INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy sulsnitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6* x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additionai charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 600-521-0600 UMT
ADAPTIVE FREE-KNOT SPLINES AND INFERENCE
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Satoshi Miyata, B.A., M.A.
*****
The Ohio State University
2001
Dissertation Conunittee: Approved by
Professor Xiaotong Shen, Adviser
Professor Douglas A. Wolfe Adviser Professor Douglas E. Critchlow Department of Statistics UMI Number 3022540
UMI’
UMI Microform 3022540 Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT
This study provides a detailed description of the orthography, phonology and morphology of fifteenth* and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. The source of the data is a typeset edition of cursive manuscripts that was published under the editorship of S. I. Kotkov and I. S. Filippova.
Chapter I describes the purpose of the investigation, the corpus investigated and some methodological problems. Chapter 2 contains the description of the orthography. Letters in the corpus investigated are divided into two groups, i.e., homophonous vowel letters in free variation vs. those in complementary distribution.
The positional constraints of the letters in complementary distribution is discussed in detail.
Chapter 3 is devoted to problems in phonology. Unstressed vocalism, the change of e to o and palatalizations of velars are the main topics of the chapter. In cluq>ter 4, the orthogr^hic representation o f the morphology is analyzed. The main focus has been given to those orthognqphic representations that have more than one form.
u A linguistic analysis of the corpus reveals that the seemingly inconsistent practice of the scribes' writing was actually very consistent and that the scribes were very well aware of different conventions or norms. Conservatism and Muscovite chancery language as well as dialectism play a major role in the corpus investigated.
m Dedicated to my parents
IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work could not have been written without the help of many people, to whom I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude. I would like to thank my teachers at the Ohio State University. Dr. Predrag Matejic was always supportive and informative in offering his views on ideas that I had. I am grateful, as well, to Dr.
Charles E. Gribble and Dr. Anelya Rugaleva for the valuable suggestions that they made on ways to improve this dissertation. Their comments illuminated a number of issues and drew my attention to alternative analyses in a number of instances.
I would like to express my very warmest gratitude to my advisor. Dr. Daniel
E. Collins, for the insightful suggestions and the constant encouragement that he provided throughout the preparation of this study. His influence has been fundamental at every stage of my worit on the dissertation. Without his patience and encouragement, this dissertation would not have been completed. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Ounju. It was her support, encouragement and steadfast belief in me that helped me to overcome my doubts and to continue working on this dissertation. VITA
March 31, 1965 ...... Bom - Kimpo, Kyungki-Do, Korea
1988 ...... B.A. Russian Language and Literature, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
1992 ...... M.A. Russian Language and Literature, The Ohio State University
1990 -1 9 9 2 ...... Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, The Ohio State University
1993 -1 9 9 9 ...... Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, The Ohio State University
1999 - 2001 ...... Lecturer The Ohio State University
PUBLICATIONS
1996. Baekwikun. [Translation of M. Bulgakov's novel Belaia evardiial. The Open Book, Seoul, Korea.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures
Specialization: Slavic Historical Linguistics.
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
A b stract...... ii
Dedication ...... iv
Acknowledgements ...... v
V ita...... vü
List of Tables...... ix
Chapters:
1. Introduction...... I
1.1. The purpose o f the investigation ...... I 1.2. Description of the investigated corpus ...... 8 1.3. Methodological Problems in the investigation of Rjazanian legal documents...... 13 1.4. The organization o f the woric ...... 16
2. Orthography ...... 18
2.1. Vowel Letters in ftee variation...... 20 2.1.1. The vowel letters 0 -a~h...... 21 2.1.2. The vowel letters u ~ i ...... 31
2.2. Vowel letters in complementary distribution ...... 33 2.2.1. The distribution of the jer letters ...... 34 2.2.2. The distribution of
2.3. Distribution of 78
v u 3. Problems in Phonology ...... 80
3.1. The unstiessed vowel system ...... 81 3.1.1. The origin and history of akan'e/jakan'e ...... 82 3.1.2. Akan'e...... 87 3.1.3. Jakan'e...... I l l 3.2. The change of/e/to/o/ ...... 123 3.3. Palatalization of Velars...... 133 3.4. Summary...... 136
4. Morphology ...... 137
4.1. Nominal morphology ...... 138 4.1.1. The loss of neuter forms...... 138 4.1.2. Nominal morphology ...... 141 4.1.3. Adjectival morphology ...... 160 4.1.4. Pronominal morphology ...... 178 4.1.5. Numeral morphology ...... 188
4.2. Verbal morphology ...... 197 4.2.1. The infinitive form -ti o r-tt ...... 198 4.2.2. The past tense formation ...... 201 4.2.3. Non-past tense formation ...... 208 4.2.4. Reflexive Verbs...... 213
5. Conclusion ...... 217
Bibliography...... 236
vm U ST OF TABLES
Table Paye
2.1 Documents with three-way distribution o f h~b ...... 24 2.2 Variation between b - a ...... 26 2.3 Variation between a ~ b ...... 26 2.4 Documents with variation between y and ir(I) ...... 40 2.5 Documents with variation between y and r (II) ...... 42 2.6. Documents with variation between y and r(D I) ...... 43 2.7 Documents with variation between y and r(IV ) ...... 44 2.8 Documents with variation between oy and r ...... 45 2.9 Documents with variation between ay, r a n d y ...... 47 2.10 The dialectal distribution of (o and o ...... 50 2.11 The graphic distribution of (O and o ( I) ...... 54 2.12 The gn^hic distribution of m and o (II) ...... 55 2.13 The grt^hic distribution of (O and o (H I) ...... 57 2.14 The graphic distribution of to and o under stress...... 58 2.15 The graphic distribution of (uand o in unstressed position ...... 59 2.16 The graphic distribution of m and o (IV) ...... 61 2.17 Documents with *é < t> in stressed position, and
IX 3.10 Hypercorrectionof/'a/ ...... 120 3.11 Dialectal distribution of the e > o change ...... 125 3.12 The e > o change ...... 127
4.1 Hard- and soft-declensional endings of a-/ja-stem nouns in the singular...... 149 4.2 The dative and locative singular endings of a-^a-stem nouns ...... 152 4.3 The dative plural endings o f a-/ja-stem nouns ...... 155 4.4 The instrumental plural endings of a-/ja-stem nouns ...... 157 4.5 The locative plural endings of a-^a-stem nouns ...... 159 4.6 The nominative singular masculine adjectival ending ...... 162 4.7 The genitive singular non-feminine pronominal-adjectival desinence 166 4.8 The genitive singular feminine adjectival ending ...... 168 4.9 The dative/locative singular feminine adjectival desinence ...... 170 4.10 The accusative singular feminine adjectival desinence ...... 174 4.11 The nominative plural adjectival desinence ...... 176 4.12 Non-feminine adjectival endings ...... 177 4.13 Feminine adjectival endings ...... 177 4.14 The first-person nominative singular pronoun ...... 180 4.15 The genitive/accusative singular of the first and second person pronoun...... 183 4.16 The dative/locative singular of the first and second person, and the reflexive pronoun...... 186 4.17 The numeral '2 '...... 190 4.18 The numerals '3' and '4* ...... 193 4.19 Other numerals ...... 195 4.20 The infinitive endings ...... 199 4.21 The use o f the copula ...... 203 4.22 The first-person singular copula ...... 205 4.23 The first-person pliunl copula ...... 206 4.24 The endings of the non-past tense ...... 208 4.25 The third-person singular non-past tense endings ...... 211 4.26 Reflexive Particles ...... 215 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Purpose of the Investigation
The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the orthography, phonology and morphology of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents.'
Only a few studies have focused on Rjazam'an dialects either finm a diachronic
(Novopokrovskaja 1956) or a synchronic perspective (Avanesov [1949] 1970:135-
236, Sidorov 1949). Consequently, information on Rjazanian dialects is quite limited, and is available only as pieces in more general works on Russian dialectology and historical linguistics (e.g., Avanesov & Orlova 1964, Avanesov
1949, Filin 1972, Kotkov 1963, Kuznecov 1954, 1959, Obnorskij 1953). To my knowledge, there is no single linguistic study of the earliest attested Rjazanian texts - legal documents written prior to the seventeenth century. These texts happen also to be among the earliest documents of any South Russian dialect. Therefore, this
' Present-day Rjazan’ is anew foundatioii nearer Moscow than its medieval namesake. Present-day Rjazan' is located 125 miles south-east of Moscow. The medieval Rjazanian land was built on the high bank o f the Oka just below the point where it meets the Pronja. The major town o f medieval Rjazan’ was what is now known as Staraja Rjazan’ (see Tixomhov 1959:450-460).
1 dissertation will fill in a major gq> in the scholarly literature by dealing with the dialects of Rjazan', and, in particular, by examining the oldest time period of
Rjazanian dialects.
The texts on which my study will be based are legal documents, whose importance for historical dialectology has been emphasized by recent studies. In general, the legal documents traditionally called gramoty provide important data for the study of the history of the Russian language. However, it was mainly after the middle of the twentieth century that gramoty began to attract much attention fi-om linguists.^ Kotkov (1991a: 122) comments that ‘V razrabotke istorii russkogo jazyka
èpoxi velikorusskoj narodnosti i naâal’noj pory nacional’nogo razvitija tradicionnym bylo nedostato£noe vnimanie k ja^kovoj kul’ture delovoj pis’mennosti, v osobennosti pozdnej obixodnoj.” Although there had been some studies on Russian
legal documents before, it was intensive research on them firom the late 1940s onwards that has led scholars to reevaluate their importance in the study of the history of the Russian language.^
Texts of delmega pis 'mennost ‘ have been especially undervalued as a source for sQrUstic smdies. This is partly due to a prevalent feeling that “juridical and administrative texts are unpolished, artless, and too bound by cliché and mundane reality to permit the purposive use of linguistic devices.” (Collins 1994:4). The stutty o f Russian legal language undertaken by some scholars was mainly for arguing whether or not there was any interaction between Church Slavonic and East Slavic in the history of literary Russian. For example, some investigators like S. P. Obnorskij (1946) and B. 0 . Unbegaun ([1957] 1969 and [1965] 1969) have argued that Russian legal language was devoid of Church Slavonicisms from the beghuimg o f the development o f Russian literary language. On the other hand, scholars like A. M. SeliKev ([1957] 1968) and D. S. Worth (1977) claimed that interaction of Russian and Slavonic elements can be traced back to Kievan times.
^ ringMisric study and the publkatfon o f medieval Russian manuscripts originally written in uncial or semi-uncial have a long tradition m Russian Imguistics. For example, Saxmatov (1903) did some linguistic studies o fgramotvm the 1900s, and Sobolevskij makes extensive use ofthem in his Lekca PY Wnrii nigglcogo iazvka ([1907] 1962). Borkovskij (1949,1958,1972) did a series of detailed linguistic studies o fnamotvûomthelMOs and 1950s onwards. As for publications of gramoty. Nowadays, it is generally held that Russian legal documents are invaluable resources as the object of linguistic investigations, for three reasons in particular.
First, many dialectisms or colloquialisms of different times and different places are well- reflected in these documents. Second, some of the linguistic features found in these text-types were gradually incorporated into the Russian national language and later into the literary language.^ Third, usually legal documents give a precise date to features found.
There are a large number of legal documents (gramotvl available for linguistic study. Novgorodian documents are available from the eleventh century tbirchbark letters from the early eleventh century, Mstislav’s Charter, 1130 or 1132, etc.); gramotv fixim Smolensk are available firom the thirteenth century (treaties o f
1229 and 1230V Muscovite and Rjazanian documents firom the fourteenth century
(Prince Ivan Kalita’s Will (1327 or 1339)\ the Deed of Oleg of Rjazan (1356), etc.).
there were major collections in the 1830s fAktv. sobrannve v bibliotekax i arxivax Rossiiskoi imperii Arxeomafiüeskoiu èksttedicieiu toiperatorskoi Akademii Nauk. 1836), 1840s (AkQf istopeeskjg, 1841), 1 850s (Popolnenie k Aktam istoriCeskim. 1846, Aktv. omosiaSCiesia do iuridiCeskogo bvta Dfgvnei Rnssii. [1857-84] 1970), and throughout the second half of the nineteenth century. While there was certainly a lull in publication in the 1920s-1940s, publications of gramoty in diplomatic editions resumed in the late 1940s (Gramotv Velikogo Novaoroda i Pskova. 1949). The b irc h b ^ letters were published from 1951 onwards. The 1950s were also the decade o f the two best editions of northeastern documents fASÉL1952-64. Aktv feodal’noeo zemlevladeniia i xoziaistva XlV-Xyi vekov. 1951). See Collins (1994; 609-643) fitrthe references on the studies and publications of gramotv. However, legal texts written in cursive were not well studied until 1960s. The first publications of Russian chancery documents written in cursive came out in the beginning of the 1960s by Academy Science (Kotkov 1991a:122). See Kotkov (1991a; 123. Footnote 2) for the linguistic publications of old Russian legal documents from 1960s.
* Sokolova (1957; 4) writes; "znatenie ja:Qrka imenno delovoj pis’mennosti, 2ivee vsego i blBe vsego otraiavSego obSüenuodnuju osnovu, v processe stanovlenija nacional’nogo jazyka ne vyqrvaet somnenij.”
* Scholars do not agree about the dating of this document Sobolevskij and V. Kiparsly date it fit>m 1327, whereas Kuznecov dates it firan 1339 (cf. Kiparslgr 1979; 54, Kuznecov 1969; 79). From the fifteenth through the seventeenth centuries, we witness an overwhelmingly increased number of surviving legal documents. As Rus' began to form its centralized government, delovaia ois'mennost' reaches its peak in the seventeenth century.
The legal documents which originated in Rjazan’ are particularly interesting for a number of reasons. First, most of the extant texts fiom Rjazan’ are legal documents, mainly fix>m the fifteenth century. There are few extant manuscripts of other genres. The oldest preserved manuscript fiom Rjazan’ is the Rjazanskaja
Kormôaja in 1284, but it is a canon- law text written in Russian Church Slavic, which is not in the scope o f this study.^ There are no Rjazanian chronicles preserved
(cf. Lixa^ev 1980:146, Mongajt 1961: 9)J There are some annalistic materials referring to the Rjazanian land finm the late eleventh century which are first attested in the Laurentian Chronicle (1377), but they were not written in Rjazan’ (cf.
Kuz’min 1965:8).^ There are some Rjazanian saints’ lives, e.g., those of Prince
Roman Ol’goviô, Prince Oleg Igorevig, Prince Theodore of Jur’ev and Rjazan’,
Princess Evpraksija and her son Ioann, Bishop Efiem, and Bishop Vasili) (cf.
Barsukov [1882]1970: index, 54). However, they are either extant in late copies fitom the seventeenth century (the lives of Prince Roman Ol’goviô, Bishop Vasili)), or are
' For a detailed linguistic study o f the i^jyMn^kq|a Kormduja. see Bloxina(l970).
’’ Komarovid (1946:74-77) suggests that there nu^ have been some Rjazanian chronicles around the time o f the Tartar invasion because we have Povest* o taz«wnii i^jaMni Batvem preserved in a copy from the sixteenth century. The story may have been transferred from Rjazan’ by the scribes of chronicles. However, the Povest* o razorenii Riazani Batvem is irrelevant for knowledge of the local dialect, because Slavonicisms are (h>minant in this work (Kuznecov 1969; 107).
' The first appearance o f Rjazan’ m chronicles was under the year 1096 in the Laurentian Chronicle (1377). From then on, Rjazan’ and die Rjazanians are almost continuously mentioned in chronicles (cf. Tbcomirov 1959:450-451). hypothetical texts that are not attested at all (the lives of Princess Evpraksija and her son Ioann, Prince Thodore, Prince Oleg Igorevié, Bishop Efrem) (of. Barsukov
[1882] 1970). Therefore, the body of documents under investigation is an invaluable source for our understanding of linguistic situation in the Medieval Rjazanian regions.
Second, the surviving Rjazanian gramotv provide evidence for many dialectal features, that are very important for an understanding of how the Russian national language has been formed. Avanesov (1986; 27-28) writes that "Bol'Soe znaùenie dlja jazykovogo razvitija Russkogo centralizovannogo gosudarstva imelo prisoedinenie k Moskve Rjazanskoi zemlja... Èto sodejstvovalo vse narastaju§£emu vkiadu juinogo nareôija v razvitie russkogo jazyka, kotoryj osobenno uvelifilsja v
èpoxu formirovanija russkoj nacii i russkogo nacional'nogo jazyka." In fact, Rjazan’ was one of the oldest major settlement regions with a distinct dialect in Medieval
Russia, along with Novgorod, Pskov, Rostov, Suzdal’, and Smolensk.^
hi contemporary Russia, Rjazanian dialects belong to the Eastern South
Russian dialects (see Avanesov 1986: map 4). However, despite the fact that southern dialects in general played an important role in the formation of the Russian national language,^" and that Rjazan was one of those important regions, there has
’ Historically, Rjazan' was the first principaUy which was captured by the Mongols (1238). In the fifteenth century, Rjazan was one o f the finir independent principalities, i.e., Yaroslavl, Rjazan, Rostov and Tver. Besides these finir independent principalities, the city-states of Novgorod, Pskov and Vjatka as well as the other five cities remamed outside the authoriy of Moscow. For detailed nifimnation about medieval Rjazan', see Darkeviô and BorisevK (1995).
Kotkov (1991a: 131) writes ‘ju2novelikorusskoe nareiie v processe stanovlenija nacional’nogo Ja^fka igralo boiee opredeljajuKujurol’, nefeli sevemoveUkorusskoe.” not been much linguistic study of medieval texts firom Rjazan’. Because the majority of surviving gramotv fi»m the early period were firom the northern, central or western regions, the study of the development of Russian chancery language has been mainly based on resources from those regions - Novgorod, Pskov, Suzdal’, Moscow, etc.
Kotkov (1991b: 3-4) writes that “Ob”ektivnaja razrabotka problemy obrazovanija russkogo nacional’nogo jazyka dlitel’noe vremja sderüvalas’ tem, £to starinnye teksty, proisxoidenie kotoryx syjzano s juinovelikorusskoj oblast’ju, za samymi malymi isklju£enijami, o k a^ ali’ vne polja zrenija istorikov, a rusistam v rukopisnom vide byli neizvestny. Vsledstivie ètogo izuôenie processa sloienija russkogo nacional’nogo jazyka tradicionno stroilos’ na baze sevemovelikorusskogo naretija i srednevelikorusskix govotov”. Therefore, it is essential to understand the linguistic picture of medieval Rjazanian regions to fill in a gap in the study of the development of the Russian language.
Third, the time firame o f the investigated documents is critical in understanding the formation of the Muscovite chancery and colloquial languages, which later became the basis of the Russian national language. It is generally held among scholars that the formation of the Russian national language began firom the fifteenth century and lasted until the seventeenth century (GorSkova 1959:82).
Therefore, fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents are very important in drawing a complete picture of the language situation in the given time.
Fourth, the formation o f Rjazanian dialects and their dialectal isoglosses have been topics of various investigations, but the complex and non-uniform dialectal features of the Rjazanian regions made it hard to provide generalizations about Rjazanian dialectal zones. In contemporary Rjazanian dialects, both North Russian and South Russian features coexist, e.g.. South Russian features such asakan'e, jakan’e as well as North Russian features such as tsokan'e, etc. (Budde 1896:19-20,
Moraxovskaja 1962:72). In addition, the northern parts of the Rjazanian region
located north of the Oka river show different dialectal features from the southern
parts (Dumovo 1915:17,27). To make things more complicated, the geographical
structure of the isoglosses in Rjazanian regions is often considered to be the result of
the settlement history of Russia (Andersen 1978:6). Therefore, the study of medieval
Rjazanian documents is crucial for understanding the complex and non-uniform
isoglosses of contemporary Rjazanian dialects.
Given these reasons for the linguistic study of old Rjazanian documents, the
goal of this study is to provide the orthographic, phonological and morphological
descriptions of all the surviving legal documents from Rjazan’ prior to its ofBcial
annexation by Moscow in 1520/21, as well as sixteenth-century documents that have
not attracted linguists' attention earlier.
There are published texts available in diplomatic editions that are well-suited
for such linguistic study (Kotkov 1978; ASÈI, vol. 3; DDG; Morozov 1988). In
providing the first comprehensive description of the medieval Rjazanian dialect, the
study will complement studies of other medieval Russian dialects, e.g., GorSkova
(1968) on Northern Russian dialects and Zaliznjak (1995) on the Novgorodian
dialect, etc. 1J . Description of the corpus to be investigated
The principal source of the data is a collection of Rjazanian legal documents published under the editorship of S. L Kotkov and I. S. Filippova (1978). The collection ranges in time mainly from the beginning of the fifreenth century to the early sixteenth century. There are Rjazanian legal documents that date from the
fourteenth century, but they are mostly extant in copies from later periods (Kotkov
1978:3). The earliest known Rjazanian legal document is the ImmunitvCharter of
Grand Prince Mixail Jaroslavié (1303 ?), which is also one of the earliest legal documents from South Russia. However, it is preserved only in a later copy in a collection of trial records from 1535 (see KaStanov 1975:110-111, Morozov 1988:
298).
Kotkov and Filippova's collection is the first comprehensive diplomatic edition of Rjazanian legal documents.' ' These texts are interesting for several reasons. They date from the period prior to the Muscovite aimexation in 1520/21 by
Grand Prince Vasili) m (cf. Martin 1995:254). In addition, as mentioned above, the texts contain a large number of dialectal features. At the same time, as Rjazan' was
under a Muscovite protectorate in the later fifreenth century, the texts may show
some influence from Muscovite chancery language. Furthermore, the corpus
investigated shows not only dialectal features, but also archaic or Church Slavonic
" There are earlier editions of Rjazanian legal documents, but they were mostly published under the cditQwhip o f hüstorûms with simplification of original texts; thus, they are not adequate for linguistic investigation. For example, Fiskarev, m Drevnie gramotv î aktvR|aa«nslcogo kraia f 18S4). writes, "Pravopisanie starim ^ naSix piscov i gramoteev ne soAeno nuAgm soxranif pri izdanii ètix pamjatnikov, potomu Sto ono ne predstavljaet nikakoj vainost" v paleografiüeskom omoSenii."
8 features. Through these texts, we can possibly investigate interactions between the legal vernacular of the Rjazan’ area and Muscovite chancery language as well as archaisms or Slavonicisms.
Kotkov and Filippova's edition contains two main parts. The first part is the typeset text of original manuscripts from the mid-fifteenth century to the late sixteenth century; it is composed of fi% manuscripts. Most of the manuscripts were evidently written in cursive.^^ The second part is the typeset text of later copies of documents fiom the beginning of the fifteenth century to late sixteenth century; it is composed of thir^-four manuscripts. In my work, the second part is used to a very limited extent. Because it is quite probable that scribes of the copies received different orthographic training fiom those of the original documents, it is not methodologically adequate to deduce the phonology or morphology of the original texts on the basis of the orthographic practice of scribes of later periods.
The editors o f the collection organize the texts in chronological order with numbers to identify manuscripts. For example, manuscript number 1 is the earliest
(1464) and manuscript number SO is the latest (late sixteenth century) in the first part.
The editors identify the number of leaves of the original documents as well. Thus, in my work, in order to identify specific manuscripts, 1 will use the number of the
Studies m Russian paleography show that uncials are the oldest type followed by semi>uncials and cursive (Tixomirov & Murav'ev 1982; 17-26, Borkovskij & Kuznecov 1963:14-15). However, it is difBcultto pmpoint die exact times for the use of each type. Cursive documents began to appear in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and became widesprwd fiom the sixteenth century. (Cerepnin 1956: 360-361). manuscripts in parenthesis. If more specific identification is needed, I will put the number of the leaf in parentheses preceded by the number of the document, e.g., (17:
3), (84:195), etc.
The editors do not mention whether the texts were originally written in uncial, semi-uncial or cursive scripts. However, based on the 17 photographs of the original manuscripts added at the end of their edition, it is quite probable that most of the texts were written in cursive, which is seen in 15 out of the 17 photographs. This agrees with the common use o f cursive script in gramotv fix>m other regions in the fifteenth century.
In creating their diplomatic edition, the editors paid careful attention to graphic variants, superscripts and line breaks. They italicized the superscripted letters and used a vertical line to indicate line divisions. In addition, they preserved abbreviations, which are widespread in the investigated documents. The abbreviated forms have their origin in the spelling practices of Church Slavonic, e.g., 6zb (6or), dwy Coymy), Xc«b (Xpcroat), etc. In the investigated documents, the practice of abbreviating a form is not limited to the nomina sacra, but includes secular terms as well. These abbreviated secular terms are usually quite commonly used in words of the following categories; (1) possessive pronouns, e.g., euta (aama), uuib (nam); (2) family terms, e.g., otfb (oreq), Mmu (Maiepn), cHh (cun), chok (c u h o k); (3) time expressions, e.g., d«6 (geHB), ndjtu (neaejm), m o ^ (Mecaua), hhc (name), z (roa); (4) geogr^hical terms, e.g., dpetm (nepesmi); (5) titles, e.g., oidKa (anawKa), zdpb
(rocyntq>b), khzm (xHamna), wob (Knasb), tfph (nrq)&), encm (enmcxon), etc.; (6) idiomatic forms, e.g., mpKb (mm pex), etc.; (7) adjectives, e.g., dxeuou (ayxoanoH),
10 npndÔHoe (npenoAOÔHoro), etc. There are three devices for indicating abbreviations;
(1) words or phrases are just abbreviated with no titlo: (2) words or phrases are abbreviated with titlo: (3) the abbreviated words or phrases are circled, e.g., dpe
(aepeaiw), nyc (nycromn), non (nonnHOK), d (naop), e (bo naope), etc.
In content, the investigated gramotv include the following text-types'^ - kuoCie (deeds of purchase; 6,13,14,15,24,27,34,38,56,57,76,77), dannve
(donation charters; 2,9,20,29,32,35,36,39,41,42,43,59,80,81,82), I’gotnve
(charters temporarily exempting peasants from fiscal or service obligations; 3,4), ialovannve (immunity charters; 3,4,51,52,53,54), dogovomve (treaties; 7,55), dokladnve (transcripts of hearing; 1,23,58), sudnve spiski (trial transcripts; 61), prawe (judgment charters; 16,17,26,31,62,65,66,83), menovnve. mefewe. otvodnve (boundary-setting documents; 21,47,48), raz"ezfie (boundary-dispute documents; 5,31,67,68,69,70), zakladnve (mortgages) and zaemnve kabalv (loans;
45), as well as various zapiski (inserted notes; 8,11,12, 18, 19,25,28,33,37,46,
49,60,64,78), wpisi (extracts; 18,50,84) from piscowe knigi (cadastres), otpisv
(receipts; 22,30), and a fragment of unknown type (10).The length of each document varies from a quarter to five printed pages.
" There are more than 150 text-types o f pamotv as a whole. (Cf. SRJa==Slovar* russkoeo iazvka XI - XVII w . Vol. 4. p. 119-120.) Furthermore, there are more than 130 types ofnotes or books that include legal contents. (Cf. SRJa. vol. 7, p. 197.)
For a description o f the various types o f legal documents, see CoUms (1994:48-55), Dewey and Klehnola (1973:41-48), Leont’ev (1969:45-46). On the categorization o f these documents, see Tarabasova (1964). Tarabasova (1964) categorizes these text-types into two groups, based on whether a umAer atiri wi addressee are expressed or not - deloproizvodstvennve dokumentv and perepiska (correspondence), the former being without specific addressee, e.g., kabalv. zapisi. etc., whereas the latter have specific addressees, e.g., ielobitnve aramotki.
11 Legal documents tend to contain many standardized formulae. These appear quite regularly in the corpus of documents investigated.'^ Usually, these formulae are found in the beginning (incipits) or at the end of texts (explicits). Incipit formulae identify the types of the texts as well as the people who are most directly concerned in the content of the texts, e.g.. Se ja z ... syn kogo. Se Jaz ... kupil esmi u {kogo âto).
Se ja z ... prodali esmi, vo imj'a Otca i Syna i Syjatago Duxa..., biagoslovenie ot vladyki..,Se bil âelom..., Jaz ...pozalavalfa)... 6to,po ... slovu (kogo), etc. Explicits typically identify wimesses or scribes, e.g., poslux... ruku priloiil, a gramotu pisal j a z ... svoeju rukoju, na to poslusi, Dbjak, sidël i ruku priloHl, si rëôi esmi pisal svoeju rukoju, etc.'^ Dialectisms or local features tend not to be well reflected in formulaic phrases, which can derive flom centuries of tradition. Thus, formulae tend to be less usefiil in identifying local linguistic features.
" For detailed ùifomiatioa about formulae in medieval Russian manuscripts, see Uspensldj (1987:66- 72), Kleimola (1972,1975), Larin (1975:255-258).
“ The stuttyofformulae is an essential part of Oip/omnfics, a part of historical textology that studies legal texts with standardized judicial contents. The goal of diplomatics is to define the origin of various legal documents and their roles m the development of society. Consequently, classification of legal documents based upon their origm is one of its major concerns. For previous research in medieval Russian dijplomatics, see Sergeev (1971,1978), KaStanov (1970,1975,1996), Volkov (1974), Vvedenskij (1963).
12 U . Methodological problems In the investigation of Rjazanian legal documents
There are a number of methodological difficulties inherent in the proposed investigation. First, many of the extant Rjazanian gramotv are later copies, which may not necessarily reflect the language of their originals. It is difficult, periiaps even impossible, to trace what changes occurred in the process of copying.
Second, even in original documents, not all of the phonetic details of the medieval Rjazanian dialects are reflected in a clear manner, given the limitations of the graphic system utilized in the investigated texts. For example, even if Rjazan' was one of the regions where the lenition of*g to /occurred (Avanesovl952:45), the investigated documents are unable to furnish any direct evidence of the change g >
One and the same letter z reflects either /g/ or //.
Third, we can not be completely sure that the scribes were all speakers of the
Rjazanian dialects.'^ Among the fifty documents investigated, 27 documents indicate scribes' names; none of these names recurs in more than one document.
Even in the cases where the scribes are indicated, we can not be sure whether they
" The change of *g to / 0* h) is found in Ukrainian, Belorussian, and southem Russian dialects, includtng Rjazanian (for detailed information about the lenition of *g in Common Slavic, see Andersen 1969b, Abaev 1964).
" Studies on the seventeenth century southem dialects by Kotkov show that, at that time, legal texts were written by local scribes with very few exceptions ^otkov 1963:17-27,1969).
13 were finm the region where texts were written or not. There is a study by Veseiovskij
(1975) on the scribes of medieval Russian manuscripts; however, none of the scribes in the corpus can be identified fiom Veselovsky's data.
Fourth, the linguistic features found in the investigated documents are in many instances not homogeneous. To make matters more complicated, contemporary
Rjazanian dialects show a non-uniform distribution of features. Certain features are reflected differently fiom one village to another. For example, the e to o change is absent both in stems and sufGxes as well as in *tbrt groups in some dialects, but not in *tbrt groups in other dialects. In other dialects, the change is reflected only in the stem fPARJa Fonoloaia: Map 38).
All these difGculties make the analysis of the corpus complicated. However, those difGculties do not necessarily signify that the documents are unsuitable for study. To the contrary, the given difficulties provide an agenda that will define the scope of the investigation.
First, I will focus on original documents of the fifteenth- and sixteenth- century, excluding later copies. The use of data fiom later copies will be limited to a few instances and cited only when appropriate. In most cases, later copies will be used as testing examples for my findings fiom the original texts.
Second, the mixture of various filin g s for the same phonetic/phonological or morphological units in the same documents itself defines the strategy of my investigation. It is practically impossible to find a single straightforward rule that
14 governed medieval Rjazanian scribes' writing practice. Therefore, the main focus of this dissertation is to determine general tendencies or norms rather than straightforward rules among the documents investigated.
Third, given that scribes of each document can not be identifiable based on their names, it is possible that some documents under investigation might not have been written by Rjazanian scribes at all. Furthermore, it is also possible that, in some periods, even Rjazanian scribes were trained under the norms of the Muscovite chancery language. Therefore, it is critical to ascertain to what extent scribes were under the influence of Muscovite chancery language. As the Rjazanian documents themselves can not be used as reliable specimens of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century
Muscovite chancery language, 1 will focus on the dialectal features attested in the corpus and leave the other, non-Rjazanian features for future investigation. In order to find Rjazanian dialectal features, I will analyze each document as a whole and characterize each document in terms of its salient linguistic features, instead of trying to find features common to all the investigated documents. Then, 1 will try to distinguish Rjazanian features fiom non-Rjazanian ones. Those dialectal features that are clearly verifiable by orthogrs^hy or comparative methods will be the main focus of the investigation. There are several ways to characterize the documents in terms of linguistic features. For example, hypercorrections are good clues for certain linguistics features, e.g., hypercorrect spellings like exol (5), v kokyx, (34), vypisono
(40), etc., can be strong evidence for akan'e in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century
Rjazanian dialects.
15 Fourth, both the non*unifonmty of dialectal features in contemporary
Rjazanian dialects and the fact that Rjazanian regions underwent massive immigration in medieval times suggest that the very heterogeneity of the dialectal features in the corpus may be an accurate reflection of the medieval Rjazanian linguistic situation. Therefore, I will try to divide the documents into different groups based on certain linguistic features and to determine whether there are any general tendencies in the scribes' writing practices. Only afler classifying each investigated document can one describe the general features characteristic of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal language.
1.4. The organization of the work
The second chapter will cover the orthography of the surviving original fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. Mostly vowel letters will be investigated. This will be the foreground for the discussion of phonology and morphology in the following clusters. There are two main focuses in this chapter.
First of all, I will try to distinguish traditional spellings fiom spellings that reflect actual pronunciation. Second, I will attempt ascertain certain constraints that govern the positioning of letters. Because the orthography is the main clue for the analysis of phonological system, some phonological features will also be discussed in this chapter, e.g., the phonemic status o f the vowels *è and *ô.
The third chapter will treat problems in the phonology of the investigated corpus. The topics will include akan’e and jakan’e and their environments of
16 occurrence, and the e to o change. Consonantism will be briefly discussed in this chuter as well as in Chapter 4 with reference to certain case endings that involve
consonantal alternations.
The fourth chapter will cover the morphology of the investigated corpus. It
will focus on topics such as archaic declensional patterns, morphologr of the old
“sofl-stem" declensions, the generalization of a-stem endings in the plural, and
demonstratives and pronominal adjectives. In the verbal system, the formation of
past and future tense and the use of copula will be examined, together with other
topics suggested by the corpus.
In the final chuter, the findings will be synthesized. Norms and standards as
well as Church Slavonicisms and Muscovite influence found in the corpus will show
how well scribes were aware of different registers in their writing practice.
17 CHAPTER]
ORTHOGRAPHY
The objective of the present chapter is to describe the graphemic system of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. In general, descriptions of graphemic systems of medieval Slavic documents are the basis for the analysis of other linguistic levels because written documents are all the evidence we have. The graphemic system built up in this chapter will be used as the foreground for the subsequent phonological and morphological analysis.'
It is a well known fact that delovajapis'mennost* was not yet codified in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Thus, fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian
legal documents are seemingly quite idiosyncratic for each individual scribe. Their
orthography is seemingly not consistent fiom scribe to scribe, fiom document to
' In describing the graphemic system of fifteenth and sixteenth Rjazanian legal documents, I will employ generally accepted terms formulated m the field of graphemics. For a survey of the development of research on graphemics, see Ruszldewicz (1976). There are several basic notions: a s/or is a position in a word, a blank is an empty slot (Sgall 1987). A graph is a symbol the tokens of which are used in writmg in such a way that (a) every token of the symbol occupies a slot, and (b) a token of the symbol can be used as a part of a string representing a word-form' (Sgall 1987), and it is used analogously to phone (Hamp 1959). An a//ogrqph is the predictable variant of a single grapheme. An «dtogr^p/t « an W vidual, stylistic or free variant o f a single grapheme (Hamp: 1959). I will italicize or use comer brackets' ( ] [ ) for graphs, on the analogy of phonetic square brackets' ( [ ] X and "pomted brackets' (< > ) for graphemes.
18 document/ The same word is spelled differently not only in different documents, but also in the same document and, sometimes, on the same line or sentence, for example;
0 ) CO ecuM muMh / coecuM tm /^ (2) d a u m k / c e d . (3) e ezo œKOJiutpi / e oKOJiutffo (5) K ...DYÔeoiCY / n o ... pvôeoKY (7) ÇO0t / ç ^ 6 t (11) MOHOcmbtps, / MOHOCmbtpA (18) ÔOBphCKUe / ÔOjf^KKUMb (23) B acm e oa " / U leanae cborb UleMXKUHh (31) XHta / YM uxam a (44) Mk m / AKoe (47) S em B . / SCMJiA. (47) no HtpnouBodt, / HO WipHYio Bodr
The number of examples can be easily added up. However, this does not mean that scribes of medieval Russia could practice whatever orthography they choose.
Undoubtedly, scribes' individual habits played a role, but there must have been group norms or conventions that medieval scribes were supposed to follow. It is my intention to find out the orthographic conventions o f fifteenth* and sixteenth century
Rjazanian scribes'.
There are two main focuses in this chapter. First of all, I will try to discern which spelling really reflects the spoken language of the given time, and which spelling is traditional. Because the orthography is "often more conservative"
^ N. I. Tarabasova (1986; 30) writes that "v usiovijax uzual'noj nekodificffovannoj orfografii, xaraktemoj dlja pamjatnikov delovogo soderïanija, pisaonyx glavnym obrazom skoropis'ju, otmetennaja variarivnost* naxodit obydno dovol’ho svobodnoe vynriknie. Fakultativnoe iqiotrevlenie togo ill tnogo varumt zaviselo ot pravopisnoj vyuCki pisca."
19 (Uldall: 1944) than real pronunciation, not all the written letters reflect the real pronunciation or real practice of spellings of a given time. For example, certain letters like r, ^ s k used quite restrictlvely to denote numerals or in personal names.
I will first delineate traditional spellings fiom others that reflect the real pronunciation. Second, I will try to find out certain constraints that govern the positioning of certain letters. Some letters are finely interchangeable with one another, whereas others are somewhat constrained by environments. I will delineate those finely interchangeable sets of letters finm those that are quite restricted, and then try to define the environments of those constraints.
