇitjaxa as were-reading.3PL

apos[to]l˘ı i ne apostle and not

apos[to]l˘ı i| apostle and

razumeˇvasˇe was.understanding.3SG

ev[an]g[e]lïe i| ne| gospel and not

sˇto duma i what says and

razumjavasˇe sˇto| was.understanding.3SG what

256

Language variation and textology

popita asked.3SG

duma i| po||pita says and asked.3SG

neˇkoego some.MASC.ACC

njakoego some.MASC.ACC

kazˇe starca !…" old-man.ACC says

starca !…" kazˇe| old-man.ACC says

mu starec˘ıt˘ı mu starc˘ı him.CL.DAT old-man.THE him.CL.DAT old-man (Kotel 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 53) 3–3v) ‘And he was listening how they were reading the Apostle [and the Gospel] and he did not understand what it said and he asked a certain old man !…" The old man says to him’ Comparing (566) and (567), one can register an apparent regress in the use of the anaphoric definite article. The intuition of present-day speakers goes with the compiler of the earlier Tixonravov damaskin rather than the more recent Kotel damaskin. To explain this incongruity, one would have to assume that this is an example of case (1). Sofronij of Vraca must have copied a source that deviated from Tixonravov and he simply preserved the state of affairs found in his source. As no compiler of damaskins (Sofronij included) ever achieved full consistency in his updates of the source, it is easier to accept that he missed some instances that should have been changed than that he went out of his way to transform an acceptable form into an unacceptable one. (568) a toizi cˇlovek˘ı but this.MASC person

(569) a| toizi cˇl[ove]k˘ı but this.MASC person

sïmeon˘ı, razvaleˇ, symeon spoils

sïmeon˘ı razvali symeon spoiled.3SG

i ne and not

zakon˘ı, i| ne| jade law and not eats

jade eats

preˇz sicˇka during all.FEM

prez| sicˇkata during all.FEM.THE

ned[e]lja, ami si week but REFL.DAT

ned[e]lja, ami| si week but REFL.DAT

dava jasteto gives food.THE

dava jasticeto gives food.DIM.THE

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

257

po syromasi po| siromasi among poor-people among poor-people (Kotel 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: 5) (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 54) ‘And this person Symeon violates [the law] and does not eat during the entire week but gives his food out to the poor’ Examples (568) and (569) illustrate case (2a). As opposed to the Tixonravov, the more recent Kotel damaskin displays a distributive individuative article in a nominal for which a speaker of Standard Bulgarian would also make this choice. The minimum number of homilies that need to be subjected to statistical analysis in order to get an idea of the entire range of manuscripts is four: St. Petka, Elevation of the Cross, Jesus Christ’s Burial and Presentation of the Virgin. The numerical data on the definite articles in these homilies are presented in Tables 41–44 (see next pages). The last row in each table contains information on the representation of definite articles in the text of the homily that I as a native speaker of Standard Bulgarian would consider necessary to produce a grammatically correct text. Whatever the number, it is assumed to equal 100 %. The actual situation in the manuscripts is presented on the appropriate rows in absolute numbers and in percentage from the ideal 100 % of the standard language. The Tixonravov damaskin is the only one compared directly with Standard Bulgarian. The other manuscripts are represented as functions from the Tixonravov. In the first line of each subsection I have noted the number of definite articles added to those available in the Tixonravov, in the second line any definite articles that are present in the Tixonravov but absent from this manuscript, in the third line the sum of articles in this category and finally the percentage from the ideal 100 %. The last line in each subsection summarizes the information regarding all types of definite descriptions: situationally unique, individuative, quantitative and distributive. As expected, many more articles are added than subtracted. The numbers in the homilies that have a Tixonravov equivalent are 158 and 26, respectively. As mentioned above, I consider the missing articles whose absence violates Standard Bulgarian rules instances of case (1). Besides the circular argument that they cannot be anything else as they represent a step back from the state of affairs attested in the Tixonravov damaskin, my claim could be supported with a consideration at the intersection of linguistics and textology. Both linguistic and textological phenomena can be divided into archaisms and innovations. Linguistic archaisms and innovations are defined against the

258

Language variation and textology

1 7.14 %

37 1 37.37 % 7.69 %

Total

1 3.57 %

Quantitative individuatives

Individuatives

Tixonravov

Situationally unique individuatives

17th

Unique referents

Source and century

Generics

Table 41. St. Petka: Numerical data on the use of definite articles

2 42 28.57 % 26.09 %

39 (30.95 %) Koprivsˇtica

0

0

1 3.57 %

1 7.14 %

0 0 (–2) 35 1 35.35 % 7.69 %

0 (–2) 40 24.84 %

37 (29.37 %) Trojan

0 1 3.57 %

0 (–1) 0 0%

0 0 (–1) 36 1 36.36 % 7.69 %

0 (–2) 2 40 28.57 % 24.84 %

37 (29.37 %) Ljubljana

2

2

0

5

0

1

1 3.57 %

47 2 3 39 2 14.29 % 39.39 % 23.08 % 28.57 % 29.19 % 44 (34.92 %)

17th–

Zˇeravna

0

2

2

1

0

5

1 3.57 %

3 39 2 2 47 21.43 % 39.39 % 15.38 % 28.57 % 29.19 %

18th

44 (34.92 %) 18th

Kotel

2 (–1) 6 2 21.43 % 14.29 % 5

17 1 8 3 (–1) 59 3 4 44 44.44 % 30.77 % 42.86 % 36.65 %

50 (39.68 %) 20th

Standard Bulgarian

28

14 126

99

13

7

161

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

259

17th

Tixonravov

8 0 26.67 % 0 %

30 2 2 0 26.79 % 14.29 % 100 % 0 %

Total

Generics

Distributive individuatives

Quantitative individuatives

Individuatives

Unique referents

Source and century

Situationally unique individuatives

Table 42. Elevation of the Cross: Numerical data on the use of definite articles

42 21.21 %

34 (20.36 %) Koprivsˇtica

1

0

0

0

0

0

9 30 %

0 0%

30 2 2 0 26.79 % 14.29 % 100 % 0 %

1 43 21.72 %

34 (20.36 %) Trojan

2 (–1) 9 30 %

0 0 0%

4

0

0

0

34 2 2 0 30.36 % 14.29 % 100 % 0 %

5 47 23.74 %

38 (22.75 %) 18th

Svisˇtov

4

0

12 40 %

0 0%

4 0 0 0 (–2) 36 2 2 0 32.14 % 14.29 % 100 % 0 %

6 48 24.24 %

40 (23.95 %) Kotel

5 (–1) 12 40 %

8

9 0 0 0 (–1) 8 38 2 2 0 20.51 % 33.93 % 14.29 % 100 % 0 %

20 62 31.31 %

50 (29.94 %) 20th

Standard Bulgarian

30

39 167

112

14

2

1

198

260

Language variation and textology

17th

Tixonravov 6 6.82 %

Total

Generics

78 13 41.71 % 61.9 %

Distributive individuatives

1 5.88 %

Quantitative individuatives

Individuatives

Unique referents

Source and century

Situationally unique individuatives

Table 43. Jesus Christ’s Burial: Numerical data on the use of definite articles

6 11 115 66.67 % 29.73 % 32.03 %

98 (41.88 %) Trojan

0

1

6 6.82 %

2 11.77 %

1 1 0 1 3 (–1) 78 14 6 12 118 41.71 % 66.67 % 66.67 % 32.43 % 32.87 %

100 (42.74 %) 18th

Kotel

13 0 (–3) 13 4 88 15 17.05 % 23.53 % 47.06 % 61.9 %

9

3

0

2

25

140 13 6 66.67 % 35.14 % 39 %

111 (47.44 %) 19th

Musina

1

0

7 7.95 %

1 5.88 %

5 0 (–2) 81 13 43.32 % 61.9 %

0

1

5

6 12 120 66.67 % 32.43 % 33.43 %

101 (43.16 %) Hilandar

0

1

6 6.82 %

2 11.77 %

1 0 (–1) 78 13 41.71 % 61.9 %

0

0

1

6 11 116 66.67 % 29.73 % 32.31 %

99 (42.31 %) 20th

Standard Bulgarian

88

17 234

187

21

9

37

359

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

261

17th

Tixonravov 2 9.52 %

7 51 10 4 41.18 % 54.26 % 55.56 % 26.67

Total

Generics

Distributive individuatives

Quantitative individuatives

Individuatives

Unique referents

Source and century

Situationally unique individuatives

Table 44. Presentation of the Virgin: Numerical data on the use of definite articles

8 82 88.89 % 47.13 %

72 (50 %) Trojan

0 2 9.52 %

0

4 1 0 (–4) 7 51 11 4 41.18 % 54.26 % 61.11 % 26.67

0

1

8 83 88.89 % 47.7 %

73 (50.69 %) 19th

Hilandar

0

0

0

0

0

2 9.52 %

4 10 51 7 41.18 % 54.26 % 55.56 % 26.67

0

0

82 8 88.89 % 47.13 %

72 (50 %) Veljuv

3

1 (–1) 5 7 23.81 % 41.18 %

5 (–2) 54 57.45 %

5 1 1 (–1) 14 5 9 77.78 % 33.33 % 100 %

12

18

174

94 54.02 %

80 (55.56 %) 20th

Standard Bulgarian

21

17 144

94

15

9

background of the set of rules active at the time an utterance was produced: both violate this set but archaisms conform to the rules of a previous period whereas innovations are the germs of future rules coming to replace the current ones. Textological archaisms correspond to case (1) and textological innovations or, in other words, the voluntary and involuntary interpolations of the scribe – to case (2). At first glance, textological archaisms and innovations can each consist of both linguistic archaisms and linguistic innovations. My claim is that missing articles (a proven linguistic archaism as there is evidence that at an earlier point of time these particular instances were represented in conformity with modern standards by another speaker) must also be textological archaisms. Nine of the linguistic archaisms of interest to me here (or

262

Language variation and textology

34.62 %) have an identical representation in more than one manuscript. The corresponding number for the linguistic innovations is 41 or 25.95 %. Textological archaisms are more likely than textological innovations to be represented in more than one manuscript. It is more plausible that a number of different people uniformly keep unchanged an expression that is part of their source rather than that they miraculously modify it identically with others. Given the limited basis of my comparison, even modest numerical differences (25.95 % vs. 34.62 %) can serve as evidence that these linguistic archaisms are indeed instances of case (1), or textological archaisms. There is a further argument that can support at least for some instances the reasoning that missing definite articles in later manuscripts may be a heritage not even from an earlier but a much earlier source. The Kotel and the Ljubljana damaskins belong to the same group II of Demina’s classification of the Modern Bulgarian damaskins but the line of descent is not a direct one. This means that their genealogies contain a common source and they should display greater similarities between themselves than with manuscripts of the other groups. I compared the Kotel and the Ljubljana versions of two homilies. One of them (St. Petka) appears in the same recension in the Tixonravov and the Trojan damaskins. As expected, the earlier Ljubljana damaskin has fewer new definite articles in comparison with the Kotel damaskin (a total of six) and all six reappear in the Kotel damaskin. In other words, in it they could be textological archaisms. On the two occasions when the Kotel damaskin omits definite articles that are present in the Tixonravov damaskin, the Ljubljana damaskin follows the Tixonravov, whereas the Trojan damaskin once joins the Tixonravov and the Ljubljana damaskins and once the Kotel damaskin. The second homily (St. Nicholas) appears in the Tixonravov and the Trojan damaskins in different recensions. Taking the Ljubljana damaskin as my basis of comparison, I found that the Kotel damaskin offers many more instances of the definite article and only in five instances the Ljubljana damaskin displays definite articles in positions for which the Kotel damaskin has nominals of the unmarked series. Out of those, the Tixonravov and the Trojan damaskins (which happen to provide the respective portions of the text as well) side with the Kotel damaskin on three occasions and with the Ljubljana damaskin on two. Thus we have evidence from two different branches of the manuscript family corroborating the case (1) hypothesis for four instances out of seven in these two homilies. Coincidental textological evidence about linguistic archaisms cutting across genealogical lines projects them into the source for these lines and transforms them into textological archaisms of the second generation. In the remaining three instances the Kotel damaskin opposes all the other investigated manuscripts but this still is no proof that its

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

263

compiler was not following his source in this regard and that these are no textological archaisms. By increasing the basis of comparison with more seventeenth-century manuscripts, one should eventually be able to identify all linguistic archaisms that are at the same time textological archaisms, the percentage of linguistic innovations that are at the same time textological archaisms either keeping stable or decreasing. The more we know about the original text and its early revisions, the better our chances to trace back any linguistic archaisms. Conversely, no amount of information about the original text can throw light on language changes that are to take place only later. As linguistic innovations enter their Phase II and especially Phase III, the chances that the same innovative emendation of the original text would occur independently to two or more scribes grow. Increasing the basis of comparison with eighteenth- and nineteenth-century manuscripts, one should be able to register a raise in the percentage of linguistic innovations that are at the same time textological innovations but find few if any linguistic archaisms in the guise of textological innovations. Anyway, besides its isolated appearance in a recent manuscript against the testimony of all other manuscripts there are no other criteria that allow one to treat a linguistic archaism as a textological innovation. Let us now look into the definite articles summarized in Tables 41–44 by category. The data demonstrate a certain balance between variability and stability. On one hand, the types of description represented in a homily depend on the subject matter as one can see comparing the values for the Standard Bulgarian versions of the homilies. On the other hand, unique referents and generics are represented as a whole more sparsely, which means that the available numbers are insufficient to be statistically relevant. At the same time these are the categories that were to experience the most significant change in the period after the seventeenth century but greater databases are needed to make the statistic analysis worthwhile. The data however show an overall increase in the use of definite articles as time goes by and confirm that generics are ahead of unique referents in the acquisition of the definite article. All manuscripts offer comparable treatments of the definite article and the Kotel, Hilandar, Ljubljana, Trojan, Koprivsˇtica and Tixonravov damaskins are consistent in their approach to definiteness across homilies. In brief, the analysis of data subscribing to cases (1) and (2a) proves the validity of the diachronic model of definiteness built on the basis of the Tixonravov damaskin. The Kotel, the Svisˇtov (in St. Sabbas) and the Veljuv damaskins offer the bulk of the evidence regarding evolution after the seventeenth century. Table 45 provides an overview of the quantitative data in absolute numbers and percentage of the total by manuscript. The majority of the changes pertain to

264

Language variation and textology

definites (individuative, quantitative and distributive). Most reliable statistically are the data of the Kotel damaskin compiled by Sofronij, Bishop of Vraca, in 1765 in his birthplace Kotel. The comparison of the post-seventeenth century changes in the Kotel damaskin with those introduced in unknown localities at unknown time and attested in the Veljuv damaskin (written in Musina, Pavlikeni Region in 1824) and the Svisˇtov damaskin (allegedly written in Svisˇtov on the Danube River in 1753) shows two major differences: the Svisˇtov damaskin keeps to the definite segment inside which its distribution is very similar to the Kotel data whereas the Veljuv data mirroring the general profile of the Kotel data display differences precisely inside the definite segment and particularly in its quantitative individuative section. This configuration can receive a non-contradictory explanation in the framework of the diachronic model of definiteness by attributing the Svisˇtov data to an earlier period of time than the Kotel data and the Veljuv data to a later period than the Kotel data. In order to be accepted or refuted this hypothetical explanation needs to be verified against a larger body of eighteenth and nineteenth-century texts and a detailed textological study of the manuscripts involved. Including the Zˇeravna damaskin in the discussion, one can reach some conclusions of textological importance. The Zˇeravna damaskin has been asTable 45. Definite articles of cases (1) and (2a) introduced after the seventeenth century Quantitative individuatives

Distributive individuatives

Generics

32 19.88 %

12 7.45 % 116 72.05 %

90 55.9 %

11 6.83 %

3 1.86 %

13 9.07 %

161

Svisˇtov damaskin (one homily)

2 5.71 %

4 11.43 % 33 91.67 %

23 65.71 %

5 14.29 %

1 2.86 %

0 0%

35

Veljuv damaskin (one homily)

3 18.75 %

1 6.25 % 12 75 %

5 31.25 %

5 31.25 %

1 6.25 %

1 6.25 %

16

Total

Individuatives

Kotel damaskin (seven homilies)

Unique referents

Situationally unique individuatives

Source

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

265

signed an intermediary position between group I represented by the Tixonravov, Koprivsˇtica and Trojan damaskins in my selection22 and group II (the Ljubljana and the Kotel damaskins) (Demina 1968: 168). In the realm of definiteness it comes closest to the Ljubljana damaskin. It shares two of its five case (2a) innovations with the Ljubljana and the Kotel damaskins but the fact that it also displays innovations of its own shows that it is an offspring of the manuscript intermediary between groups I and II rather than the intermediary itself. 4.2.2. Parole: cases (2b) and (2c) One way in which the comparison of damaskins subtly changes the perspective on the evolution of definiteness is by imposing a new dimension of reinterpretation of the linguistic facts, or what I dubbed above the cases (2bi) and (2bii). While I was analyzing Tixonravov data, taken in isolation, from the point of view of my own linguistic intuition, I was working most of the time in a yes-or-no regime. A given nominal was either grammatical or ungrammatical in my language system. By introducing better and worse expressions, textological variation made me consider alternatives that ignored the grammaticality divide. In other words, under the influence of textological variation my model switched from a dual into a gradual mode, forcing me to take into account “free variation”. In fact, it was not always possible to make yes-or-no decisions even when I was comparing only two systems (Tixonravov and Standard Bulgarian). This was however only visible to me when I was dealing with three-way rather than two-way contrasts (see section 3.11). The obvious ungrammaticality of some 1U (stol) forms in the Tixonravov damaskin captured my attention but I had hard time deciding what to opt for to make them grammatical: 1M1 (stolu˘t) or 1M2 (edin stol). The alternative expressions would attribute to such forms different meanings and there were no objective criteria for choosing between them. The comparative analysis of damaskins demonstrated that when compilers were confronted with similar situations they too could make different choices. This is the situation referred to here as case (2bi). One could suspect the existence of an ambiguous expression behind every such branching even

22. Here arguably belongs the Hilandar damaskin too.

266

Language variation and textology

if it was not attested in any of the manuscripts at one’s disposal. In fact, in my collection there are only two instances that fit this description. Here is one of them: (570) i zosima su˘ sl˘ızite (571) i| zosima sas and zosima with tears.THE and zosima with si omy REFL.DAT washed.3SG

sl˘ızi omï| tears washed.3SG

i nodzeˇte i nodzite her.CL. DAT feet.THE her.CL.DAT feet.THE (Kotel 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 199) 104) ‘And Zosima washed her feet with [his] tears.’ An initial ungrammatical (and unattested) 2U su˘s sl˘ızi si could have been replaced with 2M su˘ sl˘ızite si in the Tixonravov damaskin and 1U sas sl˘ızi in the Kotel damaskin. Both replacements are correct from the point of view of Standard Bulgarian but the Tixonravov is more explicit whereas the Kotel damaskin only focuses on the nature of liquid leaving its provenance unspecified. Since I found the expansion of 2M in its Phase IV in the Tixonravov, which counts as one of the earliest damaskins in Modern Bulgarian, the validity of my hypothesis about the existence of 2U su˘s sl˘ızi si in both Tixonravov’s and Kotel’s sources would hang on the circulation of damaskins older than the Tixonravov during the eighteenth century. My data are too meager to make such a conclusion plausible. Moreover, as 1U in the Kotel damaskin is on a sounder ground from a pragmatic point of view (cf. Grice’s second maxim of quantity: ‘Do not make your contribution more informative than required’), one cannot exclude the possibility that the compiler of the Kotel damaskin transformed a 2M nominal into 1U. Most other examples of this category do manifest a stylistic or pragmatic improvement of the text. There are many more instances of nominals that could only have two variants, both grammatical and both represented in manuscripts. In the analysed body of manuscripts I found thirteen such examples. They feature cases in which a nominal of the U series with a typifying, generic or non-specific meaning in one group of manuscripts corresponds to a nominal of the M series with an individuative meaning in another group of manuscripts. The context leaves the interpretation open. This situation necessarily involved the modification of an acceptable expression by the initiators of textological innovations. A clear example of the treatment of such nominals (in this case

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

267

a 6U or a 6M1 nominal) in different manuscripts is provided by (572) and (573): (572) i videˇ me (573) i| videˇ| me and saw.3SG me.CL.ACC and saw.3SG me.CL.ACC edin˘ı cˇl[ove]k˘ı kato one.MASC person as

edin˘ı cˇl[ove]k˘ı kato one.MASC person as

izleˇzuvax. ta came-out.1SG so

izljazvax ta| came-out.1SG so

mi dade tri me.CL.DAT gave.3SG three

mi dade tri me.CL.DAT gave.3SG three

meˇdnjusˇki i recˇe copper-coins and said.3SG

mednusˇki i| recˇe| copper-coins and said.3SG

mi, zemi me.CL.DAT take.IMPER.2SG

mi, z˘ımni, me.CL.DAT take.IMPER.2SG

maike. i az mother.VOC and I

i| az| and I

gi zex, them.CL.ACC took.1SG

gi zex˘ı, them.CL.ACC took.1SG

i kupix s˘ıs and bought.1SG with

i| kupix˘ı sas and bought.1SG with

teˇx tri xleˇbove !…" them.ACC three breads

tjax˘ı tri xleˇba !…" them.ACC three breads

i napokon˘ı, izeˇdox and afterwards ate.1SG

i nasetne izjadox˘ı and afterwards ate.1SG

edin˘ı xleˇb˘ıc˘ı. i one.MASC bread and

edinat˘ı xleˇb˘ıc˘ı. i| one.MASC.THE bread and

napix se voda drank REFL.ACC water

napix| se voda drank REFL.ACC water

ot s[ve]t[o]go from holy.MASC.GEN

ot| s[ve]t[o]go from holy.MASC.GEN

268

Language variation and textology

iordana iordana Jordan.GEN Jordan.GEN (Kotel 1765, BAN, 13.5.18, (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971, 195) 98) ‘And a person saw me when I was coming out and gave me three copper coins and told me, “Take them [Mother].” And I took them and bought with them three loaves. !…" And afterwards I ate one loaf/one of these loaves and drank water from the holy Jordan.’ The Tixonravov lection leaves the provenance of the loaf St. Mary of Egypt ate unspecified, emphasizing instead that she ate one loaf rather than two or three. The Kotel damaskin opted for an anaphoric 6M1, thus making it clear that the bread she ate was one of those bought before. As the identification of the loaves was not negated in the Tixonravov lection and was not essential from the point of view of the plot, I do not see particular virtues in the Kotel lection. Whoever made this change however deemed it worthwhile. This example shows that even minor semantic nuances could induce a compiler to change an expression that was grammatically correct. Such are the simplest instances of case (2bii). As opposed to case (2a) for which it was possible to attribute all the ungrammatical nominals of type U in later manuscripts to the source, here grammatical nominals of type U have the same chances to be textological innovations and archaisms in comparison with equally grammatical nominals of type M. On many occasions, the option for a different nominal accompanies other changes so that taken in their totality the corresponding fragments can be said to represent more complex instances of case (2bii). The changes can involve word order, as well as the replacement, omission or addition of words and rephrasing. Changes of expression provoke, as a rule, changes of meaning. One example of this more complex type of revision in three manuscripts should suffice: (574)

i and

pak again

si this.FEM

sleˇze descended.3SG recˇ, word

v in

mu˘k˘ı. hell

nisko low.ADV i and

ot than

zemljata, earth.THE

izvadi took-out.3SG

tamo there

vu˘ in

m˘ık˘ı d[u]sˇi sˇto beˇxu dobry hell/suffering souls that were3PL good.PL ‘And again [Jesus] descended lower than the ground, in other words, in hell and took out in hell (in suffering?) souls that were good.’ (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 185)

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

269

(575) i pak sleˇze dolu ot zemljata sireˇcˇ, and again descended.3SG down than earth.THE in-other-words dolu vu˘ mu˘k˘ı. i izvadi tamo sˇto beˇxu vu˘ down in hell and took-out.3SG there that were3PL in muku dobry d[u]sˇi hell.ACC good.PL souls ‘And again [Jesus] descended below the ground, in other words, down in hell and there took out [those] that were in hell good souls.’ (Trojan 17th century, Ivanova 1967: 219) (576) i| pak˘ı sleze nisko ot| zemljata, and again descended.3SG low.ADV than earth.THE sirecˇ, v˘ı| m˘ık˘ı. i| izvadi tamo d[u]sˇite in-other-words in hell and took-out.3SG there souls.THE sˇto bjaxa v˘ı| m˘ıkata dobri that were3PL in hell.THE good.PL ‘And again [Jesus] descended lower than the ground, in other words, in hell and there took out the souls that were in hell good.’ (Kotel 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: 83) In these sentences issues of lexical meaning and word order contribute to the different interpretation of two nominals. Regarding the choice of the nominals marked in bold, the Kotel lection corresponds to Standard Bulgarian. The revision of word order in the Trojan damaskin transformed the 1U nominal dobry d[u]sˇi into a predicate and thus made it acceptable. In the Tixonravov damaskin word order was reshuffled and as a result the 1U nominal vu˘ m˘ık˘ı was moved outside the scope of the subordinate clause. In this position its meaning clashes with the verb izvadi ‘took out’ (souls are taken out of hell rather than taken out in hell) and one starts wondering if the etymologic meaning of mu˘ka ‘suffering, torment, ordeal’ should be preferred over the regional ‘hell’, which was the meaning of the word when mentioned the first time around. Thus we can see that although the Kotel damaskin with its two nominals of the marked series is the only one that satisfies current standards, the other two manuscripts with their two nominals of the unmarked series each are only one nominal of the marked series short of complying with the standard. As such instances are not comparable across manuscripts, they should be excluded from any statistics, made for the purposes of evaluating the processes of language change. And finally, let me give one example of case (2c). Since overt marking of

270

Language variation and textology

definiteness was a living feature of compilers’ speech, they could hardly make mistakes unless they were confronted with special circumstances. The compiler of the Musina damaskin obviously did not know the word plu˘t˘ı ‘flesh’. That’s the only plausible explanation for the two mistakes that he made with words of this family pl˘ıtaski (BAN 13.6.19: 203) instead of pl˘ıt˘ıskyi ‘in the flesh’ (Demina 1971: 281) and pl˘ıtka (BAN 13.6.19: 188v) instead of plu˘ta ‘the flesh’ (Demina 1971: 278). The repercussion of this error on the overt marking of definiteness should be considered collateral damage and disregarded. It is significant that this is one of only two forms relevant for the grammatical category definiteness, which I can attribute to error with certainty. The other comes from a misunderstood sentence in the Hilandar damaskin (HRL, SPEC.HM. SMS.683: 75). None of the analysed instances have so far identified coexistence of language systems in the text transmitted by tradition. Are there systematic occurrences that make it possible to discern any characteristic features of the speech varieties of compilers, perhaps at variance with the system represented in their source? There are at least three phenomena pertaining to expression rather than content that can be considered under such a heading. They show how one can identify competing stylistic and dialect variants inside the same manuscript tradition and what conclusion regarding the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian one can draw on their basis. A. It was shown in section 3.1 that anaphoric 1M1 (stolu˘t) nominals or equivalent appear in the Tixonravov damaskin in competition with nominals accompanied by a demonstrative determiner (1M5-1 onija lekari). Moreover, this latter usage is perceived as a stylistically marked although grammatically correct device by speakers of Standard Bulgarian. The compiler of the Trojan damaskin must have felt in a similar way because the Trojan damaskin features six 1M1 nominals and one 1U (stol) nominal instead of the corresponding nominals of type 1M5-1 in the Tixonravov. Conversely, the Kotel damaskin offers only three such replacements (one 1M1 and two 1U) and on one occasion it has 1M5-1 where the Tixonravov offers 1M1. My impression is that the Kotel damaskin adheres to no particular policy regarding the 1M5-1 nominals but follows its source, the Tixonravov at least on some occasions replaces 1U nominals with 1M5-1 nominals, whereas the Trojan damaskin avoids the 1M5-1 nominals in some homilies more assiduously than in others (four examples come from St. Demetrius). The other analysed manuscripts make the same choices as the Tixonravov damaskin. I shall give one example of the competition between sub-varieties of a nominal of type 8:

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

271

8M2-3 (577) i poveleˇ onomuzi ep[i]sk[o]pu da nosi and ordered.3SG that.MASC.DAT bishop.DAT to carries gnoi na lozïe i na gradinu gde seˇjut˘ı manure on vineyard and on orchard.ACC where sow.3PL zelïe. i onzi ep[i]sk[o]p˘ı noseˇsˇe. i cabbage and that.MASC bishop was-carrying.3SG and mnozˇisˇt˘ı uzimasˇe onzi kosˇ˘ı su˘s˘ı many-times was-taking.3SG that.MASC basket with gnoisˇteto na glavu˘ta si i sl˘ızi manure.THE on head.ACC.THE REFL.DAT and tears mu tecˇaxa iz ocˇite him.CL.DAT were-running.3PL from eyes.THE ‘And [the rich Turk] ordered that bishop to carry manure to the vineyard and the orchard where they plant cabbage. And that bishop carried [it] and he would often put that basket with the manure on his head and tears would run from his eyes.’ (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 105; same wording in Hilandar 19th century, HRL, SPEC.HM. SMS.683: 34) 8M2-1 (578) i poveleˇ onomuva ep[i]sk[o]pu da nosi and ordered.3SG that.MASC.DAT bishop.DAT to carries gnoj na lozïe i na bostan˘ı. i onja manure on vineyard and on melon-field and that.MASC ep[i]sk[o]p˘ı noseˇsˇe. i mnozˇisˇt˘ı uzimasˇe bishop was-carrying.3SG and many-times was-taking.3SG kosˇu˘t˘ı su˘s gnoisˇteto na glavu˘ta si basket.THE with manure.THE on head.ACC.THE REFL.DAT i sl˘ızi mu tecˇaxa iz˘ı ocˇite and tears him.CL.DAT were-running.3PL from eyes.THE ‘And [the rich Turk] ordered that bishop to carry manure to the vineyard and the melon field. And that bishop carried [it] and he would often put the basket with the manure on his head and tears would run from his eyes.’ (Trojan 17th century, Ivanova 1967: 92)

272

Language variation and textology

8U1 (579) i| povele onomuzi ep[i]sk[o]pu da| nosi and ordered.3SG that.MASC.DAT bishop.DAT to carries gnoi na| lozi i| na| gradini deto sejat˘ı manure on vineyard and on orchard.ACC where sow.3PL dzelïe. i| onzi ep[i]sk[o]p˘ı nosesˇe. i cabbage and that.MASC bishop was-carrying.3SG and mnozˇisˇt uzemasˇe kosˇ˘ı sas gnoisˇti na| many-times was-taking.3SG basket with manure on glavata| si i sl˘ı||zi| mu head.THE REFL.DAT and tears him.CL.DAT tecˇaxa iz| ocˇite were-running.3PL from eyes.THE ‘And [the rich Turk] ordered that bishop to carry manure to the vineyard and the orchards where they plant cabbage. And that bishop carried [it] and he would often put a basket with manure on his head and tears would run from his eyes.’ (Kotel 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: 41v) Individuatives – stylistically marked in (577) and neutral in (578) – are opposed to a non-specific in (579). The Trojan and the Tixonravov damaskins are closer in their interpretation of the referent (the basket was the same every time the bishop had to carry it), whereas the Kotel damaskin assumes that the bishop was confronted with a multitude of baskets. All three lections are grammatically correct from a contemporary point of view. The tendency of the compiler of the Trojan damaskin to replace stylistically marked individuatives with their neutral equivalents fits his noticeable overall orientation towards a revision of his source and adaptation to the speech of his audience. B. By using side by side masculine articles that are today attested in different dialect systems, my selection of damaskin homilies throws light on the phonetic evolution of the article for masculine singulars -u˘tu˘. Relevant in this regard are the Svisˇtov and the Veljuv damaskins. Ljubomir Mileticˇ notes in his linguistic commentary to the Svisˇtov damaskin that it uses articles of type -o(t) as well as -u˘t in a variety of graphic representations as markers of definiteness for masculines. As such a combination was eclectic by the standards of the Bulgarian regional varieties he was familiar with, he concluded that the former article was characteristic of the Moesian dialect of the compiler, whereas his source was using the latter

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

273

article (Mileticˇ 1923: 16–23).23 Table 46 presents my data by homily and type of textological case. Table 46. Definite article for masculine singulars in the Svisˇtov damaskin Case (2bi): presumable textological innovations

Case (1): presumable textological archaisms

Type -u˘t

Elevation of the Cross St. Sabbas

0 2

Elevation of the Cross St. Sabbas

1 1

Type -ot

Elevation of the Cross St. Sabbas

0 4

Elevation of the Cross St. Sabbas

0 3

Type -o

Elevation of the Cross St. Sabbas

2 20

Elevation of the Cross St. Sabbas

0 0

Definite articles -o and -ot do not coexist in the contemporary Bulgarian dialects (BDA 1: 152–154, 157; 2, 169–172, 175; 3: 167–171, 179; 4: 223–226, 233) but -o is considered to have come from -ot following the elimination of the final consonant. The process must have still been underway in the eighteenth century as there are traces of -ot side by side with -o in the Svisˇtov damaskin. An alternative explanation would be to assume that between the compiler of the Svisˇtov damaskin (whom I shall dub for the purposes of this argument “the -o speaker”) and the author of the initial translation into Modern Bulgarian (“the -u˘t speaker”), there was another person (“the -ot speaker”), who produced a manuscript that served as the immediate source of the Svisˇtov damaskin at least for some homilies. The presence of the -ot speaker is visible in St. Sabbas. The -ot and the -o speakers were therefore representatives of the same dialect but in consecutive periods of its evolution. Assuming absolute consistency of each speaker in the area of textological innovation, one could say that in manuscript generation one the -u˘t speaker had at least one definite masculine article in the Elevation of the Cross and at least three to six in St. Sabbas; in manuscript generation two the -ot speaker added at least four definite masculine articles to St. Sabbas; and, finally, in manuscript generation three the -o speaker added no more than two definite masculine articles 23. Mileticˇ also speculates about a possible influence of the genitive case ending -a, a hypothesis that I will disregard here, because it is hardly relevant for my selection, as my only example that has the ending -at, susceptible to such an interpretation is in the subject position (Mileticˇ 1923: 223: venecat˘ı mu kato sl˘ınce sveˇtu˘ davasˇe ‘his crown was shining like a sun’), and besides it is less compelling than his case (1) hypothesis.

274

Language variation and textology

to the Elevation of the Cross and no more than twenty to St. Sabbas. One should keep two things in mind while considering this reconstruction. First, it should be remembered that a compiler’s emendations can be divided into (a) modifications to the phonetic form of an article; and (b) introduction of a definite article where previously there was none. Second, the specifications “at least” and “no more” serve to mark the lower and the upper limits of the range in which one has to search for the absolute values of the textological interventions of each compiler. One of the consequences of this plausible hypothesis is that it makes it possible to link the activity of the -ot speaker with the seventeenth century as the values of his intervention match those of the seventeenth-century speakers whose verbal output is attested in the seventeenth-century damaskins at large. Thus we can hypothetically date the fall of final -t around the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century. In order to prove or disprove this hypothesis one has to broaden the basis of comparison of the Svisˇtov damaskin beyond the togazi section of the Tixonravov damaskin to include other seventeenth-century damaskins of the -u˘t type that contain the same recension of the homilies comprised in the Svisˇtov damaskin. All textological innovations in the Veljuv damaskin reflect an article of the type -a, -u˘ spelled -e, -a or, most often, -e˛, whereas the textological archaisms agree with the Tixonravov, Trojan and Hilandar damaskins in preserving the final -t. The state of affairs recorded in the Veljuv damaskin is the one expected for Musina, Region Pavlikeni (locality No. 1573 in the Bulgarian Dialect Atlas) on the basis of BDA 2: 169–172, 175. This allows us to date the fall of final -t in the Balkan dialects, to which Musina belongs, prior to 1824. This date is of little heuristic value in view of the much earlier chronology for the same phenomenon in the Moesian dialects postulated above (positively prior to 1753 and datable hypothetically around 1700). This information does not contradict the argument that these in fact were not Veljuv’s textological innovations but should be attributed to his source, a hypothesis that finds support in textological evidence scattered throughout the homily. C. Multiple marking of definiteness on the nominal phrase was discussed at length in sections 2.1, 2.3 and 3.6.2. For our purposes here I shall distinguish between double marking that is acceptable from the perspective of the standard language (nominals of type 1M11 vsicˇkoto onova kiselo mljako or 6M3 onija pette jabu˘lki) and “deviant” double marking that is not tolerated and was therefore not acknowledged in the classification of nominal types in section 2.1. Deviant multiple marking in the homilies analysed so far consists of the piling up of two definite articles on the same nominal phrase that may already be marked with a demonstrative determiner, in which case we can talk

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

275

of triple marking. Acceptable double marking can be encountered in all damaskins. Deviant multiple marking was used four times in the togazi section of the Tixonravov damaskin. It was avoided systematically in Svisˇtov’s version of St. Sabbas and Elevation of the Cross but partially preserved in the Trojan and the Kotel damaskins. Moreover, in the Kotel damaskin deviant multiple marking is much better represented. On seven occasions in four homilies the Kotel damaskin opts for deviant double or triple marking whereas its closest counterparts – the Tixonravov (for St. Demetrius, Birth of the Virgin and St. Mary of Egypt) or the Ljubljana damaskin (for St. Nicholas) – prefer less distinctive nominals even though they sometimes are still double-marked. In St. Nicholas the Kotel damaskin sides twice with the Tixonravov against the Ljubljana damaskin. The Trojan damaskin once joins the Kotel-Tixonravov group and once the Ljubljana damaskin. This curious distribution across hereditary lines makes it possible to attribute deviant multiple marking to the source of damaskins of first and the second groups of Modern Bulgarian damaskins (according to Demina’s classification). It also makes it possible to assume that the compilers of the Tixonravov and the Kotel damaskins must have been speakers of dialect varieties that tolerate such a marking of definiteness. I shall conclude by citing one example, which pitches the Tixonravov, Trojan and Kotel damaskins with deviant multiple marking against the Ljubljana and the Svisˇtov damaskins with 1M5-1 and 6M3, respectively: (580) i pusti me b[og]˘ı da ti reku and sent.3SG me.CL.ACC God to you.CL.DAT say.1SG da pustisˇ trite osu˘denite to let-go.2SG three.THE convicted.PL.THE (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 175) (581) i pusti me b(og)˘ı da ti reko and sent.3SG me.CL.ACC God to you.CL.DAT say.1SG da pustisˇ˘ı trite osu˘denite to let-go.2SG three.THE convicted.PL.THE (Trojan 17th century, Ivanova 1967: 191) (582) i| provodi| ma b[o]g˘ı da| ti reka and sent.3SG me.CL.ACC God to you.CL.DAT say.1SG da| pustisˇ˘ı tïe trite osuzˇdenite to let-go.2SG these three.THE convicted.PL.THE (Kotel 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: 72v)

276

Language variation and textology

(583) i| provodi| me b(og)˘ı da| ti rek˘ı and sent.3SG me.CL.ACC God to you.CL.DAT say.1SG da| pustisˇi tia trite osuzˇdennici to let-go.2SG these three.THE convicts (Ljubljana 17th century, Argirov 1895: 544) (584) i provodi ma bogu˘ da ti kazˇe and sent.3SG me.CL.ACC God to you.CL.DAT say.3SG da pustisˇu˘ trite onezi cˇloveˇci, deto sa osu˘dini to let-go.2SG three.THE those persons that are convicted (Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ 1923: 256) ‘And God sent me to tell you to let these three convicts go.’ 4.2.3. Beyond the definite article Outside the sphere of the definite article, variation involving nominals of type 1U (stol), 1M2 (edin stol) and 1M3-1 (njakoj cˇovek) is much less pronounced but unanimously points to movement, as time passes by, in the direction of the rules that govern usage today. The Kotel and the Svisˇtov damaskins offer four and three examples, respectively, that show how a line was gradually drawn between indefinite, specific and non-specific description. Besides, the Svisˇtov damaskin provides one example of a strikingly up-to-date treatment of a typifying description. In contrast to the textological innovations of these eighteenth-century damaskins, the seventeenth-century Tixonravov, Koprivsˇtica and Trojan damaskins demonstrate, as I have shown in section 3.12 regarding the Tixonravov, that to their compilers non-specific and indefinite specific referents are more difficult to distinguish. This contrast between damaskins allows us to conclude that Process 8 (the delimitation of non-specifics from specifics) was already launched in the eighteenth century. I shall illustrate my argument with two examples that show the eighteenth-century expansion of 1M2 at the expense of 1U in (586) and 1M3-1 in (588), respectively, to express an indefinite specific referent: (585) i otide privecˇer˘ı i seˇdn˘ı na breˇg˘ı and went.3SG close-to-the-evening and sat.3SG on slope sˇto e pri iordan˘ı that is by Jordan (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 197)

24

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

277

(586) i| otide privecˇer i seˇdna na| and went.3SG close-to-the-evening and sat.3SG on edin˘ı breˇg˘ı sˇto e pri| iordan˘ı one.MASC slope that is by Jordan (Kotel 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: 101v) ‘And he went late in the afternoon and sat on a slope that is nearby Jordan.’24 (587) I beˇsˇe neˇkoi cˇl[ove]k˘ı vu˘ s[ve]ty grad. and was.3SG some.MASC person in holy.MASC city imeto mu rumil˘ı name.THE him.CL.DAT Rumil (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 160; an identical wording is available in the Trojan damaskin, Ivanova 1967: 170) 24. This is not what the original Greek text says. It has: $ ξ  « « λ    μ« μ  «  #I  ‘and he goes late in the evening and sits down on the lip (edge, bank) of Jordan’ (Sophronius 1991: 82). There are two differences between this sentence and the Modern Bulgarian damaskins: (a) Was it late or early in the evening when St. Zosima went to Jordan? (b) Did he sit on the riverbank or on a slope nearby? For my purposes the second question is more important. Lexically ‘riverbank’ is not an impossible interpretation of the Bulgarian text, as Bulgarian brjag does mean in the standard language and most dialects ‘bank, shore’. Syntactically, however, if one wants to refer to the bank of Jordan, one should choose a different wording (e.g. Standard Bulgarian I otiva ku˘sno vecˇerta i sjada na brega na Jordan). Obviously, that is not what Sofronij of Vraca understood as his textological innovation implies. This is also not what the compiler of the initial translation into Modern Bulgarian must have had in mind as his wording indicates. Such a misunderstanding of the archaic text – in the Tikvesˇ and the Bdin miscellanies it corresponds to the Greek as expected idezˇe pozdeˇ v[e]cˇer˘ı i seˇdeˇ na breˇzeˇ iordana (Nacˇov 1894: 85), izide pozde vecˇ(e)r˘ı i seˇde na breˇzeˇ iordana (Scharpé and Vyncke 1973: 195) – however could only have happened in the dialect area where brjag means ‘hill, slope’. According to DA, brjag ‘hill, slope’ is used sporadically in the Northwestern (Regions Vidin and Belogradcˇik), the Transitional (Region Breznik), the Balkan (Region Pirdop) and the Rupa dialects (Regions Smoljan, Velingrad, Pesˇtera and Goce Delcˇev). Neither of these regions belongs to the area where the initial Modern Bulgarian translation of the damaskin has been localized (Mladenova 2007b). However rare in Bulgarian, the meaning ‘hill, slope’ is by no means exotic elsewhere in Slavia: it characterizes the equivalents of Bulgarian brjag in most other South Slavic, South Polish, Slovak, Moravian and Sorbian dialects as well as West Ukrainian (Tolstoj 1969: 92).

278

Language variation and textology

(588) Imasˇe edin˘ı cˇloveˇku˘ v Jerusalimu˘, imeto had.3SG one.MASC person in Jerusalem name.THE mu Rumilu˘ him.CL.DAT Rumil (Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ 1923: 225) ‘And there was a man in Jerusalem by the name of Rumil.’ Both nominals of type 1M2 and 1M3-1 could be employed in the Tixonravov damaskin to express typifying meaning.25 1M3-1 in this function is clearly perceived as archaic today. This is less obvious of 1M2 although Valentin Stankov claims that contemporary speakers tend to avoid this usage, common to authors of the older generation like Ivan Vazov and Elin Pelin (Stankov 1984: 201). On one occasion, the compiler of the Svisˇtov damaskin shares the modern attitude: (589) I proxodeˇsˇe po onu˘zi pustine˛ i and was-passing.3Sg around that.FEM desert and sveˇteˇsˇe kato edin˘ı sveˇtilnik˘ı was-shining.3SG like one.MASC luminary ‘And he was walking around that desert and shining like a luminary.’ (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 157; same wording in the Trojan damaskin, Ivanova 1967: 166) (590) i sveˇteˇsˇy kato sveˇtilnik˘ı po onazi pustine˛ and was-shining.3SG like luminary around that.FEM desert ‘And he was shining like a luminary around that desert.’ (Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ 1923: 221) This example seems to imply that the fuzzy typifying/indefinite/non-specific area that the seventeenth-century damaskins were trying to cut into three separate segments by the spread of 1M2 nominals in the indefinite segment (Process 7) and 1M3-1 nominals in the non-specific segment (Process 8), in the eighteenth century was subjected to another change: shrinking of the use of 1M2 nominals in the typifying segment. One should not read too much into a single example but it does raise the question whether the roots of a process, still underway today, went no deeper than it appeared.

25. See examples (482) and (483) in section 3.11 and (515) in section 3.12.

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

279

4.2.4. Beyond nominal structure The contrast between (587) and (588) points to variation in the periphery of the functional semantic field of definiteness. It confirms the restructuring of existential and locative constructions, expected on the basis of the discussion in section 3.15.1. Indefinites as opposed to non-specifics are today grammatical in existential but not in locative constructions. The Svisˇtov damaskin testifies that the process was underway in the eighteenth century. The comparison of damaskins also brings to our attention another phenomenon belonging to the periphery of the functional semantic field of definiteness, which otherwise would have remained undetected. Meanings expressed today by separate adverbials of time such as zimu˘s ‘this (past or coming) winter’, zimata ‘during the (relevant) winter; every winter’, zime ‘every winter; in wintertime’ (Mladenov 1966b; Kostov 1976: 303–306; Vitanova 1996 with further bibliography), were rendered in the seventeenth-century damaskins indiscriminately by the same expressions. These adverbials correlate with four categories of descriptions: deictic (situationally unique) referents, individuatives, distributive individuative members of a set and typifying descriptions; categories shaped by Processes 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. This correlation is particularly easy to observe in nominals with a concept of time as a head noun: prez tazi zima ‘this winter’ (deictic) – prez zimata ‘in the winter’ (individuative) – prez zimata ‘every winter’ (distributive) – zimno vreme ‘in wintertime’ (typifying). Frequently adverbs and adverbial nominals directly interact inside the same correlation: utre ‘tomorrow’ (deictic) – na drugija den ‘on the next day’ (individuative) – na drugija den ‘on the next day’ (distributive). Not coincidentally, adverbials zimata, prez zimata and na drugija den can be employed both in the individuative and the distributive area. So do most nominals of type 1M1 (stolu˘t) and equivalent in general. It is situationally unique adverbials that start in the eighteenth century to be distinguished from individuative, distributive or typifying adverbials, as the case may be, according to the testimony of the Kotel, the Svisˇtov and the Hilandar damaskins. The examples are few but eloquent. I shall illustrate my argument with the use of dovecˇera, which means in Standard Bulgarian ‘today in the evening, this coming evening, tonight’. This deictic, situationally unique meaning is attested in the damaskins – cf. (591) – but there it coexists with the distributive ‘every evening’ as in (592) and the individuative ‘in the (relevant) evening’ as in (593), both of which would have been rendered in Standard Bulgarian by vecˇerta:

280

Language variation and textology

26

27

28

(591) sedeˇte prez tu˘zi nosˇtu˘ ta cˇe da popitam stay.IMPER.2PL during this.FEM night so that to ask.1SG azu˘ boga moego dovecˇara I God.ACC my.MASC.ACC tonight ‘Stay this night so that I ask my God tonight.’ (Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ 1923: 84)26 (592) zasˇto imaxu zakon˘ı monastirsky da se because had.3PL rule monastic.MASC to REFL.ACC postet˘ı v[˘ı]s˘ı d[e]n˘ı, a dovecˇ[e]ra iadeˇxu po fast.3PL all.MASC day and tonight ate.3PL by ednusˇt˘ı once ‘Because they had a monastic rule to fast all day long and eat once in the evening.’ (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 54)27 (593) i raspe se x[risto]s v pe[tu˘]k. 9 cˇas and crucified.3SG REFL.ACC Christ in Friday 9 hour i do dovecˇera ostaxa 3 cˇasoove and until tonight were-remaining.3PL three hours ‘And Christ was crucified on Friday at nine o’clock and three hours remained until the evening.’ (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 284)28 The Kotel and the Hilandar damaskins make the move one would expect on the basis of current standards: they replace do dovecˇera in (593) with do| vecˇerta (BAN, 13.5.18: 139v; HRL, HM.SMS.683: 75). Similarly, the compiler of the Svisˇtov damaskin prefers denïe i nosˇtïe to express the typifying ‘day and night; around the clock’ (Mileticˇ 1923: 221) rendered in the Tixonravov and the Trojan damaskins as d˘ınes˘ı i nosˇtes˘ı (Demina 1971: 156; Ivanova 1967: 166). This latter expression is reserved in Standard Bulgarian for situationally unique referents – ‘today and tonight’ or ‘today and last night’.

26. Tixonravov damaskin: u t˘ızi nosˇt˘ı ‘in this night’ (Demina 1971: 264); Trojan damaskin: nosˇtes˘ı ‘tonight’ (Ivanova 1967: 212). 27. Trojan damaskin: dovecˇ(e)ra (Ivanova 1967: 23); Kotel damaskin: dovecˇera (BAN, 13.5.18: 5). 28. Trojan damaskin: do dovecˇera (Ivanova 1967: 245); Musina damaskin: do| duvecˇera (BAN, 13.6.19: 217v).

A textological perspective on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian

281

On the basis of these data one can distinguish between two ideal systems of expression of definiteness in the domain of time: (a) involving the use of universal signs that do not contrast overtly between designations; and (b) involving the use of specialized (one-to-one) signs that do so. Furthermore, one can also place these systems in a chronological sequence thus: the system relying on universal signs is earlier and that relying on specialized signs later. A prerequisite for the appearance of specialized (one-to-one) signs is the rise of overt definiteness as a grammatical category. The seventeenth-century damaskins adhere predominantly to the universal system, whereas Standard Bulgarian favours the specialized system. The eighteenth-century Kotel and Svisˇtov damaskins and the nineteen-century Hilandar damaskin illustrate the move from the earlier to the later system. It is important however to emphasize that even today Standard Bulgarian has not switched completely to the specialized system. Judging from its overall tolerance for universal signs of definiteness discussed previously, it never will. The persistence of universal signs among temporal designations is visible for instance in the use of the names of the weekdays: v nedelja may have in different contexts any of the four meanings – situationally unique ‘on (this) Sunday’, individuative ‘on (the relevant) Sunday’, distributive ‘on Sundays’ and typifying ‘on a Sunday’. This is the choice of the damaskins.29 As demonstrated in the large collection of such examples in Mladenov-Archive, Standard Bulgarian, colloquial Bulgarian and many Bulgarian dialects30 tolerate also a more special-

29. Cf. for instance distributive ‘on Wednesdays and Fridays’: vu˘ sreˇd[a] i vu˘ petk˘ı (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 163); u sreˇd(a) i u pe(tu˘k) (Trojan 17th century, Ivanova 1967: 174); vu˘| sreˇdu u|vu˘| petk˘ı (Ljubljana 17th century, Argirov 1895: 533); v˘ı| sreˇdu i| v˘ı| petk (Kotel 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: 60v); distributive ‘on Saturdays and Sundays’: u subota i u ned[e]lja (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 57), u subota i u n(e)delja (Trojan 17th century, Ivanova 1967: 27), v| subota i| v˘ı| n[e]delja (Kotel 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: 10); and individuative ‘neither on Saturday, nor on Sunday’ ni v˘ı sub[ot]u, ni v˘ı ned[e]lja (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 58), ni u subotu, ni v˘ı n(e)delju (Trojan 17th century, Ivanova 1967: 27), ni| v˘ı| subotu, ni| v˘ı| ned[e]lju (Kotel 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: 10); individuative ‘on Monday’ v˘ı p[o]ned[e]lnik˘ı (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 58), v˘ı pon(e)delnik˘ı (Trojan 17th century, Ivanova 1967: 27), v˘ı| p[o]ned[e]lnik˘ı (Kotel 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: 10). 30. According to Mladenov-Archive, the names of the weekdays in nominals of the type v nedeljata are attested with individuative meaning in Region Kjustendil (Sˇisˇkovci), Region Petricˇ (Belasica), Region Goce Delcˇev (Gajtaninovo), Region Elena (Bebrovo), Eastern Thrace (Region Bularxisar – Urumbegli) and with dis-

282

Language variation and textology

ized system in which the individuative and distributive functions are taken over by v nedeljata, a nominal of type 1M1. The two systems seem to coexist. Here is one clear example of each category – individuative in (594) and distributive in (595) – as used in the standard language. Typical of a language phenomenon undergoing change is the different treatment of the two nominals marked in bold in (595) that have identical functions: (594) V “Sevastopol” ne otidoxme. V nedeljata bjax in Sevastopol not went.1PL in Sunday.THE was.1SG cjal den po rekata za riba. all.MASC day along river.THE for fish ‘We did not go to Sevastopol. I was on Sunday all day long on the river fishing.’ (Mladenov-Archive: Newspaper Studentska tribuna, 27.11.1962) (595) V su˘bota uspjavam da svu˘rsˇa vsicˇkata in Saturday manage.1SG to finish.1SG all.FEM.THE si domakinska rabota, a v REFL.DAT household.ADJ.FEM work whereas in nedeljata moga da otida sred prirodata. Sunday.THE can.1SG to go.1SG among nature.THE ‘On Saturday I manage to do all my household chores and on Sunday I can go outdoors.’ (Mladenov-Archive: Newspaper Pogled, 19.08.1968)

tributive meaning in Region Razgrad (Xlebarovo), Region Veliko Tu˘rnovo (Beljakovec, Samovodene, Vetrinci), Region Gorna Orjaxovica (Polikraisˇte), Region Pavlikeni (Bjala reka), Region Drjanovo (Stancˇov xan), Region Gabrovo (Balanite), Region Kazanlu˘k (Sˇipka), Region Xaskovo, Region Svilengrad (Pu˘strogor), Region Kjustendil (Poletinci, Zlogosˇ), the Eastern Rupa dialect and Eastern Thrace. A number of index cards provide ambiguous contexts that make it possible to identify the meaning of the nominal either way. These cards localize nominals of the type v nedeljata in Region Dobricˇ (Batovo), Region Sˇumen, Region Gorna Orjaxovica (Pu˘rvomajci), Region Pazardzˇik (Akandzˇievo, Bratanica), Region Kjustendil (Rakovo), Region Blagoevgrad (Lesˇko). The overall distribution of the type v nedeljata falls into the Eastern (with a more massive presence in the Balkan and the Moesian varieties than in the Rupa variety) and the Southwestern Bulgarian dialects.

