The meaning of the Finite Verb Forms in the Old Church Slavonic Codex Suprasliensis: A Synchronic Study 9783110876642, 9789027930125

Citation preview

Corrigenda for T. H. Amse-De Jong The Meaning of the Finite Verb Forms in the OCS Codex Suprasliensis

1. Page 37, ex. (15) for "KecapN&v" read "KecapHw." 2. Page 87, 7th line from top for "e9vapxia" read "¿Svapxia"

3. Page 90, 2nd alinea, last line for "ferent" read "different" 4. Page 94, 3rd line from top for " / h o i i h a - t V read " m m - a - t V 5. Page 99, no. 5, last line for "The aorist is not attested" read "The aorist of attested."

n. £ K 'he descended from A to B'). For a more explicit description of the determination opposition, the reader is referred to 1.14. It is obvious that those verbal roots which indicate only telic events do so also when a prefix is added and that those verbal roots which indicate only atelic events do so as well when a prefix is added. Finally, it is most important to realize that the description given here of the various sorts of verbal root in OCS need by no means be valid for a translation into another language. For the verbal root ^jhth/ Ak (tdCnd/lH

'He started off with them to that place. All the people walked there with him ... finally they descended into the cave.' The imperfect provides a number of "stills" from the journey from A (the point of departure) to B (the cave). (51)

40,18

H le/trHiue it 3d k m c m

trhBA3dBrHIU6

Bd'bqddx* ' nddHAUJTd Be^-fedx*

K*h HOrd/Hd PDBOY BJKHI0-

'They seized him by his hair, and then [you could see them] drag him away and thus bring him, bound in chains, to the feet of the servant of God.' Here, too, we see "stills" from the journey from the point of departure, A , to the feet of the servant of God, B. (52)

205,19

iHHcrdui'^H x e (WbneHara oNd cddBiiNdra At^atd* He H,vfcdCTd

( l f f b K A 6 B t riO/MT-Tv KTv l^Oy' dWT8 H8 0dNO Bk 3 Op A IIIrkA'fcUJd K t n^'fanoAOBhHOYOY'jtioY noKddNHCTd CA ledioy H TdKO Bddrot/tOBhieNHie

BhSlwUlillId' 0TrhX®'KAddCTd PA0Yl*UJTd

tA'

'Many times those above-mentioned famous men did not make the journey to the prince's palace until they had first, early in the morning, visited the devout man and knelt before him, and then, when they had received the blessing, they departed thence, full of joy.' For morphological reasons this is a very complicated example. According to Meyer Wtb nonddHiacTd is a dual aorist, which would then be derived from the verb NOKDDNTDTH which contains NONEXCLUSIVE. However, as we have already seen in 1.12, an aorist of a NONEXCLUSIVE verb is an impossibility. There are various interpretations left to us: (a) NONEXCLUSIVE is not present in noK/idNraTH (cf. 2.20 on B'KnpduidTH). There seems, however, to be no good reason for choosing this alternative. (b) The form is NONEXCLUSIVE "noncoextensive" PAST and therefore an imperfect.

60

ELEMENTS OF MEANING IN THE FINITE VERB FORM

(c) The form is exclusive noncoextensive past, an imperfect form of the verb hokk(duie) and a telic past b-kictti, together with an iterative past BUBddiiie supplementing the iterative possibilities. This situation may perhaps best be summarized by a table: PRESENT PAST

atelic leCTTi B'b(dllie)

telic B^ASTTi BTilCTTi

iterative ETilBddTTi BlilBddllJe

NB. Noncoextensive/coextensive is here absent as a subdivision of past, as long as no *B*,ar,kkCTB0 noKdsovA xdXAdduJS' 'And many asked him to come to their house to pray to God for them. And he, seeing their faith and [always] showing humility, moved around [all the time].' (87)

14,28

n^HXdK^ddX^ w e S K ' t ^ n i e h

mLetr

h nbTHu,A HeKecKHiiiA

1 T"fe/tec©Y « k o s k s h /hoyx^ rOHHTH' H CHl^e TBO^'kdX^ A0 CSA-MH ^KHHI H HOLUTHI

h f b A ' b d x ^ OKp^r'

He

" >®

'Wild animals and dogs went there [constantly], and the birds of the air — and these sat around their bodies to drive away the flies from them; and they did so seven days and nights long.' (88)

507,22 H ¿d H6 H3dd3H CdOBO CKBphHdB© IftA'bKe X^ BMd3HT"h' TdKOW. 7KH3HHW. np'bX'i:KAdHTe

'And may no ugly word come out where Christ [i.e. in the form of the host] comes in. [Always] lead such a life.' In this example the meaning is barely comprehensible, because only one instance of this verb occurs. Nevertheless the incomprehensibility of the next example is even greater. Our translation can only be based on the Greek. Moreover it is uncertain whether there is a connection with the XOAHTH-group: (89)

406,10

¿ « 8 BO 3Tid0 CT^d^dTH' IvbCdflhCTBO BO NddTh N6E8CN0K}

HtXdJKAdie' d I6JK8 ChTBOfHTH' BHHHO NddTh B'tHNOy OrNW H dl^-fc BTilEddTTi' 'The experiencing of suffering, that (furnishes?) us [ever again] with the heavenly kingdom; but the causing of suffering, that makes us ever again a prey to the eternal fire and torments.'

2 FORMAL ELEMENTS OF THE FINITE VERB FORM AND THEIR MEANING

2.1

In Chapter 1 our starting point was the given message, and in this chapter our starting point will be the attested finite verb form. In an attested OCS verb form we distinguish a number of formal elements: A (prefix), B (verbal root), C (stem formant), D (junction morpheme), and E (time formant), while further elements F^,, do not concern us here. Every finite verb form contains B; the other elements may or may not be present, but if present they show the above-mentioned order.

2.2

In the course of my research I was confronted with several complications: (1) Homophonic members of different commutation sets (e.g. in Hi^/iradtiie the first -a- may be a member of the set corresponding to the semantic elements NONEXCLUSIVE/EXCLUSIVE; or it may, in combination with the second -a-, be a member of the set corresponding to the semantic elements NONCOEXTENSIVE/COEXTENSIVE). (2) Homophonic attested forms of different members in one set; Eivfidxo/M'k 'we fought' may be an aorist tense form, or a contracted imperfect tense form. (3) Sometimes, whether by chance or not, a partner of a formal opposition is not attested in the (necessarily limited) material. (4) Sometimes, whether by chance or not, some combinations of elements are not attested in the material. All these problems demand solutions which agree with the facts of the language. Where alternative solutions have been possible, I have given them both, not wishing to commit myself to a statement that either one was necessarily the correct one. In my view such a commitment can rarely be justified because of the lack of informants.

74

FORMAL ELEMENTS OF THE FINITE VERB FORM AND THEIR MEANING 2.3

I have looked in vain for the "ideal type" of OCS verb, a triplet of the type TBopHTH ~ CKTBdpraTH ~ cKTBOpHTH, all tense forms of which should be attested in our material. We have already seen why such an "ideal type" does not exist: see 1.12, where I have shown why ckTKapraTH can have no aorist tense form. Until now, descriptions of the verb forms of OCS have been based, more or less explicitly, on such an "ideal type" — if a particular form was not attested, it was supplied by analogy. To my mind this approach is detrimental to the study of the Slavic languages. I shall therefore keep rigorously to the attested forms; the inclusion of forms not possible in the language must clearly lead to complete arbitrariness in description. This method may hamper us in places where the language presents no problems, but accepting these restrictions enables us to avoid the pitfalls of the "ideal type" and to come closer to the reality of the language. The attested form, to me, is every form as it appears in the texts, together with every form which may reasonably be accepted as possible by analogy with forms actually occurring. If KoynHuiH and KoynHTT* are attested forms, then the other present tense forms of noynHTH may be accepted as possible forms, by analogy with comparable forms of XBd/iHTH, and vice versa. However, we must accept this with certain reservations. IIoAGGdieTTv 'it suits' does not give us the right to accept *n0IaI0Bdw. as a possible form, just as the Latin licet 'it suits' does not lead us to accept *liceo as a possible form. If we now restrict ourselves to the verbal root no^oEd-, the Supr shows the following attested forms: no^OEddTii, no^OKdd, riOAOGaie, no^OEd"^ (all present tense forms), no,i,OKddLiie and no^OEdtue (imperfect tense forms), and no^osd (an aorist form). All present tense forms are accepted as attested forms, including no^OBd'Tii because the homonymous form of the supine is impossible in this case (257,25). What must be our procedure in the description to come? In view of the fact that there are no informants available, the most suitable method seems to be to give a double analysis in the case of double forms, and in doubtful cases to give an analysis including the doubtful form, together with an analysis leaving the doubtful form out as "unattested". This, of course, has the disadvantage that alternative solutions remain, some of which may not have existed for speakers of the language. But

FORMAL ELEMENTS OF THE FINITE VERB FORM AND THEIR MEANING

75

this method will not provide us with a single solution only, which may be the wrong one, excluding another which may be the correct one. For an analysis of forms in practice cf. 2.22.

2.4

A. PREFIX

At the beginning of the finite verb form the following prefixes may be listed: K(TI)-

OB(li)-

BTiSili)-; BlxC-; BTx-

OT(Ti)-

bu-

no-

AO" 3d-

noA(>)npH-

H 3 ( i i ) - ; h c - ; h-

np'fe-

/HHA10-

np'b ,!,(>)•

Hi-

pa3(ii)-; pat-; pa-

HdAOl*)-

Ch-; CkN-

o-

oy-

We may ask ourselves whether o- in oxoa h t h ('to go away, depart'), in oc/toyuiaTH ('to pay no attention to'), and in ocup'kTH ('to turn into cheese') is the same prefix in every case. This is a question which has received little attention from a synchronic point of view, even in the study of the modern Slavic languages. Therefore we shall not attempt to deal with this problem in a language for which no informants are available and which can be reconstructed only from very limited source material. It will be noted that only a very small proportion of the known verbal roots are attested in combination with all, or almost all, prefixes. Most verbal roots, indeed, combine with only a very limited number of prefixes. In these cases the meaning of the prefixes will necessarily be more limited than where the field of meaning of relations has been parcelled out more thoroughly, e.g. for the verbal roots x«AH"TH and h-th. In other words, in hc\oah-th the Hc-element is in opposition to at least fifteen other members of the set, but in Heii'bjtHTH it is in opposition only to o-. The problems of the morpheme boundary are also familiar, e.g. o-b©0hth or o e - © p h t h ; cf. also the Appendix, where some cases which have not hitherto attracted attention are discussed: HtTpTxPdTH, ck^«1™In many instances our material will prove insufficient for a proper choice (cf. also 2.5).

76

FORMAL ELEMENTS OF THE FINITE VERB FORM AND THEIR MEANING

In some cases compounds do occur, but without the corresponding simplexes, e.g. npHMACTHTH but not *hacthth, oycrpiiAiHTH but not *ct{jihhhth. In such cases the prefix means npH-RELATiON, oy-RELATiON. If we could ask an informant about it, we might discover that in some of these cases the prefix is only an "index", and has no meaning since the opposition to a form without this prefix is lacking. As we are dealing with a dead language, however, I shall do no more than mention this problem, going into it no further.

2.5

In a sequence of two (or more) prefixes before the verbal root in a finite verb form, each prefix may limit the meaning of the other(s); or one of them may have no meaning at all. We have too few possibilities for comparison in our material to go into these relationships more thoroughly. Here, too, the problem of the morpheme boundaries arises. Normally, for example, npHOEp'feTdTH/npHOEp'fecTH is considered to be npH-OK-p'fcTdTH/ (lfm-OK-p-bcTH, as the present tense form with «-infix also occurs in t'hp'feTdTH/cTifl'fccTH. Etymologically speaking (i.e. historically) this is undoubtedly true, but it is questionable whether this bond was still known to the speaker of the language. As *p,kcTH is not attested as a simplex, we cannot prove that or- is an element. But if one thinks that the meaning "Relation" corresponds to ok-, one may ask oneself whether for a speaker of the language the meaning "Relation" may have originated in 0-, while to his mind -Bjfbt- was a single morpheme. The average speaker of a language simply does not have the historical knowledge to distinguish the morpheme boundary, as long as he does not know c'm'fetTH is directly connected with OEfl-bcTH.1 As it seems clear that the material is too unpromising for them to be solved, we shall avoid these problems in general.

2.6

B. VERBAL ROOT

Here we find an open set, the morphological description of which is too limitless a task, the more so as we are dealing with a dead language. In 1 Alternatives in the description need not disturb us. For speakers of the language these cases must have existed, though perhaps to a lesser extent than for modern linguists.

FORMAL ELEMENTS OF THE FINITE VERB FORM A N D THEIR MEANING

77

translating the examples I have tried to give approximations of the meaning from the available sources. As the meanings atelic and telic, mentioned in 1.7, cannot be attributed to formal elements (i.e. they cannot be isolated), for part B of the finite verb form we can only refer to the available OCS dictionaries. Corrections will be proposed wherever there is reason to doubt these dictionaries.

2.7

C. S T E M

FORMANT

In the finite verb form the stem formant follows the verbal root. Here we distinguish the following sets: (1) Binary opposition, meaning NONEXCLUSIVE/EXCLUSIVE. (2) Monoset element ITERATIVE. (3) Binary opposition, meaning INDETERMINATIVE/DETERMINATIVE. These sets are mutually exclusive. The problem of whether homophonic relations occur with the sets mentioned in (1) and (3) is considered in 2.14. Set (1) will be discussed in 2.8, set (2) in 2.10, and set (3) in 2.11.

2.8

In the infinitive pair Hi^/ii-d-TH ~ hu^h-th the grammatical opposition NONEXCLUSIVE ~ EXCLUSIVE is defined in the form as -a- ~ -0- (cf. 1.10). On this point there are many different morphological variants, some of which belong to the literary tradition, others to the speech habits of the author (cf. 2.9). We shall choose some examples of the various types. After the present tense form the infinitive follows in parentheses : Type (1): -a- ~ -0-. 'tO CUre'

HlJ'k/l Hd-l6TTk2/im,k/(H-T'h

'to bow'

(HL^d 1-A-Tnj H H-fe/lH-TH) noK/UNhd-teTTi/noK/UNH-TTi (nOK/MN Hd-TH/nOKiUNH-TH)

'to keep to'

CrKE,1Wtl,-a-IGTTK/t'KE