Aspects of Nominal Determination in Old Church Slavic [Reprint 2012 ed.] 9783110888379, 9789027932426

Citation preview

SLAVISTIC PRINTINGS AND REPRINTINGS edited by C. H. VAN S C H O O N E V E L D Indiana University

172

ASPECTS OF NOMINAL DETERMINATION IN OLD CHURCH SLAVIC by M I C H A E L S. F L I E R University of California Los Angeles

1974 MOUTON THE HAGUE · PARIS

© Copyright 1974 in The Netherlands Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 72-88186

Printed in Hungary

To My Grandmother, Sarah Burnkrant

PREFACE

Studies dealing wholly or in part with the distribution of long and short adjectives in Old Church Slavic have not produced satisfactory results because of a basic failure on the part of investigators to take the following considerations into account: (1) that the distribution of nonpredicate adjectives is closely linked with quantificational and referential semantic features defining the modified noun and can only be treated as a part of this interconnected system of relations; (2) that the notion of "Old Church Slavic" as a language is obscured by assigning each of the extant texts equal value, regardless of the tradition or dialect upon which a given text is based; (3) that the texts all represent imperfect manifestations of the underlying norm because of scribal errors, emendations, internal Slavic drift, and external Greek influence; and (4) that the texts may be rendering different Greek sources. This investigation has been limited to the referential features and their close connection with adjectival form in Old Church Slavic. These features, dominated by the semantic category "noun phrase" (NP), are shown to underlie Old Church Slavic forms traditionally called indefinite pronouns, indefinite adjectives, demonstrative pronouns, possessive adjectives, and personal pronouns. Features of quantification are mentioned at various points during the discussion. The introduction contains a schematic outline of my present conception of grammatical theory and an explanation of various symbols and abbreviations used in the text. The notion of an autonomous syntax is rejected in favor of a generative semantic model in concert with recent trends in the transformational movement. In Chapter I the notion of "Old Church Slavic" is clarified. Emphasis is placed on the influence of the original Greek sources, both from a deep structural and stylistic point of view. Scribal errors, phonetic interference, and contraction are discussed in terms of their possible effect on the textual manifestations of adjectives.

8

PREFACE

Chapter II is concerned with the notion of "noun phrase" in Old Church Slavic and the elaboration of a basic nominal hierarchy of features, the N-hierarchy, underlying lexical nouns. Seen against a background of the interplay between objective and subjective perception, the expansion of this major hierarchy of features results in the evolution of the referential hierarchy and the possibility of nominal determination. The pronoun *j- is discussed in terms of the close relationship between attributive adjectives and restrictive relative clauses. The next three chapters contain the results of an analysis of all the non-predicate adjectives occurring in the four Gospel texts: Codex Marianus, Codex Zographensis, Codex Assemanianus, and Savvina kniga. They are grouped formally and semantically into adjectives of affiliation and apposition (Chapter III), adjectives derived from or modifying nouns denoting unique entities (Chapter IV), and adjectives modifying common nouns or undergoing nominalization (Chapter V). By indicating various scribal errors, possible contractions, different Greek lections, and editorial errors, I have attempted to show that the distribution of long and short adjectives in Old Church Slavic is quite regular, despite pressure from native Slavic trends toward the establishment of long-form attributes and short-form predicates. Particularly important is the separate analysis of plural and non-plural nominalizations. The latter obey the patterning of the attributive adjectives while the former not only neutralize the semantic distinction between long and short forms, but have an effect on plural attributes as well. The results of the analysis are summarized in Chapter VI. Groups of adjectives cited only in part in the text proper are listed in full in the appendix following Chapter VI. An index of Old Church Slavic readings cited in both the text and the appendix follows. I wish to acknowledge the help and encouragement of Professors Francis J. Whitfield, Robert H. Whitman, and Wallace L. Chafe of the University of California, Berkeley, who read the entire manuscript and offered many valuable suggestions for its improvement. As my first teacher of Old Church Slavic, Professor Whitfield continually practiced in his descriptive apparatus the self-consistency, exhaustiveness, and simplicity promulgated by his Danish colleague, Louis Hjelmslev, thus providing a worthy model for emulation. The many stimulating discussions with Professor Whitman encouraged me to continually sharpen and clarify the theoretical framework with which I was operating. It was Professor Chafe's provocative investigations of contemporary grammatical theory that led me to reject autonomous syntax as a component

PREFACE

9

separated from semantics. I would also like to thank Professors Henrik Birnbaum, Alexander Isacenko, and Dean Worth, my colleagues at UCLA, for reading parts of the manuscript and spending many hours discussing various points contained therein. While I accepted many, but not all, of the suggestions made by the readers of the manuscript, I, of course, remain responsible for any errors which may have remained. I am indebted as well to Laura Gould of the University of California Machine Translation Project, who helped me write a computer program for a textual and grammatical concordance of the Codex Marianus, to the Inter-University Committee on Travel Grants (now the International Research and Exchanges Board) for providing me the opportunity to conduct research on Old Church Slavic syntax at Moscow State University in 1966-67, and to Elyse Katz, who helped in the preparation of the Indexes and the final editing of the manuscript. University of California Los Angeles July, 1970

CONTENTS

Preface

7

List of abbreviations and special symbols

13

Transliteration table

17

Introduction

19

I. On defining the notion "Old Church Slavic" Introduction The status of Greek influence The status of extant manuscripts The determination of a norm for Old Church Slavic

31 31 32 40 50

II. The noun phrase in Old Church Slavic Introduction The N-hierarchy The referential hierarchy kbto-cbto nekbto-necbto [DEF] The possessive pronouns Pronominal features

53 53 53 55 62 63 65 72 75

III. Adjectives of affiliation and apposition Introduction Adjectives of location and nationality in bsk Adjectives of location in ov Adjectives of location in j Adjectives in bsk and ov referring to sects Adjectives derived from proper names Adjectives derived from common nouns

79 79 83 89 89 91 92 95

12

CONTENTS

IV. Adjectives derived from and modifying nouns with unique reference Introduction Religious concepts Social concepts Temporal and spatial concepts V. Adjectives modifying common nouns or undergoing nominalization Introduction Indefinite nouns Specific nouns Definite nouns Vocatives Anaphoric nouns with immediate antecedents Anaphoric nouns without immediate antecedents Nouns with deixis Generalized nouns Nominalizations Plural nominalizations and plural attributes

103 103 104 120 123

137 137 138 145 151 152 153 156 158 160 163 170

VI. Conclusions

175

Appendix

179

Selected bibliography

229

Index of readings cited

237

Index of authors cited

247

L I S T OF A B B R E V I A T I O N S A N D S Y M B O L S

A Acc. AFFIL ATTRIB CONJ Dat. DEF DEM du. DU EQUIV Fem. FEM Gen. Gk. IMF INDEF Inst. Jn Lk Loc. Μ Masc. MASC Mk Mt Ν Neut. NP Nom.

Codex Assemanianus accusative case affiliation attribution conjunction dative case definite demonstrative dual dual equivalence feminine feminine genitive case Greek imperfect indefinite instrumental case John Luke locative case Codex Marianus masculine masculine Mark Matthew nominal semantic category neuter noun phrase nominative case

14

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

NT OCS ord pi. PL QUAL repl S SK SPEC TNS U-adjectives V Voc. VP χ Ζ

New Testament Old Church Slavic reorder bracketed items plural plural qualification replace sentence Savvina kniga specific tense adjectives derived from or modifying unique norms verbal semantic category vocative case verb phrase time, e.g. 2x=two times Codex Zographensis

— [ ]

The form under discussion is underlined In the text, used to indicate phonetic transcription; in citations, used to enclose portions of the cited text matched by variant readings in other texts Used to enclose interpolated parts of ligatures, e.g., b Used to indicate Greek variants cited in F. H. von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments... In the text, used to cite reconstructed forms; in citations, used as an index to mark both those texts with more than one variant and the variants themselves Used as an index to link two or more sets of brackets [ ] with the appropriate text and its variant readings In citations, used to enclose forms or letters reconstructed by editors; in translations, used to enclose English forms translating elliptical forms in OCS Used to enclose forms marked by Jagic as erroneously included by the scribe first person second person Used to connect English words translating one OCS word, e.g. vamb = 'to-you'

( ) (S) *

superscript ( )

II II I II —

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

15

Used after an English word or words to indicate that a multi-word OCS combination is being translated; each occurrence of + indicates that an additional word is being translated as well, e.g. isplbitb s? 'will-be-filled+' alternates with is rewritten as disjunction

TRANSLITERATION

TABLE

The codices Marianus, Zographensis, and Assemanianus are all written in the Glagolitic alphabet, while Savvina kniga is written in the Cyrillic alphabet. All the editions, however, are reproduced in Cyrillic. The transliteration from Cyrillic into Latin letters will be as follows: λ- a K-b κ -V r-g A-d e- e JK- ζ s- 3 3- Z I- I ϊ-Ϊ 1 -1 H- i h-g Κ-K