Beyond the Modern Bulgarian damaskins

4.3.

283

Beyond the Modern Bulgarian damaskins

It has been convincingly shown that the earliest Modern Bulgarian damaskin homilies stemming from Treasure by Damaskenós Stoudítes were not direct translations from the Greek original but modernizations of previous translations of the Greek original into Middle Bulgarian. Demina considers that the archaic damaskins should be divided into four groups that contain three separate translations of homilies from Treasure (Demina 1968: 42–53 but see Mladenova 2006b for a different definition of the relations among them). From the point of view of the Modern Bulgarian damaskins, the most important of these is the so-called Sredna-Gora translation (or recension) because many Modern Bulgarian homilies have been traced back to it. But already the Proto-Collection Ia, which is reflected in the togazi section of the Tixonravov damaskin, contained homilies by other authors as well mostly also going back to Middle Bulgarian originals, which may or may not have had Greek roots. Borjana Velcˇeva for instance studied a Middle Bulgarian version of St. Mary of Egypt attributed to St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in BA No. 154, a fifteenth-century manuscript from the monastery Neamt¸ in Northeast Romania kept now in the library of the Romanian Academy in Bucharest (Velcˇeva 1996).31 She concludes that this Middle Bulgarian text is very similar to the one whose Modern Bulgarian version is found in the Tixonravov damaskin. The analysis of the Modern Bulgarian damaskins in the context of their archaic predecessors (Mladenova 2006b) shows that the archaic damaskins go back to a common source, a sixteenth-century translation from the Greek text of Damaskenós Stoudítes’ Treasure. Far from being unitary from a linguistic point of view, the archaic damaskins form a range with the most conservative Sredna-Gora recension at one end and the most innovative Bucharest damaskin at the other. Against this background, the Modern Bulgarian damaskins appear not as a clear-cut, revolutionary break with a unitary archaic tradition, but as an attempt to push innovation one step further beyond what was possible within that framework. The Sredna-Gora recension, an outcome of the efforts of the most conservative strand of the Bulgarian cultural elite, was at the beginning of the seventeenth century the first to undergo a radical Modern Bulgarian transformation. Those archaic damas31. Professor Velcˇeva kindly provided me with her personal copy of the first half of St. Mary of Egypt in BA No. 154, which complements the facsimile of the second half published by her in Velcˇeva 1996. I would like to express my gratitude to her for making it possible to base my argument on the entire text.

284

Language variation and textology

kin versions that were more open to innovation were subjected to this process almost a century later. In the context of this study, one obviously wants to know whether the comparison of the Modern Bulgarian homilies with their archaic counterparts throws light on the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian. My conclusions in this regard are based on three homilies: St. Mary of Egypt in the Tixonravov damaskin and BA No. 154; St. Mary of Egypt in the Svisˇtov and the Kiev damaskins; and Epiphany in the Svisˇtov and the Krnino damaskins. Definiteness has very different overt representations in Middle and Modern Bulgarian texts but the vernacular during the Middle Bulgarian period is thought to have acquired most features that were to characterize written and spoken Modern Bulgarian later. So it is important to see whether there is continuity in the representations of definiteness between the Middle Bulgarian originals and their Modern Bulgarian translations. In order to do so, one has to seek for overt markers of definiteness and compare their correspondence in Middle and Modern Bulgarian. Among them are the formal precursors of the nominals of type 1M1 (and equivalent) in the archaic versions of the text, which are the nominals containing demonstrative determiners s˘ı, tu˘ or onu˘ in postposition. I found in BA No. 154 six instances with s˘ı, eight with tu˘ and three with onu˘, in the Kiev damaskin three, four and eleven, and in the Krnino damaskin two, one and sixteen, respectively.32 Table 47 contains the quantitative data on their representation in the Modern Bulgarian translation by homily as well as their putative counterparts in Standard Bulgarian. The divergences between my view on how definiteness should be represented and the views of the three compilers of Modern Bulgarian damaskins do not necessarily imply that their wording is incorrect by current standards. On most occasions I only testify that the damaskin compilers could have preserved the precursor definite article as a definite article. The fact that they chose not to do so does not mean that their wording (viewed without reference to the text they were renarrating) is necessarily less acceptable to speakers of Modern Standard Bulgarian.

32. For a discussion of the relationship between the so-called three-way and single articulations readers are referred to section 5.4.

Beyond the Modern Bulgarian damaskins

285

Table 47. Representation of the Middle Bulgarian precursors of 1M1 nominals and equivalent in the Modern Bulgarian translation and Modern Standard Bulgarian

Total

1M5-1

1M1, 4M1-1 or 5M1

1M11 or 6M3

Missing, Total by rephrased homily etc.

Deviant doublemarked nominal

1U, 4U1 or 5U

Tixonravov’s 8 3 St. Mary of 47.06 % 17.65 % Egypt

-

1 5 17 5.88 % 29.41 %

Standard Bulgarian

7 9 41.18 % 52.94 %

-

-

Svisˇtov’s St. Mary of Egypt

10 55.56 %

7 1 38.89 % 5.56 %

Standard Bulgarian

5 8 1 27.78 % 44.44 % 5.56 %

-

4 22.22 %

Svisˇtov’s Epiphany

14 2 1 73.68 % 10.53 % 5.26 %

-

2 19 10.53 %

Standard Bulgarian

7 8 2 36.84 % 42.11 % 10.53 %

-

2 10.53 %

Damaskin Version

32 5 59.26 % 9.26 %

1 7 2 1.85 % 12.96 % 3.7 %

7 54 12.96 %

Standard Bulgarian

18 25 33.33 % 46.3 %

3 5.56 %

7 12.96 %

-

-

1 5.88 %

18

I shall illustrate each type of correspondence between original and translation with one example, starting with the most frequent: a precursor 1M1 nominal in (596) versus a 1M5-1 nominal in (597).

286

Language variation and textology

(596) Vu˘ edin˘ı bo (597) Ala edin˘ı in one.MASC.ACC PART but one.MASC d˘ın˘ı izydox˘ı day.ACC came-out.1SG

den˘ı izleˇzox˘ı. vu˘n˘ı, day. came.1SG out

vu˘skraj mora i by sea.GEN and

pokraj moreto, videˇxu˘ by sea.THE saw.1SG

uzrex˘ı mnozˇ˘ıstvo mnogo saw.1SG multitude many

mnozˇestvo, mnogo multitude many

cˇl[oveˇ]cy izˇe people.ACC who.PL

cˇeloveˇci, deto people that

vu˘xozˇdaxu vu˘ korabl˘ı entered.3PL in ship.ACC

vleˇzvaxa vu˘ edna entered.3PL in one.FEM

neˇky velik˘ı. some.MASC big.MASC

gemïa. ship

I jakozˇe ix˘ı and as them.ACC

I kato, gy and as them.CL.ACC

videˇx˘ı i vu˘prosix˘ı saw.1SG and asked.1SG

videˇxu popitaxu˘ saw.1SG asked1SG

edinogo ot one.MASC.ACC of

ednogo ot one.MASC.ACC of

nix˘ı gde xodet˘ı them.GEN where go.3PL

teˇxu˘, ku˘de them.ACC where

cˇl[oveˇ]cy ty. otxozˇdatu˘ tezi cˇeloveˇci. people.NOM these.NOM departed.3PL these people (Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ (Kiev 16th century, Ugrino1923: 261) va-Skalovska 1975: 21) ‘One day I came out by the sea and saw many people who were embarking on a (big) ship. And when I saw them, I asked one of them where these people were going.’

Beyond the Modern Bulgarian damaskins

287

A precursor 1M1 nominal in (598) versus a 1M1 nominal in (599): (598) i| sout˘ı|| i| esˇte| and are.3PL and still

(599) I stoe˛t˘ı and stand.3PL

kamenïe| stones.COLL.NOM

kamaneto stones.COLL.THE

ono| vu˘| iordany, that.NEUT in Jordan.LOC

ïosˇte u Iordana still in Jordan.ACC

dazˇe| do| even until

i do even until

d[˘ı]n˘ısˇnja||ago| today.ADJ.MASC.GEN

dnesˇny today.ADJ.MASC

d[˘ı]ne denu˘ day.GEN day (Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ (Krnino 16th century, Ilievski 1923: 98) 1972, 2: 64) ‘And the stones are there in Jordan until this very day.’ A precursor 1M1 nominal (600) versus a 6M3 nominal (601): (600) i| abye| bys[tu˘]| (601) I tutaku˘si stana and immediately was.3SG and immediately occurred.3SG pout[˘ı]| posreˇd[eˇ]| road.NOM in-the-middle-of

pu˘tu˘ posreˇdu˘ road in-the-middle-of

reˇky. i| pet˘ıdes[e˛]t˘ı| river.GEN and fifty

reˇku˘ta ta cˇi oneˇzi river.THE so that those

cˇl[oveˇ]ci| ony| people.NOM those.NOM

pedesetteˇxu˘ cˇloveci fifty.ACC people

ostasˇe| na| remained.3PL on

ostanu˘xa iz remained.3PL on

onou| stranu| that.FEM.ACC side.ACC

otsamu˘ this-side

288

Language variation and textology

reˇky reˇku˘ta river.GEN river.THE (Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ (Krnino 16th century, Ilievski 1923: 99) 1972, 2: 65) ‘And right away a road formed in the middle of the river and those fifty people remained on the other/this side of the river.’ A precursor 1M1 nominal in (602) corresponds in Svisˇtov’s St. Mary of Egypt in (603) to a deviant double-marked nominal of a type I have not encountered elsewhere. Its structure in six instances is Noun-Article & Demonstrative determiner and once Quantifier-Article & Demonstrative determiner & Noun. The latter deviant double-marked nominal would have been an acceptable double-marked 6M3 nominal were it not for the inversed word order. (602) Sedm˘ı na deset˘ı seven on ten leˇt˘ı su˘tvorix˘ı vu˘ years.GEN made.1SG in

(603) sedemnadesetu˘ seventeen godini storixu˘ v years made.1SG in

pustinju sïju pusˇtenïeto tuj desert.ACC this.FEM.ACC desert.THE this.NEUT (Kiev 16th century, Ugrino(Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ 1923: 263) va-Skalovska 1975: 23) ‘I spent seventeen years in this desert.’ A precursor 4M1-1 nominal (604) versus a 4U1 nominal (605): 33 (604) pogreˇby teˇlo bury.IMPER.2SG body

(605) pogrebi snagata bury.IMPER.2SG body.THE

smeˇrenïe humble.FEM.GEN

na smirena of humble.FEM

Marïe sïe Mary.GEN this.FEM.GEN

Marïa, deto Mary that

izˇe obreˇte e˛ nameˇri that found.2SG her found.2SG (Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ (Kiev 16th century, Ugrino1923: 266) va-Skalovska 1975: 26) ‘Bury the body of humble Mary, which you found.’ 33. To simplify the discussion, I am disregarding here the fact that the nominal of type 4 is embedded in a nominal of type 8 and the contrast in fact is between 8U3 and 8M1-1.

Beyond the Modern Bulgarian damaskins

289

A precursor 1M1 nominal (606) versus rephrasing (607): (606) otvu˘zaaxo undid.3PL

vrata gate.ACC

(607) i togazi orvorjuvaxa and then opened.3PL

monastirju. poo sˇte monastery.GEN singing

vratata monastirsky. gate.THE monastery.ADJ.PL

su˘glasno […] i together […] and

i peˇjaxa na glas and sang.3PL on voice

procˇaa psalma rest.PL.NEUT psalm.GEN

psalom […] i psalm […] and

togo this.MASC.GEN (Neamt¸ manuscript 15th century, BA, No. 154: 61v) ‘They would open the gate of the monastery singing together “[…]” and the rest of the psalm.’

drugo do krai other.NEUT till end (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 190) ‘And then they would open the monastery gate and they would sing out loud the psalm “[…]” and the rest to the end.’

The quantitative data presented in Table 47 and illustrated with examples raise all kinds of interesting questions. Among translators – and given the treatment of definiteness I can postulate three different translators: Translator A (Tixonravov’s St. Mary of Egypt), Translator B (Svisˇtov’s St. Mary of Egypt) and Translator C (Svisˇtov’s Epiphany)34 – there are similarities as well as divergences. The most striking similarity is that neither saw the Middle Bulgarian demonstrative determiners in postposition as equivalent to the definite article in his vernacular. In contrast to the five instances of precursor 1M1 – 1M1 nominal correspondence (or 9.26 % of the total) provided by Translators A and C,35 74.07 % of all cases display marking with a demonstrative determiner that may be accompanied by an article (double marking, either acceptable or deviant). There are only two instances – see one in (605) – when a precursor 1M1 nominal is rendered by an unmarked nominal. On the other hand, translators may interpret unmarked nominals in their original as

34. It is noteworthy in this context that the two analysed Svisˇtov homilies were written by different hands (see the facsimiles of sheets 23, 35 and 42 provided at the end of Mileticˇ’s edition of the Svisˇtov damaskin (Mileticˇ 1923). 35. One of them was cited above in (599).

290

Language variation and textology

liable to alternative representations by either a marked or an unmarked nominal. To rephrase my conclusion, the translators behave as if the Modern Bulgarian definite article was invisible to them: they add it as needed to their text but, the rule of thumb being “Render explicit forms with explicit forms”, definite articles are almost never eligible as equivalents to a demonstrative determiner. In order to feel right, a definite article should correspond to nothing in the original. I would have been able to keep as many as 46.3 % of the precursor 1M1 nominals as 1M1 nominals without violating the rules of Standard Bulgarian, perhaps even more if I bent to certain stylistic crudities. It however would certainly not have been possible to keep them all as 1M1 nominals. I cannot speculate whether dialect variation played any role in the inability of the damaskin translators to recognize the precursor 1M1 nominals as such: after all they were speakers of Bulgarian dialects with a single articulation and a twoway contrast of demonstrative determiners whereas in their originals they encountered a three-way contrast of demonstrative determiners in pre- and postposition. Fact is that they did not treat the “familiar” tu˘ in postposition differently from the “exotic” s˘ı and onu˘. The damaskin translators render 62.22 % of the precursor 1M1 nominals with 1M5-1 nominals, whereas I consider such counterparts unavoidable only in 33.33 % of the cases. The overuse of demonstratives in particular for expressing anaphoras, one of the characteristic features of the damaskin language discussed in section 3.1, should therefore be understood at least to some extent as the outcome of a translation technique favouring explicitness coupled with the “invisibility” of definite articles. I side therefore with Borjana Velcˇeva’s most recent opinion on 1M5-1 (Velcˇeva 2001: 68). She thinks that the competition of 1M5-1 and 1M1 nominals in the damaskin literature and in some authors of the period of national revival (Sofronij, Bishop of Vraca, Xristaki Pavlovicˇ, Joakim Gruev and Nikola Mixajlovski) has arisen in the process of translation under the influence of the literary tradition, in other words, the anaphoric use of 1M5-1 nominals is not the outcome of straightforward language evolution. Moving now to the divergences among translators, we will have to note Translator B’s preference for deviant double marking illustrated above in (603). It tells us that being inexperienced and in awe of his original, Translator B went out of his way (ready even to violate linguistic rules as he did using deviant double marking) to preserve the literal equivalence of his translation to the original and in the process could transform grammatical Middle Bulgarian utterances into ungrammatical Modern Bulgarian ones. Translator B’s approach opens the door for a general explanation of deviant marking as a

Beyond the Modern Bulgarian damaskins

291

product of the translation process rather than the language system, an explanation, which will have to wait for a future empirical validation. On the other hand, the numbers show that the more experienced Translators A and C felt sometimes free to rephrase their original. Another interesting observation that fine-tunes the conclusions made on the basis of Modern Bulgarian data alone reaches beyond the sphere of the definite article. The Middle Bulgarian homilies display a broader range of indefinite and non-specific determiners (eteru˘, neˇkyj˘ı, neˇkotoryj˘ı and edinu˘) in comparison with the Modern Bulgarian ones that only have neˇkoj and edin˘ı. Whereas the frequent replacement of eteru˘, neˇkyj˘ı and neˇkotoryj˘ı with neˇkoj and edinu˘ with edin˘ı raises no questions, that is not so with the equation of neˇkyj˘ı or neˇkotoryj˘ı with edin˘ı and vice versa edinu˘ with neˇkoj.36 I have at my disposal a total of six such instances: four in the Svisˇtov damaskin and two in the Tixonravov. The former only support my observations on the delimitation of the indefinite and the non-specific designations (see section 4.3.3) but the latter do more than that. They indicate that I have to situate back in time the awareness of a difference between these two segments as traces of it can already be found in the Tixonravov damaskin. Here is one of the instances on which I base this statement; it features a non-specific description expressed in BA, No. 154 by edinu˘ and in the Tixonravov by neˇkoj: (608) negli bi obreˇli maybe would.1SG found

(609) davno byx naisˇ˘ıl˘ı if-only would.1SG found

vu˘ nei in her.LOC

neˇkogo some.MASC.ACC

edinogo o[t]ca one.MASC.ACC father.ACC

o[t]ca pusˇtinjaka father.ACC hermit.ACC

i zˇivo sˇta. living.MASC.ACC and

da mu se to him.DAT REFL.ACC

m[o]leˇsˇta praying.MASC.ACC

pomolju, da prïime ask.1SG to accept.3SG

36. The state of affairs in the earliest Old Church Slavonic texts is described in Flier 1974: 145. The tendency of edinu˘ to oust eteru˘ and neˇky (especially frequent in Codex Marianus and Savvina kniga), has been assigned by some scholars the status of Moravianism, a conclusion that does not seem to hold in view of the developments discussed in this study.

292

Language variation and textology

se˛ prilozˇiti REFL.ACC exercise.INF

i mene pri nego and me.ACC at him.ACC

emu ku˘ deˇanïu him.DAT to deed.DAT (Neamt¸ manuscript 15th century, BA, No. 154: 62v) If I could only find in it [the desert] a monk living and praying to share in his deeds.’

da budu i az˘ı to be.1SG and I (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 191) ‘I wish I could find some hermit to ask him to accept me to stay with him.’

Bringing into the picture the relationship of the Modern Bulgarian damaskin translations to their Middle Bulgarian originals, the research done for this section made me aware of an issue that had previously been ignored. The language facts encountered in the Modern Bulgarian damaskins cannot be trusted to be the unadulterated outcome of speakers’ competence because they were produced under pressure to conform to an existing original. My investigation has brought to the fore two aspects of the expression of definiteness that are due at least in part to the circumstances under which the studied texts were produced: the abundance of demonstrative determiners in positions more readily occupied in Standard Bulgarian by the definite article and a certain type of deviant double marking of definiteness. Under favourable conditions such characteristics of literary production can become features of a standard language and thus move from the domain of discourse to the language system. I was only aware of the path of these two marginal phenomena of the damaskin language because they were not incorporated into the linguistic heritage of Bulgarians. Even more worthy of attention are the aspects that have originated in a similar way but were later perpetuated by tradition. By further complicating the diachronic model of definiteness, the introduction of ‘norm’ as an overarching term for the forms, deemed suitable for emulation, brings it closer to reality.

4.4.

Insights gained from the textological perspective

The textological analysis of damaskins of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and their archaic counterparts conducted in this chapter made it possible to come to the following conclusions regarding the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian. First and foremost, it corroborated the validity of the diachronic model of definiteness built on data stemming exclusively from the togazi section of the Tixonravov damaskin. The new data from other dam-

Insights gained from the textological perspective

293

askins introduced in this chapter behave in conformity with the predictions of the model. The comparison of different damaskins however highlighted certain points that fit into the familiar model of definiteness. Being more recent, some of the new data made it possible to identify yet another device situated at the periphery of the functional semantic field of definiteness, which had not been developed in the seventeenth century: the crystallization of a group of specialized adverbials of time enabling speakers to contrast temporal references defined deictically with individuative, distributive and typifying adverbials, which continue to display significant overlap. The analysis of three other sets of data helped date the beginning of Process 8 in the seventeenth century and attribute to speakers in the next century a heightened awareness of the incompatibility of non-specific reference with locative constructions. Furthermore, textological analysis prompted the hypothesis that the final -t in the article of singular masculines in the Moesian dialects dropped around the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century, whereas in the Balkan dialects this process had positively taken place by 1824. Yet another hypothesis that needs further probing is that the use of 1M2 (edin stol) nominals in the typifying category of designations started decreasing already in the eighteenth century. New light was thrown on the abundance of demonstrative determiners in positions that are more readily occupied in Standard Bulgarian by nominals with the definite article. The most important modification to my model effected by looking at definiteness through textological glasses concerns not its main postulates, which survived the scrutiny, but rather its positioning against the linguistic facts on which it was built. This modification ensues spontaneously because of the change of focus from the contrast between grammatical and ungrammatical expressions of definiteness to a new category of linguistic facts – expressions of definiteness in “free” variation. The new breadth of facts forces the model of definiteness into an environment closer to reality. By the same token, it confirms the methodological importance of a hierarchical classification of linguistic facts for the purposes of diachronic explanatory models. The higher-level contrast grammatical vs. ungrammatical should be (as it was) temporarily isolated from the lower-level expressions – always grammatical – that can compete for the same syntactic slots. The latter’s behaviour can only be understood against the background of a model already constructed around the grammatical/ungrammatical opposition. All this reasoning pertains to the diachronic study of linguistic innovations in which textological data have a secondary role to play. When however linguistic archaisms become the focus of a diachronic study, the relationship of linguistics and textology changes radically. In such cases data pertaining to

294

Language variation and textology

“free” variation, which are provided by textological analysis, are necessarily positioned centre-stage. Another important shift of perspective concerns the role of norm in the evolution of definiteness. Although the overt marking of definiteness objectively came about through a process of gradual change, traces of which are discernible in Middle Bulgarian written texts, on the subjective level there is no continuity in the perception of definiteness between the two stages of Bulgarian. That is why the instances of overt marking of definiteness in the Middle Bulgarian original could not reinforce its mainstream expression in the Modern Bulgarian translation but caused the proliferation of side-line appearances. Keeping constantly in mind the possibility that linguistic phenomena may have originated not by straightforward and uniform evolution of the language system but through the intervention of a prestigious norm, one can better understand certain puzzling usages like the opposition of subject and non-subject definite articles for masculine nouns or the aberrant treatment of Bog ‘God’ in Standard Bulgarian discussed in section 2.2.4. My research also turned up some facts that illuminate characteristics of the original Modern Bulgarian damaskin text and therefore present interest for scholars of the damaskin tradition in general. Most important among them are the following. The absence of non-controversial three-way contrasts in the rendering of definiteness between the Tixonravov and the other damaskins agrees with Demina’s hypothesis that the Tixonravov damaskin was written soon after the inception of the damaskin tradition and is very similar linguistically to the original text (1985: 90–92). A longer tradition separating the initial translation into Modern Bulgarian from the Tixonravov damaskin would inevitably have generated a number of textological innovations – case (2bi) – regarding the expression of definiteness that would not have matched the innovations in other damaskins. As it is, the majority of textological innovations in the realm of definiteness made by damaskin compilers in the eighteenth century subscribe to case (2a). The earlier damaskin translation in Modern Bulgarian was made by a person or persons whose dialect may have tolerated some types of deviant multiple marking of definiteness. Another characteristic lexical feature of the dialect in which the earlier translation was made was the regional breˇgu˘ ‘hill, slope’. The younger version presented in the fourth group of the Modern Bulgarian damaskins was authored by more than one person, whose levels of professionalism and translation techniques were at variance. It was the outcome of the modernization of an original, which was part of the archaic damaskin tradition.

Insights gained from the textological perspective

295

On the basis of my experience with three nineteenth-century manuscripts, I can risk to formulate a working hypothesis about the sociolinguistic situation in nineteenth-century Bulgaria that needs discussion and confirmation. With increasing literacy at the beginning of the nineteenth century many more people than before strived to prove their status of ‘scholars’ by copying damaskins.37 The formerly elitist field was flooded with newcomers who produced manuscripts of lower quality than the previous generation. Their activity further damaged the prestige of the moral and religious literary tradition (as shown by Ivan Vazov in Cˇicˇovci), which was anyway losing ground to contemporary secular European culture. Of course, by that time the spirit of damaskin literature had been absorbed by the audience and perpetuated in original production by individual authors such as Joakim Ku˘rcˇovski (ca. 1750–ca. 1820), Kiril Pejcˇinovicˇ (ca. 1770–1845), Xristaki Pavlovicˇ (1804–1848), Joakim Gruev (1828–1912) and Pop Mincˇo Ku˘ncˇev (1836–1904) (cf. Ku˘ncˇev 1985) among others and putative folklore remakes like the tale Emperor Peter recorded in the city of Lom (Todorov 1930: 59) that seems to have incorporated elements of the martyrdom of St. Eustathius in the version presented in the Tixonravov damaskin (Demina 1971: 73). Whereas in the previous centuries the most brilliant defined with their abilities the standards of damaskin literature,38 now the field was left over to mediocrity and fell into stagnation. Because of the crisis in nineteenth-century damaskin literature, it no longer is a reliable source of information on contemporary language developments. For such data linguists should turn to the original literary works written at this time. Both categories of facts revealed in this chapter (facts fine-tuning the diachronic model of definiteness in Bulgarian and facts pertaining to the linguistic characteristics of the damaskin tradition in Bulgaria) prompt us to check up the conclusions reached so far against the background of the Bul-

37. The atmosphere changed in the second half of the century as contemporaries keenly felt, judging among other things from an inscription at the end of the Veljuv damaskin: Bogu˘ da prosti i da| upokoi deto| e pisalu˘ tazi knisˇka na| unuj vremi, a| ny siga i| tolkos˘ı ny marzi da| prepisˇimu˘ cˇetoxu˘ nynea azu˘ prostaku˘ kiru daskalu˘ ot selo| gorni turcˇeta 1865 (BAN, 13.6.17: 115) ‘May God rest the soul of the person who wrote this book at the time. We now are too lazy to copy even that much. I, teacher Kiru from the village Gorni Turcˇeta, – a common man – read today, 1865.’ The village Gorni Turcˇeta (Region Pavlikeni) is called today Bjala cˇerkva. 38. Some of those active in the eighteenth century were portrayed in Angelov 1963–1964.

296

Language variation and textology

garian dialects. Such a step will broaden the basis of comparison at the close end of the range beyond Standard Bulgarian, having an effect similar to that produced at the far end of the range by the consideration of evidence provided by a plethora of damaskins.

Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of dialect variation

5.

297

Definiteness in the dialects

I have been concerned so far predominantly with the situation in two varieties of Bulgarian (damaskin Bulgarian and Standard Bulgarian) divided by a timespan of about four centuries if one considers their earliest and latest states, respectively. In the nineteenth century, at the moment of their closest proximity in time when the damaskin tradition was declining and Standard Bulgarian was just arising, their similarities were more pronounced. But if Standard Bulgarian and the language of the damaskins are explored in conjunction with the Bulgarian dialects and the language of folklore, a much more diversified picture of the evolution of definiteness should obtain. Dialect variation has occasionally been brought to bear in the course of this study in connection with particular phenomena, usually in order to show that the apparent exoticism of the damaskins finds in fact parallels in varieties of Bulgarian spoken to this day. As we shall see in this chapter, there is more to dialect variation than what we have already discussed.

5.1.

Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of dialect variation

Since Bulgarian dialect varieties are known to display differences on all levels of language structure, the important question that arises in the context of this study is: to what degree does the grammatical category ‘definiteness’ in the dialects match that described for the standard language? Differences may have a quantitative and a qualitative dimension. Viewing definiteness from a quantitative perspective, one would have to choose between two alternatives: individual dialects can either represent the same level of evolution that was established for the standard language or they can display each their own level. The latter alternative is not only more plausible on general theoretical grounds but also appears to correspond to reality. The language of folklore (some genres more than others) is among the conservative varieties that present a less advanced picture of overt definiteness. It features fewer definite articles in positions, in which their use is compulsory in Standard Bulgarian. I shall give only one example from an incantation that contains only 1U (stol) nominals contrary to the expectations of speakers of Standard Bulgarian who would have liked all nominals (with the exception of the vocative) of type 1M1 (stolu˘t):

298

Definiteness in the dialects

(610) Rastaví se zémn’a, rastaví pulled-apart.3SG REFL.ACC earth pulled-apart.3SG se góra pla, da izléznesˇ i REFL.ACC forest fear.VOC to come-out.2SG from sr´ce, iz dzˇigér, iz búbrek, iz ráce, iz nókti, heart from liver from kidney from arms from nails iz nódze, iz úsˇi, i zˇíli, iz méso, iz from legs from ears from tendons from flesh from kósti, is trépki, iz ócˇi, iz vézˇdi. bones from eyelashes from eyes from eyebrows ‘The earth pulled apart, the forest pulled apart, so that you fear come out of heart, liver, kidney, arms, nails, legs, ears, tendons, flesh, bones, eyelashes, eyes, eyebrows.’ (Sˇisˇkovci [Region Kjustendil] – Mladenov-Archive, ISSF 7: 276) It has been noticed long ago that the Eastern dialects are ahead of the Western ones in the process of definite article acquisition.1 Aleksandu˘r Teodorov-Balan (1859–1959), a Bulgarian linguist of the older generation, contrasts Standard and Eastern Bulgarian (611) with Western Bulgarian (612) and praises the Western Bulgarian dialects for their moderate use of definite articles (1958: 498). Rephrased in my terminology, his recommendation is to favour 8U1 and 8M1-2 over 8M2-1 nominals. (611) Predmetite za objects.THE for

(612) Predmeti za objects for

prexranata zanimavat subsistence.THE occupy.3PL

prexrana zanimavat subsistence. occupy.3PL

naj-vecˇe mostly

naj-vecˇe grizˇite mostly concernsTHE

grizˇite concernsTHE

na stopanina. na stopanin. of householder.THE of householder ‘Issues of subsistence mostly preoccupy a householder.’ 1. This observation dates back at least to 1835 when Jurij Venelin argues in his Bulgarian grammar that Bulgarian has an emphatic pronoun and not a definite article and it is less prominent in the speech of Western and Macedonian Bulgarians than in that of Eastern ones (Venelin 1997: 87).

Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of dialect variation

299

As a much younger speaker of Standard Bulgarian, I find both sentences clumsy and (612) definitely ungrammatical. However, this testimony makes it clear that the evolution toward a more pronounced overt marking of the definite article did not affect all language varieties at the same pace. Other authors too have reported fewer definite articles in particular Western dialects than in the standard language: Petricˇev 1931: 56 (regarding the Tru˘n dialect), Umlenski 1963: 467–468 (regarding the Kjustendil dialect), Mladenov 1966: 183–184 (regarding the Ixtiman dialect). B. Velcˇeva notes that in Glavanovci (Region Tru˘n) the definite article is consistently used only in its anaphoric function (1963: 133–134). Since these observations fit in with Ilievski’s statement that overt marking of definiteness was more advanced in the production of the Preslav cultural centre (such as Codex Suprasliensis and John Exarch’s oeuvres) than in Codex Zographensis, Codex Marianus and Codex Assemanianus stemming from the Oxrid cultural centre (Ilievski 1972, 1: 149), we can project the modern situation back in time and locate in Eastern Bulgaria the centre of innovation from which overt marking of definiteness started to spread in the Balkan Slavic language continuum. It is possible that the frequent use of nominals of type U to refer to specific individuatives by Jordan Radicˇkov (born in Kalimanica [Region Montana], Northwestern Bulgaria) is of dialect provenance as well: (613) Podir kucˇeto se vturna sˇvedu˘t, after dog.THE refl.ACC rushed.3SG Swede.MASC.THE ponesu˘l v ru˘kata dimjasˇtata si carrying.MASC in hand.THE smoking.FEM.THE REFL.DAT lula. Brada i kosi se veexa kato v pipe beard and hair.PL REFL.ACC fluttered.3PL as in biblejska kartina. biblical.FEM painting ‘The Swede rushed after the dog with the smoking pipe in his hand. [His] beard and hair were fluttering as in a biblical painting.’ (Radicˇkov 1980: 21; other examples on pp. 118, 126, 127, 221 etc.) One can occasionally find such a usage in other authors’ writing as well, e.g. in Alek Popov’s (born in Sofia, Western Bulgaria, if this can serve as an indication of any dialect background at all):

300

Definiteness in the dialects

(614) Dvamata bu˘brexa nebrezˇno v kratkite two.MASC.THE were-chatting.3PL lightly in short.PL.THE promezˇdutu˘ci mezˇdu njakolko kmetski pauses between several mayor.ADJ.PL V 15.30 na vxodnata vrata zalu˘ka. !…" bites.COUNT.PL in 15:30 on entrance.ADJ.FEM.THE door pozvu˘ni sˇof ’oru˘t Miladin. Kmet i gotvacˇ rang.3SG chauffeur.THE Miladin mayor and chef si stisnaxa ru˘cete. REFL.DAT squeezed.3PL hands.THE ‘The two of them [i.e. the mayor and the chef] were chatting lightly in the short pauses between several bites [made] by the mayor. !…" At 15: 30 the chauffeur Miladin rang [the bell] at the entrance. The mayor and the chef shook hands.’ (Popov 2001: 19) As Valentin Stankov astutely notes, such usage has for speakers of Standard Bulgarian today a special ring moving the emphasis away from the referent to the significative component of meaning (1995: 111). This East/West contrast fits in with Gennadij Cyxun’s linguo-geographic treatment of Bulgarian definiteness (1981: 92–124). This substantial contribution to the understanding of definiteness in Bulgarian was mentioned before as the need arose but its overall importance was not discussed explicitly. Now is the time to do so. Cyxun argues that grammatical definiteness spread starting from a southeastern centre of innovation situated in the Rupa dialects. Aiming to define the geographical centre from which definiteness radiated, he specifically seeks out lexical groups and grammatical constructions that for different reasons have not yet been completely incorporated by overt definiteness and projects his findings to the phenomenon in general. Among the facts that attracted his attention were personal names, type 2 nominals with terms for kinship relations and parts of the body in the head position, type 8 nominals with deverbative nouns in the head position, as well as double marking of definiteness and relative pronouns formed with -to. As to the qualitative dimension of dialect variation in the realm of definiteness, it has been visible in this study so far only to the extent to which it entered the scope of the diachronic model of definiteness. It is now time to change the vantage point and evaluate the constructed model of definiteness from the point of view of dialectology. My goal here is similar to that in the previous chapter: check the validity of the model against a broader corpus of

Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of dialect variation

301

data that includes regional variation and, conversely, evaluate the contribution of this study to the advancement of our knowledge about the diachrony of Bulgarian dialect divisions. Bulgarian dialectology has accumulated a valuable body of data regarding definiteness but analytical efforts to date have targeted expression more than content (Mladenov and Steinke 1978: 73–75). Thus the Bulgarian Dialect Atlas (BDA) gives an overview of the regional distribution of the following phenomena (I am rephrasing the titles of BDA maps to fit my terminology): x

x

x

x

x x

x

1M1 of singular feminine nouns ending in a stressed -a (BDA 1: 138–139; 2: 117–118, 120; 3: 115–117; 4: 143–144, 146–147); 1M1 of singular feminine nouns ending in a consonant (BDA 1: 156; 2: 173; 3: 172; 4: 227); 1M1 of singular masculine nouns (BDA 1: 152–154; 2: 169–172; 3: 167–171; 4: 222–226); 1M1 of masculine plurals (BDA 1: 155; 2: 168, 174; 3: 173–175; 4: 228–230); 1M1 of neuter plurals (BDA 3: 176–177; 4: 231–232); Definite article marking on masculine singular adjectives (BDA 1: 157; 2: 175: 3: 179: 4: 233); Distribution of the three-way definite article (BDA 3: 166; 4: 221).

Demina has taken into account most of these phenomena in her attempt to situate damaskin language on the map (Demina 1985: 247–249, but see also Mladenova 2007). Leaning on further dialectological research, I have supplemented in the previous chapters Demina’s list with other geographically located phenomena that are relevant for the evolution of definiteness and/or the interpretation of the damaskin texts: x

x

x

x x

x

Substitution of 0M5 with 0M1 nominals, e.g. toj cˇovek ‘that man’ (see section 2.1.1); Double marking of definiteness, e.g. onas xubavata moma ‘that beautiful maid’ (see section 2.1.2); Possessives djadovata Xristova cˇernica vs. djado Xristovata cˇernica ‘Grandfather Xristo’s mulberry tree’ (see section 2.1.2 and Mladenov and Mladenova 2005); Clitic reduplication of the object (see section 2.2.1); Definite article marking on numerals pettjax, pettjaxto, pettjaxu˘t, pette, pettja, petteto, pettjato etc. (see Map 2); 2U1 vs. 2M1 nominals with a kinship term in the head position, e.g. zˇena mu vs. zˇenata mu (see Maps 3–6);

302 x

x

x x x x x

Definiteness in the dialects

Cjal/celija ‘whole’ vs. vsicˇki ‘all’ in collocation with mass nouns, abstracts and collectives (see section 3.6.1 and Mladenova 2009); Nominals of type 8 with deverbative heads piene na vino vs. piene vino (see section 3.8.1); Marking of the definite article on proper names (see section 3.9); Strong reflexive pronoun sebe si vs. nego si (see section 3.14.2); Relative pronouns in -to (see section 3.15.2); Brjag ‘hill, slope’ (see section 4.2.3); Nominals of type v nedeljata in Sunday.THE with an individuative and/or distributive meaning (see section 4.2.4).

We can now proceed to broader generalizations. In view of the dialectological data at my disposal, relevant are the following issues, which I shall discuss in this order in the next sections: impact of the four grammatical categories (case, animacy, gender and number), identified previously as correlated with definiteness, on the selection of definite article; position of my diachronic model of definiteness in regard to the opposition between the two article systems known to Bulgarian dialects (three-way vs. single article system); and, finally, relationship of the definite article to the long-form adjectives that were in use in the pre-modern stages of Bulgarian.

5.2.

Article, case and animacy

As mentioned in section 2.1, the damaskins could choose between analytic and synthetic definite forms for the oblique cases. The standard language and many contemporary dialects lack synthetic definite forms for the oblique cases but they are believed to have previously been the norm (Mileticˇ 1901: 11; 1908: xlii-l). Neither the dialects that continue to have this option nor the damaskins are consistent in the use of synthetic definite forms. These forms can be divided into four groups by part of speech, gender and number: (A) masculine singular nouns in the genitive-accusative or the dative; (B) numerals in the genitive-accusative; (C) feminine singulars in the accusative; and (D) masculine and feminine plurals. As each group has its peculiarities, it makes sense to study them separately. (A) The synthetic masculines, always of animate nouns, are used in some homilies of the Tixonravov damaskin. In the entire togazi section, there are forty genitive-accusative forms and eleven dative forms. In the eight Tixonravov homilies that have a close counterpart in the Kotel damaskin, I encountered thirteen synthetic masculines. On two occasions Sofronij replaced

Article, case and animacy

303

them with analytic equivalents. If we add St. Nicholas and count only the fragments that have a parallel in the damaskins of group II (the Ljubljana and the Kotel damaskins), the numbers are seventeen in the Tixonravov vs. twelve (or by 29.41 % less) in the Kotel damaskin. These numbers show a clear tendency towards the reduction of the synthetic forms, partially shared with the Ljubljana damaskin (and to the same extent attributable to their common origin), for which there can be two reasons that may have acted jointly: variation in time and in space. The compiler of the Kotel damaskin never uses synthetic masculine forms in his numerous textological innovations. Moreover, even when he sticks to them in conformity with his source, he is not completely at ease as his writing of a synthetic genitive-accusative caratogo ‘the emperor’ (Demina 1971: 183; Ivanova 1967: 217) as c[a]rja togo (BAN 13.5.18: 79v) in Veneration of the Cross shows. He never separates articles from the words to which they belong but this is obviously not quite an article to him.2 The other damaskins are usually in agreement with the Tixonravov, which is an indication that they preserve the synthetic forms found in their protographs. The contemporary distribution of the masculine synthetic forms does not include either of the alternative localizations of the damaskin language (Demina 1985; Mladenova 2007) but since the synthetic definite forms are a linguistic archaism of a hypothetical general distribution in the past, this contradiction does not challenge the validity of either localization. Based on Mileticˇ 1901: 15–22; Stojkov 1970; Cyxun 1981: 118–119; Bojadzˇiev 1986; BDA 1.2: 113; 3.2: 131–132; 4.2: 157, 159 and Mladenov-Archive, masculine synthetic forms can be located in isolated islands in the regions of Belogradcˇik, Berkovica, Bitolja, Breznik, Dedeagacˇ, Devin, Gjumjurdzˇina, Godecˇ, Ivajlovgrad, Kesˇan, Kjustendil, Korça, Kostur, Krumovgrad, Ksanti, Kumanovo, Madan, Malko Tu˘rnovo, Montana, Novi Pazar, Odrin, Oxrid, Pernik, Pesˇtera, Pirot, Prilep, Provadija, Ruse, Skopje, Smoljan, Sofia, Sofli, Stanke Dimitrov, Struga, Sˇumen, Timok, Tru˘n and Veliko Tu˘rnovo. This constellation of locations fits into the Moesian, the Western Bulgarian and the Rupa dialects, as well the dialects in Macedonia and Eastern Thrace. Such forms were also characteristic of the Moesian dialect spoken in the past in Cerga˘ul Mare and Cerga˘ul Mic (Transylvania). Linguo-geographic evidence singles out the Bal2. Apparently, the four instances of synthetic articles spelled as separate words with their own stress in St. Demetrius and Presentation of the Virgin in the Hilandar damaskin (kone˛ togo HRL, SPEC.HM. SMS.683: 34; kneˇza togojm˘ı HRL, SPEC.HM. SMS.683: 38; vl[a]d[i]ku tomu HRL, SPEC.HM. SMS.683: 39v; muzˇa, togo, HRL, SPEC.HM. SMS.683: 118) should receive the same interpretation.

304

Definiteness in the dialects

kan dialects as leaders of the innovation: they must have initiated the loss of synthetic forms because traces of them are absent from the Balkan area. The only damaskin that goes against the mainstream is the Svisˇtov damaskin, thought to reflect the Moesian dialect. In homilies, lacking counterpart in the Tixonravov, such as its version of St. Mary of Egypt, it makes free use of synthetic forms; moreover, it broadens their scope to include plurals and masculine adjectives. This fact fits in with the linguo-geographical evidence that places the Moesian dialects among the areas where synthetic definite forms are still extant. (B) The synthetic forms of the second group, numerals in the genitiveaccusative, are not proper oblique forms any longer, as I have pointed out in section 2.2.4. The Tixonravov damaskin and – I can add now – the other damaskins as well share an Eastern dialect feature (see Map 2) in that they only have at their disposal forms like pettjax ‘the five’ (a total of eight instances in the togazi section of the Tixonravov damaskin). These seemingly genitive-accusative forms have been generalized in all syntactic positions. As the westernmost segment of the contemporary linguo-geographic areal of pettjax is adjacent to the alternative localizations of the damaskin language, we can conclude that historical and linguo-geographic data point in the same direction. (C) Regarding synthetic accusative feminines,3 it should be noted that they, like the synthetic masculines, are used almost exclusively in positions that should be held by a noun in an oblique case (a total of 258 instances in the togazi section of the Tixonravov damaskin) but always in competition with analytic feminines. Conversely, in the entire togazi section, I found only three instances when synthetic accusative feminines were used erroneously in the subject position. All of them feature inanimates, which is no wonder, since the only animate that appears with synthetic forms is zˇena ‘woman; wife’ if one disregards the poorly legible ov ‘the sheep’, reconstructed by Demina (1971: 117). These errors can, however, also have a deeper significance to which we will return shortly. Different homilies display different approaches to feminine nominals of the marked series. Sorokina bases on this observation her claim that the Tixonravov damaskin shows the competition of two systems of expression of the definite feminines: one of them distinguishes between nominative and oblique forms, whereas the other does not (Sorokina 1993: 8). In fact, be3. A word of caution: what we find in the damaskins is filtered through the graphic system adopted by the copyist and does not represent an unadulterated fact of his language system (Sorokina 1993: 5). It is particularly important to keep this circumstance in mind when considering the synthetic accusative feminines.

Article, case and animacy

305

tween these extreme types (to be called here Systems 2 and 0, respectively), which can also be seen vertically as the initial and the final stage in the development of the system of expression of definiteness with feminine nouns, there are transitional systems, also represented in the Tixonravov damaskin. All systems co-occur with nominative feminines in all syntactic positions. This sequence in time remains the only one possible as long as one takes into account exclusively Standard Bulgarian. As soon as Bulgarian dialect data are brought to bear, it becomes clear that this model of evolution is only partially correct. I shall discuss the damaskin data first and then compare them with the situation in the Bulgarian dialects. System 2 is characterized by the double marking of the accusative case both on the stem of the noun (if possible) and the article. In practice only feminines in a final vowel feature double marking (d[u]sˇ˘ıt˘ı ‘the soul’, glav˘ıt˘ı ‘the head’, zˇenu˘t˘ı ‘the woman’; pustyne˛t˘ı ‘the desert’, zemle˛t˘ı ‘the earth’ etc.), whereas feminines in a soft consonant combine a nominative-accusative stem with an accusative article (kr˘ıvt˘ı ‘the blood’, plu˘t˘ı ‘the flesh’, su˘mr˘ıtu˘ ‘the death’ etc.). This is the only system, which, strictly speaking, corresponds to the synthetic masculines described above. In the Tixonravov damaskin System 2 is most consistently used in three homilies: St. Mary of Egypt, St. Symeon the Stylite, and Veneration of the Holy Cross. Synthetic masculine forms are also present in these three homilies. System 1 is the simplified system represented in the Tixonravov damaskin best: there are 209 instances of it in the togazi section of the Tixonravov damaskin, which is 80.62 % of the total amount of feminine nouns with the definite article that one way or another also mark the oblique case. It consists of marking the accusative just once, on the stem of the feminine noun (d[u]sˇ˘ıta ‘the soul’, glavu˘ta ‘the head’, zˇenu˘ta ‘the woman’ etc.). In practice, this rule is applied only to feminines in a hard vowel, whereas feminines in a soft vowel and in a soft consonant do not mark the accusative at all. This system is most consistently used in seven Tixonravov homilies: Apostle Thomas, St. Petka, St. Cosma and St. Damian, John Chrysostome, Presentation of the Virgin, Palm Sunday and Alexius, Man of God. It also is the option of both analysed Ljubljana homilies as well as the Trojan damaskin. There are five Tixonravov homilies (Birth of St. Mary, St. Eusthatius, St. John the Evangelist, St. Sabbas and St. Nicholas), in which both Systems 1 and 2 are represented but System 1 is preferred in at least 50 % of cases and usually more often. The situation matches that in the Musina and the Svisˇtov damaskins (in two homilies: Elevation of the Holy Cross and St. Sabbas). System 1/2 is intermediary between Systems 1 and 2. It combines treatment of feminines in a hard vowel according to System 1 with treatment of femi-

306

Definiteness in the dialects

nines in a soft consonant according to System 2.4 Seven Tixonravov homilies (St. Demetrius, Archangels Michael and Gabriel, Birth of Jesus Christ, Apostle Philippe, St. Matthew the Evangelist and Jesus Christ’s Ascension) subscribe to this system as well as one homily (Birth of Jesus Christ) in the Svisˇtov damaskin. An occasional trace of it is noticeable in the Trojan damaskin (e.g. in St. Demetrius). Comparison between Systems 1/2 and 1 shows feminines in a soft consonant first lagging behind feminines in a hard vowel and then outpacing them on the road towards the generalization of the former nominative forms. This is the typical behaviour of environments that are incorporated by change at a later date. It also agrees with the earlier age attributed to System 1/2 in comparison with System 1. System 0, or the consistent use of nominative forms in all positions, is the one favoured by Standard Bulgarian, the Kotel, Hilandar and Veljuv damaskins.5 The Tixonravov has only one homily (Elevation of the Cross) that uses it. All my damaskin texts of this type display synthetic masculine forms as well. Overall, there apparently is no compulsory correlation between the occurrence of synthetic masculine and feminine forms. In the domain of the feminine nouns, damaskin data indicate that the definite article was the first to lose its accusative ending, the stem followed suit. Looking at Maps 7a–7d, compiled from data scattered in BDA and other sources, one can conclude that system 0, the choice of the standard language, has not been uniformly adopted by the Bulgarian dialects. As a whole, the same two variables (soft vs. hard ending and animacy) seen at work in the damaskins are the active factors influencing the choices between systems of 4. I have no data about the treatment of feminines in a soft vowel. 5. Exceptions are few – one in the Veljuv damaskin and two in the Hilandar damaskin – and do not add up to a system. The textological innovation in a non-subject position tesl˘ıta in BAN 13.6.17: 89 corresponds to teslu in the Tixonravov (Demina 1971: 154), teslu˘ in the Trojan (Ivanova 1967: 163) and tesla in the Hilandar damaskin (HRL, SPEC.HM.SMS.683: 120v). The compiler probably simply added the article -ta to the form tesl˘ı, found in his source. The two instances in the Hilandar damaskin (HRL, SPEC.HM. SMS. 683: 73v and 74v) are textological archaisms. One of them is in a subject position – zemle˛to corresponding to correct zemljata elsewhere (Demina 1971: 283; Ivanova 1967: 243, BAN 13.5.18: 137v and BAN 13.6.19: 211v) – the other in a non-subject position but also without precise parallels – ot mo ko ta, corresponding to ot m˘ıkata (Demina 1971: 284), ot mu˘kata (Ivanova 1967: 244), ot| ada (BAN 13.5.18: 138v) and ot| adu˘ (BAN 13.6.19: 214v). The former is an obvious mistake, whereas the latter can be attributed to the same mechanical combination of the article with the accusative form found in the source as in the Veljuv damaskin.

