Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Old Novgorod dialect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected fromOld Novgorodian dialect)
Extinct Slavic language spoken in medieval Novgorod
This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages)
This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Old Novgorod dialect" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR
(September 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
icon
You can helpexpand this article with text translated fromthe corresponding article in Russian. (December 2022)Click [show] for important translation instructions.
  • Machine translation, likeDeepL orGoogle Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.
  • Consideradding a topic to this template: there are already 1,017 articles in themain category, and specifying|topic= will aid in categorization.
  • Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
  • Youmust providecopyright attribution in theedit summary accompanying your translation by providing aninterlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary isContent in this edit is translated from the existing Russian Wikipedia article at [[:ru:Древненовгородский диалект]]; see its history for attribution.
  • You may also add the template{{Translated|ru|Древненовгородский диалект}} to thetalk page.
  • For more guidance, seeWikipedia:Translation.
(Learn how and when to remove this message)
Old Novgorodian
Old Novgorod dialect
Native toNovgorod Republic
Era11th–15th centuries[1]
Early forms
Old Cyrillic,Glagolitic
Language codes
ISO 639-3
GlottologNone

TheOld Novgorod orOld Novgorodian dialect (Russian:древненовгородский диалект,romanizeddrevnenovgorodskiy dialekt,lit.'ancient Novgorodian dialect') was theEast Slavic variety used in the city ofVeliky Novgorod and its surrounding area. It is mainly known from medievalbirch bark writings dating to the 11th to 15th centuries.[2][3][4]Andrey Zaliznyak distinguished it from "supra-dialectal Old Russian".[5] Other manuscripts have also shown distinctnorth Russian dialect forms, in addition to the birch bark letters.[4][6]

Old Novgorodian is of particular interest in that it has retained some archaic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects. For example, the birch bark letters from theNovgorod-Pskov area attest that thesecond palatalization failed to reach this area.[7] Furthermore, the letters provide unique evidence of the Slavic vernacular, as opposed to theChurch Slavonic which dominated the written literature of the period. Most of the letters feature informal writing such as personal correspondence, instructions, complaints, news, and reminders. Such widespread usage indicates a high level of literacy, even among women and children. The preserved notes display the original spelling of the time; unlike some texts, they were not copied, rewritten or edited by later scribes.[2]

Today, the study of Novgorodian birch bark letters is an established scholarly field in Russianhistorical linguistics, with far-ranging historical and archaeological implications for the study of the Russian Middle Ages.

Classification

[edit]
East Slavic languages in 1389. Colors represent spoken dialects. Dashed lines represent written languages:
  WrittenEarly Ruthenian
  Written Old Novgorodian

The mainstream view is that the Old Novgorod dialect is anEast Slavic variety that has some significant deviations from whatAndrey Zaliznyak called "supra-dialectal Old Russian", although there have been some attempts to classify it as a separate branch of the Slavic languages.[8]

AsChurch Slavonic was used in liturgical and religious writing, while a supra-regional variety was used for trade, it is unclear to what extent Novgorodians at the time would have considered them to have been separate languages or distinct registers of a single language.[9] In addition, there is some variation in birch bark letters due to a lack of standardization that is seen with modern literary languages.[10] Some texts are also written with a mixture of Church Slavonic and Old Novgorodian, but most are written in a pure vernacular.[10] The language found in the birch bark manuscripts represents the closest approximation to vernacular Old Russian language, as opposed to the formal language used in chronicles.[11][12]

Development

[edit]
[icon]
This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(June 2025)

Research history

[edit]

The first birch bark letter, calledN1,[a] was found in the city ofNovgorod on July 26, 1951, by Nina Fedorovna Akulova.[13] It was written in what is now called Old Novgorodian.[14] As of 2018, a total of 1,222 items have been discovered in 12 cities, of which 1,113 were found in Novgorod.[15] Nearly all others have been found in nearby cities, including 49 inStaraya Russa and 19 inTorzhok.[15] Among the most notable letters found isN202 discovered in 1956, which was written by a young boy calledOnfim who lived in Novgorod and is dated to the 13th century.[16]

In Russian, the study of birch bark letters is informally known asberestologiya.[16] It is unknown how many birch bark letters have gone undiscovered; less than three percent of the city of Novgorod has been systematically excavated.[17] V.L. Janin, the head of the Novgorod Archaeological Expedition, estimated that more than 20,000 remain to be discovered in Novgorod alone.[17] Although the birch bark letters do not contain explicit dates, archaeologists have been able to date them with an accuracy of 10 to 15 years using methods includingstratigraphy anddendrochronology.[18] They can be dated even more precisely if historical names or events are mentioned.[18]

Almost all of them were written withstyluses ofbronze andiron, and neverink. The letters were preserved due to theswampy soil which isolated them fromoxygen. Many letters are found buried amidst the layers under streets which were previously paved with logs.

Linguistic features

[edit]

The short birch-bark texts are written in a peculiar Slavicvernacular, reflecting living speech, and almost entirely free of the heavyChurch Slavonic influence seen in the literary language of the period. Some of the observed linguistic features are not found in any other Slavic dialect, representing importantProto-Slavic archaisms.