Λ-1 μ- m Η- Η

0- ο π-ρ ί>-Γ t -S T-t ογ — u 8- ύ φ-f

Μ -C 111- S Tv — •Μ - y h- b •K- e w- ü Μ- ä Α— ς Δ- Ε Δ- S Λ- ρ

Χ- Χ

ΊΑ- E

ιυ- ω ψ- s u,-c

(Α- Ρ

ν- υ

INTRODUCTION

0.1. On examining the various articles and monographs concerned wholly or in part with the usage of the long-form adjective in Old Church Slavic (hereafter OCS), one comes away with the impression that the material has been treated in isolation without regard for the possible underlying connections between such superficially disparate elements as the longform adjective, the indefinite pronouns, the pronominal adjectives, and the personal pronouns. After working directly with the material of the OCS Gospel texts I feel intuitively that there are systematic ties between these elements at deeper levels in the structure. 0.2. Initially I attempted to treat the relationships between them in terms of the transformational approach elaborated by Noam Chomsky in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.1 It soon became clear that the emphasis on rules which provide correct surface structure representation became the overriding goal of the analysis to the detriment of relations I felt to be present in the underlying structure. Units underlying morphemes like s- 'this' or t- 'that' were merely placed in paradigms whose members were mutually disjunctive without regard to the possible explanation for such disjunction. 0.3. No doubt my conviction that a central syntactic component was the bridge between interpretive semantic and phonological components caused me to place a higher value on the syntactic categories and their place in the derivation of a sentence than on the semantic features and relations underlying them. I therefore attempted to reevaluate my intuitive notions about OCS nominal determiners on the basis of the implicational relationships holding between them, feeling that there were probably universal properties at work which might be manifested in OCS as well. In this approach I worked along lines similar to those recently articulated by Wallace Chafe, George Lakoff, James McCawley and oth1

(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1965).

20

INTRODUCTION

ers in sympathy with the current movement toward a generative semantic framework. 0.4. The OCS Gospel texts, which I utilize in the present work, represent, of course, a limited, finite corpus, in many cases lacking the kind of empirical evidence I require to support my claims concerning the underlying representation of the nominal determination system. The absence of empirical evidence does not, of course, refute the hypothesis; at the same time it does not allow for confirmation either. Where possible I have relied on direct or indirect evidence to support my conclusions. Otherwise I have had to rely on intuition alone. This is, admittedly, the weakest form of argument, but the claims I make about aspects of the system of nominal determination in OCS undoubtedly have validity in other languages as well and can be verified or refuted wherever refuted whenever recourse to native intuition is possible. Nonetheless, the very hypothesizing of such underlying relationships can be useful in alerting future investigators to problems not previously considered in all their complexity and still requiring empirical documentation, specifically for OCS. 0.5. Particularly surprising to me in the course of my investigation was the lack of concern on the part of investigators for possible textual ereors, either haphazard or systematic. When one considers the many scribal insertions, erasures, and phonetically motivated orthographical representations present in all the texts, one wonders how such considerations could have possibly been overlooked entirely. In the following discussion of long-form adjectives I have pointed out what appear to be incorrect segmentations of the continuous OCS text by the modern editors. In these cases they seem to have disregarded the lections in the original Greek sources. I have also proposed, in the case of adjectives, that many apparent short forms may very well be the result of the assimilation and contraction of vowels following the loss of intervocalic yod. This proposal is offered only tentatively, again with the obvious limitation that it cannot be proved or disproved on the basis of the texts. Only a comprehensive statistical study of assimilation and contraction in particular environments in the individual OCS texts will provide us with evidence tending to confirm or refute this tentative proposal. It is offered as a useful suggestion to be followed up sometime in the future. 0.6. Except for the discussion of the OCS noun phrase in Chapter II, I have attempted to keep the hypothetical and more speculative opinions to a minimum, mentioning them only in passing. Of course, the very fact

INTRODUCTION

21

that the OCS corpus is finite forces the investigator to speculate to a certain degree beyond the range of facts it provides. I shall document my statements wherever possible with empirical data. 0.7. Before proceeding directly to the substantive material under discussion, I believe it is necessary to outline briefly my current thinking with regard to linguistic theory and the model constructed according to its principles. Only with this orientation will the reader be able to clearly comprehend the place of the OCS noun phrase in the overall system. 0.8. The conception of contemporary linguistics as "the science of language" is predicated on the assumption that the numerous human languages of the world, both extent and extinct, are only the perceptible manifestations of an abstract unity called "human language". The ultimate goal of linguistics is a theory of language, of the structural principles according to which all languages are designed. Following Hjelmslev, the theory must be arbitrary and appropriate: "arbitrary" in the sense that its premises will be independently posited and not bound by the empirical data at hand; "appropriate" in the sense that all the hypotheses needed to explicate the empirical data are derivable from the theoretical premises.2 Appropriateness is guaranteed by the "empirical principle", which checks a description based on the theory for self-consistency, exhaustiveness, and simplicity, in that order. 3 I agree with Chomsky's proposal that the model or grammar of a language will be a description of what he calls the "competence" of the ideal speaker-hearer, his intrinsic knowledge of the language, and not his "performance", the actual use of the language in concrete situations.4 Nonetheless, it is probably true that competence is not static, as Chomsky's presentation would suggest, but dynamic in the sense that it evolves as a result of the speakerhearer's increased perception and differentiation of the world, albeit along certain fixed dimensions, the logical progression of which the linguist attempts to reconstruct. 0.9. As can be gathered from the discussion above, I reject the notion of an autonomous central syntax, which, of necessity relegates semantics to a position of secondary importance. A consequence of that view has been an emphasis on syntactic categories to the detriment of the underlying relations which hold the linguistic fabric together and indeed determine the very units which may occurs as terminals in a relation. 2

Louis Hjelmslev, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, trans, by Francis J. Whitfield (Rev. English ed., Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963), 10-11, 14. 3 Hjelmslev, Prolegomena, 11. 4 Aspects, 3-4.

22

INTRODUCTION

. . . [A] totality does not consist of things but of relationships... The postulation of objects as something different from the terms of relationships is a superfluous axiom.. . 5

The units and relations holding between them thus determine the category and not vice-versa. 0.10.1 accept Chomsky's notion that the grammar of a language, as a model of competence, is able to generate the infinite set of well-formed sentences comprising the language, assigning to each sentence a structural description.6 Explication will proceed with the sentence as the minimal unit of language able to independently stand without the frame-work of connected discourse and context. For the present; terms like "sentence" will have to be defined on the basis of their constitutional make-up, viz. in terms of the units and relations they dominate. 0.11. The grammar will consist of (1) a SEMANTIC COMPONENT, which will define the relations holding between hierarchies of semantic features and will include a lexicon, consisting of an inventory of lexical items; (2) a TRANSFORMATIONAL COMPONENT, which will convert semantic component representations into linear surface structures; and (3) a PHONOLOGICAL COMPONENT, which will contain a partially ordered set of cyclical rules converting systematic phonemic representations provided by the lexicon into systematic phonetic ones with consideration for the labeled bracketings of the surface structure. 0.12. As I presently conceive the semantic component of the grammar Sentence) will be partitioned into two groups of categories defined by their dominated feature hierarchies and their relationship to S: (1) those feature hierarchies characterizing the nominal and verbal categories and (2) those characterizing the perspectival organization (FRAME) of the entire sentence, involving such notions as style, emphasis, tense, modality, and topicalization (selection of subject, object, etc.), viz. the determination of the perspective from which the message manifested by S is viewed. The effect of the FRAME is felt in the order of surface structure units, the choice of equivalent semantic units, the relaxation of phonological rules, the choice of intonation pattern, etc.7 0.13. The semantic component is conceived as a relatively skeletal structure which utilizes its basic relations and features to derive new ones, β

Hjelmslev, Prolegomena, 23.

β

Aspects,

'

cf. Dean S. Worth, "Suprasyntactics" in Horace G. Lunt, ed., Proceedings of the

4-5.

Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., 1962 (The Hague: Mouton

& Co., 1964), 698-705.

INTRODUCTION

23

in this way expanding the system and providing it with greater expressive power. The level of representation which I have called surface structure, following Chomsky, is seen as the end product of the derivation in the content plane. 0.14. S is partitioned into the semantic categories Ν and V as well as the FRAME. These dominate hierarchies of semantic features representing the expansion of general features into more specific ones. These features will be called "lexical" since almost unlimited partitioning is allowed along certain branches of the hierarchy if the language in question chooses to provide symbolic representation for such further partitioning, hence increasing the inventory of lexical items in the lexicon. In this sense hierarchies underlying the nominal and verbal categories are "openended". Ν dominates the hierarchy of features subsumed under "thingness" (Russian predmetnosf)·, Κ dominates the hierarchy subsumed under "state", one of whose derivations is "action", seen as a continuous progression of states in time. I do not utilize the usual phrase-marker representations seen in Chomskyan transformational studies (see figure 1) since such representations make secondary the relations holding between Ν and V, linguistic facts which I consider primary. In my schematization below verbs are represented as nuclear entities which contract relations with nouns. S

Ν

V Fig. 1

0.15. Chomsky has offered strong evidence to support the claim that verbs (I have in mind a category subsuming both traditional verbs and certain adjectives) are sub-categorized according to nominal features and not vice-versa.8 In being so subcategorized, however, the verb carries a valence imposing certain features onto the nouns with which the verb contracts relations. In (la-b) the verb drank imposes the feature [ANIMATE] on the noun with which it contracts an agent relation. (1)

8

(a) The boy drank the milk, (b) The table drank the milk.

Aspects, 9 0 ff.

24

INTRODUCTION

In (la) one feels no violation of grammatical rules since the verbal valence imposes [ANIMATE] onto the noun and the noun itself is marked for animacy. This is not so in the case of table. But notice that if (lb) is to be interpreted at all table must take on animacy. The noun cannot impose its inanimate feature specification onto the verb. In the discussion on subcategorization Chomsky showed that "grammatical functions" like "subject" and "object" are important, but relegated them in his ultimate scheme to positions of secondary importance, predictable results of certain phrase-marker configurations. These functions or relations holding between nouns and verbs, it seems to me, are what "hold the sentence together" and should therefore occupy a prominent position in the derivation of sentences. Ignoring conjunction, one can show that only one V and several TV's may cooccur under the immediate domination of S in OCS, the V contracting a different semantic relation with each N. For example, (2)

(a) Mk 14 : 68 ι kokoti» vbspetb

(1 Ν)

'and cock crowed' (b) Lk 15 : 27 zakla ot(b)cT> tvoi teleci» upiteny

(2 N)

'slaughtered father thy calf the-fatted' (c) Jn 10 : 28 azi> zivott vectnyi dap imn>

(3 Ν)

Ί life the-eternal give to-them' On the basis of such material it seems more appropriate to accord V a central position in the expansion of S. Notice that the grammatical device which allows for the expression of nominal subcategorization of V's should not be interpreted as supporting a view that the category V exists prior to the relation or the particular Ν with which it contracts the relation. The relation determines the possible hierarchies of nominal and verbal features which can cooccur as terminals. Under the domination of S, however, the relations seem to interconnect in the verb, the presence of some relations dependent on the presence of others. After Chafe 9 I shall call the relations holding between major semantic categories like Ν, V, and S "axes", although my use of the term is broader, including relations underlying case relationships and therefore the manifestation of certain prepositions. I shall slightly modify this notion of axis below. 9 Wallace L. Chafe, "Explorations in the theory of language", MS (1966), p. 60 ff. On the notion of case grammar see now Charles J. Fillmore, "The case for case", Emmon Bach and Robert Harms, eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Inc., 1968), 1-88.

25

INTRODUCTION

0.16. Present in every language are what I call "non-lexical" features, units which comprise hierarchies clustering around hierarchies of lexical features and relating them to the overall sentence. Mood, tense, and aspect, for example, give perspective to the sentence, providing a background against which the interrelation of nominal and verbal elements can be more precisely characterized. Clustered around the noun are nonlexical features like [PLURAL] and [INDEFINITE], These units form a limited set; their hierarchies are not open-ended like those underlying lexical units. The semantic category Ν plus the non-lexical features cooccurring with it comprise a noun phrase (NP); the semantic category along with the axes and NP's associated with them comprise a verb phrase (VP). Axial relations will thus hold between the semantic categories NP, VP and S. s

V

NP

NP

NP

Ν

Ν

Ν

Fig. 2

I follow Chomsky in allowing NP to dominate Ν and S,10 thus permitting the multiple embeddings characteristic of natural language. 0.17. Depending upon the extent of partitioning of features, certain units of the surface structure may be symbolized in such a way as to be marked or unmarked for an underlying feature. If a morpheme is marked, the presence of the feature in the underlying representation is specified If unmarked, its specification in the hierarchy is unknown, but is potentially specifiable through verbal valences. In English, for example, one can imagine the feature [THING] being further specified by the feature [ANIMATE] and [ANIMATE] allowing for the differentiation of the features [MASC(uline)], [FEM(inine)], and [HUMAN], 10 It is possible that 5, as presently constituted, is a superfluous unit and that VP actually dominates both axial relations and the FRAME. This is an empirical question which goes beyond the bounds of the present discussion, however, and thus the S—VP distinction is kept.

26

INTRODUCTION

Ν I

(THING]

I

[ANIMATE]

[MASC] = [FEM]

[HUMAN]

Fig. 3

The double bar between [MASC] and [FEM] in figure 3 denotes disjunction; thus [ANTIMATE] can be further specified by expansion to [MASC] or [FEM] but not to both simultaneously. Figure 3 represents the skeletal hierarchy which probably underlies such English nouns as man, woman, boy, and girl. The hierarchy in figure 4 would underlie man. and boy, that in figure 5 woman and girl. —

[THING]

I

[ANIMATE]

[MASC]

man,

[HUMAN]

boy

Fig. 4

[THING]

I

[ANIMATE]

[FEM]

[HUMAN]

woman.

gir)

Fig. 5

But notice that the phonological representation of man in the sense of 'male human being' is the same as that symbolizing man in the sense of 'mankind'. From the string of expression units alone there is no way of knowing whether the hierarchy symbolized is specified or unspecified for the feature [MASC]. Woman, on the other hand, is always marked, referring to 'female human being'. Boy and girl are likewise marked for their respective genders. In the grammar of English the two senses of man would be distinct, one specifying the feature [MASC], the other not. The lexicon, however, would allow the phonological representation man (represented in non-redundant feature matrices) to be associated with either hierarchy derived by the grammar, thus allowing for the ambiguity and unmarkedness of man. Only in association with other semantic units would the ambiguity be resolved, e.g. with an article man would imply

INTRODUCTION

27

'male human being' and not 'mankind'. I shall later show that OCS has the same sort of skeletal hierarchy of nominal features. 0.18. In the course of the exposition illustrative material will be drawn from Old Church Slavic and English. Unless otherwise indicated the OCS source will be the Codex Marianus. The following abbreviations will be used for citing sources: Μ (Codex Marianus), Ζ (Codex Zographensis), A (Codex Assemanianus), and SK (Savvina kniga). 11 Gospel citations will be abbreviated as follows: Mt (Matthew), Mk (Mark), Lk (Luke), Jn (John), followed by chapter number, colon, and verse number. Variant readings are normally given only for the particular form under discussion. Unless important to the analysis variant orthographical minutiae, word order, lexical doublets, etc. will not be mentioned. 0.19. The following conventions will be followed in the citation of variant readings. Square brackets - [ ] - will surround those forms in the main citation (other than the one underlined) which show variant counterparts in the other texts. The abbreviation for the text showing the variant reading will be followed by square brackets enclosing the variant and information concerning the change to be made. (3)

Mk 1 : 05 vbse iiideiska strana - M,A; tiideiskae - Z,SK

The Marianus reading is cited since Μ is the first source listed. The short form appears in Μ and A, while the long form occurs in Ζ and SK with the Ζ variant cited. (4)

Lk 14 :01 v i dornt [edinogo] k t r ^ a fariseiska - M,A [repl eteral], SK

In (4) M,A, and SK all have the short-form adjective but A replaces edinogo with etera. Instructions inside the square brackets will read as 11 V. Jagic, ed., Quattuor evangeliorum versionis palaeoslovenicae Codex Marianus glagoliticus (Mariinskoe cetveroevangelie s primecanijami i prilozenijami (Berlin and St. Petersburg, 1883), Photomechanic reprint (Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1960); idem, ed., Quattuor evangeliorum codex glagoliticus olim Zographensis nunc Petropolitanus (Berlin, 1879), Photomechanic reprint (Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1954); Josef Vajs (I) and Josef Kurz (I—II), eds., Evangeliorum Assemani: Codex Vaticanus 3. slavicus glagoliticus (2 vols., Prague: CAV, 1929 [I], 1955 [II]); Vjaceslav Scepkin, ed., Savvina kniga, Pamjatniki staroslavjanskogo jazyka, v. I, 2 (St. Petersburg, 1903), Photomechanic reprint (Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1959).

28

INTRODUCTION

follows: repl 'replace with the following', omit 'omit the following, add 'add the following', ord 'reorder the forms enclosed within the brackets as follows (integers representing the shift in order will follow)' If a given instruction is to apply to more than one source, each source is preceded by an asterisk, as is the instruction. If more than one change is to be made, each set of square brackets in the main citation bears a superscript which reappears in the directions. (5) below illustrates the use of these conventions. (5)

Lk 12 : 16 c