Article, case and animacy

307

marking in the dialects. System 2 is attested in isolated isles in the Transitional and the Rhodope dialects.6 System 0 is the option of the Western and some Balkan dialects. The Moesian, Balkan and Rupa dialects vacillate between two choices. One of them bears resemblance to damaskin System 1. From now on it will be referred to as dialect System 1. Its forms are similar to those described for damaskin System 1 but BDA provides no information whether they are used in a subject or a non-subject position. This makes dialect and damaskin data incomparable according to Demina (1985: 100). The assumption of the authors of BDA was that outside a relatively narrow territory in Northeastern Bulgaria and in a constellation of isolated areas beyond it, feminine singular nouns featured no opposition of nominative and oblique case (Stojkov 1993: 228–229). The area, situated in the Balkan and the Moesian dialects, that does feature such opposition espouses what has been called here the damaskin System 1 (BDA 2: 204).7 Outside it the contrast, as a rule, is between: (a) dialects that have two forms for feminine singulars (one for animates and another for inanimates as in many Balkan, Moesian and Rupa dialects) and those that have just one form, which may stem from (b) the former nominative case (system 0) or (c) the former accusative case (dialect system 1). The animacy-sensitive dialect system introduced above under (a) is the one that together with dialect System 1 characterizes the Eastern Bulgarian dialects. I have marked on the maps the localities for which more than one form was recorded inside categories animate/inanimate. There are two types of such data in BDA: locations for which the authors explicitly indicated that the same nouns were used in two different forms and such of which we are given different words, some stemming from a former nominative and some from a former accusative. Such data can be interpreted in two ways: they are either evidence that the dialect is in transition from one system (dialect System 1) to another (System 0) and these forms are in free variation, or that the dialect still embraces the damaskin System 1. No decisions as to their correct interpretation can be made without additional fieldwork. There can be no doubt however that these ambiguous forms show traces of the former, much broader, areals of the older systems (dialect or damaskin System 1). Given the impact of animacy, the dialect distribution recorded in BDA can be seen as the outcome of the following two-stage evolution. Prior to its beginning, damaskin System 2 reigned in the dialects. During the initial stage of evolution, one form (the most frequent one) was generalized in all syntac6. My linguo-geographic data for System 2 are approximate and incomplete. 7. It also includes the mixed Novo-Selo dialect in the Vidin Region (Mladenov 1969: 64), discussed in more detail in section 5.4.

308

Definiteness in the dialects

tic positions. For animate nouns, which more often fill the subject slot, this is the nominative and, conversely, for inanimate nouns that are almost exclusively in non-subject positions this is the oblique form (the former accusative). The outcome of stage one in all dialects was the same: overt marking of animates and inanimates each with its own type of ending that was independent of syntactic position. The animacy-sensitive East Bulgarian system was established at this stage. The case errors in the Tixonravov may serve as an indication that in the seventeenth century damaskin System 1 was on the brink of moving to this stage and generalizing the former accusative forms among inanimates. Thereafter dialects could choose between two alternatives. They could either generalize the state of affairs characteristic of animate nouns so that it encompasses the inanimates or, vice versa, start treating animates as if they were inanimate. Either way, the outcome of this second stage of development would be the abolition of the overt contrast between animates and inanimates that characterized the first stage. Moesian, Balkan and Rupa dialects followed the latter path, whereas Western and certain Balkan dialects – with a much greater unanimity – followed the former. As there is abundant linguo-geographic evidence that animates in the former area lag behind inanimates (firststage type of manifestation), whereas animates and inanimates are treated alike in the latter area (second-stage type of manifestation), dialect System 1 (which is the second-stage outcome of developments in the former area) should be recognized as a later appearance than System 0. Otherwise dialect System 1 would have been as well represented in the Moesian, Balkan and Rupa dialects as System 0 is in the Western and certain Balkan dialects. For the seventeenth century we can expect the predominance of damaskin System 1 in the Moesian, Balkan and Rupa dialects. An additional linguo-geographic corroboration of this plausible hypothesis is the insular preservation of damaskin System 1 in the areal of dialect System 1. This sequence also opens new perspectives for the interpretation of the co-occurrence of damaskin System 1 and System 0 in the Tixonravov damaskin: they could be the representatives of two competing and contemporary dialect norms (an eastern and a western one). Only if viewed in a West Bulgarian dialect context, System 0 can be seen as the successor of damaskin System 1. On the other hand, Systems 2 and 1/2 should be seen as predecessors of damaskin System 1 and this development is valid regardless of geographic area.8 8. These conclusions should be relevant for the textological interpretation of the damaskin tradition and especially for determining the composition of the initial Modern Bulgarian translation.

Article, case and animacy

309

(D) The fourth phenomenon to be added to these instances of interaction of the grammatical categories ‘definiteness’ and ‘case’ is the appearance of the definite article -te (from an older -teˇ) instead of -ti, which is the expected outcome of the evolution of the Old Bulgarian demonstrative pronoun tu˘ in the plural: ti (masculine) ty (feminine) ‘these’. Article -teˇ has hypothetically been traced back to the oblique (genitive-accusative) form of the pronoun tu˘ for all three genders teˇxu˘ (Mircˇev 1978: 201). Since final -x is unstable in many Bulgarian dialects (cf. Mladenova 1999 for an interpretation of BDA data), there are no phonetic impediments to this hypothesis. It should be mentioned that (as shown on Map 2) numerals in the northern dialects feature the same generalized genitive-accusative article but as opposed to nouns they have preserved the final -x in the east. In some Moesian and Balkan dialects (BDA 2: 168) the plural of definites is of type gradinarte ‘the gardeners’ in localities, in which the plural of indefinites is gradinari ‘gardeners’ (BDA 2: 163). A form like gradinarte is what one would expect from the sequence genitive-accusative zero ending for most types of animates + teˇxu˘ (cf. genitive-accusative rabu˘ teˇxu˘ ‘those slaves’). Thus type gradinarte formally but not functionally corresponds to System 2 of the feminine nouns (and to the synthetic masculines). As opposed to the feminine System 1, the intermediary plural system gradinarite combines a nominative stem with an oblique article. The article -ti attaches to nominative stems as well (which would be the counterpart of System 0 in the domain of feminines) and has insular distribution on Bulgarian territory mostly in the Balkan and the Transitional dialects (see Maps 8a–8d prepared on the basis of reinterpreted BDA data). The damaskins as a rule attach to nominative stems the -teˇ (-te) article. In the togazi section of the Tixonravov damaskin there is only one counterexample of -ti (noted also by Demina 1985: 166–167). The Trojan, Koprivsˇtica, Ljubljana, Svisˇtov, Musina and Veljuv damaskins side with the Tixonravov. The Hilandar damaskin offers four instances of -ti, all of them in positions in which the Tixonravov has definite forms of type -te; out of those three are in non-subject slots and three are inanimates. The Kotel damaskin displays an increase by about 11 % of the -ti articles but the two forms are also apparently in free variation because variables such as syntactic slot, animacy or textological innovation/archaism have no impact on the choice of form. The compilers of both the Kotel and the Hilandar damaskins apparently attached no particular importance to article -ti considering it “identical” to -te in their source. Sofronij must have heard -ti in the surroundings of his native Kotel. This blending of -te and -ti is to be expected since the Eastern dialects are characterized by a pervading reduction of the unstressed vowels (Stojkov 1993: 97) that makes it difficult for speakers to distinguish between phonological /e/ and /i/ in unstressed position.

310

Definiteness in the dialects

As neither the damaskins nor the Bulgarian dialects show any sensitivity to the syntactic slot in which one form or the other is used, we must conclude that their alternative adoption by dialects as their only form for marking definiteness in the plural must have taken place earlier than the parallel process that was to encompass feminine nouns at a later date. The process itself must have been very similar. It must have included the same two stages described above for feminine nouns. It is noteworthy that dialect distribution indicates that in the second stage a number of dialects must have made different choices regarding plurals than they did regarding feminines. The relative chronology of the two processes comes as no surprise in view of the conclusions reached in section 3.4. It however adds detail to those findings showing that although feminines and plurals are treated in the damaskins alike, at a stage previous to that attested in the damaskins plurals must have been ahead of feminines in the acquisition of overt markers of definiteness.

5.3.

Article, gender and number

It is a recurring theme that there are two sets of criteria that determine the choice between definite articles of different form in Standard Bulgarian: on one hand, gender and number and, on the other hand, “vocal harmony” (GSBKE 1983, 2: 120, 123; Hamp 2003). Based on gender and number, speakers are said to choose the articles of feminine and neuter nouns in the singular, but regarding masculine nouns in the singular and all plurals, the active criterion is “vocal harmony”. These two criteria cannot be of the same age. In its former existence as a demonstrative pronoun, the article must have taken into account only gender and number. In fact, some of what counts today as choices, made under the impact of the “vocal harmony” criterion, has a perfectly valid diachronic explanation as choices accounting for gender and number in a morphological system that was more complex than it is now. For example, Bulgarian has lost the gender distinctions in the plural, but the definite article preserves the opposition of neuter vs. masculine & feminine: licata n. ‘the faces’ but pokrivite m. ‘the roofs’, ku˘sˇtite f. ‘the houses’. Rather than attribute this choice to “vocal harmony”, we can conclude that at the time when plural articles were attached to nouns Bulgarian was still upholding the gender distinctions in the plural. When they were eventually abolished, the process did not affect the article because it was already grammaticalized. But how can we interpret singular masculine forms like slugata m. ‘the servant’ and cˇicˇoto m. ‘the uncle’ instead of the expected *slugat < sluga tu˘ and *cˇicˇot < cˇicˇo tu˘? Did “vocal harmony” have a role to play in their rise? If

Article, gender and number

311

forms *slugat and *cˇicˇot, which, to my knowledge, have not been attested, are nevertheless an option for dialects that have a definite article of type -u˘t, -at, -ot etc., how were dialects with masculine articles of type -u˘, -a etc. supposed to deal with such nouns? Forms like *slugau˘ or *slugaa are not only unthinkable synchronically but also defy the processes by which definite articles of type -u˘, -a etc. arose diachronically. In such dialects nouns like sluga and cˇicˇo would get by regular transformations the same definite forms *slugat and *cˇicˇot, which would also lead to the coexistence of two articles for masculine nouns and the choice between them would be made on the basis of “vocal harmony”. This shows not only that we should expect dialects to vary in their treatment of “vocal harmony” but also that phenomena of different essence have been lumped together under this heading. We can now see “vocal harmony” for what it is: an umbrella term for mismatched definite forms, which combine a basic form with a definite article unexpected for its gender and number class. In fact, forms like slugata and cˇicˇoto can be explained as a generalization of the well-known state of affairs that characterizes a group of dialects, for which BDA provides data only occasionally (but see Stojkov 1993: 227). In these dialects designations for males like sluga or vladika ‘bishop’ FEM and cˇicˇo or djado ‘grandfather’ NEUT not only take feminine or neuter articles (controller gender), but also agree with feminine or neuter determiners according to ending (target gender). Such examples are available in the damaskins: onazi satana [that.FEM Satan] ‘that Satan’ (Tixonravov damaskin, 17th century, Demina 1971: 82), c[a]rjuvata kexaja [emperor.ADJ.FEM.THE inspector] ‘the emperor’s inspector’ (Kotel damaskin, 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: 78), vl˘ıxvata ‘the thief’ (Elena damaskin, 18th century, Mileticˇ 1901: 57). At the pre-article stage the agreement of the postpositive pronoun *tu˘ with its head noun fell under the category target gender. Only after Bulgarian lost the grammatical category case and acquired overt definiteness did the ending of the basic form and the definite article become the exclusive markers of controller gender. Currently animates, denoting male persons that feature feminine or neuter controller gender, have a broader distribution than such terms for males, whose target gender is feminine or neuter. Moreover, the feminine/ neuter controller gender of the eligible masculine animates is, as far as I know, characteristic of all Bulgarian dialects. Centre of the innovation must be the dialects that combine feminine/neuter controller and target gender. The same tendency manifests not only in the morphological realignment of feminines in a consonant as regular feminines in a vowel (see below) but also in the use of masculine article -u˘t with certain masculine nouns ending in -a, which would take article -ta in the standard language, cf. xandzˇijat ‘the

312

Definiteness in the dialects

inn-owner’ and cˇorbadzˇijat ‘the master’ (Gabrovo, SbNU 5: 174; 12: 179). Such examples are available from St. Nicholas in the Ljubljana and the Kotel damaskins and are attributable to the source they have in common: gemedzˇiat˘ı/gemidzˇiat˘ı ‘the boatman’ (Argirov 1895: 539; BAN, 13.5.18: 66v) and kadïat˘ı ‘the judge’ (Argirov 1895: 541, 542; BAN, 13.5.18: 69, 74). For a discussion why definite masculines in -ija may appear regionally as either -ijat or -ijata, although definite masculine forms *slugat and *cˇicˇot are not attested, see section 5.5. All the phenomena briefly mentioned in these paragraphs still await their proper analysis based on a much broader corpus of data than what has been amassed by fieldwork to date. Some dialects seem – in comparison with the standard language – to overuse the “vocal harmony” criterion. Two phenomena, for which BDA provides ample evidence, may be considered here: the use of article -to in conjunction with plurals in -e (e. g. mu˘zˇeto ‘the men’, snopeto ‘the sheaf’), which groups them with neuter collectives in the singular such as lozeto ‘the vineyard’ < loza ‘vine’ and the use of the “masculine” article -u˘t (or alternative) in conjunction with feminine nouns in a final consonant, which may or may not be accompanied by a change of gender. Both phenomena correlate with definite article choices with numerals. A. The damaskins occasionally give evidence of the employment of the definite article -to with plurals as noted regarding to the Koprivsˇtica damaskin by Ljubomir Mileticˇ (1908: xlix). The togazi section of the Tixonravov damaskin provides three reliable examples – kaloereto ‘the monks’ (Demina 1971: 54), dz[v]eˇrïeto ‘the beasts’ (Demina 1971: 152) and pastirïeto ‘the shepherds’ (Demina 1971: 260) – and nine others containing no extra evidence to determine unequivocally the noun’s number. These latter forms can be either plurals or singular collectives. The Trojan damaskin presents a very similar picture but his compiler also employs the form in one of his textological innovations in Burial of Jesus Christ, a rhyming folkloric formula that makes the text flow: (615) i strosˇeˇte vratata veˇcˇny, deto su˘ and break.IMPER.2PL gate.THE eternal.PL that are.3PL otveˇka. Zasˇto sˇte da vleˇze c(a)r˘ı nad since-eternity because will to enter.3SG emperor over carïeto i g(o)sp(o)dar˘ı nad g(o)sp(o)dareto. emperors.THE and master over masters.THE ‘And break the eternal gate that exists since eternity because the emperor of emperors and the master of masters will come in.’ (Trojan 17th century, Ivanova 1967: 243)

Article, gender and number

313

(616) i strosˇeˇte vratata veˇcˇny, deto su˘ and break.IMPER.2PL gate.THE eternal.PL that are.3PL otveˇka zasˇto sˇte da vleˇze c[a]r˘ı nad since-eternity because will to enter.3SG emperor over cari i g[ospod]˘ı sˇto g[o]sp[o]dstvuva emperors and lord that dominates ‘And break the eternal gate that exists since eternity because the emperor of emperors will come in and the lord who is in power.’ (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 283; the Koprivsˇtica, Kotel, Hilandar and Musina damaskins side with the Tixonravov [Mileticˇ 1908: 195; BAN, 13.5.18: 137; HLR SPEC.HM.SMS.683: 73v; BAN, 13.6.19: 210]). In the same vein, Sofronij uses few such forms but shows awareness of them as plurals, as one of his textological innovations in Burial of Jesus Christ proves: (617) kamanïito poznaxa cˇï| i b[o]g˘ı sˇto sa stones.THE recognized.3PL that is God that REFL.ACC e raspel˘ı i| s˘ıborixa| sa is crucified and fell.3PL REFL.ACC ‘The stones recognized that he was God who was crucified and they crashed’ (Kotel 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: 131v) (618) kamanïito pozna cˇe e b[o]g˘ı sˇto su˘ stones.THE recognized.3SG that is God that REFL.ACC e raspel˘ı i razobori se is crucified and fell-all-over.3SG REFL.ACC ‘The stones recognized that he was God who was crucified and they crashed’ (Tixonravov 17th century, Demina 1971: 279; same choices in the Trojan, Hilandar and Musina damaskins [Ivanova 1967: 238; SPEC.HM. SMS.683: 70; BAN, 13.6.19: 195]) The three homilies from the Svisˇtov damaskin that I searched for such forms provided only two probable examples (both in St. Mary of Egypt). The two analysed homilies of the Ljubljana damaskin contain no define plurals in -to. All these data allow us to situate the initial translation of the damaskins at the fringes of the area that employs -to with plurals. Such a conclusion does not contradict the linguo-geographic evidence. The Rupa and the Southwestern dialects are the most consistent users of -to with plurals (see Maps 9a and 9c;

314

Definiteness in the dialects

Stojkov 1993: 232) but occasional nouns such as mu˘zˇ ‘man’, gost ‘guest’ and snop ‘sheaf’ join this pattern in a much broader area (see Maps 9a–9d). Only the Northeastern dialects remain free of such forms. The employment of -to with numerals has a similar configuration (see Map 2). The fact that article -to is sometimes added not to the basic form of the numeral but on top of an article of another type (cf. pettjáxto, pettéto, pettjáto), thus reinforcing it, agrees with its innovative character. Since some plurals ending in -e are indeed former collectives, it is not surprising that they should combine with a definite article in -to. The form is however also available to plurals of other kinds that have no history as collectives, e.g. voloveto ‘the oxen’ (Dolno selo, Region Kjustendil – BNT 10: 298; Bansko, Region Razlog – BNT 10: 307, 537; Blagoevgrad – BNT 10: 478), sru˘poveto ‘the sickles’ (Bansko, Region Razlog – BNT 10: 132), rogoveto ‘the horns’ (Eremija, Region Kjustendil – BNT 10: 290), klucˇoveto ‘the keys’ (Blagoevgrad – BNT 10: 411) and sadoveto ‘the vessels’ (Bansko, Region Razlog – BNT 10: 548). The fact that Bulgarian dialects may choose between attaching a plural and a neuter definite article to a form that initially was a neuter collective but was later reinterpreted as a plural is an indication that these two processes must have had different relative chronologies in different dialect areas: according to scenario A (adopted most consistently in the south) the acquisition of overt definiteness took place prior to the reinterpretation of collectives as plurals; scenario B postulates the reverse sequence and characterizes the northeast. The Western dialects form a diffuse zone between them that includes individual words following scenario A against a background of prevailing scenario B. This makes the Northeastern dialects the centre of innovation in the reinterpretation of collectives as plurals, a process, which moved them to the other side of the boundary between divisibles and non-divisibles. In the south not only did collectives keep their ground, but also some plurals were absorbed into the group of non-divisibles. B. The second phenomenon – the alternative choice of -ta vs. -u˘t type of article with feminines in consonant – features damaskins siding with the majority of Bulgarian dialects in their preference for the former (Demina 1985: 248). Although there is evidence that the gender of such nouns was not necessarily always feminine,9 by broadening the scope of damaskins I could 9. Svojat si eres˘ı [own.MASC.THE REFL.DAT heresy] ‘his own heresy’ and negovata pagubna eres [his.FEM.THE fatal.FEM heresy] ‘his fatal heresy’ on the same page in the Kotel damaskin (BAN, 13.5.18: 64v), toizi zl˘ı mysl˘ı this.[MASC wicked.MASC thought] ‘this wicked thought’ and tazi mysl˘ı [this.FEM thought] ‘this thought’ (Demina 1971: 196; BAN, 13.5.18: 99) in the Tixonravov and Kotel

Article, gender and number

315

get hold of just one example that contradicts Demina’s conclusions made on the Tixonravov alone: misu˘lotu˘ ‘the thought’ (Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ 1923: 264). We know that the word is masculine because in this homily it also has masculine target gender: mislu˘tu˘ mi zlu˘ ‘my evil thought’, tak’vzi mislu˘ ‘such a thought’ and drugi mislu˘ ‘another thought’. An attempt to eliminate the irregularity by moving in the opposite direction is attested in mislata ‘the thought’ (Kotel damaskin 1765, BAN, 13.5.18: 62) corresponding to misl˘ıta in the Ljubljana damaskin (Argirov 1895: 535). These rare examples are manifestations of a new awareness mounting in the eighteenth century in the dialects, speakers of which were the compilers of the Kotel and the Svisˇtov damaskins: feminines in a final consonant are aberrant and must be dealt with one way or another. Since this group of feminines consists mostly of abstracts and mass nouns, any attempts to abolish its formal peculiarities bring about rapprochement among the semantic classes of nouns. This process, contributing to the alignment of abstract and mass nouns with singular count and aggregate nouns, was part of the reshuffling of divisibles and non-divisibles. Two kinds of choices were made in response to this awareness. One – scenario A – avoids the issue by exempting the disturbing nouns from the disputed class and keeping their gender intact (mislata); the other – scenario B – keeps the basic form as it is but changes its gender as well as the article (misu˘lotu˘). Upon completion, either alternative would lead to the abolishment of the class of feminines in consonant but its members would land in different groups. The zero level of these alternative evolutions is attested in the Tixonravov damaskin mysl˘ıt˘ı (Demina 1971: 297), in which the noun combines with a feminine type of article even though its basic form ends in a consonant, which is a marker of masculine gender. This is also the option of Standard Bulgarian, demonstrating its adherence to the initial gender-based choice of definite article for feminine nouns in a final consonant. BDA offers sporadic evidence of scenario A (see Maps 10a and 10b), which is surely more widely spread than the available BDA data show. Well known, for instance, are normalized forms like misla, mislja ‘thought’ (BER 4: 130), pesna, pesnja, pesma ‘song’ (BER 5: 186), praana ‘tinder’ (BER 5: 610), corresponding to Standard Bulgarian misu˘l f., pesen f., praxan f., as well as feminines that have adopted the definite form as their basic form damaskins, goleˇm˘ı skr˘ıb˘ı [great.MASC sorrow] ‘great sorrow’ and kakva skr˘ıb˘ı [what.FEM sorrow] ‘what sorrow’ (Demina 1971: 281) in the Tixonravov damaskin and gole˛mu˘ skru˘p˘ı and kakva skr˘ıbu˘ (BAN, 13.6.19: 200v, 203) in the Musina damaskin. The literal repetition from damaskin to damaskin allows us to project this vacillation back as a feature of the original translation.

316

Definiteness in the dialects

(regarding Tru˘n cf. Gu˘lu˘bov 1962: 57–58 and regarding Novo Selo, Region Vidin, cf. Mladenov 1969: 49–50), e.g. mu˘sta FEM ‘lard’, cu˘fta FEM ‘pipe’ in Novo Selo but mas FEM and cev FEM in the standard language. A restricted area in the Transitional dialects features scenario B (see Map 10d). Further fieldwork is necessary to better determine the areals of scenarios A and B. On the other hand, BDA provides data pointing at efforts in the Rupa and Balkan dialects to enforce rather than annihilate the boundary between feminines in a final consonant and the other noun classes. What these efforts have in common is the differential treatment of the basic and the definite forms of a noun. Speakers in a group of villages in the valley of the Mesta River belonging to the West Rupa dialect (see Map 10c) keep both the gender of feminines in a final consonant and their basic form as they are but form definites with the reduplicated article -tata. By doing so, they display the conservative stance characterizing scenario A but at the same time add an overt marker to the group of feminines in a final consonant, keeping it separate from other feminines. A much larger group of the Rupa and some Balkan dialects display reduplicated articles of type -tu˘t that differ formally from both the damaskins and the standard language (see Maps 10a–10d). According to Ivan Gu˘lu˘bov, this article obtained through a reinterpretation of the definite forms of nouns ending in consonant clusters -st or -sˇt (such as pru˘st ‘soil’ and nosˇt ‘night’), when they were assigned masculine gender pru˘stu˘t, nosˇtu˘t, as pru˘s-tu˘t, nosˇtu˘t. This reinterpretation was feasible because consonant clusters in final position are unstable in the Bulgarian dialects and so pru˘st and nosˇt are actually pronounced as pru˘s and nosˇ, thus making it unclear to speakers where the morpheme boundary lies. From this group of nouns the new article -tu˘t spread to other former feminines ending in a consonant (Gu˘lu˘bov 1962: 57–58). This explanation works well for the nouns that have been recorded as being masculine. Such nouns appear to follow scenario B. In most records of such nouns however gender is not indicated, which makes them difficult to place. When such nouns are feminine, the genesis of the definite form becomes something of a mystery because they lack the prerequisite that according to Ivan Gu˘lu˘bov triggers the whole process: the change of gender. On the other hand, given the compact distribution of the new definite article -tu˘t, its appearance should be the outcome of the same processes that embraced both the nouns that have remained feminine and those that have changed their gender to the masculine. Further incongruities in the marking of gender on the nouns in a consonant that are feminine in the standard language may involve in the dialects:

The three-way article system: article and person

317

(a) feminine controller gender (definite article -ta) but masculine target gender (agreement with masculine adjectives and replacement by masculine pronouns); and (b) masculine controller gender (definite article -u˘t or alternative) but feminine target gender. Such data show that many more dialects have been drawn into the process of change one way or another. These interconnected changes are located in the Rupa, Transitional and Balkan dialects. Least affected are the majority of the Western and the Moesian dialects. In a similar vein, the Rupa dialects occasionally apply the “vocal harmony” criterion in defiance to the requirements of number also to the marking of definiteness on numerals as forms like sˇestu˘´t and pettjáxu˘t indicate (see Map 2). The latter form is particularly significant because it proves the secondary status of this type of marking in comparison with the older pettjáx. Conversely, at the fringes of the area of innovation appear definites like sedámta (see Map 2). Assuming after Pasˇov (1974) that the definite article -ta in sedámta stands for masculine dual (as in the inherited form dvata ‘the two’) and keeping in mind that the distinction between dual and plural was lost in Bulgarian, we can see that this generalized dual form is the counterpart of the generalized plural elsewhere. Thus the only factor that had determined the choice of definite article here are considerations of number. To summarize, the damaskin language resists the pressure to give “vocal harmony” free reign. It, on the other hand, documents the incorporation of collective, abstract and mass nouns into the category of non-divisibles, which previously embraced only count nouns (see also section 3.6.1). Some dialects also diminish the distance between semantic classes by treating former collectives as plurals and bringing mass and abstract nouns closer to count singulars. Other dialects group plurals with collectives. All this is evidence that the regrouping of vocabulary registered in the seventeenth century on the basis of damaskin data continued afterwards.

5.4.

The three-way article system: article and person

The most important phenomenon in the area of definiteness that has been left out because it is reflected neither in the analysed damaskins nor in Standard Bulgarian is the so-called three-way article system that exists in several distinct marginal areas of the dialect continuum and has been adopted as a feature of Standard Macedonian. These areas are situated in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Albania and Greece (Koneski 1957; Duridanov and Mladenov 1988). The Bulgarian Rhodope area continues south on Greek territory. The

318

Definiteness in the dialects

Tru˘n dialect area in Bulgaria is linked to the west with the adjacent Skopska Crna Gora and Kumanovo dialect in Macedonia and the Timok – Zaplanje dialect in Eastern Serbia. The last area includes the Tetovo – Veles – Bitolja – Debar – Oxrid – Struga – Prespa dialects situated mostly in Macedonia but also partially in Albania and Greece. In these dialects there are three definite articles as opposed to one elsewhere.10 The new grammatical category that is relevant for the three-way article system is person. Regarding the Rhodope dialects, the relations of the three forms have been explained as the outcome of the action of two nested binary oppositions (Kolev 1993 building on Meillet 1934: 439 and Lekomceva 1979: 230; for Indo-European parallels to this system and further bibliography see Ivanov 1979: 21–27): Table 48. Semantics of the Rhodope three-way article system ‘Inside the communicative situation’

‘Outside the communicative situation’

‘In relation to the speaker’ ‘In relation to the hearer’ ‘In relation neither to the speaker, nor to the hearer’ grivnasa ‘the bracelet’

grivnata ‘the bracelet’

grivnana ‘the bracelet’

Furthermore, linguo-geographic evidence supports the postulated interdependence between type of article system and type of pronominal and adverbial systems (Kolev 1991). The three-way article system is a feature of dialects that have three-way pronominal and adverbial systems of type asuzí vs. atuzí vs. anuzí ‘this/that’, asu˘´de vs. atu˘´de vs. anu˘´de ‘here/there’, asugá vs. atugá vs. anugá ‘now/then’ and asu˘´j vs. atu˘´j vs. anu˘´j ‘thus’ (as in Xvojna [Region Asenovgrad], Stojcˇev 1965: 124), which is a necessary but not a sufficient prerequisite for the rise of three-way article systems. The dialects featuring a three-way article system are surrounded by a belt of transitional dialects that combine a single article with a three-way pronominal and a two-way or single adverbial system and contrasted with the majority of dialects in which single article coexists with two-way pronominal and adverbial systems of type tozi ‘this’ vs. onzi ‘that’, tuk(a) ‘here’ vs. tam ‘there’, sega ‘now’ vs. togava ‘then’ and taka ‘thus, in this way’ vs. onaka ‘in that way’ as in the standard language (see Maps 11a–11d).

10. Regarding the fictitious “two-way article system” in the Drama Region and in the area Cˇecˇ (Northern Greece), postulated on the basis of insufficient data by Jordan Ivanov (1972: Map 84; see also BDA-OT 1988: Map 16) see Mladenov 1990.

The three-way article system: article and person

319

The three-way article system by its very existence exposes the connection between grammatical categories ‘definiteness’ and ‘person’ postulated by Lyons (1999: 310–321) and discussed in section 2.1.1. As I showed there, this connection is as relevant even though not as manifest for the Bulgarian single article system. The obvious question that arises in connection with the three-way article system regards its place in the diachronic model of the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian. There are two alternative frameworks in which one can search for an answer to this question: the three-way and single article systems are either outcomes of the same processes outlined in the diachronic model of definiteness in chapter 3, or, alternatively, they should be treated each in their own right as outcomes of separate evolutions. Even linguo-geographic considerations alone make the latter hypothesis highly improbable. In fact I am not aware of any scholar who would have adopted this perspective. If the two systems are the product of a single evolution, there are two possible scenarios: either the three-way article system was once the norm preserved today in separate peripheral areas (opinion held by scholars like L. Mileticˇ, P. Skok, B. Koneski, I. Gu˘lu˘bov, W. Stölting and G. Cyxun, cf. Koneski 1957, Gu˘lu˘bov 1962: 63–65, Stölting 1970: 73–78; Cyxun 1981: 120–123) or, vice versa, the three-way article system is a regionalism, local development of the general trends that govern overt marking of definiteness in the entire territory (Velcˇeva-Bojadzˇieva 1963: 133; Sˇaur 1975: 239). I shall argue that this latter scenario is the one that corresponds to reality. So, what prompted the appearance of the three-way article system and why did it appear in those particular regions as opposed to others? An answer can be given on the basis of Georgi Kolev’s insightful interpretation of the Rhodope threeway article system, which has good chances to be the valid explanation of three-way article systems elsewhere as well (Kolev 1991: 65–66). As we saw in section 4.3.4, situationally unique adverbials started to be overtly distinguished from individuative, distributive or typifying adverbials in the eighteenth century. The process has not been finalized until this day. But many situationally unique adverbials hang for their meaning on the communicative situation. They are peripheral devices connected to nominal structure, and especially to the situationally unique subtype of individuatives, which is the one that serves as a bridgehead for expansion of the definite article into the area of unique referents (see section 3.9). Unique referents are incorporated into definiteness together with all inclusiveness-based descriptions, a process that was shown to lag behind the acquisition of overt identifiability-based definiteness. Besides, situationally unique referents and their peripheral counterpart situationally unique adverbials could have been

320

Definiteness in the dialects

involved at a relatively late date into the process of overt marking as their meaning was made clear by lexical means and Bulgarian tended to assign overt markers first to the expressions that needed them most. Since situationally unique referents can be represented by demonstrative pronouns and by the definite articles, this description is a second – after anaphoras – point at which the domains of demonstrative pronouns and definite articles intersect (see Figure 5). Taking into account the entire territory where overt definiteness became a fact of the linguistic system, we can postulate the following evolution. Demonstrative pronouns in postposition were used on a regular basis in all dialects, no matter whether these dialects had a three-way or a two-way pronominal system. At the level of Process 1 they all equally participated because the anaphoric function could be performed by all demonstrative pronouns (Lekomceva 1979: 230). It was when Process 2 was triggered that one of the pronouns appeared to suit the new content better than the other(s). As the relations between members were not equipollent, it must have been the unmarked member that took over: -n- in the three-way pronominal areas and -t- in the two-way pronominal areas.11 Things were moving along those lines without major disturbances until the moment when Process 6 was about to kick in. It is at this time that the communicative situation became relevant. Since definite article and pronominal system are linked in the area of situationally unique referents, as soon as the communicative situation entered the sphere of overt definiteness, dialects with three-way and two-way pronominal systems faced different issues. The communicative situation was subdivided into sphere of the speaker and sphere of the hearer for the former but represented one domain for the latter. Speakers of dialects with a three-way pronominal system had to distinguish between these spheres and they did so by using the proper pronouns in postposition. As soon as they penetrated the area of definiteness, the first- and second-person pronouns expanded to incorporate the functions that had previously been performed exclusively by the third member of the opposition (-n-). This is the process through which certain dialects were finally compelled to acquire a full-fledged three-way definite article. Conversely, for dialects with two-way pronominal and adverbial systems, the -t- pronoun was the proper option in the context of the communicative situation. As it was the one that had already given rise to the article, the expansion into a new area did not produce any visible modifications of the system. 11. For a consideration of the connection between the third-person demonstrative and the definite article in a typological and Indo-European plan see Ivanov 1979: 23–24.

The three-way article system: article and person

321

The ease with which the three-way article was dealing with the anaphoric function must also have played a role but its impulse was hardly sufficient because, if it were, it would have caused “two-way article systems” in the areas with a two-way pronominal system. Neither the Bulgarian dialects with twoway pronominal systems, nor many other languages with which they share this feature (such as the Romance languages, German or English) have opted for two-way article systems even though they are not typologically impossible as the example of languages like Wolof and Bella Coola demonstrates (Lyons 1999: 55–57). There are further facts that can corroborate this hypothesis of the relationship between single and three-way article systems. If it is correct, one should expect to find a predominance of -n- articles at the early stages while situationally unique referents have not yet established themselves. And indeed I have data coming from different sources that comply with this expectation. The most fascinating Bulgarian dialect among those that possess one definite article is the mixed dialect of Novo Selo (Region Vidin). It has a threeway pronominal and adverbial systems: nominative masculine ovu˘´j vs. tu˘´j vs. onu˘´j ‘this/that’; ovám(o) vs. túj(a) vs. tám(o) ‘here/there’ (Mladenov 1969: 75–76, 258, 284, 286). The peculiarities of the Novo-Selo definite article include form, distribution and function (Mladenov 1969: 63–66). As opposed to the majority of the Bulgarian dialects, the Novo-Selo article comes from the demonstrative pronoun onu˘. It is attached in postposition only to qualitative adjectives, ordinal numerals and possessives between the stem and the case ending and refers to visible objects and objects known to the speaker (i.e., in my terminology, it appears to surface only in individuative nominals of type 4 and perhaps 5 in the graphic and the informative registers). For instance, to the indefinite feminine accusative bélu corresponds definite bélu˘nu as in (619): (619)

Zu˘kolí bélu˘nu butcher.IMPER.2SG white.THE.ACC.FEM ‘Butcher the white hen.’ (Mladenov 1969: 64)

kokósˇku. hen.ACC

Maxim Mladenov argues that this state of affairs is a manifestation of the simplification of the morphological system caused by contact between dialects of different types. Such an outcome was only possible because the dialect contact took place at a time when the definite article had not yet become a full-fledged grammatical category in the Novo-Selo dialect. The -n- article was the one preserved because it apparently was the most frequent one (Mladenov 1969: 65). In the framework of my argument, one can not only readily understand why the most frequent article was this one but also date

322

Definiteness in the dialects

dialect contact around the time when overt definiteness was only starting to encompass the situationally unique referents, a relative chronology that does not contradict the other available information about the history of the NovoSelo dialect. Other evidence has to do with the previous stages of language. Margarita Lekomceva found that the demonstrative pronoun onu˘ was the one most frequently used anaphorically in the Codex Marianus, a manuscript from the end of the ninth and the beginning of the tenth century (1979: 230). The same observation has been made regarding the use of the demonstrative pronoun onu˘ by authors of the Tu˘rnovo Literary School of the fourteenth century (Karamfilova 1998: 178 with further bibliography). Petar Ilievski provides puzzling statistics of the pronouns s˘ı, t˘ı and on˘ı in postposition in the sixteenth-century Krnino damaskin, a representative of the Macedonian damaskin translation, made in the conservative literary koine of the day. Ilievski considers these forms proper articles although he notes that they correspond to hyper-determined nominals of type Article & Noun & Demonstrative Pronoun in the Greek original (Ilievski 1972, 1: 146–153). Most frequent, according to Ilievski, are the on˘ı-articles (79 % of all registered forms), followed by the t˘ı-articles (16 %) and the s˘ı-articles (5 %). On the basis of the contemporary dialects in Macedonia one would expect ov˘ı- rather than s˘ı-articles but the literary koine opts for the older system as attested in the Rhodope dialects, which could have been in place until the sixteenth century (Sˇaur 1975: 238–239). Ilievski forwards two explanation for this distribution of forms: influence of the Greek original and/or the native dialect of the translator, as some dialects in Southwestern Macedonia (such as, for instance, the Oxrid dialect)12 allegedly use -n- articles quite often. One can see how unusual such a high frequency of the on˘ı-articles is if one compares St. Mary of Egypt from the sixteenth-century Kiev damaskin with its translation into Standard Macedonian made by its publisher Ugrinova-Skalovska (1975: 17–45). The Kiev and the Krnino damaskins share paleographical peculiarities and are apparently parts of the same manuscript (Demina 1968: 44). The same version of St. Mary of Egypt is included in the eighteenth-century Svisˇtov damaskin in a Modern Bulgarian translation (Mileticˇ 1923: 259–268) made after an original very similar but not identical to the one available in the Kiev damaskin. Table 49 presents a summary of the statistics: 12. Apparently the list can be continued: Cyxun cites K. Tosˇev for providing analogical information regarding the Struga dialect (Cyxun 1981: 122). A similar frequency dynamics has been reported regarding the Rhodope dialect of Momcˇilovci, Region Smoljan (Kabasanov 1964: 419).

The three-way article system: article and person

323

Table 49. Definite articles in three versions of St. Mary of Egypt: the Kiev damaskin, Standard Macedonian and the Svisˇtov damaskin Kiev damaskin

4 s˘ı

4 t˘ı

9 on˘ı

Out of those rendered by article in the Standard Macedonian translation

2 -v1 -t-

1 -t-

5 -t-

Out of the those rendered by 2 determiners 1 determiner of deviant double-marked nominals of proximity non-proximity of type Noun-Article Determiner + -t+ -tin the Svisˇtov damaskin

4 determiners of non-proximity + -t-

Total number of articles in the Standard Macedonian translation: 5 -v-/395 -t-/Ø -nTotal number of articles in the Svisˇtov damaskin: 260 -t-

No matter how one counts – taking into account only the pronouns in postposition that correspond to an article in the Standard Macedonian translation or their total number – at least 53 % (versus 0 % in the Standard Macedonian translation) are of type -n-. The difference between my numbers and those provided by Ilievski is probably due to the limited scope of the text on which my analysis is based. It proves that even though not all pronouns in postposition may count as articles, their distribution across types is radically different from that in a contemporary speech variety that also uses a three-way article system. Besides, as an additional indicator of the evolutionary stage, which matches the abundance of on˘ı-articles, temporal adverbials in the Kiev damaskin are rendered erratically and in the Svisˇtov damaskin only marginally better if judged by current standards. Universal and specialized signs are used side by side to a degree that surpasses that tolerated by Standard Bulgarian. My list of irregularities consists of four examples in the Kiev damaskin, one of which was emended in the expected direction by the Svisˇtov damaskin and the others were kept intact. Two of the examples are instances of adverbials that can today be used only distributively as individuatives: ‘During that nosˇtïju (Kiev 16th century, Ugrinova-Skalovska 1975: 21) night’ nosˇtijamu˘ (Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ 1923: 262) ‘On that Maundy Thursday in the evening’

vu˘ velikyi cˇetvru˘t˘ık˘ı vecˇer˘ı (Kiev 16th century, Ugrinova-Skalovska 1975: 25) na veliki cˇetvu˘rtoku˘ vecˇeru˘ (Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ 1923: 264)

324

Definiteness in the dialects

The third example expands what is today a situationally unique adverbial to play the role of an individuative: ‘On the next za utra (Kiev 16th century, Ugrinova-Skalovska 1975: 23) na utreˇ (Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ 1923: 263) morning’ And finally, the Kiev damaskin uses an individuative as a situationally unique adverbial. It is noteworthy that such a usage would not be impossible in Standard Bulgarian either. The Svisˇtov damaskin, however, replaces it with a situationally unique adverbial proper: ‘Next year’

vu˘ greˇdusˇtee leˇto (Kiev 16th century, Ugrinova-Skalovska 1975: 24) do godinata (Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ 1923: 264)

The correct counterparts to these four adverbials in Standard Bulgarian would be prez nosˇtta, vecˇerta na Veliki cˇetvu˘rtu˘k, na sutrinta and dogodina. These examples fit in with what we already know: between the sixteenth and the eighteenth century situationally unique referents were only starting to be drawn into the sphere of action of overt definiteness. Not surprisingly in view of my argument here, -n- articles were the ones that at the beginning of this period dominated numerically the scene. A typological parallel to this situation is provided by the evolution from three-way definite article to single-article system in Armenian. Classical Armenian’s three-way contrast, very similar to that described here, was replaced in Modern Armenian by a single article, descendant of what was during the classical period the third-person article (Lyons 1999: 55). This reminds us that if the Bulgarian single article was the result of the simplification of the three-way article (as it is in the Novo-Selo dialect), one should expect it to be the descendant of the -n-pronoun. And finally, a conclusive argument in favour of the recent chronology of the three-way article systems is provided by Vladimir Sˇaur (1975). Taking as a premise the fact that the demonstratives in ov-, which are the source of the first-person article in the Macedonian and West Bulgarian three-way article systems, were borrowed from Serbian during the fifteenth–sixteenth centuries, he points out that this is an indication that the -s- pronouns could not have been by that time grammaticalized as a part of the three-way article system. If they were, they would not have been replaced by the innovation. It should therefore be concluded that the three-way article system came into being after the single article system.

The three-way article system: article and person

325

This model of the relationship of the single and the three-way article systems can account for approximately equal representation of the three articles -v-/-s- vs. -t- vs. -n- as well as for the predominance of -n- articles but it cannot explain the prevalence of -t- articles that appears to characterize Standard and colloquial Macedonian if one is to judge after Ugrinova-Skalovska’s translation of St. Mary of Egypt and the texts published in Vrazˇinovski 1981: 131–296. D. Boschkov goes as far as to claim that the exclusive use of -t- articles would not be erroneous but regrettable as it would result in the underutilization of the linguistic potential (1975: 4). A plausible hypothesis is that such statistics are an indication of reinterpretation of the three-way contrast based on person in terms of a two-way contrast based on proximity as follows: Table 50. The three-way article system reinterpreted Member marked for proximity

Unmarked member

Member marked for nonproximity

pusˇkava ‘the rifle here’

pusˇkata ‘the rifle’

pusˇkana ‘the rifle there’

It is only natural to reinterpret the second-person form as neutral to proximity if from the perspective of the first-person form it appears to be distal and from the perspective of the third-person form – proximal. According to some scholars such as Ljubomir Mileticˇ (1901: 12) and Kiril Mircˇev (1978: 204), this in fact is the model that governed the use of the demonstrative pronouns in Old Bulgarian and was perpetuated in the overt marking of definiteness in Bulgarian.13 Taking it as a starting point, however, one cannot find a convincing explanation for the complex relationship of the single and the three-way article systems in their evolution. On the other hand, it is easily explained as a recent outcome of evolution in dialects featuring a three-way article and pronominal system, which have been in contact with dialects that have a single article and a two-way pronominal system. Such mixed systems are not unheard of. Spanish, for example, is cited as having a very similar one (Lyons 1999: 109). Further research is required in order to determine and rank the types of three-way article systems actually represented in the dialects that possess them.

13. It is worth exploring whether Kiril Mircˇev did not map over the Old Bulgarian state of affairs that familiar to him from his native Bitolja dialect with its three-way article system, which is perhaps of the reinterpreted type shown in Table 50.

326

Definiteness in the dialects

5.5.

Adjectives vs. nouns

From a historical perspective the marking of definiteness on nominals of type 4M1 (du˘rvenija stol) and equivalent and 7M (kontrolnoto) in Standard Bulgarian can be considered a variety of double marking. The definite article was added to adjectives in their long forms, obtained by attaching the descendant of the Proto-Slavic anaphoric pronoun *i in the appropriate gender, case and number to the short form of the adjective (Mircˇev 1978: 176). As to the meaning of the long-form adjectives (LF), their identification as the counterparts to Greek definite articles in the oldest preserved Slavic texts goes back to Josef Dobrovsky´’s fundamental oeuvre Institutiones linguae slavicae dialecti veteris, quae quum apud Russos, Serbos aliosque ritus graeci, tum apud Dalmatas glagolitas ritus latini Slavos in libris sacris obtinet (1822). Modern Bulgarian eliminated most LF. The long form is visible today only on the masculine adjectives: 4U1 ostu˘r nozˇ ‘sharp knife’ vs. 4M1-1 ostr-ij-at nozˇ ‘the sharp knife’ and as a relict in certain well defined circumstances. As opposed to the standard language, dialects can choose between three options that do not necessarily each work equally well with all sorts of masculine adjectives (see Maps 1a–1d): (a) LF + article; (b) LF; (c) Short-form adjective + article. Only option (a) can count as double marking of definiteness and only if we assume that the long form of the adjectives can mark definiteness on its own, which indeed is the case in some Moesian dialects (Mladenov 1963). Most dialects as a rule make use of some combination of the three options. Option (a) is frequently generalized across the board, whereas options (b) and (c) are the ones speakers use exclusively only in few isolated areas scattered in the Moesian (see Map 1b) and the Rhodope dialects, respectively (see Map 1c; Kostov and Mladenov 1965: 290–291). Usually, the opposition is between dialects that exclusively use option (a) and such that either combine (a) with (b) or with (c) or with both (b) and (c). Further inquiries are needed in order to define the possible combinations more precisely and map them. I situated on Maps 1a–1d the available data, which are however incomplete, especially regarding Southeastern and Northeastern Bulgaria.14 The maps show that the 14. It is clear from the wording of the BDA questionnaire that dialectologists were not prepared to encounter such a contrast and only eventually started to systematically record it. They therefore may have missed some relevant information in the localities they studied for the first and the second volumes of BDA.

Adjectives vs. nouns

327

innovative type (c) is best represented in the Rupa, some Western and Balkan dialects but its centre is in the Rupa dialects, whereas the archaic type (b) is a feature of some Moesian dialects. The damaskins provide evidence of all three options. Option (a) is not as ubiquitous in the damaskins as it is today. It obviously is at the very beginning of its expansion. In the ten Tixonravov homilies that I searched for nominals of types 4M1 and 7M with masculine heads, I found only three forms of type (a) and three of type (c). The Kotel damaskin adds to them thirteen of type (a) and seven of type (c) in the nine corresponding homilies. The Ljubljana damaskin adds six of type (a) and four of type (c) in its two corresponding homilies. It is noteworthy that all of them but one of type (a)15 find a precise counterpart in the Kotel damaskin. This coincidence emphasizes again the close ties that link the Ljubljana and the Kotel damaskins together and allows us to attribute these textological innovations to their common source. The Veljuv damaskin adds three instances of type (a). The Trojan, Zˇeravna, Hilandar, Musina damaskins, and the Svisˇtov version of Elevation of the Cross make no emendations in this domain in comparison with the Tixonravov. All attested nominals of type (c) pertain to possessives or to edin˘ı ‘one’. The Svisˇtov version of St. Sabbas is at variance with the other evidence: it contains no nominals of type (c) but introduces three of type (a) and two curious forms, which I – after deliberation – decided to treat as nominals of type (b). Here is one of them, to which the Tixonravov offers the 4U1 counterpart za nasˇ˘ı zˇivot˘ı (Demina 1971: 158): (620) da se mole˛tu˘ svetite otci za to REFL.ACC pray.3PL holy.PL.THE fathers for nasˇi zˇivotu˘ our.MASC.LF life ‘Let the holy fathers pray for our life.’ (Svisˇtov 18th century, Mileticˇ 1923: 224) The second instance also involves a possessive, a 3M1-2 na vasˇi manastiru˘ Lavra (Mileticˇ 1923: 222) in the Svisˇtov damaskin vs. 3U na vasˇ˘ı monastir˘ı lavra (Demina 1971: 157) in the Tixonravov, meaning ‘at your monastery Laura’. Both nominals stand in positions, which require a marked nominal according to current norms. They look like LF but the problem is that possessives historically did not have long forms. As the native dialect of the compiler of the Svisˇtov damaskin was Moesian and Moesian was found by M. Mladenov 15. And for a very good reason too – the word was omitted altogether.

328

Definiteness in the dialects

to preserve nominals of type (b), cf. (621), I had no other choice but to believe my eyes and consider these nominals instances of type (b). (621) Násˇij góvur su˘ sxózˇdu˘ s our.MASC.THE speech REFL.ACC agrees with Plóvdifsko. Plovdiv.ADJ.NEUT ‘Our speech is similar to [that in] the Region of Plovdiv.’ (Mladenov-Archive: Region Veliko Tu˘rnovo, Pu˘rvomajci) As soon as this conclusion was reached, a new and important question arose. If there were two plausible instances of nominals of type (b), what about the many other LF (more precisely 229 in the ten analysed Tixonravov homilies) that also appear in positions, which would today be held by nominals 4M1 and 7M? The only formal difference between them and these two was that they were regular LF. This was a revolutionary thought. In all my previous reasoning I had taken as a starting point the assumption that LF were a bookish archaism of no relevance for the expression of definiteness in the damaskins. What is more, I was neither alone nor original in assigning an early chronology to the functioning of LF as markers of definiteness (Vaillant 1942: 5; Lekomceva 1979: 206–207, note 9; Flier 1974: 81–82, 138; Larsen 2005 regarding Russian). In fact, whenever definiteness must be expressed by nominals of types 4 and 7 with a masculine head, it is such potential nominals of type (b) that fill the slot. The only exceptions to the rule are the few nominals of types (a) and (c) listed above and the 30 possessives, which traditionally do not oppose long and short forms. The survey of the membership of nominals of types 4 and 5 that had to be filled by unmarked masculine nominals revealed that here too the compiler of the Tixonravov damaskin was consistently following a certain unmistakable principle: in the same ten homilies, 68 short-form masculine adjectives were present in contexts where a 4U1 nominal was expected and 59 in positions held by 5U nominals. The apparent exceptions consist of (a) nominals in the vocative as in (189) and (190) as well as personal and geographic names as in (622) and (623), which today continue to use LF; (b) adjectives that do not distinguish between long and short forms such as su˘sˇti ‘true’, seˇkyi (v˘ısakyi) ‘every’, ordinal numerals and adjectives formed with suffixes -skyi and -j˘ı employed today exclusively in their long forms (Mircˇev 1978: 178–179);16 and, finally (c), nominals whose use both 16. Again, further field research is required to check whether this claim actually reflects the state of affairs in all dialects. For instance, short-form adjective ljucu˘k,

Adjectives vs. nouns

329

in the their marked and unmarked forms could be grammatical in the given context. (622) s[ve]tyi monastir˘ı, deto beˇsˇe go holy.MASC.LF monastery that was.3SG him.ACC su˘dzidal˘ı stryka mu, i narekl˘ı built.MASC uncle him.DAT and called.MASC beˇsˇe go novy sïon˘ı was.3SG him.ACC new.MASC.LF Sion ‘the holy monastery that his uncle had built and called New Sion’ (Demina 1971: 167) (623) da ideme na b[o]zˇ ïi grob˘ı to go.1PL on divine.MASC.LF grave ‘Let us go to the Holy Sepulchre.’ (Demina 1971: 78) Relative adjectives such as monastirskyi formed from monastir ’monastery‘ with the suffix -skyi neutralize the contrast between short and long forms and are used indiscriminately both in positions where a marked nominal is required, such as (624), and such which could be appropriately filled by an unmarked nominal, as in (625). Note however that even here the marked nominal is graphically represented as a long form monastirskyi whereas the unmarked – as a quasi-short form monastirsky instead of something like the original short form manastyr˘ısku˘ encountered in Euchologium Sinaiticum and Codex Suprasliensis (Sadnik and Aitzetmüller 1955: 54).17 (624) I pozna kak sˇte da se and recognized.3SG how will to REFL.ACC razvali monastirskyi zakon˘ı spoil.3SG monastery.ADJ.MASC.LF law ‘And he recognized that the tenor of monastery life will fall apart.’ (Demina 1971: 157)

lucu˘k ‘foreign, alien’ < Old Bulgarian ljudˇısku˘ has been recorded in Region Svisˇtov (Straxilovo), Region Kazanlu˘k (Enina), Banat (BER 3: 577–578) and Region Stara Zagora (Kolarovo) (Ku˘ncˇev 1985: 391). The localization is obviously incomplete. This adjective is however an indication that there may be dialects that have chosen to treat adjectives in -skyi like any others. 17 The approach of adjectives in -˘ısk- to the contrast between short and long form in Old Church Slavonic is discussed in Flier 1974: 82–101.

330

Definiteness in the dialects

(625) zasˇto imaxu zakon˘ı manastirsky because had.3PL law monastery.ADJ.MASC.LF da se postet˘ı v[e]s˘ı d[e]n˘ı to REFL.ACC fast.3PL all.MASC day ‘because they had a monastic rule to fast all day long’ (Demina 1971: 54) The possibility of two equally grammatical readings is illustrated in (626), which can be seen as either an equational or a characterizing sentence: (a) ‘He says that Christ is the true God’; (b) ‘He says that Christ is a true God’ (Demina 1971: 101). When I was initially parsing the text, I assumed that the sentence was characterizing because otherwise there would have been a 4M1-1 nominal in the predicate position, something like Standard Bulgarian istinnijat Bog. If however LF express definiteness, that is precisely what the text says and it makes better sense from the point of view of Christian doctrine: (626) kazuva kak e x[risto]s istinnyi b[og]˘ı says how is Christ true.MASC.LF God In all the analysed homilies I found only five instances when the unmarked reading appears more plausible to me but the slot is filled with a LF preceding or following the head. I have two explanations of these few cases that can both hold to a certain extent: these instances may show the first hesitations as to the correct use of LF or, despite my reservations, the damaskin compiler could have thought it appropriate to use marked nominals. I shall give one example that requires a broader context to be understood. An Arabic prince comes to consult St. Symeon the Stylite and picks up as a memento some unknown to him object that fell off the saint’s leg. As it turns out, the saint had on his leg an infected wound full of worms, which were falling off. In the ensuing discussion with the embarrassed saint the prince shows the object he had picked up but his fervent faith in God had miraculously transformed it into a precious pearl. (627) i recˇ[e] s[ve]t[o]mu o[t]cˇe s[ve]tyi and said.3SG saint.DAT father.VOC holy.MASC.LF tova mi e na bl[ago]s[lo]venïe i this.NEUT me.CL.DAT is for blessing and

17.

Adjectives vs. nouns

331

na prosˇtenïe sˇto uzex ot tebe, i for pardon that took.1SG from you.2SG.ACC and razgr˘ın˘ı si rukata videˇ byser˘ı opened.3SG REFL.DAT hand.THE saw.3SG pearl mnogoceˇnnyi i recˇe precious.MASC.LF and said.3SG ‘And he said to the saint: “Holy Father, what I took from you is for blessing and pardon.” And he opened his hand and saw a/the precious pearl and said’ (Demina 1971: 158) My preference goes for the indefinite reading but I can imagine that a speaker excited by the point he is about to make could announce this pearl of which he knew all along that it was coming using a marked nominal. This anticipation resembles the laughter with which some narrators accompany the joke they are telling long before they have reached the punch line. Anyway, no matter which of my alternative interpretations holds in this case, the number of instances that need such elaborate explanations is so small that they cast no doubt on the general validity of the conclusion that imposes itself: the masculine LF functioned in the language of the initial damaskin translation as definite adjectives. Nominals containing such adjectives were used according to a set of rules similar but not identical to those governing the expression of definiteness in Standard Bulgarian (see section 2.1). I shall return to the differences shortly. At the moment in the evolution of definiteness captured by the initial damaskin translation, masculine adjectives were only starting to be incorporated into the same system of expression that characterized by that time the nouns. The old system was vital enough for traces of it to have been preserved until this day in the speech varieties where it was best rooted, the Moesian dialects. Elsewhere LF were preserved not as a system but as relics that characterize the usage of certain lexical items. For instance, the damaskin tradition was so influential regarding the use of religious terms (as we already had a chance to notice when we discussed Bog ‘God’ in section 2.2.4) that the damaskin norm was petrified and its presence continues to be felt in the standard language today. Such a religious term is the LF svetí m., svetá f., svetí pl. ‘saint’. Its short-form counterpart svét m., svéta f., svéto n., svéti pl. ‘holy’, also used with the vocalism svját, under Russian Church Slavonic influence, follows the usual rules. Here is an example of a 5U nominal with the short form in the damaskins:

332

Definiteness in the dialects

(628) i stori tamo posreˇd onogozi and made.3SG there in-the-middle-of that.MASC potoka cr[˘ı]kvicu malu i oltar˘ı stream church.ACC small.FEM.ACC. and altar sv[e]t˘ı postavi holy.MASC put-up.3SG ‘And he made in the middle of that stream a small church and put up a holy altar.’ (Demina 1971: 157) The LF precede the names of saints and the obtained nominal Sveti Dimitu˘r ‘St. Demetrius’ or Sveta Petka ‘St. Petka’ plays the role of a 4M1-1. The standard language makes the same choices as the damaskin. (629) i togazi beˇ storil s[ve]ty and then was.3SG made.MASC holy.MASC.LF sava, 30, godin˘ı Sabbas thirty years ‘And St. Sabbas had turned thirty years old then.’ (Demina 1971: 156) This however is an aberrant nominal of type 4M1-1. If it were to follow the rules, the adjective should have been marked with the definite article as in umnija(t) Ivan ‘the smart Ivan’. Side by side with these 4M1-1 nominals Standard Bulgarian uses 1M1 svetíjata ‘the saint’, another aberrant form with a corresponding unmarked svetíja ‘saint’ that is treated as a masculine noun (BTR-4: 864). The link between the 4M1-1 and the 1M1/1U is the regular 7M nominal of svetí, which is svetíja(t). Such 7M nominals are attested in a number of texts like, for instance, Martyrdom of St. Gurius, St. Aviv and St. Samon at www.pravoslavie.domainbg.com. If svetíjat, however, is assigned the status of a noun, it sounds to speakers of the standard language as an alien dialect form (analogous to kadijat and gemidzˇijat brought up in section 5.3). Therefore, it was “normalized” and so the hypercorrect 1M1 svetijata ~ 1U svetija originated that parallel 1M1 kadijata ~ 1U kadija. A numerous group of (mostly) Turkish, relatively recent, loans designating male persons displays similar parallel adaptations in different dialects. Adaptations may include variants like the following: 1U cˇorbadzˇij ~ 1M1 cˇorbadzˇijat – used by Ilija Blu˘skov (1838–1913), an author with strong connections to the Moesian dialect; more often 1U cˇorbadzˇija ~ 1M1 cˇorbadzˇijat – used by natives of Eastern Bulgaria like Petko Slavejkov (1827–1895), Ljuben Karavelov (1834–1879), Ivan Vazov (1850–1921) and Anton Strasˇimirov (1872–1937) among others; and, finally, much more often 1U cˇorbadzˇija ~ 1M1 cˇorbadzˇi-

Adjectives vs. nouns

333

jata, which is also the option of the standard language. Furthermore, many terms of this group have been used as titles and have apparently been equated with LF although at least some of them are positively nouns (regarding their poor fit into the morphological system of Bulgarian see Mayer 1988: 51–52 with further bibliography): 4M1-1 deli Marko18 ~ 7M delijat = 1M1 delijat/delijata > 1U delija ‘a reckless person’; 4M1-1/3M xadzˇi Nikola ~ 7M xadzˇijat = 1M1 xadzˇijat/xadzˇijata > 1U xadzˇija ‘pilgrim, Hadji’; 4M1-1/3M cˇorbadzˇi Jurdan ~ 7M cˇorbadzˇijat = 1M1 cˇorbadzˇijat/cˇorbadzˇijata > 1U cˇorbadzˇija/cˇorbadzˇij ‘boss, master, lord’; 5M1/3M Mustafa cˇelebi ~ 7M cˇelebijat = 1M1 cˇelebijat/cˇelebijata > cˇelebija ‘master’ etc. The identical treatment of a proven LF and a group of quasi-LF of a relatively recent Turkish descent can serve as yet another proof that at the time when the Turkish words were borrowed into Bulgarian, LF continued to be one of the active markers of overt definiteness. The details of the transition from 7M to 1M1 status require further investigation. In view of the cases of double marking of the article presented in section 5.3, it can be surmised that forms like svetija and cˇorbadzˇija were initial 7M/1M1, reinterpreted as 1U and supplied with new 1M1 forms by analogy with inherited Slavic words like 1U su˘dija ‘judge’, vladika ‘bishop’ and sluga ‘servant’ – 1M1 su˘dijata, vladikata, slugata. The 7M/1M1 forms themselves could only have originated in dialects that have a definite article of type -a, -u˘, (for their distribution see BDA 1: 152–154; 2: 169–172; 3: 167–171; 4: 222–226). Without the contribution of LF, the formal variation between 4M1-1/3M and the corresponding 1M1/1U nominals would remain enigmatic. Turning to the rules that govern the use of LF, we should recall that they are not identical to those identified for the definite article with adjectives, the latter having a broader scope than the former. I did not find any short-form adjectives in positions that must be filled by a marked nominal with the exception of possessives, which together with a number of other categories of adjectives are not sensitive to the contrast of long and short adjectival forms. As opposed to the other members of this group, the standard language and the dialects today treat possessives as regular adjectives and attach to them the definite article as needed. This is not necessarily the case in other languages

18. See (511) for an example of the use of this type of nominal in context.

334

Definiteness in the dialects

that also have a definite article (such as English). The damaskin language documents the process through which possessives were starting to become regular adjectives and thus throws light on an important change in the structure of Bulgarian. In view of the evidence provided by LF, we can conclude that the acquisition of overt markers of definiteness of Modern Bulgarian type by possessives amounts to more than the same acquisition of these markers by other adjectives because, as opposed to them, possessives previously belonged to a group that resisted the overt marking of definiteness. The incorporation of possessives into the category of regular adjectives is a manifestation of the changes to which the expression of possessivity in Bulgarian was subjected around this time (for further discussion see section 6.2). It is therefore not a coincidence that precisely possessives (and other groups that had no LF, e.g. edin ‘one’) predominate among the recorded markers of definiteness of type (c) (see the commentary to Maps 1a–1d). This fact sets a relative chronological terminus ad quem because it shows that, by the time possessives were incorporated into the category of regular adjectives, LF had in some areas already lost their vitality as markers of definiteness. LF featured a marker of definiteness that was of a shorter range than the definite article. Being an enclitic, the definite article attaches to a nominal in a specific position and marks it all as definite. LF are not clitics and, although they also mark the nominal which they modify, they cannot by the same token mark any other adjectives in the same nominal, which have to adopt their own long forms. The following examples show the treatment of multiple adjectives: as part of 4M1-2 in (630) and of 4M1-1 nominals in (631). Only the first adjective would have been marked with the definite article in Standard Bulgarian. na (630) a d[u]sˇata ti sˇte !da" bude and soul.THE you.2SG.CL.DAT will to be.3SG on krasnyi i nevesˇtest˘ıvnyi rai beautiful.MASC.LF and incorporeal.MASC.LF heaven ‘And your soul will go to the beautiful and incorporeal heaven.’ (Demina 1971: 95) (631) i utreˇsˇny s[ve]ty d[e]n˘ı da and tomorrow.ADJ.MASC.LF holy.MASC.LF day to se spodobim˘ı dostoino da prazdnuvame REFL.ACC behoove.1PL fittingly to celebrate.1PL ‘And let us behoove to celebrate fittingly tomorrow’s holy day.’ (Demina 1971: 285)

Adjectives vs. nouns

335

Such examples make it clear that the impact of the LF was probably responsible for the double marking of the article on conjoined adjectives in the damaskin language, which was one of its peculiarities noted in section 2.1.2, cf. the discussion prompted by example (124). Moreover, LF routinely appear in nominals of type 1M5-1 such as toizi suetny sveˇt˘ı (Demina 1971: 167), onzi pravednyi iov˘ı (Demina 1971: 277) etc. Their usage in this position (attested since the oldest Slavic texts of the tenth and the eleventh centuries, cf. Flier 1974: 74–75) can explain the origin of the double marking acceptable to both Standard Bulgarian and the dialects that was discussed previously. As word order has no impact on the marking of definiteness with LF, a new deviant type of 5M nominal should be recognized in the damaskin language. It consists of a noun followed by an LF and fills a position that would have been held by a marked nominal according to current norms: (632) ne osta nigde meˇsto gde neˇ sme not remained.3SG nowhere place where not are.1PL xodile. t˘ıkmo u vu˘bel˘ı suxyi neˇ sme gone.PL just in well dry.MASC.LF not are1.PL xodile gone.PL ‘No place remained where we didn’t go, only into the dry well we didn’t go.’ (Demina 1971: 55) The familiar use of LF as a part of address forms could have had something to do with the spread of definite forms and especially nominals of type 4M1 and 7M in this slot (see section 2.2.4). This is a development that took place after the period reflected in the damaskins. In the same vein, the use of LF in geographic and proper names can now be seen as a parallel to the puzzling use of marked nominals (4M1-1 or 5M as the case may be) to correspond to the unmarked 1U, e.g. 4M1-1 rodoljubivata Koprivsˇtica ‘the patriotic Koprivsˇtica’ but 1U Koprivsˇtica like deviant 4M1 nominal with a LF Cˇerni vru˘x ([black.MASC.LF peak], the highest peak in Mount Vitosˇa) but 1U Musala or deviant 5M nominal with a LF Karl Veliki ‘Carl the Great’ but 1U Krum. The relatively recent chronology of Process 6 in combination with the tardy incorporation of masculine animates into the category of overt definiteness fits in with the onomastic presence of LF: since masculine unique referents were the last to receive definite articles of the new type, if they featured a LF, they were never replaced by regular 4M1-1 or 5M nominals. In other words, the Moesian dialects preserved the LF as markers of definiteness for masculines, but

336

Definiteness in the dialects

the entire Bulgarian diasystem (including the standard language) kept them as markers of definiteness for unique referents (if and only if the adjective had a restrictive reading, which is always the case in onomastics).19 But let us see how this discovery affects our statistics (summarized in Table 27) that demonstrated that masculines were incorporated in the sphere of overt definiteness last (see section 3.4). These statistics were based on data from three homilies, two of which (St. Symeon Stylites and St. Demetrius) will now be updated to reflect the use of LF as markers of definiteness. Table 51. Marking definiteness on nominals with masculine heads in the Tixonravov damaskin Definite masculines of new type (14.96 %) St. Symeon Stylites

Deviant 4M1 Deviant 5M Total nominals with LF nominals with LF (39.74 %) adjectives adjectives

14 (59) 23.73 % 14 (59) 23.73 % 1 (59) 1.69 %

St. Demetrius 21 (175) 12 % 34 (175) 19.43 % 9 (175) 5.14 %

29 (59) 49.15 % 64 (175) 36.57 %

Even taking into account the contribution of LF, we can still discern the gap between masculines, on one hand, and the rest of the lexicon, on the other. Our conclusions remain correct but they have been detailed. As the beneficiaries of a different type of marking of definiteness, masculines were the last to adopt the new system because the old one was vital enough to continue to function in their midst. This prompts the question about the representation in the damaskin language of LF in nominals with heads of a different gender or in the plural. In order to answer it, I analysed four Tixonravov homilies: Elevation of the Cross, St. Petka, St. Demetrius and Presentation of the Virgin. They contain fewer non-masculine LF but these adjectives conform to the same pattern too. Most of them (52) occur in positions that today would have been occupied by a marked nominal. Eight of those combined in the same nominal a regular marking with a LF, whereas eighty-two other nominals displayed only a regular marking of type 4, 5 or equivalent. As a whole, in nominals with feminine, neuter or plural heads predominant is the marking of definiteness of new type. 19. For an analysis of the Old Church Slavonic antecedents of the use of LF with proper names and in address forms see Flier 1974: 103–136, 152–153.

Adjectives vs. nouns

337

Out of all the LF that seem to be components of unmarked nominals in positions that require definite nominals, only nine (or 9.78 %) are really difficult to interpret as definite nominals or receive another plausible explanation. I shall illustrate the group with one example: (633) onzi mnogo silnïi junaci ubi, i that.MASC many strong.PL.LF champions killed.3SG and ne kakvoto tebeˇ slabyi momcˇeta not like you.2SG.ACC weak.PL.LF guys ‘That [fellow] killed many strong champions not like you weak guys.’ (Demina 1971: 103) The other LF may belong to one of the following categories: some were accepted by me as plausible unmarked nominals but a marked nominal in that position would have worked as well; among the rest there are geographic terms like cˇr˘ımnoe more ‘Red Sea’ (Demina 1971: 66) or s[ve˛]taa gora ‘Mount Athos’ (Demina 1971: 97), personal names like s[ve˛]taa petka ‘St. Petka’ (Demina 1971: 94) and vocatives like bl[ago]sl[o]venïi xr[i]stïane ‘blessed Christians’ (Demina 1971: 107) that – contrary to the situation in Standard Bulgarian or the Bulgarian dialects – are apparently governed by the same rules as masculines. As with masculines, there also are nine nominals of type 1M5-1 containing LF, for instance, onïa s[ve˛]tye mosˇti ‘those holy relics’ (Demina 1971: 97). Reevaluating the numerical results regarding nominals of types 4 and 5 that were presented in Tables 22 and 23, we can now come to the numbers summarized in Table 52 on the basis of the same Tixonravov homilies (No.No. 2, 7, 8 and 9). The perspective on nominals of type 4 has not changed: they continue to be in Phase II of their evolution whereas type 5, which still lags behind type 4, can now be situated in Phase II with more confidence than before.

Table 52. Representation of the nominals of types 4 and 5 in slots that would have been filled with marked nominals in Standard Bulgarian Type 4 Restrictive Appositive Total Marked nominals of new type

33 31.73 %

3 27.27 %

Type 5 Restrictive Appositive Total

36 13 31.30 % 20.63 %

1 50 %

14 21.54 %

338

Definiteness in the dialects Type 4 Restrictive Appositive Total

Deviant nominals marked with LF adjectives

13 12.5 %

Type 5 Restrictive Appositive Total

4 36.36 %

17 10 14.78 % 15.87 %

0

10 15.38 %

Marked 46 one way 44.23 % or another

7 63.64 %

53 23 46.09 % 36.51 %

1 50 %

24 36.92 %

Unmarked 58 nominals 55.77 %

4 36.36 %

62 40 53.91 % 63.49 %

1 50 %

41 63.08 %

Since feminines, neuters and plurals were ahead of masculines in the acquisition of markers of definiteness of new type, speakers at the time reflected in the damaskins reached less frequently for the old LF to perform the same function. The new article was not added on top of LF. The use of the old feminine, neuter and plural LF concomitantly feature a larger number of mistakes, which shows that they were losing ground in the vernacular and getting out of active use faster. After the seventeenth century this process must have accelerated because by the time attested in Standard Bulgarian and dialectological records, there is no trace of feminine, neuter or plural LF adjectives in geographic and personal names, as well as vocatives. Seen from the perspective of the diachronic model of definiteness proposed here, the initial function of the LF as a marker of definiteness seems to have been to indicate that the reading of the respective nominal was restrictive (cf. more about this in section 6.4). The interaction of LF with the emerging new article needs to be traced back in the Middle and the Old Bulgarian periods as far as possible. An eloquent parallel to the Bulgarian evolution is provided by the East and West Germanic languages, which throughout their history moved from the Proto-Germanic weak adjectives formed with a demonstrative suffix en/on that expressed definiteness to pre-positive demonstrative pronoun sa/that/so functioning as a definite article (Heinrichs 1954). The connection between the two Germanic phenomena has been questioned on the basis of two counterarguments: (a) the two markers were not employed according to identical sets of rules in the oldest Germanic texts; (b) Slavic used to have a similar definite adjective in the oldest texts but it was not renewed with an article of new type (Philippi 1997). The Bulgarian data refute these arguments showing that (a) the lack of full overlap between the older and the newer marker stems from

Insights gained from the dialectological perspective

339

their different paths of evolution and therefore different potentials and (b) there actually is a Slavic language, which – as opposed to others – did switch from the old LF to a definite article, formed in a different way. Thus Bulgarian provides yet another proof of the plausibility of Lyons’ hypothesis about the life cycle of definiteness as a grammatical category (Lyons 1999), which is built on the premise that identifiability-based definiteness is a linguistic universal. It needs not be grammaticalized but, when it is, it starts broadening its sphere of action to subsume inclusiveness, genericity and specificity until it is completely trivialized and its markers stop having any distinctive meaning. When this happens, a language may start rebuilding the grammatical category anew with a different set of markers or revert to the state, in which definiteness will again be a semantic and pragmatic but not a grammatical category. Bulgarian and the Germanic languages chose to enter a second coil of the spiral whereas most Slavic languages refrained from taking this route.

5.6.

Insights gained from the dialectological perspective

Even though limited to issues already addressed in Bulgarian dialectology, the results reached in this chapter surpassed my expectations. It has become clear that further dialectological field work focussed by the outcomes of this study promises to bring new data that will help draw a much more detailed picture of the evolution of definiteness than the one at our disposal to date. While as a whole confirming the conclusions made on the basis of the comparison of the language of damaskins and Standard Bulgarian, the inclusion of dialect data highlighted the limitations of a diachronic model relying on a reverse chronological perspective based on the standard language. Since I reconstructed the past looking at it from the present, I could only see in it the phenomena that had preserved their status, whereas phenomena with no current representation in the standard language (such as the use of LF as markers of definiteness, the three-way article system or some of the synthetic markers of definiteness) could slip by unnoticed. One way to overcome this limitation is to embed in the present-day vantage point the linguistic range that characterizes the dialects taken in their entirety. As an additional checking mechanism, one should also carefully examine any linguistic archaisms that enter the domain of the studied phenomena, no matter how antiquated they appear for the time period under consideration. One of the most interesting empirical results of this chapter is the realization that the expression of definiteness in the damaskin language differs from that in Standard Bulgarian in one very important respect: it incorporates as a

340

Definiteness in the dialects

living feature LF as markers of definiteness. The coexistence of the old and the new systems of marking definiteness throws light on certain aspects of Standard Bulgarian (such as 1M5-1 nominals, 7M nominals as address forms and the morphological structure of a group of masculine nouns in -ija) and the damaskin language (1M5-1 nominals and double marking of the article on conjoined adjectives), which would not have had the appearance they have without the cooperation of the new and the old systems. The greatest difference between the old and the new systems was their different scope: the old one could only function with a limited set of nominals whereas the new one encompassed the entire range of nominals. The analysis of the damaskin language in conjunction with dialect data made it possible to broaden the scope of the diachronic model of definiteness by including in it the three-way article system, a phenomenon characterizing several isolated areas in the dialect continuum. Moreover, certain aspects of the evolution of definiteness are now visible in much more detail than before. The list includes the order in which nominals with heads of different gender and number were incorporated into overt marking of definiteness; the mechanism through which case was eliminated; and the history and relationships of certain semantic categories: possessives, animates vs. inanimates, divisibles vs. non-divisibles, count vs. mass, collective and abstract nouns. Although dialects partake of essentially the same approach to definiteness, some larger dialect groups can be seen now as sharing a perspective as far as certain particulars of definiteness are concerned. Each of these groups deserves a separate study based on large corpora of transcribed texts perhaps in combination with field data acquired by traditional questionnaire-based interviews. Keeping in mind that our interest in this study has been with processes that took place since the seventeenth century, we should not dismiss lightly the fact that the same two dialect groups have cropped up over and over again as areas displaying characteristics of a limited distribution in the Bulgarian diasystem: (a) the Rupa dialects with the Rhodope area as their centre, sometimes expanding to include neighbouring Balkan and Southwestern dialects and the Transitional dialects occasionally together with smaller or larger chunks of the nearby Western dialects; and (b) the Moesian dialects as a core area with the Balkan dialects or alternatively all Eastern Bulgarian dialect varieties and even some adjacent Western dialects. The former area takes the lead in the abolition of the distinction between alienable and inalienable possessions as well as the introduction of the definite article with personal names (Process 6) and with relative pronouns. It is engaged in bustling activity of transferring vocabulary classes over the divis-

Insights gained from the dialectological perspective

341

ible/non-divisible line and, last but not least, features a three-way article system. Together with the Western dialects it demonstrates early awareness of the specific/generic contrast. The Moesian area claims the lengthiest temporal overlap between the grammatical categories ‘case’ and ‘definiteness’, as well as between the old and the new markers of definiteness, it is the stronghold of the overt expression of alienability and distinguishes between meanings ‘all members of a set’ and ‘entire, whole’; it also leads the way in the transformation of collectives into plurals. The two core areas are presented schematically on Figure 6. The salience of these two areas leads to a conclusion of general interest for historical dialectology: these two isoglosses must have been active in the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries and perhaps thereafter. Bulgarian linguists have identified a number of isoglosses of varying age and among them most importantly the jat’ isogloss that divides Eastern from Western Bulgarian (Stojkov 1993: 83–85)20 and the isogloss that divides Northeastern from Southern and Northwestern Bulgarian (Stojkov 1993: 90–93). This latter isogloss is the one that encompasses an area whose core are the Moesian dialects shown on Figure 6. Both the Moesian and the Rupa dialects are situated to the east of the jat’ isogloss. It is important to verify on other material the chronology of isoglosses suggested by this study of definiteness. And finally, the comparison of dialect and damaskin data raises our awareness of some methodological problems. Demina localizes the language of the initial Modern Bulgarian damaskin translation in the Lukovit-Etropole-Teteven triangle (see Map 1d, on which I have outlined the area). The evidence discussed in this study does not contradict her localization but it also does not fully endorse it. Such a lack of fit prompts general questions regarding the diachronic interpretation of contemporary linguo-geographic data. As the dialect basis of damaskin language was circumscribed according to the testimony of contemporary linguo-geographic data (Demina 1985), which – as we have seen now – may have a limited (or indirect) relevance for locating seventeenth-century language phenomena, the legitimacy of the juxtaposition of 20. For more details on the jat’ isogloss, which must have been active between the twelfth and the fourteenth centuries, when the contemporary dialect representation of Old Bulgarian eˇ took shape, and which coincides with the distribution of a number of other language and folk-culture phenomena see Mladenov 1973. According to Maxim Mladenov the jat’ isogloss reflects a division between the Bulgarian dialects that goes back to the earliest period of its history and remained in place for centuries.

342

Definiteness in the dialects

Figure 6. Definiteness from a linguo-geographic perspective: the relevant core areas

contemporary and historical dialect data becomes an issue of extreme importance for historical dialectology that needs further attention. Meanwhile, my attempt to replicate Demina’s localization based on data from BDA and BDA-OT 2001, led to a different localization (Mladenova 2007). Since my selection of diagnostics was smaller than Demina’s but included only phenomena she had taken into account, I thought I would get a broader areal but did not expect the Lukovit-Etropole-Teteven triangle to fall outside it. The new localization is shifted to the north and places the language of the initial damaskin translation into Modern Bulgarian in an area whose centre is the easternmost West Bulgarian dialect identified by Maxim Sl. Mladenov and dubbed by him the Isku˘r-Vit dialect (Mladenov 1993a: 171–173).21 21. The core of this area is formed by localities situated in Regions Nikopol (Guljanci [No. 746], Brest [No. 745]), Pleven (Komarevo [No. 751], Slavovica [No. 720], Tru˘stenik [No. 725], Bozˇurica [No. 756], Opanec [No. 770], Petu˘rnica [No. 1439]), Bjala Slatina (Kojnare [No. 732], Gabare [No. 1379]), and Lukovit (Dervenci [No.1428], Breste [No. 1433], Karlukovo [No. 1447], Dermanci [No. 1464]). Its periphery includes localities in Regions Orjaxovo (Selanovci [No. 200], Lipnica

Insights gained from the dialectological perspective

343

This area fits into the broader Bjala-Slatina-Pleven dialect (Stojkov 1993: 147–148, see the map on p. 416), and more precisely in its northern segment lying in the rolling hills of the Danube plain. Only the easternmost localities are to the east of the jat-isogloss dividing Bulgarian dialects into Eastern and Western. Demina’s localization mostly belongs to the southern upland segment of the same Bjala-Slatina-Pleven dialect, situated in the northern slopes of the Balkan mountains, but it also includes a small portion of the adjacent East Bulgarian (Balkan) dialect. Bulgarian scholarly tradition has always attributed a more vigorous cultural life during the latter centuries of the Ottoman period to the mountainous regions as opposed to the plains. This makes my localization even more unexpected. Until further research allows us to make sense of these puzzling results and provides a more reliable framework for the diachronic interpretation of linguo-geographic data, we cannot be certain which Bulgarian dialects really formed the basis of the initial damaskin translation.

[No. 685]), Vraca (Staro Selo [No. 1407], Kunino [No. 1437]), Nikopol (Gigen [No. 204]), Pleven (Bru˘sˇljanica [No. 753], Bukovlu˘k [No. 772], Pelisˇat [No. 790], Pordim [No. 789]) and Bjala Slatina [Galicˇe [No. 686], Altimir [No. 688], Tu˘rnak [No. 727]).

344

Bulgarian definiteness in a Balkan context

6.

Bulgarian definiteness in a Balkan context

The previous chapter made it clear that the rise of the Bulgarian enclitic definite article characterizes only a cycle in the lifespan of definiteness as a grammatical category. Still, the Bulgarian option to acquire an enclitic definite article remains exotic against a general Slavic background,1 and this returns us to the question about the factors that prompted it. What first and foremost comes to mind in this connection is the Balkan context in which Bulgarian has developed since the settlement of Slavs in the Balkan Peninsula. But how to evaluate and weigh any impact that the non-Slavic Balkan environment may have had on this internal Bulgarian evolution?

6.1.

A Linguo-Geographic View on the Balkan Connections

One possibility is to approach the matter from a linguo-geographic perspective. On Maps 1a–1d (among others)2 one can discern the interaction of two phenomena, in Gennadij Cyxun’s (1981) terminology, a progressive and a regressive innovation. The former term denotes the territory on which a new phenomenon is best rooted and the latter the stronghold of its receding counterpart. A diffuse zone, in which both phenomena are present, is situated in-between. This particular set of maps deals with the competition of the old and the new marker of definiteness on adjectives. Here are the basic linguogeographic parameters of the phenomenon: I. The Rhodope dialect is the centre of the progressive innovation. Adjectives and nouns are treated by the definite article alike. No trace of LF is visible.

1. This statement assumes a single evolution for the eastern part of South Slavia, where a second standard language – Macedonian – was codified in 1944. Section 5.4 demonstrated that Macedonian together with Bulgarian must have undergone the same processes in the acquisition of overt definiteness. This means that the conclusions reached here regarding Bulgarian should hold for Macedonian as well but the review of the entire argumentation to check the validity of this assumption is beyond the scope of this study. 2. As it will be shown later in this chapter, the similar configurations reappearing on Maps 3–6 as well as 2 and 9a–9d can be analysed in the same terms.

A Linguo-Geographic View on the Balkan Connections

345

II. The Moesian dialect is the centre of the regressive innovation. (Masculine) adjectives have here their own marking of definiteness, different from that of nouns. The LF marking can be traced back to the Proto-Slavic period. This means that when the new definite article appeared on the stage in this dialect area it affected only nouns, because adjectives already had their own – still vital – marker of definiteness. The new marker spread first among adjectives in the plural and then feminine and neuter adjectives. This area documents the continuity between the older and the newer markers of definiteness. III. Diffuse zone: the two markers are attached one on top of the other in eligible nominals. The definite article gradually takes over but the old marker continues to tag along by force of habit even though it loses ground as time goes by. Either of the two alternative localizations of the language of the initial damaskin translation situates it in this area. The diffuse zone in damaskin representation differs from that depicted by contemporary dialect data in two respects: (a) the association of the two markers, which characterizes the diffuse zone, was in the seventeenth century at the very beginning of its triumphant procession; and (b) the damaskins feature many more traces of the receding phenomenon than contemporary dialects. In fact, in the seventeenth century the so-called diffuse zone has more conservative features than the centre of regressive innovation itself four centuries later. In all areas there are isolated instances of possessive adjectives and others traditionally lacking long forms that are treated as if they were nouns. Under the influence of the definite article this group of adjectives acquire in the regressive and the diffuse areas long forms, which previously could not combine with them; that is, the set of rules that governed the use of LF was gradually changing as the old and the new marker were blending into a single system, in which the new definite article was setting the pace. In view of the so-called Jirecˇek line, which, based on preserved pre-Slavic toponymy, divides the Bulgarian linguistic territory along the Stara Planina ridge into a Northern area of predominant Balkan Latin influence and a Southern area of predominant Greek influence (Jirecˇek 1903: 13–14), this linguo-geographic picture can receive two alternative interpretations. The first one takes as a starting point the conclusions reached by Gennadij Cyxun, who however leans on a somewhat different set of data. It postulates that overt marking with the definite article has come from the south. First, the article completely ousted the old marker of definiteness in the Rhodope dialects and afterwards, as the innovation accelerated, it began to spread to the north where it encountered regions, in which the position of LF was still very strong and the simultaneous use of the old and the new markers led to different results in the diffuse and the regressive areas. Such a direction of expan-

346

Bulgarian definiteness in a Balkan context

sion highlights Bulgarian-Greek bilingualism as a potential factor in the genesis of the innovation (a perspective supported with different arguments by Vladimir Georgiev 1952: 83). Alternatively, the definite article may have spread from the northeast. This scenario would fit in with the heightened importance of Bulgarian-Romance bilingualism as a factor that drove Bulgarian to renew overt definiteness. It postulates that the new definite article arose in the Moesian dialects but could never install itself across the board because the old marker of definiteness kept its ground. When the innovation was well on its way, the new marker started attaching to the old one in nominals of the appropriate structure. By the time the innovation finally reached the Rhodope area, the old marker there was already in decline and the new one could instate itself with both nouns and adjectives. It is not easy to make up one’s mind which scenario of alleged historical change is more plausible typologically. The question boils down to deciding which alternative can claim an earlier chronology: (a) the full triumph of the innovation (implying that it has had enough time to completely oust all competitive formations); or (b) the best preservation of the archaism (implying that competition between the old and the new phenomenon started at an early date when the old phenomenon was still vibrant). The former alternative would tip the balance in favour of the Rhodope area as cradle of the innovation and the latter in favour of the Moesian area. Taking into account the fact that language change does not proceed at a uniform pace, I am inclined to give my ballot to the latter alternative. It is also important for me that the Moesian scenario underscores the continuity between the old and the new markers of definiteness. On the other hand, it seems that the interaction of grammatical categories ‘definiteness’ and ‘case’ points in the direction of the former alternative: the traces of the case system are most numerous among masculine animate nouns, which were shown to be the last to acquire the definite article. This indicates that best preservation of the former state of affairs (at least on this occasion) is a sign that the category in question was that last to be incorporated into the process of innovation. But then again it has not been proven beyond doubt that the evolutions of the grammatical categories ‘definiteness’ and ‘case’ are directly connected to each other and, even if they are, they positively had different functions. Can the stalemate be broken with balkanological arguments? In other words, which is more probable: Balkan Latin or Greek influence on Bulgarian in the area of overt definiteness? In the balkanological literature Romance and autochthonous influences rank higher than Greek because Greek is the only Balkan language that has a free-standing pre-positive article, whereas Alban-

A Linguo-Geographic View on the Balkan Connections

347

ian and Romanian share with Bulgarian more structural similarities, their definite articles being suffixes in postposition (Assenova 2002: 123–140). I cannot comment here on the validity of the substratum hypothesis, as I am not aware of the existence of linguo-geographic considerations that would support or undermine it. Apparently, it can only be explored in the framework of a comparative study of the evolutions of overt definiteness in Bulgarian and Albanian. So, let us assume that the Moesian dialects were the first to be affected by the new definite article, which appeared under Romance influence. What does this mean in practice? What was the mechanism through which bilingual speakers of Slavic and Romance introduced into their Slavic speech the article known to them from Romance? I am at a loss to answer this question. It is well known how bilingualism leads to lexical borrowing, calquing and simplification of grammatical constructions that have no counterpart in the other language. But here apparently the interaction must have had more serious outcomes. It is not coincidental that the balkanological literature abounds in studies of matching aspects of definiteness and revels in describing parallel structures in unrelated Balkan languages3 but there are few attempts to explain step by step how two languages A and B, the former of which initially had overt definiteness, whereas the latter did not, through convergent development ended both featuring overt definiteness. Until such detailed studies are made available, all talk about the rise of overt definiteness under external influence remains just that – talk. Now is the moment to recall that, due to the conclusions reached in section 5.5, our task is not any more nearly as daunting. We only need to understand why Bulgarian opted for refurbishing overt definiteness even though Slavic consensus was to let it go. Could perhaps Romance provide a blueprint for the Bulgarian developments described in this book? The Romance languages (see Selig 1992 and Vincent 1997) had in the early period definite articles descending from two sources: Latin demonstrative and third-person pronoun ille and anaphoric and second-person pronoun ipse, originally an emphatic pronoun like Bulgarian sam, which was preserved in Romanian dânsul ‘he’, dânsa ‘she’, însumi ‘myself’. The articles coming from these pronouns were used with different functions: those derived from ille were used cataphorically and those from ipse – anaphorically. Today the ille-derived articles predominate in the Romance languages and that is the article that we find in Romanian. If we formulate the

3. Cf. e.g. a similar comment in a different context in Civ’jan 1965: 5.

348

Bulgarian definiteness in a Balkan context

Romance evolution in terms of the Bulgarian path as presented in Figures 5 and 7, we can see that it presumes at the early stage expression of function A by ipse and function C by ille and eventually the generalization of ille. Conversely, in Bulgarian it is the marker of function A that takes over, whereas the marker of function C becomes obsolete. This makes the Bulgarian -t- article (as well as the three-way article systems) diachronically incomparable to the Romanian article based on ille. This conclusion is supported by the radically different degree of relevance of the fourth (syntactic) level of the default inheritance model for Bulgarian and Romanian (see section 3.4 for details). This could have brought us to a dead end, if it were not for the recurrent association of two grammatical categories: ‘possessivity’ and ‘definiteness’. We were confronted with it over and over again throughout this book. Let us explore the solution that this avenue promises.

6.2.

Definiteness and possessivity

To me as a native speaker of Bulgarian it was initially far from obvious that possessivity and definiteness interact in any way in the framework of nominal structure – unawareness, which already presents certain general interest because regarding other languages (such as English, cf. *a my book, *the my book) the incompatibility of possessives with articles has long been established and has led to the overstatement that possessives are inherently definite. According to Lyons, possessives may occupy different positions in nominal structure: the position of an adjective in AG languages like Bulgarian and the position of a determiner in DG languages like English (Lyons 1999: 24, 130–134). Since in the structure of every nominal there is just one slot for determiners, when it has already been taken by a possessive in DG languages, there is no room for an article, which also is a determiner. In Bulgarian possessivity may correlate with definiteness in nominals of four types: 2, 4, 5 and 8, and more precisely as shown in Table 53.4 Currently nominals of type 5 with possessive semantics function under heavy restrictions both on the third and the fourth level of the default inheritance model. As a result, type 5 is used much less frequently than its mirror reflection type 4. Subtype 5U can be encountered in address forms, whereas

4. Demina’s observations on the expression of possessivity by nominals of types 2, 4 and 5 in damaskin language are presented in Demina 1986.

Definiteness and possessivity

349

5M1 and 5M2 are stylistically marked. At the earlier stages type 5 nominals were much more pervasive with possessives as examples like (280), (334) and (524) show. Perhaps future research will prove that the competition of types 4 and 5 in Bulgarian was governed by rules similar to those described for Old Russian, Old Church Slavonic and Greek (Nikolaeva 1986). At least regarding the damaskin language we can argue that type 5 was the marked member of the opposition and its use depended on pragmatic considerations (see section 3.3.4). For the time being I will lump nominal types 4 and 5 together as the environments that feature possessive adjectives. Only one nominal type – type 2 – constantly expresses possessivity and definiteness. For the other types possessivity is a special case of the semantics of the dependent adjective (in types 4/5) or the dependent prepositional nominal (in type 8). Taking into account research done by Maxim Mladenov, we can note the existence of a special subtype of type 4 that also expresses possessivity and functions at the boundary of syntax and word formation: Eastern Bulgarian djadova(ta) Xristova cˇernica vs. Western Bulgarian and Rupa djado Xristova(ta) cˇernica ‘Grandfather Xristo’s mulberry tree’ as equivalents of type 8 cˇernica(ta) na djado Xristo (Mladenov and Mladenova 2005). Nominals of types 8U3 and 8M2-1 may display clitic reduplication of the possessor as in na ucˇitelja zˇena mu [of teacher.THE wife him.CL.DAT] ‘the teacher’s wife’, a phenomenon discussed in section 3.14.1.5 And finally I would like to mention a peripheral expressive nominal type that also espouses the markers of both definiteness and possessivity. It is employed in the colloquial language and its structure is [X.THE him.CL.DAT with X], where X is any term of abuse, for example glupaku˘t mu s glupak ‘the fool’ or idiotu˘t mu s idiot ‘the moron’.6 The unmarked form [X with X] is used only in address forms: glupak s glupak ‘you fool’ or magare s magare ‘you ass’.

5. Let us recall that it has been attributed to Turkish influence, an association that may be significant in view of the discussion in section 6.3. 6. In view of the following argument (see section 6.3) it might be worthwhile to mention that this type of nominal with an unclear function of the dative pronominal clitic has a Turkic parallel in nominals like Turkish Bekir çapkını [Bekir rascal-his] ‘that rascal of a Bekir’ (Lewis 1967: 43).

350

Bulgarian definiteness in a Balkan context

Table 53. Nominals expressing possessivity in Standard Bulgarian

Code Example

Code

Example

2M1

sina im ‘their son’

2U2-1 mili mi decˇica ‘my dear children [address form]’

2M2-1

novija mi kljucˇ ‘my new key’

4U1

moj prijatel ‘a friend of mine’

4M1-1

mojat prijatel ‘my friend’

4M1-3

tozi moj prijatel ‘this friend of mine’

4U2

moja si rabota ‘my own business’

4M2

babinata ti ku˘sˇta ‘your grandmother’s house’

5U

dete moe ‘my child [address form]’

5M1

?bratu˘t moj ‘my brother’

5M2

onzi sin majcˇin ‘that son of a gun’

sin na golemec ‘a son of a big shot’

8M1-2

sinu˘t na golemec ‘the son of a big shot’

8M1-2

naxalnijat sin na golemec ‘the cheeky son of a big shot’

8M1-3

tozi sin na golemec ‘this son of a big shot’

8M2-1

sinu˘t na golemeca ‘the son of the big shot’

8M2-2

naxalnijat sin na golemeca ‘the cheeky son of the big shot’

8M2-3

tozi sin na golemeca ‘this son of the big shot’

8M3-1

sinu˘t na selskija golemec ‘the son of the rural big shot’

8M3-2

naxalnijat sin na selskija golemec ‘the cheeky son of the rural big shot’

8M3-3

edin sin na selskija golemec ‘a son of the rural big shot’

8M4-1

sinu˘t na edin golemec ‘the son of a big shot’

8M4-2

naxalnijat sin na edin golemec ‘the cheeky son of a big shot’

8M4-3

edin sin na tozi golemec ‘a son of this big shot’

2U1

8U1

8U2

8U3

8U4

zˇena mi ‘my wife’

sin na golemeca ‘a son of the big shot’

sin na selskija golemec ‘a son of the rural big shot’

sin na edin golemec ‘a son of a big shot’

Definiteness and possessivity

351

So, it is by the joint effort of nominals of types 2, 4/5 and 8 that possessivity is expressed in Bulgarian, the choice of nominal being determined by the expression of the possessor: possessor-pronouns are restricted to types 2 and 4/5, and possessor-nouns to types 4/5 and 8. Since the possessive adjectives necessary for the realization of types 4/5 can be formed from a closed list of nouns, the universal nominal type for possessor-nouns is type 8. As to the competition between types 2 and 4, type 2 is today the stylistically neutral and type 4 the emphatic expression of possession with pronominal possessors (Andrejcˇin 1972). Let us now turn to diachrony. The most significant change in the area of types 4/5 is the acquisition of long forms by possessive adjectives. Adjectives in Proto-Slavic had a long and a short form, the long form expressing definiteness, but possessives could only have short forms. This is also true of the Tixonravov damaskin: in its togazi section possessives may have a definite article or not – as in (284) and (522), or alternatively (524) – but they do not appear in long forms. Conversely, the Svisˇtov damaskin, which was written in Moesian dialect in the eighteenth century, uses long-form possessives, a characteristic it shares with some contemporary Moesian dialects (for details see section 5.5). This state of affairs must have been reached in Middle Bulgarian but it surfaces only during the Early Modern period. Therefore, until the Middle Bulgarian period possessivity and overt definiteness could not coexist in the same nominal. Proto-Slavic and Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) exhibit the characteristics of DG languages and only for the Middle Bulgarian period can we postulate a move towards an AG language system. This evolution was discussed in section 3.3.1, where it was also shown that type 2 is in fact a deviant nominal of type 8, a relic of the synthetic type 8 nominals. The damaskin uses not only analytic type 8 nominals like those employed today – see (300) – but also synthetic ones with the dative as in (295) and (297) or the genitive as in (258) and (422). What appears today as two different nominal types (2 and 8) represents in the language of the seventeenth-century damaskin a single type, which has just started to switch from a synthetic to an analytic organization. Pronominal possessors were not affected by this change and remained the only survivors of the formerly dominant synthetic organization. Comparison with the other Slavic languages and the texts of the Middle and Old Bulgarian periods shows that the possessive function of the dative is limited to Bulgarian and is present only sporadically elsewhere. In the other Slavic languages its functions are taken over by the possessive genitive and possessive adjectives (T. N. Molosˇnaja with the participation of T. M. Nikolaeva in Ivanov 1989: 133–153). This makes plausible the assumption that the Bulgarian dative possessive is an

352

Bulgarian definiteness in a Balkan context

innovation that emerged in the Balkan context (Mincˇeva 1987: 24–26 with further bibliography).7 We can thus envision a three-stage sequence in the development of possessives, separated by prolonged intermediary periods: Stage I

Types 4U1/5U + precursor nominal types 2 and 8 with the genitive Stage II Types 4U/5U + type 2U + precursor nominal type 8 with the dative and the genitive Move from a DG to an AG language system → Appearance of types 2M, 4M/5M and 8M Stage III Contemporary state of affairs as presented in Table 53 These three stages were preceded by a zero stage (pre-Slavic, Proto-IndoEuropean) for which scholars reconstruct a genitive case of possessivity but no attributive possessive constructions, thought to have been a dialect ProtoIndo-European feature shared by Proto-Slavic, Tocharian and Luvian-Lycian (Vjacˇeslav Vs. Ivanov in Ivanov 1989: 18–19). An important difference of the specialized possessive type 2 from the universal types 4 and 8 (see section 2.3) is that it always has a restrictive reading, whereas types 4 and 8 may feature either restrictive or appositive readings. The definite article serves in types 4 and 8 as a formal marker of the restrictive reading, whereas the possessive is the means by which the referent is individuated, cf. mojata kniga [my.FEM.THE book] ‘my book’. In other words, the reason restrictive nominals are definite is that they have been individuated by a possessive. Possessive nominals of types 4 and 8 with appositive reading are of the unmarked series, cf. moja kniga [my.FEM book] ‘a book of mine’. Conversely, in type 2 its subtypes 2U and 2M are equally restrictive, cf. zˇena ti [wife you.2SG.CL.DAT] ‘your wife’ ~ mu˘zˇut ti [husband 2SG.CL.DAT] ‘your husband’. Moreover, nominals with the same head cannot choose between the marked and the unmarked series as they routinely do in types 4/5 and 8. Some head nouns (the list includes kinship terms) always appear as 2U1, other head nouns (the majority, including some kinship terms as well) appear as 2M. Change of nominal structure however moves a 2U1 nominal not to subtype 2U2, as might be expected, but to 2M2, blending together both types of head nouns when they are accompanied by adjectives:

7. But since the Baltic languages have a possessive dative, Vjacˇeslav Vs. Ivanov argues that its Slavic counterpart could also be an archaism of the Common BaltoSlavic period ( Ivanov 1989: 18).

Definiteness and possessivity

353

(634) Zˇena mu gotvesˇe mnogo dobre. wife him.CL.DAT cooked.3SG very well ‘His wife cooked very well.’ (635) Vtorata second.FEM.THE

mu zˇena him.CL.DAT wife

gotvesˇe mnogo dobre. cooked.3SG very well ‘His second wife cooked very well.’ One could substitute the 2U1 nominal in (634) with 2M1 mu˘zˇut ì [husband.THE her.CL.DAT] ‘her husband’ but the 2M2 nominal in (635) will stay 2M2 vtorijat ì mu˘zˇ [second.MASC.THE her.CL.DAT husband] ‘her second husband’. These peculiarities clearly demonstrate that subtype 2U is a relic that only superficially resembles its formal counterparts 4U/5U and 8U, which as opposed to 2U express clear semantic distinctions. The question arises what did then subtype 2U express when it was at its heyday? Dialect and damaskin data regarding kinship terminology (see section 3.3.1) shed light on this issue: type 2U was the specialized marker of inalienable possession.8 Currently Bulgarian tends not to distinguish systematically between alienable and inalienable possessions. Thus nominals 4M1 mojata ru˘ka and 2M1 ru˘kata mi ‘my hand’ are not any different from 4M1 mojata masa and 2M1 masata mi ‘my table’ although the table can be taken away from me, whereas my hand even if amputated will not be anybody’s possession but mine. The traces of different treatment of certain kinship terms in the standard language, the dialects and the damaskin and terms for body parts in the dialects and occasionally the damaskin show that this state of affairs cannot be very ancient. It seems to me that the plausible diachronic explanation of these facts would have to include the following moments. Let us temporarily limit ourselves to pronominal possessors. There was a time, which will be specified later, when inalienable possession had its specialized expression: the nominals of type 2U. The competing nominals 4U/5U were a universal expression of possessivity and could be used indiscriminately with any possessions. We know from research done on other languages that the dative possessive can be the designated expression of inalienable possessivity because it is well fitted to express empathy with the point of view of the possessor. On the other hand, 8. The semantic properties of absolute, relative and occasional inalienable possessivity are dealt with in Golovacˇeva 1986 and Ivanov 1989: 44–70.

354

Bulgarian definiteness in a Balkan context

as far as I can tell, specialized expressions of alienable possessivity are not frequent beyond the languages of possessive type (Ivanov 1986: 133–136), which makes more convincing the hypothesis that type 4U was a universal expression of possessivity rather than a specialized expression of alienable possessivity. If so, the relationship of the two complementary nominal types was not equipollent but consisted of one marked member (for inalienable possessions) and one unmarked member (for possessions in general and alienable possessions in particular), a hypothesis that only partly corresponds to Vjacˇeslav Vs. Ivanov’s theory about the state of affairs in languages of possessive type to which he counts Early Proto-Indo-European (Ivanov 1989: 28–29). The switch of place between the marked and unmarked member may have been the outcome of a substantial modification in society’s worldview, which brought inalienable possessions to the periphery of the definition of possession and highlighted alienables as prototypical possessions.9 The next stage witnessed two major changes. First, Bulgarian acquired its new definite article. Second, it became an AG language but the nominals of type 2U, specialized to express inalienable possession, were reinterpreted as inherently definite, i.e. their inability to combine with the definite article was now viewed as the superfluity of the definite article because it was anyway clear that the nominals were definite. After a while, Bulgarian gradually stopped distinguishing between alienables and inalienables and as a result all kinds of possessions could now be expressed by nominals of type 2. As an AG language Bulgarian now had to include the contrast of 2U1 and 2M1 nominals into the new system. Some words that were previously deemed to be inalienable possessions joined the majority but others did not. This is the phase reflected in the damaskins. Linguo-geographic data allow the reconstruction of the following sequence of these interconnected processes: (1) The receding opposition between alienable and inalienable possessions had in the Moesian dialects a longer lifespan than elsewhere; (2) In the Rupa dialects, the move from a DG to an AG language system was most vigorous and the possibility it opened to attach articles to possessive nominals was represented most consistently. Be9. V. N. Toporov shows that inalienable possessions with their static characteristics are of little importance for the dynamics of gift and goods exchange and that their peripheral status is reflected in the encoding of inalienable possessions in mythology as if they were alienable, see Toporov 1986: 151 and especially note 14. This may have been the new worldview that changed the power balance between alienables and inalienables inside the grammatical category possessivity and placed alienables centre-stage.

Definiteness and possessivity

355

tween the areas of regressive and progressive innovation there is a diffuse zone that includes the Balkan and the Western dialects. This configuration closely resembles that of the new and the old marker of definiteness on adjectives that was discussed earlier in this chapter and the processes it characterizes must have taken place around the same time. Bulgarian data fit in well with Lyons’ hypothesis of overt definiteness as a cyclic phenomenon (1999: 280–281): grammaticalization of definiteness originates in DG languages as a result of the reinterpretation of the marker of inalienable possession as a marker of definiteness. This move is made possible by the restrictive reading of possessives in nominals referring to inalienable possessions, as noted in Golovacˇeva 1986: 199, who words her observation differently. So in Proto-Slavic, a DG language, possessive adjectives like *mojц ‘my’, *tvojц ‘your (sg.)’, *nasˇц ‘our’, *vasˇц ‘your (pl.)’, *bratovц ‘brother’s’, *materinч ‘mother’s’ etc. were the specialized expression for inalienable possessions, used in conjunction with the genitive as a universal marker of possession. Pronominal and nominal possessors could be presented either in the genitive or as possessive adjectives. The semantics of inalienable possession explains why possessive adjectives are formed from a relatively narrow range of nouns. At the next stage possessive adjectives become the universal expression of possessivity, a state attested for Czech, Slovak, Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian (Ivanov 1989: 146–149) as well as for the older stages of Russian (Vidne˙s 1958). Apparently, Bulgarian must also have passed through such a period. Evidence for it is the proliferation of possessive nominals with adjectives formed from possessors that had previously resisted adjectivization (see Trubetzkoy [1937] 1988: 324 regarding the Old Church Slavonic texts, indicative of the Old Bulgarian state of affairs). The standard language documents this tendency by the employment of 4U2 and 4M2 nominals that make it possible to incorporate into the system possessors expressed by nominals of type 2U1 (or 2M1) such as basˇta mu ‘his father’ & imot ‘estate’ > basˇtinijat mu imot ‘his father’s estate’. Still in competition in the standard language are the type 4 nominals djadova(ta) Xristova cˇernica and djado Xristova(ta) cˇernica ‘Grandfather Xristo’s mulberry tree’ that accommodate possessors expressed by nominals of type 3U with kinship terms in the head position like djado Xristo ‘Grandfather Xristo’. Possessors like xadzˇi Dimitu˘r, Elisaveta Bagrjana (3U) and Ivan Vazov (masculine 5U) opt for the later type, cf. Xadzˇi Dimitrovata cˇeta ‘Hadji Dimitu˘r’s band’, Elisaveta Bagrjaninata poezija ‘Elisaveta Bagrjana’s poetry’, Ivan Vazovi sucˇinenija ‘Ivan Vazov’s oeuvres’. The range of dialect responses to this need has not been cataloged yet but it is clear that there is variation in this regard. I shall support my claim with just

356

Bulgarian definiteness in a Balkan context

one example: the synthetic counterparts to 4M2 nominals (babinata ti ku˘sˇta) in two isolated dialects: the Bulgarian Novo-Selo dialect (Mladenov 1969: 62–63) and Gallipoli Serbian (Ivic´ 1957: 152, 345). The Novo-Selo possessive declension is formed from a small number of kinship terms with the suffix -in and varies by person, gender, number and case. In its forms for the second and the third person it incorporates the dative clitics ti and si, respectively, and the definite article, which in Novo Selo stems from the demonstrative onu˘, as we mentioned in section 5.4. Here is one example: (636) Ku˘d ódisˇ nu˘kój stó métra, cˇu˘ stígnesˇ when go.2SG some hundred meters will reach.2SG dédintinu ízˇu. your-grandfather.ADJ.FEM.ACC.THE house.ACC ‘When you walk about one hundred meters you will reach your grandfather’s house.’ The nominal dédintinu ízˇu in this sentence will have to be replaced by dédinu ízˇu for ‘my grandfather’s house’ and dédinsinu ízˇu for ‘his grandfather’s house’. Note the use of the possessive dédin unexpanded with a clitic (or the definite article) for the first person. Similarly the standard language allows the substitution of 4M1-1 djadovata ku˘sˇta for first-person 4M2 djadovata mi ku˘sˇta. The Novo-Selo paradigm was formed by restricting dédin, previously used in context either as a person-neutral or as a first-person possessive, to the latter function and creating new forms for the other two persons. Maxim Mladenov considers this Novo-Selo declension an internal development, whereas Pavle Ivic´ attributes the very similar rare parallel forms in Gallipoli Serbian to Turkish influence. When possessive adjectives were assigned the function of a universal expression of possessivity, the need appeared to reinstate the alienable-inalienable dichotomy by different means. The new marker was the dative case with a possessive function. At a certain point it completely ousted the possessive genitive from the Bulgarian language territory. Following the dative’s triumph over the genitive, it turned out that the current universal marker of possessivity (until that time supported by the genitive possessive for possessors in the plural or such from which no adjective could be formed) did not cope on its own with all the communicative needs, as there simply were no sufficient possessive adjectives. At this point speakers of Bulgarian could have broadened the scope of the word formation process and started forming possessive adjectives from all nouns as needed (that is, possessive adjectives could have been grammaticalized). But Bulgarian chose a different route: the

Pre-Ottoman Turkic impact

357

dative possessive started to function as a universal marker of possessivity with troublesome possessors as the genitive possessive was getting obsolete. This process was completed by the time the analytic type 8 nominals replaced their synthetic precursors featuring the dative possessive. It probably was the circumstance that brought about the blurring of the boundary between alienable and inalienable possessions. Table 54 summarizes this hypothesis about the evolution of the categories ‘possessivity’ and ‘definiteness’ in Bulgarian. Table 54. Evolution of possessivity and definiteness over time Period

PIE

PS

OB

MidB

ModB

Type of linguistic system Marker of definiteness

?

DG

DG

AG

AG

?

LF

LF

Article

-

-

+

?

LF Article 4M/5M 2M/8M (synthetic) +

Simultaneous marking ? of definiteness and possesivity Dichotomy of alienable ? and inalienable possessions Marker of inalienable ? possessivity Universal marker of possessivity

6.3.

GEN

DAT (Type 8 synthetic) GEN & DAT (GEN?) Possessive Possessive ADJ ADJ (types 4/5)

2M/4M/ 5M/8M -

Possessive (DAT?) ADJ

-

GEN

Types 4&8

Pre-Ottoman Turkic impact

So where does this leave us? Arguments of typological character (supplied by Lyons) and this overview of the parallel history of the grammatical categories ‘possessivity’ and ‘definiteness’ in Bulgarian, paired with evidence showing that Bulgarian nominals of type 2 (previously specialized to mark inalienable possession) were in the seventeenth century ahead of other nominal types in the acquisition of the definite article (see section 3.3.1 for details) make it plausible that the definite article appeared in Bulgarian at the intersection with the grammatical category ‘possessivity’.

358

Bulgarian definiteness in a Balkan context

Furthermore, the pronominal counterparts to type 2 – 0M1-2 sebe si and dialect mene si etc. 0M3-1 njakoj si, 0M9 edi-koj si and, finally, dialect and damaskin samsi, which appears in competition with LF sami and the doublemarked definite samijat (discussed in section 3.14.2), – offer examples of nominal structures containing a reflexive si that is completely stripped of its possessive function. The possessive si acts in these pronominal types as a marker of specificity and emphasis and is a partial equivalent to the definite article. Together with the linguo-geographic salience of the Moesian dialects, these facts endorse the hypothesis about the role of pre-Ottoman Turkic for the rise of the post-positive article in the Balkan languages, recently brought out from oblivion (Kusmenko 2003). In 681, the Turkic-speaking ProtoBulgarians founded the first Bulgarian state in Northeastern Bulgaria, right where the Moesian dialects are spoken today.10 Eventually the Proto-Bulgarians were assimilated by the Slavs in whose midst they lived and their language vanished. Judging by Chuvash, the closest sister language of ProtoBulgarian, spoken in the Volga region of Russia, Proto-Bulgarian too must have had the izafet possessive declension that characterizes all Turkic languages. This declension is always definite; that is, it combines possessivity and definiteness in one package. It also features the category ‘person’ as in the following Turkish examples. (637) el hand ‘hand’ (638) elim hand-my ‘my hand’ (639) benim elim I.GEN hand-my ‘my hand’ (emphatic) (640) elin hand-your.2SG ‘your hand’

10. See Mladenov 1981 for a linguo-geographic characteristic of the alleged ProtoBulgarian lexical relics in Bulgarian.

Pre-Ottoman Turkic impact

359

(641) senin elin you.2SG.GEN hand-your.2SG ‘your hand’ (emphatic) (642) eli hand-his/her/its ‘his hand’ or ‘her hand’ (643) onun eli he/she/it.GEN hand-his/her/its ‘his hand’ or ‘her hand’ (emphatic) (644) Mehmedin eli Mehmed.GEN hand-his/her/its ‘Mehmed’s hand’11 According to Kusmenko, other Turkic-speaking populations (such as Cumans and Pechenegs) that also inhabited the Balkan Peninsula during the Middle Ages must have contributed to the rise of the Balkan enclitic definite article. During the period of Turkic-Slavic, Turkic-Romance and Turkic-Albanian bilingualism the balkanized Turks calqued into their speech the possessive declension by means of a definite pronoun in postposition to the noun, obtaining thus a morphological construction, which spread from them to the monolingual speakers of the Balkan languages and became the overt marker of defi11 niteness in these languages. As I was saying above, this external-influence explanation (on par with all the others) sounds to me like too ambitious a project to be credible. Regarding Bulgarian however the impact needed not produce a definite article from scratch. It could have been just the impulse that prompted Bulgarian to choose the path towards a renewal of overt definiteness rather than its abandonment. If bilingual speakers of Turkic and Slavic in Moesia had a definite possessive declension in one of their languages and a LF marker of definiteness in the other, this may have strengthened the position of the LF marker and brought about its renewal with a new device starting precisely at the intersection of definiteness and possessivity. As we have seen on repeated occasions, possessivity and definiteness come together in an especially enlightening manner with kinship terms as rep11. The precise Bulgarian counterpart to nominals like (644), cf. ru˘kata mu na Petu˘r [hand.THE him.CL.DAT of Peter] also occurs with reversed word order na Petu˘r ru˘kata mu ‘Peter’s hand’ (see section 3.14.1).

360

Bulgarian definiteness in a Balkan context

resentatives of the category ‘inalienable possessions’. Now we can add an environment, which shows nominals of types 1U, 1M1 and 2M1 in complementary distribution. Consider the following sentences: (645) Majka po cjal den govori po telefona. mother along entire.MASC day talks on phone.THE ‘Mother talks on the phone all day long.’ (646) Majka mi po cjal den govori po mother me.CL.DAT along entire.MASC day talks on telefona. phone.THE ‘My mother talks on the phone all day long.’ (647) Majkata po cjal den govori po telefona. mother.THE along entire.MASC day talks on phone.THE ‘The mother talks on the phone all day long.’ Sentences (645) and (646) feature situationally unique referents in the subject slot whereas (647) has an individuative definite, the only relevant member of a set. Furthermore, the sentences have different ranges of applicability: (647) can be filled by any 1M1 nominal with a head noun designating a human, (646) may have a 2U1 with only a finite list of kinship terms, discussed in section 3.3.1, all other humans being assigned to 2M1, and the 1U nominal in (645) being limited to personal names and a subset of the kinship terms that take 2U1 in (646). It includes majka ‘mother’, tatko ‘dad’, baba ‘grandmother’, djado ‘grandfather’, lelja ‘aunt’, svako ‘aunt’s husband’, vujcˇo ‘mother’s brother’, vujna ‘vujcˇo’s wife’, cˇicˇo ‘father’s brother’, strinka ‘cˇicˇo’s wife’, batko ‘elder brother’, kaka ‘elder sister’ but excludes zˇena ‘wife’, sestra ‘sister’, brat ‘brother’, basˇta ‘father’. These kinship terms in the guise of 1U nominals refer to the speaker’s respective kin. So, as opposed to 1U nominals at large, this subset has the category ‘person’ marked on members, which makes them synonymous to the respective first-person 2U1. For the second and the third person however speakers must fall back on 2U1. But this is not everything. The category person is also marked on 1M1 in (647): with a kinship term in the head position they can only refer to the respective kin of a third party (not the speaker or the hearer of an utterance). This made some scholars claim that such sentences were ungrammatical (Koseska-Toszewa and Gargov 1991: 34). They are however only ungrammati-

Pre-Ottoman Turkic impact

361

cal if considered synonymous to 2U1 with a possessive in the first or the second person. In other words, 1M1 in (647) and 1U in (645) necessarily point to different referents, an oddity that contradicts the usual relationship between a 1U nominal and its respective 1M1. This means that among kinship terms there is a group of terms (those like majka) that feature personbased homonymity: = the situationally unique referent X1 stands for ‘X relation to the speaker’; 1M1 = the definite individuative X3 stands for ‘X relation to any other contextually relevant referent but speaker’s and hearer’s X’.

1U

This group’s behaviour is particularly reminiscent of Turkic, where the possessive suffix in the third person often loses its possessive meaning keeping the nominal to which it is attached definite (Kusmenko 2003: 139). For instance the Turkish equivalent of (647) would be:12 (648) Annesi hiç durmadan (bir kimseyle) mother-his/her/its never without-cease one with-somebody telefonla görüs¸üyor. phone.INSTR sees-each-other Providing an environment of almost perfect isomorphism between the Bulgarian 1U, 1M1 and 2U1 nominals and the Turkic izafet declension, kinship terms could have been the breeding ground of the new definite article. Whether the anaphoric use of the tu˘ pronoun in postposition predated the Slavic-Turkic contact or not, in any case it came into being independently. Simultaneously with the Slavic-Turkic contact 2U1 nominals were interpreted as the equivalent of the Turkic izafet declension. When the alienable/ inalienable distinction was blurred and Bulgarian became an AG language, type 2 nominals became accessible to all kinds of possession. This is the time when the first 2M1 nominals appeared and the initial function of the definite article in them was anaphoric while the possessive dative clitic had a restrictive reading. After a while, their marking became the standard for attributive definiteness even in non-anaphoric contexts and spread to other nominals with a restrictive reading. This type of nominal was the only attributive to reach Phase IV in the acquisition of the definite article by the seventeenth

12. The Turkish translation of this sentence was verified by Margarita Dobreva (Institute for Balkan Studies, Sofia), whose help I gratefully acknowledge.

362

Bulgarian definiteness in a Balkan context

century. Only anaphoras were by that time similarly consistently marked by 1M1 or 1M5-1 nominals and their equivalents. On the other hand, sentences like (647) with 1M1 kinship terms in the head position (interpreted as counterparts of the Turkic izafet declension in a different environment) also may feature double-duty definite articles: besides being deducible from the immediate situation in which the utterance was made or from knowledge of the world, 1M1 could have been introduced previously into the narrative. Gradually double-duty 1M1 with head nouns that were not necessarily kinship terms any longer came to be re-interpreted as individuatives and finally being individuative alone was seen as a sufficient reason to use 1M1 nominals and their equivalents. Processes 2 and 3 were underway. From this perspective, Processes 2 and 3 can be seen as increasing the structural isomorphism between Turkic and Slavic. The Slavic-Turkic contact scenario described in the previous paragraphs does not invalidate the scenario for these processes proposed in sections 3.2 and 3.3.7. It only shows that alternative interpretations of the same language phenomena were possible for the two distinct groups involved: monolingual and bilingual speakers of Bulgarian. The evolution made sense for both groups albeit on somewhat different terms.

6.4.

Moesian vs. Rupa contributions to the evolution of definiteness

This argument explains the salience of the Moesian dialect area but it leaves open the question about the role of the Rupa dialect area, convincingly singled out by Gennadij Cyxun. No doubt Petja Assenova is right when she writes that the enclitic article in Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian cannot be attributed to a single cause. It should rather be seen as the outcome of complex evolutions: tendencies inherited from the respective proto-languages; influences coming from different centres, as well as calquing of models in the context of bi- and multilingualism that have been the hallmark of the Balkan area for centuries (Assenova 2002: 126). Regarding definiteness, the relevance of the Rupa centre has been established and some of its innovations have been outlined. It remains to explain what prompted its activation, what the mechanism was by which these innovations came into being and how they interacted with the innovations emanating from the Moesian centre. A prerequisite for progress in this direction would be the possibility to lean on diachronic studies of definiteness in Albanian and Greek isomorphic to this one. Further research should be based on fieldwork in the Rhodope dialects,

Moesian vs. Rupa contributions to the evolution of definiteness

363

the core of the Rupa dialect area.13 I can address here only two aspects of the interaction between the two centres of innovation. A. The question whether specialized or universal markers of definiteness predominated at the dawn of article acquisition, which was posed in section 2.3, can now be answered unequivocally. Bulgarian overt definiteness started its march with specialized markers, which were to evolve into universal ones at its mature stages. The transformation took place through functional reinterpretation in contexts allowing for more than one reading. Unable to evolve into universal markers, specialized nominals like those of type 2 were the first to advance to the stage of absolute coverage. After all, they did not have to wait for all six diachronic processes to take place before the whole set of relevant descriptions acquired the right expression. Double marking of definiteness on the same nominal (as that illustrated by nominal types 1M11 and 6M3) is the consequence of the urge to express simultaneously two kinds of definiteness by means of specialized markers. Returning to the phenomena discussed in chapter 3, we can now attempt to see them in a greater chronological depth and thus link the current cycle of the evolution of definiteness to the previous one (see Figure 7, which is based on Figure 5). An obstacle in this endeavour has been the puzzling nature of definiteness as expressed by LF, if viewed from the perspective of the new definite article. LF are said to have been in the earliest Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) texts markers of definiteness with functions both in the domain of identifiability and inclusiveness-based definiteness but already at that time expanding well beyond definiteness with certain types of plurals (Flier 1974: 137–173). The question that arises (see also Kurz 1958: 213) is how can a marker of definiteness possibly be limited to two types of nominals out of ten? Why would nominals of types 4 and 5 be privileged to have an overt marker of definiteness that did not encompass the other types? The only logical explanation is that LF started as a specialized marker of definiteness and there was something that foregrounded nominals of types 4 and 5 and made them the natural candidates for that particular function. A plausible assumption in the framework of the diachronic model proposed in this study is that precursor nominals of types 4 and 5 with LF were used initially as attributive definites with a restrictive reading – function C in the chart. For reasons of their own, other scholars (Vaillant 1942: 5; Flier 1974: 68–71) have reached the same conclusion. The pronoun i with a restrictive reading is equally present in 13. The linguistic and some of the cultural peculiarities of the Rhodope area have been outlined in Mladenov 1993b; Trummer 1981; Trummer 2000a; Trummer 2000b with abundant further bibliography.

364

Bulgarian definiteness in a Balkan context

Figure 7. Rise of the Bulgarian definite article

Moesian vs. Rupa contributions to the evolution of definiteness

365

LF and relative clauses: blagy cˇloveˇku˘ good.MASC.LF person ~ cˇloveˇku˘ izˇe (est˘ı) blagu˘ person who.MASC (is) good.MASC. Flier assumes that only restrictive adjectives that originate from such underlying relative clauses could have long forms (Flier 1974: 80–81). If that is so, it becomes clear why there is no full overlap between attributive definiteness in Modern Bulgarian, which is expressed by nominal types 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10, and attributive definiteness in Old Bulgarian. Furthermore, as argued by Josef Kurz (1958), the function of LF could initially have been that of emphatic differentiation, whereby the pronoun in postposition to the adjective focused the attention on the adjective perhaps in contrast with another adjective relevant for the utterance. Traces of this pragmatic function of LF are barely visible in the oldest records. In view of this interpretation, at the early pre-article stage three of the nine functions (anaphoric – A; attributive – C; and situationally unique – H), which were later to be performed by the definite article, were the domain of the *i pronoun and demonstrative pronouns *sц, *t ч, *onч. This reconstructed collaboration is noteworthy against the background of the attested complementarity of the descendants of *i and *tч not only as third-person and demonstrative pronouns (cf. section 2.1.1) but also as articles (cf. section 5.5). We can thus postulate the following stages in the evolution of LF: Stage I – emphatic restrictive adjectives with underlying relative clauses; Stage II – restrictive adjectives with underlying relative clauses; Stage III – identifiability-based definiteness (functions A, B and C); Stage IV – identifiability- and inclusiveness-based definiteness (functions A, B and C; D, F, G and I); Stage V – expansion beyond definiteness and rebuilding of the system of short- and long-form adjectives. The earliest Old Bulgarian texts from the tenth and the eleventh centuries capture LF in their Stage IV, on the brink of Stage V. In the Moesian area LF were drawn into the sphere of action of the new definite article from its very inception. When Bulgarian became an AG language, possessives acquired long forms and joined the group of adjectives. In the meantime precursor nominals of types 4 and 5 with LF were performing functions A, B and C on par with nominals of all types undergoing Processes 1–3. Thus the functions of the new definite article and LF were levelled out. Overt identifiabilitybased definiteness was treated as one domain from the very beginning of its new life cycle. When the new definite article moved towards inclusiveness, it continued to function in tandem with LF. In the Rupa area precursor nominals of types 4 and 5 with LF were at Stage V of their evolution while the definite article was going through Processes 1 and 2. This made it difficult to correlate them because LF were hardly per-

366

Bulgarian definiteness in a Balkan context

ceived as markers of definiteness any longer. Their functions and distribution cannot be determined more precisely without further fieldwork. When Bulgarian became an AG language and definite articles were allowed to accompany the old short-form possessives in nominals of types 4 and 5, articles attached to the regular short forms. Other marked nominals of types 4 and 5 can also be SF-based but the membership of the group of SF-based nominals varies by locality. The compromise that eventually came to characterize the majority of the speech varieties is the outcome of the strong adherence of the two centres of innovation to their choices of markers for nominals of type 4 and 5. The Moesian centre could impose the expansion of LF as an equal partner of the new definite article but the impulse coming from the Rupa centre led to the attachment of the definite article on LF. We can see that the Moesian centre appears to have left a more lasting imprint on the overall organization of the domain, shaping even some of the choices made by the Rupa dialects themselves. The influence exerted by the Rupa centre comes through as secondary both in significance and in sequence. B. Another possibility to relate the evolutions of the Moesian and the Rupa dialect areas and their interaction involves inalienable possessions. They have been considered so far in the framework of possessivity. If viewed from a different angle, they can be subsumed to the part-whole relation (Danon-Boileau and Morel 1996), which experienced itself significant changes since the seventeenth century. The two basic types of totality being ‘entire set or series’ (characteristic for divisibles) and ‘whole’ (characteristic for non-divisibles), inalienable possessions must have been subjected to all changes that the latter type of totality underwent in the framework of the diachronic processes of quantification that were simultaneously taking place and were touched upon in sections 3.6.1, 3.7 and 5.3 (for more details see Mladenova 2009). The urge to broaden the scope of the ‘whole’ totality at the expense of the ‘entire set or series’ totality the Rupa centre of innovation was experiencing, should have made it keep inalienable possessions as a category separate from alienables and subordinated to the whole-part relation. Instead, it annihilated the boundary between inalienables and alienables. To make sense of these contradictory moves we will have to assume a relative chronology of the two phenomena that dates the abolition of inalienability before the expansion of the ‘whole’ totality. This makes sense because the abolition of inalienability had a role to play at the level of Process 3, as shown above, whereas the expansion of the ‘whole’ totality is pertinent for Processes 4 and 5. Given the vigour with which the definite article is attached to unique referents in the

Moesian vs. Rupa contributions to the evolution of definiteness

367

Rupa area as opposed to other dialects (Process 6), we can conclude that the Moesian centre seems responsible for innovation in the area of identifiabilitybased definiteness (Processes 1–3), whereas the Rupa centre is more active in shaping inclusiveness-based definiteness (Processes 4–6). If so, the activity of the Moesian centre should be assigned an earlier chronology than that of the Rupa centre or at least the relative strength of the two centres of innovation was different during the two consecutive periods in the evolution of overt definiteness: in the early period the Moesian centre prevailed but later it passed the torch to the Rupa centre.

368

7. Concluding remarks

Having reached the end of this study, it is time to survey its outcomes. Its focus was on the content and expression of an evolving grammatical category: definiteness. The sustained effort to keep apart the two intertwined aspects – content and expression – while observing carefully their interaction paid off: it enabled us to pinpoint telling developments both of expression and content. The study started with the comparison of two homogeneous systems (those of the togazi section of the Tixonravov damaskin and Standard Bulgarian), representing two stages in the development of the Bulgarian language separated by about four centuries. Central to this comparison was the contrast between grammatical and ungrammatical language facts. The bare-bones model of the evolution of definiteness obtained as a result of this process was tested selectively against the heterogeneity of almost three centuries of damaskin tradition and that of the Bulgarian diasystem taken in its entirety. The scope of comparison was in each case determined by the level of development of the respective fields: Early Modern Bulgarian textology and Bulgarian dialectology. Even though confronted with variation inside grammaticality, the model’s heuristic value remained intact. In the realm of expression attention was paid not only to the nucleus of the functional semantic field of definiteness (nominal structure) but also to a number of peripheral devices such as the competition between verbal aspects, the contrast of existential and locative constructions, and particular lexical means (variation of quasi-synonymous prepositions, adverbials and adjectives) working together with nominal structure as markers of definiteness. The distinction between universal and specialized linguistic signs of definiteness made it possible to keep track of the dynamics of two different relations between expression and content and showed a gradual increase and decrease in the weight of specialized signs of definiteness as time went by against a background of prevailing universal signs. The distinction between regular and deviant nominals, employed to highlight variation of nominal structure in time and space, defines as regular the set of nominals acceptable to Standard Bulgarian and as deviant all damaskin or dialect nominals with no correspondence in the standard language. Although more work needs to be done to identify the entire range of deviant nominals and check the hypothetical ubiquity of regular nominal types outside the standard language, it is already obvious that variation in this area can serve as a key to understanding change

Concluding remarks

369

pertaining to case, gender, number, animacy, person, possessivity and, last but not least, definiteness. In the realm of content circumscribed by the four levels of the default inheritance model of definiteness (pragmatic, referential-semantic, lexicalmorphological and syntactic) change was most vibrant on the first three levels. The eight processes of change taking place on the first and the second levels were assumed on general theoretical grounds to be shaped in time as S-curves. In the course of their analysis it became clear that (a) their interdependence was such that two-dimensional S-curves failed to describe it adequately; (b) their progress was determined by the relevant categorial divisions of the lexicon: masculine vs. neuter vs. feminine; animate vs. inanimate; singular vs. plural vs. collective; count vs. mass nouns; abstract vs. concrete; divisible vs. non-divisible; proportional vs. non-proportional quantifiers and, of course, nouns vs. pronouns; and (c) each description has its neutral and explicit expressions, the latter were definitively established after the former and as opposed to them tended to keep to the confines of their respective descriptions. Finally, this study demonstrated conclusively continuity in the domain of overt definiteness not only between Standard Bulgarian and the damaskin language but also between the latter and Middle Bulgarian. Continuity manifests on two levels: that of language system and that of norm encompassing the forms that literary tradition deems suitable for emulation. The approach embraced in this study made it possible to avoid the loop of the irresolvable dichotomies (early vs. late and native vs. foreign development) that have dominated research of the evolution of definiteness in Bulgarian as shown by Gerald Mayer (1988: 105–110). It not only proved beyond doubt the continuity between the Modern Bulgarian and Proto-Slavic markers of overt definiteness but also opened perspectives for innovative research in the history and dialectology of Bulgarian as well as Balkan and Slavic linguistics.

370

Maps

8. Maps1

8.1.

Marking of the definite article on masculine adjectives: commentary to Maps 1a–1d

Map 1a: Southeastern Bulgaria Map 1b: Northeastern Bulgaria Map 1c: Southwestern Bulgaria Map 1d: Northwestern Bulgaria Sources: BDA 1: 157 commented in 1.2: 115–116; 2: 175 commented in 2.2: 96; 3: 179 commented in 3.2: 138; 4: 233 commented in 4.2: 163; Mladenov 1963; Mladenov-Archive Markers of the type adopted by the standard language: Type visokijat tall.MASC.THE BDA 1: 157; 2: 175; 3: 179; 4: 233 Long-form adjectives as markers of definiteness: Type visokij tall.MASC.THE x x

x x x

x

Region Dobricˇ: Debrene (Mladenov-Archive) Region Gorna Orjaxovica: Polikraisˇte (BDA 2: 175 – No. 1605; Mladenov 1963); Pu˘rvomajci (Mladenov 1963) Region Kubrat: Kamenovo (BDA 2: 175 – No. 269; Mladenov 1963) Region Pavlikeni: Paskalevec (BDA 2: 175 – No. 1548) Region Provadija: Cˇerkovna (Mladenov 1963: Mileticˇ), Komarevo (BDA 2: 175 – No. 1924); Gradinarovo (Mladenov 1963); Sˇtipsko (BDA 2: 175 – No. 1190; Mladenov-Archive); Petrov dol (BDA 2: 175 – No. 1889; Mladenov 1963) Region Razgrad: Topcˇii (BDA 2: 175 – No. 327; Mladenov 1963); Gecovo (Mladenov-Archive: folk song)

1. Although I have made a serious effort to identify the abbreviated bibliographic references contained in Mladenov-Archive, I was not always successful and consequently some data from published research in the commentaries to the maps have not been properly attributed.

Marking of the definite article on masculine adjectives x

x

x

x

371

Region Ruse: Marten (Mladenov 1963); Basarbovo (Mladenov-Archive: folk song) Region Silistra: Kalipetrovo (Mladenov 1963); Garvan (MladenovArchive); Profesor Isˇirkovo (Mladenov-Archive); Kajnardzˇa (MladenovArchive) Region Sˇumen: Sˇumen (Mladenov 1963: Mileticˇ); Salmanovo (BDA 2: 175 – No. 1820; Mladenov 1963); Lozevo (Mladenov 1963) Region Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Veliko Tu˘rnovo (Mladenov 1963: Gu˘bjuv); Vodolej (BDA 2: 175 – No. 1601; Mladenov 1963); Dicˇin (BDA 2: 175 – No. 1553; Mladenov 1963); Resen (BDA 2: 175 – No. 1603; Mladenov 1963); Beljakovec (Mladenov 1963); Samovodene (Mladenov 1963); Xotnica (Mladenov 1963); Plakovo (Mladenov-Archive); Nikjup (BDA 2: 175 – No. 1599); Polski Senovec (BDA 2: 175 – No. 1595)

Noun-type article: Type visoku˘t tall.MASC.THE x

x x x

x x

x

Aegean Macedonia: Djádova Xríst’ov órex Lovcˇa (Mladenov-Archive: J. N. Ivanov 1982: 121) Area Rhodope cársku˘t sín (Mladenov-Archive: Mileticˇ 1911: 30) Region Ardino: Petkovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4648) Region Asenovgrad: Dobralu˘k na trétu˘n du˘´n pák kal’mánana zˇe íde (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 3: 179 – No. 4177); Muldava násˇe bu˘sˇtá b’ásˇi kiminzˇíju˘; Nu˘ drúge dén svírixu˘ (Mladenov-Archive); Oresˇec (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4185); Zabu˘rdo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4189); Bacˇkovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4178); Cˇepelare (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4194); Orexovo dókaraj b’álu˘t kón’ (Mladenov-Archive: Mileticˇ 1911: 31); Pavelsko gol’ámu˘t mi sín (Mladenov-Archive: Mileticˇ 1911: 50) Region Belene: Dolna Studena (BDA 2: 175 – No. 853) Region Belogradcˇik: Prauzˇda (BDA 4: 233 – No. 556); Prolaznica (BDA 4: 233 – No. 558) Region Blagoevgrad: Cerovo sos néjno cˇovék (Mladenov-Archive); Lesˇko i négovo sín da se ozˇéni; Nikúlovo mésec (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 3: 179 – No. 4055); Pokrovnik níjno sín e dosˇél (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 3: 179 – No. 4100); Troskovo négovo basˇtá ódi (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 3: 179 – No. 4072); Gabrovo Kostándovo sín (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 3: 179 – No. 4056); Padezˇ momcˇévo basˇtá (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 3: 179 – No. 4066); Obel (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4054); Debocˇica (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4057); Suxostrel (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4058); Zˇeleznica (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4067); Brestovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4083); Kadijca násˇo tátko e do-

372

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x x

Maps

mozét (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 3: 179 – No. 4084); Senokos (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4096) Region Botevgrad dáj ot cˇícˇova si lép (Mladenov-Archive: Popivanov 1930: 38), Skravena na cˇícˇova si sín (Mladenov-Archive: Popivanov 1930: 74); Osikovska Lakavica (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2253) Region Bunar Xisar: Jana góspodovu˘t d’ál (Mladenov-Archive: St. Mladenov 1935: 2.19) Region Burgas: Djáduu˘t Míxuv cˇ’uflik, Indzˇe vojvoda (MladenovArchive: Gu˘lu˘bov) Region Carevo: Bu˘lgari mal’kêt (BDA 1: 157 – No. 4042); Sin’omorec mal’kêt (BDA 1: 157 – No. 4049); Rezovo mal’kêt (BDA 1: 157 – No. 4424) Region Dedeagacˇ: Dervent vásˇu˘t, násˇet, néguvu˘t (Mladenov-Archive: BDPM 9: 43) Region Devin: Osikovo násˇet bê´ zˇivót mô´cˇen (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 3: 179 – No. 4141); Selcˇa kadé e drúga drugár (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 3: 179 – No. 4144); Petvar (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4143); Leskovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4149); Mugla ótmakni ot po jádra lúk (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 3: 179 – No. 4620); Trigrad (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4621); Bujnovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4622); Vodnipad (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4623); Zˇdrebovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4624); Kozˇari (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4628); Jagodina (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4619) Region Dobricˇ: Stefan Karadzˇa s’jakuj si gu túrga u néguva si u˘mbár; mínkina kru˘´s; básˇtina mi rót (Mladenov-Archive); Debrene néjna bu˘sˇtá (Mladenov-Archive); Dobromirci májkina ni basˇtá (Mladenov-Archive) Region Elena: Bebrovo: Néguva sín gi zu˘tvárj’u˘l (Mladenov-Archive) Region Gjumjurdzˇina násˇut tátku (Mladenov-Archive: Kodov 1935: 90–91), Su˘cˇanli tátkuvu˘t, Girgínuvu˘t (Mladenov-Archive: Bojadzˇiev 1972: 98–99) Region Goce Delcˇev: Banicˇan (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4549); Dobrotino (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4550); Sredna (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4552); Delcˇevo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4556); Kribul (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4574); Ljaski (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4577); Tesˇovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4588); Lu˘ki (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4589); Gajtaninovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4591); Paril (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4593); Nova Lovcˇa (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4594); Teplen (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4596); Ilinden (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4597); Beslen (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4599) Region Godecˇ: Dargotinci (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2065) Region Ivajlovgrad: Cˇernicˇevo néxnu˘t godeník ískaxa da go bíju˘t (Mladenov-Archive); Xuxla f násˇat grát (Mladenov-Archive); Popsko brátovu˘t (Mladenov-Archive)

Marking of the definite article on masculine adjectives x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

373

Region Kazanlu˘k: Enina idínu˘t sidí f Tu˘báku˘t (Mladenov-Archive: BDPM 5: 151) Region Kotel: Kotel na básˇtinu˘t ti plévnik (Mladenov-Archive: ISSF 3: 219) Region Krumovgrad: Avren t’áxnu˘t aku˘´l (Mladenov-Archive: BDA – No. 4888) Region Kula: Kireevo (BDA 4: 233 – No. 75); Rakovica (BDA 4: 233 – No. 76) Region Lovecˇ: Katunec (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1485); Devetaki (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1497); Brestovo (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1517); Ku˘krina (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1518); Bu˘lgarene (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1523); Stefanovo (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1526) Region Lukovit: Oresˇene mója basˇtá s négova drugár (MladenovArchive); Karlukovo (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1447); Dermanci (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1464); Vasil’ovo (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2310); Ribarica (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2312) Region Madan: Elxovec f tê´xnen kráj (Mladenov-Archive: BDA – No. 4675); Cˇepinci (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4679); Batanci (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4677); Borinovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4685); Nedelino mal’ket (BDA 1: ˚ 157 – No. 4752) Region Malko Tu˘rnovo Násˇe. t d’ádo e pu˘´pnicˇef (Mladenov-Archive: BDPM 1: 133, 51), Kambúruu˘t ucˇástu˘k (Gu˘lu˘bov 1962: 63); Zabernovo mal’kêt (BDA 1: 157 – No. 4040); Kondolovo mal’kêt (BDA 1: 157 – No. 4041) Region Mu˘rvasˇko-Ziljaxovsko brátuvá mu sín (Mladenov-Archive: N. J. Ivanov) Region Nikopol: Gigen (BDA 4: 233 – No. 204); Brest (BDA 4: 233 – No. 745); Guljanci brátova mi sín (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 4: 233 – No. 746); Vu˘bel (BDA 4: 233 – No. 759); Muselievo (BDA 4: 233 – No. 760); Ljubenovo (BDA 4: 233 – No. 762); Novacˇene (BDA 4: 233 – No. 765) Region Orjaxovo: Buk’ovci négiva dél go ostávia (Mladenov-Archive); Malorad pa na rámo go odnesé pri négova cár (Mladenov-Archive: SbNU 41: 465) Region Pazardzˇik: Chernogorovo dúvne béle v’átu˘r (Mladenov-Archive) Rerion Petricˇ: Krandzˇilica (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4449); Ivanovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4451); Dragusˇ (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4453); Jakovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4454); Drenovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4455); Sestrino (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4456); Tonsko dabe (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4489) Region Pirdop: Smolsko mámina sukmán (Mladenov-Archive: BDPM 4: 39)

374 x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Maps

Region Pleven: Bozˇurica: Néguvu˘ sín pu˘ ispí se (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 4: 233 – No. 756); Bukov lu˘k násˇa Borís (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 4: 233 – No. 772); Komarevo (BDA 4: 233 – No. 751); Bru˘sˇljanica (BDA 4: 233 – No. 753); Opanec (BDA 4: 233 – No. 770); Brestovec (BDA 4: 233 – No. 781); Beglezˇ (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1443); Bohot (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1479); Ralevo (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1480); Nikolaevo (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1482) Region Popovo: Gu˘rcˇinovo Djádova Vélkov gerán (Mladenov-Archive: Dimitrova 1993, 172), Kozica Djádova Mínkov kajnék (MladenovArchive: Dimitrova 1993, 165) Region Provadija: Cˇerkovna Stánkino godeník otü´va w Silístra (Mladenov-Archive: BDA – No. 1894); Petrov dol (BDA 2: 175 – No. 1889) Region Razgrad vu˘s Stánkino dór (Mladenov-Archive: ISSF 7: 167); Topcˇii Snésˇkinu svéku˘r (Mladenov-Archive); Krivnja tój gi úcˇasˇe na uró – Bábino Angelíno sin (Mladenov-Archive: L. Mileticˇ, SpBAN 56: 23) Region Razlog fanáx néguvu vól f násˇe dvór (Mladenov-Archive: MPr 1931, 3: 112; cf. also 111–112 regarding the definite article); Filipovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4124) Region Ruse: Gagalja pópova zét (Mladenov-Archive) Region Sandanski: Lexovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4539) Region Sevlievo: Debel djal piku˘´t kúmuvu˘t l’áp (Mladenov-Archive: BDA – No. 2392); Berievo (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2347); Mlecˇevo (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2353) Region Silistra: Zafirovo néguva brát; nu˘ mámina izík (MladenovArchive); Garvan cˇícˇuva dór (Mladenov-Archive) Region Slivnica: Cˇepu˘rlinci (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1294); Kalotina (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2032); Berende izvor (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2033) Region Smoljan: Davidkovo adíne, mál’ke (BDA 1: 157 – No. 4210); ˚ ˚ Kremene (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4638); Smiljan (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4641); Slaveino (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4647); Ustovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4655); Vlaxovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4656); Gabrica (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4658); Fatovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4659); Polkovnik Serafimovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4663); Arda (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4670); Sivino (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4671); Tu˘ru˘n (BDA 3: 179 – No. 4660) Region Dupnica: Bobosˇevo negóvo imót e nógu gulém (MladenovArchive: SbNU 42: 13; BDA 3: 179 – No. 3620) Region Stara Zagora: Znamenosec Iváncˇuva basˇtá svál’a Maríjka ut kuláta i ga pridáva na sinu˘´ si (Mladenov-Archive) Region Svoge: Lakatnik (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1357); Zˇelen (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2169); Jablanica (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2249)

Marking of the definite article on masculine adjectives x

x x

x x

x x

x

375

Region Sˇumen: Sˇumen séstrinu si sín (Mladenov-Archive: V. Petrov 2: 191) Region Teteven: Dobrevci (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1458) Region Trojan Umré i násˇu˘t komu˘ndír’ (Mladenov-Archive: BDPM 4, 241); Kalejca (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2333); Belisˇ (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2334); Gumosˇtnik (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2351); Novo selo (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2361); Ostrec Djáduu˘t Pétruf tráj (Mladenov-Archive: Kovacˇev 1969: 135); Dobrodan Djáduu˘t Géguf váluk (Mladenov-Archive: Kovacˇev 1969: 135) Region Tru˘n: Glavanovci (BDA 4: 233 – No. 2071) Region Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Veliko Tu˘rnovo tát’uva kón; Ku˘´ncˇuvu˘ dugén (Mladenov-Archive: Gu˘bjuv, SbNU 13: 469) Region Velingrad: Kostandovo (BDA 3: 179 – No. 3622) Region Vraca: Lik tój e dosˇál négova basˇtá (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 4: 233 – No. 1414); Sin’o bu˘rdo bábina vék (Mladenov-Archive; BDA 4: 233 – No. 1412); Baurene (BDA 4: 233 – No. 650); Rakevo (BDA 4: 233 – No. 653); Osen (BDA 4: 233 – No. 695); Cˇiren (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1363); Ruska Bela (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1389); Moravica (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1390); Strupec (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1409); Oslen Krivodol (BDA 4: 233 – No. 1411) Region Zlatograd: Starcevo dól’nes, srédnen (BDA 1: 157 – No. 4754)

Maps

Map 1a

376

Map 1b

Marking of the definite article on masculine adjectives

377

Maps

Map 1c

378

379

Map 1d

Marking of the definite article on masculine adjectives

380

Maps

8.2.

Marking of the definite article on numerals: commentary to Map 2

Source: Mladenov-Archive, Map III 5.2 Numbers in square brackets refer to the locality’s index in the BDA network. Type pettjáx x x x

x x x x x

x x x

x x x x

x

x x

x

x

x x

Region Cˇirpan, Mogilovo [No. 3120] sidimt’áx (SbNU 9.2: 187) Region Dimotika: Kajadzˇik [No. 20] sˇest’áx Region Dobricˇ: Stefan Karadzˇa [No. 1141] sˇest’áw, Prelog deset’áx [No. 1186] Region Elena: Cˇakali [No. 2486] pitjáx, sˇist’áx Region Gjumjurdzˇina: Su˘cˇanli [No. 8] usemt’áx (Bojadzˇiev 1972: 109) Region Karlovo: Slatina [No. 2368] nu˘ sˇest’áx m’ésecu˘, nu˘ divit’áf Region Kazanlu˘k: Enina [No. 2461] pittjáx pu˘rí (BDPM 5: 134) Region Kotel: Kotel [No. 2530] do 6-te˛x meseci (G. Kirov, SbNU 12: 367), trik’áx, pik’k’áx, disik’k’áx (K. Petrov, ISSF 3: 213) Region Kubrat: Biserci pet’áw léva, Tetovo [No. 263] pit’áw léva Region Malko Tu˘rnovo, Keracinovo [No. 78] na devet’áx devetíni Region Nova Zagora: Djadovo [No. 3236] Sˇestjáx mogili (Juliana Petkova’s field records) Region Novi Pazar: Mogila [No. 1872] sedemt’áf (Mileticˇ 1903: 282) Region Pleven: Boxot [No. 1479] nu˘ pittjáx láxti Region Pomorie: Golica [No. 2692] pit’áw, sˇist’áw Region Popovo: Nevski [No. 963] Osemtjáx kaváka (Dimitrova 1993: 87) Region Preslav: Kocˇovo [No. 1813] sˇist’áw séstri, Vu˘rbica [No. 2555] desett’áf (Mileticˇ) Region Razgrad: Senovo [No. 912] nu˘ divet’áw déna Region Ruse: Sˇtru˘klevo [No. 261] pitt’áw, sˇist’áw, Xotanca [No. 237] cˇetert’áx, pett’áx, Pirgovo [No. 221] do sˇestjax nedeli (Narodni pesni ot Severoiztocˇna Bu˘lgarija 1962: 512) Region Sevlievo: Kru˘venik [No. 2396] Divitt’áx klád’u˘ncu˘ (Kovacˇev 1961: 109, 172), Krusˇevo [No. 1568] pitt’áw, disitt’áw Region Silistra: Sracimir [No. 65] trit’áw, cˇetirit’áw, Kajnardzˇa [No. 441] i devet’áx Region Sliven: Sliven disittjáx, pittjáx (SbNU 18: 517) Region Solun: Suxo sidimt’ä´x (Małecki 1934: 68; Zbigniew Goła˛b, MJ 13–14/1–2: 211)

Marking of the definite article on numerals x

x x

x x

x

381

Region Sˇumen: Sˇumen osu˘mt’af (Mileticˇ 1903: 256), Snezˇina [No. 1896] pettjáx kózi grósˇa (Popivanov 1940: 452), Markovo [No. 1880] pit’áw kósˇera, Ilija Blu˘skovo [No. 1875] na devett’áx méseca (Popivanov 1940: 461) Region Teteven: Teteven tritjáx, desettjáx, stotjáx (SbNU 31: 313) Region Trojan Pittjáx Klád’u˘ncu˘ (Kovacˇev 1969: 192), Ostrec [No. 2372] dvu˘nájst’u˘x iváng’u˘l’u˘tu˘ (Archive EIM) Region Varna: Klimentovo [No. 1196] devett’áx Region Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Samovodene [No. 1625] deset’á x, Pusˇevo [No. 1580] ot tezi desettjax ergeni (Langazov 1987: 57) Region Viza: Jatros [No. 88] osemt’áx (St. Mladenov 1935: 20) Type pettjáxto

x

x x x x x

x x x

Region Carigrad: Avren [No. 111] cˇ’et’yrt’áxtu, stut’áxtu (Cˇomonev 1986: 20) Region Dedeagacˇ: Dervent [No. 38] usemt’áxtu (BDPM 9: 39) Region Dimotika: Kajadzˇik [No. 20] sˇest’áxtu Region Elxovo: Oresˇnik [No. 3928] usemt’áxtu Region Gjumjurdzˇina: Su˘cˇanli usemt’áxtu Region Goce Delcˇev (Mircˇev 1936: 70–71): Gajtaninovo [No. 4591] na pett’áxto selá, Gu˘rmen [No. 4569] sedemt’áxto léva Region Karnobat: Cˇerkovo [No. 3344] téa cˇetirt’áxto pápki Region Nova Zagora: Ljubenova maxala [No. 3190] pett’áxtu Region Sjar: G. Brodi sedemt’áxtu, osemt’áxtu Type pettjáxu˘t

x x

x

Region Burgas: Novo Panicˇarevo [No. 4029] cˇetert’áxu˘t Region Malko Tu˘rnovo na pet’áxu˘t pu˘´te (BDPM 1: 54), Madzˇura [No. 71] ˚ deset’áxu˘t lévu˘ Region Viza: Peneka [No. 87] stut’áxu˘t Type petté, pettjá, pettê´

x x

x

Region Asenovgrad: Dobrostan [No. 4183] stóte lévu˘ Region Belogradcˇik: Ruzˇinci [No. 594] sˇesté, sedamté, osamté, Stakevci [No. 561] deveté snáe (Cv. Todorov, SbNU 41: 318), Vu˘rbovo [No. 562] petté, Granicˇak [No. 551] petté, Bela [No. 122] deseté vu˘´zˇeta Region Bitolja: Dixovo petté brák’a; Cu˘rsko pette vóloi (SbNU 19: 129)

382 x

x x

x x

x

x x x x x x x x x x x x

x

x x x x

x x x x x x

x

x

Maps

Region Bjala Slatina Devetté mogíli (Popov 1960, 593), Kojnare [No. 732] i petté zétove, Dobrolevo [No. 699] sˇesté, devetté Region Botevgrad: Letnica [No. 2043] pedeseté, tristaté Region Debar na cˇetirijset-té dni (ISSF 2: 285): Vele brdo petvé deca (MJ 10/1–2, 1959: 141) Region Dojran nu˘ stuté tés (Peev 1970: 51) Region Dupnica: Jaxinovo [No. 3498] cˇetirité, osamté; Cˇerven brjag [No. 3495] trité (N. Kotova, SMBD 10: 74) Region Elin Pelin: Makocevo [No. 2288] cˇetirité, petté (Stojanov 1971: 214, 281), Zˇeljava [No. 2263] i osemté Region Elxovo: Oresˇnik [No. 3928] sˇesté Region Gjumjurdzˇina: Su˘cˇanli petté (Bojadzˇiev 1972: 109) Region Godecˇ: Godecˇ i dvanaeseté ófce (Videnov 1978: 74) Region Ixtiman: Ru˘zˇana [No. 2930] dvaeséte parí Region Jambol: Straldzˇa [No. 3265] cˇitirté, pitté, sˇisté Region Kjustendil: Raninci [No. 3426] dvaeséte léva Region Kostur pétte, dvájste (Sˇklifov 1973: 74) Region Kotel: Kotel pité, sˇisté, sidimté Region Kubrat: Tetovo [No. 263] pedesétte uwcé Region Kula: Poletkovci [No. 93] petté Region Lukovit, Rupci [No. 1432] sedemté krúsˇi, Karlukovo [No. 1447] stoté Region Montana: Doktor Josifovo [No. 608] deveté decá (SbNU 41: 451), Zamfirovo [No. 1302] sˇesté, stoté, pedesetté Region Nova Zagora: Bogdanovo [No. 3184] Sˇestté mogíli (Juliana Petkova’s field record); Korten [No. 3147] dvajsté, stuté Region Nova Zagora: Svetlina [No. 3910] cˇitirté, stuté Region Novi Pazar: Preselka [No. 1097] pitté, Region Panagjurisˇte: Dolno Levski [No. 2983] peté, sˇesté Region Pazardzˇik: Momina Klisura [No. 3565] cˇetirité, stoté, Cˇernogorovo [No. 3601] dvajsetté, stoté Region Petricˇ: Belasica [No. 4515] stoté Region Pirdop: Smolsko [No. 2926] cˇetirité, petté Region Pleven: Ralevo [No. 1480] sedemté, Bozˇurica [No. 756] stoté léva Region Plovdiv: Rakovski [No. 3717/3665] petté, Region Pu˘rvomaj: Stalevo [No. 3776] petté, sˇ’esté Region Razgrad: Osenec [No. 916] petté, Svalenik sedemdesetté íl’adi léva (BDA – No. 903) Region Razlog: Jakoruda [No. 3568] petté léva (SbNU 50: 328), sˇestt’e bratja (SbNU 50: 324) Region Ruse: Sˇtru˘klevo [No. 261] disetté, stuté

Marking of the definite article on numerals x x

x x

x

x

x

x x x x

x x

x x

x x

x

x x

383

Region Samokov: Govedarci [No. 3519] peté (IIBEz 4: 277) Region Sofia: Iskrec [No. 2167] dveté, trite, stoté, Dobroslavci [No. 2212] petté, deseté (BDPM 2: 31), Plana [No. 2899] peté, Busmanci [No. 2234] onía petté momícˇeta, Gurmazovo [No. 2200] petté, desetté, Svoge [No. 2171] i dvanaesetté dusˇ (SbNU 44: 489) Region Sredec: Gorno Jabu˘lkovo [No. 4014] na sˇesté méseci Region Tetovo: Tetovo stote, dvestate, cˇetiristotinete (MJ 8/1: 102), Skudrinje osumté vu˘lci (MJ 10/1–2: 151), Cˇelopek dévette izmékjarke (Selisˇcˇev 1929: 424) Region Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Dicˇin [No. 1553] pit’té, Stambolovo [No. 1551] pit’té, sˇisté, divit’té Region Vidin: Vidin cˇetirité snáji, deseté kósˇa (P.K.Gu˘bjuv, SbNU 19: 21), Tosˇevci [No. 112] petté, Vu˘rtop [No. 132] sedamté dúsˇ Region Vraca: Liljacˇe [No. 1362] dvestaté, tristaté, Lik [No. 1414] sedemté dúsˇ, Oslen Krivodol [No. 1411] petté dúsˇ brák’a, Strupec [No. 1409] desetté léva, Kreta [No. 1393] sˇesté, sˇesetté Region Xarmanli: Slavjanovo [No. 4350] cˇeterté, pet’té ˇ irpan: Spasovo [No. 3741] pett’á sˇiníka Region C Region Elena: Bebrovo [No. 2512] deset’á léva Region Karlovo, Vojnjagovo [No. 3017] cˇitirtjá, pittjá, sˇistjá, Slatina [No. 2368] divit’á, Starosel [No. 3027] disitt’á Region Kula: Kula devek’á dúsˇ Region Panagjurisˇte: Panagjurisˇte i pett’á kórene, Dolno Levski [No. 2983] stot’á, dvestat’á ˇ ernogorovo [No. 3601] pettjá, sˇestjá Region Pazardzˇik: C Region Pesˇtera: Rozovo [No. 3641] cˇetiritjá, stotjá (Snezˇana Izvorska, honours thesis) Region Pleven: Beglezˇ [No. 1443] desett’á vu˘´zˇeta Region Solun: Visoka usimt’á (Małecki 1934: 68; Zbigniew Goła˛b MJ 13–14/1–2: 211) Region Teteven: Teteven pettjá, sˇestjá, stotjá, Vasil’ovo [No. 2310] devett’á, Galata stut’á [No. 1471] (ISSF 7: 23) Region Razlog: Bansko [No. 4082] pettê´ stótin (SbNU 48: 275) Region Smoljan: Arda [No. 4670] pettê´ (Stojkov 1950: 32) Type pettéto

x

Region Goce Delcˇev: Dolen [No. 4566] osemteto (Kaufman and Todorov 1967: 190)

384

Maps

Type pettjáto x

Region Baba Eski cˇetirit’átu (Bojadzˇiev 1991: 72), Karamasli [No. 97] cˇetirit’áto (St. Mladenov 1935: 23) Type pedeséto

x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x x

x x

x

x

Region Asenovgrad: Muldava [No. 4175] trítu, péttu, Konusˇ [No. 3760] nu˘ d’évittu gudíni Region Balcˇik: Obrocˇisˇte [No. 1249] do cˇitíristu Region Bunar Xisar: Urumbegli [No. 81] cˇetírnastu dén’a (Kodov 1935: 113) Region Cˇirpan: Spasovo [No. 3741]: cˇitírstu, devedesétu Region Dedeagacˇ: Dervent [No. 38] cˇétertu (BDPM 9: 39), Torbalu˘k’oj [No. 36] dv’átu Region Devin: Mugla [No. 4620] pê´tto dúsˇi (IIBEz 20: 71), Kesten [No. 4627] sˇésto, Osikovo [No. 4141] sˇejsô´tto lê´va Region Dimotika: Karaklise [No. 21] petnástetu déne (Bojadzˇiev 1991: 72) Region Dobricˇ: Stefan Karadzˇa [No. 1141] nu˘ sˇesnájstu déna, Batovo [No. 1189] do cˇetíreseto Region Drama: Gjuredzˇik, Ruzˇdene dvjásteto, trístato (SbNU 50: 155), Plevnja stoto grosˇa (Kaufman and Todorov 1967: 384) Region Gjumjurdzˇina: Demir Xisar na dvanáasteto godíni (SbNU 9.2: 171), Su˘cˇanli [No. 8] péttu, sédemtu, stótu (Bojadzˇiev 1972: 109), Manastir [No. 7] triéstu dén’a (Kodov 1935: 113) Region Goce Delcˇev: Gu˘rmen [No. 4569] pedeséto, Goce Delcˇev cˇéterto déna Region Jambol: Vojnika [No. 3311] su˘s t’áw sˇejsétu léva Region Karnobat: Bosilkovo [No. 2647] cˇitírstu kazandzˇíjski dukene Region Kostur stóto (Sˇklifov 1973: 74) Region Malko Tu˘rnovo trídesteto lázarnika (BDPM 1: 104), Zabernovo [No. 4040] ku˘m pedeséto godini Madzˇura [No. 71] cˇeteríjstu Region Novi Pazar: Nikola Kozlevo pét’tu [No. 1051] Region Pazardzˇik: Sˇtu˘rkovo [No. 3579] na cˇetíreseto, Septemvri pedeséto godíni Region Pesˇtera: Rozovo [No. 3641] dvájs’eto, pedeséto (Snezˇana Izvorska, honours thesis) Region Petricˇ: Belasica [No. 4515] dvanáesto má xli, Gabrene [No. 4429] na cˇetíresto dén, Javornica [No. 4511] cˇetíreseto

Marking of the definite article on numerals x

x

x

x x x x

x

x x

x x

x x

x

385

Region Plovdiv: Brestnik [No. 3709] nu˘ dvájstu dén’u˘ (Xristo Xoliolcˇev’s field record), Trivodica [No. 3629] nu˘ cˇetíristu, Malu˘k Cˇardak [No. 3651] pedeséto, Rogosˇ [No. 3677] na cˇitíristo d’én’a (Xristo Xoliolcˇev’s field record) Region Provadija: Provadija tríto, pétto, dvájssˇésto dzˇamíi, Komarevo [No. 1924] sˇejsétto, Dobroplodno [No. 1101] ósemto Region Pu˘rvomaj: Ezerovo [No. 3782] péttu, séd’u˘mtu, Du˘lbok Izvor [No. 3764] dévetto, Karadzˇovo [No. 3774] stóto godíni Region Razlog: Banja [No. 4113] cˇetíreséto Region Silistra: Nova Cˇerna [No. 241] na cˇitírstu Region Sjar: G. Brodi péttu, dvájsetu, tríjsetu léva Region Smoljan: Smoljan cˇétirto salátki, Levocˇevo [No. 4633] dvajséto dén’a, Dolno Rajkovo [No. 4635] dvestato (Rodopi 1985, 12: 33) Region Sofli: Taxtadzˇik [No. 26] trístu˘tu ku˘´sˇti (Bojadzˇiev 1991: 72), trítu seméjstvu˘ Region Stara Zagora: Znamenosec [No. 3818] piddisétu Region Svilengrad: Vu˘lcˇe pole [No. 4400] dvu˘nájsetu dúsˇi (G. Kolev’s field record), Mustrak [No. 4390] sˇejséto Region Topolovgrad: Bu˘lgarska poljana pidisétu (BDA – No. 3918) Region Uzun kjuprju: Cˇopkjoj [No. 93] do cˇetiristéto (St. Mladenov, Trakijski Sbornik 4: 170) Region Viza: Peneka [No. 87] dvájseto godíni Region Xaskovo: Nova Nadezˇda [No. 3861] péttu, ósu˘mtu (IIBEz 4: 199), Vojvodovo [No. 4302] za pétu meseci, Dinevo [No. 4300] deset’tu bukcˇi, Tu˘nkovo dv’ásteto léva, na dvájsetto dén’u˘ (BDA – No. 4357), Mericˇleri [No. 3835] sˇéstu, pid’iséttu Region Zlatograd: Zlatograd [No. 4758] devettu liri (St. Sivriev, Rodopi 1981: 5: 25) Type sˇestu˘´t

x

 x x

Region Dedeagacˇ: Dervent [No. 38] devetu˘´t déne, sˇestu˘´t ígli (BDPM 9: 39) Type sedámta Region Korça: Bobosˇtica, Drenovjane sˇéstta, sedámta (Mazon 1936: 72) Region Solun: Kulakija ósomta dni (Ivan Gu˘lu˘bov, Slavisticˇen sbornik 1963: 148, note)

Maps

Map 2

386

Competition of 2M1 and 2U1 nominals

8.3.

387

Competition of 2M1 and 2U1 nominals: mu˘zˇu˘´ mi/mu˘´zˇu˘ mi vs. mu˘´zˇ mi/mu˘zˇ mí: commentary to Map 3

Source: Mladenov-Archive, map III 4.3 Type mu˘zˇu˘´ mi husband.THE me.DAT x x

x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x

x x

x x x

x x

Krusˇevo: ajde da mu ka˘zˇa na mozˇá mi Region Asenovgrad: Bacˇkovo mazˇát xi; Muldava pu˘ mu˘zˇu˘´ xi i tój ru˘botíl; Dobrostan mu˘zˇu˘´ xi; Xvojna na mu˘zˇê´t si (Stojkov 1950: 34) Region Blagoevgrad: Jakoruda na ma˘zˇá i (SbNU 50: 327) Region Botevgrad túka e pomagál mazˇá ti (Popivanov 1930: 54), Trudovec mazˇá mi go néma domá; Skravena na mazˇé si (Popivanov 1930: 73); Lopjan ás mi néma mu˘zˇu˘´ mi; Lu˘ga mu˘zˇá mi umré Region Burgas: Fakija mu˘zˇé mi Region Delcˇevo: Delcˇevo kazˇala na mazˇo si (MJ 9/1–2, 1958: 107) Region Dobricˇ: St. Karadzˇa nu˘ mu˘zˇê´ si Region Dojran nu˘ mu˘zˇó j du˘ gu˘ kázˇisˇ (Peev 1970: 51) Region Elena ku˘t umré mu˘zˇu˘´ i (BDPM 7: 142), Sˇupaci mu˘zˇu˘´ si (Stojkov 1950; 170) Region Elin Pelin: Elin Pelin mazˇó si (Ivanov 1978: 143) Region Elxovo: Filipovo mu˘zˇó i (BDA – No. 4416) Region Gabrovo: Gabrovo nu˘ mu˘zˇu˘´ si (Stojkov 1950: 14) Region Gjumjurdzˇina: Jasu˘jug mu˘zˇu˘´t i (SbNU 50: 226) Region Goce Delcˇev: Banicˇan mu˘zˇu˘´ i (BDA 3: 224), Paril mu˘zˇu˘´ xi; Leski su˘s mu˘zˇu˘´ xi (BDA – No. 4577) Region Ivajlovgrad: Popsko ot mu˘zˇu˘´ xi Region Ixtiman: Krusˇovica mazˇa i; Suevci mu˘zˇu˘´ i umré Region Karnobat: Lozarevo na májkina mi sestrá mu˘zˇu˘´ j Region Kjustendil: Tu˘rnovlak: na mazˇó i (ISSF 7: 277), Brest mazˇó mi (Umlenski 1965: 207); Sˇisˇkovci mazˇó mi (ISSF 7: 224) Region Kotel: Kotel na mu˘zˇu˘´t si (ISSF 3: 214); Zˇeravna mu˘zˇu˘´ i Region Krumovgrad: Tixomir mazˇô´t mi imê´sˇe vodénca; Avren mu˘zˇét si (BDA – No. 4888) Region Kukusˇ mu˘zˇó i (SbNU 18: 433; Peev 1988: 258) Region Lom: Lom mu˘zˇu˘´ si Region Lovecˇ: Cˇerni Vit nu˘ mu˘zˇá i bratovata du˘sˇterja (BDPM 1: 177); Lisec nu˘ mu˘zˇu˘´ si; Slavjani nu˘ mu˘zˇu˘´ si; Lesidren s mu˘zˇu˘´ si dusˇlá Region Lukovit: Dobrevci umr’á mu˘zˇu˘´ i Region Malko Tu˘rnovo mu˘zˇét xi (BDPM 1: 92), Kondolovo mu˘zˇu˘´t xi (Iv˚ anov 1978: 32), Stoilovo mu˘zˇu˘´t i

388 x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x

x

x

x

x x

x x x x

x

x

x

Maps

Region Novi Pazar: En’ovo na mu˘zˇé si (SbNU 47: 432) Region Odrin: Uzunkjuprija mu˘zˇu˘´t mi (Ivanov 1978: 41) Region Orjaxovo: Manastirisˇte pri mu˘zˇu˘´ si (SbNU 41: 458) Region Panagjurisˇte: Panagjurisˇte mu˘zˇu˘´ i ósˇte zˇivée Region Pavlikeni: Butovo mu˘zˇu˘´ i obru˘´sˇta koláta; Musina ískat da víd’at mu˘zˇê´ i Region Pazardzˇik: Sˇtu˘rkovo mu˘zˇu˘´ i Region Pernik: Kralev dol na mazˇó si (Stojkov 1950: 57) Region Petricˇ: Gega mu˘zˇó mi go izvikáa Region Pleven: Beglezˇ dovélu˘ i mu˘zˇu˘´ si; Nikolaevo mu˘zˇu˘´ ti Region Razgrad: Ezercˇe zu˘ mu˘zˇó mi Region Razlog: Bansko katu e umréal mazˇé mi (SbNU 48: 279) Region Ruse: Kosˇov mu˘zˇu˘´ i mlát (BDA – No. 856) Region Samokov: Govedarci mazˇó mi (IIBez 4: 336) Region Sevlievo: Gradisˇte: nu˘ mu˘zˇu˘´t si (BDA – No. 1564) Region Sliven na mu˘zˇu˘´ si (SbNU 18: 521), Glufisˇevo mu˘zˇá mi; Zhel’o vojvoda íska sa usu˘´di mu˘zˇá si; Tvu˘rdica mu˘zˇu˘´ mi (Stojkov-Archive: 58), Gavrailovo na mu˘zˇá si (BDA – No. 3198) Region Smoljan: Zabu˘rdo izrúkax mu˘zˇó si; Smiljan mazˇô´t xi (Stojkov 1950: 30) Region Sofia: Brak’ovci mu˘zˇó mi si dojdé; Kurilo: na mazˇó ti; Makocevo t’á se karála séki dén s mazˇá si zarat momícˇeto (Stojanov 1971: 279); Zheleznica na mazˇó si; Plana mazˇó ju; Svoge mazˇó i (SbNU 44: 484), Dobroslavci (BDPM 2: 117) Region Sredec: Zˇeljazkovo mu˘zˇé i utísˇel da secˇé mutuvílka; Gorno Jabu˘lkovo na mu˘zˇé si; Vu˘rsˇilo mu˘zˇu˘´ si (BDA – No. 4005) Region Stanke Dimitrov: Samoranovo mazˇó mi Region Stara Zagora: Znamenosec: mu˘zˇé mi sˇtésˇ da mu˘ kóli; Zmejovo naprésˇ mu˘zˇu˘´ mi umr’á Region Svilengrad: Studena u mu˘zˇu˘´ si (BDA – No. 4388), Mustrak u mu˘zˇu˘´ si Region Sˇtip: Sˇtip rékla na mazˇó si (SbNU 10: 137) Region Sˇumen: Divdjadovo s mu˘zˇó si (Popivanov 1940: 457) Region Teteven ni pógledva mazˇê´ si (SbNU 31: 301); Teteven od mazˇê´ si (SbNU 31: 123); Vasil’ovo mu˘zˇê´ mi; Jablanica pred mu˘zˇê´ si (BEz 3/2, 1953: 181) Region Trojan: Trojan mu˘zˇu˘´ (Stojkov 1950: 12); Su˘evo mu˘zˇê´ mi umr’á; Gumosˇtnik na mu˘zˇu˘´t mi Region Varna: Krumovo na edná kadu˘´na bil umr’ál mu˘zˇó i (Popivanov 1940: 455) Region Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Stambolovo mu˘zˇu˘´ mi

Competition of 2M1 and 2U1 nominals x x x x

x

x x

389

Region Velingrad: Rakitovo mazˇôt i Region Vidin: Vidin mu˘zˇu˘´ ji (SbNU 19: 20); Bela Rada mu˘zˇu˘´ si Region Viza: Peneka mu˘zˇét mi Region Vraca: Radovene na mazˇu˘´ mi (BDPM 9: 263), Strupec mu˘zˇu˘´ i; Sin’o bu˘rdo mu˘zˇu˘´ i Region Xaskovo: Dolno Botevo na mu˘zˇu˘´ xi (BDA – No. 3448); Izvorovo mu˘zˇu˘´ i; Dinevo f mu˘zˇu˘´ s’ Region Veles: Veles mazˇot i (Reiter 1964: 239) Region Zlatograd: Zlatograd mu˘zˇu˘´t i sa vkísnu˘l (Stojkov 1950: 36) Type mu˘´zˇu˘ mi husband.THE me.DAT

x x x

x x

Region Belogradcˇik: Osˇane na múzˇa si Region Breznik: Rezˇanci na múzˇa si (Stojkov 1950: 58) Region Kukusˇ: Kodzˇomarlija mu˘´zˇut mi (Peev 1988: 348), Planica mu˘´zˇo mi (Peev 1988: 251) Region Mariovo mázˇot mi (Koneska 1951: 36) Region Montana: Martinovo múzˇu˘t g’u Type mu˘zˇ mi husband me.DAT

mu˘´zˇ mi husband me.DAT x Region Debar: muósˇ je na nevéstata x Region Pavlikeni: Butovo upr’ága mu˘´sˇ i koláta x Region Pernik: Elov dol músˇ mu basˇká spí x Region Tru˘n: Zelenigrad múzˇ mi otíde ú goru x Region Struga: Radozˇda and Vevcˇani dójde mözˇ mî so vínovo (Hendriks 1976: 244) mu˘zˇ mí husband me.DAT Region Elena mu˘sˇ mí j ru˘bótnik (BDPM 7), Bebrovo mu˘sˇ í su˘ udáril; Marjan mu˘sˇ mí x Region Karnobat: Lozarevo mu˘sˇ í; Podvis mu˘sˇ í x Region Kubrat: Biserci pucˇínu˘ mu˘sˇ mí x Region Lovecˇ: Lovecˇ mu˘sˇ í (Conev 1919–1937, 3: 183); Lisec du˘dé gi nu˘ mu˘sˇ mí x Region Nikopol: Ljubenovo mu˘sˇ í umr’á; Muselievo mu˘sˇ í bésˇe górcki; Novacˇene t’á umr’á mu˘sˇ í x Region Pavlikeni: Visˇovgrad mu˘sˇ í sa nu˘práil na turcˇin (BDA – No. 1572), Karaisen mu˘sˇ í (BDA – No. 834), Slomer mu˘sˇ í x

390 x

x

x

x x x x x

Maps

Region Pleven: Pordim Bíl e ubít mu˘sˇ í; Bozˇurica mu˘sˇ í; Ralevo nu˘ mu˘sˇ mí; Brestovec mu˘sˇ í rábuti; Beglezˇ ku˘kvó tu˘ pítu˘ mu˘sˇ tí Region Popovo: Braknica Ku˘d dódi mu˘sˇ tí épt’u˘n su˘ su˘sˇt’ísvu˘sˇ (BDPM 5: 254) Region Razgrad: Kamenovo ku˘t su˘ puminu˘ mu˘sˇ í; Ezercˇe mu˘sˇ mí; Krivnja mu˘sˇ í umr’á; Topcˇii mu˘sˇ í Region Ruse: Dolna Studena mu˘sˇ í Region Silistra mu˘sˇ í u túj u˘rémi zu˘mí si pu˘´t’u (Kocˇev 1969: 79) Region Sliven mu˘sˇ i ni isku˘l du˘ xodi t’a nu˘ xurotu (SbNU 18: 520) Region Sˇumen mu˘sˇ í (Mileticˇ 1903: 287) Region Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Vojnezˇa mu˘sˇ mí zu˘mínu˘ d’ulgérin; Dragizˇevo mu˘sˇ ú umr’ál, Bjala Cˇerkva na drúgu˘ta sútrinu˘ mu˘sˇ í utívu˘l nu˘ nívu˘ (SbNU 38.3: 159)

391

Map 3

Competition of 2M1 and 2U1 nominals

392

Maps

8.4.

Competition of 2M1 and 2U1 nominals: zˇenáta mi vs. zˇená mi: commentary to Map 4

Source: Mladenov-Archive, map III 4.4 supplemented with Cyxun 1981: 102–104 Type zˇenáta mi wife.THE me.DAT x

x

x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x

x

x x

Region Asenovgrad: Xvojna svu˘´rzal zˇênáta si na dvá kónê (Stojkov 1950: 35), Dobrostan nu˘ zˇenátu˘ mu Region Bitolja: Cu˘rsko zˇenata ti (SbNU 19: 13); Dihovo zˇenata mu (Cyxun 1981: 104) Region Bjala Slatina: Gabare zˇenata mu (IIBEz 4: 148) Region Blagoevgrad: Lesˇko da várdi zˇenáta mu (Stojkov 1950: 77; SbNU 20: 26) Region Breznik: Graovo zˇenata ti (Cyxun 1981: 104) Region Botevgrad: Lopjan zˇenáta mu Region Devin: Zmeica négo saz zˇenáta mu Region Dojran zˇenáta mu (Peev 1970: 51) Region Dolen Vardar: Kulakija zˇenata mu (Cyxun 1981: 104) Region Dolna Prespa zˇenata mu (Cyxun 1981: 104) Region Dupnica: Bobosˇevo i dúma na zˇenáta si (SBNU 42: 204) Region Elena: Sˇumaci zˇinu˘´tu˘ mu gu pupítu˘lu˘ (Stojkov 1950: 17) Region Elxovo: Filipovo Jórgi vid’á zˇenáta si (BDA – No. 4416) Region Gabrovo: Balanite zˇinu˘´tu˘ mu (BDA – No. 2446) Region Gjumjurdzˇina: Su˘cˇanli zˇenátu˘ mu bólnu˘ (BDPM 6: 127) Region Goce Delcˇev: Ribnovo zˇenáta mu zéla da mu nósi skrísˇno l’áp Region Ivajlovgrad: Popsko bíl zˇenu˘´ta si Region Ixtiman: Belica zˇenáta mu; Bu˘rdo zˇenáta mu; Gorno Vu˘rsˇilo zˇu˘nále su˘z zˇenáta mu Region Karlovo: Vojnjagovo u˘zˇ zˇinátu˘ mu (BDPM 8: 191) Region Kazanlu˘k: Enina zˇinu˘tu˘ mu (Cyxun 1981: 104) Region Kesˇan: Bulgark’oj [No. 105] dosˇlá si zˇenáta mu (Stojkov 1950: 27) Region Kjustendil: Sˇisˇkovci na zˇenáta si (ISSF 7: 263), Cu˘rvarica na zˇenáta mu; Gorno Ujno zˇenáta mu (BDA – No. 2799); area Pijanec zˇenata mu (Cyxun 1981: 104) Region Kostur zˇenata mu na cáro (ISSF 4: 101) Region Krumovgrad: Avren víkal na zˇenu˘´ta si (BDA – No. 4888); Tixomir zˇenotu s (Cyxun 1981: 104)

Competition of 2M1 and 2U1 nominals x x

x x

x x x x x x x x x

x x

x x

x x x x

x

x x x

x x x

393

Region Kukusˇ zˇinátu˘ mu (SbNU 18: 431) Region Lovecˇ: Lesidren: zˇenu˘´ta mu gu nalága; Du˘brava na zˇenáta si tájna ne kázvaj (BEz 3/2, 1953: 181), Katunec odíl su˘z zˇenáta mu Region Lukovit: Dobrevci su˘z zˇenáta si Region Malko Tu˘rnovo na zˇenáta si (BDPM 1: 159); Stoilovo na vojvódata zˇenáta mu, Kondolovo na zˇenáta si (Ivanov 1978: 32) Region Mariovo na zˇenata mu (Cyxun 1981: 104) Region Novi Pazar zˇinatu˘ mu (Cyxun 1981: 104) Region Pazardzˇik: Sˇtu˘rkovo su˘z zˇenáta si (BDA – No. 3579) Region Petricˇ: Pravo bu˘rdo díga zˇenáta mu (BDA – No. 4502) Region Prespa: Pustec zˇenata mu go cˇeka (MJ 8/2: 198) Region Pu˘rvomaj: Bjala reka na cˇícˇo zˇenu˘´ta mu (BDA – No. 3778) Region Razlog: Jakoruda zˇenáta ti rodí dve mu˘´zˇki decá (SbNU 50: 327) Region Samokov: Raduil na zˇenáta si (ISSF 8–9: 407) Region Sandanski: Levunovo zˇenáta mu bilá f polozˇénie (BDA – No. 4516) Region Smoljan: Sˇiroka Lu˘ka réku˘x na zˇenána mu˘ (Mileticˇ 1911: 184) Region Sofia na zˇenáta mi (SbNU 8.3: 177); Vitosˇko zˇenata si (Cyxun 1981: 104) Region Sofli: Taxtadzˇik [No. 26] i zˇenu˘´tu˘ mu tám (DA) Region Solun: Meglen zˇenata si (Cyxun 1981: 104), Suxo zˇinata mu (Cyxun 1981: 104) Region Sredec: Zˇeljazkovo zˇenáta mu Region Svilengrad: Malko Gradisˇte zˇenáta si (BDA – No. 4356) Region Sˇumen nu˘ zˇenatu˘ si (Cyxun 1981: 104) Region Teteven: Vasil’ovo Na Uméra zˇenáta mu ju˘ obésile (BEz 1971, 21/2–3: 267) Region Tikvesˇ: Negotino Váa zˇénta mu go bendisála tabíetot (Filiposki 1952: 36) Region Trojan zˇinu˘´tu˘ mu (BDPM 4: 239) Region Veles zˇenata mu (Cyxun 1981: 104) Region Vidin: Vu˘rtop od zˇenáta si; Mali Drenovec zˇenáta mu zíma osemdesé léva; Izvor kogá úmre zˇenáta mu; Lagosˇevci zˇenáta mu rabótesˇe u ucˇílisˇteto; Gradec zˇenáta mu (Stojkov 1950: 38); Bela Rada dál na zˇenáta si Region Voden nu˘ zˇen’tu˘ mu (Cyxun 1981: 104) Region Vraca: Sin’o bu˘rdo su˘z zˇenáta si Region Xaskovo: Nova Nadezˇda zˇ’u˘náta mi (IIBEz 4: 249)

394

Maps

Type zˇená mi wife me.DAT x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

Northern Macedonian dialects zˇenu ti (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Asenovgrad: Muldava cál zˇivót bu˘xté zˇu˘ná si Region Belene: Dve mogili zˇenu˘ mu (Cyxun 1981: 102) Region Bitolja: Bitolja zˇena mi (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Bjala Slatina: Gabare na zˇená si (IIBEz 4: 175) Region Blagoevgrad: Lesˇko basˇ kugato da ródi zˇená mu (Stojkov 1950: 77) Region Botevgrad parí ne dáva na zˇená si (Popivanov 1930: 57) Region Breznik: Graovo zˇena mu (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Debar Kósto ja dede zˇéna mu ot doma (ISSF 2: 279) Region Delcˇevo: Delcˇevo zˇena mu (MJ 9/1–2, 1958: 106) Region Dobricˇ: Stefan Karadzˇa: zˇená mi Region Dolna Prespa so zˇena mu (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Drjanovo za zˇinu˘ si (Cyxun 1981: 102) Region Elena zˇina si (Cyxun 1981: 102) Region Elin Pelin: Elin Pelin umréla zˇená mu (Ivanov 1978: 143) Region Gabrovo: Todorcˇeta kázu˘l na zˇiná si Region Gevgelija zˇena mi (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Goce Delcˇev: Kornica u˘s zˇená si (BDA); Gu˘rmen na zˇená si (BDA) Region Godecˇ zˇena mu (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Gorna Reka: Zˇernanica na zˇéna si (MJ 10/1–2: 148) Region Gostivar na zˇena mu (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Karlovo: Vojnjagovo zˇina mu (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Kjustendil: Sˇisˇkovci na zˇená si (ISSF 7: 273) Region Kratovo zˇena mu (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Kumanovo zˇenu ti (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Lom: Lom on grábne zˇená si (SbNU 38: 59) Region Lovecˇ: Katunec t’á bilá na Cóka zˇená mu, Pomasˇka Lesˇnica zˇená si (ISSF 7: 32) Region Novi Pazar: En’ovo na zˇiná si Region Odrin: Kadu˘nkjoj [No. 50] zˇená xi (Kodov 1935: 96) Region Orjaxovo: Manastirisˇte kato si dosˇlá zˇená mu (SbNU 41: 457) Region Oxrid zˇena si (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Pavlikeni: Bjala cˇerkva (SbNU 38.3: 152) Region Pazardzˇik: Dolno Levski su˘z zˇená si (BDA – No. 2983) Region Petricˇ: Gega soz zˇená mu; Pravo bu˘rdo otísˇel e soz zˇená mu (BDA – No. 4502)

Competition of 2M1 and 2U1 nominals x

x x x

x

x x x

x x x x x x

x

x x x x x x

395

Region Pleven: Beglezˇ nu˘ Cánku zˇená mu; Ral’ovo ru˘spu˘´di zˇená si; Pordim zˇená mu mu˘ vid’á Region Plovdiv: General Nikolaevo ríku˘l na zˇinu˘´ si (Stojkov 1950: 62) Region Popovo: Braknica nu˘ zˇinu˘´ si (BDPM 5: 253) Region Razgrad: Krivnja na Dóbr’a zˇená mu; Drjanovec Na Obrétena zˇená mu Region Razlog: Babjak na zˇená mu (SbNU 50: 335), Bansko zˇená mu umíra (SbNU 48: 266) Region Silistra: Garvan zˇená mu Region Sliven du˘ vídi ko sˇu˘ pravi zˇiná mu (SbNU 18: 520) Region Sofia: Iskrec na zˇená si; Dobroslavci zˇena mu (Cyxun 1981: 103); Dragalevci na zˇena si (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Stara Zagora: Sˇejnovo sámu prit zˇinu˘´ si Region Strumica zˇen ti (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Struga: Radozˇda and Vevcˇani na zˇena mi (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Svilengrad: Rajkova mogila na zˇená mu Region Sˇtip: Sˇtip zˇená mu zafanála da plácˇe (SbNU 10: 141) Region Sˇumen: Smjadovo: kázal nu˘ zˇiná si (Stojkov 1950: 11); Kjulevcˇa na zˇenu˘´ si (Mileticˇ 1903: 277); Sˇumen zˇená mu (Mileticˇ 1903: 285); Osenovec su˘zˇ zˇená si (Stojkov 1950: 4) Region Teteven: Jablanica katu sa su˘búdila zˇená mu, z’éla da plácˇe (BEz, 3/2, 1953: 181), Vasil’ovo su˘z zˇená si dosˇál Region Tetovo: Tetovo zˇena mi (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Tru˘n: Tru˘n na zˇenú si (ISSF 4: 188) Region Veles zˇena mu (Cyxun 1981: 103) Region Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Vetrinci na zˇenu˘ si Region Vidin: Vu˘rtop su˘z zˇená si Region Vraca: Radovene zˇena mu (Cyxun 1981: 103)

Maps

Map 4

396

Competition of 2M1 and 2U1 nominals

8.5.

397

Competition of 2M1 and 2U1 nominals: sinu˘´ mi/sína mi/sina mí vs. sín mi/sin mí: commentary to Map 5

Source: Mladenov-Archive, map III 4.5 Type sinu˘´ mi son.THE me.DAT x

x x

x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x

x x x x x x

Region Asenovgrad: Xvojna: sinu˘´t mu (Stojkov 1952: 34), Jugovo utídox u sinu˘´t mi Region Bjala Slatina: Kojnare sinu˘´ mi Region Blagoevgrad: Lesˇnica: rázberi se sos sinó mi; Cerovo pri sinó i dosˇlá; Selisˇte kot sinó mi (BDA – No. 3542), Brezˇani pri sinó mi (BDA – No. 4074) Region Botevgrad: Skravena i kazál na siná si (Popivanov 1930: 74); Pravesˇka Lakavica sas siná mi (Popivanov 1930: 59), Lopjan sinu˘´ mi; Lu˘ga víkam na siná mi Region Burgas: Rosen ut sinó mi (Mileticˇ 1903: 103) Region Dedeagacˇ: Domuzdere stóri na sinu˘´t si Region Demirxisar: Krusˇovo sinu˘´ ti (honour’s thesis) Region Dobricˇ: Sokolovo tój zˇivée pri sinó si; Su˘rnec naprái na senu˘´ si Region Dupnica: Bobosˇevo i prokléla sinó si (SbNU 42: 203), Gorna Koznica sinó mi go naklevetía (BDA – No. 3433); Dobrevo pri sinó mi (BDA – No. 506) Region Elena: Blu˘skovci ku˘m sinu˘´ si (BEz, 1972, 6: 564) Region Elin Pelin: Zˇeljava Na dédo Pésˇo sinó mu Region Elxovo: Melnica pri sinu˘´ si sedu˘´ Region Gjumjurdzˇina: Manastir nu˘ sinu˘´t xi Region Goce Delcˇev na onaïe zˇena sinu˘´ xi (Mircˇev 1936: 109); Gajtaninovo pri sinu˘´ mu; Gu˘rmen ispratix sinu˘´ mi (BDA – No. 4569) Region Gostivar go cel’kal sina si f cˇelo (Popovski 1970: 138) Region Karlovo: Vojnjagovo sinu˘´t mu Region Kjustendil: Zlogosˇ ta si ojdé pri sinó vu (BDA – No. 2801); Skrinjano sinó si (Stojkov 1950: 59), Bagrenci sinó mi se úcˇi u gradó (Umlenski 1965: 139) Region Kula: Kula sinu˘´ mu Vélko; Golemanovo na sinu˘´ mi Region Ku˘rdzˇali: Pcˇelarovo s’inu˘´ mu sa uzˇ’én’il Region Lovecˇ: Lisec nu˘ sinu˘´ si Region Lukovit: Karlukovo sinu˘´ mi go víkat Maríne Region Madan: Elxovec sinôs my (BDA – No. 4675) Region Malko Tu˘rnovo na sinu˘´t xi (BDPM 1: 160)

398 x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x

x

x

x

x x

x x x x x x x

x

Maps

Region Novi Pazar: Enevo du˘ umurí sinó i (SbNU 47: 435) Region Orjaxovo: Milorad na sinu˘´ si (SbNU 41: 461) Region Pazardzˇik: Vetren siná i (BDA – No. 3580) Region Petricˇ, Marikostinovo pri sinó i sedí (BDA – No. 4531), Ku˘rnalovo za sinó ti (Stojkov 1950: 78) Region Pirdop: Smolsko na siná mi e snaá (BDPM 4: 63) Region Pleven: Nikolaevo pri sinu˘´ si; Bru˘sˇljanica pri sinu˘´ si Region Pu˘rvomaj: Du˘lbok izvor tuvá e sinu˘´ mi Region Razgrad: Juper nu˘ sinu˘´ mi dét íde Region Razlog: Dolno Draglisˇte sinó im (Stojkov 1950: 75) Region Samokov: Govedarci Sinó mi gá se rodí, na gu˘rbó sam go nósela (IIBEz 4: 336), Dospej sos sinó si Region Sandanski: Bozˇdovo kon sinó si (BDA – No. 4464) Region Sevlievo: Kru˘venik pret sinu˘´t si Region Smoljan: Fatovo sinoát mu (SbNU 8.3: 201); Solisˇta: písmu ot sinó ˇ esˇnegirovo do sinu˘´ si (BDA – mu˘; Momcˇilovci sinôn mu (IIBEz 4: 89); C No. 3701); Sˇiroka Lu˘ka sinôn xi (Mileticˇ 1911: 184) Region Sofia, za sinó mi (IIBEz 18: 86), Plana: sinó mu e ednó pienísˇte; Iskrec sinó im (p. 119); Dobroslavci vidóx na Pésˇo sinó mu (BDPM 3: 53); Dragalevci kogá sinó mi idé vojník (Stojkov 1950: 131) Region Solun: Suxo na sinó mu (Małecki, Lud Słowian´ski III/A, 1933: 120) Region Sredec: Belila dáj gu na siná mi (BDA – No. 3995); Svetlina dávam na sinó si (BDA – No. 3355) Region Stara Zagora: Znamenosec na sinu˘´ si; Izvorovo sinu˘´ mi Region Svilengrad: Studena ot sinu˘´ mi (BDA – No. 4388), Blagunci isprátix sinu˘´ mi na pazár’a, Vu˘lcˇe pole sinu˘´ mi (BDA – No. 4400), Rajkova mogila na sinu˘´ mu Region Teteven: Brusen na sinê´ si kazála; Ribarica na sinê´ si Region Varna: Botevo sinê´ mi tós kójto e lékar (BDA – No. 1166) Region Velingrad sinót mi (Mileticˇ 1911: 215) Region Vidin: Dinkovica sinu˘´ si; Makresˇ sinu˘´ i u su˘véta rabóti Region Viza: Peneka ocútra dójde sinu˘´t mi Region Vraca: Sin’o bu˘rdo na sinu˘´ si Region Xarmanli: Belica na sinu˘´ si (BDA – No. 4394), Dositeevo na sinu˘´ si (BDA – No. 4378) Region Xaskovo: Tu˘nkovo dáva na sinu˘´ si (BDA – No. 4357), Dolno Botevo pri synu˘´ si (BDA – No. 3448)

Competition of 2M1 and 2U1 nominals

399

Type sina mí son.THE me.DAT x

Region Pleven: Brest na sinu˘ sí (BDA – No. 745) Type sína mi son.THE me.DAT

x x x x x

Region Blagoevgrad: Lesˇko rékol na sína si (Xr. P. Stoilov, SbNU 20: 20) Region Debar: Mala reka so sína je (ISSF 2: 283) Region Lom: Lom na sína mu Region Montana: Kopilovci pri sínatoga si; Gorna Luka sínat mi se ózˇeni Region Vidin: Vu˘rtop u sína si; Mali Drenovec: sína mi padná; Kosticˇovci méne umré sína mi; Du˘rzˇanica propu˘´di go sína mu; Izvor da ispu˘´di i náze i sína ni Type sin mi son me.DAT

sín mi son me.DAT Region Belogradcˇik: Bela sín mi ja pécˇe [rakijata] x Region Blagoevgrad: Lesˇnica pojdóx sos sín mi na tutún x Region Debar: Sebisˇcˇa i si ótisˇol sín mu (MJ 19: 94) x Region Dobricˇ: Su˘rnec Tu˘´s ku˘´sˇta i t’á nu˘ sín mi x Region Gjumjurdzˇina: Su˘cˇanli (BDPM 6: 120) x Region Goce Delcˇev: Gospodinci pri sín mi (BDA – No. 4546) x Region Kostur sín ti (ISSF 4: 119) x Region Kukusˇ: Krecovo sín mu nu˘ Tódor (Peev 1988: 37) x Region Kumanovo sín mu (Vidoeski 1962: 290), Romanovce (Vidoeski 1962: 279) x Region Sofia: Zˇeleznica négo pa sín mu go zaklá x Region Trojan Pósli sín mu i tój bil kuvácˇ (BDPM 4: 238); Patresˇko sín i ju˘ dokáral x Region Tru˘n: Businci sín se cˇe e kmét x Region Vidin: Pesˇakovo sedí pri sín si; Gradec sín mu né e go poslúsˇal (BDA – No. 11); Inovo díga sa sín; Izvor na sín i; Vu˘rtop umré sín mu mlát; Gajtanci Na Pétko víkof sín mu x Region Vraca: Radovene sín mu bê ednó úbovo gaváncˇesto momcˇé x

sin mí son me.DAT Region Elena sin ní izlézi cˇil’ák (BDPM 7: 167), Ruxovci sin tí ju˘ spr’á; Bebrovo sin mú xodil li e; Blu˘skovci sin mú (BEz 1972, 6: 564) x Region Gabrovo: Bozˇenci tój sˇu˘ j sin mú x

400 x x x

x x x x

x x x x x x x x

Maps

Region Gorna Orjaxovica: Dzˇuljunica sin mí su˘s mlu˘dézˇite Region Karnobat: Podvis sin mú na móju sváku Region Kula: Poletkovci pítaj sin mí; Izvor maxala sin mí; Rakovica da úcˇi sin mú Region Lovecˇ: Katunec sin mí; Lisec tój gu prudáde sin mú Region Orjaxovo: Buk’ovci sin mú Region Pirdop: Smolsko sin mí, sin mú [less frequently] (BDPM 4: 63) Region Pleven: Bozˇurica tój íma sín sin mí; Nikolaevo sin tí; Ralevo sin mú; Bru˘sˇljanica tój tu˘ká gu umóri sin mú; Pordim na Ingilínu˘ sin í Region Preslav: Kocˇovo sin í ju˘ glédu˘; Vu˘rbica sin mí Region Razgrad: Osenec sin mú pudígu˘; Topcˇii su˘s sin mú Region Silistra sin mí (Kocˇev 1969: 55), Alfatar reku˘´l sin í Region Sliven: Tvu˘rdica sin mí (Stojkov-Archive) Region Sˇumen: Krumovo sin í (Popivanov 1940: 455) Region Teteven: sin í cˇul sícˇko (SbNU 31: 115) Region Tu˘rgovisˇte: Vardun sin mú Region Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Vojnezˇa sicˇkutu gu dál nu˘ sin sí; Pu˘rvomajci sin mú j brigu˘dír

sin mi son me.DAT [Stress unmarked] x Region Botevgrad: Pravesˇka Lakavica sin mi i unúk mi glédali ma sa (Stojkov 1950: 45) x Region Novi Pazar: Kaspicˇan sin mi (Mileticˇ 1903: 280) x Region Titov Veles sin mu (Reiter 1964: 222, 227)

401

Map 5

Competition of 2M1 and 2U1 nominals

402

Maps

8.6.

Competition of 2U1 and 2M1 nominals with a kinship term in the head position: commentary to Map 6

Source: Mladenov-Archive supplemented with Cyxun 1981: 100–108 regarding snaxa mi vs. snaxata mi ’my daughter-in-law; my sister-in-law’ Type bratu˘´t mi brother.THE me.DAT x

Region Sofia: Gurmazovo táa patardía, déka cˇéra digná brató ti Type cˇovéku˘t mi husband.THE me.DAT

x x x x

Region Kula: Kosta Percˇevo umré cˇovéka mi (BDA – No. 95) Region Kjustendil: Tu˘rnovlak i cˇovéko i dosˇel i reku˘l (ISSF 7: 272) Region Samokov: Raduil kato kázal taká cˇoéko i (ISSF 8–9: 407) Region Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Beljakovec cˇuvéku mi ’my husband’ Type djádoto mi grandfather.THE me.DAT

x

Region Sredec: Fakija sigá dédoto mi e zˇíf Type kumu˘t mi best-man.THE me.DAT

x

Region Nova Zagora: Kon’ovo celu˘va na kumu˘´ si ru˘´ka (BDA – No. 3211) Type svátu˘t mi in-law.MASC.THE me.DAT

x

Region Vidin: Gajtanci na tóa Tósˇko sváta mu Type zétu˘t ni son-in-law.THE us.DAT

x x x

Region Samokov: Raduil zˇéto mu (ISSF 8–9: 408) Region Montana: Dolna Riksa na zéta si (Stojkov 1950: 40) Region Kjustendil: Skrinjano namésto da práti zéto si (Stojkov 1950: 59) Type bábata mu wife.THE him.DAT

x

Region Bjala Slatina: Gabare Bábata mu umré (IIBEz 4: 148)

Competition of 2U1 and 2M1 nominals with a kinship term in the head position

403

Type du˘sˇterjáta si daughter.THE self.DAT x x x x

Region Nova Zagora: Ezero vid’á du˘sˇterjáta si (BDA – No. 3231) Region Razlog: Jakoruda sˇtérkata mu (SbNU 50: 328) Region Stara Zagora: Znamenosec du˘sˇterjáta i (BDA – No. 3818) Region Sredec: Rosenovo sétne basˇtáta dadé na du˘sˇterjáta si kru˘´pata s nisˇáni (BDA – No. 3996) Type nevéstata mu wife.THE him.DAT

x

Region Botevgrad pa kára nevéstata mu, ta nalíva vóda (Popivanov 1930: 65) Type snaxáta mi sister-in-law.THE me.DAT

x

x x x x x x

Region Asenovgrad: Xvojna détu bilíli brat xi i snu˘´xata xi (Stojkov 1950: 35) Region Drama-Sjar na snaxu˘ta mi d’ateto xi (Cyxun 1981: 106) Region Lerin: Zˇerevo snaata mu (Cyxun 1981: 106) Region Malko Tu˘rnovo snaxata ni (Cyxun 1981: 106) Region Pazardzˇik snaata mu (Cyxun 1981: 106) Region Samokov: Samokov snaata ni (Cyxun 1981: 106) Region Xaskovo: Xaskovo snu˘xu˘tu˘ s’ (Cyxun 1981: 106) Type svátjata mi in-law.FEM.THE me.DAT

x

Region Stara Zagora: Znamenosec májkata dáva dusˇterju˘´ta na svátjata si Type Masculine-Kinship-Term Short-Form-Personal-Pronoun.DAT

basˇtá mi father me.DAT Region Belogradcˇik: Osˇane prátila abér na basˇtú si (ISSF 7: 108) x Region Burgas: Zidarovo: basˇtá mi x Region Devin: Selcˇa basˇtá ni x Region Dobricˇ: Sokolovo: ut bu˘sˇtá si x Region Kjustendil: Ku˘rsˇalevo na basˇtá mu kakvó e íme (BDA – No. 2817) x Region Kotel: Kotel zagúbilu basˇtá si (ISSF 3: 220) x Region Lovecˇ: Lisec z bu˘sˇtu˘´ si x Region Samokov: Govedarci ot basˇtá si (IIBEz 4: 336) x

404 x x

Maps

Region Sofia: Zˇeljava na svéku˘r mi basˇtá mu Region Velingrad: Cˇepino basˇtá mi (SbNU 50: 334)

brát mi brother me.DAT x Region Asenovgrad: Xvojna détu bilíli brat xi i snu˘´xata xi (Stojkov 1950: 35) x Region Botevgrad zavél brát si (Popivanov 1930: 66) x Region Goce Delcˇev: Sredna z brát si (BDA) x Region Kjustendil: Sˇisˇkovci kogá e brat vu na lof (ISSF 7: 263) x Region Novi Pazar: Kaspicˇan dosˇlé na Sˇúmen i brát mu (Mileticˇ 1903: 280) x Region Orjaxovo: Manastirisˇte brát si (SbNU 41: 457) x Region Samokov: Raduil brát mu bil nógu losˇ cˇoék (ISSF 8–9: 408); Govedarci brát mi mi dáde gorá (IIBEz 4: 336) x Region Silistra brát mu (Kocˇev 1969: 55) x Region Vraca: Karlukovo taká su˘m begála áze od brát si brat mí brother me.DAT x Region Kukusˇ bru˘t mí né e puvíkan (SbNU 18: 432) cˇícˇo mi uncle me.DAT x Region Kotel: Kotel dudé cˇícˇu vi (ISSF 3: 220) déver si husband’s-brother self.DAT x Region Lukovit: Karlukovo déver mi x Region Sˇumen: Sˇumen u˘s dévir si dever sí husband’s-brother self.DAT x Region Elena: Bebrovo dever mí x Region Nikopol: Novacˇene umr’á dever mí x Region Pleven: Bozˇurica nu˘ dever mí; Ral’ovo utidóx pri dever sí; Opanec su˘z dever mí x Region Preslav: Kocˇovo dódi d’uver mí x Region Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Vojnezˇa skáru˘lu˘ su˘ s div’u˘r sí x Region Vraca: Oslen Krivodol na dever mí, Sin’o bu˘rdo na dever mí zˇená djádo mi grandfather me.DAT Region Pazardzˇik, Sˇtu˘rkovo kru˘´sten na d’ádo si (BDA – No. 3579)

x

kru˘´stnik mi godfather me.DAT x Region Silistra: Ajdemir idín dén kru˘´snik im dusˇél nu˘ gósti

Competition of 2U1 and 2M1 nominals with a kinship term in the head position

405

svát mi in-law.MASC me.DAT x Region Lukovit: Karlukovo svát mi go víkat Miále svéku˘r mi father-in-law me.DAT Region Blagoevgrad: Zˇeleznica svékor i (BDA – No. 4067) x Region Kjustendil svékor mi (Umlenski 1965: 191); Zlogosˇ na svékor mi sestrá (BDA – No. 2801); Sˇisˇkovci svékor mi (Umlenski 1965: 191) x Region Samokov: Govedarci svékor mi (IIBEz 4: 336) x Region Sofia: Zˇeljava na svéku˘r mi basˇtá mu x

sveku˘r mí father-in-law me.DAT x Region Ixtiman sveku˘r mí bésˇe zˇíf; Belica sveku˘r mi; Bu˘rdo sveku˘r i x Region Kula: Golemanovo sveku˘r mí x Region Nikopol: Ljubenovo sveku˘r í x Region Panagjurusˇte: Panagjurusˇte sveku˘r mí bé mlógu dobu˘´r x Region Pleven: Pordim sveku˘r mí x Region Popovo: Palamarca sveku˘r mí (Mileticˇ 1903: 284) x Region Sliven: Tvu˘rdica sveku˘r mí (Stojkov-Archive) x Region Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Vojnezˇa su˘s sveku˘r sí tátko mi dad me.DAT Region Pu˘rvomaj: Filevo na glaveníka tátko mu (BDA – No. 3779)

x

vnúk mi grandson me.DAT Region Botevgrad: Pravesˇka Lakavica sin mi i unúk mi glédali ma sa (Stojkov 1950: 45)

x

zét ni son-in-law.THE us.DAT x Region Belene: Dolna Studena zét ni (BDA – No. 853) x Region Ixtiman: Bu˘rdo odíx na zét si f selóto x Region Kotel: Zˇeravna nu˘ Simeón’u˘ zét mu x Region Lovecˇ: Skobelevo: zét ni; Katunec zét ni su˘ pubóli x Region Pleven: Bozˇurica nu˘ zét si x Region Samokov: Raduil zét mu dál (ISSF 8–9: 408) x Region Sandanski: Kalimanci dójdox pri zét’ mi (BDA – No. 4542) x Region Sˇumen: Sˇumen zét’ mu Type Feminine-Kinship-Term Short-Form-Personal-Pronoun.DAT bába mi grandmother me.DAT x Region Pavlikeni, Visˇovgrad bába si x Region Kjustendil, Sˇisˇkovci i rekló na bába si (ISSF 7: 268)

406

Maps

du˘sˇterjá si daughter self.DAT x Region Bjala Slatina: Gabare dále mu du˘sˇteru˘´ si (IIBEz 4: 175) x Region Botevgrad kélavia e uvárdil dasˇtérka mu (Popivanov 1930: 64) x Region Dojran vidéx sˇcˇérka ti (Peev 1970: 51) x Region Elena: Bebrovo du˘sˇter’u˘´ mi x Region Kjustendil: Sˇisˇkovci na sˇtérka si (ISSF 7: 268) x Region Kostur kérka mu (ISSF 4: 129) x Region Nikopol: Gigen sedi pri desˇterá si x Region Nova Zagora: Ezero du˘sˇterjá si (BDA – No. 3231) x Region Pleven: Pordim na Jóca su˘z dasˇter’a i x Region Stara Zagora: Znamenosec basˇtu˘´ta píta du˘sˇterjá si (BDA) etu˘´rva mi wife-of-husband’s-brother me.DAT Region Samokov: Govedarci etru˘´va mi (IIBEz 4: 336) x Region Sevlievo: Gorsko Slivovo nu˘ mámu˘ itu˘´rvu˘ i i víku˘m du˘rtu˘´ májku˘ x

leljá si aunt self.DAT Region Belene, Belcov: zˇüv’áu˘ vu˘zˇ lel’u˘´ si

x

májka mi mother me.DAT Region Belogradcˇik: Osˇane na máter si (ISSF 7: 108) x Region Dobricˇ: Sokolovo ut májka si x Region Ivajlovgrad: Popsko tóa sandu˘´k e ot májka xi x Region Samokov: Govedarci pri mák’a mi (IIBEz 4: 336) x Region Sredec: Zˇeljazkovo ut májk’a ti x Region Tru˘n: Tru˘n, mák’a vej (ISSF 4: 189) x

majká mi mother me.DAT Region Dojran nu˘ mu˘jká mu lícˇe (Peev 1970: 51)

x

másˇtexa mu step-mother him.DAT x Region Vidin: Gradec ona si dósˇla dóma, a másˇtea i rékla (SbNU 41: 430) x Region Kotel: Kotel stanu˘´la sabáxlam másˇtixa mu (ISSF 3: 219) nevésta ti wife you.DAT x Region Botevgrad, Skravena: áde da sa basírame, kakvó nevésta ti ne e cˇésna (Popivanov 1930: 74) sestrá mi sister.THE me.DAT x Region Asenovgrad: Xvojna da pugúbi séstra si (Stojkov 1950: 34) x Region Botevgrad: Skravena sestrá mu (Popivanov 1930: 73) x Region Dojran sestrá mu (Peev 1970: 51) x Region Gabrovo: Todorcˇeta utívu˘ u sistru˘´ si (BDA)

Competition of 2U1 and 2M1 nominals with a kinship term in the head position x

x x x

407

Region Goce Delcˇev: Dolno Drjanovo ti vídja li sestrá ti (BDA – No. 4572) Region Kjustendil: Sˇisˇkovci na sestrá si (ISSF 7: 264) Region Orjaxovo: Manastirisˇte kázˇe na sestrá si (SbNU 41: 459) Region Smoljan: Arda séstra mi (BDA)

snaxa mu sister-in-law him.DAT x Northern Macedonian dialects snava mu (Cyxun 1981: 106–107) x Region Bjala Slatina: Gabare na snaa si (Cyxun 1981: 106–107) x Region Blagoevgrad: Lesˇko pri snaá si (Stojkov 1950: 77) x Region Botevgrad snaxa mi (Cyxun 1981: 106) x Region Debar: Mala Reka snoe si (Cyxun 1981: 107) x Region Elena zu˘ snu˘xu˘ si (Cyxun 1981: 107) x Region Karlovo: Vojnjagovo snaa i (Cyxun 1981: 107) x Region Kjustendil: Sˇisˇkovci snáa vu (ISSF 7: 265); Raninci snáa vu (BDA – No. 3426) x Region Kostur sna(x) mi (Cyxun 1981: 107) x Region Lerin: Zˇerevo snaa mu (Cyxun 1981: 106) x Region Mariovo snaa ti (Cyxun 1981: 107) x Region Montana pri snaa si (Cyxun 1981: 106) x Region Orjaxovo na snau˘ si (Cyxun 1981: 106) x Region Pazardzˇik snaa mu (Cyxun 1981: 107) x Region Pesˇtera: Rakitovo snaxo si (Cyxun 1981: 107) x Region Pirdop: Smolsko snaa i (Cyxun 1981: 106) x Region Samokov: Govedarci néma da se kárame s snáa mi (IIBEz 4: 336) x Region Sofia: Makocevo snaa i (Cyxun 1981: 107) x Region Teteven snaxi si (Cyxun 1981: 107) x Region Veles snaxa mu (Cyxun 1981: 107) sveku˘´rva mi mother-in-law me.DAT Region Samokov, Govedarci svekru˘´va mi (IIBEz 4: 336)

x

zu˘´lva si husband’s-sister self.DAT Region Kjustendil zólva mi (Umlenski 1965: 191) x Region Popovo, Palamarca tru˘´gnafme na nívata su˘s zu˘´lva si (BDA – No. 924) x Region Provadija, Cˇerkovna a pu˘k zu˘´lva mi – e tomúz majka mu – go zasˇí na ramené mi, da ne páda ot kru˘´sta mi (Mileticˇ) x

Maps

Map 6

408

Definite feminine singular nouns

8.7.