Zaliznyak differentiates the Old Novgorod features that were already known before the discovery of the birch bark letters and those that have been ascertained after their study during the last few decades such as the following:

  1. Ts–ch merger (tsokanye)
  2. secondarypleophony, e.g. мълъвити as opposed to мълвити
  3. retention of stem-final *x in Proto-Slavic *vьx- "all" (spelled вехь) whereas other Slavic languages have undergone the third progressive palatalization, e.g. вьхо[19] (Zaliznyak (1995:38–39))
  4. lack of theSlavic second palatalization in root-final position,[20] e.g. рукѣ, моги[21]
  5. the changevl’ >l’, e.g. Яколь, Яковлев[clarification needed]
  6. nominative singular masculine of o-stems-e,[22] e.g. Иване, посаднике, хлѣбе[b]
  7. genitive singular of а-stems in "soft", instead of the "hard"-y,[23] e.g. бес кунѣ. The same substitution is found in the accusative plural of o-stems and a-stems.[24]
  8. replacement of "hard" и by their "soft" counterparts in other non-nominal cases, such as the dual and plural of the imperative,[25] nominative singular masculine of the present active participle,[26] and pronominal endings (e.g. тиxъ instead of *тѣxъ)[27]
  9. absence of palatalization of the stem with the new -ѣ and -и desinences, as inOld East Slavic
  10. nominative-accusative plural of а-stems in, e.g. кобылѣ, сиротѣ

Features of the Old Novgorod dialect ascertained by the philological study in the last decades are:

  1. lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root-initial position, e.g. кѣл-, хѣр-[28]
  2. a particular reflex of Proto-Slavic *TьRT, *TъRT clusters, yielding TьRьT, TъRъT. However, in some dialects these yielded TroT, TreT.
  3. West-Slavic-like reflex of *TоRT clusters, e.g. погродье versus погородие
  4. the changeml’ >n’, e.g. емлючи > енючи
  5. no merger of nominative and accusative singular of masculines regardless of animacy, e.g. Nom. sg. погосте : Acc. sg. на погостъ
  6. Proto-Slavic*kv, *gv clusters were retained as inWest Slavic languages instead of being transformed tocv, zv before front vowels as in other East Slavic dialects[29]

Often theorthography is domestic (as opposed to bookish), usingъ andо on the one hand andь andе on the other synonymously (about 50% of birchbark manuscripts from the mid-12th to the late 14th century).

The Novgorod material is divided by Zaliznyak into seven chronological groups:

Periodization of Old Novgorod birchbark letters by A. Zaliznyak
ClassPeriod
A11th century to approx. 1125
B Iapprox. 1125–1160
B IIapprox. 1125–1160
C1220s–1290s
D Iapprox. 1300–1360
D IIapprox. 1360–1400
E15th century

Implications of Old Novgorod findings

[edit]

According toZaliznyak, the Old Novgorod linguistic features, instead of being merely isolated deviations, represent a bundle of peculiar isoglosses. The deviations are more abundant in older birch bark letters than in the more recent finds. This fact indicates, contrary to what may be expected, that the development was convergent rather than divergent, with regard to other northernEast Slavic dialects.

According to Zaliznyak, the discovery of Old Novgorod dialect suggests that earlier conceptions which held East Slavic as a relatively homogeneous linguistic grouping, have been dispelled by a view advancing it instead as an area of much greater dialectal diversity. Zaliznyak divides the East Slavic area into two dialectal groupings: Proto-Novgorodian-Pskovian on one side, singled out chiefly on the basis of two instances lacking second palatalization of velars and the ending-e in nominative singular of masculine o-stems, and all the remaining East Slavic dialects on the other.

Examples

[edit]

A criminal case: Novgorod birch-bark letter no. 109

[edit]

Dated between the end of the 11th century and the 1110s; excavated 1954.[30]

Birch-bark letter no. 109, c. 1100, Novgorod; outline

Original text (with added word division):

грамота ѡтъ жизномира къ микоуле
коупилъ еси робоу плъскове а ныне мѧ
въ томъ ѧла кънѧгыни а ныне сѧ дроужина по мѧ пороучила а ныне ка посъли къ томоу моужеви грамотоу е ли
оу него роба а се ти хочоу коне коупивъ и кънѧжъ моужъ въсадивъ та на съводы а ты атче еси не възалъ коунъ
техъ а не емли ничъто же оу него

Transliteration:

gramota otŭ žiznomira kŭ mikule
kupilŭ esi robu plŭskove a nyne mę
vŭ tomŭ ęla kŭnęgyni a nyne sę družina po mę poručila a nyne ka posŭli kŭ tomu muževi gramotu e li
u nego roba a se ti xoču kone kupivŭ i kŭnęžŭ mužŭ vŭsadivŭ ta na sŭvody a ty atče esi ne vŭzalŭ kunŭ
texŭ a ne emli ničŭto že u nego

Translation (with added explanations not present in the original text in brackets):