I will first define the total number of letters used in fifteenth- and sixteenth- century Rjazanian legal documents, and then delineate the letters in fiee variation.
Then I will investigate the distribution of the rest of the letters.
2.1. Vowel Letters in free variation
In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, we find a total of forty-two letters, eighteen vowel and twenty-four consonant letters. They are;
a, 6, e, g, d, e, e, ok, o, s , u, i k, ji, m, h, o, m, n, p, c, m, Of, y, Y, 0, X, q, h, tu, o, t , b, t , to, A, 0. St, bi, r. 3
20 Among these foity-two letters, about half ate consistently used in all the investigated documents with no allographs or orthographic variants. Thus, the following letters alone are not investigated in this dissertation.
a, 6, d, OK, K JI, jn, H, n, p, m, x, % h, m, ip, k>, bi, r, g
The remainder of the graphs has either fiee orthographic variants or allographs, in one way or another. Among these graphs that have corresponding graphic variants, I will delineate those gr^hs that can occur in all positions in which the other can occur (i.e., graphs in fiee variation) fiem those which can occur only in such positions in which the other can not occur (i.e., allographs). To the group of letters that are used not quite consistently, in other words, those in fiee orthographic variation, belong u ~ i and e ~ e . The grapheme < e> existed on "broad" and "narrow" forms. However, I was unable to determine any regularities in this variation. To the group of letters that should be considered as allographs belong h ~ b. 0K~ v ~ y: o~a>. and e - t In the following section, I will argue for the basis of grouping the vowel letters into these two categories.
2.1.1. The vowel letters 0 -m~m
In the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, there are four gnqihs used for Conunon Slavic *a after jot or soft consonant as well as i.e.,
-A ~ e. Among these four gr^hs, e reflects jakan’e, which is atypical
21 phenomenon in Rjazanian dialects (see Chapter 3 for the discussion of the unstressed vocalism in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents). Thus, I will investigate only the use of the first three graphs. It is generally held among scholars that, among the three grtqphs, â was the youngest (Cerepnin 1956:363,368;
Tixomirov & Murav'ev 1982:27), and that it began to replace b ~a firom the late fourteenth and fifteenth century under the second South Slavic influence (Worth
1983:358). Bearing this in mind, I will try to answer two questions: First, were there any tendencies in the choice of these three graphs? Second, if the spelling of x in the place of bot m was the result of South Slavic influence, was the spelling of x consistent enough to claim that scribes of the given documents were under South
Slavic influence as a whole, or was it practiced only to limited extent?
Considering the traditional claim that delovaja pis'memost' was not yet codified in the fifteenth- and sixteenth century, it is necessary to divide the investigated documents into certain groups to determine the group norms or conventions. The investigated documents can be divided into three groups based on the number of the given graphs that were used. Excluding the graph e, a total of 20 documents exemplify use of all the three gr^hs b ~ m -x already fiom the fifteenth century (documents No. II, 14,15,18,23, 26, 29,30, 32, 35, 37,38, 40, 42, 43, 44,
45, 47,48, 49). Among these documents, three documents (29,43,45) exemplify two graphs x ~ 0 in the main texts and ^ in the signature section by different scribes.
About half of the investigated documents (22 documents) show variation between two gnq>hs, either b ~ m (documents no. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,13,16,17,19,20,
22,25,39), or 0 ~x (documents no. 24,31,41,46), but not a -x. The remaining
22 seven documents exemplify only one grqpb, either a only (documents no. 12,21,34,
36) or ;i (documents no. 27,28,50) or 0 (document no. 33). The examples of each category are listed below.
2.1.11. Documents with a three-way distribution
In 20 out of the 50 investigated documents, the three graphs are used interchangeably in any morphological position and do not show any predictable patterns. They appear fieely in word-initial, word-medial, and word-final positions in the same documents. Representitive examples are summarized in the table 2.1 :
23 % B M II MOHocmbipg, 03, decOn, ecM0 jB3 . MOHOCmupA 14 Y Baaag m nomAsio, noAÔpA mucAn 15 m noméeao,MmacmnpA CnùMCHAMU 18 Mmacmbipa. ÔOBPhCKUe, MOHOCmbipB ÔOAPCKUMh, WOJtA 23 Mcmsçoeo, & 6oBpuH.MaHJScoae KH3A 26 nÿHdecsm, nocadtpaia. 03. dtBch, Sem 0 TAianucA... KpcmbAne 29 cno3KM9fim,JjMttmpei naeM0HUKa, Beiai0iu, Moea BacttAtu MmumpeB 30 KHg3, KHSS, 03,KHj^ CKoaancB deeAmoz, BacwiA 32 depeeHSMU, Mapi, noKO0 HenAdHuna, Men A 35 nomsino, noMexgM, m MOA dpmg 37 ngffl n0m, nodBiezto nAm, MonacmbipA 38 sdepeeHgMu KH0 A3, 8S A3, MOA 40 HaupacHOi 0 dee0m, MOHacmnpB CmapoA 42 eSHJi, es 03.MO0 A3, e s A3, j/MenA 43 ROfflgaio ^ e ...Kpenocm0c, dn0 A3 44 Stcoe, 6osp. Bacutts. n o i0 MHOMh, n0fn, AKoe denenaïaB ne ocmaaoc0 45 ^.SoHSJi, Bacwa,MOg Y Bacun0 M , nAm, Y sam A 47 nam S e m 0 nodAteu, SemA 48 e ...Kpnocmsc eomHUHHa0 ManacmbipA 49 OnoBpea M6H0 «303 A3, nodAneMY
Table 2.1: Documents with three-way distribution of ht-b ~m
24 As is seen above, theie is no evident pattern in the choice of the gr^hs
H in phonetic/gnq>hic environments. They can appear after or before the same consonants or vowels freely and interchangeably, e.g..
(11) MOHOCmnpH / MOHOCmbipA, 0 8 ) ôoj^/bCKue / ôoapcKUMb (23) Mamcoeo / MOHjScoee (26) ÆS / A3 (30) KNg3 / KHS& (42) sSstn / e S M (44) ^ 0 6 / MW (47) Sem B. / S e m A etc.
In addition, the given examples do not provide any clue for the question of whether the use of a specific graph produced any stylistic effects. The three graphs a~A~si were simply in free variation.
2.1.12. Documents that exercise two-way distribution
The following documents show two-way distribution. As is mentioned above, the distribution is found either between a-^ ^ (18 documents), or b ~r (4 documents), but not - a, as is seen in the following tables.
25 B. A 1 6 oBpe, K0 P0 6 M nAmcamtem. « 3 An, taaA 2 S0 , HacmacbB c iuxmch Amu, nocae cacnodapA 3 aemacaB, Apc "ÈHhB AmmuK, mAnocmb,MoA 4 SB, eemcaB KHASUMU 5 cb Bpocmomiu, kh B x u m kh Apk , HnAmuHb 6 m JlBnrn nAiHb 7 Bcmpeôu, BMh, k h ^ ,6 oBpckum, AceHeeaciu. Am*. khA3, 6 0 Ap, mbhA mchB 8 Bi, àhBc. Y naxoMB 9 3Alt, madepemA 9 m , noaBHO, sem B npAMo, dacaôpA 10 dbBcoH, HcoOtB (okh APicu .... ie m A ...KOZMmacmbipA 13 B3,dioeb m m m o
16 cmou ...nojiBHbi. eenwcaB mAnancA 3 cm A nonAna 17 A KHBi, KacBH. cenuKoB PbiôyjioeAm. Koc Ah, no ... apoMome... BacwiA 19 I^HBKUMOcau. dpm B «3Am% ...KoaMOHacmbipA 20 Bdcc, 6 0 BPUH KHA3 , ceœao BacunA 22 ^ dBüu, aceB kh A3, dAduHbi, Y K03Hm t A 25 àBüu, nomBsio,MeHB mpemAao 39 Æ3. mcMBuu, mch B A AKoeaa, mcha
Table 2.2: Variation between b ~ m
0 » 24 m Sxoeiioe, 6 os.CKoao, Mung, 31 dbBS Mm,dbgK, aceg 41 SB, cyaoduBM, eonnuHHaB Exoe, OgOu, «doM ôoaaueeaeHex 46 BMtoM, npBMO, dacaôpB KnpeoKMgMy, u s xopex»
Table 2.3: Variation betweenü ~ 0
26 As is seen above, all three gr^hs in table 2.2 and 2.3 could occur in any phonetic or morphological environment. Thus, the given data support the claim that the three graphs were in ûee variation in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents.
Here a question may be asked. If there were three graphs known to fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian scribes, why did they exercise just two of them in about half of the investigated documents? The length of the documents might have played a role. For example, some documents (1,2,3,4, S, 6,8,10,13, etc.) are quite short, i.e., less than a half-page long. If the documents had been long enough, it is possible that scribes might have exercised all the three graphs.
However, there are fairly long documents (7,16,17) with only a two-way contrast.
Document 17 is more than five pages long in the typeset edition (4 folia), document
7 is four pages long and document 16 is two pages long. Yet, the scribes of these documents utilized only two graphs. Therefore, it is possible that there were other reasons why the scribes did not exercise a specific graph. With limited amount of data, it is difficult to prove for sure what these motivations were. However, there is a peculiar characteristic that gives an indirect clue for this question. As 1 mentioned above, some scribes utilized 0 ~and others but no one ever exercised a - r in the same documents. In other words, the graph a was used in all the documents mentioned above, whereas A o t h was used only in conjuction with a, but never together with one another in the given subset of documents. That is, the graphs a and X tend to be polarized in the scribes' choice P ereas the gr%q)h 0 was in more general use. Considering thatx is the youngest in terms of chronology, the scribes'
27 choice of the three letters in this polarized fashion suggest that ji was an allograph of jus malyj. It is likely thatji was a grq»hic variant which grew more frequent with time.
hi summary, fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian scribes tended to utilize traditional spellings with a ~ m more often than the relatively new spellings, although all three gr^hs were functionally in use.
2.1.1J. Documents that exemplify a single graph
There are 8 documents that exemplify only a single graph. The documents are quite short, mostly about a half-page long.
(1) Documents that exemplify the letter m only:
Doc. 12: A3b, AKUMoe, no nAmu, 3em A Doc. 21 noMAm, usda coatoeaA Doc. 34 A3, AKoe, ecAKbiM, 30KnadHaA Doc. 36 A^, naeMAHU, d jtA MenA
(2) Documents that exemplify the letter b only: KmpeBna, do YcmbU (33).
(3)Documents that exemplify the letter a only:
Doc. 27: A3, mmyaa, ean/nt, y UIupAA Doc.28: A3, 6oxpm, ecmuMuyzodu, tamcmYnmcA Doc. SO: AMO, pyô^KO, dbmeK, Kpyzaoea KpA
28 Because the documents are quite short (less than one folium except document no. SO, wtich is two folia long), it is not quite plausible to conclude that the scribes of the given documents utilized only a single graph. They might have employed the other two graphs if they had written longer documents.
Another hypothesis might be that scribes used a single graph to a certain extent under local or group norms or conventions. If so, what were those norms or conventions in the first place, and how strictly or to what extent did they follow the norms or conventions? Related to this issue, there are some peculiar examples that need to be noted. That is, in some other documents that exemplify more than two graphs, the graph a appears after another vowel letter, or in endings in the position of *ja, e.g., npHcmbtg, eatwcag, juog, daieHag, Moconoecxag, do Ycmbq (7), no ... cnoey B a cm q (16), eceq Pyciu (23), digicb (26,44), digxa (47:1), etc. These examples apparently reflect the Second South Slavic influence. According to Worth
(1983:358), from the late fourteenth and the fifteenth century, the phonetic dejotation of/aja/, which originated in Bulgarian dialects (Èùepkin [1920] 1967:
130), began to be reflected orthographically in East Slavic texts in spellings such as those listed above, and spread to the position of >Vja (V=a vowel) as in eceq
Pyciuiiy). However, this does not imply that fifteenth- and sixteenth-century
Rjazanian scribes of the documents no. 7, 16,23,26,47 were following convention o f using M based on the very rigid Second South Slavic influence. The scribes of these documents utilized not only a, but also 0 ~a, which had traditionally been used in East Slavic texts. The scribes o f the documents no. 23,26,47 used all three gr^hs, and the scribes of the documents no. 7 and 16 did not even practice the
29 spelling o fx . Therefore, although the features such as the spelling n for *ja and -aa for *aja, etc., reflect developments which had taken place in South Slavic texts, they are not dominant enough to suggest that scribes of flfleenth- and sixteenth-century
Rjazanian legal documents were following any group norms or conventions influenced by South Slavic spelling rules. Although scribes followed both South
Slavic and East Slavic norms of their own choice, they tended to use the traditional spellings more oflen than the new X, as I noted above. The graphs 0-/0 - x were simply in flee variation.
There are a few examples where *ja/*ç were written as -a when it is preceded by a consonant as in eocMbdecgnth (6), nucm nodmeu (14), npoMo (46), etc.^
Keeping in mind the above-mentioned practice of a for *ja, it is possible that all the slots for potential *ja were hypercorrected as a. However, because the number of examples are quite limited, it is also possible that they were simple spelling errors.
In conclusion, the graphs were in flee variation in the investigated fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. They could be used flreely and interchangeably in any graphic/graphological environments. However, it is probable that the grtq)h 0 m i A were in more active use, whereas x was in less common use in terms o f scribes' choice in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazam‘an legal documents.
^ The word nodffieu represents nodÿÿiuu. However, because the jer letter is omitted with the precedmg consonant
30 2 .U . The vowel letters <■> and <>
In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, there were two letters for /i/, i.e., and < Among these two graphemes, the use of the letter
34,35,36,38,40,41,43,45,46,48,50) where scribes used only the letter
6m, c HueoMU u c nooKHmu, Sbuiu, etc. (1), npudana ecMu, apxuMadpumy, ch HueoMU (2), 8 Moeu eojiocmu, u muM (3), ccmu, UHbi u^MeH (4), e KmeetcKou eojiocmu, xodm (6), daeamu, OKmom (8), 6mu, 3anucu (11), apxuMadpumy, mean (12), KYnynecMU (15), noMmpuunoeceM(lO),woH, Hean (21), eenmuu, npmoaicm (21), sanucnucan (24), y Faepuna, nprnooKwi (25), unoKocbiunyeu (27), coecHKUMueodu (28), KOKueouaHajiHOumpouipiiunpucmou (29), eata, nuaibi (33), ucoeopodu U3z ymhu u ...(34),yxmapu, cnecbi u cnyau (35),y OKUBOHQHanHbie mpompd (36), e nonu, Muxama (38), etinucoHO u?pe30HCKWc (40), Xpucmoea, nocnycu (41), CyKUH, Kaxue xpenocmu (43), duu, nnmu (45), c khuz, y eunucu(AS), npoMeumecMn(49), Hauey,UÂMa(50), etc.
In addition, the letter
KM, (17:1). Presumably, in the above texts, the numeral TO' would have been denoted by ; however, it happens not to appear.
However, the use of the vowel letter is al% not insignificant. In texts, other than those listed above, the letter is basically used in all the contextual positions, e.g., on stems and endings, and also as a conjunction, etc., as is the letter
31 (A) In stems, Boiciem mcmijo (7:1), no ÔJiceeHto omtfa muez CeMiona (7:1), am xpcmimma (7:1), diaicb (13), npyiootcun (IS), nodnicaii (17:4), m/cifoe ...TpemimaMuxawioea (18:3), leoHHUHO (18:3), leoHb saxapoob (18:3), dUacb (23, 26,30,44), [HbiMb ...JoodtMb (26:2), Icnu^HUKy, ocmoz nowi (26:3), Cepzijo u HuKOHy (39), 3a ...adpaevs (39), apxiMaHdpmr(42), da s dijBKOMb (44:3), CudopKO PodieoHoe (44:39), rm moHom» (44:46), d ia m (47:1), etc.
(B) In endings, k OHUKœcKoijnaicu (5), cmaputiu ... Mean Bacmeem (7: 1), KHA3 eenuxiu ( 7 :1), ceneecKip ôopmHtacu u nponciau ôopntHUKU u OKonozopodHbiu ôopnmuKU u eojtocmu MeufepcKiu (7:1), MonacmbtpcKiu cejia, but in the same text, MonacmbipcKie cejia (7:1), cf) d tmu êoapcKuu (11), e'cea Prciu (16:1,17:1,23,26:1,26:3,30), c/ucird(16:1,17:1,26:1), Kwag eevmKW (17:3), % ez moeapbtufiu (26:1), «ejim mkhju (26:4), e'cen Prcui (31), 3 dpeuMi (32), no ... Hemeepmei (44:58),
(C) As the conjunction, MUMoffeanai (19), [ ho ux maeapbiufa{26:1), umu... I nœaiu (26:2), ueyMH i_ nanti (26:3), / untix cydeu (26:4), [B ce zo (37: i and B are connected as a ligature), i c ityzu (39), nuce^ / dosopufUKb (47:1), Ilo a i yx ffeMenemeu ipYKY npMooKunh (49), etc.
The vowel letter is exclusively used to denote the numeral 10, e.g., aezyc
6 i (7:1), Jitm ...3EH9), ...35/(10), noMÔpA (14), iicmozoOeepajiA e
M l d m (17:4), eb 3 l d. (26:5), eb [ de. (47:2), etc. In addition to its function as the
indicator of numerical value, seems to be used more frequently in certain slots.
In many instances in (A) and (B), the letter seems to be used before a vowel
letter or at the initial or the final slot of a word. However, there are also exceptions,
e.g., npyiooKm (15), nodnican (17:4), apxmaHdpmY{Atl\\), Cudopxo Podieonoe
(44:39), etc. In comparison with the firequency of the letter , the use of the letter
is not significant enough to claim that was definitely mariced for the above-
mentioned slots. Rather, it is mariced for the numeral 10, and its use in other slots is a
matter of scribes' optional choice.
32 2.2. Vowel letters In complementary distribution.
As mentioned above, in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, more than one letter is used for certain phonemes. The following vowel
letters are in complimentary or near-complimentary distribution, and, in some cases,
may constitute a certain grapheme:
b~b, g - 1 o~ (0, oy^y~ Y
In the following section, 1 will focus on the constraints that govern the
positioning of these orthographic variants.
33 12.\. The distribution of the jer letters
It is generally held that the loss of the jets was completed by the thirteenth century in East Slavic/ However, traditional orthography continued to play a role, and the jer letters were still in use in the fifteenth* and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. In this section, I will try to answer the question of whether there were any orthographic conventions with regard to the spelling of the jer letters.
In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, the jer letters could be spelled out, replaced by diacritic marks, or omitted. When the jer letters were spelled out, they mostly appear in word-final position, e.g..
(1) CO ecuM not*. / CO ecuM muMb (2) / 0 n (3) ^OKOJIUtfU / mb ezo He ude" / He ebeinaiomb (7) neped ...hom tcmnuKa^ / C ...HOM tcntHUKOMb (12) HeKocvT / meuemb (14) CeMBHC^ / Henaecb (23) dcf ecMU / Kvrnuih ecMu Bacme ülepeBedmoe / Uleanae cbiHh UlemKUHh (26) 0^ / 0 n em c^ / emoMh (32) eh KoAOMeHCKo^ / e' UojicKOMb (37) e ...mpu deapH / e Hejuh dea deopa (39) net* / Ham» (43) e ^ oKueoHOHanHou / e doMb OKueoHanajiHo ...
* The loss of jers began in the South and West Slavic dialects in the early tenth century and was completed in the East Slavic dialects by the thirteenth century (Shevelov 1965:459). The evidence of the Novgorod birchbark documents shows that the change must have been completed in Novgorod by the beginning of the thirteenth century (Zaliznjak 1986:122-124). The evidence o f Old Ukrainian texts show that the completion o f the loss o f jers in Ukrainian falls in the mid-twelfth century (See Shevelov 1979:237). In Belorussian dialects, the loss o f jers falls somewhat later than in Ukrainian dialects, but probabty earlier than in the Russian dialects (Wexler 1977:126, foomote 3).
34 The given examples show that if the jers are omitted, the precedmg consonant is usually superscribed. In fact, there was a tendency to superscribe the last consonant of a word in most fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. Occasionally, the jer letters were replaced by diacritic equivalents, i.e.,
<’>, e.g., elMoeu (7), e'jiaMacmbip (16), YKooiceMl, 3l6pamao (17:2),x'jno (36), etc. In this situation, the consonants were not raised. In addition, quite fiequently
(but not always), the first consonant in consonant clusters was also raised, e.g.,
KcuiAM^CKoe (2), Kja6*mt, (5), Cojiouft^acd (11), a KojioMd^CKO^ (15),
MdHubiK (24), XMdnuKu (27), dd^atou (33), ecP^Huna (36), 3 dept^wMU (38), no m a à étfb i (41), etc. Considering that these consonant clusters resulted from the loss ofjers, the raising of the first consonant in clusters supports the claim that there was a convention of raising the preceding consonant in conjunction with dropping the jers. In other words, conventionally, there was a near-complementary distribution between V C t and V®0(V=vowel letter, C=consonant letter, ■b=^‘er letters, 0= slot
for fallen week jer). It is noticeable that scribes were aware of traditional orthography even two centuries after the fall ofjers in their territories.
One class of exceptions to this generalization is monosyllabic prepositions, as
is seen below, e.g..
(2) Ç muM / Cb HueoMU (9) u ^ 3 e m e io / uc no3MOM KMOHacmupH) / KbKJieHr (23) u^ôopmMU / caecH (33) HanucoHaerpuzop... / oszycmaehK..
35 More such examples can be easily shown. Monosyllabic prepositions were sometimes raised, but sometimes not raised, even if they were not followed by jer letters.
When the jer letters were spelled out, they were mostly spelled out correctly etymologically. There are very few occasions in which the jer letters were spelled out incorrectly. For example, in only a few cases, the front jer was written in the place of the back jer, e.g., cb ux ôpambew (S), ga dpme (24), etc. Because this is rarely found, we can ascribe it to a simple spelling error.
There are some peculiar examples that need to be noted with regard to the spelling of the jers. The jers were in some cases spelled out as the vowel i, u, or w.
For example, diacb (13), dioKb (44); ku Hem rBacmeemm (24), dumicb (46); eu uzYMCHOM (19), etc. It is possible that / or u in the word
From the given data, it is not clear whether there was any phonetic motivation for this phenomenon, which needs further investigation.
hi summary, with regard to the spelling of the jer letters, we find near- complementary distribution on purely graphic principles of the jer letters vs. zero in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents.
36 2.2.2. The distribution of
In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, the phoneme
/u/ is mainly represented by three letters, i.e., oy, rand y / However, only four of the investigated documents exemplify all three letters. Twenty nine documents utilize two letters, and seventeen documents utilize a single letter or two letters with only one of them in dominant use. Based on these three groups of documents, I will discuss whether there were any preferences or tendencies in the scribes' choice of the three letters.
2.2 2.1. Documents with a single letter
As mentioned above, there are 17 documents that exemplify a single letter only, or two letters with only one of them in dominant use. Among these 17 documents, 8 documents (no. 10,11,13, IS, 16,20,21,28) exemplify the letter r only; thus, na mo nocjiYOi (10), Oedopr (11), KYtaui (13), xmoM Y ce«r(15), jr zcdpA Moezo rH eana (16:2), uzYMenr (20), etc. In6 documents (no. 7,17,18,23,
24,34), the letter r was used dominantly, with fewer than three exceptions, e.g., document no. 7 (2 exceptions, gy Htob, wm eepxr J I ^ mhou no nepeeepmoM k
Tbtcu), 17 (2 exceptions with y, no cufubcm^ a q/dMtb and 3 exceptions with the
^ There is another digraph with y written over o in vertical order as a digraph. Because there is no font available for this graph, I will use the symbol ]U[ to represent this graph. The graph ]U[ is very highly marked for the midal slot o f phonological words especially m proper names. Thus, I do not include this graph in the present section. However, it will be discussed at the end of this section.
37 digraph U, e.g., Ucamoz, UuoKoea, Muxojim Ucamoz ), 18 ( 1 exception, M uxm eer
CH^, 23 (1 exception, « ...jjtode), 24 (1 exception, nyufbtn), 34 (with the letter^ used only in the signature section by a different writer), etc. The scribes of the documents no. 2,4 and 27 used mainly the letter
Conodufii , apxuModpun^ etc. (2), 6ydem, u^ mbh, etc. (4), BynzoK, Ayeu, ycadu, etc., with only one exception, pjpcy, (27). The single exception is found in the signature section, which suggests that the graph was used by other scribes, not the scribe of the main text. The dominance of
Rjazanian legal documents, and that the choice of the two letters was up to the scribes' preference.
On the other hand, the graph oy is never found in any single document to the exclusion of the others. There are 8 documents (16 percent of the investigated documents) that reflect the letter oy, but only in conjunction with one of the other two letters,
38 2.2.22. Documents with more than one letter used
Those documents that have at least two letters exemplified provide more clues for the distribution of the three letters. There are 33 such documents
(documents no. 1.3,5,6,8,9,12, 14, 19,22,25,26,29,30,31,32,33,35,36,37,
38.39.40.41.42.43.44.45.46.47.48.49.50). They constitute more than 60 percent of the investigated documents, and most of them have mainly two graphs reflected - mostly variation between the graphs y - K There are 26 such documents
(no. 5,8,12, 14,22,25,26,29,30,31,32,33,35,36,37,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,
47.48.49.50). Two documents (no. 6,38) have variation between oy ~ r, and only one document (3) has variation between oy ~ y . As mentioned above, four documents (no. 1,9,19 and 39) have all three graphs, oy y, exemplified. The examples of the variations among the three graphs may be summarized as follows.
Examples were chosen on the basis of the graphic location of the given graphs in phonological words, i.e., clitics, roots, endings.
39 2J2J2J2.L Variation between y ~ r
Based on the positional distribution of)» ~ r in certain phonetic or morphological environments, we can divide the documents with variation between y
~ Y into four sub-categories. The examples of each group are listed below, and will be followed by comments.
y Y 12 apxuMQHdpun^ MOHacmtipa^io, ytsd a , KeejiUKOMY; no kvkomi; nauimb, mm, nautmb 320dY 25 ^raepwia, 6ea etnQina, ITomexmoe an> X MeoHoema. jiyzu, eomnuHX 26 qid, (U&mqwKO, U^poMCKOU, y Pvciu, cviuim, r eac, jncaoiceM, Ouminoea, na naiuxin, c KpcmnoMX KmoMY CWNCdw. U2ÿM6H 31 }L Hux, c m B&ama, na6 epe^ cnoex ptOau, rMwcauna, 42 e ...y.t3dt,yncutm, epauoim r noMeti, pjfinee, r podx KammtH 43 Hmotty apxmapumy, x moMÿ, c^à, 6ydm , r danue; MYpoMetf, yjSumKa 44 Vcmoa, mMUHCKOM cn&c6a, e m prSmi, pYKo, 45 Ï Marne teea. no mom nocwcu X Bacwa, a ... jris d e , UIxizum, 46 Qawcoe. zÿjÔHou, no womman, v etinucu Pxai, CYlUKoa, najiyax wunmu 47 Mjo/oMCKom wm xpmb/». nepes pern Prciu. a ... xtsde, eodx 48 a ... x.t3de, e cmam iQSUUO rSbimKa, y Haana j r XomYkacoz, miKOMX 50 HO um eaàopozx, jrcmb, ptOeoKy, jtyzY jldopozu
Table 2.4: Documents with variation between
40 Twelve documents out of 26 that reveal variation between
12,25,26,42,45. The statistics of the positional distribution of the two graphs reaffirm the random distribution of the two graphs. That is, in document 12, the occurrence ratio between
41 y Y
5 ôottom y, pyôeaicY FpuduH Y CHjd wm B y k u h o . k ...prO eoK Y
8 enepem m aqi, epoMomy X npH..,acazo, YlIaxoM B
14 K ... ca^H anpw qffiu Yezo xB acuiu, k m m x KtmYio
22 uiyM eHY, pYKy P rai, 'iiodom sopitx X m powpcœ
2 9 ÆK2M. Kmomy^aôYdymeM h, dcmym, H wtm x auKYm. n w e m , ucm apunonazay XOKuaoHmojiHbie
30 K ytm , ebucyrmmu, ôydem P rciu, X ToKMOKoea, eM X
32 e'Kuady, m y cyd, .uypoM ey, 6 y ^ m X MenA, p xxx m yacx
33 HoMoHy Bzycaoea, m zycm a X tu H B H a , nrfflb«, no C yzysoex
4 9 HO «M iQ'n, nooQpc, p w y X Menu, eomnuHX nocnyx
Table 2.5: Documents with variation between
Nine documents out of 26 that reveal variation between and r belong to this group. In this group, both the graphs y and r were utilized, but the graph y was never used in the initial slot of phonological words, whereas the graph r was utilized in any slot. In other words, the gr^h rseems to be the default graph for tvJ, and the graph y seems to be exclusively non-initial.
42 y r 35 6 ^ m . e ... yesd t, co ...jpodu, a pod £ nocatx, pjrtcr apxuMopum 36 e ... y tsd e , yoKuaoHOHcmbie, cy^, Mrpoea, m r aomuuHjc mjoko CO ...)izo6u 41 ^ e m , uzyMeny, yceuy_ dmau n o c i^ aomHUHZ «...cm m jc usyjueHZ nocaïx
Table 2.6: Documents with variation between and < ir > (III)
Three documents out of 26 that reveal variation between;' and r belong to this group. The distribution of the two letters in phonological words in this group is somewhat opposite to that of the words reprensented in the table 2.S. The letter y is used in any slot in the phonological word, whereas the letter r is never used word- initially. That is, the letter y seems to be the default letter for /u/ in any slot, and the letter rseems to be exclusively non-initial.
If we combine the data in tables 2.5 and 2.6, they are complimentary in the sense that each group suggests that both the graphs can appear in the initial slot.
Each document has less than 10 words, and usually less than five that have a slot for
/u/ in the initial position. Document no. 14 has 9 examples, but 7 of them include the preposition Ai/. Document 33 has 8 examples but the same words are repeated so that it has essentially 3 examples irrmae, Kodn). Therefore, the data in the table 2.5 and 2.6 confirm the generalization derived finm the data in the table 2.4.
43 That is, the scribes practiced both the graphs and xr randomly in any slot of the given phonological words. In other words, there is no firm evidence to disprove the possibility that the grqxhsy and r were in 6ee variation.
y Y 37 e ...cmoHji, nycmtt, e d ^ n o moMy, doiopic CtpUHoaa, a da Y no moMX sodx a day no moMY, a d a r no mojay, 40 a ...cmany, flymcuH, t^cma, adayno do3op£ xrda. moMy.
Table 2.7: Documents with variation between
The two documents represented in the table 2.7 do not have any examples that have /u/ in initial slot. Word-medially, or word-finally, both letters can appear.
Thus, we can conclude that, as far as evidence goes, if both the letters y and r were utilized, they were in random distribution for these scribes.
44 Variationbetwccnoj’ ~ r
There aie two documents that show variation between the graphs oy and r.
The data can be summarized as follows:
oy r no. s a c . 6 pama ceoe. jÿr 0edopa. SjL Kjmwi, nonoeuHY; nmoMYcenr, K td tt, 04Y, 6 m dp teea ace cna SHC. Boptinaaa, a ... py^oa, K oôm y attKjpia, nocarcu, jBjCade, co ...^eodbu, mcKcmdpoeh CHh OveoDoea, epoMomy c r KynHjno, 38 ÿjrtid t, ÿjSodAMh, SjT Umma, SXL Cmenanaar c v h y ; a o n n y cmanr; ôea HoOpeA, auKjmz pY^u, HupodYMoeMJC noaiYcu,
Table 2.8: Documents with variation between oy and r
As is seen in the table 2.8, the graph oy is used only in the word-initial slot, whereas the graph r is used in the non-initial slot Among about 70 words that have slot(s) for /u/, not a single example contradicts the generalization that oy and ra re graphic variants with oy for word-initial slot and y for non-initial slot According to Cemyx
(1953: 152), the choice of the gr^hs oy and r in later (mid-seventeenth- century) documents depends on two factors: first the position of stress, second.
45 position of the slot in phonological words. However, our data shows that the second factor applies to fifteenth* and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, but the first factor seems not to r^ply.
This begs the question, if the graphs y and y were in fiee variation in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian writings, why wasy, but not r, utilized in conjunction with oy in the two documents? The two documents are relatively short
(11 and IS lines, respectively). Thus, it is possible that the graph y might have been also used by scribes of the given documents under different circumstances.
1 2 2 2 3 . Variation between oy ~ y
There is only a single document that shows variation between oy and y, e.g.,
^ptm um btfa vs. uzyMena, x ym n , MoeMy, p ^ b , etc. in document no. 3. There are only S words that have slot(s) for Ai/, and only one example for word-initial /u/.
Thus, it is very difficult to give any reasonable judgement. However, the data do not contradict the generalization that oy is strongly associated with the word-initial slot.
46 2 2 2 2 A . Variation between «y~Y~y
There are four documents that have all the three graphs in use; the examples may be summarized as follows;
33L r 1 no. S3C Baacu syi WepH t e aenuKOMX pKtyumoKb Maany, xmoMY cany 1 ea, Jljr eatmoa taoM, Kjmm, xmoMYceax^ SSC. Hezo prSnoe 9 Ha HjrciHb, com HjCcmb, camYcmb, donm b rioKpoay jÿCcacempa, xm oM rx aeauKOMY ffaoHjr ÿj^cmbio BozYcaoaY, xmpeMa dY6oM, am... ôpodY 19 uzSjUMen, pgyxY HzyateHYM ocu Oy, uztMeny, ptKy Bozo/meHCKOMT^ KodeM 39 ^OKUeOHOHaHbt Y 3KueaHa>aHbi mpoifbi, Auny, HuKOuy wmnuHy mpotpt, SCtadci K centfJC a/auMapumjc co ...... cmt^HHyn npudanio ^BbutiKO, ÿjC9/^eHa, Kadbu, nocatx,pYKY npudoHyio, apxmapumy, ÿjOcmpoumu, SS/L Gydem, «... cm an y^ c nycmom'MU u c a ^ , MOOQ^acn^namu, no duty, nocnycu, danym
Table 2.9: Documents with variation between oy ~ r ~ y
47 It is noticeable that the letter d f is used mainly at the initial slot of a phonological word. There are only two exceptions, in document no. 19, where the graph oy occoupies a word-medial slot The letter r can basically occupy any slot which supports the claim that y was the default letter for /u/. The letter y seems to occupy only non-initial slots in the examples. However, because the documents are not long enough (less than a page) to prove that y is marked for non-initial positions, the given data do not contradict the claim that y was basically in fiee variation with
Y.
There is one more highly marked symbol - the digraph withy written over o,
which is represented here by the symbol V. It is found in documents no. 17,25,26,
29,44,46 and predominantly occupies the word-initial slot in proper names, e.g.,
UtuoK (26:3), e UcMepcKOU eonocmu (29), UpoHKO Hemae (44:50b), UmoKa
Ilempoea (46), etc. There are some examples that show C/ in the slot for the
preposition, e.g., U ceu doMO...(32), but the number of these examples is too limited
to draw any firm conclusion.
In summary, we have two basic oppositions in fifteenth- and sixteenth-
century Rjazanian legal documents, i.e., oy vs. y ~ r. The letter oy is highly marked
for the word-initial slot. The lettersy and rdo not seem to be mariced for any
position in any clear way, i.e., they are in firee variation with one another. According
to Cemyx (1953:157), there was a time when the spelling rule was to write y under
stress and r when not stressed. However, our data simply do not support his claim.
There are words that have two slots for Ai/, with one stressed and the other not, e.g.,
48 No. 19. Hzr%teHr / uzY%ieH)i, pay*KY, / pYiqi / pY kY
As is seen in the examples, bothj' and y are used both in the stressed and unstressed slot. Thus, it is clear that the position of the stress did not play any role in scribes' choice of the given letters in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents.
49 2 J J. The distribution of
In some contempoiaiy Russian dialects, we find two different mid-back vowels. The actual pronunciation of the two vowels can be different from dialect to dialect, as is seen in the table below (DARJa Fonetika: Map 42). For convenience, the vowel exemplified in *vol'a will be called colosed/ô/. and that in *god open /o/.
Dialect I Dialect n Dialect in Dialect IV ♦vol'a vôl'a vol'a vol'a voul'a ♦god god guod eoud god ♦fbt rot rot rot rot
Table 2.10: The dialectal distribution of @ and o
The opposition between open lot and closed lot or /uo/ is found in scattered enclaves with no uniform isogloss. In addition, the opposition is not limited to certain dialectal zones, but is found both in the North and South Russian dialects
(DARJa Map 42, Also see Zaliznjak 1990:29, FUin 1972:157-158).**
‘ The origin of the two of the phonemes, i.e., open lo i and closed /&/, is naced back to the period of the 611 of the jers. The opposition between open /o/ and closed /Ô/ occurs in the place of CS * 0. In Great Russian territories, the opposition between these two phonemes depends on the presence or absence of old accentual types (Zaliznjak 1990:29-30). CS *o became I b l under neo-acute accent in Russian. On the other hand, the jer in strong position is reflected as the open loi, e.g., pom, KycoK, moe, etc.; this is used as evidmce that the distinction between the open loi and closed /A/ arose before the loss of the jers (Samnatov [1915] 1967:334). Otherwise, OR/o/ fiom CS H also would have had a different reflex under neo-acute accent The backed reflexes of CS *e are also exclusively open. For some previous studies of this topic, see Vasil ev (1929), Zaliznijak (1990), Filin (1972:149-160).
50 The presence of these two mid vowels in some contemporary South Russian dialects, including regions of Kursk, Orel, Kaluga, Belgorod, Voronei and Rjazan’, as well as in North Russian dialects, suggests that this opposition might have previously existed throughout the Great Russian territories (Filin 1972:156-157;
Avanesov & Orlova 1964:278-279, Zaliznjak 1990:29). Among the other dialects,
Rjazanian dialects are particularly interesting. Many of the contemporary Rjazanian dialects have a 7-vowel system with two mid-back (open o and closed ô) and two mid-front vowels (e and 6).^ In addition, all four patterns of the opposition between two mid-back vowels mentioned in table 1 are found side by side in Rjazanian regions (DARJa map 42).^
The focus of this section is to determine whether the graphic system reflects an opposition between the open o and the closed ô in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century
Rjazanian documents. One of the ways in which this opposition was signified was by the use of the letter omega (see below). However, it should be noted that the use of the letter omega is not necessarily correlated to the existence of the phoneme loi.
Historically, the letter was "phonemically superfluous even in the Greek alphabet of
Byzantine tim es... [and it was] first limited in Slavic writings to Greek words, then was assigned a rather decorative function, viz. to appear word initially and with the superscribed t, especially in the preposition and prefix of" (Shevelov 1978:381).
With the passage of time, omega occurred more fiequently in a greater variety of
^ Avanesov (1952:30) reports that more than 60 inhabited areas of Rjazam'an regions have two separate mid-back vowels (open o and closed Ô).
' Andersen (1978:3) calls this situation a duplex isogloss - when two logically alternative mnovations are reflected m neighboring dialects.
51 environments, with certain patterns in its usage (Pugh 1987:1-12). Thus, regarding the use of the letter omega in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, we must discuss two separate issues: (1) Were there any patterns in the use o f the letter c d in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, or was the use of the letter omega random? If the use was random, it would be clear that it provides no evidence for a phonemic distinction between /o/ and /ô/. (2) If the use of omega follows certain patterns, what are the possible implications? Does the letter a reflect any phonological/phonetic reality of the given times, or is it still a purely graphic device reflecting orthographic traditions? To answer these questions,
I will collect all the examples of the letters toand o and determine whether there were any tendencies in their distribution.
52 223,1. The Graphie Distribution o f In most o f the previously investigated manuscripts, the phonemes /ô/ and /o/ are represented by four ways (Zaliznjak 1990; 2-S): (1) The phoneme /ô/ is represented by the graph o or m with kamora (n), and the phoneme /o/ by the grapheme o or m without kamora (kamora system). (2) The phoneme /ô/ is represented by the letter m, and the phoneme /o/ by the letter o (omega system). (3) The phoneme /ô/ is represented by narrow-o or wide o (the "narrow-o" system and the "wide-o" system, respectively). The fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents under investigation could potentially belong to the omega system in that the letter omega is utilized in the documents, whereas the kamora and wide o are not. Most of the SO documents show two graphemes, a and o. Only two documents (nos. I and 50) reflect the grapheme <0> alone, e.g., nejioM, na moM (1), Ohdp ta, om Ocmanoea, da omxooKeea Jiyzr(50), etc.; however, they are not long enough (less than a half page long each) to serve as evidence ft)r a claim that the scribes of these documents simply did not use the letter omega altogether. In addition, it was quite acceptable to write the letter o in the place of the letter omega in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, as will be argued later in this section. Twenty-one out of the 50 investigated documents show positional restrictions very strictly in terms of the distribution of the two letters, o and 53 used after a vowel and o after a consonant ^ P l: Positional principle I). PPl applies strictly both to internal and external slots of phonological words in the total of ten documents. The data may be summarized as follows: ÊI o 3 a ezo sfcoituvu npudaa Oiccem, a okojiuvio 4 tayMwa mmoHB, no !3c m CaiodumuHbCKQe, xmo, 3 eody ua zgd 6 ay atdp taa, 0s 0edoph çÿidp ta , da egcMbdecamb, anptnn SSieKC tu meKcoHdpoeh 8 Besidopoe 10 HU mnMoKu, flKooh mOoHOCoe, i efcmeôpM HenoM, CeMenga 12 na sfipoKr, ne &aaueam, hu egmMoicueam CPOK^OPOKY 25 da mSbhaceu HamgnofiaYcu, agmHUHY 34 eoHUHa Ofiuuiamu anpm 38 Muxauna ûgYpaa a Ozito&ntHCKOM cman Y 40 do3opr&Hàpt0 a OKOttoaopodHOM, agcMb Table 2.11: The graphic distribution of tuand o (I) In other documents, there is a fair amount of data that seemingly contradicts PPl. Contrary to PPl, the graph œ is used after a consonant letter, e.g. etdcui acnodapfb, no nepeeepmoM ^ koji , etc,. The seemingly exceptional examples are in bold in the table below: 54 Ûl o 2 nocne sienod<^M, adgw t » td m i egatodaph 5 ôopmimcu safizoeMxazMOHOcnM, K OHUKbeacKOMr, uQmixoar, no dassnexu is c te e r êésudoposbiM ôopmnuKOM, uc3aieHhCKaz apoMi 9 KH2UNU fsepodena, oy aaçempa, U3 Ocempa, a Ocemph HO KtmcKoe Sjoepo. no güSe cmopoHN, a ...noiane iunaod, no nepeaepmoM &KOJf 15 caio epmaOeao, a anuod, a KonoMeHCKou na moM cai t sxmaOeecKOM, Hznam sçHUttiKoa, ux gfWUiH r ne/ ceu, (signature section) 22 a ^ n u c , da awdp tu , Hegie, rMwpa, a dam n&aa màpnmai, daop&n» 27 ômoKO aat, u epopodti, u moam/y, cmepht nanym epepa, da gpepa eptymoK, caon e/duuny. Ce jo meueoKdpa 29 3 ôpamen q ezo.... da amt/a, adauh nocite Mena £jm moe ffimo acee Quuufomu, eeianàpMHa 31 cnuacrefcojimneu, cmoaapuutuefipaeun, uagàHoe a epna tmnuxa, cna e/fiaunun, donpaan egndaa, KouMiatcmoM ÿ/naeaim, KüK Bit t, da epmeM epmejneeh 35 ne efndaua, aomnuna epumnamu, ÜKoa ei6bHaceauH 36 no ûJÔe cmopoHH, ne egndana, cenifâ eoHuna muutamu, cu d tn m m * Table 2.12: The graphie distribution of â) and o (II) 55 However, all the words in bold on the left column share one common feature, i.e., the letter 0 is used in word-initial slot; it does not matter whether it comes after a vowel or a consonant. This will be called PP2 (Positional principle 2). Yet the examples in the right column do not bear out PP2. There are counterexamples with o in the word-initial position. The problem is solved by adding an ordering restriction that "PP2 precedes PPl", as is seen below. Doc.no.31 /iz Odnoeo/ /iz Qdnogo/ pp2 U3 adm zo m odnozo ppl ppl U3 OdHOZO *U3 CûdHOZO pp2 If PPl applies first, it gives an incorrect outcome, as is seen in the right column. There are 21 documents that hold PPl and PP2 very strictly in the order o f PP2 PPL There are two documents (7,42) that show noticeable exceptions to the two positional principles. In documents 7 and 42, PPl and PP2 apply to many examples, but the number of exceptional cases is not insignificant, as is seen below. The exceptional examples are in bold face. 56 S t 0 7 u sm tfa Hiueao, 3a sgitn, 6ea odudH, com toKduMu, am O ku ceoeio miHumao, zne agnovMem, HeçaÉudanu, ne mrnuMomu, zopodHoA CO ÿ m m u M H , II ofauuKopodHUu, acada, noag:tmpY, ecm eatessndtnuau, no &iceeiuo sfHHa names, uauom ce, C&m&HO. 0esi^p, npucmoB vdm noQ Kt,agmh, neofiudemu 42 ToaoKH tea sgam sfndaa, no si cmu, K Q m nucu apxuMopumy Hgft t, ma eomnuHa SPimamu. a&mnuc H snt, HuagKynnegmdaHtt Table 2.13: The graphie distribution of ni and o (HI) It is curious that most of exceptions are found in the right column, i.e., the use of 2,2 J.2. The Use of o and omega under stress The generalization that the grapheme slot or a slot after another vowel, is supported by additional examples of words that 57 reflected both the letter o and omega under stress. Slots under stress are ones that were most likely to exemplify the letter omega consistently if scribes distinguished the two o's on a phonemic principle. The table below gives examples of target words. In the list, many examples with 0 are found under stress, e.g., enpm, na ramc^, etc., but the number of conterexamples is also not insignificant, e.g., na zod, eormm r, etc. In some cases, scribes oflen used both letters, a and o, in the same documents, e.g., mimcçm vs. rumcgmb (23), v s. Kopb (26), etc. 0» a 13 m>m, HO m m . Jlemmeu eam nm r 18 Haz&d, npoKmBtoMtb, MKmneeti Haegd, 23 mmc&m, « ITepen toicu ceaa namcamb, ceioHvSomiHU 24 mmbc&mb 26 mrniKm dem cm x Bmmaie Kopt 39 cnaattM(mo defiepio,edm.co.- tzedtu, Canio u monep. 43 dXS/SMOU 45 Haztgd, n p m m a a cmo 46 npoK&Oeea 47 ma upkspho A noae^eHO, nucbMSl Table 2.14: The graphic distribution of m and o under stress 58 In addition, as mentioned above, the letter
0 11 c dedopsm», Conouimacwe, csouMÔpamoM, cdedopoM HejiûM mpxuMûftdpumr 18 dmo\gg{dptio 3aQHdp1^eMh 19 MOH&CmtÀPA MOHOpmttpB 23 BYmoKç», mmcegn, 9 Uepm toicu cen& SmaKçaa, mmcQmh, ceaoMt6oemu 26 eenwe&e, Muxataep, mesn k&p aenuKoe, y ^ u n o s a xpM. dummm Kgpt 32 ceaiisà cemiQ Kumtamo 37 da nepenoe&M, Caniûl 1 Hjioxuho da nepenoeoMb, ceauo da eocMb 44 net Mg oduHtfamu 45 do ^eKcteea, u slSpac, ûfn QneKcteaa, cma acMudeam, eoitnma ofipm t, cmQ,90CMbàeam, a mou ... agmHUhe, Heanaa, Bedfsp Hwamm Oeàop MeaugeuH 47 centfo Komegisi k g a r n ie , ceaifo Komoao, a oKoaui^, kok 6 m g HonucoHO 6m m
Table 2.15: The graphic distribution of m and o in unstressed position
From the given data, it is clear that the use of the letters œ and o has nothing to do with the position of the stress. This suggests that the use of the two letters was
59 purely graphic with no phonological implications in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century
Rjazanian legal documents.
2 2 3 3 . Other tendencies.
PPl and PP2 do not work in all the investigated documents. Instead, other graphic tendencies are noticeable. Certain grammatical items exemplify the letter a .
There are four such items; adverbs or neut. sg. adjectival endings (both long and short form) like nanpaeo^ 6bui^ Eeopoditpc^, etc; the adjectival suffix /-ov/, as in
Heauœe, Lfapezopodifm, etc.; the prepositions or prefixes /ot-/, /pod-/, /po-/, as in
^ moe eomuuHbi çmcmYmuiai, nadnucan, nadaeu, etc.; and the masc./neut. sg. gen. adjectival ending in -ogo, e.g., Kucmpcx^ cejia, s6o«pcKozœ doKJiadr
çmnuc, etc. More examples are listed in the table below.
There are some counterexamples that seemingly contradict the tendency, e.g., e bleaHoeo, omtib, Cmenange, etc. However, they are in fact not exceptional. As noted above, the letter o was the default or unmarked vowel in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. The letter a could be used in the place of the letter omega in any position. It would be exceptional, on the other hand, if there were any examples where the slot for the letter
60 & & 14 ceao sicma6eao, tqna^nm m b , aXanQMnHCKQM a ameod. caouM moM. cneiaKti/AMu 16 HO m 'tisoeou noJiMHt, nepeaepmoM m ono aUaaHgao non..., a ... Memo s/MtHoa, aamepa, no mempr, na jmaod t, sfn'fvna, apadwM, rnntb. la nodaoptaa, Haaam 17 H e x 1 aaepa, a spn mapoz,.,, no ej6t, caieoacKUM uztMenoM, nacaamm agtoxa, do egm pea u jlm a , a gaepKt,aQHOxuHO, Kucmpacsgcaia K u m pam cena 18 Tena&iaodbe naegd 20 nom'^fUSPU, B xe^X et, do moe jSpnvHM, ce 03 (gppodtHo, no caoeM m t XapumomP 21 P ycu rnnnocaau, pvSm im Sapb, da mono, a a d a o p t rnixasaau u midanu, Kceuminucu, Mm"^- raapujimfiHSt 26 Honpoast 28 no çm n t BrpHoiub spwmcb dam, agmuHr, cenoJIrBoauuu to Bpnaiu m i moe aomnmbimicm munat 30 aepaMomem,cM mncmynato, ItodôepeaHUKQp, cmaoeao K ceu mnnucu, nojdnucan, Uqteeopodifm, SôanpaaKadoKnadrmmycHmo 32 cenvsi, Beopodhmm cemiQ Kuukuho 33 U3 Xapusmt ÿpn M m anoatt eopm, noXpaut Bq/ezu MOHomupB m m ua, Tpaxam^pÿn, msd0eu, Boedau&n 41 Bopuc m à p tea, no m iH % na oxacvnuHe. Mrna 2ifU(» (signature), nopiaY uzyMeu H m o, no CeMi^ne, H&en yxr, omnuHHaB 47 Honucauo 6bu& 48 TottMOHÿa ao aceuh QHUU4amu, u ÿtuufamu, daQneuctu, mongp, OHenam» 49 nan...Hoao mndaa, SonodiMepm* a SoKttade am^mta, centfo non...HoaoQHoOpeii, n a a tu ^ QHoBtjeeaexent
Table 2.16: The graphie distribution of
61 There are some exceptional examples that exemplify the letter omega in the place of expected o or even in the place of a, e.g., mpxuMmdpumr (11),
MOHCxmbipA (19), rqmjiapicuji, MuxamaHeoHoe, (45), etc. However, if we consider the fact that Rjazanian dialects show akan'e (unstressed vocalism will be discussed in chapter 3 in detail), these seemingly exceptional cases, in fact, support the claim that the letter omega was marked for certain slots, whereas the letter o was unmarked: that is, scribes of the akan’e dialects hypercorrected the letter a to o, and then hypercorrected it once again to the letter omega.
2,23.4. Summary
Considering all the evidences illustrated thus far, it is clear that
The use of the letter omega in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents was purely graphic and traditional. Yet, there are certain patterns in its graphic distribution. Two positional principles apply; first, the letter omega was used after another vowel letter; second, the letter omega was used in the initial slot of phonological words. These two positional principles were constrained by an ordering restriction that "PP2 was implied before PPl." There are also certain morphemes that have a relatively higher ftequency of use of the letter omega. On the other hand,
letter omega. However, the opposite case rarely happens, and when it occurs, it can be ascribed to hypercorrection.
62 22.4. The distribution of<*>-"
In most contemporary Russian dialects, CS *é has merged with e and consequently is reflected as /e/, at least under stress.’ In the contemporary Standard
Russian, under stress, *ë Oat') is reflected for the most part as /e/, and thus has merged with the reflex o f *e before soft consonants, e.g., svet 'light', sel "he sat down', ten’ shadow', etc. By contrast, CS *e and the strong *& under stress are reflected as loi before hard consonants, e.g., s’ol 'of villages’, p ’os ’dog’, etc.
(Samilov 1964:15).
However, dialects with two different mid-ftont vowels, lei and lèl (or [ie]), are still found in scattered enclaves throughout the Great Russian territories. The dialects with two different mid-ftont vowels often, but not always, have a system of
7 stressed vowels, i.e., /i-y, è, e, a, o, ô, u/. (see DARJa Fonetika: map 40).
Moreover, traces of lèl can even be found in the pretonic vocalism of some dialects that are losing or have lost the distinction between the compact and noncompact midvowels, lèl and Id . For example, in some dialects that have merged 6 with e and
Ô with o, the pretonic vowels Id and loi are differently realized on the surface
’ There are two main positions on the chronology of the merger of S and e. Some scholars argue that the merger was a relatively recent development originating m the South Russian dialects, while others argue that the merger of é and e was an old phenomenon in the East Slavic lands. For example, Bulaxovskij ([1937] 1952:60-62) clahns that, until the eighteenth century, the pronunciation o f the stressed *6 m the Moscow region was [ie], and that the merger of 6 and e began to be witnessed from the eighteenth century under the mfluence of the South Russian dialects. To the contrary, Kotkov (1963:52) claims that the change o f 6to e in all the positions in the South Russian dialects was not only a South Russian development, but rather a pan-East Slavic development
63 depending upon the etymology of the tonic vowels, e.g., s'olo (<*ô) [s'alo], but
%’olam (<*o) ■> [s'iiom], s'ostre(<*6)-^ [s'astie], butn'os'el (<*e)-> [n'is'eS]. (Flier
1978:327-328).
Regarding the reflexes of CS * 6, contemporary Rjazanian dialects show peculiar isoglosses. Some villages like Timoxino have two different mid-6ont vowels, /e/ and /£/, whereas some other villages like Kidusovo (Spassk region) and
Kartonosovo (Solotôinsk region) have only one mid-fiont vowel /e/ (Avanesov 1949:
41-50,1952:28). Non-uniform isoglosses in contemporary Rjazanian dialects suggest that the process of the merger of *e and * é might have been different from region to region.
Previous philological studies of medieval Rjazanian texts provide only limited information about the dialectal reflexes of *ë. Novopokrovskaja (1956:7) claims that * 6 under stress before a hard consonant was in most cases written as
However, considering the fact that contemporary Rjazanian dialects show heterogeneous results, it would be somewhat misleading to claim that all seventeenth-century Rjazanian dialects had alteatfy undergone the merger of *e and
*ë. In addition, Novopokrovskaja does not provide any detailed geographic information about the documents under investigation.
The focus of this section is to investigate the use of the letter t . Two questions are particularly relevant with regard to the spelling for CS * # in fiiteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents: (1) were there any tendencies with
64 regard to the distribution of the letters t, e and e? (2) do the distributional tendencies have anything to do with the phonemic/phonetic status of lël in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects?
Before proceeding to these questions, some methodological problems should be noted. First, it is generally not clear in medieval texts whether a certain spelling reflects the actual pronunciation of the given time, or whether it is simply a reflection of traditional orthography.Only a few documents provide clues to solve this problem. One of the clues would be geographical information on the documents under investigation. Considering the fact that contemporary Rjazam'an dialects show a duplex isogloss in terms of the reflexes of *6 as well as some other features, if a contemporary dialect of Rjazan has certain features, and if any documents under investigation can be identified as ones firom that region, the diachronic comparision of the two will provide strong ground for the reconstruction of the phonemic reality of the given time. Although such a comparision has its limits, because not much work has been done on contemporary Rjazanian dialects, and because only few documents can be localized with any confidence, it will serve at least as additional evidence for the the reconstruction of the phonemic reality of fifteenth- and sixteen- century Rjazanian legal documents, hi addition, an investigation of additional dialectal features found in the given documents will help to decide whether the
Novopokrovskaja (1956:3) writes that "vyjavlenie i izuüenie osobeimostej govorov po pamjatnikov pis'meniiosti sopqaicmo s boMimi trudnostjami, kotorye vyzvany tern, Sto pis'mo ne perethyot leCi to£no. Analiztekstovpokazal, Sto vobSfiem sostaviteU qazansktxdobuneniov byli xoroSo znakomy s tradicionnoj orfografiej, xoroSo gramotny."
65 spelling is traditional or not If other features ate clearly South Russian, e g, akan'e, jakan'e, etc., it is quite plausible that the spelling for * é also reflects real pronunciation.
A further problem is that the investigated documents do not have accentual maries. Thus, we can not locate the position o f the stress, which is essential to determine the phonentic status of * é, with 100 % certainty. However, there are some resources available that can help locate the position of stress. Kotkov (1963:36) claims that contemporary South Russian phonetics is very close to that of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century South Russian manuscripts. Thus, stress assignment on the contemporary Rjazanian dialects can be used as reference for the stress assignment on words in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian documents. Another reliable factor for location o f the stress is the akan’e and jakan'e, which are well reflected in the orthography. A third source is Zaliznjak's study (1985) on the development of the accentual system of the Russian language. Although Zaliznjak's book provides only a little information for the medieval Rjazanian accentual system, it is a good source for the development of the Russian accentual system as a whole.
66 2.2.41. Grouping of Documents
In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, CS *é is primarily reflected with two letters, i.e., and
" CS *é is also teflected as
67 There are two documents where scribes employed only * for * 6 in the stressed position, which would be strong evidence for the distinction of two different phonemes, /e/ and lël, e.g., c nepee.icbu, e^am , no cmapmi. (4), Mui, e Jitm (8).
However, these two documents are quite short (8 lines and 5 lines, respectively, in the typeset edition), and only S examples, with no data for the unstressed position.
Thus, it is unrealistic to offer any plausible generalization based on the given data. In the following sections, I will investigate the above-mentioned four groups of documents in detail.
2.2.4.2. *ë < t> in stressed position, and
There are seven documents that have < t> for *è in stressed position and
68 pre-tonic tonic post-tonic 5 aixai, mposj^de, Hcai»o, Kno(zo)pinoMr, no dopme no acjjger, MamOifM HWKneu. 19 CO « c ^ , Bifiott, MH±. aim , M±cma, nocae, Ondpieea 25 B ... Y:bàe, noKOMicnth, co acimu, m oi. B... Ytadi, ce6i dimcM, aima 32 CJlffU* B ...cy:bàg, aaadifnu, cudia, daa Binnaz..., B ...a tm . d ia o H im 33 aic,atma,MHt, ...Houaemt, uapifucy no ...dopoze, HOJteof* 37 H apgxt, H a p a ti, HapiHKB, cino, nod aicoan HaptHKg, 49 B... risde, samn e i aima, Mamaiu b ' Sanaadg, B... r ts d i.
Table 2.17; Documents with *è < t> in stressed position, and
Before proceeding to interpretation of the data in the table, some remarks should be made on certain examples, where we can not feel full confidence in the stress assignment (marked with *). Such cases are c Jiecu (32), no Jiecy (33). In contemporary Russian, Jîec belongs to the pattern in which the stress falls on the stem in the singular, but on the ending in the plural, e.g., o Jiéce, butno jiecoM.
However, considering that the contemporary plural endings for o-stem nouns are a later development fi»m a-stem endings, and that the investigated documents show old o-stem endings in use, the contemporary accentual paradigm is of no help. Thus, we need to examine the old accentual paradigm, which is basically reconstructed by comparing old manuscripts. According to Zaliznjak (1985:141), the instrumental
69 plural ending u of o-stem nouns carried a default stress in Old Russian, which suggests that the stress fell on the ending, i.e., c Jiecu’, However, medieval
Rjazanian documents do not adhere to this generalization. According to Zaliznjak's investigation (1985:267), there are examples with stress on the stem as well as on the ending, e.g, a>'6pa3bi vs. caôpasbi*, 6 t'cu vs. 6 tan', etc., although the latter examples oumumber the former by 4 to 1. In case of no Jiecy, the dative singular ending in -u did not carry any default stress in Old Russian. Thus, the issue under discussion here is whether the stress falls on the stem or on the preposition. If the stress falls on the preposition, the example fits into our categorization for document
33. However, if the stress falls on the stem, the example should fall under the category of tonic position, which would exclude the document 33 firom the given group. In either case, it does not affect my claim, which will be discussed below.
The examples on the table suggest two possibilities. First, the scribes were accurate in following orthogr^hic conventions in tonic position. Second, alternatively, scribes of the above documents distinguished /e/ and /ë/ under stress in their orthography. Documents no. 5 and 19 show a typical South Russian feature of akan'e, e.g., txoji (5), c mgeapuufu, etdoji (19), etc. The hypercorrected forms
txoji (5), e tdoji (19) would be strong evidence for the orthographic reflection of akan'e, which suggests that the scribes of documents no. 5 and 19 practiced the orthographic distinction of fd and /d in stressed position at least However, document 5, at the same time, shows very consistent use of the letter omega. Because the use of the letter omega does not reflect any phonemic reality of the given times, as I argued in 2.2.3, the consistent use ofthe letter omega in document 5 suggests
70 that the scribe was simply accurate in following orthographic tradition. (See section
2.2.3 for the discussion of the use of the letter omega). In addition, other documents
(no. 25,32,33,49) also show consistent use of the letter omega. Therefore, with
limited indirect evidence, it is hard to determine whether the scribes were accurate in
following orthgraphic convention, or whether they distinguished Id and id under
stress.
2.2.43. *é < t> in stressed position, and
The following nine documents show <"b> in stressed position consistently,
but either
not only
71 pre-tonic tonie post-tonic 2 ajtdamu, nocodt,M H t, n o d c u e o m t , cbaciM cm iM , a ajbn a doM cmJatôaopodutpi, noaie 9 epffct Hapj^Ke, apex^ HMdomaoptfio H uxoni. chactM c m tf4, xnepeaepmt. nodni, ntfi, nojbcaa,c:^ HOptHKg, noeaâtcmopoHU 14 c J l^ C b l a ... r^d e, Jitm a, da^cme, a'K m eat, na ...ceni, caouMdtmeM, co acjb* c no ...zpoM om i. mtM , c xaMtOM, ceôi, a ... rla d ^ da terne omaod m ou 3tMnJ[ 15 C J t i f M a ... rjpdjk düa, co aciu c NO... ceni, no ...epam om t, fflj&M, 3 xjiM om , caouM d a t c m g d i m e t t , dejfcme, ce6±. omaod m o u s e m i
20 H a p g f c t , diflo, ttîm a, 8 ... r : ^ d e , h o a doM OKueoHmmHλ mpoiig, 28 n o a m n i u n o d ü e , m h t , n o à t d g d i m U f J i É m 31 cJma, aeai/i, poJbxam u no ...epoMomi, ua po3 tid i, H optatîde, noptH x± Table 2.18: Documents with *é < t> in stressed position, and 72 The given examples suggest that < t> under stress represents a separate phoneme /(/ in those areas where these documents were written in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, or, again, that the convention of writing < t> was maintained under stress. In unstressed position, the choice of < t> or In summary, a total of 16 documents (or possibly 18 documents if we include the two short documents, no. 4 and 8) show consistency in the spelling of the letter < t> . For some documents, the consistency can be considered strong evidence for the existence of the phoneme /ë/, given its link to the specific phonological position of stress. 2J.4.4. *ë <é>l About half of the investigated documents show that *ë is spelled as either 73 pre-tonic tonic post-tonic 6 C JliC b l, COactmt, coôiuceouMdJimeM a ... e iy a d Ê k n o a o a u n i 7 d & eH u u , MHÎ co6t, m i ceaa, 8b ôpamcmai o do6pi aesdi H e in , cmapiwuuM, FjiiSm t... Bedopoet a o m a c i diftlM U , cmopoHi icamu, ho ... d i n e . H im . 8b...0edopoai cmopont, a m p i i a i , xomimu, noeidamu, c omixcduMU aypoi(i azopodi d tm M u , M icm ti,am m aeipifa, torn aitca, a Table 2.19: Documents with *ë ^ 74 The examples suggest that the scribes of these documents used both 2.2.4.S. *e -> < # > There are a few documents where scribes utilized < t> fo r* e . In these documents, *ë is mostly spelled either <*> or 75 pre-tonic tonie post-tonic 3 PJbOHKa moMjtcmo. KOHUH^eM HOHadoôi 10 jitm, Kiiiap Ha coôopg. II d±mu, jbcott, mhJl nim, o> na KpanuecHKji noM^mbu, HapiHKU, coecJi cmopomi, nociUtKC&i 16 ^ cecmph(gca.). M±pmo, ctna, naaemi Ha ...nonAnt, 0... nottè 17 Hbi moœepKO 22 3a eci, Ji±ma, r laaHaHiM uzyMOHY Ho)He, na KonoMue 35 Kpjinocmb, e ...yad1l,jiima, 0 ...yesdi, exnÜSHba, dîna uim, demet», do m oi oomHUHbt, no co6 1, MHjk, co ec&$u, cmcu fyàjbn 40 HapJbce nima, HopJftKe, Mt/am», na p tHKg na BedepHwce, deîcme, e cai^, da& na p tns detcmg, HOimpi 44 âiiêeaiuHèie e posôouHOM dJbie 45 noifint e mjbe. e ... risde, da±. ec±, a ... rtsdi, e ...oomuune, atadjbnu, c:bt, Knîmu, nî/c, Huzdt, no anpuHt( Table 2.20: Documents with *e -> < ^ > 76 The examples suggest two possibilités. First, the scribes did not distinguish two separate phonemes Id and id in their orthogn^hy. hi other words, both < t> and Second, the examples Hh± mo oaepKO (17), no h^ hou e o d i (47), etc., suggest that the e > o change was not reflected before a hard consonant or word-flnally under stress for some scribes of the investigated documents. The slots that are occupied by the grapheme In siunmary, the investigated documents do not present a uniform picture of the reflexes of *é. Some documents show strong evidence for the reflection of two separate phonemes fd and Id in orthogrtqihy, or the careflil preservation of traditional orthographic conventions (but only under stress), whereas other documents do not. The mixed distribution of the reflexes of *é shown in flfleenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents is similar to the situation in the present-day Rjazanian dialects, which also do not provide a uniform picture of the reflexes of *è. As noted above, some villages have two separate phonemes, i.e., lèl and Id (flom * é and *e, respectively), while other villages have only one phoneme Id . Evidently, a similar dialectal diversity of jat* existed in Rjazan' in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. 77 23. The distribation of k~2~x It is held among scholars that the existence of *g > r is one of the distinctive features that distinguish the South Russian dialects fiom the Central and Northern Russian dialects. Thus, in contemporary Rjazanian dialects, the three velar consonants /k/, /x/, M are subdivided as k : x, y by the continuant feature, with /k/ having no voiceless counterpart: [ - continuant] [-voice] k [+voice] [ + continuant] [-voice] x [+voice] V Keeping this in mind, if we examine data 6om the fifteenth- and sixteenth- century Rjazanian legal documents, it is noticeable that the letter k was in variation with X in certain circumstances. In most cases k was correctly written, e.g., mencb (1), Kb SoHemm (4), k fopôoecKOAQ/ 6onomy (5), k moMy cejiy (6), Kb Kneny (9), nomezjio, mozdbi (1), etc. However, the letter k was written as x mostly in fiont o f obstruent consonant [-continuent], e.g.,xmo no next (4), a xmo (7), x moMy cejty k HeKUMomoey... (13), xmo hoc hu 6yd ...(19), ceeufeHUKb Benedexntb (20), xydw x moMy cejiy ...uxh dpene... (24), x KonodsSio ... (26), x nam te k ucmoxy (31:2), a xmo e my eomHtmy (32), gno ynnem (35), xmo no next m u apxm apum u 6ydym (43), X KOJiodeam (46), * iqnuou x e ôepeae (47:2), x Kosapcxoxty pyôeoxy (47:2), x 78 nuMQ/ cejiy (58), x KonoMCKOMy enucKony ...etc. The number of such examples is large enough to support a claim that this was the widespread spelling practice reflecting an actual dialectal development: k [-continuent] > x [+continuent] / C [-continuent] There is little direct evidence for the change of *g > v. However, in one document the voiced velar in the name Eozambtpee was written as E ao^hipee (19). It is etymologically impossible that the person's name was Eaxambipee, not Eozanmpee. This may be a simple spelling error, because it is the only example where /g / was written According to Avanesov's study (Avanesov 1949:181), in contemporary Rjazanian dialects, /k/ is realized as [x] before voiceless consonants and as [v] before voiced consonants, e.g., xmo, x moMy, vs. y d&iy, v ôajibHUM, etc. As is seen above, this feature can be traced back to as early as the fifteenth century. 79 CHAPTERS PROBLEMS IN PHONOLOGY The most noticeable phonological phenomena of fifteenth- and sixteenth- century Rjazanian legal documents are the neutralization of the opposition between non-high vowel phonemes in unstressed pliables, the phonemic status of *é and the e > 0 change, and the palatalization of velars. The issue of the phonemic status of *ë and *ô has already been discussed in chapter 2. In this chapter, we will discuss the remaining phonological issues in detail. The number and distribution of vowels in stressed position varies in contemporary Russian dialects, due to certain phonological changes in their development - in particular, the e > o change and the development of the phoneme *0 (or uo) and the phoneme *€(or ie), etc. (Avanesov 1949:4142). In contemporary Rjazanian dialects, the detailed results of the above-mentioned phenomena are rather complicated. Depending on whether the language in certain villages underwent certain phonological changes or not, contemporary Rjazanian dialects show various phonological systems. That is, some villages, like Timoxino, have the seven-vowel system, keeping the distinction between lèf and /e/ (fiom * i and * e, respectively). 80 and lôl and /o/, whereas some oAer villages, like Kidusovo in the Spassk region, Kartonosovo in the Solotùinsk region, etc., have the five-vowel system without the above-mentioned distinctions (Avanesov 1949:41-49). In fifteenth- and sixteenth- century Rjazanian legal documents, as was shown in chapter 2, both five- and six- vowel systems are attested in stressed syllables, e.g., either /a, e, ê, i, o, u/ or/a, e, i, o,u /. In unstressed vocalism in all the contemporary Rjazanian dialects the number of vowels is generally reduced to three, i.e., /a/, /!/, /u/. In the following section, I will discuss the situation in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian regions. 3.1. The unstressed vowel system The unstressed vocalism in Russian dialects is categorized into two basic types, akan'e and okan'e, with akan'e being one of the most noticeable features of the South Russian dialects and okan'e being the feature of North Russian dialects. In akan'e dialects, the opposition between non-high vowel phonemes is neutralized, mostly to [a], in surface realization. This phenomenon is also quite common in most Central Russian and Belorussian dialects as well as South Russian dialects. In general, the first pre-tonic syllable provides the most varied types of unstressed vocalism. In this section, I will first briefly summarize the origin and the history of the unstressed vowel system in the development of Russian. Then I will examine 81 unstressed vocalism in modem Rjazanian dialects, which will be followed by a discussion of the phonological issues concerning the unstressed vocalism of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. 3.1.1. The origin and the history of akan'e/jakan'e.' It is generally held among scholars that akan'e is in its origin a South Russian feature (Ivanov 1959:36). However, scholars do not agree on what types of akan'e/jakan'e are the oldest, or where each type of unstressed vowel system originated. Many explanations have been proposed to solve the problem of the origin of akan'e, but as yet no satisfactory explanation has been found. Attested written documents are of little help in this matter. The oldest attested manuscript with traces of akan'e is only found as late as 1339 fThe Moscow Gospel Book). e.g., vb gpustévSii zemli (Borkovskij and Kuznecov 1965:141). It was only around the 16th century that akan'e was widely attested in Muscovite documents. Furthermore, South Russian dialects that are considered to be the original source of akan'e/jakan'e by many scholars do not provide any documentary evidence of akan'e/jakan'e until the fifteenth century. ‘ As Flier (1978:325) writes, "akan'e and jakan'e is in reality two aspects o f the same neutralization" because whether it is akan'e or jakan'e depends on whether the consonant before unstressed vowel is hard or soft. In Russian linguistic literature, akan'e is somethnes used to indicate both aspects ofthe neutralization (Avanesov 1949:62). In this dissertation, I will use the terms akan'e andjaüt'e in their narrow sense. The term akan'e is u ^ ftir the neutralization of [-high] vowels after hard consonants, and jakan'e for the neutralization of [-high] vowels after soft consonants. 82 Due to the lack of old manuscripts with traces of akan'e/jakan'e, the dating of akan'e remains a topic of broad disagreement/ There are basically two opinions on the origin of akan'e/jakan'e. Some scholars, such as Jakobson ([1929] 1962:94), Avanesov (1952), Borkovskij and Kuznecov (1965), Ivanov (1959), Ward (1985) and others claim that akan’e and jakan'e emerged relatively late in historical times as an East Slavic feature, without external influence. On the other hand, other scholars such as Meillet ([1951] 1965), Shevelov (1953:43), Georgiev (1963), VaiUant (1950:107,234), Vlasto (1988), etc., claim that akan'e was a development parallel to okan'e, both of which originated directly Èom the Common Slavic vowel system. Proponents of prehistoric theory seek the source of akan'e from the Common Slavic vowel system. For example, Shevelov (1953:43) considers akan'e as the result of the merger of CS and *ô. Then this would have been spread out eastwards 6om Belorussian as strong akan'e and jakan'e. However, the weakness of his argument is that there is no written evidence in East Slavic. The first attestation of akan'e spelling occurred in the fourteenth century as mentioned above. Furthermore, there are no pre-15th century South Russian documents that show traces of akan'ejakan'e. Similarly, Georgiev (1963), on the basis of Common Slavic vowel opposition between à and à, proposes that the unstressed à as well as the stressed à changed to o in Late Common Slavic. This is siq>ported by evidence fiom the Dalmatian dialect, a ^ Kotkov (1963:55), who is the mam figure in the stucfy ofthe South Russian dialects, writes that "neposredstvennyx otra2enij dtsshnfljativnogo akanja v staroj juhocvelikonisskoj pis'mennosti net" 83 Serbo-Croaitian dialect, where the alternation between the old a and the new o is attested until the 14th century. According to Georgiev (1963:25), this old unstressed *à changed to o in North Russian, whereas it was preserved in the South Russian dialects as well as in Belorussian, hi this sense. South Russian dialects are considered to be more archaic than North Russian dialects. Accordingly, Georgiev insists that akan'e is even older than okan'e, and that the oldest type of akan'e/jakan'e is the strong akan'e/jakan'e, from which other types of akan'e/jakan'e developed. Contrary to prehistoric theory, other scholars consider akan'e as an East Slavic development that emerged as a result of vowel reduction or the change firom a tonal accent to a stressed accent. Among the scholars who support reduction theory, it is generally held that akan'e/jakan'e is in its origin a South Russian feature (Borkovskij and Kuznecov 1965:143). Dominant preservation of akan'e/jakan'e in South Russian dialects point to this area as the source of this phenomenon, although only a few old manuscripts are preserved fixim this region.^ Akan'e in transitional Central Russian dialects as well as in the Standard Russian is considered to be the result of expansion of the phenomenon to the north. Among the proponents of reduction theory, Borkovskij and Kuznecov (1965: 142), following Avanesov's claim (1947), suggest that akan'e emerged after the fall of the jers for the following reason. In some dialects with dissimilative jakan'e where the quality of the first pre-tonic vowel is determined by the quality of the tonic vowel, both the original pre-tonic vowel and the original second pre-tonic vowel. ^ TH a nl 84 which became the first pre-tonic after the fall of the jer letters, are reflected the same, e.g., cvéla > cvffa, cvéthka > cvUka. If akan'e had emerged while the jer letters still existed, we would have wimessed cvëtbka > {cv'atbka) > cv'atka. However, this change did not happen. This led Avanesov, BoAovskij and Kuznecov, and other scholars to conclude that akan'e emerged afier the fall of jers and before the 14th century when the first attested akan'e form began to be witnessed. Avanesov further suggests that the oldest type of jakan'e was dissimilative jakan'e. Avanesov (1952:32) points to the Rjazan' area as one of the places where akan'e/jakan'e emerged. Even though strong jakan'e is found in Rjazanian regions, it is only found in peripheral Rjazanian regions, and many Rjazanian dialects show assimilative-dissimilative jakan'e. In addition, in the area where assimilative- dissimilative jakan'e is found, is also found moderate-dissimilative jakan'e, which is considered to originate fi»m dissimilative jakan'e. Based on his observation, Avanesov proposes that dissimilative jakan'e was the original jakan'e type (Avenesov 1952:32-33). Accordingly, the following chronology of akan'e/jakan'e is assumed: dissimilative > assimilitive-dissimilative > strong jakan'e.^ * Wexler (1977:82) does not Avanesov's chronology of akan'e/jakan'e based on the distribution of Belorussian unstressed vowel system: (1) in the ME Belorussian dialects where dissimilative akan'e is dommant, we also encounter enclaves of strong akan'e; (2) in Belorussian dissimilative akan'e/jakan'e, the opposition between é and e is not found, which indicates that the dissimilative jakan'e was a later development than the merger o fi and e; (3) the weak back jer p l ^ no role in Belorussian dissimilative akan'e, which indicates that tim dissnnilative type arose afier the M of jers. Wexler's claim that dissmilative jakan'e emerged afier strong jakan'e is based on the assumption that strong akan'e/jakan's developed fiom the Common Slavic vowel system. However, ifwe accept the later datmg of akan'e, his dahn does not necessarity contradict Avanesov's. 85 In sum, those scholars, who take akan'e/jakan'e as a prehistoric phenomenon, consider strong akan'ejakan'e as the oldest and fiom the one which other types of akan'e/jakan'e developed, wiiereas other scholars, who consider akan'e^akan'e as a later development and as an East Slavic feature, assume that dissimilative jakan'e is the primitive form of jakan'e. However, the origin of akan'e is still disputed; there seems to be no firm proof for either position.^ Before proceeding to the discussion of data, I would like to note certain phonological/phonetic environments that require special attention for the investigation of the unstressed vocalism in general. They are: (1) the position of the unstressed vowel in relation to the stressed vowel, i.e., the first or second pre-tonic, or post-tonic position; (2) the position of the unstressed vowel in relation to the preceding consonants, i.e., after a hard consonant (except palatals), after a soft consonant or after palatals. Among these environments, it is said that the first pre tonic position is the most important because it is the position that reveals the most varied types of vocalism in Russian dialects (Avanesov 1949:62). In the following section, I will examine these two positions to see whether the investi^ted documents support the traditional view on unstressed vocalism in medieval East Slavic documents. ^ The detailed discussion of the origin of akan'e in the history of the Russian language is b^ond the scope o f this dissertation. For a detailed discussion, see Filin (1972:97-149). 86 3.U . Akan'e ta the Moscow dialect (Central Russian), which is attested earlier than Rjazanian, akan'e was present as early as the 14th century, but it was not yet "good" pronunciation (Vlasto 1986:326). Akan'e can be observed spreading firom the ISth century, and by the 16th century it had become "respectable" pronunciation. Vlasto quotes examples firom Ivan Grozny's personal letter, e g., v Oleksine for Aleksin.^ From the seventeenth century, akan'e spellings became quite common in everyday documents. In this section, I will try to determine to what extent akan'e was reflected in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, and whether there are any hierarchies in different morphological units in terms o f the reflection of akan'e in orthography. There are four main focuses in this section. First, in order to present the overall picture of akan’e spellings in the investigated documents, I will examine the spellings for /o/ both in stressed and unstressed position. Because orthography does not necessarily reflect actual pronunciation, it is possible that not all the documents show akan’e spellings. This is, in fact, a problem for researchers of Slavic medieval manuscripts: how do we figure out the type of akan’e, or indeed any non-standard ‘ O f course, the akan'e speilmg can be ascribed to norms o f the scribe, but not the tsar* himself b addition, the example v O/ebine does not necessarity reflect akan'e speilmg because it may be due to the traditional East Slavic manner of representmg Greek alpha. 87 pronunciation, fi»m written documents that do not fully show the phonetic reality of the past? Therefore, I will begin by discussing a methodological problem in investigating medieval documents based on the "deceptive" orthography. Second, among the documents that show akan’e spellings, I will examine the spellings o f loi in different morphological positions to see whether there are any tendencies or norms. 1 will investigate whether scribes were woridng mostly on a phonological principle or whether their akan’e spellings appear more consistent in particular morphological environments. Third, I will investigate examples of hypercorrection. Scribes tiom akan'e dialects somehow tended to reflect their akan'e pronunciation in orthography and sometimes over compensate for akan'e by spelling etymological *a as strong evidence for akan’e in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. Fourth, I will examine spellings o f loi with non-a letters. There were two non-a letters, will argue whether these spellings were morphologically conditioned or purely phonological. 88 3 .U .I. A methodological problem for the Investigation of akan’e Many studies have been done on the types of akan’e in different contemporary dialects, but few studies have been done on this subject for Old Russian dialects/ The study o f akan’e in medieval texts is very complicated and “mysterious” because medieval Slavic manuscripts, including Russian ones, do not fully reveal akan’e pronunciation due to conservative orthography. This is also the case with fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, the phonemes /a/ and loi are generally written correctly in stressed position, i.e., in accordance with “standard” Old Russian, e.g., spoinem i (I), vpamer, v doim» (2),poialavala (3), z brgteju (4), bortniki (5), u braa (6), rezanskog i murgmkog (7), davati (8), velikomu Cjudotvorcu, ot ngyoj (9), a davM, m god (12), selo (14), u Ivgm (15), istok (17:1), mtda svoego (20), m ploSiadi (21), prodal (24), pisal (25), votéinu (28), V dom (29), svoego (32), topor (33), tu moju votéinu (35), po svoei dojéeri (36), tri dvory (40), t(g)or (41), votéinu (42), vsjakim uggdem (45), z dorogi, stolhb, bolSoi ^ For studies of unstressed vocaiism for different contemporary dialects, see Avanesov (1986,1949), Flier (1978), Zaxarova (1971). The ^pes of akan'e in the development of Russian language include dissimilative and non-d^imilative akur'e, okan'e with asshnOative akan'e, akan'e with assunilative okan'e. Dissimilative akan'e is a feature of the western part of the South Russian dialects where a or o are neutralized to a before a stressed syllable with non-a, and to non-a («, y, or e) before a stressed syllable with a, e.g., vhda, butvgffy. Non-dissimilative akan'e is a common feature of other akan'e dialects where o, o are neutralized to rraflera hard consonant, eg., vgda and vafy. There are regions such as the Satursk region of Moscow where o and a are generalty distinguished except in front o f a stressed syllable with a, where the unstressed o or a is neutralized to a (okan'e with assimilative akan'e). Some other dialects show the pattern of akan’e with assimilative okan'e. In these regions, the vowel phonemes /a/ and /o/ are neutral&ed to/a/m unstressed pliables, but lal and lo/ are distmguished befitre stressed syllables with lot, e.g., nagu migi butnogoj (akan'e with assimilative okan'e) (Avanesov, 1949:66-65). The last two % es are considered to reflect transitional sti%cs from okan'e to akan'e. 89 (SO), etc. Other examples abound. However, there are some examples of hypercorrection where the stressed /a/ is spelled as 3.1.2.3 of this chapter). In unstressed positions in general, the spelling is mixed with the spelling 90 The speUiDK of/o/ in pre-tonic position The spelling of loi in post-tonic position I XQiiUa, boiar velikomu 2 PQf&llo prâstQ 7 bezobidv, ofim, otdeltii, manastyrskij gorod 13 Igpor, xodila 14 ktyonm, weeArg 20 monastyre, po rgditelex p o ... gramate 21 monastyrfa, s&navoi 22 monastyria 23 bojarin, nadoUade Oed» 24 beiarskoeo daUadu 25 fgpor, xodila 28 boitB’in 29 monastyr krep&sf 30 boiarin, dakladu 31 5 tgyariSài, kalorym, rgxixati spisok, misto 36 xodii topor, dmesti vkrépostex 39 djud&vorcem, monastyri 42 Qpjat, tamoia V ...krép&ttjax 43 tm tr, xodila kakiekrep&ti 45 m&koyskixxQdiadix. obrtdt krép&t' 47 kolokefa (pi) ozero 48 monastyr, topor 49 Qtdal, PQslusi Table 3.1 : The spelling o f loi in unstressed positions 91 These examples show that in many cases, the scribes were well aware of “standard” orthographic norms. As &r as orthognq>hy alone is concerned, Rjazanian data do not uphold the widespread opinion that akan'e was widespread in South Russian dialects already in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Kuznecov 1969:83, Ivanov 1959: 36-66). In fact, this is the problem not only with Rjazanian legal documents, but also with many medieval East Slavic documents. Due to the conservative orthography, akan'e is not necessarily reflected in the orthogr^hy of dialects that are apparently said to have had akan'e in the past. For example, Karskij (1955-6:103, 134-135) notes that a large number of fifteenth- to seventeenth-century Belorussian manuscripts do not reflect akan'e, even though scholars agree that akan'e at this time period was a common phenomenon in Belarus and very similar to the akan'e in contemporary Belorussian. Therefore, statistical comparison between data that show examples of akan'e and those that do not show akan'e is not useful for my purpose. Instead, we have to collect examples of akan’e spellings fiom seemingly inconsistent documents and try to figure out whether there were any tendencies or norms. 3.iJ22. The spelling of lot in various morphological positions Even in those documents that have examples of akan'e, it was not yet consistently reflected in orthography, as was already mentioned above. In all the documents in question, scribes used <0> (or omega) for loi in a large number of cases, e.g., zovet (3), boloto (5), gramotu (8), naspoialgyal (11), mobrok (12), PQtqglo (15), dorogu (16), na starrnn (17:1), ne gtdati nikomu, zolotoj (19), otéxal, 92 sorok (26), m svoixi^T), roditelex (32), podoroge (33), xodila (34), topor xgdil (38), svoju drvnju (41), s tgyariSéi (46), monastyr (48), dorogi (50), etc. The mixture of with 93 (1) Word-internal positions Pre-tonic Post-tonic 3 vRmanavskoi poialayala 5 m am tyrja • napravQ. nalevo 8 m m atvria gram&u 12 srok dbrohi, butna obrok 15 m&iastyr^ 16 mgnaslynkoj prikaziôikh 17 vtomm&uatyre 19 s igyariSéi, Boedavlenskog mgRorOv^ 26 s teyariSCi, but alsos tavarSCi komu to védgmo, but spisok 27 nasvgeivodàine sorgk, blizkgjOki 32 mwwstyr, butrgditelex 33 monastyria, but po doroge natnrme, nalevo 34 Qedff, da Gavrilg... a kupéjuju pisal Boriskg 38 menmnuju Bedgr, Mixailg v Kolomenskm uézdè 40 Fedorova 41 kgfory/, rgditeli, i tgpor, v dom bogaievienefa, po svaem, po ...rgditelex 46 iz gdnogo korenia 48 monastyr, butmgyutstyrja, g/liSdati, tgpor, xodila 50 boloto, pgpolam, d&rogi, but alsodorogi boloto Table 3.2; Akan'e spellings in word-internal positions 94 Word internally, underlying /o/ can be spelled as both in pre-tonic and post-tonic positions. It is commonly found that the same scribes used akan’e and okan’e spellings for the same words in word internal positions, as is seen in documents 12,26,48,50, etc. The akan'e spellings seem to be rather arbitrary in distribution, and may even be ascribed to scribes' carelessness in word internal position. The spelling of the word for "monastery" needs special commentary. The word has two different attested forms, i.e., Russian. Both forms are found even in non-akan'e dialect texts.’ Considering the fact that the word is a borrowing from Greek ^lovaarrjpiov and that it is a religious word, it is suspicious that the spelling of the word reflects the akan'e spelling. It is more plausible that the two forms existed as doublets from the earlier period and that scribes chose one or the other form quite arbitrarily. In fact, some scribes of the investigated documents used the form marmtyrh only (8, 10, 15,16,17,32,33,42) while others used the form monastryb (18,20,21,22,29,36,39,41); the number of each instance is evenly distributed. In addition, in some instances, scribes utilized both forms even in the same documents, e.g., manastyrb vs. monastyn» (7,12,48). Therefore, it is likely that the form m&iastryb was not the akan’e spelling, but the traditional Church spelling. In this sense, the number of non-standard or ' For example, noKostao mu cuyMOU ucmuHbum npucmmuufaM^acmtip» doua cmuuxh (Izboroik Svaitoslava 1076 eoda: 177), Xaia»n manumt eu iKXHboatuMÿiacmtipb fJeûm KormCaia: 225), etc. For more examples of this sort, see SRJa vol. 9 page 259. 95 ‘‘exceptional” spellings of the word “monastery” is reduced to a few examples, e.g., manostyrb (S, 9,19,38), momstyn, (11,40); these non-standard spellings will be discussed in 3.1.2.3 as examples of hypercorrection. (2) In the prefixes and prepositions: c- po tomu ia sa vs(b'm (38), s^le t (36), sofgli (3T2) po- pœézde (S), poyé(hti (7), pogavorjv, poStdmcd (I I), pgyeli (17:2), pof/i, pgyorotUi (26:2), psn^e(3y),pestriéi{39), (44:69,72) pro- prodal (1,24), ni prgdat (11, 12), prgdali (14), zaprgestb (17:4ob), prodaeS, prodal (23), profltd, prgdano (24), niprgdana (32,35,36), ne prodana nikomu (34), prodal esmi (38), pre nix (44:49), promeni esmi (48) cOprtdBffeiffli but also iwoda/i (27) naran>ézde(S),r(stpoSu (12), dvay ...r ^ o z il (16: 1), r^/// Table 3.3: Akan'e spellings in prefixes and prepositions It is significant that akan'e is not well reflected in the prefixes, e.g., 96 form raz- is the typical Old Chinch Slavonic reflex of Common Slavic *roz, it is possible that the spelling rœvilavata is due to Church Slavonic influence. Although it is uncertain why there are just a few such examples, it is quite noticeable that scribes chose East Slavic reflexes when there are doublets. (3) In the sufGx -ov: among the fi% investigated documents, scribes mostly spelled the sufGx -ov correctly as <-ov>, as is seen below. 97 I Vaskov 3 Beskov 5 Feodorav. Feodoravm. Anfilosav 6 Svm Ouvarova 7 IvanevU, Gatvlganav, Feodorav 8 hanav, Banmav 9 Bakhmavo, Selivanava, Oleksandrav, Pestreeow 10 Semenov syn 11 Borisov svn 12 Slepanavsvn 13 Selo Nikimalovo, Ivanov syn 14 ufvanovasyna 15 Osiankavsyn 16 hanovsvnb 17 Ivanaviâ. Silav. Olluxav, Sidorov, ieumenaw. na Isakova, na Olexanova 18 Zaxarovsym. Semenovb 19 Ivanov. Konstendnov 20 XarUonov 21 Gavrilov. Doimalov 22 Gavrilov 23 Semenovoi doâeri. Maniasovo. Kurcov 24 Semenavy doieri. Fedorovy 25 Kotyiava. Izmailova 26 Semenovié. Mixailav. Filopov. Parfenov, eorodovog 28 Liammavy 29 Saburov. Safonov 30 Bereznikova. Petrov 31 Mixailovii, sorodovoi. Rvlova 32 Fedorova. Esipov 33 Ivanova. Semenoviâa 34 tt Gavrilova 35 Godunov. Borisov 36 Nikiforova, Onsimov 37 Surinovasyna, selo Vypolzovo. Xavratova, Boooslovskoeo. Zaxarovskaia 39 Vdynskovo. Odmatovo. Ansimova 40 Jurasova. Suouzova 41 Korakodvkov. Xrisiova. Buleakov 42 Neiiubov. Ansimov 43 BoriSovH. Afixailov 44 Danilov. Borisov, Gavrilov. Oglamazov. OHimov. Talarinav. Bykovskoe 45 Stepanov. Tarakanova 46 Mixailovié. Melainovyx, gorodovogo. Serapovskog 47 VUaova. Veleminov 48 Kostiantinov, Sttpanav 49 Tarakanov. Poluboiarinovo. Folodtmeov 50 fedorav Table 3.4: The spelling of the su£Bx-ov 98 The suffix -ov in these examples is mostly unstressed. However, there are some cases in which the assignment of the stress in the suffix is unclear, e.g., Ivdnov vs. Ivanov. In any case, the suffix -ov is mostly spelled as <-ov> no matter the stress pattern. Only a few documents (documents no. 27,28 and Akty 377) show the spelling <-flv> mixed with <*ov>, e.g.. doc. 27 : Terexoya, Ivan Ivanov syn Ekotova, but also Voladimergyy deti, Ivan Ivangy syn Mortinova, Volodimera Bedorgya syna doc. 38: Ivanov but alsoprodal esmi AnoBreJu Stepanavu synu, Poiubojaringya, u Putila Mixailaya syna, Kudrvcgy Akty 377:kuzemka de Iv a ik ^ syn Lixoceva In the case o f Ivanov in document 27, stress probably fell on the root, i.e., Ivangy, because akan’e is spelled out in the same document for the same name, e.g., Ivan Ivangy syn. Based on the overwhelmingly consistent spelling of the suffix in -ov, it is likely that the scribes were well aware of the spelling of the suffix; the “exceptional” spellings in those three documents might be due to scribes’ carelessness or “illiterate” spelling (bezgramotnoe nq>isanie), using Unbegaun’s term (1972:264), which led to unconscious spelling of the akan’e pronunciation of the suffix. (4) In morphological endings, akan’e spelling is relatively well reflected. For example, (a) in word-flnal open syllables, e.g., na tgposlusi (22), Se ja z Oleksandrg (27), k tomu k naSemu zerebju tfanulg ozerg Presnina da ozerg Omutok da (27), etc.; 99 (b) In woid'final closed syllables, c.g.,pomestbem poiinkam (11), Se Ja z... svoim bratgm s Oedorom (I I), cf. db s bratom s dedorom (11); po igumenovgj (19), v Starorezanskam uezde (27), lés paSenngJ i mpcdennçd (27), s lesam (34), v Kolomenskgm uezde v Ogloblinskgm stanu (38), ot DorogpSimkaj (Morozov 1988: no.4), etc. However, in the genitive singular adjectival ending in -ogo, about 80% of the investigated documents show mostly okan’e spellings for the ending in -ogo, as is seen below. 100 *-oKoinadiectives *- 0K0 in numerals I velikoe 3 Solod’Senskaao 4 Solod'SSéùame 6 Ekimatovsluxo 7 Rezanskoe i muromkos. velikoe. vsekoe. MeSâenkoe. ooliinoe 9 Tataruiovskoeo 12 Grieor'evskoeuezda. manastmkoeo. SotoSéinskoeo. Liubavskoe 14 Volm ksvo 15 VolyiakoB. u sDskoe. Bdm atam kaisda tricatae 1 16 1 y e l ^ puslytiskQg. Pokrcnakat 17 velikog, Lgmskgg, KistnakQZ Mt^aukgg, ukotorgg, Igm’skgg, devjatggbut starog, Volganskgg, naspeakggigimena, naâemggpopa, Ivma osmggo Vohmkoeo 18 Mezeckoe. Boeoslavskoeo. Ponizskoeo, Borodatoe 19 Boeoavienskoe. Borkavskoe Pdoe 20 Vohmkoeo, velikoe devetoeo 21 velikoe 22 utroickoe 23 velikoe 24 boiarskoeo vtoraeo 25 Kokovinskoeo 26 velikgg(o), R^anskgg, Nozdravatog, Savkgg VolynskQg, gorodmog ocmggijunja dvorcovoe. Muromkoe. Mihdiiskoe 29 deviatoeo 30 velikoe. Mikuiinskoe. Nazdrovatoe. boiarskoeo deveioe 31 velikoefo) 33 kotogoSdinskggo, nemerzlavskggo, turdievskggo, Boguslavskggo, velikoe 34 Mokrinskoe. Polenskoeo. Gavardovskoeo 35 nikakavo vosm 'desiatoe 36 Véânoeo vosm'deseioe 37 boeoslavskoe. krvmkoeo. soSnoe mmostvrskoeo 39 Vohmkovo 40 Boeoslavskoe. soSnoeo 42 Zadeslomkfs Sestae 44 l^'askgg, Guoastgg, Sljakinskgg. Pot^apolskggo, MJasngg Lykovskgg, Xomutckoeo. Retonshae. Bvkavskœ. Veselge. Dukodavsbie ~46~ velikoe. Zarazskoe. Sartamvskae. Mad&rslo^ 47 velikoe. rezanskoe. rezanskovo. dvercavoe 48 Nikotoroe. Xotunskoe deviatoeo 49 LaSinskavo PiatQBo 50 Navolnoe, Sarvbevskoeo. Zarazskoeo Table 3.5: The spelling of the non-feminine genitive singular adjective *-ogo (I) 101 The only exception to the spelling of <-ag(o)> is for the expression of the date as found in documents number IS, 17,24,26,42 and 48. In these documents, scribes practiced both <-ogo> and <-ago> with highly marked function of the latter for the date. Therefore, the spelling <-ago> is ambiguous; it can be interpreted either as akan’e, or as a Slavonicism. However, the number of “exceptional” cases is reduced when we consider the different stress assignment for numerals. In the case of the spelling <-ago> for the expression of date in document 17,24,26,42, e.g., omggo, vtorggo, Sestgg, they seem to be morphologically motivated spellings because the stress falls on the ending. If scribes had worked only on the phonological principle, they would have spelled these words as osmogo, vtorogo and Sestog respectively. Therefore, it is likely that the -ago was commonly used for the date without any phonological implication, and it is possibly a Slavonicism. The following examples provide supporting evidence for this argument. About 20 percent of the investigated documents show akan’e spelling in most of the cases for the ending in -ogo, as is seen below; 102 akan’e spelling okan’e spelling numeral 3 iestnggo eja rozdestva 5 Olgovskgg manostyrja, is Zelen’skgg ozera 8 uprâ...skggo 10 SolodSinskgz manastyre 11 DosoSeiu preâistgg monostyija SoloSiinskgg 15 tricatgg 27 Mokrinskggo Mokrinskgyg pjatggo 28 deviatggo 32 véàtgg vtorggo 38 Ivanov syn Voikinskgya, LaSenskgya vtorgg 43 véinggo Rostovskgg. nikotorog SestggQ Table 3.6: The spelling of the non-feminine genitive singular adjective *-ogo (II) In these documents, scribes seem to practice either akan’e spelling only or mixed the akan’e spelling of -ago with okan’e spelling. In either case, they only practiced the spelling of ôestnggo (3), u pr6...sk^o {i),pre6ist^ (11), véingg (32), etc. If we exclude these religious words, there are only a few examples left with akan’e spelling <-ago>, e.g., Olgovskgg, Zelen’skgg, SolodSimkgg, Mokrinskggo, Volkimkgyat LaSenskma. Therefore, it is likely that the ending <-ago> is highly mariced for the ending of the numerals and religious words, and, in the majority o f cases, the spellings with 103 <-ag(o)> are not phoneticaUy conditioned. Rather, the ending is a Slavonicism. Keeping this evidence in mind, it is clear that the only true akan’e spellings are those for proper names. (d) Another interesting phenomenom in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian documents is the orthogn^hy of Volganskgl istok (17:L2), lés paSenngi i nepaSenngi (27), dbjakzemskgl (31), éemoi sSénik (32), iem gipopb (36), dvor manastyrskgi (40:L12), Laiinskol (45), d van bojarskgl (45), gubngl starosta Vasilei klementievb (46), vypis pisal nikolskgl zemskgl dijaâkh (46), loskb vySel na stargl Vnukovskol rubei (50), etc. There are two issues involved here, i.e., morphological and phonological. First, the morphological issue is the use of the ending <0j> in the unstressed position instead of Russian, CS *1, were lephonologized as the mid-vowels /e/, /of both before [j] as well as in other environments, e.g., R. molodoj, son, etc. In Old Russian, the common 104 masculine singular adjectival ending was /-oj/, both in stressed and unstressed position, and it is attested 6om the eleventh century, e.g., Nestere âjudbnoi (the Novoeorod Menaea 1096), viânoiiîvotb (the Novgorod Menaea 1097), etc. (Filin 1972:239). The contemporary standard Russian forms in -yf, -ij in unstressed position are considered to have been due to the orthogrtq)hic tradition of Church Slavonic (Filin 1972:237). Therefore, at least in the fifteenth* and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects that belonged to the peripheral dialects in terms o f the reflexes o f the tense jers, the tense jers were regularly reflected as <-oj>, and the traditional orthography was quite limited to certain lexical items such as religious terms or possibly to certain formulaic expressions, e.g. Smiremtyi èpsph (7), kn^z velikil (7: LI), inyl igumen (20), etc. Second, the phonological issue is the spelling of It is quite clear that the spelling <-aj> in place of <-oj> in the unstressed position is a reflection of akan'e. The claim is supported by the fact that these documents belong to the group of documents where scribes use other akan'e spellings, e.g., sorgt blizkg (27), iz gdnogo korenja (46). Therefore, it is probable that the spelling <-aj> even in the stressed position, as v n g ^n g j (46), can be interpreted as hypercorrection. 105 3.1^3. Hypcrcorrectioii of /a/ Examples of hypeicoirection aie strong evidence for the existence of akan'e in the investigated documents. There are many instances where the spelling <0> is used for etymological *a. Some instances are surely evidence of akan’e, while some are problematic. The examples of hypercorrection are listed below. 106 WonHnidally Pre-tonic Tonie Post-tonic 3 Qkseitb 4 Qtüona éXQl 5 man&tyn’a exol 6 Fedon Qndréev 9 kman&Dfriu da naprsyo 10 kosmaSei II onrximondritu mongstyria 12 vk&tmi, nep&cat 16 u QleSki, Ignaly Qleksandrm 17 Qfloxa Qfidréev 18 otiQfarskievoiny 19 védgl 20 Qndreéviô 24 Qfidréj Nikidorov snh QîtaOava 25 QBomuei 26 Qttdréüu), QleSa, z dorogi naproyo, Qstanin, QOonas naprçye 27 Qfeksandra 29 Ondrefana 34 kgkye kreposii, V kgfyx kreposlçc, kgbafy, v deneinyx kobalax 35 Qûbnaseviâ (< *Afiuus'evic) 37 t&arme 40 vypisgno pa Toliime 46 ddcgbija naprçye, po vjakgfa ugodfa gr&iiem 50 rozvilovgt M2 dayal tuzemijup&cal M4 othexgi A377 IvaSkavsyn LixQçeva Table 3.7: Hypeicorrection of /a/ 107 Wotd-initially, as seen in the left-most column, the spelling <0> in the place o f *a predominates, especially in proper names. This may not necessarily be hypercorrection. The spelling An'dilogov (5), Andronikovskog manastyrq (15), etc. In other positions, hyper-corrected spellings are not rare. For example, (a) m tonic position: ch fiaprgyo (9:1), z (hrogi naprovo (26:2), naprgye (26), naprgye, po gronjam (46), tu zemljupaxal (Morozov l988:no.2), Lixoceva (akty 377), etc.; (b) in clitics and prefixes, e.g., da naprgyo dorogoju xrapovskoju ...do z dorogi (26:2); (c) in morphological endings, e.g., na Ivana na BorsovoJlT), Iona ... vldko rjazanskoj (26), mgyisano meia (26:4), derevnja Naprasnoja, Klimovskoq, but also Zaxarovskaq (40), vsjakoja ugodja (46), etc. ’ The East Slavic representation of Greek alpha is well attested m Old Russian manuscripts and it is wimessed even m contemporary Ukramian fiimily names, e.g., Okksandr, Oleksa, OverUj, OvksentiJ. etc. (See Unbegaun 1972:264). 108 fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuy Rjazanian legal documents under investigation, akan’e is well reflected in all the expected phonological environments, i.e., not only in pre-tonic position, but also in other unstressed positions, e.g., in second pre-tonic position, in post-tonic position, etc. In addition, although not all the documents reflect akan’e spellings, there is no evidence of a norm that would militate against akan'e in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects. 3.1.2 4. Spelling of loi with non-a ietters There are some interesting occasions where *o is spelled not only as , but also as Another interesting example is the interchange of the spelling <0> and in some morphological endings, e.g., svoeju ruk^'u (38), po nogaiskoju dorogu (SO), Tjagalsja... igumen ... o cerkovnoiu zemiiu... (Morozov 1988: no.2), etc. We find occasional cases o f 109 verbal endings, e.g.,^/omufe/uAr(ürvne istari potjaglu {29), cf. poteglo istarini (6:1). However, the interchange of 110 3 .U . Jakan’e The patterns of jakan'e are one of the major diagnostic features in the South Russian dialects. There are three major variants ofjakan'e - strong, dissimilative and moderate jakan'e - with further subcategories. The southern Russian dialects are characterized by distinguishing only 3 vowels in unstressed syllables. The [-high] vowels fall together as /a/ after a hard consonant when unstressed. After a soft consonant the [-high] vowels fall together either as /a/ or as a Ront-vowel, which is variously realized in the different dialects. Kiparsky (1979:23) notes 3 major divisions in the South Russian dialects. (1) Dissimilative ("weak") iakan'e in the Kursk and Ofol regions. The vowel following a soft consonant and before a syllable with a stressed non-high vowel /à, é, 6/ can only be / 'i/; but if before a syllable with a stressed high vowels /ê, Ô, u, i/, it can only be / 'a/, e.g., [v'ilà], [Val'fj. The basic principle here is the fact that the dialects use a low vowel in positions before non-low vowels /i, u, è, ô/, a high vowel before non-high vowels /a, e, ot. However, the dissimilation environment can be more than just /a/ or non-/a/; it can be /a/. Id , ioi vs. N and id , depending on dialect Flier (1978) focuses on dialects that have 7 vowels in stressed position: /i/,/u/, /a/, and two (d and two foi, one open, the other closed. In such ^sterns the closed Id and loi usually are treated as high vowels for the dissimilation, the open ones as low. (2) Stmng iakan’e in the Rjazan' and Voronei regions. The vowel following a soft consonant and preceding a stressed vowel is always / 'a/. The main principle here is that no matter Wiat the following vowel is, the unstressed vowel will be /a/, e.g., [Valà], [v*al'i]. n ’t Moderale iakan'e in the Kaluga and Tula regions. The vowel 111 following a soft consonant and preceding a stressed vowel ^ipears as N before hard consonants and /*i/ before soft consonants. The main principle here is that the following consonant, not the vowel, is the deciding factor, e.g., [v’alà], [Vil'Q. The contemporary Rjazanian dialects show a very complicated picture of types of jakan'e. However, scholars often provide over-generalized and misleading descriptions. For example, some scholars suchasCemyx (1952:123), Kiparsky (1979; 23) and Vlasto (1986:314) claim that strong jakan'e is Qrpical of Rjazan' without providing any dialectal details. Avanesov (1952:32) provides a more detailed description, claiming that assimilative-dissimilative jakan'e is a typical characteristic in large parts of Rjazam‘an dialects. In fact, in the contemporary Rjazanian dialects, we wimess the mixture of assimilative-dissimilative jakan'e and strong akan'e or a transition ftom an assimilative-dissimilative jakan'e to strong jakan'e (Avanesov 1952:32). Because Avanesov (1952:32-33) proposes that the earliest form ofjakan'e was dissimilative, he posits that dissimilative jakan'e was typical of Rjazan' in the past Therefore, the history of Rjazanian dialects is very important for drawing a complete picture of the development ofjakan'e in Russian dialects.'^ However, only a few works have been done on medieval manuscripts ftom Rjazanian regions with regard to the jakan'e phenomenon, and they provide only Assimflative-dissMnilative jakan'e is found in the fClepikovsk, SolotCmsk, Tumsk, Spassk, 12evsk, Rybnovsk, Zaxarovsk, Mervtnsk, Rjazansk, Bukrtnsk, Seluxovsk, SOovsk, Ptonsk, Staroiilovsk, Sem ionov^ Sapoikovsk, Molarsk, Goriovsk, Skopmsk, Korablinsk, Uxolovsk, Saraevsk, Muravljansk, 2eltuxinsk, Rjalsk areas of Rjazanian regions. Widim these areas, there are about 10 villages that show moderate-dissimilative jakan'e (Avanesov 1952:32). 112 limited information. For example, in a stiufy of seventeenth-century manuscripts, Novopokrovskaja (1956) proposes assimilative-dissimilative jakan'e as a Qrpical phenomenon for Rjazanian speakers, but her research is limited to parts of the Rjazanian region, and does not provide extensive data. Therefore, it is worthwhile to investigate the jakan'e phenomenon as attested in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents - sources older than those used by Novopokrovskaja. In the section below, I will investigate the jakan'e spellings of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian scribes and try to determine whether the types of jakan'e of the later time period can be extended to fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazan'. It is almost a methodological tradition in Slavic linguistics that studies of unstressed vocalism focus on the first pre-tonic syllable with underlying Id after soft consonant. However, in this dissertation, 1 will pay attention to all the unstressed positions and see whether there are any tendencies or norms in regard to the spellings of jakan'e. In o%anizing the data, 1 will consider two major factors. First, 1 will try to see if there are any variations in terms of the orthographic representation of jakan'e in the place of/e/ which originated finm *ë, *e or *&. As noted in section 2.4 in Chapter 2, the phonemic status of/6/ varies in the investigated documents, with some documents indicating the existence of a separate phoneme id . However, in unstressed syllables, both *é and *e are represented as by other jakan'e spellings in all the investigated documents. Thus, it is not necessary to distinguish two different I d - one fiom *e and *&, and the other from *6. Second, 1 will investigate unstressed vocalism in the place o f Id fi»m *ç after C , e.g. v pamet 113 (2), sentebrja (26: S), etc. The latter instances may be examples of hypercoirection; if so, they will provide strong evidence for jakan'e in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. 3.1J.1. Jakam e in post-sevcntecnth-centuiy Rjazanian Dialects According to Novopokrovskaja (1956:6), some of the seventeenth-century Rjazanian documents show assimilative-dissimilative jakan'e. ' ' That is, the unstressed *e is written as *e->'a/C ______C V [-low] or/a/ [+stress] * e ^ i /C ______C e/è [+stress] It is also reported that jakan’e is reflected in the spellings of post-tonic vowels, e.g., RjcaanjM, Timqfbjaya syna, vyiigajat, etc. (Novopokrovskaja 1956:6). This " Novopokrovskaja’s research is based on the data from documents of Rja2sk regions. The data fiom other regions are limited, and she does not provide ary examples. 114 observation is supported by other seventeenth-century Rjazanian documents, e.g., Stepan Dmitreiav da Ivan Dmitrefav. pervaepereverta... drugajana... tret'ena... a i e t v e r t a e etc. (Morozov 1988: no.4). The situation remains the same in contemporary Rjazam'an dialects with minor differences. Among the villages in Rjazan' that have two separate 6ont mid vowels /e/ and /£/, some villages such as Kidusovo show the representation of /e/ as [i] in the pre-tonic position before the syllable with both /e/ and /£/, whereas some villages such as Novoselkovo show [i] only before the syllable with /e/, e.g., in Kidusovo, v'adu, v'adi, s'alo, butv'i/e/, d'irevn'a, whereas, in Novoselkovo, v'adu, v'adi, s'alo, v'alel, butd’irevn'a (See Avanesov 1949:89-91,100-101). In addition, strong jakan'e is found in Rjazanian regions, but only on the periphery of assimilative-dissimilative jakan'e dialects. Based on this observation, Avanesov proposes that dissimilative jakan'e was the original jakan'e type of Rjazan' (Avenesov 1952:32-33). In the following section, I will examine the data fiom fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents to see if Avanesov's and Novopokrovskaja's claims are supported by the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazam'an documents. 115 3.1 J.2. Jakan’e in fifteenth’ and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, the underlying /e/ and /'a/ are mostly spelled correctly in accordance with "standard" Old Russian spelling norms both in stressed and unstressed positions, as is seen below. Further examples could easily be added. 116 Pre-tonic Post-tonic 2 iena 3 velikafa 4 iem & t 5 rwAgAi 7 vdikoR âetvre. bggleca 10 zapiitUtdi 12 m ^eiu 13 na d&emi, sglo 14 po storm m^am. Hotbre 15 po storm m^am 16 mgA* uhdet 18 m ^o 20 i&io 21 c&io pôgreb 26 povili 29 sestru moiu 31 vilél 32 mëSom. i&io 34 u eg i& v 35 posvoeiitné 39 îgnoju 43 posvoeis&tré 47 kseim^eyoivypisi 48 prom&iil, dav&ti vm enil Table 3.8: The spellings of underlying Id and Pd 117 Compared to the akan’e spellings in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, the number of jakan’e spellings is relatively small. Only a few instances of jakan’e spellings are found in some morphological positions. However, this does not necessarily argue against jakan'e in fifteenth- and sixteenth- century Rjazanian dialects, as will be discussed below. The examples are summarized below, and thqr provide strong evidence for jakan'e. Pre-tonic Post-ionic 7 uxoigf 41 V dom bogaigyleneia po Ivane GrigprigyiCi po ubiennam 43 Dotiaslo vyliggut. 46 kpreinjisnustolbu, preinJai, po gronim . cf. verxnem 50 do Sorybevskogo rubj^a cf. poSarybevskomurub^ Table 3.9; Jakan'e spellings Some hypercorrected forms are found even in stressed positions, which is strong evidence for jakan'e in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, e.g., tot ruâgf teéet (31). In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian documents, no matter the following vowel, the vowel following the soft consonant in jakan'e spellings is 118 always /"a/, e.g.,po imjçmom (44:46b), ru b j^a (50), plem jm i (32,35,39), preinjamu (46), etc." One possible exception would be knigin^ in document 38. We find in place of the expected <ç>. This might be an example of ikan'e. However, the data do not contradict Novopokrovskaja's argument that seventeenth-century Rjazanian documents show the assimilative-dissimilative jakan'e (Novopokrovskaja 1956:6). Examples are simply not found for unstressed Id before the stressed syllable with id or id . Jakan'e phenomenon in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents can be verified by additional hyper-corrected forms. In the following examples, Pd is represented with the spelling " The spellings of -jan- for *en in words such as po imjsmm (44) plem jffii (32,35) might be Slavonicisms rather than jakan'e spellings. (See Uspenskij 1987; 127, Vaillant 1950:218). 119 pre-tonic post-tonic 1 k tomu selu istariny poletio spoin& ii 2 V pamet. 6 polggto. spoinem i 9 potggio. 10 oktebre 17 devgnosto iét 20 ggnvarg 26 sentgbrja 34 poteglo. Table 3.10: Hypeicotiectionof/'a/ After buskers and /c/,Id is spelled as , but not always, e.g.,po mladencm (41), po tfroéiSâam (46), etc. Such spellings are found even in tonic positions, e.g., v licœc (19). Certain seeming jakan'e spellings may have a morphological motivation because they mostly appear in certain plural endings (dative, instrumental and locative plural) and are limited to a few lexical items. In fact, the mixture of hard and soft stem declensions is not uncommon in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, e.g., kupil esmi to selo ...svoim détem (13,14, IS ,...), etc. (see Section 4.1.2.2 for details). Further supporting evidence is the personal name Konstantin, hi document 19, the phoneme Id is spelled as either /(/ or Id , e.g.. Se j'az Ivan Konstgtinaiv syn, posle otca svoeg Konstentina, etc. In Old Russia, the name was spelled in several 120 different ways, e.g., Konstmtin, Konsjœ^nh, KosnjMn, Kostjmtinb, Khsnjain, Ksnjgtinb, etc. (see Skulina 1974 vol. 2:186-187). Therefore, considering the fact that the letters <^> and Rjazanian legal documents (see section 1.1.1), the form 'Komtsfiri is, in fact, an expected form. However, the latter form Komtentin suggests that, for some reason, the scribe of the document hypercorrected /(/ in Konstantin to Id under jakan'e influence. The mixed use of There are some cases that seem to deviate fiom the norms. First, the nominative singular form for "princess" is quite consistently spelled as kn ^n i with instead of J a z ... kngni (9), etc. Only a few documents show the spelling with the ending -'a, e.g., knigin^ (38). The spelling with -i in the word kngini seems to be the norm of the investigated documents. In fact, the word for 'princess' belongs to the category of those feminine nouns with the suffix -ynj- that had nominative singular in rather than -'a, e.g., rabynji 'female slave', bogynji 'goddess',/Mfrtyryi 'desert', etc. (Lunt 1974:47). Therefore, the spelling of the word for 'princess' indicates conservatism of the scribes' writing practice. Second, the mixture of Id and IV is also noticeable, e.g., piscy smotrili (26: L4). The spelling of /i/ for id for smotrili may be an issue o f derivation (suffixal morphology) rather than phonology. Third, there are also a few examples of the spelling 121 In sum, fifteenth' and'sixteenth-centiuy Rjazanian legal documents show evidence of jakan'e even though it is not well represented in the orthognqphy. The scribes seem to be rather conservative or accurate in accordance with the "standard" Old Russian spelling norms. Scribes not only spelled the words with the underlying Id in accordance with Old Russian spelling norms, but also spelled some feminine nouns with the suffix -ynj- or numeral forms in accordance with traditional norms. Only a few documents show jakan'e spellings, and then only to a limited extent. In such cases, jakan'e is reflected not only in first pre-tonic position, but also in all the other unstressed positions. The sporadic reflection ofjakan'e in the orthogn^hy does not argue against jakan'e in the given time, nor does it militate against the possibility of assimilitive- dissmilitive jakan'e in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. Due to lack of evidence we simply can not say whether there was strong or assimilative-dissimilative jakan'e. 122 3.2. The change of Itl to M The e > 0 change is one of the major phonological changes that affected most Russian dialectal zones. A number of studies have been done on this topic; it is generally held among scholars that the e > o change under stress was a Common East Slavic phenomenon ^ilin 1972:185). From the eleventh century, *h began to be written as <0> in older manuscripts, although it occurred very sporadically, chiefly after palatals, e.g., âolovek fizbomik 1073 g.l. io m (Izbomik 1076 g.) etc., (Filin 1972:189). Instances of the spelling of <0> from *e and as <0> increased constantly, and finally, in fifteenth and sixteenth-century Muscovite legal documents, as well as in some Northeast Russian legal texts, /e/ from *e and was written as position as well as in the stressed position, e.g., koupbcgy, roublovh, etc. (Vaseko, E. F. 1959:67, Borkovskij & Kuznecov 1963:129-130). In Contemporary Standard Russian, the end-product of the change is evident: (1) under stress before all the non palatalized consonants, e.g., I'oplyj, ber*oza; (2) under stress word-finally, e.g., lico, eSâo. It is also the reflex of the front jer * h before a hard consonant, e.g., p'os, or'ol etc.'^ The e > 0 change is known m Russian, Belorussian, Ukrainian, Polish, and Sorbian. In Russian, the change happened during and after the M ofjers. Thus, it is alreatfy well reflected in texts of the thbteenth and the finirteenth centuries. While the change was occurtng, the palatals PS I and I f I hardened; thus, they also conditioned e > o: molod'al, nes'oi. However, /cV hardened after the change was completed, hence, otec. In Belorussian, the e > o change happened the same m y as in Russian, e g., yaVony. The only difterence k that S and i in Belorussian hardened after the e > o change was completed, thus m ataiz^. However, m Ukramian, the change happened only after hushers and ijl, e.g., âobit (boots), majoho, but ze/enjÿ. Stress does not play a role m Ukramian (Borkovskij & Kuznecov 1963:129). For the isoglosses o f this phenomenon in Slavic languages, see Andersen (1978). For the previous smdies on this topic, see Filin (1972; 184-202). 123 However, we find hundreds of enclaves in the Russian territory where the e > o change is completely absent or inconsistently reflected. Among those enclaves is the area north and northwest of Rjazan’, where stressed /e/ ( Dialect I in the table below.'^ In other dialects, the change is absent in the stems and suffixes, but not in*tbrt groups, as is seen in Dialect II, e.g., ber'eza, sv'ekla, kot'enok, sol'enyj, butm'orzla, etc. hr Dialect HI, the change is reflected only in stems. (DARJa Fonetika: Map 38). hi some other Rjazanian dialects, e.g., in dialects o f the Spassk and SolotCa regions, the e > o change is reflected only in case endings and diminutive suffixes, e.g., dn'om, m'edv'ed'om, zemVoj, ogon'ok, etc. (Avanesov 1949:42). However, the examples of this kind are considered to be the result of analogy to the hard-stem declensions (oknom, piloj) or to the suffix -ok after hard consonants (domok). In other instances. Id was retained, e.g., Ven, ov'es, Wen, d'en, s'el, zavertyvat', kot'enok, n'es'em, etc. " The retention of the stressed lei before hard consonants is also found in the area between the headwaters of the Don and Oka (south of Tula, west of Orel) as well as certain western regions of Ukraine (Carlton 1991:175). The absence ofthe e > o change is Aund m Klepfltovskij, Tuma, Rybnoe, Solotda, Spassk, Qevskoe, Seluxovsk, Zaxarovo regions, and less commonly in the south of Pronsk, SapoZok, Semionovo, Korablihsko, Rjafak, Uxolovo and other old Rjazam'an regions (Avanesov 1952; 31). 124 Dialect I Dialect n Dialect m *bereza(stem) ber’eza ber’eza ber'oza *kot'enok (sufGx) kot’enok kot’enok kot’enok ♦m'erzla (*-twt-) m'erzla m’orzla m ’erzla Table 3.11: Dialectal distribution of the e > o change The widespread areas around Rjazan' where the e > o change is absent are considered to be supporting evidence for the claim that the e > o change might not have been a pan-East Slavic phenomenon, as is claimed by many scholars (Avanesov 1952:32). Some other scholars leave it undecided whether the unchanged Id was the result of a continuation of the old system or the result of a later development like delabialization of/o/ to id (Boritovskij & Kuznecov 1963:130, Filin 1972:187). If there were linguistic continuity between fifteenth- and sixteenth-century and contemporary Rjazanian dialects, it would be reasonable to expect to find a similar dialectal picture in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. On the other hand, if the absence of the e > o change was the result of later developments, we would expect to find strong evidence for the e > o change in the documents investigated. Thus, the main focus of this section is to examine the data fiom the documents investigated and see whether the e > o change was present or absent. 125 Before proceeding to the investigation of the data, a methodological problem should be mentioned. It is not really clear A ether the letter <0> under stress is not insignificant. Representative examples are presented in the table below. 126 e>o no change shown in spelling root/stem endinss/nifiixes root/stem endings/suffixes 1 potom uia pttnatctt ntblav 2 èSéo 3 prizovei, ne idet 5 Fesdorm 6 vosmbdeiatb rublay Semenov smb 7 vo...Ftsflorav otoimef, s nim idft, iivet. i storoné 8 Feodon, 9 sb ststrami. k klffiu, Fedon 13 ietvresta rublev 14 dviste rublev 15 dvésie rublev 16 Fedor vsprosH, n sgs/ramf, sfaroiiictm kbklenu. 17 yySsf slar(dilc!ÿ>, lavarySégy priiel tovarySiev, petnalcat rublev. teiÿ. Table 3.12: The e > o change 127 Among the documents investigated, documents 1 and 2 show the spelling of *e in stressed position. Because there are some contemporary Rjazanian dialects that were influenced by the e > o change, it is possible that documents 1 and 2 belonged to those dialects. Other documents investigated show a seemingly random choice of spellings for *e in the stressed positions, i.e., either <0> or However, there are several noticeable patterns concerning the e > o change. First, among other sufBxes, the e > o change is reflected almost exclusively in the ending -ov, as is seen on the second column. Second, there are some spellings of loi in the place of Id in unstressed positions, yyio/ (17), meigyanja (33), etc. Because Rjazanian dialects show jakan'e, we expect to have the e > o change occurring only in the stressed position, with the unstressed o (<*e) changing to a, if the e > o change really happened in Rjazanian dialects. Third, the personal name Feodor is relatively consistently spelled out, although there are some examples of Fedor (document 9, 12, etc). Fourth, excluding all the previous examples, the number of examples that show the e > 0 change is reduced down to only a few, e.g., fo (1), èSâo (2), ne ostalos ion (44:72), net ion (44:74), etc. In the majority of cases. Id seems to be retained without changing to /o/, as is seen on the right two columns. However, it should be noted that reflection of the e > o change is unlikely due to orthographic factors in cases likeiivet, where loi followed a paired consonant. 3J.1. The significant number of cases ofthe spelling -ov in fifteenth- and sixteenth- century Rjazanian legal documents is quite curious, considering that many contemporary Rjazanian dialects do not show the e > o change, hi addition, many 128 documents investigated show the spelling -ev as well as -ov. Therefore, the question to ask is whether the spelling -ov was the reflection of real pronunciation, traditional orthography, or morphological (or graphic) analogy. The correlation between dissimilative-assimilative jakan'e and the e > o change provides a clue to solve this problem. In contemporary Rjazanian dissimilative-assimilative jakan'e dialects, unstressed *e is pronounced as [ja] in the pre-tonic position before stressed syllables with all the [-low] vowels and /a/, except /e/ and /&/. Before the stressed syllable with /d or /£/, the pre-tonic unstressed vowel is pronounced as [i]. Thus, (I) V [a] / C à (2) V [non-a, mainly r]/ C [e or è] V [+stress] [-low] [+stress] (Ex) v'adu, v'adi, s'alo, etc. but, v'iiel, d'irevn'a, etc. When we examine examples o f the e > o change on the basis o f this type o f jakan'e, we can determine the relative chronology of the e > o change in the dialects investigated. As Avanesov (1952:33) noticed, the e > o change is often absent in dialects with assimilative-dissimilative jakan'e. hi these dialects, the pre-tonic vowel is pronounced as 129 b ’al'jo, m'aiok, b'ir'cdok, Xm'ed'ov, etc. There are also other dialects with assimilative-dissimilative jakan'e that have the e > o change. In these dialects, if the stressed vowel is a part o f nominal case endings or sufiBxes, the pre-tonic vowel is pronounced as [a], and in other cases as [non-a], e g., bir'oza, v'id'om, n'is’om, but s'am'joj, m'idVad'om, d'anok, p ’an'ok, etc. Some Rjazanian dialects belong to this type. Therefore, Avanesov (1952:33) claims that the e > o change in the suffixes or nominal endings happened before jakan'e was formed, whereas the e > o change in the other instances happened later than the formation of dissimilative-assimilative jakan'e. The relative chronology can be summarized as follows: suffix/ending other instances e>o change d'en'ok/s'em'joj ------D-A jakan'e d'anok / s'am'joj bir'eza / v'id'em e > o change ------bir’oza / v'id'om This relative chronology may explain why BAeenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents show a significant number of the spellings -ov. It is possible that the e > o change in nominal endings and sufBxes occurred before the fifteenth century, and that scribes o f the documents with no e > o change used -ov or -o/t following the traditional spelling norms without revealing local pronunciation. The claim is well supported by the large number of cases of stressed /e/ spelled as 130 3 J.2 . The spelling of /o/ in the place of /e/ in unstressed positions is also noticeable, e.g., yySol (17), meigyanja (33), etc. As noted above, in jakan'e dialects, we expect to have the e > o change occurring only in the stressed position, with the unstressed o (<*e) changing to a. It is even more curious if we consider that the scribes of documents 17 and 33 spelled out other words with *e in the stressed position as 3 J J . The example of the personal name Feodor as in vo hde Fegdorové storoné (7:L1) suggests that *e may have also changed to /o/ through the state of feo/. More probably, the name had continued to be spelled that way before fifteenth century, and the spelling was probably an imitation of the Greek spelling Thegdoros. In fact, Kotkov lists the name as Feodor in the index of the names for the documents investigated. 3.2.4. A great number of the examples of /e/ in the place of CS *e suggest that e was the regular reflex, and that the occurrence of o was due to other causes, chiefly analogy, in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazam'an dialects. In fact, as noted 131 above, the e > o change is not piesmt in many archaic Rjazanian dialects (Avanesov (1952:32). The retention of stressed *e is supported by the spelling of *e as < e.g., Hb± mo oiepKo (17), no Htpnou eodi (47), etc. The examples suggest that the e > 0 change was not reflected before a hard consonant or word-finally under stress for at least some scribes of the investigated documents. The slots that are occupied by the grapheme < t> , as in the examples H bi (17), no hJ ^ hou (47), were positions for the e >o change. In other words, scribes, with less ambiguity than the letter 32.5. The e > o change is not found in the verbal endings of the first conjugation in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian documents. Following Avanesov's claim that the e > 0 change in verbal endings is a later development, Kotkov (1963:53) provides the example biot Celom in a seventeenth-century south Russian manuscript. Kotkov argues that the change may have occurred by the seventeenth century in South Russian dialects. However, fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents do not support Kotkov's claim. No single example for the e > o change is found in verbal endings in the documents investigated. 32.6. Considering all these Acts, it is arguable that fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents support the claim that the e > o change was mostly absent in the corpus investigated. Spellings like -ov. Feodor seem to be the reflection o f 132 traditional orthogr^hy, analogy, or Muscovite influence. It is not shown in the documents investigated whether the spelling later delabialization. 33. Palatalization of Velars Historically, velars were fronted before front vowels in the first, second, and third palatalizations. Those that remained were only found before non-finnt vowels. In the history of the Russian noun paradigm, there was a tendency to level out these morphophonemic alternations; thus velars began to reappear in place of the second palatalization reflexes before the front vowels i and é from the beginning o f the twelflh-century, at least in some dialects (Jakubinskij 1953:153-154, Sobolevskij [1907] 1962:130, Saxmatov [1915] 1967:311). For example, the locative of dhska, which had been akfcëF due to the second palatalization, began to be written as doské, by analogy.*® There is no consensus on the status of palatalized velars in contemporary Russian. Proponents of phonemicalty noii-paired velars msist that palatalhatibn is not phonemic for velars in Russian because velars are palatalized predictably befixe the vowels /i/ and /e/, but never before the vowels /a/, /u/, /o/. There are a few exceptions, almost all o f them borrowmgs, which lie outside ofthe system ofthe language and violate the above rule: maik'or "marker", G’ote "Goethe", as well as kempmg [kempig] "camping". These examples can easily be discounted as marginal phonemes utilized in a small set of foreign borrowmgs. Proponents of phonemicalfy paired velars m Russian use examples o f morphophonemic change as evidence to support their view. For example, the Russian native verb, tkat’ "to weave" which was conjugated in die present as tku, tSS, t£8t etc. began to be conjugated as tku, tk’oS etc. by analogy (c£ rvaf/rv’ot) in the second half of the 19th c. This morphophonemic change is evidence diat palatalization is phonemic for velars. That is, if {v}mrvur is paned with (v’jm rv ’or, whynot{k-k’} mtku-tk\A? The ever-increasmg numbers ofderived forms withamorphophonemic alternation ofsharped and non- sharped velars provide forther evidence for phonemkalbrpahed velars mRussian, e-g., kiosk~kiosk’or, etc. Therefore, we m ^ assume that the sh a r^ vehis attained dhtmctiveness at least a cemmy ago. 133 h the investigated documents, the morphophonemic alternations resulting fiom the second palatalization are still found, e.g., dcgu ... i otcu svoemu vladyce ( < vladyka) Stepanu ... (Morozov 1988:no. 1), i kakmsroce ( (Morozov 1988: no2),pereverta na dubce i Not all of these are formulae, e.g., na dubce, although some are, e.g., a vo inocac. Alongside this, we find some evidence for stem leveling as expected, e.g., k O të retë (47: L2), which can be another illustration of the mixture of traditional spellings with relatively innovative spellings. Another phonological phenomenon related to velars is the so-called "4th palatalization": Ky > K'i (K=velars). In the investigated documents, the spellings At, gi, XI are dominant, e.g., kupil esm i ... u rorM(nom. Vasko Cemeev) (1),systoki (4), s_obro^(7:1), bezxitrosti(7:1), dooituxovskoj dorogi(9:1), nareiki(ll), bortniti (17:1), do O h re h (17:1), lugi (\7:l),prikazSiih (21), rgzanshe dvutretnye piscy (26:1), vsghe potugi (26:1), s voixi (31:2), dal esm i ... velildmb cjudotvorcom In addition. Flier (1982) gives more evidence fiir the exutence o f paired velars in Russian fix more than 250 years. In the 18th c. and earlier period, the suffix {-in’(a)} was used to form fem derivatives fiom masc. fixms o f titles, e.g., bog/bog’in’a, numarx/monanin’a, ffaflgrafyn’a. etc. What is o f special interest is the last set In the earty 18th c., the derivative gr(j$n ‘a was written as gr< #i 'a. However, it began to be written as griÿhi’a in a 1731 lexicon, an mdiatioa of morphophonemic change involving the extension ofthe alternation (C -»C'}. That», at first the phonetic alternation in monorx vs. 'a had no morphophoneinic indication because [x’l in fflonorx'lit'a was automatically predictable. However, graduaUy this ahemation was interpreted as morphophonemic alternation, i.e., {x} formasc.and {x’} fix fem. Then, this gender-motivated alternation K’} could serve as the mortel fix the innovation {f-» f} ingnfigiafin’a. Considermg all t t e evidence, we nuy assume that the status o f palatalized velars is slowly strengthenmg, and tfaerefixe what we have now, mcludmg native words Iflce kibsk’or as weU as borrowings represents a system with phonemic palatalization. 134 (35), dengi (45), Sulgin (AS), doro5M. (46). ot ustbq, reH R M (47:2), té lugi (5 0 :1), z dorogi (5 0 :1), etc. This suggests that "4th palatalization” was a completed process in fiiteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects. Only a few examples of the traditional spelling ky are found, e.g., da ozera K véz^(27), nareÔkymTereèv^QA),nivkokyxkrepostex {34), kokye kreposti (34), Anne te ybytkyplatiti (34), Gowila Ivanov syn Brovkyn (34), etc. Another peculiar phenomenon in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents is the progressive softening of velars after soft consonants, i.e., K>KVC’ or * &k > k ', e.g., L a r ^ { \ 1) (<*Lar’ka <*Lar&ka), Vash'a (41), but traditional Lev’ka (16). This phenomenon is widespread in contemporary Rjazanian dialects as well as in other South Russian and some Northeastern dialects (see DARJa Fonetika: map 67). Therefore, the examples of the progressive softening of velars after soft consonants indicate that there might be linguistic continuiQr between fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects and contemporary Rjazanian dialects. Finally, there is limited evidence for the phenomenon called ‘rut’i/nod’i’, in which soft velars are replaced by soft dentals (*k’ > t’, *g’ > d’). This is attested in proper names and diminutives in Akty 377, e.g., iska l... Kuzemka ... na Nikitte ...boju ; Iqj, vy de im prisudili - tomu Kuzemte da Nikitte, vy by na Nikitte ...ne veleli, etc. However, no example ofthe ‘rut’i/nod’i’ phenomenon is found in Kotkov and Filippova's edition. 135 3.4. Summary: In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, we find a five- or six-vowel system in stressed syllables and a three-vowel system in unstressed syllables. It is possible that a seven-vowel system existed, but our documents do not provide any evidence to support it. In consonantism, the result of the three palatalizations of velars is mixed with the result of stem leveling. In addition, there is some evidence for progressive softening of velars and the ‘rut’i/nod’i’ phenomenon in some documents. 136 CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY In this chapter, I will examine selected characteristics of morphology in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. Although this chapter includes all the subcategories of morphology, i.e., nominal, adjectival, pronominal, numeral and verbal morphology, special attention will be given to those phenomena that are characteristic of the investigated corpus, as compared with other Muscovite- era texts. The features that will be disscussed include: (1) noun morphology; the loss of neuter gender, the status of the old short û-stem endings, the mixture of hard and soft declensional endings in the a-/ja-stem nouns in the singular, and the generalization of the a-stem endings in the plural; (2) adjectival morphology; the singular genitive non-feminine pronominal-adjectival desinence -ovo, the genitive singular feminine adjectival desinences, and the dative/locative singular feminine adjectival desinences; (3) pronominal morphology; the first-person nominative singular, the first- and second-person singular genitive, accusative, dative and locative cases, and the reflexive; (4) numeral morphology; the numeral '2' and the treatment of the dual 137 number, the numerals '3' and '4', and other numerals; (S) verbal morphology - the infinitive form, the third person singular, the past and the present tense formation, and reflexive verbs. 4.1. Nominal Morphology As in other Old Russian dialects and modem Russian, nouns in the corpus investigated are inflected for case and number and are inherently specified for gender. Adjectives are obligatorily marked for case, number and gender. The pronouns distinguish case, number and, in some instances, gender. The cardinal numerals are inflected for case only. The language of the investigated documents distinguishes all three genders; however, we find a few examples that show the partial merger of neuter with feminine. The corpus shows the basic six-case system, i.e., nominative, accusative, genitive, locative, dative, and instrumental, with a few vocative case forms in formulaic phrases. 4.1.1. The loss of neuter forms The loss of neuter forms is a distinctive morphological feature in some South Russian dialects, e.g., bolhSqja selo, mega pljaée, xutkga vedro, suxaja sena, etc. (Cemyx 1952:19). Kotkov(1963:142-149) suggests that this phenomenon can be traced back to the fourteenth and/or fifteenth century. The merger is considered to 138 have been triggered by the phonetic factor that the neuter adjectival ending In the unstressed position merged with feminine adjectival endings in the nominative singular. According to Kotkov, fiom the 17* century, not only imstressed neuter endings, but also stressed neuter endings began to be replaced by the feminine endings.' In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, we find only a very few potential examples of this phenomenon, e.g., zzaimiSéi do Oki (17: LI), vsjakoja ugodja (46), k maéiliSéam (46), po uroâiSâam (46), meia ueodiamb s selom (47). The examples of the normative neuter endings oumumber the examples of irmovative endings, e.g, so vsemi ugodbi (6, 13,25,35,36), so vsémi ugodi (14,15, 29,32,43,48), ot starog ézovüâa to zaimiSée ukaiem (17:L1), so vsëm ugodem (19), so vsjakim ueodemb (23), so v^'akimi ugodi (27,28), vsjatie ugodja (33), so vsqkim ugodèm (34), sa vs^kim ougodginh (38), so vsjakim ueodiiam (41), vsjakim ugodemb (45), z dvory i s ogorody i z gumny, (34), usadiSi i xmelniki (75), vse crkovnoe stroène_(47), k ix poméstbju (31 :L3), poméstbs. leiat pusty (44: L72), po ko^ mesta (12), po ktga mesta (41), v Tyronova mésta PovoliSina ruku priloiil (50: LIob-2ob), V Yvanovomesto (16:L1),vsudinomisto (17:L3),etc. The given data show that there is little evidence for the merger of neuter with feminine in the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries, at least in Rjazam'an dialects, the earliest South Russian dialects attested. As for the forms, z zaimiSéi do Old (17: LI), ' The merger of neuter endings with finnmme endings is also observed in Belarusian manuscripts, e g, sUnoJu voiskoju, z svoeju voiskoju, voiski (gen. sg ), usju vojsbku etc. (Karskij 1955-6 vol.2:19-20, 322-323). 139 vsjakoja ugodja (46), if we follow Kotkov's opinion (1963:144), the unstressed neuter adjectival endings merged with the feminine adjectival endings due to the influence of akan'e. However, this was evidently purely phonetic and had not yet led to true morphological change. As for the forms moiiliSiam. uroéiSâam. ugodjgmh in the phrases k moôiliSâam (46), po uroâiSéam (46), meia ueodiamb s selom (47), it is not quite clear whether these forms definitely reflect the phenomenon of the merger o f neuter with feminine or whether they reflect another phenomenon, the expansion of the a-stem peripheral plural endings in East Slavic (see section 4.1.2.3, below). 140 4 .U . Nominal morphology Of the original declensional types based on the original theme vowels inherited 6om IE, e.g., o-stems, jo*stems, a-stems, ja>stems, i-stems, long u-stems, short a-stems, and various consonant-stems, it is generally held that the short û-stems were incorporated into the o-stems very early, and that thejo-stems had me^ed with the o-stems and the ja-stems with the a-stems by the fifteenth century (Éaxmatov 1957:82, Andersen 1969a: 20-21, Vlasto 1988:91-92). However, the mergers of the different declensions were not implemented completely in the course of the following two centuries. Consequently, we find many examples of archaic declensions in documents of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, including the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents investigated here. 4.I.2.I. Retention of old short fi-stem singular genitive and locative -u It is generally accepted that some of the short û-stem endings were already absorbed in old o-stem declensions in the Common Slavic period (Kuznecov 1959: 13-14). Many examples of this are found in the earliest East Slavic manuscripts, e.g., pomosthmb instead of pomostomb. velikbmb instead of velikomb. etc. Among the short a-stem endings, only the genitive plural ending in -ov ultimately became a basic element of the o-stem nouns in most Slavic languages. Other endings like the genitive singular -u, dative singular -ovi, locative singular -u and nominative plural 141 -ove were borrowed, to some extentj by the o-stem declension in various dialects, where they occurred in variation with the original o-stem endings. Thus, the dative singular -ovi is normal and extended to the locative singular in Czech and Slovak for animates {cMapavi), and generalized in Polish for most masculine o-stem nouns (biletowi). hi East Slavic, it persisted in Ukrainian (horodovt). The genitive singular -u is found in Russian and Ukrainian, and normal in Czech, Slovak(hradu) and Polish for most inanimates. In Slovene, a few nouns have the genitive singular -u, e.g., sinu. The locative singular -u is generalized in Serbo-Croatian (gradu) and Slovene igradu). It was adapted into West Slavic as a means of avoiding stem alternations, e.g., rohu in Czech and Slovak, roku in Polish. The plural nominative -ove is current with a limited set of nouns in Czech {^synove, Josefove, rusove, etc), Slovak (^/o/ogovid) and Polish (synowie,filoziftwie, panowie, etc). In South Slavic, it is used in Bulgarian for monosyllables (domove, bogove) and for a few nouns in Slovene and Macedonian {gradovi). In Serbo-Croatian, the plural nominative -ove is the source of the stem-extension -ov-, used throughout the plural for monosyllabic nouns and a few polysyllabic nouns e.g., gradovi (N), grachva (G), gjradovima (D,H)? In East Slavic texts of the fifieenth-century, the dative singular -ovi and nominative plural -ove, which were basically restricted to animates, were moribund in most dialects (Unbegaun 1935:159-162, Vlasto 1988:91). In the corpus investigated, the dative singular -ovi and nominative plural -ove are attested only ^ For details, see Comrie and Corbett (1993), Unbegaun (1935:78). 142 rarely, a fact which coincides with the findings of previous studies. The plural genitive -ov seems to be already stabilized in the period of the investigated documents. What is interesting in the corpus investigated is that we find many examples of the genitive and the locative singular in -u both in original short û-stems (*verx, vol, med, pol, bor, dar, led, pir, raz, sad, san, syn, dom, niz, iin) and in o-stem nouns. For example, the singular genitive -u is seen in ot verxu (7;L1), ot oustb ... Nëgovskogo brodu (9), z godu m god (12,17), a srok abroku (12), daem velikomu kmju obroku (17:L1), v dva godu (17:L2), prodal esmi z bojarskogo dokladu (24), do vldénja lugu (26;L2), s poiovinu lësu (26: L2), s tvoeg gdrva dokladu (26: L4), Se ja z ...data esmi v'kladu v dom (32,36,), vprok bez vykupu (38), iz rezanskix knig pisma I dozoru Ondrja decktrova sna Skrjabina (40: LIO), ëemogo vosku(5l: 17th century copy of late 14th century original), etc. Despite this, we can not find a single example of the original short û-stem noun ^ with -u . Kuznecov (1959: 15) suggests that the word syn had already been absorbed into the o-stem declension in the twelfth century so that the word was no longer perceived as an û-stem noun. Kotkov (1963: 171) suggests that it was not rare in fifteenth- and sixteenth- century documents to find the genitive singular -u used in animate nouns. However, in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents investigated, not a single example of the genitive singular -u is found in animate nouns. Therefore, it is 143 possible that the ending -u in the genitive case in animate nouns was a later development in Rjazanian dialects, and appears in the seventeenth century at the earliest. Examples of nouns in -u in the locative case are also attested on a large scale, e.g., na beregu (lliLl, 46),povsem ego rodu {20), nalosku(26:L2),vtoniboju (26;L2), V sem spisku (26: L4), v Smolensku ... (26:L4), na vjazu (31 :L2) cf. ot vjaza(}l:L2),vrozéziemspisku kakvspis^pisam {31: L2), v Konevskom stanu (36), v Ogloblimkam stanu (38), v Kanevskomb stanu (39), v Perevitskom stanu (41), v BolSom stanu (45), v Perevickom stanu (46), na lugu postavlen stoibh (46), na beregu (46), v [isjku (31 :Ll),v rozëziem spisku (31 :L3), na verxu (66), na éemom vosku (67:17th century copy of the 16th century original), v sentbdeset vosmom godu (83:L3), v obysku (83:L5), etc. According to Novopoktovskaja (1958:98), in seventeenth-century Rjazanian documents, about 40 examples of animate nouns in -u in the locative case are attested. However, in the corpus investigated, no animates are attested with the locative singular -u. Some peculiar phenomena are also noticeable. First, it seems to be almost a rule that the scribes used -u for the word stan, e.g., v Konevskom stanu (36), v Ogloblinskam stanu (38), v Konevskontb stanu (39), v Perevitskom stanu (41), v BolSom stanu (45), v Perevickom stanu (46), etc. Second, on the other band, we do not find a single example with the locative singular -u in the word uezd, which is bi- syllabic, thereby a good candidate for the ending e.g., v Kolomenskom ouèzde (6,13, 14,15,20,25,29,30,32,35,36,38,39), dal esmi ...zemlju ... Grigorbevbskog 144 uézda (12), v Rezamkontb uëzde (23,24), v Starorezanskam uézde (27), etc. Thiid, some nouns show fluctuation both in the genitive and in the locative ending, e.g., v rozëziem spisku (31 ;L3) vs. na spiske (26:L4), do vykupu dvorov (45) vs. bez vykupa (14), na vjazu vs. ot vjaza (31i,2), etc. It is possible that the different stress patterns for each word played a role in the use of the ending. That is, when the stress fell on the stem, scribes used either -u or o-stem endings. When the stress fell on the ending, scribes almost always used the ending -u. As for the origin of the stressed -u, scholars agree that the stressed -u is quite common, especially in the South Russian dialects, and that this phenomenon developed quite recently in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Obnorskij 1927: 103, Kotkov 1963:150-151). The investigated documents confirm that stressed -u was used on a large scale in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects. The use of the stressed -u in the investigated documents reflects a system similar to contemporary Rjazanian dialects (DARJa Morfologiia; map 15,16). 145 A .122. The mixture of hard and soft declensional endings of the a-/ja-stem nouns in the singular One of the pecuiiarites in fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuiy Rjazanian legal documents is that the old a-stem singular endings began to spread at the expense of the ja-stem singular endings. In the corpus investigated, we witness the prevailing innovative use of the a-stem singular endings over the old ja-stem singular endings. 4.122.1. The genitive singular. Contemporary Rjazanian dialects show various possibilités for the genitive singular ending for a-/ja-stem nouns. Some village dialects use the original hard-stem ending in -i ([i] or M ) both hard- and soft- stem paradigms, while other dialects show the original soft-stem ending in -e (<*&]) for both hard and soft stem nouns, e.g., net iene, dve sestre, etc. (DARJa Morfologiia; map 2). There are also some other village dialects where the choice of the ending depends on the stress. That is, the original hard-stem ending in -i/y is used in unstressed position, e.g., karov'i ni bylo, s rabot’i, whereas the soft stem ending in -e is used in the stressed position, e.g., u snax'e, s rek'e, u sestre^ etc. (Avanesov 1949 [1970]: 204). Avanesov, however, does not consider the possibility that unstressed /\/ after softened consonants may reflect underlying /e/. hi spite of the complex distribution of the endings in contemporary Rjazam‘an dialects, there are only a few studies that discuss the genitive singular case endings of a-/ja-stem nouns in Rjazanian regions. To my knowledge, there are no studies that discuss the topic in Rjazanian sources prior to the seventeenth century. Only a few 146 examples are found in pievious studies on seventeenth-century Rjazanian manuscripts: u pravoi nogi, upravoi ruk^, vmésto vdov^ etc. (Kotkov 1963:178). Kotkov (1963:177) notes that the a-stem genitive singular ending in -i/^ became quite dominant over the ja-stem genitive singular ending already in seventeenth- century South Russian dialects, e g., posle veierni, is korob(b)i, is tomoini, etc,, and that the old soft stem ending was primarily used with propositions like u, ot, vmesto etc. Consequently, Kotkov implies that the present dialectal features of some South Russian dialects with the ending in -e for a-/ja-stem genitive singular case contradicts data &om seventeenth-century South Russian manuscripts. This suggests a need for further research for the development of the genitive singular ending for a-/ja-stem endings firom the seventeenth century to contemporary Rjazanian dialects. In this section, I will investigate the examples fiom fifteenth- and sixteenth- century Rjazanian legal documents, and see whether there were any rules or tendencies for the choice of alternative endings. It would be conjectural to make any direct linguistic connection between sixteenth-century and contemporary data. However, a synchronic study of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian data allows one to make a connection between the earliest attested centuries and the seventeenth century, which will contribute to a more complete picture of the linguistic development in these regions. Fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents show peculiarities in the representation of singular genitive endings for a-^a-stem nouns. The old hard-stem ending is quite consistently used for a-stem nouns, whereas the old soft stem ending is sometimes mixed with the innovative hard-stem endings for 147 the soft-stem nouns. For example, in the genitive singular of ja-stem nouns such as zenüja, poinja, troica, scribes often used the ending in -i/y instead o f the old ending in -ef-i, e.g., s toi zemli (12), m otvode zemU (9), o tp o M (26: L2), uüvoméainye trocy (29), etc. The same words were sometimes spelled differently for the same endings even in the same documents, e.g, m otvode zemli buta otvod zenUi (9), tvoèj zèmli butvldônè zemli (26), etc.^ In addition, there are many examples where scribes used expected old endings, e g., a otvod zem li (9), etc. More examples are given below: ^ Fonns like or2 0 1 1 ^ in otvtNfetfHiQ buta otvcN/zcHii^coukl represent the genitive or dative case, given the fact that deverbal nouns often take adnoinmal datives in Earfy Russian. However, the claim is still valid that the same words were spelled dtfiferently m the same documents. 148 a-stem ja-stem 2 isb starins. 4 s toe votiiiK 9 do reiki, o t ... oerevertv. obestoronv.* na otvode zemli, a otvod zemli do ...darogi 11 toe derevni. 12 stoizemiL 14 a otvod tot zemli po starym meiam ... 15 a otvod toi zemli po staiym meiam ... 18 dvegrivnsi. 20 Dala esmi v ' dom iivonaialnii moc# 26 Iona vidka rçcanskoj i mwomskoj tvoèj zèmli, s toè zemli, ot poini, v piscovyx kngax vidinèianll 29 iz drvrâ. u iivonaiainye trocs. 30 do toi votiim. do derevnL 31 zberezstnavobeu. dviverezv. otverezv stœ ixpoini 32 V dom iivonaiainye troics 34 uegienx. 39 u iivonaiainyè tro Table 4.1 : Hard- and soft-declensional endings of the a-/ja-stem nouns in the singular * The underlined examples in this table are ambiguous. The ending can be either nominative/ accusative dual w genitive singular. 149 The overall picture of the distribution of two endings in -i/y and -e shows that scribes were quite conservative in the choice of endings for hard stem nouns, whereas they were innovative in the choice of endings for soft stem nouns. In a majority of cases, scribes used i/y for both hard and soft stem nouns. For ja-stem nouns, the old ending in -e is used only to a limited extent. It is noticeable that the ending in -e for the ja-stem nouns is primarily used for the expression of possession with no preposition, e.g, a otvod zendi (9), a otvod toi zemii (14,15), v piscovyx kngax vldônè zem li (26), m eia ... mamstyrja ix votiinnoj zemii (33), etc. When the ja-stem words in genitive singular were governed by any preposition, scribes tended to use the hard-stem ending. There are also examples with the innovative hard-stem endings for the expression of possession, e.g., Iona vldka r^zanskoj i mstromskoj tvoèj zèmli (26). However, there are a few examples o f the zem ii type directly governed by any preposition that requires the genitive case. Therefore, although it was not a strict rule, there seems to have been a tendency to generalize the hard stem ending in for both hard-stem and soft-stem nouns already in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. This tendency seems to reach its peak in seventeenth-century South Russian dialects, as Kotkov (1963:177-179) suggests. 150 4.1.2 J.2. The dative and locative singular. The mixture of original hard- and soft- stem endings is also found in the dative and locative singular of a-stem/ja-stem nouns, in the majority of instances, the a-stem ending for dative and locative singular in -e/-é is used instead of the old ja-stem ending in The examples are summarized below: 151 a-stem ia-stem 5 podorozt t . .&& 6 naegpolminl. 7 V ...storont po starinl, v r e d 9 pridala... Nikoli, Ogrofinf, k l^ k igumeng { Table 4.2: The dative and locative singular of a-Ja-stem nouns 152 However, there are seemingly inconsistent spellings of the ending for the hard-stem nouns as is found in the left column. That is, the old ja-stem ending for the singular dative and the locative case -/ is found in the endings of the hard-stem nouns in some documents, e.g., na riëki na Krapivenké (11), no na T e rfiv ^ (34), po bahki moei (41), gran na staroi don^ki (46) (provided this is not a reflection of jakan'e). In addition, the number of examples of the old ja-stem ending, -i is not insignificant, as seen in the right column of the table, e.g., k ...iuil (S), po diûii (12), na derevni na Tetevskiné (13), v derevni (27), na potni 01), pa O gaflpo maei dSi (41), kpomësnoj zendi (50), etc. Among the examples, the spelling in atonic position, i.e., na derevni na Tetevskiné (13), v derevni (27), pa O gafi (41) is ambiguous because it is possible that the spelling is the reflection of the unstressed vocalism of *6, which is common in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian documents. However, the examples in the tonic position such as po duSi (12), kpomësnoj zendi (50), strongly suggest that the ending is not a refiection of unstressed vocalism, but the real use of the old dative and locative singular ending of the etymological ja-stem declension. Kotkov (1963:179-182) observes cases of the preservation of the old endings under stress in seventeenth-century South Russian dialects. As shown above, fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian data also show a similar tendency. What is also certain is that the a-stem ending for the dative and locative singular case was widely used for ja-stem nouns already in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects, although the old declensional endings were still in use to a large extent for soft-stem nouns. 153 4.1.2 J. The GenermhzmÜom o f the a-stem endings in the plural The mixture of hard and soft stem declensions is found not only in the singular but also in the locative, dative and instrumental plural. What is peculiar to the plural declension is that innovations involving a-stem desinences for the locative, dative and instrumental plural, which are said to be generalized to other declensional types, are not well attested in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents.^ Rather, the old locative, dative and instrumental plural endings are used quite correctly, and only a few examples of the mixture of hard and soft stem endings are found. 4.1.2 J.l. In the dative plural, innovations involving the etymological a-stem dative plural ending are hardly attested. Rather, the traditional endings for each declensional type are quite consistently used, as is summarized below. * The original a-stem desinences for locative, dative and instrumental plural endings are first attested with substantives of other declensions towards the end of the thirteenth century, and, fiom then on till the seventeenth century the old forms were in fluctuation with the new forms (see Andersen 1969a; 20- 21). 154 a/ia-stem o^oAi-stem inconsonant stems 5 poperevertm 7 po suderevmm znamenam. 13 hipil esmi ...détem 14 kupil esmi ...détem 15 kupil esm i ...détem 16 da vëdomo ...staroiilcem Timoxinym détem ...bortnikom Sidou 17 popolavinm» velel sudeiHb. 18 p o ... gjramotfgg, k détemb bo^kimb, Glmiiimtb. do hiieam b. 19 p o ... g ram otm , 26 védomo t o ... tutoSnintb oprUinyiHb ijudèm. védamo staroiilcom. u nas détm boiarskim. 32 DO meiam. 35 po starym métiam. 36 po starym meiam 42 po starym krestostiss. [sc. krepostiam\ 43 po starym meiam 46 po temh sioUmm. p o n ro itJ m , Table 4.3: The dative plural endings o f a-^a-stem nouns 155 M a few instances, an innovative ending in -om is attested, e.g.,po starym kratostiam [sc. kreposÿam] (42),/w temb stolbam. po gronjam (46). However, this is not necessarily an a-stem ending. Rather, in some cases it may be a phonological phenomenon. First of all, the number of examples for the spelling starym krestostiam (kreoostiam ?) (42), po tenth stolbam. po gronjam (46), etc., is quite limited. Second, the dominating akan'e and jakan'e phenomena suggest that the ending in some instances may in fact be conditioned not morphologically, but phonologically, i.e., akan'e and jakan'e, when the ending is not stressed. Therefore, excluding the limited number of seemingly innovative endings in -am/am, it can be said that the scribes of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents were quite conservative in the dative plural endings. My observation supports Andersen's (1969a: 21) broader claim about medieval scribes' writing practice that "firom the 13-1600's, the preferred spelling was at variance with the language o f the writers". 4.1.2 J J . Instrumental PluraL As in the dative plural as is illustrated above, the generalization of the original a-stem plural ending is not well attested in the instrumental plural. Rather, it is more noticeable that the traditional instrumental plural endings of three different declensional types are quite strictly used. The examples are summarized below, with seemingly exceptional endings in boldface. 156 a-/ia-stem o/jo/u*5tem Wconsonant-stems 1 s nivamL s DoSnmL 2 s nivami. s DolnemL 4 s lusd systokL sperevisbi 6 spoinemL s iugi ...s lisy, so vsémi ougodbi 7 voevodamL so vsemi s ...mésl^ s obroki i z doxods, svrdostfBi ooSlinamL pod tvoimi détm, siiudm i 9 shsestramLz izbobry^vreké. derevnemi. s nivami. s Doînemi. 13 s iesy i s iugi, so vsémi ugodi spustoSmi 14 SD oinm i s Iugi i so vsémi ugodi 15 s Doinemi s iesy i so vsémi ugodi 16 ssestrami. s ...dvoni, s pokosy. po perevertam. 17 peredsudemi. s tovaryééi^z bobrj!, svoimi ugodi s tretnymi bortniki 18 s tavarySiy. za det'mi 23 s iesy... i s ozery i s iugi i s zbort*B^ perevési. 24 s Iesy... i s ozery i s Iugi i s zbortml. perevési. 26 s diiaâimi rukami. s tovarySéi, pared piscy. so vlddnimi krst^Jam, 27 so vsiakimi ugodi 28 so vsémi ugodi 31 s starymi pdcosy 32 z derevniami. z dnmmL so vsémi ugodi 33 zgranm i 34 zdvory is ogorotfyizgmny spusloSmi...... ispolosy 35 so vsemi ugodi 36 sseliSéi so vsemi ugodi 38 z derevniami. 39 so vsfakim ugod’i reki s pustoS'ml 47 so vsiakm ugodi z dubkinskimi krstuenv 48 so vsémi ugodi Table 4.4: The instrumental plural endings of a-/ja-stem nouns ‘ The words Gbpn (masc.) and G&pr& (6m.) are both attested in medieval Russian manuscripts ISRJal. Thus, I included t k word in the thW declensional Qfpe. 157 The old a-stem ending is quite consistently used for the a-stem nouns. In the case o f z drvnnU (32), it may be a simple omission of the thematic vowel -'a- or -e-. considering the fact that the word derevnja itself was quite often abbreviated in the manuscript For words of declesional Qfpe m, scribes used the traditional ending in -W - quite consistently. We find only a few examples of the use of the ending in -y (the ending for the second declensional type) for the third declensional type, e.g., 2 dubkinskimi knttfny (47). However, given that both -tm i and - y are often found for nouns with the ethnonymic suffixes {-an} and {-6n} even in old manuscripts, this may be just further supporting evidence for the use of the old endings. Saxmatov (1957:281-282) notes that hypercorrect forms for the instrumental plural ending o f feminine nouns like s sobaky, s gramoty attest to the artificial character of the instrumental plural in -1 fix>m the 1400's on, but such hypercorrect forms are not attested at all in the corpus investigated. 4.1.2 In the locative plural, we find some examples of the old a-stem endings with other declensional types, e.g., na svoix îerebiax (26), po mtadencme (41), v ...deneax (451 m v keddx kripostjax (48), etc. 158 a/ia-stem o/io/u-stem i-/consonant stems 17 na Ustruskix bortnikeL nabctavarySeex, v ’berez& 20 po naSix rodUeleç 26 na svoix ierebkx 29 vkabalçBL ni V kotoryx krepost& 32 po svoix roditei& 33 V ...knieax. 34 vkabalm . m vkakyxkrepostex. 35 po svoix roditelsL 36 ni V kakix kreposte. 37 vknigss. 39 nivkakixkrépostes. 40 vdrvmax. vselÉS. 41 po nUadenaPc. v inocex vdetetmoix. 42 vkabalsc. ni V kakix krépostes. 43 VO inacex 45 V ...denggs. 48 ni vkakbckrÜHudax. Table 4.5: The locative plural endings of a-/ja-stem nouns The ending in -ax for non a-stem nouns may be the result of the generalization of the a-stem locative plural ending to other declensional types. What is noticeable among the documents in which the a-stem endings are used for other declensional types (26,41,45,48) is that they do not show many other examples of archaic endings. Therefore, it may be possible that the generalization of the a-stem endings is well reflected in these documents. On the other hand, many other scribes 159 utilized the old endings. In other words, the preferred spelling was at variance with the language o f the writers in the majority o f the cases (cf. Andersen 1969a: 20). 4.1J. Adjectival morphology Among the nominals in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, adjectives were mariced for case, number and gender, as is in contemporary Russian. Some case endings show a single form, while most of the endings show two or more forms, among which one is normally an innovative form, and the other(s) the old forms. Due to the mixture o f old and innovative adjectival endings in medieval Russian manuscripts in general, it is not agreed among scholars when the innovative endings displaced the old endings in the development of the Russian language, e.g„ -ago instead of -ago (gen. sg. masc./neut.), -omu instead of umu (dat. sg. mascVneut.), -omb instead o f -imb (loc. sg. mascYneut.), -oi instead o f - yé(e)/ya/oé(e) (gen. sg. fem.^ -oi/ei instead of -éi/ii (loc. sg. a-stem), etc. From the earliest manuscripts that are claimed to contain elements of Old Russian vernacular such as chronicles and gramoty, we witness the mixed use of the innovative and the old endings, which persists for centuries.^ We witness the same phenomenon in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. More than two different forms of the same endings are fi%quently utilized even by the same scribes, as seen below: ^ See Kuznecov (1959:148-153) for examples and discussion. 160 doc.7 Smirenn^ èpspb Semiom rezanbskol i murom'skoi (nom. sg. masc.) doc.17 iz Staroi Rezani aStaryeRezani (gen.sg.fem.) doc.47 rezanskog rezcmskovo (gen.sg.masc/neut) Variations are created by different factors, register vs. dialect, phonological changes, mixtures not only of old vs. irmovative, but of different kinds of innovations, etc. In the following section, I will examine the adjectival endings in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents in detail. Special attention is given to those endings that show more than two forms in the investigated documents, i.e., the gen. dat. and loc. sg. of non-feminine adjectives and the gen. dat. and loc. sg. of feminine adjectives. I will investigate whether there were any norms or tendencies in the use of specific forms for certain endings. 4.1J.1. Nominative singular masculine There are some examples that have the ending -oj (sometimes reflected in akan'e spelling as -nr) in unstressed position, e.g., Arixiepish)plbj)rikaznoi ôelovek Rusin Sijanov (Morozov 1988: no.4). The examples are summarized in the following table. 161 •Ml •oj 7 kn^ velikÿ, stariiiii bifat, rezamakgj i murom'skoi SmiremtÿL èpsm Semionb 9 pravetbereg 16 monastynkfd prikazSiikh 17 p^tQlgod, Igovskoi igumen, vpal v' tot ie v Volganskoiistok 20 im igumen. 27 lés paienm i nepaSenngi 31 ekitdczemskoi 32 éemeisSénik, 36 ienmpom> 40 dvor monastynkgi 45 LaSinskoL dvon> boiarskoL 46 gubngistarosta Vasilei kiementievh, vypis pisal nikoiskoi zemskel diiadla. 50 loskb vySel na staroi Vnukovskoi rubeS *Post vocalic u or i is transliterated as -/• in the table. Table 4.6: Nominative singular masculine adjectival ending The data show that the spelling of <-oj> in unstressed position was widely used by scribes in fifteenth* and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. In fact, the given examples with the ending <0j> in unstressed position are the expected forms in terms of the reflexes of the tense jers in the eastern dialects of East Slavic (=ES1), which form the basis o f Contemporary Standard Russian. In these peripheral dialects, CS *T, *û were rephonologized as the mid-vowels /e/, loi before [)], as in other environments, e.g., R. molodoj, bej, kroj as compared with Ukrainian molocfyf, byj, kryj, etc. The contemporary standard Russian forms in -yj\ -ij in unstressed 162 position are considered to have been due to the orthognqthic norms of Church Slavonic (Filin 1972:237), which also had some impact on legal writing in Rjazan'. Therefore, at least in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects that belonged to the peripheral dialects m terms of the reflexes of the tense jers, the tense jers were regularly reflected as <-oj>, whereas traditional Church Slavonic orthography was quite limited to certain lexical items such as religious terms or possibly to certain formulaic expressions, e.g. Smirenr^ èpsph (7), knqz velikii (7: LI), igumen (20), etc.. There are some examples with only one vocalic segment in the ending, e.g., knqz veliki blsvil te knjaz veliki Ivan VasileviC (7). However, the number of examples is insignificant, and could be ascribed to scribal error, or some particular scribal convention. 4.1 J.2. Nominative singular feminine There are two forms attested for the nominative singular feminine adjectival ending, i.e., -a/a and-on, e.g., velik^ Mosolovskgadrvnq cf. mog, mordva delenqa (7), Cf. vsea Rusii (23); velikaia kngni (9), zemlç crkovruga (10), velik^a kngn^ (16), etc. However, the number of examples of the spelling-oa is quite limited, and, in most cases, the form -qfa was attested. As was discussed in section 2.I.I.3., the spelling o f-a a in the place o f-iÿ d is probably an orthogrrq>hic imitation o f South 163 Slavic conventions. The form is fiequentiy seen in contemporary religious texts. Therefore, it is quite likely that the norm for the nominative singular feminine adjectival ending in the corpus investigated was -aja. 4 .UJ. Genitive singular non-feminine pronominal-adjectival desinence There are two major issues in the use of the two different non-feminine genitive pronominal endings in Russian dialectology. One is the distribution of the consonantal alternation between v and g in various Russian dialects,’ and the other is the alternation in the final vowel between o and a, i.e., -ogo vs. -oga. The second issue is primarily limited to the okan'e dialects (see DARJa Morfoloriia: map 45), whereas the first issue q*plies to the majority of Russian dialects. In Great Russian territory, dialects with the ending in -ovo are widely distributed throughout the Russian territory, although there are relatively more pockets with the ending in -oyo in the South Russian dialects. (See DARJa Morfoloeiia: map 44). We find disagreement among scholars on the origin of the ending in -ovo in various Russian dialects. Some scholars suggest that the desinence -ovo in the South Russian dialects should be considered the result of influence fiom the Muscovite chancery language based on the Central Russian dialects (Tolkaùev 1960:252-258, Flier 1983:87). Flier (1983:87) states that the desinence -ovo first occurs in a ' For a detailed stiHty of the origm of-ovo in Russian, see Flier (1983). Contraiy to the traditional syncope-epenthesis hypothesis, which suggests the follownig chronology, e.g., ogo > ovo > oo > o*o >owo>ovo(Sobolevskij [1907] 1962:123), Flier suggests that v in-ovo is the product of a direct phonemic remterpretation of lenited variants o f g as v. 164 Muscovite ipramota of Grand Prince Vasili) Dmitrievii (1396), e.g., velikovo Novagorod. It began to spread to the north and west 6om the late fifteenth century and then to south fiom the sixteenth century through the influence and prestige of Moscow. Other scholars insist that the desinence -ovo in the South Russian dialects is not the result of influence fiom the Muscovite chancery language. Rather, the South Russian dialects can reflect -ovo independently of Muscovite influence (Kotkov 1963:188-196). With regards to the distribution of the genitive singular adjectival endings for masculine/neuter, contemporary Rjazanian dialects form peculiar dialectal islands in the sense that they mainly use the -oyo ending, but a few village dialects use -ovo. On the other hand, the surrounding dialects predominantly show the ending -ovo, as in the Central and the North Russian dialects. fPARJa Morfoloeiia: map 44). Therefore, it is crucial to determine whether fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects reflect the same situation as in contemporary Rjazanian dialects and thus to establish the continuity or discontinuity of the linguistic development of the region. In the investigated corpus, we find both -og(o) and -av(o). We witness this alternation not only in adjectival endings, but also in pronominal endings, e.g., is tovo ozera (27), otca ssvoevo zerebei Volodimera Fedorova (11), v brata svoevo mesto (35), ta zemlja htplj'a otca evo, (Morozov 1988:no.2), but also po prikazu n ^ a svoeao NUdQora ... (36) etc. However, the spelling -ogo prevails, with the 165 spelling -ovo attested only in limited number of documents. The number of documents that have -ovo spelling represents almost 10 % of the investigated documents. The examples of the spelling -ov(o) are summarized below: -og(o) -m(o) 14 sym> Mbcailovica Volvnskovo. ...lëta cm tyscâtritcatavo 27 MokrinskggQ Moknmkova Û tavo ozera, otca ssvoevo zerebej 35 vosm'desjatgg ubylka ne davesti nikakavo, V brata svoevo mesto 38 vtorgz Ivanov syn Volkonskava. LaSenskava 39 Bogdan Vasilèvhsynh Volvnskovo 42 aukavo 47 rezanskee rezanskovo Table 4.7: Genitive singular non-feminine pronominal-adjectival desinence Among the investigated documents that show the spelling of -ovo, 4 documents (27,35,38,47) show the mixed use of both -ogo and -ovo. On the other hand, in most documents (about 90% of investigated documents), -ogo is the only ending that was used. Besides -ogo and -ovo, there is another ending, -ag(o). However, this tends to occur primarily in numerals and religious words, e.g., osmago. starggg, Sestago. 166 preéistag, vëângg etc. These are Slavonicisms rather than examples of akan'e spellings (see 3.3.1.3.2). The hybrid spelling <-avo> is not used by any scribe. Based on the predominant number of examples with the -ogo ending, it is very likely that the norm for the non-feminine genitive singular adjectival ending in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects was -ogo. The ending -ovo seems to be the result of other dialects or norms, probably of Muscovite chancery language. Alternatively, if the actual pronunciation of the ending were -ovo in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects, scribes would have been unexpectedly careful with the etymological spelling -ogo. 4.1 J.4. The genitive singular feminine adjectival ending There are 3 endings found for the singular genitive feminine adjectival ending, i.e., -oj/éj, -ief-ye, -yjaZ-ija. The innovative endings in -oj/éj are widely mixed with the old ending in -ye/-ie {*-yéf-ië) and, to a very limited extent, with the ending in -yjaZ-iJa, as is summarized below.^ ’ It is said that the old endings m -ye/ie and -yfa/ija were used concurrent^ and th ^ were replaced by the Innovative locative/dative endmgs m 167 •oj/ij •yel-ie ■yja/dja 5 s ordstvia bortniki 7 Biieju mistiju i prdstyg egbgomtri 9 PoiUnslmpoliam 17 bStarglRaani, s lévyg storony teiet, u prütQl Igm'skog izStarygRezani manastyre 18 ot tolarsk^voiny 22 V domb Sivoiuiialnyè troicy uprdstye 26 voslipaSennys.zemli, otdorogi otxrapavskie, ot posa Table 4.8: The genitive singular feminine adjectival endings From the table, it is noticeable that scribes were reasonably consistent in choosing one ending over the other. That is, although both the innovative endings - ojVéJ and the old endings -yje/'ije otyfaZ-iJa are well attested, scribes used one or the other almost exclusively, hi my findings, scribes used both endings in only two of 168 the investigated documents, e.g., k Starol Rezani vs. b Star^ Rezani (17), ot krivgl berezy vs. ot krivye berezy (47:2), etc. That is, the use of the genitive singular feminine adjectival ending shows scribes' high degree of normativeness. Another noticeable feature in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents is the practice of different norms for adjectives over nouns. It is quite commonly observed that scribes practiced the old norms for adjectival endings, whereas they practiced the irmovative endings for nouns in the same phrases. For example, in the phrase u iiwnaialrQK trocy, scribes used the old adjectival ending - ye, while they used the irmovative ending -i for the old soft stem noun troica. This may be indirect evidence that irmovative endings displaced the old forms earlier in nouns than in adjectives. 4.1 J.5. The dative/locative singular feminine adjectival desinence The choice of the dative/locative singular feminine adjectival ending is relatively straightforward. Scribes mostly used the endings -o/ and -éj. The ending - ëj is more archaic and it occurs mostly in a few formulae of Church Slavonic origin; in some cases, these formulae are also attested with the innovative ending -oj. There are some examples of the form -ye/ie, but, the case assigmnent for the ending -ye/-ie is sometimes questionable, as will be discussed below. The examples are summarized in the following table: 169 ■oJ/iJ ~ye/ie 2 V {him a n bgorodici 9 knavQipereverti 13 poseikupéâ 14 k sei kupéei gramote 15 kb Dvydmsktd pustoSi. na Dvydovskoi pustoSi 16 kPokravust^lbci, kprést<^kPokravu, otvod Négavgipol&ié. kMHadimiPolene, 17 kprâstd. 20 po duxovngi gramote, v (hm iivonaialnil troci, V KanevskaLvolosti. ksef danoL 21 k îivonaéalnei troice 22 vdom iivonaéalnM troicy 23 po ...gramote ialovafnlttOLvSiaroi Rezani, 24 V Staroi Rezani, 26 k doroge xrapavskoL PO paSermoi zemié. 29 V dom k iivonaialngl troicy i prâstol bdcy, V UsmerskoL vdosti, k sei dannd. 31 k cet rozizSei gramote 32 vdom iivonadaiim troicy 35 vdom iivonaialrgi£troicyipr£styg bdcy 36 V dom iivonaiaind troice. 39 V dom kiivonaiainoi troicy 41 k sei danoi gramote. 42 u SvondMiel troky 43 V dom iivonaôaintd troice 47 xpriamoi bereze 48 vdom iivonaCalimtroicy Table 4.9: The dative/locative singular feminine adjectival desinence 170 It should be noted that there are some formulaic expressions where the adjectival ending as well as nominal endings can be interpreted either as the genitive or the dative if one focuses only on the endings. For example, in the phrase with v dom followed by certain formula like cfg bgorodici (2), üvonaéainÿ, troce (20), etc., the form ëj/oj itself can be interpreted as either the genitive singular or dative. Most donation charters fdannve gramotv^ show many examples of such formulaic phrases with the ending -oj/-ej. One way to identify the case assignment of the ending éj/oj is to look at the possible combinations of the formulaic expression. There are five types in the combination of the adjective and the nouns in the formula found in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents; (1) V dom kiivonaéalngl troicy (doc. no. 29,39, etc.) (2) V dom küvonaâtdr^ troice (doc. no. 20,21, etc.) (3) V dom ÿvoruxéalngl troice (doc. no. 36,43, etc.) (4) V dom iivonadairiye troicy (doc. no.22,32,35,48, etc.) (5) V dom u iivonaéedrgie troicy (doc. no. 29,36,39,42,43, etc.) Of these, (1-2) are clearly dative, (5) is clearly genitive, while (3-4) are potentially ambiguous. As is mentioned above, the number of documents that exemplify each category is too large to ascribe the mixed use of the endings to arbitrariness or fiee 171 alternation. The formulaic character of the given phrase also suggests that the choice might not be simply random. In addition, as discussed in 4.1.3.3. the scribes were very careful with the choice of morphological endings in general. It is curious that only the five types listed above are attested in the investigated documents, among other possible combinations of adjective and noun in the phrase. Unattested combinations are: *v dom kiivonaialrtÿe troiq>, *v dom k iivonaâairgie troice, *v dom üvonaâalnol troicy etc. The unattested combinations suggest that scribes avoided the ending -ye with the preposition k; this, in turn, suggests that -ye was probably the feminine singular genitive ending, as does the fact that, when they used the preposition n, they adopted the old endingye. In other words, when there were any prepositions, the choice of the ending depended on the case-govemment of given prepositions. Although the form Iroicy can be interpreted as either the innovative genitive singular or the old dative case, the unattested forms suggest that troicy in v dom üvonaâalnyè troicy was more likely the genitive singular form. Therefore, the case of types (1), (2) and (S) are inarguably clear. The problem is types (3) and (4). If we compare the adjectival endings under preposition government in (1), (2) and (S), it is probable that the form in (3) is the dative and the form in (4) is the genitive. The same construction with masculine and neuter nouns supports my claim, e.g.. (1) dal esmi v dom bogqfevleneja Xristova (41) (2) (Uila esmi v dom Mixailovu Cj’udu (ASH 3:53, no. 30; ca. 1381-1425) (3) ebl esm' ...v dom velikomu Spasu (ASEI3 :470, no. 490) 172 Scribes used both the genitive (as in example 1) and the dative case (as in examples 2*3) for the same construction. Therefore, the issue here is not morphological, but syntactic or stylistic. The optional choice of the case in the given construction is understandable if we consider the characteristics of the dative and the genitive case. In general, dative is "identified as the case used to designate the recipient in sentences of GIVING in Indo-European languages such as Latin, Russian or German" (Wierzbicka 1986:386). This fits the given context, as does the use of the dative to indicate the possessor of something, which can also be expressed by the genitive case. Thus, it can be claimed that scribes sometimes chose the dative and sometimes the genitive without breaking their norms of morphology. 4.U .6. Accusative singular féminine adjectival desinence In a few of the documents under investigation, we find a peculiar accusative singular feminine adjectival ending -oju instead of uju. The examples are summarized in the following table: 173 -XV» -o/u 5 DO nUniuiu doroeu 9 éeres MHailimkuiu dorogu 15 kuDéiuiuDisal 16 gramotu ...danjÿÿ, kup^jÿM, ieres Mikulinshttu doroeu 18 V druguhi storonu 50 po nogaiskoiu doroeu M TJagalsia ... igumen ... o cerkavnoiu zemliu Table 4.10: Accusative singular feminine adjectival desinence Note that we also find many examples of -oju for feminine singular instrumental, e.g., s ... velikoiu kn^neiuAnmiu (J),poéxav ljubobuishoju doroeoiu (9), avypo âemu toè zemlju nazyvaète borisoglëbskoju vldâmiu zemleiu (26), da naprovo doroeoiu xrapovskoiu (26). The accusative singular feminine ending -oju is quite common in contemporary southwest Russian dialects, e.g., na ôystoju, vozmi ôjcdeâku ljuboju, xudoju korovu, kaSu, v kaidoju èkonomiju, kakoju rabotu, v drugoju derevnu, dobroju pionerskoju pesnju, nikakoju, etc. (see Avanesov 1989:67) and is also found in contemporary Rjazanian dialects fPARJa morfoloeiia: nuq) 43). Due to akan'e, the ending is realized as -aju in unstressed position. Historically, the contractions of nominal endings and pronominal endings in long form adjectives resulted in the ending *ojo in the accusative and instrumental 174 singular feminine ending, vAich must be regarded as the normal ending. In the instrumental singular feminine, however, the pronominal *-ojo/ejo was also found (See Diels 1963:86 n.lO, Lunt 1974:56). Therefore, the development of accusative singular -oju could be that, by analogy to oblique case endings with -oj-, the accusative case might have become oju in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects. There are a small number o f examples that indicate the possibility of paradigmatic leveling as a tendency for fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian documents. The possibility of paradigmatic leveling is further supported by data fix>m some contemporary Russian dialects. According to Avanesov (1964:123), in those contemporary dialects which have the accusative ending -oju, they use the same ending for the instrumental case. Thus, those dialects have a six-case system with three endings in the singular feminine adjectives, i.e., N (-aja), A-l(-oju), G-L-D (- oj). In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, we find mainly a six-case system with four different endings (N, A, G-L-D, I), but we also find a six- case system with three endings, as is in contemporary South Russian dialects. 4.U .7. Nominative plural adjectival desinence Two endings are attested, i.e., the new -ye/-ie (originally the feminine), the old -y(i)/-i(i) (originally the masculine) and -y^ These endings are used for the nominative plural forms of all three genders. Representative examples are summarized below; 175 -ye/ie -y(i)/i(i) 7 perevitsk^ bortniki, monastryrsk^ monastynldiseia, pronskii bortniki, sela okologorodnyi bo^iki, gorodskü. rybolove, podvozniki mexavyj, inyi pt^iiny, inyi koi tvoi Hudi deiensli zemli bortniL moi Uudi delenyL 11 a tuto byli d&i bojar’skiL 12 prelnii arximadrity. 16 kotans. ...pisany, v e liki kngnL 17 ifudi dobryg. tutoinie. Kazankie. iscmnavyjtaroiilcy 18 paSni soSnyg dai boianskie. 34 kobcdy d e n e ii^ i xlebnye Hi kokye kreposti Table 4.11: Nominative plural adjectival desinence As was the case with other adjectival endings, it is obvious from the data that scribes used both innovative and archaic endings. Forms like kobaly deneinys. (34), te xramy pervyja. aS6e kotorvfa stanutprinimat' vo dvory sebe (Morozov 1988:no.3) can be understood as the jakan'e spelling of -e or as Slavonicisms. In sum, the adjectival endings found in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents can be summarized as follows. The forms in the parenthesis are the ones that were either archaic or Church Slavonic: 176 Masc. Neut ss. pi. sg. Pl. nom. yi/ii (oj) -ye/ie (ii/yi) -oe -ye/ie (ii/yi) accu. sameasN/G sameasN/G same as N sameasN sen. -ago (-ovo) -yx/ix -ogo (-ovo) -yx/ix loc. •om/em -yx/ix -om/em -yx/ix d at -omu/emu -ym/im -omu/emu -ym/im inst -ym/im -ymi/imi -ym/im -ymi/imi Table 4.12: Non-feminine adjectival endings Feminine singular plural nom. -aja (aa)* -ye/ie (yi/ii) accu. -uju (-oju) same as N/G gen. -oi/éi, (-ye/-ie) (-yja) -yx/ix loc. •oi/ei (-yelie) -yx/ix dat -oi/ei (-ye/ie) -ym/im inst. -ohi/eiu -ymi/imi *The forms in parenthesis are the ones that were either archaic, dialectal or Church Slavic. Table 4.13: Feminine adjectival endings 177 4.1.4. Pronominal Morphology In general, Slavic pronouns are classified into personal and non-personal. Among the personal pronouns, the declensional type of the first- and second-person and the reflexive pronouns is distinguished fiom that of the third person. The former forms its own declensional category, while the latter belongs to the demonstrative pronominal declension. In early stage of Slavic, first- and second-person and reflexive pronouns have both full and clitic forms, e.g., mene vs. mq, nas vs. ny, etc. Non-personal pronouns may be divided into several categories fipom a semantic point of view, e.g., possessive (moj, tvoj, svoj, etc.), demonstrative (etot, tot, sej, etc.), determinative (yes', sam; samyj, vsjakij, etc.), interrogative-relative (kto, âto, 6ej', kotoryj, kakoj, etc.), etc. Within these semantic groups, some pronouns show pronominal declension and others show adjectival declension. The pronoun forms attested in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents fit into this general categorization. What is peculiar in the investigated documents is that there are two or more forms attested for most pronouns. In this section, 1 will examine the personal and reflexive pronouns, and see whether there were any scribal conventions or norms in the use of each pronominal form. 178 4.1.41. The fint-pcnon nominative singular There are three forms of the first-person singular personal pronoun attested in Old Russian manuscripts, e.g., a z h ja n ja . It is generally accepted that a n is a Church Slavonic form, j a n with the prothetic j is the Old Russian tbrm, and ja is a short variant of j a n (Kuznecov 1959:108). The origin of these three forms is not clear, and all three forms seem to have been used fiom the beginnings of literacy; at any rate, they are all attested in the oldest manuscripts (Kuznecov 1959:108-112, Éaxmatov 1957:151-152). In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents in the original, only two fonns,/azb and ja, are attested. The form a n is attested in later copies o f the seventeenth century. The examples are summarized below: 179 a n Ja zb /sfb ) ja/e 2 Seiaz. 9 Sejat velikaia bigni 11 sJOl&bka, fat Larke 12 se et Stepan 13 Se Jat Ivan Ondreeviâ 14 Se tat Vasilei Ivanav 15 Se ja t Vasilei Ivanov 17 se ja t igumen ja V tom manastyre b y l 19 Se ja t Ivan Konstelinov 20 Se jatOgroOéna Vasileva 22 Se ja t Ivan Gavrilov 23 Se ja t boiarin tvm 24 Se ja t Mima 25 Sejat Vasilei... 27 Se ja t Oleksanctra Danilov 29 Se ja t Semen 32 Se iat Maria Vasileva doi 34,36,38 Se& 39 Se ja t Bogdan a poxoiiu e Anna postriôis 42 Se iat..., eOleksei 49 slvan Vasileviib 73 S e s b /a n daiatGrigorei 75 Seaz 76 S e a t M-1 Se iat. kmat'velikii M-4 ses. boiarin ASËI347 Sesvelikijhtjazb Oleg Ingareviü. retanskoi Table 4.14: The first-person nominative singular pronoun 180 From the given data, it is noticeable that the fonn jazb dominates over the other two forms. The fonn Ja was attested only in two of the investigated documents, in both of which Jaz is also found. The pronoun ja was sometimes represented as Therefore, the use of the forms ja z and ja seems to be stylistically motivated. The form ozt> is found exclusively in copies 6om later periods. For example, manuscripts 73,75 and 76 are seventeenth-century copies of sixteenth-century originals, while ASÈI347 is a seventeenth-century copy of a thirteenth-century original. However, even in most later copies (seventeenth-century) of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century originals, the use of the form jazh is prevalent, e.g., Jaz knzb velikii (51,52,53,71,72), Se ja z (57,59,60,74), Se gz(56,64). It is interesting that the Church Slavonic form az is rarely attested in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. Furthermore, even though the form az was used in later copies, the dominant form was still ja z in the seventeenth century. This tendency is contradictory to the general tendency in the chancery language of the seventeenth century. Kuznecov (1959:112) states that, fix)m the seventeenth century, the short variant form ja became the dominant and In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, there are fixir graphs used for *Ja, i.e., 0 ~A ~x ~ e Among these finir graphs, e reflects jakan’e, and so is irrelevant here. The other three graphs were in fiee variation (see section 2.1.1). 181 only possible form. If Kuznecov's claim holds up for most Old Russian manuscripts fit>m the seventeenth century, it is apparent that Rjazanian documents are noticeably conservative. The genitive and accusative singular of the first and second person. It is well known that the first-and the second-person genitive and accusative singular forms of personal and reflexive pronouns are one of the distinctive features that distinguish the South Russian dialects fiom the North Russian dialects, e.g., mene, tebe, sebe in the South Russian dialects vs. menja, tebja, sebja in the North Russian dialects. Occasional occurrences of the forms menja, tebja, sebja in contemporary South Russian dialects are explained as the result of the influence of the literary langu%e or as later developments (Kuznecov 1959:113). Contemporary Rjazanian dialects show the same disçibutive pattern as most South Russian dialects, where the forms mene, tebe, sebe are dominant. (See DARJa Morfoloeiia; map 60). The forms in - e (mene, tebe, sebe) are inherited fiom the Common Slavic and are found in most Slavic languages and dialects except in North Russian dialects, e.g., SC. mene, tebe, sebe, Bui. mene, tebe, sebe, Cz. mne, tebe, sebe, Pol. mnie, ciebe, siebe, Ukr.mene, tebe, sebe, HR. mjane, cjabe, yabe. The forms in -'a (menja, tebja, sebja) are new developments fiom the end of the fourteenth century in North Russian dialects. The earliest examples of the forms in - a are found in 182 Muscovite manuscripts at the end of the fourteenth century. The forms began to spread to North Russian dialects fiom the fifteenth century onwards (cf. Sobolevskij [1907] 1962:186-187). However, fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents show not only the forms in -e , but also the forms in - a. Th examples are summarized below: mene, tebe, sebe menja, tebja. sebja 7 deriali sebé. dndatitigpemen^ mnétebesvoeeena veiikog krne. u tebe. u mene. m eneialm al 12 dal èsmi na sebe zapis, âto mene ialoval (Ud, 29 u men/a. ffos/e men/a. 32 umene 36 u mene. mene Annu, 39 meniaDoloiiti. meneAmm. 42 umene. 45 pro sebja 49 » 2 W ... _ Table 4.15: The Gen./Accus. singular of the first and second person pronoun Our data show that the spelling of - a had become quite dominant by the early sixteenth century. As is seen in the table, the forms in -e are not attested after document no. 12, which is dated 1511-1512. Therefore, it is very likely that the 183 forms mene, tebe, sebe were iathe process of being replaced by the forms menja, tebj'a, sebja fiom the fifieenth-century onwards, and the latter forms became dominant fiom the sixteenth century on." Based on sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Rjazanian documents, Kuznecov (1959:115) ascribes the spelling o f-a to the influence of Muscovite chancery language, assuming that the real pronunciation of that time for the given pronouns might have been mene, tebe, sebe. The corpus investigated strongly supports Kuznecov's claim. 4.1.4 J . The dative/locative singular of the first and second person, and the refiexhre The forms of the first-person and second-person singular and reflexive dative and locative cases found in the Rjazanian legal documents of the investigated time period are mné, tebë/tobé, sebé/sobé}^ There is only one example with the ending in -e, e.g., kupil esmi... sebe (13). (For the use of # in fifleenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, see chapter 2, section 2.2.4). Of these forms, tobé and " Most scholars ascribe the -e to -a change to morphological causes. For example, Kuznecov (1959: 115-116) ascribes the forms in - ‘a m North Russnn dialects to morphological analogy to o-stem nouns, e.g., bran», brata etc. Following Kuznecov’s opinion, Kotkov (1963:202) argues that the change in ^ u th Russian dialects was deit^ed by morphological analogy to the fommine declension, i.e., zemija, zemlé, etc. whereas the change in North Russian dialects was accelerated by morphological analogy to the masculme o-stem declension. The original Old Russian forms of the second person and reflexive singular dative and locative cases are tobé, sobé. The correspondmg CCS fixms are tebi, sebé (Dumovo [1924] 1962:258, Saxmatov 1957:152-153) 184 sobé resemble forms found in contemporary South Russian dialects, while tebë and sebé resemble North Russian dialects and Old Church Slavic (Dumovo [1924] 1962: 258, Saxmatov 1957:152-153). It is noticeable that, for the first-person pronoun, the form mné with é is the only attested form. For example, a ... vadhrf (1), celui ko mné (7), davatmné (8, 11), / mné igumenu (19), i mné Mine MenSyku 1241 po mné (29), on by tbtl mné (301 iiti mné (321 mnéAnné(36\. mné Oleiaéiu (4 2 1 1 mné Anofreiu (451 etc. Among these documents, no. 7,24,29,30 and 42 are characterized as having the fiee variation of # and e (see section 2.2.4). Thus, scribes' practice of the spelling mné is surprisingly consistent. The second-person and reflexive pronouns show fluctuations between tebé, sebé and tobé, sobé with no general tendency in the investigated documents. It is observed that tobé and sobé were dominant in the majority of fourteenth- and fifieenth-century Old Russian manuscripts, including gramoty and chronicles (Kuznecov 1959:117). However, the Church Slavic and North Russian forms tebé, sebé began to be attested more ofien in fifieenth- and sixteenth-century Muscovite and Central Russian manuscripts, and th ^ became almost the only forms fiom the seventeenth century on (Kuznecov 1959:118-119). On the other hand, in contemporary Rjazanian dialects, the forms tob-/sob- are preserved in central and western regions (Kuznecov 1959:119). The data fiom fifieenth- and sixteenth- century Rjazanian legal documents are summarized below: 185 tebi/ sebi tobi/sobi tebe/sebe tobe/sobe 2 Dosobi 6 kupilesmisobi 7 xotiti mi ene tebi. a tobi velikomu knyu, i tebi veiikomu kmju sobi bratom... 13 kupil esmi... sebe 14 hipii esm... sebi 15 kupil esmi sebi 20 DO sebi 23 kupil esmi stAi 25 vykupii esmi... sebi 30 tobi ...delo 32 DO sobi 34 kupilesmisobi 35 p o ssM Table 4.16: The sing. dat./loc. case of the first and second person, and the reflexive pronoun The documents that exemplify either tebé/sebé or tobé/sobé fall into the groups of documents where the etymological *é was spelled correctly in the stressed position. The only exception is document 13, where *é was spelled either <ê> or Unlike genitive endings, which were differentiated in their spelling in the fifieenth and sixteenth centuries, it is hard to find any chronological pattern in the distribution of the dative and locative forms. Considering the 6 ct that contemporary Rjazanian dialects have forms like tobé/sobé, it is very likely that tobé/ sobé were 186 the original Rjazanian fonns, ^eieas the fonns tebë/sebé were either traditional/ conservative spellings based on Slavonic, or due to Muscovite-influence. In fact, scribes were usually consistent in their spellings. In the documents in first most left column, scribes used the forms tebé/sebé only, whereas in the documents in the second column, scribes used the form tobé/sobé. The only exception is document no. 7, where both forms are attested. 187 4.1.5. Numeral morphology The Slavic numerals are characterized by a variety of morphological and syntactic patterns. Unlike the other parts of speech, numerals present morphological and syntactic problems that make it difficult to isolate them as a coherent category. In Common Slavic, some of the numerals are inflected according to adjectival paradigms (primarily ordinal numerals as well as the original 2), others to various nominal declensions. In addition, there is no uniformity of syntax. Some of the numerals function as adjectives, others as nouns. Therefore, it is the semantic value of numerals that facilitates the establishment of a separate word-class of their own. In fact, most Russian grammars (Svedova 1980; Isagenko 1965; Unbegaun 1960; Vinogradov 1972) take into consideration primarily this semantic criteria for the basis of categorizing numerals. The sub-categories of numerals include: (1) the cardinal numerals (e.g., dva, tri, desjat\ sto, etc.); (2) the ordinal numerals (c.g.,pervyjy, (3) the collective numerals (e.g., dvoe, troe, etc.); (4) the fractional numerals (e.g.,àèfvertb); (5) the indefinite numerals (e.g., ma/o, mnogo). Among these categories, 1 will focus on the cardinal numerals. The ordinal numerals are adjectival, agreeing with following substantives they quantify in number, case and gender. The syntax of collectives, fiactions and indefinites shows a pattern similar to that of cardinal numerals. The issues related to the use of the cardinal numerals in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents include the loss of dual, the loss of old gender distinctions, and unification of morphology of the paucal numerals (2,3,4). 188 4.15.1. The numcinl *2* and the treatment of the dual number According to Kotkov (1963:196-197), the dual fonns were still alive though mixed with a new system, in seventeenth century Rjazanian regions; however, the dual had been lost as a grammatical category, e.g., dve sestré, buttri sestry etc. In fact, in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents investigated, dual forms are rarely attested. The examples are summarized as follows. The first column shows examples of the numeral 7 ' followed by a noun in either dual direct cases or genitive singular. The second column shows examples with the numeral '2' in oblique cases. The third column shows the numeral followed by nominative plural nouns. 189 2 + N/A dual or Gen. sg. Oblique cases ( - gen). 2+N.pl. or Norn. pi. noun 7 na obe starong, dva rubl^ dvaaltna 9 oba berega, po obé storony, dvé pereverty 16 vdvupotomui 17 po obi storony, vsprosil za Sestbdesqt lit bez dvu. oboix iscavb, v dva godu oboi iscy skazali v knigi dvu tretei rcamskix pisma 18 sknigr^anskbc dvutretnyxh piscovh, dve grivny 21 <2> rublf. pol <2> rubli 26 po obi storony 31 ti dvi berezy vyrosli, na dviberezy 33 oba beregi bguslovskie 36 po obe storony reki 37 dvadvorg, dvaselg,dvi crkvi d vi saxL d vi ieti 39 po obi storony reki 40 dve tyseii 44 <2> statla dva rubli 45 dviiitnicy 46 na dve bereski, stoit dva dubca, dviiitnicy 47 dva dvora niSitc, bylo dve yyti Table 4.17: Numeral '2' 190 The nouns in the first column can be interpreted either as dual direct cases or genitive singular. In the noajority of examples, the genitive singular ending is used after the numeral two', e.g., na obe storona (7),po obé storony (9,17:1,26:1), dvë pereverty (9), dve gyibny (18), té dvé berezy vyrosli (31), dvé crkvl dvé soxi (37:1), etc. There are a few examples ofi-stem feminine nouns that are used after the numeral '2', e.g., dvé Ceti (37:1), dve vyti (47:1), etc. If we only examine the i-stem nouns, it is not clear whether the ending is the dual form or genitive singular or nominative plural due to its syncretism in oblique cases in singular and direct cases in plural and dual. However, the ending in -u as in v dva godu (17) shows that the scribe possibly used the genitive case.'^ Of the two forms for the genitive/locative dual, e.g., dvoju and dvu, only the latter form is attested, eg ., v dvu po tomu i (16), bez dvu (17), etc.‘^ However, it is hard to prove that the form dvu was the only form that was ever used, because o f the limited number of examples. Considering the fact that both forms were attested from the earliest Russian manuscripts, it is possible that dvoju and dvu were both used by the scribes. It is also noticeable that scribes used the archaic dual form for the numeral '200' very consistently in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, e.g., dvéste rublev (document 14, IS, 20,34,40, etc.). hi fact, it is the " The -u in V d v a g o d u can be Inc. dual after v, with an inattentive scribe changing v d v u g o d u (or dvoju) \o v dva godu. " The genitive/locative dual fiwms d v o ju and «Aware both found in early numuscripts, e.g., d w a u ( k s ^ o u as well as dwoju desefou in Svajtoslav Izbomik 1073 (Borkov^j & Kuznecov 1963:243). In contemporary Russian, both fixms are alive as ft>ssilized forms, e.g., dvojunxb^, dvujazyû^', (kuglavryj, dvtamyblamyj, etc. (Vlasto 1986:139). 191 only form that was used by the scribes. It is very interesting that the scribes wrote certain lexical items very consistently with the old dual endings even after the loss of the dual as a grammatical category. In a few instances, we wimess the nominative plural ending after the numeral 'two', e.g.,pol <2> rubli (21), oba beregi bguslovskie (33), dva rubli (44), etc. The two different forms are found even in the same document, e g .,. <2> rublg, pol <2> rubli, (22). It is not clear whether it is the result of a reinterpretation of numeral syntax or a simple scribal error. Given that the numerals '3' and '4' are plurals and agree with their plural head nouns in gender and case, it is possible that '2' was used the same way. However, the number of examples is too limited to draw any comprehensive conclusion. 4.1.5 The numerals ‘3’ and ‘4*. The scribes did not distinguish gender for the numerals '3' and '4', as in CX3S, e.g., trbie/tri, ietyre/ietyri. No single example o f the old forms is found in the investigated documents. As was the case with other features, we also find a mixture of conservative and innovative forms in the use of the numerals ‘3’ and '4' in fifteenth* and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. The examples are summarized below: Gender is differentiated m T an d T as b Contemporary Standard Russian, e.g., sudith egodin (7), dvaaltnaO),obabmga(9),dvegrttH^ili),\Mt, dvetyseéi(Mï), dviiitniqr(45),d v e {47), etc. 192 Conservative fonns Innovative forms 7 té éetyre câtyny iztéxéetyrextdtyn 9 k tréma dubompo’evertam. 17 po éetyre rubli s éetvertbju, izba tut byla trex saien. éetyre altyny z dengoiu 18 éetyre altny 21 Table 4.18: Numerals '3' and '4' The nominative plural ending is mostly used after the numerals '3' and '4' in the direct cases as in OCS, e.g., âetyre 18),po éetyre rubli (17), dvatcat detyre gody (26), tri dvory, âetyre dowry (37), tri dvory âetyre deary (40), tri dvory (45), etc. The example o f âetyre drvni in document 37 can be interpreted as either genitive singular or nominative plural. When there are adjectives, they are in the genitive plural, e.g., âetyre dvory krst'jamkix (40), tri dvory krst'janskix (45), etc. We also Hnd innovative use of the numerals ‘3’ and '4'. First, genitive/ locative syncretism is attested in the investigated documents, e.g., iz tix âetyrex aityn (7), izba tut byia tr&c stden (17), trex saien (21), etc, instead of the old endings for 193 the genitive trii and ôetyn. It is curious, though, that the consonant -xh was not yet incorporated into the numeral Second, the dative dual ending in -m a is attested in the dative of the numeral “3”, e.g., k iremadubom perevertam (9). 4.1.5 J . Other numerals In OCS, the teens were compounds of the base numeral followed by the preposition na with the athemadc locative singular o f'10', for example dva na des^te. However, fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents do not show a single example of the old forms. Instead, only the univerbated forms are attested, e.g., p^tnatcet (1), semnatcat lit (lS),pitnatcat rublev deneg (17), semnatcat drvnb, Sesnatcat pustoSei (40). It is also noticeable that the letter 194 1 Pitnatcet niblav 6 vosiHhdesatb niblov 12 pop& idtyn 13 Set)/resta rublev 14 dvists rublev 15 dvéste rublev 16 na trista kopen, semnatcat lit, sem lit, k th sem d ^a v, hj/lo sem krstbenbutv 17 p^natcat rublev deneg, zapoltretetcat lit, v pet lit, devenosto lit 19 petdeset rublev 20 dviste rublev 21 Table 4.19: Other numerals 195 The tens were formed with the base numeral Allowed by the impropriate case form o f'10,' for example vosmbdesath rublav (S),pqtdes^t rublev (19), pjatdesjat rublev (42), osmidesjat (45), sembdesjat (49), as in OCS. However, the numeral '30' is not tri desqtb but syncopated tritcat éeti (37). The tens as well as teens and some other numerals were followed by genitive plural substantives as in Contemporary Standard Russian, e.g., vosmb dvarov sltdnix (40), pjat rublev moskovskix (45), etc. In addition, the genitive plural endings of the substantives need to be noted. First, in fifteenth and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, we find not only the innovative genitive plural ending in -ov, but also old forms, e.g., sem krstbqninov (16), but, altyn, rublev/rublov is different fi»m CSR form rubl^\ In sum, the use of the numerals show a mixture of two forms, the first of which is conservative and the other innovative. Not only the morphological forms, but also the syntactic agreement patterns are either conservative or innovative. After the numerals 2,3 and 4, either nominative plural or genitive singular is attested. After the numerals that do not have paucal numbers, either the nominative or the genitive plural is attested. The adjectives are always in the genitive plural. The form krstbeninov b peculiar because the word belong to the category of nouns with ethnonymic suffixes {-an-} and {-At}. The nouns o f this category have Ae siffix {-in-} in the singular and dual, but snnple-anonudous endings in the plural (Boifcotrâkij&Kuznecov 1963:181). Apparently, the example sem krstbemnav (16) shows an exceptional pattern. 196 42. Verbal Morphology Contemporary Rjazanian dialects are characterized by several features of verbal morphology that differ fiom Standard Russian (Avanesov 1949 [1970]: 188- 200). First, the phoneme /e/ rather than /o/ appears under stress in the 2nd and 3rd person singular as well as the first and the second person plural of verbs of the first conjugation, e.g., neseSb, neset, vedeSb, vedet, etc. Second, when the ending is not stressed, /i/ appears for both first and second conjugation verbs in the 2nd and 3rd person singular and the 1st and 2nd person plural, while /u/ occurs in the 3rd person plural, e.g., znaiS, zm jut’, lubiS, lub’ut’, etc. When the ending is stressed, the distinction between the first and second conjugation is maintained. Third, the 3rd person singular and plural ends in a soft consonant, e.g., sidit', kupW, kuput', znajut' etc. Finally, consonant mutations tend to be eliminated in the present tense conjugation, e.g., mayu, mayeS, mayet, molotfu, xodju, etc. (Obnorskij 1953:112). Most of these distinctive features of contemporary Rjazanian verbal morphology are not reflected in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century legal documents. Considering the fiict that the sounds /e/ and Po/ are mostly not distinguished in the documents investigated, it is difficult to find evidence for the non-existence of the e > o change in endings. Examples of the mixture of conjugations and the elimination of mutations are not attested at all. However, fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazam'an legal documents do provide evidence for the issue of the consonant in the 197 3rd person. In addition, the documents investigated show a mixture of traditional and innovative/local verbal morphology in forms other than the present tense, e.g., the infinitive, past tenses and reflexive verbal forms. 42.1. The infinitive form -ti or-tb In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, we find mainly the old infinitive form -ti (velar stem -di), and very few examples of the new form -tb (velar stem -di), or sometimes the form -t. The form -t with no following jer letter can be considered a variation of the form -tb because fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents show an alternation between the jer letters and 0. When the jer letter is omitted, the preceding consonant is consistently written above the line (see section 2.2.1.). In addition, there are also many examples of superlinear -ti as well. Examples are summarized below: 198 -ti -tb zero I em u ... vidati 2 mné vidati 3 uiinitbca 7 ebiiiati, xotiti, byti, pavidati, stojati, vsiol, poU 8 davati m ni 9 ijudem ti poijany paxa! i kost poperevertv 11 ne ostaivd, ni oknjaiivd, ni prodd 12 paxd, kost, davd, ne osvaivd, niprodd 16 vein ...gramotu iesti 17 veliii ...peredsoboju postaviti ...iesti, smotriti, prisuditi, otdati 18 a nagotbiiny iim davati a nagotbiina intb piatitb 19 ne otdati nikomu, vzeti 24 oiiSiati 26 v e liii... M, dati, poM lf vein peiat svoiu priioiitb 28 ne vykupt 29 postriiis, napisati, pidoiiti, vykupd pdaiovati 31 vidati i kositi, dopravili, rozixati, otvesü, iesd, nas vest! 34 OiiSiati, ne dovesd, piatiti 38 ne vykupt 39 postriii, napisJ', if. 41 viaditi. napisati 43 ne davesti 45 viaditi. imati, butpaxtf, vbtdf,tntUUf Table 4.20: The infinitive endings 199 The two forms -ti and -tb are ûequently mixed in the same texts in Old Russian documents, e.g., in Vasily's correspondence with Ivan Grozny] (1576): poslatb, pisatb, skazatb, govoritb, hatsprositi, solgati, okupati (Vlasto 1986:167). Fifteenth’ and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents confirm this tendency, e.g., veléli... iti, poloUf^, butvelélpeâatsvoju priioiitb (26), postriiis, napisati. poioiiti, poialovati, vykupd (29), etc. It is known that the new form -tb began to be used more and more fiom the second half of the seventeenth century (Kotkov 1963:205), although reduction of -ti to -tb can already be observed from the twelfth-thirteenth centuries (Obnorslqf 1953: 172, Vlasto 1986:167). Vlasto (1986:167) claims that the form -tb was the spoken form, while -ti was the reflection of the traditional orthography. However, based on the data fiom fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, it is hard to judge whether the variation reflects the alternation between the spoken vs. written registers or something else. If one were to find some examples like /d/i-, vesti- type verbs written as idtb, vestb, etc., one could consider the latter forms the spoken. However, the latter forms are not attested in the documents investigated. According to Obnorskij (1953:181), the new form with -tb was typical even for consonant stem verbs with end stress (modem standard -ti) in South Russian, and characterized some Central Russian dialects as well; it was the norm of the literary language in the eighteenth cmtuiy. Kotkov (1963:207-208) observes that the merger o f -ti with -tb was so intensive in South Russian dialects, regardless of the position of the stress, that the merger was also reflected in consonant stem verbs in other ways. That is, -ti was maintained with affix -n>, e.g., itUtb, pastitb, spacitb, etc. This type of 200 infinitive form is also found in contemporary Rjazanian dialects, e.g., idtttb, ititb, iditb (DARJa Morfologiia: map 101). However, the investigated documents do not confirm either Obnorsldj’s or KotkoVs claim. To the contrary, fifteenth* and sixteenth-century Rjazanian documents show predominant use of the form -ti for consonant stem verbs. All the consonant stem verbs with end stress have -ti type ending, e.g., poiti (7), iti (26), otvesti (31), dovesti (34), etc. 4.2 The Past Tense Formation Scholars agree that, among the archaic past tenses in Old Russian (aorist, imperfect and the (plu)perfect), the perfect and pluperfect survived relatively longer. Whereas the aorist and the imperfect began to disappear fiom an early period, the perfect tenses were still alive until the sixteenth century; they became obsolescent as a grammatical category only in the second half of the sixteenth century. The documents investigated fall in this time fiame; they confirm previous studies of the chronology of the development of the past tense formation. The past tense forms attested in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents are either the old (plu)perfect forms or simple 1-participle forms. The simple past forms of aorist or imperfect are not attested. In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, the copula was quite commonly used in the first and the second person, whereas the copula was " NOdforov (1952:165) writes that, m the second half of the sixteenth centtny, the perfect tenses were a "weakened" grammatical category. Simifaurbr, Kuznecov (1959:231) notes that the perfect tenses were disappearing, although the Arms are still found m seventeenth-century documents. 201 quite consistently absent in the third persons. The copula tended to be redundant for the third person singular past tense, because the person and gender were already mariced by pronouns. A sample o f the tokens is given below: 202 IstDcnon Srdnerson 1 kapil èsmi, dal him . prodal ismi, vzfl êsm i Sebilielom. istarii^ poteglo. kosaxodila. Vasko ...lako reklh. losdy bvU 2 Seiat.~ Dridalaèsmi, iaikzUkviMa kak vidai ospodarb moi. isb starinv potetlo 3 Jam ...DoSiüavala ism pridal Oksenb. tzumen ...zavetb 4 Doialamla ismi km ... velikaia pridala bortb 5 bvl ...Feodorov. a ixol. bvli ...m aii 6 Sejaz ...laipil ismi, dal ismi, potato islarini. loporb xodil hattnuHompbalkttFtilon 8 vzel esmi pisal siiu uramoiu d’iak 9 pridala ismi izuarinypoteglo. vpala. kaiivali ipaxivali, byl boiaria. bvli boiare 10 IttzbUielom bvli. a zramolu pisal duak zapeiatali 11 büiesmiaielom nas ptrialaval. bvli diti. ruka svoiu priioiil 12 dal ism i lalavalL pisal zapisb. tvt bvli 13 kupii esmi. buM m sht obatkKSemm lenalo. kosaxodila 14 kupil esmi dal esmi. ka imm ..jmipisat prikapil ocb. topor xodil. kapiuiu pisal podaiei IS kupil esmi. dal esmi k m ...kapil. prikapil Ivanov olcb 16 Siisudsudit 17 ajaz ...aaopriSel, si riSJat üüal.../ SiisudsudÜiGridno ...da Veriga. istok ...vyiel. se las ...skazal esmi. samIskazali tot istok ...w tek tako r'kli. lako rek 18 bwali. bvli. bvlorkU toook 19 Jazlvaaaldai 20 Se jaz ...data ismL ...ism i ...dala 21 otpisali, otkazali i otdali 22 lazlvM..vdal otpis pisal Ivan 23 bipilh esmi. dal esmi. selo esmi ...prodal bojarin vsprosil. skazal i...deneevzial 24 prodal esmi. vzial esmi zapis pisal 25 wkupil esmi. dal esmi kosaxodila. wkapnuiupisalMixalko 26 m ...htMdlëélom tako r'kli 27 ...did ...pradali esmi 28 ajat ..MsmpUUa 29 dal esmi danuiu pisal yiaska. Semeika ...ruka priioiil 30 kapil esmi skazal k m 31 voivoda ...prisudil i velil vidati i kositi 32 Se ia z Maria ...dala esmi 34 kapil ism i 35 dal esmi danuiu pisid 36 data esmi sidil otcb moi 38 prodal ism i. ism i ...datb. vzel isbmi vymenila... matmoe 40 bvl ...Pupkin 41 dal esmi sid il ...POO 42 wmeail bvl esmfa 43 dal esm i ez VaslU ,.M sidel 45 zanial esmi. esmi...2aloiit 46 otdelili i otmeievali 47 otmeievttli 48 Se iaz ...poaienil esmi. but vm tiUllat xodtiasaxa 49 otdaL wdaL Iaz-vzial zm is Pisal. Vdsileirukuprtiaiil 50 bvlprud.loskbwiel. wpis pisal ...diaâek Table 4.21: The use of copula 203 For the third persons, the omission of the auxiliary is very consistent. Although the majority of the documents show the use of the auxiliary for the first person singular and plural, there are some examples of the first persons without the auxiliary, e.g., gramotu pisdJaz Fedorh (6 ),/ar bil éelom (10), a jaz ...tuto priSel, si rëâijaz ôital ...I ...pisal, sami skazali (17), ja z Ivan otdal (19),/oz lavn ..vy'al (22), my ...bivaii éeiom (26), a jaz ...otstupiisja (28), gz Vasiiei ...dai (43), a vymeniljaz, a kupih> jaz (48), otdal, vydal, jaz ..v^'al (49), etc. It is possible that the auxiliary might tend to be omitted more for the first persons when it was used In non-formulaic phrases. Considering the conservatism in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazam'an legal documents, it is very likely that the the forms with the auxiliary are examples of the traditional writing practice, whereas the ones without auxiliary are colloquial or spoken forms. For pluperfect tenses, the use of the auxiliary follows the same pattern as in the perfect tense. That is, for the first person(s), the auxiliary was kept, e.g., vymenil byl esmja (42), whereas, for the third person, the auxiliary was omitted, e.g., byl pridal to pole (18). The forms of the auxiliary verbs themselves also need to be examined. The first person singular form has four variants, e.g., èsmi, èsmt, èsmh and esmja. In most instances, the first person singular form is esmi (see table). The other three forms are attested only in a few documents, e.g., Jazb ...Amna poialavala èsmb (3), tu esmh zemlju v^'u otbexal (Morozov 1988:no.2); dal èsnn» (I); se ja z ...vymenil byl esmja (42). 204 èsmi 1 kuDÜ èsmi. prodal.èsmi 2 Se ia z... pridala èsmi 4 pcial..ala èsmi. 6 kupUèsmi g vzel esmi 9 pridala èsmi 12 dalèsmi 13 kupil esmi 14 kupil esmi. dal esmi 15 kupil esmi. dal esmi 17 esm i... igumenil. si réâi esmi pisal svoeju rukoiu. se iaz ...skazal esmi 20 dala èsm i, ... ism l ...data 23 kupiht ami. dal am i 24 prodal esmi. vzial am i 25 vykupil ami. 29 dal am i. 30 kupil a m i 32 a t/anava iena PetravUa ...dala am i 35 dal a m i 36 dala a m i 38 prodal èsêuil 41 dal esmi. 42 Se iaz ...vymenil byl amia. amia ...dcbd. esme vzial ez Oleksei ...otdal i ...vzel 43 dal am i. 45 zanial ami. 48 Se ia z... promenil am i Table 4.22: The fîist-person singular copula 205 The second-person singular form has a single form, e g., èsi, for example, prodal li èsi (H. Pisal esiknam (Morozov 1988: no.4), etc. It seems that the copula auxiliary was used as a default for the second-person singular as well as for the first- person, although only a limited number of examples are attested in the documents investigated. The first person-plural form has three variants, e.g., esmi, esmja, esm^. The tokens are listed below: esmi esmia esme 11 Seja z Grigarej, svoim bratam s dedorom, da s bratom s Oedorom... bili esmip âelom 17 j a z ... Ivan ...daJaz... Ejrém skazali esme, sami esme... ozero... volait/ali, esme délili, esme ...staivali 26 my ...imali ...i ...èsmja... bili éelom 27 Se Jaz Oleksandra ...da Bulgak ...pradali esmi, vziali esmi 39 - Se ja z ... da s svoèju ienoju ... dali èsme Table 4.23: The first-person plural copula 206 Because the spelling However, there were a few cases of confusion between singular and plural forms. There are also some examples that show no auxiliary in the first-person plural, as was also the case for the first person singular, e.g., Afy ...bivaii éelom (26:3), my ...imali (26:4), etc. They can serve as evidence that the loss of the auxiliary was under way in the sixteenth century, but the number of examples are too limited to suggest that it was generalized. The second person plural form has two variants, i.e., este, estja, e.g., otdelili este (7), skazali estia. estia bivaii éelom (26), etc. It is understood that este - estJa are basically the same form because fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents show free alternation between e ~Ja not under stress (see section 2.1.1). The old simple past tenses were lost early, although their forms persisted in ecclesiastical writing even in seventeenth-century texts (Kuznecov 1959:214-216). hi the documents investigated, we see no examples of imperfect or aorist formations. Among the old tense forms, only the construction of copula plus 1-participle survived 207 to maik the past tense in fifteenth* and sixteenth*centuiy Rjazanian legal documents. The old perfect forms were still alive in the first and second person singular and plural, but th^r were reduced to the single gender/number-showing participles for the third person singular and plural. It is possible that the auxiliary was already beginning to disappear for the first and the second person as is attested in sixteenth* century Rjazanian legal documents. 4.2 Non past tense formation. The non*past tense verbal forms attested in fifteenth* and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents are quite regular for the first person and the second person, and for both singular and plural, as well as for the third person plural e.g.. sg. pi. 1st /u/e.g., Im l or Iim/, eg., pom nju{\l) daé', zna^, skai/', ukaid' (17), davfdT, paSiT, znaentb, vèdad" (26), na kotoroj stof, skal^ (16), stof, pomnf, stoiim (17) 2nd /eS/or/iS/, e.g., /ete/or life/, eg., Ordu ne de&,w6é, fysudf, (7), na stoite, nazyvaete (17) kotoroi stof, nazyva^ (16), prodal li (23).umée^(30) 3rd /ut/or/at/, eg., bobrybbJt/,zaim Table A24: The endings o f non-past tense 208 The use of the jer letters for the second person singular, the first person plural and the third person plural depends on whether the final consonant was written on or above the line. If the consonant was not raised, the jer letter was spelled out; but, in most cases, the final consonant was raised. It is noticeable that the back jer was used for the third person plural, although contemporary Rjazanian dialects show a soft consonant for the third-person plural as well as for the singular. (Avanesov [1949] 1970:189). The form of the third-person singular in the present tense requires special attention. In contemporary Russian dialects, the hard -th is common in North Russian, and the soft -tb in South Russian and some Central Russian dialects with akan'e; however, there are some deviations fix)m this division (Avanesov and Orlova 1964:162). In the contemporary Rjazanian dialects, the hard -tb is conunon, although there are dialectal pockets that show the soft -tb. (Avanesov [1949] 1970: 189, DARJa Morfoloeiia: map 79). In OCS, the dominant form is -tb, but the forms -tb o t-0 are also found (Obnorskij 1953:117). According to Obnorskij (1953:130-131), the normative form was -tb in old Russian manuscripts ftom the eleventh century, but it changed to -tb fi%)m the thirteenth century and stabilized as a norm in the literary language. However, as Obnorskij (1953: 135) recognizes, the stabilization into one form or another is not obligatory, but rather depends on each dialect According to Kotkov 209 (1963:208-209), one of the graphic peculiarities in seventeenth-century skoropis' is the mixture o f soft tb and hard A, which consequently makes it difGcult to identify South Russian cursive documents, at least by this feature. In the documents investigated, the form is usually without either t or a. As was discussed in chapter 2, the variation between zero and jer letters is conunon in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents (see section 2.2.1). Therefore, the examples in the first column do not provide any clue whether the jer letter was the fix>nt or back jer. In fact, the superscripted letter is one of the major problems that prevent one ftom identifying South Russian cursive documents, as Kotkov (1963:208) noticed. The examples are sununarized below: 210 superscripted-t •tb •th 3 a kogo prizavtf, ne idd igumen Arsénei ljudii k sob. zavetb 4 xto budd, davaef igwnen 7 otoimd, a kto priedef, jm4/, dastb dastb, sndkb nebudd, védaef 9 a pod dvorav teCé 12 pokosykos^ teietb, juliruttncy paSutb zemlju 16 [van Selivanav tu zemlju paid ...1 lugi kosi 17 teâef estb. 20 po nem invi igumen budd kakdasthboe 24 vyliafd 26 doroga lèif, piSd pravye gramoty ne dastb 29 bga molt, poiid, poxoCd Semen, ktoudnd, kormt, monastyr stof, èst II u vas 30 budd estb li emu ...dëlo ... onskazyvaetb, ne uméetb, budetb 31 pisd, teCd 34 stand 35 budd, xto uSnd 36 budd, soSid staneth 39 budd, poSid 41 budd 42 vylfaid 43 poSid 45 velt. wiialetb 50 sto t bereza, hast Table 4.25: The third-person singular non-past tense endings 211 Disregarding the examples in the first column, we can divide the documents investigated into three different categories: (1) documents that have both the soft -t' and the hard -t. (7,30) (2) documents that have only the soft -t'. (3,12). (3) documents that have only the hard -/. (20,26,36,45) Considering that contemporary Rjazam'an dialects show complicated isoglosses in terms of the third person singular non-past tense verbal endings (DARJA morfoloeiia: nu^ 79), the categorization of the documents into the three categories helps to identify the place of origin for each document. Most of contemporary Rjazanian dialects show the soft •/' However, there are dialectal pockets that have hard -/ with occasional soft or a mixture of the hard -t and the soft Therefore, it is possible that the documents in group (1) belong to those regions that show the mixture o f the soft and the hard (7,20,26,30,36,45). 212 The use of the front jet is also witnessed in the thiid-person plural fonns, e g., ego ne vhiâigutb (3), naainci paSutb zemlju (12), which is the reflex of the dominant local pronunciation of all $outh Russian dialects. In most of the examples of the third person plural, the final consonant was raised, e.g., priSljt/, védtgt/, sec^, (7), ukaiut (16), cm ...dadU (20), zmgi/Ol), budi/ (35,36), budt/ (43), pomëstb^ léSatpustv (44:72), oni vëdajut (53), etc. There are some Rjazanian dialects that do not have the final <-f> in the third- person (DARJa Morfolociia: map 80,81), e.g., on stane, on igrae, on xodi, on nosi, on sidi\ oni igraju, oni xodja, oni sidja, etc. However, such examples are not attested in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. Considering that the contemporary Rjazanian dialects show both the soft and hard consonant for the third person singular and plural, it is likely that fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents reflected local pronunciation in this respect. 4,2.4. Reflexive Verbs There are two issues that need to be discussed concerning reflexive verbs in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents: the bonding of the reflexive particle with the verb, and its various forms. According to Nikiforov (1952:16-22), the accusative form of the reflexive pronoun sja (or the dative form si) began to be attached to verbs as reflexive particles from the second half of the sixteenth century, although enclitic use of the pronoun was still alive. Obnorskij 213 (1953:59) also confinas that sja or si was used as a clitic until the sixteenth century. Because the investigated documents fall in this period, they can be good testing ground for the previous studies. There are some documents that show the clitic use of the reflexive pronoun ^a, e.g., SÇ mné v delu dostaio (7), vy ...Slete li sq (IT),poimali ie * (26:2), eé s^ otst^pqju (30), kto s/a oiu!net vstupatt v tu otim (39), etc. The form sja can be located after another particle (/f), conduction (ie), or some other word besides the verb. Not only the enclitic forms of the reflexive verbs, but also the enclitic forms of the personal pronouns such as mja, mi, tja, ti are occasionally found in a few documents, e.g., deriati ti, iiti mi ...s toboju (7), etc. On the other hand, in the majoriQr of the investigated documents (about 90%), univerbated forms are mainly attested. Thus, it is very likely that the old reflexive pronoun sja or si were already incorporated into the reflexive particles in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, although they were still in use as remnants of the traditional writing practice. There are three different forms for the reflexive particles in the investigated documents, i.e., -sja, -s and -ca. hi contemporary Rjazanian dialects, four forms are found, i.e., -ya, -s', -si and -ca (Avanesov 1949 [1970]: 195-196).** Representative examples fi»m the investigated documents are summarized below: " The form s ’ is used after a vowel, e.g., vz’alas', prütos’, ub’ana’, etc. The form sja is used at the end of phrases before pause, e.g., begusja, prasmaja, etc. After a consonant, the form -si is used, e.g., uberemsi, naxotniisi, kormimsi, etc. The form -ca is mainly used in combination with-r-,e.g., uberetca, smejetca, etc. In the last mstances, is often omitted, e.g., komica, darica, prasica, etc. 214 'Sia/se -ca 3 oudinitbca 7 Ml shsylatf. Ml vslupatf. ne vkstapaü^ pribiiUsf, pnaanSUst 16 tfgtUse 17 TfgaU^, mUlosf, bUsf, Slems^ poslabe, poslalbe. 19 vstiwlh^. vstupatfsf. 24 uàinitca 26 bitf,Slèté,poslalf, ta bUbJa, HZ'sja. doiSéetca gramota... 5ol/d‘ 28 otstupilsia 29 poxodet Semen posiriéf iavitca, sudlca 30 skazabia 32 vstupatf 35 vstupatf 39 postriâf 42 poevttse 43 ne vstupatf 44 ostalf, ostald. ostalsia Table 4.26: Reflexive Particles The form -s was always superscript and it was always preceded by a vowel. Considering that the investigated documents show alternation between the jer letters written on the line and 0 after superlinear consonants, it is likely that the superscripted -s ntight have been -sb. On the other hand, the very consistent use of the superscripted letter -s suggests that it was a traditional writing convention. The forms ya/sq are quite interchangeable (See Chapter 2, section 2.1.1.), and they are used both after a consonant and a vowel letter. It is not clear what the rule 215 was for governing the distribution of the forms. In the documents where the scribes used -s after a vowel letter, the same scribes used the forms sja/sq, as is illustrated in documents no. 7,19,26. When sja was preceded by /t/, it was usually spelled -ca. The letter -t- was even omitted in document 29, e.g., sudica (see Table above). However, there are also a number of examples where -sja was spelled as <-sJa/si>, e.g., priluâitsç (7), poçvitsq (42). Especially, in the case priluâitsq^ (document no. 7) the word was used five times, and it was spelled the same. In addition, the given scribe did not show any examples of -ca, which strongly suggests that the scribe was well aware of the etymological spelling. Considering that contemporary Rjazanian dialects show a similar phenomenon (see Avanesov 1949 [1970]; 195-196), it is very likely that the spelling -ca reflected the local pronunciation. 216 CHAPTERS CONCLUSION 5.1. The primary purpose of this dissertation has been to describe the major issues in orthography, phonology and morphology of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. The corpus investigated includes some of the earliest documents of any South Russian dialect. The main focus was on general tendencies or conventions in the seemingly inconsistent data. Fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents showed a non-uniform dialectal picture. In some instances, the scritxs practiced conservative norms, while in other cases they used innovative forms. Matters were complicated by the fact that variation is not the result of a single factor, but of various factors, i.e., register, dialect, phonological changes, mixtures of old and innovative forms of different kinds. Based on the conventions, norms or tendencies that were reflected in the corpus investigated, I will summarize the issue of the different factors that affected variation. 217 5.2. Orthography In treating spelling variation, I delineated traditional orthognq>hy ftom the innovative or local orthography that might have represented the real pronunciation. Second, 1 defined constraints that governed the positioning of certain letters. The vowel letters were divided into two groups. In the first group were those letters that are fireely interchangeable, and in the second group were the letters that are constrained by environments. Among the remaining vowel letters, the letters u ~ i were in fi-ee orthographic variation. In order to find the general tendency of the distribution of these letters, 1 examined the use of the letters in different morphological positions. Among the SO investigated documents, a total of 20 documents utilized all three letters of The three letters were used interchangeably in any morphological position, and did not show any predictable patterns. They appeared in any phonetic or graphic environment finely and interchangeably, e.g., (11) MOHocnihipR vs. MOHOcmbipA (18) ôo^TbCKue vs. doapcKUMb, (23) Momcoeo vs. M m O coee, (26) jg ) vs. A3, (30) k n x s v s . kh bs, (42) eSM vs. eSM , (47) SeM Jia vs. S e m A etc. A total of 22 documents showed variation between two letters, either b - a (documents no. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,13,16,17, 19,20,22,25,39), or b~ h (documents no. 24,31,41,46). Either letter was also attested in any phonetic/grr^hic and morphological environment It is noticeable that there was no single document that exemplified the variation between the letters a ~ si. Given that a is the youngest 218 and 41 is the oldest in terms of their chronology, it is likely that it must have been hard to differentiate Ji &om a which makes some of the editorial decisions about which type of graph to use. In other words, a was a gothic variant of m. The distribution of the letters w -r was also examined. The letter u predominated in all the investigated documents. A total of 29 documents out of SO used only the letter . In the remaining documents, both the letter and were used in all the contextual positions, e.g., on stems, endings as well as the conjunction. The letter seemed to be used more frequently before a vowel letter or at the final slot of a word, but there was significant number of exceptions. Therefore, the use of the two letters was a matter of scribes' optional choice except in their numerical values. There were another group o f letters that were in complementary or near- complementary distribution. To this group belonged the letters i> ~ b, cy’~ y~r, o ~ Û), e ~ t Their distribution was constrained by environment, and their positional constraints provided important information about the phonemic status of mid-vowels. The jer letters show a near-complimentary distribution between VCt and V®0 (V=vowel letter, C=consonant letter, t=jer letters, 0=slot for fallen jer). In the corpus investigated, the jer letters were spelled out or replaced by diacritic marks, but, when the jer letters were omitted, the preceding consonant was usually raised. In addition, the first consonant in consonant clusters was often raised. The only exception to this tendency was found in monosyllabic prepositions that were sometimes raised, and sometimes not 219 As for the letters « yf> ~ In most instances, the letters attested in these documents were either The remaining documents mostly reflected two letters, 19,39) had all three letters. In those documents, where variation was found between Therefore, there was one basic opposition in distribution, i.e., The issue of the existence or non-existence of two different mid-back vowels in the investigated documents was examined on the basis of the distribution of the letters < 220 vowels in the earliest manuscripts. To determine the phonemic status of the mid-back vowels attested in the corpus investigated, the positional constraints of the letters <(o>~ There are two positional constraints (or principles) for the distribution of the letters However, these positional constraints or principles provide little evidence for the existence o f the two different mid-back vowels. Each letter was used both in stressed or unstressed positions, e.g., under stress; en p m (13), na zœd (18). m ancm i (23), as well as eomnuH r (13), »a2 od (18), mmcomh (23), etc.; in unstressed position, e.g., c Bedopem vs. c BedopoM (11), 6 m çi vs. 6buio (47), etc. Therefore, it is clear that the use of the two letters was purely graphic and traditional with no phonological implication in the corpus investigated (as opposed to other Old Russian texts). However, the traditional use of these letters does not necessarily militate against the existence of the two mid-back vowels. As is the case with the two mid-back vowels, contemporary Rjazam'an dialects also show non-uniform isoglosses in terms of the status of the mid-ftont vowels. Some villages have two mid-fi»nt vowels (e and ë) whereas other villages have one. Thus, the use of the letter <*> is very important to figure out the phonemic status of è in the mvestigated corpus. Special attention was paid to two 221 main issues: (1) positional constraints of the letters < t> and status of the mid-front vowel(s). For the second issue, the problem of stress assignment was discussed. The phonetic environments for the distribution of the letters < t > and were not identical among scribes of the corpus investigated. A total of 16 documents reflected < t> for * ë under stress; for * ë in unstressed position, some used others used either <*> or Ji^ç, ntm a, m h± (33) under stress, but no ...zpoMomt. de tcm e (15), noaie (19), no ...dopoze (33) in unstressed positions. Therefore, it is very likely that the letter < ÿ> in the stressed position in these documents represents a separate phoneme <ë>, although the possibility that the spelling < t> was purely traditional can not be ignored. In unstressed positions, the choice of the letter for * ë was optional, i.e., the letters were in flee variation. On the other hand, the scribes of more than half of the investigated documents used < t> interchangeably with position, e.g., e eime, M ui, e ... Yode (29), d t/ia nemy vs. daia nem (42), in stressed position; npu ...oicueomi, e ... veade, e taiade (29) in unstressed position. The mixed distribution of the reflexes of* ë in the corpus investigated suggests that the letters were gnq)hic variants o f the same phoneme. There are a few documents where scribes used <ë> for *e both in stressed and unstressed positions, e.g., vbJi (17), ô^ecm bH bie (44), no Hipmu Bod± (47), etc. In these documents, *ë was also represented by either <*> or 222 stressed and unstressed positions. Therefore, it is very likely that the scribes did not distinguish two separate phonemes /e/ and /£/ in these documents. The final topic discussed in the chuter on orthography was the distribution of the letters k , z, x . T w o interesting features were observed. First, in many cases, the phoneme /k/ was written as <6oxambipee>. Although it is also possible that the name <6oxambipee> is a simple spelling error, it also can be evidence for the change *g to M in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects. 5 J. Phonology The main issues in the vocalism exemplified in fifteenth- and sixteenth- century Rjazanian legal documents included unstressed vocalism, the change of e to 0, and palatalization of velars. Akan'e was not well reflected in the corpus due to the disguising effect of conservative orthogrrgrhy. Akan'e spellings were rather arbitrary in their distribution, e.g., srok abrok vs. na obrok (12), s tgyariM, but also s tovariSéi (26), dgrogi, vs. dgrogi (SO), etc. However, scribes tended to be more accurate with their spellings in certain environments, hi particular, akan'e was not well reflected in prefixes such as 223 of examples in -ago, but the ending In other morphological endings, akan'e was relatively well reflected. In the nominative singular non-feminine adjectival ending, the spelling Jakan'e in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents was not well represented in the orthography due to scribal conservatism or influence from the Muscovite chancery language. However, a few documents showed jakan'e spellings to a limited extent. In such cases, jakan'e was reflected not only in the first pre-tonic position, but also in all the other unstressed positions. Hypercorrected forms provided further evidence for jakan'e in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, e.g., sentebrja (26). As for the type ofjakan'e, fifteenth-and sixteenth-century Rjazanian documents only exemplify strong jakan'e. No matter the following vowel, the vowel 224 following the soft consonant in jakan'e spellings was always /a/, e.g., po imjanom, rubjoda, plemjmi, p r e in j^ u , etc. However, the data did not militate against the possibility of assimilitive-dissmilitive jakan'e in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. We can not say whether there was strong or assimilitive- dissimilitive jakan'e simply due to a lack of evidence. Another phonological issue discussed was the change of e to o. Contemporary Rjazanian dialects form non-uniform isogloss. In the investigated documents, there are relatively few examples that showed the e > o change, e.g., io (I), eSCo (2), ne ostalos ion (44:72), net ion (44:74), etc. In most cases. Id was retained without changing to /o/. The retention of stressed *e was supported by the spelling of *e as < ^ in stressed positions, e.g., Hht. mo oaepm (17), no H ipnou Bodi. (47), etc. The examples suggested that the e > o change was not reflected before a hard consonant or woid-finally under stress for some scribes of the investigated documents. The final phonological topic discussed was palatalization of velars. In the investigated corpus, we found the reflection of palatalization of velars as well as evidence of stem leveling. e.g., da po doroze ( This can be another illustration of the mixture of traditional spellings with relatively innovative spellings. We also found ample traces of the so-called "4th palatalization, " e.g., u baski (1), bezxitrosti (7:1), do oituxovskoj dorogi (9:1), etc. The predominance of such examples suggests that "4th palatalization" was a completed process in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects. 225 Also attested was the progressive softening of velars after soft consonants, i.e., K>KVC’ or * bK > K’, e.g,, L a r l^ (ll) (<*Lar'ka <*Larbka), Vastia (41). This phenomenon is widespread in contemporary Rjazanian dialects as well as in other South Russian and some Northeastern dialects. Thus, the presence of the progressive softening of velars in the corpus indicates that there might be linguistic continuity between fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects and contemporary Rjazanian dialects. There were weak traces of *k’ > t’ as well in proper names and diminutives, m Nikitte (*Nikitkë),Kuzemte (*Kuzemkë). 5.4. Morphology The morphology of the corpus investigated is somewhat peculiar in that local and/or innovative endings were practiced side by side with non-Rjazanian and/or archaic endings. The partial loss of neuter gender as a grammatical category is a distinctive morphological feature in some South Russian dialects; the phenomenon is traced back to the fourteenth century. However, the investigated corpus provided little evidence for this phenomenon. The examples of the normative neuter endings outnumbered the examples of innovative endings. Examples like vsjakoja ugodja (46) reflect akan'e in Rjazanian dialects without any morphological implication. Therefore, it is not likely that the merger of neuter with feminine had occurred in the corpus investigated. 226 Of the short the ü-stem endings, two endings were well attested in the investigated documents, i.e., the plural genitive -ov and the genitive/locative -u. The plural genitive -ov was already stabilized in the period of the investigated documents. The genitive and the locative singular -u was amply attested both in original short fl- stems and in o-stem nouns. It was used mainly with one- or two-syllable words. It was not found in animate nouns in the corpus investigated, a fact which indicates that the ending -u in the genitive case in animate nouns might be a later development in Rjazanian dialects. The mixture of hard and soft declensional endings in the singular genitive and dative/locative cases was well attested in the investigated documents. The old haid-stem endings were quite consistently used for a-stem nouns, whereas the old soft-stem endings were sometimes mixed with the innovative hard-stem endings for soft-stem nouns. In the genitive singular of ja-stem nouns such as zemlja, poinja, troica, scribes often used the ending in -i/y instead o f the old ending in -e/-é, e.g., s toi zemli (12), na otvode zemli (9), at po M (26: L2), u iivonaéainye tracy (29), etc. The same words were sometimes spelled differently for the same endings even in the same documents, e.g, na otvode zemii buta otvod zem li (9), tvoèj zèmii butvidénè zem li (26), etc. The a-stem ending for dative and locative singular in -eA# was also attested in place of the old Ja-stem ending -i^, even though the tendency was less common than in genitive singular case. The old endings were well preserved when the stress fell on the ending, e.g., po duSi (12), kpomisnoj zeiidi (SO), etc. 227 A further topic considered was the generalization of the a-stem endings in plural. Among the three case endings affected by the expansion of a-stem plural endings, only the a-stem locative plural ending was well attested in the place of non- a-stem nouns, e.g., m svoix ferebiax (2g>. po ndadencœç(Al), v ...dengax (45). ni v kakix krëpostiax (48), etc. However, the number of the archaic forms of the locative plural endings was not insignificant. For dative and instrumental plural, scribes practiced the old endings quite consistently, e.g., da védomo ...staroiilcem ...bortnikom Sidou (16), kupil esmi ...détem (13,14,15), etc., for dative plural; voevodami. so vsemipoSlingm (7), 5 ...m ést^ s obroki i z doxoda (7), s volostmi, pod tvoimi détmi, s ljudnti etc. (7). Therefore, even though the spread of a-stem plural desinences began to be witnessed fiom 1200’ (Andersen 1969a: 20), the choice of one ending over the other was left to the individual language of the scribes. The nominative singular ending for a-Ja-stem nouns was correctly written as -a or -ja (or -() in most instances, e.g.. Se ja z ..Jena Dvdvéa (2), zemlg, crkovnaja (10), meia napiscma (33), ta derevnja (41), etc. However, the spelling of the word for 'princess' as kngini with instead of In the nominative singular masculine of adjectives, the tense jers were regularly reflected as <-oj> in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects. On the other hand, the traditional Church Slavonic form ‘ij/yf was found in certain lexical items such as religious terms or to certain formulaic expressions, e.g. Smirennyl èpspb (7), k n ^ velikii (7: LI), mjjt igumen (20), etc.. 228 In nominative singular feminine of adjectives, there were two forms attested, -ajaaoA-aa, e.g., velikaiakneni(9) vs. velikga, Mosolovskgadrvn^ (7). However, the number of examples of the spelling -aa was limited. It is likely that the form-oa in the place of-<ÿa was an imitation of South Slavic conventions. In the genitive singular non-feminine, both -og(o) and -ov(o) were attested not only in adjectival endings, but also in pronominal endings. However, the spelling -ogo prevailed over the spelling -ovo by 90% vs. 10%. Thus, it is likely that the norm for non-feminine ending in the corpus was -ogo, and the ending -ovo was the result of the influence from the Muscovite chancery language. In the genitive singular feminine, three endings were attested, i.e., -oj/ëj, -ye/- ie,-yja/-ija. Both the innovative endings-o/^ir and the old ending-ye/-ie are widely used, but the ending -yja/-ija only to a very limited extent. However, individual scribes tended to use one or the other form almost exclusively. Only two scribes used multiple endings in the same documents (17,42). In the dative/locative singular feminine, there were two endings attested, - qj/ëj vs. -yelie. Scribes mostly used the ending -oj/ëj, though there were many examples o f the old form -yelie. In the accusative singular feminine, two endings were attested, -uju vs. -oju, e.g., po mgaiskoiu dorogu (SO). This may be the result of paradigmatic leveling with the oblique case endings with -oj. Two endings were attested in the nominative plural— -ye/-ie and -y(i)/-i(i). Both endings were used hmovatively for the nomimrtive plural forms of all the three genders. 229 In pronouns, as in other nominal categories, more than one form was attested for most cases. Of the three forms of the first-person nominative singular pronoun attested in Old Russian, a zh ja zb ja , only the last two forms were attested in the corpus with the form jazb being more dominant. However, azb was sporadically attested in later copies fi»m the seventeenth century. When ja z and ja were used in the same document, scribes were very carefiil with the choice of one form over another. That is, the form jca was used in the incipit formula, whereas ja was used in non-incipit positions. Contrary to Kuznecov's claim (1959:112) that ja was the dominant form in seventeenth-century manuscripts, the old form,/ozb, seemed to have still been dominant in seventeenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. Two forms were attested for the genitive singular and accusative of the first and second person and the reflexive, i.e., menja, tebja, sebja vs. mem, tebe, sebe. It was noticeable that the latter forms mem, tebe, sebe began to be replaced by the forms menja, tebja, sebja from the fifreenth-century onwards, which strongly indicates that forms in -'a was due to the Muscovite influence. For the second person singular and reflexive dative and locative cases, two forms were attested, i.e. tebé/tobé, sebë/sobé. There was no general tendency in the use of one form or the other. Given that contemporary Rjazanian dialects have forms liketobé/sobi, it is likely that tobé/sobë were original Rjazanian forms, whereas the forms tebé/sebé were either traditional or muscovite spellings. This claim is indirectly supported by the fact that scribes tended to choose one form over the other almost exclusively. Only one document (doc. 7) reflects both forms. 230 The use of the numerals in the investigated documents showed both aichaicizing and innovative tendencies. After the numerals '2', '3* and '4', either nominative plural or the genitive singular was attested. Apparent dual forms were rarely attested after '2'. Instead, the genitive singular ending was usually used. The use o f the ending *u as in v dva godu (17) indicated that scrities could select the genitive case over the old dual form (provided this is not a mistake from *v dvu godu). For teens, only univerbated forms were attested, e.g.,p^tnatcet (1), semnatcat lit (16), pqtnatcat rublev deneg (17), semnatcat drvnt, Sesnatcat pustoSei (40). The tens were formed with base numeral followed by the appropriate case form of TO', for example vosmbdesath rublov {6\p^tdes^t rublev (19), pjatdesjat rublev (42), etc. However, the numeral '30' was attested as a syncopated form, e.g., tritcat âeti (37). Adjectives were always in the genitive plural after numerals, e.g., e.g., âetyre dvoty, krst'Janskix (40), tri dvory krst'janskix (45), etc. In verbs, as in other morphological category, fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents showed a mixture of traditional and innovative/local morphology. Three infinitive forms were attested in the corpus: the old infinitive form -ti (velar stem -éî), the new form -tb (velar stem -di), and superscripted -/. The two forms, -ti and -tb, were used quite indiscriminately in the same texts in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents. However, the number of documents that reflected the ending -ti oumumbered those that showed -tb, which indicates that scribes were quite conservative in the choice of infinitive forms. 231 Of the past tenses, only two were represented in the corpus— the old (plu)perfect forms and simple 1-participle forms. The simple past forms o f aorist or imperfect were not attested. In the Q>lu)perfect, the copula was quite commonly used in the first and the second person. However, the first persons without the auxiliary were also attested. It is likely that the loss of the auxiliary was under way in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian dialects. For the third person, the auxiliary was quite consistently absent. As for the forms of the auxiliary verbs, the first person singular form had three variants, e.g., èsmi, èsmb, èsmb. Of these three forms, the form esmi was dominant. For the second person singular, only one form was attested — m The first person plural form had three variants, e g., esmi, esmja, esm^. However, the form esmi was found only in one document (27), which strongly suggests that the form esmja/esm^ was the normative form. The second person plural form had two variants— este, estfa. The non-past tense verbal forms were quite regular except for the third person singular, which showed two variant forms, i.e., the soft -t', the hard Some documents (7,30) showed both the soft -f' and the hard -t, whereas other documents reflected either only the soft -V (documents 3,12) or only the hard -/ (documents 20, 26,36,45). In most cases, it was not possible to determine whether t was soft or hard because the final -t was superscripted with no jer letter. Given that contemporary Rjazanian dialects show non-uniform isoglosses with both the hard -th and the soft-A. (Avanesov [1949] 1970:189, DARJa morfologiia^ nnq) 79), the investigated documents seem to illustrate a similar 232 linguistic situation. On the other hand, the investigated documents did not reflect another feature of some contemporary Rjazanian dialects, the absence of the flnal <-(> in the third persons (DARJa morfoloidia: map 80,81), e.g., on stane, on igrae, on xodi, on nosi, on sidi; oni igrq/u, oni xodja, oni sidja, etc. Reflexive verbs were attested in two forms, i.e., clitic forms and univerbated forms. The clitic forms were attested to a very limited extent. In the majority of the investigated documents (about 90%), univerbated forms were common, which indicates that the old reflexive pronoun sja or si had already become reflexive particles in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian. This agrees with the findings of the previous studies that the clitic forms began to be attached to verbs as the reflexive particles from the sixteenth century on. There were three different forms of the reflexive particles attested in the corpus, i.e., -ya, -s and < a Given that the investigated documents showed alternation between the jer letters written on the line and 0 after superscripted consonants, the superscripted ~s is practically the same as -sb. When sja was preceded by /t/, it was usually spelled -ca. The letter -t- was sometimes omitted, e.g., stidica (29). However, there were also a number of examples where -sja was spelled as <-j/û/sç> after/t/, e.g.,priluéitsq {T),poçvits^ (42). 5,5. hi fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents, we witnessed non-uniform usage o f various linguistic forms. However, the heterogeneity does not necessarily mean that scribes' writing practice was totally idiosyncratic without any 233 conventions or norms. To the contrary, in many instances, we noted scribes' awareness of norms or conventions. The seemingly inconsistent data turn out to be even surprisingly consistent once we c^tured various factors that affected scribes' writing. Conservatism/ archaism and the Muscovite chancery language seem to have had a major influence on the language of the scribes. Conservatism is the most distinctive factor that affected most aspects of the language of the scribes. It can be seen in the use of the letters r ,3 Ar personal names; the use of some letters such as omega as purely graphic and traditional marker with no phonological implication; the continuing reflection of the second palatalization; the infinitive ending -ti; (plu)perfect past tense formations with the auxiliary; etc. Scribes were clearly also influenced by the Muscovite chancery language. In phonology, unstressed vocalism was often concealed by scribes' normative spelling practice. In morphology, the spelling of -ovo as well as the spelling of -'a in menja, tebja, sebja can be ascribed to Muscovite influence. Scribes tended to be very careful with the choice of one form over another. When more than one form was attested in the corpus, each scribe tended to choose one form over the other quite exclusively. This is illustrated by the choice of the genitive singular feminine adjectival ending; the use of the form ja z in the incipit formula andja in non-incipit positions; etc. hi addition, scribes were surprisingly accurate with the spellings of certain words. 234 In sum, the scribes of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rjazanian legal documents were very well aware of different norms and conventions. Conservatism and Muscovite chancery language as well as dialectism played a major role in the corpus investigated. 235 REFERENCES 1. References abbreviated in the text. ASÈI = Grekov, B. D., and L. V. Cetepnin, eds. 1952-64. Aktv social’no- èkonomigeskoi istorii severo-vostognoi Rusi konca XTV-naèala XVI v. 3 vols. Moscow. DARJa = Dialektologigeskij atlas russkogo iazvka: centr evropeiskoi Cast! SSSR. vol. 1-2. Avanesov, R. I. et al eds. 1986.1989. DOG = Duxovnve i dogovomve pamotv velikix i udel’nvx kniazei XIV-XVI w . Moscow-Leningrad. 1950. MIRD = Materialv i issledovaniia no russkoi dialektolorii. Moscow. SRJa= Slovar’ nisskogo iazvkaXl-XVn w . 1975-. 23 vols to date. Moscow. 2. Other References Abaev, V. 1.1964. “0 proisxo2denii fonemy y (h) v slavjanskom.” Problemv indoevropeiskopo lazvkoznaniia. 115-21. Moscow. Andersen, Henning. 1969a. "The peripheral plural desinences in East Slavic." Intemationd Joural of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, vol. Xn. 19-32. Andersen, Henning. 1969b. “Lenition in Common Slavic.” Language 45 (3). 553-74. Andersen, Henning. 1978. "Perceptual and conceptual factors in abductive innovations." In Recent Developments in Historical Phonologv. ed Jacek Fisiak, 1-22. Avanesov, R. I. et al eds. 1986. Dialektologtteskii atlas russkogo iazvka: centr evropeiskoi iasti SSSR. vol. 1. Fonetika. Avanesov, R. I. et al eds. 1989. Dialektolopfeskii atlas russkogo iazvka: centr evropeiskoi gasti SSSR. vol. 2. Morfologija. Avanesov, R. I., and Orlova, V. G. 1964. Russkaia dialektologiia. Moscow. 236 Avanesov, R. I. [1949] 1970. “Oierid dialektologii gazanskoj MeSiery.” Materialv i issiedovaniîa po russkoi dialektoloiai. vol. 1, 135-236. Moscow-Leningrad. Avanesov, R. 1.1952. "LIngyistiteskaja geografija i istorija russkogo jazyka." Vonrosv JaOTkoznanifa. No. 6:25-47. Avanesov, R. 1 .1949. OCerid russkoi dialektologii. Moscow. Barsukov, N. [1882] 1970. Istodniki russkoi agiocrafii. Leipzig. Bloxina, È. D. 1970. Paleocrafigeskoe i fonetigeskoe opisanie RjaTanskoi kormgei 1284 g. Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation. Leningrad. Borkovskij, V. 1.1949. Sintaksis drevnerusskix framot: Prostoe predlofenie. L’vov. Borkovskij, V. 1.1958. Sintaksisdrevnerusskix pramot: Sloinoe nredloienie. Moscow. Borkovskij, V. 1.1972. Sravnitel'no-istorideskii sintaksis vostoénoslavianskix iazvkov: Bessoiuznve nredloieniia. sonostavliaemve so sloinooodCinennvmi. Moscow. Borkovskij, V. I., and Kuznecov, P.S. 1963. Istoriùeskaia grammatika russkogo iazvka. 2nd ed., Moscow. Budde, E. F. 1896. K istorii velikorusskix covorov. Kazan’. Bulaxovskij, L. A. [1937] 1952. Kurs russkogo literatumogo iazvka. vol. 1-2. Kiev. Cerepnin, L. V. 1956. Russkaia paleografiia. Moscow. Cemyx, P. Ja. 1952. Istorifeskaiagrammatika russkogo iazvka. Moscow. Cemyx, P. Ja. 1953. Jazvk uloieniia 1649 goda. Moscow. Carlton, T. R. 1991. Introduction to the Phonological History o f the Slavic Languages. Columbus. Collins, Daniel E. 1994. The Pragmatics of Reported Speech in Medieval Russian Trial Transcripts: Ihe ContevtiialiTationand foterpretation of Metapragmatic Framing Strategies in Old Russian Juridical Language. 1400-1505. PhJJ. Dissertation, UCLA. Comrie, Bernard and Corbett, G. G. eds., 1993. The Slavonic Languages. London and New York. 237 Dariceviô, V. P., and Borisevii, G. V. 1995. Drevniaia stnlica r|aMnskoj zemli. Moscow. Dewey, H. W., and A. M. Kleünola, eds. 1973. Russian Private Law in the XlV-XVn centuries: An anthology of documents. Michigan Slavic Materials, vol. 9. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Diels, Paul. 1963. Altkirchenslavische Grammatik.2nd eds. Heidelberg. Dumovo, N. [1924] 1962. OCerk istorii russkoeo iazvka. Mouton. Dumovo, N., Sokolov, N., and USakov, D. eds. 1915. Opvtdialektologiéeskoi kartv russkoeo iazvka v evrope. Moscow. Filin, F. P. 1972. Proisxoidenie russkoeo. ukrainskoeo i belorusskoeo iazvka. Leningrad. Flier, M. 1978. " On Obojansk Dissimilative Jakan'e: The Cannonical Case of Absolute Neutralization." Communication and Copnition. Vol. 11, No. 314, pp. 323*82. Flier, M. 1982. "Morpbopbonemic Change as Evidence of Phonemic Change: the Status of the Sharped Velars in Russian." International Journal of Slavic Lineuistics and Poetics. 25/26:137-148. Flier, M. 1983. "The Origin of the Desinence -ovo in Russian." From Los Aneeles to Kiev: Papers on the Occasion of the Ninth htemational Coneress of Slavists. ed. Vladimir Markov and Dean S. Worth, 85-104. Columbus. Georgiev, V. 1.1963. "Russkoe akan'e i ego omoSenie k sisteme fonem praslayjanskogo jas^ka." Voorosv iazvkoznaniia.No. 2:20-29 GorSkova, K. V. 1959. "Istorijabezudamogo vokalizma v staromoskovskom prostoredii." hi Voorosv istorii russkogo iazvka. ed. Kuznecov, P. S. 81-103. Moscow. GorSkova, K. V. 1968. Oderid istoriCeskoi dialektoloeii sevemoi nisi. Moscow. Hamp, E. P. 1959. "Graphemics and paragraphemics." Studies in lineuistics. vol. 14, No. 1-2, pp. 1-5. Isagenko, A. V. 1965. Grammatigeskii stroi russkoeo iazvka v sooostavlenii s slovatskim. Bratislava. Ivanov, V. V. 1959. "Iz istorii bezudamogo vokalizma russkogo jazyka (akan'e i soputstvujuSgie emu javlenija v volokolamskix govorax XV-XVDI w.)." hi Voprosv istorii russkoeo iazvka. ed. Kuznecov, P. S. 36*66. Moscow. 238 Jakobson, R. [1929] 1962. “Remarques sur l’évolution phonologique du russe comparée à celle des autres langues slaves.” In Iklected Works 1.7-116. The Hague-Paris. Jakubinskij, L. P. 1953. btoriia drevnerusskoeo iazvka. 2nd ed. Moscow. Karskij,E. F. 1955-1956. Belorusv: iazvkbelorusslfnpn namHa vol. 1-3. Moscow. KaStanov, S. M. 1970. Oéerki russkoi diplomatiki. Moscow. KaStanov, S. M. 1975. "Russkie knjaieskie akty X-XIV w . (do 1380 g.)." Arxeografiéeskij eiegodnik za 1974 cod. 94-116. KaStanov, S. M. 1996. h. istorii russkoeo srednevekovoeo istoénika: aktv X-XVl w . Moscow. Kiparsky, Valentin. 1979. Russian Historical Grammar, translated by J. I. Press. Ardis. Kleimola, A. M. 1972. “Formulae and Formalism in Muscovite Judgment Charters.” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 6:355-73. Kleimola, A. M. 1975. “Justice in Medieval Russia: Muscovite Judgment Charters fprawe gramotvt of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n. s., vol. 65, pt. 6. Philadelphia. Komarovié, V. L. 1946. “Rjazanskij letopisnyj svod Xm v.” In Istoriia russkoi literaturv. vol. 2, part 1, ed. A. S. Orlov, 74-77. Moscow-Leningrad. Kotkov, S. I., and Filippova, I. S. eds. 1978. Pamiatniki russkoi nis’mennosti XV-XVI w .: Riazanskii krai. Moscow. Kotkov, S. 1 .1963. Juinovelikorusskoe nareéie v XVH stoletii: (fonetika i morfoloeijal. Moscow. Kotkov, S. 1.1991a. “Starinnaja russkaja delovaja pis’mennost’ v eé otnoSenii k literatumomu ja^ku.” Istoéniki po istorii russkogo iazvkaXl-XVn w .. ed. V. G. Dem’janov and N. 1. Tarabasova, 122-44. Moscow. Kotkov, S. 1.1991b. “Istoénikovediéeskie issledovanijai nauénoe izdanie pamjatnikov V oblasti russkogo jai^ka.” In IstoCniki po istorii russkoeo iazvka Jfl-XVlI w . eds. V. G. Dem’janov and N. 1. Tarabasova, 3-14. Moscow. Kuz'min, A. G. 1965. RfaMnskne letopisanie: Svedeniia letopisei o R^aTani i Mumme do seredinv XVI veka. Moscow. Kuznecov, P. S. 1954. Russkaiadialektolomia. Moscow. 239 Kuznecov, P. S. 19S9. Oferki istoriCeskoi morfologii russkogo iazvka. Moscow. Kuznecov, P. S. 1969. ‘*Russkij jazyk.” In Qgerki russkoi kul'turv XTTT-XV vekov. ed. A. V. Aicixovskij et ai., vol. 2,78-110. Moscow. Larin, B. A. 1975. Lekcii po istorii russkogo literatumogo iazvka fX-seiedinaXVin vj. Moscow. Leont’ev, A. K. 1969. “Pravo i sud.” fa Qgerid russkoi kul’turv XITT-XV vekov. eds. A. V. Aicixovskij et al., vol. 2,5-48. Moscow. Lixagev, D. S. ed. 1980. Istoriia russkoi literaturv X-XVU vekov. Moscow. Lunt, Horace G. 1974. Old Church Slavonic Grammar. 6th ed. The Hague. Martin, J. 1995. Medieval Russia. 980-1589. Cambridge University Press. Meillet, A. [1951] 1965. ObSgeslavjanskii iazvk. Moscow. Mongajt, A. L. 1961. RfaTanskaja zem lp MOSCOW. Moraxovskaja, 0 . N. 1962. “SootnoSenie tipov jakan’ja v govorax qazanskoj meSCery.” MIRD. vol. 3.72-100. Morozov, B. N. 1988. "Gramoty XIV-XVI w . iz kopijnoj knigi Rjazanskogo arxierejskogo doma." Arxeoyrafigeskii efeaodnik za 1987. pp. 298-309. Nikiforov, S. D. 1952. Glagol: ego katecorii i formv v russkoi nis'mennosti vtoroi polovinv XVI veka. Moscow. Novopokrovskaja,V. N. 1956. Dialektnve osobennosti riaTanskix govorov XVn veka. Doctoral Dissertation. Rjazan'. Obnorskij, S. P. 1927. Imennoe sklonenie v sovremennom russkom jazvke. vol. 1. Edinstvennoe 5islo. Leningrad. Obnorskij, S. P. 1946. Oôerid no istorii russkogo literatumoeo iazvka. Moscow. Obnorskij, S. P. 1953. Oierid d o morfologii russkoeo claeola. Moscow. Piskarev, A. N. 1854. Drevnie yramotv î aktv Rjazanskogo kraja St. Petersburg. Pugh, S. M. 1987. “Omega in the East Slavonic Orthogngihic Tradition.” The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 65. No. 1. Pp. 1-12. Ruszkiewicz, P. 1976. Modem approaches to granhonhonemic investigations in English. Katowice. 240 Samilov, M. 1964. The Phoneme iat' in Slavic. The Hague. SeliSèev, A. M. [1957] 1968. “O jazyke Russkoj Pravdy v syjasd s voprosom o drevnejSem tipe russkogo literatumogo jaz^ka.” In bbtannve trudv. 129-40. Moscow. Sergeev, F. P. 1971. Russkaia dinlomatigeskaia terminoloeiia XI-XVU w . KlSinev. Sergeev, F. P. 1978. Formirovanie russkogo diplomatigeskogo iazvka. L’vov. Sgall, P. 1987. "Towards a theory of phonemic orthography." Orthoeraohvand nhonologv. ed. Phhilip Luelsdorfif, pp. 1-30. Shevelov, G. Y. 1953. "Problems in the formation of Belorussian." Word, vol. 9; Monograph No. 2. Shevelov, G. Y. 1965. A Prehistorv of Slavic. New York. Shevelov, G. Y. 1978. "Omega in the Codex Hankenstein: A Hitherto Unnoticed Episode in the Ukrainian Development o > i." Studia Linguistica Alexandro Vasilii Filio Issatschenko a Collegis Amicisoue Oblata. eds. Isaùenko, A. V. and H. Bimbaum. pp. 369-386. Lisse. Shevelov, G. Y. 1979. A Historical Phonoloev of the Ukrainian Language. Heidelberg. Sidorov, V. N. 1949. “Nabljudenija nad ja^kom odnogo iz govorov qazansko) MeSiery.” hi Materialv i issledovanija po russkoi dialektoloeii. vol.1:93-134. Skulina, Tadeusz. 1974. Staroruskie imiennictwo osobowe. vol. 1-2. Warszawa. Sobolevskij, A. I. [1907] 1962. Lekcii no istorii russkogo iazvka. Reprint. Slavic Printings and Reprintings, vol. XXXVn. The Hague. Sokolova, M. A. 1957. OCerki po iazvku delowx pamjatnikov XVI veka. Moscow. Saxmatov, A. A. 1903. tssledovanie o dvinskix gramotax XV v. S-Peterburg. âaxmatov, A. A. 1957. Istorigeskaia morfologiia russkogo iazvka. Moscow. Éaxmatov, A. A. [1915] 1967 OCeric drevneiSago perioda istorii russkaeo iazvka. Petrograd. Sgepkin, V. N. [1920] 1967. Russkaianaleoerafiia. Moscow. Svedova, N. Ju. et al. 1980. Russkaja yrammatika.Akademija nauk SSSR. Moscow. 241 Tarabasova, N. 1 .1964. *X) nekotoryx osobennos^'ax jazyka delovoj pis’mennosti.” In Istcdnikovedenie i istoriia russkogo iazvka. eds. S. I. Kotkov, and V. F. Dubrovina. 157-172. Moscow. Tarabasova, N. 1.1986. Javleniia variativnosti v iazvke Moskovskoi delovoi pis'mennosti XVII v. Moskva. Tixomirov, M. 1959. The Towns of Ancient Rus*. Moscow. Tixomirov, M. and Murav'ev, A. V. 1982. Russkaia naleoerafiia. Moskva. TolkaCev, A. 1.1960. "Ob izmenenii *ogo > -ovo v roditel'nom pade2e edinstvennogo fiisla muiskogo i srednego roda dennyx prilagatel'nyx i mestoimenij russkogo jazyka." Materialv i issledovaniia po istorii russkogo iazvka. ed., R. 1. Avanesov, 235-67. Moscow. Uldall, J. J. 1944. "Speech and spelling." Acta lineusitica 4. pp. 11-16. Unbegaun, B. 0 . 1935. La langue russe au XVle siècle (1500-15501. Paris. Unbegaun, B. 0 . [1957] 1969. “Russe et slavon dans la terminologie juridique.” In Selected Papers on Russian and Slavonic Philoloev. compiled by R. Auty & A. E. Pennington. 176-84. Oxford. Unbegaun, B. 0 . 1960. Russian Grammar. Oxford. Unbegaun, B. O. [1965] 1969. “Jazyk russkogo prava.” In Selected Papers on Russian and Slavonic Philologv. compiled by R. Auty & A. E. Pennington. 312-18. Oxford. Unbegaun, B. 0 . 1972. “Akan’e v russkix familijax.” Russkoe i slavianskoe iazvkoznanie. 261-267. Moscow. Uspenskij, B. A. 1987. Istoriia russkoeo literatumoeo iazvka Ofl-XVlI w ). Sagners Slavistische Sammlung, vol. 12. München. Vaillant, A. 1950. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. 1. Paris. Vaseko, E. F. 1959. "K voprosu ob izmenenii evov russkom jazyke." In Voprosv istorii russkogo iazvka. ed. Kuznecov, P. S. 67-80. Moscow. Vasilev, L. L. 1929. Q znafenii kamorvv nekotorvx drevnerusskixpamjatnikax XIV- XVn vekov. K voprosv o proiznoSenii zvuka o vvelikorusskom nareéiî. Leningrad. Veselovskij, S. B. 1975. D’jaki î pod’jadie XV-XVII w . Moscow. 242 Vinogradov, V. V. 1972. Russkii iazvk: fitammadéeskoe uéenie o siove. 2nd ed. Moscow. Vlasto, A. P. 1986. A Linguistic Historv of Russia to the End of the Eighteenth Centurv. Oxford. Volkov, S. S. 1974. Leksika russkix éelobitnvx XVU veka; Formuliar. tiadicionnve ètiketnve i stilewe sredstva. Leningrad. Vvedenskij, A. A. 1963. Lekcii po dokumental’nomn istoénikovedenilu istorii SSSR. Kiev. Ward, D. 1985. “Which Way did the akan’e go?” htemational Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics. 31/32:515-526. Wexler, Paul. 1977. A Historical Phonology of the Belorussian Language. Heidelberg. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986. "The Meaning of a Case: a Study of the Polish Dative." Case in Slavic, eds. Richard D. Brecht & Levine, J. S. 386-426. Worth, Dean S. [1975] 1977. “On Russian Legal Language.” In On the Structure and Historv of Russian: Selected Essavs. 257-65. Slavistische BeitrSge, vol. 110. Münich. Worth, Dean S. 1983. "The 'Second South Slavic Influence' in the history of literary Russian," American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists. 1983:349-372. Zalizniak,A. A. 1985. Ot nraslavianskoiakcentuacii k russkoi. Moscow. Zaliznjak, A. A. 1986. "Novgorodskie beres^anye gramoty s lingvistiieskoj toéki zrenija." in Noveoro^kie gramotv na bereste: iz raskonok 1977-1983. ed. V. L. Janin and A. A. Zaliznjak, 89-219. Moscow. Zaliznjak, A. A. 1990. «M erilo oravedno^> XTV veka kak akcentoloeiCeskii istognik. München. Zaliznjak, A. A. 1995. Drevne-novgorodskii dialekt Moscow. Zaxarova, K. F. 1971. “Tipy dissimiljativnogo jakan’ja v russkix govorax (Leksiko- moifonologigeskajaxarakteristikaL” Voprosv iazvkoznaniia. 2:3-18. 243