409

Definite feminine singular nouns: commentary to Maps 7a–7d

Map 7a: Southeastern Bulgaria Map 7b: Northeastern Bulgaria Map 7c: Southwestern Bulgaria Map 7d: Northwestern Bulgaria Source: BDA 1: 138–139 commented in 1.2: 105–106; 2: 117–118, 204 commented in 2.2: 73–74, 107; 3: 116 commented in 3.2: 104; 4: 143–144 commented in 4.2: 118; Mladenov-Archive; Stojkov 1993: 228; Bojadzˇiev 1986: 25 Damaskin system 2: Distinct forms for the subject and non-subject syntactic slots; Case marked on both noun stem and article Stojkov 1993: 228; Mladenov-Archive; Bojadzˇiev 1986: 25 Damaskin system 1: Distinct forms for the subject and non-subject syntactic slots; Case marked on the noun stem BDA 2: 204 Potential morphological contrast between the subject and non-subject positions. Evidence: same word has been registered in two different forms in the same locality. BDA 1.2: 105–106; 2.2: 73–74; 3.2: 104; 4.2: 118 Potential morphological contrast between the subject and non-subject positions. Evidence: different words have been registered in two different forms in the same locality. BDA 1.2: 105–106; 2.2: 73–74; 3.2: 104; 4.2: 118 Generalization of the former accusatives. Mapped group: inanimates ending in a non-palatal consonant followed by a under stress. BDA 1: 138; 2: 117; 3: 116; 4: 143 Generalization of the former accusatives. Mapped group: animates ending in a non-palatal consonant followed by a under stress. BDA 1: 139; 2: 118; 4: 144

410

Maps

Dialect system 1: Generalization of the former accusatives. The other groups of feminine nouns display a very similar distribution, see BDA 2: 119–120; 3: 117; 4: 146–147 regarding feminines ending in a palatalized consonant followed by a under stress and BDA 1: 156; 2: 173; 3: 172; 4: 227 regarding feminines in a consonant.

411

Map 7a

Definite feminine singular nouns

Maps

Map 7b

412

413

Map 7c

Definite feminine singular nouns

Maps

Map 7d

414

Definite plurals in -te vs. -ti

415

8.8. Definite plurals in -te vs. -ti: commentary to Maps 8a–8d Map 8a: Southeastern Bulgaria Map 8b: Northeastern Bulgaria Map 8c: Southwestern Bulgaria Map 8d: Northwestern Bulgaria Source: BDA 1: 25, 155 commented in 1.2: 35–36, 114–115; 2: 43, 168 commented in 2.2: 41, 93; 3: 32, 175 commented in 3.2: 45, 135–136; 4: 32, 228 commented in 4.2: 36, 160–161 Definite plurals in -te BDA 1: 155; 1.2: 114–115; 2: 168; 2.2: 93; 3: 175; 3.2: 135–136; 4: 228; 4.2: 160–161 Definite plurals in -ti BDA 1: 25; 1.2: 35–36, 114–115; 2: 43; 2.2: 41, 93; 3: 32; 3.2: 45, 135–136; 4: 32; 4.2: 36, 160–161 Ambiguous definite plurals in -ti, in which i could have come from either i or eˇ BDA 1: 25; 1.2: 35–36, 114–115; 2: 43; 2.2: 41, 93; 3: 32; 3.2: 45, 135–136; 4: 32; 4.2: 36, 160–161

Maps

Map 8a

416

Map 8b

Definite plurals in -te vs. -ti

417

Maps

Map 8c

418

419

Map 8d

Definite plurals in -te vs. -ti

420

Maps

8.9.

Definite plurals in -to: commentary to Maps 9a–9d

Map 9a: Southeastern Bulgaria Map 9b: Northeastern Bulgaria Map 9c: Southwestern Bulgaria Map 9d: Northwestern Bulgaria Source: BDA 1: 155 commented in 1.2: 114–115; 2: 174 commented in 2.2: 96; 3: 173–175 commented in 3.2: 134–136; 4: 229–230 commented in 4.2: 161–162 Definite plurals in -to BDA 1: 155; 1.2: 114–115; 3: 173, 175; 3.2: 134–136 Definite plural in -to of snop ’sheaf’ BDA 3: 174; 3.2: 135; 4: 230; 4.2: 161–162 Definite plural in -to of gost ’guest’ BDA 4: 229; 4.2: 161 Definite plural in -to of mu˘zˇ ’man’ BDA 2: 174; 2.2: 96

421

Map 9a

Definite plurals in -to

Maps

Map 9b

422

423

Map 9c

Definite plurals in -to

Maps

Map 9d

424

Definite feminine singular nouns in a consonant

425

8.10. Definite feminine singular nouns in a consonant: commentary to Maps 10a–10d Map 10a: Southeastern Bulgaria Map 10b: Northeastern Bulgaria Map 10c: Southwestern Bulgaria Map 10d: Northwestern Bulgaria Source: BDA 1: 134–136, 156 commented in 1.2: 104–105, 115; 2: 154–156, 173 commented in 2.2: 88, 95–96; 3: 154–155, 172 commented in 3.2: 122–123, 133–134; 4: 202–205, 227 commented in 4.2: 148–149, 159–160 Exempted from mapping is the most common type misu˘lta thought.THE whose distribution matches closely that of feminines in a vowel (see Maps 7a–7d). I. Morphological realignment of the feminines in a consonant with those in a vowel Type mislata thought.THE x x

xubostáta (BDA 1.2: 115 – No. 3385)1 sutrinu˘´tu˘ (BDA 2.2: 95–96 – No. 1646; No. 1647; No. 1649) Type misu˘ltata thought.THE

x x x

BDA 3: 172 – No. 4129; No. 4558; No. 4559; No. 4560; No. 4561 vecˇertáta (BDA 3.2: 133–134 – No. 4126) vecˇertu˘´tu˘ (BDA 3.2: 133–134 – No. 4563; No. 4569)

II. Morphological realignment of the feminines in a consonant with the masculines Type misu˘lu˘t thought.THE x

All nouns in a consonant are masculine (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4619)

1. This noun could perhaps be treated as an instance of the next type as well. I have opted for this interpretation because of the existence in colloquial language of a neuter form xubosté, definite xubostéto parallel to standard feminine xubost ’beauty’.

426 x

x

Maps

BDA 4: 227 – No. 556; No. 558; No. 560; No. 561; No. 562; No. 564; No. 577 dlána, máza, sóla m. (BDA 4.2: 160 – No. 119; No. 123; No. 125) Type misu˘ltu˘t thought.THE

x

x

x

Target gender unknown: BDA 1.2: 115 – No. 2718; No. 3075; No. 3950; No. 4004; No. 4007; No. 4022; No. 4029; No. 4210; No. 4208; No. 4246; No. 4690; No. 4688; No. 4662; No. 4004; No. 4888; No. 4898; No. 4934; No. 4935; No. 4933; BDA 2: 173, 2.2: 95–96 – No. 1565; No. 2387; No. 2390; No. 2391; No. 2392; No. 2408; No. 2419; No. 2438; No. 2442; No. 2443; No. 2446; lojtu˘´n (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4202; No. 4204); nasˇtôn (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4643); BDA 3: 172 – No. 3024; No. 3040a; No. 3042; No. 3044; No. 3045; No. 3046; No. 3049; No. 3053; No. 3054; No. 3651; No. 4152; No. 4165; No. 4166; No. 4169; No. 4170; No. 4171; No. 4173; No. 4174; No. 4177; No. 4178; No. 4182; No. 4184; No. 4189; No. 4191; No. 4192; No. 4194; No. 4201; No. 4203; No. 4620; No. 4633; No. 4634; No. 4635; No. 4635a; No. 4638; No. 4638a; No. 4641; No. 4644; No. 4646; No. 4647; No. 4648; No. 4649; No. 4650; No. 4651; No. 4652; No. 4654; No. 4655; No. 4656; No. 4657; No. 4658; No. 4659; No. 4663; No. 4667; No. 4668; No. 4668; No. 4672; No. 4673; No. 4674; No. 4676; No. 4679; zarantu˘´t (BDA 4.2: 160 – No. 1494) Target gender feminine: BDA 1.2: 115 – No. 4938 judging from the information on pepel in BDA 1.2: 105 – No. 4938; -tô´s, -tô´t, -tô´n f. (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4670; No. 4671); BDA 3: 172 – No. 3612 judging after ednu˘´ vécˇer but vecˇertu˘´t in BDA 3.2: 123; BDA 3: 172 – No. 3654; No. 3655 judging after u˘bava vécˇer but vecˇertu˘´t in BDA 3.2: 123; BDA 3: 172 – No. 4141; No. 4143 No. 4639; No. 4640 judging from the information on pepel in BDA 3.2: 123 Target gender masculine: BDA 2.2: 96 – No. 2392 judging from the information given regarding loj in BDA 2: 155 – No. 2392; soltô´n m. (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4621; No. 4623; No. 4624; No.4628); lojtô´t m. (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4143); -tô´s, -tô´t, -tô´n m. (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4660); -tu˘s, -tu˘t, -tu˘n m. (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4661); -tô´s, -tô´t, -tô´n m. except for sôl’, which can also be feminine (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4664)

Definite feminine singular nouns in a consonant

427

III. Nouns in a consonant whose controller gender is at variance with the target gender

X y

x x

x x x

x x x x x

x

x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x

The definite form points to one gender but the noun agrees with determiners and/or is replaced by pronouns of a different gender. Forms rendered in simplified transcription vécˇer m. but vecˇertá (BDA 1.2: 104 – No. 3355) vécˇer m./f. but always vecˇertá, kal m./f. but always kaltu˘´, pépel’ m./f. but always pepeltu˘´ (BDA 1.2: 105 – No. 4758) sáa vécˇer f. but vecˇaru˘´t (BDA 1.2: 104 – No. 4834) kal (BDA 1.2: 104 – No. 3877; No. 4012; No. 4040; No. 4917) pépel (BDA 1.2: 105 – No. 3210; No. 3211; No. 3861; No. 4049; No. 4217; No. 4220; No. 4227; No. 4293; No. 4356; No. 4918; No. 4947; No. 4952; No. 4956; BDA 3: 172; BDA 3.2: 123 – No. 2923; No. 4146; No. 4195) pépel’ m. but pepel’tá (BDA 1.2: 105 – No. 3387) pepel’tu˘´ zbírame gu (BDA 1.2: 105 – No. 4400) pepeltu˘´ stánva b’ál (BDA 1.2: 105 – No. 4843) pepeltu˘´ go fu˘´rnim’a (BDA 1.2: 105 – No. 4927) loj m. but lojtu˘´; tópu˘l pépel m. but pepeltá (BDA 4.2: 148 – No. 132; No. 133) loj m. but lojtu˘´ (BDA 2.2.88 – No. 1190; BDA 4.2: 148 – No. 138; No. 2293; No. 2293) loj m. but lojtu˘ (BDA 4.2: 148 – No. 77); dlantu˘´, lojtu˘´ m. (BDA 4.2: 160 – No. 77) loj m. but lojtá (BDA 4.2: 148 – No. 1317) loj m. but lujtu˘´ (BDA 2.2.88 – No. 1624; No. 1625; No. 1641) loj f. but luju˘´t (BDA 4.2: 148 – No. 1518) segá go nós’at po baxcˇíte pepeltu˘´ (BDA 3.2: 123 – No. 4556) pepeltu˘´ go máhame (BDA 3.2: 124 – No. 4587; No.4592) pepeltu˘´ gu fu˘´rl’ame (BDA 3.2: 124 – No. 4593) pepeltá e b’ál (BDA 3.2: 124 – No. 4604) pepeltu˘´ go isfu˘´rnime (BDA 3.2: 124 – No. 4605; No. 4606) pepeltô´ studen (BDA 3.2: 124 – No. 4655) pepelô´n gur’ô´sˇta (BDA 3.2: 124 – No. 4658) -ta m. (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4144) ku˘rftu˘´ e cˇervén (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4151) pepeltu˘´ gu fu˘´rl’ame (BDA 3.2: 124 – No. 4589; No. 4591; No. 4594), -tu˘´ m. (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4589; No. 4591; No. 4594) -tu˘´ m. (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4552; No. 4588)

428 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Maps

izmítasˇ gu pesˇtu˘´ (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4577) sˇe go opálisˇ pesˇtô´ (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4597) vlasttá e takáf (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4607) -tô´ m. (BDA 3.2: 134 – No. 4622) tój vécˇer, vécˇerove but vecˇertu˘´ (BDA 3.2: 123 – No. 4563; No. 4569) sájê vécˇer but vecˇerôs (BDA 3.2: 123 – No. 4634) xládna vê´cˇêr but vecˇerôs (BDA 3.2: 123 – No. 4634a) adná vécˇer but vecˇerôs (BDA 3.2: 123 – No. 4670) márna vécˇer but vecˇerôs (BDA 3.2: 123 – No. 4676) pepeló m. but zˇésˇka pépel f. (BDA 3.2: 123 – No. 3463) pepelô´n, fô´rlix ja (BDA 3.2: 124 – No. 4647; No. 4648) kru˘ftu˘´ e oslábnal (BDA 4.2: 160 – No. 122; No. 146; No. 147) du˘´rven pépel m. but pepeltá (BDA 4.2: 148 – No. 1402) síf pépel m. but pepeltá (BDA 4.2: 148 – No. 1418) b’ál pépel m. but pepeltê´ (BDA 4.2: 148 – No. 2304) edín tél m. but teltu˘´ (BDA 4.2: 149 – No. 140) na n’ék prostíru na teltá (BDA 4.2: 149 – No. 582) dibél t’el m. but teltu˘ (BDA 4.2: 149 – No. 759; No. 762; No. 765) dlu˘´gu˘ tél f. but tilu˘´t (BDA 4.2: 149 – No. 1520)

429

Map 10a

Definite feminine singular nouns in a consonant

Maps

Map 10b

430

431

Map 10c

Definite feminine singular nouns in a consonant

Maps

Map 10d

432

Three-way vs. single-article systems

433

8.11. Three-way vs. single-article systems: commentary to Maps 11a–11d Map 11a: Southeastern Bulgaria Map 11c: Southwestern Bulgaria Map 11d: Northwestern Bulgaria Map 11b has not been included because the phenomenon displays no isoglosses on this territory. Sources: BDA 1: 162–163, 170 commented in 1.2: 117–118, 122; 2: 177–178, 182, commented in 2.2: 97; 3: 166, 185–188, 198 commented in 3.2: 129–130, 143–144, 149–152; 4: 221, 238–239, 255 commented in 4.2: 155–156, 165, 172–175; See also BDA 1.2: 112–115 Single-article system BDA 1.2: 112–115; 3: 166; 4: 221 Three-way article system BDA 1.2: 112–115; 3: 166; 4: 221 Three-way pronominal system BDA 1: 170; 3: 198: 4: 255 Third-person pronouns descending from *onч BDA 3: 185–188; 4: 238–239 Western border of the area of distribution of the third-person pronouns descending from *t ч BDA 1: 162–163; 2: 177–178; 3: 185–188; 4: 238–239

Maps

Map 11a

434

435

Map 11c

Three-way vs. single-article systems

Maps

Map 11d

436

437

9. Note on language data treatment

Bulgarian language data used in this book can be divided into four groups: examples stemming from seventeenth-, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century manuscripts, as well as occasional quotations from older Middle Bulgarian texts, sentences in various dialects collected in dialectological fieldwork and Modern Standard Bulgarian examples, some of which have a source attached to them and others do not. The latter category consists of sentences and phrases made up by the author, who is a native speaker of Bulgarian. All examples are glossed and accompanied with English translations made by the author. Jerald Palmer assisted the translation of some Modern Standard Bulgarian sentences into English. Modern Bulgarian is transliterated here according to the conventions adopted in Linguistic Bibliography, with the exception of the velar fricative, which is rendered as x, and the central half-close unrounded vowel, represented not as a˘ but as u˘, which makes better sense from a diachronic perspective. The damaskins use a more complex writing system than Standard Bulgarian (Demina 1971, 2: 25–34), which is rendered here in a simplified transliteration deemed sufficient for the purposes of this study. Diacritics (such as accents and aspirations) are omitted. Numbers noted by Cyrillic letters are replaced by Arabic figures. Words written on two levels and with abbreviations are written out in full with the added letters, if any, in square brackets. The letters used as in Modern Bulgarian have been supplemented with the following twenty. For the convenience of readers, I have grouped together the series of Cyrillic letters transliterated by the same symbol.

438

References

10. References

Abraham, Werner 1997 The interdependence of case, aspect and referentiality in the history of German: the case of the verbal genitive. In: Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, 29–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aitchison, Jean 1991 Language Change: Progress or Decay, Second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aleksandrov, Aleksandu˘r and Snezˇana Pencˇeva 1995 Dvukratno i trikratno izrazjavane na opredelenostta v edna imenna grupa v njakoi mizijski damaskini i dialecti. In: Kazimir Popkonstantinov (ed.-in-charge). Paleobalkanistika i starobu˘lgaristika. Pu˘rvi esenni nacionalni cˇetenija “Profesor Ivan Gu˘lu˘bov”, 201–207. Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv.sv. Kiril i Metodij”. Aleksova, Krasimira 1994 Corpus of Spoken Bulgarian, !www.hf.uio.no/east/bulg/mat/Aleksova/" Alexander, Ronelle 1983 On the definition of Sprachbund boundaries: the place of Balkan Slavic. In: Norbert Reiter (ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik: Beiträge zur Tagung vom 2.–6. März 1981 in Berlin, 13–26. (Balkanologische Veröffentlichungen 8.) Berlin/Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz. ALR s.n. 1956–1972 Emil Petrovici (ed.), Atlasul lingvistic român. Serie noua˘, Vol. 1–7. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RPR. Anderson, Lloyd B. 1986 Evidentials, paths of change and mental maps: typologically regular asymmetries. In: Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, 273–312. (Advances in Discourse Processes 20.) Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. Andrejcˇin, Ljubomir 1972 Da pomnim za kratkite pritezˇatelni mestoimenija v bu˘lgarski ezik. Bu˘lgarski ezik 22/3: 238. Angelov, Bonju 1963–1964 Su˘vremennici na Paisij, T. 1–2. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Archive EIM Archive of the Institute of Ethnology of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia.

References

439

Argirov, Stojan 1895 Ljubljanskijat bu˘lgarski ru˘kopis ot XVII vek. Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija, nauka i knizˇnina, 12: 463–560. Arutjunova, Nina D. 1999 Jazyk i mir cˇeloveka. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury. Assenova, Petya 2002 Balkansko ezikoznanie. Osnovni problemi na balkanskija ezikov su˘juz, Vtoro izdanie. Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Faber. Avgustinova, Tania 1998 Determinedness and replication potential of nominal material in Bulgarian. Balkanistica 11: 1–17. BA, No. 154 Manuscris slav de la Ma˘na˘stirea Neamt¸ul. Sec. XV. Bucharest: Biblioteca Academiei. BAN, 13.5.18 [Kotel damaskin] Sbornik zˇitij i poucˇenij 1765 g. St.-Petersburg: Biblioteka Akademii nauk. BAN, 13.6.17 [Veljuv’s damaskin] Sbornik slov i poucˇenij 1824 g. St.-Petersburg: Biblioteka Akademii nauk. BAN, 13.6.19 [Musina damaskin] Sbornik slov i poucˇenij 19 v. St.-Petersburg: Biblioteka Akademii nauk. BAN, 24.4.32. [Adzˇar damaskin] Xandzˇarskij damaskin iz sobranija I. I. Sreznevskogo s pribavlenijami iz 1686 g. St.-Petersburg: Biblioteka Akademii nauk. BDA 1964–1981 Stojko Stojkov (ed.), Bu˘lgarski dialekten atlas, T. 1–4. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. BDA-OT 1988 Ivan Kocˇev (ed.), Bu˘lgarski dialekten atlas. Obobsˇtavasˇt tom. Vstu˘pitelna cˇast, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. BDA-OT 2001 Ivan Kocˇev (ed.), Bu˘lgarski dialekten atlas. Obobsˇtavasˇt tom. Fonetika, Akcentologija, Leksika, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. BDPM 1962–1981 Bu˘lgarska dialektologija. Proucˇvanija i materiali, Kniga 1–10. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. BER 1971–2002 Bu˘lgarski etimologicˇen recˇnik, T. 1–6. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Beyrer, Arthur and Kiril Kostov 1978 “Umgekehrte Anrede” im Bulgarischen und Rumänischen? Linguistique balkanique 21/4: 41–53. BEz 1951– Bu˘lgarski ezik. Volume 1–. Bjeletic´, Marta 1999 Kost kosti (delovi tela kao oznake srodstva). Kodovi slovenskih kultura 4: 48–67.

440

References

BNT 10 Petu˘r Dinekov und Stefana Stojkova (eds.), Bu˘lgarsko narodno tvorcˇestvo v dvanadeset toma. Tom deseti: Bitovi prikazki i anekdoti, Sofia: Bu˘lgarski pisatel, 1963. Bojadzˇiev, Todor 1971 Recˇnik na govora na s. Su˘cˇanli, Gjumjurdzˇinsko. In: Bu˘lgarska dialektologija. Proucˇvanija i materiali, Kniga 6. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN, 5–135. Bojadzˇiev, Todor 1972 Govoru˘t na s. Su˘cˇanli Gjumjurdzˇinsko. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Bojadzˇiev, Todor 1986 Inflected forms with the article in the Bulgarian dialects. In: Proceedings of the Second Bulgaro-Scandinavian Symposium held at Kungälv, Sweden, 23–31. Uppsala: Slaviska institutionen vid Uppsala Universitet. Bojadzˇiev, Todor. 1991. Bu˘lgarskite govori v Zapadna (Belomorska) i Iztocˇna (Odrinska) Trakija, Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Oxridski”. Bondarko, Aleksandr V. (ed.) 1992 Teorija funkcional’noj grammatiki. Sub“ektnost’. Ob”ektnost’. Kommunikativnaja perspektiva vyskazyvanija. Opredelennost’/Neopredelennost’, St.-Petersburg: Nauka. Boschkov, Dimitar 1975 Die Bestimmtheit und Unbestimmtheit in der Mazedonischen Sprache. (Forschungskollektiv Fachsprachen und Sprachunterricht, Arbeitsmaterial 36) Halle: Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Sektion Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. BTR–4 1999 Andrejcˇin, Ljubomir et al. Bu˘lgarski tu˘lkoven recˇnik, Cˇetvu˘rto izdanie dopu˘lneno i preraboteno ot Dimitu˘r Popov. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Camaj, Martin 1984 Albanian Grammar, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Chesterman, Andrew 1991 On Definiteness: A Study with Special Reference to English and Finnish, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Christophersen, Paul 1939 The Articles: A Study of Their Theory and Use in English, Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard. Civ’jan, Tat’jana V. 1965 Imja susˇcˇestvitel’noe v balkanskix jazykax: K strukturno–tipologicˇeskoj xarakteristike balkanskogo jazykovogo sojuza, Moscow: Nauka.

References

441

Clark, Herbert H. 1977 Bridging. In: Philip N. Johnson-Laird and Peter C. Wason (eds.). Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science, 411–420. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, Dana 1999 Towards a unified account of intensive reflexives. Journal of Pragmatics, 31/8: 1041–1052. Conev, Ben’o 1916 Rodna kitka: Otbor narodni pesni, Sofia: Carska pridvorna pecˇatnica. Conev, Ben’o 1919–1937 Istorija na bu˘lgarskij ezik, T. 1–3. Sofia: Du˘rzˇavna pecˇatnica. Corbett, Greville C. and Norman M. Fraser 2000 Default genders. In: Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen and Mirja Saari (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition, 55–97. (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 124) Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Chvany, Catherine V. [1983] 1996 On ’definiteness’ in Bulgarian, English and Russian. In: Olga T. Yokoyama and Emily Klenin (eds.), Selected Essays of Catherine V. Chvany, 128–147. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers. Cyxun, Gennadij A. 1962 Mestoimennata enklitika i slovoredu˘t v bu˘lgarskoto izrecˇenie. Bu˘lgarski ezik 12/4: 283–291. Cyxun, Gennadij A. 1981 Tipologicˇeskie problemy balkanoslavjanskogo jazykovogo areala, Minsk: Nauka i texnika. Cˇernjak, A. B. 1979 Mestoimennaja repriza v rumynskom jazyke. In: Agnija V. Desnickaja (ed.), Problemy sintaksisa jazykov balkanskogo areala, Leningrad: Nauka. Cˇesˇko, Elena V. 1955 K izucˇeniju bespredlozˇnyx slovosocˇetanij v sovremennom bolgarskom jazyke. Sbornik v cˇest na akademik Aleksandu˘r Teodorov-Balan po slucˇaj devetdeset i petata mu godisˇnina, 425–436. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Cˇomonev, Mladen 1986 Govoru˘t na s. Avren Carigradsko. Avtoreferat na kandidatska disertacija. Sofia: Institut za bu˘lgarski ezik. Cˇudomir Razkazi i fejletoni, !slovoto.orbitel.bg" DA Database of the Dialectology Section of the Institute for Bulgarian Language (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Sofia, Bulgaria).

442

References

Daelemans, Walter, Gerald Gazdar and Koenraad De Smedt 1992 Inheritance in natural language processing. Computational Linguistics 18/2: 205–218. Danailov, Georgi Ku˘sˇta otvu˘d sveta, !liternet.bg" Danailov, Georgi Dokolkoto si spomnjam, !liternet.bg" Danon-Boileau, Laurent and Mary-Annick Morel 1996 Présentation générale. Faits de langues 7: 7–10. Demina, Evgenija I. 1968 Tixonravovskij damaskin. Bolgarskij pamjatnik XVII v. Issledovanie i tekst. Cˇast’ I. Filologicˇeskoe vvedenie v izucˇenie bolgarskix damaskinov, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Demina, Evgenija I. 1971 Tixonravovskij damaskin. Bolgarskij pamjatnik XVII v. Issledovanie i tekst. Cˇast’ II. Paleograficˇeskoe opisanie i tekst, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Demina, Evgenija I. 1985 Tixonravovskij damaskin. Bolgarskij pamjatnik XVII v. Issledovanie i tekst. Cˇast’ III. Tixonravovskij damaskin kak pamjatnik knizˇnogo bolgarskogo jazyka XVII v. na narodnoj osnove, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Demina, Evgenija I. 1986 Iz bolgarskogo istoricˇeskogo sintaksisa. 3. Sposoby vyrazˇenija posessivnyx otnosˇenij: Dejstvujusˇcˇee lico – ob”ekt obladanija v . jazyke novobolgarskix damaskinov XVII v. In: Ljudmila E Kalnyn’ and Tat’jana N. Molosˇnaja (eds.) Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie. Problemy dialektologii. Kategorija posessivnosti, 208–219. Moscow: Nauka. Demiraj, Shaban 1993 Historische Grammatik der albanischen Sprache, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Dimitrova, Liljana 1993 Mestnite imena v procesa na ezikovata komunikacija (Vu˘z osnova na material ot Popovsko). Sofia: Institut za bu˘lgarski ezik [PhD dissertation, typescript]. Dimov, Dimitu˘r Tjutjun, !slovoto.orbitel.bg" Djamo-Diaconit¸a˘, Lucia 1971 Limba documentelor slavo-române emise în T¸ara Româneasca˘ în sec. XIV s¸i XV, Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR. Duranti, Alessandro 1984 The social meaning of subject pronouns in Italian conversation. Text 4/4: 277–311.

References

443

Duridanov, Ivan 1958 Toponimijata na Pu˘rvomajska okolija, (Godisˇnik na Sofijskija universitet. Filologicˇeski fakultet 52/2) Sofia: Sofijski universitet. Duridanov, Ivan and Maxim Mladenov 1988 Distribucija na balkanizmite v bu˘lgarskite dialekti. Studia z filologii polskiej i słowian´skiej 25: 93–125. Dyer, Donald L. 1988 Intensifying RP and the effect of grammatical categories on replicated NM in Bulgarian. University of Chicago Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 1–24. Dyer, Donald L. 1992 Word Order in the Simple Bulgarian Sentence, Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. Dyer, Donald L. 1993 Determinedness and the pragmatics of Bulgarian sentence structure. Slavic and East European Journal 37/3: 273–292. Elin Pelin Cˇorba ot grexovete na otec Nikodim, !slovoto.orbitel.bg" Elin Pelin Izkusˇenie, !slovoto.orbitel.bg" Elin Pelin Napast bozˇija, !slovoto.orbitel.bg" ESJS 1989–2004 Eva Havlová (ed.-in-chief). Etymologicky´ slovník jazyka starosloveˇského, 1–12. Prague: Academia. ESSJ 1973–1980 Frantisˇek Kopecˇny´, Bohuslav Havránek (eds.-in-chief). Etymologicky´ slovník slovansky´ch jazyku˚. Slova gramatická a zájmena, Svazek 1–2. Prague: Academia. Filiposki, Ilija 1952 Negotinskiot govor, Skopje: Pecˇatnica na Filozofskiot fakultet. Flier, Michael S. 1974 Aspects of Nominal Determination in Old Church Slavic, The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Friedman, Victor A. 1976 The questions of a Bulgarian indefinite article. In: Thomas Butler (ed.), Bulgaria Past and Present: Studies in History, Literature, Economics, Music, Sociology, Folklore and Linguistics, 334–340. Columbus, Ohio: American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies. Friedman, Victor A. 2003 ’One’ as an indefinite marker in Balkan and Non-Balkan Slavic. In: Alan Timberlake and Michael Flier (eds.), American Contributions to the Thirteenth International Congress of Slavists, 93–112. Bloomington: Slavica.

444

References

Ga˘mulescu, Dorin 1974 Elementele de origine sârbocroata˘ ale vocabularului dacoromân, Bucharest/Pancˇevo: Editura Academiei RSR. Georgiev, Vladimir 1952 Opit za periodizacija na istorijata na bu˘lgarskija ezik. Izvestija na Instituta za bu˘lgarski ezik 2: 71–116. Gladrow, Wolfgang 1992 Semantika i vyrazˇenie opredelennosti/neopredelennosti. In: Aleksandr V. Bondarko (ed.-in-charge), Teorija funkcional’noj grammatiki. Sub“ektnost’. Ob”ektnost’. Kommunikativnaja perspektiva vyskazyvanija. Opredelennost’/Neopredelennost’, 232–266. St. Petersburg: Nauka. GLR 1966 Alexandru Graur (ed.-in-charge), Gramatica limbii române, Edit¸ia a II-a reva˘zuta˘ s¸i ada˘ugita˘. Vol. 1–2. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR. Golovacˇeva, Arina V. 1979 Identifikacija i individualizacija v anaforicˇeskix strukturax. In: Tat’jana M. Nikolaeva (ed.), Kategorija opredelennosti-neopredelennosti v slavjanskix i balkanskix jazykax, 175–203. Moscow: Nauka. Golovacˇeva, Arina V. 1986 K voprosu o sootnos ˇ enij kategorij neotcˇuzˇdaemosti i opredelennosti. . In: Ljudmila E. Kalnyn’ and Tat’jana N. Molosˇnaja (eds.) Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie. Problemy dialektologii. Kategorija posessivnosti, 192–201. Moscow: Nauka. Gorov, Goro 1962 Strandzˇanskijat govor. In: Bu˘lgarska dialektologija. Proucˇvanija i materiali. Kniga 1: 13–164. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Gospodinov, Georgi 2000 Estestven roman, Plovdiv: Izdatelska ku˘sˇta Zˇanet-45. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978 How does a language acquire gender markers? In: Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson and Edith A. Moravcsik. Universals of Human Language. Vol. 3. Word Structure, 47–82. Stanford: Stanford University Press. GSBKE 1983 Todor Bojadzˇiev, Dimitu˘r Tilkov, Stoian Stoianov and Konstantin Popov, Gramatika na su˘vremennija bu˘lgarski knizˇoven ezik, T. 1–3. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Gut¸u, Olimpia 1971 Elemente românes¸ti într-un grai bulga˘resc din România. In: Alexandru Rosetti (ed.-in-charge), Actele celui de-al XII-lea Congres internat¸ional de lingvistica˘ s¸i filologie romanica˘, 2: 1003–1008. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR.

References Gu˘lu˘bov, Ivan 1962

445

Problemu˘t za cˇlena v bu˘lgarski i rumu˘nski ezik, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN.

Gu˘lu˘bov, Luka 1965 Govoru˘t na s. Dobroslavci, Sofijsko. In: Bu˘lgarska dialektologija. Proucˇvanija i materiali, Kniga 2: 3–118. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Gyllin, Roger 1991 The Genesis of the Modern Bulgarian Literary Language, (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Slavica Upsaliensia 30) Uppsala: Uppsala University. Hamp, Eric P. 2003 The rules for definite marking in Modern Bulgarian. Balkanistica 16: 69–70. Haspelmath, Martin 1997 Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hawkins, John A. 1978 Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction, London: Croom Helm and Atlantic Highlands, N. J.: Humanities Press. Heim, Irene 1988 The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. New York/ London: Garland Publishing. Heinrichs, Heinrich Matthias 1954 Studien zum bestimmten Artikel in den germanischen Sprachen. Giessen: Wilhelm Schmitz Verlag. Hendriks, Peter 1976 The Radozˇda-Vevcˇani Dialect of Macedonian: Structure, Texts, Lexicon, Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. HRL, HM.SMS.683 [Hilandar damaskin] Damaskin. Collection of texts in two parts. 19th century, 139 leaves. The Ohio State University: Hilandar Research Library. Igov, Angel Edin du˘zˇdoven den kraj moreto, !liternet.bg" IIBEz 1952– Izvestija na Instituta za bu˘lgarski ezik. T. 1–. Iliev, Andreja Kogato edin mu˘zˇ e na kolene, !liternet.bg" Ilievski, Petar Xr. 1972 Krninski damaskin, Skopje: Institut za makedonski jazik. ILR 1978 Florica Dimitrescu (ed.), Istoria limbii române: fonetica˘, morfosintaxa˘, lexic, Bucharest: Editura didactica˘ s¸i pedagogica˘.

446

References

Iordanidi, Sof’ja I. 1978 Iz nabljudenij nad upotrebleniem postpozitivnogo -t v russkom jazyke XVII v. In: Ruben I. Avanesov (ed.) Issledovanija po istoricˇeskoj morfologii russkogo jazyka, 168–184. Moscow: Nauka. ISSF 1904–1943 Izvestija na Seminara po slavjanska filologija pri Universiteta v Sofija. T. 1–9. Ivancˇev, Svetomir 1957 Nabljudenija vu˘rxu upotrebata na cˇlena v bu˘lgarski ezik. Bu˘lgarski ezik 7/6: 499–524. Ivancˇev, Svetomir 1978 Prinosi v bu˘lgarskoto i slavjanskoto ezikoznanie, Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Ivanov, Jordan 1931 Bu˘lgarski starini iz Makedonija, Vtoro izdanie. Sofia: Du˘rzˇavna pecˇatnica. Ivanov, Jordan 1936 Zˇititja na sv. Ivan Rilski s uvodni belezˇki. Godisˇnik na Sofijskija universitet, Istoriko-filologicˇeski fakultet 32/13: 4–8, 28–37. Ivanov, Jordan N. 1972 Bu˘lgarski dialekten atlas. Bu˘lgarski govori v Egejska Makedonija. T. 1. Dramsko, Sjarsko, Valovisˇtko i Ziljaxovsko, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Ivanov, Jordan N. 1978 Bu˘lgarska dialektologija. Xristomatija, Plovdiv: Plovdivski universitet. Ivanov, Jordan N. 1982 Mestnite imena mezˇdu Dolna Struma i Dolna Mesta. Prinos ku˘m bu˘lgarskata toponimija v Belomorieto. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Ivanov, P. 1931 Kotlenski damaskin, prepisan ot Stojko Jerej na 1765 g. Izvestija na Seminara po slavjanska filologija 4: 49–85. Ivanov, Vjacˇeslav Vs. Sravnitel’no-istoricˇeskij analiz kategorii opredelennosti-neoprede1979 lennosti v slavjanskix, baltijskix i drevnebalkanskix jazykax v svete indoevropeistiki i nostratiki. In: Tat’jana M. Nikolaeva (ed.), Kategorija opredelennosti-neopredelennosti v slavjanskix i balkanskix jazykax, 11–63. Moscow: Nauka. Ivanov, Vjacˇeslav Vs. 1986 Tipologija posessivnogo sprjazˇenija i posessivnogo tipa konstrukcii. . In: Ljudmila E. Kalnyn’ and Tat’jana N. Molosˇnaja (eds.), Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie. Problemy dialektologii. Kategorija posessivnosti, 132–142. Moscow: Nauka.

References

447

Ivanov, Vjacˇeslav Vs. (ed.) 1989 Kategorija posessivnosti v slavjanskix i balkanskix jazykax, Moscow: Nauka. Ivanova, Ana 1967 Trojanski damaskin, Sofia: Izdatelstvto na BAN. Ivic´, Pavle 1957 O govoru galipoljskih srba, (Srpski dijalektolosˇki zbornik 12) Belgrade: Naucˇna kniga. Jespersen, Otto 1949 A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VII. Syntax. Completed and edited by Niels Haislund. London/Copenhagen: George Allen & Unwin LTD, Ejnar Munksgaard. Jirecˇek, Constantin 1901–1904 Die Romanen in den Städten Dalmatiens während des Mittelalters, (Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 48–49) Wien: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Joseph, Brian D. and Irene Philippaki–Warburton 1987 Modern Greek, London/Sydney/Wolfeboro, New Hampshire: Croom Helm. Jovkov, Jordan Staroplaninski legendi, !slovoto.orbitel.bg" Kabakcˇiev, Krasimir 1984 The article and the aorist/imperfect distinction in Bulgarian: an analysis based on cross-language ’aspect’ parallelisms. Linguistics 22/5: 643–672. Kabakcˇiev, Valentin Prosˇtalno pismo, !www.bulgarianauthors.org/members/ valentin_kabakchiev/pis mo.html" Kabasanov, Stajko 1964 Osobenosti na pokazatelnite mestoimenija i na trojnoto cˇlenuvane v njakoi rodopski govori. Izvestija na Instituta za bu˘lgarski ezik 11: 417–421. Karamfilova, Petja 1998 Sredstva za izrazjavane na opredlenost v starija bu˘lgarski knizˇoven ezik do XV–XVI vek. In: Bu˘lgaristicˇni proucˇvaniija 3. Aktualni problemi na bu˘lgaristikata i slavistikata, 169–186. Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Universitetsko izdatelstvo Sv.Sv. Kiril i Metodij. Karavasileva, Su˘bka 1968 Du˘lga glasna i v govora na selo Vu˘rbica, Preslavsko. In: Bu˘lgarska dialektologija. Proucˇvanija i materiali, Kniga 4: 243–254. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Kaufman, Nikolaj and Todor Todorov 1967 Narodni pesni ot Jugozapadna Bu˘lgarija, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN.

448

References

Kearns, Kate 2000 Kocˇev, Ivan 1969 Kodov, Xristo 1935 Kolev, Georgi 1991 Kolev, Georgi 1993

Semantics, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Grebenskijat govor v Silistrensko, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Eziku˘t na trakijskite bu˘lgari. Trakijski sbornik 7: 1–127. Nabljudenija vu˘rxu cˇlennata forma v bu˘lgarskite narodni govori. Ezik i literatura 46/4: 63–72. Nabljudenija nad funkcionalno-semanticˇnata xarakteristika na rodopskata tricˇlenna opredelitelna sistema. Ezik i literatura 48/1: 24–29.

Koneska, Milica 1951 Mariovskiot govor, (Katedra za juzˇnoslovenski jazici. Diplomski raboti 3) Skopje: Filozofski fakultet na Univerzitetot. Koneski, Blazˇe 1957 Trojniot cˇlen. Makedonski jazik 1: 26–28. Koseska-Toszewa, Violetta and Georgi Gargov 1991 The Semantic Category of Definiteness/Indefiniteness in Bulgarian and Polish, (Prace Slawistyczne 93) Warsaw: Slawistyczny Os´rodek Wydawniczy. Kostov, Kiril 1970 Za edin slucˇaj na elipsa v glavnoto izrecˇenie. Izvestija na Instituta za bu˘lgarski ezik 19: 267–271. Kostov, Kiril 1976 Belezˇki za tipologijata i semantikata na cˇlenuvaneto na su˘sˇtestvitelnite imena v bu˘lgarskija ezik. Bu˘lgarski ezik 26/4: 303–310. Kostov, Kiril and Maxim Sl. Mladenov 1965 Za edno cenno izsledvane po toponimija. Bu˘lgarski ezik 15/3: 289–293. Kovacˇev, Nikolaj P. 1961 Mestnite nazvanija ot Sevlievsko, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Kovacˇev, Nikolaj P. 1965 Mestnite nazvanija v Gabrovsko, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Kovacˇev, Nikolaj P. 1969 Toponimijata na Trojansko, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Kovacˇev, Stojan 1968 Trojanskijat govor. In: Bu˘lgarska dialektologija. Proucˇvanija i materiali, Kniga 4: 161–242. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Krámsky´, Jirˇí 1972 The Article and the Concept of Definiteness in Language, The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Kucˇanda, Dubravko 1996 What is dative of possession? Suvremena lingvistika 41–42: 319–332.

References

449

Kunze, Konrad 1969 Studien zur Legende der heiligen Maria Aegyptiaca im deutschen Sprachgebiet, (Philologische Studien und Quellen 49) Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Kurz, Josef 1937–1946 K otázce cˇlenu v jazycích slovansky´ch ze zvlasˇtním zrˇetelem k starosloveˇnsˇtineˇ. Byzantinoslavica 7: 212–340; 8: 172–288. Kurz, Josef 1958 K otázce doby vzniku slovansky´ch adjektiv slozˇeny´ch a jejich pu˚vodního vy´znamu. In: Václav Machek (ed-in-chief), Studie ze slovanské jazykoveˇdy. Sborník k 70. narozeninám akademika Fr. Trávnicˇka, 211–219. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství. Kusmenko, Jurij K. 2003 Die Quellen der Artikelsuffigierung in den Balkansprachen. In: Andrej N. Sobolev and Aleksandr Ju. Rusakov (eds.), Aktual’nye voprosy balkanskogo jazykoznanija, 133–157. St. Petersburg: Nauka. Ku˘ncˇev, Ivan 1968 Govoru˘t na selo Smolsko, Pirdopsko. In: Bu˘lgarska dialektologija. Proucˇvanija i materiali. Kniga 4: 5–159. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Ku˘ncˇev, Pop Mincˇo 1985 Vidrica. Spomeni, zapiski, korespondencija, Vtoro izdanie. Sofia: Bu˘lgarski pisatel. Lakova, Meri 1997–1998 Kategorijata nedefinitnost/adefinitnost, ili kategorija opredelenost/ neopredlenost. Bu˘lgarski ezik 47–48/1: 12–24. Langazov, Dosiu 1987 Samotijata taka, kakto ja prezˇivjavat 27 vu˘zrastni seljani: sociologicˇeski etjudi, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BZNS. Larsen, Karin 2005 The Evolution of the System of Long and Short Adjectives in Old Russian, München: Otto Sagner. Leach, Edmund 1976 Culture and Communication: The Logic by Which Symbols Are Connected, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leiss, Elisabeth 2000 Gender in Old High German. In: Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen and Mirja Saari (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition, 237–258. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lekomceva, Margarita I. 1979 Semantika licˇnyx i ukazatel’nyx mestoimenij v staroslavjanskom jazyke. In: Tat’jana M. Nikolaeva (ed.), Kategorija opredelennostineopredelennosti v slavjanskix i balkanskix jazykax. Moscow: Nauka, 204–230.

450

References

Levine, James S. 1986 Remarks on the pragmatics of the ’inalienable dative’ in Russian. Russian Language Journal 40/135: 11–24. Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967 Turkish Grammar, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lint¸a, Elena 1985 Catalogul manuscriselor slavo-române din Bras¸ov, Bucharest: Universitatea din Bucures¸ti, Facultatea de limbi s¸i literaturi stra˘ine. Ljubenov, Rajko A. 1993 Burel: govor, folklor, etnografija, Sofia: Lik. Lopasˇov, Jurij A. 1978 Mestoimennye povtory dopolnenija v balkanskix jazykax, Leningrad: Nauka. Lotman, Yuri M. and Boris A. Uspensky 1978 On the semiotic mechanism of culture. New Literary History 9: 211–232. Lyons, Christopher 1999 Definiteness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Małecki, Mie˛czysław 1934 Dwie gwary macedon´skie (Suche i Wysoka w Solun´skiem). Cze˛s´c´ I: Teksty, Kraków: Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego. Manoliu-Manea, Maria 1990 Ethno-syntax and discourse: inalienability and topicality in Romanian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 35/4–6: 323–329. Maslov, Jurij S. 1971 Cˇlennye formy bolgarskogo literaturnogo jazyka s tocˇki zrenija lingˇ esˇko (ed.-in-chief), Issledovanija visticˇeskoj tipologii. In: Elena V. C po slavjanskomu jazykoznaniju, 181–188. Moscow: Nauka. Maslov, Jurij S. 1981 Grammatika bolgarskogo jazyka, Moscow: Vyssˇaja sˇkola. Mayer, Gerald L. 1984 The use of long and short forms of the masculine definite article in Bulgarian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetic 29: 33–41. Mayer, Gerald L. 1988 The Definite Article in Contemporary Standard Bulgarian, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Mayer, Gerald L. 1992 Long and short form of the masculine definite article in spoken Standard Bulgarian. Contrastive Linguistics 17/2: 29–38. Mazon, André 1931 L’emploi indéfini du nom de l’homme en slave. Mélanges de philologie offerts à M. J. J. Mikkola, professeur de philologie slave à l’Université de Helsinki, à l’occasion de son soixante-cinqiuème an-

References

451

niversaire le 6 juillet 1931, par ses amis at ses élèves, 146–156. (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Ser. B 27) Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Mazon, André 1936

Documents, contes at chansons slaves de l’Albanie du sud. (Bibliothèque d’études balkaniques 5) Paris: Librairie Droz.

Meillet, Antoine 1934 Le slave commun, Avec le concours de André Vaillant. Second edition. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion. Mileticˇ, Ljubomir 1908 Koprisˇtenski damaskin. Novobu˘lgarski pametnik ot XVII vek, (Bu˘lgarski starini 2) Sofia: Du˘rzˇavna pecˇatnica. Mileticˇ, Ljubomir 1911 Die Rhodopenmundarten der bulgarischen Sprache, Wien: A. Hölder. Mileticˇ, Ljubomir 1923 Svisˇtovski damaskin. Novobu˘lgarski pametnik ot XVIII vek, (Bu˘lgarski starini 7) Sofia: Pridvorna pecˇatnica. Mileticˇ, Ljubomir 1937 Njakolko sintakticˇni i morfologicˇni osobenosti v bu˘lgarskite narodni govori. Spisanie na Bu˘lgarskata akademija na naukite 56: 21–41. Mileticˇ, Ljubomir 1989 [1903] Iztocˇnobu˘lgarskite govori, Prevod ot nemski Ana Dimova i Aleksandu˘r Aleksandrov. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Mincˇeva, Angelina 1987 Starobu˘lgarskijat ezik v svetlinata na balkanistikata, Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Minkov, Svetoslav Damata s rentgenovite ocˇi, !liternet.bg" Minkov, Svetoslav Kakvo mozˇe da se slucˇi nosˇtem, !liternet.bg" Minkov, Svetoslav Slamenijat feldfebel, !liternet.bg" Mircˇev, Kiril 1936 Nevrokopskijat govor. Godisˇnik na Sofijskija universitet. Istoriko– filologicˇeski fakultet 37/1: 1–134. Mircˇev, Kiril 1978 Istoricˇeska gramatika na bu˘lgarskija ezik, Treto izdanie. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Mircˇeva, Elka 2001 Nedamaskinovi slova v novobu˘lgarskite damaskini, Veliko Tu˘rnovo: Faber. Mixajlova, Dimitrina 1984 Mestnite imena v Mixajlovgradsko, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN.

452

References

Mixajlova, Dimitrina 1986 Mestnite imena v Berkovsko, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Mladenov, Maxim Sl. 1963 Cˇlenuvani prilagatelni na -ij v severoiztocˇnite bu˘lgarski govori. Bu˘lgarski ezik 13/4–5: 404–410. Mladenov, Maxim Sl. 1966a Ixtimanskijat govor, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Mladenov, Maxim Sl. 1966b Edna morfologicˇno-sintakticˇna usporedica v bu˘lgarski i rumu˘nski ezik. Bu˘lgarski ezik 16/4: 355–359. Mladenov, Maxim Sl. 1969 Govoru˘t na Novo selo, Vidinsko, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Mladenov, Maxim Sl. 1973 Jatovata granica v svetlinata na novi danni (Ku˘m vu˘prosa za dialektnoto razcˇlenenie na bu˘lgarskija ezik). In: Slavisticˇen sbornik, 241–256. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Mladenov, Maxim Sl. 1980 Dialektnijat proizxod na njakoi knizˇovni normi. Petu˘r Pasˇov and Valentin Stankov (eds.), Problemi na ezikovata kultura, Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 199–205. Mladenov, Maxim Sl. 1981 Geografsko razpredelenie na prabu˘lgarski leksikalni elementi. Constrastive Linguistics 6/3–5: 61–67. Mladenov, Maxim Sl. 1985a Xarakteristika na kapanskija govor. In: Kapanci. Bit i kultura na staroto bu˘lgarsko naselenie v Severoiztocˇna Bu˘lgarija. Etno grafski i ezikovi proucˇvanija, 311–338. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Mladenov, Maxim Sl. 1985b Osˇte za konstrukcii ot tipa (vu˘rvi) podire mi. Constrastive Linguistics 10/4: 36–43. Mladenov, Maxim Sl. 1986 Balkanoslavjanski i/ili bu˘lgarski? Balkanistika 1: 221–231. Mladenov, Maxim Sl. 1990 Ima li v bu˘lgarskija ezik dvojno cˇlenuvane? Bu˘lgarski ezik 40/3: 229–231. Mladenov, Maxim Sl. 1993a Bu˘lgarskite govori v Rumu˘nija, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Mladenov, Maxim Sl. 1993b Govorite v Rodopite. Bu˘lgarska etnografija 4/4: 25–31. Mladenov, Maxim Sl. and Klaus Steinke 1978 Die Egebnisse der neueren bulgarischen Dialektforschung im Lichte der Balkanologie. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 14: 68–82.

References

453

Mladenov, Maxim Sl. and Olga M. Mladenova 2005 Za edin tip pritezˇatelni konstrukcii v bu˘lgarskija ezik. In: Juliana Stojanova, Gergana Dacˇeva, Neda Pavlova, Nadezˇda Mixajlova, Vladislav Milanov (eds.). Littera Scripta Manet. Sbornik v cˇest na 65-godishninata na prof. dfn Vasilka Radeva, 156–165. Sofia: Univestitetsko izdatelstvo Sv. Kliment Oxridski. Mladenov-Archive 1955–1992 Maxim Sl. Mladenov, Personal Archive. Mladenov, Stefan 1935 Prinos ku˘m izucˇavaneto na bu˘lgarskite govori v Iztocˇna i Zapadna Trakija, (Trakijski sbornik 6) Sofia: [s.n.] Mladenova, Olga M. 1999 The variable (x) in Bulgarian. Canadian Slavonic Paper 41/3–4: 367–390. Mladenova, Olga M. 2003 Language Use and Enforcement of Cultural Values. Canadian Slavonic Papers 45/1–2: 11–45. Mladenova, Olga M. 2006a Typifying genericity in Bulgarian: a diachronic perspective. Presented at the Second International “Perspectives on Slavistics” Conference, Regensburg, 21–24 September 2006, 19 pp. Mladenova, Olga M. 2006b On damaskin genealogy. Linguistique balkanique 45/2: 233–246. Mladenova, Olga M. 2007 Otnovo za lokalizacijata na pu˘rvonacˇalnija novobu˘lgarski damaskinov prevod. In: Tova chudo – eziku˘t! Izsledvanija v cˇest na prof. d-r Zˇivko Bojadzˇiev, 309–316. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Oxridski”. Mladenova, Olga .M. 2008 Etnonimija i nacional’noe samosoznanie. To be published in Voprosy Onomastiki 5, 40 pp. Mladenova, Olga M. 2009 Diachrony of Bulgarian quantification. Submitted to Balkanistica, 22 pp. Moltmann, Friederike 1992 Reciprocals and same/different: towards a semantic analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 411–462. Molxova, Zˇana. 1970 Xarakter i upotreba na cˇlena v bu˘lgarskija i anglijslija ezik, Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. MPr 1924– Makedonski pregled 1–. Nacˇov, Nacˇo A. 1892–1894 Tikvesˇki ru˘kopis. Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija, nauka i knizˇnina 8: 389–418; 9: 85–160; 10: 69–195.

454

References

Nedev, Nediu and Tixol Georgiev 1983 Pitovo: selo, kraj, cˇesˇmi, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Otecˇesvenija front. Neofit Rilski 1984 [1835] Bolgarska gramatika, Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Nicolova, Ruselina 1986 Bu˘lgarskite mestoimenija, Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Nikolaeva, Tat’jana M. (ed.) 1979 Kategorija opredelennosti-neopredelennosti v slavjanskix i balkanskix jazykax, Moscow: Nauka. Nikolaeva, Tat’jana M. 1986 Sredstva razlicˇenija posessivnix znacˇenij: jazykovaja e˙voljucija i ee . lingvisticˇeskaja interpretacija. In: Ljudmila E . Kalnyn’ and Tat’jana N. Molosˇnaja (eds.), Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie. Problemy dialektologii. Kategorija posessivnosti, 167–178. Moscow: Nauka. Nikolova, Cvetanka 1975–1977 Corpus of Spoken Bulgarian, !www.hf.uio.no/east/bulg/mat/Nikolova/" Nørgård–Sørensen, Jens 2002 What are possessive adjectives for? Notes on the classification and function of Russian adjectives. In: Per Ambrosiani, Elisabeth Löfstrand, L. Nordquist and Ewa Teodorowicz–Hellman (eds.), Explorare Necesse Est. Hyllningsskrift till Barbro Nilsson, 199–206. (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Slavic Studies 28) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. NUK, Cod. Kop. 21 Ljubljana damaskin, !www.nuk.uni–lj.si/kopitarjevazbirka" Orr, Robert 2003 Eddies in language and biology. The LACUS Forum 29: 271–281. Osenova, Petja 1999 Funkcionirane na neopredelitelnite mestoimenija ot reda edi-. Bu˘lgarski ezik i literatura 5 !liternet.bg" Osenova, Petja 2002 Semantika i pragmatika na bu˘lgarskite neopredelitelni mestoimenija, Sofia: Semarsˇ. Pani, Pandeli 1991 Zur Verwendung des Artikels bei Eigennamen im Albanischen. Linguistique balkanique 34/3–4: 29–31. Pasˇov, Petu˘r 1974 Rodova forma pri cˇislitelnoto tri v centralnija balkanski govor. In: Ljubomir Andrejcˇin (ed.), V pamet na prof. d-r St. Stojkov: 1912–1969. Ezikovedski izsledvanija, 229–233. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Peev, Kosta 1970 Dojranskiot govor. Makedonistika 2: 3–191.

References

455

Peev, Kosta 1988 Kukusˇkiot govor, Kniga II. Skopje: Studentski zbor. Petkanova, Donka 1987 Starobu˘lgarska literatura. Cˇast II. XIII – XVIII vek, Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Petkanova-Toteva, Donka 1965 Damaskinite v bu˘lgarskata literatura, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Petricˇev, D. 1931 Prinos ku˘m uzucˇavane na tru˘nskija govor. Izvestija na seminara po slavjanska filologija 7: 35–75. Philippi, Julia 1997 The rise of the article in the germanic languages. In: Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, 62–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Popivanov, Georgi 1930 Orxanijskijat govor. Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija 38/4: 1–150. Popivanov, Georgi 1940 Osobenosti na Sˇumenskija govor. Sbornik na Bu˘lgarskata akademija na naukite 34: 330–468. Popov, Alek 2001 Misija London, Sofia: IK Zvezdan. Popov, Konstantin 1960 Mestnite imena v Beloslatinsko, (Godisˇnik na Sofijskija universitet. Filologicˇeski fakultet 54) Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo. Popov, Konstantin 1979 Mestnite imena v Razlozˇko, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Popova, Vencˇe 1968 Slovoredu˘t na atributivnata sintagma v ezika na damaskinite. Izvestija na Instituta za bu˘lgarski ezik 16: 425–430. Popovski, Ariton 1970 Makedonskiot govor vo Gostivarskiot kraj, Gostivar: Sobranie na opsˇtinata Gostivar. Propp, Vladimir Ja. 1951 Problema artiklja v sovremennom nemeckom jazyke. In: Boris A. Larin, Lev R. Zinder, Margarita I. Matusevicˇ (eds.), Pamjati akademika L’va Vladimirovicˇa Sˇcˇerby (1880–1944), 218–226. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo LGU. Pu˘rvev, Xristo 1975 Ocˇerk po istorija na bu˘lgarskata gramatika, Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Qvonje, Jorn Ivar 1985 Zasˇto ’sinu˘t mi’, no ’brat mi’? Bu˘lgarski ezik 35/5: 475–480. Rå Hauge, Kjetil 1999 A Short Grammar of Contemporary Bulgarian, Bloomington, Indiana: Slavica.

456

References

Radicˇkov, Jordan Nie, vrabcˇetata, !liternet.bg" Radicˇkov, Jordan 1970 Skalni risunki, Sofia: Bu˘lgarski pisatel. Radicˇkov, Jordan 1980 Spomeni za kone, Plovdiv: Xristo G. Danov. Rajnov, Bogomil Nosˇtni bulevardi, !liternet.bg" Ralev, Lilo 1977 Govoru˘t na selo Vojnjagovo, Karlovsko. In: Bu˘lgarska dialektologija. Proucˇvanija i materiali, Kniga 8: 3–199. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Reiter, Norbert 1964 Der Dialekt von Titov-Veles, (Veröffentlichungen der Abteilung für Slavische Sprachen und Literaturen des Osteuropa-Instituts an der Freien Universität Berlin 32) Berlin: Otto Harrassowitz. Reiter, Norbert 1967 Der Artikel in den Balkansprachen. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 5/1: 103–119. Revzin, Isaak I. 1977a Voprosy strukturno-tipologicˇeskogo podxoda k kategorii opredelennosti v balkanskix jazykax. In: Andrej A. Zaliznjak et al. (eds.), Balkanskij lingvisticˇeskij sbornik, 208–219. Moscow: Nauka. Revzin, Isaak I. 1977b Anketa po kategorii opredelennosti-neopredelennosti. In: Andrej A. Zaliznjak et al. (eds.), Balkanskij lingvisticˇeskij sbornik, 220–242. Moscow: Nauka. Revzina, Olga G. 1979 Funkcional’nyj podxod k jazyku i kategorija opredelennosti-neopredelennosti. In: Tat’jana M. Nikolaeva (ed.), Kategorija opredelennosti-neopredelennosti v slavjanskix i balkanskix jazykax, 64–89. Moscow: Nauka. Rozˇnovskaja, Marina G. 1979 Ocˇerki po sintaksisu bolgarskogo literaturnogo jazyka, Moscow: Nauka. Rusinov, Rusin 1968 Upotreba na predpostaveno nesu˘glasuvano opredelenie za prinadlezˇnost v su˘vremennija bu˘lgarski ezik. Bu˘lgarski ezik 18/6: 489–505. Russell, Bertrand 1905 On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493. Sadnik, Linda and Rudolf Aitzetmüller 1955 Handwörterbuch zu den altkirchenslavischen Texten, Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

References

457

Savova, Ivelina 2003 Udvojavane na opredelenieto v bu˘lgarskija ezik. Bu˘lgarski ezik i literatura 4 !liternet.bg" SbNU 1889– Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija, 1–. Scharpé, J. L. and Frans Vyncke (eds.). 1973. Bdinski Zbornik. An Old-Slavonic Menologium of Women Saints (Ghent University Library Ms. 408, A. D. 1360), With an introduction by Edmond Voordeckers. Bruges, Belgique: De Tempel. Schwyzer, Eduard 1966 Griechische Grammatik, 1–3. München: C. H. Beck. Selig, Maria 1992 Die Entwicklung der Nominaldeterminanten im Spätlatein, Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. SMBD 1949–1962 Stat’i i materialy po bolgarskoj dialektologii, 1–10. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Selisˇcˇev, Afanasij M. 1929 Polog i ego bolgarskoe naselenie. Istoricˇeskie, e˙tnograficˇeskie i dialektologicˇeskie ocˇerki severozapadnoj Makedonii, Sofia: Makedonskij Naucˇnyj Institut. Shortall, Terry 1996 What learners know and what they need to learn. In: Jane Willis and Dave Willis (eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching, 31–41. Oxford: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing. Sorokina, Elena A. 1993 Funkcionirovanie sistemy cˇlennyx form imeni v knizˇnom bolgarskom jazyke XVII veka na narodnoj osnove. Avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie ucˇenoj stepeni kandidata filologicˇeskix nauk. Moscow: Institut slavjanovedenija i balkanistiki RAN. Sophronius #A   I 

   , B« O« M« 1991  « A  «, 6A  5O «: I M κ  . SpBAN 1911– Spisanie na Bu˘lgarskata akademija na naukite, 1–. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson 1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Oxford: Blackwell. Stanev, Emilian Kradecu˘t na praskovi, !liternet.bg" Stankov, Valentin 1984 Za kategorijata neopredelenost na imenata v bu˘lgarskija ezik. Bu˘lgarski ezik 34/3: 195–205.

458

References

Stankov, Valentin 1987 Za semanticˇnija invariant na opredelitelnija cˇlen v bu˘lgarskija ezik. Bu˘lgarski ezik 37/1–2: 70–76. Stankov, Valentin 1995 Semanticˇni osobenosti na kategorijata neopredelenost na imenata v bu˘lgarskija ezik. In: Elena Georgieva et al. (eds.), Bu˘lgarsko ezikoznanie I. Problemi na gramaticˇnata sistema na bu˘lgarskija ezik, 87–149. Sofia: Akademicˇno izdatelstvo Marin Drinov. Stojanov, Zaxari Zapiski po bu˘lgarskite vu˘stanija, !liternet.bg" Stojanov, Zaxari 1976 Xristo Botjov, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BZNS. Stojanov, Stojan 1971 Govoru˘t na s. Makocevo, Sofijsko. Godisˇnik na Sofijskija universitet. Fakultet po slavjanski filologii 55/1: 153–312. Stojcˇev, T. 1965 Rodopski recˇnik. In: Bu˘lgarska dialektologija. Proucˇvanija i materiali, Kniga 2. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Stojkov, Stojko 1949–1950 Cˇlenuvane na imenata ot mu˘zˇki rod, edinstveno cˇislo, v bu˘lgarskija knizˇoven ezik. Godisˇnik na Sofijskija universitet. Istoriko-filologicˇeski fakultet. Ezikoznanie i literatura 46/4: 3–44. Stojkov, Stojko 1950 Xristomatija po bu˘lgarska dialektologija. Sofia: [s.n.]. Stojkov, Stojko 1970 Formele cazuale nominale în limba bulgara˘. Romanoslavica 17: 129–153. Stojkov, Stojko 1993 Bu˘lgarska dialektologija, Treto izdanie pod redakcijata na Maxim Sl. Mladenov. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Stojkov–Archive 1942–1969 Stojko Stojkov, Personal Archive. Stölting, Wilfried 1970 Beiträge zur Geschichte des Artikels im Bulgarischen, (Slavistische Beiträge 44) München: Otto Sagner. Stratiev, Stanislav Bu˘lgarskijat model, !www.bulgaria.com/welkya" Svane, Gunnar 1958 K voprosu o proisxozˇdenii cˇlena v vostocˇnoj gruppe juzˇnoslavjanskix jazykov. Scando-Slavica 4: 149–165. Svane, Gunnar 1961–1962 O sintaksicˇeskom primenenii bolgarskogo cˇlena v XIII veke. A. Cˇergedskie teksty. B. Dobrejsˇovo evangelije. Scando-Slavica 7: 233–251; 8: 224–238.

References

459

Syrku, Polixronija 1883 Neskol’ko zametok o dvux proizvedenijax Tu˘rnovskago patriarxa Evfimija. In: Sbornik statej po slavjanovedeniju sostavlennyj i izdannyj ucˇenikami V. I. Lamanskago po slucˇaju 25-letija ego ucˇenoj i professorskoj dejatel’nosti, St. Petersburg: Tipografija Imperatorskoj akademii nauk. Sˇamraj, Tatjana 1989 Cˇlenuvani i necˇlenuvani imena v bu˘lgarskija ezik, Sofia: Narodna prosveta. Sˇaur, Vladimir 1970 Pop Puncˇov sbornik kak istocˇnik istoriko-dialekticˇeskix issledovaˇ SAV. nij, Prague: Ústav jazyku˚ a literatur C ˇSaur, Vladimir 1975 O vy´znamu zajmenného základu ov- a jeho vztahu k bulharskému a makedonskému cˇlanu. Slavia 44/3: 233–239. Sˇklifov, Blagoj 1973 Kosturskijat govor, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Sˇklifov, Blagoj 1979 Dolnoprespanskijat govor, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Sˇmelev, Aleksej D. 1992 Opredelennost’/neopredelennost’ v aspekte teorii referencii. In: Aleksandr V. Bondarko (ed.-in-charge), Teorija funkcional’noj grammatiki. Sub“ektnost’. Ob”ektnost’. Kommunikativnaja perspektiva vyskazyvanija. Opredelennost’/Neopredelennost’, 266– 278. St. Petersburg: Nauka. Talev, Dimitu˘r Zˇeleznijat svetilnik, !liternet.bg" Tatevosov, Sergej G. 2002 Semantika sostavljajusˇcˇix imennoj gruppy: kvantornye slova, Moscow: IMLI RAN. Tchizmarova, Ivelina 2004 Expressivity and pragmatic constraint on object reduplication in Bulgarian. Balkanistica 17: 79–134. Teodorov-Balan, Aleksandu˘r 1958 Bu˘lgarski iztok i zapad v knizˇevnija ezik. Bu˘lgarski ezik 8/6: 489–498. Timoc-Bardy, Romana 1996 Appartenance implicite vs appartenance explicite en roumain. Faits de langues 7: 241–250. Todorov, Cvetan 1930 Govoru˘t na grad Lom. Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija 38: 1–60. Todorov, Cvetan 1936 Severozapadnite bu˘lgarski govori. Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija i narodopis 41: 1–543.

460

References

Todorov, Petko Ju. Mecˇkar, !liternet.bg" Todorov, Todor At. 2002 Starobu˘lgarskoto anaforicˇno mestoimenie i negovite novobu˘lgarski zastu˘pnici, Sofia: Akademicˇno izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov”. Tolstoj, Nikita I. 1962 Opyt tipologicˇeskoj xarakteristiki slavjanskogo cˇlena-artiklja. In: Boris A. Larin, Vjacˇeslav B. Obolevicˇ and German I. Safronov (eds.), Vsesojuznaja konferencija po slavjanskoj filologii, 12–22 dekabrja 1962 goda: programma i tezisy dokladov, 125. Leningrad: Leningradskij gosudarstvennyj universitet, Filologicˇeskij fakul’tet. Tolstoj, N. I. 1969 Slavjanskaja geograficˇeskaja terminologija. Semasiologicˇeskie e˙tjudy, Moscow: Nauka. Topolin´ska, Zuzanna 1997 Relativization – a strategy for noun phrase complementation? (Relative clauses in the Macedonian Ta˘rlis manuscript). Balkanistica 10: 381–393. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1986 O nekotoryx predposylkax formirovanija kategorii pritjazˇatel’nosti. . In: Ljudmila E. Kalnyn’ and Tat’jana N. Molosˇnaja (eds.), Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie. Problemy dialektologii. Kategorija posessivnosti, 142–167. Moscow: Nauka. Trubetzkoy Nikolai S. 1988 [1937] O pritjazˇatel’nyx prilagatel’nyx (possessiva) starocerkovnoslavjanskogo jazyka. In: Trubetzkoy Nikolai S., Opera Slavica Minora Linguistica. Edited by Stanislaus Hafner, Francis W. Maresˇ, Manfred Trummer and Warwara Kühnelt-Leddihn, 323–328. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Trummer, Manfred 1981 Bogomilen, Pomaken, Pavlikianer, Franziskaner … Mitteilungen des Bulgarischen Forschungsinstitutes in Österreich 4/1: 110–126. Trummer, Manfred 2000a Rodopskite govori i njakoi vu˘prosi na bu˘lgarskata i balkanskata istorija. Bu˘lgarska istoricˇeska biblioteka 1: 36–38. Trummer, Manfred 2000b Bu˘lgari-katolici (pavlikjani) i bu˘lgari-moxamedani (pomaci) ili ku˘m vu˘prosa za strukturnata priemstvenost v istorijata. Bu˘lgarska istoricˇeska biblioteka 2; 9–14. Ugrinova-Skalovska, Radmila 1975 Damaskini. Makedonski prevodi ot 16 do 19 vek, Skopje: Makedonska kniga. Umlenski, Ivan 1963 Njakoi sintakticˇni osobenosti na kjustendilskija govor. Bu˘lgarski ezik 13/4–5: 463–468.

References

461

Umlenski, Ivan 1965 Kjustendilskijat govor, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Vaillant, André 1942 L’article en vieux slave. Revue des études slaves 20: 5–12. Vasilev, Xristo 1968 Necˇlenuvaneto na rodninski nazvanija v rumu˘nski i bu˘lgarski kato ezikovo javlenie. Bu˘lgarski ezik 18/2–3: 214–216. Vasmer, Max . 1986–1987 Maks Fasmer, Etimologicˇeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. V cˇetyrex tomax. Perevod i dopolnenija Olega N. Trubacˇeva. Izdanie vtoroe, stereotipnoe. Moscow: Progress. Vazov, Ivan Bu˘lgari ot staro vreme, !liternet.bg" Vazov, Ivan Cˇicˇovci, !liternet.bg" Velcˇeva, Borjana 1964 Pokazatelni mestoimenija i narecˇija v novobu˘lgarskite pametnici ot XVII i XVIII v. Izvestija na Instituta za bu˘lgarski ezik 10: 159–233. Velcˇeva, Borjana 1984 Damaskin Studit’s  « and the earliest period in the development of the Modern Bulgarian literary language. In: Pantelej Sˇterev et al. (eds.), Kulturni i literaturni otnosˇenija mezˇdu bulgari i gu˘rci ot sredata na XV do sredata na XIX vek: vtori bulgaro-gru˘cki simpozium, Sofija, 18–22 septemvri 1980 g.: aktove, 151–155. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Velcˇeva, Borjana 1996 Rannijat slavjanski prevod na Zˇitieto na sv. Marija Egipetska v edin ru˘kopis ot XV vek. Palaeobulgarica 20/3: 30–54. Velcˇeva, Borjana 2001 Damaskinite ot XVII vek i nacˇaloto na novobu˘lgarskija knizˇoven ezik. Palaeobulgarica 25/4: 64–81. Velcˇeva-Bojadzˇieva, Borjana 1963 Ku˘m vu˘prosa za izcˇezvaneto na tricˇlennata pokazatelna sistema v bu˘lgarski ezik. In: Ljubomir Andrejcˇin and Stojko Stojkov (eds.-incharge), Slavisticˇen sbornik (Po slucˇaj V Mezˇdunaroden kongres na slavistite v Sofija), 129–139. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Velicˇkov, Petko and Vladimir Ardenski (eds.) 1979 Bezˇesˇtim prez godinite: rodopski sladkodumtsi, Plovdiv: Xristo G. Danov. Venelin, Ju. I. 1997 Grammatika nynesˇnego bolgarskogo narecˇija, Publikacija podgotovlena Grigoriem K. Venediktovym. Moscow: Institut slavjanovedenija i balkanistiki RAN.

462

References

Videnov, Mixail 1978 Godecˇkijat govor. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Vidne˙s, Marija 1958 O vyrazˇenii prinadlezˇnosti pritjazˇatel’nym prilagatel’nym i roditel’nym padezˇom prinadlezˇnosti v russkom jazyke XVIII–XIX vv. Scandoslavica 4: 166–175. Vidoeski, Bozˇo 1962 Kumanovskiot govor, (Posebni izdanija 3) Skopje: Institut za makedonski jazik. Vincent, Nigel 1997 The emergence of the D-system in Romance. In: Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, 149–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vrazˇinovski, Tanas 1981 Ilindenski prozen revolucioneren folklor, (Posebni izdanija 8) Skopje: Institut za folklor “Marko K. Cepenkov”. Weber, Doris 2000 On the function of gender. In: Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen and Mirja Saari (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition, 495–509. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Wells, Rulon 1960 Nominal and verbal style. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language, 213–220. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press. Xajtov, Nikolaj 1972 Divi razkazi, Plovdiv: Xristo G. Danov. Xristov, Georgi 1964 Mestnite imena v Madansko, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Zaimov, Jordan 1959 Mestnite imena v Pirdopsko, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Zaimov, Jordan 1977 Mestnite imena v Panagjursko, Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. Zaimov, Jordan 1986 Mestnite imena okolo s. Bu˘lgarene. In: Canko Ignev (ed.-in-chief), Za proizxoda na geografskite imena v Lovesˇki okru˘g, Lovecˇ: [s.n.]. Zalotuxa, Valerij 2000 Makarov, Moscow: Tekst. Zolotova, Galina A., N. K. Onipenko and M. Ju. Sidorova 1998 Kommunikativnaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Moscow: RAN– MGU. Zˇurinskaja, Marina A. 1979 O vyrazˇenii znacˇenija neottorzˇimosti v russkom jazyke. In: Viktorija N. Jarceva (ed.), Semanticˇeskoe i formal’noe var’irovanie, 295–347. Moscow: Nauka.

Index

463

Index

abstract noun 65, 97, 132, 151, 168, 173, 206, 208, 244, 302, 317, 340, 369 accentology 116–117 accusative 72, 135, 304–308 acelas¸i Romanian 109 actual-world context 170 address form 67–69, 177–178, 188–190, 335, 340, 348, 349 adjectival-genitive language 88, 348, 351, 352, 354, 357, 361, 365, 366 adjective 23–26, 27, 65, 67, 68, 173, 326–339, 344–345 – articles for masculine singular 24, 301, 349, 351–352, 355, 357, 370–379, 368 adstratum 1 adverbial 32–33, 65, 73, 132, 135–136, 170, 173–174, 198–199, 205, 279–282, 293, 302, 318, 319, 368 aggregate noun 151, 244 Albanian 47, 108–109, 112, 137, 145–146, 171, 346–347, 359, 362 alienable see possession alternative-world context 3, 170 analytic nominal 175–184, 302–304, 351, 357 anaphora 34–39, 49–50, 55, 60, 78–79, 89–90, 94–109, 110, 123, 131, 154, 160, 185, 223, 243, 244, 246, 256, 268, 270–272, 290, 299, 320–321, 347, 361, 362, 364, 365 animacy 39, 65, 97, 132–134, 136, 138, 183, 191–192, 244, 302–310, 340, 346, 369 Apollonius Dyscolus 2 apposition 22–23 appositive reading 80–89, 117, 118, 119, 121, 124, 125–126, 129, 188, 191, 337–338, 352 Armenian 324

attribute 183 attributive definiteness 89–90, 105, 111–131, 154, 187, 244, 246, 361, 363–365 azˇit Bulgarian 243 Balkan dialects 39, 46, 146, 189, 225, 231, 274, 277, 282, 293, 303–304, 307–309, 316, 317, 327, 340, 343, 355 Balkan languages 1, 4–5, 47, 52, 108–109, 112, 137, 145–146, 157, 189, 193, 344–367, 369 Balkan Latin 345, 346 balkanism 126, 176, 223, 243, 352 Balto-Slavic 352 Banat dialect 46 bilingualism 1, 346, 347, 359, 361, 362 body-part terminology 65, 112, 115, 300, 353 Bog Bulgarian 65, 70–74, 294, 331 brjag Bulgarian 277, 294, 302 Bucharest archaic damaskin 283 Bulgarian 1, 2, 4, 40, 357, 369 Bulgarian dialect divisions 300–301 Bulgarian dialectology 339–343, 368, 369 Bulgarian national identity 1–2 cardinal quantifier 155, 157, 164, 165 case 74–77, 118, 123, 125, 126, 134–135, 174–175, 183–184, 238, 243, 302–311, 340, 341, 346, 356, 369 cataphora 125, 347 characterizing sentence 33, 201, 330 Christophersen, Paul 2 Church Slavonic 6 Chuvash 358 cˇijto Bulgarian 226 cjal / celija(t) Bulgarian 151, 302, 341

464

Index

clitic reduplication 47, 52, 66, 78, 91, 100–101, 123, 124, 126, 151, 223–231, 242, 301, 349 – chronology 231 Codex Marianus 322 coexistence of different language systems in the same text 270–276 collective noun 133–134, 151, 244, 302, 312, 314, 317, 340, 341, 369 colloquial language 188–189, 349 communication breakdown 197 communicative paradigm 52–54, 78–79 communicative situation 184–186, 318–320 compound 27, 47–48, 183 concrete noun 65, 97, 132, 208, 369 conjoined nominals 41, 42–45, 107, 230, 334–335, 340 conjunction 173–174, 241–243 connotation 215 conservative area 115–116, 241, 345 consonant clusters in final position 316 contrast 365 controller gender 311, 312, 317 copula 234–235 count noun 3, 65, 133–134, 137–138, 151, 168, 206, 244, 317, 340, 369 cˇovek Bulgarian 33–34, 170–171, 245 Cyrillic alphabet 1 Cyxun, Gennadij 300, 345–346, 362 Czech 355 Damaske¯nós Stoudíte¯s 5, 250–251, 283 damaskin literary tradition 5, 6, 70, 74, 122, 290, 294–295, 331 damaskins 5–6, 75, 248, 253, 263, 275 – archaic damaskins 248, 283–292, 294 dânsul, dânsa Romanian 347 dative 115, 176, 183–184, 229, 302–304, 351–353, 356, 357 dativus ethicus 223 default inheritance model 48–79, 136, 169, 197, 223, 233, 369 definite article 33, 60, 186, 228, 246, 263,

290, 320, 344, 352, 358, 364 – chronology 4, 98, 110, 132–133, 158, 188, 193, 243, 274, 279, 354, 357; doubleduty articles 110, 130–131, 362; forms for feminine singulars 301, 314–317, 409–414, 425–432; forms for masculine singulars 18, 70–77, 272–274, 293, 294, 301, 333; forms for plurals 301, 312–314, 415–424; oblique case forms 42, 302–310 definite description 55, 56, 235, 257, 263 definiteness 2, 4, 40, 116, 134–135, 139, 194–195, 233, 243–246, 263, 281, 292, 300–301, 319–321, 339–341, 344, 346–348, 351, 355, 357, 369 – chronology 243, 264, 291, 310, 322, 324; expression vs. content 9, 80–92, 234, 238–239, 241, 368; multiple marking 42, 45–47, 89–92, 158–164, 274–276, 288–290, 300, 301, 326, 333, 335, 337, 363; nucleus vs. periphery of the functional semantic field of definiteness 239, 279–282, 293, 366 deictic definiteness 38, 60, 94, 184–185, 223, 246, 279, 293 demonstrative pronoun 4, 33–42, 60, 85, 94–106, 108–109, 185–186, 244, 246, 270–272, 289–290, 292, 293, 301, 310, 318, 320, 347, 364, 365 denotation 55 description 55, 244, 369 determiner 165 – weak vs. strong 155 determiner-genitive language 88, 348, 351, 352, 354, 355, 357 deto Bulgarian 126–127, 223, 226–228, 242–243 deviant nominal 122, 174–184, 274–275, 285–288, 290, 292, 294, 335, 337–338, 351, 368 diffuse zone 115–116, 182, 184, 241–242, 344, 345, 355 diminutive 65, 112–113, 189

Index distributive definite description 137–138, 160, 166–168, 244, 246, 257, 279–282, 319, 323, 364 divisible 151, 244, 314, 340–341, 366, 369 dual 77, 317 Eastern dialects 47, 183, 241, 282, 298–300, 304, 307–308, 332, 340, 341, 343, 349 ecce Latin 109 edi-koj si Bulgarian 11, 16, 17, 21, 193–194, 231–233, 358 edin Bulgarian 10, 13, 17, 18, 164–166, 195–209, 211, 217–218, 244, 278, 291, 293, 327, 334 (edin-)edinstven Bulgarian 165, 234 (edin-)ednicˇu˘k Bulgarian 165, 234 edin i su˘sˇt(i) Bulgarian 107–108 edinu˘ Old Church Slavonic 291 el singur Romanian 146 elliptic nominal 127–128 emphasis 233, 351, 358, 365 emphatic pronoun 139–146, 347 equational sentence 33, 200–201, 330 error-free communication 247 eteru˘ Old Church Slavonic / Middle Bulgarian 291 etymology 247 Euthymius of Tu˘rnovo 250 evidentiality 245 exclusive conversational implicature 140–144, 231 existential construction 234–238, 279, 368 existential conversational implicature 140–144, 220–221 exophoric definiteness 60–61, 89–90, 109–110, 130–131, 160, 244, 246, 364 experiencer 78–79, 223, 226, 229 explicit expression of a description 106–109, 151–157, 167–168, 193–196, 219–222, 245, 369

465

familiar description 49, 61–63, 197, 200 feminine 116, 132–134, 138, 304–308, 312, 314–317, 336–338, 345, 369, 409–414, 425–432 final x 309 first-mention nominal 49–50, 54, 102, 109, 223 focus 49, 50–55, 78–79, 106, 121–122, 139–140, 200, 219, 229–230 gender 65, 132–134, 189, 244, 302, 340, 356, 369 generic description 3, 4, 55, 56, 57, 63–65, 79, 86–88, 93, 105, 109, 125, 138–139, 147–150, 152–157, 167, 169–184, 194–195, 200, 205, 208, 219–222, 244–246, 263, 266, 339, 341, 364 genitive 77, 135, 182–184, 351–352, 355–357 genitive-accusative 77, 302–304, 309–310 geographic terminology 328, 335, 337, 338, 345 Germanic languages 338 Gerov, Najden 6 gjith-ai Albanian 109 -gode Bulgarian 13, 19, 221–222 goljam Bulgarian 151 grammatical category 3–4, 339 grammaticality 106, 265–268, 290, 293, 368 grammaticalization 52, 109, 173, 248, 281, 310, 324, 339, 355, 356 graphic system 304 Greek 47, 109, 112, 145–146, 176, 283, 322, 326, 345, 346, 349, 362 Grice’s maxim of quantity 218, 266 Gruev, Joakim 290, 295 Hilandar damaskin 249–250, 252–254, 279–280, 306, 309, 327 homily 5 homily Epiphany 284, 289

466

Index

homily No. 1 The Ten Commandments 7 homily No. 2 St. Symeon the Stylite 7, 97, 111, 117, 119, 120, 122, 124, 128, 132, 156, 169, 209, 212, 227, 230, 232, 242, 249, 251, 305, 336, 337 homily No. 3 Birth of the Virgin 76, 97, 156, 209, 212, 227, 230, 232, 242, 249, 275, 305 homily No. 4 Elevation of the Holy Cross 97, 156, 209, 212, 227, 230, 232, 242, 250, 254, 257, 259, 273–275, 305, 327, 336 homily No. 5 St. Eusthatius 97, 156, 209, 212, 227, 230, 232, 242, 305 homily No. 6 St. John the Evangelist 156, 209, 212, 225, 227, 230, 232, 305 homily No. 7 Apostle Thomas 7, 110, 111, 119, 120, 124, 128, 132, 156, 169, 225, 227, 230, 232, 337 homily No. 8 St. Petka 7, 76, 110, 111, 119, 120, 124, 128, 156, 169. 225, 227, 230, 232, 250, 257, 258, 305, 336, 337 homily No. 9 St. Demetrius 111, 117, 119, 120, 124, 128, 132, 156, 169, 227, 230, 232, 250, 270, 275, 303, 306, 336, 337 homily No. 10 St. Cosma and St. Damian 156, 169, 227, 230, 232, 305 homily No. 11 Archangels Michael and Gabriel 156, 157, 169, 227, 230, 232, 306 homily No. 12 John Chrysostome 156, 157, 305 homily No. 13 Presentation of the Virgin 7, 110, 111, 156, 157, 251, 257, 261, 303, 305, 336 homily No. 14 St. Sabbas the Sanctified 7, 110, 111, 156, 225, 254, 273–275, 305, 327 homily No. 15 St. Nicholas 156, 250, 275, 303, 305, 312 homily No. 16 Veneration of the Holy Cross 251, 303, 305

homily No. 17 St. Mary of Egypt attributed to Sophronius 251, 275, 283, 284, 289, 304, 305 homily No. 31 On Repentance 7 homily No. 33 Birth of Jesus Christ 306 homily No. 34 Palm Sunday 305 homily No. 35 Jesus Christ’s Burial 251, 257, 260, 312, 313 homily No. 36 Apostle Philippe 156, 306 homily No. 37 St. Matthew the Evangelist 306 homily No. 38 Jesus Christ’s Ascension 306 homily No. 40 Alexius, Man of God 117, 124, 156, 305 homily St. Mary of Egypt by Damaske¯nós Stoudíte¯s 284, 288, 289, 313, 322, 325 homonymity 361 hybrid nominal 79 i Old Bulgarian 243, 363–365 *i Proto-Slavic 326 iconic sign 80 identifiability 3, 4, 48, 55, 93, 131–139, 147–148, 184–185, 194, 239, 243, 246, 319, 339, 363–365, 367 ille Latin 102, 109, 347, 348 ima Bulgarian 234–235 impersonal construction 237 implicational map 245 inalienability 97, 224, 244, 355, 357; see also possession inclusive definite description 137, 147–148, 152–157, 246, 364 inclusiveness 3, 4, 55, 93, 135, 137–139, 147, 184–185, 194, 239, 243, 246, 319, 339, 363–365, 367 indefinite article 4, 165, 196 – chronology 209, 243 indefinite description 55, 56, 62, 93, 138, 161, 194–209, 234–238, 244–245, 276, 278, 291, 331 indexical sign 80

Index individuation 134, 189, 352 individuative description 55, 94, 109, 129, 131–137, 147, 157, 194, 198, 207, 208, 244, 257, 266, 272, 279–282, 299, 319, 321, 323–324, 360–362 Indo-European 241, 318, 320 inference 109 innovative area 115–116, 241, 243, 300, 311, 344 intelligibility 100–101 intonation 53, 143 ipse Latin 102, 145, 347, 348 Isku˘r-Vit dialect 342 isogloss 341, 345 *istч Proto-Slavic 108 izafet possessive declension 358, 361, 362 izˇe Old Bulgarian 243 însumi Romanian 347 însus¸i Romanian 145–146 jat’ isogloss 341, 343 Jirecˇek line 345 kata Bulgarian 167–168 Kiev archaic damaskin 284, 322–324 kinship terminology 65, 111–117, 133, 134, 177–178, 190, 300, 301, 352, 353, 356, 359–362, 387–408 koj da e Bulgarian 10, 13, 17–19, 195 koj sˇto Bulgarian 243 kojto Bulgarian 126–127, 226, 241–243 kojto i da e Bulgarian 10, 13, 17–19, 195–196 kolko Bulgarian 151 Koprivsˇtica damaskin 114, 250, 254, 276, 309, 312 Kotel damaskin 249–253, 262, 270, 275, 276, 279–280, 302, 303, 306, 309, 312, 313, 315, 327 Krámsky´, Jirˇí 2 Krnino archaic damaskin 284, 322 Ku˘ncˇev, Pop Mincˇo 295 Ku˘rcˇovski, Joakim 295

467

language change 93–94, 179, 222, 245–248, 297–299, 303, 345–346, 368 language of folklore 145, 297 language typology 1, 79, 195, 222, 245–246, 320, 321, 324, 346, 357 language universals 1, 339 langue 255–265 lexical-morphological level 65, 189, 206–209, 224, 348, 369 -libo Middle Bulgarian 221 linguistic archaism 248, 257, 261–263, 293–294, 339, 346 linguistic geography 115, 181–184, 233, 241–242, 300, 303–304, 307–308, 313–314, 319, 340–342, 344–348, 354–355, 358 linguistic innovation 248, 257, 261–263, 293, 346 Ljubljana damaskin 250, 252–254, 262, 275, 303, 305, 309, 312, 313, 315, 327 ljucu˘k Bulgarian 328 localization of the damaskin language 77, 116, 183, 277, 301, 303, 304, 341–343, 345 locative construction 234–238, 279, 368 long-form adjective 4, 33, 67, 115, 145–146, 167, 302, 326–340, 344–345, 351, 357, 359, 363–365 Luvian-Lycian 352 Lyons, Christopher 2, 3–4, 131, 339, 355 Macedonian 4, 40, 182, 183, 317, 322–325, 344 Macedonian damaskin translation (recension) 322 marked nominals 9, 61–63, 194 masculine 74, 116, 132–134, 136, 138, 244, 302–304, 310–311, 316–317, 326–336, 345, 346, 369 mass noun 3, 65, 133–134, 137–138, 147–148, 151, 206, 208–209, 244, 302, 317, 340, 369 metaphorical sign 80

468

Index

metonymic sign 80 Middle Bulgarian 5, 6, 99, 283, 284, 289–290, 294, 351, 357, 369 Mixajlovski, Nikola 290 Mladenov, Maxim Sl. 7 mnogo Bulgarian 151 modifier 18 Moesian dialects 39, 46, 115, 146, 151, 231, 272, 274, 282, 293, 303, 304, 307–309, 317, 326–328, 331, 332, 335, 340, 345–347, 351, 354, 358, 362–367 Momcˇilov, Ivan 74–75 Moravianism 291 mu˘ka Bulgarian 269 Musina damaskin 249, 252–254, 305, 309, 327 na Bulgarian 240 Neofit Rilski 2 nesˇto 213, 245 neuter 132–134, 138, 301, 310, 336–338, 345, 369 *neˇ-Proto-Slavic 213 neˇky Old Church Slavonic 291 neˇkyji Middle Bulgarian 291 njakoj Bulgarian 10, 17, 18, 63, 195, 209–218, 278, 291 njakoj si Bulgarian 215–217, 231–233, 358 nominal phrase 2, 9–10, 42, 80, 196, 201, 234, 368 see also under Type nominative 72, 126, 304–305, 307, 309 nominative sentence 66–67 non-anaphoric context 34–39 non-divisible 151, 168, 244, 314, 317, 340–341, 366, 369 non-identifiability 194–209, 243 non-inclusiveness 194–195, 204, 209–218, 243 non-referential 55, 169 non-restrictive reading see appositive reading

non-segmented sentences 50–55, 78 non-specific description 55, 56, 63, 86–88, 93, 138, 165, 171–173, 194–195, 203–205, 207, 209–219, 233, 234, 238, 239, 244–245, 266, 272, 276, 278, 291, 293 norm 292, 294, 369 Northeastern dialects 77, 115, 233, 314, 341, 346 Northwestern dialects 146, 277 noun 2, 17–42, 45, 55, 65, 68, 173, 245, 326–339, 344–345, 351, 369 novel description 49, 61–63, 200 Novo-Selo dialect 91, 307, 316, 321–322, 324, 356 null-argument language 50 number (grammatical category) 65, 132–134, 137–138, 244, 302, 317, 356, 369 numeral 301, 304, 312, 380–386, 314, 317, 328 oba Bulgarian 157 object 65, 72, 132, 135–136, 148–149, 169–171, 181, 183, 200, 205, 223, 226–230 oblique case 183, 302, 304, 309 Old Bulgarian / Old Church Slavonic 98, 135, 167, 309, 325, 329, 336, 338, 349, 351, 355, 357, 363, 365 Old Russian 349 onu˘, oni Middle Bulgarian / Old Bulgarian 284, 290, 322, 323, 356, 365 onzi Bulgarian 10, 15, 17, 20, 21, 99 opaque context 169–170, 202, 209–210, 212, 218, 219 ovi Middle Bulgarian 322, 324 Oxrid cultural centre 299 paradigmatic unit 245 parole 254, 265–276 partitive 148–149 Pavlovicˇ, Xristaki 290, 295 pe Romanian 240

Index Pejcˇinovicˇ, Kiril 295 person (grammatical category) 40, 317–325, 347, 356, 358, 360, 369 personal determiner 41 personal pronoun 33–42, 45, 60, 85, 118, 223–233, 243, 347, 365 phrasal stress 238 plural 107, 108, 112, 132–134, 137–138, 147–148, 151, 157, 244, 309–310, 312–314, 317, 336–338, 341, 345, 369, 415–424 plu˘ti Bulgarian 270 po ai Albanian 108 possession 354 – alienable vs. inalienable 111, 112, 115–117, 122, 184, 224, 244, 340–341, 353–357, 360, 361, 366 possessivity 21–22, 25, 47–48, 88, 100–101, 115–117, 118, 122, 124, 133, 173, 176, 178, 223–228, 233, 301, 327, 328, 333–334, 340, 345, 348–361, 365, 366, 369 pragmatic dimension 49–55, 99, 135, 143–144, 197–198, 200, 210–211, 218, 219, 223, 230, 233, 245, 266, 349, 364, 365, 369 predicate 33, 56, 65, 70, 72, 108, 132, 135–136, 170, 200–202, 205, 269 preposition 173–180, 368 prepositional phrase 28–31, 77, 125, 175, 349 present tense 57 Preslav cultural centre 299 progressive innovation 344 pronoun 2, 10–16, 33–42, 47, 63–65, 77–79, 139–146, 170–171, 176, 223–233, 245, 351, 369 proper name 2, 3, 55, 65, 134, 139, 188–192, 300, 302, 328, 335, 337, 338, 340, 360 property 55 protasis 125 Proto-Bulgarian 358 Proto-Indo-European 352, 354, 357

469

Proto-Slavic 40, 94, 108, 140, 145, 174, 183, 213, 239, 241, 326, 345, 351, 352, 355, 357, 369 proverb 171 proximity 325 quantifier 6–27, 77, 107, 151–157, 195, 301 – proportional vs. non-proportional 91, 155–166, 168, 196, 244, 369 quantitative definite description 137, 152–157, 194, 207, 239, 244, 257 quasi-address form 177–178 recension 251, 262 reduction of unstressed vowels 309 reduplication 126 referent 55, 190, 360–361 – human vs. non-human 38–39, 97 reflexive pronoun 146, 225–226, 231–233, 302, 358 regressive innovation 344–345 reinterpretation 265 relative clause 31–32, 241, 365 relative pronoun 241–243, 300, 302, 340 renarrated mood 209, 212 rephrasing 268–269, 289, 291 restrictive reading 80–89, 117, 119, 121, 124–129, 147, 171, 187, 188, 191, 336–338, 352, 355, 361, 363, 365 rheme 49 Rhodope dialects 52, 243, 307, 317–318, 322, 326, 340, 344–346, 362–363 Romance languages 92, 102, 109, 136, 223, 240, 346–348, 359 Romanian 47, 109, 112, 122, 136–137, 145–146, 171, 176, 177, 221, 240, 347, 362 rule generalization 188–189 Rupa dialects 47, 115, 127, 146, 182, 184, 189, 277, 282, 300, 303, 307–308, 313, 316, 317, 327, 340–341, 349, 354, 362–367 Russian 87, 94, 122, 191, 234, 355 Russian Church Slavonic 331

470

Index

salience 102, 144 sam(ijat) Bulgarian 11, 15–17, 20, 139–146, 231, 233, 347, 358 samo Bulgarian 165, 234 samsi Bulgarian 145–146, 231–233, 358 *samч Proto-Slavic 140 *samчjц Proto-Slavic 145 scalar conversational implicature 140–144, 220–221 S-curve 93–94, 129, 139, 245, 369 second-mention nominal 102 segmented sentence 50–55, 78 semantic dimension 55–65, 139, 143–144, 190, 194–195, 198–205, 219, 233, 245, 364, 369 semiotics 8, 80 sentence 228 Serbian 182, 324, 356 Serbian orthographic norms 6 Serbo-Croatian 355 set phrases 165, 177 short-form adjectives 115, 326–339, 351, 365, 366 si Bulgarian 145, 194, 215, 223–225, 231–233, 358 sibi Latin 109, 145 single-article system 290, 302, 317–325, 348, 433–436 singular 137–138, 147, 157, 369 situationally unique description 55, 137, 165, 184–188, 244, 246, 255, 257, 279–282, 319–321, 324, 360, 361, 364, 365 si Middle Bulgarian / Old Bulgarian 284, 290, 322, 324, 365 Slovak 355 Slovenian 355 slovo Bulgarian 5 sociolinguistic situation 295 Sofronij, Bishop of Vraca 253, 290 South Slavic 108, 221, 277, 344 Southern dialects 115, 233, 314, 345 Southwestern dialects 52, 146, 183, 282, 313, 340

specialized marker of definiteness 80, 89–92, 115, 164, 195, 240, 281, 323, 363, 368 specialized marker of possessivity 352–355 specific description 3, 55, 63–65, 86–88, 125, 148, 157, 165, 171, 173–183, 194, 200, 213–215, 233, 240, 245, 276, 339, 341, 358 Sredna-Gora damaskin translation (recension) 283 style 175, 201, 266, 270, 290, 349, 351 – nominal vs. verbal 100 subject 65, 70, 72, 76, 132, 135–136, 169–171, 181, 205, 233, 294, 304 subjective perspective 143–144 substratum 1, 346–347 superstatum 1 su˘sˇt(ijat) Bulgarian 17, 106–109, 146, 328 svet(i) Bulgarian 331–332 svetija Bulgarian 331–332 Svisˇtov damaskin 181–182, 220, 250–252, 254, 272–280, 284, 288–289, 304–306, 309, 313, 315, 322–323, 327, 351 svoj Bulgarian 224 syntagmatic role 245 syntax 65–79, 121, 132, 135–137, 144, 169, 189, 204–205, 223, 228, 231, 245, 309–310, 348, 349, 369 synthetic nominal 174–184, 302–310, 339, 351, 356, 357 sˇto(to) Bulgarian 126–127, 223, 226–228, 242–243 target gender 311, 312, 317 terms for residents of a locality 65 text register 37, 56–59, 137–138, 166–172, 203, 206, 238, 239, 243, 245, 321 textological archaism 257, 261–263, 268, 309 textological innovation 257, 261–263, 266, 268, 273, 274, 294, 309

Index textology 247–296, 368 të dy Albanian 157 theme 49 theta role 66 Thrace dialects 52 three-dimensional model of change 139, 245–246, 340, 364 three-way article system 284, 301, 302, 317–325, 339, 348, 433–436, 341 Tixonravov damaskin 6, 248–252, 254, 262, 270, 284, 294, 327 – togazi section 6, 128, 145, 158, 222, 248, 251, 275, 283, 302, 304, 305, 309, 312, 351, 368; togiva section 6, 128, 145, 165, 222 -to Bulgarian 241, 302 Tocharian 352 togazi Bulgarian 6 togiva Bulgarian 6 topic 49, 50–55, 78–79, 197, 200, 230 topic of discourse 102–106 topicalization 54, 91, 106 Torlak dialect 183 tozi Bulgarian 10, 14–15, 17, 99, 241 Transitional dialects 277, 307, 309, 316, 317, 340 transitive verb 181 translation 290–292 transparent context 209–210, 218 Trojan damaskin 249–251, 253, 254, 262, 270–272, 275, 276, 305, 306, 309, 312, 327 Turkic languages 357–359, 361, 362 Turkish 224, 332–333, 349, 356, 358, 359, 361 tu˘, ti Middle / Old Bulgarian 284, 290, 309, 322, 361, 365 Tu˘rnovo Literary School 322 two-way article system 318 Type 0 nominals 10–16, 63–65, 77–79, 85, 95, 97, 118, 123, 128–129, 137, 139–146, 151, 176, 223–233 Type 1 nominals 17–21, 139–146, 151, 201

471

Type 2 nominals 21–22, 88–89, 111–117, 130, 133, 151, 176, 187, 191, 231, 233, 300, 387–408, 348–357, 365 Type 3 nominals 22–23, 80, 85–86, 117–118, 130, 187, 188, 191, 355, 365 Type 4 nominals 23–25, 73, 80, 85–86, 118–119, 121, 130, 187, 190–192, 201, 223, 321, 326–339, 348–357, 363, 365, 366 Type 5 nominals 25, 69, 73, 80, 85–86, 119–123, 130, 187, 191, 223, 321, 328, 335, 337–338, 348–357, 363, 365, 366 Type 6 nominals 26–27, 177 Type 7 nominals 27, 188, 326, 328, 332–333, 335, 340 Type 8 nominals 28–31, 80, 85–86, 100, 123–125, 130, 174–184, 187, 191, 199–201, 223, 231, 300, 302, 348–357, 365 Type 9 nominals 29–31, 80, 85–86, 125–129, 130, 187, 191, 201, 365 Type 10 nominals 31–32 typifying description 55, 56, 93, 169–184, 194–196, 198–205, 207, 218–222, 234, 237, 238, 245, 266, 276, 278–282, 293, 319 *tч Proto-Slavic 40, 94, 241, 243 Ukrainian 277 unique referent 3, 55, 56, 93, 97, 138–139, 178, 184–195, 206, 235, 244, 246, 263, 319, 335–336, 364, 366 universal marker of definiteness 80, 89–92, 115, 240, 281, 323, 363, 368 universal marker of possessivity 351–353, 355–357 unmarked nominal 9, 63, 194 variation 247, 297–343, 355, 365 – free variation 93, 102, 151, 196, 265, 293–294, 307, 309 Vazov, Ivan 6

472

Index

Veljuv damaskin 251–253, 272, 274, 306, 309, 327 verb 173 verbal aspect 56, 238–239, 368 – imperfective 160; perfective 147–149 vetë, vetja Albanian 145–146 vocal harmony 310–311 vocative 69, 177–178, 297–298, 328, 337, 338 vseki Bulgarian 10, 17, 167–168, 328 (v)sicˇki(jat) Bulgarian 10, 14, 17, 19, 21, 151–157, 168, 302, 341 West European languages 209 West Slavic 171, 277 Western dialects 46, 47, 115, 182, 184, 233, 341, 243, 298–300, 303,

307–308, 314, 317, 324, 327, 340, 341, 343, 349, 355 word formation 173–184, 237, 245, 349, 356 word order 9–10, 32, 42, 52, 53, 108, 121–123, 124, 223, 225, 229, 230–232, 238, 268–269, 335 zaradi Bulgarian 240 zˇe Old Bulgarian 243 Zˇeravna damaskin 250, 264–265, 327 ⇔« Greek 109 «  Greek 109, 145–146 f  « Greek 99  « Greek 109, 146    Greek 157