Letter from Zhiznomir to Mikula: You have bought a female slave inPskov. And now the princess has arrested me for it. (Obviously she has recognized the slave as having been stolen from her, and Zhiznomir is somehow connected with the affair, maybe as Mikula's family member or business partner.) But nowdruzhina has guaranteed for me. And now send a letter to that man (whom you have bought the slave from) and ask him whether he has another female slave. (This other slave would have to be given to the princess for the time the stolen slave would be needed as "corpus delicti" in a lawsuit to find out who the thief was.) And I want to buy a horse and have themagistrate (the "prince's man") sit on it and initiate asvod (the legal procedure to trace a whole buying chain back to the original seller and ultimately the thief). And if you have not taken the money, do not take anything from him (i.e. the slave-trader, because otherwise the whole plan might leak out).

An invitation: Novgorod birch-bark letter no. 497

[edit]

Dated between the 1340s and 1380s; excavated 1972.[31]

Birch-bark letter no. 497, c. 1340-90, Novgorod; photograph

Original text (with added word division):

поколоно ѿ гаврили ѿ посени ко зати моемоу ко горигори жи коумоу ко сестори моеи ко оулите чо би есте поихали во городо ко радости моеи а нашего солова не ѡставили да бого вамо радосте ми вашего солова вохи не ѡсотавимо

Transliteration:

pokolono ot gavrili ot poseni ko zati mojemu ko gorigori ži kumu ko sestori mojei ko ulite čo bi este poixali vo gorodo ko radosti mojei a našego solova ne ostavili da bogo vamo radoste mi vašego solova voxi ne osotavimo

Translation:

Greeting from Gavrila Posenya to my brother-in-law, godfather Grigory, and my sister Ulita. Would you not like to give me the pleasure of riding into the city, not leaving our word? God give you happiness. We all do not leave your word.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^"A HISTORY OF THE PRONOMINAL DECLENSION IN THE NOVGOROD DIALECT OF OLD RUSSIAN FROM THE ELEVENTH-CENTURY TO THE SIXTEENTH-CENTURY".ProQuest. Retrieved2025-06-11.the 11th century, to the end of the 15th century
  2. ^ab"Зализняк - Значение берестяных грамот для истории русского языка".philology.ru. Retrieved2020-07-18.
  3. ^Schallert 2024, p. 604.
  4. ^abVinokur 1971, p. 36.
  5. ^Dekker 2018, p. 11, Chapter 1.5.
  6. ^Greenberg 2017, p. 519.
  7. ^Greenberg 2017, p. 531.
  8. ^Dekker 2018, p. 11, "Zaliznjak... calls this 'supra-dialectal Old Russian'... Some attempts have been made to classify Old Novgorodian as a separate Northern branch of the Slavic languages. The mainstream view is still that it is an East Slavic variety, though it has some significant deviations from the 'supra-regional' variety of Old Russian...".
  9. ^Dekker 2018, p. 11.
  10. ^abSchaeken 2018, p. 52.
  11. ^Sussex, Roland; Cubberley, Paul (2006).The Slavic languages. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. p. 81.ISBN 978-0-521-22315-7.
  12. ^Drinka, Bridget (16 February 2017).Language Contact in Europe: The Periphrastic Perfect through History. Cambridge University Press. p. 329.ISBN 978-0-521-51493-4.
  13. ^Schaeken 2018, p. xi.
  14. ^Dekker 2018, p. ix.
  15. ^abSchaeken 2018, pp. 19–20.
  16. ^abSchaeken 2018, p. xii.
  17. ^abSchaeken 2018, p. 22.
  18. ^abSchaeken 2018, p. 27.
  19. ^I.e. the progressive palatalization did not take place; cf.vьx- "all" as opposed to modern Russianvs-
  20. ^Zaliznyak (1995:37–38)
  21. ^E.g. Proto-Slavic *rěka "river" was in dative singular *rěk-ě which was not reflected as **rěcě in Old Novgorod dialect but has been retained asrěkě.
  22. ^Zaliznyak (1995:82–87)
  23. ^Zaliznyak (1995:81–82)
  24. ^Zaliznyak (1995:92)
  25. ^Zaliznyak (1995:122)
  26. ^Zaliznyak (1995:122–123)
  27. ^Zaliznyak (1995:111–112)
  28. ^Cf. alsokьrky "church" which has remainedkьrky : modern Russiancerkov.
  29. ^E.g.květ- "flower" : modern Russiancvet,gvězda "star" : modern Russianzvezda.
  30. ^"Грамота №109 – Древнерусские берестяные грамоты".gramoty.ru. Retrieved2021-05-12.
  31. ^"Грамота №497 – Древнерусские берестяные грамоты".gramoty.ru. Retrieved2021-05-12.
  1. ^TheN stands for Novgorod
  2. ^Instead of found in all the other Slavic dialects and reconstructed for Late Proto-Slavic, and that has been subsequently lost in aweak word-final position,; e.g. Old Novgorod dialectbrate "brother" : modern Russianbrat.

Sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old_Novgorod_dialect&oldid=1306920621"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp